ATA now supports longer and/or heavier trucks

[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]

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]

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 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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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........?

[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]

Yea, I-57 parallels CN/IC through Illinois.

But I'm still not sold on this whole idea though. [|)]

[edbenton]

I 57 takes you down thru eastern IL by champaign urbana and is actually a short cut to memphis out of chicago.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by falconer

There is also a pu***o build an Interstate Highway (I-57) that paralelles the entire CN/IC mainline from the North to the South.

I theorize that some people want to combine that Interstate Highway building project with the 53' and 57' Long Trailers to fully compete with the CN/IC Mainline.

Andrew F.

Isn't there already an I-57, which hooks into I-55 paralleling the Mississippi River from St. Louis south...following the same route of CN/IC. Why would you build two interstate highways on either side of the river?

[Anonymous]

There is also a pu***o build an Interstate Highway (I-57) that paralelles the entire CN/IC mainline from the North to the South.

I theorize that some people want to combine that Interstate Highway building project with the 53' and 57' Long Trailers to fully compete with the CN/IC Mainline.

Andrew F.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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!

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........?

[Anonymous]

Labor Costs?

I see that pallet that is 40 inches by 48 inches inside the trailer and was told by a very old driver one time; that the pallet is the reason for the reduced labor requirements.

The way I heard it:

Boys and strong young men worked in the warehouses by the dozen moving everything mostly by hand until the mid 60's This was particularly true for provisions going onto shipping at the sea.

When pallets were placed into service it was not long before one person can stack em and load em into a truck or a boxcar at the same facility. It wasnt long before they did not need as many strong people to do the same day's labor.

That is the way I heard it, I may be totally off track but I see pallets as a very good labor saving tool.

Just dont get me started all over again on unpacking "Big wood" and restacking onto "Small wood" cargo that is being delivered into the reciever. Or the day someone discovered that cardboard sheets are cheaper than actual pallets.

Then there are pallets that needs to be shipped west at 8.00 each in value becuase the woods they use for them are not plentiful out there.

[Anonymous]

ouengr you hit the nail on the head in regards to the longer and heavier trucks. In regards to local distribution centers I think Railroad owned warehouses were once commonplace in the 1950s and 60s. Maybe someone here knows why so many were closed, but my guess would be due to labor costs and things of that nature. In the town of my birth (Eugene Oregon) espee had such a place and now it's an automobile wrecking yard. I agree that railroads need a break in fuel and property taxes as long as it's being used to lay tracks, buy locos and rolling stock as well as train personell.
As far as the capacity issue my big idea was equall parts wishfull thinking and attempting to be practical minded without knowing all the geographical specifics of the ROWs in question.

[ouengr]

QUOTE:
So you're saying Canadian bridges and roadway pavements are superior to the US versions?

No, different design standards. If you want to rebuild the entire system including all intersections, on ramps, etc then you could carry larger trucks. As it stands today, we do NOT design for the 53' trailer. IT IS STILL NOT A DESIGN VEHICLE IN THE US.

QUOTE:
And you also seem to be saying that it is better for 60 tons of cargo to be moved in two separate truck/trailers rather than being consolidated on one truck, regardless of weight displacement via wheel/pavement interaction. You as a civil engineer should know that more damage will result from the 2 x 80k as opposed to the 1 x 150k (axle/wheel weights being equal).

Your statement about the impact being equal is absolutely incorrect. I am not going to get into the advanced material reasons why, accept to state that the additional loads create strain further into the elastic portion of the deformation curve.

You seem to have the idea that additiional axles will reduce the structural loads on pavement. The loads are not converyed strait downto the subgrade. The loads are conveyed in a conical distrubution. Yes the addition of axles may reduce the surface stress but have little impact on the finite element stresses further in the pavement or subgrade.

QUOTE:
Those light load bridges you refer to have been for the most part replaced from major highway corridors. Can you give an example of an at risk bridge on our current Interstate System, e.g. one that would deteriorate at an accelerated rate if we replace 2 x 80k with 1 x 150k?

