kr79:
Well said Luke wages and problems of finding and retaining staff will be the real reason
Explain to me how it’ll save on wages, when there’s a driver on board?
Ive put my tuporth bit in about some of the techie aspects.
On the broader social aspect, automation stands and falls on many angles.
Why are some companies determined to make this work? Money, clearly. In the short term getting rid of employees is good for companies. The up front investment in technology will be overturned by the long term running savings, no wages, no holiday or sick pay, no drivers hours regs, no having a hundred thousand pound investment used as an hotel half the time.
Even in the short term there would be advantages in running trucks in convoys: more vehicles (because theyre closer) o a given section of road means less crowded roads, so less need for Gov expenditure. One contrary view is that less employees is good for companies, BUT isnt good for society as a whole, and eventually isnt good for those companies who need society to provide consumers. Imagine taking it to the extreme: fully automated production, so no wage earners. A few highly paid share holders and elite rulers, and the masses on a pitiable dole payment. Companies would effectively be starving and destroying their own markets. Companies are designed to be independent of country allegiances, they are designed for short term gain. They dont care if their actions result in inequality and even in revolution… theyd just produce weapons and turn a profit on that too. Sounds like Im off on my soapbox I know, sorry.
Seems to me society as a whole will need some sorting out pretty soon.
I can see virtue in the “National Basic Income Schemes”.
We wont get to where those schemes are viable overnight, but if we dont look at such schemes the present system (free market capitalism?) could well run out of room.
Franglais:
Ive put my tuporth bit in about some of the techie aspects.
On the broader social aspect, automation stands and falls on many angles.
Why are some companies determined to make this work? Money, clearly. In the short term getting rid of employees is good for companies. The up front investment in technology will be overturned by the long term running savings, no wages, no holiday or sick pay, no drivers hours regs, no having a hundred thousand pound investment used as an hotel half the time.
Even in the short term there would be advantages in running trucks in convoys: more vehicles (because theyre closer) o a given section of road means less crowded roads, so less need for Gov expenditure. One contrary view is that less employees is good for companies, BUT isnt good for society as a whole, and eventually isnt good for those companies who need society to provide consumers. Imagine taking it to the extreme: fully automated production, so no wage earners. A few highly paid share holders and elite rulers, and the masses on a pitiable dole payment. Companies would effectively be starving and destroying their own markets. Companies are designed to be independent of country allegiances, they are designed for short term gain. They dont care if their actions result in inequality and even in revolution… theyd just produce weapons and turn a profit on that too. Sounds like Im off on my soapbox I know, sorry.
Seems to me society as a whole will need some sorting out pretty soon.
I can see virtue in the “National Basic Income Schemes”.
We wont get to where those schemes are viable overnight, but if we dont look at such schemes the present system (free market capitalism?) could well run out of room.
Hmmm some true spoken words here, something is telling me here you know more than you make yourself out, whereas I went all guns blazing. Does the term its clever to be dumb have any meaning to you. I would like to hear more on your thoughts on the shareholders theory.
ThrustMaster:
kr79:
Well said Luke wages and problems of finding and retaining staff will be the real reasonExplain to me how it’ll save on wages, when there’s a driver on board?
Convoying is only one step nearer full automation. Once thats proven itll be no drivers on motorways. Or one per convoy? Then transport yards will become pedestrian free zones as driver-less shunter units put trailers on and off bays (thats easy, guide by underground wires in private land). So only a few drivers will be needed to transport trailers from depot to m-way grouping areas, and back again. Not today or tomorrow but its coming.
We already have shuttle racking systems in use now in warehouses and in some cold stores. No need to have more than one or two FLT drivers where there used to be 10.
UKtramp:
Franglais:
Ive put my tuporth bit in about some of the techie aspects.
On the broader social aspect, automation …theyd just produce weapons and turn a profit on that too. Sounds like Im off on my soapbox I know, sorry.
Seems to me society as a whole will need some sorting out pretty soon.
I can see virtue in the “National Basic Income Schemes”.
