DIESEL BUS IN FAVOUR

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26855, 7 October 1952, Page 10

DIESEL BUS IN FAVOUR

TREND IN BRITAIN AND U.S. GREATER DEGREE OF MOBILITY In both Britain and America the diesel bus is now replacing the trolleybus as the most favoured means of public passenger transport. Reporting to the Christchurch Transport Board yesterday on his recent visit to Britain and America, the general manager (Mr J. F. Fardell) said this trend was more marked in Britain. “There have been no new conversions from trams to trolley-bus in Britain since 1939,” he said. “In fact, some Undertakings are scrapping trolleybuses in favour of diesel buses—Chesterfield many years ago and more recently Birmingham, Darlington, and St. Helens.”

The reasons for these altered policies were: (a) high replacement cost of overhead, feeders and trolley-buses; (b) the rising cost of electricity; and (c) the desire for a more mobile form of transport. Mr Fardell said that the London Transport Executive, whose pre-war policy was to replace tramways with trolley-buses, had reversed that policy after the war and the last tram routes or those until recently running in South London had been converted to diesel bus operation. An English transport manager with experience both of motor-bus and trol-ley-bus, whose views had been supported by most other managers, had said that on balance he wpuld convert to motor-bus operation every time because of its mobility. Some, added Mr Fardell, had preferred the trolley-bus where the terrain was hilly. About six years ago when conversions were being made in American cities, the trolley-bus had been the popular choice for services where the basic headway was 10 minutes or less, said Mr Fardell. But to-day it was losing favour and the preference was towards the diesel ana propane bus. There were varied reasons for this trend, but in all cases there was one common fundamental reason—the advantages of mobility and flexibility gossessed by the motor-bus. It e switched at will to any place at any time. It could be used for charter work to bring in that welcome extra revenue so sorely needed by all undertakings in days of rising costs and falling custom. In all cities, with few exceptions, the trend was from rail to rubber, said Mr Fardell. The exceptions were in some of the larger American cities Where substantial capital had been invested in modern P.C.C. trams and the sinking of the tracks under the road surface in the centre of the city to relieve traffic congestion. In such systems trams would continue to be operated for a long time, although it was said that the tram, because of its inability to manoeuvre under modern road traffic conditions, had outlived its usefulness, particularly when the high cost of track renewal and maintenance were taken into account.

Mr Fardell gave the following reasons why most cities in America and England had changed over to trolleybus or motor-bus or a combination of both:—(a) worn-out tracks; (b) wornout trams; (c) high replacement cost of track and tram; (d) high maintenance cost of tracks; (e) the desire of the public for more silent transport; and (f) the desire of management to have a speedy flexible system.