The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Marine Terminal Design from the Operating Point of View A NOTHER moot question in ter- A minal design is that of ship’s tackle versus cranes. Although the ship’s tackle is idle while ships are at sea, its use is basically econom- ical due to lower operating charges because of presence of skilled men on shipboard for operation and mainte- nance. Further, ships tackle is al- ways available to handle ships cargo, as without such tackle the ship might call at terminals having neither cranes nor cargo masts and deck winches. The tendency, in practice, is to place main reliance on the ship’s tackle, often supplemented by cargo masts and winches at the transit shed. The latter combination, unquestion- ably, provides for rapid and econom- ical handling of general cargoes. Cranes have their place in the han- dling of special cargoes, in the load- ing and discharging of lighters or other craft not fitted with tackle, and sometimes as an auxiliary of ship’s tackle to speed up operations. How- ever, there is a tendency toward their infrequent use at American general *This is the final instalment of a paper on Marine Terminal Design from the Operating Point of View, presented before the Society of Terminal Engi- neers at the Engineering Societies build- ing, 29 West Thirty-ninth street, New York City, Feb. 9, 1931. The authors of this paper are: Frederic R. Harris, rear admiral, C. E. C. U. S. N. retired, consulting engineer; Harry E. Stocker, resident manager McCormick Steam- ship Co., New York, and contributing editor MARINE Review; William B. Fer- guson, consulting engineer; Roy F. Bessey, vice president, Frederic R. Har- ris Inc., consulting engineers. Pub- lished in three parts, the first and sec- ond parts appeared in the March and April issues of MARINE REVIEW. 38 Part III* cargo berths, and if they are in- stalled, the numbers should be limited so as to provide for as nearly con- tinuous usage of each unit as pos- sible. Idle cranes are not alone an unnecessary capital charge but in- volve costly maintenance and expen- sive idle operators. A rough comparison of relative costs between the burton system as against cranes shows that on a 900- foot length of pier side, cargo masts and 10 winches will cost approximate. ly $50,000 whereas to accommodate QUUILUENUTCTOUTUCTUU EON EST UTE EAU Ten ton gantry crane on Western Maryland Railway Pier at Baltimore. Usedforspecialwork UVVTPUUTTOTY EEN EUT ETA PETA TT UTE TTL the same length of pier side with cranes, 10 cranes would be required for 10 hatches. The cost of cranes and nec- essary runway is estimated at $160,- 000. This clearly shows that in order to make the crane investment profit- able the cranes must be used con- tinuously. From the terminal point of view, as a rule, cranes are not as economical as ships’ tackle. It might be stated further that American practice appears to be to place reliance on ships’ tackle aided generally (on the Atlantic coast) by terminal cargo masts; with a recent tendency on the Pacific coast (which will, undoubtedly, grow) to utilize the same _ shore facility. European practice seems to favor the use of dock cranes. The decision as to which is the better does not involve sim- ply an estimate of first-cost, mainte- nance cost and idle time of the shore facilities as compared with the ship facilities, but also must give weight to custom and experience and, per- haps, to prejudice, remembering that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. We favor ship’s tackle with shore cargo masts MARINE REVIEW—May, 1931 and dock winches, and perhaps one or two cranes per berth for use in con- nection with barges and lighters and | for special work or assisting ships gear. Desirable provisions in termina] design, in accord with modern engi- neering and industrial practices, are those for the handling of cargoes in convenient units—kept intact as long . as possible to avoid rehandlings, and — kept on wheels, skids, or otherwise ready for movement at all times. Floors, ramps, elevators, doors, and other structural features should be de- signed with the operations of trucks and trailers, portable cranes, lift trucks, skids, containers, etc., in view. Further evidence of the lack of proper appreciation of the cargo han- dling features of terminals is found in the floors of terminals. The impor- tance of good terminal floors is gen- erally admitted but very often ig- nored. It is surprising the number of bad terminal floors found on marine terminals. When floors are good, ramps, aprons and gangways are often poor. A good floor may be defined as a floor which offers low starting and rolling resistance to the movement of a truck. From this standpoint an ab- solutely perfect trucking surface is a clean steel sheet. New concrete floors with hardened surface are about equal for all practical purposes. Steel sheets are not advocated for all floors but experience shows that their use may often be advisable for gangways where the major part of trucking is done. On the new Western Maryland marine terminal at Baltimore, steel sangways are provided alongside the depressed tracks that extend down the center of the piers. These gang- ways offer a perfect trucking surface for hand movement of trailers when making or breaking up trailer trains and also facilitates movement of trains by electric tractors. Observation at various railroad and marine terminals indicates that the condition of ramps and gangplanks in general is poor. Ramps and gang: planks are usually constructed of wood and are usually badly worn. Checkered steel plates on gangways provide a better surface for hand truckers and give better traction to mechanical equipment. A special kind of gangplank, used by the Eastern Steamship Co. at Bos- ton is shown in one of the illustra- tions. This is used to drop trailers down the gangplank when the tide is