1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
Farmers Prefer Road Transport
Page 102
Page 105
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Because Markets are Delicate Organisms, the Convenience of Road Haulage is an Asset to Agriculturists : Costing for a 5-ton Livestock Vehicle Described
MENTION any kind of agricultural produce, and I will prove that it is best transported by road. Take fruit and vegetables first. The grower prefers road transport for a variety of reasons. He can cut and load his produce and send it to market after the local railway goods yard is closed in the evening—and it is sometimes as early as 4 p.m. If his produce be dispatched by road, he can rest assured that it will reach the market in time. Instances have been brought to my notice where growers have for years been sending 80-90 tons of vegetables by road every day, and still have to miss their, first market.
On the other hand, 1 have often talked to marketgardeners and farmers who have told me that delays involved in sending goods by rail have often turned what would have been a profitable consignment into a loss. Fruit and vegetable markets are delicate organisms. A consignment reaching the market at 4 a.m. would bring a handsome return to the grower, but if that consignment did not reach the market until an hour later, the price received would quite possibly be insufficient to pay the cost of production
and carriage. . --.
'Promptitude in the return of empties is another feature
of road transport which the grower appreciates. It is possible to tie down big capital in empty boxes if they be not returned by the same vehicle as takes out the full loads. On this point, it is important to note that the practice of dispatching fruit and vegetables in returnable empties is increasing. Produce sent in that way now comprises 90 per cent. of the total.
Another advantage of road transport, especially when dealing with a private-enterprise haulier, is that claims for damages are more easily and quickly settled. They are matters for discussion between two individuals, the grower and the haulage contractor, and not, as otherwise, between the grower and an enormous monopoly organization with its inevitable resistance to rapid dealing.
. Carrying to Shows Similar conditions prevail in respect of livestock. Collections and deliveries are made on time and the animals do not lose weight on the journey. An important aspect of livestock haulage—standstill orders apart—is the past played by road transport in the conveyance of horses, cattle, sheep and pigs to agricultural shows, an activity of the industry which starts at the beginning of May and continues well into the autumn.
When carrying animals for show purposes, however, the degree of crowding customary in everyday transport operations is not permissible. Half the usual number of animals is all that can be carried. A large proportion of the load capacity in bulk as well as in weight is occupied by fodder, show-yard accessories and even groomsmen and herdsmen.
Another aspect of almost equal importance was presented forcibly to my notice on a recent occasion when I attended a market in Essex. Half -a-dozen, and sometimes more, store cattle were driven pell-mell up the ramp on the lorry. The ramp was then lifted and fastened and the lorry driven off in not more than five or six minutes. Even less time and ceremony were considered necessary to unload, and sheep and pigs were treated similarly.
In the case of animals consigned to a show, the vehicle would carry only two head of cattle, with fodder as mentioned above, and the animals would be carefully tethered, standing knee-deep in straw and every internally protruding piece of woodwork inside well and carefully padded. Unloading would be done with .the greatest care and attention. The contrast between the time needed for load t44
ing and unloading ordinary store cattle and prize beasts is striking, as must be the difference in cost. Opinions among breeders as to the relative merits, of road and rail for the transport of their animals seems to be determined. Over distances in excess of 100 miles there is a tendency to use rail. Under that distance road transport is more likely to be employed. When the distance is below that critical figure, the need for changing from .road to rail and back again more than offsets the advantage of time saved.
Although the railway may make special arrangements for speedy handling, many breeders still prefer road transport because of the convenience of having to load and unload only once per journey.
All of the foregoing shows that there is a big demand for the services of hauliers in the conveyance of agricultural produce and livestock. Furthermore, there is no need for any operator to cut rates. There is a demand for his services and that will continue so long as the service is good and efficient. He will thus be able to obtain a fair price for the work he does. The question now arises, what is a fair price?
5-tonner Popular The most popular size of vehicle for this class of work is the 5-tonner. Sometimes a petrol-engined vehicle is chosen, sometimes an oil-engined. For the, conveyance of produce, the vehicle will be a sided lorry.
So far, as the petrol-engined machine is concerned, the initial cost will be in the neighbourhbod of £1,050. If I deduct the cost of a set of tyres, £150, I get £900, from which 1 take the residual value of £100; leaving £800 for the calculation of depreciation.
I propose to split this item of cost allowing for half of the MO to be dissipated in six years and the other half in 120,000 miles. So far as the time element is concerned, six years into 1400 gives me £66 14s. per annum, which is approximately £1 2s. 6d. per week. • For the mileage element, £400 divided by. 120,000 miles gives me 0.80d. per mile. The figures for operating costs can now be set down. The consumption of petrol in normal circumstances will be in the neighbourhood of 13 m.p.g., and taking petrol as costing an average. operator 4s. to 4s. ld. per gallon, the cost per mile for petrol is seen to be 3.70d.
For lubricants I take 0.20d.; tyres, taking a set as costing £150 and assuming a life of 24,000 miles per set, give me 1.50d. per mile. Next comes maintenance (e), that is, expenditure to cover repairs and overhauls and so on throughout the life of the vehicle, 1.60d. per mile, and finally 0.80d. for depreciation brought down from above. The total is 7.8d. per mile.
Now for the standing charges: Tax 'will be probably 14s. per week; wages, including recent additions, £6 4s. per week, which amount covers employees' insurance premiums and provision for holidays with pay; garage rent, 9s.; insurance I8s.; interest on capital outlay, 16s.; maintenance (d), that is, routine maintenance such as washing, cleaning, oiling, greasing and repainting, £1 10s.; depreciation (half) from above, £1 2s. 6d. The totalis £11 13s. 6d. I assume that the establishment costs will be £2 6s. 6d., so that the total of my fixed charges is £14.
Vehicles engaged on agricultural ,haulage sometimes cover big mileages. It is not unusual for such a.machine operating in the Lincolnshire area to run •1,000 miles per week. Now the running costs for 1,000 miles per week at 7.8d. per mile total £32 10s.; add the fixed charge 114, and we get a total net expenditure of £46 10s. per week. Assuming that the operator expects to make a profit of not less than £10 per week, then he_mtist obtain" 156 10s. as his revenue_ That is rather more than Is. per mile, actually Is, I id.
. When I write is. 14d. per mile in this sense I mean Is. lid. pet mile run, so that if the operation be an outward journey of 100 miles, and furthermore if he cannot bring a return load because he is afterwards likely to be carrying empties, he must charge for 200 miles, which means that his revenue per journey must be at least £11.
It is not likely, however, that the vehicle will cover 1,000 miles per week every week in the year. The business is undoubtedly seasonal and there are times when the mileage ;covered per week will be in the neighbourhood of 600 to 800. In order to get a more accurate idea of what his charges should be, it is necessary to keep in mind the possibility of the mileage dropping to somewhere about 600 to 700.
If I take 720 miles, then the total running cost is £23 8s. I must still add £14 for fixed charges, which gives me a total of £37 8s: net cost. Suppose I add £9 12s., profit, then my original earnings must be £47, and to earn that the average revenue must be at the rate of £47 divided by 720, which is approximately Is. 4d. per mile. That is probably more nearly what the charge should be.
In the case of the oil-engined vehicle, a new set of cost figures must be got out. Taking a 5-tortner to cost £1,450 and deducting a set of tyres at £150 leaves me £1,300,, and if. I assume a residual value of £200 my net figure for assessment of depreciation is £1,100. If I assess depreciation on the basis of six years and 160,000 miles, my entries under' the heading of depreciation must be for time £550 divided by six, giving £92 per annum or £1 16s. per week, and. for mileage £550 divided by 160,000, which gives me 0.83d.
The running costs will approximate to the following: fuel, 2.25d. per mile; lubricants, 0.20d.; tyres, 1.50d.; maintenance (e), 1.44d.; depreciation (half) from above, 0.83d. The total is 6.22d. per mile. For the standing charges: tax, 14s, per week; wages, £6 4s.; garage tent; 9S.; insurance: 18s.; interest. LI 3s.; maintenance (d),'.£1 10s.; depreciation (half!, £1, 16s.; the -total of the foregoing is £12 14s, per week._ Add £2 6s. for establishment costs and the total of fixed expenditure per week is £15.
Taking, as in the case of the petrol-ensined vehicle, a mileage of 1,000 per week, the running cost is 1,000 times 6.22d., which is £25 16s. 8d. Add £15 for fixed charges and we get £40 16s. 8d. as the total expenditure. Assuming again that the operator wants to earn £10 a week, we can take £51 as the minimum revenue for 1,000 miles of running which is equivalent to a shade over Is., say ls. Old. per mile.
If the operator be wise, however, he will take a lower figure as his average weekly mileage, say 720; in which case his total of running costs per week will be £18 13s. 2d.'; add £15, for fixed charges and we get £33 13s. 2d. as his , total cost. Adding £10 to that for profit we get £43 13s. 2d., which is approximately is. 2A. per mile.
The foregoing figures apply to a sided lorryof 5-tons capacity. They cannot be taken as they Stand to cover the expenses of operating a vehicle engaged on the carriage of livestock. In the first place, a suitable vehicle for this class of work, especially when the operator is proposing to cater for conveyance to-shows, horse races and so on, will cost not, as in the ease of a petrol-engined vehicle, £1,050 but £1,600.
It will cost more to keep a vehicle of this type properly mairdained. Fuel consumption will be heavier because of the weight of . the 'machine and ..so ,on.' It, therefore, becomes necessary to take out a second schedule of cost figures in order to ascertain what an operator engaged on the carriage of livestock should earn. It may be taken that the figures for cost of a cattle and livestock vehicle will be in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent, more than those given above, and this is the figure I recommend to the operator to have in mind. S. T. R.