OPINION: How Walmart’s ‘supercube’ trailer fails the environment

Avatar photo

TORONTO, Ont. — A new tractor-trailer configuration developed by Walmart, which increases the cubic capacity of the trailer by 30%, requiring fewer truck trips to deliver the same amount of product, could in fact be much worse for the environment than modern conventional tractors pulling 53-ft. trailers.

Walmart unveiled its ‘supercube’ trailer Nov. 6, amid claims the environment would benefit from fewer truck trips. The 60.5-ft. trailer features a lowered floor with a 126-inch interior clearance. It is pulled by a cabover tractor with a dromedary box mounted to the back of the cab, adding another 521 cu.-ft. of carrying capacity and improving overall cargo volume by 30%.

The configuration doesn’t exceed existing length or weight restrictions, but has the potential to reduce truck trips by 30%, Walmart claimed. Painted sky blue with fluffy white clouds, the trailer reads: “Delivering more products using fewer trucks.”

What Trucknews.com has learned, however, is that the trailer is pulled by a Freightliner Argosy cabover glider kit with a refurbished EPA02 generation engine. A glider kit consists of a new chassis, complete with driveline and electrical system, that’s delivered without an engine and transmission. An older generation EPA02 engine has been installed into the tractor, which falls well short of current emissions standards for heavy-duty diesel engines.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) passed stringent emissions standards in 2007 and again in 2010, which dramatically reduce the allowable output of the smog-forming pollutants particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx).

An EPA02 engine had a regulated output of 2.5 grams NOx and 0.1 grams per brake horsepower hour of particulate matter. The EPA10 limits are 0.2 grams NOx and 0.01 grams of particulate matter.

That means an EPA10 engine is 12.5 times and 10 times cleaner than an EPA02 engine in terms of NOx and PM emissions, respectively.

By installing an EPA02 engine into a new chassis, Walmart has effectively sidestepped the two most recent rounds of emissions standards.

By its own calculations, the fuel economy of the ‘supercube’ tractor-trailer will not differ substantially from current configurations widely used today.

“We don’t anticipate there being any significant difference in fuel consumption,” Andy Ellis, senior vice-president, supply chain and logistics for Walmart Canada, told Trucknews.com at the trailer’s launch.

Improving the cubic capacity of the trailer means the new configuration would be able to eliminate approximately one truck trip for every three deliveries. Granted, that will lead to a corresponding reduction in CO2 output (the EPA07 and EPA10 regulations didn’t address CO2). Every truck trip that’s eliminated, every gallon of fuel that’s not consumed, will benefit the environment from a greenhouse gas/CO2 perspective.

But even with this in mind, could an increase in smog-forming NOx and PM offset any environmental benefits achieved through fewer truck trips and reduced CO2 output? I have put that question to several respected mechanical engineers who work in the trucking industry and together we’ve bandied about dozens of possible scenarios.

For starters, it’s important to note these calculations are an inexact science, at best. It’s impossible to take into account every single variable that will influence emissions output. Still, it’s a worthwhile exercise, as the conclusions I’ve arrived at in every instance fail to support any claim that the Walmart supercube is better for the environment than a conventional configuration consisting of a tractor with EPA10 engine pulling a standard 53-ft. trailer.

Let’s begin with the GHG calculations, which indeed paint a favourable picture for the supercube. For our experiment, we assumed a standard 53-ft. van trailer has a load capacity of 4,000 cu.-ft. and the supercube trailer can contain 5,270 cu.-ft. (actual numbers cited by Walmart are 3,900 cu.-ft. and 5,100 cu.-ft., respectively), and a sample size of 42,000 cu.-ft. of cargo.

A standard tractor-trailer could deliver this cargo making 10 trips, while the supercube could move the same amount of freight in just under eight total loads. We’ll assume a trip length of 250 miles (400 kms), averaging 60 mph (96 km/h), totaling 4.1 driving hours per trip. Over the contracted haul, the old configuration would require 41 total operating hours while the supercube could do the job in 32.8 hours. (We’re going to account for the fact that an EPA10 engine with SCR should get slightly better fuel mileage than an EPA02 version, especially in light of aerodynamic improvements made to today’s top conventional tractors).

Supercube with EPA02 engine: At 6.7 mpg, it would require 597 US gallons of diesel over 4,000 miles of travel, resulting in approximately 13,730 lbs of CO2 over the course of the required trips.

