3 ms·
The original article that this one discusses, was discussed extensively yesterday on HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29450420 https://news.ycombi
by jrochkind1 5y ago
The original article that this one discusses, was discussed extensively yesterday on HN here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29450420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29450420
(I don't think anyone there pointed out that 53 feet is not a container that can go on a container ship! But people were very suspicious of the original reporting along similar lines to the OP here)
- ZetaZero 5y agoBut it can go on container ships. And Amazon, running their own ships, could make it happen more than any other company. That said, the article probably confuses the land-based usage by Amazon. https://www.gatewaycontainersales.com.au/all-about-53ft-containers/ https://www.gatewaycontainersales.com.au/all-about-53ft-cont... However in 2007, the container shipping line APL started using 53ft containers for the Asia Pacific route between China and the US. These were built to handle the same conditions as their 40ft equivalents, and if converting them you can expect the same long life as you would the 40ft containers used today. Unlike the 40ft equivalents there aren’t that many sitting about, as in 2013 APL stopped taking the 53ft containers.
- jrochkind1 5y agoThis is good feedback on the stratechery article we're discussing here, which makes the 53-foot point. However, your quote seems to suggest they are _not_ currently used on ships? It says APL used 53-foot containers between 2007 and 2013, no? But sure, Amazon could be creating their own custom ship configurations, as the OP points out too, OP just said standard container ships and infrastructure for loading/unloading and dealing with them (and standardization is of course the point of containers) aren't set up to take 53-foot containers.