Editing Intermodal container (section)

==Other sizes==

=== Australian RACE containers ===
Australian [[RACE (container)|RACE]] containers are also slightly wider to optimise them for the use of [[Australia Standard Pallets]], or are {{cvt|41|ft|1}} long and {{cvt|2.5|m|0|order=flip}} wide to be able to fit up to 40 pallets.<ref>[https://www.scf.com.au/products-services/refrigerated-containers/41ft-refrigerated-container/ 41ft Refrigerated Container | Up to 40 temp-controlled pallets]</ref><ref>[https://www.scf.com.au/media/ynsla0df/scf-r4191-factsheets_4pp-booklet.pdf SCF: 41ft Refrigerated Container brochure.pdf]</ref>

=== European pallet wide containers ===
[[File:Moving Cobelfret Containers at Humber Sea Terminal.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|Two {{convert|40|ft|m|adj=on}} 'High-cube' containers on a [[roll-on/roll-off]] (RoRo) tractor. The text in the yellow arrow on the top unit indicates its extra {{cvt|2.50|m|ft|order=flip}} width.]]
European pallet wide (or PW) containers are minimally wider, and have shallow side corrugation, to offer just enough internal width, to allow common European [[Euro-pallet]]s of {{convert|1.20|m|in|frac=8|abbr=on|order=flip}} long by {{convert|0.80|m|in|frac=8|abbr=on|order=flip}} wide,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.containercontainer.com/about_containers.aspx|title=Standard Shipping Containers|publisher=Container container|access-date=18 May 2009}}</ref> to be loaded with significantly greater efficiency and capacity. Having a typical internal width of {{convert|2.44|m|in|frac=8|abbr=on|order=flip}},<ref name="SaFR_PW">[https://www.shippingandfreightresource.com/pallet-wide-containers/ Pallet wide containers – ShippingAndFreightResource.com]</ref> (a gain of about {{convert|10|cm|frac=16|order=flip}} over the ISO-usual {{convert|2.34|m|in|frac=8|abbr=on|order=flip}},<ref name="BoxSize">[https://www.containercontainer.com/shipping-container-dimensions/ Shipping Container Dimensions – Container Container.com]</ref> gives ''pallet-wide'' containers a usable internal floor width of {{convert|2.40|m|in|frac=8|abbr=on|order=flip}}, compared to {{convert|2.00|m|in|frac=8|abbr=on|order=flip}} in standard containers, because the extra width enables their users to either load two Euro-pallets end on end across their width, or three of them side by side (providing the pallets were neatly stacked, without overspill), whereas in standard ISO containers, a strip of internal floor-width of about {{convert|33|cm|in|frac=8|order=flip}} cannot be used by Euro-pallets.

As a result, while being virtually interchangeable:<ref name="SaFR_PW" />

*A 20-foot PW can load 15 Euro-pallets – four more, or 36% better than the normal 11 pallets in an ISO-standard 20-foot unit
*A 40-foot PW can load 30 Euro-pallets – five more, or 20% better than the 25 pallets in a standard 40-foot unit, and
*A 45-foot PW can load 34 Euro-pallets – seven more, or 26% better than 27 in a standard 45-foot container.
[[File:ZIM New York (ship, 2002) 002.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|{{convert|45|ft|m|adj=on}} containers can be seen sticking out {{convert|2.5|ft|m|2}}, as part of the forty foot container stacks at the back of this ship.]]

Some ''pallet-wides'' are simply manufactured with the same, ISO-standard floor structure, but with the side-panels welded in, such that the ribs/corrugations are embossed outwards, instead of indenting to the inside.<ref name=MattsPW>{{cite web|url=http://www.matts-place.com/intermodal/part4/gesu4710896.jpg |title=gesu4710896.jpg |access-date=2012-04-22 |url-status = live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161024201005/http://www.matts-place.com/intermodal/part4/gesu4710896.jpg |archive-date=24 October 2016 }}</ref> This makes it possible for some ''pallet-wides'' to be just {{convert|2.462|m|in|frac=8|abbr=on|order=flip}} wide,<ref name=SaFR_PW/> but others can be {{convert|2.50|m|in|frac=8|abbr=on|order=flip}} wide.<ref>[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moving_Cobelfret_Containers_at_Humber_Sea_Terminal.jpg Photo of 45-foot Cobelfret containers, with markings warning of their 2.5 metres width, as well as their 9'6<nowiki>''</nowiki> height]</ref>

The {{convert|45|ft|m|2|abbr=on}} pallet-wide high-cube container has gained particularly wide acceptance, as these containers can replace the {{convert|13.6|m|ftin|frac=8|abbr=on|order=flip}} swap bodies that are common for truck transport in Europe. The EU has started a standardization for pallet wide containerization in the European Intermodal Loading Unit (EILU) initiative.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.silvertipdesign.com/BR(Imperial)/%5B26%5D%20slutrapport%20(Possible%20consequences%20of%20a%20new%20European%20container%20standard%20(EILU)).pdf|title=Possible consequences of a new European container standard (EILU)|author1=Frederik Hallbjörner |author2=Claes Tyrén|at=master thesis|year=2004}}</ref>

Many sea shipping providers in Europe allow these on board, as their external width overhangs over standard containers are sufficiently minor that they fit in the usual interlock spaces in ship's holds,<ref name=MattsPW/> as long as their corner-castings patterns (both in the floor and the top) still match with regular 40-foot units, for stacking and securing.

=== North American containers ===
[[File:AML SVETRUCK Whittier 411 (cropped).jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|Container "Toplifter" forklift moving two empty {{convert|53|ft|m|adj=on}} boxes by their {{convert|40|ft|m|adj=on}} posts]]The North American market has widely adopted containerization, especially for domestic shipments that need to move between road and rail transport.<ref name="ELG-APLboxes" /> While they appear similar to the ISO-standard containers, there are several significant differences: they are considered High-Cubes based on their {{convert|9|ft|6|in|m|2|abbr=on|adj=on}} ISO-standard height, their {{convert|102|in|m||adj=on}} width matches the maximum width of road vehicles in the region but is {{convert|6|in|cm|0}} wider than ISO-standard containers,<ref name="PNW48-53Dim">{{cite web |url=http://www.pnwgroup.com/container-dimensions-48-and-53 |title=Container Dimensions 48' and 53' |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |website=PNW Equipment |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141005223615/http://www.pnwgroup.com/container-dimensions-48-and-53 |archive-date=5 October 2014}}</ref> and they are often not built strong enough to endure the rigors of ocean transport.<ref name="ELG-APLboxes" />

==== 48-foot containers ====
The first North American containers to come to market were {{convert|48|ft|m}} long. This size was introduced by container shipping company [[American President Lines]] (APL) in 1986.<ref name="ELG-APLboxes">{{cite web |url=http://exportlogisticsguide.com/apl-introduces-53-foot-ocean-containers/ |title=APL Introduces 53 Foot Ocean Containers |last=Crowe |first=Paul |date=2 November 2007 |website=Export Logistics Guide |access-date=25 July 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131104235508/http://exportlogisticsguide.com/apl-introduces-53-foot-ocean-containers |archive-date=4 November 2013}}</ref> The size of the containers matched new federal regulations passed in 1983 which prohibited states from outlawing the operation of single trailers shorter than {{convert|48|ft|m}} long or {{convert|102|in|cm}} wide.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Blaszak |first=Michael W. |date=1 May 2006 |title=Intermodal equipment |url=https://www.trains.com/trn/train-basics/abcs-of-railroading/intermodal-equipment/ |access-date=2023-05-25 |website=[[Trains Magazine]] |language=en-US}}</ref> This size being {{convert|8|ft|m|2}} longer and {{convert|6|in|cm|0}} wider has 29% more volume capacity than the standard 40-ft High-Cube,<ref name="HofstraFeetcapacity">{{cite web |url=https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/containerscubic.html |title=Carrying Capacity of Containers (in cubic feet) |author=Jean-Paul Rodrigue |date=2006 |website=The Geography of Transport Systems |publisher=[[Hofstra University]] |access-date=25 July 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130903224640/http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/containerscubic.html |archive-date=3 September 2013}}</ref> yet costs of moving it by truck or rail are almost the same.

==== 53-foot containers ====
[[File:Swift 53ft shipping container.JPG|thumb|upright=1.2|Swift {{convert|53|ft|m|adj=on}} intermodal container]]

In the late 1980s, the federal government announced it would once again allow an increase in the length of trailers to {{convert|53|ft|m}} at the start of 1990. Anticipating this change, 53-foot containers were introduced in 1989.  These large boxes have 60% more capacity than 40-foot containers, enabling shippers to consolidate more cargo into fewer containers.<ref name=HofstraFeetcapacity /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.containertech.com/container-sales/53ft-high-cube-container-domestic/ |title=53ft High Cube Container {{pipe}} 53' High Cube Container |publisher=Container Technology, Inc. |access-date=1 February 2013 |archive-date=9 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210509084449/https://containertech.com/container-sales/53ft-high-cube-container-domestic/ |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.freightdawg.com/2007/11/big-boxes-bring.html |title=Big Boxes bring Big Questions – |first=Eric |last=Joiner |work=Freightdawg.com |date=5 November 2007 |access-date=1 February 2013}}</ref>

In 2007, APL introduced the first 53-foot ocean-capable containers designed to withstand voyages on its South China-to-Los Angeles service.<ref name=ELG-APLboxes/> In 2013, APL stopped offering vessel space for 53-foot containers on its trans-Pacific ships.<ref name=JocAPL53Seabox>{{cite news |author=JOC staff |date=15 March 2013  |title=APL Abandons 53-Foot Ocean Containers |url=http://www.joc.com/maritime-news/container-lines/apl/apl-abandons-53-foot-ocean-containers_20130315.html |newspaper=[[The Journal of Commerce]] |location=Newark, New Jersey |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515023348/http://www.joc.com/maritime-news/container-lines/apl/apl-abandons-53-foot-ocean-containers_20130315.html |archive-date=15 May 2013 }}</ref> In 2015 both [[Crowley Maritime|Crowley]] and TOTE Maritime each announced the construction of their respective second combined container and [[roll-on/roll-off]] ships for Puerto Rico trade, with the specific design to maximize cubic cargo capacity by carrying 53-foot, {{convert|102|in|0|adj=mid|wide}} containers.<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Construction Begins on Crowley's Second Commitment Class ConRo Ship for Use in the Puerto Rico Trade |url=http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/construction-begins-on-crowleys-second-commitment-class-lng-powered-conro-ship-for-use-in-the-puerto-rico-trade/ |newspaper=Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide |location=Piraeus, Greece |date=28 May 2015 |access-date=24 July 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150724174029/http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/construction-begins-on-crowleys-second-commitment-class-lng-powered-conro-ship-for-use-in-the-puerto-rico-trade/ |archive-date=24 July 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title=Containers for world's first LNG-powered container ships arrive at Jaxport |url=http://www.jaxport.com/newsroom/news/containers-for-world%E2%80%99s-first-lng-powered-container-ships-arrive-at-jaxport |publisher=[[Jacksonville Port Authority]] |location=Jacksonville, Florida |date=16 June 2015 |access-date=24 July 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150724192046/http://www.jaxport.com/newsroom/news/containers-for-world%E2%80%99s-first-lng-powered-container-ships-arrive-at-jaxport |archive-date=24 July 2015}}</ref> Within Canada, [[Oceanex]] offers 53-foot-container ocean service to and from Newfoundland.<ref>{{cite news|title=Oceanex Invests $8 Million to Expand its Refrigerated Services |url=http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/oceanex-invests-8-million-to-expand-its-refrigerated-services-517964831.html | access-date=26 December 2015}}</ref> 53-foot containers are also being used on some Asia Pacific international shipping routes.<ref name=Hennemand/>

==== Canadian 60-foot containers ====
In April 2017, [[Canadian Tire]] and [[Canadian Pacific Railway]] announced deployment of what they claimed to be the first '''60-foot''' intermodal containers in North America.<ref name="CPR1">{{citation|title=Canadian Pacific and Canadian Tire Corporation Deploy North America's First 60-foot Intermodal Container |url=http://www.cpr.ca/en/media/cp-and-canadian-tire-corporation-deploy-north-americas-first-60-foot-intermodal-container |date=27 April 2017 | access-date=3 May 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170511052334/http://www.cpr.ca/en/media/cp-and-canadian-tire-corporation-deploy-north-americas-first-60-foot-intermodal-container|archive-date=2017-05-11|url-status=dead}}</ref> The containers are transportable on the road using specially configured trucks and telescoping trailers (where vehicle size limits permit it), and on the railway using the top positions of double-stack container cars.<ref name="TruckNews1">{{citation|author1-last=Menzies|author1-first=James|title=Canadian Tire's push for 60|url=https://www.trucknews.com/transportation/canadian-tires-push-60/1003076548/|date=2016-12-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161226075417/https://www.trucknews.com/transportation/canadian-tires-push-60/1003076548/|archive-date=2016-12-26|url-status=live|website=TruckNews.com|access-date=2024-11-07|quote=McKenna has been pursuing the use of 60-ft. containers for several years now. It began as an idea to transition to 57-ft. containers, capable of accommodating two additional pallets, but he upped the ante when he saw another retailer was pulling a 60-ft. trailer on Ontario roads.}}</ref> According to initial projections, Canadian Tire believed it would allow them to increase the volume of goods shipped per container by 13%.<ref name="CPR1" /> Five years after the deployment of the containers, analyst Larry Gross observed that United States truck size regulations are more constraining than those in Canada, and predicted that for the foreseeable future, these larger containers would remain exclusive to Canada.<ref name="Trains1">{{citation|author1-last=Gunnoe|author1-first=Chase|title=Analysis: Canada's 60-foot container will likely stay north of the border|url=https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/analysis-canadas-60-foot-container-will-likely-stay-north-of-the-border/|date=2022-11-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240226015009/https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/analysis-canadas-60-foot-container-will-likely-stay-north-of-the-border/|archive-date=2024-02-26|url-status=live|website=[[Trains (magazine)|Trains]] website|access-date=2024-11-07|quote=It's been five years since Canadian Pacific and retail giant Canadian Tire Corp. unveiled North America's first 60-foot intermodal container, and intermodal analyst Larry Gross says the larger container type is probably going to remain exclusive to Canada for the foreseeable future.}}</ref>