Problems of the
Page 58
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HAULIER and CARRIER
The New Speed Limits Will Bring About Changed Conditions Regarding the Relative Value of the Pneumatictyred Trailer
ONE of the biggest difficulties that I encounter in assisting hauliers is the fundamental one, that it is so frequently profitable to ignore the law. If, therefore, I give advice and assume compliance with the law, I may not actually be offering the sort of assistance which will enable a haulier to compete with a neighbour who habitually evades the law and rates his labour and hire of his vehicles on the basis of such evasion.
Unfortunately, too, there are so many loop-holes for evasion, each of them most important in its effect on operating costs and, consequently, upon profitable charges. The principal factor in this connection is that of overspeeding, but there are two others, namely, overloading and the overworking of drivers. These three have, until recently, been rampant. All of them provide ways and means whereby an unscrupulous operator may outwit and underbid his law-abiding competitor. Moreover, I have not mentioned wage-cutting, as that as yet is not, strictly speaking, illegal. All straightforward hauliers will, therefore, welcome the steps which are taken, in the provision for compulsory drivers' records, and in the recommendations of the National Conciliation Board concerning wages, to level matters up in all these respects.
I do not infer that I, or many hauliers, agree that these regulations concerning speeds, loads, etc., or the records, are acceptable in themselves. The records, for example, are far more complicated than is necessary. The speed limits are not altogether reasonable, having in mind the controllability of modern vehicles. There are striking anomalies, in respect of the limits of loading, and there should be more elasticity in the provisions concerning drivers' hours. May I add that, in my view, the recommendations of the National Conciliation Board concerning the wages of drivers and statutory attendants are as reasonable as could be desired, having in mind all the circumstances.
Notwithstanding all this criticism, however, I still maintain that the levelling of conditions which, presumably, will result from putting into effect the above-named provisions, will at least make it possible for hauliers to compete with each other on level terms.
The problem of speed in its relation to haulage has always been a particularly difficult one. There have always been certain legal limits which, if strictly observed, would make a tremendous difference to the methods of some operators. If, therefore, the compulsory keeping of -drivers' records has the effect of checking this overspeeding, it may well happen that I shall be confronted with a set of conditions which, in the
light of past experience, may reasonably. be described as new and strange.
The consideration of this matter has been forced upon me, in a sense, by the coming into force on October 1 of neat speed limits applying to goods vehicles drawing trailers and to articulated six-wheelers. According to these new regulations, which .emerge from the Road Traffic Act, 1934, a goods vehicle, with trailer, may travel at 20.m.p.h., provided that both vehicle and trailer are equipped with' pneumatic tyres.
The same regulations permit an articulated six-wheeler to travel at 20 m.p.h., although Some or-all of its tyres may be of what is. legally termed "soft or elastic material." A reasonable interpretation is that such a vehicle may travel at that speed if it be mounted on solid rubber tyres. Prior to October 1, the speed limit for both these types of vehicle was 16 .m.p.h. In the case of solid-tyred goodsvehicles used in conjunction
with trailers, the speed limit was 8 m.p.h. Everyone is well aware that these particular limits were noted more in the breach than in the observance: This question, of. legal speeds has -hitherto been most prominent when dealing with cases of use in which a choice has to be made between a 10-12-ton rigid sixwheeler and either an articulated six-wheeler or a lorry and trailer. Especially has the problem presented difficulties when the distances involved have been such that, whilst it was questionable whether the tractor and trailer or the six-wheeler travelling at or about legal speeds could complete a single journey in a working day, it has been quite obvious that the rigid six-wheeler could do so, at legal speeds.
On the other hand, there have been certain obvious advantages relating to the use of, say, the lorry and trailer, which have made it seem that the operator could reasonably succumb to the temptation to evade the law in respect of speeds, if in no other particular.
The critical distance in a problem of this kind is about 200 miles, and as that happens to be the approximate distance from London to Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, and 'Hull, it will be appreciated that it was a problem which often came up for consideration.
1. remember particularly well the case of a London haulier who was desirous of operating between London and Leeds. On some days his load would be 0 tons and, on others10 tons. Here is a typical case for the use of a lorry and trailer, operating the vehicle solo on those days When the load was 6 tons; and coupling up a trailer when the heavier load had to beAcarried.
Unfortunately, if the trailer was used, this journey could not be completed in a day and that circumstance, involving breaking into a third day in order to complete the double journey, increased the expense so much as to make theme of .a trailer out of the question. This haulier happened to be law-abiding and, therefore, did not even suggest to me the possibility of using a trailer and travelling at 30 m.p.h. or so for part of the distance, so that he Could complete the journey to time. Eventuallyhe purchased a rigid six-wheeled 12-tonner, preferring to Withstand the extra cost of operation when it was running light, rather than pay for the trailer and have to take the extra time for the journey.
Now, in view of the new limits of speed, the case is entirely altered. The permissible limit is the same for each type of unit, and in any individual problem the factor of speed is entirely eliminated.
It is of interest, therefore, to see how the costs compare. That may most quickly be done by assessing the . extra cost involved in the operation of a trailer over and above that consequent upon the use of, say, a 7-ton four-wheeled pneumaticetyred petrol-enginecl vehicle.
I proposed to take the figures in The Commercial Motor tables for the 7-tonner. The extra running costs involved in the use of a trailer, assuming it to be for most of its mileage fully loaded, should be as follow:— Petrol, 0,70d. per mile; oil, 0.03d.; tyres, 0.30d.; maintenance, 0.15d.; depreciation, 0.20d. ; total, 1.38 per mile. The weekly standing charges will be as follow :—Tax, 16s. ; wages (of statutory attendant), £2 16s.; extra for insurance, say, is.; garage, 5s.; interest, 2s. ; total, £4 That makes the total for the vehicle with trailer 7.96d. per mile, say, 8d., or £11 3s. per week.
In the case of an oil-engined 7-tonner, the extra running costs per mile would be as follow :—Fuel, 0./7d.; lubricants, 0.05d.; tyres, 0.30d.; maintenance, 0.15(1,7 depreciation, 0.20d. ; total, 0.87d., making the total of running cost per mile for vehicle and trailer, 5.56d., say, 6c1. The extra standing charges a e the same as in the case of the petrol vehicle, and make a grand total '
for the trailer outfit of £11 10s. S.T.R.