Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Who's Stupid Idea Was "Stops Per Car"?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Catatonic" data-source="post: 777025" data-attributes="member: 7966"><p>Most likely because what you bring up is the first time this has come up. I don't know of anyone that would not concede this - I think everyone that has been very patiently trying to explain this to you understands 9 + 1 = 10</p><p></p><p></p><p>As has been said many times before ... the savings will be in the to-from mileage to get to the split stops, the AM-PM times, turn in time, etc and you have to include the to-from from the original route to get to the split area and then back to get on trace for the original route, from the driver that was cut. - if the driver trace is not 100% right (yeah I know - I never met a driver that did not run his/her route 100% the best way) there may be some time to be gained there which is part of the equation that P-Man was answering.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As to what <strong>JustTired</strong> posted - there is the same logic to this, you have to account for the the to-from from the original route to get to the split area and then back to get on trace for the original route and it seems reasonable to assume that the stops will not be loaded in the new trace that you will have to be running.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Now to make a point for you, if the stop density is decreasing in a route area (especially if it is a rural route) then the miles per stop could increase enough to make an impact. I don't know if this is happening.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Catatonic, post: 777025, member: 7966"] Most likely because what you bring up is the first time this has come up. I don't know of anyone that would not concede this - I think everyone that has been very patiently trying to explain this to you understands 9 + 1 = 10 As has been said many times before ... the savings will be in the to-from mileage to get to the split stops, the AM-PM times, turn in time, etc and you have to include the to-from from the original route to get to the split area and then back to get on trace for the original route, from the driver that was cut. - if the driver trace is not 100% right (yeah I know - I never met a driver that did not run his/her route 100% the best way) there may be some time to be gained there which is part of the equation that P-Man was answering. As to what [B]JustTired[/B] posted - there is the same logic to this, you have to account for the the to-from from the original route to get to the split area and then back to get on trace for the original route and it seems reasonable to assume that the stops will not be loaded in the new trace that you will have to be running. Now to make a point for you, if the stop density is decreasing in a route area (especially if it is a rural route) then the miles per stop could increase enough to make an impact. I don't know if this is happening. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Who's Stupid Idea Was "Stops Per Car"?
Top