SAND AND HORSES what it
Page 46
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
costs to carry them
Economic Rates for -the Haulage of Sand and Gravel, and a Consideration of Factors Influencing the Cost of Horsebox Operation
BEFORE I leave the subject, some further comment is desirable upon the figures for rates at which sand should be hauled. Referring to Table V, in the previous article, there are considerable differences between the figures put up to me for criticism and those which I myself have calculated. My results, I find, are nearly the same as those of the Ballast, Sand and Allied Trades Association, any difference being accounted for by the fact that my figures are calculated in a manner which will enable them to be compared directly with those submitted to me for criticism.
How the Figures are Calculated.
That method involved, in the first place, the calculation of costs relating to a range of vehicle sizes in which my friends were interested, This range, and the individual vehicles, differed from those on which the B.S.A.T.A. tables are based. That variation led to re-. suits, for full loads, which are not strictly comparable with the B.S.A.T.A. data. My friends' figures in Table V are averages, designed to give approximate rates which shall be applicable irrespective of the size of vehicle used. It is these figures which are directly comparable with those sent to me for criticism.
The rates I suggest are much lower than the others for short hauls, but higher for long hauls. Moreover, the difference tends to be accentuated as the length of lead increases.
For example, over a two-mile lead my recommendation is Is. 4*d. to is. 5d. per cubic yd. That of my friends is is. 9d. to 2s. 2d. On the other hand, for a 20-mile lead, I suggest is. 10d. to 8s. 44. per cubic yd. The corresponding quotations from the figures submitted are 4s. 9d. and 5s. As the length of lead extends beyond 20 miles, I recommend an addition of not less than 3Icl.
to 4d. per ton-mile, which is equivalent to 4d. to per cubic yd. per mile lead. The corresponding figures from the quotations are 11d. per cubic yd. per mile lead.
Now, I can readily understand the difference between us in respect of short hauls. I can sympathize with it and acquiesce in it,' for two principal reasons and some others. The two main reasons are that my figures are minima (if any advance on them be obtainable, then obtain it by all means) and that short hauls are not pleasant. These short journeys entail a maximum of laborious effort on the part of the men and a corresponding maximum of stress on the vehicle, especially on the tipping gear and the bodywork, the two most vulnerable parts. It is, therefore, permissible—perhaps even advisable—to allow the rates for short hauls to stand according to my friends' schedule. Among the other reasons is one mentioned in the first article of this series—that a preponderance of short hauls considerably increases expenditure on fuel.
Higher Rates for Long Hauls.
Not so the rates for long hauls. Here the very reason which, in part, justifies the retention of the higher rates for short hauls, is equally potent in compelling, adjustment of those rates in an upward direction, so that they more nearly agree with mine. The reason is that my rates are minima.
Take the most favourable figure quoted-4s. Pd. per cubic yd. for hopper-loaded sand. Assume an average of 3 loads per day, or 16 loads per week. The weekly mileage is 640. The revenue from loads of 5 cubic yds. (this figure can rarely be exceeded without
loading the back axle beyond the legal limit) is 119. The bare cost of operating an oil-engined lorry of average (non-tipping) type is £18 14s. per week for the weekly mileage quoted, so that there is a balance of only 6s. per week for establishment costs and profit. If petrol lorries be used, as may be, the cost of operation is £21 19s,, in which case the revenue earned fails to cover the cost of using the vehicle.
The minimum revenue should be £29 3s. for a petrolengined lorry (non-tipper) or E25 8s. for an oil-engined vehicle (also non-tipping). Actually, petrol-engiuedvehicle figures should serve as a basis for these rates, and there should be provision for the extra costs described in a previous article, making the basic figures for rates calculation, in the case of a maximum-load four-wheeler, 3s. 10d. per hour and 8d. per mile (see Table I, The Commercial Motor, March 26). For a week's work, as described (48 hours and a mileage of 640), the revenue should be E9 4s. for time and £21 7s. 6d. for mileage, say, 230 in all. It is worthy of note that this is just short of is. per mile.
The worst feature of all, however, is the offer to carry at the rate of lid. per mile per cubic yd. for each mile over the 20 miles at which the schedule proper terminates. For a load of 5 cubic yds. this means a revenue of only Thd. per two miles run, or 34c1. per mile. I feel sure that I need not adduce figures to demonstrate the utter inadequacy of that rate. My own suggestion41d. per cubic yd. per mile—is equivalent to lid, per mile run.
I should like to emphasize that I have taken the maximum-load four-wheeler as the example in the foregoing calculations, because it is, in the long run, the most economic. If smaller vehicles be used, the position, so far as the prospect of profit is concerned, becomes worse. I suggest to my friends, therefore, that they revise their schedule, combining my figures and their own, by the simple process of selecting, for the new list ot rates, the higher figure for any lead.
It is a far cry from sand haulage to horse transport. Both classes of work are, however, within the ambit of the friends who have asked me to criticize their rates, as also are granite, bricks, tiles, coal, stone, lime, cement, furniture and livestock. They have scheduled rates for all these commodities, as well as day rates for lorry hire, and I am going through them all. Obviously, it would take too long to deal with every type of haulage in such detail as was exemplified in the case of sand. I am taking some extreme examples and considering them at length, and shall then be in a position to discuss the others in comparatively few words. The transport of horses is one of those examples cited in the first article of this series (March 26), which, on account of its exigency in such matters as the type of vehicle and irregularity of employment, necessitates some adjustment to average basic figures for costs and charges, as a preliminary to the calculation of minimum rates.
First, as regards the vehicle, the schedules I am asked to review relate to the conveyance of racehorses, polo ponies and bloodstock generally. Obviously it is necessary to reckon on first-class horseboxes. A horsebox of ordinary quality may cost 50-75 per cent. more than an average vehicle of the same chassis type and net load capacity. If it be a little better than ordinary, the additional cost may reach 100 per cent. -Luxurious boxes exceed even that figure.
Horseboxes Expensive to Operate.
Leaving the last-named out of our calculation, it is, nevertheless, necessary to budget for an addition of 75 per cent, to the average first cost of the vehicle complete. That will affect two of the ten items of operating cost—depreciation and interest—both of which will have to .be estimated at 75 per cent, more than average.
Maintenance is much more costly. Not only is the bodywork itself more expensive to keep in repair and in a presentable condition, but there are so many interior fittings which are subject to wear and damage. At least 50 per cent. must be added to average maintenance data, even if it be appreciated that, owing to the irregularity of employment, the driver will have leisure to carry out some maintenance operations and if allowance be made for any saving effected in that way.
It is likely that, as compared with chassis of equivalent load capacity, the tax rating will, in some instances, be higher in the case of horseboxes than in any other. For one thing, the speed limit of 30 m.p.h. applies throughout the range. There is, therefore, no incentive to keep below the Emit of 2-1 tons unladen weight in the lighter types. In any event, the bodywork has to be substantial. I am not overlooking the fact that some remarkably light horseboxes have been made. I regard then?, however, as exceptions to the general rule.
Ga' tge rent may be above the average, because of the reluctance of the owner of a costly horsebox to house it in poverty stricken surroundings. Insurance will certainly be more expensive. The net result, in terms of running costs and standing charges, is .set out in Table VI.
Irregular Work a Big Factor.
The factor of irregular employment is just . as important, in its effect on profitable rates, as the more intensive incidence of certain items of operating cost. An average week's work is about 36 hours: this figure is arrived at by taking the total hours worked per annum and dividing by 50. What that means may easily be demonstrated by taking a simple example.
Assume that the total standing charges are £6 per week. For a 48-hour week that sum is equivalent to 2s. 6d. per hour. If the average week be of only 36 hours' duration, the cost per hour is 3s. 4d. This also has been calculated and is set out for various sizes of vehicle in Table VI. Before starting to set out a schedule of rates, for comparison with those submitted to me, I should point out that a 2-ton chassis is suitable for a two-horse box ; a 3-tonner for a two or threehorse box, and a 4-tonner for a three or four-horse box. S.T.R. (To be continued.)