General Discussion

I always wonder about one thing when it comes to trucks compared to trains. That one thing is, why can a semi haul only 1 coil of steel on a flatbed, when 1 gondola on a train can carry 4 to 5 coils?

Its the weight, railroads can haul more per car because we dont have bridge formulas and not regulated to 34k per axel and 80k gross.

your info is wrong its 80,000 gross weight. thats truck and load not load of 80k, it real is depending on tractor wieght more on the lines of 45-49k for a load . and yes trucks can carry more safley just not as efficiently. just take a trip to michigan and look at the trucks there.

There is a pending amendment to the transportation bill in Congress which will raise truck load limits from 80 to 97 thousand pounds.  That will mean increased damage to roads and the vehicles that are strcuk by trucks to say nothing about human injuries.  This is not a good thing if you can compare the ability of trains to carry more weight per axel.  Let your Congressman know how you feel about larger trucks on our highways at this time of increasing costs.  I also don't like the double trailers on the highways...trains belong on railroad tracks, not on interstates...and those who have proposed a third trailer are totally out of line!

We all have opinions on this subject.  Mine is:  GVW has increased to the point now it is time to "cap" it...

I'm thinking of the mix of cars and trucks on our interstates now and lets not let that size and total load difference increase more than it currently is.

Safety is marginal as it is with the mix at 70 or so mph...

Increasing truck GVW will farther {and quicker}, undermine bridge safety and destruction.

Getting up into greater loading certainly belongs over on the rails, a system that is designed to handle much greater loadings.  We don't need to intermix even more disparity of vehicle sizes and weights than we already have now

More trailers....?  I agree with another poster...trains belong on rails not highways.

A truck can haul more than one coil...for example today I've got loads enroute with four coils on each trailer. It's not the number of coils that matters..its the allowable weight.

Increasing truck weight and size has always been controversial..however there is an argument to be made for bigger trucks:

1) Bigger trucks..trucks that can handle more weight or product.. will mean fewer trucks..i.e. two trucks with one 30,000 lb coil each are reduced to one truck carrying the coils.

2) Bigger trucks improve asset utilization and fuel efficiency...fewer trucks and trucks that carry more have less of an impact on the environment.

Bigger trucks don't necessarily mean bigger risk either. Up here in Canada we use B-Trains alot..These are two shorter trailers that share a common set of axles at  their connection. These B-Trains (because they are articulated) track alot better than a normal semi and they ride alot better due to the weight being distributed more evenly over more axles.  In my opinion the US should allow more widespread use of B-Trains..this would cut down sharply on the number of flatbed trucks on the road by using a configuration that has been proven to be safe in over 50 years of use in Canada.

I have heard claim that bigger trucks would reduce CO2 and reduce traffic congestion.  I don't beleive so, here are some cons of bigger trucks;

 1) Bigger trucks can handle more weight, but more trucks will travel not fully loaded because not every shipment is that heavy wich is not efficient.

2) There may not neccessarily be fewer trucks if the cost compeditivess of bigger trucks takes freight off from rail.

3) Bigger trucks take up more room therefore cause more traffic.

4) Longer and heavier trucks make winter driving more dangerous

5) Bigger trucks will scare more people into bigger cars and SUVs to "feel" safer, wasting even more fuel.

6) Bigger trucks mean more road maintanance wich means more constuction delays and higher taxes for all.

7) When accidents do happen they will be bigger accidents and bigger costs.

8) Don't then forget about the bigger Mexican trucks that you will share the road with.

Also if they would cap the truck size the only way to compete in truck service would be to make better service instead of just bigger service. Bigger trucks mean that you don't have to improve service to get ahead, just buy a newer bigger truck , just be "big and dumb" to compete. Compared to just depending on good old service using the tools you already have.  Also road planning could be done better when you know how big and heavy trucks are long into the future.  Bigger trucks is short sighted, like allowing more cassinos. 

wabash1:

your info is wrong its 80,000 gross weight. thats truck and load not load of 80k, it real is depending on tractor wieght more on the lines of 45-49k for a load . and yes trucks can carry more safley just not as efficiently. just take a trip to michigan and look at the trucks there.

One load was delayed in transit because a nail was sticking up through a pallet--and the weight of the acid in the drum on top the nail gradually forced the drum down on the nail; the driver discovered the leak when he was well on his way north, and he had to go back to the shipper to get it taken care of.

Johnny

TH&B:

I have heard claim that bigger trucks would reduce CO2 and reduce traffic congestion.  I don't beleive so, here are some cons of bigger trucks;

 1) Bigger trucks can handle more weight, but more trucks will travel not fully loaded because not every shipment is that heavy wich is not efficient.

2) There may not neccessarily be fewer trucks if the cost compeditivess of bigger trucks takes freight off from rail.

3) Bigger trucks take up more room therefore cause more traffic.

4) Longer and heavier trucks make winter driving more dangerous

5) Bigger trucks will scare more people into bigger cars and SUVs to "feel" safer, wasting even more fuel.

6) Bigger trucks mean more road maintanance wich means more constuction delays and higher taxes for all.

7) When accidents do happen they will be bigger accidents and bigger costs.

8) Don't then forget about the bigger Mexican trucks that you will share the road with.

Also if they would cap the truck size the only way to compete in truck service would be to make better service instead of just bigger service. Bigger trucks mean that you don't have to improve service to get ahead, just buy a newer bigger truck , just be "big and dumb" to compete. Compared to just depending on good old service using the tools you already have.  Also road planning could be done better when you know how big and heavy trucks are long into the future.  Bigger trucks is short sighted, like allowing more cassinos. 

Bigger trucks wouldn't work for all freight... after all a truck is a tool..however, the OPTION of using bigger equipment would allow more flexibility. No one is saying that every truck will be  bigger i.e.  that Sears will send out a turnpike double on a home delivery.

Longer and heavier doesn't mean more dangerous...like I pointed out earlier... a B-Train  carriying an 85, 000 lb load tracks better and handles better than a semi with a 47000 lb load. It isn't JUST about size and weight..its about design and configuration too.

About accidents... using your logic then we should go back to single axle gas jobs like they used in the 40s. Nothing bigger than a 24' box straight truck although I doubt you would see any improvements in safety..if you get hit by a truck you get hit by a truck.. in most cases it doesn't matter if its a semi or a city delivery truck.. if you're in a car you lose..

Bigger trucks scare people...again..a truck is a truck.. nothing is 50 feet wide and 50 feet high... it all fits on the road.

Bigger trucks mean more road maintanence..that hasn't been proven..and again..the design and configuration of the vehicle has as much or more to do with that than weight and size.

Bigger trucks will divert freight from rail.. I don't think so.. at least not to an appreciable extent.

Bigger trucks don't change competitive pressures...big and dumb...isn't a competitive advantage. On time servcie, accurate billing...supply chain management..all of these  will remain important regardless of equipment size, weight or configuration. Maintaining the status quo is short sighted..the world is changing and we need to change with it.. 

Ulrich:

A truck can haul more than one coil...for example today I've got loads enroute with four coils on each trailer. It's not the number of coils that matters..its the allowable weight.

Increasing truck weight and size has always been controversial..however there is an argument to be made for bigger trucks:

1) Bigger trucks..trucks that can handle more weight or product.. will mean fewer trucks..i.e. two trucks with one 30,000 lb coil each are reduced to one truck carrying the coils.

2) Bigger trucks improve asset utilization and fuel efficiency...fewer trucks and trucks that carry more have less of an impact on the environment.

Bigger trucks don't necessarily mean bigger risk either. Up here in Canada we use B-Trains alot..These are two shorter trailers that share a common set of axles at  their connection. These B-Trains (because they are articulated) track alot better than a normal semi and they ride alot better due to the weight being distributed more evenly over more axles.  In my opinion the US should allow more widespread use of B-Trains..this would cut down sharply on the number of flatbed trucks on the road by using a configuration that has been proven to be safe in over 50 years of use in Canada.

 

Your points are probably quite valid, but some other aspects should be considered.

First of all, has the trucking lobby indicated how they will pay for the necessary upgrades to the various highways and bridges that will be required.  The efficiencies for commercial trucks are only economic if someone else, ie the private automobile's fuel taxes, covers the cost.  In fact, the improvement in fuel efficiency means that the heavy commercial trucks will pay even less despite creating increased costs.  They get an even greater hidden subsidy, in other words.

And B-trains are fine on multi-lane divided highways, but the trucking lobby has used them as the thin end of the wedge and now they appear on two lane winding highways.  At best overtaking one is perilous becuase of their length, and if it is raining the spray blocking forward vision makes it impossible.  A long overdue safety requirement is something to make a drastic reduction in this spray.

And has anybody noticed the irony of a 53' trailer with one placard bragging that "safety is our main concern" and another warning that it makes wide turns.  The latter warning highlights the reality that the trailer is unsafe for the roads it is using.

Just my soapbox...

John

Even less? We pay tax through the nose as it is. Bigger vehicles that result in less dollars spent is a PLUS in my view. Ideally all the money we pay in fuel tax should go directly back into the infrastructure...and that would be enough to improve it substantially without any government aid.

All tractor trailers swing wide...not just 53's. That doesn't make them unsafe or unsuited for roads...it just means that they need to be handled in a way that takes into account their length.

 B-Trains are used routinely in Canada..particularly on the Trans Canada highway which is mostly two lane...so far no problems and they are generally involved in fewer accidents than other vehicles.

 But I agree..there are two sides to every issue... I'm in favour of longer and bigger for certain applications where it makes sense.. like hauling steel.. I see the savings for customers.. I can load 85, 000 lbs in Canada for one customer via B-Train and only 48, 000 lbs for another in the United States. Put side by side my American customer is paying alot more to get his steel moved.. a cost that is passed right on to the American consumer who then has one more reason to buy made in China.

I few years ago I believe the railroads lobbied against heavier trucks.  Anyone know how the railroads feel about it today?

Ungern

Next time you are out on the roads....check out the Maximum load weights that are stenciled on the back of containers...20 foot, 40 foot, 48 foot, 53 foot....the max load will be nearly equal among all the sizes.

Modelcar:

Increasing truck GVW will farther {and quicker}, undermine bridge safety and destruction.

....  We don't need to intermix even more disparity of vehicle sizes and weights than we already have now...

Then you need to vote your representatives out next chance you get.  The legislators in our beloved state gave steel carriers the right to haul upto 110,000 lbs gross.  It seems too many Michigan steel haulers cried they had to leave a trailer at the state line and it was costing them money.  Nevermind these steel trucks damage the roads with the equivilent of thousands of cars and some reps are trying to spend the Major Moves money that was supposed to fund road projects for 75 years in just 5.

The state would be better off building a rail line for this steel if there is not already one and GIVING it to a shortline to operate.  It would be cheaper than constantly rebuilding the highways subjected to that kind of wear and tear.