Prime Objectives
Page 65
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
VER since the issue in March this year of the plan for the reshaping of British Railways, many of the opposers have naïvely contended that because the plan would 'sely affect their interests it must be nationally unsound. itaggering losses and high percentage of empty running are aside on the grounds that it is a public service, even to xtent of those who admittedly do not use the railways to legree. but consider it to be nationally expedient to keep p'stem in being just in case they might wish to use it.
t at the same time there is also considerable criticism that ao many vehicles arc running about empty, and in parir those operating under C licence. Even if this claim valid it would seem an illogical stand to take, as the :nee operator would at least be paying for this "economic ge" out of his own pocket. This situation would be in ed contrast with the persistent demands made on the airy to keep the railways in being.
fact, whatever casual observation of road traffic may seem dicate, C-licence operators have to earn a living in the world bounded by such factors as supply and demand ?rofit and loss. That they arc in a sufficiently large way Jsiness to run an ancillary fleet indicates that they have commercially successful in their prime purpose of manure or trading. It is totally illogical to readily assume that appreciable proportion of such otherwise commercially ed undertakings would then indulge in the uneconomic • of running vehicles needlessly, e fault with the great majority of such criticisms of road port operation is that it is primarily based on superficial N ation coupled with a fundamental difference as to the • of priorities. With the knowledge that he personally o pay for every mile run, the C-licence operator is corn to make a cool and calculated decision as to the balance ten standards of service and its ultimate cost. Mans. of ritics of C-licence operation, however, adopt the attitude it is transport's prime function to fit neatly into some ill national plan and, incidentally, provide services below so as to make the other "plans" work.
f-TO-DAY ADJUSTMENTS
en when the C-licence operator has made an overall ion as to the standard of transpoit service he considers his Less requires, day-to-day adjustments are still necessary te his expert knowledge in a specialized field. He alone ill the facts at his fingertips on which to decide whether ot a specific journey is justified. Such decisions are plied daily in every transport office. In contrast, it is y fallacious to contend that such decisions could he ssfully made on an overall basis, even at some regional and certainly not nationally. What in fact would happen attempt were made would be a reduction in the standard rvice so that any " economy " claimed would be justifiable if the service previously provided was excessive.
lC analogy of personal transport is pertinent to this subject. eep a business appointment a man may have the choice iblic transport. taxi or his own private car. The cost may in all three cases but it may well be that over a period ids it convenient to use each of the three alternatives, des:he difference in cost, because on a particular occasion one form is the most convenient. Particularly as he personalty will be meeting the cost, few would dispute his right to make whatever decision he chooses. Incidentally, it is significant that the motorist who complains of "excessive" commercial traffic travelling empty for much of the time, appears to accept as not unreasonable the fact that his vehicle operates at least 75 per cent unloaded for most of its working life.
The traffic which any particular C-licence operator carries largely determines the standard of service which will have to be provided. Perishable foodstuff, and allied products either in semi-processed or finished state, are the more obvious examples of goods requiring delivery to strict timetable. But with the ever-increasing application of quantity production there is a correspondingly increasing demand for goods not previously considered to be of an urgent nature to be delivered to a time schedule. It is. or should be, self-evident that it is the prime function of a transport manager in any of these industries to meet such demands by the provision of a service of adequate standard.
SEARCH FOR ECONOMY
In no such case would the economics of providing such a service be of little or no concern. As with the maintenance of the standard of service. endeavours to achieve greater efficiency would be a daily and continuing exercise. But however strenuously the search for further economies may be pressed, it would he a mistaken policy to pursue such a course to the extent that it became the prime objective, with a resulting fall in the standard of service.
To the experienced transport manager it is bordering on the facetious to have elaborated to him by "experts" the savings that can be effected by back-loading without consideration of all other factors involved.
It is an unfortunate but common commercial experience that many decisions made repeatedly during every working day are between the lesser of two economic evils rather than a choice between the economic and uneconomic. Where backloads are readily, and conveniently available, every transport manager would obviously take advantage of them. But particularly where C-licence operation is concerned such an ideal situation is seldom the case. The problem is usually one of determining to what extent one is prepared to partially restrict outward delivery (for which purpose the department was primarily set up) in order to achieve whatever benefits are to be derived from back-loading.
