LAMBETH COUNCIL AND STREET SWEEPERS.
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A proposal to purchase two Laffiy motor sweeping machines was referred hack to the Wharf and Cleansing Committee ay the Lambeth Borough Council on Thursday (26th November) evening. The Committee, in recommending the purchase, reported that when it was reported that the War Office authorities had taken 14 of the Council's horses and vans for military purposes they had come to the conclusion that, it would be advisable for the money received therefor to be expended in the purchase of two motor vehicles for cleansing work, a proposal approved by the Finance Committee. Since then the Committee had received from the Borough engineer a report as to two types of motor sweeping machine, viz., the Laffly (for which Messrs. W. and F. Archer, the Council's contractor for brooms, act as agents), and a machine by Messrs. Thee. Green and Son, Southwark. A Laffiy was inspected by the Committee, who were much impeessed by it. Messrs. Green, who had been invited to send one of their machines for inspection, stated that their Leeds house was unable to forward a machine in time to give a demonstration, owing to the pressure of work for the War Office and to the fact that they were short-handed. The Borough engineer, however, had reported that, from information obtained from engineers of certain provincial towns, it would appear that while Messrs. Green's machine cost some £58 less than the Laffiy, the latter would best suit the Council's purpose. With regard to costs, the Cleansing Committee further reperted that from actual tests it had been found that at nighttime, when the streets are clear from traffic, the work done by the Laftly motor sweeper was equivalent to that of four horse brooms, and the comparative costs per week were : Horse brooms (four at £4 18s.), • £19 12s. per week ; Lailly sweeper, £10 per week. They, therefore, recommended the purchase of two Laffiy machines at a cost of £628 each. Councillor Iremonger wanted to know whether the Council could not deal direct with the makers of any machines they needed, instead of going to an agent. It would be more satisfactory to deal with a guarantee by a maker than that of an agent, and this was a serious innovation, and a failure in regard to. these machines would have a serious effect upon the whole policy of the Council in buying motor machinery. He proposed that the proposal be referred back, but failed to get a seconder.
Councillor J. C. Mitchell, F.C.I.S., said the previous speaker had referred to the possibility of a failure, and such an event would indeed be a serious thing at the present stage. He had urged that this matter of purchasiug motor sweepers should be brought up as part of a comprehensive scheme under which they would consider what premises they had suitable for the purpose of stalling the machines, and what type of machine was suitable for this purpose of sweeping, as well as for other motor purposes of the Council in the future. He believed the machine they were considering was excellent for the purpose it was intended to serve, but it would not do for other purposes, and he considered it was most desirable that there c24
should be, so far ae re.7ssible, standardization. Machines should be of only one ela.s, needing only one stock of parts and one method of driving. Again, in the present circumstances, it was well to consider that these machines, he believed, were made in France, and he would like an assurance that the London agents had a good stock of spare parts, while he would also like an assurance that the machines, when obtained, would receive the attention they required.
Councillor Hawes said before buying a motor machine some method should be instituted whereby employees would be induced to learn to drive and maintain motor machinery, and he suggested a scheme of bonuses for those employees who took up driving, etc. As they had the money, and the purchase of the machines was not going to displace labour (other arrangements having been made), he was not moving the reference back of the motion.
Councillor Day said the Borough engineer had given notice that men who took up the study of driving motors would receive a bonus. With regard to spare parts, he was assured there was sufficiency in the hands of the London agents of the Boulogne makers. Alderman Townsend thought it would be a, good thing to refer the motion back. He had yet to learn that France or any country, could " beat, us" in mechanical matters, and a hale delay could do no harm. Another member said if a suitable machine were made in England the Council ought not to go abroad for such. Councillor Rice advocated the passing of the recommendation on the grounds that they would be saving £1000 a year ; that the makers' agent had a good stock of spare parts; and that the matter had received serious consideration.
Alderman Hinds also supported the motion, and, with regard to standardization, suggested that they should have standardized machines for sweeping work and standardized machines for other work.
Councillor Hammond stated it was not the fault of Messrs. Green and Son that their machine was not present for trial, and suggested that it was the fault of some one in the Council. The Chairman of the Cleansing Committee urged that he had seen the Laffly machine at work, and it did splendidly. As to Councillor Hammond's suggestion, that was not correct, the fact being that Green's sent a letter to say that they could not show a machine on a certain date, and he (tho speaker) believed that they would not have been able to get a machine from the firm for some considerable time. The speaker slso contended that, from what they had learned from the provinces, the Green machine would not be suited to the work in the Metropolis. With regard to driving and maintenance, there were already ten men selected as likely to become competent. It was a case of buying two machines now or more horses, and they had decided not to purchase horses.
The Mayor then pot before the meeting an amendment that the matter be referred back for further consideration, and this was carried by a substantial majority.