Talk:Intermodal container/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Article split from containerization

The initial content from this article was split out from Containerization following a discussion on the talk page of that article. I suggest that the focus of this article is on modern shipping containers in common usage to transport goods by sea, rail and road. I am not an expert of the subject and the article certainly needs more work, photos and references.PeterEastern (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Corten Steel

The type of steel used on intermodal (shipping) containers is known as Corten. Visual inspection of any such container on the dock will demonstrate same; I am a longshoreman, so I know; labels remind repair workers of this fact. The corresponding ISO standard seems to be ISO 9223. William R. Buckley (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting detail, but a detail that should in the body of the article, not at the top. For the moment I have removed the hidden link to weathering steel but it could benefit further from only stating "corrugated steel" in the WP:LEAD. —Sladen (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move - previous

The original 'split' proposal on the Containerization talk page was to create an article with the title 'Shipping Container' or 'ISO Container'. I chose to use 'Shipping Container' to encompass both ISO containers and also the slightly wider european containers that I believe (but am not sure) are not ISO standard. There are nearly 1 million references to 'shipping container' on the web according to google; there are 50,000 references to 'iso containers' and there are only two references for the phrase 'Intermodal freight shipping container'. I believe that the title of an article can be to main use of a phrase (with an optional disambiguation link to other uses) and therefore that shipping container is appropriate. I have redirected shipping container back to this article and would be interested in other opinion on the correct title for this article. The choices seem to be Shipping Container and ISO Container. PeterEastern (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many types of "shipping containers": See the disambiguation page for container. People looking at that disambiuation page can choose which type of shipping container they are interested in. Are all intermodal shipping containers "ISO containers"? If the title is "ISO containers" then only intermodal containers standardized by ISO can be described - and no others. ISO also has influence on other types of containers. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
By experience of working with such containers within the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, the shipping containers transported by ocean-going ships are all made of one type of material, known as corten steel. They are typically of lengths 20', 40', or 45', and are either 'short cans' (8'6" in height) or are 'tall cans' (9'6" in height). William R. Buckley (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed that ISO Container is too restricting (which it why I didn't use it); this leaves us with the options of either using 'Intermodal freight shipping container', 'Shipping Container' or something else we haven't yet proposed. I do agree that there are other sorts of container that can be called a shipping container however none of the articles linked from the 'shipping container' section of the disambiguation page actually refers to the subject of the article as a 'shipping container' which isn't encouraging. Also, as I mentioned above there are about 1 million references on google to shipping container and of the first 40 that I review I notice that all except one reference are for these big steel boxes. The first 200 images on google images for "Shipping container" are all these big steel boxes. I haven't looked for any guidance from Wikipedia on the subject but it seems common practice that where there is a dominant usage of a phrase then this is used for the main article and that the disambiguation is then linked off from it. There seems little obvious precedence for giving an article a title that is almost never used. Here are some examples of a main article claiming to main word:-

Finally, I notice that this article doesn't call the product an 'Intermodal freight shipping container' in the introductory para. So.. I think the case is clear, however if we are not able to agree on this then I would suggest that we seek input from others on the subject as I don't think I can make my case any more clearly. PeterEastern (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, the terminology is already standardized. ASTM International has two relavant definitions:
Intermodal Container - a reusable shipping container manufactured to standard dimensions intended to unitize cargo or freight for shipping by one or more modes or transportation without the need tor intermediate handling of the contents.
Shipping Container - a container that is sufficiently strong to be used in commerce for packing. storing, and shipping of commodities.
Thank you for pointing out that the first paragraph needs to be revised to match the title and the definition.
The article should be titled "intermodal containers" to match standard industry usage. "Shipping container" needs to be properly routed to the container disambiguation page.
Rlsheehan (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. It passes the 'google images' test with probably 100% of the first 200 images being relevant and also the google search test which comes back with 44,000 hits for "Intermodal container" (in quotes) which seem to have a very high relevance. We also have an authoritative definition that allows for the inclusion of non-ISO containers but that clearly excludes aviation related 'unit load devices' and other non-standard, non-reusable containers. Do you want to do the move? PeterEastern (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Shipping container redirect

  • Note: previously the shipping container redirect pointed at containerization until the content was split out. To point the link any where else means that it no longer points at the previous content (and so breaks 72 existing pages within en.Wikipedia that use the link).
I've pointed the shipping container redirect back here based on common usage/incoming links and stuck a {{dablink}} at the top for the sake of the 1-in-1000 people who might come here looking for something else other than the objects used with container cranes, container ships, container ports, container this and container thats. —Sladen (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This was quickly reverted without discussion[1]. I have restored it in the meantime until somebody presents reasonable evidence of why WP:COMMON should not apply in this particular case. —Sladen (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Please read the previous discussion here and under container. "Shipping container" covers many types of contaiers, not just intermodal containers. The standard definitions developed through a full consensus process by ASTM International are valid. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no "previous discussion under Talk:Container" to read. There is one comment by yourself (today) and one reply by myself (today, 42 minutes later).
  • These [shipping] containers are defined by the position and type of their twistlock/corner casting connectors, which are defined in several ISO standards covering "Series 1 freight containers". If were to use the name used in the relevant standards process, it would be "freight container", but WP:COMMONNAME wins here as "shipping container" is the much more widely used term.
  • We should not intentionally break the existing and stable incoming links that have and continue to use shipping container to refer to the content in this [now split out] article.
—Sladen (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want to use "freight container", that would be fine. "Shipping container", by international standards and by common name, has established meanings as indicated in the "container" disambiguation page. Please do not try to limit the meaning to the one you use. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
If "shipping container" has an established meaning, then it should be pointing at an article that reflects that established meaning, and not at a disambiguation page. —Sladen (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have updated[2] the freight container link to point here to intermodal container. Previously it pointed to containerization as it is referring to the same content as shipping container is... —Sladen (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I support the recent redirect from Shipping Container to this article rather than to the more general 'container' disambiguation page as per the reasoning already provided on this talk page. I would also support the move of the article back to Shipping container and use Intermodal container as the redirect for the same reasons. When the article has a settled title then the links from other articles can be adjusted to link to the stable title. In general however, I think article is developing very nicely. PeterEastern (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done Formally raised at #Requested move below and on WP:RM[3]. —Sladen (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

format for specification for individual container

I am proposing that we remove the specification table which is uncomplete and already hard to manage and replace it would a table for a particular design at the head of a section for a particular container type. We may wish to have a simpled 'container chooser' table in place of the current table in addition. Any comments before I roll it out? PeterEastern (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(Table now removed from talk page as the format below is preferred).

Type TEU Internal volume External dimensions (LxWxD) Max
Payload		 Remarks
10 ft ? 15.89 m3
560 cu ft		 3.05 m × 2.44 m × 2.59 m
10 ft × 8 ft × 8 ft 6 in		 Japan internal and as tool stores
20 ft 1 32.85 m3
1,160 cu ft		 6.06 m × 2.44 m × 2.59 m
20 ft × 8 ft × 8 ft 6 in		 28.2 t
62,170 lb		 Often used for bulk liquids
40 ft 2 66.83 m3
2,360 cu ft		 12.19 m × 2.44 m × 2.59 m
40 ft × 8 ft × 8 ft 6 in		 26.7 t
58,870 lb		 Most common for international transport
40 ft
High-cube		 2 75.32 m3
2,660 cu ft		 12.19 m × 2.44 m × 2.89 m
40 ft × 8 ft × 9 ft 6 in		 26.5 t
58,340 lb		 Allows more vertical space
40 ft
European		 2 Used in Europe for the efficient packing of European pallets. Either 2.5m or 2.55m external width.
40 ft
RACE		 2 A wider container for efficient packing of Australia Standard Pallets
45 ft 2 Normally still treated as 2 TEU
48 ft ? US internal rail
53 ft ? US internal rail
I think that's still too much information and perhaps best to list just 20ft, 40ft and high-cube and to skip the details that are the same for each? (So that the constrast is clear as the differences are high-lighted). Presumably there's a reference for these, which we could just link to for the rest. Or perhaps move it to a separate page, as it's fairly well duplicated already in the table at Twenty-foot equivalent unit#Equivalence (I think that that table is even simpler, and clearer).
I'd be keen to have most of them just pointed off to an external reference, as the metric/imperial conversions are out by 5% and the tare/gross weights don't seem to make sense (probably swapped?). It looks like the metric figures are the "round" ones, and the imperial ones are approximations, so probably shouldn't be given down to 1⁄64 in. Perhaps you can work out what can be further stripped out. —Sladen (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is good to reduce clutter and it certainly helps to merge h/w/d into one column. Weights were indeed swapped. I have removed 30ft row as being irrelevant and added some additional current container variants. I have also added the internal dimensions back because users of containers are normally more interested in the internal parameters to the extent that many tables provided by shippers only give the internal dimensions. For hauliers and people building/maintaining vehicles and infrastructure (bridges, tunnels etc) then it is the external dimensions and maximum gross mass that matter. I started working on this article to understand the need and relevance to the UK economy of loading gauge W8, W9, W10, W12 and UIC GB+ which all link back to container dimensions. To understand the need for larger rail gauges one needs to follow the trail from the width of an EU pallet through to the internal width and then the external width of a European container and then to the required clearance of a tunnel! Similarly one follows the thread from Hi-cube containers and refrigerated containers to the drive for greater height. I have added the information I believe is required, but believe we can still reduce the 'bulk' of the table by other means. Should we have one table per container length and then list variants and only provide attributes for the parameters that change for that variant. One problem we have is that the information we need a scattered in many different places on the web which is a good reason to try to bring it together. PeterEastern (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • On reflection I have removed the internal dimensions. I suggest we put a note to say that the internal width is typically ???mm less that the external height, and the same for the height and length. For containers where an internal dimension is notable then we add it as a comment. PeterEastern (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Are we ready to put this table in place of the table in the article and start populating it? PeterEastern (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was no consensus for moving back; the content to remain at Intermodal container and to create a new article at Shipping container, covering general packaging. —Sladen (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Intermodal container → Shipping container — Restore original WP:COMMONNAME name previously used between 2003–2009, and which was initially renamed without discussion. (Reverting will require administrator assistance regardless). --Sladen (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to restore Intermodal container to its previous name of Shipping container, and swap the redirect in the opposite direction. Proposer's rational:

  • Within the English Wikipedia, there are 76 incoming pages that rely on shipping container.[4]
  • Between February 2003–May 2009 (for six years, or 2,295 days), "shipping container" pointed to the containerization article, in lieu of having its own article. [5]
  • In November 2008, the discussion Talk:Containerization#Splitting out Shipping container was started.
  • Following that discussion, the relevant content was split out from containerization, to populate the article at shipping container [6][7]
  • Two days later the article was moved from "shipping container"→"Intermodal container"[8] (and an even longer article in between)
    • The redirect left behind at shipping container was then redirected to the generic container disambiguation page ("cartons, bottles, cans, etc. ") [9]
    • This change destroyed the long-term value of established incoming links, internal, and external[10] from outside Wikipedia. A significant regression.
  • To reliably link to this article content requires inserting the code "a [[intermodal container|shipping container]]", which is long-winded, against WP:EGG and has an a/an discrepancy.
  • Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:COMMON, Occam's Razor and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this article's content should remain under it's original article title and link, with no unneeded postfixes. WP:GHITS supplies considerably more results for "Shipping container" than "Intermodal container" and reviewing Google Images[11] confirms that the term primarily refers to 2.4-metre square rectangle steel boxes with ISO 1161:1984 compliant corner castings/twistlocks.

—Sladen (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support move We can mention technical language, but the article title should be common usage. (The OED's citations suggest that "intermodal" is normally used of the transport, not the container; this would be logical.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The term "shipping container" is too broad. Inevitably, editors will try to insert sections on on aircraft containers, cardboard boxes and other packaging that fits the proposed name. Using a less ambiguous name is preferable here and the ASTM recommendation is a helpful guide. --agr (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Could you present some evidence that this may take place. It has not happened over the past six years. Is there a reason that you feel that it is suddenly more likely? —Sladen (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Reply: It's been a redirect for the past 6 years. It's been my experience that actual articles tend to attract editors who add information that plausibly belong there. This is not a black or white situation, but a judgement call. The term shipping container applies to too many other objects, e.g. this link [12], which came up on page one of my Goolge search on shipping container. Why not use an unambiguous term that is endorsed by a standards group?--agr (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Inevitability: You were correct, per your prediction "Inevitably, editors will try to insert sections on on aircraft containers, cardboard boxes..."; it did indeed happen.[13] I am flabbergasted as to the source. —Sladen (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Query: Which term ("endorsed by a standards group") would you recommend; "freight container"? —Sladen (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking "Intermodal container"; I'd also be happy with "Intermodal shipping container" or "Intermodal freight container". "Fright container" by itself has the same problem of ambiguity as "shipping container."--agr (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename to freight container. Intermodal containers usually refer to TEUs, that are shorter than found in many places. You can fit two intermodals onto a flatcar bed, or one rail container, which is also what trucks can transport. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose move - "Intermodal container" is the correct name for the thing. The redirect from "shipping container" is sufficient for those who don't know the specific name. No change necessary, since alteration will increase, not decrease, ambiguity. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Query: if the article content were to stay moved to this new intermodal container location, should "shipping container" continue to redirect to this article content, or to the generic container disambiguation page? —Sladen (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "shipping container" should be a dab page, pointing to both articles. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: "pointing to both articles"; disambiguate to intermodal container and disambigutate to a disambiguation page (container)? —Sladen (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

