Railroad Forums 

  • Intermodal; trailer and container sizes

  • General discussion about railroad operations, related facilities, maps, and other resources.
General discussion about railroad operations, related facilities, maps, and other resources.

Moderator: Robert Paniagua

 #790952  by scharnhorst
 
I think 53' foot trailers and containers were permitted in the late 90's want to say some time after 1997??
 #791371  by Cowford
 
While certain states permit the use of 57' trailers, I wouldn't expect them to be adopted as the national standard due to the earlier mentioned cornering issues. The trucking industry is approaching efficiency improvements on two fronts: increasing weight capacity (with the aid of a third trailing axle), and longer combination vehicles (LCVs)... essentially nationally acceptance of twin-53's, triples, etc. Both have been presented in Congress before. The LCV issue is a challenge for truckers. Everything negative about it is more visible and obvious... so is more difficult to advance politically. On the other hand, voters and drivers can't "see" weight increases, so while there may be negative consequences to roads/bridges, etc. it's not as inflammatory an issue. By the way, if you look hard enought, you'll find some 57' intermodal equipment in operation.

Regarding chassis... while some carriers like JB Hunt own chassis, most do not. Those company trip-lease chassis from chassis pool operators such as Seacastle. Trailer shipments are largely the domain of LTL and reefer carriers now. Containers of course have the advantage of being stackable, but they also have the disadvantage in requiring chassis be spotted train side for unloading. This affects train load/unload time.
 #791400  by QB 52.32
 
I can't help but think when I see a 53' moving via road or rail, that really, these boxes are the boxcars one generation back on rubber tires! Who woulda thunk it back in the day.

Just a comment regarding trailer (container) size evolution during the 1980/90's. Besides dealing with increasing length, domestic intermodal equipment also had to evolve to a high-cube 110" inside and door height to keep up with the big truckload carriers, though, accomplished not too far behind the pace of the truckers following trailer lifecycle and replacement time frames. Similarly, I believe that the width of the trailers also increased.
 #791698  by scharnhorst
 
I think only a few states permit triples as long as there short pup trailers going cross country on State/Federal highways. Doubles seem to be permitted just about every where. New York as far as I rember dose not permit trucks with doubles to leave NYS Route 90 but will permit a truck with 20ft foot Pups only to move anywhere in the state with doubles. There might be a few exceptions to the rules when it comes to entering citys. Nucor Steel in my town moves steel rebar on 45 and 50 foot flat beds which can also be extended to 60 or 80 feet by way of a beam that sits with in a beam under the trailer. I don't see many of these trailer leave the complex moveing about the city my self I can't vouch for that becouse I don't live by the mill. I have how ever seen them transport from the loading area at the Mill and transfer them to the raildock for which they have to move only a few hundred feet up and across a public street.
 #792511  by Cowford
 
Trucks have the capability of moving dimensional loads (high/wide/long/heavy)... it is performed by permit which in a few ways is similar to the railroads' clearance process on dimensional loads moving rail. Pups are actually 28' and are permitted in tandem on all interstate highways... the federal govt. forbids states to impose length limitations of less than 48' on singles and 28' doubles. Some states like NY are more liberal and permit longer combinations on certain highways.
 #792782  by 2nd trick op
 
For everyone's information, here's a link to a simplified map I was able to locate:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesand ... tw411.html

My first "real" (after-college) job was in the Central Dispatch office of the long-departed Jones Motor, so I can recall some of the issues of the day.

By the early 1970's, "double-bottom" rigs were allowed in all states except for a handful along the Eastern Seaboard. Massachusetts, Virginia and Pennsylvania were viewed as the most restrictive. However, the "doubles" were of trailers (sometimes called "pups") of no more than 23 feet in length rather than the present day 28. Only one state (Nevada) allowed "triples" in those days, with a maximum length of 105 feet -- power included.

The 45-foot semitrailer was legalized in all states by the summer of 1971. The 40-footer had ben standard for a long time before that (and of course, the 88-foot TOFC flat which dominated things in the 60's was designed on that premise), but I can't say whether the 40-footer replaced a 35- or 38-foot standard, and information from the web that far back is sparse. With the completion of tunnel-free and toll-free Interstate 80 across Pennsylvania in the fall of 1970, the presssure to ease restrictions grew. Industry leader Consolidated Freightways came up with what we used to refer to as a "Pennsylvania double", essentially a straight truck with a 23-foot box pulling a full trailer of the same size. According to some sources, the rig could be easily reconfigured to the "traditional" double once the Ohio line was crossed, but I never saw proof of this.

That limit didn't include what we referred to as "trains" ... two full size trailers ... which were permitted on the New York Thruway, Massachusetts Turnpike, and the Ohio and Indiana Turnpikes. Those rigs required special larger tractors, and the drivers had to be specially licensed by the toll road operators. Putting them together was accomplished at staging areas at some of the interchanges; the limits were such that a 45-foot box always had to be twinned with a 40-footer. Pennsylvania wisely refused to participate on either the Turnpike or the "Shortway" (I-80) due to the tunnels, grades and curvature, but it's intersting to speculate on what might have turned out differently if only that flat, straight section of I-90 along Lake Erie had been excepted.

Resistance to larger truck sizes and weights by individual states was finally overcome in the early 1980s, and just as with the effort to impose a uniform 21-year drinking age, the threatened witholding of Federal highway funds was a key component of the equation. The acceptance of the 28-foot trailer and the use of "triples" also came into full flower at this time, as evidenced by the linked map.

