1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
Apportioning Indirect Costs
Page 108
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE complexity of apportioning indirect costs was emphasized by Mr. D. M. Dear, director of castings, British Transport Commission, when commenting on the comparative costs of road and rail transport.
Railways were essentially the mass producers of transport, whilst road transport could be considered as the tailormade service. Although operating costs might be lower, the railways were handicapped in matching capacities to requirements. The load factor often had the largest single effect on costs. In the passenger field, both road and rail providers should realize that their real competitor was not each other but the private motorist.
The efficiency of road haulage often stemmed from its ability to match the load capacity of the vehicle to individual requirements. Wh e r e consignments arrived in small lots, the additions to rail costs were even greater than those to road.