Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="oltmannd"][quote user="futuremodal"][quote user="oltmannd"][quote user="futuremodal"][quote user="oltmannd"][quote user="futuremodal"]   most domestic containers these days are manufactured overseas.  [/quote] Really?  By whom?  How do they get them here? There's 95,000 53', 102" wide containers  in UMLER.  These are the backbone of the domestic stack service. As far as I know, most of these can't be stacked more than two high, so shipping them on container ships is problematic.  Also, I've never heard of 102" wide OR 53' foot containers moving on container ships.  JB Hunt's came from Wabash National.  Scheider has some, too.  From their press release. Container features include: · Same load configuration as a van trailer · Ability to be double-stacked when used on the rail · High-durability, lightweight painted/galvanized steel that is rust-resistant to protect transport of food, garments and other sensitive cargo · Easy loading, reduced product damage and smooth, clean look of non-corrugated, plywood-free interior sidewalls · 109 ½ inch interior height for greater loading capacity · Authorization for use on any railroad [/quote] For what it's worth, Wabash has stopped manufacturing domestic containers as per their recent press release: <A href="http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=113608">http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=113608</A> Quote of note from Bill Greubel, Chief Executive Officer at Wabash:  "It has become increasingly clear that corrugated steel boxes from China and Korea adequately satisfy customer requirements at prices significantly lower than our container offering." That leaves Schneider, until they decide to pull out.  Anyone else left in the US to manufacture domestic containers? [/quote] Stoughton, for one, built a lot of those aluminum EMP boxes.  Don't know if they're still doing it, though. <A href="http://www.uprr.com/customers/intermodal/emp/graphics/emp_s_2.gif">http://www.uprr.com/customers/intermodal/emp/graphics/emp_s_2.gif</A> Also, Hyundai in Tijuana. Also, looks like those steel 53' x 102" boxes have a payload only about 3-4% less than an aluminum box.  <A href="http://www.pacerstack.com/services/equipment_notlogged_specs.html">http://www.pacerstack.com/services/equipment_notlogged_specs.html</A>.  If you're going to load out before you cube out, you're likely to select a shorter trailer to begin with, I suppose.  It appears that 53' 102" containers, whereever they come from, are the functional equal of their dry van counterparts.  So, trailers offer no real advantage over containers. [/quote] There's a reason trucking firms will only use domestic containers in the intermodal lanes, and not in general highway usage - domestic containers simply do not have the capacity of dry vans, e.g. the difference is more significant that you'd admit.  [/quote] I'll admit it if you can explain it to me.  I see the same cube and about 2000# less capacity for 53' 102" box vs. van.  Seems to me that a product would have to have exactly the right density for the van to have any advantage over the box.  Too dense and you'd opt for a 48'er and get even more capacity.  Not dense enough and it cubes out before you need the extra 2000# capcy. Might RR rates be lower for containers than trailers?  Could that be the reason truckers opt for the box on intermodal lanes? [/quote] You're comparing the domestic container to a standard 53' dry van, not the newer ultra high cube dry vans.  We should also include the double combo trailers when comparing/contrasting domestic containers.  Unless the railroads can induce UPS to use those 28' containers (or a close equivalent, aka 30' or 31'), you won't see a 28' domestic container in regular service anytime soon.  Those double 31's beat a domestic container hands down in cubic capacity per driver, and those trucking firms that dispatch the double and triple combo trailer units prefer TOFC for said trailers in intermodal usage, not domestic containers. And yes, railroad rates for containers are lower than those for trailers, although a lot of that is due to priority TOFC vs usually non priority COFC.  But yes, non priority TOFC is still priced higher than COFC.  More daunting is the reduction of TOFC terminals available to trucking firms in deference to continued operation of COFC terminals in the same locales.  Which brings us back around to the AAR and it's claims that it wants to "take trucks off the highways".  If the AAR's idea of taking trucks off the highway means forcing the use of domestic containers for those trucking outfits that would opt for rail vs highway passage, then the AAR has missed the boat.  TOFC is the only way to accomodate the predictable evolution into larger and larger dry vans without having to completely retool the railcar fleet, something you can't do with well cars (although using well cars for dry vans is perfectly functional and adaptable, as those 53' wells can accomodate 57' trailers and/or 10'6" high boxes on said dry vans.)  But if we wanted to start using 57' containers or 10'6" high cube containers, the whole double stack fleet becomes superfluous, so we're stuck with the less efficient box for the sake of the railroads' internal efficiency obsession.  Not a good way to keep up with national productivity goals. BTW - Isn't Hyundai a Korean comglomerate?  And isn't Tijuana down in Mexico?  So when intermodal firms buy Hyundai domestic containers, we have neither income going to US stockholders, nor to US workers.[;)]
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag