The Coming Disruption of Transport

[tsm1072]

I remember seeing on this thread that CN invested in an autonomous trucking developer and plans to abandon rail as their core business to become an autonomous trucking company. It will be interesting to see where that goes, but I have read many reports that say autonomous trucks will have a devestating impact on rail and will even be cheap enough to pull freight off of inland waterways

The government needs to implement appropriate road pricing to avoid this happening. Rail is a much more efficient way of moving mass freight, and if trucking starts to become cheaper we likely are undercharging for the use of road infrastructure. Roads are expensive and definitely worse for the environment than rail.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I find the part about autonomous trucking interesting. I think people are overselling how long it will take to get autonomous trucking going especially since autonomous driving for highways is trivial.

I remember seeing on this thread that CN invested in an autonomous trucking developer and plans to abandon rail as their core business to become an autonomous trucking company. It will be interesting to see where that goes, but I have read many reports that say autonomous trucks will have a devastating impact on rail and will even be cheap enough to pull freight off of inland waterways.

Regardless though, I think a child born today won't even be able to recall that trucks on highways were driven by humans.

The main issue with autonomous trucking, as I see it, is in bulk. I have zero knowledge of logistics, but I would think that buying 1 train is much easier than buying 100 or however many trucks. Operating costs will probably also be similar, given that trains don't need very many "drivers" and the fact that each truck needs to be powered individually. I can see, however, a decline in business , as shippers who wanted speed with lower costs move to trucks.

Same thing for the waterways. Trucking will always be more expensive than boats. Those using waterways are looking for cheapest price, which autonomous trucking isn't.

I agree with your last statement in essence, though I think autonomous trucking off the major highways will take much longer. A child whose parents drive on rural roads will probably remember trucks driven by humans.

 

[afransen]

The main issue with autonomous trucking, as I see it, is in bulk. I have zero knowledge of logistics, but I would think that buying 1 train is much easier than buying 100 or however many trucks. Operating costs will probably also be similar, given that trains don't need very many "drivers" and the fact that each truck needs to be powered individually. I can see, however, a decline in business , as shippers who wanted speed with lower costs move to trucks.

Same thing for the waterways. Trucking will always be more expensive than boats. Those using waterways are looking for cheapest price, which autonomous trucking isn't.

I agree with your last statement in essence, though I think autonomous trucking off the major highways will take much longer. A child whose parents drive on rural roads will probably remember trucks driven by humans.

You're talking about bulk shipping (coal, salt, grain, oil, ore, etc.) for very low value density goods. I tend to agree that these will continue to be moved by ship/rail. But a lot of rail's most profitable business is intermodal container shipping. Containers are already atomized and easier in many ways to ship 100% by road. It just happens to be more expensive to ship by road. Eliminate the driver and the diesel, and the economics change quite a bit.

 

[crs1026]

You're talking about bulk shipping (coal, salt, grain, oil, ore, etc.) for very low value density goods. I tend to agree that these will continue to be moved by ship/rail. But a lot of rail's most profitable business is intermodal container shipping. Containers are already atomized and easier in many ways to ship 100% by road. It just happens to be more expensive to ship by road. Eliminate the driver and the diesel, and the economics change quite a bit.

Cheaper, yes... but a single double stack freight train currently may reach 14,000 feet long. Imagine that load converted to a single level AV convoy that’s close to six miles long.....every few hours down the TCH. I can foresee a problem.

- Paul

 

[afransen]

Cheaper, yes... but a single double stack freight train currently may reach 14,000 feet long. Imagine that load converted to a single level AV convoy that’s close to six miles long.....every few hours down the TCH. I can foresee a problem.

- Paul

Yes. But if shippers see value in being able to get product from Vancouver to Toronto in 48 hrs, it is likely going to happen with some of that.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Yes. But if shippers see value in being able to get product from Vancouver to Toronto in 48 hrs, it is likely going to happen with some of that.

Then we need more roads. If so, I hope to make the trucking companies pay. If so, the government might impose restrictions/tolls, because the TCH's capacity is not that high. I would also think that the trucks need a ton of charging stations, much more than regular cars. Safe autonomous trucking on the northern routes will also be an issue.

 

[crs1026]

^I have a lot of confidence that the railways will change their technology to match, or at least mitigate, the AV labour advantage. Today a train is an accumulation of fairly heavy wagons which require physical connections to function as a unit. Put steel wheels on a highway AV and install technology so they are coupled virtually rather than physically, and you get the advantages of an AV plus the fuel savings of steel wheel on rail. Probably far simpler AI technology than an AV that must learn to steer. Perhaps not as fast end to end, but perhaps with a different speed vs price point merit of its own.
The cost and time in railway technology is in assembling and then breaking apart enormous trains. With distributed power solutions, that could be automated and greatly simplified.
And, I do think the public would have something to say about all that road congestion. Perhaps not on the TCH, but imagine the impact in the USA where there are rail lines that see 60 or more intermodal trains per day. The Interstate network is already congested. Is anyone prepared to add that much highway capacity, and how would the cost of building that many roadways compare with remaining on rail?
There will be business lost to AV’s, yes, but it won’t be 100%. If speed is that important, the cargo is probably on the highway even at today’s prices.

- Paul

 

[wopchop]

There will be business lost to AV’s, yes, but it won’t be 100%. If speed is that important, the cargo is probably on the highway even at today’s prices.

- Paul

Exactly right.

But even now, the rail schedules are pretty good. Our business is very schedule sensitive (construction) and I already use rail Toronto to Vancouver, to ship full containers. It has four or six day transit depending in the service. Price is better than road, and the logistics support is best in class. Much better than all these useless truck brokers.
The schedule advantage on trucks is also vastly exaggerated. Just last Friday we loaded a trailer that broke down in our yard. On Monday, the truck was still there with the driver. If that trailer had a container, it would have been halfway across the continent, no matter what. But these brokers now have no urgency on schedule at all. The railways (and their partners) take this much more seriously in my opinion.
The variability due to road congestion, weather,etc is also basic completely eliminated, which is always a huge pain in the ass when shipping transcontinental. Even with AVs, roads can be blocked by snow and ice.
Last year, I shipped a job (a few hundred containers) Toronto to Vancouver by rail, transload to Seattle, coordinated with an schedule crane to offload, and every truck was on time. Not a single call from site about late loads. In my experience, that would never happen with 100% road shipping. Especially in winter. In those scenarios, the calls and issues are basically weekly things.
I also import a lot of materials from Europe, which usually comes through Montreal. 2 day transit. Big deal. Price is competitive and generally reliable transit. This past year was bad because of the strikes , though.
More companies could ship by rail. I think a lot of it comes down to institutional blind spots. Even at my company they had never even thought of it before, and now it works great.

 

[afransen]

^I have a lot of confidence that the railways will change their technology to match, or at least mitigate, the AV labour advantage. Today a train is an accumulation of fairly heavy wagons which require physical connections to function as a unit. Put steel wheels on a highway AV and install technology so they are coupled virtually rather than physically, and you get the advantages of an AV plus the fuel savings of steel wheel on rail. Probably far simpler AI technology than an AV that must learn to steer. Perhaps not as fast end to end, but perhaps with a different speed vs price point merit of its own.
The cost and time in railway technology is in assembling and then breaking apart enormous trains. With distributed power solutions, that could be automated and greatly simplified.
And, I do think the public would have something to say about all that road congestion. Perhaps not on the TCH, but imagine the impact in the USA where there are rail lines that see 60 or more intermodal trains per day. The Interstate network is already congested. Is anyone prepared to add that much highway capacity, and how would the cost of building that many roadways compare with remaining on rail?
There will be business lost to AV’s, yes, but it won’t be 100%. If speed is that important, the cargo is probably on the highway even at today’s prices.

- Paul

This is why I think road pricing is coming, despite any wailing or gnashing of teeth about 'alternatives'.

 

[UrbanJon]

VIA will have a hard time competing against electric aircraft in the corridor. It is also challenge the value in building HSR if air travel's negative externalities are dramatically cut by going zero emissions.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

urbanfuturist, is that you?

MoD

 

[afransen]

VIA will have a hard time competing against electric aircraft in the corridor. It is also challenge the value in building HSR if air travel's negative externalities are dramatically cut by going zero emissions.

The next challenge is capacity at airports. I think EVTOLs for short-haul would be quite advantageous. It have the benefit of being able to bring you closer to your destination.

 

[ssiguy2]

Of course this guy is forgetting one key point.......................downtime. It would take hours to recharge these batteries and time is money.

Also these micro planes account for next to nothing in terms of passengers carried worldwide on a daily basis. Batteries are completely useless for any major carrier and will be for MANY decades to come. Airbus & Boeing already know this which is why they are not investing in battery plane technology. Both however are investing in the ONLY viable option...............hydrogen.

 

[nfitz]

Of course this guy is forgetting one key point.......................downtime. It would take hours to recharge these batteries and time is money.

I'd have assumed that the way to do it, is to have the batteries as modular for easy removal, and just swap out the batteries for a freshly charged set at the gate. I'd think that would be faster than swapping out the baggage! Of course you'd have to stage batteries and chargers everywhere - but not difficult for regular routes.

 

[ssiguy2]

^^ That's a possibility for these tiny little planes but impossible for large national carriers who make up 99% of all air traffic.