wsw
w
~:-~-4*£7£
» .id:.
**-iSBK:
orsastt
jprnufi
UNIVERSITY OF B.C. LIBRARY
3 9424 05123 551 0
I
•^SS-*-
HI
'Mi
"«*
raerEi
iji«
:fc'i;'B«BIIW
**#S;ll
IST22
>.«■(•;
-"*•'*
H
fro &l'~ - ' "' "" ^ **--■•- ' -'-^ ^'* ^
■HIMBKH0B/
j^^i'SSiM-WMIf;
&9tei-n
&MM
[I«
swe
! K
■ *«»,3i
.*5r3
if!
>:* sw
pjh-i
I SKI
'
Si
fclla
UK)
" i
11
Ei'SE!^ «a3«-r
:aatt ;-.-:*..
VI
w
'mmr
VBBStt
•-■* s«**jj;
K^SSMti
g;^s£^'
1m
i^pi
JlAJj
f* —
iV
\SL&
■ OS* :
t'i
W3frSS ■»'.'! 'Ulfi
flflSifili^ i#:
.
o- c >
Lpi-r I
U.B.C. LIBRARY
/**.■'< SJfSiuf-'qS? .«»*
«X*fi
'*.2**'?5iJi '1S» 4MMH k>b>
<*«**•< Id u>
«*,HBj(
I «*M; :ms*,' :t:w»iiMltoni} fife:- «i
IP J S^PP ■**?!!
Analysis of
Logging Costs and Operating Methods
IN THE
Douglas Fir Region
By
AXEL J. F. BRANDSTROM
Senior Forest Economist
Pacific Northwest Forest Experimental Station
Forest Service
United States Department of Agriculture
Published by the Charles Lathrop Pack Forestry Foundation
under the auspices of the West Coast Lumbermen's Association
June, 1933
FOREWORD
IT IS A FAR CRY from the bull team of the nineties that logged only large, high-
grade trees on easy ground to the 100-ton skidder that works the hardest shows and
makes a clean sweep of all sizes, species and qualities of timber.
The Pacific Northwest logger leads the world as a practical and resourceful engineer.
He has developed many types of logging machinery and methods, new devices, new
rigs, new ways of using equipment. His genius has run strongly to high-powered
machines and mass production. His creed is low cost on a big volume.
The Pacific Coast logger has solved many difficult problems in selecting the method
and kind of equipment best adapted to a particular show. From tract to tract, he has
encountered wide differences in topography, size and density of timber, weather condi-
tions, and practical limitations on cost. The most efficient method for one operator
may be quite the opposite for his neighbor. A money-making set-up for one show may
be wasteful and extravagant for another. Even the sound principle of low cost on a big
volume may not pay out if the volume contains too large a percentage of logs that do
not return their own cost.
Believing that, in many instances, capital, labor, and timber may be wasted by
failure to employ the logging method or equipment best suited to the conditions, the
U. S. Forest Service, through its Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment Station, began
in 1931 a thorough-going study of the cost of every step in logging, from stump to pond,
under almost every variety of machinery and rigging used in the region. Time studies
and cost analyses were made of some 40 million feet of logs at a number of represen-
tative operations.
This study was conducted by Axel J. F. Brandstrom, who formerly, while on the
faculty of the University of Washington College of Forestry and Lumbering, became
interested in analyzing possibilities for improved logging practice and made preliminary
investigations in collaboration with Burt P. Kirkland, also of the Washington faculty.
The present report, by Mr. Brandstrom, is the first formal publication of the results
of his work. With scientific precision and faithful attention to detail, it analyzes an
enormous mass of evidence on each item of logging cost. It shows that mistaken log-
ging methods often cause waste of capital, labor and timber; may indeed put the whole
operation in red ink. Brandstrom ascribes such losses mainly to lack of specialization
and selection in logging methods, that is, to too general and blind a drive for low cost
on big volume.
Brandstrom's analysis of these factors is wholly constructive. He is not content
simply to point out weaknesses in West Coast logging. He indicates how they can be
corrected, and reveals unmistakable possibilities for greater profit to the industry and
better conservation of forest resources.
This report is confined largely to analyses of logging costs. It is directly useful
to the logging engineer, whether he is working a property for the largest immediate
cash return or for a sustained yield. Brandstrom and Kirkland contemplate a second
report, which will deal with the financial side of forest management and compare returns
under clean cutting with selective cutting that leaves growing stock on the land.
The West Coast Lumbermen's Association is indebted to the Forest Service for
the opportunity of presenting this report to the industry and the public. Both the Asso-
ciation and the Forest Service are indebted to the Charles Lathrop Pack Forestry Foun-
dation for furnishing the funds for printing this report and making it widely available.
This report, in my judgment, gives the West Coast Logging Industry an extremely
valuable hand book on logging costs and the selection of the most efficient equipment
or method for a particular show. It will help the logger in solving his master problem —
how can this tract of timber be operated for the largest cash return? It lays the ground
work for practical and promising developments in selective logging — a vital factor both
in liquidating present investments and in keeping our forests productive. I heartily
commend it to the industry for study and use.
W. B. Greeley.
Seattle, Washington,
August 5, 1933.
CONTENTS
PAGE
I. The Growth and Development of Lumber-
ing in the Douglas fir region. . 7
1. Historical 7
2. Selection policy of pioneer logger is
industry's need today 8
3. General scope and purpose of logging
cost studies _ 8''
II. General Description of Logging Machinery
and Methods Studied 8
4. Primary importance of stump-to-rail
haul . 8
5. Specialization in machinery and
methods 10
6. Skyline systems 10
7. High-lead system 10
8. Tractor systems 12
9. Loading systems 12
III. Basis of Time and Cost Analysis 12
10. Deficiencies in present cost informa-
tion 12
11. Objects and functions of time and
cost studies 14
12. Adaptability of cost data to chang-
ing cost levels 15
13. Basis of machine rates 16
14. General overhead costs not included
in machine rates 17
15. Basis of capital charges 17
16. Other costs — 18
IV. Yarding Studies _ .__. 18
17. General importance of the yarding
operation „ 18
18. Scope and object of yarding studies 18
19. Manner of study 18
20. Distinction between external yard-
ing distance and actual yarding dis-
tance 19
i 21. Report on yarding with 60 h.p. trac-
tors 22
22. Reports on yarding with donkeys —
28 studies 24
V. Comparison of Yarding Costs for Different
Types of Machinery and Methods ... 36
23. Basis of comparison 36
24. How to read the cost comparison
chart 37
PAGE
25. Density of timber, efficiency of crew,
and topography are factors affect-
ing the cost comparison 37
26. Comparison of yarding variable costs 38
27. Rigging-ahead costs 38
28. Reasons for high cost of yarding
with large machines 39
29. Limitations of small yarding ma-
chinery 39
VI. Skyline Swinging Studies 41
30. Scope of studies 41
31. Swinging from coid decks shows
higher turn volumes than yarding. 41
32. North Bend swing studies (Tables
29 to 32 inclusive) 43
33. Tyler swing study (Table 33) 43
34. Steam skidder swing studies (Table
34) 43
35. Steam slackline swing study (Table
35) 43
36. Comparison of results 43
37. Large cold decks cause increase of
swinging costs 44
VII. Comparison of Direct Yarding with Com-
bined Cold Decking and Swinging _ 45
38. Comparison of costs 45
39. One problem — many solutions 46
40. Size of cold deck is controlling factor 46
41. Effect of volume of log on compara-
tive costs... 46
42. Objections to foregoing conclusions .. 46
43. Example showing adaptability of
cold-deck system to rough topog-
raphy _... 47
44. Significance of foregoing findings 47
VIII. Tractor Roading Studies 48
45. Distinction between roading, swing-
ing, and yarding with tractors 48
46. Scope of study 48
47. Tabulation of results 49
48. Importance of favorable grades in
tractor roading 50
49. Effect of slope on hauling and haul-
back (return) time 50
50. Relation of distance to cost 51
51. Effect of volume of load on total
trip time 51
PAGE
52. Reading: cost table _ 51 '
53. Relation of load volume to log vol-
ume 52
54. Large load volume is essential to low
cost of downhill loading 52
IX. Comparison of Tractor Roading with Sky-
line Swinging 52
55. Basis of comparison 52
56. Explanation of graph (Fig. 33) 52
57. Roading from large cold decks intro-
duces additional costs 54
58. Comparison of results 54
59. Significance of low cost of long dis-
tance roading 54 "
60. Reduction of breakage is important
factor - - - 55
61. Construction of tractor roads broad-
ens the use of tractors in the Doug-
las fir region - 55
62. Limitations of the tractor-roading
system - - 55 L
X. Loading Studies - - - 57
63. Relation of loading to yarding and
railroad transportation. - 57
64. Scope of studies — 57
65. Factors affecting the cost of loading 57
66. Comparison of costs ~ 58
67. Adaptation of equipment to log size
brings reduction of cost 58
XL Comparison of Cost Relations in Trans-
port from Stump to Car 60
68. The effect of volume of log on yard-
ing-variable cost 60
69. Volume of the average log as an
index to steepness of cost curves. ... 62
70. The effect of distance on yarding-
variable costs 62
71. The effect of volume of log on swing-
ing-variable costs 63
72. The effect of volume of log on load-
ing costs 63
73. Summary graph — comparison of typ-
ical cost relations covering all
phases of logging 65
XII. Railroad Transportation.— 66
74. General 66
75. Carload capacity studies 67
76. Relative costs of logs of various
sizes 67
77. Effect of volume of load on cost per
carload 68
78. Items of cost which are governed by
the carload variable.. 69
PAGE
79. Variations in yarding costs may con-
trol variations in railroad ti^ans-
portation costs 69
80. Staked cars show increased load ca-
pacity for small logs 70
81. Use of staked cars is impracticable
under clear-cutting system 70
XIII. Motor Truck Transportation 70
82. Relation of log size to load volume
and hauling cost 70
83. Truck hauling costs for various dis-
tances 71
84. Comparison with tractor roading and
railroad transportation 71
XIV. Water Transportation 72
85. Low cost of water haul ..... ... .. 72
86. The relation of volume of log to cost
of booming and rafting ... 72
XV. Felling and Bucking 73
87. Relation of diameter of tree to fell-
ing and bucking costs 73
XVI. Selective Cost Analysis of a Logging Oper-
ation as a Whole 74
88. Consistency shown in the relations
of log and tree size to logging cost 74
89. Application of relative costs to com-
plete cost analysis of operating or
nonoperating timber properties 74
90. Analysis of a logging cost statement 74
91. Adaptation of cost averages to spe-
cific operating conditions. 77
92. Allocation of fixed per acre costs 77
93. Allocation of capital charges 78
XVII. Further Examples of Selective Cost An-
alysis of Typical Operations 79
94. Case studies — basis of comparison .... 79
95. Small logs and trees show relatively
high costs 80
96. Present clear cutting practice penal-
izes the small log or tree 81
XVIII. General Summary and Comparison of Log
Transportation Costs 81
97. Transportation as a fundamental e *,"•.-
ment in logging cost 81
XIX. Possibilities of Cost Reduction Through
Adaptation of Machinery and Meth-
ods Under Clear Cutting 82
98. Planning of logging operations for
low cost methods 82
99. Example — comparison of present
with proposed methods 83
PAGE
100. Elimination of spur construction
leads to important economies 84
101. Substitution of skyline swinging for
tractor roading offers practical so-
lution of difficult problems 84
102. Further modification to solve special
problems 86
103. Hauling by motor truck may elimi-
nate some long distance roading 86
104. Some general points established from
foregoing comparisons 87
105. Comparison based on clear cutting
is not final 88
XX. Possibilities of Cost Reduction Through
Selective Specialization 89
106. Specialization reduces cost of small-
timber logging in general 89
107. Selective specialization is needed in
this region 89
108. An estimate of potential possibilities
for cost reduction through selective
specialization 90
109. Flexibility in the yarding operation
is essential 92
110. Clear cutting leads to inefficiency in
all phases of operation 92
XXI. An Experiment in Tractor Logging and
Tree Selection Points the Way to
a New Logging Plan 93
111. Experiment needed to verify conclu-
sions reached in studies __ 93
112. Description of study area and log-
ging conditions 94
113. General logging plan and methods .. 95
114. Reduction in road construction cost
leads to a denser network of trac-
tor roads 95
115. Object and plan of tree selection
experiments 98
PAGE
116. Results show advantages of tree
selection _ 98
117. Large timber is no handicap to trac-
tor logging 100
118. Comparison with conventional donkey
logging 100
119. Closer attention to load volume will
bring further savings 101
120. Reduction of breakage, another ad-
vantage of tractor method. 102
121. Summary and conclusions of logging
experiment 102
XXII. Application of Findings from Logging
Studies and Experiment 103
122. Conclusions reached in studies of
various phases of logging suggest
complete logging plan . 103
123. The construction program 104
124. General logging plan 105
125. The logging program for the large-
timber cuts 105
126. The logging program for the small-
timber cuts 110
127. The logging program for the medium-
timber cuts 111
128. Specialization of equipment may in-
volve new radical changes 111
129. A summary and comparison of cost
advantages of the proposed plan ... 112
130. Application to rough country logging
and other problems.. 114
131. Flexible logging methods promote
adaptation of operating and tim-
ber investments to changing condi-
tions 115
Glossary of logging terms used 117
I
I. THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF LUMBERING IN THE DOUGLAS FIR REGION
1. Historical.— In 1827 Dr. John McLaughlin,
Chief Factor of the Hudson's Bay Company, set
up a small, water-driven sawmill near Fort
Vancouver. This was the first mill on the
Pacific Coast and also the first west of the
Mississippi River. In 1830 a visiting govern-
ment official, highly impressed with what he
had seen, wrote in his diary the following:
"The sawmill is a scene of constant toil.
Thirty or forty Sandwich Islanders (Hawaii-'
ans) are felling pines (i.e., Douglas fir) and
dragging them to the mill; sets of hands are
plying two gangs of saws by night and day;
3,000 feet of lumber per day— 900,000 feet
per annum, are constantly being shipped to
foreign lands."1
"Further operations were soon added by
Americans in the Willamette Valley, on the
Columbia River, and at Olympia, Seattle and
other points on Puget Sound. Following the
California gold rush of 1849 came the first
modest "boom" in the industry. Prior to the
gold strike rough lumber sold generally at
$20 to $30 per M feet board measure at the
mills. By November 1849 the price had risen
to $50, and in March 1850, to $100; but by the
following year it had dropped back to $30 and
even to $10 before the end of that decade. By
this period these magnificent forests immedi-
ately adjacent to deep-water shipping facilities
leading to the ports of the world attracted
attention to the commercial opportunities they
offered to pioneer lumber operators.
The next great impetus to development of
the industry came with the transcontinental
railroad era. Expansion began with furnishing
materials for the Union Pacific in California,
and was further fostered by the building of the
Northern Pacific to Puget Sound. The latter
made rail lumber trade possible to the interior
states, which, however, developed slowly for
nearly twenty years. With further railroad
building in the Northwest in the nineties, rail
trade began in earnest, closely coincident with
further development of coastwise and foreign
water shipments. The final milestone in this
devek^nent came with the opening of the
Panama Canal, which threw open to the West
Coast the markets of the Atlantic Seaboard.
With this expansion of markets, there fol-
lowed a gradual improvement in the mechanics
of lumbering with a definite trend toward
larger and larger operations, particularly those
catering to the export trade. Sawmills built
prior to 1£50 were driven by water power,
often combined with grist mills, and produced
generally from 2,000 to 10,000 board feet per
day. After 1850 steam driven mills were intro-
duced, and a few years later plants producing
as much as 100,000 board feet per day were
making lumbering history on Puget Sound. In
the woods, progress had likewise made itself
felt — in the replacement, first, of hand labor by
oxen, then oxen by horses and mules, and, in
the seventies, through the gradual inroads of
steam "donkeys" and the beginning of railroad
operations to overcome the increasing distance
of haul as the timberline receded before the
logger's axe. The steam donkeys grew in size,
speed, and power; the railroad increased in
length. At the end of the century the earlier
methods of hand and animal logging were
largely a thing of the past. (See frontispiece
and Figure 1.)
Up to this time, the main emphasis in log-
ging was placed on the logger's knowledge of
what to take and what to leave. The early
logger, in other words, practiced economic
selection. He was careful to select only such
trees as were prime for lumber and which
would yield a net profit when put on the mar-
ket. The rest he left standing in the woods.
This policy frequently left the forest in good
producing condition.
In the last three decades there have grown
up many wood uses in addition to lumber, of
which shingles, pulp and paper, and plywood
are most important. Markets for these have
gradually been expanded. Thus there has devel-
oped the great volume of industries now sup-
ported by the forests of the Douglas fir region,
aggregating approximately one-third of the
total United States production. At the same
time the industry has continued to undergo a
remarkable transformation in the mechanics of
production both in the mills and in the woods.
The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to all who have aided in any way the accomplishment of this project, particularly to
I). S. Denman, E. P. Stamm, and Charles Nichols of the Crown Willamette Pulp and Paper Company for their interest and cooperation m
the project as a whole; to John E. Liersch ior valuable data contributed in the follow-up of the conclusions of the studies; and to the Aloha
Lumber Co., The Alberni Pacific Lumber Co., Crown Willamette Pulp and Paper Co.. Kerr and Hawson Co.. Long-Bell Lumber Co.,
McCormick Lumber Co., Merrill & Ring Lumber Co., North Bend Timber Co., Simpson Logging Co., Snoqualmie Falls Lumber Co., Tide-
water Timber Co., West Fork Logging Co., and the Weyerhaeuser limber Co. tor their help and cooperation extended in the studies
made on their logging operations, and to the faculty of the College of Forestry of the University of Washington tor their cooperation in
providing office space and facilities for the compilation of the field data.
'The Timberman.
This short historical sketch serves to remind
us that lumbering in this region has at all times
been undergoing change. Continuous adapta-
tion to economic conditions, location and topo-
graphy of forest areas, and mechanical devel-
opment has proceeded in rapid order. At each
period the rank and file may have felt that sta-
bility in methods had been attained, but never-
theless changes were being brought about
through constant efforts to lower costs or other-
wise increase profit margins. That further im-
portant changes should be made is one of the
principal conclusions reached in this report.
2. Selection Policy of Pioneer Logger is Indus-
try's Need Today. — In late years cutting has
receded farther and farther from the level or
gently sloping ground near the shores of the
bays and rivers into the rough and mountain-
ous areas. To meet these conditions the indus-
try developed the various types of high-lead
and skyline logging machinery, which are
described in the following chapter. In this
development, speed, size, and power became the
symbols of efficiency, mass production the
slogan of the day. At the same time, however,
the management method of basing operating
policies on average costs and returns failed to
warn operators either as to the dangers atten-
dant on overloading the market with an excess
of low grade material, or those attendant on
great investments in machines adapted only to
wholesale removal of heavy stands. There has
also, until very recently, been a lack of realiza-
tion of the impossibility of quick liquidation of
so large a forest resource as the Douglas fir
region possesses. Growing recognition of these
factors has focused attention on the need for
revision in present operating policies to better
fit the economies of timberland management,
and has pointed out the need for new adapta-
tions of logging methods which will enable the
operator to select for the current cut those
areas of timber and sizes, species, and types
of trees which justify cutting or require pri-
ority in cutting. This is the policy from which
the industry derived its strength during the
first 75 years of its existence in this region.
The pioneer logger hewed closely to the lines of
intensive selection of profitable values by area,
species, tree and log, and so succeeded in reap-
ing a profit from timberlands where — had he
relied on wholesale clear cutting methods —
there would have resulted only financial loss.
The evidence here presented goes to prove that
this plan of operation, modified and readapted
to fit present conditions, is just as sound and
just as important to the industry as it was
forty years ago.
3. General Scope and Purpose of Logging Cost
Studies. — This report is confined to the presen-
tation of the results of basic studies of machin-
ery and methods for the purpose of coordinat-
ing effective methods of logging with sound
principles of timber management. Back of
these results stands a comprehensive series of
detailed time and cost studies of all important
phases of logging in the Douglas fir region.
Sixty-four separate cost studies were made in
the spring and summer of 1931. These studies
were conducted in 14 different logging opera-
tions scattered throughout the region. They
represent a wide variety of topographic and
other environmental conditions together with
a representative use of virtually every exist-
ing type of logging machinery. Approximately
40,000 logs, scaling roughly 35,000,000 board
feet log scale, are included in detailed stop-
watch time studies of yarding, swinging, and
loading, in addition to large quantities of logs
covered in detailed cost studies of activities, in
the analysis of which stop-watch time observa-
tions were unnecessary.
II. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LOGGING MACHINERY AND METHODS STUDIED
4. Primary Importance of Stump-to-Rail Haul. —
Logging in the Douglas fir region is today a
highly mechanized industry, characterized by
long-distance transport of logs over standard
gauge railroads which reach out to virtually
every 40-acre subdivision of the logging area,
and generally by large units of power skidding,
yarding, swinging,2 and loading machinery for
transporting the logs by drum and cable from
the stump to the car. The old systems of hand
and animal logging have been superseded by
modern steam, gasoline, diesel, and electrically
driven machinery, which varies greatly in
2For definition of logging terms used see glossary, page 117.
power, design, and methods of operation. In
recent years, crawler tractors have come into
use and are rapidly gaining favor under cer-
tain conditions of logging.
In general, logging operations comprise thre2
major steps: ^f
1. Log making (felling and bucking).
2. The hauling of logs from the stump and
assembling at railroad or other means of
general transportation.
3. Transportation by railroad, waterway, or
highway.
8
FlG. 1 LUMBERING SCENES IN THE DOUGLAS FIR REGION BEFORE THE DAYS OF
POWER MACHINERY
AN EARLY CONCEPT OF THE DONKEY ENGINE, COMPRISING WINDLASS AND MULE FOR HAULING LOGS
OUT OF SWAMP
Below SAWING LUMBER WITH A WHIP SAW REQUIRED SKILLED MEN AND HARD WORK
Of these the major problems have to do with
the hauling of logs from the stump to railroad
(or highway), and the correct balancing of
these two principal methods of transport. This
report deals primarily with this phase. Log
making, which generally represents 10 to 20
per cent of the total logging cost, and general
transportation, which is already too well stand-
ardized to require intensive investigation, are
treated more briefly in the later part of the
report.
5. Specialization in Machinery and Methods. —
Adaptation of machinery and methods to spe-
cial logging problems, as well as to prospective
investment and output required, has nowhere
reached a higher development than in the
Douglas fir region. Initial cost of machinery
units may vary from $1,000 to $100,000;
weight, from a few tons to nearly 200 tons;
crews from 2 to 20 men ; daily output, from a
few thousand board feet to several hundred
thousand feet; and other contrasts of like
nature.
This wide variety in types of equipment does
not, however, mean that the individual logging
operator is always in a position to exercise a
wide degree of choice within his own operation.
In striking the necessary balance between capi-
tal investment structure and temporary oper-
ating economy, he is often limited to one or
two standard machinery types, which, like
"Jack-of-all-trades", are expected to handle
after a fashion all situations to be met with,
but which may not be particularly well fitted
for any one specific case.
The accompanying illustrations, Figures 2
to 4, show the general plan of operation of
machinery and methods studied. Brief descrip-
tions follow.
6. Skyline Systems. — The skyline systems of
yarding (skidding) and swinging are shown
in Figure 2. The chief characteristic of all sky-
line systems is the cable (skyline) suspended
between two supports (head spar and tail
spar), and serving as a track for a trolley or
carriage from which the rigging (choker line)
is dropped to the ground to be hooked on to the
logs. The position of the carriage and the rais-
ing and lowering of rigging is controlled by
drum and cable from the machine. This affords
(by the tightening of main hauling and haul-
back lines) a more or less vertical lift of the
logs, thus allowing full or partial suspension
cf the logs on their way in to the landing. Each
set-up of the skyline is called a "road" which
generally takes in a fanshaped area, 75 to 150
feet in width at the back end (tail spar), and
tapering to the common meeting point of all
roads at the head spar, as shown later in
Figures 7 et seq.
In the "slack-line" system (Fig. 2,C), the
rigging is lowered by slacking the skyline itself,
which is reeled on a large drum. With the
skidder, on the other hand, the rigging is paid
out from the suspended carriage by means of a
special slack pulling line, which either op3rates
in the conventional manner shown in Figure 2A
or by means of a patented mechanical device
built into the carriage (canyon carriage) which
facilitates the lowering of the rigging from
greater heights than is possible with the ordi-
nary slack puller.
The term "interlocking" skidder refers to the
arrangement whereby main line and haulback
drums can be interlocked mechanically when
desired. This allows the haulback (receding
line) to be paid out at approximately the same
speed as the main line is taken in, thus keeping
the lines taut to give better control of the load.
The large steam slack-line machines and
skidders usually are mounted on railroad trucks
and are thus restricted to operation directly
from the railroad track. In some cases they are
mounted on sleds. Their operating range from
the track may be extended as far as 3,000 or
4,000 feet, or more if the topography permits.
Generally, however, the economical operating
radius (yarding distance) varies between 1,000
and 2,500 feet. Gasoline-driven skidders and
slack-line yarders in present use are mounted
on sleds. This allows their placement either at
or away from the track.
The North Bend and Tyler systems of sky-
line logging are used principally for swinging.
Their advantage lies in the fact that they can be
operated with the ordinary type of donkey en-
gine, and hence may be improvised in high-lead
operations without necessitating specially built
machinery. Figure 2, E, F, and G, illustrates
their departure from the systems described
above.
7. High-lead System. — Figure 2, H illustrates
the high-lead method of yarding. The principal
feature of this system, as compare^.- with the
old fashioned ground yarding, is tLVvftevation
of the main hauling line through a high-lead
block suspended from a spar tree at elevations
usually ranging from 100 to 200 feet above the
ground. The lifting tendency thus exerted on
the load saves power and reduces hang-ups
when the load strikes obstructions. Its effec-
tiveness in this respect, however, is not nearly
10
. ING
TENSION LINEh
steel rcmrvi
\
RECEDING CINE
2-A STEEL TOWER SKIDDER SYSTEM
2-E NORTH BEND SYSTEM ONE PART MAIN LINE
TEMSlONLINE
S/flDDER
UNE / RECEDING L/NE
' " *"V SKY LINE
MAINLINE
HAUL BACA LINE
2-B TREE SPAR SKIDDER SYSTEM
2-F NORTH BEND SYSTEM TWO PART MAIN LINE
HAUL BACH Li 'Al£
2-C SLACK LINE SYSTEM
HEAD SEAR
TAIL SPA/f
2-D DUNHAM SYSTEM
STANDING
SKY L/NE
UNE
HAUL BACK LINE
2-G TYLER SYSTEM
2-H HIGH LEAD SYSTEM
Fig 2 VARIOUS TYPES OF YARDING METHODS
11
so greal as .vi:h the skyline system, except
withr istance of the spar tree.
I,ar r electric high-lead yarders are
nted on railroad trucks together
iding unit, and operate when
miIv from the railroad track.
oline-driven yarders in present use
ases mounted on sleds, and are gen-
ed for gathering in the logs at some
diate point between the stump and the
economical operating radius of even the
-vr high-lead machines seldom exceeds 1,000
and is generally confined to 600 or 800
; for the smaller machines, usually some-
a less. Beyond these distances the advan-
e of the high-lead in lifting the loads over
tructions is lost; it becomes in effect a
und lead."
Tractor Systems. — The principle of oper-
n m trding or roading with tractors dif-
i'i . all the other power methods in that
mat hi ne itself travels in and out with each
well adapted for logging on level
ground • rates most efficiently on slopes
from 5 t'> 20 per cent. On steep ground il
largely limited to favorable slopes under 50
cenl r. with such heavy trailer attach-
ments as the fair-i in Figu
4-A, and 6, generally i r cei
Further limitations in it .vam
ground, or on clay soils in
Tractors can conveniently be c<
conventional method of high-lead
mounting a special drum attachmt
on the tractor as shown in Figure 3
quently so used under conditions requir,
quent moving and rigging .«head for *m
quantities of timber. Thi- n
will hereinafter be referred 'tract
donkey."
9. Loading Systems. — The load tfine
frequently mounted together with t.- irdi
engine and operated from the same
power. This is generally true ■■!" the h«
system (Figure 2A), the Mi
(Figure 4C) and the duplex a < Figi
4D). The jammer or McGiffer r (F
ure 4A) is a specially designed loader. wid<
used in other regions. It h, introduc
in this region only recently in coi 'met.
tractor logging. The locomotion (FUfl
4B), originally designed for gei, lustr
purposes, has of late years found wide ust
loading logs as well as in yardmur and loadi
■ the track.
III. BASIS OF TIME AND COST ANALYSIS
#»
#>
10. Deficiencies in Present Cost Information. —
In order toj[ain_ a basic ur I leg-
Knowledge relatio'
ly the extent to which vari< may-
has long been common knowl-
edge an ggtwg operaj
• meed d<
and density of tit
conditions^ and topb
methods employed and :
j !id_jTiadTiinesi etc. The seemingly infinit<
.ities involved in tracing to I
He effect of all of th.
further difficult
in every-day logging have disc in-
dustry from approaching tl
matic and thorougl
present pi
to a
tnumb differ;:, Ex
rience and judgment supply in .neasi
the means of adapting th spec
ditions.
FIG. 4C 10"X12" LOADER WITH MCLEAN BOOM
FlG. 4A 12x12 McGIFFERT LOADER (JAMMER) AND
lO-TON TRACTOR DRAWING FAIRLEAD ARCH
Fig. 4B LOCOMOTIVE CRANE WITH HEEL BOOM
FIG. 4D DUPLEX LOADING SYSTEM
13
The following table shows the principal seg-
regations called for in the standard account-
ing system used by the West ('oast Lumber-
men's Association, which with many additional
subdivisions is widely used in the industry.
The cost data in the table represent actual aver-
age costs reported by certain members of the
association for the first six months of 1931, a
period representative of the main period dur-
ing which the field studies hereinafter reported
were conducted.
Table 1
Opera tiny costs detailed by tasks in dollars
per M feet /».»(.'
Task Total cost Labor Expense
Rigging ahead _ $0.11 $0.11
Felling and bucking 86 .84 $0.02
Yarding and loading 1.76 1.22 .54
Wire rope 24 .24
Railroad — 1.14 .60 .54
Spur track.. .39 .25 .14
Water haul - .35 .35
Booming and rafting __ - 17 .08 .09
Boom stick towing _ _ .09 .09
Depreciation, logging and
transportation _ .67 .67
Administration and general
expense .73 .26 .47
Stumpage _ 2.75 2.75
TotaUost, details reported2 . $8.73 $3.07 $5.66
'Taken from "Analysis of Douglas Fir Costs and Sales Returns,"
West Coast Lumbermen's Association, Month of June, 1931.
2The figures do not balance in vertical addition because the total
averages carry different weights from those of the itemized
averages.
Such cost statements covering for any given
logging operation the cost of handling the aver-
age thousand-foot unit of logs under average
conditions are indispensable in the general con-
trol of the business, and are useful for many
other specific purposes. However, they do not
disclose variations from the average that may
apply to specific portions of the total volume
of logs represented in any given cost average,
and, therefore, fail to reveal to what extent
economically unsound practices, hidden behind
what possibly may be considered a satisfactory
group-average cost, may have crept in to de-
stroy profits. Hence, they do not furnish a
valid basis for the solution of a great number
of the important internal operating and man-
agement problems which the logging operator
must solve in order to secure maximum returns.
Specific knowledge of cost and cost relations
applicable to measured quantities of work is
a basic requirement in industrial management.
Such knowledge can best be obtained from time
and cost studies, properly analyzed to reveal
not only the average cost for the whole, but
the departures from the average of constitu-
ent parts, which, in the aggregate, make up
the whole.
11. Objects and Functions of Time and Cost
Studies. — The primary object of the time and
cost studies here reported is to demonstrate by
means of a series of intensive studies the costs
and cost relations that arise within any given
logging operation through variations in cer-
tain conveniently measureable factors, which
are known to have a definite effect on cost.
Of these, size of timber is the most important
in that it affects in varying degree virtually all
items of cost from the stump to the pond or
market. The effect of size variations has thus
been investigated in connection with yarding,
swinging, roading, loading, railroad operation,
booming, and rafting, and other subdivisions of
cost which intimately follow variations in the
cost of one or the other of these items. A
resume of a study of the effect of size of timber
on felling and bucking cost by the United
States Forest Service is also included. Next in
the order of general importance is the distance
the log must travel from the stump to the car.
Its effect on the cost of yarding, swinging, and
roading has also been investigated closely.
Finally there are a number of other factors
such as density of timber, topography, and car-
loadings, which do not require actual time
studies for their analysis, but which, neverthe-
less, must be analyzed systematically in order
to determine their effect on costs.
Another object, different in character and
independent of the objects stated above, is to
compare the economic efficiency of the various
types of yarding and swinging machinery un-
der various conditions of logging. This ques-
tion is an important one in considering the
logging operation purely from the standpoint
of costs. It becomes even more important in
the ultimate coordination of efficiency in log-
ging with various schemes of economic selec-
tion. The yarding operation occupies the key
position in the intensive application of man-
agement principles, and much depends on how
it can be performed best to further the ultimate
purpose in view.
In reaching ultimate conclusions in studies
of this character, many factors must be con-
sidered. To take the logging operation apart to
find just how each minor part i. ""Lions by it-
self may or may not give the final answer. The
typical logging operation is composed of a
series of operations or activities which follow
each other in a certain sequence; railroads are
built; trees fe^ed and bucked; logging' machin-
ery moved into place; logs are yarded and
loaded, or perhaps cold decked, swung, and
14
loaded, etc. ; log cars are brought to the landing,
loaded with logs, and switched to the make-up
track; then hauled to the pond or market for
unloading, booming, rafling, etc. Some of
these activities, such as felling and bucking,
and cold decking, are largely independent of
the rest; costs and cost relations, therefore,
may be derived with the assurance that they
are significant.
Other activities such as direct yarding,
swinging, loading, roading, and switching, etc.,
are usually carried on concurrently with each
other and may become so interrelated that cost
studies of any particular one are not conclusive
without full consideration of those that precede
or follow. One or the other in such a series
of more or less interdependent activities will
usually set the pace to which each of the others
will either adjust itself or else in turn assume
the function of pace setter for the others for
various intervals of time. The significance of
cost relations applicable to each of such activi-
ties thus depends on whether it is a controlling
or a controlled activity or both.
Likewise, it may not be of immediately prac-
tical significance to find, for example, that
yarding can be done cheaper with one type of
equipment or method than with another, if
thereby the synchronization of the combined
yarding-loading-switching or yarding-swing-
ing-loading-switching operation, etc., will be
adversely affected. The operation as a whole
must be considered along with each individual
activity. Interdependent activities which are
carried on concurrently have to be synchron-
ized ; railroad construction and operation must
be balanced against alternative costs of other
means of transportation. Viewed through the
tiny peephole of a study of any particular activ-
ity, some of these considerations may fall be-
yond the immediate field of vision and so re-
quire a readjustment in the final analysis. It is
the function of organization and management
to choose the machines and methods which
separately or in combination with others are
best adapted to perform a given task or series
of tasks, and to combine these with proper
planning of the logging area and proper oper-
ating practices ;vto the most profitable opera-
tion. To assist in this, time and cost studies of
individual activities serve to furnish basic in-
formation.
12. Adaptability of Cost Data to Changing
Cost Levels. — In general, the procedure fol-
lowed in studying various activities consists of
taking stop-watch time observations of all
principal time elements of the logging opera-
tion, and of measuring the amount of work
performed in terms of distance transported and
volume produced. The time required in yard-
ing, swinging, loading, etc., for logs of various
sizes and for different distance segregations is
thus determined for each machine. From these
data is calculated the time in m'nutes per thou-
sand-foot urit of logs, which represents the
ultimate answer in the time studies proper.
In order to translate time in minutes per
thousand into cost per thousand, it is neces-
sary to set up the cost of operating each
machine. From this is derived the operating
cost per minute, which, multiplied by the time
in minutes per thousand, gives the cost per
thousand-foot unit of logs.
The fact that money costs lack stability, par-
ticularly during the present period of economic
upheaval, is an inconvenience, but does not
seriously impair the significance of the results
obtained. Each cost study table lists in the
footnotes the machine rate (cost of operation
of a given operating unit) on the basis of which
the cost per thousand board feet is computed.
To reestablish costs on the basis of a different
machine rate, if that were desired, it would be
necessary to calculate the ratio between the
machine rate desired and the machine rate
originally used in the tables and to multiply
per M costs by this ratio. Test cost data may
thus be brought up to date as often as desired,
or they may be made to fit any particular cost
level that the logging operator may wish to
establish for his own standard in preference to
the one used in the cost table. This, of course,
does not carry the suggestion that the results
of any one of the studies here reported can be
made to fit a set of conditions that are not re-
flected in the study itself, but implies only that
the flexibility of the cost data is unlimited inso-
far as adaptation to changing cost levels or
machine rates is concerned.
Another significant use of time-study results
consists of their direct adaptation to the cur-
rent cost record of the logging operation where-
by cost figures are obtained that are corrected
currently both for variations in the various
machine rates and for variations in the time
per M, as this item changes for one location
or another. Further detail on this method of
analysis is given in Chapter XVI. In this case,
time studies serve to furnish data on cost rela-
tions only, while corresponding actual costs are
interpreted directly from current performance
records. For this particular purpose it plainly
does not matter what the basis of cost mav be
15
iii the original time-study table; in fact it would
not matter whether the time study carried any
cost data or not. because the time per M data
would servo the same purpose.
13. Basis of Machine Rates. — Data on machine
operating cost were obtained where available
directly from records kept in the logging oper-
ations studied, supplemented by data from
other sources as needed. Table 2 shows a record
of cost data applying to one of the machines
covered in the study. Similar tabulations were
made for all machines. A summary for differ-
ent groups of machines is given in Table 3.
Machine Rates
Table 2
wo h.p. Dicsd High-lead Yarder
Charge per Charge per
Item
(.'ui' rent operating costs
Labor :
1 hook tender
1 rigging slinger
1 chaser
1 signal man
3 chokersetters
1 engineer
Extra labor (Av.)
Industrial insurance, 5%.
Total labor
Supplies:
Fuel
Grease, oil, waste, etc.
Wire rope and rigging... ..
season
(2JfO days)
Total supplies $3,300.00
Maintenance and repairs (2 yrs. Av.) .... .. 2,244.50
Uninsured risks, etc. (rate, 5% of Av. value), $17,040 X 0.05 852.00
Ownership costs
Depreciation (D)
Initial cost (I) $21,300 (Present age 3 yrs.)
Rate of depreciation, 10% — until depreciated to
Interest: Rate, 6% of av. value (5-yr. av.)
I + I+D
1
$21,300X0.10 .... 2,130.00
21,300 + 10,650 + 2,130
17,040
2 2
$17,040 X 0.06 1,022.40
Fire insurance: Rate, 2.5% of Av. value (5-yr. average)
$17,040 X 0.025 426.00
Taxes : Rate, 1.5% of av. value
$17,040 X 0.015 255.60
Total (Full machine rate)
day '
(8 hrs.)
$7.25
5.25
4.00
3.50
12.00
6.00
3.50
2.08
$43.58
8.88
Full
machine
rate
(Per cent)
47.5
$4.09
1.50
13.75
$19.34
21.1
9.35
10.2
3.55
3.9
9.7
4.26
4.6
1.77
1.9
1.07
1.1
$91.80
100.0
'Charge per day is derived from season cost in all cases except for items listed under labor.
16
Table 3
Machine rates per 8-hour day
(Yarding Only)
Basis
Number
12"xl4" Steam Skidders1. . 6
12"xl7" Slackline Yarder1 1
300 H.P. Gas. Slackline Yarder 2
12"xl4" High-Lead Yarded 6
200 H.P. Diesel High-Lead Yarders 3
125 H.P. Gas. Diesel H.L. Yarders 1
100 H.P. Gas. Diesel H.L. Yarders 2
30-35 H.P. Gas. Diesel H.L. Yarders 4
60 H.P. Gas. Crawler Tractor with
Fair-Lead Arch & Yarding Crew 6
Full
machine
rate
Dollars
195.00
195.00
100.00
112.50
92.00
62.55
56.33
22.00
Labor
incl.
unlit t,
insiir.
PerCent
46.2
52.5
49.3
47.6
49.6
51.2
52.3
57.7
Percentage distribution of full machine rate
Current operating costs , , Ownership costs-
Fuel,
wire Maint. Unin-
rupc and and surcd Dcprc- Interest
rigging repairs risk ciation and taxes
PerCent PerCent PerCent PerCent Per Cent
26.9
25.6
24.5
34.4
18.7
30.0
29.7
20.0
5.7
7.8
8.1
7.0
9.2
6.2
5.9
11.3
t.O
2.6
3.3
2.2
4.1
2.2
2.1
1.4
10.3
6.4
8.2
4.9
10.2
6.0
5.9
6.8
350 H.P. 12x14" Skidders1 4
12"xl7" Slackline Swing1 . ... 1
I2"x14" North Bend Swing1 4
60 H.P. Crawler Tractor with
Fair- Lead Arch — Driver Only. 2
12"xl4" Skidders .
12"xl4" High-Lead Units
Jammer .. .
46.45 34.8 22.1 12.2
(Swinging Only)
160.75 40.7 28.4 6.8
155.00 40.2 32.3 9.8
115.20 37.5 44.4 7.0
33.80 16.8 30.4 16.7
(Yarding and Loading)
250.00 46.7 24.5 6.8
165.00 49.3 31.0 7.2
(Loading Only)
59.43 44.4 17.7 10.6
2.5 23.0
6.2
3.8
4.9
2.9
6.1
3.4
3.1
2.1
4.9
Insur-
ance
PerCent
0.7
1.3
1.7
1.0
2.1
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.5
^Average
stvage per
man-day
incl.
Indus.
insur.
Dollars
5.52
5.69
4.71
4.79
5.00
4.39
4.53
4.29
5.05
Men
employed
including
extra
labor
Xumbcr
16.4
18.0
12.0
11.2
9.2
7.3
6.5
3.0
3.2
5.3
3.2
2.0
11.2
8.1
4.7
6.7
4.8
3.3
0.9
1.6
1.1
5.39
5.20
4.80
12.1
12.0
9.0
3.4
27.1
5.1
0.5
5.67
1.0
4.1
2.4
10.6
5.8
6.3
3.1
0.8
1.2
5.80
5.35
20.2
15.2
5.3 13.2
8.0
0.8
4.80
5.5
'Yarding and swinging integrated with loading, but costs have been allorated to each operation separately. Loading costs are obtained b;
deducting in each cas; the costs allocated to yarding or swinging from total yarding and loading or swinging and loading costs.
Based on the data in Table 3, the following
summary, which gives percsntage distribulton
of costs, represents the average yarding-swing-
ing-loading operation :
Table 4
Summary of percentage distribution of machine rate
for yarding, swinging, and loading operations
Total
machine rate
(Per cent)
Operating labor 43.0
Industrial insurance at 5% of pay roll 2.2
Fuel, wire rope, and rigging supplies . 27.8
Maintenance and repairs 7.3
Uninsured risks, etc 3.7
Depreciation 9.5
Interest and taxes 5.5
Fire insurance _ 1.0
Total 100.00
In present cost-keeping practice only a por-
tion of these costs are ordinarily so segregated
as to identify them directly with the particular
activity to which they apply. Ordinarily the
costs directly identified with a given activity,
such as yarding, cold decking, swinging, etc.,
will be found to range from 40 to 80 per cent
of the full machine rate. All cost data given in
these reports refer to full machine rates unless
otherwise specified.
14. General Overhead Costs Not Included in
Machine Rates. —
Certain items cf general overhead costs have been
excluded from the machine rate set-up, such as super-
vision, management, office expense, interest on liquid
working capital, etc. These represent generally from
10 to 20 per cent o ' the full cost of operation. How-
ever, the small scale opei*ator may often carry most of
his overhead costs "under his hat", while the larger
operations may be weighted down with a relatively
heavy overhead burden. Such differences from one
operation to another may be of importance in weighing
the relative merits of different plans of organizing the
operations but they have no direct bearing on the rela-
tive merits of different types of machinery as inde-
pendent operating units. These variations in overhead
costs have, therefore, been excluded at this stage of
the report so as to confine the comparison to compar-
able items of cost. They will be considered later on in
dealing with the logging operation as a whole (Chap-
ters XVI and XVII).
15. Basis of Capital Charges. —
As may be noted in Table 2, annual capital charges
or ownership costs are reduced to cost per day by
dividing the working year into 240 8-hour days, which
usually is considered a normal working year for log-
ging machinery in this region. This figure has been
applied to all machines in order to secure a fair basis
for comparing costs for different machines and oper-
ations.
A similar treatment is given to charges set up to
cover interest, fire insurance, operating risks, etc.,
in order to overcome inequalities in the provisions
which different logging operators make for these
items. Some companies, for example, insure them-
selves against virtually all insurable risks, while others
carry little or no insurance, but do, for that reason
carry the corresponding risk. Differences of this sort
17
are, of course, loss real than apparent. They have
been smoothed by applying uniform rates o( interest
per cent; uninsured risks, 5 per rout; property
ta\rs, L.5 per cent; fire insurance, 0.75 per cent for
machines mounted Oil wheels, and l2.f> per cent for
machines mounted on sleds — all percentages applying
to the current value o\' the machine. The allowance of
5 per cent of current capital value I'ov uninsured
risks is an arbitrary estimate designed to cover risks
not otherwise provided for. These include wreckage,
employer's public liability, boiler insurance, lire pro
lection, limited lire damage liability not covered by
standard tire policies, and fire risk on lines and
rigging (not included in machinery investment).
Depreciation charges are treated in various ways
to fit the different types oi' machinery. The investment
in tractors is thus written off at the rate of 25 per
cent annually, and small gasoline yarders (30-35 h.p.)
at the rate of 20 per cent annually. For these two
classes of short-life machinery, the straight line
method of charging depreciation is used. i.e.. depreci-
ation is carried through the life of the machine at a
fixed percentage of initial cost until the capital in-
vestment is fully amortized.
For long-life logging engines the annual depreciation
rate used is ten per cent of the initial cost for the
first five years and five per cent for the second five
year period. The five per cent rate may either be
carried through until fully amortized or halved
again at the end of the five-year period. This step
by step reduction of depreciation charges provides
for quick amortization at the beginning as a safeguard
against obsolescence and tends to equalize depreci-
ation and maintenance costs as the machine grows
older.
Three of the larger machines listed in the table
had been written off the books of the company, but
were nevertheless in good working order, having been
more or less completely rebuilt in recent years. Cap-
ital charges for these were set up on the basis of
fair appraisal value.
16. Other Costs. —
Considerable variation in the operating costs of
identical kinds of machines in different operations
was due to variation in the number of men in the
cicw and to difference in wage scales, which at the
time of these studies, were in a state of flux, wage
reductions having been put into effect in some oper-
ations earlier than in others. Other differences may
in some cases have been due more to incompleteness
of cost records than to actual variations in costs.
Fully reliable cost data on such items as wire rope,
rigging, maintenance, and repairs were difficult to
get, because cost records were rarely kept for indi-
vidual machines.
The differences shown in the average man-day wage
for different kinds of machines are due partly to actual
differences in comparative wage rates, and partly to
the fact that the operation of some machines involves
harder and more hazardous work or calls for a greater
share of highly skilled labor than others. For example,
the difference in wages between the $4.29 per day for
the 35 h.p. gasoline yarder class and the $5.52 for the
12"xl4"skidder class is largely to be accounted for
by the different type of work involved.
Extra labor covers prorated time of watchmen,
woods foreman, delivery of fuel or water, etc. This
charge is translated into equivalent man-days at the
approximate rate paid to common labor. Thus, the num-
ber of men for the machine listed in Table 2 is given as
9 although only 8 men are actually employed in the
regular crew.
IV. YARDING STUDIES
17. General Importance of the Yarding Opera-
tion.— In a very broad sense, yarding is often
understood to include swinging and loading,
i.e., takes in the whole operation from stump
to car. In this sense it generally represents
20 to 50 per cent of the total logging costs
(exclusive of stumpage). In the stricter sense
of including only the actual yarding of the log
from the stump to the first landing, it repre-
sents on the average only 10 to 20 per cent of
total costs, thus ranking about equally with
felling and bucking, or swinging and loading,
or railroad construction, or railroad operation.
From the standpoint of cost analysis, however,
yarding as conducted in typical operations in
this region is by far the most important phase
of the logging operation because it is in most
cases a pace-setting activity or the "bottleneck"
which controls the flow of logs to other activi-
ties. For this reason, as well as on account
of the fact that yarding costs fluctuate widely
with variation in the yarding show, the yarding
operation has received a great deal more atten-
tion in this series of logging cost studies than
have any of the other activities.
18. Scope and Object of Yarding Studies. —
Yarding time and cost studies were conducted
in 30 different settings distributed among 14
logging operations scattered throughout the
region. They represent wide variations of
topography, size and density of timber, oper-
ating practices and types of yarding equip-
ment and methods. The objective in each of
these studies was to determine the relation of
size of log and yarding distance to yarding
costs. Study areas were selected with a view to
obtaining for each major group of yarding ma-
chinery a fairly representative sampling of
good, poor, and average yarding shows; allow-
ing contrasts to be made between dense tim-
ber and scattered timber, small timber and
large timber, rough ground and smooth
ground, uphill yarding am'* ' downhill yarding,
etc. These conditions are illustrated in Fig-
ures Nos. 5 to 27. A total of approximately
20,000 logs, scaling nearly 20,000,000 board feet
log scale, are included in these studies.
19. Manner of Study. — In general the time
study work consisted in recording for each
18
turn, the diameter, length, and scale of each
log in the turn, the distance yarded and the
total turn time, as well as detailed time segre-
gations of hauling, haulback, hooking-on, un-
hooking, and various classifications of delay
time. In this work field crews of two to four
men, equipped with stop watches, scale sticks,
etc., were stationed at strategic points where
all details of the yarding operation could be
observed. Scaling was done with the Scribner
Dec. C. rule and diameters recorded to the
nearest inch according to U. S. Forest Service
practice. No deductions were made for defect.
After the time study on a yarding area had
been completed profiles were run of the yard-
ing roads and a topographic map was made,
using a contour interval of ten feet. (See Figs.
5 to 27) .
From the analysis of these data were derived
detailed time, cost, and output tables similar
to Table 5A. Close inspection of these tables
is required in order to trace the effect of yard-
ing distance and volume of log on yarding
costs. The tables are divided into sections,
each section representing a certain yarding
distance. Differences between corresponding
values from one section of the table to another
show, then, the effect of yarding distance on
time and cost. Differences between values
listed opposite the log volumes show the effect
of volume of log on time and cost. Footnotes
in the tables give the basis of translating time
into cost as well as further explanatory data.
20. Distinction Between External Yarding Dis-
tance and Actual Yarding Distance. — Table 5 gives
a summary of costs and outputs for six differ-
ent log volumes and yarding distances. The
data in the left hand side of the table listed
under the heading "actual yarding distances"
have been read directly from the detailed time
study tables (Table 5A). "Actual yarding dis-
tance" here represents the actual distance from
log to landing; this being the sense in which
yarding distance was dealt with in recording
distances in the field.
In the right hand half of the table, costs and
output are shown for various "external" yard-
ing distances. By "external yarding distance"
is here meant the distance from the landing to
the outside boundary of the logging area. This
is the sense in which the term "yarding dis-
tance" is used in every-day logging parlance.
In translating the cost at the actual yarding
distances to cost of yarding within the external
yarding distances it has been assumed that the
density and size distribution of the timber is
uniform over the entire yarding area.
