well for one it isn’t “an idea” of mine, it’s the conclusion of a hefty research done by the people repsonsible for roads around here. actually, learning the basics of what a road consists of would point you in the right direction, you know, what lies beneath.
taffytrucker:
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.
To be fair they could have used the same logic here in the late 1970’s.IE lets put enough tax on diesel to make the roads strong enough to take 38-44t gross on 4 axles. 
milodon:
well for one it isn’t “an idea” of mine, it’s the conclusion of a hefty research done by the people repsonsible for roads around here. actually, learning the basics of what a road consists of would point you in the right direction, you know, what lies beneath.
An answer to the questions would be good.IE like what’s the difference to the road structure between an A train and two seperate artics,or a drawbar v a rigid and a seperate artic and why did we go to all the trouble of 6 axle 44 tonners instead of 5 axle 40 tonners. .
It’s all to do with too much weight in one place, basically. Two artics would have a lot more space between them, compared to 2 trailers separated by a dolly, on any given stretch of road. A road is basically a land bridge. 
While you’re busy googleing stuff you know balls all about, nor have actual experience of, add federal bridge law to your browser history 
Nice diary btw Robinhood
billybigrig:
0It’s all to do with too much weight in one place, basically. Two artics would have a lot more space between them, compared to 2 trailers separated by a dolly, on any given stretch of road. A road is basically a land bridge.
While you’re busy googleing stuff you know balls all about, nor have actual experience of, add federal bridge law to your browser history
Nice diary btw Robinhood
Would that be the same law which says no more than one artic on any bridge in any direction at one time.However based on that diagram the ATA will obviously have to add a national bridge rebuilding programme to the fuel bill in addition to the roads.
Meanwhile I’ve decided to stay off the QE2 bridge in future whenever there is a massive traffic jam on it.Because of the combined weight of all those nose to tail 40 and 44 tonners.When it is obvious that it should only be used by one mile long 32 tonner in either direction at once.Although I think you’re being a bit over pessimistic about the weight bearing abilities of solid ground. 
Carryfast:
billybigrig:
It’s all to do with too much weight in one place, basically. Two artics would have a lot more space between them, compared to 2 trailers separated by a dolly, on any given stretch of road. A road is basically a land bridge.While you’re busy googleing stuff you know balls all about, nor have actual experience of, add federal bridge law to your browser history
Nice diary btw Robinhood
Would that be the same law which says no more than one artic on any bridge in any direction at one time.However based on that diagram the ATA will obviously have to add a national bridge rebuilding programme to the fuel bill in addition to the roads.
Meanwhile I’ve decided to stay off the QE2 bridge in future whenever there is a massive traffic jam on it.Because of the combined weight of all those 40 and 44 tonners.When it is obvious that it should only be used by one mile long 32 tonner in either direction at once.Although I think you’re being a bit over pessimistic about the weight bearing abilities of solid ground.
Now pop off and google road construction.
Also number of bridges in the USA. Here’s a clue… between my place out there and the nearest city, about 60 miles on one U.S. highway,a well used freight route about 60% of that being recent dual carriageway, I estimate there to be about 30 bridges of various types and size. All of these would need to be surveyed and possibly upgraded.
Google and a worn out betamax copy of Convoy doesn’t make a person an expert
Carryfast:
Although I think you’re being a bit over pessimistic about the weight bearing abilities of solid ground.
don’t care to add much more to this, as obviously you know better but have you actually seen any roadworks, as in, what lies beneath the asphalt? it is not solid by a far shot. and whereas higher axle weights damage the top part, higher gross weights damage the foundation. we are having an ongoing discussion about 60t gross weights in estonia as well, but due to a big part of the infastructure having been built in the soviet times on a limestone gravel base, it will be detrimental to allow 25.25m long and 60t trucks on it, much different in scandinavia where the base is granite gravel.
They use a sand base here in Canada and boy can you feel it, the roads are atrocious.
billybigrig:
Also number of bridges in the USA. Here’s a clue… between my place out there and the nearest city, about 60 miles on one U.S. highway,a well used freight route about 60% of that being recent dual carriageway, I estimate there to be about 30 bridges of various types and size. All of these would need to be surveyed and possibly upgraded.
