A 24-HOUR 'SMALL LOTS IIERVICE-ECAN IT BE DONE?
Page 68
Page 69
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
In the United Kingdom 24-hour transits "anywhere to anywhere" should be the rule rather than the exception BY JOHN DARKER
MANY transport operators would agree that a 24hour delivery service for smalls and parcels' traffic within the UK should be possible. This has been an ideal for a generation or more, but it seems to be as far off realization today as ever it was. Full load traffics— excluding indivisible loads—do not present the transport industry with any particularly intractable problem, although double shifting or special change-over arrangements are called for if a customer wants a special load delivered from, say, Plymouth to Glasgow in 24 hours.
Why has so little improvement been made in transit times of parcels, smalls and "oddments "—which I define as part loads of from one to five tons?
So far as parcels traffics are concerned it might be said that the various express parcels operators, including BRS Parcels Ltd., have the problem very much in mind. Their image would be very much brighter if they could offer a guaranteed 24-hour delivery service anywhere within the UK. Undoubtedly they would like to do this, and the increase of direct delivery services "across country" foreshadowed by BRS evidences their good intentions.
Traffics from and to catchment areas serviced by main trunk terminals do not present a major problem in theory; although the desired next-day delivery may not occur if a consignment misses the night trunk connection because of congestion at the collecting depot. Equally, congestion at the delivery terminal may mean that customers will wait in vain for a promised delivery—possibly for days if goods pile up and are delivered out of sequence.
A 24-hour "anywhere to anywhere" service will come to pass only when economic and organization difficulties have been solved. These difficulties are inter-related. The first problem consists in contriving economic payloads for the night trunk services between main terminals. Traffic flows are not constant, and the depots involved must have sufficient capacity, in staff and equipment, to process peak loads. By the same token there must be adequate capacity on the inter-terminal trunk services, or some means of rapidly supplementing such capacity. In this connection the professional haulage industry should not be afraid to look for assistance from owners of small C-licensed vans, eminently suitable for occasional or seasonal use as supplements to the regular network vehicles, particularly as much c40 of the use would be at night. Licensing difficulties clearly could be resolved, and future licensing reforms may ease matters in any event.
The logistic problem merely involves the marshalling of adequate drivers and vehicles. Incidentally, it is likely that many c-licensed operators would be glad to subsidize their operating costs by occasionally hiring a vehicle— with or without a driver—to an express parcels operator.
STAFF A MAJOR PROBLEM The provision of staffs of adequate size at terminal depots presents a major problem. Parcels operators are unlikely to disagree with the conclusions of BRS Parcels Ltd., whose experience suggests that recruiting casual workers to deal with peak flows is not conducive to operational efficiency. Equally, experience of many industries confirms the view that the 10or 11-hour " norm " of platform staff detracts from efficiency; constant care and vigilance in the handling and routeing of parcels may, perhaps, be looked for during an eight-hour stint—careless or wilful efforts are much more likely when tired, bored or dispirited porters are asked to exert themselves after nine or ten hours "on the deck ".
In this connection it may be worth while to consider reviving the "part time" workshops scheme such as was operated during the last war by certain Auxiliary Fire Service units. To meet the need for unlimited war materials, full-time AFS firemen spent several hours a day on light engineering or assembly work. When the fire alarm sounded they would "drop everything" and perform their normal fire-fighting duties—to resume their supplementary war work on their return to the fire station.
I know I shall be told—doubtless impolitely—that war conditions are not comparable with peace conditions. That auxiliary firemen in wartime were "better types" than transport depot staff today. That depot premises are unsuitable for supplementary workshops. That "the unions would take a dim view of it ". That supervisory and managerial problems would be insuperable. "Haven't we got a big enough headache as it is ", I can hear many transport managers exclaim, "without landing ourselves in endless complications in spheres of which we know nothing!"
Let me try to dispose of some of these points. It is true that we are not at war in the accepted military sense, but we are undoubtedly involved as a nation in a grave economic battle—if not for survival, then for the maintenance of our standard of living. Politicians are not wanting who talk of the Dunkirk spirit, of the need for a new approach to economic and industrial problems; of the necessity for much greater adaptability of our work force, or of the need for training and redeployment of labour.
1 am not persuaded that transport depot staffs are necessarily a bunch of anti-social go slows" fit only for sack truck pushing or the occasional " humping " of heavy parcels. A large proportion of transport staffs have had some experience of industry; many have achieved a considerable degree of skill in fabrication or assembly operations. People gravitate into transport for a variety of reasons. An employer who fails to utilize all the acquired
skills of his work force hurts himself, his men and his profits.
The criticism that many transport depots are unsuitable for supplementary production activities is, I concede, a valid one, although one could afgue that wartime fire stations, too, were not designed for such things! But if the economic argument justifies the expansion of depot premises, to make this possible, then this should be done. It might equally be feasible for transport operators to purchase an existing business which is capable of utilizing surplus labour in "dead shift" periods. There are many such businesses today, as reference to job advertisements proves. Packing, processing, machine minding, assembly work—the list is endless.
As regards union opposition, it is a poor manager who is so scared of innovation that he is afraid to discuss a new idea. Certainly, the initial reaction of a trade union organizer, and of a platform staff employee, might coincide with the immortal sentiment from Pygmalion, "Not . . . . likely ". But consider the wider aspects.
