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 - you quothe.... "There is no way that axles will be added to distribute the same load over a larger area." That's not what I said. The axles/idlers are added as load weight is increased. What you missed is that it is possible to add more wheel/axle area in disporportion to the increased load weight, thus possibly decreasing the average weight per axle group. Remember, if you can arrange for the eliminatinon of a "redundant" cab unit by adding that second trailer to the first cab unit/trailer, it is possible to decrease average weight per axle group and still increase the load factor (which is the incentive for the trucking companies). You also quothe..... "Your physics are simply wrong. Rarely will you have two trucks pass over the same stretch of road in such close proximity." Hmmm. Did I state an actual distance? No. But we all have seen truckers driving convoy style, certainly not bumper to bumper at speed, but still close enough to maintain the side breezes. The point is, how much time does the subgrade need to lie still once it springs back from a weight bearing exercise? Kind of a pointless debate. More important is the amount of aggragate tare passing over relative to revenue weight. Keeping total tonnage at constant upward trend to reflect a growing economy, by allowing longer LCV's and heavier GVW you can eliminate those extra cab units (e.g. tare), so the cumulative effect is less total tonnage moving over the roadway relative to keeping GVW/LCV's the same. You quothe..... "There is also a problem with controlling a vehicle this large. A vehicle of this configuration is very unstable and can lead to very nasty accidents in the wrong conditions. In the US, we have far more cars on the system per lane mile than does Canada. The use and purpose of the system is different. If you want to make it far too dangerous for passenger vehicles, then continue down this path. Otherwise we need to look at other transporation aleternatives included the rails. If you want to build suicidal roller dearby deathways for your load em up to what ever weight and whatever configuartion then have the trucking industry build them with their own money and pay to maintain them. To destroy the interstate highway system to gain a percieved benefit is reckless and irresponcible." Not quite sure what you are banging on about here. It seems mostly hyperbolic to say heavier trucks are akin to terrorist acts. And if highway congestion is your beef, you know darn well that allowing heavier/longer trucks will reduce the total number of trucks on the road, and conversely reducing GVW and LCV standards will result in more trucks to carry the same amount of cargo (and we all know congestion is a numeric dynamic.) You seemingly accuse me of being a trucking industry mole. I will aver that you seem to be nothing but an AAR koolaid drinker, in that you seem to be simply regurgitating the AAR talking points on opposing more modernized trucking regs, without stopping to think out the reasons behind your stated opposition. 'Cause if you did think it out, you would realize that increasing trucking efficiencies is as beneficial to the transportation economy as increasing railroad efficiency. And as a final reminder, in today's transportation economy railroads and trucks are indelibly linked - what's good for one is usually good for the other. Why Ed Hamberger and the AAR can't seem to get this rock solid truism through their collective heads is a whole 'nother topic.
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