|
|
| |
| The Evolution of Containerisation from 1770s to 2030. Part 1 |
| |
| Written by Ana Casaca |
Posted on 10 June 2025 |
Reading Time 53 minutes |
|
 |
| |
| The history of freight transport is inseparable from the history of trade, industrialisation, and the global economy. At its heart lies the fundamental challenge of moving goods efficiently, securely, and economically across vast distances and diverse transport modes, each with inherent characteristics and capacities. For centuries, freight was handled manually in irregular and fragmented forms: barrels, sacks, crates, and bales, requiring labour-intensive loading and reloading at each journey stage. While effective for local or regional commerce, this system proved increasingly unsuited to the demands of industrial economies, long-distance trade, and the growing complexity of logistics as trade shifted from locally to globally. The gradual shift from loose cargo (break-bulk) handling to unitised freight, as shown by the millions of containers that ply the oceans, was not the result of a single invention but a series of incremental innovations that spanned centuries. From introducing pallets and reusable lift vans to adopting railway containers and military shipping crates, freight units evolved with technological, infrastructural, and economic developments. These innovations laid the groundwork for the most transformative shifts in modern logistics: the standardised shipping container. This text traces freight units’ historical evolution before containerisation’s global adoption. It highlights the interplay between technological invention, institutional coordination, and logistical necessity that ultimately culminated in the container revolution of the mid-20th century. The sections below chart this development in chronological and thematic sequence. |
| |
1. Pre-Industrial Freight Practices: Loose Cargo and Breakbulk Handling |
| Before the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century, freight transport systems were characterised by their decentralised, fragmented, and highly labour-intensive nature. These systems evolved organically over centuries in response to specific regions’ geographic, cultural, and economic contexts. Without overarching national transport policies, integrated logistics systems, or modern technologies, each locality developed its practices, infrastructures, and tools for moving goods. The limitations of the available transport modes heavily constrained the physical movement of freight. On land, goods were transported using carts, wagons, and pack animals, which were often slow and limited in capacity. These methods were particularly inefficient over long distances due to poor road conditions, weather-dependent routes, and unreliable maintenance. Riverboats were used for inland freight in regions with navigable waterways, while small coastal vessels connected port towns along the seaboard. However, these, too, were subject to environmental challenges such as flooding, droughts, seasonal variations, and unpredictable maritime conditions. Local realities profoundly shaped logistics practices: the availability of materials, the traded commodities, and the customs and expectations of regional markets. There was no concept of a national or global logistics network, trade operated within small catchment areas, and supply chains were short and often informal. The lack of technological standardisation meant that different towns or ports might use incompatible loading tools, unit measures, or shipping procedures. Consequently, freight systems were inherently localised, suitable for small-scale transactions but ill-equipped for the complex and large-scale demands that would emerge with industrial capitalism. |
| During the pre-industrial era, freight transport primarily took the form of breakbulk cargo, whereby goods were shipped as individually packaged units rather than in bulk or within containers. These units included sacks of grain, barrels of oil, crates of ceramics, and bales of textiles, each packaged using locally available materials such as wood, leather, cloth, or metal. The choice of packaging was determined by the nature, value, and perishability of the goods and by the environmental conditions they would encounter during transit. This practice can be traced back to the earliest maritime trading civilisations. The Phoenicians, for instance, were known for transporting wine and olive oil across the Mediterranean in amphorae, ceramic vessels with pointed bases designed to be stacked efficiently in the holds of ships (see Figure 1). The Romans later adopted and expanded this system, standardising amphora shapes and using them extensively for transporting foodstuffs and liquids throughout their vast empire. Roman freight operations often included wooden crates for tools and metalwork, bales of wool or linen, and barrels for liquids, all of which had to be manually handled at every journey stage. |
| |
| Figure 1: Amphorae Packed for Transport |
 |
| Source: Cartwright (2016) |
| |
| Despite the decline of large-scale imperial trade networks in the Middle Ages, merchants continued to use similar manual methods for packing and transporting goods. Whether travelling by land or river, textiles were tightly bound into rope-secured bales, grain was packed in sacks, and valuable commodities like spices and dyes were sealed in chests or ceramic jars. These goods were typically moved by wagons, pack animals, or riverboats, with local porters or labourers handling the loading and unloading at each stop along the route. The process demanded considerable physical effort and expertise to prevent goods from shifting, spoiling, or being stolen during transit. |
| All packing was performed by hand at the point of origin, whether on a farm, in a workshop, or at a market. This manual packing and handling dominated all stages of the logistics chain, from initial collection on farms or in workshops to market delivery. This work relied on traditional skills for selecting appropriate packaging, hemp or jute sacks for grains, wooden barrels or clay amphorae for liquids, and tightly compressed bales for textiles. Every piece of freight had to be carefully stacked to maximise space and stability, a task requiring a blend of intuition and experience rather than scientific precision. The wide variation in package size, shape, and weight added complexity, making each intermodal transfer slow and physically demanding. Labourers, often lacking mechanical assistance, endured harsh conditions as they moved and secured goods by hand. While inefficient by modern standards, these methods reflect the best practices available within the constraints of contemporary tools, infrastructure, and economic organisation. |
| Breakbulk cargo systems were plagued by numerous operational inefficiencies that limited their capacity, speed, and reliability (see Figure 2). A key feature was the high frequency of reloading. Because goods could not be transferred easily between transport modes, every change, from a wagon to a riverboat or a coastal ship to a market stall, required individual handling. This rehandling significantly increased the risk of damage, spillage, or theft at each interface. Labour requirements were extensive. Ports and trade hubs needed many workers to move and restow cargo, contributing to high operational costs. The irregular shape and inconsistency in package dimensions made it nearly impossible to maximise storage space efficiently. Stowage within ship holds or wagon beds became a three-dimensional puzzle, often leading to underutilisation of capacity and delays due to the time needed for careful loading. In addition to physical inefficiencies, there were systemic challenges, such as the frequent repackaging was necessary due to incompatible packaging styles between regions, the varying systems of weights and measures created confusion and errors, especially when goods changed jurisdiction, and the lack of uniform documentation meant shipment records, cargo lists, and ownership proofs often had to be reissued or manually translated at each stop, increasing administrative burdens and errors. |
| |
| Figure 2: Loading Break-Bulk Cargo Onto Ships, Queens Wharf in Port Adelaide, sometime before 1927 |
 |
| Source: Cartwright (2016) |
| |
| Transport infrastructure was largely undeveloped and highly inconsistent across regions. Most ports offered little more than basic wooden piers, often constructed from untreated timber susceptible to decay, and crude loading ramps that provided limited cargo movement support. Permanent structures such as warehouses were rare outside major trading hubs; in many cases, goods had to be stored in the open or under makeshift shelters. Where storage buildings existed, they were generally small, unsecured, and lacked climate control or fire protection. |
| Cargo handling equipment was minimal and labour-intensive, typically involving simple block-and-tackle pulley systems, hand-operated chain winches, and ropes. These tools were slow and dangerous, requiring coordinated manual labour teams. Cranes, where available, were rudimentary wooden structures, often non-standard in size or capacity and unable to lift heavier or oversized loads. This inconsistency meant that what could be handled in one port might not be movable in another, leading to inefficiencies and frequent rehandling. Road infrastructure was equally poor: unpaved, narrow, and highly weather-sensitive. In rainy seasons, dirt roads turned to mud, often becoming impassable for carts or wagons, especially in hilly or forested areas. |
| These infrastructural shortcomings made freight transport extremely vulnerable to external risks. Theft and pilferage were commonplace, particularly at unsupervised loading areas, road stops, and minor depots with no permanent staff or security presence. Environmental exposure posed another major threat: cargo was frequently damaged by rain, wind, moisture, and salt spray, particularly in coastal regions lacking proper docks or covered storage. Packaging materials, whether cloth, rope, wood, or leather, could degrade or disintegrate during long or harsh journeys, especially for fragile, perishable, or high-value goods like spices, textiles, glassware, or fine tools. |
| In regions without shelter or contingency systems, operations could be halted entirely during storms, floods, or snow, leading to unpredictable and costly delays. These vulnerabilities translated into higher insurance premiums, which merchants were often forced to absorb or pass on to buyers, increasing the overall trade cost. The inability to guarantee safe, timely delivery added systemic economic risk, particularly for long-distance or cross-border commerce, where goods pass through multiple hands, jurisdictions, and infrastructure nodes. Consequently, trade remained slow, expensive, and uncertain, constraining the scale and scope of economic expansion before the advent of industrial logistics. |
| While the manual freight system of the pre-industrial era was functional for modest, localised trade, typically within regional markets and agrarian economies, it quickly became a limiting factor as economic activity expanded in complexity, volume, and geographic reach. The gradual rise of urban centres, proto-industrial workshops, and long-distance commercial networks in the early modern period placed increasing demands on transport systems that were not designed to handle sustained throughput or coordinated distribution. |
| |
| Proto-industrial workshops refer to small-scale, home-based or rural production units that emerged before the full onset of industrialisation, typically from the 16th to 18th centuries in Europe. These workshops represent a transitional stage between agrarian economies and factory-based industrial production. Production was often carried out in homes or small workshops within rural communities. Unlike later factories, there was no central facility with mechanised equipment; production was decentralised and spread among many independent workers. Tools were simple, and the processes relied heavily on manual skill rather than steam or mechanical power. Despite their small scale, these workshops were market-oriented, producing goods for sale in regional or international markets, not merely for local use or subsistence. A common organisational model was the putting-out system, in which merchants supplied raw materials such as wool, flax, or cotton to rural families. These families would process the materials through spinning, weaving, or other tasks, then return finished or semi-finished goods for trade. Examples of proto-industrial activities include textile weaving in Flanders and northern England, the production of metal goods and cutlery in the German Rhineland, and lace-making, glassblowing, or ceramic work in parts of Italy and France. These workshops allowed regions without large urban centres to engage in growing markets. They supported population growth by providing supplementary income to farming households. Importantly, proto-industrialisation laid the social and economic groundwork for full industrialisation by creating a semi-specialised labour force, expanding trade networks, and demonstrating the scalability of off-farm manufacturing. In short, proto-industrial workshops were a bridge between feudal economies and industrial capitalism, blending craft traditions with a growing market orientation. |
|
| |
| As domestic markets became more integrated and international trade began to flourish, particularly through colonial expansion and early capitalist enterprise, existing freight systems’ limitations were exposed. Labour-intensive operations were inherently slow and costly, with each load requiring physical handling, loading, unloading, and repacking at every transfer point. The lack of standard packaging, documentation, and weight measures meant that cargo had to be continually adapted to the requirements of different carriers, ports, or local jurisdictions. Each transhipment introduced new risks of spoilage, loss, theft, or misrouting, undermining reliability and predictability. These inefficiencies translated into structural bottlenecks at critical nodes of the supply chain, especially ports, inland terminals, and market towns, where congestion, poor coordination, and limited storage capacity caused frequent delays. Furthermore, the absence of an overarching system to synchronise logistics meant that transport decisions were made in isolation, leading to fragmentation, duplicated efforts, and inconsistent delivery schedules. This decentralisation hindered the scaling of production and consumption, as goods could not move quickly or reliably enough to support growing demand in manufacturing, retail, or urban provisioning. |
| Economically, these constraints imposed an upper limit on trade productivity and return on production investment. Merchants were forced to build higher profit margins into their pricing to absorb delays and losses, making goods more expensive and less competitive. Perishable commodities or time-sensitive deliveries became high-risk ventures, often confined to local or seasonal markets. This, in turn, limited the geographic spread of economic specialisation, as producers could not confidently serve distant or export-oriented buyers. By the late 18th century, it was increasingly clear that the existing freight paradigm, rooted in manual breakbulk handling, non-standardised packaging, and ad hoc logistics, was incompatible with the new scale and urgency of industrial-era commerce. These systemic weaknesses dragged economic performance, stalling trade expansion and reinforcing regional disparities. As a result, freight transport, once a passive backdrop to commerce, became a key bottleneck to economic development, and its reform a prerequisite for modernisation. Under these pressures, the stage was set for the transport revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries: the rise of mechanised handling, containerisation, standardised units, and integrated multimodal networks that would redefine the global logistics landscape. |
| |
2. The Industrial Revolution and the Advent of Palletisation |
| The Industrial Revolution, which began in the late 18th century and accelerated throughout the 19th, marked a profound transformation in the organisation of economic activity, especially in production, transport, and trade. Initially powered by water and steam, mechanised manufacturing rapidly displaced traditional artisanal and cottage-based production methods. Factories emerged as dominant output centres, producing goods at unimaginable volumes and speeds. At the same time, rapid urbanisation drew labour into industrial cities while expanding colonial empires and long-distance trade networks contributed to the integration of global markets. These sweeping changes triggered a dramatic escalation in freight movement’s volume, velocity, and geographic reach. Goods were no longer confined to regional exchange or seasonal markets; instead, they needed to move efficiently between distant production sites, ports, warehouses, and urban centres across growing national and international corridors. In response, governments and private enterprises invested heavily in developing transport infrastructure, railways, canals, paved roads, and modernised port facilities, drastically cutting transit times and lowering distribution costs. |
| The rapid expansion of Britain’s railway network in the 19th century further accelerated these developments. The Great Western Railway (GWR), established in 1833, was especially influential. With its initial section opening between Paddington and Maidenhead in 1838, the GWR soon expanded westward to Bristol and northward to key industrial hubs such as Birmingham and Manchester, ultimately linking these manufacturing centres with major seaports like Bristol and Liverpool. This integration of inland and maritime transport meant that goods produced in the Midlands could reach ships within hours rather than days. This reduced transit times and distribution costs and facilitated the rapid and reliable export of British industrial products to global markets, bolstering Britain’s position as a leading trading nation throughout the 19th century. |
| However, these technological and infrastructural advances also exposed severe limitations in freight handling systems. Traditional breakbulk practices, based on the manual loading and unloading of irregular, inconsistently packaged items, proved increasingly inadequate in the face of mass production. Factories operating around the clock required a constant inbound flow of raw materials and a steady outbound distribution of finished goods, creating pressure points across every stage of the logistics chain. Key logistical challenges soon emerged. The need for faster throughput at railway depots, warehouses, and port terminals became critical to avoid bottlenecks and keep pace with continuous production cycles. Delays in loading or unloading had ripple effects throughout supply networks. A growing labour shortage exacerbated the problem of loading or unloading delays. Manual handling was physically demanding and repetitive, limiting worker productivity and availability during soaring demand for freight services. The heightened risk of cargo damage added further complexity. As the value and fragility of manufactured goods, such as precision machinery, glassware, and textiles, increased, so did the costs associated with breakage, spoilage, and theft during transit. |
| These systemic inefficiencies signalled that older decentralised freight handling methods could no longer support the demands of an industrialising economy. What was once a peripheral concern in pre-industrial commerce, how to move goods, became a strategic focal point. Logistics evolved from an auxiliary function to a central pillar of economic organisation. Operational domains such as warehousing, inventory control, scheduling, and freight forwarding began to professionalise, forming the early architecture of what would later be recognised as supply chain management. This period thus marked a crucial turning point in the history of transport and logistics. The Industrial Revolution redefined the relationship between production and distribution and initiated a structural transformation in the logistical foundations of trade. It revealed the urgent need for improved freight handling systems. Such systems could move goods reliably, securely, and at scale, laying the groundwork for the revolutionary innovations of the 20th century, including palletisation, containerisation, and the rise of globally integrated supply chains. |
| As industrial production soared during the 19th and early 20th centuries, the need to move freight more quickly and efficiently pushed logistics into a new era: mechanisation. Previously reliant on human strength and rudimentary tools, freight handling began to be transformed by mechanical innovations designed to accelerate operations, reduce physical strain, and manage goods’ growing volume and complexity. In this process, ports became early adopters of mechanised handling tools. By the 1850s–1860s, major European ports such as Liverpool, Hamburg, and Antwerp began installing steam-powered cranes, winches, and capstans to handle bulky or heavy cargo. These vertical lifting mechanisms simplified loading and unloading, reducing labour needs and improving turnaround times. Meanwhile, in North America, railyards in Chicago introduced movable gantries straddling multiple rail lines. These allowed goods to be hoisted from railcars directly onto trolleys or docks. Such infrastructure became critical in linking inland production with growing national and transatlantic trade. |
