More than likely we bought their junk after they went under.
Feeders getting rid of pups for 40 footers???
- Thread starter brown67
- Start date
More than likely we bought their junk after they went under.
cachsux
Wah
Driver schmiver. They know they're heavy. Lets the ticket from the Staties let them know it needs to be adjusted.
Scuzzies? that's what we call them.
That's our nice name for them. Each letter has a word attached.
Pm me that!
P
pickup
Guest
I call the SCSZ Schizophrenic trailers in honor of Thomas Szasz, a doctor who wrote about schizophrenia. Thomas Szasz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I do not use this term in the presence of other drivers, lest they think I am crazy.
And FSTZ trailers are also referred to by some as Frank Sinatra trailers.
Last edited by a moderator:
P
pickup
Guest
We once discussed this in another thread: http://www.browncafe.com/forum/f6/non-ups-feeder-trailers-230543/
Tie said in this thread :we own the fstz and cfkz trailers too. For the most part the railroad got out of the leasing business. There are a few spots where they still rent them out but not many.
and JimJimmyJames said:To those not familiar with railroad terminology, letters like FSTZ, CFKZ, etc. are reporting marks used to identify ownership of equipment used on railroads.
Marks that end in Z denote that the equipment is a trailer. Marks that end in U denote a container.
Since I am a railroad buff I have researched who owns the trailers associated with the reporting marks on our trailers. I have found that:
UPSZ; quite obviously UPS.
MARZ; Martrac, a UPS company.
FSTZ; Fastrac. I believe tieguy is correct in stating that UPS has ownership in this company.
SCSZ; Supply Chain Solutions. This sounds like another company we probably own.
CFKZ; XTRA. This is interesting because this is the only reporting mark that seems to be obviously owned by another company.
PKGZ; The only information I have found is that it is owned by TIP. You would think that we would own it since pkgz seems like an obvious abbreviation for package. And when I think package I think UPS
.I think bluehdmc is on to something when he states that we are probably into long term leasing arrangements on some of these trailers. TIP and XTRA would most likely be our partners in these arrangements since they are huge leasing companies.
I also think tieguy is correct in that the railroads have for the most part got out of the trailer leasing business. Though they do lease container/chassis to us on occasion as the CSX boxes I see in our yards attest to.
P
pickup
Guest
bluehdmc
Well-Known Member
Bridge laws apply to all trucks. Even straight trucks. The reason most trucking companies started running doubles was for the bridge laws. With double pups you have a limit of 20,000# per axle on any axle except the stee4, and you didn't have to move axles or freight to comply. 45' and 48' trailers also have movable axles. Usually the mix of freight we have at UPS doesn't cause a problem. I have heard of some buildings being overweight picking up customer loads of candles, copy paper, etc.
Southwestern
Well-Known Member
You should see some of the 53's we get... the back half are filled with smalls (literally, hundreds of envelopes and small packages not forever bagged). Others are filled with nothing but forever bags that weigh 50-70 lbs. (all flowing to a specific dump stop -- definitely not your Vickie's Secret). It's impractical to unload these trailers in less than 2 hours, unless nothing but large packages are filled beyond the "power rollers." 45 or 48 feet? Sure, you can unload those in an hour or so. But not the 53.
Southwestern
Well-Known Member
And on the topic of abbreviation, what the heck does ULD mean?! It's on every trailer, SurePost packages, etc.
P
pickup
Guest
While what you say is true about 45's and 48's having moveable axles. However the full extent of the bridge law, , doesn't apply to them. The back tandems can be anywhere as long as the weight is legal. On a 53 footer, the tandems have to be in a certain range and in some states at a precise point. California is known as a "three hole" state I believe which means the tandems have to be real close to the kingpin on a 53 footer. Which means a truck that is legal in connecticut (Let's say 65,000 lbs) on all axles becomes illegal in california, not on gross weight but on the fact that the tandems have to be moved up, causing the back axle to have too much weight. To be legal on weight you violate the law regarding distance between back axles and kingpin.
Long distance truckers with a 53', playing it straight, would go to a certified commercial scale and make sure that their truck trailer combination is legal weight wise for all axles at all the different back tandem to kingpin requirements( informally known as the bridge law)that are required for each state that they will be driving through.
You are right. Our weights aren't a big issue in terms of getting legal axle wise if we want to and can move tandems, so damn rusty(as if we go to truck scales at the local TA anyway). But the bridge law would require a different tandem to kingpin ratio for different states such as ny and connecticut which have slightly different requirements.
Too tiring to discuss this. I would need to do a ton of research which I am not inclined to do.
I betcha Hondo knows how to express this simply and accurately.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just Lurking
Well-Known Member
ULD = Unit Load Device
Just a fancy way to say serial number or tracking number of that particilar item.
P
pickup
Guest
Okay , BlueHdmc, you got me. i am mixing up terminology here. You are correct in what you refer to as the bridge law. I guess I am talking about "kingpin to rear axle law". Although as you will see or already know, the two laws have to be considered as being compliant with one can cause one to be non-compliant with the other if one drives a 53 footer.
Got this post from another site where someone explained it pretty well:
Again confusion concerning KPRA laws and the Bridge Law.
I believe you have a misunderstanding of Bridge Law and King Pin to Rear Axle laws. Drivers need to be aware of and understand both.
Basically the bridge law (Correct name is Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula) is in place to prevent damage to bridges (And in some instances roads and is) because of concentrated weight due to close axle spacing WHEN LOADED. In a nutshell it sets a MINIMUM axle spacing for the loaded weight. An empty tractor/trailer CANNOT ever be over on the bridge law. You can do the formula for a particular weight and axle weight or you can take the exception (two consecutive sets of tandem axles may carry 34,000 pounds (15,000 kg) each if the overall distance between the first and last axles of these tandems is 36 feet or MORE). So the LARGER the axle spacing THE BETTERas far as the Bridge Law is concerned.
State King Pin to Rear Axle laws are designed to keep the king pin to rear axle distance short (As compared to the Bridge law keeping them closer as weight increases), and WEIGHT IS NOT a consideration. They are designed to limit off tracking in turns and curves.
Visualize a T/T (W/48' trailer) a perfect world 80,000 with 12,000 steers, 34,000 drives and 34,000 trailer with the fifth wheel slid all the way forward and trailer tandems all the way forward. He is going to get hammered by the "Bridge Law", because the axles are too close and the weight is concentrated.
Visualize the same T/T (W/48' trailer) empty. There is no bridge law problem as he has no weight to consider other than the T/T and it isn't enough to be considered under the Bridge Law.
Now visualize a T/T (W/53' trailer) a perfect world 80,000 with 12,000 steers, 34,000 drives and 34,000 trailer with trailer tandems all the way to the rear. His axle spacings are so large that he cannot have a Bridge Law problem, but his king pin to rear axle is so large that there is likely a problem with a state's King Pin to Rear Axle law.
Visualize the same T/T (W/53' trailer) empty with trailer tandems all the way to the rear. He still has a Kingpin to Rear Axle problem even though he is empty and again he cannot have a Bridge Law problem.
Bottom line. Federal Bridge Law is weight dependent
King Pin to Rear Axle laws are not weight dependent.
P
pickup
Guest
The above is why I hate discussion about bridge laws and kingpin to rear axle laws. Sorry for boring everyone.
