OPINIONS
Page 38
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
and
QUERIES
MR. ASHTON DAVIES EXPLAINS HIS REMARKS ON MONOPOLY.
[5016] In your issue dated March 26, Mr. W. Gammons refers to my "famous statement" on monopoly. This, according to him, was " we intend to have a monopoly." Great play is being made with this word monopoly, and I do not complain so long as there are riot attributed to me statements or claims which I have never made. Nowhere at any time have I said : " We intend to have a monopoly," and I challenge Mr. Gammons to authenticate his quotation.
No one will dispute that in a recent case the word monopoly" was used. What should be clearly understood, however, is that it was introduced by the opposing counsel and accepted by me only with qualifications. What were these qualifications? First, that the monopoly should be a controlled monopoly—controlled, that is, in the public interest ; secondly, that it should relate only to "trunk traffic " ; and, thirdly; that it should apply only to that part of the trunk-hauled traffic for which the railway provides satisfactory services.
It now seems that the word " monopoly " is being made a bogy and, in .connection with this case, invested with all the vices which have ever at any time attached to complete monopolies. That possibly is to suit the purpose of those who so use it. Let us look squarely at things, however. Monopolies with sufficient safeguards for the public are not bad. The Post Office is a monopoly, and an efficient and beneficial one ; the London Passenger Transport Board is a monopoly, and was created in the public interest in very recent times ; the passenger road transport industry is virtually a monopoly for its present operators ; so also is the goodshaulage industry, under the licensing machinery set up by the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. My acceptance of the word " monopoly " did not go as far as some of these existing examples.
Let me repeat, in the hope of removing misconception once and for all, that what I asked for the railway companies was only that there should be left to them the long-distance conveyance of merchandise over trunk routes, and then only subject to railways providing a satisfactory service. There are 490,000 motor-vehicles on the roads, 157,000 of these engaging in public haulage. The largest number mentioned in the courts as being displaced if transport were organized on the
n4 basis I supported was 17,000 to 20,000, and those opposing the railways were concerned to put the figure as high as possible. The railways thought the figure much less, but even to accept 20,000 as the figure assists perspective.
I would ask you in fairness to publish this letter. AsErrox DAVIES, Chief Commercial Manager, London Midland and Scottish Railway Company. London, N.W.L TAX CONCESSION FOR STEAM WAGONS ESSENTIAL.
[5017] Having driven a steam wagon for the past 12 years, I am very interested in the new concessions for those vehicles. As Mr. L. Pritchard says in The Commercial Motor dated March 26, they will be of little use without a reduction in tax. The total should not be more than £60 for a solo wagon.
I am driving a "Super Sentinel" which was made in 1923, and is a very .heavy wagon, the unladen weight being 6 tons 9 cwt. When it is ready for the road with tank and bunker full it weighs 8 tons, therefore we are allowed at present to carry a legal load of only four tons. Even with the extra two tons it may carry only six tons. My company pays £105 tax now for the solo wagon, which is a very heavy one for a fourtoe load against a petrol'or oil-driven vehicle, which can take four tons on a tax basis of £50.
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a tax reduction very soon or, as L. Pritchards says, the steamer will be doqrned. With the latest models a legal load of 7 tons 10 cwt. could be carried, but there is still the tax, which with those amounts to £90—a lot
too much. J. SMETHILLS. Swinton.
SHOULD TRADERS BE PENALIZED FOR USING A "SUPERIOR SERVICE "1' [5018] I would like to draw attention to your report on my address to the Glasgow City Business Club in your issue dated April 2, which is erroneously headed "Rail Chief Admits Superior Service by Road," and in which I am misreported as stating that road was superior to rail for long-distance work. My actual words were as follow:— "There appears to be a necessity for some division of function ; road concentrating on short haulage and acting as a feeder to the railway trunk routes, but still leaving it open to traders to use road transport for long-distance work where they consider it superior to rail, though at a higher rate in respect of the superior service."
There is no admission whatsover that road provides a superior service for long-distance work, and I should be glad if you would give the same prominence to this correction as you have given to the original report.
L. M. DINGWALL, Development Officer, London and North Eastern Railway. Glasgow, C.2.
[From Mr. Dingwall's own words we fail to see that his speech was misreported. He admits that traders may consider road transport superior to rail for, at least, some classes of long-distance work, and merely suggests that the superior service given by the road should be paid for at a higher rate, although why because a service shows itself to be more economic, it and the traders concerned should be penalized in this manner, is difficult to understand.—ED.1
IS THE COMPRESSION OF REFUSE WORTH WHILE.
[50191 Having read of the efforts being made by various refuse-collecting-vehicle manufacturers to produce a machine capable of compressing refuse during the course of its collection, I was very interested in the report of a fortnight's test made with such a vehicle at Walsall.
Attar reading the report and examining in detail the figures quoted, I am wondering whether the scheme justifies itself, compared with the more orthodox type of refuse-collecting vehicle, i.e., the side or end loader, or moving-floor type.
From the figures quoted it would appear that a saving of 3.6d. per ton has been effected. Having in mind the unladen weight of the vehicle, compared with the average pay load collected, and the complicated machinery involved, I find some difficulty in accepting the various figures given under tables " A " and "B," especially as, apart from tests, a machine of the type deScribed has not been in actual operation in this country.
My reason for referring to "complicated machinery" is that I understand the general tendency amongst cleansing officials is (owing to the unskilled labour employed in refuse collection) to operate vehicles requiring a minimum of mechanical knowledge, which in turn means that the vehicle should be relieved of as many working parts as possible.
It is mentioned that 500 of this type of vehicle are in use in Paris, but as the vehicles are free of tax in France, and are mounted on much larger and heavier chassis than are practicable for the conditions prevailing in this country, it is difficult to make a comparison with a similar type over here.
It would appear from the information given that the vehicle is capable of compressing the refuse to the extent oT a little over 100 per cent., which, when one considers the spongy nature of refuse and the height to which it is packed, seems a rather high figure of compression.
From the tax mentioned, namely £70, one deduces that the unladen weight of the vehicle is 4-5 tons, and as an average of only 3 tons 5 cwt. was collected, 1 would suggest that the ratio of unladen weight to pay load is a high one, and, that the orthodox barrier loader or moving-floor vehicle, with a tax of 50 (unladen weight 8-4 tons) would (all other things considered) produce a saving in cost per ton and be more favourably received by the maintenance engineer.
The fuel consumption appears to be remarkably low, From the figures quoted, 51d. per hour taken over the 82 hours, and assuming a price of 1s. 3d. per gallon, it would appear that approximately 30 gallons of petrol were used (this, of course, is neglecting oil), which means, for a five-day working week, 3 gallons of petrol per day. As the engine is running the whole time to operate the compression plate, such remarkably low consumption commands high praise.
The insurance of £3 13s. 6d. appears to he extremely good, and I would be interested to know what company would insure a vehicle to the approximate value of
,1,0130 (obtained from the depreciation figures quoted) for such a low sum.
The amount allocated for tyres also seems unusually low, taking into consideration the rough nature of the ground at some of the tips, also the total running weight.
of the vehicle, 7 tons 15 cwt. (based on a mean unladen weight of 4 tons 10 cwt.). This load is greatly in excess of the carrying capacity of the small 27-in. by 6-in. tyres at 18i cwt. per tyre, giving a total recom mended tyre load of 5 tons 11 cwt. I consider that at least a half-set of tyres should be allowed for each year, which gives an approximate cost for tyres of although I appreciate that some municipal authorities do buy at a very low figure.
Further, I am wondering whether some difficulty would not be experienced in negotiating a vehicle of such a weight on some of the controlled tips throughout the country, particularly during wet weather when the surface is soft.
The maintenance figure of R50 per annum can, I assume, be only an estimated one, because, as previously mentioned, such a vehicle has not been in actual use in this country, and I believe the machine concerned has been on test only since the Public Health Conference at Southsea in June of last year.
On referring to table B, I find that the labour costs are low, as for a 41-hour week (this being the basis of the test), and assuming a mean figure from the number of loaders quoted, it would seem that the loaders' wage bill per week would be £8 12s. or 3s. per loader.
I also cannot quite understand the variation in the two figures given for the weight of refuse per load. One figure is given as 2 tons 12 cwt., whilst in table B it is shown that the average weight for full loads is 3 tons 5 cwt. Does this latter weight refer to the actual figures obtained at Walsall, or is it the maximum weight the vehicle is capable of collecting?
The compression of refuse is, in the Minds of both cleansing officials and manufacturers, a very debatable problem, and it is essential that all figures published should be extremely accurate and set out in detail instead of being summarized ; otherwise it is most difficult for a correct comparison to be made.
From a hygienic point of view, this type of vehicle is in the same category as the moving-floor machine, and any advantage to be claimed is only in "cost per ton."
In connection with the compression of refuse, it would be interesting to know the effect produced by tins from places where a baling press is installed, and if any difficulty would be experienced in sorting these from the remainder, of the refuse. T. W. TrussoN. Thames Ditton.
CHARGES FOR A TIPPING JOB.
[5020] As a regular reader of The Commercial Motor, will you please advise me as to what charge to make for carrying ffiaterial the following distances: 20 miles, 16 miles and 8 miles. The loads are obtained from hoppers, the operation occupying half an. hour and the work involves direct tip at the destination. I use a Bedford tipping lorry and usually carry between four
and five tons. E. BALE. Burton-on-Trent.
Elbe charges you should make per ton for the conveyance of the material areas follow miles, 6s. 9(1. ; 16 miles, Ss. 6d.; 8 miles, 3s. 111.—S.T.R.1
DIMENSIONS OF SIGNS ON AMBULANCES.
[5021] Could you inform us if there is any regulation as to the dimensions of the glass fitted to the illuminated ambulance sign which is usually fitted to the front of an ambulance above the screen? One of our clients informs us that he has been stopped by the police, who informed him that it should be 18 ins, long by 4 ins.
deep. BODYBUILDERS. Batilgey.
[We understand that there is no regulation governing the dimensions of ambulance signs. It would be interesting to know what authority the police have for informing your client that a sign should be of a certain size.—En.]