1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166 
FLEET NAM
Page 76
Page 77
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
of Operating Costs, somewhere in the region of £250 per week on 1,000 mile weekly running. A total operating cost for that milage is about £175 plus a margin for establishment costs, office expenses, etc, say, £25, which leaves £50 per week. But this is not all profit. The costings are based on figures which include the Road Haulage Wages Council recommended minimum for a basic weekly wage and therefore do not take account of overtime, bonuses or productivity agreements which give high fixed basic wages or subsistence allowances.
in the figures quoted for a 22-ton-payload artic it can be seen that the vehicle needs to earn about £11 7s 3d per ton per week or about £2 5s 6d per ton per day for a 200mile round trip.
These costs, although theoretical to the extent of being averages, are borne out by practical examples—for instance, an operator was recently quoted as saying that his 32-tonners were costing him £184 per week over a 44-week year to keep on the road, although he did not say on what mileage this was based.
Drawbar drawbacks
Under current legislation there is really no alternative to the 22-ton-payload, 40ft maximum-gross attic for maximizing earning capacity. The lorry-and-trailer combination which was in its heyday in Britain a long time ago is now almost extinct here, overtaken by escalating labour costs resulting from the two-man operation requirement which was not abolished until it was perhaps too late to inspire a revival of interest in this type of machine —despite its prevalence on the Continent.
I have lately talked to a number of operators whose lorry-and-trailer combinations were a familiar sight on the road at one time, only to find that their use has been almost completely discontinued. Sutton and Sons of St Helens, for example, were in fact dismembering some of the last of their combinations at the time of my visit, to make tractive units of the front ends. Suttons, like some of the others, were glad to see the end of the legal requirement for mates but still found that in many instances it was not a practical proposition to operate with one man only. There were problems of coupling trailers—one man has to support the drawbar and line it up with the towing jaw while giving directions to the driver. And another problem was when loads had to be sheeted, an eightwheeler and trailer need six sheets and a good measure of roping—too much to be a practical proposition for one man, and very time consuming. But of course where it was possible to manage without the second man—rarely needed these days to help with loading because of the increase of mechanical methods—they were glad of the savings in wages.
Suttons found that lorry-and-trailer combinations used to suit their traffics— crated bottles from the glass industries of St Helens which are a relatively light load requiring platform space. This the combination provided—about 44ft of it. But on balance the 40ft-semi-trailer attic is now a better proposition, the loss of 4ft of platform length being more than compensated by the saving in wages, the absence of coupling problems, only three sheets to spread and rope, and the higher running speed: 40 mph instead of 30 mph. There are other factors, such as time saving in the docks: if there are queues a semi-trailer can be dropped and left; a drawbar trailer can be left but what of the vehicle?
But among the advantages which this company had experienced with lorry-andtrailer operation was reduced maintenance costs—the rigid vehicle having a regular driver was better looked after and there was not a great deal of swapping of trailers.
Suttons' attitude seems to be that they had moved reluctantly away from lorryand-trailer operations, the economics having dictated that they must do so because the costs outweighed the advantages. But I gained the impression that, given weight increases which provided an advantage of 4 tons or more for combinations above the maximum weight for attics then we should once again see these familiar smart red combinations on the road.
British Road Services Ltd have generally similar views on this subject. The extra platform area of a drawbar combination, which itself had certain advantages in helping the deadweight situation, by a better spread of weight for axle loadings, was outweighed by the practical—not simply legal—need to have a second man. A cost saving of some £200 per year on 30,000 miles was also estimated but it is doubtful whether this would be realized unless the outfit was used only on selected routes of mainly motorway-type roads. Once off these roads the problems begin to arise, and costs also. This £200 would soon be lost unless the vehicle was turned round quickly.
Future forecasting
Studies in the use of heavier and improved vehicles are a continuous process at BRSL, partly because they feel, as the largest British haulage contractor, a need to keep ahead of the field and partly because they feel a strong obligation not to operate vehicles which would, if used regardless, infringe on the public amenity. Lorry-andtrailer combinations are acase in point. The company always tries by means of its specifications to manufacturers to improve on the Construction and Use requirements particularly in regard to noise and power. Specifying to the current legal limits can lead to early obsolescence if more stringent requirements follow within the life of the vehicle.
As to the increased weights, BRSL tried. like most other operators, to forecast the outcome but failed. They feel there was too much complacency and that the industry underestimated the power of the socia: lobby. BRSL sees it as a great pity, in thai on the Continent the lorry-and-trailer treated in a way which makes it a favourabk economic proposition. But if this country does join the Common Market it will be instructive to see how the EEC transport policy affects us. The interchange of artic: on import and export traffic may be thc catalyst which forces the Government t look again soon at weights. And what i it does?
If the increase on attics is to 38 tom gross this would, according to Mr J. Farran and Mr W. Batstone, BRSL operations an engineering chiefs respectively, alloy interchangeability with existing equipmen and not cause excessive obsolescence. Bu a change to 44 tons gross would be a corn pletely new concept that would be ideal particularly if twin semi-trailers (double bottom outfits) were permitted within thi weight.
The costs of operating at these weight as projected by BRSL, are considerabl; greater than those experienced with presen maximum-capacity vehicles. A total figure of 6s 6d per mile was suggested for a 44-tongross lorry and trailer, and a 38-ton-gross artic would be very little less because they think a three-axle tractive unit with double drive will be necessary anyway.
The fuel costs alone for 32-ton-gcw vehicles are in the region of 8+d per mile. This is at about 7.5 mpg. At 44 tons likely fuel consumption is 5/5.5 mpg, a figure experienced in the USA on similar weight outfits using 300 bhp power units although mainly on expressway running, compared with the 7.5 mpg quoted above which is achieved on all types of work under all conditions.
Some tests done by Mr Batstone in Sweden about 18 months ago with a 40metric-ton-gross lorry-and-trailer combination resulted in operating costs of 5s 3d per mile so if about 15 per cent for continuing inflation were added to this the 6s 6d projected figure is not far out.
The tyre costs of drawbar trailer operation are slightly higher if single 10.00-20 tyres are used but this cost would increase if twin 9.00-20s were used. There would be less scrub on the rear bogies of a semitrailer than on the driven bogie of a sixwheel rigid.
Wait-and-see on weights
It is BRSL policy to evaluate vehicles used in other countries but this evaluation is done slowly to provide a background of experience ready for any changes which may be made. They consider it unwise to buy vehicles today plated for gross weights above 32 tons, purely on the assumption that they will comply with tomorrow's increased limits. The chances are that the specification which the DoE will lay down for future maximum gross weight vehicles may well invalidate existing vehicles. This problem is not thought to have such a great effect on semi-trailers with widespread bogies.
Already the operational costs on existing vehicles are high, though, as I said earlier, not so high as to kill a reasonable profit margin. But venture into the realms of 38/44-ton artics and 56-ton drawbar trailer
outfits and the pressure really will be on operational costs—and on maximum utilization. The figure quoted earlier by BRSL as projected cost per mile for a 44tonner is high, but so are their overheads. The small operator, however, is not going to be able to reduce this by a great deal. Engines are going to be in the 270/300 bhp class and while it is not possible to estimate mpg accurately because of the varied types of running, our road test of an Atkinson/York 42-ton-gross five-axle artic (CM February 1 1969) returned 5.23 mpg operating at 5.9 bhp per ton. With the Scania LB 140 six-wheel rigid and twoaxle drawbar trailer at 38 tons gross a figure of 6.0 mpg was achieved at 9.2 bhp per ton (CM October 30 1970). Tyre wear, and more particularly total tyre costs will rise dramatically—a 75/80 per cent increase is not an unreasonable assumption. Maintenance and lubricants will cost more, as will the standing charges and depreciation. Excise licences, insurance, interest on capital and general overheads may increase by as much as 33 per cent and drivers certainly are not going to drive these vehicles for anything like the same pay they are getting now for 32-tonners. Our cost tables show a basic weekly figure of £26 6s 6d for the present largest vehicle—not including overtime or subsistence. A basic salary of £2000 a year plus bonuses and subsistence seems likely to be a minimum rate and this will have to be doubled, of course, for double shifting.
Small man's problems The vastly increased costs of operating above present-day limits are going to put such demands on the small operator that it will just not be worth his while to struggle to find the capital outlay unless he is absolutely certain that he is going to get near 100 per cent utilization (full out and return loads) of these large vehicles throughout at least 20 hours of the day (double shifting)and for a full 46/48-week year. Anything less than this will leave him facing very heavy standing charges which will be difficult to recoup.
The situation with the 56-ton-gross drawbar trailer outfit is at least as demanding, because from all accounts it will not be able to be operated by one man alone—as already stated—unless on special motorway trunk routes feeding terminal depots where loads are broken down. But even this is a long way off because although we may soon have the motorway network we haven't got the terminal depots at strategic points. The 56-ton combination carrying 40 tons is going to be a big vehicle to utilize fully and even with 48ft of platform length (which is a figure that has been suggested) it is not going to be of advantage to container operators. They will still only be able to carry two 20-footers which they can do now on a 40ft semi-trailer, although admittedly if the containers are loaded to a maximum weight capacity of 20 tons each then a 56-ton gross weight is needed. This still, however, does not offer the possibility of carrying a 30-footer and a 20-footer loaded to the maximum of 25 tons and 20 tons respectively.
The smaller operator would seem to be advised to plan on the basis of sticking at the existing maximum weights and working at becoming as operationally efficient as possible within those weights.
The message seems clear, that these magical new weights are not so magical when examined in the cold light of costs and capital outlay. The demands on operational efficiency and the certainty of having to achieve almost full utilization is going to restrict their use mainly to the large operators who are geared to finding sufficient suitable traffic for a full year's work for each vehicle. Shopping around for the odd load will not provide the bread for these machines.
Even BRSL admit that the increase in carrying capacity has a diminishing market and they doubt whether in five years the size of loads offered will be very different from today.