Opinions and Queries
Page 44
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
In Defence of ."Fives" 1WAS very interested in E. Hirst's letter concerning five-cylinder-engined buses, ai I was a driver On the firm he obviously refers to, just after the war, although I did not work in the Cheadle area.
On the pre-war machines we had I can never recollect the vibration being sufficient to cause the damage that he has experienced, and as many of the staff lived on the bus routes there would soon have been some complaint if it had. The engine mounting on the rehabilitated buses must be inferior to the type used when the chassis were new, although I do not see why this should be so, there has been so much progress made in rubber mounting during the past few years.
I should say the reason why the operators stick to these five-cylinder jobs is because of their low fuel consumption and exceptionally long period between engine overhauls, despitc arduous service conditions. I have driven on the Leeds-Manchester service and agree with his remarks about crossing Standedge; this is one of the routes where a five-cylindered engine is at a disadvantage, but for general service work, in hilly country, this unit, in conjunction with a five-speed gearbox, is ideal.
My chief experience with these machines was in Derbyshire, where they gave remarkable performances on hilly _routes. A few years before the war sixcylinder buses of a leading make were tried on these routes and, whilst they were faster, they .could not stand up to the continuous hill-climbing. Fivecylinder ones were introduced and have been running upwards of 15 years continuously on hilly routes, covering very high mileages between engine dockings and giving first-class service together with low fuel consumption.
Despite their slow acceleration, from the operation and maintenance point of view I think that these vehicles are much to be preferred to many of the largerengined post-war vehicles.
Nottingham. P. F. TURNER.
Is London Transport So Good-?
ONE of the leaders, "'goad Transport Weakness," in your lune dated October 10, somewhat surprising. Generally speaking, itappears to suggest that the public relations organization of the London Transport Executive is par exCellence, whilst that of provincial operators scarcely exists.
To make such a statement is to betray a woeful lack of knowledge of what is done in the provinces. London Transport is not alone in "aiming at perfection in all things "—a laudable endeavonr, of course, provided that the public is willing to pay the cost. You state, and I accept your statenient, that it "is extremely expensive." Is there any evidence to show that this "extremely expensive" organization in London has created a more friendly feeling amongst passengers towards the London Transport Executive than is the case in the provinces?
It is not my purpose to criticize the efforts of London Transport. What it thinks it proper to ask its passengers to pay for a public relations organization is its own affair. For our part, we believe that it is wrong to
expect the public, through the fares they Pay, to support a large and expensive department of this nature, nor are we convinced that this is necessary to ensure good public relations. We /believe that the best form of
effective public relations, and that most appreciated by the public, is to provide a good and courteous service at the lowest possible cost.
Information about this company's activities is made known to the public through the normal Press channels; Our publicity of all kinds is effective in the sense of persuading the public to use our services, and the whole of our public relations and publicity work is carried out by a staff of sixpeople, including the publication each month of our staff magazine.
May I suggest that someone from your editorial department should spend some time amongst provincial operators, and' thus guard against the danger of views on this and other matters being influenced entirely by what is done in London.
D. M. SINCLAIR,
General Manager, Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co., Ltd. Birmingham, 41.
Tractor-trailer Buses
I HAVE just read once again in "The Commercial I
Motor" an article which advocates the amendment of the existing regulations concerning the dimensions of double-deck buses, to permit the use of vehicles of this type 30 ft. in length.
It is perhaps of interest to note that some years ago thert were hundreds of six-wheeled, three-axled double-deckers operating. They had seating capacities of between 60-70 passengers, but with the exception of trolleybuses hardly any survive.
Did this type of bus fall out of favour because of the inherent disadvantages of the three-axled chassis, such as excessive tyre wear on the rear bogies due to scrubbing and the difficulty of bracing the body over the long wheel-boxes, or was it more due to their length and alleged lack of manceuvrability?
• When London Transport withdrew its famous L.T. -type six-wheelers it said that it would have no more buses of this type for the last two reasons—at least that is what was quoted in the daily Press;
A two-axled,. 30-ft. bus with the front axle in the conventicnial forward position and the same rear body overhang that is permissible to-day would be inferior in manceuvring capabilities, even to the six-wheeler, being, in fact, equivalent to a vehicle of that type without its front bogie axle, so that only the use of overhang at the front could reduce the, wheelbase to present-day length, which has already reached the limit acceptable to Modern traffic conditions.
Perhaps the solution lies in the use of articulated vehicles, not of the .dimensions of the East German monster Shown in "The' Commercial Motor," but of a size more akin to that of the Scammell tankers of the Petroleum Board, the drivers of which can take them anywhere a bus can go with the greatest ease.
The passenger-carrying trailer itself, not having to take the weight of the engine and transmission units, could be of really light aircraft-style construction, with as low a floor level as She minimum legal ground clearance would permit. It could be comfortably hauled by a comparatively light tractor unit.
Surely such a vehicle is worth considering?
London, W.13. E. J.. CORLa.