This article is issued from [1]
Trucks represent the least expensive method of material movement over long distances; however, since other machinery is required for loading, total gravel transportation expenses over short distances may be higher than for front-end loaders or scrapers. Trucks generally serve two purposes: Material movement and mill feed.
They have relatively low capital costs and require little maintenance compared to other placer equipment. Trucks do need fairly good road surfaces and require careful matching with loading equipment to achieve acceptable efficiency.
Capacities for units at small placer operations range from 3 to 47.5 yd3. Trucks are most productive overhaul distances of 1,000 to 10,000 ft and can travel faster than equivalent-sized scrapers or front-end loaders. Production capacities range from 32.3 LCY/h for a 3-yd3 truck to 444.8 LCY/h for a 47.5-yd3 truck (based on a 2,500-ft haul distance). Capacity is contingent upon loader capacity, haul distance, and haul gradient.
Trucks are suited to operations where a fixed mill is situated more than 0.5 mile from the mine site. They are equally effective hauling pay gravel, overburden, or mill tailings and oversize, but must be accompanied by a method of material loading.
Reference
[1] S. Stebbins, “Cost Estimation Handbook for Small Placer Mines I.C. 9170,” 1986. Accessed: Aug. 26, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Cost-Estimation-Handbook-for-Small-Placer-Mines-Stebbins/94c188525178d65cc964f7af20fff0182d8c1c14
Appreciate this post. It pointed out something I hadn’t considered: “They have relatively low capital costs and require little maintenance compared to other placer equipment.” But here’s what puzzles me: if that’s the case, why are trucks written off so quickly for operations where the fixed mill is only 0.5 miles away? Is it purely an efficiency issue, or is there something deeper we aren’t acknowledging about haulage economics and operational trade-offs?