A major change to Australian design rules promises to be a “game changer” for Australia’s shift to electric freight transport.

The new rule announced by the federal government will allow wider trucks on Australian roads, bringing the country in line with overseas markets and removing one of the key barriers to local uptake of heavy duty electric trucks, as most overseas-built models were just a few centimetres too wide to meet Australia’s previous standards.

“This Safer Freight Vehicles package responds to direct calls from industry to increase the width limit of trucks and follows extensive public consultation and feedback,” said federal assistant minister for infrastructure and transport Carol Brown.

“These changes will be a real game changer for industry, businesses and other road users, as they will save lives by adopting technology to reduce the likelihood of crashes, while also lowering freight costs and supporting better environmental outcomes.”

The change increases the overall width limit from 2.50 to 2.55 metres for new trucks, as long as they are fitted with safety features such as side guards and devices to limit blind spots.

    • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The operational overhead is often too time-intensive, among other issues.

      You can either send a lad with a truck down the highway or you can send one to a train station somewhere, have him unload everything, wait for the train to leave, the train to get there (you’ll be lucky if it’s going straight where you need it to), have someone go to the destination station, unload it into another truck and finally deliver it.

      It’s might only be worth it for veery long trips, and the start and finish have got to be in good locations (harbors f.e.).

      It makes sense to use trains, but as soon as you look into it, it becomes almost undoable.

      • prime_factor
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This fact is also reflected in the tonnage statistics.

        For non-bulk freight across the Nullarbor, rail has double the market share of Sea transport. Which then has double the market share of Road transport. It’s not the case for Melbourne Sydney though.

    • zik
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Contrary to what the other comments are saying, there’s no compelling reason why goods transport by train can’t be done here when it can be done elsewhere. It was done in the past but then we started spending billions to subsidise trucks and passed a variety of laws to benefit road transport. Plus allowing the taxpayer to cover the cost of road wear caused by trucks which totals more billions per year.

      So in the end it was a pure policy decision - in the 1950s various lobby groups pushed for the introduction of laws to favor road transport over rail transport and in 1957 the first laws were passed. The rest is history.

    • WigglesOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      So I’ve been reading up on this topic a bit more and I came across this

      Problem Australia’s interstate freight rail network comprises many long sections of single track. This restricts the number of train paths, reducing rail’s competitiveness with road, and hindering rail’s ability to meet growing freight movement demand. The interstate freight rail network needs to be enhanced to accommodate growth in the freight and passenger task, and improve efficiency and safety.

      From here, https://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/map/advanced-train-management-system-implementation-interstate-rail-network

      On the bright side it is a proposal to upgrade a lot of the rail corridors to support more freight than we have currently. Though it was added in 2016 and is still only in the ‘potential investment options’ phase

    • Fangslash@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      same reason as nuclear power - high startup, low maintainance. Even if the lifetime cost is lower, the initial cost and its associated risk makes these kinds of investments unattractive.

      This problem is even worse for trains, because the last miles has to go onto trucks anyways