Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
ATA now supports longer and/or heavier trucks

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by farmer03 I figured it would come sooner or later. The argument about slower trucks uphill is not all that valid. They make engines nowadays with up to 625 hp. With the proper gearing you should be able to pull that 150,000 lbs uphill doing a wheelie. [/quote] I was gonna ask how those Canadian truckers were managing to pull 160k. Thought for a moment someone was going to suggest that they use converted SW1500's! [quote]QUOTE: But all jokes aside, heavier and longer trucks=more payload which in turn equals more $$$ for the truck/fleet owner. I doubt it has anything to do with improving the overall domestic whatever you are trying to argue. It'll just enable more imported crap to be shuffled about with one truck. [/quote] I will disagree there. First of all, there are the two different aspects being proposed; higher GVW and longer LCV's. On the weight front, that will definately favor US ag and natural resource producers in getting product from farm/forest/mile etc. to the nearest rail terminal. On the length front, longer trailer combinations will be of great aid to UPS and other LCL carriers for domestic light bulky loads. Neither will be of aid to overseas importers, who will still depend on their US railroad allys to get them containerloads of crap to the inner city masses. You're not going to see LCV's on city streets or county lanes, they will be stricly limited to enabled Interstates and other appropriate roadways. Most likely scenario is that an LCV consist will run as singles from point of origin to Interstate roadhead, as LCV's from Interstate roadhead to the distant Interstate roadhead, and then broken up again as singles for the haul from roadhead to final destination. And you have to remember that the US railroad network is actually quite limited in it's coverage of most worthwhile freight corridors, let alone those within coverage that they are actually willing to serve. You're not going to use rail to ship a few truckloads from Boise to Flagstaff. First of all such a routing by rail would be twice as long as by highway, and secondly you'd have to deal with two different rail companies who more often than not would rather not cooperate for such less than 16,000 tons freight moves. Increasing both LVC and GVW standards will increase productivity in those corridors not effectively served by rail. And there are hundreds of such corridors in the US. Unless someone can come up with more viable counterarguments, one can only conclude that higher LCV and GVW standards will be a win-win for the US economy. And it ain't gonna hurt the railroads one bit.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag