Edit topic

Updated your discussion topic below.

Subject
Enter a subject for your topic. Maximum 150 characters.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
Group, Presently it seems that the new generation of high cube domestic containers is suffering from one major drawback, namely the need to put a stacking post at the nominal 40' points. As some of you might know it is more difficult to take compression in a member than it is to take tension so the stacking posts are always somewhat bulkier than the sidewalls in certain locations. Also, there has recently been a move toward WTP (wide top pick) 97 3/8" lifting points in an effort to reduce the eccentricity on the container sidewall. The WTP lifting points are further apart than the standard ISO pick points thus cutting the distance a load has to travel till it reaches the sidewall. SO why not do something along the lines of this proposal. If a stack car can handle a 53' container in the lower well then why not provide stacking fittings at the nominal 53' points at the 97 3/8" width as well as the existing nominal 40' points at the standard ISO width. The additional is structurally easy and could be made when the car was shopped. While this is being done a new generation of domestic containers could be produced which rely on the 53' stacking point, at the front and back of the box, to support the weight of a stacked container while maintaining a WTP fitting in the roof for lifting (a tension load) only and a 40' ISO point in the floor so that the 53' box could be stacked on standard 40', 45', and 48' containers during the transition in the well cars. I would suggest the change in stacking post locations would make the box a lot cheaper and lighter as the door frame is already provided with steel tubular shapes and the front wall of the trailer/box would be an ideal location for a stacking post due to the folded construction of the intersecting walls. Actually, instead of a WTP fitting a J.B. Hunt pin lift fitting could be used which would be somewhat simpler. Then there is another issue in domestic container design. Why not integrate the 3 ¾” deep kingpin with the container. Yes, there would need to be a 4” recess to receive the kingpin and prevent it from puncturing the container below. I figure that there would need to be a slight floor level change over the area but it is doable. With the kingpin integrated the body would only need a tandem slider rail, crash guard, brakelights, and tandem slider to be complete as the landing gear could easily be designed to fold into the floor of the container. Of course the floor construction needs to be addressed as the 2 ½” I Beams are certainly heavier than 4” I Beams. Perhaps with all of the changes we would go from a road weight of 17,500# for a domestic container on chassis to something more like that of a 14,500# trailer. It might even make sense for a majority of trailers to be ordered this way even though there is a slight chance they will be used as containers.
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
E-mail Subscribe
Check the box below if you want to receive e-mail notifications when replies are made to this thread.

Receive notifications