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 
Second-generation containers
Page 48
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IMH Felixstowe conference reviewed by John Darker, AMB1M • In the run-up before the main onset of containerization begins with OCL's TilburyAustralia service next January more detailed questions are being asked by road transport managers as to the practical operational effects.
At Felixstowe last week, when the Institute of Materials Handling held a second two-day residential conference on "Developments in containers and container handling", much plain speaking carne from delegates and a genuine effort was made by platform speakers to deal helpfully with the points raised.
Much stress was placed by Mr. George Downie, the principal speaker, on the need for the rapid development of what he termed "second generation containers". Light, thin-skinned containers would play a decreasing part in international container movements, he said.
As a practical operator—Mr. Downie organized Unilever's African Container Express--he left delegates in no doubt that the thin-skinned container would be an expensive luxury in any global journey involving large temperature and humidity changes.
The second generation containers now being planned, said Mr. Downie, provided a reasonable degree of insulation—sufficient to preserve semi-perishables and the like on a three-week voyage without refrigeration.
"If we take the necessary steps in time," said Mr. Downie, "Britain could well become the hub of a vast global movement operation". It would be necessary to provide a central source of information about container operation and developments; to introduce movement studies (statistical, cost analysis, etc.) into all planning by Government and industry for import and export operations and for domestic purposes where this does not already exist in the private sector of industry.
Loading of containers by means of extensible conveyors positioned at the end of factory production lines was one method foreseen by Mr. Downie. Pallet loading with fork-lift trucks was also possible as standard containers could withstand dynamic loads of 6,000lb per sq.ft.
In. opposition to some pessimists in the insurance world, Mr. Downie said that given adequate packing methods and cargo stowage, over 99 per cent of cargo offered for transit nationally and internationally would stand "an excellent chance of achieving a satisfactory out-turn—not at port of arrival, but at point of delivery".
A global container pool possibly run in conjunction with leasing organizations was another long-range forecast by Mr. Downie. This was not an ideal arrangement, he said, but it would allow users to dispatch loaded containers overseas, leaving the return load to be organized quite independently by the leasing body.
Conference delegates were shown round the port of Felixstowe and noted the second Vickers Paceco container-handling gantry crane under erection. One could understand the disappointment expressed in the recent chairman's annual report of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Co. that container traffic has not built up as quickly as was hoped. Each Vickers crane must lift 90 containers a day to break even.
Port manager Mr. I. C. Trelawny said he had decided against a computer to monitor container movements. Instead, the container terminal foreman would be positioned in a tower three stories high. A visual control aid on the wall using magnetic plates would be employed.
Container owners, he said, should ensure that container top surfaces bear identification numbers. He noted, in passing, that it was possible for two containers to bear identical numbers—something that needs to be sorted out urgently before computer movement recording is widely adopted in Britain.
Delegates noted the heavy capital costs involved in unused containers and trailers parked on the dockside. Mr. Trelawny was "constantly amazed" at the apparent sloth of road transport operators in leaving containers and expensive semi-trailers for long periods.
Operators were advised as soon as containers were cleared by Customs and prompt clearance thereafter should follow.
Containers were frequently damaged by bad handling, said Mr. Trelawny, and contents were not always properly stowed, causing heavy claims. Declared weights of container contents were often grossly inaccurate. A consignment said to be of three or four tons could turn out to be 13 or 14 tons. Asked whether the Parkeston Quay container ship operations would threaten Felixstowe's progress, Mr. Trelawny said this was possible; he could not see how BR could clear 600 containers in 24 hours. This would require 14 Freightliner trainers. Seventy per cent of containers at Felixstowe were currently road-borne. He would like more trains—they did not answer back! Too many road operators sent vehicles into the port in convoy. The drivers all wanted immediate attention and this was impossible.
Ferry cargo rates at Felixstowe average 31s per long ton, said Mr. Trelawny. The overall charge raised for loading containers to ships by the Vickers Paceco gantry crane was £9 (or 15s per ton, on average). If unloading was from ship to lorry direct there was a reduction of 22s 6d per box; £1 was charged for transferring a container from rail to road, or vice versa.
Mr. C. C. Durrant, who spoke for BR on Freightliner development, said the claims paid for damage amounted to less than .2 per cent of total receipts. This was because of the smooth ride possible with rigid coupling bars.
Freightliner potential by the mid 70s was 34m tons; 2m tons had been carried in 1967 and this year's target was 6m tons. The development of the system would depend on the speed of integration between road, rail and ships. On the question of BR carrying unit packs no advice to traders was yet forthcoming. "We are feeling our way", said the speaker.
In the discussion period the "belt and braces" approach of RR to container handling equipment was criticized. Mr. Durrant said BR was right to provide equipment capable of intensive operations. The crane failures in the early days had been embarrassing. He admitted that there had been some underestimation of marshalling space for lorries at terminals. (A representative of Rubery, Owen and Co. Ltd., present, suppliers of the Travelift equipment, said the craneage problems of BR would have been lessened if they had been willing to make the equipment available for routine maintenance.) There was an animated discussion of Mr. Downie's papers. Many delegates favoured side-loading containers with hatches or curtains. Mr. Downie said the end loading doors made for a stronger container. His experience with African Container Express suggested that top hatches were satisfactory and seldom let in water.
The conversion to metric system would give rise to a minor revolution in the hand ling industry, Mr. Downie told another questioner. Packaging and pallet dimensions would have to fit the internal dimensions of containers. When standardized equipment was agreed high-speed loading with pre-packed unit loads would be feasible, but off-loading arrangements at the destination would have to be planned to suit.
What would happen, asked another delegate, if minor damage to a container was noticed in transit by a port or Customs official; would the load be held up?
Mr. Downie thought it likely that the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultation Organization would soon provide a certification scheme for containers moving globally.
During a brains trust session with a panel of equipment manufacturers, Mr. G. W. Watson (Hebert Morris Ltd.) told Mr. D. G. Stern (C. G. Chantrill and Partners Ltd.) that the 74-ton container grapple used on the Goliath Freightliner crane could transmit the whole of this weight—via the container—to the carrying unit—a prospect that many road hauliers may view without enthusiasm.
Mr. T. Bowman Shaw (Lancer Boss Ltd.) said the tendency today was not to handle containers more than 20ft long with fork-lift trucks—"the containers break their backs". Alternative top lifting equipment was satisfactory.