OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 67
Page 68
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor invites correspondence on all subjects connected with ihe use of commercial motors, Letters should be on one side the paper only and typewritten by preference. The right of abbreviation is reserved. and no responsibility for. uiews
expressed is accepted.
SHALL HORSED TRANSPORT BE ELIMINATED FROM CONGESTED AREAS?
The Editor, Tax COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[25471 Sir,—It is certainly only too true that the congestion of traffic caused by heavy horsed vehicles in certain areas is a very serious matter, and any practical steps that can be taken to improve matters would have our support.
It eeetns to me, however, that in compelling traders to make use of any particular means of transport, one would be introducing a dangerous principle which might prove an awkward precedent.
Compu]sory use of motor traction would also rather be playing into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for, under the present scale of taxation, it is now a ,very moot point whether, for short journeys, horse transport is not abetter business proposition than motors,
It is more than 15 years since we made any use of horses here, but we are Just now planning to put on one or two for' certain delivery areas, as we find that we eau save money by so doing.
Finally, you must remember that horse-drawn vehicles afe not by any means the only offenders— the trams alone in some parts of London are responsible for a tremendous amount of traffic congestion.
The basis of the subsidy which you propose would have to be very carefully worked out, and many safeguards would be required to prevent abuse. Judging by the revenue that is now pouring into the Road Fund, it would seem more than likely that this would he able to meet reasonable charges of the kind suggested.— Yours faithfully, A. W. GANA OE, LTD. ERIC M. GARAGE, Managing Director, London, E.C.1.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
12548] Sir,—We have read your very interesting article on the subject of horsed traffic in the main roads ; there can be no dispute that your argument in this matter is right. We, however, are still fairly big users of horses—our deliveries are usually in side streets and we rarely touch the main roads except for crossing. We would not hesitate a moment to scrap the whole of our horses but for the fact that it would cost us considerably more to deliver provisions, etc., in the immediate locality by any other means. Horses are satisfactory, too, in every way. We doubt if any question can be lodged against our horses, for, as stated before, we use them in the side street and not in the roads where the trouble arises.—Yours aithfully,
• For SELFRIDGE AND CO., LTD., London, W.1. A. E. COWPER, Director.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2549] Sir,—In regard to the lengthy illustrated article entitled "How Horsed Transport Can be Eliminated," published in the issue of The Commercial Motor for January 11th, I wish to write and protest against same, and as briefly as possible to endeavour to reply to a few of the leading comments. As manager of a well-known firm of haulage contractors and carriers employing a large fleet of motor and horse vehicles, engaged entirely in the carrying business, and, further, having been personally engaged in the transport trade for 25 years, I trust you will allow me a little space for my remarks in your valuable publication.
In the first place, horses are, even to-day, the most economic mode of transport for delivery work, up to a radius of about three miles, and statistics have frequently been published bearing this out.
• Secondly, it has been proved both in this country and in the 'United States (where motor traffic in the cities is more dense than in England) that horse-drawn vehicles is not the prime.cause of traffic congestion.
Thirdly, has it occurred to the writer of the article that, in the remote possibility of eliminating the horse, it would be necessary to reconstruct a very large proportion of the warehouses, mills and streets in our cities and towns which are not at present suitable for accommodating motor traffic, and are only accessible to horse-drawn vehicles if quick dispatch is to Se ' obtained?
Fourthly, if horse-owners cared, they could produce any number of daily illustrations or traffic hold-ups and congestion caused by motor vehicles both in town and .country.
In conclusion, I feel confident I am voicing the opinion of not only carriers but large numbers of private traders when I say that horses are just as much entitled to the right of our roads as motors, and that it is very regrettable to find one portion of the commtnity endeavouring to force their biased opinion on the whole country, and I sincerely trust that all horse-owners will use every endeavour, to combat this drastic proposal and also to choose their own mode of transport.
