Autonomy in freight: you might not like it but you’re going to have to get used to it
There’s been a largely cynical response to The Engineer’s current poll on plans to trial autonomous trucks in the UK: with many readers criticising the scheme as a pointless case of “technology for technology’s sake” and suggesting that the most credible future for freight lies not on the roads, but on our rail networks.
As reported, the technology involved in these trials, which are expected to take place on a “quieter” stretch of the M6 at some-point next year, is likely to involve ‘platooning’: the electric coupling of vehicles to run in close formation.
There have already been a number of trials of platooning technology around the world. Back in 2012 The Engineer reported on the SARTE (Safe Road Trains for the Environment) in which a convoy of vehicles travelling just 6 metres apart from each other formed a road train on a motorway outside Barcelona.
There is also currently a broader push to develop the technology through the European Truck Platooning challenge, an EU-led project which involves a number of the major truck suppliers.
There are many, including the UK’s own Freight Haulage Association (which has come out in cautious support of the proposed UK trials) who believe that the technology has major potential: that enabling trucks to drive close together at constant speed could help significantly improve fuel efficiency.
Whether or not platooning arrives on these shores, it’s highly likely that autonomy will have a major impact on the UK’s freight industry in the years ahead.
Admittedly, as many readers have pointed out, platooning is unlikely to work everywhere. And it’s easy to imagine the difficulties it might cause on the UK’s congested motorway network; where junctions come thick and fast and an impenetrable line of HGVs could cause obvious problems for drivers joining and leaving the road.
But whether or not platooning arrives on these shores, it’s highly likely that autonomy will have a major impact on the UK’s freight industry in the years ahead.
Autonomy is on the rise everywhere. In the air, at sea, in our passenger vehicles and, crucially, within the logistics and production operation that freight transport serves. It’s both logical and desirable that the freight technology itself follows suit.
Driverless, or semi-autonomous trucks, able to communicate with each other, interrogate the transport infrastructure, and respond instantly to changing road conditions would be safer, more fuel efficient and could play a major role in smoothing traffic flow and reducing congestion.
And indeed, whilst the freight sector may be at the more conservative end of the automotive spectrum when it comes to embracing change, it’s perhaps better placed to exploit the advantages of this change. The communications and refuelling infrastructure of a typical fleet operator mean that new technology can often have an impact before a nationwide infrastructure exists.
As a final thought, it’s worth adding that whilst platooning may not be perfect solution for the UK’s roads, it does hold great promise in many other areas of the world. Having some home-grown expertise in this emerging area could have some serious long-term economic potential.
There’s still time to vote on our poll below:
I find it baffling. Rather than build HS2 and autonomous lorries, why not spend the money on a new lightweight (as in DLR) rail system for 40ft. containers, all autonomous, average speed 60 kph, with branches into the major industrial estates, distribution centres, factories, etc. and get the freight off the roads. Maybe it could be mag-lev or some other modern rail tech, but high speed is not necessary so noise and other HS2 issues would not arise. Our need for high speed rail in our small country is less than our need for less congestion on the roads. I am convinced autonomous vehicles are going to cause colossal problems.
Great idea, keep the trucks off the road and use either rail or waterways, both are old ideas, but both move larger quantities at one time and both only require less labour, hence wages. the roads at present are in worse condition than they wer in 1959 when the M1 opened and the goverment can not mainatin them, so why make them worse with very heavy trucks that will just block up any chance for other traffic
Anyone who has tried to overtake a single lorry in very wet conditions knows the problems with huge quantities of spray thrown up by heavy goods vehicles, the last few yards being particularly dangerous. The thought of trying to overtake 10 lorries, in convoy, in the wet would fill most people with fear. This is just another mad, un -thought out idea by people who do not have any conception of daily driving conditions on our congested Motorways
I can see how it might work when everything is working fine and all HGVs are operated this way but when there is a mix of platoons and normal trucks I can imagine chaos particularly if they are all running at the same limit. Also what consequences when one truck gets a puncture (or worse) causing a swerve (or worse) of 10x44tonnes at 60mph !!!
The thought of multiple platoons on the M6 heading up to the docks, filling 2 lanes is scary, its bad enough now
Taking heavy goods vehicles off the roads and onto rail and using the sea, rivers and other waterways for movement of heavy freight around our island nation must be part of the way forward, not trains of autonomous diesel powered heavy goods vehicles bringing greater danger, pollution and congestion to passenger vehicles .
Highways England are currently seeking consent to build a second crossing under the river Thames with approach roads passing through greenbelt land to the east of Gravesend. The reason given for needing this additional crossing is to ease congestion and pollution at the existing Thames crossing at Dartford, much of which is due to slow, highly polluting, heavy goods vehicles travelling to and from the Channel Tunnel and south coast ports to the north of the country.
The money for this additional crossing could surely be better spent for example on extending the Channel Tunnel freight shuttle so that vehicles with destinations to the north of the country are not offloaded from the shuttle in Folkestone but continue their journey north by rail.
Perhaps the problem is that highway, railway and marine port engineers live in separate silos and there is little collaboration regarding new passenger and freight transport system ideas.
I can see loads of problems, but it is an interesting idea. Until the trucks are completely driverless, a platoon can only be a form of adaptive cruise control, and the driver must be ready to cancel it at any instant, especially around junctions and other traffic.
For this small island this is a complete nonsense, it is of benefit to places like Australia or the US , Russia, and other large countries, which would benefit because of the huge distances.
Not here!
Don’t like the suggestion that we are going to “have to get used to it”. We must make our thoughts count by ensuring the decision makers do not allow this to happen.
Did they not have a copy of the highway code to hand when they thought of this idea in the pub?
Having driven up and down the M6 yesterday, this idea will mean you can have fully integrated mass bad diriving with lorrys driving in hunting packs.
Just make all lorries drive only on the nearside lane on the motor ways, banning overtaking and this will happen automatically, without any additional technology.
There is already a problem with HGVs obstructing the view of roadside signs for drivers in overtaking lanes. Long platoons of lorries obstructing the view even more, and making it even more difficult to change lanes when necessary, will only make these problems significantly worse.
This whole discussion and the previous one associated with the poll have reminded me of the (Possibly apocryphal) story of Brunel’s Maidenhead rail bridge.
For those not aware, apparently Maidenhead bridge was at the time of its building the lowest, flattest arched brick bridge in the world. Maybe it still is. When Brunel unveiled his design magazines and papers such as the Times, Punch and probably this august title itself were filled with experts of all varieties writing of how Brunel had overreached himself, how the design was flawed, in the wrong place, generally and in the vernacular “up the junction”. Brunel ignored these letters and carried on building his low flat arched bridge and the frenzy grew. Eventually he opened the bridge and the rail line to which it was a part and trains began to run across the bridge, It didn’t fall down. AH! said the experts but he hasn’t removed the arch supports, even he doesn’t believe in the bridge. it must fall down. The feeding frenzy grew and grew. 2 years later one of the periodic floods of the Thames occurred and washed the scaffolding away. Lo and behold the bridge remained standing. The next day Brunel published a letter in the Times and Punch and all of those papers, possibly even this one, telling the story of how the bridge had been built, why it wouldn’t fall and how several weeks before the first train had run across it he had backed off the scaffolding by 2″ so it had been standing on it’s own for over 2 years whilst all the experts had been raging about its instability. The Bridge is still there , 150 years later, trains still use it every day. I can recommend a beautiful walk along the Thames between Taplow and Maidenhead that takes it in from the river bank, it is a fantastic piece of work.
This is just to point out that the trial of platooning on the M6 is just that a proposal to trial platooning on the M6. As yet there is no fixed technology for spreading it across the road network, how it might work is not fixed, how it might be presented to the road network in general is not even on the horizon of being understood. Carrying out the trial will allow the deficiencies of the system to be understood and allow the system to operate in a controlled manner that will allow the scientist to work out the theories, the engineers to work out the practicalities and even the lawyers to work out the legalities before platoon 1 sets rubber on the tarmac of the M25 or the M62. The trial will allow the commercial business men to work out if it is indeed cheaper to send bulk freight by rail, if sending groups up a motorway and having vehicles join and leave at junctions is commercially sensible, cause it will go the way of the dodo if it isn’t.
Until then I will watch these discussions with growing delight and remember Brunel and Maidenhead rail Bridge.
Outright Disgusted of Tunbridge Harborough