250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 27, 2017 6:10 pm

9 Axle Trucks Under Review

Tuesday, April 4, 2017 @ 5:59 AM

Prince George, B.C. – Although a 9 axle logging truck configuration could carry  heavier loads,  the impact  on  roads  should be less.

That’s the word from Forest Practices Innovation and Canfor,  as they made a pitch to Prince George City Council  on what the next steps should be to receive approval. for access  to Canfor facilities in Prince George.

A 9 axle configuration  could increase the load by  6 to 7 tons,   to a maximum of 49 tons said David Scott of Canfor.  He says with longer loads,  there would be fewer trucks on  roads in the  area of the City,   estimated to be a decrease of 35 to 40 loads per day  and savings in fuel costs in the area of $4 million per year.

Allowing  9 axle trucks would  increase  competitiveness  for the forestry companies,  especially at a time when  duties and tariffs are about to be levelled   and when  companies have to  go further out  in order to get  to  merchantable  timber.

The  new configuration  means the  vehicles would only be 8 feet longer than  existing 8 axle rigs,  would have  a higher braking power per ton,   and  would have virtually the same  turning radius said  Matt Campbell of Canfor.  He says with  the weight more evenly distributed  across more tires,  the impact on the roads is actually reduced by about  5%.

The  9 axle  configurations are being  operated with the proper longer load  permits.   Right now,  there are only 4 such  rigs operating in the province.  The City has the authority to allow  such  rigs  on specific routes.

Council has made, and  approved a motion to have the   matter  passed over to Administration for further  discussion and recommendations.




all meaning less trucks, = less jobs.

Trees are the renewable resource of our province. This is the source of good paying jobs. We should be maximizing our quality jobs, not trying to reduce it, so we can give away our resources at the same price as it was 20 years ago.

We don’t have to keep finding ways to cut costs, and good paying jobs, cutting down our resources and giving it away. The trees on the public land belongs to British Columbians, not the forestry companies.

The US with its tarrifs wants our lumber prices to be higher, stop and think about this, if they want it to be higher, let it be higher, the West Frasers and Canfor need to realize this as well. Stop the erosion on quality of life.

Mike Morris, Shirley Bond, John Rustad are you listening.

yes, I am a BC liberal supporter, and I am sure a lot of loggers out there thinks the same way.

this 9 axle deal, only benefits the companies, not the government, not the employment.

Only 8 feet longer, already length is an issue before adding more feet. In a year or two they will be after more feet. Imagine trying to pass one of these behemoths and people will push there luck putting others at risk. Wonder if those pushing for this give that any thought? Most likely not. So those pushing for this and the bureaucrats that may okay it, hope you sleep well at night.

Unsafe is Unacceptable???
Find another ways without putting more risk into already high risk workplaces and roadways.

Wow!! There are too many things to consider here. I hope our politicians think this through carefully! David Scott says fewer trucks on the roads? Perhaps for the first while but eventually the amount of trucks will increase as is the case when anything new is introduced.

Yes David pull a heavier load and save on fuel-where did you get this information? When a truck has to work harder you will be burning more fuel and adding more repairs for the owner. Yes trucks that are sitting idle will burn less fuel. The roads are in bad enough shape now and I do not want my tax dollars used to repair the roads for Canfor.

Same BS excuse they have used for years. Ironically it has worked every time. The ” More for Less” program still at work. Canfor seems to get whatever they want most of the time. Been logging 30 years and have seen this story played out more than once. Hope they really think this one over.

If you can extrapolate across the spectrum based on the comments on this board then clearly a vast majority of people do not want these on our roads. This should send a clear message to our politicians and the matter should be dropped immediately. Only the big forest companies think this is a good idea.

A few squawks that say change is bad doesn’t represent anything Bent. Certainly not a vast anything.

    Have you seen even one positive comment anywhere about this except by company shills like you?

Has anyone considered the effect to the trucks that are pulling these loads? Are they actually equipped from the factory with the proper equipment to haul the weights? How will the owner operators warranty be effected hauling these loads, what about the extra torque on the frame rails??

Do they need to have increased braking power to make them safe for the speeds they will be travelling? Will they meet the new requirements for stopping distance on our highways.

Sure would not want my wife and kids squished by one of these extra long monsters! Can you imagine one of these loads out of control on Peden hill and the damage that would be done!

It seems like the truckers always have to buy new equipment so they can keep their jobs, and yet they are probably hauling for the same rates as 20 years ago when they were pulling 5 axles.

Dollars to donuts no one from Canfor has gone to the truck manufacturer’s to see if these concerns have been answered.

a few things Canfor has not addressed.

They claim better braking power? Maybe on dry pavement, but what about in less traction situations, such as gravel roads, wet roads, snowy roads, icy roads. The extra mass of these units will make the stopping distance much father than current configurations.

What about truck traction in poor weather? They want these units to travel to PG Saw and Isle Pierre, so you will see many loaded trucks going up the Hart hill and Peden hill, how many more spinouts? How many more trucks with chains causing excessive wear on roads?

Load distribution will mean less impact on rutting of roads? BS. The unmentioned cause of rutting on roads is the torque of drive tires. These units will cause even more drive tire torquing. Have you ever noticed that the ruts get deeper as you start into a hill and travel up a hill? This is from the extra torque of drive tires.

Fuel savings on these trucks? Really, that is their selling point? A few less litres based on a computer projection? Where is that a benefit to the city or the general public on the roads? It is counteracted by excessive tire and brake wear which cause fine particulate pollution.

As other have mentioned there is only one company who benefits from these units. Has anybody noticed that West Fraser, Dunkley, Conifex or Carrier have been mentioned nowhere in these talks?

Just another publicity push by Canfor trying to convince the general public that they have their best interests at heart when in reality all they want to do is download more costs onto the general public with them being the only beneficiary.

    Stompin Tom have to agree with you. You might have to take Matt Campbell of Canfor and explain torque to him.

The City can stop this by not allowing these configurations to run on City streets and that’s what they should do. Will they?? My guess in no. In fact I doubt that they fully understand the problem. This is certainly a safety issue. Much more serious than repairing a creek bank in a planned sub division.

The City needs to take a hard look at its liability if by okaying this configuration they put peoples live’s in peril. If someone should sue the truck line, and ICBC, they would no doubt include the City in the case.

As for benefits, there might be benefits for the lumber companies (those that have their own trucks) however if you are an owner operator you may actually lose money because you haul less loads.

So if you have 40 less trucks per day, that would be roughly 20 less jobs.
Plus we would have 20 less trucks purchased overtime, along with less tires, and maintenance. So all in all a dead loss for the area, and significant savings for the lumber co’s.

What else is new.??

Comments for this article are closed.