OPINIONS
Page 28
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
and
QUERIES
RATE-CUTTING BY THE RAILWAYS.
[5524] The thanks of all road operators of this district are due to your contributor, S.T.R., for his article in The Commercial Motor of December 9; my only regret is that it could not be published in a National daily newspaper.
S.T.R, in his article " A Square Deal," is perfectly true in his statement about the sugar-beet haulage rates; the railways have been following this practice for several seasons now, and many of our operators have refused to quote against them, in fact, they wait until the railways cannot carry out their contracts and are compelled to sub-contract to road hauliers, then they get a much better rate from the railways. This, however, is not the only section in which this type of rate cutting is being operated by the railways, the cattle hauliers are also having special attention paid to them, their rates being cut by as much as 20 per cent. on a lorry load of cattle. When we in the agricultural areas are attacled on two sides, for 90 per cent. of cattle hauliers are also hauliers of sugar beet, then we have every reason to ask for a square deal. Sugar beet, and, except for a few instances, cattle, are loads peculiar to road haulage and any claim by the railways to this traffic cannot be substantiated.
A few pertinent questions by a railway shareholder on these ancillary activities would be very revealing to him, for there is little doubt that at the rates the railways charge there must be a substantial loss. lit order that we shall also have "a square deal," if that be possible with the present Government, every operator must voice his opinion to his M.P., his daily paper, to his friends and last, but not least, to the "man in the street" who has the last argument with his vote in the next election. One thing that the latest demand of the railways has dese for the transport industry, is to wake up a few of the apathetic operators; but why does it take threats and demands to make operators line up together ? Cannot they believe their own eyes and ears?
Shrewsbury. C. LOOSEMORE.
COACH RADIO NEEDS BETTER SERVICE.
[5525] Referring to a leading article on radio in coaches in your issue for November 4, all that you say about the pleasant companionship of wireless on motor coaches is true enough, but do let me make a plea. Among the 50,000 sets already installed, one can only expect that a set will go wrong occasionally. There are supposed to be thousands of expert radio engineers, judging from the number of shops and the claims made in advertisements by dealers, but of what use are they in a case like the following.
I travelled in a coach equipped and up-to-date in every way, but the radio would not work. The owner had had it sent to the district distributors, without the slightest effect. However, at the end of our 200-mile 11.26 journey, he took the vehicle and its inoperative set to the radio-maker's own works, yet after six hours they could do nothing.
This kind of service will not do. It aggravates the owner, disappoints the party, and discredits radio on coaches generally and that concern in particular. So we returned after 200 miles without hearing a word or note, whereas, in the Editor's words, "It is particularly agreeable to sit in a comfortable vehicle at night when interest in the scenery is not possible and passenger's would become bored." Yes, Sir, we were bored: Manchester, 21. SENIOR READER.
COMPROMISE—OR WAR.
[5526) The railway companies' broadcast to the public is an appeal to nine out of ten who are in no position to judge the finer points of the case. Their difficulties arise, to some extent, from the fact that they, as common carriers, are under certain obligations. Broadly speaking, these obligations are that they cannot refuse traffic, provided it is such as they usually accept and provided their terms are complied with, and they cannot discriminate between one consignor and another except so far as "agreed charges" have been authorized.
The road carrier is entirely free of this. He can pick and choose, accept or refuse, according to circumstances. He can quote one rate to-day, and another to-Morrow. This is admirable were it not usually conducted in the manner of a Dutch auction. Anyway, in case he gets away with it altogether, this is what the haulier has to face. Before he can venture to operate, a licence must be obtained against the grant of which objections can be and are raised, usually by one of the four railway companies. Should it be his intention to engage in work for which they offer no facilities matters not at all. He may change his mind, having once slipped through their fingers, or his efforts may provoke wasteful competition of which they, the railways, might feel the back-wash.
Should our friend already hold a licence and seek a larger or another vehicle, in the development of his goodwill, proving the necessity for this is almost as hopeless and certainly more painful for, whereas, as a newcomer, he can have nothing to disclose, in this case an elementary stage in the evidence -of need is an analysis of his own and sometimes his customer's business—and even this is insufficient if he be unable to prove the shortage of facilities.
We negotiate this Grand National course with varying fortunes, but sooner or later we have to face the redoubtable 13eecher's Brook at which some must fall and others will sustain an injury of which, at the time, they are often mercifully unaware.
The renewal of a licence is sought and opposed on grounds that, since it was first granted, the applicant has, apparently, changed the character of his wOrk. He is suspected of thrusting himself into another sphere of activity. Once more he is accused of provoking wasteful competition. Once more he hears the refrain " you must prove the need," a refrain that assails his ears ad riauseum from cradle to coffin. Should it be proved against him, his total eclipse is within the bounds of possibility. Should he be given the benefit of the doubt, no harm is done, no harm at all except that he has now committed himself to an admission of his limitations, and to these he will be logically bound for the rest of his natural life.
