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.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton Futuremodal this same arguement was made when the 53 footer came out in the 80's would require fewer trucks to carry the lighter goods cubing out before maxing out. I know that is BS doe to the fact that with the economy growing that more trucks are needed. Plus the RR industry retrenching into a bulk commiadty hauler does not help at all. I for one know that there are mmore trucks out there all you have to do is try to find a parkingsopt at anytruckstop or rest area at night. [/quote] Well, then will you go out on a limb and suggest that we should reduce GVW and trailer length limits to 40'? Yeah, that'd reduce the congestion in your head, but not out on the highways. Do the math - x amount of freight moving by truck divided by cubic capacity of each trailer and each trailer combination per rig (or go by the total load tonnage allowed per rig). Obviously, larger capacity units will result in less total rigs on the highway for that given amout of freight, while smaller capacity units will result in more total rigs on the highway for that same given amount of freight. Anyone who suggests the opposite is nuts. You're making the same blunder as Leon, namely suggesting that increasing GVW and trailer length resulted in more truck traffic. [/quote] Have you ever driven a semi truck NO would be my answer. I drove and made my living doing so. You seem like a couple of dispatchers I had that would say well it is only 3 inches on the map and you can make it. You try getting 28 skids on a 48 footer you can not do it. Most loads for a 53 are designed to cube it out. I routinely hauled 30 skids of romaine lettuce to Chicago from either Yuma AZ or Salianas CA every week. My trip routine was the same when the crops were north I was going to Northern CA when in AZ I went to southern CA. Until you drive a semi you have no right to say will this will do this or that. If they raised the GVW all the current trailers are obselete overnight along with the trucks since the current HP for a fleet truck would not pull it right. The larger companies may not even survive you try replacing in schinders case 20K trailers overnight. There is no way to just replace the tandems either with a tridam the floors of the trailers would not support the loads. So you may think it would help but in the end will cost more money since the cost of upgrading the entire fleet of trucks used today would have to be replaced. [/quote] Oh, okay, since I never drove a truck I have no right to extoll the virtues of allowing greater efficiencies for truck hauls. You sound like those double digit IQ types who aver that politicians who never served in the military have no right to make decisions on US military actions. I could be just as dense as you and suggest that since you have no economics experience that you sir have no right to state your POV on transportation policy issues........ ..... but I won't! I will however correct your erroneous statements: 1. "If they raised the GVW all the current trailers are obselete overnight along with the trucks since the current HP for a fleet truck would not pull it right." Wrong. Raising the GVW means adding or adjusting the trailer wheel arrangements on some trailers, but does not preclude current equipment from being used in a higher GVW consist. Consider grain trucks, which are usually a main trailer followed by a pup trailer. Adjusting for higher GVW means adding a larger trailer to the rear for the additional cargo. Or the 20' container chassis, which is ideal for b-train combo's if not for the current GVW limits (which effectively doubles the number of rigs on the road for hauling those 20' containers from origin to rail terminal). Most heavy haul cab units are underutilized since most States have not allowed the 131k max for non Interstate Highways prior to the last AAR propaganda pu***hat froze weight limits in place, settling for 105k in most Western states. You also know that most cab units are built for cubic capacity maximization, since most track loads do not approach GVW limits but do tend to cube out. Consumer goods will do that to you. Which by the way are mostly imports. Obvioulsy, increasing GVW will not aid foreign imports into this country, but will aid our export sector. 2. "There is no way to just replace the tandems either with a tridam the floors of the trailers would not support the loads." Wrong. Most modern 53' trailers are of a homogenous design, with the ability to interchange tandems, tridems, even quadems(?). Trailer manufacturers don't want to have to have a multitude of 53' trailer lines for light, medium, and heavy loads, when they can just focus on one basic design. This flexibility is paramount to the trucking industry, who are more than happy to adjust fleet specs to meet new business needs. And again, a trailer designed for high cubic capacity demand is not going to be used to haul concrete blocks, and a flat bed designed for concrete blocks is not going to be used for consumer goods. And lastly, no trucking outfit is going to take a chance on overloading a trailer to the point of causing a floor collapse. Since trailer output is an on going thing, any new demand for a dual use trailer that can handle both high cubic capacity desires and high gross weight desires will be met as demand desires. 3. "So you may think it would help but in the end will cost more money since the cost of upgrading the entire fleet of trucks used today would have to be replaced." And do you have evidence that the move from the 48' trailer to the 53' did not pay for itself? Do you have evidence that allowing 2 x 20' b-train combos would end up not paying for the installation of a 5th wheel in each 20' slider chassis? C'mon, surely even you know that fleets are replaced incrementally, and that any new upgraded designs for those "evil" 160k trailers would be purchased on an as needed basis as older equipment depreciates out their lifespan. Gee, isn't that what the railroads have done in moving from 264k to 286k? Or has that move cost more money than garnered in returns? If so, you evidence is what......? 4. "The larger companies may not even survive ..." Gee, I guess that's why J.B. Hunt, Swift, Schieder, Navajo, et al, have all stuck with the lowly 48' trailer and the 80k max, huh? 'Cause if they had gone to 53' and 105k average max, they'd of all gone bankrupt, right? (insert sarcastic smilie here)
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