LETTERS
Page 61
Page 62
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
to the editor
series. In the case of the FL700L, front brakes are standard equipment and brakes are required on both axles. In the case of the FL700LS, front brakes are optional since there is more than adequate brake capacity on the two driving axles and since the omission of these brakes results in a substantial weight reduction.
In all cases where we install front brakes on one of our tractors, we provide a front brake limiting device so that the amount of braking effort applied on this axle can be reduced to provide for safe operation under various conditions of traction and load. The limiting device is manually operated at the driver's discretion.
From the engineering point of view, if we were to design a combination vehicle for balanced brake performance and maximum safety, we would of course employ brakes on the front axle but would include the limiting control referred to above or some other system to maintain traction with the road surface 'under a variety of operating conditions.
• Letter from H. L. Gray, assistant director offleet maintenance, Pacific Intermountain Express Co. to Mr. Wooldridge: Re: front wheel brakes—In the first place, in the United States, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the governing authority of all interstate carriers, and most states, require brakes on all truck and trailer wheels with one exception. That exception being the 3-axle tractor. On a 3-axle tractor brakes are only required on two axles.
On 3-axle tractors by the user's choice, and this is almost universal, front or steering axle brakes are eliminated. This is to improve stability on a slick road. (It is very difficult to steer a sliding wheel.) By eliminating front-axle brakes you save weight. You also save original costs, maintenance costs and sacrifice very little questionable stopping ability.
On 2-axle tractors, everyone is required to have brakes on both axles. On the front-axle we use approximately one-half as wide of shoes as on the rear. We use approximately one-half as much diaphragm area as on the rear. We use an adjustable limiting valve for the front axle. The limiting valve is adjustable by the driver from his driving position, and is adjustable from full pressure for dry roads down to 50 per cent pressure for slick roads.
In actual practice, you would probably find the limiting valve in the slick road position most of the time.
The foregoing very briefly describes what we are doing in the United States. The above is practically universal with all carriers. We at PIE operate 7,487 vehicles covering 9.5m. miles a month.
G. E. WOOLDRIDGE, M & G Trailers (Lye) Ltd., Worcs.
Are Railways common carriers?
I REFER to your issue of July 14 and the article under Licensing Casebook "Are the Railways common carriers?" While recognizing that COMMERCIAL MOTOR is published principally for the benefit of the road haulage industry I am sure you would accept that the readership is on a very much wider basis. I am therefore appalled at the biased and misleading comments that were made by Mr. kin Sherriff.
To relate the question of free terminals to the fact that the Railways Board is no longer a common carrier is, to put it mildly, sheer mischievousness. You can be sure that the British Railways Board will act in a thoroughly responsible commercial manner and not hide behind the kind of technical legal interpretation which you infer could be their right under the 1962 Act. In fact I would be interested to know of any actual cases you can quote to support your statement, and I quote, "certainly it is not a common carrier in law—but in practice it appears to be".
The suggestion that the repeal of Section 7 of the Act of 1953 has given the BRB the right to be negligent is completely irresponsible.
I hope that your thoughtful readers will also question the reason why the British Railways Board should divulge details of how its rates are constructed. Would the road haulage industry be any more eager? In my experience it is the road haulier who has always taken advantage in the past of being able to have the right to obtain the railway's published rates structure to use as a basis for competitive quotation. Now that the railways have the right to construct their rates on a commercial basis having regard to the competition which, after all, only puts them on the same basis as their competitors, you seem to suggest that there is some moral reason why this should not be so.
I have always found your publication to be most instructive, and bearing in mind its principal object, to reasonably represent the facts correctly. This particular article is, I repeat, completely irresponsible and a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what is the actual situation.
G. E. T. WALTON, Divisional Sales Manager, British Railways, North Eastern Region.
• lain Shernff writes: When I say that BRB "in law is not a common carrier, in practice it appears to be", I am supporting what BRB say: "Terminals are open to all traffics". The repeal of Section 7 of the 1953 Act relieves BR of liability for negligence in carriage. I do not, in Licensing Casebook, suggest BR encourages negligence.
The structure of BR rates should, I contend, have been made public to dispel any doubt in the mind of the road haulier that BR was undercutting to obtain traffic. This will become essential if the Minister's licensing proposals become law. Then the railways will be the sole objectors to a "quantity" licence on the grounds that they can provide a service as satisfactory as that of the road operator, taking into account, speed, reliability and cost.
1984 is nearer than we think ALL OUR FUTURES in transport, no matter under what licence we operate, are in the process of being more drastically affected than we realize.
The one new piece of legislation that could be called beneficial to us is the one affecting mechanical efficiency and overloading,
and even this is biased against us in the penalties involved for contravention—£200 for a lorry driver, /50 for a bus or other driver—why?
Not one new ruling (or old ruling for that matter) has been any thing but restrictive. Now Mrs. Castle and her band of backroom geniuses are well-ahead with their scheme to chop our working week and with it our wages. We are assured she realizes this means there will need to be a revision of basic wages. Come off it Barbara! At a time when there is a "period of severe restraint" imposed by your own party? Any such revision should have been incorporated from the beginning, not added as an afterthought. In any case— when?
There is another aspect of the reduction of the working day. We, as a body of workers, not theorists, know how valuable 11 hours' running time can be and it's not always going to be possible to book two hours' loading or unloading to make our 11 up. Anyway, if anyone is fit to drive 11 hours a day, surely it is the man who's been doing it for years?
Mrs. Castle's advisers are. I'm sure, a little short of practical experience when it comes to hustling a loaded "heavy goods" down the road in all conditions. Also, it is going to impose extra hardship in our personal lives. The average lorry driver sees little enough of his wife and children now, but, when he's away, with the extra nights a reduction in hours will involve he will become virtually a stranger in his own home. Of course, to someone who sleeps in their own home every night this probably isn't important.
From what I read in the trade and national press, the TGWU, and more surprising still, the RHA, seem to be offering very little resistance to any of Mrs. Castle's proposed surgery. Surely, the RHA can see that all these recent proposals can lead to but one thing, the smashing of road haulage. E for one (but not' the only one), am sure that this is the ultimate aim.
Nationalize this, eliminate that, tax the road-user out of existence, put little black boxes in every cab to keep the driver company. Maybe George Orwell was being optimistic when he set the year as 1984.
J. J. PAGE, 14,Co-operative Street, Salford 6, Lancs.
Better than average TO DO JUSTICE to the Scania-Vabis trucks which are now in operation with my company I would ask that the comments I made when requested to contribute to an article on imported vehicles (COMMERCIAL MOTOR, July 7) should be printed more fully.
As quite a large number of operators will know, the supply position for heavy plated tractive units until the autumn of 1966 was somewhat bleak, and protracted deliveries were the order of the day. Some three years ago, when in Belgium, I had the opportunity to try out a Scania-Vabis bonneted tractive unit which was moving a combined gross weight well in excess of 36 tons and, as Swedish, German and South American operators have been able to prove over many years, this vehicle offers carrying capacity, rugged construction, finish and quality second to none but, most important of all, reliability at a fair price.
When we were able to put a forward-control Scania-Vabis tractor into service in January this year, following the removal of the import surcharge, driver reaction was immediately favourable because of the handling characteristics, comfort and general appearance, while the cab design meets stringent Swedish safety regulations far in excess of our own.
With experience of three Scania tractive units—two supercharged and one not—operating on general haulage and some lowloader operation with payload and gross combination weights up to well over 50 tons there has not, after more than six months' use, been the slightest trouble worth mentioning. M.p.g. is equal to even the better heavies we employ and no maintenance problems have been experienced; ease of maintenance was planned into these vehicles.
Mileages to date are not really indicative (at around 36,000) but better than average performance compared with the alternatives have been proved during six months' usage.
F. M. FIELDHOUSE, Group Traffic Manager, British Ropes Ltd., Doncaster. (Mr. Fieldhouse's original contribution had necessarily to be compressed to suit the confines of the article he mentions, but we are happy to print this amplification of his views.—Ed.)