Correction log
Yuri Kan Updated
Every figure or statement this site published wrong and has put right: the page, what it said, what it says now and the day the fix went out, newest first. A page made better is not listed here, and the releases of the open dataset are in its changelog.
How a correction is asked for, checked and published is on the about page.
162 corrections on 84 pages · first · latest
Corrections in October 2026
The 21 US pallets in a 40 ft go in two staggered lanes, each turning its pallets at the opposite end from the other; we said one band lengthwise and one turned, which gives 20. The page now draws that layout (the size chart said it drew both; it drew only the EUR one) and says why some tables print 20. The Russian page also said the 1200 × 1000 pallet is staggered in a 40 ft: it goes in bands, 22.
The 10 US pallets in a 20 ft go in two staggered lanes of five; the page said every count came from a band search, which gives 9. It now draws the layout and says why some tables print 9.
Every figure checked, 18–19 October 2026
155 corrections on 84 pages, from one check of every container figure on the site against the published sheets. They are grouped by section of the site; each entry has its own date.
Container sizes 18
The typical tare of the 40 ft is 3,700 kg (we said 3,640) and its payload 28,800 kg (we said 28,860), on the 32,500 kg rating: under the stricter count of the published sheets, 3,700 kg is the figure most of them print.
The 40 ft page said a tilt-bed delivery needs about 30 m of straight clearance; dealers' delivery pages print 120 ft (about 37 m), and the page now says so. It also put roughly 250–280 washing machines in cartons in one box, a figure with no source and more than its 67.7 m³ holds; it has been removed.
We said a 40 ft container carries less cargo than a 20 ft: 26,740 kg against 28,250 kg, on a 30,480 kg rating. We checked every figure of every container against the published sheets of 27 lines, lessors and makers. Most of today's 40 ft boxes are rated 32,500 kg gross, so a 40 ft carries about 28,860 kg, only about 600 kg more than a 20 ft for twice the volume; older boxes rated 30,480 kg carry about 26,600 kg, which is less. Its typical tare is 3,640 kg, not 3,740.
The Russian size pages (10, 20, 40, 40 HC, 45, 48 and 53 ft) gave inside sizes and doors in feet and inches rounded to the whole inch in their text and questions (7′9″ wide, 39′6″ and 44′6″ long), while the tables beside them gave the half inch (7′8½″, 39′5½″, 44′5½″). The text now gives every figure to the half inch, as the tables do: 7′8½″ wide, 9′3½″ inside the 10 ft, 8′2½″ inside the 48 ft, 52′6½″ × 9′1½″ inside the 53 ft.
The Spanish 20 ft page gave a one-trip 20 ft as $2,500–4,000; the price data says $2,800–4,400, which the English and Russian pages already said, and the figure now comes from the price data. The page also gave about 200 moving boxes; it now gives the load planner's count, about 270 medium boxes of 60 × 40 × 40 cm. The French page gave the outside length of 6.058 m as 20′; it is 19′10½″, and the 20 ft high cube's height is now 2.896 m, as the sheets print it, not 2.90 m.
The 10 ft container's size-type code was given as 10G1. In ISO 6346 the second character 0 means a box 8 ft (2,438 mm) tall, and this box is 8 ft 6 in (2,591 mm) tall, which is code 2. None of the four makers' sheets read prints a code. The code is now 12G1, on the page, in the container sheet, in the pack and in /data.
The 10 ft page gave one count of agreeing sheets for all its dimensions. The outside height and the inside width and height read 4 of 4 sheets, the inside length 3 of 4, and each now has its own clause, the floor-area answer included.
We wrote that a new 10 ft container can cost nearly as much as a 20 ft one; our price data shows it costs more than a 20 ft of the same grade, and the page now says so. The parking-space answer gave a standard bay as about 5 × 2.5 m and said the box fits comfortably. We have no source for that bay size, and many bays are narrower than the box's 2.438 m; the answer now says the bay must be at least 2.438 m (8′) wide and that the box needs about 4.2 m of length with its doors open.
We first set the 10 ft tare at 1,200 kg on two sheets; four more makers' sheets read the same day put it at 1,300 kg (sheets print 1,200–1,480), so its payload is 8,860 kg, not 8,960, and its door 2,340 mm wide, not 2,336.
The span of inside lengths the sheets print for the 53 ft container ran to 16,154 mm on eight sheets. That top figure is Crowley's, and it is the box's outside length (53 ft, the same figure on its exterior line) printed in the inside column. It is now kept as read but left out, so the span is 15,951–16,027 mm on seven sheets, in the line under the table, the mark beside the figure, the data-sources ledger, llms.txt and /data.
The door paragraph said the 53 ft doors clear anything that fits inside. By the dataset the door is 3 cm narrower and 6 cm lower than the inside, so the door limits what goes in, and the page now says so.
The 53 ft and 48 ft domestic containers had the inside height, width and door of an ISO high cube copied in: 2,697 mm high and 2,500 mm wide inside. The sheets of Union Pacific, CN, STG, Sea Box, Trailer Bridge, Crowley and TOTE give a 53 ft about 2,781 mm high, 2,515 mm wide and 16,017 mm long inside, a door about 2,489 × 2,718 mm, 111.8 m³ and a tare near 5,230 kg. The 48 ft now follows the one maker's sheet we found (Sea Box): door 2,491 × 2,585 mm, tare 4,950 kg.
The 40 ft high cube page said the majority of new 40 ft containers built today are 9′6″; no document we hold says so, and the sentence is gone. It said a high cube is known by a type code starting with 45; the mark is the second character, 5 (45G1, L5G1, against 42G1), and the yellow-and-black stripe on the top rail is optional. Its double-stacking limit gave only the door, about 1.29 m a pallet; it now also gives the inside limit, about 1.34 m, each as its arithmetic.
The 40 ft high cube tare was 3,900 kg and its payload 28,600 kg. Hapag-Lloyd prints 3,830 kg, and 10 of 19 sheets are within ±2 % of it; the tare is now 3,830 kg (8,444 lb) and the payload, the 32,500 kg rating less the tare, 28,670 kg (63,207 lb).
The truck-height answer said a high cube on a standard chassis stands 4.15–4.3 m and clears the '4.3 m limits common in North America and much of Asia'. It now gives about 4.12 m on a US gooseneck chassis (48 in deck) and 3.97 m on an EU low-bed chassis, against the documented limits: 4.11–4.27 m in most US States (FHWA), 4.0 m in the EU (Directive 96/53/EC), 4.15 m interprovincial in Canada, and 3.8 m in Japan (4.1 m on designated roads). The page said EUR pallets loaded to 1.34 m stack two-high 'with room to spare'; two such loads stand 2.68 m, taller than the 2.585 m door, so it now says each of two stacked loads may be up to about 1.29 m, pallet included (1.14 m in a standard forty).
The 45 ft high cube page gave 27 EUR and 24 US pallets as one source’s figures. The 27 is CMA CGM’s; the 24 is our layout of the inside floor. The FAQ now adds that CMA CGM gives 21 pallets of 1.2 × 1 m.
The pallet-wide 45 ft variant was described as 2.5 m wide inside and as matching a 13.6 m semi-trailer; CMA CGM's sheet gives 2,420 mm inside (about 2.42 m) and 33 EUR pallets per tier, and the trailer comparison, which had no source, was removed.
The French page said two US pallets side by side leave about 4 cm across a 48 ft container; the inside width (2,502 mm) less two 48-inch pallets (2 × 1,219 mm) leaves about 6 cm.
Container types 20
The typical tare of the 40 ft high cube reefer is 4,620 kg (we said 4,480) and its payload 29,380 kg (we said 29,520), on the 34,000 kg rating. A sheet that prints several series now counts only where at least half of them agree, and the maximum gross is compared exactly: it is 34,000 kg in most sheets, not a figure between the 34,000 and 35,000 kg ratings.
The 40 ft high cube reefer volume was 67.3 m³, one Hapag-Lloyd row that none of the agreeing sheets prints. 19 of 20 sheets agree on 67.5 m³ (2,384 ft³), which is also the inside 11,583 × 2,290 × 2,545 mm multiplied out; the reefer and insulated pages now give it.
The Spanish and Russian pages gave the load line of a 40 ft high cube reefer as about 2.5 m above the floor. The sheets we read print 2.380–2.474 m, and the pages now give that range.
The reefer page said the 40 ft high cube reefer holds 67.3 m³ below the load line; 67.3 m³ is the whole inside, and the sheets print the red load line 2,380–2,474 mm above the floor (2,150–2,211 mm in a 20 ft reefer).
Two reefer figures were off the published sheets: the 40 ft high cube reefer is 2,545 mm high inside (we said 2,554) and its door 2,567 mm (we said 2,557); the 20 ft reefer is 5,454 × 2,263 mm long and high inside, with a typical tare of 2,980 kg (we said 5,444, 2,276 and 3,080). The load lines are unchanged.
/data/containers.json gave the tank container inside dimensions, and the tables called its figure a volume. A tank has no inside to load: /data now gives internal as null, as the CSV already did, and every table and sheet calls the figure the tank's capacity.
The fill rule was given as 80–95 % full. The UN Model Regulations (4.2.1.9) say this: a shell may not travel more than 20 % but less than 80 % full unless it is divided into sections of 7,500 litres or less. The top limit is 97 % less the liquid's expansion, or 95 % less it for toxic and corrosive liquids of packing groups I and II. Heated cargo has a flat 95 % limit. ITCO recommends 95 %.
The 20 ft tank's sheet and letter no longer give inside dimensions or a floor area: a tank has no inside to measure, so a dash replaces them.
The tank page gave a tare of 3,600–4,400 kg and capacities of 21,000–26,000 litres; the published sheets print a tare of 3,040–3,920 kg and capacities of 20,000–26,000 litres, most often 25,000.
The high cube page gave 1.34 m as the tallest loaded pallet that goes two high, half the inside height, as if it were the only limit. A pair stacked before loading has to pass the 2.585 m door, about 1.29 m a pallet; the page now gives both limits as their arithmetic. It also said ocean rates for a high cube are normally those of a standard box; it now says lines often quote the two at the same rate and to ask for both.
The page said a 9′6″ box on a standard chassis can exceed 4.3–4.4 m road height limits, and that insulation leaves under 2.2 m of headroom in a standard box and 2.4–2.5 m in a high cube; no document gives those limits or headroom figures. It now gives the EU's 4.0 m limit (Directive 96/53/EC), the 4.11–4.27 m most US states allow (FHWA) and a low-bed chassis deck of 1.075 m (Schmitz Cargobull), and states the headroom difference as the 305 mm between the two inside heights.
The double door boxes were given the volumes of the plain dry boxes, 33.2 m³ and 76.4 m³, which neither sheet behind them prints. The 20 ft double door holds 32.9 m³, as Triton and Sea Box print it; the 40 ft high cube double door 76.1 m³, between Triton's 76.0 and Sea Box's 76.2.
The double door containers were given a dry box's inside length; their second set of doors takes some of it. Both makers' sheets give 5,844 mm in the 20 ft and 11,978 mm in the 40 ft high cube, which also leaves room for 24 EUR pallets, not 25, in the 40 ft. Tares are 2,200 and 3,750 kg, and the 40 ft high cube double door is rated 30,480 kg gross in both sheets, not 32,500.
The FAQ’s reading of the code 22B0 did not match the ISO 6346 code table. It now reads it as the table gives it: B is the dry bulk group, non-pressurised and box-type, and 0 a closed box (1 would be airtight).
The bulk container page said every bulker empties through two discharge hatches in the door. Singamas and BISCO build theirs with one discharge door in the end; the two hatches on the door side are Hapag-Lloyd's units. The page now names each.
The page said only one current carrier sheet gives the ventilated container’s figures. Hapag-Lloyd’s current brochure has no ventilated page; the figures are Hapag-Lloyd’s as the GDV Transport Information Service tabulates them, and no other line publishes any. The page now credits them so. No figure changed.
The French page gave the outside length of a 20 ft as 20′; it is 19′10½″ (6,058 mm). The page now also gives the second series of Hapag-Lloyd's ventilated sheet (2,490 kg tare, 27,990 kg payload).
The flat rack lead gave one count of agreeing sheets for several figures. Each figure now has its own: the 20 ft deck 5 of 6 sheets, the 40 ft length 4 of 5 and height 11 of 12, the payloads 9 of 11 and 7 of 11. The price answer gave part of the two listings’ range; it now gives the full span ($4,575–6,300) and says one is a dealer and one a marketplace.
The lashing points on a flat rack were given as 2,000–5,000 kg each. The CTU Code asks for at least 30 kN per point (about 3,060 kg) and says 50 kN is common. We also removed 'four or five folded units in one slot', which no sheet supports. The page now gives the bundle limit as read in ГОСТ Р ИСО 1496-5-2012 (the Russian adoption of ISO 1496-5): one container's length and width, no higher than 2,591 mm.
The flat racks' inside dimensions (5,940 × 2,345 × 2,346 mm and 12,060 × 2,365 × 1,955 mm) matched no published sheet and did not say what they measured. They now give the deck length between the corner posts, the width over the side rails and the height to the top of the end wall, as most sheets do: 5,636 × 2,194 × 2,213 mm for the 20 ft and 11,652 × 2,374 × 1,955 mm for the 40 ft. The 40 ft's typical tare is 4,980 kg, not 5,480.
Guides 54
The EU road example now counts the tractor in running order — with fuel and driver, as the EU defines it (Regulation (EU) No 1230/2012: tanks 90 % full, a 75 kg driver): 7,196 kg instead of Volvo's 6,870 kg kerb weight without fuel or driver. A 20 ft under the 40 t limit is left about 25,600 kg of cargo, not 25,900 kg.