Standard tractor-trailer with EPA10 engine: At 7 mpg, it would consume 715 US gallons of diesel over 5,000 miles of travel, resulting in approximately 16,450 lbs of CO2 generated over the required trips.

The result: the supercube would lessen CO2 emissions to the tune of 2,720 lbs over the course of our scenario, hauling 42,000 cu.-ft. of product. This is all very encouraging. But what of the NOx and PM emissions; smog-forming pollutants that were reduced by law in 2007 and 2010? Using the same scenario as outlined above, the NOx and PM emissions would be as follows:

Supercube with EPA02 engine: 2,603 g NOx + 1,037 g PM per load x 32.8 engine hours = 85,378 g NOx and 34,013 g PM.

Standard tractor-trailer with EPA10 engine: 267 g NOx + 133 g PM per load x 41 engine hours = 10,947 g NOx and 5,453 g PM.

All other things being equal, the simulation indicates the supercube truck-trailer configuration could increase smog-forming pollution by a multiple of approximately seven when delivering the same amount of freight. Put another way, for every 10 truckloads of product delivered via supercube, the amount of smog-forming PM and NOx pollution generated would be equal to about 70 truck trips using a traditional configuration with an EPA10 engine.

This clearly contradicts part of what Walmart set out to achieve with its supercube trailer. It also flies in the face of its environmental objectives, as a member of the US EPA Smartway program. My question is, where was the Ontario Ministry of Environment in all of this? Did they not undertake the same exercise I did to uncover these fairly obvious discrepancies? Did they not take a look under the cab to inspect the engine?

Of course, as previously mentioned, these calculations are an inexact science. The engineering source who helped me run this simulation cautioned that a precise comparison is not possible without a CRAY computer and knowing every single spec’ on both vehicles. I sought a second opinion from a mechanical engineer who said the above numbers look “reasonable.”

A third engineer, who works for a respected research organization, took a different track but reached a similar conclusion.

Because the EPA10 maximum output of NOx and PM are 12.5 and 10 times lower, respectively, than an EPA02 engine, and the supercube can do the same job in 22% fewer hours of drive time, he applied a multiplier of 12.5 and 10 to 78% (to account for fewer trips). The result was that total NOx output would be 9.75 times greater and PM output 7.8 times greater than an EPA10 tractor pulling a standard 53-ft. trailer.

Today, much of the attention is on greenhouse gases and CO2 is the next target on the EPA’s hit list. The supercube receives a passing grade where CO2 is concerned. Still, NOx and PM are harmful for the environment as well, not to mention the health of its citizens, which is why the EPA c
hose to target those pollutants first. We can’t ignore the importance of what’s been achieved over the past five years in reducing those harmful pollutants to the tune of about 90%.

The supercube configuration essentially sidesteps those emissions mandates and in the end, opens it up to scrutiny.

In addition to all this, recent conversations with engineers also uncovered another potential fly in the ointment for Walmart’s supercube. Is it even leal to use a glider kit as a new vehicle in Canada? It’s a gray area, so for help I turned to Don Moore, executive director of the Canadian Transportation Equipment Association (CTEA).

His interpretation of the Environment Canada rules on gliders are that they can only be used to replace a wrecked vehicle (where the engine and transmission are salvageable but the body is not); not to circumvent emissions requirements. In the case of a wreck, the glider would be assigned the same VIN as the vehicle it replaced. A new 2012 model year body must be fitted with an engine of the same vintage, Moore said, noting he was seeking clarification on the matter from Environment Canada.

Some may wonder why Walmart doesn’t solve this issue by simply installing a current generation engine? Unfortunately, it’s not so simple. I spoke with John Kennedy, whose used truck dealership Bay Trucks, provided the Argosy tractor and installed the engine and transmission. He said he sourced the world for a suitable tractor that would be able to pull the 60.5-ft. trailer without exceeding maximum overall length limits and the only option was the Argosy.

The Argosy is built by Freightliner for delivery to certain export markets such as Australia and Asia, but it has been discontinued in North America and has not been engineered to accommodate the latest generation engines that meet the new North American emissions standards.

“It’s absolutely impossible to import a European cabover, we’ve tried,” Kennedy said. “We sourced out a bunch of used Argosies but they were all long in the tooth, there was too much refurbishment required, you’d get into stretching frames, shortening frames and changing axles, etc., and not one of them was a day cab; we would have had to cut the sleeper off. We approached Freightliner and they said they still do build Argosies for the Asia and Australia markets in both left-hand and right-hand drive (configurations). They said ‘We can’t sell you one because it was never engineered for the current batch of engines, but we can sell you a glider’.”

That seemed like an ideal solution, aside from the fact that the Argosy chassis could only house a previous generation engine and not the exhaust aftertreatment devices that were introduced in 2007 and 2010 (a diesel particulate filter and selective catalytic reduction, respectively).

Until an EPA10 engine can be engineered into the spec’, I have to wonder why this experiment should be allowed to continue? Walmart will surely refute my numbers and they’re entitled to do so, but I see no scenario in which they can convince me the supercube benefits the environment when taking into account not just GHG, but also the smog-forming pollutants NOx and PM.

I believe what we have in the supercube is an interesting new configuration, cleverly designed, that accomplishes its objective of carrying more freight but fails to fulfill its other mandate in reducing pollution. The supercube may be great for Walmart, but in my opinion it fails society and the environment.

Avatar photo

Truck News is Canada's leading trucking newspaper - news and information for trucking companies, owner/operators, truck drivers and logistics professionals working in the Canadian trucking industry.

Have your say

This is a moderated forum. Comments will no longer be published unless they are accompanied by a first and last name and a verifiable email address. (Today's Trucking will not publish or share the email address.) Profane language and content deemed to be libelous, racist, or threatening in nature will not be published under any circumstances.


  • Really…does Walmart really do anything that benefits society?
    Not in my opinion do they. If it’s good for Walmart is usually is not good for the general public.

  • Michael, as a cynic myself, I appreciate your comment. Of course I had some help, from the engineers I enlisted to crunch the numbers. Would you have preferred a press release rewrite, or some analysis? There are outlets for both. Thanks for reading.

  • The environmental costs that you mentioned are only part of the picture. What is the environmental cost of manufacturing a new engine, transmission and axles instead of refurbishing old ones? However the real white elephant in the room is reliability. There was a recent symposium in which several large carriers (Schneider, Fed Ex and a few others) got together to discus the impact of post-2004 EPA engines on their operations. Reliability was down, repairs were up, as were towing costs, and as a result these fleets had to increase the size of their fleets in order to maintain service levels. Again, what is the environmental cost of all this? Your article does not provide any answers.

  • Drivers should also be aware that unless these units will be exclusively hauling bathroom tissue,clothing, and ping pong balls, that there may be serious opportunities for overweight loads.

  • Looks like someone has ruffled some feathers over at the OTA by going behind their back with this idea for the “super truck”and not getting King Bradley’s blessing first.Once again Truck News is carrying the water for the OTA with it’s one sided opinion.

  • What all the hubbub! If memory serves me well, Manitolin Transport used the very same configuration several years ago. The drivers reffered to the units as Super Trucks. Manitolin was expermenting with Natural gas torque toppers with the very same trucks. I don’t recall any publicity over those units. Perhaps the trailers were a little shorter but the total concept is the same.

  • In my opinion this is a very ingenious experiment. More of the nox and pm emissions over newer engines is definitely not good, however, I like efficiency. Doing more with less effort is great for the economy. Sure, Walmart may have the payoff now but if it works others will follow. These new engines are horrible! On paper they’re great. Nothing but warm air coming out pretty much is what the EPA is trying for. Sounds like a “pipe ” dream to me. I’ve driven big trucks since late eighties and trails of black smoke billowed from my dual straight pipes. We’ve come a long, long way since those days. I see the merit it cleaner exhaust. Nobody wants to breathe in that stuff. I wouldn’t be surprised though if we don’t see more companies trying to get around EPA rules, putting older engines in glider kits. ( keep your eyes on the pumpkin trucks ). Think maybe they, Walmart plus whoever down the line wanting to try this, could do a little tweaking of the motors and exhaust system and they might have something here. But of course we have the truck haters out there that will please by nothing. Of, but don’t raise prices of things either. So, lighten up EPA, truck haters…be thankful we aren’t in the old days days any more and enjoy your lower priced underwear thanks to smart people doing more with less for the good of your wallet…and theirs too.

  • Is there a limit to how long we’re going to go? What’s next two 60 footers, XLCVs? 53 footers were a little bit of a shock when they arrived and some docks just aren’t made for them, but 60 feet might be going too far. There has to be a limit to what one driver can haul without running on a separated track. Sure we could put triples on the 401, and that might just be in the cards, too.

  • While it is commendable that Walmart is attempting to address the issues of freight costs. It is interesting from a carriers point of view. The unit shown in the photograph has a long wheel base, yet has no provision for a Sleeper, so the the driver must rent a motel room to maintain his Federal Hours of Service compliance. Cost would be astronomical on a trip from Say Toronto to SCM Calgary. Is this not factored in or are these units simply for distribution delivery in town. If so How far into the Centre lane will a driver have to swing the tractor in order to accomplish a Right hand turn and how far into the Right hand lane will the Driver have to swerve out to accompish a Left turn?
    I would like to see this configuration make deliveries in the City of Toronto.
    I could go on with the joy of trying to negotiate this unit through the Rogers Pass and the Canyon in BC but quite frankly by the time you stopped every 500 miles to check into a motel in their 4000 mile scenario, you would have spent conservatively $800.00 in rooms, eating into any savings you might have had in Fuel on the rate that in actuality the cost of Transportation would increase.

  • An interesting article James, but Walmart at least needs to be commended for trying. I certainly have no intention of wading into the arguments being presented by the OTA as to whether or not Walmart should be issued this permit, but certainly believe that any responsible organization should have the right to develop new/previously untested technology. Realistically, the amount of additional pollutants being released by these test vehicles would be minute, when compared to the amount currently being released by all of the pre-02 vehicles. Furthermore, one need only look at one of the major truck builders to see that there are always exceptions to the emissions rule.

    I would like to go two directions with this, one being that realistically this is a niche vehicle for high cube, low weight operations and secondly, one would have a far greater impact on reducing pollution by focusing on reducing the number of unproductive empty miles being run by many carriers every single day!

    First, I personally believe that this is not an industry changing vehicle. I believe that this is simply an updated version of vehicles operated by previously ground breaking companies, like Manitoulin (to name one). I worked for a carrier 26 years ago that utilized a dromedary equipped cab-over, in order to maximize their cubic capacity. A very useful vehicle in a very specific market. Quite simply, the increased trailer length simply will make it difficult to complete many urban deliveries and the split level floor is impractical in general freight operations.

    On my second comment, obviously the true environmental cost of utilizing fossil fuels is not yet reflected in their price. If it were, we would see fewer and fewer unloaded vehicles being operated on our roadways. Somehow it is still economically viable for approximately 21 % of dry van type trailers and 19 % of reefer trailers to operate empty (not my math! See tractor with single semi-trailer, at the following page) (www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/faf2_reports/reports7/c3_payload.htm)). While it is impossible to operate loaded 100% of the time, even the differential between dry van and reefer percentages would seem to indicate that there are efficiencies left to be wrung out of the system. Unfortunately in the time is money versus running empty equation, it appears that time has received a higher weighting than the cost of running empty variable. Arguably, because the true total cost of running empty is not yet reflected in the operating costs of carriers. Imagine what a 2 % decrease in all empty miles would translate into, when calculating NOx, CO2 and particulate matter reduction!

    If NOx, CO2 and particulate matter reduction is to become the new focus of the transportation industry, operating efficiencies will receive far greater attention than it presently receives!

    Jamie Lahey

  • One word: MORPHODITE – Walmart would like everyone to think they are on top of this fuel efficiency issue in their fleet. In fact they actually think they are “it” in this field of truck fleet efficiency. Laughable for those in the know! Actually the best thing they can do for their transport issue is to continue to squeeze the supply chain and actually eliminate the necessity of trucks, which they have done a commendable job. By eliminating packaging and working with suppliers to further impact the greater good. Efforts such as more concentrated liquid detergent and the consumer adds the water type of endeavors – that is where the seduction of working with this behemoth impacts real change that moves out to the larger audience. In terms of truck and trailer fleet efficiency though – they are followers and this truck, that is heavy and is woefully obsolete is proof positive. I suggest they work on taking the center hole of the toilet paper roll away and gross that truck out before it cubes. Like I said MORPHODITE – and the boys up at the Transport Ministry in Ontario were obviously seduced by Walmart, its power and reputation in this endeavor. I give the guys credit who put it together – it’s hard not to take their money but the entire concept is woefully off the mark – back to the toilet paper…

  • It’s funny to see articles mixing greenhouse gases with smog. Particulate matter (PM ) is not a green house gas but it is a significant component in smog. PM doesn’t have much to do climate change, just air quaity (important too but let’s not mix them up). Nox is also a component in smog and is also a greenhouse gas. I hear that Manitolin has had their Super Trucks for over 25 years so Walmart is hardly leading the charge. If Walmart were serious about being green, they wouldn’t be such proponents for outsourcing manufacturing and jobs to China. How much greenhouse gas has been produced from shipping all those goods to North America from China. Their supercube, while nice in theory, is a drop in the bucket vs. the damage that Walmart has caused.

  • when will this insanity stop? the professional drivers monetary wage scale is the lowest of all trades and “corporate” greed, in this instance [walmart}has no concern for emmissions or the fact our highway infastructure can not safely accomodate “60” foot trailers!

  • Why doesn’t Walmart just contract Manitoulin? They have been using Argosy’s with drom boxes forever and a day in northern Ontario. Granted it’s only a 53′ box, but I’m sure a decked van (like those ones used for Laredo) could be sourced. Quick development potential.

  • John, the highways can and do already accommodate that kind of oversized vehicles. Long nose Pete’s with super B’s, gas tankers and LCV which is what I haul. James, what type of fuel was used in your figures for the pre 2002 engines? Fuel and oil has changed lots since then. Don’t think they would of tested older engines with newer fuel to come up with figures for pollution. That’s probably old numbers you are reporting.

  • Why is it impossible to import a European cab over ? The Euro trucking industry is far ahead of us in when it comes to safety, driver qualification and training. I will check on their fuel consumption figures but I am sure they are better or equal to ours due to their strictly enforced speed limits . Mercedes has a very aero truck and trailer configuration that I believe is now available in Europe. After visitng a Austrian trucking company last year and seeing how modern and well equipped their rigs were and how difficult it is to get a commercial DL I realised that we have a long way to go to meet the Euro standards.
    We need to step up our enforcement, driver license standards and vehicle maintenance standards.

  • It is interesting that we all seeming concentrate on transporting large volumes of freight by truck via highways. This begs the question, why are we not utilizing the rail systems more railways that run parallel to our highways? There is no doubt in my mind that shipping by rail is by far more efficient than by truck, not only in cost per mile but also with the impact on the air and environment. containerized the freight, ship to larger city destinations and then loading the containers on truck beds to be delivered to the points of sale. To me this makes far more sense than using trucks that do far more damage to our highway infrastructure and our air quality than moving the same volume of freight using the rails. We have to have the rail system any way – why not use it more efficiently?
    I can not see how we can go on preaching that we are ‘cleaning up’ the air and reducing the greenhouse house emissions if we continue using an efficient mode of transport for long distances. It should not take a rocket science to figure out, moving freight via water is the most efficient, rolling steel on steel is next, and rubber on hard surface is the least. Unfortunately, we have to use a combination of all three, but they all should be used to create the most efficient routes.
    Have we reached that point where we are prepared to sacrifice efficiency for mere monetary gains for our corporations and our government’s (fuel taxes, licensing, road tolls, etc) and use the “environment” as a cover up? From all the evidence I can see, I strongly believe the environmental impact is being used as a ‘smoke screen’ to cover up a much larger issue – that of monetary greed — just follow the money. Yes, we must try very hard to reduce our impact on the environment – but do it in a practical manner – one where we do not directly link the ‘cash register’ to the environment. It seems that every tiny step we take to ‘clean up’ the environment first has a very major impact on the ‘cash register’. Some body is out there for a monetary gain first – and only after a significant monetary gain is there any consideration given to the environment. Vehicle manufacturers, oil companies, tire companies, etc. including all our governments — all on the same money wagon — all under the “environment umbrella”.
    Am I wrong or did the train just leave?

  • We already have an environment minister. Trucking news is supposed to represent the interests of the trucking industry, not to play the green cops.

  • I read this article with great interest.

    To clarify the glider issue the key requirement is that the glider be missing two major components, ie. engine, transmission or differentials. Its possible to order an new EPA 98 or EPA ’02 engine installed in a glider as long as you turn in a similar core. In that case you would have to install your own transmission and differentials. I confused why they chose an ’02 engine as they were much harder on fuel than their EPA ’98 counterparts. I priced the package out to build gliders and it would up being about a 5K savings over a new current emissions truck. I abandoned the idea because on the surface such a configuration might be illegal in California and the truck is essentially still using rebuilt components which would on average fail sooner than new components. In addition resale would be an issue.

    I don’t doubt for a second that Walmarts interests were centered in profit, if it were not for profit, well we would all be bankrupt.

    I do wonder if the environment is the guise for this configuration experiment why didn’t they install a Westport Cummins ISX-G natural gas engine? The CNG tanks would have fit behind the chassis fairings easily and a CNG engine does not require urea or DPF’s and has lesser cooling requirements than an EPA ’02 engine which ran hot and drank fuel like drunken sailors.

    Perhaps Wal Mart will build their next one with CNG, Over the next year there will be over 100 CNG refuse trucks pounding the pavement in Ontario and so far aside from being useless for long distance work they are seemingly ideal for a regional operation like Wal Mart in the GTA and southern Ontario.

  • The highways do accomodate for just such oversized vehicles but they don’t venture into the back of a Walmart store . Nor do the railcars. Now , are they still “Ideal for regional work”? But that the drivers problem …right?

  • I just don’t understand is why they didn’t start with the EPA10 motor in the beginning.When we build a kit car,we build it to meet all EPA requirements,and last time i checked a glider kit is about the same.

  • James,
    You site the supercube example at 4,000 miles of travel and the standard trailer at 5,000.

    Is this a type or do you have different mileage on purpose?



  • The permit should only be issued to a tractor with a 2013 emmisions engine. One thing I find interesting about this is that they already have the trucks ready to go.

  • Walmart’s mechanical supervisor obviously considered the reliability of the EPA02 engine over that of the EPA10’s record. SMART man!

  • Much ado over nothing. It is clear that Walmart was just testing the concept of the supercube. If the concept passes, and they can expand it to U.S. and Canada and replace their existing fleet, I can guarantee you that Freightliner will offer new trucks engineered for EPA10 engines, at least to Walmart.

  • Well I have been trucking for quite some time. There has not been much thought in this new truck design. The only consideration is getting more cubic feet of hauling capacity. I see a truck that is going to make long trips, now where does the driver sleep. This looks like it is a back problem just waiying for the sucker thats gonna drive it. Say what you want , but there is the driver ,the last one to be considered. The people that designed this nightmare on wheels have obviously never drivin much more than a car. All the engineers in the world couldnt design a prper truck without the proper input from the proper oerson. surely this person does not sit in an office for walmart. Better go back to the drawing board guys!!!!!!

  • There’s a lot of opinions not based in relevant facts here, so let me straighten out a few.

    Glider kits are governed under the law as essentially a box of parts for refurbishing an existing vehicle. As such, what Walmart did is 100% legal. As noted here, the Argosy is not available as a complete unit in North America anymore, and hasn’t been since 2007. And nobody else offers anything even close.

    Yes, pre-EPA ’04 engines produce more greenhouse gases. And at what cost to the trucking industry have the emissions requirements come? I have had more trouble with the SCR system on my 2013 Volvo than I’ve ever had with any vehicle before. This truck has incurred almost $20,000 in repair bills in the last 6 months, all related in some way to the emissions system. And getting it in for repairs at all is a task unto itself because this is not an isolated case and the repair bays are full of trucks with emissions problems. You can breathe the air right out of the exhaust pipe today…when the truck is running right.

    And for the people complaining about trailer lengths and LCV’s, wake up and smell the coffee. It’s black and awful. This industry has more freight to move every day, and fewer drivers to drive the trucks because wages are low and productivity is dropping due to the tightening regulations and rapidly decreasing reliability of the new trucks. So how, exactly, are carriers supposed to move freight? They could pay better to attract more drivers, but that gets kicked back to the customers who don’t want to pay more for freight that carriers are already struggling to guarantee delivery of. They could rail the freight (many are starting to) or put robots in the trucks and start retiring you old whiners. Or they can do more work with one truck and pay a nominal increase to the driver.

    LTL carriers are lobbying the US government to allow the length of double trailers to be increased to 33ft from the current 28. Such a set is currently legal here, but you’d need a cabover like the Argosy to pull them if you wanted a sleeper bigger than a coffin. Carriers like Reimer, FedEx and Canada Cartage that have owner/operators running double LTL pups in long haul will essentially require the o/o’s to do what Walmart did if they want to keep their contracts.

    Bottom line: this is real, people. Get used to it or run like hell.