The public is ignorant of all this. At present it is shown only one side of the picture and invited to accept it as a true version of the whole shocking position. It is side-tracked by reference to the problem of evacuation, the solution of which lies as much with the road as with the rail. I sincerely trust that there has been an encouraging response to your suggestion of a United front, and so far as the interests of the hauliers are concerned, you may count on my goodwill and service.
E. H. B. PALMER.
London, S.W.1.
CONVERTING SOLID-TYRED VEHICLES TO PNEUMATICS.
[5527] I have a lorry of 1927 vintage, which was originally equipped with solid tyres, but was converted to pneumatics in 1929. The result is that the maximum width is now. 7 ft. 9 ins.
I have a prospective purchaser for this vehicle, but he tells me that any ordinary type will be prohibited after 1940 if the overall width of the machine exceeds 7 ft. 6 ins.
I remember that a• restriction was placed upon solid tyres after this date, but I was not aware that a time limit of any sort existed in connection with a vehicle which had been increased in width to a limited degree as a result of the conversion.
Will you kindly let me have your observation on this point?
Hindley.
[The regulation governing tyres states that all wheels of a heavy motorcar must be equipped with pneumatic tyres, but this does not apply until January 1, 1940, to a heavy motorcar registered on or before January 1, 1933. With regard to the question of overall width, the width dimensions of a heavy motorcar must not exceed 7 ft. 6 ins., provided that, in the case of a vehicle registered on or before January 1, 1932, this width may be exceeded by ins. in instances where the excess width has been necessarily caused by the conversion of the vehicle from use with solid tyres to use with pneumatic tyres. Thus it is clear that your vehicle is quite legal, and that your prospective purchaser is incorrect in his assumption that it will be prohibited after 1940.—En.]
COMPRESSED GAS A VALUABLE FUEL.
[55281 With reference to letter No. 5501 in your issue of November 18, and the reply to this, I feel this is not quite fair. At Wallasey there are seven or eight vehicles running on compressed gas; this costs, at the gasworks, 2s. per 1,000 cubic ft. delivered into the vehicle, which equals petrol at 61d, a gallon.
The whole matter depends on whether a supply of compressed gas be available, also what the price of the gas is. If the gas company has no compressor, it is not worth putting down a compressor, so I am informed, for less than six vehicles.
The last part of your, reply gives a wrong impression and may be misunderstood by a lot of people. Coal gas from gasworks has a calorific value of 435-500, whereas
producer gas (from well-carbonized fuel) has a calorific value of only 13.
It is, therefore, absolutely necessary to alter the engine with producer gas but not with compressed coal gas. Although power is lost with compressed gas, most petrol engines are larger than necessary and, I understand, acceleration is much better than with petrol. This must be the reason why a bus at Wallasey, without alterations to the engineo has been able to keep to the same timetable since it has been put on compressed gas, as compared with when it ran on petrol.
There is practically no wear on the cylinders with compressed gas, and I also see that the price at Tredegar is not excessive, If the gasworks be prepared to put down a compressing plant it will all depend on the price at which they are prepared to sell the compressed gas. The figure to bear in mind is that about 280 cubic ft. of gas (from a gasworks) equals one gallon of petrol.
There are now 12,000 vehicles running on compressed gas in Germany, quite apart from those running on producer gas. D. F. PILKINGTON. Manchester.
QUERIES RESPECTING THE "Q."
[5529] I have read with much interest the article in a recent issue regarding the new " Q " type electric vehicles, but there are several points which are a little obscure.
The article states that those vehicles will be marketed in such a way that the buyer pays over a period of five years and " In the case of the 15-20 cwt. model
. . this would involve a payment of £1 per week for the vehicle." Is this payment of £1 per week purely a " hiring " payment or a " hire-purchase " payment, also does the £1 per week cover such items as taxation, insurance and maintenance of the chassis portion of the vehicle, as distinct from the battery servicing ?
One other point of interest is the statement that "At the end of every three months . . . . the battery will be changed either for a new one or for one completely reconditioned." Is it really necessary on electric vehicles to install a new battery every three months ?
Obviously the operator of the vehicle would have no objection to his battery equipment being kept up to date in this way, but it must represent a heavy item of expense in the battery servicing charge of £1 2s. 6d. per week.
If it be proposed to use reconditioned batteries chiefly in this way the Cost would, of course, be reduced, but there seems no point in replacing a battery of a reputable make after only three months' service.
Wolverhampton. C. J. JOHNSON.
[We have taken up with Battery Traction, Ltd., the-points
you mention. The 15-20-cwt. delivery van sells at about £200 complete (according to the type of body), so that if extended payments be arranged, the instalment will amount to approximately £1 per week, i.e., hire-purchase for five years. The standing charge of 22s. 6d. to be collected through the meter (which it is hoped to bring down to £1 per week) covers rent and maintenance of the battery, charging equipment and meter, so that when the current consumed and the other all-in costs are added, a saving of roughly 10s. per week should be effected in the case of the 1-ton type. As regards the changing of the battery at the end of every three months, this will be done only for the purpose of servicing. it at a local depot. In order that the vehicle should not be out of commission for more than a few minutes, another and fully charged battery will be fitted in its place.—En.]