"SMALLS" What to 'Avoid n Dealing With Parcels Traffic
Page 16
Page 17
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Third Articleof a Brief
Series Intended to Help the Parcels Carrier in a Small Way of Bus ness. Typical Example of an Operator's Routes and Some Operating-cost Details
Solving the Problems of the Carrier
EARLIER in this series I recommended hauliers who are parcel carriers to operate under the conditions of service scheduled by the National Conference of Express Carriers, which body, I suggested, stieh hauliers should join. I have also recommended adherence to the rates a carriage for parcels and " smalls" agreed by
i members of the Conference, I have pointed out that the prospect of profits from the parcels-carrying business must, because both costs and rates for parctls are fixed, be determined by the bulk of traffic carried, so that to be successful an operator must offer good services as an enticement to customers.
I concluded the previous article with a list of recommendations by Mr. C. S. Dunbar as to statistical records that a parcels carrier should keep if he is to be in a position to check the progress of his business and deal with any specific problems which arise. I commence this instalment with the list of faults to avoid in the handling of this class of traffic. They -have, been enumerated by another wellknown operator, expert in the carriage of "smalls,' but his name, for the time being, I propose to withhold. In the collection of goods he insists that the following are things 'which should be avoided:— Keep a Close Watch on These Important Factors (I) Signatures given without qualification for goods already damaged. (2) Goods signed for and not loaded. (3) Heavy goods or packages, loaded on top of or against goods marked "glass" or of a fragile nature. (4) Piece goods loaded against traffic which is likely to cause soiling, or loaded on a dirty van or lorry floor. (5) Rough ' handling, causing tearing of covering, 'breaking of string
and exposing contents of packages or parcels. (6) Collection of miscellaneous or general traffic without consignment notes, or the goods being marked in any way as to sender or destination, or not showing correct sender. (7) Goods collected for towns and outside areas not covered by own services or associated companies. (8) Miscellaneous goods collected without information as to who pays carriage. (9) Goods of highly damageable nature accepted without packing and without comment as to such goods being accepted at owner's risk only. (10) Consignment notes and collection sheets not handed in and entries omitted from collection sheets.
When unloading or reloading on depot premises pay attention again to items 3, 4 and 5, and avoid the follow (11) Goods unloaded,. and put in wrong traffic area.
(12) Goods unloaded msecurely, resulting in packages falling off, particularly on open lorries. (13). Goods loaded without entries on delivery sheets.(14) Wrong quantities delivered (either more or le) against delivery-sheet entries. (15) Delivery to wrong addresses or firms in spite of label giving the correct particulars. (16) Goods brought back as wrongly addressed, which are subsequently found to be correct. (17) Cash for carriage to collect and C.O.D.
items not .pollected. (18) Goods brought back and unloaded, no report being made as to reason why. (19) No report made regarding discrepancies on delivery slieets. (20) Delivery sheets not handed in. (21) Delivery sheets not initialled, indicating by whom the sheet was received. (22) Signatures for goods accepted which cannot be deciphered.
I now come to the question of cost of operation, coupling with it the schedule of agreed rates. In the first place, I should make it clear that I do not propose to concern myself with the work of large organizatipas. I am writing this article for the little man, the owner of not more than half a dozen vehicles.
It will be easier for me to deal with this aspect of the problem, and .easier for readers to understand, if I take a typical example. Here is one which was brought to my notice a short time ago by .a haulier friend who is actually engaged in this department of road transport and•bas had considerable experience. some of it unfortunate, of the way to deal with it.
The route over which he operates is indicated by the accompanying sketch map. He commenced in a small way by running a light van from his home town at B, a rural district, to D, a fairly large industrial centre and seaport. He soon displaced the van by a 30-cwt. vehicle and discovered that it had a body which was too small for this class of work. He told me he had found that the operator in this line of business must be able to cater for bulk rather than weight; because it is the bulky parcels that people like to hand over „to the carrier.
However, it was with this vehicle that he began serious operations, and soon after he started he did, as 1 stated in an earlier article was essential, namely, he entered into co-operative agreement with another parcels-carrying concern—one fairly large in its scope and having its headquarters in the industrial centre of D.
What Was Provided for By the. Terms of the Agreement This company operated a number of routes radiating from D, but, as it happened, it was not interested in traffic from D to B. The agreement provided for two main lines of procedure. First, that my haulier friend's customers, wanting to use his service, could deposit their parcels at this bigger company's depot in D for him to collect. For that service the large parcels-carrying company charged a commission of 20 per cent, on the total
caarge.
The other part of the agreement provided that he should deal with this company's own traffic from D to B and for that service the company paid him 40 per cent. of the total charges it received. This, so far as the commissions are concerned, seems to me to operate more favourably than it should .to the advantage of the larger company, but that is by the way. It was a condition of the agreement that my friend should operate a daily service between D 'and B.
At the same time, my friend decided to extend his route to the place A marked on the sketch map. This was somewhat larger and more populous than his home town at B, but, for all that, the prospect of business was only slight. It was not enough to justify the service, and he stated that he entered upon that branch of, his enterprise only so as to be ahead of any other operator who might suddenly
decide to run from D to A and thus appear as a competitor over the original route, 1),, to B, which did not offer sufficient business to support two carriers.
