Wouldn't increasing GVW limits also improve TOFC load factor efficiency?

[Anonymous]

I know that increasing LCV limits might have an impact on short to medium haul TOFC and bi-modal operations, but why would the rail industry automatically oppose an increase in GVW limits for truckers? Aren't heavy haul trucks even more qualified candidates for TOFC than lighter loaded trucks? If so, then a weight based TOFC pricing system could get those trucks off the road while still contributing to the railroads' customer base expansion.

[MP173]

I believe TOFC pricing is based on unit pricing, not weight pricing, tho I could be proved wrong.

Railroads would naturally oppose weight increases as it would encroach on some of their business, such as low value, high weight commodities.

ed

[Anonymous]

We already haul heavy containers with permits in several citys.

I am obselete because I have not hauled a container since like.. 88' but remember I needed a permit for 99,000 GVW in Maryland and Virginia. I have grossed as much as 130,000 in container service (While the box itself is within gross weight limit for crane lift.)

[rrandb]

Actually the railroad trailers (due to the fact they are crane lifted are built heavyer) than OTR trailers. Increased GVW would allow TOFC to carry items that weigh too much now. The TOFC trailers had to be loaded with 4 less pallets because they would be above GVW. I doubt that the RR's would oppose higher GVW for this very reason. Same with Road Railer's. They are good for items that bulkout before they grossout.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173

Railroads would naturally oppose weight increases as it would encroach on some of their business, such as low value, high weight commodities.

This is the point that needs clarification. How would higher GVW encroach on railroad business if the trailer ends up on a TOFC consist? No matter how heavy you can practically get with a trailer (say, up to the Canadian weights of 160k), you still are at an extreme deficit in terms of ton/mile fuel usage, average per mile rate, labor costs per ton/mile, etc. No fleet of 160k over the road semi-trailers can come close to the railroad advantage in the low value/heavy weight commodity spectrum for any type of lengthy haul.

[rrandb]

The largest objection is from state and federal DOT's whose roads and bridges are crumbling at 80K. Our roadbeds under the roads were only designed for 80K and they are not doing well now.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

The largest objection is from state and federal DOT's whose roads and bridges are crumbling at 80K. Our roadbeds under the roads were only designed for 80K and they are not doing well now.

So why would the rail industry also want stricter GVW limits? Is it just a deep seated concern they have for our poor old highway departments?

Here's an interesting observation - If you had driven on the I-90 viaduct through Spokane, you would see rutting occurring. In fact the viaduct is being repaired for the rutting even as we speak.

Now, one would naturally assume that the rutting is caused mostly by trucks. However, there is a flaw to this assumption in the case of the Spokane viaduct. For you see, the rutting has occurred equally in all three lanes for both the westbound and eastbound lanes. Yet, most trucks have been using the middle lane for most of the time, with a few in the right lane, and almost never in the left lane.

If trucks are the *cause* of this rutting, how is it that the rutting is evenly applied across the lane spectrum, seemingly independent of where the most trucks operate?

Obviously, the high frequency of usage by passenger vehicles is the number one suspect for this pavement damage, not heavy trucks. Seems then there is a flaw in the usual assumption that it is trucks that cause most of the damage to highways.

[Anonymous]

Forget the roadbeds. That is the American way of job security. German Roadbeds were built as thick as our airport runways in some cases and still exist in good shape.

But will they spend the money to "Beef" the interstate? Hell no. They dont mind rebuilding it once every ten years or so.

There is a hell of alot of rutting going on around the US on the interstates. It's ground pressure that the tire exerts onto the pavement that makes a difference. One tire carrying 4000 pounds does not really hurt the road. But if you had 10,000 tires each at 4,000 pounds, eventually the pavement will fail. (Non scientific and there is a hell of alot more than 10,000 tires daily)

[BaltACD]

A significant number of trailers end up in TOFC service as a means to circumvent the over the highway weight limits. With the 80K weight limits, the trailers tendered to the railroads are frequently loaded to 100K-120K. Taking advantange of the fact that trailers are rarely weighed when drayed through, originated and delivered in Urban areas and taking advantage of the fact the most railroad intermodal rates are based on the box, not the weight of the box.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

A significant number of trailers end up in TOFC service as a means to circumvent the over the highway weight limits. With the 80K weight limits, the trailers tendered to the railroads are frequently loaded to 100K-120K. Taking advantange of the fact that trailers are rarely weighed when drayed through, originated and delivered in Urban areas and taking advantage of the fact the most railroad intermodal rates are based on the box, not the weight of the box.

