Theory and Practice
Page 79
Page 80
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Functional Division of Transport Operation into Engineering and Traffic Departments can be Facilitated in Practice by the Use of Articulated Vehicles
• j UST as transport is ancillary to trade and industry, so the provision and maintenance of a vehicle, and particularly the chassis, are both a means to an end, namely the movement of goods or passengers. Initially, with the introduction of commercial motor vehicles, the bodies provided were of such simple construction that the concept of a functional division between an engineering department, with responsibility for providing and maintaining vehicles, and a traffic department, solely concerned with their economic operation, had little prac tical significance. Moreover, in the early stages of their development the size of the average commercial fleet did not justify such an administrative division and, in any case, the range of vehicles available for selection precluded any economic advantages to be gained from this type of organization.
This concept of segregating the functions of transport operation was probably first exploited to its full extent by the large bus companies, followed by the haulage operators as they increased the size of their fleets.
Because of the greater regularity of bus operation, this type of dual organization was more readily adaptable to such working. Even though operators would obviously have the difficulties caused by seasonal and other peak travelling periods to cope with, as well as the contrasting problems of urban and , rural operation, they could specify the type of vehicle they 'required within fairly narrow limits, at least for substantial groups of vehicles. But, even so, there were inevitably differences of opinion even within one operating company as to the ideal specification for a particular vehicle. Reduced to its barest essence the crux of such differences was invariably the apparent irreconcilability of maximum loading capacity and minimum operating costs. .
• The goods vehicle operator is, however, in a. much worse pos=tion in this respect because of the varied traffic he is likely to carry. With the exception of ancillary users concerned only with the carriage of one particular product or at least a limited range of products, the goods vehicle operator has at least two compromises to contend with. Not only has there to be some compromise between the ideal chassis relative to such factors as price, performance and platform space and the body which it will accommodate, but the body itself in the majority of cases will have to be of general-purpose design to permit the easy loading and carriage of most of the varied traffic the operator will handle.
The accumulative effect of these several compromises inevitably means that in few instances are general goods in transit being carried as economically as they could have been if the vehicle as a whole had been specifically designed for that particular journey.
OBVIOUSLY, by the very nature of general haulage, such an ideal would be so unobtainable as not to merit serious consideration. But the increasing popularity and greater range of articulated vehicles do at least give the opportunity to eliminate some of these uneconomic compromises and so achieve more efficient operation.
In this series on February 23 and March 9 the operation of articulated vehicles was discussed. In the first article it was emphasized that whilst this type of vehicle was increasing in popularity the complete exploitation of the principle of articulation—namely the use of one or more spare trailers—was comparatively rare. With increasing delays at terminal points and disruption of planned journey times due to traffic congestion on route, the advantages to be gained by the use of spare trailers, in appropriate circumstances, were shown to be substantial.
As evidenced by the range of vehicles listed by several of the larger manufacturers, the articulated version of the rigid vehicle, under suitable operational conditions, is shown to be able to haul a heavier load than can be carried by the rigid vehicle. Moreover, a longer platform length can be provided by the articulated version resulting from the respective legal limitations of a maximum length of 30 ft. for rigid vehicles and 35 ft. for articulated vehicles.
There is also another set of circumstances where the employment of articulated vehicles could provide economic advantages. This could again imply the use of spare trailers, although not necessarily so. As mentioned earlier in this article the respective claims of the engineering and traffic departments as to what constituted the ideal vehicle in any particular set of circumstances are seldom synonymous or even compatible. The use of the articulated vehicle obviously facilitates the solution—or at least partial solution—of this problem when vehicle replacement is under review.
ANOTHER problem to which hauliers are having to give increasing attention recently is the economic provision of vehicles suitable for the haulage of a variety of commodities in bulk. With the increasing mechanization of trade and industry generally, and the tendency for manufacturing—and even retailing—units to become larger, the former pattern of distribution is changing completely.
At present, bulk haulage, in any great quantity, is primarily being undertaken by vehicles operating on C licence or under contract. But as evidenced by the comprehensive reports of licence applications and decisions given in The Commercial Motor there has been a distinct trend for the hirers of contract vehicles to state that they now prefer such vehicles to operate under open A licence, and so be available to carry other traffics.
Apart from the significance such cases may have from the legal aspect, these applications could portend the need for a change in operational practice. Where a specialized vehicle has been purchased for a particular traffic—for example, bulk grains or liquids—it would be in exceptional circumstances only that such a vehicle could be used regularly for the• carriage of goods for another customer. Yet that, in fact, is what is implied if the change from contract A to open A is granted relative to these particular types of traffic.
Obviously, however, it would be totally uneconomic to provide a specialized and therefore expensive rigid vehicle for only spasmodic use by the main customer, and with little prospect of regular use elsewhere. Alternatively even the ancillary user, with presumably more complete information as to the amount and flow of traffic, may have a similar problem relative to the economic operation of bulk vehicles on seasonal work. Here again the use of spare articulated trailers, though not this time necessarily with the object of reducing terminal times, could provide an economic compromise. In addition to the specialized trailer originally purchased for a partkailar traffic a platform trailer could also be provided to handle general traffics. There may also be occasions when two or more differing types of semi-trailer could, by their combined use, provide sufficient work for the economic operation of the tractive unit.
