I always wonder about one thing when it comes to trucks compared to trains. That one thing is, why can a semi haul only 1 coil of steel on a flatbed, when 1 gondola on a train can carry 4 to 5 coils?
Its the weight, railroads can haul more per car because we dont have bridge formulas and not regulated to 34k per axel and 80k gross.
By federal law trucks are limited to 80,000# per trailer. Trains are limited to 80,000# per axle. That makes the rail car capable of four times the weight carried by a truck that is until some Congressman gets paid off to increase the weight and tear up the roads some more. Personally I would like to see truck weight and length reduced. they can;t stop now in an emergency. I can’t imagine how long it would take to stop one with even more weight.
your info is wrong its 80,000 gross weight. thats truck and load not load of 80k, it real is depending on tractor wieght more on the lines of 45-49k for a load . and yes trucks can carry more safley just not as efficiently. just take a trip to michigan and look at the trucks there.
There is a pending amendment to the transportation bill in Congress which will raise truck load limits from 80 to 97 thousand pounds. That will mean increased damage to roads and the vehicles that are strcuk by trucks to say nothing about human injuries. This is not a good thing if you can compare the ability of trains to carry more weight per axel. Let your Congressman know how you feel about larger trucks on our highways at this time of increasing costs. I also don’t like the double trailers on the highways…trains belong on railroad tracks, not on interstates…and those who have proposed a third trailer are totally out of line!
We all have opinions on this subject. Mine is: GVW has increased to the point now it is time to “cap” it…
I’m thinking of the mix of cars and trucks on our interstates now and lets not let that size and total load difference increase more than it currently is.
Safety is marginal as it is with the mix at 70 or so mph…
Increasing truck GVW will farther {and quicker}, undermine bridge safety and destruction.
Getting up into greater loading certainly belongs over on the rails, a system that is designed to handle much greater loadings. We don’t need to intermix even more disparity of vehicle sizes and weights than we already have now
More trailers…? I agree with another poster…trains belong on rails not highways.
A truck can haul more than one coil…for example today I’ve got loads enroute with four coils on each trailer. It’s not the number of coils that matters…its the allowable weight.
Increasing truck weight and size has always been controversial…however there is an argument to be made for bigger trucks:
-
Bigger trucks…trucks that can handle more weight or product… will mean fewer trucks…i.e. two trucks with one 30,000 lb coil each are reduced to one truck carrying the coils.
-
Bigger trucks improve asset utilization and fuel efficiency…fewer trucks and trucks that carry more have less of an impact on the environment.
Bigger trucks don’t necessarily mean bigger risk either. Up here in Canada we use B-Trains alot…These are two shorter trailers that share a common set of axles at their connection. These B-Trains (because they are articulated) track alot better than a normal semi and they ride alot better due to the weight being distributed more evenly over more axles. In my opinion the US should allow more widespread use of B-Trains…this would cut down sharply on the number of flatbed trucks on the road by using a configuration that has been proven to be safe in over 50 years of use in Canada.
I have heard claim that bigger trucks would reduce CO2 and reduce traffic congestion. I don’t beleive so, here are some cons of bigger trucks;
-
Bigger trucks can handle more weight, but more trucks will travel not fully loaded because not every shipment is that heavy wich is not efficient.
-
There may not neccessarily be fewer trucks if the cost compeditivess of bigger trucks takes freight off from rail.
-
Bigger trucks take up more room therefore cause more traffic.
-
Longer and heavier trucks make winter driving more dangerous
-
Bigger trucks will scare more people into bigger cars and SUVs to “feel” safer, wasting even more fuel.
-
Bigger trucks mean more road maintanance wich means more constuction delays and higher taxes for all.
-
When accidents do happen they will be bigger accidents and bigger costs.
-
Don’t then forget about the bigger Mexican trucks that you will share the road with.
