ontainer Containers the ransport customers' contribution
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Darker
: successful Freightliner train service Dy British Railways is over a distance es from London to Parkeston Quay, it was revealed last week. The Mr. J. Posner, was participating day conference on containerization by the College of Production iv in London.
sner said that the Freightliner train ng at 80 to 85 per cent capacity a week and even more at week-ends. ; were glad to put the containers Stratford terminal because it saved se and time wasting of running 50 -ies direct to Parkeston Quay. Other arvices to Harwich ran from Cr, Cardiff, Birmingham and Scotrently, 35 per cent of containers :he Quay on lorries.
-iference was addressed by Mr. R. as. of the Container Group of Metroimmell Ltd., Mr. R. Goode, general Winn International Containers Ltd., Knight, transportation consultancy Cunard Brocklebank Ltd., and Mr. :er, managing director Hay's Inter3ervices Ltd. Mr. F. C. Margetts, 3ritish Railways Board, 1962-1967 n an .
ame of Mr. Margetts' introductory "The role of the container in transport" was that the planned and d use of containers, effectively participants and users, would lead adless belt conception". Ultimately tier would decide whether he would 3iners so in any assessment of use, and expansion, customer nts—including forwarding agents' large.
:ould be resistance to the changes to facilitate containerization. this could be attributed to inertia. ig this, those who wish to maximize ubted benefits of container use, to exercise a not inconsiderable )f maintained persistence and ,ness accompanied by evidence of tamable."
-getts stressed that if all the ultimate /ere to accrue, all concerned must without necessarily expecting maximum gain. Accepting that ration was here to stay and that it improved and developed implied rail, sea and possibly air transport shipping, port and trade practices iction methods and systems would re continuous evaluation and overtainers, he felt, should be looked at the freight and not just as a vehicle, aised the question of whether conould or should not be identified with 3wners, carriers or consortia.
ling, Mr. Margetts said he thought it likely that customers "have just sat back and left all the inventiveness and innovation to the carriers. Should we not expect them to be equally professional in the transport field where their production and distribution is concerned?"
The paper presented by Mr. R. D. C. Jones. "Design, construction and provision of containers to meet customer needs" noted that the International Standards Organisation had. recently established a minimum internal dimension to which it recommended all manufacturers should adhere. It was accepted that some containers were produced with greater internal dimensions than those recommended by ISO.
Economic factors to be considered in container design included weight. usable cube, load capacity, initial cost, repair shop dead time, life cycle, life expectancy and dimensional stability.
All containers, he felt, should now have steel end frames and corner castings to meet current operational requirements. Underframes and cantrails could be of steel or aluminium, and side, roof and end panelling could be of steel, aluminium, wood, or wood in a sandwich between glass-reinforced plastics.
Container costs varied widely but as a generalization 20ft. all-steel containers cost £450, all aluminium, £580 and g. r.p. plywood, £650. Initial casts should be considered in conjunction with maintenance costs and the life period of the container to give an approximate life-cycle cost.
A recent American survey, said Mr. Jones, had shown the following maintenance cost per annum with a life span in years: All steel £60 5 years Aluminium £45 6 years G.r.p. plywood £20 6 years Based on the above figures, the life-cycle costs were as follows: steel, £150 p.a.; aluminium, £142 pa.: g.r.p. plywood, £128.
The figures quoted, said Mr. Jones, did not take account of Discounted Cash Flow calculations. They showed that a container operator's choice of containers was more likely to be influenced by the peculiarities of his trade than by life-cycle costs, at present. However, it was anticipated that g.r.p. plywood containers would gain ground at the expense of steel and aluminium.
On average, 20ft containers carried a payload of 9-I-12+ tons. Most commodities cubed out; they seldom deadweighted out, and this explained why the larger containers were increasingly popular.
Discussing "Ownership or renting of containers" Mr. R. Goode described the advantages of a fully comprehensive leasing service whereby rentals included the cost of mainenance, repair, insurance and also the provision of replacement units. Leasing costs were easily determined and companies could calculate the cost of using containers in advance of actual operations. If "all in" cover was not available the cost of unknown factors, maintenance, supply of replacement units, cost of moving damaged containers, etc. was only known when the bills rolled in. "How much will it cost to fix a new roof to a container standing at Basle, Milan or Utrecht? And how much to move it into a workshop? Insurance will help, but who will arrange the actual work? Who is to decide whether the repair work is carried out to a known standard? Who will arrange TIR inspection if necessary? And if the container needs replacing .. . who will provide the replacement. and who will pay the cost of conveyance?".
Mr. Goode suggested that the operator, be he a shipping company, shipping agent, forwarding agent or haulier had one function and generally speaking he was not geared to organize workshop activities. etc. His involvement with containers should be limited to using them for the speedy, safe and economical conveyance of traffic.
Mr. J. S. Carter's paper: "The protection and preparation of goods for container movement" was full of practical advice based on long experience. Most damage to goods was due to bad stowage and not from transmitted shock through the container. Unless it was carried out with extreme care, impact could cause shifting, with serious consequences. Containers offered no improvement against risk of damage through vibration; conventional cushioning materials and methods must be used.
While normal closed containers offered complete protection against rain, uninsulated containers offered no more protection against temperature extremes than a normal package. Containerization could be a disadvantage where high humidity was involved. At a temperature of 25deg C one cubic metre of air can hold about 23 grammes of water vapour; at 80 per cent relative humidity about 18 grammes. So that if the temperature cools to 5 deg C this air can only hold about 7 grammes before saturation. Therefore 11 grammes of water vapour would condense with obvious risk of damage to cargo. The transfer of moisture vapour from the atmosphere outside the container through the seals and joints where there is a vapour pressure differential was another risk; and a further moisture source could arise from hygroscopic material, such as wood, in the cargo.
Leipzig spring fair
CONTAINER equipment will be the focal point of the display by TAKRAF, the East German producers of cranes and heavy machinery, at the Leipzig Spring Fair (March 2-11}.
Other companies displaying handling equipment will include VEB VIA, Leipzig, and Betrieb Grosse and Co., Wittenburg, the latter with a newly developed gantry crane which has a span of over 120h and cantilevers on both sides,