The road-limits section said that, once the tractor, chassis and tare are taken off, what is left for cargo is always well under a 20 ft box's 28 t rating. A Volvo tractor and a Schmitz Cargobull chassis leave about 25,900 kg under the EU's 40 t limit, but in combined transport (44 t) a 20 ft can be filled to its plate. The section now gives both figures and the US lines' 37,500–39,200 lb.
Pallets in a 20 ft container ·
The EU road figures now count the tractor in running order — with fuel and driver, as the EU defines it (Regulation (EU) No 1230/2012), so the tractor and chassis weigh about 12.2 t, not 11.8 t: a 20 ft is left about 25,600 kg of cargo under 40 t (was 25,900 kg) and 29,600 kg in combined transport (was 29,900 kg).
Pallets in a 20 ft container ·
The 20 ft pallet guide gave one height limit for double-stacking, 1.19 m a loaded pallet: half the inside height. A pair stacked on the dock and driven in has to pass the 2.280 m door, so for it the limit is 1.140 m. The guide now gives both: 1.140 m for a pair stacked before loading, 1.196 m when the top pallet is lifted on inside the box (half the 2.393 m inside).
Pallets in a 20 ft container ·
The pallets-in-a-20-ft guide gave about 19–20 t of cargo on US roads as our estimate; US lines print 37,500–39,200 lb (17.0–17.8 t) for a 20 ft on a standard chassis. On a 40 t EU vehicle the cargo is about 25,900 kg (about 29,900 kg at 44 t in combined transport). The French page also said 1200 × 1000 mm pallets fit 9 in a 20 ft, 8 in a 20 ft reefer and 21 in a 40 ft, and 42 × 42 in pallets 9 in a 20 ft reefer; staggered lanes fit 10, 9, 22 and 10, as the pallet calculator and the other languages give, and its 21 t on an EU articulated vehicle is now the same 25,900 kg.
Pallets in a 20 ft container ·
The EU road figure now takes off a tractor and chassis of about 12 t, as Volvo's and Schmitz Cargobull's sheets print them, instead of an estimated 15 t, so the cargo a 20 ft may carry on an EU road is about 3 t higher.
Pallets in a 40 ft container ·
The EU road figure now counts the tractor in running order — with fuel and driver, as the EU defines it (Regulation (EU) No 1230/2012): a 40 t articulated vehicle leaves about 24,100 kg of cargo in a 40 ft, not 24,500 kg.
Pallets in a 40 ft container ·
The 40 ft pallet guide gave the double-stacking limit as about 1.19 m a loaded pallet in a standard 40 ft and 1.34 m in a high cube, half the inside height. A pair stacked before loading has to pass the door, which allows 1.140 m and 1.292 m. The guide now gives both limits: half the door for a pair stacked before loading, half the inside height (1.196 m and 1.349 m) when the top pallet is lifted on inside.
Pallets in a 40 ft container ·
The 40 ft pallet guide now takes the payload per pallet, the road limits, the centre-of-gravity rule and the ISPM 15 treatment from the data and the documents read. The Russian page's EU estimate of about 25 t and an unsourced 26,500–26,800 kg are gone; the Spanish overhang count is 23, not 20; the French table's UK, 20 ft and 53 ft counts are 22, 10 and 32. The Spanish and Russian pages no longer say how Seaco's sheet counts.
Pallets in a 40 ft container ·
The EU road figure now takes off a tractor and chassis of about 12 t, as Volvo's and Schmitz Cargobull's sheets print them, instead of an estimated 15 t, so the cargo a 40 ft may carry on an EU road is about 3 t higher.
Container size chart (all 17) ·
The door-height table gave feet and inches to the quarter inch (a 20 ft door 7′5¾″, inside 7′10¼″) while the size pages give them to the half inch (7′6″, 7′10″); the table now uses the same half-inch rounding as every other page.
Container size chart (all 17) ·
The size chart said the 20 ft is 7′8½″ wide inside, "which tables round to 7′8½″", repeating the figure it meant to contrast. It now says that tables rounded to the whole inch print 7′9″, more than the box gives. The feet guide had the same slip with the 19′10½″ outside length; its whole-inch figure is 19′11″.
Container size chart (all 17) ·
The size chart drawing coloured the 48 ft and 53 ft as high cubes, by their 9′6″ height, under a legend that read "high cube, 9′6″". They are US domestic containers: they now have their own tint, the words "US domestic" beside their name and their own legend entry.
Container size chart (all 17) ·
The pallet counts of three boxes were neither a sheet's figure nor what their floors take. One tier on the inside floor, as the site counts every other box: the 10 ft takes 5 EUR and 4 US pallets (was 4 and 2; the only sheet we hold with a 10 ft count, HZ Containers' table, also gives 5 EUR), the 48 ft 36 EUR and 28 US (was 30 and 26), the 53 ft 40 EUR (was 33); its 30 US pallets are CN's sheet and stay.
Container size chart (all 17) ·
Further corrections on the chart page: local delivery of a 20 ft in the US is $400–800, not $350–750; a 20 ft takes 11 Euro pallets in a tier, against the 14 a floor 2,400 mm wide would take, not 12; a pallet-wide box is about 2,420 mm wide inside (one published sheet), not 2,440 mm, and the 2.50 m outside width, which had no source, is gone; special types weigh 1–63 % more empty than the dry box of their size, not 10–50 %; the Spanish, Russian and French pages gave a 20 ft's maximum gross mass as 30.4 t, where it is 30,480 kg. The volume and payload chart said a 40 ft carries less than a 20 ft and printed a negative difference; by the dataset it carries 610 kg more (28,860 kg against 28,250 kg).
Container size chart (all 17) ·
From the same check against the texts of the standard: a 20 ft is 19′10½″ long outside (6,058 mm), not 19′11″; ISO 668's width tolerance for a 40 ft is −5 mm, not −4 mm; and the stacking test is 213,360 kg on top of a container (192,000 kg in the 1990 text), not 86,400 kg per corner post.
Container size chart (all 17) ·
Smaller corrections from the same check, each to the consensus of the published sheets: typical tare of the 10 ft 1,200 kg (was 1,300), 45 ft high cube 4,700 (4,800), 20 ft open top 2,250 (2,350) and 20 ft tank 3,640 (3,900); the 40 ft open top is rated 30,480 kg gross in most sheets (was 32,500); the 20 ft open side is 2,314 mm wide and 2,285 mm high inside, tare 3,000 kg (was 2,287, 2,302 and 3,200). Every payload is now the max gross less the tare.
The 20 vs 40 table carried a row of used container prices under the line saying its figures were checked against the makers' and lines' sheets; no such sheet prints a price. The row is gone, and the cost per cubic metre and the answer to whether a 40 ft costs twice as much now say where their prices come from: the middle of the ranges named dealers and price guides publish, and the month they were read.
