AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Is 30 m.p.h. Worth Buying?

14th January 1955
Page 31
Page 32
Page 31, 14th January 1955 — Is 30 m.p.h. Worth Buying?
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?

IS an increase from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. in the speed limit of heavy goods vehicles worth buying? If so, what is a fair price to pay for it? These questions are now occupying the minds of hauliers and British Road Services, to whom, for the third time in 12 months, the unions have submitted identical applications for a higher rate of pay for a basic week of 44 hours, and additional increments for night work.

If the employers made a tempting enough offer on pay and schedules, the workers might support an increase in the speed limit. The possibility of this concession is now a little closer than it has been at any time for the past two or three years. Whether or not the opportunity is taken depends entirely on economics.

Employees would obviously require a much greater increase in wages than either of the advances granted last year. An all-round award of 10s. a week would probably cost the road haulage industry at least &lin. a year, but most of those who would benefit' are already permitted legally to travel at 30 m.p.h. This sum, coupled with the cost of the last increase—about £1.3m.— would have to be passed on to the customer.

Strength of Competition Can_ the industry afford to do so? In considering this question, the strength of competitive forces must be taken into account. According to an estimate by the British Transport Commission, the deficit on railway working last year was over £20m. The railways have had to grant further concessions in wages, which will raise their costs and, in the absence of a Treasury grant, compel an advance in freight rates and/or passenger charges.

In those circumstances, hauliers can probably afford to accept higher wage costs vis-a-vis the railways, and they are left with the case of the C-licence holder to review. Ancillary users will share with hauliers any advantage in a relaxation of the speed limit on heavy goods vehicles. Indeed, they will probably benefit more, because the proportion of their runniug time to terminal delays is generally higher than in the case of hauliers, and they could make better use of any concession in speed. There would consequently be no incentive for them to transfer their traffic to hauliers.

In equity, any increase in pay should be selective, with a strong bias in favour of the heavyvehicle driver. This system is, however, unlikely to be favoured by the unions.

Individual operators will have different views on the benefits of higher speed, according to their own circumstances. A vehicle limited to 20 m.p.h. can average about 16/ m.p.h. and in an 11-hour tour of duty a driver can cover 180 miles. if loading and -unloading each take an hour, the maximum mileage that can be covered in a day is 155.

New Possibilities With a maximumspeed of 30 m.p.h. an average of some 22 m.ph. could be maintained, and 242 mites.could be covered in 11 hours' driving. Again allowing two hours for loading and unloading, a vehiclecould complete 198 miles in a day. It could, for instance, take on a load in London and travel to Manchester or Liverpool and unload, which is at present legally impossible in an 11-hour day.

The round trip from London to Bristol' or Birmingham, allowing, for loading and unloading, still could not be completed in an 1I-hour spell of duty unless the starting and terminal points were on the appropriate sides of the cities. Working from city centre to city centre and allowing an hour to load in London and an hour each to unload and reload in Bristol or Birmingham, a driver, at the end of an 11-hour tour of duty, would find himself about 30 miles from home—a distance that he could cover in 11 hours. The temptation here is obvious and, if detected, the penalty for succumbing to it is serious.

With a maximum speed of 30 m.p.h. the round trip from Birmingham to Cardiff, again allowing an hour each for loading, unloading and reloading, could just be completed in a day. At present, the operator who adheres rigidly to the law can make only three round journeys in five days, and is left with a wasted half-day on Friday. In this case, the economic advantage of higher speed is obvious and an operator in those circumstances might be willing to pay a much greater price for the concession than would be justified in the case of many other hauliers.

On balance, however, there are sufficient benefits for all trunk hauliers to merit a reasonable rise in pay for greater effort. Apart from the simple mathematics of increased speed, consideration must be given to the important advantages to be obtained in flexibility of working through having a standard speed limit for all types of goods vehicle.

It is important that any increase in speed should be applied to articulated outfits as well as to rigid heavy vehicles, and that it should cover all vehicles up to a maximum gross weight of 24 tons. Discrimination against articulated units would impede the development of a type with vast potentialities which so far have barely been tapped in the service of trade and industry.


comments powered by Disqus