The container terminal for the Japanese Toyota Motors Limited (TML) originated from a simple individual hub that relied on basic manual labor for operations. In the beginning, the hub had a carrying capacity of only 50 bookings at a given time. Over time, the hub kept on growing steadily to the current capacity of 650 containers. The rapid changes can only be attributed to continuous technological and manual developments that were adopted. The TML container terminal is currently characterized by automated operations, varying degrees of selectivity, improved flexibility, and increased productivity. Besides, the hub has areas secluded for imports and exports, feeder ports or gateways, and inland rail and road (truck) distribution systems. The ability to handle only 650 bookings is considerably low compared with TML’s target of holding 1000 containers at a time. This essay aims at finding out ways of utilizing TML’s available space to increase its ability to accommodate a considerably large number of containers than it currently does.
TML has done a commendable job in laying out its landscape. This is quite evident from a well-spaced customs inspection area to a centrally located operations delivery area, a visible administration block, a warehouse, and a substation, among others. However, there is one underlying factor that TML failed to put into consideration, which is related to the provision of efficient and safe facilities that enable effective cargo handling and management.
This factor is so vital for effective cargo management, yet so often ignored. In fact, not only by the Japanese Toyota Motors Limited only but by many other container shipping companies. In the recent past, there has been a considerable rise in the number of organizations that carry out studies on cargo handling equipment and practices. With ample space at the TML holding terminal yet to be used, the company should involve itself closely with organizations, such as the Japanese Cargo Handling Consultancy (JCHC). JCHC deals with general structuring and drawing layouts for cargo terminals and offers cargo handling equipment at subsidized prices. With such cargo handling equipment, human labor is considerably reduced, resulting in such facilities as the pedestrian way for labor being reduced in size or rather done away within the facility.
About my understanding of the general outlook of the TML yard, restructuring its layout will not result in a significant change. However, a slight reduction in the customs inspection area would create more space to allow many areas to be expanded, for example, the warehouse. Expansion of the warehouse would create more space to accommodate the expected increase in the number of bookings and subsequent cargo levels. The larger the storage area the bigger the cargo it can accommodate at a given time, and the better the business operations.
In conclusion, Dally and Maquire came up with the following formula that relates to a terminal’s annual container handling capacity and its storage capacity:
C= (L.H.W.K)/(D.F)
Where:
C=Terminals annual capability to hold containers
L=Number of containers that can be accommodated
H=Stacking height of containers
W=Number of working slots
K=Total number of working days in the period
D=Container dwell time
F=Peaking factor.
The formula is based on the platform of the peak factor methodology. From the formula, it is clear that a terminal’s handling capacity is attained by multiplying the terminal’s storage capacity and the container’s dwell time. Hence, for the TML to record significantly improved operations, there is a serious need for ample parking space, larger warehouses, and effective cargo handling equipment.