Canadian Tire is planning to roll out some new 60 ft. containers in the New Year... they say they've already completed the feasibility studies. Maybe this will be the next major development in containerization.
53 ft is the current legal length limit for trailers in the U.S. How they gonna haul them?
Norm
I'm guessing mostly in Canada using short wheelbase daycab tractors... don't know many of the details myself yet, but this could be a major development if it goes through.
And just like that, every spine car, and most of the stack cars in the country, would be rendered incapable of doing what they should be doing--keeping monstrosities like that off the road!
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Randy Vos
"Ever have one of those days where you couldn't hit the ground with your hat??" - Waylon Jennings
"May the Lord take a liking to you and blow you up, real good" - SCTV
There are a lot of surface streets where 53 footer can't make a turn without infringng on opposing traffic.
It appears that the 60 foot container would be not be an ISO box, Canadian use only. It would use the standard 40 foot mounting pockets, so when moved by train, it would only be on the top level of double stack. It is being designed for four specific routes in Canada.
3.0 TEBU sea-can boondoggle coming to an intermodal yard near you? I can just see what happens when one of those gets loose in the lower 48 after a clerical error and hits that first scale house/inspection station.(insert Chad's popcorn icon here)
mudchicken 3.0 TEBU sea-can boondoggle coming to an intermodal yard near you? I can just see what happens when one of those gets loose in the lower 48 after a clerical error and hits that first scale house/inspection station.(insert Chad's popcorn icon here)
To those statement is one by Posted by Norm48327 on Monday, December 01, 2014 6:38 PM
"...53 ft is the current legal length limit for trailers in the U.S. How they gonna haul them?"
As to the introduction of 60ft Containers in Canada ( and possibly their introduction into the U.S. (?) It is almost a case of "...When the elephant gets his trunk under the tent,can the rest of it be far behind?"
From the late 1950's until I retired in 2001, I was in the OTR trucking business, both military and civilian, over that same period of time the legal semi- trailer lengths went from 40 ft to 53 ft; as generally accepted for regular road transport throughout the country.
At the point of the introduction of the 53 ft semi-trailer, ( regulations and enforcement got very State specific, and somewhat arcane). Up in the North East, Pennsylvania instituted a strictly enforced truck route system.Massachuttes required each unit to have a blanket permit for overlength trailer, and that trailer had to be marked as to it's length.
Enforcement got somewhat peculiar as each officer seemed to have their own ideas as to how 'they enforced the regulations'.[Some states factored in tire sizes; many loads had to be readjusted at State Scale locations, and fines paid accordingly].
It was for a time, for shippers, they had to cope with loading loads to allow drivers to be able to' bridge them';to prevent a trailer from being mis-laded and breaking in half. It was a time of learning for everyone in the business of using trailers.
The Federal Regulations were changing and some of the States had problems with their own laws, and compliance issues. In the 1980's (?) I think we started seeing customers from down on the Gulf Coast (Tx,La,Ms,Al) were running some trailers that were 62ft to 68ft in length( the latter required a day cab(shorty) tractor to pull them.
Now comes the introduction of a semi-trailer with length added from 53ft to 60ft. I have been in Canada and they will have similar problems negotiating their road infrastructure. Cities like Montreal or Quebec, like Boston or New York City will become nightmares as these longer trailers try to negotiate corners, built long before trailer lengths experienced these days. Casualties are street signs, fire plugs, streety light poles, not to mention the damages to vehicles and people's patience..
I would predict that Mudchicken, and Randy Vos are spot on, and that Chad Thomas will sell lots of popcorn.
Here are a couple of linked items which might show some of the regularoty status:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Freight/publications/size_regs_final_rpt/index.htm#devices
Truck Lengths for Louisiana: [from a website for Driver Infromation]
http://theamericandriver.com/driver_services/files/docs/weight_size_limits/louisiana.html
Canadian Tire will most likely restrict these to certain routes and only some of their stores. I don't think they'll ever see their way into old Montreal or Quebec City where 53 ft. currently have a hard time.
Seeing the news about 60 foot containers coming to Canada reminded me of seeing semi-trailers with three axles being carried on the Prince Rupert-Port Hardy ferry this past September. They were loaded and unloaded by a BC Ferries employee, and the tractor made the trip also.
Johnny
I only wish that user-pay would apply. In other words, if they want to use a 60' trailer, require them to FIRST pay for the upgrades necessary to permit SAFE turning at all intersections on each route that may be used. And I mean the proponent should pay, not the general taxpayer. I suspect any positive cost-benefit ratio might suddenly evaporate. Also, those upgrades should be in place before operation is permitted.
John
The 60 ft. container sounds like someone's pet project at Canadian Tire. It may work on a very restricted basis, but I don't think they'll become mainstream anytime soon as the infrastructure would need to be upgraded. At some point cutting cost becomes harder than raising prices.. until then the race to the bottom continues.
Ulrich The 60 ft. container sounds like someone's pet project at Canadian Tire. It may work on a very restricted basis, but I don't think they'll become mainstream anytime soon as the infrastructure would need to be upgraded. At some point cutting cost becomes harder than raising prices.. until then the race to the bottom continues.
Ice Road Truckers?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I've never been in the transportation business, but I find it hard to believe it would be worthwhile to design and build something for restricted use. Maybe they're counting on samfp's elephant getting into the tent--never underestimate the power of lobbying.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
I don't know how they manage it in Texas, but here in the United States, 57-foot trailers were tried on an experimental basis some years ago. It was found out that they were too long for most intersections, making it difficult for them to get anywhere.
What's the advantage of using one 60' container, verses two 30' containers? (Or four 15'? )
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The cost of pickup and delivery. Two 30 ft. would require two pickups and deliveries whereas one 60 ft. could be done with one pickup using a very careful driver who doesn't clip signs or traffic signals or other vehicles. That's the theory anyway. There's probably a cost savings to shipping one container verses two or more via rail. Canadian Tire is one of Canada's biggest shippers, and I'm sure they have some clout with the railways in terms of bargaining power.
CSSHEGEWISCH I don't know how they manage it in Texas, but here in the United States, 57-foot trailers were tried on an experimental basis some years ago. It was found out that they were too long for most intersections, making it difficult for them to get anywhere.
Paul:
If my memory is correct those long trailers (57') were at one point some years ago legal in not only Texas, but Louisiana as well, and I am not 100% certain about Mississipi( possibly on a' permitted' basis only there(?). The first one I saw, we loaded at the company I was working for in the Memphis area, we were used to 48' and some 53' but that 57/58?( the Carrier was a company out of Ruston,La.) was a whole new deal....Weight was not a problem as we shipped empty plastic containers back to Louisiana. The problem was 'cornering' where in urban settings, clearences were very tight for the large trailers.
Murphy Siding What's the advantage of using one 60' container, verses two 30' containers? (Or four 15'? )
Murphy Siding: The advantage of a high cube box is that one can load more product, particularly if it is considered 'balloon' freight ( cargo that will cube out before it weighs out). In you business they are great for insulation, loading heavier materials would never use the space available, and the heavier product would require close observation on where the weight of the load was placed in the box,( heavy on the ends, light in the middle) to avoid a trailer breaking in the middle on a rough road.
Walmart Canada has also been experimenting with a 60 foot trailer rig. There is some speculation that it's more of a PR exercise than something they will buy a fleet of:
http://youtu.be/vAkv_in_4rY
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
The doubled used in the US are 28 foot pups, not 30. In certain areas they run triples.
I can see these 60 footers working out as Canadian Tire needs added capacity as the tires would cube out before weighting out. Also, if these run from manufacturing plant to D/C and they have scoped out the routes...it could work. No city deliveries tho.
Ed
On seeing the Walmart video about their Supercube, I'm surprised that the products aren't palletized. So much hand labor required. Doesn't make sense to me.
Pallets are great, but at 75 lbs a pc. they take up valuable space and weight that could be used to ship revenue freight. They're also quite valuable and somewhat hard to track. Losses due to theft are significant, and I personally know of several people who have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pallets. Floor loading makes sense if the freight is fairly light and boxed and/or can be handled easily... it has to come off the pallet eventually anyway.
Gramp On seeing the Walmart video about their Supercube, I'm surprised that the products aren't palletized. So much hand labor required. Doesn't make sense to me.
Can't speak for WalMart Canada - in my local WalMart, in certain areas of the store you see product that was stacked on a pallet, shrink wrapped and shipped. In the store the product is place on the floor, shrink wrap removed and product sold.
That works well for things like detergent... it is farily dense freight and would be time consuming to floor load/unload. Just bring the skid into the store and let the customer(s) unload it for you. And then the customer takes it to the self checkout. Why pay minimum wage when you can get the customer to do the work for free?
samfp1943 From the late 1950's until I retired in 2001, I was in the OTR trucking business, both military and civilian, over that same period of time the legal semi- trailer lengths went from 40 ft to 53 ft; as generally accepted for regular road transport throughout the country.
Wine truck came in on Monday. A 53 footer, but it looked half empty to me. I assure you that I go up as close to the legal weight as possible. If they going to make 'im longer, can we make them heavier?
Oh Nooosss... Now lookat what you did...
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BroadwayLion Wine truck came in on Monday. A 53 footer, but it looked half empty to me. I assure you that I go up as close to the legal weight as possible. If they going to make 'im longer, can we make them heavier?
Ulrich Pallets are great, but at 75 lbs a pc. they take up valuable space and weight that could be used to ship revenue freight. They're also quite valuable and somewhat hard to track. Losses due to theft are significant, and I personally know of several people who have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of pallets. Floor loading makes sense if the freight is fairly light and boxed and/or can be handled easily... it has to come off the pallet eventually anyway.
That means: the driver or trucking company is charged for those pallets used on that load. The game is, that many shippers will load the merchandise on their 'culled' pallets, instead of on prime pallets. The receiver will inspect the pallets on their dock...bad pallets in, mean bad pallets out! or vice vewrsa for 'good wood' in. The driver is hoping that his next load will be on pallets ( he can exchange his for the shipper's. If not he'll be told to dispose of the pallets he has from his last load. Driver's choices are either dump them out ( possibly on the back row of the closest truck stop, or in a convenient dumpster. ) Or if he is luck he can 'sel'l them to another trucker, or maybe even a pallet broker. Since the driver was told to'dispose of them' whatever cash he gets$$$ he sort of can keep it. That is the game of ordinary hard wood shipping pallets of the 40"x48" variety.
Then there are the CHEP Pallets ( stands for: Commonwealth Handling Equipment Pool ) this link will tell you probably more than you ever wanted to know about the ubiquitous Blue Painted Chep Pallet. @ http://www.ask.com/wiki/CHEP?lang=en
They, CHEP pallets, are collected by shippers and receivers and held til they have a truck load and then CHEP moves them to another user location, if needed.
So there is a short, brief lesson in shipping pallets for the uninitiated.
I'll let someone else explain the dynamics of handling loads that are on" Slip Sheets"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.