Terminals buying tandem-lift or quad-lift spreaders invariably hit the headlines; they are seen as being in the vanguard of modernity.<\/p>\n
But while twin-lift is commonplace, the take-up of these productivity boosting multi-lift tandem- and quad-lift units is still relatively low, as global terminal operators explain to Port Strategy<\/i>.<\/p>\n
At APM Terminals, multi-box lifting technology is by no means standard, according to press spokesperson, Tom Boyd. He confirms that while it is being tested at some locations, it has not yet performed to APMT’s clearly defined operational and safety standards.<\/p>\n
“Multi-box lifting may develop further, but we believe the focus should be more on the development of attachments,” he says.<\/p>\n
At DP World, global operations senior vice president Andrew Adam notes that virtually everyone at hub port facilities appears to be considering acquiring tandem lift cranes. But he concedes that smaller terminals remain focused on the more conventional ‘twin pick’ approach.<\/p>\n
Unlike Mr Boyd, Mr Adam does not foresee ‘multi-box lifting’ progressing more in terms of capacity, although the technologies driving it may have room to improve.<\/p>\n
ICTSI’s vice president engineering Brian Oakley usually specifies twin lift spreaders as standard on new quayside cranes. But the company’s business profile does not yet indicate that tandem 40ft box handling is appropriate in the current operational environment.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, one major Asian terminal operating group spokesperson confirms that twin-lift spreaders are on the verge of becoming an industry standard, but agrees that tandem-lift spreaders will take longer to catch on. A second Asian terminal operating group notes that almost all quayside gantry cranes at its flagship terminal are equipped with twin-lift spreaders, but it warns that this in itself is not necessarily a panacea in terms of productivity enhancement.<\/p>\n
“There are some constraints that must be addressed before choosing a multi-box spreader, including quay deck loading, the number of traffic lanes available on the quay, yard operation logistics support and IT system support. Realistically, the most important factor is the overall box handling cost for the terminal; in other words, balancing the company’s bottom line against the requirements of the customer,” says the spokesman.<\/p>\n
Equally, DP World’s Mr Adam shies away from making generalisations in this area, stating: “With the right terminal and\/or vessel operating conditions, using ‘targeted tandem lifting’, multi-box lifting can improve productivity on the vessel.” APMT is still analysing what impact multi-box quayside lift will have on speeding up turnaround times.<\/p>\n
Interestingly, one of the Asian terminal operators, which has seen a significant downturn in volumes over the past year, suggests that speeding up vessel turnaround times by deploying multi-lift spreaders may not be the priority issue at the moment given the excess shipping capacity currently available to the market.<\/p>\n
When discussing multi-lift spreaders, concerns are invariably raised as to the suitability of infrastructure.<\/p>\n
According to Andrew Adam, most terminals today can accommodate ‘twin pick’ cranes, although both quad lift and tandem lift equipment require higher quay loads and as such cannot be accommodated by all terminals in the group. This is the same view taken by one of the Asian-based groups, whose spokesperson points out that tandem-lift cranes have to be at least 30% bigger in size, often requiring quay strengthening before they can be deployed.<\/p>\n
At ICTSI, Mr Oakley notes, “ICTSI has a wide variety of wharf installations, which either have sufficient capacity or could be adapted through crane design or upgrade to accommodate cranes incorporating virtually any type of spreader.”<\/p>\n
APMT, for its part, is undertaking a review of existing installations to see whether dual- and quad-lift cranes could operate at its various facilities.<\/p>\n
In terms of preferred suppliers of spreaders, terminal directors at the various facilities operated by APM Terminals seem to prefer Bromma spreaders, suggests press spokesperson Tom Boyd, although the company also uses Ram and Stinis spreaders as well. Acquisitions are made locally, albeit mostly under a central purchasing agreement.<\/p>\n
“Technology and cost are the two most important elements in any purchase decision,” Mr Boyd says.<\/p>\n
DP World, for its part, does have an approved list of preferred manufacturers, but claims it would consider product from new entrants. Spreaders are purchased centrally through DP World’s online tender & project management system in conjunction with local input. Choice is based predominantly on compliant specification and price, with support at location sometimes having an influence on the decision.<\/p>\n
“If we are looking at technically compliant products, then catalogue price does have a large influence on the decision to purchase. Cost of ownership is talked about a lot, but differences are minimal between the mainstream suppliers and not enough to ‘sway’ a decision at this point in time,” says Mr Adam.<\/p>\n
At ICTSI, the type of spreader supplied as part of a new crane purchase is included in the original specification. In fact, the Philippines-based operator nominates two or three manufacturers as possible suppliers, with the final decision made during the final negotiation of the crane contract.<\/p>\n
The company’s Mr Oakley says that established business units within the company usually purchase spare and replacement spreaders directly from the spreader original equipment manufacturer. In cases where there are several requirements occurring simultaneously across business units, or if quantities are high, practice is to route the procurement through the central purchasing office in Manila.<\/p>\n
He adds that when shopping around for new spreaders, price is the prime consideration, be it the initial purchase price or the lifetime cost. ICTSI takes this into account, but also takes into consideration local support offered by the spreader manufacturer, along with past operating experience, either locally or at other ICTSI terminals.<\/p>\n
In the same vein, an Asian operator tells PS <\/i>that cost-effectiveness and reliability are the two most important factors when acquiring new spreaders. However, despite being part of a much larger group, each terminal chooses its own spreaders, which cater to specific local requirements.<\/p>\n
The other Asian operator contacted by PS<\/i> said it had no particular preference when it came to sourcing spreaders. While purchase decisions are taken at terminal level, group HQ provides input and advice.<\/p>\n
Asked whether certain crane manufacturers preferred to work with particular spreader providers, the group confirms: “All crane manufacturers will work with any spreader manufacturer as required by the buyer.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The economic crisis has slowed the evolution from twin-lift to multi-lift spreaders, as Alex Hughes discovers<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":1211,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"sponsor":[],"class_list":["post-1210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-container-cargo-handling"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1210","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1210"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1210\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1212,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1210\/revisions\/1212"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1211"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1210"},{"taxonomy":"sponsor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.portstrategy.com\/greenport-congress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/sponsor?post=1210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}