OPINIONS and QUERIES
Page 77
Page 78
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Big Coach Merger in Manchester. Reducing Dazzle from Headlights. Goods Transport by General Carrier. Praise for an Allweather Head. Allowance for Health Insurance. Peculiarities of Brick Transport.
A Manchester Motor Coach Merger.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3231] Sir,—Arising out of the requirements of the Road Traffic Act and the necessity of immediate and active co-operation on the part of private motor Coach interests, I have for several weeks past been concerned with the task of negotiating a merger of certain of the Manchester and district motor-coach undertakings. We, in Manchester, confidently anticipate that similar steps will be taken in other cities, if this has not already been done, and as there appears to be a certain measure of uncertainty as to where the private owner will figure under the Act it is felt that the closest co-operation is desirable.
At the moment, 17 Manchester operators are affected by this merger, which at present consists of a central administrative control of the services and routes operated by the interested parties. A merger on broader and more complete lines is foreshadowed and it is expected that in the forthcoming year the affiliated companies will be welded into one composite public company.
There is every indication that the number of firms participating in this merger will be greatly increased before the end of the present year, and to control the interests of the joint operators and their services a Private company is in process of formation which will shortly set up the necessary administrative control. The new company will then operate the various services affected, the necessary transport being provided by the participating firms.
Several meetings have been held and the scheme is going ahead very smoothly, and it is expected that operations on the new basis will be commenced within the next few weeks.
The advantages to be derived by co-operative working, particularly on public services, are obvious, of course, but I would mention that under the Road Traffic Act there is one very outstanding advantage to be claimed for the co-ordination of services, as will be at once apparent if one considers the primary object of the Act. The Road Traffic Act is in the first place a "safety-first" measure and one of its aims is to eliminate unnecessary traffic on our busy arterial roads. Real co-operation between private coach interests can achieve this very desirable end easily and at the same time add considerably to their profits. It is fairly safe to assumethat the Area Commissioners will be more likely to consider the issue of road-service licences to operators who have co-ordinated their serVices with the object of eliminating unnecessary traffic, rather than to the individual. operator who .persists in .running on a route with almost empty coaches on perhaps five days out of seven.
If you can find space in your valuable journal for an article stressing the urgent necessity of co-ordinated effort as opposed to individual • independence I feel sure that the warning will reach many of your readers who are already alive to the danger of delay. I would welcome communications from any of your readers who are interested in our amalgamation and should be glad to explain the lines on which we have
arranged to operate. T. J. Qumix. Manchester.
[Such co-ordination of services has_ already been strongly recommended in The Commercial Motor, particularly in connection with the long-distance transport of goods, but its advantages are quite as great when the scheme is applied to passenger services. With reference to Mr. Quinn's request,. any correspondence addressed to him, . care of the Editor, will be forwarded.—En.] A Suggestion to Reduce Dazzle.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3238] Sir, Now that the dark evenings are here, the dazzle problem has again become acute. I would suggest that if headlights generally were carried on a level with the front axle a good road light would still be available, but would cause little inconvenience to anyone approaching from the opposite direction.
It would be interesting to have the opinion of sonic of your readers on this point, as I am sure that, were the subject thrown open through the medium of your paper, much could be done towards removing one of the greatest menaces of the present time.
Burton-on-Trent. R. T. Woorrox.
[We certainly welcome any contribution from our readers which will in any way tend to mitigate a trouble which is one of the prime causes of accident. On many coaches a fog light or spot light is now being mounted as suggested, and we are pleased to have noted that it causes very little dazzle.—En.] A Problem from a General Carrier.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3239] Sir,—Being a regular reader of The Commercial Motor, I should be pleased if you could answer me the following question :—In the working of a carrier service with a Ford 30-cwt. vehicle we are ofttimes placed in the position of being called upon to collect 30 cwt. of printed matter for transport to London, making two to four deliveries. Having approximately anything from 15 cwt. to 25 cwt. of various goods to collect and deliver en route, would it be a better proposition to have a trailer 30-cwt. attachment for these periodical loads or to have a second driver (hired daily or at a weekly wage) and purchase a one-ton vehicle, which would mean, of course, that this vehiclewould have to be taxed and fully insured?
For your information, this work is very spasmodic; sometitnes we are not called upon to carry anything for two weeks. Then perhaps four days in the next week we are having to carry full 30-cwt. loads. Three days in the week our 30-cwt. vehicle is capable of dealing with local small removals, but at times again we coulddo with extra loading space. The price we are paid is 20s. per ton for London delivery and 25s, for suburban delivery, such as to Hendon, Barking, etc. A day's takings with the 30-cwt. lorry average 12 10s. for small goods delivery, the approximate average load is 25 cwt. and the mileage about 75 per day overall running.
The proposition before us is either to have a trailer for emergency, or a 30-cwt. extra vehicle to stand by with extra standing. charges and upkeep to find. We trust that this note is not too complicated for you to read. Thanking you for your valued assistance both by The Commercial Motor and letters.
Frindsbury: GENERAL CARRIERS. [I do not think it would be practicable to use a trailer in the way you suggest. I -should think your best proposition would be to buy the 1-ton vehicle and to find. the work for it so that you can keep it engaged when not employed on the carriage of this printed matter. Alternatively, you might very well let the work go by, since, in my view, you are. even now losing money on it. The mileage involved in a return trip to London is approximately 60, or 72 if you make deliveries in the suburbs. Basing the .cost on 400 miles per week, and that is a favourable estimate, your actual operating costs are 24s. and 28s. 6d. per trip respectively, and you tell me you are obtaining only 20s. and 25s.!—S.T.R.]
Allowing for Insurance.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3240] Sir,—We shall be obliged if you will send us several copies of the Tables which you issue giving the operating costs for all types of motor vehicle. Will you kindly let us know also whether the standing charges shown for petrol motors include insurance of the vehicles and staff, also National Health Insurance? RA1LwAvs.
[The standing charges shown in the Tables of Operating Costs, of which two copies have been sent to you, include, as you will note, figures for insurance of the vehicle, but not for the staff.—S.T.R.]
An Appreciation of an All-weather Head.
The Editor, THE cOMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[32411 Sir,—We have read with much interest your article on all-weather hoods for coaches. in The Commercial Motor for last week. This is a subject which we have had to study very carefully, owing to the constant demand of our passengers for " more fresh air" and "better visibility," We were a little surprised that you did not devote more space to the Simsaloon hood, which is, in our opinion, the best to be had in England.
We have found that fixed backs and sliding roofs are not liked for pleasure trips, but the two Sunsaloons that we fitted this season satisfied everybody and have so fan worn remarkably well. It seems curious -that there are not more to be seen on the roads.
' Needless to say, we have no connection whatever with the makers. GRPY GARAGES, LTD. Tenby.
The Cost of Brick Transport.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3242] Sir,—I have taken The Commercial Motor every week for the past eight years and have derived great benefit from the contents. Just now competition is keen in both my lines and I am alarmed at having lost a lot of work through refusing to lower my prices in both trades. In the builders' merchants business I am concealed about only the cartage costs, because I find my competitors in that line are getting their cartage done cheaper than I allow.
Naturally I am also losing many cartage jobs in the haulage business owing to refusing to reduce my prices to the level of those of my competitors in this industry. I think I should have retained the haulage work if r could have come down somewhere near their rates, because I have often been credited with having my vehicles always in good condition, respectable look
c48 ing and with efficient drivers and mates and a more varied collection of lorries. .
At the moment I am concerned about brick haulage from kilns nine miles away. The bricks weigh 2 tons 18 cwt. per 1,000 and must usually be delivered in lots of a thousand. A Peerless and trailer can carry 6,000 bricks per day, a 5-ton Pierce-Arrow five trips of 2,000 in two days, very seldom three trips in one day. At brick-kilns one is often unfortunate in finding two or three lorries waiting to be loaded, but that does not prevent the Peerless and trailer doing two trips, but is the reason the Pierce-Arrow can usually do only two. My rate for the work is 12s. 6d. per 1,000 bricks; my competitors have dropped to us., 10s. 6d. and some to 10s. A few have good modern vehicles, the majority little better than runners. Most of these people are owner-drivers. Tractors and trailers must not be used.
Can you help me by convincing me whether or not a new 3-ton pneumatic-tyred. (twins rear) vehicle, • rather fast, would be a better proposition than the Pierce-Arrow, the new vehicle to cost £500? Driver's and mate's wages on the new 'lorry would be 2s, 6d. per 10-hour day less than the equivalent wages on the s Pierce-Arrow.
The smaller and new lorry could get to the kiln earlier than the old vehicle, and thus get,loaded before breakfast, but it would take only 1,000 bricks per journey; however, "my men could load 1,000 bricks without assistance from the brick makers, and, if they arrived on the site or job during a meal time, unload themselves. They could comfortably do five and occasionally six trips per day for the combined wages of 17s. 6d.
The same sort of thing would happen with regard to. unloading breeze blocks (loaded in my yard) on trips of about nine miles each way. I must mention that the Pierce-Arrow and Peerless lorries, run solo, usually get in a local job earning about £1 when only two trips of bricks are done. The new three-tonner might earn another 10s. for a local job when doing only five trips with bricks.
I pay is. 03d. for petrol; good oil, 1s. 8d. (contract -500 gals.) ; rent is heavy, being £2 a week for siX vehicles ; comprehensive policy all vehicles; good tyres I get at 25 per cent, off standard list prices. I doubt if competitors do as well for oil, tyres and petrol. My repairs are executed by a very competent engineer, who I believe is reasonable although not cheap.
I shall be extremely grateful for your observations as to whether I can reduce rates to, say, las. 6d., and make a profit of £4 per lorry, and whether the new three-tanner would pay better than the five-touner. Both businesses are equally affected by cartage costs.
London, S.E.5. BRICKS.
[According to my calculations you are making only a reasonable profit with the lorry and trailer. You are making a small profit on the Pierce-Arrow, but you will not make any profit at all if you use a three-tonner.
According to my calculations, the net cost of operating the lorry and trailer is Os. fid. per thousand bricks. To make a profit of £4 per week you must add 2s. 6d. per 1,000 to that and must, therefore, charge 12s. per 1,000. If you want to cut you must bear in mind that every 7id. you deduct from that price is a drop of 11 per week profit. I should explain that in this, and all the other calcula tions, I have allowed the per week, which figures in the standing charges, as interest on first cost to cover your establishment expenses. With the Pierce-Arrow five-tenser your net cost of operation is 12g. per 1,000 and your charge, to make 14
Per week profit as before, must be 14s. 6d. At 12s. 6d., which is the rate you are charging at present, you are making only a week with that lorry, If you try to do the work with a 3-ton pneumatictyred vehicle it will actually cost you 13s. 6d. per 1,000 bricks for haulage only. In all these calculations I have taken the average lead to be 10 miles. If I am wrong then it may materially affect the results and you had better write to me again. You will note that nowhere in your letter do you actually state what the mileage is.—S.T.R.]