As a constant reader of your valuable and interesting publication for a considerable number of years, my claim to impartiality cannot be impugned.—Yours faithfully, • T. M. GRINDLEY, (A.M.Inst.T.). Manchester.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2550] Sir,—There can be no two opinions that the present state of congestion in the London streets is chaos and that a remedy must be found, and surely there can hardly be two opinions as to that remedy, which, to my mind, is acceleratien—acceleration pure and simple. Obviously, the quicker a crowd is dispersed, be they people, vehicles or what you like, the less the congestion.
During the last 10 to 15 years the traffic on the railways has increased enormously, but the railway companies have not proportionately increased their track accommodation! Practically speaking, they have handled this enormous increase by acceleration of movements alone, viz., electric instead of steam trains, etc. Shipping, again, has " accelerated" its movements, In other words, "prevention is better than cure," and road vehicles must accelerate. As you rightly say, road widening is very nice, but it is fearfully expensive, and, unfortunately, to my mind, it is no remedy, as, generally speaking, where widenings are most needed they are impossible. Besides—and this is more important—wider roads are simply abused until congestion is almost as rife as on narrow streets. However wide the roads, obviously delays will be just as prevalent so long as horsed vehicles behave as depicted in the pictures published with your article and with which we are all so painfully familiar. The average carman rightly howe every consideration for his horses, and I have yet to meet the individual who is lacking in affection for horses, but, 'unfortunately, the majority of carmen act as though the highways belong to them and cause quite unnecessary delay and inconvenience to other vehicular traffic: A man driving a donkey cart has no compunction in delaying a whole line of traffic ; Indeed, he is often conceited about it.
However, the main cause of. our chaotic streets is the "inherent vice" of the horsed vehicles, as, however good the intentions might be, it is obviously impossible for them to keep pace with modern traffic requirements, and I honestly believe that if we •could relieve the 'streets of horsed vehicles to-morrow the traffic problem would be solved forthwitls Every time I make a journey in London streets 'I am convinced that but for horsed vehicles I could have done it in at least half the time.
In view of the increased taxation of motor vehicles, unquestionably more horses will be employed on the streets, thus aggravating the position. A very retrograde step, and almost equivalent to motor vehicles travelling continually in bottom gear and/or substituting petrol lorries for slow-moving steam vehicles, or the railway companies reducing the speed of their trains.
I reiterate that the only way to rid the streets of congestion is to remove the cause, and as that cause is undoubtedly the horsed vehicles, the horsed vehicles must go at all costs. I am not in a position to question your figures as to the cost of this revolutionary change, but I do feel that it would not by any means be prohibitive, and that whatever it is it would be well worth It to all concerned and that your suggestion of a subsidy from the Road Fund is the ideal way. s I submit that it cannot be gainsaid that before the Iniquitous proposals to double the taxation of motor vehicles was made, even the largest and most conservative users of horses were slowly but surely taking to motor vehicles ; in effect, they were by degrees being forced into it. Admittedly that for certain purposes the horsed vehicles may be cheaper than the mechanical type, but, as you remark, they are inflicting heavy Josses upon others, and, in my opinion, from a national point of view such losses are unjustifiable. One, of course, can readily understand large users of horses being averse to motor lorries, but with a subsidy they really would have little cause for complaint. As a matter of fact, I firmly believe that once the change over from horses had been made, there would be little, If any, desire to revert to horses. The position to-day Is that "Tom Smith" is compelled to use horses because "Tom Jones" employs them ; in other words, it becomes the general practice for certain work, whereas, if Tom Smith used motors everybody else would follow his example. It does not necessarily follow that horses are still the best for the particular work referred to, but simply that the use of the horse has become a habit. Many concerns continue to use horses because of delays due to congestion, when all the time it is the generals use of horses which is mainly responsible for the congestion.
Having put your hand to the plough, I trust you will not remove it, because I am convinced that so soon as the tortoises which now hamper and impede the growth of healthy transport are relegated to different and less congested spheres, we shall have little else to fear. A railway train makes little speed when danger signals are continually placed before it, nor does the motor lorry when horses are allowed to graze on its track. Our transport salvation lies in the accelerator pedal of the motor vehicles—Yours faith
fully, For WALTER GAMMONS, LTD., WALTER GAMMONS, Managing Director.
London, E.C.2.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2551] Sir,—I agree that horsed traffic in congested areas is a serious problem and one of which the solution will be of the greatest benefit to all road users, but am afraid the idea of barring the entrance to certain streets for horsed transport would be found almost impossible at present.
The question of subsidizing the deposed horsed vehicles would also be found exceedingly difficulty to carry out, and the only, thing to do seems to be to wait patiently C44 until the operating cost of mechanical road transport falls to a point when horsed transport does not pay; then the problem will automatically solve itself.
Personally, I do not think it will be many years before this 'comes to pass.—Yours faithfully,
London, W.C2. M. V. AMBLER..
The. Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2552] Sir,—In regard to your article upon the possible elimination of the horse from congested areas, we are, of course, of the opinion that to forbid horse traffic between certain hours would have the effect of greatly speeding up London traffic. We fear, however, that the increased duties upon motor vehicles will be an inducement to more owners td go in for horselraffic than heretofore.—Yours faithfully,
THOMAS WALLIS AND CO., LTD.
London, E.C.1. A. BA.RNARD, Director.
[We recognize the fact that our arguments concerning the horse and its capacity for causing congestion in streets carrying a heavy volume of traffic are controversial and our proposal for a subsidy to encourage the elimination of the horse open to objection. We have, however, thrown the subject open to discussion and will welcome letters from our readers for publication in our columns.—En. Cif.] Can Oiling Efficiency be Improved ?
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[25531 Sir,—Just a few comments on the article by " Engineer-Designer " (The Commercial Motor for December 28th last). To my mind the faults of centrifugal separators, or any filter, for that, are the frequent
cleanings required. It is all very well to say that it only takes 30 minutes or so to clean these fitments, but multiply this 30 minutes by, say, 100, in the case of a medium-sized fleet, and an idea can be formed of the extra operating expense entailed. In addition, a centri fugal separator must have a large enough bowl to retain the dirt and colloidal carbon present in the oil, and it is surprising what a large space this carboa takes up When separated from the oil.
Regarding scoops in big-ends, my firm did away with them some years ago, and now fit a plain pin on the bearing cap with quite satisfactory results, provided that two holes are drilled in the top half of the connecting-rod cap—one on each side of the web. With this arrangement mileages exceeding that mentioned are usually obtained in every-day practice.
Regarding raising or lowering the oil troughs, it is the level of the oil that is the essential feature, and the distance that the dipper dips into the oil in the trough that determines the amount of oil used. In the drawing (Fig. 1) the distance between the centre line of the bearing and the top of the oil is the same in each case, but if this distance be varied different results must be obtained, as the dippers will dip to a greater or lesser degree according as the oil level is raised or lowered.
Regarding the arrangement shown in Fig. 3, the same result can be obtained by making the rear side of the trough higher than the front side, the front side determining the oil level. This arrangement we have used for some years past.
To my mind, a great mistake is made on high-speed engines where splash trough lubrication is used of run ning the oil' pump at !too high a speed, the result being that the jet of oil impinges on the trough at such a high pressure that the oil simply jumps over the sides of the trough ; a lower speed would obviate this trouble.
I agree that pressure-feed lubrication is not suitable for the rough conditions met with in many commercial vehicles; the splash-trough system, when properly designed, in my opinion, wants a lot of beating. Regarding the other points mentioned, I have no comments to make.—Yours faithfully, H. D. next/ism London, S.E.
[Note: the figures referred to in Mr. Nickinson's letter are those which illustrated the article by EngineerDesigner.—En. C.M.]