Just have to get past the portables to get to the railyard. I remember portables in the back of a DOT cruiser struck fear as they could weight you when you leave after loading somewhere. They were better than Interstate Platform scales too.

The weights the railroad has to deal with are on the rail. I really dont care how heavy those trailers are when they go on the train. But I worry that they might put too much on the "belly" and crack that van trailer down like a egg.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Safety Valve

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

A significant number of trailers end up in TOFC service as a means to circumvent the over the highway weight limits. With the 80K weight limits, the trailers tendered to the railroads are frequently loaded to 100K-120K. Taking advantange of the fact that trailers are rarely weighed when drayed through, originated and delivered in Urban areas and taking advantage of the fact the most railroad intermodal rates are based on the box, not the weight of the box.

Just have to get past the portables to get to the railyard. I remember portables in the back of a DOT cruiser struck fear as they could weight you when you leave after loading somewhere. They were better than Interstate Platform scales too.

The weights the railroad has to deal with are on the rail. I really dont care how heavy those trailers are when they go on the train. But I worry that they might put too much on the "belly" and crack that van trailer down like a egg.

Which does happen with some degree of regularity!

[n012944]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

The largest objection is from state and federal DOT's whose roads and bridges are crumbling at 80K. Our roadbeds under the roads were only designed for 80K and they are not doing well now.

So why would the rail industry also want stricter GVW limits? Is it just a deep seated concern they have for our poor old highway departments?

Here's an interesting observation - If you had driven on the I-90 viaduct through Spokane, you would see rutting occurring. In fact the viaduct is being repaired for the rutting even as we speak.

Now, one would naturally assume that the rutting is caused mostly by trucks. However, there is a flaw to this assumption in the case of the Spokane viaduct. For you see, the rutting has occurred equally in all three lanes for both the westbound and eastbound lanes. Yet, most trucks have been using the middle lane for most of the time, with a few in the right lane, and almost never in the left lane.

If trucks are the *cause* of this rutting, how is it that the rutting is evenly applied across the lane spectrum, seemingly independent of where the most trucks operate?

Obviously, the high frequency of usage by passenger vehicles is the number one suspect for this pavement damage, not heavy trucks. Seems then there is a flaw in the usual assumption that it is trucks that cause most of the damage to highways.

Next time you drive under a bridge look up at the I beams. Do you think that they are that thick for the average soccor mom's suv? No it is for the trucks, and as I am sure you know, the bigger it is the more expensive it is to build, maintain, and replace.


Bert

[PBenham]

Not necessarily, most trailers will cube out fairly quickly. Really heavy loads are not good for trailers that aren't designed to handle the weight. Those that will handle the maximum GVW loads are sort of expensive! ($100 large, for starters)They also tend to be overloaded by [%-)][D)]s that insist on "cubing out " a fully loaded trailer. Then the truck leaves with tires red hot within a block, a truck that is moving slowly,that draws greedy cops like ants to a picnic. Then you gotta send a second truck out to get the first one "legal" then replace the tires on the first trailer. Been there[:(], done that, hated it,[xx(] won't listen to that boss again![:(!][D)][censored][banghead][*^_^*][D)][|(][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

[rrandb]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb

The largest objection is from state and federal DOT's whose roads and bridges are crumbling at 80K. Our roadbeds under the roads were only designed for 80K and they are not doing well now.

So why would the rail industry also want stricter GVW limits? Is it just a deep seated concern they have for our poor old highway departments?

Here's an interesting observation - If you had driven on the I-90 viaduct through Spokane, you would see rutting occurring. In fact the viaduct is being repaired for the rutting even as we speak.

Now, one would naturally assume that the rutting is caused mostly by trucks. However, there is a flaw to this assumption in the case of the Spokane viaduct. For you see, the rutting has occurred equally in all three lanes for both the westbound and eastbound lanes. Yet, most trucks have been using the middle lane for most of the time, with a few in the right lane, and almost never in the left lane.

If trucks are the *cause* of this rutting, how is it that the rutting is evenly applied across the lane spectrum, seemingly independent of where the most trucks operate?

Obviously, the high frequency of usage by passenger vehicles is the number one suspect for this pavement damage, not heavy trucks. Seems then there is a flaw in the usual assumption that it is trucks that cause most of the damage to highways.

Do they allow studed snow tires out there where it snows. I saw them eat all the way thru to the concrete's rebar in PA back in the 70's. Plus if you drive between midnight and 6 am it's not unusuall to have the "big cars" (trucks) three wide. Who said the RR's wanted strickter limits? [?]