OPINIONS and• QUERIES
Page 50
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
"SAVE US FROM OUR ALLIES WHO SUPPORT THE ENEMY."
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[44381 Sir,—After reading the letter from Mr. Lloyd published in your issue dated November 23, candidly one wonders whether Mr. Lloyd is blowing bubbles or seeking cheap publicity. It does appear bad taste to attack opponents to an application to the Traffic Commissioners in a weekly journal, when a similar applical tion in the primary area has still to be heard.
I am sure that some of the operators referred to in Mr. Lloyd's letter are of sufficient experience and standing to be relied upon not to allow any beneficent blessing Mr. Lloyd would bestow upon the trade td slip away. definitely refrain from expressing any views on the application, the grounds of objection, or the Commissioners' views, as I do not desire to coerce anyone or even add a few tints to the picture. Mr. Lloyd hints at the possibility of the industry being still in its childhood stage. All honest view S are expressed in accordance with the light that one has upon the subject. If Mr. Lloyd believes the industry will swallow any pill, providing the right amount of sugar be applied.. I think lie will find himself sadly mistaken.
H. ALLEN, General Manager,
For Yellowway Motor Servic'es, Ltd. For Yellowway Motor Servic'es, Ltd. • Rochdale.•
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL Murcia.
[4139] Sir,—In response to the published letter of Mr. C.T. Lloyd (Finglands Hire Cars, Ltd.), iffe desire to say we feel, in the absence of a true picture being published of the objectors' side to the particular application referred to, that Mr. Lloyd's letter of complaint is a particularly unfair attack on his objectors, and as an objector in this instance, for those reasons we definitely do take exception to his letter.
We are at the same time confident in replying that it appears to us that Mr. Lloyd's obvious disappointment has apparently been caused through the application failing to slip through unopposed together with the blessing of the Traffic Commissioners.
Mr. Lloyd had an optimistic outlook, but in framing this application he failed to realize the extent to which his co-operators might be affected, or the obvious absence of road traffic control which he was asking to have granted to his company in co-ordination with a service operated by a. rail-associated concern. He should know full well that all his fellow operators on
B36 long-distance routes, and others, have had to submit to very strict control under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, since its inception.
With 7egard to Mr. Lloyd's suggested axiom, "Save us from allies who support the enemy," we desire to make it clear, that we had only one interest in contesting this application, that being the protection of our existing services between Liverpool-London, where they became affected by the proposed co-ordination and extra pickup points called for.
R. PEARSON, Liverpool. For James Pearson and Sous.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[44401 Sir,—I.can sympathize with Mr. Lloyd's indidnation at his defeat in an endeavour to economize in operation, when that was contributed to largely by the objections of other independent operators. First of all, he is properly regarding the railway as the common enemy of road transport, but he has forgotten that its road-associated companies have taken no steps to distinguish themselves as allies of the independent road-transport operators. Therefore, as things are, the first enemy to he faced by the independent is the one with whom Mr. Lloyd's company endeavoured to co-operate, and he must give due consideration to the feelings of the operator who directed his attack not against an ally, but, as he considered it, to an ex-ally gone aver, if only temporarily, to the enemy. • The Road Traffic Act has definitely limited expansion. Competitive operators, therefore, have the urge of fear to cause them to prevent another's obtaining traffic improvement which they feel certain is to be only attained at their cost. The Finglands-Majestic scheme may have meant smaller numbers of vehicles actually running, but it was doubtless regarded by others as a concentration of two organizations to support the one service and, sad as it may seem, if the economy in operation meant the continued existence of a service, at the same time as the continued full cost made the burden too heavy for a competitor, then that also would be a matter of concern to the latter.
Everyone approves Mr. Lloyd's championship of public convenience on his demand for more picking-up points. But if he obtained that benefit through lack of objectors, those very operators might be called upon to face objectors if they asked for exactly the same thing. Maybe not from Finglands, nor from Majestic, but there are other transport providers entitled to make
representations. Given success to his company, Mr. Lloyd himself rates other chances for the same thing as only " probable."
Other operators, too, recognize the need for a lead to be given towards progress in the way Mr. Lloyd says his company gave it, but there again their very fear is that the lead once gained, would be maintained, and that, no doubt, led them to declare against him. It should be clear to everybody at this stage that nothing will be granted to one operator that will disturb or unbalance what has become a settled, if not happy, state in the passenger transport world.
Mr. Lloyd cries for salvation from his friends, but the fact is that whilst he is so regarding them, they apparently were unable to construe his action as a friendly one, and I feel sure that they adopted, when they read his application, exactly the same slogan.
Personally I do feel the responsibility is with Mr. Lloyd's company. 'A. conference of all interested parties prior to the application being made would have enabled the matter to be discussed and viewed reasonably, and no doubt compensating arrangements could have been made for the good of all and to the advantage of no particular party.
I am unable to tead the mind of the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner (if I possessed that gift I should save myself the very long arguments I put before him without measurable effect), but he himself has given clear enough indications of the desirability of the presentation of an agreed programme being put forward by all those who could possibly be affected, and if an application be advanced on those lines then there is only one enemy, and a common one at that.
London, S.E.4. F. A. FLIN (M.T. Co.).
THE USE OF SPECIAL-TYPE VEHICLES.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[4441] Sir,—In your issue, dated October 12, there was a query (No. 4402) regarding special-type vehicles. The reply to this letter stated that, when a vehicle is used under the authorization of the Special Type Order, there must be at least four persons in attendance, and, consequently, these extra attendants would be necessary if the laden weight of the vehicle in question exceeded the weight allowed under the 1931 Regulations.
Was not this reply incomplete, and the latter part incorrect, inasmuch as these extra men are necessary only if the special-type vehicle, or the load carried by that vehicle, exceeds 8 ft. in overall width?
This would mean that extra attendants are not necessary if the laden weight exceeds that allowed by the Regulations providing that the vehicle or load does not exceed 8 ft. in width.
• I should be pleased if you could give me any information on the following points :
(1) If an ordinary six-wheeled vehicle carrying an indivisible load exceeds 19 tons in laden weight, does it then become subject to the provisions of the authorization of Special Types Order, or would a case of this description be illegal by reason of the fact that the load could be carried on an ordinary eight-wheeled vehicle without exceeding the allowed laden weight of an eightwheeler?
(2) If an ordinary eight-wheeled vehicle carrying an indivisible load exceeds 22 tons in laden weight, does it then become subject to this Order?
(3) May a machine which cannot, without undue expense, be divided be described as " indivisible "?
(4) Is there any ruling as to what would constitute
"undue expense "? W. WALKER, Gateshead-on-Tyne.
E38
[It is correct, as you point out, that the requirements of the Motor Vehicles (Authorization of Special Types) Order (No. 1), 1931, as to having at least four persons inclusive of the driver in attendance upon a vehicle which is used under the terms of that Order, apply only where the vehicle, or the load carried thereby, exceeds S ft. in overall width. We are advised that ordinary six-wheeled or eight-wheeled motor vehicles, or, indeed, any ordinary motor vehicle, cannot be used under the terms of the Special Types Order. Paragraph 3 of the Order states that the Minister authorizes the use on roads of motor vehicles and trailers specially designed and constructed, and used only (save as provided in paragraph 5) for the conveyance of abnormal indivisible loads, notwithstanding that such vehicles do not comply in all respects with the 1931 Regulations. Consequently, it is clear that the Order applies only to vehicles which are specially designed and constructed, and does not apply to vehicles of normal design and construction. From this it follows that it is illegal to use an ordinary six-wheeled motor vehicle for the purpose of carrying an indivisible load if the laden weight exceeds 19 tons, or to use an ordinary eight-wheeled motor vehicle for that purpose if the laden weight exceeds 22 tons. In order that a load may be described as "indivisible" it must not only be one which cannot, without undue expense or risk of damage, be divided into two or more loads for the purpose of conveyance,on a road, but it must also be one which cannot, owing to its dimensions or weight, be carried on a motor vehicle or trailer which complies in all respects with the requirements of the 1931 Regulations. We do not know of any ruling as to what would constitute "undue expense." This is a question of fact which would have to be deeided 1;ty the magistrates in any particular case--En.] SELECTING TIMBER FOR BODIES.
The Editor, TIIE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[4442] Sir,—Adverting to the article by " Timber man " in the issue of The Commercial Motor dated November 23, regarding the qualities of timber as used in motor bodies, it is essential to get beyond a superficial acquaintance with timber before arriving at a safe, certain and concrete determination of what is best, therefore I append a schedule of four kinds of timber which illustrates how the fundamental comideration of this subject should be dealt with : These conclusions have been arrived at by considering the English timber as of mature growth, felled at, the correct time of year, and naturally seasoned. I speak from practical experience when I say pitch pine is not adapted to receive paint, because it is too resinous, hence it is liable to blister, and in treating with the logs 33§ per cent, should be written off for waste in regard to sap and heart.
Pitch pine, also greenheart and teak, are withoul doubt the most suitable timbers for immersion. If tips present-day demand for timber in the building of motor bodies should continue, and soft woods are wanted, then attention might be given to silver larch as being the best value in the timber market.
I hope to refer to other materials suitable for motor bodies in another issue of The Commercial Motor.
Gloucester. C. DAVIS.