-licence operators, however, he was disappointed that the Minisr of

29th July 1966, Page 93

29th July 1966

Page 93

Page 93, 29th July 1966 — -licence operators, however, he was disappointed that the Minisr of

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Labour had not seen fit to include their section of the

dustry within the scope of the board, despite the qualification at liaison committees would be. set up with other boards. In -actice it remained to be seen how this would work out in -ganizations such as his own embracing a great range of indusies, all of which were served by the transport department.

In the preliminary discussion in connection with the creation an industrial training board for road transport the TRTA has riven hard for the inclusion of the C-licence operator, but now .at the decision has gone otherwise it was imperative that adequate tison was provided for transport staff who might be included icier other training boards. But it should not be overlooked that !cause of the many large organizations which now existed there ould be several occasions where such liaison would not be nited to that between the Road Transport Board and one other dustrial board but with several boards as would apply in his in case.

Just how this would work out in practice remains to be seen. he sheer complexity of the exercise might even compel a recon deration as to whether, after all, the C-licence operator, possibly ith some qualification as to the minimum number of vehicles in Ls fleet, might be included in the road transport board.

According to the type of work involved a long working day rten resulted in greater productivity than a standard working day cause road transport was inherently a service industry. If the istomers so required—whether in the form of another departLent of a C-licence operator's organization or not—the vehicle Lust be on its way before the customer's working day started ad often had to return to base after the customer's premises had osed for the day. And the opportunities to apply double-shift orking in road transport operation, Mr. Floyd continued, was at esent limited because of the predominance of middle shift workg throughout the economy generally.

'ransport managers keen to improve productivity In reply to charges that road transport was not improving its roduetivity as much as it might, Mr. Floyd said that the shorter orking week in the retail trade was correspondingly reducing re time when deliveries could be accepted quite apart from any arking or loading restrictions which might apply. Transport tanagers were as keen to improve their productivity as any, but alike conditions in manufacture, for example, where most of the ietors involved were under the control of the factory manager, le road transport operator inevitably had to work collectively so tat any change towards improved productivity came more slowly. A problem peculiar to C-licence operation which needed to be armounted, Mr. Floyd concluded, was this. Because of the

rgency on much of the work in a distribution or traffic departtent, deputies and supervisory staff often had their heads down ) such an extent that they did not have the opportunity to review leir work as a whole to the long-term detriment of the organizaon concerned. There was a need for adequate training of those ersonnel who had the potential to accept greater responsibility ,ut who, because of current pressure of work were not at present ble to undergo such training.

With this object in view Mr. Floyd thought that a solution might afforded by a searching review as to whether all the paper work 3w undertaken was really necessary. ln line with such a review te application of work study to a busy traffic office might provide new and revealing yardstick as to the true priorities of much of te work undertaken.

Because vehicle fitness and associated maintenance are already tajor problems for C-licence operators and are likely to become tcreasingly so in the future I finally visited an organization set p primarily to resolve such problems for operators and to that xtent might be said to have an even more comprehensive know:4e of this particular subject than a single operator. The rganization concerned was the contract hire specialist Blox ervices Ltd., London SW17. In discussing the overall problem of maintenance with the managing director, Mr. Peter Wright, he said that he considered the present moment might well be a turning point as regards this aspect of road transport operation. The many pressures on the small C-licence operator today would seem to compel maintenance to be taken out of its present role as a "cottage industry" and put it where it belongs namely, on a factory basis or in an organization where factory techniques are applied.

The large contract hire specialist with several hundred vehicles in his fleet was in a position to do this already. But where C-licence operators were not large enough in their own right to run efficient maintenance departments economically it seemed to Mr. Wright that they would be compelled to act jointly, and co-operative maintenance organizations would ultimately be set up.

Although a figure of 30 vehicles was often quoted as the minimum size of fleet to justify a maintenance department, Mr. Wright thought such a figure might well be nearer 50 in view of today's high cost of premises and equipment.

But any such trend would not stop people learning the hard way and to this extent some of the problems of small C-licence operators were self-generating because they seldom had a true yardstick by which to measure the capabilities of their small maintenance departments.

On a national basis, too, with skilled labour being in such short supply, Mr. Wright suggested that it would be a worthwhile exercise for all concerned in this very difficult problem of vehicle maintenance to have a survey made of the total maintenance labour force available. Only then would it be possible to evolve a policy of rationalization so that the optimum use could then be made of this very limited and expensive pool of labour. Such a survey would then reveal just how uneconomic a ratio of maintenance staff to vehicles applied in many small transport departments.

The position as regards replacement, of fitting stair had worsened substantially in the past two years and there seemed no likelihood of any immediate improvement. It was therefore imperative to use what was available to the best advantage. It was also necessary for each organization concerned with maintenance to seek its own salvation to some extent by setting up its own apprentice training scheme. Here again this virtually implies a relatively large organization both as regards finance and the flow of work to make such a scheme possible.

Associated with maintenance was the policy of vehicle replacement and, although admittedly in the minority at the moment, there was a trend towards three-year replacement as opposed to fiveyear in an endeavour to meet the problem of maximum vehicle availability so as to make possible the tight traffic schedule which modern competition today demands. At the same time the increasingly high labour costs inevitable in maintenance today was tending to equate the higher cost of depreciation when vehicles were replaced more frequently.

Whilst commending more frequent official or impartial vehicle inspection tests, Mr. Wright said that the operator was still faced with the problem of rectifying any shortcomings thereby revealed. If such inspection schemes were to substantially deplete the already limited supply of skilled labour, the small operator might find himself in a worse positiOn that at present unless rationalization of maintenance was not also undertaken.