• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

My Trucker Relief Plan

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

compman25

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2006
3,771
2
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: compman25
Originally posted by: brandonb
Originally posted by: brxndxn

We need more trains... still the most efficient way to ship goods.
:thumbsup:

http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/r...428_fuel_economy.shtml

Who cares how long it takes. If it takes 2 weeks to get a product from a port to a store on Truck and 3 weeks with train, what difference does that make to me? I'd rather have the truckers off the road (congestion) and using the method which is 3 times more effecient and uses alot less pollution to get the product to the store.
2 weeks?, 3 weeks? Dream on. A team truck will do coast to coast in 2.5 days. Companies today use JIT (Just in time) procedures for their warehousing and stocking.
Yes but companies can account for latency with rail, just as easily as they can a truck. A train will never beat a 2 man truck, but a 2 man truck is about as expensive as it gets to ship something. Rail is slower, but not slow enough to cause problems for the most part.


Rail is going to be taking more freight away from trucks in the coming years.
linkage
Sure they can account for it, but they aren't going to. It costs them money to carry a product for 2 or 3 weeks while it's sitting on a train not being able to be sold, if they ship by truck they carry the product for 2 or 3 days before it's actually in their hands and out to their stores. That's why they use JIT systems, it saves them money.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,799
0
0
I plan on making a personal contribution to trucker relief by making sure that each and every truck-stop bathroom within a 50 mile radius is manned and ready (for relief).

Are you with me?! If you are not, you hate America.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: compman25
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: compman25
Originally posted by: brandonb
Originally posted by: brxndxn

We need more trains... still the most efficient way to ship goods.
:thumbsup:

http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/r...428_fuel_economy.shtml

Who cares how long it takes. If it takes 2 weeks to get a product from a port to a store on Truck and 3 weeks with train, what difference does that make to me? I'd rather have the truckers off the road (congestion) and using the method which is 3 times more effecient and uses alot less pollution to get the product to the store.
2 weeks?, 3 weeks? Dream on. A team truck will do coast to coast in 2.5 days. Companies today use JIT (Just in time) procedures for their warehousing and stocking.
Yes but companies can account for latency with rail, just as easily as they can a truck. A train will never beat a 2 man truck, but a 2 man truck is about as expensive as it gets to ship something. Rail is slower, but not slow enough to cause problems for the most part.


Rail is going to be taking more freight away from trucks in the coming years.
linkage
Sure they can account for it, but they aren't going to. It costs them money to carry a product for 2 or 3 weeks while it's sitting on a train not being able to be sold, if they ship by truck they carry the product for 2 or 3 days before it's actually in their hands and out to their stores. That's why they use JIT systems, it saves them money.
I doubt a two man crew is most cost effect in most situations either. And from I have read the rail time penalty is not weeks like you are making it out to be. Eitherway rail and trucks are complimentary for the most part.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: fallout man
I plan on making a personal contribution to trucker relief by making sure that each and every truck-stop bathroom within a 50 mile radius is manned and ready (for relief).

Are you with me?! If you are not, you hate America.
Everyone in America now hates America.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,973
3,479
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Federalize energy. It works for the military, so should it for energy. After all, it's a matter of national security of the highest caliber.

We're so vulnerable right now, that a sudden or sustained huge increase in energy prices can literally destroy our economy wholesale.
It must be destroyed to be saved.
This does seem likely.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Everyone in America now hates America.
Moonbeam, is that you?
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,469
374
126
Originally posted by: compman25
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Fuck the truckers.. they pay $10,000 taxes/year and act like it's a big deal while their trucks do $100k/year damage to the roads.. and we subsidize it.

We need more trains... still the most efficient way to ship goods.
You are a ****. I paid more than that in taxes each year, we have to pay more than just fuel tax, there's Heavy Use Tax paid to the IRS each year, state fuel taxes paid to each state you drive through, not just the one you buy fuel in, and lots of others. And how do you subsidize it yet the truck drivers don't? And what was subsidized for me when I owned my truck? Trains may be more efficient, but companies like their merchandise in a timely fashion, trains aren't going to do that. All you have to do is look where Wal-Mart builds their distribution centers, if trains were a more economical solution you know they would be building next to rail yards. But guess what? They don't.
I actually read in the WSJ (only good toilet material here at work) that rail has quietly been making a comeback as fuel prices have gone up.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,469
374
126
Originally posted by: Thump553
-I am still at a total loss as to why diesel is so high. Here in the Northeast fuel oil has been the dominant heating source for decades, and until fairly recently diesel was always cheaper than gas, summer or winter. Now it is almost a dollar more per gallon (heating oil is up in this range, too, and there are no highway taxes on that). It has to be cheaper to refine diesel or heating oil than gas. In recent decades the cost of refining gas has gone up substantially, with first switching to no-lead, then such things as winter (ethanol) blends, MTBE, etc. Incidentally here in the northeast in recent years diesel is higher than gas summer or winter. In theory gas comes down in spring when they switch off winter blend, but not recently (maybe the price increases slow down for a week or two).
I can't figure this out, and I can understand truckers being pissed about this price disparity. I know I am since my house is heated with fuel oil. Diesel costs a whole dollar more a gallon then gasoline. The shit comes from the same stuff, they just have to do less work on refining it! WTF is is mor expensive? And THAT much more expensive.

Maybe I should get a furnance that burns regular gasoline for heat. WITH the road taxes included, its still about $0.50 cheaper then fuel oil without the tax. Its absolute bullshit. I don't understand why there is such a bizarre disparity? If there is more demand for diesel then gas...maybe they should adjust their output at the refineries?

One things for sure, I'm buying a chainsaw and a woodstove...and I'm looking into some kind of add-on wood boiler. (I'd replace the oil boiler with a combo but the thing is brand new) I've got 4 acres of mostly trees and my father in law has 100+ acres that he'd probably let me cut from.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,469
374
126
Originally posted by: compman25
Originally posted by: brandonb
Originally posted by: brxndxn

We need more trains... still the most efficient way to ship goods.
:thumbsup:

http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/r...428_fuel_economy.shtml

Who cares how long it takes. If it takes 2 weeks to get a product from a port to a store on Truck and 3 weeks with train, what difference does that make to me? I'd rather have the truckers off the road (congestion) and using the method which is 3 times more effecient and uses alot less pollution to get the product to the store.
2 weeks?, 3 weeks? Dream on. A team truck will do coast to coast in 2.5 days. Companies today use JIT (Just in time) procedures for their warehousing and stocking.
Yes, its one of the reasons companies can weather economic downturns a lot better then in the past and probably a big contributer to the decline in rail. But I imagine there is a lot of stuff that is currently being sent by truck where the point A and point B people are asking themselves whether they really need it there in a few days or if they can wait a week or two for the train. And according to that WSJ article, they apparently are doing that with rail which is seeing a revival and in at least some places rebuilding/expanding of rail infrastructure. Not everything needs to get their tomorrow, even if newegg has spoiled us to think thats the norm. :p
 

compman25

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2006
3,771
2
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: compman25
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: compman25
Originally posted by: brandonb
Originally posted by: brxndxn

We need more trains... still the most efficient way to ship goods.
:thumbsup:

http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/r...428_fuel_economy.shtml

Who cares how long it takes. If it takes 2 weeks to get a product from a port to a store on Truck and 3 weeks with train, what difference does that make to me? I'd rather have the truckers off the road (congestion) and using the method which is 3 times more effecient and uses alot less pollution to get the product to the store.
2 weeks?, 3 weeks? Dream on. A team truck will do coast to coast in 2.5 days. Companies today use JIT (Just in time) procedures for their warehousing and stocking.
Yes but companies can account for latency with rail, just as easily as they can a truck. A train will never beat a 2 man truck, but a 2 man truck is about as expensive as it gets to ship something. Rail is slower, but not slow enough to cause problems for the most part.


Rail is going to be taking more freight away from trucks in the coming years.
linkage
Sure they can account for it, but they aren't going to. It costs them money to carry a product for 2 or 3 weeks while it's sitting on a train not being able to be sold, if they ship by truck they carry the product for 2 or 3 days before it's actually in their hands and out to their stores. That's why they use JIT systems, it saves them money.
I doubt a two man crew is most cost effect in most situations either. And from I have read the rail time penalty is not weeks like you are making it out to be. Eitherway rail and trucks are complimentary for the most part.
I agree with that, there is plenty of stuff trains carry that isn't time sensitive and is a great fit for rail.

As for the 2 man crew, it is cost effective to companies because they use crappy carriers like Swift, Schneider, JB Hunt.... And they pay their drivers next to nothing. I think Swift pays team drivers $.40 a mile split between them. That means they each get $.20 for every mile the truck moves. That is cheap shipping.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY