The so-called shunting agreement is “essential to provide clarity and certainty to all parties involved during the execution of works along the entire port railway”, the Port of Rotterdam says. It defines the procedures for transferring trains administratively and physically, and which responsibilities apply to both contractors and clients.

Pilot

The project ‘Track Together’ will initially run for seven months in a pilot format. If proven successful, it will continue on a structural basis. Its goal is to prevent train cancellations and long delays. Terminals will benefit, according to the port, because their tracks can also be freed up for other planned trains.

“Track Together strengthens cooperation between rail operators in the Port of Rotterdam. By sharing information more effectively, the platform contributes to more efficient operations and a more reliable rail network for all parties involved”, commented Jordy Hermes, Product Design Specialist at LTE.

The inspectorate does not provide a single explanation for the development, but says that more regular checks could have contributed to it. ILT has doubled its inspection capacity in recent years.

Most often, ILT finds that broken components, such as valves, cause the leaks. Fuels and oil, alcohols and other hazardous materials were most often leaked. Ethers and plastic resources did not show a notable increase in leakage incidents.

New inspection strategy expected to reduce incidents

ILT says that it intends to do more inspections during loading and unloading procedures in terminals. That should also decrease the number of leakages, the inspectorate says. DB Cargo Netherlands is happy with that plan, spokesperson Jelle Rebbers tells our colleagues at SpoorPro. “It will prevent irregularities being discovered on public infrastructure […] and that rail traffic needs to be stopped.” By taking up that position, DB Cargo represents a part of the rail freight industry that is supportive of ILT’s approach.

“By sharing targeted knowledge with all parties in the chain about the cause of the irregularity, we expect to achieve a substantial reduction in the number of irregularities”, Rebbers adds. “What would help us here is if the ILT were willing to share information about the nature of the leak more quickly with the sector. The confidentiality of this data, which in some cases is sensitive competition-wise, seems to be hindering the ILT in this regard. We are currently discussing this with the inspectorate.”

By contrast, Hans-Willem Vroon, head of the rail freight association RailGood, is not pleased with the ILT report. Vroon points out that ILT is very strict in its checks for leakages, so it also finds them more often. “Our wagon inspectors and train drivers sometimes also discover drop leakages. That is then taken care of very professionally.” In other words: not a reason for concern.

The RailGood head also questions the intensity of the Dutch ‘fixation’ on leakages compared to neighbouring countries. Other European countries do not nearly consider them as important as the Netherlands, says Vroon.

Reverse modal shift

The Netherlands’ focus on these leakages also has a negative impact on the Dutch rail freight industry. “Last June, there were strong complaints from Slovakia about the Dutch approach from wagon owners and industry”, the RailGood head states. “At the time, they were already threatening to avoid the Netherlands and to transport more by road.”

Moreover, rail operators cannot do much to resolve the problem, according to RailGood. The leakage problem often arises during loading and unloading, Vroon explains, and sometimes because there is a defect in the wagon and items have not been properly tightened or closed. “Parties that tend to cause this problem must be addressed by the competent authority and dealt with within the legal framework. This also applies elsewhere in Europe.”

ILT shared with RailFreight.com that 45% of the leakage cases in 2025 were found on foreign-origin trains (import) and 55% on trains handled in the Netherlands (export). Given the over 1400% increase in reported leakages since 2023, it logically follows that this surge cannot be attributed solely to careless operations during loading, unloading, or maintenance in the Netherlands. If domestic operations were the primary cause, we would expect a much higher share of leakages on export trains, which are handled within the country. Instead, the data suggests that the increase is likely due to another reason, such as a Europe-wide security issue or more frequent inspections and incident reporting in the Netherlands.

A common European approach

Both RailGood and DB Cargo advocate for a common European approach to the issue. RailGood believes that the Netherlands is disproportionately concerned about these “drop leakages”. DB Cargo, similarly, sees a divergence in approaches to the issue within Europe. The Netherlands can combat these incidents, but if European countries don’t follow suit, then the Dutch approach will only help for domestically formed trains.

For RailGood, the demand for checks also extends to other modes of transport, such as the road sector and inland waterways. “How often are there controls on tank trucks? How about venting gases on barges?”, the association rhetorically wonders.

How much operators may need to pay depends on their market segment, of which there will be three: rail freight, domestic passenger traffic and international passenger traffic. It also depends on how money much the infrastructure manager wants to raise annually, with a maximum of 100 million euros.

Fees for these market segments will be based on their calculated price elasticity. If a market segment is relatively insensitive to price changes, it will face higher fees. If it is relatively susceptible to price changes, then the charges will be lower. According to the ACM and ProRail, rail freight has a price elasticity that is slightly lower than passenger traffic. Dutch rail freight is also less sensitive to price changes than its German counterpart, they say.

RailGood and DB Cargo versus ACM and ProRail

The document released by ACM reveals a back-and-forth between ACM and ProRail on one side, and rail freight organisation RailGood and DB Cargo Netherlands on the other side.

Among other things, RailGood criticises the price elasticity mechanism and the market segmentation as determined by ProRail. According to RailGood, the calculation of rail freight’s elasticity does not correspond to reality. In a LinkedIn post, it calls the claim that rail freight is less price elastic than passenger rail “bizarre”.

Likewise, DB Cargo Netherlands points to the reverse modal shift that it says occurs with each price increase. “For market experts, the conclusion that rail freight can take on an additional 770.000 to 7.770.000 euros is not relatable”, it says.

Doubts about theoretical models

RailGood says that “commercial companies in large parts of rail freight transport are structurally subject to significant price sensitivity. The reality in the commercial transport world is completely different from what Significance’s theoretical model calculations generate.” Significance is an independent market research agency specialised in transport. “Rail freight transport is, with the exception of a few niches, structurally very price elastic in practice”, RailGood adds.

RailGood then also disagrees with the inclusion of all rail freight into one market segment. Within the sector, there are large differences in price elasticity, the organisation says. It concludes that a further segmentation of rail freight, with different pricing, would have been more efficient for the sector’s well-being. It points to Germany, where such a system exists.

ProRail and ACM respond

ProRail, on the other hand, says that the price elasticity calculation method is the best one that it has at its disposal. It is widely used in the government, and other European methods are not as well-adapted to the Dutch situation, the infrastructure manager says.

Moreover, ProRail and ACM say that fee pricing can be differentiated for trains’ weight classes, but that this does not correspond to an earlier determined division of the rail freight segment into 12 sub-categories. ProRail says that implementing such a division would take much time, energy and resources. The ACM concurs, saying that ProRail should not have to take on so many extra costs for a further segmentation of the rail freight category.