I've pulled 57 footers. The rear overhang swings across the left lane like a barn door when you make a right turn. Changing the trailer length restriction does not somehow magically change the geometry of all the roads and intersections we've spent the last hundred and fifty years building!
Kenneth Mixson I pull turn pike double 53' A trains behind a full sleeper peterbuilt in western canada. we are aloud 41m 134' max length. max gross weight og 63,500 same as super B. we run them right into winnipeg, regina, saskatoon, edmonton and calgary making right and left hand turns on city streets. I wouldn't suggest trying it in most areas of Toronto or Montreal. but in reality the rear trailer only tracks the width of the trailer wider than the lead trailer. all and all you only really need to take a half a lane more than you would with a 53' trailer ( a full lane extra is better if posible ) to make the same turn.
As someone who's going to start a job as a yard spotter soon, I can only imagine the nightmare of the powers that be not considering the extra turn radius required just to move things about.
Alonzo Branson I'm a Yard Shifter for UPS and our yard was designed for 40ft trailers. I can't park 2 53' trailers side by side or they will be very hard to pull from the docks with other trailers parked next to them
I started my career in trucking in 1982, before log books were even required. I've seen the industry go downhill since and the quality of drivers has only gotten worse as well. Being a trucker back then was a respectable job, and the wages were good. We always helped and watched out for each other. There were some a- holes back then, but they were the exception rather than the rule. I understand that in order to even get your AZ permit now, attending a driving school is a must, and they are expensive. It doesn't seem worth it to invest that kind of money to make the coin that drivers are being paid today. Your better off to spend your money on another trade, one where you can put enough money away so that one day you can afford to retire.
Back in the 90s, I pulled 48’ Reefers. 53’ trailers could only be pulled with cab overs run by the likes of Schneider and JB Hunt! Recently got back into trucking and after 4-months, pretty much got my “Truck Legs” back with the biggest challenge being learning how to set up and back a 53’ trailer with a LWB Conventional tractor. Biggest challenge (for me anyway) is dealing with the over-swing when the tandems are pushed forward (I often push them out when I can). I am seeing more and more 57’ trailers being pulled by tractors just like mine and can’t help but wonder how many of these are getting stuck in tight situations where I can barely get my 53’ through - like the turnaround I had to take getting to the A/A cargo terminal at DFW!
I'm sorry to hear that these 57 footers are catching on. I thought the 53's were too long when they came out. As you know though, this industry is full of greedy shippers who continue to want more and more freight for less and less money with the drivers taking all the risk. Chemical and Food Grade tankers however continue to be a more realistic length and are quite nice to maneuver. Maybe want to think about trying that in the future. I did, quite enjoyed it and the money was good.
I pull paper in 53 ft trailers and there only half full because of weight I should not have to ever deal with these 60 ft monsters until they increase the GVW which they will. But my ? is with the new trucks having shit for power because of the speed governors ( lowers peek horse power and torque because of rpm limit) how in the world are these monsters going to pull hills?
i did drive over the road for 6 weeks, i have a local job but i know what its like to pull a trailer through Oregon and other mountinous areas. i dont have much to compare it to because i never drove a high powered truck, but i can tell you the trucks that would pass me were the KW900's the ones you could tell were old school. i was stuck with a dumbed down T680 with a shitty automatic. now i drive a cascadia 10 speed and that thing struggles up grades too. 10th gear is way too tall and frankly the truck is probably more geared for fuel economy. im driving local backroads out in the country. frankly less tall gearing and an engine that wasnt governed down so much maybe something that would rev a little higher before shutting down would be nice. these engines are kind of gutless compared the to old cat and detroits from years past. but everything these days is all emissions. regen, DEF systems suck the power right out of these things. kind of like early emissions controlled cars from the 70's. 350 V8 putting out a pathetic 170 hp even though we know what that engine CAN put out. 300 hp easily.
I agree, newer *fleet* trucks definitely struggle with even moderate loads these days, but I don't believe its because they can't do it. It's because, in my view, some people have gotten it wrong by deciding that fuel economy, while a good thing, trumps a truck's ability to pull a load. Our trucks are Penske leases, with the DD13 motors. Personally, having always driven Cummins for many years before driving these Detroits, I have become a fan of them, they're a good solid motor. However, Penske has chosen to dial them down to about 350 hp. Here's the interesting (and frustrating) part: I looked at the Detroit website. Did you know the DD13, according to the people that built it, is rated for up to 505 hp??? And yet so many companies are choking them down.
Good video. If u look at the situation like an owner, and not a driver it's obvious why larger companies would rather increase trailer length than increase freight rates. Higher freight rates Inevitably means having to hire MORE drivers which companies surely don't wanna do. Its more cost effective to work TF out of existing drivers than to hire more (when there's already a shortage). I wouldn't be surprised to see 70'-80' trailers in the future.
