Trains.com

53' containers....!

10784 views
43 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
53' containers....!
Posted by Modelcar on Thursday, September 15, 2005 3:22 PM
....Either I haven't been paying attention and notice before...53' containers...A surprise to me...Was in Muncie just now, doing some bike riding on our trail and a bit of railfaning...{simply watching}, as the NS, N and S route parallels our trail at the depot for several hundred ft. and watched a container train roll through...{by the way, it was led by a UP engine}, and business must be good as it was an extra long train....and rolling smooth it did. But noticing 53' containers....Lots of them, was a surprise to me....Just have not noticed them before. Looked like two 4000 horse engines pulling the consist and moving right along......

Quentin

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Near Promentory UT
  • 1,590 posts
Posted by dldance on Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:15 PM
Lot's of 53's out there - mostly for domestic use. International is still based on 40' and 20'.

dd
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Cedar Rapids, IA
  • 4,213 posts
Posted by blhanel on Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:43 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by dldance

Lot's of 53's out there - mostly for domestic use. International is still based on 40' and 20'.

dd


Hmmm, another tidbit of knowledge I didn't know before!
  • Member since
    March 2005
  • From: Canoga Park (Los Angeles)
  • 494 posts
Posted by TheS.P.caboose on Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:11 PM
I've seen the 53 footers for an awful long time now. Southern Pacific, pre-merger, was the railroad that started the stack train scene. Living in the Los Angeles area, I see lots of containers travel thru coming into the port of Long Beach.
Regards Gary
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:03 PM
At this time i do not think that 53' containers are allowed in International service
[ except maybe to Canada, Mexico?].. THey are primarily an intra US container, the 53' length being preferred by volumn shippers. THe 53' tlr is primarily a standard trucking industry size now, you will generally see them stacked on top of a 48, in a well deck style car, or on a conventional chassis utilizing three 53' fters on a tripple unit flat set of cars.. Most of the JB Hunt boxes are 53's.

 

 


 

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:13 PM
....In thinking about what I did see today....Many were on 48 footers in well cars and some of the well cars even had a big lettering on one end..."53"....and had two 53 footers stacked in each....Also, believe most were of aluminum construction.

Quentin

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:19 PM
THe 48's and 53's are domestic use containers, and the 20,40,45 are ued in International service..MOst of the International service containers are of steel construction, while the domestic use conatiners are aluminum. BUilt like the box portion of a road trailer, with the chassis a removable unit to which the box can be locked onto..

 

 


 

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • 7,486 posts
Posted by ndbprr on Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:21 PM
Which begs a question I have been curious about for some time. What keeps the top row of containers from sliding off or skewing?
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:23 PM
....Yes, aluminum with ribbed sides.....

Quentin

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:26 PM
ndbprr.....Exactly what I was looking for today trying to see if the top box was locked in place at their fastening points but could not see anything....Looked like they were just mating to the receptable it was sitting on and not really fastened to it.....At least that's what it looked like to me.

Quentin

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:29 PM
THey are locked together with a kind of toggle pin device at the corners, and sometime they do get skewed, when someone failes to lock them down, I have see it a couple of times east of Memphis on the NS, when they went out with a tow truck to realign a skewed container, then set the car out to bring it back to the terminal, to be reset

 

 


 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:40 PM
53' containers have been around for a while. But,I notice that some of the newer well-cars or spine cars have markings for triple 57s...Is this for future trailer expansions or what?

Cway
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Where it's cold.
  • 555 posts
Posted by doghouse on Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:15 PM
One of the things they pay me to do is to watch trains. Some of you may find that hard to believe, but yes, there are a couple "outfits" that do that. 53 footers came along somewhere around 1988(?). The 57 footer was petitioned for but rejected, some where around 2003 or 4, again(?). And yes, there are 53 footers that ply the international trade routes. Seen "Stacker Train" 53 footers on UP through El Paso, Texas. Blue boxes with red lettering. Can't think of the other lines that have ocean 53' rs, but there are some.
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:50 PM
....A lot of the containers on the train I observed today were painted red and had a Co. name on them in fairly large letters, but I've forgotten the name....Train had quite a few of them all lined up together. It was a rather short name....

