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
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
Exploiting Articulation
Page 101
Page 102
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Whilst Artics Can Provide Economic Advantages Over Their Rigid Counterparts, Maximum Gain Can Only be Obtained -by the _ Use of Spare Trailers
THE increasing use of articulated goods vehicles has been a significant development in the road transport industry in recent years. Admittedly, in the immediate post-war years. when most types of goods vehicle were in short supply, the comparatively greater availability of articulated vehicles, particularly in the quantity-produced range, was a prime factor in this development. But after, this initial, if somewhat exceptional, introduction to articulation. many operators continued to use this type of vehicle because it provided economic advantages in their particular circumstances.
Many road transport operators, when considering the selection of vehicles, tend to divide the whole range of %commercial vehicles as between the quantity-produced types and the "heavies." As with many such classifications this division may be to some extent arbitrary, but it has nevertheless been generally adopted in the past. There has been, in consequence, a corresponding division in the range of prices as between these twO groups.
In the immediate post-war years the upper limit of the quantity-produced group, in terms, of carrying capacity, was around five tons. Consequently, operators wishing to carry loads of eight tons or more, and keep within the manufacturer's recommendation, had then to consider a• purchase in the quality-produced class, involving a substantially higher initial outlay. In such circumstances, the availability of the quantityproduced, eight-ton articulated vehicle was particularly advantageous to this type of operator.
It must be added that this situation no longer applies. As part of the overall development of the goods vehicle manufacturing industry, the range of quantity-produced vehicles continues to widen and the previous limit of around five tons for a rigid vehicle has now risen to seven-and-a-half or more. Correspondingly, the eight-ton articulated vehicle has now been joined by 10-ton, and even 12-ton, versions in the same range. But, -inevitably, the initial outlay on these larger versions is becoming higher, involving possible outlays of around 12,500. Conversely, by virtue of economies achieved by greater efficiency and output, the prices of the recognized qualityproduced vehicles have tended to become more competitive in recent years. As a result, the line of demarcation between these two groups of goods vehicles is becoming less marked, it'd this is a trend which may well continue.
AS distinct from any advantages which may be derived from the interchangeability of semi-trailers which the principle of articulation permits, the selection of an " artic " may be made because of the extra platform length available compared with rigid vehicles. Although the relative engine capacity may remain the same, this extra platform length would nevertheless be particularly useful to operators concerned with the conveyance of light, bulky, or exceptionally long loads. Alternatively, although the average load the operator may wish to put on his vehicle is around eight tons. there may nevertheless be occasions when 10 or more tons have to be carried. • On such occasions the larger articulated vehicle in the quantity-produced range can provide an economic compromise, assuming, of course, that the operator does not wish to' adopt the doubtful policy of oiferloading.
Despite the advantages which articulated vehicles can provide when employed in the right circumstances, the rigid vehicle is essential for many types of work. Unfortunately if an articulated vehicle were chosen for work for which it were unsuitable there could be an understandable, but erroneous, reaction on the part of the operator to have no further use for articulation.
The same applies to the possibility of " jack-knifing." One operator may consider this to be almost a constant danger, whilst another may have operated several million miles with few, if any instances of " jack-knifing." As with all decisions on matters concerning road transport operation, it is vitally important to segregate fact and reasonable dTduction from what are otherwise little more than hunches. .
When discussing the current trends in the sale of commercial vehicles with a leading distributor, he remarked how comparatively rare it was for him to sell additional seini-trailers at the same time as the customer took delivery of a complete articulated outfit. Thus, although "artics" are popular vehicles, paradoxically the principle of articulation is not exploited to anything like the extent it could reasonably be expected to be.
THIS is all the, more surprising as current traffic conditions become progressively worse. Compared with the industrialist or trader, the road transport operator is in the unfortunate position of having to contend with many adverse conditions over which he has no control. Not only does he have to accept delays resulting from traffic congestion but, in addition, he has to comply with an increasing number of irksome 'restrictions concerning the times at which his vehicles may load or unload on the public highway. Advantages which may justly claim to have been achieved by the adoption of new policies, either within the sphere of traffic engineering or, alternatively, trade and industry, have an unfortunate habit of reacting unfavourably on the economic operation of goods vehicles. Recently it has been stated, for example, that the introduction Of elearwayi' in the London area has contributed substantially to the improved rate of flow of traffic which, it is claimed, has taken place since the clearways
became operative. •
An improvement in the average rate of flow is obviously acceptable to all road users, including the goods vehicle operator. But if this is achieved only by operators being restricted to awkward times for loading and unloading, then the loss may be greater than the gain. To the goods vehicle operator a service has not been provided until the sequence of loading, proceeding and unloading has been completed. To prohibit or delay any one of these three inter-related functions is to prohibit or delay the service as a whole.
Correspondingly, mechanization and automation in industry have often worked to the disadvantage of the provider of transport. With the introduction of such methods, the timing of the flow of production becomes more exacting, as well as the demands on the deliveries of raw materials and subsequent collection of the finished product.
Just when it might seern reasonable to provide a greater buffer of stocks to ensure the continuance of the flow of production in such circumstances, the reverse often happens. Coupled with the urgent demand for increased productivity as a 'first priority in an expanding economy, there has been an increase in land and rateable values. A solution to this dilemma is often found by a reduction -in the warehousing facilities, which can be compensated only by the manufacturer's insistence on a more exacting and frequent delivery service.
As such a reduction in warehousing facilities is .usually coupled with a reduction in loading-bank staff, the inevitable result is that the haulier finds .his vehicles are delayed more, rather than less. It is indeed' ironical that when a haulier is asked to provide a better and more exacting service he, himself, should receive a lower standard .d service from the customer.
Unfortunate though it may be for the road transport operator, both these trends relative to the delay of vehicles are at least likely to remain. They may become progressively worse. Any alleviation is only likeLy to be derived, at least for the present, from the haulier's own efforts applied to whatever conditions still rentain. within his control. It is at this point that the principle of articulation, as distinct from the use of an " artic " merely as an alternative to a rigid vehicle, deserves examination.
IT is, therefore, proposed to examine the operating costs of a six-ton articulated platform vehicle averaging 600 Miles per week with, alternatively, one, two or three semi-trailers. Whilst the cost of operating a commercial vehicle can be determined with reasonable accuracy, any attempt to apply the results in combination with traffic revenue must be largely hypothetical when assessed as a general average. But, nevertheless, the exercise is undertaken here to indicate, rather than to quantify, the manner by which savings can be achieved by exploiting the principle of articulation under appropriate circumstances.
It will be assumed that the six-ton articulated tractive unit, with one trailer. costs £1.780 and has an unladen weight of 3 tons 12 cwt. The resulting annual licence duty would be £55 10s., or the equivalent of £1 3s. 10d. per week. This latter calculation is based on a 50-week year, as are the other four standing costs, in order to allow for the vehicle being off the road either for major overhaul or the driver's holidays.
The cost of wages to the employer is reckoned at £10 8s. lid. per week. This is based on the appropriate basic rate for a driver of this class of vehicle when operating in a Grade I area as defined in the new Road Haulage Wages Regulations (R.H.72), which came into operation on January 1. The amount also includes contributions to the Graduated Pension and National Insurance Scheme. voluntary emplowrs' indemnity insurance, as well as an adjustment to allow for two weeks' holiday with pay.
Rent and rates in respect of garaging are nominally assessed at 12s. 5d. per week, whilst vehicle insurance adds the equivalent of £2 7s. 9d. per week. based on an annual premium of £119 8s.
Ititerest on the initial outlay is reckoned to cost the equivalent of £3 I Is. 4d. per week, based on a rate of 6 per cent., which is now considered to be more realistic than the nominal 3 per cent. formerly charged in this series of articles and in The Commercial Motor Tables of Operating Costs.
The total for these five items of weekly standing costs is. therefore, £18 4s. 3d.'and, based on the new 42-hour week, this will be approximately equivalent to 8s. 8d. per hour. Alternatively, when averaging 600 miles per week the standing cost per mile would be 7.28d.
DEALING now with the five items of running costs, it will be assumed that fuel oil is purchased in bulk at 4s. led. per gallon and that the average rate of consumption is 15 m.p.g. The fuel cost per mile is then 3.32d. Lubricants are reckoned to add 0.28d., and tyres I.15d per mile, based on a cost per set of £155 and an estimated mileage life of 30,000.
Maintenance is assessed at 1.97d. and depreciation at 2.14d. per mile. This latter calculation is derived by first deducting the equivalent cost of the original set of tyres from the initia price of. the vehicle, followed by a further deduction relativ to the estimated residual value. The resulting balance to b written off is then divided by 150,000, being the estimate mileage life of the complete vehicle.
The total for the five items of running costs is, therefore 8.86d. which, when added to the standing costs, gives a total operating cost of 16.14d. per mile, or £40 7s. 3d. per week.
Applying these results to a hypothetical day's work, it will be assumed that the vehicle does a journey of 60 miles return and that the journey time alone is three hours. If two hours are taken in terminal time, including any time queueing, as well as actual loading-or unloading, at both ends of the journey, an overall time of seven hours will be involved. .
On the basis of the calculation just made, the overall cost of this journey would be seven hours at 8s. 8d. per hour (13 Os. 8d.) and 60 miles at 8.86d. per mile (12 4s. 4s1). This gives a total of £5 5s. for the six tons (assuming a load is carried in one direction only), or 17s. 6d. per ton.
The effect on costs of having one, and subsequently two, spare trailers will now be considered. To those acquainted with the theoretical benefits to be derived from articulation. but who have no practical experience of this type of operation, it must be'emphasized that advantages can only be gained if, in addition to the use of one or more spare trailers, the appropriate number of loading staff is also available to load or unload the trailers whilst the driver is proceeding on his way with another trailer. Whilst this may appear virtually self-evident, it is nevertheless' a point which, unfortunately, is overlooked uritil practical application has revealed it. For the purposes of this example it will be assumed that the additional loading or unloading staffs are available. ,
The cost of additional semi-trailers will be reckoned at £600 each. For simplicity, any slight increase in garagingand insurance will be ignored, thus leaving the sole additional standing cost as that resulting from the interest on the initial outlay, which in this case amounts to 14s: 5d. The standing cost per hour with one spare trailer (two in all) Would then he 9s, or, alternatively, 9s. 4d. with two spare trailers (three'in all):
Similarly, as the total mileage run by the tractive 'unit would normally equal the total mileage run by all the trailers in aggregate there would, theoretically, be no addition to the running costs, no matter how many trailers were run. But, in practice, some additional cleaning and possibly minor servicing would be required, and this will be reckoned nominally at 12s. 6d. per week, or 0.25d. per mile when averaging 600 miles per week. Therefore, the running cost per mile when operating with one spare trailer would be raised to 9.1 Id, and to 9.36d with two spare trailers-i.e., three in all.
CONSIDERING the situation which would arise when one spare trailer was available, it will be assumed that although staff is available either to load or unload at one terminal point, some time will still be lost by the driver on arrival at that point in chanting over his trailer and possibly dealing with documentation and drawing onto a weighbridge, should this be necessary. Reckoning this reduced time as 30 minutes, and with the other terminal time remaining at two hours and the journey time at three hours, the overall time for one journey would then be five-and-a-half hours. This arrangement would allow two return trips within the legal statutory maximum of 11 hours. always assuming, of course, that the additional traffic was available.
The cost of this day's work would then be 11 hours at 9s. (£4 19s.) and 120 miles at 9.11d. (£4 Its. Id.). The total for the 12 tons would thus be £9 10s. id., or 15s. 10d. per ton.
The maximum advantage of articulation would be achieved by having a spare trailer at both terminal points, with the third trailer coupled to the tractive unit en route between the two points. In that event the terminal time at each end would be 30 minutes and, with the travelling time remaining at three hours, the overall journey time would be four hours, or eight hours if two journeys per day were performed. The cost of this day's work would then be eight hours at 9s. 4d. (13 14s. 8d.) and 120 miles at 9.36d. per mile (14 I3s. 7d.), giving a total of £8 8s. 3d., the equivalent of 14s. per ton, still assuming that loads were carried in one direction only. S.B.