Talk:Road train

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Road train is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I found this article to be very interesting. I don't believe we have road trains in America, at least not as long as in Australia. Being a contributor to Wikipedia, it never occurred to me that I might actually learn something by reading these articles. I'm glad I found this one. Too bad we lost the railroads in the U.S. - Fernkes 00:17, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

Now now, this is a tad too pessimistic, the railways are fighting back and the roadrailers are an important aspect of that fight. --Peter Horn 02:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 It is stupid not to use railway. 2 Clarification needed 3 Trailer arrangements 4 Broken link 5 Typical Length in Australia? 6 Turning capability of road trains

[edit] It is stupid not to use railway.

Why don't the aussies build true railroads? The friction between steel wheels and track would be less than 1/10th of a gravel road and a lot of fuel could be saved. Modern, fully automatized sapper trains can build hundreds of miles of track on their own quickly and efficently. You could even electrify the tracks and use electric locomotives and a nuclear power station for zero emission hauling. Looking at those millipede truck-trains I no longer need to wonder why the people down under failed to sign up for Kyoto! Shame on them!

Um, this isn't Usenet, but on the basis you're really interested in the issues, there are a number of railways built through outback Australia. Most of them go from mines to ports, because there's enough freight to be shifted to justify it. Out where the road trains operate, human activity is so diffuse (other than mining, the only economic activity is cattle grazing on a scale that would boggle the mind of most Americans, let alone Europeans) the amount of road traffic is so tiny it's often not economical to build a bitumen road, let alone a railway. Yes, even with sapper trains and whatnot. These are places that are so isolated that inhabitants keep light aircraft to pick up groceries (no, I'm not kidding). But while this takes up most of Australia's geographical area, it is completely foriegn to most Australians, who live in the coastal capital cities, the vast majority of whom have never seen a road train. Most of the trucks in Australia travel around the streets of the capital cities picking stuff up from ports and dropping it at warehouses, factories, and retailers.

Australia's abysmal greenhouse performance is largely caused by the same reason as the United States - the denizens of the cities cool their McMansions with electricity from brown coal. Second to that is the prediliction of those outer-suburban denizens for driving massive SUVs round the burbs. Road trains are a very minor factor. --Robert Merkel 12:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Even the suggestion of starting a new rail way infrastructure is silly when monorail is technologically superior and has a lower total cost of ownership. --User:Rekutyn

Are you serious about building a monorail to cart cattle, fuel, and other general freight thousands of kilometres!??! Are there long-distance freight monorails in use in other countries? They don't seem to be mentioned in that article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The environmental cost of a lightly-used railway could easily outweigh any fuel savings. Think of all the fuel required to refine the steel and shape it into rails, the ties (timber or concrete, both have environmental costs), shaping the roadbed etc. The fuel saved by putting the freight generated by small and widely dispersed outback towns on rails would not be be more then the fuel expended in building the railroad. Toiyabe 16:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the beauty of the discussion page is that it is a chance to indulge in usenet-type debate, all aimed at improving the quality of the article. There are discussions about relative economics of road vs rail transport and how the equation has changed over time (with political and technological factors coming into play.) Essentially though, there are now railways that follow the major Australian transcontinental routes, but we still have road trains running on the highways parallel to those railways. Others have pointed out that where there are some cases where rail is obvious (such as bringing ore from the inland to seaports - although in the case of relatively valuable refined material (such as mineral sands) it has been done by truck). An examination of the economics gets down to a discussion about timing, versatility and the availability of facilities supporting rail freight. The situation is most easily illuminated (and probably deserves a full study) on the 1,000 mile route between Kalgoorlie in Western Australia and Port Augusta in South Australia. Here rail and road run parallel, and there is virtually no drop-off or pick-up points for freight inbetween, that is to say that the versatility of trucks in terms of route selection doesn't count for anything on this section of the road. Why all freight heading east and west isn't loaded onto trains for carriage between these two points gets down to a bunch of factors. Firstly the rail line is at many points single track, necessitating delays in managing overtaking and passing on limited double track sections. Secondly neither the track nor the freight trains are suitable for high speed, while trucks run at 100kph. Thirdly the rail is subject to derailments, sometimes due to the rails simply buckling in the extreme heat and cold of the Australian inland. Finally the rail service, while carrying shipping containers, is not set up to carry road trailers, and even in the case of shipping containers there are no high tech facilities at either Kalgoorlie or Port Augusta to allow quick reloading of containers between road and rail. Australia, although experiencing a period of extraordinary economic growth, largely fueled by resource exports to China, has invested very little money in transport infrastructure in the last 20 years. Once you get away from the Kalgoorlie-Port August scenario the other major factor comes into play, and that is the extraordinarily diffuse and relatively low population of Australia, which gives the advantage to the truck and its ability to deliver 'to the doorstep'. So all sides of this argument are correct, there should be more rail and better use of rail, but road trains will remain a factor and continue to be, even if they eventually only have a role in transporting cattle from the vast inland properties where the front driveway can be a hundred miles long. Given that the cost of laying rail in Australia in such a way that it would resist the climate extremes and the routine floods is very high, the day when rail becomes more economic than road freight on the majority of routes is a long way off.Tban 06:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The new Darwin - Adelaide standard gauge line is a good start. --Peter Horn 02:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed

The following phrase is a "dog's breakfast": "A road train consists of a relatively conventional truck chassis, cab, and tractor," I'm breaking my head as to how best to clarify this one. --Peter Horn 02:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How about: "A road train consists of a relatively conventional prime mover pulling two or more semi-trailer units connected with dollys." --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trailer arrangements

This section should perhaps be transferred from the Trailer (vehicle) article to this one. Any comments?

--Peter Horn 17:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, or to semi-trailer. A B-double (not B-train) (up to 25 metres) is not considered a road train in Australia and can be approved to operate on almost any main road that allows semitrailers, I think. They must have a "Long Vehicle" sign on the rear.

A-double and longer are usually just called road trains, and are generally only permitted in remote areas. I come from Adelaide. It has only been in the last few years that A-doubles (but no more than double) have been allowed to operate along Port Wakefield Road (only) south of Snowtown, initially to Two Wells and now to Port Adelaide via a specified route.

I've never seen a C-dolly - can you add a photo or diagram? --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

See Dolly (trailer) for the difference between the A-dolly and the C-dolly. In any case, perhaps someone can provide a photo or a diagram. --Peter Horn 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a nice photo at [1]. Probably can't use that in wiki. There's a diagram showing an A dolly, C dolly and a B train at [2]. That's a work of the US govt, so it can be used in wiki.

C dollys still fairly rare, I can't say I've ever seen one on the road, but I don't look for them either. Toiyabe 23:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Great going. Thanks Toyabee. I have added both references as "External references" to the Dolly (trailer) article. --Peter Horn 16:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link

There is a broken link in the world's longest section. --5telios 13:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typical Length in Australia?

Having only seen 2, and rarely 3 trailer trains in the US, I'm curious what is the typical size of a road train in rural Australia? The world records are neat trivia but obviously those are not representative of real-world use. —Dgies 22:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A-double (two full-length trailers) are allowed south of Port Augusta, all the way to Port Adelaide with the right permits. North of Port Augusta they use A-triples (three full-length trailers). In the Northern Territory, the fuel tankers are often 4 trailers (like the BP one in the picture) - two B-doubles joined by an A-dolly - a total of 17 axles (1 steer- 2 drive - 3 on first trailer - 3 on second trailer - 2 on dolly - 3 on third trailer - 3 on fourth trailer). I'm not sure if livestock are ever moved on 4 trailers. I think I've seen 4 or 5-trailer pictures from remote north Western Australia hauling minerals where a railway was uneconomic (not sure if these were on public roads). Where should that information fit in the article? --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a closer look at the picture - it's an A-double followed by a B-double, 19 axles: 1 steer- 2 drive - 3 on first trailer - 2 on dolly - 3 on second trailer - 2 on dolly - 3 on third trailer - 3 on fourth trailer). It might even have tri-axle dollies, the angle makes it too hard to tell. I live in South Australia, which doesn't permit tri-axle dollies or more than three trailers. Rules and maps for SA can be found at [3] and (links from) [4]. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turning capability of road trains

Does anyone know about the capability of road trains at going round corners? It is desirable that each trailer follows exactly in the track of the preceding trailer, but does this necessarily happen? Is there a tendency for the later trailers to cut the corner, or even swing wide due to their natural tendency to go straigbt on? What happens if the rolling resistance is, for some reason, slightly higher on one side of the trailer to the other?

If a trailer has one axle that does not steer, it will always make a tighter turn than the vehicle in front (truck or trailer). Many manufacturers selling in Europe produce semitrailers with one or two steering axles, but excetpt from the semis with only one axle, the construction always turns one or two axles only enough to reduce tire wear and tear. Those axles are typically self-steering, meaning the steering bolt (do you call it that in english?) is not vertical and it will therefore adjust the wheel according to the influence from the driving. Other models (mostly 1-axled) have mechanic steering, provided by a special "thing" interacting with the fifth wheel behind the king pin and hereby steering the rear axle actually making the middle of that rear axle track with the position of the king pin, unless in very tight turns such as a U-turn or so. Of course it's hard to calculate when reversing to a ramp, but it works when going forwards. Those so-called "city trailers" have become very popular the last 4 years in Denmark. For oversize loads one would sometimes use a computer aided steering system, usually controlled by a co-driver, to make tight turns with chimneys, windmills etc. in narrow places. This does require slow driving, sometimes even moving inch by inch and checking every corner of the load before the next inch. I've more than once waited more than ½ an hour to pass an oversize going to a painter some 200 meters before my work :-(. Those guys split up in one driving the truck and one walking behind, remotecontrolling the steering at the rear, telling over the radio when the driver should move back and forward. Hope this helps you? G®iffen 10:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In Nevada it's fairly common to see doubles and triples on city streets. These trailers do not have steering axles in the rear. They do typically have very long drawbars which helps the trailers track better. With a good driver they seem to be able to go anywhere a single trailer semi can go. Toiyabe 18:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How long are your double and triple road trains? 53.5 metres (175.5 feet) would be somewhat unwieldy on city streets I would have thought. That's the maximum length of a triple road train here, but only in remote areas.[5] Double road trains (36.5 m, 120 feet) are allowed a specific route from the country into/out of the port area. B-doubles up to 25 m (82 feet) are allowed on most freight routes that semitrailers use, although only on through routes, not through the CBD/downtown area. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To Toiyabe - Good drivers can do lots of tricks, but still each unit must take a litte more off the corner than the one in front. I don't (yet) have the E-licence (drivers license for trailers over 750 kg total), but I'm certainly capable of getting a solo rigid truch around where semi- or full trailers won't fit in. I'm sure single-semi drivers will say the same about their relations to road train drivers.

Generally: The more distance you have from the rear axle to the coupling point behind it, the closer the second unit gets to tracking the first because of the overhang pulling in opposite direction of the turn. The same effect is seen in the distance from the front coupling to the first axle; less distance gives closer tracking.

Eventually go to the toy store and buy one of those road trains and check when your curtains are pulled and the wife is asleep :-) You'll need a large area for the truck if you want the last trailer to follow smoothly. G®iffen 16:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevada maximum combined trailer length is 95', so the total vehicle length (with tractor) will be up to ~110' (max length is the same for tractor-unit and two or three trailers, truck-unit plus two trailers is 98'). I sense some doubt, so I'll get a picture of a triple making a turn on a city street next time I've got my camera handy. Toiyabe 17:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit that my experience of Nevada is that I watch CSI, but yes, I am surprised at driving 110' long multi-articulated vehicles commonly on city streets. Are they allowed to turn or just drive straight through? --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They pick up and drop off in cities, especially construction materials such as aggregate, as well as drive through. I guess it's taken for granted, it's hard to find discussion of it. Here's two google caches of newspaper columnists complaining about them - [6] and [7]

They do really suck at signalized intersections - they can take a full cycle to clear the intersection. They also suck on freeway on-ramps. It does make delivery costs a lot cheaper, though. When I bought gravel for my driveway, I got three loads delivered at once (dump truck + two pup trailers), so it was about 1/3 the delivery cost I would have had to pay just about anywhere else in the country. Toiyabe 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure if this helps but "19 metres" which are a shorter version of a B-double are maneuvarable than a single semi, hope this helps cheers Bnsbeaver 15:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)