Pondering Containers...

[infojunky]

Was looking at Boxcars for the basis of space rated intermodal containers....

You know the 54' container kinda looks like a good base model, or in Traveller terms 3 x 3 x 15 meter boxes. A hair under 10 dTons of cargo interanlly. Relatedly a half length one is 5 dtons....

Just a thought.

 

[kilemall]

Was looking at Boxcars for the basis of space rated intermodal containers....

You know the 54' container kinda looks like a good base model, or in Traveller terms 3 x 3 x 15 meter boxes. A hair under 10 dTons of cargo interanlly. Relatedly a half length one is 5 dtons....

Just a thought.

3 meters wouldn’t work on present day Earth as the current 8 foot width is what s needed for rail and truck clearances.

53 foot is a North American standard to fit truck dimensions promulgated originally by Canadian Tire. Reportedly they are pushing a move to 60 foot but no one is buying in.

You go that particular mix, I’d argue it’s a post gravitic standard that extant surface clearances don’t matter, and it’s more about what would fit in ACS ships and small craft.

I’m big on going 5-ton/10-ton, others have their reasons for going with more odd lots. A good look at the most common holds should clarify what’s workable, flexibility is key for the small transport/speculation business.

This issue is why I was asking what the typical cargo hold height is.

 

[TamsinP]

It depends a lot on how conservative humanitii is about such things and how much influence the Solomani have had on containers within the Imperium. If they had a lot of influence and there was a strong conservative trend, then we'd expect to see 3m, 6m and 12m long containers; assuming those are 3m wide and 3m high that would give approximately 2, 4 and 8 dTons.
However, those don't mesh particularly well with the freight lot sizes in Traveller. The dimensions we generally see in the rules also don't mesh with the reality of cargo handling, deck heights, need for space for "lashing" and visual inspections (and potential maintenance on reefer containers).

 

[Spinward Flow]

I personally prefer 7.5m x 7.5m x 3m cargo pod module blocks ... because they're 5x5 deck squares in area @ 1.5m² deck square scaling and a single deck in height. Displacement is 12 tons of capacity, which is big enough to fit an awful lot of things (starting with 3 staterooms).

The advantage of being square is that orientation doesn't matter (rotate 90º, no problem) and if doing vertical stacks you can use the 90º rotation to connection centerline access passages through the modules that go in different directions and use a simple vertical grav lift in the center.

A double stack gives you 24 tons of cargo capacity, which is a remarkably flexible quantity that fits into a 7.5x7.5x6m volume of space on 2 decks. A square block shape is a Configuration: 4 (close structure) hull form factor, which is also one of the cheapest (in LBB5.80 terms).

 

[Spinward Scout]

You might want Air Freight Containers.

Or a Unit Load Device.

 

[Condottiere]

You want a container that can be used aero(space), (under)ground, and maritime.

That's a pretty hard golden mean.

 

[Spinward Flow]

You want a container that can be used aero(space), (under)ground, and maritime.

That's a pretty hard golden mean.

That's because there IS NO "golden mean" that can meet all of those conditions simultaneously.

aero(space), (under)ground, and maritime

3 out of 3 ... behave yourself.
2 out of 3 ... compromised in both directions.
1 out of 3 ... that's the best you can do, honestly.

AT BEST you can multi-modal your way to (under)ground and maritime ... but aero(space) is its own regime.

 

[whartung]

Obviously if you want to develop containers, the first step is to measure the hind end of the original Vilani beast of burden.

 

[Condottiere]

Depends on what they're transporting.

I think at the moment, it's refrigerators and smartphones.

 

[gchuck]

You might want Air Freight Containers.

Or a Unit Load Device.

ULD's. Never touched one, but have to know them.

 

[PVernon]

A note; GURPS went with 2, 4, 8 Dt.

 

[Silverhawk]

3 meters wouldn’t work on present day Earth as the current 8 foot width is what s needed for rail and truck clearances.

53 foot is a North American standard to fit truck dimensions promulgated originally by Canadian Tire. Reportedly they are pushing a move to 60 foot but no one is buying in.

Plus the 53 foot is only domestic North America. Martine containers are still 20 feet and 40 feet. There are also domestic 45 and 48 foot containers that I see on the highway from time to time.

Standard cube height is 96 inches (8 feet). High Cube are 102 inches (8 feet 6 inches). Width is 98 inches (8 feet 2inches). That makes a Standard cube 3136 cubic feet (88.8 cubic meters) and a High Cube as 3332 or (94.3 cubic meters) for a 48 foot container. Comes out to roughly 6.5 Dt for a Standard Cube and 7 Dt for a High Cube.

BTW, I only picked the 48 foot because it was the first one I could lay my hands on some specs.

 

[Condottiere]

The crane is strong enough to lift fully loaded containers of up to 65 tons and can couple with most pallets and crates.

I would guess that's the cap for spaceship cargo holds.

 

[infojunky]

3 meters wouldn’t work on present day Earth as the current 8 foot width is what s needed for rail and truck clearances.

Well I know that, but I am working in Traveller common measurements....

53 foot is a North American standard to fit truck dimensions promulgated originally by Canadian Tire. Reportedly they are pushing a move to 60 foot but no one is buying in.

You frequently see 53s on the top stack of Container Ships.... But the 20 and forty are what the internals are configured for mostly.

This issue is why I was asking what the typical cargo hold height is.

It really depends I general is it is a 3 meter tall container into a 3 meter tall hold I assume there is enough leeway for it to work. Exacting specifics in terms of deckplans are kinda inhibiting...

 

[infojunky]

You might want Air Freight Containers.

Or a Unit Load Device.

Honestly for the smaller ships, i.e. Freetrader and that ilk ULDs/Palletized cargos are probably the most common....

 

[infojunky]

A weird but related note, y'all understand most warships transfer/take on cargo and stores in palletized units...

 

[TamsinP]

A weird but related note, y'all understand most warships transfer/take on cargo and stores in palletized units...

So do most merchant ships (including cruise ships). For the stores, that is.

 

[TamsinP]

You frequently see 53s on the top stack of Container Ships.... But the 20 and forty are what the internals are configured for mostly.

I don't think I've ever seen a 53 on a container ship, but have seen 45s. I'm guessing that the 53s would have been on smaller coastal container ships given that they aren't sued outside of North America.

 

[infojunky]

I don't think I've ever seen a 53 on a container ship, but have seen 45s. I'm guessing that the 53s would have been on smaller coastal container ships given that they aren't sued outside of North America.

Mostly I am seeing them on Handy Sized container ships.... So local shipping, I.e. Caribbean and Coastal Americas..

 

[aramis]

Mostly I am seeing them on Handy Sized container ships.... So local shipping, I.e. Caribbean and Coastal Americas..

I've seen a few tractors pulling 53's right out of the Port of Anchorage. It's a safe bet that they arrived on the container ship in port, since Anchorage doesn't have a huge storage yard, and containerized don't generally get transferred from one container to another in port. 44' and 45' containers are provided holds in several panamax ships and larger; 53's are likely to be above the gunwales.