container
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
commentary by Norman Douglas
WHILE on a visit to America recently came across one Bengt Tome11, chairman of Scanfreight, a Gothenburg-based forwarding organization which operates container services and owns a number of its own containers.
While there is nothing unusual in meeting an international forwarder in New York, our encounter was necessarily brief because he was busy chasing, literally chasing, one of his company's containers which had, apparently, gone astray after conveying a load of goods across the Atlantic. It was eventually found in Puerto Rico.
How, one wonders, is it possible for a solid object like a container, 20ft long and with a cross-section 8ft by 8ft, to go astray like this? All too easily, it would seem. Although most containers bear identity markings and numbers on their sides, there is as yet no standard, internationally recognized coding system for containers. And the prospect of there being such a code, where all international containers (and, perhaps, domestic boxes, too) are adequately coded and registered, is still a long way off, bearing in mind the thousands of containers that are already in circulation throughout the world, and the fact that manufacturers are turning out hundreds of new boxes each week.
Scanfreight's container had arrived in Puerto Rico simply because the last three or four digits of the container's number coincided with the last three or four digits of the number of a container belonging to one of the large container operators on the New York-Puerto Rico route which was required in Puerto Rico. This incident illustrates the necessity and urgency for such a coding system.
A// carriers of containers are involved, especially hauliers who not only collect containers at the beginning of their journeys, but also deliver them inland from the ports, and also operate compounds or container parks. What happens, and who is responsible, if a haulier inadvertently picks up the wrong container at, say, Southampton, and carries it through to some distant point inland; and let us not be misguided enough to believe that documentation would safeguard against such a happening?
Again, suppose a haulier owns containers—and many of them do—and one of them is mistakenly loaded on to a vessel for a distant overseas destination.--and remember that containerships are loaded so swiftly now that they could be well on their way before the container is discovered to be "missing".
How can the haulier owner be compensated for the tracing of his property, for its return. and more difficult even to calculate for the loss of its use? And while all this may be disturbing to contemplate—and it is happening now—let us look at this matter from the customer's angle. What happens when a container, full of a valued customer's goods, has been innocently unloaded into the wrong stacking position at, say, Felixstowe or Greenock, and is loaded on to a containership sailing for who-knows-where; or is sent up to Scotland instead of to its proper destination in Wales?
The necessity for an international coding system does not arise solely to avoid the possibility of units going astray, with all the headaches this involves. The cost of communications--phone messages and Telex—especially over long distances, is involved. Many words, perhaps whole sentences or paragraphs, can be saved if every container in use is registered and coded. As more transport systems are linked to computers, such a code becomes absolutely vital.
What is being done in this direction? Well. there has been quite a bit of talk, but not too much official action. Conservative estimates put the number of 20f1 units now in use throughout the world at 400,000 at the end of 1969, Though container manufacturers may be in close touch nationally through organizations such as the SM MT, there would appear to be little chance of such organizations banding together internationally to start numbering new containers, according to a predetermined plan, as from a certain "D-daydate. Whether the International Standards Organisation will be able to persuade manufacturers to do this, remains to be seen.
Codification Some progress has been made, but on a limited basis—albeit an important one—the codification of container types, which, in itself, is quite a task. The ISO talked about this at its recent gathering—actually it was a meeting of Technical Committee No. 104—in New York. The meeting recommended "official" markings on containers which would indicate the owner, his country, the unit number, the system so defined as to facilitate computer processing and error elimination by means of check digits. It recommended, in addition to this identification source, an additional "codefor the classification of containers by size and type.
The proposals regarding container classification however, would appear only to scratch the surface of the problem. They provide for size and type (i.e., whether open-topped, ventilated, mechanically refrigerated, etc) and whether they are fitted with fork-lift tunnels, have side openings, openings at both ends, and so on. Things that have not been covered are such vital information as floor strengths, floor and side wall construction (which has a bearing on the commodities that can be carried) lashing facilities such as rings and floor lugs, for load security, etc.
Far more advanced is a group of Continental consultants who, working in conjunction with a firm of container brokers and" with the assistance of a few container manufacturers, have been attempting to assess the number of constructional varieties in the existing total world container fleet. So far the count has gone beyong the 600 different variety mark.
This group, in addition to coding container varieties, has been working towards the formulation of a catalogue which will also contain a code suitable for use on electronic data processing systems.
They have, understandably, run into many problems, not least among them being the difference in terminology of container features which apparently differs widely between countries and continents, and sometimes within them as well. And this, apart from the basic international difficulty of insufficient knowledge of a trading partner's language where shippers, forwarders and carriers are concerned. Nevertheless, I understand that this working group intends to utilize its work as a basis for a code and catalogue to be issued in many languages, and this work is being closely watched by FIATA, the international association of freight forwarders, which has literally thousands of members in all parts of the world.
If FIATA eventually decides to use this code it is anticipated that the ship, rail and road carriers will have to follow suit, simply because they will not understand fully what forwarders and shippers—the all important users of containers—are "talking" about in their Telex messages, etc. The system being devised on the Continent would provide the basis for an international coding system with Obvious economic advantages to all parties involved—users, including forwarders seeking certain types of container for special loads: carriers, including road hauliers, whose job it is to locate and move the boxes, and account for their movements. Savings, in terms of communications and lost time, could be enormous.