Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

thezvi.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 316 posts

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#101

Post by dcow »

ajmurmann wrote: post #75
ChuckMcM wrote: post #65

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the 'stacking rule' meant that people with more empties than they could stack 2 high on their property were "storing" empties on trailer chassis that carry one container. As I understood it, by letting them stack empties higher, it freed up trailers to be used by trucks to go get containers out of the port. When that happens the port then wants empties to…

From Ryan Peterson's description, it was more that there was no space left to unload full containers from ships or empties from trucks to then pick up a full one from the ship. In essence container grid lock.

Yep. Both the rx and tx buffers were full and the port was dropping packets. (There were both container ships waiting to offload and trucks waiting to offload full and empty containers, respectively.) Now that buffer size has been increased, there is more bandwidth to available to actually move containers. Since the spike is temporary, the problem has gone away. If we were permanently faced with more containers then, yes, we'd need another port.

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#102

Post by erlapso »

saas_sam wrote: post #86
revel wrote: post #71

This article is ridiculous. "It's so easy but nobody expected it to happen!" Most of freight is run off spreadsheets and over the phone or by email. Flexport is built around digitization and optimization. Half of the appeal of their product is that it gives customers improved visibility! It's therefore not surprising that a local city mayor didn't realize he had the power to unclog the US traffic jam. Referring to hi…

Flexport's technology had nothing to do with this, though. The CEO literally took a boat ride around the bay and looked at what was happening + talked to some people. He did the thing everyone assumes public officials do, but who clearly are not doing.

But the CEO has a different level of understanding of logistics compared to the major. They may be looking at the same port, but they see different things. The CEO saw bottlenecks like Neo sees the Matrix

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#103

Post by datameta »

oasisbob wrote: post #72
datameta wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can get pretty far with passive solutions like internal and external insulation and painting the outside white. Burying them halfway into the ground would also give great benefits (albeit the trickier of the options) Perhaps we can even cover the roof with sod where available. May only need a minimal power active A/C.

The price of high quality paint, insulation, structural reinforcements, and exterior drainage sounds expensive. I've never messed with containers because digging yourself out of the thermal hole of starting with a metal box still doesn't sound worth it.

Structural reinforcement is unnecessary - they can be stacked half a dozen high safely. A bit of back of the envelope tells me the cost of paint to coat the exterior of a standard 2 story suburban house is about $1500, so I estimate painting a 40 foot container should be about $400 max. Insulation should be about $1K. I imagine for drainage a buried septic tank is the best solution here.

I think the cost to retrofit an otherwise sound but unwanted container is less than the cost to purchase a used one. That is orders of magnitude lower than the cost to erect "standard" solutions to the housing problem.

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#104

Post by s1artibartfast »

bombcar wrote: post #70
irrational wrote: post #62

I’ve seen this kind of thing happen at companies. There is a serious problem that all the lower level people know about, but nobody says anything to the higher ups because nobody wants to be seen as a troublemaker and potentially lose their job. Everyone assumes that eventually it will become so bad that the higher ups will notice. That rarely happens in my experience. Instead things become bad and the solution is la…

This is where big money consultants make their money. They come in and tell everyone what they already knew in a way that lets everyone pretend is was magically discovered.

To be fair, many big money consultants are very clear about this.

Often times the goal is to simply provide information to senior management that middle management isn't giving them.

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#105

Post by smileysteve »

joshgachnang wrote: post #60
aeternum wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing a buffer size can also make it look like the problem is solved temporarily when you really have a rate issue. It seems that filled containers are coming in at a faster rate than empty containers are going out. We've increased the buffer for empty containers at the dock but did we address the outgoing rate problem? Why wouldn't the buffer just fill again? I wonder if we've reached a point where manufacturin…

On a long enough timeframe and nothing else changing, yes it would just fill up. Realistically, it gives them breathing room to get the rest of the rate up. I am curious what the costs of making a new container and recycling the old instead of shipping them back is. Trade isn't symmetrical. I assume shipping them back is cheap because otherwise the ships are going back nearly empty, so it's almost free to ship them b…

I've read anecdotes that China is making new containers instead of accepting old containers. This could be because buffers aren't getting them back in time or because China needed a new market for steel

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#106

Post by kqr »

nostrademons wrote: post #76
sleibrock wrote: post #7

In Factorio design this is simply increasing the buffer size. If the truck-loadings-per-hour don't increase then it's not going to matter how large you make the buffer. Adding a secondary site for putting containers also seems like it's going to be a new challenge for the logistics company scheduling the rides (I have a friend who deals with train cargo scheduling). Truckers who are used to showing up at the port are…

You could also look at it as putting down a storage chest so that you can run down a belt and pick up all the items that shouldn't be there, or sticking a chest next to your un-barreling factory while you work out how to get a return train back to the barreling factory, or putting down some fuel tanks to hold light/heavy oil while you research advanced oil processing (before the basic oil change). I'm skeptical that…

I'm skeptical that it will increase observability. Buffering tends to hide problems, not reveal them. We know what the bottleneck is (getting empty containers off a critical location, as far as I understand.) Adding more empty containers to this critical location will not increase our ability to solve the problem, it will put off the problem into the future while simultaneously making it worse.

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#108

Post by LeanderK »

dcow wrote: post #101
ajmurmann wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Ryan Peterson's description, it was more that there was no space left to unload full containers from ships or empties from trucks to then pick up a full one from the ship. In essence container grid lock.

Yep. Both the rx and tx buffers were full and the port was dropping packets. (There were both container ships waiting to offload and trucks waiting to offload full and empty containers, respectively.) Now that buffer size has been increased, there is more bandwidth to available to actually move containers. Since the spike is temporary, the problem has gone away. If we were permanently faced with more containers then,…

wow, i was a bit confused after reading the article but your buffer analogy immediately made sense!

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#109

Post by BitLit »

Apropos the importance of building new container shipping ports in places that don’t have land scarcity, traffic, and well organized NIMBYs? Let me introduce you to the port of Prince Rupert in northern British Columbia.

The port of Prince Rupert has 5 (as in “can be counted on one hand”) berths and transfers 1.2M containers per year.

The port of Long Beach has 80 (yes, eight-zero!!!) berths and only transfers 8.1M containers per year.

Long Beach transfers 100k containers per berth per year. Prince Rupert transfers 240k containers per berth per year.

Re: An unexpected victory: container stacking at the port of Los Angeles

#110

Post by mzs »

saas_sam wrote: post #86
revel wrote: post #71

This article is ridiculous. "It's so easy but nobody expected it to happen!" Most of freight is run off spreadsheets and over the phone or by email. Flexport is built around digitization and optimization. Half of the appeal of their product is that it gives customers improved visibility! It's therefore not surprising that a local city mayor didn't realize he had the power to unclog the US traffic jam. Referring to hi…

Flexport's technology had nothing to do with this, though. The CEO literally took a boat ride around the bay and looked at what was happening + talked to some people. He did the thing everyone assumes public officials do, but who clearly are not doing.

I'm pretty sure the CEO knew beforehand and crafted a narrative.
Post reply on HN