What Kind of Vehicle Do Hauliers Want ?
Page 24
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Solving the Problems of the Carrier
Pre-war Developments Would Seem to Show that They Desire, One for Maximum Pay-loads, 6ut Economical' Considerations Indicate that This is Not a Wise Preference IHAVE been -discussing recently in these &Aumns some of the developments which seem likely to come about in respect of the ,operation of hauliers' vehicles, the control of the rates which hauliers may charge, what routes they may traverse, and problems of a similar nature. To-day, these Matters are prominent in the mind's of 'hauliers.
There is another aspect of after-the-war developments which is just as topical and that concerns the kind of vehicle which hauliers would like to have available when peace-time conditions of operation are restored. With the purely technical aspect of this problem I am not directly concerned, nor, indeed, are hauliers, except in so far as the constructional features of a vehicle directly affect its economy of operation and its earning capacity. From signs and portents, I have come to the conclusion that the time is ripe for some brief discussion of this matter.
It would be helpful, as serving as a guide to what we may expect after the war, to review the later pre-war years and to recall the way in which vehicle design progressed. If, after the war, hauliers be in the same mind as they were before it started, then it is only to be expected that manufacturers will frame their after-the-war policy of design on much the -same lines as in pre-war days. Certainly they will do this in so far as the operational economic value
of their products is concerned.
Influence Exerted by Various Government Acts
The period which is covered by this review commences with the coming into operation of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. That was the Act which provided for the speed limits of commercial vehicles.. In Axing those limits there was a' differentiation between motorcar i which, with certain special exemptions with which I aTO not concerned, were defined as mechanically propelled vehicles weighing less than 2i tons unladen, arid heavy motorcars, which were mechanically propelled vehicles weighing more than 21. tons unladen. The former were permitted to travel at 30 m.p.h. and the latter were limited in speed to 20 m.p.h.
That Act was quickly followed; in 1931, by the Construction and Uae Regulations. These regulations copfirmed the maximum gross laden weight for a four-wheeled vehicle at 12 tons. (Many operators were, and still are, under the impression that that was a new regulation: it was not, for it has been in force ever since there was such a thing as a motorcar.) These regulations also fixed limits of 19 tons gross laden weight for six-wheelers and 22 tons gross laden weight for vehicles having more than six wheels. Here, again, there were certain exemptions, notably in the case of steam vehicles, with which we need not deal.
The next event of importance having an effect upon vehicle design was the Finance Acts of 1934 and 1935, which steeply graded the taxation of motor vehicles, the cost of the annual Road Fund licence increasing at the rate of £20 per ton per annum for every ton in excess of 4 tons unladen weight, a vehicle of 4 tons unladen weight being taxed at £50 per annum.
All these facts are, of course, common knowledge, but they must have reference here as indicating the reasons why vehicle construction developed along the lines it did • in the five years prior to 1939.
The first development was, quite naturally, that of increasing the pay-load capacity of vehicles weighing, unladen, less than 24 tons, so that the operator should have the advantage of being able to travel at 30 m.p.h, and yet carry a bigger pay-load. At the commencement of this era the pay-load for a vehicle of 3 tons unladeu weight approximated to 3 tons, By 1939 there were vehicles of 21 tons unladen weight being offered as capable of carrying pay-loads of 7 tons. Furniture removeis were offered vans with a capacity of no less than 1,200 cubic ft., also weighing, unladen, less than 2i tons, whereas, previously, they had been content with 400 cubic ft, and a vehicle weighing, unladen, from 4-5 tons.
The next development was the reduction in unladen weight for the three maximum gross limits specified above. Here, the attraction offered to the operator was twofold— first by saving a few hundredweight in unladen weight he was able to effect a cut in the annual tax of £20 and. secondly, he was able to carry bigger pay-loads whilst still keeping within the legal limit of gross laden weight. ,. At the beginning of 1941 the, limit of unladen weight for the 30 m.p.h, vehicle was raised from 24-to 3 tons. The ostensible reason was to allow manufacturers to make use of heavy materials—for example, substituting cast iron for aluminium and still being able to offer 30 m.p.h. vehicles to operators.
Presumably, the new delimitation of 3 tons will be allowed to stand and, if the experience of pre-war, days be taken as a precedent, it may reasonably be assuaned that the first . thing which manufacturers will do, when they are allowed to turn their attention to the production of new models, will be to put upon the market vehicles weighing 3 tons* unladen, which will carry not less than 8 tons. Actually. it is anticipated in many quarters that the maximum load four-wheeler, that is to say a vehicle which, laden, will weigh 12 tons, will also be the vehicle which is of 3 tons weight unladen, so that its pay-load capacity will be no less than 9 tons.
How Best Can the Margin of 103-cwt. Be Employed ? The question is, is this wise? Is this the best use to which the margin ot 10 cwt. may be Met?
It should be appreciated that there are two ways in which this margin of weight may be utilized: (1) to increase the pay-load capacity to the limit suggested above, and (2) to improve the reliability of the vehicle and to make no attempt to go beyond the pre-war limit of 7 tons pay-load for a 30 m.p.h. chassis.
As I have stated, it is the demand which will govern the supply. The type of vehicle which manufacturers Will offer will be that which they believe the operator wants.
