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 
Thoughts on Depot Planning
Page 98
Page 99
Page 100
Page 103
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BY A. J. BRISCOE,
F.C.C.S., A.M.I.T.A.
Many points have to be considered when designing a transport depot. In the case of maintenance workshops company policy will play a large part. THE current trend of expansion in the road haulage industry has created the need to search for larger premises or, alternatively, to reorganize existing premises to cover a changing demand. Previously, the activities of most companies have been centred around traffic operations, and the subsidiary services to this main function have received only small consideration. There is no doubt now that (at least, in the opinion of many operators) smooth operation depends on the contribution of every person in every department, and not only the traffic manager and the driver.
Experience has shown that in planning the layout of a new depot the two main considerations are: 1. Priority of the requirements of each department relating to the allocation of space and its position on the site in relation to other departments. 2. Planning of the site to ensure that future expansion plans are covered; the available space for structural expansion taking each department's requirements separately, and the increase in staff and consequent staff facilities.
The particular department we are concerned with is vehicle maintenance. The factors controlling its size depend on the extent and nature of the repairs for which the engineer will be responsible, and may consist of; (a) the size of the fleet and the intended size in the predictable future; (b) the extent of standardization within the fleet; (c) the nature of the vehicles; (d) the extent of body repairs to be carried out; (e) the extent and types of workshops to be included.
Priority for maintenance function The growing importance of maintenance is evident in most companies. But prior to nationalization it was often considered a necessary evil, very expensive and a drain on profits, and the demand for vehicles by the traffic depart ment made temporary repairs the rule rather than the exception. Now, the original policy of some operators of running a new vehicle to death and then replacing it has been nullified by the increase in the price of new vehicles and has prompted operators to reconsider the position and pay more attention to maintenance.
Servicing and inspection of the vehicles are being given priority over running repairs and even taking priority over traffic. This policy, which is not new to some operators, will probably be a headache to the general manager in his attempts to reconcile the demands of the engineer and the traffic manager.
The size of the fleet and its potential, will naturally have the most marked effect. It will establish the size of the department and staff, the degree of specialization that will operate within the department, the extent of the maintenance operations and the nature of the equipment.
Extent and nature of repairs to be carried out
The servicing programme is the most important factor in any organization and requires a lot of planning. To illustrate the plan in its true perspective it is necessary to assume a fleet size, so we will consider the minimum requirements of a fleet of 100 vehicles.
A period of 10 weeks between services (five services per year) could coincide with about 6,000 miles for each general service vehicle and probably /2„000 miles for each trunk vehicle. The trunk vehicles should receive special attention, but the nature of their work makes them available for more frequent servicing (periods could be shortened by extending the facilities).
A fleet of IOU vehicles. should .enable the degree of specialization within the department to be relatively wide, so all servicing could coincide with an inspection by each of the specialists, who would report on the systems for which he was responsible. With adequate reports. faults developing in a system would be located and, after a secondary inspection by the engineer, booked for future 'docking when the parts or units are available. Docking programmes must be clearly defined in the company's policy, but with a fleet of 100 vehicles could be undertaken in the company's own workshop, .particularly with specialization of labour in operation. If the inspections carried out during servicing were adequate and efficient the programme could follow a standard procedure. The methods used would 'depend on maintenance policy, but there is no doubt that unit replacement is the most economical method from the point of view of time taken before returning the Vehicle to service. Unit repair in situ is not a good proposition as it creates disorganization by causing vehicles to wait longer for attention, with resultant deterioration that may necessitate taking them out of service. The loss of use of the vehicle could be more expensive than the additional cost of the more efficient unit replacement method.
Standardization of the fleet Inability to standardize the fleet is the main deterrent to an efficient maintenance programme and arises from a multitude of apparently insurmountable difficulties, the main two being: 1. The restriction on changing unladen weights on the present fleet. 2. The operation of mixed services by the traffic department requiring special vehicles..
Presuming a similarity in the vehicle classes, long-term planning could lead to a form of standardization enabling unit replacement to operate not necessarily only major units as some smaller units could be fitted during servicing without any loss of time.
Individual specialization must lead to speed and efficiency, particularly when the failure of the vehicle would leave the specialist open to criticism if the particular cause for the failure was his responsibility.
Standardization of the fleet would also have the effect of reducing the stock of units carried. The related question of servicing the units must also be considered, although this could be carried out by the specialists when they were free. But this would require a fairly extensive workshop on the premises.
Presuming at this stage that servicing and inspection operate, and providing each maintenance staff member carries out his duty efficiently, the calls for running repairs c36
must diminish and the engineer must appreciate that if every member of his staff were idle-it would be the measure of the efficiency of his department.
Engineers always appear to have the opposite opinion and there is a tendency for them to invent jobs if the traffic department can be persuaded to release vehicles. The inevitability of repairs, however, make it necessary to accommodate this type of service within the department.
Departmental organization The decision relating to the amount of work to be done on any vehicle, either immediately or in the future, depends on the engineer's examination, and he should prepare his works order at the time. All parts likely to be required should be listed by him on the order and no staff member should be permitted to carry out additional work, or fit any additional parts, without his permission. The works order will have attached to it stores requisitions for major items or spares, but expendable items drawn should be recorded on the order.
Repairs will include accident damage, and here again unit replacement will speed up the return of the vehicle to the traffic department, providing body damage is not extensive.
Layout and construction
There may be advantages of apit floor level workshop over a ground floor level one; there are differing opinions on this. But I am sure that certain advantages must exist for a modified version of the former. It is accepted that in heavier vehicles most major units can be lifted from the top-side, but there are still some heavy units that have to be dropped, and the lack of a standard, efficient device to assist in this operation creates difficulty. With the lighter type of vehicle, buses; vans and so on, most units are• dropped to the pit floor. I am not pressing the claim that a pit floor workshop is the most efficient, but a passage between pits and room for a few benches in this passage would be an advantage.
Assuming that a depot is required for 100 vehicles, it will be necessary to accommodate a traffic section with a bank and some covered storage; a maintenance department to cover servicing, repairs and docking and the servicing of units; a parking space for the fleet and an administrative block.
Two and a half acres would be adequate for this, and if the proposals put forward for the maintenance department are accepted the approximate area required for this would be 1,800 sq. yd. If pits were allocated for specific services, two would be required for servicing, one for repairs, one for docking and one extra for emergency, making a total of five. The engineer's office need only be sufficient to contain vehicle records and additional clerical staff would not be required. Working on the assumption that unit servicing takes place on the premises, the workshop should be adequate to cover each unit, although with 100 vehicles one workshop would be sufficient, with the exception of units requiring special consideration, fuel pumps and so on.
The suggested layout (see diagram) is only indicative of the allocation of an area rather than an ideal. In this case the regular shape of the site permits any layout plan to be accommodated without complicated calculations, but when the area involved is irregular the layout design is, naturally, more complicated, requiring a great deal of calculation and planning. Trial and error is not possible when permanent structures are involved, but a board with models to scale would help in making the best decision.
A small pit floor workshop designed by Mr. Harold Wood was included in the new depot of Runcorn Transport Services Ltd. in 1957, and the value of this design has been amply justified—it simplifies inter-pit communication and movement of equipment and, being equipped with benches, fitters do not need to leave the pit to do light bench Work. Further, operated in conjunction with equipment similar to that used by the Luton transport department, it would be invaluable.
The engineer of Luton Corporation Transport has the responsibility for the maintenance of all municipal vehicles and the depot in Kingsway, recently taken into use, has been specifically designed for, this purpose. Unit exchange operates, and the workshop services all its own units. Additionally, they are faced with the problem of body repairs to buses, necessitating a metal shop as well as a body shop and paint shop.
The pit design is unique and efficient; pits are placed line abreast down the centre of the workshop with a permanently covered communication passage through the centre which enables equipment to be moved easily between the pits, all corners having been rounded to facilitate movement. They have adapted a piece of equipment (originally used for dropping tramway car transformers) to serve similar purposes for road vehicles. This is based on the scissors-lever principle, operated by a hand-wheel connecting a rightand left-hand threaded shaft. The mobile platform can be adjusted accurately to a fraction of an inch, which simplifies the removal or fitting of heavy units.
should mention now the centralization of the maintenance function by groups operating multiple fleets. The B.R.S. repair centre, Liverpool, has been designed for the purpose and controls the docking of all vehicles in the North Western area. Operating as an independent unit, consultation with branches on the extent of repairs is an acknowledged requisite of the function. The inspection, surveys and documentation systems in operation are positive, and control is as good, if not better, than most commercially operated depots. The method of unit replacement operates, and the planned reception of vehicles ensures the availability of parts and units.
The pits are independent and set separately around the sides of the main shop. The unit servicing shops and stores are along the inside of the building, backing on to the, administration block, whilst separate paint and body shops are provided within the main building.
Thus we are confronted with a variety of ideas for the same function. There is no doubt that somewhere it has been made the subject of method study, but that no set pattern has emerged is indicative of the different opinions that exist, the different requirements of each operator and the fact that they all believe they have the best idea for themselves. There is no doubt, also, that the basis of operational efficiency is vehicle efficiency, however achieved.