The genesis of this Thread was in an item on tonights News. It had to do with the advent of various advocacy groups lining up to either promote or decry heavier truck weights.
link to story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/25/congress-states-debate-heavier-trucks/
The impetus is in that with the larger container ships the weight of the containers will go to 97,000 pounds(?)
FTA:" ...With the Panama Canal being deepened, these larger cargo ships coming in are going to be carrying containers that weigh 97,000 pounds," said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA). "If we continue to have our weight limit at 80,000 pounds, then we would have to take the containers, unload them, repack them, put them on trucks and use more trucks to do that..."
I passed the link by Dr. Leachman, an expert in the field, he didn't feel that an increase in Marine containers was imminent. Domestic containers are possible, of course. Watch the roads and bridges go down hill even faster.
We had a severe windstorm this past summer which knocked down tens of thousands of trees across NW Wisconsin, to help move the downed trees out and reduce the forest fire hazard WisDOT announced an increase in the maximum allowable truck weight on state highways across the affected area. They came to my county to announce the idea to the County Board and Townships, the County Highway Commissioner asked if the state would be providing any money to help repair the roads damaged by the heavier trucks, when the answer was a weak maybe, the County announced that the weight limits on County highways would remain the same and not be raised. The Townships were even more adamant about no money, then no raised weight limits, WisDOT was not pleased.
beaulieu [snipped] They came to my county to announce the idea to the County Board and Townships, the County Highway Commissioner asked if the state would be providing any money to help repair the roads damaged by the heavier trucks, when the answer was a weak maybe, the County announced that the weight limits on County highways would remain the same and not be raised. The Townships were even more adamant about no money, then no raised weight limits, WisDOT was not pleased.
More generally, the 'BogoSity' index (per Tom Magliozzi of CarTalk) seems high here. In reverse order, recall seeing a fully loaded logging truck with a legal load. Where would they put any extra logs, and still fit under bridges ?
On the containers, the 97,000 lb. gross weight seems credible only if based on scaling up/ proportioning up a 40 or 45,000 lb. weight for a 20-ft. container ("TEU"). At 2,000+ lbs. per ft. of length, then a 40-ft. box ("FEU") could be 80 to 90,000 lbs., and a 53-ft. box could be 106,000 to 119,000 lbs. But if a 40-ft. box at 40 - 45,000 lbs. is the basis, then a 53-ft. container would be only in the range of 53,000 to 60,000 lbs.
And what are they shipping with those weights ? At 2,000 - 2,250 lbs. per lineal foot, in an 8 ft. x 8 ft. cross-section, the average density is from 31 to 35 lbs. per cubic foot. That's light for commodities - grain, coal, stone, etc. - but heavy for most manufactured goods (a refrigerator, for example, might be 15 lbs. per cu. ft., at least until you put the turkey leftovers and trimmings into it !).
- Paul North.
Your going to see a REVOLT in the OTR side of EVERY O/O Company Driver with any Experiance and Smaller Fleets if this comes to pass. Why there is ONLY one group pushing for a 97K pound Weight limit in this nation the ATA or as they are now called the American SHIPPERS Association. The ATA has not supported drivers in anything since Patton was in Diapers. Most of their Fleets such as Schiender Swift Maverick TMC and JB Hunt to this day are Still against APU's for Driver Comfort and refuse to allow their Drivers to Idle their Trucks to get a good nights rest. They Support a Mandatory Speed Governor of 65 MPH for all trucks Nationwide.
The Costs of having a 97K lb compatable truck is going to be HUGE and I mean HUGE costs to replace all the trailers in the Nation with a 3rd axle equipped model. Retorfitting them will not work as they are not Engineered for that much weight. So your looking at replaceing over 10 MILLION trailers in less than a year nationwide. Have fin coming up with the 100 BILLION in capital to do that.
Not mention is all the container cranes that would need to be replaced, plus the double stack railcars, unless you put an empty on top of a loaded 53-ft.
It would cause some railcar management issues, but the railroads could handle it. They'd have to work with the ship lines to have the right stack cars available, but it should be manageable.
Having said that, I don't see an increase in highway weight limits any time soon. But I'm not clarvoyant.
