Intermodal; trailer and container sizes

Thank you, Mr Cowford, for your continued interest in this topic.

Your CSX press release is very interesting!

Are the 53 foot containers stackable etc ?
I presume they must be loaded on the top level of a double stack train , but can they stacj them more than 2 high in yards etc .

David Benton wrote:Are the 53 foot containers stackable etc ?
I presume they must be loaded on the top level of a double stack train , but can they stacj them more than 2 high in yards etc .

YES, basically the 45 - 53 footers are still a 40' container w/ the ends extended. The strength is designed around the standard lift/secure points just like a standard 40' box. They are still built in Asia and shipped over on ships...

To clarify a bit... a 53' domestic box can stacked two-high (in a well car or on the ground) when loaded. While compatible with international boxes from an operations perspective, the domestic boxes are not built to ISO specs (in order to cut down on tare weight). This precludes them from being used in ocean service, though they sometimes are loaded with chassis on their journey from Asia to the US. I believe APL has a fleet of international 53' boxes that I presume are built to ISO standards.

For those trackside observers (esp. out west): the industry will start to see domestic 53' temperature-controlled containers coming on the scene in the coming months... as many as several hundred operated by a handful of over-the-road motor carriers. The economics of operation relative to traditional trailers sound a bit dubious; it'll be interesting to see if they actually catch on.

One other thought, which moght grow in prominence.

Auto accidents aren't as gory, or as frequent, as when I was growing up, but we had one here in the Lehigh Valley last month which gives pause for thought.

The victim was a young mother; she was on a routine trip, minding her own business; it was a weekday, during off-peak daylight hours; none of the usual aggravating factors -- weather, fatigue, "road rage" or alcohol, appeared to be involved.

But an inexperienced driver sideswiped a tractor-semitrailer rig, sending it into her path.

She was driving a little Ford Focus -- weighing not much more than a ton; I can testify to their instability since I drive one myself. The car was literally cut in half as well as being "guillotined"; somehow, a child in the back seat survived with minor injuries, but I wouldn't want to speculate on what happened to her.

And the potential for tragedies such as this one increases every day, as fuel prices impel the public toward smaller and lighter vehicles, while our distribution network remains oriented toward the 40-ton highway mastodons,

And if an organization such as Mothers Against Drunken Drivers, oriented clearly toward the security-conscious, predominately suburban contingent of the electorate which places great faith in legislated Political Correctness, should ever decide to add this issue to its agenda, the potential for diversion of more freight back to the rails could increase substantially

While it's a tempting scenario for rail advocates to envision, I'd guess that a vigorous campaign would be waged against any attempt to roll back truck weight/size regulations from all corners including economic interests, and, quite possibly, environmental interests. Given that so much freight carried by truck will never be convertible to rail (given the tremendous conversion capital costs and rail inefficiency in much of trucking's domain) and that the bulk of freight traffic that would potentially shift to rail would have to be intermodal in nature with trucking involved, the impact would be substantial. Even on the safety front, I think the case could be made that a redux in truck size/weight would lead to more trucks/trips on the road which would lead to more accidents, at least in those places that would continue to host truck density.

Perhaps, 2nd Trick, you're speaking from a broader view and not simply about a regulatory roll-back, but, instead with the other government lever of promoting modal diversion by plowing money into the capital improvements necessary to build railroad capacity, be it for overhead clearances or expansion of linehaul or terminal infrastructure. I'd agree that these promotional initiatives are probably where we'd continue to see public policy focused, but, also with concurrent government promotion of safety, fuel economy, environmental, and, quite possibly, highway congestion improvements with the trucking industry. And, then,too, it doesn't seem that the path of government investment in rail freight capacity is completely assured given political and rail industry dynamics, limitations of rail vs. trucking, or with the potential technological/systems advances in trucking or distribution that could blunt a meaningful modal shift.

Cowford wrote:I believe APL has a fleet of international 53' boxes that I presume are built to ISO standards.

Silly question, but:

If/when 53's become the norm for international shipping, are the present-day ocean-going ships configured to handle 53' boxes?

i would have thought they would want to keep it in multiples of 20 foot , so the next international jump would be 60 foot .
but i also think the tendency is to go higher , not longer or wider . obviously there is a limit to that .

No such thing as a silly question...

