Brick Haulage Rates When Retur
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Dads Are Carried
Dealing with Some of the Problems which Arise when Assessing Brick Haulage Rates Over Short Distances when Providing for Return Loads
N my article in last week's issue of " The Commercial
Motor " I gave siame figures for brick-haulage rates, based
on the assumption that no return loads were available, and in that article, and the one before, I have given rates for bricks weighing 21 tons per 1,000, carried in 5-6-ton lorries and 12-ton lorries, for bricks weighing 2/ to .2,1 tons per 1,000, carried in 5-6-ton lorries, and for bricks werghing 3/ tons per 1,000, carried in 5-6-ton lorries.
This week I propose to deal with the problem of assessing rates for brick haulage when return loads can be secured, but, before doing so, I must deal with the assessing of rates for bricks of 2+-22 tons and tons per 1,000, carried in 12-ton lorries. z
It is advisable for readers wishing fully to understand what follows, to have the previous article available for refecrence, as some of the essential data were given therein. For example, I showed how I arrived at my basic figure of 8s. 6d, per hour, plus Is. per mile run, in connection with the use of a 12-ton lorry on this kind of work. I also gave data,for average speeds over very short hauls, that being, for obvious reasons, much lower than average and thus having an important effect on the rate to be charged.
This week I shall give only the results of those calculations and if the reader Wishes to go farther into the matter, he must refer back, to the previous article.
Taking bricks weighing 2/ to 21 tons per 1,000, a weight and type of brick which is fairly common in the Midlands, I assume that a load will comprise 4,500 bricks. For terminals, comprising loading and unloading time, and some provision far loss of time in the brickyards awaiting the opportunity to load, I think 2,1 hours per journey is a fair • allowance. At 8s. 6d. per hour, the cost of 2+ hours is £1 is, 3d. That is, for the vehicle, and is equivalent to 4s. 9d. per 1,000 bricks. That amount-4s. 9d., or 57d.— thus appears in the second colamn of Table V.
The total travelling charge for the one-mile lead I showed last Week to be 5s. 5d., which is equivalent to is. 20. per 1,000. That is the first amount set down in the third column of Table V. For the second lead mile the total charge is 4s. 4d., which is llid. per 1,000. Adding no. to is. 2/d. gives me 26d., the second entry in column three.
For the third mile the total is 3s. 90., -which is 10d. per 1,000, bringing the entry in the third column to 36d. for the three-mile lead. It is worth while reminding readers
that the reason for this 'tapering in the rate per additional mile lead, over these ultra-short mileages, is brought about by the fact that it is assumed that over a one-mile lead the average speed is 5 m.p.h.; during the second mile the average speed is taken as 7+ m.p.h. and during the third mile 10 m.p.h. .
For the next seven miles, that is, up to a lead mileage of 10, it is assumed that the average speed is 12 m.p.h. Let me make this quite clear; I mean that, whatever the lead distance, the travelling speed for the first mile averages 5 m.p.h., the second mile 7i m.p.h., and for the third niile 10 mph During each of those seven miles the travelling cost per mile lead for the vehicle is 3s. 7d,, which is equivalent to 90, per mile lead. For the four-mile lead, therefore, 9id. is added to 36d. in the third column, giving 45-id. For the next giving 550.—and so on, up to a lead of 10 miles, by which distance the figure has risen to 104/d.
From 11 miles to 15 miles lead, inclusive, the speed is taken to be 15 m.p.h., giving us,' in a similar inanner, an increase of eo. per mile lead as set down in column three. and, when the 15-mile lead is exceeded, it is assumed that the maximum speed is the legal limit of 20 m.p.h., which calls for an increase of 71c1. per mile lead.
Adding together the -figures in the second and third columns gives us those shown in column. four, which are assessed to the nearest penny above the actual figure. That is the rate per 1;000 for bricks that are tipped.In the fifth, and final, column is a corresponding rate for bricks which are stacked, 2s. per 1,000 being the amount added to allow for the extra cost involved.
In Table VI a similar set of figures appears relating to bricks weighing.-3+ tons per 1,000. The same assumptions are made, but there is, of course, this difference, that bricks at that weight will mean only 3,500 to a full load of $ tons. A total terminal period of 21 hours is assumed and, on that basis, the item " terminal charge " is 66(1. instead of 57d. The other figures are calculated in the same way, and I assume that it is not necessary for me to go into a detailed explanation. • • In dealing with the alternative problem—schedules of rates for brick haulage which shall apply only where return loads are regularly available—I am aware that 1 am treading on dangerous ground. There is still no proftiect of a termination to the controversy which has for so long raged around this question. Many operators affirm, and sincerely believe, that a rate should be fixed on the basis of one-way loading, and no reduction made if a return load be carried.
