The establishment of the Military Sea Transportation Service under the Chief of Naval Operations has made the U. S. Navy rank as the largest cargo and passenger ship operator in this country. This addition to the traditional role of the Navy has expanded the Navy’s interest in the problems of cargo handling from that of a solely wartime activity—that of getting attack cargoes to landing beaches and supplying its own warships and bases—to both a peace and war activity. The measure of success of the Navy’s wartime methods of cargo handling is well attested by the results of World War II; the measure of success of its peacetime methods of cargo handling will be the economy with which it operates the MSTS ships. Over and above the obvious benefits derived from improved cargo handling methods, there is also the fact that the Navy has traditionally pioneered developments and improvements in ships and marine equipment. The carrying out of pioneer work during peacetime is not only a service to the maritime industry, but it is also an investment in the security of the American people. Since merchant ships are an indispensable component of any war machine, it is only reasonable to assume that whatever can be done to improve the design of merchant ships and the efficiency of commercial cargo handling techniques during peacetime will necessarily pay off a thousandfold during any future war.
ICHCA
From this point of view, it is well worth while looking into the newly established, nongovernmental, nonprofit-making organization called the “International Cargo Handling Co-ordination Association.” The conference held in Rotterdam last year was the first meeting of this group. The presence of more than 200 delegates from twelve countries—Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Holland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the U.S.A.—attested to the widespread interest the organization has created and the obvious need to do something about cutting down the costs of cargo handling.
It was widely suspected, especially in this country, that the ICHCA was just another international organization which was going to do nothing but talk. With its finances coming from private sources, it will have to produce results if it is going to continue in existence very long. An examination of its history, its aims, and its accomplishments will furnish an idea how this organization intends to approach the problem of improving cargo handling methods and whether it is, in fact, going to be all talk.
The idea for the organization came from a simple conversation between an Englishman and a Frenchman. The Frenchman was expressing his concern at the way in which ships were often wasted because however efficient they were as units at sea and while maneuvering in and out of port, their efficiency tended to drop off considerably when they arrived in port. He further pointed out that conditions in various ports seemed to be chaotic. Why, he asked, was cargo in one port handled expeditiously, while in another port the same kind of cargo was handled inefficiently. Both men felt that the root of the trouble was the relatively parochial nature of operations, and that while one port carried out her operations perfectly, the other did so imperfectly because the second did not know how the first functioned.
If the second port could be made aware of the methods used by the first port in handling a certain cargo, steps could be taken to duplicate the first port’s efficiency. That much, it was felt, could be done by setting up an international organization which would act as a “clearing house” for ideas and methods. The organization would be the means of conveying to the ports of the world the best way to handle particular cargoes; to marine architects of the world, the peculiar demands of oceanborne cargoes; to packagers and shippers of cargo, the best methods for preparing cargo for shipment; in short, everyone who had any interest in ocean cargo would have at hand a means of finding out all that was known about its handling. By bringing everyone concerned with ocean cargo into the picture, an awareness of the other man’s problems would characterize the treatment given shipborne cargo. The development of new and scientific methods for more expeditious treatment could be the only consequence.
Accordingly, on October 30, 1951, the International Cargo Handling Co-ordination Association was founded; the co-founders were Commander A. C. Hardy, a prominent British engineer and author, and M. X. leBourgeois, of the French Ministry of Merchant Marine, the Englishman and Frenchman of the earlier mentioned conversation. A draft constitution was prepared and sent to some seventy interested persons all over Europe for their comments. Many helpful suggestions were made, and the final draft was debated in Paris on November 30, 1951, and finally approved. Secretariat headquarters were set up in London, and work was begun.
Functions
The work of the Secretariat is now dividing itself under three heads:
(1) Weekly digests and periodic bulletins, dealing with all the reasons for the slow turn
around of ships, are being published.
(2) Information concerning cargo handling problems encountered by individual members or by port authorities is being welcomed. The mass of material dealing with methods of handling cargoes in all parts of the world, which is being assembled by the Association, will more than likely contain some solution for those problems. The Secretariat is also serving as a distribution center for anything that has been published on cargo handling problems.
(3) Technical papers to be read at future international meetings are being obtained, and plans are being laid for such meetings in various parts of the world.
Aims
The aims of the Association are described in a booklet entitled, “Why was the International Cargo Handling Co-ordination Association formed and what are its functions?” in the following words:
The Association desires to:
(1) welcome to its membership all government departments, public bodies, industrial undertakings, and individuals who are interested in these objectives;
(2) do service to the public by advancing the technique of packing and handling seaborne cargoes in all countries of the world;
(3) disseminate information by reading of papers, discussions and meetings and both through large membership and by friendly relations with professional and other bodies, such as the Institutions of Civil, Electrical, Mechanical Engineers, the Institute of Marine Engineers, the Institute of Transport, to apply the best professional principles of modern technical development where appropriate in:
(a) loading and unloading cargo
(b) stowage on board ships
(c) warehouses
(d) transportation to and from the docks or warehouses;
(4) endeavor to carry out research by model and full scale development of cargo handling devices, through the help of existing facilities and with a view to subsequent opening of a research establishment;
(5) gain the goodwill and co-operation of employers, management and labor involved in and associated with cargo handling, and the turnaround of shipping;
(6) to solicit the interest and support of:
(a) Naval Architects
(b) Marine Engineers
(c) Mechanical Engineers
(d) Civil Engineers
(e) Transport Engineers
(f) Railway Engineers
thereby improving the design of:
(a) ships’ cargo carrying capacity
(b) ships’ cargo handling equipment
(c) dockside layout;
(7) improve the planning and layout of ports, warehouses, jetties and the zoning of ports, so that ships and their cargoes are catered for more appropriately;
(8) assist shipowners and operators where possible by reducing delays in turn-around of ships and if possible pave the way for increases in shipping through expanded trade and reduction of costs in port;
(9) improve the safety of cargo handling and reduce accidents both to ships, their crews and port workers and their equipment;
(10) instill an interest and enthusiasm for a specialized association which by co-operation, education, and training, raises the standard of all who are associated with the handling of ship cargo;
(11) initiate scholarships and endeavor to place a high professional qualification when certain standards are reached by individuals so that there will be equal pride in placing I.C.H.C.A. after a name, as M.I.N.A. and M.I.M.E., etc.
To put it succinctly, the ICHCA’s function is coordination, and its aim is to minimize ship turn-around time. The focus of attack is the cargo which is to be carried over water—everyone and everything that comes into contact with that cargo and the means of improving those relationships, i.e., the cargo in relation to the exporter, the packer, the manufacturer of shore handling equipment, the naval architect, the shipbuilder, the stevedores, etc., will be studied and analyzed, and the results of these efforts will be made known to ICHCA’s members.
First Conference
To this end—lessening turn-around time— the Rotterdam conference featured six technical papers which were read and discussed.
(1) “Mechanical Handling—The Principal Remedy for Ship Delays” was a discourse on the importance of the fork lift truck and the unit load system and other mechanical appliances in cargo handling, given by Colonel Raymond T. Hartmann, M. A., M.I.EX. The usefulness and versatility of the fork lift truck has led to some important changes in the manner of loading and unloading ship cargoes. The unit load system, i.e., the packaging of freight by the exporter or shipper in a manner especially suited to the handling gear, such as the fork lift truck, at loading and unloading ports, is the most promising change among them.
(2) “Turn-Round in the Port of Rotterdam” by Ir. N. Th. Koomans, Director of the Rotterdam Port Authority. This was a report on the cargo handling peculiarities and problems of Rotterdam where 50 to 60 percent of the traffic is transhipped directly from sea-going ship to Rhine barge or vice versa, the kind of turnaround given ships in terms of hours per ton, and finally the progress which has been made in reconstructing the port since the end of World War II.
(3) “A Shipowner’s Ideas About Modern Cargo Handling Methods” by Ir. W. H. Kruyfif, Managing Director Royal Netherlands Steamship Company, Amsterdam. The benefit of more expeditious cargo handling to the ship-owner, it was pointed out in this paper, would be that if ship turn-around time could be decreased sufficiently, routes could be serviced with fewer ships, or service could be improved by more frequent sailings. It was also pointed out that the first major improvement in cargo handling techniques— the fork truck-pallet operation—has enhanced efficiency from the ship operator’s point of view on three points, viz., 1) more efficient use of warehouse space through extensive stacking; 2) better handling, less damage, and less pilferage; and 3) better and speedier access of cargo to shipside. This paper called for a greater exploitation of the possibilities of the fork lift principle, especially its use underdecks on ships, and for future research into the development of a more functionary design of ship, such as getting away from the traditional design of engine room amidships, the most desirable part of the vessel from the cargo-carrying point of view, and putting the engine room in the stern where the shape of the vessel mikes for poor cargo stowage.
(4) “The Human Element” by Dr. J. Ph. Backx, Managing Director of Thomsen’s Havenbedrijf, Rotterdam. This paper pointed out the human relations in industry are today’s big unfinished job. The peculiarities of dock labor, such as its casual nature, fluctuations in earnings, mobility of place of employment, etc., have encouraged low productivity, which in turn results in inefficiency in cargo handling methods. It was suggested that a school might be set up that would educate employers and employees in the latest methods of improving labor- management relations. This could be the first step in any consideration of the human element in cutting down ship turn-around time and increasing stevedores’ productivity.
(5) “Open Water Loading and Discharge” by Commander A. Charvet, French Navy. Slow cargo handling in open roadstead ports, such as Madagascar and the west coast of South America, is usually caused, it was pointed out, by the following difficulties:
(a) Insufficient quantity and quality of lighterage and hoisting gear;
(b) Lack of warehouses and insufficiently organized methods of exploitation;
(c) the bad state of roads and lack of rolling stock; and
(d) mediocre quality of labor force.
These difficulties, it was suggested, might be lessened somewhat by reorganizing the schedules of all the ships calling at these ports so as to stagger the number of ships in the port at any one time. Any permanent improvement, however, would depend on the governing authorities’ seeking better techniques and encouraging investments in port improvement projects.
(6) “Dangerous Cargoes” by Dr. Jules Aeby, Antwerp. Dangerous cargoes, it was noted, are subject to much confusion. There is no standard literature on dangerous cargoes; one country differs from another in defining the exact nature of various dangerous commodities; methods of handling differ -—as a result there is a real threat to the safety of the men handling these commodities, to the ship, and to the dock. A working plan was suggested to the ICHCA which would do much to eliminate the dangers of handling dangerous commodities:
(a) Tabulate all commodities commonly carried in sea transport by examining the official and unofficial literature, freight tariffs, manufacturers’ and insurance companies’ lists.
(b) Give for each commodity as many synonyms and alternates as possible, not forgetting trade names.
(c) Whenever possible, give chemical formula as this makes for international identifications for chemists the world over.
(d) State whether the commodity is solid, liquid or gaseous.
(e) Give a short description of nature and eventual inconvenience, risk or danger.
(f) Suggestions for packing or compulsory measures.
(g) Recommendations as to stowage.
(h) Whole text in English and French and perhaps in other languages as well.
(i) Study marine casualties.
(j) Create a complete alphabetical and internationally comprehensive index.
ICHCA Value
There can be no doubt that there is a need for an organization such as the ICHCA— greater in some countries and less in others. It would seem that the United States will find the ICHCA most helpful in modernizing and improving its cargo handling methods from the point of view of ship’s gear and design and layout of ports. In most other aspects of cargo handling, the United States leads and has little to learn from the experiences of other countries. The phrase, “with the exception of the U.S.,” was constantly being used at the conference when describing generally prevailing deficiencies in cargo handling methods. Despite this, the United States can benefit from the existence of ICHCA if the Association succeeds in lowering handling costs in countries with which the United States trades.
It must be said that the organization of the ICHCA is not the first attempt to do something about cargo handling problems. There are and have been numerous organizations in existence each looking for ways and means of doing something about cargo handling costs. The recently established British Ports Efficiency Committee, the Port Users Committee of Hull, the Swedish Shipowners Association, the port authorities and chambers of commerce of various American port cities—these and many other similar organizations have engaged in studies and research in the problems of cargo handling. The difference between ICHCA and all these organizations is simply the method of approach—the ICHCA’s is the new approach.
The organizers of ICHCA feel that there are enough organizations already in existence seeking new solutions to cargo handling problems—it will be enough if ICHCA succeeds in making these organizations pull together, so to speak, in attacking the worldwide problems of cargo handling. The key word is co-ordination.
U.S. Merchant Marine
It is a well known fact that American steamship companies cannot compete with foreign operators on a cost basis. The American seaman’s wages are higher than those of any foreign seaman, overhead expenses are higher, and generally speaking all other expenses come higher to the American ship operator. In shore industries, Americans have been able to overcome similar high labor costs through greater use of machinery. The application of advanced technology has increased the American workman’s productivity so that high wages are no longer a competitive disadvantage. Why has not this principle been applied to steamship operation? It is simply because the possibility of applying technological advances aboard the modern steamship is quite remote.
Where, then, could savings be made and technology applied which would enable American operators to cut down their operating costs? The answer seems to lie in the cargo handling phase of steamship operation. The following illustration is a compilation (made by an operator of an established steamship service out of the port of New York) showing a percentage breakdown of the actual dollar costs of operation over a recent six month period:
|
Cost Item |
Percentage of Dollar Cost |
|
Steamship expenses including port charges (e.g. pilotage, towage, etc.) |
33.8 |
|
Stevedoring and other cargo handling costs (including checking) |
43.3 |
|
Wharfage |
9.5 |
|
Overhead |
6.1 |
|
Fuel |
6.0 |
|
Insurance |
1.3 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
The fact that more than 43% of the operating dollar is spent on cargo handling coupled with the fact that cargo is still handled by methods basically unchanged since the days of the Phoenicians should encourage some effort towards modernizing and applying scientific principles to cargo handling techniques so as to cut down the amount spent on that phase of ship operation.
Co-ordination in U.S.
Co-ordination as envisaged by the ICHCA might prove to be a very effective first step in any program of cutting down cargo handling costs in the United States. The cost per ton of handling cargo in East Coast ports differs radically from one port to another. The following figures based on a C-2 type vessel loading and unloading cargo (labor rates same at all ports) illustrates that disparity:
|
Port |
Cost of Cargo Handling (per ton) |
|
Boston |
$5.25 |
|
New York |
5.80 |
|
Philadelphia |
4.35 |
|
Baltimore |
3.85 |
|
Norfolk |
3.25 |
The cost of handling cargo per ton, from the figures above, is 78% higher in New York than it is in Norfolk. Certainly coordination might do something in these ports to lessen that disparity in costs.
Turn-Around
The aim in all these efforts is to cut down ships’ port time, because time spent in port is strictly idle and unprofitable—as a warehouse, a ship is much too costly. Instead of improving, port delays seem to have worsened in many areas since the war. One company, a member of the Liverpool Steamship Owners’ Association, trading with India and the United States, used to average three voyages a year with each ship before the war; in 1951 the average was no better than 2\ voyages, although most of the ships were faster and had greatly improved gear for handling cargo. Another company reported that the time occupied in loading and discharging in Liverpool, Glasgow, and London is twice as long as before the war and the same is roughly true about Santos and Rio de Janeiro. Thus ships trading between these ports are making only two voyages a year instead of about three and a half before the war.
First Results
Some interesting new developments aimed at cutting down ship turn-around time have already been collected by the Association and are being disseminated to interested parties all over the world. While specific problems are given individual attention, developments of general interest are published in the Association’s weekly bulletin or its periodical digest.
Possibly the most interesting from the U. S. Navy’s point of view is an invention called a pneumatic breakwater for which patents have been granted to Pneumatic Breakwaters Limited, London, E.C.2. It is an apparatus for reducing waves and swell in situations where conventional breakwaters are neither practical nor economical. There are two types of these breakwaters, the fixed and the mobile, which are an arrangement for generating and distributing air through submerged pipes in a manner best calculated to produce the desired effect. This device has possibilities for use not only around shores in making sheltered anchorages but also at sea in salvage and rescue work. The all-in cost of operation of these devices is expected to be 10-20% of the demurrage occasioned by their absence.
Developments in design of ships and ships’ cargo gear include a ship of revolutionary design—a few are already being operated by Sweden—for carrying bulk cargoes such as cement, ore, and coal, which will require only two men to operate the cargo handling machinery; ships with quick opening hatches; vessels equipped to carry their own pallets with small electric trucks for use in hold storage (the Norwegians have already launched one of this type—the Hornelen); ships built with their engine rooms at the stern so as to make available the most desirable area of the ship for revenue paying cargo (the U. S. Maritime Commission has designed and built ships of this type already); ships with bridge cranes over their holds instead of the conventional masts and booms; these and many more innovations are being tried and the results are being publicized through the Association.
On the dockside, experiments and studies of the comparative value of shoreside, mobile cranes as against shipboard gear are being made; the uses of fork lift trucks and palletization are constantly being expanded; ideal piers are being planned by various port authorities; clearance facilities are being scientifically organized and expanded.
Summary
The new approach to cargo handling problems is a plan to co-ordinate already known handling methods so as to eliminate disparities in the costs of handling the same type of cargo in different ports and to co-ordinate the efforts of all those connected with ocean- borne cargo, from the sender to the consumer in bringing about a more scientific, a more mechanized, and a more economical means of dealing with ship delays. The U. S. Navy stands to benefit from the efforts of such an organization because the Navy, too, is vitally interested in the efficient and economical handling of ship-borne cargo.