Talk:Containerization

The birth & evolution of the container ship and containerization; impact on world trade; impact on North American distribution of freight

The idea

As Malcolm McLean recalls, the idea came from a question he asked himself: "Wouldn't it be great if my trailer could simply be lifted up and placed on the ship without its contents being touched?" But it wasn't until 20 years later that the Ideal X , the first cargo ship carrying containers, sailed from Newark, New Jersey. This marked the first scheduled containership service in the world. The year was 1956.

Presumably, the Danes, who had operated the 'first vessels purpose-built to carry containers' since 1951, never needed a schedule for at least 5 years. Zolaf 06:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Prior to containerization, all products other than bulk commodities were moved piece by piece - in "break bulk." Boxes were loaded one by one onto a truck which drove to a port. Dockside, each box was individually unloaded and then hoisted into the hold of the ship. At the destination, the boxes were unloaded one by one and put on a truck or train for delivery. Not only was the freight handling slow, piece-meal and repetitive, other modes of transport, such as railroads, basically added to the inefficiency. What's more, the cargo was exposed to potential damage and pilferage. McLean's invention of containerization solved all those problems.

A trailer carrying numerous boxes could be loaded at the shipper's door, sealed, sent by truck to the port, lifted off its chassis and simply stored aboard ship. At the destination, the process would be reversed. This simple solution streamlined the process, sped up the delivery time, and made intermodal transportation far more feasible. But even the idea of intermodality - that one giant cargo box could be handled by truck, rail and/or cargo ship - was just an idea. Still, he knew there could be a better way to integrate sea transportation together with door-to-door delivery via the various forms of land transportation.

The obstacles

There were, however, several obstacles all along the way. At one point, McLean approached the U.S. railroads, and was told that his idea had little merit. His efforts were later blocked by the government - the Interstate Commerce Commission, which regulated much of the transportation industry in the US. Their action was, in fact, instigated by the national railroads. But McLean remained undaunted. He never sought subsidy from the U.S. government. Instead, he put all his own capital into this new venture. Fortunately, his changes were implemented.

Shipping was also seen by many as a rather risky business. It involved a big investment in new vessels and new equipment which differed radically from the existing ones. Containerization was a form of automation. Consequently, numerous jobs were bound to be eliminated. Container ships also needed extensive docking, special shipbuilding and repair facilities. It was the administrator of New York Harbour who recognized the significance of McLean's efforts who supported the idea of building a new kind of port. This eventually led to construction of the world's first container port in Port Elizabeth, New Jersey, dedicated exclusively to container ships.

The outcome

Crucial for true intermodality was the issue of standardization of container sizes and fittings. Vessels were able to carry 226 boxes in "trailerships", which conformed to the maximum length for trailers allowed on the US highways at the time: 35 ft long x 8 ft. wide and 8 ft. high. Later, the standard size agreed upon became the 20 ft and 40 ft units used today. This meant that any box could lock on to any other box, trailer chassis or ship.

At this point in time, containerization was yet to be tested on an international scale. The first trans-Atlantic container service was Sea-Land's SS Fairland. The result? The cargo arrived in Europe four weeks faster than its equivalent had before. Today, ships such as Maersk Sealand's modern container vessels can carry 10 or more times as much cargo as the old freighter. They can also be loaded and unloaded using less labour, and in much less time. Previously, it took a crew of 20 longshoremen to load 20 tons per hour into a ship's hold. Now with containers & gantry cranes, a crew of just 10 can load twice as much in a matter of minutes.

The impact on ocean shipping

The concept of containerization proved to be safer, faster and cheaper than the existing methods of transporting commodities. It minimized damage and pilferage, and precluded other types of perils. It cut labour and insurance costs dramatically. And it was the catalyst for new and improved types of cargo ships and dockyard machinery. Its impact on the world should not be understated. Containerization changed more than the way we transport goods around the world. It is responsible for the economic success of port cities and their surrounding regions. By enabling easier access to the exchange of goods, it has opened up new markets for export and import. Asia, in particular, started to prosper from such a cost-effective and efficient solution. In fact, it has been said that containerization has contributed to the welfare and well-being of the world.

The impact on North American freight distribution

The introduction of double-stack rail technology in 1984 -- which could never have occurred without the advent of containerization -- has certainly been one of the boldest and most productive applications of containerization imaginable. It has changed the entire intermodal freight distribution industry in North America forever; it has resulted in more cost-effective, secure, and reliable freight shipments, and provided domestic intermodal rail capacity that could not otherwise have been possible.

The double-stack rail car's unique design also significantly reduced damage in transit, and provided greater cargo security by cradling the lower containers so their doors cannot be opened. And a succession of large, new domestic container sizes was introduced to further enhance shipping productivity for customers.

Origins of Double-Stack

As early as the 1970s, doublestack designs and equipment were introduced, but the cars were heavy and uneconomical to operate.

While always deflecting credit to the many contributors who enabled the introduction of Stacktrain rail service, Don Orris, the chief executive officer of Pacer International, Inc., based in Concord CA, is widely considered the "Father of Stacktrain Service." He earned that moniker for his role in the early 1980s, as the head of APL's intermodal department, in sponsoring the development and implementation of lightweight, fuel-efficient equipment and the first successful operating network.

With Don's system, launched in 1984, container trains were finally able to break cost, capacity and service barriers by using specially engineered rail cars that could carry two tiers of containers instead of one -- significantly reducing the locomotive power, track capacity and train crews required by conventional intermodal trains to move a comparable payload.

In 1999, Pacer International acquired the original double-stack network that Don Orris and his colleagues had helped develop, and named it Pacer Stacktrain. Pacer remains the largest wholesale provider of double-stack rail service in North America.

For freight intermediaries -- the intermodal marketing companies, ocean carriers, and other third parties that market end-to-end transportation services to businesses that ship product worldwide -- introduction of double-stack revolutionized their business. It was more cost-effective than basic container-on-flat car, piggyback, or truck for cross-country moves; and by significantly reducing cargo damage and claims, it helped the intermediaries sell intermodal services to the skeptics.

The double-stack container trains managed by Pacer Stacktrain now (2006) carry more than one million containers per year within North America. The company accounts for more than 20 percent of all domestic container moves in North America. Overall, the double-stack market has grown more than 100-fold since 1984, and now accounts for about 70 percent of intermodal shipments. Double-stack transport is certainly one of the boldest applications of containerization.

40.92 m3?

One TEU is 40.92 m³?
20'x 8'x 8.5'=1360 square cubic feet: 1360*0.3048^3 = 38.51... m³. So what's the story? - 213.238.212.98 23:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could it be one of those extra-high containers? (What is it, 9'2 or 9'7 or something?) G®iffen 16:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Limits, examples

I would love to have some weight limits and such. As well as practical examples of logistics methods. - 213.238.212.98 23:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Container Capacities

20': Theoretical max. volume 33 CBM (CBM = Cubic Meter), Practical max. volume 28 CBM (approx.), max. payload weight 18 MT (MT = Metric Ton; rule of thumb - depends on local regulations)

40': Theoretical max. volume 67.3 CBM, Practical max. volume 57 CBM (approx.), max. payload weight 20 MT

40HQ: Theoretical max. volume 76 CBM, Practical max. volume 65 CBM (approx.), max. payload weight 20 MT

45': Theoretical max. volume 85.7 CBM, Practical max. volume 75 CBM (approx.), max. payload weight 20 MT

Some precise values

Some outer dimensions:

ISO-container	Nominal length (ft)	Real length (mm)		Real width (mm)		Real height (mm)		Max gross weight (kg)
Name		max.	min.	max.	min.	max.	min.
1A	40	12,192	12,182	2,438	2,433	2,438	2,433	30,400
1B	30	9,125	9,115	2,438	2,433	2,438	2,433	25,400
1C	20	6,058	6,052	2,438	2,433	2,438	2,433	20,320
1D	10	2,991	2,986	2,438	2,433	2,438	2,433	10,160
1E	6.5	1,968	1,963	2,438	2,433	2,438	2,433	7,110
1F	5	1,460	1,457	2,438	2,433	2,438	2,433	5,080
2A	-	2,920	2,915	2,300	2,295	2,100	2,095	7,000
2B	-	2,400	2,395	2,100	2,095	2,100	2,095	7,000
2C	-	1,450	1,445	2,300	2,295	2,100	2,095	7,000

/ Storpilot 03:49, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

This information contradicts the main article the main article also contradicts its references when it comes to the weight of a 20ft container --CAJ 23:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Intermediate Bulk Containers

The entry Intermediate Bulk Containers was copied "word-for-word" from one of three websites:

• http://www.c-f-c.com/supportdocs/dot_define.htm
• http://www.shippingintl.com/text/49cfr1718sec1718.html
• http://www.usdotnumberregistration.com/1718.asp

The websites copied directly from a U.S. Government pamphlet:

• Code of Federal Regulations
• Title 49, Volume 2, Parts 100 to 185 - Revised as of October 1, 1996
• From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access - CITE: 49CFR171.8

I will take the leap that who ever entered this article, and entered the following URL in this article and in the article Containerization is affiliated with the same, said, following website:

• http://www.technosearch.biz/intermediate_bulk_container_lifecycle.php Intermediate Bulk Containers Lifecycle Diagram

This website is a COMMERCIAL business located in:

• Caringbah, New South Wales, Australia

Both additions were made by an anonymous contributor, 220.245.178.135, going through an Australian ISP, TPG Internet Pty Ltd, in Wyong (Macquarie Centre & North Ryde), New South Wales, Australia (via Asia Pacific Network Information Centre, Milton, Queensland).

Should it stay or should it go? WikiDon 16:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article "Intermediate Bulk Containers" got the axe via speedy-deletion, guess I'll do the same to the references in this article. WikiDon 23:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RE: Images

Sir/Madam, Articles can have images at the top, as long as they are on the right; in fact in articles with images, more pages are setup that way.

• From the Wikipedia's "Manual of Style":
  • "Articles with a single picture are encouraged to have that picture at the top of the article, right-aligned, but this is not a hard and fast rule."

Instead of moving the photos to the next section, you could have aligned them vertically from the top. I thought that they were a little crowded the way they were, but the can be at the top. WikiDon 23:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to images at the top as long as they are aligned right, either. The objection that I had to the original configuration was that in smaller resolutions, no text was visible at all in the initial browser window. If you would care to care align the images right, then you have my blessing by all means. The reason I did not align the images right myself was that the article is sufficiently short that the images may cause some ugly formatting to occur. —Lowellian (talk) 23:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

ISO & Non–ISO Containers for Air Transport

It seems to me that this article has missed the wide range of ISO and non–ISO containers used in air transportation. Possibly something to add in. --Colin H 21:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you going to add something? WikiDon 02:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, this article should be about the containers already described. Other types could be found via container (disamb. page). This setup is used on quite a few of the container-articles in other languages. ("This article is about shipping containers, for other types, see container, disambiguation" og sth like that). G®iffen 21:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, Unit Load Device. kmccoy (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

As the article is entitled containerization and not ISO containers I feel that the containers used in air freight should indeed be at least mentioned in the article. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum request

Someone wants to know about container numbering conventions. They placed this header in the middle of the page, and that makes it look very sloppy. I'm removing it until someone feels like tackling the issue. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 17:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot more than numbers involved. There's a 2 letter ISO country code, a 3 to 4 letter container shipping company code, etc etc. --AlainV 04:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Great, you know the answer. I hereby nominate you for the job. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 07:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know the answer. I started digging out of curiosity but discovered that there was much more to it than I could handle after my day job, and after shovelling snow and after cleaning out my pet's cage, etc. etc. --AlainV 03:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The 3- and 4-character company codes are AAR reporting marks. I've been adding them to the list there as I go through my resources. Slambo (Speak) 16:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

ISO standard

This article speaks often of ISO containers - if they are an ISO standard what is its document number? --Abdull 14:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Try to view this page, maybe that's what You're looking for? http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueListPage.CatalogueList?ICS1=55&ICS2=180&ICS3=10&scopelist= G®iffen 13:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

>> ISO containers actually refer to containers of standardized dimensions so that they can be moved from one transportation mode to the other (and not worry about equipment compatibility issues). The specifications are contained in standard ISO 1496-3:1995. Manu 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

copyright violation

Almost all of the section "Effect of Development of Containerization on Status Quo" was copied verbatim from the recent book by Marc Levinson, The Box, How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger. I've removed it; if anyone wants to expand this section by presenting the information in their own words that would be great. FreplySpang (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Almost everything humans consume spends some time in a container"

I see it already has a fact tag on it, but that statement should surely be removed - it has an extreme western "consumer goods" bias attributed to it. I accept that a in today’s world it would be difficult to completely avoid consuming containerised goods one way or another, but "almost everything" that everyone eats? That is at best a generalisation and at worst just completely made up. SFC9394 23:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The intent of the sentence may have been that a huge range of things can be shipped in containers, which is true.

Now the sentence reads "every manufactured product", but that's no more true than "everything humans consume". What the sentence needs is a factual statement, such as "99% of the types of goods in international commerce may be shipped in containers" (I have no idea whether that's true!) or "The main restrictions on goods shipped in containers are size or international regulations against hazardous material". (That also is just illustrative.)

However the paragraph also needs to convey the surprising range of things that are shipped in containers. Numbers would be fine, but something qualitative showing their importance might be better.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Double Stack Container Train - Electric Traction?

Is it necessary that the double stack container train be run using diesel locomotives? Although technically feasible, does the double stack container train run with electric traction anywhere in the world?

Sure, it's possible to pull a stack train with electric power. The problem is one of clearances; the wire has to be high enough to clear a loaded train. Here in Merka, there aren't any such stack operations that I've heard of. Slambo (Speak) 14:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The only place that I'm aware of with sufficiently high overhead to handle double-stacked containers is the Channel Tunnel bridging England and France. Here, the catenary is 6m+ (can't find the exact figure to hand) to support the double-decker Eurotunnel/Shuttle car and super-gauge lorry trains. The shuttle locos, Class 92 and Eurostar power-cars all have the extra long reach necessary to reach this height. ...The problem is that either side of the 50km long Eurotunnel system the connecting lines have standard height catenary (<5.08m?) or other loading gauge restrictions that would make any through journey impossible! Sladen 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The rollingstock used on the Channel Tunnel shuttle services is out-of-gauge on both sides. I think, but am not sure, that the new construction/diversion of the Chunnel line to London may have the same loading gauge as the Chunnel, and hence, Chunnel shuttles/double-stacked containers could go forther towards London. Moving to the continent, the electrified Betuweroute from Rotterdam to the German border has been built to handle double-stacked trains, but runs into the same problem as the Chunnel; the connecting lines cannot handle it (presumably they forsee operation of double-stack trains from the port to an intermodal site in Germany). Searching Google for other double-stacked attempts and electrification shows a number of studies and reported construction standards where having the two together was planned. Zolaf 05:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

some external references

This article refers to several good references. [1] Kowloonese 18:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

TEU

please give me the abrevation.and also tell me why the word EQUALENT is used —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.82.2 (talk • contribs) .

I suppose by "equalent" you actually mean "equivalent"? The word somehov describes comparable measures, like "two sticks two yards long are equivalent to four sticks each one yard long" meaning both combinations add uo to four yards total. In this specific situation TEU tells how many twenty-foot units a certain area can hold, and then people in the branch will know that if they put in fourty-foot units they can only have half that number. I hope this explains it? Else I'll need to find some native english-speaker :-) G®iffen 18:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Biggest container companies

This list does not seem to be exhaustive. According to its website more than 130 container ships are operated by Hapag-Lloyd with a capacity of approx. 410.000 TEU. Hapag-Lloyd claims to be the world's 5th biggest container shipping company. Is there a reason it's not eligible for the list? Teodorico 10:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't containerization result in unemployment?

Didn't containerization result in mass unemployment for longshoremen? I'm not 100% sure, so I'm not adding it to the page, but perhaps someone can comment. If so, that aspect of containerization should certainly be included.

Not unemployment in the sense of layoffs and firings. In most big ports the numbers of dock workers and longshoreman were gradually lowered by attrition (pensioning or not replacing those who leave voluntarily before their retirment age)anf some smaller ports just closed down. The major books which treat the entire phenomenon of containerization cover it a bit, but I personally found that coverage too spotty too consider them trusted sources on the topic, which is why I never wrote anything on it in the article. --AlainV 22:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC) --AlainV 22:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I felt that this subject needed to be included on this page after seeing in the refrenced paper that the Port of New York went from 50,000 sparingly used workers in the 1940's to around 2,000 full time workers in the late 1980's. Although the labor affects are not mentioned much in the major books, there are many periphery articles that focus on this subject. Slelli 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Double-stack section - advertising?

The text in the double-stack section reads like advertising copy and makes many references to one particular company using this method. Can this be made more neutral?

I'm not sure about the Pacer-Stackton stuff. Referring to a specific company/individual for such a small section seems wrong. Perhaps we could get a DoubleStackContainerization page or somesuch and put the specifics there? Skorgu 23:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

immigration

I think the recent news about people hiding in containers to illegally enter the US at the Port of Seattle should be mentioned somewhere. "Other uses of containers" ?

Peregrine_^AY 07:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Stack lock

Yes, the double stack section reads like a hymn of praise, ie it lacks neutrality. More to the point, nobody mentions little technical details like how do the containers in a stack get tied down so they don't fall off? Or on a flatcar or truck bed. Is there an international standard pin or lock or something at the corners or elsewhere? Jim.henderson 15:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I know for sure that trucks / trailers have standard locks which are tightened manually or automaticly depending om model and age of the vehicle. G®iffen 17:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

In my collection is an intercontainer lock. Four of these devices are typically used on top of the lower container on a doublestack train to lock the upper container in position. I can easily photograph it, but I haven't yet because I don't have anything to represent the container lock receptacle. Slambo (Speak) 10:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction?

This page: "The first vessels purpose-built to carry containers began operation in Denmark in 1951. Ships began carrying containers between Seattle and Alaska in 1951."

Another Wikipedia page [2]: "The first container ship was the Ideal-X, a converted T-2 tanker, owned by Malcom McLean, which carried 58 metal containers between Newark, New Jersey and Houston, Texas on its first voyage, in April 1956." 199.247.245.1 06:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Gord

Minor Edit, Changed "Southbound containers were loaded by shippers in the Yukon, moved by truck, rail, ship and truck to their consignees, without opening.' TO "Southbound containers were loaded by shippers in the Yukon, moved by rail, ship and truck, to their consignees, without opening."

I also removed the word stackability and replaced it with "their ability to stack". Although not as concise I believe it is more precise English. A good definition is concise, precise and accurate. So it was a bit of a debate. "Microsoft Word", "Fire Fox" and "dictionary.com" say stackability is not a real word. But google reveals that the word has been used some 72,000 times and does not offer a redirect for "stack ability". Up to next editor.

So which is it?

"Most containers today are of the 40-ft (12.2 m) variety..."

"The 20 foot container is the most common container..."

