60 foot intermodal containers

[Lyon Wonder]

Canadian Tire has developed the first 60 foot intermodal container. I guess it's not surprising they're pushing the envelope on container size, since containers and trailers have gone up from 40' to 48' and 53' in the last 30 years. 

I assume it will be up to government regulators to approve the transport of 60' containers on highways.

http://www.trucknews.com/transportation/canadian-tire-deploy-north-americas-first-60-ft-containers/1003062164/

Also, railroads don't have any doublestack well cars that can handle 2 60' containers, and their longest 56' well cars can only carry a single 60' container on top of a 53' container.

[cjk374]

Trucks in some places have a difficult enough time driving 53' trailers as it is.  I can only imagine the hell they will have, at 1st, getting them around in urban areas.  Eventually, just as when 53' trailers were introduced, drivers would get used to them.

[mgk920]

Trucks in some places have a difficult enough time driving 53' trailers as it is.  I can only imagine the hell they will have, at 1st, getting them around in urban areas.  Eventually, just as when 53' trailers were introduced, drivers would get used to them.

Especially on European highways.

Mike

[SteveG1988]

the 53 foot trailer is just right, a lot of places are designed around a 48 ft trailer, meaning that with a 53 footer you have to be really careful with your pivot point and axle setup to manuver it into a dock.

[cpzilliacus]

53 foot is the de-facto standard in most or all of the U.S. and Canada.  As of right now, I do not think a 60 foot unit would be legal on the highway network of either nation, though it may be O.K. for railroad transport.

[jeffandnicole]

Correct: A 60 footer isn't legal on most roads.  And while they could be packed with more stuff, trucks still have to abide by a 80,000 lb GVWR.

Also to consider: Road engineering takes into account the limitations as they exist.  That means they factor in how 53' trucks and doubles (and triples, in the states that permit them) will be able to handle the road design.  A 60' truck would perform entirely different, and would need additional radii considerations.  Not to mention most train/ship depots are in areas where truckers already have to make tight turns around street corners and buildings, not really designed for today's shipping standards already. 

[cjk374]

Correct: A 60 footer isn't legal on most roads.  And while they could be packed with more stuff, trucks still have to abide by a 80,000 lb GVWR.

Also to consider: Road engineering takes into account the limitations as they exist.  That means they factor in how 53' trucks and doubles (and triples, in the states that permit them) will be able to handle the road design.  A 60' truck would perform entirely different, and would need additional radii considerations.  Not to mention most train/ship depots are in areas where truckers already have to make tight turns around street corners and buildings, not really designed for today's shipping standards already. 

Would they be allowed to get oversized load permits to run them?   

[jakeroot]

As a bit of a roundabout aficionado, I wonder how well truckers will be able to traverse a roundabout with a 60-foot trailer? Perhaps no more single lane roundabouts with hard center islands (only entirely traversable islands instead?).

[cpzilliacus]

Would they be allowed to get oversized load permits to run them?   

IMO unlikely.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

53' is enough.  Louisiana and Texas have 57' trailers.  Apparently you can't carry heavy loads in them, so they're only useful for transporting more low-density freight.

[Pete from Boston]

As a bit of a roundabout aficionado, I wonder how well truckers will be able to traverse a roundabout with a 60-foot trailer? Perhaps no more single lane roundabouts with hard center islands (only entirely traversable islands instead?).

They tried a painted-on island here.  Predictably, it was replaced with a solid one after not too long. 

[kphoger]

Living in a state that allows triple trailers on the main highway through town, I don't see a 60-foot trailer being any big hazard to highway safety.  I'd certainly rather have that on the road than three FedEx trailers all hooked together in heavy traffic.

México is fond of hooking two full-size (48- or 53-foot, I'm not quite sure) trailers together, so I wonder if I'll eventually see two 60-footers hooked together down there.

[briantroutman]

México is fond of hooking two full-size (48- or 53-foot, I'm not quite sure) trailers together, so I wonder if I'll eventually see two 60-footers hooked together down there.

That's not a distinctly Mexican arrangement. They're known as "turnpike doubles" , owing to the fact that they're permitted on certain US toll roads such as the Massachusetts Turnpike, the New York Thruway, the Ohio Turnpike, and the Indiana Toll Road. Historically, turnpike doubles were two 48-foot trailers, but that was when the typical single trailer measured 48 feet as well. I think they're commonly two 53-footers now.

A combination of a 53-foot trailer and a 28-foot "pup"  trailer is referred to as a "Rocky Mountain double"  because combination vehicles up to 100 feet in total length are allowed in most of the Mountain West.

Anything longer than either the standard single trailer or double pup trailers is considered a longer combination vehicle (LCV). The entire topic is complex because there are numerous conflicting factors to be weighed against each other–safety, fuel efficiency, pavement damage, etc. For example, turnpike doubles are the gentlest on pavement because they spread their load over nine axles–doing even less damage to the road surface than a standard single tractor-trailer per ton of cargo moved–but Caltrans LCV tests in 1983 showed that turnpike doubles had trouble negotiating many standard freeway ramps and could barely maintain 20 m.p.h. ascending the Grapevine on I-5. Triple 28-foot trailers proved remarkably agile in the same tests, yet they tended to display a constant serpentine meandering on the open road, and they cause a significantly higher amount of pavement damage per ton of cargo hauled.

[mgk920]

^^
Not only that but also, I would assume, the potential for damage to the freight inside of them.

What about Michigan's absurdly high maximum vehicle weight limit and the 'all wheels' rigs that ply that state's highways?

Mike

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

Living in a state that allows triple trailers on the main highway through town, I don't see a 60-foot trailer being any big hazard to highway safety.  I'd certainly rather have that on the road than three FedEx trailers all hooked together in heavy traffic.

México is fond of hooking two full-size (48- or 53-foot, I'm not quite sure) trailers together, so I wonder if I'll eventually see two 60-footers hooked together down there.

Highway safety would be fine.  It's getting the damn thing into some of the places it's needed to go.  I go enough places where it's near-impossible to get a 53' trailer backed in.

Here's a good example:


This was in Dallas, and as you can see, there was not enough room for the entire truck.  I might have fit in there if I had a Euro tractor, with the coffin sleeper.  And to think, they run 57' trailers there.