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 
POLITICAL CONTENT
Page 80
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DISCIPLES OF FREUD would have no difficulty in finding the right words to describe the emotions aroused by the container. It was more unexpected that Sir Andrew Crichton, chairman of Overseas Containers Ltd., in a strictly business context, should also become eloquent on the "variety of emotions" with which different people consider what is after all nothing more than an unusually large-sized box.
According to their point of view, said Sir Andrew in his paper at the annual conference of the Road Haulage Association, their feelings might range from "eager anticipation to grave suspicion".
Naturally he was more concerned with his hopes for the future than with the baleful influences behind the scene. He defined two categories of planning problems: those concerned with the normal economic and operational influences of international trade and the container system itself, and those arising from "Government legislation during the vital five years which lie ahead".
His paper dealt almost entirely with the first category. He passed over the second so briefly that many of his listeners may have failed to notice it.
Sooner or later the political significance of the container will have to be given more careful consideration. The Minister of Transport, Mrs. Barbara Castle, has already expressed her enthusiasm for the concept of containerization. She has described it as "much more like a highly specialized military operation than a freight service as we think of it".
Specialized The concept, she has said, matched perfectly her aim to create an integrated transport system. As a new and specialized form of transport it called for an equally new and specialized administrative and operating structure.
Support from such a quarter may not be as welcome as Mrs. Castle imagines. It was judicious of Sir Andrew to pass lightly over the point when addressing a gathering of hauliers. They have already expressed their disagreement with the Minister's aim and with the legislation which she proposes to introduce.
Her approval of the container as an ideal instrument for achieving that aim would be one of the disadvantages of the container from their point of view.
What Sir Andrew describes as "grave suspicion" might also be the reaction of a large section of trade and industry.
While willing to use the Freightliner when it suits their purpose most traders are anxious that the full range of other means of transport remains at their disposal. Conversion to a containerized system would deprive them of one good reason for resisting rail objections to the grant of a quantity licence.
Mrs. Castle's reference to a military operation is particularly puzzling. One may accept that for military purposes the multiplicity of forms, the red tape and even the apparent waste of time, money and materials are justified up to a point. Detailed central control and strict discipline must be maintained. The characteristics of military life cannot apply to the outside world. The customer demands that his goods shall be delivered where and when he wants them. The vehicle operator expects to have the widest possible freedom of choice.
Tainted?
Containers and the concept of containerization are in danger of becoming politically tainted. It is a coincidence that this year on the other side of Europe the 50th anniversary is being celebrated of an event which may be said to have begun with the journey of perhaps the most famous container in history, the sealed carriage which conveyed Lenin across Germany and into Russia.
Practical problems arising from the use of containers are being given full scope for discussion at meetings and conferences all over the country including the annual function of the RHA. Even the international furniture removers who might be expected to give the container a warm welcome expressed doubts after the recent talk to the British Association of Overseas Furniture Removers by Mr. A. J. Butterwick, marketing manager of Overseas Containers.
More revealing still were comments at the conference in Birmingham organized by the UK national committee of the International Cargo Handling Co-ordination Association. Criticisms came from all sections of trade and industry, and even from Mr. Stanley Turner of the Port of London Authority.
He emphasized one problem to which the ports are still unable to find a satisfactory solution. Shippers insist on sending goods on the closing date before a vessel sailed. They would probably continue the same practice when the goods went to groupage depots, said Mr. Turner. Congestion might well become more rather than less serious.
Mr. Butterwick admitted that the consolidation of small lots into full container loads would be a formidable task even at the inland container bases now under construction. He quoted figures showing that 63 per cent of cargo arrived at the London docks in consignments of under 2 tons and 36 per cent in lots of less than lOcwt.
Hazards The hazards of fitting these many small consignments into 20ft containers were stressed by Mr. Turner. He quoted the concern expressed in the USA at the effect of badly stowed and under-stowed containers.
A warning to shippers to beware of high pressure salesmanship came from Mr. G. W. Parsons (Cadbury Bros. Ltd.). The main advantage of containerization was to the shipping companies. If ships could be turned round more quickly, he said, there ought to be lower rates and not merely the stabilization promised by Mr. Butterwick. Cadbury had found no great saving on the use of containers. In fact they were "almost a nuisance to pack".
The suspicion to which Sir Andrew Crichton referred was much in evidence on this occasion. One speaker objected to a reported statement by Sir Andrew that shippers would be expected to sign loyalty agreements for container services.
Another speaker asked what would happen if the Tilbury dockers decided to go on strike.
A third speaker wanted to know who would be responsible if container ships were diverted to another port. He pointed out that this presented no difficulty with conventional ships.
The wide ranging discussions are salutary. There is a distinct danger that the new concept, with the encouragement of vested interests and even of the Government, will sweep everything before it. When it comes to the point the container is much less important than its contents. The aim is to find better methods of carrying what people want to be carried. What has to be avoided is the choice of a method which involves too violent a change in the pattern of traffic.
Janus