AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

What is "Efficiency" in Transport?

21st March 1947, Page 37
21st March 1947
Page 37
Page 37, 21st March 1947 — What is "Efficiency" in Transport?
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?

Efficiency Can be Calculated in Relation to the Exact Sciences, but Cannot When Arithmetic is Impossible, Because of Incalculable Factors

IT is characteristic of the woolly thinking to which our present ideological leaders are prone that, whilst they constantly affirm that by nationalizing transport they will improve its efficiency, they have never yet defined efficiency as applied to transport. Still less have they put forward a standard by which that efficiency may be measured.

Consider the term in its relation to matters in which it can be defined and specifically measured. First, the dictionary meaning. According to Nuttall, efficiency is "fitness; effectual agency; power of producing the effect intended; amount of the really effective force." Those who labour in the fields of applied science are more specific in their definition and say that "efficiency is the ratio of the power usefully employed to the power put into the machine."

The designer of an oil engine uses fuel having a heat content of 19,000 B.Th.U. per lb. He knows that, if he burns 1 lb. of that fuel in an engine in one hour, he has put in 6.9 h.p. If the b.h.p. developed by the engine per lb. of that fuel be 2.4, he knows that the efficiency is in the region of 34-35 per cent. He is not completely satisfied, but derives some pleasure from the fact that the average petrol engine can show an efficiency, calculated in the same way, of only about 23 per cent.

But the user continues to buy petrol-engined vehicles in large numbers. Why? Because the petrol engine is quieter, lacks vibration, is more flexible and emits a less objectionable smell than the oiler. These advantages of the petrol engine, in the minds of many users, are sufficient to discount the 50 per cent. extra heat efficiency of the oiler.

There must, then, be more than one way of regarding efficiency, for the user is always groping after it. He chooses the machine or method which gives him the service he prefers: that is, to him, the measure of effi ciency. It is greater in conception than that of the engineer or designer, for it contains it.

All-round Utility

A better definition of " efficiency " is, perhaps, that of Peter Roget, namely, utility." I prefer that interpretation, because in the long run, that which is most useful, in an all-round way, is surely the most efficient.

Now the Labour Government (together with the T.U.C.) tells us that it proposes to nationalize transport because it will then be made more efficient. How is the efficiency of a transport system measured? Possibly Its efficiency may be defined as A measure of the ton-miles performed in relation to the vehicle-hours worked, or vehicle-miles run, or cost. I do not know: I dare not even hazard a guess.

Suppose that is the formula. Go farther, and assume that, judged by that standard, the efficiency of a nationalized transport system can be shown, theoretically, to be higher than that of the transport now available to us. Is the user of transport going to benefit? Is the " utility" of nationalized road transport likely to be greater than it is now, under private enterprise? I wager it will not.

I was talking with some friends of mixed interests. The conversation turned to road transport and, in answer to some point that arose, I stated that the average number of vehicles owned by haulage contractors was 21. Someone asked whether the calculation included operators of large fleets, which I confirmed, agreeing that, in

that case, there must be a large majority owning only one or two vehicles.

"Surely," was a comment, "that cannot make for efficiency," to which I replied that I could not see the connection. A farmer then joined in, saying that he always obtained the most efficient service from the small operator and had been consistently let down when he was compelled to entrust his traffic to the R.H.O. "The little man," he said, "gives the service I need."

Sensing that the ball had returned to me, I quoted two typical instances of the way road hauliers have, by efficiency of service, built up successful businesses.

First, a commissionaire at a textile factory arrived at his job one morning, 15 years ago, to find the factory burned to the ground and his occupation gone. The firm told him that he could have the use of a small van, almost all that was left from the fire; he was to pay for it out of his earnings.

In the next stage of his career he bought two secondhand vehicles, both fit only for the scrap-heap. By dint of working all night each night on repairs, he and his brother were able to give, with those two vehicles, the service of one. They worked 22 hours per day for weeks on end, excepting Sundays, when they worked only 14 hours. To-day that man runs 30 vehicles of the most up-to-date type, and is still prospering and progressing.

Beginnings of Service In the other case, the head of the firm, as it now is, was, 20 years ago, a market gardener in a small way. With a family to keep, he was practically in poverty. He secured a very old Ford van on which he carted his produce and that of his neighbours to the local markets. That was his initiation into haulage.

To-day, the business comprises 16 lorries and a wellequipped garage. It is one of the most profitable I know. The two sons are in charge, to-day: the elder takes care of organization generally, the younger is responsible for routing and operation of the vehicles.

I well remember on one occasion, returning at midnight to the home of the elder: we had been to an antinationalization meeting about 30 miles away. On entering the house he found a written message by the telephone. It was from a customer, asking for quick removal of certain goods on the morrow. The haulier immediately telephoned and awakened his brother (he retires at 10. p.m., so as to be able to start work at 5 a.m.). Together they discussed the problem and decided what to do. He made no demur at being disturbed; it was obvious that he accepted it as in the day's (and night's) work.

I maintain that the success of those two hauliers— it is typical of most—is proof that they are efficient. Moreover, it is equally obvious that they provide the sort of service that is desired by trade and industry. Otherwise trade and industry would have gone elsewhere to satisfy their transport needs. Even if it were possible for the supporters of nationalization to show, by some formula or other, that their system was, theoretically, something per cent. more efficient than that offered by private enterprise, that would not alter the fact that, judged by the standard of "utility," the latter is better. The transport user knows all about Government-controlled transport—he has had some. He does not want any more. S.T.R.

Tags

Organisations: Labour Government
People: Peter Roget

comments powered by Disqus