No...almost all shippers pay fuel surcharges which often more than compensate for the rise in fuel prices. However, due to the slowing economy there has been more supply than demand for over a year now, and that has driven rates down.
Most truck freight involves hauls of 300 miles or less. From every standpoint...business, economic, price, and environmental...trucks are the better way to go for these short hauls other than unit train commodity type moves like from mine to utility.
selector wrote:Folks, I know that this has been discussed lately, but this is the first time I have actually seen the sentiment expressed in a headline (maybe I need to get out more). But, is this true, is it really as serious for truckers as the headline suggests, and if so should I assume that trains will fill some or most of the void? For example, jet freighters will hardly step up to the plate because they consume inordinate amounts of fuel per ton moved.Comments, please.-Crandell
Folks, I know that this has been discussed lately, but this is the first time I have actually seen the sentiment expressed in a headline (maybe I need to get out more). But, is this true, is it really as serious for truckers as the headline suggests, and if so should I assume that trains will fill some or most of the void? For example, jet freighters will hardly step up to the plate because they consume inordinate amounts of fuel per ton moved.
Comments, please.
-Crandell
It's a mixed picture. Railroads produce about 4 times as many ton-miles per gallon of fuel than trucks, so their costs are less impacted than trucks as fuel price increases. On the other hand, rising fuel costs decrease overall economic activity. As Ulrich pointed out, trucking predominates in short hauls where the high initial and final terminal cost for railroads make them less competitive, and where most shippers and receivers are not rail served in the first place.
The big picture is that rail market share will continue to increase. From 1996 to 2005, rail market share of total U.S. ton-miles increased from 33.0 to 38.2, while truck increased from 25.4 to 28.5. (per BTS). That doesn't mean we will see dramatic shifts in market share, but I think we will see steady growth in rail traffic.
RWM
Railway Man wrote:[ From 1996 to 2005, rail market share of total U.S. ton-miles increased from 33.0 to 38.2, while truck increased from 25.4 to 28.5. (per BTS). RWM
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote: Railway Man wrote:[ From 1996 to 2005, rail market share of total U.S. ton-miles increased from 33.0 to 38.2, while truck increased from 25.4 to 28.5. (per BTS). RWM What mode of transportation lost all that marketshare?
I am pretty sure it was a combination of the pack mule and carrier pigeon.
gabe wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Railway Man wrote:[ From 1996 to 2005, rail market share of total U.S. ton-miles increased from 33.0 to 38.2, while truck increased from 25.4 to 28.5. (per BTS). RWM What mode of transportation lost all that marketshare?I am pretty sure it was a combination of the pack mule and carrier pigeon.
Water and air...
LC
John R.
Limitedclear wrote: gabe wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Railway Man wrote:[ From 1996 to 2005, rail market share of total U.S. ton-miles increased from 33.0 to 38.2, while truck increased from 25.4 to 28.5. (per BTS). RWM What mode of transportation lost all that marketshare?I am pretty sure it was a combination of the pack mule and carrier pigeon.Water and air...LC
Water and pipeline, actually. Air market share is volatile because it's so small but it averages out to a growth rate in between truck and rail. Air market share is expected to shrink considerably, however, for domestic freight, due partially to fuel cost and partially to changes in logistics and improvements in trucking that make trucking much more competitive with air.
Pipeline loss of market share testifies to our steeply declining domestic oil production -- the commodities they carry are not moving by rail or truck with the notable exception of ethanol. Ethanol is a refined petroleum substitute and at present does not move long distances by pipeline.
Assuming that "end of the road" means going out of business because of high fuel cost, I don't see that result. In fact the premise strikes me as a failure to understand economics. I don't doubt that rising fuel costs introduces complications and instability to the trucking business, but in the end, won't they just pass the cost increase along to the consumer? The fuel price increase falls on all trucking uniformly, so it does not create a competitive disparity between trucking companies. And we all need what trucks do unless we can substitute a lower cost form of what they do. At the very margin, we may be able to substitute railroads, but I doubt railroads could take over very much of what trucks do.
When fuel rises, my trash hauler raises my rate and explains that it is due to increased cost of fuel. They don't say anything about quitting the trash hauling business.
Beware the hyperextended trend! If gasoline or diesel fuel goes up by twenty cents this week, does that mean it will be over $7.00 a gallon by July? I doubt that very much.
IMO it is irresponsible for a mass-distribution blog (or newspaper or magazine) to post such a scare headline. It makes opinion sound like a cold hard fact that an entire job category and segment of American transportation is inevitably headed toward oblivion. It isn't true, it isn't honest, and it isn't right.
This does not mean I think everything is hunky-dory with American trucking. I feel for those being squeezed, particularly the indepedent owner/operators. Actually, the squeeze has been on for some years. It may or may not get worse. It is probably prudent to expect it to get worse. It might be accurate to say that the number of l-d tractor-trailers on the road next year will be fewer. OTOH nobody can forecast the future with such accuracy. If they could . . . well, the government could run everything and we'd all be content under socialism, wouldn't we?
Bucyrus wrote:When fuel rises, my trash hauler raises my rate and explains that it is due to increased cost of fuel. They don't say anything about quitting the trash hauling business.
Yes, but the trash haulers usually have a contract or franchise with a city, which allows them to pass on such costs. No competitors untill contract is up for renegotiation...
Independent owner operators are bidding for business...and there is competition. Even with large trucking firms, those who are already on the edge, possibly because of over expansion or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, may decide to hang it up.
But they wont all go out of business...when there are fewer to compete, the rates will go up enough so a few will be able to survive...and the price will be passed along to the consumer, assuming they still have money to buy whatever the item is.
I have seen trucking make sufficient noise to shut down the USA via cb radio way back when desiel was 1.99 a gallon. If it broke the magic 2.00 we would park it all.
It was a very bad time back then. We would carry 300 gallon tanks or more and 2.00 was very serious money every thousnad miles or so (Anywhere from 24 hours/team to 2 days single or.. up to 5 days regional including 8 hours idle time per rest) that is about 4 miles to gallon more or less and 20 years ago.
My last truck on 9-11 paid 4+ dollars PER gallon and still got 6 miles to the gallon, we were a team reefer set (Husband and Wife) and had way too many loads in demand. Our job was to grab late loads and whisk them in off single drivers we still carried 300 gallons of fuel and filled once every 24/hours regardless of fuel state.
Take note: Those tanks got filled with good cetane desiel regardless of the price on that pump. IF it was 10.00/gallon tough... we take a fill up. Company can deal with it. If they at any time say dont fillup because it was too expensive... why we are unemployed and serving no useful purpose... time to go home any way we can.
Way back when food for breakfast, a complete meal was 4.50 for everything. So much food it takes several plates to hold it all. Now that same food is one plate for 12.00 plus extras. We had a complete kitchen in the sleeper and cooked our own on the move skipping the truck stop completely. We would buy apples in Yakima Warehouses direct at .30/pound instead of walmart at 1.00 per pound.
Now those apples are 1.40 or more per pound.
Folks, there is only one solution. Have the shippers pay the price of freight and make it happen. The customers will pay for the food they need and everything else will stop selling so much.
Eventually the cost of diesel will exceed income and bills and stop the truck.
Tough. No trucks no shippie.
I think they will start to try and work around this by shipping the apples 200 miles at a time across the USA using many trucks to Atlanta for example. Outrageous.
Some time ago in these forums there was a special train that was produced. One that ran from Yakima to Albany NY for transloading onto trucks to the markets.
That friends, is the key to our national ability to survive our food needs. Train it over and truck it down the street.
Oh no... no rails? No rail docks? No choo choos? No room on the transcon?
Well, tough. We need to make it happen.
Oh my! No food?
Now that is tough and not too pretty.
I think the economy will strip the public of the ability to buy sufficient food per week leaving the rest to rot on the shelf.
There will still be trucks. but they will not go very far and boy will they be expensive. If I was a owner operator now with a 600 CAT 379 Pete getting 6 miles/gallon I wont turn a wheel for less than 2.00 per mile and shipper pays fuel surcharge both ways.
It's amazing how that two dollars get underfoot.
Pay a truck, pay insurance, pay fuel, pay tags, pay the maintaince, pay the driver or drivers, pay the 10% fund required to protect catastrpohic breakdowns etc. I think 10 years ago you needed 1.10 per mile to turn a profit.
Now you need GPS mileage to account for all miles from A to B and make it all payable none of that HHG mileage crap.
One day I fear the trucks will stop in the USA. When they do, Gas first gone, food next and important supplies such as medicals third. Everything else will dry up within a month.
Whose fault is that? The people who ripped up the railroad from all those nice warehouses? The people who stack everything into JIT and lie awake at night when one important part moves too slowly? The people who sent jobs over seas to China and Mexico that can work on much less cost? But now the west coast is filling up with shipping sitting at sea unable to unload for a time?
HAH. We deserve it.
OK Guys
Living in a New England state and in the sand and gravel buisness trucks are a necesity. The past couple of months has seen a drastic reduction of sales and production. Most of our independant truckers have either sold their trucks or just parked them. They just cant make any money right now. Its sad to hear a flat tire could lose all the profits for a month. My company has 20 trucks hauling each day and goes through 4 thousand galons of fuel each day between trucks and loaders and other equipment. Fuel cost is the greatest expense next to tires and maintenance. If the cost goes up on fuel what are you going to sacrifice to pay the extra? I have nothing against companies making a profit but do oil companies have to make that much profit at the expence of the average joes just trying to live?
Exon/Mobile $360 BILLION profit for 2006. To me thats just greed and they cant justify the increase of refined products.
Just blowin off steam
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
Bucyrus wrote:Assuming that "end of the road" means going out of business because of high fuel cost, I don't see that result. In fact the premise strikes me as a failure to understand economics. I don't doubt that rising fuel costs introduces complications and instability to the trucking business, but in the end, won't they just pass the cost increase along to the consumer? The fuel price increase falls on all trucking uniformly, so it does not create a competitive disparity between trucking companies. And we all need what trucks do unless we can substitute a lower cost form of what they do. At the very margin, we may be able to substitute railroads, but I doubt railroads could take over very much of what trucks do.When fuel rises, my trash hauler raises my rate and explains that it is due to increased cost of fuel. They don't say anything about quitting the trash hauling business.
Costs are passed on as long as the consumer is willing to pay. Eventually the consumer (1) buys less of whatever it is; (2) substitutes a different product to fill the need which has lower included transportation charges; (3) substitutes from a different source which has lower included transportation charges; (4) runs out of cash altogether and quits buying anything.
Some consumer needs are fairly inelastic and the consumer will absorb significantly higher prices: energy, health care, groceries, and transportation to and from the job are very inelastic. Some consumer purchase patterns are highly elastic: newer and bigger houses, new cars, new TV sets, dinners out, vacations, etc. Most of these have a significant trucking cost built in. When people quit trying to upgrade their houses, the construction business dives, the trucking that supported it stops, and the people who were engaged in that trucking business see if they can move into some other trucking line and engage in price competition with the established operations in order to attract the business. High-cost operations are driven out of business, those with poor cash flow are starved out, and many people who remain find that profit margins or wages are so low that they can do better working at a 7-11, or just quit working altogether and live off their spouse's salary or whatever pension they might have from the military or some other prior occupation.
JSGreen wrote: Bucyrus wrote:When fuel rises, my trash hauler raises my rate and explains that it is due to increased cost of fuel. They don't say anything about quitting the trash hauling business. Yes, but the trash haulers usually have a contract or franchise with a city, which allows them to pass on such costs. No competitors untill contract is up for renegotiation...Independent owner operators are bidding for business...and there is competition. Even with large trucking firms, those who are already on the edge, possibly because of over expansion or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, may decide to hang it up. But they wont all go out of business...when there are fewer to compete, the rates will go up enough so a few will be able to survive...and the price will be passed along to the consumer, assuming they still have money to buy whatever the item is.
What I am saying is that the trash haulers have no competitors who are not equally affected by rising fuel prices whether they are contracted with the city or are independent. Mine is independent, but I could not go to one of their competitors to escape the fuel induced rising rates because their competitors are raising their rates for the same fuel increases.
However, I do have one escape from the rising trash hauling cost. I can find an alternative to that service. It is not easy in the case of trash disposal, but the same principle applies to all consumer goods that will be rising in price due to fuel price increases. This is one factor that will definitely put truckers out of business. As prices rise, consumers will cut their consumption wherever they can. That means less things get hauled, so fewer haulers are required.
Railway Man wrote: Bucyrus wrote: Assuming that "end of the road" means going out of business because of high fuel cost, I don't see that result. In fact the premise strikes me as a failure to understand economics. I don't doubt that rising fuel costs introduces complications and instability to the trucking business, but in the end, won't they just pass the cost increase along to the consumer? The fuel price increase falls on all trucking uniformly, so it does not create a competitive disparity between trucking companies. And we all need what trucks do unless we can substitute a lower cost form of what they do. At the very margin, we may be able to substitute railroads, but I doubt railroads could take over very much of what trucks do.When fuel rises, my trash hauler raises my rate and explains that it is due to increased cost of fuel. They don't say anything about quitting the trash hauling business. Costs are passed on as long as the consumer is willing to pay. Eventually the consumer (1) buys less of whatever it is; (2) substitutes a different product to fill the need which has lower included transportation charges; (3) substitutes from a different source which has lower included transportation charges; (4) runs out of cash altogether and quits buying anything.Some consumer needs are fairly inelastic and the consumer will absorb significantly higher prices: energy, health care, groceries, and transportation to and from the job are very inelastic. Some consumer purchase patterns are highly elastic: newer and bigger houses, new cars, new TV sets, dinners out, vacations, etc. Most of these have a significant trucking cost built in. When people quit trying to upgrade their houses, the construction business dives, the trucking that supported it stops, and the people who were engaged in that trucking business see if they can move into some other trucking line and engage in price competition with the established operations in order to attract the business. High-cost operations are driven out of business, those with poor cash flow are starved out, and many people who remain find that profit margins or wages are so low that they can do better working at a 7-11, or just quit working altogether and live off their spouse's salary or whatever pension they might have from the military or some other prior occupation. RWM
Bucyrus wrote: Assuming that "end of the road" means going out of business because of high fuel cost, I don't see that result. In fact the premise strikes me as a failure to understand economics. I don't doubt that rising fuel costs introduces complications and instability to the trucking business, but in the end, won't they just pass the cost increase along to the consumer? The fuel price increase falls on all trucking uniformly, so it does not create a competitive disparity between trucking companies. And we all need what trucks do unless we can substitute a lower cost form of what they do. At the very margin, we may be able to substitute railroads, but I doubt railroads could take over very much of what trucks do.When fuel rises, my trash hauler raises my rate and explains that it is due to increased cost of fuel. They don't say anything about quitting the trash hauling business.
RWM,
I posted the previous before seeing your post here so I have inadvertently duplicated some of what you have said. I think you have detailed the scenario well.
There is just one problem with your million Truck scenario mr Trainshop...
For every truck on the road today there is about 10 people working in a variety of departments to keep it rolling.
Tire boy
Tire Manager
OSD Manager and crew
Logs checker
Log archive manager (Usually a trailer in the back for 6 months worth of logs PER driver.)
Pallet Boss
Tarriff and Billing
Dispute and Drug Testors
Comchecks and Money Officers
Driver Enforcers for problem workers
Managers of orientations
Handlers of recruits
Trailer/Truck outfitter and crew
Shop mechanic or two
Shop Boss
Permits person
Saftey Boss
Recruiter
Dispatcher
Night dispatcher
Janitor
Problem Solver
Road trip Tester
Officers of Company
The Secretaries of the officers and managers
Fuel Boss
Gaurd Shack people
Jockeys
LCL Boss
Bosses of all departments
Board, Admin, Safety, Dispatching, Purchasing, Breakdowns
Hell way more than 10 people to keep a truck going and we aint hit the truck stop workers yet.
Sure stop a million trucks but be prepared for 10 million unemployment claims.
Consider JB Hunt. There are 14,000 trucks rolling each day.
If that JB Hunt Stops... walmart WILL stop overnight, intermodal next day.
I dont see a way to profitability.
Not under the current system, especially when one considers the amount being charged off to expenses of running that business to dear old uncle sam.
Falls Valley RR~~very well put subject matter. We have had to deal with this as you state. Our 379 /w 475 kitty Had a pair of 200 gal tks., xtnd. cab had all the comforts of ( home) . Meals on wheels was better than some slop chutes.As you know , you and her made better time cuttin' a few corners ~~ namely cheater brokers . But there is always a trade off. Repair costs raises and so forth. Right now, Brown trucks with LTL are going good. The little yellow trucks red lettered are leaving soon for the home land. Once again greed will prevail. Ya'll take care now
Respectfully, Cannonball & Hurricane ( ret.)
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Falls Valley RR wrote: There will still be trucks. but they will not go very far and boy will they be expensive. If I was a owner operator now with a 600 CAT 379 Pete getting 6 miles/gallon I wont turn a wheel for less than 2.00 per mile and shipper pays fuel surcharge both ways.It's amazing how that two dollars get underfoot.Pay a truck, pay insurance, pay fuel, pay tags, pay the maintaince, pay the driver or drivers, pay the 10% fund required to protect catastrpohic breakdowns etc. I think 10 years ago you needed 1.10 per mile to turn a profit.
Why would a trucker need a 600 HP engine?
Anyway, if you didn't turn a wheel how would you make your truck payment? They might not be making any personal income, but they can stay in business by running at low rates - at least until they have that catastrophic breakdown. That's all these particular truckers are running for now - trying to hang on and keep their trucks.
To put things in perspective, the USDA reports that last week the highest rate on a truckload of produce from Santa Maria, CA to Chicago was $3,400. That's $1.57/mile for 2,161 miles. Highway fuel is around $3.55/gallon. At six MPG he'll burn about $1,280 worth of diesel fuel, which is 37.6% of his gross. (And that does not include the fuel he'll use in the TK keeping the produce at the right temperature.) There is no way these guys can stay in business over the long term.
And there is no way people are going to go without this food. Which means it's going to go either to rail movement or be imported by ship. (The truck rates could go up enough to make trucking viable, but rail will come into play first.)
Long haul movements, such as California produce, should never have diverted from rail to truck. They did so largely because of asinine Federal Government regulation of rail rates on produce. (Truck rates on produce were never regulated.) Now the railroads are going to have to reequip themselves to move this food. If they don't we won't get our veggies (or our pork chops for that matter.)
locoi1sa wrote: Exon/Mobile $360 BILLION profit for 2006. To me thats just greed and they cant justify the increase of refined products.
ExxonMobil's profit margin is lower than BNSF; British Petroleum's profit margin is about one-half of BNSF.
Are you saying the railroads are greedy and damaging the economy and the consumer?
Isn't profit supposed to be a good thing?
That 600 horse engine will not conume so much fuel per hour working hard upgrade. When you come down from the Rockies and get into the Nebraska/Kansas/Texas.. those winds blow and finally when you get to the little bitty rolling hills, you can haul down tourque and keep it steady without the drama of going up and down your high range.
If the fleets would just sacrifice 700 pounds of gross and make APU's madatory to provide hotel power, engine standby heat good down to -50 and 110 Volt Marine grade house power that will eliminate the idle and provide teh driver with options outside of the truckstop.
I understand that Petro and some others provide engine off live support to the cab with heat, air con, cable tv etc... for about 2 bucks an hour. Give me a break.. I can save that 2 dollars per hour and just idle.
If the recievers understand that all trucks lose BAD and endanger other shippers in the area by excessive sloth in unloading or sticking to plus or minus 15 minutes of required on time delivery (Or you get told to go away and get a new appointment tomorrow) things will be better.
Parking is another problem. When I stopped driving, I remember leaving The GWB prepared to drive all the way down past Knoxville, Raliegh or Charles town before even thinking of trying to park for the night when out of hours.
Ive had it up to here with 5 day lost time lounging around the bullpen of a meat plant out in ... garden city or similar then being told that if I dont get the beef to Salinas in 40 hours (Before 9 am monday) I will be out of a job and the company out of an account. This isnt the time to be weak and wussy.
Trains can stop when dead on the law and get a new crew. Truckers must dig down, find some oorah and endure 2400+ miles at once to try and be sure Salinas will have meat to eat early in the week.
I can complain and moan all night and never run out of issues that rob truckers, company and shippers/recievers of lost time, money, oppertunities etc.
Here is one more. No matter how little money is offered for a load... some starving trucker somewhere will take it. because of this... no one can set rates that benefit all.
Falls Valley RR wrote:If the fleets would just sacrifice 700 pounds of gross and make APU's madatory to provide hotel power, engine standby heat good down to -50 and 110 Volt Marine grade house power that will eliminate the idle and provide teh driver with options outside of the truckstop.
Not sure if you would need 700 pounds for the APU (though you're more likely to know than I would), but the idea of an APU does make a lot of sense. You might be able to get similar benefits with a Li-ion battery pack plus a small diesel fired heater to keep the engine warm. Either way would beat idling the main engine.
How about a lower speed limit? How would that affect trucking costs? These environmentalists say re-imposing the 55 MPH speed limit is "low hanging fruit" when it comes to ideas for how to save the earth from annihilation from CO2. If 55 MPH is low hanging fruit, wouldn't 45 be lower hanging fruit?
Full story here:
http://drive55.org/content/view/39/1/
Speed does not matter.
Plan a trip from LA to Freehold and you will average 35 mph as a single and about 50 as a team.
Alot of these trucks are casterated as they are anyhow. Some trucks have incorrect governer settings and inadequate power curve setttings where they cannot maintain cruise speed in a strong wind without downshifting and losing 4 mph.
The two lane interstates from the 60's are not working and the three laners have bad accidents almost daily. Split speed limits really excaberate the problem. No one will be at 55 mph when cars are flying up to thier ICC bumper at 70+ Decapitation is a possibility.
We are already late. How slower do you want the freight?
We all might have to go 24/7 teams just to beat the slower speed limits at great cost to the drivers who must share one revenue source out of the truck each week.
Another problem:
People have no issues waiting on China to make the widget. Then waiting a month for that widget to sail the great wide pacific sea at 20 mph. As soon as it clears customs they want that widget yesterday.
I have been on both sides of the speed problem. One company put computers and enforced 55 mph with instant no questions firing at 69 mph. That 55 mph in the south made me a very sleepy, slow and lethargic worker. I had lots of trouble waiting for cars to smash into my bumper.
So I said screw it and quit that company.
On the other side I was running a true dollar truck that was just amazing all around. 110 mph eastbound on 80 across PA was not hard at all except milesburg. Going the other way you climbed milesburg in the left lane at 70+ mph loaded and it felt like a fast elevator with power to spare.
I quit that company too because I was still late and had lost way too much time in the docks getting loaded. Plus the tickets were eating into the fat paychecks.
After that cooled off...
Speed is always going to be a problem. No one is happy. I myself is waiting on UPS this morning for parts from Ontario CA. Those parts have cross every mile of the southwest at 60 mph Ive waited three days for these parts. UPS has proven to me that they can make the delivery happen in three days. Im proud of them. Teams and doubles all the way.
I would have had the parts flown overnight and in hand friday if I understood the vendor's order system a little better.
Next time I will make that happen. Forget the truck. Have em Fly it.
Finally but not last...
I spent the last years of my driving solely at night. The only time you can get out and roll to make any kind of distance.. 5 or 6 hundred miles in hours is at night between 9 PM and 7 AM.
Everyone is asleep and the only problem remained was to either finish the delivery or find a safe spot to hole up to sleep while everyone else endures bad commute and roadrage.
The trouble is the simple fact that the Trucking industry is WAY TO OVERCAPCITY. Ever go to Ontario CA there will be drivers sitting there for days trying to get a load out of there for the same company why to many trucks coming in not enough coming out at high enough rates. Also shippers refuse to pay anything to have us haul it tehy think that it is still 1977 and Carter is in the Whitehouse. Truckers haul freight today for the same rates they got paid in the 70 yet all their costs went up by 300% they are forced to make cuts in somplace. Fuel does not cost 50 cents a gallon anymore try close to 4 Bucks a gallon anymore also IRP and taxes and Insurance are alot higher. I did a look at the Revenue of what I did in 2000 and compared it to what my dad did in 1982 guess what only increased 10% yet the costs were 90% higher FOR ME.
People wonder why we are shipping things in from China anymore it is because no company in the US can produce it for what the Retail stores like Wal-Mart Target and the other Big Box stores will pay.
I would like to thank all those who contributed to the discussion. I appreciate your thoughts and the time you took to provide me with some input. It seems time will tell how it all unfolds. Folks still want their catalog purchases in a few days, and if that is a leather sofa, it will still want to go by an 18 wheeler in most respects.
The Trucking (Independents)., need to come together., long as they will cut each others throats over a load., they will be like this 10 years from now., my philosophy, is if you cant make any money., dont do it, pretty simple., believe a lot of truckers are just that., but not good with the business skills., just my opinion., but have you ever noticed., about everything we use in day to day existing is brought to you by a Truck!
People talk as if Exxon's profits are somehow destroying America. Folks, Exxon is owned by YOU and ME. It's not a cabal of evil men sitting around laughing at our misfortunes. No, America's economy is intricately interwoven with Exxon and the other oil companies. What WILL hurt America is if Hillary or Obama (edited by selector) decides that they should steal (and I mean STEAL) from these companies in order to make life "fair". We should all be concerned about their long, sticky fingers.
As for the rising fuel costs, I believe it will all shake out in the end. For one thing, if costs go too high, won't the slowing economy eventually drive prices down again? Also, the free market is a wonderful, wonderful thing when pressured into action; men and women with genius IQs are burning the midnight oil (pardon the pun) to come up with alternative energy sources. I truly believe that we will see a huge increase in battery-operated vehicles, including big trucks, in my lifetime (I'm 35). I think we'll see nuclear energy come back into play. Windmills are producing significant amounts of power and are being built like crazy in the USA. While oil still may be king of the hill, don't think that it is irreplaceable.
It is my belief that every building inside the USA can benefit from Solar. If large enough with quality panels they can even export power to the grid and make money off that second meter.
Imagine the load taken off the grid with every building participating in the National Power?
Commodity costs are frightening. Everyone is plowing that farm under to plant crops soley for fuel. What happens when we have fuel plenty in 10 years but no food to ship?
OldArmy94 wrote: People talk as if Exxon's profits are somehow destroying America. Folks, Exxon is owned by YOU and ME. It's not a cabal of evil men sitting around laughing at our misfortunes. No, America's economy is intricately interwoven with Exxon and the other oil companies.
People talk as if Exxon's profits are somehow destroying America. Folks, Exxon is owned by YOU and ME. It's not a cabal of evil men sitting around laughing at our misfortunes. No, America's economy is intricately interwoven with Exxon and the other oil companies.
It amazes me to see comments critical of Exxon profits on a railroad board, as though the higher railroad profits would not, at some point, yield to exactly the same kind of skewered logic offered by one of the current candidate crop "I'm going to take those profits and ...'.
And, no, it wasn't Hugo Chavez, even though it certainly sounded like it.
Diesel in Akron was $3.94.9 yesterday.And no,we don't always recoup from fuel surcharges.A lot of businesses won't pay them,and find someone cheaper.And there is a lot of people out there that will haul at a loss,just to get work.Whether it be rail,highway,air,or barge,people gotta have their stuff,but they all balk at the transportation costs.
If there are no dogs in heaven,then I want to go where they go.
MichaelSol wrote: OldArmy94 wrote: People talk as if Exxon's profits are somehow destroying America. Folks, Exxon is owned by YOU and ME. It's not a cabal of evil men sitting around laughing at our misfortunes. No, America's economy is intricately interwoven with Exxon and the other oil companies. It amazes me to see comments critical of Exxon profits on a railroad board, as though the higher railroad profits would not, at some point, yield to exactly the same kind of skewered logic offered by one of the current candidate crop "I'm going to take those profits and ...'. And, no, it wasn't Hugo Chavez, even though it certainly sounded like it.
Speaking of Hugo Chavez, his fellow travelers, profit, and the end of the road; never has such a great country stood so close to the edge of such a high cliff.
Bucyrus wrote: MichaelSol wrote: OldArmy94 wrote: People talk as if Exxon's profits are somehow destroying America. Folks, Exxon is owned by YOU and ME. It's not a cabal of evil men sitting around laughing at our misfortunes. No, America's economy is intricately interwoven with Exxon and the other oil companies. It amazes me to see comments critical of Exxon profits on a railroad board, as though the higher railroad profits would not, at some point, yield to exactly the same kind of skewered logic offered by one of the current candidate crop "I'm going to take those profits and ...'. And, no, it wasn't Hugo Chavez, even though it certainly sounded like it.Speaking of Hugo Chavez, his fellow travelers, profit, and the end of the road; never has such a great country stood so close to the edge of such a high cliff.
Eloquently put. My last visit there was just before the wheels started to come off politically. An extraordinarily beautiful country with unlimited potentional, headed in the right direction. It will take ten years to undo the damage, even if the nightmare ended tomorrow. The upside is that the inevitable pain we will feel in fuel costs will finally and fundamentally change the metrics of Railroad Electrification in this country.
Misc comments:
Actual phone conversation with a trucking CEO this morning:
ceo: ed, how are you?
ed: great
ceo: do you know the reason you feel great?
ed: A good night's sleep?
ceo: no, it is because you left the trucking industry in 1990.
He then basically went on with the same conversation as what has occured on this post. He is hauling freight for the same rates as in 1980. Costs are thru the roof. Fuel surcharges help, if you can get them, driver turnover is out of control and now with the economic slowdown Mr. Shipper is beating them up over rates.
Years ago, he started an LTL company in addition to the TL operation. At the time I asked "Michael, why in the world do you want to expand your trucking operation." He never lets me forget that I asked him that question. He thinks I am a brilliant man for that one comment made in 1992.
Point number 2...wind farms are springing up. Yesterday I saw one with about 50 windmills south of I80 between Peru and Princeton. How economical are these?
Point number 3...minor correction (actually major correction) XOM (Exxon Mobile) revenue last year was $404 billion with net income at 40.6 billion. The previous poster indicated their profit was $360 billion.
Point number 4...if you have a chance, read the editorial in March 4th Wall STreet Journal about Peak Oil. The author (name escapes me) indicates we have 50-60 years to go before reaching Peak oil level (when half of the oil has been depleted). We in the US have long ago reached Peak oil (1970). Technology and the high oil prices will result in higher production. It is a very interesting article and commentary. What is frightening is that his estimate is that 90% of oil reserves are state controlled. So, we must get used to Mr. Chavez and others.
Point number 5...anyone here seen the movie The Kingdom? Excellent movie on the cultural differences between US and Muslim nations. I dont know how accurate the movie is, but the DVD has an excellent timeline of Middle East oil production/politics.
ed
MP173 wrote: Point number 2...wind farms are springing up. Yesterday I saw one with about 50 windmills south of I80 between Peru and Princeton. How economical are these?
Economical to the developer after the multitude of tax breaks.
The wind farm you're referring to Ed is going up in phases, on phase 2 of 3 I believe. Approaching 100 turbines. They're springing up everywhere in this area...6 farms altogether in a 25 mile radius, with 50+ a piece.
There are also a half-dozen ethanol plants either under construction or planned within this same area...
I did see an ethanol plant adjacent to the Iowa Interstate west of Princeton.
Good customers pay a fuel surcharge and a rate commensurate to the service provided. I simply won't take freight that doesn't cover my cost along with an acceptable profit margin.
About trucking losing market share to rail..given that most shippers/receivers do not have direct rail access and that most loads are short hop overnight moves I don't see that happening.
Costs go up then so does the rate...that's how it is supposed to work.
MP173 wrote: Misc comments:Actual phone conversation with a trucking CEO this morning:ceo: ed, how are you?ed: greatceo: do you know the reason you feel great?ed: A good night's sleep?ceo: no, it is because you left the trucking industry in 1990.He then basically went on with the same conversation as what has occured on this post. He is hauling freight for the same rates as in 1980. Costs are thru the roof. Fuel surcharges help, if you can get them, driver turnover is out of control and now with the economic slowdown Mr. Shipper is beating them up over rates. Years ago, he started an LTL company in addition to the TL operation. At the time I asked "Michael, why in the world do you want to expand your trucking operation." He never lets me forget that I asked him that question. He thinks I am a brilliant man for that one comment made in 1992. Point number 2...wind farms are springing up. Yesterday I saw one with about 50 windmills south of I80 between Peru and Princeton. How economical are these? Point number 3...minor correction (actually major correction) XOM (Exxon Mobile) revenue last year was $404 billion with net income at 40.6 billion. The previous poster indicated their profit was $360 billion. Point number 4...if you have a chance, read the editorial in March 4th Wall STreet Journal about Peak Oil. The author (name escapes me) indicates we have 50-60 years to go before reaching Peak oil level (when half of the oil has been depleted). We in the US have long ago reached Peak oil (1970). Technology and the high oil prices will result in higher production. It is a very interesting article and commentary. What is frightening is that his estimate is that 90% of oil reserves are state controlled. So, we must get used to Mr. Chavez and others.Point number 5...anyone here seen the movie The Kingdom? Excellent movie on the cultural differences between US and Muslim nations. I dont know how accurate the movie is, but the DVD has an excellent timeline of Middle East oil production/politics.ed
Nice to read your comments on here again, Ed.
I guess I am the only one crazy or masochistic enough to think this way, but I like these high energy prices that can only go up. I really, really do.
For the last 30 years, cleaner and more efficient alternates to oil have been blown all to-you know where-due to, in part artificially, low energy prices. Now, I think the market is to the point where OPEC and oil/gas cartels really can't lower the price to discourage the development of alternate sources. Now the market can do what it does and encourage the development of alternate sources of sustainable energy.
It is going to be a rough 8-10 years, but I think the world will ultimately be a much better place because of the higher prices we are currently seeing (assuming we all don't kill one another first). No one will buy Mr. Chavez' oil, the Middle East can stop accusing us of stealing their oil on the cheap, and there will be less pollution.
Gabe
MP173 wrote: He is hauling freight for the same rates as in 1980.
He is hauling freight for the same rates as in 1980.
Airline passenger rates are lower. Rail freight rates are lower. Package shipping is cheaper.
The trucking industry isn't anything I've followed, but I seem to recall that the truckers were among the most vocal agitating for deregulation, thinking they had it all over the railroads competitively.
Perhaps a case in point of "be careful what you ask for, you might get it."
I don't know what the rates were back in 1980, but my rates have gone the same way as the post office: UP. All input costs have gone up...some have even doubled...fuel...labor..equipment.. Anyone with any business sense and no relatives who will work for free will keep their pricing in line with cost.
Airline margins are laughable...why would anyone get into the discount airline racket? Rail margins appear to be good...and with only four mega systems and regionals who don't compete head to head that should not be surprising.
Deregulation was a good thing..prior to deregulation you needed pull and favors granted by politicians to get into the freight biz...Today anyone who has an interest can get started. It's much fairer, and "survival of the fittest" isn't all bad.
I have enjoyed the commentary, everyone. Thanks for your thoughts. I can't seem to find it on yahoo's home-page just now, but earlier today their headline section had one about citizens in the USA changing lifestyles due to rising energy costs. I was on my way to somewhere else and didn't get to have a quick glance before it disappeared in due course.
Everyone seems to have accepted that energy costs will rise, sometimes sharply, if the headline has weight. But, as some of you have suggested, we'll still want stuff delivered somewhere within a Saturday morning's shopping spree drive of our homes, and for the vast majority of us, that won't be closer than 6000 meters to a railroad. I don't know if it means we'll drive less, buy less, use less, waste less....pick one from a long list of things that folks can or will do to make their bucks, including the discretionary ones, go further.
It seems that hybrid cars have considerable currency suddenly, and everyone who sells cars is on the bandwagon. There is a market. But, these cars cost more at the outset, and I don't even want to contemplate what surprises are in store for those who have them when they need replacement energy storage devices. They won't be cheap. Also, getting "rid of" the cast-offs won't be cheap...think recycling fees....steep fees. Heavy metals and all that stuff.
So this doesn't go on for pages, I just can't see us doing much changing unless something catastrophic happens. It is tantamount to a wholesale cultural change for N. Americans to give up on personal vehicles, and we'll default to the next best vehicle if a gas version isn't it. But a vehicle it will be.
So, I don't see the trucking industry drying up as that headline suggests. We'll still need all them autoparts, cabbages, TV sets, camping stoves, loaves of bread, shampoo, and so on that truckers everywhere will continue to haul in the wee hours of the morning.
P.S. - an afterthought....shampoo...isn't it largely a petroleum-based product?
Ulrich wrote: Airline margins are laughable...why would anyone get into the discount airline racket?
Airline margins are laughable...why would anyone get into the discount airline racket?
I don't follow airlines, but Southwest is a discount airline, isn't it?
That's not bad by any stretch.
Ulrich wrote: All input costs have gone up...some have even doubled...fuel...labor..equipment.. Anyone with any business sense and no relatives who will work for free will keep their pricing in line with cost.