I cannot subscribe to that view if the circumstances be such that return loads are regularly available. By regularly, I do notmean that there must be a back load carried every return journey. If a haulier, carrying bricks (or any other commodity for that matter) from A to B, is reasonably certain that, at least once in every three journeys, he can pick up a load at, or near, B to bring back to a point at, or near, A, and if—and this is the crucial point—he finds that he can make a substantial cut in. the brick-haulage' rate, because of the earnings on the return load, and still make a good profit, then he is not merely entitled to make that cut, but is morally bound to do so.
I know that many who read this will charge me with encouraging rate-cutting, just as they will condemn, as a rate-cutter, the operator who follows my advice. I regret having roused their opposition, but I, nevertheless, maintain that I am right. An occasional back load, which costs the operator nothing, because the journey has already been paid for by the consignee of the outward load, may' be regarded by hirn as a lucky strike, and the revenue from it as a bonus.
To take advantage of two regular consignees,, making each pay the fair charge for a double journey when he should be debited with only a single one, is a transgression against the laws of economy which will surely, and rightly, involve • trouble for the transgressor. Uneconomic rates cannot prevail, and an excessive rate is just as uneconomic as one which is insufficient. There are two parties to every transaction of this kind, and the economic reaction must he considered in regard, to both of them.
Anyway, the Subject of this article is not " The problem of the return load and its effect on rates," neither is it a isquisition on the ethics of return-load allowances.
I have already stipulated that thc haulier who proposes to charge a lower rate than standard, when return loads are regularly available, must be sure that the revenues he is making from the double traffic are sufficient to show him a reasonable and good, but not exceSsive, profit. It should also be appreciated that a substantial modification in the standard one-way rate must be justified before it be 'made. It will usually be found that a change in the rate is not worth while when the lead is short, and that is apart from the fact that it is seldom regular return loads are available over short distances.
Take an example from one of the tables Which accompany this article, such as Carrying bricks which weigh 2i to
tons per 1,000, the lead being five Miles. The rate quoted in Table V which refers to one-way traffic, is 9s. 5d. per 1,000 for bricks that are to be tipped.
That rate is made up of 9s. 9d. for terminal charges and 4s, 71(1. for travelling 10 miles. The fact that a return load is carried does not affect the first item; it takes just as long to load and unload the bricks, and the waiting time remains unaffected by the fact that the vehicle is absent to pick up a return load. The amount for travelling is reduced, but is not halved.
It is true that the vehicle will travel no more. than half the distance on the actual brick haulage journey, but it is also likely that it will have to travel a couple of miles extra in order to pick up the return load and drop it at its desf tination. Allowance must thus be made for seven miles of trarlling instead of 10, redncing the charge for that service from 4s. 71d. per 1,000 bricks to 3s. 4d. The rate can, therefore, be reduced to 8s. Id., as against 95. 5d., a 'cut of Is. 4d. per 1,000.
-The Calculation just made applies only, however, when return loads are carried on every journey. That rarely happens. For short-distance traffic, up to 15 miles, it is .safe to assess a rate on a basis of only alternate journeys being return loaded. The rate should, therefore, be the mean c4f the two quoted, and is thus Ss. 9d. per 1,000.
For journeys in excess of 15-mile leads it may be reasonable to assuine that. on two out of every three journeys, a return load is carried. In the case of a 20-mile haul, for example, the rate for a return journey is Made up of 4s. 9d. for terminals, plus the half of 15s 5c1.-7s. 84(1., plus the charge for two miles travelling time, which is Is. 3d. The total is 13s. 9d. to the nearest penny. That applies to two out of three journeks, so that the rate, in the circumstance named, must 'be the average of three, of which two are at • 13s, 9d. and the third 20s. 2d. The' rate -should, therefore, be 16s,
Tables VII, VIII and IX, correspond to Tables IV, V and VI, giving rates for the haulage of bricks on the assumption that return loads are available as I have specified, and are not subject to making provision to the alteration in the .
rate -for leads of lets than -five miles. .
It should.be emphasized that, for these rates to he economic, the percentage of return loads must lie as described, otherwise the rates do not apply.'When the eonditions are otherwise,. it is up to the operator to make his own calculations in the same manner as I have done in these particular 'cases.
. The difficulty. and it is a serious one, of assessing rates when return loads are available, has got to be faced. If, over a certain route, return loads be available, it if unfair to charge rates on the basis of one-way traffic in both directions. S.T.R.