Truckers using more rail intermodal

[Anonymous]

Been doing this for 35 years now, plan on doing this truck driving thing for another 10 years. I'm the professional, it is my responsibility to compensate for the other guy. That's why I get the big bucks.

Do I get pissed-off at times...Yes, but as the pro it is my responsibility to compensate!

Do I have pet peeves, yes! But at no time do these enter into my driving decisions! My job is to get stuff from one place to another place without incidents!

Jim - Lawton, NV MP 236

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
Higher gross weight? only in certain areas that can take it. Michigan B trains come to mind. Kentucky Coal is another. Rocky Mountain Doubles is a third item and let's not forget the turnpike doubles of NY and Mass.

My feelings are hurt, you forgot triples! Yes, I know you're in the east and this is a western thing...But how could you forget one of the first exceptions to federal highway standards.

1980 at Sparks, Nevada - a set of triples bound for Las Vegas from Reno, NV, I'm the driver!



Jim - Lawton, NV MP 236

[Anonymous]

There also is another problem not mentioned here.

Bridges are built for a certain weight they can support. While road would happily carry 15 klbs/axle trucks with little care for total truck weight - bridges do not. Three trucks of 80 klbs cal happily run on a bridge, but three 145 klbs trucks are too heavy for the bridge to support. This leads to a problem of increased wear, maintenence costs and may even end in a catastrophy.

This is the reason why european railroads do not use bethgon-like 6-axle hoppers - thousands of bridges are not built to withstand such weights.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Mny highway departments are concerned about what the current weight of trucks does to their maintenance costs now!

It shouldn't suprise you to know that it is possible to raise or eliminate GVW and at the same time reduce wear and tear on roads. The current weight limits of 20,000 lbs for a single axle, 34,000 lbs for a tandem, and 42,000 lbs for a tridem are all based on the federal bridge formula from the 1950's. Subsequently, you now have trailes with two single axles spaced nine feet apart that are allowed to carry 20,000 per axle (40,000 lbs combined) which is only slightly less than allowed by a tridem. Obviously, a tridem axle set spreads the weight over three axles at 14,000 lbs per, and this causes less road damage than the two 20,000 lb axles, yet because of the regulation it is cheaper for the truckers to go with the two spread singe axles than a tridem axle set.

What is needed is a modernization of axle weights, perhaps allowing a max per axle of only 15,000, but make it consistent per axle, so that tandems carry 30,000 lbs and tridems carry 45,000 lbs, even add quads at 60,000 lbs, and this would encourage truckers to go with more axles to spread the weight over more area, which in turn would decrease road wear. Then, the truckers can carry more cargo per load, which would reduce the number of trucks on the highways e.g. 5 trucks at 145,000 GVW will carry more cargo than 9 trucks at 80,000 GVW.

Spread the weight over more axles, and you can increase GVW without increasing road damage.

"rolls up sleeves and cracks knuckles..."

The laws governing driving time dates from the 30's Regardless of when the laws are written, you are absolutely correct on the weight limits in the Interstate Highway System.

Trailers with two axles spread apart are usually flatbeds with a very special purpose. I spent some time driving one of these for a now bankrupt company hauling steel coil and aluminum coil as well as other heavy loads.

The Trailer design for the two axles across ten feet (some states only allow 8 feet) in the rear allows the single axle law to be enforced at 40,000 pounds total weight.

A tridem or triple axle spreads 42,000 pounds across at least 10 feet.

Now. Steel coil. Worst case scenario (whew) I think it was 22 feet long at 100 inches wide and set at the EXACT middle of the trailer where the middle indicator marker lights are which is roughly at the 24th of the total 48 feet availible on that deck.

This coil should weigh about 54,000 pounds (again I forget the totals for exact tares so bear with me) and when placed on a Volvo M11 Tractor with the 320 horse power engine and a Aluminum Trailer equipped with two spread axles at 10 feet should result in JUST UNDER 79,400 pounds provided that the tractor is carrying about half fuel and allowing for 220 pounds of driver and clothes, TV, jackets, food supplies etc etc... (you laugh but me and wife imposed a 1100 pound penalty on the empty weight when we drove with full provisions for 4 weeks)

Where are you going to find the room on the scale for that third axle?? That extra axle will probably cost you on the order of 1 ton. The tires x4 probably run you about 500 pounds with the wheels, the axle and brake/signaling hardware probably another 1000 pounds so for sake of smplicity you are already at 82,000 on that third axle.

They are paying you by the weight of the cargo you can haul.

That means my ten foot spread trailer will be called up to get loaded for pay first.

Your tridem while beautiful probably will not get called. UNLESS you have a TRIDEM tractor to go with the trailer. Then they will REALLY put you up for the good paying heavy stuff.

With the interesting twist that coils big enough to require triples on each end of the load deck probably puts you into the over sized vehicle rules and permits are now required as well as a new pay rates for these "special loads" The steel mills try not to "Cough" up such large coils but they will if need be.

Manuverability on the ten foot spread is pretty darn good. We "cheat" by depressing the bags on the suspension to raise one axle off the roadway to save wear and tear. I cannot imagine the tire bill for three complete sets of axles over 12 tires. They probably will all need to be replaced twice a year.

One tire 300 dollars. x 12 = $3600 every 6 months not including down time, man hours and insurance against road damage and or driver neglect on the turns. This is for a TRIDEM....

Now tire figures for a ten foot spread

8 tires at 300 dollars each... 2400 every 6 months.

Or

4 super singles at 500 dollars apeice... 2000 every 6 months

Those super singles demand the best driver you can find you dont want a pretty boy straight from high school driving a super single thinking he or she will drive over everything.

The weights of the tires fall dramatically from Tridems down to duals and to singles.

Go light as possible to haul as MUCH as possible up to 80,000 pounds.

That my friend, is the secret to the axle problem.

Now regarding road damage. Take Germany in the 2nd world war. Hitler demanded highways so big and thick that TANKS can travel if need be on it. Some sections still survive today basically untouched.

Now think about the airports. The runways. When a 747-300 touches down at 140 mph weighing as much as a Steam Big Boy (whew) there is a hell of alot of stress on that pavement. Pounded several times a minute for hours at a time. I dont see much in the way of Schnieder Babies painted orange and declaring "under construction" on those airport runways do you?

Now an American Interstate Highway. The money has to come from somewhere. After the epic arm twisting and dealing going on is finished and it's time to build a highway they pour just enough concrete to meet standards as required by the government. Cures it, paints the thing and signage/gaurdrails and throw a opening day party and everyone is happy with the shiny new road.

Until the first cracks form. Then potholes are born. We stubborn drivers grimly bull our way thru em until they get too big for even our Govt officials who start to feel the bounce and sway and demand the road to be fixed.

It may take 20 years but that road will be fixed.

Having seen entire states worth of interstates stripped down to bare dirt and completely replaced in states such as PA, Arkansas and other really bad areas we are basically rebuilding something that should have lasted another 10 years.

Eventually everything will be replaced and the cycle starts all over again.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Mny highway departments are concerned about what the current weight of trucks does to their maintenance costs now!

It shouldn't suprise you to know that it is possible to raise or eliminate GVW and at the same time reduce wear and tear on roads. The current weight limits of 20,000 lbs for a single axle, 34,000 lbs for a tandem, and 42,000 lbs for a tridem are all based on the federal bridge formula from the 1950's. Subsequently, you now have trailes with two single axles spaced nine feet apart that are allowed to carry 20,000 per axle (40,000 lbs combined) which is only slightly less than allowed by a tridem. Obviously, a tridem axle set spreads the weight over three axles at 14,000 lbs per, and this causes less road damage than the two 20,000 lb axles, yet because of the regulation it is cheaper for the truckers to go with the two spread singe axles than a tridem axle set.

What is needed is a modernization of axle weights, perhaps allowing a max per axle of only 15,000, but make it consistent per axle, so that tandems carry 30,000 lbs and tridems carry 45,000 lbs, even add quads at 60,000 lbs, and this would encourage truckers to go with more axles to spread the weight over more area, which in turn would decrease road wear. Then, the truckers can carry more cargo per load, which would reduce the number of trucks on the highways e.g. 5 trucks at 145,000 GVW will carry more cargo than 9 trucks at 80,000 GVW.

Spread the weight over more axles, and you can increase GVW without increasing road damage.

[daveklepper]

The highways are the major health problem for most civilized countries.

But the research money has been going to get people to "spend more time in cars"

[Anonymous]

I once had a lady in Baltimore who refused to yeild to my milk truck down by the dairy at a light. I needed her to back up just a hair because I was on green and needed the room to swing at that corner.

She refused to budge. I could not back up due to traffic stacking behind me. Finally light changes to green for her and she started to yell at me saying that she has the god given right to use the road and now I was blocking her.

I whistled up a street cop who sees this all the time, he whistled up a large 3 Axle tow driver who tows big trucks... that rig loomed up behind screaming lady's car and dropped a hook big enough to carry her mercury. Cop asks nicely "Lady, settle down and please move or we will move you" Lady moved. It was the sight of the tow truck big enough to tow MY rig dropping the hook on her car that made her move.

Was that all necessary? No. But people sometimes feel that they are sovereign right to rule the kingdom from the wheel of a car and we have alot of fun situations because of that.

Perhaps we can train drivers to run as Engineers do. With firemen to assist in signal recognition and dispatchers to issue track (road) warrants from point A to point B across the city. Run the road system like a railroad.

Imagine if trains were allowed to drive up and down the rails whenever they wanted to.

