• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

)river legislation's ffect on distribution

by A. J. West

RHM Foods Limited ['HE previous paper, we been given an indication e sort of legislation which ikely to affect vehicle ations over the next five The purpose of this r is to consider how these rules will affect distribuif indeed they do appear. e various regulations, pararly 543/69 which covers iriver's hours and mileage ictions, are very lengthy ments and go into great 1 not only on the measures )fl the various exceptions variations which are /ed. The most important Car-reaching measures are, the introduction of tachographs; the proposed daily mileage limit of 281 miIeS (450 Km); the 8-hour daily driving [imitation.

lographs

ere is nothing new about tachograph (although the pean authorities appear to been successful in makt much more complicated) like any technological et, it has had its devotees is country for many years. have all had the oppory to use and test the igraph. A few believe that )ffers advantages, the rity do not and having had opportunity to arrive at )wn decision, those of us have chosen to reject the ament now find that we be compelled to use it by 1.w of the land.

ere is no doubt that the igraph will provide a led and accurate record of ing speed, distance coytime spent travelling, and equired, engine speeds.

our engineering coles may very well feel that information would enable to assess much more "ately the way in which :les were used and this easily result in the dement of vehicle designs maintenance systems a were more in keeping the job which needed to one. They may also feel the facts provided by the ament would enable us the operators, to exert more control over the drivers, without whom the engineer's job would be so much easier!

Why then, should the operator turn his back on these potential advantages?There are three principal reasons : (a) Tachographs will involve us in additional costs. It is estimated that supplying and fitting a tachograph will add approximately £150 to the cost of a new vehicle and whilst this may represent a relatively small proportion of the total cost, it is likely to add approximately £18m per year in capital costs alone, when all eligible vehicles become affected (600,000 vehicles —5 year average life). In addition, the units will require maintenance and it is likely that they will need to be checked and possibly re-set every time there is any kind of alteration to the vehicle transmission, beyond the take-off point for the driving gear. If each of the 600,000 vehicles affected spends just one extra day per year off the road, the additional cost to the industry (at e25 aver age vehicle fixed costs plus £12 service charge) would be £22m per year.

(b) Most operators simply do not want and could not use information of the type which the tachograph provides. Although it will record accurately distance travelled against time, it is not likely that this information will be of any value. The one factor which might be of assistance, namely where the vehicle actually was at any given time, the tachograph cannot provide —it can only say how far away the vehicle was from its start point.

(c) Whatever vehicle operators might think about the tachograph, drivers have their own views and they are almost unanimously anti. The driver is almost unique in being a manual worker who receives no direct supervision during the major part of his working day. This feeling of independence contributes very largely to the satisfaction which is obtained from the job. For the most part, the responsibility which the driver feels has been given to him by his employer, results in a responsible and conscientious approach to the job.

I do not think that any one of us would like to feel that every move we made during the working day was being monitored by a machine, and the emotive term " the spy in the cab" is not a bad description of the instrument.

This is a major obstacle which will be very difficult to overcome; but if it could be solved, and the instruments are introduced, would there be any benefit?

Well almost certainly there would. At the very least, it would reduce the most flagrant cases of speeding because of the certain knowledge that the information would be recorded for all to see. This might reduce road accidents, it might reduce fuel consumption, and it might reduce maintenance costs. But it definitely would be a constant annoyance and frustration to the drivers, who, like the enterprising breed that they are, would undoubtedly channel all their energies into ways of defeating the device.

In return for these problems, the possibility of relieving the driver of the need to maintain existing forms of records, would be small recompense indeed.

Drivers' hours and mileage limitations

Before we consider the effects, it is important to distinguish between the two fundamental types of commercial vehicle operation, namely: (a) the trunk haul—where we are concerned with moving goods, usually in large quantities, between two known points, and (b) the delivery journey— where the driver is making a number of deliveries, and where he is mainly constrained in his productivity by the amount which he is capable of delivering within a working period, rather than by the size of vehicle as is usually the case in trunking.

The EEC Regulations state that for vehicles in excess of 3.5 tonnes gvw, the driving time is limited to 8 hours (although it can be increased to 9 hours on two days per week for drivers of vehicles below 20 tonnes gvw). This does really represent driving time. Although for the purpose of taking breaks, any intervals from driving of less than 15 minutes are still regarded as driving time, when it comes to measuring the daily driving limit, it is the time behind the wheel which counts. E.g. If, at the moment, a delivery driver works for 10 hours, during which time he drives for 6 hours and delivers for 4, but none of the individual deliveries takes more than 15 minutes, the situation under the new legislation will be as follows : (a) For the purpose of taking breaks—he will be considered to be driving for 10 hours, and, if his vehicle is less than 20 metric tons gvw, he must take a break of 30 minutes after each 4-hour period (or a larger number of shorter breaks as permitted by article 8). But— (b) For the purpose of calculat ing maximum driving time —the driver will be con sidered to have driven for only six hours, that is the period for which he was actually at the controls of the vehicle for the purpose of controlling its movement.

This is the interpretation of new legislation which has been made by the DoE, and it means that there will be virtually no effect upon retail distribution —except where the ratio of driving time to delivery time exceeds 80:20, and the driver is currently working for a full 10 hours.

In the case of trunking, however, the situation is rather different and although the two limits differ in concept, their effect will be very similar— they will both serve to limit the productivity available from a vehicle/driver combination.

The most common measure of productivity in road transport is the ton-mile per shift and this is simply.a function of the tonnage carried, the average speed, and the time worked. Clearly, any driver who currently drives for 10 hours will, under the new legislation have his productivity reduced by 20 per cent if he can only work for 8 hours.

On the other hand, it is true to say that in many cases the productivity is already limited by the route itself. For example, a driver may be capable of driving 300 miles in a shift, but if the load he is given involves travelling from London to Leicester and back, he will only drive 200 miles and since it is unlikely that the time left over can be put to profitable use, that driver's productivity will be reduced for the day in question, As journeys get shorter, so the opportunity to do more than one trip increases, but on general haulage, it is virtually impossible to achieve the maxi mum theoretical productivity from a vehicle/driver combination.

However, the best way to see the effects of the two new restrictions is to consider a load which does fill the working day, and let us take as an example the driver of a 32 tons gross articulated unit travelling between a depot in London and a depot in Manchester where, upon arrival, he simply changes trailers and heads back for London. Let us also assume that the distance to be travelled is 400 miles via MI and M6, and that since most of the journey is done on the motorway, a constant average speed of 40 miles per hour can be achieved.

(a) Current operations If the driver leaves London at 7.00 a.m. he will arrive in Manchester 5 hours later, change trailers, and take his statutory break of 1/2 hour. He will then return to London and park at his depot at approximately 5.30 p.m. and go home.

(b) Driver limited to 8 hours In this case, the driver would head towards Manchester and after approximately 31 hours would reach the Keele service station where he must stop. The next service station at Knutsford is approximately 175 miles from London and thus cannot be reached in 4 hours at 40 miles per hour so the driver would have to take his break at Keele after 31 hours which would automatically mean taking two breaks during the 8 hour period. After the break, a further 11/4 hours driving would see him in Manchester where he would change trailers and immediately head back towards London. His second break could be taken atKnutsford, Keele or Corley since any of the three could be reached within 4 hours of the end of the previous break. However, his 8 hours will be up as he reaches Watford Gap service station on MI. In he would have had to tul MI at junction 18, 1 since the next exit point A.45 Coventry to Northar road which he could not in 8 hours. Hence he I be obliged to park some+ between Crick and Dayi If he had started at 7.0C he would be parking at p.m. The following day driver will travel to Lond approximately 2 hours an whole journey would taken 10 hours driving 1.25 shifts.

(c) With the 280-mile lin The driver follows' the route as (b) until he re the Sutton Goldfield are the homeward journey which time he must because after 7 hours miles an hour the 280th will have been reachec will need to have park the Sutton Coldfield ar 3.00 p.m., if he started th at 7.00 a.m.

The following day, II( head for London, and after approximately 3 driving. In terms of d time, he will have work( 11 shifts and we will a: this is the case but if fo reason his employer unable to usefully occup remaining 5 hours d time, the journey effectively have taken tw days. Let us also assumi the driver's night out alto' is £4 per night, and look statistics relating to journey (Table 1).

Clearly, in terms of done, the effect of thE restrictions is quite dra: However, the operator IA most concerned about costs (Table 2). le increase in cost is not tly proportional to the of productivity by the r. This is because the t of time is only felt on vehicle's fixed costs. The ing costs, which comprise than half the total for of these journeys, remain tant with the mileage.

tother important assumpin table 2 is that the es wage is a constant in three operations. In fact, lurse, the driver will work a considerably shorter .h of time and I would not to speculate in this paper o the effect which that t have upon his earnings.

v can the effects educed

e distribution manager ly cannot influence the ne of traffic which he has andle, or the point to h the goods must be ered, but there is some open to him.

:xtended use of rail iviously, any measure h effectively increases haulage costs tends to ase the competitiveness he rail alternative, parany the the Freightliner ce. Whilst in the vast rity of cases, •the advantwhich road offer over will more than outweigh increases in the realms per cent, there are bound e some areas where at :nt the cost of road transis only marginally better rail, and increases of this will be sufficient to tip balance. Remember, too, it is not only the costs h suffer, but the service.

companies are involved linking operations which upon the journey being nplished in one shift. In pies (b) and (c) above, advantage is lost because ourney now extends into Bcond working day.

is a great pity that the way in which the rail ce can be relatively im proved, is to artificially restrain road haulage, but we play by the rules ; the rules have changed, and I am sure that most operators will take the opportunity to look again at Freightliners.

(b) Higher running speeds As we have already seen, productivity depends upon the distance travelled in a shift, and this distance is a function not only of time, but of speed. In our earlier example, we calculated that a vehicle carrying 20 tons at 40 miles an hour for 10 hours could achieve 8,000 ton-miles per shift. The same vehicle travelling for only 8 hours at 50 miles an hour could achieve the same productivity, although probably at the cost of increased fuel consumption, tyre wear, and maintenance costs. Although when one travels on the motorway, it is sometimes difficult to believe that there are any vehicles which are not travelling at the maximum speed, the fact is that very many companies schedule their vehicles at average speeds which are well below the speed actually attained in practice. Trades unions recognise the effect which average speeds have on productivity, and tend to use their influence in this area as a strong bargaining point in wage negotiations. On the other hand, most drivers' wages still vary to some extent with the number of hours worked and, in the near future, these will be arbitrarily reduced by the new legislation. We shall be hearing a paper later on the subject of industrial relations but it might appear to the layman that a real opportunity exists for employers and unions to ameliorate the effects of the new legislation, to their mutual advantage.

(c),Double manning Although higher running speed could ease the effect of the hours limit, it cannot in itself reduce the effects of the 280-mile limit. In this context it would only serve to reduce the working day, and a vehicle scheduled at 50mph on a motorway would cover 280 miles in 5 hours 36 minutes, and if average speeds of 56mph were possible, we should see the 5 hour driving day materialise. In the case of our London to Manchester example, employing a second man would enable the load to be done in one shift as at present, provided the driving was arranged so that neither one of the drivers exceeded their stipulated driving periods. In our fixed costs of £33 per day per maximumcapacity vehicle, the driver element was included as £18 per day, allowing for associated employee costs, lost time through holidays and sickness etc. The cost effect of adding the second driver is as follows: In this case, the increase in cost is even higher than the effect of the 280-mile limit alone but clearly there would be instances where operational considerations made such a move desirable. Also, having got the two drivers in the cab, they could travel for more than 400 miles, before the total period of work began to eat into the mandatory rest period, and thus prejudice the following day's work.

(d) Alternative vehicle designs Few operators have really extracted the maximum possible advantage from the existing Construction and Use Regulations. We should take a hard look at the way in which goods are packed and loaded to see whether any opportunity exists for improving space or weight utilisation. Wherever we handle products of high density, we should look at the scope for increasing the height of the vehicle (until such time as we are limited by the 4 metre height restriction). Drawbar trailers are still relatively rare in this country and there must be a number of companies for whom the additional 8ft of deck space, achievable with these units, could bring about significant savings. There may be scope for curtain-sided vans to save weight over conventional boxes and certainly, as distribution costs in general go up, so the viability of such expensive extras as aluminium trailers must increase.

Remember, too, that the 280 miles limit only applies to vehicles of 20 tonnes gvw and over. There may be companies currently operating 26/32-tongvw vehicles which are regularly under-utilised, possibly because the density of the goods carried means that the cubic capacity is filled before the gross weight limit is reached. In such cases, it could be worth dropping to a smaller vehicle if the loss of payload was more than compensated for by the increase in productivity gained from avoiding the 280-mile restriction.

(e) Changes in operating methods The variation in operating methods within the transport and distribution industry is enormous and we could not hope to choose specific ex amples in this paper.

Suffice it to say that we must emure: (a) That the movements made represent the most satisfactory overall operating pattern, and that we are not in some cases moving goods unnecessarily.

(b) That having chosen the right vehicle for the job, the maximum possible utilisation is obtained from it.

(c) That vehicles are routed and scheduled so as to minimise both driving distance and driving time.

(d) That we explore the possibility of out-based drivers, the increased use of driverwarehousemen, particularly where vehicles do more than one trip per day, and the possibility of shunters taking over local driving duties, etc.

(f) Larger vehicle capacities All distribution managers have long learned the lesson that, given full utilisation, the largest practicable vehicle on any journey, offers the lowest unit costs. However, UK operators are currently limited to a maximum gross combination weight of 32 tons and for an articulated vehicle this usually provides a payload of around 21 tons, depending upon the unladen Weight of the complete outfit. There has been pressure recently from a number of sources to increase these weights but, to date, this pressure has been resisted, largely because of fears of adverse effects upon the environment.

Reverting to our original example, 8,000 ton-miles per shift could be achieved by a vehicle travelling only 280 miles provided it was carrying 28.6 tons. Recent tests have indicated that muchhigher weights could be carried without increasing damage done to road surfaces, or creating a greater degree of visual intrusion. However, there are many cases, particularly in the food industry, where an increase in weight would not in itself be advantageous unless accompanied by a proportionate increase in size.

The cost of using vehicles of varying sizes are shown in the accompanying table. The data for the 38and 42-ton vehicles are estimated, but are believed to be representative.

Finally, the proposed 280mile limit does not apply to rigid vehicles. Where platform length is not critical, some operators will be reconsidering the sixand eight-wheel rigids.

Driver facilities

There will in future be more drivers, driving for shorter periods, so there are likely to be many more stops on journeys for rest and refreshment. However, while in theory drivers currently take one break after five hours work, in practice most of them take at least two during the day, so that having to take breaks such as to ensure that no single driving period exceeds four hours, may not make any significant impact on the driver's routine.

Again, it is the long-distance drivers who will be most affected, and there will be two main areas.

(i) There will be a number of routes where at present drivers can get off the motorway part of their journey before taking their break, where in future they will be forced to use motorway service areas. This will highlight even more the poor facilities on motorways, which have drawn so much criticism, and in particular the high prices and poor service. One can only hope that there will be increased pressure from users to enable the small operators—often a man and wife team—who offer drivers such good value in so many cafes up and down the country to be given an opportunity to compete, (ii) There will inevitably be a need for more overnight accommodation, and vehicle parking facilities. This presents a much more difficult problem, because neither employers, unions nor government can have any direct influence in this area, short of setting up a network of hostels with parks for the use of goods vehicle drivers. Quite apart from the cost of such a move, the problE that because of the enor variation in indiv journeys, the demand is large number of small E lishments spread around country, rather than fl small number of large which would almost cert be the result of any o: action.

If we could have small at 4-5-mile intervals alon, motorways, it is likely drivers would have little for complaint. It is the ne safety grounds to have large complex every miles which creates the lem.