NEWS\\\ Insurance


The container quality conundrum


TT Club’s Peregrine Storrs-Fox draws attention to the critical importance of good container construction.


So many, if not all, elements of container transport are these days are under the severest cost-cutting scrutiny. The basic building block of the industry – the simple steel box – is not immune from the search for economies. Indeed recently it has been somewhat of a focus. It is worth reflecting, therefore on the value of quality in the manufacture of this vital unit. Some manufacturers may develop systems to ensure quality in


manufacturing. Others may take a more relaxed approach, using quality control methods which require a systematic inspection regime to confirm that parts are as designed. Manufacturers may suggest that conformance can be satisfied


by carrying out physical tests listed in the specification. These tests are required to satisfy the requirement of the International Convention for Safe Containers


(CSC). The buyer will also


require that the container is built using the correct materials and techniques, and the finished product has an appropriate life expectancy. During container manufacture there are two distinct inspection


requirements. The first (statutory inspection) is carried out by classification societies on behalf of the administration (country) that approved the design. This confirms that containers of the same design type series are manufactured to the approved design, and is required for a safety approval plate, as described in the International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC). The classification society inspectors should confirm that that the methods of construction and the materials used for the structural components are as specified, including welding beads and stitches. The second type of inspection is carried out on behalf of the


buyer to ensure that the finished product is exactly as promised by the manufacturer. The buyer’s inspectors will look at material specifications of non-critical or non-structural components, such as hinge pins, as well as paint and the finishing processes, including painting, flooring fitting and sealing, decal application and general appearance. Inevitably, differing risk appetites will determine the inspection


practices adopted by container owners. One approach is where the buyer expects the manufacturer to produce what has been ordered and that the resultant container conforms in full to the specification. This may well be accompanied by an acceptance inspection, where an inspector appointed by the buyer checks


Freight firms back Oz rail scheme


Seven of Australia’s largest freight companies have written an open letter to prime minister, Tony Abbott, calling for the Inland Rail scheme to become a reality. The project will create a “world class national rail freight network” says the letter and connect Australia’s major capital cities, farming regions and mines with export ports. Running between Melbourne and Brisbane,


it will


provide major benefits for each city, the regions in between, and all Australians in the form of new investment, jobs and reduced pressure on existing roads, essential services and the environment, they say.


The companies – Asciano,


Aurizon, Genesee & Wyoming Australia, Linfox, Qube, SCT Logistics and Toll Group – are the largest transporters of freight on rail and road in Australia. With freight volumes on


Australia’s east coast set to treble by 2050, they add: “We commend you for allocating AUS$300 million (£157m) to make a serious start on this vital project. We believe it is time for governments to take the next step to finish the job. For Australia to capitalise on its global opportunities we need to ensure we have transport infrastructure that efficiently links all elements of the supply chain.”


that the containers comply with the image requirements of the owner. A second approach is to have the buyer’s inspector involved


in the entire manufacturing process, eliminating errors and diversions


from the specification and refusing to accept


components, sub-assemblies or containers that do not fully conform to it. On the face of it, a buyer derives greater comfort from this approach, and an easy way of fulfilling this more engaged approach would be to employ the same organisation that is already responsible for the statutory inspections, simply expanding their scope of activity to include additional inspection elements. Alternatively, the buyer could decide to employ its own inspectors to work alongside the class societies to check the manufacturing and finishing processes. Economics will play a part in the buyer’s decision, but what


risk factors should be considered? Most container manufacturers provide statutory inspections as part of their offering, using their own choice of classification society. But there could be a conflict of interest from a classification society keen to retain that relationship with the manufacturer. Such commercial pressures may bring a degree of uncertainty


to the management of the manufacturing risk, as the more narrowly scoped statutory inspections may not ensure that errors and deficiencies are detected and consequentially eliminated. This risk might be magnified when the classification society is providing both the statutory and buyer’s inspection. As a result, some buyers choose to employ other inspectors, often from a different region from the manufacturing plant, to avoid conflict. Whatever quality management approach is adopted by a


manufacturer, there are sufficient anecdotes (not to mention some resultant accidents) to cause container buyers to consider carefully the way in which to gain assurance that the delivered product (asset) meets not just the statutory requirements, but all details of the specification. The importance of container integrity is clear; so many


stakeholders in the supply chain rely on the equipment performing as expected. Fundamental to carrying on doing so in the harsh life of a container is ensuring that there is adequate independent assurance at the time of manufacture. ‘Right first time’ quality of manufacture correctly values not only the asset but also the lives of those it will pass through the years.


New cranes help Felixstowe offer a rail alternative


The Port of Felixstowe has commissioned two new rail mounted gantry cranes at its North Rail Terminal. The Leibherr machines have the


been co-financed by European Union Trans-


European Transport Network (TEN-T) programme and bring Felixstowe’s total


to nine rail


cranes serving 16 tracks at its three terminals, making it the largest intermodal rail facility in the UK. The port’s chief executive,


Clemence Cheng, said: “Felixstowe already has greater rail capability than any other port in the UK. In 2014, we


handled 890,000teu at our


three rail terminals on the 60 arrivals or departures we have every day. Volumes by rail are continuing to grow and are now over 20% higher than before we opened the North Rail Terminal in 2013. “The frequency of services


we can offer makes rail a much more reliable and viable alternative to 17 destinations in the UK, helping to reduce road congestion and allowing customers to strip carbon out of their supply chains. The new cranes will help us to move even greater volumes by rail in future.”


Issue 4 2015 - Freight Business Journal


AV Dawson


North-east based logistics firm AV Dawson has signed a 99- year lease with Network Rail to manage Middlesbrough Goods Yard. It comes as the Teesside firm completes work on its £12.5m expansion plans including a new deep water river Tees quay; the Tees Riverside Intermodal Park (TRIP) railfreight terminal and an automotive steel store. Dawson’s customers can take advantage of using the firm as a single supplier – from mainline rail through to, road, sea terminal or warehouse. Managing director, Gary


Dawson, said: “Taking ownership of the goods yard strategically underpins the investments we have made over recent years in building three additional rail served facilities, all of which rely on the goods yard for main line connection. It gives our


investors and customers


increased confidence in our business model and in their rail served supply chains.”


17


takes charge of its train set


Network Rail said the deal


marks a new model of freight infrastructure ownership, where rail freight end users take direct control of the management and investment in the siding infrastructure which supports their rail business. Gary Dawson added: “Now


we have ownership of the goods yard we can make some much needed improvements to the infrastructure, raising the standards of the tracks to meet the increased traffic and greater train lengths, improving


cost


efficiency for our customers.” AV Dawson has also taken over


responsibility for maintaining the point of connection and the private infrastructure of Cobra Middlesbrough, which operates a dry bulk handling terminal offering additional value added processing and packing services. It has also installed four


30-tonne capacity overhead cranes, from Street Crane Company at its new steel facility.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36