Got it, turkeys. And also wheels, roads and maths at Christmas. North American road design confuses me!
It’s the turkey’s fault, not like British turkeys. Ok got it.
Hang about, why’s it their fault? Do they get the turkeys to do the maths?
The mentality over here is simple if it ain’t broke don’t fix it or try to improve it. Each state/province has its own set of laws for the road. Some allow B trains some don’t some allow tridems some don’t so it don’t matter what people think they know each state will do as it wants anyway
Freight Dog:
Got it, turkeys. And also wheels, roads and maths at Christmas. North American road design confuses me!It’s the turkey’s fault, not like British turkeys. Ok got it.
Hang about, why’s it their fault? Do they get the turkeys to do the maths?
The turkeys in this case being the ATA.Who seem to want to pay a load of money to the government in fuel taxes to upgrade the road system so they can run at higher weights.IE spend a pound to save a penny.
As for kit being replaced I take CFL you haven’t worked over here or you would know that you will often see a 20 yr old truck and trailer going down the road. They don’t replace it they repair it and send it back out
taffytrucker:
As for kit being replaced I take CFL you haven’t worked over here or you would know that you will often see a 20 yr old truck and trailer going down the road. They don’t replace it they repair it and send it back out
On that note the move from 32t gross to 38t here wasn’t exactly an orderly overnight changeover using all new kit.Although admittedly that change from four axles to 5 allowed more flexibility in the form of going for an old 3 axle unit to put with a two axle trailer.But the fact remains there is probably no way that the American industry can progress without at least a similar move to tri axle trailers as took place here and arguably the more widespread use of the LHV idea in the form of drawbars and A trains.
In that regard the ATA idea of calling for fuel tax increases to fund a road upgrade programme,instead of concentrating on the kit situation,seems expensive and pointless. 
You don’t get it do ya. Places like California won’t allow either B trains or a trains on their road system let alone pikes. There’s only a handful of states that do alow them and even less that allow pikes. But I guess you’re talking from your vast experience of driving on this side of the pond. Hell in CA you can’t have your axles further back then the 41ft mark in BC with a tandem 41ft mark goes in between the axles and again a different place for tridems. This is because of the tail swing on the bit tighter roads (that’s the states excuse and they stick to it) more like easy money for them from fines
taffytrucker:
You don’t get it do ya. Places like California won’t allow either B trains or a trains on their road system let alone pikes. There’s only a handful of states that do alow them and even less that allow pikes. But I guess you’re talking from your vast experience of driving on this side of the pond. Hell in CA you can’t have your axles further back then the 41ft mark in BC with a tandem 41ft mark goes in between the axles and again a different place for tridems. This is because of the tail swing on the bit tighter roads (that’s the states excuse and they stick to it) more like easy money for them from fines
I didn’t say A trains are the only option ( a pike being just another form of A train ).I also said tri axle trailers,thereby providing the move from 5 to 6 axle artics,and LHV type drawbars the latter already historically being common in the western states like CA.
Assuming that all of those options are out then what are the ATA trying to achieve by calling for fuel taxation increases to fund an increase in truck weights. Bearing in mind that upgrading the roads to handle heavier 5 axle artics will probably cost ( a lot ) more.In addition to the fact that the government will also inevitably use such a tax to rip off the industry for a lot more than just the cost of that.
Can’t remember seeing a drawbar in CA could be wrong mind but there again haven’t seen a tridem down there either!!!
As I tried to tell ya before over here if it ain’t broke don’t fix it or try to improve it.
taffytrucker:
Can’t remember seeing a drawbar in CA could be wrong mind but there again haven’t seen a tridem down there either!!!As I tried to tell ya before over here if it ain’t broke don’t fix it or try to improve it.
I only went to California once and to be honest that was enough. I remember seeing those signs with a T in them in either a red circle or with a cross through, I can’t remember now, and wondered what the hell they were whilst driving past them. Someone later told me that they were prohibiting tandem axles, which obviously I had on both the truck and trailer. I did notice an awful lot of weird looking combinations out there on the back roads, I seem to remember a lot of two axled cab over day cabs pulling tiny little one axled trailers etc.
Geoffrey the reason I earn more for doing less is twofold, firstly because I get better mpg than the level my fuel surcharge is set at, so that lowers my fuel costs exponentially. Secondly the way my rates are structured mean that I get hourly pay as soon as I split the trailers, which I also get paid to do.
The metaphor I use to describe the trunking part of my operation is that I can earn $50 carrying one bucket or $60 carrying two, yes there’s more money involved, but it requires a lot more work to earn, but it’s still the hourly paid part of the gig that is my reason for doing it.
robinhood_1984:
taffytrucker:
Can’t remember seeing a drawbar in CA could be wrong mind but there again haven’t seen a tridem down there either!!!As I tried to tell ya before over here if it ain’t broke don’t fix it or try to improve it.
I only went to California once and to be honest that was enough. I remember seeing those signs with a T in them in either a red circle or with a cross through, I can’t remember now, and wondered what the hell they were whilst driving past them. Someone later told me that they were prohibiting tandem axles, which obviously I had on both the truck and trailer. I did notice an awful lot of weird looking combinations out there on the back roads, I seem to remember a lot of two axled cab over day cabs pulling tiny little one axled trailers etc.
This is the type combination that I can remember as being very common throughout the western states including in large part California and not just tankers.Which has also been the case since at least the 1930’s.Admittedly in my case it has been well over 20 years since I was last there so maybe something has changed.In which case they seem to be going backwards over there. 
The ones I saw were more like this…
But with tractor units like this…
Basically a very short cabover with a single drive axle and two short flat beds on an A train type set up, not a wagon and drag drawbar. There may have been those but I don’t remember seeing any.
Those doubles are hay wagons, some of the fanciest looking trucks on the road.
newmercman:
Those doubles are hay wagons, some of the fanciest looking trucks on the road.
Like western wagon and drags they’ve been used for decades in lots of applications but obviously aren’t going to be able to handle anything like the same amount of weights when compared with tandem drive,dolly/turntable and trailer axles.Which is why I said they seem to be going backwards.Instead of forwards by now combining tri axle trailers with the tandem drives and dollies.
They do have bigger vehicles to take advantage of the efficiency of hauling lots of goods over large distances, the call them trains, not A, B or C trains, just simply trains.
newmercman:
They do have bigger vehicles to take advantage of the efficiency of hauling lots of goods over large distances, the call them trains, not A, B or C trains, just simply trains.
But this is trucknet not rail net and in view of that fact it would be fair to say that the US industry hasn’t progressed,to the widespread use of 8-9 axle drawbar outfits and 6 axle artics and 11 axle A trains,for long haul use,since at least the use of 6 axle drawbars in the 1930’s and 5 axle artics and A trains during at least the mid 20th century.Suggests that maybe it is taking your advice and giving up to the pro rail cause.Which seems ironic considering your comments concerning the revenue advantages provided by using 9 axle A trains on trunking operations.Let alone the implications for the Canadian road transport industry if your logic is taken to its logical conclusion by increasing both east west and north south rail freight links.While continuing the lack of progress in the ability of road transport to compete with that.
While ironically,considering the topic,also bearing in mind the fact that rail freight links exist between Eastern Canada and Florida for anyone who chooses to use them.
newmercman:
They do have bigger vehicles to take advantage of the efficiency of hauling lots of goods over large distances, the call them trains, not A, B or C trains, just simply trains.
And that endeth the first lesson .amen…
nice one robin just read it in library northampton im here on way 2 spain back there beginning of may m8 might be giving quality a call happy travels m8 steve ex pei
If you got paid by the mile for flights to and from Canada you’d be a very wealthy man Steve 
All very well going on about trains etc but its like in Nebraska you are not allowed on the interstate if you gross over 80000lbs keep in mind a tridem you gross 89k and that’s without a push on the truck let alone 106000lbs with a train