ATA now supports longer and/or heavier trucks

[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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman

The idea that longer or larger trucks will reduce highway conjestion is ludicrous. Fast, smoothe roads always attract traffic and quickly become conjested.

Your logic is flawed, because your statement makes the assumption that total tonnage moved by truck would increase multifold due to new regs. Even if the economy grows at 7%, you're not going to see truck tonnage increase 25%, 50%, etc. with the new proposed regs Increasing truck load factor may draw some traffic from rails, but not so much as to affect the highway system as you allege.

Follow these two assumptions: Let's say for the sake of argument that trucks moved 100 million tons this year via 4 million trucks at 25 tons average each, and are projected to move 110 million tons next year (2007) under the same regs e.g. 25 tons average haul via 4.4 million trucks. Now say the new upgraded regs are implemented to start in 2007, and they allow for 50 tons per truck average. If projected total tonnage holds steady, that 110 million tons will now move by only 2.2 million trucks aka half the total number of rigs on the roads! Even if we assume the new 50 ton average haul to effectively sluce off 40 million more tons of traffic from the rails, that total of 150 million tons is still only moving in 3 million rigs, over 25% less total rigs that what would occur under keeping current regs in place and no shift in traffic from rail to truck.

The reverse (e.g. reducing current GVW regs) would also be true, in that reducing GVW would result in more rigs on the road to move the same given amount of freight, and even if some of that traffic shifted to rail.

More rigs = more congestion
Less rigs = less congestion

Thus, it is irrefutable that the lunacy lies with those who think keeping or reducing current GVW regs would result in less congestion on the roads.

[carnej1]

(very slightly off topic) I remember reading (in an 80's era JANE's WORLD RAILWAYS)about what can only be described as a "HiRailer roadtrain" . It was a string of 4 or more first generation roadrailers (with the single axle rail wheels permanently attached to the trailer) towed by a Mack Hirail tractor. It was intended that the trailers would run as singles on pavement and as a "train" on the rails. I seem to also remember reading in an early 90's EXTRA 2200 SOUTH that either CP or CN trialed this equipment. There are pics on the web on a similiar rig being used by a private contractor as a herbicide sprayer (weed control) system. I would guess that the newer roadrailers make this concept obsolete though there is a UK based company developing a similiar system known as BLADERUNNER which would haul both freight trailers and passenger bus/trailer modules over unused/lightly used rail lines.

On topic there have been some proposals in recent years to have dedicated toll lanes on some interstates for trucks, including roadtrain type rigs, generally with the lanes being physically segregated from the rest of the highway................

[Leon Silverman]

The idea that longer or larger trucks will reduce highway conjestion is ludicrous. Fast, smoothe roads always attract traffic and quickly become conjested. Living in the Southeastern Part of Pennsylvania, I observed the rebuilding to the 202 corridor to accomodate more traffic. While negotiating this highway during the reconstruction , I also observed new office construction going up right along side the highway. So where was the traffic relief

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith
4-48 footers? Oh give me a break! A standard semi-trailer rig can barely get onto a rush hour freeway now, try it with multi-trailers around 200' and see what kind of reaction other drivers give it, he'll either be trapped on the on-ramp by unyeilding traffic or will cause a 20 car pile up.

While some sort of aurgument for this might be tried for lond distance routes where they are driving interstate hwys from urban fring terminal to urban fring terminal with no internal city driving, this will NEVER work where theres any kind of traffic where the more congested traffic realities exist. It would create massive congestion in already bad rush hour traffic with multi-trailer blocked on-ramps and roadway interesections, some streets aren't 200' long. Think about trying to manuever something like this thru an urban freeway interchange in traffic....Bad bad idea.

Just having a little fun here...

Often, I have to take a set of triples up to Stead from Sparks. Sometimes during rush hour. Now its only about 100 feet long, I really haven't had problems merging or getting unto the Freeway. Its also about 6% grade on US 395, which over that section I'm down to about 25 MPH. Once in a while I'll get the finger, but I always smile and wave.

Jimmy B

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton
What made me retire was losing my medical card. In 2000 I devolped adult onset epilepsy. I am now on SS do to that it sucks give me my cash. Out of 45K gross my net was in the area of 38 grand now I get 15K a year talk about a pay cut.

Sorry to hear about your medical condition. Please take care.

Jimmy B

[ouengr]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

ouengr - you quothe....

"There is no way that axles will be added to distribute the same load over a larger area."

That's not what I said. The axles/idlers are added as load weight is increased. What you missed is that it is possible to add more wheel/axle area in disporportion to the increased load weight, thus possibly decreasing the average weight per axle group. Remember, if you can arrange for the eliminatinon of a "redundant" cab unit by adding that second trailer to the first cab unit/trailer, it is possible to decrease average weight per axle group and still increase the load factor (which is the incentive for the trucking companies).

There is no way that you will ever convince me that the trucking industry will ever accept the additional drag of an additional axle without loading to the axle at the same rating as existing axles. This combination will increase the amount of stress on the paving and the bridges thereby limiting there usefull lives. The tare weight of a trailer is trivial when compared to the rear axle loadings. I will try to find the ESAL comparisions numbers in my office so that I can show you where you are wrong.

QUOTE:
You also quothe.....

"Your physics are simply wrong. Rarely will you have two trucks pass over the same stretch of road in such close proximity."

Hmmm. Did I state an actual distance? No. But we all have seen truckers driving convoy style, certainly not bumper to bumper at speed, but still close enough to maintain the side breezes. The point is, how much time does the subgrade need to lie still once it springs back from a weight bearing exercise? Kind of a pointless debate. More important is the amount of aggragate tare passing over relative to revenue weight. Keeping total tonnage at constant upward trend to reflect a growing economy, by allowing longer LCV's and heavier GVW you can eliminate those extra cab units (e.g. tare), so the cumulative effect is less total tonnage moving over the roadway relative to keeping GVW/LCV's the same.

We all want the economy to grow. I have tried without getting into techincal jargon to explain that the increased stress and strain caused by increased loads are not neccessarily proportional to the load increases. Yes you can increase the efficiency of a truck but at what cost. The destruction of the interstate highways system along with the increased risks to others on the road are simply to high. In order to accomodate the type of loads you want we will need to reinforce nearly every bridge in the country and increase the paving sections. This cost of this is mind boggling. Simply put you would need to rebuild nearly every mile of major roadway in the nation. This cost would crush any efficiency gains.

QUOTE:

You quothe.....

"There is also a problem with controlling a vehicle this large. A vehicle of this configuration is very unstable and can lead to very nasty accidents in the wrong conditions. In the US, we have far more cars on the system per lane mile than does Canada. The use and purpose of the system is different. If you want to make it far too dangerous for passenger vehicles, then continue down this path. Otherwise we need to look at other transporation aleternatives included the rails. If you want to build suicidal roller dearby deathways for your load em up to what ever weight and whatever configuartion then have the trucking industry build them with their own money and pay to maintain them. To destroy the interstate highway system to gain a percieved benefit is reckless and irresponcible."

Not quite sure what you are banging on about here. It seems mostly hyperbolic to say heavier trucks are akin to terrorist acts. And if highway congestion is your beef, you know darn well that allowing heavier/longer trucks will reduce the total number of trucks on the road, and conversely reducing GVW and LCV standards will result in more trucks to carry the same amount of cargo (and we all know congestion is a numeric dynamic.)

In October 2005, I was run off the highway by a truck that was not paying attention. This truck was a short tank truck. At the time the higway was not congested. When the truck changed lanes into me, I was left with nowhere to go but to leave the highway at speed. This was a straight truck not a tractor with a 53' trailer. When I look at the accident history in this area, there is a correlation to an increased number of fatal truck accidents and larger trailers. The roadway and conditional forces on the larger trailer make it much more difficult to operate. Even in calm conditions it is difficult to manamge the direction of a trailer that is not direction connected to a tractor. The bogey connection will allow the trailer to move independently of the rest of the rig and this often happens when the trucker loses control of the vehicle. The road trains that you speak of work well in areas with very limited traffic and wide margins for error. In the US today we generally do not find these conditions. Adding road trains in this country will costs lives and increase insurance liability costs. I see triple trailers every day in the City of Tulsa. When they try to turn, it is an accident waiting to happen. Under ideal conditions, the road trains may be safe. When things go wrong which can happen in a millisecond, the danger posed by these vehicles is immense. I am not comparing an accident to terrorism. Accidents happen but we must consider their consequences when looking at this type of vehicle. A similar discussion has ocured in the railroad industry and it let to size limitations on hazardous material cars.

QUOTE:
You seemingly accuse me of being a trucking industry mole. I will aver that you seem to be nothing but an AAR koolaid drinker, in that you seem to be simply regurgitating the AAR talking points on opposing more modernized trucking regs, without stopping to think out the reasons behind your stated opposition. 'Cause if you did think it out, you would realize that increasing trucking efficiencies is as beneficial to the transportation economy as increasing railroad efficiency. And as a final reminder, in today's transportation economy railroads and trucks are indelibly linked - what's good for one is usually good for the other. Why Ed Hamberger and the AAR can't seem to get this rock solid truism through their collective heads is a whole 'nother topic.

I never accused you of being an ATA agent. I simply asked the question. I am a civil engineer and a member of several professional engineering societies including ASCE. I do no speak for them nor do I know their postion on this matter. Even if I did I would make my own decision. I am not know nor have I ever been involved with AAR.

My opposition to increase truck sizes and weights is summarized in two concerns.

1. I do not belive that the interstate highway system is designed in such a way to accomodate the increased loads without massive investment. I believe that the expence neccessary to allow for the increased loads will far exceed any effeciency gains for the trucking industry.

2. I do not believe the local, industrial, and highway systems are designed ad built in such a way to permit the safe operation of the larger especially tandem vehicles. Under ideal circumstances, they may be safe, but the risk of an accident and the potential consequences are dramatically increased with the larger vehicle.

I am in favor of changes to the laws that will improve the effiiency and safety of the interstate highway system. If I happen to agree with the AAR so be it. My oppositon is not based solely on the belief that the steel wheel on the steel rail is the most efficient means of transportation known to man. My belief is that we cannot afford as a nation to construct unlimited stretches of highway nor can we tear out and completely replace the entire transportation system in this nation. We need a solution to the transportion challenges facing this nation. I believe that increased rail transportion though inovative intermodal solutions offer the best alterative. Larger and heavier trucks have been tried for years. The ultiamate result has been a constant demand for ever increasing loads. This is simply a band-aid solution that will at some point reach diminishing returns. I belive that an honest exploration of the alternatives are needed in this debate. Unfortunatley, the truckers and politiciains will continue to play politics instead of allowing the free market to find real solutions.

[Anonymous]

ouengr - you quothe....

"There is no way that axles will be added to distribute the same load over a larger area."

That's not what I said. The axles/idlers are added as load weight is increased. What you missed is that it is possible to add more wheel/axle area in disporportion to the increased load weight, thus possibly decreasing the average weight per axle group. Remember, if you can arrange for the eliminatinon of a "redundant" cab unit by adding that second trailer to the first cab unit/trailer, it is possible to decrease average weight per axle group and still increase the load factor (which is the incentive for the trucking companies).

You also quothe.....

"Your physics are simply wrong. Rarely will you have two trucks pass over the same stretch of road in such close proximity."

Hmmm. Did I state an actual distance? No. But we all have seen truckers driving convoy style, certainly not bumper to bumper at speed, but still close enough to maintain the side breezes. The point is, how much time does the subgrade need to lie still once it springs back from a weight bearing exercise? Kind of a pointless debate. More important is the amount of aggragate tare passing over relative to revenue weight. Keeping total tonnage at constant upward trend to reflect a growing economy, by allowing longer LCV's and heavier GVW you can eliminate those extra cab units (e.g. tare), so the cumulative effect is less total tonnage moving over the roadway relative to keeping GVW/LCV's the same.

You quothe.....

"There is also a problem with controlling a vehicle this large. A vehicle of this configuration is very unstable and can lead to very nasty accidents in the wrong conditions. In the US, we have far more cars on the system per lane mile than does Canada. The use and purpose of the system is different. If you want to make it far too dangerous for passenger vehicles, then continue down this path. Otherwise we need to look at other transporation aleternatives included the rails. If you want to build suicidal roller dearby deathways for your load em up to what ever weight and whatever configuartion then have the trucking industry build them with their own money and pay to maintain them. To destroy the interstate highway system to gain a percieved benefit is reckless and irresponcible."

Not quite sure what you are banging on about here. It seems mostly hyperbolic to say heavier trucks are akin to terrorist acts. And if highway congestion is your beef, you know darn well that allowing heavier/longer trucks will reduce the total number of trucks on the road, and conversely reducing GVW and LCV standards will result in more trucks to carry the same amount of cargo (and we all know congestion is a numeric dynamic.)

You seemingly accuse me of being a trucking industry mole. I will aver that you seem to be nothing but an AAR koolaid drinker, in that you seem to be simply regurgitating the AAR talking points on opposing more modernized trucking regs, without stopping to think out the reasons behind your stated opposition. 'Cause if you did think it out, you would realize that increasing trucking efficiencies is as beneficial to the transportation economy as increasing railroad efficiency. And as a final reminder, in today's transportation economy railroads and trucks are indelibly linked - what's good for one is usually good for the other. Why Ed Hamberger and the AAR can't seem to get this rock solid truism through their collective heads is a whole 'nother topic.

[Anonymous]

I did team with the wife. As the trainer I collected 1K plus after taxes for 2 months regardless of the mileage the truck did.

During the remaining 10 months our team ran 210,000 miles rescuring late loads off single drivers too tired to arrive on time and save the accounts by preventing service failures. Our income tax return combined was 60,000 plus AFTER the deductions which included the flat rates for drivers on business away from home.

We did this by storing 3 weeks worth of food, water and disposibles for 2 people at once in the upper bunk and two freezers. That added about 1100 pounds to our tare weight but gave us total freedom from the truck stop except for fuel. We had a Marine grade 110 volt inverter which gave us the ability to microwave or use a proper coffee pot (Just make sure you are not on broken concrete for 30 miles) A pota potty gave us "RV" status with a chemical toilet so we only needed to clean up in the showers as required. Everything else was done on the move 24/7 If I remember correctly we would leave LA Sunday, arrive Jersey Wed, leave the same day and be back on the west coast by saturday. That was brutal and it took it's toll on both of us. The money just piled up in the bank because we only needed like a few dollars as required for tolls and lumpers etc. (We were never home to spend it and life with friends and family did suffer)

Now we live on far less and almost debt free. Healthy too. That I think is a good result of leaving the road after a number of years.

I have run into Union Drivers who have explained to me that if I could stand the duty I can double that gross and be home every weekend. However the companys "Slash and Burn" and replace the weak. I was already "Maxed out" in Reefer Team and did not want to ride around in a 30 year old mack for 30 dollars an hour or whatever it was.

9-11 killed the cargo for me. So that is my story. Im occasionally running the Class 8 vehicles several times a quarter for very short trips on private property as a temp driver for the memories. I would not trade anything to go back. However that one Pete 379 I processed last week seriously showed quality care and tempted me to buy it outright and get into the business again. One can dream.

No, I already stated many reasons why trucking needs to change at the driver level.

It can cost up to 7,000 dollars or more to recruit a driver and place him or her into a rig under a load. Many companies pay this cost without complaint. But try to get a 3,000 dollar set of tires for a bobtail already 9 months into the fiscal year with winter coming on and they will laugh you out of the shop stating that the rubber still meets federal minimums.

In the mean time 50 giggling students line up for a orientation tour of the yard eyeing the tractors that are being detailed and prepared for them.

Consider this: One account in St. Louis called Anhauser Busch (Beer) had 116 loads availible to go out one friday night after 9-11 (Before the holidays) There were approx 340 drivers with the company I was with at the time layed-over in the St Louis area making NO money wishing and hoping for a load out of the same facility Monday. In the mean time you had food, showers, laundry etc... That is usually a large expense and added to the stress of "Awake and waiting by the phone (Or satellite) for the call" That time is never taken into account and if you are tired come monday morning with 1000 miles to go.. too bad.

I have had alot of fun with this thread and learned a few things. Goes to show a old dog like me can learn some new tricks.

See you all on the flip side. Keep it safe.

[Anonymous]

Dang, that's right around 170,000 a year. I average around 40,000 per year. You can have it. lol

[edbenton]

Farmer I avarage right at 3200 miles a week. I was single so did not go home except for the odd weekend and chirstmas and thanksgiving I rtan all othe hoildays to get drivers with familys home.

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

QUOTE: Originally posted by equinox

this might be a dumb question, but how does a driver back up those doubles and triples any appreciable distance without the trailers going every which-way?

In theory you don't. That's why streets that don't go through are clearly labled DEAD END STREET with yellow boards.

But in reality there are drivers that can back up the second box without breaking the set as Jimmy mentioned. My dad is one of them. He worked for a couple years for Kilpatrick's bakery in San Francisco doing deliveries with double 28 footers. Some times I would ride along. There were several locations he delivered to where you could line up a straight shot backwards to the dock. As far as I know he was the only one of the drivers there that could do that.

Some years ago the Batesvill Casket Company out of Batesville, Indiana had a fleet of pup traliers, and they utilized cross-connected cables from the converter dolly to the back of the front trailer,and their drivers were able to back, and turn without disconnecting the converter and back box.
Sam

Interesting, how did that work? I can't visualize a way that would work.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

Sp9033 I was an OTR driver hee for a nonunion company and I made on avarge 45 grand a year of course I also ran my butt off but I did make good money. The trouble with the large fleets is they will do anything they have to so they can get the contract. I worked for Henderson Trucking as my last company. I loved their policy about a driver duties it is get the load there if the reciver tells you to unload ti hire a lumper. In everyone of their contracts it states all unloading costs will be payed by the reciver of the goods. They made my job easy I could run all night to get that floor load there and then catch some real good sleep while the lumpers unloaded that 4000 cases of frozen dinners,

You where above average on income and not working for any of the large LT carriers like Schneider National, Swift or the like. However, if you were making 45 K a year gross, what was your taxable income?, What made you quit the industry. This is much larger than the average "blue collar" salary these days in most parts of the USA?

Jimmy B

What made me retire was losing my medical card. In 2000 I devolped adult onset epilepsy. I am now on SS do to that it sucks give me my cash. Out of 45K gross my net was in the area of 38 grand now I get 15K a year talk about a pay cut.

Just out of curiosity, how many miles and how many hours did you put in a year to get your $45k per year? Don't need an exact figure, maybe ballpark it.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

QUOTE: Originally posted by equinox

this might be a dumb question, but how does a driver back up those doubles and triples any appreciable distance without the trailers going every which-way?

In theory you don't. That's why streets that don't go through are clearly labled DEAD END STREET with yellow boards.

But in reality there are drivers that can back up the second box without breaking the set as Jimmy mentioned. My dad is one of them. He worked for a couple years for Kilpatrick's bakery in San Francisco doing deliveries with double 28 footers. Some times I would ride along. There were several locations he delivered to where you could line up a straight shot backwards to the dock. As far as I know he was the only one of the drivers there that could do that.

Some years ago the Batesvill Casket Company out of Batesville, Indiana had a fleet of pup traliers, and they utilized cross-connected cables from the converter dolly to the back of the front trailer,and their drivers were able to back, and turn without disconnecting the converter and back box.
Sam

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Longer & heavier =
harder to stop=
harder to manuver in urban areas=
harder to control to avoid an accident=
harder to control in inclement weather like ice or snow=
higher kinetic energy in an accident=
higher highway morality in car vs truck accidents=
greater congestion on the highways=
greater pounding of an already failing highway infrastructure=
higher fuel consumption (not all semi's are brand new)=
greater smog=
bad news for everyone else.

Actually, I'm old enough to remember CF and CalTrans testing triples in California during the 1980s. As it turns out, triples stop as fast on dry pavement and faster on wet pavement than doubles. After testing CalTrans endorsed permitted triples use on some interstates within the state. However, triple A defeated the bill that would have set up LCV use in California.

With the rationing of rail service by the class ones to drive profits up without growing business, maybe some healthy real competition from trucks will wake these people up! I say lets get some serious road trains going, say a truck-tractor pulling 4 48 foot trailers.

Jimmy B

4-48 footers? Oh give me a break! A standard semi-trailer rig can barely get onto a rush hour freeway now, try it with multi-trailers around 200' and see what kind of reaction other drivers give it, he'll either be trapped on the on-ramp by unyeilding traffic or will cause a 20 car pile up.

While some sort of aurgument for this might be tried for lond distance routes where they are driving interstate hwys from urban fring terminal to urban fring terminal with no internal city driving, this will NEVER work where theres any kind of traffic where the more congested traffic realities exist. It would create massive congestion in already bad rush hour traffic with multi-trailer blocked on-ramps and roadway interesections, some streets aren't 200' long. Think about trying to manuever something like this thru an urban freeway interchange in traffic....Bad bad idea.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

Pushers with a set of quadrouples. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I think I may be having some fun here, you know fishing![:D]

[edbenton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SP9033

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

Sp9033 I was an OTR driver hee for a nonunion company and I made on avarge 45 grand a year of course I also ran my butt off but I did make good money. The trouble with the large fleets is they will do anything they have to so they can get the contract. I worked for Henderson Trucking as my last company. I loved their policy about a driver duties it is get the load there if the reciver tells you to unload ti hire a lumper. In everyone of their contracts it states all unloading costs will be payed by the reciver of the goods. They made my job easy I could run all night to get that floor load there and then catch some real good sleep while the lumpers unloaded that 4000 cases of frozen dinners,

You where above average on income and not working for any of the large LT carriers like Schneider National, Swift or the like. However, if you were making 45 K a year gross, what was your taxable income?, What made you quit the industry. This is much larger than the average "blue collar" salary these days in most parts of the USA?

Jimmy B

What made me retire was losing my medical card. In 2000 I devolped adult onset epilepsy. I am now on SS do to that it sucks give me my cash. Out of 45K gross my net was in the area of 38 grand now I get 15K a year talk about a pay cut.

[chad thomas]

Pushers with a set of quadrouples. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

4x48 footers [:O]. Man I would hate to have to chain up / unchain that monster for every pass in the winter.

How many trailers before you would have to have double headed tractors.[swg]

For the grades, you'd have helper stations with truck-tractor pushers like the CF pushers on Donner during years past.

Jimmy B

[chad thomas]

4x48 footers [:O]. Man I would hate to have to chain up / unchain that monster for every pass in the winter.

How many trailers before you would have to have double headed tractors.[swg]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Longer & heavier =
harder to stop=
harder to manuver in urban areas=
harder to control to avoid an accident=
harder to control in inclement weather like ice or snow=
higher kinetic energy in an accident=
higher highway morality in car vs truck accidents=
greater congestion on the highways=
greater pounding of an already failing highway infrastructure=
higher fuel consumption (not all semi's are brand new)=
greater smog=
bad news for everyone else.

Actually, I'm old enough to remember CF and CalTrans testing triples in California during the 1980s. As it turns out, triples stop as fast on dry pavement and faster on wet pavement than doubles. After testing CalTrans endorsed permitted triples use on some interstates within the state. However, triple A defeated the bill that would have set up LCV use in California.

With the rationing of rail service by the class ones to drive profits up without growing business, maybe some healthy real competition from trucks will wake these people up! I say lets get some serious road trains going, say a truck-tractor pulling 4 48 foot trailers.

Jimmy B

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by equinox

this might be a dumb question, but how does a driver back up those doubles and triples any appreciable distance without the trailers going every which-way?

In theory you don't. That's why streets that don't go through are clearly labled DEAD END STREET with yellow boards.

But in reality there are drivers that can back up the second box without breaking the set as Jimmy mentioned. My dad is one of them. He worked for a couple years for Kilpatrick's bakery in San Francisco doing deliveries with double 28 footers. Some times I would ride along. There were several locations he delivered to where you could line up a straight shot backwards to the dock. As far as I know he was the only one of the drivers there that could do that.

[vsmith]

Longer & heavier =
harder to stop=
harder to manuver in urban areas=
harder to control to avoid an accident=
harder to control in inclement weather like ice or snow=
higher kinetic energy in an accident=
higher highway morality in car vs truck accidents=
greater congestion on the highways=
greater pounding of an already failing highway infrastructure=
higher fuel consumption (not all semi's are brand new)=
greater smog=
bad news for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

Sp9033 I was an OTR driver hee for a nonunion company and I made on avarge 45 grand a year of course I also ran my butt off but I did make good money. The trouble with the large fleets is they will do anything they have to so they can get the contract. I worked for Henderson Trucking as my last company. I loved their policy about a driver duties it is get the load there if the reciver tells you to unload ti hire a lumper. In everyone of their contracts it states all unloading costs will be payed by the reciver of the goods. They made my job easy I could run all night to get that floor load there and then catch some real good sleep while the lumpers unloaded that 4000 cases of frozen dinners,

You where above average on income and not working for any of the large LT carriers like Schneider National, Swift or the like. However, if you were making 45 K a year gross, what was your taxable income?, What made you quit the industry. This is much larger than the average "blue collar" salary these days in most parts of the USA?

Jimmy B

[ouengr]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

ouengr - For the umteenth time, HOW IS IT THAT CANADIAN ROADS AND BRIDGES CAN HANDLE HEAVIER TRUCKS? I guess the principles of physics you extoll are somehow different up there. Not to mention that some US states (mostly in the West) allow heavier loads.

Do you understand the concept of different design standards? The physics are the same the design requirements vary.

[quote}
Yes, we all know about how point of pressure is conveyed down through the subgrade. This is why truck trailer wheelsets usually come in axle sets of twos and threes with a certain amount of space between to allow for "springback". The point you are neglecting is that two and three axle set weight standards would remain the same or be reduced with an increased GVW.
[\quote}

No, way. This is absolute nonsense. There is no way that axles will be added to distribute the same load over a larger area. This adds weight and drag to the load. This will simply not happen. If axles are added it will be to increase the total load on the vehicle. This will result in increased stress on the pavement and bridges.

QUOTE:
If we really want to get technical, it is entirely possible for trucks to be run "train-style" in multiple trailers, with the total number of such trailers limited only by the abiltity of the tractor unit to pull them and the ability of the road parameters to allow the train set to remain in its lane around curves. That's why it is ridiculous not to allow loaded 20' containers to run in b-train configurations in the US, just like they currently do in much of Canada. But the GVW limits of 105k in most of the West is not sufficient to allow two 50k 20's to be run this way. For such b-train configs, we need at least 135k GVW (2 x 50k lbs, + 15k lbs for cab unit with idlers, + 2 x 10k lbs per tridem chassis with idlers). With air suspension adjustments, the max per axle group is 45k lbs per tridem, 35k for the tandem driving set, 6k per idler, and 9k for the steering set. Thus we have 152k theoretical max capacity for all 135k. In other words, it makes no negative physical difference to the roadway (pavement plus subgrade) if the pasage of axle groups runs 9k + 41k + 51k + wait a milisecond, and again + 9k + 41k + 51k (the equivalent of two separate trucks each pulling a loaded 20' container with idlers and tridem chassis), OR 9k + 41k + 51k + 51k (which would be one truck pulling two loaded 20' containers in b-train formation).

Your physics are simply wrong. Rarely will you have two trucks pass over the same stretch of road in such close proximity.

There is also a problem with controlling a vehicle this large. A vehicle of this configuration is very unstable and can lead to very nasty accidents in the wrong conditions. In the US, we have far more cars on the system per lane mile than does Canada. The use and purpose of the system is different. If you want to make it far too dangerous for passenger vehicles, then continue down this path. Otherwise we need to look at other transporation aleternatives included the rails. If you want to build suicidal roller dearby deathways for your load em up to what ever weight and whatever configuartion then have the trucking industry build them with their own money and pay to maintain them. To destroy the interstate highway system to gain a percieved benefit is reckless and irresponcible.

Question: Which way results in less road/subgrade/bridge deterioration for hauling those two loaded 20' containers? Obviously, it is the b-train formation, which although is carrying a GVW of 135k, has less total axle sets passing over the roadways, and with less tare in doing so.

And just for the record, a city to town having a railroad connection is not guarantee of the type of service the economy depends on. In fact, in most such towns and cities the railroad means diddly squat in relation to the local economy. Railroads are loathe to provide carload service without a massive yard somewhere within the pulling distance of a local, and they seem to perfer their massive yards to be few and far between.
[\quote]

You are a nut. Many local industries are still served by the local railroads. Just becasue you don't see it does not mean that it does not happen. Yes, many of the class ones have moved away from single car deliveries, but many shortline still carry this services and I know of several that handle the local switching for the class ones.

And to top it off, now you're blaming road drivers for all train accidents, even if a road vehicle wasn't involved? So all derailments are caused by road vehicles? C'mom now!
[\quote]

YES, when it is a car involved in a collision with a train at a crossing, it is nearly always the roadway vehicles fault. [:(!]

Current laws REQUIRE roadway vehicles to yield right of way to trains. When this does not happen and it results in a collision, then the driver is responcible.

My comments was addressing grade crossing incidents. Only on extremely rare occasions will a derailment cause injurry to an individual in a passenger car who is not involved in a grade crossing incident.

One final set of questions for you.

Why are you asking questions about increasing the size and weight of trucks on a railroad forum? This seems a little strange to me. Are you perhaps engaging in oppositional research? I am willing to debate you either way, but I want to know who I am dealing with. If you are a trucking lobbyist then I will not be able to change your mind unless I hire you. I do not want to waste my time attempting to challenge the position of the trucking industry. I will let ASCE or others groups deal with this issue. Please let us know your position in this debate.

• Reply