Bridges are designed to carry a specfic design weight. When you increase the weight on an individual span of a bridge the stresses and strains increase. Concrete and asphalt have a finite number of load cycles that they can carry before they fail. The higher the loads, the reduced number of cycles. The relationship is not linear. A 100T load may inelastically stress a beam to failure. A 10T load may permit 50 cycles. A 10lb load may permit hundreds of thousands of cycles. An increased load causes loading in a different portion of the of the stress strain curve. The further a member is strained, the fewer number of cycles are possible.

QUOTE:
Remember, doubling the allowable GVW will not result in a doubling of total tonnage moving over our highways. We are assuming total aggregate tonnage will only continue to increase at currently predicted trends. Why not actually decrease total aggregate tare tonnage relative to load tonnage?

Again, this is a matter of a stress strain situation.

QUOTE:
We need to get the mid distance and long distance trucks off of the roads and on the rails. The roadrailer system is one of the most efficient means of transportation today. Frankly, the ATA is greedy and is not concerened with who they kill or the additional expenses they thrust on the American people. [:(!]

Whereas the AAR and its minions are not the least bit greedy, have grave concern for who they kill/hospitalize/put on disability, and are deeply concerned about the additional expenses they thrust on the American people?[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]

[Anonymous]

Dave, unfortunately, is mixing apples and oranges
when he compares Canada's transportation system
to ours. Canada's population is less than 11%
of the United States.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/clock/population.htm

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

Its GDP is less than 1/11the size of the United States.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

We have 4,180,053 km of paved roads versus Canada's
493,080 km.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html

He ignores the physics of larger and heavier trucks
and the danger they pose to occupants of passenger
vehicles.

http://safety.transportation.org/doc/1p%20heavy%20trucks.pdf

As well as the driver psychology of motorists dealing with
ultra-heavy trucks.

He is correct that ultra-heavy trucks would reduce
the total number of trucks on the nation's highways,
but does not acknowledge the negative impact on our
highway bridges and overpasses

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_STR/FDOT_379.pdf

He offers a faith-based assertion that longer and
heavier trucks will aid American manufacturers
and bring more efficiency to the American economy,
which they may, but at what cost?

He postulates that we should allow ultra-heavy
trucks to approach their "natural weight and length limits"
without citing where in nature he found these data.
(Is a 200k GVW load and quadruple trailers un-natural?)

He doesn't offer a single fact supporting his argument
that "transportation policies favor imports over domestic
production." We didn't lose our consumer electronics
industry because of transportation policies, nor our
textile industry for that matter.

Should we worry about the trade deficit and our
anemic rate of savings? Absolutely, but if Honda
can produce a better car in this country than Ford,
I'm going to buy the Honda.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-id.trend19mar19,0,167898.story?coll=bal-business-headlines

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050414/default.htm

Just keep those ultra-heavy trucks off the highways.

Dave

[edbenton]

Saftey Valve you nailed it right on the head there. At my last company I was the what the personal director the make or break em trainer. I got them at the end of teh honeymoon so to speak. This company does not turn any driver loose solo til tehy have at least a year OTR experiance. I got this one trainee and he flat out said I only drive 400 miles in my shift and then I am done. I told him either you start going 600 miles a shift our get the hell out of the truck right now. He started to cry in the personal office to the retention director one of my friends. Mic looked him in the eye andsaid shut up and do your job the guy you are with is the hardest runner we have. That guy quit that day.

What needs to be done instead of increasing weghts is to have it so the drivers drive and shippers and recievers load and or unload the goods. This crap about having to load 45000 lbs of product then have to unload it at the other end sucks. The one way that all this will change is for the companies to get together and say you want it moved you load and unload it then our part is to haul it. Also the issue of detention time needs to be addressed were you are held more than 2 hours to load or unload [past your appt time then the driver gets 20 bucks an hour. The shipper should be billed 60 bucks an hour to cover the costs for the company. I know none of this will happen so sorry for getting on my[soapbox] but I need to clear the air.

[Anonymous]

OMG here we go again.

"War stories" "Ideas about running legal" "Dreams of good living and fat paychecks" among the students in current trucking schools.

When I went to MY trucking school the class was about 5 instructors and 20 people. We had equiptment ranging from the old WC whites to a Transtar that was used for road training. Sure there was some "Fun and Games" and a bit of what we called Rodeo. (Not the sanitized and sponsored rodeos of today) but the class dealt with fears that each one of us had in a variety of ways and drummed into us that trucking is brutal, dangerous and will cost lives, property and injuries if you cannot stand up to the duties required of you. (Sounds sorta like rairloading huh?)

My "war stories" will scare the hell out of any student wanna be trucker. And cause companies to seriously consider if they want to hire me. They probably would because I can "Legally" turn 15,000 miles a month by myself while requiring TWO oil changes on the same tractor in that time period. And "Running Legal?" I should have been arrested and the dispatchers fired LONG time ago but whose fault is that? Mine. I say "Yes sir" click that load onto MY fifth wheel and set in for that 3000 mile run that will pay 2200 miles and required delivery in 3 days (With 14 hours lost already due to process of actually getting a load)

I stand with arms akimo and laugh bitterly when I see that 50 young drivers fill orientation each week with dreams (And any one should have good dreams and aspirations during a prospective new hire process) that are about to be shattered when the dispatchers quit the honeymoon 1000 mile a week and start demanding JIT service under threat of firing if service failed.

Many many people become casulties of this type of work. I think that I did ok, but I am not ok... know what I mean? What about the cyclist I almost killed in New York because I did not get enough sleep? Will that man I missed "By this MUCH" scream every night having night mares of that 53' trailer blazing by 5 inches from his left side at 70 mph plus while choking on brake smoke and rubber burn from my wheels?

No. Longer and heavier trucks. NO. we fix the trucking at the dispatcher and driver level and make the shipping, recieving process much more friendly time wise. When I started we would get california to new jersey in a 8 day period. PLENTY of time to do the job right especially in a unforgiving western mountains filled with ice, snow and other terrors that confront the weak. No. We have to do it in 3 days after just finishing a 5 day marathon run that has exhausted the driver.

My personal record is Garden City Kansas to just North of Salinas by way of Flagstaff AZ non stop. I have had many other runs and no one to blame but me. I just thank god that no one has been killed while I drove. Just scared senseless and unable to function yes... but not killed. That was the first and last rule I was taught in school, never take a life when you are on duty.

I broke many rules but never that one thank the lord.

I suppose that I feel very strongly about actually adding weight or length to an already maxed out trucking fleet horsewhipped by greedy shippers who cannot pay one bloody cent more than what they paid 10 years ago on the god*** 40' trailers simply because there are just too many hungry drivers out there willing to take a load to get something to eat and maybe feed the family for that week.

THAT is where problem is, how do you think Airline pilots are able to do thier jobs? Pay em well and protect thier hours. THEN give them equiptment strong enough to the task and teach them the duty and need to live it well as they travel. The rest will take care of itself.

What a waste. 100,000 very good drivers probably said "No more" and went back home to work in McDonalds or tend to the family. We probably went thru 500,000 more drivers who only discovered the reason why they got hired so fast the first week.

This entire problem facing trucking in the USA cannot be fixed by paving good roads (It will help immensly) or adding more capacity (Sure please that shipper happy to be rid of the product) or increasing the weights (Sure over tax the Law Enforcement who must then upgrade or build new stronger scales to fine the unwary driver or company on)

It can only be fixed by a deep fundemental cultural change in trucking and it has to start with the scheduling.

I remember when satellite communication showed up. I was a happy driver being able to communicate. Little did I know that satellite will be whored as a "Time management" TOOL by dispatch eager to get the last mile out of the truck before midnight. It took me some time before I realized this little fact.

Seems like too many loads are "Hot" only to rot in the warehouse a day or two before it is actually consumed. I refuse to haul another hot load unless it is ammunition for the military who needs it or medicines for the sick who need them right now. NOT widgets or toilet paper or some such that rots on a walmart shelf 2 months.

That folks is why some drivers refuse to run. They have seen the light and hopefully are enjoying a better (Not necessarily richer) life to save what was wasted and lost while trying to serve the alter of the almighty dollar.

[PBenham]

The problem is that we will pay the costs of larger trucks one way or another. One way is that if they have to go on using the "inefficient" trucks allowed on the highways now, we will be paying more for everything since transportation costs will rise faster than our wages. But if we allow bigger trucks we will STILL be paying for the needed repairs, re-design work and re-construction of the interstates in the form of higher taxes. We are going to pay one way or another here. When railroads have to re-build themselves most, if not all the costs and the[censored], will come out of their pockets and ours. How? Well, interest rates will go up on all other loans made by the banks to the railroads, since they have to "hedge their bets", Protecting a risky venture the way they always do-- by raising rates and fees charged to their "bottom feeding" customers.[B)] I apologize to you all for that, but, that is how your bank looks at you and(more important) at me![*^_^*]

[csxns]

Now who will pay for the staging areas us taxpayers or the trucking compaines.

[art11758]

I'm following along here and I have a question for you traveling types. Ever driven on the roads in Canada? They were really beat up when I was there trucking over twenty years ago. In Michigan you are allowed 167K on an I seem to recall 11 axle combination. The roads there stink too! In NY on the thruway system they have those staging areas for the big turnpike twins. Still gotta break 'em down and set 'em up. Bigger trucks were always the idea of the shippers and recievers. Everyone execept the driver wins. I, like Ed and Sam, don't miss a minute of the bull that went with what was an interesting job when I was younger. (not commenting on that no sleep stuff though......)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

Sam I agree with you to a T. I did things when I drove that now scare the HELL out of me. 44 hours Salinas to Salem IL 2300 miles total length paid miles. I wonder how did I not kill someone on that run. My doctor says my epielpsy could be due to all the so called legal things I took to stay awake to do runs like that. I know more than once I was awake 36 40 hours at a time to get loads delivered on time.

***, good thing I'm a 9-5'er (so to speak) driving a truck. I don't know how you guys can do that.

[edbenton]

Sam I agree with you to a T. I did things when I drove that now scare the HELL out of me. 44 hours Salinas to Salem IL 2300 miles total length paid miles. I wonder how did I not kill someone on that run. My doctor says my epielpsy could be due to all the so called legal things I took to stay awake to do runs like that. I know more than once I was awake 36 40 hours at a time to get loads delivered on time.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton

I talked to a couple friends of mine that are still drivers. They flat out said I will work at Mcdonalds than go any longer or heavier. These drivers all have 20 plus yrs out there and they hate it now.

And the truck driving schools continue to mint out new drivers whose heads are full of war stories, and mistaken ideas. Individuals, who in reality, "have not seen the ball since the game started." New drivers who will tell their dispatchers, "...that they won't run illegal for anybody, and they run by the rules...." Drivers that will soon be advanced out, without pay ckecks of any meaningful size to take home, when they get the opportunity. Or they want to go home every week-end. They soon learn what it takes to make a living, or to move on, accumulate experience,and then apply for a better job. As with evey job, entry level is just that, hard work, little appreciation, and nut bustin' work, until some seniority is accrued.
Ed is right, today, trucking sucks, and it is sounding louder and louder.
Sam

[edbenton]

I talked to a couple friends of mine that are still drivers. They flat out said I will work at Mcdonalds than go any longer or heavier. These drivers all have 20 plus yrs out there and they hate it now.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

There is one problem to allowing larger gross weight and longer trucks on only controlled-access highways and certain other roads while barring them from "tight-clearance" city/suburban roads and streets. Since not all large shippers are conveniently located on the roads that would allow the larger trucks, a certain amount of trans-loading or breakdown of triple-bottom rigs (with its own set of costs) would be required.

Other postings have suggested that allowing larger trucks is a political hot potato and their musings are on the mark in this regard.