Get ready for 60 ft. trailers!

This should be interesting. The way I read it the extra length in over the nose with a deep pin setting. I give it a week and someone will take out a telephone pole going around a corner. The roads and docks we have today can barley handle a 53 and they want 7 more feet? CA has 60 ft or maybe 57's can't remember but they are inter state only and are hauled by real short cab overs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: snafu and Igor Galanter
IFS is running something in Ontario too. They use a special tractor for it. 57 foot trailers are common in some states in the US and have been for some time. As long as the infrastructure around loading and unloading points makes it work, it's fine.

What's really interesting is that Canadian Tire for now has to put the 60s as top layer on a double stack on the train ... but ultimately CP will have to have boxcars spec'd differently because eventually 60s would be the norm. Don't forget that even if only Canadian Tire does it, Canadian Tire is actually the largest IMC in Canada. Better believe all the other intermodal players will go in this direction.
 
Rob said:
This should be interesting. The way I read it the extra length in over the nose with a deep pin setting. I give it a week and someone will take out a telephone pole going around a corner. The roads and docks we have today can barley handle a 53 and they want 7 more feet? CA has 60 ft or maybe 57's can't remember but they are inter state only and are hauled by real short cab overs.
Click to expand...
Good point but I am guessing most of these will be shunted via day cabs so the overall length would be similar in that case would it not? What is the common length a sleeper would add to the overall length?
 
TransAction said:
Good point but I am guessing most of these will be shunted via day cabs so the overall length would be similar in that case would it not? What is the common length a sleeper would add to the overall length?
Click to expand...

Not only, Transaction.. If you noticed trucks have to be modified to accommodate dipper kingpin..
It will take a lot of time and confusion for awhile...
 
The same thing was probably said from the 48's to 53's but once everyone realized the cost savings, they made it work. Sorry, I am not familiar to this level with equipment as we are just simple minded freight brokers (sarcastic).... I do know that we have some clients who request day cabs only in tight situations so these ones with 53' trailers would most likely have an issue with the 60' but I guess I am wondering for those that can take 53's without issues, would an extra 7' make that much of a difference with any type of truck, but particularly day cabs?
 
48' to 53'? What about when we went from 45' to 48'. Or how about 2 53's! If the market has a need for a new configuration, there will be a way to make it work. Nothing happens overnight and rest assured, the MOT will ensure that it doesn't. They have to walk a fine line between satisfying what the shipping community wants and the fear of the general motoring public of those " big, scary trucks".
 
loaders said:
48' to 53'? What about when we went from 45' to 48'. Or how about 2 53's! If the market has a need for a new configuration, there will be a way to make it work. Nothing happens overnight and rest assured, the MOT will ensure that it doesn't. They have to walk a fine line between satisfying what the shipping community wants and the fear of the general motoring public of those " big, scary trucks".
Click to expand...
Sorry, the 45' to 48' dates me an shows your age Loaders ... ;-).... However, I agree, also, wouldn't 60' allow for really an extra 8' as per the standard skid sizes could really only allow most shippers to load 52' of trailer? Or would that be too tight to load right up to the 60' with standard 40 x 48" s?
 
Longer trailers only benefit shippers of light, bulky freight.......potato chips, wood chips, foam, etc., etc. Existing GVW restrictions still trump everything else. Ever wonder why it is sometimes difficult to source 53' flat beds? Steel, lumber, etc. maximizes weight long before deck space. Yes, of course there are exceptions, and thank goodness there are some carriers that do offer 53' flats,steps,etc..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Igor Galanter
The problem with them is when they do become the norm in 10-20 years trucks will still be trying to get into the same old small city streets etc and instead of running around with 5 empty feet on the back carriers will be running around with 12 in less the US rebuild their infastructre as their roads and bridges cannot support Canadian weights. Well over half of truckload freight does not fill out floor space on a trailer. Try explaining that to a CSR at a brokerage who insists his or her 20 skid 45000 lb load has to be on a 53 as they take the whole trailer to load it's a truckload don't ya know.. I used to run a few 48,s in the last few years and what a pia having to ask will it fit on a 48. Paper , steel, loads of flour etc all need a 53... they only take 45-48n but it has to load on a 53. I used to just say okay I will send a 53 and load the 48's way easier than trying to teach other people's employees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobsanT, Igor Galanter, snafu and 1 other person
Good point Rob. I think it would be safe to say, that the majority of CSRs at many brokerage firms, don't come from a transportation background. As a result, their knowledge of weight restrictions, hours of service, and all of the other details of trucking, is understandably weak. It can be taught/learned but that does take time. In contrast, I would assume that most dispatchers in a carriers operation, were probably drivers themselves at one point and have over time, acquired some of those details. Of the 3 people I have in operations, only one spent any time behind the wheel. One of the others has learned the "ins and outs" after 17 years in my employ, and of course my great teaching skills.....ha. The third, our newest member, is on a crash course to pick up the required knowledge and has been instructed to always ask questions if you're unsure. Happy New Year to all of the members of Inside Transport. I look forward to another year of information sharing, and most likely a few heated exchanges. As long as we can maintain a reasonable level of mutual respect, all will be good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: martinetav, Rob and Igor Galanter
You ever notice lengths increase BUT rate doesn't. My first trailer was a 42 foot and I had no problem loading or in some cases overloading it. Thus having said that everyone is hauling 11 feet free every load. So the sixth load is FREE
 
  • Like
Reactions: snafu
Sad, isn't it, that "professionals" don't know about weight restrictions etc. That they wouldn't even consider giving us MORE money to transport more freight. Most of them don't even realize that a 44,000 pound load does not fill a 53' trailer... Sad statement to all of you PROFESSIONAL load brokers. Sadder even, is to be told by the load broker that he doesn't even care about any of our restrictions. Heck, most of them don't even care about the weather and road conditions that our drivers have to face... Very Sad and Very Trumpesque...
 
  • Like
Reactions: snafu
I don't think that was a really correct comment. Shippers ask of us to provide 53 foot trailers even when the freight won't fill it for two reasons ... the first being that a 48 footer is likely going to be really old, and 2nd is that if the standard is 53 ft they have staff trained on how to load their trailer on a 53 vs 48 or something else ... the big advantage that 48s have even to this day is that you can slide the axles and be legal. In most places, a 53 ft trailer needs to have the tandems at the 41 ft on the road ... they can only slide them when they need it for parking/positioning purposes.
 
theman said:
I don't think that was a really correct comment. Shippers ask of us to provide 53 foot trailers even when the freight won't fill it for two reasons ... the first being that a 48 footer is likely going to be really old, and 2nd is that if the standard is 53 ft they have staff trained on how to load their trailer on a 53 vs 48 or something else ... the big advantage that 48s have even to this day is that you can slide the axles and be legal. In most places, a 53 ft trailer needs to have the tandems at the 41 ft on the road ... they can only slide them when they need it for parking/positioning purposes.
Click to expand...


What is the difference in loading a 48 or a 53? You load a 44k load past the 48 ft mark you are 99% of the time over axle on the trailer. Sorry but that argument does not hold water 24 skids is 24 skids(48ft) single double etc or however you load has no bearing as past 48 ft is a no go zone on a heavy load.

The 48ft is older may hold a little bit of water but they do still sell them and the ones I got rid of a year or so ago where 2010 models. Michigan for the most part is the only one who get sticky on the 41ft BS (in my service area as I believe the land of the big shake does it to) and a foot either way is not hard to slide past them so long as you do not have 41ft and an arrow plastered on the side of the trailer and at 250-300lbs a hole you can move a bunch of weight in a short amount of slide. This in it's self is a problem with shippers as if they loaded the trailers correctly in the first place as you stated they should be trained to do (but oh how they aren't) we would have to not have to slide. You would be surprised at how many times we have had to have a shipper reload a trailer as they load 44-45 k on 32-40 feet and they will argue well we do this all the time and we argue back well you may do it all the time but that does not make it right and show them the scale tickets to prove it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Igor Galanter, giverrr, lowmiler88 and 1 other person
Rob, it's a shipper's CYA. They don't want to have to guess so they just ask for it. It's really a matter of setting a standard. I'd say half or more of the 53 ft trailers around have never moved their axles ... may as well build trailers with non-sliding tandems.
 
theman said:
Rob, it's a shipper's CYA. They don't want to have to guess so they just ask for it. It's really a matter of setting a standard. I'd say half or more of the 53 ft trailers around have never moved their axles ... may as well build trailers with non-sliding tandems.
Click to expand...



I would say a broker CYA as shippers could care less. If it fits it fits. Never had a shipper refuse to load my trailers on a heavy load or ask why it took the whole trailer to load a 24 skid shipment. As I stated in a previous post it is CSR and dispatchers at brokerages that give you the grief that it HAS to be a 53 on a 10 roll paper load that weighs 45k. I have lots of direct customers also and if a load would fit I sent it if not I send a 53 but asking ___ at XYZ if it or hell even if they know what the freight is most of the time is an act of futility. It is all about training and a lot of brokers train their people to look at margins and nothing else or it sure seems that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: giverrr and snafu
theman said:
I don't think that was a really correct comment. Shippers ask of us to provide 53 foot trailers even when the freight won't fill it for two reasons ... the first being that a 48 footer is likely going to be really old, and 2nd is that if the standard is 53 ft they have staff trained on how to load their trailer on a 53 vs 48 or something else ... the big advantage that 48s have even to this day is that you can slide the axles and be legal. In most places, a 53 ft trailer needs to have the tandems at the 41 ft on the road ... they can only slide them when they need it for parking/positioning purposes.
Click to expand...
Well, I was wondering if you are a broker or a trucker. I now have my answer. Our guys slide the axles often. Lots of shippers out there who think they are smarter than the guy driving the truck they ordered. "That's the way we load ALL of the truck that come in here" is a statement that tells us a lot also.
Each unit that goes in for a load is different. Not one truck should be loaded EXACTLY the same way. If the shippers would take a moment to listen to the driver, a lot of time and effort would be saved. But NO, dog gone it, he paid for 53 feet and he's going to use them... Now, if the load weighs say 20,000 lbs there is no problem. If you have 44,000 lbs to load, YOU SHOULD NOT FILL THE 53'. Nor should you spread the load so it arrives at the doors either. Doing so will have the truck OVER WEIGHT on the rear axle. Most states will let you get away with it if the over is not too bad and the gross weight is good. Illinois will park you at the weigh station and make you have your load reworked so as not to be over weight on any of the axles. That makes for a pretty expensive road service call. Don't let yourself think that they'll let you drive that truck to a dock nearby to have the load reworked. That would be a fairy tale. Each of us have our talents and therefore, listen to the drivers, especially the OOs They know their equipment and how to load it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: giverrr
I think this 48 vs 53 argument may have run it's course because really who doesn't operate with big boy trailers? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom