• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

CM Heel Management Conference

-MEN, methods and machines" was the theme of the fifth Commercial Motor Fleet Management Conference and they were as crucial to the transport industry as the three Rs in basic education, said Mr. Richard Marsh.

Minister of Transport, when he opened the conference at the Hilton Hotel, London, on Thursday of last week. The Ministry and the industry shared a common interest in developing the best methods and recruiting the right men.

Mr. Marsh said there was a danger that politicians were about to blur once again the crucial importance of management in industry by resurrecting the great theological dispute over ownership "To talk of wholesale denationalization of a huge sector of British industry accounting for 10 per cent of the national annual product on pure ideological grounds is sheer lunacy". he said. Fresh thinking had transformed a scene which looked immutable a decade ago.

-This is why it is a real pleasure to come here today to declare open a conference con

cerned, not with looking over its shoulder, but with the tremendous business of moving people and goods safely and efficiently in the decade ahead", he told delegates.

With regard to the Transport Bill, Mr. Marsh realized that many resented what they considered Government intrusion in transport but he felt that the two were now inextricably meshed.

Rationalization, integration and co-ordination almost ceased to have meaning and what was really being discussed was plain common sense, bringing the same kind of rational thinking to the nation's affairs as would a prudent industrialist to his own business.

Outlining the broad timetable of the Bill, he said the new licensing system would be well under way by the early 1970s.

In conclusion he felt everyone would agree that proper vehicle maintenance and good safety standards paid off in human and financial terms.'

Lord Chesham, chairman of the British Road Federation and executive vice-chairman of the RAC, who was once again chairing the con ference, then introduced the first speaker, Mr. G. W. Quick Smith, chief executive of the Transport Holding Company, whose paper dealt with co-ordination and integration. He said his paper was concerned with the Transport Bill as it emerged .from the House of Commons and that he was explaining it, not advocating it.

Some terms now lacked meaning, having become symbols, but integration was more far-reaching and drastic than mere co-ordination. It was easy to have slogans and there was a resultant danger of superficiality.

*A fuller account of the Minister's speech appears on page 38.

There were various fallacies in transport, such as treating road and rail as if they were two businesses when they were each a conglomeration of a whole number of businesses. Traffic was not static and transport was a living thing and must be allowed to develop. "In my view, it should not be put in a straitjacket", he said.

Another misconception was that road hauliers did not pay their fair share of track costs. Facts and figures proved otherwise, but it was difficult to overcome popular notions. Transport was not a usurper but had made a tremendous contribution to the country's prosperity.

With regard to the National Freight Corporation, he pointed out that it was obliged to make maximum economic use of rail. The railways would become the wholesaler concerned with long-distance train-load movements and the NFC the retailers, selling throughout road services and processing traffic through Freightliners.

He felt co-ordination was ingrained in the passenger transport industry since companies had been working together for years and the National Bus Company was a logical conclusion to that.

Regarding the linking of services in conurbations under the new Public Transport Authorities, it was important to notice that it was to be achieved by agreement instead of acquisition, to prevent the Passenger Trans port Executives detaching remunerative parts of bus companies, thus making them unviable.

Mr. Quick Smith hoped the transport industry might now be left to get on with its job without too much political interference. If the Bill-every-six-years cycle could be got rid of, it would be a very good thing, he concluded.

Mr. P. J. Arnold (Dimples Ltd.) said his company had found that traffic by rail fell into three catagories: That which could be

carried speedily and economically; a proportion that the railways would like but could

not compete with on cost grounds, and that which they did not want at all. Thus traffic being transferred to rail was only a proportion of his company's growth and it was using more vehicles than ever.

Mr. Quick Smith thought that the word transfer was misleading. Freightliners should be used where it was economically advantageous.

With regard to special authorizations. Mr.

W. McMillan (James Hemphill Ltd.) felt there was one important omission in the paper. The speaker had said that it a special authorization was refused, the haulier could still handle the traffic, with the trunk haul being undertaken by the railways. However, with specified traffics, to which only BR could lodge an objection, if authorization was refused, the haulier would indeed lose the traffic and it would go wholly by rail.

