Eastern Railroad Discussion > Electric Vehicles too heavy for rail transport?

Reference:
EVs Are Too Heavy for Current Road Weight Limits, Car Haulers Say (thedrive.com)

This was an interesting article.  There is a somewhat ambiguous statement embedded in the middle of the article.  Basically, the writer inputs the following context:  "The rail industry, meanwhile, is also not a fan for unspecified by arguably obvious reasons."  There was no further expansion on that statement.  It would seem it is left up to the reader to interpret what those 'arguably obvious reasons' may actually be.
Train Orders members' interpretations of anything rail related are like grains of sand on a beach......i.e., there are sometimes an infinite number of points brought up in a general discussion about anything.  The referenced article and the less than informative statement of note should merit a deeper dive by the membership.
It stands to reason that rail engineering takes into account weight distributions / limitations across a given road, etc.  Would transporting EV product, with the heavier battery components be cause for concern?  (If anyone wants to cross post on the other boards, please feel free to do so.)

The author of the article makes it seem that the 80,000 pound gross vehicle weight limit was set for, and only applies to, vehicle hauling semi trucks.  However, the 80,000 pound limit extends to all trucks nationwide on the Interstate highway system.  This was not some arbitrary number that they pulled out of the ether, the weight limit has to do with the design of the Interstate system and damage that repeated traffic at higher weights does to the roadway.  

The answer seems simple, the trucks load one less EV than they would normal vehicles.  This is nothing new- grain trucks, cement trucks, dump trucks, cargo trucks, are all capable of being loaded over 80,000 pounds- they just don't load that much product on their trucks.  I am sure the trucking industry as a whole would love to add an extra 8,000 pounds of product as it would mean more profit.  On the other side, it would mean that the highways and bridges would sustain more damage, would not last as long as designed, and cost the taxpayers more to repair and replace damaged sections.

Texas made a great, short explainer video about how and why truck weights are set if anyone wants to take a deeper dive:

https://youtu.be/pW7XW7Q0hpM

The reference to rail are that the industry is against raising truck weights.  Not sue how many cars are carried on an auto rack but I don't think weight comes into it.
john

That seems like an argument from a segment of the trucking industry looking to increase weight limits for all.

You can read plenty of the ecomomic reasons against increasing weight and truck lengths here;

http://www.cabt.org/usdot-recommends-against-bigger-trucks/
 

SANSR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It stands to reason that rail engineering takes
> into account weight distributions / limitations
> across a given road, etc.  Would transporting EV
> product, with the heavier battery components be
> cause for concern?  (If anyone wants to cross
> post on the other boards, please feel free to do
> so.)

No reason to cross post because it's a simple answer: No.

If a loaded tri level auto rack containing 15 EVs, 5 on each level, they would have to weigh 19,000 pounds (9.5 tons) apiece before approaching the general railroad weight limit of 286,000 pounds per car.

For larger SUVs in bilevel autoracks that's 28,600 pounds per vehicle. Also keep in mind that any vehicle in the USA over 25,999 pounds in the USA requires a commercial driver's license to be operated on a public roadway, so we're talking about commercial vehicles at this point.

For reference, a Tesla model S weighs about 4,500 pounds. Much less than a Cadillac Escalade.

Posted from Android

The flat car portion of an auto rack has no problem with the weight, that's one of the reasons why they can undergo the "life extension" programs and be used beyond the 50 year AAR limit.  (the cars that have this done have a "R" or "R1" after the road number)

As for the 80,000 lb. limit, Michigan has a 120,000 lb. limit - and their roads show it.... 

Michigan actually has a 160,000 lb weight limit. Lots of trucks pulling 8 axle trailers with all types of commodities. Gasoline, steel, gravel, cement, lumber, and double 20' containers with very heavy loads.

Thanks!  I knew it was well north of 80K.  Those trucks are also legal in the counties here in NW Ohio that border Michigan (Williams, Fulton & Lucas), so they can run to places like the NorthStar Steel mill just outside of Delta and the Port of Toledo.

DLM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michigan actually has a 160,000 lb weight limit.
> Lots of trucks pulling 8 axle trailers with all
> types of commodities. Gasoline, steel, gravel,
> cement, lumber, and double 20' containers with
> very heavy loads.

DLM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michigan actually has a 160,000 lb weight limit.
> Lots of trucks pulling 8 axle trailers with all
> types of commodities. Gasoline, steel, gravel,
> cement, lumber, and double 20' containers with
> very heavy loads.

The actual number in Michigan is 154,000 pounds (77 tons). It was implemented during World War II as an emergency measure but of course the trucking industry lobbied to let it stay afterward. The state of Michigan helpfully suggests that one 154,000-pound truck does less road damage than two 80,000 pound trucks because of lighter axle loadings, but its argument doesn't address how it skews more freight toward trucking. "Michigan load" trucks do pay for a permit to run the higher weight, but I doubt it's sufficient to balance the cumulative road and bridge damage. According to the MDOT data, trucks in Michigan pay less than 5 times as much per mile than cars do but you can be damned sure they cause a much higher share of the damage, so it's the car drivers who are subsidizing the trucking industry.

MSchwiebert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for the 80,000 lb. limit, Michigan has a
> 120,000 lb. limit - and their roads show it.... 

Tell me about it. Having grown up and lived in Michigan until I moved to TX in the 80s, I couldn't believe other places had such better roads. Of course, people hate the seemingly constant road work down here but it does pay off (along with the lower limits). Michigan roads are and were terrible, much of it due to trucks...

JG

The Pennsylvania section of I÷80 often seemed like one long rut. Lots of trucks

Posted from Android

Trilevels are all but extinct so bi-levels is all thats really being used and I think thats like 12 vehicles total per car.

We have our example in the West, I-40. It's a wonder I haven't been pulled over and given a breathalyzer for
swearving all over the place, the potholes are deep and plentiful and they're starting to show up in the #1 lane
as well. Was interesting in Michigan to see 6 and 7 axle dump trucks, but it does get the per axle weight down!

Out 

From being a yard clerk 20+ years ago, I recall an empty auto rack is about 40 tons, a loaded one about 70 tons.

Much appreciate all of the input.  Thank you.
Scott in Suffolk, VA

nopeynope311 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trilevels are all but extinct so bi-levels is all
> thats really being used and I think thats like 12
> vehicles total per car.


I am not sure where you watching or getting your information, but there are still a lot of tri level autoracks in use.

And normally have 5 vehicles per level which is 10 for a bilevel or 15 for a trilevel.

For anybody who may think that highway weight limits are just theoretical, try comparing similar roads that do or do not allow commercial trucks. Tough to do this comparison in the western states, but in the east, compare pavement replacements on, say I95 with the parkway (ie passenger cars only) between Baltimore and D.C. or compare the Long Island Expressway to practically anything on LI. 

Fact is, trucks do a hell of a lot of damage to roadways, probably more than they pay for. 

DevalDragon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nopeynope311 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Trilevels are all but extinct so bi-levels is
> all
> > thats really being used and I think thats like
> 12
> > vehicles total per car.
>
>
> I am not sure where you watching or getting your
> information, but there are still a lot of tri
> level autoracks in use.
>

While true, the demand for cars is not what it once was. Many autoracks have SUVs, pickups, etc. in them now.....

Posted from Android

As of 16:40 hours, 10/11/22, the National Multilevel Fleet stands at roughly 65,000 or so strong.  Of that total, 52,201 carry TTX reporting marks on the flat car portion.  Of that total, there are only 8,340 ETTX tri levels, so while far from extinct, they only make up around 13% of the national multi-level fleet.  For comparison sake, there are 40,252 TTGX bi levels and 3,251 CTTX reconfigurable (can switch between bi and tri) in the fleet.  


ns1000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DevalDragon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > nopeynope311 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Trilevels are all but extinct so bi-levels is
> > all
> > > thats really being used and I think thats
> like
> > 12
> > > vehicles total per car.
> >
> >
> > I am not sure where you watching or getting
> your
> > information, but there are still a lot of tri
> > level autoracks in use.
> >
>
> While true, the demand for cars is not what it
> once was. Many autoracks have SUVs, pickups, etc.
> in them now.....
>
> Posted from Android