We wont get to where those schemes are viable overnight, but if we dont look at such schemes the present system (free market capitalism?) could well run out of room.Hmmm some true spoken words here, something is telling me here you know more than you make yourself out, whereas I went all guns blazing. Does the term its clever to be dumb have any meaning to you. I would like to hear more on your thoughts on the shareholders theory.
Thank you, but no. I do get vertigo quite quickly from the heights of that wooden box.
I`ve got questions and worries about our future, soap boxes are best suited to politicos who
- Have all the answers and can predict the future.
- Have ready explanations about exactly how and why the future didn`t tally with their predictions.
ThrustMaster:
kr79:
Well said Luke wages and problems of finding and retaining staff will be the real reasonExplain to me how it’ll save on wages, when there’s a driver on board?
I was meaning in the longer term when truly driverless trucks are on the road rather than this current idea.
I still think that’s a fair way away though.
Might work in certain trunking applications but multi drop etc will still need drivers
Franglais:
UKtramp:
Franglais:
Ive put my tuporth bit in about some of the techie aspects.
On the broader social aspect, automation …theyd just produce weapons and turn a profit on that too. Sounds like Im off on my soapbox I know, sorry.
Seems to me society as a whole will need some sorting out pretty soon.
I can see virtue in the “National Basic Income Schemes”.
We wont get to where those schemes are viable overnight, but if we dont look at such schemes the present system (free market capitalism?) could well run out of room.Hmmm some true spoken words here, something is telling me here you know more than you make yourself out, whereas I went all guns blazing. Does the term its clever to be dumb have any meaning to you. I would like to hear more on your thoughts on the shareholders theory.
Thank you, but no. I do get vertigo quite quickly from the heights of that wooden box.
I`ve got questions and worries about our future, soap boxes are best suited to politicos who
- Have all the answers and can predict the future.
- Have ready explanations about exactly how and why the future didn`t tally with their predictions.
- are spending other people’s money like confetti, not as there’s any shortage of people overqualified in that
commonrail:
Because it is they who dictate the amount of freight on the roads.
Good luck with trying to book 3 lorries at once into Sainsbury’s stoke.
At this stage that’s not exactly a pressing concern…
Juddian:
3. are spending other people’s money like confetti, not as there’s any shortage of people overqualified in that
A good number 3. I am sure we could get to at least number 5. Thereon after the points would invalidate themselves.
Well it should be.
Half the time they don’t even fill one lorry,never mind three.
I saw on Bbc this morning on the travel program about robots at airport car parks will park your car.
When you arrive at the airport, the robot will park the car.
When you come back, it will move it, ready for collection.
No doubt, use your phone, or text to say the time you get there to pick up the car.
Airlines now do not need pilots, they are only there for the passengers, as nobody would fly on a olane with no humans at the controls.
Modern agriculture machines do not need a driver, crop spraying and combines use GPS to steer the machine in the field.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … olice.html
So I was checking out the Denby Extra, a haulage solution that government admitted would save money, road wear and would have a positive environmental impact - banned though to protect rail freight? The men from the ministry are getting excited because the connection is fly by wire and not a solid steel tow bar, why doesn’t the same logic apply?
Denby made the classic mistake, the usual suspects quangos scientists researchers media and bandwagon jumpers etc, weren’t in on the design making names for themselves with lucrative years on end of writing ■■■■■■■■ reports and unending meetings in swanky hotels all at the public teat.
You’ve got to get the right names at the launch of something, they never come free.
Hang on on a minute,let me get this right. 3 top weight lorries running in convoy,sorry, platoon. The lead vehicle will have a driver, who will also via wi-fi, control the speed and and braking of the 2 following lorries, both of which will have drivers to steer them, and to be available in case of a emergency.
So far so good.
A man in a suit(naturally) as just been on TV explaining that the 2 following trucks will save lots of fuel by taking advantage of the phenomenon known as ‘slipstreaming’.
I see a problem here. to take full advantage of this the following vehicles would have to quite literally ‘tailgate’’ the vehicle in front.
This means that drivers 2 and 3 would be sat staring at the rear doors of the one in front and ,therefore’, unable to anticipate any sudden change of direction of the lead vehicle by virtue of the fact that their forward vision would be none existent.
Again the lead vehicle would surely be using more fuel than under normal driving conditions due to having to ‘drag’ 2 others behind it.
Now take the position of the ‘driver’ in vehicle No 2. How long are a normal sane persons nerves going to be able to stand the strain of sitting inactive and wondering how long before you are reduced to a pulp between 2 38/44 ton trucks?
Back to the man in a suit, he also announced that the savings made in fuel cost would,‘of course.’ be passed on to the customer.!
yes,of course they will.
Back to driver No 1. will he be paid the same rate as drivers 2 and 3,?.After all they will only be responsible for 1 vehicle each, where as No 1 will in effect, be responsible for 3.
Y’know, the more i look at this the more i am convinced the whole idea belongs in the same place as guided bus lanes, there’s a weird one if ever there was.
Then of course we all know that companies who extol the virtues of ‘platoons’ of lorries will have no qualms in paying drivers in the following trucks, for doing very little.
No,make no mistake its all about cutting the wage bill and increasing the salaries and bonuses of the usual culprits.
They are all at it. try going into a branch of W H Smiths and expect to find someone to serve you . You’ll be lucky.
My last observation on this, i promise.
A platoon of lorries.! Whats that all about?. More to the point, who came up with it, and how much where they paid.?
Remember when the powers that govern us decided,after much deliberation, a dozen white papers, 2 0r 3 green ones, a number of ‘working breakfasts’ and a untold number of expense account lunches, to allow us to have C B radios.
‘Here in the UK,’ a man in a suit pompously proclaimed, ‘it will be known as Open Channel.’
I never heard it called that again.
UKtramp:
We already have shuttle racking systems in use now in warehouses and in some cold stores. No need to have more than one or two FLT drivers where there used to be 10.
I remember delivering steel coils to a factory (I think they made cans ?) which had small powered trollies which moved the coils from the warehouse to the various machines, guided by ‘tracks’ hiden in the floor. They were fully autonomous, and only needed human interference if somebody put something (like a pallet or such) over the pathway of the trolly. And that was over 20 years ago.
the nodding donkey:
I remember delivering steel coils to a factory (I think they made cans ?) which had small powered trollies which moved the coils from the warehouse to the various machines, guided by ‘tracks’ hiden in the floor. They were fully autonomous, and only needed human interference if somebody put something (like a pallet or such) over the pathway of the trolly. And that was over 20 years ago.
Its becoming commonplace to replace traditional racking with either mobile racking or a computerised shuttle that sends and retrieves the pallets automatically, they even control it all by SCADA, saves warehouse ops and damage to the racking by clumsy FLT drivers. It all makes sense as do driver less trucks.
UKtramp:
the nodding donkey:
I remember delivering steel coils to a factory (I think they made cans ?) which had small powered trollies which moved the coils from the warehouse to the various machines, guided by ‘tracks’ hiden in the floor. They were fully autonomous, and only needed human interference if somebody put something (like a pallet or such) over the pathway of the trolly. And that was over 20 years ago.Its becoming commonplace to replace traditional racking with either mobile racking or a computerised shuttle that sends and retrieves the pallets automatically, they even control it all by SCADA, saves warehouse ops and damage to the racking by clumsy FLT drivers. It all makes sense as do driver less trucks.
Automated warehousing does have its limitations of course, such as max SKU retrieval leading to problems in the event of unexpected demand. Using the automated warehouse as an analogy of driveless vehicles on the motorway, throw a few untrained forklift drivers in here for good measure and you won’t need a good imagination to guess what would happen.
pyewacket947v:
Hang on on a minute,let me get this right. 3 top weight lorries running in convoy,sorry, platoon. The lead vehicle will have a driver, who will also via wi-fi, control the speed and and braking of the 2 following lorries, both of which will have drivers to steer them, and to be available in case of a emergency.
