3 ms·

I didn't expect fully autonomous trucking to be here yet. What I did expect, however, is semi-autonomous many-trailer trucks/convoys, because it's a much simple

I didn't expect fully autonomous trucking to be here yet. What I did expect, however, is semi-autonomous many-trailer trucks/convoys, because it's a much simpler technical problem that still offers enormous efficiency gains. Let's get a little bit crazy and imagine something very different from what we have today, but still only requiring a single driver. One truck cab at the front. Individual trailers have their own wheel motors, their own steering, and a small battery for short range manoeuvring (e.g. at a loading dock/port or). Trailers follow each other at a distance that allows for emergency braking, but close enough that they can be connected by high voltage cables for receiving power from a "battery car". Both the cab and individual trailers constantly communicate, and the moment any participant suspects that all is not right, the whole train tries to slow down and pull over. If one trailer has a blowout or other issue, it can be left behind to be picked up by another convoy. At a port or loading dock, the convoy disassembles and individual trailers are driven by remote control, either directly by a human or eventually by the "site AI", so that large articulated vehicles never have to enter the area. I'm imagining ~12 trailer convoys to balance efficiency gains with disruption to local traffic.

jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago
>semi-autonomous many-trailer trucks/convoys Prepare to have your mind blown: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train
- jeffparsons 3y ago
  Yes, I like trains, too. Largely copied from my reply to a similar comment: Trains requires long-term planning and alignment of a lot more people and organisations, all of whom have their own messy incentives. They're a political quagmire that you might never emerge from. I'm trying to think of solutions that can be mostly built by the private sector and deployed with only modest legislative changes. For the same reasons, a friend who works in mass transit talked me around to favouring better "smart bus" infrastructure over lobbying for more rail — at least in most cases where actually getting more rail is an unrealistic outcome.
Toutouxc 3y ago
Maybe we could make the infrastructure cheaper, add some power lines and maybe make the road surface from steel for low friction!
- jeffparsons 3y ago
  I take your point, but that requires long-term planning and alignment of a lot more people and organisations, all of whom have their own messy incentives. I'm trying to think of solutions that can be mostly built by the private sector and deployed with only modest legislative changes.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Doesn't make sense. Switching the road to steel increases cost when the road is not in use because you're building a single-use roadway. Predominant costs here are land acquisition costs. If you can't split land use among multiple users, you're hosed. Just think about it. You're starting a company and the first thing you need to do is spend a few billion dollars before you move your first ton? Doomed company. This is the classic problem with rail: you need to plan the route so you have sufficient participants willing to fund development, you need to acquire land (which you can't safely do piecemeal because the guy down the line will extort you).
jackvalentine 3y ago
Your average road train which has restrictions on which roads it can drive on is 3 trailers. 4 trailer trains exist with far stricter limitations. I just don’t see a 12 trailer 140m long road train with wires strung between the bits being feasible in any way on a road that has other, untrained users on it.
- jeffparsons 3y ago
  Okay, let's ditch the wires and put a battery pack in each trailer skate. If that limits range too much, we can figure out some kind of clever charging or fast battery swap solution. (None of the reasons for the failure of battery swap in passenger cars apply to trucking, AFAIK.)
  - jackvalentine 3y ago
    The wires aren’t the main blocker to my mind - the sheer length of them on existing roads is. There is a reason we don’t do super long trucks already. They would for example block 2/3rds of an onramp merge zone as they passed. IF we did gigantic trucks they’d be so severely limited in what roads they could use before being ‘broken down’ in to smaller units for the final delivery that we might as well just make trains.

jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago

>semi-autonomous many-trailer trucks/convoys Prepare to have your mind blown: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train

jeffparsons 3y ago
Yes, I like trains, too. Largely copied from my reply to a similar comment: Trains requires long-term planning and alignment of a lot more people and organisations, all of whom have their own messy incentives. They're a political quagmire that you might never emerge from. I'm trying to think of solutions that can be mostly built by the private sector and deployed with only modest legislative changes. For the same reasons, a friend who works in mass transit talked me around to favouring better "smart bus" infrastructure over lobbying for more rail — at least in most cases where actually getting more rail is an unrealistic outcome.

Toutouxc 3y ago

Maybe we could make the infrastructure cheaper, add some power lines and maybe make the road surface from steel for low friction!

jeffparsons 3y ago
I take your point, but that requires long-term planning and alignment of a lot more people and organisations, all of whom have their own messy incentives. I'm trying to think of solutions that can be mostly built by the private sector and deployed with only modest legislative changes.
renewiltord 3y ago
Doesn't make sense. Switching the road to steel increases cost when the road is not in use because you're building a single-use roadway. Predominant costs here are land acquisition costs. If you can't split land use among multiple users, you're hosed. Just think about it. You're starting a company and the first thing you need to do is spend a few billion dollars before you move your first ton? Doomed company. This is the classic problem with rail: you need to plan the route so you have sufficient participants willing to fund development, you need to acquire land (which you can't safely do piecemeal because the guy down the line will extort you).

jackvalentine 3y ago

Your average road train which has restrictions on which roads it can drive on is 3 trailers. 4 trailer trains exist with far stricter limitations. I just don’t see a 12 trailer 140m long road train with wires strung between the bits being feasible in any way on a road that has other, untrained users on it.

jeffparsons 3y ago
Okay, let's ditch the wires and put a battery pack in each trailer skate. If that limits range too much, we can figure out some kind of clever charging or fast battery swap solution. (None of the reasons for the failure of battery swap in passenger cars apply to trucking, AFAIK.)
- jackvalentine 3y ago
  The wires aren’t the main blocker to my mind - the sheer length of them on existing roads is. There is a reason we don’t do super long trucks already. They would for example block 2/3rds of an onramp merge zone as they passed. IF we did gigantic trucks they’d be so severely limited in what roads they could use before being ‘broken down’ in to smaller units for the final delivery that we might as well just make trains.