AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

The Cost of Using Trailers

6th September 1963, Page 135
6th September 1963
Page 135
Page 136
Page 135, 6th September 1963 — The Cost of Using Trailers
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?

the car owner a trailer is often regarded as an afterought to meet temporary or unscheduled circumstances. nd because of its likely spasmodic use, the resulting nal expenditure, reckoned on the basis of the relatively nileage run, may well be high. • :rators of commercial vehicles, however, must take a )ositive and long-range appraisal of trailer potentiality :conomic opportunities are to be realized. Improvisation idmirable and necessary quality for transport managers

e when resolving the quickly-changing problems which -t and parcel of their daily work. But the elimination of ssary afterthoughts is essential if minimum operating re to be achieved. And a reappraisal of trailer potentiality lied to.individual circumstances could prove a worthwhile C.

re attempting such an appraisal, however, comment on :ommercial aspects of running vehicles is relevant.

main functions of transport management are the control ;ineering and traffic departments. In the first capacity jective is primarily the reduction in the cost of operation iinimum. Selection of the right type of vehicles for the an obvious priority, whilst persistent attention to nical running and maintenance is of equal importance. onsiderable degree several of the factors which affect the f operation are under the transport manager's control. gh there are exceptions such as road congestion.

:ontrast, however, the conditions under which traffic is by a transport department are first determined by the ler, both as to quantity and direction. Having received .stomer's instructions, the transport manager can then ingenuity in endeavouring to balance the flow of traffic luch of the ultimate profitability is dependent upon this necessity to deal with peak loadings of traffic is virtually evitable feature of transport operation, according to lual circumstances and the particular conditions of the lr industry for which the service is provided. An analysis 'iations in traffic flow will indicate the optimum size of !. to provide economic operation but at the same time some margin of load capacity for dealing, at least in part, .eaks as they arise.

BLEMS INCREASED recent years, however, the problems of the transport ter have tended to increase rather than diminish as regards and loading times. Added to the inherent peaks of a ular industry, such as harvest time in agriculture or mas festivities in the victualling trades, delays in journey due to congestion on the roads, or the period required for Eng after arrival at the terminal point, have increased. : alternative routes are not available, difficulties caused by :ongestion are obviously outside the operator's control, as direct effect of terminal delays, assuming these to be at stomer's premises rather than at a department of his own my.

whilst efforts to achieve co-operation from the customer ucing such terminal delays may prove abortive, this does not prohibit the operator from taking other steps to alleviate the position. It is in just such circumstances that the principle of articulation can be exploited to maximum advantage. The cost of providing additional semi-trailers to act as mobile " buffer depots" often proves the lesser economic evil than having vehicles standing idle.

It also happens that the articulated vehicle when comprised of a quantity-produced tractive unit and medium capacity semitrailer—say around 10 tons—fills what otherwise would be a gap in the range cif commercial vehicles relative to price and carrying capacity. Therefore many operators might choose this particular vehicle not only directly because of its extra capacity but also due to its comparatively low operating cost so that under-loading when necessitated by fluctuation in traffic does not prove too expensive.

The intensive drive for higher productivity in trade and industry has resulted in increasing demands for deliveries lo a specified time. Here again, the availability of spare semitrailers can prove beneficial in providing the transport operator with the assurance that his customers' requirements will be met despite any untoward eventualities which must inevitably arise over a long period of operation.

SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS But where used with a more positive objective—namely to increase the tonnage moved during a given period—the resulting savings can be substantial. The following examples of the cost of operating a tractive unit with alternatively one, two or three semi-trailers is indicative of this, although obviously the assumptions made must be largely hypothetical.

As a basis for the example, a 10-ton tractive unit fitted with oil engine has been chosen with a total purchase price, when supplied with one trailer only, of £2,200.

The unladen weight of the outfit is reckoned to be 4 tons 12 cwt. so incurring an annual licence duty of £78. With the addition of the appropriate proportion of carrier's licence fee, the equivalent cost of licensing will be £1 12s. 10d. a week. This is based on a 50-week year to allow for two weeks when the vehicle may be off the road for major repairs or driver's holidays. The cost of wages to the employer is assessed at £11 2s. Sd. which amount is inclusive of insurance contributions arid an adjustment to permit holidays with pay.

Rent and rates in respect of garaging the vehicle are assumed to be El 4s. 3d., whilst vehicle insurance costs the equivalent of £3 7s. 2d. a week. This is based on an annOal premium of £168 to provide comprehensive cover for A-licence operation. Allowing for a nominal rate of five per cent, interest charges would be equivalent to £2 2s. lid, a week, so giving a total of f19 Ms. 10d. for these five items of standing costs.

It will be assumed that over the year this vehicle averages the equivalent of 800 miles per week, although this figure may not be achieved on any particular week. On the basis of this assumption, the standing costs per mile would be 5-86d. and the standing costs per hour 11 I -66d.

Assuming that fuel oil is purchased in bulk at 4s. 20. a gallon, and that an average rate of consumption of 11 m.p.g. is maintained, the fuel cost per mile would amount to 4.57d a41

Lubricants are reckoned at 0-29d. and tyres at 2-14d. per mile, on the basis of a mileage life per set of 30,000.

Maintenance, inclusive of washing, servicing and repairs. is reckoned at 2-73d. per mile and depreciation at 2.41d., based on a vehicle mileage life of 150,000, The total for the five items of running costs is thus 12-14d. per mile or £40 9s. 4d. a week. Added to the standing costs the resulting total operating costs are 18-00d. per mile and £60 Os. 2d. a week, still assuming an average of '800 miles.

Dealing now with the position when a second trailer is used, the cost of this addition is reckoned at £750. This gives an additional interest charge of £37 10s. a year, or 15s. a week. Assuming that the other four items of standing costs remain virtually the same, except for possible fractional additions, the total standing costs would be £20 5s. 10d. per week, or 115-95d. per hour when two trailers were used. With the addition of a further trailer, so giving three in all, the standing costs would he 121 Os. 10d. a week, or 120.24d. per hour. Dealing similarly with the running costs, it must be borne in mind that the collective total mileage of all the trailers, whatever number are used, will remain the same as that for the tractive unit, so that theoretically there would be no addition to running costs. For practical purposes, however, an additional maintenance charge of a nominal 10s. 6d. per week will be allowed per trailer for washing and minor servicing. As a result the total running costs with two trailers would be 12-30d. (as compared with 12-14d. with one trailer) and 12.46d. with two spare trailers, i.e., three in all. Applying these results to a hypothetical day's work. it will be assumed that in the first instance one trailer only is used on a delivery of 10 tons involving a return mileage of 60 and a total time of 7 hours, inclusive of loading and unloading. The time cost would then amount to £3 5s. 2d. (7 hours at III-66d. per hour) whilst the mileage cost would he £3 Os. 8d. (60 miles at 12-14d. per mile). This gives a total of £6 5s. 10d. for 10 tons, or the equivalent of 12s. 7d. a Ion, assuming a capacity load.

ADDITIONAL SEMI-TRAILERS

It will be assumed that when additional semi-trailers are provided, both additional loading staff and facilities will also be available. Whilst virtually self-evident when thus stated, this is a factor which should not be overlooked when complete articulation of collection and delivery is being contemplated. In this context there is the psychological point that whilst the inevitable driver with a rigid vehicle will always be available to initiate and assist in unloading, positive steps have to be taken beforehand to determine responsibility for speedy unloading of semi-trailers left by the driver of the tractive unit. Otherwise

the anticipated benefits of articulation will not materialize and the tractive unit driver would arrive back on the second trip with a further loaded trailer only to find that the first one had still to be unloaded, with the same delay as would apply to a rigid vehicle.

When, however, adequate additional loading facilities are provided, then some reduction in total terminal time should accrue. The saving anticipated will be in the loading-or unloading -time, which comprises only a proportion of the total time. Awaiting one's turn in the queue after having located the actual unloading point, which of itself might take some time in a large factory area, followed by documentation time, will still' remain much the same.

TIME FOR RETURN TRIP By the use of the extra trailer it will be assumed that the overall time for the return trip, inclusive of running time and terminal time, will be reduced to 51 hours, so permitting two return trips in a working day of 11 hours. As previously calculated the standing cost per hour, inclusive of the cost of providing the second trailer, is II 5'95d., so giving a total of £5 6s. 3d. for the 11 hours.

Similarly, with the slightly increased running costs per mile of 12.30d.. the cost for the 120 miles involved in the double trip is £6 3s. This gives a total of £11 9s. 3d. for the 20 tons moved, i.e., I Is. -6d. per ton.

Whilst the addition of a second spare trailer. i.e.. three in all, is not reckoned to permit any more trips per day, some reduction on the total time is allowed. At 8 hours for the two trips at the appropriate cost per hour of 120.24d., the time cost will be £4 Os. 2d., whilst the same 120 miles now chargeable at 12-46d. per mile adds £6 4s. 7d.. giving a total of £10 4s. 9d. for the 20 tons. On the assumption of the capacity load the cost per ton would be 10s. 3d.

If the cost per ton derived when only one trailer is in use (namely 12s. 7d.) is reckoned at a notional figure of 100, then when two trailers are available the corresponding figure is 91-39 (a reduction of 8-61 percent) or 81-46 (a reduction of 18-54 per cent) when three trailers are available.

As said earlier, any example of comparative costs which include assumptions as to the traffic carried, or the journeys made, must be largely hypothetical. In practice a more complicated combination of factors might apply than in this simple example, particularly as regards the use of additional tractive units. In that event the ratio of two, or even three trailers per unit, as in this example, might be substantially reduced, whilst still retaining the benefits of quick turn-round. Where such conditions apply then the saving by use of complete articulation will be further enhanced.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus