Tankers Cut a Third of Cost
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SAVINGS in transport costs arising in the course of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board's Kirkcudbright experiment are emphasized in the first S.M.M.B. report on the subject which was published last week. Details of the inauguration of the scheme were given in full in The Commercial Motor on November 13, 1953, when the fact that the sponsors expected the greatest economies to be secured on the transport side was stressed.
The scheme had been running in full for just over a year when the report was completed, and it is stated that the quality of milk delivered to the creamery by road tanker has been found to be better than that of corresponding milk delivered in cans. A summary has been drawn up of the mileage run, time occupied, and number of gallons carr:ed from the 23 farms in the scheme. first by two platform lorries engaged during the 1953-54 period and secondly by the tanker used in 1954-55.
2,612 Gal. a Day The tanker employed is a Foden fivecylindered oiler which previously was used for about six years on ex-depot deliveries. During the period under review this vehicle handled an average of 2,612 gal. per day, covered 53 miles and worked 6.6 hours. Against this the two oil-engined lorries carried 2,570 gal. daily, ran 75 miles and their working extended over an average of 10.7 hours.
The final analysis shows the tanker lifting 49 gal. per mile run, or 397 gal. per hour, against 34 gal. and 241 gal. respectively for the lorries.
After taking into account running costs, standing and overhead charges, the S.M.M.B. figures for the tanker show 0.3587d. per gal, collected as compared with 0.5025d, for the lorries.
o8 Altogether 21 farmers. with 23 farms, have taken part in the scheme, using 14 tanks of 300-gallon capacity and 12 of 180-gallon capacity.
The average cost of the bulk tanks and refrigerating units at the farms, including delivery, installation and cost of constructional work, was £783.
The Foden chassis, already mentioned; carries •a 1.500-gallon insulated alOnliniurn tank and at the rear is an equipment .box containing an A.P.V. stainless-steel pump and a fully enclosed 3 h.p. motor. On the delivery side of the pump there is a drip sampling attachment. A 2-in, sweetened rubber hose, 15 ft. long, is attached to the milk pump, the free end Carrying a coupling for connection to the farm tank. When running between calls the hose is not disconnected from the vehicle but is carried in a metal tube beside the main tank.
The reptirt says that "the tanker with its 1.500 gal. capacity, compared with 1.000 gal. on a lorry, requires to make fewer journeys to and from the collecting field. During the season of full production the tanker can start at 6.45 a.m. and collect three loads totalling 4,000 to 4,500 gal., and deliver the last by 12.30 p.m. To collect this amount by lorry in the same time requires two men and two lorries."
Consignments of 80-100 gal. are stated to take about the same time to collect by &Mer method, the tanker
havaig the advantage for larger quantities. With the tanker the process occupies 5-7 min. per call. During this time the driver will have checked the milk for " off " flavour, taken the temperature, and a reading on the dipstick which is divided into 1/16 in.
He will then have switched on the agitator motor in the farm tank, and afterwards connected up the tanker hose and plugged in the tanker pump to the farm electrical supply. While the agitator has been running, the driver will have made out a receipt after checking the dipstick against the farm calibration chart. A spot check when 257 gal. was moved showed that only 6A min.. elapsed from the time the vehicle entered the farmyard until it left.
Tanker Depreciation The report does not claim that the vehicles' used are the most economic for the work in hand, but that they are interesting as being models commonly used for Similar tasks. In calculating the figures mentioned above the charges actually incurred by the vehicles for labour, tax, fuel and lubricants are employed, but the cost of tyres is averaged. Depreciation of the tanker was worked out at 2.36d. per mile and for the lorries at 1.73d. per mile. Where necessary for comparison the costs were adjusted to the 1954-55 levels.
In summing up, the report says that the saving in transport costs appears to be about one-third of the normal can transport charge although this figure may be less if much smaller farms are catered for. Furthermore, after writing off the cost of the tank and plant over a reasonable period, the system costs little more on the farm than the normal method.