Michigan is the place for axles, those things up there are ridiculous.
newmercman:
Yeah well I’m skinny so I never had a problem
I’m built for comfort not speed 
Anyway from what I remember the last time I saw ya you not all that skinny there tubs
cliffstephens:
But for all those axles on the ground the payload is crap …when I finished here was running with payloads to 30 1/2 tonnes on six axles…
It’s going to take some light unladen weights in terms of trailer and unit to get to less than 14t.
While most of the weight issues in North America are self inflicted in that they’ve got the right kit but the laws impose an unrealistic gross weight regime in most cases especially in the case of A trains.Although I think Canada is more or less the same as Euro regs in allowing around 40t gross on 5 axles.While the mad US gross weight regime has long made the US experts in making the right type of truck and trailers at the lowest unladen weights possible.
Probably to the point where I’d doubt if Euro spec wagons could generally beat their North American counterparts in terms of payload capacity,on a like with like basis.‘If’ North American regs would allow it to be used to its maximum potential.
Ec erf 3axle pulling short coilers (steel carriers ) 3axle…
cliffstephens:
Ec erf 3axle pulling short coilers (steel carriers ) 3axle…
Not exactly the same thing as comparing the average North American spec long haul unit coupled to a tandem axle trailer on a like with like basis in that case.Although it would be a good bet that they’d be able to get close as makes not much difference to that 14t unladen figure ‘if’ they were given the ability to run at 44t gross on 6 axles over there.
While as I’ve said the payload potential of a 9 axle A train,or even 8 axle drawbar outfit,would be able to walk all over even the best possible 6 axle scenario on whichever side of the Atlantic.‘If’ the law would allow it to be used to its potential if at all.
Not comparing just saying that for all those axles it ain’t that impressive …
Mack 6x4 .drums not discs on trailer 15.8tns tare.In my opinion its the crazy gross weights 45.5 tn gross on main rds only (ARTAC) and 44.5gross on others on 6 axles that gets me wound up 
also the subtle change over the last few years being scaled ,only interested in gross weights to now fixated on axle weights by the dot …well in MB that is.
also the subtle change over the last few years being scaled ,only interested in gross weights to now fixated on axle weights by the dot …well in MB that is.
The MB DOT seem to be taking advantage of the mild weather, they’re always out between Virden and Brandon and they have portable scales which they set up on what passes for the shoulder on that section. I’ve seen them out late at night doing full a inspection. On the way home last trip they had a customer pulled over and you could see the 1km sign for the Virden scale, but instead of doing it in the safety of that, they were doing it on the shoulder ffs
cliffstephens:
Not comparing just saying that for all those axles it ain’t that impressive …
As I’ve said it is only an artificially imposed gross weight limit that stops them loading both trailers to their max weight capacity.
Which theoretically would/should obviously be the Canadian gross for a 5 axle artic.Combined with the max gross axle weights of a tandem axle dolly and trailer.Minus unladen of the outfit.Which I’m betting would/should be as closer to 50t + payload than 40.Or around 60% more payload over that old ERF for a 50% increase in axles.But with a comfortable apartment block to live in to pull it by comparison. 
JIMBO47:
0 Mack 6x4 .drums not discs on trailer 15.8tns tare.In my opinion its the crazy gross weights 45.5 tn gross on main rds only (ARTAC) and 44.5gross on others on 6 axles that gets me wound up
Realistically 44t gross on a 6 axle artic is about as good as it gets and the same as here.While a move to just concentrating on axle weights would actually help the idea of running A trains assuming they allow them to be maxed out.
newmercman:
I’ve seen them out late at night doing full a inspection. On the way home last trip they had a customer pulled over and you could see the 1km sign for the Virden scale, but instead of doing it in the safety of that, they were doing it on the shoulder ffs
Same thing on the 401 in Ontario. In the past year or so they’ve really started taking the pee and exactly as you describe above, they can be seen putting numerous lives in danger on one of the busiest roads in Canada by performing a level one inspection on the hard shoulder within a km or so of an actual DOT check point.
On my relatively few drives through Manitoba I have never been stopped by the DOT so can’t comment on them but for my money, the Ontario DOT are by far the worst and overzealous bunch I’ve come across in North America. Maine are quite bad but Ontario forgets that its in North America and would rather believe they’re in the EU with all the technicality nit picking they attempt. Fortunately, due to the traffic volumes on the 401 the chances of being pulled are very small in the grand scheme of things.
The ones I pull can just about have two full US weight loads inside. That’s all they need really as most of the stuff I tip and reload starts or finishes in the US.
There couldn’t be an increase in weights down there, the equipment is not sturdy enough and the roads certainly couldn’t cope, some of the interstates are the same as they were when they were built just after the Second World War, except for the patches.
Any increase in payload would require multi billion dollar investment in equipment and infrastructure, so the increased efficiency would never be cost efficient.
newmercman:
The ones I pull can just about have two full US weight loads inside. That’s all they need really as most of the stuff I tip and reload starts or finishes in the US.There couldn’t be an increase in weights down there, the equipment is not sturdy enough and the roads certainly couldn’t cope, some of the interstates are the same as they were when they were built just after the Second World War, except for the patches.
Any increase in payload would require multi billion dollar investment in equipment and infrastructure, so the increased efficiency would never be cost efficient.
The ATA seems to be calling for an increase in fuel taxation to fund a road improvement programme in order to increase truck weights. 
When surely just going for tri axle trailers and calling for 6 axle artics,8 + axle drawbars and 11 axle A trains,to be allowed to run on a US Interstate basis, would be more cost efficient than hitting the fuel bill.Being that all those configurations are already available in the North American environment. 
We’ve been here before Geoffrey, the sheer amount of trailers here would make it an impossible task to achieve in any reasonable time period.
Not only would there need to be over half a million axle conversion kits, the trailer bogie is on a sliding subframe, which would also require replacement or extending. It would take years and cost a fortune.
If the ATA are succesful and get it to congress and the bill does pass I will sell everything I have and invest it in a trailer axle manufacturer’s stock, I’ll make the dotcom billionaires look like peasants 
newmercman:
We’ve been here before Geoffrey, the sheer amount of trailers here would make it an impossible task to achieve in any reasonable time period.Not only would there need to be over half a million axle conversion kits, the trailer bogie is on a sliding subframe, which would also require replacement or extending. It would take years and cost a fortune.
If the ATA are succesful and get it to congress and the bill does pass I will sell everything I have and invest it in a trailer axle manufacturer’s stock, I’ll make the dotcom billionaires look like peasants
My point was that the ATA seem to be saying lets put a load more money on the fuel bill to allow the roads to be strengthened.
Rather than just allow natural wastage to replace the existing stock with kit which can handle more weight while applying the same,if not less,stress and pressure to the road surface.Just as has been done here and Scandinavia to a greater or lesser extent.
By that logic the ATA seen to have lost the plot and you wouldn’t want them to succeed unless you want your fuel bills to increase.
The ATA are just saying what the folks in DC are telling them to say, the country is on its arse and they have no money for highways due to their overspending everywhere else.
Carryfast:
Rather than just allow natural wastage to replace the existing stock with kit which can handle more weight while applying the same,if not less,stress and pressure to the road surface.Just as has been done here and Scandinavia to a greater or lesser extent.
you go on and on claiming only individual axle weights matter when it comes to damaging the road surface. they don’t. total weight plays a big part, you would know that if had done your homework.
milodon:
Carryfast:
Rather than just allow natural wastage to replace the existing stock with kit which can handle more weight while applying the same,if not less,stress and pressure to the road surface.Just as has been done here and Scandinavia to a greater or lesser extent.you go on and on
Enough said…
[emoji1] [emoji1] [emoji1] [emoji1]
Not to mention that many companies over here don’t replace their kit every 5 yrs so the kit on the road now will still be used regularly in 10 yrs time. 
milodon:
Carryfast:
Rather than just allow natural wastage to replace the existing stock with kit which can handle more weight while applying the same,if not less,stress and pressure to the road surface.Just as has been done here and Scandinavia to a greater or lesser extent.you go on and on claiming only individual axle weights matter when it comes to damaging the road surface. they don’t. total weight plays a big part, you would know that if had done your homework.
An explanation would be good.Such as how,in your view,a 75t gross + A train or 60t gross + drawbar outfit would damage the road more than two seperate artics or a rigid and a seperate artic,or for that matter why they reached the conclusion here that 44t gross on 6 axles is better than 40t gross on 5.While your idea would also obviously make the idea of a Michigan Special redundant in which case they can start removing all those wasted axles.