Ours was governed at 67 mph visible on the speedometer but personal Laptop GPS revealed the true goverened speed to be 63 mph yeilding a max average of 42-43 mph possible with actual trip planning at 28-35 miles an hour. When I approached the saftey dept with the GPS data and asked to be "Up-governed" to the proper company speed of 67 I was told to keep quiet as the company makes alot of savings this way.
No, I ran dollar trucks long ago and used to keep a list of mile markers regularly used by LEO's and would begin the braking to come out of the 110's down to whatever speed 5 miles out. Anything sooner will mean you show blue smoke from hot brakes on flat ground at 70 mph to the LEO. If that isnt a waving the red-flag in front of a bull I dont know what is.
NYC to Youngstown disappeared very quickly at those speeds. Miles burg hill at 90 mph upgrade loaded for the first 7 of 10 miles until momentum wore off was a thrill... coming over the top at 65+ fully loaded while the poor saps slogged at 15 mph in the right lane or shoulder.
Ive had R model macks at 3 grand in the far left lane on the Legion Bridge at the VA/Md Border. Something that is not possible today. The first 4 of 6 to the silo to unload makes an extra load or 70 dollars for that day's work making such speeds worth the risk as citations back then were only about 60 dollars and a few points.
Ive been beat by faster trucks and am humbled at the engineering that makes such fast rigs possible. Elpaso to Houston.. 150+ mph or more I dont know.
I do feel those days are pernamently over.
In my last days on the road I was more than content to slog up hill and get down with brakes still cold and ready in case I needed them.
Safety Valve wrote: Ours was governed at 67 mph visible on the speedometer but personal Laptop GPS revealed the true goverened speed to be 63 mph yeilding a max average of 42-43 mph possible with actual trip planning at 28-35 miles an hour. When I approached the saftey dept with the GPS data and asked to be "Up-governed" to the proper company speed of 67 I was told to keep quiet as the company makes alot of savings this way.No, I ran dollar trucks long ago and used to keep a list of mile markers regularly used by LEO's and would begin the braking to come out of the 110's down to whatever speed 5 miles out. Anything sooner will mean you show blue smoke from hot brakes on flat ground at 70 mph to the LEO. If that isnt a waving the red-flag in front of a bull I dont know what is. NYC to Youngstown disappeared very quickly at those speeds. Miles burg hill at 90 mph upgrade loaded for the first 7 of 10 miles until momentum wore off was a thrill... coming over the top at 65+ fully loaded while the poor saps slogged at 15 mph in the right lane or shoulder.Ive had R model macks at 3 grand in the far left lane on the Legion Bridge at the VA/Md Border. Something that is not possible today. The first 4 of 6 to the silo to unload makes an extra load or 70 dollars for that day's work making such speeds worth the risk as citations back then were only about 60 dollars and a few points.Ive been beat by faster trucks and am humbled at the engineering that makes such fast rigs possible. Elpaso to Houston.. 150+ mph or more I dont know.I do feel those days are pernamently over.In my last days on the road I was more than content to slog up hill and get down with brakes still cold and ready in case I needed them.
OK. I believe 100 or 110, but I don't buy 150. No offense intended. You're a good guy.
The apples from Yakima to Little Rock belong on a train, not on a "dollar" truck. You can thank "Your Federal Government" for diverting the fruit to the trucks.
I have a friend/acquaintance who drives local for Con Way. He used to do over the road. We've both got way too much experience driving I-94 between Chicago and the Twin Cities. (My experience being in a car or SUV) A J.B. driver almost killed me one night about an hour north of Madison. But that's another story.
So I'm talking to my friend and relating the story of the J.B. driver. Friend has got his own story. He tops a grade northbound at Tomah, looks in the mirror, and sees his 2nd trailer "comming on around". He said he just clutched the steering wheel with his two hands and his forehead.
The "Hang on For Dear Life" strategy worked. And he lived to tell the story with no wreck. But he's an experienced commercial driver and he's convinced multiple trailers are not safe.
greyhounds wrote: Safety Valve wrote: Ours was governed at 67 mph visible on the speedometer but personal Laptop GPS revealed the true goverened speed to be 63 mph yeilding a max average of 42-43 mph possible with actual trip planning at 28-35 miles an hour. When I approached the saftey dept with the GPS data and asked to be "Up-governed" to the proper company speed of 67 I was told to keep quiet as the company makes alot of savings this way.No, I ran dollar trucks long ago and used to keep a list of mile markers regularly used by LEO's and would begin the braking to come out of the 110's down to whatever speed 5 miles out. Anything sooner will mean you show blue smoke from hot brakes on flat ground at 70 mph to the LEO. If that isnt a waving the red-flag in front of a bull I dont know what is. NYC to Youngstown disappeared very quickly at those speeds. Miles burg hill at 90 mph upgrade loaded for the first 7 of 10 miles until momentum wore off was a thrill... coming over the top at 65+ fully loaded while the poor saps slogged at 15 mph in the right lane or shoulder.Ive had R model macks at 3 grand in the far left lane on the Legion Bridge at the VA/Md Border. Something that is not possible today. The first 4 of 6 to the silo to unload makes an extra load or 70 dollars for that day's work making such speeds worth the risk as citations back then were only about 60 dollars and a few points.Ive been beat by faster trucks and am humbled at the engineering that makes such fast rigs possible. Elpaso to Houston.. 150+ mph or more I dont know.I do feel those days are pernamently over.In my last days on the road I was more than content to slog up hill and get down with brakes still cold and ready in case I needed them.OK. I believe 100 or 110, but I don't buy 150. No offense intended. You're a good guy. The apples from Yakima to Little Rock belong on a train, not on a "dollar" truck. You can thank "Your Federal Government" for diverting the fruit to the trucks.I have a friend/acquaintance who drives local for Con Way. He used to do over the road. We've both got way too much experience driving I-94 between Chicago and the Twin Cities. (My experience being in a car or SUV) A J.B. driver almost killed me one night about an hour north of Madison. But that's another story.So I'm talking to my friend and relating the story of the J.B. driver. Friend has got his own story. He tops a grade northbound at Tomah, looks in the mirror, and sees his 2nd trailer "comming on around". He said he just clutched the steering wheel with his two hands and his forehead.The "Hang on For Dear Life" strategy worked. And he lived to tell the story with no wreck. But he's an experienced commercial driver and he's convinced multiple trailers are not safe.