Quentin

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 15, 2005 10:23 PM
Rather than thinking of domestic and international containers think of them as marine and NAFTA containers. The marine containers are made of steel because they are stacked much higher than the domestic containers due to the depth of the holds in container ships and therefore have to support more weight. Since it is very expensive to change the configuration of a ocean vessel and the road height, length and weight constraints overseas are more limiting the 53' container has not caught on for marine use. The 53' containers basically travel all over North America however containers owned by CN and CP generally stay in Canada on domestic use. For containerized freight to the US or Mexico from Canada the containers are usually NACS, EMPU's or Pacer Stacktrains rather than railroad containers because the railroads in the US have abandoned or been forced to abandon the retail container trade and only deal in the wholesale trade with Intermodal Marketing Companies (IMC's) such as Pacer, Hub, Multimodal and companies such as Schneider, JB Hunt and UPS. The NACS and EMPU fleets are funded or contributed by the participating railroads including CN and CP.
If other people know anymore about this let us know.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Friday, September 16, 2005 7:39 AM
I think some western states allow 57'ers.

The 53' containers have been around for about 10 years. JB Hunt was an "early adopter".

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Friday, September 16, 2005 7:45 AM
J B Hunt is getting rid of its containers same with Schneider they discovered that they actually have less avaiblity than a standard trailer. JB hunt is still shipping by rail just using the standard trailer now. You have to remember that with containers you must have a chassis for it when you need it they were having a chassis shortage. The railyards were putting anything and everything on JB Hunts' chassis. The only difference between the 53 foot and the regular container is construction. On the 57 foot out west on the I-5 corridor they are legal. The ATA pushed for 57 foot trailers at one time saying it would cut the number of trucks on the road. However the drivers and about everyone else were against them. If you are running a 57 footer the only way you can pull one and stay in the bridge law is with a cabover. I for one do not want to see those make a large scale comeback. In a lighter note can you see a 57 foot trailer in downtown Philadelphia or Boston. Time to replace all the light poles again.
Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: weatherford,Tx
  • 367 posts
Posted by zapp on Friday, September 16, 2005 8:22 AM
I spent eight years on the road till the RR hired me. So I do know a little bit about this one.
53's came out in the early 80's. Scheinder and Dart Transit (St Paul,Mn.)(I was leased to them for a while) were hauling coke and beer cans. These types of loads you actually cube out before you weigh out. So they and American Can,Crown Cork and Seal,Coka Cola,Pepsi,and a bunch of other manufacturers petitioned for the longer combinations.
Maryland was one the last "holdout" states. They are also the reason the sides of 53's say 53. There is also a certain place the rear tandum on the trailer has to be in. Otherwise it is considered overlength.

The 57 footer. Was a product of Dart Transits Texas division,Fleetline-Lancaster,Tx.
Texas had and still has no legth law. It was used down here for the same thing-cans,but then they started loading these things with everything.These trailers have a 102" outside width and a 101 1/2" inside width. The sides are skinned with 1/4 aluminum so they held alot of problems with the trailers "spliting". That is the load was simply to heavy for the trailers design. They redesigned the floor to handle the stress.
I was leased to Fleetline in the early 90's and we could,at that time,legally take the trailers into: TX,NM,AZ,CO,OK,KS,LA,AL,MS,FLA,and Ark. with a oversized permit. Every now and then when we got up there in "Yankee country" Dart would have a 57 find it's way into Chicago, Milwaukee,St Paul,and we would have to get back down here. They would pay us loaded miles to get it back down here under the radar (ie,arund the scales,interstates,etc).

They actually tried out five 60 footers, but the highway/city systems couldn't handle the wide turns we had to make with them, so they were scraped.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

I think some western states allow 57'ers.

The 53' containers have been around for about 10 years. JB Hunt was an "early adopter".
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Friday, September 16, 2005 9:22 AM
...Yes, I noted the 53 containers also had 102 stenciled on the top sides....

Quentin

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Austin TX
  • 4,941 posts
Posted by spbed on Friday, September 16, 2005 9:33 AM
Sorry 45's & 48's also travel overseas as well to what you mentioned. [:p][:)]

Originally posted by dldance
[

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: South Central,Ks
  • 7,170 posts
Posted by samfp1943 on Friday, September 16, 2005 10:34 AM
Texas, New Mexico and Louisiana allow 57' tlr on higways...and have since about 1988..Several companies pull them, and Arkansas allowed them as permited for delivery only and return outbound empty.. Texas allows 60'ers with a non sleeper cab, the length of the whole rig being 65', I believe I remember that as correct.

 

 


 

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 16, 2005 2:45 PM
CN Rail uses alot of 53' Containers and hauls alot of 53' Containers and Trailers into Halifax, Nova Scotia and Moncton, New Brunswick from Toronto, Ontario. How do I know because I go pick them up off the train and deliver them. Just the trailers from the company I work for. There has been a lot of them lately. I do Short Haul, mainly hauling Grocery from the warehouse to the stores in Nova Scotia, but I do occasionally deliver the products that our long haul guys bring home or what comes in by train.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 16, 2005 5:05 PM
Idaho also allows 57' containers and trailers, but since the Left Coast doesn't allow them they are usually only used for local hauls.

Ernest Robl has an excellent website (The Intermodal FAQ) you should visit, as it has a good description of the various container variations:

http://www.robl.w1.com/Transport/intermod.htm


Also, there are some marine applications of 53' containers in the Alaska marine and Puerto Rico corridors:

http://www.lynden.com/aml/about-aml/about-us.html
http://www.trailerbridge.com/default.asp

The 53' marine containers made by Jindo are the multi-stackable versions.
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Friday, September 16, 2005 7:18 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

[b]J B Hunt is getting rid of its containers same with Schneider they discovered that they actually have less avaiblity than a standard trailer. JB hunt is still shipping by rail just using the standard trailer now. You have to remember that with containers you must have a chassis for it when you need it they were having a chassis shortage. [/bor


Can anybody else verifty this? I'm just asking for a 2nd source on something that would be HUGE if true. If Hunt and Schneider got beat out of domestic containerization by the chassis management issue, which has been the downfall of domestic containers since there have been domestic containers, we're going to go in a whole differet direction with domestic intermodal.

The end of domestic double stack?
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Where it's cold.
  • 555 posts
Posted by doghouse on Friday, September 16, 2005 11:37 PM
On 57 footers, I stand corrected.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:46 PM
To Greyhounds,
I can't give you a straight answer on JB Hunt and Schneider situation but I can say that from Toronto to Halifax CN deals with alot of Container and Trailer Traffic. It used to be all containers but now is about 1/3 Trailers. I know the company I work for is really busy and doesn't have enough drivers so they get the long haul drivers to go load a trailer bring it to CN in Toronto or Montreal depending where the load is and sent it back home for us local drivers to pick it up from Moncton or Halifax depending on where it is to be delivered. Seems like a waste of a railroad car, just putting one trailer into a well car. But that's the way they do it. Maybe we will see the 89' TTX Flat Car come back!!!!
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 17, 2005 1:08 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by KevinRC

Seems like a waste of a railroad car, just putting one trailer into a well car. But that's the way they do it. Maybe we will see the 89' TTX Flat Car come back!!!!


I doubt you'd see a return of the 89' flats due to the dominance of the 53' trailer and the possibility of eventual widespread acceptence of a 57' design. The two 89's connected by drawbar to haul three 53's has a tare weight disadvantage to spine cars, and isn't much better than a 3-pack 53' well car. If there is a reduction of domestic/NA containers in favor of trailers, you'll probably see more 3-pack and 5-pack spine cars with the 53' platforms being built and less of the 53' wells. This bodes well for Trinity and National Steel Car, but not for Greenbrier.

If there is a new demand for TOFC cars, I'd prefer an updated version of the TTOX single axle cars since they have the lowest tare weight of all trailer hauling designs. But it won't happen.
  • Member since
    October 2002
  • From: Milwaukee, WI, US
  • 1,384 posts
Posted by fuzzybroken on Saturday, September 17, 2005 1:48 PM
Lots of companies have 53'-ers:
JB Hunt
Schneider (They just got a large batch of new containers, so I doubt they are dead)
Hub Group (including red corrugated-side containers)
STAX (both dark red corrugated and white aluminum)
Pacer Stacktrain (Blue corrugated)

I think APL had some too, although I don't know their current status.
-Fuzzy Fuzzy World 3
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 18, 2005 12:08 PM
If the truckers had their way, there would be no such thing as domestic containers. Truckers unanimously prefer trailers over containerization. It's just that the railroads prefer containers that can be double stacked, 'cause it's more "efficient" that way. From the supply chain perspective, it may be that TOFC is actually more "efficient" than COFC for North American loads except in the longest haul corridors.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, September 18, 2005 2:17 PM
I can say that 45' containers do roam internationally - they're a fairly common sight on trucks and rail cars over here. I've never seen 48' or 53' versions over here though, so I suspect they aren't found outside North America. What's always puzzled me is how do ships cope with the extra 5'? Shipping containers were designed around a 20' grid (20' and 40' lengths) so surely 45' containers throw a major spanner in the works?

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy