Western Railroad Discussion > Get Ready for 60' Trailers...Containers?

Apparently Canada has allowed Canadian Tire (similar to Wal-mart) to start using 60' trailers. But they are to only to be used with tractors with a day cab and no sleeper to keep the overall length of the combination down. That brings up some questions about where the drivers will sleep on long hauls.

http://cdllife.com/2014/top-trucking-news/north-americas-first-60-trailer-to-hit-the-road-next-year/

I can see how this will quickly translate to 60' containers and the need for 60' well cars and cranes. It's anyone's bet on how quickly this will come to the US as well.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

57s are in use here already, Im not sure our roads can handle much more, Its getting tough to make corners on older roads but for point to point in newer industrial parks with wide feeder roads to the interstate I could see a use.

Not likely in the states. It's not so much the size of the cube, but

the overall Gross Weight, Some states now allow twin 40's up to GVW

(gross vehicle weight) to 129K, not likely to see an expansion of the 129K.

Many states only allow 80K , so it's difficult to integrate all of the different

sizes. What works in some places may not work in others. We'll have to see if

that an accepted unit in the states.

funnelfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That brings up some questions about where the drivers will sleep on long hauls.

57' trailers are never used for long halls. They are used for special light local loads.

> I can see how this will quickly translate to 60'
> containers and the need for 60' well cars and
> cranes. It's anyone's bet on how quickly this will
> come to the US as well.


Why, where do you see 57' containers and 57' well cars? (Do not include UPS' failed attempt to use special 28.5' containers and special 57' well cars.) 57' trailers are used for local loads only, as I am sure is what the intended use of the 60' trailers in Canada.

NSDTK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 57s are in use here already, Im not sure our roads
> can handle much more, Its getting tough to make
> corners on older roads but for point to point in
> newer industrial parks with wide feeder roads to
> the interstate I could see a use.


Just an observation here. Most of these 57' are restricted to the Interstate Highway System. Haven't seen to many out and about on the "back"ways around the country. Some states restrict them to just the Interstates. In NY, they have spots near the interchanges on the Thruway where drivers can stop and drop one trailer for further travel, with just one trlr. There are only 9 states that allow 57' ft or longer trailers on the Interstate System at that, those being ALA,AZ,CO,KS,LA,NM,OK,TX,WY. States like NY will allow them as long as the "Bridge Formula" is not exceeded. That wld be no more than 53ft from King Pin to center of rear axle. NY is where I have witnessed the "Drop" Yard at the Thruway Interchanges. Ben

jst3751 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 57' trailers are never used for long halls. They
> are used for special light local loads.

In the article it mentioned several long haul lanes the trailers will be used in such as Toronto - Vancouver. I'm sure CP and CN will want that business and will likely have to use 60' containers to compete.



>
> Why, where do you see 57' containers and 57' well
> cars? (Do not include UPS' failed attempt to use
> special 28.5' containers and special 57' well
> cars.) 57' trailers are used for local loads only,
> as I am sure is what the intended use of the 60'
> trailers in Canada.

Canadian Tire is a huge intermodal customer in Canada and has it's own fleet of 53' containers. I'm sure CN and CP don't want to lose business to over the road 60' trailers, so they will need to adopt 60' containers to compete. And with the day cab restriction, that will give the railroads a edge in that a driver can deliver the container from the Intermodal Terminal to the store in a day, where as in over the road trucking, external sleeping facilities will need to be paid for by the company. And if Canadian Tire starts using 60' trailers, everyone else will be quick to follow. We've seen these quick change overs in the US back in the 80's and 90's

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

Great. Only a matter of time before the trucking industry will be lobbing congress (ie buy them off) for even heavier trucks on the nation's highways; and the trucks don't even pay their fair share of the costs/maintenance of the roads now...

cpn456 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and the trucks don't even pay their fair
> share of the costs/maintenance of the roads now...

And which mode of transportation pays for 100% of all costs associated with it?

What would be a typical weight for a 60' Canadian Tire trailer etc fully loaded? I'm guessing the amount of dead space (donut hole, space between tires) would be a significant amount of the interior volume.

It wouldn't be like filing a trailer with taconite pellets or gravel to the top.

the 57' trailers that averritt express and transport america use here in alabama,primarily between birmingham and the mercades plant in vance,less than 50 miles each way,are hauling auto parts,as in light weight fenders and other body parts from supplier to manufacterer. most are pulled by day-cabs,but i have seen a sleeper with then a couple times....if the trailer did not have a small 57' sticker on it,you would think its a 53.

cpn456 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great. Only a matter of time before the trucking
> industry will be lobbing congress (ie buy them
> off) for even heavier trucks on the nation's
> highways; and the trucks don't even pay their fair
> share of the costs/maintenance of the roads now...


Any facts to back this statement up? I mean real facts, not opinions or conjecture.

A 60' container could be handled on top a 53' box dropped into the well on either a 53' standalone well car or a 53' 3-platform articulated well car. No need for 60' wells.

But the "idea" of 60' boxes becomes even more complicated because there would have to be 60' chasses to handle them on-road; the longest chasses today are 53'.

The idea of having 60' well cars is generally summed up by one word: BAD. The railroads lose fuel efficiency by handling 40' boxes in 53' wells, and this would certainly open the possibility for 40' boxes in 60' wells. 40's inside 53' wells are already high-drag ... Add another 3.5' of unused well length on either end of the 40' boxes in 53' wells (making for a 60' well) and fuel burn will go even higher.

Article fails! Talks about 60' trailers, shows a picture of a 28' trailer. Waste of time. Leaving thread now.

Mr. MRL - I like trains...

I saw 57' trailers 15' 6" high being used in the UK in the mid 1990's. It was quite a surprise considering the size of the roads in the UK as compared to the States.

I want 40' trailers, not 53' or 57'. Highways are beat to hell......

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What would be a typical weight for a 60' Canadian
> Tire trailer etc fully loaded? I'm guessing the
> amount of dead space (donut hole, space between
> tires) would be a significant amount of the
> interior volume.

Tires are a tiny fraction of all the stuff sold in Canadian Tire stores. Most
of their sales are housewares, hardware, sporting goods and the like.

Ray

cpn456 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great. Only a matter of time before the trucking
> industry will be lobbing congress (ie buy them
> off) for even heavier trucks on the nation's
> highways; and the trucks don't even pay their fair
> share of the costs/maintenance of the roads now...


As a Class A driver in California (Local) I don't really have any say in the subject of how much in highway taxes do heavy-haul trucks contribute. Suffice it to say that most interstate trucking does pay their fair share of highway use taxes. The following is from The Mackinac Center for Public Policy: "On average, a typical 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck pays $13,889 per year in truck highway taxes according to the above data. A hypothetical auto owner driving 20,000 miles per year at 25 mpg, and paying $100 in registration fees, ends up paying about $397 per year. So, on average, looking at federal and state taxes, tractor-trailer combination trucks pay about 35 times more than what a typical auto owner would pay based on national averages."

60-foot trailers? Well, maybe in the future, who knows what will happen. I recall a Trains Magazine article which mentioned that increasing the length of trailers (beyond the current 53-foot mark, was heavily lobbied AGAINST - mostly by state law enforcement agencies - and that proposal died. Hope this didn't get too O/T.

Can't wait to see the ultimate balancing act. An 60 foot container on top of 2 20 foot containers!

tronarail Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cpn456 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Great. Only a matter of time before the
> trucking
> > industry will be lobbing congress (ie buy them
> > off) for even heavier trucks on the nation's
> > highways; and the trucks don't even pay their
> fair
> > share of the costs/maintenance of the roads
> now...
>
>
> As a Class A driver in California (Local) I don't
> really have any say in the subject of how much in
> highway taxes do heavy-haul trucks contribute.
> Suffice it to say that most interstate trucking
> does pay their fair share of highway use taxes.
> The following is from The Mackinac Center for
> Public Policy: "On average, a typical 80,000 pound
> GVW tractor-trailer truck pays $13,889 per year in
> truck highway taxes according to the above data. A
> hypothetical auto owner driving 20,000 miles per
> year at 25 mpg, and paying $100 in registration
> fees, ends up paying about $397 per year. So, on
> average, looking at federal and state taxes,
> tractor-trailer combination trucks pay about 35
> times more than what a typical auto owner would
> pay based on national averages."
>
> 60-foot trailers? Well, maybe in the future, who
> knows what will happen. I recall a Trains Magazine
> article which mentioned that increasing the length
> of trailers (beyond the current 53-foot mark, was
> heavily lobbied AGAINST - mostly by state law
> enforcement agencies - and that proposal died.
> Hope this didn't get too O/T.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/091116/03.htm

A little insite to the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) Trucks weighing

55,000# and over ,up to 80,000# pay HVUT (Heavy Vehicle Use Tax) Trucks over

80k still pay HVUT but the $ cap is at 80K. This is an annual tax which is paid

depending on the trucks registered weight. This is a federal tax , in addition

to the vehicle registration.