M YOUR OPINION
Page 65
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Defence of AEC
TER the past three weeks I have read with interest, but also with growing concern, the comprehensive !spondence dealing with the lack of a rear-engined )1e-deck chassis from AEC.
have long been an admirer of the AEC marque and 1.11d like to defend it now against the writers of recent rs, Mr. Kellett and Mr. Hyslop.
of them quite rightly express their concern at the availability of a competitive rear-engined doubleer from the Southall factory, but seem to put undue hasis on the fact that the AEC conventional, frontled chassis has "had its day ". Also both, in my ion, offer inadequate explanation for the continued nce of AEC in this very lucrative rear-engined field.
r. Hyslop declares that the fault lies in the inability EC to adopt a more imaginative vehicle-design policy. ; he really believe the answer lies in such an inability? ias just to glance at AEC's past record to see that this parry has always been to the forefront in vehicle design. le early 1930s AEC introduced one of the first eight!led rigids, closely followed by the Q-type singleand de-deck chassis, the technical advancement of which almost two decades ahead of their time.
ith regard to the rear-engined field, AEC has long supplying the Montreal Car Co. with 11.3-litre mounted transversely at the rear of their buses. in the mid-1950s, in co-operation with LTB, the any produced the then revolutionary Routemaster. L such a background of imaginative vehicle design, c risks have been taken and overcome, Mr. Hyslop's effort on AEC's part just does not offer a reasonable ination.
y own opinion lies in one of two plausible factors. :r AEC was still smarting from the relative failure le revolutionary Q-type and quite content and con:d that the Atlantean would receive the same reception , conversely, were the fetters of the Leyland Motor ioration already firmly in place long before the official over in 1962 was announced?
hatever the reason was for the AEC lack of commerjudgment, they have tried to remedy the loss of orders tiering the Routemaster and the Renown to provincial ators. Along with the Regent MK V these three ds still surely provide a formidable challenge to the Lline and the Atlantean, and I am convinced that the is far distant before, in Mr. Kellett's words, " AEC de-deckers disappear completely from the scene." have not yet mentioned the AEC single-decker, the ince, which must continue as one of the country's • successful bus and coach chassis; also, the goods e of vehicles manufactured by the Company are enjoy ing unprecedented success. No, Mr. Hyslop, the "makers of London's buses are far from waning, as a full order book surely testifies.
By all means I would welcome, along with many municipalities, a rear-engined double-decker from Southall, but whether this wishful thinking bears fruit—and I doubt it—the death of the Regent and Renown is far from imminent.
Finally, may I digress by adding that I, like Mr. Kellett's bus driver friends—derive great satisfaction and admiration from driving a 1938 Regent, still in regular service with Douglas Corporation, along with many more faithful MK III's.
Douglas, Isle of Man. G. B. CAIN.
Customs Clearance Facilities
U1NDER the heading "Co-operation from Authorities" '–' on page 76 of your August 13 issue you make a statement that Davies Turner and Co. have been granted concessions by HM Customs to remove trailers to an inland warehouse for examination,
We would draw to your attention that the concessions have not, in fact, been granted to Davies Turner and Co., but are a facility Baxter Hoare and Co. have granted to the haulier whereby he utilizes our bond, our premises, our clearing facilities and all other allied services, The reason for bringing this to your notice is that as public warehouse keepers this facility must be offered to each and every haulier and not confined to one particular company. We would like you to make it clear to the public at large that the facilities for Customs clearance and removal of goods are in the hands of Baxter Hoare and Co., and are available to any other haulier should he wish to parlicipate.
London. SE1 H. G. BitimicroN, Director, Baxter, Hoare and Co, Ltd,
Defective Lorries Who's to Blame?
LEET operators today have one of the toughest jobs in any trade, Trying to keep their fleets in good order they have to contend with the police, the Ministry of Transport examiners, the drivers and anyone else who likes to have a poke at them—even the national newspapers. Why is it always the operator and his staff who are to blame for defective lorries? What about the manufacturers being blamed for bad fittings on new vehicles and for supplying shoddy parts? Why does not someone set a standard of what is new, part-worn or worn-out? Even new trucks sometimes get CIV9s. One of the most important parts on any vehicle is the lighting—and how many trucks have rear lights working? Some rear lamps made are shoddy and badly designed and some of the bulbs will not last an hour on a tipper. How can operators be responsible for such poor lamps and so on when the makers must know they are no good for the job? The police do and the examiners do and that is why they always go for them when a truck is pulled up.
Steering parts, shackle pins and bushes, spring U-bolts and nuts, spring leaf bands, propeller-shaft bolts and nuts,
and rear wings are just a few items on commercial vehicles that need such a lot of improvement. Never mind about tilt cabs and driver comfort. I would like to see the operator given some peace of mind when his fleet is at work. This could be done with the co-operation of the manufacturers.
Some of us operators could get together and thrash this matter out and I would be pleased to hear from anyone interested..
Sutton Coldfield, Warks. JACK PAY.