It marks the deadline for the completion of the first five year cycle of periodic training for lorry drivers, designed to regularly supplement the qualifications necessary to obtain an HGV driving licence and the entitlement to drive large vehicles which comes with it – the Driver Certificate of Professional Competence (DCPC).

Managers could find themselves without drivers, and drivers could find themselves without a job, if the due date passes without the required qualification.

With the number of weeks almost down to a single digit before D-Day, or rather Driver CPC-Day, then clearly this summer marks something of a rush to get as many lorry drivers on the right side of the law as is possible. The combination of last minute trainees, summer holidays, Saturday training courses, week long cramming sessions, and some delicate planning and scheduling as drivers are taken off the road in order to complete the training amounts to, if not to the proverbial ‘logistics nightmare’, certainly a severe challenge for both transport managers and drivers.

Of course, the regulations themselves were actually designed to accommodate corporate and personal choice. Although the DCPC kicked off in 2009, the obligation was, and is, for the drivers to complete the necessary 35 hours of training before 10 September 2014 – there was no requirement to either stagger the process evenly over the five years. As far as the regulations are concerned the training hours could have been delayed until the last week before the deadline, then started and finished in one five day blitz. In fact no doubt some drivers will qualify in that way!

This provision was designed to provide managers and drivers with the maximum flexibility but, with the process coinciding with the first years of the economic slowdown, even the most positive and optimistic of forward looking planning managers could have been forgiven for taking a ‘wait awhile’ approach before getting on with it. At the same time there was also a need to balance the desire to keep the training plan on schedule whilst not necessarily wanting to train all drivers too soon and risk losing them to job-market competition who may have been paying slightly higher wages.

The good news seems to have been that although the need for another tranche of compulsory training was not welcomed by all operators and drivers there does seem to have been a triumph of perceived value over original scepticism by both groups.  Here again was a victory for the flexible regulations which allowed the construction of courses and subject matter specifically designed for the needs of specialist drivers and operators.

Although there have been some stand-out and obvious generic subject matters applicable to most if not all drivers – drivers’ hours; fuel economy; legal compliance; traffic law; customer relations etc, there has been the opportunity to create courses which apply to the perhaps unique, or at least more specialist, operations – ADR and dangerous goods; high security loads; maybe even fine arts, or perhaps carrying cash.

An ongoing management theme of mine has always been that the biggest and most successful companies in any business field actually achieve their elevated status by doing the right thing. As such, even in the darkest days of the recession, there remained a case for maintaining training levels and investing in skills and expertise. In fact there is a powerful argument for suggesting that it is especially in the down days of a recession, that the need for training and maximising skills is at its peak. The big guys, the sector leaders, the most efficient operators, got that way by insisting on the highest skills. So the imposition of a mandatory requirement to provide drivers with 35 hours’ worth of training over a five year period was no big deal. They were probably doing that, and a lot more, already.

For the others, seeking to achieve those improved and profitable operations, increased turnovers and higher levels of customer satisfaction, then the compulsory training requirement constituted a chance to make an investment and receive a payback.

Fuel economy represents such an opportunity with one notable vehicle manufacturer claiming that a drivers’ performance could be improved by up to 25 per cent – and with the price of fuel so high in recent years the payback on that example yielded far in excess of the investment. Similar rewards are available on other subjects – legal compliance and retention of the operator licence; advanced routing and scheduling reducing delivery times and maximising efficiency; advanced driving skills reducing accidents, repair bills and insurance premiums.

Driving an HGV is an expert job carried out by those with either a natural or acquired facility for safely negotiating a potentially dangerous vehicle with a weight of up to 44 tonnes and a length of 16.5 metres, or in some cases, even longer. The driver is responsible for the safe and sound movement of that vehicle, sharing the space with other road users, on motorways at high speed and in urban conditions alongside cyclists, pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. He is not only a driver – he is an engineer, a traffic law expert, a navigator and a can-do personality liable for the safe and sound delivery of his load and the reputation of his company.  He – or she – is smart and responsible and amongst the most highly skilled operatives in UK industry.

I suspect that, in future years, we will look back and laugh at the opposition we first saw regarding the introduction of the compulsory Driver CPC and the formalisation of ongoing and updating training requirements. Such an important job clearly must be accompanied by regular training updates.

Driving a lorry is an extremely important and responsible job. The lorry driver may be, almost by himself, responsible for the safe operation of a very valuable piece of kit, the truck and trailer, worth perhaps £100,000, together with an on-board load which could be worth a million!

What’s more, by the very size and weight of the vehicle which he is driving the potential damage and destruction to life and property from road accidents involving lorries is self-evident. So the driver must not only know what he is doing, he must behave responsibly, and take good care that he is fit enough to do the job.

There is a growing problem that we need to be increasingly careful about.

Have you ever dozed whilst driving? Honestly, have you? If you have then you will not need telling twice that it has the potential for disaster.

In February the RAC produced a report which suggested that as many as one driver in 20 was unknowingly suffering from the sleeping disorder called obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSA). The report suggested that as many as 1.4 million motorists in the UK were at risk to themselves and to other road users as a result of their tendency to nod off at the wheel.

Incredibly, the problem could be responsible for as many as one in five accidents, with analysts suggesting that ‘sleep apnoea patients have a driving performance at least as bad as drivers over the alcohol limit.’

Those most at risk of being diagnosed with the condition are overweight middle-aged men working in sedentary occupations. Like lorry drivers.

The complaint affects breathing due to a partial or total closure of the airway behind the tongue while sleeping. This results in episodes of brief awakening in order to restore normal breathing. In severe cases this can be hundreds of times per night – all without the sufferer being aware that it is taking place. However, the consequence is an overall lack of real sleep, resulting in daytime sleepiness and dozing, with potentially very serious repercussions for drivers.

Diagnosis of OSA is sometimes difficult since the most noticeable symptoms take place while asleep. Partners may notice that the victim consistently snores, or is stopping breathing during sleep. It is vital that these symptoms are not ignored.

For mild sufferers off the shelf solutions may help. But persistent loud snorers, who also notice excessive daytime sleepiness, waking with a dry mouth or sore throat, have difficulty concentrating or are irritable, could be diagnosed with sleep apnoea and require treatment.

Managers should look for these symptoms in their drivers and sufferers should seek the help of their GP who may then refer them to a sleep clinic for a diagnosis and treatment. This takes the form of a piece of kit incorporating a mask which, when worn overnight, delivers a stream of air during sleep keeping the airway open and ensuring healthy sleep. Sufferers experiencing the treatment report total success.

But here is a problem. Once diagnosed with OSA, drivers should notify the relevant driving authority. This means that, until treatment has been organised, the victim may have to stop driving. Whilst commercial drivers may be fast tracked for treatment that is not always the case, and it is thought that only some 30 per cent of clinics are actually giving priority to professional drivers. To say the least, not every driver will be happy to accept the delay and may risk disguising his condition and avoiding what may be a six month wait.

The EU drivers’ hours’ rules were constructed with road safety in mind and are strictly enforced by use of the tachograph. And the penalties for non-compliance are serious. However, the OSA problem is not about working excessive hours but about the actual condition of the driver and his ability to stay awake whilst performing his potentially dangerous job.

Modern truck design, and its smart contributions to operational efficiency and driver comfort are constantly improving and ever welcome. But, though perhaps not too long off, the pilotless vehicle is not with us just yet.

In the meantime both managers and drivers must be aware of the potential for sleepy drivers and swift to get the problem sorted when they meet it. Failure to do so could be fatal.

Whether your operation has five vehicles or 500 it is a fundamental fact of business life that somebody has to take the responsibility for managing the fleet, co-ordinating the delivery schedules, managing the drivers, maintaining legal compliance and keeping the whole show on the road. That somebody is the under-appreciated and too often taken for granted transport manager.

But the traditional role has seen substantial changes in recent years and now seems destined for a dose of increased expertise, professionalism and formal qualification. Inevitably transport managers will be looking for increased recognition and rewards as their responsibilities, value and status grows.

Up until now there has been little data available to better understand the diverse role of these personnel, who they are, and how they see future development. But last year the Freight Transport Association and Goodyear got together to produce the first survey of its kind which attempted to obtain a better understanding and appreciation of their activities and aspirations.

The transport manager has always been at the hub of an operator’s activity and respondents to the survey listed the management of drivers, vehicles and fuel as their top priorities. Their major challenges included ‘remaining compliant’, budget constraint and the old problem of driver recruitment. At the top of the list for ‘most helpful actions’ to support their role was additional staff and resources, together with ‘better understanding of the transport manager’s role’ and ‘support and communication from management’. Clearly, the relatively poor public image of the transport operation sometimes extends to colleagues within larger organisations themselves where there is perhaps an attitude of expecting the transport department to just ’get on with it!’

With the demands of the operator licensing system requiring transport operators with a standard or international licence to employ or appoint somebody who is ‘professionally competent’, and who as such must hold a Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC) awarded by an examination board, then there could be little surprise that 87 per cent of the FTA’s 400 respondents were holders of the Transport Manager CPC. And, significantly, every single respondent in the 18 to 34 year age range had obtained the qualification.

No shock then that, with the younger generation of managers growing up in a social, industrial and employment environment of constantly developing technology and tough competition, there seems to be a powerful desire by individuals to enhance their professional qualification and recognition well beyond the CPC. In fact the suggestion of providing an opportunity to study for a nationally recognised qualification received resounding support with 80 per cent of transport managers indicating that they would be interested. Of those that said no, it was significant that it was transport managers longest in their career and aged over 55 who were less likely to be interested in such a qualification. Help is on the way with this – the sector’s skills council and the trade associations are putting together plans to make such a national qualification available in the near future.

The development and sophistication of the transport manager’s role, and the future skills requirements, is very interesting in the face of the current logistics scene.

The growth of information technology now available and designed to support the whole of the transport and distribution function is incredible. The use of computer analysis systems to manage and record drivers’ hours’ compliance, fuel procurement and consumption, and vehicle maintenance and repair, all helps to keep drivers and vehicles on the road and cuts unnecessary down time and costs.  

And the traffic office ability to use smart telematics systems to plan routing and scheduling, and to react to ‘live’ developments or problems, like traffic congestion, bad weather or customer’s order amendments, are all increasingly used. These all support the transport manager and enable him to ensure the most efficient customer deliveries, in the shortest time window and at the lowest costs. The transport manager becomes like a general in the battlefield deploying his troops, or in this case, his drivers on the road, to the greatest effect! 

The sector has, for as long as I can remember, suffered from the poor public image I mentioned above. This has meant that it has frequently struggled to always recruit its fair share of the brightest brains available from school, college or university. That sad situation should now be changing. The development of a professionally qualified transport manager role, using modern technology to run the operation and deliver the goods as efficiently as possible, constitutes an exciting 21st century career opportunity not always associated with logistics in the past. This ought to be helpful in updating the old image and project the more accurate picture of a modern, competent and exciting industry, job and career. The sooner we can get that picture into the education system and careers advisers the better. 

Hopefully, after so many years, the impression of the transport manager as a put upon individual, taken for granted and chasing his own tail, will soon be over.

A touch of déjà vu in October as the Government sale of Royal Mail, and staff and investors earning a quick and substantial profit, takes us back to the Thatcher years and the successful sale of other state owned organisations like BT and British Gas.

Those of us with memories of the operational efficiency of the now privatised organisations before the sale, and their comparative performance after, can only come to one conclusion – it worked. The injection of competition into what had been monopoly services resulted in the new private companies upping their game, giving the customers what they wanted, and positively reacting to market forces. Winning results for both operators and customers.

The Royal Mail sale is rather different with the field of postal and parcel deliveries already subject to enormous and growing competition, and with much of this competition doing rather well thank you very much. And not all of the operation will be privatised – up to 62 per cent was sold, with a further 15 per cent likely to be made available as demand was so very high.

But if any operation was in the right place at the right time then it surely has to be Royal Mail. With the growth of internet retailing over the last decade, and the mind boggling prospects of what growth is to come over the next, then the newly privatised group will surely in a position to adapt and use its centuries of skill and experience in order to maximise this fast developing market.

So what have the new investors bought into? The Royal Mail can trace its origins back to 1516 – all but 500 years of deliveries! The scale of the present establishment entitles it to claim to be the biggest logistics operator in the UK. Moving post and parcels by road, rail, sea and air the operation is truly multi-modal. And with a fleet of around 30,000 red vehicles on the roads customer recognition is no problem. Pre-privatisation Royal Mail claims to deliver to 29 million addresses and to handle a staggering 1.4 billion parcels each year. All carried out by a workforce of close to 150,000. It is estimated to be worth around £9.1 billion.

The Government, together with Royal Mail management, say that privatisation is essential in order to generate access to private capital to enable the organisation to exploit the opportunities of the internet shopping boom whilst similar technological communications developments have resulted in a continuing reduction in letter post – e-mail being quicker and cheaper than snail-mail.

UK retail habits are undergoing a major change. Currently some 70 per cent of consumer sales are made at retail premises – the high street. But it is estimated that by 2020 this figure will reduce to just 40 per cent with a consequent growth in home deliveries taking up the slack.

 

Last Christmas saw a phenomenal boom in internet sales. There were 84 million visits to retail websites on Christmas Eve, 107 million on Christmas Day and 113 million on Boxing Day. And all of the results of this bonanza share one fundamental – somebody has to deliver them. Not surprising then that Royal Mail wants get the biggest possible share of this gravy train.

Is there a downside to the privatisation? Well, the unions are not happy and there is talk of a strike. They say that the company is already in profit and does not need the private capital to achieve its ambitions.

And the universal letter post, which means that the price of a letter is the same whether the destination is next door to the sender or at the other end of the country, and indeed was a foundation service of the group, may be at risk, even though at present it is protected by law. Letter post is falling fast and maybe needs a new approach. Before the Second World War letter deliveries were made up to eight times a day. Not now - this week my postman arrived close to five o’clock in the afternoon! 

The financial market seems to have come to the conclusion that the sale is a very good idea, although this may be based on suggestions that the organisation has been badly undervalued. Private investors saw an immediate 38% gain on investment as soon as shares were traded on the London Stock Exchange. 

But, with an overview of the UK logistics sector, there can be little doubt that the Royal Mail privatisation is a winner. The organisation has the history, experience and know-how in order to exploit a boom market. A no-brainer.

A touch of déjà vu in October as the Government sale of Royal Mail, and staff and investors earning a quick and substantial profit, takes us back to the Thatcher years and the successful sale of other state owned organisations like BT and British Gas.

Those of us with memories of the operational efficiency of the now privatised organisations before the sale, and their comparative performance after, can only come to one conclusion – it worked. The injection of competition into what had been monopoly services resulted in the new private companies upping their game, giving the customers what they wanted, and positively reacting to market forces. Winning results for both operators and customers.

The Royal Mail sale is rather different with the field of postal and parcel deliveries already subject to enormous and growing competition, and with much of this competition doing rather well thank you very much. And not all of the operation will be privatised – up to 62 per cent was sold, with a further 15 per cent likely to be made available as demand was so very high.

But if any operation was in the right place at the right time then it surely has to be Royal Mail. With the growth of internet retailing over the last decade, and the mind boggling prospects of what growth is to come over the next, then the newly privatised group will surely in a position to adapt and use its centuries of skill and experience in order to maximise this fast developing market.

So what have the new investors bought into?

The Royal Mail can trace its origins back to 1516 – all but 500 years of deliveries! The scale of the present establishment entitles it to claim to be the biggest logistics operator in the UK. Moving post and parcels by road, rail, sea and air the operation is truly multi-modal. And with a fleet of around 30,000 red vehicles on the roads customer recognition is no problem. Pre-privatisation Royal Mail claims to deliver to 29 million addresses and to handle a staggering 1.4 billion parcels each year. All carried out by a workforce of close to 150,000. It is estimated to be worth around £9.1 billion.

The Government, together with Royal Mail management, say that privatisation is essential in order to generate access to private capital to enable the organisation to exploit the opportunities of the internet shopping boom whilst similar technological communications developments have resulted in a continuing reduction in letter post – e-mail being quicker and cheaper than snail-mail.

UK retail habits are undergoing a major change. Currently some 70 per cent of consumer sales are made at retail premises – the high street. But it is estimated that by 2020 this figure will reduce to just 40 per cent with a consequent growth in home deliveries taking up the slack.

 

Last Christmas saw a phenomenal boom in internet sales. There were 84 million visits to retail websites on Christmas Eve, 107 million on Christmas Day and 113 million on Boxing Day. And all of the results of this bonanza share one fundamental – somebody has to deliver them. Not surprising then that Royal Mail wants get the biggest possible share of this gravy train.

Is there a downside to the privatisation? 

Well, the unions are not happy and there is talk of a strike. They say that the company is already in profit and does not need the private capital to achieve its ambitions.

And the universal letter post, which means that the price of a letter is the same whether the destination is next door to the sender or at the other end of the country, and indeed was a foundation service of the group, may be at risk, even though at present it is protected by law. Letter post is falling fast and maybe needs a new approach. Before the Second World War letter deliveries were made up to eight times a day. Not now - this week my postman arrived close to five o’clock in the afternoon! 

The financial market seems to have come to the conclusion that the sale is a very good idea, although this may be based on suggestions that the organisation has been badly undervalued. Private investors saw an immediate 38% gain on investment as soon as shares were traded on the London Stock Exchange. 

But, with an overview of the UK logistics sector, there can be little doubt that the Royal Mail privatisation is a winner. The organisation has the history, experience and know-how in order to exploit a boom market.

A no-brainer.

All major infrastructure projects, transport or otherwise, demand the ability to ‘think big’. How else would the Victorians have ever set about, financed and constructed the national rail network or the sewage system? How would we have built the Forth Bridge or the London Underground or the tunnels under the Thames? How would we have developed the motorway network? Or the Channel Tunnel? Or Heathrow? How would be have built our cathedral like rail terminals? 

I could go on but perhaps you take the point. To undertake such expensive, ambitious and large scale developments, which cost eye watering amounts of money and alter our landscape and people’s lives, you need to ‘go boldly’. You need to ‘think big’.

Big transport undertakings are in the news at present. We are about to see the opening of London Gateway, a massive port development. We are also building Crossrail in London. We are trying to decide what to do about airport capacity in the south east – Heathrow or elsewhere. And, years after many of our world economic competitors have got on with it, we are contemplating the construction of a high speed rail system – HS2. Only now we seem to be thinking twice about it. 

Despite the cost and the disruption of such an ambitious undertaking, the Government remains fully committed to the scheme, as was its predecessor. In a nutshell the idea is that, by moving trains over long distances at great speed, the scheme will not only benefit its actual users, who will get where they are going rather more quickly, but will also significantly increase the overall capacity of the existing rail network and its ability to move the ever increasing numbers of passengers and consignors of freight who want to use it.

 

Meanwhile, a disturbingly growing number of detractors say that the estimated cost of construction of HS2 is too high and that the money would be better spent on a variety of other transport projects – perhaps filling potholes, building bypasses, jam busting measures, lengthening rail platforms and so on.

Some of these second thoughts and doubts are a little puzzling coming, as they have done, from groups we might have expected to show nothing but absolute support. For as long as I can remember the representatives of UK industry have called for more spending on the UK’s transport infrastructure. Nothing has value until it is delivered to its customer, so the ability to deliver goods as quickly, conveniently and as cheaply as possible, is absolutely vital. Road congestion is a waste of money and man hours. If they possibly can, manufacturers, retailers and distributors would far rather trunk their bulk goods by rail than have them sitting around in rush hour road traffic queues.

And the public demand for increased rail passenger services is self evident to anybody who has been on a train in recent years. In fact rail passenger levels have doubled over the last 20 years to numbers not seen for almost a century. The convenience of the train, as opposed to the sometimes inconvenience of traffic and parking for people and, worse still, delivery hassles for road freight, are obvious.

And, of course, we are constantly reminded of the current and future growth in our population. We are going to see millions more of us in future years as we live longer, stay mobile and immigration levels continue. For the benefit of society and for the benefit of the economy, sheer common sense demands that we must find improved ways of moving both people and the food and goods needed to sustain them. Which clearly means creating more transport capacity, including rail capacity.

Its critics suggest that the costs of HS2 may be under estimated. My guess is that so are the benefits. As it stands at present, if we do not build HS2 then we will undoubtedly have to build some other rail system anyway in order to satisfy our growing demands. As such, it seems to me that we might just as well get on with building the most efficient and modern system available to us. 

And that means high speed rail. HS2. Let’s get on with it.

The project, which, for its first five years, is on the receiving end of almost £6 million of funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, together with a consortium of key freight operators and vehicle industry partners, is designed to ‘achieve very deep reductions in CO2 emissions from the road freight sector by combining highly-focused vehicle engineering with systematic improvements to freight distribution systems’.

In other words the project will look at means of combining the most effective and efficient vehicle engineering with the practical operation of the supply chain and smart logistics. 

The group will look at fuel efficiency through adoption of better driving techniques; payload maximisation by monitoring the use of load-space and capacity; empty running and the potential to carry goods for another party, saving their journey; carbon intensity of fuels – reducing emissions by using natural gas, biofuels and electricity; and modal split - moving goods by rail and water instead of road.

 

These are all admirable, and potentially extremely productive, means of improving supply chain performance, reducing carbon output and cutting costs. An efficient supply chain is not just good news for the environment and the consumer – but savings on the bottom line impact on the total performance of the economy, and that is in all of our interests.

But there are going to be some highly public issues that the CfSRF is going to have to wrestle with. 

Discussing vehicle weights and dimensions Professor David Cebon, director of the project, unashamedly said ‘Biggest is best’. His point was that the most efficient and economic movement of freight per tonne/kilometre is achieved by moving the maximum payloads on the longest and heaviest vehicles. This is a philosophy long since promoted by supporters of the case for the heavier and longer lorry. Sadly, it is an argument equally powerfully rejected by opponents of such a plan who seem to think that the expensive operation of lorries is just a whimsical fancy of their owners. 

Cebon also points out the flaws in some of the regulations which govern the way we control the movement of goods vehicles. For example, the fact that overnight lorry bans come off at six or seven o’clock in the morning at the almost exactly same moment as we take the kids to school or operate the rush hour to work! The consequence is road congestion and a substantial dilution of any benefits we have generated from advanced vehicle technology. This means that we need a new way of looking at how we manage these things from both national government and local authorities.