53' x 102" Domestic Container thoughts.

[Anonymous]

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.

[youngengineer]

huh

[beaulieu]

To the original poster, how much do you think that your proposal would add to the weight and cost of the container. My answer is a lot more than you think.

[Anonymous]

It seems to me from some quick calculations that it would reduce the overall weight of the road platform, the combined container and chassis, but not the container itself. However, the gain for the container would be on the order of a few hundred pounds.
Think about the current mismatch in domestic containers. The fifth wheel tunnel cuts into the floor framing above the tractor's tandem wheels, the stacking posts cut the top and bottom rails, which act as chords for the box beam which is the container body, forcing the rails to be spliced on either side of the stacking post with a lot of fasteners. There is a reason why the original 40' ISO containers had the stacking posts placed at the ends of the box. By far such an arrangement is so much more efficient.

[rrandb]

The biggest draw back is you need all parties to agree to the changes and pay to refitt there systems worldwide before the first container can move. [2c] As always ENJOY and good luck.

[rluke]

Your idea seems to be well thought out. Do you have experience in the container business? Rich

[Anonymous]

Well, since we are talking about domestic containers only those operating in North America would be affected. Additionally, there is a way to transition outlined above without requiring all or even most equipment to be outfitted with revised stacking posts as the container itself can fit on any ISO stacking post container when it is top stacked. Yes, the sliding tandem rail and wheels would need to be supplied but up to three of these could be repositioned in a container which is a positive advantage over the current chassis.
My point is that there is a move away from the standard ISO stacking points already afoot. What I don't understand is why a more logical move was not made. Unfortunately or fortunately, I do not work for any of the container groups I am just a practicing Structural Engineer.

[Leon Silverman]

Allowing a Domestic use container size would eliminate it "intermodal " description since they would not be suitable for loading on container ships, I always thought that the advantage of using an iso container was the ability of a product made in China (for instance) to be loaded into a container and shipped all the way to, say, Kansas City, without having to be trans loaded into another container. Before the advent of Sea/Land (the inventor of intermodal transportation) the product would be shipped by truck to a seaport, offloaded onto a freighter ship, and then offloaded a second time from the ship, once it reached the U.S.shore, onto another truck for the trip inland to Kasas City. This made for a long, expensive shipping of products from overseas. Incompatible container sizes would reintroduce this inefficiency.

[Anonymous]

I suppose you do realize that 53' long x 102" wide containers already exist which do not fit on container ships. My questions strikes to the North American domestic market where quite a bit of pressure has been applied to get a truck like container.

[Anonymous]

On Sunday, May 21st a CN Intermodal train rolled down the tracks.

There were some new 53' Containers with a new CN graphic scheme.

The containers said on the side CN INTERNATIONAL.

Can a 53' Container be shipped internationally or is this an absurd advertisement that will not be seen outside of North America??

Andrew F.

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by falconer

On Sunday, May 21st a CN Intermodal train rolled down the tracks.

There were some new 53' Containers with a new CN graphic scheme.

The containers said on the side CN INTERNATIONAL.

Can a 53' Container be shipped internationally or is this an absurd advertisement that will not be seen outside of North America??

Andrew F.

It definitely will not leave North America, but it only has to leave Canada to be an International movement. The only way it will be seen outside North America is as a photograph in an advertisement.

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by virgilpaynemsu

I suppose you do realize that 53' long x 102" wide containers already exist which do not fit on container ships. My questions strikes to the North American domestic market where quite a bit of pressure has been applied to get a truck like container.

The stacking problem for storage must be the issue.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

QUOTE: Originally posted by falconer

On Sunday, May 21st a CN Intermodal train rolled down the tracks.

There were some new 53' Containers with a new CN graphic scheme.

The containers said on the side CN INTERNATIONAL.

Can a 53' Container be shipped internationally or is this an absurd advertisement that will not be seen outside of North America??

Andrew F.

It definitely will not leave North America, but it only has to leave Canada to be an International movement. The only way it will be seen outside North America is as a photograph in an advertisement.

I'm reasonably sure it could move into Mexico. That would be three countries and "international" for sure.

[greyhounds]

QUOTE: Originally posted by virgilpaynemsu

Well, since we are talking about domestic containers only those operating in North America would be affected. Additionally, there is a way to transition outlined above without requiring all or even most equipment to be outfitted with revised stacking posts as the container itself can fit on any ISO stacking post container when it is top stacked. Yes, the sliding tandem rail and wheels would need to be supplied but up to three of these could be repositioned in a container which is a positive advantage over the current chassis.
My point is that there is a move away from the standard ISO stacking points already afoot. What I don't understand is why a more logical move was not made. Unfortunately or fortunately, I do not work for any of the container groups I am just a practicing Structural Engineer.

I think you're underestimating the abolute need for compatibility on the North American (Canada, Mexico, US) rail network. A 53' domestic absolutely needs to be able to fit on top of two import 20's in a well. If you can't match 'em all up, you'll end up sending out more partially loaded cars and leaving cans behind because there was nowhere to load them.

RoadRailer has had only limited sucess (and more failure than sucess) because it's incompatible with standard intermodal shipments. Introducting any sort of incompatibility on the network has all kinds of costs. Inteligent folks won't do it.

[Anonymous]

The proposed container could work with (2) 20' containers in the bottom well as it would have ISO fittings at the 40' nominal point in the floor, where it is much easier to provide for the load transfer due to the deeper section of the floor beams. The difference is that a 53' container could not be stacked atop the proposed container unless it was the same design. With the WTP stacking location described above we already have a situation where only some 53' containers can be stacked on one another, those with WTP fittings. So my question is why didn't the container groups take this one step further?

[Anonymous]

The driving force on domestic containers is the trucking industry and their ability to lobby federal and state governments on trailer lengths. You will notice that in addition to 53' containers and 40' containers there are also 45' and 48' containers. All of this has come about due to the success of the trucking industry. The main reason why these other size of containers are not used for maritime transport is the design of the the container ships and the road limitations in terms of dimensions and weight overseas. In an attempt to compete with the trucking industry the railroads have gone to other sizes of containers. Previous posts have been quite correct in identifying that it is to the shipper's advantage to have larger containers since competition will allow them to ship the product at the same price as the smaller container. Domestic containers are also not as structurally sound as they are designed to have low tare weights to maximize the weight of the cargo resulting in the inability of domestic containers to stacked as high as ISO containers. Since North American distances are large enough and the volume of internal trade is sufficient enough it makes more sense to make the 53' container the standard for domestic use.

[rrandb]

The additional weight required for the plating and bracing for an intergal kingpin may be more than you think. The king pin is attached to a large sheet of plate steel and all the internal bracing that it attaches to not to mention the landing gear. Very heavy. The time to attach a wheel dolly would be a bad thing as well as the weight of the bracing to attach it to. You now have a very heavy container that you are paying to ship steel and not product. The weight savings of eliminating the 40" stacking points would need to more than offset the need for top stacking only. Remenber some lifting equipment is designded to lift not just stack on those 40" points. [2c] As always ENJOY