OPINIONS and QUERIES
Page 61
Page 62
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Marketing Chassis in the Argentine.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3176] Sir,—We heartily agree with the opinions expressed in your article dealing with the Buenos Aires Exhibition and concerning the marketing conditions in the Argentine. The present scheme, by which British commercial-vehicle manufacturers are each separately represented, rather half-heartedly, by the local agents is not at all satisfactory and will lead to no substantial business for our commercial-vehicle industry.
It would appear that this presents a valuable opportunity to our industry to prove that its members are prepared to put their heads together for the promotion of export markets. We are of the opinion that the leading British manufacturers should co-operate in forming a sales company on which they would each be represented, both from capital and management points of view. This company, whilst representing the various makers for all their models, would select certain products from the range of each manufacturer which would be most suitable for the market and would concentrate on selling these. This would minimize the spare-parts problem, as the sales company would only undertake to stock spares for the particular models which were adopted. H. J. TROW.
London, S.MT.1. For WORTHMORES, LTD.
The Position of London-bus Design.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3177] Sir,—With reference to the criticisms raised by your correspondent, Mr. Hassell, in so far as the L.G.O.C. is concerned, both the "ST." and the "L.T." buses are experimental types, the former having been designed primarily to test out the enclosed vestibule with large circulating area, and the latter to give as large a carrying capacity as possible. The results of these experiments will be embodied in the design of future vehicles.
Regarding windscreens, on the relaxation, in 1929, of police regulations on this subject, the L.G.O.C., as an experiment, fitted windscreens to part of its fleet of buses. It was found, however, that under certain conditions of weather, the driver was inconvenienced by draught, and at the request of the drivers themselves the windscreens were removed. Experiments towards providing satisfactory protection for the driver are
being continued. H. T. CARE, Asst. Publicity Manager, LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS CO., LTD.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3178] Sir,—I read with interest Mr. S. H. Russell's letter (No. 3161), criticizing London's buses, and I think I can answer his queries.
The reason that the LT-type buses hare open staircases is that they were put on the road in 1929, before the vestibuled entrance found favour in London. The ST-type is really a development of the LT, it being found that the four-wheeler is easier to handle in the crowded and sometimes narrow streets. Incidentally, the latest LT bus (LT 1000) now running experimentally in London, has an enclosed staircase. With regard to windscreens, these do not seem to have found favour with the London bus driver. Last year a few NS-type buses were fitted with screens, but they have since been removed, and now it is only certain of the LT buses that have this feature.
London, S.W.12. "MERTON."
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3179] Sir,—Your correspondent who criticizes London's new buses appears to think that both the LT and the ST types are being built simultaneously. This is not so, as the LT is an earlier model and is not in production. Furthermore, I understand that, at the drivers' own request, windscreens are not being fitted to the new buses, I should myself like to criticize the 'arrangement of the seats on the upper deck of the new ST buses. At the rear, on the near side, transverse seats holding three persons each are arranged at a distance apart no greater than that of the ordinary seats holding two; also, the gangway is very narrow, with the result that, when the bus is full, the passenger who is seated nearest the pavement on one of these seats, often experiences very great difficulty in getting out. The only remedy would appear to be a reversion to the older type of staircase which, after all, has no serious disadvantage.
London, S.W.9. M. DRINKWATER.
A Request for a Rate to Quote.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3180] Sir,—I enclose a reply reCeived through the medium of an advertisement in The Commercial Motor, under Haulage and Back Loads. Would you kindly favour me by stating what, in your opinion, would be a reasonable rate to quote per ton per mile.
• The vehicles to be employed would he one of the new rigid-frame Roebuck-Tylor 10-12-ton six-wheeled dropsided lorry, on solid tyres at the rear, and an A.E.C. 5-ton lorry. Kindly forward your Tables of Operating Costs.
Brighton. FRANS DEACON.
[With your 5-ton lorry you would be able to do two journeys a day. You should charge 1s. 3d. per mile run, and that is 2s. 6d. per mile on the outward journey. Carrying 5 tons is equivalent to 6d. per ton per mile.
With the 12-tonner there would very likely be at least a couple of days each week when you would only take one load per day, although on the other three days you could carry two loads each day. Your mileage would then be 320 per week, your minimum charge 2s. per mile, which is 4s. per mile one way, and your charge per ton per mile must therefore be 5d.-3.T.R.]
The Transport of Fresh Fruit.
[3181] Sir,—I shall be glad of your advice on the following: I have in view a four-months' contract, carrying fruit about 140 miles. The total mileage for the journey will be about 280 miles, the outward journey being made empty. The load cannot be picked up before 6 p.m. and has to be delivered early next morning.
One driver should be able to do the journey, but an ?.xtra man would be needed to deliver the load first .hing in the morning.
I have a 30-cwt. Chevrolet, but the price would be oo high for a load of 30 cwt. I have thought of 'sing a four-wheeled 30-cwt. trailer in conjunction with he Chevrolet and carrying 3 tons. Do you think this S a practical proposition and how would it affect my osts? What do you suggest would be a reasonable tharge? There would be five or six journeys per week. might mention that the rail rate is somewhere in the
• egion of £2 per ton. FRUIT CARRIER. Armley.
You are right in thinking that a 30-cwt, machine will not be big enough for the contract you are considering. On five journeys per week you would collect 7i tons, at an operating cost of MI Your revenue at £2 per ton would be £15 and at £3 per ton £22 10s. If you did six journeys
your mileage would be 1,680, your cost £25, your revenue at £2 per ton £18 and at £3 per ton 127. I do not regard your proposal to use a trailer as practica'ble. It is not reasonable to expect any 30-cwt. chassis to stand up to 1,680 miles per week hauling a trailer. If you were to buy a reliable three-tom.. your cost for six journeys per week would be £45. Your revenue at £2 per ton would be £36 and at £3 per ton £54. I think from these figures you should be able to come to a decision on the matter.—S.T.R.1
Appreciation of our Information Bureau.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3182] Sir,—I beg to thank you for letter of August 20th in regard to my inquiries re coach charges, and much appreciate your prompt 'and sound advice.
Henley-on-Thames. BERT BUTLER.