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 
COUNTING THE COST OF CONTAIN El REPAIRS
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE SUCCESS of the "container revolution" over the next few years may depend to a major extent on the incidence of damage to ISO containers and the cost of repair. And while up-to-date methods of handling in modernized docks and depots should enable frequent damage to be avoided, operator experience has shown that the human element is a serious hazard factor in container handling generally that may well become more serious with increasing container congestion. Of the many causes of serious damage, misjudging headroom on the part of vehicle drivers employed by container hauliers is possibly the most common.
There have been many cases of a container being completely wrecked by contact with a low bridge or equivalent, and a relatively low-force impact can distort the entire structure of the container. Rebuilding is then required to restore the container to its original condition and the facilities that are available for major repairs should, therefore, be a priority consideration of any operator of container-carrying vehicles. And he should bear in mind that a haphazard repair can be immediately dangerous as well as uneconomic in the long run. While there are currently no regulations stipulating standards of repair, such regulations will probably be promulgated in due course.
Detailed news of repair procedure and typical costing has been obtained from Clyde Wharf Ltd., 28 North Woolwich Road, London, E16, which is a subsidiary of Sugar Line Ltd., the dry-cargo ship-owning member of the Tate and Lyle Group, and is associated with Silver Roadways Ltd., the haulage member of the group. The company's staff have had long experience of repairing steel and wooden barges, tugs and self-propelled river craft and are fully qualified to perform all types of repair to steel, aluminium, glass-reinforced plastics and resin-bonded-plywood containers. Ample space is available for repairs, storage and the stocking of structural sections.
According to a spokesman of the company, a comprehensive stock of spares is an all-important essential to the expeditious repair of containers. Some 70/80 different types of structural sections are carried in stock and include a range of components for containers manufactured by Metropolitan-Cammell (Clyde Wharf is the sole repairer recommended by this concern), Crane Fruehauf, Central Containers, Cravens Homalloy (Strick), Thompson Trailmobile, Commercial Coachbuilders, Durarnin and York. Repairs that can be completed in a few hours on site are normally undertaken by the personnel of a radio-controlled mobile workshop based on an Albion 5-tonner which is fitted with electric welding equipment and is operated in conjunction with a fleet of Ford Anglia vans that are used for smaller repairs and for the conveyance of personnel visiting a site to survey damage. Containers that are distorted structurally are transferred to the Clyde Wharf premises for repair.
Examples of recent repairs on the premises indicate the type and scope of the work undertaken on a routine basis. While the availability of spare sections is the most important consideration with regard to the time taken for a repair, the cost is partly dependent on the materials used in the construction of the container. A major repair to an aluminium container (with steel end frames) may be as much as double that of an all-steel container.
Photograph No. I is of a Metro-Cammell all-steel ISO container that is presumed to have been damaged by contact with an overhead obstruction, all the damage being shown in the print. Repairs comprised setting-back the roof 411 6in. and forming to the correct level; setting back the side; cropping out the bottom rail as far as necessary and renewal of section; fairing the structure ("fairing" is a ship-repairer's term which means heating and bending into place); realigning to ISO standards and painting. The cost of the repair was £300.
The damage shown in photograph No. 2 resulted from "overstorage", possibly with barrels or bales. In this case also, the container is an all-steel Metro-Cammell unit and repairs cost £360. Parts that had to be removed and renewed comprised a cant rail, three side panels, the complete roof and three header-rail brackets. The main frame of the container was distorted and the cost included re-aligning to ISO standards and repainting.
A Cravens Homalloy 2011 Strick aluminium container is seen being repaired in photograph No. 3, and repairs cost £295. Damage included a large hole in the roof, and an 811 by 811 section of the roof had to be renewed. The damaged side was removed and six bay panels together with six standards (top-hat uprights) were renewed. It was also necessary to re-align the side.
Ribbed panelling that is used for location of dunnage bars is a feature of the MetroC ammell Saltainer all-steel container shown in photograph No. 4. Although the impact that caused the damage was concentrated on a small area of one side, the whole side and roof were distorted and had to be removed together with a cant rail. It was also necessary to re-align the side and roof structures, to fair the opposite side and to renew the side name plate. The cost of repairs was £200.
An alignment jig can be seen in the photograph of the Metro-Cammell Saltainer container (above the roof) which is employed to check the centre distances of the upper corner castings after repairs have been completed and if necessary before and during repairs to ensure conformity with ISO dimensional standards. The company has designed a test jig (which has reached the drawing-board stage) that will be used in due course for retesting repaired containers to ensure that they conform to ISO strength standards.
The United Stages Lines container shown in Photograph No. 5 is of particular interest because it has been impossible to restore it to its original design through lack of spare sections. It is assumed that the container was being carried by a road vehicle and that the top was impacted by a low bridge or by an overhead obstruction on a premises. No suitable sections are produced in this country that could be used without modification to repair the container, which is of American manufacture. Standard British sections could readily have been adapted to repair this container but US Lines insisted on an "as new" repair.
Carbon-dioxide and argon-arc continuous-wire welding equipment is available for repair and all types of aluminium, steel or stainless-steel component can be welded on the Clyde Wharf premises or'on site. The mobile workshop is equipped with various power tools as well as welding plant.
As mentioned earlier, Clyde Wharf is the sole company recommended as container repairers by Metropolitan-Cammell Ltd. and it is therefore appropriate to cite the views of Mr. R. D. C. Jones, sales manager of the company's container group, on maintenance factors and repair costs. The comments quoted were included in a recent paper presented by Mr. Jones to the British Iron and Steel Institute.
Even without the vicissitudes of handling, Mr. Jones emphasizes, containers are abused and finishes are scratched, scraped and dented. Steel rusts rapidly, especially in a marine environment and it is doubtful if there is an economic coating for steel containers that can completely protect it. Steel is a good material for main frames and helps to maintain dimensional stability but in order to straighten steel frames, weld punctures and re-paint the container it has normally to be taken to a repair yard and all or most of the cargo removed. This can lead to loss of availability and in some cases to higher repair costs.
Aluminium is a better material in this respect. Oxidization is more superficial. Its resistance is improved by certain finishes but when these are scraped off, the urgency to refinish is not as great as it is with steel and temporary protective coatings are often effective. Probably the most vulnerable quality of aluminium is its ease of puncture and this can be serious as it can allow water to get to the cargo.
Plastics-coated ply is abuse-resistant and its yield point is very close to its ultimate strength, so it does not remain deformed after a blow but returns to its original shape. It is very difficult to puncture. Repairs are easily made at room temperatures on the spot, usually without removing the cargo, and repair skills can be taught quickly. Some container managers have reported up to 60 per cent less maintenance compared with other types of construction as well as less time spent in repair yards.
Mr. Jones points out that initial costs should be considered in conjunction with maintenance costs and the life period of the container to give an approximate life-cycle cost. Currently, there is a lack of reliable statistical information on repair costs and downtime but the following figures have been .quoted; in the main they relate to an American survey.
In terms of maintenance cost per annum and a life span in years, an all-steel container costs £60 per annum over five years; an aluminium container costs £45 per annum over six years; a GRP plywood container costs £20 per annum over six years. Based on the above figures, the life cycle costs are as follows: steel, £150 per annum; alumihium, £142 per annum; GRP plywood, £128 per annum.
The above figures tend to show that a container-operator's choice of container is more likely to be influenced by the peculiarities of his trade than by life-cycle costs at present. However, it is anticipated that the relatively new GRP plywood container will gain ground at the expense of steel and aluminium.