A typical example of such a situation might arise in the delivery of semi-perishable and semi-processed foodstuffs. In a particular case the average load was 7 tons for delivery to points around 150 miles away. Because of the nature of the product, delivery had to be effected within 24 hours of loading. Whilst some progress has been made with delivery in bulk of this particuar product, the large majority still continues to be delivered by the traditional method necessitating ample terminal time for loading and unloading.
As a result a normal week's work for such a 7-tonner would be to load over the week-end for delivery on Monday, returning to reload on Tuesday. After delivery on Wednesday a return would be made on Thursday for the third and final load for that week, again delivered the following day. Return would be made on Saturday for the cycle of loading and unloading to re-commence.
Although of little or no interest to the casual observer, 011 each occasion the vital empty containers—though small in weight and so unimpressive as some notional ton-mile figure— are brought back for re-filling. Failure to perform this allimportant function would soon mean that outward loads could no longer be prepared.
After consultation between an efficiency expert and the company's directors a transport manager in this particular industry was instructed that vehicles must be back-loaded in an effort to reduce costs. But, as in many other cases, such back-loads were neither readily available nor conveniently placed. Whilst in some manufacturing industries the incoming basic material might be available within reasonable distance of the area of delivery of the finished product, there are a large number of industries where this is not so. Agriculture and the allied foodstuffs trade are a case in point. Here the general trend is from sparsely-populated to urban areas with a further complication of substantial variation in the loads carried inwards and outwards as between the seasons.
NEW ARRANGEMENTS
In this particular instance new arrangements were made so that the driver made his Monday delivery as usual, after which be was detailed to make a collection. But for reasons already mentioned the point of collection was at a considerable distance from Monday's delivery point. Moreover, loading facilities were not ideal so that after proceeding a further 100 miles on Tuesday (instead of 150 miles back to his home base as was his usual custom) the driver was informed that his vehicle could not be loaded that day. Having then stayed overnight in the area he returned on Wednesday and after loading commenced the return journey of 200 miles, arriving back at his home base on Thursday evening. He was then off-loaded on Friday, but by that time there was no point in re-loading because ot the operation of a five-day week with the company to which he would have delivered. So apart from washing and servicing, no further useful work was done that day.
Apart from difficulties of location and timing of return loads, an operator would indeed consider himself fortunate if he could consistently back-load to the capacity of the particular vehicle. In this particular case 5 tons was in fact brought back, which might be considered a reasonable average.
It is interesting to compare the cost of operating a 7-tonner under these two arrangements Formerly, the vehicle would have made three return trips of an average mileage of 300 per trip, i.e., 900 in all. Even excluding the small but vital amount of empties brought back on each occasion, 21 tons would have been delivered during the week. As shown in the current edition of "The Commercial Motor" Tables of Operating Costs, the operating cost of this 7-tonner, when fitted with oil engine and averaging 900 miles a week is 13.66d, a mile. The total operating cost per week would then be £51 4s. 6d., excluding any addition for overtime or subsistence allowance. With 21 tons moved during the week the cost per ton would be £2 8s. 9d.
In the second week's arrangement the triangular journey consisted of the usual 150 miles outwards, a 100-mile intermediate journey to the collection point and a further 200 miles on the return home. This gives a total weekly mileage of 450, which at the increased cost per mile of 20.10d. because of the lower mileage, gives a total cost for the week.of £37 13s. 9d. On this occasion 7 tons was carried on the outward journey and 5 tons on the return. With the resulting total of 12 tons, the cost per ton amounted to £3 2s. 9d.
Admittedly this particular comparison might be unfortunate in the amount of time which had to be allowed for collecting the return load. If it were possible to arrange similar collections weekly it might well be that half a day or so could be saved, thus making possible the all-important return on Thursday afternoon for re-loading for a further outward delivery the same week. If that proved possible then there would obviously be an improvement of the figure of £3 2s. 9d. a ton. But it will be seen that there is a considerable leeway to be made up before the figure of £2 8s. 9d. normally averaged is achieved.
Another aspect which cannot be easily quantified is the fulfilment of maintenance schedules as and when they become due. Under the first arrangement journey timings were sufficiently consistent to allow maintenance work to be fitted in with reasonable certainty. But under the second arrangement it could well be that some pre-arranged maintenance work might have to go by the board in the interest of more urgent loading or unloading problems. Whilst the odd occasion might have no detrimental effect, an accumulation of such occurrences obviously would.