AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

WOULD 2s. A MILE PAY THE HAULIER.?

4th October 1921, Page 27
4th October 1921
Page 27
Page 27, 4th October 1921 — WOULD 2s. A MILE PAY THE HAULIER.?
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

With a Weekly Contract for 300 Miles Distance and Buying a 4-tonner on the Hire-purchase System, the Charge is too Low.

IN my last article, which appeared in the issue for September 13th, I dealt at considerable length with an inquiry, from a man who was thinking of buying a 4-tonner on the hire-purchase system, on terms which would involve him in the payment of 26 a week on account of the purchase price of this vehicle. With his lorry he intended to carry out a contract for 300 miles a week at 2s. a mile. I warned him that 2s. a mile was little enough in any case, and that, in his, with. 26 a week as a steady outgo for the first two years, the risk of loss and of failure to meet his contractural obligations was one which I, at least, would not care to take.

The inquiry and my reply are evidently of considerable interest, for I have had quite a lot of letters concerning them. The majority of them confirm my opinion, although there are one or two which differ. One man in particular Writes, to say that he will do the whole job, 300 miles a week with a 4-tonner, for 226 10s., which is equivalent to is. 90. per mile, 3d. more than the bare working cost of the vehicle, and making no allowances for ,establishinent charges, the cost of upkeep of a stand-by machine (which this correspondent says he will keep in reserve) or anything of the kind. This is not business, and the trade will not be built up by men who carry on in that fashion. Quite apart from that., however, which is a matter to which I have frequently made reference in the course of these articles, our friend has, as I stated, overlooked the most important point in connection with this particular example, which is that my correspondent wished to make sufficient to be able to pay 26 a week for the lorry as he went along.

The original inquirer himself has also written to me again, agreeing generally with my figure. He states that he did not make any allowance for a breakdown, as he was buying a .1type Thornycroft _reconditioned] by the makers, of which he, himself, intended to take care. He, therefore, concluded that ,there would be no breakdown, and that no provision need be made for such a circumstance. He, too, it , would appear, has missed my point in regard to this particular matter. Neither the make of the lorryin this ease undoubtedly excellent-nor the care of its owner, however competent he may be, will avoid accident, which may happen to the best regulated machine. In the event of such an accident resulting in his machine being laid up entirely, what .is he going to do to keep his contract for hauling? In his letter he also states that he has had quotations as low as ls. 71c1. per mile for work with a 4-tonnex. To that I make the same reply as I have done to the other case quoted above, and, if I may, to use a popular expression, "have it both ways," I would ask him how long he expects to be able to keep a. contract at 2s. a mile, when there are fellows in the trade runderattting to the extent mentioned?

The other side of the picture is thrown into high relief by a correspondent signing himself "D.R.C.," who has been carting benzole on an F.W.D. 3-4 tamer. He had two days' work. On the first day he covered 34 miles, making six calls, and the time occupied was 6 hours. The second day there were 56 miles covered and 11 calls made, the time occupied being 8 hours. He sent in his account as follows: The other party to the contract claims that the fee is too high, and they have paid me the compliment of stating that they will abide by my decision.

I gather that our friend has charged entirely according to time, taking no account of mileage, and that the rate is 14s. an hour. I am afraid he is really asking too much. The F.W.D., for purposes of cost, etc., should rank as a 3 tonnes, on which basis a fair -charge would be 9.1d. a mile for each mile run, and 7s. 6d. per hour for the time occupied. This would mean that for the first day the charge should be 34 times 90., which is 21 6s. 2141., plus 7s. 6d. an hour for six hours = 22 5s. On the second day 56 miles at9/d. amounts to 22 3s. 2d.' and 8 hours at 7s. 6d. .to 23. The total for the first day is therefore 23 11s. 21. as against our friend's 24 4s., and on the second day 25 3s. 2d. instead of 25 12s. Total, 28 14s. 4id. as against 29 16s. At the same time, these charges which I give are the minimum which any haulier should accept. They are not necessarily limiting charges and it may be that there are circumstances about this man's work which make. it necessary for him to increase his charges to some. small extent. I 'therefore suggest that 29 be accepted as the fair figure for this job. THE SKOTCH.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus