are dump trucks more cost efficient than articulated trucks/heavy haulers?

http://www.scania.com/products-services/mining/benefits-of-scania-mining-trucks.aspx

I came across this web page from scania and i found it kind of interesting.

Ignoring the costs of labour, are these kinds of smaller dump trucks more efficient than the larger articulated trucks and heavy haulers? Especially in developing countries or areas with poor support from the heavy equipment parts suppliers?

I would guess 60 to 70 of these with cheap, abundant parts/tires, cheap fuel and ease of maintenance would be much cheaper than a dozen heavy haulers or 20 to 30 articulated trucks. Even adding the 3x to 4x labor costs involved.

Obviously this probably wont work in developed countries with contracter with deep pockets and strong parts support. But in areas like brazil , russia, china, Indonesia etc, I would guess there would be very little need for expensive heavy haulers and articulated trucks.

Yair . . . Wildwest. There is a discussion about this somewhere on HEF.

It seems its how you work the numbers, such as labour costs, where the mine is situated and such like.

There are mines in Russia being worked with hundreds of small rigid dumpers and forty ton excavators, the theory being that if one goes down it hardly shows on the production graph . . . and they don't "go down" because they can justify having "spares".

The biggie though is apparently tyre availability and cost.

I should add I have no experience in mining but maintain an interest in anything to do with digging . . . HEF is a fine recourse and there are blokes on here who know the numbers inside out . . . I believe Scania has even given them the pitch.

Cheers.

Scrub, believe it or not tyres are not the issue for something Scania-size. Plenty of tyre companies all over the World make them. It's when you get to the larger sizes for the big mining trucks things start to get tight regarding availability. As you say there is a lot to be said for using lots of small machines in place of a few big ones.

Trucks of this sort of size also work well in areas where it's not feasible to construct the huge haul roads that large mining trucks require. For instance our roads are a minimum of 32 metres wide.

The issue as I see it is in labour costs. IMO using large numbers of relatively small machinery is only going to work in a location where operator salaries are not a major cost driver.

Yair . . . Sorry Nige I did not word that very well . . . what I meant was the smaller trucks used mere readily available and more easily transportable tyres.

It's interesting you mention labour costs. I have often wondered what percentage of the whole of life running cost of a large mining is taken up by an operators wages . . . compared to (say) tyres, fuel and component replacement/failure.

Is that a figure that is used in the industry?

As always your thoughts are of interest to this old outsider looking in.

Cheers.

So many things to consider in your question Wildwest:

1. Ground conditions
2. Additional loading time per cubic yard
3. Wait time for trucks to get into position
4. Congestion on haul roads
5. Congestion at dump site
6. Gallons of fuel per cubic yard hauled
7. Mobilization costs
8. Labor cost
9. Repair cost
   
   

I believe that the answer is generally related to the scope of the project. If it were cost effective unilaterally then the big mines and earthmoving projects would do so. On the other hand, if it is a short project, equipment availabilty and mobilization costs may tip the scale towards the Scania sized trucks.

If it is a project in which soft underfoot conditions exist, then greater cost would be incurred to construct/maintain haul roads that the Scania trucks can use versus articulated.

To summarize, I suspect that there are situations in which the Scania sized trucks are the answer if labor is plentiful and inexpensive, the trucks are available, there is not readily available access to larger equipment, the length of the haul is long enough to allow higher speeds with the Scania's, infrastructure limitations prohibit the use of larger equipment or mobilization thereof (can't take a 65,000 lb. truck across a bridge rated for 30,000 lb.), etc.. In general though, the larger the project the more cost effective larger equipment becomes.

Depends on 3 main factors in my opinion:

1.) Haul road conditions
2.) Local availability of trucks (ie: owner operators or small trucking outfits)
3.) The length of the haul routes.

You reach that point where tandems or semis either require so much haul road maintenance or have to go so slow on the haul road that you're better off with ADTs that can just blast down rough roads all day long and not skip a beat, but then you have the o/o costs of ADTs on the job. If you have more than 4 or 5 ADTs on a site you basically need a full time service guy on that site.

If you can hire a bunch of owner operators with junky old trucks willing to beat their trucks up all day DO IT. They work for free and when something breaks it's their problem.

928G Boy said:

If you can hire a bunch of owner operators with junky old trucks willing to beat their trucks up all day DO IT. They work for free and when something breaks it's their problem.

Click to expand...

As an owner operator of a decent truck who doesn't want to work for free, there's nothing I hate more than some outfit with a bunch of hired drivers. They go through a set of brake drums in a week, can ruin a set of tires in a morning. And the contractor thinks you're too slow if you don't go out there and race with them.

Yeah, I sure agree with that, Wilko. But you know what he's saying is true, too. You've had to compete against these guys when they buy their own truck and think they're gonna get rich at $45 an hour, too. They go out of business when the first repair bills come due, then another idiot buys that truck from the bank and thinks, "Gee, all I gotta do to get rich is charge $40, then I can work more than the last guy"

You're right, just what happens. I do wonder if a contractor might be open to some liability if one of these flat broke speed racers drives over a school bus and the lawyers come looking for deeper pockets.