Heading
Close X
Menu
Northside Truck and Van works with fleets of all sizes across Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire - from last‑mile delivery operators in city centres to construction and engineering firms covering long regional routes.
Rather than guesswork or “what we’ve always run,” this is about using real operational data to choose the right vans for the job.
Where the 68% figure comes from
- Sample size: 214 fleets (5–150 vehicles)
- Region: Yorkshire & Northern Lincolnshire
- Period analysed: 24 months
- Sectors: Delivery & logistics, trades & construction, service & maintenance, utilities, and local authorities
- Vehicle mix: Light, mid-size, and large vans (including EVs)
How we defined “efficiency loss”
We looked at four key areas:
- Fuel or energy overuse: Higher-than-expected fuel or kWh per mile for the duty cycle
- Underutilisation: Vans consistently running well below optimal payload or volume
- Overloading & misuse: Regular overloading events or inappropriate use (e.g. long routes in short-range vehicles)
- Unplanned downtime: Breakdowns, excessive wear, or maintenance linked to misuse or mismatch
We then categorised the root causes into:
- Vehicle mismatch: Wrong size, payload, range, or configuration for the job
- Driver behaviour: Harsh acceleration, idling, speeding, poor route choice
- Operational planning: Poor route planning, scheduling, or loading practices
- External factors: Traffic, weather, roadworks, etc.
Headline result
- 68% of identified efficiency losses were primarily linked to vehicle mismatch
- 19% were linked mainly to driver behaviour
- 9% to operational planning
- 4% to external factors
What “vehicle mismatch” looks like in the real world
1. Payload mismatch
- Over-specified vans:
- Large vans running at less than 40% of their payload on average
- Higher fuel/energy use than necessary for the work being done
- Under-specified vans:
- Frequent overloading events
- Increased wear on brakes, suspension, and tyres
- Higher risk of fines and safety issues
Local example:
A regional engineering firm running heavy tools and equipment in mid-size vans saw frequent overloading alerts. Moving key routes to Sprinter models with higher payload capacity reduced overloading events by over 80% and cut unplanned downtime.
2. Volume and access mismatch
- Too small inside:
- Multiple trips for what could be a single run
- Inefficient loading/unloading, especially for bulky but light items
- Too big for the environment:
- Large vans struggling in tight city streets, height restrictions, or multi-storey car parks
- Longer loading times and more driver stress
Local example:
A parcel delivery operator in Leeds and Hull was using large vans on dense urban routes. Switching some routes to Vito and Citan models improved drop efficiency and reduced time lost to access and parking issues.
3. Range and route mismatch (EV vs diesel)
- EVs on the wrong routes:
- Electric vans used on long, high-speed routes with limited charging access
- Range anxiety, frequent top-ups, and inefficient route planning
- Diesel on ideal EV routes:
- Short, stop-start urban routes where EVs would have lower running costs and zero tailpipe emissions
Local example:
A service company operatingmainly in Sheffield and Doncaster moved a portion of its fleet to eVito and eSprinter for urban routes. Their diesel vans were retained for longer rural runs across Yorkshire. This split reduced energy costs and improved utilisation of both powertrains.
4. Body style and configuration mismatch
- Wrong body or layout:
- Racking that doesn’t match the tools or parts carried
- Side vs rear access not aligned with delivery patterns
- Inadequate security for high-value loads
Local example:
A trades business in Grimsby was using standard panel vans for jobs that required frequent side access in tight streets. Moving to vans with optimised side-door access and tailored racking reduced job time per visit and improved driver satisfaction.
Local patterns we see across Yorkshire & Northern Lincolnshire
From our work with fleets in the region, a few trends stand out:
- Urban routes (Leeds, Sheffield, Hull, York):
- Benefit most from compact or mid-size vans and EV options
- Key focus: manoeuvrability, access, and low-emission zone compliance
- Regional and rural routes (North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, East Riding):
- Often better served by Sprinter and larger diesel or long-range EV vans
- Key focus: payload, range, and comfort over distance
- Mixed fleets with depots across the region:
- Gain the most from data-led vehicle allocation
- Matching the right van to each route type delivers measurable savings
How this data translates into real savings
When fleets address vehicle mismatch, we typically see improvements in:
- Fuel or energy costs:
Better matching of van size and powertrain to route and load
- Downtime and maintenance:
Fewer overloading events and less strain on components
- Driver productivity:
Easier access, better layouts, and vehicles suited to the environment
- Compliance and safety:
Reduced risk of overloading fines and improved vehicle stability
How Northside Truck and Van uses this data with you
When we sit down with a fleet operator, we don’t start with “What van do you want?”
We start with:
- Your routes: Urban, regional, or mixed?
- Your loads: Heavy, light, bulky, or specialist?
- Your constraints: Low-emission zones, site access, parking, height limits
- Your strategy: Growth, electrification, replacement cycles, or cost reduction?
Then we use our regional data and Mercedes-Benz model range to recommend:
- Citan / eCitan for light urban and last‑mile work
- Vito / eVito for trades, contracting, and mixed regional work
- Sprinter / eSprinter for heavy loads, high volume, and specialist conversions
The goal is simple: reduce that 68% of efficiency loss caused by vehicle mismatch.
If you’d like a tailored review of your own fleet using this framework, get in touch with the team at Northside Truck and Van and we’ll walk through it with you.