The 100 is genius! You can immediately haul almost twice as much while making half as much! Instant pay decrease, and truck stops forget it just park where you want. Great video as always.
They'd better start working up a list of "No-Go" docks-the ones that a 53 will barely fit into. That or put together an on-call contract with a Towing Co. near these already-near-impossible docks,to retrieve wrecked,wedged,or smashed rigs who attempted to hit the port with a 60 and a conventional cab. And Jerry,out West I can always tell how the roads are for 500 miles in either direction by how many trailers the UPS and Fed Ex drivers. Clear roads-three trailers;bad weather,snow and ice-two trailers;summits likely closed,single trailers .
Thanks for sharing. Get rid of those paper pushing people controlling regulations & put actually drivers like you who knows what's best. you the man Dave!
Wal Mart DC out of Calgary have had these things for a couple of years now. Fortunately I'll never get, er have to pull them as I drive a Volvo 780 and it would be juuuussssttt a little bit too long. Try shoving one of these monsters into a dock that was built when a 45' was cutting edge.
I can guarantee the push to grow the trailers is done by an overweight bean counter sitting outside the assistant-assistant-to-the-CEO's office looking for ways to squeeze water out of a rock. I've already seen videos of truckers that no longer deliver to Walmart because they arrived four hours early and stood in the check-in line past the delivery deadline and because they were "late" they didn't get full pay.Pretty soon you're going to see autopilot trucks with 40 foot trailers zoom by your 100 foot monstrosity with nobody at the wheel - they get to save on driver pay and they get more bang for the buck with regards to fuel economy. Plus, no sleep time, fewer refueling stops, fastlane through toll booths, maybe no weigh station checkins - regulatory bodies can remotely check a vehicle's statistics via remote connection along highway-side wifi hotspots with sensors in the road itself - Executives are about to see dollar signs. It doesn't have to be a crazy expensive driving AI either. drop GPS markers along the highway every 3-5 miles and the company rig will know exactly where it is to within the nearest inch and a half. Let's say they create designated automatic trucking lanes, guess what? The trucker as we know it today no longer has a job.
Come on Dave, don't you see the benefit? when you sleep with your arms and head on the steering wheel the drool just drops onto the floor instead of running down the side of your face. What's not to love?
Huh, hadn't thought of it from that angle! Thank you for being able to see the silver lining in an otherwise stupid move on the part of our provincial gov't. Can you tell me, is there a bright side to them selling off our provincially owned hydro company? Dave
I can tell you the bright side. If it is like here in Illinois you get to pay almost 2.5 times as much as you did before the company came in. Then a few months after that increase they warn there might be a hike in prices because they are going to do some sytems upgrades that they claimed were done soon as they took over and used as an excuse for the first round of price spikes.
We've had 57' trailers here for pulling loads like paper cups and other really light loads for quite a while now. I took a driving test with one that was the first 57' I had ever pulled.
We have already been pulling 58 foot trailers for shuttle on designated routs with short day cabs. The 58 foot trailers still need to be less than 80,000 gross weight. Double bottoms still need to be under 80,000. Telescoping flat deck, unless they have an over weight permit must be under 80,000. Bigger trailers still need to be under the weight limits, puff ball freight fits this bill.
Another way to keep the demand for drivers down and keep pay less. Years ago if you had 200 foot of freight it would take 5 trucks now you only need 4 with room to spare
It will end when the guys driving the trucks refuse to pull them. I can understand the fear of losing your job if it's one guy going up against his boss but if you get a group started and stand behind it you can make it stop. I'm not sure if there are truck driver unions in Canada but if there are that would help the cause quite a bit.
Over here in the UK they got "smart" got a fixed bed pulling a trailer legal max length 18.75M or 61.5 ft. Enjoy the cab overs guys your going to have to.
unless the retail chain are going to sink money into road infrastructure to cater for 60-100 single trailers they are going to be screwed for shipping because you are at physical road limits at 40 foot on a 2 lane flat top, at 48-53' you are really over stretching the roads capacity.. you would be at a steering axle level because you are already at the limits of most roads can due to swing.. the only safe way to shift 100 foot of cargo is with a double b triple trailer.. though most US states could likely handle 220-250 foot 5 x 40 foot trailers = 200 foot of cargo space.. on the roads based on tri axle trailers... this is related to physical turning radius of truck and trailer, you are only creating more hazard on the road the longer the single trailer is i would not haul 2 or more 48-53' because you aren't getting hazard pay for the haul..
Great points made! Railroad freight is always more economically efficient than trucks anyway. Too bad the railways, in their lopsided wisdom of the times, retired and curtailed so many branch lines. This in turn, would have limited large truck trailers to a reasonable 40' length and made it easier on the truckers and the freight companies would still have made money--both inter-modal and day cab trips.
I felt the same way over here when they introduced the B Double combinations. It was only designed for depot to depot freight but now it runs anywhere and does multi pick ups and deliveries. The best part is the companies sale staff went out into the market and gave the customers the front trailer space for free. Same deal to comply with length laws we all get to drive cab overs and sleep in dog kennels.
Geezuz, whose sales team was that? It's stupid moves like that that are bringing this industry to its knees! They've just adversely affected your pay! Dave
Why not just triples? I see them all over Utah and they add up to 84 feet. Of course they are going to want to wander but your ability to maneuver would be better than in one 60 foot trailer or at least I would think it would be.
It will be a win-win for industry. Trailer AND Truck OEMs will be so happy to sell MOAR new units. Investors will be happy to have MOAR dividends. Construction companies will be happier because they will have MOAR work to repair the roads. Oh, nevermind the last point, infrastructure improvements are never in the budget. Ha! Cheers everyone!
I’ve seen 57’ trailers in California for years. They haul new, empty cans to Campbell’s for soup. They’re pulled by cab overs with the fifth wheel set really far forward.
They had 70' trailers here in the u.s. . but after they got rid of cabovers here no one could pull them anymore. I can show you 3 of them that still look pretty new except for sitting since the '80s or '90s in Missoula Montana. They are old swift trailers. I'd never pull one. It's hard enough getting a 53' in some of these towns. You know, with the way they load 53s, you could do the same load with a 48. Unless you're heavy haul or bed bugger. They almost always leave a 8'-10' gap between the load and the doors.
The people in government don't know how to drive a 20' trailer let alone a 60'. Be safe out there driver's this old trucker is retired from all of that bullshit.
so what's the difference?? alot of companies are going to 53 foot tri axle trailers in Canada and now I'm seeing it down here in the states! 60 foot tri and quad axle trailers will be next you just watch!! in Australia they are running three and four trailers at once and b doubles and super B's there and in Canada and some states like Michigan. why is everyone so worked up about this?
my god! I don't want America's and Canada's highways busy with European style phone booth trucks! I'm not against the way the do it over there but it wouldn't be right for our highways
I have hauled 57' dry-van trailers for years in the US. Wasn't that bad. My 53' & 48' dry-van, step-deck, and flat-bed trailers were a little better but 57' wasn't bad at all. Adding 3' to that wouldn't really be an issue. Maybe Freightliner will make the Argosy available again...
My problem with 60 ft and longer trailers is you go back to early 90s when 53 ft trailers were introduced drivers are being paid the same as 48 ft trailers. So the shipper gained 5 foot of usable space(48 to 53 ft) while the drivers wages have not adjusted accordingly. Wages should have increased by about 10 percent when fleets went to 53 ft trailers. If anything wages have remained flat for about 20-25 years(in trucking) then often you have to deal with DOT's bull stuff and last but not least even if you arrive at the destination you have to wait forever to be unloaded
Well,here in the U.K. when we needed more capacity in our trailers,we developed double deck trailers.....Generally 45 ft long with 2 full length decks....second deck raises and lowers hydraulically,for loading and unloading. The only problem I see for the Canadian and U.S. markets,is that you have far too many low bridges !...... Our D.D. trailers are usually up to 16' 2'' tall. Plus,I would say that they have to be loaded evenly and they are really only suitable for palletised or roll cage type loads. Seeing what I've seen,the 53' trailers are already too long,for your gross weights......We run up to 44 tons (96000 lbs ?) on 6 axles.
Is that so...?? . The point that I was making,is that you don't need to continually go for longer and longer trailers ! Our 'little' 45 footers,with 2 decks, offer 90' of deck space.....and all in a shorter (but taller) trailer...... If the U.S. got it's low bridges sorted out,you too could use the double deck system.....would have to raise your gross weights tho'.... ;-)
I am a truck driver.I have driven every state and all across Canada. I see nothing wrong with the 60" trailer ,BUT I do think that it should be used only for point to point delivery , Interstate hywy only like the 53 was intended for . The problem like he says is the length law. Something would have to be done as far as exempting these trailers as long as they stay within their point A to point B route .
I used to pull doubles for Carolina/GI in the States. With our 379 extended Pete, we were only around 95', and that was with the 5th wheel slid back enough to accommodate the pup's forward set landing gear. Overall, I wayyy preferred pulling something that bends in the middle vs a 48' or 53' that was like yanking a sail down the road. The doubles made turns easily, with the back trailer barely offsetting the lead's track. With some practice, you can even back those things around corners, but it's not something most "drivers" these days could do. Doubles also pull really great around 75-90 mph. (Far better than the limit of 55-60 then). That back trailer floats along than more than actually rolling when you get em wound up to atleast 70 mph. Slap it on the dash and lets get er there! 😎
They need to increase parking on both sides of the street that way when you take Corners in these 60 foot trailers you can't do it without stopping in the middle of street getting an impeding traffic ticket waiting for parked cars to move so you can make the corner. Kind of like New York City in some places.
it's not going to end, where I am at now we run 57' trailers and were dedicated to Lowe's throughout Texas. Things get pretty sporting, a few times I have had to engage fourways, and sit in an intersection until the four wheelers figured out the math and got out of my way. They think larger trailer more freight, however they don't think about bridge and weight over axle laws. Sounds like a pay day for D.O.T. Best of luck up there.
60 foot trailers?? Ridicules! Have these big trucking companies ever considered the increased load on the tractors engine and transmission? In addition, it will add to damage of the trailer when backing into a loading dock on the blind side with a driver with limited experience. God help us truckers!
You're right! It was truly the big shippers that wanted the bigger trailers to haul more freight for the same price. Although some LTL carriers supported bigger trailers to get more freight on to boost their revenue. Dave
HEB here in texas uses the 57fts. They mainly use them on the day cabs going to the grocery stores from the distribution warehouses. Starting to see an increase of the 57fts on the highway here since the first 57ft trailer. Dont see how 2 more pallets will make a difference.
DM be like " We need you to go into New York. Take the 100 footer."
I've pulled 57 footers. The rear overhang swings across the left lane like a barn door when you make a right turn. Changing the trailer length restriction does not somehow magically change the geometry of all the roads and intersections we've spent the last hundred and fifty years building!
Jesus 60ft trailers as if 53 weren't long enough..
57ft!
Have pulled some 57-ft over the last 2 years
Eric wolf they have been using 60 foot trailers in Florida for years to haul citrus... this is nothing new bud!
Cyberat Rodent Mississippi only pull 53 footers that's all I see down here which states besides Mississippi allow 57 footers ?
I love Dave's sense of sarcasm lol
Every time drivers have gotten a raise the length and weight of the trailers have gone up so the driver really never got a raise after all
Turnpike Doubles are already at the 100' mark.
I know, scary, isn't it? Dave
Kenneth Mixson I pull turn pike double 53' A trains behind a full sleeper peterbuilt in western canada. we are aloud 41m 134' max length. max gross weight og 63,500 same as super B. we run them right into winnipeg, regina, saskatoon, edmonton and calgary making right and left hand turns on city streets. I wouldn't suggest trying it in most areas of Toronto or Montreal. but in reality the rear trailer only tracks the width of the trailer wider than the lead trailer. all and all you only really need to take a half a lane more than you would with a 53' trailer ( a full lane extra is better if posible ) to make the same turn.
Dave, Thanks for the info. I have never pulled them myself but I have seen them in action.
I can hear them now. Your a professional driver, I'm sure you can get it around those turns without a problem
We have 57 ft trailers down here in Texas!! It's a beast to pull down the road
As someone who's going to start a job as a yard spotter soon, I can only imagine the nightmare of the powers that be not considering the extra turn radius required just to move things about.
Alonzo Branson I'm a Yard Shifter for UPS and our yard was designed for 40ft trailers. I can't park 2 53' trailers side by side or they will be very hard to pull from the docks with other trailers parked next to them
We've already got 100 foot trailers that hing in the middle… we just call them turnpike doubles lol
Scary ,isn't it. Dave
I started my career in trucking in 1982, before log books were even required. I've seen the industry go downhill since and the quality of drivers has only gotten worse as well.
Being a trucker back then was a respectable job, and the wages were good. We always helped and watched out for each other. There were some a- holes back then, but they were the exception rather than the rule.
I understand that in order to even get your AZ permit now, attending a driving school is a must, and they are expensive. It doesn't seem worth it to invest that kind of money to make the coin that drivers are being paid today. Your better off to spend your money on another trade, one where you can put enough money away so that one day you can afford to retire.
"Standing for 70 hrs per week sounds wonderful. "
Knees: left the chat.
Back in the 90s, I pulled 48’ Reefers. 53’ trailers could only be pulled with cab overs run by the likes of Schneider and JB Hunt!
Recently got back into trucking and after 4-months, pretty much got my “Truck Legs” back with the biggest challenge being learning how to set up and back a 53’ trailer with a LWB Conventional tractor. Biggest challenge (for me anyway) is dealing with the over-swing when the tandems are pushed forward (I often push them out when I can). I am seeing more and more 57’ trailers being pulled by tractors just like mine and can’t help but wonder how many of these are getting stuck in tight situations where I can barely get my 53’ through - like the turnaround I had to take getting to the A/A cargo terminal at DFW!
I'm sorry to hear that these 57 footers are catching on. I thought the 53's were too long when they came out. As you know though, this industry is full of greedy shippers who continue to want more and more freight for less and less money with the drivers taking all the risk. Chemical and Food Grade tankers however continue to be a more realistic length and are quite nice to maneuver. Maybe want to think about trying that in the future. I did, quite enjoyed it and the money was good.
I pull paper in 53 ft trailers and there only half full because of weight I should not have to ever deal with these 60 ft monsters until they increase the GVW which they will. But my ? is with the new trucks having shit for power because of the speed governors ( lowers peek horse power and torque because of rpm limit) how in the world are these monsters going to pull hills?
they already pull like shit
That is my point. Just going to get worse.
i did drive over the road for 6 weeks, i have a local job but i know what its like to pull a trailer through Oregon and other mountinous areas. i dont have much to compare it to because i never drove a high powered truck, but i can tell you the trucks that would pass me were the KW900's the ones you could tell were old school. i was stuck with a dumbed down T680 with a shitty automatic. now i drive a cascadia 10 speed and that thing struggles up grades too. 10th gear is way too tall and frankly the truck is probably more geared for fuel economy. im driving local backroads out in the country. frankly less tall gearing and an engine that wasnt governed down so much maybe something that would rev a little higher before shutting down would be nice. these engines are kind of gutless compared the to old cat and detroits from years past. but everything these days is all emissions. regen, DEF systems suck the power right out of these things. kind of like early emissions controlled cars from the 70's. 350 V8 putting out a pathetic 170 hp even though we know what that engine CAN put out. 300 hp easily.
Another really good question! Thanks Scott! Dave
I agree, newer *fleet* trucks definitely struggle with even moderate loads these days, but I don't believe its because they can't do it. It's because, in my view, some people have gotten it wrong by deciding that fuel economy, while a good thing, trumps a truck's ability to pull a load. Our trucks are Penske leases, with the DD13 motors. Personally, having always driven Cummins for many years before driving these Detroits, I have become a fan of them, they're a good solid motor. However, Penske has chosen to dial them down to about 350 hp. Here's the interesting (and frustrating) part: I looked at the Detroit website. Did you know the DD13, according to the people that built it, is rated for up to 505 hp??? And yet so many companies are choking them down.
Good video. If u look at the situation like an owner, and not a driver it's obvious why larger companies would rather increase trailer length than increase freight rates. Higher freight rates Inevitably means having to hire MORE drivers which companies surely don't wanna do. Its more cost effective to work TF out of existing drivers than to hire more (when there's already a shortage). I wouldn't be surprised to see 70'-80' trailers in the future.
The 100 is genius! You can immediately haul almost twice as much while making half as much! Instant pay decrease, and truck stops forget it just park where you want. Great video as always.
Thank you! Dave
They'd better start working up a list of "No-Go" docks-the ones that a 53 will barely fit into. That or put together an on-call contract with a Towing Co. near these already-near-impossible docks,to retrieve wrecked,wedged,or smashed rigs who attempted to hit the port with a 60 and a conventional cab.
And Jerry,out West I can always tell how the roads are for 500 miles in either direction by how many trailers the UPS and Fed Ex drivers. Clear roads-three trailers;bad weather,snow and ice-two trailers;summits likely closed,single trailers .
Hahahaha 100' trailers! You re killing me now. I'm with you on that
will love to see one going thru a city north east coast 🤔
Yeah, me too! Manhattan in rush hour! Dave
Thanks for sharing. Get rid of those paper pushing people controlling regulations & put actually drivers like you who knows what's best. you the man Dave!
Thanks Johnny! I don't know if I'm " the man" . but I do know stupid when I hear it! Drive safe! Dave
Amen to that...maybe ALL the bureaus and task forces should heed Johnny's advise.
Lol! Dave, I can see myself trying to back a 100 foot trailer in a LOVES PARKING LOT. WHAT A JOKE. MINE AS WELL DRIVE A HOUSE!
Wal Mart DC out of Calgary have had these things for a couple of years now. Fortunately I'll never get, er have to pull them as I drive a Volvo 780 and it would be juuuussssttt a little bit too long. Try shoving one of these monsters into a dock that was built when a 45' was cutting edge.
Bring on the Australian Road Trains those are long
Grow the trailers stupidity. Great line. Driver and road safety mean nothing to these large corporations. Nice video as usual.
