On my vacation trip to the southwest, I was driving I-15 from Nevada up to the I-70/I-15 intersection and noticed several triple trailer trucks. I am sure they are illegal in Texas since I have never seen them before. My question is where are they allowed and not allowed in the US? Does anyone else find them odd, or is it a normal thing to most?
I saw a few on I-5 in Oregon.
Common sight in Nevada, a lot of people call them Land Trains.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2021, 01:20:56 PM
Common sight in Nevada, a lot of people call them Land Trains.
Aren't all trains on land? :-D
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 08, 2021, 01:28:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2021, 01:20:56 PM
Common sight in Nevada, a lot of people call them Land Trains.
Aren't all trains on land? :-D
Yes, one of those things that sounds cool until you think about it literally.
(https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/images/ex5.png)
Chris
I remember seeing one (FedEx or UPS, iirc) southbound on I-15 well south of Vegas and wondering if he was going to drop one trailer in Primm, since no triples are allowed in California.
Full length doubles (two 53 footers) and triples (pups) are allowed on the NY Thruway; and I think on the Massachusetts TPK as well. I know triples are also allowed on the Ohio and Indiana Toll Roads (I-80), but I'm not sure if full length doubles are.
Quote from: US 41 on July 09, 2021, 08:16:01 PM
Full length doubles (two 53 footers) and triples (pups) are allowed on the NY Thruway; and I think on the Massachusetts TPK as well. I know triples are also allowed on the Ohio and Indiana Toll Roads (I-80), but I'm not sure if full length doubles are.
The map two posts above says yes.
Chris
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2021, 01:32:26 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 08, 2021, 01:28:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2021, 01:20:56 PM
Common sight in Nevada, a lot of people call them Land Trains.
Aren't all trains on land? :-D
Yes, one of those things that sounds cool until you think about it literally.
Road trains works better
Quote from: US 41 on July 09, 2021, 08:16:01 PM
Full length doubles (two 53 footers) and triples (pups) are allowed on the NY Thruway; and I think on the Massachusetts TPK as well. I know triples are also allowed on the Ohio and Indiana Toll Roads (I-80), but I'm not sure if full length doubles are.
I disagree regarding the full length doubles (commonly called "turnpike doubles" though the Thruway Authority calls them "tandem trailers") on the New York State Thruway. While they are certainly legal, I do not think two 53' trailers is allowed. They have to be two 48' trailers (I think this applies to the Masspike and to the Ohio Turnpike and Indiana Toll Road too).
The turnpikes in Kansas and Florida also allow turnpike doubles - not sure if they are restricted to two 48' trailers or if two 53' units are allowed.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 11, 2021, 09:50:33 AM
Quote from: US 41 on July 09, 2021, 08:16:01 PM
Full length doubles (two 53 footers) and triples (pups) are allowed on the NY Thruway; and I think on the Massachusetts TPK as well. I know triples are also allowed on the Ohio and Indiana Toll Roads (I-80), but I'm not sure if full length doubles are.
I disagree regarding the full length doubles (commonly called "turnpike doubles" though the Thruway Authority calls them "tandem trailers") on the New York State Thruway. While they are certainly legal, I do not thin two 53' trailers is allowed. They have to be two 48' trailers (I think this applies to the Masspike and to the Ohio Turnpike and Indiana Toll Road too).
The turnpikes in Kansas and Florida also allow turnpike doubles - not sure if they are restricted to two 48' trailers or if two 53' units are allowed.
Again, referencing the map above, it looks like 2x53' is okay.
Chris
Only place I've ever seen them is the Ohio Turnpike and I usually see quite a few when I'm on it.
Not that anyone asked, but I do not like these multiple trailers. I have never come across one that managed to stay in its lane for more than about four seconds.
Also, while my mind is on the subject, RVers should definitely receive some training before getting behind the wheel.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 11, 2021, 02:31:30 PM
Not that anyone asked, but I do not like these multiple trailers. I have never come across one that managed to stay in its lane for more than about four seconds.
Also, while my mind is on the subject, RVers should definitely receive some training before getting behind the wheel.
RVs catch a lot of wind, even on wind free days. No amount of training will get you used to the sudden wind gusts out of nowhere because your rig caught a draft just right and pulls you into the next lane. The professional 18-wheeler drivers succumb to the same thing so it's not just an RVer thing.
When I am done with a days drive, I feel like I fought a bear and lost. Its not as easy as it looks.
Quote from: jayhawkco on July 11, 2021, 09:57:09 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 11, 2021, 09:50:33 AM
Quote from: US 41 on July 09, 2021, 08:16:01 PM
Full length doubles (two 53 footers) and triples (pups) are allowed on the NY Thruway; and I think on the Massachusetts TPK as well. I know triples are also allowed on the Ohio and Indiana Toll Roads (I-80), but I'm not sure if full length doubles are.
I disagree regarding the full length doubles (commonly called "turnpike doubles" though the Thruway Authority calls them "tandem trailers") on the New York State Thruway. While they are certainly legal, I do not thin two 53' trailers is allowed. They have to be two 48' trailers (I think this applies to the Masspike and to the Ohio Turnpike and Indiana Toll Road too).
The turnpikes in Kansas and Florida also allow turnpike doubles - not sure if they are restricted to two 48' trailers or if two 53' units are allowed.
Again, referencing the map above, it looks like 2x53' is okay.
Chris
2x53' isn't. NY only allows 2x48', but the length of the cargo carrying unit, defined as the
semitrailer(s), the dolly, and any load thereon, is allowed to be 102 feet. They may want to refine the map.
Quote
In a LCV/tandem, the maximum length for a semitrailer, including any load thereon, shall be 48 feet.
The maximum length for a LCV/tandem's cargo carrying unit, defined as the semitrailer(s), the dolly, and any load thereon, shall be 102 feet.
https://www.thruway.ny.gov/commercial/lcv/tap602.pdf
Quote from: vdeane on July 11, 2021, 04:46:09 PM
2x53' isn't. NY only allows 2x48', but the length of the cargo carrying unit, defined as the
semitrailer(s), the dolly, and any load thereon, is allowed to be 102 feet. They may want to refine the map.
Good to know!
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on July 12, 2021, 11:08:34 AM
Quote from: vdeane on July 11, 2021, 04:46:09 PM
2x53' isn't. NY only allows 2x48', but the length of the cargo carrying unit, defined as the
semitrailer(s), the dolly, and any load thereon, is allowed to be 102 feet. They may want to refine the map.
Good to know!
Chris
https://casetext.com/regulation/code-of-massachusetts-regulations/department-700-cmr-department-of-transportation/title-700-cmr-700-use-of-the-massachusetts-turnpike-and-the-metropolitan-highway-system/section-708-limitations-on-large-tandem-units
Massachusetts as well the limits are 2x48', with a total length of 108' (109' with overhang) permitted on the Mass Pike.
I seem to see a lot of turnpike triples on the Ohio Turnpike
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 11, 2021, 03:04:41 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on July 11, 2021, 02:31:30 PM
[...]
When I am done with a days drive, I feel like I fought a bear and lost. Its not as easy as it looks.
no, it can't be easy at all, if for no other reason, the constant shifting gears. maybe not so much on the highway, but in town, seems you'd be driving one-handed most of the time.
much respect.
Quote from: ftballfan on July 17, 2021, 11:54:38 PM
I seem to see a lot of turnpike triples on the Ohio Turnpike
I used to call the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike the "Concrete/Asphalt Railroad" due to all the Triples hauling down the Toll Roads
In my not-so-humble opinion, TRAINS BELONG ON THE RAILROAD, NOT ON OUR HIGHWAYS!
It's bad enough we have so many regular passenger vehicles and standard trucks being operated by distracted & impaired morons, but to allow these mini-trains on our roadways is sheer insanity, fueled by the greed of bought-off politicians and the corporations that own them. Oh, and you can add allowing any & all "driverless vehicles" to that as well. They really appear to want to kill us all!
End of rant.
Considering how lite traffic is in rural Nevada I've never paid it much mind that a truck might be hauling three trailers.
Quote from: GaryA on July 09, 2021, 07:44:10 PM
I remember seeing one (FedEx or UPS, iirc) southbound on I-15 well south of Vegas and wondering if he was going to drop one trailer in Primm, since no triples are allowed in California.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 24, 2021, 04:29:27 PM
Considering how lite traffic is in rural Nevada I've never paid it much mind that a truck might be hauling three trailers.
IIRC, there
is a sizeable truck service/parking facility at the Primm I-15 exit. It's likely there are "transfer" tractors from the major trucking firms standing by there to take the additional trailers from the triples coming south on 15; depending upon the load schedule, they could continue as a single-trailer unit or wait until the next one to comprise a double. There are similar facilities to this on I-5 at Medford, OR for the same purpose; at the OR 62 exit there is a "truck stop" with an extensive lot for those trailers temporarily held pending a "ride" south into CA. Considering the twisting SB route uphill at Siskiyou Summit -- and the following Anderson Grade north of Yreka, CA -- it's probably for the best that triples are prohibited.
Speaking of Transfer sites, they are present along the OH Turnpike and the IN Toll Road, as well
UPS even has its own direct access to its Toledo distrubution center directly from the Turnpike exit for US 20/Exit 59:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5899402,-83.6693632,736m/data=!3m1!1e3
Good place for UPS, too, since that interchange is the "Breezewood" connection between the Turnpike and I-475/US 23
I'm not sure how the transfer location works at the IN Toll Road and US 41 in Hammond: UPS has a transfer facility at the US 41 to IN Toll Road Eastbound ramp, but for traffic heading west to reach it, it has to utilize a short stretch of 141st St and US 41 from the Toll Road Westbound ramp to 141st/US 41. It is a pretty short stretch - maybe INDOT lets Triples use the short stretch to get to the transfer facility?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6444718,-87.5100598,658m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: SSR_317 on July 24, 2021, 04:22:47 PM
to allow these mini-trains on our roadways is sheer insanity, fueled by the greed of bought-off politicians and the corporations that own them.
hyperbole much?
Quote from: SSR_317 on July 24, 2021, 04:22:47 PM
In my not-so-humble opinion, TRAINS BELONG ON THE RAILROAD, NOT ON OUR HIGHWAYS!
It's bad enough we have so many regular passenger vehicles and standard trucks being operated by distracted & impaired morons, but to allow these mini-trains on our roadways is sheer insanity, fueled by the greed of bought-off politicians and the corporations that own them. Oh, and you can add allowing any & all "driverless vehicles" to that as well. They really appear to want to kill us all!
End of rant.
I like a lot of the rant - Interstate highways should need a lot less maintenance if more freight were kept either on Railroads and/or Waterways. Less maintenance should equal lower taxes and/or lower tolls, and/or more $$$ for system expansion in capacity and/or interchanges
On any & all driverless vehicles, tho...I've taken plenty of Airport "Air Trains" both Landside and Airside of security, and I believe all of them I have ridden are driverless. Granted, a completely access closed track system with a set number of trains, but still driverless, and it works pretty well and safely
The Vegas underground loop driven by driverless Teslas sounds interesting - might put it on the list on a future Vegas trip
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 25, 2021, 06:37:21 PM
Interstate highways should need a lot less maintenance if more freight were kept either on Railroads and/or Waterways. Less maintenance should equal lower taxes and/or lower tolls, and/or more $$$ for system expansion in capacity and/or interchanges
Wouldn't putting all that freight on railroads dramatically increase the capacity needs of those railroads? That means expansion, improvements, and increased maintenance and fleet for the railroads, right? Would you rather have those costs come from our taxes instead–or would you rather they be absorbed by the railroads, then passed along to the shippers, then passed along to the consumers in the form of higher prices on goods?