The expansion of business brought about by this agreement immediately aggravated the difficulty already mentioned, that his 30-cwt. van was too small. He, therefore, bought a 2-ton vehicle with a furniture-van body of ample internal capacity.
Soon after this another parcels-carrying company opened a depot at D. My haulier friend promptly contacted the directors of this concern *and was able to enter into an agreement with tat company similar to that already in force between him and the older-established concern.
This, as he pointed out, had the double advantage, first, it provided that he should have two depots in the town D, where his own customers could leave parcels to? him to collect; secondly, that it obviated the risk of any competition over his on route by this second parcels-carrying company.
Moreover, co-operation with these two companies got him out at this difficulty. He had origitially intended that his route should extend to the towns marked E and F on the sketch map. It had been his intention to go to these two destinations on alternate-days during the week. On trying out the journey, however, he found that it was impossible to complete the round trip in .one dly in normal
legitimate wolking hours. '
Co-operation and the Benefits -Which Resulted from It He was, therefore, happy to take advanttge of the co-operation of these two companies which .were working the two routes D to E and 0 to 'F. It was agreed that they should work these routes together and enter into an agreement on the lines similar to those already described.
We can now deal with the way in which he covered his own route with the two vehicles how in his possession.
The larger machine, the 2.tonner, was housed at D. The 30-cwt. vehicle was stationed at B. The former left D daily at 9.34 a.m., reaching B at 3 p.m. On three days in each week the journey was extended to A, which was reached at 4.30 p.m. The vehicle then' returned to D and, for reasons which will shortly be disclosed, it made no deliveries along the route back to B and -was thus able to return 1337'6 p.m. and certainly not later than 6.30 p.m. each day. • The small vehicle left B each morning at 9.30 and, travelling through C, to D, delivered parcels 'which had been collected the previous day by the larger vehicle, as well as others handed in at A and B for such delivery. This vehicle, covered the journey to D and returned to B the same day, By 'reference to the map it will be observed that the distance from D to A is 42 miles, so that the return journey is 84 miles. That is covered three times per week by the
larger vehicle, The diStanCe from 0 to-B is
32 miles, so that the return journey is 64 miles.
That also is covered by the larger' vehicle three times per week. The total mileage of the larger vehicle is thus 444 per week. The smaller vehicle, making the journey between B. and D and doing that in both directions six times per week covers, in all, 384 miles per week.
Now, as regards costs of operation and • taking the li-tonner first. The standing charges per week will approximate to those of the current edition of "The Commercial
Motor" Tables of Operating Costs, except in respect of two,items. Wages, instead of being g3 13s. 6dper week inclusive will be £3 17s. per week. Vehicle insurance will, of cdurse, be on the haulier's scale and will be 15s. per week, instead of 7s. 6d, The total is, therefore,
£5 us. 6d.
The running costs per week, taken from the same Tables, and from the appropriate part which gives those costs for a vehicle eovering 400 miles per week, will also be subject to some modification. The tyre cost will now be 0.44d. instead of 0.42d., the total of maintenance (d) and (e) will be 1.03d. per mile instead of 0.98d. and depredation, treated as a provision for the purchase of a new, vehicle and not as haying any relation to the price paid for the old one, will be increased by 25 per cent. to 1.35d. The total of running costs is thus increased by 0.34d. and the. cost per mile becomes 4.60d. 'Thetotal running costs for 384 miles per week. are £7 7s. 2d.
Turning now tO the Cost of operating the 2-tossner, a similar correction will need to be made to the' figures for standing charges, and the total is shown to be £5 16s. 6d. per week.
Similarly, the runningcosts per .mile are increased to 4.74d. and for the 444 miles per week that is £8 15s. 6d.
How the Parcels Carrier is Affected by Establishment Costs There is still the question of establishment costs or overheads to be considered. lie wilrdo office work at home and so incur extra lighting and heating costs, say £5. Telephone will cost £10 and travelling, etc., about the same.
The operator himself .will require .a wage as manager of the business and that we can put down as £3 per week, • say, £156 per annum. Postage and stationery, etc., say,
£6 per annum, and war-damage insurance and firewatching, £20. The total is £207.
This sum should be divided amongst the two vehicles approximately in proportion to their load capacity. It will he sufficiently near to take it that £80 per annum is debited to the 30-cwt. machine and £127 to the larger vehicle. These amounts must, in each case, be added to the standing charges so as to arrive at what may more properly be described as a total of fixed charges for each vehicle. Doing so, we have the amounts of £7 3s. 6d. per week in relation to the 30-cwt. vehicle and £7 17s. 6d. in relation to the larger machine.
Before proceeding, it is necessary to provide that these vehicles, whilst they must be debited with the above amounts for 52 weeks in the year, cannot be expected to be at work for all those weeks.
It is fair and reasonable to take a 48-hour-week working year as a basis. The above amounts, therefore, need multiplying by 52 and dividing by 48 in order to arrive at the actual amount of fixed charge which must be debited to each vehicle. In that way we find that the total fixed charges should be £7 16s. per week for the smaller vehicle and £8 lls, per week for the larger machine. S.T.R.,