Whether or not such an arrangement would be an economic proposition would obviously depend upon the particular circumstances in each case and the varying costs of purchasing and operating suchspecialized types of vehicle. As an indication Of the manner in which such costings should be calculated the following comparisons of operating rigid and articulated vehicles are given. In contrast to the comparison made last week, the costings now given relate to vehicles in the
heavy " class, all of course fitted with oil engines and standard platform bodies or alternatively semi-trailers. The four vehicleschosen are an 8-ton rigid and the corresponding 13-ton artic, together with a maximum-load rigid and artic.
Dealing first with the 8-ton rigid it will be assumed that the initial cost is £2,675 and the unladen weight 4 tons 7 cwt. This would incur an annual licence duty of £72 or the equivalent of El 8s.. 10d. per week inclusive of the appropriate proportion of an A licence fee., This calculation is based on a 50-week year to allow for -two' weeks per annum when the vehicle may be off the road for major overhaul or driver's holidays.
It will be assumed that all the four vehicles chosen as examples average 800 miles per week, and that the driver is paid-On the basis of a 55-hour week in a Grade I area as designated by the Road Haulage Wages Regulations R.H.(72).. Inclusive of insurance contributions and an allowance for two week's holiday with -pay, thetotal cost to the employer of driver's wages is then reckoned to be £14 10s. 10d. per week.
Rent and rates in respect of garaging the vehicle are nominally assessed at 13s. 6d. and insurance at £3 Os. 5d., based on an annual premium of £151. Interest charges on the initial outlay based on a rate of six per cent. (approximately• equivalent to the average Bank Rate) adds £3 4s. 2d., giving a total of £22 17s. 9d. for these live items of standing costs. This is equivalent to 6.86d. per mile at 800 miles per week.
IT will be assumed in all four cases that fuel oil is purchased in bulk at 4s. lid. per gallon. Assuming that this 8-tonner averages 13 m.p.g., its fuel cost per mile will be 3.83d. Allowing. for the recent increase in the price of engine oil, lubricants are reckoned to cost 0.29d per mile, whilst tyres add 1.60d. Maintenance is assessed at the equivalent of 2.40d. and depreciation 1.76d. per mile. This latter calculation is derived on the basis of a vehicle life of 300.000 miles, and the successive deduction of the equivalent cost of the original Set of tyres and the ultimate residual value from the initial cost, so as to obtain the balance to be written off. The total for the flee items of running costs is therefore 9.88d. per mile or £32 18s. 8d: per week.
The total operating cost for. this8-ton rigid is therefore 16.74d. per mile or £55 16s. 5d. per week.
Dealing now with the articulated version of this class of vehicle, it will be assumed that the complete 13-ton articulated outfit costs £3,710 and has an unladen weight of 7 •tOns. The resulting annual licence duty of £132 gives an equivalent standing cost per week of £2 14s. 6d. Wages are again based on a 55-hour week and amount to £15 Os. 9d. because the driver will now come within the wage groqp Of 10 to 15 tons.
Rent and rates are askssed at 15s. 9d., insurance at £4 8s. 10d. and interest at £4 9s. per week. This gives a total standing cost for this 13-ton artic. of £.27 8s. 10d. per week.
Assuming that this articulated vehicle maintains an average rate of consumption of 10 m.p.g., the fuel cost per mile would be 4.98d. Lubricants are reckoned to cost 0.30d. and tyres 2.03d. per mile. Similarly maintenance is assessed at 294d. and depreciatiomat 2.3Id., giving a total running cost of 12.56d. per mile or £41 17s. per week. Added to the standing cost this gives a total operating cost for this 13-ton artic. of 20.79c1. per mile or £69 6s. 2d. per week.
HE maximum-load rigid eight-wheeler chosen for this example costs £4,275 and has an unladen weight Of 7 tons 10 cwt. The annual licence duty is £144 and the Têquivalent standing cost per week is £2 18s. 5d. The rate of Wages payable now falls in the next higher group, namely 15 to 18 tons, and amounts to £15 12s. 6d. per week.' Rent and rates are reckoned at 14s. 8d, vehicle insurance 15 6s. and -interest £5' 2s. 8d. per week, giving a total standing cost of £29 14s. 3d. per week or 8.91d. per mile. *
The average rate of fuel consumption is now -reckoned to be 9 m.p.g. and the fuel cost per mile 5.53d. 'Lubricants are reckoned at 0.31d., tyres 2.39d., maintenance .3.16d. 'and depreciation 2.74d. per mile. The total running cost is thus 14.I3d. per mile or £47 2s. per week, giving a total operating cost of 23.04d. per mile or £76 16s. 3d. per week.
The selected articulated version of this maximum-load eightwheeler costs £4,925 and has an unladen weight of 7 tons 15 cwt. The annual licence duty is thus £150 per annum, the equivalent of £3 ls. 8d. per week. Wages, as before, cost £15 12s. 6d. and rent and rates 16s. 10d. per week. Because of the increased cost insurance and interest are both reckoned to cost slightly more than the rigid version, namely 15.9s. and £5 18s. 2d. per week respectively. This gives a total standing cost of £30 18s. 2d., per week or 9.27d. per mile. • As before, the rate of fuel consumption is reckoned to be 9 m.p.g., the equivalent of 5.53d. per mile, whilst lubricants also remain the same at 0.31d, Tyres are now reckoned to cost 2.82d, per mile, whilst maintenance adds 3.16d: and depreciation 2.82d. per mile. This results in a total running cost of 14.64d. per mile or £48 16s. per week. The total operating costs for this maximum-load articulated vehicle when averaging 800 miles per week is thus '23.91d. per mile or £79 14s. 2d. per week.-S.B.