CONTAINER DRILL
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
pERHAPS on account of the considerable financial, commercial and international commitments the proposals for extending the use of the container tend to be discussed in portentous and almost apocalyptic terms as if it were the final revelation so long expected by the transport industry. There is much talk about a revolution and even an explosion. There has even been invented for the phenomenon the inelegant title of "containerization". The danger is that the accumulation of vested interests and the barrage of publicity which they are able to mount may distract attention from possible disadvantages.
Nobody in the early days of road transport hit upon the idea of describing what were then new ideas as "tipperization" or "tankerization", although the developments to which these names might have been attached have been just as important as the future of the container. The tipper and the tanker are themselves containers of a special type. They presented similar problems to those facing the concept of the new container. In particular special facilities had to be provided for loading and unloading.
In the main the cost of these facilities was of a totally different order from what is now envisaged. It was not necessary to invest millions in building special ships and special ports which would be likely to prove unsuitable for any other purpose. In addition, the overwhelming benefits brought by the tanker, and more especially by the tipper, must have been immediately apparent. There was little hesitation about buying new terminal equipment and new vehicles.
Certainly no need was found for an elaborate survey such as that conducted by a firm of international consultants on behalf of the British Transport Docks Board. Some idea of the cost involved may be gathered from the price of ten guineas which is being asked for the, 94-page report of the survey entitled Containerization: the key to low-cost transport. The conclusions are reassuring to the supporters of the container. It holds the key to the future, says the report, and can reduce total transport costs by 50 per cent. It will also, incidentally, lead to an increase in rail goods traffic at the expense of road transport.
If an expert report can be so definite there seems no need for further hesitation. Belief in the container should be as immediate and as certain as belief in the tipper. When more careful consideration is given to the great quantity of words which have already been spoken and written on the subject one or two doubts begin to seep through.
One significant word in this context is "discipline". It crops up in a contribution from Vice-Admiral J. Hughes Hallett, consultant director, British Shippers' Council, to the discussion a month ago at the technical conference in Antwerp of the International Cargo Handling Co-ordination Association. The container revolution should be welcomed and not resisted, he said, adding in bluff naval style that those who chose to resist would be replaced by new men. He was convinced that the "disciplined control of vehicles" was the key to successful handling of the large number of containers that would require to be dealt with at container berths.
DISCIPLINE A few days later Mr. J. MacNaughton Sidey, a part-time member of the British Railways Board, was reading a paper on container problems to the Baltic and International Maritime Conference in Oslo. The container was doing the same for international transport as Ford did for mass production, said Mr. Sidey. "It imposes a discipline on the whole movement, the discipline of a common module, and by this discipline draws the separate parts together to make a single, or flow-line system".
Among the conclusions in the survey sponsored by the Docks Board is the likelihood that, because containerization favours large-scale organization, the transport industry will develop in the same way as the motor industry and become concentrated into a few large undertakings. This appears to be saying very much the same as Mr. Sidey. What remains to be seen, and what perhaps has not yet been fully explored, is the effect on the customer. His preference for a wide choice among transport operators both large and small may prove stronger than the lure of the container, especially if he also is expected to be subject to the "discipline" about which so much has been spoken.
Within his own factory the manufacturer will willingly instal machinery and adopt methods to speed up and standardize production. He expects outside services to be more flexible since they are his link with an equally changeable market over which he has no direct control. To be successful, containerization involves fitting the traffic to the system, almost the opposite of what the transport user has come to take for granted.
PERSUASION
The task of persuasion which will sooner or later face the providers of a container service is much the same as the one which is now being tackled jointly by the Road Haulage Association, British Road Services and the railways. Their argument is that delays at terminals are costing them, and therefore their customers, at least £100m. each year. Even this is probably a conservative estimate. Much of the loss could be avoided if the customer was willing to cooperate in a campaign for quicker turnround.
Difficulties which the hauliers have found will also be encountered by the users of containers. In fact, they may be accentuated. However inadequate the premises of a customer may be it is at least likely that they were originally designed or have been adapted for conventional methods of handling goods. In most cases drastic changes will still have to be made before it will even be possible, let alone economical, to accept container traffic.
Nor will the shortcomings in organization miraculously disappear. Containers are expensive and the customer can no more expect to keep them indefinitely as makeshift storage space than he can expect without penalty to use vehicles and trailers as "mobile warehouses"—a frequent complaint by hauliers. Absence of staff to assist in unloading, confused documentation and restrictions arising from congestion affect all operators alike. They are all pinched equally by the tendency in industry towards the shorter working day and the shorter working week.
Sufficient account of this kind of difficulty may not have been taken in the Docks Board report. The cost of road transport to and from the main long-distance routes is swollen by the many delays which operators encounter. Switching to containers will in no way reduce this cost but will at least have the effect of showing up the problem more sharply.