Heading
Close X
Menu
A service and maintenance business operating across Leeds, Wakefield and Sheffield was experiencing rising running costs, inconsistent vehicle utilisation and frequent overloading alerts. On the surface, the fleet looked well‑managed. But once their operational data was analysed, the issue became clear:
The vans didn’t match the work.
This case study shows how applying the principles from the Fleet Buyers Guide - route analysis, payload matching and powertrain suitability - delivered measurable improvements within 12 months.
Fleet Profile
- Fleet size: 29 vans
- Operating area: Leeds, Wakefield, Sheffield
- Work type: Multi‑stop service calls, light equipment transport
Route pattern:
- 80% of routes under 100 miles
- High stop frequency
- Mostly urban or mixed urban/suburban
Pain points:
- Higher-than-expected fuel spend
- Overloading alerts on mid‑size vans
- Access issues in tight city streets
- Unplanned downtime linked to vehicle strain
The Problem: Vehicle Mismatch
Using the same framework outlined in the Fleet Buyers Guide, the fleet’s data revealed four key mismatches:
1. Payload mismatch
Mid‑size vans were regularly overloaded due to heavy toolkits and equipment.
This caused:
- Increased wear on brakes and suspension
- Higher downtime
- Safety and compliance risks
2. Volume & access mismatch
Large vans were being used on dense urban routes where:
- Manoeuvrability was poor
- Parking delays increased route time
- Drivers reported higher stress and fatigue
3. Route & powertrain mismatch
Diesel vans were being used on short, stop‑start routes ideal for electric.
This led to:
- Higher fuel consumption
- Unnecessary CAZ exposure
- Underutilised EV potential
4. Configuration mismatch
Standard racking layouts didn’t match the tools carried, causing:
- Longer loading/unloading times
- Inefficient use of space
- Poor workflow for technicians
What Changed
After reviewing their operational data, the fleet made targeted adjustments - not a full replacement programme.
1. Right‑sizing the fleet
- Reassigned large vans to regional routes
- Introduced Citan and Vito models for urban service calls
- Retained larger vans only where payload genuinely required it
2. Powertrain optimisation
- Moved predictable, sub‑100‑mile routes to electric
- Kept diesel for longer mixed or rural routes
3. Better configuration
- Updated racking layouts to match technician workflows
- Improved side‑door access for frequent stops
The Results (12 Months)
Operational Improvements
- 22% reduction in running costs
- 80% fewer overloading alerts
- Faster drop times due to better access and manoeuvrability
- Higher vehicle utilisation across the fleet
Driver Feedback
- Easier to park and navigate in city centres
- Better workflow with improved racking
- Reduced fatigue on multi‑stop days
Compliance & Safety
- Lower CAZ exposure
- Reduced strain on components
- Fewer maintenance‑related disruptions
Why It Worked
Because the fleet followed the same principles highlighted in the Buyers Guide:
- Match payload to the right van size
- Match route type to the right powertrain
- Match environment to the right access and configuration
- Use data, not assumptions, to allocate vehicles
The result wasn’t a bigger fleet - just a smarter one.
Key Takeaway
Fixing vehicle mismatch is the fastest way to reduce avoidable cost - and it doesn’t require replacing your entire fleet.