H&R go green....the policies, not the trucks.
Speed limiters on trucks are in the process of being turned down as and when trucks go near the workshops. Speeds originally limited to 65mph are being set at 62mph in a bid to help with enviromental issues.
This in my opinion is all well and good, I do my bit and recycle when I can but the limiting of trucks affects me personally and I am not too chuffed with that.
The main reason is that I am paid by the mile, limit my speed and you limit the distance I can drive in a set period of time, for an example 10hrs x 65mph = 650miles......10hrs x 62mph = 620miles so I need to work for an extra 30mins to cover the same distance.
H&R say that the Blue Chip companies we haul for have asked them to show how they are committing to enviromental issues and this is one step in an ongoing cause.
I believe that the drivers should be compensated and a payrise should be in order which reflects the percentage of the cut in top speed (approx 5%). The savings in fuel should easily compensate for this alone and in return would not only prove to the Blue Chip companies that H&R is doing its bit but also that it is looking after its drivers....the very people who are delivering the loads to them.
8 comments:
Phil, it actually caused drivers to leave Big Freight when they done the same last year, I personally know 3 who left with the reduction in speed being the main reason for leaving. They are actually forcing drivers to drive longer and break the law by doing so in order to continue to keep the same standard of living. I wonder how the people who come up with these ideas would feel if they were told they were going to have to work 30 min longer every day for tthe same money!!!
Hi Dave, long time no hear.
I dont know if any drivers have left H&R because of the new limits.
A lot of our runs are very tight time wise already so its going to make a big difference, I can see the "Running late" macro being used a lot.
I totally understand about working longer for the same money, imagine a boss walking into the office and telling everyone they had to stop back everday for 30mins as they hadnt done enough work through the day? There would be an uprising.
Good to hear from you again.
All the best,Phil
Haha, you missed me then?? Still check in on your blog all the time.
Cheers, thats good to know.
I lost track on everyone for a while and just couldnt be bothered to read there stuff but catching up now on it all.
Cheers,Phil
It's all a load of bollox Phil. My last company turned the trucks down from 56 to 52, but the running times stayed the same. As the trucks were auto and designed to run at 56 the autos kept changing down on hills, revving the nuts off the engines and using MORE fuel. When they got some new units they left them at 56. They reckon you use less fuel, but if you have to drive another half hour to get to your destination, how does that use less fuel??? I bet BFS still have their 10,000 mile a month benchmark in place though!!!
Hi Andy,thanks for the comment.
When in the UK I drove a 480hp 16litre V8 Scania, it averaged 8.5mpg at 56mph. The boss had it wound "UP" so it was pushing out over 600hp and in return it was giving over 10.5mpg......now thats a fuel saving anyone can live with.
Cheers,Phil
It's funny you mention that. I spoke with a guy the other week who had a V8 16lt Scania (540 or something) and he told me his truck was doing 10mpg. I guess the REALLY big engines are just ticking over at that speed and have so much torque that no hill can make any difference.
Maybe H&R need to get some V8 Scanias? Mind you MAN do a 680bhp V8, I bet that baby sings. Not a bad truck either:-)
Hi Andy, yeah the big engines seem to like being given plenty of HP. I would love my old Scania over here, it would blow the pants off anything on the road.
Cheers,Phil
Post a Comment