All input costs have gone up...some have even doubled...fuel...labor..equipment.. Anyone with any business sense and no relatives who will work for free will keep their pricing in line with cost.
Or improve productivity. Airlines in general have improved their productivity 35% since 1997.
I have been truckin for only twenty years.Have been an o/o for only ten years. I'm still learning. I have heard the same story every year. The same rates as the 70's but cost of everything else keeps going up. Have seen wages go up for drivers too. The thing is though we are all still trucking. How high will costs have to go to put some of us out? As for me I know my costs and what I need to make a profit. I don't haul it unless it pays me the rate I need.
There is better talk about trucks on this forum than the trucker forum. One more thing. The railroads need trucks and truckers as much as everyone else does.All those intermodel trailers still need a trucker. How many times have you seen railroad parts like wheels on the highway and not on a railroad flatcar? Stay safe.
ulrich:
If you dont mind my asking, what is your market? Long haul, short haul, dry van, refer, etc.
I think the niche carriers can do pretty well these day, but there is no doubt there is downward pressure on rates for dry van freight.
It is hard for me to comment on airlines and their profitabilty, productivity, etc, but pulling out LUV's as representative of the industry is a bit of a stretch. They are a very well run carrier with decent union contracts and low legacy costs. They operate one type of jet (737 series) which is productive for them. I have always liked flying Southwest, as you could count on them operating on time, or close to it. For my 6'7" frame, it isnt comfortable, but anything other than 1st class isnt. Generally, I limit my flights to 4 hours or less.
It has been stated that the airline industry has a net income historically of zero or less. It is difficult to find much excitement in the industry as an investment. Labor costs seem to have stabilized, now they are searching for merger partners to create pricing power.
Some of the best markets Ive been in are Seafood, Alcohol, Medical Drugs etc.
Other good hauling such as Dedicated Steel/Aluminum coil to feed a plant, Jet Engines, Railroad Axles etc come to mind.
Crandell,
Believe it or not...most shampoo, soaps and cosmetics are made from in-edible animal tallow.
Rendered down...we get hundreds of tank cars a week from Tyson Foods, South Dakota, full of either edible or in-edible tallow.
Edible for food production, (lard) and in-edible what is termed industrial or commercial production, (soaps and such).
selector wrote: I have enjoyed the commentary, everyone. Thanks for your thoughts. I can't seem to find it on yahoo's home-page just now, but earlier today their headline section had one about citizens in the USA changing lifestyles due to rising energy costs. I was on my way to somewhere else and didn't get to have a quick glance before it disappeared in due course.Everyone seems to have accepted that energy costs will rise, sometimes sharply, if the headline has weight. But, as some of you have suggested, we'll still want stuff delivered somewhere within a Saturday morning's shopping spree drive of our homes, and for the vast majority of us, that won't be closer than 6000 meters to a railroad. I don't know if it means we'll drive less, buy less, use less, waste less....pick one from a long list of things that folks can or will do to make their bucks, including the discretionary ones, go further. It seems that hybrid cars have considerable currency suddenly, and everyone who sells cars is on the bandwagon. There is a market. But, these cars cost more at the outset, and I don't even want to contemplate what surprises are in store for those who have them when they need replacement energy storage devices. They won't be cheap. Also, getting "rid of" the cast-offs won't be cheap...think recycling fees....steep fees. Heavy metals and all that stuff.So this doesn't go on for pages, I just can't see us doing much changing unless something catastrophic happens. It is tantamount to a wholesale cultural change for N. Americans to give up on personal vehicles, and we'll default to the next best vehicle if a gas version isn't it. But a vehicle it will be.So, I don't see the trucking industry drying up as that headline suggests. We'll still need all them autoparts, cabbages, TV sets, camping stoves, loaves of bread, shampoo, and so on that truckers everywhere will continue to haul in the wee hours of the morning.-CrandellP.S. - an afterthought....shampoo...isn't it largely a petroleum-based product?
23 17 46 11
Thanks, Ed, I believe you are right now that you mention it. It had slipped. When you say tank cars, you are talking rail...yes? There's a load I hadn't ever considered. Inedible tallow as a precursor to Vidal Sassoon, Pert, and Head & Shoulders. Who says the beef industry is dying?
MP173 wrote:For my 6'7" frame, it isnt comfortable, but anything other than 1st class isnt. Generally, I limit my flights to 4 hours or less.
For my 6'7" frame, it isnt comfortable, but anything other than 1st class isnt. Generally, I limit my flights to 4 hours or less.
I feel your pain, Ed. I'm 6'5" and find the smaller commuter planes practically intolerable.
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
Trouble is CARB that being the Commuinst state of CA Air Resource Board is going to be hurting the 8th largest economy in the world if they do not back down from the truckers. Everyone I am talking to is saying the same thing they want it in their state they can meet it at the border they want all that produce hauled out same thing we are not going into there. It is not the independants saying that either Mega fleets are doing the same. By 2010 the only engines allowed in CA for anything Diesel powered in trucks is the new standeard it was supposed to be 2012 but they changed the rules on everyone. Trucking companies are having to replace all the reefer units and all their tractors to run there and that will cost them BIG bucks to do and all the new stuff is so screwed up it can not go more than a week with out failing for 3 weeks.
One company I know of is looking at 300 million to replace everything it has another needs 200 million were are they going to raise that capital and also have money to pay for it say Hi to higher food costs.
Let the build the stuff at the border and take it to thier Cities in CA. We dont need to drive a single mile further into that state than we have to.
There is a HUGE amount of room down there along the Border with California.
Not surprise that talk still persist.
If we wait long enough the BIG ONE will drop the state of CA into the ocean pernamently and we will have to get our produce somewhere else.
Personally Ive had good luck with the engines. Ive always opted for big horse because if they are going to load it down with emissions choking crap it's going to require a certain amount of useable horses at the tires to haul a pallet.
selector wrote: It seems that hybrid cars have considerable currency suddenly, and everyone who sells cars is on the bandwagon. There is a market. But, these cars cost more at the outset, and I don't even want to contemplate what surprises are in store for those who have them when they need replacement energy storage devices. They won't be cheap. Also, getting "rid of" the cast-offs won't be cheap...think recycling fees....steep fees. Heavy metals and all that stuff.-Crandell
I think hybrids mostly sell because they have lower emissions, or because they make that statement; as opposed to offering an economical advantage. And while they do have lower emissions, one must question their overall "green-ness" with all those batteries, since batteries are relatively un-green to produce and get rid of. I have heard that, considering the cost and life of the vehicle and its batteries, hybrids cost more than a conventional vehicle even though they get better fuel mileage.
No I am afraid that there is no magic bullet for the mounting fuel/environmental stress of driving. The answer will be political rather than engineering or scientific. Expect many new federal controls on how large our vehicles can be, and how many miles we can drive them in a given time. This rationing of personal transportation will be the ultimate solution for our U.S. village.
MP173, I run flatbeds and box trucks. For the most part my rates don't depend on equipment type.
My rates are based mostly on my ability to MANAGE my customers' transportation needs...and much less so on the actual grunt work involved in shleping the goods around. For example, I will go into a shipper and evaluate their production and shipping needs. I will work with their various departments to develop a transportation program (with measurable targets and precise time lines) that meets their shipping needs and budget. I then implement and manage the program. In other words I get paid for my ability to think...not for my ability to come up with a box truck or a flatbed in an oversupplied market.
The other thing is called "branding"...I'm known among my clients as a "top performer"...and top performers in ANY endeavor get paid top dollar. Hey...anyone can lace on a pair of runners and go for a jog...but only a few can do it and get paid millions for it. Likewise...anyone can supply equipment..but only a few can manage as above and come through every time.
About being "productive". The big box retailers have alot of us fooled. You CAN cut prices and LOOK efficient on the cover of a business magazine. But what is really happening? Let's call it for what it is...they're so efficient because they're able to tap into CHEAP LABOR...they're wonderful efficiency would dissipate in a heartbeat were they to make their cheap trinketry here...employing people who require a living wage. I too could probably hire drivers as "contractors" thereby avoiding payroll tax and the cost of benefits...however I don't because my name is on the business and because my own sense of decency and fair play does not allow it.
Ulrich
At other times on this forum I have suggested that there is more to moving freight from here to there than just getting the cheapest price from the trucker, railroad, forwarder or whoever. For a very brief time in my career, I worked for a company with the single objective of getting the lowest freight rates offered by anybody with a truck. Talk about fun. Problems ranged from the deliveries being days late, like 5 days to get a thousand miles down the road, to promises to pick up a load never filled. And a boss who ordered the staff to "make" those truckers perform.
Obviously you and your clients understand that there are more ways to skin the cost cat than shopping for cheap. Trucks and drivers are high cost elements of the system and need to be used hauling freight over the road. One of my "favorite" examples of waste is having a driver unload and sort freight box by box by product and sometimes production batch. Meanwhile a rig costing in the 6 figures sits doing nothing to earn a buck.
Good work.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
understand this, i dont care if fuel is 20.00 a gallon if the rates keep up with it who cares?
anoth er thing, the rates now are really low for the division im in (enclosed cars) the rates aredown by regular freight they should be about 2000 dollars a car maybe a lil more for seattle, wa to new jersey that is the ENCLOSED RATE not the open rate if i put 6 cars in the trailer for that price you can make a good living but the rates are way down due to brokers and other transporters driving the rate down BECAUSE THEY TAKE IT it takes 2 seconds to take a s*** paying car ant it will take 2 years to get the rate back where it should be because when the carrier takes the car aT a low price the shipper knows that we will pay it therefor they get more money and we take a beating thats WHY I WILL NOT HAUL CHEAP FREIGT and you shouldent either dont put something cheap on the trailer just to it covers some of the fuel because you know what ? youre driving the rates down you know what LEAVE THAT S*** SIT THERE they will figure out that if it dont pay good enough it WILL NOT MOVE they put a good rate on it and boom its on the trailer. why is it so hard to get into some peoples heads?
even if you have to wait an extra day for a good paying load it will be better in the long run
because with out TRUCKS AMERICA STOPS trains do a little but you cant get that thing up to yhe grocery store can you?
please take in consideration from what i just said it will payoff in the long run
say no to cheap freight!!!
Bucyrus wrote:....The answer will be political rather than engineering or scientific.
I'm thinking it will more likely be economics...
Bucyrus wrote:Expect many new federal controls on how large our vehicles can be, and how many miles we can drive them in a given time.
Expect many new federal controls on how large our vehicles can be, and how many miles we can drive them in a given time.
Not in an election year!! Or two years before an election!! Remember how popular the nation-wide 55mph speed limit was?
There's no way any candidate that wants a personal political future would even think of suggesting that we get rid of our 3-ton chrome mountains; after all, how is Joe Sixpack going to compensate for his phallic inferiority complex other than driving around in some behemoth? And of course don't forget Mrs. Soccermom, who needs a 7-seat Land Bruiser/Yukon/Expedition to take her precious little darlings to ballet practice, then shopping for compact flourescent light bulbs so she can "protect the environment".
Perhaps instead of creating federal controls on our driving (a bit too totalitarian for me), how about requiring vehicles to be electronically regulated to a maximum speed, with the penalties for tampering sufficient to disuade people from even trying? Not only would it save oil, it would save lives.Or perhaps an educational program sponsored by the feds, explaining to the citizens how their wonton use of oil serves to support the political unrest in the middle-east and elsewhere (Venezuela comes to mind). Wouldn't it be fun to be able to tell OPEC where they can shove their oil?
As long as the big oil companies are in bed with the political 'leaders' of the world, all of our grand ideas of alternate fuels, alternate lifestyles, and alternate thinking, will be for naught.
zardoz wrote: Bucyrus wrote:....The answer will be political rather than engineering or scientific. I'm thinking it will more likely be economics... Bucyrus wrote:Expect many new federal controls on how large our vehicles can be, and how many miles we can drive them in a given time. Not in an election year!! Or two years before an election!! Remember how popular the nation-wide 55mph speed limit was? There's no way any candidate that wants a personal political future would even think of suggesting that we get rid of our 3-ton chrome mountains; after all, how is Joe Sixpack going to compensate for his phallic inferiority complex other than driving around in some behemoth? And of course don't forget Mrs. Soccermom, who needs a 7-seat Land Bruiser/Yukon/Expedition to take her precious little darlings to ballet practice, then shopping for compact flourescent light bulbs so she can "protect the environment".Perhaps instead of creating federal controls on our driving (a bit too totalitarian for me), how about requiring vehicles to be electronically regulated to a maximum speed, with the penalties for tampering sufficient to disuade people from even trying? Not only would it save oil, it would save lives.Or perhaps an educational program sponsored by the feds, explaining to the citizens how their wonton use of oil serves to support the political unrest in the middle-east and elsewhere (Venezuela comes to mind). Wouldn't it be fun to be able to tell OPEC where they can shove their oil?As long as the big oil companies are in bed with the political 'leaders' of the world, all of our grand ideas of alternate fuels, alternate lifestyles, and alternate thinking, will be for naught.
You bring up several interesting points. When I say the answer will be political rather than engineering or scientific, by political I mean government mandate. And it is too totalitarian for me too, but that is what totalitarians do. You are right to not expect it ahead of the election. I would not expect that either, but I was thinking it would happen after the election.
In addition to mandating smaller cars, everything about the speed control you mentioned plus much more in the same vein will be a reality easily within ten years. I'm told we all want change. Our driving habits will certainly change.
After 28 years in the trucking industry I am a little surprised by some of the comments I have read here.
I was in it before deregulation and after it took place and as much as everyone myself included expected big changes they did not happen. I was in a very secure segment of the trucking industry so never had to look for my own loads in any part of the country I was in.
But have seen all the loads posted at truck stops and wondered how O/O ever paid for their fuel at some of the rates I have seen posted. I realize how nice it is to get home to momma as much as the next guy but if I would have had to haul for some of the rates drivers are hauling for today I would have hung it up more than fifteen years ago as I did.
The reason I hung it up was health took me off the road. When a driver fails to pass his annual physical he really has no other choice even though I personally know drivers that did not let this stop them they simply found unscrupulous Doctors to fill out their physicals for a price.
I often wonder how many drivers are still out their who should not be driving. For me it meant a totally different career change. I sold my three trucks enrolled in school and became a tax specialist. I have a few regrets like everytime I pass a big rig today when I'm travelling the highways. But only for a brief second. My wife who used to run with me after our kids were grown and gone from the nest doesn't miss it either. It took some adjusting to get used to a life like most normal people have but I'm not sorry.
I remember an incident that occurred about a year before I gave it up where I was travelling up I-15 from LA on a wednesday night and just before arriving in Barstow saw the flashing lights of emergency vehicles and pulled over when I saw it was a big rig down in the median that appeared to be alright. The CHP told me the driver was from Michigan and had suffered a heart attack and died. Fortunately he had got it stopped without injuring anyone else. It made me finally start to think I wasn't infallable and it really came home as that driver was younger than me at the time. I thought how awful it would be for his wife to receive a phone call from the CHP or maybe local law enforcement to tell her how her husband had suffered a heart attack nearly 2,500 miles away and would not be driving the rig into the driveway again.
I'ts taken some getting used to trading an office for a big rig but I really would not change my life for anything today.
Good luck with ye Passengerfan.
I came off Spotted Wolf once on a set of new tires but poor braking one day. I probably had to reduce the life of those tires by 20% because of poor Jake performance but remembered my old mountain training decades ago. Indeed I heard the voice of my loud and profane trainer next to me during the problem telling me what a dum dum I was and that I should do this or that.
Trucking is not so routine, neither is airtravel. When we take a journey it might be all there is for us.
Cheers.
Railway Man wrote: From 1996 to 2005, rail market share of total U.S. ton-miles increased from 33.0 to 38.2, while truck increased from 25.4 to 28.5. (per BTS).
From 1996 to 2005, rail market share of total U.S. ton-miles increased from 33.0 to 38.2, while truck increased from 25.4 to 28.5. (per BTS).
What's "BTS"?
My thoughts on this entire energy situation:
1. Everyone talks about alternative fuels. That's fine but if the alternative fuels are as expensive as oil/diesel are now or in the future, then not that much has been accomplished. Commerce and consumers will continue to suffer. The USA has built its economy on rather cheap energy and cheap food. We're in trouble now because both have gone up.
2. Other than the increases in energy and food demand due to world growth, particularly in China and India, the main cause of the USA's problems in these 2 areas is due to poor decision making in Washington as well as some of the states, going back many years. The unbelievable hold the environmental movement has on politics and the news media is the main cause of it. Therefore, there's been no movement in the USA for years on nuclear power, not enough on the use of coal, and no real major opening up of both the existing and the newly found oil and gas reserves (and the media as a whole keeps ignoring this issue so the average American has no clue that the USA isn't running dry as the "greens" keep trying to tell us). Then we get government decisions, appladed by the news media, such as the push for corn ethenol that not only don't work due to the high costs, they actually have a substantial negative impact on the cost of food--not to mention that they aren't turning out to be environment friendly after all.
3. Some sources at my former employer, a major university, whom I have learned to trust their judgement over the years tell me that the USA could become basically independent on foreign energy other than Canada and a little from Mexico in about 10 years if the government would allow major increases in the USA's energy production and processing of its known sources, let alone what is discovered in the coming years. It should result in much lower energy prices for all and can be done without any real negative impact on the environment. But politically they don't see it happening since the Democrats almost to the man/woman aren't going to buck the environmentalists and too many Republicans are afraid to.
leftytrucks wrote:Current fuel prices are nearing 80 cents per mile, almost triple what it was 5 years ago. If something doesn't change, our economy is coming to a halt! No, the railroads CAN NOT pick up much of the slack - too many abandoned lines, too many cities with no rail service. Intermodal HAS to ease some of the burden, but... In transportation, it's a fact - move 20 tons in 2 days, call a truck / move 200 tons in 2 weeks, call a train. The sooner both segments learn they are part of the fabric of this countyry, not teen-agers playing petty games, the better off the good ol' USA will be!!!
Well, essentailly, I agree with Lefty. I'm going to disagree around the edges - but IMHO he's got it just about right. (I don't think the US economy is coming to a halt. It's going to be slow going, but not a halt.)
Basically, a train and a truck are just two rather large tools that do the same thing. They produce place and time utility. What that means is that a head of lettuce grown near Salinas, California is of no use to anyone in Chicago unless it is placed in Chicago by a train or truck and is available when someone wants to eat a salad. The tools put the lettuce where it is needed when it is needed.
Ideally, we'd have craftsmen selecting the right tool for the right job at the right time. In this example these craftsmen are the logistics managers for the food distributors/grocery chains.
They can use a truck, or they can use a train, or they can use a a combination of both tools to do their job of putting the lettuce where it is needed when it is needed in the most efficient manner.
Unfortunatly, we've got a legacy of Federal economic regulation that prohibited the craftsmen from using their tools in the most efficient manner. Absent Federal regulation we were headed to an integrated system that used each tool, train or truck, to its best advantage. The Feds put a stop to that, and now we're going to pay the price.
Due to past Federal economic regulation the railroads are undercapitalized and don't have a lot of capacity to be used. What's the answer? Well according to the Democrats it's more Federal economic regulation.
We're going to have to dig out of this mess with more rail intermodal terminals and more rail capacity because those fuel bills aren't going back down.
But we're going to have to dig and that ain't gonna' be fun.
And Lefty, the rails can do overnight delivery on 20 tons at 500 miles. I did it at the railroad between Chicago and Memphis. Aside from those few things, you're right.
ValorStorm wrote: Railway Man wrote: From 1996 to 2005, rail market share of total U.S. ton-miles increased from 33.0 to 38.2, while truck increased from 25.4 to 28.5. (per BTS). What's "BTS"?
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation
http://www.bts.gov
What I find interesting is that we're kind of forgetting trucks run using diesel engines.
Remember, when Rudolf Diesel built his first prototype engine in 1893, the primary fuel was peanut oil, essentially a vegetable oil product. Given the developments with making biodiesel fuel in the last 40 years, we just about have the technology to refine diesel fuel from "growing" oil-laden algae on a huge scale, which means essentially a truly renewable biomass base for diesel fuel. That means even 20 years from now, tractor-trailer trucks and diesel-electric locomotives will still run around the USA, but now we'll refine the fuel from biomass sources instead of from crude oil.
With today's diesel engine technology, they will soon be just as clean-burning as gasoline engines, thanks to better diesel exhaust emission controls to remove diesel particulates and NOx gases.
My comment may just show my lack of understanding (surely not the first time...), but it seems to me that, once we fool ourselves into thinking that we have it all solved, and we continue to amass our numbers on the Earth's surface, we will still be consuming oxygen. We will need oxygen to get the algae to do their little thing (maybe not?), and then we will need more oxygen to burn the fuel to have more transportation to get more of us to where we want to go.
You can't fill a bathtub when the plug is out of place. The plug orifice is miraculously eroding all the while, with the result that it's diameter is increasing. There can't be a good end to all this.
selector wrote: You can't fill a bathtub when the plug is out of place. The plug orifice is miraculously eroding all the while, with the result that it's diameter is increasing. There can't be a good end to all this.-Crandell
We either have to turn the water on more or take less baths. I have heard people say that the richest nations should sacrifice some of their economic prosperity to conserve the earth's energy, which they believe to be finite. Other people say the earth has a self-sustaining principle that will never let us down.
I use 500 KW per month more or less of electricity.
If I can find solar and cover my roof with the stuff and generate at least 1K KW per month off the sun and export to the grid what I dont use in return for income... why.. Im just happy.
Be a very long time before prices fall to where anyone can do this. I understand it takes 25K dollars to build a 3K Kw/month array.
You think that those van trailers will be good with solar on thier roof and generate power that might be fed to trailer motors between the wheels to assist. But I dont think anyone will want to spend more than X dollars for a trailer anyhow.
Falls Valley RR wrote:I use 500 KW per month more or less of electricity.If I can find solar and cover my roof with the stuff and generate at least 1K KW per month off the sun and export to the grid what I dont use in return for income... why.. Im just happy.Be a very long time before prices fall to where anyone can do this. I understand it takes 25K dollars to build a 3K Kw/month array. You think that those van trailers will be good with solar on thier roof and generate power that might be fed to trailer motors between the wheels to assist. But I dont think anyone will want to spend more than X dollars for a trailer anyhow.
Most states I have heard of with Net Metering arrangements will credit you with enough to break even, but dont pay for extra capacity. There may be some exceptions...some will allow you to bank credit month to month only, some for a yearly basis.
Solar panels can be purchased for about $5/watt...to get a system for 3Kilowatt hours per month, depending on where you live, would be 3000watt-hours/6 hrs day avg =500 watts of panel...or about $2500 for the panels, almost that amount for the interface hardware (inverters, disconnects, etc) and at least that much for engineering and installation. $7500 or so...and up. Some states offer tax credits for installing such a system (most notably California), so do the feds, last time I checked.
If you get out west this summer, the little Town of John Day, Oregon, has a solar fair (Oregon Solwest Renewable Energy Fair) in late July that is fun to check out...
Interesting idea about powering trucks from solar panels on the top...if you could get 2.2 KW of panels (22 -100 watt panels) you would get about 3 Horsepower out of it...(750W/HP)... but every little bit helps when fuel is $3.50 or better and you get 8 mpg or less...
Bucyrus wrote: selector wrote: You can't fill a bathtub when the plug is out of place. The plug orifice is miraculously eroding all the while, with the result that it's diameter is increasing. There can't be a good end to all this.-CrandellWe either have to turn the water on more or take less baths. I have heard people say that the richest nations should sacrifice some of their economic prosperity to conserve the earth's energy, which they believe to be finite. Other people say the earth has a self-sustaining principle that will never let us down.
Turning up the tap would work, except the hole keeps getting bigger. More people consuming as our population rises means the hole is getting bigger. These people need to live someplace, so that means deforestation...so less oxygen. If we begin to build large platforms at sea on which to build cities, less sunlight to the water so less oxygen, less plankton, less consummables...you get the idea. The problems we face are derivative of our collective penchant for taking up surface area and energy.
selector wrote: Bucyrus wrote: selector wrote: You can't fill a bathtub when the plug is out of place. The plug orifice is miraculously eroding all the while, with the result that it's diameter is increasing. There can't be a good end to all this.-CrandellWe either have to turn the water on more or take less baths. I have heard people say that the richest nations should sacrifice some of their economic prosperity to conserve the earth's energy, which they believe to be finite. Other people say the earth has a self-sustaining principle that will never let us down.Turning up the tap would work, except the hole keeps getting bigger. More people consuming as our popoulation rises means the hole is getting bigger. These people need to live someplace, so that means deforestation...so less oxygen. If we begin to build large platforms at sea on which to build cities, less sunlight to the water so less oxygen, less plankton, less consummables...you get the idea. The problems we face are derivative of our collective penchant for taking up surface area and energy.
Turning up the tap would work, except the hole keeps getting bigger. More people consuming as our popoulation rises means the hole is getting bigger. These people need to live someplace, so that means deforestation...so less oxygen. If we begin to build large platforms at sea on which to build cities, less sunlight to the water so less oxygen, less plankton, less consummables...you get the idea. The problems we face are derivative of our collective penchant for taking up surface area and energy.
The United States, almost alone among rich countries, reduced its carbon output last year -- something the Kyoto signatories, ironically, did not or could not do. Kyoto government mandates were less effective than the American market-based approach. Rich countries, too, tend to reduce their population growth; indeed, they tend to drop below replacement numbers.
The ultimate solution to pollution, environment degradation, and overcrowding is purely economic: increasing wealth and freedom.
You have a point, there, Michael. The "better off" people are the world over, the less inclined they are to effect the living that perpetuates the problems.
Ulrich wrote:Sure...but the US has also been the greatest contibutor to CO2 emissions. African countries don't pollute as much as most of their people don't have the "big house and two cars" lifestyle freedom that we enjoy.
No, they have been committing deforestation on an unprecedented scale even as satellite photos show that the United States has, over the past 50 years, been reforesting and even pushing back the historical range of forest cover. Our watersheds now represent the most extensive and cleanest watersheds on a global scale. Our CO2 "cost" per person has been steadily declining for 20 years, even as other nations' continues to increase. Even as the United States continues to invest in control and efficiency measures, each 1% decrease in American impact is met with a 5% increase in China alone, because they don't give a d*** about any of this. China is now the largest producer of CO2 and building more coal fired plants in the next year, than we will in the next 20. Then what?
Yes, poverty and starvation is "an" argument that can be used to offer the moral high ground regarding pollution to the poor and the starving. But they probably would not care to accept the distinction willingly, nor consider it an honor that people from rich nations hold them out as an example of ... something positive when no doubt they see it from the somewhat different perspective that accompanies short life spans and misery.
MichaelSol wrote: selector wrote: Bucyrus wrote: selector wrote: You can't fill a bathtub when the plug is out of place. The plug orifice is miraculously eroding all the while, with the result that it's diameter is increasing. There can't be a good end to all this.-CrandellWe either have to turn the water on more or take less baths. I have heard people say that the richest nations should sacrifice some of their economic prosperity to conserve the earth's energy, which they believe to be finite. Other people say the earth has a self-sustaining principle that will never let us down.Turning up the tap would work, except the hole keeps getting bigger. More people consuming as our popoulation rises means the hole is getting bigger. These people need to live someplace, so that means deforestation...so less oxygen. If we begin to build large platforms at sea on which to build cities, less sunlight to the water so less oxygen, less plankton, less consummables...you get the idea. The problems we face are derivative of our collective penchant for taking up surface area and energy.The United States, almost alone among rich countries, reduced its carbon output last year -- something the Kyoto signatories, ironically, did not or could not do. Kyoto government mandates were less effective than the American market-based approach. Rich countries, too, tend to reduce their population growth; indeed, they tend to drop below replacement numbers.The ultimate solution to pollution, environment degradation, and overcrowding is purely economic: increasing wealth and freedom.
I sure agree with that, but as you know, the richest countries are seen as the cause of the earth's environmental problems including the theory of manmade climate change. They are blamed for consuming more than their share of resources and contributing more than their share of CO2. However, I have to conclude that the blame for these supposed sins is actually assigned on the basis of wealth rather than pollution, since China, a major and blatant polluter, seems to be given a pass while the U.S. is held in the greatest contempt. I agree that the ultimate solution is economic prosperity, but the solution being demanded is the punishment of achievement, rationing of resources in conjunction with an expansion of government, and equalizing the prosperity of the world's nations by taking from the rich ones and giving it to the poor ones. Some speculate that the power that flows from this redistribution is the true motivation disguised as, and being sold as a climate crisis.
<:AtomicElement> I read on the OOIDA web site that a number of the top dog at J B Hunt have sold off large amounts of thier stock in the company. Do they know something the rest of us don't? I know I said before that I have heard truckers complain for years about high fuel cost and low rates but fuel is over $4.00 per gallon and freight is way down with soft rates. Something has got to give somewhere. There is going to be some big trucking companies going under soon. The boys at Hunt must be able to to the big picture.
Let's say that if JB gets burned out by the bad industry conditions and cannot stay in business... Walmart, Railroad Intermodal and who knows how many commercial businesses who contract for regional or day cab local dock service will need to find trucks to carry on.
Let's think for a moment that I am a local grocery chain here in arkansas. I hire JB to supply me with 50 tractors 24/7 to shuffle trailers and move my dry goods and grocery. I pay JB Hunt X dollars plus whatever ....
Warning simple economics ahead....
If JB quit serving my outfit with trucks and drivers, I will have to go out and BUY trucks, HIRE drivers and find a way to pay for it all from Desiel to Payroll at the same rate I was paying JB.
Luckly there is a mass of trucking school stock that dont understand .40 per mile yet. We can get them in for a few hundred dollars week in salary.
If I cannot do it, I will find a trucking company who can. There is always one out there, somewhere in the whole USA starving for cash and willing to drive 2000 miles to get work.
There was at last count when I was in, about 14,000 tractors, 200+ Intermodal Facilties and many many many other parts of the USA "Up to here" with Hunt's work.
It will not be the end of the road. They will always need a truck.
Now what may happen is thousands of people will not be able to earn income each week and maybe.. just maybe call it quits and go work in a gas station at home.
If One big giant falls, the work can be easily soaked up by other Giants and not allowed to splatter onto the unemployment line.
No, I think the stock will be sold. Poor, lazy, non productive drivers fired, old equiptment retired or sold (Dumped onto another company who dont yet understand that they are buying costly expensive shop queens) stock sold, nests built, office people petted down and dead wood removed and a very careful pick of the weekly orientation crop.
While that is going on, safety will go on a crusade, drivers who put a ding in the truck or a cut in a tire will be given time in the oven and made to sweat or even pay out of the wages that damage just like in the old days of gone by.. the old words..' You just boughten this new tire dum dum.. im docking ye 240 dollars to pay for it." ... "But..." ..."No buts, and stop ripping my tires on that street corner!!!"
What can a driver do? Keep on Trucking that's what. The strong roll on while the weak whine and quit all together like a very poorly built frame.
Oh, dont worry none about the Ivory tower. As long thier lives are uninterrupted by such basic problems as lack of work or other problems such as too many bills... things will carry on as always. That stock they sold probably will keep the family fed and housed very well for a number of years if need be until things turn around.
No matter how hard it gets, there are riches for the survivors. Trucking is a feast and famine world. If you dont understand this then you have no place on the road.
I think we're missing an important point in this discussion. That being if the trucking industry did start to implode on itself and companies started folding, that would mean fewer trucks on the road. Fewer trucks on the road would mean less fuel consumed. Less fuel consumed would mean a greater supply and prices would drop.
Granted things are bad in the US and they will get worse. This country has also seen things that are ten times worse, namely the Civil War, Both World Wars, the Great Depression and the 1970s. After all of them we bounced back stronger. This decade does seem a lot like the 1970s but look what came after the 70s, the 1980s and 1990s, two decades of great prosperity. We'll bounce back from these bad times.
Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.
www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com
I understand that our refining capacity is strictly limited and that no new refineries are under construction. Those extant are aged....
So, while we will occasionally see the cyclical nature of liquid fuel prices, the trend in any one 24 month period has to be up...doesn't it? Population is on the rise...or is the USA static...don't think so...so more trucking capacity, or hauling capacity, is needed to bring supplies to the markets. That will further impact on prices as refineries occasionally dry up or go broken and supplies dive.
In a global economy, to me it's hard to separate out "rich and free" from others when it comes to "responsibility" for pollution emissions. After all, we've been steadily outsourcing much of our manufacturing capability to countries such as China, who burn the energy to make us air conditioners, TVs and the like. If we in the USA manufactured all the stuff we actually use on a daily basis, what would be the emission for our country? It's the consumer lifestyle that generates the emissions. Where the stuff is manufactured is just a political arguing point. Granted, a lot of the countries where manufacturing has fled have lower regulatory supervision on things like pollutants. But isn't that one reason why manufacturing flees there...along with cheap labor?
Now, not that I'm advocating going back to the stone age, but these national emission arguments seem to me to be a bit facile...albeit a political arguing point.
One the oil/gas price and oil companies front, I do think the oil companies tend to take a bit too much of a hit. The general public has generally considered that oil and gas corporations dominate world reserves and production, fueling record profits and dictating market conditions. Yet Exxon Mobil, the world's biggest oil company ranks but 16th in terms of overall oil reserves. The truth is that while in the 1960's oil majors had access to 85% of the world's reserves, they now only have access to 16%. The rest of it is ruled by National Oil Companies, most of whom are in the "developing" world. In the last 30 years over 40 percent of all oil came from publicly traded companies. In the next 30 years 90 percent of production will come from the developing world- from National Oil Companies.
These "NOCs" are mostly nationalized companies and/or state monopolies and control of the lion's share of world oil and increasingly it's final production. One of things that drives up global prices is their inefficiency compared to the "evil" oil companies, alongside their increasing market share of the production. The fact is that many if not most of these state monopolies are inefficient compared to private companies, and need a lot of infrastructure investment. So world production has considerably shifted from efficient companies to inefficient NOCs. This drives up the average cost of a barrel of oil in a global supply and demand market. Add to this the real super-increasing energy demands of countries like India and China. Global supply isn't as efficient as it used to be, and demand is soaring. It's a global supply and demand thing, and folks, your energy bill ain't coming down much in the future despite what politicians like to say. All this, the detail of the case, too often escapes those caught up in slamming the easiest, closest target - the "big" oil companies.
Which leads me to trains. I think they're going to be an increasingly efficient option based on fuel cost rises, and the crest may have hit on the competitiveness of trucking vs. rail in more and more situations. I wonder how many companies in the next decade wish they hadn't ripped up or neglected their industrial rail sidings?
I agree..the rails would be smart to getting into trucking now. Times are tough and there are no doubt some good deals out there to be had from a purchase standpoint.
Further rail mergers may be unlikely due to the regulatory climate; however, the "new frontier" may be mergers between truckers and railroads.
chicagorails wrote:the railroads should get their own trucking companies.
I dunno....I think they would best stick to what they know, running a rail road. The trends seem to be outsourcing all the stuff that is not directly a part of the core business...that way, when things pick up again they are not saddled with extra infrastructure.
However, it would be a good thing to form stragetic alliances with some trucking companies, just to ensure they can get the products they are transporting to market.
I tend to agree with a previous poster, that it may take a while, but trucks wont disappear...when wages come up enough, there will be plenty of folks to drive. It will just get passed on to the consumer. Some folks may be caught in the middle for a while, but it will settle out...
Anybody else get an email about boycotting Exxon/Mobile and Citgo, not for one day but untill prices come down? I wonder who thinks these things up....
I have not gotten any of those spammy emails about gasoline boycotts. Frankly all I care about is getting X number of gallons each week to fill my tank. I dont care how high the gas prices get. I really dont. If I contribute to our drying up of the gasoline supply and driving cost to 10.00 gallon so be it.
A lifetime ago I thought 1.00 was expensive. Now I ponder 200 dollar oil and wars over the supply fields.
JSGreen wrote: ...Anybody else get an email about boycotting Exxon/Mobile and Citgo, not for one day but untill prices come down? I wonder who thinks these things up....
...Anybody else get an email about boycotting Exxon/Mobile and Citgo, not for one day but untill prices come down? I wonder who thinks these things up....
Heh, heh!! People who either don't drive a great deal or who think that the suppliers with lower prices are just nicer people.
What I find interesting is that diesel is basically a by-product of gasoline production, yet it costs so much more.
Now of course there is one thing the government could do to bring about some relief: lift the excise tax. I don't know how much difference that would actauly make here in South Carolina where the tx is only 16 cents per gallon and diesel is going for $3.98 (right by I-95, it's cheaper as you get away from the interstate). In a state like New York with it's 10+ different taxes motor fuel, it would help a lot.
As for these idea of boycotting a particular brand, from what i've read it would backfire. Demand would increase at the other stations causing them to raise their prices.
It seems to me that if we really wanted gas and diesel prices to go down, we'd carpool more, trade our armored personel carrieres (SUVs) for Corolas and Civics that get 35 mpg.
shawnee wrote: In a global economy, to me it's hard to separate out "rich and free" from others when it comes to "responsibility" for pollution emissions. After all, we've been steadily outsourcing much of our manufacturing capability to countries such as China, who burn the energy to make us air conditioners, TVs and the like. If we in the USA manufactured all the stuff we actually use on a daily basis, what would be the emission for our country? It's the consumer lifestyle that generates the emissions. Where the stuff is manufactured is just a political arguing point. Granted, a lot of the countries where manufacturing has fled have lower regulatory supervision on things like pollutants. But isn't that one reason why manufacturing flees there...along with cheap labor? Now, not that I'm advocating going back to the stone age, but these national emission arguments seem to me to be a bit facile...albeit a political arguing point.
It is true that China's contribution to world pollution is partially the result of manufacturing American products. But I don't think it follows that the same amount of pollution from producing those products would occur if they were made in the U.S. as opposed to China. On average, China's industrial processes produce more pollution than U.S. industrial processes.
You mention that to you, national emission arguments are facile. To me, they seem really hard. They are especially difficult because they are wrapped up in subterfuge.
The national emission arguments are not born of pride of the richest nations idly boasting that they are the cleanest. This response is actually the richest nations defending themselves from the world activists' charge that the richest nations are the largest part of the cause of climate destruction because those nations consume more per capita than the poor nations. While that is generally true, the activists continue the charge by saying that the richest nations also pollute more than the poorer nations. That is generally true if you compare the emissions of whole nation totals, and if you consider CO2 to be pollution. However, on a per capita basis, I think you will find that, on average, poorer nations pollute far more per capita than the richer nations. And if you take CO2 out of the equation, the richest nations are even cleaner. So the fact that the rich countries consume more per capita is somewhat of a red herring to the blame-for-climate-change argument.
This poses some questions: Is it fair to compare the emissions amounts of whole nations and assign blame accordingly? The U.S. produces far more emissions than Cuba, so does that mean that Cuba is less of a problem than the U.S.? Or do we need to compare the per capita emissions of the two countries to make it fair?
Climate activists assign blame according to national total emissions, which leads to the conclusion that the U.S. is the largest perpetrator of climate destruction. By labeling CO2 as a pollutant, they are able to make the U.S. into an even greater perpetrator.
This leads to another question: Do climate activists target the richest nations because their emission totals are the highest, or do they target the richest nations because they are rich? Climate activists represent the world as one big community, where rich nations are less virtuous than poor nations based on national emissions. At this point in the argument, they do acknowledge the greater per capita pollution of the poorer countries, and use it to establish NEED. At the same time, they look at the greater per capita consumption and greater national emission total of the richest countries, and use it to establish EXCESS. From here, they seek to level that disparity of emission virtuosity, as they have defined it, by financially penalizing the rich countries for their excess, and using the funds to help poor countries with their need to reduce their pollution. It amounts to taking from the rich and giving it to the poor through a carbon credit trading system.
Fundamentally, there are two beneficiaries in the redistribution of wealth. One is the recipient of the redistribution, and the other is the redistributor. In this case, that would be the U.N. with their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the heart and soul of climate activism. The dream of administering a worldwide program of carbon credit trading in the name of preventing the destruction of the planet is a major aspiration of the U.N. And it reveals the motive behind their targeting the richest nations as the most blameworthy.
Bucyrus wrote: shawnee wrote: In a global economy, to me it's hard to separate out "rich and free" from others when it comes to "responsibility" for pollution emissions. After all, we've been steadily outsourcing much of our manufacturing capability to countries such as China, who burn the energy to make us air conditioners, TVs and the like. If we in the USA manufactured all the stuff we actually use on a daily basis, what would be the emission for our country? It's the consumer lifestyle that generates the emissions. Where the stuff is manufactured is just a political arguing point. Granted, a lot of the countries where manufacturing has fled have lower regulatory supervision on things like pollutants. But isn't that one reason why manufacturing flees there...along with cheap labor? Now, not that I'm advocating going back to the stone age, but these national emission arguments seem to me to be a bit facile...albeit a political arguing point.It is true that China's contribution to world pollution is partially the result of manufacturing American products. But I don't think it follows that the same amount of pollution from producing those products would occur if they were made in the U.S. as opposed to China. On average, China's industrial processes produce more pollution than U.S. industrial processes.You mention that to you, national emission arguments are facile. To me, they seem really hard. They are especially difficult because they are wrapped up in subterfuge.The national emission arguments are not born of pride of the richest nations idly boasting that they are the cleanest. This response is actually the richest nations defending themselves from the world activists' charge that the richest nations are the largest part of the cause of climate destruction because those nations consume more per capita than the poor nations. While that is generally true, the activists continue the charge by saying that the richest nations also pollute more than the poorer nations. That is generally true if you compare the emissions of whole nation totals, and if you consider CO2 to be pollution. However, on a per capita basis, I think you will find that, on average, poorer nations pollute far more per capita than the richer nations. And if you take CO2 out of the equation, the richest nations are even cleaner. So the fact that the rich countries consume more per capita is somewhat of a red herring to the blame-for-climate-change argument.
Motive is everything in this game. And its always a double standard. Until just a few months ago, the United States was a larger exporter than China, and much of that export was to developing countries. But does anyone accuse developing countries of exploiting and causing pollution in the United States by having the audacity to purchase U.S. goods? Of course not.
But just as the poster complains that Chinese air conditioners are merely exporting our own pollution, he will ignore the opposite effect: that our "pollution" is creating high tech and machine tools, advanced electronics and medicines, food and, yes, pollution control technology for export purposes that can make the advances of those nations an easier and more efficient path than our own. And he will ignore the opposite effect because those are the rules of the game.
The nations which tend to be most wasteful of natural resources, and the most unconcerned with environment degradation, tend to be the socialist nations -- recalling the essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" writ large -- and the tyrannies, which are often the same identities oddly enough.
The rich nations are rich because of cultural attitudes about law, about caring for property rights, about recognizing the importance of human capital, and for respecting economic capital.
They can feed their people because they are not busy exploiting their people but, rather, protecting the achievements of their people. Odd how that works.
But those same countries that destroy their own economies and sufficiency are the ones hollering the loudest about "exploitation" -- as though they are not the grandmasters of the idea. And, unfortunately, as oil becomes something more easily exploited as a "bargaining chip" for political purposes, it becomes a greater and more important prize for each Chavez or Quaddafi to control. It is the true "Devil's Excrement" and the so-called rich nations -- which are rich because they respect their own people -- are going to be the ultimate hostages to the short-sighted energy policies of the past 40 years: policies which arose from an agenda driven by the idea that wealth causes pollution and degradation, whereas in fact wealth has created the ability to control pollution and degradation, provided the economic incentive to do so and has done so quite effectively compared to what is passing for the fine experiments in the other approach that characterizes much of the world.
Fed Ex cannot find my place so they are out, unreliable delivery from another town an hour away. DHL continues to hang in in my area but not very large. UPS Does a great job and earns just about all of my business either Air or Ground. US Post Office is one for getting the mail where it needs to go.
LCL is a different animal. One company I used to work for did have a large LCL operation. You had a big facility that handled LCL in Lancaster Tx and you might have 10 trailers inbound from the west and southwest and these loads are combined into one for one reciever on the east coast.
An example would be food and grocery, it might be combined and shipped to Darden in Aberdeen Md where there is split up and sent by small LCL trucks to several Red Lobster, Olive Garden type resturants on a route each day.
Sometimes a City Market might get a truck load and the local butchers, restraunts and other food users like Steamship Lines etc will come get the stuff.
The old LCL operations started dying back in the 90's with the sale of CF and others. ABF has alot of business here in Arkansas and so do the UPS. They pretty much fight each other to fill those Pup trailers.
diesel hit a new record us average 4 bucks a gal....
are there any hydrogen big trucks in the making????
No.
I think one small gas station on the west coast is selling at 5.40 now and with the commodities market having a meltdown, no end in sight.
It's time we learn how high desiel prices can go before trucking is forced to stop.
Even if there is a miracle and a fine fuel efficient truck getting 100 miles to the gallon is built, no one will buy it, only lease it. And after two years it gets thrown back onto the junker's scrap/salvage line wore out and put up.
Keep in mind that tractors are considered disposable. No one except Owner Operators BUY trucks to keep 15-30 years.
What we can do is go back to the Oxen days and extend delivery times 9 months for a trans USA freight shipment.
I think people are kind of conveniently forgetting that the issue of fuel supply could be solved within the next ten years, especially for diesel fuel.
Two things could make this happen:
1) Growing oil-laden algae on a MASSIVE scale, algae that could be easily processed into diesel fuel, heating oil and kerosene and the solid "waste" processed further into ethanol.
2) New enzymes that could break down an ENTIRE plant into biomass, which can be refined into the same fuels I mentioned. This way, instead of having to grow more corn or sugar cane just to refine into ethanol, we can convert agricultural waste from conventional farming into fuel itself.
Essentially, this will give use pretty much an unlimited, renewable source of motor fuel.
By the way, I think we're going to see massive interest in RoadRailers, since this would allow a single 2-3 locomotive train to move 125 insulated RoadRailer trailers filled with perishable food long distances.
SactoGuy188 wrote: I think people are kind of conveniently forgetting that the issue of fuel supply could be solved within the next ten years, especially for diesel fuel.Two things could make this happen:1) Growing oil-laden algae on a MASSIVE scale, algae that could be easily processed into diesel fuel, heating oil and kerosene and the solid "waste" processed further into ethanol.2) New enzymes that could break down an ENTIRE plant into biomass, which can be refined into the same fuels I mentioned. This way, instead of having to grow more corn or sugar cane just to refine into ethanol, we can convert agricultural waste from conventional farming into fuel itself.Essentially, this will give use pretty much an unlimited, renewable source of motor fuel.By the way, I think we're going to see massive interest in RoadRailers, since this would allow a single 2-3 locomotive train to move 125 insulated RoadRailer trailers filled with perishable food long distances.
Well, I don't know anything about algae, and I don't want to know anythig about algae, but...
Generally, if you're moving trains that big (125 units) over long distances then double stack will be more economical than RoadRailers.
There are conditions that can favor RoadRailers, but they'd have to be moved at the end of a train consist that includes other intermodal or the benifits created by those conditions get nulified by the costs of running a RoadRailer only train.
I do agree that trucking a load of onions from Washington State to Boston is rapidly becomming a very uneconomical option.
....At a glance of the above info it sure is something to think about and wonder why not....2 six axle engines {just yesterday}, pulled 125 trailers....many {most}, 53 footers, thru here in the Triple Crown consist.
It's easy to see just how many drivers and diesel trucks it would take to equal that if they both were on a cross country run hauling perishables.....
Why would double stacks be more economical than the Triple Crown run.....? Wouldn't the T C train have far less overall tonnage.....and hence, less fuel usage too...
I certainly don't know the answer, but I think the overall subject and questions {and answers}, might be interesting.
Quentin
One reason why I don't like the idea of using insulated doublestack containers to move perishables is the complexity of the whole idea involved.
Using doublestack containers means:
1) Each container will need its own "clip on" cooling unit.
2) You'll need specialized container carrier cars.
3) The complexity of loading and unloading all those containers with overhead cranes.
The resulting train will need a bigger power consist, and that means more fuel consumed per train.
MichaelSol wrote: Bucyrus wrote: shawnee wrote: In a global economy, to me it's hard to separate out "rich and free" from others when it comes to "responsibility" for pollution emissions. After all, we've been steadily outsourcing much of our manufacturing capability to countries such as China, who burn the energy to make us air conditioners, TVs and the like. If we in the USA manufactured all the stuff we actually use on a daily basis, what would be the emission for our country? It's the consumer lifestyle that generates the emissions. Where the stuff is manufactured is just a political arguing point. Granted, a lot of the countries where manufacturing has fled have lower regulatory supervision on things like pollutants. But isn't that one reason why manufacturing flees there...along with cheap labor? Now, not that I'm advocating going back to the stone age, but these national emission arguments seem to me to be a bit facile...albeit a political arguing point.It is true that China's contribution to world pollution is partially the result of manufacturing American products. But I don't think it follows that the same amount of pollution from producing those products would occur if they were made in the U.S. as opposed to China. On average, China's industrial processes produce more pollution than U.S. industrial processes.You mention that to you, national emission arguments are facile. To me, they seem really hard. They are especially difficult because they are wrapped up in subterfuge.The national emission arguments are not born of pride of the richest nations idly boasting that they are the cleanest. This response is actually the richest nations defending themselves from the world activists' charge that the richest nations are the largest part of the cause of climate destruction because those nations consume more per capita than the poor nations. While that is generally true, the activists continue the charge by saying that the richest nations also pollute more than the poorer nations. That is generally true if you compare the emissions of whole nation totals, and if you consider CO2 to be pollution. However, on a per capita basis, I think you will find that, on average, poorer nations pollute far more per capita than the richer nations. And if you take CO2 out of the equation, the richest nations are even cleaner. So the fact that the rich countries consume more per capita is somewhat of a red herring to the blame-for-climate-change argument. Motive is everything in this game. And its always a double standard. Until just a few months ago, the United States was a larger exporter than China, and much of that export was to developing countries. But does anyone accuse developing countries of exploiting and causing pollution in the United States by having the audacity to purchase U.S. goods? Of course not. But just as the poster complains that Chinese air conditioners are merely exporting our own pollution, he will ignore the opposite effect: that our "pollution" is creating high tech and machine tools, advanced electronics and medicines, food and, yes, pollution control technology for export purposes that can make the advances of those nations an easier and more efficient path than our own. And he will ignore the opposite effect because those are the rules of the game.The nations which tend to be most wasteful of natural resources, and the most unconcerned with environment degradation, tend to be the socialist nations -- recalling the essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" writ large -- and the tyrannies, which are often the same identities oddly enough.The rich nations are rich because of cultural attitudes about law, about caring for property rights, about recognizing the importance of human capital, and for respecting economic capital.They can feed their people because they are not busy exploiting their people but, rather, protecting the achievements of their people. Odd how that works. But those same countries that destroy their own economies and sufficiency are the ones hollering the loudest about "exploitation" -- as though they are not the grandmasters of the idea. And, unfortunately, as oil becomes something more easily exploited as a "bargaining chip" for political purposes, it becomes a greater and more important prize for each Chavez or Quaddafi to control. It is the true "Devil's Excrement" and the so-called rich nations -- which are rich because they respect their own people -- are going to be the ultimate hostages to the short-sighted energy policies of the past 40 years: policies which arose from an agenda driven by the idea that wealth causes pollution and degradation, whereas in fact wealth has created the ability to control pollution and degradation, provided the economic incentive to do so and has done so quite effectively compared to what is passing for the fine experiments in the other approach that characterizes much of the world.
Here! Here! Well said Mr. Sol. I agree 100%.
I drove over to Woodhull IL to meet a friend at the Homestead Travel Plaza on I-74. She had planned on filling up her truck there. Well. No gas! They still had a couple thousand gallons of diesel. The trucker that had been delivering the fuel, shut down yesterday. He couldn't make it any more with diesel @ $4.13.
GP-9_Man11786 wrote:According to this MSNBC article, gas and fuel prices have risen largley due to speculation and are due for a correction. If the article is true it could mean fuel prices could come crashing down.
The problem is that the price is just too high now and is causing motor fuels to start become an elastic (e.g., price sensitive to consumers) commodity. As such, don't be surprised we see a severe cutback in discretionary travel this summer and that could result in gasoline and diesel fuel suppliers "holding the bag" on too much overpriced fuel.
Interesting thread! Just read thru most of it...Seems to be a common thought that prices will come down with lower consumption...I'm not so sure. The MSN article says comsumption has been flat in the states for 5-years.
BP and Exon CEO's make no bones about being in business to make money for their investors, gloating over their leadership to record profits. They need to keep their profits up...somehow. If the CEO doesn't show profits, the board and shareholders will get rid of them.
I'm suprised that gas/fuel is only about $4/gal. Remember we were paying $2/gal when oil was at $35/barrel. Oil prices have risen to 3x the price, so who made up the difference, and how did the oil companies make that much profit?
Seems that personal income needs to rise to acommodate the oil companies, since we all need the gas and fuel, and currently have no choice. Somehow the carriers need to push back, and make money to feed their families, since they can't cut back on the fuel used to transport goods.
Kurt
....Diesel in Muncie: $4.199 Non Leaded Reg. $3.499
The media continued to put out the word it hasn't made any difference and people were swallowing the increases and business as usual.
I will say right now, it is making a difference around here.... It is becoming noticable with less cars on the streets and a different pattern is setting in, in places like restaurants and so on.
The pump shut off. I had to pay, then put in another $7.00 in my pickup. This was Saturday
I'm not going to hold my breath. If the prices "crash down" how are the oil companies going to make as much money? That would mean that the CEOs aren't making money for their shareholders and thus they'd be in hot water/fired.
Dan
ACCORDING TO ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS REPORT APRIL 17, INTERMODAL VOLUME WAS UP.. TRAILERS UP 3.6% AND CONTAINERS UP 1.5%.. MORE TRUCKS ARE USING RAILS
AND BICYCLE SALES ARE UP ALSO...THANKS TO KING OIL
GASOLINE HERE IN FLA. UP 13 CENTS IN 4 DAYS
yahoo headline last evening'''traffic patterns changing due to cost of fuel." (or as close as I can recall it today).
This doesn't necessarily mean permanence, but it does mean that those who remark on such things have detected a significant change in behaviour. The next 24 months should give us a good idea. I can tell you that car dealerships on the lower mainland and here on Vancouver Island are lamenting the stone's drop in truck sales.
Everyone seems to mention how much money the oil companies are making but never how much the Government hammers us in taxes per gallon.
I know this might be a little off topic but if the airline and trucking industries had to cover their true costs without Government subsidies and rights of way. They simply couldn't exist in the form that they presently do.
And each time one of the Bay area refineries shuts down for maintenance the price of Gasoline rises in Central and Northern California. Part of the problem is not enough refineries and part is greed on their part. One shuts down and the others all raise their prices until that one comes back in service.
The strategic reserves in Southern California by some estimates is far more than the services would need for the next 150 years at present day consumption so why not use some of that. If we can't come up with alternate fuels or power sources in the next fifty years I don't think we will have to worry about it anyway. I for one am not going to be around long enough to see what happens or much less care.
TTFN Al - in - Stockton
wsherrick wrote: Everyone seems to mention how much money the oil companies are making but never how much the Government hammers us in taxes per gallon. I know this might be a little off topic but if the airline and trucking industries had to cover their true costs without Government subsidies and rights of way. They simply couldn't exist in the form that they presently do.
