Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Semi Trucks in USA - why no XXL large units

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Semi Trucks in USA - why no XXL large units

Old 28th May 2018, 14:11
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Vic
Age: 51
Posts: 438
Semi Trucks in USA - why no XXL large units

1st video is a B Double. 50% or more trucks are of this type on the interstate in Australia.
The other videos are even bigger trucks that are now on our major highways but in small numbers.
Why does America not have the same sort of trucks.




Ozgrade3 is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 14:22
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: California
Posts: 341
Probably because the rail system is cheaper.
f
fleigle is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 14:48
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 67
Posts: 492
They also have hills
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 15:15
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,557
They are an absolute pain in the arse to overtake on a two lane highway. You need to have at least half a mile of clear road and in any sort of crosswind you get buffeted all through the procedure. The worst are the ones where there is a 'dog' trailer swinging from side to side.

Great on relatively deserted roads but not good for roos or coos.
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 16:45
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 422
Too much freaking traffic in most places, for starters. The Interstates are generally good roads, but unless you're way out in the western US there's not much comparison to the Outback of Oz. Once upon a time one would see shorter dual trailers in some areas, although I haven't seen any for a while. As mentioned, hills can be an issue. As also mentioned, the rail system is well developed and can be competitive if managed properly, though some rail companies have failed that test in a spectacular fashion.
Carbon Bootprint is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 16:56
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Chocolatetown
Age: 58
Posts: 83
Intermodal freight transport
climber314 is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 19:08
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 589
We have plenty of triple trailers out here in Oregon, Idaho, etc.. FedEx and UPS mainly. Trouble is the tractor is woefully underpowered and these beasts can hardly get up the mildest hill -- then on the downside they race by wallowing into both lanes.
obgraham is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 20:21
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 155
The gross weight limits for HGVs in the USA seem to be actually less than they are in Europe, apparently due to limitations on bridges/culverts/road construction etc. (though no idea of the regs on multiple trailers). Their design though sometimes seems strange, maybe due to different regs: in some circumstances there seems to be more truck than load.
gruntie is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 20:41
  #9 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
States (like Michigan) that have serious winters, have axle-weight restrictions (after the frost periods) - so you can see vehicles with extra 'lift axles' that can be lowered to reduce potential damage to thawing frozen highways (the sub-structure rather than the highway surface).
When roads that have been frozen all winter begin to thaw from the surface downward, melting snow and ice saturate the softened ground. During the spring thaw, the roadbed softened by trapped moisture beneath the pavement makes it more susceptible to damage. This also contributes to pothole problems already occurring due to this winter's numerous freeze-thaw cycles.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 28th May 2018, 21:03
  #10 (permalink)  
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 323
Why yes we have those here in Texas. They're used mostly when we teach our daughters to drive, but the best thing is they can then make their own way to primary school
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! is offline  
Old 29th May 2018, 12:58
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: MIA
Posts: 213
[QUOTE=Ozgrade3;10159090]1st video is a B Double. 50% or more trucks are of this type on the interstate in Australia.
The other videos are even bigger trucks that are now on our major highways but in small numbers.
Why does America not have the same sort of trucks.


Road infrastructure is not up to it. Roads are crumbling now so bigger heavier trucks will cause major damage.

Unions are another reason. They want more CDL drivers not less with bigger trucks.
OldCessna is offline  
Old 29th May 2018, 12:59
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: on the ground
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by gruntie View Post
The gross weight limits for HGVs in the USA seem to be actually less than they are in Europe, apparently due to limitations on bridges/culverts/road construction etc. (though no idea of the regs on multiple trailers). Their design though sometimes seems strange, maybe due to different regs: in some circumstances there seems to be more truck than load.
More to the point, weight and axle limits and other regulation generally, seems to vary in every state - and by comparison with Australia, in America you're crossing state borders all the time. Axle loads and load limits for groups of axles within a certain distance of each other seem very variable, encouraging for example two axle trailers with axles as far apart as the first and third axles on an Australian tri-axle trailer, so that only one axle at a time is directly over a culvert. Such wide axle spacing wouldn't be permitted here.
In Australia, we've had road trains in remote areas forever, but B doubles in the more densely populated states (including Victoria; the only mainland state smaller than Texas!) are relatively new (20 years?) and are subject to uniform and modern design requirements nationally and are route limited in most areas.
nonsense is offline  
Old 29th May 2018, 14:08
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 54
Posts: 36
There are a few routes in the US that allow triples

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps...usr/chap02.cfm
underfire is offline  
Old 30th May 2018, 00:51
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,331
As others have mentioned, the western US has quite a few tall mountain ranges, and the interstate highways have some long, steep grades. You put a 50+ ton triple on a several mile long 6 or 7% grade and it's going to be a handful (and they go down hill about the same speed as they go up - very slowly).
I'm personally a little thankful that Washington state doesn't allow triples.
tdracer is online now  
Old 30th May 2018, 01:19
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 67
Posts: 492
The only people who like big trucks are truckers and governments.
They slow down traffic flow which increases traffic density proportionately, and knock the hell out of the roads.
Putting all your heavy freight on the roads is dumb.

But that way you can hide the true cost of maintaining the right-of-way behind fuel excise and road taxes that every private vehicle owner pays while the big trucking companies (not the owner-drivers) reel in the profits.
WingNut60 is offline  
Old 30th May 2018, 12:14
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 81
Posts: 696
How wrong the 'Beeching' system was. Had we had the detailed railway structure, small freight (Amazon etc.) could be shipped to local stations by rail and then distributed from there compared with the massive road delivery systems we now have.
Another example where things are judged by cost rather than social values.
Bloody accountants!
funfly is offline  
Old 30th May 2018, 14:33
  #17 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 75
Posts: 1,859
Originally Posted by funfly View Post
How wrong the 'Beeching' system was. Had we had the detailed railway structure, small freight (Amazon etc.) could be shipped to local stations by rail and then distributed from there compared with the massive road delivery systems we now have.
Another example where things are judged by cost rather than social values.
Bloody accountants!
Like you, I lived through a time when you could send a parcel by Red Star (and in our area they were even taken on service buses to rural locations to complete the journey).

And 'luggage in advance' for a nominal fee in addition to a rail ticket.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 31st May 2018, 00:02
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 51
Posts: 1,687
Reinvigorating rail shipments and de-incentivizing long distance trucking would serve the economy, the needs of business, and the environment extremely well. Today's locomotives can move a ton of freight nearly 500 miles on just one gallon of diesel. The combination of using rail for medium to long haul carriage with semi-trucks for short haul is a perfect synergy of efficiency, speed, and flexibility.

How we got here: the trucking lobbies in Washington and the national public distaste for the railroad barons of nearly a century ago combined to allow the current malfeasance to take hold - inefficiencies, traffic and safety problems, and the ongoing damage to national infrastructure are the 'dividends' we are all subject to.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 31st May 2018, 07:01
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
America saves the "XXL" designation for the waistbands of their citizens.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 31st May 2018, 23:23
  #20 (permalink)  
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 323
you missed an X

US Sizes XS S M L XL XXL XXXL
Neck (inches) 13-13.5 14-14.5 15-15.5 16-16.5 17-17.5 18-18.5 19-19.5
Chest (inches) 33-34 35-37 38-40 42-44 46-48 50-52 54-56
Sleeve (inches) 31.5-32 32.5-33 33.5-34 34.5-35 35.5-36 36-36.5 36.5-37
Waist (inches) 27-28 29-31 32-34 36-38 40-42 44-46 50-52
Neck (cm) 33-34 36-37 38-39 40-42 43-45 46-47 48-49
Chest (cm) 84-86 89-94 96-102 107-112 116-122 127-132 137-140
Sleeve (cm) 80-81 82-84 85-86 87-89 90-91 91-93 93-94
Waist (cm) 68-71 73-79 81-86 91-97 101-107 111-117 127-132
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.