Blaise 21:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Shipping vs. Cargo Containers

Are the terms "cargo container" and "shipping container" interchangeable? Squideshi 18:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say a "shipping container" is one of those TEU equivalent ones that are usually seen onboard container ships, while a "cargo container" is more any hard unit for transporting cargo, including wooden boxes, shipping containers, airplane freight containers etc.

The reason You should have to search second opinion is that I'm not a native speaker of english. :-) G®iffen 21:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unemployment due to containerization

Although there can be no direct correlation made between the new technology and a loss of jobs, there are a number of texts that talk about the job loss associated in part with containerization. In his paper regarding the reaction to containerization, Andrew Herod offers some specific numbers on the employment impact.[3] Herod says that during break bulk shipping days 11,000 tons of cargo could be moved by 126 longshoremen in 84 hours. He goes on to say that the same weight of cargo can be moved by 42 longshoremen in only 13 hours with the use of containers. The new system of shipping also allowed for freight consolidating jobs to move from the waterfront to far inland somewhere, which also decreased the number of waterfront jobs.

I have deleted this section as it make's no sence to have it. All new technolagy destroyes job's. The electricity industy killed the candle making industy as well as the gas light indusry to give 2 examples. Telegraph destroyed the pony express as well as the mail ship (telegraph started it, cheep telephone nailed the coffin). E-mail is destroying the regular post as mobile (cell) phones are destoying landlines. This section breakes NPOV as it does not discuss the jobs created by cheeper transport. Also if this section is allowed to stay then we should have a section like this with every item, technology or idea that leads to someone being made unemployrd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.79.17 (talk • contribs).

I reinstated this talk page comment, though the related deletion on the article itself has been reverted. This anonymous user makes a good point and that point should not be removed from this talk page. kmccoy (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Loss at Sea

I've been told that shipping containers are designed to sink when washed overboard so as to not form a navigational hazzard, but may float due to the bouyancy of it's cargo. Can anyone confirm?--Chuckygobyebye 07:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC) They sink because there is nothing to keep them afloat, but a very bouyant cargo might. Rumiton (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Partly submerged containers are indeed a menace to shipping, particularly leisure craft. Containers will obviously float until they become internally flooded. A container filled with a low density and impermeable material (for example furniture)will not easily sink. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Early "containerisation"

I was just reading that Fletcher's canal in Lancashire, which opened in 1790, carried coal in wooden boxes for ease of unloading. Were there any earlier examples of "containerisation"? --jmb 08:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition of LCL (Australia)

I think the issue here is the section where LCL (Australia) is defined as "less than car load" relates to historic terms (as in, before the introduction of the ISO). LCL in Australian shipping used to mean "less than car load", so this use in the "International" section of the article is correct. It would not be correct to use this meaning in a current context - LCL in Australia now means "less than container load"[4] as it does in most of the rest of the world. Euryalus (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

question...

I just created an article about the Kitano (container ship). Its cargo capacity is 3618 twenty foot equivalent units. I was very surprised that there was no article on twenty foot equivalent units.

I don't think twenty foot equivalent units should be redirected to this article. I think there should be a short article that lays out the dimensions of a twenty foot equivalent units container. This article doesn't really do so.

There are other articles that are related to this one. Am I the only one who thinks that some of them have been redirected too many times?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree. Containerization is a much broader article than TEU's and a reader without a background in the issue is likely to click on [[TEU]] in an article and be mystified at ending up here. That said, the definiton and dimensions of TEU's make up a large part of this page and a separate article would pretty much be a cut and paste from this one.

Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. At one point a couple of months ago I fixed up some of the TEU links, and I put an HTML comment in this article to try to prevent the links from being broken if the "ISO standard" heading is changed, something that had apparently happened several times in the past, leading to a variety of broken links. --RenniePet (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the word "CONEX" mean an ISO container?

I am accustomed in the U.S. military and in the international humanitarian and development aid community to hearing ISO containers referred to a "CONEX boxes", which I assume derives from "container express". I am surprised not to see this common (at least in my circles) term in the article. Can anyone source the origin of "CONEX" and add it? Darwinianphysicist (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, CONEX is a military term for "Container Express. See:

• CONEX - Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)

• History & Development of the Container - U.S. Army Transportation Museum - United States Army Transportation School

Before that they were called "Transporters"

~ WikiDon (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the link you were looking for was: CONEX :) babbage (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

weight when shipped by highway and railroad

The article as it stands discusses the maximum container weight, but it doesn't put this into context of how heavy a tractor trailer or train car is when carrying a maximum weight shipping container. I suspect that the maximum weights may have been choosen so that when put on a typical tractor trailer, a vehicle carrying a 40' shipping container will be right at the traditional maximum weight for such a vehicle in the US as the highway rules were written before containers were popular, and I suspect the railroads in the US may have upgraded their maximum weights a bit as double stack container trains became popular so that the loading on one axle of an articulated freight car is acceptable when using these maximum weight containers, perhaps picking the new railroad maximum axle loading specifically based upon what would work well for containers; but without seeing the actual numbers, I really don't know if that's actually the case. JNW2 (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

10 Foot Shipping container rare?

Maybe in the USA and Europe, but not in the worlds 2nd largest economy, Japan. In addition, I've seen them in use in many S.E Asian countries. Surfing bird (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

They're certainly rare if not non-existent in Europe, the US and Australia, though I must admit I've never been to a Japanese port. I've added a {{fact}} tag to the sentence to draw attention to the disputed claim and will hunt around for a source regarding 10ft container use worldwide. If you can find anything also, feel free to add it in. Euryalus (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The other day I saw a Royal Wolf rented container in use as a site tool shed in Australia, so you cannot say they don't exist. Whether they are used for transport use in another matter. Wongm (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There's also three of them sitting next to the old White Bay Power Station, marked as holding materials for Sydney Ports oil spill response. Clearly not in use for shipping, but in existence nonetheless. I've edited the comment above. Haven't found any stats on their continued use in cargo but will keep looking. Euryalus (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See the following link Japan Rail Freight Company. I've seen some of these containers in Jakarata and Bangkok. So they have been shipped by sea, possibly by break bulk - although I would think any modern container gantry crane could handle them. These containers are not to be confused with a used 20ft container which is cut in half and sold as a 10ft container for construction/mine site huts and tool sheds. Did you know used containers can be used as retaining walls? I worked on a project where we used those, I'll find the link if someone wants to include that.Surfing bird (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, might be particularly relevant to Shipping container architecture. Euryalus (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if a gantry could handle them without picking up a different spreader, and they are too rare to justify that. They are used occasionally in Australia where cargo is trans-shipped to a smaller vessel or lighter, and sent ashore that way (when a larger ship cannot get alongside.) Rumiton (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Another conflict about numeric values

The data in the Standard containers section, is not as the data found in Twenty-foot equivalent units article. The numeric values of the volumes are different. Is this lack of consistency between different articles?--TheEgyptian (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the values of the volume in this article is about the total volume of the container, while the other article gives the capacity (the interior volume) of the container, and this is obvious by simple calculation of the dimensions.--TheEgyptian (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Splitting out Shipping container

I'm considering the possibility of splitting out Shipping container to a separate article, covering the specifications and background for (standard) shipping containers themselves, rather than the processes or general background of inter-modal. A large number of the incoming links to this article are via that redirect (see: Special:WhatLinksHere/Shipping container) and I would like to provide something more specific than currently dumping people at a long article, with a very large number of bolded terms in the lead section.

The content I'd like to start with moving and reorganising is:

• Containerization#ISO standard
• Containerization#Standard containers

Suggestions/feedback/comments welcomed! —Sladen (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just do it. People can complain later. MickMacNee (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no issues, I only found this article after linking to 'shipping container' and finding out it came here. Wongm (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Split if you want - I'd suggest an article title "ISO Shipping" containers , unless you are covering non-ISO types.FengRail (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to make a start on this, but the problem was almost the entire contents of this article would be relevant to the proposed new one. So we would essentially end up with a duplicate page with a slightly different emphasis in the lead. If most of the incoming links relate more directly to containers rather than cotnainerization, should we contemplate renaming this page and rearranging its contents, instead of splitting? Euryalus (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the new article concerns itself only with the specifications of todays standardised containers and that all the history about the evolution of containerisation and also historical containers is left in this article. I arrived at this article for the first time today on a practical mission to understand which containers can be carried on UK railways - all the history and details of the ships etc is all fine but well off-topic for my needs. I would like to see an article with a section for 'High Cube 2.9 metres high containers' that I can refer to from the british section of the loading gauge. The loading gauge article will then be referred to from UK railway line articles. Thanks for all the work to date on this. PeterEastern (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now done the initial move. The new article now needs loads more work, not all of which I am qualified to do but I will do what I can. PeterEastern (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The split out article was subsequently moved twice without discussion and is now under discussion at Talk:Intermodal container#Requested move for restoration to "Shipping container". Comments welcomed as the content involved was formerly from this article. —Sladen (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"intermodal freight transport cargo transport "

That's a silly phrase, isn't it? It's got transport in it twice, and freight is the same as cargo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.2.221 (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Caused by someone adding a new definition without removing the old one. Fixed by removing the less precise wording. Euryalus (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Japan

Any info on Japan's domestic truck/rail/sea freight containers? They are of a smaller size than the US/EU ones, with 10', 12', 14' lengths typical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.34.99 (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Other uses of Conex

Links for other uses of Conex box in war

http://books.google.com/books?id=3W48Jxr7X8wC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=conex+punished&source=bl&ots=pGIDrzpeDL&sig=A5UecAnXvDY7mBQ3GcYWFD7F0Uo&hl=en&ei=6S0bSuDYHYPoNJvSvZcP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/am-i-torturer

http://25thaviation.org/id771.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=IA20xVTl-nEC&pg=PA342&lpg=PA342&dq=conex+box+punished&source=bl&ots=OAPHbYyTaO&sig=TqcNCs9SZe4QQ33RBTB12uYPfj4&hl=en&ei=OTEbSv6AHZW0MKjR8JYP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

http://mofak.com/rocket_city.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongviet (talk • contribs) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Spam

I deem the following as spam/advertising:

In 2010, a Russian company released a cruise missile system that can be shipped in containers.<ref>[http://www.concern-agat.ru Concern Morinformsystem-Agat]</ref>

I do so because the reference links to the company's main page, not to a page that explicitly notes the information in the sentence. Secondly, it's a primary source. Third, it's getting outside the scope of this article. As such, I would like to see it removed or re-referenced to a secondary source. Wizard191 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Type of vehicle

I figure someone working on this article can help me properly identify this vehicle. I don't think it is exactly a reach stacker, although clearly it is something similar. - Jmabel | Talk 03:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Try the manufacturer's website? I didn't check, but if its not there I'm not sure you'd find it anywhere. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 11:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I looked there, but couldn't find anything that was obviously the same. I'm guessing this is an older model of something. - Jmabel | Talk 23:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an empty container handler.

Mi-jack MJ450 perhaps? [5]

Here's a relative: [6]

bobrayner (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, MJ450 is exactly right. - Jmabel | Talk 18:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unitization of loads

Containerization is essentially a unitization of loads. Unitization has had an immense economic impact and indeed has been an essential element in the globalization of trade. It is also an important factor in intermodal transport. At present water, rail and road can potentially be fully intermodal. Air freight currently remains outside the intermodal ring. Other elements too are barriers to true intercontinental intermodality. These include local divergences in container dimensions, and the unreconciled interests of the various intermodal players. I am wondering how these more general considerations might be integrated into the article. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Twistlocks

I was under the impression the twistlocks were not strictly on the corners but set a short way in. The article also fails to mention that the positioning is carefully designed to allow the same carriers to take multiple container sizes or pairs