1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
Container Transport
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by Roger Howell More complaints from US truckers
PREVIOUS mention has been made in this column of the difficulties experienced by American truckers when handling containers. In CM December 20 it was disclosed that the Mid-Atlantic Conference of Motor Carriers were not satisfied with container rates. Now it is learnt that container operators have come under fire from a New York traffic group, the Traffic Association of the Liquor Industry whose 22 members handle liquor and wine import shipments valued at more than S10Orn per year. At a recent meeting attended by many trucking representatives, criticism was made of container terminal operations, a representative of the liquor group stating that while ocean carriers had invested heavily in new tonnage, they had failed to back up the new and expensive ships with complementing shore equipment.
The absence of a sufficient number of straddle carriers had been noted at some container piers, and this shortage had resulted in delayed clearing of boxes which were often stacked three deep in the storage areas. Much double handling resulted from this overflow.
The American truckers present complained of the unfavourable ratio between containers in transit and the skeletal trailers needed to move the containers to and from the terminals. It was claimed that only one line provided a chassis for each container in transit.
Truckers were also unhappy over the poor condition of shipping line semi-trailers, drivers frequently having to cope with broken air pipes, faulty lights, and bad tyres. That common user equipment again!
Many UK operators who have purchased expensive skeletal and platform skeletal equipment will probably be surprised to learn that in the USA it is the container operator who supplies the trailer equipment. There are several reasons for this, but the fact remains that the box-van trailer has long been predominant in American haulage, flat trailers being comparatively rare birds. If the container operator wants his equipment shifted, then he must provide the running gear....
Also criticized by the truckers were the short 20ft containers, as it often proved difficult to marry two of these into the 40ft single unit preferred for overland movement. According to the container operators the 20ft unit was a compromise in intermodal traffic flows, being preferred by many European overland carriers.
Perhaps our hauliers do prefer a nice compact load, particularly where the unplated 24ft trailer still predominates!
Apparently the container representatives present at the meeting, tacitly acknowledged that their terminal operations sometimes fell short of expectations. Surprisingly enough this was partly due to truckers failing to comply with appointment systems, set up to regulate terminal throughputs.
Obviously the Americans, who have had much wider experience of container operation than most, have still to overcome many of the fundamental problems. Inadequate terminal facilities again present the major debating point, and perhaps UK transport men can consider themselves fortunate that our own facilities are part of, and not predecessors of. the container revolution.
Containerization 'bugs'
MORE American container problems are reported in the New York Journal of Commerce. Carl E. McDowell, an executive vice-president of the American Institute of Marine Underwriters, recently emphasized that the "bugs" in containerized shipments were costing marine underwriters too much money. Container operators had failed to fulfil promises of reduced insurance premiums, reduced packaging costs and an end to pilferage.
To. Mr. McDowell the ISO box itself was still in need of adequate construction standards and also international standards for maintenance, inspection and recertification. Furthermore the on-deck carriage of containers was producing too many total losses. Damage to container contents was also high, mainly because many users did not appreciate the art of container stuffing.
Pilferage and damage often resulted from the opening of containers in transit. Apparently, in America, boxes were opened by Customs officials, by carriers spot-checking contents, by government agencies engaged on census work, and by dockside labour which could insist on rehandling the goods.
Mr. McDowell stressed that the difficulties were experienced despite the fact that containerization within the United States was in its third decade of development. International ocean transport of containers was in its second decade, but the concept of purpose-built container ships and special terminals was only now coming into existence.
One wonders how many of the problems mentioned by Mr. McDowell are applicable to UK container operation. Certainly we have enjoyed the advantages of cellular ships and properly equipped terminals from a relatively early stage. Our hauliers have benefited here in quicker turnrounds, but cannot they reasonably expect more?