Hindrances
Page 38
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
hich Affect
RATES ESTABLISHMENT I R LIVESTOCK HAULAGE
IT is necessary, for the sake of continuity, to repeat the concluding paragraph of my previous article (The Commercial Motor, December 30), in which a typical week's work with a livestock-carrying vehicle was described. The vehicle employed was a 3-tonner and it carried, on one day, a load of 30 lambs and 23 calves over a distance of 54 miles, the vehicle returning empty. The payment was Is. for each lamb and 2s. per calf.
• On another day, 24 lambs and 27 calves were con veyed 120.miles, the vehicle again returning empty. On this occasion the price was is. 3d. per lamb and 2s. 6d. per calf, and on the third day. 38 calves were taken a distance of 94 miles at 2s. 3d: each, the haulier on this Occasion picking up a load of 70 Iambs on the return journey and conveying them six miles, for which he received a lump sum of 15s.
It is of interest to assume that we can, for the word " typical," substitute " average" and discuss the revenue, and possibility of profit, in the light of the figures for operating cost and minimum revenue which were set out in the tables in the previous article.
• Revenue for a Week's Work • The revenue is as follows :-30 calves at Is., £,1 10s.; 23 calves at 2s., £2 6s.; 24 lambs at Is. 3d., Ll 10s.; 27 calves at 2s. 6d., £3 7s. 6d.; 38 calves at 2s. 3d., £4 5s. 6d.; 70 Iambs for 15s. The total, for this week's work, is £13 14s., and, in order to do the work, the vehicle had to cover 536 miles.
Now, according to the figures for cost and revenue set out in the previous article, if the vehicle had covered 500 miles in the week it ought to have earned at least £17 6s. 10d., which is considerably in excess of £13 14s.
Actually, the vehicle-operating cost alone; as was proved in that table, is 212 16s. 10d. for the 500 miles and is E13 7s. 10d. for 536 miles, leaving a margin of only 6s. 2d. to cover establishment costs and provide some sort of a profit for the haulier. The rates are, obviously, too low, because the revenue is insufficient.
This is the sort of thing that complicates the problem of agreeing a rates schedule. I can take a simple case, one which is, nevertheleis, cOmmbii in the industry. It occurs on what I might call the outwardjoUrney of a cattle-haulier's vehicle, that is, when it is setting out to B32 pick up animals for conveyance to the local market.
The haulier may call on a farmer quite near his head.
quarters and pick up, Say; five head-of cattle to be con
veyed 124 miles or so to the market.
For this, in most parts of the country, the-price will be 12s. 6d. This is arrived at in 'what may seem to the farmer to be a perfectly logical manner. He, probably, has a fixed idea in' his' mind that a haulier is well paid for his work on the basis of "a bob a mile" (that meaning a loaded mile). With five head of cattle, that means that the haulier is being paid at the rate of 2s. 6d. a head.
He may Or may not pick up another odd beast on the way to the market-that is largely a matter of luck. If he be successful in obtaining a fairly large load from the market, there is a chance that he can make that day's work pay, always provided that the load from the market be not picked up at such a time and under such conditions as would make it necessary for him either to put another mans on the vehicle or to break the law as regards drivers hours. •
The next week, when -serving the same market, he may call on the same farmer at the commencement of the
journey and pick up only one beak. Does the farmer adhere to the piii,ciple of '.' a bob a mile " and pay him
12s. 6d. for taking that beast to market? He does not. He suggests to the haulier that it is more than likely that he will be able to pick up the remainder of his •load on the way to -market and that, in any case, it is perfectly absurd that he should pay 12s. 6d. for the carriage of one beast to market.
Now, the haulier is, or might be, in this predicament : that, on the first of the above two days, there was a chance of picking up sufficient to make a load on the way to market, but the potential customers, being disgruntled because he was unable to help them on that day, have taken their custom to a competitor on the second day. That, obviously, does not make for profitable business.
In the Majority of cases, of course, the procedure is not quite that outlined. The cattle haulier with several vehicles makes his preparations for the day's work the night before, and plans it so that, whenever possible, each of his vehicles, if not loaded to capacity, does at least carry a load that will bring him some tangible reward for his work.
• Theory Alone is Useless • Hauliers all over the country are trying to arrive at some sort of a basis for rates. The result of one particular report, in that direction, is embodied in Tables I to IV which accompany this article. The figures are logical but, for the reason given indirectly in the example above, are quite impracticable.
Take, for example, Table IV, which gives what ought to be the rates for carrying livestock in a 3-ton vehicle up to a point 20 miles away. A sum of Is. 4d. per loaded mile is what I would regard as a minimum rate and, therefore, logically, if a farmer wishes a beast to be carried 20 miles he should pay 26s. 8d. for that ser vice, as is set out in the Table. There is not the remotest prospect of any farmer being persuaded to pay anything like 26s. 8d. If he paid a third of that sum, the average haulage contractor would be pleased and satisfied.
In a subsequent article I hope to carry this discussion a stage farther towards a basis for calculation of haulage rates for livestock,