THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR. THE COMPARATIVE MERITS OF ELECTRIC TRAM CARS AND MOTOR 'BUSES.

Progress, Volume I, Issue 9, 2 July 1906, Page 238

THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR. THE COMPARATIVE MERITS OF ELECTRIC TRAM CARS AND MOTOR 'BUSES.

Mr. E. Manville's Paper before the Automobile Club, London.

In order that a fair comparison may be made, it is essential, in the first place, to realise those conditions which are of primary importance in dealing with the problem of the transportation of large numbers of the public in crowded centres. There are two such main considerations :—: — (i.) What system will provide the travelling public with the best and cheapest facilities for reaching their destinations with the least discomfort and inconvenience to the non-travelling public ? (2.) What system, whilst embodying the first requirement, is the most profitable to the promoters of the undertaking ? Dealing with the first of these two considerations, it is exactly here that the advocates of the motor 'bus have aroused the controversy between it and the electric tramway. In my opinion, the relative advantages and disadvantages of these two methods of traction may be summarised as follows :—: —

Motor Omnibuses. Advantages — (i.) Probably greater speed from point to point, owing to their being free to move about the roads, avoiding other traffic en route. (2.) Ability to vary the service from one road to another, thus enabling the most profitable routes to be ascertained without loss of capital. (3.) Ability to draw up by the pavement so as to facilitate passengers entering or alighting, without proceeding to the middle of the road. (4.) The absence of any rails in the roadway. (5.) Where the roads are exceptionally narrow, non-interference with other vehicles desiring to stop by the pavement. Disadvantages — (1.) High cost of operation. (2.) Great noise and corresponding inconvenience to other users of the road and residents. (3.) Smell, and the prevalence of the smoke of burnt lubricating oil. (4.) The evei-present danger of side-slip. (5.) The danger of fire. (6.) Vibration. (7.) Danger to other vehicle users en the highway. (8.) Unreliability.

Ei.ectrtc Tramways. A dvantages — (1.) Lowest known costs of operation. (2.) Great comfort, cleanliness, and good lighting. (3.) Comparative absence of noise and vibration. (4.) Reliability.

(q.) Absence of danger from fire and side-slip. (6.) The great improvement of the surface of the roadway. Disadvantages. (i.) Running on rails, and thus experiencing delay from other traffic. (2.) Need for passengers crossing to the middle of the road when entering or leaving cars. (3.) The need for rails in the roadway objection able to other traffic. (4.) In narrow roac l " interference with othei vehicles desiring to stop by the pavement. I have endeavoured above to enumerate those advantages and disadvantages which occur to me as inherent to the two systems of traction under consideration, and, in discussing the relative merits and demerits, it is essential not only to take into consideration the actual number of advantages and disadvantages which pertain to both systems, but also the relative value of these. It cannot be denied that, amongst the disadvantages of the motor 'bus, there are some which are of the very first importance. I refer particularly to such items as the dancer of side-slip, the prevalence of which is so well known that it requires no further comment from me ; danger of fire is one that has already asserted itself on several occasions, and though, so far, it has not led to serous accidents, as in the case of side-slip, it obviously may do so, owing to the necessity of carrying about large quantities of highly inflammable motor spirit. The first of these serious disadvantages is entirely

absent from the electric tram car, and the second one, although not entirely absent, cannot, on the rare instances when it occurs, lead to anything m the shape of danger to the public. It cannot, on the other hand, be denied but that the tiam car, when run in very narrow roads, leads to obstruction of other vehicles wishing to stop by the roadside ; also the tram cars themselves having to keep to fixed lines, are delayed by other traffic interfering with their progression. The noise, smell, and vibration of the motor 'bus, as at present constructed and operated, is daily evident to all, ana contiasts most unfavourably in this respect with the comparative quietness, modorousness and cleanliness, and steady travelling of the electric tram car. As counterbalancing the installation of rails in the roadway may be mentioned the great improvement in the paving of many roads along which tramways run. It is common knowledge to all of us that the roads leading out from the Metropolis and from other cities and towns in the United Kingdom have been kept in a most disreputable state of repair, owing to the inability of the loca] authorities to spend a sufficient sum on their upkeep outside of the centres. The principle which has been instituted in enforcing good pavmg for a portion of the road, as a penalty to be paid for the installation of the tramway system, has very largely benefited other users of the road in this direction, and it must be recollected that the tramway itself derives no advantage from the paving which it has to instal and maintain, the benefit of which accrues entirely to the other useis of the road. Last, but not least, the cost of operating an electric

tiamway system under suitable conditions is so much less than that of operating an equivalent service of motor omnibuses that both a better service can be given and cheaper fares charged to users of tramway systems running under suitable conditions than can be granted by a similar motor'bus system. Reviewing then, impartially, the statements set forth above, I think it must be conceded that the balance of advantages, both to the travelling and non-travelling public, pertain to the tramway system rather than to the motor 'buses. I should like to point out here that one of the advantages of the motoi 'bus, i.e., its ability to get from point to point quicker than a tram car, may, in the future well be turned to a disadvantage unless great care is exeicised m the control of the drivers. I allude to the abuse of that very facility of avoiding other traffic and passing it, which even now leads to great obstructions of this other traffic on the road, and which, nth the increase in the future of motoi 'buses plying on particular routes, may, if not carefully looked after, become a public scandal, and be of far greater importance than the mere presence of tram rails on similar roadways. I will not dwell furthei on the relative advantages and disadvantages of these two systems from the point of view of both the travelling and non-travel-ling public, but will assume, for the sake of argument, that they may be both regarded as equally meritorious and advantageous from all points of view, excepting that of cost, which, in that case, must prove a prevailing factor in the consideration

of which system offers the public the greater advantage, and I will now proceed to review the question from that point of view. Comparative Costs o r Tramway and Motor-bus System. The total cost, including capital charges, of operating a tramway or a motor-bus system may vary considerably according to the principles on which the services are conducted. By this I mean that the owners of the transport system, whichever it may be, can run the system only to yield them the most profit with the minimum facilities for the travelling public, or, on the other hand, can run such a system to the advantage of the public with a diminished profit to themselves. The facilities to

the public may be represented by frequency of service and cheapness of fares. With a tramway system, even not in competition with other methods of transportation, the public are to a large extent protected in these respects, since the tramway company, having a large capital invested m both rails, paving, etc., must run a sufficiently rapid service to enable the charges on capital account to be met and still leave a profit. Further, in ordei to induce the travelling public to avail themselves of the facilities offered and thus, with a rapid service, fill the cars sufficiently, the charges must be made as low as possible. On the other hand, there is no such guarantee to the public with a motor-bus service. Here the capital of the company is invested solely in the motor 'buses themselves, with the proportion of depots and workshops, and has no other consideration in capital expenditure. Under these circumstances a motor 'bus company, if allowed to operate with a free and unfettered hand, could run just so many motor 'buses, and at just as high fares, as would, in practice fill practically every seat of each vehicle. In this way it could earn very large rates per car mile, which, notwithstanding high operating costs, might leave a very handsome return on the capital embarked in the venture. The public would be the sufferers. They would always be sitting in crowded cars, and would have none of the conveniences offered by cars for the most part half empty, which is, from the traveller's point of view, a great condition of comfort, and, during the rush hours of morning and evening, when the traffic per hour is several times that of other portions of the day, there would be a total inadequacy of accommodation ; so that those unable to find room in those vehicles would have to seek other means of transit. At the same time, it must be remembered it would be open to the motor-bus company to run as many 'buses at different hours of the day as would deal with the then existing traffic. In that case, however, the interest on the money invested in those 'buses not in continual service would still have to be paid, as would also the wages of drivers and conductors employed actively for portions of the day, and it is questionable, if due provision were made for dealing with the rush traffic in an adequate manner, that any perceptible saving would be made bv the motor-bus company over the expenditure which would have to be incurred in running a fuller service at all times of the day, whilst the fact that the passengers would have, at all times of the day, to travel in crowded vehicles would make the service unpopular, and induce them to seek other means of moving about. I have purposely dealt at length with this argument, which is somewhat academical, since I have noticed that such a proposition has lately been seriously mooted in one at least of the important journals devoted to the automobile industry, and I can only suppose that such a proposition has been made from want of experience of what has occurred in the past in dealing with traffic problems. If regarded from all practical points of view, it is certain that no monopoly of traffic will be permitted in any large town where such conditions could arise, and that if such a monopoly were to be granted, it would be coupled with regulations as to the services to be run, and the capacity of the vehicles, thus ensuring adequate protection for the public. On the other hand, if motor 'buses are started in competition with tramways already existing, or if tramways are started, under suitable conditions, in towns where motor 'buses already exist, it is certain that the motor 'bus, if worked on such principles, will cease to exist. This is an opportune moment at which to refer to the only case I know of in which such conditions have occurred. Hastings, as you are aware, was served by a system of motor 'buses, which I can, from personal observation, state were kept m good condition, and must have been a source of satisfaction to their shareholders, since they paid, [ believe, at the rate of 15 per cent, per annum. Until last year they had no opposition to face from tramways. In the middle of last year the first section of a tramway system, to which my firm were engineers, was put into operation, at normal fares, the result being that, long before the tramway system was completed, and within a very few months of its start, the motor 'bus system was entirely discontinued, and those identical motor 'buses are now, I believe, employed in the London traffic. I have seen, time after time, not only in the daily Press, but also in the automobile journals, predictions that it is certain tramway systems will be superseded by motor 'buses. There are not many towns in England where motor omnibuses have established themselves before tramway systems have been installed. Hastings was one of the few places, another is Torquay. \t Torquay also a good motor 'bus service has been firmly established, and, under the conditions of its working, is paying well. Electric tramways are now being installed at Torquay, and we shall shortly see whether history, as represented by .Hastings, will repeat itself there.