Mr. Quick Smith pointed out that in the paper he had dealt with general merchandise: with regard to bulk traffics, nationalized road companies would be in the same position as private hauliers. At one time he had felt that bulk traffic position would not impinge on road haulage, but what he had heard since had created doubts.

Mr. H. R. Featherstone (TRTAI was worried by the excessive Government preoccupation with Freightliners. They were carrying about 0,1 per cent of the nation's trade but could never carry more than a small part of the whole. Did not the speaker feel that a transport policy based on this Freightliner preoccupation was at best risky, and might indeed jeopardize traditional railway services. Mr. Quick Smith felt this was entirely a matter for bargaining but there were bound to be conflicts of priorities.

Mr. H. C. Thornton (Pye Transport Ltd.) felt that road transport had developed on the basis of personal service. "I think that in three years' time we shall be discussing the implications of a Freightliner Protection Bill," he commented. Mr. Ivan Swatman, chief engineer, turbine operations engineering staff, Ford 'Motor Company USA. introduced his paper by posing the question "Why turbine power?" He suggested that operators might adopt the attitude that they knew the diesel and were happy to continue with it. "This thinking would be fine", he said, "but for one problem —progress." The new super-highways of Europe and USA offered an opportunity of economic operation to the hauliers and turbine power would help them grasp it.

The speaker appreciated that to the uninitiated. turbine power was something of a mystery. He pointed out that its concept was simple and he confined his paper to the simple-cycle regenerative type of engine since this appeared to represent the logical low-cost type for the present and foreseeable future. This was, he said, the gas turbine design engineer's "V8 engine".

It was the heat exchanger which, said Mr. Swatman, was responsible for the fuel economy of the gas turbine. The regenerative heat exchanger built of glass ceramics gave the gas turbine a fuel consumption comparable with a diesel engine of similar power.

Despite the continuing development of the diesel engine Mr. Swatman believed that fuel economy improvement would now come in small increments. By contrast he estimated that by the 1970s the turbine would have a 40 per cent-plus volume advantage over its diesel counterpart and a '15 per cent fuel economy advantage.

The turbine engine, said Mr. Swatman, would have a life of 600,000 miles and would be of such simplicity that it could be serviced and maintained by the men and skills of today. The turbine-powered vehicle would be easier to drive and cheaper to operate than its diesel counterpart, he said.

Mr. Swatman used slides to illustrate the workings of the turbine engine and the method of assembly of the 375 bhp Type 707 turbine engine. He stressed in particular the ease with which each major component was secured to the main engine casting through a single bolt-flange. And he quoted a time of lhr 20min for a complete engine change with the turbine unit, Using figures for the very demanding, highspeed Detroit-Pittsburgh route which he had quoted in his written paper, Mr. Swatman employed slides to show how, while diesel consumption was expected to remain at about 3 mpg for the heavy vehicles on this route. the gas turbine had the potential of outstripping the diesel in route economy through improvements in component efficiencies. Already some components were at efficiency figures forecast for 1970 and well beyond.

Route consumptions of approaching 4 mpg for Detroit-Pittsburgh were possible on this basis, without an increase in turbine inlet temperatures above 1900deg regarded as the limit with existing materials; but a breakthrough at this point could entirely change the picture further in favour of the turbine.

In the discussion which followed, Mr. S. I. MacMillan (James Hemphill Ltd.) asked what modifications to transmissions and axles had been necessary. Mr. Swatman said the conventional diesel engine transmission and standard Eaton axles had been used in Ford's prototype. The Ford GT engine could be dropped into a W.1000 diesel chassis as a straight replacement.

Mr. D. Tinier (Perkins Engine Ltd.) speculated that the development of diesels might overtake the turbine during the 70s, and he suggested that the regenerator might suffer from fouling and require premature replacement. Mr. Swatman pointed to the longstanding problem that piston engines were "b.m.e.p. limited"—heat dispersal from the piston was the stumbling block, and so diesel engine efficiency improvement could be only marginal and never match that of the turbine. The questioner had also suggested that the prototype's fuel economy had been achieved in part by good vehicle aerodynamics. and Mr. Swatman agreed that performance was influenced by this factor. Indeed, inflatable "bags" were now being used by some operators to improve body aerodynamics on conventional trucks, with gains in economy.

Mr. J. R. Burrill (J. Sainsbury Ltd.) asked about the effects of dirty fuel. Mr. Swatman told of an occasion when the fuel system had been stripped and re-assembled at the roadside while passing vehicles sprayed it with wet slush and snow: without any special cleaning the system was re-installed and worked perfectly.

Mr. F. E. Harper (George C. Cross and Co. Ltd.) suggested that the high temperature of the gases would induce premature metal fatigue in the components. The speaker stated that the entire unit had been designed. tested, and proved for 15,000 hours' life. There had been no sign of premature fatigue in the components. Mr. Harper followed up by asking what steps had been taken to ensure adequate air filtration. Mr. Swatman said that ordinary paper air filters were fitted and they had been given a life of 50,000 miles. He went on to stress the simplicity of the design by saying that even then after tough service in Arizona, they only required cleaning and this could be achieved by just kicking the bumper!

A. Golding (Self Energising Disc Brakes Ltd.) wanted to know what special braking components were required. The system used, said Mr. Swatman. was identical to that on a diesel and over-run engine braking was at least as good.

Mr. M. Platt. engineering consultant, was concerned with the social aspect. He wanted to know what importance was attached to the amenities of the gas turbine against the diesel. Assuming that they broke even in cost, how did the scale tip on the question of noise and vibration?

Ford took the view, said Mr. Swatman, that since noise and exhaust emission were largely a matter for legislation and enforcement. and hauliers were shrewd businessmen, the turbine's advantages in these respects could not be pressed too strongly as selling points. But the turbine had these "social amenity" advantages: for example, the gas turbine's level of nitric oxide emission was one-fifth the level for either petrol or diesel engines. There was also the question of weight, said Mr. Swatman, but since the operator could not always take advantage of the reduced weight over the front axle it had been discounted. Mr. W. J. Edbrooke (Associated British Foods) asked his question on the starting characteristics of the vehicle in three parts: Does it start easilyis fuel injected during cranking—can it be tow-started? Mr. Swatman explained that, from turning the key, the engine should fire inside seven seconds at 15rieg. F. if the temperature is minus 20deg F the starting period will be 20-22 seconds. During cranking, after one-fifth of a second fuel injection is cut off, as a safety measure, by an ultra-violet detector; re-start should be delayed for a further 10 seconds. The vehicle cannot be tow-started.

Mr. Jones (Coast Lines) asked what was the effect of using automatic transmission. Mr. Swatman said there was a slight reduction in fuel economy when automatic transmission was employed. "The turbine does not require it-, he said. He illustrated his point by stating that a 35-ton diesel truck on a steep gradient needed a clutch-slipping technique to restart. The turbine truck could be started smoothly by engaging first gear with the engine idling, increasing the revs, and releasing the handbrake. There had been little encouragement for automatics from American operators who, according to Mr. Swatman. still preferred manual transmission.

Mr. Frank Cousins' introduction of his paper, "Pay and productivity in road transport: a trade union viewprovided an opportunity for the speaker to make many terse comments about the Transport Bill itself

and he was obviously pleased to comment on some of the views expressed by other speakers.

Mr. Cousins said he had purposely made his written paper brief, preferring to deal with the current situation at the time of the Conference. He was not sure that Mr. Marsh had been relevant in some of his comments on the effects of quantity licensing. A haulier in Scotland would not see the relevance, either. if he lost 20 per cent of his traffic to Freightliners.

He thought that in every Transport Act it was possible to discern the main idea of its draftsmen. The 1947 Act preserved the rights of C-licence operators to run their own vehicles in any way they chose. The quantity licensing provisions of the present Bill reflected the views of those who wished to underpin the heavy public investment in railways. This was a great tragedy. As a member of the National Economic Development Council he had stress• ed the significance of two closely related issues—transport and energy policy. Agree. ment on efficient organization in these key sectors of the economy would provide a basis for prosperous expansion.

Mr. Cousins said management often ignored the attitudes of the men on the job. People would not respond to exhortation from management or from outsiders. Problems must be looked at jointly in. local level discussions. This was particularly important at the present time in passenger operation, where the patterns set would be of wider significance. In a number of important C-licensed companies. agreements had been jointly hammered out, yielding substantial benefits to both sides.

But change and efficient working methods had to be paid for. An agreement to increase the speed limit to 40 mph might have been possible in 1947 but the employers offered only 2s 6d a week for the concession. The law was eventually changed in May 1957; it would be worth while to consider how much this delay cost. But both sides had taken up entrenched positions. How much benefit to everyone if at that time real money had been talked for real efficiency.

Mr. Cousins said that no progress would be possible in negotiating productivity and efficiency agreements if employers continued to argue that the Department of Employment and Productivity or the Prices and Incomes Board would veto them. History would show that in the bus industry we had missed a fine opportunity for a lasting agreement nationally. one that would dispose of the absurdity that £12 13s was considered an adequate basic rate of pay.

There was an unanswerable case for the grouping of transport authorities as proposed in the Bill. "We can only have efficiency if units are large enough to spread efficiency methods widely." He was critical of managements which while introducing single-manned buses were ordering double-deckers at the same time.

Mr. Cousins thought there was a strong case for the co-ordination of freight handling. He agreed with previous speakers that there had been too much stress laid in the past on the ownership aspects of transport. Even if 50 per cent of road haulage operations remained the province of small men, the largE groupings in the rest of the industry would ensure efficiency.

Welcoming the provisiofis relating to transport managers' licences, Mr. Cousins said he has graduated to management from behind the wheel of a lorry. He thought this was true of some of his audience! There were and would continue to be reserves of ability in the industry which must be tapped. He wanted to see a high wage. high efficiency system in the industry with overtime an emergency situation. It was absurd for the industry to go on with traditional pay scales when modern vehicles could cost more than a driver would earn in five years.

But men would not talk about efficiency if satisfactory take-home pay was not guaranteed. Men did not work for the basic wage only--it was absurd to think this. They were concerned with take-home pay, with the whole job. -Pay in this mobile industry can be related to efficiency. Local-level bargaining should get under way immediately. Don't assume it cannot be done without the OK of the Prices and Incomes Board. The big Clicence operators have negotiated mutually satisfactory agreements. The most vital feature in getting productivity and efficiency is the relationship between management and men.'"

Mr. Frank Woodward (Plessey Co) referred to the higher charges of the Post Office and British Railways for next-day delivery, yet road transport managers were faced with a 20 per cent reduction in driving hours. In the circumstances, how could increased productivity be achieved without an increase in costs?

Mr. Cousins said the road hauliers had. regrettably, not sought a reduction in drivers' hours. It was a farce to assume that drivers would work 15 hours out of 24 on the assumption that they had breaks not under the control of the management. Very few drivers—and this applied to transport managers as well—would undertake a long journey on the basis of driving solidly for 53hours before taking a statutory break. The proof of this could be seen in every café and lay-by. Journeys were done in the time allowed. A high basic rate would encourage drivers to think that movement was important.

Transport managers, he continued, did not always help themselves, instancing a Yorkshire haulier who thought it quite irrelevant to liaise with fellow hauliers in the times vehicles were sent in to Hull docks. The largest transport operators had proved that efficiency could be organized—as distinct from six or seven coalmen thinking they have every right to occupy space in a street.

Mr. P. J. Arnold (Dimplex Ltd.) said that if drivers' hours fell below shop opening hours it would be necessary to put on shifts, at additional costs. How could this be avoided?

Mr. Cousins said shop hours might well be from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The questioner seemed to be arguing for an 11-hour day. Plenty of people in distribution were already working within the hours proposed in the Bill, often using standard delivery areas on particular days of the week. The Sainsbury drivers worked five days of eight hours, and in America the eight hour day was customary. If shopkeepers knew that road haulage working hours would always be. say, from 7.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m., there was no incentive for them to change their habits.

Mr. T. Reames (Ford and Rearnes Ltd.) said many A-. Band C-licensed vehicles were hired on an hourly basis. The shorter hours proposals would increase costs.

Mr. Cousins said there needed to be much more costing of such operations. Rates had been determined on the basis of what the other fellow would charge. More detailed costing would help the efficiency of the operations.

Mr. J. R. Burrill (J. Sainsbury Ltd.) asked whether tachometers would be of protection to drivers as well as employers.

Mr. Cousins said they would be, in a sensible operation. There had not been sensible scheduling, in general. To average 38 mph in 40 mph scheduling regardless of traffic conditions was impossible. In the end tachometers would protect driving staff. If the rate of pay for a normal day was adequate the men would not worry. Some drivers were concerned at the idea of a -spy in the cab". If breaks were not recorded on paper, drivers would commit an offence against the law. He thought there would be trouble if employers "docked" wages on the evidence of tachometer charts without good reason.

Mr. R. Cropper (Conquers Transport Ltd.) suggested that Mr. Cousins was selling his products too expensively; would he not price himself out of the market rather as the Port of London Authority, was doing with very high labour costs.

Mr. Cousins said he was not there to sell anything. "If industry persists in thinking it has no role to play in efficiency don't ask me to

carry the burden of redundacy, etc.A number of successful productivity agreements had been worked out by C-licence operators. They had not priced themselves out of the market.

Mr. R. P. Block (consultant) asked whether tachometers could be used to identify waiting time in the negotiation of productivity agreements or to prove excessive detention of vehicles. Also. did Mr. Cousins agree that consumers should also be beneficiaries ?

Mr. Cousins agreed that the third parties, consumers generally, should benefit in some measure from productivity improvements. The unions could not get involved in arguments between employers and customers -I might get involved in the question of whether it was an actual or created delay-.

Mr. C. B. Duncan (Union Cartage Co.) said productivity agreements in the meat haulage industry were deing prejudiced by the actions of large numbers of small hauliers. with TGWU membership, operating outside the terms of the national agreements. These small men were attached to branches all over the country.

Mr. Cousins advised the questioner to report abuses to the authorities.

The panel

The three principal speakers were joined by Mr. T. D. Corpe, legal adviser to the Road Haulage Association's Western area, Mr. J. MacNaughton Sidey, chairman of Ferrymasters Ltd., and Mr. H. M. Floyd. NW regional manager of the Road Transport Industry Training Board, to form a quiz panel.

The first question came from Mr. H. G Newton (Michelin Tyre Co.) seeking the panel's views on attitudes towards air and water pollution. Mr. Quick Smith thought there was apathy about the problem, but felt that responsibility should not lie with vehicle operators; the praiseworthy technological advances made by manufacturers should be accompanied by improvements in the social factors.

Mr. Cousins felt that we had too little regard for the danger of air pollution. We ought to look at atmosphere usage in the same way as we looked at road usage. Mr. MacNaughton Sidey felt that we could learn something from the USA on this matter. With their eightlane highways he felt the American problem must be greater than ours and so must their research.

MT. Corpe looked upon himself as a victim of pollution and. like Mr. Quick Smith, con sidered enforcement the only solution. Mr.

Floyd was prepared to live with the problem but felt that the new legislation on maintenance standards should help. Mr. Swatman said he had made headlines when answering a similar question in Los Angeles and refused to comment?

Mr. S. G. Christie (Standard Telephones and Cables) wanted to know what status should be given to the crews of the future who would man gas turbine vehicles.

Such men would be real professionals and should be specially licensed for their skills, thought Mr. Cousins. Mr. Swatman said

that to drive trucks of the dimensions of the Ford turbine prototype outfit -Big Red-. 96ft. long,

a man required a special permit as they could only operate on special roads in the USA. He also told delegates how the US Truck Driver of the Year had on one occasion failed to pass the New York State test for this licence. Mr. C. S. Essex (Air Products) wanted to hear the panel's views on tachographs. This caused a minor confrontation between Mr. Corpe and Mr. Cousins. The lawyer said that the evidence of the instrument could be used in proceedings concerning the suspension of an operators' licence or a transport manager's licence. This he considered unfair, as often the employee was the guilty party.

Mr. Cousins said his union objected to the employer's right to use the instrument to check on a driver's work when they could not be used as proof of non-payment of wages. He contended tachographs could not be used to convict employers.

"You are wrong they can be used as evidence in court", asserted Mr, Corpe.

Lord Chesham. the chairman, tactfully reminded them that, as yet, the legislation was "A Bill not an Act".

Unanimity was restored when Mr. T. J. E. Price, of Cardiff asked why road fund tax should not he included in fuel tax rather than by the present flat-rate method.

Mr. Quick Smith agreed that the proposed method would relate the level of tax to use of road and felt that the haulier would come out better than he did under the present system.

Lord Chesham and Mr. Cousins agreed with the principle but cautioned the delegates to talk quietly about such things. People in government might regard it as a good idea too—to collect extra tax.

On the question of productivity agreements, Mr. M. Norris (Union Cartage Co.) said he assumed they would be based on a driver doing more than was required by paying him the basic road haulage wages. What might one reasonably expect a driver to do for the basic wage and what were the main considerations in the construction of a realistic productivity agreement?

"You don't pay basic pay for anything: you pay basic take-home pay for what comes out at the end", said Mr, Cousins. It was necessary to satisfy the employee that the work could be done more efficiently, while still maintaining a high level of payment, by willing co-operation between the two parties. It did not have to be proved to the man that he was getting all he was entitled to now, but that there was a better way of doing the job.

Mr. MacNaughton Sidey instanced the agreement drawn up with dockers on the West Coast of America where it was agreed that the unions should receive $5m a year on a five-year contract with various retirement and retraining guarantees and in return the employers obtained complete freedom. At the end of the first year the employers had saved $2m and after five the unions had £ 11m in their pocket, he said.

Pay of a long-distance truck driver in the States was $15.000 as opposed to $8,000 for a salesman.

Mr. Quick Smith pleaded for more of the spirit of the joint venture.

Mr. Swatman emphasized that American trucking companies were highly computerized. which led to optimum use of vehicles and eliminated the need for the -spy in the cab". Increased productivity based on good accurate costing were a result of computer usage.

Generalizations were useless and each job had to be examined in detail, felt Mr. Floyd, with a middle path being taken between the existing and optimum performance. In his own experience they had started by -giving" the man his present take-home pay as basic; he could then be asked for something in return for the rest.

Another questioner asked Mr. Floyd what had happened to the balance between levies received and grants paid by the RTITB in 1967-8, and what steps were being taken to ensure that operators were aware of their claims rights.

Mr. Floyd said that further grants payments since the time of the annual report's preparation, plus those in the pipeline, would bring a break-even figure. The Board was doing everything possible to tell operators of their claims rights.

Mr. MacNaughton Sidey was asked for his views on an apparently increasing tendency for international hauliers to send accompanied vehicles to Europe. He felt that the practice depended largely on an operator's contacts on the other side, though it was a desirable practice for perishables. But Continental hauls were lengthening and, especially with the prospect of trans-European trailer trunking by rail, the use of unaccompanied trailers would increase.

Mr. Woodward (Plessey Co.) pointed out that BR and THC might be in contravention of the Trade Descriptions Act, applicable from October 1, if services described as "overnight" did not deliver the next day. Mr. Quick Smith pointed out that Tartan Arrow returned money if next-day deliveries were not achieved and Mr. Cousins felt that this Act did not relate to services.

Mr. J. B. Wild (Harold Wood and Sons) asked for the panel's views on drivers purchasing vehicles from their employers. Mr. Corpe said this had been done by readymixed concrete people. Drivers obtained Contract A or B licences and were paid on a mileage rate. Providing there were decent contracts, advantages accrued from the pride the man felt in being an owner/driver and in the incentive to work hard for good money. The customer could shelve most of the responsibilities of owning his own vehicles and in the light of the new regulations this could be of considerable advantage.

Mr. Swatman could not agree with an opinion by Mr. Cousins that the increase of owner-drivers in the States had led to badly maintained vehicles. They had a better vehiclelife and maintenance record, simply because the trucks were their own property.

The risk of exploitation was too great, and sub-contracting was preferable, felt Mr. Quick Smith, Mr. Floyd said he believed that a few years ago a group of tipper operators had been involved in such a scheme and there had been contravention of regulations and a depression of rates. But under the present ready-mixed concrete system everyone seemed satisfied.

In closing, Lord Chesham said that the calibre of the speakers and the attendance of about 600 delegates had ensured that the conference had made a serious contribution to transport thinking. There would be another CM conference next year, but he could not yet reveal the date and place.

Mr. Quick Smith thanked the chairman, and a presentation was made to Lord Chesham on behalf of Temple Press Ltd. in appreciation of his services.