.....New prices here in Muncie...{Midwest}....Non leaded: 3.66
Diesel: 4.25.....! We're getting into the price range now where it will be making a difference to the general public....What's next....??
wsherrick wrote: Everyone seems to mention how much money the oil companies are making but never how much the Government hammers us in taxes per gallon.
Yes, and on each dollar's worth of gasoline we buy, the taxes are greater than the profit made by the oil company that produced that gasoline. Yet we hear nothing about the greed of taxation.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1140.html
In exchange for the profit made by the oil companies, they risked their own money as capital to look for oil, get it out of the ground, turn it into gasoline, and get it to the dealer. What do we get from the government's portion of our dollar, other than a wild spending spree on things nobody needs?
That is what I'm talking about. We pay all this in taxes so the jerks(I'd like to use some other word) in Washington and the state capitols can spend it on other things that do not have anything to to with roads and bridges. All of our transportation infrastucture in one system. We as a country could not be what we are without it.
There is a big demonstration today in Washington, DC about the high price of truck fuel. Apparently the point of the demonstration is to demand a solution from the federal government.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=6107865
From the article:
"The truckers are calling on Congress to stop subsidizing big oil companies, release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, and end exports of oil from Alaska, among other things."
My questions:
1) How much would these measures do to lower the price of diesel fuel?
2) What are the economics of exporting oil from Alaska? Who do we export it to?
3) Why and how does the government subsidize big oil companies?
4) What are the "other things" that are being asked for by the protesters?
Rant.....on!
Ya know this might be a silly question, but while I feel really bad for the plight of the average trucker, my bro-in-law is one, I am very puzzled: Experts have been saying now for years that oil was going to go nowhere but up in price, and for the last 3 or 4 years the writing has clearly been on the wall that gas and diesel were going to go nowhere but up, some car manufacturers read the writing and began producing hybrids and other higher fuel efficiency models, now I have to ask:
Why haven't truck manufacturers done the same? Seams like there still making the the same metal bricks Smokey chased the Bandit around in 30 years ago?
Isn't it logical when crude goes up because of demand from India and China, gas goes up, diesel will go up also, regardless of how much emission controls or special formulas, it just wouldnt go up quite as much but it would still go up no matter what.
So is it that the truck manufacturers are just collectivley too thick to get it? I havent seen any significant advance in diesel trucks since the widespread adoption of turbochargers, even those mostly boost HP not necessarily economy, the basic design and construction of the semi-tractor hasnt really changed since the 1930's!!!!! I know this cause I have pics of the truck a relative of mine drove back in the 30's!
Why are people are still buying SUVs despite the predictions of $4+ a gallon gas this summer, I hate to say it but this isnt a surprise to me, nor is it a shock, these prices have been anticipated for several years now and anyone with there eyes wide open could clearly see it coming, yet as a nation we have collectivly continued down the garden path blithly ingoring the facts that were plainly in view. Blind faith can do that I guess.
If someone as thick as me could see that when gas hit $3.50 a gallon back in '06, that it was time to hang up the pickup truck and get a gas sipper cause they werent ever going to be under $2.50 a gallon again, you'd of thought someone, somewhere would be thinking, "Hey maybe we should begin research into designing more fuel efficient trucks"? Guess not. Too hard to think outside the metal box?
Maybe its time for more aerodynamic trucks, better engines, and smaller local delivery trucks, Biodiesel? Hybrid truck engines? time to start thinking outside the same old same old....someone enlightne me?
PS - Were going to see alot of airlines drop like flies this summer. If the trucks are hurting now, how long before the RRs start feeling the pinch.
Rant off, back to reruns of BJ and the Bear...
Have fun with your trains
vsmith wrote: Rant.....on!Ya know this might be a silly question, but while I feel really bad for the plight of the average trucker, my bro-in-law is one, I am very puzzled: Experts have been saying now for years that oil was going to go nowhere but up in price, and for the last 3 or 4 years the writing has clearly been on the wall that gas and diesel were going to go nowhere but up, some car manufacturers read the writing and began producing hybrids and other higher fuel efficiency models, now I have to ask:Why haven't truck manufacturers done the same? Seams like there still making the the same metal bricks Smokey chased the Bandit around in 30 years ago?Isn't it logical when crude goes up because of demand from India and China, gas goes up, diesel will go up also, regardless of how much emission controls or special formulas, it just wouldnt go up quite as much but it would still go up no matter what.So is it that the truck manufacturers are just collectivley too thick to get it? I havent seen any significant advance in diesel trucks since the widespread adoption of turbochargers, even those mostly boost HP not necessarily economy, the basic design and construction of the semi-tractor hasnt really changed since the 1930's!!!!! I know this cause I have pics of the truck a relative of mine drove back in the 30's!Why are people are still buying SUVs despite the predictions of $4+ a gallon gas this summer, I hate to say it but this isnt a surprise to me, nor is it a shock, these prices have been anticipated for several years now and anyone with there eyes wide open could clearly see it coming, yet as a nation we have collectivly continued down the garden path blithly ingoring the facts that were plainly in view. Blind faith can do that I guess.If someone as thick as me could see that when gas hit $3.50 a gallon back in '06, that it was time to hang up the pickup truck and get a gas sipper cause they werent ever going to be under $2.50 a gallon again, you'd of thought someone, somewhere would be thinking, "Hey maybe we should begin research into designing more fuel efficient trucks"? Guess not. Too hard to think outside the metal box?Maybe its time for more aerodynamic trucks, better engines, and smaller local delivery trucks, Biodiesel? Hybrid truck engines? time to start thinking outside the same old same old....someone enlightne me?PS - Were going to see alot of airlines drop like flies this summer. If the trucks are hurting now, how long before the RRs start feeling the pinch. Rant off, back to reruns of BJ and the Bear...
When auto companies pursue fuel efficiency, whether being mandated by government or on a voluntary basis, the greatest gain comes from making the vehicle smaller and lighter. When the cargo is only a handful of humans, there is a lot of vehicle weight and size that can be removed while still getting the job done. Of course, the smaller the vehicle, the more dangerous and uncomfortable it is.
Unlike private automobiles, which can shed weight, trucks are solely intended to move weight, and their fuel economy limitations run right up against the laws of physics. There is no widespread failure to research fuel efficiency, contrary to a widespread belief that there is. The limitations of physics are formidable, and research does not guarantee a magic bullet breakthrough in fuel efficiency. Nevertheless, the reward for such a breakthrough is astoundingly high, so there is plenty of motivation to do research for the breakthrough.
So this is not a matter of research being asleep at the switch while fuel prices have risen according to prediction. Moreover, I speculate that it is highly inaccurate to say that truck fuel efficiency design has not changed since 1930.
The engine mfg's are too busy trying to comply with all the antipollution laws that the EPA keeps coming up with. The newer engines are getting less mpg than just a few years ago. Also the ULSD is making us get poor mpg also. The fuel blend this past winter seemed to cause my mpg to drop about 0.7 pre mile.
The goverment keeps changing the rules. The engine mfg seem to spend all thier time trying to keep up with the law and no one seems to care about how it all effects our mpg. Right now the only way for me to get better mpg isw to drive slower. My last trip from IN to SoCAL I kept the cruise control at 63 to 65.
vsmith,
If you don't think that there has been any change in the design and construction since the 30's, I respectfully suggest that you get your eyeglasses checked.I have been a truck driver for 20 years now come August, and I have seen dramatic changes just in those 20 years.
Aerodynamicly there have been many improvements, and they continue. Look at the KW T2000/Peterbilt387 as an example compared to the cab-over that BJ McKay drove in BJ & the Bear. Cab-overs are a rarity these days, and when they are still used it is for a reason, usually to reduce the overall vehicle length, but there is a reason besides fashion when they are used.
Weight reduction is an old battle in the trucking industry, predating fuel conservation as a reason, the less a truck weighs, the more it can haul, the more it hauls the more money it makes.
Turbos do help save fuel, yes they do boost horsepower, but believe it or not, LITTLE MOTORS DO NOT SAVE FUEL!!!!! I know this from experience, it is important to MATCH the motor to the work being done. Riduculously oversized motors will cost fuel economy, but so will an inadequate motor.
I suggest that you do some research beyond looking at a picture of a truck your relative drove in the 30's, because you are entirely out of touch with reality in the world of heavy trucking.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
challenger3980 wrote: vsmith, If you don't think that there has been any change in the design and construction since the 30's, I respectfully suggest that you get your eyeglasses checked.I have been a truck driver for 20 years now come August, and I have seen dramatic changes just in those 20 years. Aerodynamicly there have been many improvements, and they continue. Look at the KW T2000/Peterbilt387 as an example compared to the cab-over that BJ McKay drove in BJ & the Bear. Cab-overs are a rarity these days, and when they are still used it is for a reason, usually to reduce the overall vehicle length, but there is a reason besides fashion when they are used. Weight reduction is an old battle in the trucking industry, predating fuel conservation as a reason, the less a truck weighs, the more it can haul, the more it hauls the more money it makes. Turbos do help save fuel, yes they do boost horsepower, but believe it or not, LITTLE MOTORS DO NOT SAVE FUEL!!!!! I know this from experience, it is important to MATCH the motor to the work being done. Riduculously oversized motors will cost fuel economy, but so will an inadequate motor. I suggest that you do some research beyond looking at a picture of a truck your relative drove in the 30's, because you are entirely out of touch with reality in the world of heavy trucking. Doug
I correct this by saying little motors save fuel, but not a lot of it. I drive for a company that runs basically east of I35, and our loads are right up near gross weight limit. My '06 Kenworth T2000 is getting about 6MPG with the C15 Cat, but I have driven an '05 that got 7-7.5. We also have a bunch of '07 T600s with the C13, most of them get about 7MPG.
Right now, the newest Detroit Series 60s in new Freightliner Cascadias are besting the Cats, one driver getting 8mpg, another saying he went from MA to WI on one tank of fuel, loaded to gross.
A smaller motor might get better fuel economy on the flat, but will drink fuel like its going out of style when it gets into the hills of West Virginia. With shippers trying to put as much weight as possible into our trailers without going over gross or over axle, weights will stay the same (I can haul 46,600 with my current truck and be right at gross, but we have hauled up to 50,000 across DFW, to the chagrin of DOT), a lighter truck means more beer can be piled in the box.
Randy Vos
"Ever have one of those days where you couldn't hit the ground with your hat??" - Waylon Jennings
"May the Lord take a liking to you and blow you up, real good" - SCTV
Bucyrus, please reread my statement, I never anywhere said fuel economy had not changed, I said the basic design of the truck has not changed since the 1930's, and this is true, look at the following:
1939 & 1940:
High radiator, long hood, front engined, traditional cab, rear drive. At the time it was essentially an enlarged pick-up truck with the bed removed and a 5th wheel added to accommodate a trailer. The basic layout of semi ever since.
1962 Loadstar, bigger but basic design remains the same
Modern 2 axle design, sure looks the same to me, maybe a little smoother bodywork
To the modern 3 axle models,
extra rear axle for loading and a cab sleeper for long distance but is overall layout is essentially unchanged from the bedless pick up truck of the 30's.
Of course their have been improvements in almost every single aspect of the internals since the 1930s, fuel injection, electronic, turbo-charging, I'm well aware of that. My contention is that while automobiles have changed significantly, even diesel locomotive technology has changed radically since the 1960's we haven't seen similar rate of progress in the semi truck universe.
Expresslane
I feel your pain about ever shifting regulations, seems like once a manufacturer complies with Regulation X, they have to start from scratch all over again to meet Regulation Y, I suspect this may have a lot more to do with slow pace of technological changes.
Doug,
Why do you think I asked for "enlightenment" about this issue ???
I'm trying to get a better understanding of why it seams truck technology is lagging behind automotive technology.
Aerodynamics are better today but no matter how many aerodynamic flarings you put on the brick, it's still a brick. Trucks have always had this issue, and even though the front ends have gotten marginally slippier, the rear and inbetween still suck enormous amounts of air along with them, creating the drag that has always been the trucks biggest enemy in fuel economy, and with trucks driving faster than ever (I paced one on the I-5 once going 80+) air resistance still remains as big issue as ever, even with the fiberglass bodywork laden semi up front.
The issue of motor size will always be the driving factor regarding load capacity, my issue is has there been ANY research into Hybrid technology, electric batteries and motors to boost engine performance, if it can work on a Yukon? ANY new research into improved turbo performance or supercharger boost to increase the power with less fuel?
Biodiesel?
Hydrogen?
These are the questions I have, not easy ones to answer. Has anyone is the industry considered where fuel prices may be in 10 years and what technonlogies they need to be developing today to meet those challenges?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Beuller?
PS Uncle drove the RED one
The Truck Manufactors YES they could come out with a Hybrid tractor trailer however WHO could afford to buy it in the trucking indusrty. When you try to run an industry on a margin of less than 1% alot of times you can not invest in the latest and greatest technolgy. Right now there are ALOT OF MAJOR companies hurting in the wallet. I am hearing on Trucking realated message boards that companies like TMC Barr-Nunn Sharkey Yellow USF J B Hunt and others are Hemorrigning CASH out the door right now. Last quarter over 9300 trucking companies closed their doors PERMENTLY and this quarter from what we are hearing that was a drop in the bucket by the time this is done we may loose 30% of all the cargo carring capacity of this nation that happens we are SCREWED.
vsmith wrote: Bucyrus, please reread my statement, I never anywhere said fuel economy had not changed, I said the basic design of the truck has not changed since the 1930's, and this is true,...
Bucyrus, please reread my statement, I never anywhere said fuel economy had not changed, I said the basic design of the truck has not changed since the 1930's, and this is true,...
I did go back and read what you said in your original post, and you said the following, among other things:
"...some car manufacturers read the writing and began producing hybrids and other higher fuel efficiency models, now I have to ask:
So is it that the truck manufacturers are just collectivley too thick to get it? I havent seen any significant advance in diesel trucks since the widespread adoption of turbochargers, even those mostly boost HP not necessarily economy, the basic design and construction of the semi-tractor hasnt really changed since the 1930's
...you'd of thought someone, somewhere would be thinking, "Hey maybe we should begin research into designing more fuel efficient trucks"? Guess not. Too hard to think outside the metal box?
Maybe its time for more aerodynamic trucks, better engines, and smaller local delivery trucks, Biodiesel? Hybrid truck engines? time to start thinking outside the same old same old....someone enlightne me?"
Considering what you said, it does not seem to me that I mischaracterized your statements when I replied to your post by saying: "Moreover, I speculate that it is highly inaccurate to say that truck fuel efficiency design has not changed since 1930." Your whole point concerning design seems to be about fuel efficiency.
In the above post where you say you are talking about basic design, not fuel efficiency, you show examples to prove your point, and mention that trucks still are shaped like bricks. But it seems to me that in the terms of design that you say is not changing, you could say the same for diesel locomotives, or steam for that matter. If the engine of trucks has been in front for the last 60 years, maybe that's the best place for it. Why change it? And then you continue your theme of trucks failing to evolve in design by again connecting it to how it affects fuel economy as you mention the difficulty of reducing the wind resistance on a brick.
I am not sure what you mean when you said this:
"Of course their have been improvements in almost every single aspect of the internals since the 1930s, fuel injection, electronic, turbo-charging, I'm well aware of that. My contention is that while automobiles have changed significantly, even diesel locomotive technology has changed radically since the 1960's we haven't seen similar rate of progress in the semi truck universe."
If trucks have been internally improved in every single aspect, what lack of progress are you referring to?
....vssmith:
Enjoyed seeing your presented '39 and '40 truck model advertisements....Saw many as such travel thru at our location, rt. 30 in western Pennsylvania back then....
And wow....some of the drivers back then were really road jockies...! Kick it out of gear and blast down thru the valley to get a start on the next hill....But they sure did drag up the hill in lower gear to even get up that hill.
Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: Bucyrus, please reread my statement, I never anywhere said fuel economy had not changed, I said the basic design of the truck has not changed since the 1930's, and this is true,... I did go back and read what you said in your original post, and you said the following, among other things:"...some car manufacturers read the writing and began producing hybrids and other higher fuel efficiency models, now I have to ask:Why haven't truck manufacturers done the same? Seams like there still making the the same metal bricks Smokey chased the Bandit around in 30 years ago?So is it that the truck manufacturers are just collectivley too thick to get it? I havent seen any significant advance in diesel trucks since the widespread adoption of turbochargers, even those mostly boost HP not necessarily economy, the basic design and construction of the semi-tractor hasnt really changed since the 1930's...you'd of thought someone, somewhere would be thinking, "Hey maybe we should begin research into designing more fuel efficient trucks"? Guess not. Too hard to think outside the metal box?Maybe its time for more aerodynamic trucks, better engines, and smaller local delivery trucks, Biodiesel? Hybrid truck engines? time to start thinking outside the same old same old....someone enlightne me?" Considering what you said, it does not seem to me that I mischaracterized your statements when I replied to your post by saying: "Moreover, I speculate that it is highly inaccurate to say that truck fuel efficiency design has not changed since 1930." Your whole point concerning design seems to be about fuel efficiency.In the above post where you say you are talking about basic design, not fuel efficiency, you show examples to prove your point, and mention that trucks still are shaped like bricks. But it seems to me that in the terms of design that you say is not changing, you could say the same for diesel locomotives, or steam for that matter. If the engine of trucks has been in front for the last 60 years, maybe that's the best place for it. Why change it? And then you continue your theme of trucks failing to evolve in design by again connecting it to how it affects fuel economy as you mention the difficulty of reducing the wind resistance on a brick.I am not sure what you mean when you said this:"Of course their have been improvements in almost every single aspect of the internals since the 1930s, fuel injection, electronic, turbo-charging, I'm well aware of that. My contention is that while automobiles have changed significantly, even diesel locomotive technology has changed radically since the 1960's we haven't seen similar rate of progress in the semi truck universe."If trucks have been internally improved in every single aspect, what lack of progress are you referring to?
Not trying to pick a fight with ya, just to be clear
While there have been component improvements, there just that, improvements, the basics remain fundimentaly the same. The basic underlaying fundementals have remained unchanged for decades. It would be as if every sedan rolling out of Detroit still had ladder frames and bias ply tires. Agreed, the basic layout IS a logical one, and has worked for for the last 60 years and will likely continue for the next 60 years, however, the semi-truck tractor AS IS in its current fuel hungry condition, is doomed if the manufacturers cannot find some way to radically increase fuel efficiency. Thats why I asked about alternative technologies like Hybrids. Even just a shift from say 6mpg to 9mpg would be a improvement.