Thank you, and you're right, road safety does mean nothing to these people! Al they think about is money. Dave
I can guarantee the push to grow the trailers is done by an overweight bean counter sitting outside the assistant-assistant-to-the-CEO's office looking for ways to squeeze water out of a rock. I've already seen videos of truckers that no longer deliver to Walmart because they arrived four hours early and stood in the check-in line past the delivery deadline and because they were "late" they didn't get full pay.Pretty soon you're going to see autopilot trucks with 40 foot trailers zoom by your 100 foot monstrosity with nobody at the wheel - they get to save on driver pay and they get more bang for the buck with regards to fuel economy. Plus, no sleep time, fewer refueling stops, fastlane through toll booths, maybe no weigh station checkins - regulatory bodies can remotely check a vehicle's statistics via remote connection along highway-side wifi hotspots with sensors in the road itself - Executives are about to see dollar signs.
It doesn't have to be a crazy expensive driving AI either. drop GPS markers along the highway every 3-5 miles and the company rig will know exactly where it is to within the nearest inch and a half. Let's say they create designated automatic trucking lanes, guess what? The trucker as we know it today no longer has a job.
hahaha great video Dave I just love the mariguana part
Thank you! Dave
It's one thing to pull that big trailer and weight on flat highways in the lower 48...but try pullin em thru the mountains in BC....no way.
The 53 footer's are already too long for anything but highway driving.
It will never end my friend: Longer Trailer Mean More Money For The Big Boys In The Office, And More Headaches For The Drivers:
The stupidity will end NEVER
Politiciens took your advise, weed is now legal.. 🤦♂️
from one who doesn't have a driving license yet this channel is very intriguing.
Come on Dave, don't you see the benefit? when you sleep with your arms and head on the steering wheel the drool just drops onto the floor instead of running down the side of your face. What's not to love?
Huh, hadn't thought of it from that angle! Thank you for being able to see the silver lining in an otherwise stupid move on the part of our provincial gov't. Can you tell me, is there a bright side to them selling off our provincially owned hydro company? Dave
It's called a sleeper. I thought you had them up north.
I can tell you the bright side. If it is like here in Illinois you get to pay almost 2.5 times as much as you did before the company came in. Then a few months after that increase they warn there might be a hike in prices because they are going to do some sytems upgrades that they claimed were done soon as they took over and used as an excuse for the first round of price spikes.
Better yet, just legalize landtrain's here like you see in Australia that haul 5 or 6 trailers
We've had 57' trailers here for pulling loads like paper cups and other really light loads for quite a while now. I took a driving test with one that was the first 57' I had ever pulled.
It’s crazy you were talking about this 5 years ago and now they have 60s in Canada
When I started we had 40 round nose trailers
@2:20 legalize marijuana in canada has happened! LOL here comes the 100' trailers. Imagine tripples with those!
Dave, Remember when manufacturers and large distribution centers were located on rail spurs??
See this is why I drive tanker only 45’ lmaoo
We have already been pulling 58 foot trailers for shuttle on designated routs with short day cabs. The 58 foot trailers still need to be less than 80,000 gross weight. Double bottoms still need to be under 80,000. Telescoping flat deck, unless they have an over weight permit must be under 80,000. Bigger trailers still need to be under the weight limits, puff ball freight fits this bill.
The future is scary to think about nowadays
Yes, it truly is! Dave
Another way to keep the demand for drivers down and keep pay less. Years ago if you had 200 foot of freight it would take 5 trucks now you only need 4 with room to spare
It won't be long before we have driverless trucks. Standing room only is a none issue at that point.
It will end when the guys driving the trucks refuse to pull them. I can understand the fear of losing your job if it's one guy going up against his boss but if you get a group started and stand behind it you can make it stop. I'm not sure if there are truck driver unions in Canada but if there are that would help the cause quite a bit.
ElectricalNovice19 they’ll never say no.
This is why we need Unions.
You can’t see the end of 100 Ft trailer to control it safely.
Length restrictions require a guide car . And the wind will blow them off the highway .
Over here in the UK they got "smart" got a fixed bed pulling a trailer legal max length 18.75M or 61.5 ft. Enjoy the cab overs guys your going to have to.
unless the retail chain are going to sink money into road infrastructure to cater for 60-100 single trailers they are going to be screwed for shipping because you are at physical road limits at 40 foot on a 2 lane flat top, at 48-53' you are really over stretching the roads capacity..
you would be at a steering axle level because you are already at the limits of most roads can due to swing..
the only safe way to shift 100 foot of cargo is with a double b triple trailer..
though most US states could likely handle 220-250 foot 5 x 40 foot trailers = 200 foot of cargo space.. on the roads based on tri axle trailers...
this is related to physical turning radius of truck and trailer, you are only creating more hazard on the road the longer the single trailer is
i would not haul 2 or more 48-53' because you aren't getting hazard pay for the haul..
They do it in Australia dirt roads and downtown streets its all the same from the corporate office window.
Really enjoy listening to you it's so good it's so good an educated voice in our industry thank you
Thank you John! Dave
Great points made! Railroad freight is always more economically efficient than trucks anyway. Too bad the railways, in their lopsided wisdom of the times, retired and curtailed so many branch lines. This in turn, would have limited large truck trailers to a reasonable 40' length and made it easier on the truckers and the freight companies would still have made money--both inter-modal and day cab trips.
I felt the same way over here when they introduced the B Double combinations. It was only designed for depot to depot freight but now it runs anywhere and does multi pick ups and deliveries. The best part is the companies sale staff went out into the market and gave the customers the front trailer space for free. Same deal to comply with length laws we all get to drive cab overs and sleep in dog kennels.
Geezuz, whose sales team was that? It's stupid moves like that that are bringing this industry to its knees! They've just adversely affected your pay! Dave
Great video Dave. Love it. Stay safe. Keep up the good work.
Appreciate it Darek! Dave
they are already pulling double 53' in the states
Good luck taking 60’ trailer into big urban areas. Some places 53’ is bit too long
I work for UPS and pull 2 53ft trailers on the Kansas turnpike in a nice twin screw KW685!
Cabin over orange cars are commin back!
Why not just triples? I see them all over Utah and they add up to 84 feet. Of course they are going to want to wander but your ability to maneuver would be better than in one 60 foot trailer or at least I would think it would be.
It will be a win-win for industry. Trailer AND Truck OEMs will be so happy to sell MOAR new units. Investors will be happy to have MOAR dividends. Construction companies will be happier because they will have MOAR work to repair the roads. Oh, nevermind the last point, infrastructure improvements are never in the budget. Ha!
Cheers everyone!
P. Brabenec MOAR=Mother of all reefers? lol😉
I’ve seen 57’ trailers in California for years. They haul new, empty cans to Campbell’s for soup. They’re pulled by cab overs with the fifth wheel set really far forward.
Yup, seen those!
They had 70' trailers here in the u.s. . but after they got rid of cabovers here no one could pull them anymore. I can show you 3 of them that still look pretty new except for sitting since the '80s or '90s in Missoula Montana. They are old swift trailers. I'd never pull one. It's hard enough getting a 53' in some of these towns. You know, with the way they load 53s, you could do the same load with a 48. Unless you're heavy haul or bed bugger. They almost always leave a 8'-10' gap between the load and the doors.
OMGoodness!!!!! That's extremely crazy!!!
In U.K and Europe we have double deck trailers on low loader chassis for supermarkets.
2:19 haha. I guess you saw it coming.
The people in government don't know how to drive a 20' trailer let alone a 60'. Be safe out there driver's this old trucker is retired from all of that bullshit.
Wow, you guys are super truckers.
so what's the difference?? alot of companies are going to 53 foot tri axle trailers in Canada and now I'm seeing it down here in the states! 60 foot tri and quad axle trailers will be next you just watch!! in Australia they are running three and four trailers at once and b doubles and super B's there and in Canada and some states like Michigan. why is everyone so worked up about this?
It sucks that Canada wont give a person a break who has a felony and denies him entry into your Country.
Wowza. California won't stand for that.
Frito Lay in Kansas pulls double 48's everyday in Kansas...
my god! I don't want America's and Canada's highways busy with European style phone booth trucks! I'm not against the way the do it over there but it wouldn't be right for our highways
The US, have been running a few 57' trailers from TX, to the west coast for years...
Didn't know that! Dave
Walmart had a few volvos with airbags in the wheel I wondered how long before a swift driver backed into one and blew a resting drivers head off
Got a laugh out of me there! Dave
Amen to your words!! Dave ffs the last 5ft of a 53ft trailer is useless!! when we haul anything with much weight to it!! as is!! PISS on 60ft!!
I have hauled 57' dry-van trailers for years in the US. Wasn't that bad. My 53' & 48' dry-van, step-deck, and flat-bed trailers were a little better but 57' wasn't bad at all. Adding 3' to that wouldn't really be an issue. Maybe Freightliner will make the Argosy available again...
My problem with 60 ft and longer trailers is you go back to early 90s when 53 ft trailers were introduced drivers are being paid the same as 48 ft trailers. So the shipper gained 5 foot of usable space(48 to 53 ft) while the drivers wages have not adjusted accordingly. Wages should have increased by about 10 percent when fleets went to 53 ft trailers. If anything wages have remained flat for about 20-25 years(in trucking) then often you have to deal with DOT's bull stuff and last but not least even if you arrive at the destination you have to wait forever to be unloaded
I pull a 57' trailer now already
Good god. California? Dave
Saw dual 53" in MI and IN. Seems like they had no problem pulling them with 65mph. No idea how.
Just think of it like an extremely large segway.
The politicians followed your advice and legalized marijuana in Canada.
Well,here in the U.K. when we needed more capacity in our trailers,we developed double deck trailers.....Generally 45 ft long with 2 full length decks....second deck raises and lowers hydraulically,for loading and unloading. The only problem I see for the Canadian and U.S. markets,is that you have far too many low bridges !...... Our D.D. trailers are usually up to 16' 2'' tall. Plus,I would say that they have to be loaded evenly and they are really only suitable for palletised or roll cage type loads. Seeing what I've seen,the 53' trailers are already too long,for your gross weights......We run up to 44 tons (96000 lbs ?) on 6 axles.
Jayen4 53' trailers work fine, even 57' trailers are common in the southwestern US.
Is that so...?? . The point that I was making,is that you don't need to continually go for longer and longer trailers ! Our 'little' 45 footers,with 2 decks, offer 90' of deck space.....and all in a shorter (but taller) trailer...... If the U.S. got it's low bridges sorted out,you too could use the double deck system.....would have to raise your gross weights tho'.... ;-)
thank you buddy for keeping it real
Exactly what I was thinking 53 ft long enough many cases 48
I thought they should have held to 48ft.
And then later on down the road they will be wanting to pull 100 footers in doubles and triples
I am a truck driver.I have driven every state and all across Canada. I see nothing wrong with the 60" trailer ,BUT I do think that it should be used only for point to point delivery , Interstate hywy only like the 53 was intended for . The problem like he says is the length law. Something would have to be done as far as exempting these trailers as long as they stay within their point A to point B route .
They did legalize it
I pulled one for Swift in the 90's from S.C. to Canada every week,it sucked!
great video thanks for uploading Dave
Thanks Tyler! Dave
60’ trailer in a metropolitan round a bout intersection , sure that makes sense 🤪
If you're a shipper or a politician. Dave
I used to pull doubles for Carolina/GI in the States. With our 379 extended Pete, we were only around 95', and that was with the 5th wheel slid back enough to accommodate the pup's forward set landing gear. Overall, I wayyy preferred pulling something that bends in the middle vs a 48' or 53' that was like yanking a sail down the road. The doubles made turns easily, with the back trailer barely offsetting the lead's track. With some practice, you can even back those things around corners, but it's not something most "drivers" these days could do. Doubles also pull really great around 75-90 mph. (Far better than the limit of 55-60 then). That back trailer floats along than more than actually rolling when you get em wound up to atleast 70 mph. Slap it on the dash and lets get er there! 😎
A long time ago I pulled B-trains up here in Canada and found them much nicer to pull and maneuver than a 53. Dave
They need to increase parking on both sides of the street that way when you take Corners in these 60 foot trailers you can't do it without stopping in the middle of street getting an impeding traffic ticket waiting for parked cars to move so you can make the corner. Kind of like New York City in some places.
Yup! Dave
it's not going to end, where I am at now we run 57' trailers and were dedicated to Lowe's throughout Texas. Things get pretty sporting, a few times I have had to engage fourways, and sit in an intersection until the four wheelers figured out the math and got out of my way. They think larger trailer more freight, however they don't think about bridge and weight over axle laws. Sounds like a pay day for D.O.T. Best of luck up there.
you forgot also 14' high dry van trailers for... paper mills
5 years old video... and Walmart just announced today there's starting to use 60 feet reefer trailers. Only in Canada ,no usa for now.
60 foot trailers?? Ridicules! Have these big trucking companies ever considered the increased load on the tractors engine and transmission? In addition, it will add to damage of the trailer when backing into a loading dock on the blind side with a driver with limited experience. God help us truckers!
Why wouldn't the trucking companies push for regulations to limit the trailer sizes? After all, larger trailers would mean fewer loads I would think.
You're right! It was truly the big shippers that wanted the bigger trailers to haul more freight for the same price. Although some LTL carriers supported bigger trailers to get more freight on to boost their revenue. Dave
Wow.
They've got LCV running out west.2 x53'.so now 2x60'.
You'd think Canadian tire and others would look at B-train curtain side.or Van's???
Now Loblaw is running triple 53's!
Better of going to double 53' like on the NY thru way.
HEB here in texas uses the 57fts. They mainly use them on the day cabs going to the grocery stores from the distribution warehouses. Starting to see an increase of the 57fts on the highway here since the first 57ft trailer. Dont see how 2 more pallets will make a difference.
Next: "Drivers take up too much space, replace them with a chip."
try an a train of two 53' leagel I. Alberta