I concede that the 150 is not that great. 130 maybe. The tires wont take it.
I stayed away from multipule trailers. To haul those on the east coast meant to ride very short wheel base tractors which was really bad for the back on that concrete back then. I have zero experience with multipules. I cannot imagine the procedure (If any) to get out of a multi jack... I think the best procedure is always not to get into one at all.
Ive a few with a trailer and when it breaks loose you only have a moment to decide just where to put the steering wheel. If you wait too long or mis-calulate you will NEVER get the rig back. Skid pad training is one way to reinforce this. Sadly many CDL Mills never see a Skidpad.
In fact, I think the current system of the CDL Mill be ripped up and tossed. Why is it that we can place a 20 year old Soldier in Charge of a multi-million/crewed platform doing a vital mission and have that soldier do it effectively within reasonable human limits or mission limits. Yet we cannot stop a driver who has not stopped to bathe in 10 days or do laundry once a week because "He's gotta go" Something is flat broke in the industry.
The full trains on the turnpike (Ok two 45 foot trailers does not a train make...) were very special, you could see the driver input a steering movement and just about watch it travel from axle to axle all the way back.
If I sit down and add up the number of moments where there is great clarity and potential for loss of life or injury... I would be committed to the funny farm long ago. You will lose a few along the way and just count your peices and move on. Some of those include my own life thanks to driving while sleepy. I have nothing to blame but me for that.
I kinda got into alot of counter-top talk here in this thread as I cannot keep my mouth shut.
Final word: LCV and greater GVW's are not the solution.
Training, Pay and Oversight at all levels is the answer. Yes you run smaller freight and might take a little longer but everyone will be regulated and more rested for the work.
Somehow I think that day will be a long time coming. There has been trucking since World War One and little has changed. You would think with today's so-called modern society that Truckers would indeed be Kings of the Road in the traditional style. The USA is by nature a consumptive or consuming society that gives very little back.
The price increase on each item is more than a few cents it is more like 10 cents, 20 cents, 30 cents on many items. Buy 20 items and you will definitely pay at least $2 more a week than one year ago, if you shop carefully. If you are not watching for sales you might pay $10 more a week.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Good conversation.
I believe quite a bit of pricing increases these days is "because we can". I noticed it a couple of years ago when petro chemical costs went up and companies used it as an excuse to bump prices 3-5%...then did it again 6 months later.
Regarding the life of truck drivers, these are fascinating tales. When was it possible to run a tractor/trailer 100mph? The speeds have really been pinched down the past few years. I dont ever recall a trucker at anywhere near 100, but I do remember getting behind many trucks in the 80mph+ range back in teh day.
ed
About the time electronic engines promised fuel savings back in the early 90's
I think in those days we ran 300 or 350 big cam IV's and 370 detroits, 425 cats. All naturally air breathing desiels with hardly anything fancy tied to them electronically.
Suddenly Management found that they can push buttons and communicate, follow trucks and turn them off and on via satellite with the new Qualcomm. It spread like wildfire.
We are still getting around 6 miles to the gallon, rolling throwaway lease trucks, mileage each week is not much better and delivery success is worse off than we were back in the days of regulation.
For me the Mid 90's with a Freightliner COE with the 470 detroit gave me a 108 mph top speed and the harder you pull on those detroits the more it refuses to give up power until you lug it below 1100 rpm.
Then the engines were cut down from 2300 rpm down to 2100 and eventually to just over 1600 on the govenor.
At first we would find a Owner operator with a diagnoistic unit and a few dollars later had a unrestricted engine or slightly adjusted governer sorta bumped to the top of the RPM range and it would not be discovered until 6 months later at the company shop. "What? Speed changed? Huh. I dont know nothing about those fancy computer stuff."
Now companies demonstrate total control or nearly so over properly equipped trucks. They can download real-time information as you drive and order replacement parts to catch the one that is showing indications of breaking or failing.
I remember another one that used a onboard computer called Trip Master. If you did not run the engine at stop lights (Shutting it off and restarting it again) you stood to make an extra 130 dollars or more on top of your already fat paycheck. I have always wondered how many starter motor replacements it took for them to stop that little practice.
