BaltACD 7j43k Are the civil engineers in Michigan stikingly stupid? If so, I hope they don't migrate elsewhere. Ed No contractor has ever found a corner he couldn't cut to increase his profit.
7j43k Are the civil engineers in Michigan stikingly stupid? If so, I hope they don't migrate elsewhere. Ed
Ed
No contractor has ever found a corner he couldn't cut to increase his profit.
BaltACD You are so right!! Unless you have 10-15 highly qualified, highly motivated engineers/engineer techs watching every move the contractor makes all day long and part of the night, and even then the contractor can find a way. Most of the construction contracts I had when with the Feds, the supervising engineer was part-time on any one project, and if there was an engineer tech available part-time in addition, it was like a fantasy come true. 7j43k Are the civil engineers in Michigan stikingly stupid? If so, I hope they don't migrate elsewhere. Ed No contractor has ever found a corner he couldn't cut to increase his profit.
You are so right!! Unless you have 10-15 highly qualified, highly motivated engineers/engineer techs watching every move the contractor makes all day long and part of the night, and even then the contractor can find a way. Most of the construction contracts I had when with the Feds, the supervising engineer was part-time on any one project, and if there was an engineer tech available part-time in addition, it was like a fantasy come true.
BaltACD Part of the reason for the Eisenhower Interstate System was also as a Defense Mobility function. Have the spec for the roadway been designed to support moving Abrams M1A1 Main Battle tanks on the roadways without significant damage? I am led to understand that the German Autobahns were constructed with a 20 inch thick road surface. I believe the US standard is 6 inches. I am willing to be corrected.
Part of the reason for the Eisenhower Interstate System was also as a Defense Mobility function. Have the spec for the roadway been designed to support moving Abrams M1A1 Main Battle tanks on the roadways without significant damage?
I am led to understand that the German Autobahns were constructed with a 20 inch thick road surface. I believe the US standard is 6 inches. I am willing to be corrected.
Since the weight of an M1A1 is about the same as an M103, and the M103 was on the drawing board in 1950, I would think that there wouldn't be any change in design to handle the M1A1. Since it would be on a transporter, the overall weight might be less IF the transporter had a lower tare weight.
An online search for concrete thickness for the Autobahn finds 8 inches.
An online search for concrete thickness for Interstate highways finds 11-12 inches.
I didn't spend lots of time confirming the above two statements.
However:
Here is a pamphlet that shows the 11 inch thick concrete on top of 21 inches of aggregate on top of compacted soil:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3127/2006-3127.pdf
The Abrams wasn't developed until well after the Interstate System was built. I've seen some construction and it seems to be quite a bit thicker than 6 inches.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
7j43kHe also explained why some people in Michigan were living in basements without a hint of a house on top.
Used to be some of those in northern, NY, too...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
7j43k He also explained why some people in Michigan were living in basements without a hint of a house on top. Ed
He also explained why some people in Michigan were living in basements without a hint of a house on top.
Shadow the Cats owner You can blame poorly built roads on how the USA contracts road construction out. Instead of requirements of lasting so many years between being replaced and so for with warranty requirements in the contracts. Nope it's a generic set of requirements for each state with a baseline requirement and the cheapest contract wins regardless of if the project fails 6 months later. All of this mandated by the Federal government.
You can blame poorly built roads on how the USA contracts road construction out. Instead of requirements of lasting so many years between being replaced and so for with warranty requirements in the contracts. Nope it's a generic set of requirements for each state with a baseline requirement and the cheapest contract wins regardless of if the project fails 6 months later. All of this mandated by the Federal government.
Truly amazing how the federal government causes historically crappy roads in Michigan.
One can only wonder how Michigan became the target of federal ire, as opposed to Nevada. Or Nebraska.
Michigan trucks have to have a lot more axels so the per axel loan is the same. Some of the trucks have retractable axels for seasonal "frost law" load limits.
True. I find them all the time. I just don't choose to take them.
7j43kAre the civil engineers in Michigan stikingly stupid? If so, I hope they don't migrate elsewhere. Ed
Are the civil engineers in Michigan stikingly stupid? If so, I hope they don't migrate elsewhere.
BaltACD Backshop Yeah, but did you read the preface on the report. It claims that they damage the roads less than two standard trucks, which is BS. The MTA (MI Trucking Assn) is one of the strongest lobbying groups in the state. They know which palms to grease. Their claim used to be that MI needed the heavier trucks because of all the heavy industry we have. Those days are long gone, so they started a new tack. Also, that it's better because of the driver shortage. Is Michigan building the roads to a higher standard to support the additional weights than the rest of the states are?
Backshop Yeah, but did you read the preface on the report. It claims that they damage the roads less than two standard trucks, which is BS. The MTA (MI Trucking Assn) is one of the strongest lobbying groups in the state. They know which palms to grease. Their claim used to be that MI needed the heavier trucks because of all the heavy industry we have. Those days are long gone, so they started a new tack. Also, that it's better because of the driver shortage.
Is Michigan building the roads to a higher standard to support the additional weights than the rest of the states are?
The main problem here is civil engineers don't account for the high water table we have.. The mix of sandy and clay soil is not satisfactory. Clay has very little to no percolation. Poor drainage destroys the sub grade of the road. The weight just makes it worse. The thaw freeze cycles don't help either. Southwestern Ontario has just as high axle loads on their trucks yet their roads are much better and they have very similar soil conditions..
In 1962, on a car trip, I asked my Dad how come the road suddenly became so bumpy and nasty. He said "We're in Michigan now."
