Problems of the
Page 64
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HAULIER and CARRIER WHEN I ask readers to send me their problems I mean it : when I call upon a haulier I expect him to put his latest trouble before me, so that, between us, we may find a way out, or at least spend a congenial five or ten minutes together. But I do think it is "a bit thick" when I am asked togbelp a man to tender for haulage up the side of a mountain. True, the inquirer states that there is a path, but, as the distance is only seven miles, and the gradient is 1 in 24 at the steepest and 1 in 4i as to most of it, I think I am justified in regarding that as the equivalent of haulage up the side of a mountain.
Why should anyone want 1,500 tons of building material at the top of a mountain, I should like to know. Bricks, mortar, cement and aggregate are the materials involved in the contract. The inquirer states that it is for the purpose of building a hydropathic establishment.
The interesting features of the problem, so far as the general reader is concerned, are two in number. One is the manner in which it exemplifies—exaggerates is, perhaps, the better word—the way in which a particular use., of commercial vehicles may involve expenditure far removed from the average, as typified in The Commercial Motor Tables of Operating Costs. The other I propose to disclose later in the article, as a little surprise.
The actual details of the contract are as follow:— Fifteen hundred tons of material is to be conveyed up this seven miles of mountainside within six months, say, 25 weeks. The contractor proposed to use two 4-ton lorries, loading each with only three tons and covering two journeys per day per vehicle. That would give an average of 12 tons per day, 60 per five-day week and 1,500 tons in 25 weeks, as specified, leaving Saturday morning of each week for making adjustments to the machines.
The whole of the journey up the hill would necessitate the use of first speed, the same gear being engaged, for safety's sake, on the downward run. The immediate effect of such use is greatly to increase the consumption of petrol. In the ordinary way, a 4tonner runs for 80-90 per cent. of its time on top gear. On first speed, the engine revolutions would be four times as many to the mile as usual, and the petrol consumption would increase, approximately, in proportion. Bear in mind, too, that it would be pulling hard all the time.
Now, the average consumption of a 4-ton lorry is about 74 m.p.g., and that, with petrol at 1s. 6d. per gallon, costs 2.4d. per mile. The fuel consumption on this particular contract would probably average a rate of 2 m.p.g., that is to say, it would cost 9d. per mile for petrol.
Oil consumption would be increased in two ways. Xt would first increase in proportion approximately to that of petrol, because of the greater number of engine revolutions per mile. It would also be affected by the fact that the engine would be running at high speed most of the time. (I should here state that the contractor advised me that he proposed to instruct his drivers never to exceed 6 ni.p.h, in either direction.) Altogether, it is probable that the oil consumption would be six times the normal and the cost would approximate to id. per nine.
The wear of tyres would inevitably be heavy. It should he understood that there is no road in the accepted sense of the term, but only a rough boulderstrewn path, which would soon be deeply rutted and in a condition to play havoc with tyres. It is probable that one Set would just about last the contract, which involves roughly 4,000 miles per vehicle. Assuming the cost of a set of six 38-in. by 7-in, pneumatics to be £60, the tyre cost 'would be 3.6d. per mile, as against the 1.20d. average quoted in the Tables.
The . cost of maintenance should not be affected to anything like the same extent as the three items just discussed. For one thing, new vehicles were to be put on the work, and, naturally, new machines do not, even in most arduous work such as this, cost their owners much in the way of repairs and upkeep.
A little extra expenditure on brake facings will, no doubt, be unavoidable, but nothing else of importance. The engine will have worked as hard during the 4,000 miles as it would in 16,00020,000 miles of ordinary running, but, even so, it will probably, by the end of the contract, have reached only the stage of being ready for a "top" overhaul.
The • clutch, gearbox and rear axle will have an easier time than in the majority of heavy vehicles, because there should be no stops en route and practically no gear changing. It would be reasonable to take 1.50d. for this expense; as against the average figure of 1.201 • Depreciation would hardly he affected—at any .rate, not if the vehicles be properly maintained, having regard to the unusual character of the work.
The running costs Rer mile are; therefore, petrol, 9.00d.; oil, 0.50d.; tyres, 3.60d.; maintenance, 1.50d., and depreciation, 0.93d., making a total of 15.53d., say, 1.51d. per mile, as compared with 5d. per mile, an average figure for a 4-lou. lorry engaged in ordinary haulage work.
The standing charges are nearly normal, being modified a little owing to the fact that the work is carried out in a rural area, where wages and some of the
other incidental expenses are, comparatively speaking, low. They may be briefly enumerated as follow (the figures quoted are per week) :— Taxation, 17s. 3d.; driver's wages, £3; garage rent, 4s. 9d.; insurance, 9s.; interest, 12s. 6d.; total, £5 3s. 6d. To these expenses must be added the wages of a loader at 12 per week, and an allowance for overhead costs, which the inquirer, a contractor of some experience, assessed at 16s. 6c1. per vehicle. The total is £8 per week. The inquiry was as to the cost per ton, taking the job as a whole, and as to a fair charge.
The total running cost per vehicle (4,000 miles at is. :Val. per mile) is £258. Standing charges and overheads for 25 weeks at £8 per week amount to £200, so that the total is 1458 per week, and £916 in all, which is equivalent to 12s. 3d. per ton. If a charge of 15s. per ton was made for the work there would be a profit of £206 10s. on the operation of the two vehicles for six months, whien is fairly reasonable.
Now for my little surprise. The letter of inquiry Included a clause stipulating that the vehicles should be sold so soon as the contract was completed. Now, that affects the item of depreciation very considerably, and, in order to appreciate how great that effect is, it should be realized that each vehicle, costing £800 in the first place, would be unlikely to fetch more than ROO on resale.
On that basis, the depreciation per vehicle would be 1200, and the total debit relating to the contract would be £400. Now, the actual allowance for depreciation is just short of 1.d. per mile per vehicle for 4,000 miles, totalling £33 in round figures. The total cost of the contract must he altered accordingly by adding £400 to the estimate of /916, bringing it to 11,316 and taking away the allowance already made for depreciation, namely, /33. The cost is thus increased to £1,283, which is approximately 17s. per ton, so that a contract price of Li per ton will make only about £225 profit on the job.
The reason for this great difference in the assessment of depreciation may, perhaps, need explanation. The depreciation figure given in The Commercial Motor Tables of Operating Costs as an item of running cost is a measure of the rate at which the vehicle is wearing. As to how nearly it approaches the depreciation in market value depends upon the _annual mileage. In this case, the mileage is less than 8,000 per annum, and that, on the ordinary basis of calculating depreciation, is equivalent to a vehicle life of
20 years i S.T.R.