Today you can consist the trailer to the tractor. Back with McKesson as soon as you put it on the 5th wheel and enter the data to activate the trailer youre in business. From that moment on anything happens with that million dollar load inside they know about it with or without the tractor.
Some reefers can make a automatic call over satellite to Transicold or Carrier to have a service truck meet the unit that is experiencing problems somewhere convient. The driver does not have to know anything about the problem. It will be taken care of before the cargo is lost.
One other thing. That fancy computer does not know the difference between one gallon of coolant on it's metal sensor or a paper clip. When you are just a little low and get shut down without your say-so 300 miles out of nowhere it can be inconvient and in some situations life-threatening depending on weather.
Safety Valve wrote: Then the engines were cut down from 2300 rpm down to 2100 and eventually to just over 1600 on the govenor.
I worked for a small fleet owner that turned the RPM's down to 1700 on all ten or so of his Detroit motors (and Cats and cummins too, come to think of it, but that's not part of the story.). Anyway, he kept having problems with the engines spitting out turbos, and wound up changing motors on at least two that I know of, and doing a cam change on a third. From what I remember, Detroit was blaming the problem on the RPM settings, and threatened to deny his warranty claims for these motors. Keep in mind, all these engines had less than 500k on them. Owner never budged on the governor settings, don't know what became of the warranty bit, but I do know that owner lost his Western Star dealership......
Randy Vos
"Ever have one of those days where you couldn't hit the ground with your hat??" - Waylon Jennings
"May the Lord take a liking to you and blow you up, real good" - SCTV
Oh, yeah we had "triple digit" trucks. I had a Pete that loved to run....Wyoming, Nevada, Nebraska, Utah among others. Loaded with fresh eggs out of Salt Lake at 10:00 pm for a 7:00 am delivery in Reno and still wanting to stop and fuel/eat/shower?....no problem. Running grain or flour out of Salt Lake to L.A. ,The boss had a "Jesus" list -2 turns one week. 3 the next. That is about 16,000 miles a month. This way you were home every other day for a few hours.
I recently retired from 28 years on the road. I was an owner-operator a lot of that time. I ALSO was an owner of a company that ran LCV's. The real problem with them is the freight rate. Anymore the rate is almost the same as a regular truckload. In fact, the last few years we quit pulling both LCV's and Hazmat because of the insurance costs. We were hauling fuel and the customers got to the point that they would only pay the costs of hauling 7,000 gals of diesel, but wanted 11,500 gals delivered.
If you run the Intermountain West,(Nevada,Utah,Wyoming,Colorado,Idaho) you will see super tankers almost exclusively. They have to run them because all of the competition has to. The driver pay is only about .05 more per mile on the average, so the drivers really do not want to pull them. You can lobby for longer, heavier rigs, but that does not mean that the market will bear the costs.
The wear on the roads from LCV's is also much greater. However, to run LCV's, your drivers/eqiptment, and your company must pass very stringent audits from your state and insurance companies BEFORE you are granted the permits to even pull such rigs.
I now work for a Media Relations company in L.A. as a consultant on Railroad/ Trucking and LCV issues. I also still work for DETAILS WEST part time making detail parts.
Keith Turley
Hm.
I remember a few trucks covered in oil after turbos failed. Seems quite a few did.
A desiel feels really good in the old tradition when you were about the mid-point between high torque and max horsepower on the engine's curve. I think different engines had different curves where there was what we called the "Sweet spot" and with the older desiels my favorite memory is when the engine did settle into that spot between 1450-1700 rpm give or take a few the resulting music was really good. You could just hold the hammer just so and run.
The newer governed engines required you to put your foot on the floor all day and the night. I got tired and have a bad foot to show for it. Always kicking that POS engine that seems to fall off it's spot, never quite developing full boost on the turbo and quite literally feeling like it's half full of water and rated at 80 horsepower. It did not matter if you were at sea level or passing Esienhower at 12,900 feet.
I actually relied on that cruise control to keep that engine at the top of the availible governed capacity. You get up to Kansas against the winds running to Denver by way of Limon and it gets aggravating having to drop a gear because your casterated mill wont hold torque or lug worth a damn.
I recall hauling steel with a tiny M11 cummins rated at 2100 and not restricted at all. Driving that Volvo was a JOY compared to the Freightsled with the big 370 cut down at 1600. Rip across the great smokies with the Volvo with hardly a thought to shifting while on the other hand fighting and kicking a POS casterated governed truck up the hill, over the top holding it down all the way to the bottom and over again... BLEAH.
I complained at length about the poor driveablity of some of the badly governed engines and dont expect non drivers to understand.
here is another try at explaination. Im stuck behind grandma at 45 mph on a 70 mph interstate. I see the coast is clear, pull out into the dead lane and accelerate. 5 mph and there is a sort of feeling thrown forward as you hit the governor and now grandma is speeding up a little bit. Just enough. In the older trucks I would have stored up the horses and hammered it down and finished the pass in a timely manner.
Ever wonder why trucks clog the interstate both or even all three lanes all trying to pass Swift or slowpoke on the far right? All of them governed at or below the 65 mph speed limit constantly shuffling and jockeying to let the faster dogs first while the slows fall back. It can take 2 hours or 100 miles to sort it all out.
Back in the old days you had horses first and the slows in the back while LEO's tried to find the ones who are breaking the speed limit and no one had trouble trying to get past the trucks.
And you want to burden a already cut down engine with MORE weight and present MORE surface area to those bad winds?
HAH.
spokyone wrote: trainfan1221 wrote:From somebody who works in this industry, I can tell ya I always have to answer as to why prices are going up, especially milk. Very often its due to increased transportation fees for the usual reason, fuel prices.I have not seen a jump in prices at my local supermarket. Milk is still $1.49 for 1/2 gallon of 1%. I have expected prices to increase in my town because of electricity costs. My house has electric forced air. My January bill in 2006 was $160. This year it was $402. Some of the convenience stores have unplugged the ice cream coolers and shortened their hours. Deregulation of electricity caused the spike in areas served by AmerenIP. This is short story of what happened. 10 years ago, a rate freeze was imposed, thinking that competition would occur when freeze ended. Illinois Power generated nearly all their own power with coal fired plants. Recently, Ameren bought IP, then sold the generating facilities to a subsidy of Ameren, which is not regulated. When the freeze ended, AmerenIP told lawmakers they were at the mercy of the power producers and would go bankrupt if the rate freeze was extended. When we rate payers saw our power bills, we complained. The lawmakers promised they would look into it.
trainfan1221 wrote:From somebody who works in this industry, I can tell ya I always have to answer as to why prices are going up, especially milk. Very often its due to increased transportation fees for the usual reason, fuel prices.
Deregulation of public utilities is ultimately a no win situation for consumers, for exactly the reasons you note above, resale of assets and 'excess' capacity. Your's was electricity. my experience was the deregulation of Georgi'a natural gas supply. It was a year long ordeal of various suppliers who waged a television campaigne for consumers to sign with them and how good they were going to have... And then the bankruptcies of those suppliers and the ensuing scramble to find a new supplier. It was at the very least an insane circus. The net final result was instead of one bill for natual gas, there were TWO bills, one from the original company who provided the delivery service [infrastructure for gas delivery]for the gas. Instead of a smaller bill it was was virtually the same as they had developed a plethora of 'fees' to deliver that gas. The consumer was charged for new pipeline installations and for depreciationb, collection of product, all manner of taxes the list was long and interminable. The the bill came from the people who supplied the gas to the delivery structure, their charges were laid out in a similar long list. Net result was a more or less doubling of retail natural gas pricing for Georgia. What business leaders would pimp as a 'win-win' situation! and political infrastructures view as a whole new resource for funding....
Safety:It really burns me to be running, particularly on I65 North out of Indy and you got bumper to bumper at 80mph and then it comes to a screaching halt for 5 miles as a truck pulls out in the left lane to pass someone and everything bumps down to 63 mph.
Now, I understand WHY that is. Thanks for the insight.
edbenton wrote: FM I ran all 48 states and Canada and trust me the drivers that got paid more were the ones that ran the NORTHEAST. We called them the Loonys anyone crazy enough to take a 53 footer into downtown Boston or New York can have the Extra Money they got. As for a company paying a driver extra to pull a LCV FORGET IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. All that extra revenue will go straight to the owners pockets. The Mega-Carriers like Swift JB Hunt Werner Schiender are all out there cutting rates and trying to drive the small companies out of Business that way they can then force drivers to work for 25-30 cpm and drive trucks that only run 65 maybe 68 mph. The companies leading the charge for the LCV are the Mega carriers why you ask they are the ones faced year in year out with turnover rates of 150% that is right every year they have to replace every driver on avarage 1.5 times in their trucks. Yes they have some long term drivers but when it costs you 5K to hire a new driver and get him into your truck and you have 19K trucks in Swift's case it gets expensive. Drivers also are forced to wait for hours to get unloaded or reloaded and get paid NOTHING for this time and with LCV's that would be worse. Who led the charge to get rid of Detintion time for drivers the MEGA-CARRIERS again. Now lets see here you have a group of companies that are interested in one thing getting their all ready wealthy CEO's richer on the backs of the people that earn him the money with underpowered equipment that can barely safely maintain highway speeds at current weights. Now YOU meaning FM want to allow them to add another 40K to the gross weight to that while not paying them anymore and also not improving parking or the loading or unloading situation all across the US. Lets also throw in lack of regulations on fresh produce. Remember that Spinach recall last year it was not the GROWERS OR THE RECIEVERS that got stuck with the bill of getting rid of it if it was in transit it was the TRUCKERS THAT HAD IT ON THE TRUCK.
FM I ran all 48 states and Canada and trust me the drivers that got paid more were the ones that ran the NORTHEAST. We called them the Loonys anyone crazy enough to take a 53 footer into downtown Boston or New York can have the Extra Money they got. As for a company paying a driver extra to pull a LCV FORGET IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. All that extra revenue will go straight to the owners pockets. The Mega-Carriers like Swift JB Hunt Werner Schiender are all out there cutting rates and trying to drive the small companies out of Business that way they can then force drivers to work for 25-30 cpm and drive trucks that only run 65 maybe 68 mph. The companies leading the charge for the LCV are the Mega carriers why you ask they are the ones faced year in year out with turnover rates of 150% that is right every year they have to replace every driver on avarage 1.5 times in their trucks. Yes they have some long term drivers but when it costs you 5K to hire a new driver and get him into your truck and you have 19K trucks in Swift's case it gets expensive. Drivers also are forced to wait for hours to get unloaded or reloaded and get paid NOTHING for this time and with LCV's that would be worse. Who led the charge to get rid of Detintion time for drivers the MEGA-CARRIERS again.
Now lets see here you have a group of companies that are interested in one thing getting their all ready wealthy CEO's richer on the backs of the people that earn him the money with underpowered equipment that can barely safely maintain highway speeds at current weights. Now YOU meaning FM want to allow them to add another 40K to the gross weight to that while not paying them anymore and also not improving parking or the loading or unloading situation all across the US. Lets also throw in lack of regulations on fresh produce. Remember that Spinach recall last year it was not the GROWERS OR THE RECIEVERS that got stuck with the bill of getting rid of it if it was in transit it was the TRUCKERS THAT HAD IT ON THE TRUCK.
You have to remember two things: (1) the current GVW and LCV regs are basically federal, so any changes to GVW and LCV can be accomodated by a subsequent federal mandate for higher pay with these overreg consists. The CEO's will still gladly pay the extra wages, as they still get the benefit of higher load factor and they can fit the extra pay as a percentage of the increased take. (2)What works for railroads will also work for truckers. Allowing a higher GVW in most instances means replacing two rigs with one, so there'd be less wear and tear on roads for a given amount of tonnage. Lower GVW regs would only mean more trucks on the road.
Remember also that railroads cover a very small portion of the country compared to highways. Should we punish those areas that don't have competitive rail service by limiting the other transport options?
Let me give you an example of how an increase in GVW regs would both alleviate traffic congestion and make certain areas of the country more competitive with those areas blessed with multiple transport options. Take the 20' container - currently weighs out at about 59,000 max. With the weight of the cab and the chassis, you get a total GVW of 80,000. Now, out West the standard GVW reg is 105,500 - not a fearful weight max by any measure, right? Some states allow 129,000 GVW. So basically for the haulage of 20' containers loaded with USA ag products for export we have the trucks hauling those fully loaded containers at about 25,500 underweight on average, not real efficient. But to haul two 20' containers in a b-train consist would exceed the 105k GVW standard by 42,500 lbs, maxing out at 148,000. Thus to haul two 20' containers requires two sets of rigs with two drivers at 80k each or 160k total.
Which is more efficient - 148k or 160k? Which causes more congestion - two rigs or one rig?
Allowing this increase in GVW to 148k would result in an increase in ton/mile fuel efficiency and a decrease in the number of rigs on the road. Keep in mind also that this b-train config would still be within the current vehicle length limits.
So in this case the driver makes, say 30% extra pay, the company better utilizes it's driver workforce in a time of driver shortages, the roads experience 12,000 lbs less per two containers passing over, drivers only have to pass one rig instead of two, and the fuel efficiency per load factor increases 11%.
It's a win, win, win, win, and win for everyone!
Keep in mind also that this is one of the more extreme scenarios. The b-train config could also handle a 20' and a 40', and the average weight per container usually is less than max. If these hauls are in the usual 300 to 500 mile corridors, the railroads aren't going after this traffic anyway.
edbenton wrote:Agreed I will never forget that 88 International I drove 444 Big Cam turned I should say properly rebuilt to handle it to a 780 HP beast no top end governor and turning a 13 double over with a set of 3.55 rears holding 24.5 tall rubber in the back. One night coming back across SD hooked up with Randy Marten of Marten Transport. He was coming out of someplace after picking up a bike for himself someplace. He had heard about my rig and goes her is the deal you PASS me I buy you dinner even if you do not I am still buying the fuel for you across the state. If we get caught by LEO's my lawyers will keep the ticket off your CDL and I will post your bail and pay the fine. Now lets go. We were clicking off milemarkers at roughly 24 seconds each when I noticed he was maxed out. I looked at my tach and saw I had 300 RPM left before hitting the REDLINE. I ended up with a free steak dinner in Sioux Falls. I miss that truck.
Usually we had walk a-ways at the green light, The first one to pull away or "Walk off" by the time the shifting was finished is the top dog. Not too bad for urban racing for the time.
Finally my favorite is the "First to the top" of a hill. I was on Fancy in Virginia once running hard with a little 350 mack thinking I was top dog. I hear this growl of a desiel that is quite tuned far beyond anything on the highway and this pete blows my doors with stack fire showing and towing a flatbed loaded to the max with highway concrete dividers.
If that isnt a show of dominance I dont know what is.
Long before the Shareholders actually cared about profits we used to run the hills with lights off late at night with just the stars. Now there is just too many lights and way too much candlepower "Aka Light pollution" from the many stops that erases the sky at night. You have to get out to the Humdolt, Cabbage or up on the Bitterroots to see the stars the way God intended.
Oh regarding that redline, I wasnt happy until I was on the other side of it. I usually pay for it down the road when the shop gets ahold of it.
Furutemodal, your forgetting one thing. The companies wont pay the extra dime to the drivers. They probably won't even get that extra dime from their customers to pay the driver even if the company wanted to. That extra weight eats more fuel and eats up brakes. Most companies, especially container co. hardly maintain their equipment enough to handle 80K without blowing up occassionaly. Besides, most of the container loads I hauled were in the 83-91K range already. Customers STILL think that because it's going on the rail that it's a short distance with no scales.
Another driver and I were ask once to haul four 20ft. boxes chi-col. we joked about double stacking them. The DS managed to get forty ft chassies that were designed to haul twin 20's. There rare and hard to get. We went to NYK's Forest Hill, picked them up, and went back to the terminal to get our box #'s. We remarked how much we were going to get hauling 2 boxes each, half a weeks work in one run, SWEET. "OH, No, no. no. Your only getting paid for one. You get paid by the mile, not the boxes." The chassies immedianty went back to Forest Hill. DS got pissed and we got stuck doing city work for two days. Now we know why those chassie are rare. Why buy something nobdy wants to use.
Safety Valve wrote: greyhounds wrote: Safety Valve wrote: Ours was governed at 67 mph visible on the speedometer but personal Laptop GPS revealed the true goverened speed to be 63 mph yeilding a max average of 42-43 mph possible with actual trip planning at 28-35 miles an hour. When I approached the saftey dept with the GPS data and asked to be "Up-governed" to the proper company speed of 67 I was told to keep quiet as the company makes alot of savings this way.No, I ran dollar trucks long ago and used to keep a list of mile markers regularly used by LEO's and would begin the braking to come out of the 110's down to whatever speed 5 miles out. Anything sooner will mean you show blue smoke from hot brakes on flat ground at 70 mph to the LEO. If that isnt a waving the red-flag in front of a bull I dont know what is. NYC to Youngstown disappeared very quickly at those speeds. Miles burg hill at 90 mph upgrade loaded for the first 7 of 10 miles until momentum wore off was a thrill... coming over the top at 65+ fully loaded while the poor saps slogged at 15 mph in the right lane or shoulder.Ive had R model macks at 3 grand in the far left lane on the Legion Bridge at the VA/Md Border. Something that is not possible today. The first 4 of 6 to the silo to unload makes an extra load or 70 dollars for that day's work making such speeds worth the risk as citations back then were only about 60 dollars and a few points.Ive been beat by faster trucks and am humbled at the engineering that makes such fast rigs possible. Elpaso to Houston.. 150+ mph or more I dont know.I do feel those days are pernamently over.In my last days on the road I was more than content to slog up hill and get down with brakes still cold and ready in case I needed them.OK. I believe 100 or 110, but I don't buy 150. No offense intended. You're a good guy. The apples from Yakima to Little Rock belong on a train, not on a "dollar" truck. You can thank "Your Federal Government" for diverting the fruit to the trucks.I have a friend/acquaintance who drives local for Con Way. He used to do over the road. We've both got way too much experience driving I-94 between Chicago and the Twin Cities. (My experience being in a car or SUV) A J.B. driver almost killed me one night about an hour north of Madison. But that's another story.So I'm talking to my friend and relating the story of the J.B. driver. Friend has got his own story. He tops a grade northbound at Tomah, looks in the mirror, and sees his 2nd trailer "comming on around". He said he just clutched the steering wheel with his two hands and his forehead.The "Hang on For Dear Life" strategy worked. And he lived to tell the story with no wreck. But he's an experienced commercial driver and he's convinced multiple trailers are not safe.I concede that the 150 is not that great. 130 maybe. The tires wont take it.I stayed away from multipule trailers. To haul those on the east coast meant to ride very short wheel base tractors which was really bad for the back on that concrete back then. I have zero experience with multipules. I cannot imagine the procedure (If any) to get out of a multi jack... I think the best procedure is always not to get into one at all.Ive a few with a trailer and when it breaks loose you only have a moment to decide just where to put the steering wheel. If you wait too long or mis-calulate you will NEVER get the rig back. Skid pad training is one way to reinforce this. Sadly many CDL Mills never see a Skidpad.In fact, I think the current system of the CDL Mill be ripped up and tossed. Why is it that we can place a 20 year old Soldier in Charge of a multi-million/crewed platform doing a vital mission and have that soldier do it effectively within reasonable human limits or mission limits. Yet we cannot stop a driver who has not stopped to bathe in 10 days or do laundry once a week because "He's gotta go" Something is flat broke in the industry.The full trains on the turnpike (Ok two 45 foot trailers does not a train make...) were very special, you could see the driver input a steering movement and just about watch it travel from axle to axle all the way back.If I sit down and add up the number of moments where there is great clarity and potential for loss of life or injury... I would be committed to the funny farm long ago. You will lose a few along the way and just count your peices and move on. Some of those include my own life thanks to driving while sleepy. I have nothing to blame but me for that.I kinda got into alot of counter-top talk here in this thread as I cannot keep my mouth shut.Final word: LCV and greater GVW's are not the solution.Training, Pay and Oversight at all levels is the answer. Yes you run smaller freight and might take a little longer but everyone will be regulated and more rested for the work.Somehow I think that day will be a long time coming. There has been trucking since World War One and little has changed. You would think with today's so-called modern society that Truckers would indeed be Kings of the Road in the traditional style. The USA is by nature a consumptive or consuming society that gives very little back.
AAAAHHHH, Reminicent stories! Another cup of coffee over her, Sugar!
Trucked from after Viet Nam in 1968, to 2000 when the last outfit I worked for was SWIFTLY bought out. Started out working with equipment that was not fit to haul ammo to a S**t fight.
Trucked mostly out of the Southeast to the Northeast, except for five yerars when I worked out of the 'Windy' we were running 48's and 53's when most were still struggling with 45s going to the northeast. Delivered at 75th and Lex in lower Manhatten with 53 before they were even considered for the City. Hauled explosives all over the Northeast, worked for the Digby's and finished up working out of Memphis for a top ten carrier, then finished in 1988, and took an office job til 2000 when I retired and went back to college [ should have done it when first had the chance ]....
Most fairy tales begin with, "Once upon a time..." Truckers tales start with, "You ain't gonna believe this s*** but,......"
You guys sure spark the old memories, thanks!!!!!!
snagletooth wrote: Furutemodal, your forgetting one thing. The companies wont pay the extra dime to the drivers. They probably won't even get that extra dime from their customers to pay the driver even if the company wanted to. That extra weight eats more fuel and eats up brakes. Most companies, especially container co. hardly maintain their equipment enough to handle 80K without blowing up occassionaly. Besides, most of the container loads I hauled were in the 83-91K range already. Customers STILL think that because it's going on the rail that it's a short distance with no scales.
If you re-read my post carefully, you'll note that I predicated the greater GVW with a federal mandate for higher pay with the higher GVW. If given the choice of running two 20' rigs/two drivers at say .30/mile (= .60/mile for both) or paying one driver to haul the two 20's at .40/mile, the companies would obviously still choose the latter because they're saving .20/mile in wages.
futuremodal wrote: snagletooth wrote: Furutemodal, your forgetting one thing. The companies wont pay the extra dime to the drivers. They probably won't even get that extra dime from their customers to pay the driver even if the company wanted to. That extra weight eats more fuel and eats up brakes. Most companies, especially container co. hardly maintain their equipment enough to handle 80K without blowing up occassionaly. Besides, most of the container loads I hauled were in the 83-91K range already. Customers STILL think that because it's going on the rail that it's a short distance with no scales. If you re-read my post carefully, you'll note that I predicated the greater GVW with a federal mandate for higher pay with the higher GVW. If given the choice of running two 20' rigs/two drivers at say .30/mile (= .60/mile for both) or paying one driver to haul the two 20's at .40/mile, the companies would obviously still choose the latter because they're saving .20/mile in wages.
snagletooth wrote: futuremodal wrote: snagletooth wrote: Furutemodal, your forgetting one thing. The companies wont pay the extra dime to the drivers. They probably won't even get that extra dime from their customers to pay the driver even if the company wanted to. That extra weight eats more fuel and eats up brakes. Most companies, especially container co. hardly maintain their equipment enough to handle 80K without blowing up occassionaly. Besides, most of the container loads I hauled were in the 83-91K range already. Customers STILL think that because it's going on the rail that it's a short distance with no scales. If you re-read my post carefully, you'll note that I predicated the greater GVW with a federal mandate for higher pay with the higher GVW. If given the choice of running two 20' rigs/two drivers at say .30/mile (= .60/mile for both) or paying one driver to haul the two 20's at .40/mile, the companies would obviously still choose the latter because they're saving .20/mile in wages.A Federally mandated pay hike?. I want what what he's smokin'
Same here and send some to the workers at Wal-Mart so they can get some relief from getting the SHAFT from mangement all the time. Sorry was working there till canned on a medical leave. FM if you think a company is going to pass anymore money on to a driver you are NUTS and there is a PADDED CELL for you somewhere. In the 70's drivers were getting .25 cpm and rates were around 1.00 mile and companies made great money. Now drivers if they are lucky get 33 cpm fuel costs are 6 times higher and rates are 1.50 a mile if we are lucky. Yet the trucking industry costs have doubled overall and the shippers want them to haul it cheaper. Why do you think the Megas are pushing so hard for the Mexicans to come in that way they can pay them .10 cpm and force out the American drivers. As to LCV's there are so many groups against them expanding that it would never happen beyond were they are already running. I for one would refuse to haul anything that weighed over 100K total regardless of how many axles it did have under it. I did haul my fair share of overweights and they are next to impossible to control try being 94K with seed beans on and trying to climb out of the Mississippi valley on RT 20 in IL. I was hurting at the top there.
Those 20 foot containers were particularly dangerous. Sometimes they weigh almost as much as a regular CMV by themselves.
Safety Valve wrote:Those 20 foot containers were particularly dangerous. Sometimes they weigh almost as much as a regular CMV by themselves.
There
s been a lot of talk on trucking but I don't think transportation costs are the sole driver of inflation (which is what the article is about essentially). The article simply picks food, but everything is going up except maybe electronics. To some extent, transportation, the price of ethanol, electricity, and market price all play a role. We're no longer the only large consumer of oil. But there's more. the value of the dollar has fallen significantly. In real terms, this means we now have to use more dollars to buy the same amount of goods because we have to match the market price while, for example, the euro price may be unchanged. This is happening and it's by design. Exporters love a weak dollar and, quire frankly, the dollars is overvalued. there are simply too many of them in the world.
That said, i don't thin kthat electricity deregulation is a bad thing for consumers. each state did it differently. some better than others (the california debacle was almost inevitable with the type of half assed dereg they passed there). Here, prices did go up but I hvae to admit, power outages at my parents' house are rare now and have been for a few years. growing up we were constantly resetting the clock on the microwave due to power outages. also, as another poster noted about the dearth of new oil refineries, there is a dearth of new, cheap power plants. not enoguh plants are being built and too many that were run on natural gas. it's nice and clean but it's much costlier than coal or nuclear power. there are tradeoffs. If we built more cheap power, we coudl use less oil. and of course, there are excessive regulations and taxes that make building such things a big headache.
Suburban Station wrote: Theres been a lot of talk on trucking but I don't think transportation costs are the sole driver of inflation (which is what the article is about essentially). The article simply picks food, but everything is going up except maybe electronics. To some extent, transportation, the price of ethanol, electricity, and market price all play a role. We're no longer the only large consumer of oil. But there's more. the value of the dollar has fallen significantly. In real terms, this means we now have to use more dollars to buy the same amount of goods because we have to match the market price while, for example, the euro price may be unchanged. This is happening and it's by design. Exporters love a weak dollar and, quire frankly, the dollars is overvalued. there are simply too many of them in the world. That said, i don't thin kthat electricity deregulation is a bad thing for consumers. each state did it differently. some better than others (the california debacle was almost inevitable with the type of half assed dereg they passed there). Here, prices did go up but I hvae to admit, power outages at my parents' house are rare now and have been for a few years. growing up we were constantly resetting the clock on the microwave due to power outages. also, as another poster noted about the dearth of new oil refineries, there is a dearth of new, cheap power plants. not enoguh plants are being built and too many that were run on natural gas. it's nice and clean but it's much costlier than coal or nuclear power. there are tradeoffs. If we built more cheap power, we coudl use less oil. and of course, there are excessive regulations and taxes that make building such things a big headache.
The galling thing in Northern Illinois is we paid for all those nuclear plants, overpaid for the energy from them for years, then pre-paid decommisioning costs for years, only to have them sold when we really need them. The current mess is a corporate shell game where a paper subsidiary 'buys' power from it's paper parent in a rigged revesre auction. The mess can't be undone because the State Senate President has been bought and paid for by the power company and has been able to block any attempt to fix it.
But IMO the problem with utility degreg is in many cases real competition is impossible. If my power quality is poor or I have a lot of outages, it doesn't matter who I buy from since it all comes over the same infrastructure. Avoiding duplicate or expensive to build infrastructure is the reason for creating public utilities in the first place. Building a new refinery is not a moon mission. Given resources and capital it could be done in far less than a year start to finish, if someone really wanted to get it done. But what incentive exists for doing that when short supply is rewarded with higher margins and profits?
I see Electric Utilities that back thier existance with self-generated power. They are the true providers of electricity and should be.
I see those who establish a sign outside thier door "Electric Company" turn around and buy/import power and handle billing paperwork; not generating one single watt of anything is something that needs to be removed from the USA's Infrastructure.
If the Utilties want to buy/import power, then they need to be generators of power as well or get out of the business all together and get into another one called "Billing" and turn over the revenue to the power company that actually generated the power billed.
What happens when 40 of 48 states cannot generate a watt and the others max out and cannot export? Well, I guess we are going to be in the business of building power plants now. Let's spend the next 50 years finding out just how good that copper wire is on the poles and how much coal can come out of Wyoming reliably.
While everyone is pulling coal out of Wyoming our older mines are not doing so well and they may say "Screw it" and close it up and go do something else for a living. When the USA finds themselves in need of more good coal, they may have to start all over again digging a new mine shaft or making old ones safe again.
One can sit down and read about how we can make our oceans generate power, domestic needs met by solar farms, fission plants, wind power etc. These are very nice and neat solutions to the constant need for power.
My solution is to build solar panels on the top of every major building like Walmarts, warehouses etc and install a second meter to count how much power they export to the Grid after subtracting what they used for themselves. It is my understanding that I can fit my house with panels and become a small generator of power for others to use (For a monthly check of course) instead of being a 100% dependant on the grid that may or may not be around. I cannot imagine the amount of electricity the USA might actually generate if everyone did this and for how little expense.
The biggest problem I see with my home generating power for the grid is money. It would cost more than the home is worth to install sufficient panels to meet my current kilowatt usage each month. I would have to wait 20 years to see Solar Pricing come down.
I also use Natural gas and they have done well (Knock on wood) but the billing has doubled while that brand new meter finds many more CCF's consumed than the old one did. We had an oppertunity to install a 3000 dollar unit onto that line so that the home can be powered during storms when the grid actually fails and does often. However the relentless rise in gas costs combined with the large amount of CCF needed to run the unit makes the whole exercise pointless.
It is nice to know that the new trains today consume less power than ever before.
I recall stories where a Power Company was faced with two choices, cut out the Generating and save the turbines or carry the load of a failed Northeast Grid for a time until they can find more power. They chose to carry it and lost the battle. What if the Northeast had all of the things that I listed in this post going for them?
Is that urban legend about the car with the funny-looking carb and impossibly high gas mileage until the oil companies or auto companies (take your pick) paid the owner off still making the rounds? People can't accept the notion that heavy automobiles are not going to get great mileage simply there's a finite amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline and it takes more energy to move a 2-ton SUV than a 1-ton subcompact.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: Is that urban legend about the car with the funny-looking carb and impossibly high gas mileage until the oil companies or auto companies (take your pick) paid the owner off still making the rounds? People can't accept the notion that heavy automobiles are not going to get great mileage simply there's a finite amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline and it takes more energy to move a 2-ton SUV than a 1-ton subcompact.
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.