TRANSPORT TIPS FOR TRADESMEN.
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Particularly Addressed to Those Who are Replacing Horsed Vehicles by Motors, or Contemplating So Doing.
THE connection between mileage and costs per ton-mile is sufficiently obvious. However small the mileage may be, certain standing charges are incurred. Thus, in the case of a 1 ton van, the standing charges, if we include wages and allow for depreciation and interest on capital, may be in the neighbourhood of El a day. Running costs may be in the neighbourhood of 6d, a mile. The average running speed may be somewhere about 12 miles an hour. If we allow for a 10-hour day, this makes 120 miles a day theoretically possible. The total cost of this mileage, taking the above figures for standing and running charges, would be £4.
Daily Mileage and Ton-mile Costs.
Tf the average load out and home is half the maximum load, we have a performance of 60 ton-miles at a cost of 80s. ; that is to say, our total cost is is. 4d. per ton-mile. If we halve the mileage, we halve the running cost, but leave the standing charges unaffected. For a mileage of 60, the total daily cost would therefore' be 50s., or, assuming an average ot half-load, is. 8d. a ton-mile. If we run only 30 miles, a day, we do so at a total cost of about 35s., and, again, averaging half-load, our cast per ton-mile comes out at 2s. 4d.
With a 2 ton van we should expect a lower cost per ton-mile, because the unit is larger, but we should only get it if we have sufficient work for the vehicle and can cover a reasonable mileage with it. Its. average speed of running will probably be ratherlower than that of the one-tonner, but for purposes of rough comparison w.e will assume that it is the same. Depreciation will be higher; and, consequently, the standing charges per day may be about 25s. The running charges may be.about 8d. a mile. With a 60-inile day, this would give a total cost of 65s. Assuming half-lead on the average, this gives a cost per ton-mile of lo. id. Reduce the mileage to 40, and we have a total cost of about 52s., or just about Is. dd. a mile.
The two-tonner, running 40 miles a day, is. therefore, no more economical in cost per ton-mile than the one-tonner .running 120 miles a day. Consequently, the proper choice between the two may depend on what percentage of the working day must be taken up in loading and in effecting deliveries. Supposing that loading and delivering with the onetanner take three-and-a-half hours, then leading and. delivering twice as many parcels with the two-tonner will take seven hours. Out of a 10-hour day, this leaves only three hours for running time, and makes our mileage about 36 and our ton-mile cost about Is. M. The one-tonner will have six-and-a-half hours available for useful work, giving a mileage of close upon 80 miles, or a cost per ton-mile of just about Is. ed. There is, in such circumstances, very little to choose between the two in respecb of cost, but the one-tonner has -the great advantage of being able to deli-,er every day over a very much larger area. thus ena,eling its owner to give superior service and helping to increase the turnover of the business.
c24
Organization for Protection.
Correspondence which has recently appeared in the daily Press on the subject of the financing of road improvement indicates that commercial motor owners must still take into account the possibility of being saddled with yet heavier taxation, unless they succeed in sufficiently impressing the powers that be with the strength of their side of the argument. Some people are going so far as solemnly to suggest that motor owners should pay the whole cost of road improvement and maintenance. They base this proposition on the theory that the cost of the roads should be borne by those who use them for trade purposes, just as a railway' is responsible for the maintenance of its own permanent way. The argument is, of course, illogical enough, inasmuch as the railway has a monopoly of its permanenf way, whereas the roads are open to the use of all and sundry, and exist for the community as a whole. There are, however, perhaps more dangerous proposals of a slightly rem comprehensive character,' but, nevertheless, involving the theory of heavier taxation of the owners of trade motor vehicles.
Now, we know from experience that the decisions of Parliament on matters of this kind depend largely on the effectiveness of the propaganda of the interests concerned. At the present moment we see the railways are organizing all their forces to make the Railway Bill as favourable as possible to them. They are working hard to secure control of road as well as of rail transport, with the ultimate object of freezing out the independent motor carrier and establishing a monopoly, which would, no doubt, be used to coerce traders into sending their goods by rail rather than by road. The railways find it well worth while to spend money freely, on propaganda on such occa sions, It is just as necessary for owners of road vehicles to organize propaganda on a broad basis. Such work is never effective unless it is co-operative, and this brings us to two definite Droposals to all trade vehicle owners.
The first is that every such owner should join a suitable motor organization, which can take charge of his political interests and can be trusted to do so to good advantage. The second is that he should urge any organization of which he is a member to collaborate to the fullest possible degree with other bodies representative of various sections of motor users, and even those representing the motor industry and trade. Naturally, it is not always possible for users and manufacturers to see eye to eye, but on matters of general polities their main interests are in. line. What is good for the user is good for the sales of the trader or the manufacturer. On such occasions all should pull together, so as to exert the maximum weight. Even when disagreement is inevitable, it is just as well thatthe points of difference should be thrashed out between competent organizations and some sort of compromise reached when possible. This is better than the alternative of squabbles in public, which merely give the common enemy a better chance than ever of doing us harm. •