1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
The Trolleybus Championed
Page 97
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Some Pointers from an Instructive Address ty the T rolleybus Manager of an Important Manufacturing Concern AN address on "The Trolleybus in Passenger Transport" was read by Mr. Frank A. Garrett, trolleybus manager for Leyland Motors, Ltd., to the north-west centre rf the Institution of Automobile Engineers, in Manchester, on January. 26. Presiding was one of his staff colleagues, Mr. P. E. Biggar, who is centre chairman.
For town service, the speaker remarked, the trolleybus was the most popular, silent and speedy vehicle, and showed the greatest margin between revenue and expenditure. In 1924 there were 34 such buses in this country, but at the end of last year the number was 850, carrying 221,000,000 passengers per annum, over a total route-mileage of 280, with an aggregate of 24,500,000 miles covered, .and an electrical consumption of 46,500,000 units.
Of 80 municipalities operating trolleybuses, 28 recorded a net deficit on the year; others had only a slight margin on the right side—but most of the remainder had a substantial margin of profit, averaging 2428 per mile for, the year.
Analysing Wolverhampton's figures, he quoted trolleybuses as covering 2,420,000 miles, and petrol buses 2,252,000—working expenses being 10.3d. per mile for the former and 12.29d, for the latter. He next dealt with Nottingham's figures for trams, petrol buses and trolleybuses, including : —Available surplus on trams, 3.48d. per mile; trolleybuses, 5.93d., and petrol vehicles, .97d.
He added: "The indications are that the public likes the trolleybus. Where trolleybuses replace tramcars, revenue seems to increase by 30-35 per cent. When petrol vehicles displace trams revenue also increases, but by 18} per cent. I have examined many undertakings' returns, and these indicate that the trolleybus is cheaper to operate than a petrol vehicle. Anr-ther important point is that the trolleybus uses home-produced fuel."
One of the reasons why the trolleybus was not more widely adopted. said Mr. Garrett, was the necessity of obtaining Parliamentary powers. Parenthetically, he conceded that "the oil-driven bus may appear to be quite a good proposition." He urged the establishment of a uniform charge of Id. per unit for electric current instead of variations ranging from .75d. to 1.2d., as at present.
An interesting debate followed, led by Mr. E. H. Edwardes, of the South Lanes Transport Co. He maintained that to make trolleybuses popular, they must be low-priced. " As far as I. know," he added, "not one trolleybus maker in the country has gone out to design a chassis specially for the purpose."
He went on to declare that trolleybus prices were too high. Why, he asked, should this type of vehicle be more expensive than a petrol bus?