OPINIONS and QUERIES
Page 57
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The New Act Regarded as "Unfair and Onesided." What Are the Lives of Passenger Vehicles? The Term "All-metal Coach" Generally a Mis nomer. Is a . Lowered Tailboard Included in Overall Length?
A CRITICISM OF DRIVERS' HOURS AND WAGES UNDER THE ACT.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
14284J Sir,—As a regular reader of The Commercial Motor, I would like to express my opinion of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. I think that it is an unfair and one-sided Act, as it means that a good number of drivers will have to work from one hour and a half to two hours longer per day for the same wages as -they are getting at present. For example, I was employed by a haulage contractor in this area for 10 years at a wage of 23 per week ; also a house was provided and insurance paid. This was for five 94-hour days and five hours on Saturday ; now that contractor, under the new Act, can increase the working hours to 11 per day for six days per week.
This being a country area, the wages fixed by the council now considering them will no doubt be on a lower scale.
Also why do the holders of Class C licences not come under the fair-wages clause? I have found in my experience that in many cases they are the worst offenders in respect of the long hours and low wages and conditions prevailing to-day ; it is unfair that they should be given a free hand with wages when the class A and B licence-holders are bound down. J.E. Feasmarsh.
OPERATING COSTS OF MOTORBUS, TROLLEYBUS AND TRAMCAR.
The Editor,THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[4285] Sir,—Mr. It Scott Hall's remarks on the above subject, in your issues dated February 9 and 23, are very interesting and his method of comparing costs is undoubtedly a fair one.
The difficulty of assessing some of the assumptions which necessarily have to be made must be admitted, but it seems to roe that one assumption of fundamental importance is made which is so far removed from actual experience as to render the subsequent deductions invalid.
Your contributor's figures show a life of 10 years for the tramcar, 8.3 for the trolleybus, arid 6.7 for the petrol bus respectively. In other words, the life of a petrol bus is stated to be two-thirds that of the tramcar, and fourfifths that of the trolleybus. I do not think that even the stoutest supporter of the petrol bus would attempt to make such a claim. Surely a fairer basis for the relative lengths of useful life would be, say, 12 years for the tramcar, 10 for the trolleybus, and six for the petrol bus. Even so I would set these limits for the electric vehicles from consideration only of obsolescence factors.
The longevity of the electric vehicle is notorious. One can point to many tramcars 15 years old or more, still in active use, and trolleybuses eight years old which have many useful years before them yet, whereas a petrol bus after five to six years' duty in urban conditions will not usually be fit for a great deal of further economical service.
It is true the author modifies the annual mileages somewhat in his second contribution, but many will hold that these are insufficient, especially in the case of the trolleybus, which under similar service conditions will show a greater superiority in schedule speed than is represented by the author's figures of 9, 81 and 8 m.p.h. respectively for the trolleybus, petrol bus, and tramcar.
If the figures which I suggest for vehicle life and schedule speed be adopted in place of the author's, very different conclusions will be reached regarding the relative costs of the various vehicles, and the author's curves will show the case for the electric vehicles in a far more favourable light. W. GILBERT. Ipswich.
[I am afraid that the answer to Mr. Gilbert is that I do not agree with him. I am of opinion that, taking average conditions, my figures, for both life and mileage of the three types of vehicle, represent what may fairly be expected. To refer to special instances is only to confuse the issue. If Mr. Gilbert can point to tramcars 15 years old and more,. I, in turn, can point to buses' 10 years old and more. Useful age, in the case of a transport vehicle, can be prolonged indefinitely as the outcome of well-organized maintenance. Only a few months ago there was illustrated in The Commercial Motor a petrol lorry still in active use on urban deliveries which wasfirst put into service in 1908! I cling to the view that, taking the good with the had. and considering averages, the figures and diagrams which I included in my article do accurately represent the relative values on a cost basis of the three principal types of road passenger transport vehicle.—H. Scorr HALL, M.r.A.E.]
DEVELOPING THE ALL-METAL BODY.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[42861 Sir,—I have noted with interest, in your issues of February 16 and March 16, the letters from Sheffield and Bristol re metal floors in public-service passenger vehicles.
By way of clearing the air, I may say that the term "all-metal coach," now so frequently used, is generally a misnomer, and should not be used unless and until the B39 whole coach is built of metal. There is such a design (protected) of coach which claims to be all metal, hence non-inflammable, lighter in weight than wooden or
composite-built and more economical. C. DAVIS. Gloucester.
LOADING ON THE TAILBOARD—IS. THIS EQUAL TO LENGTHENING THE BODY?
The Editor, TILE ,COMMERCIAL Moron.
T42871 Sir,—Under the Construction and Use Regulations no body is supposed to have an overhang greater than 7-24ths.
With regard to this, all our bodies as made are under the limit, but if we let down the tailboard so that we can carry coal bags on it, does this constitute an extension of vthe body, , as in this case it will be beyond the 7-24ths limit? It is quite obvious to me that it does not refer to the 'load, as, of course, timber extends a good ,deal farther in most instances, and it would not apply to .bags of coal that projected over the length of, the body, but would it refer to a tailboard when let ' down to the horizontal position? If so, should we be able to get round this particular point by always detach= ing our tailboard and putting on a special kind of loose board to take the bags? PUZZLED. Manchester. "
[If the tailboard of a vehicle be let down to a horizontal position it constitutes part of the body of the vehicle, and must be taken into account in calculating the overhang. Overhang is defined by Regulation 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1931, as meaning the distance measured horizontally and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle between two vertical planes at right angles to such axis, the one passing through that point of the vehicle (exclusive of any hood when down) which projects farthest to the rear, and other passing, in the case of a motor vehicle having two axles, one of which is not a steering axle, through the centre of that axle, with variations in the case of vehicles having more than two axles. There appears to be no doubt but that when the tailboard is in a horizontal position the end of the tailboard is the point of the vehicle which projects farthest to the rear. The fact that the hood is excluded also shows that the tailboard is not to be excluded. In our opinion -you could not get over the difficulty by detaching the tailboard and putting on loose boards to take the bags of coal,, as such boards would be regarded as being part of the body of the vehicle.—En.]