The Mechanical Handling and Storing of Material

506 THE MECHANICAL HANDLING OF MATERIAL ends of the scale, namely, the small country mills, to which grain is brought in farmers’ cads from the immediate neighbourhood, and the large port mills, which receive foreign wieat either directly from oceän-going steamers at the quay side or from barges that have been loaded in bulk or with sacked goods from the ship. One of the strongest arguments in favour of the bulk transit of grain is the saving in terminal charges which e general adoption of such a system would be likely to bring about. Under present conditions, no doubt, railway companies may fairly argue that it would be unreasonable to ask them to reduce terminal charges whilst only a fraction of the larger merchant millers of the kingdom have adopted the system. The possible economies of the bulk system of grain handling are well illustrated by a comparison of the freight rates between Chicago and New York, and between Liverpool and Manchester Taking the rates current at the close of year 1902, the rate per ton between Chicago and New York amounted to about 15s. 6d. for about 800 miles, while the rate per ton between Liverpool and Manchester on a haul of 31 miles amounted to Gs lid Inus it will be seen that the rate on the long haul amounted to about one-fifth of a penny per ton per mile as against 2|d. per ton per mile on the short haul. There is no question but that railway freights for grain are excessive in this country, generally speaking, and although in this as in other problems many factors enter into the com- mon of the rate, yet it is clear that the handling of grain in sacks tends to keep up e high rates. One of, the lowest rates for grain current in England is probably that h ? T betWeen HUH and Nevvcastle’ where 7s. 6d. per ton is charged on a aU ° f qaT eS1’ equivalent to about eight-tenths of a penny as against one-fifth of a penny for 800 miles’ haul in the United States. It is easy to understand why the bulk handling of grain is likely to effect ereat economies in transport. The labour bill is considerably reduced, and as covered trucks aie used, no waterproof sheets are to be provided, while the item for labour in con- nect.cn with these sheets is also saved. Moreover, considerably less shunting is required ».th the bulk system of transit for this reason, that the space occupied by a 7-ton truck loaded with sacks will not be exceeded by a 20-ton bulk car. AV hen grain is handled in bulk, much greater loads can be carried in a single train. At a moderate calculation, the general adoption of the bulk system, with self-emptying railway trucks, in this country, would enable the railway companies to reduce their terminal cha^s by at least 33 per cent. According to Milling, a journal to which thanks are due for many facts >n connection with the important question, “No miller can realise siding’’ eCOnOmy ‘° Obtai"ed frOm the bU'k handli"g °f grain UnleSS he has his own To show how wide-reaching are the economies possible with a well-organised system of bulk transit ,t may be noted that the difference at most of our ports between the overside and the quay rate amounts to about 7d. per ton. Under the present system tr»Xk hand ',ng ““ m:ller ,s often compelled to buy ex quay ; whereas with a reasonable rack-to-car rate, millers whose grain was handled in bulk would be able to buy ex ship. Moreover, the petty pUfering which goes on more or less where sacks of grain are >andled would be lendered well-nigh impossible by the use of bulk trucks, which could be ealed or locked, thus reducing the liability of shortage to the lowest minimum. H "’O"8®1 Bi-'tlsh millers who have already adopted the bulk system of grain handling are the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, at their Chancelot Mills at Leith, and essrs Xatson, lodcl, & Co., of Birmingham. Perhaps one of the best examples now to be seen m England of bulk grain handling is afforded by the Industrial Co-operative ■ ocie ; s . i Is at Leeds. I he bulk of the wheat used in these mills is bought at Hull,