Retail Transport.
Page 5
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Contradictory Views Advanced before the Inst.A.E.
Messrs. A. Ludlow Clayden and Harold Barchall read a paper last night (Wednesday) before the Institotien of Automobile Engineers. The paper largely consists of an attack upon vehicles with a, load capacity of 15 cwt. to one ton, apart from some useful references, with which we deal later, to wider scope for the employment of parcelcars.
There are sweeping assertions in regard to the general unsuitability of one-ton vans, and several of these indicate a leek of knowledge on the• part of the authors Of practice on the commercial side of the industry. For example, we are told that "the one-ton van is a highly-finished coach body attached to a pleasureee-ar chassis," and also that " the oneton van is perhaps not worthy of a great deal of attention at the hands of automobile engineers." Many owners of serviceable one-ton vehicles will know how far removed, from feet is the first of these criticisms, whilst manufacturers of approved types will be equally at variance with it. If the attention of engineers is not required, it is bemuse approved one-tonners are so good. We are at a loss to know why Messrs. Clayden and Burchall set out to adopt " destructive lines of criticism of the one-ton van," which go quite outside statements germane to " retail transport." In so far as the paper deals at length with the problem of the utilization of parcelmrs and small vans, it admirably enforces the arguments which we have advanced over a long term of years. It largely repeats, in another form, the contents of a special article which we published in January, 1911, and which article was later in that year reproduced in ta number of trade journals. It also deals with the numerous points which we have examined in our series of light-van articles this year, dating back to the 19th February.
Some interesting points of differences are explained between the requirements of different. tradesmen, euch as Webers, bakers, grocers, milkmen, greengrocers, and laundry proprietors. The authors consider that in the past too much stress has been laid upon maintenance costs, and far too little upon first cost. They refer to the enormous vogue of the pedal-propelled cycle for delivery purposes, but do not examine the retention of this handy system of delivery in conjunction with the• much-abused one-ton van.
In regard to tires, it is suggested that pneumatic tires are very much cheaper in service than .solid-rubber tires, and it is pointed out that few tradesmen appreciate " that the cost of a set of tires (solids) is considerably greater than that of a new horse." This alleged expense certainly does not bold good nowadays for a one-tonner ; the.reverse is the. case, since the cost of a new set of solid-rubber tires for a one-ton van is considerably lower than that of a horse. Further, the cost of solid tires on a one-ton van is loss per mile run than the proved cost of pneumatic tires for a 5-cirt. parcelcar. We agree that there may be no predilection on the part of many retail traders for a one-ton motorvan, but it is wrong to _ assert that such a vehicle is ina,ppropriately employed for such delivery. Hundreds of users up and down the country, who serve their retail departments by such delivery, are well satiefied with the one-ton van.
It is, of course, erroneous to state that "the smaller vehicles that carry about,5 cwt. each are capable of carrying the same total load on the same outlay figure, and at practically the same cost per ton-mile." Whilst the capital outlay may be no higher, to deal with the same total deliveries per day the cost per ton-mile is much higher ; this is in part due to the enforcedemployment of more drivers, and in part to the much higher total costs for tires, maintenance, fuel and stores, not to mention other exceptional charges, with four units. We are amused to read "there seems to be very little chance for the one-ton van except in cases where the load is not readily divisible into smaller loads aggregating net more than 5 cwt. each." • So will be many of our readers. One of the contradictions hi the paper is the following. We are told that "until the volume of trade is sufficiently expanded to entail a greater amount of delivery, the motor vehicle (one-tonner) must remain idle part of the time." In the next paragraph we are told that the one-ton van cannot deal with the orders which are given after it has left on its round for the day, whereas the smaller unit can. We thought the one-tonner was already back, and standing idle! This special pleading for the smaller unit is out of place ; there is room for both sizes of vehicle, even in retail trading.
An interesting suggestion in the latter part of the paper is that there should be an extension of the well-known carrying and delivery practice of feeding branch depots by means of large depot-to-depot units travelling from headquarters, the meal delivery then to be undertaken by smaller units. This idea is, of course, a very old one, but there are possibilities of its further extension by some retail traders.
We agree that any vehicles must compete on the score of durability and cost of running, and not only on first cost to which earlier reference is made. We summarize the authors' views : the first cost must be as low as possible; the upkeep must be. reasonable; there must, be no necessity for skilled handling ; it must be very easy to get either out of it and get into the driver's seat ; it must be easy to start the engine, so as to discourage idle running. •