newmercman:
The thing you seem to be missing Carryfast is volume, a medium size container ship will carry 5,000 TEUs, to get 5,000 accompanied trailers on a boat the first one on deck would be halfway across the Atlantic already, if you’re talking about a Panamax container ship, the amount of TEUs it can carry converted into accompanied trailers, it would be that long it would almost be a bridge across the Atlantic.
Containers stack 11 deep in the holds and 9 deep on deck.
I was mainly referring to the regular Con/Ro services which actually do run from Liverpool to Halifax and NY.
In which as I said it’s easy to understand why they didn’t want to get involved in anything which ( they perceived ) would potentially create any significant shift in ‘customer demand’ from the deck space efficiency which,as you’ve said,containers provide for ‘the shipping lines’.As opposed to the advantages which a truck provides in terms of volume and service levels,over a container for the ‘customer’.
As I said it wasn’t a case that they ‘couldn’t’ get close enough to the cost of shipping a truck v a container,nor that the logistics of putting just one truck on their ro ro deck was unviable.It was more a case that they ‘wouldn’t’ because they didn’t want the potential problem of lots of container customers suddenly wanting to send stuff on trucks using up valuable space on the ro ro decks.Instead of using more shipping space efficient containers on the container decks.When the truth was that they probably actually had the chance of a regular high demand albeit limited truck ferrying operation among their other services.
On that note you seem to be jumping to the same conclusions as they did.In that there was never any intention ( on my part ) of shipping anything more than 1 truck but they obviously rightly or wrongly saw the potential for the idea turning into a rush by customers for the worst of all worlds situation ( for them ) of excessive customer demand for less space efficient trucks and redundant container capacity.When the truth was that it could have been a good earner in the form of a high demand ( if reasonably enough priced ),albeit limited,truck ferrying operation,among their other unaccompanied trailer and container services.
While the ro ro only shipping lines obviously had no need to reduce their ro ro rates as part of that.Although those types aren’t ideally suited to carrying trucks,as opposed to cars and plant on their ro ro decks,anyway.
While ironically I’d guess that the idea might now actually be more viable with the introduction of the larger ro ro capacity types in which you’ll see that capacity is already shifting a bit more towards ro ro.Maybe to the point where it could potentially be more a case of it being DOT bureaucracy,rather than shipping costs,which stands in the way of someone being brave enough and wanting to do something different enough
to send a loaded truck across rather than a container.

gcaptain.com/acls-new-conro-atlantic-star/