To Mr Benton's point, a migration to 53's is not anticipated, but... yes, present-day ships could handle the change. On certain vessels, there would be challenges to storing long boxes below deck due to fixed length guides, but that's not really an issue as 53's carry lighter density product. (Containers are stacked with the heavy containers [the 20's] at the bottom.) Above deck, 53's share the same corner casting spacing as a 40' (and 45'), so could be stacked above deck with a change in load plan configuration.

and loss of next row of containers.

Regrettably, I have to agree with Mr. QB's reasoning. An issue decided by a consortium of both public and private interests, on a global level, should provide the greates amount of "insulation" from localized opposition. That's why I suggested the rise of a spontaneous issue, one that could prove popular with a clientele unfamiliar with the technical constraints, but is likely to beviewed as sympathetic by both the media and the politicians, as a "fly in the ointment".

But I have to emphasise here that I view the trend toward smaller personal vehicles as the most-common response to the continuing fuel-price pressures. and the one least susceptible to governmental interference. If the disparity between the goals of the two groups continues to grow, public scrutiny will surely increase.

Within that scenario, any number of measures and remdies which address the most glaring controversies could be allowed to evolve. For example, state highway departments have taken notice of the growing preverence in many industries for motor, rather than rail carriage of "high and wides"; back in the days of regulation and segregation of local pickup and delivery from line-haul, most motor common carriers had fleets of smaller vehicles for use in congested areas (before the rise of the 45/53 - foot trailer and "urban de-industrialization" made most of them redundant).

The issue is a long, long way from the fron burner. But as evidenced by the relatively quick disappearance of large warehouses, lighterage and carfloats from our harbors in the late Sixties and early Seventies, the industry is capable of adapting to just about anything.

To some degree, it might be likened to the "freight vs. passenger" debate which arose more quickly and spontaneously than envisioned in response to the Chase, Md, accident of 1987.

Cowford wrote:For those trackside observers (esp. out west): the industry will start to see domestic 53' temperature-controlled containers coming on the scene in the coming months... as many as several hundred operated by a handful of over-the-road motor carriers. The economics of operation relative to traditional trailers sound a bit dubious; it'll be interesting to see if they actually catch on.

Cowford, what are the charecteristics of these 53' temp-controlled containers vs. conventional trailers that might negatively affect their economic competitiveness?

I thought I read somewhere not too long ago about a dedicated doublestack perishable service being considered from a west coast origin (PNW, IIRC) into Chicago. From my point of view, there now seems to be some real possibilities for intermodal growth within the domestic temperature-controlled transporation market. One facet might be for those commodities moving long distances but requiring a higher level of service, yet unmet with rail, and the other, for markets with a length of haul not providing adequate economic returns for single stack specialized equipment (reefer trailers), but, quite possibly providing attractive economic returns with doublestack technology. For example, with the latter, perhaps the movement of meat from mid-America to the populated coasts or the movement of fruits and vegetables from the west/southwest/TX into the Midwest.

QB, as I understand it... they are designed to fit within the 53' length requirement to fit in intermodal wells. As such, the reefer unit takes up ~3ft of linear space, which reduces pallet capacity by two (or four if double-stacked) vs. a temp-controlled trailer which has an external unit. From what I've heard, they also having higher comparative tare weights, when combined with the chassis. The favorable rail cost (COFC vs TOFC) works to its advantage in discrete service lanes, but when added to a carrier's "go anywhere" reefer fleet, the complications of segregation may offset any rail cost advantage.

I'm wondering if any of our membership can shed some light on how this issue is handled on the other side of the Pacific, particularly in Japan.

it's been nearly forty years since I've had the opportunity to meet anyone with first-hand exposure to logistics and distribution practices in that part of the world, but at that time I was given to understand that the Japanese had no equivalent to the tractor-semitrailer-rig. If something moved on the highways (or what passed for them) in the Japan of that day, it moved on a straight truck.

I'm sure, of course, that in a nation where just about every place is a short distance from tidewater, concentration of heavy industry near seaports is by far the largest part of the solution. Still, there are plenty of places where a boat can't go, and you don't have to be too well-read to be aware of the narrow streets and lack of a grid pattern that discourage urban driving for many Japanese.

So i suspect that, just as with motor carriers in an earlier time when some cities, such as Boston and Pittsburgh, were viewed as a challenge for large vehicles, transloading is sometimes common.