Vol. 84, No. 8

Another Year of Progress

THE year 1927 was another period of progress all along the line in the utilization of the advantages of motor coach and motor truck operation by the railways. The alarm once felt by the railways at the spread or motor transportation is giving way to a recognition or the fact that it is an agency which they can themselves use to advantage. During 1927, the number of railways utilizing motor vehicles steadily increased as did the number of motor vehicles operated by them. Experimental operations proved generally successful, providing a basis for future expansion with confidence. All the signs point to 1928 as a year which will see continued progress at an even more rapid pace.

The Term "Motor Coach" Favored

THE

E announcement of the standardization of the term "motor coach" in the columns of the Railway Age, made in the Motor Transport Section of December 24, appears to have met with general favor. Letters which have been received indicate that there is no disagreement with our conclusion that the term "motor bus" should be discarded and that the term "motor coach," which is more truly descriptive of the modern highway passenger vehicle of large capacity, should be generally used. Two of the letters received commenting on the standardization of the term "motor coach" were published in the Communications column in the January 28 issue of the Motor Transport Section. The letter from the travel manager of the Literary Digest is particularly interesting and significant. It represents the conclusions of a publication recognized as one of the foremost authorities on terminology. We shall be glad

to receive other comments on this matter.

Specialists or All-Round Mechanics?

IN hiring mechanics to maintain motor coaches and motor trucks, the first question which arises is whether specialists on individual kinds of maintenance work or mechanics of general experience in all kinds. of maintenance work should be selected. Among the railway motor coach companies the rule in general seems to be to hire mechanics with a knowledge of all phases of motor coach maintenance. This is probably due to the fact that only a few railways are operating motor coaches on a large scale as yet, so that the amount of maintenance to be done on their equipment is insufficient to require the employment of more than a few mechanics. It is obvious that when only a few mechanics are needed to do the work at hand, general experience is more to be desired than specialized knowledge of the maintenance of only one part. It is not

able, however, that the larger the operation, the greater is the tendency toward the employment of specialists on various kinds of maintenance. The New England Transportation Company, which has the largest fleet of motor coaches operated by a railway, employs specialists on rear end, transmission, engine and electrical maintenance. Most of its men are mechanics of general experience but emphasis is laid on hiring specialists, particularly for the engine and electrical maintenance. The Northland Transportation Company, the second largest operator, requires general experience of all of its mechanics, but prefers specialists on the maintenance of motors in its motor unit rebuilding department. The Southern Pacific Motor Transport Company makes the point that its mechanics must have a special knowledge of the type of motor coach they will be required to handle. The advantages of this are readily apparent.

Motor Transport Division Begins Work THE first meeting of the Motor Transport Division

of the American Railway Association, which was held at Chicago last month, was a success. Not only was the attendance large and representative of all parts of the country, as well as of practically every department of the railroads, but even more important, there was a noticeable enthusiasm for the future work of the division among those attending the meeting. All of these are good signs. The Motor Transport Division has a highly important job of work to do. Enthusiasm among the membership of the division, representation of all the railways, and representation of most if not all of the departments of railroading, are essential if the division is to be successful in carrying on the work ahead of it. It might have been better if the various committees of the division had been appointed during the first meeting, so that they might have had preliminary conferences before leaving Chicago, but there is still ample time in which to appoint them and to get them actively at work in order that they may prepare reports for presentation at the Atlantic City meeting of the division in June. There is, however, no time to waste if this is to be accomplished.

coaches. The Denison bill is based on a model bill proposed by the Bus division of the American Automobile Association, although very recent reports have it that the Bus division is now in disagreement over the Denison bill and is considering drawing up another one less comprehensive in its requirements. The Parker bill is drawn along the lines of the legislation proposed by the National Association of Railway and Utilities Commissioners. As between the two, the Parker bill appears to be the more desirable. There is no valid reason why common carrier motor trucks should not be regulated in the same fashion as common carrier motor coaches. The type of regulation outlined in the Parker bill is such as to help rather than hinder the development of motor vehicle transportation.

A

As Systematizatian Becomes Necessary SMALL motor coach operation can usually be conducted with a minimum of organization and system. This follows because the supervisory officer, if he is competent, sees all his employees frequently and can by word of mouth and personal example inculcate most of the principles which must be borne in mind, without the formality of laying down rules. As an operation grows, however, systematization must grow with it. It is quite as important for the operating head of a large organization to be informed currently of performance as it is for the supervisor of a smaller operation to be so informed. With the larger organization, however, the executive cannot supervise all details, hence systematization-setting up of standard rules and reports become necessary. Such reports and rules are not easy to prepare. Unless wisdom enters into their preparation they may conceal information as well as impart it, and they entail some expense. Aside from the operating side of the business, moreover, the traffic department also has its problems-particularly on a railroad coach operation where all types of railroad tickets as well as coach tickets must be handled. The New England Transportation Company, the New Haven's pioneer coach operating subsidiary, has met the problems of keeping in smooth operation a large organization by carefully systemizing its work. Since it is the largest railroad coach operator in the country and one of the largest among all coach operators, its experience in this field should prove valuable to all growing motor coach organizations which have not yet attained its size. On another page of this issue appears the first of two articles describing in some detail the operating and traffic systems employed by this company.

Legislation-Good or Evil?

Tlegislation to HE various interests concerned in the adoption of legislation to regulate motor transportation presented their arguments to the Interstate Commerce Commission on February 10. Now all may hope that the commission may soon be able to formulate its recommendations and transmit them to Congress. Motor transport, particularly as it affects the railroads, must remain an uncertain quantity until Congress enacts some regulatory legislation, and uncertainty is the greatest obstacle to progress.

One fact stands out emphatically from the argument at Washington: that is that the railroads are practically alone in the desire to secure regulation of motor truck

February 25, 1928

service. It is difficult to believe that any such regulation can be enacted when there is so little support for it. Alfred P. Thom, seeing the trend of opinion, very wisely suggested that truck regulation might be held in abeyance pending further study, while regulation of motor coach lines could be adopted at once. Meantime a campaign of education of the public in the railroad point of view on this question suggests itself.

Concerning regulation of motor coach operation, while most opinions favored some regulation, there are still indications of vast differences in the exact nature of the regulation desired. For instance, the Bus Division of the American Automobile Association proposes that all coach lines which have been in operation for a year at the time of passage of the legislation should automatically be granted certificates.

This proposal is preposterous. Interstate regulation, if it is to be effective, cannot be less strict than existing state regulation. There are many lines now engaged in interstate operation, having entered the field after the Buck-Kuykendall decision, which interested state commissions would undoubtedly, if consistent, be inclined to force out of business. A wrong merely by one year of existence does not automatically become a right. If there is to be any "grandfather" clause in motor coach regulation at all, it ought to go back at least to the Buck-Kuykendall decision as recommended in the examiner's report.

Another equally unjustifiable stand of the A. A. A. is its objection to the regard shown for "existing agencies" in the examiners report. Its counsel said that if such regard for "existing agencies" had obtained in the past, Congress might have held up telephone service as detrimental to the telegraph, or electricity as affecting the candle and kerosene trade. The fact of the matter is that the examiner's report recommends consideration of only such an existing agency "the continuation of which is important to the community served by it." If a motor line threatens to put a rail line out of business and if the rail line is not needed by the community, then the rail line need not be considered. If, on the other hand, the rail line is necessary to the community and it cannot operate profitably with highway competition, then there is another aspect to the "public convenience" of the motor line other than the mere fact that some few members of the community desire it.

There are other points of difference, existing or potential, on proposed motor coach regulation and the varying viewpoints will doubtless have to be presented at Congressional committee hearings when legislative action gets under way. The railroads may well need all the support they can get from business men and leading citizens everywhere to insure adequate consideration for their views. Should they not organize now to secure this public support?

The Motor Transport Division of the A. R. A. can perform a distinguished service for the railroads if it will undertake to study and disseminate the facts to railroad men and the general public.

In the proposed legislation there are now unbounded possibilities for good or evil. The motor vehicle may be strengthened as an advantaged competitor; it may be forced to compete on more equal terms; its co-ordination with railroad service to the mutual advantage of all may be fostered, or endangered. Railroad earnings for years to come will be affected favorably or unfavorably by the outcome. Should not there be vigorous and prompt organized effort to make sure that this outcome will be favorable?