THIS CONTAINER EPIDEMIC HAS ITS TROUBLE SPOTS
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
"T AM far from convinced that we are not tending to develop containerization to suit the present legislation of our country, albeit that the legislation was constituted before the use or scope of containerization was envisaged", commented Mr. J. G. Russell, director Southern Area Transport Group Ltd. (MG), last week.
Mr. Russell was speaking on containerization to the London centre of the Institute of Traffic Administration. Although he had no doubts about the large role which containers would play in transport—especially international movements—he gave some timely warnings.
Mr. Russell said it was a retrograde step to introduce in large numbers containers that might well prove uneconomic in the face of foreign competition.
The lengths of 8 ft. by 8 ft. cross-section containers recommended by ISO had not proved equally acceptable internationally.
The 10 ft. was usable mainly as a specialpurpose type, the 20 ft. was the most com mon in Britain and was popular in the USA (where two could be carried by road and divided for local delivery); the 40 ft. was also used in America and was compatible with the use of 20 ft. as the Standard module.
But UK regulations had favoured the 30 ft. and this was not widely used internationally; Britain was entering the field a long way behind the USA and we had to regard containerization from an international standpoint.
Containerization enthusiasm was infectious, like an epidemic, said Mr. Russell, but invest ment in it had to be soundly based because extravagance and waste would be paid for by all concerned.
Containerization could only be advantageous if the goods required to be handled in transit, otherwise there was little reason for adding the weight, cost and inflexibility of the container which brought with it depreciation and maintenance costs, reduced the available payload of a vehicle and, like a van, was less easy to backload than a fiat.
Compensating savings in cost or advantages in service needed to be shown in order to justify containerization. The most obvious example of goods that needed in-transit handling were exports, but there was a place for containers in inland transport—though probably limited in the UK by the relatively small distances to be covered.
Need for control One problem, said Mr. Russell, was that many industrial establishments simply were not designed to cater for big unit loads; consignors and consignees had to be prepared to provide the necessary loading and unloading equipment if they wished to take advantage of containerization. Improvisation might be necessary in the early stages, but improvised methods tended to be slower and thus more expensive.
The carrier lost by delays, and Mr. Russell strongly advocated demurrage charges that were relative to the cost of each operation, so that companies with good facilities did not subsidize the others.
Experience, said Mr. Russell, undoubtedly emphasized the need for efficient control throughout door-to-door service. The need for the long-distance operator to obtain balanced traffic, and the flexibility of the road operator, could be adduced as evidence against giving shipping lines the control of the through movement.
Another factor in control, shown up especially in the North Atlantic container experiment, was the need for each container to be inspected for damage at each interchange point and a container condition receipt completed and signed. Tracing responsibility for damage was difficult afterwards.
Container leasing
Who should own the containers? Mr. Russell thought that a nucleus should be available for public hire from leasing or hiring companies. They could also be owned by carriers in all spheres according to the extent of their interest in the through movement, and others would be provided by the door-to-door transport companies Container leasing companies could provide a flexibility to cope with fluctuating traffic and the need to obtain traffic balance. Most important, though, it would be necessary for everyone concerned to contribute capital to containerization if Britain was to have a progressive role in international transport.
The biggest saving from containerization could accrue to shipping and port interests: port handling of general freight could account for as much as 40 per cent of an international movement. There were, said Mr. Russell, about 900 general cargo berths in this country and 70 being built. It had been estimated that 100 berths could cope with all the traffic if it were 100 per cent containerized. The forecast was that 75 per cent of general cargo on the North Atlantic run would be in containers by 1970.
The location of a major Customs clearance centre in the vicinity of a container berth had many advantages so long as there was no industrial interference that added to labour costs. Consignments for widely different destinations could be broken down from bulk at the earliest opportunity and sent by the most direct route. This was a point to be set against the advantages of inland clearance centres. Inland depots could provide a useful function for the inunedlate areas they served if the volume of traffic was enough in those areas to justify a depot.
Mr. Russell said he had taken part in preliminary talks on inland depot projects, for which the Customs stipulated that they must be governed by a group of interests. But there was little evidence of successful economic ventures in this country which had been financed and governed by a group of traders who for the main part of their business were in competition. Capital had not been forthcoming, and several inland depot schemes had fallen by the wayside.
He thought that here was a case for Customs clearance centres administered and owned by inland carriers offering an efficient and economic service.
Another operational drawback in international work was that foreign-owned containers temporarily imported could not be used for national traffic movement; regulations needed amending to permit limited-period use to avoid this inefficiency.
The most controversial question posed by the audience, in the discussion which followed, was: who is responsible for damage to goods packed in a container?
Mr. Russell said there was no clear answer; the problem was still under discussion. For instance, if a driver applied his brakes fiercely and the goods moved and were damaged, this could be considered negligence on the driver's part. But if the goods had been properly packed they wouldn't have moved. So stalemate!