AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Own-account transport problems and prospects

7th November 1969, Page 133
7th November 1969
Page 133
Page 134
Page 139
Page 142
Page 133, 7th November 1969 — Own-account transport problems and prospects
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?

REPORT BY JOHN DARKER, AMBIM AND DAVID SPAIN

SIR REGINALD WILSON'S stimulating address on "The Current Transport Theme" launched the Freight Transport Association Conference at Eastbourne in brilliant style. Sir Reginald. chairman of the National Freight Corporation, debunked the common assertion that the Transport Act was a red-blooded Socialist measure. The Act, he said, gave the NFC no compulsory powers of acquisition, and there were no "wild projects" for integration. Mrs Castle was the kind of enthusiast who would regard even a message to the milkman as a Socialist note!

The primary purpose of the Act was to help the railways, said Sir Reginald. It was hard to see how the Government could contrive a moratorium on new legislation if it responded to the president's pleas for action in many directions. (CM last week).

As regards competition for road space, all transport providers should hang together to avoid hanging separately. Demand for road space for private cars should be supported and transport providers should make very certain they used any new road space.

Sir Reginald expressed concern about rail track use in relation to projected 150 mph passenger trains. Such speeds were of no interest to freight operators if costs were increased thereby. If many rail tracks were allocated for express passenger work, freight train movements would be affected. As to road pricing—a euphemism for further road taxation—he detested the idea because there was no suggestion that the money raised would be spent on easing congested points.

Sir Reginald said it would be hard to predict road /rail economics in 10 years' time. The future lay in road /rail co-operation—though the combination of media should not mean monopoly. He felt that if the railways had won road operating powers in 1930 many rail managers would have rushed into road operations and rail transport unions would by now have had a large membership in road haulage.

Predicting that the former rail sundries traffic now in the hands of National Carriers Ltd. would be profitable much sooner than he had once imagined, Sir Reginald said that a wave of optimism was running through NCL and the £25 million annual loss had been reduced to £17m. But some cross-subsidization was necessary on the various parcels services. He envisaged a schedule of rates rather like letter rates. Warfare between parcels operators of all kinds was not wanted but serious thinking was called for to work out the most rational national parcels system. The public transport sector was not the enemy of the private sector. He welcomed the new dialogue between customers and providers in which the FTA was taking a prominent role.

Mr. A. Utley, (Jessop Saville Ltd., Sheffield) asked the speaker whether NCL and ERS Parcels were to be maintained as separate entities. Both organizations are big enough already, said Sir Reginald, but joint delivery services centred on Taunton and in south-west Scotland were being studied. British Express Carriers would get rid of a lot of "curiosities". Closer consultation over rates was called for with the GPO involved as well. The aim was to get rid of losses and improve service levels. Mr. F. H. Layton (WHS Transport Ltd.) asked Whether further changes harmful to the interests of transport bodies could be prevented by common machinery linking BR, ETA, RHA, and NFC.

Sir Reginald said the transport committee of the CBI had done useful work behind the stenes, He felt existing institutions should be used---any further organization would involve staff, meetings and lots of paper.

Mr. L. A. Carey (Reckitt and Colman Ltd., Norwich) referred to a reference in Sir Reginald's speech which seemed to play down the role of distribution in company structure. Surely distribution was of growing significance?

Sir Reginald agreed with Mr. Carey that distribution was a major function. Transport people should be more aware of related factors. Why should not transport managers become distribution managers? he asked. Transport would still be of great importance, but other management functions such as sales should be looked at from a wider angle.

Asked by Mr. J. Delicate (Courtaulds Ltd.) about the working of the Freight Integration Council, Sir Reginald said he was a member. So far there had been no public disagreements between BR and NFC and relations were harmonious. The Freight Integration Council was now studying a reference from the Ministry of Transport to look at the pricing structure of parcels traffic. So long as the Council did not aspire to be a directing organization for the constituent bodies, it was a useful piece of machinery.

Railway Freight Services —Present and Future

A PLEA for stability in the political framework of transport came from Mr. S. C. Robbins, executive director (freight), British Railways Board, discussing "Railway Freight Services—Present and Future". He was joining other speakers in this call. Although the writing down of capital had eased the railways' burden, he said, assets still had to be replaced. It cost some £60m a year merely to nourish the rail system and this took no account of new projects. Railways had raised £40rn in 1967 and £34m in 1968 from the sale of scrap and !and. Clearly this could not go on.

The trunk haulage bill for rail services for NCL movements was now about ilOm a year. Although all road vehicles had been transferred to the NFC and National• Carriers, in main cities over 2,000 vehicles worked full time for rail parcel services. Did it make sense for such a large number of vehicles to be under the control of another management? "Given the chance I'd switch them back to BR", said Mr. Robbins.

He refuted any suggestion that the railways intended to "rack rent" the hire of track for Freightliners. There was no wish to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. The Freightliner system was not yet profitable and was originally planned to break even by 1971.

Mr. Robbins said that pay loads and axle loads would be reduced on freight trains exceeding TOO mph and he personally was dubious as to the merits of such speeds apart from particular inter-city passenger services.

Mr. H. T. Newton (Michelin Tyre Co. Ltd.) asked Mr. Robbins what rail track mileage would remain in 20 years' time. Were not some rail line closures shortsighted? Mr. Robbins replied that it was impossible to guess the ultimate size of the rail network. If the only way the railways could remain viable involved shutting down fines then this had to be done.

Mr. C. 0. Jenkin-Jones (ICI Ltd.) asked about traffic originating from private sidings. When would talks begin with major customers? Mr. Robbins said the railways were in the process of converting broad plans to specific potential traffic zones—and the rates they could carry; 98 per cent of freight traffic for rail came from private sidings and ports and 95 per cent of this traffic terminated in private sidings. It was possible that the future rail network would be even more siding-oriented.

Weight Measuring and the Prevention of Overloading

SPLIT-WEIGHING was accurate to within less than I per cent with some equipment tested, suggested Mr. J. W. Furness, assistant chief niechanical engineer, Ministry of Transport. during the session devoted to "Weight Measuring and the Prevention of Overloading". Axle weighers appeared to be more accurate than wheel weighers, he said. The accuracy of self-weighing devices was rather more doubtful, though he understood that equipment would soon be marketed at a cost of between £80 and £110.

Discussing the FTA's call for a 10 per cent tolerance, Mr. Furness said this was still being studied. If there were no doubts from the safety angle it would be agreed, but there was the real fear that operators would regard 10 per cent on top of plated weights as normal. There was all too little margin for further concessions, bearing in mind the risk of bridge overloading and braking systems with insufficient margin for safety. Some people already had plated weights higher than permitted axle weights.

Mr. Furness said that if the 10 per cent tolerance were really necessary operators should specify vehicles with adequate front-axle capacity.

Mr. C. T. W. Gough (Bass Charrington Ltd., Burton-on-Trent) suggested that weight distribution was a real problem to operators. The Ministry was much too academic he thought. Some vehicles were a problem even after 40 per cent of the normal load had been taken off.

Goods Vehicles and Urban Traffic Management

MR. PETER sTorr, joint director of planning and transportation, Greater London Council, opened Friday's session with a paper on "Goods Vehicles and Urban Traffic Management". He gave a. broad outline of the general problem of reconciling expanding goods and private transport in the context of the 35-mile diameter Greater London region where little land was not built on or un-allocated. Centralized traffic control measures would help road users and police and traffic wardens would give higher standards of service to road users. Unfortunately, speed of action in extended control of traffic was limited by the supply of wardens and, in some cases, powers.

It was to be expected that bus services particularly at peak hours would be given an increasing degree of priority. As regards the problem of shop deliveries in high streets, Mr. Stott suggested that operators should consider the practicability of parking in adjacent side streets using trolleys for goods delivery to shops. He was concerned with the very low occupancy of lorry parks and he stressed the numerous complaints concerning the 10.000 commercial vehicles parking on residential roads in Greater London. Overnight parking must he a direct management responsibility and parking arrangements should be part of journey planning. He thought the FTA could consider the provision of new drivers' hostels.

Mr. Stott commended the value of the Operation Moondrop experiment last year. More refined schemes were now being worked out.

Mr. T. W. Morkill (Charrington and Co. Ltd.)said noise was inevitable with beer deliveries in residential areas. He could not see the practicability of tanker deliveries using long lengths of hosepipe.

Mr. L. A. Castleton (Metal Box Co. Ltd.) referred to the notable omission in Mr.

Stott's address. What was being done to improve access to industrial premises in many areas of London? There were many cases where large vehicles could not get into factory premises even in working hours and condensed hours of delivery were a real problem.

Mr. Stott said that when it was only possible to influence people, it was not easy to produce effective results. There was a current of change in the retail shop delivery problem but in industry there was a gradual improvement as premises were redeveloped.

Operators' Licensing

MOST OWN-ACCOUNT operators with holding company C licences covering subsidiaries in several Traffic Areas are likely to opt for having the new operators' licences in the names of each subsidiary in the respective traffic areas. This was the opinion of Mr. J. R. Elliott, traffic manager, Alcan Industries Ltd., who presented his paper on operators' licensing on Friday morning.

Having outlined the background to '0' licensing, Mr. Elliott set out to explain its main requirements, He emphasized the problems confronting own-account operators in deciding how to tackle the new system. A C-licence had. he said, been obtained in the Traffic Area in which the applicant's head office, or similar, was situated. Now an '0' licence was required for each Traffic Area in which vehicles were based. While vehicles could be transferred from one base to another within the area, so long as the authorized total was not exceeded, there were special problems for groups and associated companies. Assuming that heavy vehicles were to be operated, it had to be remembered that the '0'-licence and carriers licence system would be operated simultaneously but distinct from one another.

At present, either each subsidiary had a separate C-licence in its own name which did not permit vehicles to be used to carry the goods of any other subsidiary, or a holding company licence would have been obtained to cover all the vehicles within the group. And although a subsidiary, for '0' licensing, was one in which there was at least a 50 per cent interest, the definition for carriers' licensing required a minimum 90 per cent interest. If interchangeability was an important factor, a holding company C-licence would still be needed for those companies operating the heavier vehicles and which were owned at least 90 per cent by the holding company. For other subsidiaries. B licensing would still be necessary—which Mr. Elliott felt was an administrative nonsense.

In his own company it had been decided that the potential benefits of interchange with the one or two subsidiaries which did not qualify under the 90 per cent rule would not outweigh the administrative inconvenience. and so a holding company C licence had been obtained excluding the non-qualifying subsidiaries, who would go it alone.

The speaker urged operators to take advantage of the facility to specify extra vehicles on the licence application, to allow for growth. He warned that margins should be neither so small that an early variation application had to be made (thus bringing the fuller investigation intended for newcomers), nor so large as to provoke the LA to investigate whether maintenance facilities were indeed adequate. He revealed that the Ministry had now decided that licence fees would not be payable for these extra vehicles until they were actually obtained and added to the licence.

Mr. Elliott said that groups with holding company licences which wished to have '0' licences on a subsidiary-company basis might have to take steps now to qualify for the transitional arrangements.

Explaining how his own company had prepared for '0' licensing, Mr. Elliott advised all companies to check the efficiency of their systems and lines of responsibility, which were as vital as the maintenance arrangements themselves. On loading problems, he revealed that his company was testing, and hoped soon to fit to its vehicles, a system of strain gauges which recorded in the cab the weight imposed by each axle.

Having long used a simple type of tachograph, this device was now readily accepted by drivers as part of a successful productivity agreement, and it was the instrument from which operating information was compiled. Although vehicle mileage had increased, the accident rate had so decreased that the company itself now carried all but the third party section of its fleet insurance.

Answering a question, Mr. Elliott said the tachograph had not contributed a great deal to the success of the productivity agreement itself, but it enabled the company to measure the results of the agreement accurately. The tachograph had sometimes proved a driver innocent of alleged infringement. Not all tachograph records were analysed; they were used for spot checks and were never used to try to enforce discipline.

Mr. Elliott suggested that the increase in maintenance cost made inevitable by legislation could be much more than offset by increases in operating efficiency, not least by a successful productivity deal.

For the question period. Mr. Elliott was joined by FTA director Mr. H. R. Featherstone, and Mr. D. C. Renshaw of the Ministry of Transport.

When Mr. G. A. Crawford (Associated Lead Manufacturers) asked whether any system that produced roadworthy vehicles would be acceptable. Mr Renshaw confirmed that vehicle condition was the acid test. Mr. Featherstone revealed that FTA officials had been visiting area mechanical engineers and although they had found differences of opinion on details, the vehicle condition criterion was universally accepted. He was confident that a system based on the FTA maintenance scheme, or a thorough system employing FTA inspections as checks would be entirely acceptable for '0' licensing.

Mr. P. A. Thompson (British Steel Corporation) wanted to know *hether the Ministry would give LAs guidance on the exercise of their wide discretionary powers under '0' licensing. Mr. Renshaw said the Minister could not give direction in individual cases and had not used his power to give general directions. It was from the LAs' own meetings to discuss the system that commonality of procedure would emerge, while Transport Tribunal appeal decisions would of course have an effect.

Mr. Featherstone wanted to know whether these LAs' meetings had produced a common application form.

Mr. Renshaw assured him that they had, and that the latest application form would be used by all Authorities. Although these forms were now available, he asked operators not to try to obtain them unnecessarily, since everyone would get one at the proper time for application.

When the chairman, Mr. Layton, protested that all operators were vitally interested in the contents as an aid to planning, Mr. Renshaw said copies were being sent to the Press in the hope that they would publish them (see CM page 54).

Vehicle transfer problems were raised by Mr. W. G. Payne (Bowyers (Wiltshire)).

Mr. Elliott explained that vehicles in the same company could be transferred from base to base for up to three months without notification; where a company was independent or an "excluded" subsidiary, the limit was one month, but in all cases the total number specified on the licence must not be exceeded.

Mr. H. J. F. Strange (A. Guinness Son and Co.) asked how much an '0' licence would cost.

Mr. Renshaw said the figure would be known within a few weeks, but there had been assurances that it would not exceed an amount needed to cover administration and enforcement of the system.

When a questioner asked whether, the Ministry intended to match its probing of operators' maintenance by a survey of garages in the motor trade, "to sort the wheat from the chaff", Mr. Renshaw said this had not even been considered.

Drivers' Wages and Productivity

THE FINAL session of the conference—a forum on "Drivers Wages and Productivity"—provided a platform for two prominent trade union officials to explain their attitudes to productivity bargaining. Mr. H. Urwin, assistant general secretary, TGWU, was supported by Mr. K. Jackson, national secretary, Road Transport Commercial Group. Mr. W. T. Fairbairn, and Mr. L. A. Castleton (who presided) reflected FTA views.

Mr. Urwin stressed the growing feeling that road transport drivers should enjoy wages and working hours comparable with workers in industry. Many drivers were likening the roads to factory conveyor belts and insisting on comparable conditions of service. They contrasted protective factory Acts with penal legislation applied to road users.

In the United States, said Mr. Urwin, a recent alliance between the United Automobile Workers and the Teamsters' Union reflected growing inter-dependence. These massive unions with a membership approaching 4m. were looking for much longer holidays totalling 4 to 6 weeks annually, with holidays at 2 or 3 month intervals. Higher earnings, occupational pension schemes and better holidays would put a premium on good transport management and productivity bargains made locally could yield more efficient operations to pay for the desired standard of living.

Under the Redundancy Payments Act long service workers could often be persuaded to retire, said Mr. Urwin. It was possible that workers sacked for alleged misconduct would be able to appeal to Tribunals set up under the Act, with the chance of substantial compensation.

Mr. N. Mower (Metal Box Co. Ltd., Hull) asked if the Union was getting its own house in order regarding wildcat strikes.

Mr. Urwin said these were not confined to Great Britain or even the free western states but were apparent throughout the world.

The best answer had been found by the Royal Commission who discovered that only four of 250 industries with collective bargaining procedure had been at fault. The type of agreements operating successfully should be tried in the unsuccessful industries, he said.

Mr. F. M. Fieldhouse (British Ropes Ltd., Doncaster ) asked what efforts the Union were making to persuade drivers to take a more responsible attitude towards their jobs, especially now extra clerical effort was required to complete the new drivers' log books.

Mr. Jackson disagreed that it would take greater effort, thanks to the Union's efforts at the Ministry of Transport. The original idea involving graphs had been scrapped and the new log book was very similar to the old.

He, like Mr. Fieldhouse, was against the "cowboy driver" but felt that where an employee earned a good basic wage the element to be irresponsible removed itself.

Mr. G. C. W. Nabb (Joseph Lucas Ltd., Birmingham) asked why, if the men accepted tachographs as a means to increased productivity—leading inevitably to higher wages—the TGWU sent an edict from Transport House preventing it.

"If we're talking on productivity", said Mr. Jackson, "it can only get off the ground if there is mutual respect from both parties'.

He quoted an example where a company had found it much cheaper to employ a firm of consultants, who checked every aspect of the job, as opposed to fitting tachographs.

Mr. Nabb still felt dissatisfied and suggested a pilot study of the scheme would be better, admitting that if the end result was not satisfactory he would be the first to disregard it.

Mr. Jackson said he supported work measurement in many places but because productivity agreements had been so often successfully completed without them he thought tachographs were unnecessary.

He further thought, in response to a question by Mr. B. A. Murray (Continental Oil (UK) Ltd. ) that future productivity agreements would depend on the management doing a little "inward looking" and remembering that for every driver in the cab there might be two passengers in the office.

Mr. H. Lowe (Pilkington Bros. Ltd., St. Helens ) asked if the standard of the shop floor negotiating machinery could be improved.

The TGWU, said Mr. Urwin, was dependent on the management in allowing the shop steward time off to take further study. If they would do this the Union was certainly prepared to instruct them.


comments powered by Disqus