Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
ATA now supports longer and/or heavier trucks

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
ouengr - For the umteenth time, HOW IS IT THAT CANADIAN ROADS AND BRIDGES CAN HANDLE HEAVIER TRUCKS? I guess the principles of physics you extoll are somehow different up there. Not to mention that some US states (mostly in the West) allow heavier loads. Yes, we all know about how point of pressure is conveyed down through the subgrade. This is why truck trailer wheelsets usually come in axle sets of twos and threes with a certain amount of space between to allow for "springback". The point you are neglecting is that two and three axle set weight standards would remain the same or be reduced with an increased GVW. If we really want to get technical, it is entirely possible for trucks to be run "train-style" in multiple trailers, with the total number of such trailers limited only by the abiltity of the tractor unit to pull them and the ability of the road parameters to allow the train set to remain in its lane around curves. That's why it is ridiculous not to allow loaded 20' containers to run in b-train configurations in the US, just like they currently do in much of Canada. But the GVW limits of 105k in most of the West is not sufficient to allow two 50k 20's to be run this way. For such b-train configs, we need at least 135k GVW (2 x 50k lbs, + 15k lbs for cab unit with idlers, + 2 x 10k lbs per tridem chassis with idlers). With air suspension adjustments, the max per axle group is 45k lbs per tridem, 35k for the tandem driving set, 6k per idler, and 9k for the steering set. Thus we have 152k theoretical max capacity for all 135k. In other words, it makes no negative physical difference to the roadway (pavement plus subgrade) if the pasage of axle groups runs 9k + 41k + 51k + wait a milisecond, and again + 9k + 41k + 51k (the equivalent of two separate trucks each pulling a loaded 20' container with idlers and tridem chassis), OR 9k + 41k + 51k + 51k (which would be one truck pulling two loaded 20' containers in b-train formation). Question: Which way results in less road/subgrade/bridge deterioration for hauling those two loaded 20' containers? Obviously, it is the b-train formation, which although is carrying a GVW of 135k, has less total axle sets passing over the roadways, and with less tare in doing so. And just for the record, a city to town having a railroad connection is not guarantee of the type of service the economy depends on. In fact, in most such towns and cities the railroad means diddly squat in relation to the local economy. Railroads are loathe to provide carload service without a massive yard somewhere within the pulling distance of a local, and they seem to perfer their massive yards to be few and far between. And to top it off, now you're blaming road drivers for all train accidents, even if a road vehicle wasn't involved? So all derailments are caused by road vehicles? C'mom now! dsktc - So you're saying population density is homogenously spread out over each country? What if I told you the population density of most Western US states is less than the population density of those Canadian provinces where heavier trucks are allowed? Your apples vs oranges analogy is not apt, because the apple barrel happens to contain a lot of oranges, and the orange barrel has a whole lot of apples in it. And you've competely missed the point on the trade deficit/transportation policy dynamic. It's not that foreign countries are freindlier that the US for industrial production (which may or may not be true), but that transportation policies over the US surface favor imports over domestic cargo (for export or domestic markets). The differential pricing structure of railroads has resulted in rates that average 106% of VC in the import intermodal corridors, while averaging over 200% (sometimes as high as 400%) of VC for captive domestic rail shippers. To deny this is just to be purposefully ignorant. The same can be said for the GVW standards, which favor imports (mostly consumer goods, which tend to be lighter per cube) over US exports (which tend to be denser base cargos like ag and forest products). Allowing for higher GVW would obviously improve the transportation dynamics of most US exports, while having no effect on most imports. All - What is the connection between GVW and LCV standards, and the potential for mismanagement of trucking firms? Are you all suggesting that stricter GVW and LCV standards will result in trucking management that is better behaved? And your proof is what........?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag