Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the
Port of LA/ LB for application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
Final Report
METRANS Project 07- 323306
June 2008
Dr. Kenneth James
College of Engineering
California State University Long Beach
Long Beach, CA 90808
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
ii
Disclaimer
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts
and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the
sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program,
and California Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U. S.
Government and California Department of Transportation assume no liability for the contents
or use thereof. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the
State of California or the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a
standard, specification, or regulation.
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
iii
Abstract
The objective of this short- term monitoring project was to produce a “ first- order” metric
displaying the range of container near- dock rail loading capacities for various types of
equipment and procedures presently used at the Ports of Los Angeles/ Long Beach. The
application of the general metric will be to evaluate recently proposed container conveyor
systems as well as possible expansion of near- dock rail at the Ports. In addition to load/ off-load
times, labor requirements, area involved, and impacts on other terminal processes during
load/ unload were evaluated. Load/ unload capacities— depending on approach— were
measured to be as low as 10 containers/ hour and as high as 65 containers/ hour with typical
capacities in the neighborhood of 40 containers/ hour; sufficient for loading over 800
containers/ day ( two crews operating two shifts) at a single terminal. A longer, more detailed
study would have produced upper and lower confidence bounds to the reported numbers.
Actual costs of a lift will also vary with process and equipment, but are around $ 100. Specific
costs cannot be documented by approach because of the competitive value of this data to
terminal economics.
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
iv
Table of Contents
Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................... ii
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... .. iii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Figures ...................................................................................................................... v
Table of Tables........................................................................................................................ v
Disclosure .............................................................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................. vi
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
2 ECCO Implementation and the Need for a Terminal Process Survey ............................... 2
3 Terminal Load/ Unload Results Summary and Data Qualifications ................................... 3
3.1 Qualification of data collection ................................................................................ 3
3.2 Summary of Results ................................................................................................. 3
4 Terminal Survey Results .................................................................................................. 4
4.1 Tire gantry crane to drayage truck from storage ....................................................... 4
4.2 Toploader loading double stacked train from bombcarts ........................................... 7
4.3 Toploader from double stacked train to bombcart ................................................... 10
4.4 Toploader from storage to bombcart....................................................................... 13
4.5 Truck to double stacked train using rail gantry crane .............................................. 16
4.6 Rail gantry crane to double stacked train ................................................................ 18
4.7 Quay gantry crane to bombcart .............................................................................. 19
5 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 21
6 Implementation .............................................................................................................. 21
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................... 27
References ............................................................................................................................. 34
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
v
Table of Figures
Figure 1 ECCO at terminal application .................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Tire gantry crane to drayage truck from storage ......................................................... 5
Figure 3 Rubber Tired Gantry Crane ....................................................................................... 6
Figure 4 Toploader loading double stacked train from bombcarts ............................................ 7
Figure 5 Distances between Hostlers and Top Loaders ............................................................ 9
Figure 6 Toploader from double stacked train to bombcart .................................................... 10
Figure 7 Distances between Hostlers and Top Loaders .......................................................... 12
Figure 8 Toploader from storage to bombcart ........................................................................ 13
Figure 9 Horizontal Distances between Two Top Loaders ..................................................... 14
Figure 10 Distances between Two Top Loaders ..................................................................... 14
Figure 11 Distances between Hostlers and Top Loaders ........................................................ 15
Figure 12 Bay Configurations ................................................................................................ 15
Figure 13 Truck to double stacked train using rail gantry crane ............................................. 16
Figure 14 Rail gantry crane to double stacked train................................................................ 18
Figure 15 Quay gantry crane to bombcart .............................................................................. 19
Table of Tables
Table 1 Rubber Tired gantry crane to drayage truck from storage ............................................ 5
Table 2 crew required Rubber Tired gantry Crane ................................................................... 5
Table 3 Toploader loading double stacked train from bombcarts ............................................. 7
Table 4 Crew Requirements Toploader from Grounded storage to/ from double stacked train .. 8
Table 5 Toploader from double stacked train to bombcart ..................................................... 10
Table 6 Crew requirements: Toploader from double stacked train to bombcart ...................... 11
Table 7 Toploader from storage to bombcart ......................................................................... 13
Table 8 Truck to double stacked train using rail gantry crane ................................................. 16
Table 9 Crew requirements: Truck to double stacked train using rail gantry crane ................. 17
Table 10 Rail gantry crane to double stacked train ................................................................. 18
Table 11 Quay gantry crane to bombcart ............................................................................... 19
Table 12 Crew requirements: Quay gantry crane to bombcart ................................................ 20
Table 13 Performance Characteristics of Conventional and Modified A- frame Cranes .......... 21
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
vi
Disclosure
The project was funded in entirety under this contract to California Department of
Transportation.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the helpful assistance of both Jeremy Ford of the APM ( Maersk)
Terminal and Mike Shanks of the ITS Terminal in arranging visits to their facilities and
providing helpful suggestions in colleting data on various load/ unload processes. The authors
also acknowledge the expertise of Bob Bey of Cal- Lift concerning the operation and
capabilities of the many forms of container load/ unload equipment.
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
1
1 Introduction
The current equipment and process for loading a single container onto near- dock rail is the
closest terminal process to that required for a conveyor carriage fixed to a guideway. Thus, as
explained further in Section 2, a metric of near- dock, rail load/ off- load equipment and their
process characteristics is needed to facilitate a clearer understanding of container conveyor
load/ unload capacity at a terminal. Section 3 describes qualifications and limitations to
obtaining container transfer data in a terminal environment. After describing the uncertainties
in data acquisition, the results of the study are summarized. Section 4 presents the detailed
results of the study, the performance of which is outlined below.
Two fundamental types of container handling equipment were evaluated: ( 1) top- loaders, and
( 2) wheeled cranes. Quantification of performance parameters such as lifts per hour, crew size
and labor grade, and required three dimensional ( 3D) range of motion of a lift in both area and
height were determined for specific models of both types of equipment. In addition, impacts
on other terminal processes during an equipment load were qualitatively evaluated.
Two Terminals were visited on- site: International Transportation Services ( ITS) and Maersk.
Equipment movement was recorded and documented. Three locations were observed from off-site:
ITS, Long Beach Container Terminal ( LBCT), and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
( BNSF) Hobart Intermodal Container Transfer Facility ( ICTF). The off- site observations were
performed to remove any influence that our presence would have on the job performance of the
crews, and to compare on- site and off- site measurements of the same process. By prior
agreement, the name of the terminal where each specific process data accumulation occurred
will not be delineated to protect their economic interests.
Each of the three ( 3) terminals and one Intermodal Container Transfer Facility ( ICTF) had their
container load and unload movements recorded for total timing and throughput. Different
crews and equipment were observed. Since periods of observation varied, the time required for
touch to touch ( first container handling equipment contacting the container to when the
handling equipment released the container) operation was averaged and that average was used
to estimate how many containers would have been moved in an hour.
Twenty- one ( 21) crews where observed using seven ( 7) different equipment operations. The
manning or crew sizes are specified by the Pacific Coast Longshore Contract Document
( commonly referred to as the “ PCLCD”); data from that organization was used for this study’s
work crew and area of operation for each process. Observations determined no deviation from
these rules, other than an occasional variance favoring additional safety.
The terminals where observed both on site and off- site; in both instances there was no
interaction between the working crew and those making the observations. This was done to
prevent any influence on the work flow.
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
2
2 ECCO Implementation and the Need for a Terminal Process
Survey
Utilizing the Electric Cargo Conveyor ( ECCO) system for eliminating truck drayage at a
congested port requires load and unload processes capable of meeting the throughput
capabilities of the system. Present indications are that the ECCO can move 5000 containers a
day ( Conceptual Design Study For The Electric Cargo Conveyor ( Ecco) System) from the port
to a near- or off- dock rail intermodal. The question has naturally arisen as to how to load and
unload that number of containers onto and off of such a system. Since many container
terminals combine to feed the ECCO system, no one terminal is required to load and unload
the full capacity of the ECCO. Thus the many terminals feeding the ECCO can likely use
similar load and unload processes as described and quantified in this report. Figure 1 shows a
possible implementation of conventional rail loading approaches to an ECCO loading process.
A metric of existing rail load/ unload parameters will provide an excellent starting point for
predicting the operational and economic impact of an ECCO system replacement of truck
drayage.
Figure 1 ECCO at terminal application
The stress to load and unload the full ECCO system capacity is at the ECCO- to- rail intermodal
terminus where containers from many terminals all feed into the intermodal facility for transfer
to transcontinental rail. For this application, the College of Engineering anticipates the use of
the much higher throughput CCDoTT GRAIL ( Grid Rail) system that was developed for
USTRANSCOM nearly a decade ago. This system with its self- sorting ability is ideal for the
container throughputs of which the ECCO is capable. Such a GRAIL system is a likely
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
3
terminus for the ECCO at the intermodal end of a system to replace truck drayage at the
terminals, and is the subject of another study funded by the Office of Naval Research via
CCDoTT.
3 Terminal Load/ Unload Results Summary and Data
Qualifications
3.1 Qualification of data collection
Variation in both human factors and equipment capability in the wide variety of terminal
processes makes quantitative evaluation difficult; Sine basic assumptions must be made to
facilitate analysis. Therefore, container transfer time herein represents approximate terminal
throughput. Not all crews work at the same speed or have the same experience, so variations
on the number of containers handled per hour was expected and encountered. A secondary
factor related to how many containers can be handled per hour determined how many
supporting vehicles were assigned to each movement. For example, a crew can only move
containers as fast as the slowest vehicle allows; a crew had a steady and consistent line of
vehicles to load or unload moves more containers than a crew who had to wait for vehicles.
The total time required to move a container was determined from two measurements. First,
“ touch to touch” is the time required for a crew with an unlimited source of containers, i. e.,
there was always a vehicle ready to be worked on. Second, “ between lift ” is the time that the
crew did not do any work because they were waiting for ( 1) a container to arrive, ( 2) for
vehicle to place the container on, or ( 3) for the equipment to be repositioned for the next move.
The addition of “ touch to touch” and “ between lift” times was used to calculate the actual time
required for one load// unload cycle, which was used in turn to estimate the entire throughput of
a one hour time period.
A more detailed study would include multiple observations of the same crews and processes.
These long term observations may discover variations in output due to crew interactions,
weather patterns, equipment malfunctions and other variations that have not been taken into
account in the present study. The inclusion of such factors is beyond the scope of this project.
3.2 Summary of Results
The process approach is described in the following sections. A photograph taken of the
process from the measurement perspective is provided for quick understanding of the process
description. Tables summarizing the results of time in motion measurements and labor crew
requirements including quoted requirements from ILWU documentation are also provided.
Raw data sheets for each process approach and measurement perspective are in appendix B.
The aggregated and tabulated measurements from which each process summary table was
generated are in Appendix A. Diagrams are from ILWU Pacific Coast marine safety Code
book.
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
4
A brief explanation of the measurements as specified in the data tables is described as follows:
The number of observations refer to how many different crews were timed performing a
certain task; e. g., for the tire gantry crane a total of five crews were timed for ( a varied amount
of time) and their average throughput was used to estimate the possible container movement
for a one hour time frame.
The average lift time refers to the interval between the moment the container is touched by
either a crane or a toploader and the moment that it is released on the receiving vehicle. This
measurement indicates the quantity of containers that could be moved if there were no
restrictions on the process.
The average time between lifts is the time the handling equipment waits for a container or a
receiving vehicle. This time varies depending on how many vehicles are supporting the load,
unload process. The more vehicles involved, the shorter the time between lifts, therefore the
higher the hourly throughput.
Containers processed in x amount of minutes is the resultant of the addition the of the
throughput of all the crews loading or unloading.
The predicted containers per hour is the direct calculation of taking the number of containers
processed in X minutes, dividing by the amount of minutes then multiplying by 60 to obtain the
predicted number of containers that could be processed if all the variables were to stay the
same.
4 Terminal Survey Results
4.1 Tire gantry crane to drayage truck from storage
Grounded containers are loaded from grounded storage to drayage trucks, while the
container movement can be observed and tabulated, the final destination of the
container can only be surmise that since the container is leaving the port on a drayage
truck that the container is an incoming international container bound for either local or
national distribution. Since drayage trucks are normally only used when the container
will leave the terminal.
i) Measurement Approach: Time per container move was measured from when the crane
connected to the container until the time the container was placed and released on the
drayage truck. The average time between lifts was attributed to either repositioning the
equipment of waiting for drayage truck to arrive at the loading position.
The time between lifts needs to be added to the loading time to obtain the total amount of
time needed to move containers.
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
5
Figure 2 Tire gantry crane to drayage truck from storage
ii) Time in Motion Results
Tire gantry crane to drayage truck from storage
Number of observations 5
average lift time 0: 56
average time between lifts 2: 13
containers processed in 48: 14 Min. 18
Predicted containers per hour 22
Table 1 Rubber Tired gantry crane to drayage truck from storage
Minimum crew required Quantity Min. Actual
foreman supervises the whole crew 1 1 1/ 10
Chief Clerk 1 1 1/ 15 – 1/ 20
floor runner per gang find the containers
to be unloaded or loaded
2 1
1
dockman/ pinman puts on // takes off cones 2 1 1
driver take containers to offsite 1 0 0
Transtainer operators 2 2 2
Table 2 crew required Rubber Tired gantry Crane
iii) This is a brief explanation of the actual manning category
1. There is one ( 1) Foreman for all the crews in the Container Yard ( CY) – this is a
CY- related category only. As a general rule though, there is one ( 1) foreman per
ten ( 10) lifting equipment units in operation in the CY.
2. There is only one ( 1) Chief Clerk for all CY operations
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
6
3. There is only one ( 1) floor runner per lifting unit – no exceptions. However, in
certain terminal with active Global Positioning Systems ( GPS), Radio- frequency
identification ( RFID) and Optical Character Recognition ( OCR) and Next Move
capability, there are no clerks at all working with each lifting unit. Most terminals
in Los Angeles/ Long Beach ( LA/ LB) will achieve this status by early 2008.
4. There is only one ( 1) dockman / pinman per transtainer ( rubber- tired gantry
crane) lifting unit in the yard.
5. The “ driver to take containers off- site” is not an ILWU manning category. This
category is over- the- road truckers calling the terminal as owner- operators or
employees of independent non- union ( mostly) trucking companies. Their cost or
manning is not that of the ILWU.
6. Each transtainer requires two ( 2) operators, no exceptions.
iv) Minimum space requirements: Rubber Tired Gantry ( RTG) Crane Operations:
When hoisting containers to or from trailers, chassis or bombcarts, the stacks
adjacent to the truck lane shall not exceed two high. ( see Figure 3). Spacing
between trailers, chassis or bombcarts has no minimum requirement.
Figure 3 Rubber Tired Gantry Crane
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
7
4.2 Toploader loading double stacked train from bombcarts
The Containers were obtained from grounded storage, or brought over directly after
being unloaded from a ship. Since bombcarts were used for this operation, then it is
surmised that the container was on terminal grounds before being loaded to the train.
