FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1963
1963 - 1068.PDF
FLIGHT International supplement, 24 January 1963 Air-Cushion Vehicles famous firm and builders of the D.2), all of which have failed. Literally dozens of companies have gone to the wall. The last abortive attempt at a waterbus service ended as recently as ten years ago. Even the giant London County Council, in 1905, after private enterprise virtually ceased to function, introduced thirty beautiful steamboats and a wonderful service, but gave up after less than three years' operating. This service of "penny steamers" was confined to the area between Hammer smith and Greenwich, and on weekdays commenced with workmen's boats at 6.30 a.m., continuing throughout the day at 15-minute intervals from 7 a.m. until 6.30 p.m. and beyond. From Westminster to Greenwich the journey took only 45 minutes. The vessels were paddle boats, some 130ft in length, each with a capacity of 530 passengers; they called at some 23 piers convenient to the public. The fares basis was only Id per stage. Nevertheless, a century ago, in the hey-day of Thames steamers, it is said that, including the ferry services, some 20m of passengers annually used the river from source to sea; and in the strict London area (and London had nothing like the population it has today) even in the 1880s, when river travel was waning, about 5m passengers were carried annually. But the operation was not at all profitable in spite of these numbers and the river boat services continued to decline. Full Circle? The great majority of passengers in the early days of steam boats used the services as a serious form of transport; but there was, throughout this develop ment, increasing competition by virtue of extension and rapid advance of rail ways, tramways and omnibus services— all able to operate without the hindrance of Old Father Thames' whims and fancies—tides and passenger exposure to weather to name only two difficulties. It does seem a possibility, how ever, that with the introduction of speedy hovercraft, and with the increas ing congestion of London streets, influence could develop so that the circle is completed and there is a return to the use of the waterway. Many important aspects of the introduction would need to be con sidered. In decades past a greater proportion of the industrial activity of London was centred around the river; today, with the expansion of factories, business premises and housing all over the London area and beyond, the river is no longer quite the partially direct route it was from many dormitory areas to places of employment. In the majority of instances the necessity to make a journey from place of resi dence or work to river access points would be inevitable. Furthermore, although there is little doubt that hovercraft of the Denny D.2 type would make the journey from point to point quickly, without much noise or disturb ance, there is the problem of embarking and disembarking. For this operation the existing piers on the River Thames would not suffice. The service would be heavily handicapped in arriving at present Thames piers (which are com paratively few) for a quick getaway only to find the accommodation occupied by pleasure boats and other craft. In consequence there would be a necessity for the provision, at some capital cost, of special modern embarking points at numerous places for the exclusive use of the vehicle. These stages would need various facilities, protection from the weather, toilet accommodation. London Underground trains—each with 6/8 coaches—can carry, sitting and standing, some hundreds of passen gers. There are four exit/entry doors to each unit when alongside—two double and two single. The time taken arriving, picking up and discharging passengers and leaving a station is approximately 25sec. It is this efficiency which a Hoverbus service would be bound to a degree to match, although in compensa tion the river journey would be much more interesting and, indeed, so pleasant as probably to attract an additional community to public transport—the frustrated and long-suffering motorist. To provide competitive, but possibly complementary, services to other modes of passenger conveyance would no doubt necessitate charging fares similar to those charged on the Underground and District Railways or omnibuses, and it must be borne in mind that the transport systems of the country are greatly subsidized, if not particularly monetarily, by facility provision. Excluding the Woolwich and Tilbury/ Gravesend Ferries, conventional craft on the Thames carry an average slightly in excess of 2m passengers in a summer season of six months' maximum—all pleasure-bent. Already, of necessity, the fares charged on some journeys (by virtue of the length of time taken) are three to four times those of public transport; even so they are only about 100 per cent increase on charges made 25 years ago. Costs of operation in this period have increased four-fold, result ing in the replacement by modern craft being financially impossible. The basic reason for the continuance of the majority of the services is the fortunate long life of the steel vessels engaged in the trade, some dating back even as far as the latter part of the last century. The Yarmouth Belle, to name but one vessel, built of Lowmoor iron in 1892, is still giving monumental service. The potential passengers, neverthe less, are still available. When the Festival of Britain made the public Thames- conscious the present craft carried without difficulty, in their normal period of seasonal operation, three times as many people—some 6Jm—all, inci dentally, without mishap of any sort. This must be an all-time record for transportation safety. It would there fore seem—especially taking into con sideration the time-wasting congestion of London's roads—that an efficient and properly planned service could be of a distinct advantage to the City and to its eastern environs in a down-river direction, as far perhaps as Southend and beyond, and to the west up-river to Kew. Beyond this point to the west the Hoverbus would be in difficulties. There are delaying locks to negotiate and there is much congestion of the highway, mainly at weekends and particularly above Teddington Lock. Opposition Likely It is very doubtful if private enterprise, with knowledge of the difficulties of Thames operating, would contemplate the initiation of commuter services. The task would be of some magnitude and could probably only be undertaken by a Government-sponsored body. There could be opposition from the London Passenger Transport Board, who may see the venture as a threat to their vast monopoly. The promoters would need to negotiate for the provision of river access, piers, and facilities with the Port Authority, London County Council and a host of local government and other authorities. There is little doubt, however, that any comprehensive scheme would have the support of some prominent bodies. The virile and efficient British Travel and Holidays Association—forever on the look-out for variety to satisfy the demands which they have ecouraged, of the ever-increasing and vitally im portant tourist industry—would welcome greater use of the river. Already at least one trade union has declared full support for a modern conception of new and effective use of the waterway, and millions of the public would prob ably welcome the opportunity of alter native and pleasant methods of travel. The onus is upon the builders of the craft to see that they compare favourably in cost, maintenance, and operation with other means of transport. They must take great care to resist introduction, by Ministerial departments and the like, Concluded at foot of page 12 B—ACV * 5
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