So far so good.
A man in a suit(naturally) as just been on TV explaining that the 2 following trucks will save lots of fuel by taking advantage of the phenomenon known as ‘slipstreaming’.
I see a problem here. to take full advantage of this the following vehicles would have to quite literally ‘tailgate’’ the vehicle in front.
This means that drivers 2 and 3 would be sat staring at the rear doors of the one in front and ,therefore’, unable to anticipate any sudden change of direction of the lead vehicle by virtue of the fact that their forward vision would be none existent.
Again the lead vehicle would surely be using more fuel than under normal driving conditions due to having to ‘drag’ 2 others behind it.
Now take the position of the ‘driver’ in vehicle No 2. How long are a normal sane persons nerves going to be able to stand the strain of sitting inactive and wondering how long before you are reduced to a pulp between 2 38/44 ton trucks?
Back to the man in a suit, he also announced that the savings made in fuel cost would,‘of course.’ be passed on to the customer.!
yes,of course they will.
Back to driver No 1. will he be paid the same rate as drivers 2 and 3,?.After all they will only be responsible for 1 vehicle each, where as No 1 will in effect, be responsible for 3.
Y’know, the more i look at this the more i am convinced the whole idea belongs in the same place as guided bus lanes, there’s a weird one if ever there was.
Then of course we all know that companies who extol the virtues of ‘platoons’ of lorries will have no qualms in paying drivers in the following trucks, for doing very little.
No,make no mistake its all about cutting the wage bill and increasing the salaries and bonuses of the usual culprits.
They are all at it. try going into a branch of W H Smiths and expect to find someone to serve you . You’ll be lucky.
My last observation on this, i promise.
A platoon of lorries.! Whats that all about?. More to the point, who came up with it, and how much where they paid.?
Remember when the powers that govern us decided,after much deliberation, a dozen white papers, 2 0r 3 green ones, a number of ‘working breakfasts’ and a untold number of expense account lunches, to allow us to have C B radios.
‘Here in the UK,’ a man in a suit pompously proclaimed, ‘it will be known as Open Channel.’
I never heard it called that again.
Frightening aint it? To get maximum effect of slipstreaming youve gotta be very close. Forward vision more or less zero. That car on the hard shoulder with a pair of legs poking out from under it that the lead driver sees at the last second?..Nuff said.
Overall fuel saving? Does the lead vehicle burn more? Can we come back to that please?
Driver two, sat very close to the doors of one, with 44ton of 3 running behind? Any volunteers? Id want a huge bonus to be sat in that seat, not half rate! :wink: Platoon? Maybe someone is mis-translating peloton from the cyclists riding in packs? Could be fuzzy hearing after those liquid lunches the civil servants are on? Overall fuel saving: I dont have any answer, but its not a simple problem. Often in energy problems its a simple concept. (not always so easy in practice). Go back to first principles: 1st law of thermodynamics, energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Its a zero sum. So it seems that if 2 & 3 are using less energy then 1 must be using more? Zero sum. Seems clear. But, I cheated on the 1st law, it refers to a closed system. We need to see how big the system were dealing with is.
A thought experiment: does a long vehicle have more drag than a short vehicle? For a given vehicle width and height does the length affect the drag? Id guess thatd be minimal.(But I dont know). With 2 & 3 an inch of the bumper of the vehicle in front isnt it like one very long truck?
Maybe the system we consider for the first truck essentially the same system for all three trucks? So, bizarrely, maybe the followers do get a free/cheap ride at no real cost to the leader? It seems to work for skeins of flying birds.
Ill repeat I dont know that for a fact, but if you can put in a word for me with your M.P. Ill happily devise a few real life experiments to examine the theories. Do you want to volunteer to help? I promise I wont ask you do steer no 2 truck.
Franglais:
This means that drivers 2 and 3 would be sat staring at the rear doors of the one in front and ,therefore’, unable to anticipate any sudden change of direction of the lead vehicle by virtue of the fact that their forward vision would be none existent.
Perhaps something like this would help?
