1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192 
Does articulation pay off?
Page 145
Page 146
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AITICS are chosen for such a variety of reasons by both hauliers and C-licence operators that, paradoxically enough, the underlying principle of articulation is often lost. Result: despite the physical opportunity which the at-tic allows of separating tractive unit from semi-trailer a substantial proportion of operators continue to regard their artic as just another complete vehicle.
Apart from servicing and the occasional breakdown, they seldom change over trailers for the very good reason that they have never considered the economical advantage of having spare trailers. I therefore propose to examine in detail the cost of operating a large artic outfit as now permitted under the new consolidated Construction and Use Regulations 1966 and then to examine the effect on the cost of operating additional trailers.
First, however, for the benefit of those operators who have not previously had articulated vehicles in their fleets. I will briefly run over the circumstances in which this type of vehicle can be operated to advantage. Some of these benefits will be shown to be quantifiable, others come within the category of intangible. But, nevertheless, they are of very real value to a transport operator because of the flexibility which articulation, when properly used, can provide.
Underlying all transport operations are the two basic functions of engineering and traffic. In this context the term "engineering" implies the acquisition, operation and maintenance of a vehicle just as one would provide for any other piece of engineering equipment; while the traffic function is to ensure an adequate supply of goods (or passengers) to be moved and to arrange that such movement is made as economically as possible in relation to vehicles available and charges raised.
Because the road transport industry is made up largely of small operational units these functions of engineering and traffic are not always reflected in the organization of the company concerned by the existence of two separate departments so named. But the division of these two functions still remains even though to the layman they may seem to have lost their identity because both are often carried out by-the same personnel simultaneously.
It is under such very conditions that the true potentiality of articulation tends to be overlooked to the disadvantage of the operator concerned. Once the often conflicting demands of engineering and traffic departments can be separated there is greater opportunity for increased efficiency within the organization as a whole.
Thus the flexibility which articulation can provide can be exploited in several ways. Even with the minimum equipment of one tractive unit and one semi-trailer an occasion could arise when an urgent load might be put on a semi-trailer previously positioned for that purpose while an equally urgent adjustment or repair was undertaken on the tractive unit simultaneously. Alternatively, where only limited garage accommodation was available the tractive unit could be properly housed even if it meant the trailer being parked elsewhere. With a rigid vehicle of similar overall length to that of the artic no such arrangements could be made.
Even at the minimum level of one tractive unit and semi-trailer the operator would still have an advantage over the user of a rigid vehicle in similar circumstances, when the opportunity arose to move a new type of traffic requiring different bodywork. If a dualpurpose vehicle to accommodate both the existing and new traffic was not a technical possibility, a difficult decision might have to be made by the operator of the rigid vehicle. If he buys an additional vehicle suitable for the new traffic this may mean one or both vehicles being under-employed for some of the time. If he anticipates that such under-employment may be substantial he can be placed in the unenviable position of having to determine which of the two flows of traffic would be likely to be the most remunerative over the longterm.
The operator of the articulated vehicle, however, in similar circumstances, could meet the requirements of both types of traffic by the purchase of an additional trailer. Even if this was of a more sophisticated type than a standard platform vehicle the outlay involved would still be considerably less than half the corresponding amount of a new rigid vehicle of similar type.
Maximum benefit of the flexibility of articulated vehicles arises when they form the basis of a mediumor large-sized fleet. An extreme example as regards size would be British Road Services where the ratio of tractive units to semi-trailers is around 2.35 with additional trailers of all types totalling 9,483. The latest official figures on articulated vehicles in the UK show that these totalled 54,800 in 1962 and, allowing for a proportional increase of 6.75 per cent, the corresponding figures in 1965 could be conservatively estimated at 58,500. I say conservatively because since August 21 1964 when the amended Construction and Use Regulations came into operation and permitted larger vehicles, there has been an undoubted swing towards the use of articulated vehicles. The greater productivity and flexibility arising from this changeover is specifically referred to in the last annual report of the Transport Holding Co. which operates more than 18,000 vehicles, i.e., powered units, in haulage.
As an indication of the flexibility which articulation can provide to types of bodywork, of the 21,700 artics in 1962 with an unladen weight of over 5 tons, 2,700 were fitted with box body, 3,700 with tanker or other bulk body, another 3,200 with insulated, refrigerated or other types of body while the balance were platform or tipper vehicles.
