Delegates get down to basics
Page 50
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by P. A. C. Brockington, MIMechE
THE OBJECTIVES of the Transport Act 1968, planning a do-it-yourself maintenance scheme with the Act in mind and the economics of vehicle maintenance represent a combination of subjects that is currently the main preoccupation of many road-vehicle operators. At the Institute of Road Transport Engineers' National Conference in Birmingham last week, three experts presented papers on these aspects of vehicle utilization and jointly provided an assessment of operators' problems that is specifically pertinent to today's transport Scene.
Basic to all transport considerations at this time, education and training was the subject of four papers by the chairman of IRTE technical education committee, by a member of the RTITB and two senior staff members of technical colleges. Some 16 makers of vehicle equipment staged a demonstration during the conference that included displays of the latest types of system designed to facilitate maintenance.
Mr. J. Lane, head of the road transport (goods) division of the Ministry of Transport, read a paper on "Operators' licensing, intentions and responsibilities", while the subject of a paper by Mr. R. A. Layton, service manager, Arlington Motor Co. Ltd., was "Problems and solutions, commercial vehicles—mechanical condition"; and Mr. P. W. Reed, a lecturer in economics at the University of Reading, gave the economist's view of maintenance in a paper entitled "Costs and decisions".
Mr. Lane said that under the new system of licensing it would be "up to each Licensing Authority" to inquire into the maintenance arrangements of operators in his area and that this would involve many on-the-spot investigations. He emphasized that quality licensing needed to be a locally organized affair. The issue of licences would take longer if the system were to be run on a centralized basis. The change in licensing would affect C-licence operators more than others. To a limited extent pre-licence inspection had already been applied to hauliers' vehicles when their carriers' licences were renewed. C-licences were issued on demand without inquiry.
Dealing with vehicle inspection standards, Mr. Lane said that there would be many instances, as recognized by Licensing Authorities, in which general standards would be inappropriate. Licensing Authorities would have discretion to deal with each case on its merits. It was anticipated that most Licensing Authorities would require operators to notify any substantial changes in maintenance arrangements after a licence was granted. The introduction of the new system would be organized in stages. To avoid unnecessary delays in the issue of licences, Licensing Authorities would invite applications on a limited scale during the summer, but the licences would not be valid until the appointed days.
In reply to a question by Mr. E. H. Wilkinson regarding return loads during the discussion, Mr. Lane said that when the time came to apply for a special-authorization licence, the operator would be well advised to obtain approval of the application by British Railways and the Freight Corporation before making the application, which would then be rubber-stamped by the Licensing Authority. Later Mr. Lane told Mr. G. F. Bower that when a Licensing Authority came to consider what action to take regarding operators' licences in the event of the issue of a GV9, he would have to consider whether to revoke the licence. Otherwise his action would accord with that he would have taken in the case of a carrier's licence.
Commenting on a question by another delegate, Mr. Lane emphasized that an objector to an operator's licence would not have access to the applicant's premises, books and so on. It would be up to the objector to find the evidence himself. An objection could be made on grounds other than vehicle safety; for example, it might be argued that an applicant should not be granted a licence because he had been imprisoned for drivers' hours offences.
Whether maintenance should be carried out in the operators' workshops or contracted out and at what point in the life of a vehicle was it economic to scrap it were the two questions that formed the theme of Mr. Reed's paper. With regard to the first, Mr. Reed pointed out that the expenditure that could be "escaped from" was the important factor in considering the possible advantages of contracting out. It could be argued that equipment should be replaced when the sum of capital cost and maintenance cost for the year was the minimum.
It might be found that very few costs were "escaped from" if the work was contracted out. And the cost of residual maintenance could he disproportionately high. To assume that do-it-yourself maintenance saved the profit margin was a fallacy. Scarce resources were used in providing a maintenance service and these resources could be utilized to earn a return in other ways. The lost return was a real cost; a notional return should be added to costs of work done in the organization.
"Straight" replacement costs should be distinguished from betterment costs. Too often a replacement was made without due thought. Often the return would be greater by applying the available resources to something else. If there was a betterment element, it was necessary to decide whether the additional expenditure would give a satisfactory return.
A replacement policy based on the principle -when it wears out buy a new one" or "replace the asset when it is fully depreciated" had little to commend it. Each year a given asset was retained the capital cost of using it was reduced, whereas the operating cost increased. For example, the capital cost of a £6,000 vehicle in terms of value lost in a period of five years would be £1,600, £2.400. £4,000, £4,000 and £5,400 respectively, assuming a scrap value of £600 at the end of the five years. The overall running cost would increase from £1,000 for the first year to a total of £2,200 at the end of the second year and to £3,550, £5,250 and £7,250 over three years, four years and five years respectively. A sum would show that the average combined cost per year of operating the vehicle would be £2,600, £2,550, £2,517, £2,512 and £2,530 respectively and from this it could be concluded that the vehicle should be replaced at the end of the fourth year regardless of its potential physical life. Such a calculation did not, however, take into account the possibility of obsolescence, which could upset the most carefully prepared calculations.
Alternative
As an alternative to the method outlined, the discounting principle could be applied which provided for the adjustment of costs for particular years to put them on a comparable basis.
In reply to a question from Mr. R. Holloway during the discussion regarding depreciation, Mr. Reed said that an operator should continually be bracing himself to cater for obsolescence.
Whether a do-it-yourself or contract-out policy was the most economical depended, said Mr. Layton in his paper, on the availability of spare vehicles at all stages of maintenance. In a table of six examples of fleet operations involving up to 100 (plus) vehicles, it was shown that the labour force could be greatly reduced if extra spare vehicles were available. In the case of a 100-vehicle fleet a spare vehicle capacity of 10 would enable a total labour force of 28 to cope with maintenance on a 12hr workshop coverage basis, whereas a force of 37 would be required, based on a workshop coverage of 24hr, if the spare vehicle capacity were reduced to seven. Two extra fitters would be required in the second case (an increase from 10 to 12), the number of auto electricians would be doubled (two in place of one) and the number of semi-skilled fitters would be increased from four to six.
A lot of paperwork was required in planned maintenance, said Mr. Layton, and was of first importance because it enabled management to maintain control of every workshop activity. Of special importance, the fleet engineer should have daily or twice-daily meetings with the traffic manager to exchange progress reports. Only in this way could confidence and mutual understanding be established and tension be avoided. Joint consultation with the staff at all levels was also of importance.
In "non-rational" planned maintenance the discovery of a serious defect could be made at the last minute which would delay transfer of the vehicle to the traffic department beyond the promised time. The heart of a "rational" maintenance system would be a reception office where a stores controller! receptionist and his assistants dealt with the movements of all paperwork, and, in effect, provided a communications centre. Time assessments for each maintenance job (based on the vehicle inspection report) would be passed on to the traffic office.
A planning card for each vehicle would be raised in the inspection office and used in conjunction with a progress board. Given that individual charge hands, the time clerk, the foreman and other responsible persons moved the planning card on the board according to plan, progress and delays would be clearly indicated. If a shift group was overloaded with work, overtime could be arranged or some of the work sub-contracted. By following movements on the board, the stores controller could take urgent action to supply parts if lack of parts were delaying completion of a job. The work of sub-contractors would be "followed-up" in the same way before the esti mated time for completion had expired. All the information provided by the Board would be relayed to the traffic manager.
In conjunction with costing of labour and materials, planned maintenance would enable the profitability of do-it-yourself maintenance to be matched against maintenance by subcontractors and could give a sound basis on which to increase productivity. It would en sure that the traffic manager was "kept in the picture" at all stages of maintenance.
Disadvantages included some increase in administration staff and overheads, a large increase in paperwork and a more thorough supervision of subordinates.
Lack of spares
Elaborating on his paper during the conference, Mr. Layton complained that maintenance was not "thought about by designers". Although the FVRDE practice of testing every single component of a vehicle (and the whole vehicle in environmental test bays) was too costly for operators to adopt, it should be done by the Motor Industry Research Association or other responsible body.
Commenting on vehicle manufacturers' responsibilities during the open discussion, Mr. L. Bennett of the Bristol Omnibus Co. claimed that 50 per cent of operators' maintenance troubles could be attributed to lack of spares. Mr. Bennett said that the Ministry should bring pressure to bear on manufacturers —even by legislation---to produce sufficient spares. In an observation on this suggestion, Mr. Lane recommended that pressure on makers should be brought by the RHA and FTA.
The papers on education and training were presented by Mr. J. A. C. Williams, Principal of The College of Aeronautical and Automobile Engineering, Chelsea (chairman of the IRTE education committee), who chaired the meeting, by Mr. F. M. Pickering, RTITB divisional training manager, Mr. S. Eveleigh, department of engineering, Riversdale Technical College, Liverpool, and Mr. R. A. Brown, lecturer-in-charge, Calshalton Technical College, Surrey.
'Meaning' wanted
Mr. Williams pointed out that the RTITB had not as yet had time to formulate proposals for the training of technicians. In his opinion, said Mr. Williams, the first year level for technicians should be the same as that for craft mechanics: and this might well apply to the second year. In the third and subsequent years, the technician would require training that would enable him to gain knowledge of vehicles and equipment that would be in use in five to 10 years' time, which would "give some meaning to his academicstudy". Only one in five, at the most one in 10 of students qualifying as a corporate member of the Institute or for Tech. Eng. would normally be engaged in engineering service maintenance, Mr. Pickering mentioned that a total of 360 driving instructors had been trained to date, the current rate of training being 36 instructors during a period of a fortnight. Direct driver training had been postponed until August so that trainees could take the MoT test on completion of their training. Mr. Pickering also outlined the work of the Board in connection with the training of apprentice mechanics and electricians, semi-skilled mechanics and commercial vehicle technical salesmen. "I am not sure where we are going on technical training, pending the issue of the Haslegrave report," observed Mr. Pickering. It was advisable, he concluded, to complete craft training before considering the needs of technicians.
The advantages of an integrated course was the theme of the paper presented by Mr. Brown and the discussion on Mr. Brown's comments was a highlight of the education and training session. To divorce training and education was dangerous said Mr. Brown; it was essential that they were closely linked.
Leading the discussion Mr. Williams emphasized that he favoured integrated courses "up to a certain level" with the qualification that they required "controlled experience". Following Mr. Williams, Mr. Pickering welcomed pilot schemes such as the course run by Mr. Srown. An academic-only course could further separate the student from industrial practice.
Mr. Eveleigh contended that if the highentry qualification standard of the Section C Part 1 course was not maintained, the Institute might not be consulted by the Government and other bodies on transport topics as had 'been the case in the past. "We are heading", said Mr. Eveleigh, "towards a meritocracy where only the educated will be considered for vacancies in industry."