The Box - Marc Levinson [73]
There were two other important distinctions between standardizing rail gauges and standardizing containers. One was scope: the width of a railroad track affected only railroads, whereas the design of containers affected not just ship lines, but also railroads, truck lines, and even shippers who owned their own equipment. The other difference was timing. Railroads had been around for several decades before incompatible track gauges came to be seen as a major problem. Container shipping was brand-new, and pushing standardization before the industry developed might lock everyone into designs that would later prove undesirable. From an economic perspective, then, there was every reason to doubt the desirability of the standardization process that began in 1958. If government agencies in those days had made it a routine practice to conduct cost-benefit studies, most likely the entire process of container standardization would never have begun.4
These concerns were unrepresented when Marad’s two expert committees held their first meetings on successive days in November 1958. Neither Pan-Atlantic nor Matson was seeking government construction subsidies, so the only two companies actually operating containerships in 1958 were not invited to join in the process of setting standards for the industry that they were creating.
Controversy arose almost immediately. After much debate, the dimension committee agreed to define a “family” of acceptable container sizes, not just a single size. It voted unanimously that 8 feet should be the standard width, despite the fact that some European railroads could not carry loads wider than 7 feet; the committee would “have to be guided mainly by domestic requirements, with the hope that foreign practice would gradually conform to our standards.” Then the committee took up container heights. Some maritime industry representatives favored containers 8 feet tall. Trucking industry officials, who were observers without a vote, argued that 8½-foot-tall boxes would let customers squeeze more cargo into each container and allow room for forklifts to work inside. The committee finally agreed that containers should be no more than 8½ feet high but could be less. Length was a tougher issue still. The diversity of containers in use or on order presented a serious operational problem: while a short container could be stacked atop a longer one, its weight would not rest upon the longer one’s load-bearing steel corner posts. To support a shorter container above, the bottom container would require either steel posts along its sides or thick, load-bearing walls. More posts or thicker walls, though, would increase weight and reduce interior space, making the container more costly to use. The length question was deferred.5
The other Marad committee, on container construction, defined its most important task as establishing maximum weights for loaded containers. Weight limits were crucial, because they would determine the lifting power required of cranes and the load that the bottom container in a stack might have to bear. The weight of empty containers, however, would not affect cranes, ships, or trucks, and the committee decided not to address it. Various other complicated issues, such as the strength of corner posts, the design of doors, and the standardization of corner fittings for lifting by cranes, were put off.6
The two committees appointed by Marad did not have the field to themselves. There was a competitor: the venerable American Standards Association. The association, supported by private industry, was in the business of setting standards, dealing with subjects as diverse as the size of screw threads and the construction of plaster walls. The work was vital but also mind-numbing; the