3 ms·

If the “Autonomous Truck Port” model becomes popular, I wonder if we will see a highway-oriented version of the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_conta

If the “Autonomous Truck Port” model becomes popular, I wonder if we will see a highway-oriented version of the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container with a lower tare weight but the same twist-locks and dimensions? This could mean that ATP-to-ATP trip segments would be done by trailers built for containers, so load/unload operations could be automated, and hookup/unhook of trailers to tractors would happen much less often. Also, equipment to handle ocean port and ATP container movements would be similar in specification.

crooked-v 8y ago
See the movie Logan, of all things, for a pretty well-conceived (though quietly ominous) take on this.
tCfD 8y ago
That is a very good idea, though the development and standardization of the current series of intermodal containers was about a 20-year process, and that's with _enormous_ assistance from Vietnam War military logistics planners, who desperately needed a non breakbulk solution to supply line issues that were not solvable with the tiny conex boxes they had on hand.
ghaff 8y ago
Not sure what you're asking for. A huge number of Intermodal containers already travel by truck for part of their route.
- dmckeon 8y ago
  Intermodal are built to stack 9 units high. I’m looking for a containerization system to replace manual hook-and-drop of box trailers with an automatable load, lock, and drive away process that has a lower tare weight penalty than intermodal. A TEU has a tare weight of 5000 pounds, FEU is ~5500 pounds, which is a lot to carry around if you don’t need to stack units 9 high for an ocean trip.
  - mjevans 8y ago
    You'd probably be better off looking for an interface within an interface. Just accept that the cost of changing from the existing 'intermodal' shipping container as an OUTSIDE standard when on the ocean is too high. Having a light weight inner unit, maybe something like a pallet sub-unit or dimension-ed around being pallet compatible but expecting a long run to be conveyed out quickly, then loaded in to something else quickly would be a better place to begin from. Then you'd only need to figure out a good boxing solution for THAT on an existing trucking platform. Re-using the same intermodal locking interface for existing trailers but with a lighter build on top could be useful, particularly if the re-packing allows for a full container load to just go somewhere. However since unpacking is happening, automated pallet handling/routing might also be a useful economic goal since there would then be an opportunity to sort and re-pack/re-mix at the dock-side.
  - tCfD 8y ago
    You'll still want them to be able to stack at least two units high or they will not be eligible for 90% of rail transit. Also having more than one container standard will create a different set of logistics problems for storage, repositioning, and allocation / return of empties.
  - vlehto 8y ago
    Are you sure that the stacking height is driving the tare weight? I would guess that it could be retaining longitudinal stiffness even after some corrosion. Also theft protection is driving the material selection more than anything else.

crooked-v 8y ago

See the movie Logan, of all things, for a pretty well-conceived (though quietly ominous) take on this.

tCfD 8y ago

That is a very good idea, though the development and standardization of the current series of intermodal containers was about a 20-year process, and that's with _enormous_ assistance from Vietnam War military logistics planners, who desperately needed a non breakbulk solution to supply line issues that were not solvable with the tiny conex boxes they had on hand.

ghaff 8y ago

Not sure what you're asking for. A huge number of Intermodal containers already travel by truck for part of their route.

dmckeon 8y ago
Intermodal are built to stack 9 units high. I’m looking for a containerization system to replace manual hook-and-drop of box trailers with an automatable load, lock, and drive away process that has a lower tare weight penalty than intermodal. A TEU has a tare weight of 5000 pounds, FEU is ~5500 pounds, which is a lot to carry around if you don’t need to stack units 9 high for an ocean trip.
- mjevans 8y ago
  You'd probably be better off looking for an interface within an interface. Just accept that the cost of changing from the existing 'intermodal' shipping container as an OUTSIDE standard when on the ocean is too high. Having a light weight inner unit, maybe something like a pallet sub-unit or dimension-ed around being pallet compatible but expecting a long run to be conveyed out quickly, then loaded in to something else quickly would be a better place to begin from. Then you'd only need to figure out a good boxing solution for THAT on an existing trucking platform. Re-using the same intermodal locking interface for existing trailers but with a lighter build on top could be useful, particularly if the re-packing allows for a full container load to just go somewhere. However since unpacking is happening, automated pallet handling/routing might also be a useful economic goal since there would then be an opportunity to sort and re-pack/re-mix at the dock-side.
- tCfD 8y ago
  You'll still want them to be able to stack at least two units high or they will not be eligible for 90% of rail transit. Also having more than one container standard will create a different set of logistics problems for storage, repositioning, and allocation / return of empties.
- vlehto 8y ago
  Are you sure that the stacking height is driving the tare weight? I would guess that it could be retaining longitudinal stiffness even after some corrosion. Also theft protection is driving the material selection more than anything else.