Table 5
Costs
and on
tputS of
yarding
ivith 60-
h.p. craw
and log
'er tract o
volumes
r with fai
•-lead
arch, for
various
distances
1 'ol. of loij
'•.in.
(Cost in
dollars per M
feet B.M.)
j.
600
1000
1500
2000
25HO
3000
600
1000
l 500
2000
2S00
3000
100
3.10
3.60
4.18
4.68
5.22
5.71
2.80
3.16
3.54
3.92
4.28
4.60
200
1.70
1.96
2.24
2.54
2.80
3.07
1.54
1.73
1.93
2.12
2.31
2.49
400
1.00
1.17
1.33
1.50
1.68
1.87
.88
1.01
1.15
1.26
1.37
1.47
800
.65
.79
.95
1.09
1.24
1.39
.56
.67
.78
.88
.98
1.08
1600
.46
.58
.72
.86
1.00
1.13
.38
.47
.57
.66
.75
.84
3200
.30
.40
.51
.63
.75
.87
.25
.31
.39
.47
.54
.61
(Output p
er 8-hour
day—
-M
feet B.M.)
100
15
13
11
10
9
8
17
15
13
12
11
10
200
27
24
21
18
17
15
30
27
24
22
20
19
400
47
40
35
31
28
25
52
46
40
37
34
32
800
71
59
49
42
37
33
82
70
58
53
47
43
1600
101
80
64
54
47
41
120
98
82
70
62
54
3200
155
116
90
73
62
54
188
151
119
103
87
74
Output per 8-hour day—
-No
of Logs)
100
150
P
111
99
89
81
166
148
131
119
109
101
200
136
119
103
91
83
76
151
134
120
108
101
93
400
117
100
87
77
69
62
131
114
100
92
85
79
800
89
74
61
53
47
42
103
87
73
66
59
54
1600
63
50
40
34
29
26
75
61
51
44
39
34
3200
48
36
28
23
20
17
59
47
37
32
27
23
'Costs listed in these columns in the upper division of the table are taken from column 14 in the time study table (Table 5-A) ; they rep
resent the turn by turn cost (yarding variable) at various actual yarding distances.
-is represent average yarding variable costs withii the external yarding distance stated.
19
I ABLE 5-A
Relation of volume of toft and yarding distance to time and cost
of direct yarding with 60-h.p. tractor aud falrlead arch.
Based on M.\4 1o£s.
100
200
300
400
600
800
1000
1200
1600
2000
3000
4000
600
FOOT
YARDING DISTANCE
Volume
of log
in ft.
b.m.
Top
diameter
82-ft
log
(.curved )
No. of
logs
per
turn
Volume
in feet
b.m. per
turn
Time in minutes per turn
Time
per
M h.m.
Production
per H-hr. day
yarding
variable
- cost at
$.0968 per
yarding
minute1
Approx.
t ree
diam.
(dhh)
Haul-
back
Haulini
Hook,
unhook an
hang-ups
Pro-
1 rated
delays
Total
Side- yarding
lining time
No.
of
logs
Gross
scale
M b.m.
Basis
No. o
logs
B.m.
Inches
Pes.
B.m.
Minutes
Minutes
Minut es
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Pes.
M h.m.
1 >ollars
Inches
Pes.
100
9.3
1.30
430
2.85
2.64
6.31
1.27
0.70
13.77
32.02
150
15
3.10
16
542
200
13.3
3.75
750
2.85
•J. S3
5.65
1.27
.60
13.20
17.60
136
27
1.70
22
1118
300
16.6
3.38
1014
2.85
3.05
5.20
1.27
.68
12.89
12.71
126
38
1 .23
27
601
400
IT..".
3.03
1212
2.85
3.10
1.79
1.27
.46
12.46
10.28
117
47
1.00
31
350
600
20.5
2.50
1500
2.85
3.18
1.20
1.27
.:t:,
1 1 .8.r.
7.90
llll
61
.76
38
465
800
24.0
2.11
1688
2.85
3.23
3.79
1.27
.25
11.39
6.75
89
71
.65
12
274
1000
26.0
1.83
1830
2.85
3.27
8.60
1.27
.20
11.09
6.06
79
79
.59
47
117
1200
28.7
1.64
1968
2.85
3.30
3.31
1.27
.15
10.88
5.68
72
87
.54
52
101
1600
34.0
1.11
2256
2.85
3.3 1
3.10
1.27
.10
10.66
1.73
63
101
.46
59
103
2000
36.8
1.26
2520
2.85
3.39
8.96
1.27
.08
10.54
4.18
57
LIB
.40
65
56
3000
44.5
1.07
3210
2.85
3.17
2.78
1.27
.01
1 0.4 1
3.2 t
49
1 18
.31
79
6
4000
51.8
1.00
4000
2.85
S.66
2.72
1.27
.01
10.40
2.60
46
185
.25
91
1
1000
FOOT
YARDIN-G
DISTANCE
100
9.3
4.60
460
4.13
4.27
6.67
1.27
.77
17.11
37.20
129
13
3.60
16
542
200
13.3
4.20
840
4.13
4.73
6.18
1.27
.69
17.00
20.24
119
24
1.96
22
1118
300
15.5
3.73
1119
4.13
4.98
5.62
1.27
.59
16.59
14.83
108
32
1.44
27
601
400
17.5
3.35
1340
4.13
5.07
5.16
1.27
.51
16.14
12.04
100
40
1.17
31
350
600
20.5
2.75
1650
4.13
5.20
4.45
1.27
.40
15.45
9.36
85
51
.91
38
465
800
24.0
2.29
1832
4.13
5.28
3.96
1.27
.30
14.94
8.16
74
59
.79
42
274
1000
26.0
1.96
1960
4.13
5.33 1
3.63
1.27
.22
14.58
7.41
65
65
.72
47
117
1200
28.7
1.74
2088
4.13
5.37
3.41
1.27
.17
14.35
6.87
58
70
.67
52
101
1600
34.0
1.47
2352
4.13
5.44
3.15
1.27
.12
14.11
6.00
50
80
.53
59
103
2000
36.8
1.30
2600
4.13
5.50
3.00
1.27
.08
13.98
5.38
45
89
.52
65
5S
3000
44.5
1.08
3240
4.13
5.65
2.79
1.27
.04
13.88
4.28
37
112
.41
79
6
4000
51.8
1.00
4000
4.13
5.80 ;
2.72
1.27
.01
13.93
3.48
34
138
.34
91
1
15 0 0 FOOT YARDING DISTANCE
9.3
13.3
15.5
17.5
20.5
24.0
26.0
28.7
34.0
36.8
44.5
51.8
4.90
4.65
4.23
3.78
3.03
2.47
2.10
1.85
1.54
1.35
1.10
1.00
490
930
1269
1512
1818
1976
2100
2220
2464
2700
3300
4000
5.67
5.67
5.67
5.67
5.67
5.67
5.67
5.67
5.67
5.67
5.67
5.67
6.33
7.12
7.43
7.58
7.78
7.89
7.93
7.98
8.06
8.14
8.34
8.55
7.06
6.73
6.22
5.68
4.78
4.15
3.77
3.52
3.21
3.05
2.80
2.72
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
.83
.78
.70
.60
.45
.34
.25
.20
.14
.09
.04
.01
21.15
21.57
21.29
20.80
19.95
19.32
18.89
18.64
18.35
18.22
18.12
18.22
43.16
23.1"
16.78
13.76
10.97
9.78
9.00
8.40
7.45
6.75
5.49
4.56
1 I 1
103
95
87
73
61
53
48
40
36
29
26
11
21
29
36
44
19
53
57
64
71
87
105
4.18
2.24
1.62
1 .33
1.06
.95
.87
.81
.72
.65
.53
.44
16
548
22
1118
27
601
31
350
38
465
42
274
47
117
52
101
59
103
65
56
79
6
91
1
2000
FOOT
YARDING
DIST AN CE
100
9.3
5.20
520
7.18
8.42
7.40
1.27
.89
25.16
48.38
99
10-
4.68
16
542
200
13.3
4.95
990
7.18
9.58
7.10
1.27
.84
25.97
26.23
91
18
2.54
22
1118
300
15.5
4.50
1350
7.18
9.90
6.55
1.27
.75
25.65
19.00
84 "
y ' 25
1.84
27
601
400
17.5
4.07
1628
7.18
10.13
6.03
1.27
.66
25.27
15.52
77
31
1.50
31
350
600
20.5
3.21
1926
7.18
10.39
5.00
1.27
.48
24.32
12.63
63
38
1.22
38
465
800
24.0
2.61
2088
7.18
10.49
4.30
1.27
.36
23.60
11.30
53
42
1.09
42
274
1000
26.0
2.21
2210
7.18
10.55
3.89
1.27
.28
23.17
10.48
46
46
1.01
47
117
1200
28.7
1.93
2316
7.18
10.61
3.60
1.27
.22
22.88
9.88
40
49
.96
52
101
1600
34.0
1.59
2544
7.18
10.73
3.26
1.27
.14
22.58
8.88
34
54
.86
59
103
2000
36.8
1.38
2760
7.18
10.83
3.06
1.27
.10
22.44
8.13
30
59
.79
65
56
3000
44.5
1.11
3330
7.18
11.08
2.81
1.27
.04
22.38
6.72
24
71
.65
79
6
4000
51.8
1.00
4000
7.18
11.35
2.72
1.27
.01
22.53
5.63
21
85
.54
91
1
20
TABLE 5-A (Continued)
Relation of volume of loft and yardlnft distance to time and cost
Of direct yarding with 60-h.p. tractor and falrlead arch.
Based on 3734 logs.
2500 FOOT YARDING DISTANCE
Volume
of log
in ft.
b.m.
Top
diam.
32 ft.
leg
(curved)
No. of
logs
per
turn
Volume
in feet
b.m. per
turn
Time in minutes per turn
Ti ae
per
M b.m.
Production
per 8-hr. day
Yarding
variable
Approx.
tree
diam.
(dbh)
Haul-
back
l
Hauling
Hook.
inhook anc
hangups
Pro-
rated
delays
Side-
lining
Total
yarding
tin e
No.
of
logs
Gross
scale
M b.m.
$.0968 per
yarding
minute1
Basis
Mo. of
logs
B.m.
Inches
9.3
Pes.
5.40
B.m.
540
Minutes
8.72
Minutes
10.52
Minutes
7.65
Minutes
Minutes
0.94
Minutes
29.10
Minutes
53.89
Pes.
89
M b.m.
9
Dollars
5.22
Inches
16
Pes.
100
1.27
542
200
13.3
5.25
1050
8.72
12.00
7.47
1.27
.90
30.36
28.91
83
17
2.80
22
1118
300
15.5
4.77
1431
8.72
12.42
6.88
1.27
.80
30.09
21.03
76
23
2.04
27
601
400
17.5
4.27
1708
8.72
12.73
6.27
1.27
.70
29.69
17.38
69
28
1.68
31
350
COO
20.5
3.37
2022
8.72
13.06
5.18
1.27
.52
28.75
14.22
56
34
1.38
38
465
800
24.0
2.72
2176
8.72
13.16
4.42
1.27
.39
27.96
12.85
47
37
1.24
42
274
1000
26.0
2.30
2300
8.72
13.23
3.98
1.27
.30
27.50
11.96
40
40
1.16
47
117
1200
28.7
2.00
2400
8.72
13.29
3.68
1.27
.24
27.20
11.33
35
42
1.10
52
101
1600
34.0
1.63
2608
8.72
13.42
3.30
1.27
.16
26.86
10.30
29
47
1.00
59
103
2000
36.8
1.41
2820
8.72
13.55
3.10
1.27
.10
26.74
9.48
25
51
.92
65
56
3000
44.5
1.12
3360
8.72
13.83
2.83
1.27
.05
26.70
7.95
20
60
.77
79
6
4000
51.8
1.00
4000
8.72
14.15
2.72
1.27
.01
26.87
6.72
18
71
.65
91
1
3000 FOOT YARDING DISTANCE
100
9.3
5.60
560
10.23
12.67
7.90
1.27
200
13.3
5.45
1090
10.23
14.37
7.71
1.27
300
15.5
4.93
1479
10.23
14.90
7.08
1.27
400
17.5
4.40
1760
10.23
15.26
6.43
1.27
600
20.5
3.47
2082
10.23
15.66
5.31
1.27
800
24.0
2.80
2240
10.23
15.78
4.52
1.27
1000
26.0
2.35
2350
10.23
15.86
4.04
1.27
1200
28.7
2.04
2448
10.23
15.94
3.71
1.27
1600
34.0
1.66
2656
10.23
16.09
3.34
1.27
2000
36.8
1.43
2860
10.23
16.25
3.11
1.27
3000
44.5
1.12
3360
10.23
16.57
2.83
1.27
4000
51.8
1.00
4000
10.23
16.95
2.72
1.27
.98
33.05
59.02
81
8
5.71
16
542
.95
34.53
31.68
76
15
3.07
22
1118
.84
34.32
23.20
69
21
2.25
27
601
.72
33.91
19.27
62
25
1.87
31
350
.54
33.01
15.85
50
30
1.53
38
465
.40
32.20
14.38
42
33
1.39
42
274
.30
31.70
13.49
36
36
1.31
47
117
.24
31.39
12.82
31
37
1.24
52
101
.16
31.09
11.71
26
41
1.13
59
103
.11
30.97
10.83
22
44
1.05
65
56
.05
30.95
9.21
17
52
.89
79
6
.01
,
31.18
7.80
15
62
.76
91
1
Basis of cost: 480 minutes of actual operating time consists of:
Item 1, tractor and driver $25.75
Item 2, fairlead arch 8.04
Item 3, yarding crew 10.50
Item 4, reserve for idle tractors 2.16
1 No "fixed per acre" costs enter into the tractor yarding
operation; all delays are incorporated in turn time and
recorded as pro-rated delays. Hence, the yarding vari-
able is equivalent to total yarding cost.
$46.45, or $0.0968 per yarding minute.
21
21. Report on Yarding with 60 h.p. Tractors;
Scope of Studies. — Tables 5 and 5A, reproduced
above, wore prepared incidentally to the
report on yarding with 60 h.p. tractors draw-
ing fair-lead arches. This is the only one of
over twenty similar reports with detailed time
study tables to be presented in full detail in this
publication. In thus bringing the tractor to the
fore, attention is called to a method of yarding
that is still somewhat new to this region and
to which there will be frequent occasions to
refer later in this report.
A total of 3,734 logs, scaling 1,345,000 board
feet gross scale, form the basis of the data in
Tables 5 and 5A. In addition a study was made
of 282 logs scaling 361,290 board feet for the
primary purpose of obtaining a comparison of
average performance under contrasting topo-
graphic, density, and ground conditions. The
results of the latter study have not been pre-
pared in the form of complete time-study tables.
Fig. 6 McGIFFERT LOADER (JAMMER) AND TRACTOR ARCH UNIT AT LANDING
22
Description of Tractor Operation. — The study on
which Table 5 is based was conducted on an
operation where conditions are favorable for
yarding with tractors, but distinctly unfavora-
ble for any of the conventional methods of
high-lead or skidder yarding, owing to the scat-
tered stand, long yarding distance, and small
timber. Yarding distances extended as far as
3,400 feet. The stand averaged less than 15,000
board feet per acre, with an average log size of
only 360 board feet. About 90 per cent of the
area is virtually level. Short pitches up to a
maximum of 40 per cent favorable, and 10 per
cent adverse grade were encountered on the
remainder of the area. These conditions are
shown in the accompanying map (Figure 5)
and photograph (Figure 6). They proved to
have a negligible influence on total costs, al-
though the adverse grades resulted in lower
hauling speed during the brief intervals of
time when the loaded tractors were negotiating
these grades. A long, narrow swamp, cutting
diagonally across the yarding area caused some
delays due to the lack of solid footing for the
tractors. Ground conditions were otherwise
very good, consisting of gravelly soil under a
few inches of light top soil, which latter mud-
ded up the surface without in the least imped-
ing the progress of the tractors. The study was
conducted for a period of ten and a half work-
ing days. Heavy rains were a daily occurrence,
but with seemingly no effect except on the gen-
eral appearance of the chaser and loaders who
had to wade nearly waist deep in the slushy
mud which accumulated at each end of the
landings.
This operation was organized as a full-
fledged tractor operation, with a battery of six
tractors available as needed to supply a steady
flow of logs to a "jammer" (McGiffert Loader
— see Figure 6).
Synchronization of loading and yarding ca-
pacities was attained by three different means :
(1) By increasing or decreasing the number
of tractors at work; on the average four and
one-half tractors were continuously at work
while at various times from three to six were
employed.
(2) By increasing or decreasing yarding dis-
tances for one or more oi'che tractors at work
at any given time ; that is, by shifting the trac-
tors from one part of the yarding area to
another.
(3) By shifting tractors from areas yielding
large-sized logs to those yielding small-sized
logs, or vice versa; this, in conjunction with
changes in yarding distance.
By these three means of regulating the flow
of logs to the landing a degree of synchroniza-
tion of yarding-loading-switching operation
was attained that was superior to that found
in any other study; this in spite of the fact
that the character of the yarding show, both
in regard to yarding distance and composition
of the stand, was such as to invite extreme
fluctuation in the rate of production, had any of
the conventional yarding methods been used.
In calculating the machine rate per tractor
unit, the cost of providing the average reserve
capacity of one and one half tractor-arch units,
amounting to $9.72 per day (fixed charges
only) has been prorated against the units that
were actually operating a full 480 minutes per
day. (See machine rate set up at foot of
Table 5A.) This accounts for $2.16 per day
out of the total daily cost of $46.45 per oper-
ating unit. It may be argued, and with good
reason, that this cost should not be charged to
yarding but represents rather the price that is
paid (and a low price under the circumstances
here involved) to insure more efficient use of
available loading and switching capacity as
well as to lower the cost of overhead (super-
vision, management, office, camp expense, etc.) ;
that it is not a cost that is assumed with a
view to lowering yarding costs as such, but to
lowering the cost of activities which are directly
influenced by the ups and downs in the yarding
output. The costs listed in Table 5 would thus
be approximately 5 per cent too high insofar
as representing yarding costs in the strict sense
here defined.
The conditions applying in the second study
contrast sharply with those of the study repre-
sented by Table 5. Here tractors were em-
ployed to yard out windfalls ahead of the fall-
ing and bucking of standing timber. The tim-
ber in this study was large, old-growth fir,
averaging well over 100,000 board feet per
acre, approximately 10,000 feet per acre con-
sisting of windfalls. The soil was loamy, offer-
ing poor traction, generally typical of condi-
tions in heavy stands of big timber.
The high density of this stand often made
it difficult to manipulate the tractor and arch
unit. The slopes varied from 15 per cent fa-
vorable to 14 per cent adverse. In pulling the
loads over the steep adverse grades a helper
tractor, serving two yarding tractors, was used.
Yarding distances extended as far as 2,400
feet. The operation was conducted in dry
weather, ground conditions being such that
yarding in prolonged wet weather was imprac-
ticable.
23
Comparison of Results
Below is a comparison of times and costs
on the basis of identical log- size and yarding
distance. The values given for the second study
(the windfall yarding) are actual grand aver-
age results for the study as a whole, represent-
ing an average log size of 1,280 feet, and aver-
age yarding distance of 1,370 feet. The values
given for the first study are interpolated from
the time-study table (Table 5A) for the aver-
age log size and yarding distance applying to
the second study.
Table 6
Comparison of tarn time and cost for a yarding
distance of 1870 feet
Windfall
First yarding
study study
Volume of log (ft.b.m.) 1,280 1,280
Volume average turn (ft.b.m.) 2,235 2,272
Time of operation:
Haulback (min.) 5.27 5.37
Hauling (min.). - 7.32 8.07
Delays (min.) 1.27 3.68
Side line (min.) .. _ .18 0.09
Hook and Unhook (min.) 3.42 5.58
Total trip time (min.) — 17.46 22.79
Time per M (min.) 7.81 10.03
Cost per M (dollars) 0.75 0.851
■Or $1.10 including helper operation.
Close agreement occurs in the volume of the
turn that corresponds to the given log size and
in haulback time. Hauling time shows a dif-
ference of only 10 per cent. The principal dif-
ferences between the two studies occur in "de-
lay" time and "hooking and unhooking" time.
The greater "hook and unhook" time is due
principally to the fact that a smaller crew was
employed in the windfall yarding. In the first
study the crew for each complete tractor unit
comprised 3.2 men, while only 2.5 men were
employed in the windfall yarding. This ex-
plains in part why the cost of the windfall
yarding is only ten cents per M feet b.m.
(13.33 per cent) higher than in the Table 5
study while the time per M is 28.43 per cent
higher.
A further increase in cost occurs in the wind-
fall yarding study due to the fact that a "helper
tractor" had to be employed in getting the
loads over steep adverse grades (14 per cent
maximum) . This raised the cost from $0.85 to
$1.10 per M on that portion of the yarding area
where the adverse grades were encountered.
Relation of Yarding Distance to Volume of Turn
An interesting feature of the tractor study
is the relation of yarding distance to volume of
the turn.3 The greater the yarding distance, the
larger are the turns that are built up in any
3Compare Section 54.
given size class of logs. Thus, at a distance of
600 feet the 100-foot volume class shows only
4.30 logs per turn, while at 3,000 feet the same
volume class shows 5.60 logs per turn. Efforts
to discover similar relations in the skyline and
high-lead yarding studies failed to prove any-
thing in this respect, probably because in the
case of the large skyline and high-lead ma-
chines, traveling speeds of haul-back and haul-
ing are high, or else, yarding distances, as
for example, in the small high-lead machines,
are short; so that the opportunities to adjust
turn volume to yarding distance are relatively
limited. In the case of tractor yarding, how-
ever, traveling speeds are low with the result
that as the yarding distance increases the trac-
tor is spending most of the working time trav-
eling in and out, which leaves more time for
the hookers to pre-set the chokers and to figure
out a good-sized payload. Furthermore, delays
in getting large loads together with the tractor
mean relatively little on long hauls compared
to similar delays on short hauls. A comparison
of the large turn volumes secured in roading
with tractors, as shown in Chapter VIII, sug-
gests that possibilities exist to secure added
efficiency in direct yarding by paying stricter
attention to maximum turn volumes, especially
at the longer distances.
22. Reports on Yarding with Donkeys — 28
Studies. — Detailed time study tables and reports
similar to those presented above for yarding
with tractors have been prepared for 28 other
studies covering yarding with skidders, slack-
line and high-lead yarders. On account of their
great bulk these are not here presented in full.
Summary cost and output tables, maps and
other essential information, however, are pre-
sented below. Corresponding maps and tables
are identified by the same numbers; for ex-
ample, Table 20 and Figure 20 go together as
parts of the same study. The map describes
the yarding show, the topography, the layout
of yarding roads, yarding distances, density
and volume per acre of the stand, and the
size of the average log. The correspond-
ing table gives the results of the studies,
showing yarding costs for logs of various
volumes at various actual yarding distances
and within various external yarding dis-
tances. The basis of cost (machine rate)
is given at the foot of the table to facilitate
revising the cost data to fit changing cost levels
or machine rates.
In a few cases both the logging shows and
the study results were found to be so closely
24
similar that there was no reason for setting up
separate tables. These cases are noted in the
headings of the tables. One table may thus rep-
resent two or three separate studies, but in
such cases only one map is shown as a sample
of the logging shows involved.
Distinction Between "Yarding- Variable" and Fixed
Per-Acre Costs
Yarding costs given in Tables 7 to 27 inclu-
sive are of two different kinds namely "yard-
ing-variable" costs and "fixed-per-acre" costs.
Yarding-variable costs represent costs incur-
red in yarding the individual turn subsequent
to and irrespective of any previous costs con-
nected with road changing, etc. By fixed-per-
acre costs are meant costs incurred in changing
roads and delays incident thereto. They rep-
resent a lump sum cost against the area logged
to each road and as such are not specifically
chargeable against the individual turn or log.
From a practical standpoint in cost appraisal
they may be treated as fixed per acre per set-
ting. If prorated as a fixed cost per M the res-
ervation must be made that they remain so
fixed only if the volume of logs to be removed
remains fixed.
Fixed per-acre costs do not occur in connec-
tion with the tractor-yarding study reported
in Table 5 because in this study all working
time is accounted for in turn by turn time
(yarding variable), there being no delays in
changing roads.
In none of the tables has any account been
taken of fixed per-acre costs incident to moving
and rigging ahead — which is a lump sum cost
against the setting as a whole — except to enter
a notation at the foot of each table stating the
amount of this cost.
A glance at any one of the tables brings
to attention strikingly the effect of variation
of log volume, and to a lesser extent the effect
of variation of yarding distance, on yarding
cost.
The relatively high cost of yarding small logs
is, as discussed later, a characteristic feature of
the present general system of clear cutting with
large machinery. It does not, of course, repre-
sent any basic size-to-cost relationship except
for logs within a given operating area which
are all logged in one operation using only one
given type of yarder and yarding method.
A comparison of the yarding-variable rela-
tionships of all studies is given in Chapter XI ;
a similar comparison of the relations shown on
the basis of total yarding costs is given in the
next chapter.
Table 7
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of skidding with 12xlU steam tower
skiddersA ; 3 studies
I Rate of production in M ft.b.ni. per 8-hour day- for
various actual yarding distances.
i Yarding distance
Volume of log ft. b.m. COD WOO U00 1H<><>
100 32 29 26 24
200 63 56 51 48
400 122 109 98 91
800 227 201 182 168
1600 393 346 309 288
3200 557 480 421 393
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various actual yarding distances
100 5.38 6.03 6.65 7.12
200 2.73 3.07 3.39 3.63
400 1.42 1.59 1.76 1.89
800 .76 .86 .95 1.03
1600 .44 .50 .56 .60
3200 .31 .36 .41 .44
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various external yarding distances
100 5.06 5.49 5.92 6.34
200 2.38 2.78 3.02 3.23
400 1.34 1.45 1.56 1.68
800 .71 .78 .84 .90
1600 .41 .45 .49 .53
3200 .29 .32 .35 .38
'Crew, 15 men, excluding loading crew.
2Deduct 21% for road changing.
3Add $0.41 per M ft.b.m. for road changing.
Basis of Cost : Operating costs per 8-hour day consist of :
Item 1, 379.55 minutes actual yarding time
at $0.36 per minute $136.64
Item 2, 100.45 minutes road changing time at
$0.29 per minute 29.14
Item 3, net labor cost rigging tail trees 19.43
Total per day (full machine rate; crew
15 men) $185.21
Item 1, termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn cost in actual yarding.
Items 2 and 3 are "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$14.72 per acre or $0.41 per M ft.b.m. based on
the removal of 36 M ft. per acre.
Items 2 and 3 do not include moving and track land-
ing costs which amount to $0.10 per M b.m.
25
Table s
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of skidding with 12x14 steam tower
skidders'; 2 studies
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day- for
various actual yarding distances
i Yarding distance v
Volume of log ft.b.m. coo 1000 1400 1800
LOO l!' is 16 14
1200 38 32 28
100 7 1 69 62 55
800 141 130 117 104
1000 252 232 208 185
3200 373 342 310 272
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.8 for
various actual yarding distances
100 10.4G 11.32 12.49 13.99
200 5.29 5.73 6.32 7.09
100 2.71 2.94 3.25 3.05
sou 1.4:', 1.55 1.72 l.o;;
1000 .s.i .87 .07 l.oo
3200 .54 .50 .05 .74
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.8 Tor
various external yarding distances
100 10.10 Mi.Od 11.18 11.90
200 5.09 5.36 5.67 6.01
400 2.00 2.75 2.00 3.09
800 1.37 1.45 1.5:! 1.64
1600 .77 .81 .80 .92
3200 .52 .55 .58 .02
(rcu. ii> men, excluding loading crew.
'Deduct 23% t"i road changing.
3Add $o.2S per M feet b.m. t>>i road changing (fixed-per-acre costs)
to get total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost : Operating cost per 8-hour day consists of :
Item 1, 368.21 minutes actual yarding time at
$0.42 per minute $154.65
Item 2, 111.79 minutes road changing time
at $0.34 per minute 38.00
Item 3, net labor, rigging tail trees 17.04
Total per day (full machine rate) $209.69
Item 1, termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn cost in actual yarding; Items 2 and 3 are
fixed-per-acre costs averaging $13.87 per acre,
or $0.28 per M feet b.m. based on the removal of
49.5 M feet per acre.
Items 2 and 3 do not include moving and track land-
ing costs which amount to $0.1 1_> per M b.m.
Table 9
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of sl:iddiu<j with 350 h.p. electric
skidded
1 Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day'-' foi
various actual yarding distances
r
j arm ni/ <
1 rsiuitec
*\
1 olunie of log
ft.b.m.
(IOO
1000
1400
ISOO
100
32
29
25
23
200
64
56
50
45
400
122
100
95
85
soo
228
1200
175
157
1000
388
338
204
261
3200
538
468
397
351
II Yarding variable
cost in dollars per
M ft.b.m
8 for
Various a
■tuul ya
•ding (lis
tances
100
5.63
6.34
7.17
8.01
200
12. SO
::.2:;
3.00
4.08
100
1.10
1.68
1.92
2.14
800
.SO
.01
1.04
1.16
1000
.47
.54
.62
.70
3200
.34
.30
.10
.52
III Yarding
variable
cost in (
lollars per
M ft.b.m
:i for
various
■sternal
yarding
distances
100
5.34
5.74
6.22
6.76
200
2.71
2.92
3.10
3.44
400
1.41
1.52
1.65
1.80
soo
.75
.82
.89
.98
1000
.44
.48
.53
.58
3200
.32
.35
.38
.43
'Crew of id men, excluding loading crew.
-Deduct 19% for mad changing.
'Add $0.22 per M ft. b.m. for mad changing (fixed per-acre cost)
in find total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost: Costs per 8-hour day consist of:
Item 1, 390.29 minutes actual yarding time at
$0.38 per minute $148.30
Item 2, 89.71 minutes road changing time at
$0.31 per minute 27.80
Item 3, net labor cost, rigging tail trees 18.90
Total per day (full machine rate) $195.00
Item 1, termed "yai'ding variable" represents turn by
turn cost in actual yarding.
Items 2 and 3 are "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$18.00 per acre, equivalent to 22c per M b.m.
based on the removal of 84 M ft. per acre.
Items 2 and 3 do not include moving and track land-
ing costs which amount to $0.11 per M b.m.
26
Tabe 10
Relation of volume of log and yard inn distance to out-
put and cost of yarding with 12x17 steam slack-
line yarder1
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day- for
various actual yarding distances
t Yarding distance *
Volume of log ft.b.m. 600 1000 IU00 1800
100 18 17 15 14
200 36 33 30 28
400 70 64 59 55
800 136 123 114 106
1600 254 231 211 195
3200 433 395 362 335
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various actual yarding distances
100 9.90 10.76 11.64 12.48
200 5.00 5.43 5.87 6.31
400 2.54 2.77 3.00 3.22
800 1.31 1.44 1.56 1.68
1600 .70 .77 .84 .91
3200 .41 .45 .49 .53
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.:{ for
various external yarding distances
100 9.49 10.05 10.45 11.20
200 4.78 5.07 5.36 5.65
400 2.43 2.58 2.73 2.88
800 1.25 1.33 1.42 1.49
1600 .66 .71 .76 .80
3200 .39 .42 .44 .47
'Crew of 17 men, excluding loading crew.
2Deduct 16% for road changing.
3Add $0.20 per M ft.b.m. for road changing (fixed per-acre costs)
to find total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost : Operating cost per 8-hour day consists of :
Item 1, 402.91 minutes actual yarding time at
$0.37 per minute $149.08
Item 2, 77.09 minutes road changing time at
$0.30 per minute 23.12
Item 3, labor cost rigging tail trees .... 22.80
Total per day (full machine rate) $195.00
Item 1, termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn cost in actual yarding.
Items 2 and 3 are "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$14.00 per acre, equivalent to $0.20 per M b.m.
based on the removal of 70 M ft. per acre. This
does not include moving and rigging ahead costs
which amount to $0.09 per M ft.b.m.
1
i
*£*■ if -.--
•V ,1
<*.*'
iKr*
Table 11
Relation of volume <>f log and yard,,/!/ distances to out-
put and cost of yarding with 800 h.p. gasoline
slackline yarder1; l study
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day- for
various actual yarding distances
r Yarding distance >
Volume of log ft.b.m. 't00 600 800 1000 1200
100 r> 14 13 12 11
200 29 27 25 24 22
400 55 52 48 45 4 J
800 101 93 86 80 7:;
1600 166 152 l.'5i) 128 116
3200 223 204 185 168 150
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.'1 for
various actual yarding distances
100 6.48 6.93 7.38 7.87 8.53
200 3.32 3.55 3.79 4.05 4.40
400 1.73 1.86 1.99 2.14 2..;:;
800 .95 1.03 1.11 1.20 1.31
1600 .58 .63 .69 .75 .88
3200 .43 .47 .52 .57 .64
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.:{ for
various external yarding distances
100 6.15 6.48 6.81 7.14 7.48
200 3.14 3.32 3.50 3.67 3.85
400 1.63 1.73 1.83 1.93 2.03
800 .89 .95 1.01 1.07 1.13
1600 .54 .58 .62 .66 .70
3200 .40 .43 .4f, .49 .52
(rcw, 11 men.
-Deduct 27% for road changing.
aAdd $0.42 per M ft.b.m. for road changing (fixed per-acre cost.^,1
to find total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost : Operating costs per 8-hour day consist of :
Item 1, 350.88 minutes actual yarding time at
$0.20 per minute $ 70.18
Item 2, 129.12 minutes road changing time
at $0.16 per minute 20.66
Item 3, net labor cost rigging tail trees 9.16
Total per day (full machine rate) $100.00'
Item 1, termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn cost in actual yarding.
Items 2 and 3 are "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$12.60 per acre, equivalent to $0.42 per M, based
on the removal of 30 M feet per acre. This does
not include rigging ahead and moving costs,
which amount to $0.16 per M additional.
'N
\ * 1
4~2™ZZe
'T/Tl)
jlAVitTv
p§J\^t
b
1 //
■**~^^
p
\
%
Akca - /
Ak£t. /.o<
A/» Or Z
'2 A.
-JOAfl
-J30 I
\o.fJ:
A -^7
27
Tablk 12
Relation of volume of log and yarding distances to out-
put and cost of yarding with 27S h./>. gasoline
slackline yarder1
1
Elate of production in M t't.b.in. per 8-hour day-' for
various actual yarding distances
'
i a > tunc/
usia nee
^
Vol tone of lay ft. b.m.
i<)0
600
800
woo
100
22
21
20
18
200
45
42
39
36
400
87
82
76
71
800
166
157
144
135
1600
309
279
262
240
3200
480
II Yarding variable cost in
dollars per
M ft.b.m
a for
various actual yai
■ding d
i stances
100
3.85
4.12
4.40
4.71
200
1.94
2.08
2.22
2.38
400
.99
1.06
1.14
1.22
800
.52
.55
.60
.64
1600
.28
.31
.83
.36
3200
.18
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft. b.m.3 for
various external yarding distances
100 3.49 3.85 4.02 4.21
200 1.75 L.94 2.04 2.13
400 .90 .99 1.0 1 l.O'.i
800 .48 .52 ..r).r) .57
L600 .21 .28 .30 .32
8200 .18
'Crew, 1 1 mi ii.
-Deduct 10% for load I'haiiKiiiK-
'Add $0.K) per M ft.b.m. for road changing (fixed per-acre costs)
to k<'1 total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost: Cost per 8-hour day consists of:
Item 1, 401.09 minutes actual yarding time at
$0.18 per minute. $ 72.30
Item 2, 78.91 minutes road changing time at
$0.15 per minute. 11.85
Item 3, net labor cost rigging tail trees . 15.85
Total yarding cost (full machine rate) $100.00
Item 1, termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn cost in actual yarding.
Items 2 and 3 are "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$8.66 per acre equivalent to $0.16 per M b.m.,
based on the removal of 54 M feet per acre. This
does not include rigging ahead and moving,
which amounts to $0.09 per M b.m.
Figs. 12 AND 22
28
Table 13
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of yarding with 12x1k highlead
yarder1
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day- for
various actual yarding distances
i Yarding distance n
Volume of log ft.b.m. 300 500 700 900
100 38 34 29 26
200 75 66 57 40
400 141 123 105 00
800 248 216 185 158
1600 389 333 284 238
3200 486 417 343 299
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various actual yarding distances
100 3.06 3.47 4.00 4.66
200 1.56 1.78 2.06 2.41
400 .83 .96 1.11 1.30
800 .47 .54 .63 .74
1600 .30 .35 .41 .49
3200 .24 .28 .34 .39
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various external yarding distances
100 2.90 3.12 3.43 3.77
200 1.48 1.60 1.77 1.95
400 .79 .85 .95 1.05
800 .45 .49 .54 .60
1600 .29 .31 .35 .40
3200 .23 .25 .29 .32
'Crew, 10 men.
-Deduct 18% for road changing1.
3Add $0.18 per M ft.b.m. for road changing (fixed per-acre cost)
to get total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost : Operating costs per 8-hour day consist of:
Item 1, 394.42 minutes actual yarding time at
$0,243 per minute $ 95.74
Item 2, 85.58 minutes road changing, etc., time
at $0,198 per minute 17.02
Total per day (full machine rate) $112.76
Item 1 termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn cost in actual yarding.
Item 2 is "fixed per ao-e" costs averaging $8.80 per
acre, equivalent to $0.18 per M b.m. based on
removal of 49 M feet per acre. This does not
include rigging ahead and moving costs which
amount to $0.16 per M b.m.
Aw/i - 3 A
DfNS/TY- 49 /%S/V fftf A.
Ar£. Log- 630 3d Fr.
Ne or Iocs Pt/? A- 78
Table 14
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of yarding with Mxlb highlead
yarder1
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day2 for
various actual yarding distances
i Yarding distance
Volume of log ft.b.m. 800 500 700 900
100 33 29 24 19
200 64 56 47 38
400 119 105 88 70
800 208 182 151 122
1600 338 292 241 191
3200 486 417 343 265
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various actual yarding distances
100 3.55 4.01 4.81 6.01
200 1.83 2.08 2.49 3.11
400 .98 1.11 1.33 1.66
800 .56 .64 .77 .96
1600 .35 .40 .48 .61
3200 .24 .28 .35 .44
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various external yarding distances
100 3.38 3.63 4.01 4.57
200 1.74 1.88 2.08 2.36
400 .93 1.00 1.11 1.26
800 .53 .58 .64 .73
1600 .33 .36 .40 .46
3200 , .23 .25 .28 .33
'Crew, 10 men, excluding loading crew.
-Deduct 10% for road changing.
"Add $0.08 per M ft.b.m. for road changing (fixed per-acre cost)
to get total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost : Operating costs per 8-hour day consist of :
Item 1, 432.04 minutes actual yarding time at
$0,243 per minute $104.98
Item 2, 47.96 minutes road changing time at
$0,198 per minute 1 9.50
Total per day (full machine rate) $114.48
Item 1 headed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn cost in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$6.00 per acre, and is equivalent to $0.08 per
M b.m. based on the removal of 75 M feet per
acre. Does not include rigging ahead and moving
costs which amount to $0.13 per M b.m.
29
Table i">
to out-
electric
Relation of vol nun- of log and yarding distance
put and cost of yarding with SOO h.p.
kighlead yarder1; S studies
I Elate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day2 foi
various actual yarding distances
r
i (iidiHii (
iisin nee
i
Volume of log ft.b
til.
soo
Mil)
700
900
LOO
20
10
17
15
200
10
37
33
20
10(1
so
7;:
t;t;
57
800
L58
i 15
i.:i
ll;',
hum)
310
284
2:.:.
221
3200
571
522
102
100
II Yarding variable
cost in
dollars per
M ft.b.m.
1 for
various actua
( ya
■ding (1
istances
10(1
5.7 1
0.27
6.96
8.01
200
•j. so
3.15
: ,n
1.03
400
L.46
1.50
1.70
2.0 1
800
.7 1
.SO
.SO
1.0:;
1600
.38
.11
.10
.5:;
3200
.20
.22
.2:.
.20
HI Yarding variable
cost ill
dollars pci
M ft. 1). m.
1 For
various external
yardin
4' distances
lid)
5.48
5.82
0.21
(5.71
200
2.75
2.02
3.12
3.38
1011
L.39
Lis
1.57
1.71
800
.71
.71
.70
.SO
1600
.36
.38
.41
.44
3200
.19
.20
.22
.24
'Crew, in men.
*Dedu<
1 cha
iging.
-Add $0.05 per M
ft.b.n
. for roi
■ 1 chan;
\c(|.|., 1 ici
Basis of Cost: Costs per 8-hour day consist ul':
Item 1. 421.42 minutes actual yarding time at
$0.24;] per minute $102. 10
Item 2, 58.58 minutes road changing time at
$0,198 per minute 1 1.00
Total per day (full machine rate) $114.00
Item 1 termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn costs in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$5.25 per acre, equivalent to $0.05 per M b.m.,
based on the removal of 105 M b.m. per acre.
This does not cover rigging ahead or moving
costs for which add $0.17 per M b.m.
\
^
2sC
^~K
/j/r/' ^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^ 1 — ~T°
^>^3><^^^~r^^' " _i_ *< ' ^-Tt
j\ ' Arr/> - 6 A
* X. Dsns'Tr- /?/ AfBAf rw A
\Af£. loo- /eso Bo. ft
A/f or Loos rrx A. - 9/
Table L6
Relation of volume of Ion and yarding distance to ont-
pui mid cost of yarding with 12x14 highlead
yarder^
I Rati- of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day- for
various actual yarding distances
1 Yarding dista nee n
Volume of log ft.b.m, -too 500 700 !>t>t>
loo 11 0 7
200 2:; IS 14 10
ion 15 ;!t; 27 20
SOO SS 71 53 40
lo< to 100 136 101 77
-200 307 243 182 139
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.'1 foi
various actual yarding distances
100 10.32 12.69 17.12 22.52
200 5.16 6.35 S.50 11.26
H'O 2.62 3.22 4.35 5.72
800 1.33 1.64 2.21 2.91
1600 .69 .86 1.16 1.52
•'.200 .38 .48 .64 .85
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.'' for
various external yarding distances
100 9.32 10.74 12.75 15.57
200 4.66 5.37 6.37 7.70
400 2.37 2.73 3.24 3.95
800 1.20 1.39 1.65 2.01
1600 .62 .73 .86 1.05
•'.200 .34 .41 .48 .58
'Crew, 1H.5 nun. excluding loading crew,
Deduct i ! ' . for road changing.
A.I.I $11.1-1 per M ft. h. m. for road changing (fixed-per-acn cost)
1.. find total yarding cost,
Basis of < 'ost : Operating costs per 8-hour day consist <>!' \
Item 1, 398.11 minutes actual yarding time at
$0,243 per minute $ 96.71
Item 2, 81.89 minutes road changing time at
$0,198 per minute 16.23
Total per day (full machine rate) ... $112.94
Item 1 termed "yarding variable" represents turn
by turn costs in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$12.00 per acre for the area equivalent to $0.14
pei' M b.m. based on the removal of 84 M feet
per acre. This does not include rigging ahead
and moving, for which add $0.11 per M b.m.
Mil
1 ?
Aksa —
Of/VS/TY
Ayr Loi
A/e or i.
3 A
- 86 Mi
j - /720
00s rrx
?/>/ rex A
3d rr.
A- JO
vt
Mrr
HI
\ i
^
n
^ c
\
JyjMJ
•s*o" 1
\l\\l
m
<'
^\
znV
\\V\N
if
^
*
30
Table L7
Relation of volume of l<>u and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of yarding with 13x14 highlcad
yarder^ ; 2 studies
I
Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day2 for
various actual yarding distances
i Yarding distance >
300
500
56
112
222
Volume of log ft.b.m
800 85
1600 L69
3200 336
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per
various actual yarding distances
800 1.37 2.08
1600 .69 1.04
3200 .35 .53
III Yarding- variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.-'5 for
various external yarding distances
800 1.13 1.49 2.05 2.68
1600 .57 .74 1.03 1.35
3200 .29 .38 .53 .68
700
38
75
1 IS
M ft.b.m.:'
3.12
1.56
.80
900
28
r,r>
109
for
4.20
2.11
1.06
'Crew, 10.S men.
-Deduct 2D% for road tliangin
"Add $i).iio per M Ft.b.m. for
to get total yarding com.
d changing (fixed-per-acre cost)
Basis of Cost: Operating cost per 8-hour day consists of:
Item 1, 382.24 minutes actual yarding time at
$0,243 per minute $ 92.82
Item 2, 97.76 minutes road changing time at
$0.l98 per minute 19.40
Total per day (full machine rate) $112.22
Item 1 termed "yarding variable" represents turn
by turn costs in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$6.80 per acre, equivalent to $0.09 per M based
on the removal of 75 M feet per acre. This does
not cover rigging ahead or moving costs for
which add $0.08 per M.
Table is
Relation of volume of l<><) and yarding distance to out-
put oikI cost of yarding with 12x1 U highlead
yarder1
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day- for
various actual yarding distances
i Yarding distance
Volume of log ft.b.m. S00 500 700 900
100 10 7
200 20 14 10
400 40 27 20
800 SO 54 Ui
L600 158 106 7S
3200 307 205 1-»1
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.'1 f'oi
various actual yarding distances
100 11.52 17.20 23.33
200 5.77 8.63 11.69
400 2.90 4.33 5.87
800 1.46 2.18 2.95
1600 .74 1.10 1.50
3200 .38 .57 .77
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.''- for
various external varding distances
100 9.00 12.33 16.21
200 4.51 6.19 8.12
400 2.26 3.10 4.08
800 1.14 1.56 2.05
1600 .58 .79 1.04
3200 .30 .41 .54
'Crew, l'l men.
-Deduct 31% for road changing.
'Add $0.24 per M ft.b.m. for road changing (fixed per acre cos'.)
to get total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost : Operating cost per 8-hour dav consists of :
Item 1, 331.82 minutes of actual varding time
at 0.243 per minute $ 80.68
Item 2, 148.18 minutes of road changing time
at 0.198 per minute 29.38
Total per day (full machine rate) .$110.06
Item 1 termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn time in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs, averaging
$12.50 per acre equivalent to $0.24 per M b.m.
based on the removal of 52 M b.m. per acre.
This does not cover moving and rigging ahead
costs which amount to $0.15 per M b.m.
Tablk 19
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of yarding with 900 h.p. Diesel high-
lead yardcr*
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day-' for
various actual yarding1 distances
r Yarding distance >
Vohi m<
of log ft.b.m.
100
200
400
800
1600
3200
soo
1!'
36
71
133
236
369
500
15
30
58
109
190
294
700
12
24
47
87
152
234
900
10
19
38
70
122
187
II
Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.8 for
various actual yarding distances
100
200
400
800
1600
3200
5.06
2.58
1.33
.70
.40
.25
6.11
3.12
1.61
.86
.49
.32
7.57
3.87
2.00
1.08
.62
.40
9.41
4.81
2.49
1.34
.77
.50
III
Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m. ;! for
various external yarding distances
100
200
400
800
1600
3200
L72
2,1(1
1.24
.63
.37
.22
5.29
2.69
1.39
.73
.41
.26
6.06
:;.(>'.»
1.60
.85
.49
.31
7.03
;!.r>«>
1 .85
.96
.57
.36
'dew. S men.
'Deduct .!.?'; foi road changing.
Aid $0.15 per M ft.b.m. for road changing (fixed per-acre cost)
t" get total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost: Cost per 8-hour day consists of:
Item 1, 375 minutes actual yarding time at
$0,195 per minute _ .._$ 73.12
Item 2, 105 minutes road changing time at
$0,175 per minute 18.38
Total per day (full machine rate) $ 91.50
Item 1 termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn time in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$9.06 per acre, equivalent to $0.15 per M based
on the removal of 62 M feet per acre. This
does not cover rigging ahead and moving costs
for which add $0.21 per M.
Table 20
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to oat-
put and cost of yarding with 200 h.p. Diesel high-
lead yarder1
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day- for
various actual yarding distances
i Yarding distance \
Volume of log ft.b.m. .100 500 700 900
100 14 12 10 8
200 27 2;', 20 17
400 52 45 38 :!2
800 98 86 72 (JO
1600 173 150 12 1 103
3200 254 216 178 146
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m. :i for
various actual yarding distances
100 6.94 7.91 9.35 11.15
200 3.52 4.01 4.74 5.66
400 1.80 2.06 2.45 2.92
800 .96 1.09 1.31 1.57
1600 .54 .63 .76 .91
3200 .37 .44 .53 .01
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m,8 for
various external yarding distances
100 6.64 7.13 7.86 8.81
200 3.42 3.63 4.00 4.47
400 1.72 1.85 2.05 2.30
800 .93 .99 1.09 1.23
L600 .51 .56 .62 .70
3200 .35 .38 .43 .49
'Crew, 8.2 men.
-Deduct 29% for road changing,
Add $0.31 per M ft.b.m. for road changing (fixed per-acre costs)
to find total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost: Cost per 8-hour day consists of:
Item 1, 375.98 minutes actual yarding time at
$0,195 per minute $ 73.82
Item 2, 140.40 minutes road changing time at
$0,175 per minute 18.20
Total per day (full machine rate) $ 91.51
Item 1 termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn time in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$8.75 per acre equivalent to $0.31 per M based on
the removal of 28 M feet per acre. This doe?
not cover rigging ahead and moving costs which
amount to $0.21 per M.
Ave
- /e a
ry - eZMBM fSK A
/3Z3Bo. rA
Logs Aj;k A - 32.
32
Table 21
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of yarding with 200 h.p. Diesel high-
lead yarder1
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day2 for
various actual yarding distances
i Yarding distance \
Volume of log ft.b.m. 300 500 700
100 11 10 8
200 22 19 15
400 42 37 28
800 79 67 51
1600 145 123 92
3200 267 222 167
II Yarding- variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various actual yarding distances
100 8.44 9.66 12.40
200 4.31 4.95 6.37
400 2.22 2.56 3.33
800 1.19 1.39 1.83
1600 .65 .76 1.01
3200 .35 .42 .56
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various external yarding distances
100 8.19 8.72 9.84
200 4.11 4.38 5.00
400 2.12 2.29 2.60
800 1.12 1.23 1.41
1600 .61 .67 .77
3200 .33 .36 .43
'Crew, 8 men.
2Deduct 26% for road changing.
3Add $0.21 per M ft.b.m. for road changing (fixed per acre cost)
to get total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost: Cost per 8-hour day consists of:
Item 1, 357 minutes actual yarding time at
$0,195 per minute ______ _____ $ 69.62
Item 2, 123 minutes road changing time at
$0,175 per minute 21.52
Total per days (full machine rate) $ 91.14
Item 1 termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn time in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$7.00 per acre equivalent to $0.24 per M based
on the removal of 29 M feet per acre. This does
not cover rigging ahead and moving costs for
which add $0.21 per M ft.b.m.
Table 22
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of yarding with 125 h.p. gasoline high-
lead yarder1
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day- for
various actual yarding distances
. Yarding distance .
Volume of log ft.b.m. 300 1*00 500 800
100 21 17 14 12
200 40 33 28 23
400 77 63 53 45
800 143 119 98 84
1600 231 185 157 131
3200 330 273 225 185
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various actual yarding distances
100 3.05 3.69 4.38 5.11
200 1.57 1.90 2.25 2.63
400 .82 1.00 1.19 1.39
800 .44 .53 .64 .75
1600 .27 .34 .40 .48
3200 .19 .24 .29 .34
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various external yarding distances
100 2.56 2.96 3.38 3.83
200 1.32 1.52 1.74 2.02
400 .69 .80 .92 1.04
800 .37 .43 .49 .56
1600 .23 .27 .31 .36
3200 .16 .18 .22 .26
'Crew, 7 men.
-Deduct 6% for road changing.
•'Add $0.02 per M ft.b.m. for road changing (fixed per acre costs)
to get total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost : Cost per 8-hour day consists of :
Item 1, 453.36 minutes actual yarding time at
$0,131 per minute $ 59.46
Item 2, 26.64 minutes road changing time at
$0,118 per minute 3.15
Total per day (full machine rate) $ 62.55
Item 1 termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn time in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$1.20 per acre and is equivalent to $0.02 per
M, b.m. based on the removal of 50 M feet per
acre. This does not include rigging ahead and
moving, which amounts to $0.12 per M b.m.
((,
'
6&.
A v_L_
/ /
//// 1
( z I (
1
^
« I9
J '/ ' )
I 7
'A/ /J
ff/fj
y V J>
1 <&/
Iv
y\
. is -
xvw-
^§CH?l\i
yffl \
/-V_~-_5
ix\§Vv\\
sTv^
^
^____^c_^
<_r"~^~
^\\\V
A
}■ »°°
^^S
Der sity ; 29 M b.m per acre
wN>
Average
Number
log 1510 b
of logs per
jardfeet
acre. 19
(for Fig. 22 see page 28)
33
Tabu-: 28
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of yarding with 100 h.p. gasoline high-
lead yarder1; & studies
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day2 for
various actual yarding distances
r Yarding distance i
Volume of log ft.b.ni. S00 500 700 900
' 100 16 13 10 7
200 31 25 IS 13
400 62 48 35 26
Sim 117 89 64 46
1600 209 150 105 75
3200 325 217 143 101
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.8 for
various actual yarding distances
100
200
400
800
1600
3200
3.67
1.85
.95
.50
.28
.18
4.62
2.35
1.21
.66
.39
.27
6.24
3.19
1.67
.92
.56
.41
8.49
1.35
2.29
1.27
.78
.58
III
Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various external yarding distances
100
200
400
800
1600
3200
3.22
1.67
.85
.45
.25
.16
3.76
1.96
1.01
.55
.32
.22
4.51
2.37
1.23
.68
.41
.30
5.59
2.94
1.54
.85
.52
.39
'Crew, 6 men.
-Deduct 21% for road changi
"Add $0.23 per M ft.b.m. tor mad changing (fixed per-acre cost)
to get total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost: Cost per 8-hour day consists of:
Item 1, 378 minutes actual yarding time at
$0,122 per minute__ $ 46.33
Item 2, 102 minutes road changing time at
$0.10 per minute ___ 10.00
$ 56.33
Total per day (full machine rate)
Item 1 termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn costs in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$4.00 per acre or $0.23 per M b.m., based on the
removal of 17.3 M feet per acre. This does not
include rigging ahead and moving costs which
amount to $0.29 per M feet b.m.
Tabu-: 24
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of nardiug with 85 h.p. gasoline high-
lead yarder*
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day- for
various actual yarding distances
r Yarding distance ■*
Volume of log ft.b.m.. 200 \00 600
100 11 7 5
200 21 14 10
400 42 27 19
800 84 53 37
1600 163 103 71
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per M t't.b.ni.:i for
various actual yarding distances
100 2.52 3.93 5.61
200 1.26 1.97 2.81
400 .63 .99 1.43
800 .32 .51 .73
1600 .16 .26 .38
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.-'5 for
various external yarding distances
100 2.10 2.93 3.94
200 1.05 1.47 1.98
400 .52 .74 1.00
800 .27 .38 .51
1600 .13 .19 .27
'Crew, 4 men.
'Deduct 32% for road changing cost.
'Add $0.11 per M ft.b.m. for road changing (fixed per-acre cost)
to get ti.tal yarding cost.
Basis of Cost: Cost per 8-hour day consists of:
Item 1, 386 minutes actual yarding time at
$0,056 per minute $ 21.64
Item 2, 94 minutes road changing time at
$0,046 per minute. ..... 4.36
Total per day (full machine rate) $ 26.00
Item 1 termed "yarding variable represents" turn
by turn costs in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$4.75 per acre, equivalent to $0.11 per M b.m.
based on the removal of 43 M b.m. per acre.
This does not include rigging ahead and moving
costs which amount to $0.14 per M b.m.
34
Table 25
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of yarding with 30 h.p. gasoline high-
lead yardci1
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day- for
various actual yarding distances
t Yarding distance >
Volume of log ft.b.m. 200 400 600
100 19 7 4
200 37 14 8
400 66 24 14
800 116 43 24
1600 205 74 41
II Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various actual yarding distances
100 1.24 3.25 5.78
200 .64 1.70 3.02
400 .36 .96 1.70
800 .20 .55 1.00
1600 .11 .32 .58
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various external yarding distances
100 .90 1.74 3.28
200 .46 .91 1.72
400 .26 .51 .97
800 .15 .29 .57
1600 .08 .17 .33
'Crew, 3 men.
-Deduct 29% for road changing.
:,Add $0.15 per M ft.b.m. for road changing (fixed per-acre cost)
to get total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost : Operating cost per 8-hour day consists of:
Item 1, 343 minutes actual yarding time at
$0,049 per minute.. $ 16.80
Item 2, 137 minutes road changing time at
$0,039 per minute 5.20
Total per day (full machine rate) $ 22.00
Item 1 termed "yarding variable" represents turn by
turn costs in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$2.25 per acre equivalent to $0.15 per M b.m.
based on the removal of 15 M b.m. per acre.
This does not include rigging ahead and moving
costs which amount to $0.22 per M b.m.
Table 26
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of yarding with 30 h.p. gasoline high-
lead yarder1
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day2 for
various actual yarding distances
Volume of log ft.b.m.
200
l urat
ng ais
400
a nee -n
600
100
9
6
4
200
18
11
7
400
33
21
12
800
59
36
21
1600
88
54
32
II Yarding variable
cost in
dollars
per M
ft.b.m.3 for
various actual ya
rding distances
100
2.08
3.23
5.22
200
1.07
1.68
2.73
400
.57
.91
1.51
800
.32
.52
.88
1600
.21
.35
.59
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3 for
various external yarding distances
100 1.88 2.42 3.41
200 .96 1.26 1.78
400 .52 .67 .96
800 .27 .38 .60
1600 .18 .25 .37
'Crew. 2 men.
-Deduct 17% for road changing.
:;Add $0.13 per M ft.h.m. for road changing (fixed-per-ac.e cost)
to get total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost : Cost per 8-hour day consists of :
Item 1, 399 minutes actual yarding time at
$0,039 per minute $ 15.56
Item 2, 91 minutes road changing time at
$0,031 per minute 2.44
Total per day (full machine rate) $ 18.00
Item 1 termed "yarding variable" represents turn
by turn costs in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$4.20 per acre, equivalent to $0.13 per M b.m.
based on the removal of 32 M per acre.
Area 3.3 acres
Density . 45 logs par acre
18 M b m. per acre
Average log.408boord feet
TIG. 23 -STUDY IA; 35 H.P. GAS YARDER
A*r loo - ego 3o Ft.
Ak or Lot) rex -A - //O
35
Table 27
Relation of volume of log and yarding distance to out-
put and cost of Hording ivith 85 h.p. gasoline high-
lead yarder*
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day- for
various actual yarding- distances
i Ya rding dista nee ■>
Volume of log ft.b.m, 100 £00 S00 400
100 13 10 8 6
200 25 19 15 12
400 47 36 27 22
800 92 67 50 40
1600 177 116 84 66
II Yarding- variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.:i for
various actual yarding distances
100 2.20 2.78 3.61 4.38
200 1.10 1.42 1.83 2.26
400 .56 .74 .97 1.20
800 .29 .40 .53 .67
1600 .15 .23 .32 .41
III Yarding variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.8 for
various external yarding distances
100 2.01 2.37 2.82 3.33
200 1.01 1.20 1.43 • 1.70
400 .51 .61 .74 .89
800 .26 .32 .40 .49
1600 .13 .18 .23 .29
'Crew, * men.
^Deduct 12% for road changing.
3Add $0.05 per M ft.b.m. for road changing (fixed pel acre cost)
to get total yarding cost.
Basis of Cost : Operating cost per 8-hour day consists of :
Item 1, 434 minutes actual yarding time at
$0,056 per minute $ 23.74
Item 2, 56 minutes road changing time at
$0,046 per minute _ 2.58
Total per day (full machine rate) $ 26.32
Item 1 termed "yarding variable" represents turn
by turn costs in actual yarding.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs averaging
$2.45 per acre, equivalent to $0.05 per M b.m.
based on the removal of 49 M b.m. per acre.
This does not include rigging ahead and moving
costs which amount to $0.12 per M.
i : 4 acre
li. -iv . t ,- •. 86 logs per acre
45 M b.m pei ii e
Average log : 575 board feet
V. COMPARISON OF YARDING COSTS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF
MACHINERY AND METHODS
23. Basis of Comparison. The comparison of
the relative economic efficiency of various types
of yarding machinery and methods is one of the
major objectives of the yarding-cost studies.
A good deal of attention in preceding chapters
has been given to the basis on which such com-
parisons can be made, such as the determina-
tion of machine rates and the isolation of each
of the principal factors which affect cost,
namely, size of timber, yarding distance, den-
sity of stand, and topography; and a large
amount of cost data so obtained have been
presented.
A simple method of cost comparison would
be to draw from each of the summary tables
presented in the preceding chapter the cost
data applying to any given log volume an
yarding distance, or to extract from each c
the tables an entire cost column applying to an
given distance, and to group these data side t
side, classified by types of machinery and sort(
according to rising or falling costs, into a larj
table. This method of comparison, howevc
would fail to give an adequate grasp of t
double relationships that are involved throu;
variations both of distance and log volume. '
better visualize the cost relationships that ar
both through variation of log size and yardi
distances the accompanying chart (Figure 2
has been prepared to give a comparison
yarding costs for five different groups of yai
ing machinery.
36
DG SIZE AMD (EXTERNAL-) VARE.nO DISTANCE TO COST
!C WITH FIVE DIFFEREI IT TYPES OF" MACHINERY
24. How to Read the Cost Comparison Chart. —
In explanation of this chart the following may be
noted :
1. Line 8-8 at the top of the diagram headed "200-
foot log" represents a skidder study (Table 8). It
shows the cost (as graduated along the left hand mar-
gin) of yarding logs of two hundred board foot volume
within the external yarding distances noted along the
bottom of the diagram; the data are taken from Table 8
and represent both yarding variable and road-changing
costs. This study shows the highest cost of all studies
in the skidder and steam slackline group.
2. Further down on the same diagram is shown a
line marked 9-9, which represents the skidder study
reported in Table 9. This study gave the lowest costs
for the studies in this group of machinery. The band
between Line 8-8 and Line 9-9 embraces all skidder
(and steam slackline) studies. The spread in this
band shows the effect on costs of all the factors that
in comparing one area or setting with another are not
taken care of by sorting out specific log sizes and
yarding distances; among these the most prominent
are density and topography. Notations made show
figure numbers to which the reader may turn for
information on logging conditions responsible for the
spread between high and low cost curves.
3. The heavy black line which runs approximately
through the center of this band represents the aver-
age of the seven skidder studies that fall within the
high-cost and low-cost curves. In calculating its
position each study was given equal weight.
4. The same procedure has been repeated for each
of four groups of yarding machinery, namely, large
steam yarders, 100-125 h.p. gasoline yarders, 30-35 h.p.
gasoline yarders and 60 h.p. tractors with fair-lead
arch. The diagram thus consists of five bands of cost
curves partly over-lapping each other each band repre-
senting a certain type of yarding machinery, and
giving high, low, and average costs. The two other
groups of machinery covered in this report, namely,
275-300 h.p. gasoline slackline yarders and 200 h.p.
Diesel highlead yarders, have been left out of the dia-
gram, partly because of unusual logging conditions
met with in these studies, particularly in the Diesel-
yarder studies.
5. The procedure followed in constructing the dia-
gram headed "200-foot log" has been repeated in the
other four diagrams for the 400, 800, 1600 and
3200-foot log sizes, respectively. Comparisons may
thus be made over virtually the full range of log sizes
ordinarily dealt with in logging.
25. Density of Timber, Efficiency of Crew, and
Topography are Factors Affecting the Cost of Com-
parison.— It is obvious that the exact positions
of the five average curves (heavy black lines)
represent comparisons in which only those fac-
tors are fully considered that can be said to
have been accurately measured, namely, size of
log and yarding distance. Although these are
on the whole the most potent, they are by no
means the only factors affecting yarding costs.
Some consideration must be given to density
of timber, efficiency of crew and topography.
A comparison of density and volume of 1<
per acre is given below:
hog scale
volume per acre Logs per acre
Study group M.ft.b.m. Number
Skidders 52
Steam high-lead yarders 70 61
100-125 h.p. gasoline yard 34 40
30-35 h.p. gasoline yarders 35 78
60 h.p. tractors 13 38
This shows on the face of it that the large
skidders and high-lead yarders have received
the best of the comparison in respect to density.
The light volume per acre noted for tractors
is, however, no handicap at all because with
this type of machinery there are no road-chang-
ing costs to reckon with (road-changing costs
being the only item affected by volume per
acre). For the gas yarders, the relatively low
volume per acre creates a handicap of three and
five cents per thousand board feet respectively
in comparison with the steam high-lead group;
while the skidder group by the same standard
of comparison is handicapped by 9 cents per
M. These corrections would evidently make
relatively little difference in the position of the
curves, except in the largest log sizes.
Density in terms of number of logs per acre
is virtually equal for steam skidders and high-
lead yarders. The 30-35 h.p. gas high-lead,
which relies entirely on one-log turns, is not
affected by this factor and may thus be con-
sidered equalized both with these groups and
with the larger gas yarders and the tractors.
The last mentioned groups, both of which rely
on multiple log turns, are handicapped to an
unknown extent by low density, which would
tend to further strengthen their already very
favorable position in relation to the curves rep-
resenting the large machinery.
With regard to efficiency of crew, there is
nothing definite to judge by in comparing one
group of machinery with another; the only
reasonable basis to go on is that a sufficient
number of studies have been made in each of
the five groups to strike as close to normal
crew performance for one group as for another.
As to topography, an examination of the
maps discloses that the skidder group, the large
steam high-lead group, and the 30-35 h.p. gas
high-lead group, each shows samples of all
kinds of topographic conditions, bad, good, and
average. The 100-125 h.p. gasoline highlead
group, on the other hand, is on the average fa-
vored in this respect, if compared with the
afore-mentioned three groups, but this is also
the group which is handicapped by low density,
37
both in volume per aero and number of logs
per acre. Finally there are the tractors for
which the yarding studies here reported show
comparatively little variation in topographic
conditions, and which, furthermore, represent
a method o( yarding that is confined either
to virtually level or to downhill topography.
In the above comments on topography the
only factors which are considered are the steep-
ness and roughness of slopes with no account
taken of such combinations of topographic fea-
tures as are met with, for example, in Figure
10, which presents a forbidding picture for
any method except skyline yarding, if the logs
actually have to travel over the exact distance
and route followed in that particular case, but
which might give an entirely different impres-
sion if laid out for yarding with other methods.
26. Comparison of Yarding Variable Costs. —
With these various factors duly considered, the
chart (Figure 28) can now speak for itself.
The heavy lines, which represent the group
averages, indicate a very striking superiority
in the light and medium-sized machinery, par-
ticularly in the cases of high-lead yarders for
short yarding distances and tractors for any
yarding distance. In the latter case, the advant-
age is most evident for the longer distances,
where tractors have no competition from high-
lead machinery and retain as well a handsome
lead over the skidders. This becomes even more
significant in view of the fact that in tractor
yarding the distance may be extended indefi-
nitely without incurring the relatively high cost
incident to the double or triple handling which
would usually occur in yarding with the other
types of machnery. Further than this, there is
virtually no rigging ahead and moving cost
attached to the use of tractors. Finally, there
is in the case of tractor yarding the indirect
advantage of less breakage of timber in yard-
ing, which, although here only casually refer-
red to, may often overshadow all other con-
siderations.
The above remarks are predicated mainly on
the comparison of the group-average curves as
shown in the chart. Looking next to the varia-
tions from the group averages, one finds that
the large machinery is placed in a better posi-
tion to compete provided that certain condi-
tions are distinctly favorable to its use, the
chief prerequisite being unusually dense or
heavy stands of large timber. Under these con-
ditions one finds, for example, that the curve
for the large steam high-lead yarder (see low
cost curve for steam high-lead group) inter-
sects the curves for the light and medium-sized
gasoline yarders at approximately 600-foot
yarding distance and shows considerably bet-
ter results for distances longer than this. How-
ever, it is probable that, had more studies been
made in the 100-125 h.p. group, the resultant
band of curves would have been considerably
wider and, under equivalent density and topo-
graphic conditions, the intersection of the two
low cost curves would not be quite so sharp.
27. Rigging-Ahead Costs. —
The comparison of yarding- costs should be extended
to include rigging-ahead costs in order to afford a full
comparison of the yarding operation as a whole. This
phase, however, did not receive much attention in the
studies, except for the calculation from data furnished
by the operators of the per M. feet b.m. and per-acre
costs of settings covered in the yarding time-studies.
These data are not very reliable, since they are based
in many cases on rough estimates of direct-labor costs
only, to which has been added another rough estimate
of other costs. The average area per setting is also
based on rough estimates. This is the reason for
keeping these costs separate from the actual time-
study data on fixed per-acre costs incurred in changing
of roads, although this item is identically of the same
nature as rigging-ahead costs.
In the final comparison the basis should be the cost
per acre. Below is a summary of average cost per
acre for each of the seven groups of yarding machinery
included in the studies. Average area per setting and
cost per setting are also listed.
Table 28
Comparison of rigging-ahead costs
Cost Approx. Cost
per area per per
Type of machine1 setting setting acre
Dollars Acres Dollars
Track settings: (including mov-
ing and rigging ahead for
loading rig)
12x14 skidders (double track
landing) __ $300.00 60 $5.00
12x14 high-lead yarders 312.00 32 9.75
Cold deck settings:
300 h.p. gasoline slack li/ie~. 100.00 21 4.83
200 h.p. Diesel highlead yard-
ers 108.00 18 6.00
100-125 h.p. gasoline high-
lead yarders 60.00 11 5.50
30-35 h.p. gasoline highlead
yarders 22.00 4.5 4.75
'No data obtained for 60 h.p. tractors with track settings; with cold
deck settings tractor cost would generally lie negligible and is so
assumed.
The high rigging-ahead costs shown for track land-
ings, despite the relatively simple moving problem
involved, derive largely from the construction of rail-
road sidings at the landing. In many cases (not en-
countered in these studies, however) when the
steel-tower skidder is set up directly over the main
track without special loading tracks, the rigging-ahead
costs are much lower.
No data were obtained on the cost of rigging-
ahead and moving for yarding with tractors. The
moving expense involved in going from one landing
to another would, however, generally be negligble.
This would give the tractor an advantage of roughly
$5 per acre for cold-deck areas. For track settings
the advantage, if any, may be more or less dependent
upon loading method, track arrangements, cost of clear-
ing landings, etc.
38
The data can hardly be considered sufficient or
reliable enough to justify definite comment on the
relative standing- of the other groups, except that the
figures indicate that the small and medium-sized high-
lead machines hold their own in comparison with the
larger ones in spite of the small-sized settings and
trequent moving that arc involved in the short yard-
ing scheme here followed.
28. Reasons for High Cost of Yarding with
Large Machines. — In looking for basic reasons
behind the generally poor showing made by the
large machines, one finds from a study of ths
chart that they are beaten before they start
the actual transporting of the load. If yarding
with the large machinery were entirely a pro-
cess consisting of an uninterrupted movement
of loads from stump to landing, the light ma-
chinery would lose its advantage. It is the
departure from this working schedule that sets
the large machinery back. The higher daily
operating cost of large machinery is justified
only during that portion of the working day
when the hauling and haulbock lines are mov-
ing back and forth between the landing and the
stump and provided then, of course, that their
normal turn capacity is maintained. The higher
cost of providing machinery and crew for non-
transporting activities works against it. For
example, hooking and unhooking a log of 1,000
board foot volume costs 41.4 cents in the skid-
der study reported in Table 9, 31.3 cents in the
steam high-lead study (Table 14), 16.5 cents
for the 125 h.p. gasoline yarder (Table 22),
18 cents (this covers hooking, unhooking-
hang-up, and "yarding" time in getting the log
from stump to arch) for tractors (Table 5),
and 5.4 cents for the 35 h.p. gasoline yarder
reported in Table 25. The examples taken rep-
resent in each case the study showing the low-
est cost of hooking and unhooking in each
group of studies.
Such a severe initial handicap against the
large machines is not easily overcome by any
possible economies in other phases of the work
during that portion of the working day when
loads are actually moving toward the landing.
As shown graphically in Figure 29 only a rela-
tively small portion of the working day of the
large machinery is actually employed in haul-
ing and haulback time ; for example, at normal
yarding distances the large skidders and high-
lead yarders are actually working only about
25% of the time. In general, as the speed and
power of the yarder increases the percentage
of hauling and haulback time decreases. In
other words, the nature of the yarding opera-
tion is such that as the power and speed of the
machine is increased and the effective machine
operating time is correspondingly dec
the performance of those activities in which the
machinery serves no useful function — setting
chokers, changing roads, delays and waiting
time — becomes costlier in approximate propor-
tion to the higher total daily cost of operation
of the machine as a whole. Within certain lim-
its, ultimate efficiency as measured in cost per
thousand board feet may be said to correspond
roughly to the percentage of time devoted to
the actual hauling and haulback operation.
29. Limitations of Small Yarding Machinery. —
From a practical point of view there are many
questions to consider in weighing the signifi-
cance of the data presented in Figure 28. These
imply, for example, that the smaller the high-
lead yarder is, the lower becomes the cost of
yarding (speaking here of external yarding dis-
tances of 400 to 700 feet.) But it is obvious
that such a conclusion must recognize some
definite limitations, which may depend upon :
1. Whether the power of the low-cost yarder
is sufficient to handle the large logs on the yard-
ing area, i.e., whether or not it can actually
do the job as a whole.
2. Whether the yarding distances for which
the relatively low cost is shown will serve, or
advantageously can be made to serve, the needs
of the area.
3. Whether the right volume of production
can be secured at the loading point to permit
of low cost loading and switching service.
4. Whether railroad construction and opera-
tion will be affected one way or the other.
The first of these questions may be answered
at this point. The low costs shown for the
30-35 h.p. high-lead group apply (in the four
studies reported) to logs under 2,000 board
feet in volume. This type of yarder is no doubt
limited largely to stands of small to medium-
sized timber because logs scaling much over
2,000 feet generally cause trouble and logs over
4,000 board feet can probably not be handled
by this set-up in any practi. al fashion. The
30-35 h.p. yarders which figure so prominently
in the chart (Figure 28) are thus after all
impracticable for the general run of typical old-
growth Douglas fir stands in which occur many
logs of 3,000 to 6,000 board foot volume, with
occasional logs still larger. To meet practical
working requirements in stands of this char-
acter, a yarder of 60 to 80 h.p. operated by a
crew of 3 to 5 men, would appear to be the
best general choice. The cost curve for such a
yarder may be reasoned to fall between the
curves representing the 30-35 and the 100-125
39
h.p. groups.4 For external yarding distances
of 400 to 700 feet, this type of yarder adds only
slightly to the cost of yarding of small logs and
provides, if properly designed, the necessary
combination of power and ruggedness to suc-
cessfully and cheaply bring in logs scaling as
much as 4,000 to 5,000 board feet.
For larger logs the old fashioned art of hang-
ing a block on the log may well be adopted. This
may not appear an efficient method but as a
matter of fact it may not as a rule be so essen-
tial to obtain high efficiency in yarding logs
over 5,000 board feet in volume, at least not to
the point of calling for specially designed ma-
chinery unless selective specialization can be
practiced along the lines discussed in Chap-
ters XX, XXI, and XXII. This is indicated by
the fact that among about 20,000 study logs
'Compare cost of yarding with 60 h.p. tractor donkeys reported In
Chapter XXI.
taken at random in 14 different logging opera-
tions throughout the Douglas fir region, only
172 scaled over 5,000 board feet in volume,
with the average volume striking very close to
the recognized regional average of 800 to 1,000
board feet.
With these points duly considered, it may
be concluded that there is scant opportunity
for high-lead yarding machinery over 100 h.p.
to justify itself. For yarding distances under
700 feet the Law of Diminishing Returns ap-
parently goes into action at some point between
35 and 100 h.p. depending upon the general
character of the timber. One may question,
however, whether the power of the machine
alone is as decisive a factor as has here been
implied. The size of the rigging, the number
of men in the crew and other factors may have
400
800 1200
YARDING DISTANCE (FEET)
600
2000
FIG. 29 HAULING AND HAULBACK TIME IN PER CENT OF PAYROLL TIME
(LOG SIZE OF 1000 BOARD FEET)
40
a good deal to do with the point at which a de-
cline in efficiency will occur. It may well be
that by being a little more liberal with the
power of the machine, yet retaining the idea of
a small crew and fairly light rigging, the
use of somewhat larger machines than those
suggested above can be justified in many cases.
These conclusions apply only to short dis-
tance high-lead yarding, with no implication
at all at this point that it automatically would
offer the right solution of yarding problems
involving distances of 800 to 2,500 feet or more.
Furthermore the considerations listed above
under points 2, '\, and 4 cannot be ignored in
estimating the practicability of yarders of this
type in any given case. In short, then, all that
has been defined above is the general tyj ■
high-lead yarders that may be expected to .
the best combination of labor, supply, and in-
vestment costs for cold decking or similar yard-
ing within the distances stated. This limita-
tion, however does not necessarily restrict the
use of this general type of machine to a narrow-
field, because its application may be widened
through combination with other methods, as
will be further discussed in Chapter VII and
succeeding chapters.
VI. SKYLINE SWINGING STUDIES
30. Scope of Studies. — Swinging studies were
conducted along the same lines as the yarding
studies and the results are presented in similar
form excluding the maps. A total of about
6,000 logs scaling 5,400,000 board feet are cov-
ered in studies on which detailed results are
presented in Tables 29 to 35.
In any given swinging study, distance is a
constant. However, the effect of distance on
cost and output shows virtually a straight line
relation in skyline swinging and may thus be
calculated from data applying to two different
distances. This has been done in Tables 29 to
34 which show costs and output for four dif-
ferent distances instead of only for the par-
ticular distance that happened to apply in any
given case.
31. Swinging from Cold Decks Shows Higher
Turn Volumes than Yarding. — The influence of
density (number of logs per acre) naturally
does not enter into swinging from a cold deck
pile. Nevertheless, considerable differences ap-
pear in comparing different studies in regard
to the make-up of the turn. Mixture of log sizes,
size of the rigging, organization of the rigging
crews, slopes, deflection problems, and relative
over-capacity or under-capacity in regard to
loading are contributing factors creating dif-
ferences in turn volumes and turn-volume rela-
tions from study to study.
The swinging studies show, on the whole,
considerably higher turn capacity for a given
size of logs than the yarding studies. This is
the logical result of the better density condi-
tion. No yarding studies were made in timber
of exceptionally high density, but there is, of
course, no reason why yarding should not yield
as high turn volumes as in swinging from a
cold deck if the logs lie close enough to permit
gathering them with little or no delays.
Table 29
Relation of volume of log and swinging distanet to out-
put and cost of swinging from cold deck icitli 12zl4
North Bend skyline swing1
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day2
Swinging distances in feet-
Volume of log ft.b.
m.
600
1000
1U00
1800
100
56
50
43
37
200
106
93
80
68
400
187
164
141
119
800
274
240
206
17.'!
1600
417
362
307
253
3200
572
491
410
331
II Swinging
var
iable
cost
in dollars
per M
ft.b.m.-'
100
1.97
2.21
2.57
2.98
200
1.04
1.19
1.38
1.62
400
.59
.67
.78
.93
800
.40
.46
.54
.64
1600
.26
.30
.36
.44
3200
.19
.22
.27
.33
'Crew of 8.S men. excluding loading crew.
-Deduct 6.6% for road changing and rigging tail trees.
'Add $0.05 pei M ft.b.m. fixed per acre cost to ^'et total swinging
cost.
Basis of Cost: Operating- cost per 8-hour day consists of:
Item 1, 448.36 minutes actual turn by turn
swinging time at $0.23 per minute— $103.12
Item 2, 31.64 minutes road changing time at
$0.18 per minute
Item 3, tail tree rigging labor 6.00
Total (full machine rate) (114.82
Item 1 represents swinging variable cost.
Items 2 and 3 represent "fixed per acre" costs amount-
ing to $0.05 per M ft.b.m. (rigging ahead (head
spar) and moving cost not included).
41
Table 30
Relation of volume of log and swinging distance to out-
put (Did cost of swinging from cold deck- with 12x14
North />'< nd skyline swing'1
I Rate of production in M t't.b.m. per 8-hour day2
<- — Swinging distances in feet — >
Volume of log ft.b.m. una 1000 1400 1800
100 56 50 l l 38
200 104 92 80 69
400 178 157 136 LIS
800 25:5 222 190 158
1600 420 339 276 233
II Swinging variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3
100 1.88 2.10 2.39 2.76
200 1.01 1.14 1.31 1.52
400 .59 .67 .77 .91
800 .42 .47 .55 .66
1600 .25 .31 .38 .45
'Crew of 9 nun, excluding loading crew.
-No road changing delays,
Id $0.10 per M ft.b.m. foi tail rigging to get total swinging cost.
Basis of ( lost : Operating cost per 8-hour day consists of :
Item 1, 480 minutes actual turn by turn
swinging time at $0.2188 per minute $105.00
Item 2, tail tree rigging labor 9.00
Total (full machine rate) .. $114.00
Item 1 represents swinging variable costs.
Item 2 represents "fixed per acre" costs amounting to
$0.08 per M b.m. (rigging ahead (head spar)
and moving costs not included).
Table 31
Relation of volume of log and swinging distance to out-
put and cost of swinging from cold deck with 12x14
North Bend skyline swing1
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day2
i Swinging distances in feet~—\
Volume of log ft.b.m. 600 1000 1400 1800
100 41 35 30 27
200 78 66 57 51
400 137 117 101 90
800 217 184 160 139
1600 350 293 253 217
3200 543 452 388 339
II Swinging variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3
100 2.66 3.11 3.56 4.01
200 1.40 1.65 1.90 2.14
400 .79 .93 1.07 1.21
800 .50 .59 .68 .78
1600 .31 .37 .43 .50
3200 .20 .24 .28 .32
'Crew of 8 men, excluding loading crew.
2Deduct i.3v/,, for road changing and rigging tail trees.
'Add $0.08 per M ft.b.m. for road changing, etc., to get total swing-
ing cost.
Basis of Cost : Operating cost per 8-hour day consists of :
Item 1, 464.2 minutes of turn by turn swing-
ing time at $0.2262 per minute $105.00
Item 2, 15.8 minutes of road changing time
at $0.18 per minute 2.84
Item 3, tail tree rigging 8.80
Total machine rate $116.64
Item 1 represents swinging variable costs.
Items 2 and 3 are "fixed per acre" costs, equivalent to
$0.08 per M b.m. (rigging ahead (head spar)
and moving costs not included).
Tablk 32
Relation of volume of log and swinging distance to out-
put and cost of swinging from cold deck with 12x1 ',
North Bend skyline swings
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day-
t Swinging distances in feet
Volume of log ft.b.m. 800 WOO 1400 1800
100 39 36 33 29
200 73 67 61 55
400 129 118 107 95
800 194 L76 l.r>K 140
1600 270 242 214 187
3200 410 365 320 276
II Swinging variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3
100 2.83 3.07 3.35 3.81
200 1.51 1.65 1.81 2.01
400 .86 .94 1.03 1.16
800 .57 .63 .70 .79
1600 .41 .46 .52 .59
3200 .27 .30 .34 .40
'Crew 8.S null excluding loading crew.
'Deduct -I', foi load changing.
■Add $(i.04 per M ft.b.m. for fixed per acre cost.
Basis of Cost : Operating cost per 8-hour day consists of:
Item 1, 460.30 minutes of turn by turn swing-
ing time at $0.23 per minute $105.87
Item 2, 19.70 minutes line changing time at
$0.18 _ _ 3.5,3
Item 3, rigging of tail trees 5.00
Total (full machine rate) $111.42
Item 1 represents swinging variable costs.
Items 2 and 3 represent "fixed per acre" costs amount-
ing to $0.04 per M ft.b.m. (rigging ahead (head
spar) and moving costs not included).
Table 33
Relation of volume of log and swinging distance to out-
put and cost of swinging from cold deck with 13x14
Tyler skyline swing1
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day-
i Swinging distances in feet ^
Volume of log ft.b.m. 600 1000 1400 ' 1800
100 22 19 18 16
200 43 38 35 32
400 83 75 68 62-
800 159 142 128 116
1600 280 250 222 199
3200 420 368 327 294
II Swinging variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3
. 100 5.43 6.04 6.66 7.28
200 2.75 3.06 3.38 3.70
400 1.41 1.57 1.74 1.91
800 .74 .83 .92 1.01
1600 .42 .47 .53 .59
3200 .28 .32 .36 .40
'Crew 9 men, excluding loading crew.
-Deduct 10.7% for road changing.
-Add $0.04 per M ft.b.m. for fixed-per-acre cost to get total swing-
ing cost.
Basis of Cost : Operating cost per 8-hour day consists of:
Item 1, 428.53 minutes turn by turn swinging
at $u.^45 $105.00
Item 2, 51.47 minutes road changing time
at $0.20 . 10.29
Item 3, other fixed per deck 6.50
Total (full machine rate) . $121.79
Item 1 represents swinging variable costs.
Items 2 and 3 are "fixed per acre" costs amounting
to $0.04 per M b.m. (rigging ahead (head spar)
and moving costs not included).
42
Table 34
Relation of volume of log and swinging distance to out-
put and cost of swinging from cold deck with 12xlh
steam tower skidders1 (J, studies)
I Rate of production in M ft.b.m. per 8-hour day2
i Swinging distances in feet ^
Volume of log ft.b.m. 600 looo i/too 1800
100 34 30 27 24
200 67 59 52 47
400 130 114 101 91
800 244 214 189 169
1600 428 368 323 288
3200 609 528 453 396
II Swinging variable cost in dollars per M ft.b.m.3
100 4.64 5.28 5.92 6.57
200 2.36 2.69 3.02 3.35
400 1.22 1.39 1.57 1.74
800 .65 .74 .84 .94
1600 .37 .43 .49 .55
3200 .26 .30 .35 .40
'Average crew of 11 men, excluding loading crew.
-Deduct 6% for road changing.
:'Add $0.06 per M ft.b.m. for road changing and tail tree rigging to
get total swinging cost.
Basis of Cost : Operating cost per 8-hour day consists of :
Item 1, 451.21 minutes turn by turn swinging
time at $0.33 per min 8148.90
Item 2, 28.79 minutes road changing time at
$0.27 per minute 7.77
Item 3, tail tree rigging 4.08
Total (full machine rate) $160.75
Item 1 represents swinging variable costs.
Items 2 and 3 represent "fixed per acre" costs amount-
ing to $0.06 per M ft.b.m. (rigging ahead (head
spar) and moving costs not included).
Table 35
Relation of volume of log to output and cost of hot
swinging with 12x17 slackline yarder — swinging
distance 1,100 feet
Volume of log Rate of production Cost in dollars
feetb.m. per 8-hour day per M ft.b.m.
100 12 10.00
200 24 5.00
400 45 2.67
800 83 1.44
1600 141 .85
3200 229 .52
'Based on estimated machine rate of $120.00 for 6-man crew.
32. North Bend Swing Studies (Tables 29 to
32 Inclusive). —
Four studies were made, in all of which the swing-
ing equipment( 12x14 steam yarders) and the organi-
zation of the crew were similar. The studies comprise
about 3,000 logs. Detailed output and cost data are
given in Tables 29 to 32, inclusive. Slopes varied
from slight uphill to steep downhill, but no logical
effect of steepness or character of slope is brought
to light from a comparison of haulback and hauling
time, possibly because the contrasts between the studies
in this respect are not sharp enough to make any
particular difference.
33. Tyler Swing Study (Table 33). —
A total of 605 logs scaling 1,300,000 board feet are
comprised in this study. The cold-deck pile was large,
not all of the logs in the pile being included in the
study.
This study represents rough, uphill topography.
However, with the system used, no operating diffi-
culties or loss of time occurred that can be
the character of the road, actual hauling time :
e;iven load being relatively low compared with other
swing studies. Hooking and delay time, ho.
relatively hiy-h, owing primarily, it is believed, to the
large size of the cold-deck pile — a detail that is fur-
ther discussed in Section M. ' i log volumes
under 800 board feet, as shown in Table 36 are rel-
atively high, but this is not very significant from the
standpoint of average costs, because the average log
volume in this case is very large (2160 board foot
average) with only a small nercentage of total volume
represented by logs under 800 board feet in volume.
34. Steam Skidder Swing Studies (Table 34).-—
A total of 2,148 logs, scaling over two million feet
are represented in the study presented in Table 34.
This table is derived from four studies, with all points
of distinction between the different studies lost in the
process of averaging the results.
35. Steam Slackline Swing Study (Table 35). —
This represents a "hot swing". From the standpoint
of showing production capacity of the swing machine,
hot swings are usually of no direct significance on
account of being directly integrated with the yarding
operation which sets the pace. The hot swing' simply
relays the logs brought in by the yarder. This table is
presented only to demonstrate an exceptional case in
which for a short period of time a complete lack of
synchronization of yarding and swinging capacity hap-
pened to raise costs beyond reason.
36. Comparison of Results. — All the skyline
swinging studies here reported apply to ma-
chinery of approximately equal power, speed,
operating radius, and general method of opera-
tion. Hence, no basis exists for comparison of
large versus small machinery as was the case
in the yarding studies. Nor is this a question
which, if answered, would be likely to lead to
conclusions similar to those drawn in connec-
tion with short distance high-lead yarding
(Sec. 26), because swinging from cold decks
creates optimum conditions for effective use of
great power and speed, particularly in steep,
uphill swinging for distances of 1,000 to 2,500
feet.
Table 36 gives a comparison of swinging
costs for logs of various volumes at a swinging
distance of 1,800 feet. The table brings atten-
tion to the following points:
1. For each of the six studies, variations of
the volume of the log show a striking effect on
cost, quite similar. to that shown in the yard-
ing cost tables.
2. From study to study, an apparent connec-
tion exists between variations in the average
volume of the logs and the relative spread of
costs from small to large logs. The larger the
average log volume, the greater is the relative
spread in costs from the 200 to the 3,200 foot log
volume. On the whole, the same is true of the
yarding studies.
43
3. The size of the cold-deck pile (total vol-
ume) seems in a rough way to be a factor af-
fecting the efficiency obtained in swinging. The
larger the cold-deck pile, the higher is the cost
per M ft.b.m. of swinging a log of a given vol-
ume. The comparison in this case should be
confined to the first five studies (Tables 29 to
33) which represent similar machines operated
at approximately equal daily machine rates.
Further discussion of points 1 and 2 follows
in Chapter XI, in which a summary is given
of cost relations for all yarding, swinging and
loading studies.
Table 36
Comparison of costs for six studies of skyline swinging
of logs of various volumes — swinging
distance 1,800 feet
Approx.
/ 'olume
total
of
(
\>st per
.1/ feet t
.hi., by
Type of in cold deck
az'eragc
log
1
log hi hi
,n,l feet
r
\
swing M ft.b.m
Ft.b.m.
200
400
sun
1600
North Bend 490
700
$1.66 $0.98 $0.69 $0.49 $0.38
North Bend 150
360
1.62
1.01
.77
.55
North Bend 360
350
2.22
1.29
.86
.58 .40
North Bend 1200
77(1
2.08
1.23
.86
.66 .47
Tyler 1750
2160
3.76
1.97
1.07
.65 .46
Skidders 750'
960
3.41
1.80
1.00
.61 .46
(4 studies)
'Estimated average volume per deck for four studies,
37. Large Cold Decks Cause Increase of Swing-
ing Costs. — Loggers have commonly recognized
that higher efficiency is obtained on the aver-
age in swinging from small or medium-sized
cold decks than from large ones. Much de-
pends, of course, upon how the logs are stacked
and unstacked. However, large cold decks con-
taining from one to two million board feet or
more are usually difficult to handle, causing a
good deal of delay and a general slowing up of
the hooking-on operation. The findings made
in the five studies of North Bend and Tyler
swinging confirm common experience.
Tables 29, 30, and 31, grouped together to
represent small cold decks (ranging from 150
to 490 M ft. b.m. total volume) , show an average
cost of 77 cents for the 800-foot log volume
and 54 cents for the 1600-foot log volume. The
corresponding cost for the large cold decks
(Tables 32 and 33) which total 1,200 and 1,750
M ft. b.m., respectively, averages 96 cents and
66 cents per M ft.b.m. ; an increase of 25 per
cent for the 800 board foot log volume and 22
per cent for the 1600-foot volume. A part of this
difference, however, arises through the higher
machine rate applied in the Tyler study (on ac-
count of higher wire rope costs), the correc-
tion of which would lower the percentages of
increase to 21 and 18 per cent respectively. A
similar comparison for the smallest and largest
log sizes would not be very significant since
the 200-foot volume class virtually drops out
of Tables 32 and 33 while the 3200-foot class is |
scarce in the other studies.
In tracing the source of this increase the fol-
lowing data on the time elements, as read from
the original time-study tables, are significant:
The small cold decks show for the 800 foot
log (1) average turn volume of 2,443 board feet;
(2) hauling, haulback, and hang-up time, aggre-
gating on the average 4.55 minutes per turn J
(1800-foot distance) ; (3) hook and unhook,
and delay time, aggregating on the average
2.95 minutes per turn; (4) total turn time, 1
averaging 7.50 minutes.
The large cold decks show for the same items I
(1) 2,300 board feet, (2) 4.04 minutes, (3)
4.51 minutes, (4) 8.55 minutes, respectively.
Thus, although the turn volume in large cold
decks shows a decrease of slightly over 5 per
cent, the total turn time increases 14 per cent. |
The increase in turn time is due entirely to
increase of hooking-unhooking and delay time, j
items which logically should be affected by size
of pile (except unhooking, which is a small
item). Hauling, haulback, and hang-up time,
which items have nothing to do with the size
of the cold deck, show on the other hand a lower
average time per turn for the larger cold decks
than for the small ones.
A similar comparison for the 1600-foot log
volume shows a decrease of 7 per cent of turn
volume, and an increase of 11 per cent of total
turn time. For shorter swinging distances the
relative increase in turn time is greater.
In previous time studies of swinging from
two cold decks, one comprising about 450
M ft.b.m., the other 1,500 M ft.b.m., both cold
decks being located on one swing road and
swung by the same crew and machine, it was
found that production in swinging from the
large pile (1400-foot swing distance) dropped
11 per cent in addition to the drop accounted for
through increase of distance.
44
VII. COMPARISON OF DIRECT YARDING WITH COMBINED COLD DECKING
AND SWINGING
38. Comparison of Costs. — For a number of
^ears the question of direct yarding or skidding
versus the combination of cold decking and
swinging has been a live topic in discussions
among loggers of this region. It still remains
just as live as ever. Two schools of thought
grew up some years ago, one holding to the
belief that cold decking and swinging offers a
combination that, all things considered, is in
most cases cheaper than direct yarding except
for logs close to the track or the track landing
3r for very good shows, the other holding fast
to the opinion that direct yarding is nearly
always the cheaper under ordinary conditions
^f logging. Some operators today follow a pol-
icy of cold decking and swinging virtually all
3f their logs. Others do no cold decking except
m areas entirely beyond the reach of the track
machines. Still others follow the middle course
by cold decking generally from 20 to 50 per
cent of the timber that might otherwise be
reached in direct yarding. Opinions frequently
differ sharply as to what is a cold deck show
and what is a direct yarding show.
An interesting light is shed on these ques-
tions by piecing together the findings made in
the above reported yarding and swinging
studies. This has been done graphically in Fig-
ure 30. In explanation of this graph the follow-
ing may be noted:
For line B-B the data from Table 33 are reduced by
6 per cent to bring- the Tyler machine rate into line
with the North Bend studies.
The cost of $0.65 included for Line D-D is obtained
from the center diagram (800 board feet log size) of
the yarding cost chart (Figure 28) by interpolating be-
tween the 30 h.p. and 125 h.p. cost curves (heavy lines)
at 450 feet external yarding distance, at which point the
cost is $0.55 per M ft.b.m."' To this has been added
$0.10 per M. ft.b.m. to cover the cost of rigging ahead
and moving (see Section 27).
■'Compare cost of yarding with 60 h.p. tractor donkeys reported in
Chapter XXI.
rlGURE 30
COMPARATIVE COST OF DIRECT SKIDDING, SWINGING, AND COMBINED
SWINGING -COLD DECKING OVER VARIOUS DISTANCES
(FOR 800 BOARD FEET LOG SIZE)
/V/yA^r/ Cos/ of0<roe/
S/r.o'a.r,f(7'*c/oSj ■
t- ^/4rers<?e Cost1 of Co W DlecA -v
yv/f/7 Z?/*ye MpA /ssoJ Uro/ors
(*/./0 foi- fjtibm/ 0,r/*ioe of7<X>
F fifj Comi/noo1 ^,/A AbrM Sons'
Arorjp* CosJ of Co/// Pect-r'ng
„,'h Srw// Gss M.oJ-{'-"/>*r*i-r
(*C 65 fw£x/»ma ' C-sJjrxre <S
4Sef/)Comh,nooJ V/A* Nor//, Son,/
S„,nf (tJnr J-J
lo^osf Cos/ of 0ir*c/
■S/.ro'o'/nf (TBt/c SJ
Cos/ , AforfA gens',
(ana/ ,y/or) stvfOS
Co/o' 0ocist"jo; .
Ty/or/swos mm tvoo
Co/o/ 0ocis(Z?6/' S?-33)
r*fO Cos/ . Ver/fl govt/
StvintfS from SrrTSf// Co-.i
^Ooois (Tsi/o 29-SC-J/)
~t V £ <f lobe
SWINGING OR YARDING DISTANCE IN
(2000'
FT. (SPECIFIC DISTANCE)
SWINGING OR SKIDDING DISTANCE IN FT. (SPECIFIC DISTANCE J
45
The cold-decking cosl for Lino P-F is similarly inter-
polated between the curve representing the 100-
]-'•> h.p. group ami the curve for the large steam
high-lead group.
In addition to the lines representing swinging costs
and combined swinging and cold decking costs there
have been entered in Figure 30 two lines representing
the cost o( direct yarding (skidding) with 12x14 steam
skidders. Line ( -C represents the study (Table 9)
which gave the lowest cost of direct skidding. Line E-E
represents the skidder study showing the highest cost.
These lines are the same as the top and bottom line of
the "skidder hand" shown in Figure 28, except that
Figure 30 is based on external yarding distance, while
Figure 28 represents actual distance as heretofore de-
fined in Section 20.
Neither the skidder costs (('-(' and E-E) nor the
swinging costs include rigging ahead and moving costs
incurred at the track landing. No adjustment has been
made Cor swinging distances although it might reason-
ably be expected that cold decking would on the aver-
age tend to bring the logs closer to the track spar, thus
reducing the swinging distance. As matters stand, cold
decking is considered a process of assembling; the logs,
and not transporting them toward the landing-.
The right hand side of Figure .">(• represents identi-
cally the same costs as the left hand side except that the
cost of loading has been added. With loading- costs-
included, the cold deck system gains some additional
ind m competition with direct skidding-. This is due
to more effective use of loading- facilities through in-
crease of and or steadier pace of production under the
C< Id-deck system. By the same token it may be in-
ferred that further economies may follow through
more effective use of railroad operating facilities and
general overhead a point on which the advocates of
the swinging-cold-decking system lay particular stress.
39. One Problem — Many Solutions. — A glance
at the right hand side of Figure 30 shows that,
as far as these studies indicate, any kind of an
answer can be given to the general question as
to which of the two systems will generally give
the best result, although the logging conditions
to which the different answers would refer are
identical. For example:
40. Size of Cold Deck is Controlling Factor. —
All shades of opinion regarding the relative
merits of the cold deck versus the direct yard-
ing or skidding system can thus be supported
by cost data and operating experience, but with
each one giving an entirely different solution of
an identical problem, the answer depending
largely upon the size of cold deck that is being
considered. The large cold deck as a product of
the large cold-deck yarder and relatively long
yarding distances brings (1) high cold-decking
costs, (2) high swinging costs, (3) high break-
age loss, and (4) high fire risk. In contrast to
this the small cold deck as the product of the
small yarder, small crew, and short yarding
distances brings low cold-decking costs, low
swinging costs, and overcomes to a large extent
the objections in regard to breakage and fire
risk.
41. Effect of Volume of Log on Comparative
Costs. — The comparison made above is based
on logs of 800 board foot volume. A similar
comparison of the 1,600-foot class shows that
the relative positions of the three systems are
virtually the same. For logs of 3,000 board foot
volume some ground is lost by the small cold
deck, and reason would suggest that this trend
will be accelerated in the 4,000 and 5,000 foot
classes. For logs under 600 board feet, on the
other hand, the small cold deck shows addi-
tional gains, which increase substantially with
decrease of log size.
42. Objections to Foregoing Conclusions. — On
the strength of the study data, the small cold-
deck system has on the average a decided ad-
vantage, since it meets serious competition and
occasional defeat only from the direct skidding
system and then only when operating in me-
dium-sized or large-sized timber in good shows,
i.e., under conditions which bring about such a
low cost average per M. feet b.m. that the win-
ning and the losing systems are only a few
cents apart.
However, looking beyond the cost findings
made in these particular studies, it is obvious
that some exceptions must be made to the
sweeping conclusions here implied.
(1) In the first place it might be argued
that better skidder shows than that represented
by Line C-C are often found and that Line C-C
therefore might not represent the average of
good performance in the best shows. This argu-
ment, however, would also apply to the compet-
ing system though perhaps not quite in equal
degree. To whatever extent the argument is
valid, it would tend to give direct skidding a
clearer title to the really good shows.
(2) Cost of tail tree rigging and line chang-
ing for small cold decks will go considerably
higher than in the study cases, if the skyline
must be set up for only one cold deck (compare
system explained in Section 43) . For very small
cold decks these costs may become rather ex-
cessive.
(3) On long slopes, too steep for suitable
cold-deck landings, the small short-yarding cold-
deck system may become entirely impracti-
cable. In direct skidding a suitable landing is
required only at the head spar ; in the cold-deck
system some sort of a landing must be provided
for each deck, although the requirements in
this respect are rather moderate for the
small decks. Extremely steep long slopes lack-
ing the necessary landing places may there-
fore require direct yarding irrespective of the
46
character of the timber. Whatever the swing
system that is used as a part of the cold-deck
system, whether it be a North Bend, Tyler,
skidder, or slack line system, situations of this
character can be met by putting the swing to
direct yarding or skidding whenever necessary.
43. Example Showing Adaptability of Cold
Deck System to Rough Topography. —
The wide range of adaptability possessed by the
cold-deck system is illustrated in Figure 31. The map
here reproduced is a duplicate of Figure 8, which is
selected among- Figures 5 to 27 as representing the
roughest topography encountered in this series of
studies with the exception of that shown in Figui^e 17.
It represents a skidder setting, with the skidder placed
at the point marked "head spar", the area shown hav-
ing been logged under the direct skidding system ac-
cording to the plan indicated by the location of the
roads radiating from the head spar to the tail spars,
numbered from 1 to 8. Superimposed on this map is
the plan of the short-yarding cold-deck system repre-
sented by the dot and dash lines indicating setting
boundaries and circles showing spar tree locations for
cold-deck areas A to H. Under the cold-deck system
the skyline roads to tail spars 2, 3, and 7 are retained
as swing roads, serving all cold-deck settings, except
Setting E which is swung without setting up a skyline.
The area between E, D, and the head spar need not,
of course, be cold decked. The eight cold decks aver-
age about 300 M. feet b.m. each, while each skyline
swing road taps an average of 700 M. feet b.m.
A special feature of the small cold-deck system
worked out by many loggers is the use of two or more
landings lined up to be tapped by one skyline road as
shown in Figure 31, thus reducing the per M b.m. cost
ox' rigging up skylines. To this end the problem of
finding suitable spar trees is greatly simplified be-
cause, if necessary, almost any tree above 30 inches
in diameter will serve for yarding with these small
machines and for short yarding distances. The feasi-
bility of this system, however, depends generally up-
on whether suitable landings can be found in the
right locations.
The cold deck areas as planned in Figure 31 are
nearly all laid out as half settings with yarding dis-
tances kept down generally to 400-500 feet or less.
While this adds to the number of trees to be rij/.
it actually simplifies the problem of mo\ing the don-
key (by eliminating moving around the pile to cha
sides), helps to keep the piles small, and given the
yarder engineer a better chance to watch the turns
come in.
A study of the area as laid out for cold decking
shows that the topographic difficulties that strike the
eye in looking at the area as a whole will largely
appear one by one when the area is subdivided into
small independent unit ,. Areas such as cold-
deck settings A, B, and C, are steep but involve really
rough yarding only when combined with the surround-
ing areas. A, B, and (,', considered by themselves, are
all good short-distance high-lead show.-, p
much the same advantage for this type of yarding
as the area illustrated in Figure 24, which gave the
lowest cost to logs yarded with 30-35 h.p. gas yarder.-.
thanks to just the tyne of topography that is shown
on these areas. But if combined with other areas into
larger high-lead settings, difficult yarding problem"
may arise. For example, the three relatively easy
shows represented by areas B, G, and H. if combined
into one large high-lead cold deck with the spar lo-
cated at or near H, make a difficult yarding show.
Another striking example of how two types of fa-
vorable topography combine through long yarding
into one large high-lead cold deck with the spar lo-
Figure 16, on which area yarding cos's were twice
as high as on the areas represented in Figures 13 and
15 for no other reason than that the wrong combina-
tion of easy high-lead topography resulted in a diffi-
cult ground-yarding show. The point in all this is
that topography that appears rough ard difficult un-
der long-yarding methods may become very favorable
for thorc-yarding, provided that suitable landings are
found.
A study of the areas in Figures 7 to 27 in which
enough area is shown to permit of judging the yard-
ing problem as a whole, indicates that the small cold-
deck scheme can, as far a« topography is concerned,
be worked out in all cases. The cold-deck system, thei-e-
fore, does not appear to be Lmited to any specific type
of topography, but may as a rule be applied to any
area on which direct yarding or skidding is feasible,
excluding long, steep slopes on which no suitable
landings can be found.
44. Significance of Foregoing Findings. — The
combination of the small cold deck with con-
ventional swinging methods provides a system
cf logging that can be applied to a wide variety
of conditions. It is on the average more eco-
nomical than direct yarding with the large
equipment; and much more flexible. The con-
\entional type of high-speed, high-power ma-
chinery still remains an important part of the
picture, but remains no longer in a position to
dictate how the logs shall start out on their
journey to the pond. Therein lies the signifi-
cance of this system from the broad point of
view of sound timber management as a prob-
lem apart from the direct promotion of low-
cost logging methods. Low-cost logging as dem-
onstrated here does not favor the removal of
the timber by large units of yarding area.
Yarder settings here embrace generally 3 to 6
acres of area instead of 50 to 100 acres. Thus,
en the area shown in Figure 31 one fourth of
47
an aero or one eighth of an acre becomes the
unit of area embraced by each yarding road,
planned under direel skidding.
The resultant flexibility, giving the timber
owner a relatively free hand in what timber to
take and what to leave, is obviously a most
important step toward intensive forest man-
agement.
This first step toward lower costs and
greater flexibility is not necessarily the final
step. It might be only a beginning. The small,
flexible yarder drives the large, long-yarding
machinery, so to speak, "out of the woods,"
ami puts it to work on the swing roads, which
gives to each of these types of machinery a
better opportunity to justify itself. But the
small, flexible high-lead yarder, in competition
with the still more flexible tractor, can not re-
tain all the territory it has conquered. The
tractor lias a better claim than the small high-
lead yarder (compare Figure 27) to the areas
comprised largely by cold-deck settings B, C,
D, E, H, and part of G, by underbidding the
small high-lead yarder by about 15 per cent
($0.10 per M. feet b.m., the saving arising
largely through elimination of rigging ahead
and moving costs) and offering an indirect sav-
ing that might amount to several times that
much through reduction of breakage. The
results of experiments reported in Chapter
XXI support this view most emphatically. The
interesting point to emphasize at this stage of
the discussion is that low-cost logging is pro-
moted by greater flexibility in equipment,
which may be expressed in the substitution of
light flexible gas yarders for the large, high-
power, high-speed yarding machinery, or bet-
ter still, displacing the light gas yarder with
the highly flexible tractor which in the case
at hand takes over more than half of the yard-
ing area shown in Figure 31. This trend toward
greater flexibility and lower cost extends also
to the swinging operation as will be brought
out in the following study of "roading" with
tractors ; in typical cases, it leads in the end to
important changes all through the logging
operation from railroad construction to felling
and bucking. Final conclusions as to the sig-
nificance of these cost findings must therefore
await the unfolding of the logging picture as
a whole.
VIII. TRACTOR ROADING STUDIES
45. Distinction Between Roading, Swinging, and
Yarding with Tractors. — In the studies reported
in Section 21, Chapter IV, tractors drawing
fair-lead arches were used for direct yarding
without special preparation of roads and with-
out special effort made to build up standard
loads. The tractors made their own roads as
best they could in the course of the yarding
operations. In the operation reported in this
chapter, the same type of equipment was used
for swinging from a cold deck to a track land-
ing over a road that had been prepared in ad-
vance; and special attention was given to the
building up of large loads. In the operation
reported in Chapter XXI the same type of
equipment was used again for hauling over
roads prepared in advance, but with the logs
yarded directly by the tractor. The term "road-
ing" is used in both of these cases to denote the
hauling of large loads of logs over roads pre-
pared in advance, irrespectve of whether it
represents a swinging or a direct yarding oper-
ation.
46. Scope of Study. — In the operation studied,
roading was carried on over a distance of 6.600
feet (horizontal distance) with grades varying
from 9 per cent against the load to 31 per cent
in favor of the load. The total difference in
elevation from the landing at the railroad track
to the cold deck at the end of the road is 750
feet. The accompanying profile (Figure 32)
gives further details on gradients.
Performance and cost records covering road-
ing operations involving a large volume of logs
were made available by the operator, rendering
it unnecessary to undertake a comprehensive
study insofar as a reliable cost average is con-
cerned. Only a brief time study was made to
throw light on the effect of slope on hauling and
haulback time and to determine the load capa-
city applicable to downhill roading.
Actual detailed timing was applied to 14 round
trips. The average load scaled 4,256 board feet, gross
log scale; the volume of the average log was 1,124
board feet; and the average trip time, 68.7 minutes.
According to the operator's records, based on over
a month's operation on this road, the average load
scaled about 3,600 board feet net log scale, with
seven trips constituting the average performance for
a full 8-hour day. This is equivalent to 68.6 minutes
per trip, assuming the full 8-hour day represents a
working period of exactly 480 minutes. This record,
then, indicates that long-time performance agrees
very closely with the time study results for the two-
da.v period.
These results, however, apply only to roading in
dry weather. The combination of rain, clay soil and
steep grades proved too much for the return haul with
tractor and arch.
48
I.OOO
800
10
-J
CS
0
600
400
200
-
Max. 17 7o
Min. 87o
Ave. H7o
r
-
«
Max. '8 To
Min. 10%^
Ave. I3 7o^,
Ave. 207o^
WO
AS
<^ Cold
deck
-
Maximum
Grade ^"^V.
31 % £
Max. -9 7
Min. +3 70
? Ave. -3%
Max. 12 7,
Min. 4 7o
Ave. ST.
\A»
V* 'C
^*^
Maximum Grad*
Minimum Gradi
Average Grad*
?27 70 ,/ ' ,
? lei/ X"
^^per0per^lofr
v<S- Landing
l.OOO
2.000
HORIZONTAL
Fig. 32—
3,000 4,000 5.000
DISTANCE. FROM LANDING (FLE.T)
-PROFILE OF TRACTOR ROAD
6,000
7,000
47. Tabulation of Results. —
Time and cost per trip are arranged in the order
of increasing load volumes in Table 37. Note that 82
per cent (Columns 2, 3, and 6) of total operating time
is spent in actual travel, of which the larger share
(43.6 per cent) is accounted for as haulback time.
Hooking and unhooking consumes slightly over 10 per
cent.
Table 37
Time and cost of roading loads of different volumes with 60 h.p. tractor and fairlead arch
6,600 foot roading distance
Volume
of load
Bd.ft.
1
2370
3310
3530
3580
3740
3940
4310
4560
4630
4740
4820
4900
5250
5900
4256
Total time
(per cent)
'Based on
logs from cold
Haul
back time
Min.
2
30.80
29.36
30.20
30.33
29.68
29.58
33.13
29.32
31.49
32.61
27.51
27.49
27.64
29.77
29 92
43.6
Turn at
Cold Deck
Min.
8
0.55
.75
.49
.41
1.74
.64
.56
.80
1.42
.54
1.16
.85
.71
1.0
Hook-up
Min.
h
6.04
6.10
5.74
4.34
3.94
1.34
6.54
6.75
3.57
8.20
13.32
6.28
6.98
5.02
6.01
8.7
Unhook
Min.
5
0.95
1.06
.68
.52
.88
.60
1.52
1.02
.64
1.41
1.89
.73
.46
.88
Average
.95
1.4
per
Hauling
time
Min.
6
22.05
23.05
23.94
31.58
25.26
24.22
26.30
26.81
23.46
26.15
28.09
27.81
26.04
27.29
turn
25.86
Total effective
time Misc. delays
Min.
7
60.39
60.32
61.05
67.18
61.50
56.38
68.05
64.70
60.58
68.91
70.81
63.47
61.12
63.81
63.45
92.3
Min.
8
6.71
3.08
9.57
2.25
10.90
2.40
12.73
2.27
5.24
4.89
4.74
5.34
1.32
2.17
5.26
7.7
Total
trip
Min.
9
67.10
63.40
70.62
69.43
72.40
58.78
80.78
66.97
65.82
73.80
75.55
68.81
62.44
65.98
68.71
100.0
Roading
cost per
M ft.b.m.1
Dollars
10
1.99
1.35
1.41
1.37
1.36
1.05
1.32
1.03
1.00
1.10
1.10
.99
.84
.79
1.14
machine rate of $33.80 per day for tractor, arch, and drivei
deck, and "helper" operation are not included.
49
37.6
(see footnote Table 51; cost of road construction, extraction of
48. Importance of Favorable Grades in Tractor
Roading. —
The delay time noted enters mainly as a result of
the helper operation introduced to boost the loads
over the adverse grade shown in Figure 32 at distance
2,000—2,500. At this point the adverse grade (up to
!».;! per rent adverse) could not he negotiated di-
rectly by the loaded tractor. A gasoline donkey had
been' installed to pull the loads over this grade. De-
lavs incident to tins operation amounted to 3.56
minutes per trip, while all other delays such as wait-
ing for the other tractor to pass, minor repair work,
etc., amounted to 1.70 minutes per trip.
The time lost on account of the helper operation, in
addition to the added expense thereof, calls attention
to the importance of avoiding; long adverse grades in
roading heavy loads. The same situation was noted
in connection with the windfall yarding study reported
in Section 21 in which adverse slopes of as high as
14 per cent were encountered. In the tractor yarding
study, however, it was found that with the light loads
involved in direct yarding of generally small logs
(average turn 1,360 board feet compared with 4,256
in roading), short adverse grades of as high as 10 pet-
cent slope had relatively negligible effect on total
results; but in that case only a small part of the total
distance was involved. The tractor either succeeded
in climbing such slopes at reduced speed without drop-
ping its load, or else overcame the handicap by letting
the load down and winding it in with the drum after
reaching the top of the hill. This procedure, however,
is not practicable in connection with very long ad-
verse grades, especially with such heavy loads as are
involved in roading.
In dealing with this study for the purpose of deter-
mining the performance of tractors in downhill road-
ing, the effect of the adverse grade may be eliminated
by disregarding the added cost of the helper operation
and by reducing the trip time from 68.71 to 65.14
minutes (deducting 3.57 minutes helper delays). The
latter figure represents, then, the performance of the
tractor over favorable grades of not less than 3 per
cent, as indicated in Figure 32 by the dotted line.
49. Effect of Slope on Hauling and Haulback
(Return) Time. — In order to determine the effect
of steepness of slope on hauling and haulback
time the traveling speed of the tractor was
timed over measured distances featuring dif-
ferent degrees of slope. The road was divided
into seven sections (A to G in Figure 32), each
featuring different average slopes, but with
considerable spread in grades within each sec-
tion as shown in Figure 32. Hauling and haul-
back time were taken for each section and
translated into time in minutes required to
cover 1,000 feet of hauling distance. The re-
sults, listed by uniform grade per cent inter-
vals, are given in Table 38.
According to Table 38 maximum efficiency
in roading occurs on a grade of 8 per cent. On
this grade the round trip time (actual travel-
ing time only) over 1,000 feet of roading dis-
tance is only 7.51 minutes compared with 8.65
minutes on level ground. Furthermore, on level
ground the maximum load that the tractor can
haul without undue delays is about 4,000 board
feet while approximately 6,000 board feet is
Table 38
Relation of slope to traveling time in roading with
60 h.p. tractor with f airload arch, per 1,000 feet of
hauling distance; average load 4,256 feetb.m.
(Based on 1U trips)
Relative
Average Haulback Round Approx- cost
favorable return. Hauling trip imate perM,
graded time time time'2 load limits max. load
1'cr cent Min. Min. Min. Ft.b.m. Percent
0 3.05 5.60 8.65 4,000 100
2 3.20 5.45 8.65 4,500 89
4 3.30 4.92 8.22 5,000 76
6 3.35 4.43 7.78 6,000 60
8 3.40 4.11 7.51 6,000 58
10 3.61 4.00 7.61 6,000 59
12 3.98 3.80 7.78 6,000 60
14 4.68 3.45 8.13 6,000 62
16 5.20 3.28 8.48 6,000 65
18 5.67 3.15 8.82 6,000 68
20 6.04 3.96 10.00 6,000 77
30
l.f
'Original table values arc based <>n considerable variations in grade.
'Excludes booking, delays, etc.
"Large logs,
indicated in this study as being the practical
maximum load on grades over 8 per cent
(Table 37). The practical maximum load on
grades over 8 per cent is probably determined
by the capacity of the arch rather than by what
the tractor can haul. Theoretically, therefore,
the cost of operating on an 8 per cent grade,
based on the largest possible load, is only 58
per cent of corresponding cost on level ground.
And, as shown in the last column to the right in
Table 38, the cost of operating under maximum
loads on a tractor road with grades varying
from 8 per cent to 18 per cent is only about 60
per cent of the operating cost on level ground.
With this type of roading equipment, the
high efficiency in hauling maximum loads on
grades from 8 per cent and up is of practical
significance only in connection with fairly large
logs because only large logs offer an opportun-
ity to build up maximum load volumes. Obvi-
ously, most of the potential advantage of down-
hill grades is lost if the load volume is not kept
at or near the maximum. (See Column 10,
Table 37).
No data were obtained on haulback time on
grades over 20 per cent due to the fact that
the ascending tractor detoured around the
steepest portion of the grade in order to avoid
meeting the descending loaded tractor. It is
interesting to note, however, that on grades of
12 per cent and more, haulback time increases
nearly as fast as the increase in percentage of
grade. In other words, in operating on grades
above 12 per cent, it takes about the same
length of time to gain a given elevation irre-
spective of the steepness and length of the
road. Thus it requires 3.31 minutes to climb
100 feet in elevation when operating on 12 per
cent grade; 3.25 minutes on a 16 per cent
50
grade; and 3.02 minutes on a 20 per cent grade.
According to this, it would be rather imma-
terial as far as the time required for the return
haul is concerned, whether in operating be-
tween two points of different elevation the
shortest or the longest possible route were fol-
lowed, provided that the grade were kept above
12 per cent. From a practical standpoint, speak-
ing here of tractor roads on soil that becomes
slippery when wet, the longest route might be
the best route, because a tractor drawing a
fair-lead arch can operate over grades of 12
per cent to 18 per cent under rather unfavorable
road conditions, whereas on grades of 20 per
cent to 30 per cent a light shower might force
the closing down of the operation until the road
becomes dry. In bringing down the load, on the
other hand, the shortest route is undoubtedly
the proper one to choose, with the limiting
grade probably held down to about 45 per cent.
The ideal arrangement of a roading operation
on very steep ground would thus be to have the
most direct route — with grades up to 45 per
cent — for the loads to come out, and a return
haul over grades ranging generally from 12 to
20 per cent. By providing a separate road for
the return haul it becomes feasible to operate
any number of tractors without causing the
delays incident to tractors meeting on the road,
thus promoting high efficiency in the roading
operation and permitting any volume of pro-
duction to be attained at the track landing.
Th's question is further discussed in Chapters
XXI and XXII.
50. Relation of Distance to Costs. —
The effect of distance on loading time and costs
will naturally show a straight line relation provided
that both load and slope, or combination of slopes,
are fixed.
From the data presented in Table 37 it is found
that the average "still" time per trip i minutes,
while the distance variable time amounts to 8.45
minutes per round trip for each thousand feet of
hauling distance. On the basis of SO. 0704 per operat-
ing minute ($33.80 per day, covering tractor, arch,
and driver) applied to the average load of 1
board feet, there results the following table of roading
costs :
Cost per M b.m.
Roading distance gross log scale
0 $0.15
2,000 .43
4,000 .71
6,000 .99
8,000 1.27
10,000 1.55
The cost interval is $0.14 per 1,000 feet of dis-
tance, with $0.15 fixed costs at zero distance.
51. Effect of Volume of Load on Total Trip
Time. —
Direct inspection of Column 9, Table 37 shows that
the volume of the load has relatively little effect on
time per trip. The first seven turns which range from
2,370 to 4,310 board feet (average 3,540 board feet)
consume on the average 68.93 minutes per trip. The
last seven turns which average 4,971 board feet (from
4.560 to 5,900) in volume consume on the average
68.48 minutes per trip6. An analysis of the detailed
time study elements shows that by eliminating vari-
ations in elements of time which have nothing to do
with the volume of load, the large loads consume
slightly more time than the small ones, but the differ-
ence is negligible.
52. Roading Cost Table. —
Due to insufficiency of data on the effect of volume
of log on load capacity, a valid basis is here lacking
for the construction of tables similar to those pre-
sented in the yarding and swinging studies. In the
absence of these data, it is nevertheless possible to
gain a reasonable understanding of the full range of
variation in roading costs by using volume of load as
the index of performance instead of the volume of the
log. Following is a table of costs and outputs for
different load volumes and roading distances, based
on the assumption that total trip time at any distance
is fixed irrespective of variation in total load volume
as discussed in the preceding paragraph.
"The same situation is noted in the experiments reported in
Chapter XXI.
Roading
distanced
Feet
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
Feet
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
■3 to 2
-I5ased
■'The v
the load.
Table 39
Relation of volume of load and roading distance to loading cost, and daily outputs —
60 h.p. crawler tractor with fairlead arch1
Downhill roading costs — per M ft.b.m.2
-Volume per loadr
1 M ft. b.m.
(100 ft. logs)
Dollars
0.66
1.85
3.04
4.23
5.42
6.61
M ft. b.m.
51
18
11
8
6
5
2 M ft. b.m.
(200 ft. logs)
Dollar's
0.33
0.93
1.52
2.12
2.71
3.30
3 M ft. b.m.
(AOO ft. logs)
Dollars
0.22
0.62
1.01
1.41
1.81
2.20
4 M ft. b.m.
(800 ft. logs)
Dollars
0.16
0.46
0.76
1.06
1.36
1.65
5 M ft.b.m. 6 M ft. b.m. Trips
(1600 ft. logs) (1600 ft. logs) Per dag
Dollars
0.13
0.37
0.61
0.85
1.08
1.32
M ft.b.m.
102
36
22
16
12
10
per cent grades; average 14 per cent.
Output per 8-hour day — Gross Log Scale
M ft. b.m.
154
54
33
34
18
15
M ft. b.m.
205
73
44
32
24
20
M ft.b.m.
256
91
55
40
30
25
Dolh
0.11
0.31
0.51
0.70
0.90
1.10
.1/ ft. b.m.
307
109
66
48
36
30
No.
18
11
8
6
5
No.
is
11
8
6
5
on daily machine rate of"$33.80 for tractor, arch and driver; edd 10"3 fo
alues shown for zero distance represent the "terminal" cost (hooking.
51
hooking and unhook labor.
delays, etc.) involved in the assembling and dischai
53. Relation of Load Volume to Log Volume. —
While Table 39 is based on load volume as the index
to cost (or output) there is given in each heading an
alternative index based on volume of log. The study
itself did not yield sufficient data to throw much light
on this question. The log volume index was arrived at
by translating the log to load relationships shown in
the tractor yarding study (Table 5) for distance 3,000
(at which distance a good deal of care was used in
building up loads) to the greater carrying capacity and
better facilities for gathering together a full load
under conditions applying to downhill roading. Thus,
in the reading study the grand average log volume of
1,124 board feet produced an average load of 4,256
board feet as compared to a load of 2,411 board feet
for the same log volume in the yarding study. The
ratio is 1.77 and this has been applied to other load
volumes up to the limit of a 6,000-foot load and
rounded off to the log volumes listed. The results
agree roughly with the roading study data for the
800-foot, 1,600-foot, and larger log sizes. For the
small log sizes the results should be considered ap-
plicable only to timber of generally small and fairly
uniform size such as was dealt with in the tractor
yarding study.
There is, no doubt, considerable room for improve-
ment in the design of equipment that will permit
larger load volumes of small logs than is possible with
the pi'esent types of roading arches or other forms
of trailers. About ten logs is believed to be the average
maximum that can be carried with the small fair-
lead arch, even if the logs are only 10 to 14 inches
in diameter. It should be possible to devise equip-
ment and methods that will enable hauling as great
a load (in weight) of small logs as of large ones.
Even then the board foot log scale of a load of small
logs will be considerably less than for large ones due
to diffei*ential in weight per board foot (see Sec-
tion 73).
54. Large Load Volume is Essential to Low
Cost of Downhill Roading. — The key to high ef-
ficiency in downhill roading is to build up just
as large a load as it is practicable to carry. In
the operation here reported, closer attention
than is usual was paid to this problem. The
operator required that each load be scaled in
order to avoid carelessness that might result in
dispatching undersized loads. A load of 3,500
board feet was set up as a standard to aim at.
Only one turn scaled below 3,000 board feet and
this occurred as a result of two logs dropping
off the load after starting for the landing. As
shown in Table 37 no loss of time occurred by
taking loads of 4,000 to 6,000 board feet volume
whenever the available log sizes rendered it
practicable to get that large a load under the
arch.
The importance of getting a large load vol-
ume is quite obvious in this long-distance road-
ing study. It takes over an hour to make a round
trip. Only a small percentage of the time goes
to hooking on and unhooking; most of the time
goes to traveling, the speed of which is not af-
fected noticeably by variation in the volume of
the load. If it does take a few minutes longer or
even two or three times longer to get together
a large load, it is clearly evident that those few
minutes are by far the most profitable moments
in the day's work. The basic idea in downhill
roading, then, should not center on making a
quick get-away with the load, but rather on not
attempting to get away at all until the practi-
cal maximum in load value has been attained.
In short-distance roading the building up of
-large loads becomes relatively somewhat less
important but not enough so to be neglected.
From general production figures obtained from
short-distance roading operations during the
last summer it appears that closer attention
must be paid to the load volume in order to
attain the degree of efficiency that is repre-
sented in Table 39.
IX. COMPARISON OF TRACTOR ROADING WITH SKYLINE SWINGING
55. Basis of Comparison. — The foregoing re-
sults of tractor roading might appear to be
based on an insufficient number of studies and
insufficient data to support a reliable compari-
son with skyline swinging costs. However, the
results here obtained agree very closely with
results obtained in short-distance roading stud-
ies conducted in the summer of 1932, the only
important source of variation being the vol-
ume of the load ; a variation caused in part by
the fact that the study here reported repre-
sents logs not exceeding 40 feet in length while
in the 1932 studies log lengths varied up to 64
feet. The results of the latter studies, which are
presented in Chapter XXI, have been drawn
upon in this chapter in connection with tractor
road construction. The data on roading costs
proper, however, are entirely from the long-
distance roading study reported above.
56. Explanation of Graph (Fig. 33) :
In Figure 33 is shown a comparison of roading
and swinging costs for logs of 800 board feet volume
over various distances. Roading is represented by
lines 1, 2 and 3 ; skyline swinging by lines 4 and 5.
In using three different lines to represent roading
costs the aim has been to specify various conditions
which have a decisive effect on costs.
Line 1 thus represents the cost of strictly downhill
roading with no allowance for road construction. It
has been plotted from data given in Table 39, with
10 per cent added to cover the cost of hooking and
unhooking, which items are not included in the $33.80
daily machine rate on which Table 39 is based.
52
FIGURE 33
COMPARATIVE COST OF SKY LINE SWINGING AND ROADING WITH
60-HP CRAWLER TRACTORS OVER VARIOUS DISTANCES
(FOR 800 BOARD FEET LOG VOLUME)
*l3
1
i
>>
8
«*>
^-*,
^
s
&
N
|
N
1
N
■A
o
o
S 5
&
\-
it Us
UJ
UJ
u.
Z
8 "
\
o u
«r o
z
40
"A
\
\
\
o
z
*>
\
5
z
1
N
o
^
»
'
z
Q
1
4
o
a
1
V
\
o
o
&
\
\
i
\
\
*A \
A
^v
\\
\
c
c
c
> c
i c
> C
4 C
> c
> ^
J c
i c
r. «
4 r
3 <
< i
4 C
3 C
> c
> <
3 C
> <
* <
3 <
5. «
p '
I \
3 C
t r
3
wa xj w «3d savnoo ni isoo
53
In plotting line 2 there have been added to costs
represented by line l :
(a) Ten per cent to cover the difference between
roading distance and swinging distance as repre-
sented by straight-line swing roads versus winding
tractor roads;
(b) Five per cent for time lost on account of oc-
casional flat stretches or very short adverse grades in
the road of a character that does not require the use
of helper tractors but that does cause a considerable in-
crease of hauling time;
(c) $0.10 per M feet b.m. to cover the difference
between the cost of the tractor road construction com-
pared with the cost of rigging ahead and moving under
the skyline-swinging system.
Line 3 represents the same costs as line 2 with an
additional allowance of 20 per cent to cover the cost of
operating one helper tractor for each three roading
tractors, to overcome long adverse grades in the road
such as that shown in Figure 37.7
The three lines thus represent, respectively, roading
costs under ideal conditions, under handicaps such as
may occur under typical conditions, and under a set
of conditions which approaches the point at which
roading may become impracticable on account of steep
adverse grades.
Skyline swinging costs in line 4 are the same as
those* represented by line A- A in Figure 30, being
based on Tables 29, 30 and 31. They represent swing-
ing (North Bend system) from small cold decks, which
as heretofore discussed gave the lowest swinging costs
obtained in this series of studies. It is assumed ar-
bitrarily that swinging is limited on the average to
a distance of 1,600 feet, and that each 1,600 feet of
distance requires an additional set-up of skyline and
swing donkey, and hence the transfer of logs from
one to another. Hence the step-up effect shown in
line 4 in which a perpendicular rise of 36 cents per
M ft. b.m. represents these transfer costs, while
37 cents represents the cost of swinging while the
lines are in motion over the 1,600-foot distance. Rigging
ahead and moving costs are not included, but have
been credited to tractor roading as an item off-setting
a part of road construction costs.
Line 5 is the same as line B-B in Figure 30, based
on an average swinging distance of 1,200 feet.
57. Roading from Large Cold Decks Introduces
Additional Costs:
Swinging costs under various conditions will thus
fall generally between lines 4 and 5, while roading
costs fall between lines 1 and 3. A still wider spread in
roading might be pictured, however, in connection with
roading trom large cold decks under conditions re-
quiring a special crew and/or donkey for extracting
the logs from the pile. This was the situation in the
study heretofore reported, but represents as here
viewed only the transition stage from old methods
to new ones. The adoption of the roading system
would inevitably tend toward the elimination of cold
decks entirely or toward their reduction in size toward
a point where no serious difficulties arise in getting
the logs out of the deck. They might be eliminated
either by (1) resorting to short distance yarding to
the tractor roads with tractors, either ground skid-
ding or using pans or fairlead arches, etc.; or (2) by
hot yarding with small highlead donkeys or ground
yarding with donkeys; or (3) by constructing so dense
a network of tractor roads as to render it practicable
to yard directly to the roading tractors using the fair-
lead line. If, however, the large cold deck happens to
represent the only practical answer to a given roading
problem, then it becomes necessary, of course, to in-
clude as a part of roading costs the extra cost incurred
'The cost of operating- a helper tractor is here estimated at only
$22.00 per day, while a roading tractor outfit costs $37.18 per day.
in getting the logs out of the deck — a cost which often
might amount to twenty or thirty cents per M feet
b.m. In this case it is obvious that the corresponding
skyline swinging cost would tend to move toward
line 5 in Figure 33 since this line represents swinging
from large cold decks, while line 4 represents the
small decks. That is to say, skyline swinging is handi-
capped by huge cold decks similarly to tractor roading
and possibly to about the same extent. When the
question of large cold decks is eliminated, the compar-
ison should be focused on line 4 as representative of
skyline swinging, and lines 1 to 3 as representative
of tractor roading.
58. Comparison of Results. — Innumerable
comparisons of swinging and roading costs can
be read off directly from the graph (Figure
83). The most striking feature is the growing
superiority of the roading system with increase
in distance. For example, in roading under con-
ditions represented by line 3, costs are nearly
identical with skyline swinging costs for dis-
tances reached by the first skyline swing; but
the roading curve leaps forward rapidly when
the comparison is extended to the second, third,
or fourth swing. Thus the same cost ($2.00 per
M ft. b.m.) that brings in a log of 800 board
feet volume over a distance of 4,000 feet under
the skyline swing system (line 4) reaches out
to a distance of 7,300 feet on line 3; to 9,000
feet on line 2 ; and to il,000 feet on line 1 ; and,
to complete the contrast, will cover only 2,400
feet if three swings are made under conditions
represented by line 5 !
59. Significance of Low Cost of Long Distance
Roading. — To the logging operator it might ap-
pear at first blush that the real importance of
the cost comparison in Figure 33 hinges largely
on how the two systems compare for distances
ordinarily covered by the first skyline swing,
because, through the present lay-out of railroad
spurs, stump to track transportation is confined
usually to relatively short distances. Double
skyline swings are thus resorted to only oc-
casionally; and triple swings are used only
under exceptional conditions.
On further thought, however, it will become
apparent that the importance of the increasing
superiority of the tractor roading system at
longer distances should not be minimized on
account of possible lack of application under
the present general railroad scheme. Unless the
railroad system is already built the adoption
of the tractor roading system will affect the
location and spacing of railroad spurs. Each
major system of stump to track transportation
creates its own standard of distances over
which the bulk of the timber will be trans-
ported. The relatively low cost of long-distance
tractor roading upsets radically the relation
54
between yarding and swinging distances and
railroad construction and operating costs; and
in so doing throws open the whole problem of
log transportation a much broader inquiry
than that followed in the preceding discussions.
In reestablishing the economic balance for the
roading system it will be found that roading
distances of 4,000, 6,000, or even 10,000 feet
will become no more exceptional than are
.swinging distances of 1,200 to 3,000 feet under
the present general plan of operation. In this
situation it is easy to see possibilities arising
that are likely to have a far-reaching effect, not
only on questions dealing with efficiency in log-
ging, but also on more basic questions of forest
management. Through the skeletonizing of the
railroad system drastic reduction can be
effected in the opening-up costs incurred in the
development of virgin timber areas; and
through the flexibility and cheapness of tractor
road construction a highly flexible system can
be evolved admirably adapted to the solution of
problems of selection in logging — whether by
small subdivisions of area or by individual
trees.
60. Reduction of Breakage Is Important Fac-
tor.— Reduction of breakage is, perhaps, on tha
average as important an advantage of the road-
ing system as is the reduction of costs. To many
loggers this will appear as the principal ad-
vantage, the cost advantage being subject to
exceptions. In roading with tractors the logs
are handled like glassware, arriving at the land-
ing without the well-known blemishes — broken,
broomed, and split ends; bark and ends im-
pregnated with rocks, and covered with mud;
broken slabs, etc. — which frequently distin-
guish the more or less battle-scarred "donkey
logs" at the end of their eventful journey.
Obviously, if the bottom of line 4 (and 5)
in Figure 33 were raised to allow for breakage
losses that might range generally from $0.25
to $2.00 per M ft. b.m., the superiority of the
tractor roading system would become most
striking, no matter what distance might be
under consideration.
61. Construction of Tractor Roads Broadens the
Use of Tractors in the Douglas Fir Region. — The
conclusion reached in Section 53 with regard
to yarding, that the small, flexible equipment
underbids the large, high-power and high-speed
machinery, may now be extended to swinging.
Thus, if selection of equipment is governed
strictly by principles of efficiency and economy
on such an area as that shown in Figure 31,
which was discussed in connection with swing-
ing and cold decking, it becomes evident that
the crawler tractor will take over the fundi
of the skyline swing and that there will be a
relocation of the railroad and shifting of the
landing to permit a downhill tractor road
tern. It will also take over the yarding on more
than half of the area, leaving the remainder to
small, short-distance highlead yarders, prefer-
ably tractor-mounted donkeys (Fig. 3) , to facil-
itate moving over the tractor roads. Logs from
steep slopes that are inaccessible to the tractor-
can thus be donkey-yarded at relatively low cost
to the tractor roads. Through this combination
of small, flexible donkeys with roading tract-
ors, it is evident that the roading system as a
whole can penetrate successfully into rough and
steep territory which would not ordinarily be
considered suitable for tractor logging. It is
readily seen, also, that areas which in their
virgin state might not be fit for direct travel
with tractors, owing to rough ground detail,
can be made over through the construction of
tractor roads to better fit the requirements of
the tractor. The recent development of the
tractor-mounted, so-called "bulldozer" (see Fig.
45, Chapter XXI) — a large adjustable blade
mounted in front of the tractor — has brought
about a remarkable reduction in the cost of
constructing roads of the character needed for
tractor roading, as will be further discussed in
Chapter XXI.
62. Limitations of the Tractor Roading System. —
Within certain limits rough and steep topog-
raphy, as exemplified in Figure 31, and in gen-
eral in Figures 7 to 27 inclusive, is not neces-
sarily a severer handicap to the tractor road-
ing system than against other systems. The
roading system thrives on slopes, provided that
they are not excessively steep along the route
that is followed by the road itself, and pro-
vided that the slope is downhill toward the
track landing.
Roading over uphill grades is impracticable,
with some minor but very important exceptions
to which attention was called above in explain-
ing the basis of the spread between line 1 and
line 3 in Figure 33. Uphill roading in the
broader sense is, of course, out of the question.
The whole scheme of railroad location under
tractor logging would, however, tend to revert
to that of the bull-team days when railroads or
skidroads were confined as far as practicable
to the low elevations, giving the law of gravity
as wide a play as possible in helping the logs
55
along toward the track. On this basis the field
for uphill skyline swinging as an adjunct to the
general tractor roading scheme would become
much narrower than under the present railroad
scheme. On the other hand, if railroads are
located primarily for donkey logging the sky-
line system regains title to much territory that
would otherwise be claimed by the roading sys-
tem.
On downhill slopes the roading system is not
disabled so easily. On slopes ranging up to
about 40 per cent, tractor roads need not mean-
der excessively in order to reach their objec-
tives. An allowance of 10 per cent was made for
this item in establishing line 2 in Figure 33.
This is believed sufficient on areas where roads
can be located without any special account be-
ing taken of general topography. Costs natur-
ally will rise on steeper slopes, where the roads
must be built along side hills with much loss in
distance and increase in road construction
cost. However, in view of the wide space be-
tween line 2 and line 4 (Figure 33), further
widened by making a proper allowance for
reduction of breakage, it seems that the road-
ing system can stand a good deal of loss of
distance and increase in road construction costs
before roading costs will exceed skyline swing-
ing costs. Then, too, it should be pointed
out that the tractor and heavy trailer (fair-
lead arch) might not be the right combi-
nation of equipment to use except where
slopes are reasonably moderate. On consist-
ently steep slopes ranging from 20 to 50
per cent the tractor might do better with
a pan or by direct ground skidding, taking
into account increased hill climbing ability
and the elimination of side-hill road construc-
tion ; or, in this mechanical age, it is not so far
fetched to assume that if the need were voiced
by the industry for a more practical hauling
unit for overcoming the handicap of steep
grades, such a unit would soon be produced.
The point will be reached, however, at
which the roading system does become imprac-
ticable. Long slopes of 50 per cent and over are
probably handled cheaper by skyline swings,
bearing in mind, however, that steep slopes,
whether uphill or downhill, on areas tributary
to tractor roads, do not interfere with the
roading system if the tractor roads do not trav-
erse the slopes, since donkeys can be used in
getting the logs to the roads.
Roading may also become impracticable be-
cause of rock formations that make cheap
tractor-road construction impossible. These,
however, are generally associated with exces-
sively steep topography, which in itself renders
roading impracticable. Grade and alinement
specifications for tractor-road construction are
sufficiently flexible to allow for most difficulties
of this character on slopes on which roading is
at all practicable.
Further handicaps arise against the roading
system in that in many logging operations in
this region it may have to be confined to the
dry season, a period of about 6 months with in-
termittent wet periods of short duration. Trac-
tor operations on gravelly or well-drained soil
may not be seriously handicapped by the win-
ter rains, but the large majority of logging
operations in this region are on clay soil, upon
which under a heavy rainfall the present type
of roading equipment is virtually helpless, par-
ticularly on steep slopes. This is probably the
most important general handicap to tractor
roading in this region.
Because of these handicaps certain situations
arise which call for various solutions, such as:
(1) On some operations tractor logging is
feasible and the most practical system the year
round.
(2) On other operations the topography is
such that tractors alone or tractors in combi-
nation with small tractor donkeys, etc., al-
though confined to the dry season, can solve all
logging problems to better advantage than the
more conventional methods.
(3) On some operations a practical solution
to both topographic and weather problems
would be to combine dry-weather tractor road-
ing with wet-weather skyline swinging into a
year-round operation.
(4) On some operations the tractor would
enter in in varying degree as an adjunct to the
present system ; or may be entirely impractical.
Both (1) and (4) are exceptional cases. The
broadest general solutions applicable to a wide
variety of conditions come under (2) and (3).
In the latter case the skyline system would
function not only as a wet season expedient
but would also during the wet season dispose
of the logging problems passed up by the trac-
tor-roading system or, occasionally, during the
dry season might be combined with the tractor
roading system, where difficult topography rec-
ommended such a solution. The only major
duplication of equipment under this general sys-
t2m arises in providing a skyline donkey to
substitute for the roading tractors during the
wet season — other equipment being inter-
changeable.
56
X. LOADING STUDIES
63. Relation of Loading to Yarding and Rail-
road Transportation. — From a practical stand-
point, cost relations in loading in typical don-
key operations lose their significance when
yarding capacity, whether by choice or cir-
cumstance, is normally lower than loading ca-
pacity. Loading does not then function as a
pace-setting or independent activity, but sim-
ply serves to relay the logs that are yarded or
swung to the landing. This situation applies
largely to 7 of the 13 studies reported in Table
40. In these cases, loading is properly to be
dealt with as a part of the yarding or swing-
ing operation. However, for the purpose at
hand these studies have been analyzed as rep-
resenting loading as an independent activity.
Of the remaining six studies, two represent
cases in which loading is virtually independ-
ent of yarding, while in four studies loading
was found to be the pace-setting activity dur-
ing the greater portion of the working day,
reacting accordingly on the effective costs and
cost relations in yarding or swinging.
These three groups of loading studies repre-
sent different theories and practices in the
management of logging operations.
According to the first of these, yarding is
looked upon as the principal part of the oper-
ation and loading and railroad operation as
merely subsidiary functions serving the yard-
ing operation according to its needs.
According to a second plan of operation
yarding and loading are independent of each
other, neither activity being allowed to inter-
fere with the efficient performance of the
other. This ideal system probably is not at-
tainable when loading and yarding are car-
ried on concurrently, except through a scheme
of yarding similar to that described in Section
21 in connection with tractors, and provid-
ing then, of course, that conditions allow their
use. How yarding and loading may be kept en-
tirely independent of each other in a large scale
operation is discussed in Chapter XXII.
According to a third school of thought, the
loading operation is set up as the regulator of
production, setting the pace both for yarding
and railroad transportation. In this system the
yarding or swinging operation aims to contin-
ually crowd the loading operation. It relies,
generally, upon cold decking to create favorable
conditions for high production where nature
has failed to do so of its own accord. It may,
in many cases, voluntarily assume an incr<
in the cost of transporting the logs from the
stump to the tr^.ck landing, if by doing so pro-
duction can be kept up to the full capacity of
the loader, keeping loading costs at a mini-
mum and also, and usually more important,
bringing about lower unit costs in lailroad
transportation and in general overhead ex-
pense.
A modification in any one of these methods
of regulating production arises when the main
emphasis is placed on producing a fixed num-
ber of car loads per day. This may work hand
in glove with the other systems if the timber is
uniform in size and other conditions are favor-
able for uniform output, or it may seriously
upset the normal course of events if the timber
and logging conditions are variable.
64. Scope of Studies. —
A total of 14,016 logs scaling 12,345 M feet b.m.
are represented in the thirteen loading studies here-
with reported.
Figure 34 gives an example of the detailed analysis
of these studies showing the relation of volume of
log to the various time elements of the loading oper-
ation and also the relation of volume of log to cost
and output. It represents loading with the McGiffert
loader shown in Figure 6, Chapter II. Similar analyses
were made of the other twelve studies covering four
different types of loading machinery. The results of
these are briefed in Table 40 which shows costs only.
Corresponding output rates may be computed by di-
viding the daily machine rate listed at the foot of
the table by the cost per M feet b.m.
65. Factors Affecting the Cost of Loading. —
In all loading studies the following major sub-
divisions of time apply:
1. Direct Loading Time, or the time spent on the
actual loading process, log by log.
2. Car Spotting Time, or the time elapsing from
the moment the last log has been loaded on one car
until loading is begun on the next; with waiting delays
excluded. (See item 4.)
3. Miscellaneous Loading Delays, or time lost in
shifting of logs already loaded to make better room
for other logs, sorting of logs on the landing, etc.
4. Waiting: Delays, or time out on account of lack
of logs on the landing, waiting for empty cars, etc.
In the loading operation, logs are handled one by
one; the distance of travel is equal for all logs, or may
57
be so considered in dealing with a large number of
them. Conditions are, as a whole, standardized. The
only measurable variable which affects cost relations
is the size of the log.
Si'/.e of log affects direct loading time per log in
that, generally, the heavier the log the greater is the
time required in loading. It further affects car spotting
time per log- because the larger the log the smaller is
the number of logs that can be loaded on the car, and
hence, the more frequent the repetition of the car
spotting operation. This factor has been determined
from car-loading studies which were conducted in
connection with the loading studies and which are re-
ported in Section 75.
The third item, loading delays, is not affected by the
size of the log. It has been prorated per log in all
studies.
The fourth item, waiting delays, has nothing to do
with cost relations in the loading operation as an in-
dependent activity. It represents the lack of syn-
chronization between yarding, loading, and railroad
transportation. Cost relations in loading as an inde-
pendent operation are determined on the strength of
items 1, 2 and 3. Item 4 has, then, the effect of add-
ing to costs by whatever percentage of the day is lost
in waiting.
The costs listed in Table 40 represent only items 1,
2 and 3 Total loading cost may be computed by mul-
tiplying these costs by the multiplying factors entered
at the foot of each column. These represent the in-
crease in costs caused by waiting delays.
66. Comparison of Costs. — A glance at Table
40 shows that loading costs are practically-
identical for studies No. 2 to 6 inclusive. These
studies are on a fairly equal basis in regard to
the pressure under which the loading crews
were working. Study No. 2 represents the oper-
ation described in Section 21, where a fleet of
tractors supplied a steady flow of logs to the
loader with no lost time segregated as waiting
delays. The other four studies represent con-
ventional donkey operations in which yarding
or swinging capacity is normally greater than
loading capacity, although, as indicated by the
multiplying factors shown, considerable wait-
ing delays occur as a result of time lost in
changing blocks and lines and other delays in
the yarding operations as well as in switching
cars at the landing. Nevertheless, when loading
was being done the loading crew was working
under fairly constant pressure to keep the land-
ing from filling up with logs.
In studies No. 7 to 13 it will be noticed that
the cost level as a whole is considerably higher
and waiting delays considerably greater than
for identical machines among the studies dis-
cussed above. Yarding capacity here lags be-
hind loading capacity and as a result the load-
ing crew is not working under the same pres-
sure as in the previous studies. The higher cost
level indicates that the loading crew simply
adjusts its pace to tit the needs of the occasion,
working faster when the landing is constantly
well supplied with logs, and slower when thi>
log supply is low or intermittent.
67. Adaptation of Equipment to Log Size Brings
Reduction of Cost. — Of special interest in the
comparison of costs given in Table 40 is the
relatively low cost shown for study No. 1.
This represents loading with a 30 h.p. gas
donkey which was used alternately for high-
lead yarding and loading; a few hours would
be spent in yarding until the landing was filled,
then the rigging was changed for loading, then
back again to yarding, etc.
The low costs here shown apply with particu-
lar force to small logs. It costs, for example,
about 70 cents less per M feet b.m. to load logs
of 100 board-feet volume with this loader than
with conventional 100 h.p. steam loaders as
represented by the five most efficient operations
shown in Table 40. No saving, however, is
shown for logs of 1,600 board foot volume, and
the indications are that for still larger logs this
operation drops behind in the race with the
others.
Nevertheless, the comparison emphasizes
the opportunities for drastic reductions in the
cost of loading small logs through special adap-
tation of machinery to log size. Performance
records in other regions, where the problem of
efficient loading of small logs has been more
generally recognized, will afford a better illus-
tration of this than the present study. Time-
study data compiled by Garver8 covering lob-
lolly and shortleaf pine operations in Arkansas
show that in loading logs from trees ranging
from 8 to 27 inches in diameter on staked cars,
using a steam jammer operated at a cost of
$50.00 per 8-hour day, the loading time per log
averages only about 40 per cent of correspond-
ing time per log as represented by the five most
efficient operations shown in Table 40, which
represent loading machinery in the same gen-
eral class as far as operating cost per day is
concerned, allowing for differences in wage
levels.
"Data obtained from R. I). Garv<
ducts Laboratory, Madison, Wise.
Senior Forester, Forest i'ro-
58
F|G 34 EFFECT OF SIZE OF LOG ON TIME, COST, AND OUTPUT IN LOADING BASED ON 4325 LOGS
Table 40
Cost of loading logs of various sizes in dollars per M feet b.m., u
13 studies
nder different relations of loading to yarding —
Loading independent of
yarding
Volume 30 h.p. Jam-
of log Crotch line mer
M ft. b.m. 1 2
Loading controls
yarding
Heel McLean
boom boom
McLean
boom Duplex
).67
.37
.26
.22
.19
.17
.14
.13
.12
.11
.11
$1.37
.69
.47
.36
.30
.25
.20
.16
.14
.13
.12
.11
.10
.09
.08
.09
3
$1.43
1.00
.72
.48
.37
.30
.25
.20
.17
.14
.13
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
1.40
U
$1.31
.66
.44
.33
.27
.23
.18
.15
.13
.11
.10
.09
.09
5
$1.47
.73
.49
.37
.29
.25
.19
.16
.13
.12
.11
.10
.09
6
$1.33
.67
.45
.33
.27
.23
.18
.15
.13
.11
.11
.10
.10
100
200
300
400
500
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2500
3000
4000
5000
6000
Multiplying
factors1 1.00
fft;Si $59.43 $55.00 $52.50 $52.50 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $52.50 $52.50 $52.50 $52.50 52.50
'Multiplying factor times cost listed in same column gives loading cost inclusive of waiting time.
Heel
boom
7
$3.06
1.51
.99
.74
.59
.49
.37
.29
.25
.22
.20
.18
.17
.14
.12
.10
.09
.09
Heel
boom
8
$2.13
1.04
.69
.51
.40
.:;:!
.25
.20
.17
.15
.14
.12
.12
.10
.09
.08
.08
.08
cont
McLean
boom
9
$2.57
1.31
.88
.67
.54
.46
.35
.29
.25
.21
.10
.17
.16
.13
.11
.09
.08
.08
Yarding
rols loading
McLean
boom Duplex
10
$3.15
1.59
1.00
.80
.65
.54
.41
.34
.29
.25
.23
.21
.19
.16
.14
.11
.10
.09
11
$2.63
1.32
.89
.67
.54
.45
.;;4
28
.23
.2U
.18
.17
.16
.14
.13
.12
Duplex
U
$2.35
1.18
.78
.59
.47
.40
.30
.25
.21
.18
.16
.15
.14
.12
.11
.10
.10
1.32
1.39
1.29
1.58
1.90
4.23
1.47
1.74
L.98
DupU x
ts
$2.35
1.15
.75
.56
a:>
.38
.20
.24
.20
.1^
.10
.15
.14
.1:;
.12
.11
.10
.10
1.56
59
Under the clear-cutting system practiced in
the Northwest, there is scant opportunity for
reducing the cost of loading small logs through
specialized methods and machinery. Since logs
of all sizes arrive at the landing and the ma-
chinery must be designed for fairly efficient
loading of large logs, the cost of loading small
logs becomes excessively high. This is an argu-
ment against the clear-cutting system to which
further attention is given later in this report.
XI. COMPARISON OF COST RELATIONS IN TRANSPORT FROM STUMP TO CAR
68. The Effect of Volume of Log on Yarding
Variable Cost.— The striking feature in all the
studies of yarding, swinging, roading and load-
ing methods is the marked influence of factors
which are easily measured — namely, log size
and distance, which for any given type of tim-
ber, method, or machine act somewhat the same
in all cases, no matter how far apart actual
costs may be.
The effect of volume of log on yarding vari-
able costs is summarized in Figure 35 by means
of a series of curves, each numbered to cor-
respond with the table from which the data are
taken. They represent cost relations for only
that portion of total yarding costs that has been
termed "the yarding variable," heretofore de-
fined, i.e., they exclude fixed road-changing
costs. In each study the cost of yarding logs
of 3,000 board-foot volume is arbitrarily as-
sumed as unity, irrespective of how much ac-
tual costs might differ from study to study;
with costs for other volumes rising as shown by
reading the graduations on the ordinate at the
point where the curves and graduations on the
abscissa intersect. The spread between any two
curves does not, then, represent differences in
costs between the studies but shows differences
in the relative rate at which costs change with
decrease in log size.
The cost relations have been determined
from time data in the time-study tables for a
yarding distance of 500 feet in the case of high-
lead studies and 1,000 feet for tractor and sky-
line yarding studies. Other distances exhibit
the same relationships except in the case of
tractors, which, as previously noted, display
considerable variation at different distances.
Exceptions to the use of the 3,000 board-
foot volume as unity had to be made for 30 to
35 h.p. gasoline yarders, because no data were
obtainable for logs of that size. In these cases
cost for the 2,000 board-foot log volume is as-
sumed as unity. It is believed that for these
low-power machines minimum costs are
reached at about 2,000 board-foot log volume,
and may be expected to rise again in approach-
ing 3,000 feet, except in steep downhill yarding
in which case the decline in costs may continue
well past the 3,000-foot point.
In many of the studies the decline in costs
with increase in the volume of the log continues
well past the 3,000 board-foot point. With few
exceptions, however, this decline is not very
pronounced. Furthermore, at some point near
the 3,000-foot size one may seriously question
the reality of any substantial decline that is
predicated on the translation of time cost into
money cost on the basis of applying a fixed cost
per yarding-minute to logs of any size. The
point will be reached at some log volume at
which the cost per yarding-minute will com-
mence to show a noticeable increase due to
more frequent overloading of both machinery
and rigging with consequent increase in the
cost of operation. This would apply more speci-
fically to operations having generally small or
medium-sized timber and which are organized
and equipped for that type of timber.
Figure 35 shows that the curves, except
Curve 5, which represents tractors, form a
rather closely spaced band of virtually parallel
lines, but with a considerable spread from high
to low. The upper six curves are shown in dot
and dash line. Their position at the top of the
"band" indicates that the rate of increase in
costs with decrease in log volume is more rapid
than for the other curves. They represent in all
cases high-power yarding machinery working
Under conditions and operating practices which
bring about high relative costs of yarding small
logs. The three upper-most curves represent
12"xl4" and 13"xl4" steam highlead yarder
studies in which only one choker was carried,
with the result that the increase in cost is vir-
tually inversely proportional to the size of the
log. The next three curves represent a maxi-
mum of either one or two chokers. With one
exception all six curves represent scattered
large timber combined with difficult topogra-
phy. In all six cases the percentage (by vol-
ume) of small logs is very low; that is, a com-
pelling reason for paying close attention to
60
«
1
«•>
'JO
In
o
o
IT)
'D
Z
id
tu
in
CVJ
<
CVJ
>
<n
UJ
r
o
<
I
^s
•3 Z
2
u
2
1
. u~
O
o
<
UJ
*•*
i i
O
CVJ
I
»-
O
j_|L
cvJ
UJ
UJ
b.
<
a
UJ
on
<
o
M
u_
♦ -K
^
iO
— V)
o
^i
o
Z
3
r
z
1
o
O
o ^
r-
Off!
O
-5
_J
d\
vv?
■v"
>
\
V;
\
j\
3n '
\vWll
^
\\
53
^
vl
u )
M\
^io^cocm — ocr>cor^vOin'<tcoc\i~
(I) AllNfl SIVnOl 90T INfl 100J 0009. 9NIINnSSV-SlSOD3All\n3cJ
61
Vfi in "t CO CM
(0 AiiNnoiivno3 30Nvisia ojgz iv
lS0D9NIINnsSV-SlS0D 3AI1V"I1<3
the cost of handling- small logs is almost en-
tirely lacking.
The dot and dash lines in Figure 35 might
be described as being steeper than the other
curves The term "steeper" thus denotes rela-
tively more rapid rate of increase in costs with
decrease in volume of log, and will be used
henceforth in this sense.
Curves shown in solid lines represent more
normal working conditions and operating prac-
tices. They represent both highlead and sky-
line yarding machinery of all sizes.
The curves representing 30 to 35 h.p. gaso-
line yarders fall quite closely in line with the
general trend for the larger machines. How-
ever, the effect of power on the steepness of the
yarding cost curves is indicated by comparing
them with the three dot and dash curves at the
top of the band which, like the small machines,
represent only one-log turns. This relation be-
tween power and the steepness of the curves is
further emphasized by the fact that Curve 24,
which represents steep downhill yarding
(hence relatively less demand on pulling pow-
er) departs noticeably from Curves 25, 26, and
27, which represent relatively level or uphill
yarding. The same thing is again shown by the
spread between Curve 11 and Curve 12, both
representing equal pulling power, but one re-
presenting steep uphill yarding, the other,
downhill.
69. Volume of the Average Log as an Index
to Steepness of Cost Curves. — Curve 17 is the
steepest curve in Figure 35 and represents
also the operation with the largest average log
(4,430 feet average log). Next in the order of
steepness and also in the order of average log
size is Curve 18 which represents an average
log of 2,340 board feet. At the bottom of the
band are Curves 5 and 25 which represent log
averages of 360 and 400 board feet, respectively
— operations showing the smallest average log
and also the flattest curves. Between these ex-
tremes are other operations in which the aver-
age log ranges from 500 to 2,000 board feet.
The order of decreasing steepness and the or-
der of decreasing average log size do not co-
incide exactly in all cases but there is on the
whole fairly close agreement between them.
This is shown below by segregating the curves
into four groups, with the mean average log
volume computed for each group. The first
group represents the six steepest curves while
the second, third, and fourth group, arranged
in the order of decreasing steepness, each com-
prises five curves.
Group Mean average log volume
Curves 17 to 21 ...... 2,200 board feet
Curves 12 to 20 _ 1,220 board feet
Curves 7 to 11 680 board feet
Curves 14 to 5._ __ 540 board feet
These data are the basis for the figures that
are entered diagonally across the widest por-
tion of the band in Figure 35. Here the gradu-
ation at the figure 3,000, for example, shows the
predicted position of a curve representing an
operation having an average log of 3,000 board
feet ; while the 500 foot mark shows the position
of a curve representing an average log of 500
board feet; and by interpolating between any
two figures the normal position of a curve re-
presenting any given log average may be deter-
mined.
In using this band of curves as a basis for
selective cost appraisal as discussed in Chapter
XVI, it can readily be seen that from the known
average size of the timber as this varies from
setting to setting or from tract to tract, curves
may be selected that are most likely to fit vari-
ous types of timber, provided, of course, that
the timber is to be clear cut in conventional
fashion using conventional types of donkeys.
The chance for serious error in thus "spotting"
a curve to fit a given case is relatively small.
The reason why the average log size is a fair-
ly reliable index to the steepness of the curves
is that it generally reflects the influence of a
number of factors which control the relation
between size of log and yarding cost. A very
large average log, for example, almost invari-
ably goes hand in hand with scattered timber,
i.e., with fewer logs per acre than in stands
with a small average log. It usually also goes
hand in hand with heavier lines, chokers and
machinery and with the practice of flying few-
er chokers than in small timber. These condi-
tions combine to place the small log of a large-
timber stand at a relatively greater disadvan-
tage than the small log in a small-timber stand,
i.e., they produce a steeper cost curve.
70. The Effect of Distance on Yarding Var-
iable Costs. — In Figure 36 the cost index at
zero distance represents the time required
solely for hooking, unhooking, and delays; the
distance yarded adds to these costs as indicated
by the curves. The studies represented are
identical with those shown in Figure 35 and are
numbered to correspond. These show:
(1) Erratic results occur in connection with
high-lead yarding; consistent results in skyline
yarding. The reason for this is, of course, that
traveling conditions are under better control
in skyline yarding.
62
(2) Skyline studies show virtually straight
line relations. High-lead studies show curved
relations. The reason for this is that hang-up
delay is generally an important factor in high-
lead yarding and increases much more rapidly
than the increase in distance, while in skyline
yarding, hang-up time is not related to dis-
tance out.
(3) Superficially, the greater the speed of
the machine, the less is the effect of distance.
The curves for 30 to 35 h.p. gasoline yarders
are thus much deeper than for the 100 to 125
h.p. yarders. These in turn are steeper than
curves representing larger machines, etc. Speed
and power alone, however, are not deciding fac-
tors in these relations. Traveling speed in re-
lation to the "fixed" time spent on hooking,
unhooking, and delays will actually determine
the steepness of the curves which show cost
ratios based on both traveling and "still" time.
This explains why distance has only a relatively
moderate effect on tractor yarding costs in
^pite of the low traveling speed of these ma-
chines.
In the case of highlead yarding the increas-
ing steepness of the distance curves with de-
crease in the size of the machinery will be
found to offset approximately the combined
effect of the generally steeper volume-relation
curves (in Fig. 35) and the longer external
yarding distances ordinarily used in connection
with the larger machines. For the same range
in log sizes and for distances typical of the
type of yarder used the total relative spread
in costs based on both log size and yarding
distance is thus approximately the same in all
cases.
71. The Effect of Volume of Log on Swing-
ing Variable Costs. — Figure 37 represents the
effect of volume of log on swinging costs in
seven different studies. The relation between
the average volume per log and the steepness
of the curves was brought out in Table 36, and
discussed in Section 36. Not enough studies
were obtained to warrant a definite gradation
of the band based on specific log averages such
as was done in Figure 35 for the yarding
studies. However, the four lower curves repre-
sent log averages from 350 to 770; the three
upper from 960 to 2,160, thus embracing vir-
tually all log averages that are likely to be en-
countered in swinging from cold decks, and
giving a rough guide for predicting where any
curve representing a given log average should
fall.
72. The Effect of Volume of Log on Loading
Costs. — Figure 38 gives a comparison of c
relations in loading logs of different volumes,
for different types of loading machinery and
methods. The data are taken from Table 40 and
are translated into percentage costs the same
as in Figures 35, 36, and 37. As in preceding
percentage diagrams the spread in the band of
curves does nof indicate differences in c
from study to study, but signifies only differ-
ences in cost relations in various studies. The
six solid-line curves represent studies in which
loading was carried on independently of the
yarding operation or in which yarding capacity
normally was greater than loading capaciU .
The dotted lines represent studies in which the
yarding capacity normally fell behind loading
capacity.
Curve No. 11 departs strikingly from the
others. This is accounted for by the fact that
(1) it represents a machine of low power (a
30 h.p. gasoline loader, compared with 100 h.p.
or more for the other studies), (2) it represents
loading of small trucks of limited carrying ca-
pacity (lVo-tc-n truck, 3-ton trailer) thus giv-
ing large logs only a relatively minor advan-
tage in spotting time per M feet b.m. when
compared with loading or railroad cars, (3)
the prorated time per log is a neglible factor
which tends to further flatten the trend of the
curve.
A comparison of Figure 38 with Figure 35
shows striking resemblances — in fact, the two
series of curves virtually coincide with the ex-
ception of the three highest curves in Figure 35.
Imaginary center lines drawn through the two
"bands" produce virtually identical curves.
This nearly perfect agreement is apt to be
somewhat misleading. The position of the dot-
ted-line curves would indicate that the greater
the volume of the average log the steeper be-
comes the loading cost curve, the same as for
the yarding and swinging operations, although
there is no reason that would explain why it
should be, and no indication that this correla-
tion holds in connection with the solid line
curves. It is believed, therefore, that the cost
relations in the dotted-line curves reflect yard-
ing relations rather than loading relations —
yarding being the pace-setting activity in these
cases. The loading crew in cases of this kind
probably strikes a relatively slower pace in
loading the small logs than is normal for the
loading operation as an independent activity
because there is no need of crowding the ioad-
ing as long as yarding is continually lagging
63
behind. For this reason cost relations of load-
ing are here assumed to be represented only
by the solid line curves. These show a slightly
flatter trend than the yarding curves but the
difference is rather small.
It has already been pointed out that in the
combined yarding and loading operation the
ultimate significance of cost relations applying
to each activity will depend upon which activity
controls the output. If yarding controls, which
is the case when yarding capacity is normally
lower than loading capacity, then cost relations
in loading are of no significance. Loading is
then simply a part of the yarding operation. If
loading controls, as is the case when yarding
(or swinging) capacity is normally greater
than loading capacity, then cost relations in
yarding or swinging lose their significance be-
cause these activities represent then only the
tail end of the loading operation.
The question of how to provide for a case
where neither yarding nor loading is definitely
in control, or where the control may shift back
and forth from loading to yarding according to
variations in the yarding show, now appears
relatively less important than one might antici-
pate in view of the close agreement in cost rela-
tions shown in Figures 35 and 38. This applies,
however, on'y to the specific combinations of
loading and yarding machinery here dealt with.
It does not apply, for example, to a combination
of "jammer" loading and tractor yarding, and
probably would not apply in many other cases
in which yarding and loading machinery is not
mechanically synchronized in the first place.
h
20
z
_j
19
W
i
<
Ift
)
("»
u
1 /
8
16
to.
15
n
<
14
o
co
13
o
O
o
12
rt
rr
1 1
)
J-
10
h
i/l
o
C)
u
o
8
z
5
7
>
(/)
V)
6
<
m
5
\-
o
4
u
Ld
3
>
h
<
2
1
cr
1
< -*' '
f S**a,
-S*A.
}*»*.»
t-Ty/,
FIGURE 37
RELATION OF VOLUME OF LOG TO
SWINGING COSTS
CURVES SHOW RATIO OF INCREASE IN COSTS PER M FT. B.M. AS THE
VOLUME OF THE LOG OECREASES FROM 3000 FT. B.M. (ASSUMED AS UNITY)
1— r.A
£?£
1
HL r
1 \\\
?<>)
-Zorf
e-T/mfar
— 1
I
J . .
10 15 20
VOLUME OF LOG IN HUNDREDS OF BOARD FEET
25
64
FIGURE 38
RELATION Of VOLUME OF LOG TO
LOADING COSTS
CURVES SHWWTIO Or INQUME III COSTi PI K « Mil B". r« DIFflWHT MACHINIST TYPW A»
loading umioDs as the vouare or the log df-cmaees from 3000 feet bji. (asscm* as win)
LEGEND
O 10"Xl2" SWINGING «* (H..EL BCCf) LCADEB (I .liCf No. 1-E, 1-:, J-ti
• 10-112- swnginc boom (woean bcok) loadb (or; h.l.yari.er). 1-1117 *>. 13-''. •
o I0"il2" DUPLEJt LOADZR MOUirLD ItTS HIOH LEAL YARDER. Study No. U-*. ;-D. 5-8. <-»
■ L2"xl2- McCIFFERT LOADER (JAMyERI. Study No. 2
A 30 H.P. GASOLINE (3>0TCH.-LIKE LOADER. S: if, No. II
SOLID UNIS (STUDIES Ho. 11, 1-Z, 13-E, 13-G, 13-D, sod 2) REPRESENT STUDIES III *UCH
LOADING IS INDEPENDENT OF VARDDC , OR SITS TBI PACE FON THE YARDING OPERATION. DOTTID
LINES REPRESENT STUDIES IN VKICH YARDIND SETS THE PACT FOB THE LOADING OPERATION.
10 15 20
VOLUME OF LOG IN HUNDREDS OF BOARD FEET
73. Summary Graph — Comparison of Typical
Cost Relations Covering All Phases of Logging. —
In Figure 39 are shown a few representative
curves which bring out the main points of the
foregoing.
Curve 1, representing cost relations in yard-
ing under typical conditions, in typical timber,
using conventional logging machinery, coin-
cides with Curve 9 in Figure 35, and represents
an average log volume of 900 board feet9 as
interpolated on the average log scale shown in
Figure 35. The departures of other yarding
curves from Curve 1 as governed by differences
in average log volume and other factors are
discussed in detail in Sections 68 and 69.
Curve II, representing cost relations in load-
ing with conventional types of loading engines
(100 h.p.) is in effect a center line drawn
through the band of solid line curves in
Figure 38.
Curve III (swinging from cold decks) repre-
sents a center line projected through the band
of curves shown in Figure 37. It is comparable
with Curves I and II in that it represents ap-
proximately the same average log volume (900
board feet) .
"An average log of 900 board feet is approximately the grand aver-
age log volume dealt with in these studies, and is also approximately
the regional grand average log volume.
Curve IV, for yarding with tractors, is identi-
cal with Curve V in Figure 35. It represents
(1) a log average of 360 board feet, (2) at dis-
tance of 1,000 feet, (3) very scattered timber.
Other curves representing this method of yard-
ing would be steeper in large timber, but would
tend to flatten under better density conditions
and at longer distances. If density conditions
are good and if operating practice centers on
the idea of building up maximum load volumes,
the yarding curve may swing down toward or
past Curve V.
Curve V represents downhill roading with
tractors. This is only an assumed curve, the ba-
sis of which was discussed in Section 53. This
curve virtually parallels Curve II in Figure 38,
which latter represents loading of logs on small
auto trucks using a 30 h.p. gasoline hoist.
Curve VI represents the relative increase in
the number of cubic feet per M feet b.m. that
takes place as the log size decreases from three
thousand board feet, based on 32-foot logs and
a taper of one inch per 10 feet in length. This
curve is introduced merely to show the absolute
line of limitation, a limitation based on actual
volume, and presumably, then, on weight, below
which the relative cost of handling small logs
can not be expected to go under any circum-
stances. It represents the initial basic handicap
65
FIGURE 39
COMPARISON OF TYPICAL RELATIVE COST
CURVES OF ALL METHODS OF
LOG TRANSPORTATION
COST FOR LOGS OF 3000 BOARD FOOT VOLUME
ASSUMED AS UNITY (\) IN ALL INSTANCES
Currrs
cot Yardmd Voriobte Curvr I , . ,
,.",.■.,_ .<-<ventionaf ty/>r\
•cot Loodtng Voriobte Curve > ofOrum &Cab/e iogf-
Ki Typicai Swinging Voriobte Cvrvi
W Yordmg tv/'M Crawler Tractor
V Roodmg with Cronler Trocror
H" ftolotive ttumberoTcubic ft per M feef 8 M.
(ond typicol curve of Motor Truck Hooting)
EI Cor/ood Voriobte
10 15 20
VOLUME OF LOG IN HUNDREDS OF BOARD FEET
25
30
against the small logs when measured in board
feet based on Scribner Decimal C log rule.
While a part of this initial handicap is due to
the "unfairness" of the log rule itself in that
it gives a much greater percentage of mill
"overrun" in small logs than in large logs, it is
nevertheless as real a handicap as any, if both
logging costs and log values, fairly arrived at,
are based on the same arbitrary unit of
measure.
The application of relative costs as repre-
sented by these curves to analysis of actual
costs is taken up in detail in Chapter XVI.
XII. RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION
74. General. — Railroad transportation is a
very important element of cost in logging as
carried on in the Douglas fir region. It often
exceeds the current cost of yarding and load-
ing ; and represents, generally, the greater por-
tion of the capital invested in the logging opera-
tion (timber excluded).
In a general way transportation costs are
affected by variations in the size of bodies of
timber, topography, density, gradients, length
of haul, ground conditions, and by many other
factors, too obvious for specific mention, which
enter either as a part of construction or operat-
ing costs. Variations in the cost of transport-
ing the average M foot unit of logs may, there-
fore, be very great in comparing one logging
operation with another, and great variations
may also occur in the cost averages applying to
bodies of timber tributary to different spurs
within a given tract.
No effort has been made in this series of
studies to delve into the details behind such
variations in cost along the lines followed in
the foregoing studies of transportation from
stump to car. The investigation is here confined
to the determination of relative costs of hauling
logs of different sizes and, later, to certain
questions dealing with the allocation of so-
66
called fixed costs and their bearing on different
plans of operating a timber property. Other as-
pects of railroad transportation costs are all
subject to proper solution in the hands of the
logging engineer, and need not be gone into
here as they have no particular bearing on the
problems at hand. For information on trans-
portation costs one may turn either to engi-
neers' cost estimates or, in the case of a going
logging operation, to actual cost records and
analyze these for proper allocation of cost
against the log, tree, or area of timber.
75. Carload Capacity Studies. — In allocating
certain items of railroad transportation costs
the cost per carload enters as the basic unit of
measure. It follows that the cost per M feet b.m.
must then vary in inverse proportion to varia-
tions in the volume per load. The size of the
log is the controlling factor in such variations.
It becomes important, therefore, to determine
the relation of size of log to volume of load
(carload capacity) to provide a measuring stick
for allocating costs to logs and trees of dif-
ferent sizes. This relationship between log size
and carload capacity, and consequently between
log size and cost per M feet b.m. will be re-
ferred to as "the carload variable."
To throw light on these relationships a total
of nine studies of carload capacity were made,
the results of which are graphed in Figure 40.
These are all based on gross scale per load
against gross scale of the average log10 in the
load, except in the case of the study represented
by Curve II in Figure 40-A which is based on
net commercial scale. The data in the last men-
tioned case were obtained from scale records
kept by a logging operator and cover 7,567 car-
loads from 54 different settings.
Four studies, the results of which are shown
in Figure 40-A represent log lengths varying
from 24 to 40 feet. The equipment consists of
42-foot standard skeleton log cars. Four stud-
ies (Figures 40-B and C) represent long log
operations, with logs ranging up to 108 feet in
length; the equipment consists of "disconnect-
ed" steel trucks.
Much irregularity is shown in the plotted
data, particularly in the case of the curves re-
presenting long log operations (Figures 40-B
and C). The most pronounced breaks in the
trends of these curves coincide largely with
variations in log lengths. The three studies in
which occur carloads averaging over 3,000
'The distinction between "average log
n disregarded in the carload studies.
and "individual log" has
board feet per log show sharp breaks in pa
ing from the 3,000 to the 4,000-foot log volume,
because at this point the increase in log
represents a somewhat abrupt change from
long logs obtained from medium-sized trees to
a greater proportion of short butt logs of large
diameter. However, a break in the trend of the
curves may be expected in the large log sizes
whether or not variation in log lengths enters
the case. The reason for this is that the increase
in carload capacity represents a rather gradual
stepping down in the number of logs per car
until the "six-log load" has been reached, after
which a somewhat sudden drop to the "three-
log load" will take place. This break in the
trend of the curves in passing from 3,000 to
4,000-board foot log volume is in sharp contrast
to the uniform straight line trend that follows
in the still larger sizes. These straight lines re-
present "three-log loads." They point directly
toward zero.
A comparison of the smoothed curves is
given in Figure 40-D. A rather wide spread is
noted in carload volumes for studies represent-
ing log lengths from 24 to 40 feet, although the
same type of equipment (42-foot skeleton cars)
is used in each case. This spread is due primar-
ily to differences in (1) average log lengths,
(2) taper and roughness of the logs, (3) the
care with which loads are built up.
76. Relative Costs for Logs of Various Sizes. —
In Table 41 are shown relative costs of hauling
logs of various sizes, derived from correspond-,
ing variations in carload capacity. The cost per
car is assumed to be fixed ; hence, costs will
vary in inverse proportion to variations in load
volume. In each study the cost of hauling logs
of 1,000 board foot volume is rated at 100 ; costs
for other log volumes being expressed as per-
centages of the assumed base of 100.
Relatively little variation from one operation
to another is noted in the percentage costs so
derived ; that is to say, variation in log size has
virtually the same relative effect on costs in all
cases, although actual load volumes differ wide-
ly from one operation to another.
In the last columns to the right in Table 41
are shown average cost percentages for the six
columns listed. These percentages recalculated
to a base cost of unity for the 3,000 board foot
log size, have been used in plotting the carload
variable curve (Curve VII) in Figure 39.
67
40A. FIVE STUDIES. LOG LENGTHS 24-40 FT.
40 B.LONG LOG 0PERATI0N.LOG LENGTHS 24108 FT
24i 1 1 1
20
12 X 14 STEAM TOWER SKIDOER
BASED ON 186 LOADS
12 X 14 STEAM TOWER SKIDDER
BASED ON 246 LOADS
36
16
24 32
40
48 56
64
VOLUME OF AVERAGE LOG (HUNDRED BOARD FEET )
40C LONG LOG 0PERATI0N.LOG LENGTHS 24-64 FT
40D, COMPARISON OF SIX STUDIES
20 22
VOLUME OF AVERAGE LOG (HUNDRED BOARD FEET)
Fig. 40 RELATION OF VOLUME OF LOG TO CARLOAD CAPACITY. A. Studies of log lengths 24-40
FEET. 42 FOOT SKELETON CARS. B. STUDIES OF LOG LENGTHS 24 TO 108 FEET, DISCONNECTED TRUCKS.
C. STUDIES OF LOG LENGTHS. 24 TO 64 FEET. DISCONNECTED TRUCKS. D. SMOOTHED CURVES, ALL STUDIES.
Table 41
Relative costs of transporting logs of various volume
assuming cost for 1,000 board foot log equals 100;
based on nine operations using unstaked cars
]'ohtme
of
average
log Curve Curve Curve Curve Curve Curve Curves
board ft. n in nn rvi r1 vn i-vn
Relative Costs Per Cent <
Log lengths from 2U-U0 feet Long Average
42-foot cars — 5 studies — — > logs'- of
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,600
1,200
1,000
800
600
500
400
300
200
100
56
63
72
81
92
100
108
119
130
151
187
267
467
64
70
78
86
95
100
106
119
130
150
192
265
431
62
69
77
85
95
100
107
121
132
154
195
274
462
66
72
79
87
95
100
109
126
141
166
202
277
488
64
70
78
85
94
100
106
115
125
140
174
241
448
59
65
74
82
94
100
109
128
143
174
218
311
544
62
68
76
84
94
100
108
121
134
156
195
272
473
'Curve numbers refer to Figure 40-D.
2Average of four studies.
77. Effect of Volume of Load on Cost per Car-
load.— ■
The cost relations derived in Table 41 rely on the
assumption that variations in the volume of the load
have no effect on the cost per carload, excepting loads
which exceed a fixed maximum volume. In cases in-
volving adverse grades, this assumption may be con-
siderably in error. Three general cases might be
recognized :
(1) Hauling on grades favorable to the load;
(2) Hauling on virtually level grades;
(3) Hauling on adverse grades.
In the first case, which is the most typical one for
operations in this region, the volume of the load has
obviously no practical effect on cost per car, since the
hauling capacity or traveling speed of the locomo-
tive is not controlled by the load factor.
In the second case one would expect that variation
in load volume will have a more noticeable effect on
hauling speed or on the number of cars which a loco-
motive can haul. Actually, however, the effect is
"ather slight, because as the weight of the pay load
increases the rolling resistance (which is the only
factor to overcome on level grade) per ton of gross
weight decreases substantially. In a recent article11 it
"Bulletin issued April, 1932 by The Pacific Northwest Advisory
Board, American Railway Association, Car Service Division.
68
is thus disclosed that according to tests made by com-
mon carrier railroads, freight cars loaded to a gross
weight of 70 tons per car gave a rolling resistance of
only 4.53 pounds per ton, compared with 8.04 pounds
per ton when reduced to 30 tons; and that a locomotive
capable of moving 4,200 tons gross train load on a
level track with cars loaded to 70 tons would move
only 2,370 tons gross train load if the cars were loaded
to only 30 tons gross weight per car.
In the third case, gravity resistance causes a more
pronounced inci"ease in cost per car with increase
in weight of pay load. This, however, is not in direct
proportion to the weight of pay load because the dead
weight of the car is a constant, and reduced rolling
resistance again favors increasing pay load weight.
Furthermore, increase in pay-load weight is less rapid
than increase in board-foot volume because volume
translates into weight on a sliding scale represented
by the cubic-foot to board-foot variable as shown in
Figure 60 (Curve VI). If adverse grades are confined
to short hauls on spurs and do not affect the length
of trains subsequently handled in mainline hauls on
favorable grades, pay-load volume may not be a very
important factor; but on adverse grades that are
steep enough and long enough to influence the hauling
capacity or speed of the locomotive, the cost per car
is materially influenced by volume of pay-load.
It may be concluded that a carload variable curve
predicated on a fixed cost per car irrespective of load
volume, needs no correction if grades are favorable.
A very slight downward swing of the curve, perhaps
not over 10 per cent at the 100-board-foot log size,
will take care of an operation having virtually all roads
on level grades or an operation having mostly favor-
able grades on the main roads with adverse grades
confined largely to spurs. A more substantial ad-
justment of the curve would be in order if the main-
line haul is lai'gely over adverse grades. It may be com-
puted from data in load weight and hauling capacity
of locomotive.
78. Items of Cost Which Are Governed by the
Carload Variable. — The importance of the car-
load variable curve depends largely upon what
portion of transportation costs properly should
be classified under this heading. Among items
of cost which most clearly belong to the carload
variable are:
(1) Common carrier freight costs, based on
a flat rate per carload12.
Flat rates per carload paid for "running
rights" over common carrier tracks obviously
fall in the same category, except that the vol-
ume of the load may affect operating cost per
car as discussed in the foregoing section.
(2) Car maintenance costs.
Other items of railroad operating costs may
be more or less directly related to the carload
depending upon the extent to which they are
dependent on variations in the number of cars
loaded out each working day at the landing.
Among such items are:
(3) Train-operating costs, other than car
maintenance.
'-Since the log carriers in this region recently changed the rate
basis from a fixed cost per M feet b.m. to a fixed cost per car, this item
has become a most important part of carload variable costs in opera-
tions which ship by common carrier railroads.
(4) Road-bed maintenance other than that
caused by weather and time.
(5) Unloading costs.
(6) "Incline" operating costs.
The cost of operating a logging incline where
each trip consists of lov/ering one carload of
logs would be a good example of an item of cost
that should faithfully reflect the carload vari-
able curves, provided that the trip by trip
schedule is not upset by the effect of the yard-
ing variable. The same thing would apply to
train operation, road maintenance, and unload-
ing, provided that each trainload consists of a
fixed number of cars. Train operation over log-
ging mainlines may often approach this situ-
ation.
79. Variations in Yarding Costs May Control
Variations in Railroad Transportation Costs. — As a
rule, operation of a logging railroad is not an
independent activity. It is set up to serve the
varying needs of the yarding-swinging-loading
operation and cost relations may be affected
accordingly. A comparison shows that the effect
of increasing log size on the yarding-swinging-
loading output is not taken care of fully by the
corresponding increase in carload capacity;
therefore, as the size of the log increases, there
results not only an increase in volume per car-
load, but also an increase in number of carloads
produced per day. With this, there follows a re-
duction in the cost per carload, because rail-
road operating facilities and capacity, which
ordinarily are designed to take care of regu-
larly recurring high production days are uti-
lized most efficiently when high production is
obtained.
The extreme case occurs if railroad operating
costs (excluding car maintenance) are fixed per
working day irrespective of daily variations in
the number of carloads. In this case the car-
load variable is obviously wiped out entirely,
being superseded by the yarding-swinging-load-
ing variable. The cost of operating a switching
locomotive on spurs is quite often of this char-
acter. In some logging operations the same
thing may apply for all practical purposes to
railroad operating costs as a whole. In other
operations a split-up of the carload variable
may be in order. The question of which items
of cost, or what percentages of such items of
cost should be shifted from the carload variable
to the yarding variable must, of course, be de-
cided separately for each case.
69
80. Staked Cars Show Increased Load Capacity
for Small Logs. — The prevailing practice in this
region in logging operations which operate
over their own railroads to pond or market is to
transport the logs on cars without side stakes,
while in many other regions the use of stakes
is standard practice. The above data on carload
capacity and relative costs apply to unstaked
cars.
In using staked cars the height and width of
the load becomes fixed irrespective of variations
in log size. Through the use of unstaked cars,
on the other hand, there results a gradual de-
cline in the height and width of the loads with
decreasing size of logs. This is an important
factor which contributes to the relatively sharp
decline in carload capacity with decrease in the
size of the logs. Other contributing factors,
which are common to both staked and unstaked
cars, are that as the size of the log decreases
(1) cubic volume increases in relation to board
foot scale, (2) the relative amount of wasted
space within the load increases owing to in-
creasing effect of knots, crooks, and other ir-
regularities which multiply with decreasing
size and increasing number of pieces in the
load.
In these studies no data pertaining to cost
relations as applicable to staked cars have been
collected. They may, however, be assumed to
fall at some point near the half-way mark be-
tween the cubic foot to board foot and the car-
load variable curves (see Figure 39).
81. Use of Staked Cars is Impracticable Under
Clear-Cutting System. — In timber typical of this
region the use of staked cars for small logs
is generally impracticable under the present
system of donkey logging. Logs of all sizes ar-
rive at the landing, and most of them can be
transported most economically on unstaked
cars. Intermittent staking (by hand) and
"wiring" of cars under these conditions may
interfere with the yarding operations, calls for
a great deal of sorting of logs on the landing,
and may not bring any noticeable reduction in
daily train operating costs because the latter
generally can not be adjusted from day to day
in direct response to variations in the number
of cars produced. The really profitable use of
staked cars for small logs in this region re-
quires uniformity in log size over long enough
periods of time to allow the proper balancing
of railroad transportation facilities and capa-
city with yarding capacity ; or else an expensive
haul to pond or market, as, for example, in the
case of operators who ship their logs over com-
mon carrier railroads.
It is important in this connection to recognize
clearly that the practicability of using staked
cars for small logs in this region hinges largely
upon the method of cutting that is used; al-
though impracticable in most cases under the
clear-cutting system, it will not necessarily re-
main so under a selective system of cutting that
creates uniformity in log sizes irrespective of
the range in log sizes in the stand as a whole.
To this question further attention is given in
Chapter XX.
XIII. MOTOR TRUCK TRANSPORTATION
82. Relation of Log Size to Load Volume and
Hauling Cost. — In this series of studies only
one study was made of relative truck load capa-
city for logs of different sizes. The results (Fig-
ure 40-D, Curve X) indicate that the increase
in board-foot volume of the load with increas-
ing log size corresponds roughly to the decreas-
ing ratio between cubic feet and board feet.
That is to say, the cubic foot contents and hence
the weight of a load of small logs is about the
same as for larger logs. The same condition is
noted by Rapraeger from whose report13 Table
42 is taken.
,3E. F. Rapraeger, "Motor Truck Log Hauling in Oregon and
Washington," The Timberman, Vol. XXXI V, Nos. 8 to 11, 1933.
Table 42
Relation between the number of logs per auto-truck load
and their volume expressed in board feet and cubic fectx
No. of logs
No. of
Average amount pe
r load
per load
loads — basis
Board feet
Cul
ic feet
1 or 2 logs
77
4,454
578
3 or 4 logs
47
4,197
526
5 or 6 logs
26
3,644
556
7 or 8 logs
/erage
16
166
3,571
579
Total or a1
4,169
560
1 Data are
has
:d oi
loads carried
by
four 5 -ton
trucks
drawing
trailers.
This is the only method of log transportation
covered in these studies in which the relative
cost of transporting small logs reaches the the-
oretically attainable minimum as represented
by Curve VI in Figure 39.
70
The reason is obvious. Motor trucks equipped
with log bunks and trailers usually provide suf-
ficient room for as heavy a load as the truck
can be and generally is made to carry, even if
the logs are very small. The weight of the load
can be judged reasonably close by "sizing up"
the logs, or by watching the deflection of the
springs on truck and trailer. When large logs
are loaded the dimensions of the load are small-
er. This is the reverse of the practice followed
in loading unstaked railroad cars, where large
logs produce wider and higher loads than small
logs.
83. Truck Hauling Costs for Various Dis-
tances.— From the above-quoted report by Rap-
raeger is taken Table 43 showing hauling cost
for various lengths of haul up to 30 miles. The
data apply to 3-ton trucks with trailers and are
based on a machine rate covering truck and
driver varying from $15.22 per day for a daily
travel of 40 miles to $25.96 for a daily travel
of 100 miles.
Table 43
Cost of hauling over various distances,'1 expressed in
dollars per thousand board feet2
(3-ton motor truck drawing trailer)
Number of
trips per < Length of haul in miles >
8-hr. day 2 4 6 8 12 16 20 SO
11 0.45 __ ...... ...... ...... _. .....
10 .47 .. .. --... ...... ...... ...... ...... _..
9 .49 0.71 -— . --.- -.-. --.- ~-
8
.53
.75
0.97
7
.57
.79
1.01
1.23
6
.85
1.07
1.29
5
.93
1.15
1.37
1.81
2.25
4
1.28
1.50
1.94
2.38
2.82
3
1.70
2.14
2.58
3.02
4.12
2
3.00
3.44
4-54
1
5.77
'The ttalic figures indicate normal costs.
-The average load scales 3,256 hoard feet.
The above data apply to hauling on good
roads, principally on public highways. Hauling
costs, based on eleven operations hauling over
poor and/or steep, privately built roads, with
lengths of haul varying from two to six miles,
average roughly as follows:
2-mile haul— $1.00 per M
4-mile haul— $1.50 per M
6-mile haul— $2.00 per M
All cost data exclude road building and main-
tenance costs.
84. Comparison with Tractor Roading and Rail-
road Transportation. — About 7 per cent of the log
output of this region is at the present time
hauled directly to mill or market by truck.
Hauls of 20 to 30 miles are not uncommon. One
instance is recorded where logs are trucked
over a distance of 56 miles. The average haul is
approximately 11 miles.
Convenient access to public highways is in
most cases a prerequisite to profitable truck
haul over these relatively long distances, be-
cause in spile of the rapid development of
motor trucks, the typical logging railroad oper-
ation when operating at normal capacity is still
far in the lead as far as actual hauling effi-
ciency is concerned. This is indicated roughly
by the comparative costs listed in Table 49,
Chapter XVIII, which show that hauling by
rail, disregarding road amortization co
amounts to only from one-half to one-fourth of
corresponding costs for motor trucks. In most
cases, therefore, it is only through drastic re-
duction of road amortization and maintenance
costs that the motor truck can compete suco
fully with the logging railroad. This saving is
exemplified best, of course, by public highways,
for the use of which a nominal fee is paid, but
even where logging truck roads must be built
it may in many cases be attained, though in less
striking fashion, through lowered construction
costs and reduced distance of haul owing to the
greater flexibility in grades and alinement per-
missible in truck roads.
The total volume of timber to be hauled, daily
volume of production, and distance of haul are
obviously controlling factors in any comparison
between the two methods. High efficiency in
motor truck operations can often be attained
best in cases in which the required daily output
is relatively small while high operating effici-
ency in railroad operations generally presup-
poses a high daily output, below which oper-
ating efficiencv generally decreases quite rapid-
ly.
The use of motor trucks as feeders to a rail-
road operation, instead of as a complete substi-
tute therefore, has many possibilities that come
to the fore particularly in conection with the
proposed tractor roading system heretofore dis-
cussed. Compared on the basis of hauling costs
(as distinct from hauling and road construction
costs combined) the motor truck, as shown in
Table 49, is relatively as far ahead of the crawl-
er tractor as the railroad is ahead of the truck.
In both cases, however, that method of hauling
which offers lower operating costs is accom-
panied by higher construction costs and is fur-
thermore restricted by more exacting specifica-
tions as to grades and curvature. Hauling by
motor truck, compared with roading by tractor.
is furthermore handicapped by the cost of load-
ing; a handicap that is usually severe enough
to exclude it from consideration for distances
of less than one mile. For roading distances
71
over one mile, however, there would seem to be
considerable opportunity to substitute trucks
for tractors: and in cases in which such substi-
tution is feasible the operating radius of this
method may, if desired, very well be extended
to several miles, since the cost of hauling for
each additional mile is relatively low (about
$0.25 per M feet b. m.per mile on rough or steep
roads compared with about $0.95 for roading
with tractors). This is an important point to
bear in mind in devising operating methods
that will provide maximum freedom of selection
in logging without sacrifice of operating econ-
omy. To this end it is obviously advantageous
to develop methods which tend to reduce road
construction and similar costs which are
"fixed" against the area developed. The tractor-
roading system by providing low-cost long-dis-
tance yarding, was shown to be an important
step in this direction, since it calls directly for
a drastic skeletonization of the railroad system.
The motor truck carries the same idea into dis-
tances far beyond the point where the tractor
roading method ceases to be effective. The sig-
nificance of this may not be so great for carry-
ing on th2 present clear-cut system of logging
as for carrying on the lighter cuttings demand-
ed under sustained yield management in a sel-
ection forest.
XIV. WATER TRANSPORTATION
85. Low Cost of Water Haul.— Stream driving
is a neglected art in the Douglas fir region, but
towing on lakes, rivers, and protected bodies
of salt water is common. The items properly in-
cluded in this type of transportation are boom-
ing and rafting, boomstick expense, towing,
and depreciation of equipment. Folowing are
the costs in a typical operation which tows
varying distances up to about 30 miles.
Items Costs per M.b.m.
1. Booming and rafting $016
2. Boomstick expense 0.07
3. Depreciation on equipment 0.03
4. Towing 0.06
Total - $0.32
These figures confirm the well known fact
that water transportation is by far the cheap-
est method of transport. Comparison of meth-
ods in Table 49 shows cost relative to other
methods.
86. The Relation of Volume of Log to Cost
of Booming and Rafting. — No field studies have
been made of cost relations applicable to boom-
ing and rafting, but general evidence indicates
that the carload variable will roughly apply to
a large portion of these costs, except as super-
seded by the yarding variable in the same man-
ner as the loading and railroad hauling varia-
bles heretofore discussed.
In support of this assumption it may bs
pointed out that most of the costs involved in
booming and rafting (as an independent oper-
ation) are to a large extent fixed per raft (or
section of raft), which represents one layer of
logs spread over an area of fixed width and
length, with depth varying with the diameter of
the individual log. With costs fixed per raft,
the costs chargeable against individual logs of
different sizes will vary with variations in log
scale per unit of surface area in the raft. The
diameter of the log is the controlling factor
here.
According to this one finds, for example, that
a log nine inches in diameter yields approxi-
mately 3 board feet per square foot of log sur-
face area in the raft; for a log of thirteen-
inch diameter, this rises to 5 board feet; at 21
inches, to 10 board feet; at 26 inches, to 14
board feet; for 37 inches, to 20 board feet; for
46 inches, to 25 board feet ; etc. ; all based on
logs 32 feet long with an allowance of one inch
taper per ten feet of length. Expressed as a
percentile cost, this shows approximately the
same trend as the carload variable curve shown
in Figure 39. Allowing further that the per-
centage of waste space in a raft will increase
with decrease in the size of the log, the trend
of the "booming and rafting variable" would
become still steeper. In view of this it seems
reasonable to assume that booming and rafting-
costs follow the carload variable.
The cost of towing may or may not conform
to the same approximate laws of variation. If
rafts were towed only over short distances, or
moved down stream or with favorable tides,
there would be little reason for distinction be-
tween towing costs and booming and rafting
costs insofar as cost relations are concerned.
On the other hand in the case of long-distance
towing upstream, or in still water, towing costs
will undoubtedly be affected by the size of the
logs in the raft. Cost relations would tend to
approach the cubic foot to board foot variable.
72
XV. FELLING AND BUCKING
87. Relation of Diameter of Tree to Felling
rid Bucking Costs. — Felling and bucking are im-
ortant phases of any logging operation, not
nly because they comprise a considerable por-
ion of the cost of logging, but because the way
a which the timber is handled controls to a
onsiderable degree the profitableness of the
peration.
The cost of log making varies with the size
f the timber, as was shown by Rapraeger and
ipelman14. They found the cost of making a
housand board feet of logs from 20-inch Doug-
as fir trees was double that for 58-inch trees,
'rees smaller than 20 inches would have a still
igher production cost as evidenced by the rate
f change of the curves in Figure 41, which are
eproduced from the published report. Graph
^. of Figure 41 is based on stop-watch obser-
rations of the felling and bucking of 300
)ouglas fir trees and Graph B of 211 western
lemlocks.
In the Douglas fir region felling and bucking
I done in many cases under a piece-rate system
,t a flat rate per thousand board feet. Super-
"E. F. Rapraeger and Howard R. Spelman, 19.U, "The Effect of
'ree and Log Size on Felling and Bucking Costs in the Douglas Fir
Legion." West Coast Lumberman 58 (13):20-23, illus.
ficially this system would seem to disregard the
effect of log or tree diameter on cost. Actually,
however, it implies balancing low production
from small trees with high production from
larger trees so that on the average the contract
fellers and buckers can earn a satisfactory
wage. If fair balance between high and low pro-
duction trees were not maintained, tha rate per
thousand would be changed, since it is derived
in the first place by dividing the average wage
desired by average output in average timber
The high cost of small trees and low cost of
large trees are therefore implicitly reflected in
the rate itself just as if a sliding scale of pay
were used in which each tree or log size were to
be paid for at a different rate, according to tha
variations shown, for example, in Figure 41.
But instead of actually so showing it on the
books when computing the earnings of the
workmen, these variations are all taken care of
in the field by relying on the law of averages
and bull-bucker to see that each man or crew
gets a fair sampling of large trees and small
trees or of difficult conditions and easy condi-
tions so that the flat rate will work out fairly
in the long run.
LOG WAKING COST (MAN-MINUTES PER THOUSANO BOARO FEET, LOG SCALE,) FOR
WESTERN HEMLOCK DOUGLAS FlP
o
5
O
«i
► IT
3 O
» ^ 2 * °
0 0 0 0 0
O O
*
CD J
o-
N
O
O**
>
m
XI
Pi
>
lr
£
z
l°
r
>
J'
I*
2
O
1"
lr*
lr*
ID
-I CD
I
iv
lc
1-t
4°
cv
r
\>
a
_T
t
~T
HI
0
o C*
3
3
t-
0
A LT tl>
l/> O u>
0>
0
91
3 £
IV)
>/
/
^r
ru
I
/
Si
lu
7
/
/ 1
I
O
S
z
r
r
1 >
J 7
2
lo
I,
[ 7"
#1 /'""
l\Jr*
>l\)
\2
'0
i
-<t-
1
a
-I*
/
!*->
9*
ZA
1
p-
ICD
Jc
\7
0
i
r*
lc
I
'
I
1
— ■ —
^
1
1
_J
1
1
Fig. 41
73
XVI. SELECTIVE COST ANALYSIS OF A LOGGING OPERATION AS A WHOLE
88. Consistency Shown in the Relations of Log
and Tree Size to Logging Cost. — In the foregoing
it has been shown that in any given logging
operation there are certain elements of cost
which are fixed and others which are variable.
The principal variables governed by size of
timber, which is by far the most potent factor
affecting costs, are the felling and bucking var-
iable, the carload variable, and the yarding
(loading, swinging, roading) variable. Of
these, the felling and bucking variable is sub-
ject to only slight changes which may be pre-
dicted from data on tree form and log lengths.
The carload variable, as demonstrated in Table
41, is likewise subject to only slight changes for
any given type of equipment, and may be ana-
lyzed from itme to time from carloading rec-
ords. Even in the case of the yarding variable,
which shows a distinctly different trend foi
tractors from that for drum and cable machin-
ery, and a considerable variation with differ-
ent types of drum and cable machinery and dif-
ferent yarding shows, the results obtained in
different studies agree closely, if a rough classi-
fication is made of average size of timber and
general type of machinery (see Figure 35).
The conclusion is eminent, therefore, that in
any given logging operation, where conven-
tional clear cutting is practiced, and where ma-
chinery and size of timber are known factors,
the variables once established for that particu-
lar operation may subsequently be applied
with a fair degree of assurance that they are
not likely to fluctuate very widely from the es-
tablished trends. They are, as demonstrated by
the great number of studies here reported, con-
sistent enough so that if intelligently inter-
preted, and modified as needed to meet current
changes in the logging show, they may be used
as the final word in the allocation of costs, not
in the belief that they are instruments of pre-
cision, but because they represent as close an
approximation as it is practicable to make.
89. Application of Relative Costs to Complete
Cost Analysis of Operating or Non-operating Timber
Properties. — With the variable accepted as repre-
senting basic cost relations the next step is to
translate these into costs. In the yarding time-
study tables this was done by setting up ma-
chine rates for purposes which have been ex-
plained. The machine-rate method, however,
becomes very cumbersome, if applied to every
phase of the logging operation, and does not
readily lend itself to current analysis of a log-
ging operation as a whole. A simpler and more
effective method is to turn directly to cost
averages as dealt with in the ordinary form of
logging cost statements (Table 49), and by
proper segregation of cost items determine the
averages applicable to each cost variable, as
well as to fixed costs. Whether it be a case of
analyzing costs in a going operation or of esti-
mating costs for a non-operating timber pro-
perty, one may thus deal with the actual cost
level in the same identical manner as in present
timber appraisal practice. One deals first with
the cost averages as determined in present
practice and second, with the cost variables for
the purpose of allocating costs to logs or trees
of various sizes.
90. Analysis of a Logging Cost Statement. — An
example will best serve to show the method of
cost analysis that may be applied to a going
operation, where authentic cost records are
available. The cost statement in Table 44 ap-
plies (with a few minor changes in classifica-
tion) to one of the operations in which car-
loading, yarding, and loading studies were con-
ducted.
It is further ascertained that:
(1) The log freight of $0,583 is a derived
cost, actually based on a flat carload cost.
(2) The average log scales 850 board feet
net scale ; 3 per cent average defect deduction.
(3) The investment tied up in the operation
groups as follows :
1. Logging machinery $100,000
2. Locomotives and rolling stock 120,000
3. Unamortized mainline construction 40,000
4. Steel rails for spurs . .... 25,000
5. Camp buildings, machine shop 20,000
(!. Liquid working capital 100,000
The above cost statement carries sufficient!]
detailed cost segregations to allow a fairly coi
plete analysis to be made. To do so, howevei
requires a re-classification of the various coi
items whereby items identified with variabl
and fixed cost activities may be brought to-1
gether into the proper groups. This is shown in
the following table (Table 45).
A reclassification of costs from a company's
cost statement is often rather difficult to make.
Often detail is lacking or the segregations used
apply to more than one of the re-classified
groups without anything to guide in making aij
clear cut distribution. Most of the items listed'
in Table 44, however, are in this case so labeled
as to be easily identified with one or the othei
74
of the five groups listed in Table 45. A few
items, namely, industrial insurance, equipment
insurance, supervision, machine shop, and fire
protection, belong to more than one group and
so appear more than once in Table 45. In ad-
dition to this a split-up has to be made of costs
identified with yarding and loading in order to
segregate yarding-variable costs from road-
changing costs. The allocation of 84 per cent
to the yarding variable and 16 per cent to fixed
per acre costs (Item 37) is based on data se-
cured through time studies.
Table 44
Detailed Statement of Logging Costs per M Feet b.m.
January-June, 1981
(Interest and Taxes not Included)
Woods Costs
Falling- and bucking 1.050
Spur construction 1.050
Rigging ahead ____ .131
Yarding and loading 1.390
Wire rope .298
Fuel and supplies _.. .181
Total woods costs $4,100
Camp Overhead
Foreman and clerks 0.054
Maintenance camp buildings 0.034
Camp shop 0.042
Total camp overhead 0.130
Railroad operation
Speeder operation — hauling crew 0.052
Maintenance, main lines 0.082
Maintenance, spurs 0.018
Maintenance, logging cars 0.180
Depreciation, main line 0.304
Train operation, main line 0.400
Woods train operation ._._ 0.242
R. R. equipment depreciation. 0.082
Total R. R. operation 1.360
Geenral Logging Expense
Supervision 0.074
Engineering 0.190
Office Expense _ 0.050
Check scaling- 0.064
Sales scaling 0.018
Industrial insurance 0.157
Insurance — equipment . 0.040
Fire protection 0.128
Dues and subscriptions 0.063
Log freights 0.583
Unloading 0.025
Depreciation, logging equipment 0.168
Headquarters shop 0.180
Total general logging expense 1 740
Grand Total $7,330
Tablk 1")
Re-classification of Costs from Tab
(Interest and Taxes Not Included)
Group I Fixed pet M feei i>.m.
1. Dues and subscriptions
Group II — The Carload Variable
Current Costs
2. Sales sca!:ng
3. Check scaling
4. Unloading
5. Log freights
0.018
0.064
0.025
0.583
6. Mainline train operation 0.400
7. Mainline maintenance 0.082
8. Maintenance of logging cars 0.180
9. Maintenance of spurs 0.018
10. Headquarters shop (50%) 0.090
11. Prorated industrial insurance 0.020
B. Annual Costs
12. Depreciation of equipment 0.082
13. Insurance of equipment 0.015
Group total
1.577
Cranp III — The Yarding Variable
A. Current Costs
14. Yarding and loading 1.390
15. Wire rope and rigging 0.298
16. Fuel and supplies ..... 0.180
17. Camp shop 0.042
18. Woods foreman and clerk 0.054
19. Speeder operation (crew) 0.052
20. Woods superintendent (50%) 0.037
21. Woods train operation 0.242
22. Fire protection (307o)... 0.038
23. Office expense 0.050
24. Headquarters shop (50%) 0.090
25. Prorated industrial insurance 0.067
B. Annual Costs
26. Depreciation of equipment 0.168
27. Insurance of equipment 0.025
28. Maintenance camp buildings.. 0.034
Group total
29. Less 16% to Group V
Net Total
2.767
0.44::
2.324
(imap IV — Felling and Bucking Variable
30. Felling and bucking L.060
31. Prorated industrial insurance 0.035
Group total 1.085
Group V — Fixed Per Acre Costs
32. Mainline depreciation ... 0.301
33. Engineering 0.190
34. Spur construction 1.050
35. Fire protection (70'.) 0.090
36. Rigging ahead 0.130
37. Road changing— 16% of Group III . 0.44:5'
38. Woods superintendent (50', ) . 0.037
39. Prorated industrial insurance ._. 0.035
Group total _. 2.276
Grand total $7.:»"J".
'$0,035 annua] costs included.
75
The cost averages applying to the three variables,
Groups II, III, and IV, represent the weighted aver-
age cost of handling logs of different sizes, the average
volume of which is 850 board feet. The weighted
average cost applying to two distinctly different
size classes of logs does not coincide precisely with
the cost applicable to the corresponding "sorted" log
size; and the farther two log sizes are apart, the
greater becomes the difference between the "sorted"
cost and the weighted average cost. The reason for
this is that the weighted average derived from points
located on a curve falls inside the curve. The sharp-
ness of the curve and the percentage distribution of
log sizes spreading on either side of the average
size, will determine in this case the actual position
of weighted average cost in relation to the cost cor-
responding to the sorted log size, the latter cost being
a point located on the curve. In order to translate
the weighted average cost to "sorted" costs for differ-
ent tree or log sizes, it is necessary, therefore, first,
to determine the quantities or percentages of total
volume, in each size class, and then to multiply these
by the relative costs read from the cost relation curve
applicable to the particular operation that is being
considered. To take a simple example.:
In a certain operation it is found that the average
cost of felling and bucking is one dollar per M, and
that 5 per cent of the total volume is found in trees
from 16 to 24 inches d.b.h. (average, 20 inches),
(by eight inch diameter groups) 10 per cent in the
group averaging 28 inches, 15 per cent in the 36-inch
group, 20 per cent in the 44-inch group, 25 per cent
in the 36-inch group, 15 per cent in the 60-inch group,
and 10 per cent in the 68-inch group. By referring
to the felling and bucking curve (Figure 41-A) it is
found that the relative cost for 20-inch trees is 72
(man minutes); for 28-inch, 48; for 36-inch, 37; for
44-inch, 35; for 52-inch, 35; for 60-inch, 37; and for
68-inch (by extending the curve), 40. Now, let X
represent the cost per man-minute which, when mul-
tiplied by the volume percentages and number of man
minutes, will give a weighted average cost of one
dollar per M. The following equation will then result:
Xx5x72 Xxl0x48 Xxl5x37 Xx20x35 Xx25x35
+ H + +■
100
100 100 100
Xxl5x37 XxlOxlO
+ + =1.00
100
100
100
X=0.0255
For 20-inch trees the cost is 72 x 0.0255 or $1.84 per
M. By similarly multiplying man minutes by the
value of X the following table is derived:
Diameter class Cost per M
inches dollars
20 1.84
28 1.22
36 .94
44 .89
52 .89
60 .94
68 1.02
By plotting these values a curve is obtained from
which "sorted" costs for any other diameter can be
read. In this case the "sorted" cost for the average
tree, which measures about 44 inches in diameter, is
only $0.89 compared with a weighted average of $1.00
per M, a difference of over 10 per cent. Pronounced
differences like this are characteristic of the felling
and bucking curve owing to its sharpness and the fact
that it reaches its lowest point for medium size trees
and then rises again for larger trees. In the case of
the yarding and carload variable the curves do not
turn upward for the larger trees. The differences be-
tweeen the cost for the "sorted" average log size
and the weighted average cost are, therefore, rela-
tively slight, seldom exceeding 3 per cent. If, in a
given case, the volume distribution by size classes is
not known it would be a fairly safe guess to deduct
2 per cent from the weighted cost averages of the car-
load and yarding variable and 10 per cent from the
felling and bucking variable. The remainder repre-
sents then, in each case, the "sorted" cost of the av-
erage size log or tree, from which cost for other
sizes can be derived by proportions read from the cost
curve.
By applying the above method of computation to
the cost relation curves and volume percentages by
size classes that are applicable to the operation cov-
ered in Table 45 and by correcting for the 3 per cent
allowed for defect deductions, the following table is
derived (Table 46), showing costs allocated to logs
and trees of different sizes. Here it will be noted that
the total of fixed and variable costs for the average
log comes to $6.90 ($4.69+$2.21) compared with a
weighted average cost of $7.33 (Table 45). Half
of the difference between these two values is ac-
counted for by the correction for 3 per cent defect
deductions, while the remaining difference represents
the departure of the weighted average cost from the
corresponding points on the cost curves.
Table 46
Allocation of costs from pond to stump to logs and trees of various sizes
(Fixed-per-acre cost of $2.21 per M feet b.m. not included)
Costs per thousand feet board measure in dollars
Total Total
yarding Bucking bucking Felling
to pond.1 variable to pond2 variable
23.51 1.46 24.97 1.77
12.42 .65 13.07 1.11
8.57 .49 9.06 .86
6.58 .47 7.05 .70
4.79 .42 5.21 .58
3.89 .44 4.33 .51
3.74 .45 4.19 .50
3.43 .45 3.88 .48
2.99 .48 3.47 .47
2.55 .54 3.09 .46
2.24 .58 2.82 .48
1.98 .71 2.69 .50
1.89 .81 2.70 .54
1.87 .92 2.79 .58
inst the log after actual yarding begins.
2Bucking-to-pond cost covers all costs incurred against the log after bucking begins.
:lFelling-to-pond cost covers all costs incurred against the tree after felling begins.
*D. B. H. represents diameter breast high, outside bark.
"Average log. 850 board feet. Average felling-to-pond cost of $4.69 plus $2.21 (fixed-per-acre cost) equals $6.90
76
Volume
f
Costs per
of log
Fixed
(feet g)oss
per
Carload
Yarding
log scale)
M b.m.
variable
variable
100
0.06
6.62
16.83
200
0.06
3.85
8.51
300
0.06
2.75
5.76
400
0.06
2.18
4.34
600
0.06
1.72
3.01
800
0.06
1.53
2.30
8505
0.06
1.50
2.18
1,000
0.06
1.42
1.95
1,200
0.06
1.34
1.59
1,600
0.06
1.21
1.28
2,000
0.06
1.10
1.08
3,000
0.06
1.03
.89
4,000
0.06
1.03
.80
5,000
0.06
1.03
.78
'Yarding
'-to-pond
cost covers all
costs incurred
Total
felling
to pond3
26.74
14.18
9.92
7.75
5.79
4.84
4.69
4.36
3.94
3.55
3.30
3.19
3.24
3.37
D.B.H.
in inches
(Doug-
las fir)*
14
20
24
28
34
40
41
45
49
57
64
71
80
90
per M feet board measure.
The following points should be noted :
(1) For defective logs of gross scale as list-
ed, corresponding costs against net scale may
be computed (and if desired defect cost tables
constructed) by dividing the costs in Table 46
by the percentage of sound volume and multi-
plying by 100.
(2) Further segregations may be made of
yarding variable costs to show the effect of
yarding distance on costs, provided that the
average distance, to which the cost average ap-
plies, is known.
(3) For logging operations resorting large-
ly to cold-decking, two cost tables should be set
up ; one for cold-deck areas, and one for direct
yarding areas.
Instead of following the progress of the log
from stump to pond, Table 46 presents cost
accumulation in the reverse direction. This
"backing-up" process permits deflation of as-
certainable log values in the pond step by step
to find the true conversion value at any desired
point. For example, if the conversion value of
a 300 foot log is $8.50 per M at the pond, it is
evident that no value remains after deducting
costs subsequent to bucking (fixed per M, car-
load, and yarding variable costs). Likewise, if
a Douglas fir tree of 24-inch diameter yields
logs which are worth $10 per M in the pond,
one finds that all of this value (except 8 cents)
drops out after deducting costs incurred from
the moment the fallers begin their work. By
segregating felling from felling and bucking
costs it is further possible to determine cost
chargeable against the individual log from the
point where bucking begins until the log reach-
es the pond. By splitting up fixed per acre costs,
light is thrown on costs chargeable against dif-
ferent areas of timber at different stages in the
process of converting timber into cash. These
are steps1"' involved in selective appraisal,
which underlies the practice of selective log-
ging.
91. Adaptation of Cost Averages to Specific
Operating Conditions. — The data in Table 46 are
derived from cost averages which are based on
actual performance in logging a certain portion
of a tract of timber. It is obvious that in apply-
ing tEese data to future operations on indi-
| vidual settings or other specific portions of the
tract, various adjustments in the cost averages
may be in order.
,6A clear exposition of the steps involved in selective appraisals is
given in an article by David T. Mason in The Timberman, issue
of October, 1929.
As a rule it may be assumed that fixed per
M, carload variable, and felling and bucking
variable costs (Groups I, II, and IV) are fairly
stable, except as influenced by basic changes,
as in the rise or fall of wages, or in the distance
of rail haul.
The cost level in the yarding-variable column,
on the other hand, may vary considerably from
one setting or area of timber to another, be-
cause these costs are keenly responsive to a
number of factors, such as density, topography,
etc., not influenced by size of timber alone.
However, adjusting the values to fit such spe-
cific conditions cannot be gone into in very
fine detail in actual appraisal practice.
Some of the problems involved in timber ap-
praisal, such as that of log and tree selection
within an operating area that has already been
developed with roads, deal only with costs in-
curred subsequent to assumption of fixed per-
acre costs. In the solution of such problems,
then, the only costs that generally require fre-
quent adjustments to meet changing operating
conditions are those connected with the yarding
variable.
92. Allocation of Fixed Per Acre Costs. — Fixed
per-acre costs, made up of costs incident to
road construction, engineering, fire protection,
rigging ahead, and road changing, are in each
case incurred against a certain area of timber
and are not chargeable specifically against the
individual log or tree. Mainline depreciation
charges, Item 32, Table 45, thus represent a
fixed lump-sum cost against the entire tract
while spur construction (Item 34) represents
in the case of each spur a lump sum against
some specific area of timber within the tract;
and so on down to road changing cost which in
the case of each individual road applies to a
very small subdivision of area. Leaving out
mainline amortization charges which apply to
the entire tract, it is obvious that the remaining
items of fixed per-acre costs may create im-
portant differentials in per thousand costs from
area to area, and this in turn reacts on the net
conversion value of the timber. Some areas may
thus escape spur construction costs entirely or
call for only a very moderate outlay, while for
other areas these costs may be very high. The
proper allocation of these costs is of great im-
portance in the solution of those problems in
timber appraisal and planning of the logging
operation which involve the determination of
recovery values existing prior to the assump-
tion of fixed per acre costs.
77
For purposes of preliminary appraisal prior
to formulation of detailed operating plans, such
items of cost as fire protection, rigging ahead,
and road changing may properly be treated as
varying with the density (volume per acre) of
the timber. In the case at hand, as detailed in
Table 45, these items total $0.66 per M on the
basis of an average stand density of 75 M feet
b.m. per acre. For stands of various densities,
then, the following costs result:
Density: Feet
Cost per thousand
b.m. per acre
feet h.»i.
25,000
1.98
50,000
.1)!)
75,000 average
66 average
100,000
.50
125,000
.40
150,000
.33
Were topography and ground conditions less
variable than is typical of this region, it would
in a large sense be proper to deal with spur
construction costs and all other items of fixed
per-acre costs in a similar manner. However,
under existing conditions of rough topography
and other physical problems, they had better
be considered a special appraisal problem in
each particular case.
An examination of cost records for several
years back in the operation dealt with in Table
46 shows spur construction costs to vary from
40 cents to $2.60 per M spur by spur, and from
nothing to $3.50 per M setting by setting. In
conjunction with the density variable costs tab-
ulated above, it is thus evident that variation
in fixed-per-acre costs from one area to another
is a very important factor in the differentiation
of net conversion values within large1 tracts of
timber. Instead of representing a flat charge
per thousand board feet as shown in Table 46,
they become important "variables" in allocat-
ing costs from setting to setting and from spur
to spur.
93. Allocation of Capital Charges. — Costs in
Tables 44, 45, and 46 do not include interest,
taxes, and uninsured risks on the $425,000 in-
vestment as detailed in Section 104. Deprecia-
tion and fire insurance, on the other hand, are
included. The latter two items account for $0.38
in the grand total cost average of $7.33 per
thousand board feet, leaving a net of $6.95 as
total current operating costs. Interest, taxes,
and risk, as dealt with in Tables 2 and 3 in
Chapter III would amount to approximately
$0.70 per thousand, bringing total logging costs
to $8.03, inclusive of all capital charges. The
difference between $6.95 and $8.03 represents.
then, annual capital charges expressed as a per-
thousand cost.
In allocating capital charges, as well as other
fixed annual costs, if any, various cases may
arise as follows:
( 1 ) They may be treated as a part of current
operating costs in the same manner as shown
in Table 45, in which items 12, 13, 26, 27, 28,
and $0,035 of item 37 (depreciation and in-
surance costs) are grouped with the activities
through which they are incurred ;
(2) They may be treated as fixed per thous-
and costs;
(3) They may be ignored entirely or in part.
The first case is based on the premises that
logging is carried on steadily with a fixed lay-
out without restrictions with respect to annual
output. At the time the operation is first started
a rough idea of prospective rate of daily pro-
duction may be established as a basis for de-
ciding what type and size of equipment to get;
but after operating facilities have once been ac-
quired, production will be carried on without
any definite limitations in the rise or fall of
annual output. The working season may be lim-
ited by weather conditions or intermittent glut-
ting of the log or lumber market, but not by
filling a fixed quota as far as any given opera-
tion is concerned. The ups and downs in daily,
weekly, monthly, etc., outputs, as governed by
the variables heretofore discussed, will in this
case be reflected in corresponding variations in
capita] charges per thousand board feet.
Under normal business conditions this situ-
ation is typical of a good many operatons in
this region. Both the independent logger who
sells his logs on the open market, and the log-
ger-mill-owner whose mill is conveniently lo-
cated on tidewater where logs may be bought or
sold, are in a position to give the logging opera-
tion free rein in regard to annual output when
profitable markets are available steadily or
with brief interruptions. Less or no freedom in
this respect may obtain in the case of a logging
operation supplying a sawmill of limited capac-
ity or limited outlet for its products.
The allocation of capital charges in the yard-
ing-time studies is premised upon the above as-
sumption that the length of the working season
is not affected by variations in output.
In the second case, annual charges are con-fl
sidered fixed per thousand board feet. This ap-
plies to some or all items of capital costs in case
the annual output is fixed. It will in that cas2
invariably apply to those items of cost which
78
re incident to fixed investments such as, for
sample, the logging main line. It may or may
ot apply to capital charges incident to invest-
lents in logging machinery or rolling stock,
spending upon whether or not such facilities
re fixed irrespective of variations in the out-
iit. In the typical self-contained logging oper-
tion, most of these facilities are usually fixed.
In short then, capital charges per thousand
Dard feet become fixed when both the annual
jtput and the investment in operating facili-
es are fixed. Decreasing or increasing rate of
aily, weekly, or monthly production will in
lis case reflect itself in a corresponding
ngthening or shortening of the working sea-
>n without affecting capital charges per thous-
id board feet at the end of the operating year.
In the third case annual capital charges are
:nored entirely or in part. In this treatment
le problem centers on a post mortem analysis
? irretrievable investments. Operators who in
tese trying times find it impossible to recover
ill ownership costs as originally anticipated
when the investments were made, contin
operate in spite of it, because it is more profit-
able to operate than to shut down, until the
point is reached where ownership costs are
wiped out entirely"1. Even in more normal
times the marginal producer who lacks oppor-
tunity to employ profitably the capital invea
in operating facilities may be thus compelled
to carry on at a loss. Under these conditions,
the capital engaged in the enterprise is being
unavoidably dissipated. It is obvious, how<
that as long as opportunity exists for recovery
of capital charges they should be insisted upon
as a part of current costs Timber that can
stand paying these costs in full has first call
upon the use of operating facilities. Deeply in-
volved in this question are other problems of
internal value movements between different
classes of stumpage, which in this period of
economic upheaval are exceedingly difficult to
answer.
luSee article by C. A. Lyford on "Nature of Stumpage Values"
the American Lumberman, issue of Oct. 17, 1931.
VII. FURTHER EXAMPLES OF SELECTIVE COST ANALYSIS OF TYPICAL OPERATIONS
94. Case Studies — Basis of Comparison. — Fol-
wing a procedure similar to that described
Sections 89 and 90, and as embodied in Table
>, five additional logging operations have been
lalyzed. A comparison of the results is given
Tables 47 and 48. The variation of costs and
»st relations as controlled by variations of the
ze of logs and trees under different conditions
id methods of logging are thus brought out
de by side.
These analyses are termed "case studies,"
ambered from 1 to 6. They represent in each
ise a selective analysis of costs for a going
gging operation. In a later report (Part II)
lese studies will be followed up by the intro-
iction of corresponding data on values of
ees and logs of various sizes, from which net
umpage returns may be derived as the basis
>r economic selection in logging.
As discussed in the preceding chapter the
>acking-up" process of tracing costs from the
>nd back into the woods allows the determina-
3n of costs yet to be incurred at the moment
e log or tree arrives at any given point in the
inversion process from stump to mill, exclud-
g all costs previously incurred, (such as
umpage, road construction, etc.) The princi-
pal points at which the determination of future
costs is of practical significance in arriving at
decisions in logging and timber management
policy are represented by the designations
" yarding-to-pond," " bucking-to-pond," and
"felling-to-pond" costs and are defined in the
footnotes in Tables 46, 47, and 48.
The data given in Table 47 represent yard-
ing-to-pond costs for logs of various volumes,
while Table 48 covers felling-to-pond costs for
trees of various diameters. In both cases this
grouping of costs brings together two or more
of the independent variables (yarding, carload-
ing, felling, etc.) dealt with in Table 46 and
previous discussions.
In addition to presenting the results in terms
of actual cost in dollars per M feet board meas-
ure, the tables also give a comparison of rela-
tive (percentile) costs as governed by varia-
tions of log and tree sizes within each study,
disregarding cost differentials from study to
study. These cost relatives may, of course, be
re-computed against a base of 100 for any log
or tree size other than those selected here, and
may also be translated into any set of monetary
values that from time to time may be found to
better fit a given case.
79
Table 47
Comparison of yarding-to-pond costs* for logs of no-i-
ons volumes boxed on studies in six different log-
ging operations
Actual Costs in Dollars per M Fret H.M.
Volume
of log Case Cose Case
(gr.log study study study
I No. i No.
100
200
300
400
600
800
1 ,000
1.200
1.000
2,000
3,000
1.000
;..ooo
23.51
12.42
8.57
6.58
4.70
3.89
3.43
2.99
2.56
2.24
L.98
L.89
1.87
18.47
10.00
7.20
5.82
4.42
3.80
3.44
3.19
2.83
2.02
2,11
2.35
No. S
40.36
21.02
1 1.55
11.16
7.78
0.44
5.46
1.80
3.89
n o <
o.o4
2.07
2.32
2.15
Relative Costs (Cost for
Cast Case Case
study study study
Vo. : .Vo. 5 No. 6
L9.08 17.44 17.69
10.88 12.29 10.53
6.80 7.32 7.06
5.72 o.m\ 5.64
4.05 4.25 4.15
3.33 3.68 3.31
2.86 3.29 2.85
2.62 3.01 2.47
2.30 2.58 2.07
2.10 2.28 1.81
1.95 2.00 1.50
1.95 1.90 1.43
.... 1.43
1,000- foot Log=100)
ion
200
300
400
,; 10
800
1,000
1,200
1,600
2.000
3,000
4,000
686
362
2:>0
L92
140
113
100
87
71
65
58
55
537
292
211
169
129
110
too
93
82
70
70
68
739
385
200
201
142
118
too
88
71
61
49
42"
665
363
238
200
142
116
too
92
80
73
68
68
530
374
222
169
129
112
too
91
78
69
61
58
021
369
248
198
146
116
100
87
73
64
53
50
A ver.
22.75
12.78
8.59
6.75
4.91
4.08
3.66
3.18
2.70
2.40
2.08
1.97
1.82
630
358
239
189
138
114
100
90
70
68
60
57
■Yarding-to-pond costs cover all costs which are incurred against
the I ling begins AH costs incurred against the area
;i notion, rigging ahead, line changing, etc.) as well as Stumpage
and felling and bucking costs are excluded. Interest and taxes not
included.
• Study No. -' represents yarding with tractors; the other five
studies represent conventional high-lead, skidder and slackline oper-
ations.
95. Small Logs and Trees Show Relatively High
Costs. — The comparisons given in Table 47 and
48 again call attention to a fact that has been
frequently referred to in preceding pages, viz.,
that under present clear-cutting practice varia-
tions in size of logs and trees have a strikingly
potent effect on the cost of logging. Each log-
ging operation is, true enough, a case by itself
in which the cemposite effect of all the various
factors heretofore discussed produce different
cost levels and different cost trends from those
found in any other logging operation. This
situation is demonstrated in the tables by con-
trasting, for example, Case Study No. 2 with
Case Study No. 3 (see upper sections of the
tables), the former representing an operation
using tractors for yarding, while the latter
represents a conventional donkey operation.
But, looking at the situation in a broader way
with attention given only to the cost relations
shown within each study, the story of the effect
of log or tree size on logging costs reads about
the same in all cases. This is brought out best
by comparing the data in the last column to the
right in the lower section of the tables, which
represents average cost relations based on six
studies, with the corresponding data of each
individual study. These case studies, it should
be noted, while confined to conventional rail-
road type logging operations, thus leaving out,
for example, the small motor truck operations,
apply to operations which were selected for the
purpose of bringing out fairly sharp contrasts
in types of yarding machinery, logging meth-
ods, timber types and general logging con-
ditions— yet comparison with individual stud-
ies shows no very radical departure from the
average percentile trend.
Speaking in broad terms of the typical log-
ging operation of this region, it is thus seen
that it costs on the average nearly twice as
much per M feet log scale to handle a log of
400 board feet volume, three and a half times
for a log of 200 board feet volume, and six
Table 48
Comparison of felling-to-pond costs1 for trees of vari-
ous diameters based on studies in six different log-
ging operations
Actual Costs in Dollars per M Feet B.M.
Tree
diam. Case Case Case Case Case Case
b.h. in study study study study study study
inches- No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 Aver.
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
80
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
80
22.05
14.20
10.00
7.82
6.40
5.44
4.85
4.40
4.02
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
Relative
549
353
249
195
159
135
121
109
100
95
90
85
80
17.35
11.60
8.52
6.80
5.72
4.86
4.50
4.15
3.95
3.80
3.65
3.55
3.25
Costs
439
294
216
172
145
123
114
105
100
96
92
90
82
27.40
18.70
13.30
10.40
8.65
7.60
6.70
6.00
5.40
4.90
4.45
4.10
3.60
(Cost for
507
346
246
193
160
141
124
111
100
91
82
76
67
17.40
13.20
10.00
7.90
6.30
5.22
4.40
3.75
3.25
3.00
2.85
2.80
2.75
22.54
16.10
11.29
8.22
6.35
5.29
4.68
4.28
3.96
3.69
3.43
3.25
2.88
48-inch
535
406
308
243
194
161
135
115
100
92
88
•86
85
Trees-
569
407
285
208
160
134
118
108
100
93
87
82
73
19.60
12.34
8.45
6.85
5.58
4.80
4.25
3.80
3.50
3.27
3.10
3.00
2.80
-100)
560
353
241
196
148
137
121
109
100
93
89
86
80
21.06
14.36
10.26
8.00
6.50
5.54
4.90
4.40
4.01
3.74
3.51
3.35
3.08
526
360
258
201
161
138
122
110
100
93
88
84
78
'Felling-to-pond cost represents all costs which are incurred against
the tree after felling begins. Fixed-per-acre costs, or costs incurred
against the area, (road construction, rigging ahead, line changing,
etc.) and stumpage costs are excluded. Interest and taxes not
eluded.
^Diameter breast high outside bark.
Fi.rcd-per-Acrc Costs —
Case Study No. 1— $2.21
" 2— 0.65
" 3— 1.40
" 4—1.15
" 5— 1.50
" 6— 2.02
80
times as much for a log of 100 board feet vol-
ume— tying the comparison in each case to the
yarding-to-pond cost shown for a log of 1,000
board feet volume. Extending this comparison
all the way from the 100 to the 4,000 board
feet log volume shows further that it costs
eleven times as much for the small log as for
the large one. Another way of picturing these
relations is to say that it costs about as much
to handle four logs in the 100-foot class as one
log in the 5,000-foot class.
Similarly the data in Table 48 shows that in
comparison with a tree of 48-inch diameter it
costs twice as much per M feet log scale to log a
tree of 28-inch diameter and five times as much
for a 16-inch tree ; and that costs multiply seven
times in going all the way from an 80-inch to a
16-inch tree.
96. Present Clear Cutting Practice Penalizes the
Small Log or Tree. — It is important to bear in
mind that the foregoing data on size-to-cost
relations represent the relations which arise
within any given unit of yarding area and
under the present clear cutting system of log-
ging. Trees of all sizes are felled and bucked
before actual yarding begins. Logs of all sizes
are yarded, swung, and loaded etc., in what-
ever order they happen to come and are all
handled alike. The result is that the machinery
and equipment, designed to handle large logs
with a fair degree of efficiency, fails utterly
to respond to the requirements for equal cost
efficiency in the handling of small . lilt-
ing in a rather steep upward trend in c
with decreasing size of log or tree. This be-
comes particularly noticeable for logs under
600 board feet in volume and for trees under
32 inches in diameter, and ha«, indeed, a with-
ering effect on the net conversion value of the
small log or tree, in view of the well known
fact that small trees and logs are worth less
than the large ones.
To successfully remedy this situation, once
the disability of the small log is fully recog-
nized— and at the same time to stipulate that
the small log must be logged and that the
present general scheme and methods of logging
be retained — is not an easy matter. On the
whole there does not seem, and can not be
reasoned to be, a practical escape from rela-
tively high cost for small logs under a system
of donkey logging which requires for any given
area that logs of all sizes — particularly with
a spread in sizes as great as in typical opera-
tions of this region and with equipment adapted
primarily for the large logs — shall be removed
in one operation and with only one set of equip-
ment.
To more effectively remedy this situation
by revising present operating methods or by
adopting new methods, or more particularly,
by adopting a system of selective specialization
in logging is quite another phase of the question.
To these questions further attention is given in
the following chapters.
XVIII. GENERAL SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF LOG TRANSPORTATION COSTS
In a sense, the chief elements of logging
cost are transportation items or capital and
overhead accompanying them. The most im-
portant exception is felling and bucking, which
in this region rarely exceeds 15 per cent of
total logging costs, and even this is performed
usually in a manner to facilitate transportation.
Low cost logging consists, then, largely in com-
bining the different forms of transportation
which usually are necessary in the most judici-
ous proportions. It is of interest to compare
the relative cost of transporting 1,000 feet b.m.
of logs per mile of distance as well as over dis-
tances most commonly involved in each of the
different forms of transportation available
to the logger, starting from the stump. Such a
comparison is given in Table 49.
The cost data for Items 1 to 7 in Table 49
have been read from Figures 28, 30, and 33,
and represent a log volume of 800 board feet.
The remaining items are based on general cost
averages from various sources.
These costs are of an exceedingly complex
nature when it comes to juggling with differ-
ent distances, log sizes, and other variable and
fixed items of cost. They serve, however, to
give a bird's-eye view of costs representative
of different methods and serve to center atten-
tion on conclusions heretofore arrived at in
discussion of various methods or combinations
of methods of stump to track transportation,
the main points of which are re-examined
briefly in the next chapter.
81
1.60
1.40
0.70
0.55
Table 49
Relative costs per M feet b.»t. of different methods of log t ni nsportat
hosed on log volume of 800 board feet
Cost for
distance
Method of transportation noted
A. Yarding Dollars
1. Large steam skidders and slackline yarder (12x14") external yarding
distance of 1,800 feet; average specific distance 1,200 feet
2. Large steam high-lead yarders (12-14") — external yarding distance 900
feet ; average specific distance 600 feet
3. 30 to 125 h.p. gasoline high-lead yarders — -external yarding distance 600
feet; average specific distance 4(K) feet
4. 30 to L25 h.p. gasoline high-lead yarders — external yarding distance 450
feet; average specific distance 300 feet
5. 60 h.p. crawler tractors drawing fair-lead arch — external yarding distance
3,000 feet; average specific distance 2,000 feet _. 0.85
B. Swinging or Roading
6. North bend skyline swing from small cold decks — average distance
1,600 feet 0.72
7. Downhill tractor roading — average distance 1 mile 1.05
C. General Transportation
8. Motor trucks hauling on poor or steep roads — average hauling distance
S miles 1.25
9. Motor truck hauling on good roads (public highways) — average hauling
distance 10 miles 1.75
Logging railroad spur transportation (landing to make-up track) average
haul 3 miles; 5-15 million feet of timber per mile of road; cost per mile
$8,000.00 0.30
Logging main line — average haul 20 miles; 20 to 60 million feet of timber
per mile of road; cost per mile $12,000 0.80
Joint tariff common carrier roads of western Washington — distance of haul
40 miles - 2.50
Water transportation — average towing distance 50 miles 0.60
Approximate
rate
per mile
Dollars
7.001
12.001
9.251
9.501
1.60
2.401
1.05
Fixed
per acre
costs
Dollars
0.103
0.10'^
0.10-
0.10-'
0-0.10^
0.10^
0-0.30=*
10
11
12.
13
'Relay basis.
0.40
0.18
0.10
0.04
0.06
0.01-0.02
50-1.50:*
20-0.60*
-Rippinjr ahead.
:;Road construction.
XIX. POSSIBILITIES OF COST REDUCTION THROUGH ADAPTATION OF
MACHINERY AND METHODS UNDER CLEAR CUTTING
98. Planning of Logging Operations for Low
Cost Methods. — The logging operator wishing to
reduce costs through changes in mechanical
equipment or modifications of logging methods
and plans will consider first the possible adap-
tation of his existing layout. Possibilities along
these lines can be demonstrated best by com-
paring the layout of an existing operation with
that necessary if methods disclosed in these
studies as most effective are to be employed.
As briefly told in Table 49, and as previ-
ously discussed in Chapters V, VII and IX,
the greatest opportunities toward efficient,
low-cost logging enter through the use of the
crawler tractor, either for direct yarding or
for roading with or without previously pre-
pared roads, in combination — where uphill,
rough country, or wet weather logging is in-
volved— with the small sledded or tractor-
mounted high-lead yarder or the conventional
skyline swing system.
In using these methods or combinations of
methods, the operations should be planned
primarily for tractor logging with the more
expensive methods figured in only where un-
avoidable; and with reliance on railroad spurs
continuous and effective transportation.
The first step is to so skeletonize the railroad
system that the balance between yarding or
roading on the one hand and railroad spur con-
struction and operation on the other gives
every advantage to the cheaper method. Since
the chief strength of the tractor system, when
compared with conventional donkey log-
ging, lies in downhill roading or yarding over
relatively long distances this usually means
that railroads should be located at low altitudes
and water grades with main branches as needed
but with spur construction to the extent now
common, eliminated.
Just how far the skeletonizing of the rail-
road system may go will depend upon a number
of factors which must be evaluated separately
in each case. The reduction of railroad-spur
mileage, it should be noted, is not only a ques-
tion of reduced construction costs, but in bal-
ancing against the cost of tractor roading, in-
volves as well the cost of railroad maintenance
and train operation, and affects capital invest-
ments in railroad operating facilities.
82
Table 50
Comparison of operating costs as actually incurred and as possible under revised methods
(Not including interest or taxes)
Costs
actually
i red
Doll
per M b.m.
Group I — Ulainline transportation, booming, etc.
(a) Depreciation and maintenance including trackage and rolling stock (15.6
miles main line)
(b) Mainline operation
(c) Mainline maintenance
(d) Mainline depreciation of equipment
(e) Unloading, booming, rafting, towing, scaling, etc.
Total Group I __ _ 1 4g /
Group II — Spur Transportation
..".7
.30
.in
.25
.26
(a) Railroad spur construction and engineering
(b) Maintenance of spur track, speeder operation
(c) Switching and spur transportation
Total Group II
Group III — Loading (total)
Group IV — Swinging or roading
(a) Rigging ahead
(b) Swinging (skidders or donkeys)
to all logs
(c) Roading (tractors) $1.25 per M ft. on 80
(includes $0.25 for road construction)
.80 per M ft. on 70% of logs prorated
of logs prorated to all logs
Total Group IV
.95
.20
.22
1.37>
.30
.05
.56
.61
Group V — Yarding or cold decking
(a) Rigging ahead .20
( b) Yarding 1.50
Total Group V 1.70
Group 17 — Falling and Bucking (total) .96
Group VII — Administration and Fi)-c Protection
(a) Salaries and overhead
(b) Industrial insurance
(c) Other insurance
(d) Fire protection
Total Group VII.
Total comparative logging costs ..
.49
.11
.06
.10
.76
7.18
Costs if low-cost
methods covered
by this
i <■ applied
M b.m.
.57
.U)
1.48
.30
1.00
1.00
.10
.60
.70 /
.96
.49
.11
.06
.10
.76
5.20
99. Example — Comparison of Present with
Proposed Methods. — To demonstrate the prin-
ciples involved and that may follow the
proposed changes in logging methods, it is
well to consider a representative area (Fig-
ure 42) that has been nearly completely log-
ged by present methods. Cost of railroad
mainline and spurs is, therefore, definitely
known, as well as the entire logging costs.
Mainlines aggregating 17.2 miles and spurs
24.3 miles, inclusive of sidings and landing
tracks are shown on Figure 42 by two sym-
bols, one indicating mainline and branches that
would be retained under tractor logging, the
other showing spurs needed only for the pres-
ent method. To these are added the main
tractor roads necessary to t?ke the same tim-
ber out. A comparison of the itemized costs
by each method is shown in Table 50, with
some minor adjustments of overhead and in-
surance cost disregarded. The costs in the first
two columns (highlead and slack line logging)
are actual costs for the first six months of
1931 as to total, redistributed in a few items to
fit the classification here adopted. The last
two columns retain the same costs where they
apply as in mainline railroad transportation,
and utilize costs ascertained by this study for
gas yarders and tractors. A similar compar-
ison of capital investments under the two sys-
tems is given in Table 51.
83
Table 51
Comparison of capital investments under present system with proposed system
Average invest ments for 10-year period
Average investment in dollars
Present System Proposed System
Mainline railroad (IT. 2 miles) total cost $223,390 $111,695 $111,695
Railroad spurs (24.3 miles) total cost $234,390; average in use 46,858
Railroad steel, average in use 40,000 34,000
Locomotives 30,000 18,000
Log cars 28,800 24,480
Oil tank cars and oil storage tanks 6,000
Construction equipment 10,000 8,000
'"amp and camp equipment (including shop ami log dump) 15,000 15,000
Highlead unit including North Bend skyline equipment 15,000
Gasoline highlead varder 5,000
Slackline gasoline yarder - 12,000 12,000
Locomotive crane or jammer ..* - 12,000
3 (60-80 h.p.) gas yarders (1 sledded; 2 tractor mounted) 12,000
6 (60 h.p.) crawler tractors with arches 25,000
Miscellaneous 3,000 3,000
Liquid working capital 50,000 40,000
Total comparative investment $373,353 $315,175
100. Elimination of Spur Construction Leads to
Important Economies. — To the informed reader
the indicated saving of $1.98 per M feet b.m.
in operating costs (Table 50) accompanied by a
reduction of about 15 per cent in capital invest-
ments (Table 51) may seem unduly optimistic.
Analysis of the origin of the savings, however,
leaves little doubt of their actuality.
On this tract of only 300,000 M feet of tim-
ber, 24.3 miles of expensive railroad spur con-
struction, estimated to cost $234,290.00 could
have been eliminated by the revised method of
logging. The spur transportation costs (con-
struction and operation) averaged, for the first
six months of 1931, $1.37 per M feet b.m.; the
yarding, cold decking, swinging, and rigging
ahead, part and parcel of this method, amount-
ed to $2.31 per M or a total of $3.68. The pro-
posed method substitutes for these items $1.00
for tractor roading and $0.70 for short yarding
with tractors or gas donkeys, a total of $1.70.
The reduction in capital investments springs
mainly from the elimination of spur construc-
tion17 together with transportation facilities
which are associated therewith or of other oper-
ating facilities affected by the proposed changes
in operating methods; and from reduced re-
quirements for liquid working capital that fol-
lows reduced operating costs. The investment in
machinery employed in bringing the logs from
stump to car, on the other hand, is about
doubled.
17The corresponding ccst of tractor road construction is here treated
as a part of current logging cost the same as rigging ahead costs
under the present system of logging.
101. Substitution of Skyline Swinging for Trac-
tor Roading Offers Practical Solution of Difficult
Problems. — A part of the increased investment
in yarding machinery in Table 51 covers a sky-
line swinging outfit, although no account of this
is given in Table 50. In this discrepancy lies the
answer to many pertinent questions that might
be asked such as how practicable the proposed
plan might be, or how much costs might rise if,
on further detailed investigation, it be shown
that conditions do not actually permit the use
of tractors to the full extent indicated in Figure
42. Suppose it were found that some of the tim-
ber on areas lying below the railroad level could
not be roaded by tractors as proposed on the
map and that some of the steepest downhill log-
ging was also beyond the practical range of the
tractor system. Suppose further that the trac-
tor system, disabled in the winter time on ac-
count of heavy rains coupled with unfavorable
soil conditions could only be relied upon for six
months production per year, although eight to
ten months of production was essential for full-
time production. Such problems can be solved
with very little rise in costs by substituting the
skyline swing outfit for the roading tractors for
distances within reach of the skyline swing
(compare Figure 33).
A detailed study of a large-scale map of the
area shown in Figure 42 shows that, if it were
necessary to provide year-round logging, it
would be feasible to allocate to the skyline
swing about one half of the timber (about 40
per cent of the area) without moving the sky-
84
OPERATING MAP
SHOWING COMPARISON
BETWEEN
TRACTOR LOGGING
AND PRESENT METHOD
OF LOGGING
WITH HEAVY MACHINERY
LEGEND
MAINLINE RAILROAD AND BRANCHES
COMMON TO-BOTH METHODS
RAILROAD SPURS REQUIRED FOR
PRESENT METHODS ONLY
CONSTRUCTED TRACTOR ROADS
hgurcs snou length or tractor roads
in hundreds or TtCT
TRACK SPARS ^ REQUIRED FOR
HIGHLEAD COLD DECKS > PRESENT
SLACKLINE COLD DECK 5 J METHODS ONLY
JAMMER SETTINGS REQUIRED FOR
TRACTOR METHOD ONLY
MACMURED AREAS INDICATE STEEP GROUND TO BE YARDED WITM SMALL GAS D0NKET5 AND ROADED
TO JAMMER SETTINGS WITM CRAWLING TRACTORS ">OTMER AREA INDICATES fAVORABLE GROUND
TO BE fARDED DIRECT WITM CRAWLING TRACTORS
1906
:
!A '/2
CONTOUR INTERVAL
100 FEET
F|G 42 REPRESENTATIVE LOGGED OVER AREA: SHOWING OPERATING PLAN FOR ACTUAL
LOGGING WITH HEAVY MACHINERY AND THAT REQUIRED FOR TRACTOR LOGGING
85
line donkey away from the track. Under this
plan, then, that half of the timber beyond the
reach of the skyline swing would be logged dur-
ing the dry seasons, using the tractor roading
system, combined as needed with short distance
highlead yarding with small drum units. When
the wet season arrived, the skyline swing would
be brought into operation on areas adjacent to
the railroad tracks, using the same cold decking
and loading equipment as used in connection
with the tractor roading system. The costs
presented in Table 50 would thereby be in-
creased less than ten cents per M feet b.m.
Looking beyond costs into the question of
timber breakage and selectivity in logging there
is, however, every reason to believe that it would
be advantageous to confine skyline swinging to
a much smaller portion of the area than sug-
gested above. A study of this question gives
the following tentative allocation of timber:
(1) Fifty per cent to the tractor roading
system, comprising timber beyond the reach of
a single skyline swing. This will be operated
only during the dry season.
(2) Twenty per cent to the skyline swing
system, comprising areas within reach of a
single skyline swing which offer topographic
difficulties that may render the tractor system
either entirely impracticable or costlier than the
skyline system. This is allocated exclusively to
the skyline system except as this may be modi-
fied to some extent by possibilities to reduce
breakage through the use of tractors ; and ex-
cepting also that some of the timber within
about a 400-foot yarding distance of the track
may be allocated to the small highlead cold deck
units without the use of the swing donkey.
Operations in this timber, as here planned, are
to be confined to the wet season.
(3) Thirty per cent of optional territory, all
of which comes within reach of a single skyline
swing.
This area should be allocated to the tractor
system by reason of (a) lower costs and/or (b)
reduction of breakage and/or (c) the slectivity
offered by the flexible tractor system. Further-
more, portions of this area become in any case
the corridors through which the tractor road
system will extend into the exclusive tractor
territory mentioned above. Allocation to skyline
swinging of any of this area is justified only if
the advantages or necessity of a longer operat-
ing season offset the advantages obtainable
with the dry weather tractor roading system.
In the case at hand it is believed that the pro-
per balance of all factors calls for the allocation
of 70 per cent of the annual cut to the dry
weather tractor roading system, and 30 per
cent to the wet season skyline system, giving
an operating season of 8 to 10 months per year
as under the present system of logging. This
modification of the tractor plan proposed in
Figure 42 does not materially change the cost
comparison given in Table 50.
102. Further Modification to Solve Special Prob-
lems.— Many combinations can be made of
short-distance h'ghlead yarding, tractor road-
ing, and skyline swinging, although in the case
at hand the use of such combinations does not
appear necessary beyond the use of short-dis-
tance highlead cold decking for "feeding"
either the tractor or the skyline as heretofore
discussed. The chief importance of other com-
binations may be to permit of a practical solu-
tion of some particularly difficult logging prob-
lem. For example a dry-weather combination
may be effected whereby the skyline swing, lo-
cated at the track, relays ths logs from the end
of a tractor road system ; or, vice versa, the
skyline swing outfit may be used for yarding
out of a steep canyon located, for example, half
a mile away from the track, while the tractors
are used to "road" the same logs to a track
landing. By means of such combinations almost
any problem can be solved ; but costs will then
naturally rise above those claimed in Table 50.
The low costs here claimed for the tractor road-
ing system are based entirely on the direct
movement of logs from stump to track, except
that provision has been made for strictly short-
distance cold decking where needed. To substi-
tute for this a system of relaying the logs, with
one operation tied up with another, may make
an entirely different story as far as costs are
concerned. But it is significant, nevertheless,
that combinations can be devised for solving
difficult logging problems that otherwise might
make it impracticable to carry out the general
scheme of a skeletonized railroad system bal-
anced against low-cost long-distance roading.
103. Hauling by Motor Truck May Eliminate
Some Long Distance Roading. — Still further modi-
fication of the tractor roading plan outlined in
Figure 42 may be suggested. For example, sub-
stitution of motor trucks in the place of road-
ing tractors might be suggested for that timber
in Sections 6, 3, and 10 which lies more than
one mile from the track landing. Gradients of
roads needed to reach this timber can be kept
within the requirements of 15% for reason-
ably successful truck haul. On the strength of
86
the data presented in Chapter XIII for hauling
over rough and steep roads and allowing a reas-
onable cost for loading, the motor truck should
show a fair saving for the timber located one to
two miles from the railroad track; provided
that strictly dry weather hauling can be ar-
ranged with little extra cost for road mainte-
nance and construction over that required in
tractor roading or, if such extra costs have to
be incurred, that hauling cost may be corre-
spondingly reduced to compensate therefor.
Since truck hauling of logs is usually performed
by independent truck owners who hire out or
contract their services for short or seasonal
jobs, the occasional or seasonal introduction of
trucks does not raise the objections usually at-
tached to the acquisition of operating facilities
to meet special and temporary problems.
Aside from the possibilities of some reduc-
tion of costs for the distances involved in this
particular case, the introduction of the motor
truck into the picture is of interest in that it
permits further skeletonization of the railroad
system even to the extent of involving stump-
to-track hauls of several miles.
104. Some General Points Established from
Foregoing Comparisons. — The initial scheme of
roading as proposed in Figure 42 may thus
undergo many changes and modifications with-
out any serious consequences to the success of
the general plan. Its details may be changed,
but its broad features remain ; and its striking
superiority over the present system remains
substantially as shown in Tables 50 and 51 in
spite of the fact that in the final carrying out
of the plan the role played by tractor yarding
or roading may be restricted to a much nar-
rower field than at first contemplated.
In order to see clearly where the bulk of the
savings originates, attention is again called to
the striking economies that follow the skeleton-
ization of the railroad system. A more intimate
glimpse of the transportation picture shows
that under the proposed plan this area is amply
served by a total of about 16 miles of railroads
including the main line outside the logging area
proper; by one locomotive; by an average dis-
tance of haul of about 8 miles on roads with
fairly easy grades, good road bed and good
alinement. Under the present system of log-
ging, on the other hand, there are added to
this a good many, and very costly, "extras."
The construction of an additional 24 miles (in-
cluding landing tracks and sidings) of railroad
spurs with generally steep grades, sharp curves
and vary hi.'^h cost construction is thus a major
ii< m of cost which more than doubles total road
amortization charges. It, in turn, calls for
bringing in a second locomotive for handling
the added traffic created through the expansion
of the road system. The extra traffic created con-
sists not only of the added distance of haul,
which in this case amounts on the average to
only about two miles, but of a costlier type of
haul due to extra switching and break-up ol
trains in going from main lines to spurs. Extra
traffic is also created both on mainlines and
spurs through the hauling of ties, steel, tim-
bers, ballast, etc., needed for the added spur
construction and is further augmented by extra
moving of logging machinery and by many
ether minor chores connected either with the
increased construction or the increased num-
ber of track landings required under the pres-
ent system. There follows the added cost of
road maintenance, added wear and tear of the
rolling stock; also, the added investments re-
presented by an extra locomotive, extra steel,
ties, rolling stock, road construction machinery
and other facilities connected with the con-
struction of the roads. In the end the accumula-
tion of all these "extras" means just about a
doubling of railroad transportation costs as a
whole. The proposed plan eliminates this ex-
cess of railroad transportation and still retains
the simplicity of direct movement of logs from
stump to track, as rendered possible by the
strikingly low costs of relatively long distance
roading with tractors. In this combination of
utmost simplicity in the railroad set-up, coupled
with equal simplicity and directness in the
stump to track operations, lies, then, the
strength of the proposed plan.
It is not here argued that the average oper-
ation nor even that very many logging opera-
tions in this region would necessarily offer to
the proposed plan as striking an opportunity
for reduction of costs as that set out in the ex-
ample cited above. It may be a rather extreme
case. At the other extreme ma> be pictured the
type of operation in which, for example, the
economies represented in the elimination of
spurs may be negligible ; the type of operation
where construction costs are low ; where long
"switch-back" spurs are seldom required, and
where instead, spurs can be built to branch out
herring-bone fashion from the main stems
without adding perceptibly to the distance or
cost of rail haul ; and where, perhaps, only a
relatively small amount of steel rails and other
track supplies need be kept on hand for "relay"
87
branch-road construction. Between this type
of flat country operations, seldom encountered
in this region, and the type of operation shown
in Figure 42, there is probably to be found the
type of logging operation that most truly re-
presents this region insofar as the question of
logging railroad economy in general is con-
cerned.
The example cited above, whether extreme
or not, serves to focus attention on some of the
vulnerable features of the present highly com-
plicated system of logging. It brings to atten-
tion the fact that under the present system the
cost of transporting the logs from stump to
main spur sidings — a function that in effect
is performed in one continuous operation under
the tractor system — may often be pyramided to
excessive heights and still escape detection by
inadvertently disguising a wide array of miscel-
laneous items of costs under an equally wide
variety of confusing or misleading names and
titles. Finally, it brings to attention that in the
long run, if not from day to day, the logging
operator pays, so to speak, the "full machine
rate" cost, as heretofore defined, for each addi-
tional foot-pound of energy required in the pro-
duction of logs, because such additional costs
crop up ultimately and on the average in all the
various forms into which costs may be sub-
divided, whether they be a part of current
operating cost, general overhead, or capital in-
vestment cost.
105. Comparison Based on Clear Cutting is not
Final. — The comparisons made above have pro-
ceeded on the implied assumption that it is the
function of logging to remove and convert into
logs all the so-called "merchantable" timber on
an area ; and to do so all at once. In other words
the assumption here is that the present general
practice of wholesale clear cutting is the mode
to follow. In accepting this mode the criterion
of what is good and what is not so good in log-
ging procedure must necessarily be based, by
and large, on the general thesis that that meth-
od of clear-cut logging is best which costs the
least; with some modifications arising, for ex-
ample, by recognizing the importance of timber
breakage as affected by different methods of
logging.
On this basis of comparison the proposed
system, as demonstrated in the above example,
offers a substantial reduction of logging costs
as a whole. An interesting and important fea-
ture of these savings is that in the final analysis
they are reflected to a large extent in the re-
duction of fixed-per-acre costs rather than in
the reduction of those items of cost which vary
with the size of and are chargeable to individ-
ual trees and logs. This leaves the yarding-to-
pond, the bucking-to-pond, and the felling-to-
pond costs, as defined in Chapters XVI and XVII,
much the same as under the conventional donkey
logging system. The cost level of the variable
item may, of course, be reduced to some extent
and the size-to-cost relations may not show
quite so steep a trend as under conventional
donkey logging, but the contrast is not likely
to be much more striking than that shown in
Tables 47 and 48 (Chapter XVII) in compar-
ing Case Study No. 2, which represents a trac-
tor operation, with the other five case studies
which represent ordinary donkey operations
The opportunities for further cost reduction
by seriously attacking the problem of overcom-
ing the unreasonably high costs shown for
small logs and trees (Tables 47 and 48) still
remain virtually untouched.
With this and other factors yet to consider,
it will be seen that a clear understanding of the
function of logging, of the principles of selec-
tive appraisal of timber, of the opportunities
for reduction of costs through selective special-
ization, and of the objectives of sound timber
management is required in order to establish
a really sound basis for rating the relative
merits of different types of logging machinery,
logging methods, and logging practice. Ob-
viously if the objectives sought in logging are
changed, so also the methods of logging will be
changed. In the following chapters, it will be-
come more and more apparent that selective
logging, in one form or another, and usually in
several forms together, is a basic requirement
to effective and intelligent logging practice
both from the standpoint of operating efficiency
and from that of sound timber management.
This, in turn, means that other considerations
than the cost of clear-cut logging enter into the
equation that the logger must solve in charting
his course through the woods ; in deciding upon
what types of machinery and methods of log-
ging to use, and in deciding upon what timber
to cut and what not to cut. For these reasons
the comparison of logging costs drawn in the
preceding discussions should not be considered
closed by simply striking the balance on the
basis of clear cutting, but must be left open for
further consideration in the light of further
study of what the logger should strive to ac-
complish.
88
XX. POSSIBILITIES OF COST REDUCTION THROUGH SELECTIVE SPECIALIZATION
106. Specialization Reduces Cost of Small-timber
Logging in General. — It can readily be reasoned
that the size-to-cost relationships, shown in
Tables 47 and 48, Chapter XVII, which apply
in each case to trees and logs within an oper-
ating area that is logged in wholesale clear cut-
ting fashion as discussed in Section 96, prob-
ably do not apply from one operating area to
another, particularly if different equipment or
methods are used. In fact it is commonly recog-
nized that the cost of logging small timber,
particularly timber of fairly uniform size, us-
ing an operating layout, methods, and plan of
organization specially designed for small-tim-
ber logging, does not as a rule compare very
unfavorably with the cost of logging large tim-
ber ; at least not enough so to suggest any such
relationships as are indicated in Tables 47 and
48. And it is not reasonable that it should,
since the basis of comparison is not the same.
The term ''specialization" will here be used
to denote the adaptation of machinery, equip-
ment, methods, etc., to more closely fit the re-
quirements of different size classes of timber.
It will often go a long way toward the equali-
zation of logging costs. Its potency in this re-
spect, however, is often overrated, due to the
fact that specialization is frequently only one,
though on the average the most important one,
of several factors which together operate to
place the cost of small-timber logging in gen-
eral in a very favorable light in comparison
with the large timber. If these other factors
are eliminated, a truer and more reasonable
picture may be obtained.
As an example, consider the case of small-timber
versus large-timber logging in this region. General
cost data can be compiled to show that the small-
timber, and more particularly the second-growth,
operations as a group have a lower logging cost than
certain large-timber operations. But a most important
factor in this situation is that the small-timber opera-
tions as a group are situated in more favorable lo-
cations, closer to the market and/or are operating in
denser stands or on more favorable logging ground.18
Further than this, the pressure of competition operates
to force them into greater efficiency, and/or forces
the adoption of a lower wage scale or other measures
to accomplish the same purpose. Together with the
benefits actually gained through specialization these
and other factors combine to place a select number
of small-timber operations in a very favorable light
in comparing costs with large-timber logging. But
where the comparison through lack of natural ad-
ISThis in a large measure is the logical result of the broad selec-
tive program of the industry as a whole, whereby only areas of large
and choice timber in good locations were logged in the early days,
while in later years small-timber and second-growth areas in good
locations have been brought into production in competition with large
timber from less favored areas and locations.
vantages, etc., would fail to be favorable to the small-
timber operations, these are as a rule kept ou'
forced out, of production. The lower log values
which ordinarily go hand in hand with smaller timber
simply prohibit carrying on operations on a much
higher level of costs than in large timber with which
it must compete for a market.
General cost data are thus apt to be mislead-
ing. The comparisons are thrown askew
through the presence of factors which have
nothing to do with the point at issue and which
by the very nature of the question tend to hide
the basic disability of the small timber from a
direct and clear view. In extending the compar-
ison to other regions, for example, the picture
goes out of focus through differentials in wage
levels, which, when other measures fail and
provided that necessity demands, are adjusted
to keep the nominal cost of small-timber log-
ging at a comparatively low level.
Nevertheless, specialization in the broad
sense here discussed is a potent enough factor
to keep the cost of small-timber logging from
rising very far above that of large-timber log-
ging. It is to a large extent through specializa-
tion that, for example, the operator in Case
Study No. 4 is able to show nearly as low a
cost for a 600 board foot log as the operator in
Case Study No. 3 for a 1,600 board foot log.
Specialization in this case has been applied to
the tract as a whole, operating facilities and
methods having been adapted through all steps
from stump to pond to fit the requirements of a
fairly uniform type of timber of medium size.
Many similar cases may be cited. And there
are many instances where specialization along
somewhat similar lines is applied to individual
settings within any given logging operation,
though quite often, then, with relatively less
success on account of the difficulty under the
present scheme of logging of applying it to all
steps of the operation ; the initial yarding oper-
ation frequently being the only activity to bene-
fit in full.
107. Selective Specialization is Needed in this
Region. — Specialization, broadly applied from
region to region, tract to tract, or setting to
setting along the lines discussed above, is a part
of the general operating policy of the industry
as a whole. This is specialization in its broadest
form. As such it shows in a general waj what
specialization tends to do. Many instances
might be cited to prove its effectiveness. With
specialization out of the picture some mighty
important upheavals in the line-up of the lum-
ber industry would no doubt occur.
89
But specialization along these broad, general
lines, if followed up by the present system of
clear cutting as practiced in this region, does
not really carry the idea of specialization into
the woods. It reaches to the outskirts of the
timber but does net enter. It fails to cater to
the speeitie needs of the individual log or tree,
or, in a more practical sense, to specific size
classes oi' logs or trees which occur within any
given unit of operating area. Specialization in
the latter sense shall hereinafter be termed
"selective specialization," since it obviously
would call for the selective removal of various
?ize groups of timber occupying the same site,
with each group to be logged in a manner that
befits its size and style.
In principle, the need for selective speciali-
zation to fit the specific requirements of vari-
ous size classes of logs or trees within an oper-
ating area is, obviously, just as great as the
need to fit the same requirements from stand
to stand, from tract to tract, or from region to
region. If the spread in log or tree sizes within
the area is large, the potential opportunities
for selective specialization become correspond-
ingly large. They disappear only if the differ-
entials in size disappear; a situation which
from a practical point of view would arise, for
example, in a second-growth stand of even-
aged timber in which the diameters of the mer-
chantable trees vary within comparatively
narrow limits. As a general rule, then, special-
ization as applied to a stand as a whole does
not do a complete job unless, in the practical
sense, the timber happens to be exceptionally
uniform in size.
In virgin timber areas typical of this region
th2 range in size is generally very wide. Even
in so-called uniform even-aged stands of medi-
um size virgin timber the merchantable trees
will commonly be found to range from 16 to
60 inches in diameter; and logs from 100 to
4,000 board feet in volume with a sprinkling
of other sizes both above and below. It is
against this general background of sharp con-
trasts in log and tree sizss that a real oppor-
tunity is created for successful application of
selective specialization.
A representative picture of the cost problem
that selective specialization should aim to solve
may be obtained by referring back to Tables
47 and 48 in Chapter XVII. In these tables the
data represent six different logging operations
— or, for purposes of illustration, they may also
be considered as six different settings within a
given timber property — each one representing
;> different type of timber. The average log
from study to study varies from 400 to 1,600
board feet; the total spread in log size within
each study, generally from 100 to 4,000 board
feet or more. A certain degree of specialization
has been attained in each case to fit the general
character of the timber. The small-timber
operations for this and other reasons show
lower costs for a given size of logs or trees,
particularly for the smallest size classes. But
compared with the large-timber operations they
suffer instead from having a much greater per-
centage of the total volume of timber in the
smallest size classes. Their particular small log
problem, therefore, has simply shifted its cen-
ter of gravity toward a smaller log along with
the decline in the size of the average log; and
remains just as acute a problem as in the high-
er-cost large-timber operations. In this sense a
log of 300 board feet volume might occupy the
same relative cost position in a large timber
operation as a 100 board foot log in a small-
timber operation; a "small" log being only a
relative term to fit various types of timber.
108. An Estimate of Potential Possibilities for
Cost Reduction Through Selective Specialization. —
To better visualize what specialization might
do in these particular types of stands, the fol-
lowing table (Table 52) has been set up in
which (in the upper section of the table) yard-
ing-to-pond costs for six different log sizes, as
r.ad from the last column to the right in Table
47, are contrasted with the cost theoretically
attainable if specialization can be applied to
the nth degree and successfully enough to re-
move all handicaps against the small log except
that of increasing weight and bulk per board
foot log scale. This trend then, is that of the
changing cubic-foot-to-board-foot ratio, as read
from Curve VI, Figure 39.19 In the lower sec-
tion of the table the same comparison is given
covering falling-to-pond costs for trees of vari-
ous diameters. The trend of felling and bucking
costs is here assumed to be the same for selec-
tive specialization as for present logging prac-
tice (Figure 41). This gives a slightly different
composite trend of felling-to-pond costs for
trees than of yarding-to-pond costs for logs.
'"Costs, if expressed in terms of dollars per cubic foot (or pet
cord, etc.) instead of per hoard foot, log scale, would on this basis
remain constant for all log sizes.
90
Table 52
Comparison of relation of size of log and tree to logging
cost* — conventional logging -practice versus
selective specialization-
Cost in dollars per M ft., gr. log scale
(Scribner Decimal C)
Conventional Selective
clear-cutting specialization
Log or tree size practice to the nth degree'2
Volume, ft.b.m. > Logs: Yard'mg-to-pond-costs >
100 22.75 3.80
200 12.78 2.90
400 6.75 2.47
800 4.08 2.22
1,600 2.70 2.10
3,200 (base) 2.06 2.06
Inches — D.B.H. / Trees : Felling-to-pond costs >
16 21.06 6.80
20 14.36 5.00
24 10.26 4.25
32 6.43 3.72
40 4.90 3.40
60 (base) 3.35 3.35
'Excludes "fixed per acre costs" (such as road construction, rigging
ahead, etc.).
-Based on assumptions stated in text.
Here, then, are two entirely different views
of the relation of size of log or tree to logging
costs ; both show the same logs and trees on the
same area, one showing the relations which
arise if the timber is logged in wholesale clear
cutting fashion using methods and machinery
typical of this region, the other, the relations
which may arise under the most intensive sys-
tem of specialization, using methods and oper-
ating facilities best adapted for each particular
size class of logs and trees.
The inherent weakness of the present whole-
sale clear cutting system as practiced in this
region and as applied to the type of timber that
is characteristic of this region is here sharply
exposed in principle. It shuts the door on spe-
cialization, and proceeds instead on the theory
that what is good for one log — and this, by
the very nature of the system so created, must
necessarily mean a large log — is good enough
for another. As a result, costs are relatively
high except for t:he particular size class of logs
for which the system has been designed to give
its maximum degree of efficiency. They rise,
as shown in the table, to unreasonable heights,
heading rapidly for infinity if extended very
far beyond the 100 board feet log size. At this
point one can readily see that by enlisting the
aid of the "pole man," the "tie hack," the "pulp-
wcod cutter" and their allies in the small log
business costs can again be restored to a rea-
sonable level. In other words, the idea of selec-
tive specialization can no longer be suppressed,
when the present system finally gets so far out
ci bounds that one is forced to recognize, with
or without the aid of selectr •
that the peavy or horse rather than the cor.
tional types of logging machinery is the
to efficiency in the woods operations; the staked
car, the flat car, or the wood car, the key to
efficiency in the railroad operations. The •
sent system often yields to these particular
forms of selective specialization, but, surely,
not quite so generally as would be the cas<- if
the unreasonably high cost of handling small
logs under the present system were clearly
cgnized ; and, in principle, surely not so gener-
ally as might be the case if a planned system
of selective specialization for each major size
group of timber could be worked out in a prac-
tical manner in laying out and organizing the
operation as a whole.
It must be recognized, of course, that the
real trend of costs under selective specializa-
tion can not very well be held down in practice,
and hardly even in theory, to quite so slow a
rise as that shown in Table 52. There the as-
sumption, as stated, goes all the way to the nth
degree. It assumes that between the "one-horse
outfit" and the present types of large logging
machinery, and between the box car and the
unstaked disconnected steel trucks the logger
will be able to select or devise the correct type
of operating layouts to so fit the requirements
of each size group of logs as to wipe out all
differentials in cost except the basic weight,
bulk, and log making differentials as hereto-
fore discussed. This assumption is quite rea-
sonable in connection with some phases of the
logging operation, but not so reasonable for
others. It can be made to apply very closely,
for example, to the railroad operations, since
it is only a question of car length, bunk width,
side stakes, etc., to so adapt the railroad cars
that they will carry as great a weight of a size
group of small logs as of large ones; or even
in the form of cordwood, pulp chips, or other
forms of wood products. The same thing is
true of motor truck or tractor hauling, or any
form of transport that can be adapted for
hauling of logs in some form of standardized
"unit loads." But in other activities of the log-
ging operation, where logs have to be handled
piece by piece, or where it is impracticable to
build up standardized unit loads as, for ex-
ample, in direct yarding with donkeys the
small logs are at a disadvantage. This, however,
might not be a very serious handicap if the
"unit load" system can be carried back close to
the stump, thus making a minor task (such as
a low-cost "bunching" job) of the initial yard-
91
ing operations. These are the genera] lines
along which the small-log- regions have worked
out their small-log problems. They appear to
be applicable to this region under the condi-
tions and plans discussed in the next chapter.
109. Flexibility in the Yarding Operation is
Essential. — In Chapter XXII the question of
applying and adapting the principles here dis-
cussed to the operating problems and physical
conditions that are a part of the general log-
ging picture of this region will be touched upon
in the light of the operating plans followed and
the results obtained in a recent series of selec-
tive logging experiments reported in Chapter
XXI. There it will be shown that under the
plan followed and under the conditions given,
theory may be translated into practice without
losing much of the strength claimed in Table
52.
The general procedure in a plan of selective
specialization, as here invisaged, is to classify
the trees into diameter or tree volume groups.
Three major size groups — a large, medium and
small-timber group — may be sufficient in the
typical operation in virgin timber. Each of
these groups is treated as if it were a separate
stand, with only one thing in common with the
other groups, namely, the road system. Each
group, then, is logged separately, using an op-
erating layout that is specially adapted for it
all the way from stump to pond ; different types
of railroad cars, different types of loading ma-
chinery and different types of yarding machin-
ery. Further specialization may be applied in
the initial yarding or bunching operations
within each major size group. The three major
size groups may be logged one after another in
rapid succession if the stand is to be clear cut
at once. Or, better yet, from many viewpoints,
they may be logged years apart if the stand is
to be selectively cut and managed.
In this program of selective removal of var-
ious size groups of timber, the stump-to-car
operations must necessarily be performed with
the most mobile types of machinery, using the
most flexible methods of operation. Horses,
motor trucks, small tractors, large tractors, and
tractor-mounted "donkeys" (designed for short
distance "ground lead" or "semi-highlead"
yarding) all free to shift about over a closely
spaced network of cheaply constructed "tractor
roads" with virtually no moving and rigging-
ahead costs to reckon with, are the most prom-
ising answers to this demand for mobility and
selectivity. To what extent and under what con-
ditions they are also the answer to low costs
even if selection were not to be considered at
all has heretofore been discussed, and is again
demonstrated in the logging experiment report-
ed in the following pages.
The conventional system of high-power
donkey yarding does not fit in with this scheme
of operation. It is not designed for mobility of
the kind demanded here. It is not designed for
reaching into a stand of timber to remove a
certain size group of trees and to leave the
others; and then to repeat this perform-
ance three or four times in succession by mov-
ing in other donkeys to remove other size
groups of timber. Nor is it designed for first
clear cutting a stand of timber and then at-
tempting to pick out first one size group of logs
and then another.
110. Clear Cutting Leads to Inefficiency in all
Phases of Operation. — The method of yarding,
then, is a controlling factor in deciding what
can be done with the theory of selective special-
ization. Donkey logging of the conventional
style goes out of the picture when selective
specialization comes in ; and vice versa.
This leads to an interesting question : How
much may selective specialization be worth for
raising the efficiency of activities other than
the initial yarding operation? And how much
may this add to the true, comparative cost of
a yarding method that precludes the possibility
of applying selective specialization in compari-
son with a method that makes it practicable to
apply it?
Consider the railroad operations, for ex-
ample. Log cars or trucks used in the opera-
tions covered in carloading studies reported
in Chapter XII are rated generally at 80,000
pounds load carrying capacity. According to
rough calculations, the average load of large
logs, taking loads averaging 1,200 board feet
and larger per log, weighed approximately 80,-
000 pounds. That is to say, this group of large
logs (or trees) made on the average full use of
the normal capacity of the cars on which it
was carried. But in the same studies the aver-
age car, taking in all log sizes, carried only
slightly over 50,000 pounds of logs. This is the
situation created by providing facilities jfor
large logs and then using them also for small
logs. Under selective specialization, this type
of cars would be used only for the large size
class of timber, while staked cars, wider, long-
er, or lighter cars would be used for the small-
er logs so that for each major size group it
would be possible to utilize approximately the
92
full normal carrying capacity of the cars. This
means, roughly, that in transporting the logs
produced in the average logging operation cov-
ered in these studies the present system re-
quires about 50 per cent more log cars, 50 per
cent more locomotives, and 50 per cent more
"car miles" and "locomotive miles" of travel
than would be required to transport the same
total volume of logs under selective specializa-
tion. Since these added investments and oper-
ating costs are brought about as the result of
the present indiscriminate system of yarding
and lack of selective policy, they, for purposes
of comparing a different plan of yarding, must
be considered a part of the present yarding
layout and costs rather than a part of railroad
transportation.
The same line of thought should be applied
in re-examining, for example, the booming and
sorting operation, the loading operation I
Table 40), or other activities which are sim-
ilarly affected by lack of standardization in log
size. By thus going over the whole operation
from the pond back toward the stump and
charging the cost of this particular type of
basic inefficiency to the yarding operation
whence it originates, a more realistic view will
be had of how much the initial yarding opera-
tion actually costs and what the relative merits
may be of two entirely different plans of oper-
ation using entirely different methods of yard-
ing.
XXI. AN EXPERIMENT IN TRACTOR LOGGING AND TREE SELECTION POINTS THE
WAY TO A NEW LOGGING PLAN
111. Experiment Needed to Verify Conclusions
Reached in Studies. — The findings in the reported
time and cost studies when first analyzed left
many questions to be answered, doubts to be
solved, and possibilities to be looked into. The
greatest opportunities for increased efficiency
and for increased flexibility which would facili-
tate intensive tree selection appeared to lie in
the use of tractors. For these a far greater use-
fulness than they have had in the past in this
region could be envisaged through the con-
struction of a dense network of cheaply built
tractor roads. By this means the best features
found in the previously reported roading study
— namely, a high degree of efficiency and appli-
cability to difficult terrain — could be obtained
and at the same time provide selectivity in log-
ging at a low cost, eliminating, as far as pos-
sible, cold deck donkeys through extremely
close spacing of tractor roads.
But, where the greatest possibilities seemed
to lie, there was a lack of fundamental infor-
mation which was badly needed. No reliable
information existed as to what the approximate
average cost might be of constructing service-
able tractor roads in forest areas typical of
this region — a most pertinent question, of
course, in a general plan calling for so vast a
number of roads. The data on roading costs
were furthermore rather meager. And no in-
formation existed as to what might happen to
yarding efficiency and size-to-cost relations un-
der a scheme of intensive selection.
Actual logging experiments were needed
whereby new logging methods could be tried
and the results recorded and analyzed. Credit
for venturing into this line of experimentation
belongs to the management of one of the larg-
est logging operations of this region. They un-
hesitatingly closed down their well equipped
steam logging operations and started instead
to test equipment, methods, and ideas which
heretofore have been considered impracticable
for the type of timber and logging conditions
with which they have to deal. This not only
gave the desired information, but proved to be
a gratifyingly profitable venture even while in
the experimental stage.
Some of the more general conclusions and
findings reached in these experiments have al-
ready been incorporated in preceding discus-
sions of the possibilities and general applica-
bility of the tractor roading system. In the fol-
lowing pages, however, is given a more direct
and detailed discussion of the logging condi-
tions, the yarding technic developed, and what
the results have disclosed.
Mr. John E. Liersch, studying under a fellow-
ship granted by the Charles Lathrop Pack For-
est Education Board, and working in coopera-
tion with the author, followed this project
through from beginning to end, compiled the
data and analyzed the results. It is from his
report-0 that most of the following cost data,
photographs, map, and direct quotations are
taken.
""Liersch, John E. : Report on Selective Loggias Experiments:
Unpublished manuscript.
93
PLAN OF
TRACTOR LOGGING OPERATION
LEGEND
s TRACTOR ROAD
— SETTING BOUNDARY
■» HIGHLEAD SETTING BOUNDARY
Fig. 43 PLAN OF EXPERIMENTAL TRACTOR LOGGING OPERATION
112. Description of Study Area and Logging
Conditions. — The experiments were conducted in
a typical stand of spruce-hemlock-fir which is
found throughout the coastal fog belt of this
region. The experimental area as shown by the
accompanying map (Fig. 43) comprises about
200 acres. It is representative in all respects
of the type of timber, ground conditions, and
topography on which donkey logging had been
conducted; some of the adjoining areas had
already been so logged and the experimental
area would have been next in line had the trac-
tor logging experiment not disrupted previous
plans.
Liersch describes the study area and experi-
ments as follows:
"In general the soil consists of a top layer of duff_
and clay loam about 12 inches thick under which a
94
stratum of pure clay of varying depth is found. It is
this type of soil which makes it practically impossTBTe
to operate tractors after heavy rains. Small patcnfis
of 'blue clay' are frequently encountered which have
to be scrupulously avoided in building roads, as they
form permanent 'soft spots' which make roading ex-
tremely difficult.
"The ground surface was rough, the windfalls few,
and the underbrush dense, consisting of vine maple,
salmon berry, alder, and willow.
"Slopes as shown in Figure 4.'! varied generally from
leveled 40 per cent, except for a few short steeper
stretches.
"The stand of timber averaged slightly over 40,000
board feet per acre, and by 10-acre subdivisions varied
from 30,000 to 60,000 board feet per acre. It consisted
of veteran spruce trees and occasional Douglas firs
ranging generally from 5 to 10 feet in diameter
breast high with an understory of hemlock, white fir,
and spruce up to 5 feet in diameter. The average log
cut on the area scaled about 1,400 board feet.
113. General Logging Plan and Methods:
"The map of the logging plan is shown in Figure 43.
The railroad spur shown in the lower boundary of the
map had been located for donkey logging and there-
fore failed to provide as advantageous locations for
tractor landings as might otherwise have been the
case. Along this spur, landings (Figure 44) were
constructed, each landing serving a setting as shown
on the map.
"Tractor roads were built before any of the timber
was cut, and in genaral were located at approximately
right angles to the contours. They followed the undu-
lations of the ground without attempting to secure
uniform grades by balancing cuts and fills as is done
in railroad construction. Roads were constructed with
r, tractor equipped with a 'bull-dozer' (Figure 45),
r.nd the ground was simply cleared and leveled to a
width of about fourteen feet. Grades varied from
5 per cent adverse to 30 per cent favorable, steeper
grades being avoided by detouring.
"After the roads were built the trees were felled
and bucked. Two 60 h.p. tractors drawing fair-lead
arches were then used for roading the logs to the land-
ing where they were loaded on cars with a locomotive
crane (Figure 44). Logs within a reasonable dis-
tance of the tractor roads were direct-yarded either
by taking the fair-lead line to the logs, or where con-
ditions permitted, by backing the tractor and arch off
the road to get closer to the logs."
"Where the area was not adequately served by
closely spaced roads, a double drum unit mounted on
a 60 h.p. tractor (Figure 3, Chapter II) was used for
high-leading the logs to the roads from which they
were roaded to the landing with the roading tractors.
For the yarding, spar trees were rigged with four
guy lines, the high-lead block being usually hung at an
elevation of 100 feet or higher. Logs scaling over
4,000 feet frequently required a block purchase, but
otherwise did not cause any difficulties. Yarding dis-
tances rarely exceeded 500 feet and the average set-
ting embraced about 4 to 5 acres as is shown on the
accompanying map (Figure 43).
"The first area to be logged was the upper half of
Setting No. 1, which was followed in turn by the lower
half and then by the other settings in the order of their
numbering on the map. At first, roads were built as
straight as possible and any obstacles in the way were
blasted, the total cost of construction being about
$400.00 per mile. As logging progressed alinement
standards were gradually modified and the roads more
frequently detoured around stumps to avoid blasting.
It was possible to haul logs up to 64 feet in length
"'^hout a noticeable loss in travel time in following
the windings of the road. A- the 'bull-*!
became more ace, ••> his work the
building was considerably a winding
loads of Setting 5 cost only \
compared to $400 for the roads in Setting 1. As the
cost of construction was reduced, mor<
built, and as logging progressed from Setting
these were spaced more closelj
map (Figure 43)."
114. Reduction in Road Construction Cost Leads
to a Denser Network of Tractor Roads:
It will be seen from the map (Figure 13)
that where the dense road systems are built
(as in Settings 3 and 4, and on most of the area
embraced by Settings 2 and 5), high-lead yard-
ing is entirely dispensed with, and the logs are
direct-yarded with the roading tractor^. On
these areas an average of about 250 feet of
roads was built per acre or at the rate of about
30 miles per section of timber. If uniformly
spaced and lined up parallel to each other, these
roads would be only 176 feet apart and the aver-
age distance from center of stump to center of
nearest road only 44 feet. Allowing for branch-
ing and winding of the roads, the average ac-
tual distance from the stump to Lhe nearest
road is less than 60 feet. It was the policy in
locating the roads, particularly the short
branch roads, to have them pass by the larger
trees so that these could be felled across the
road in such a way that it would be easy to get
the fair-lead arch close to the logs, and thereby
eliminate the problem of ground-leading the
heavy logs, some of which scaled over 6,000
board feet (see Figure 46). Trees of small or
medium size, on the other hand, were usually
felled quartering away from the road so that
the heavy brush and tops would be clear of the
yarding operations. Logs from these trees of-
fered as a rule no difficulties in ground-leading
with the fair-lead line over distances up to
about 100 feet. As a result of this policy, it was
found that on the average it required no more
time to make up a turn of logs in direct-road-
ing than in roading from the high-lead cold
decks.
This leads to an interesting comparison be-
tween the intensive roading system as exem-
plified, for instance, by setting No. 3 and the
less intensive system represented by a large por-
tion of Setting 1. Placing the cost of road con-
struction at $200 per mile and the stand \ olume
at 40 M feet b.m. per acre it costs only $0.25 per
M to provide an intensive road system of 250 feet
"This cost includes all items connected with the bull dozei
ation. based on a "full machine rate" of $33.37 per 8-hour ii. ■•
tractor and two men, and includes blasting of stun- s
roads, -11111 mad maintenance as well as some time spent on helping
the roading trai ids over adverse grades.
95
Fig. 44 (Left) A WELL LEVELED. ROOMY LANDING TO WHICH THE TRACTORS DELIVER THE
LOGS: (Right) LOCOMOTIVE CRANE WITH HEAD BOOM LOADING LOGS FROM TRACTOR LANDING
Fig. 45 THE BULL-DOZER'' AT WORK. GRADING IS PERFORMED
MOST EFFICIENTLY BY WORKING DOWNHILL
of roads per acre (i.e., sufficient roads to give
as high a degree of efficiency in the direct-
roading operation as in roading from the high-
lead landings). In contrast to this the cost of
high-leading the logs to the tractor roads was
$0.65 per M, a difference of $0.40 in favor of
the intensive roading system. An examination
of the map shows that roads can be built into
the high-lead areas just about as easily as into
the direct roading areas, there being no topo-
graphic or other difficulties to prevent this.
This situation was not recognized until after
96
FIG. 46 (Left) TRACTOR ROAD CONSTRUCTED WITH "BULL-DOZER AT A COST OF S200 A MILE:
(Upper Right) HAULING A 5.6 M FT.B.M. LOG I.IOO FEET TO THE LANDING AT A COST OF 22
CENTS PER M; (LOWER Right) ROADING A 6.2 M FT.B.M. LOG WITH THE AID OF A HELPER TRACTOR
48 HOURS AFTER A HEAVY RAIN
F|G 47 (LEFT) WINDING TRACTOR ROAD ON 20 PER CENT GRADE: (Right) BUTT LOGS FROM
TREES UNDER FIVE FEET IN DIAMETER WERE USUALLY TAKEN IN 56 OR 64 FOOT LENGTHS
97
the whole area had boon logged and the cost
data had boon assembled and compared. At the
beginning of the experiments high-lead yard-
ing was accepted as a necessary part of the pro-
posed system, in fact as the very key to the
practicability thereof, because it was confident-
ly exepected that, although the direct roading
scheme might fit certain portions of the area,
it would not fit all of it. Were the job to be done
over again, the high-lead could very well be
eliminated with the intensive roading system
making a clean sweep of the whole area. The
logging plan shown in Figure 43 should there-
fore be looked upon merely as a record of the
evolution of the roading system, beginning with
the combination of roading. first, with high-
lead cold decking, second, with high-lead hot
yarding, and as a climax, direct-roading. The
high-lead, of course, may reenter the picture on
steeper or rougher areas than those shown in
the map.
115. Object and Plan of Tree Selection Experi-
ments.— After the first general experimenting
with road construction and yarding methods
had established the practicability and led to the
adoption of the intensive roading system as
illustrated by Setting No. 3 in Figure 43, the
experiment w7as directed toward the question of
intensive tree selection. Here it was desired to
determine the feasibility of logging the timber
in several successive cuts and what increase
or decrease of cost, if any, results from such a
procedure.
To throw light on this question three repre-
sentative areas comprising a total of 54 acres
were laid out for careful study. Detailed re-
ports on Study Plots Nos. 1 and 2 as reported
by Liersch are briefed as follows :
"Study Plot No. 1 comprises 6.8 acres, with a
volume of 411,680 board feet, or about 00,000 board
foot per acre. It is located in Setting- No. •'!.
"Study Plot No. 2 amounts to 11.4 acres, with a
stand volume of 410,530 board feet, or 30,000 board
feet per acre. It is located in the center of Setting-
No. 5, comprising the entire area enclosed within the
double loop of tractor roads shown on the topographic
map. The stand volumes given represent volumes
actually removed. On both study plots the distribu-
tion of stems was fairly uniform throughout.
"The trees on the study plots were first classified
and marked for three separate cuts. The first cut
included all trees above 40 inches in diameter breast
high; the second, trees between 30 and 40 inches; and
the third, trees below 30 inches, the minimum di-
ameter reaching 18 inches for trees that were well
shaped enough to yield a fairly good 50-foot or
04-foot log.
"The fallers were instructed to fell only the trees
which were marked for the particular felling on which
they were working. In felling the first cut, there was
little leeway in choosing the felling direction because
of the size of the timber. In a few cases the situation
would therefore arise where certain trees marked for
a subsequent cut would be in the way of larger trees,
which made it necessary to fell them along with the
first cut.
"After a portion of the first cut had been felled
and bucked, the yarding-roading operation was started
and all logs from the first cut were removed; the
second and third cuts were subsequently logged in
the same manner. Portions of the stand within each
study plot were set aside as check plots for logging
of all three size groups in one cut (i.e. for ordinary
clear cutting) so as to obtain a basis for comparison
of the cost of clear-cutting with selective cutting."
116. Results Show Advantages of Tree Selec-
tion.— Detailed time and cost studies were kept
on every turn taken from the plots, together
with information as to the number and volume
Table 53
Comparison of clear cutting with selective cutting for various sizes of trees and logs
Plot No. J — Average roading distance, 650 feet
Output
Percent Volume Logs > Time per turn \rateper
Size class Volume of total per per Average Haul Hook- Haul- Un- Total 8-hour Cost per
d.b.h. logged^ volume turn turn log back up ing hook Delays trip-time day M ft.b.m.2
Inches Ft.b.m. Per cent Ft.b.m. No. Ft.b.m. Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Min. Mft.b.m. Dollars
40 and over.. .... 222,793 03.0 4,050 1.13 3,593 3.40 3.08 3.30 0.59 1.54 12.03 154 0.23
30-40 74,839 20.9 2,138 2.00 1,040 3.40 5.47 2.89 0.70 1.54 14.12 73 0.50
18-30 53,059 15.5 1,490 2.47 017 3.40 5.97 2.00 0.80 1.54 14.43 50 0.73
Weighted av.
all sizes 351,291 100.0 2,788 1.90 1,400 3.40 4.41 3.14 0.07 1.54 13.22 101 0.30
Mixed cut
all sizes 59,202 _3 2,280 2.27 1,022 3.40 5.75 2.95 0.88 1.54 14.58 75 0.48
Plot No. 2 — Average roading distance 1,100 feet
40 and over. ... 211,555 55.8 3,840 1.18 3,255 4.73 4.14 5.07 0.78 1.54 10.20 114 0.32
30-40 124,581 32.8 2,350 2.19 1,074 4.73 5.41 4.70 0.88 1.54 17.20 05 0.55
18-30 43,200 11.4 1,000 2.59 017 4.73 5.44 3.84 0.79 1.54 10.34 47 0.77
Weighted av.
all sizes 379,330 100.0 2,810 1.94 1,445 4.73 4.71 4.81 0.81 1.54 10.00 81 0.45
Mixed cut
all sizes 32,347 ....3 2,022 2.12 951 4.73 5.78 4.32 0.82 1.54 17.19 50 0.04
'Spaulding Log Scale. 2Costs are based on full machine rate of $36.04 per 8-hour day for tractor, arch and crew.
sThe mixed cut shows the following percentage distribution of volume:
(1) Plot 1: First cut, 35.6 per cent; second cut, 39.0 per cent; third cut, 25.4 per cent.
(2) Plot 2 shows 25, 47, and 28 per cent respectively.
98
of logs per turn and distance of haul. The re-
sults are tabulated in Table 53. The data for
the mixed cut represents the check plots that
were clear cut.
The table shows that the cost relation be-
tween the three separate cuts are approximate-
ly in the ratio of 1 :2:3 on both plofs. Thus on
Plot 1 the large-timber cut cost $0.23 per M;
the medium timber, $0.50; and the small tim-
ber, $0.73. On Plot 2 the three cuts cost $0.32,
$0.55 and $0.77, respectively. These relations
are practically identical with the relations
shown for the same distances and log sizes in
the tractor yarding study reported in Table 5,
Chapter IV. Table 5 represents costs allocated
to "sorted" log sizes, while Table 53 is based
on average log sizes of the three separate cuts.
Probably the most interesting result of the
experiment was that it is possible to practice
tree selection by removing timber in successive
cuts and to do so at a cost below that of clear
cutting. On Plot 1, according to Table 53, the
average cost of logging trees 18 inches in dia-
meter and over was 36 cents per M b.m. and for
clear cutting (mixed cutting) 48 cents. This
same advantage of the three-cut method is
shown by Plot 2 where the respective costs are
45 cents and 64 cents.
In laying out the plots a conscious effort was
made to have the portion which was selectively
cut of the same character and size classes as
the check plots which were clear cut. Unfor-
tunately, however, analysis of the data showed
that the clear cut areas had a smaller repre-
sentation of the larger size classes and conse-
quently a higher logging cost. To obtain a very
precise comparison between selective cutting
and clear cutting, a recapitulation was made
for the portion of each plot that was clear cut.
To do this the percentage of each size class
making up the total volume (footnote 3, Table
53) was multiplied by the cost for each size
class when logged selectively and the cost com-
pared with that actually obtained in the clear
cutting experiment. The result showed that the
clear cut portion of Plot 1 could have been
logged in three cuts for 46 cents per M whereas
it actually cost 48 cents. On Plot 2 the saving
would have been still greater, the cost by the
three-cut method being 55 cents per M and by
the mixed cut 64 cents.
In other words on Plot 1, after adjusting for
difference in log size, the cost was two cents
per M less than if the same logs had all been
logged together and on Plot 2, nine cents less —
a saving of 4 and 16 per cent, respectively. The
savings arc probably due to the opportune
offered in selection to standardize the work and
to have the size of the; rigging and the
the crew in harmony with the size of the 1
When logs of all sizes are mixed a one-log turn
will require only one choker while a turn of
small logs will require fi .<■ ov six. Under thi
conditions, the hooker will often be short of
chokers and at other times have more than nec-
essary. Large logs and small logs, long log- and
short logs do not mix well in the- loads and the
hooker's judgment of what constitutes a good
load is less reliable when uniformity in log
is lacking.
Another point of importance to the operator
is that some of the problems in felling and
bucking are simplified. Experienced fallers can
be selected for felling the large valuable trees
while the mediocre fallers can be assigned to
the smaller trees in the second and third cuts.
Besides reducing breakage, criss-crossing of
timber will be avoided and the work of the
buckers will be greatly simplified. Felling need
be done only a day or two ahead of the roading
and less money is tied up in felled and bucked
timber; the fire risk also will be small because
the felled trees are scattered about in the shade
of the forest.
The flexibility of the roading system, it was
further found, could be carried considerably
beyond the general scheme of removing the tim-
ber in three cuts. The woods superintendent
thus discovered that he could stay at the landing
and to a certain extent direct intensive selec-
ion of logs to serve whatever purpose he had
in mind. If he temporarily wanted more of a
certain type of logs for bunk loads, he would
give orders to that effect to the tractor drivers
and logs of the type desired would soon begin
to arrive at the landing; and if he wanted some
particular type of logs to "top off" the loads,
he would so order and it would be so done. In
ether words, a high degree of selective control
could be obtained, particular1:' in removing the
"first cut" where practically every log is a sepa-
rate load and, therefore, can be dealt with
individually.
"All this evidence points to the conclusion that even
if an operator plans to clear cut an area, it will be an
advantage to fell and log the timber in several suc-
cessive cuts. Not only can the yarding-roading be
done more cheaply, but under the three-cut method
the breakage is considerably less.
"An important fact to be borne in mind in planning
several separate fellings on an area is to see that no
one felling is so sparse that the roading tractor must
travel considerable distances up and down the r
in order to pick up a full turn. This situation
would not be encountered in the larger size cla
where one or two logs generally make up a full turn.
99
but only in the second and third cuts where a greater
number of logs make up each separate load. This
difficulty can easily be avoided by proper marking of
the timber to be felled."--'
117. Large Timber is No Handicap to Tractoi
Logging. — Individual trees on the study area
measured as much as 10 feet in diameter. Logs
from the very largest trees were cut shorter
than they might have been cut for donkey
logging; generally not to exceed much over
5,000 and rarely over 6,000 board feet in
volume. The largest log removed from the
experimental plots, for example, scaled 6,500
board feet. These are large logs for any type
of equipment and in many operations logs of
this size are extremely rare if encountered at
all. They were found to be the most ideal type
of log for down hill tractor roading, as may be
gathered in part from an examination of costs
and outputs listed in Table 53. There it is
shown that unbelievably high outputs and low
costs result from keeping the tractors busy
with the large logs. The output thus averages
154 M board feet per 8-hour day in logging the
first cut in Plot 1, and 114 M in Plot 2, with
an average log scaling about 3,600 and 3,300
board feet, respectively. The first day of log-
ging the large-timber cut in Plot 2, when spe-
cially large logs were selected, showed an output
of 138 M, with an average log volume of
slightly over 4,000; surely an unusually high
output for a two-man outfit gathering in logs
scattered all the way from 500 to 2,000 feet
from the track. Yet, it represents, according
to the time data, only normal performance
supported by an abnormally large average log.
Back of these figures are the advantages
gained through down hill logging. On level
ground a 4,000 board foot log is about the prac-
tical limit of the "one-tractor" haul; while
larger logs require a "two-tractor" hook-up —
with consequent increase of costs.
It is believed that in the large timber here
encountered more powerful tractors might be
used to great advantage. If 80 or 100 h.p.
tractors had been used it would have been pos-
sible in this operation to cut many logs up to
8,000 board feet in volume. With the virtually
unlimited flexibility that is obtained under the
selective plan of operation it can readily be
seen that real economy might result by assign-
ing this type of tractor to specialize, if logging
down hill, primarily on one- and two-log turns
made up of logs scaling generally from 2,000
to 8,000 feet in volume (i.e., on taking out a
"first cut" of trees ranging generally above
2-This problem of density of stand can also be solved by using
specialized outfits for bucking small logs as discussed in Chapter XXII.
six feet in diameter). Or, on level ground it
would permit cutting logs of 5,000 to 6,000
board feet volume without resorting to a two-
tractor hook-up. It might also be assigned to
hauling over adverse grades, or other special
tasks, whereby the extra power may be util-
ized to good advantage. However, if not so
utilized for large-timber or other heavy duty
roading, it, like the "over-size" donkeys, might
easily become a liability instead of an asset
because much of the logging can be done at
lower cost with a smaller tractor. Through sel-
ective specialization which is made possible
by tree selection, the misapplication of special-
ized machinery can be avoided.
118. Comparison with Conventional Donkey
Logging. — It is shown in Table 53 that the
weighted average cost of roading the three
cuts on Plot No. 2 amounts to $0.45 per M feet
b.m. This applies to distances from 500 to
2,000 feet, the weighted average distance be-
ing 1,100 feet and the average log 1,445 board
feet. The cost represents the "full machine
rate" ($36.04 per day per tractor outfit) cov-
ering all items connected with the yarding-
roading operations proper. The only remain-
ing item to consider is road construction
which in this particular case, according to
data collected by Liersch, amounts to $0.22
per M. Total stump-to-track costs (roading and
road building) thus amounts to $0.67 per M.
Direct skidding for the same timber on the
same area, using conventional steam logging
equipment and including the cost of rigging
ahead, is estimated to cost $1.30 per M b.m.
based on time and cost study data obtained on
the same operation during the previous year,
with costs adjusted for wage decreases, etc.,
from the year 1931 to 1932. The lowest estimate
of combined short distance cold decking and
skyline swinging shows a cost of about $1.20.-*
In other words, the reduction in costs under the
direct roading system is about 50 per cent.
Disregarding capital charges — interest,
taxes, and depreciation — on the investment in
the steam logging machinery on the principle
that it has already been paid for anyway, it is
found that the cost of direct skidding drops
to $1.10 and that of cold decking (short dis-
tance) and swinging to $1.02. These costs rep-
resent, then, the current out-of-pocket costs
of operation, covering labor, maintenance, fuel,
wire rope, etc. Even on this basis the intensive
roading system, although carrying all capital
23For large cold-deck donkeys and longer yarding distances the
corresponding cost is estimated at about $1.50 per M.
100
charges, shows nearly 40 per cent reduction
when compared with the competing system.
It is significant that this situation applies to
the timber within direct skidding or swinging
distance from the track landings. It has hereto-
fore been pointed out that the most pronounced
advantages of the tractor system apply to tim-
ber beyond the direct reach of the "first sky-
line swing" — a fact that is shown most strik-
ingly in Figure 33 (Chapter IX). The results
of this experiment, however, prove that the in-
tensive roading system — by entirely eliminat-
ing the cold decking operations — has a very
substantial advantage even for timber close to
the track landing.
In extending the comparison to the 200-acre
area as a whole it is found that the average
cost under the intensive roading system would
amount to about $0.80 per M (including capi-
tal charges and tractor road construction),
while the corresponding cost under donkey log-
ging would amount to about $1.50 (with capital
charges excluded). The latter figure allows that
under the donkey system all the timber that is
located more than 1,600 feet from the track
would on the average have to stand either the
cost of relaying or else the cost of switch back
spur construction which had been planned un-
der the original donkey logging plan for short-
ening the stump-to-track distance of the outly-
ing timber on this and adjoining areas.
This relatively low cost, it should be remem-
bered, applies only to the intensive-roading
tree-selection system. The average logging cost
for the entire 200-acre area was actually high-
er than this because various experiments made
(cold decking, clear cutting, and higher cost
of road construction at the beginning of the
job) brought considerably higher costs for
approximately 60 per cent of the area logged.
119. Closer Attention to Load Volume Will
Bring Further Savings. — It is believed that these
strikingly low costs can be reduced still fur-
ther by developing the roading pro. edure along
the lines emphasized in Section 54. There it
was pointed out that the key to high efficiency
in long distance down hill roading \t to build
up large loads and it was sugjj nat the
same policy should be carried out in short i
tance roading. This point was not empl
so much in carrying out the experiments on
Plots 1 and 2, its full significance having
caped attention until a comparison could
made of results obtained under different oper-
ating policies. On Plot 1 in particular many
turns were hauled only a few hundred feet and
the idea of building up large loads did not seem
of much importance. That it is important, how-
ever, even in short distance roading, is indi-
cated by the data given in Table 54.
As shown in Table 54 the average load vol-
ume in the short distance roading studies (Col-
umn 3) is 2,800 board feet. The average log
here scales 1,455 board feet. In the direct-yard-
ing study reported in Column 2 the correspond-
ing load volume for the same log volume and
distance is 2,250 board feet. In the long dis-
tance roading study (Column 4) the load vol-
ume is 4,256 board feet — this being the average
load volume for an average log of 1,120 board
feet and here assumed applicable also to a log
size of 1,450 board feet.
An examination of the time data in Table 54
shows that the large load volume in the long
distance roading study is not attained accident-
ally but represents a definite policy of devoting
plenty of time to the hooking-up operation.
Comparison with the other studies shows that
there is a definite correlation between hook-up,
unhook and delay time with increasing load
volume. Equally consistent, but pointing in the
opposite direction, are the striking contrasts
shown in cost per M feet.
The quick get-away with the load and the
resultant high cost as illustrated by the short
distance yarding study (Column 2) represent
a policy of indifference toward maximum load
Table 54
Comparison of time elements, turn volumes, and cost in three different tractor studies
Short distance Short dsitance Long distance
yarding
from Table 5
Load volume in board feet 2,250
Average hook and unhook time per turn-minutes. 3.41
Delay time per turn-minutes !•-'
Hauling and haul-back time per 1,000 feet of hauling dis-
tance— minutes - 9.;>4-
Cost per M feet b.m. at 1,000-foot hauling distance — dollars 0.62
Cost per M adjusted to comparable machine rates, 1,932 basis
dollars - ----- °-54
'Average of plots 1 and 2.
-Level grades.
101
roading1
from Table 5J
roading from
Tab:
2,800
5.40
1.54
4,256
6.96
1.70
8.79
0.42
0.28
0.4:
0.30
volumes. In the long distance roading study,
on the other hand, a more serious view is taken
of the importance oi' securing Large load vol-
umes; the hooker uses a scale stick to supple-
ment his judgment and takes whatever time
may be needed to build up to or beyond a fixed
minimum load. The short distance roading
studies in Plots 1 and '2 stand intermediate be-
tween these two extremes both in the policy
followed and in the results obtained.
In the light of these data the conclusion is
inescapable that the policy of building up
large loads should be adopted without com-
promise even in short distance roading. It is
plainly shown that the efficiency attained in the
short distance roading studies is virtually iden-
tical with the long distance study in regard to
traveling and delay time and is substantially
in harmony in regard to hook-on time if allow-
ance is made for the difference in load volumes.
All that is lacking in order to obtain the same
ultimate cost efficiency (as in the long-distance
study) is stricter attention to large load vol-
umes. For the short distances involved in
Plots 1 and 2, this means only a few cents per
M, but in extending the view to long-distance
roading it becomes more important. For ex-
ample, the long distance roading study shows
a. cost of $1.14 per M at a distance of 6.600
feet, while the extension of the results ob-
tained in the short distance studies to the same
distance indicates a cost of $1.74.
120. Reduction of Breakage, Another Advantage
of Tractor Method. — The reduction of breakage
in logging with tractors is an important factor
in increasing the cash returns from an area.
The company's records on this operation show
that when conventional steam logging methods
are used, the commercial water scale is 82 per
cent of the woods scale and for tractors 88 per
cent. Using $9.70 per M b.m. as an average log
value, the saving resulting from the use of
tractors amounts to $0.71 per M.
Based on log values obtained in 1931 the cor-
responding net saving would amount to about
one dollar per thousand. This may be consid-
ered a fairer figure to use since all cost data
previously dealt with in the reports are based
on 1931 costs. Even the $36.04 tractor machine
rate that has been applied to the 1932 experi-
ments comes within about a dollar of the cor-
responding machine rate for 1931, and there-
fore need not be adjusted in going back to the
1931 base.
121. Summary and Conclusions of Logging
Experiment. — The experiments reported above
were eminently successful. The intensive road-
ing system and the intensive tree selection plan
are here shown to work hand in hand to give a
logging method which not only is practicable
but, in all important respects, strikingly supe-
rior to present methods. Three principal ad-
vantages may be noted:
1. A striking reduction of cost amounting to
about 40% of corresponding donkey logging
costs for the distances involved in the experi-
ment. Further savings would result by utiliz-
ing this low cost method for longer distance
of haul, resulting in the skeletonization and
simplification of the entire railroad network
and transportation set-up along the lines dis-
cussed in Chapter XIX. In the final analysis
this rebalancing of the operating scheme as a
whole operates, as heretofore shown, to take a
large share of the reduction of costs in the form
of lowered railroad construction and other
"fixed-per-acre" costs and capital investments
therein, rather than to take all of the reduction
in the form of lower "yarding variable" costs
— a shifting of the source and character of cost
reductions which is extremely important in uti-
lizing these methods to promote intensive tim-
ber management.
2. A striking reduction of breakage, which is
about sufficient in this particular case to pay
for the entire cost of roading and road con-
struction.
3. A high degree of selectivity which,
through selective specialization, may be uti-
lized further to obtain important economies in
other phases of the logging operations (load-
ing, railroad transportation, etc.) and which is
invaluable for promoting the intensive appli-
cation of sound principles of forest manage-
ment and for many other purposes.
Of these three advantages, the first two have
been definitely appraised in dollars and cents.
The third has been discussed so far only on the
strength of general principles, but will be con-
sidered again in the following chapter.
Weather Difficulties Detract from Advantages
Against these important advantages the most
serious disadvantage applicable to the case at
hand is the problem of wet weather logging.
The results reported apply exclusively to dry
weather logging. Wet weather in this particular
operation means the shut down of the tractor
operation. To secure year-round production (or
an operating season of 8 to 10 months) as is
102
possible with present methods of donkey lod-
ging, a plan similar to that discussed in Chap-
ter XIX may be adopted. The main feature of
this plan, it will be recalled, is that the tractor
reading system is moved out to cover the areas
beyond the reach of direct skyline swinging
from the track, while donkey methods are used
during the wet season for logging a large por-
tion of the timber close to the track.
On the basis of the results obtained in the
experiment, however, skyline swinging would
bring a substantial increase of costs as well as
added loss through timber breakage. This will
greatly widen the gap between skyline swing-
ing and tractor roading shown in Figure 33,
Chapter IX. To fit the case at hand, the skyline
swinging costs represented by line- J and 5
in Figure 33 should be raia
per M on account of added breakage losses and
an additional $0.50 in adjusting for the elimi-
nation of cold decking through direct-roading.
This suggests that skyline swinging should
used very sparingly and only on areas w]
the tractor roading system may be absolutely
impracticable on account of topography, and
that the problem of year-round logging on
areas adapted only for dry weather roading
should be solved, if possible, without falling
back on the conventional donkey systems. To
this problem further attention is given in the
next chapter.
XXII. APPLICATION OF FINDINGS FROM LOGGING STUDIES AND EXPERIMENT
122. Conclusions Reached in Studies of Various
Phases of Logging Suggest Complete Logging Plan. —
At various points in the foregoing discussion
summaries have been presented of the findings
reached in the detailed time and cost studies.
In the preceding four chapters the more im-
portant conclusions concerning the relative ef-
ficiency of various logging methods point the
way to lower costs and better selective control
of the timber property in the planning of log-
ging operations. In Chapter XIX, the advan-
tages of low-cost, long-distance tractor roading
and motor truck hauling are discussed with no
change proposed in the present scheme of clear
cutting and many other features of convention-
al donkey operations. In Chapter XX, atten-
tion is directed toward the opportunities of-
fered— in principle — by selective specializa-
tion, but without any direct evidence of how
this may be successfully applied under logging
conditions typical of the region. In Chapter
XXI, the experiments with intensive tractor
roading and tree selection not only bring addi-
tional support to previous conclusions regard-
ing the correct application of the tractor road-
ing and allied systems, but give also a detailed
yarding procedure that, with a few logical
changes in other phases of the operation, might
easily be adapted to selective specialization.
But a comprehensive view of how this may
work out in practice is lacking. In the following
pages these possibilities are re-examined by
means of a complete logging plan outlined for
a large-scale Douglas fir operation. In this are
incorporated the most important conclusions
reached in the cost studies in regard to effi-
ciency, selectivity, and specialization in all
phases of logging.
The object is to show how flexibility, selectiv-
ity, and specialization go hand in hand with
low costs and how they may all be combined
into a practicable, all-weather system of log-
ging of rather wide applicability.
Owing to contrasting conditions in the Doug-
las fir region, no rigid plan of operation will
fit all cases. The following, therefore, is sub-
mitted as an example which may require many
modifications in adapting it to varied condi-
tions. It should be recognized too that it may
not work at all in some operations and in many
others may not fit certain portions of the oper-
ating areas. Where this is due to excessive rug-
gedness or other peculiarities of topography
the conclusions of the studies in regard to effi-
cient yarding methods in Chapter VII may be
considered, together with the conclusions in
regard to relative cost for various log and tree
sizes in Chapter XVII.
The physical background for the operations
hereinafter pictured may be visualized, first,
by examining that portion of the area shown
in Figure 43 (Chapter XXI) which is covered
with an intensive network of tractor loads;
second, by picturing the extension of this net-
work to cover the whole 200-acre area and be-
yond to a distance of generally one to two miles
from the railroad track; third, by assuming
the relocation and skeletonization of the rail-
103
road system along the linos discussed in Chap-
tor XIX. In brief, the details of the short-dis-
tance roading system as developed in the trac-
tor experiments are to be combined with the
larger features and operating economies of the
long-distance roading system as a whole, as
outlined in the example cited in Chapter XIX.
The area to be considered in some detail com-
prises lO.OOd acres with a stand of about half
a billion foot of timber.
123. The Construction Program. — With a few
miles o( well located, widely spaced railroad
spurs and a relatively immense mileage of
closely spaced, cheaply constructed tractor
roads, large quantities of timber are opened
up. This area of 10,000 acres is opened up with
only about 15 miles of spurs, giving an average
of 30 to 40 million board feet per mile of road
compared with 8 to 12 million feet under the
conventional system of donkey logging.
The main settings are large, extending gener-
ally two or three times as far from the landings
as those shown in Figure 43, embracing as a
rule 100 to 300 acres in area, and containing
5 to 15 million board feet of timber. Fifty large
settings, containing 500 million feet of timber,
are strung out along 15 miles of railroad spurs.
In addition to these, 50 small settings, like set-
tings Nos. 3 and 4 in Figure 43, are wedged
here and there between the large ones to save
hauling distance to the landings or to meet
topographic problems. These small settings con-
tain an additional 50 million feet of timber.
The logging spurs are located with a view to
obtaining large and favorably located landings.
The opportunity to accomplish this is enhanced
by the fact that railroads need not be extended
into every 40-acre subdivision of area as is the
tendency under the intensive railroad scheme
followed in logging with donkeys. They may
here be located with relatively little attention
paid to how far the back end of the settings
may extend from the landings, and for this gen-
eral type of topography this gives a good oppor-
tunity to select favorable ground for the loca-
tion of railroad grades and landings.
The landings for the large settings generally
vary from 300 to 800 feet in length and 50 to
100 feet in width (depending upon topography
and stump clearing problems) and comprise
on the average one acre per landing. The con-
struction of landings consists for the most part
of clearing the area of stumps and debris and
smoothing the surface with a bulldozer (see
Figure 44 B, Chapter XXI), but may frequent-
ly also call for moving a couple of thousand
yards of earth in order to give the desired
slopes. An average cost of $500 per landing
(per acre) or five cents per M ft. b.m., will be
spent on the construction of landings. Parallel-
ing the full length of the landing is a railroad
siding for a self-propelling loader to travel
over. Under the conventional donkey system of
logging the requirements for sidings or other
"landing tracks" is about the same per mile of
spur as is here proposed so that no special al-
lowance for the cost of these sidings need be
made.
The landings for the small settings are built
to a generally lower standard and are not pro-
vided with side tracks but are made as roomy
as possible, averaging one-third of an acre in
area. The 50 large landings plus the 50 small
cnes will thus give a total of about 65 acres of
landing space.
The logging of this 10,000-acre area will re-
quire eight years, assuming that all the timber
must be liquidated in that period of time ir-
respective of whether or not this represents
the best management policy. Under the opera-
ting plan here contemplated, however, logging
will not begin until virtually the whole con-
struction program is finished. The construc-
tion of railroad spurs, sidings, and landings is
thus completed before actual logging begins.
A large portion of the tractor road system is
also built and connecting tote roads are con-
structed from setting to setting or from land-
ing to landing (as shown in Figure 43), so
that the whole area is tied together both with
railroads and tractor roads. Out of a total of
500 miles of tractor roads, costing $200 per
mile (or 20 cents per M), about 250 miles will
be completed before logging starts. The re-
maining 250 miles, consisting mainly of short
branch roads or of roads on areas that may
not be touched during the first year or two
after logging begins will be built as needed.
Under the cutting program to be followed some
roads may not be constructed for several years.
This initial construction program is not so
costly as conventional road-building programs.
Under the usual donkey logging plan, this area
would be developed in the course of eight years
with 50 to 60 miles of railroad spurs at an as-
sumed cost of one dollar per thousand (1931
basis) or a total of $580,000. Under the pro-
posed plan, a two-year spur construction pro-
gram, based on the same costs and speed of
construction, would see the completion of 15
miles of spurs for about 30 cents per thousand
or a total of $174,000 for railroads. At the same
104
time, landings and tractor roads would be con-
structed at a cost of about 15 cents per thou-
sand or $87,000, leaving 10 cents per thousand,
or a total of $58,000, for deferred tractor-road
construction that will be spread over several
years. The total construction cost under the
proposed plan would be $319,000.
The above construction program does not in-
clude the main line logging railroad outside of
the operating area proper, which obviously
would be the same under any scheme of rail-
road logging.
124. General Logging Plan. — The idea behind
the road construction plan outlined above is to
make it possible (1) to decentralize the stump-
to-rail operations and to keep them independ-
ent of the loading; (2) to obtain year-round
production from the tractor operation and yet
confine the actual roading to the dry weather;
(3) to standardize the roading, loading, and
railroad hauling; and (4) to obtain complete
selective control of the timber property.
To this end the 10,000-acre area will be di-
vided into 10 operating units or "sides" to each
of which will be assigned one tractor roading
outfit. On the average each side will embrace
an area of 1,000 acres, and with its five large
settings and five small ones will front on about
1.5 miles of track. With interconnecting tractor
roads from landing to landing in addition to the
railroad connection, each side will in effect be
as easily managed as if it consisted of only one
setting and one landing. For each side, or per-
haps for each two sides, a small camp will be
established to accommodate the roading and
felling and bucking crew, while all other activi-
ties may be carried on from a central camp
serving all sides. The side camps will be located
with a view to having all the landings within an
easy walking distance of the camp. Loading
and train service (for logging purposes only)
will be furnished to each side when needed,
other necessary contact being maintained by
track speeders or automobiles and trucks. In
the latter case it would not, of course, be so
important to provide handily located side
camps, since the men could travel back and
forth by automobile.
125. The Logging Program for the Large-Timber
Cuts. — The operations will be planned for inten-
sive tree selection with the first cuts over the
area to consist of the large timber, to be fol-
lowed in turn by the medium and small timber
cuts.
The Large-Timber Stand-'1
The large-timber cuts consist of trees over
four feet in diameter which total 220 million
board feet or 40 per cent of the total vol urn
standing timber of all sizes above 20 inches in
diameter. In addition there will be aboul
million feet of merchantable windfalls and
about 10 million feet of small or medium-
trees that at 2 felled because they are in the way
of the large timber. The total volume in the
large timber cuts is thus 260 million feet. The
average log scales 2,500 and the average tree
about 8,000 board feet. Only a negligible per-
centage of the total volume will consist of logs
scaling less than 1,000 board feet and only oc-
casionally will they exceed 6,000 feet. On the
average there are about three large trees per
acre, and about 25 of all sizes above 20 inch »
in diameter. These large trees frequently occur
in groups, with fairly large areas on which
practically none occur.
General Roading and Loading Procedure
With the initial construction completed the
stage is set for the logging. Tractor roads,
which so far have been built primarily for the
large timber, are easily accessible; generally
it is only a few steps from road to tree.
The procedure in roading the large timber
will be identical with that followed in the tree
selection experiments reported in the preced-
ing chapter; i.e., the logs will be direct-roaded
from stump to landing. In the experiments
(Table 53) it was found that in dealing with
this size of timber the direct-roading method
is very effective. Large load volumes (4,000
board foot average) were obtained, little time
was lost in assembling the loads ; and as may be
computed from the data in Table 53, it cost on
the average only 7 cents per M to "yard" these
logs and to place them in position under the
fair-lead arch. In other words, the cost of yard-
ing, applying this term to the work of getting
the logs from stump to assembled load at the
tractor road, has here reached practically the
irreducible minimum.
The average hauling (roading) distance
from stump to landing is assumed to be 4,000
feet. At this distance the average output in the
large timber cut, based on the performance
shown in the foregoing experiments, as well as
in the long distance roading study reported in
Table 39 (Chapter VIII), is 45 M f eet b.m. per
8-hour day, or 450 M per day for 10 tractors.
"The figures in tin- paragraph are believed fairlj representative
of the region as a whole, being based roughly on data taken iii seven
different operations.
105
The average cost, based on an 8-hour machine
rate o( $36, IS $0.80 per M.
The loading Is to be independent of the road-
ing. It will take place intermittently, using a
special self-propelled loading outfit which
serves all operating units, and which works
steadily by shifting from one side to another.
Independent loading is possible because of the
large storage space at the landings.
The Storage Landings
The storage capacity of the landings will, of
course, depend upon how the logs are stored.
The average log in the large timber cut scales
2,500 board feet, which is equivalent to one 40
inches in diameter and 32 feet long. Such a log
will cover about 130 square feet of storage
area. Theoretically, then, if the logs of this size
were laid end to end and side by side without
any waste space between them, there would be
room for 333 logs of 2,500 board feet average
volume, or 832 M feet b.m., on each acre of
landing space. This, of course, might well
shrink to about 100 logs or less if the logs were
left in the manner in which the tractor would
dispose of them, were no special and system-
atic effort made to close up the space left be-
tween the logs after they have been unhooked.
There should, however, be no practical diffi-
culty in systematically filling the landings in
a more effective way starting with a row of
logs laid approximately parallel to the track
and following up with row after row, using
the tractor itself with its heavy steel bumpers
to roll or crowd the logs of each row against
the previous row so as to close up the original
gaps left between the logs. This, it is here be-
lieved, will only require a few seconds of work
per log with the cost per M touching close to
zero, once the tractor driver has learned to
systematize the work.
By this procedure the landing when filled will
look like a flat raft of logs, with perhaps 40 per
cent of the available space wasted or reserved
for an open lane at the upper side of the land-
ing whereby the tractor road system will be
kept connected up from landing to landing.
This gives a capacity of about 500 M ft.b.m. per
acre. The five large landings (one acre each)
will then hold 2,500,000 feet of logs or enough to
keep a roading outfit busy for about two months
when working at the rate of 45 M per eight
hour day. In addition to this, the five small
landings will hold 750 M; and a total of 32,-
500,000 bd. ft. of logs can be stored on the 65
acres of landing space that has been provided
for the 10,000-acre area as a whole.
With this enormous storage capacity, the
problem of synchronizing the loading and road-
ing is a simple one. The loading outfit can be
kept busy whether there are, for example, only
four full landings ahead of it or whether there
are forty. It will load on the average one large
landing per day, and hence, moves to a new
landing about once a day. Whether the moving
distance from one full landing to the next one
happens to be one-quarter of a mile or two
miles is not a very important matter, because
the difference will amount to only a few min-
utes of traveling time. The operator, therefore,
will ordinarily have many millions of feet of
logs to "play" with before the problem of syn-
chronizing the loading and roading output de-
mands urgent attention. The day-to-day and
hour-to-hour problem of keeping the logs com-
ing to the landing at the same pace as the
loading crew can put them on the cars, which
is an important problem where loading and
roading are carried on concurrently (compare
Sec. 21, Chapter IV), is thus entirely elimi-
nated. Each one of the 10 tractor outfits as
well as the loading outfit is here given a full
opportunity to attain its maximum efficiency
without interfering with the others and with-
out requiring the intensive day-to-day field
supervision and planning demanded in the syn-
chronized tractor operations.
Year-Round Logging
Planning of a different sort, however, will
be required in order to make the most of the
opportunities presented for smooth and effi-
cient year-round production through the use
of large storage landings. In the operation
here pictured, tractor roading can be carried
on only during dry weather. The problem to be
solved is to get year-round production from a
seasonal tractor operation.
To illustrate how this might be accomplished
the operating areas will be pictured as divided
into a number of "zones" or bands of timber
within which operations will be carried on at
different times of the roading season. Zone 1,
for example, may take in timber within a dis-
tance of 2,000 feet from the landings; Zone 2
will extend from 2,000 to 4,000 feet; Zone 3
from 4,000 to 6,000; Zone 4 from 6,000 to 8,-
000; Zone 5 from 8,000 to 10,000, etc. Zones 1
and 2 will contain about one half of the total
of 260 million feet of large timber; Zones 3,
4, 5, etc., will contain the other half. Owing
to irregular distances to the outside of the
areas, the more distant zones may not appear in
106
3,000, "
56 M
5,000, "
37 M
7,000, "
27 M
9,000, "
22 M
all of the operating units. Some operating units
may have little timber beyond Zone 3 ; others
may have a great deal in Zones 4, 5, or 6.
As stated above, for the average hauling dis-
tance of 4,000 feet, the average 8-hour output
is 45 M feet per tractor, or 450 for 10 tractors.
This is also about the average 8-hour capacity
of the loader for this particular size class of
logs (2,500 board foot average log). The trac-
tor output, however, will vary greatly with
variation in hauling distance. This is shown
below by listing average distances and corre-
sponding 8-hour output per tractor for the five
zones.
Zone 1: Average distance 1,000, 8-hr. output, 120 M
Zone 2:
Zone 3:
Zone 4:
Zone 5:
Here it will be seen that great variation in
the rate of production can be obtained by
shifting the scene of operation from one zone
to another. Further variation can, of course,
be obtained by varying the number of hours of
work, for example, by changing to a double
shift schedule.
The main roading season for this operation
extends from about the beginning of May to
the end of October, including a month or more
of intermittent production both at the beginning
and at the end. The dependable dry weather
season usually lasts only from the middle of
June to the latter part of September or for a
period of about 100 calendar days, and even
during this period a few days of rainy weather
may occur.
At the beginning of the season, assuming
that the landings are empty, the roading prob-
lem will center on getting enough logs to the
landings to keep the loading outfit busy, and to
build up a reserve to assure continuous loading
operations until dependable dry weather ar-
rives. Here is where Zone 1, which is the high
production zone, may be drawn upon for quick
action in good weather. One tractor outfit will
here produce an average of 120 M feet per 8-
hour day, and 10 tractors, working two 8-hour
shifts, will give a daily output of 2,400,000 feet
or about five times the corresponding 8-hour
loading capacity.
As soon as a 5 or 6 million foot reserve of
Zone 1 timber has been accumulated at the
landings, Zone 2 will be brought into produc-
tion, whenever the weather permits, again
working on a double shift basis. On this basis,
it would be possible to keep ahead of the load-
ing even if roading operations : on
for only five 16-hour days in Zone 1 betw<
April 1 and May 15, and if only 10 'lay- addi-
tional were obtained in Zone 2 between tin-
middle of May and the last part of -I
By this time the real dry-weath> ■ n will
usually have arrived and the scene of operation
will now move into Zones :j, 4, and 5 or beyond.
The rate of production per day per tractor will
here drop to 37, 27, and 22 M feet respectively,
or an average for the three zones of about 600
M feet per day for 10 tractors working on a
double shift basis. This is about 30 per cent in
excess of the 8-hour loading capacity, and thus
allows a gradual building up of a surplus of
logs on the landings so that by the middle of
September most of the large landings will be
filled. At this time the loader may be restricted
to 10 large landings that are kept open for fur-
ther storage — one for each operating unit. The
other landings, filled with logs, are closed for
the remainder of the roading season. Toward
the end of the dry-weather season, the tractors
will move back to Zone 2 and also into that part
of Zone 1 which is tributary to the small land-
ings. By thus shifting into high production ter-
ritory, the remaining landing space will be
filled rapidly. If the weather remains favorable
after the landings are filled, the tractors will
again be shifted back into Zones 3, 4, and 5, but
perhaps on a single shift basis or on a 10 or
12-hour schedule. If good weather continues in-
termittently through part of October, opera-
tions would be continued in whatever zone
will give the right rate of production to keep
the landings filled, so that whenever the winter
shut down does occur, there will be some 30
million feet or more on the landings.
The tractors may now be sent to the shop
for their annual overhauling, while the loading
and other activities continue. With over 30
million feet of logs on the landings, and with
a part of this on small landings which lack
sidetracks and where loading capacity as a con-
sequence will be lower than normal, the loading
outfit will have steady work for over three
months or well into the month of January.
Allowing for the traditional winter shut down,
which usually extends at least from I efore
Christmas and through most of January, there
will be logs enough to last till about the begin-
ning of March. Before this time the tractors
will be back in the woods, ready to operate in
Zone 1 whenever conditions permit.
107
In this operation one or more of the months
of January, February, and March usually have
occasional dry spells with freezing weather,
which for a day or a few days at a time offer
good conditions for tractor roading. Ten days
of suitable roading conditions, with the trac-
tors kept working 12 hours a day, would here
give an opportunity to put in 18 million feet
ot logs from Zone 1, or enough to tide the op-
eration over to the beginning of May.
With so large a slice taken out of the avail-
able timber in Zone 1, the next intermittent
periods of production might, of course, better
be turned over to Zone 2 in order to conserve
the remaining timber in Zone 1 for the fol-
lowing year's winter logging. The timber in
Zone 1, it will here be seen, has a most im-
portant function to serve, namely, to provide
the means for sudden spurts of production for
brief periods from October to May. For this
timber, a strict "hands off" policy is most ob-
viously in order during the June-September
dry weather season and the same policy should
be applied as rigidly during the late spring
months provided that continuous loading can
be assured without it.
Reliance on a brief spurt of successful win-
ter production as here suggested may not fit
the majority of operations in this region. In
operations located at high elevations, for ex-
ample, deep snow will interfere. Operators,
however, generally figure on a long winter shut
down anyway, even under the donkey logging
system, and so may not be handicapped more
than usual by failure to get sufficient winter
production for continuous operation.
Another obvious answer to this problem is
to provide more storage space and/or to make
fuller use of the space that has been provided
by crowding in more logs when filling the land-
ings for winter storage.
The principal point that stands out from the
foregoing detailed discussions is that dry-
weather tractor roading does not necessarily
make the logging operation seasonal. The key
to year-round logging is the advance road con-
struction program and the storage landings
with a capacity large enough to provide for a
two to four months reserve of logs. Well
planned regulation of the rate of production by
zoning the timber, together with a fixed policy
of always being ready to take full advantage of
brief spells of good weather during the off-
season period, may do the rest. The main idea
behind the tractor roading program here be-
comes to "make hay while the sun shines." In-
cidentally, this will make it possible to wear out
the tractors and arches at about as rapid a rate
as in the year-round, 8-hour day operation ; the
working hours are simply distributed differ-
ently.
Self-contained Operating Units are Essential
One rather important requirement for the
fullest success of this operating program is to
have the roading crews available for inter-
mittent operation at all times and at virtually
all hours from January to October. The pro-
posed plan of having the roading and felling
and bucking operations carried on from small
self-contained side camps would obviously be
an important factor in making such a pro-
gram run smoothly and efficiently, since the
problem of feeding and transporting widely
scattered crews, which often have to work ir-
regular hours, would be intolerable in a large,
centralized operation.
Here it will be seen that in each of these side
camps may be placed a small crew of men to do
both the roading and the felling and bucking,
preferably, perhaps, on a piece rate or contract
system. The piece rates will be worked out to
apply to the large timber and will vary from
zone to zone; after the large timber has been
logged, they will, of course, be revised to fit
in turn the medium and small-timber classes
so that in all cases a fair system of paying a
standard rate for a standard amount of work
will be in effect. For each operating unit there
will be at least two tractor drivers, one for each
shift, to operate the tractor whenever the weath-
er permits. When the weather does not permit
efficient tractor operations, they will become
a part of the felling and bucking crew or be at
times assigned to other duties. The hookers, one
for each shift, will likewise be shifted back and
forth from felling and bucking to roading. This
is the general system followed by "gyppo"
truck or tractor loggers under similar circum-
stances.
Felling and bucking will require two or three
times as many man-hours of work as the actual
roading operation so that in addition to the four
men required for intermittent operation of the
tractors there will be six to eight full time fall-
ers and buckers, some of whom may be as-
signed now and then to help out with the road-
ing operations as needed.
There is a special reason why this close con-
tact should be kept between felling-and-buck-
ing and roading. The work of the roading crew
108
is affected directly by the way in which the
felling and bucking is done, because under this
system of logging much of the work of getting
the logs from the stump to the fair-lead arch
and of building up the loads depends upon some
rather fine points in regard to how the timber
is handled. By having both the felling and buck-
ing and the roading operations within each op-
erating unit under the immediate supervision of
a side foreman or head contractor whose in-
terest lies in both of these operations, and by
having some of the men shift back and forth
from roading to felling and bucking, there will
be better assurance of getting the work done
right than if these two operations were depart-
mentalized in the usual manner. It also makes it
possible to furnish the tractor crews steady
employment and breaks up the monotony of
too specialized work.
Selective Control to the Nth Degree
Under this operating plan, it will require
between two and three years of uninterrupted
work to remove the large timber. In that inter-
val each one of the large landings will be filled
and emptied about 10 times; the small landings
about three or four times.
In this size class of timber, as was shown in
the tree selection experiments, the individual
tree is for all practical purposes under full
selective control. The operator is free to reach
without reference to how far apart the trees
so selected may be. Variations in the volume of
timber per acre to be removed at any given
time is of little practical consequence, because
full loads can be gathered together about as
efficiently if the logs are scattered as if they lie
close together. The reason for this, of course,
is that the logs are so large that a load will gen-
erally consist of only one or two logs. If a two
or three log load is not available at one given
point, the tractor outfit can first pick up one
log and then move a short distance down the
tractor road to another location to complete the
load without any noticeable loss of efficiency.
Under these conditions it is feasible to prac-
tice almost any degree of intensive selection
within the large-timber cut as whole. Each time
the landings are filled a different type of timber
may be removed. The first "cut" within the
large-timber cut as a whole may thus consist
of the windfalls. These may even be brought
to the landings before the real logging opera-
tions start, following closely on the heels of
the bulldozer, while the initial construction
program is still under way. The standing
large timber can thereafter be
speak, by "layers." The different for
example, may be removed separately, or other
classifications of material may be mad' :
arate removal. It is not very important whether
each class of timber so selected will fill a whole
landing or whether two or three cl; :are
the space on the landing, or, except at the end
of the roadin.7 season, whether the land in.
only partly filled with one class of logs with
the rest of the space left vacant until the load-
ing outfit has loaded out the particular class
logs that is wanted. The loading outfit, it is here
seen, is just as mobile as the tractors and ;
not an important matter whether it has to move
to a landing to load out only 100 or 200 M feet
of logs instead of the 400 or 500 M feet that
the landing can hold.
From this it will be seen that as far as this
size class of timber is concerned, the operator
is given virtually full selective control of his
property. He can, so to speak, go into the woods
and bring out a raft of cedar without bringing
out any of the other timber. Or he can telephone
the side foreman and order a raft ot No. 2 and
No. 1 fir by such and such a date. Aside from
the marketing advantages that this will obvi-
ously give, it will also simplify the booming and
sorting operations. When the logs arrive at the
pond there will be very little sorting to do in
making up the rafts. The saving made at this
end of the operation might very well be more
than sufficient to offset the lost motion that the
suggested procedure may cause in the woods
operation.
Specialization of Equipment for the
Large-Timber Cut
The above data on outputs and costs of road-
ing the large timber represent the performance
with the 60 h.p. tractors according to the results
of the roading studies and experiments hereto-
fore reported. For roading heavy loads over
prepared roads at long distances and under
conditions where the tractors seldom have to
leave the roads, it seems most logical to expect
that considerably better results would be ob-
tained with tractors of higher speed and great-
er power. Thus, 80 to 125 h.p. tractors should
give lower costs and considerably higher output
than the 60 h.p. This might, in the cast here
presented, bring about a reduction of the num-
ber of operating units from 10 to 7 or 8.
Skeleton log cars or disconnected trucks of
conventional design would be used for hauling
the logs.
109
The loader would be specially designed for
large timber but with the main emphasis laid
on mobility. A self-propelling, swinging-boom
loader, mounted on a heavily constructed car on
which the machinery is placed off-center and
which is specially designed for travel both on
standard gauge track and on three-rail sidings
might be the practical answer to this demand
for extreme mobility and sufficient stability for
efficient loading of large logs. The third rail on
the sidings would be raised and laid to a gauge
of about nine feet.
126. The Logging Program for the Small-Timber
Cuts. — Passing over for the moment the logging
of the medium size timber, a brief glimpse will
now be given of small-timber logging. This tim-
ber, as well as most of the medium-timber cuts,
would generally not be found ripe for immedi-
ate cutting if the principals of profitable and
sound timber management are followed, but
this is a question not to be considered at this
point.
The trees in this cut will range from 32
inches in diameter down to about 20 inches or
whatever size it may be desired to cut. The
largest tree scales about 2,500, the largest 40-
foot log about 1,000, and the average log, if
logged in lengths of 40 and under, about 300
board feet. The total volume of small timber is
120 million feet or 12,000 feet per acre.
The tractor road system will have been com-
pleted by this time so that many small areas
that were passed up in the large timber pro-
gram will now be open for logging.
The direct-roading procedure followed in the
large timber cut is no longer practiced ; bunch-
ing and roading of standardized loads take its
place. The bunching outfit may consist, for ex-
ample, of a 30 h.p. tractor equipped with a
drum and a fair-lead boom mounted directly
on the tractor. Lighter line and rigging than
that of the large-timber roading outfits will b2
carried. Being a small compact outfit (without
a trailer), it can be maneuvered more easily
than the large trailer outfits both on and off the
roads. Like the roading tractor, however, its
travel will be confined mainly to the roads. The
crew will consist of two men — a driver and a
hooker.
The trees will be bucked in full tree lengths
up to a certain maximum length. The volume of
the average log may thereby be increased to
500 board feet. The bunching outfit will yard
these logs and make up loads of, for example,
not less than 3,000 board feet volume, with few
exceptions allowed.
Some of the large logs may be direct-roaded
with the large roading outfit (identical with
that used in the large timber cut) and some
may simply be "windrowed" to the roads where
the roading tractor can pick them up. Actual
bunching will, however, be practiced for the
great majority of logs, although, with the fair-
lead method of picking up the loads, fine work
in this respect is not necessary.
Most of the logs will be bucked on the land-
ing, to an average log size of perhaps 300
board feet. The bucker in unhooking the loads
scatters the logs about so as to permit bucking.
Afterwards the buckers usually roll the logs
toward the track to close up space. The small-
log landing when filled will hold about three
times as many logs as the large-log landings
with one third the volume. On the average the
large landings will be filled and emptied about
12 times during the removal of the small tim-
ber cut. When the landing is filled for winter
storage, greater care might be taken to find
room for as many logs as possible. Decking of
two or more tiers of logs may prove feasible.
Loading will be done with a special small-
log loader designed to handle an average of
about 600 logs per day. Moving from landing
to landing will occur about once a day, the
same as for the large-timber loader.
The logs will be loaded on staked cars, giv-
ing an average load volume of 7,000 or 8,000
board feet. Except for the side stakes the cars
may be the same as those for the large-timber
cut.
Bunching Increases Efficiency and Offers
Selective Control
Three advantages may be gained by resorting
to bunching in this size class of timber.
The least important or assured of these is
the possibility of reducing the cost of getting
the logs from stump to assembled load under
the arch of the roading tractor. In the direct-
roading experiments, this work costs on the
average $0.27 per M (see hook-on time, Table
53) for an average log size of 617 board feet.
This would indicate a cost of over $0.30 per
M25 for an average log of 500 board feet. The
light bunching outfit, which can be operated at
a machine rate of only about one-half that of
the heavy-duty roading outfit and yet may
handle the small logs as fast or faster, will
3how a much lower cost for assembling the
loads. However, the loads have to be hooked on
-In the tractor-yarding study reported in Table 5. Chapter IV.
the average cost of "hooking on" a 500 board fcot log was about
per M b.m.
110
again in the roading operation, which will re-
duce, if not entirely wipe out, this saving.
A more important and definite advantage is
that bunching makes it possible to enforce rig-
idly a policy of building up uniformly large
loads whereby the roading operation will be-
come highly efficient and standardized. The dif-
ference in the cost of roading the logs of the
small-timber and the large-timber cuts will here
correspond closely to the varying ratios of
cubic feet to board feet for logs of different
sizes as discussed in Section 108 (Table 52).
To this basic handicap against the small log
there must, of course, be added the cost of
bunching.
Another important advantage of bunching
is that it will for all practical purposes bring
the same degree of selective control of individ-
ual trees and logs in the small timber class as
the direct-roading method provides for the
large timber class. In the bunching operation
the logs are ordinarily handled one by one. If
they lie close together a full load may be built
up without moving the tractor. If the logs are
very scattered a log may be yarded to the trac-
tor and then without intervening delay roaded
a short distance along the tractor road to a
point where the load will be assembled; the
tractor then runs along to some other point for
another log. The cost of traveling along the
road represents the extra cost of bunching
scattered logs over that of closely spaced logs.
For distances of a couple of hundred feet this
will amount on the average to only about 5 to
10 cents per M. In other cases these scattered
logs may simply be windrowed to the roads and
picked up directly by the roading tractor with
only a slight increase in hook-on time for the
roading tractor. Within reasonable limits, vari-
ations in the density of the stand to be re-
moved in any given cut will, therefore, add too
small an amount to the cost of bunching — and
none at all to that of roading and subsequent
operations — to make any practical difference
in deciding how far to go in the selection of in-
dividual trees or size classes of trees. The small
timber cut as a whole may, again, be subdi-
vided for logging, for example, by diameters or
by species. This is a most important point in
connection with controlled marketing of the
timber and also in connection with improve-
ment cuttings in stands that are to be placed
under management.
In principle, the same procedure as here out-
lined for the small-timber cut of sawlogs may
also be applied to whatever cuttings ma)
undertaken in timber under saw-tim'r.
or quality, such as for ties, poles, pulpwood, or
fuelwood. Here, however, the initial "bunch-
ing" might be done by hand, h or other
special equipment. In considering the oppor-
tunities for low cost handling of this type of
products, it should be borne in mind that und'-r
the intensive roading system it is on the aver-
age only a few steps from the tractor road
the trees and that the storage landings pro-
vide ample room for storing large quant,
of sorted and stacked material along the rail-
road track. For hauling bunched or stacked
loads of this type of material from the woods
to the landings the bunching tractor or other
light tractors or trucks might serve to better
advantage than the large roading tractor.
127. The Logging Program for the Medium-
Timber Cuts. — The procedure for medium-siz-
timber needs no detailed discussion. A large
portion of this timber might best be direct-
roaded, the roading crew going over the area
first and simply "helping itself" to the largest
and most handily located logs with which they
can build up large loads with a minimum of
delay in the hooking-on operations; thereafter
the bunching tractor is sent in to bunch or
windrow the remaining logs the same as in the
small-timber logging. Long logs might feature
most of the logging in this size class of timber.
Again, it will be noted that selective control of
the individual tree can be obtained as with the
small and large timber cuts, and that the road
to the attainment of this goal is the one that
leads to increased operating efficiency.
128. Specialization of Equipment May Involve
Few Radical Changes. — The ideal set-up for in-
tensive specialization of logging equipment to
fit the logging program outlined above is
enough timber to keep each piece of equipment
in use in the particular type of work for which
it is designed. In the present example this
would mean that the large, medium, or small
timber equipment when finished with the 10.-
000-acre area would be transferred to another
two or three years of similar logging on an-
other block of timber, and so on. Assuming as
large scale an operation for each size class of
timber as has here been discussed would thus
obviously require a very large quantity of tim-
ber in order to work out in the most ideal way.
If, however, the hypothetical operator has no
other timber to log than on the 8-year operation
described, and will not be able to soil or trade
111
the equipment he may wish to replace, even so
a great deal can be done toward specialization
without raising a very serious problem of how
to tret normal use of the equipment. In the
stump-to-landing operation, for example, spe-
cialization might involve no other change than
the addition of bunching equipment, since the
large reading equipment might be just as de-
sirable for roading large loads of small logs as
for large loads of large logs. Further than this
both the roading and bunching equipment is
short-life equipment, and this offers the oppor-
sirable to provide for further specialization
whenever the equipment is replaced.
In the loading operations, the large-log load-
er may function quite effectively for the medi-
um-size timber by replacing the heavy loading
tongs and rigging with lighter ones, by reor-
ganizing the crew or by some other minor
changes which need involve no major capital
expenditure. However, when the medium-size
timber has been logged, this loader should be
replaced with a special small-log loader, even
if that means writing off the unamortized in-
vestment. In the railroad operations, effective
specialization might need go no further than
adding side stakes to the cars used for the large
and medium timber.
In brief, fairly effective specialization might
be obtained without any more radical or costly
changes of equipment than may be effected
when replacing worn out, short life equipment,
by adding side stakes and short life bunching
equipment when needed, by adaptation of rig-
ging and other small equipment, or by reorgan-
izing the crews. Beyond these steps, a most im-
portant element in specialization is the manner
in which each man will inevitably train himself
in the effective handling of a given uniform size
class of trees and logs as contrasted with an
operation in which logs of all diameters,
lengths, and species are handled.
Within the framework of the general opera-
ting plan outlined above, many methods and
types of equipment other than those mentioned
may, of course, be used. For the bunching op-
eration, for example, almost any type of light,
mobile equipment might be suggested. For the
long hauls, motor trucks might be substituted
for the roading tractors and may in some cases
justify extending the length of haul to several
miles to save railroad construction and to sim-
plify the problem of landing and railroad loca-
tion. Particularly promising is the use of
trucks for hauling the small logs. Here the
bunching outfit might be replaced, for example,
by a tractor-mounted, heel-boom loader, capable
of handling logs up to about 1,000 board feet
in volume. It would take over the function of
the bunching outfit in addition to loading the
logs when the trucks arrive. The flexibility of
the plan as a whole, with its many independent
storage landings and vast network of roads,
invites substitution of this type of equipment
wherever conditions are favorable.
129. A Summary and Comparison of Cost Ad-
vantages of the Proposed Plan. — In looking back
on the operating plan outlined above it will be
of interest to compare, item by item, the rela-
tive cost of performing the principal tasks in-
volved in conventional clear cut donkey logging
and in the proposed plan. Such a comparison
is given below mainly for the purpose of em-
phasizing the principles involved ; but, in order
to have meaningful figures to deal with, the
cost of both operations will be set roughly at a
level representative of low cost Douglas fir op-
erations during the first half of the year 1931.
Spur Construction
The cost of constructing logging railroads
within the operating area proper is $1.00 per M
under the donkey logging plan compared with
$0.30 under the proposed plan, although, if
the cost of the storage landings is included as
a part of the railroad system, the latter cost
rises to $0.35 per M. The much lower cost of
the proposed plan is explained by the extreme
skeletonization of the railroad system under a
system of logging that reaches out on the av-
erage to an external yarding distance of about
8,000 feet.
Railroad Operating Costs and Track Maintenance
For donkey logging, the cost of this item is
set at $1.00 per M while the corresponding cost
under the proposed plan is estimated at $0.40.
Several important factors enter into this dif-
ference. First, there is the increase in carload
capacity obtained through specialization of
equipment. This, as discussed in Section 110,
Chapter XX, brings a reduction of about 33 per
cent in the number of carloads to be hauled and
is here taken as justifying a blanket cost re-
duction of about 25 per cent. Second, there is
the shortening of the length of haul and elim-
ination of the switching that donkey logging
?dds through the construction of a vast mileage
of spurs; this in turn eliminates many odd jobs
connected with road construction and the haul-
ing of crews and moving of logging equipment,
112
as discussed in Chapter XIX. Third, there is
the advantage of stabilized, high level produc-
tion of logs obtainable in loading under con-
ditions discussed below under "(3)". Under
these conditions there will be little variation in
the daily number of carloads produced in each
major size class of timber, and this will permit
fuller use of available facilities than is normal
for a donkey operation. In brief, railroad op-
erations have here been reduced to a simple,
standardized mainline terminal-to-terminal ser-
vice, with practically a fixed output to be
moved each day.
Loading
Loading under the donkey-logging system
costs about $0.50 per M, while the correspond-
ing cost under the proposed plan is $0.15 per
M.
This is seemingly a high cost for donkey
logging, but in the 11 donkey operations
studied the average cost of direct yarding-and-
loading and swinging-and-loading amounted to
about $1.80 per M and over 25 per cent of this
is allocated to loading.
Two important factors are involved in the
step-down of loading costs from $0.50 to $0.15.
These are (1) the complete separation of load-
ing from yarding or swinging, which eliminates
waiting time and time lost through interfer-
ence between the various operations; and (2)
specialization of equipment.
How these factors operate to bring about so
great a reduction in costs is shown in the fol-
lowing table:
Cost per M
feet b.m
. for logs
of diff
ercut
sizes
under
various
conditions of loa
ding
Vol. of log
(feet b.m.)
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Ca
se U
Case 5
100
$4.07
$1.37
$0.67
$0.45
$0.45
200
2.04
.69
.37
.25
.25
400
1.02
.36
.22
.16
.16
600
.69
.25
.17
.13
.15
800
.53
.20
.13
.12
.15
1,000
.43
.16
.12
.14
1,200
.37
.14
.11
....
.13
1,600
.29
.12
.12
....
.12
2,000
.25
.10
■—.
....
.10
3,000
.23
.08
....
....
.08
4,000
.20
.09
....
....
.09
5,000
.19
__
....
....
.10
6,000
.18
....
....
.12
Case 1 represents loading logs of different sizes
under the donkey system of logging. are
derived from Table 40 and represent the
in 11 donkey operations. (Table 40, S1 • elu-
sive); in deriving thes< the waiting time multi-
plying factors listed at the foot of each column in
Table 40 have been applied to the e fl in the
main body of the table in order to determine the full
cost of loading. In computing the average costs for
the 11 operations, each study has been given equal
weight. Case 2 is a copy of Column 2 in Table
40 and represents the cost normally obtainable with
a large-log loader (compare studies 3, 4, 5, and 6 in
Table 40) when loading is independent of yarding.
Case 3 is the same as Column 1 in Table 40, and
represents loading costs for a loader adapted for
medium-to-small logs. Case 4 gives costs assumed for
a specially designed small-log loader. In Case 5 are
the composite average costs of loading under the pro-
posed plan. The large log loader would here be con-
fined to logs ranging in the main from 800 to 6,000
board feet in volume; while logs for the medium-
size loader range from 400 to 2,500, and for the small-
log loader up to 1,000 board feet. A comparison of
Case 1 and Case 5 indicates the remarkable reduc-
tion of costs that takes place, particularly in the
smaller log sizes. The weighted average cost for an
average log volume of 900 feet drops from 48 to
15 cents per M.
Specialization accounts for a part of this
drop, but the greatest average reduction comes
as a result of keeping the loading entirely inde-
pendent of the fluctuation of and the inter-
ference from the woods operation. Loading
logs from a "raft" of uniform logs laid paral-
lel to the track on a cleared and levelled storage
landing should represent the most ideal form
of independent and standardized loading. Here
a steady flow of logs will come from the loader
at all times.
Stump-to-Landing
The weighted average cost of yarding, swing-
ing, cold decking, and rigging ahead with don-
keys is $1.75 per M. Under the proposed plan
the stump-to-track cost is $1.25. This includes
for roading, $0.90, road construction, $0.20.
road maintenance, $0.05, and bunching, pro-
rated against the whole stand, $0.10.
Miscellaneous
Other items are felling and bucking. $0.90;
mainline construction outside tract, $0.25:
booming and rafting, $0.20 ; administration and
general expense, $0.60.
These last items will be conservatively con-
sidered to be equal under both plans, although
a considerable reduction of Item 8 and som*3
reduction of Item 6 might also be credited to
the proposed plan.
113
Summary that follow — loading, railroad transportation,
booming and rafting, and general overhead
The foregoing comparisons are summarized costs being entirely independent of the fluctuat-
below : ing costs and outputs of the roading operations.
PSyltem sSSST If steeP sloPes and broken topography cause,
(1) Spur construction $i.oo $0.35 for example, the trebling of road construction
(2) Railroad operation l.oo 0.40 costs and the doubling of the other elements of
(3) Loading .50 0.15 roading costs, there would still be a margin of
$ PdlT^ aid buScir^ 0.90 MO over a dollar per M to go before the four dollar
(0) Booming and rafting 0.20 0.20 mark is reached. Ground yarding for distances
(7) Main line construction outside ^ 25 0f a few hundred feet, using tractor mounted
(8) Administration and general donkeys for frequent set-ups along skeleton-
expense - 0.60 0.60 ized tractor roads, may provide the means for
~$620 $4 10 extending the system into rough ground of the
type shown in Figure 31, without a serious in-
Donkey logging here represents the three crease in costs. The loggers of this region have
donkey operations studies showing the lowest in the past been versatile in devising methods
cost. The difference of $2.10 between it and the to meet the problems that have arisen as log-
proposed system appears only in part in the ging receded from easily operated water front
stump-to-track costs, most of it being accounted areas to distant and difficult ground. They have
for by reduction of the first three items listed drawn on every conceivable means of log trans-
in the table. In other words much of the cost portation in solving their problems and this ex-
which, when compared with the proposed sys- perience is available to devise any number of
tern, is chargeable to the cost of donkey yard- methods and mechanical devices whereby the
ing and indiscriminate clear cutting does not main operating features of this system may be
appear on the books under its proper name, but supplemented as necessary,
is designated instead as spur construction, rail- R mugt be recognized> ho,wever, that there
road operation, depreciation and maintenance are many timber areag ^ tMg region where the
of railroad equipment track maintenance, load- proposed tem may be absolutely impracti-
ing, etc. A look behind these designations cab]e R requires first of a„ a drastically skel-
shows that the cost of donkey yarding amounts etonized> low.levei railroad system, level or
in this case to $3.35 instead of $1 75. And by downhm topography, large storage landings,
adding $0.65 as a reasonable allowance for and advance construction. Where these re-
breakage, it rises to $4.00. This represents in quirements cannot be met, the system may fail
effect the cost of transporting logs an average or loge much of itg advantage even without the
distance of 4,000 feet. The corresponding added handicap of excessively rugged topogra-
transportation charges for the proposed system phy However> the ideal fulfillment of all of
amount to $1.2o. these requirements is not necessary for all set-
130. Application to Rough Country Logging and tings. Large storage landings, for example, are
Other Problems.— With the last two figures in desirable, but where topography or other fac-
mind, the fact that the cost of $1.25 per M tors prohibit, it would obviously be a simple
represents favorable topography, as illustrated matter to occasionally concentrate a whole fleet
in Figure 43, should not discourage the attempt of tractors and the loading unit at one landing
to apply this system to rougher topography, for loading and roading in the usual manner
Much can be done to overcome topographic as discussed in Chapter IV, Section 21.
difficulties if stump-to-landing costs may be
allowed to rise all the way from $1.25 to $4 per Adaptation to Various Output Requirements
M. Still more might be done if it be granted By proper modification, the proposed system,
that the cost and breakage losses of donkey log- being based on smaller yarding units than is
ging may also rise to a considerable extent customary for a donkey operation, is well
under conditions severe enough to cause so adapted to suit the requirements of the small
sharp a rise in costs under the proposed plan, operator who wishes to produce only a few
Of great significance in considering this million feet per year or has only a few
question is the point that the proposed plan hundred acres to log. But, as demonstrated
provides for the complete separation of the above, it is equally well designed to meet
stump-to-landing operation from the operations the problems of the large scale operator who
114
may wish to produce several hundred mil-
lion feet per year. The argument that small
yarding units are incompatible with the re-
quirements of the large scale operator does
not hold well against a system based on decen-
tralized yarding operations whose output is con-
centrated into large scale production at the
landings. The greatest efficiency and economy
in the stump-to-landing operation has here been
shown to be obtainable with a small yarding
unit. The economies of mass production apply
only to the loading and railroad operation, and
are here attainable in greater measure than is
possible in the typical donkey operation. The
operating side from this point of view is the
loading unit, rather than the yarding or road-
ing unit, and in a large operation it would ob-
viously be practicable to run as many "loading
sides" as the output requirements may dictate.
131. Flexible Logging Methods Promote Adap-
tation of Operating and Timber Investments to
Changing Conditions. — Other considerations than
the direct comparison of operating costs enter
into the choice of logging methods. Other
things being equal, a system which relies on
short-life logging equipment is much to be pre-
ferred to one which centers around long-life
equipment. Under the proposed system, the
roading, bunching, and yarding equipment con-
sists of machinery which requires replacement
every three to five years; that is to say, each
year an average of about 25 per cent of the cost
of the equipment would be recovered through
operation, and new equipment bought. This en-
ables the operator to keep up with new develop-
ments and improvements in machinery. It also
enables him, if he so desires, to gradually ex-
pand or contract his business with changing
business conditions without being burdened
with too rigid a capital set-up. As the gradual
swing of the business cycle rises to the peaks
of prosperity or drops into the depressions he
can buy more or less of new equipment and so
adjust at least a portion of his investments to
a changing volume of business. Under the pro-
posed plan the operator who in ]'.).
ducing at normal capacity could have redu
his capacity an average of 25 per cent per y
by not replacing worn out units of stump-to-
track machinery; the reduction of volume of
production and capital investments going hand
in hand. By 1933, his investment and capacity
to produce would be down to 25 per cent of nor-
mal. While this would not apply to the li
life railroad and loading equipment, it would
nevertheless be an important factor in lessen-
ing the presure to overproduce against a fall-
ing market.
After all, it should be remembered that log-
ging operations and investments should be kept
subordinate to the larger problems of orderly
timber marketing and the management of tim-
ber properties. The proposed system tends to
give full management control of the individual
tree or of groups of trees that are clear cut by
small units of area. From a current marketing
standpoint this means that the forest can be-
come an orderly warehouse into which the man-
ager reaches for those products which are in
strong demand and which should properly be
removed. From a long-term management
standpoint it means that .only those invest-
ments which have reached their financial
maturity may be liquidated; that low earning
investments may be retired, high earning
investments continued, and larger growing
stock recruited as smaller trees develop into
merchantable sizes. None of these elements
has been fully considered in the discussion of
logging methods in this report. From any basic
point of view, whether that of the individual
owner, forest industry as a whole, or the pub-
lic interest, these problems of timber manage-
ment transcend in importance any considera-
tion of temporary cost saving. This justifies
as exhaustive a study of the effects of these
methods on timber management as on immedi-
ate logging operations. To these problems the
second report of this series will be devoted.
115
GLOSSARY OF LOGGING TERMS USED-"
Carriage — A traveling block used on a skyline
for yarding or swinging.
Chaser — The member of a yarding crew who
unhooks the logs at the landing.
Choker — A noose of wire rope by which a log
is dragged.
Choker setter (chokerman) — The member of
a yarding crew who fastens the choker on
the logs.
Cold deck — A pile of logs yarded at a point be-
tween stump and track and later swung
to the landing with a separate machine.
Direct-yarding — Yarding directly to the track
landing as contrasted with yarding to a
cold deck or to a hot-swing.
Donkey — A portable logging engine, equipped
with drum and cable, used for transport-
ing logs from stump to track.
Donkey logging — A system of logging in which
donkeys are used for yarding.
Duplex loader — A two drum loader for loading
at a spar tree. (See Figure 4D).
Fair-lead arch — A trailer for hauling logs with
a tractor. (See Figures 4 A and 6).
Head spar or Head tree — See Figure 2D.
Heel boom — A special type of swinging boom
used for loading. (See Figures 4B and
44.)
High-lead — A method of yarding. (See Fig-
ure 2H).
Hooker — One who sets chokers in yarding with
tractors; a choker setter.
Hot-yarding — The logs are relayed by a swing
machine as fast as they arrive at the
yarder landing.
Jammer — A special type of loading engine.
(See Figures 4A and 6.)
Landing — A place to which logs are hauled or
skidded preparatory to transportation by
water or rail.
Loader — 1. One who loads log- on car- ; 2.
machine used for loading loj
McLean Boom — A method of loading.
Figure 4C.)
North Bend System — A method of swinj
or yarding. (See Figures 2E and 2F.)
Rigging — The cables, blocks and hooks used in
yarding, swinging, or loading.
Roading (tractor roading) — Hauling logs with
a tractor and trailer on a prepared road,
with one end of the logs dragging on the
road.
Setting — The temporary station of a yarding
engine, or other machine used in logging.
Skidder — A logging engine, usually operated
from a railroad track, which skids logs
over a skyline. (See Figures 2 A and 2B.)
Skidding — Yarding with a skidder.
Skyline — A cable supported between two spar
trees. (See Figures 2A to 2G inclusive.)
Slack line system — A method of yarding or
swinging. (See Figure 2C.)
Spar tree — A tree rigged for yarding, swing-
ing, or loading.
Swinging — Hauling of logs from a yarder land-
ing, either from a cold deeck or directly
as the logs come in (hot-swinging, hot-
yarding) .
Stumpage — The value of timber as it stands
uncut in the woods ; or, in a general sense,
the standing timber itself.
Tail spar or tail tree — See Figure 2D.
Tyler System — A method of swinging or yard-
ing. (See Figures 2 and 6.)
Yarding — The first stage in hauling logs from
stump to track; or, in a general sense, all
phases of hauling and leading from stump
to car.
2,;A few of the definitions are from "Terms Used in Forestry and Logging", Bui. 61, U. S. Bureau of Forestry. Washington, 1905.
7
117
y
A
Ian-
Ni
University of British Columbia Library
DUE DATE
u [
OCT t$*t$Ti
IS^'
'jj-n m.I.
rrj)27i98i
i-
-r-
Kb
■T. i
t
=1 t
Jim
•7i> t
AGRICULTURE
FORtSTRY
L|3kARY
^TflJiAfiF
6
S > /V •
r
■i ■ 'i
?!»wi*$iifio
''111
■ ..w Mil WPmni btiSI P|^5 f|i ft RJ £Mh|
"w*aik
'RVianiiittaiiii
sumaflRum
&Mtt''»'
Siiii
«*5iiSa&" rise; »
Raaaop" - rinw«afc
- was ,'.«mm. t-asataflE
'HK*
I if
^wain-kiiiaiSijiaiB^iSttil
-i - «. ■:
i*Wi
<*«««**,. t;
gibiapffi^fiBIMlllllft !
11"
■•,>,&£'•
R '
Bfll'iiiilin'
Mil
lift OTSB^wSiii*^»»w*'''^ISa
***" few t Wv J ■ mk „ 1 ■WMMM I MM f ' "* * **A )
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11