AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

ARRIVING AT RATES FOR ■ 1SPORTING BULKY LOADS

18th May 1945, Page 26
18th May 1945
Page 26
Page 27
Page 26, 18th May 1945 — ARRIVING AT RATES FOR ■ 1SPORTING BULKY LOADS
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?

THE problem with which I have to deal this week is one 1 that frequently recurs: it is that of assessing .rates for the conveyance of traffic so bulky that the vehicles used cannot be loaded to their full rated pay-load capacity so far as weight is concerned. They are full in the sense that they will hold no more; the material is either light, as in the case of straw and certain textiles, or bulky, as in the case of large concrete pipes and things of that kind..

Generally speaking, it is my view that, in al,f such cases, the operator should charge as though the vehicle be fully loaded, i.e, carrying the weight which it is designed to carry. • Those whose interest it is to pay as little as they can for the conveyance of their goods like to argue that, because the vehicle is comparatively lightly loaded, it must cost less to run and they should, therefore, have to pay less. As a matter of fact, the difference in cost, if there be any, is negligible.

That is especially so in the case of petrol-engined vehicles, in which the fuel consumption does not vary in proportion. to the' gross load moved. Even in the case of oil-engined machines, where rather more difference in fuel consumption is to be expected, it is so slight, and the saving effected is so small, that it is impracticable to take it Into consideration at all It must be remembered that, in considering the effect on fuel consumption, it is the gross moving load which must be raker] into consideration, and not the pay-load. For example, a 74-tonner fully loaded will weigh, altogether, 12 tons. 'If, because a load be so bulky it cannot carry more than 6i tons of material, the gross weight is only 11 tons, and if there be any direct relation between the weight moved and the fuel consumption, then the difference is one-twelfth only.

Assuming for the moment that there be a drop in petrol consumption in proportion to the gross load moved, then, in the case Of a 74-tonner, carrying 64 tons, the difference would be one-twelfth of approximately 3id., which is .3d. The difference, however, is not likely,to be in that proportion, but will almost certainly be less, probably as little as half of one-twelfth,. say, .15d. in cost per mile.

Difference too Small to be Considered As that has to be spread over 64 tons, the difference is only a little over a one-fiftieth part of id. per ton per mile, or .1d. for carrying 1. ton 50 miles. Even if it be further suggested that ,there be an additional slight saving in tyre wear and oil Consuinption, the total will certainly not amount to more than Id. in 25 miles.

With an -oil engine the saving might be a little more,' but, again, the total would hardly be sufficient to justify an alteration in the rate of'id, for a matter of 15 to 20 miles.

. I am quite sure that no practical man will accept, for one moment, that his Costs, or his rates, are assessed with such a fine degree of accuracy that Id. per 59 miles, or even ld. per 15 miles, is enough to be given serious consideration.

I will admit that a good deal depends upon the nature of the terrain. If it be hilly, so that an excessive amount of low-gear work be involved, then the difference in full and light loading will be more than if the vehicle be _working in flat country where little use of the lower gears is called for.

It would, as a matter of fact, be far easier to make out a case for a diminution of rates in fiat and level country, as compared with those in hilly country, than it is to put forward any practicable basis for differentiation between a vehicle loaded tocapacity and one loaded to something less than capacity.

With this preamble I come directly to the problem which started this trainof thought. It arose from an inquiry, from one of my haulier friends, as to what he should charge for the conveyance of certain traffic which was so bulky that he was able to get only 8 tons on a 10-tonner, 64 tons on an S-tonner, 5 tons in the case of a 6-tonner, and 4 tons on a 5-tonner. He-asked-me to suggest a schedule of rates for various mileages.

A24-, .

,

Another peculiar feature about this traffic wasthe rime needed for:loading and unloading. I was informed that, to load 4 tons takes 1 hour, 5 tons II hours, 6 tons 2 hours and 8 tons 3 hours. It will be appreciated, therefore, that the material is somewhat unusual as these I3ading times are more than one usually expects. I was also informed that it takes just as long to unload as it does to load.

Having been given the fundamental information, the next thing to do is.to tackle the problem itself, I prefer to start with the 5-tonner which, as stated, can take only a 9-ton load. Now, the operating costs of a 5-ton petrol vehicle are as follow:—£10 8s, per week for fixed costs, including establishment charges, and 6/d, per mile for running costs. The details, and the items which go to make those totals, can be found by referring to '' The Commercial Motor "' Tables of Operating Costs.

In a case where rates have to be a,sse'ssed for a variety of mileages, I always find it most convenient, in the first instance at least, to work on the time and mileage basis and, to that end, the first thing to do is to get down to a charge per hoar and per. mile.

By adding 20 per cent, to the fixed costs of £10. Si. per week, we get £12 10s., and, by dividing that by 48 for the 48-hour week, we get what I call the time rate of. 5s. 3d. per hour. • Bear in mind' that the mileage rate has to be added to that 5s. 3d., which means nothing, because there is no provision in that for the vehicle to move at all.

Add 20 per cent, to the 6d, pet mile and we get, approximately, 8d., which must be the charge per mile, We have now a time rate of 5s. 3d. per hour and a mileage rate of 8d.

Assessing a Rate for a Five-mile Lead

Next, I take a comparatively short lead, say, five miles, and assess a rate for that. First, I want to know the time that would be taken for the complete return journey. I have 2 hours for terminals, that is, 1 hour for loading and 1 hour for unloading. lhere are 10 miles to he run, and do not think it would-be safe to assume that that distance would be covered in less than half an hour. That means my total timeis 24 hours, and that, at 5s. 8d. per hour. is 13s. 2d., to the nearest penny To that must be added the charge for 10 miles at 3d, per mile, which is 6s. 8d. The total of these two items19s. 10d.—is the reVenue the operator must get for the load . of 4 tons. The charge over a five-mile lead must, therefore, be Ss. per ton.

Now, we want to know the difference in the rate per mile lead up and down, from five miles, aemembering that one-mile lead means two miles' running, we have 1s. 4d. for the mileage charge, and, assuming an average speed of 20 m.p.h., six minutes of the time charge, which is one-tenth of 5s.3d., or 64d. approximately, The total

extra is thus Is. 101d., and over such short leads I think it

is sufficient to assess' that-at fid. per ton per mile. •

That gives me the basis of the figures in the second column of Table 1, and I assume that the 6d. per mile applies until we get to a 10-mile lead, for which the rate is thus 7s. 6d.

Beyond 10 miles the vehicle will probably speed up considerably, and be running at 30 mph. That gives us a cut in the travelling time from 6 minutes to 4 minutes, so that this item costs us 4d. This, added to, the Is. 4d. charge of the mileage, which, of course, remains unaffected, gives us Is. 8d.-a rate of 5d. per ton per mile; In Table 1 I have-shown the rate rising mile ',by mile from 3 miles to 12 miles, then the increase per ton per mile, and, for a reason which will be disclosed later in this article, I have given the figures or 20, 30, 40 and 50-mile leads. Now we take the 6-tonner. The fixed charges, including establishment costs, a.rnount to £11 4s, per week, and adding 20 per cent, to that for profit gives us £13 10s. per week, which is equivalent to 5s. 6d. per hour for a 48-hour week,

Time and Mileage Charge for the 6-tonner The running cost is 74d. per mile, and that, plus 20 per cent., gives us 9d. as the charge per mile. Our time and mileage basis figures are, therefore, 5s. 6d. per hour and 9d. per Mile. It takes 14 hours to -load the 5 tons, which is all that the 6-tonner will carry, and 14 hours to unload. Allowing, as before, half an hour for travelling time, we have a total of 34 hours, and that, at 5s. 6d. per hour, is 19s. 3d. for the time charge: 10 miles at 9d. is 7s. '6d., and the chaige for the whole load of 5 tons must, therefore, be 26s. 9d., which is 5s. 4d. per ton. •.

The rise or fall in the charge per mile per load over or under five miles lead is made up of Is. 6d, for the two-miles' running charge, plus 6 minutes at ifs. 6d. per hour, which is 6.6d. The total is thus 2s. 0.6d., which is, in effect, 5d. per ton per mile. Beyond 14 miles, this is reduced to 44d. per mile. We may now deal with the 8-tonner, which, it must be remembered, carries only 64 tons. The fixed charges amount to £13 10s. per week, and this amount, plus 20 per cent., gives us £16 5s., which is equivalent to 6s. 9d. per hour for our time charge. The running cost is 91d. per mile, and the charge 20 per cent, more than that..lid.. per mile. It takes approximately 2 hours to load 64 tons and the same time to unload, which gives us 4 hours for terminals, and, 'assuming that the 8-tonner can travel as quickly as the 6-tonner, we can still take half an hour for the time needed to cover the 10 miles of the round journey, giving us a total time • af 44 hours. At 6s. 9d. per hour, £1 10s: 4d, must be charged. Add to this 10 miles at 11d., which is 9s. 2d., and we get £1 19s. 6d., the charge to be made for the full load of 6 tons, or, approximately, 6s. per ton for a five-mile lead. . .

To get the rise and fall per ton per mile, over and under . five miles, we have to take the mileage charge for two miles at 11d., to which must be added the time charge for 6 minutes at 6s. 9d. per hour. We must, therefore, charge 2s. 6d. per mile, extra, for the full load Of 64 tons, and that is equivalent to 44d. per ton.

An 8-tonner is not supposed to travel at more than 20 m.p.h., and if we accept that, then the additional amount per mile lead per ton will continue at 41d. right to the end of the chapter. It is more likely, however, that the 20 m.p.h. will be exceeded, in which case we can make a slight reduction, and we have done so by taking 41d. instead of 44d. for distances in excess of the 10-mile lead.

The 10-tonner costs £15 per week, fixed charges, and 20 per cent. of £15 is £3, so that our total time charge per week is £18. That, for a 48-hour week, is equivalent to 7s. 6d. per hour,

The running cost per mile of a 10-tonner is 104d., which means that, in order to make this 20 per Cent. profit, the charge must be Is. 04d. per mile. Now, it takes 3 hours to load the 8 tons, which is all that the /0-tonner will carry, and the same time to unload, so that, with half an hour travelling, I get .a total of 64 hours for the round journey. This, at 7s. 6d. per hour, is £2 8s. 9d. Ten miles at Is. 04d. per, mile is 10s. 5d., so that the operator must obtain at least £2 19s. 2d. for the conveyance of 8 tons

of the material concerned over a five-Mile lead. That means that he must charge 7s. 4d., per ton over that distance.

For each mile over or under the five miles the charge per load is'made up of two miles at is. 04d., plus 6 minutes, or one-tenth hours, at 7s. 6d. per hour, which is 9d. The total is 2s. 10d., and that, as the load is 8 tons, is equivalent to 41d. per. ton.

I have used that figure in the final column of Table 1, and again, as .in the case of the S-Conner carrying 'a 6i-ton load, I have made a slight reduction in the charge per mile over and above a 10-mile lead, taking it to be 4d, instead of 41d.

Body Dimensions and Pay-load Capacity I have reproduced the Table in the form shown because I wish to draw attention to an important matter which is sometimes overlooked., The general impression is that the larger the vehicle the lower should be the rate per ton. Examination of this Table shows that this is not the case over short leads when dealing with traffic of ,this kind. Besides being bulky, it takes a disproportionate time to load and unload, The fact that it is bulky means that-the bigger vehicle is at a disadvantage because body dimensions do not increase in proportion to the pay-load capacity. It is not to be expected, for example, in the ordinary way at least, that the body space of a 10-tonner would be twice

that of a 5-tonner. , The other point is that the loading time is out of all proportion to the mileage covered. The bigger vehicle is more expensive, because there is such a large proportion of standing time, which is more costly for a larger vehicle,' I I put the last four items in each of the last four colums to demonstrate that, as the lead mileage increases, this disparity begins to fade. Taking the 6-ttnner and 10-tonner for purposes of comparison, the rate per ton for a five-mile lead with a 6-tonner is only 5s. 4d., as against 7s. 4d. for a 10-tonner, whereas, for a 50-mile lead, the rate is precisely the same, that is, £1 2s. Sd. per ton.

Another point arises from this problein, which I may deal with in another article. It relates to the allocation, in a mixed fleet, of vehicles to their job, the suitability of each being dependent, in work of this kind, upon the capacity. For example, the 10-tonner on a five-mile lead takes 64 hours, and can conveniently carry only one load per day. Clearly, it should do the king leads only, the short run being left to the smaller vehicles. S.T.R.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus