Triple trailers
rsh...@gmail.com
are allowed on the NY Thruway and Mass Pike, full size trailers.
I know they are allowed out west, but is it the full size ones, or the
shorter "pups" I think they are called?
Also are the triple trailers allowed on the rural flat straight
stretches in CA, OR, and WA?
Take care, Randy in S Dade
Rich Piehl
I know triple pup trailers are allowed in Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Oregon
and the Arizona portion of I-15.
They used to be allowed on the Ohio Turnpike and the Indiana Toll Road
east of South Bend, but I haven't been on those in a long time, so I'm
not sure about that one.
They are definitely NOT allowed in California.
Take care,
Rich
God bless the USA
--
Et in terra pax
Larry Harvilla
> This just came up in one of the other ng's. I know triple trailers
> are allowed on the NY Thruway and Mass Pike, full size trailers.
Negative. The ones seen in the Northeast are called "Thruway Doubles"
for exactly that reason -- with full-size (generally 48', sometimes 53')
trailers, there are only two of them. As you correctly noted, these are
only permitted on the Thruway and the Masspike.
> I know they are allowed out west, but is it the full size ones, or the
> shorter "pups" I think they are called?
Generally, anywhere west of NY, "Thruway Double" type configurations
(two 48' or 53' trailers) are not permitted. Triples are only permitted
to run certain toll roads in the Midwest, such as the Ohio Turnpike and
Indiana Toll Road; here, triple-trailer rigs have three 28.5' trailers,
which as you noted are called "pups" in trucker slang.
Further west, I believe the Kansas Turnpike and a large part of the free
I-70 in KS, not quite all the way to the CO line, permit triple "pup"
trailers. What I have seen in the mountain states is a little bit
different configuration, commonly called "Rocky Mountain Doubles"; these
have one 48' or 53' trailer in front, followed by a 28.5' trailer in the
rear.
Sometimes, especially in Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming, I've seen
triple "pups" that are separated by bars roughly 20' long. This
configuration seems popular with fuel tankers, especially Flying J (who
is everywhere out there), and some of the belly-dump agricultural type
trailers. It's funny to watch these configurations in a U-turn maneuver;
the nose of the tractor can almost touch the rear trailer, making it
look like a dog chasing its tail.
> Also are the triple trailers allowed on the rural flat straight
> stretches in CA, OR, and WA?
I don't think those states allow triples at all, but I'm not 100% sure.
--
Larry Harvilla
e-mail: larry AT phatpage DOT org
blog-aliciousness: http://www.phatpage.org/news/
Highways section still in progress at http://www.phatpage.org/highways.html
Rich Piehl
> pigst...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> This just came up in one of the other ng's. I know triple trailers
>> are allowed on the NY Thruway and Mass Pike, full size trailers.
>
>
> Negative. The ones seen in the Northeast are called "Thruway Doubles"
> for exactly that reason -- with full-size (generally 48', sometimes 53')
> trailers, there are only two of them. As you correctly noted, these are
> only permitted on the Thruway and the Masspike.
I wondered about that, but wasn't sure enough to question it. I think
about the only place one might see a triple 48' configuration would be
as a road train in Australia.
>
>
>> I know they are allowed out west, but is it the full size ones, or the
>> shorter "pups" I think they are called?
>
>
> Generally, anywhere west of NY, "Thruway Double" type configurations
> (two 48' or 53' trailers) are not permitted. Triples are only permitted
> to run certain toll roads in the Midwest, such as the Ohio Turnpike and
> Indiana Toll Road; here, triple-trailer rigs have three 28.5' trailers,
> which as you noted are called "pups" in trucker slang.
>
> Further west, I believe the Kansas Turnpike and a large part of the free
> I-70 in KS, not quite all the way to the CO line, permit triple "pup"
> trailers. What I have seen in the mountain states is a little bit
> different configuration, commonly called "Rocky Mountain Doubles"; these
> have one 48' or 53' trailer in front, followed by a 28.5' trailer in the
> rear.
Kansas does not allow triples. Turnpike doubles are allowed only on the
Kansas Turnpike.
>
> Sometimes, especially in Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming, I've seen
> triple "pups" that are separated by bars roughly 20' long. This
> configuration seems popular with fuel tankers, especially Flying J (who
> is everywhere out there), and some of the belly-dump agricultural type
> trailers. It's funny to watch these configurations in a U-turn maneuver;
> the nose of the tractor can almost touch the rear trailer, making it
> look like a dog chasing its tail.
There are only a few trucking companies that run triples. A couple that
used to run them (Nation's Way and CF) have gone broke in the last
decade or so. Triples are quite popular with UPS and Fedex, as well as
Yellow Freight and Roadway Freight. Here's links to a couple pictures:
http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/df_yellow.htm
and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lawatha/167697979/
John McCoy
news:RMOdnR6vsoHUQLrb...@giganews.com:
> Generally, anywhere west of NY, "Thruway Double" type configurations
> (two 48' or 53' trailers) are not permitted.
According to my (somewhat dated) motor carriers guide, all states
except HI and OK allow doubles on interstate & restricted access
highways. Most states (including NY) limit that to 28.5 trailers.
I beleive almost all states allow twin 53s with a permit (which is
relatively trivial to get). As far as I can tell from the guide,
I don't think any states allow triples without a permit.
>> Also are the triple trailers allowed on the rural flat straight
>> stretches in CA, OR, and WA?
>
> I don't think those states allow triples at all, but I'm not 100% sure.
According to my guide, OR and WA allow Rocky Mountain doubles (68
overall trailer length), and CA allows double 28s. But again, they
may well allow other combinations with a permit.
John
Merritt Mullen
"pigst...@yahoo.com" <rsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Triple trailers are illegal anywhere in California (I just checked the
law).
Merritt
Merritt Mullen
Larry Harvilla <la...@phatpage.org> wrote:
> pigst...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Also are the triple trailers allowed on the rural flat straight
> > stretches in CA, OR, and WA?
> I don't think those states allow triples at all, but I'm not 100% sure.
That is correct so far as California goes.
Merritt
Michael G. Koerner
The Ohio Turnpike and Indiana Toll Road allows 'pup' triples and 'turnpike
doubles' (two full-sized tandem-axle trailers), but since they are NOT allowed
on any of the intersecting sideroads they must be assembled and disassembled
in yards that are located between the highway's entrance tollgates and those
public cross roads.
OTOH, thank God nobody in North America allows anything approaching those
Australian 'Road Trains' (yet).
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
DaveW
True. They do have them in Oregon. UPS combines/uncombines units in
Medford for the I-5 run. Not sure about Washington.
It seems to me that there was a proposal in California to allow triples
through the San Joaquin Valley, but I don't know if anything ever became
of it.
Regards,
DAve
rsh...@gmail.com
> pigsty1...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > This just came up in one of the other ng's. I know triple trailers
> > are allowed on the NY Thruway and Mass Pike, full size trailers.
>
> > I know they are allowed out west, but is it the full size ones, or the
> > shorter "pups" I think they are called?
>
> > Also are the triple trailers allowed on the rural flat straight
> > stretches in CA, OR, and WA?
>
> > Take care, Randy in S Dade
>
> The Ohio Turnpike and Indiana Toll Road allows 'pup' triples and 'turnpike
> doubles' (two full-sized tandem-axle trailers), but since they are NOT allowed
> on any of the intersecting sideroads they must be assembled and disassembled
> in yards that are located between the highway's entrance tollgates and those
> public cross roads.
>
> OTOH, thank God nobody in North America allows anything approaching those
> Australian 'Road Trains' (yet).
Do you think it will happen? I have my doubts. Aus only has what 20
million people. We have more then that in CA.
I know the lobbying power of the ATA, but still. Didn't they try to
get the weight limit to 100,000 pounds a few years ago? And that was
shot down. I have to believe every entity except the ATA and the
companies like W-M and maybe UPS, was against it.
And don't the trailing units whip?
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
The Georgia Road Geek
Georgia does not allow "triples" and has only allowed "tandems" since
around 1983 or 1984.
On non-Interstate roads approved for such trucks, Georgia DOT used to
post signs saying "OVERSIZED TRUCKS ALLOWED" with a picture of a
tandem trailer truck inside of a green circle. At the end of the
section where these trucks could travel, there was a sign saying "END
OVERSIZED TRUCKS" with the same picture, but with the "no" symbol
superimposed over it. I remember seeing these signs on several roads,
including US 78 between I-285 and Athens, GA 138 from I-20 to US 78,
GA 400, and on US 280/GA 520 in Columbus.
All of these signs have apparently disappeared during the 1990s
(unless you know of any such signs still in existence here in
Georgia).
Nowadays, you are more likely to see a sign with "STAA" and the rear
of a truck inside a green circle, with subordinate signs below it
saying "SINGLES" and/or "TWINS" on designated non-Interstate routes.
Steve Williams, KC4AZO :)
Atlanta, GA
Blogmaster, "The Georgia Road Geek"
Producer, "ROADGEEK-CAM!!!"
http://www.georgiaroadgeek.com
http://www.roadgeek-cam.com
David Lesher
>OTOH, thank God nobody in North America allows anything approaching those
>Australian 'Road Trains' (yet).
With the rail line to Darwin running; do they still exist?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Michael Moroney
> This just came up in one of the other ng's. I know triple trailers
> are allowed on the NY Thruway and Mass Pike, full size trailers.
There used to be triples on the NY Thruway, but I haven't seen them since
I was a kid. I don't think they're allowed anymore.
I do remember that all of the Thruway triples had PIE written on them.
I don't know what that stood for, but it seemed just one company did that.
I've never seen triples on the MassPike.
rsh...@gmail.com
wrote:
That was Pacific Intermountain Express. They went bust like a lot of
other companies. I thought I saw triples on those roads years ago.
Take care, Randy
Michael G. Koerner
> "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> writes:
>
>
>> OTOH, thank God nobody in North America allows anything approaching those
>> Australian 'Road Trains' (yet).
>
> With the rail line to Darwin running; do they still exist?
They sure do, they operate all over mainly in the sparsely populated parts of
the western parts of the country. They haul needed bulk commodities into
places where railroads were never built.
See:
http://www.roadtrains.com.au/
for an example of these.
gl4...@yahoo.com
"pigst...@yahoo.com" <rsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also are the triple trailers allowed on the rural flat straight
> stretches in CA, OR, and WA?
Triples are allowed in Oregon in pretty much anywhere. This includes the
narrow barely 2-lane streets between Interstate 84 near the Lloyd Center
in Portland and the Franz Bakery. I've seen more Franz triples than
anything else out there (bread is mostly air after all).
I believe the trailers are about 30 feet long, as I remember reading that
the longest combination allowed normally (without pilot vehicles and all
that for very special loads) is 110 feet.
They are a very unpleasant presence in the Columbia Gorge most of the
time, since the wind causes the last trailer to whip around like it's the
tail of a snake.
--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.
Larry Harvilla
>
> Kansas does not allow triples. Turnpike doubles are allowed only on the
> Kansas Turnpike.
From the Kansas entry in my 2007 /RMcN Motor Carriers' Atlas/ :
"Access permits, valid for 6 months, [are] required for access between
Kansas Turnpike and terminals located within a 10-mile radius of each
toll booth, except at northeast end of Turnpike where [a] 20-mile radius
[is] allowed. Special Vehicle Combination (SVC) permits are good for 1
year and are required for operation on I-70 between Colorado state line
and Exit 19."
"Allowed only on Kansas Turnpike. SVC triples allowed only on I-70 from
Colorado state line to Exit 19."
In the overall-length columns, it does list a 109' maximum overall
length for a triple-trailer rig, indicating that triples ARE allowed in
Kansas -- albeit only on and within 10/20 miles of the Turnpike, and on
the westernmost 19 miles of I-70 in the state.
Larry Harvilla
> Larry Harvilla <la...@phatpage.org> wrote in
> news:RMOdnR6vsoHUQLrb...@giganews.com:
>
>> Generally, anywhere west of NY, "Thruway Double" type configurations
>> (two 48' or 53' trailers) are not permitted.
>
> According to my (somewhat dated) motor carriers guide, all states
> except HI and OK allow doubles on interstate & restricted access
> highways. Most states (including NY) limit that to 28.5 trailers.
> I beleive almost all states allow twin 53s with a permit (which is
> relatively trivial to get). As far as I can tell from the guide,
> I don't think any states allow triples without a permit.
Here is the list of states that allow either doubles or triples from my
2007 /RMcN Motor Carriers' Atlas/ :
PUP DOUBLES ONLY -- MI, WA
PUP OR 'ROCKY MOUNTAIN' DOUBLES ONLY -- WY
PUP, 'ROCKY MOUNTAIN,' OR 'THRUWAY' DOUBLES ONLY -- FL, MA, NY
ANY DOUBLES OR PUP TRIPLES -- AK, AZ, CO, ID, IN, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE,
NV, ND, OH, OK, SD, UT
DOUBLES AND TRIPLES, BUT ONLY PUPS -- OR
Only WY does not require a permit under any circumstance. ND, OR, and SD
only require a permit if the combination exceeds 80,000 lbs.; almost all
the others require a permit in all circumstances.
Almost all states restrict some of these combinations to Interstates or
other National Network routes, or their turnpikes. Some states have
weird restrictions; for example, IA only allows any multiple-trailer
trucks in and around Sioux City, AZ only allows them on I-15 and short
sections of U.S. 89, U.S. 160, and U.S. 163, and NE requires triples to
travel empty.
Rich Piehl
> Rich Piehl wrote:
>> Kansas does not allow triples. Turnpike doubles are allowed only on the
>> Kansas Turnpike.
>
>
> From the Kansas entry in my 2007 /RMcN Motor Carriers' Atlas/ :
>
> "Access permits, valid for 6 months, [are] required for access between
> Kansas Turnpike and terminals located within a 10-mile radius of each
> toll booth, except at northeast end of Turnpike where [a] 20-mile radius
> [is] allowed. Special Vehicle Combination (SVC) permits are good for 1
> year and are required for operation on I-70 between Colorado state line
> and Exit 19."
>
> "Allowed only on Kansas Turnpike. SVC triples allowed only on I-70 from
> Colorado state line to Exit 19."
>
> In the overall-length columns, it does list a 109' maximum overall
> length for a triple-trailer rig, indicating that triples ARE allowed in
> Kansas -- albeit only on and within 10/20 miles of the Turnpike, and on
> the westernmost 19 miles of I-70 in the state.
>
That's right, I forgot about that first 19 miles. I forget which
company it is that has a terminal at Goodland. At that terminal they
break up the triples coming in from CO.
Rich Piehl
>
> ANY DOUBLES OR PUP TRIPLES -- AK, AZ, CO, ID, IN, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE,
> NV, ND, OH, OK, SD, UT
>
This is wrong. MO does not allow triples. There was a big to-do about
trying to get them in to the state about a decade ago, and they didn't
make it.
Michael G. Koerner
Wisconsin allows 'pup' doubles on its major highways and close-by connecting
roads.
Michigan also has a much higher vehicle weight limit than the other 49 states,
these otherwise normal length monsters are literally all wheels underneath.
Rothman
> Larry Harvilla wrote:
> > John McCoy wrote:
In NY, there's a huge issue with so-called "superloads" generated by
super-large manufacturers like GE or Ingersoll-Rand. These are loads
in excess of 200000 lbs (NYSDOT definition; I believe other agencies
or authorities place the limit at 130000; there are also length/width
definitions, but discussions typically surround the enormous problem
with accomodating that kind of weight) and you see them with their
centipede-ish axles or getting stuck behind them as they have to slow
down to 5 mph to go over certain bridges. Handling superloads is
treated as a separate issue than dealing with tandem-trailers, or even
your 16' oversize loads (like modular homes).
In other words, you might be mistaking superloads in MI that are
permissible in other states just the same.
(personal opinion expressed)
Michael G. Koerner
No, there are occasional escorted 'superload' movements in and through
Wisconsin, too. Those are things that are dimensionally too big to fit
railroad clearances, otherwise they'd travel by rail.
Michigan actually allows much heavier rigs, period, than the other 49 states.
John Taber
> In article <1177011810.592106.105...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "pigsty1...@yahoo.com" <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also are the triple trailers allowed on the rural flat straight
> > stretches in CA, OR, and WA?
>
> Triples are allowed in Oregon in pretty much anywhere. This includes the
> narrow barely 2-lane streets between Interstate 84 near the Lloyd Center
> in Portland and the Franz Bakery. I've seen more Franz triples than
> anything else out there (bread is mostly air after all).
>
> I believe the trailers are about 30 feet long, as I remember reading that
> the longest combination allowed normally (without pilot vehicles and all
> that for very special loads) is 110 feet.
>
> They are a very unpleasant presence in the Columbia Gorge most of the
> time, since the wind causes the last trailer to whip around like it's the
> tail of a snake.
Since my in-laws live near Sunnyside, WA, and my sister lives near
Beaverton, OR, I've made the trip along I-84 through the Gorge a few
times recently. The thing that really bugs me there is that when it
rains, the white trailers make the trucks (of any size) all but
invisible.
Rothman
> Rothman wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 10:05 am, "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote:
> >> Larry Harvilla wrote:
> >> Wisconsin allows 'pup' doubles on its major highways and close-by connecting
> >> roads.
>
> >> Michigan also has a much higher vehicle weight limit than the other 49 states,
> >> these otherwise normal length monsters are literally all wheels underneath.
>
> > In NY, there's a huge issue with so-called "superloads" generated by
> > super-large manufacturers like GE or Ingersoll-Rand. These are loads
> > in excess of 200000 lbs (NYSDOT definition; I believe other agencies
> > or authorities place the limit at 130000; there are also length/width
> > definitions, but discussions typically surround the enormous problem
> > with accomodating that kind of weight) and you see them with their
> > centipede-ish axles or getting stuck behind them as they have to slow
> > down to 5 mph to go over certain bridges. Handling superloads is
> > treated as a separate issue than dealing with tandem-trailers, or even
> > your 16' oversize loads (like modular homes).
>
> > In other words, you might be mistaking superloads in MI that are
> > permissible in other states just the same.
>
> No, there are occasional escorted 'superload' movements in and through
> Wisconsin, too. Those are things that are dimensionally too big to fit
> railroad clearances, otherwise they'd travel by rail.
>
> Michigan actually allows much heavier rigs, period, than the other 49 states.
Where does MI draw the line, then? We've got rigs weighing in the
umpteen hundred thousand pound range in NY every so often; can't
imagine MI is handling loads much bigger than that. What do you mean
exactly by your stat?
Of course, this is one of those situtations where if MI is indeed
allowing gigantic loads on their roads, it's just dumb to let your
infrastructure suffer so tremendously without the shipper and carrier
assuming a significant part of the cost (i.e. beyond an $18 permit).
Adam Prince
> Rothman wrote:
> > On Apr 20, 10:05 am, "Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote:
> >> Larry Harvilla wrote:
> >> Wisconsin allows 'pup' doubles on its major highways and close-by connecting
> >> roads.
>
> >> Michigan also has a much higher vehicle weight limit than the other 49 states,
> >> these otherwise normal length monsters are literally all wheels underneath.
>
> > In NY, there's a huge issue with so-called "superloads" generated by
> > super-large manufacturers like GE or Ingersoll-Rand. These are loads
> > in excess of 200000 lbs (NYSDOT definition; I believe other agencies
> > or authorities place the limit at 130000; there are also length/width
> > definitions, but discussions typically surround the enormous problem
> > with accomodating that kind of weight) and you see them with their
> > centipede-ish axles or getting stuck behind them as they have to slow
> > down to 5 mph to go over certain bridges. Handling superloads is
> > treated as a separate issue than dealing with tandem-trailers, or even
> > your 16' oversize loads (like modular homes).
>
> > In other words, you might be mistaking superloads in MI that are
> > permissible in other states just the same.
>
> No, there are occasional escorted 'superload' movements in and through
> Wisconsin, too. Those are things that are dimensionally too big to fit
> railroad clearances, otherwise they'd travel by rail.
>
> Michigan actually allows much heavier rigs, period, than the other 49 states.
>
That's correct. I can ship what are called "maxi-trucks or B-Trains"
basically from what I understand is a tandem, (Larry help me out here)
into Michigan where I can't do the same in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Kentucky or Minnesota.
Normal trucks take 11-13 units of OSB. The trucks into Michigan take
22-24 units.
In fact, the freight is lower to order by these B-Trains than it is
for a normal 18 wheeler.
rsh...@gmail.com
What are the "R" permits required, on those signs in NYS and NYC?
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
NickandE...@gmail.com
> This just came up in one of the other ng's. I know triple trailers
> are allowed on the NY Thruway and Mass Pike, full size trailers.
>
> shorter "pups" I think they are called?
>
> stretches in CA, OR, and WA?
>
Oregon allows triples, at least along rural parts of I-5. This brings
up another question. Is having a pilot car for Oversize Loads a
federal DOT requirement, or does it vary by state?
Kristian M Zoerhoff
>
> Where does MI draw the line, then? We've got rigs weighing in the
> umpteen hundred thousand pound range in NY every so often; can't
> imagine MI is handling loads much bigger than that. What do you mean
> exactly by your stat?
According to the near-inscrutable rules at
<http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/webforms/public/T-1.pdf>
the limit is 11 axles, at 13,000-18,000 lbs per axle load, depending on
spacing. That puts the limit around 109,000 lbs, without needing an
oversize permit, for the longest example truck shown in that document,
but by formula, it could actually be closer to 143,000 lbs (assuming
13,000 lbs on all 11 axles).
> Of course, this is one of those situtations where if MI is indeed
> allowing gigantic loads on their roads, it's just dumb to let your
> infrastructure suffer so tremendously without the shipper and carrier
> assuming a significant part of the cost (i.e. beyond an $18 permit).
Well, yeah, but they've been doing it for years (people have complained
about the resulting road conditions at least since I was growing up there
in the '80s), so /someone/ must think the limit is OK. I actually wonder
if the limits were set with auto carriers from Detroit in mind.
--
__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ kristian...@gmail.com
(_)/ (_)
Rothman
wrote:
> On 2007-04-20, Rothman <dnro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Where does MI draw the line, then? We've got rigs weighing in the
> > umpteen hundred thousand pound range in NY every so often; can't
> > imagine MI is handling loads much bigger than that. What do you mean
> > exactly by your stat?
>
> According to the near-inscrutable rules at
>
> <http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/webforms/public/T-1.pdf>
>
> the limit is 11 axles, at 13,000-18,000 lbs per axle load, depending on
> spacing. That puts the limit around 109,000 lbs, without needing an
> oversize permit, for the longest example truck shown in that document,
> but by formula, it could actually be closer to 143,000 lbs (assuming
> 13,000 lbs on all 11 axles).
Michael didn't qualify his statement by legal weight. He said they
allow heavier trucks no matter what.
> > Of course, this is one of those situtations where if MI is indeed
> > allowing gigantic loads on their roads, it's just dumb to let your
> > infrastructure suffer so tremendously without the shipper and carrier
> > assuming a significant part of the cost (i.e. beyond an $18 permit).
>
> Well, yeah, but they've been doing it for years (people have complained
> about the resulting road conditions at least since I was growing up there
> in the '80s), so /someone/ must think the limit is OK. I actually wonder
> if the limits were set with auto carriers from Detroit in mind.
Thanks.
Rothman
R-posted bridges USUALLY means that only trucks under the legal weight
can cross them (i.e only those without an OW permit). However, there
are all sorts of exceptions/waivers out there for specific bridges.
For the official info, see:
Larry Harvilla
What I think Michael was referring to is that your "umpteen hundred
thousand pound rigs" in NYS require a special permit and State Police
escort, perhaps among other things, while in MI, trucks up to 161,000
lbs. (with 11 axles) don't need either one of those and can travel
completely unencumbered.
Larry Harvilla
Yep, it is a double trailer type of rig, nicknamed "Michigan Doubles" in
trucker slang. The type I suspect you're talking about are flatbeds that
have side-wall systems and tarps, commonly called "covered wagons";
these usually haul coiled steel or, in your case, certain home-building
products.
Michael G. Koerner
And when I'm driving away from the state line in Da YuPee, those monster rigs
are usually piled high with pulpwood logs or, less often, sand and gravel.
Are they allowed to cross the Mackinac Bridge?
Adam Prince
"Michael G. Koerner" <mgk...@dataex.com> wrote in message
news:U7WdnTsZheGdxrTb...@athenet.net...
> Larry Harvilla wrote:
>> Adam Prince wrote:
>>> That's correct. I can ship what are called "maxi-trucks or B-Trains"
>>> basically from what I understand is a tandem, (Larry help me out here)
>>> into Michigan where I can't do the same in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin,
>>> Illinois, Kentucky or Minnesota.
>>
>>
>> Yep, it is a double trailer type of rig, nicknamed "Michigan Doubles" in
>> trucker slang. The type I suspect you're talking about are flatbeds that
>> have side-wall systems and tarps, commonly called "covered wagons";
>> these usually haul coiled steel or, in your case, certain home-building
>> products.
>
> And when I'm driving away from the state line in Da YuPee, those monster
> rigs are usually piled high with pulpwood logs or, less often, sand and
> gravel.
Some of those logs maybe going to the LP mill in Sagola, MI.
Adam Prince
"Larry Harvilla" <la...@phatpage.org> wrote in message
news:OPWdnYjmBdxyzbTb...@giganews.com...
> Adam Prince wrote:
>> That's correct. I can ship what are called "maxi-trucks or B-Trains"
>> basically from what I understand is a tandem, (Larry help me out here)
>> into Michigan where I can't do the same in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin,
>> Illinois, Kentucky or Minnesota.
>
>
> Yep, it is a double trailer type of rig, nicknamed "Michigan Doubles" in
> trucker slang. The type I suspect you're talking about are flatbeds that
> have side-wall systems and tarps, commonly called "covered wagons";
> these usually haul coiled steel or, in your case, certain home-building
> products.
Have you ever driven them?
The Michigan mills I buy from are in Grayling and Sagola. So if you ever
haul out of those mills (not sure what you typically haul), it may be a
truck I bought. :-p
Also, I am able to ship from Canadian Mills into my Michigan stores on the
B-Trains. I am guessing they just get hooked up after crossing the border?
Kristian M Zoerhoff
>
> And when I'm driving away from the state line in Da YuPee, those monster rigs
> are usually piled high with pulpwood logs or, less often, sand and gravel.
>
> Are they allowed to cross the Mackinac Bridge?
Ya know, I drove across that bridge 6-8 times a year for 4 years, and I don't
recall seeing any logging trucks on it; I imagine they'd require a state
police escort across, if they're not weight-restricted, and if it's windy the
police would make them wait in St. Ignace until conditions improved.
I do remember seeing scads of them crossing into northern Wisconsin, probably
headed for the pulp mills around Green Bay.
Rothman
As a little tangent, there are some loads that require sole transit on
certain bridges (Ogdensburg, NY comes to mind). Not sure what weight
triggers the need to have sole access to the bridge, however.
Lumber trucks are notorious in NY for violating weight restrictions.
Rich Piehl
In some of the western states the lumber trucks are given exemptions
from weight restrictions. I've always wondered whether that means they
don't get any kind of inspection, too.
Larry Harvilla
Nope, never driven one -- all I've ever dealt with is plain old
five-axle tractor-trailers, like roughly 90% of trucks you see on the
road. Specifically, I've only ever pulled vans, of both the refrigerated
and "dry" varieties; usually, with my current company, I tend to haul
mostly food products.
I can actually only remember one load I've hauled that went to any kind
of a home-improvement store. I was sent to some flower-seed producer in
Lakewood, NJ, a couple years ago, to grab a multiple-delivery load of
racks full of seed packets; most of that went to the Home Depot stores
in Traverse City, MI and Petoskey, MI. The load required a refrigerated
trailer, set to +60F, so that the seeds wouldn't freeze in that early
February.
I *think* -- although I'm not sure -- that at least Ontario also allows
the B-trains on its highways. I've only ever picked up one load in
Canada; namely, sacks of sodium azide (the stuff they put in vehicle
airbags that explodes and blows up the airbag when a large enough charge
is passed through it) from the Unimin Canada facility near Nephton,
Ont., where it is mined. I mention this because when I finally got back
to Hwy 401 at Bowmansville, Ont., and weighed the truck, I was told that
Ontario allows higher weights and many more different trailer and axle
configurations than most U.S. states' laws permit.
Kurumi
<rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote:
...
> There are only a few trucking companies that run triples. A couple that
> used to run them (Nation's Way and CF) have gone broke in the last
> decade or so. Triples are quite popular with UPS and Fedex, as well as
> Yellow Freight and Roadway Freight. Here's links to a couple pictures:
>
> http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/df_yellow.htm
>
> and
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/lawatha/167697979/
The Flickr pic happens to be looking EB on The Other I-84 at Multnomah
Falls, OR. The parking area is in the I-84 median. You can see a
pedestrian tunnel to the falls.
Rothman
It's definitely an issue in NY (i.e. no simple exemptions here that I
know of; legitimate operations just get the proper permits and
routing). The problem is that we can't chase them down with our
portable WIMs given that it becomes a cat-and-mouse game. Once a
station is "detected," out the news goes on the CB. NYSDOT and NYSP
are trying to streamline inspections for compliant trucks while trying
to become more efficient at getting the bad guys. No magic bullets
yet, however.
(personal opinion expressed)
Michael G. Koerner
Wisconsin also allows heavier rigs on many roads during winter, under a
'frozen road' law. This is also of most interest to logging companies.
John McCoy
news:1177118479.0...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> As a little tangent, there are some loads that require sole transit on
> certain bridges (Ogdensburg, NY comes to mind). Not sure what weight
> triggers the need to have sole access to the bridge, however.
Prior to the rebuilding of the Overseas Highway to Key West,
_all_ trucks had to run in convoy straddling the center stripe
(effectively treating the bridges as a single lane). This was
because the bridges had orginally been built for the railroad,
with relatively narrow piers; the cross beams later applied to
widen the deck for a automobile roadway became rather decayed
over the years, and could not support the weight of the trucks.
So trucks had to be run centered over the piers.
John
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Prior to the rebuilding of the Overseas Highway to Key West,
> _all_ trucks had to run in convoy straddling the center stripe
> (effectively treating the bridges as a single lane). This was
> because the bridges had orginally been built for the railroad,
> with relatively narrow piers; the cross beams later applied to
> widen the deck for a automobile roadway became rather decayed
> over the years, and could not support the weight of the trucks.
> So trucks had to be run centered over the piers.
I don't recall that section of highway carrying much truck traffic back
then, though. I drove that highway back in the 1960s several times, and
that was back when the bridges were the old narrow bridges, and it was
pretty narrow even for 2-way car traffic. All those bridges were
replaced in the 1970s and 1980s.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Capital Beltway Projects http://www.capital-beltway.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
John McCoy
news:462A3014...@comcast.net:
> John McCoy <igo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Prior to the rebuilding of the Overseas Highway to Key West,
>> _all_ trucks had to run in convoy straddling the center stripe
>> (effectively treating the bridges as a single lane). This was
>> because the bridges had orginally been built for the railroad,
>> with relatively narrow piers; the cross beams later applied to
>> widen the deck for a automobile roadway became rather decayed
>> over the years, and could not support the weight of the trucks.
>> So trucks had to be run centered over the piers.
>
> I don't recall that section of highway carrying much truck traffic
> back then, though. I drove that highway back in the 1960s several
> times, and that was back when the bridges were the old narrow bridges,
> and it was pretty narrow even for 2-way car traffic. All those
> bridges were replaced in the 1970s and 1980s.
Pretty much everything needed in Key West (or the intervening
keys) was shipped by truck, but of course the population wasn't
that big back then, so it wouldn't have been _that_ much traffic.
I'm not sure when they started the convoying of trucks, either,
it might not have been till the early 70's. When they did so,
they ran them at night.
John