AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Suggestions for Determining Coal-haulage Rates ,

11th October 1940
Page 32
Page 32, 11th October 1940 — Suggestions for Determining Coal-haulage Rates ,
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?

IN your issue dated August 3, 1940, you were good enough to publish my criticisms of the industrial-coal haulage rates explained by S.T.R. in an earlier issue.

I regret that S.T.R.'s further explanation does nothing to remove my doubts. He states that the terminal and running costs were derived from an examination of the actual facts of operation, yet the application of costs did not correspond with the actual results. Surely, if terminal and running costs be based on experience (I do not include special tests under this heading) the rates arrived at must yield results corresponding with the actual facts.

The only. conclusion which can be drawn from S.T.R.'s remarks is that his terminal costs and running costs are both understated to a considerable extent, and he corrects the anomaly by an arbitrary addition of Is. 3d. per ton. I submit that what iá required is a revision of the terminal and running costs to bring them into line with actual experience.

It is unfortunate that S.T.R. does not deal with my criticisms of the continued deduction of 1d. from the ascertained running costs of 3d. per ton-mile lead nor with the inconsistencies in his treatment of additional war costs, as both these subjects are important.

With regard to the general position of coal-haulage rates, I entirely agree that it is desirable, if possible, to agree schedules of rates, but I cannot accept as satis. factory the schedule under discussion. Its sole criterion is distance, and the same rate is payable, for example, in the case of :—

(a) Bunker-loaded coal from a colliery on-amain road in a country district to a works so situated that no town traffic is encountered, and

(b) hand-loaded coal from a wagon in a city railway siding to a factory involving a journey wholly through crowded city streets.

I note that in the haulage rates for sugar beet, explained by S.T.R. in your issue dated August 3, it has been recognized that factors other than distance are important and that standard rates are satisfactory only if operating conditions be defined. In my view, these considerations apply with at least equal weight to the coal industry.

In order not to appear to confine my remarks to destructive criticism, I submit that the following amendments to S.T.R.'s scale rates are necessary before they can become capable of satisfactory general application :— (1) The addition for " excessive delays and traffic interference " should be eliminated.

(2) The terminal costs should be increased to an amount sufficient to cover the actual costs incurred and at least two alternative terminal rates should be fixed, applicable according to different loading and unloading conditions.

(3) Two sets of running costs per mile, applicable to (a) "country" traffic and (b) "town " traffic conditions should be determined. For this purpose " town " traffic conditions might, for example, be considered to prevail within the boundaries of all towns and cities having a population exceeding 20,000.

(4) The increased running costs associated with the first mile of each journey should be assessed. The following illustration shows how the rates would be calculated, the figures used being for example only and not being intended to represent correct assessments:— Scales of this kind would provide for the determination of industrial coal-haulage rates based not only on distance, but also on loading and traffic conditions. It is thought that they would constitute a practical compromise between the separate consideration of every journey and the undue simplification of S.T.R.'s schedule. J. LATHAM. Manchester.

[I am sorry that my explanation for the details of the method of assessing coal haulage rates did not satisfy Mr. Latham. The assessment of the terminal charges and the running costs was correct. The factor of traffic and other interferences which combine to diminish the number of loads which could be delivered in a working day, is something additional, and can satisfactorily be dealt with only in the way I described. It is also a fact that the considerably increased daily mileage made possible when the distances over which the coal is hauled are comparatively great, justifies the continued application of the reduction of the penny per ton per mile. I appreciate the logic of Mr. La.tham's further remarks 'and the distinction which he would like to make between coal carried through purely country districts and coal carried through industrial areas, and again coal carried through areas which are partly country and partly industrial. My problem, however, was to assess rates which would apply generally, so that a fixed charge could be made for the delivery of coal, giving no preferential rate to any buyer other than the fact that he was near a source of supply. So far as the remuneration which hauliers obtain for the work, this is reasonable since there are few who arer not called upon the same day or in the same week to convey coal under all these three varying conditions. As regards Mr. Latham's criticism of the increases in war charges, it was appreciated that in a precise application of the increases there should also be an addition of approximately id. to the 6d. per ton terminal charge. It was decided, however, to leave that alone.—S.T.R.].

Tags

People: J. LATHAM, La
Locations: Manchester

comments powered by Disqus