Hi Everyone,
I am looking for references/reports/website/info/contacts about transloading marine container to 53’.
thank you very much,
Cheers,
-Al.
Well you back up the 20’ or 40’ container to door A back up the 53" to door B & begin unloading from the container to the big one. I’m sure almost every loading dock in this country can accomplish that task
In the logistics trade that is called “Restuffing” try a google search on that.
Thank you for your insights.
Few more questions:
Who is in charge of doing that? Railroad company? IMC? a Transloader?
-Al.
Consignee owns the cargo so whomever he picks will do the T/loading. Steamship Line is just a carrier of the cargo from point A to point B. RR Company is another carrier like a steamship line & also has no ownership of the cargo just moves it from A to B
Hi Spbed,
thank you for your help. Few more points.
Lets say, there are two models:
Intact: SSL ships goods to the US, then RR ships marine containers to the client DC.
Transload: SSL ships goods to a port in the US where transloading occurs. Then RR moves 53’ containers to the client DC.
What are the pros and cons of each model for the different actors (SSL, IMC, RR, BO, 3PL)?
Ordinary shippers won’t fool with restuffing too difficult for them. More likely it will be a Logistics Company managing a complete supply chain who will resort to restuffing. As an example XYZ Co. has widgets made at a factory in China, widgets are light but bulky. XYZ contracts with UPS Logistics to handle their distribution for them, UPS arranges for a container in China loads it, ships it via a Shipping Line to the USA, picks it up at the dock, handles US Customs clearances, takes the containers to a warehouse in the LA area, restuffs several containers of widgets in fewer domestic containers and ships the domestic container via a railroad to a UPS distribution center in the Eastern US. From there they will ship the widgets to XYZ’s customers on demand. ZYX will never see their widgets in person except for maybe an inspection trip or in an audit. Substitute whatever is your favorite logistics company for UPS (i.e. DHL, Stinnes, BAX Global, Kuehne & Nagel etc.)
You forgot option #3 - transload ISO containerized cargo into US railroad boxcars at US inbound port. Then RR moves boxcars to DC area distribution warehouse, where the product is transloaded into 53’ dry vans for final distibution. I mean, if you’re going to trouble of transloading, at least go with the greatest load factor!
Also, there concievably could be an option #4 - transload ISO cargo into US dry vans, then ship dry vans via TOFC.
Reason #1
It cost too much for a crane to lift the boxcar off the tracks and onto a special highway trailer which also costs too much.
Reason #2
California is too slow to grant Oversize highway load permits.
Reason #3
The railroads would charge demurrage from the time the boxcar is spotted for this until the boxcar is ready for railroad movement again.
Reason #4
With only a side door positioning the boxcar at any truck dock would block too many other loading docks.
Reason #5
The railroad would want to much money to inspect the boxcar after it is put back on the rails.
Beaulieu, you’ve left us and gone over to “Dave’s World”.
Greyhounds, Dave did it to me, I think I’ll take 2 Extra Strength Tylenol, and go lie down for a while.
Yep, JB, you’re a funny, funny…funny guy![:-,]
[censored]
For what it’s worth, such a move does happen in reverse up here in the PNW. Boxcars are loaded with export goods, the boxcars move in multiple lots to the deep water port, the pallets are then transloaded from boxcar to waiting ISO container, which is then loaded onto the ship.
It works both ways. And most suprisingly of all, the boxcars stay on rails the whole time!
There are a number of companies that provide transloading.
This company is part of Schneider National, which is an intermodal provider as well. 2 birds with a single stone there.
There are two other reasons for transloading/restuffing which I don’t think have gotten really hit.
One is relatively minor: the domestic 53’ container has a lower tare for its volume, and is fine for the highways; restuffing also frees the more valuable international container for return on board ship.
The other is perhaps more significant: to take the example of widgets. Dong Hoi Widget, Ltd. manufactures Widgets by the boatload, literally, and ships them to LA or wherever. They manufacture them, though, in ten different models and sixteen different colours. Each overseas container typically gets one model in one colour. Wal-Mart (or whatever other retailer you want), however, doesn’t want a container of all orange model 6 widgets. It wants a mix. So the the overseas containers go to the restuffer, who empties them, checks the shipping request from the domestic resale/wholesale outfit, and restuffs 53’ containers as requested. The domestic container is shipped to the transload facility nearest the destination resaler/wholesaler, and rubbered from there to its destination. Much simpler and quicker – and cheaper!
Thank you for your repplies.
If we consider the two main options:
1/ Direct Rail: Movement of marine containers from port of entry to inland destination via rail double-stack train and final dray from rail terminal to destination. An initial dray from port terminal to origin rail terminal is required if the rail terminal is not on dock
and
2/ Transload Rail Container: Dray of marine containers from port of entry to a trans-loading warehouse in the hinterland of the port of entry, trans-loading to the goods to a 53-foot container, dray to origin rail terminal, rail movement of the 53-foot container via double stack train, and final dray from rail terminal to destination
What are the costs associated with each option? (Avg. $ per container or other unit)
1/
Steamship line rate plus wharfage and landing charges
Really? Wow! You mean to say someone can load freight in a boxcar, move it to a port, take the freight out of the boxcar and put it on a ship? Who would have ever thought of that?
And it’s actually happening!
Boy Dave, you sure do know a lot about transportation.
The more things change the more they remain the same, eh Ken?
Of course, the subtilties of the outbound example are lost on Ken, as usual. Containerization was concieved in part to allow a particular cargo to remain intact in the container from point of origin to final destination. This devolution of restuffing goods from ISO containers to domestics, dry vans, and boxcars at the inbound port, or conversely transloading goods from dry vans and boxcars to ISO’s at the outbound port, wasn’t part of the McLean sales pitch. In fact, containerization was supposed to dispose of transloading and intimate cargo handling, but because of the volume limits of ISO containers compared to domestics, dry vans, and boxcars, keeping the goods in the ISO for the entire journey just doesn’t make sense from the load factor standpoint at the domestic end.
If the ISO 02 standard had been adopted, along with ISO certification of the 53’ container, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion, because then restuffing would be superfluous for the most part.
Two more interrogations:
1/ Who is taking care of the empties in both cases?
2/ From a RR point of view, which case is more profitable/convenient?
Thank you,
-Al.
Thanks, Dave, for explaining containerization to me. Gosh, you sure do know everything.
Restuffing from ISO to boxcar allows the greatest load factor for the railroad, so assuming they can charge by the ton or by the pallet it provides the most profit per consist. Intermodal rates tend to be by the container regardless of contents, so it depends on if the railroad has different rates for domestic containers and ISO containers.
For BNSF LA to Chicago:
The domestic 53’ container rate is $1690 per box
The ISO 40’ container rate is $1409
http://www.bnsf.com/bnsf.was5/iprr/IPRRController
BNSF owns it’s own 5-pack (10 platform) well cars with 40’ wells, at 220’ each. The typical 53’ well car comes in a 3-pack (6 platforms), at 170’ each. Assuming a 5000’ train for each…
5000’ / 220 = 23 5-packs for 230 total containers.
5000’ / 170 = 29 3 packs for 174 total containers.
174 53’s per train = $294,040
230 40’s per same length train = $324,070
In this example, the ISO’s would produce more gross profit, but if there’s a mix and match of 40’ wells, 53’ wells, spine cars, etc. the difference shrinks, and if it’s all on 53’ well cars, the railroad then makes more with the 53’ containers.