Estimated cost of operation I will now estimate the cost of operating an artic with platform trailer having a carrying capacity of around 18 tons and I will assume that the average weekly mileage is 1,000, appropriate to the size of vehicle.
With a total unladen weight of 9 tons the annual licence duty incurred is £270. In calculating the five items of standing costs, of which licensing is one, the equivalent weekly cost will be based on a 50-week year, so allowing for two weeks when the vehicle may be undergoing major repairs or on account of the driver's holiday.
On this basis the equivalent weekly cost of licensing, including a proportion of the carrier's A-licence fees, would be £5 9s. 9d. The cost of wages to the employer is reckoned on the basis of a standard 41-hour week and amounts to £13 12s. 9d., inclusive of insurance contributions and an adjustment to permit holidays with pay. It is appreciated that when averaging 1,000 miles a week overtime would be incurred, but as delays at terminal points or traffic congestion in urban areas could contribute to overtime more than the actual mileage run it is not possible to arrive at a realistic estimated "average" amount of overtime. It would be, therefore, more accurate for each operator to add whatever amount of overtime applies in each case to the figure just given.
Rent and rates in respect of garaging the vehicle are reckoned at £1 17s. Od. a week while vehicle insurance based on comprehensive cover in a medium-risk area costs £315 per annum or £6 6s. Od. a week.
For this example I assume that the initial outlay amounts to £5,390, made up of £3,870 for the tractive unit and £1,520 for the trailer. Interest reckoned at a conservative 7+ per cent results in an equivalent weekly charge of £8 is. 9d.
The addition of the five items of standing costs gives a total of £35 7s. 3d. a week or 8.49d. a mile.
Dealing similarly with the five items of running costs, fuel is reckoned to cost 6.58d. a mile based on an average consumption of 8.5 m.p.h. Lubricants add 0.32d. and tyres 3.41d., assuming a mileage life per set of 40,000. Maintenance, inclusive of washing, servicing and repairs, amounts to 4.40d. a mile.
To arrive at the balance to be written off as depreciation the equivalent cost of the original set of tyres is first deducted from the initial price of the outfit, followed by a further deduction of appropriate residual values for both tractive unit and semi-trailer. A resulting depreciation cost per mile is thereby derived of 3.81d.
The total for the five items of running costs is therefore 18.52d. a mile or £77 3s. 4d. a week. The addition of standing and running costs gives a total operating cost of 27.01d. a mile or £112 10s. 7d. a week, still assuming that the 18-ton artic averages 1,000 miles a week.
Regarding thse flexibility in type of body that could be fitted to a semi-trailer there are obviously a great variety of types and, correspondingly, of amounts of initial outlay. But as some indication of the effect on operating cost, if the initial outlay on the semi-trailer was £500 more than already stated because of a more sophisticated type of construction there would be an addition of 13s. a week to the interest charged and 0.33d. per mile to the cost of depreciation. The resulting total operating cost per mile would then be 27.49d. as compared with the basic 27.01d. per mile.
If the bodywork was still more elaborate and so incurring an additional outlay of £1,000, i.e., £2,520 in all, the total operating cost would then be 27.98d. a mile or £116 Ils. 4d. a week as compared with the basic £112 10s. 7d.
We will now look briefly at the effect of operating one or more spare trailers with either one or two tractive units, Considering first one tractive unit, no matter how many spare trailers were in use the combined total mileage of all the trailers would equal that of the tractive unit. Theoretically, there would be no addition to running costs but in practice most operators would give some attention to the spare semi-trailers by way of washing and a minimum of greasing. Accordingly, a nominal amount of 15s. a week is allowed for this. In addition there would, of course, be an addition to the interest charge for each additional trailer operated and the effect of the two together is to add 0.72d. a mile to the total operating cost.
Starting, therefore, with a basic operating cost per mile of 27.01d, for one tractive unit and one semi-trailer, the corresponding amount for one unit and two trailers is 27.73d. rising to 28.45d, a mile for one unit and three trailers—i.e., one trailer attached to a unit with two trailers spare. This latter combination would permit one trailer at each end being loaded or unloaded while the one attached to the unit was in transit, Similarly, two units and two trailers would cost together 54.02d. a mile to operate and, with the addition for spare trailers, this amount could rise to 56.18d. a mile when two units and five trailers were operated, which in effect would be a similar ratio to that maintained by BRS.