Almost 45% of total rail freight

“Once again, as has been observed on several occasions over the last 30 years, combined rail-road transport appears to ‘over-react’ compared to conventional freight, declining more sharply during periods of crisis and recovering more quickly during periods of growth,” the GNTC observed. Combined rail-road transport accounts for almost 45% of total rail freight in France, a proportion that is growing slowly year on year and continues to attract businesses seeking sustainable solutions.

River-road transport declines

Growth in the rail-road segment contrasts with a decline in river-road transport of -8.6% in terms of teus transported. This is mainly attributed to an unfavourable economic and geopolitical climate, increased competition from road transport, and structural constraints specific to river transport.

2026 outlook

Industry players are cautiously optimistic about 2026. The GNTC business climate index reveals that 77% are planning investments but only 50% are intend to recruit staff Whilst demand remains strong, several challenges persist: the quality of rail services, the availability of infrastructure, competitiveness against road transport, and economic and geopolitical uncertainties. 2026 is set to see the launch of new combi services, the opening of new terminals, including the one in Dunkirk and work aimed at improving the performance of existing ones.

The survey is entirely anonymous and takes up to 10 minutes to complete. Key findings will be shared with our readers in the coming months. Respondents should be directly involved in their company’s IT landscape and/or digital solutions related to combined transport.

The survey addresses the following market segments within the combined transport sector:

The link to the survey can be found here: https://forms.gle/SPYvR7egf6pS8WhB7

That is why intermodal terminals –and the systems orchestrating them, including Terminal Operating Systems (TOS) – become central to the combined transport story in 2026. The goal is not to “digitise” or “optimise” in the abstract, but to operationalise resilience, throughput, and compliance while the network is under pressure.

Execution 1 – TEN-T: Corridors will be judged by node performance

The Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) is the EU’s binding framework defining priority transport corridors and key nodes (ports, terminals, urban nodes) with standards and staged delivery timelines. TEN-T is now entering the phase where corridor upgrades translate into real operational disruption like works, re-routings, constrained train paths, and tighter handover requirements. In 2026, that volatility will be felt most at the nodes such as intermodal terminals.

In combined transport, that variability concentrates at terminals. Node performance becomes the limiting factor: if access and reception capacity, operational windows, lifting throughput, and controls do not hold under peaks, corridor punctuality cannot recover downstream.

The TOS is the mechanism that turns node complexity into executable decisions. It provides a single operational picture across rail interfaces, yard processes, gate flows, and external actors, and it supports consistent prioritisation and resource allocation when original schedules are no longer reliable. With predictive elements, the same system shifts from reacting to disruptions to preparing for them, improving stability and recovery time.

Execution 2 – eFTI: “Digital freight” becomes an operational discipline

The electronic Freight Transport Information (eFTI) framework enables the electronic exchange of regulatory freight information, allowing companies to provide required information digitally to competent authorities via certified platforms. For combined transport, this matters because intermodal chains multiply documentation touchpoints at handovers, such as terminals, mode changes, and cross-border checks, which can cause significant delays.

The first eFTI implementing and delegated acts entered into force in January 2025, allowing Member States to start putting in place the systems and procedures used for inspections, that is, how authorities access and verify transport information during checks. From January 2026, platforms and service providers can begin preparing for operational use, and authorities may already accept data from certified platforms where available, ahead of full application. As a result, 2026 marks the shift from monitoring eFTI developments to establishing practical and auditable operating processes.

In the context of eFTI, information must be suitable for inspections, not merely available in digital form. This requires operational events to be recorded in a consistent and traceable way across rail, terminal and road interfaces. In a terminal environment, this raises practical questions: which events are recorded, when they become authoritative, how corrections are handled, and how exceptions are classified. Terminals generate high-frequency events like gate-in/out, load/discharge, train arrival/departure, holds, rollovers, damage states, and if those events are inconsistent, paper-based fallbacks return quickly. A TOS often sits at the centre of this event model simply because it is where operational events are created, validated, and shared across stakeholders.