As Ed Benton said, an increase in gross vehicle weight won't help most truckers one iota. Due to the competitive nature of transportation just about any and all cost savings would be passed on to the shipper. An exception would be truckers that have barriers to entry that protect their markets. UPS and FedEx come to mind. But UPS and FedEx tend to handle light loading freight, not heavy aluminum ingots. They're more insterested in higher cube than higher weight. In any event, the average truckload carrier will, by competitive necessity, be forced to pass though just about any cost savings to the customer.
Here's the already existant stack car the railroads can use:
http://www.gbrx.com/files/files/NAR/Stack_Cars/StackCarsHusky.pdf
This car can carry 169,500 pounds of containers and their contents. Here are some rough calculations:
1) two containers @14,000 pounds emtpy weight each (way high) = 28,000 pounds
2) two ladings @67,000 pounds each (way high) = 134,000 pounds
3) 28,000 + 134,000 = 162,000 pounds
Q.E.D. the car can handle two containers with the proposed extra 17,000 pounds gross highway vehicle weight (97,000 proposed - 80,000 pounds current) And this assumes all the extra weight is in lading and the containers are very heavy. That can't be. Part of the extra weight will have to go in to the highway vehicle, not the lading.
It's important to remember that most freight cubes out before it weighs out. That is, the vehicle is full to cubic capacity before its weight capacity is reached. So a minority of loads would ever be this heavy.
But if they are this heavy, the railroads can handle it.
Greyhounds if You think the OTR industry is going to sit back and EAT all the costs of the extra Taxes Fees Fuel Feul Taxes Road Taxes and all the other REVENUE the Goverment will suck out of the Pockets of the Industry BEFORE we haul one load at 97K your Nutter than a Squirrel hauling a load of nuts. We as an Industry have cut so much that there is NOTHING more we can cut. Most carriers are running on a 2 Cent a mile Profit Margin now and that is NOT ENOUGH. Sorry but Costs WILL INCREASE for the Shippers RECIVERS and Everyone and the Truckers will be in the Drivers seat this time as If we stop so does this Nation.
We stop rolling there is no Food Fuel or anything at the stores within a week and You know it. Even the RR's would stop as the Crews can not get to work.
Ed,
Chill out. All Grayhounds said is that any cost savings the motor carriers see due to heavier loads will be passed to customers. Your posts all seem to agree with that basic proposition. I would agree with both of you. That means more price pressure on the railroads in that market segment.
Railroads will oppose heavier truck weight limits as they have every time in the past.
Mac McCulloch
The comments at the beginning of this thread from a Georgia legislator (Westmoreland) linked the need for an increase in container weights to bigger ships soon being able to transit the Panama Canal. Was this just so much political hot air or is there some logical connection? I can understand that a larger ship can carry more containers, but the connection to container weight seems less certain.
Perhaps what I am asking is if the current or future container ship fleet is anywhere near its maximum displacement in the typical sailing, or if the practical maximum is first reached in terms of the height of the container stack -- in effect if the typical ship cubes out before it weighs out..
edbenton Greyhounds if You think the OTR industry is going to sit back and EAT all the costs of the extra Taxes Fees Fuel Feul Taxes Road Taxes and all the other REVENUE the Goverment will suck out of the Pockets of the Industry BEFORE we haul one load at 97K your Nutter than a Squirrel hauling a load of nuts. We as an Industry have cut so much that there is NOTHING more we can cut. Most carriers are running on a 2 Cent a mile Profit Margin now and that is NOT ENOUGH. Sorry but Costs WILL INCREASE for the Shippers RECIVERS and Everyone and the Truckers will be in the Drivers seat this time as If we stop so does this Nation. We stop rolling there is no Food Fuel or anything at the stores within a week and You know it. Even the RR's would stop as the Crews can not get to work.
Ed, please reread and try to understand what I wrote.
I did not say that that the truckers would "Eat" the added costs of moving heavier loads. They can't "Eat" those costs. It will cost more per vehicle to move 97,000 than it does to move 80,000 and the trucker will have to cover the cost.
But there will be a reduction in the per ton cost, which is what a shipper of heavy loading freight is concerned with. I said that "Cost Savings" would be passed through to the shippers due to the competitive nature of the truckload market. I stand by that statement.
Now, go take a chill pill.
Dakguy201 Perhaps what I am asking is if the current or future container ship fleet is anywhere near its maximum displacement in the typical sailing, or if the practical maximum is first reached in terms of the height of the container stack -- in effect if the typical ship cubes out before it weighs out..
Yes, container ships regularly load out to their maximum number of containers, when they do it is normally with empty brand new US domestic containers being delivered. There has been no talk of heavier ISO maritime containers that I have heard. I think the Georgia legislator is just scare mongering. The Maersk Triple E ships which will be the largest in the world save a few supertankers (VLCCs) have added length and can carry containers two rows wider across the ship. They will not be used on US services, but will go into Asia to Europe service, possibly displacing the previous recordholders, the Emma Maersk class ships. The emphasis amongst the container ship companies is ships handling more containers, not heavier ones. Also container cranes at the ports would also have to be upgraded, they won't easily handle the extra weight. Newer cranes are designed to handle 2 40ft. or 4 20ft containers, they would have to more carefully plan how the unload containers so as to not pickup multiple "heavies" decreasing overall unloading speed.
I monitor the trucking business via some radio shows carried on XM and, at least as far as owner-operators are concerned, they are obsessively concerned with tire wear and fuel economy. They do not earn any more for a heavier load than a lighter load. I vaguely recall a conversation last year about this very subject on the "Trucking Business and Beyond" radio show. The drivers haul more freight and consume more fuel and wear down their tires more but don't get paid more, so they're not thrilled about it.
What's interesting is that at a time when we may get heavier/longer trucks (any more talk about 60' trailers?), there was an AP article a few days ago about many towns "decreasing" their roads (removing lanes, tightening up corners, etc) in order to "calm" traffic and hopefully encourage more people to stop, instead of driving right on through.
Interesting mix.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
My 2 cents worth:
Comment 1. The gentleman from wherever(congressman) . It sounds like someone was making a statement for consideration(campaign contribution, retirement fund, hey would you buy a few of my books, etc) . As to heavier containers you would absolutely need a different chassis. IE more axles on the ground.
As Paul North(I think) pointed out a few months ago elsewhere the port in Philly does allow heavier weights to traverse the port areas. This is primarily because while a containerbefore a container has cleared customs and is under seal. It is a "non divisibile" load whilst under customs seal. IE you can't open.
Bear in mind if container weights were allowed to be increased, the main cost of this would be borne by the shipping companies(they own the chassis's). When shipping companies have heavy haul they do use special chassis. I've seen both tri axle and spread axle set ups . With a tri axle dependant on state and local regs I think they can go as much as 90,000 lbs gross(total vehicle weight). spread axles is 86,000Lbs(12000 on steer 34000 on tractor drives and 20000lbs on eachof the trailer axles(40000 on trailer))
Now as to weight increases for general cargo. Me thinks Ed Bentons comments cover it well . My opinion is the American Shipper(Trucking) Assoc can(think of something profane to fill this in).
Thx IGN
The ATA New Chairmen is the worst person they could have chosen right now to improve their Standing with Drivers and Smaller Compaines Dan England. Yep the guy that forces E$very Driver they have to lease a Truck from HIMand Starve has Fought and LOST every LEasing Lawsuit he has been named a Defendant in. He has lost 15 TIL lawsuits is fighting the accounting if Escrow accounts he charges drivers 19% intrest if they break the Contract but only gives them .5% intrest on their Escrow accounts. Well until the last lawsuit against OOIDA involving IIRC 4K former Lease Purchase Drivers that a Federal Judge in UTAH ordered him to pay them 19% interest on all ESCROW money from day one. also refund all ovecharges on National Account Tire Purchases made by drivers on all equipment Stuff like this. He and his company is looking at over 500 MILLION in this lawsuit by the time all legal fees and damages are done as the judge is going to award Punitive damages from the way it sounds.
He is been pushing for uyears for heavier trucks since the 90's saying we need it for better Profits he and his company have been the largest rate cutters in the industry. Now why are the smaller Companies going to be in the drivers seat on this. They haul 95% of all the Freight hauled in the Nationm. What the Megas haul is Chicken feed compared to carriers with 5 or less trucks just you see JB Hunt and Schiender alot more. If the Small boys stop the Megas will crash withhout them.
