Sand and Ballast Haulage:
Page 58
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
six points to watch
(I) Road Conditions at the Pit ; (2) Loading Facilities ; (3) Delays at Destination ; (4) Whether Ballast is Wet or Dry ; (5) Damage Likely to be Done to Vehicles by Bad Roads ; (6) Number of Trips that can be Made Each Day and Payload Carried
IHAVE received several letters concerning the article ! dealing with charges for sand and ballast haulage, which appeared in 'The Commercial Motor" for February 23 last. One criticism referred to my assumption that the vehicle would average 30 m.p.h. when the lead distance went beyond 4 miles. This point I have already dealt with at some length in articles which appeared in the May 18 and 25 issues.
Other letters referred to difficulties and delays in loading, the latter often aggravated by breakdowns of the loading machinery. Yet another point raised was the loss of use of vehicles owing to breakdowns due to poor conditions of the road surfaces over which the vehicles have to operate. Excessive moisture of the sand or ballast was referred to as increasing the weight per cubic yd. considerably beyond the 28 cwt specified in the schedules of rates which were published in my original article.
Turning all these matters over, I recalled some correspondence which I had some years ago on the same subject. 1 dealt with that correspondence and its implications fully at the time, but in view of the present interest in the subject, it may be worthwhile to discuss the matter again even at some risk of repetition.
One correspondent suggested that when an operator wished to decide upon his rates for the haulage of sand and ballast he should proceed as follows:—(1) Study conditions at the pit, particularly the roads in and out; (2) Decide what wait there would be at the pit:—(a) Are there enough loading facilities?; (b) Are the loading or digging machines in good condition, so that there will be no delay due to breakdowns?: (3) Decide what delays are likely to occur at the discharging end; (4) Find out if the ballast is to be dry or wet and how wet; (5) Estimate the percentage of his °fleet likely to be under repair due to bad roads, etc. (6) Estimate
the number of trips per day he will be able to make with his running lorries, and the payload they will carry. In the article which appeared in Fellruary, I made the straightforward assumption that there would be a delay of hr. at the loading points, and 15 mins. at the unloading terminal, giving hr. for terminal delays for each load. The table of rates 'which appeared with that article was based on that assumption.
It will be observed that in basing my calculations in that way I made no allowance for breakdowns of the loading machinery, or unusual delays at the discharging end. The question as to whether the ballast be dry or wet does not enter directly into the calculation of the rate, but it does have this effect, that if it be wet and undoubtedly heavy, the vehicles are likely to be overloaded and extra costs in the way of repairs and tyre wear will be involved. I made no provision for any percentage of the fleet to be under repair and, therefore, out of use. The question of loads per day I did consider, but not in the way suggested.
It seems that it would be of interest to deal with the subject again, this time taking as a basis the original data, but trying to discover what modifications in the rate would have to he made, assuming that the six points mentioned by my correspondent are all to the disadvantage of the operator.
I will begin, as in the previous article, by assessing the operating costs of a 5-ton tipper, but will make such provision in the costs figures as will allow for extreme conditions of operatidn. The figures are set out in Table 1, which is drawn up in the same style as those given in the original article. A many readers may not have the February article
by them, will run through the figures of this table and point out the differences brought about by the arduous conditions of operation which I am assuming prevail.
The first portion of the Table, giving the price of the vehicle and the final figure of £740 as being the net value .rom which depreciation is to be calculated, does not, of :ourse, alter.
Referring to the standing charges, the first important theration comes in respect of depreciation which, in the )revious table, was assumed to be assessed on the basis of t life of four years. If 'the conditions be as difficult as we ire presuming, then we cannot expect a life of more than hree years, so that the annual depreciation now becomes 246, as against £185.
There is no modification to the amounts to be debited inder Road Fund tax, interest on capital and insurance, but :onringencies will be affected because the cost of servicing, etc., must eventually increase if the lorries be working under 'dyer:se conditions. Therefore, instead of £30, as in the arevious calculation, I now take £40. The rent, of course, .emains unaffected, and the same applies to the overheads and to wages. For renewals and repairs, however, I now take 2.4d. per ride, instead of I.8d., and the amount to be debited per Annum under standing charges becomes £156. instead of U20. The total of standing charges is thus seen to be £1,067, instead of 060, and the cost per hour 9s. 9d., instead of s. 9d.
Regarding running costs, fuel consumption will be heavier and, of course, fuel-cost per gallon is now greater than it was at the time the previous article was written. Instead. therefore, of 8 m.p.g. at 2s. 11d, per gallon, giving 4.13d. per mile, I must now take 7 m.p.g. at 3s. 3d. per gallon, which gives me 5.57d. per mile. Expenditure on lubricants increases; this always happens when fuel consumption goes up, and it is a general rule to take it that cost of lubricants rises somewhat in proportion to the cost of fuel. Instead of 0.17d. I now have 0.30d.
Running Cost Increased In the previous table I assumed that tyres would run 16,000 miles, and I now take 12.000 miles, so that the cost per mile for tyres has risen from 2.55d. to 3.4d. I have already mentioned that maintenance costs have increased and the new figure is 0.9d., as against 0.68d. 1 have also made provision for the increase in expenditure on what I call contingencies. The total running cost per mile now becomes 10.5d., instead of 7.7d.
The figures for the time-and-mileage costs—not charges. because there is as yet no provision for profit—are 9s. 9d, per hour plus 101d. per mile. In the foregoing I have given consideration to item No. 1 of the six points to be taken into account. The next of these conditions to be considered is the wait at the pit due to difficult loading conditions, also delays likely to occur at the discharging end. In the previous article, which did not take extreme conditions into account, I assumed an average period of 1 hr. at the loading end, and 15 mins. at the discharging end. have information to show that under difficult conditions it is quite likely that these periods will be doubled, so for the present calculations I am assuming a total terminal delay of 11 hrs. for each load.
The next thing to take into consideration is point No. 5, which specifies the percentage of the fleet likely to be under repair due to bad roads and so on. That is something which is likely to vary within wide limits, but for the purpose of this article I am going to assume that the haulier has a fleet of six vehicles, and that, as a general rule, only five will be in operation at any one time.
13s. Per Hour To take this into account it is necessary to assume thAt 95. 9d. per hour per vehicle applies to the six machines, whereas only five are actually in use. This means that 1 must add 20 per cent, to the standing charges per hour in order to make up for that deficiency. That brings 9s, 9d. up to I Is. 8d. per hour per vehicle in work. If I add profit at the rate of 20 per cent. I get my actual time-charge to be 13s, per hour.
The running costs, Of course, are not affected by the fact that the vehicle is out of action; the figure will remain at 100, per mile, but that is subject to the increase of approximately 20 per cent, for profit, so that my mileage charge becomes Is. Old. per mile. The time-and-mileage charges are, therefore, 13s. per hour and Is. Old. per mile.
The next step is to make out some figures for rates in particular leads based on the above charges. For speeds shall take the figures given in the article which appeared on May 25, but I shall take it that the vehicle weighs a little over 3 tons unladen, so that its maximum legal speed is 20 m.p.h. For the first three-quarters of a mile lead I need. therefore, according to the data given in that article, 5 mins., and the same for the last three-quarters of a mile. For 11 miles of the total journey I have 10 mins.
The remaining 31 miles of a 5-mile lead are run at an average speed of 18 m.p.h.. which is 31 mins. permile, and the time taken to run the 31 miles is thus 111 mins. The total time for a one-way journey is thus 211 mins., and for the return, 43 mins., which I shall assume to be threequarters of an hour. Add the terminal delays of 11 hrs. and I get a time for the total journey of 2/ hrs. Following the recommendation given in item 6, I can take it that the vehicle will complete four round journeys in a 9-hour day and I can, therefore, take the 21 hours as a basis for calculating the charge. For 2/ hrs. at 13s. per hour I must charge £1 9s. 3d., and for the 10-mile run at Is. Old. per mile. 10s. 5d.; the total charge is thus Ll 19s. 8d. for the 5-ton load, which means that the charge should be approximately 8s. per ton.
A 10-mile Lead Now, to take a 10-mile lead, this involves an additional 5 miles of running in each direction, or 10 miles at 31 mins. per mile, a total of 331 mins. Adding this to the 2/ hrs. quoted for the 5-mile lead we find that the time needed for a 10-mile lead is approximately 2 hrs. 48 mins. That means that only three complete journeys can be made per day, and if the drivers are working a 9-hour day, as probably they are, that involves making the calculation on the basis of 3 hours,per trip. For 3 hours at 13s. per hour I must charge £1 19s., and for 20 miles at Is. 01d., El Os. 10d. The charge must thus be 12 19s. 10d., which is, as near as makes no difference, 12s. per ton.
I have still to take into consideration items Nos, 4 and 6. I have assumed. that the payload is 5 tons, that is, the operator cuts down the cubic content of a load so that he may not overload his vehicle. I have assumed that the wetness of the ballast is suph that the weight per cubic yd. is 32 cwt., and have set out in Table H a schedule of rates and charges based on these figures. It will be seen that they are much higher than those given in the article which appeared in February.
Although some of the cpnditions may not prove to operate against the haulier, I have assumed ,the worst, as it will be easy to make adjustments
where the charges do not' apply. S.T.R.