Charger power is the biggest lever in depot design, and a new case study puts numbers on it. Reed Boardall, a UK temperature-controlled logistics operator, replaced low-powered chargers at its Boroughbridge depot with a 360 kW system. The charging provider, Chargepoly, says daily electric vehicle output doubled or tripled. Chargepoly published the same findings on its own site, and both sources trace to the vendor, so treat this as one vendor-reported data point from a UK site. The details are still useful for any fleet.
What changed
According to Motor Transport's report and Chargepoly's own write-up:
- Reed Boardall runs two Volvo FM Electric tractor units on 24-hour shuttle work.
- Two legacy 43 kW AC chargers, which needed charging periods of up to 12 hours, were replaced with a 360 kW DC system from Chargepoly.
- Chargepoly's findings come from six months of telematics data, March to September.
The numbers
| Measure | Reported figure |
|---|---|
| Charging sessions recorded | 884 |
| Energy delivered | 104.6 MWh |
| Average energy per session | 191.1 kWh |
| Average active charging time | 58 minutes |
| Average charging power | about 200 kW |
| Daily distance per truck | about 450 km |
| Daily energy use per truck | about 500 kWh |
Two points stand out. First, a truck that used to be tied up for up to 12 hours now charges in about an hour on average. Second, the average power was around 200 kW, well under the 360 kW rating. Rated power and delivered power are different things.
Fit charging into the work you already do
Chargepoly says Reed Boardall's drivers unhitch trailers at the loading docks and move the tractor to the charger while they collect another loaded trailer. Charging happens during a task that was already part of the shift, so it does not add downtime. This is a design lesson: study the turnaround before choosing the charger.
Spare capacity
The study found active charging accounted for 9.1% of the available powered-position hours, equal to 7.5% of the system's total rated energy capacity. Using a 70% planning ceiling and a 12-hour charging window, Chargepoly estimates the site could take up to 12 more truck charging events a day, and up to 20 trucks over 24 hours with optimized scheduling. These are the vendor's modelling results, not measured outcomes.
The cost question
Chargepoly says upfront cost for ultra-fast DC is higher, but that total cost of ownership improves because fewer vehicles are needed for the same daily mileage. It also cites a 75% UK Government Depot Charging Scheme grant. That grant is specific to the UK, so US fleets should check incentives available to them, and run their own numbers.
What to take from it
- Match power to the duty cycle. A fleet that runs 24 hours cannot wait 12 hours for a charge.
- Measure before you size. Telematics showed lots of idle charger time. Size for the real schedule.
- Schedule loads. Software that spreads power across vehicles can raise usable capacity without more hardware.
- Plan the electrical service. Higher power means a bigger utility service and longer lead times.
FAQ
Is faster always better? Not always. Overnight dwell can suit slower, cheaper charging. Fast charging pays off where vehicles run around the clock.
Does this apply to vans and light-duty fleets? The principle does, but the power level will differ. This case covers heavy trucks.
Is the data independent? No. It comes from the charging provider, based on one site.
Sources
[1] Chargepoly, Oct 15, 2026 (vendor write-up): https://www.chargepoly.com/uk/how-reed-boardall-achieves-24-7-intensive-e-truck-operations/
[2] Motor Transport, Oct 19, 2026: https://motortransport.co.uk/operator-news/reed-boardall-boosts-electric-truck-deliveries-threefold-with-ultra-fast-charging-research-reveals/91275.article
Related: Fleet charging time: what the power level math looks like
Independent commentary. Brand references describe public industry examples and do not imply affiliation. Operator claims are attributed, not independently audited.
Discuss your fleet