Problems of the
Page 62
Page 63
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HAULIER and CARRIER MANY hauliers will, no doubt, have been somewhat disappointed, when comparing the figures of operating cost of oil-engined vehicles given in two recent articles . with those in The Commercial Motor Tables of Operating Costs, which, of course, apply to petrol-engined chassis. Most hauliers will have been led to expect much greater savings than are shown in the figures. That this disappointment should arise is not the fault of the oil-engined chassis. but of some of the too-enthusiastic sponsors of the new type of power unit. Some of these oil-engine protagonists have rather run away with themselves.
There was, for .example, a booklet produced some months ago, earlier in the day of the oil-engined vehicle, with the title "One-third of 'a Penny Per Mile," or something to that effect—I cannot recall the exact words. In my opinion, in that publication the auttor not only exaggerated the savings in cost of fuel which would be effected by the use of oil-engined chassis, but assumed that almost every one of the other chief items of operating cost would also be favourably affected. Such an assumption is not merely without justification in fact, but it is almost an absurdity.
Over-emphasizing One Point.
Nearly all the oil-enginewadvocates concentrate on one point of view and confine their attention to the savings which accrue from the change of fuel, emphasizing that feature alone and neglecting to draw attention to the relative importance of that item of fuel cost in relation to the other nine principal details of operating cost.
This is not by any means to be interpreted as a tirade directed against oil-engine advocates. In their way they were doing their best for their side. Someone has to advertise a new departure, and it is unfortunately the fact that without some measure of exaggeration the attention of the ordinary reader would not be attracted.
B44 My business, at least so far as these articles are concerned, is carefully to weigh the pros and cons of any subject and be moderately con,servativeln my attitude towards new departures.
As I stated previously in this brief series of articles, the function of dxperimenting and pioneering is best left to those who are better able to bear the cost. Oneman-one-lorry owner-driver hauliers are not of that class.
The aspect of the matter which does make me wish to deal severely with these enthusiasts and take them, to task is that, in their propaganda, they take the very line which I have so often deprecated in ray advice to hauliers, that of regarding the running costs of a motor vehicle as being almost entirely comprised in the expenditure on fuel. That, as is well known, is the root cause of all that practice of rate cutting which is the bane of the haulage business to-day.
I have striven for many years to get the haulier out of the habit of thinking that his expenditure on fuel and oil is his running cost, and into the way of remembering all the other items. To have a body of scribeS treat _all my warnings as naught is irritating, to say the least of it.
If I had my way there would be a large brass plate on the dashboard of every vehicle run by a haulage contractor, bearing these words: "There are 10 items of cost involved in the operation of a motor vehicle: they are fuel, lubricants, tyres, maintenance, depreciation, licence, wages, rent and rates, insurance and interest on first cost. Not one of them must for a moment be overlooked."
At any rate, readers of these articles will not so readily have been led astray in the matter of oil-engine propaganda.
Real and Substantial Economies.
Now that I have had my little grouse I can, with an easy conscience, point out that the economies made possible by the use of oil fuel Instead of petrol, whilst they are nothing like those suggested by oil-engine advocates, are nevertheless real and substantial. Readers who have examined the figures given in the recent tables of running cost and compared them with our regular figures, and who have noted that the maximum savings appear to be from lid, to lid, per mile and have been disappointed thereat, are really underestimating the value to them of an economy of that amount.
If these figures be requoted in terms of annual savings it will at once become apparent that they represent economies which are by no means to be ignored. It is important, too, to bear in mind that the figures given are conservative. They have on that account the advantage of being the more likely to represent actuality. Readers may depend upon achieving the economies indicated. They would not so readily be able to effect the savings promised in other and more exaggerated estimates, The slight increase in standing charges need worry no one. As explained already, and demonstrated by diagram, they become negligible so soon as the mileage reaches ordinary and reasonable figures. There is an actual saving on 100 miles per week of 0.4d. to 1.00. per mile, whilst if the mileage be increased to 800 per week the saving is from id. to 11d. per mile.
The equivalent of the economy of 0.4d. per mile on 100 miles per week is £8 per annum. Three-halfpence per mile on 800 miles per week is equivalent to £250 per annum. Eight pounds per annum is very little, but so also is 100 miles per week. The total operating cost of a 3-tonner, covering 100 miles per week, is about only .£400 per year, whereas the cost of operating an 8tonner for a year, if it covers 800 miles per week, is £3,500,
Saving Between 0.6d. and 1.4d. a Mile,
Most commercial vehicles in the hands of the average user cover .about 20,000 miles per annum, say, 400 miles per week. For that mileage the economy ranges from 0.6d. per mile to 1.4d. per mile, which is equivalent to £50 to £120 per annum, that is, from £1 to nearly £2 10s. per week. I imagine no one will deny that the Saving is worth while.
Passenger vehicles usually cover a more extensive mileage and probably 50,000 miles per annum, or about 1,000 miles per week, is a figure which compares with the above 20,000 miles for goods vehicles. The economies effected by the use of heavy oil instead of petrol as fuel range from £90 to £200 per annum.
The haulier's interest in this matter lies more particularly in the charges that he can make for particular jobs, and how far he is going to be able to reduce those charges to meet the keen competition which prevails to-day. It will therefore be useful to take one or two examples.
The first, a simple one, is of a 50-mile haul, using a 5-ton lorry, and involving altogether 100 miles of running. Assume 20,000 miles per year to be the contractor's average mileage, that is, 400 miles per week. The charge, in the case of a petrol-engined vehicle, will be is. 21d. per mile and the total £6 Os. 10d. Using an oil-engined chassis, he could charge 1s. 11d. per mile and still make the same profit. The total in that case would be £5 12s. 6d.
The Case of an 8-tonner.
Now take the case of a run from London to Birmingham and back-240 miles. Let the vehicle be an Stormer and assume that it covers 600 miles per week as an average. In the case of a petrol-engined vehicle the charge would still be at the rate of is. 21d. per mile and the total 114 10s. for -the round trip. With an oilengined machine the charge could, with equal profit, be reduced to 1s. id. per mile, a thtal of £13. That shows a cut of £1 10s. on the charge for the round journey, or 15s. each way, nearly 2s. per ton each way.
Another way of making use of the figures is to interpret them in terms of a charge per hour and per mile. Take a five-day week as a basis of calculation and nine working hours per day. Assume that the haulier is satisfied with a gross profit of £1 2s. 6d. per day for any size vehicle. The standing charges divided by 45 (hours per week) give the cost per hour. Two shillings and sixpence added to that sum for gross profit will give the charge per hour.
Now in the case of a 3-ton petrol vehicle these figures will become 2s. 7d. per hour for the standing charge: adding 2s. 6d. makes the actual charge 5s. 1d. per hour. The running cost is 5.11d. per mile. In the case of an oil-engined chassis the corresponding figures are 2s. Sd. per hour, making 5s. 2d. per hour for the charge and 4.40d. per mile the running cost.
Economic Rate Reduction.
Taking, as an example, a day's work, including GO miles of running, then, with a 3-ton petrol vehicle the charge would be 45s. 9d. for time, plus 25s. 6d. for mileage-£3 Us. 3d. With the oil-engined chassis the charge for time would be 46s. 6d. and for mileage 22s.; total, £3 8s. 6d., representing an economy of 2s. 9d. On that basis it would, therefore, be possible to reduce the rate per day for a 3-tonner by 2s. 6d. to 3s. and• still show a satisfactory profit. During the course of a week the reduction in rates made possible would be quite attractive to the hirer of the vehicle.
Where the mileage per day happened to be low the economy would not, however, be so marked. On some road-repairing contracts it falls to as little as 20 miles. In that case the charge would be, for the petrol vehicle, 455. 00. as before, plus 8s. 6d., that is 54s. 3d., and for the oil-engined lorry 46s. 6d. plus 7s. 4d., which is 53s. 10d., representing a difference of only 5d. for-the day.
There is, however, a point which should be borne in mind in favour of the oil-engined chassis when employed on work which involves small mileages. Its economy is more marked on work of that class, because it is really on idle running that the saving in fuel is achieved,
A Peculiar Factor.
This is a fundamental characteristic of the oil engine which, to my mind, has not been sufficiently emphasized, It is one which obviously cannot be indicated in figures of operating cost, and probably this is the first time on record that I have been able to point to an example of greater economy being possible on small-mileage work than might be the case on longdistance contracts. That is another point in favour of the oil engine.
Now that a further addition has been made to the tax on petrol, and whilst I should, perhaps, do all that I can to encourage readers to keep to the petrol engine so that we may the more quickly make up the deficit in Mr. Snowden's budget, my habit of holding strictly to my own business impels me to point out that this is yet a further argument in favour of the oil engine.