QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Here's something to bandy about.... http://www.aset-safety.org/study/study.html "US DOT acknowledges that VMT and safety are tied closely together. In other words, a change from a 80,000 pound five-axle semitrailer to a 97,000 pound six-axle semitrailer would result in fewer accidents (approximately 11% fewer if the VMT model is maintained throughout the study). Heavier vehicles are not inherently more prone to instability or roll-over, rather payload distribution is the most critical factor in controlling rollovers. Driver operational characteristics such as travel speed around curves, the “tightness” of the curve, etc… are also important factors. Braking performance is admitted to not be particularly influenced by changes in vehicle sizes and weights, assuming that the required number of axles and brakes are added as the vehicles weight increases and the vehicle's brakes are well-maintained and functional. The requirement that antilock braking systems (ABS) be fitted to all new tractors and trailers is expected to enhance vehicle stability and control. Some incremental diminishments can be expected as truck weights are increased, but the greater concern in braking ability relates to longer combination vehicles." Meaning safety is not comprimised in shifting to higher GVW for trucks.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod To save a bit of wear, tear, and Google search time, here's the list of members for ASET (as given in their brochure; saves downloading the whole .pdf) ASET Executive Committee Members American Forest and Paper Association American Iron & Steel Institute Georgia-Pacific International Paper Maverick Transportation ASET Associate Members Abitibi-Consolidated Agricultural Ocean Transportation Coalition AK Steel American Trucking Associations Archer Daniels Midland Company Arizona Motor Transport Association Beer Institute Bethlehem Steel Boise Cascade California Trucking Association Combined Transport CRST International Dart Transit Falcon Transport The Home Depot Idaho Motor Transport Association Idaho Shippers Alliance International Mass Retail Association Maine Motor Transport Association Metal Transportation Systems Michigan Trucking Association NASSTRAC National Association of Manufacturers National Cattlemen's Beef Association National Industrial Transportation League National Private Truck Council Nebraska Motor Carriers Association Nevada Motor Transport Association New Mexico Motor Carriers Association North Dakota Motor Carriers Association Ohio Trucking Association PGT Trucking Incorporated P.I.& I. Motor Express Pittsburgh Logistics Systems Schneider National Specialized Carriers & Rigging Association Tandem Transport Tranzact Technologies Truck Renting and Leasing Association Tucker Company Tyson Foods, Inc Weirton Steel Westvaco Wheeling-Nisshin Wyoming Trucking Association Not a single railroad-related organization I can see... Does occur to me that providing an exception to the 80K gross limit for SIX-AXLE COMBI ONLY is not excessive, FOR INTERSTATES where the absolute design limits for bridges etc. shouldn't be exceeded. I can guess some of the probable 'early adopters' by looking at the supporters' list ;-} I do see a bunch of rather unrealistic statistical predictions in some of their material, starting with the premise that six-axle equipment will appear quickly in (relatively) large numbers, and proceeding through the assumption that ladings carried by 5-axle vehicles (i.e. normal 18-wheel trucks) will seamlessly partition to loading in heavier single vanloads, be amenable to homogeneous or at least easily-balanced loading over the triple trailer axles, etc. I tend to worry when I see this kind of language and assumption, much like Tom Lehrer's Christian Scientist with appendicitis... ;-} Perhaps as an indication how radically things have changed from 1994-2000, here's a quote from the TS&W 'impact analysis areas': SHIPPER COSTS AND RAIL INDUSTRY COMPETITIVENESS Summary: Beyond the issue of motor carrier productivity is that of shipper costs. The motor carrier industry is considered sufficiently competitive that cost savings are assumed to be passed on to shippers as lower rates. This is generally true of the rail industry as well. A shipper that can shift to more productive truck configurations would realize lower total transportation and logistic costs. However, rail shippers that could not economically switch to trucks might face increased costs as railroads spread fixed costs over a smaller shipper base. Inter- and intra-modal diversion, therefore, has the potential to change costs borne by the Nation's shippers. The ITIC model captures the impact of reduced truck costs for shippers using motor carrier services and for those rail customers which experience lower rates resulting from rail industry attempts to maintain traffic in the face of lower truck rates. However, the impact of freight diversion from rail to truck on the rates for the remaining rail customers and the viability of the rail industry is addressed using an independent analysis. Specifically, the rail analysis estimates the necessary increase in rates for traffic remaining on the rail system after diversion. These increases would result from the fact that less traffic would be available to cover fixed costs. The contribution to capital lost from diverted traffic would be re-couped by increasing rates for the remaining traffic, potentially impacting future demand for rail service and therefore the financial status of the rail industry.
QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton I know what I am talking about so before opening mouth and insert foot think use the brain that god gave you.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal quothe edbenton - "Also your statement about me having a double didgit IQ WRONG last time I had mine checked it was in the range of 162 so I know what I am talking about." Well, wouldn't someone with a 162 IQ be able to discern the content of this statement I made: QUOTE: (by edbenton)4. "The larger companies may not even survive ..." (retort by FM)Gee, I guess that's why J.B. Hunt, Swift, Schieder, Navajo, et al, have all stuck with the lowly 48' trailer and the 80k max, huh? 'Cause if they had gone to 53' and 105k average max, they'd of all gone bankrupt, right? (insert sarcastic smilie here) You notice that last little phrase inserted at the end of the last sentence, the one where it says "(insert sarcastic smilie here)"? That indicates that the prededing statement was indeed a sarcastic one, as in .... ....."of course your statement about equipment upgrades (to higher GVW and longer truck consists) causing the large truckload haulers to fail is a completely erroneous statement, because those large truckload carriers mentioned aka J.B. Hunt, Swift, et al actually did switch over to the larger 53' trailers and/or heavy haul trailers capable of handling 105k GVW, and would you know it they are all doing quite well." Now, why would you then state the following: QUOTE: (by edberton) And as for the compaines you named sticking with a 48 foot trailer what planet have you been on the standard even for a reefer company is a 53 footer. The last 48 foot I pulled was in 97 so they are not out there anymore. ? Things that make you go "Hmmmmm....." ....and what is it about guys named "Ed" on this forum?
QUOTE: (by edbenton)4. "The larger companies may not even survive ..." (retort by FM)Gee, I guess that's why J.B. Hunt, Swift, Schieder, Navajo, et al, have all stuck with the lowly 48' trailer and the 80k max, huh? 'Cause if they had gone to 53' and 105k average max, they'd of all gone bankrupt, right? (insert sarcastic smilie here)
QUOTE: (by edberton) And as for the compaines you named sticking with a 48 foot trailer what planet have you been on the standard even for a reefer company is a 53 footer. The last 48 foot I pulled was in 97 so they are not out there anymore.
QUOTE: Originally posted by glennbob you know i read once that a rail road can move 2000 pounds of freight 350 miles for the cost of one gallon of diesel fuel >>> glenn bob PS how are truck going to compeet wit h that!!!
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton Futuremodal this same arguement was made when the 53 footer came out in the 80's would require fewer trucks to carry the lighter goods cubing out before maxing out. I know that is BS doe to the fact that with the economy growing that more trucks are needed. Plus the RR industry retrenching into a bulk commiadty hauler does not help at all. I for one know that there are mmore trucks out there all you have to do is try to find a parkingsopt at anytruckstop or rest area at night. Well, then will you go out on a limb and suggest that we should reduce GVW and trailer length limits to 40'? Yeah, that'd reduce the congestion in your head, but not out on the highways. Do the math - x amount of freight moving by truck divided by cubic capacity of each trailer and each trailer combination per rig (or go by the total load tonnage allowed per rig). Obviously, larger capacity units will result in less total rigs on the highway for that given amout of freight, while smaller capacity units will result in more total rigs on the highway for that same given amount of freight. Anyone who suggests the opposite is nuts. You're making the same blunder as Leon, namely suggesting that increasing GVW and trailer length resulted in more truck traffic. Have you ever driven a semi truck NO would be my answer. I drove and made my living doing so. You seem like a couple of dispatchers I had that would say well it is only 3 inches on the map and you can make it. You try getting 28 skids on a 48 footer you can not do it. Most loads for a 53 are designed to cube it out. I routinely hauled 30 skids of romaine lettuce to Chicago from either Yuma AZ or Salianas CA every week. My trip routine was the same when the crops were north I was going to Northern CA when in AZ I went to southern CA. Until you drive a semi you have no right to say will this will do this or that. If they raised the GVW all the current trailers are obselete overnight along with the trucks since the current HP for a fleet truck would not pull it right. The larger companies may not even survive you try replacing in schinders case 20K trailers overnight. There is no way to just replace the tandems either with a tridam the floors of the trailers would not support the loads. So you may think it would help but in the end will cost more money since the cost of upgrading the entire fleet of trucks used today would have to be replaced. Oh, okay, since I never drove a truck I have no right to extoll the virtues of allowing greater efficiencies for truck hauls. You sound like those double digit IQ types who aver that politicians who never served in the military have no right to make decisions on US military actions. I could be just as dense as you and suggest that since you have no economics experience that you sir have no right to state your POV on transportation policy issues........ ..... but I won't! I will however correct your erroneous statements: 1. "If they raised the GVW all the current trailers are obselete overnight along with the trucks since the current HP for a fleet truck would not pull it right." Wrong. Raising the GVW means adding or adjusting the trailer wheel arrangements on some trailers, but does not preclude current equipment from being used in a higher GVW consist. Consider grain trucks, which are usually a main trailer followed by a pup trailer. Adjusting for higher GVW means adding a larger trailer to the rear for the additional cargo. Or the 20' container chassis, which is ideal for b-train combo's if not for the current GVW limits (which effectively doubles the number of rigs on the road for hauling those 20' containers from origin to rail terminal). Most heavy haul cab units are underutilized since most States have not allowed the 131k max for non Interstate Highways prior to the last AAR propaganda pu***hat froze weight limits in place, settling for 105k in most Western states. You also know that most cab units are built for cubic capacity maximization, since most track loads do not approach GVW limits but do tend to cube out. Consumer goods will do that to you. Which by the way are mostly imports. Obvioulsy, increasing GVW will not aid foreign imports into this country, but will aid our export sector. 2. "There is no way to just replace the tandems either with a tridam the floors of the trailers would not support the loads." Wrong. Most modern 53' trailers are of a homogenous design, with the ability to interchange tandems, tridems, even quadems(?). Trailer manufacturers don't want to have to have a multitude of 53' trailer lines for light, medium, and heavy loads, when they can just focus on one basic design. This flexibility is paramount to the trucking industry, who are more than happy to adjust fleet specs to meet new business needs. And again, a trailer designed for high cubic capacity demand is not going to be used to haul concrete blocks, and a flat bed designed for concrete blocks is not going to be used for consumer goods. And lastly, no trucking outfit is going to take a chance on overloading a trailer to the point of causing a floor collapse. Since trailer output is an on going thing, any new demand for a dual use trailer that can handle both high cubic capacity desires and high gross weight desires will be met as demand desires. 3. "So you may think it would help but in the end will cost more money since the cost of upgrading the entire fleet of trucks used today would have to be replaced." And do you have evidence that the move from the 48' trailer to the 53' did not pay for itself? Do you have evidence that allowing 2 x 20' b-train combos would end up not paying for the installation of a 5th wheel in each 20' slider chassis? C'mon, surely even you know that fleets are replaced incrementally, and that any new upgraded designs for those "evil" 160k trailers would be purchased on an as needed basis as older equipment depreciates out their lifespan. Gee, isn't that what the railroads have done in moving from 264k to 286k? Or has that move cost more money than garnered in returns? If so, you evidence is what......? 4. "The larger companies may not even survive ..." Gee, I guess that's why J.B. Hunt, Swift, Schieder, Navajo, et al, have all stuck with the lowly 48' trailer and the 80k max, huh? 'Cause if they had gone to 53' and 105k average max, they'd of all gone bankrupt, right? (insert sarcastic smilie here)
QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton Futuremodal this same arguement was made when the 53 footer came out in the 80's would require fewer trucks to carry the lighter goods cubing out before maxing out. I know that is BS doe to the fact that with the economy growing that more trucks are needed. Plus the RR industry retrenching into a bulk commiadty hauler does not help at all. I for one know that there are mmore trucks out there all you have to do is try to find a parkingsopt at anytruckstop or rest area at night. Well, then will you go out on a limb and suggest that we should reduce GVW and trailer length limits to 40'? Yeah, that'd reduce the congestion in your head, but not out on the highways. Do the math - x amount of freight moving by truck divided by cubic capacity of each trailer and each trailer combination per rig (or go by the total load tonnage allowed per rig). Obviously, larger capacity units will result in less total rigs on the highway for that given amout of freight, while smaller capacity units will result in more total rigs on the highway for that same given amount of freight. Anyone who suggests the opposite is nuts. You're making the same blunder as Leon, namely suggesting that increasing GVW and trailer length resulted in more truck traffic. Have you ever driven a semi truck NO would be my answer. I drove and made my living doing so. You seem like a couple of dispatchers I had that would say well it is only 3 inches on the map and you can make it. You try getting 28 skids on a 48 footer you can not do it. Most loads for a 53 are designed to cube it out. I routinely hauled 30 skids of romaine lettuce to Chicago from either Yuma AZ or Salianas CA every week. My trip routine was the same when the crops were north I was going to Northern CA when in AZ I went to southern CA. Until you drive a semi you have no right to say will this will do this or that. If they raised the GVW all the current trailers are obselete overnight along with the trucks since the current HP for a fleet truck would not pull it right. The larger companies may not even survive you try replacing in schinders case 20K trailers overnight. There is no way to just replace the tandems either with a tridam the floors of the trailers would not support the loads. So you may think it would help but in the end will cost more money since the cost of upgrading the entire fleet of trucks used today would have to be replaced.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton Futuremodal this same arguement was made when the 53 footer came out in the 80's would require fewer trucks to carry the lighter goods cubing out before maxing out. I know that is BS doe to the fact that with the economy growing that more trucks are needed. Plus the RR industry retrenching into a bulk commiadty hauler does not help at all. I for one know that there are mmore trucks out there all you have to do is try to find a parkingsopt at anytruckstop or rest area at night. Well, then will you go out on a limb and suggest that we should reduce GVW and trailer length limits to 40'? Yeah, that'd reduce the congestion in your head, but not out on the highways. Do the math - x amount of freight moving by truck divided by cubic capacity of each trailer and each trailer combination per rig (or go by the total load tonnage allowed per rig). Obviously, larger capacity units will result in less total rigs on the highway for that given amout of freight, while smaller capacity units will result in more total rigs on the highway for that same given amount of freight. Anyone who suggests the opposite is nuts. You're making the same blunder as Leon, namely suggesting that increasing GVW and trailer length resulted in more truck traffic.
QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton Futuremodal this same arguement was made when the 53 footer came out in the 80's would require fewer trucks to carry the lighter goods cubing out before maxing out. I know that is BS doe to the fact that with the economy growing that more trucks are needed. Plus the RR industry retrenching into a bulk commiadty hauler does not help at all. I for one know that there are mmore trucks out there all you have to do is try to find a parkingsopt at anytruckstop or rest area at night.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.