Tilt-bed delivery: we said a 40 ft needs about 30 m of clear approach; two US dealers' site requirements (Eveon Containers and Dry Box) print 120 ft (36.6 m) for a 40 ft and 60 ft (18.3 m) for a 20 ft. Ocean rates: we said a 40 ft costs about 25–30 % more than a 20 ft and is about 40 % cheaper per m³; no document we hold supports a fixed ratio, so the page now gives the thresholds that follow from the containers' figures: a 40 ft is cheaper per m³ at any rate under 2.04 times the 20 ft's, and cheaper per EUR pallet spot under 2.27 times. Tile example: 24 t of tile in 12 m³ is weight-bound by a factor of about 2.4 (85 % of a 20 ft's payload, 36 % of its volume), not four.
The cabin guide gave 1.5–3 kW of solar panels and a 5–10 kWh battery for 1.5–3 kWh a day as typical sizing; no document we hold sizes a cabin's system. The guide now labels it an illustrative estimate and shows the arithmetic: panels ≈ daily use ÷ (full-sun hours × 0.75), battery ≈ daily use × days without sun ÷ 0.9. With 2 full-sun hours and 3 days of reserve that is 1–2 kW of panels and 5–10 kWh of battery.
The piers figure was $500–2,000; it is now $1,500–6,000, from the site-preparation prices we collected for the foundation guide. The crane price ($500–1,500 per lift) and the composting-toilet price ($900–1,500) are gone because no document supports them; a lift is now said to be priced per lift. A 40 ft needs about 37 m of straight approach for a tilt-bed, as dealers publish it, not 30 m. The lifespan answer said 25–50 years of static use, which no document gives; it now gives the lessor Triton's write-off life at sea, about 13 years, and says the shell lasts longer on land. The totals ($15,000–35,000 and $30,000–60,000) did not equal the sum of their own table rows: they are now $12,700–28,800 and $24,100–53,500, the shell's share is 7–13 %, not 5–10 %, the shell range starts at $1,700, not $1,300, and the 40 ft HC ceiling after insulation is about 2.5 m, not 2.4 m.
An earlier correction called the PODS sizes outside sizes. PODS does not say whether they are inside or outside; they are now nominal whole feet, the 16 ft pod is about 29 m³ by its nominal feet, a 40 ft holds more than twice that nominal volume, and the table no longer heads the column outside.
The 16 ft PODS unit was given as about 24 m³ (850 ft³) and the 8, 12 and 16 ft pods as roughly 11, 17 and 24 m³. PODS publishes outside sizes only (8 × 7 × 8, 12 × 8 × 8 and 16 × 8 × 8 ft). Measured outside, the 16 ft encloses about 29.0 m³. The 40 ft's rent was given as $100–200 a month; the price data gives $150–250.
The one-bedroom plan gave rooms of 3.0, 1.8, 2.4 and 4.8 m that did not match the floor plan drawn on the page. They now come from the drawing: bedroom 3.2 m, bathroom 1.8 m, kitchen and living 7.03 m. The cost table now says which rows are dealers’ published prices and which are planning estimates, and its total is an estimate. The Russian answer named the clause of a ceiling other than the 40 HC’s it described.
The three-box courtyard plan was given as about 100 m²; three 40 ft high cubes and the roofed 3.5 m gap between two of them come to about 128 m². Foundation costs were $1,000–3,500 for piers and $4,000–8,000 for a slab; our price table gives $1,500–6,000 and $3,000–12,000, and the cost table's total is now the sum of its rows ($19,000–71,400 for one 40 ft high cube). Stacking was described as eight or nine boxes high under ISO 1496-1; the standard sets a test load (192,000 kg, 213,360 kg in the amended text), and the amended text no longer carries the nine-high note. The permits section said the 2021 IBC 'added' a container section; it now cites what the 2021 codes say: IRC R301.1.4 sends a container's structure to IBC Section 3115.
Air cargo container (ULD) sizes ·
The inch pairs of the PAG and PMC pallets put the width first (88 × 125 in, 96 × 125 in) while the centimetre pairs put the length first. They now read 125 × 88 in and 125 × 96 in, in the table rows, the LD7 and PMC text, the code-letter paragraph and the summary.
Air cargo container (ULD) sizes ·
The LD2 (DPE) row gave 156 × 119 × 163 cm, 3.4 m³ and a tare of about 66 kg; the sheets give 155–156 cm (119 cm base) × 153 × 163 cm, 3.5 m³, 75–92 kg and 1,225 kg. The LD9 (AAP) row gave 6,033 kg; the sheets give 4,624–5,098 kg (6,000 kg on a main deck). The page also stated LD3 counts for the B777-300ER and A330 that no aircraft document we could read supports; they have been removed. The LD3 label in the ULD drawing gave 4.3 m³; the makers' and airlines' sheets give 4.2–4.5 m³.
The office guide priced factory-converted offices and worked a payback, a 1.8× ratio and a rent breakeven out of those prices, which no document supports. They are gone: factory offices are quoted per project, the shell comes from dealers’ published prices, and fit-out, rent and air conditioning are called planning estimates. The insulation answer now gives about 50 °C inside a brown box and about 38 °C inside a white one, as the marine insurers’ container handbook records them.
The container office guide said bare steel conducts heat about 1,500 times better than timber and that an unshaded box reaches 50–60 °C inside. The ratio had no source and was too high, so it is gone. The temperature is now the one the marine insurers' container handbook records: about 50 °C inside a brown box on a 25 °C day. Air-conditioner sizes are now in BTU/h, the outdoor-air rate is the 10 L/s per person of England's Approved Document F, and the payback against a rented trailer is about 3 years rather than 2–4.
The count of named sources at the head of the prices guide was added up by hand and did not match the sources the page names. It is now computed from them: 28 named sources.
A tilt-bed truck delivering a 40 ft needs about 120 ft (36.6 m) of straight clear access, by two dealers' published site requirements, not the 100 ft (30 m) we gave before. A 10 ft costs more than a 20 ft in every grade the price data lists, not about the same. An open-side container costs about 1.8 times a new dry box, not twice. The Russian page now names the association it cites correctly: the National Association of Container Depot Operators (НАОКС).
Shanghai's port throughput was given as about 49 million TEU a year, which was the 2024 total. The port operator SIPG reports more than 55 million TEU for 2025.
The CBM guide gave mixed-carton usable volumes (26–28, 52–57, 60–65 and 68–73 m³) that no document supports and that differed from the Spanish, Russian and French pages. They are removed; the guide now gives the site's 85 % planning figure and says mixed cartons often load less.
The CSC plate paragraph said the plate shows the tare and is riveted to the left door. Under the Convention's annex the plate carries the maximum operating gross weight, the allowable stacking weight at 1.8 g and the racking test load, among other lines, but not the tare, and the Convention does not fix the plate's position. The French answer to 'What is ISO 668?' spoke of 'minimum' gross masses: the standard sets maximum gross masses, 30,480 kg for the 20, 40 and 45 ft and up to 36,000 kg allowed since its 2016 amendment; the French introduction also gave the width as 2.44 m instead of 2.438 m.
The first CONEX shipment ran from the Columbus General Depot in Georgia (not Ohio), and the Army's own figure is a delivery cut from about 55 days to 27; the unsourced count of 200,000 CONEX boxes is removed. Local delivery is now quoted from our price data ($400–800 within 50 miles, then by distance band) instead of $350–750 plus $2–4 a mile; the cargo-worthy 20 ft example is $1,700, not $1,500; ocean service life is about 13 years (Triton's 2023 accounts) instead of 10–15. A tilt-bed delivering a 40 ft needs about 36.6 m (120 ft) of straight approach, as Eveon's and Dry Box's delivery pages print it, not 30 m.
Container dimensions in meters ·
The French page on container dimensions in metres gave the inside width of the 20 ft and 40 ft as 7′8″. 2,352 mm is 92.6 in, which rounds to 7′9″, as the other languages print it.
A pallet-wide 40 ft is about 2.42 m wide inside, not 2.44 m. A container used as a pool holds at most 16,500–21,000 L in a 20 ft and 34,000–42,500 L in a 40 ft (the whole inside floor 1.2–1.5 m deep), not 15,000–19,000 L and 33,000–40,000 L. The Spanish answer on containers lost at sea now gives the WSC's figures: 1,478 in 2025 of 280 million carried, 576 in 2024 and a ten-year average of 1,274, not 'about 1,000–1,500 a year of about 250 million'. The Russian answer on a container shed now prices one used 20 ft, as the English and Spanish do; the old figure included the pad and delivery.
The ISO tank entry gave tank capacities from 21,000 L. The published sheets start at 20,000 L, so the entry now gives 20,000–26,000 L. The Spanish, Russian and French entries for the pallet-wide container said it takes EUR pallets two abreast. At 2.42–2.44 m inside it takes them three abreast, or two turned, as the English entry already said.
The English search description gave a US pallet's weight as 33–48 lb; the NWPCA design sheet prints 38–43 lb for a dried wood GMA pallet. The French page put 8 Asian 1,100 × 1,100 mm pallets in a 20 ft and 16–17 in a 40 ft; the pallet calculator counts 10 and 20. The French height to allow for a US block pallet is now 140 mm, not 142 mm, as in the other languages.
We gave a 48 × 40 in US pallet as 165 mm high and rated 2,087 kg. The makers' sheets we read (CHEP, PECO, iGPS, Rehrig, an NWPCA design sheet) print 121–143 mm, about 140 mm for the block pallets in circulation, and ratings of 1,270 kg (2,800 lb); none prints 2,087 kg.
The ship classes now follow the documents behind them. Panamax is up to 5,000 TEU and Neo-Panamax more than 14,000 TEU, as the Panama Canal Authority gives them; the page used to say 'up to about 5,000' and '14,000 and more'. Feeders are 1,000–3,000 TEU and small feeders under 1,000, in MAN Energy Solutions' classes, where the page said 'up to about 3,000'. A ULCV is more than 15,500 TEU in the same classes; the page had put the class at 24,000+. The largest ULCVs draw 16–16.5 m, where the page said about 16 m.
Types of shipping containers ·
The open-top roof openings were given as 5.49 × 2.23 m (20 ft) and 11.62 × 2.23 m (40 ft); Hapag-Lloyd's specification prints 5.34–5.42 × 2.23 m and 11.55–11.57 × 2.21–2.23 m. The tank was said to use T-codes T1 to T22 in its ISO type code: T1–T22 are UN portable-tank instructions, and ISO 6346 (1995 edition, as printed in IS 6928) groups tanks as T0–T9. The tank capacity was given as 21,000–26,000 L; the sheets read print 20,000–26,000 L, most often 25,000 L.
Container spec variance index ·
The page quoted the high-cube figures from a Spanish page labelled '40 ft' with a 2.70 m internal height. Our own record of that page reads 2.69 m, and the text now gives 2.69 m.
The study's date answer said the owner-prefix register was checked on 3 August 2026. Only the trackers were tested that day; every prefix was read on the BIC register on 18 October 2026. The page also called the eight lines that take no booking number 'mostly smaller regional lines'. They include Yang Ming and ZIM, two of the ten largest, so the page now points to the table instead.
Container grades & condition ·
The price multipliers for each grade now come from the dealers' published ranges for the 20 ft and 40 ft high cube: one-trip 1.6–1.7× and WWT 0.8–0.9× a used cargo-worthy unit. Before this, the Spanish page printed 1.6–2.0× and 0.7–0.9×. The as-is row no longer gives a figure, because no dealer publishes a range for it. How long a one-trip container lasts: the answer said 10–15 ocean years and 25 years or more in static use, and no document backs either figure; it now gives the 13 years over which the lessor Triton writes off a dry container (2023 annual report).
A tilt-bed needs about 37 m (120 ft) of straight approach for a 40 ft, not 30 m, as two dealers' published site requirements print it; overhead clearance is 4.3–4.9 m (14–16 ft), not about 5 m, and the delivery drawing now gives 18–37 m (20–40 ft box) and 4.3–4.9 m as well. The page said a container under 4.3 m travelling height is a legal load in most jurisdictions. Height limits are lower in many places: 4.0 m in the EU (Directive 96/53/EC), 4.11–4.27 m in most US States, 4.15 m on Canada's interprovincial roads.
Buying a container: checklist ·
The tilt-bed delivery figures for a 40 ft were about 30 m of straight approach and 5 m overhead. The dealers' site requirements we read ask for about 36.6 m (120 ft) and 4.3–4.9 m (14–16 ft) of height. The service life was 10–15 years in ocean service and 25+ years in static use; it is now 13 years, the useful life a container lessor's annual report gives, and no figure for static use.
Rockwool's R-value was given as R-3.3 per inch. ROCKWOOL's own Comfortbatt sheet prints R-3.7 to 4.3 per inch, which is what the page now says. The PIR figure in the FAQ is now R-6–6.5 per inch, from Johns Manville's polyiso sheet, and XPS is given separately as R-5.
The desiccant dose '1–2 kg per 10 m³ per month' had no document behind it. It is replaced by the World Food Programme's container-loading procedure: 9 kg of calcium chloride in a 20 ft for 15–59 days in transit, 11.25 kg for 60–89 days and 13.5 kg for 90–120 days. The Spanish page also gave the 20 ft as 33 m³ and 3–6 kg, against 33.2 m³ in our data.
The floor guide said the cross-members under a container floor sit about 450 mm apart. No builder's sheet we read prints a spacing; three of them give 18 cross-members under a 20 ft floor, and the guide now says that. The forklift-axle test is now dated by the standard's Amendment 3 instead of '2005'. The repair costs and the names of insecticide compounds, which had no source, were removed.
Corten-A steel was described as a copper-chromium-nickel alloy. By SSAB's COR-TEN A sheet it is alloyed with copper, chromium and phosphorus, with at most 0.65 % nickel. The floor cross-members were said to sit about 450 mm apart; no document gives that figure, and the three published 20 ft specifications each list 18 cross-members.
The container pool prices were builders' figures with no source ($16,500–40,000 installed). They are now one maker's published list: Modpools prices its 20 × 8 ft pool at $49,500 and its 40 × 8 ft pool at $68,000 before shipping and installation, and puts a typical whole project at $57,000–145,000+. Pool volumes are now worked out from the inside dimensions less a 1 m filtration bay at 1.2–1.5 m of water: 14,000–17,000 L for a 20 ft (it said 15,000–19,000) and 31,000–39,000 L for a 40 ft (it said 33,000–40,000), with a 4.9 m swim zone in the 20 ft (it said 4.8 m); wall pressure at 1.35 m is 13.2 kPa (it said 13.5). The cross-section drawing gave water about 1.35 m deep and about 33 t in a 40 ft; the builder's sheet gives about 1.4 m, up to about 40 t of water.
The floor test was given as 'a wheel of at least 2,730 kg' under two documents; it is 2,730 kg in the 1990 text of ISO 1496-1 and 3,630 kg since its Amendment 3.
The racking a 20 ft holds down both long walls is about 11.8 m (24–35 m of shelf at two or three levels), not 14 m (28–42 m): it is twice the 5.90 m inside length. The gravel pad is $300–1,500 by the published ranges, not $300–1,000, so the all-in total is $2,000–5,100. A used cargo-worthy 10 ft ($2,500–3,700) costs more than a cargo-worthy 20 ft ($1,700–2,800), not nearly as much.
Glossary terms 9
Twenty / forty (equipment slang) ·
The answer on how many TEU a forty-five is no longer gives 2.25 TEU: no document we hold sets that count, and lines and statistics count a 45 ft differently.
Twenty / forty (equipment slang) ·
The Spanish and Russian pages said the standard twenty and forty have the same maximum gross mass. By our data they are 30,480 kg and 32,500 kg, and the pages now give both figures.
OOG ·
The out-of-gauge answer gave the 2.340 × 2.280 m door as if every box had it. That is the standard-height box; a high cube’s door is 2.585 m (8′6″) high, and the answer now gives both.
Gate-in ·
The gate-in page called gate-in usually the first event a carrier publishes. The empty pickup against the booking usually comes first; gate-in is the first event that places the box at the port, as the site’s tracking chain says. The title, definition, cut-off section and FAQ now say so.
The usable height under a reefer's load line was given as about 2.2 m in a 20 ft reefer and about 2.5 m in a 40 ft high cube reefer. The shipping lines' sheets we read give 2.15–2.21 m and 2.38–2.47 m, and the page now quotes those ranges.
The inside width of a pallet-wide container was given as about 2.44 m, and 33 EUR pallets were called a road trailer's load. The two sheets we read, CMA CGM's and DP World's, give 2.42–2.44 m, and the trailer claim had no source, so it has been removed.
One-trip ·
The page said a container lasts 10–15 years at sea and 25 years or more in static use. We found no document for either figure. It now gives the 13-year depreciation life a major lessor reports (Triton, 2023 annual report) and says that this is an accounting figure, not a limit.
SCAC ·
The SCAC answer named MEDU as MSC's SCAC, and listed CMDU, COSU and HLCU as SCACs too. MEDU is MSC's bill-of-lading prefix, and no document we read prints the others as SCACs. The list now names only codes a document prints as a SCAC: MAEU for Maersk, YMLU for Yang Ming, ZIMU for ZIM and MATS for Matson.
The bill of lading page gave MAEU as the start of a Maersk bill number. MAEU is Maersk's SCAC in the document we read, not a documented B/L prefix, so the examples are now HLCU for Hapag-Lloyd and COSU for COSCO, as those lines' own documents print them.
Calculators and tools 15
The planner's EU road check now warns above 31,824 kg instead of 32,150 kg. It counts the tractor in running order — with fuel and driver, as the EU defines it (Regulation (EU) No 1230/2012: tanks 90 % full, a 75 kg driver), 7,196 kg, so the tractor and chassis come to 12,176 kg rather than 11,850 kg.
The planner's text and tables gave feet and inches to the quarter inch (20 ft door 7′5¾″, inside 7′10¼″, high cube 8′10¼″, 40 ft inside length 39′5¾″) while the size pages give them to the half inch; they now use the same half-inch rounding: 7′6″, 7′10″, 8′10″, 39′5½″, the high-cube door 8′6″, the 40 ft reefer load line 7′10½″.
The planner page said the standard text read gives no door for a 9′6″ box; the 2005 amendment, read in IS 13288-1 Amd 2, sets a 1AAA door of at least 2,566 mm (8′5″) high × 2,286 mm (7′6″) wide, and the page gives it. Hapag-Lloyd was credited with a floor load per metre for every container; its sheet gives 4.8 t/m for the 20 ft and 3.0 t/m for the 40 ft only, and the page and the check now say the 10 ft and 45 ft take the nearest length’s value by our choice. The load-line claim now covers only the three lines’ main series, and the CTU Code reference is §3.1.1–3.1.2, not §3.1.1.
The door section said Hapag-Lloyd lists 2,565 mm as the least door height of a 9 ft 6 in high cube. The Hapag-Lloyd sheet we read gives its high cube doors as 2,597 mm and sets no minimum of 2,565 mm, so the sentence is gone; the ISO 1496-1 minimum for an 8 ft 6 in box (2,261 × 2,286 mm) stays. The reefer section gave Hapag-Lloyd's 40 ft high cube load line as 2,420 to 2,474 mm; 2,474 mm belongs to a non-foodstuff series, and in its main (foodstuff) series, the one the 20 ft range already used, the line is 2,420 to 2,425 mm. The planner's height (2,394 mm, CMA CGM) does not change.
The planner's EU road check now warns above 32,150 kg instead of 29,000 kg, because the tractor and chassis are taken from Volvo's and Schmitz Cargobull's sheets (11,850 kg) instead of an estimated 15 t; the industrial 1200 × 1000 pallet preset is now 161 mm and 29 kg, as IPP's sheet prints it.
The VGM worked example (20 EUR pallets of 750 kg in a 40 ft) gave a VGM of 19,260 kg on a 3,640 kg tare. The typical 40 ft tare is 3,700 kg, the figure most published sheets print, so the example's VGM is now 19,320 kg.
The answer and the FAQ said a 20 ft's tare is 'most often 2,230 kg'. The published sheets range from 2,080 to 2,570 kg, print 2,200 kg more often than 2,230 kg, and 8 of 18 agree within ±2 % on 2,200 kg. The page now gives the range and says 2,230 kg is our table's figure, within that margin.
The answer on tiers of 1.2 m pallets gave the inside heights to the quarter inch (high cube 8′10¼″, standard 7′10¼″); they are now to the half inch like the size pages: 8′10″ and 7′10″.
The US GMA pallet (1,219 × 1,016 mm) is 2 % longer than the EUR pallet (1,200 × 800 mm), not 3 %. And across the 2,352 mm inside width, only one EUR pallet fits with its long side across (1,152 mm left over), not two.
The imperial table and two answers gave feet and inches to the quarter inch (the 10 ft length 2,991 mm as 9′9¾″, the high-cube inside height as 8′10¼″); they are now to the half inch like the size pages: 9′10″ and 8′10″.
The used 40 ft's cost per cubic metre was given as $27–52; taken box by box (each price over its own volume) it is $27–50. The 40 ft's premium over the 20 ft (21–24 %) is now for the standard 40 ft alone. A 40 ft flat rack carries about 39 % more than the largest dry payload, not 'half again more'; a 20 ft tank holds 20,000–26,000 litres across the published sheets.
The size tables gave the 53 ft as 108.0 m³ (3,814 ft³) and the 48 ft as 97.5 m³; the dataset gives 111.8 m³ (3,948 ft³) and 97.6 m³ (3,447 ft³).
The converter called the metric and imperial sizes exactly backwards and the millimetre figures nicknames, with 8 ft that happens to match. ISO 668 (read in IS 6566:2001 and ГОСТ Р 53350-2009) gives every outside size in both units: the sizes are feet, and the millimetre figures are those feet rounded to the millimetre (8 ft is 2,438.4 mm; a 40 ft is exactly 40 × 304.8 mm). The page now says both are exact.
The unit converter said a 20 ft container leaves a 38 mm gap at each end. It is 38 mm shorter than a true 20 ft, so two of them leave one 76 mm gap between them in a 40 ft slot. The text now says so, and its other figures are worked out from the dataset: a nominal 8 ft sheet is 86 mm wider than the inside, not about 90 mm.
Container check digit calculator ·
The check digit was described as the remainder of the sum divided by 11, without the rule for a remainder of 10, which is written 0. The tool page, the calculators hub and the tracking page now give it.
Tracking and owners 27
The tracking page's link to the carrier list read "all 18 lines". There are far more shipping lines than the 18 our prefix directory covers; the link now reads "18 lines in our prefix directory".
The page still said we had opened all eighteen carrier trackers in a browser. We tested seven: three open the result from a link, four ignore the number, and eleven are untested. The figures now come from the study's data.
The Hapag-Lloyd prefix page said UACU and UAEU are ex-UASC codes that came with a 2017 merger, its most recent. No document we read says when UASC joined or that the two codes were UASC's; the BIC register lists both under Hapag-Lloyd AG, and the page, the carrier page's heading and llms.txt now say only that.
The Hapag-Lloyd page called it Europe's second carrier and said it was founded in 1970. Alphaliner ranks it fifth by fleet size, and 1970 is the year of the Hapag and North German Lloyd merger, not a founding.
The MSC page said a new booking shows up on the tracker within 24 to 48 hours. No document we read gives that window. The page now says MSC shows nothing until the first event (gate-in at the terminal or loading), so a booking made yesterday may have nothing to show yet.
Further SITC claims no document supports are gone: intra-Asia voyages of 2–7 days (the one agency figure we hold, Ho Chi Minh City to Tokyo, is 8 days), roughly 70 ports, gate-in to discharge inside a week, China’s leading intra-Asia carrier and the biggest of these specialists, and a booking that enters the system barely a day before gate-in. The page now says voyages are short and usually direct, and that a new booking may show nothing until its first event.
We gave SITC's fleet as 114 vessels. No document we read gives that count; the page now says SITC is 14th on Alphaliner's list as read on 18 October 2026.
The Hapag-Lloyd page said Hapag-Lloyd is the only major carrier whose entire fleet carries GPS, that every box reports every 15 minutes, and that its Live ETA comes from the container’s own GPS movement. No Hapag-Lloyd document we read says what feeds the Live Position map or gives an interval. Those claims are gone from the description, the answer, the tracker section and the FAQ; the page now says to go by the event timeline.
We said Hapag-Lloyd was formed on 1 September 1970 by merging Hapag with Norddeutscher Lloyd (1857). The documents we read give only the year: it was formed in 1970 by merging Hapag, which the company dates back to 1847, with Norddeutscher Lloyd; the day, the month and NDL's 1857 are gone.
The Maersk page said old shipments are archived roughly 60–90 days after delivery. No document we read gives that period; the page now says shipments drop out some time after delivery and that no Maersk document we read fixes when.
We said Maersk bills of lading start with MAEU followed by nine digits. MAEU is Maersk's SCAC, as its own US payment instructions print it; no Maersk document we read says B/L numbers begin with it.
The PIL page called PIL the largest home-grown Southeast Asian carrier. No document we read ranks it that way, and the superlative is gone from the answer and the FAQ.
The Yang Ming page called it a century-old name. The company dates its founding to 1972.
COSCO Shipping Lines prefixes ·
The COSCO page said the line was founded in 1961. 1961 is the founding of its parent group; COSCO Shipping Lines in its present form dates from the 2016 merger.
COSCO Shipping Lines prefixes ·
We said each code on the COSCO, ONE and Evergreen pages was registered to that line. The BIC register, read code by code on 18 October 2026, gives CBHU to Florens (COSCO's leasing company), NYKU to NYK Line and KKFU, KKTU and KLFU to K Line (two of ONE's parents), and EITU to Gaining Enterprise S.A.; the pages now say so.
The OOCL page said the line was founded in 1969. That is the year of its first container service; the company's document gives no founding year.
The Matson page said the line was founded in 1882. 1882 is the year of its first voyage.
SITC Container Lines prefixes ·
The SITC page's answer on who owns the prefix printed a founding year of 'undefined'. No founding year is given now, because none was read.
We said Wan Hai was established on 24 February 1965 and containerised in 1976, and gave its fleet an average age of nine years. The company's history gives February 1965, which the page now says; the 1976 date and the fleet age had no reading and are gone.
We said Wan Hai's bills of lading open with WHLC. Only tracking aggregators say so and no Wan Hai document we read does, so the page now says to enter a B/L number exactly as printed.
The COSCO page gave a purchase price for OOCL with no document behind it; the figure is gone, and the page keeps only the year of the acquisition.
The OOCL page gave the price COSCO paid for it and said it had been a COSCO subsidiary since July 2018. No document we read gives the price or the month; the page now says only that OOCL is a COSCO subsidiary.
We said OOCL was founded in Hong Kong in 1969. What the document we read dates to November 1969 is its Far East–US West Coast service going fully container, not the founding of the company.
We put KMTC 16th in the world and said its bills of lading begin with KMTU and that KMTU is also its SCAC. Alphaliner's list read on 18 October 2026 has it 15th, and no KMTC document we read names a B/L prefix or a SCAC; KMTU is its BIC owner code only.
We gave SM Line as 29th in the world at about 70,000 TEU. Alphaliner's list read on 18 October 2026 has it 32nd at about 67,000 TEU.
We said CMCU is both Crowley's container prefix and its SCAC, and that its bills of lading begin with CMCU. No Crowley document we read names its SCAC or a B/L prefix; CMCU is its container owner code only.
We said Matson bills of lading start with MATS plus digits. MATS is the SCAC Matson names in its filings with the US Surface Transportation Board; no Matson document we read says B/L numbers begin with it.
Home page and site pages 12
We tightened how the published sheets are counted. A sheet that prints several series agrees with a figure only when at least half of its series do (a sheet of two ratings, with either); before, its single nearest row was enough. A maximum gross is a rating and is now compared exactly, not within 2 %. Where two figures have as many sheets each, we keep ours when it is one of them and mark it as a range. Several 'N of M sheets agree' counts fell by one; two figures moved (the 40 ft and the 40 ft high cube reefer tare).
Several pages said the CSC plate carries a container’s tare and payload, or that the plate settles them. The CSC Safety Approval Plate gives the maximum gross mass and the stacking and racking loads; the tare and payload are marked on the doors (ISO 6346). Every such sentence now says so.
The method said every figure had two independent sources and named ISO 668:2020 and ISO 6346:2022 as read. In fact each figure carries its own status (set by the standard, confirmed by two or more sheets, a range, or one sheet), and the texts read are the 1995 editions as adopted in IS 6566:2001, ГОСТ Р 53350-2009 and IS 6928:2001. Owner prefixes: each of the 85 was read on its own BIC register page on 18 October 2026, and 15 are also listed by the company itself.
In the pack, the road limits page now assumes a tractor and chassis of 12,176 kg (was 11,850 kg) under the EU 44 t limit, leaving 31,824 kg for the container (was 32,150 kg). The tractor is counted in running order — with fuel and driver, as the EU defines it (Regulation (EU) No 1230/2012).
The pack's conversion page said feet and inches were rounded to the nearest inch; its figures are to the nearest half inch, as ISO 668 writes them, and the note now says so.
In the pack: the road limits page now assumes a tractor and chassis of 11,850 kg under the EU 44 t limit (a 4×2 tractor and a 40 ft chassis, empty, from their makers' sheets, added together) instead of an estimated 15 t; the pack and the container sheets no longer say the CSC plate gives exact dimensions and tare, since it carries the maximum gross mass and the owner's sheet or the box's own markings decide; and on choosing a size, the 40 ft and 40 ft high cube rate premiums now match the table above them (30 % and 35 %), not 25–30 %.
The row of every size drew the 48 ft and 53 ft as "48′ HC" and "53′ HC" because they stand 9′6″. They are US domestic containers, not high cubes, and are now labelled "48′ · US domestic" and "53′ · US domestic".
The home page's answer on choosing a size sent loads over about 26 m³ to a 40 ft: what the planner fits of one test carton into a 20 ft. Every other page and calculator uses the 20 ft's usable volume, 85 % of its cube; the answer now gives that figure, 28.2 m³.
The planner cards said a 40 ft holds almost the room of two 20 ft; by the dataset it holds slightly more (67.7 m³ against 2 × 33.2 m³), and the cards now say about. The reefer card called the planner’s load line the lowest without saying it is the lowest on a standard box; a line’s special series can be lower. The pallet counts are now labelled as our layout of the inside floor in one tier, not as a figure the lines print.
The home page's type cards said a tank container holds up to 25,000 L and a flat rack carries up to 40,020 kg. Those are the most common figures, not the highest: published sheets print tanks up to 26,000 L and 40 ft flat racks up to 47,400 kg, and the cards now give those.
The consensus of the sheets was built from each sheet's first row, so a sheet printing several series could pull it by a row that was not the matching one, and the mark beside a figure could give a different status from the one the evidence ledger worked out. The consensus is now the printed figure with the most sheets behind it, each sheet voting once with its row nearest that figure and only within ±5 mm, ±2 % for a mass or ±1 % for a volume; confirmed means more than half of the sheets that print the field, and at least two. Five figures move to it: the 45 ft high cube tare is 4,650 kg (was 4,700; 10 of 16 sheets), the 20 ft reefer inside height 2,267 mm (2,263; 8 of 15), the 20 ft flat rack deck-to-top height 2,233 mm (2,213; 6 of 11) and tare 2,940 kg (2,800; 6 of 11), the 40 ft flat rack tare 5,000 kg (4,980; 6 of 11); the payloads follow (27,850, 31,060 and 40,000 kg). The 20 ft open side tare, where the four sheets split two and two, is SCF's 3,200 kg (was Sea Box's 3,000), with a 20,800 kg payload.
The count of sheets that agree with a figure was taken within the tolerance of one member of the group, not of the figure shown, and a sheet that prints several rows was counted by its lowest. Each sheet now votes with its row nearest the figure, agreement is counted within the stated tolerance of the printed figure, and the mark shows which row was counted. Counts changed: the 40 HC inside height is 13 of 19 sheets, the 40 ft inside length 13 of 16, the 20 ft reefer volume 13 of 16, the 40 ft payload 11 of 15. Hapag-Lloyd’s counted row for the 40 ft payload is 28,800 kg, not 28,750 kg as a note said. The 40 ft flat rack tare, with 4 of 11 sheets within ±2 % of 4,980 kg, is now a range, and no range wording claims that most sheets agree.
Three pages said ISO 668 sets the maximum gross weight of a container at 30,480 kg. That is what most boxes are plated for; since its 2016 amendment the standard allows a rating of up to 36,000 kg for every size but the 10 ft. The weight guide also gave road payloads of "19–21 t in the EU and 17–19 t in the US" with no source; it now states the legal vehicle limits and names where they come from.
The price ranges were described as "compiled from depot listings and dealer quotes" and named no source. We read what eight named companies publish and recomputed every range from them by one rule. Most rose: a used cargo-worthy 20 ft went from $1,200–2,500 to $1,700–2,800 and a one-trip 40 ft high cube from $3,500–5,500 to $4,000–5,600. Three claims that no source supported were removed or replaced: a monthly rent of $75–150, local delivery of $150–500, and one-trip prices "above $7,000" in 2021.
The price chart drew ranges for four size-and-grade pairs that the table beside it left empty: wind-and-watertight for 10 ft and 40 ft, and one-trip and wind-and-watertight for 45 ft high cube. We have no range we can stand behind for those, so the chart now shows a dash where the table does.
The tracking page said that every ocean container broadcasts its position. It does not: the line carrying it records each move, and the box itself reports nothing. The sentence now says so.
The same page said all 18 carrier trackers were "opened and tested by hand". Each was opened to record what it accepts; a link carrying the number was tried on seven of them. The line now gives both figures.