AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Other People' s Costs.

25th June 1914, Page 10
25th June 1914
Page 10
Page 10, 25th June 1914 — Other People' s Costs.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Wolverhampton's Motorbuses Show a Handsome Profit.

The Tramways Department of the Wolverhampton Corporation owns a small fleet of motorbuses. I! his fleet is admittedly worked ft, feed the tramway system, which it does in excellent fashion and to good effect. Each of the six vehicles has a char-k-bancs body, and we reproduce a photograph, at the foot of this page, by the courtesy of Mr. W. A. Luntley, the general manager of the Woiverinimpton Corporation Tramways Department. All the vehicles are Albions, two of 16 h.p. and four of 25 h.p. The bodywork of each is finished in scarlet and cream.

The working of only three of these vehicles enters into the accounts for the year ended the 31st March last, as three others were delivered subsequently. These three vehicles made journeys which aggregated a total of 48,511 miles during the year under review. This is the approximate equivalent of one-and-a-half London-owned motorbuses, so that we may very properly class the Wolverhampton undertaking as a small one, without any reflection upon the proprietors of the vehicles or those who are responsible for their management. The 16 lap. vehicles date back to 1911 and 1912; the 25 h.p. vehicles were put into service between the 10th February and the 30th May last. The records, practically, concern the two 16 h.p. vehicles.

We have before us the complete accounts for the last financial year of the Wolverhampton Corporation, and we are interested to see that the inclusive running costs to date are 8.44d. per mile run. We place the detail costs side by side with our own standard costs, for purposes of comparison.

AVERAGE AND SPECIAL MOTORBUS COSTS. The divergence between our working costs for a provincial undertaking, and the official results disclosed at Wolverhampton, is only .34d. per mile run, the realized costs at Wolverhampton being the lower.

It is satisfactory to observe that tire costs are as low as 1.2d., especially as some of the services are conducted over roads with relatively-bad surfaces. General expenses are undoubtedly low, and to this extent the motorbus portion of the undertaking benefits from its close association with the tramway undertaking. The lowness of the interest charge is not readily explained, except by the fact that it is qualified in the accounts as " bank interest." The capital responsibility is also apparently merged with that of the tramway undertaking.

It is satisfactory to find that, whilst the total working expenses for the motorbuses are certified at 8.44d. per mile run, the revenue has been 10.42d. This leaves a balance of 1.82d, per mile run to be carried to appropriation account, compared with 3.42d. per tramcar-mile. In the latter case, however, the apparent balance of 3.42d. on tramway account is reduced by 1.81d., in order to make provision for different charges and renewals, leaving only 1.61d, as the net balance per tramcar-mile. The smaller motorbus unit is therefore as remunerative, from the point of view of the municipality of Wolverhampton, seeing that the above-mentioned figure of 8.44d. already includes depreciation and maintenance, as is the larger tramcar unit, when tested by the actual net profit per mile.

We find that there is an apparent waste of time at some of the terminal points, but this is due to the desire of Mr. Luntley to have the trips started at times which are easily remembered by intending passengers. That point is undoubtedly one of moment.

It should be noted that these vehicles are not used as feeders to the tramway system, but independently upon routes between the centre and the suburbs.

We consider that the foregoing results are good. They should give pause to numerous town councillors who are still ready to favour the pouring out of public money upon electric-tramway equipment to an extent five or six times as great as is necessary for a comparable motorbus service. Wolverhampton rate-. payers have been thus saved by the wise adoption of the superior alternative. We commend this example to all who are concerned to see true economy secured.


comments powered by Disqus