Since trains are only used for long haul operations, then it is concluded that the
containers will be traveling to the continental US instead of being used for local
deliveries.
i) Measurement Approach: The average lift time was measured when the toploader
contacted the container to when the toploader released the container at its new
position. The time between lifts was attributed to repositioning the equipment or
waiting to for a bombcart to arrive.
Figure 4 Toploader loading double stacked train from bombcarts
ii) Time in Motion Results
Toploader loading double stacked train from bombcarts
Number of observations 4
average lift time 0: 45
average time between lifts 1: 15
containers processed in 42: 07 Min. 35
Predicted containers per hour 49
Table 3 Toploader loading double stacked train from bombcarts
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
8
Minimum crew required Quantity Min. Actual
foreman supervises the whole crew 1 1 1/ 10
Chief Clerk 1 1 1/ 15 – 1/ 20
clerk per gang 1 0 0
floor runner per gang find the containers
to be unloaded or loaded 1
1 0 / 1
UTR driver take containers to from storage 5 1 7/ 8
Toploader operator 1 1 1
Table 4 Crew Requirements Toploader from Grounded storage to/ from double stacked train
iii) This is a brief explanation of the actual manning category
1. There is one ( 1) Foreman for all the crews in the CY – this is a CY- related
category only. As a general rule though, there is one ( 1) foreman per ten ( 10)
lifting equipment units in operation in the CY. This is a CY operation, even
though it operates in conjunction with an in- progress on- dock DST operation.
2. There is only one ( 1) Chief Clerk for all CY operations – no exceptions. The
above range displays potential number of lifting units per CY handle by a single
Chief Clerk.
3. There is only one ( 1) floor runner per lifting unit – no exceptions. However, in
certain terminal with active GPS, RFID and OCR and Next Move capability,
there are no clerks at all working with each lifting unit. Most terminals in LA/ LB
will achieve this status by early 2008.
4. The “ driver to take containers off- site” is not a single driver. There are normally 7
/ 8 ILWU UTR drivers assigned to work CY operations in conjunction with on-dock
DST operations. There may be more in many instances, depending upon
travel distances, and on occasion there may be less. Generally, the actual usage
minimum is five ( 5) with general maximum of twelve ( 12) in practice. Please be
reminded that these UTR drivers have been assigned in the report as operationally
functioning within the CY portion of the operations and this is in error. All these
UTR drivers are thus removed from this category and will be placed within the
DST handling operation portion of the categorized operating modes by equipment
handling type.
Each tophandler requires one ( 1) operator, no exceptions.
iv) Minimum space requirements: Top loaders have antenna which requires a
vertical clearance of 60’. The height of the antenna is 55’. Clearance is 60’.
Hostlers and tractors pulling trailers, chassis or bomb carts being loaded/ unloaded
by Top Handlers, Side Handlers or Reach Stackers must stay back a minimum of
one full container length from the bay being worked until the hoisting vehicle is
ready to service them ( Figure 5).
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
9
Figure 5 Distances between Hostlers and Top Loaders
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
10
4.3 Toploader from double stacked train to bombcart
Incoming containers are unloaded to bombcarts surmising that since they are being
loaded on bombcarts that the container is destined for either grounded storage or being
directly loaded to a ship. The bombcarts are only used on terminal property therefore
the container will be not be leaving the terminal unless it is reloaded on a different type
of vehicle. The incoming trains are bringing in export containers.
i) Measurement Approach: The average lift time was measured when the toploader
contacted the container to when the toploader released the container at its new
position. The time between lifts was attributed to repositioning the equipment or
waiting to for a bombcart to arrive.
Figure 6 Toploader from double stacked train to bombcart
ii) Time in Motion Results
Toploader from double stacked train to bombcart
Number of observations 1
average lift time 0: 37
average time between lifts 1: 12
containers processed in 3: 07 Min. 3
Predicted containers per hour 57
Table 5 Toploader from double stacked train to bombcart
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
11
Minimum crew required Quantity Min. Actual
foreman supervises the whole crew 1 1 1 / 2 - 1
Chief Clerk 1 1 1 / 2 - 1
clerk per gang 1 0 0
floor runner per gang find the containers
to be unloaded or loaded 2
1 0 / 1
dockman/ pinman puts on // takes off cones 2 2 2
UTR driver take containers to offsite 1 1 7 / 8
Toploader operator 1 1 1
Table 6 Crew requirements: Toploader from double stacked train to bombcart
iii) This is a brief explanation of the actual manning category
1. There is one ( 1) Foreman for all the gangs handling on- dock DST operations.
Thus, this is common, if there are two ( 2) DST gangs operating, then the Foreman
functions over both gangs.
2. There is one ( 1) Chief Clerk for all the gangs handling on- dock DST operations.
Thus, this is common, if there are two ( 2) DST gangs operating, then the Chief
Clerk functions over both gangs.
3. There is only one ( 1) floor runner per lifting unit – no exceptions. However, in
certain terminal with active GPS, RFID and OCR and Next Move capability,
there are no clerks at all working with each lifting unit. Most terminals in LA/ LB
will achieve this status by early 2008.
4. Dockmen/ pinmen work against all tophandler DST operations.
5. The “ driver to take containers off- site” is not a single driver. There are normally 7
/ 8 ILWU UTR drivers assigned to work CY operations in conjunction with on-dock
DST operations. There may be more in many instances, depending upon
travel distances, and on occasion there may be less. Generally, the actual usage
minimum is five ( 5) with general maximum of twelve ( 12) in practice. The proper
number of UTR drivers have been assigned in the “ actual” category above.
6. Each tophandler requires one ( 1) operator.
7. Additionally, in all cases whereby on- dock shuffling of containers within on- dock
DST railyards are completed, ILWU manning must be assigned to handle
“ TrackMobiles” which are rail mounted ( with option switching to tire mounted)
car pushers that are designed to push DST cars around the terminal with the
ability to switch back and forth between the railed and the wheeled modes. If this
is the case per marine terminal, then those terminals are required to employ one
( 1) TrackMobile driver to operate the machinery. In such instances, additionally a
third ( 3) dockman/ coneman is employed to provide internal terminal rail
switching capabilities just ahead of the TrackMobile car pusher. Thus, most
commonly two ( 2) additional ILWU manning are required against DST
operations with internal switching capabilities. This is perhaps 50% of the
terminals on the U. S. West Coast.
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
12
iv) Minimum space requirements: Top loaders have antenna which requires a
vertical clearance of 60’. The height of the antenna is 55’. Clearance is 60’.
Hostlers and tractors pulling trailers, chassis or bomb carts being loaded/ unloaded
by Top Handlers, Side Handlers or Reach Stackers must stay back a minimum of
one full container length from the bay being worked until the hoisting vehicle is
ready to service them ( See Figure 7).
Figure 7 Distances between Hostlers and Top Loaders
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
13
4.4 Toploader from storage to bombcart
The bombcarts are only used on terminal property therefore the container will be not be
leaving the terminal unless it is reloaded on a different type of vehicle. Therefore this
containers were either loaded on a ship, a train or moved somewhere else on terminal as
part of grounded storage.
i) Measurement Approach: The average lift time was measured when the toploader
contacted the container to when the toploader released the container at its new
position. The time between lifts was attributed to repositioning the equipment or
waiting to for a bombcart to arrive.
Figure 8 Toploader from storage to bombcart
ii) Time in Motion Results
Toploader from storage to bombcart
Number of observations 1
average lift time 0: 39
average time between lifts 0: 31
containers processed in 1: 50 Min 2
Predicted containers per hour 65
Table 7 Toploader from storage to bombcart
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
14
iii) Minimum space requirements: For Top loaders have antenna which requires a
vertical clearance of 60’. The height of the antenna is 55’. Clearance is 60’. Top
Handlers, Side Handlers or Reach Stackers when working side by side on the
same side of the aisle ( See Figure 9) or when working on opposite sides of the
same aisle ( See Figure 10) shall maintain a minimum separation of one container
length between each operation. If the aisle is a minimum of 100 feet wide, back
to back operations are permitted ( see Figure 11). Top Handler, Side Handler and
ReachStacker or RTG operations, containers of different lengths shall not be
stowed in the same bay. ( Figure 12)
Figure 9 Horizontal Distances between Two Top Loaders
Figure 10 Distances between Two Top Loaders
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
15
Figure 11 Distances between Hostlers and Top Loaders
Figure 12 Bay Configurations
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
16
4.5 Truck to double stacked train using rail gantry crane
The containers were moved from bombcart to train, since the bombcarts are only used
on port property and it is very rare that a ship will be unloaded directly into a train, then
it is surmised that the container was in grounded storage. Since trains are usually
loaded for intercontinental delivery it is surmised that the containers being loaded are
incoming international containers bound for the intercontinental U. S.
i) Measurement Approach: Time was measured when the crane contacted the
container placed it at new position and contacted the second container, thereby
returning to its original starting point. The time between lifts is the time required to
either reposition the crane or the time required for a bombcart to be positioned in
place for handling.
Figure 13 Truck to double stacked train using rail gantry crane
ii) Time in Motion Results
Truck to double stacked train using rail gantry crane
Number of observations 2
average lift time 1: 17
average time between lifts 6: 22
containers processed in 39: 37 Min. 7
Predicted containers per hour 10
Table 8 Truck to double stacked train using rail gantry crane
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
17
Minimum crew required Quantity Min. Actual
foreman supervises the whole crew 1 1 1 / 2 - 1
Chief Clerk 1 1 1 / 2 - 1
floor runner per gang find the containers
to be unloaded or loaded 2
1 0 / 1
dockman/ pinman puts on // takes off cones 2 2 2
UTR driver take containers to offsite 1 1 7 / 8
Rail gantry crane operator 2 2 2
Table 9 Crew requirements: Truck to double stacked train using rail gantry crane
iii) This is a brief explanation of the actual manning category
1. There is one ( 1) Foreman for all the gangs handling on- dock DST operations.
Thus, this is common, if there are two ( 2) DST gangs operating, then the Foreman
functions over both gangs.
2. There is one ( 1) Chief Clerk for all the gangs handling on- dock DST operations.
Thus, this is common, if there are two ( 2) DST gangs operating, then the Chief
Clerk functions over both gangs.
3. There is only one ( 1) floor runner per lifting unit – no exceptions. However, in
certain terminal with active GPS, RFID and OCR and Next Move capability,
there are no clerks at all working with each lifting unit. Most terminals in LA/ LB
will achieve this status by early 2008.
4. Dockmen/ pinmen work against all tophandler DST operations.
5. The “ driver to take containers off- site” is not an ILWU manning category. This
category is over- the- road truckers calling the terminal as owner- operators or
employees of independent non- union ( mostly) trucking companies. Their cost or
manning is not that of the ILWU.
6. Each Rail gantry crane requires two ( 2) operators.
iv) Minimum space requirements: Obstructions shall not be placed in the immediate
active travel area of rail- mounted shore- based cranes or within three feet ( 3') of
moving or traveling parts which would create an area where a person could be
pinned, except this shall not apply to crane legs which travel within three feet ( 3')
of the face of the dock, or where less than three feet ( 3') of clearance between
crane legs and gangways exists. When such condition exists, it shall be called to
the attention of the workers and they shall use extreme caution whenever they are
in these areas. Where employee access to the backreach area of container cranes.
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
18
4.6 Rail gantry crane to double stacked train
The containers were moved from drayage truck to train. Since trains are usually loaded
for intercontinental delivery it is surmised that the containers being loaded are either
incoming international containers or domestic containers bound for the intercontinental
U. S.
i) Measurement Approach: Time was measured when the crane contacted the
container placed it at new position and contacted the second container, thereby
returning to its original starting point. The time between lifts is the time required to
either reposition the crane or the time required for a drayage truck to be positioned
in place for handling.
Figure 14 Rail gantry crane to double stacked train
ii) Time in Motion Results
Rail gantry crane to double stacked train
Number of observations 5
average lift time 0: 41
average time between lifts 1: 34
containers processed in 50: 21 Min. 38
Predicted containers per hour 45
Table 10 Rail gantry crane to double stacked train
iii) Work Crew Requirements: Not a union facility, but work crew appeared to have
similar composition as that of a union shop.
iv) Minimum space requirements: Not a union facility, but work space appeared to
have similar composition as that of a union shop.
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
19
4.7 Quay gantry crane to bombcart
The containers are being unloaded to bombcarts which surmises that the container
will be placed on either on terminal property as grounded storage or be placed on an
outgoing train.
i) Measurement Approach: Time was measured when the crane contacted the
container placed it at new position and contacted the second container, thereby
returning to its original starting point. Since there was a steady and consistent line
of bombcarts there was no time lost to waiting for the bombcarts to be in place.
Figure 15 Quay gantry crane to bombcart
ii) Time in Motion Results
Quay gantry crane to bombcart
Number of observations 2
average time between container load 1: 27
containers processed in 26: 54 Min. 20
Predicted containers per hour 44
Table 11 Quay gantry crane to bombcart
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
20
Minimum crew required Quantity Min. Actual
foreman supervises the whole crew 1 1 1 / 5 - 1
Chief Clerk 1 1 1 / 5 - 1
clerk per gang 1 1 0 / 1
floor runner per gang find the containers
to be unloaded or loaded 2
0 0 / 2
dockman/ pinman puts on // takes
off cones 2
2 2
Hatch boss per gang tell crane where
to put the containers ( load)
2
2 2
lashers ( first and last shift only) ties
or untie containers from ship 4/ 5
4 4 / 5
UTR driver take containers to offsite 1 1 7 / 8
Quay gantry crane operator 2 2 2
Table 12 Crew requirements: Quay gantry crane to bombcart
iii) This is a brief explanation of the actual manning category
1. There is one ( 1) Foreman for all the gangs handling each vessel’s operations.
Thus, this is common, if there are up to six ( 6) gangs operating per vessel, then
the Foreman functions over all such gangs.
2. There is one ( 1) Chief Clerk for all the gangs handling each vessel’s operations.
Thus, this is common, if there are up to six ( 6) gangs operating per vessel, then
the Chief Clerk functions over all such gangs.
3. There is only one ( 1) clerk per vessel gang – no exceptions. However, in certain
terminal with active GPS, RFID and OCR and Next Move capability, there are no
clerks at all working with each lifting unit. Most terminals in LA/ LB will achieve
this status by early 2008.
4. There are no ( 0) floor runners required per vessel gang as a minimum. Most
commonly, terminals will allocate two ( 2) floor runners per gang due to
limitations of technology currently. However, in certain terminal with active GPS,
RFID and OCR and Next Move capability, there are no clerks at all working with
each lifting unit. Most terminals in LA/ LB will achieve this status by early 2008.
5. Dockmen/ pinmen work against each gang on all vessel quay crane operations.
6. Hatch bosses and lashers are correct as stated.
7. The “ driver to take containers off- site” is not a single driver. There are normally 7
/ 8 ILWU UTR drivers assigned to work vessel operations in conjunction with
each operating vessel gang. There may be more in many instances, depending
upon travel distances, and on occasion there may be less. Generally, the actual
usage minimum is five ( 5) with general maximum of twelve ( 12) in practice.
8. Each Quay gantry crane requires two ( 2) operators.
iv) Minimum space requirements: Quay Crane can be placed no closer then two bays
apart. Forty feet is required between quay crane and any working toploader that
is behind it. Obstructions shall not be placed in the immediate active travel area
of rail- mounted shore- based cranes or within three feet ( 3') of moving or traveling
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
21
parts which would create an area where a person could be pinned, except this
shall not apply to crane legs which travel within three feet ( 3') of the face of the
dock, or where less than three feet ( 3') of clearance between crane legs and
gangways exists. When such condition exists, it shall be called to the attention of
the workers and they shall use extreme caution whenever they are in these areas.
Where employee access to the backreach area of container cranes
Table 13 Performance Characteristics of Conventional and Modified A- frame Cranes
5 Conclusions and Recommendations
The constraints at port terminals, as well as the legal and corporate inertia strongly suggest any
coordinated change in process to accommodate electric cargo conveyor systems at these
terminals is not feasible. However, as the containers leave the terminals and enter the
community as a large aggregate, local requirements and lack of intermodal capacity imply
reasonable but required changes to the container movement process. This report quantifies and
documents present terminal load/ unload equipment and labor practices and concludes that
institutional changes at the terminals is unnecessary in that existing processes with container
throughputs of 40 containers/ hour are compatible with proposed conveyor- like container
movement systems. However, intermodal terminals that collect the containers form the
terminals will likely require parallel operation of the multiple cranes and automated container
sorting as used in a GRAIL- like system.
6 Implementation
Present near- dock rail processes load train sections on short rail spurs. Each spur has railcars
with containers of common destinations beyond the Los Angeles area. These sections are
filled over the course of a few days, and are then typically coupled into a train and hauled to
railheads outside the Los Angeles basin. There the sections are joined with sections bound for
the same destination to from transcontinental trains. Those terminals at the port that do not
have near- dock rail or have a limited number of spurs, require the capacity to handle the one
million plus containers to be drayed a short distance to Intermodal Container Transfer
Facilities ( ICTFs) where container trains bound for the inland United States are formed.
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
22
A number of conveyor- like technologies for containers have been proposed to mitigate
pollution and congestion at the port while maintaining or even increasing throughput by
eliminating short haul trucking from terminals to the Alameda Corridor Intermodal Container
Transfer Facilities ( ICTFs). A low polluting, stationary electrical generating station powering
an elevated container conveyor system, will eliminate the pollution and congestion of the one
million plus projected drays a year ( by 2010).
While the proposed container conveyor approaches have throughput capacities that can handle
the anticipated container volume, the loading and off- loading of these systems has yet to be
examined in terms of existing terminal procedures. Realities of container terminal labor and
logistics may limit the actual throughput capacities of the proposed systems. By nature, a
conveyor system will transport a few or even a single container on many dedicated carriages
fixed to the guideway. This operation infers continuous flow of carriages mounted on the
conveyor. This report has quantifies and documents the conclusion that present terminal
equipment and labor practices are compatible with proposed conveyor- like systems
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
23
Appendices
Appendix A
Summations of Charts
Tire gantry crane to drayage truck from storage chart 8
average lift time 1: 16
average time between lifts 1: 27
containers processed in 8: 29 Min 3
Predicted containers per hour 21
Tire gantry crane to drayage truck from storage chart 6
average lift time 0: 43
average time between lifts 2: 12
containers processed in 18: 14 Min 7
Predicted containers per hour 23
Tire gantry crane to drayage truck from storage chart 4
average lift time 1: 01
average time between lifts 1: 35
containers processed in 4: 18 min. 2
Predicted containers per hour 27
Tire gantry crane to drayage truck from storage chart 5
average lift time 0: 44
average time between lifts N/ A
containers processed in 2: 48 Min. 1
Predicted containers per hour 21
Tire gantry crane to drayage truck from storage chart 5
average lift time ( crane repositions during container travel) N/ A
average time between lifts 3: 41
containers processed in 14: 45 Min. 5
Predicted containers per hour 20
Averaged Tire gantry crane to drayage truck from storage
Number of observations 5
average lift time 0: 56
average time between lifts 2: 13
( containers processed in 48: 14 Min. 18
Predicted containers per hour 22
Toploader loading double stacked train from bombcarts chart 1
average lift time 1: 11
average time between lifts 1: 11
containers processed in 31: 33 Min 27
Predicted containers per hour 50
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
24
Top loader from bomb cart to double stacked train chart 5
Toploader # 1 average lift time 0: 30
average time between lifts N/ A
containers processed in 30 sec. 1
Predicted containers per hour 120
Toploader # 2 average lift time 0: 29
average time between lifts 1: 02
containers processed in 2: 30 Min. 3
Predicted containers per hour 72
Toploader # 3 average lift time 0: 52
average time between lifts 1: 32
containers processed in 7: 34 Min. 4
Predicted containers per hour 31
Averaged Toploader loading double stacked train from bombcarts
Number of observations 4
average lift time 0: 45
average time between lifts 1: 15
containers processed in 42: 07 Min. 35
Predicted containers per hour 49
Truck to double stacked train using rail gantry crane chart 2
Average lift duration 02: 03
Average lift to lift time 07: 25
Trucks processed in 32: 14 min. 5
Predicted containers per hour 9
Truck to double stacked train using rail gantry crane chart 2
Average lift duration 00: 31
Average lift to lift time 05: 19
Trucks processed in 7: 23 min. 2
Predicted containers per hour 16
Averaged Truck to double stacked train using rail gantry crane
Number of observations 2
average lift time 1: 17
average time between lifts 6: 22
containers processed in 39: 37 Min. 7
Predicted containers per hour 10
Double stacked train loaded using Rail gantry cranes chart 3
average lift time 0: 34
average time between lifts 1: 28
containers processed in 6: 54 min. 5
Predicted containers per hour 43
Double stacked train loaded using Rail gantry cranes chart 3
average lift time 0: 36
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
25
average time between lifts 1: 29
containers processed in 8: 55 min. 7
Predicted containers per hour 47
Double stacked train loaded using Rail gantry cranes chart 3
average lift time 0: 44
average time between lifts 1: 38
containers processed in 8: 12 min. 6
Predicted containers per hour 43
Double stacked train loaded using Rail gantry cranes chart 3
average lift time 0: 34
average time between lifts 1: 22
containers processed in 5: 31 min. 5
Predicted containers per hour 54
Double stacked train loaded using Rail gantry cranes chart 3
average lift time 0: 58
average time between lifts 1: 55
containers processed in 1: 55 min. 2
Predicted containers per hour 63
Rail gantry crane to double stacked train chart 7
average lift time 0: 44
average time between lifts 1: 34
containers processed in 18: 54 Min 13
Predicted containers per hour 41
Rail gantry crane to double stacked train
Number of observations 5
average lift time 0: 41
average time between lifts 1: 34
containers processed in 50: 21 Min. 38
Predicted containers per hour 45
Toploader from storage to bombcart chart 5
Number of observations 1
average lift time 0: 39
average time between lifts 0: 31
containers processed in 1: 50 Min 2
Predicted containers per hour 65
Toploader from double stacked train to bombcart chart 5
Number of observations 1
average lift time 0: 37
average time between lifts 1: 12
containers processed in 3: 07 Min. 3
Predicted containers per hour 57
Quay gantry crane to bombcart chart 5
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
26
Timing is measured as total time for one cycle
Crane 1 average lift time N/ A
average time between container load 1: 29
containers processed in 14: 03 Min. 11
Predicted containers per hour 46
Crane 2 average lift time N/ A
average time between container load 1: 25
containers processed in 12: 51 Min. 9
Predicted containers per hour 56
Quay gantry crane to bombcart
Number of observations 2
average time between container load 1: 27
containers processed in 26: 54 Min. 20
Predicted containers per hour 44
Chart 9
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
27
Appendix B
Load Unload charts
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
28
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
29
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
30
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
31
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
32
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
33
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
34
References
CCDoTT
Real Time Testing and Verification of Loading and Unloading Algorithms Using Grid Rail
( GR) http:// www. ccdott. org/ Deliverables/ 1998/ USC1.2.6.2/ task1.2.6.2. pdf
Conceptual Design Study For The Electric Cargo Conveyor ( Ecco) System
http:// www. portoflosangeles. org/ DOC/ REPORT_ ECCO_ 102706. pdf
Real Time Testing and Verification of Loading and Unloading Algorithms Using Grid Rail
http:// www. ccdott. org/ content/ DS_ fr. html
Logistics & Distribution- An Answer to Regional Upward Social Mobility ( SCAG)
www. scag. ca. gov// goodsmove/ pdf/ HusingLogisticsReport. pdf
The West Coast National Freight Gateway ( WCNFG) A Trade congestion Reduction Program
www. wtcanet. org/ LAEDC_ 2005- WCNFGProgram- FullReport. pdf
Regional Rail Capacity Improvement Program
www. scag. ca. gov/ goodsmove/ pdf/ RegionalRailBrief010504. pdf
OnTrac Trade Impact Study: National Economic Significance of Rail “ Capacity and
Homeland Security on the Alameda Corridor East”
www. caats. org/ news/ GM% 20Security. htm
Pacific Coast marine safety Code
http:// www. ilwu. org/ longshore/ contracts/ upload/ 2002_ PCMSC. pdf
Pacific Coast Longshore Contract Document
http:// www. ilwu. org/ longshore/ contracts/ upload/ PCLCD_ 2002- 2008. pdf
BEC Grid
http:// www. becind. com/ GRID/ grid. html
BEC Grid video
http:// www. becind. com/ Material_ Handling/ material_ handling. html
Equipment information:
TEC- L & TEC- H Series
http:// www. taylorbigred. com/ empty_ handlers. html
TEC & TETC Loaded Containers
http:// www. taylorbigred. com/ loaded_ handlers. html
Assessing near- dock rail loading and offloading procedures at the Port of LA/ LB for
application to a container conveyor to ICTFs
35
TITAN Reach Stackers
http:// www. taylorbigred. com/ rs/