Sand and Ballast Rates When Conditions are Difficult
Page 24
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Building Around Some Actual Figures Supplied by an Operator to Formulate a Table of Rates for Sand and Ballast Haulage to meet Special Circumstances
IDROCEEDING, from last week's issue, with the discussion of the six conditions which determine the basis of sand and ballast rates, r come now to the fourth.: " Find out if the ballast is to be dry Or Wet," This is, in fact, best dealt with, as has already been suggested, by treating on the basis of weight carried instead of by volume; that is to say, in tons instead of in yards. If that •course be impracticable, it is up to the haulier -to take steps to ascertain the weight of the Material per cubic yard and 'to proceed 'accordingly.
If the ballast be wet and, as in the example quoted, weighs anything from 6.1to .71 tons per 4-yd. load, there are two courses open to the operator. ' In the first place he may continue to carry .4 yds., thus overloading his vehicle from 331 to 50 per cent. Secondly, he may reduce the load to 5 or 51 tons by -carrying a smaller, volume of the ballast, say 3 cubic yds. instead of 4 cubic yds„ and making corrections to his rates to allow for the fact that he is able to carry only that number of yards per trip instead of the full
4 yds. .
To follow the first course is to invite just the trouble which A.C.I.S. describes and deplores—that is, to have one-third of the fleet continuously out of action and undergoing repairs as the result of breakdowns, at the same time incurring excessive expenditure on 'repairs and maintenance and on tyre renewals. The latter, by the way, tnay involve trouble with the Regional Transport Commissioner and, possibly, involve the loss of licences.
Moreover, as it is impossible to estimate what these extra costs are likely to be, and what is the increased expenditure involved by having an unstated number of vehicles laid up, there is, correspondingly, no way at arriving at a minimum rate for the haulage. Thus, it is impossible to arrive at a solution of the problem along these lines.
The second method involves merely a surn in simple proportion. If conditions be normal, and the weight of the ballast is as stated above, so that 3 cubic yds. is the maximum load, then the rate Must 'be cut by one-third. For the eight-mile lead, which has been so often cited as An example, the rate must be 7s. 4d., instead of Sc, 6d.
Is it Profitable to Overload Beyond Rated Carrying Capacity?
This is, in a sense, an unfortunate conclusion. I find,
according to A.C.I.S,'s figures, that he could have hauled heavy wet ballast at 6s. 10/d. per yd. under the conditions which actirally, prevail. That is to say, by continuing to carry 4 yds., thus sometimes overloading his vehicle by as much as 50 per cent, and all the time having one-third of his vehicles out of commission, he has to bear heavy cost of repairs and increasing expenditure on tyres. In other words, this result seems to set a. premium on overloading or, at least, to point to the fact that it can be profitable to overload, There is, however, this particular circumstance which has an important effect, All the vehicles were new. What the situation will be if he continues to operate; under these conditions, for another year or so, cannot be foretold. The probabilities are that the situation with regard to repairs and the damaged vehicles. would become so bad as to bring the work almost to a standstill. 'Certainly it would then be found that neither 6s, 1014. nor 7s. iqd: per•yd. would be enough to pay for the work.
A.C.I.S., I imagiiie, refuses to think about that aspect of it at all. He will almost certainly agree that the second. of the two plans is the better-,namely, to carry a load
which is less than 4 yds. At the same time, his chances, of obtaining 7s. 4d. per yd. for the eight-mile lead are not, .41.22
I imagine, very bright; especially, if there happens to any competition.
A.C.I.S. -and others will, in fact, probably do. as 'every haulier has to do at some time or other; that is, to corn" promise. He will probably carry 31 yds. instead of 4 yds., increase his price by one-seventh to 65. 4d. or. 6s. 6d. per yard, and pay particular attention to the provision for maintenance and care of tyres, so as to reduce its cost and-the number of vehiclei laid by to a minimum. •• •
The fifth condition suggests that the operator should ,estimate the percentage of his fleet that is likely to be Under repair due to bad roads, etc. To make this estimate, is far from easy. For normal haulage; to ,provide for one spare vehicle in 10 is regarded as ample; more generally, one in 12 is taken to be the standard figure.
I should say that not one operator in a thousand would estimate that, of a fleet of 45 vehicles, no fewer than 17 of then] would be out of commission regularly. That is. to say, it is necessary to provide 17 spare vehicles in order to operate a fleet of 28. • The maximum provision for spare vehicles which any operator would be likely to make, even if the conditions, on examination, appeared to be very bad, would be double that already mentioned; that is to say, two vehicles out of every 10. For 28 vehicles he would, therefore, consider it 'necessary 'to have only six and would be surprised if there be more than an occasional need for additional vehicles to be undergoing repair at any one time.
Covering the Costs of Vehicles That Are Standing Idle
However, in view of the experiences we are discussing, it might be as well to suggest that eight vehicles are necessary, in order to keep these 28 vehicles going. Provision' most be made, when estimating the costs and charges, for the fixed costs to cover those involved in keeping six vehicles standing idle. According to " The Commercial Motor " Tables of Operating Costs, this expense would comprise £6 6s, per week standing charges, plus, Say, 9& for vehicle insurance over and above that quoted in the Tables, plus £.2 5s. establishment charges, plus £1 for sundries, or
£10 per week per vehicle in all. • The total extra cost involved, therefore, in having eight vehicles available as spares amounts to £80 per week. This sum has to be spread Over the 28 vehicles in operation. which is equivalent to 67s. per vehicle per week, i.e., Is. 3d. per hour.The actual addition' to the charge per hour should be not less than Is, 6d., making that charge 7s. instead of the original 5s. 6d.
That is the way to provide in the estimate of costs for the need to have a number of vehicles standing by or undergoing repairs. Finally, I come to the sixth condition. A.C.I.S. advises . that when the operator has-taken into, consideration all the five conditions already enumerated and dealt with in these articles, he should then "calculate the number of trips per day he will be able to make with his running lorries arid the pay-load they will carry."
That, as I have said many times, is the right thing to do, For the moment, however, before I deal with it, I wish to pursue a course similar to that already followed in pre-: vious articles of this series. That is to draw .up a schedule ofrates, bearing in mind all.these five conditions and, Mei-• dentally, the two matters included in the sixth—the number of running lorries and the pay-load they will carry.
I have taken into consideration the number of running lorries by, assuming that, under the bad conditions which we are presuming to prevail, eight spare lorries will be needed to keep 28 vehicles on the road I have also considered the fact that the shingle being carried is wet and weighs some 61 to 7i tons per cubic yd., so that, without excessive overloading, the operator cannot carry more than 31 cubic yds. per trip,
As a result of calculations, taking these factors intO account, I have come to the conclusion that, whilst 10d. per mile run may still remain as the running charge, the rate per hour must be increased from 5s. 6d. to 7s. Using those figures as a basis, I have compiled the accompanying Table VI, in the same way as I compiled Table III, which appeared on page 407 of " The Commercial Motor" dated January 7.
Owing to difficulties of approach and loading, including the too-frequent breakdown of loading equipment, it has been found that instead of the standard of 40 minutes for terminal delays, which was assumed in making the calculations from which Table III was compiled, one hour is necessary. For column two, therefore, " terminal charge per yd.," the gross amount is 7s. and as 3i yds. only is the average load, it means that the terminal charge per yd. must be 2s., instead of 11d.
For the basic figure in the next column, " travelling charge per yd.," it is necessary to take into consideration the time needed to travel the two miles which have to be sun per one-mile lead, plus the running charge for the actual two-miles travelling.
It was agreed, previously, that an overall average speed of 25 m.p.h. should he, taken a,. a basis for assessing the necessary time and, at that speed, 4.8 minutes are needed
• to cover the distance. The charge for 4.8 minutes, at 7s. per hour, is 6.7d. To that it is necessary to add Is. 8d. for two miles at 10d, per mile, giving a total of 2s. 2.7d. for the gross travelling charge. Divide that by 31 for the yardage carried and we get 7.63d. as the travelling charge per yd. for the first lead mile.
Terminal Charge is Not Changed by Different Lead Mileages The 2s. in the second column remains constant, whatever the lead mileage. The amount in the third column increases by 7.63d. for every addition to the lead mileage, and in that way our first and second columns are completed.
Without taking into account any further factors, it would be sufficient to add those two columns together to get the charge per yd. There is, however, one other matter for which allowance has to be made, and that is the enhanced difficulty of keeping time over short lead mileages. This is particularly important over the shortest distances, but gradually diminishes until, at 13 miles, it disappears.
In Table III Is. per yd. was added to the charge for a one-mile lead 'and diminished by Id. per yd. as the mileage increased. That sum of Is. is byono means is theoretical amount; it is one which I have found in practice to meet the case under average good conditions.
' In the preeent circumstances, however, ,it is not likely to be sufficient, and instead of Is. I have taken Is. fid., tapering this " weightage " off at the rate of lid. per mile increase in the lead distance.
By taking' into consideration the figures in the second, third and fourth columns, the rate per ya, is arrived at and set down in the fifth column. In calculating the rate I have taken the nearest penny above the actual amount and thus avoided the inclusion of decimals, which are not practicable in ordinary commercial operation.
The reader, in comparing the figures in Table VI with those in Table III, will note the differences in rate which are brought about as the result of poor conditions of haulage. This difference emphasizes the importance of taking into consideration the six conditions enumerated by A.C.I.S.
The figures in the last column, " rate per ton," are arrived at on the assumption that 3i yds. weighs approximately 6 tons. • In a subsequent article I will deal with these rates on the basis stiggested by A.C.I.S„ namely, the number of journeys per day which a vehicle can reasonably be expected to do. The figures thus obtained will serve as a check upon the rates recommended both in this article and in Table III.
I should like, also, at the same time to make some comment upon a schedule of rates for haulage of rough stone, etc.; which has recently been issued. The rates in this schedule are, to my mind, quite inadequate, remembering present-day conditions relating to costs and labour. S.T.R.