The Truth About Mersey Dock Delays
Page 39
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ALTHOU6H the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has set up a working party committee to see whether the turn-round of goods vehicles bringing exports to Liverpool and Birkenhead can be speeded up, hauliers of long experience in this class of traffic are convinced that the root cause of the costly delays in recent months lies in the too rigid observance of what is glibly described as "the custom of the port." Custom of the port has become a sort of knock-out blow for any who attempt unorthodox and daring innovations* writes a special correspondent in this exclusive article.
Why the Dock Board has at last taken the initiative is conjectural. Possibly, a suggestion came from the Ministry of Transport, and, perhaps, other Government Departments, for half-mileand mile-long queues of vehicles, all fully laden with goods for export, are an outward and visible sign of inefficiency in the handling of traffic, nor less vital to production than production itself.
£1 per Vehicle-hour Lost
Wastage of transport resources in the past few months has been coiossal. It is calculated that the average all-in chargeable cost of operation of the motors and trailers to be seen in the dock queues is in the region of £1 per vehicle-hour, and that earning potentiality is considerably more.
Quite recently there was a hold-up of 100 vehicles at Victoria Dock, Birkenhead. Every hour of delay in clearance cost the hauliers £100. Assessing the value of eacn unit af the average modest figure of £2,000 and the load carried at a like sum, there was something like £400,000 standing idle for hours at a time, This was not by any means one of the most serious delays, but it is quoted as typical of many which have been documented by haulage contractors and have struck the headlines of the local Press.
The facts are well known to the port authorities, the North-Western Licensing Authority (Mr. W. E. Macve), Chamber of Commerce shipowners, shippers, hauliers and their organizations, and every commercial inte -est in the port, but the trouble goes on. Why?
There are so many sectional interests whose rights and privileges 'are secured by custom that any change in the existing set-up has been neither prepared for nor envisaged The main trouble is at the Birkenhead docks, which, like many on the Liverpool side, were largely designed for railway traffic. At one time this represented something like 75 per cent, of outward tonnage : to-day, the figure is not more than 30 per cent., including goods brought by local road transport from the local terminal stations. That indicates the extent of the swing over to road transport, to which the port has not yet adapted itself.
Inadequacy of quay space and the general congestion in the dock area prevent the provision of facilities for the marshalling and regulation of road traffic, which is mainly of long-distance origin, for outward-bound steamers.
Local traffic takes its place in the same queues, but is not quite so seriously embarrassed, for the operator, rather than allow a big lorry to stand by for an indefinite period, often decides to bring it back to the depot, transfer the load to a horse-drawn wagon or smaller motor vehicles, and leaves it to them to see the job through.
11 Hours' Wait •
In February, Mr. E. A. Whitehead, of the Road Haulage Association's North-Western (Western), Area, obtained from 10 operators examples of delays to their vehicles since the previous November. They numbered 223, for periods ranging from four to 11 hours.
One of the worst cases, reported later, concerned a well-known company which sent a Bedford 5-tonner to Birkenhead with 38 export cases. The carman arrived at the steamer at 1.30 p.m. and joined the queue. His vehicle was still loaded at 8.30, when work ceased for the night. He returned to the ship at 8.50 a.m. next day, but it was not until 6.30 p.m that the lorry was finally unloaded and able to leave the dock shed—a total delay of 17 hours.
Numerous attempts have been made to find a solution of such traffic tangles. Their seriousness was impressed on Mr. Macve in the early part of the year. when an applicant for a licence told him that he needed an extra vehicle because of the extraordinary delays at Birkenhead docks; in the circumstances of these delays his existing tonnage was said to be inadequate.
This applicant alleged that he sent a vehicle out one morning at 6.30, hoping that it would be at the front of the queue and get back quickly. When the driver arrived, he faun:: he was 69th!
The licence was granted, but the Licensing Authority let it be known in unmistakable terms that he would not be a party to such inefficiency by granting any further licences on such a plea.
Mr. Macve Sees for Himself
Mr. Macve has since made personal investigations in the deck areas, he has conferred with representatives of the port authority, shipping and commercial interests, and has heard the tales of woe of patiern and long-suffering hauliers. His efforts to secure improvements have been reinforced by the unremitting pressure of the Liverpool R.H.A. in the interests of local, as well as distant. members of the organization.
Things became so bad that carriers in the Potteries sent out a letter to their customers;—". . . We regret owing to the heavy loss directly incurred by these delays, we are reluctantly compelled to increase our charges by 5s. per ton on shipments to Birkenhead, as and from July 1, 1947."
Another salutary warning dated October 14 came from Potteries haulage contractors. This letter states that although conditions at Birkenhead have 'not worsened," the position at certain Liverpool docks has deteriorated, and unless improvement is speedily effected, the rates will have to go up.
Other operators, anxious to cover themselves against recurring losses, toyed with the idea of instituting a demurrage charge. The suggestion was sound in theory, but, unfortunately. almost impossible to apply.
Is Demurrage Practicable? '
The question arose, against whom to charge the demurrage, Would it be possible to enforce payment? Would C licensees also be willing to act in line with the A and B licence carriers'?
As Mr. Whitehead pointed out, demurrage is a claim arising ex contractu, whereas the cause of the delay may be acts or omissions of some third party. The demurrage question was not pursued, because it would have led to too many other complications.
Then the R.H A. came forward with the following proposals—
(1) Fixed dates for the tendering of goods at the dock sheds for outward steamers.
Ft6 (2) Shipping companies to refuse goods tendered on any other date.
(3) Vehicles arriving on due dates to have quick discharge.
(4) Vehicles arriving at the dock entrances to be marshalled Into traffic queues according to the loads they bring:—(a) Rough traffic that can be handled in bulk; (b) cases of fine goods that have to be measured: and (c) smalls traffic.
Subsequent discussion with the chief wharfinger of one of the leading steamship lines brought these facts to light:— (1) It is unusual for more than 50 per cent. of cargo destined for a ship to arrive at the quay before the seventh or eighth day the steamer is at its berth, which results in the remaining 50 per cent, arriving all together on the last three days, hence queues.
(2) It would be impracticable to adhere strictly to the date on the shipping note, as this was largely a question of relationship between the shipper, the manufacturer, and the carrier.
(3) It would be impossible to arrange traffic queues so as to give preference to carriers arriving on the correct permit date.
(4) The shipping company preferred to take eaeh vehicle according to its turn in arrival and pay no regard to permit date.
.(5) According to the custom of the port, there was no onus on the steamship company to discharge vehicles bringing goods to the quay for shipment.
Too Few Receivers
The hauliers' contention is that there are insufficient receivers at the docks and that Liverpool is one of the few places—certainly the only modern port in the country—where lorry drivers and their mates are required to discharge their own vehicles. If men could be employed to help, quick discharge, the trouble would be speedily reduced to manageable dimensions, but shipowners fall back on "custom of the port."
If custom interferes with efficiency, then, surely, particularly in times like the present, there is the strongest possible case for a complete overhaul of conditions, so archaic as to have long outlived their usefulness? Road transport is vital to the prosperity of the port of Liverpool and has a rightful claim to more sympathetic consideration than it has so far received.
The employment of dock labour for the discharge of vehicles would afford immense relief; that has been suggested. As hautiers are not permitted to take casual workers on to the dock estate and are not allowed to engage dock labourers, because they are not approved dock employers, the reasonable proposal was made that the Dock Board should fulfil this beneficent role. Or, if not the Dock Board, why not the shipowners?
The shipowners" reply, although not particularly encouraging, did hold out a ray of hope. They took the line that if such service were provided, perhaps at a cost of Is. 6d. or 2s. per ton, the quicker turn-raund would leave the vehicles free to dea with a greater amount of work, and so the cost would be covered.
Such a charge on tonnage rates, which are sometimes as low as 5s, 6d., is quite disproportionate on traffic which is becoming increasingly competitive, and the carriers have not hesitated to say so. The chances of such extra expense being recovered from the shipper are remote.
Another suggestion is that vehicles should carry larger crews, but why should operators based in Liverpool be required to have crews additional to statutory orders? It is claimed that the unloading of vehicles should be done for everyone, including C licensees, Dock Board vehicles, railway vehicles, etc., without discrimination, at a standard charge to be borne equally, it being left to the individual operator to decide whether he should pass it on.
Compromise At the same time, it must be admitted that is indication of willingness in the carrying trades to consider. giving an undertaking not to pass on the charges, if the shipping company will undertake to lighten a vehicle in a given standard time, say 15 minutes per ton, the shipowner to pay demurrage to the carrier• at an agreed rate if it failed in its obligation.
No unqualified guarantees can be given by the hauliers without the assurance of sufficient receivers being employed on the quays to discharge vehicles expeditiously.
Here are the views of an operator keenly interested in the subject:— " The custom of the port, requiring us to unload goods on the quay, is farcical. Personally, I am convinced that under a system of nationalized transport delivery to the tailboard of the wagon will become a Ministry condition of carriage.
"Passing the Buck" "The Dock Board and the steamship companies are trying to throw the onus for the delays on us. How can it be when we simply carry out the orders and instructions of our customers? They are the people wit.) say when the goods shall be collected and delivered to the ship. We are merely the instruments, the intermediaries.
"The shipping companies themselves are direct contributories to the delays by stating that their ships will be open to receive goods between certain dates. instead of giving shippers precise dates. If vehicles do not arrive on the due date, or with an out-of-date permit, they should be required to take their place. not in, but at the end of the queue for that particular day. The shipping companies should exercise stricter control of the quantities they can handle and stipulate for a daily tonnage within their resources to handle promptly and efficiently."
There is the whole story. We shall now look forward to the report containing the findings of the Dock Board Working Committee. Perhaps it will carry matters a stage farther. But something ought to be done quickly.