| During the 1870s–1890s, industrial warehouses and factory depots began adopting mechanised systems for internal movement. Conveyor belts (commercialised in the 1890s), rolling carts, and track-mounted trolleys were used to move goods efficiently between production, packaging, storage, and dispatch areas. In Manchester’s spinning mills by the late 1800s, these innovations played a vital role in handling large volumes of cotton, streamlining workflow and reducing manual strain. These mechanised networks became the invisible circulatory systems of the industrial factory. By the early 1900s, mechanisation extended to heavy industry. In the steelworks of Pittsburgh, powered rollers and overhead tracks allowed heavy metal products to flow seamlessly between smelting, forging, and loading zones. These systems aligned with continuous production cycles and formed the backbone of integrated factory logistics. |
| However, one of the most consequential innovations of the Industrial Revolution logistics era was the introduction and widespread adoption of the pallet, a flat, portable platform that enabled the consolidation of numerous items into a single, compact, and mechanically movable unit. Though the idea of placing goods on skids or sledges for transport dates back to ancient times, the pallet as a systematic and standardised freight-handling solution only began to emerge in a recognisably modern form during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the early 1900s, precursor platforms such as wooden skids were used in warehouses to stack and move goods, often manually or with rudimentary lifting devices. This evolution was driven by the rapid industrialisation of production and the parallel expansion of factory-scale output. With manufactured goods being produced in vast quantities, traditional breakbulk practices, where items were handled individually or in small packages, became a severe bottleneck in commerce. Loading and unloading processes remained slow, labour-intensive, and highly susceptible to human error and physical damage. |
| The growing need for speed, protection, and efficiency led logistics professionals and manufacturers to seek new forms of cargo consolidation. The key breakthrough came with the invention and commercial spread of mechanical handling equipment, particularly the forklift truck, which appeared in its earliest versions in the 1910s and became more widespread by the 1920s and 1930s. The forklift enabled workers to lift and move heavy loads with precision and minimal manual effort, but it required a stable, standardised base for effective operation. The pallet emerged as the ideal counterpart to this innovative technology. Early wooden pallets were often custom-built to suit specific cargo types or production environments. However, as warehousing and distribution systems expanded, these platforms began to standardise in size, especially in alignment with storage racking, warehouse layout, and transport vehicle dimensions. |
| As industrial production and distribution systems grew in scale and complexity, so did the need for more uniform and manageable freight units. Alongside the widespread adoption of pallets, a parallel development was the increasing use of standardised secondary containers and intermediate packaging solutions that enabled diverse types of goods to be consolidated, protected, and transported more efficiently. Among the most widely adopted forms were wooden crates, metal drums, and compressed bales, each suited to particular commodities and handling requirements. Wooden crates became preferred for transporting heavy, fragile, or high-value items such as furniture, machinery parts, glassware, or scientific instruments. Constructed to fit specific shapes or weights, crates offered robust structural protection, especially against shocks and compressive forces during rail, road, or ship transport. Their rigid framing made them ideal for stacking and securing within warehouses or freight wagons while facilitating labelling, sealing, and standardised documentation. |
| Metal drums, typically made from steel or aluminium, were indispensable for moving liquids and semi-liquids, including petroleum products, chemicals, industrial solvents, edible oils, and paints. Their cylindrical shape, durability, and tight-sealing lids made them resistant to leaks, corrosion, and environmental damage. Drums could be rolled for short distances, lifted by drum clamps or slings, and loaded efficiently in large volumes onto trucks and ships, often nested in racks or grouped on pallets. Compressed bales were the primary unit for transporting bulk agricultural or textile commodities. Raw cotton, wool, jute, straw, tobacco, or hay were compressed into dense, rectangular blocks and wrapped with burlap, canvas, or plastic sheeting. Bales maximised cargo density and were easy to stack and secure, especially when bound tightly with rope, wire, or steel bands. Though offering less protection than crates or drums, they allowed for economical, space-saving movement of low-to-medium value goods across long distances. |
| Collectively, these standard containers advanced the goal of freight unitisation by converting irregular or loose goods into manageable, repeatable formats. They reduced handling time and labour costs at each transfer point, improved inventory control, as units could be easily counted, tagged, and categorised, enhanced cargo integrity by reducing breakage, contamination, or misplacement and facilitated intermodal compatibility, especially when combined with pallets or loaded into rail wagons and cargo holds. Although these forms lacked the complete intermodal standardisation of modern containers, they represented essential precursors to containerisation, embodying the logistical shift from bulk or piece-based freight to modular, consolidated transport units. As such, crates, drums, and bales were not just packaging solutions; they were integral components in the professionalisation and mechanisation of freight logistics during the industrial and pre-container eras. |
| The widespread adoption of pallets was catalysed during World War II when the United States military institutionalised their use to streamline global supply chains, facilitate rapid deployment, and reduce handling times across multiple operation theatres. From that point onward, the pallet became a cornerstone of industrial logistics and intermodal freight handling. It laid the essential groundwork for subsequent innovations, most notably containerisation, by introducing the principles of modularity, mechanisation, and efficiency that continue to define modern supply chains today. Pallets delivered a series of transformative benefits. First, the most immediate benefit is speed; goods can be moved, loaded, and unloaded far more quickly than when handled piece by piece. Second, it offered labour efficiency; one forklift operator could replace multiple labourers, dramatically reducing the workforce needed at terminals, depots, and warehouses. Third, pallets offered protection; goods stacked on pallets could be securely shrink-wrapped, banded, or boxed, reducing the risk of damage and theft. Fourth, they allow storage optimisation; pallets facilitate vertical stacking and uniform warehouse layouts, enabling more efficient use of space and easier inventory control. |
| By enabling the unitisation of freight, pallets laid the conceptual foundation for later developments in cargo standardisation, including containerisation. They allowed industrial logistics to function at scale, synchronising better with the faster rhythms of assembly lines and railway freight schedules. Even as the global economy moved toward more complex intermodal systems, the pallet remained a foundational unit in supply chains, essential not only in warehouses and factories but also within multimodal distribution centres and retail logistics platforms. In short, the pallet was far more than a simple wooden frame; it was a strategic enabler of industrial logistics, bridging the gap between human-scale handling and machine-optimised systems. Its introduction marked a decisive step toward the modern efficiency, scalability, and modularity principles that continue to shape freight movement today. |
| Transport vehicles were redesigned to accommodate better-mechanised loading and unloading to match these technological advances. In the 1930s, the United Kingdom’s London Midland & Scottish Railway introduced wagons designed for palletised freight. In the United States, trucking fleets have developed trailers with reinforced floors, side access points, and tail lifts to handle pallets and drums using forklifts. These adaptations streamlined last-mile logistics and improved interoperability between modes. The cumulative impact of these changes was substantial. Throughput increased significantly at ports, depots, and terminals. Labour requirements declined, easing the strain of workforce shortages and reducing exposure to physical injury. Cargo damage and loss were reduced thanks to more stable handling mechanisms and protective packaging. Finally, Operational reliability improved, with more predictable handling times and smoother flows across internal processes. |
| However, despite these advances, fragmentation across the logistics chain remained a significant challenge. Without shared design standards, most mechanised systems were developed independently within specific sectors, port authorities, rail operators, trucking firms, or warehousing companies. Cranes, hoists, and forklifts might excel within their contexts, but they were not coordinated to function across multiple transport modes. A pallet loaded at a factory might not fit onto a ship without being unpacked and repacked. Rail wagons might be incompatible with portside handling equipment. These inefficiencies created friction at modal transfer points, undermining the gains made at individual nodes. |
| This lack of interoperability pointed to the need for a more unified logistical approach. While mechanisation marked a monumental leap from manual freight handling, integration’s precursor was not the culmination. The industrial era’s innovations in mechanical handling laid the foundational infrastructure and logic upon which intermodal logistics and containerisation would later be built. The principle that machines should move freight as standardised units across all supply chain stages was seeded during this era. This vision would ultimately be realised in the mid-20th century by introducing the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) containers, transforming freight movement from fragmented and localised into a global, synchronised, and highly automated system. |
| Despite notable advances in cargo handling technologies and the growing use of standardised freight units like pallets, crates, and drums, a critical weakness remained entrenched throughout the early 20th-century logistics landscape: the absence of true intermodality. While these tools improved efficiency within specific environments, warehouses, factories, ports, and rail terminals, their benefits were largely confined to isolated segments of the transport chain. One of the primary issues was the lack of uniform size standards. Pallets, for instance, were often designed to fit particular warehouse racks, railway wagons, or factory floors. However, there was no agreed-upon global or even national standard. A pallet used by a British textile manufacturer might not fit the loading equipment of a French railway depot or an American lorry. Likewise, wooden crates were often custom-built for individual products, tailored to furniture, glassware, or machinery dimensions, rather than designed to stack or align efficiently across multiple platforms. |
| Drums used in the chemical and petroleum industries varied by country and cargo type, with early 20th-century logistics seeing the adoption of steel, fibre, and later plastic drums. Many steel drums featured a cylindrical shape and reinforced rims, allowing them to be rolled for easier handling. In contrast, others, particularly those made of fibre or plastic, were designed to remain upright during storage and transport, reflecting the period’s diverse requirements and handling practices. The consequence was a patchwork system of partially compatible units that could not be transferred seamlessly between ships, trains, and trucks. Even within a single country, cargo must be unpacked and reloaded multiple times, especially when transitioning between rail and sea or road and port. This created serious inefficiencies such as increased handling time at modal transfer points, delayed shipments and slowed overall movement of goods, higher risk of damage or loss due to repeated unpacking and manual reloading, particularly for fragile, perishable, or high-value cargo, greater labour requirements at every stage, raising operational costs and compounding delays during peak periods or labour shortages, and poor space utilisation, as non-standard units could not be optimally packed into freight holds, resulting in wasted capacity. |
| Beyond physical incompatibility, administrative fragmentation further hindered intermodal efficiency. Transport documentation was inconsistent, often handwritten, and lacked coordination across stakeholders. A shipment might carry separate consignment notes, invoices, and customs declarations for each leg of its journey, leading to lost paperwork, delays at borders, and difficulty tracking goods. Scheduling and communication systems were also unaligned. Railways, ports, and trucking companies operated on their timetables with minimal coordination. A shipment arriving by train could sit idle for days at a port awaiting a ship simply because no integrated schedule or information-sharing mechanism existed to streamline modal transitions. Ultimately, while the innovations of the early industrial era, mechanised handling, freight unitisation, and improved storage systems, laid the essential groundwork, they failed to address the critical need for system-wide integration. The full promise of modern, high-efficiency freight movement remained unrealised until transport modes, freight units, documentation, and scheduling could be synchronised into a unified logistical system. This fragmentation would persist until the mid-20th century, when containerisation emerged as a revolutionary solution, offering standardised units and intermodal compatibility that bridged the physical and operational divides across the global transport chain. |
| |
3. Early Intermodal Innovations: Precursors to Modern Intermodal Freight System |
| As global trade intensified in the early 20th century, driven by industrial output, urban expansion, colonial commerce, and increasingly structured global shipping routes, the limitations of traditional cargo handling systems became increasingly apparent. The dominant breakbulk model, and even early palletised systems, required goods to be manually unpacked and repacked at every modal transition, whether moving from road to rail or rail to sea. This labour-intensive process delayed shipments, inflated costs and heightened the risk of cargo loss, theft, and damage at each transfer point. In response to these inefficiencies, a series of innovative attempts to streamline multimodal logistics began to take shape. The paragraphs below address these innovative attempts. |
| |
| 3.1. The Lift Van: Pioneering Unitised Freight in Early 20th-Century America |
| The lift van, a large, sturdy wooden box or container (see Figure 3), was a pivotal innovation in early 20th-century freight handling, marking a significant departure from the dominant breakbulk cargo system. Functioning as a large, reusable shipping crate, it was designed to consolidate and protect goods throughout a multimodal journey across the road, rail, and maritime transport without requiring unpacking and repacking at each transfer point. This significantly reduced labour costs, transit times, and the risk of damage associated with traditional item-by-item handling. At its core, the lift van embodied the door-to-door unitised cargo transport principle. Goods could be packed securely at the point of origin and delivered intact to their final destination, bypassing intermediate handling and simplifying logistical processes. Typically measuring between 1.5 and 6 metres (5 and 20 feet) in length, lift vans were used for various consignments, including household goods and personal effects, especially in international removals and early intermodal freight transport such as commercial merchandise and military supplies. |
| Technological and structural features played a crucial role in enhancing the effectiveness and versatility of lift vans across a range of transport scenarios. Sturdy construction was fundamental: early lift vans were built from reinforced timber with internal bracing, explicitly designed to endure the rigours of repeated handling and transfer between different transport modes. As technology progressed, the introduction of steel-bodied lift vans significantly improved durability, providing greater resistance to impacts and extending the units’ operational lifespan. Lifting rings and hooks were another important innovation, with metal fittings integrated into the van’s structure to enable efficient mechanical handling. These attachments allowed cranes and hoists to rapidly transfer lift vans between ships, trains, and road vehicles, dramatically reducing loading and unloading times compared to manual methods. Skid runners, typically wooden skids affixed to the base, further facilitated ease of movement, enabling the lift van to be dragged or positioned by workers and ensuring compatibility with forklifts and flatbed trucks. Finally, weather-resistant sealing was critical for safeguarding goods during extended journeys. This was achieved through tightly fitting doors, tarpaulins, and metal reinforcements designed to protect cargo from rain, humidity, and other environmental hazards encountered during long-distance or overseas transit. |
| |
| Figure 3: The Lift Van |
 |
| Source: Strom White Movers (2025) |
| |
| These design elements transformed the logistics landscape by introducing a more secure, mobile, and modular approach to cargo movement. Collectively, they allowed lift vans to serve as a vital link in the evolution of intermodal freight transport, bridging the gap between loose cargo and the fully standardised containers of the modern era. The lift van represented a significant leap forward in logistics thinking, replacing the fragile and time-consuming breakbulk paradigm with a more systematised and reliable transport method. By enabling freight to be packed once at the point of origin, transferred across multiple modes intact, and unpacked only at the final destination, the lift van significantly reduced loading times, enhanced cargo security, and improved overall supply chain efficiency. In many ways, it prefigured the intermodal logic of modern ISO containers, demonstrating at a manageable scale the foundational principle of containerised shipping: seamless, end-to-end unitised transport. |
| In the United States, the lift van concept found fertile ground in the early 20th century, particularly within household removals, military logistics, and long-distance commercial freight. The country’s vast geography, urban expansion, and increasing transatlantic migration created a pressing need for efficient, secure, and cost-effective transport. The lift van addressed these needs with considerable success. By 1911, firms like Bowling Green Storage & Van Co. in New York began offering integrated lift van services for domestic and international relocations. Their promotional materials heralded a transformation in moving practices, advertising pre-packed, sealed containers that could be transported directly from a client’s residence in New York to destinations across Europe without re-handling en route. This model significantly reduced logistical complexity while enhancing cargo security. |
| Standard United States lift vans typically measured around 5.5 metres (18 feet) long, 2.4 (8 feet) metres wide, and 2.4 metres (8 feet) high, large enough to accommodate an entire household’s goods, including bulky furniture and delicate items. They served various practical functions: |
| |
- Long-distance and Overseas Relocation: Favoured by diplomats, executives, expatriates, and military families, lift vans eliminated the need for cargo handling at multiple junctions, ports, and customs checkpoints.
|
- Mobile Warehousing: The units doubled as temporary storage solutions during property transitions or refurbishments, enhancing their utility in urban and suburban settings.
|
- Labour Cost Reduction: By consolidating cargo into a single sealed unit, companies drastically cut down on the number of handling operations, reducing required human resources and the risk of error.
|
- Damage and Loss Prevention: The enclosed structure, combined with minimal intermediate handling, significantly reduced the likelihood of goods being broken or lost, which also helped to lower insurance premiums.
|
|
| |
| Although adoption in the United States remained primarily within high-value sectors such as household removals and military logistics, the lift van system demonstrated the practical and economic feasibility of containerised transport. Its operational efficiencies offered a powerful alternative to conventional breakbulk freight practices through standardisation, cargo consolidation, mechanical handling, and sealed transfer. The widespread use of lift vans in commercial and military operations laid essential groundwork for the global shift towards containerisation. During World War I and II, lift vans proved indispensable in military supply chains, inspiring the development of the Container Express (CONEX) system by the United States Army in the 1950s. In retrospect, the lift van prefigured the modern ISO container and served as a functional proof of concept for intermodal logistics. At a manageable scale, it validated the shift from fragmented, item-by-item handling to an integrated, scalable, and secure freight model. The unitised system pioneered by the lift van would shape the architecture of global cargo movement throughout the second half of the 20th century and beyond. |
| |
| 3.2. British Origins of Intermodal Freight (1760s–1930s) |
| The United Kingdom played a foundational role in the early development of containerised freight, establishing core principles of cargo unitisation and intermodal transport that would later shape global logistics. Well before the advent of modern steel shipping containers, British innovators and engineers pioneered solutions to the challenges of moving bulk commodities across increasingly complex transport networks. These advancements were particularly evident in the coal industry, where the need for efficient, large-scale distribution spurred the adoption of new handling methods and purpose-built equipment. Notable transformations in coal freight logistics emerged during the late eighteenth century, as early experiments with compartmentalised barges and rail wagons laid the groundwork for containerisation. |
| In 1766, James Brindley introduced the starvationer (see Figure 4), a barge fitted with ten individual wooden bins to streamline coal transport from Worsley Delph to Manchester via the Bridgewater Canal. Building on this innovation, Benjamin Outram’s 1795 Little Eaton Gangway, a horse-drawn railway using specially designed wagons from his Butterley Ironworks, enabled coal to be seamlessly transferred between rail and canal barges operating on the Derby Canal. This early use of discrete transport units significantly departed from traditional break-bulk handling and laid the foundation for future containerised systems. By the late 1780s, the practice of using loose boxes to containerise coal had become established on waterways such as the Bridgewater Canal, facilitating cargo transfer between barges and other forms of transport. By the 1830s, these concepts had evolved further with the advent of railways. Railways began to carry containers specifically designed for intermodal transfer, allowing goods to move seamlessly between rail and road transport. For instance, the Liverpool and Manchester Railway utilized simple rectangular timber boxes to convey coal from Lancashire collieries to Liverpool, where cranes would transfer them directly onto horse-drawn carriages. The evolution continued into the 1840s, with iron boxes joining wooden ones as standard units for coal transport, reflecting ongoing advances in materials and design (Ripley, 1993). By the early 1900s, the concept of the intermodal container had matured, with closed container boxes being introduced for movement between road and rail. These advances in unitised cargo handling and transport infrastructure established the essential building blocks for Britain’s modern industrial supply chains. They played a pivotal role in shaping the evolution of global freight logistics. |
| |
| Figure 4: The Starvationer Boat |
 |
| Source: Pennine Waterways (2025) |
| |
| Following these innovations, the United Kingdom went on to play a foundational role in the early development of containerised freight, particularly through its national railway system. Faced with mounting demands for more efficient goods movement between industrial hubs and urban centres, especially for furniture removals, commercial freight, and small consignments, British railway companies turned to containerisation to reduce the cost, time, and labour associated with breakbulk cargo. These efforts introduced reusable, purpose-built units designed for seamless transfer between road and rail, prefiguring the core principles of modern intermodal transport. A key institutional driver of this innovation was the Railway Clearing House (RCH), established in the 19th century to coordinate operations and commercial agreements among Britain’s numerous private railway operators. Recognising the inefficiencies inherent in fragmented logistics systems, the RCH issued a set of technical standards for freight containers in the early 1920s. These aimed to ensure container compatibility across different railway networks, enabling more integrated and fluid operations nationwide. The standardised containers promoted by the RCH were primarily timber constructions reinforced with steel bands or frames for added durability. Measuring between 1.5 and 3 metres in length, they were well-suited for transporting household goods and small commercial loads. Distinctive curved or gabled roofs prevented water accumulation during open-air transit, while metal lugs or rings enabled mechanical lifting, an early step toward reducing manual labour through mechanisation. |
| To facilitate the safe rail transport of these units, railway companies introduced Conflat wagons, flatbed railcars specifically designed with locking chains, grooves, or clamps to stabilise container units during transit. The name itself was derived from ‘container flatcar’. This system allowed for efficient loading and unloading, reduced terminal dwell times, improved cargo security, and enabled smoother integration with road haulage operations. By the late 1920s, Britain witnessed the emergence of a remarkably forward-looking model of integrated transport, an early form of intermodalism that delivered door-to-door freight services without the need for unpacking or transhipping individual items. The London, Midland & Scottish Railway (LMS) was a notable innovator which launched a containerised door-to-door freight service in 1928. The LMS model operated as a four-step logistics chain: containers were packed at the shipper’s premises, transported by road to a railway depot, loaded mechanically onto Conflat wagons, and finally transferred by road from the destination station to the consignee. This model yielded multiple advantages aligned with evolving logistical priorities. Eliminating intermediate handling significantly reduced labour costs and minimised cargo damage, loss, or theft risk. Cargo integrity was preserved throughout the journey, while standardised handling methods facilitated faster terminal operations and improved administrative coordination. The outcome was a more predictable and reliable service, a critical benefit in the increasingly time-sensitive freight environment of the interwar years. |
| By the early 1930s, Britain’s four major railway companies, the LMS, the GWR, the London and North Eastern Railway (LNER), and the Southern Railway (SR), collectively operated over 4,000 containers, including approximately 1,000 refrigerated units used for transporting temperature-sensitive goods such as meat, dairy, and fish. It demonstrated early containers’ adaptability to various cargo types and logistical requirements. Pickfords, a removals and freight-forwarding company with access to lorry fleets and rail services was an important private-sector partner in this evolving ecosystem. Pickfords, established in the 17th century, pioneered container-based distribution by offering clients a unified, dual-modal transport solution. Its nationwide reach and logistical versatility made it a key contributor to Britain’s spread and viability of containerised freight services. Although these British systems were limited in scale and largely confined to domestic applications, their conceptual sophistication was striking. They introduced and operationalised key principles of what would become global intermodal logistics: standardisation, interoperability, modular handling, and integrated service chains. The infrastructure adaptations, specialised wagons, lifting equipment, and transfer depots foreshadowed the physical environment of modern container terminals. These early British developments, emerging in parallel to the lift van initiatives in the United States, laid critical groundwork for the post-war container revolution, illustrating that intermodal freight transport was desirable and operationally feasible decades before the global standardisation of the ISO container. |
| |
| 3.3. Continental Europe: Parallel Innovations in Rail-Based Containerisation |
| While the United States and the United Kingdom pioneered early models of containerised freight, Continental Europe witnessed a wave of parallel innovations in unitised cargo handling. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, countries such as France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands began experimenting with rail-compatible containers in response to increasingly complex industrial supply chains and intensifying domestic and cross-border trade. Although lacking formal international coordination, these initiatives revealed a common logistical rationale: the need for efficient, reusable, and standardised cargo units capable of bridging road and rail networks. |
| In continental Europe, France and Germany made significant strides in the early adoption of containerised transport systems, tailoring innovations to the varied needs of industrial, commercial, and civilian sectors. In France, ‘fourgon containers’ became a staple of the national rail network and played a key role in connecting metropolitan France with its overseas territories. Germany, meanwhile, pioneered the use of Kleincontainer, compact containers, typically between 2 and 3 metres in length and constructed from wood or timber-steel hybrids, which found widespread application in postal services, industrial deliveries, and military logistics. These small, enclosed containers provided sufficient capacity for a range of goods, from machinery and textiles to agricultural produce and household effects, while also offering crucial protection against theft and environmental hazards. A notable advantage was the ability to pre-pack cargo at its origin and deliver it directly to its destination, minimising the need for intermediate handling. |
| Both countries also extended containerisation into the domestic removal market, deploying specialised containerised vans to facilitate relocations for middle-class families and government officials. This approach catered to the increasing demand for convenience, cargo security, and operational efficiency, demonstrating the benefits of sealed, pre-packed units in civilian logistics. In the colonial context, these container systems enhanced the predictability and security of supply chains between Europe and overseas holdings, especially in Africa and Southeast Asia. During interwar and World War II military operations, the advantages of movable, sealed cargo units became even more apparent, enabling flexible, low-touch resupply across diverse terrains and transport environments. |
| Among the most forward-looking European innovations was the Wechselkoffer (swap-body) system introduced by Deutsche Reichsbahn. Unlike traditional fixed rail containers, these removable freight bodies could be lifted from lorry chassis to rail wagons without unloading their contents. Featuring structural reinforcements and dedicated lifting points, Wechselkoffer units allowed for rapid transfer between transport modes and could be detached and stored when not in use. This high level of versatility made them ideal for both long-haul and regional services and set the stage for the widespread use of swap bodies in today’s European combined transport corridors. Collectively, these pioneering efforts in France and Germany significantly advanced the evolution of containerised logistics, establishing important precedents for the global container revolution that followed. |
| Although container specifications and handling systems varied across countries, the interwar period in Continental Europe marked the emergence of a shared logistical paradigm centred on unitisation, reusability, and multimodal operability. These concepts laid essential foundations for post-war reconstruction, regional economic integration, and eventual harmonisation under bodies like the International Union of Railways (UIC) and the European Economic Community (EEC). Even though the absence of uniform technical standards limited international scalability, these experiments demonstrated that intermodal freight transport was desirable and technically viable. |
| Like the British, the Continental European contributions constituted a critical prelude to global containerisation. These distinct yet conceptually aligned early efforts confirmed the operational benefits of eliminating intermediate handling, protecting cargo integrity, and enhancing multimodal efficiency. They collectively laid the intellectual and technical groundwork to inspire post-war innovators like Malcolm McLean to develop standardised, globally scalable container systems. Long before the formalisation of the ISO container, the interwar decades had already proven that a new logistics paradigm was not only possible but increasingly inevitable. |
| |
| 3.4. From Principle to Practice: Operational Characteristics of Early Intermodal Units |
| Although early intermodal units, such as lift vans, timber containers, and removal vans, differed significantly in size, construction materials, and intended use, they collectively introduced a suite of operational characteristics that laid the conceptual foundation for modern container logistics. These innovations reflected a growing realisation among freight operators that cargo efficiency could be significantly enhanced by consolidating goods into transferable units. Three core principles emerged across different regions and use cases: pre-packing and sealing at origin, transfer without unpacking, and port and station adaptation. |
| Pre-Packing and Sealing at the Origin. A key breakthrough was the shift from handling individual items to preparing freight in self-contained, pre-packed units at the point of origin. This change dramatically reduced the need for manual handling during transhipment. Goods, whether household effects, commercial merchandise, or military supplies, were secured and sealed within the container or lift van before leaving the shipper’s premises. Once packed, they would typically not be reopened until reaching the final delivery point. This approach brought multiple advantages. Labour intensity was significantly reduced, as the same unit could be moved throughout the journey without re-sorting or reloading. Handling damage was also minimised since goods remained untouched and undisturbed during modal transfers. Furthermore, accountability and cargo security were enhanced, with seals serving as a deterrent to pilferage and enabling more straightforward inspection processes. |
| Transfer Without Unpacking. Early intermodal operations demonstrated the feasibility and immense benefit of transferring cargo units directly between different modes of transport without unpacking. Whether transitioning from road to rail, rail to ship, or any other combination, entire units could be lifted and repositioned in a single motion using hoists, cranes, or pulley systems. This created a profound shift in freight movement dynamics. Loading and unloading times at modal interchange points were drastically reduced, increasing the speed of operations. Cost savings followed, as fewer workers were required and vehicles spent less time idle. Reliability also improved: freight schedules became more predictable as delays caused by unpacking and repacking were eliminated. By reducing dwell time at intermodal terminals, these systems increased the overall throughput capacity of key transport hubs, especially ports and railyards. |
| Port and Station Adaptation. As intermodal units became more common, transport infrastructure evolved in response. Ports, rail depots, and freight yards invested in mechanical handling equipment designed specifically for unitised freight. While these early machines lacked the scale and sophistication of modern container cranes, they introduced several foundational technologies. Mobile gantry hoists capable of straddling wagons or lorries became increasingly prevalent alongside dockside derricks and steam-powered cranes fitted with slings, rings, or hooks to ensure secure lifting. Railcars and truck beds were also customised to align with the dimensions of standard-sized freight units. By adapting fixed infrastructure to accommodate movable freight containers, these early facilities began the critical process of aligning the physical environment with the modular logic of unitised transport. |
| Together, these operational advances demonstrated that cargo handling could be decoupled from the physical structure of transport vehicles. This idea that cargo should be movable independently of the train, truck, or ship that carries it was revolutionary in freight thinking. It challenged the centuries-old assumption that goods had to be manually shifted between modes and established a new paradigm of freight continuity. Although these early systems lacked global reach or universal standards, they confirmed the practicality and desirability of intermodal logistics. They planted the seeds for containerisation: a system where sealed, standardised units could move globally with minimal friction, delay, or loss. |
| |
| 3.5. Infrastructure and Institutional Adaptations in the Interwar Period |
| The growing adoption of containerised freight in interwar Europe necessitated significant adaptations in transport infrastructure. Although rudimentary by contemporary standards, the infrastructural responses of the 1920s and 1930s marked the first deliberate attempts to equip railway stations, inland depots, and seaports with dedicated facilities and technologies for handling standardised cargo units. This period thus represents a formative phase in the development of container logistics, characterised by incremental investments, practical engineering solutions, and emerging modal integration. One of the most visible innovations was the introduction of mobile dockside cranes in major European ports such as London, Hamburg, and Antwerp. These cranes were adapted to lift small-to-medium containers, typically between 1.5 and 3 metres in length, from rail wagons directly onto cargo vessels or vice versa. While initially used for specific cargo categories such as household removals, textiles, or perishables, the availability of such lifting equipment created new possibilities for synchronised rail–sea operations. These early port adaptations reflected a growing awareness of the benefits of unitised cargo handling, including faster turnaround times, reduced labour requirements, and decreased risk of damage or theft. |
| In inland environments, where fixed infrastructure was often limited or absent, railway companies and logistics operators employed truck-mounted cranes, winches, and hoists to manage container movements. These mobile lifting devices enabled flexible transfer of containers at smaller depots and freight yards, allowing intermodal operations to extend beyond major urban nodes. The deployment of such technologies was critical to the feasibility of door-to-door services, particularly in the British context, where companies like LMS and Pickfords operated integrated road–rail systems. Importantly, this period also witnessed the gradual institutionalisation of container handling routines. While containerised cargo remained a small fraction of total freight volume, ports and terminals began incorporating container movements into their standard cargo workflows, often prioritising high-value or time-sensitive goods. This evolution required technical adaptation and organisational coordination among multiple actors in the supply chain. |
| Indeed, one of the era’s most significant yet understated developments was the emergence of multi-actor logistical cooperation. Railway companies, road hauliers, port authorities, shipping agents, and cargo owners began to collaborate, albeit informally and often inconsistently, to synchronise the movement of containers across different transport modes. This shift represented an early move toward intermodal governance despite the absence of unified regulatory frameworks or digital tracking systems. The coordination challenges were considerable, given the institutional fragmentation and national particularities of infrastructure ownership and service provision, but the underlying impulse toward intermodalism was taking shape. The interwar period marked Europe’s infrastructural and organisational genesis of container-based freight handling. Though constrained by the technology of the time, these innovations laid critical groundwork for the post-war container revolution, demonstrating that even modest adaptations could catalyse transformative shifts in cargo logistics. |
| |
| 3.6. Barriers to Scale: The Limits of Early Freight Unitisation |
| While lift vans and early freight containers marked a significant conceptual breakthrough in logistics, pioneering cargo unitisation, mechanical handling, and intermodal transfer, they were ultimately constrained by a combination of practical and systemic limitations. These early systems served as important precursors to modern containerisation but lacked the standardisation and scalability to evolve into globally integrated solutions. Their shortcomings explain why they laid the intellectual groundwork without becoming direct technological predecessors to the ISO container era. One of the most critical design flaws was non-stackability. Most early units, typically 1.5 to 3 metres long and constructed from timber or hybrid wood-steel materials, lacked corner castings or reinforced frames to support stacking. This posed significant challenges, especially in maritime contexts, where vertical storage in ship holds and on decks is essential for space efficiency. The inability to stack reduced cargo density, complicated terminal layouts, and limited compatibility with automated handling systems. |
| The lack of standardisation was closely tied to this and perhaps the most significant systemic constraint. Early containers varied widely in size, construction materials, lifting fittings, and load capacities. Without uniform standards, interoperability between transport companies, regions, and modes was severely restricted. A container suited to one railway or port might be unusable in another, resulting in logistical bottlenecks, extra handling, and infrastructure misalignment. Without agreed norms, infrastructure investments could not be standardised, and the cost efficiencies of scale remained unrealised. Infrastructure mismatch further hindered the effectiveness of early intermodal systems. While some terminals introduced mobile cranes and Conflat wagons, the broader logistics network remained designed for breakbulk cargo. Railcars, lorries, and ships were not systematically adapted to handle unitised freight, leading to frequent incompatibilities with lifting gear and loading mechanisms. Manual handling and improvised solutions remained common, especially outside major hubs, undermining the efficiency gains unitised systems were meant to provide. |
| These challenges were exacerbated by limited integration with maritime shipping. However, ports such as London, Hamburg, and Antwerp began experimenting with container-compatible equipment, and sea freight operations largely retained breakbulk practices. Containers remained confined to land-based transport, with no systemic adaptation of shipping infrastructure to support seamless intermodal transfer. As a result, early containers failed to form part of a continuous global logistics chain. Finally, the modest scale of deployment further restricted their impact. Usage was primarily limited to niche markets: household removals for military, diplomatic, or expatriate personnel; light commercial freight such as furniture and textiles; and some colonial or military logistics. High-volume industrial goods and perishables continued to rely on traditional handling methods. Without broader market penetration, early intermodal units could not reach the critical mass required to transform freight practices on a global scale. |
| In sum, lift vans and their European counterparts introduced foundational principles, unitisation, mode transferability, reduced handling, and cargo protection, which would later define containerisation. However, they could not deliver the cost efficiency, reliability, or scalability demanded by expanding 20th-century trade flows. Their limitations in stackability, standardisation, infrastructure compatibility, maritime integration, and commercial reach ultimately curtailed their transformative potential. However, these constraints also clarified what a truly global system would require, standards and infrastructure later realised through the ISO container and the global intermodal freight network that emerged in the post-war era. |
| |
| 3.7. Legacy and Influence of Early Unitised Freight Systems |
| Although lift vans and early freight containers were constrained by limited technology, fragmented infrastructure, and the absence of universal standards, their conceptual impact on the evolution of freight logistics was profound. These early efforts served as critical experimental platforms and proof-of-concept models that informed the design of later innovations, notably the ISO container of the 1950s. Despite their modest scale and practical limitations, they bridged the gap between traditional breakbulk cargo and the modern, intermodal container system that would redefine global trade. |
| One of their most important contributions was the operationalisation of cargo unitisation. The lift van enabled logistics providers to consolidate loose consignments, such as furniture, textiles, and machinery parts, into single transportable units. This significantly reduced the number of handling events, improved cargo integrity, and laid the groundwork for unit loads and modular freight design concepts. Closely related was the principle of intermodal compatibility. Even though early lift vans and rail containers varied in size and construction, they demonstrated that cargo could, in principle, move across road, rail, and sea without unpacking and repacking at each modal interface. The insight that a single freight unit could travel end-to-end with the help of cranes, forklifts, and specially designed wagons marked a significant departure from the segmented modal logic of earlier systems and set the stage for the seamless intermodal flows achieved through standardisation in later decades. |
| Just as transformative was the shift toward minimising handling events. Adopting a ‘pack once, move intact, unpack at destination’ approach, early unitised systems addressed one of the most persistent inefficiencies of breakbulk logistics: the constant rehandling of individual packages. Each handling event carried risks of breakage, theft, or delay. Lift vans and early rail containers introduced a streamlined logic centred on minimal intervention and maximum cargo integrity, an ethos still embedded in modern logistics systems. These ideas found concrete institutional expression during the interwar years, particularly with the growth of Europe’s rail container systems. Though relatively modest in scale and technological sophistication, they proved that unitised transport could improve terminal efficiency, reduce dwell times, and enhance cargo security. Containers sealed at the point of origin and transferred intact to their destination translated into tangible service-level and economic gains, particularly for sectors such as household removals, perishables, and light industrial goods. |
| However, limitations persisted. Most units remained small, non-stackable, and incompatible across different national networks. Standardisation was fragmented, with each railway authority developing proprietary designs. Integration with maritime shipping remained minimal, and infrastructure, especially outside major hubs, was rarely adapted to accommodate unitised handling. These barriers curtailed the scalability and interconnectivity needed for a broader logistics transformation. To address these challenges, the establishment of the Bureau International des Conteneurs (BIC) in Paris in 1933 marked a key milestone. As the first international body dedicated to container standardisation, the BIC sought to harmonise container dimensions and materials, develop uniform handling procedures, and promote container reuse across borders. Its agenda anticipated many priorities that would later define the ISO container movement. However, the economic constraints of the Great Depression and the global upheaval of World War II stalled these early efforts. |
| Nevertheless, the institutional groundwork laid by the BIC proved critical. When post-war technological advancements in materials, logistics planning, and lifting systems converged in the 1950s and 1960s, they did so upon the conceptual and operational foundation built during the interwar period. The revival of the BIC after the war helped shape the international standards that underpinned the global container revolution. In retrospect, the early lift vans and European rail containers did not deliver scalable global solutions, but they validated the essential principles of unitisation, intermodalism, minimal handling, and system integration. These foundational insights would become the bedrock of modern containerised logistics. Far from being historical curiosities, these early systems formed the intellectual and operational prototype for the container age, offering a lasting legacy that continues to shape how the world moves goods today. |
| |
4. World War II, the CONEX Box, and the Military Foundations of Containerisation |
| While the early decades of the 20th century saw the conceptual emergence of containerised freight through commercial and railway-based systems, it was during the Second World War and its immediate aftermath that container logistics experienced a decisive and transformative evolution. This transformation was not driven by market competition or industrial modernisation but rather by the extreme logistical demands of global warfare. The ability to deliver vast volumes of military supplies, food, weapons, vehicles, fuel, and medical equipment across multiple continents and battlefronts necessitated the development of faster, safer, and more efficient transport methods. Out of this urgency arose container innovations that would later become foundational to modern intermodal systems. |
| World War II was a battle of tactics, armaments, and a logistical campaign of immense complexity. For the Allied forces, particularly the United States, military success hinged on the capacity to project and sustain operations across vast and dispersed theatres of war, Europe, North Africa, and the Pacific. Combat victories were inextricably tied to efficiently mobilising and delivering vast resources, including ammunition, food rations, fuel, vehicles, construction materials, and medical supplies. These materials had to be transported across extended, multimodal supply chains involving road, rail, sea, and air and delivered to often harsh, insecure, and underdeveloped environments, from the beaches of Normandy and the deserts of North Africa to the remote islands of the Pacific. |
| The logistical challenge was unprecedented in both scale and urgency. Initially, the United States military relied on conventional breakbulk cargo handling, wherein goods were packed in wooden crates, barrels, or sacks and manually loaded and unloaded at every transfer node. While familiar with peacetime commerce, this system quickly proved inadequate under the pressures of total war. Excessive handling at multiple transhipment points caused significant delays and frequent cargo damage. The lack of standardised packaging and documentation procedures led to rampant loss, theft, and misplacement, particularly at overcrowded ports and temporary depots operating under combat stress. Labour shortages exacerbated the problem, as many trained dockworkers had been conscripted, leaving critical logistics nodes understaffed. Compounding these issues, the sheer volume and diversity of cargo rendered inventory tracking and coordination nearly impossible, often slowing the timely delivery of vital supplies to the front lines. |
| In response to the severe logistical inefficiencies exposed during World War II, particularly those associated with breakbulk freight handling, the United States Army Transport Corps began exploring more effective cargo consolidation and movement methods. The war had revealed that repeated manual handling, lack of standardisation, and vulnerability to loss, damage, and theft rendered traditional freight systems unsustainable under the pressures of global conflict. In the 1940s, the experimental use of modular containers, namely the transporter (see Figure 4), emerged as a practical solution, marking a critical step toward integrated, high-efficiency logistics. These early prototypes were developed to withstand the rigours of military transport while significantly reducing manual handling delays. Their use at ports and depots helped streamline supply chains, limit pilferage, and improve cargo tracking and operational planning. Though rudimentary by modern standards, these containers foreshadowed the rise of containerisation as a cornerstone of military and commercial logistics. The ability to manage mass cargo movement efficiently under extreme conditions contributed decisively to Allied success and catalysed a fundamental shift in supply chain thinking. |
| |
| Figure 5: The Transporter |
 |
| Source: Pennine Waterways (2025) |
| |
| This trajectory culminated in the early 1950s with the introduction of the Container Express, or CONEX box, during the Korean War (see Figure 6). Representing a significant leap in logistical capability, the CONEX box was built from all-steel welded panels to ensure superior durability and environmental protection. Unlike traditional wooden crates or sacks, it resisted moisture, rot, fire, and extreme temperatures, safeguarding supplies from United Sates-based origin points to forward-deployed bases under hostile conditions. With standard dimensions of approximately 8 feet in length, 6.75 feet in width, and 6.25 feet in height, and a half-sized variant for added flexibility, the CONEX box was designed for spatial efficiency and ease of handling. Each full-sized unit could carry up to 9,000 pounds (around 4,100 kilograms) of supplies, accommodating a broad range of logistical needs, from ammunition and spare parts to medical kits and foodstuffs. |
| Multimodal functionality was central to the CONEX design. Equipped with lifting rings and integrated skids, the box could be seamlessly transferred between ships, railcars, flatbed trucks, and cranes without unpacking cargo at each node. While it lacked the robust corner castings and high stackability of the ISO container introduced in the 1950s, CONEX units could still be stacked two-high, improving storage and shipboard efficiency. For the first time, it became possible to pack cargo once at origin and deliver it directly to the point of use without repackaging, an innovation captured in the principle of ‘stuff once, move many’. |
| At the heart of the CONEX system was the principle of unitisation: the consolidation of diverse cargo into a single, manageable unit. This dramatically reduced loading and unloading times, minimised labour demands, and improved predictability in cargo flows across long-distance and complex supply chains. The system also offered a new standard of security in freight movement. Its enclosed, lockable design protected goods from theft and tampering, while its robust structure preserved cargo integrity even in the most demanding environments. Equally transformative was its emphasis on intermodal compatibility. Unlike previous systems that required rehandling at each modal shift, the CONEX box could be transferred intact across multiple platforms. This seamless integration laid the foundation for the intermodal supply chain, enabling end-to-end cargo movement with minimal human intervention and delay. Its reusability further distinguished it from traditional packaging systems. The steel construction allowed for multiple shipping cycles, spreading capital costs and reducing packaging waste. This not only delivered economic benefits but also introduced an early awareness of sustainability in freight logistics, an issue that would grow in importance in later decades. |
| |
| Figure 6: A CONEX Box being hoisted onto an United States Army truck |
 |
| Source: Wikipedia (2025) |
| |
| Most crucially, the CONEX system embedded the principle of standardisation into freight handling. Codifying dimensions, lifting protocols, and operational procedures optimised transport infrastructure and equipment around a repeatable cargo format. This created the conditions necessary for scalability, interoperability, and automation, three pillars of the modern container era. Though smaller and structurally less advanced than the ISO containers that would follow, the CONEX box established the strategic and logistical framework upon which global containerisation would be built. It marked not merely a tactical wartime innovation but a paradigm shift that would reshape civilian freight systems and define the future of international trade. |
| Although conceived as a wartime innovation, the CONEX box successfully validated the broader containerisation principles and directly influenced the development of commercial intermodal container systems in the following decades. In this way, the CONEX box served as a tactical asset in mid-20th-century warfare and a precursor to the global standardisation of freight transport that would revolutionise international trade. The operational deployment of the CONEX box rapidly transformed the logistical capabilities of the United States military, establishing a new benchmark for efficiency, reliability, and adaptability in wartime supply chains. As the system gained traction during the Korean War, its strategic utility became increasingly evident, enhancing day-to-day operational logistics and enabling a broader reconfiguration of military supply doctrine. |
| Speed was the most immediately noticeable advantage. With cargo pre-packed at the origin and sealed into durable, uniform containers, the sorting, repacking, and manual transhipment at intermediate nodes’ time-consuming processes were largely eliminated. This significantly accelerated delivery schedules, improved turn-around times at critical transfer points such as ports and railheads and enabled faster replenishment of front-line units. In an operational context where timing could determine the success of a mission, the time saved through containerisation was strategically invaluable. Security was another significant benefit. The CONEX box’s sealed, lockable design reduced opportunities for theft, loss, or tampering, common problems in wartime supply chains, especially where cargo passed through multiple jurisdictions or congested depots. The enhanced control over cargo integrity reduced material waste and bolstered operational readiness by ensuring critical supplies reached their intended recipients without compromise. |
| The container’s durability further reinforced its value. Built from all-steel, weather-resistant materials, CONEX boxes protected their contents from environmental degradation across a range of extreme conditions, from the humid jungles of Southeast Asia to the cold and dusty landscapes of the Korean Peninsula. This weatherproofing eliminated the need for extensive additional packaging or on-site cargo protection, reducing logistical overheads and conserving resources. Moreover, the flexibility of the CONEX system extended its utility well beyond transport. On the ground, units were repurposed for various field applications, including temporary storage facilities, mobile workshops, equipment shelters, and even improvised command posts. This modularity allowed commanders to adapt their logistical infrastructure rapidly in response to changing battlefield conditions, something that traditional supply formats could not accommodate with the same ease. |
| Regarding efficiency, the CONEX box’s standardised dimensions and mechanical handling capabilities streamlined supply operations across the board. Labour requirements were significantly reduced, easing the pressure of wartime human resources shortages. Furthermore, the consistency of container sizes facilitated better space utilisation in warehouses and transport vehicles, simplifying cargo tracking and inventory management. This systematisation laid the groundwork for more sophisticated logistics planning and coordination in future military campaigns. By the end of the Korean War, the United States military had deployed over 100,000 CONEX boxes, making it the most extensive and sophisticated implementation of containerised logistics in the world at that time. This achievement represented a triumph of wartime innovation and served as a powerful proof of concept for the viability of container-based freight transport in both military and civilian contexts. The operational success of the CONEX box demonstrated how strategic logistics when underpinned by technological innovation, could become a decisive force multiplier in modern warfare. |
| Although the CONEX box was conceived as a wartime innovation, its long-term impact extended far beyond the military domain. It served as a critical prototype for what would become the foundation of the modern global freight system. By offering a proven, large-scale demonstration of unitised logistics in action, the CONEX system validated the principles of standardisation, modularity, intermodality, and mechanised handling, concepts that would soon revolutionise civilian supply chains and international trade. The operational use of CONEX boxes during the Korean War provided several compelling lessons that captured the attention of logistics professionals, engineers, and transport entrepreneurs. |
| First and foremost, the military’s experience showed that standardised cargo units significantly reduced transit delays by minimising manual handling, improving compatibility across different modes of transport (land, sea, and rail), and enabling more efficient planning and scheduling. This cross-modal consistency created a truly integrated logistics network, a concept previously hindered by the fragmented nature of cargo systems and the labour-intensive demands of breakbulk shipping. Second, the CONEX system demonstrated that infrastructure could be purpose-built or adapted to accommodate containerised freight. Mechanised equipment such as cranes, forklifts, flatbed trucks, and railcars could be optimised to handle containers quickly and safely, significantly increasing throughput at ports, terminals, and warehouses. The insight that handling speed and standardised interfaces could unlock enormous operational efficiencies became central to the future development of commercial freight terminals. Third, using durable, reusable steel containers dramatically reduced packaging waste and labour costs. Traditional breakbulk cargo required significant repacking and protective materials at every journey stage. In contrast, modular containers offered cost savings by preserving cargo integrity over multiple movements, reducing the need for repetitive labour and consumables. This also opened possibilities for streamlined inventory systems and better environmental outcomes, a consideration that would grow in importance in later decades. |
| These transformative insights were carried into the civilian sector by former military personnel, engineers, and contractors who had worked with the CONEX system. Their experience directly informed the ambitions of a new generation of logistics innovators. The CONEX box showed to be more than a temporary wartime innovation; it was the precursor to the modern intermodal container, serving as a pivotal proof of concept that reshaped the logistical imagination of both military and commercial sectors. In retrospect, the legacy of the CONEX box lies in its role as a transitional technology, bridging the gap between fragmented, labour-intensive freight practices and the streamlined, integrated systems that define global logistics today. It demonstrated that cargo could be moved faster, safer, and more economically through unitisation and standardisation, inspiring a revolution extending beyond the military to virtually every sector of the global economy. Indeed, the CONEX system laid the strategic and technological foundation for the following containerisation movement. This movement redefined international trade flows, restructured global production networks, and catalysed the rapid expansion of globalisation in the second half of the 20th century. In this sense, the CONEX box was not just a tool of war logistics; it was a catalyst of global economic transformation. |
| |
References |
| Cartwright, M. (2025). Amphorae Packed for Transportation. The World History Encyclopedia, 25 August 2016. Retrieved from https://www.worldhistory.org/image/5525/amphorae-packed-for-transportation/ [accessed 09 June 2025]. |
| Idaho Storage Containers (2025). History and Development of the Conex. Idaho Storage Containers. Retrieved from https://www.idahostoragecontainers.com/History_of_the_Conex.htm [accessed 09 June 2025]. |
| Pennine Waterways (2025). Worsley Delph and Underground Canals. Pennine Waterways. Retrieved from https://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/bridgewater/worsleydelph.htm [accessed 09 June 2025] |
| Ripley, D. (1993). The Little Eaton Gangway and Derby Canal. Oakwood Press. |
| Strom White Movers (2025). Lift Vans - Warehouse. Strom White Movers. Retrieved from https://stromwhitemovers.com/lift-vans-warehouse/ [accessed 09 June 2025]. |
| Wikipedia (2025). Conex Box. Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conex_box [accessed 09 June 2025]. |
| Unknown Author (1927). Queens Wharf, Port Adelaide, before 1927.jpeg. State Library of South Australia. Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Queens_Wharf,_Port_Adelaide,_before_1927.jpeg [accessed 09 June 2025] |
| |
Note |
| This text was simultaneously published on LinkedIn. |
| |
About the Author |
| Ana Casaca was, first and foremost, a Deck Officer responsible for navigational watches. Being at sea gave her a thorough perspective of the operational side of the shipping industry. She holds a B.Sc. (Honours) in Management and Maritime Technologies from Escola Nautica Infante D. Henrique (Portuguese Nautical school), an MSc in International Logistics from the University of Plymouth and a PhD in International Transport/Logistics from the University of Wales-Cardiff. Next, she became an Experienced Lecturer, Researcher and Peer Reviewer in Maritime Economics and Logistics. In between, numerous functions and roles. For 20 years, she has been an External Expert for the European Commission, evaluating R&D/CEF proposals within the scope of maritime transport. In parallel, she has carried out other projects. She has delivered training and has been invited, since 2002, to peer review academic papers submitted to well-known international Journals. She is the author of several research papers published in well-known academic journals and member of some journals’ editorial boards, namely, Maritime Business Review Associate Editor, Journal of International Logistics Editorial Board Member, Universal Journal of Management Editorial Board Member, Frontiers in Future Transportation Review Editor, and Journal of Shipping and Trade Guest Editor. She is also the founder and owner of ‘World of Shipping Portugal’ a website initiative established in 2018 focused on maritime economics. In addition, she is a Member of the Research Centre on Modelling and Optimisation of Multifunctional Systems (CIMOSM, ISEL), Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers (ICS) and Member of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME). Beyond my professional achievements, she is deeply committed to holistic well-being and creative expression. She is an avid practitioner of Yoga, Pilates, and Tai Chi/Chi Kung, and a passionate traveller with a keen appreciation for the arts. Her interests extend to sewing and the sensory world of scents, which she explores by creating crafted cosmetics. This passion for creativity and mindful living led her to found Earth & Soul, a project devoted to wellness, artistic expression, and soul-nourishing content to pursue a meaningful and balanced life. All these elements bring her on the quest for creativity, always with the expectation of doing something extraordinary! |
| |
| This work was written from the core and refined with intellect. It stands as a contribution of lived experience, conscious thought, and unwavering clarity. |
| |
|
| |
| Top of the page |
| |
|
|
