AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

A Successful Fil Venture

11th October 1963
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
Page 62
Page 58, 11th October 1963 — A Successful Fil Venture
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?

By S. Buckley Assoc. Inst. T.

Dr. Beeching faces his customers

THE first national conference of the Traders Road Transport Association was held at Brighton last week, attended by 250 delegates. Indicative of the standing of this Association, Dr. Beeching, chairman of the British Railways Board, accepted an invitation to address the conference on the future role of British Railways at the opening session on Friday morning.

The president of the Association, Mr. K. C. Turner, gave a paper the same afternoon on the riile and future of the C-licensed vehicle and the T.R.T.A. On Saturday further papers were given by Mr. J. Delicate, general transport manager of Courtaulds Ltd., on C-licence operation, followed by Mr. H. B. Phillips, group road transport manager of George Cohen 600 Group Ltd., who comprehensively surveyed goods vehicle plating.

Discussion—often spirited, always pertinent—followed each address. Questions were answered both by the speakers concerned or a panel of selected members. Due both to good planning and selection, the business sessions of the conference were topical and relative to members' problems. As befits a transport association, timekeeping was good and at a first attempt a high standard has been set for any future conferences the T.R.T.A. may decide to hold.

"There is probably no other major industrial activity in this country which gives rise to so much emotion and so much confused thinking as transport does. This unfortunately reaches its peak in relation to the railways. It is necessary, therefore, to go on repeating—not once, but many times—those factual truths and reasonable deductions which spring from objective study •' With these comments Dr. Beeching appropriately opened his address on the future role of the British Railways. A reason for his addressing the conference was immediately declared. Whilst admitting that some saw C-licence operators as the arch enemies of the railways, Dr. Beeching declared to the conference delegates with typical frankness: "To me you look like potential customers from whom we can win traffic ", adding the qualification, "if we can provide the quality of service you want at a price which is lower than your costs ".

Commenting on the undefined jargon of " integration" and " co-ordination" of transport, Dr. Beeching said the Railways Board believed in "Rationalization ". This allowed each form of transport to be developed to do those things which it could do better than available alternatives and cease doing 'what could clearly be done better than by other means.

He then dealt with some of the proposals contained in the Board's report on " The Reshaping of British Railways ". The new pattern of freight services was based on the train, rather than a wagon, being the unit of movement.

Such proposals included the increasing movement in bulk, in addition to coal and minerals, of oil, cement, fertilizers and B32 other materials. Company trains were having an increasing appeal and he instanced their use in the motor industry. Charter trains provided an intermediate service for customers who could bulk their loads, however varied, into one train load.

Regarding liner trains, he admitted it was a traffic field in which competition between road and rail was most intense —but it also offered "the greatest opportunities for road/rail collaboration ". H e went on: "We are sure that road hauliers will be much more ready to use rail for the trunk haul if they remain the principals ". So would manufacturers with their own fleet, he added. Liner train terminals to which all road operators had access were essential.

On railway outlook Dr. Beeching said the railways were not yet ready to mount a major sales campaign, but company and market trains were running. Stock for liner trains had been designed, market studies made and depot sites selected. Specific proposals for the first few services should be sanctioned "quite soon ".

Opening the discussion, Mr. L. A. Castleton questioned whether costing was not becoming an obsession against which the user had little material to combat such arguments. But Dr. Beeching refuted that costing was becoming a new religion. He was "unashamedly unapologetic" on the subject and advised those not well versed in costing to start thinking about it very soon.

Mr. I. W. Bannard inquired as to the future for private siding traffic as much freight traffic was cross country and did not fit in with the liner train concept. Replying, Dr. Beeching said that any

impression that they were no longer interested in private siding traffic was wrong—" It is some of the best traffic we have ". Asked whether the railways were no longer concerned in smalls traffic by Mr. E. H. Kelly, Dr. Beeching replied that they were, but must be more selective.

Mr. S. J. Lamborn said he understood that seasonal traffic would not be wanted by the railways. He asked: "Did the Railways Board also not want the subsequent associated traffics". Not if they could not recoup themselves from such traffics, was the reply.

" It has not died—yet" was Dr. Beeching's reply to Mr. F. H. Woodward's inquiry as to the fate of the roadrailer, adding, 'My view is that the container system has a definite advantage."

Mr. F. T. Auld questioned whether one per cent of C-licence operators could carry the proposed 8-ft_ containers on their existing vehicles because of limited size, or van bodies, but Dr. Beeching claimed that smaller containers would be uneconomic.

Whether the Geddes Committee's report on licensing could thwart the railway proposals was a question put by Mr. G. F. Page. Dr. Beeching said it was nonsense to say they had considered the railway in isolation but agreed they were being held up by the political situation. Responsible leaders of the Opposition knew full well what they proposed to do was right. There could be delay, but "the sooner it was done the better ".

Finally, replying to Mr. S. S. Robson, as to whether British Railways would categorically refuse to carry certain traffics. Dr. Beeching exclaimed: "We also believe in freedom of choice—to refuse ".

"It is the rail unions who are the chief advocates of legislative restrictions on road transport, with the object of forcing goods traffic on to rail. On the other hand there are powerful groups in the Labour and trade union movements whose task it is to protect the interests of road transport workers, and I cannot believe they will willingly accept a policy which could affect the jobs of their members. . . . We should, however, be burying our heads in the sand if we failed to recognize the very real danger which exists."

These pertinent comments were made by the president of the Association, Mr. K. C. Turner, when presenting a paper to the conference on 'The role of the C-licensed vehicle; how it may be affected by future developments; and the future policy and work of the T.R.T.A.".

The immediate question confronting the 600.000 firms who operated 11 m. commercial vehicles under C licence was how far political developments would again put transport into the melting pot. But though there was speculation as to what action a future Labour Government might take, both in relation to transport in general and to C-licensed vehicles in particular, there was as yet no more than that Party's commitments to "a co-ordinated and integrated trans

port system "—which could mean anything or nothing. There had been much talk at T.U.C. arid Labour party conferences but with the same indeterminate results. This was not altogether surprising, Mr. Turner maintained, as there must necessarily be a sharp diversion of opinions within the Party and the unions.

Ancillary vehicles were being blamed for the deteriorating position of the railways and traffic congestion, he continued. But a recent official survey suggested that the trend towards road transport and the C-licensed vehicle was due to the growth of industrial production, with the emphasis on light industry dependent on road and the simultaneous decline of industries which traditionally depended on rail. There was, in fact, nothing remarkable or sinister in this development. The same thing was happening all over Europe.

Without knowing the reason for the use of C-licensed vehicles and the effects if the goods carried were differently dispatched, any attempt to determine a " desirable " transport pattern was purely theoretical and completely out of touch with the practical needs of both transport and industrial efficiency.

Mr. Turner then instanced two types of restriction against C-licence vehicles which were being canvassed. One was a a mileage limitation which would force the trader to dispatch goods either by rail or public haulier, beyond a certain point. The other restriction would be imposed by fiscal means, for example a ton-mile tax levied exclusively on C-licence operation. He added: " I believe the effects of either operation would be disastrous ".

Artificial direction of traffic must result in a less efficient movement. If there was discriminatory taxation. the inefficiency would be directly reflected in increased costs and prices, both in the home market and in export. Alternatively it could result in late or irregular deliveries, production lines being at a standstill, lost export orders, damaged goods or other defects attending the use of the wrong means of transport.

Mr. Turner pleaded for the help of every trading and industrial company in putting across the story as to what a restrictive transport policy involved. It would be a fatal mistake if top management took its transport for granted—as it was so often inclined to do—and then found, too late, that its right to use its transport was in serious jeopardy.

He welcomed the committee of inquiry set up by the Government to examine the licensing system for road haulage. It should ensure a clear, objective and impartial assessment of the issues involved. If it did no more than dissipate the widespread ignorance on this subject, it would have done a useful job. And if it resulted in the acceptance of a realistic transport policy the committee would deserve the highest praise.

Mr. J. H. Whitcombe, in questioning the need for any form of licensing, maintained that the sole test should be economic. Mr. J. W. Bannard, however. maintained that whilst ideally here was a case for no form of licensing, it would be unwise for the T.R.T.A. to suggest a free-for-all.

During a discussion on publicity, the president agreed that the T.R.T.A. had not reached a satisfactory solution to the problem of justifying substantial expenditure to acquaint the small operator of current trends.

Mr. L. A. Castleton said there was a great deal of muddled thinking about the social cost attributed to C-licence operation. Mr. H. R. Featherstone, national secretary, added that there would be a

very clear balance on the credit side in favour of road transport in any such analysis. Loading bans, he said, occupied a considerable amount of the T.R.T.A.'s time. The major difficulty was that whilst a trader could deal with the effect of small restrictions, the position would become very much more acute if existing periods were extended.

Replying to a suggestion by Mr. B. N. McKibbin that greater use should be made of night deliveries, the president said that whilst such schemes were in operation now, the opportunity was very limited.

Failure to Manage

" Any C operator who claims that urgent orders, special customer requirements, delays in production or, for that matter, any peculiar consideration of his company's business, prevents the proper planning of vehicle utilization, is making the cardinal error of admitting his failure to manage correctly." This was claimed by Mr. J. Delicate, general transport manager, Courtaulds Ltd., during his paper on "Some Practical -Aspects of C-licence Operation ".

Regarding drivers' pay and conditions he said that it was not universally appreciated that wages of a driver employed by C-licence operators were firmly established by Acts of Parliament. Some confusion arose because there was no set schedule of rates of pay laid down similar to those governing the remuneration of workers engaged on or in connection with Aand B-licensed vehicles.

The general position of rates of pay for drivers of C-licensed vehicles, together with conditions of service, could be better governed by relating them to the wages paid in their particular industry. Local management could then more easily negotiate basic rates and bonus schemes if they were able to include all workers in their particular unit of production, Though many transport managers disliked bonus schemes, Mr. Delicate was convinced that, if sufficient thought was given to this problem, an equitable basis B34

could be found to achieve the desired objective without causing the friction or anomalies which were so greatly feared. His own approach in find:ng this acceptable basis was through work study analysis. Once a skeleton of a principle had been devised, any number of different types of journey and loads could be used as " clothing" to this skeleton, he said. Thus, when a vehicle was engaged on moving production from one dispatch point to one customer, three major elements of effort were involved—loading the vehicle, the mileage travelled, and unloading the vehicle.

Mr. Delicate claimed that by the adoption of an incentive scheme an operator could not only meet the criticism that a goods vehicle driver was basically underpaid, but he would most certainly attract a better type of driver aware of his ability to earn a reasonable wage without having to resort to working an excessively long number of hours per week. Additionally, the transport industry would obtain a higher status in our national life and obliterate the smear that was so wrongly placed against the job of driving goods vehicles.

Another aspect of planning which would bear examination related to schedules and routes, he continued. Whilst the person responsible must be familiar with the geography of his customer areas, such knowledge was not enough. Changes in road patterns, waiting restrictions, customers' closing times, and many other considerations made it necessary for the load-planner to keep up to date with the latest position encountered by driving staff, by travelling over the routes themselves. Given the opportunity, drivers could be a mine of information in this respect.

One reason for ancillary operation was that many traders had an end product that required a special type of vehicle or body, said Mr. Delicate. Such industries included aircraft, heavy steel, motors, frozen food and bulk liquids calling for specially built vehicles not normally available for hire "off the hook ".

• Regarding the structural organization of a transport department, Mr. Delicate insisted that transport must never be looked at in isolation. Many establishments tended to regard the transport manager solely as a vehicle operator. He

added: "1 personally think this is the wrong approach and that it is partly responsible for the criticism that transport managers are empire builders ".

It was essential that transport managers should enjoy the status of a senior executive charged with the duty of supervising all movement of materials into and out of a production unit, continued Mr. Delicate. His department must be recognized as an integral part of the production line and he would need to be conversant with, and indeed participate in, the deliberation governing production and sales policy. Assuming the transport manager had such wide terms of reference, he would direct the energies of his staff towards provision of transport capacity giving the type of service required—and no more—at the real cost, and again no more.

Whilst the transport department would be sectionalized to cover daily routine, there would be daily meetings of sectional heads for, say, 10-15 minutes with monthly meetings to discuss new products and progress generally. Mr. Delicate enumerated seven such sections: reception and warehousing of raw materials, internal transport, rail and road dispatches, shipping, both import and export, staff cars, engineering—maintenance and supply of vehicles—and costs and accountancy.

If any operator doubted the potential value of advertising space on his commercial vehicle he recommended him to attend a "Lorry Driver of the Year Competition ". One innovation in this respect was to have a formal background livery on vans and containers with a picture-frame panel fixture on the sides. This permitted an occasional change of panel message timed to suit a particular product-promotion. A well-groomed vehicle and uniformed driver could reflect great credit to any organization and the advertising value was inestimable.

When answering questions on his paper, Mr. Delicate was supported by a panel consisting of Mr. L. A. Castleton, Lt.-Col. R. H. Hatton and Mr. H. M. Floyd.

Opening the discussion, Mr. Martin Brown said he was not with Mr. Delicate all the way on bonuses. They consolidated other payments into an hourly rate but there was an accepted need for a standard performance. He asked if the speaker subscribed to individual or group bonuses and in reply Mr. Delicate said he would not consider a group scheme.

Forthrightly, Mr. F. H. Woodward exclaimed: "I hate bonus schemes—they cannot be justified." He maintained that individual bonus schemes only benefited the fit but he was responsible for his men until they were 65. Bonus schemes deluded transport managers into thinking they were getting the best out of a man.

Whilst agreeing with the general principle of bonuses, Mr. L. A. Castleton maintained that journey times were getting so unpredictable that there were many difficulties in working bonus schemes.

Mr. Floyd commented that bonus schemes could be a form of industrial bribery—one pay packet for coming to work and one for actually working. There were many " pros and cons" for such schemes but in his experience there were three cardinal requirements. They must be easy to understand, fair and equitable. and directly related to drivers' efforts.

Mr. L. J. Cotton questioned the value of the monthly costing suggested by Mr. Delicate when variations in actual costs made comparison difficult. Mr. Floyd, in a subsequent reply, said costing was just not on" if it cost 21s. to save fl.

Goods Vehicle Plating

" It is patently obvious, that even if it be assumed that manufacturers' design standards are adequate in all vital respects for the loads they are intended to carry, present-day regulations leave wide gaps devoid of effective enforcement ", claimed Mr. H. B. Phillips, group road transport manager of The George Cohen 600 Group Ltd., when presenting the final paper of the Conference on Saturday, entitled "Goods Vehicle Plating ".

Defining the word " plating " in this connotation, Mr. Phillips said it implied the safe maximum gross weight at which a goods vehicle may operate as legally established and certificated by the legislature. In practice a plate could be fixed to the vehicle engraved with that weight, though other methods such as the corn

pulsory carrying of a registration

docu merit containing this information may appertain.

The subject had been under discussion f o r more than years and as pointed out in The Commercial Motor (July 19, 1963) the U.K. was one of the few countries in the world having no system of type-approval.

Mr. Phillips then examined both factors which currently had a bear"ng on plating. As applied under current regulations the three limits of 24, 20 and 14 tons relative to 8-, 6and 4-wheelers respectively apply to all vehicles within such considerations, he said. They only represented safe or designed limits as and when manufacturers were building to the max:mum for the type. Because 8and 6-wheeled rigid vehicles were almost invariably so built it became obvious why the bulk of the problem lay with the light articulated vehicles (three axles) and

4 wheelers. Three axle articulated vehicles, from a maximum design gross of 20 tons may descend as low as 10 tons for their intended gross train-we:ght with the frequent complication of interchaffeea ble prime movers of widely different characteristics. Four-wheelers. continued Mr. Phillips, were designed for an even wider range of gross weights within the maximum of 14 tons, with the added factor of the third-axle conversion giving yet greater scope for another six legal tons. Additionally, the proposed amendments to the present Construction and Use Regulations must marginally increase the scope and desirability of any scheme to control maximum operating weights and the design standard of vehicles to which they apply.

No review of this situation could ignore the problem of diesel smoke which was inter-linked with gross weights and over-loading. Plating, by control of over weight, or by providing adequate power through the medium of a legislated power to weight ratio, favourably influenced that smoke which truly can be attributed to overloading of vehicles.

The T.R.T.A. was vitally concerned both with road safety and the public image produced by its members' vehicles. Because " smoking vehicles crawling up hills" adversely affected that image, the Association was also concerned in any measures offering the poss:bility of improving that situation, To that end the T.R.T.A. was pledged to full co-operation with the Ministry of Transport in trying to devise a satisfactory and practical method of achieving their objective.

But, as ins:sted by the president of the T.R.T.A., there were three " musts" for 1 plating system. It must be fair to operators, not unduly restrict vehicles' capacity and be readily enforceable.

Mr. Phillips then examined plating systems in countries where they have been operating long enough to be considered practicable. Belgium, France, Germany and Italy all had such systems.

Speculating on possible criteria which might be adopted to give Governmental control of manufacturers' own standards, motive power, though not an essential factor, must be one which the Ministry would consider, partly because of the link between diesel smoke and power-toweight ratio. Emphasizing this point, Mr. Phillips then explained: "It is a matter for speculation as to how many transport managers usually driving cars with 50 to 75 b.h.p. per ton, have recently tried handling a fully-laden heavy vehicle in today'straffic at 6 b.h.p. per ton. The experience, for those out of touch, should prove salutary and serve to demonstrate that this figure, currently used in Germany as the minimum standard, was far from being extravagant. Indeed, it is not merely for the motorway, -or to meet international requirements, that we must recognize how out of date our thinking is in this respect." Moreover, he added, iuel consumption, usually expected In rise when power went up, rarely did and had even been known to be improved by judicious choice of gearing.

To be tackled thoroughly a braking standard would have to be somewhat complex. But as ultimately all that mattered was the performance the brakes offered, the Ministry might be tempted to bring more precision to the present regulations, leaving manufacturers to decide for themselves how they should be met. But one vital factor may well continue to escape the net. In an emergency the time-lag between depression of the brake pedal and effective braking at the wheels can be as decisive as the actual braking efficiency developed in stopping a vehicle within the available distance. Yet time and again it had been found by those engaged in regular testing of new vehicles that there were serious delays frequently associated with design characteristics, as opposed to mechanical faults.

As to the procedure at the inception of such a scheme, vehicles already on the road presented two problems, said Mr. Phillips.

Firstly, there was the purely physical aspect of getting them certified, some lacking original manufacturer's data, others considerably modified since production.

The second problem was that of meeting the criteria. As a prime aim was to lift standards of power and braking, it was an inevitable corollary that many existing vehicles would not reach those standards. It was equally certain that„in many instances modification would be impracticable or financially unsound. This pointed to a phased or delayed introduction following settlement of the actual criteria. Phasing could include lower standards for older vehicles, but could hardly give them an indefinite life. The example of the Netherlands appeared worthy of note. Their certification was phased over three years from inception of the scheme whilst existing vehicles were permitted to remain registered at their original manufacturer's recommended gross weight during the first 10 years.

Assuming that a full scheme was in operation, the purchase of vehicles would undoubtedly require substantially more care in regard to the anticipated grossrunning weight. Maximum payloads would have to be determined very accurately at the planning stage, making, where necessary, precise allowances for body weight and all ancillary equipment and gear normally carried. Mr. Phillips said that in the past there had been a distinct tendency to ignore such items a36 because operators had the comforting knowledge that, subject to remaining within the legal limits, exceeding manufacturer's recommended gross weight slightly had been of little con sequence.

With plating in operation there would no longer be a margin for such imprecision. Specification of the right wheelbase to achieve ideal weight distribution would attain even more importance if and when operators had to extract the . last cwt. of legal payload without individual axle overload. There would be a greater need for user and supplier to get together at the specification stage to appraise carefully requirements and availability of the right chassis for the job. Because the majority of users must necessarily conduct their business with sales staff of local agents or distributors, Mr. Phillips posed the question as to whether the knowledge and experience of such staff in these matters would be adequate without too much recourse to consultation with manufacturer and designer.

Having, by careful specification, acquired vehicles well matched to their loads, the problems then facing users would vary greatly with their particular circumstances, continued Mr. Phillips. Basically they must ensure that every vehicle under all operating conditions never exceeded the permitted gross weight. Easiest of circumstances would be factory, pit or warehouse loading of products and materials having stable weight characteristics and weighbridge facilities on sites, or alternatively with unit weight or weight by volume known.

But very difficult circumstances could arise for operators moving capacity loads where no weighing facilities existed at the outset of the journey and the nature of the material or goods precluded accurate assessment by other means. It was no use pretending, Mr. Phillips insisted, that this was a minor problem, There was a wide range of such materials moved daily which called for critical appraisal if vehicle owners and drivers were not to be in serious difficulty. One solution might be the use of datum lines on bodies.

The provision of sufficient weighbridges to reduce journey distances to them was the hub of the problem. Many operators would be faced with serious inflation of costs if long detours to weighbridges were necessary. No country which,had already adopted this control seemed very happy about the situation of the vehicle found to be overweight but said to be on its way to the nearest weighbridge. The need for adequate weighbridges had been recognized by those countries and at least one published lists to facilitate location by vehicle users.

. For this final paper the reconstituted panel consisted of Mr. R. E. Clough, Mr. E. A. Betteley, Mr. L. J. Cotton and Mr. H. R. Featherstone.

In subsequent discussion, Mr. Martin Brown asked whether a plating scheme was really needed, 'adding: "Are we not using a hammer to crack a nut? " Replying, Mr. Phillips-admitted an absence of statistics and so could only use pointers in his paper. But he added that hardly a country did not have some such standards.

Taking a different view, Mr. E. A. Betteley maintained that a plating scheme was bound to come and it was therefore important to ensure that the conditions were right.

On the cost aspect, Mr. L. J. Cotton reminded delegates that even after a standard had been defined, operators would introduce a safety margin. The result would be larger vehicles to carry the same loads, so increasing costs.

Asked directly by Mr. Castleton whether he was himself in favour of plating, Mr. Phillips gave a threefold answer. As a C-licence operator he did not want plating—it only complicated the job—but as a representative of the T.R.T.A. he must take a more responsible attitude. As a citizen he was in favour.

Mr. Featherstone added that the T.R.T.A. had not said it was in favour of plating but supported the Government in getting over the evils of overloading. Any step which improved the image of the industry should be taken.

Mr. Phillips agreed with a suggestion by Mr. Wentworth that there could be a possible link in the timing of the introduction of plating and increased vehicle dimensions and capacities—" to sweeten the pill ".

A plea for "the men in the field" was made by Mr. M. A. Burgess in any future plating scheme. Often, in relation to machinery and equipment requiring collection, one "just hadn't a clue" as to the weight of particular consignments, he said. To which Mr. Phillips agreed there was no short answer at present,


comments powered by Disqus