ATA now supports longer and/or heavier trucks

[Anonymous]

Canadian roads have frost laws dont they? I dimly remember some rules about winter operations up north and am surprised no one has said anything to date regarding permafrost or similar.

Ive seen the big Bear Paper Mill in Virginia get served by train, they had two large siding/docks with about 12 cars on each track being loading and pulled out of there by a industrial switcher. But we still had oodles of truckers loading for Dow Jones in Des Moines IA and similar printing operations. That rail car cannot get from Central VA to IA in the time a team can get it there.

Another thing that really bothers me about cargo scheduling. Why is it "OK" for a train to sit up to a week on the old Missouri Pacific Main in my area loaded while it is not ok for a trucker to sleep?

There are certain vehicles in the USA that are configured like B trains in Michigan (Always wanted to drive one but never did get chance) and Turnpike Doubles in Mass and the Midwest. Those are handled pretty strictly by special areas at each exit where trailers are hooked or unhooked for single running off the turnpike system.

If I remember correctly there are some coal trucks and intermodal who routinely exceed 80,000 gvw under permit during service around the United States. I remember a few intermodal loads that were like 135,000 gross on a U model mack and a 40 foot chassis box. Believe me it is HEAVY.

[Anonymous]

Gee, Dave.

I never said any such thing about
population density.

Either you are a shrill for the trucking industry
or you have lived in an Ivory Tower for too long.

Once again, you are making a faith-based
assertion about higher GVW aiding U.S.
exporters without supplying a single fact
to support that claim.

Dave

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

dsktc - So you're saying population density is homogenously spread out over each country? What if I told you the population density of most Western US states is less than the population density of those Canadian provinces where heavier trucks are allowed? Your apples vs oranges analogy is not apt, because the apple barrel happens to contain a lot of oranges, and the orange barrel has a whole lot of apples in it.

And you've competely missed the point on the trade deficit/transportation policy dynamic. It's not that foreign countries are freindlier that the US for industrial production (which may or may not be true), but that transportation policies over the US surface favor imports over domestic cargo (for export or domestic markets). The differential pricing structure of railroads has resulted in rates that average 106% of VC in the import intermodal corridors, while averaging over 200% (sometimes as high as 400%) of VC for captive domestic rail shippers. To deny this is just to be purposefully ignorant. The same can be said for the GVW standards, which favor imports (mostly consumer goods, which tend to be lighter per cube) over US exports (which tend to be denser base cargos like ag and forest products). Allowing for higher GVW would obviously improve the transportation dynamics of most US exports, while having no effect on most imports.

All - What is the connection between GVW and LCV standards, and the potential for mismanagement of trucking firms? Are you all suggesting that stricter GVW and LCV standards will result in trucking management that is better behaved? And your proof is what........?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

FM seems to be blissfully unaware of the Law Of Unintended Consequences. Super-size trucks and open access may look great on paper and standing by themselves, but both of them have to interact with the rest of the real world and those interactions also have to be considered before any action is taken.

[edbenton]

Saftey valve you are right on the sleep issue. For 3 months til the company eliminated the reginal runnin I had a run W Chicago to about 90 mins east of Memphis. Unload there go to Coors get a load of beer go W chicago and drop and go. The worst part was I was Always tired and on the run I eventually got to the point were I was able to get ahead and sleep at the Hamburger places. I carried alot of bull patties during that time. I hope Mc Donalds was happy with my service.

[MichaelSol]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

FM seems to be blissfully unaware of the Law Of Unintended Consequences.

it's informally called the Staggers Act, and I think FM is aware of it.

Best regards, Michael Sol

[edbenton]

I wish old Highiron2003 was still posting he would have a blast with this thread. With all the old truckers who are railfans on this site.

[Anonymous]

It appears that most of the north-south 4 lane Interstate Highways are candidates for extension from the northern U.S Border to the Southern U.S. Border.

These Longer Trailers make the push for extending all Highways and Interstates much stronger.

The bigger trailers are leverage for more Interstate Highways that simply cut apart everyone's land instead of simply having elevated roadways or subterranian roadways.

It makes farming even harder.

Who needs more corn and alfalfa when there are bigger trailers to move on bigger Highways.

Andrew F.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
I will disagree there. First of all, there are the two different aspects being proposed; higher GVW and longer LCV's. On the weight front, that will definately favor US ag and natural resource producers in getting product from farm/forest/mile etc. to the nearest rail terminal. On the length front, longer trailer combinations will be of great aid to UPS and other LCL carriers for domestic light bulky loads. Neither will be of aid to overseas importers, who will still depend on their US railroad allys to get them containerloads of crap to the inner city masses.

Not to be picky here, but only to clarify for others. LCL is a railroad term, the trucking term is LTL, which for those that might wonder stands for "LESS then TRAILER LOAD." Also, for those asking what LCV stands for, its "LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLES." And applies to permitted movements of these combinations in the states that they operate.

As an example Nevada allows doubles (truck-tractor, trailer,con-gear, trailer) up to 70 feet over-all but not triples (truck-tractor, trailer, con-gear, trailer, con-gear, trailer) except by special over length permit.

LCVs for the most part are not semi-trailer truck-tractor combinations (truck-tractor, trailer) but are combinations such as "Rocky Mountain Sets" (truck-tractor, 45 or 48 foot trailer, con-gear, 28 foot trailer or reverse order on trailers), "Turn Pike doubles" (truck-tractor, 45 or 48 foot trailer, con-gear, 45 or 48 foot trailer) or "Triples" (truck-tractor, trailer, con-gear, trailer, con-gear, trailer). There are many other variations, but these are the most common LCVs.

A triples set:



Jimmy B

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chicagorails

more wear n tear to the allready rough roads. higher taxes
takes longer for heavier trucks to stop. more accidents.
are they not long enough? 40 ft. then 48 ft. then 53 ft. and 57 feet long !!
good news for traffic light manufacters. i couldnt make the corner , boss!!
makem bigger longer wider taller heavier, the rails can handle em,boys.!!

For most states the easy answer is "triples," hang another trailer on the end and it will not add to wear and tear on the highways, and this LCV is much more able to get from the interstate to the shipper, consignee or terminal than other types of LCVs without the side damage you mention. And by-the-way, here in Nevada, if you're driving one of the LCVs and you cause damage like what you mention, the company is responsible.

Here is the tractor I drive with a LCV set:



Jimmy "B"

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dblstack

Kurn - what a well reasoned, insightful and un-emotional response. Thank you for that. Do you have any actual data on how many owner operators are employed by the "big guys?" The answer is many thousands are employed by each of the top 3 truckload carriers. Can you explain why Schneider, Swift, etc would be in favor of high turnover? Lets see.... it costs nearly $10,000 per driver to recruit a replacment .... yeah .... high turn over.... that makes good economic sense..... I'm gonna push for that!!

Are you aware of any of the actual data on what some of the big carriers have done with driver wages and time at home in the last few years? More money and more time at home - those dirty so -and -so's......

To answer your question, for the past 10 years or more these "TL" (Truck Load) carriers have refused to raise wages in order to secure drivers. They spend many dollars in recruitment, but none on wages.

The average wage of a "TL" trucker is about $34,000 bucks a year, its been static for at least 13 years now, the same union trucker is now at about $60,000 to $90,000 bucks a year.

We hear all about supply and demand in a "Capitalist" economy, if this was true, non union wages would be at about 80 percent of union wages. It's not, these huge non-union carriers have a different agenda, its exploitation. Use them, burn them, get them moving to another low paid TL job.

Jimmy "B"

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Practice... lots of practice. Actually, it's not that hard to disconnect a trailer (or two of them) and back one trailer in. It takes a lot of cranking to drop the landing gear (not neccessary on the number two and three trailers) disconnect the air hoses, electrical connection, yank the fifth wheel release bar and sloooowly pull away. Then you can put up with observing the betting action going on on the dock as you back in.

Erik

[Anonymous]

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?

Trucking is a pull ahead industry. Most times when you have arrived at the destination its drop and hook untill everything is spotted. But, there are exceptions. At Fernley, NV and the MSC distribution center, there was a UPS guy on the Southern California pull, that always, without breaking his set of doubles, would back his rear box to the dock at MSC for the Southern California pull off.

At our barn, there are two that can smartly back the rear box of a set of doubles to a spot, without breaking the set. Me, I've backed a set out of a dead end situations a number of times.

Triples, never seen or heard of anyone doing that...

Jimmy B

[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,

[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