It seems to me your ( and Milodon’s ) whole case is based on the idea that US etc road infrastructure can’t handle the weight spread between the turntable/dolly axles of a drawbar trailer to the rear axles of a rigid prime mover or trailer axles as part of an A train.Which the idea of everything from a 6 axle 44 tonner here v its previous 4 axle 32 tonner counterpart or a 26 tonner 3 axle v 32 tonner 4 axle tipper,let alone a Michigan Special or a Western type drawbar outfit,suggests is bollox.
newmercman:
They use a sand base here in Canada and boy can you feel it, the roads are atrocious.
The driveway and garage floor here are built better than that.
well it’s not “our case” but the case of people who didn’t become an expert on everything by driving a gritter for the local council, they thought a doctorate would be a better choice. ignorance is bliss and the ability to post here seems to be an added bonus.
milodon:
well it’s not “our case” but the case of people who didn’t become an expert on everything by driving a gritter for the local council, they thought a doctorate would be a better choice. ignorance is bliss and the ability to post here seems to be an added bonus.
To be fair it wasn’t me who designed all those previous examples which I’m going by as showing that the combined weight and spread of the average drawbar connection won’t collapse bridges or sink roads.
Carryfast:
milodon:
well it’s not “our case” but the case of people who didn’t become an expert on everything by driving a gritter for the local council, they thought a doctorate would be a better choice. ignorance is bliss and the ability to post here seems to be an added bonus.To be fair it wasn’t me who designed all those previous examples which I’m going by as showing that the combined weight and spread of the average drawbar connection won’t collapse bridges or sink roads.
No, it was people with a knowledge of the subject matter who understand what your fetishes blind you too.
Roads and bridges flex. The road surface is compressed by the axles/bogie and needs to be allowed to recover before the next one passes so as not to compound the compression and ultimately cause damage. So in an average pike setup for example you would have 2 x 30 plus thousand pound axle groupings separated only by the overhang of the lead and the a frame. In the case of 2 single trailer rigs the first one would be followed by a gap and then a 12 k steer and then a good 280 inches before the drives giving enough time for the road to recover.
billybigrig:
Carryfast:
milodon:
well it’s not “our case” but the case of people who didn’t become an expert on everything by driving a gritter for the local council, they thought a doctorate would be a better choice. ignorance is bliss and the ability to post here seems to be an added bonus.To be fair it wasn’t me who designed all those previous examples which I’m going by as showing that the combined weight and spread of the average drawbar connection won’t collapse bridges or sink roads.
No, it was people with a knowledge of the subject matter who understand what your fetishes blind you too.
Roads and bridges flex. The road surface is compressed by the axles/bogie and needs to be allowed to recover before the next one passes so as not to compound the compression and ultimately cause damage. So in an average pike setup for example you would have 2 x 30 plus thousand pound axle groupings separated only by the overhang of the lead and the a frame. In the case of 2 single trailer rigs the first one would be followed by a gap and then a 12 k steer and then a good 280 inches before the drives giving enough time for the road to recover.
So obviously no bridges and loads of totally wrecked roads out west then and as for 32 tonner 8 wheelers here no chance.
hankstruckpictures.com/pix/t … le0059.jpg
As for the federal bridge law diagram exactly what difference would making it a tri axle trailer and then running the outfit at 45t gross make to that given scenario.
Roads are built differently in different states usually due to availability of local materials or different climatic demands. Californian road construction varies greatly to say Montana or Michigan, not least due to earthquake resistance and temperature, hence the “local” variations allowed in gross and axle set up. I could load something legally in state that would not be so one state over. The standard set up was adopted as being the most universally acceptable and safe across the country without contravening local limits of bridge or grouping laws and causing damage. Except for those pesky Californians.
As for your 44 ton argument, well that’s been explained by others in previous posts by other experienced posters but I’ll recap for you once more.
Trailer age, sliding bogie, bridge law, etc etc
Add in the above and the fact that as the US market is weight critical any increase would leave tandems at a disadvantage being unable to compete. Anyone buying tridems ready for a change would be disadvantaged until the law changed, by losing capacity.
There are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of trailers in the US making any increase beyond practical as a short term thing and the US simply doesn’t do long term anything.
The transport industry over there bares little resemblance to here.
Something you’d actually know if, like the folks you’re trying to correct, you’d actually been there and done it, not gained your “vast knowledge” rubbing one out to Smokey and the bandit and daydreaming your night trunk away.
Anyway do carry on, not that you wouldn’t, the rest of us are having a ■■■■ good laugh at the [zb] you’re spouting
Hey carryfast, aren’t you trying to persuade the wrong people? I know you like a good black is white discussion in an empty room
Instead of trying to persuade by grinding down some bewildered drivers on trucknet you’re right until they collapse with exhaustion, shouldn’t you send your suggestions/objections to some sort of USA highway authority who came up with this stuff? Receiving a technical argument from one of us trucknet rowntrees randoms in the UK may make their dull day 
. Mmmm, maybe not.
billybigrig:
Roads are built differently in different states usually due to availability of local materials or different climatic demands. Californian road construction varies greatly to say Montana or Michigan, not least due to earthquake resistance and temperature, hence the “local” variations allowed in gross and axle set up. I could load something legally in state that would not be so one state over. The standard set up was adopted as being the most universally acceptable and safe across the country without contravening local limits of bridge or grouping laws and causing damage. Except for those pesky Californians.
As for your 44 ton argument, well that’s been explained by others in previous posts by other experienced posters but I’ll recap for you once more.
Trailer age, sliding bogie, bridge law, etc etc
Add in the above and the fact that as the US market is weight critical any increase would leave tandems at a disadvantage being unable to compete. Anyone buying tridems ready for a change would be disadvantaged until the law changed, by losing capacity.
There are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of trailers in the US making any increase beyond practical as a short term thing and the US simply doesn’t do long term anything.
The transport industry over there bares little resemblance to here.
Something you’d actually know if, like the folks you’re trying to correct, you’d actually been there and done it, not gained your “vast knowledge” rubbing one out to Smokey and the bandit and daydreaming your night trunk away.
Anyway do carry on, not that you wouldn’t, the rest of us are having a ■■■■ good laugh at the [zb] you’re spouting
To be fair at least one of those experienced ex pats has now obviously contradicted a similar argument to yours by saying that running an A train in the real world means more revenue for less work.While ‘so far’ obviously not having sunk into a big sand filled hole or fallen into any rivers on route. .
While the ATA’s answer seems to be that I’m right but instead of using upgraded kit as in the above example and as we did at the end of the 1970’s,their solution seems to be lets put a load of tax on fuel bills to pay for upgrading all the roads and bridges.But what would I know.
Freight Dog:
Hey carryfast, aren’t you trying to persuade the wrong people? I know you like a good black is white discussion in an empty roomInstead of trying to persuade by grinding down some bewildered drivers on trucknet you’re right until they collapse with exhaustion, shouldn’t you send your suggestions/objections to some sort of USA highway authority who came up with this stuff? Receiving a technical argument from one of us trucknet rowntrees randoms in the UK may make their dull day
No I’d rather wait until all those ‘experts’ start complaining about the new fuel tax which the ATA got Obama to put on the industry over there to upgrade the road system.
To be clear I don’t have an opinion on their lorry wheels and roads. I know it involves some wheels, and some roads. Then some maths, then some wheels, then some roads again. A bit more maths, then some other stuff, then more roads, and even maybe some more wheels
Freight Dog:
To be clear I don’t have an opinion on their lorry wheels and roads. I know it involves some wheels, and some roads. Then some maths, then some wheels, then some roads again. A bit more maths, then some other stuff, then more roads, and even maybe some more wheels
To put it simply the argument seems to be a case of Turkeys voting for Christmas.By effectively doing what we ‘would’ have done by handing the government a blank cheque in the form of fuel taxes to strengthen the roads enough to allow 4 axle 44 tonners,to at least save all the aggro of replacing the existing kit with 5 then 6 axle outfits.While also bearing in mind that the idea of LHV’s inevitably means driving into a big hole or falling into a river regardless of how strong the bridges and roads are.