How Rates for Brick Haulag thould Be Based
Page 20
Page 21
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
THERE is a degree of similarity between the conditions of haulage of sand and ballast and that of bricks, which makes it appropriate to pass directly from the one subject to the other. Furthermore, the interest in brick haulage is developing just now (in normal times it is, to a certain extent, a seasonal traffic) as is indicated by the fact that I am commencing to receive inquiries on problems arising therefrom.
So far as the local haulage of bricks is concerned, the similarity between it and sand and ballast haulage is particularly close, inasmuch as both are "one-way," having little or no prospect of return loads. As the lead mileage 'increases, however, there is a divergence, for, on some routes at least, as for example between the Bedfordshire brickfields and. London, there is a fairly reasonable chance of picking up return loads, so that the cost to the haulier of carrying the bricks is reduced, and his profitable rate can be diminished.
Bricks, like sand, are heavier when wet. So far as the already loaded vehicle is concerned, that usually means that the top and outer layers of bricks will increase in weight during a rainfall. The maximum effect of wetness is likely to be felt in w case where a lorry is being loaded from a stack of bricks in a brickyard: the load on the first lorry to be loaded froth a stack which has been standing during the rain will be heavier than normal, the increase sometimes being considerable. Unfortunately it is not pfacticable to take account of this factor in assessing rates.
Again, bricks are not carried by weight, butper 1,000, just as, in some parts of the country, sand and ballast, etc., are carried by the cubic yard and not by the ton.
1,000 Bricks is the Basic Standard of Manufacturers
Whilst there may seem to be at possibil4 of revising the conditions of carriage of sand and ballast so that it is conveyed and rated on a tonnage basis, any such change appears to be quite out of the question so far as bricks are concerned. The brick manufacturers state that all their accounts are made up on the basis of sale by the LON and not by the ton: to alter that condition would mean extensive alterations in their methods of accountancy. According to some manufacturers this objection is insuperable.
Then there is the fact that the weight per 1,000 bricks varies considerably. Common bricks, which probably outnumber the others by about six to one, vary in weight from 2 tons 3 cwt. or 2 tons 5 cwt. per 1,000 in Bedfordshire, to 2 tons 12 cwt. or 2 tons 15 cwt. in Leicestershire, .3 tons in Staffordshire, 3 tons 5 cwt. -to 3 tons 10 cwt. in South Wales, 3 tons 10 cwt. 'in Warwickshire, and 3 tons 15 cwt. in Lancashire.
About 24 years ago the Yorkshire Committee of the Road and Rail Conference, in preparing a schedule of rates for brick haulage, took 4 tons per 1,000 as a basis for calcula
tion. Facing bricks are usually heavier than common bricks; in most 'districts they weigh 4 tons to the 1,000.
There is'enough justification, already, for suggesting that a Nation-wide schedule of rates for brick haulage is impracticable. There are, however, other conditions which seem to preclude such a schedule. Whilst a considerable proportion of local traffic is carried in vehicles of 5-6 tons capacity, use is, nevertheless, made of larger vehicles, up, to maximum-lckad eight-wheelers. Where the quantities and distances justify the employment of these larger units they can be employed with economy, thus meriting a differentiation in rates as compared with the traffic carried in smaller machines.
Brick haulage is like sand and ballast haulage, too, in that there are good and bad conditions of loading and unloading, There is usually 'some help available at the loading end and,_in these .circumstances, the net time for the operation should not exceed 15 to 20 minutes per 1,000 bricks. The same time suffices for unloading: sometimes, in the case of common bricks, they may be tipped off the vehicle on to the ground, in which case the time needed is, of course, considerably reduced.
If the bricks, on unloading, have to be stacked, it is necessary to reckon on at least double the time for unload
ing, say 30 to 45 minutes per 1,000. The snag is' the waiting time at the brickyards. Whatever may be the position now, it is a fact that, in peace time, delays at the loading end were usually a minimum of 30 minutes each trip, rising, on occasion, to as much as five hours. According to the experience of some brick hauliers I know, to have to wait two hours for a load was regarded as usual.
Here are some recorded times given to me by anther brick-haulier friend of mine. First day of check:—First load, 30 minutes; 'second load, 55 minutes; third load, 15 minutes; fourth load, 40 minutes; fifth load, 105 minutes; sixth and last load, 38 minutes. Total time waiting, 283 minutes; average, 47 minutes per load,
Second day of check:—First load, 35 minutes; second load, 0 minutes; third load, 70 minutes; fourth load, 40 minutes; fifth load, 70 minutes; sixth load, 50 minutes; seventh and last load, 40 minutes. Total delay, 365 minutes; average, 52 minutes per load.
Third day of checkl—First load, 25 minutes; second, 85 minutes; third, 115 minutes; fourth, 30 minutes; fifth and last, 25 minutes. Total delay, 280 minutes; average, 56 minutes per load.
The investigation covered, in all, seven days, during which the delays, varying similarly. to those specified above, totalled 36 hours 18 *minutes, an average of 5 hours 11 minutes per day. The number of loads was actually 37, so that it is reasonable and fair to take one hour as the average delay.
Bricks were Unprofitable Haulage Before the War
, In pre-war times rates for brick haulage -were low. Where no return loads were carried the revenue from this traffic miss quite inadequate, often below the cost of operation. I came to the conclusion that many hauliers carried bricks under no-return-load conditions when only no other traffic was available. The profits they made from their enterprises were gathered from traffic other than bricks. They took the brick traffic as a means for keeping their vehicles running and thus, according to their ideas, spreading their overheads.
That might have been sound had there been factors, beyond the control of the haulier, operating to keep the rates at an uneconomic level: There were, indeed, clainis by many operators that such factors did exist, and it was often said that the brick manufacturer forced down the rates by threat of increasing his own fleet of C-licensed vehicles, and thus made profits out of the losses sustained by the hauliers. • There was a saying that the haulage industry was
subsidizing, the brick industry. 'That was not strictly correct, as 'evidence from hauliers. went to show. I will quote a couple of examples. The first relates to bricks carried for two well-known competing brick manufacturers with factories not 60 miles. from London. In both cases it wai at one time the practice to offer brick traffic to hauliers at the rail rate plus 3s. 6d. In one particular case, a typical one, this rate was .16s. per 1,000. That was quoted to me by a haulier who operated over the route at the " book rate " as offered by the brick companies, which ‘ii-ere quite willing to pay that amount. It was in fact the rail rate plus 3s. 6c1. as quoted above. Hauliers stepped in and offered to do the work for 14s. 'per 1,000. Their offers, quite naturally, were accepted.
Here is another ease. A haulier friend of mine had, for some considerable time, been carting bricks for 9s. per . 1,000, not a rate which I would have, recommended for the distance, but that is by the way. Along came a competitor who offered to do the work for 7s. per 1,000. He obtained the 'traffic.
Some time later business in bricks became brisk and the manufacturer, needing additional haulierassistance, asked • my friend to quote. He asked for his original rate of 9s. arid, for a time, obtained it. The traffic he carried at that rate, however, gradually diminished, until one day he was invited to meet the managing director of the brick • company. During the interview which followed it was demonstrated, very clearly, that the rate had to be 7s. per 1,000 and no more.
It was not the wish of the brick manufacturer to cut the rate: he recognized and acknowledged that 9s, was a reasonable commercial rate. He, however, could not help himself.
• His competitors in the district were supplying to the same delivery poinCor thereabouts; other hauliers were carrying for these competitors at 7s. per 1,000 and, as his price was for the bricks delivered on site, he would be at a disadvantage of 2s. per 1,000 if he were to pay my friend the 9s. per 1,000 for which he asked.
When the Haulier of Bricks Did Himself a Bad Turn This was positively a case in which the haulier determined the rate to his own disadvantage, almost against the wishes of his customer. This story, bad as it was, has had a sequel
which is even worse. My friend, to oblige an' old and valued customer, consented to reduce his rate to 7s., only , to discover, a little later, that other.hauliers had cut the rate still further to 6s. Such times 'and such practices are of the past: it is to be hoped that they will not recur when. this war is over, and operators are free to carry on their awn individual businesses in a manner which seems' good to them.
In view of what 'I have written and the numerous factors which preclude the establishment of rates per 1,000 for the haulage of bricks, which will be applicable anywhere in the country, it seems advisable to work out schedules on the basis of weight per 1,000. That would mean that there will be a-schedule for the Home Counties, another for Wales, another for the Midlands, and one for Lancashire and 'Yorkshire.
In the Home Counties bricks are at their lightest, weighing no more than 2 tons 5 cwt. per 1,000. As it happens, the first' inquiry which I have received comes from the Midlands, and I.have made out Table•I in response to that inquiry, taking, as a basis for weight, from 2i to 21. tons per 1,000 bricks, The operator, like many on purely local haulage, is employing petrol-engined 5-6-tonnerS for the work. It is a reasonable assumption that he will take 2,000 bricks as a load: at least, he should not take more.
Table I has been built up in the same way as those recently published in connectiOn with sand and ballast haulage. As there may be some operators not interested in sand and ballast, who may, possibly, have not troubled to read the articles on that subject, but are concerned with bricks, I propose, for their benefit, briefly to describe how the table is compiled. First, the time and mileage charges for vehicles of the type named are 5s. 6d. per hour, plus 9d. per mil. An average terminal delay of 90 minutes is assumed. At 5s. .6d. per hour, that is Sc. 3d. for the vehicle, or 4s.' lid. per 1,000 for the bricks, I have taken 4s. 2d. as being sufficiently near, having in mind the fact that 90 minutes' allowed for terminal delays -is not hard and fast. That' amount appears in the second column of the table .
Getting at the Lead-mile Rate per 1,000 Bricks The average travelling speed of the vehicle is taken at 25 m.p.h., which is 2.4 minutes per mile, or double this for the two miles which must be run to complete a one-mile lead. The time cost of 4.8 minutes, at 5s. 6d. per hour, is 5,28d. Add to that le. 6d. (two miles at 9d.), and we get ls. 11.28d. per lead-mile for the vehicle; which is 11.64d. per 1,000 for,the bricks. That is the first figure
in the third column. The second is twice that for a two-rnile.lead, the third three times that for a three-mile lead and so on.
In the fourth column comes, what is called, the weightage, and that is something which is added to the rate for short hauls to allow for the fact, first, that the average speed of 25 m.p.h. cannot be maintained over such short distances and, secondly, that the time taken in *loading tends to increase when the distance travelled is particularly short, This weightage starts at 12d. per 1,000 for the first mile, falling by Id. for each mile increase in the lead. The figures in the fifth column are obtained by adding those in columns two, three and four, the result being given to the nearest penny above the actual result of the addition.
In the last column the rate is increased to allow for the extra time involved when the bricks have to be stacked. This means an, addition of from 20 to 25 minutes per 1,000, which calls for the addition of 2s. per 1,000 to the rate.