3 ms·
Amazon does build their own containers, but the article states that these 53-foot containers "are not and can not be used for shipping", implying that they are
by lwneal 5y ago
Amazon does build their own containers, but the article states that these 53-foot containers "are not and can not be used for shipping", implying that they are shipped empty and only used for domestic trucking. Presumably this is because they cannot be stacked as high and they do not match the standardized 40-foot size used at large ports.
On the other hand, [1] suggests that newer 53-foot containers may be suitable for ocean shipping. Is it possible that Amazon is moving 53-foot containers to alternative ports in Washington and Texas, because those ports support the 53-foot standard?
It would be interesting to know how difficult it is for a port to switch between different container sizes. Do ships need to be refitted? Are new cranes required?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Non-standard_and_uncommon_sizes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Non-stand...
- gumby 5y agoHe’s incorrect in fact, though perhaps not in practice. A decade ago my (then) company shipped some stuff in 53-foot containers, as well as some “high top” containers. You could get them as easily as any other container but they were more expensive and not everybody could handle them. You do see them every day on the freeways in the US if you know what to look for. Amazon is building standard 40’ containers and shipping them across the pacific full of goods. Note that pallet standards vary by country and industry which affects the efficiency of your container choice. My current company is trying to stay within TEU and other envelopes that are extremely common. For our (small) scale nothing else is worth it.