TRANSPORT TIPS FOR TRADESMEN.
Page 18
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Particularly Addressed to Those Who are Replacing Horsed Vehicles by Motors, or Contemplating So Doing.
IF WE START by admitting the regrettable fact that, in many cases, users of commercial vehicles do not get the best and cheapest results from them, the question naturally arises why this is so. In some cases it is the result of ignorance, not altogether excusable, but to some extent Unavoidable.
Causes of poor Organization.
The trader operating on a comparatively small scale cannot afford to employ experts to take charge of all the various departments of his business. He must act himself as a kind of general manager, perhaps without any very intelligent assistance. He cannot immediately become an experienced specialist in respect of every new development more or less forced upon him. When he buys a motorvan for the first time, the chances are that he has only a very limited knowledge of its possibilities and the best way of using it. As time goes on he will gain in experience; but,. inthe meanwhile, the efficiency of his service as well as its economy is liable to suffer. Inefficiency in transport is not, however, limited to small traders' enterprises. It is to be found in plenty of cases in which motorvans have been used for many years in considerable numbers. In such cases it is often more or less due to the fact that the transport department is not a source of direct profit, but is a spending department necessary to ensure profits from other departments.
As such, a certain amount of money is allocated to
it. Very possibly its proper development is prevented by mistaken attempts at economy. The man in charge feels that any attempts he may make to obtain the right to indulge in additional capital expenditure will tell against him. Too often the fact that increased profit in other departments really results from the use of motors in the transport department is not regarded as sufficient ground for allowing the transport department to increase its capital expenditure. This department, therefore, lacks the ability to organize with a view to ultimately attaining the highest possible efficiency. In plenty of instances, the directors of the concern take no real interest in the transport department. Their time is devoted to the consideration of the direct profitmaking departments to the neglect of others, equally important in their own way. This might not matter if the manager of the transport department were given a, free hand ; but, if he ie hampered by strict limitations in his powers of expenditure, the result must be bad. Were one or two of the directors to take the trouble themselves to study the subject of motor transport and to advise their colleagues on matters appertaining to the development of the transport department, the manager of that department would feel that, when he put up a proposition involving the employment of capital, it would not be turned down as an extravagance merely because of the ignorance of his board of directors. Where such ignorance exists, the board is almost certain to take an unfavourable view of the policy of a departmental manager whose department does not and cannot show a profit, but who wants some money in order to make that department more efficient. Given some knowledge on their ownpart, they will appreciate his point of view and will probably give him credit for initiative instead of blaming him for extravagance.
Choice of Source of Power.
I was recently asked by a friend who is a director of a large concern to advise as to the selection of a
oll
motor vehicle to carry a four-ton load. I am reminded of this inquiry by the remarks made in the
.previous note. In this particular case, I do not accuse the board of complete ignorance, but certainly they were on a fair way towards making a gross mistake through lack of realization of fundamental facts and of the real character elf their own requirements. They wanted a machine mainly for short-distance work in traffic.. The loads had only to be carried a very few miles and terminal delays would necessarily be considerable. Speed capabilities on the road were not, therefore, of primary importance. It was, however, important not to waste fuel at the terminal points. This last factor, coupled with the character of the places to which loads had to be delivered, .militated against the use of the steam vehicle. They realized, therefore, • that the, choice lay between a petrol and an electric vehicle, and, in the light of the considerations already mentioned, they strongly favoured the latter. , Up to this point they were probably correct ; but it was only as a resalt, Of close examination at the last moment that they themselves made inquiries which led to information being forthcoming to the effect that, at times, it would be napst important to be able to use the machine for long, continuous runs to points at which it was more than doubtful whether cheap facilities—or any. facilities at all—for recharging vehicle batteries would be obtainable. The length of someof the -runs represented the full limit of capacity of an electric vehicle of the type under
consideration. Just :oceasionally it was, at least, desirable to use the machine for still longer journeys. Thus it became apparent that, while the electric 'would be ideal on three days out of four, its selection would on the fourth day involve, the employment of a contractor to carry on the firm's work. The aggregate volume of this work was not too great for a single vehicle to perform and, therefore, the correct selection was evidently a petrol vehicle.
Uniformity of Vehicle snot always Economical.
It is often stated that it is far more economical to work a fleet of vehicles of uniform make. and capacity than to operate a mixed fleet. The statement is true, but, nevertheless, liable to be misleading. Supposing that, having regard to the nature of the work to be done and the varying sizes and weights of the packages to be transported, our needs would be ideally filled by using one three-tonner and two one-tonners. Now if, in our desire for uniformity, we• employ a couple of three-tonners„ expecting the second threetonner to do the work of the two one-toriners, it does not at all follow that from a, broad point ef view' the result will be superior eeNnomy. It might be that the three-tonner would take so much longer to deliver its two tons of small goods than would the two oneton vans, that the service will be inefficient as compared with that of competing traders, and business would, therefore, be lost. Another way of securing uniformity in the example taken, would be the use of three one-tonners instead of a single threetonner, or five one-tonners in all. Even when we give full alue to the advantage of uniformity, it would certainly cost more to operate and repair three onetonners than one three-tonner of another make. It is, then; quite possible to overdo this idea of uniformity, end to attain its advantages only at the sacrifice of other advantages even more important..