AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Centralization is Best

30th April 1954, Page 135
30th April 1954
Page 135
Page 135, 30th April 1954 — Centralization is Best
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords :

DENEFITS to be derived from depot centralization far outweighed the few disadvantages, said Mr. F. L. Stirrup, Salford director of public cleansing, when he addressed the North-, western centre of the Institute-of Public,

Cleansing at Salford last Friday. , He described the main factors which had to be taken into consideration when it was proposed to establish a new cleansing depot to replace three old ones. It would not necessarily have been best, he said, to have taken the geographical centre of the city as the site.

An alternative was to study the population-density map, but he was a little sceptical of pure mathematics, for housing estates with long carries might necessitate the employment of a greater number of men and vehicles than were necessary for densely populated areas of similar size. On the other hand, the more efficient fire grates in newer property produce less weight of refuse, but their garden refuse created seasonal increases in bulk.

Examination of the number of loads for each area in the city and the manpower and transport involved, however, convinced Mr. Stirrup that the method of selecting a site adopted was correct. To assess the savings likely to result from centralization, the number of houses in each ward was taken and the average distance of haul from each ward, to the central point was calculated.

With the existing main depot, the average distance was 1 miles, whilst the distance in connection with the hypothetical new depot would be 1.15 miles. On the basis of 200 tons of refuse collected, the daily saving would be 70 ton-miles.

Looking into the future and assuming that the city would be developed as planned, daily savings would be 138 ton-miles. The site to be chosen should have a good approach without being likely to interfere with main-road traffic. An area of at least 3 acres was desirable.

If the staff were to be removed from the present three depots to one new establishment, some teams would be farther from their collecting areas than they were now. Labour and transport costs would be raised, hut these were out-weighed by other factors, notably easier and cheaper administration.

A question that arose was whether it would be cheaper to erect an incinerator or take refuse away in bulk vehicles for tipping. If the distance to the depot site were such that the vehicles could run only two return journeys a day, the cost would be prohibitive. Four loads per day would be economic.

The maximum distance from depot to tip therefore had to be 10-11 miles, allowing an average road speed of 15-16 m.p.h. with 30 minutes for loading and 15 minutes for discharging. The cost per ton would be 4s. 6d.-6s. 6d., plus 3s. for operating the tip.

A bulk transport vehicle of 35-cu-yd. capacity would cost about £5,000 and Salford's total requirements for vehicles would call for up to £40,000. The total capital cost was thus much less than would be needed for an incinerator.

It seemed that if a town had to incinerate its refuse, advantage should be taken of separating to realize money on salvage, but disposal by means of vehicles was better, provided that tipping sites were within reasonable distance and of sufficient capacity to last some time.

Tags

People: F. L. Stirrup
Locations: Salford

comments powered by Disqus