When a F ling is Too Big a Jump in Rates
Page 50
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Method of Assessing Rates for Furniture Removal Put Forward by One Engaged in the Business and Some Comments Thereon. When the Decimal Basis Proves An Advantage ILIKE to regard myself as progressive and up to date, always ready to move with the times and, occasionally, even stepping ahead of them. On the other hand, in certain matters I am what might be called a reactionary.
I am not of those, for example, who advocate decimal coinage, decimal measures and decimal everything else.
I like my pennies, my sixpences and shillings; I like my florins and half-crowns even better. I never have any difficulty in dealing with feet and inches, square feet, cubic feet and the like.
But I am not quite so sure, now and again, that I would not like decimals to be more commonly used by the haulier as a basis for assessing rates. Actually, many hauliers are in sympathy with the late Lord Randolph Churchill, who, in Parliament, confessed that he could not understand " those damned dots."
Hauliers like to work in pence, and if they must have fractions then they insist on thinking in terms of farthings and halfpennies. A farthing is too big a jump from one rate to the next, especially in assessing rates for long-distance haulage. To increase a rate by a farthing a mile causes difficulties which could almost entirely be eliminated if decimals were used.
The Inevitable with Vulgar Fractions.
A recent experience of mine pointed the moral of this, when I had the pleasure of suggesting fair rates for the haulage of basic slag and lime in connection with the Government scheme for encouraging farmers to grow more crops.
The rates suggested did, at certain mileages, seem to present anomalies, in that the rate for, say, a lead of 10 miles, was such that the total revenue was somewhat less than that which, on the rates put forward, would have been received for haulage over a lead of nine miles. That sort of thiing is, however, inevitable if vulgar' fractions are insisted upon and decimals eschewed.
Something of the kind presents a problem in connection with the addresses I deliver to meetings of haulage contractors. In order to illustrate and emphasize some of the recommendations I make, I take as an example the cost of operation of a certain selected size of vehicle and to be sure that the data is fully understood by all those present, I juggle with the figures a little in order to be able to present them as even tenths of a penny, thus avoiding reference to decimals.
816 The same difficulty appears to have been encountered by a Mr. A. N. Blackwood, whose principal concern is with rates for furniture removal, and who has evidently gone to a great deal of trouble to arrive at a basic scale for the calculation of rates over distances in excess of 25 miles.
His figures are given above, of which all but the last column is his work. The information appeared in the August issue of Removals and Storage, which is the official organ of the National Association of Furniture Warehousemen and Removers.
Before I get to the point I have in mind I must explain Mr. Blackwood's table. First, the table gives only transport charges, based on one-way mileage and providing for all expenditure on operating cost of the vehicle, including garage, overheads and profit. Terminal charges are additional to the figures derived from this table, so that a complete estimate of a job of furnitute removing must comprise (a) the terminal charges and (b) these transportation rates culled from the table.
The terminal charges suggested are : for packing and loading, 4s. per 100 cubic ft.; for unpacking and unloading, 3s. 6d. per 100 cubic ft., which means, in effect, that for the majority of removals it is recommended that the terminal charges should be 7s. 6d. per 100 cubic ft.
It is admitted that, under certain conditions, these may require modification. This is obviously a matter with which the individual operator must deal, varying the charge according to conditions. Difficult circumstances of working, as, for example, those involving the climbing of flights of stairs, loading or unloading through a window, the negotiation of narrow passages, will involve additions to this standard charge which, it seems to me, should be regarded as a minimum.
It should be particularly noted that the rate quoted, both in respect of terminal charges and transportation rates, is for a unit of 100 cubic ft. If, for example, the load is 600 cubic ft., the figures quoted must be multiplied by six.
Anomalies of Scaling Down in Farthings.
Now comes the point at which Mr. Blackwood, like myself, falls foul of the fractions. His transportation rates, it should be noted, diminish a farthing at a time. A farthing is too big a drop from mile to mile. Where the distances are moderate to great, and without the employment of some adjustment, such as has been adopted by Mr.. Blackwood, this scaling down in farthings would result in anomalies such as the following. Compare two jobs each involving the removal of 600 cubic ft., one over a distance of 210 miles, the other over 200 miles. The rate for the 200 miles is 24d. per 100 cubic ft. and the transportation charge, in connection with that job, would be 200 times 24 times 6, which is £11 5s., exactly Is. lid. per mile lead.
For the other job, 210 miles, the revenue, calculated on the basis of 2d. per 100 cubic ft., is only £10 10s., exactly 1s. per mile, and, whilst there are times when, as the mileage increases, it is safe to reduce the actual charge per mile, obviously the reduction in this case is excessive as, for a 210-mile job, the operator receives less than he would for one of 200 miles.
In order to remove this difficulty, Mr. Blackwood adds a percentage to the basic scale, as shown in column 3 and indicated again in a different way in column 4. In column 3 he gives the percentage to be added to the basic rate; in column 4 he translates that percentage as a certain amount per £ which can be added to the total rate, when taking the figures in column 2.
If we modify the foregoing figures in accordance with this percentage, then for the 200-mile job we must add 24 per cent. to the £11 5s., making £11 10s. 8d., which is actually 13.84d. per mile. To the £10 10s. for the 210-mile job we must add 174 per cent., or 3s. 6d. in the pound, bringing it to £12 Cs. 9d., which is equivalent to 14.1d. per mile.
This complication of added percentages could be avoided if dechrials were acceptable, and I have added to Mr. Blackwood's table a fifth column which sets out appropriate rates to correspond with his figures and eliminating the need for adding percentages. S.T.R.