The planned start of OCLJACT's Australasian container service prompts a
Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
close look at the road haulier place in the whole international container pattern. The author NORMAN H. TILSLEY, AI nstTA, is editor of CM's associate journal 'Freight Management', was formerly managing editor of 'Containerization International' and was for some years features editor of 'Commercial Motor'.
The function of the freight transport industry is to place a product in its market by the most efficient and economic means. Properly used, we are told, containers will do this. The container concept was designed to serve as an integral link between the manufacturer and the ultimate customer. By eliminating as many as 12 different separate handlings, containers—it is said—should minimize a cargo's exposure to loss or damage; speed delivery and reduce overall expenditure. Thus, containerization should satisfy the three principal considerations of distribution—safe, prompt and (if used properly) inexpensive delivery. So the experts say.
THE single most important development in international freight transport has been the advent of the container as we know it today, which serves both as a therapeutic and, at the same time, a disabling factor in the transport industry. It is therapeutic in the sense that ocean carriers, through its use, are in a position to eliminate peaks and valleys in their operating charts, while simultaneously operating on a more profitable basis. Therapeutic, too, in the sense that it has attracted freight back to rail and helped to revitalize an ailing segment of the transport industry. But it is also disabling because the container will undoubtedly be the eventual cause of the failure of many ship lines, and the drying up of cargo handling in many areas.
It is not only at sea that the container is having a disabling effect, however—as some long-distance public hauliers have already discovered to their cost in this country. Adopting the door-to-door concept of physical distribution, the giant ship lines currently switching over to full containerization are fighting for control over the whole distribution chain from factory door to customer reception bay. Thus, conventional shipping and forwarding agents (the people who often arrange haulage in the case of conventional break-bulk cargo) and the hauliers themselves, could find their very existences at stake in the future world of containerization. For, make no mistake about this; whether we like it or not; whether there will be the great savings the pundits have forecast or not; containerization is here, and here to stay.
It follows that anyone now participating in the transport industry who refuses to accept this and does not take steps to see how his particular organization can participate, is not only doing himself a disservice but is doing a disservice to his co-partners, shareholders, perhaps even to his customers. Already, too much capital has been committed to draw back now and in most areas of the world, with the exception of perhaps the developing countries, containerization has passed the point of no return.
The ocean ship lines will be the greatest beneficiaries of intermodal containerization; containerships can, for example, load and unload over 30 times faster than their conventional counterparts, and average 85 per cent of their time at sea compared with 40 per cent for traditional cargo liners; or, putting it more simply, one containership can replace four break-bulk vessels. And the transport mode which is least labour-intensive will get the lion's share of the land transport portion of export and import container traffic.
I advantage
us, with the exception of countries with small land areas like Britain (since the rail/road break-even point is generally con d to be around the 200 to 300 mile region), containerization favour rail. Where huge land masses are involved, such as in 'America or North West Europe, giant unit trains, crewed by timurn of four men, can haul thousands of tons of cargo at a utilizing only one locomotive. Container road haulage in these is virtually reduced to a collection and delivery operation. her factors swing the scales in favour of rail. Briefly they are: wernment legislation: most railways are State-owned, and islation is often biased towards rail.
affic and weather: Rail is not affected by traffic and is less `ected than road by adverse weather conditions.
anufacturers with substantial flows of traffic are often sidingnnected, and the door-to-door operation is speedier and more anomie than normal rail container operation, since a `lift' and road delivery movement are eliminated.
this country, the Freightliner is winning more and more tonfrom long-distance hauliers; but the rail operation will s be restricted by the time factor. In other words, the cargo shipping goods between Tilbury and, say, Motherwell, will y turn to rail transport for overnight delivery of his cons; but if the destination is Workington, then the chances are le will turn to road haulage which can offer him an early ng, next day delivery at probably a more economic rate than e obtained by rail, although this is often offset by an empty run—which will be dealt with later.
id haulage advantages
far as road carriers are concerned, the following advantages ttainerization have repeatedly been enumerated: Le haulier can now earn money hauling goods with equipment longing to others. His only rolling-stock investment is the trace unit which is capable of operating for 20 to 24 hours each y, with different trailers.
siting time at docks and in depots is greatly reduced, giving .t.ater utilization of equipment.
e haulier can limit his operation to a local service. He no longer s to pay for his drivers' subsistence while they are away from me.
le haulier is no longer at the mercy of the customer. He may 'ploy his tractive units by interchanging equipment between Terent transport modes, or he may undertake to deliver goods containers for specific cargo owners.
e enormous reduction in pilferage and damaged merchandise at results from containerizing cargo can benefit the haulier. aims paperwork is non-existent, and insurance costs will be luced as a result. (This has not always been borne out in actice) course, international, interniodal container traffic (as opposed sh Sea unit load traffic) has only started to build up in the d Kingdom in the past few years. Containers were brought to ross the North Atlantic, principally by the US operators such as Sea-Land Inc., and Container Marine Lines, by Moore MacC ormack and US Lines. In each case, the haulage modus operandi was different. Some of the ocean carriers provided their own chassis and running gear; others relied on local haulage to provide carrying vehicles. Some operators entered into interchange agreements with the lines, while others preferred to be "on call" with vehicles whenever they were required.
Now, with more and more services starting—many of them British—:and with the imminent commencement of the EnglandAustralia OCL/ACT routes, more hauliers are becoming involved; sophisticated skeletal equipment is being purchased and, in some instances, the ship lines are providing their own road haulage.
Weighing up the pros and cons
With the pattern of Britain's main container ports now firmly established, and also the location of inland container stations, perhaps the time is ripe for the prudent haulier to weigh up the pros and cons of containerization, to see whether or not he should participate, and how. He must, for instance, decide the type of equipment he will need; he may even have to consider the kind of depot he must have if he changes over to container hauling.
Owning containers
The first matter to be disposed of is—should the haulier purchase the actual container units? Enquiries of British container manufacturers reveal that, following the anticipated pattern mentioned earlier, hauliers are not purchasing the ISO loft, 20ft, 3011, or 4011 units in any great numbers. In the main, road transport purchasers seem to be confined to the established TIR operators who are using them as a "second-string" to their cross-Channel or trans-North Sea semi-trailer operations. Surprisingly enough, according to both the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association, roll-on/roll-off operations increased considerably last year, and a reason for this must be the empty return load factor.
Throughout the world, ocean carriers (the shicrlines) are providing the containers and, it would seem, leasing and pooling organizations are a close second. And in Britain in particular the railways are container owners on a large scale. Manufacturers, on the other hand, are hiring and leasing as and when required, as indeed are most of the container consolidators, or "intermodalists-, as they are becoming known, although certain large companies in this latter sector are also major owners in their own right. With little exception, the answer to this question then is "No; hauliers should not need to be involved in container ownership".
Providing road equipment
Depending on the type of agreement the haulier enters into with the cargo owner, he may be required to provide a complete outfit —tractive unit and semi-trailer—or he may need only a tractive unit. If the former is the case, then he should consider whether the trailer should be of skeletal type, or one with a cargo platform plus locking devices. Here, questions of outfit compatibility are raised. One of the principal complaints of US hauliers operating from the East Coast container ports is the variations in king-pin settings on container chassis. To counter this, many utilize a sliding fifth-wheel. This is just one of many snags.
It is the haulier's responsibility to ensure that he uses a vehicle with sufficient power to haul the largest and heaviest containers that the law will permit. One of the difficulties here is the question of container overloading, particularly where 20ft units are concerned. While, in certain circumstances, 4011 units can be carried on British roads within the recently amended Construction and Use regulations, 2011 units are often preferred and are more common. And some users take the view that the more goods that can be physically crammed into them, the more economical they are. While weighbridges at the ports help to eliminate this problem, it is well to remember that overloading remains one of the major headaches of the US haulier. If such a container is undetected throughout its several handlings en route for the UK, the British haulier delivering it may well find himself in trouble with the law.
The disadvantages
While the advocates of containerization have been quick to point out the advantages they will bring to all modes of transport and the shipper, they are not so forthcoming as to the snags and disadvantages. Apart from the question of overloading, possibly the greatest disadvantage of containerization is that of the empty return container where import shipments are concerned, and the outward empty journey where export cargoes are concerned.
Unless the customer has two-way traffic, an empty run, outwards or inwards, is involved. This should be reflected in the freight rate, but as likely as not it is the haulier who loses.
While the huge dock queues may well have been reduced as a result of automation, the delay has been transferred to the "other end" of the journey, Because it is vulnerable to damage, the tendency appears to be for a container—on its skeletal or platform semitrailer—to remain "married" to the tractive unit. Full articulation, as practised by many operators of conventional attics, appears to have been given up.
These two disadvantages are reckoned by many to far outweigh the advantages mentioned earlier, and thus the role of the haulier as a collection and delivery puppet of the large ocean carrier does not appear to be a profitable one. Happily, though, there are signs that realization by the prime carrier of the need for reliable haulage service may lead to better rates for container c. and d. contracts.
Depot operation
One area where the haulier can reap some of the benefits of containerization is at an inland terminal or depot—as indeed some are already finding by feeding Freightliners. In conjunction with cargo consolidators, LCL containers with groupage traffic can be handled. Many hauliers will be taking advantage of groupage experience in connection with both domestic and international haulage. Thus, the haulier of yesterday could well become the centre of distribution in the container age of today and tomorrow. But, generally speaking, the haulier does not participate fully in the advantages of containerization. Rather it is being forced on him, and he must see how best he can come to terms with it.