Execution 3 – Interoperability and ERTMS: Decisions made now shape corridor scalability

ERTMS is Europe’s rail signalling and traffic management standard designed to improve cross-border interoperability and capacity. For combined transport, interoperability is one of the reasons cross-border services become either scalable and predictable or operationally fragile.

From 2026 onwards, the operational effects of existing plans become more visible. Decisions related to fleet concepts, retrofit programs and the design of corridor services start to be reflected in day-to-day operations. They influence the conditions under which additional services can be organised, in particular at terminals and other network nodes. At the terminal level, interoperability gaps mainly appear as a growing gap between planned and actual operations. As assumptions across interfaces diverge, variability increases. In this situation, performance depends less on nominal capacity than on the ability to recognise deviations early and apply consistent operational priorities.

Execution 4 – Reliability becomes the differentiator – and terminals are where it becomes visible

Terminals act as the supply chain’s buffer, and in combined transport, the competitive edge increasingly lies in how well that buffer absorbs variability, and restores the plan when deviations occur. As time windows tighten and volatility increases, shippers will favour solutions that deliver predictable arrival times and consistent service levels, especially as road transport continues to optimise.

In practice, reliability shows up in three areas: predictability (dwell-time dispersion, adherence to handling windows), stability under peaks (yard saturation, gate peaks, shunting availability), and recovery (time to return to normal after disruption). Terminals determine whether combined transport can keep its performance promise under real-world variability.

This is why predictive capacity planning is gaining importance: it shifts terminals from reacting to peaks to preparing for them—so decisions are made earlier, with fewer escalations, and with faster recovery when the system is constrained.

One of the core answers KIBA delivers is a new approach to network planning optimisation for combined transport.

The planning pain behind today’s intermodal networks

In many intermodal networks, planning still reflects the constraints of the past. Capacity is often planned per relation, per terminal or per individual train. Planners work with spreadsheets, static capacity tables and a lot of experience. That experience is valuable – but it has limits once you try to coordinate hundreds of relations, dozens of hubs and a constantly changing demand pattern.

At the same time, demand is volatile, and disruptions are part of daily life. Customers book late, cancel or upgrade loads at short notice; infrastructural works and operational delays force last-minute changes. Trying to keep a European-wide network balanced under these conditions, with only manual planning, inevitably leaves potential capacity on the table and makes it harder to keep rail competitive against road.

KIBA in a nutshell

KIBA is a multi-year research and innovation project funded by the German Federal Ministry for Digital Transformation and Government Modernisation. Led by Kombiverkehr KG as combined transport operator and network coordinator, the consortium brings together Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße (DUSS) as terminal operator, VTG as wagon and railcar specialist, INFORM as optimisation and AI software provider, Goethe University Frankfurt and the Technical University of Darmstadt as academic research partners, and KombiConsult as consulting firm for combined transport.

The goal: develop and test a demonstrator for a capacity management and loading optimisation system in combined transport. Conceptually, it consists of three optimisation modules:

This article focuses on the third component: network planning optimisation – deciding which load units should travel on which trains, along which routes and at which times, to make the best possible use of the available network. Further below, we also provide an insight into how network planning optimisation interfaces with train load optimisation.

What network planning optimisation actually does

From an operational perspective, network planning optimisation in KIBA addresses a simple but powerful question:

Given the capacities of trains for their particular routes over the next days and weeks – how should all current and expected load units be routed through the network to achieve the best overall result?

Instead of planning train by train or terminal by terminal, network planning optimisation looks at the entire system. It decides:

The objectives reflect what operators and their customers care about: maximise utilisation and transported volume, minimise transport time and cost, and avoid overloads, congestion and unnecessary re-handlings at hubs.

The data foundation: forecasts meet bookings

KIBA builds on three pillars for the network planning optimisation:

In the KIBA demonstrator, a central controller gathers these inputs, combines them with static network and timetable data, and then triggers the appropriate optimisation runs.

How the optimisation runs in practice

For a combined transport operator, network planning optimisation in KIBA supports two main modes of use.

Interfacing with train loading optimisation

Network planning optimisation in KIBA does not exist in isolation: its decisions can be refined even further at a train and wagon level.

Upstream, the network optimiser works with aggregated capacity – length, weight and slots on each train and segment. Downstream, the train-loading optimiser takes the result for a given train – the list of load units assigned to it – and computes a detailed plan that places each unit on a specific wagon position while satisfying all technical loading rules and safety regulations.

By feeding relevant wagon and loading constraints back into the network level, KIBA ensures that the “perfect” network plan is not one that later turns out to be impossible to load in practice.

What kind of gains are realistic?

Tests with real data show that network-wide optimisation can significantly increase average utilisation of available train paths and wagons, because it aligns expected and actual demand with capacity across the full network rather than train by train.

At the same time, the optimisation model actively penalises unnecessary re-handlings and late deliveries at the destination. That steers flows away from overloaded hubs and fragile routings, helping to reduce congestion and delays.

In disruption scenarios, the ability to recompute routings quickly supports a more controlled reaction: instead of ad-hoc problem-solving, planners see consistent proposals that preserve service levels as far as possible and make transparent where compromises are unavoidable.

In validation with historical data, the optimised plans were nearly identical to real-world decisions made by experienced planners and revealed additional capacity or more robust routings that would be hard to identify manually in a complex network.

For an industry trying to shift more cargo to rail without waiting for new infrastructure, these are exactly the types of gains that matter: more volume, more stability, more transparency – with the assets already available.

Looking ahead: corridor-level potential

So far, KIBA focuses on a single operator’s network. But the logic extends naturally to international corridors and multi-operator contexts. If partners are willing to share at least aggregated capacity and demand information, similar optimisation approaches could support:

For an industry under pressure to deliver more with less, network planning optimisation of the kind explored in KIBA is not just a research curiosity. It is a concrete step toward turning European combined transport networks into living, data-driven systems that respond intelligently to demand and disruption – and make rail a more attractive default choice in logistics.

Kopczyńska also discussed the other pillars of the Package. Regarding the Weights and Dimensions Directive, she underlined the disappointment of the industry with a regulation that seems to hinder rail freight more than benefitting it. This sentiment is widely spread across associations in Europe, as the recently launched We All Pay For initiative shows.

Better paths are key

Another aspect analysed during the Summit was the availability of high quality paths and more accountability for infrastructure managers in case of last-minute cancellations. These are issues addressed in the third pillar of the Greening Freight Package: the Capacity Management Regulation.

Contrary to the Combined Transport Directive, the EU Parliament and Council managed to find a provisional agreement. However, not everyone is happy with how the Regulation panned out, highlighting how the benefits would be as helpful as initially expected, especially regarding the European Network of Infrastructure Managers.

The importance of the Greening Freight Package

There are some measures in the works that should boost combined transport, namely the Greening Freight Package and its components. For example, the Capacity Management Regulation “will be instrumental in delivering more and better-quality train paths, both during timetabling and when circumventing sections impacted by works”.

On the other hand, recent developments concerning the Combined Transport Directive have “surprised the Combined Transport Community”, as UIRR pointed out. The European Commission has in fact recently communicated its intention to withdraw the amendments to the Directive, something that everyone in the industry would prefer to avoid.

VDV broadly identifies two underlying reasons for the development: economic and political setbacks. It says that a declining economy in combination with American tariffs is leading to surplus capacity on the road, making it more attractive than other modes of transportation.

Politically speaking, the situation of CT in Germany could be seen as a self-inflicted wound. “The infrastructural uncertainties on the railway are currently too great and have passed tipping points. Above all, additional costs for diversions from major construction sites and excessively high track access charges are acting as obstacles. They ensure that goods are transported by road instead of rail”, explained VDV Vice President Joachim Berends.

Track access charges

VDV emphasises the need for a fundamental reform of the track access charge system. “Without competitive track access pricing, rail freight transport is threatened with a decline in market share – that would be a severe setback in economic policy terms”, Berends says. “Furthermore, fair compensation for diverted traffic resulting from corridor renovations, a suspension of cancellation fees starting in 2026, and complete relief for rail freight transport from energy levies and taxes are needed.”

Whereas VDV identifies overcapacity on the road due to an economic decline, some see that European trucking is in fact operating at maximum capacity. Rail could help relieve some of the strain on trucks, but it is not a short-term solution.

UIRR puts forward six points. First of all, it wants the proposed European Railway Platform (ERP) to act as the advisory body to the European Network of Infrastructure Managers (ENIM). Railway Undertakings, Authorised Applicants, Terminal Managers and their associations should make up the membership of the ERP. The ERP should then review the implementation documents produced by ENIM and in doing so, fulfill the coordination of stakeholders during strategic capacity planning.

Reassurance to customers

Second, UIRR wants a mandated minimum capacity for rail freight operations that “reflects the difficulty of deterring cargo carried by rail from being transferred to other transport modes.” The association adds that that is especially important when bypassing parts of railways that are impacted by infrastructure works.

In order to guarantee a certain level of reassurance to rail customers, infrastructure managers should notify of train path changes at least six months ahead of time. That should also give railway undertakings, authorised applicants and terminal managers enough time to change their plannings.

The money question

Point five and six concern money. UIRR wants penalty payments for short-notice changes or train path cancellations. Right now, there is a proposal to cap those penalty payments, but that would make changes relatively cheap for infrastructure managers. “The disincentivising impact of the penalty towards the infrastructure manager must be reinforced by removing the cap”, says UIRR.

What’s more, UIRR argues for compensations for excessive bypass routes, defined as 50 kilometres or longer. Compensation payments should depend on the length and restrictions caused by infrastructure works, as well as cover additional track access charges, traction electricity costs, locomotive and driver fees, wagon rental costs and terminal disruption charges.

Lastly, the combined transport association wants the scope of the strategic guidance and socio-economic and environmental cost-benefit analysis to be defined in an annex to the Capacity Regulation. It should explicitly list the types of instructions that an EU Member State can issue. “The Annex should contain a methodology description for the socio-economic and environmental cost-benefit analysis to be carried out in parallel. The practical rules pertaining to the two different inputs to capacity allocation should be detailed in the Regulation, primarily focusing on the issues of hierarchy, transparency and method of introduction (deadlines).”

The scheme will be active in 2026 and 2027 and entails 25 CHF in additional subsidies per UCT consignment that is proven to come from the rolling highway service. This will be a significant increase as the current rate is set at 50 CHF per consignment. Interested parties can submit their proposal by Friday, 12 September 2025. Between then and the end of 2025, the FOT will cooperate with operators “to determine how the evidence that consignments have been transferred from Rola to UCT should be provided”.

Conditions apply

There are other conditions to be eligible for these subsidies. “If an operator’s actual train and/or consignment numbers fall more than 15% short of the figures projected, the subsidy will be reduced by 3%”, the FOT said. Moreover, subsidy requests can be rejected if the average number of trains per quarter is lower than 24.

Yet, Europe wants to boost its capacities. For that reason, UIRR has put forward its ideas on how to do that from a CT perspective. Firstly, it wants a clear designation of relevant transshipment terminals for military transports along the four EU military mobility corridors, among which is the Netherlands – Germany – Poland corridor.

Policy tools

Second, in the view of UIRR, those terminals should get priority when bidding for state aid schemes for upgrades. It also wants to update the EU’s Dual-Use Infrastructure Regulation, which specifies requirements for dual-use infrastructure, to cover all unmovable transshipment technologies installed at terminals.

Moreover, CT operators should be recognised in the EU’s Resilience Directive of 2022 as critical entities for organising military transports, and should be incorporated in strategies to enhance their resilience. Lastly, the Combined Transport Directive, Weights and Dimensions Directive, the TSI Telematics Standard, the eFTI Regulation and other policy tools should ensure the “efficient functioning and resilience” of CT operators.