OPINIONS
Page 37
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
and
UERIES
OPERATORS SHOULD BE PREPARED.
[5480] In reply to the letter from " Organized " published in your issue of October 21
(1) I offered my services to the local A.R.P. officer, which were accepted. From that experience I learned a great deal of the lack of preparation for an emergency.
(2) My company supplied vehicles for gas-mask distribution. This was undertaken free of Charge to avoid risk of delay or complications.
(3) I have not taken an anti-gas course ; but members of my household have done so. I consider that, in an emergency, transport men should be engaged on transport work.
(4) Men of my concern's workshop staff are members of the Auxiliary Fire Brigade.
(5) Drivers, owing to the nature of their work, would rarely be available for the duties of Air Raid Wardens. In an emergency their particular experience (driving commercial vehicles) should be fully used.
I quite fail to understand the statement that "the operator cannot possibly know what to expect until the actual emeigency arises." Surely it is elementary that everyone should know what is expected of him before an emergency. The period of turmoil caused by a threatened or actual attack is not the best time to prepare, however much the preparation may have to be adapted to the circumstances.
Because " Organized " helped and displayed nitiative in the last crisis, he should not assume that others were not as active.
Even if A.R.P. in his district has been brought to perfection, that is only one of the services vital to the
country. ORGANIZE.
ORGANIZING ROAD TRANSPORT FOR EMERGENCIES.
[5481] Very early in July a number of gentlemen from all parts of the country, representing the transport of goods by road, met the Minister of Transport at his request. The Minister considered, in view of the international situation, that it was very necessary to set up a central board or committee in London to prepare a plan to be put into operation, should an emergency arise. All present agreed to give their services. An exchange of views took place, and a record of the proceedings was sent to each person present, with an invitation to make suggestions in writing.
The writer's reply (enclosed, but not for publication) was acknowledged during July, but from that day to this not a word has reached him from the Ministry as to whether his services would be required or not.
A deputation from the A.R.O. made an appointment with the Minister for September 16, and met two officials. Great concern was expressed by the deputation that a crisis was apparently close at hand, and yet the industry ' did not know what was expected of it. No information whatever was given to these people. They were informed that their Association represented but a very small portion of the number of hauliers holding licences, and it was impressed upon them that the whole matter was secret and confidential. That such a statement should be made, and information refused, when the country, so to speak, was sitting on a volcano, is little short of a scandal. These men, representing a large membership, offering the full weight of their Association, were literally turned away.
The scheme now coming into the light of day is very similar to that put up by the A.R.O. several years ago.
Your readers will agree that to bring a skeleton out of the Ministry of Transport's cupboard at the eleventh hour, and expect someone to put life into its bones was, considering how swiftly the emergency could have been upon us, sheer incompetence on the part of some person or persons, and certain it is that he or they must be unfitted to occupy a position of such heavy responsibility.
We all trust that our Licensing Authorities will not delay in setting up their organization, and thus prevent the transport of this country from being allowed to get into a state of chaos, should such an emergency occur again.
A full description of vehicles in every Traffic Area should be listed with not only the carrying capacity, but the types of body and the work upon which they are usually engaged, thus enabling those committees which will be responsible to put the right vehicle on to the
right job, D. RICHARDSON, Chairman, South-Eastern Area
Chatham. Associated Road Operators.
THE ACT RUINS A PROSPEROUS HAULIER.
[5482] I read with somewhat mixed feelings the letter from your correspondent "Puzzled," and was amused at S.T.R.'s righteous indignation. I. am still wondering what the Road Traffic Act is doing to benefit the industry in general. It is quite clear, that there is no profit to be shown from the job mentioned and it could be done only at a loss to the party concerned. But, is this an isolated case? I should say not. Take a look at the brick cartage from the Peterborough district to London and I think you will find that this is worse than the case mentioned. The average rate from this district is 18s. per 1,000 for 2i-in. bricks, which weigh at least 2 tons 5 cwt., and the distance is roughly 80 miles, so it works out at 8s. per ton for an 80-mile lead. I think that you will agree this is worse than the case mentioned. I also know that some are getting even less than this, and if they do not accept this rate the traffic goes to the railways, so what is the poor haulier to do?
Now, sir, this is my point. Is it not time the powers that be made some attempt to stabilize rates in this par ticular kind of cartage? I see no reason why they could not do so. They could make a fixed rate and, at the same time, make the railways fall into line, After all is said and done, the Act has not done much to help
the haulier ; it is only a lot of silly nonsense which he has to put up with. He is made to pay high taxation in various forms, he must not do this or that, and I really think something should be done to stop this waste of the ratepayers' hard-earned money and begin to try to improve things.
Here is my own case, for instance. I was once a flourishing haulage contractor employing ten men by day and three by night, and this is what the Road Traffic Act has done for me. I have had the whole of my licences taken away. I held 21i tons of A claimed tonnage, and was left with one limited 13 for 7 tons; finally, I was driven to bankruptcy and ruin and all this because I had the impudence to study one of my best customers and abuse a contract A licence.
I admit that I did wrong according to the Act, but I have always considered that this Act was nothing but sheer persecution, and I cannot find one good point in it; had it never come into force I should have had 20 lorries on the toad to-day. But what I am sore about is that others have done far more wrong than I and they get away with.ft scot free. I ask you, sir, is this British justice?
am still smarting under the punishment Which ruined
Mei but I could not get anyone to help me and so I went
. . • under, apd this after working up a Sound business from
practically nothing. If this letter should meet the eye of the Minister of TransPort,I,should be glad of the chance tb lay the whole facts before hind and, let him decide if I merited the punishment I received: ..I answered my country's ca.41.when I Was needed and gave,.up a good job, and when I Came back I was unable to get • my job baCk, owing to affliction, and was at a dead end, being left with a pension of 4s. 8d. per week to support my wife and family. Because I had the guts to fight back and win through I was regarded as a
criminal. •
All I can say is this. It is my dearest wish that the man who caused my ruin will at some time get the same treatment that he gave me. Apologizing for the length of this letter, which I hope, as one of your regular readers.for the past 20 years, you will publish.
Cambridge. F. E. MARSH.
THE PERPETUITY PLAN—S.T.R. REPLIES.
[54831 The letters published in your issues of October 7 and 14, commenting upon my articles on the Perkins Perpetuity Plan, must be gratifying to all parties concerned : to you, as indicating, if indication be needed, the keen interest with which The Ccrmmercial Motor is read, to myself, as writer of the article, and to F. Perkins, Ltd., as the originator of the scheme.
In reply to Mr. Hancock, I should like first of all to point out that my own policy, during all the years I have had the honour to deal, in your journal, with the economics of road transport, is to accept only directly obtained users' figures as a basis • for costing and to regard manufacturers' representations on the same subject with reserve, if with all due respect. You have con sistently endorsed that policy throughout. Whilst, therefore, I accept Mr. Hancock's statements concerning fuel and maintenance cost as being put forward in all goodfaith, I am still averse to taking them "as read."
When dealing, in the article, with these items, I had no particular make of oil engine in mind. I preferred to write in terms of oil engines in general. As regards maintenance, it is within my knowledge that, whilst certain operators, those having well-found maintenance depots at their call, can and do manage to maintain oil engines at a cost which compares favourably with that
B28
of petrol engines in their ownership, there is another class of user, not so well placed as regards facilities for maintenance or so precise in his methods, who finds the contrary to be he case.
Moreover, not all the big operators look so favourably upon the oil engine, especially in so far as it is applied to the lighter types of vehicle. One fleet owner, operating several hundreds of vehicles, still insists that 40,000 miles per annum. is the minimum economic mileage at which the oil engine can be considered as a substitute for the petrol engine. Jam, therefore, justified in claiming, and that not merely as a precautionary measure,
that the maintenance cost of engines is likely to be slightly in exces.s of that of petrol engines.
On the question of fuel,cost. I can be more emphatic. It is not the ger.eral experience of users that the mileage per gallon.on oil fuel is double that when using petrol on vehicles of the-same make, type and capacity operating under corresponding conditions.
I am ,particularly .appreciative of Mr. Atkin's letter. which does at least show that the saving in fuel cost claimed in respect of the PG engine can actaally be achieved. • ,
I am glad to learn from the letters from Mr. Cowen and Mr. Ogan that their experiences in respect of cost of maintenance and lubricating oil in relation to use of the PG engine is so much better than the averages upon which I base my own calculations. Their figures, which I shall hope to obtain from them in more precise form in the near future, will, of necessity, have an effect in modifying the data relating to these matters which will appear in the next edition of The Coinniercial Motor Tables of Operating Costs. I shall also take them into consideration, from now on, in anything which I may do in respect of operating costs of oil-engined
vehicles. S.T.R. London, N.22.
VEHICLE TAX AFFECTED BY REFUSE COVER.
[54841 I shall be obliged if you will give the following facts your consideration, and if you are able to answer my numerous queries, an early reply will be appreciated as the matter is of some urgency.
The local taxation authorities have demanded an extra £5 a year in respect of a 2-ton Bedford which is normally just under 2 tons empty, but which is 2 tons 2 qrs. when equipped with a cover.
It is the cover which is causing the controversy. It is used on the lorry for approximately one day per week (for refuse colleeting), and I do not think that they are justified in demanding any extra tax because of it.
To add to my annoyance, I run three lorries and have previously used any one of the three with the cover, to suit my convenience, but apparently I shall have to keep one lorry exclusively for this purpose.
(1) Do you think they are justified in charging an extra Vi a year? (2) Am I obliged to pay arrears of this tax? (I have never been asked to pay it before, but am now instructed that as the lorries have been used occasionally with the cover during the past two years, I
am to pay the tax due for those two years.) H.H. Walsall.
[Under the Road Traffic Act, when a vehicle is equipped with alternative bodies, the heavier must be taken for purposes of weighing. A detachable cover would doubtless be regarded as an alternative body, and the vehicle should be weighed with this equipment. A vehicle which, with the cover attached, falls within a higher taxation class than when not equipped with the cover is, therefore, liable to the higher tax. We believe that a taxation authority is entitled to claim arrears of payment.—ED.1