Container Transport
Page 57
Page 64
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
by David Lowe
Tor's new equipment
THE Tor Line has recently purchased four more Douglas Tugmasters and two Lancer Boss forklift trucks to supplement the fastgrowing fleet of mobile lifting equipment at its Immingham terminal.
A second Lidhult fork-lift truck is also scheduled to enter service in the near future, joining the first Lidhult purchased by Tor Line last year. Powered by a 165 hp Volvo D100 engine, this machine has a driving speed —fully laden---of approximately 20 mph, and provides a lifting capacity of 25 tons.
Freight has increased by more than 40 per cent in the past 12 months and this cargo handling equipment will provide the added mobility, and capacity required for handling the additional volume of traffic.
Unique insulation process
ONE of the foremost manufacturers of insulated shipping containers, ConCargo Ltd., has completed more than 500 of them--worth over £630,000. Negotiations are now taking place with UK and overseas groups for further orders totalling over Elm.
The ConCargo moulding shops at Westonsuper-Mare are claimed to be the most advanced of their kind. A special mechanized process using Celloband polyester resins with glass-fibre (CM June 13), enables the company to produce insulated shipping containers on a flow-line basis. Insulated containers of 10ft and 20ft by 8ft by 8ft, conforming to ISO requirements, have been built, and 40ft units are visualized for the future.
The strength of the containers and the material has been proved by stringent tests. A pressure of up to 200 tons has been exerted on the four top-corner castings which is equivalent to the weight of 10 fully loaded containers stacked one on top of the other.
US statistics
THE American Bureau of Census has announced that in 1968, 21,877 containers (minimum dimensions of 8ft width and 10ft length) and 11,884 container chassis were made.
The Truck Trailer Manufacturers' Association has carried out a survey which shows that its members produced 17,199 (78.8 per cent of total) containers and 5,910 (49.7 per cent) container chassis. The TTMA survey reveals that 87.3 per cent of the containers were general-purpose dry type; 7.38 per cent were refrigerated and 2.21 per cent insulated. The remainder were made up of open-sided types, 1.19 per cent; open tops, 1.10 per cent; platforms, 0.46 per cent; tank, 0.41 per cent; car-haul, 0.41 per cent: livestock, 0.08 per cent.
The 29ft length was the highest in the length category with 37.45 per cent followed by 40ft units. 27.3 per cent; 35ft units, 25.5 per cent; and 24ft units, 9.25 per cent. Tenfoot units amounted to 0.48 per cent and other lengths accounted for only 0.02 per cent.
Over half (59.86 per cent) were of 8ft height and 8ft high units amounted to 38.30 per cent. halt height (4ft 31n.) aria other sizes accounted for only 1:84 per cent of production.
Construction materials used in production showed a big lead for aluminium with 67.20 per cent followed by glass-fibre reinforced plastics plywood with 30.30 per cent. Allsteel units amounted to only 1 per cent and other material 1.50 per cent. .
Economic container handling
THE time has come for facing the fact that freight containers hold no particular magic of their own, Mr. M. H. J. Radcliffe, marketing manager UK, Lancer Boss Ltd., told a conference on containerization in London recently.
Like any other unit loads, said Mr. Radcliffe, containers needed to be handled economically, safely, swiftly and selectively —whenever and wherever the need arose.
The handling system 'employed had to have enough built-in flexibility to ensure that every reasonable eventuality could be met, work peaks could be ironed out and fullest possible use could be made of machines and manpower.
Any so-called handling solution that failed to recognize and answer every one of these needs was no real solution at all.
"Our own experience, as equipment manufacturers pioneering on a world scale a particular approach to container handling, has been that emphasis in the market has progressed from speed of throughput to space utilization and selectivity, then to safety— above all the problem of container damage," he said.
"No one has yet proved capable of predicting with any certainty nor in any detail the future course of containerization—by individual ports and terminals, countries and continents, commodities and container sizes, ocean and overland routes. And whatever the speed of the build-up in container traffic, break-bulk cargo, semi-trailers and selfunitized loads such as packaged timber must still be catered for.
"In these circumstances, it cannot be particularly clever to spend large sums of money on handling systems that cannot fully match immediate needs, may not prove justified in the short to medium term and may not be even remotely suited to longer-term handling needs.
"While containerization as we now know it has grown out of earlier railway practice, some of the greatest handling problems still appear to be found at rail terminals. These problems would not have arisen if lessons to be learned from straightforward industrial handling had been heeded.
"Factory managements recognize that any form of fixed-route equipment is no better than its input/output or feed /discharge subsystems, without which a steady flow cannot be assured. Trains are a fixed-route form of transport—again no better than the buffer storage and marshalling facilities provided at either end of the run. This is where the idealistic, inflexible container handling schemes are falling down."
Too testing
Last week I submitted my preserved historic commercial vehicle to the Ministry of Transport for testing as requested.
I was amazed to find the Ministry testers expected my 20-year-old truck with half a million miles to its credit, to have a similar performance and to be in the same condition as the one-year-old artics -which were being tested at the same time, some of which, no doubt, achieve my annual mileage of 300 miles in one day.
I object to a load of 9 tons being simulated on my vehicle, as it's taxed privately; it will never carry a load again, and its braking ability, when empty is more than adequate.
I fully agree with the test for hard-worked, high-mileage, load-carrying vehicles, but surely the Ministry could differentiate a little, or all our efforts to save the products of some now extinct manufacturers, such as Sentinel, Maudslay. Vulcan, Thornycroft and Jensen, . will be obliterated by red tape.
W. G. Pyatt, The Pyatt Collection, Cheadle, Staffs. [Mr. Pyatt has a point. The only exemption for old vehicles at the moment is for vehicles registered before 1940 and used unladen. Perhaps the Ministry might give sympathetic consideration to extending this to privately taxed vehicles used unladen.—Ed,]
Decimal fares
In CM June 6 1969, an article entitled ". . . and all for the sake of sixpence" appeared under the name of Derek Moses.
I have to draw your attention to an incorrect reference to the Association's traffic committee contained therein, and also to three of its member undertakings. I refer to the paragraph on Page 72 which states that "The token system . . . has, I understand, been given a cautious blessing by the MPTA traffic com mittee . . . The latter system is employed in Leeds. Coventry and now Newcastle upon Tyne".
Firstly, the traffic committee has not given its blessing to such a system, and the three local authority undertakings do not use it. In fact, they are using the multi-journey ticket.
R. E. HYSLOP, General Secretary, MPTA 'Derek Moses writes: I regret if I was misinformed regarding the attitude of the MPTA traffic committee towards token fare systems, particularly as such systems can, I believe, assist one-man operation. I did not, however, attribute token systems to Leeds. Coventry and Newcastle. The "latter system" I referred to was the one described in the previous paragraph--rzamely, multi-journey tickets.)
BRS philosophy
There were two Items in Commercial Motor on July 4 which were of particular interest to British Road Services Ltd., and which were. I believe, of great significance to our industry.
In the final paragraph of your editorial you stated that: hauliers now have a rare chance to demonstrate their professional skill and their flexibility, not least in offering 'package deals' tailored exactly to the needs of an industrialist or trader."
And on page 59, Mr. H. R. Featherstone, director of the Freight Transport Association, talked of the need to cut turnround times.
These two suggestions fit exactly the current British Road Services Ltd. marketing philosophy. Earlier this year we established our consultant unit, staffed by highly qualified distribution engineers and backed by skilled staff in the field. The aim of the unit is to system-sell distribution, i.e. to plan and organize complete distribution systems for manufacturers and traders. Into these systems are built benefits accruing from minimum turn-round times—and the custorriers for whom the unit works are given, if they require it, advice on how to achieve these minimum turn-rounds.
We like this package deal concept—and the clients for whom the unit is working seem to like it too. Certainly the volume of inquiries we are receiving about the unit's services suggests that it is filling a long-felt need.
ALISTAIR TUCKER, Executive Director, Marketing British Road Services Ltd.
Second men
In "The week" (CM July 4) I noticed that Tony Wilding refers to the law requiring a second man in the cab of a lorry pulling a drawbar trailer as an anomaly: and I know that many people in the industry would agree, but may I point out that there is another side to the question?
Speaking as a driver, I would have no objection to pulling a trailer on a straight trunk run, but what happens when de
liveries have to be made, often in antiquated and entirely unsuitable premises, where it is sometimes possible only to push a trailer on the front of the lorry, or where, as is sometimes required, the lorry and trailer have to be positioned side by side on the dock for unloading?
Most dock arid warehouse staff are reluctant even to offer the most minimal help to drivers, and would not take kindly to having to hold up a heavy drawbar while the driver pulled clear, or to help couple up again, and the driver could hardly he expected to do it singlehanded.
Many of the Continental drivers mentioned refuse to help in unloading, saying that they are drivers, not labourers, and they are obviously used to an entirely different set-up, of a type which is still a long way in the future here.
E. G. CORKE, London, W13.
Our Technical Editor writes: I agree that where a mate was not on the vehicle, arrangements would have to be made to help a driver with coupling arid uncoupling. But this is not the main purpose of the law that states that a mate is necessary in a tractor !trailer combination. A mate was specified in the beginning to operate the trailer brakes by a separate control on his side of the cab. This type of system was outdated years ago: now, a second man serves no useful purpose other than in helping with coupling and uncoupling.l
Not taken lightly I refer to the article (CM July 4) "Examiner's cross-check spots records offences-.
In reading this report it would appear the company has treated this matter rather lightly, when in fact both the drivers concerned had been given notice subject to the findings of the court. Quite obviously they were found guilty but the magistrate stated that under the circumstances he hoped the company would take a more lenient view of their misdemeanours. My transport manager accepted these comments and accordingly suspended both drivers for two days.
Your article indicates only one day's suspension was given and without any further explanation I feel your readers may be left with the slightly wrong impression as to the attitude my company always takes when irregularities of this nature come to light.
P. J, REEVES Managing Director, Crow Carrying Co. Ltd., London, E.16