OPINIONS and QUERIES •
Page 22
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor invites correspondence on all subjects connected with the use of cornmercial motors. Letters should be written on only one side of the paper. The right of abbreviation is reserved and no responsibility for views expressed is accepted. Queries must be accompanied by a stamped, addressed envelope.
ARRANGING FOR ROAD TRANSPORT REPRESENTATION
I WOULD like to offer one or two comments on your
recent leading article entitled " Keep Haulage Representation Apart." It so happens that I have interests in both the haulage and ancillary sides of the industry, and for that matter also in what is commonly called private motoring. For that reason I can take an impartial view of the questions involved and think my views might possibly be of some general interest.
The problem amounts to this. Operators need organization to safeguard their interests in two entirely distinct connections. They need to defend themselves in the political sphere; that is, against threats of further restrictions made by the Government, or even by the local authorities. That need is common to all engaged in the road-transport industry in any way whatever, and, indeed, to all road users. In addition, the various classes of operator need to defend themselves against threats made to them by other classes.
These two things are quite distinct, and in my view it is entirely a mistake to suppose that they can effectively be met by any existing body, or indeed by any one body. The failure or, at any rate, the weakness of our past efforts at organization have been mainly due to the fact that this truth was not recognized.
What seems to be required is, in the first place, an organization concerned only with upholding the freedom and promoting the interests of road-transport users generally. It would concern itself solely with matters affecting all classes, and would in no case take the line of supporting one group of users at the expense of another. To give instances, it might, for example, conduct propaganda for a general reduction of motor-driven taxation. It would not, however, lend its aid to any attempt by hauliers to have further restrictions imposed upon the use of trailers with private cars. This body would have to be entirely impartial within the very wide limits of its membership.
Such an organization may be said already to exist in the Standing Joint Committee of Road Hauliers' National Organizations. The trouble with that, in my view, is that a joint committee is very far from being quite what is wanted for this particular purpose. I am always very sceptical about the effectiveness of committees; in fact, I have always been inclined to endorse the opinion that the ideal committee should be limited to two meimbers, one of whom can be guaranteed
never to attend any meetings. The most effective organization that motoring has ever produced is, or at any rate was in its time, the Autoniobile Association, and the A.A. was, in its greatest days, an autocracy, run almost entirely under the inspired guidance of Sir Stenson Cooke. I find it difficult to believe that the joint committee is quite the ideal thing for this purpose. Even its name incites no enthusiasm. Probably the best procedure would be to start a new organization altogether, although, admittedly, there are many difficulties in the way and obviously the project would have to be postponed until after the war.
In addition to this purely political and propagandist organization, each group within the industry certainly
requires its own association to look 'after its individual interests,. and if necessary to do battle with one or more of the other groups.
I believe it to be only on these lines that the transport industry can best organize itself for the critical conditions that it will undoubtedly have to face on con clusion of the war, F J Banbury.
SAVING TIME AND MACHINES IN WELDING
AT the present time there are between 30,000 and 40,000 arc-welding alachines in use in Great Britain, almost all of them being used exclusively on Government and armament contracts. Many letters have appeared in the technical Press from prominent industrialists bemoaning the fact that machine tools are not working 24 hours a day. This contention undoubtedly applies also to welding machines, which are, of course, a form of machine tool.
However, a case for much more serious Concern at the present time is the fact that, during the hours that arc-welding machines are used, they are almost invariably not being employed to their full productive capacity.
The James F. Lincoln Arc-Welding Foundation has been endowed to promote knowledge of welding, and we would recommend every engineer who uses arc welding to give serious consideration to the following points:— (1) A welding operator seldom has his arc burning for more than four hours out of every eight. The operator spends the remaining four hours cleaning his welds, assembling the job to be welded, tacking and doing other work which could be done by unskilled labour.
(2) Welding electa.odes are seldom run at maximum currents. The rate of melting of the electrode increases as the welding current increases, and welding currents can frequently be increased 10-20 per cent., and sometimes by 30-40 per cent., thereby giving a greater arc of welding.
(3) Work is all too frequently welded with
5/32-in, electrodes where a electrode can be used, a 736-in. electrode is often used where a
7/32-in, electrode can do the job. By using a larger electrode a weld joint can be made much more quickly, because welding is a matter of depositing metal, and it is sound economics and good engineering to use the largest electrode and the highest current possible on every job.
(4) By the use of jigs, fixtures and manipulating devices for turning jobs being welded, the time the arc is in operation can be increased still further because the operator can weld on the at rather than in the vertical or overhead position.
We have no hesitation in stating that if engineers who control welding operations were to give some consideration to the points mentioned above, the production of welded work could be increased by at least -10 per cent., and in many cases by 30-40 per cent.