I just havent seen any such major evolution or even the beginnings of any move to improving the species as has occured in the auto industry. The aurgument is that the truck is what it is, and it will get continue to be what it is regardless of how the universe changes. Its the universe that must change, not the truck. We'll heres a universe changing thought, diesel costs an arm and a leg, and will for all intents and purposes continue to cost an arm and a leg, just as there no Blue Fairy to grant Pinnochios wish to become a little boy, and theres no Blue Fairy going to lower diesel prices back to $2.50 a gallon, not with demand where it is these days. The industry is going to have to deal with this new reality one way or the other.
Is anyone considering that we might have to move to lowering vehicle loads or smaller truck sizes to increase milage? Anyone considered studying how to reduce aerodynamic drag on tractors AND trailers to increase milage? Has there been any serious look or testing into using biodiesel in semi-tractors. If there was I havent heard of it, so thats why I'm asking these questions.
Its 2008 but the industry is still living in 1968, no, it more like 1973, and the Arabs have just begun the embargo and everyone is starting to freak, only this time its the marketplace thats creating a defacto embargo, and you cant talk or bomb the marketplace into submission. Maybe the Guv'ment can lower prices, but only a little.
Your the trucker, to me that makes you the expert here, you tell me where you think the improvements could be made, and how are things going to look like when diesel hits and stays at $8-9 a gallon? Thats probably only a decade away, if not sooner.
Modelcar wrote: ....vssmith:Enjoyed seeing your presented '39 and '40 truck model advertisements....Saw many as such travel thru at our location, rt. 30 in western Pennsylvania back then....And wow....some of the drivers back then were really road jockies...! Kick it out of gear and blast down thru the valley to get a start on the next hill....But they sure did drag up the hill in lower gear to even get up that hill.
I cant remember which novel it is, Stienbech's Grapes of Wrath I beleive, that describes bored truck drivers crossing the California deserts at night, would see turtles crossing the road in their headlight ahead and would carefully line up their truck so the front tire would brush the turtle, and shoot it across the desert like a tiddley-wink.
Yeah I know uber-un-PC today to talk about such things thats for sure, but it was a very different time and era. Kinda surprised I've never seen it depicted in a modern movie about that era
vsmith wrote: Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: Bucyrus, please reread my statement, I never anywhere said fuel economy had not changed, I said the basic design of the truck has not changed since the 1930's, and this is true,... I did go back and read what you said in your original post, and you said the following, among other things:"...some car manufacturers read the writing and began producing hybrids and other higher fuel efficiency models, now I have to ask:Why haven't truck manufacturers done the same? Seams like there still making the the same metal bricks Smokey chased the Bandit around in 30 years ago?So is it that the truck manufacturers are just collectivley too thick to get it? I havent seen any significant advance in diesel trucks since the widespread adoption of turbochargers, even those mostly boost HP not necessarily economy, the basic design and construction of the semi-tractor hasnt really changed since the 1930's...you'd of thought someone, somewhere would be thinking, "Hey maybe we should begin research into designing more fuel efficient trucks"? Guess not. Too hard to think outside the metal box?Maybe its time for more aerodynamic trucks, better engines, and smaller local delivery trucks, Biodiesel? Hybrid truck engines? time to start thinking outside the same old same old....someone enlightne me?" Considering what you said, it does not seem to me that I mischaracterized your statements when I replied to your post by saying: "Moreover, I speculate that it is highly inaccurate to say that truck fuel efficiency design has not changed since 1930." Your whole point concerning design seems to be about fuel efficiency.In the above post where you say you are talking about basic design, not fuel efficiency, you show examples to prove your point, and mention that trucks still are shaped like bricks. But it seems to me that in the terms of design that you say is not changing, you could say the same for diesel locomotives, or steam for that matter. If the engine of trucks has been in front for the last 60 years, maybe that's the best place for it. Why change it? And then you continue your theme of trucks failing to evolve in design by again connecting it to how it affects fuel economy as you mention the difficulty of reducing the wind resistance on a brick.I am not sure what you mean when you said this:"Of course their have been improvements in almost every single aspect of the internals since the 1930s, fuel injection, electronic, turbo-charging, I'm well aware of that. My contention is that while automobiles have changed significantly, even diesel locomotive technology has changed radically since the 1960's we haven't seen similar rate of progress in the semi truck universe."If trucks have been internally improved in every single aspect, what lack of progress are you referring to?Not trying to pick a fight with ya, just to be clear While there have been component improvements, there just that, improvements, the basics remain fundimentaly the same. The basic underlaying fundementals have remained unchanged for decades. It would be as if every sedan rolling out of Detroit still had ladder frames and bias ply tires. Agreed, the basic layout IS a logical one, and has worked for for the last 60 years and will likely continue for the next 60 years, however, the semi-truck tractor AS IS in its current fuel hungry condition, is doomed if the manufacturers cannot find some way to radically increase fuel efficiency. Thats why I asked about alternative technologies like Hybrids. Even just a shift from say 6mpg to 9mpg would be a improvement. I just havent seen any such major evolution or even the beginnings of any move to improving the species as has occured in the auto industry. The aurgument is that the truck is what it is, and it will get continue to be what it is regardless of how the universe changes. Its the universe that must change, not the truck. We'll heres a universe changing thought, diesel costs an arm and a leg, and will for all intents and purposes continue to cost an arm and a leg, just as there no Blue Fairy to grant Pinnochios wish to become a little boy, and theres no Blue Fairy going to lower diesel prices back to $2.50 a gallon, not with demand where it is these days. The industry is going to have to deal with this new reality one way or the other.Is anyone considering that we might have to move to lowering vehicle loads or smaller truck sizes to increase milage? Anyone considered studying how to reduce aerodynamic drag on tractors AND trailers to increase milage? Has there been any serious look or testing into using biodiesel in semi-tractors. If there was I havent heard of it, so thats why I'm asking these questions.Its 2008 but the industry is still living in 1968, no, it more like 1973, and the Arabs have just begun the embargo and everyone is starting to freak, only this time its the marketplace thats creating a defacto embargo, and you cant talk or bomb the marketplace into submission. Maybe the Guv'ment can lower prices, but only a little.Your the trucker, to me that makes you the expert here, you tell me where you think the improvements could be made, and how are things going to look like when diesel hits and stays at $8-9 a gallon? Thats probably only a decade away, if not sooner.
I am not a trucker, and I don't exactly know what they could do to increase fuel efficiency. Maybe there are potential gains still to be had by reducing weight by the use of more expensive materials. It is possible that such measures have not been considered worth the investment when fuel was priced lower, but might become worth it as the fuel price rises. That is the one silver lining to the dark cloud of rising energy prices; it intensifies research into alternatives because it raises the reward for finding alternatives.
I agree that the price is likely to continue upward to undreamed of heights. Nevertheless, trucking and other commercial transportation will have to continue on. Then end user is just going to have to pay for the increase, although they do have the option to cut down on the consumption of a wide variety of things.
Here is a link to an article about using biodiesel in the trucking industry. It says that biodiesel costs more than diesel, but it is "greener." Therefore if a company feels a commitment to meet a green quotient, biodiesel can help them. It is possible that if you use trucks in support of a retail business, for instance, you could attract more business from your customers if they feel good about your green effort, even though you need to charge them more because of it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/19/BU63UHSMM.DTL
the best way i save gas driving my truck is SLOWING DOWN and no more jack rabbit starts. see a red light ahead slow down before hand and usually wont have to stop. keep air pres. in tires tight. even a wax job on truck can cut wind friction. all adds up,pup.
all the high gas prices are adding to ROAD RAGE i thinks.
GOD HELP US
Bucyrus wrote: I am not a trucker
I am not a trucker
Sorry if I read that into the discussion, thanks for the article.
passengerfan wrote: And each time one of the Bay area refineries shuts down for maintenance the price of Gasoline rises in Central and Northern California. Part of the problem is not enough refineries and part is greed on their part. One shuts down and the others all raise their prices until that one comes back in service.
As a former President used to say: "I feel your pain." I just made a round trip to St. Paul and gas for my Explorer was $110. It does hurt.
But I also feel you are mistaken. You attribute the price increase when a refinery shuts down to one of the seven deadly sins, greed. No, it's just supply and demand. The supply of gas decreases. That means the price of gas will go up. Just as sure as water runs downhill, when the supply of gas decreases, the price will go up. You say that when the refinery comes back on line the price goes back down - which is the other side of the coin. When the supply increases the price goes down. It's not greed, it's supply and demand.
The law of gravity that makes water run downhill is niether good nor bad, it just is; likewise, the law of supply and demand with its inevitible effect on price is niether good nor bad, it just is.
Congress can't pass another "law" to change either one of them. And attributing inevitible natural behavior of forces beyond mankind's control to sinful greed is looking for bad guys where none exist.
vsmith wrote:
Okay, no offense intended, this statement really shows that you have little to no understanding of the heavy trucking industry. REDUCING LOAD AND/OR TRUCK SIZES will increase the fuel required to move any particular amount of freight that you have. You may increase the milage of a smaller vehicle compared to that of a larger vehicle, that is EASY, but you still have XXX amount of freight to move, regardless of how many vehicles you use to move it. Using more smaller vehicles will just lower the ton-miles moved per gallon of fuel burned. More smaller vehicles to do the same job WILL INCREASE Fuel Consumption, Exhaust Pollution, Traffic Congestion, and Commodity prices, because now you will need MORE vehicles and Drivers to move the same volume of freight.
Among the most fuel efficient combinations in use for LTL is the triple trailer combination. You have already paid for the frontal resistance, that third trailer is to borrow an expression from LTL(Less than Trailer Load) drivers that I have known "PURE PROFIT" It adds little to the fuel consumption, 2 sets of triples is MUCH more efficient than 3 sets of doubles, and one less driver to pay.
Also, I don't understand what You think can be done to get away from the "Brick Shape" of the trailers, Dry vans, Reefers, Chip Trailers and other "Boxy" trailers are that way for a reason, to efficiently fill the trailer to capacity, and for the necessary loading and unloading that must be done. How do You propose to improve this boxy shape, especially to the rear portion of the trailer, and still have a functioning vehicle?
rvos1979 wrote: challenger3980 wrote: vsmith, If you don't think that there has been any change in the design and construction since the 30's, I respectfully suggest that you get your eyeglasses checked.I have been a truck driver for 20 years now come August, and I have seen dramatic changes just in those 20 years. Aerodynamicly there have been many improvements, and they continue. Look at the KW T2000/Peterbilt387 as an example compared to the cab-over that BJ McKay drove in BJ & the Bear. Cab-overs are a rarity these days, and when they are still used it is for a reason, usually to reduce the overall vehicle length, but there is a reason besides fashion when they are used. Weight reduction is an old battle in the trucking industry, predating fuel conservation as a reason, the less a truck weighs, the more it can haul, the more it hauls the more money it makes. Turbos do help save fuel, yes they do boost horsepower, but believe it or not, LITTLE MOTORS DO NOT SAVE FUEL!!!!! I know this from experience, it is important to MATCH the motor to the work being done. Ridiculously over sized motors will cost fuel economy, but so will an inadequate motor. I suggest that you do some research beyond looking at a picture of a truck your relative drove in the 30's, because you are entirely out of touch with reality in the world of heavy trucking. DougI correct this by saying little motors save fuel, but not a lot of it. I drive for a company that runs basically east of I35, and our loads are right up near gross weight limit. My '06 Kenworth T2000 is getting about 6MPG with the C15 Cat, but I have driven an '05 that got 7-7.5. We also have a bunch of '07 T600s with the C13, most of them get about 7MPG.Right now, the newest Detroit Series 60s in new Freightliner Cascadias are besting the Cats, one driver getting 8mpg, another saying he went from MA to WI on one tank of fuel, loaded to gross.A smaller motor might get better fuel economy on the flat, but will drink fuel like its going out of style when it gets into the hills of West Virginia. With shippers trying to put as much weight as possible into our trailers without going over gross or over axle, weights will stay the same (I can haul 46,600 with my current truck and be right at gross, but we have hauled up to 50,000 across DFW, to the chagrin of DOT), a lighter truck means more beer can be piled in the box.
challenger3980 wrote: vsmith, If you don't think that there has been any change in the design and construction since the 30's, I respectfully suggest that you get your eyeglasses checked.I have been a truck driver for 20 years now come August, and I have seen dramatic changes just in those 20 years. Aerodynamicly there have been many improvements, and they continue. Look at the KW T2000/Peterbilt387 as an example compared to the cab-over that BJ McKay drove in BJ & the Bear. Cab-overs are a rarity these days, and when they are still used it is for a reason, usually to reduce the overall vehicle length, but there is a reason besides fashion when they are used. Weight reduction is an old battle in the trucking industry, predating fuel conservation as a reason, the less a truck weighs, the more it can haul, the more it hauls the more money it makes. Turbos do help save fuel, yes they do boost horsepower, but believe it or not, LITTLE MOTORS DO NOT SAVE FUEL!!!!! I know this from experience, it is important to MATCH the motor to the work being done. Ridiculously over sized motors will cost fuel economy, but so will an inadequate motor. I suggest that you do some research beyond looking at a picture of a truck your relative drove in the 30's, because you are entirely out of touch with reality in the world of heavy trucking. Doug
Turbos do help save fuel, yes they do boost horsepower, but believe it or not, LITTLE MOTORS DO NOT SAVE FUEL!!!!! I know this from experience, it is important to MATCH the motor to the work being done. Ridiculously over sized motors will cost fuel economy, but so will an inadequate motor.
Randy,
I disagree with you about small motors saving fuel, I am not familiar with the area that You drive, maybe it is relatively flat, and a smaller motor would save fuel in that case. What you are calling a smaller motor would be a mid-sized motor to me. Here on the West Coast driving in Mountainous terrain, smaller motors do not save fuel.
I started driving tractor trailer in 1988, did a regular route from Portland, OR through the Siskiyous, and to the North Cal Coast, Sacramento and back I-5 to PDX. When I started we had 315 Cummins and 9 speed trannys. Normally loaded to 72-78,000 Gross. Just going to the 350 Cummins made a difference and the series 60 and C-15's set at 435 were a very noticeable improvement.
The company that I drive for now runs pretty light about 50-53,000 gross on my Boise, ID run, lots of hills. My last truck was 2000 Pete 385, 435HP C-12, 10 speed tranny 246" WB, 48" sleeper, Long Range fuel tanks (300 gals total). My current tractor is a 2006 Pete 385 with a 335 ISM Cummins, same 10 speed tranny, same rears, tires loads and routes. the old truck was probably 1000# heavier (if not more with every thing I had packed into it) The new truck is a 175"wb day-cab. The old truck with a larger motor and heavier all around averaged 6-6.2 MPG, the new lighter, smaller, underpowered truck avgs 5.7-5.8 MPG, same routes and loads, quite a bit of city delivery driving when I get there.
In MY EXPERIENCE, smaller motors don't save fuel if you are driving in Mountainous terrain, maybe so in the flat lands, but not where I run.
challenger3980 wrote: vsmith wrote: Is anyone considering that we might have to move to lowering vehicle loads or smaller truck sizes to increase milage? Anyone considered studying how to reduce aerodynamic drag on tractors AND trailers to increase milage? Has there been any serious look or testing into using biodiesel in semi-tractors. If there was I havent heard of it, so thats why I'm asking these questions.Okay, no offense intended, this statement really shows that you have little to no understanding of the heavy trucking industry. REDUCING LOAD AND/OR TRUCK SIZES will increase the fuel required to move any particular amount of freight that you have.
vsmith wrote: Is anyone considering that we might have to move to lowering vehicle loads or smaller truck sizes to increase milage? Anyone considered studying how to reduce aerodynamic drag on tractors AND trailers to increase milage? Has there been any serious look or testing into using biodiesel in semi-tractors. If there was I havent heard of it, so thats why I'm asking these questions.
Okay, no offense intended, this statement really shows that you have little to no understanding of the heavy trucking industry. REDUCING LOAD AND/OR TRUCK SIZES will increase the fuel required to move any particular amount of freight that you have.
A generation or two ago, most people would have been aware that volume increases faster than surface area, and that surface area is directly proportional to air resistance. And that, accordingly, the larger the cube, the greater the volume carried relative to air resistance. Therefore, that fuel efficiency per unit volume increases with increasing surface area.
It has little to do with heavy trucking in particular, this is something that eighth graders used to learn as basic physics. It's basic knowledge.
I increasingly perceive a generational difference -- based on education, not intelligence -- on these forums that relates to what used to be common knowledge and understanding of the world.
This is slipping a bit off topic, my contribution here , but to follow up on Michael's statement just now, there is a well-documented phenomenon called the Flynn Effect (you can google if you are interested) after a psychologist who noticed that each successive generation is slightly more intelligent than the ones preceding it based on standardized test scores, and correcting for confounds due to environmental and social influences. Still, I am continually appalled at the sometimes baffling naiveté of my own adult children. It's like they live in a cartoon world where real dangers don't exist.
Back to the point, I am following this topic with interest...still. It doesn't seem to want to do the floppy chicken just yet. I guess it is becoming more acutely relevant in view of developments. Gas here on Vancouver Island is relatively cheap...for a change... compared to other places across the country. They're up to CDN$1.30/l in Montreal last I heard, and we're still sittin' pretty (for once) at $1.27 locally, and Safeway gives us 7 cents a liter discount if we buy more than $35 in groceries. Mmm, mm, mmm.
P.S. - and we drive a Corolla.
There are calls for the government to provide a "tax holiday" by suspending the gas tax for the summer. Some say it won't be enough of a break to matter. Others say it will end the supply of revenue needed to maintain and build roads. And still others agree with the provision of a "tax holiday," but they want the oil companies to pay for it. How is that for a brainteaser? It seems to me that if the oil companies pay for it, it is not a tax holiday. It's an oil profit holiday.
What if the oil companies raise gas prices to pay for the tax holiday that they had to pay for? What kind of a holiday would that be?
I saw they want to raise it a $1.00 a gallon smog tax. I watch alot of C-SPAN waiting to get called to work.
World Oil Production has peaked, plan on the worst. One plan is to raise the price even more to get people to use less and plan better when they use there cars. Theres not a single thing we do as americans that doesnt tie into oil. GET READY
The Goverment, Railroads, Truckers are all freaking out, should you? Yes. Its only gonna get worse, i think its gonna get ugly. We are too far in (for everyone) to pull out. I keep telling myself the UP was still running during the great depression, time will tell. Something else i heard on C-SPAN today, oil is at about $120 a barrel, they said one year from now it could easily be up over $200.
UPRR engineer wrote: I saw they want to raise it a $1.00 a gallon smog tax. I watch alot of C-SPAN waiting to get called to work.World Oil Production has peaked, plan on the worst. One plan is to raise the price even more to get people to use less and plan better when they use there cars. Theres not a single thing we do as americans that doesnt tie into oil. GET READY
You are right, raising gas prices to get people to conserve has been a preferred approach by many. They tend to lecture us on how good we have it compared to Europe. However, most of the people who prefer this rationing-by-high-cost approach want the price to be high because of added taxes. They don't want high prices if it is going to oil producer income.
Personally, I do not believe oil has peaked. There are agenda driven reasons that people declare that oil has peaked. One of those reasons is to promote public sector funding in the name of searching for alternative fuels. The people who don't like oil would like to convince us we are running out of it.
Bucyrus wrote: UPRR engineer wrote: I saw they want to raise it a $1.00 a gallon smog tax. I watch alot of C-SPAN waiting to get called to work.World Oil Production has peaked, plan on the worst. One plan is to raise the price even more to get people to use less and plan better when they use there cars. Theres not a single thing we do as americans that doesnt tie into oil. GET READY You are right, raising gas prices to get people to conserve has been a preferred approach by many. They tend to lecture us on how good we have it compared to Europe. However, most of the people who prefer this rationing-by-high-cost approach want the price to be high because of added taxes. They don't want high prices if it is going to oil producer income.Personally, I do not believe oil has peaked. There are agenda driven reasons that people declare that oil has peaked. One of those reasons is to promote public sector funding in the name of searching for alternative fuels. The people who don't like oil would like to convince us we are running out of it.
I must say that I don't quite understand why you have no problem seing a couple of bucks per gallon of your gas purchases going to places like Dubai where UAE builds such modern conveniences as indoor facilities for snow skiing, high rise buildings for multi-million dollar apartments, or man made islands for single family housing starting in the seven figures and golf courses with green fees that are out of the reach of most of the members of this forum.
Then on the other hand, you constantly complain about any of your money for gasoline going for a tax that pays for the US highway system that is vital to our national economy and our personal well being.
May I assume that you have no problem with your money going into the coffers of countries with governments that don't like us very much?
I don't have a problem with you having decided to go with the experts who argue that oil production hasn't peaked. But one thing has to be abundantly clear and that is oil production is not increasing as fast as worldwide demand for petroleum products. No doubt the higher prices for crude is going to promote some increase in production, but even if environmentalists lose their effort to block exploitation of oil deposits in sensitive areas, it is not likely that production will catch up with demand anytime soon. Until it does, 4 dollars a gallon of gas might become something of a fond memory of the past rather than a grim portend of the future.
By the way, I should note that higher gas prices for any reason don't put me in any special financial bind. The office for my business is within an easy walk of my house, I have the time to travel by train, or I can drive a fairily short distance to an airport if I am in a rush, and I can also spend enough less on discretionary items to offset increased prices due to higher freight costs.
Unfortunately, most Americans aren't in my position.
jeaton wrote: Bucyrus wrote: UPRR engineer wrote: I saw they want to raise it a $1.00 a gallon smog tax. I watch alot of C-SPAN waiting to get called to work.World Oil Production has peaked, plan on the worst. One plan is to raise the price even more to get people to use less and plan better when they use there cars. Theres not a single thing we do as americans that doesnt tie into oil. GET READY You are right, raising gas prices to get people to conserve has been a preferred approach by many. They tend to lecture us on how good we have it compared to Europe. However, most of the people who prefer this rationing-by-high-cost approach want the price to be high because of added taxes. They don't want high prices if it is going to oil producer income.Personally, I do not believe oil has peaked. There are agenda driven reasons that people declare that oil has peaked. One of those reasons is to promote public sector funding in the name of searching for alternative fuels. The people who don't like oil would like to convince us we are running out of it.I must say that I don't quite understand why you have no problem seing a couple of bucks per gallon of your gas purchases going to places like Dubai where UAE builds such modern conveniences as indoor facilities for snow skiing, high rise buildings for multi-million dollar apartments, or man made islands for single family housing starting in the seven figures and golf courses with green fees that are out of the reach of most of the members of this forum.Then on the other hand, you constantly complain about any of your money for gasoline going for a tax that pays for the US highway system that is vital to our national economy and our personal well being. May I assume that you have no problem with your money going into the coffers of countries with governments that don't like us very much?I don't have a problem with you having decided to go with the experts who argue that oil production hasn't peaked. But one thing has to be abundantly clear and that is oil production is not increasing as fast as worldwide demand for petroleum products. No doubt the higher prices for crude is going to promote some increase in production, but even if environmentalists lose their effort to block exploitation of oil deposits in sensitive areas, it is not likely that production will catch up with demand anytime soon. Until it does, 4 dollars a gallon of gas might become something of a fond memory of the past rather than a grim portend of the future.By the way, I should note that higher gas prices for any reason don't put me in any special financial bind. The office for my business is within an easy walk of my house, I have the time to travel by train, or I can drive a fairily short distance to an airport if I am in a rush, and I can also spend enough less on discretionary items to offset increased prices due to higher freight costs.Unfortunately, most Americans aren't in my position.
I have no problem with spending tax money on roads. In fact, I wish it would increase. However, a lot of the gas tax gets spent on things other than roads, while road construction and maintenance falls behind.
Spending the gas tax on roads is one thing, but ladling on excess gas tax to raise the price in order to discourage use is quite another thing, especially if the excess tax is spent frivolously on things other than roads. It is the recipients of that inflated tax who are the most motivated to falsely tell us we are running out of oil because the concept of resource depletion is their pretext for rationing it by price. This is about the best illustration I can think to be suspicious of proclamations about the peak oil milestone being at hand.
My objections to the government overtaxing road fuel and driving up the price by over regulating big oil does not mean that I am in favor of being gouged by oil producing countries or enriching countries who are unfriendly to us. I object to both problems. I also object to the slanted way TV media news largely ignores those two sources of the problem, and instead, constantly blames big oil and their profit.
I agree with your assessment that it is abundantly clear that oil production is not increasing as it pertains to U.S. oil production. In some areas of the world, it is increasing. I believe there is plenty of oil out there to get, even in the U.S., but it is regulated out of reach by the very ones who would like to tax it, ration it, and tell us we don't have much. It is pretty obvious where the problem lies and how to solve it.
Probably the focal point of lagging U.S. production is the debate of whether to drill in ANWR. The people who want to stabilize the price of fuel tell us that ANWR production would be a substantial help. The people who tell us fuel should be rationed by high taxes tell us that the addition of ANWR production would hardly be measurable, and that it would destroy pristine wilderness. I can see why they say that, and the reason why they say that is the reason that I don't believe them. World oil prices would begin to drop today if the U.S. congress approved drilling in ANWR today, even if the first drop of oil were not recovered for another five years. Just our intentions alone affect the world oil market.
The ANWR aurgument is a red herring, even if it was opened to drilling today it would be up to 10 years before any meaningful production could begin, and then, where are they going to refine it? Crude avalability is high worldwide, its refining capacity thats been the bottleneck binding supply, particularly here in the US. High demand for refined products worldwide, coupled with nervous speculators driving price per barrel up. Bush said recently that new refineries are required, with record windfall profits wheres the incentive for oil companies to sink millions into strangling the golden goose of profit? If Bush truely thinks new refineries are needed the only likely way he's likely to get one will be for the Guv'ment itself to build it bypassing the oil companies. Likely to happen? yeah right, face it, we're in for it for the next few years anyway you slice it.
May soon come to be when its time to turn that Hummer into a chicken coop and resurrect plans for those 60's bubblecars...what else could we make...
Enclosed Motor Scooters?
Electric skateboards?
The way I see it, we're all going to be paying alot more for basics, those diesel fuel costs (truck and rail) will get passed onto all of us.
vsmith wrote: The ANWR aurgument is a red herring, even if it was opened to drilling today it would be up to 10 years before any meaningful production could begin, and then, where are they going to refine it? Crude avalability is high worldwide, its refining capacity thats been the bottleneck binding supply, particularly here in the US. High demand for refined products worldwide, coupled with nervous speculators driving price per barrel up. Bush said recently that new refineries are required, with record windfall profits wheres the incentive for oil companies to sink millions into strangling the golden goose of profit? If Bush truely thinks new refineries are needed the only likely way he's likely to get one will be for the Guv'ment itself to build it bypassing the oil companies.
The ANWR aurgument is a red herring, even if it was opened to drilling today it would be up to 10 years before any meaningful production could begin, and then, where are they going to refine it? Crude avalability is high worldwide, its refining capacity thats been the bottleneck binding supply, particularly here in the US. High demand for refined products worldwide, coupled with nervous speculators driving price per barrel up. Bush said recently that new refineries are required, with record windfall profits wheres the incentive for oil companies to sink millions into strangling the golden goose of profit? If Bush truely thinks new refineries are needed the only likely way he's likely to get one will be for the Guv'ment itself to build it bypassing the oil companies.
You suggest the government should bypass the oil companies and build the refineries that are needed. Do you believe the oil companies are not building new refineries because they don't want to? They want to drill in ANWR. So I would think that if they needed new refineries for ANWR oil, they would want to build them. Why would they want to drill for oil if they can't refine it?
Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: The ANWR aurgument is a red herring, even if it was opened to drilling today it would be up to 10 years before any meaningful production could begin, and then, where are they going to refine it? Crude avalability is high worldwide, its refining capacity thats been the bottleneck binding supply, particularly here in the US. High demand for refined products worldwide, coupled with nervous speculators driving price per barrel up. Bush said recently that new refineries are required, with record windfall profits wheres the incentive for oil companies to sink millions into strangling the golden goose of profit? If Bush truely thinks new refineries are needed the only likely way he's likely to get one will be for the Guv'ment itself to build it bypassing the oil companies. You suggest the government should bypass the oil companies and build the refineries that are needed. Do you believe the oil companies are not building new refineries because they don't want to? They want to drill in ANWR. So I would think that if they needed new refineries for ANWR oil, they would want to build them. Why would they want to drill for oil if they can't refine it?
I beleive the oil companies dont want to invest a penny more than they feel is absolutly necessary, no drill in ANWR means no necessary increase in proceesing the crude oil it would produce, hence no incentive to a build any new refinery. Seems to me they are perfectly happy with their current production levels, and their current profit level. Why invest in something that would in the end hurt your profit margin by increasing current supply and in doing so suppressing prices, thats just plain bad capitalism. I honestly think that even if ANWR was opened that the oil companies would simply process it thru the existing infrastructure, that way they still maximize their profit while accessing a source in a decidely less hostile part of the world, Elk dont drive carbombs, well, not yet anyways.
vsmith wrote: Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: The ANWR aurgument is a red herring, even if it was opened to drilling today it would be up to 10 years before any meaningful production could begin, and then, where are they going to refine it? Crude avalability is high worldwide, its refining capacity thats been the bottleneck binding supply, particularly here in the US. High demand for refined products worldwide, coupled with nervous speculators driving price per barrel up. Bush said recently that new refineries are required, with record windfall profits wheres the incentive for oil companies to sink millions into strangling the golden goose of profit? If Bush truely thinks new refineries are needed the only likely way he's likely to get one will be for the Guv'ment itself to build it bypassing the oil companies. You suggest the government should bypass the oil companies and build the refineries that are needed. Do you believe the oil companies are not building new refineries because they don't want to? They want to drill in ANWR. So I would think that if they needed new refineries for ANWR oil, they would want to build them. Why would they want to drill for oil if they can't refine it?I beleive the oil companies dont want to invest a penny more than they feel is absolutly necessary, no drill in ANWR means no necessary increase in proceesing the crude oil it would produce, hence no incentive to a build any new refinery. Seems to me they are perfectly happy with their current production levels, and their current profit level. Why invest in something that would in the end hurt your profit margin by increasing current supply and in doing so suppressing prices, thats just plain bad capitalism. I honestly think that even if ANWR was opened that the oil companies would simply process it thru the existing infrastructure, that way they still maximize their profit while accessing a source in a decidely less hostile part of the world, Elk dont drive carbombs, well, not yet anyways.
So if congress authorized drilling in ANWR to increase the supply of oil, do you believe there would be no takers because the oil companies do not want to increase the supply?
Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: The ANWR aurgument is a red herring, even if it was opened to drilling today it would be up to 10 years before any meaningful production could begin, and then, where are they going to refine it? Crude avalability is high worldwide, its refining capacity thats been the bottleneck binding supply, particularly here in the US. High demand for refined products worldwide, coupled with nervous speculators driving price per barrel up. Bush said recently that new refineries are required, with record windfall profits wheres the incentive for oil companies to sink millions into strangling the golden goose of profit? If Bush truely thinks new refineries are needed the only likely way he's likely to get one will be for the Guv'ment itself to build it bypassing the oil companies. You suggest the government should bypass the oil companies and build the refineries that are needed. Do you believe the oil companies are not building new refineries because they don't want to? They want to drill in ANWR. So I would think that if they needed new refineries for ANWR oil, they would want to build them. Why would they want to drill for oil if they can't refine it?I beleive the oil companies dont want to invest a penny more than they feel is absolutly necessary, no drill in ANWR means no necessary increase in proceesing the crude oil it would produce, hence no incentive to a build any new refinery. Seems to me they are perfectly happy with their current production levels, and their current profit level. Why invest in something that would in the end hurt your profit margin by increasing current supply and in doing so suppressing prices, thats just plain bad capitalism. I honestly think that even if ANWR was opened that the oil companies would simply process it thru the existing infrastructure, that way they still maximize their profit while accessing a source in a decidely less hostile part of the world, Elk dont drive carbombs, well, not yet anyways.So if congress authorized drilling in ANWR to increase the supply of oil, do you believe there would be no takers because the oil companies do not want to increase the supply?
No there would definelty be takers, the question is who has the deep pockets to explore such a remote region? Some companies have already stated getting the oil out of ANWR overland or by sea is problematic at best. But I'm not going to speculate on whether or not it will ever get opened, too big a hot potato politically, even with the sky high oil prices.
vsmith wrote: Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: Bucyrus wrote: vsmith wrote: The ANWR aurgument is a red herring, even if it was opened to drilling today it would be up to 10 years before any meaningful production could begin, and then, where are they going to refine it? Crude avalability is high worldwide, its refining capacity thats been the bottleneck binding supply, particularly here in the US. High demand for refined products worldwide, coupled with nervous speculators driving price per barrel up. Bush said recently that new refineries are required, with record windfall profits wheres the incentive for oil companies to sink millions into strangling the golden goose of profit? If Bush truely thinks new refineries are needed the only likely way he's likely to get one will be for the Guv'ment itself to build it bypassing the oil companies. You suggest the government should bypass the oil companies and build the refineries that are needed. Do you believe the oil companies are not building new refineries because they don't want to? They want to drill in ANWR. So I would think that if they needed new refineries for ANWR oil, they would want to build them. Why would they want to drill for oil if they can't refine it?I beleive the oil companies dont want to invest a penny more than they feel is absolutly necessary, no drill in ANWR means no necessary increase in proceesing the crude oil it would produce, hence no incentive to a build any new refinery. Seems to me they are perfectly happy with their current production levels, and their current profit level. Why invest in something that would in the end hurt your profit margin by increasing current supply and in doing so suppressing prices, thats just plain bad capitalism. I honestly think that even if ANWR was opened that the oil companies would simply process it thru the existing infrastructure, that way they still maximize their profit while accessing a source in a decidely less hostile part of the world, Elk dont drive carbombs, well, not yet anyways.So if congress authorized drilling in ANWR to increase the supply of oil, do you believe there would be no takers because the oil companies do not want to increase the supply?No there would definelty be takers, the question is who has the deep pockets to explore such a remote region? Some companies have already stated getting the oil out of ANWR overland or by sea is problematic at best. But I'm not going to speculate on whether or not it will ever get opened, too big a hot potato politically, even with the sky high oil prices.
I guess I'm not sure what you are saying about oil companies and ANWR. You said ANWR was a red herring because the oil companies either could not, or would not go after the oil. Then you said they would go after it, but you asked from where would they get the capital to go after it, suggesting that they don't have sufficient capital to put ANWR into production.
Everything that I have ever heard suggests that the only thing that prevents ANWR from going into production is the U.S. congress. Also, from what I have heard, the alleged excess profits made by the oil companies is not a result of high crude prices on the world market, but rather, from the processing and marketing of that crude. Rising crude prices dampen demand, so it is entirely possible that lower crude prices resulting from new supply sources would actually increase oil company profits, not lower them as you suggest. So I am skeptical when you say the oil companies would not want to develop ANWR because it would not be in their financial interest. I think that's the red herring you mentioned concerning ANWR.
Also, as I previously mentioned, if congress approved ANWR development today, the world price would drop the instant the news is received. This silly notion that ANWR is just a drop in the bucket, too little, and too far off in the future to matter is transparent propaganda put out by the same interests who want us to believe we are running out of oil, and we had better stop using it.
When I said ANWR was a red herring I ment that on the political front, not on the oil companies. It is being pitched by some our leaders to the public as a fix to the current problems, open it today and have lower prices tommorow, at least thats the way I read the spin. The fact that years of development would be necessary never enters that debate. Congress has been the roadblock, no one wants to stick their political neck on the block, not even some republicans, to approve opening it. But given the rocketing gas prices I wonder how much longer their going to hold out before public pressure for lower gas prices wins out over the desire to preserve wilderness areas, I give it a year, 2 tops before its opened, for good or for bad, but I see it as inevitable, even if it will take years to get to market.
Also I did not mean to say it would not be in the oil companies interest to develop ANWR, I ment it would be problematic given the logistics to get there, and get the oil out, but thats never stopped any of the larger companies from trying. Some of the smaller companies might opt out, but the large companies like Exxon would certainly have the resources, experience, and the will to go in.
I also agree that once opened prices would drop as you said, but only for the short term, as soon as everyone realized any oil from ANWR was years away from market, it would creep right back up to where it was before.
I think if we sat down face to face and discussed it, I think we would find more in agreement than in disagreement, its just the different way we view the subject. Anyway thats all I've got left to say on the subject.
Given we could discuss our personal veiwpoints on this topic till the end of time - or ANWR is opened to exploration whichever comes first, but I dont want this to become another Steam -vs- Diesel topic here and have the discussion become 20 pages of us repeating ourselves.
I think we've pretty much beaten the horse to death, and then turned the horsemeat into little horse meatballs, all that will soon be left is the horseraddish.
So for the sake of the forum discussion, you win.
Lets find something else to haggle over, I'd rather discuss the market for electric commuter skateboards
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.