In retrospect, while the industry mght have succeded in getting the weight limits it sought, the same period saw both a large shrinkage in the number of carriers, and the practice of local pickup/delivery and terminal-to-terminal line-haul in the wake of deregulation. Very few of the truckload-based carriers who replaced most of the familiar names of the 1970's make use of double- or triple-trailers, and Roadway Express and Yellow Freight, two of the formerly-dominant firms, merged out of necessity and are reportedly being kept afloat by their bankers while restructuring similar to that which created Con-Way out of Consolidated Freightways can be effected. Only ABF, which also absorbed successful Carolina Freight about 15 years ago, seems to be holding its own.

Looking back, if 1973 was a poor time to go railroading, it was a good time to be young and working for a dynamic competitor. But nobody thought things would turn out the way they did.
 #794278  by scharnhorst
 
One thing that I have noticed more and more when I go to Canada is a lot of 28' and 30' flat bed trailers and even tanker trailers the first trailer has 3 sets of axles and a 5th wheel stand mounted to the trailer frame much like a semi truck if you follow the link and scroll down to the section showing the truck trailers in Scandanavia like Finland, Denmark and Sweden you'll see what I'm talking about. If you want to see a Road Train go farther down and check out the Semi trucks in Austrailua moveing 6 trailers at one time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-trailer_truck
 #798005  by Cowford
 
Truck weights in VT are not more restrictive than federal guidelines and have nothing to do with it. VT doesn't have an intermodal yard because there is not sufficient business to justify it.
 #798722  by wis bang
 
scharnhorst wrote:One thing that I have noticed more and more when I go to Canada is a lot of 28' and 30' flat bed trailers and even tanker trailers the first trailer has 3 sets of axles and a 5th wheel stand mounted to the trailer frame much like a semi truck if you follow the link and scroll down to the section showing the truck trailers in Scandanavia like Finland, Denmark and Sweden you'll see what I'm talking about. If you want to see a Road Train go farther down and check out the Semi trucks in Austrailua moveing 6 trailers at one time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-trailer_truck
Canadians call the three axle lead trailer/two axle pup trailer a 'B train' and they prefer it because it is more stable than the pintle hook/converter dolly "A train" we use in the US. The lead trailer has the 5th wheel for the trailing unit located over the rear [3rd] axle instead of having two pivot points when using the converter dolly.

Remember that the Canadians allow twice the gross weight on their roads, except during a short spring season when the 'Frost Laws' cut them back to avoid breaking up the roadways during the spring thaw. They prefer the added stability with the higher weights.

In the US we used 1600 cu ft 4 hopper pnumatic trailers for plastic pellets and averaged [4] 48,000LB loads per railcar. The Canadian carrier I worked for had several three axle 2800 cu ft 5 hopper units that could empty a railcar in two trips. About once per year one of them came down to NC w/ a special load. Once one stopped in at our shop to have a flat tire changed. It barely fit through the shop door! The main shop in Montreal had larger doors and was made to hold (2) B trains in each bay. They do things different north of the border
 #798831  by scharnhorst
 
wis bang wrote:
scharnhorst wrote:One thing that I have noticed more and more when I go to Canada is a lot of 28' and 30' flat bed trailers and even tanker trailers the first trailer has 3 sets of axles and a 5th wheel stand mounted to the trailer frame much like a semi truck if you follow the link and scroll down to the section showing the truck trailers in Scandanavia like Finland, Denmark and Sweden you'll see what I'm talking about. If you want to see a Road Train go farther down and check out the Semi trucks in Austrailua moveing 6 trailers at one time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-trailer_truck
Canadians call the three axle lead trailer/two axle pup trailer a 'B train' and they prefer it because it is more stable than the pintle hook/converter dolly "A train" we use in the US. The lead trailer has the 5th wheel for the trailing unit located over the rear [3rd] axle instead of having two pivot points when using the converter dolly.

Remember that the Canadians allow twice the gross weight on their roads, except during a short spring season when the 'Frost Laws' cut them back to avoid breaking up the roadways during the spring thaw. They prefer the added stability with the higher weights.

In the US we used 1600 cu ft 4 hopper pnumatic trailers for plastic pellets and averaged [4] 48,000LB loads per railcar. The Canadian carrier I worked for had several three axle 2800 cu ft 5 hopper units that could empty a railcar in two trips. About once per year one of them came down to NC w/ a special load. Once one stopped in at our shop to have a flat tire changed. It barely fit through the shop door! The main shop in Montreal had larger doors and was made to hold (2) B trains in each bay. They do things different north of the border

every once and a while I'll see a Canadian Flat bed B-Train trailer in New York with out a 2ed trailer connected to it they seem to be a rare site here.
 #805475  by Cowford
 
Not earth shattering news, but Hub Group ordered 2,000 53' steel boxes from Singamas a few weeks ago. Domestic container loadings have been really strong and capacity is tightening.

Further evidence of the 48' containers' rapid demise... this from a CSX press release last week:

Please be informed that CSX Intermodal (CSXI) plans to offer 48' rail-owned equipment service in select lanes effective May 17, 2010. The terminals that will service 48' rail-owned equipment are Baltimore, Chicago 59th St, Chicago Bedford Park, Cincinnati, Jacksonville, North Bergen, North Kearny, Orlando and Tampa... Rail billing and pricing will be removed to and from all other terminals... CSXI will no longer maintain 48' chassis at terminals other than the ones listed above effective May 17th.
 #805738  by David Benton
 
i can see the desire to match the highway offerings , but i cant help but think secondhand iso 40 foot containers must be a dime a dozen at the moment . Are they used in domestic USA service at all ?
 #805876  by Cowford
 
David, to my knowledge not to any great extent. Most customers are looking for the additional floor space/cubic capacity of 53's, and the steamship lines want to either get 'em back to the ports loaded or empty rather than have them remain in the hinterland. It'd be interesting to hear if others have additional insight to any domestic moves.