AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

by Roger Howell

20th December 1968
Page 23
Page 23, 20th December 1968 — by Roger Howell
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Low damage rate

EXPERIENCE with his company's containers during the past year or two had been very satisfactory Mr. R. B. Stoker, chairman of Manchester Liners Ltd., told a conference organized by the Institute of Materials Handling (North West Division) last month. Out of some 65,000 packages shipped in containers only a dozen had been damaged and pilferage had been virtually eliminated. A voluntary insurance scheme had been introduced and, as all loaded containers were stowed below deck, very cheap rates were quoted. Carriage below decks reduced the payload of the ship but this was offset by the reduced insurance premiums available to shippers.

In Montreal snow sheds 60ft high had been built on the container terminal to protect the containers from heavy snow. Extremes of climate arose in the Canadian trade. Units in transit across the prairies could be subject to as much as 40° of frost in winter and very high temperatures in the summer. This necessitated great attention to detail in the design and a large range of insulated units, together with many other special types, were being employed. At home advice on packing was freely available from a number of the company's senior officers who had been brought ashore especially for the purpose of giving technical assistance and guidance on container packing problems.

In reply to a leading biscuit manufacturer Mr. Stoker said that their inspectors always examined containers before dispatch to shippers, special care being taken to avoid contamination and taint. Effective arrangements had been made for cleansing. All the containers now had securing facilities inside.

Efficient stowage was essential unless the advantages of containers were to be nullified, said Mr. J. E. Huntley, materials handling and packaging consultant of Overseas Containers Ltd. They ha q undertaken trials with every possible variety of consignment. A computer had been a good example of the reduced packaging needed. In this case the machinery was bolted to a wooden base frame and, apart from a plastic dust cover, was otherwise unprotected. The computer had been loaded into the container in a mere 18 minutes and around £300 had been saved on packing.

Mr. Huntley felt that some unfortunate terms had come into use, including the word -stuffing" for the filling process. This suggested goods being rammed into the container without proper stowage. Correct fitting together of the consignment was necessary in order to prevent lateral or longitudinal movement of the cargo. Stressing the value of forklift trucks with specialized attachments, Mr. Huntley made it clear that they should not be used inside a container if the wheel loading exceeded the specifications laid down in BS 3591.

Mr. T. Kenyon, surveyor, HM Customs and Excise, said that the Customs authorities were anxious to give all the assistance they could and with the advent of containerization it was most important that the potential advantages should not be nullified by untimely and inaccurate entries on the Customs form. Exporters who maintained close links with the local Customs officer would always have advice readily available. Agents in their turn should lodge documents promptly and, he reminded them, had a duty to give guidance to shippers regarding their legal obligations.

US hauliers' problems

• It seems that American truck operators are not satisfied with 'container rates. This is apparent from press reports detailing increased rates and charges which were due to come into effect on December 3. The increase proposals made by the Mid-Atlantic Conference of Motor Carriers, and the resultant complaints from various shipping companies, have been laid before the Interstate Corn-. merce Commission, though we have not as yet heard of any ruling.

The truckers' conference, which covers a fairly wide industrial belt including New York, claims that containers have been thrust upon the inland carrier and are uneconomic pieces of equipment, with low cubic capacity and high tare weight, which add substantially to operating costs. It proposes changes which would impose a charge of 10 dollars for each coupling and uncoupling movement, restrict free time to 11 hours from the present 4 hours for up to 24,000 lb, and 6 hours for over 36,000 lb, and would also assess a handling charge of 50 dollars to 825 dollars per container depending on the rate base, empty mileage, and time given to collect equipment prior to scheduled loading. Mid-Atlantic claims that the charges are needed to act as an incentive to motor carriers to enter into through movements and interchange agreements.

American steamship companies headed by Container Marine Lines-American Export Im

brandtsen, and including Atlantic Container Lines, Farrell Lines, Grace Line and MooreMcCormack, supported by the US Army, the Port of New York Authority and the traffic board of the North Atlantic Ports Association have protested vigorously to the ICC that the truckers' proposals will seriously inhibit intermodal transportation and will disrupt and impair international trade. They detail the usual claimed benefits accruing to the trucker from container work. They also claim that the proposals discriminate against 20ft containers within the Mid-Atlantic territory. Such companies as Sea-Land, with their own 35ft containers, were not among the objectors and according to the shippers will enjoy a definite cost advantage.

The port authorities, and the New York authority in particular, are worried, New York has poured 175 million dollars into container facilities already, and it is expected that by 1975 50 per cent of the general cargo moving through the port will be containerized. However,' if the Mid-Atlantic proposals are pushed through it is more than possible that shippers will divert some cargo to other unaffected ports. The proposed charges, the New York authority states, constitute a "penalty" to serve as an "economic incentive to utilize motor carriers trailers for land movements, effectively thwarting the whole concept of oceanborne container movement."' The conference proposals are relevant in view of the difficulties encountered by road hauliers engaged on container work in this country. Keen rates are fair enough, as long as the ultimate return is satisfactory. Unfortunately the American experience—truckers being expected to absorb the tremendous additional cost burden of moving empty equipment over long distances—applies just as much in the UK, particularly on day tramp operations. Whereas a box may occasionally come in useful for conveying specialized back load traffic, normally it proves a hindrance, and loads can be lost whilst the driver tries to find somewhere and someone to take it off. Indeed, some hauliers are now wary of accepting container traffic, where the contents have to be discharged at a distance, and prefer to concentrate on moving loaded boxes to terminals for onward transit.

Unfortunately for the American conference, its territory is limited, and the ports are justified in stating that the action could well drive traffic elsewhere, Territorial boundaries would_ present fewer problems in this country, hence certain aspects of the American proposals, especially the handling charge scheme, warrant further investigation.


comments powered by Disqus