I do not wish it to be thought that I do not believe in the future of the motor omnibus, or that there is not an extensive and growing field for its adoption, and I have a few words to say on this aspect of the question hereafter, but I do want to convince those who are interested in the subject, that no amount of newspaper advocacy will keep a motor 'bus on the road one day longer m any particular district than its financial results in that district warrant. London is pre-eminent amongst large cities as a place where great success may be looked for in the use of motor 'buses, besides the numerous other districts in which tramways will not serve the public so well. In considering how I could best put before you the financial aspect of the two systems, I came to the conclusion that my purpose would be best served by taking the actual results achieved in a town of medium size running an electric tramway system, and constructing a motor-bus balance sheet on the same lines, as if, in fact, the town m question were completely served by motor 'buses instead of by tramways, and I have taken the town of Leicester as the example in question for two reasons :—: — (i.) That it is a manufacturing town with a population of about 228,000, and is, therefore, neither one of the largest nor one of the smallest towns of this description. (2.) Because the Corporation of that town, which owns the tramways, determined that no expense should be spared in making the tramway system as perfect as possible, with the result that

thrown upon it to the extent to which the steam engine is capable. And again, m the case of petrol, the running cost is commercially prohibitive ; whilst in the best grade steam motor wagon the cost of fuel by the use of coke has been brought down to a minimum. To be commercially successfu m a hilly country like ours, it is essential that : i st. The engine and boiler must be overpowered, or there will be considerable loss in hill climbing power, and stoppages on the road. 2nd. That the boiler must be so placed that the driver shall at all times and under all conditions have an uninterrupted view of the road, or accidents are sure to occur in the traffic of our towns or the narrow and curved roads which exist in our country districts. 3rd. Its construction must be such that it will stand the strain of rough and steep roads, and enable repairs to be easily, and, therefore, economically made. 4th. It must be as far as possible noiseless and smokeless. With such a motor wagon the time will not be fai distant when the horse as a tractor of heavy loads will be a thing of the past, the congestion of our traffic will be minimised and our streets will be cleaner and more sanitary than at present. All the motor wagons at present in use in Wellington are of the five-ton tipping class, and carry a load of 5 tons. When we see these day after day carrying loads up grades at a pace impos-

the capital charges to be met are heavier m proportion than would be the case if a good but not so expensive a system were installed.