5 ms·

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,

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.

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.