An informative trip--See America First!
You must be a lot older than me if you think Michigan's roads were ever the best, and I'm 62. I remember the experimental, no expansion joint paving that they used on I-275, in the late 70s, early 80s. It didn't last long. Who can forget the "innovative" tensioned interior cables of the infamous Zilwaukee Bridge? The list goes on and on...
Zilwaukee Bridge - Wikipedia
Michigan roads used to be the best, it being the auto industry state. Now they are the worst; even worse than all-but-bankrupt Illinois!
- Ed Kyle
It doesn't seem like it.
BackshopYeah, but did you read the preface on the report. It claims that they damage the roads less than two standard trucks, which is BS. The MTA (MI Trucking Assn) is one of the strongest lobbying groups in the state. They know which palms to grease. Their claim used to be that MI needed the heavier trucks because of all the heavy industry we have. Those days are long gone, so they started a new tack. Also, that it's better because of the driver shortage.
Yeah, but did you read the preface on the report. It claims that they damage the roads less than two standard trucks, which is BS. The MTA (MI Trucking Assn) is one of the strongest lobbying groups in the state. They know which palms to grease. Their claim used to be that MI needed the heavier trucks because of all the heavy industry we have. Those days are long gone, so they started a new tack. Also, that it's better because of the driver shortage.
BackshopEight axle trailers (11 total) are allowed 164,000#. There are more than 3200 trucks in Michigan baseplated for at least 130,000# GVW. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_013-4-16TruckWeightsMichigan_418609_7.pdf#:~:text=The%20maximum%20gross%20vehicle%20weight%20allowed%20on%20a,of%20an%20additional%20tractor%20at%20about%20ten%20tons.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_013-4-16TruckWeightsMichigan_418609_7.pdf#:~:text=The%20maximum%20gross%20vehicle%20weight%20allowed%20on%20a,of%20an%20additional%20tractor%20at%20about%20ten%20tons.
No wonder Michigan roads look like the quarry Fred Flintstone works in.
Eight axle trailers (11 total) are allowed 164,000#. There are more than 3200 trucks in Michigan baseplated for at least 130,000# GVW.
BackshopNot containers, but here are some of the everyday trucks you see in Michigan. Michigan Truck Road Trains (Quikrete, Praxair, Flying J) - YouTube
Michigan Truck Road Trains (Quikrete, Praxair, Flying J) - YouTube
What is the purpose of the 7 axles on a 'regular' trailer - raise the load limit to 150K pounds or similar?
Not containers, but here are some of the everyday trucks you see in Michigan.
The lack of long combination vehicle (LCV) container hauls, is in part, a function of a disjointed regulatory environment in the U.S. Congress locked in federal and state length and weight laws in 1991, but the technology has marched on.
Here is a "B train" (trailers linked by a fifth wheel) 4x20' lash up:
https://youtu.be/VwonK7Kx5Ls
And the same with a 2x40' hookup.
https://youtu.be/XG05RfVZhZc
Here's a B triple up in Canada:
https://youtu.be/q-YIblzUZJY
"A trains" are the pintle hooked trailers like those used on UPS pup trailers.
7j43kI'm convinced that any containers held down by straps are NOT in intermodal service. I cannot imagine someone at a port dropping a container down onto a chassis that didn't have box connectors at the four corners. Ed
I have no idea of the ownership or where they were loaded - just seen them moving on I-70 West of Baltimore.
I'm convinced that any containers held down by straps are NOT in intermodal service. I cannot imagine someone at a port dropping a container down onto a chassis that didn't have box connectors at the four corners.
BaltACD Really sketchy is the loading of two 20 foot containers loaded on a single flatbed trailer and secured by ratchet straps.
Really sketchy is the loading of two 20 foot containers loaded on a single flatbed trailer and secured by ratchet straps.
Straps being a key point.
Saw a container moving on a truck the other day with what appeared to be just one such strap... Undoubtedly privately owned for storage and being moved between points, as opposed to carrying cargo.
BaltACD SD60MAC9500 BaltACD CSSHEGEWISCH I would guess that the 28' container was an attempt at a variant with increased flexibility of the trailer usually found in double bottoms. Were any container chassis constructed that would facilitate the hauling of double 28 footers? I have never seen any container chassis that could be doubled over the road. Here in Michigan we do. It's not common but every now and then you can see double 20's. Haven't seen any leaving or going to the Port of Baltimore.
SD60MAC9500 BaltACD CSSHEGEWISCH I would guess that the 28' container was an attempt at a variant with increased flexibility of the trailer usually found in double bottoms. Were any container chassis constructed that would facilitate the hauling of double 28 footers? I have never seen any container chassis that could be doubled over the road. Here in Michigan we do. It's not common but every now and then you can see double 20's.
BaltACD CSSHEGEWISCH I would guess that the 28' container was an attempt at a variant with increased flexibility of the trailer usually found in double bottoms. Were any container chassis constructed that would facilitate the hauling of double 28 footers? I have never seen any container chassis that could be doubled over the road.
CSSHEGEWISCH I would guess that the 28' container was an attempt at a variant with increased flexibility of the trailer usually found in double bottoms.
Were any container chassis constructed that would facilitate the hauling of double 28 footers?
I have never seen any container chassis that could be doubled over the road.
Here in Michigan we do. It's not common but every now and then you can see double 20's.
Haven't seen any leaving or going to the Port of Baltimore.
Yeah you won't see it outside of Michigan. We have a 164K GCVWR on a Tractor Trailer Combo. Double 20's here mostly head to the thumb region for loading grains.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.