[edbenton]

High Iron I can't agree with you more. I one time saw a guy on The PA Turnpike in memorial day traffic no less while driving he HAD BOTH FEET ON THE DASHBOARD AND HAS TALKING ON A CELLPHONE. If he had had to hit the brakes forget it no way he could have reached them in time I was never so glad to get passed someone in my life.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you there Slim. Kraft was one of those places where you were supposed to wash your trailer and ensure no odors or they wont load you. There will always be truckers to take the stuff to and from places just in a different way.

I have seen some of company trailers on trains and understood that motor freight so and so wont put that trailer on the train unless there was a need to. Strategic thinking related to how many loads of widgets that are needed to be run today and how many trailers are going to be needed somewhere else to fill orders tomorrow?

I was with JB Hunt after 9-11. We were in a situation where there was too many empty trucks for loads in various parts of the Nation. My dispatcher (Bless him) sent me to St Louis to Busch for beer. The problem was that about 570 trucks are also expected to arrive in St Louis when I do and only 230 will get loads that day. The rest are either committed to other loads or waiting until loads tomorrow. So I was happy to have a load going to no where Iowa with 4 days to pull it (only need 2) when I knew others are having to consume food while not being loaded and rolling.

Another time at the City Dock in Philadelphia a ship pulled in with Grapes. Ruby Grapes, Thompson Seedless etc etc.. You literally could see the hundred or so orders going out the doors to ship to the resterants, cold storage facilities and into Walmart centers for thier grocery stores along with other food stores wanting the product. It was a good day for business that day.

But that ship has to travel back to wherever the grapes came from (My guess is europe) and get reloaded and make the return trip. In the mean time these drivers and companies who had alot of business today will have to find more cargo to run for a profit until that ship returns.

Regarding the soccer moms and Nascar dads... dont get me started. I have two photo graphs which I will be placing into my photobucket in about a month showing a high speed car going out of control on a Wyoming Highway in the land of winter and split ice driving conditions. I saw this car coming at 60+ in the mirror and I was at 12 mph fighting for traction with chains out and interlock in...the car lost it and went off the road.

As far as the morning commute filled with Make up putter oners, newspaper readers, cell phone chewers and do everything related to work while driving to work .. anything BUT actually driving and keeping clear of the truckers and other cars...I say "simplfy" and stop for a nap and breakfast for a few hours in the morning and again at dinner time and let them have the traffic. It was safer that way.. I can always run at night when everyone is asleep in the USA.

Safety on the train for cargo is pretty good. If I can choose between Truck and Train between Baltimore and Portland I will want to run it on the train. This way I can keep my "driver" closer to his home and family. And I can make several trailers work instead of sitting empty for want of drivers.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed

MHO is hooray. The more trucks not moving on the roads makes the roads safer for kiddie car drivers.

You'll never make the roads safer unless you get those "soccer moms" and "nascar dads" off too. They are just as bad if not worse. Lets not forget people talking on the cell phone, doing their hair, eating, or whatever while they are driving. Lets not forget those that are prone to road rage and being drunk. I don't know about you but I can live with trucks on the road.

As for long haul trucking going away, to an extent average miles per trip are going down, but don't think its all going on the train. There is plenty of freight for solos and not everything is going to teams, even though teams have always been a high priority to trucking companies. There are many reasons why freight miles are down to an extent. Major manufacturing is going overseas(which ends up on a train anyways) to take advantage of the kiddie labor, manufacturers are closing down old plants and consolidating plants and moving them closer to their customers or distribution centers. Look at Kraft. A few months ago they announced that they were closing a bunch of their plants. True some of the freight is going on the rail but mostly from high out put manufacturers like paper and consumer goods. And even then they put it in a trailer or a domestic container. Alot of this freight is coming from trucking companies just to get the business. Why do you think the majority of trailers belong to Schneider, Swift, JB Hunt, etc. They are all large truckload carriers or ltl carriers that need to meet speedy gauranteed delivery times. Also remember just cause you see a trailer on a flat car, don't assume its full with freight. Trucking companies have been known to put trailers on rail just to get them from one area of the country where there is a lack of freight to an area where freight is at a high demand. Same goes when major companies buy new trailers. Or for instance, a trucking company dosent have enough drivers and there is a large surge in freight volumes out of a plant and they are commited to the plant. Instead of letting another trucking company get their foot in the door which could than bite the butt of the other and take over the account, they find ways to deal with the freight, in this case put it on the rail. Also most of that freight is cheap to begin with. Drivers dont want to haul for cheap rates.

[2c]
Steve

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Why is it more expensive to ship a trailer by rail than by over the road? This doesn't fit the economic models. Trucks have higher labor per revenue/ton costs, higher ton/mile fuel use, they pay higher fuel costs per gallon than do the railroads. Hmmmm.....

Eventually, this situation is going to lead trucking lobbyists to call for higher GVW and length limits to improve the labor and fuel productivity. The railroads have a chance to head this off by pricing for future possibilities rather than the here and now, but.......

That wont happen. Try getting out of Hunts Point New York to the Throgs Neck Bridge with anything bigger than a single 53' In fact we used 45' ers and cab overs back in the day for getting into some of these places.

Higher gross weight? only in certain areas that can take it. Michigan B trains come to mind. Kentucky Coal is another. Rocky Mountain Doubles is a third item and let's not forget the turnpike doubles of NY and Mass.

I had a vision years ago when I was stuck in Chicago trying to hunt down one specific box with a 12 digit number in a land full of boxes stacked 6 high with trains coming and going and yard jockeys cursing and yelling as commerce groaned it's way thru chicago threating to gridlock the entire metro area with no hope of ever getting out this century.

I am motivated by the memory of my very first legal 53 foot trailer on a 245 Inch conventional tractor. This was back in early 90's. I pulled onto the scale house down by I-64 at the Richmond Va bypass. There was an old platform scale that refused to fit the entire unit on and traffic stacked up a mile behind me as the Va State police struggled to determine if my wheelbase was correct for the weights shown on the axles. I certainly was not the first truck at that chicken coop with the problem.

The solution was new scale facilities where they can weigh a truck in motion at 40 mph regardless of what combination of vehicle hits the gate. But inner city and very small towns will NOT accomodate larger and heavier vehicles.

I recall a small town in Indiana where the pavement is only several inches thick because it costs money to build a good strong road and I was told "dont stop on my road" by the local sherriff because 1- I would sink in 2- I really should not have been there with such a large vehicle but that is a different story..

If you want bigger and heavyier vehicles be prepared to make huge changes in current driving habits of everyone on the road, infrastructure and modifications to everything along the routes. That will be more expensive than the extra cargo will be worth.

Solution? Relocate the plants to be closer to the end user or hire more trucks and drivers to carry the cargo, put the rest on the intracoastel waters or train. A mississippi River Barge can carry as much as 80 cars of a freight train without the traffic headaches of getting from New Orleans up to Memphis.

[spbed]

MHO is hooray. The more trucks not moving on the roads makes the roads safer for kiddie car drivers.

[daveklepper]

Mny highway departments are concerned about what the current weight of trucks does to their maintenance costs now!

[Anonymous]

Why is it more expensive to ship a trailer by rail than by over the road? This doesn't fit the economic models. Trucks have higher labor per revenue/ton costs, higher ton/mile fuel use, they pay higher fuel costs per gallon than do the railroads. Hmmmm.....

Eventually, this situation is going to lead trucking lobbyists to call for higher GVW and length limits to improve the labor and fuel productivity. The railroads have a chance to head this off by pricing for future possibilities rather than the here and now, but.......

[Anonymous]

The days of the long haul for solo is finished. It is now teams 24/7 if you expect to be on time. This is not to say that solos cannot make it... but there are just too many problems.

I recall when railroads cranked up intermodal boxes in a big way, everyone thought that the largest carriers will simply stick 400 trailers on a train and ship the whole thing to the west coast (or east coast if you prefer) and not need long haul drivers anymore.

Also it is not too bad when you have a new hotel under construction on one coast and a furnature factory completing it's total requirement of furnature and putting it on a train which will take 5-10 days to cross the United States. Furnature is something that does not require JIT or Expedited service. Now, Frozen Food, Produce, Refridgerated and other time sensitive products require time service that only 24/7 teams can do crossing the nation in 80 hours. (3 days and some change) Trains are not yet that fast.

I consider the late 80's the end of the era of a true long haul part of trucking. Schedules, GPS Satellites and Data communications as well as management focusing on truck/trailer useage by time and revenue all have speeded up trucking so much that you need Teams to keep good service 24/7.

I will not address the cultural changes that has become apparent in the last 5 years. The biggest thing is the waiting time which can be in the excess of 40 hours a week with no pay on down to personal hygene and nutrition being sacrifaced in order to keep a load moving and the job as well. People refuse to live and work in those conditions for too long. 3-6 months max. The ones that stay a year or more will always be able to survive the industry. The rest seek a better life or back to school.

You will always need a truck to get the box to and from a train or ship. Keeping those trucks manned and rolling (loaded) is a awesome challenge facing anyone who hauls cargo for hire in the United States. Especially in face of out dated laws, regulations and unrealistic scheduling.

I better get off this soapbox. Once one gets moving... it can be hard to stop. [soapbox]

[greyhounds]

Well, there aren't enough drivers so they're using rail - at higher rates. This B a good thing.

http://fleetowner.com/news/topstory/truckload_dedicated_intermodal_021605/

Load 'em up, move 'em out, send 'em a bill.