Could you hack it Ady??,youve got to fill both tanks here at our depot and no A4 sheet telling you how you do it!! 
I think you and Dessy are right,itās people justifying their jobs and the standard of some of these new drivers theyve took on,personally I think their standing on a precipice,teetering on edge.
Edward would be turning in his grave at the way itās being run now.
I know bugger all about Stobbies apart from reading the book about it a few years back but I am interested in the mention of encouraging trampers to become āStobart owner driversā.
What did that mean? Was it an exclusive contract or could they find their own work as well?
I am interested because of a discussion I got into on a French forum where it was stated that this sort of exclusivity was illegal. I mentioned Readymix etc. in England and was told that it had always been illegal there too but not enforced. Can this be true? That companies of this size should flout the law just because nobody bothers?
After reading all the postās, can anyone see what stobarts are doing?.
Now correct me if i am wrong but i can see a saving here.
Example,
A tramper is out doing his 15 hour day and then parks up for his 9/11 hours rest. Now that truck is parked up for 9/11 hours not earning.
A day shift worker comes on duty and takes over the truck and runs it for 12 hours and then returns back to the yard. The night shift driver then takes the truck out again for another 12 hours shift and so forth. The truck is always on the move and earning the Ā£ but thereās a downside there. If you keep running it non stop the truck will break down.
mickyblue:
but thereās a downside there. If you keep running it non stop the truck will break down.
I beg to differ. Most of the wear and tear on an internal combustion engine is caused in the first few minutes of running from cold.
The downside is if drivers donāt do their pre-flight checks properly during handover because of office pressure. That, and the fact that āone driver one truckā vehicles are usually better cared for, allows faults to occur due to neglect, as problems are handed down from one shift to the next.
gnasty gnome:
mickyblue:
but thereās a downside there. If you keep running it non stop the truck will break down.I beg to differ. Most of the wear and tear on an internal combustion engine is caused in the first few minutes of running from cold.
The downside is if drivers donāt do their pre-flight checks properly during handover because of office pressure. That, and the fact that āone driver one truckā vehicles are usually better cared for, allows faults to occur due to neglect, as problems are handed down from one shift to the next.
Yeah, fair point
wasnt it that why they nearly went under last time.and willy boy sent them all back tramping.now he is putting them back on double shifts see how that sits with stupid rdc booking times 3am booking 3hrs waiting driver sat waiting for a motor to come back.we will see how it all pans out 
As I mentioned earlier, if the job only pays by running the truck for 24 hours, it is
often a sign that the rates have been chopped too low.
The biggest costs in running a lorry are fuel and the driverās wages.
Running the truck for 24 hours doubles both of these, it also doubles the maintenance costs.
There is a saving of 50%( per shift) on the fixed costs, ie finance, road tax and insurance, not to mention the numerous non-driving staff.
I am sure that with a fleet the size of theirs, this is a huge sum of money saved.
On the other side, operating costs are doubled and the 90 days waiting to be paid still has to be financed.
I wonder which is the greater and whether there is a saving at all.
In a nutshell, if it costs Ā£X per mile to run the lorry and itās earning Ā£X-1, it will end in tears.
Regards,
Nick.