OPINIONS
Page 46
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
and
QUERIES
USERS' SATISFACTION WITH WELL-KNOWN BRITISH VEHICLES.
[5333] As regular readers of The Commercial Motor we were interested in your article describing a haulier's experience with a certain make of vehicle and we thought that you might be interested in our experiences with the British-made Commer lorry. As part of a fleet we run six of these vehicles, comprising three 3-tonners and three articulated models.
Of the 3-tonners, a 1936 model has completed 42,000 miles without being decarbonized and it still runs very sweetly. A 1937 model was decarbonized at 36,000 miles, the valves being found in perfect condition. Both these vehicles are on a contract and have not lost an hour for any mechanical breakdown and the oil consumption of both is negligible.
Of the articulated vehicles two are 1934/5 models with Dyson trailers carrying 7-8 tons, one has done 54,000 miles and the other 62,000, neither having been rebored. They are still not "oil eaters" but both are due for overhaul.
The third articulated machine is a recent acquisition, purchased at the Commercial Show of 1937, and is an LN5 with Carrimore trailer loading 10 tons daily. This gives a petrol return of 9.5 m.p.g.
The new vehicle has run only 5,000 miles, but so far it has given us every satisfaction. So pleased are we with Commer vehicles that it is our intention ultimately completely to standardize our fleet of 20 vehicles with this make.
STEVE EASTMEAD, London, N.7. For Steve Eastmead Ltd.
CO-OPERATION ON POLITICAL MATTERS ESSENTIAL.
[5334] I feel bound to call attention to what I consider to be an extremely misleading letter by Mr. W. Gammons, published in your issue of April 15.
We know that we have heard of Mr. Gammon's antipathy to combination of any kind in the roadtransport industry and to our co-operating so that we may become stronger, but when he quotes a case in which I was concerned some years ago, where the railway companies by highly unethical means caused great loss to my shareholders, as evidence in support of his contention, he is directly misleading your readers. Whether by ignorance or by intent, I would like to know.
The fact is that the Acts of Parliament passed since those days and of which we have every reason to complain, would, in fact, prevent any such action of the railway companies in view. They could not do these things now, so that Mr. Gammon's letter amounts to nothing.
I would prefer to think that Mr. Gammon's effusion is prompted by ignorance, for if I am rightly informed, B38 he is engaged as managing director of a clearing house, or freight agency, acting as a middleman between the trader and the road haulier. If this be so he is not a transport man at all, and it is difficult to understand why he interferes gratuitously in our affairs, unless upon the assumption that by co-operating hauliers might be able to cut out the middleman who generally gets most of the profit.
I submit that nobody in these days can seriously doubt the absolute necessity of co-operation in the industry upon political matters, so that we may form a definite view point and policy for the industry as we are doing, and make this forcibly known to the Government. Still more is .there need for co-ordination for business purposes, because the enormous waste caused by haulage being carried on by small, un-coordinated units, cries to Heaven for remedy, and meantime gives our competitors opportunities which they never would have, if the industry were properly organized.
It has always been a pleasure to know that you, Mr. Editor, have always been ready to champion this oppressed and harassed industry, and in pursuance of that helpful policy, you and I can jointly claim parenthood of what is now the largest trade association [Associated Road Operators.—Ed.], which was formed to help the industry to become stronger.
Long live our joint offspring.
London, N.W.1. E. B. HUTCHINSON.
STRONG SUPPORT FOR OUR "NO SALE" POLICY [5335] It is said that the use of real logic has the effect of making an issue appear childishly easy. I use the word "real" since there is so much of the other kind which does not stand up to close examination.
The logic used by S.T.R. in his articles, however, is always unassailable and never more so than in the recent splendid advice proffered to those hauliers who have been invited to sell their businesses.
In fact, he has made the issue so clear that there is very little left to say in support. True, he has undertaken a formidable duty in thus warning the industry, since it is not easy for a small, and often struggling, business to turn away from gold-bags dangled in front of it.
This much has to be considered : However badly a business may be doing at the moment, whatever difficulties beset its owner, there must be actual or potential value to it for it to attract high-finance. Is it not, therefore, wiser for the haulier himself to gain the full benefit of those assets?
I know that if I were on the point of advertising my business for sale, discouraged by its slow progress, the incidence of interest by financial experts would immediately cause me to abandon such gloomy thoughts. The very thought that they saw profit in it would cheer me and cause me, too, to look for the bright lining to the clouds espied by them from the financial heights and hitherto missed by me.
To sum up haltingly what S.T.R. has said expertly : However tempting any offer may be, let the haulier look at it very carefully before acceptance. In fact, the more tempting it is the more is shown the potential value of the business.
If money be " tight " the very fact of such interest being shown is a good form of approach to a bank for a loan to tide over the difficult period. This being so, if a bank be prepared to accept this doctrine, it even more clearly illustrates that what is easy to sell should also be easy to keep.
A personal note in conclusion to thank those who wrote on the siAlject of "Is Road Transport Lethargic?" Alas! the question remains unanswered. Mr. Gammons and another correspondent appear to have been indulging in a little friendly badinage in which the former gentleman can be relied upon to look after himself, but I still long for the day when the industry will be strong enough to resist all designs upon it, political and financial ; when the associations will either combine or cease sitting on the fence and come down to a really militant policy. May that day come very soon.
Bournemouth.
THE ACT DEFEATS ITS PURPOSE.
[5336] Would you allow me to correct what might be a somewhat misleading statement in the report of the speech I made at a dinner at Poole which appeared under the above heading?
In the first instance, the reference to B licence holders should have been C licence holders, as it is these who have increased to such an extent, although the number of A licences has actually decreased.
The report of my alleged advice on A.R.P. work was also not quite correct, because this Association has already volunteered, both nationally and locally, to assist in every possible way through the supply and operation of vehicles. It was for this reason that I advised members not to dissipate their energies in other directions, but in any emergency scheme to volunteer in the capacity in which they could be of the greatest use, namely, the supply and operation of vehicles.
London, S.W.1. ROGER W. SEW1LL, National Director, Associated Road Operators.
SHOULD THE ASSOCIATIONS VET FINANCIAL SCHEMES?
[5337] I read recently in your paper that the C.M.U.A. denies working in conjunction with the A.R.O. in vetting the various financial schemes now overhanging our industry.
I must apologize to you for this misunderstanding. Apparently I have been given a false impression, but, all the same, I very sincerely regret that what I wrote is not true, because I would like to have thought that the two associations were, in actual fact, working together on such a vital matter.
Am I to take it that the C.M.U.A. does not appreciate the dangerous possibilities of mal-finance, and does it deny that it is its duty to scrutinize something which might completely wreck the life's work of hundreds of its members ?
London, S.E.9. RUSHOLNI BROWN, Director.
For Eltham Transport Co. Ltd. THE LEGAL PROBLEM OF CONTAINER-TYPE BODIES.
[5338] Is it legal to fit on to a platform-bodied vehicle which weighs under 3 tons a container body which is wholly detachable, and use this container as a cattlecarrying vehicle without removing the container for loading and unloading, and still state the unladen weight of the vehicle to be under 3 tons? This question has arisen in the course of my duties as a commercial-vehicle salesman, when a discussion ensued after an opinion had been expressed.
If in fact it be legal there seems to be no limit to the weight of a container wagon as long as the chassis is strong enough to carry the load imposed upon it, and I foresee many "under 50-cwt." vehicles in the 30 m.p.h. class travelling about with detachable bodies weighing anything up to 2 tons.
The point in question, however, concerns an operator who would genuinely use his vehicle for three or four purposes during the week, one of which would be carrying cattle, another fruit and vegetables and the third coal. It is obvious that the separate body would be removed for the latter part of the business.
Haverhill. F.H.U.
[We cannot say what decision would be arrived at by the Courts, but it is our considered view that a container capable of being lifted on and off a vehicle with its load is not included in the unladen weight, whether the container belongs to the registered owner of the vehicle or not. Any other type of additional body loaded temporarily on to the main body need not be included in the laden weight unless it belongs to the registered owner, the main intention of the section being that in cases where a vehicle is sent to a factory or works to pick up a load in a container, then the complete container and load would be treated as part of the laden weight. In the case of an alterus.tive body placed on a chassis, and not as an addition to the existing body or"platform, then the heavier would have to be considered as part of the unladen weight. We art afraid that, in the case you quote, the authority will certainly require the operator to pay on the heavier unladen weight. We may add that the officials themselves are dubious regarding the actual interpretation of the section concerning this matter in the Finance Act, although the intention seems to be that which we have stated.—En.)
MEDICAL INSPECTIONS FOR DRiV.ERS ?
[5339] Before considering further the desirability of placing another restriction, on commercial-vehicle drivers, by the institution of periodical medical inspections, it would be no more than reasonable to enquire what proportion of road-traffic accidents can, in fact, be attributed to drivers being physically or mentally below par. Unless that can be shown to be considerable there would seem to be no justification whatever for this proposal--other than the obvious one that it would relieve any unemployment that may possioiy exist among the
doctors. F.J. Banbury.
THE SUCCESS OF A REQUEST.
[5340] I am writing to thank you for your assistance in giving publicity to the letter in which I asked for films on loan.
I have had a very gratifying response, and my film list is immeasurably improved in consequence.
Reading. J. B. HEwrrsox, Hon. Secretary, Reading and District Engineering Society.