In Your Opinion
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Hobson's choice?
YOUR interview with Sir Donald Stokes leaves one with the impression that Leyland Motors are well satisfied with themselves. This is perhaps attributable to their profit achievement and the continued plaudits of the Press for his undoubted outstanding services to the export market.
According to Sir Donald, the operator must be prepared to wait if he. chooses the (popular) Leyland. Furthermore, anyone who buys one of the several good Continental vehicles imported into this country is paying through the nose. A case of Hobson's choice?
My own company placed an order for 6 Leyland Beavers in August 1965 and a further 6 in February 1966. We are now informed that we should receive the first three at the rate of one per month commencing March 1967. Is this an example of improved productivity?.
In the meantime, to add insult to injury, the cost has risen to date by over 6.7 per cent in 16 months. Finally, while waiting. we have been obliged to buy other makes to keep up with our Own company expansion.
This inability to standardize is uneconomic for the operator and must result in some loss of efficiency.
D. R. BAKER, MITA, AMIRTE
Braking for combinations
I WAS glad to see your full report on a recent meeting in Croydon when Mr. Crisp, of this company, spoke on the new braking and plating regulations. As you point out, this subject is of vital interest to goods vehicle operators, and at these meetings we are trying to throw some light on the implications of the new regulations.
The clarification of four important questions that your Technical Editor later gained from the Ministry is a very useful contribution to general understanding of the new requirements. But I think his interpretation of one aspect of the regulations is incorrect that relating to braking standards applicable to "existing" tractor and drawbar trailer combinations. (Column 3, on page 56 of your December 2 issue.)
For this type of combination Regulation 78 (2) is not in fact relevant, because it applies to vehicle combinations consisting of .a tractor registered on or after 1st January, 1968, and a trailer manufactured on or after that date—i.e. a "new" vehicle combination.
Regulations 78 (3) and 78 (4) refer to combinations of a "new" tractor arid an "existing" trailer and "existing" tractor with "existing" trailer respectively, each of which is to be treated as an "existing" combination. The last line of each of these paragraphs states that the tractor is to be considered as being subject to either Regulation 43 (7) or Regulation 48 (7), these being the sections applying to multi-axled rigid vehicles or articulated vehicle tractors, and requiring 40% efficiency from the service brake system, and 15% from the secondary system.
In other words, any existing tractor and drawbar trailer combination will be required to achieve the same braking efficiencies as an existing articulated combination, that is, 40% with the service brake and 15% with the secondary, regardless of the number of axles on the tractor. I should add that we have checked our reading of the regulations with the Ministry of Transport, who agree with the interpretation outlined above.
M. B. MARR, Public Relations Manager, Vauxhall Motors Ltd.
Near enough
IN REGARD to Mr. Turner's letter (C.M. Nov. 18), I think he is trying to put the cart before the horse. Vehicles of this category must slowly evolve into perfection. Perhaps Mr. Turner has not heard of the Foden Twin-Load. This consists of an eight-wheeler with a fifth wheel mounted above the rearmost axle so that a semitrailer can be towed.
This is not what Mr. Turner asks for but I think it is near enough. There is sufficient brake horsepower to comply with the new regulations (225) and there are twin payloads of 111 tons. Surely this should satisfy the haulier.
DAVID HOGGART (Age 14f), Blackfriars, Yarm-on-Tees, Yorkshire.