The New Ministry and Motor Transport.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHEN THE NEW Ministry of Transport gets to work, one of the first jobs of the Department directly concerned with road transputt will be to review the law as affecting the use of motor vehicles, and to endeavour to simplify and coordinate_ it and to make it as little as possible restrictive of future development on an economic basis.'
The new Ministry will have a great opportunity and the line it adopts in this matter will give us a fairly clear indication as to whether it is really proposed to make the fullest possible use of all means of communication or, as some of us have feared, to protect railway interests at all costs.
Hitherto, there has not been a sufficiently close and definite connection between those responsible for the building, maintenance and improvement of roads and those concerned with the operation of transport upon the highways. There has been too much tendency to consider road interests and vehicle interests as inherently antagonistic. As a matter of fact, the road and the vehicle are coMplementary to one _another. Without the vehicle the road is useless. Without the road the vehicle is next door to useless.
We do not find a railway refusing to increase the weight of its locomotives or rolling stock merely in order to keep down the cost of maintaining the permanent way; we do not find a motor haulier keeping his vehicles in the garage because his repair department informs him that this is the best way of reducing the cost of maintenance. The road and the vehicle must be regarded as two sides of one organization and we must abandon, once and for all, the idea that it is good enough if we merely maintain the roads and also maintain such regulations as may have been necessary in the past to prevent the roads suffering undue deterioration.
Roughly, the problem before the Ministry is this. Is it possible to increase the welfare and wealth of the nation by increasing the expenditure on the nation's. roads? If so, then the work must be done.
In this connection it is to be observed that if we spend money on improving the roads we are doing it in order to fit them better to carry modern traffic: Road improvement, to be financially beneficial to the nation, must be accompanied by a steady withdrawal of restrictions upon the use of motor vehicles. If we regard road improvement merely as a capital expenditure designed to reduce subsequent useless expenditure on road maintenance, we shall fail to progress with the necessary rapidity. As our roads improve so we should permit the use of the heavier road vehiefes or allow higher speeds for vehicles of existing capacity. Someone in the Ministry should be set to study the problem in figures. _What is the tonnage annually carried on Our roads ; how many ton-miles of work are done in the year ; what saving per ton-mile could be effected by a given increase in speed or in axle weights ; what is the aggregate saving to be anticipated from,such an increase?
On the other side of the balance-sheet we have to reAon the interest on capital expenditure involved in order to make possible the relaxation of the present limits of axle weight, or speed, or both.
We are convinced that, if the subject were studied from this point of view, it would be found that we have by no means reached the limit beyond which weights and speeds cannot be increased to the marked advantage of the nation as a whole.
. Putting the Trailer on a Commonsense Basis.
ANOTHER BIG opportunity for the new Ministry in connection with desirable changes in the law, lies in a-consideration of the more widespread use of trailers behind vehicles designed to carry loads on their own platforms.
' The present law affecting trailers is, as we have stated on more than one occasion, nothing short of ridiculous. The absurdity of the five-mile speed limit when applied to all trailer combinations has been demonstrated once and for all by the free and easy way in which the Government itself has broken the regulation time and again during the war. All of us have seen light lorries with light trailers in Government service travelling at well over 12 miles an hour in London streets and, if many accidents have been occasioned by excessive speeds, they have certainly not been sufficiently numerous to excite comment. , Particularly among the lighter classes of motor vehicle there are many that are used for the carriage of miscellaneous goods of considerable bulk but insignificant weight. It is often impossible to load such vehicles up to their full carrying capacity. This makes for poor economy and the use of the trailer is the obvious solution of the trouble.
As regards heavier vehicles, such_ as the three to four-tanner, trailers could undoubtedly be much more widely employed with _great economic advantage. In these cases, the purpose would be, generally, to increase the weight Of the useful load rather than its bulk.
The use of the trailer for such .`tt,. purpose would, have its natural limitations inasmuch as where roads' 023 are difficult and gradients severe thee engine power would not admit of a heavily loaded trailer being drawn. Where road conditions are good and surfaces are level, the use of the trailer would not introduce any appreciable element of danger.
At the present moment trailers are definitely discouraged 'because the speed limit, when they are drawn, is so low that the addition of a trailer actually decreases the working capacity of the vehicle. Moreover, we have no legal machinery for differentiating between the ordinary trailer and the improved types not suffering from the same disadvantages.
Thus, improvement is discouraged, 'because the more refined trailer probably costs more and still cannot be used to greater advantage.
The whole position is very. bad and needs itoniediate review, and the new Ministry will be doing good work if it takes this matter up and puts the use of trailers on to a commonsense basis.
The Duty on Commercial Vehicle Spirit.
WHEN THE DUTY was 'first imposed on petrol consumed as motor spirit, threehalfpence per gallon was charged in respect of all spirit used in commercial vehicles. ,In 3915 when for war purposes, the duty was raised, an increase of 100 per cent. was made, bringing it to threepence per gallon. In the case of spirit used in motor vehicles, other than commercial vehicles, these duties were, of course, doubled in each casesand in addition an extra tax of sixpence per gallon was imposed, which it is expected by some will be continued by the forthcomieg Budget in the form of an increase of the original duty. The increase of 100 per cent. made in 1915 was a serious tax upon industry, affecting, as it did, every commercial vehicle, including motor omnibuses and motor cabs, and any further increase now would be a severe handicap, if not actually disastrous, when regard is paid to the large additional charges which will have to be met owing to the increase of wages and the introduction of the 48-hour week. Any attempt, therefore, to impose a further increase must be opposed strenuously. We are not aware of any such proposal, but there is always the possibility that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in drafting the Budget resolutions, may not specifically exempt the commercial vehicle from any proposed increase of duty, unless his attention be drawn to the needs of the case.
Nearly £4,000 Required.
THE REVERSE in the Court of Appeal in the "extraordinary traffic" case has, we are glad to note, not acted in discouragement of the National Council of the Commercial Motor Users Association. The Association shouldered the action brought by the Weston-super-Mare U.1).0. against Messrs. Henry Butt and Co., Ltd., simply and solely in the interests of commercial vehicle users, and in the full knowledge that it would be necessary to carry the casesto the House of Lords. That the case must be taken to the highest court follows from -the fact that the decision, given in 1893 by the Court of Appeal in Hill v. Thomas. is, at present, dominating the legal situation, whilst,' since that date, there have been such developments in road transport methods as to render the decision inadequate, in-so far as the position of -motor transport is concerned; It was, probably, fair to say in 1893 that an exceptional increase in the volume of traffic, such as substantially to alter and increase the burden imposed by ordinary traffic on the road, where there had been no revolutionary and universal change in the mode of road losomotion, should be regarded as constituting "extraordinary traffic." But, very soon after the date of that decision, there commenced an entirely new era in road transport. The horse-drawn vehicle was rendered obsolete (except for certain classes of work) by the introduction of practical systems of applying mechanical power to road haul age and, with the increased efficiency thus obtained the volume of traffic carried by the roads has mater ally increased. That increase is inevitable and natural. To maintain, as the decision given in 1893 has compelled the Chancery Court,and the Court of Appeal to maintain, that the change in the mode of locomotion cannot' be taken into account is to put a severe check on progress ; is virtually to say, that we cannot be allowed to advance and, thereby, to keep pace with cempeting nations—which is absurd.
Motor traffic, with its greater efficiency and reliability, its many advantages, is now the ordinary traffic of the roads, and our definition of "extraordinary traffic" has now to be revised. That revision may possibly be effected in the final Court of Appeal, when no further action may be necessary. But, failure there would pave the way for new legislation to meet the new conditions of road traffic. The sum of 210,000 will probably be required to cover the cost of the defence and appeals and of this, 26,300 has been subscribed or guaranteed. Further subscriptions and guarantees are, therefore, being asked for by the National Council. A prompt and generous response is the right and proper course for all concerned in the welfare of the heavy vehicle movement.
One Engine—Three Chassis.
HE EXTENT to which standardization can be adopted in connection with the manufacture of motor vehicles will, in all probability, never be agreed. That foremost and notable apostle of the creed, Henry Ford, is now, if report be correct, declaiming the faults of his once vaunted product, although his motives may not the, entirely above suspicion.
Economical production, however, is largely dependent on the quantity which can be produced in a given time, and this is a condition which is more and more emphasized as the price of labour rises. Quantity, again, is dependent to a high degree on the amount of standardization which is allowed. Munitions experience helped to force home this lesson to reluctant British manufacturers. The need to provide adequate employment for a vastly inflated factory and equipment has completed the process in most cases. Thus, we find that several of our leading manufacturers have, on this account, entirely reversed their pre-war manufacturing poll. cies. In the old days, almost every maker made almost very conceivable size of chassis. "All kinds and all sizes: never mind the high prices" was the motto, and, then, it served. The policy now is to concentrate on one or two only., of the size and type ?lost suitable to the factory equipment, leaving vehicles of other dimensions to others whose works may be better fitted out to manufacture them. Clearly the next step in this organizing nrocess is to endeavour to reduce the number of different components necessary for the already limited range of chassis ; to arrange for suitable combinations of engines, gearboxes and axles, so that from the parts designed to suit, say, two -chassis, three may be made without calling for further expenditure on patterns and tools, besides widening the scope and market for the products, and increasing, by standardization, the productive capacity ofeUhe works. By the use of a minimum of differentunits, we obtain this, through suitable assembly, a maximum of divergent objects. Perhaps the simplest method of attaining this end, in the case of `•!. automotive" products, is to use the identical power unit in different types of vehicle. This method, too has the advantage of having been tried, and ofthaving proved successful. Most of our readers will recall the interest created at one of the early Manchester commercial vehicle shows by the White two-ton chassis, which 'embodied the engine already familiar to us in the touring can of the same make and name. That must be nearly a decade ago now, yet we believe the White Co. is still following the practice—a sure sign of success. Now we have a British concern of even greater eminence than the American, to wit, Austins, proposing to use the same design of engine—so far as its principal details are concerned—in a touring car, an agricultural tractor, and a commercial vehicle. All three Should be, if the source is to maintain its reputation, of first-class quality. Is-it wise thus to attempt to suit the fine-lined, high-speed light touring ear engine to the needs of the rough and tumble tractor and the no less rudely-used commercial chassis? Example, as quoted above, says yes ; but what of precept?
'We are told that the power unit is the outcome rather of aeroplane engine: experience, based on performance under the of strains to which machinery is subjected, and -to which the most uphill and arduous commercial work is mere child's play. It is certain that, at any rate, the experi ment, if such it may be called, is attended with all the factors which should make for success. Moreover, we could ourselves, with equal facility, give conclusive and apparently unanswerable arguments in favour either of the high-speed small and light engine, or the slow-speed rough and heavy power unit.
To dogmatize when there are such strongly held and widely-opposed schools of thought would be absurd. We can only say this. The small, quick revolution " high-efficiency " engine seems to be likely to be the ultimate design. The designer who enibodies it is,taking the long view, and this is characteristic of the maker to whom we have referred.
Those who incline to the heavy engine base their opinion largely on past experience. They claim, with some show of justice, that our workers are not yet educated to the use of the finer machine. Happily, there is room_ for both and actually only time will show the right.