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 
When It Pays to Maintain Your Own Vehicles
Page 106
Page 107
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Point at Which a Haulier, in the Growth of His Business, May Find it Advisable to Provide Equipment for Maintenance and Repairs
Solving the Problems of the Carrier
IN previous articles I have pointed out that, of the 10 items included in the schedule of operating costs of motor vehicles, that of maintenance yields most readily to treatment. It can be reduced or increased according to the conditions of operation.
Probably the most expensive, although not necessarily the dearest in the 'long run, is that of putting all the work out, having it done either under contract or otherwise by a local service agent. Next comes the procedure open only to the fleet owner—that of making provision for all repairs and maintenance to be carried out on his own premises.
Least expensive—considered in respect of the actual amount debited to maintenance—is the system of arranging matters so that the driver is made responsible for all routine maintenance operations, including, besides washing and polishing, greasing, decarbonizing, valve grinding, brake adjustment, even, perhaps, brake refacing, and so on, putting out only the major operations, such as engine and chassis overhauls and painting. Obviously, the last method, which, on the face of it, is the least expensive, but not necessarily the cheapest, can be adopted only when the weekly mileage is small, leaving time for the driver to do this work in what otherwise might be his spare time.
I think the true inner meaning of the terms dearest and cheapest should be appreciated in this connection. It may superficially seem to be expensive to have maintenance and service operations carried out by a specialist. If, however, by that means it is ensured that the work is done regularly and efficiently and the vehicle kept on the road from year's end to year's end, which, barring accidents, is 'possible, that course may actually be the cheapest available.
It may also seem to be a saving to have maintenance carried out by the driver. If, however, that means a loss of 50-100 paying miles per week, this apparently inexpensive method of arranging for maintenance may prove to be the dearest of any. In deciding whether driver maintenance is practicable or economic, a good deal turns on the type of work being carried out.
. c56
In furniture removal, for example, where, in .the majority of small concerns, the average number of hours per week for which the vehicle is actually engaged totals about 36, it may well be possible to have the work done by the driver without suffering any loss 'of use of the vehicle. Careful organization will be necessary, so that whenever it becomes certain that the vehicle will be idle for a known number of hours the driver can proceed with whatever operation is due.
Two points arise in this connection. At what stage in the growth of a fleet does it become practicable or economic for the operator to arrange to provide for maintenance and repairs on his own premises? Assuming the establishment of a repair and maintenance organization, to what extent is the operator justified in spending money on equipment to that end? A good deal of information bearing on the latter point will be found in other pages of this issue of The Commercial Motor. The first question is one which is still controversial. Actually, the answer turns on three things—on the number of vehicles in the fleet, the weekly mileage of each, and the type of outfit in use. It should be remembered that, in the case of the' provision of an organization for maintenance, there is a tendency for the cost of maintenance to grow Out of all proportion to the work done. It is easy in an instance of this kind for a fleet to be "over-maintained."
What I have in mind may best be illustrated by example. Assume a fleet of six vehicles of the smaller and more popular type, say, of 2 tons capacity, all alike. A systematic method of arranging for main tenance would involve keeping a spare vehicle, so that each unit of the fleet passes through the shops in turn, the spare one being put on duty in rotation with the others. Probably a mechanic and a labourer or apprentice would be sufficient to deal with the work. If an apprentice were employed, the wage bill for the two would amount to 2200 per annum, which is £33 6s. 8d. per annum per vehicle. Washing and polishing would necessarily be done at night by one man, whose wage would be at least 2120 per annum, or 220 per annum per vehicle.
The premises would cost about 250 per annum, say, 28 per vehicle. (I refer to that part of the premises set apart for repairs and maintenance, and not that for garaging the vehicles.) So far, a total of 261 6s. 8d. per annum per vehicle has been reached, and no allowance has been made for painting and varnishing or for materials.
If I assume that the vehicles are varnished annually for two years in succession and in the third year are
repainted, also that varnishing costs 26 a time and re-. painting £18, the total for three years is £30 per vehicle, which is 210 per annum per vehicle. That sum brings the total up to 271 ,6s. 8d. If I allOw £8 13s. 4d. per annum for materials.—and. that is really little enough— the grand total is 280 per annum.
What this means in terms of maintenance cost per mile naturally depends upon the mileage covered during the year. If that mileage be 40,000, the cost of maintenance per mile is 0.48d.,which is not, perhaps, excessive. But if, as is more likely, the mileage be 20,000, the cost is 0.96d. per mile, which is excessive. Appreciation of this difference in cost per mile shows how important a factor the annual mileage must be in determining whether it pays to establish provision for repairs and maintenance.
In the case of a fleet of 10 vehicles, matters are more favourable. The wages would remain the same, because there would still be only one vehicle due per week for attention, but the cost per vehicle for wages would be reduced to £32 per annum. Painting and varnishing would still be the same, 210 per annum, but the incidence of rent of premises would be reduced to £5 per vehicle per annum. The total, so far, is 247 per vehicle per annum, plus 28 for materials; total, 255 per annum. That figure, on an annual mileage of 40,000, equals only 0.33d. per mile, and even if the mileage be down to 20,000 per annum, the cost is but 0.66d. per dmile.
In actual fact, I am acquainted with several cases where even fleets of 10 vehicles are economically and efficiently maintained by the local service agent. The vehicles in all these cases are of a popular make, and adequate service facilities are available.
In the case of larger vehicles, a fleet somewhat smaller in number may justify provision for owner maintenance. Six vehicles of the 6-8-ton type could be maintained by practically the same staff as that described above if appropriate equipment were available. The wages bill would be as before, 2320, and premises, say, 252. The total of those items, £372, equals £62 per annum per vehicle. Painting and varnishing might cost, in the case of machines of this type, an average of 213 per annum, and spares £7, making the total £85 per annum. On the basis of a 40,000-mile year, that is 0.51d, per mile, and even if the mileage be only 20,000 the cost is only about id. per mile. S.T.R.