No, "shipping container" is a broader term which includes several types of containers used for shipping. Per WP:COMMONNAME a shipping container is often a varitey of packaging structures. The terminology issue has been resolved by standard definitions published by ASTM International - see discussion above. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: ISO are the ones setting the relevant international standards ("Series 1 freight containers"), not ASTM, and what the standard body refers to something as, does not affect how it is used in day-to-day usage by the wider public. If the primary use of "shipping container" were for something else (as you appear to be suggesting) then searching "Google Images" would be expected to bring up at least one photograph of something else—which it does not. I'm finding it hard to agree with you over the suggestion that WP:COMMONNAME means the exact opposite to its use in the rational above (WP:GAME covers why rule-twisting/bending is unhelpful and unwelcome within Wikipedia). Even if there is occasional use as something else, then WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states that the main article should bare the name and include a {{dablink}} at the top of the article. —Sladen (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Common usage of "shipping container" includes several types of containers used to ship items. Who considers a box made of corrugated fiberboard a shipping container? Here are a few:
      • ASTM International in its definition of shipping container (above)
      • The Institute of Packaging Professionals in their "Guide for Packaging Small Parcel Shipments"
      • the RFID Journal in its publication,[14]
      • the Journal of Business Logistics in publications[15]
      • the European Patent Office in patents, for example: [16][17]
      • The Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology
      • and on and on
    • WK must use inclusive language and not limit shipping container to the large intermodal ISO containers. Shipping container must link to container or be its own inclusive article.
    • Rlsheehan (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I commend your research, thank you for taking the time to research—and it clearly helps demonstrate why hatlinks are used for disambiguation of niché uses of terms. However, the above selection of fibreboard results are not representative of the primary use of "shipping container".
Having gone through the first 100 results from Google[18], 98/100 of those results are referring directly to standardised 2.4-metre cuboid corrugated steel objects. One result had a menu,[19] where four out of six choices were 2.4-metre cuboid objects; the exception finally came at the 93rd result which is a picture of the Hubble Space Telescope being prepared for transportation[20]. —Sladen (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your research. WP:COMMONNAME does however refer to the name for an article being used for the dominate/primary/most common usage of a phrase. Has it not already been demonstrated convincingly that the dominant/primary usage of the phrase Shipping Container is for these 2.4-metre cuboid objects? The proposal is for this article to be called Shipping Container with disambiguation link to 'Container' to catch these other uses. Should any of this other uses also appear specifically as specific links from the disambiguation text at the top of this article? Possibly, but only those articles use the phase 'shipping container' within the article as a reference to that item. PeterEastern (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is interesting but where is it going? Clearly shipping container several valid meanings, depending which industry focus someone has.

  • Some have stated that shipping containers are the large standardized intermodal containers. Certainly true.
  • Others use corrugated fiberboard shipping containers. Yes, this common usage is well documented.
  • For people in chemical shipping, their shipping containers could steel drums and intermediate bulk containers. This is common usage of the term.
  • From a standpoint of someone who ships in crates, these are his/her shipping containers. That position is common usage in their industry.

They are all correct and all are in common usage. It is wrong, however, for one position to dominate the others. Good faith editors (me too) all have professional "bias", based on our backgrounds and industry focus. Wikipedia policy insists on a Neutral Point of View when there are multiple valid viewpoints on a subject. If we want to comply with this policy, we must use language which includes the multiple uses of the term "shipping container". Pkgx (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the issue and agree that should not create a bias to one industry, however is there not clear unbiased evidence from Google Images that virtually all usage of the term is for the 2.4-metre cuboid objects? Can we not make a relevant parallel with place names where Cambridge would mean different things if you live in UK, near Cambridge, Massachusetts, or near Cambridge, Ontario all of which have similar populations. There is however one Cambridge (in the UK) that claims the title of Cambridge because from an overall perspective it is seen as the most widely used/known. Is there any evidence that any of these other uses approach the level of use on the web or elsewhere as that of the steel boxes?PeterEastern (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The only evidence you suggest is a Google search. Using "Reliable Sources" there are many common uses of the term shipping container: TAPPI, International Organization of Packaging Professionals, etc. Again the international standards organization ASTM International has many references to a variety of shipping containers (boxes, crates, drums, etc)
    • D996 Standard Definition - a container that is sufficiently strong to be used in commerce for packing. storing, and shipping of commodities.
    • D880-92(2008) Standard Test Method for Impact Testing for Shipping Containers and Systems
    • D999-08 Standard Test Methods for Vibration Testing of Shipping Containers
    • D4169-08 Standard Practice for Performance Testing of Shipping Containers and Systems
    • D4003 Methods of Programmable Horizontal Impact Test for Shipping Containers and SystemsD4169 Standard Practice for Performance Testing of Shipping Containers and Systems Standard Test Method for Random Vibration Testing of Shipping Containers
    • D4728-06 Standard Test Method for Random Vibration Testing of Shipping Containers
    • D4577-05 Standard Test Method for Compression Resistance of a Container Under Constant Load
    • D5094-04 Standard Test Methods for Gross Leakage of Liquids from Containers with Threaded or Lug-Style Closures
    • D7030-04(2009) Standard Test Method for Short Term Creep Performance of Corrugated Fiberboard Containers Under Constant Load Using a Compression Test Machine
The evidence is evident. Rlsheehan (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that you need to investigate wider than one North American organisation... ;-) You have already demonstrated that the term does have other niché uses, there is not doubt about that. What is at debate here whether the primary use (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) is in doubt.
My interest in this topic started nine months ago when the largest news media organisation in the World purchased a 2.4-metre cuboid box, painted it bright red and sent if off on a journey around the world as it made various intermodal journeys. The object nicknamed the BBC Box and the broadcaster in question refers to it as a "shipping container" or a "container".
(CNN's websites have 255 hits for "shipping container", 1 hit for "intermodal container"; BBC's websites have 228 hits for "shipping container" and 0 hits for "intermodal container")... —Sladen (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here are a couple of articles using the phrase 'shipping container' in their titles for different purposes.

Resolution

It is clear that there is not a strong consensus to have this article named "shipping container". If we follow international standards, it must be named freight container or intermodal container. Most editors do not want to try to rewrite the existing international standards. It has been mentioned to have an article called shipping container and have that link to this and other sites; perhaps brief discussions also. I am willing to start this article with a strong effort to have a Neutral Point of View. As always, all editors could make contributions. Unless there is strong opposition to this reasonable resolution, I will do it tomorrow. Pkgx (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 DonePkgx (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done [21] and [22]. —Sladen (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've repointed/reworded about 80 articles so far; there's about another ~50[23] to go if anyone fancies lending a hand. So far, every one of these really has been for intermodal container. —Sladen (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Rlsheehan: as the most vocal proponent, what name do believe that this article's content should carry; such that people are less likely to attempt[24] to subvert/expand its scope? Your first, unilateral (and undiscussed) choice of[25] "Intermodal freight shipping container" is quite lengthy—but if that's what it's going to take to keep it pure, we can go the whole hog and call it "Series 1 freight container". It's not natural, it's not convenient, it's not PRIMARYTOPIC, it's not COMMONNAME ...but it might have a chance of being on-topic. —Sladen (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I am comfortable with ISO's freight container and ASTM's intermodal container as these are international standards. I am also fine with some combinations such as "intermodal freight container" or "Intermodal freight shipping container". This article must not be named "container" or "shipping container" as these terms are very commonly used in other contexts. I am willing to cooperate with other editors on an inclusive article on shipping container. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Rlsheehan: please, please, pretty please, stop corrupting[26] this area of Wikipedia until this naming business is dealt with. You started it, the least you can politely do is wait for it be concluded. —Sladen (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Please follow WK rules and Assume the Good Faith of other editors. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History Image

Does anyone object to the image under 'history' being removed. It provides no context and doesn't appear to be at all historical, I don't think it lends anything to the article. RaseaC (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

History section

I have read a much different history that the one presented here, which claims the USA government/military invented the Intermodal Shipping Container concept. Here is just one link that claims that Malcolm McClean, a truck shipping company owner, came up with, and implemented the idea in 1956, with the first "container ship" docking in Houston, Texas. [wikipedia BLOCKED gcaptain site removed. just google "malcolm mclean shipping" and see all the references]

Hell, our very own wikipedia has the story right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcom_McLean This should be linked in to this document, and the claims to USA military removed or put into context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckeilah (talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actual length

Intermodal container#Specifications. The actual length of a 20 foot container is 19 ft 10+1⁄2 in (6,058 mm). 19 ft 10+1⁄2 in (6,058 mm) + 3 in (76 mm) + 19 ft 10+1⁄2 in (6,058 mm) = 40 ft 0 in (12,192 mm). Peter Horn User talk 06:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

In other words the total length of two nominal 20 foot containers, end to end, is 40 ft 0 in, not 40 ft 3 in. The 3 inches is the space between the container ends. Peter Horn User talk 04:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations and sources are needed

Please be sure that all additions to the Intermodal container article are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made. As a courtesy to editors who may have added claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, some of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged {{citation needed}} to allow some time for sources to be added. N2e (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of dimensions subsection

I have removed the 'dimensions' sub-section from within the 'specification' section because it repeats information already provided there in a different format using different terms which is confusing and clutters the article, especially as there is already a note at the top of the specification section saying that parameters vary by manufacturer. In addition, the reference used for this additional information is to a advert-rich 'B2B portal' which is full of advertising. PeterEastern (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Rail Section Bias

How in the world can you talk about intermodal rail and completely ignore the US! US railroads practically invented containerized intermodal rail transport. The US Rail Industry invented double stacking and the well car as well as the articulated well and spine cars to eliminate slack damage. How could your focus on India's and China's adoption of doublestacking a full 20 YEARS after it became the norm on American Railroads be anything but anti-American rubbish? One final point... The entire Chinese Rail System hauled 30% less containers (by TEU) than just one of the US's major rail lines. BNSF hauled 4.6 million TEUs while the entire Chinese rail sytem hauled just 2.2 million. Total US rail volume was almost 14 TIMES that of China. 28.7 million TEUs! So again, why are we talking about China and completely ignoring the US?

http://international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl08020/fmic_08_03.cfm

http://www.uic.org/diomis/IMG/pdf/DIOMIS_Benchmarking_Intermodal_Rail_Transport_in_the_US_and_Europe.pdf

https://www.aar.org/keyissues/Documents/Background-Papers/Rail-Intermodal.pdf

I think I'll make some changes myself if I have time.1.229.130.160 (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Gas measurements

Is there a reason why gas measurements are not mentioned in this article? E-pen (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hazard

In the film All Is Lost starring the dashing Robert Redford, his boat hits one of these containers. I actually know somebody who hit one in the same sort of boat. It was floating just below the surface. Their boat sank, and they had to be resuced. I want to write about this. A list article of incidents? A section in this article? Is this covered somewhere at Wikipedia? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Any idea based on a Robert Redford film is a good idea.
I haven't seen it elsewhere, so go ahead and write something if you have sufficient sources! However, this problem is only a very small part of the containerised transport industry's effects, so if your text gets quite large, I fear that it would be WP:UNDUE to keep it in this article - better keep it in a separate article. bobrayner (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong information

Probably, there were a few trial runs long back, but there is no proof and the following information is wrong on this page: "On the other hand, Indian Railways runs double-stacked containers on flatcars under 25 kV overhead electrical wires." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qx2020 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Packing / loading calculator ?

Anybody with a link to a calculator tool? E.g. how many pallets with salads can be transported? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Contents Item 5 Stacking Containers

The final sentence in this section makes no sense grammatically. It appears to have two subjects and two verbs. Apparently one or the other was meant to be deleted, leaving one. Because I do not understand the intended meaning I am unable to correct it confidently.Wikkileaker (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

History section Inaccurate summary re: NRLB v. Longshoremen Supreme Court case

The information at the end of the history section appears to me to be inaccurate and incomplete. I am not a lawyer, so I may be misunderstanding something but the 1980 NRLB v. Longshoremen case appears to have reached the opposite conclusion indicated in the article, upholding the Longshoremen's right to have such rules. There was a similar case in 1985 NLRB v. Longshoremen 84-861 seems to have also affirmed rather than dismissed the rules. Someone with more expertise and understanding may want to expand upon and/or correct this information if the way it is presented in the article is inaccurate. Phil (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Door locks?

It might be nice to mention the Door rod or cam lock system that has an ISO standard that accepts padlocks and security seals.

Idyllic press (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intermodal container. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Unusual intermodal container

Hello all,
Behind my apartment, in the back lane, there stands a steel container that is 8 ft (2,440 mm) wide, 8 ft 6 in (2,590 mm) tall, but only 10 ft 2 in (3,100 mm) long over the regular bottom corner castings. I took a picture with my iphone. In addition there are several others in the back lane that are only a bit different. I suppose it is small container. I use it for storage. Peter Horn User talk 20:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intermodal_container/Archive_1&oldid=1138714298"