The writing is atrocious (even by Register standards) but it is a good example of pivotal technology integrations.

As a systems guy I like this story because it shows something which is often characteristic of successful disruptive systems, they get extra-ordinary gains from a modest tweak in the existing eco-system.

The eco-system at the point these were introduced was ships to trucks and trains, with burly long shoremen lifting and carrying things from point to point [1]. So the tweaks were this box, a crane to load/unload them, and a way to attach them to trains or trucks. Originally, and this is important, they simply used flat-bed rail cars or flat-bed trucks. The container was held down by straps. Also some of the original containers had gunnels where they could be hoisted with existing cargo cranes using inexpensive straps. So the 'one' benefit of containers (which got them into shipw) was that they stacked easily and could be secured. Building truck trailers and train cars that could take a container using its latching system came a bit later. But small evolutionary changes in the eco system and it got large jumps in efficiency (time to load, time to secure, etc etc).

If you are going to replace an out of date or inefficient system with a new one, you will do very well if you can change it from within. Nothing worse than a system which makes all the existing investment instantly worthless.

[1] "On the waterfront" is a movie which gives an interesting 'feel' to the way shipping worked back before containers. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047296/

Here's two good relevant books:

The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691136408/

A general history, and you'll find the section on coupling standardization all too familiar. Although the text leaves out one critical detail:

Prime Movers of Globalization: The History and Impact of Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0262014432/

(There's but one picture of one of the huge diesel engines that power pretty much all large cargo ships.)

These "prime movers", along with the steam turbine, which produces most of the world's electricity, are all examples of rational or scientific design (compare to the cut and try history of the steam engine). The impulse to develop his engine came to Mr. Diesel during a thermodynamics lecture.

ADDED: And even more relevant to HN, the diesel engine did a pivot when it's intended (by Diesel, at least) primary use was supplanted by the AC electric motor.

The Box is really good. One really hard part about containerization was: how do you get every port in the world to install the cranes?

The Wikipedia article mentions that the ships had cranes.

Read The Box. They didn't work very well, frequently breaking down and they weren't very fast either. As I recall after that first generation the emphasis switched to good port facilities including good cranes (but a lot more is required including enough ground transport).

Quite a few historical ports essentially died for one reason or another while quite a few went from virtually nothing to world class (in both capacity and traffic). All in all it's a fascinating story of technology and technique development and diffusion.

Yes. Even in the Wikipedia article they say that they switched from ship cranes to port cranes early. Also the rest of the industry (apart from the stevedores) was quite enthusiastic and didn't need much convincing.

P.S. I just ordered The Box from Amazon.

So, you like your diesels large? Check this one out then:

http://gcaptain.com/emma-maersk-engine

I hope 109,000 HP is enough for you.

The engine rates a long paragraph in Prime Movers and there's a picture of the ship as well. I get the impression that when the book was in production it was the biggest engine in use, but MAN B&W offers a slightly more powerful one and has designed a significantly more powerful one as well if/when it's needed.

As for "enough"? Well, measured as shaft vs. brake horsepower, Iowa class battleships (with their superheaters running) would put out nearly twice as much and Nimitz class supercarriers 2.4 times as much. But of course those are fast ships designed to go in harm's way. For the merchant marine, these diesels are "enough".

Talking about powerful engines, check out this rocket Engine sporting roughly 180.000 horsepower.

Made by a few crazy rocket amateurs in Copenhagen.

http://copenhagensuborbitals.com/heat1x.php

Yeah, but these engines will keep pumping out their lower power, directly connected to a shaft and propeller, for very long periods of time with minimal maintenance (read Prime Movers or I'm sure lots of other sources for e.g. how the linkages to the pistons keep them from wearing out of round quickly). These are monster ships that are entrusted with just one engine ... that says a lot.

Here's an (IMO better) article on the subject: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/07/07/the-epic-story-of-conta...

It's largely a summary and expansion of ideas from The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger

For those living in the bay area the oakland port is definitely quite a sight. I am constantly in awe at how much stuff goes in and out of it every day.

I remember on a whim looking around the internet for how much it costs to ship something from Oakland to Dalian (another big port in china). For some reason it is really hard to get a quote without going through a licensed agent.

I feel like the shipping industry is ripe for disruption because of sites like this:

http://indonetwork.net/arrow_dynamicid/508168/ocean-freight-...

Right now I can price a trip from SFO to LA within seconds. Try doing that if you are shipping cargo.

Totally seconded - ripe for disruption, but you'd better have some good old-man skills!

That's a really good idea. I wonder if there are some impediments to doing this that aren't obvious, e.g., maybe paperwork can't be automated b/c of bribery at customs. It's interesting that there isn't a trading floor for cargo rates, either (or, it least, I'm not aware of one).

Automating an old-style industry could be a great business.

> e.g., maybe paperwork can't be automated b/c of bribery at customs.

Just speculating: The inability to pay bribes could actually work out in your favour or at least not hurt you enough to matter.

The Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-Land_Service, is more interesting from the historical point of view. As I read it, McLean had the idea of using trailers to ship cargo around the world, originally with the ordinary trailer chassis. When that proved less than optimal. The system was refined by Tantlinger to become today's system of stackable containers and dockside cranes.

Aside: Containers make fairly inexpensive storage, if you have a place to put the container and dont mind lowering the property values for your neighbor hood. A decade ago I rented one for $70 a month.

They're a sort of universal building block. In Christchurch at the moment (badly damaged by earthquakes over the last year) they're used to shore up loose facades, as baffles to stop or slow falling rubble, they've been refitted to contain generators and substations, toilets, and shops. I buy my coffee each morning from a couple of guys who plopped a 10-foot container with an espresso machine on the pavement after their shop was demolished.

The Los Feliz Charter School in LA uses them for classrooms. See the top picture (or the video walkthrough) at:

http://losfelizarts.org/

The building is a converted warehouse, and the shipping containers sit in clusters inside the warehouse.

It was done right, and did not even lower property values ;-)

Really interesting post. Reminded me of the fact that phone costs are similar (once you get on the uplink, satellite hops have negligible cost AFAIK), i.e. calling someone anywhere in the world costs pretty much the same. However, in this case superficial price differences still exist because phone companies make it so.

Tantlinger had many patents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Tantlinger Mr. Diesel (I didn't realize there was a Mr. Diesel) also patented his inventions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Diesel

I note that all the great pioneers seem to have patents: Mr. Birdseye, Mr. Morse, Mr. Bíró, etc.

Is it just that we remember these people, because they were successful? I note that where there's patent, there's dispute. Were these people just the winners of litigation, and history is written by the winners? Were the other inventions just as good, or maybe better, but they didn't get the funding, or didn't have as good marketing, or weren't as aggressive?

I'm not sure; but it is certain that these guys did invent something, and did bring it to market to make a difference. I just wish patents worked better for software - so that some of us could one day be celebrated in the same way.

BTW: I'd like to see more of this kind of article on HN.