Higher weight limits could potentially offer some productivity gains to offest the added cost to infrastructure. We allow higher weights here in Canada along with longer more liberal axle and vehicle combinations to ensure that weight is carried safely and with minimal impact on the road. Added weight doesn't mean safety goes out the window...here in Canada one B- train with 2 40 thousand pound steel coils replaces two standard tractor trailers that carry one coil each. A higher weight would possibily allow for some reduction in the number of trucks on the road, which would lessen the liklihood of an accident with a truck. Now having said that, how many loads are actually so heavy? In my experience most loads, especially all that dollar store stuff brought in from overseas are not all that heavy. Weight is more of a factor with commodity freight, like steel or copper, not so much manufactured goods.
zugmann What's interesting is that at a time when we may get heavier/longer trucks (any more talk about 60' trailers?), there was an AP article a few days ago about many towns "decreasing" their roads (removing lanes, tightening up corners, etc) in order to "calm" traffic and hopefully encourage more people to stop, instead of driving right on through. Interesting mix.
This is targeted at drivers of cars on intermediate roads, so it may exempt most truck traffic.
There is a popular theory that cars are evil beings, and that upon entering one, a driver is transformed into an evil person who runs over pedestrians for the pleasure of it. According to this theory, road rage is just the normal state of mind for drivers, and their cars are the cause of it. So the founders of this dogma have invented traffic calming to offset the evil mind being created in drivers by their cars.
Traffic calming is founded on the idea that streets should help create and preserve a sense of place, that their purpose is for people to walk, stroll, gaze, meet, play, shop, and even work alongside cars—but not dominated by them.
The proponents have a traffic calming toolbox that includes speed bumps, choke points, traffic circles, diagonal parking, narrowed streets, widened sidewalks, raised medians, bulbs, chokers, neck-downs, and chicanes.
While the ostensible motive is to calm drivers, the techniques are more like jamming a stick in their eye. But the proponents miss this point entirely because they believe their retaliation is against the automobile and not the driver, and they hate cars. They believe traffic calming liberates the driver from the evil effect of his car.
Here is a description of the chicane: An undulating path interrupts any clear view ahead and compels drivers to slow down. Chicanes can be formed using sculpture, plantings, and parking to enhance the appearance and function of a street.
I don't think anyone wants 60 foot trailers and I don't think longer trailers are going to happen any time soon due to the aformentioned cornering issues.
To really calm down traffic, all cars should be set to a maximum speed of 50 mph with very slow acceleration...that should do it.
With all due respect to the congressman (aka no respect) This is the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. First of all, even with New Panamax and the third set of locks, the biggest container ships, even the Emma Mearsk and her E series sisters, not to mention the new Triple Es are too wide to traverse the canal. Secondly, 20',40' and 45' have been international standards for a long time, there is advantage in maintaining this compatibility. They won't grow international shipping containers now.
These 2 alone pretty much put the lie to the notion that we need higher weight allowances on US roads to utilize the canal. The same 40' trailers will be coming off those ships as always have with the same weights.
The discussion about domestic containers is valid as far as that goes, but that's not what the unesteemed congressman was suggesting and so is outside the scope.
Compare the load limits for 20 foot, 40 foot, 48 foot and 53 foot containers.
They are nominally the same within a few kilos.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
YoHo1975 With all due respect to the congressman (aka no respect) This is the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. First of all, even with New Panamax and the third set of locks, the biggest container ships, even the Emma Mearsk and her E series sisters, not to mention the new Triple Es are too wide to traverse the canal. Secondly, 20',40' and 45' have been international standards for a long time, there is advantage in maintaining this compatibility. They won't grow international shipping containers now. These 2 alone pretty much put the lie to the notion that we need higher weight allowances on US roads to utilize the canal. The same 40' trailers will be coming off those ships as always have with the same weights. The discussion about domestic containers is valid as far as that goes, but that's not what the unesteemed congressman was suggesting and so is outside the scope.
It's not so much stupid as it is political tactics. The congressmen knows that if he came out and said his industrial constituents would like heavier truck weight limits to lower their shipping costs, it would face opposition. Now if he says international trade is going to be adversly affected because we haven't raised weight limits, there will still be opposition but maybe not as much and maybe easier to overcome. He is banking on the fact that most people won't know, understand, or maybe even care about the arguments why international shipping containers probably won't get heavier. He may not know or understand either, but the lobbyists made a convincing argument.
IMO, a microcosm of how our Government works.
Jeff
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.