IN YOUR OPINION
Page 87
Page 88
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Vehicle Dimensions and Weights
TO avoid misleading your readers, an error should be A pointed out in the captions to the diagrams which you published in your issue of August 7 to illustrate the new dimensions and weights of road vehicles. On the diagram , on page 43, showing a vehicle drawing two trailers with a maximum overall length of 85 ft. and a 30-ft. maximum length on the drawing vehicle, the caption reads, "This new restriction on overall length with two or more trailers is not effective until 1966 ".
In fact, the 85-ft. maximum is not a new restriction, nor indeed is it really a maximum. The existing Construction and Use Regulation 103 lays down that the overall length of a combination of vehicles shall not exceed 85 ft. unless the conditions specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 5 of the Regulations have been complied with (these refer respectively to notifying the police and to the carrying of an attendant). This particular provision is thus already in existence, and will not be changed when the new Regulation 103 comes into force on January 1, 1966. The 30-ft. maximum length for a vehicle drawing two or more trailers or one trailer constructed and normally used for the conveyance of indivisible loads of exceptional length, will, in a sense, be a new provision, except for the fact that until the amendments came into force no rigid vehicle was allowed to be more than 30 ft. in overall length. Another small point is the drawing vehicle in this diagram is depicted as a load-carrying vehicle, which would not be allowed under the Road Traffic Act to draw more than one trailer,
As correctly stated in the diagram above, the 18-m. maximum length for a train of two vehicles is a new prOvision. The coming into force of this particular amendment has been delayed until January 1, 1966, to give time for operators to shorten the tow-bars of certain existing trailers to allow them to come within the 18-m. length when towed by their present drawing vehicles.
In the same edition of The Commercial Motor, the writer of the article headed " Artics Come Out Best in New Regulations" says he considers it inconsistent to quote the new maximum dimensions in metres, whilst retaining British tons as opposed to metric tons for the new weights. The answer is. I think, reasonable. The use of metres for dimensions will eliminate unnecessary difficulties that have arisen when our commercial vehicles have gone abroad and Continental vehicles have tried to enter this country. It should help our manufacturers exporting vehicles to countries where the metric system is used.
The point is that you cannot exactly equate the British unit of measurement with the metre, so the nearest round
number is usually taken. This means that the British dimensions may turn out to be either just above or just below what is permitted on the Continent and vice versa. In the past, this factor, in combination with our generally smaller dimensions, has had the effect of preventing certain standard Continental lorries coming to this country, which has led some of the countries concerned to apply quotas to the number of British vehicles allowed to enter because of what they consider unfair discrimination on our part. Thus full advantage can only be taken of our increases in dimensions if they are expressed in metres.
The position is not the same in respect of weights. Gross weights and axle weights depend upon the load the Motor vehicle is carrying, whereas its dimensions are fixed by the manufacturer. The weight limitations imposed by a foreign country can be fairly easily calculated in British units when a vehicle is going abroad and, as far as we know, this has caused no difficulty. The information about the gross weights and axle weights to which a vehicle is limited is of considerable importance to an operator in this country if his vehicle is not to be overloaded. As its load and its unladen weight are usually expressed in British weights it is more convenient to all concerned to continue using British weights throughout the Construction and Use Regulations.
London, S.E.1.
E. A. ELDERS,
Principal Information Officer, Ministry of Transport.
Master Catlow Comments
I WAS very interested in the results of The Commercial Motor essay contest, but was under the impression that it was only for employees in road transport and so I did not enter. Upon reading the August 14 edition I found that a 15-year-old took part, so perhaps you will allow some comment on his essay by another 15-year-old.
I am completely in agreement with his remarks about 36-ft. double-deckers, but was surprised when he advocated the use of 30-ft. double-deckers on motorways where length is not really important. Surely, 36-ft (or even 40-ft.) double-deckers would be ideally suited to motorways. But his remarks about "control cabins" on the upper deck are, in my opinion, rubbish. He points out that the first bus in Liverpool (and, at a later date, in London) had this feature. This was only because it was, as he says, a converted horse bus and the question was where to put the engine. There was no extension on which to place it, so it had to go where the driver normally was. Hence the only possible place for the driver was on top ". This arrangement of an upPer-deck control cabin would be detrimental to passenger visibility in both decks, as the controls, steering column, and so on, would have to pass down to the lower saloon at the front. He then says there are many advantages, and names long-distance visibility. But I, for one, would like to know some more. And "there may be many problems "—there certainly are, and I can think of at least five: I. Poor visibility for town work (it will have to come off the motorway some time) and for garaging. The remedy (he says) is by a complicated—and expensive—arrangement of photo-electric cells, presumably actuated by the shadow of a near object. He does not say what will happen at night. An alternative, he continues, would be to have radar. Very expensive. Although it would be a good thing to have in fog, it seems to be an expensive way of ensuring that an upper-deck driver is as safe as a lowerdeck driver. I am sure it would be better to retain the downstairs driver, with all his advantages of good, closerange vision for ease of handling, ability to see the kerb, and with less sway or roll than upstairs, and use radar to give the only advantage an upstairs driver has—longrange vision—to the lower-deck driver. Upon reflection, long-range vision is no so bad on a lower-deck-driven bus. 2. Lack of feel that is, nearness to the road.
3. Unable to see nearside at all.
4. Excessive roll upstairs.
5. Problems with controls—especially steering.
Personally, I cannot see how an underfloor engine imposes "severe restrictions" on the dimensions of an engine; even a 30-ft. single-decker has enough space round the engine for additions to it in length and in width, though perhaps not so much in height. But the suggestion of an external power unit is worthy of serious consideration. I am also in agreement with his statements on goods transport, although I cannot see manufacturers making eight-wheelers solely for liquid transport. I would suggest that the bulk of liquid transport—the dangerous fluids at least—went by rail.
As a final note, for city transport I can see a return to the tram, which is enjoying success in that field in European countries.
Warrington, Lancs. N. CATLOW.
How Many Passengers?
IN an article in your July 24 issue, F. K. Moses expressed I surprise that his local British Railways station should not be served by a London Transport bus route. He calculated that there was a potential bus traffic of at least 450 passengers an hour after allowing forthose who live so near that they would walk in any case, and those who .arrive or leave in private cars. He also mentioned that a nearby tube station had no bus service.
The British Railways station Mr. Moses had in mind is Oakleigh Park (Eastern Region), and checks were recently made of the number of passengers at this station. The movement into the station between 07.30 and 09.00 averaged 87 people per train, but 185 of these travelled by the 08.13 or 08.17 trains. In the evening, movement from the station between 17.00 and 18.30 averaged 79 per train, with a concentration of 214 passengers arriving at 18.00. It will be seen that, after making the deductions allowed by Mr. Moses, the potential number of bus passengers is much smaller than he supposed. Possibly he uses the busy 08.13 or 08.17 morning trains and 18.00 evening train.
Oakkigh Park station attracts a predominantly local traffic and the possibility of serving more passengers by diverting existing bus services—even if the roads concerned were physically suitable—is small. Diversion of route 261, for example, which passes along Church Hill Road to the east of the station, would disturb the existing heavy traffic to the schools at St. Mary's Road, Church Hill Road.
The Underground station mentioned by Mr. Moses is Woodside Park. Here again the main traffic is drawn from a purely local area. In both cases there are bus routes running through the area which give connections to other, busier London Transport or British Railways stations. But at railway stations which are well situated in relation to road networks, like Golders Green or New Barnet, bus services feed in from relatively large catchment areas and perform exactly the function that your correspondent has in mind.
London, S.W.1. R. M. ROBBINS,
Chief Public Relations Officer, London Transport.
Stopping a Diesel Engine
IREAD with interest the item headed "Stopping a Diesel
Engine" published in your August 14 issue. Years ago as a motor mechanic I was called to a 5-ton Morris with an engine running backwards. I had difficulty in stopping the engine and finally had to apply the method both you and I condemn—namely, vehicle in gear with brakes applied. Since then I have always fitted a tap on the feed pipe in a convenient position.
On engines creeping in gear from a sudden jolt or running away downhill I have fitted a device to keep the stop control open, so that if the vehicle moves the engine will not start.
St reetly, Warwicks. L. GAULT.