aulage Methods
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
UK was receiving packaged shipments from a variety of sources. A rapidly increasing quantity was being received from British Columbia in sizes which made excellent sense from the handling point of view. Packages were also being received from Eastern Canada and from Russia on the basis of using a large package size which would give maximum handling economy. But a substantial number of cargoes of Scandinavian timber were being received in smaller package sizes which gave a. substantially reduced benefit in handling, but made the easiest possible reconciliation with the timber trade problems associated with Scandinavia.
Regarding package widths, consideration had recently been given on an international basis to the width of units of cargo, with the subsequent choice of a container of 8 ft. square cross-section. This suggested that this dimension would be taken by ship designers in the future as a fundamental unit. Accordingly, it was proposed that the modular cargo unit should he a" unicube " which was essentially a 1+ metre tube. Correspondingly, 2+ m. was equivalent to 8 ft. 2+ in„ which Was reflected in practical fashion by the same maximum permitted width for -a road vehicle recently adopted both by this country and other Western European Countries.
Width Bask
These considerations, Mr. Hanson continued, led one to the conclusion that Limber packages should be based on a width module of if m. with smaller timber packages half this width. On this basis either two or four packages. side by side would lie on a standard road vehicle. It was important that any notion of dividing the, available width of 2f m. into three units of width should be discarded. While such a practice might he satisfactory where cranes only were used for the handling of packages, it could not usually be satisfactory in relation to the increasing practice whereby loads were lifted by equipment utilizing the fork principle. Such equip-ment could not possibly reach the centrally placed package in any practical fashion unless the equipment extended far enough and was adequately rated to lift a complete layer of the load from one side only.
Whilst there had been several changes in the regulations affecting the width of road vehicles in the UK in regent years,. there had been no change regarding the maximum permissible width of load fOr 'normal use. Thus UK importers might well have vehicles or trailers of 7 ft., / ft. 6 in. or 8 ft. 2+ in. width and the regulations permitted them to extend the:, load beyond these widths to theextent of 12 in. per side or up to 9.ft: 6 in. total.
.• In all these cases there was the added criterion that the load must he 'safe. and it was of considerable importance to the
future carriage of timber that the extra safety value in the packaging of timber should be recognized. If this was done the statutory limitations of the width of toad carried by road transport in the UK would not affect packaged timber handling, provided the general recommendations he had set out were observed.
Packaged timber would in any case be carried on bolsters attached to, or lying on, the deck of the vehicle in order to permit forks or slings to be inserted under the load. Appropriate design of these bolsters would, therefore, tend to remove the actual width of the vehicle from being vitally concerned in the safe carriage of packaged timber loads up to 8 ft. net nominal width.