[HN Gopher] Shipping Containers Are Falling Overboard at a Rapid...
___________________________________________________________________
Shipping Containers Are Falling Overboard at a Rapid Rate
Author : endtwist
Score : 35 points
Date : 2021-04-29 21:35 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.supplychainbrain.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.supplychainbrain.com)
| [deleted]
| richkirkpa wrote:
| Under rated statement of the day .. "These vessels are designed
| to carry the boxes, and to have these losses is -- dare I say it
| -- unacceptable."
| [deleted]
| guynamedloren wrote:
| No mention of recovery. I wonder.. are the containers ever
| recovered, or is it prohibitively expensive, or, logistically
| near impossible?
| kingvash wrote:
| They have a valve that scuttles them after a few hours
| otherwise they are a big hazard for other boats
| Syonyk wrote:
| My container (used for land-based storage) has obviously seen
| travel, and has nothing beyond a couple corner air vents.
| None of the other containers I'm familiar without here
| (they're quite popular for storage) have anything of the
| sort. That valve is a nice idea, but doesn't really exist in
| most of the fleet of containers on the ocean.
|
| They are, indeed, a hazard for other boats, though they
| generally won't "lurk below the surface." Either they're
| floating from buoyancy of what's in them, or they sink. The
| increasing water pressure as you descend makes "floating
| below the surface" a particularly unstable place.
| durakot wrote:
| Perhaps some new ones do, but generally most containers have
| nothing of the sort:
|
| "Depending on whether they are full or empty, and on the
| nature of the cargo inside, containers may float at the
| surface for several days or weeks prior to sinking.
| Containers are not generally entirely watertight; while an
| empty container is likely to sink due to water ingress, a
| full container will likely float until air trapped in the
| cargo has escaped.'"
| killingtime74 wrote:
| This has been going on for decades but nobody cares because there
| are no consequences
| learningwebdev wrote:
| There are quite obviously consequences, but perhaps not for the
| people who are in a position to ensure the containers don't
| fall overboard? Somebody is certainly losing money here.
| katbyte wrote:
| Insurance
| learningwebdev wrote:
| So insurance companies are losing money and raising
| premiums accordingly?
| shoo wrote:
| To anchor discussion, prior to the rise of intermodal shipping
| containers in the '60s & '70s, cargo was shipped as breakbulk
| cargo. Losses from theft and damage were considerably reduced by
| switching from breakbulk cargo to shipping containers. Not the
| same as losing stuff over the side, but still a regular and
| somewhat predictable expense.
|
| One anecdote I remember from Levinson's book is about a scottish
| whisky distiller exporting to the US being very excited about
| being able to ship whisky in a giant stainless steel vessel
| inside a container instead of shipping individual bottles inside
| wooden crates (imagine the theft during loading/unloading...).
|
| That said, shipping containers were not adopted because they
| reduced theft and damage (consequently the cost of insuring
| cargo), they were adopted because they offered much lower costs
| to shippers (after enough investment in ships and ports and
| cranes and trucks and changes to transport regulation to provide
| the infrastructure to move containers around efficiently without
| double-handling them or unloading and repacking them for
| technical/labour/regulatory reasons).
|
| Marc Levinson's book _The Box_ about the history of the shipping
| container is worth a read --
| https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691170817/th...
| pchristensen wrote:
| The Box is way more fascinating than it has any right to be. It
| touches on basically every aspect of post-1950 world economy,
| history, urban planning, social changes, migration, etc.
| donw wrote:
| I've taken an interest in learning more about both the history
| of logistics, as well as modern practices.
|
| Any more links (books or otherwise) you could share?
| goodpoint wrote:
| > To anchor discussion
|
| _cough_
| rurounijones wrote:
| "The box that changed Britain" is a good BBC documentary on the
| subject as well if you can find it online.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| I see ships being overloaded a good problem to have. The more
| countries trade with eachother, the less reason they have to
| fight wars with eachother.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| My sister wrote & defended her PhD thesis disproving this
| intuitive but wrong connection. Plenty of states happily trade
| with their enemies during wars. So war does not necessarily
| stop trade. And thus trade is no prophylactic to war. States
| are most likely to cut of trade during war in very long wars -
| which are no longer possible between nuclear powers.
|
| http://mariya.gr/research.htm
|
| If you have counter-arguments other than "But, but, but that
| FEELS wrong", i am sure she'd like to hear them, her email is
| on the site"
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Really? The U.S. was founded on a war with its primary trading
| partner.
| dariusj18 wrote:
| The basis of the modern liberal world order.
| superfamicom wrote:
| Is there a list of what exactly was lost? Does anyone actively
| seek out and salvage this sunken treasure? I hate to think of
| another Garfield Phone thing in the future with something more
| dangerous.
|
| https://time.com/5561165/garfield-phones-france/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-29 23:00 UTC)