In a number of articles, including the August issue of Cargo Systems, Brian Gunn, materials handling manager of Canadian engineering company Swan Wooster, presented a paper comparing high capacity radial (quadrant) loaders for bulk materials with Linear Loaders. In his article, Gunn concluded that a shiploading system considered in total shows that radial loaders offer capital savings on a linear installation for reasons which include the costly linear turntables; longer and wider linear support structure; the need for stronger bridge support structures with linear units to resist earthquake and horizontal shock loads; the radial loader requires fewer dolphins; linear back-up equipment is more expensive; and the simplicity of radial design can permit local fabrication. He added that from the many cases analysed by his company where either radial or linear would have been feasible, it was concluded that although the linear unit offers less overall unit length, the machinery required to give the Linear Loader its linear movement is expensive and demands added support structure and dolphins. Thus, in terms of total cost the radial loader almost invariably shows significant savings against the linear alternative. However, in a statement to Cargo Systems, president of Soros Associates, New York, Paul Soros, says that Gunn's arguments are based on insufficient data and the following article represents his in-depth personal reply to Gunn's paper.

  • Corporate Authors:

    Cargo Systems Publications Limited

    115 Bedford Road
    London SW4 7RA,   England 
  • Publication Date: 1977-12

Media Info

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00170713
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Source Agency: Cargo Systems International
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: Mar 7 1978 12:00AM