If containerized shipping was invented earlier(perhaps around WW1).

Driftless

Donor
Forklifts and fork trucks have been around since the late teens. Like a lot of industrial equipment, they were electric, with the lifting was by cable and winch. The auto parts store my brother worked at years ago had one that had been with the business since the 1930's. Lead-acid batteries which were really only good for a couple hours of use, solid rubber tires, no safety cage or any other considerations...
This parts store has been running continuously since the 1910's, third or fourth generation runs it now. They never throw anything out. Most of the stock isn't on computers to this day. But, if you need a headlight bulb for a Model A or a ballast resistor for a 1952 Dodge, they've got it.

Doh!.... I forgot about the electrical driven winch for a lifting power source. Today, electrical powered fork lifts are much preferred for food warehouses - the food doesn't absorb fumes.
 
Chicago Great Western RR was the first major RR company to adopt Trailer on Flatcar shipping in the mid '30s.
This was adopted from how Circuses would move from city to city with the least disruption.

At first, would transport the entire rig, later to just the trailers
default.jpg

In 1937, they transported 10,296 trailers, with 96% on time delivery and no loss of materials(zero theft) They had some patents on this, and called it 'Piggyback Service'

Leave the wheels off the Van, add lifting points, you have a 20' container.
Strengthen that container, you can stack them on a lowboy flatcar and intermodal freight is in sight
 
You don't actually need to go full on containerisation - you can get major improvements just by adopting palletisation. Which also removes the need to shift empty containers around the world.

Palletisation can vastly increase the speed of cargo operations, particularly for bagged bulk cargos (I'm thinking for example bags of cement - we loaded 30000 tons of bagged cement in a few days - not counting delays when the Poles lost a trainload of the stuff...). But you would be amazed at the range of cargos that are suitable for palletisation.
 
You don't actually need to go full on containerisation - you can get major improvements just by adopting palletisation. Which also removes the need to shift empty containers around the world.

Palletisation can vastly increase the speed of cargo operations, particularly for bagged bulk cargos (I'm thinking for example bags of cement - we loaded 30000 tons of bagged cement in a few days - not counting delays when the Poles lost a trainload of the stuff...). But you would be amazed at the range of cargos that are suitable for palletisation.

Pallets really won't alleviate the 'spoilage' from Hobos and Longshoremen though
 

Driftless

Donor
Historically, what are the most stolen types of items transported by ship? Consumer goods and foods, maybe some medical supplies under war time conditions? Ammunition and military equipment parts maybe less theft connected; though I'm sure local QM's re-arranged destinations with frequency...
 
Even simple, manual pallet-jacks vastly improve loading speed for manual labourers. I can load 1 ton pallets onto trucks - all day - but can only move a fraction of that tonnage by hand.

I think the biggest limitation on containers was cranes. Sure, a few existing cranes could lift containers, but not fast enough to prove profitable.

Let's look at this from a different angle: weight. If you are paying for freight by the ton, any extra crates/containers increase your shipping costs. Cheap labour favours loose cargo. However, as longshoremens' wages increase, more cranes become more cost effective. When longshoremens' wages get ridiculously high, they will be replaced by robots.
 
My theory would be to get unitizing adopted sooner, in other words the pallet. Likely it is someone like GM who has parts plants in one locale and assembly elsewhere, needing to move smaller lose items safely, securely and efficiently. That should drive the standardization of trailers and material handling. This might accelerate the adoption of Trailer On Flat Car (TOFC). In the US you likely need Railway Express (REA) to adopt the standards and adopt TOFC, they were a shared entity among the owning railroads so in effect are your standards organization. REA does a lot of Less-than Carload (LCL) so they would adopt standardized pallets, boxes, crating and handling for cargo, pick it up in trucks, sort it, load it in or on a trailer and take it by train over distance from hub to hub cities. At sea ports the shippers see the efficiency and security of how this cargo is brought to and taken from them. Now the costing must benefit them, Longshoremen were cheap and it allowed ships to move cargo without dedicated port facilities beyond a pier or quay, everything moved in nets slung under light shipboard cranes. The container is lost revenue in its tare weight, but drives down costs to offset it. So I think you need to begin with high value and more theft or damage prone cargoes. Passenger luggage, bottled liquor, etc. This would allow scheduled lines to learn this method and hasten its adoption as you need both sides to agree to the standards. The potential is that one gets a multitude of systems early on, the British Imperial, the American Standard, the German Way, etc. The truly revolutionary part of both pallets and containers was not in how they changed transportation but in how they changed industry itself, the producers made things fit the standards, literally to fit inside the box, to cut costs and move products further. That is the wildcard of this discussion.
 
As said earlier up thread, the big savings are in turn around time. When I looked into this 5 years ago, IIRC, ships may be waiting/unloading for a week or more, whereas modern container ships are in/out in what, 1 day? So if you have a ship on a 7 day run, w/o containerization, it makes its trip from 1st to 7th of a given month, unloads from the 8th - 14th, sails back the 15th - 21st, and is unloaded from the 22nd - 28th. Assuming that you are not having any extra time in reloading, nor any extra waiting time in/getting into port. A containerized ship would make the trip on day 1-7, unload/reload on the 8th, sail back 9-15, spen the 16th unloading/reloading, second trip 17-23, 24th U/L, 25th-31 returning from 2nd voyage, etc...

Basically, in a 7 day voyage type setup, you go from 28 days between outbound loads, at least, to 16 days.
 
Colonies and past WW1 protectionism.
They do not teach it in normal history courses because it does not fit agenda. (Bolded mine)
This is completely untrue. The ways in which the pre-WW1 economy was globalized are absolutely taught in courses where it is relevant. It is an important part of understanding the pre-WW1 period and pretty apparent to anyone who looks at the primary material.

That said, you are entirely correct that in certain ways the period was even more globalized than the contemporary world. However, it’s important to note that globalization worked a bit differently than the kind we’re familiar with. It’s been a while, but if I remember correctly the value of international trade as a share of the total economy was higher at the time than today but it constituted a lower portion of the total economy.
 
I think the biggest limitation on containers was cranes. Sure, a few existing cranes could lift containers, but not fast enough to prove profitable.
But this, like most other objections raised, is a classic chicken/egg scenario. The cranes are too small for containers! Why are they too small? Because they are sized to lift a net filled with an amount of break-bulk a gang of stevedores can handle within a reasonable time. Why not build them bigger? Because there is no point wasting money when most stuff is being shipped break-bulk.

Primitive containers were in widespread use by the thirties for specific applications where they made most sense - usually high value perishable or time sensitive goods.
Meat, eggs, fish, cut flowers, domestic removals (furniture etc), luggage for express train passengers crossing the channel, etc. Etc. In all those cases the issue of handling equipment was solved adequately although not up to today’s standards.

The real obstacles to wider usage were exactly those which slowed containerisation after WW2. Resistance from vested interests (especially transportation companies looking to hamper whoever benefited most from containers), the need for capital investment, unsuitability of existing facilities (such as ports of london and NY) and the vexed questions of labour supply and job demarcation.

IMO, if Howard Hughes or some such had wanted to pony up the cash to bring the container revolution in 1935, there were no real technical obstacles. Even twistlocks are a nice to have rather than a necessity. Politically, a different matter.
 
Top