Turbine v. Reciprocating Pumps,
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The arguments in favour of the centrifugal type of pump, for fire-brigade purposes, appear to us steadily to approach the irrefutable.
The use of any pump for fire-extinguishing purposes calls for a wide range of efficiency, and very seldom for the use of jets of 1 in. or less in diameter, with which it is customary to obtain fancy tests when it is sought to advance the alleged superiority of the reciprocating pump as a type.
At any considerable fire, jets with a bore of 11 in. or more are the general rule, and we have lately compared the best efficiencies of the reciprocating and turbine pumps, carefully set out as curves, and these undoubtedly disclosed a better average efficiency— over the whole range of usual work—for the turbine type_ A letter from a Surrey correspondent is included in our "Opinions from Others" this week with regard to the question of all round efficiency. In another part of the issue, we have occasion to mention the request of the Edinburgh Town Council for tenders for pumps of the reciprocating type. The fact that Edinburgh, by a bare majority of one vote, confirmed a report in favour of adherence to the reciprocating type of pump, is one which we feel calls for explanation. It is a decision, in our judgment, not in consonance with independent records of performance under prevalent conditions of fire-brigade service.
Checking Repairers' Charges.
A correspondent this week directs attention to a matter which is of very great interest to every owner : we refer to unduly-high charges for repairs to motorvans. The average owner of a motorvan is not competent to check his repair bills in the manner that they should be checked, and in this respect his position compares somewhat unfavourably with that of the owner of a fleet. Costing requires special knowledge, and there are only a few expert men in • the country who are free to be of service to owners.
We have ourselves had cases submitted to us in which exorbitant additions had been made by the repairers to first-cost charges for standard components, whilst something like 300 per cent. had been added to the labour charges that were actually incurred. Excessive bills of the kind are well calculated to damage the best interests of commercial motoring, and we are quite prepared, whilst at. all times seeking to preserve a balance between the manufacturer and the repairer on the one hand, and the user on the other, to give any assistance within our power.
The correspondent to whom we refer comes forward with a flagrant case of overcharge for a particular overhaul, and points out how the scrutiny of the estimate by an independent consultant brought the total down in welcome fashion. Our experience of charges by the maintenance departments of most manufacturers, is that they are moderate : manufacturers, as a general rule, realize that they must not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. There are some exceptions, and we should net be surprised if additional correspondence came along with some instances of those exceptions. Reasonable treatment in respect of repair charges, in cases where no maintenance contract exists—and that is the great majority, is most desirable, and we are confident that our correspondent now draws attention to an opening for expert. services which cannot be other than beneficial. The interests of the repairer would probably be equally well served, for many charges about which the unreasonable owner is inclined to grumble would certainly be confirmed by the expert.
Incidentally, an owner might do well to inquire from the maker as to the reputation of any repairer to whom he. contemplated entrusting his vehicle. Failing a, good report from that or other reliable source, he should get a, man down from the works to look over the machine and say what is wanted. A means to check the bill would then be available. In cases where makers have appointed or approved a repairer, we have not heard much by way of complaint-.
Petrol Storage in New York.
Apropos the subject of petrol storage in the United Kingdom, and the caution with which local authorities approach the question of increased facilities for storage, it may interest some of our readers to know that the city of New York has adopted hyper-stringent regulations. No reasonable objection can be taken to the exercise of a considerable measure of caution in respect of increased facilities for the storage and handling of an inflammable commodity which has entered into the everyday life of a nation, but we do hope that the regulations on the other sid'a tn which we refer, will be regarded as an example ef how not to do it.
In the first place, a permit to store petrol will only be granted on payment of an annual fee of £100, and on the filing of a bond for the sum of £1000. The reclining charge is enough to bring illicit stores into existence. Small wonder that the price of petrol is advancing in America, and that it. has gone up something like 3d, per gallon this year. If this rise does not anticipate the regulations for New York City, we should say there will be further early advances in consequence of them. All such garages must be equipped with a steel storage tank of a capacity not exceeding 275 gallons,. and this must be embedded in 2 ft. of sand, and placed 2 ft. below the surface of 'the floor. Incidentally, the use or handling of petrol within a garage for any purpose but that of filling the tank of a motor vehicle is declared to be illegal. This bars its use for cleaning purposes.
We hope that the special committee of the Home Office, which will probably report early next year upon the whole question of petrol storage and transPort, will not adopt the above, or other of the, regulations from New York. At the moment, the tendency in this country appears to be in favour of the burying of the tanks underground, where they cannot be seen, and their being sheathed with concrete or other protective walls and roofing, the disruption of which would do enormous damage in. the event of explosion. The problem is not a simple one, with overhead attack to be considered as much as provision to prevent outflow locally in the event of damage to or rent in a tank. The maintenance of low temperature and ample ventilation should certainly rank high.
The Heavy Motor Car Order : Revision Probable in 1914.
Motorva.ns are allowed to run in the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904. This Order was issued by the Local Government Board, on the 28th December of that year, and it came into force on the 1st March following. Mr. Walter Long, who was President of the L.G.B. when the 1903 Motor Car Act was passed, was responsible for the inclusion in that Act of a section, _No. 12, which reads as under :— " The Local Government Board by regulations made under section six of the principal Act may, as respects any class of vehicle mentioned in the regulations, increase the maximum weights of three tons and four tons mentioned in section one of that Act, subject to any conditions as to the use and construction of the vehicle which may be made by the regulations.
"The power of the Local Government Board to make regulations under section six of the Locomotive on Highways Act, 1896, shall, as respects motorcars exceeding two tons in weight unladen, include a power to make regulations as to speed."
The Order to which we refer was the outcome of the deliberations of a Departmental Committee that was appointed by Mr. Long on the 14th January, 1904. This committee, with commendable promptitude, ksued its report as early as the 21st April following. The C.M.U.A. (then the Motor Van and Wagon Users Association), the R.A.C. and the S.M.M.T. had put forward the case for the commercial motor, the Editor of this journal being one of the witnesses who were examined.
Under the 1896 Act, no vehicle with an unladen w eight in excess of three tons was exempted from the stringent provisions of the traction-engine laws, but the Order of 1904 raised that limit to five tons. Owners of some 200 motor wagons, which were in existence before the 1st September, 1904, and the unladen weights of which—although they gaily bore the legend of "2 tons 19 cwt. 3 qrs."—were frequently in excess of five tons, were granted entire exemption under the new Order, subject to the provision that no axle might be loaded in excess of eight tons gross. The Order raised the permissible joint weight of a commercial motor and its trailer, from four tons to six-and-a-half tons.
The principle of a maximum axle-weight, which limitation was agreed by all the parties, was introduced, but owners and users were not prepared for so low a total-weight limit as 12 tons. They had hoped. that 14 tons would be allowed, because that weight is certainly admissible in many strongly-paved towns, cities and dock estates. For trailers, the limit was stated as four tons on any axle—in precipice, eight tons gross. The Local Government Board, in conjunction with limitations of axle-weight and of total weight, also prescribed the width of tires in relation to load and wheel diameter. On behalf of owners and users, a limit of 8 cwt. of load per inch of width of tire, on a 3-ft.-diameter wheel, as a basis, was put forward ; on behalf of road surveyors, suggestions were made that the basis should be 5 cwt. for the diameter of wheel named. Under Article VI of the Order, a minimum of 1 in. width of tire for each 7 cwt. of load, with certain increases for larger diameters, and certain reductions for smaller diameters, was laid down. It was also specified that any heavy motor car with metal tires should have tires of a minimum width of 5 in., and for trailers a width of 3 in., at least, the exemption in the case of trailers being designed to admit ordinary carts, lorries and wagons for haulage behind a motor vehicle.
The Order of 1904 rendered the use of motor omnibuses feasible. The Act of 1896 was so worded that it was impossible to run passenger vehicles with any chance of commercial success, but the Order of 1904, by sanctioning speeds of 12 miles an hour, when tires of a soft or elastic material were used, gave motorbus advocates the outlet for which they had been waiting, and of which they have availed themselves to the full ever since.
When dealing with Article XII of the Order, which refers to the compulsory weighing of loaded vehicles upon the highway, the writer expressed the view that it would remain "inoperative in many districts for years to come." That was in the early part of the year 1905. The distance to the weighbridge must not exceed half a mile, and a private weighbridge can only be used when it is "conveniently accessible" for the approach and withdrawal of the heavy motorcar, whilst the officer of the highway authority who calls upon the driver to undergo this roadside check must have." reasonable grounds" for the belief that any load is excessive. After an interval of seven-and-a-half years, not more than 10 councils in the whole country have been at special pains to equip themselves to check axle-weights, although it is not unlikely, at the present moment, that the quick use of the "Easyweigh jack" may facilitate supervision in this respect. That neat piece of apparatus will be defined, in all
probability, in any new Order, as a weighbridge falling within its scope.
The barring of traffic over bridges was tackled in Article XIV of the Order, and this Article was subsequently varied to a. slight extent. Notices of prohibition or restriction, it is important to observe, have to be placed in suitable and conspicuous positions "on the bridge, and in each approach" thereto. Any owner, who considers himself aggrieved in respect.of such a notice, can give written intimation to the person or authority responsible for the repair of the bridge, requiring that party to submit the terms of the notice to arbitration, and, should the recipient ignore his letter, or refuse to become a party to arbitration, within a period of one month after such a request ill writing, the notices become of no effect in relation td that particular owner and his traffic.
Recently, the London General Omnibus Co. has served notices upon the Great Northern Railway Co., in respect of a bridge at Crouch End and of other. bridges. The results should be important.
Taken all round, the Order of 1904 has worked remarkably well, and has been the cause of but little friction between owners and the police on one hand, or owners and road authorities on the other. A few months ago, however, at the instance of the County Councils Association, it became evident that a considered attack upon the provisions of the Heavy Motor Car Order of 1904 was to be made. We pub
lished. the full text of a series of resolutions on this matter, in our issue of the 16th May. The attack is chiefly upon axle-weights and units of loading in relation to wheel dimensions, and many of the proposals are unnecessarily conservative. They are dictated by the view that weak and badly-constructed roads should be accepted as the limiting factors, rather than the demands of modern traffic.
With the approach of the winter session of the C.M.U.A., and in the knowledge that the resolutions of the County Councils Association will be used as a text for the framing of resolutions to be put before the International Road Congress in June next., we wish most emphatically to urge upon all manufacturers and owners of heavy petrol and steam wagons the expediency of their being ready in advance to combat those measures. There is no question that legislation of some kind will be taken in band during the 1913-1914 Session of Parliament, and that it will, in the absence of effective preparations to put forward the case on the other side, be distinctly less favourable to steel-tired vehicles of the heavier load capacities than to any class of rubber-tired vehicle.
A joint committee of the National Traction Engine Owners and Users Association and of the Commercial Motor Users Association has been formed, in order to make common cause upon all points where that method of procedure is feasible. A. fighting fund may have to be formed, and we learn that it is the intention of the C.M,U.A. to support it in due course.