Do you qualify as an "automobile transporter?"

Man Brian, you and I have a LOT in common, was raised mostly in the Easton area, and the Government war on underground tank storage was what put me out of business after 13 years there, very familiar with the area, All of my family still lives there.

 

Then you know first hand what I am talking about, you may have even run the Ho Chi Min Trail (aka US 209) a time or two in the past LoL. My oldest daughter just moved out of Bethlehem to Anaheim, Ca for a job transfer and my youngest brother in law lives in Coplay, Pa.

 

WELL, I READ THAT ARTICLE AND ALTHOUGH I CAN SEE THE EXTRA LENGTH AS HOODS HAVE BECOME LONGER WITH LARGER GRILLES/RADIATORS TO TAKE CARE OF EMMISION MOTORS, I REALLY CAN'T AGREE WITH THE ASSESMENT THAT THE STINGERS HAVE LOST TWO CARS, REASON BEING IS THAT DROP FLOORS AND TILTING UPPER TABLES HAVE MORE THAN MADE UP FOR STRAPS OVER CHAINS, ASIDE FROM THAT, CARS HAVE BEEN GETTING SMALLER EVERY YEAR, AT LEAST THAT IS MY CONTENTION.

IF THAT WERE TO GO THRU AT 88,000 I CAN SEE THE WHOLE INDUSTRY BANGING ON THAT DOOR TO GET IN SHORTLY AFTER THE FIRST TRUCK LEFT THE RAMP.

Sorry, not mad, just didn't realize cap lock was on.

Also not sure where they would add the extra 8,000 capacity? You are already at 14,000 on front axle, and I can't see another axle being added, that would be counter productive as after the weight of axle and wheels tires, suspension you would only net 5,000?

You can't "spread" an axle, (I guess you could but there goes another spot). Personally, I think they are barking up the wrong tree with the weight, I think it's too close to what the rest of the industry wants and has not gotten, but who knows?

 

LOL, my son lives in Bethlehem, works at the NFI terminal in Bath. As far as the HCM trail goes, yep, been there done that, if these guys think DOT is tough they have never had a Park Ranger up their butt!

 

There IS a SOLID solution already in play for those big companies, (understand I have never worked a rail yard so I may be all wet here), the reason that I see those big companies and their stingers in trouble is because of them NOT taking advantage of what the stingers strengths are, Jack and I Hammer not Cooper, already discussed this last year when Ford was debuting the new Transits, and those bozo's using a whole stinger to haul three vans and a car.

Change the length law as you suggest, go 75' total length on high mounts, then use that part of the industry that is ALREADY IN PLACE and move strictly the big stuff though those channels.

Bang, everyone is happy, JCT and the others can now run full CAR counts on the stingers and the high mount industry takes care of the big stuff, maybe I am missing something, but it seems awfully simple to me

 

Stan,
You know as well as the rest of us, they use points like lower car counts and the strap vs. chain argument to try and make their point without stating the real reason they want change...yes, straps may have affected loading capacity but as you said modern design has made up for most of that. As for 88,000 pounds on a 5 axle, they may want to get 36-38k on the tandems and 16k on the steer, think about how hard it must be to evenly distribute the weight for a 10 or 11 car load, it is tough to build a 9 load on some of the sleeper stingers now with empty weight in the 44k range. Factor in the extra weight of the bigger motors and emission crap to do the same job, I see where the weight would be handy for the stingers, but you are right, it does run awful close to what the ATA already wants for the freight industry and I think that is why Bill Graves is supporting this, like I said earlier make a small pilot program then use it as proof of concept.

Also, I completely agree with your point on using the high mount segment for the big stuff, after all that is what you specialize in, and I concur it is a waste of resources to move the Transits 3 at a time on the stingers, let us with drop decks and other more appropriate trailers have that work.

 

Yes, it's insane. Those Transits (except the high roof) are just another column 3 unit. I'm glad we don't see any here! And while our ramp is in a somewhat unique spot due to distribution, it's still crazy to think that load factor tends to run in the high 5's, and that's running stingers.

As to Stan's point about cars getting smaller, I'd have to beg to differ. Some of the smaller cars have gotten quite short in length, but they've gotten taller to make them seem more roomy inside. And the pickups and SUV's have only gotten bigger and heavier every redesign (except the new F-150,) and the market seemingly has not tired of the lifted look in pickups. Not too long ago, I could tuck a Traverse under a 3/4 ton 4x4 and make 13'8". That ain't happening nowadays.

 

HAHAHAHA

The Ho Chi Minh...know it well. Shortcut from I80 to I84. Bypass the lovely Cross Bronx Expwy.

 

I guess what I should have said was a LOT more small cars, those Cmaxs and Cruzes Sparks would all fit in my Grand dads 56 Packards trunk, AND still close the lid!

 

The reefer thing is because the Feds have determined that some things are "Length exclusive devices", like mirrors, hand holds, reefers, etc. They are not measured.