ECONOMY AFFORDED BY ROAD TRANSPORT.
Page 14
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Traffic Manager Relates His Experience of the Cheapness of Motor Transport.
IHAVE READ with interest the editorial article on the "Economical Employment of Road Transport" in The Commercial Motor for October 21st, but I fear the article is too brief to do the subject justice. In my opinion, you are certainly unfair to the motor lorry, and I am afraid many of your readers may come to a , false conclusion in respect. of the question of rail v. road traffic, and there is already sufficient misunderstanding existing on this point.
• ou say: "We admit freely enough that, in re
spect of long journeys, the cost of conveying a ton by goods train is appreciably lower than the cost of conveying the same load by motor lorry." It is on
this point that I beg to differ. Of course, it all depends upon what the goods consist of, and what is understood by " long distance." Undoubtedly for many commodities your remarks would apply, but by no means to all, even for long distances, and it is here that I feel many of our railway friends may consader their position unassailable and our motor transport friends unwittingly falling into the same error. To •decry motor transport costs will mean excessive increases in railway rates to manufacturers.
I am not biassed for either method. I am an exrailway official, but, having had some 20 years practical experience in traffic matters, including rail and road transport, I contend that, although the motor lorry is daily becoming a stronger competitor, it is impossible • to lay down a hard and fast rule as to which is the cheaper method to employ. Everything depends upon circumstances, and I feel that, in your defence of the motor lorry, you should have mentioned other factors, such as saving in packing and packing material, of repeated handling and urgency, etc. • As traffic manager to a very large business concern,
I employ both methods very considerably, and I think I can state a case as affecting the position that will interest your _readers considerably.
I regret that, for business reasons, I cannot give precise information. as to the exact nature of th0 traffic and destination, but I can quote sufficient to cover the point at issue, which is that in some (in fact, many) instances of long distances the motor lorry is the most economical method of transport as against the rail goods service.
The case is as follows : I received an urgent request to forward an " article" to a destination 100 miles distant. The article measured 20 ft. by 6 ft. 3 ins. by 2 ft. 9 ins, and weighed about 1. ton. By goods train this was chargeable at the fifth class rate, minimum 1ton per 18 lineal ft. or fraction of 18 lineal ft. therefore the cost would be as for 2 tons. In a:ddition, the conditions of the rate were station to station, owners' risk, exclusive of labour, etc. Now, the railway companies possess no covered goods wagons long enough to take such an article, and, being very fragile, it would have been absolutely necessary to have packed the article into a case, and as they do not possess any open wagons wiith sides sufficiently long to take such a ease, a wagon without sides would have been•necessary, and this would possibly have meant several days delay in obtaining one, and a further several days in transit. However, putting aside the question of urgency (which in itself was sufficient to warrant the use of a motor lorry) let us compare the alternative costs as follows :—
B36
Moreover, it is highly probable the lorry could have secured a return load and cut the cost of transport to half the above figures.
I have made no allowance above for the value to us of the returned empty ease; this I compute at 27 10s. (half its cast), because it is highly probable we shall never receive a similar order, therefore I can only allow for the value of the timber, after paying for the cost of dismantling the case. Thus we find that this consignment by rail would have cost ciliate 221 17s., as against. 210 5s. (possibly £5 5s.) by motor lorry, apart from the fact that the motor lorry could deliver the article in one day as against a week or more by rail. Under the circumstances off this particular case, I should have been fully justified in sending the article by road, even if the above costs were reversed. (Our railway friends are so apt to overlook the fact that time is money.) I Maintain that it is quite a. mistake to take it for granted that the Motor lorry is nonplussed on long distances as compared with the goods train rates. Obviously, for certain traffic and in particular consignments such as the above, it is policy to employ the motor lorry even on journeys treUe the distance.
I fear many traders do,not sufficiently consider the numerous items involved with a rail journey ; they merely compare the road. costs with,the goods carriage charges. I pm frequently 'asked my price for picking up goods from suppliers who have quoted 'delivered," and, when I quote the -figures, they quote the approximate goods train rates, but when
I remind them that the motor lorry relieves them of packing, returned empties, etc., they readily agree to my figures.
It behoves traders very carefully to consider the matter before concluding, that the goods train method is the cheapest. When -the proposed " exchanges" for return loads by motor lorry are an accomplished fact and the goods train rates have been advanced, this will be all the more necessary. Possibly many readers may consider the case cited above very exceptional, but I can assure them it is not so, except as regards the quantity of goods (which prevented the case becoming readily used again) and the geographical poshition of consignee. We are dispatching the same class of traffic daily, and, as a matter of fact, I have made representations to .numerous other -manufacturers whose commodities are similarly classified, by goods train.
However, unfortunately for the motor lorry, I must raise a little discordant note. I must do so in justice to myself. I think I have proved v4ithout any doubt that the motor lorry can outdo the goods train service even on long distances for certain classes of traffic, and now I am going to prove that the passenger train rates and services for my article of goods and many.others similarly classified is more advantageous than both these. For that reason I sent the consignment which is the subject of this letter by passenger train, and this ris how it was done. The " article," without any packing case or packing whatsoever, was plaited on a motor lorry and conveyed to the local pass snger station, where it was laid on the floor of a " covered carriage truck" (21, ft. passenger vehicle, cf course), held finial by webbing tacked to the floor. The truck was attached to a passenger train and al rived at the receiving station four hours later. Consignee was telegraphed (to meet the train, and the " article" was at his works in five hours from the time it left our dispatch department. The costs of this method were as follow:—
(a) Transport to local station and placing 2 s. d.
into the " covered truck " .,. ... 7 6 (b) Passenger tra,in carriage eharge, machinery, at 6d per ton per mile for 100
miles (minimum 1 ton) ... ... ... 2 10 0
(c) Special journey to collect from receiving station by consignee, 22 miles, at
is. 6d, per mile ... ... ... ... I 13 0
(d) Telegram from sender to consignee ... 1 3
24 11 9 It should be noted that the weight of the consignment as sent thus was only 5 cwt. and that a ton could have been' sent for the same cost: Also that if consignee had possessed a lighter lotry the %cost of collection would have been somewhat less. However, after all, if the .consignee had possessed no lorry, the transaction would not have worked so smoothly. Therefore, taking everything into consideration, provided our lorry in the first instance could have been guaranteed a return load from a point in the vicinity of consignee's address, the .difference in the. passenger train and motor lorry costs wouldsliot have been very great, bearing in mind that the passenger service was arranged speciially and in the ordinary course of business delivery would not have been effected until the following day.
I would again emphasize that in these days of high pachng costs and the Oiffieulty in securing the return of empty packages, etc., traders and manufacturers should very carefully weigh over the possibilities of motor transport. It is within my knowledge that it would pay many of them handsomely to
alter existing methods. • WALTER GAMMONS.