01 1 INIONS
Page 51
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
and QUERIES
THAT MUCH-CRITICIZED ENSTON CASE.
146411 I am at a complete• loss to understand why local solicitors and others rant and rave against the Appeal Tribunal Over its finding known as the " Enston rule." It is, to my mind, a real charter and protection for the established haulier. We do not want 'floods of newcomers. We are ourselves ready and Willing to do all the work that offers—with but few exceptions. As to those, the Enston rule provides for them to be met by a newcomer if necessary.
There is no impossible onus that I can see. A haulier, who is a newcomer, i.e., who did not operate in the basic year, has to put, or have put on his behalf, two straight questions to the intending customer, whom he calls as a witness Are you ready and willing to employ the vehicle (or vehicles) ? (2) Are you able to get this work done, in a suitable and efficient manner, by any existing haulier, either by road or rail? If the answer to the second question is "No," the onus of rebuttal is on the objectors.
I have heard a few applications in recent months totally " muffed" by disregard of the foregoing.
In another letter, shortly, I may indicate how established hauliers dismally fail to put forward suitable evidence to make good their applications for additional tonnage. Here, it is the " Ridgewell rule" that has to be met. It, in fact, calls for definite evidence of genuine expansion, coupled with a measure of either delay, or inconvenience, or both, as shown in the Hawker case.
THIRTY YEARS IN ROAD TRANSPORT. London, N.2.
TAXATION—WHAT OF THE FUTURE?.
1413421 How long the present system of taxation, based as it is on unladen weight, will continue to be operative, is a question which concerns all road transport operators to a far greater extent than is generally appreciated. Does this system realize the maximum revenue for the tonnage handled by road transport? Has it had what every haulier knows to be the desired effect of limiting the carrying capacity of road transport as a whole, by virtually subsidizing lightweight vehicles and crippling the heavier types by excessive taxation? Lastly, does all this chopping and skimping of chassis in order to permit the highest possible pay
load to unladen weight ratio, help the Minister of Transport to .solve the road safety problem?
Any. -thinking man must agree that in order to satisfy the demands of the railways, safeguard the public, and bring to an end the gross overloading of lightweight vehicles, the basis for taxation must ultimately be the legal allowable imposed load. The question then arises how will the legal carrying capacity of the vehicle be determined? Upon makers' recommendations, or unladen weight? Surely the latter is the most practicable method. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that the maximum. permissible load would be limited to, say, one and a half times the unladen weight of the vehicle.
I bring these possibilities to the notice of users who may not have given serious thought tothe future of commercial-vehicle taxation, and who may at present be loading themselves up with what are now high-payload machines which in a few months' time may not be allowed to carry more than 50 per cent. of their present loads. A.R. Whitchurch.
[We do not agree with the suggestion that the pay-load should be strictly limited to one and a half times the unladen weight, as so much depends upon the design of the chassis, its type and the materials from which it is constructed. The latest models show the possibility of permitting with safety the carrying of a pay-load double that of the unladen weight, even on a four-wheeler.—En.]
LIGHT v. HEAVY CHASSIS CONSTRUCTION.
[4643] The overloading of lightly built cheap-topurchase lorries will not be stopped except by legislation. I would suggest that a committee be formed of manufacturers, Operators and technical experts to draw up general recommendations, and that Parliament should pass legislation accordingly. What I have in mind is something similar to the Air Ministry regulations govern-. ing the use and construction of aircraft.
The present method of taxation is no doubt largely responsible for the present-day tendency of ultra-lightweight vehicles, but the economics must not be ignored. It is possible to purchase a lightweight 5-ton net-load chassis for £350, whereas a solidly built maximum-load chassis (7-8-ton net load) will cost about £800—more than twice as much.
Two of the lightweight chassis will not cost as much as the heavy machine and the fact must not be overlooked that the lightweight operator is going to have the benefit of a guarantee period twice as long as the heavyweight operator, assuming that two of the lightweights are required to wear out the heavyweight.
The light machine will certainly return a somewhat better fuel consumption, but whether it will prove reliable depends on a great number of factors, but as the present day tendency is to replace instead of overhaul, the question of longevity does not appear to be of much importance. It would appear to me that an excellent basis on which to calculate the carrying capacity of various chassis is to limit this to twice the unladen weight of the complete vehicle. The latest new chassis announced are apparently rated on this, and until new developments in metallurgy and construction 'take place I do not think that we shall find any maker optimistic enough to offer chassis with a greater unladen weight to pay-load than 1 to 2.
Much of the present controversy over load capacities would be avoided if we had„ standards on what is necessary to carry a given load. During the period 1930 to 1933 some very fine, sturdy lorries were pro duced, the A.E.C. Monarch and the Leyland Bull, for example; these were sold as 6-7-tonners, but the makers built them for loads considerably in excess of this, and, what is more, they appeared to be quite happy in knowing that their so-called 7-formers were handling loads some 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. above the stated capacity.
I am somewhat puzzled as to why more use is not made of the frame as part of the body framework. It always appears ridiculous to me that manufacturers should strive to keep the frame as low as is possible and then, to obtain the 'necessary bumping clearance, a deep and therefore heavy wooden frame has to be niounted on top of the chassis. I suppose that this will be answered by some makers, who will say that they have to cater for both tipping and general-haulage vehicles, and it is easier to build up a body frame than it is to lower a high chassis frame. If this be the case, then they should turn out a special chassis for tipper work, as whilst this may add slightly to the first cost, certain other parts could be reinforced on the tippingtype chassis in order to deal with the more severe duty that this type of lorry is usually called upon to perform.
Many of the manufacturers of lighter chassis (in particular those of overseas origin), now that they are increasing the rating of their products, might well look into the question of redesigning the brakes on these machines. Liners A.-in. or 1-in..thick do not • give a reasonable life between relining, as usually upwards of 50 per cent, of the lining is neverused. Brake shoes spot welded together from pressings leave a lot to be desired as regards stiffness and solidity. The service adjustment should not require more than the.manipulation of a single wing nut for all four wheels and some self-energizing brake shoes are too inconsistent in their action for commercial use.
To any transport operator thinking of scrapping the solidly built costly lorry in favour of the cheaper light machine I would say, "You only get what you pay for and no more." j. L. BREWSTER, For Orrell and Brewster. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 6.
GOODS PURCHASED FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE MUST BE REASONABLY FIT FOR IT.
[4644] A friend of mine agreed to purchase a doubledrive cross-country vehicle after it had passed a satisfactory demonstration of its capabilities for travelling over fields, etc. The crux of the business depended on it being able to do this work. No single-drive vehicle would do ; that was definitely understood.
The only complaint against the vehicle at the demonstration was that it was geared a little too high; this, the agent stated, could be easily overcome if my friend purchased an auxiliary gearbox, which he could fit for a matter of £40. This was agreed to. Since then the back axles have been stripped several times. Each time the repairs have been carried out by the concern from which the lorry was purchased. On the last occasion, however, the agent equipped the vehicle with a single-drive and a trailing axle, and charged my friend £15 for this work. It was pointed out that the vehicle was of no use in this condition, but the agent refused to fit a double-drive, The total amount of the repairs is over £100. My friend refuses to pay, but has offered to let the lorry go back to the agent in payment. I should be pleased if you would kindly let me know what can be done.
Stockport. E.J. 108
[Our legal adviser considers that your friend is entitled to claim damages for breach of the warranty which is implied by Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893. That section provides that where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply, there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose, except in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or trade name. Your friend should withdraw the offer which he has made to return the vehicle if the repair bill be cancelled. He should then either start an action against the agent for damages, or wait until the agent sues him for the repair bill, when your friend should put in a counterclaim for damages. Before taking any step to start an action your friend would be well advised to have the vehicle examined .by the maker. if it is an English company, or by an independent automobile engineer, who could give evidence on his behalf. Unless your friend can arrive at a settlement which is satisfactory to him he should consult a local solicitor, who maylae able to arrive at a settlement without the expense of legal proceedings.—ED.1
THE TRANSPORT OF RADIO SETS FROM LONDON TO BRIGHTON. .
[46451 I have been a regular reader of your journal for the past few months and have greatly appreciated your valuable articles.,
I have now obtained a position in a radio and electrical wholesaler's office in Brighton, and would like your advice on the following suggestion : I have noticed that owing to the type of trade we handle it is necessary every evening to put through about 20 to 30 special orders.
• Now most of the manufacturers have London depots, and I wondered whether it would be cheaper to telephone the orders through to one haulage firm in the evening for collection by them in the morning and delivery to Brighton in the afternoon, rather than to pay all the individual postages and delivery charges. By this method, too, a better service would be given to the customer who, in most cases, is urgently awaiting the article. .• If you think the suggestion is practicable, I shall be glad if you will put me in touch with any concern which would do this type Of trade; also giving me the, approximate charges. The goods required will usually be parcelled and of small size. T.J.
Brighton. •
[We suggest that some of our many haulier readers iwthe London area might consider the possibilities of this work. Quotations should be addressed to "Radio," care of the Editor.—ED.]
TYRE EQUIPMENT ON THE TASKERS 12-TON CONVERSION.
[4646] We would refer to the article appearing in The Commercial Motor of September 6 under the heading, "A Novel Tractor-trailer for Heavy Loads."
Numerous people have approached us and pointed out that the illustration does not show whether the tyres on the trailer are of single or twin formation. Actually the trailer was equipped with twin 24-in. by 7-in. Dunlop tyres on the bogie portion—eight tyres in all. These tyres have given excellent service to date and have covered long distances without any overheating.
A. B. FULLER, Director,
'Andover. For Taskers of Andover (1932), Ltd.