If only 10 per cent.' increase in ,production were secured, this would mean 3,000 or 4,000 welding machines released for productive work, instead of running idle, and a like number of skilled welding operators released.
Quite apart from the question of increasing welded production, considerable quantities of steel can be saved by redesigning existing machinery and armaments, so that such machinery, etc., can he fabricated by welding. The use of welded fabrication inherently entails considerable saving in steel, as compared with other methods of manufacture.
It is quite common for machinery redesigned for fabrication from welded steel to show a saving of between 10 and 20 per cent. a the weight of steel required, as compared with other methods of construction.
This Foundation is again offering £40,000 as prize money for engineers who devote time and study to this question of the correct use of welding and obtaining the full benefits from welded fabrication. This prize money was endowed before the war started, but to-day it is doubly important that engineers give attention to these matters as part of the national effort.
R. BUTLER, British Representative.
For the James F. Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation. Welwyn Garden City.
CRITICISM OF 'LIVESTOCK RATES AND S.T.R.'S ANSWER
NAAy I make a few comments on an article which liflappeared in your paper on June 29. The note that the Ministry of Food is the customer for half of all the work into and out of a market is true when it is for fat stock only, which is a minority.
Regarding the first table of operating costs, I regret that the licence charges are insufficient in the 3-ton and 4-5-ton classes. The 14-ft. lorry body usually weighs over three tons and, therefore, will cost a little over £1 per week. Also, interest on £400 outlay is approximately 8s. per week.
The 20-ft. lorry usually weighs between 5 and 6 tons and, therefore, the licence will be nearly £2 per week. Interest in this case on £900 outlay is approximately 16s. per week.
Do you not think that the 4-5-tonner is a 14-16-ft. lorry weighing just under 4 tons? May I suggest that, like the Ministry of Food, the writer left out the 20-ft. vehicle? Taking the head rate column in the present livestock rates and the maximum charges that can be obtained for a double-decker, the number of 45 large sheep is taken, and these will travel comfortably on one deck. In other words, is it fair that this vehicle should earn the same money on a 10-mile lead as a 12-ft. double-decker, or is. 6d. less than a similar small vehicle carrying six cattle over the same distance?
If I may be permitted to make a criticism of the
present livestock rates, I believe that the work would be done more efficiently if the head rate were cut out and the other four columns were headed as below:— Minimum up to Over 12 ft. Over 14 ft.
and including and including and including 12-ft. body. 14 ft. 16 ft. Over 19 it.
As regards conditions, I think that two would suffice.
• (1) All vehicles with a body length of over 12 ft. inside measurement must carry an efficient double deck to qualify for more than a minimum rate.
(2) An additional charge of 5s. can be made for each extra drop.
Finally, if one type of invoice and one type summary would suffice for all stock from a centre, tons of paper would be saved each year.
Simplicity is appreciated if only by a market foreman.
Wishaw, Birmingham. E. W. WATTS.
[The average weight of a livestock vehicle, carrying a body 12 ft. 6 ins. to.14 ft. in length, is less than 3 tons unladen. Hence the figure for 14s. quoted for tax. The more substantially bdilt vehicle with a body 14 ft. in length does go over the 3-ton limit, and the figures in the table to which Mr. Watts refers must be corrected accordingly. As regards the livestock vehicle with a 20-ft. body, I will agree that in many cases it weighs over 3 tons, and the figure for tax should therefore be £1 per week. Those vehicles of that type weighing between 5-6 tons, are over the average. [think Mr. Watts assesses interest at the rate of 5 per cent. whereas I take only 4 per cent: that accounts for our difference in respect of the figure for the body of 14-ft. length. I think the number of 20-ft. vehicles for which livestock haulers pay about £900 is in the minority. As regards Mr. Watts's criticism of the Ministry of Food rates, I may say that I regard those rates as a commendable result of an effort to solve a very difficult problem, difficult on two grounds: first, agreement on rates for cattle haulage is almost impossible, even locally; second, this almost impossible feat has been attempted in relation to the country as a whole. In the circumstances it is not surprising that there should be occasional criticisms, although I know that the rates, on the whole, have been favourably received. There are, however, certain anomalies in respect of the maximum rates for double-deckers, most of them of a kind exemplified by Mr. Watts in his letter. Reconsideration of the schedule, however, is promised in three months' time when, no doubt, any such criticisms will be given full consideration. In this connection, however, two factors should have consideration.
(a) Because of the special conditions under which this haulage is affected, it was necessary, in formulating the rates, to take into account the scarcity of livestock for removement by road, and to ensure that the interests of small vehicle operators are not overshadowed by those relating to owners of large double-deck and triple-deck vehicles.
(b) Operators, in preparing their criticisms, should have regard, in particular, to a comparison of present net profits, working to these schedules, and former profits, earned before the scale was introduced.—S.T.R.]