Also if they would cap the truck size the only way to compete in truck service would be to make better service instead of just bigger service. Bigger trucks mean that you don’t have to improve service to get ahead, just buy a newer bigger truck , just be “big and dumb” to compete. Compared to just depending on good old service using the tools you already have. Also road planning could be done better when you know how big and heavy trucks are long into the future. Bigger trucks is short sighted, like allowing more cassinos.
I do not remember just what maximum load weight I had to work with when I was ordering Sulfuric acid in drums to be shipped from the Phoenix area to West Jordan, Utah, several years ago, but I have a memory of about 50k. I had a program in the spreadsheet I used when determining how much of what to order at a time that would show how many pallets of sulfuric acid and of other items could be shipped at a time. It is not possible to fill a 53 footer with pallets of sulfuric acid in drums and expect it to travel far–the bottom will drop out. This particular shipper used spacer pallets to spread the weight over the length of the 53 footer.
One load was delayed in transit because a nail was sticking up through a pallet–and the weight of the acid in the drum on top the nail gradually forced the drum down on the nail; the driver discovered the leak when he was well on his way north, and he had to go back to the shipper to get it taken care of.
Johnny
Bigger trucks wouldn’t work for all freight… after all a truck is a tool…however, the OPTION of using bigger equipment would allow more flexibility. No one is saying that every truck will be bigger i.e. that Sears will send out a turnpike double on a home delivery.
Longer and heavier doesn’t mean more dangerous…like I pointed out earlier.
Your points are probably quite valid, but some other aspects should be considered.
First of all, has the trucking lobby indicated how they will pay for the necessary upgrades to the various highways and bridges that will be required. The efficiencies for commercial trucks are only economic if someone else, ie the private automobile’s fuel taxes, covers the cost. In fact, the improvement in fuel efficiency means that the heavy commercial trucks will pay even less despite creating increased costs. They get an even greater hidden subsidy, in other words.
And B-trains are fine on multi-lane divided highways, but the trucking l
Even less? We pay tax through the nose as it is. Bigger vehicles that result in less dollars spent is a PLUS in my view. Ideally all the money we pay in fuel tax should go directly back into the infrastructure…and that would be enough to improve it substantially without any government aid.
All tractor trailers swing wide…not just 53’s. That doesn’t make them unsafe or unsuited for roads…it just means that they need to be handled in a way that takes into account their length.
B-Trains are used routinely in Canada…particularly on the Trans Canada highway which is mostly two lane…so far no problems and they are generally involved in fewer accidents than other vehicles.
But I agree…there are two sides to every issue… I’m in favour of longer and bigger for certain applications where it makes sense… like hauling steel… I see the savings for customers… I can load 85, 000 lbs in Canada for one customer via B-Train and only 48, 000 lbs for another in the United States. Put side by side my American customer is paying alot more to get his steel moved… a cost that is passed right on to the American consumer who then has one more reason to buy made in China.
I few years ago I believe the railroads lobbied against heavier trucks. Anyone know how the railroads feel about it today?
Ungern
Next time you are out on the roads…check out the Maximum load weights that are stenciled on the back of containers…20 foot, 40 foot, 48 foot, 53 foot…the max load will be nearly equal among all the sizes.
Then you need to vote your representatives out next chance you get. The legislators in our beloved state gave steel carriers the right to haul upto 110,000 lbs gross. It seems too many Michigan steel haulers cried they had to leave a trailer at the state line and it was costing them money. Nevermind these steel trucks damage the roads with the equivilent of thousands of cars and some reps are trying to spend the Major Moves money that was supposed to fund road projects for 75 years in just 5.
The state would be better off building a rail line for this steel if there is not already one and GIVING it to a shortline to operate. It would be cheaper than constantly rebuilding the highways subjected to that kind of wear and tear.
Perhaps if roads were built right in the first place damage from heavy traffic would be a moot point. How many roads with signs saying no trucks have pot holes and cracks? The road around our pits are in good shape for the heavy traffic they see. The little road in a local neighborhood with no truck traffic is broken and full of holes. A small compact car can put strain on a poorly built road. Trucks in Mass with an over weight permit can gross out at 103,000 lb. All 25 of our dump trailers have a total of 5 axles. Our 10 wheelers on 3 axles routinely get loaded and gross out at 70,000 lb. Which one would do more damage to a crappy road? The big trailer or the little dump truck?
Write your reps and tell them to revamp the bidding process for road building. Low bidder means shoddy work. Look at the BIG DIG. (The worlds most expensive car wash and crusher)
Pete
Rail fans should stick to topics they know. Their knowledge of Semi Trucks and LCVs is certainly lacking concerning weights,road damage and safety.
-
Large Truck Accident Rates: See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810989.PDF One out of nine traffic fatalities in 2007 resulted from a collision involving a large truck. Large trucks are involved in fatal accidents about 25% more frequently than if accident rates were strictly proportional to their vehicle-miles traveled.
-
Pavement damage is proportional to the 4th power of the weight on the axles. Thus, an 18,000 lb. axle does 3,000 times as much damage to pavement as a 2,000 lb. axle. See http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=ESALfor the math and the science.
-
Thus, if fuel taxes were levied proportional only to the cost of repaving highways, an 80,000 lb. GVW truck would pay approximately 6,000 times the fuel tax of a 4,000 GVW car, or, if federal and average state fuel tax combined was $0.50 cents per gallon for a car (it was $0.508/gallon in first quarter 2009), then the truck fuel tax would be $3,000/gallon, if the only consideration was to charge according to the pavement damage created.
What’s fair is a political decision, and is decided by legislators elected by voters and by the voters themselves in ballot initiatives.
RWM
[tup][tup]
This is THE MOST SENSIBLE posting in this thread so far.
I am a 21 year vetran, driving tractor trailer.
Ulrich: B-trains do handle better than A-Train (standard doubles) but with that extra articulation point, they do lose out to single long trailers a little in their road manners, still they are a VERY GOOD choice, when they fit the load. Here in the Pacific North West (PNW) we use them for more than just flat bedding. I have seen B-Train configurations in Curtain Van(an evolution of flat bed) chip trucks, tankers and even dry vans with sliding axles that completely slide under the trailer to access a standard loading dock. I’m not sure how they protect the lead trailer’s rear fifth wheel though unloading wood chips, never watched it, but I have seen plenty on the highway.
Anyone who is in FAVOR of highway safety would write their congressman in SUPPORT of TRIPLE TRAILER rigs and EQUAL SPEED LIMITS for ALL VEHICLES on the same roadways. Here in Oregon and Idaho, we allow triple trailer combinations to be licensed up to 105,500# GVW, and 105’ long. Statistics show these vehicles to be very safe, despite what the unknowlegdeable about them may think. Making ONE speed limit for ALL vehicles on any given roadway is much safer than these stupid split speed limits that were pushed for by elected politicians, not trained traffic engineers. ALL vehiclles moving at the same speed is safer by a factor of ridiculous, than forcing a percentgage of vehicles to travel at a different speed than that of the predominent flow of traffic.
Increasing fuel efficiency WILL NOT lower truckings contribution to highway taxes, trucks do not pay a fuel tax based on gallons of fuel used, like automobiles do. Trucks are charged a WEIGHT/MILE tax, the heavier th
The average total fuel, tire, and retail tax paid by an 80,000 lb. GVW truck per year is 35 times what a typical auto pays, according to this source: http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=8433, which uses ATA, FHWA, and various state DOT sources.
The question is, does a truck use 35 times of the capital cost and maintenance cost of the roadway system? More than 35X? Less than 35x? Purely on a pavement replacement cost, the truck uses is 3,000 times as costly as a car, not 35 times. But pavement cost isn’t the whole picture, either. According to the FHWA, the typical 80,000 lb. GVW truck pays 80% of the costs it imposes on the highway system and the other 20% is a public subsidy to the trucking firms, their shippers, and the customers of their shippers paid by other highway users. The FHWA also found that a 100,000 lb or heavier GVW truck covers only 40% of the costs it imposes on the highway system. See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/costallocation.htm, 2000 addendum.
RWM