Some indication of manufacturers' summing-up of operators' requirements may be gleaned from the type of advertisement which was current in pre-war days, because it may be reasonably assumed that adyertisements are ,framed to attract the attention of the buyer and to that end they offer what it is believed-he requires. Those advertisements called attention (a) to The gradually increasing pay-load which could be carried by 30 m.p.h. yehicles, and (b), in the case of the heavier type of vehicle, to the pay-load which could be carried for a specified annual tax.
It is necessary, however, to be to some extent reserved in attempting to deduce from advertisements the attitude of operators as a whole. We must consider the class Of buyet who is likely to be swayed in his choice of a vehicle by manufacturers' public announcements. I am of opinion that it is not the large and .experienced operator to whom these adveetisements are directed, but to the 3ma11 operator, the owner-driver or operator of two or three vehicles who has not the time, opportutity, or technical knowledge to be able to assess vehicle value at its true worth.
Experienced operators do not select their vehicles on the basis only of what they see in announcements. They do so by reading their own histories of the vehicles they have used in the past and by reference to their books of .account. Some simple figures indicating how operators of big fleets sum up the merits of respective chassis may be helpful as a • guide to smaller operators, who have neither the figures nor facilities to enable them to make their choice in so logical a way.
When they are studying their books, with the object of ascertaining which type and make of vehicle is the most economical and profitable to operate, the large hauliers and, incidentally, the transport managers of large fleets belonging to ancillary users, do not direct their attention in the first place to the actual operating costs of the vehicles concerned; they look first at the operational -records, the week-by-week figures for journeys run, tonnage carried, and gross earnings.
In perusing those figures, they take particular note of the fiequency with which a .vehicle misses a-load or is laid by. for a time because of the need for repairs or adjustments necessitating Ihe machine being off the road. A type or make of vehicle which presents a black record in that respect is earmarked for early disposal, coupled with a decision that no more of that kind shall be acquired.
More especially it an operator perturbed at entries which indicate that the vehicle broke down en 'route and had to have its load transferred. That probably involved failure to keep faith with a customer, and consequent loss of some measure of goodwill. These are matters of great concern to any operator.
Cost of Maintenance as a Guide to Value The next consideration, in thisassessment of the true value of a vehicle, is the actual cost of maintenance. Concurrently, with years of experience at the back of his mind, the operator reflects that the kind of vehicle which is often off the road and which is costly to maintain, is short-lived and, therefore, must figure high in respect of its depreciation account.
As the outcome of the consideration of all these factors, he is able to strike a rough balance sheet which indicates, with reasonable accuracy, the comparative values of the various types of vehicle he uses.
He selects two types for comparison, one of which costs £350 new and is lightly, built so as to give him the payload capacity of 64 tons. He knows that for every week that the vehicle is fully employed, covering about 700 miles per week, he can earn £6 per ton of pay-load, which is £39 per week for this particularevehicle. He is also aware from past experience that at the end of 24 years of this class of work it will be preferable for him to dispose of this vehicle and buy another in its place,, and he calculates that the 'host he is likely to get in part-exchange allowance is £30.
' In 'that 24 years, incidentally, there have been no fewer than a total of 20 weeks when the vehicle has bgen out of commission, The first cost is £350, less the residual value of £30—net value £320. The operating costs, taking into consideration the expenditure on maintenance, which has been rather high, average throughout the whole period, £23 per week, a total of £2,990. In addition there are establishment costs, which this operator assesses on the basis of £4 per week, which is £520 for the whole period of the life of the vehicle. On that basis the total costs are £3,830.
Against that he sets his revenue of 110 weeks of actual earning at £39 per week-2-total £4,290—so that during its life the vehicle has earned 2460 net profit, which is equivalent to £3 Ils, per week to the nearest shilling. The other vehicle, with which he is making a comparison, is more expensive in first cost because he has to pay ■1550 for it and it has the disadvantage that, being More robustly built, he is able to carry only 6 tons, instead of 64, so that his revenue is only £36 per week, instead of £39.
Preference May Be Upset by Experience On the face of it this looks as. though he is going to prefer the first machine, which costs less and carries a greater payload. His books, however, tell him a different story. First, and most important, the vehicle is not off the road for anything like the same proportion of its time as the lowerpriced machine. Secondly, its maintenance cost is considerably less and, thirdly, he need not consider disposing of it until he has used it for four years, and then he is able to Obtain £50 for it in part exchange.
His balance sheet for this vehicle then is something like the following:—First cost £550, less £50 residual value, giving a net figure of £500. Costs of operation £22 per week; total for 208 weeks, £4,576. Total of establishment charges at £4 per week, as before (again for 208 weeks), £832. The total expenditure is, thus, £5,908.
This vehicle has' been off the road for the .same number of weeks as the other machine, but it is only 20 weeks in four years, so that he has been able to earn £36 per week for 188 weeks net. That gives a total revenue df £6,768. The net profit for the four years*of operation of this vehicle is £860, which, again to the tvearest shilling, is £4 3s. per week.
In the face of those figures, how can, the operator do otherwise than prefer the more expensive, somewhat heavier machine, • even in spite of its lower pay-load capacity?
The foregoing, interpreted semi-technically, means that the wise haulier will buy a machine which is not built' down to a weight, or, if it should be, it must not be at the sacrifice of essential qualities of strength, reliability and wear. It is far preferable, for the haulage contractor, that his vehicle should be 10 cwt. heavier and carry 10 cwt. less of pay-load and that it should be on the road for a greater
• percentage of its time, than, that he should choose asvehicle which is built lightly, carries a maximum pay-load, and which is often off the road for some reason or other, thus
depriving, him of revenue. S.T.R.