Quote from: kphoger on July 27, 2021, 10:07:31 AM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 25, 2021, 06:37:21 PM
Interstate highways should need a lot less maintenance if more freight were kept either on Railroads and/or Waterways. Less maintenance should equal lower taxes and/or lower tolls, and/or more $$$ for system expansion in capacity and/or interchanges
Wouldn't putting all that freight on railroads dramatically increase the capacity needs of those railroads? That means expansion, improvements, and increased maintenance and fleet for the railroads, right? Would you rather have those costs come from our taxes instead–or would you rather they be absorbed by the railroads, then passed along to the shippers, then passed along to the consumers in the form of higher prices on goods?
Everyone will say let some private entity pay for the upkeep, lower our taxes and then distribute the cost somewhere else I don't see it so blatantly and think all is well.
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 25, 2021, 06:37:21 PM
Quote from: SSR_317 on July 24, 2021, 04:22:47 PM
In my not-so-humble opinion, TRAINS BELONG ON THE RAILROAD, NOT ON OUR HIGHWAYS!
It's bad enough we have so many regular passenger vehicles and standard trucks being operated by distracted & impaired morons, but to allow these mini-trains on our roadways is sheer insanity, fueled by the greed of bought-off politicians and the corporations that own them. Oh, and you can add allowing any & all "driverless vehicles" to that as well. They really appear to want to kill us all!
End of rant.
I like a lot of the rant - Interstate highways should need a lot less maintenance if more freight were kept either on Railroads and/or Waterways. Less maintenance should equal lower taxes and/or lower tolls, and/or more $$$ for system expansion in capacity and/or interchanges
On any & all driverless vehicles, tho...I've taken plenty of Airport "Air Trains" both Landside and Airside of security, and I believe all of them I have ridden are driverless. Granted, a completely access closed track system with a set number of trains, but still driverless, and it works pretty well and safely
The Vegas underground loop driven by driverless Teslas sounds interesting - might put it on the list on a future Vegas trip
Except that is not how the economics of transport work. Things which are economical to haul by rail or water are already hauled by rail or water. However both are very inflexible, and even with advancements in containerization many goods are simply better hauled by truck given the flexibility involved.
Furthermore, removing that freight would also remove the tax revenue from those vehicles, making it nearly a zero sum game.
Quote from: HighwayStar on July 27, 2021, 12:03:43 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 25, 2021, 06:37:21 PM
Quote from: SSR_317 on July 24, 2021, 04:22:47 PM
In my not-so-humble opinion, TRAINS BELONG ON THE RAILROAD, NOT ON OUR HIGHWAYS!
It's bad enough we have so many regular passenger vehicles and standard trucks being operated by distracted & impaired morons, but to allow these mini-trains on our roadways is sheer insanity, fueled by the greed of bought-off politicians and the corporations that own them. Oh, and you can add allowing any & all "driverless vehicles" to that as well. They really appear to want to kill us all!
End of rant.
I like a lot of the rant - Interstate highways should need a lot less maintenance if more freight were kept either on Railroads and/or Waterways. Less maintenance should equal lower taxes and/or lower tolls, and/or more $$$ for system expansion in capacity and/or interchanges
On any & all driverless vehicles, tho...I've taken plenty of Airport "Air Trains" both Landside and Airside of security, and I believe all of them I have ridden are driverless. Granted, a completely access closed track system with a set number of trains, but still driverless, and it works pretty well and safely
The Vegas underground loop driven by driverless Teslas sounds interesting - might put it on the list on a future Vegas trip
Except that is not how the economics of transport work. Things which are economical to haul by rail or water are already hauled by rail or water. However both are very inflexible, and even with advancements in containerization many goods are simply better hauled by truck given the flexibility involved.
Furthermore, removing that freight would also remove the tax revenue from those vehicles, making it nearly a zero sum game.
What!? No!! I want my Amazon purchases delivered to me by rail! I demand it!
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2021, 12:15:13 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on July 27, 2021, 12:03:43 PM
Quote from: ilpt4u on July 25, 2021, 06:37:21 PM
Quote from: SSR_317 on July 24, 2021, 04:22:47 PM
In my not-so-humble opinion, TRAINS BELONG ON THE RAILROAD, NOT ON OUR HIGHWAYS!
It's bad enough we have so many regular passenger vehicles and standard trucks being operated by distracted & impaired morons, but to allow these mini-trains on our roadways is sheer insanity, fueled by the greed of bought-off politicians and the corporations that own them. Oh, and you can add allowing any & all "driverless vehicles" to that as well. They really appear to want to kill us all!
End of rant.
I like a lot of the rant - Interstate highways should need a lot less maintenance if more freight were kept either on Railroads and/or Waterways. Less maintenance should equal lower taxes and/or lower tolls, and/or more $$$ for system expansion in capacity and/or interchanges
On any & all driverless vehicles, tho...I've taken plenty of Airport "Air Trains" both Landside and Airside of security, and I believe all of them I have ridden are driverless. Granted, a completely access closed track system with a set number of trains, but still driverless, and it works pretty well and safely
The Vegas underground loop driven by driverless Teslas sounds interesting - might put it on the list on a future Vegas trip
Except that is not how the economics of transport work. Things which are economical to haul by rail or water are already hauled by rail or water. However both are very inflexible, and even with advancements in containerization many goods are simply better hauled by truck given the flexibility involved.
Furthermore, removing that freight would also remove the tax revenue from those vehicles, making it nearly a zero sum game.
What!? No!! I want my Amazon purchases delivered to me by rail! I demand it!
Rail will do what rail does best -- make sure the cargo is in "bulk" form (i.e. a singular commodity or containerized) and move it from point "A" to a hub at point "B", those hopefully a thousand or more miles apart so as to make more money. Unless there's a second rail-based "leg" of that journey, the majority of that cargo will leave by truck for a relatively shorter haul to a destination, possibly another smaller hub, at which point the process repeats itself on a smaller scale. While there
are small regional railroads, those, with a very few exceptions, are there to handle the agricultural or resource-extraction duties that the larger rail corporations would rather avoid; and much of what they haul will end up at one of the major "hubs" for transfer to long-haul freight in any case (particularly agricultural exports that make up much of the "reverse" movement to ports of entry). This is S.O.P. that has gelled since the Staggers Act deregulated the railroads 41 years ago; there is no appreciable movement out there to undo, or even "tweak", that situation, so the chances of simply requiring rail to take on additional cargo, particularly in regard to shorter/regional hauls, are nil.
And Amazon already bulk-moves much of their shit via containers in any case; there's a reason they locate near rail lines as well as Interstates. Here in CA, stuff heading east out of state goes by rail; if it stays on or near the coast, transfers from larger to smaller Amazon hubs is done by truck.
Quote from: GaryA on July 09, 2021, 07:44:10 PM
I remember seeing one (FedEx or UPS, iirc) southbound on I-15 well south of Vegas and wondering if he was going to drop one trailer in Primm, since no triples are allowed in California.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 24, 2021, 04:29:27 PM
Considering how lite traffic is in rural Nevada I've never paid it much mind that a truck might be hauling three trailers.
Having grown up in Vegas, lived in Reno for most of the last 20 years, and having had occasion to drive between the two on multiple occasions, I'm fairly confident in saying that seeing triple trailers in Nevada is not an everyday occurrence. Although I get the feeling that because other nearby states don't allow triples to the extent we do, they're likely not feasible to operate here for long haul shipping purposes like UPS/FedEx.
Most of the times I've seen a triple, they've been construction haul trucks or the occasional tanker.
They call these "wiggle wagons" in trucker lingo for a reason.