The long working day of most transport workers is only traditional in the sense that hourly rates are so poor that a living wage demands a 10-hour minimum shift. It is inconceivable that such long hours can continue to be worked in a society which progressively reduces the average weekly hours of labour. Much expert evidence suggests that working hours in this country are much in excess of what is required for efficiency—padded time is rife. Good organization virtually would cut out all overtime and yield as much, or more, pay for a standard week. If transport labour in its "dead shift periods could be made productive, the economy would benefit greatly and transport efficiency and profits would rise. No transport manager needs telling that a vehicle whose wheels are not turning is not earning any money--he imbibes that truth with his mother's milk—yet for years parcels transport managers have resigned themselves to the inevitable unproductiveness of thousands of man-hours every week, as peak traffic flows are succeeded by quiet spells when surplus labour could as well be sent home as left to "hang around" until a job wants doing.
The managerial problem is also one that can be much exaggerated. Quite a lot of transport managers have had industrial experience or have acquired engineering skills by virtue of their maintenance responsibilites. The worst problem of all in transport is, surely, ensuring an adequate revenue, and most transport managers I know will go to endless trouble to solve this highly relevant matter. This supplementary workshop idea is designed to solve the economic problem presented by labour which is daily
either under-utilized or over-extended which, I suggest, reflects the typical parcels depot pattern.
This lengthy parenthesis is germane to the objective of a 24-hour delivery service, as we noted earlier that cost was one of the chief difficulties of the parcels operator. He must, in present circumstances, canalize sufficient traffic from his catchment areas to justify the expense of trunk services between terminals. A more efficient use of labour eases things all round, and makes possible either a more frequent delivery service or a daily service to "off route " villages.
ANOTHER AVENUE Another line of inquiry, which has been suggested before, calls for some joint research by the GPO and express parcels operators to see what rationalization is possible from a combined service. Post office parcels possess one great advantage—size and weight limitation—which is not enjoyed by the road hauliers, whose " parcels " may weigh several hundredweights and be of corresponding bulk. yet some small parcels are moved by the express road service men. On common-sense grounds, there would be advantages to both organizations if the genuine "small parcels were processed together. It may be "economic " to mix a 3-1b. book with a 10-gal. drum of paint and a 5-cwt. bale of leather, but those Who sort such objects at a parcels depot would find life much easier if traffic were "streamed" to some degree.
There may well be a case for combining appropriate parts of the GPO parcels network with the operations of express carriers. This is done to a considerable degree in Scotland, where the MacBrayne vans, with the GPO insignia, provide a much appreciated amenity. Remote villages in England and Wales would be revitalized by daily services of joint parcels/passenger vehicles. Certainly no rational person could defend a daily GPO delivery service and a onceor twice-weekly parcels collection-anddelivery service, when a little common-sense organization could put the road parcels traffic on the GPO van, or vice versa.
This question of GPO/express road parcels carriers, collaboration has been ducked for too long. The managements of both bodies must be well aware of possible innovations and rationalizations of the parallel networks. Does it make sense that each side should ignore the other, pretending that there is no common ground? I would like to see regular inter-change staff visits, and periodical joint meetings of staff committees-which already function in the GPO and in BRS Parcels Ltd. At the very least, the staffs involved would learn a good deal about documentation and control procedures, sorting arrangements,
training methods and productivity norms. Given this background of interested concern in each other's problems, higher level managerial contacts would have something to work on.
Coming, finally, to the problem of the part-load oddments which may range from the half-load weighing up to five tons, down to the -1--ton or two-ton lot, the transport industry has not covered itself with glory in recent years in its service to industry. Many industrialists could speak with feeling about the sloth, verging on indifference, shown by hauliers to their hetes noire—small lots.
It must be admitted that the haulier's reluctance to offer a reasonable service for odd lots is founded on hard experience of economics. Not only is it costly to operate large, lightly loaded vehicles, but the customer who normally employs the vehicle is denied its use. I suspect this is the principal reason why small lots tend to receive a low priority; hauliers, reluctantly, may be prepared to stand the expense of operating a large vehicle on a local delivery, but when this involves serious complaints from the main user his dilemma is painful.
If, as 1 believe, it is important that parcels traffic should enjoy "as of right" a 24-hour service from anywhere to anywhere in this country, it is every bit as important that part-load, general-haulage traffic should be dealt with expeditiously. Higher rates for small lots help to minimize hauliers' losses; they do not solve the "wasted vehicle " aspect referred to. Is there any solution?
I suggest that the approach to this problem was immeasurably eased when BRS joined the RHA. Getting rid of small lots is a problem faced by all hauliers, particularly long-distance men. Full collaboration between private and State hauliers can ease the problem for both.
All that is required is for small-lot traffics to be advised to a central point. In BRS the " awkward " lots are automatically advised to the area traffic control points, which usually are established at area offices. If the private sector would advise their small lots to the area RHA office, and the latter would liaise with the BRS traffic control point (TCP as it is called), some mutually satisfactory arrangement should be possible. From the customer's viewpoint, it doesn't matter a fig who delivers or collects the small lot as long as it is done speedily. BRS frequently employ RHA hauliers as sub-contractors, and the opposite process is not unknown. If all the part loads in an area are identified daily, usually it should be possible for a good service to be given. What is absurd is for the State and private hauliers each to tackle their "odd lots" problems independently.
B-licensed operators can also assist with this general problem and in several areas B operators have lodged variation applications to authorize "goods for BRS as required "'with the specific object of helping with the smalllot problem. It may be that the stand-offish BRS attitude to such applications has not been in the best interests of that organization.
To sum up: it is argued above that the parcels and smalls service provided by established parcels and general haulage operators is less good than it could be. Traditional methods of operation, little changed in the past 25 years, are persisted in year by year, and service to some customers is subordinated to the convenience of the haulier. Much more co-operation between express parcels operators and the GPO and between BRS and the RHA could improve transit times greatly.
There has never been a time when economic efficiency has been more needed in all British industries and services. Perhaps the new lines of thought proposed here will inspire those concerned to have a new look at the possibilities open to them.