1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152 
New System of Taxation Needed
Page 85
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
1T is time the existing excise licensing system for goods vehicles was replaced by a completely new one designed to assist Britain's economy. The present system is far too rigid, is out of date, wasteful, and does not encourage investment by transport interests in the specialized types of vehicle which are necessary in this space age.
A glaring example concerns the movement of hydrogen. In a case I have in mind the gas is carried in six highpressure cylinders mounted on a semi-trailer drawn by a 15-ton tractive unit. The whole outfit falls within the 24-ton-gross category. When the cylinders are filled to capacity under pressure their contents weigh about 21 cwt. —the equivalent of 31 gallons of diesel fuel. Because hydrogen can be carried only in this type of cylinder, the unladen weight of the vehicle amounts almost to the gross figure, and the excise duty is out of all proportion to that paid on a normal 24-ton-gross goods vehicle. At present the annual duty on a vehicle of 5 tons unladen is £70 a year, but for a vehicle of 23 tons 17+ cwt. unladen it is £450 a year.
There is no reason why a special schedule of excise duty should not be devised to apply to goods vehicles with a gross unladen weight of, say, 12 tons or more. This would ensure that any operator introducing special vehicles would not have to pay a figure out of all proportion to the payload„ and would not put him in an unfair position in relation to normal 24-ton-gross models weighing 7-8-tons unladen. This type of vehicle can run all day, and night for a year, fully loaded, and not have to pay more than .E130 in excise duty, although it would be operated at 24 tons gross all the time.
A maximum duty of £12 10s. a year is levied on all cars, irrespective of their size, so why not a ceiling figure for goods vehicles of, say, £200 a year? This would at least ease the present burden of those who wish to specialize in unusual loads. I welcome the opinions of other readers, South Harrow. W. H. HOWE.
Leave Farmers Alone AS a bona fide farmer, who operates strictly within the term's of his so-called " F licence, may I comment on Mr. G. W. Irwin's letter (The Commercial Motor, December 25) in which he calls for a repeal of licensing concessions to farmers.
live in an area where farming is highly mechanized and efficient, and many farmers operate their own vehicles solely in connection with their own holdings. There are also numerous farmers who operate large haulage businesses, and I am sure they, like myself, object to the constant attacks on farmers and their supposed wrongdoing under the concessions granted to them by law. If a farmer chooses to haul his own produce he should be allowed to do so, and if he is offered a concession he should be permitted to take advantage of it. I, for one, would carry my own produce even if there were no special licence duty. Far too many idle hours are spent in road side cafés by hauliers' drivers. The vast majority of farmers carry purely for the purpose of their own farms. and are not cut-rate hauliers.
Agriculture creates vast tonnages of goods which need to be hauled on to or off the farm at all times of the year. Although many farmers provide their own transport, there
are many more who rely on hauliers, and it would be a short-sighted policy for professional carriers to agitate for the repeal of concessions to their customers.
Many fellow farmers in this area are regular readers of The Commercial Motor, and I am sure they will support me in my opinions.
Wood Dalling, Norwich. J. W. PERRY-WARNES.
Trams are No Laughing Matter
I STRONGLY disagree with the comment by "The Hawk" (The Commercial Motor, December 11), "At a time when so much human suffering cries out for relief, it requires cool nerve to establish a fund to save a tram." Carried to its logical conclusion this argument would mean the shutting down of every museum and all study of the past. Government and industry alike would suffer, if this ever came to pass. The ansiver to "The Hawk's" comment is contained in the résumé of the paper by Mr. R. M. Robbins, of London Transport, in the same issue.
In their relatively short life, trams have had a tremendous effect on the distribution of population and industry, as future economists will no 'doubt appreciate. Sir Patrick Dalian, one of the foreniost living Scotsmen, said recently that it was the tram service which had made it possible for Glasgow to become such a great engineering and shipbuilding centre and to play such an important part in two major wars, because no other agency could have moved the workers so well and so cheaply.
In passing, may I observe that the congestion caused by trams in Glasgow is greatly exaggerated. A picture published in The Commercial Motor on November 13, showing a view of Hope Street, revealed the real culprits—parked cars and delivery vehicles blocking the near-side lane.
Birmingham, 27. C. S. DUNBAR.
Association Denies Interference
ISHOULD make it clear that the newly formed Road I and Rail Association has no intention whatever of attempting to exert pressure for the restriction of road transport. We unreservedly believe in the right of freedom of choice being exercised by all transport users.
The founders of the Association realize that, as private citizens, they may be accused of being " busybodies " in the sense used in your leading article of December 18; but they are sore that no one would question their right, again as private citizens, to 'occupy themselves with matters of public interest and importance.
There is widespread concern in the country and in Parliament at the present state of the country's inland transport system. The Road and Rail Association, as an independent body, is hoping to make a useful contribution to public knowledge of the facts involved. Its fact-finding operations and conclusions will be free of any kind of special pleading or bias and the last thing the Association wishes is to "tread on the toes," usurp the functions or offend the susceptibilities of' the many long-established trade associations and interests concerned. What we are concerned to do is to bring some independent analytical thinking on to a problem of vital importance to the nation.
London, W.I. PATRICK THURSFIELD, The Road and Rail Association.