1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
How the TRTA maintenance scheme can pay off
Page 81
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ADOPTION OF the TRTA's inspection scheme had made reduced workshop visits by vehicles to an extent which, by the end of 1967, was expected to be as high as 20 per cent. This claim was made by Mr. Bassindale, transport engineer, Continental Oil (UK) Ltd, when addressing delegates on the importance of regular inspection.
His company had also found that unscheduled repairs and roadside breakdowns were on the decline. The savings helped towards offsetting the cost of the TRTA service and also released manpower to concentrate on scheduled maintenance and repair work.
There was considerable ignorance, he contended, of the fact that the Road Safety Act gave the Ministry of Transport power to require operators to have their vehicles regularly inspected by a suitably qualified person. There was no doubt that this power would be exercised, possibly during the course of the next 12 months.
This meant that regular inspection— which had always been desirable—would become a legal necessity. Lack of compliance could mean licence revocation.
Detecting troubles There were five main aspects of the regular inspection of vehicles. They centered around the necessity, scope, skill, frequency and cost of inspection.
As to necessity, competent inspection was fundamental in detecting actual and latent defects in vehicles. It was the best insurance against GV9s, unscheduled repairs and adverse publicity. Moreover it would save money through scheduling of repairs during off-peak operating time.
Then, as to the scope of inspection, Mr. Bassindale listed the most common defects found by the Ministry of Transport during their roadside checks. It was alarming that the most frequent defects were those which directly affected the safety of the vehicle.
It was not always true that a first-class mechanic made a good inspector, and already there was a vast shortage of firstclass mechanics. The inspector should have a really comprehensive background in the mechanics of motor vehicles, supplemented by specialist training in the art of inspection.
A good inspector could not only see the obvious defects but had the ability to seek
Out latent faults and anticipate them before they reach a serious stage. He should also have the ability to report clearly the faults he had found and communicate clearly with staff: at all levels. It was no longer sufficient, Mr. Bassindale added, for vehicles to be regularly serviced by a mechanic.
Frequency of inspection would vary to suit individual circumstances but should not be less than four a year.
On the cost of inspection, Mr. Bassindale had found that one inspector could handle about 150 vehicles when giving each vehicle four inspections a year. The average cost of a vehicle each year would be about £16120. Where there were sufficient vehicles to warrant an inspector to a small area this figure might be considerably reduced.
Although the figure of £20 might seem high, Mr. Bassindale contended that it made sound sense when vehicles cost perhaps £5,000 /E10,000.
Obviously, there were operators who could not justify the employment of their own inspectors, either because of the small size of their fleet or because it was spread throughout the country. His company used to employ their own vehicle inspectors who travelled to various depots from Scotland to Devon. Unfortunately the smaller depots were the ones farthest away from the centre of operations so that the average inspection cost was extremely high.
After a full investigation, Continental Oil (UK) Ltd decided to negotiate a contract with TRTA for the inspection of its fleet on a national basis. It had so far proved to be exceptionally well operated and administered.
Mr. Bassindale said that they were finding the scheme particularly useful in checking that work specified on the report had been carried out satisfactorily. Particularly did this apply in locations where maintenance was carried out by a local repairer.
New vehicles sent back
A great advantage of using this type of scheme was that the inspector was working for the TRTA rather than as a company employee. Reports and advice offered were completely without bias. On more than one occasion the comments of the TRTA inspector had prompted his company to re
turn new vehicles to the supplier because of the unsatisfactory way in which equipment had been fitted to a vehicle.
After the first two quarterly inspections had been completed several points concerning the administration and maintenance scheme of the company were highlighted and it was obvious that standards at some location were lower than at others.
Information gleaned from the completed report forms and discussions with the TRTA inspectors had enabled his company, Mr. Bassindale disclosed, to overhaul its maintenance system and tighten controls where necessary.
Their supervisory staff regarded the quarterly inspection not as a challenge to their competence but as an assurance to management that they were doing a good job. They were thus provided with an incentive to maintain standards at a high level.
After Mr. Bryant and Mr. Bassindale had given their papers, they answered questions as members of a panel which included Mr. R. E. G. Brown, controller TRTA maintenance inspection scheme, and Mr. G. Turvey, assistant national secretary.. The chairman of the panel was Mr. L. J. Cotton, chairman, TRTA vehicles committee.
In reply to doubts as to whether a quarterly inspection was adequate to ensure that work had actually been performed, Mr. Brown said their objective was not to provide a maintenance scheme. Therefore a quarterly inspection was adequate, but from their experience so far, too many operators were paying too much for too little maintenance.
Mr. W. W. Chambers (West Cumberland Farmers) said he did not need inspectors to tell him that his widely dispersed fleet was badly maintained by public garages. The company already knew it. Records showed the work to have been done; practical experience proved otherwise.
Mr. Bryant suggested that Mr. Chambers might give the manufacturer concerned the opportunity to act by reporting this to him. A delegate, Mr. A. Utley (Jessop Saville), confirmed that he had done just that—and had got satisfaction, adding that if one went about it the proper way one got results.