litters
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
po British Standard hfie tyres?
nterested to read the article (CM ier 15) which referred to a speed connection with the British Standards an's Specification AU 144 (a) for ,d tyres.
I feel it should be pointed out that no requirement for any retreader to his tyres to this specification, and I that it is true to say that a number of anufacturers who also retread tyres brand their tyres with the British d. Specification number.
headline "Speed limit on remoulds Is operators" dos not surprise me I feel that many truck operators are In aware of a British Standard Speci
on retreaded tyres, and if they are, u,st wonder why there is no British .c1 Specification on new tyres. Serimy company manufacture remoulds nd our tyres with the British Standard iation, but we do not consider that 9eds mentioned in the Specification ximum speeds; on the contrary, we ixpect our tyres to be perfectly capable .ating at the current legal maximum eed for vehicles.
should also astound operators and the tyre manufacturers is that the ation recommends the same speeds is-ply as for radial tyres, and it is well in the industry that the steel-cord radial capable of much higher speeds than ihi-ply textile cross-ply tyre and this very much to remoulds. So that if le chooses to quote the British Stanpecification as an authority for speed t is perhaps remarkable that the tyre has not taken the trouble to put its ouse in order and to up-date the :ation in the light of current performance. E. G. WALLACE, Managing Director, Watts Tyre & Rubber Co Ltd, Lydney, Glos.
d limits for retreads
tide (CM December 15) on the subject td limits for truck remoulds has caused ion far in excess of the confusion that ed to have existed before.
clarify the position for your readers, respectfully quote from the British 1rd AU.144a: OPE Para.1/1. The British Standard lies the minimum requirements for ading car and commercial vehicle matic tyres.
'FORMANCE. Tyres retreaded in accordwith this standard shall be so processed they are suitable for the following 3tional road speeds subject to fair wear tear during the legal life of the tyre. Commercial vehicle tyres: cross-ply. .adial-ply — 55 miles/hour (88 km/hour) vfore 55 mph is a minimum speed to all retreads processed to the British ird must conform. All members of the RMA undertake to conform to the British Standard and therefore give an assurance that their products are at least capable of being run at speeds of 55 mph. Any retread or remould manufacturer whose standards of manufacture are below those specified in the British Standard AU.144a. is well advised to apply discretionary speed limits, but no such limits are applied by law nor the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations.
A. D. DAVIDSON, Executive Consultant, Retread Manufacturers' Association, Member of BSI C ommittee A UEI3. [Our report did not mention legal restrictions, but it made exactly the points made by Mr Davidson. However, following their meeting in the third week of December, the British Rubber Manufacturers Association reiterated their interpretation of the situation. In a statement to CM, a BRMA spokesman said: "The BSI Standard lays down minimum requirements, but, bearing in mind the stresses imposed on remoulded commercial vehicle tyres, BRMA in its pamphlet (now out of print) recommended the use of these speed levels as. a maximum". We understand that in the light of the reduction of motorway speed limits for heavy commercials to 60 mph, the BRMA is now reconsidering its recommendations on speed limits for tyres. —Ed1
'Channel needs road link'
Janus suggested (CM December1) that the Railway Conversion League should support the opposition to a Channel Tunnel. The League does indeed oppose the present concept of a fixed rail-only link across the Channel. The reasons for this were given at a meeting on December 12 1972 when Mr Lionel Albert, a leading management consultant and former Canadian Pacific railwayman, described the idea of modern railways for a small island like Britain as "economically and environmentally harmful and conceptually grotesque".
Mr Albert opposes a Channel rail link asthere is no point in having it if the train has to terminate immediately for transfer of loads to road vehicles. Great Britain is only the size of a local delivery area and is surrounded by allweather ports. Where rail links are necessary, as across the Great Lakes of North America, freight car ferries are used for gaps up to 120 miles wide. If there is a need for a fixed link across the English Channel then it should be a road. The engineering problems may well be greatly simplified by the steeper gradients permissible for road transport.
As stated, the road transport organizations in the past have been careful to avoid a direct clash with the railways. Because of this they have never given any support to the League, and have thus greatly delayed acceptance of its ideas. However, it must by now be increasingly obvious to these organizations that there is no chance whatever of this country getting an adequate road system unless the League's ideas are adopted. It is therefore a welcome sign of changed thinking that the director of the British Road Federation, in a recent letter published in the Press, advocated the use of the land now occupied by the semi-derelict North London Railway for one of Greater London's most urgently needed motorway links.
ANGUS DALGLEISH, Vice-Chairman, Railway Conversion League, London SW1 5.