Fuel, Idle Time and the Cost per Seat-Kilometre
An operator runs 6 coaches on a 180 km intercity route, 4 return trips per coach per day, 300 days a year. Each coach averages 28 L/100 km, but idling at terminals adds about 25 minutes per coach per day. Diesel costs €1.65/L. The fleet manager proposes fitting telematics and driver coaching at €9,000 per coach, claiming a 6% fuel saving. A driver counters that reducing terminal idle time alone would save more. The company also faces a new low-emission zone charge of €12 per entry on part of the route.
1. Calculate the annual fuel cost and the claimed saving, and assess whether the telematics investment is justified on fuel alone.
Read the worked answer
Baseline fuel:
- Distance per coach per day = 180 km × 4 return trips × 2 (out and back) = 1,440 km/day. (Assuming 180 km is one-way; if 180 km is the round trip, halve this - state the assumption.)
- Fuel per coach per day = 1,440 × 28/100 = 403.2 L.
- Fleet per day = 403.2 × 6 = 2,419.2 L.
- Annual = 2,419.2 × 300 = 725,760 L.
- Annual cost = 725,760 × €1.65 ≈ €1,197,504.
6% saving: ≈ €71,850/year across the fleet. Telematics cost = 6 × €9,000 = €54,000 (one-off). Payback is under a year on fuel alone - justified, before counting reduced wear and insurance benefits.
Idle check: 25 min/coach/day. Idling burns roughly 2–4 L/hour for a coach; at 3 L/h, 25 min ≈ 1.25 L/coach/day → 7.5 L fleet/day → 2,250 L/year → about €3,700/year. So the driver's claim that idle alone beats telematics is not supported - idle savings are modest compared with a 6% fuel cut, though both should be pursued.
LEZ charge: €12 per entry on part of the route - if, say, 2 of the 4 trips enter the zone per coach per day: 2 × 6 × 300 × €12 = €43,200/year. This may dwarf the idle saving and should be modelled separately.
2. How should the operator weigh the low-emission zone charge against the telematics proposal?
Read the worked answer
The LEZ charge is a recurring, route-specific cost, whereas the telematics saving is a percentage of fuel. They should be modelled together:
- LEZ exposure: €43,200/year (under the stated assumption) is comparable to the telematics saving (€71,850) and far exceeds idle savings. If more trips enter the zone, it could exceed the fuel saving entirely.
- Strategic options: The operator could reroute to avoid the zone (if a viable alternative exists), consolidate entries, or accelerate fleet renewal toward lower-emission vehicles that are exempt or discounted. The €54,000 telematics spend competes with a down-payment on cleaner vehicles.
- Decision framework: Compare (a) telematics + coaching, (b) rerouting, (c) fleet renewal, on a whole-life cost basis, including residual value and future LEZ tightening. Telematics also supports eco-driving, which reduces emissions and may reduce the charge if the scheme is emissions-banded.
Conclusion: The operator should not approve telematics on fuel alone. It should combine telematics with idle-reduction and route/LEZ modelling, and treat the LEZ charge as the larger strategic driver if the zone covers a meaningful share of trips.