How are they increasing?

In the three Benelux countries and the DACH countries, the fuel fee for trucks will rise by 7%, just like the one for barge and BCO, while the one for RCO by 4%. In both areas these increases will be valid between 30 March and 13 April. In Poland, for trucking services the rises will be +12% while for RCO 6% during the same period.

For Italy, 8% and 3% but they will be effective from 1 April and will be reviewed two weeks later. In Slovenia, Maersk will implement a 4% Intermodal Fuel Fee but only for trucks which will be applied for the whole month of April and will then be reviewed on a monthly basis.

‘Unprecedented cost environment’

The war on Iran and the consequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz has choked the passageway of 20% of the world’s fuel supply, causing prices to skyrocket. The situation is dire, and an end does seem to be in sight. Maersk defined it as an “unprecedented cost environment” that “continues to place significant pressure on logistics and intermodal transportation markets”.

European Cargo Experience

Terminals and their role in connecting areas, modalities and industries will be the focal point of the upcoming European Cargo Experience. Organised by RailFreight.com in cooperation with our sister publications World Cargo News and ProjectCargo Journal, the event will take place in Gdansk on 6 and 7 May, gathering members from all sectors of the European supply chain industry.

With an exclusive site visit with limited spots available, a delicious networking dinner and a second day packed with interesting discussions, interactive activities and plenty of time to mingle. Find out more about the programme here and get your ticket here, Early Bird discount ends soon!

APM Terminals (APMT) and Eurogate have announced they are in “advanced negotiations for a long-term partnership under which they plan to invest one billion Euro in the modernisation of their joint container terminal North Sea Terminal Bremerhaven (NTB).”

NTB currently has 18 STS cranes and an annual capacity of 3 million TEU. It is a straddle carrier operation, with a fleet of over 100 machines that can stack containers up to four high. The project would see NTB upgraded “into one of the world’s most efficient and resilient container handling facilities, with zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions operations. The plan is to modernise the equipment and increase the terminal’s capacity from 3 to 4 million TEU throughput annually,” APMT and Eurogate said.

Automation is not mentioned, but the companies said that through “the electrification of equipment and the use of renewable electricity, the terminal is intended to operate with zero GHG emissions, the first of its kind in Germany.”

“Bremerhaven has unique potential to grow as a strategic hub in the region and to support cargo flows into Germany as well as our ocean network. Our investments are intended to realise the full potential of the terminal, making NTB one of the most competitive terminals in Europe’s North Range. We aim to future-proof the terminal over the long term, while strengthening the reliability and resilience of supply chains for the German economy,” said Vincent Clerc, CEO of A.P. Moller –Maersk.

“With our NTB terminal we can proudly look back on more than 25 years of successful partnership with Maersk and APM Terminals and look forward to continuing this success story together in the future,” said Michael Blach, Chairman of the EUROGATE Group Management Board. “The joint project to equip the terminal with state-of-the-art technology and decarbonise the operations, thereby making NTB fit for the coming decades, shows how convinced we are of the future success of Bremerhaven as a location in the global maritime trade network. The modernisation of the NTB sets standards and also secures many high-value jobs in the region in the long term.”

The plan and the investments are still “subject to internal and external approvals.” Making an announcement at this stage puts the plan in the public domain and puts pressure on the German Federal Government to come to the party and progress dredging of the outer Weser River to improve access to Bremerhaven for ultra large container vessels (ULCVs).

Political pressure

The State of Bremen is investing over 500 million euros in new quay infrastructure to accommodate ULCVs up to 24,000 TEU at the port. In November 2025 a 1.35 billion euros federal investment in port infrastructure for commercial and military use at Bremerhaven was announced.

“The fact that Maersk, a global market leader, is so strongly committed to Bremerhaven is impressive proof of the efficiency of our ports and of EUROGATE,” said Andreas Bovenschulte, Mayor of Bremen. “I very much welcome Maersk’s intention to expand and intensify its 25 years of successful cooperation at the Bremerhaven site. With Maersk’s announced investments in the port’s superstructure and the state and federal government’s investments in the port infrastructure, Bremerhaven will be well positioned for the future and its importance in the North Range will be strengthened. Now it is up to the federal government to press ahead with the deepening of the Outer Weser and implement it quickly.”

APMT and Eurogate noted that “the deepening of the outer Weser river is an essential prerequisite for fully unlocking the potential of the upgraded terminal. A corresponding planning process is currently underway at the level of the public administration.”

This article was originally published by our sister publication WorldCargoNews.

Laude Intermodal has shown significant interest in improving the rail connectivity between Ukraine and the rest of the European Union, especially Poland. Moreover, the company’s terminal in Zamość recently got a new link to Oss, in the Netherlands, which should also benefit the Ukrainian market.

Industry experts and Chinese media, such as the South China Morning Post, have highlighted the Arctic route’s benefits. Some argue that the icy but thawing north could help China and Europe diversify away from conventional but high-risk routes. Moreover, shortening travel times could accelerate capital turnover and speed up the delivery of electronics and pharmaceuticals, for example.

… could it really, though?

However, there are also skeptics. And those skeptics might, at least for the time being, be right. Some of the world’s biggest shipping companies themselves fall into that camp. A representative of Maersk points to the limited time window for Arctic shipping: only in summer is the route ice-free and navigable. Still, it is not possible to know exactly when that time window opens and closes, and even in summer there might still be ice blocking the way.

As a consequence, you’d need ice breakers from the area to be available at all times. Since most of the route runs through Russian waters, that translates into a need for Russian vessels. Yet, because of sanctions, Maersk does not do any business with Russia, making the use of their ice breakers an impossibility.

Even without those sanctions, the remoteness of the Russian north presents a challenge. For safety reasons, you need to have proper infrastructure nearby (also including ice breakers), which is limited in the sparsely populated coastal areas. A structural limitation in the capacity of the Arctic route.

Far away from the existing network

Moreover, the Arctic route bypasses key hubs, such as in Singapore, Oman and Gibraltar. A Financial Times source told the publication earlier this year that that could be a reason why Maersk is uninterested in making the journey across the Arctic. The company heavily relies on its hub network.

“We have for instance in recent years invested more than three billion dollars in infrastructure (ports/terminals) on our Asia-Europe service”, a Maersk representative explains. “It’s an advanced network with transshipment capabilities as well in between the starting and end point of the services.” The Arctic route is not a part of that global network.

Lastly, there are environmental issues. Large shipping companies signed a deal in 2019, promising not to operate on the Arctic route to avoid polluting the area. CMA CGM underlined this at the time: “The use of the Northern Sea [Arctic] Route will represent a significant danger to the unique natural ecosystems of this part of the world, mainly due to the numerous threats posed by accidents, oil pollution or collisions with marine wildlife.”

The shortest possible route

Even if the sanctions against Russia were no issue, the full-length Arctic route would not be the most beneficial route to take. Rail freight consultant Xavier Wanderpepen points out that the shortest way from China to Europe going through the Arctic would be the Shanghai-Mongolia-Arkhangelsk-Europe route. Note that the majority of that route is land-based. It adds up to around 10,000 kilometres, compared to the entire Arctic route passing through the Bering Strait (16,000 kilometres) or around the Cape of Good Hope (26,000 kilometres).

In other words, when purely looking at distance, the Arctic route is most competitive when transiting most of Russia overland. But even that route via Arkhangelsk seems unfeasible. “At first glance, the Arkhangelsk route seems attractive. However, it remains blocked for much of the year due to the freezing of the polar seas”, says Wanderpepen.

Even a shorter maritime leg would still present the same weather problems as the long way around. “Implementing a solution that works only six months a year, and then stopping everything, is unrealistic”, Wanderpepen adds.

Chaotic transit times

Despite the favourable short length of the route, the rail infrastructure is not in place to accommodate freight flows. For example, there are no regular container trains in Russia to Arkhangelsk. “Transit times would therefore be chaotic, as containers are transported mixed with other cargo. The same issue exists for shipping between Arkhangelsk and Europe: there are no established container shipping lines on this route.”

In other words, a Chinese operator would have to charter a vessel for a couple of dozen containers and face that same challenge to book a train in Russia. “Moreover, there would be no return back cargo to balance costs, meaning clients would pay not only for the loaded trip but also for the empty return, both by rail and by sea”, Wanderpepen adds.

The need for specially chartered ships and trains contrasts with regular lines, says the rail consultant. Regular lines offer much more competitive prices.

Haijie Shipping Company’s offer is seasonal, likely until November. That reflects another issue with this route, according to Wanderpepen. If temperatures drop below -10°C or -20°C in winter, which happens every year, some goods cannot withstand the cold. That includes plastics and electronics.

Traditional success and the limitations of the Arctic

“The success of the maritime route between China and Europe is due to regular ship departures – every day – with vessels that can carry 7,000 to 8,000 units of 40-foot containers. This scale keeps prices very low”, explains Wanderpepen.

In other words, weather, politics and infrastructure conditions make both the Arkhangelsk and the Arctic route around Russia unattractive, if not outright impossible. Even if Chinese companies not bound by sanctions start operations, those will be impacted by unpredictable weather conditions and limited infrastructure. The service offering will remain restricted in scope.

The Arctic route is therefore unlikely to be able to compete with the traditional shipping routes and the Middle Corridor. Both offer more reliability, predictability and infrastructure, even if the Middle Corridor is still very much in development.

The Rijeka Gateway

The multimodal facility at the Croatian port of Rijeka is owned by APM Terminals (51%) and ENNA Group (49%) and will replace an older one always owned by APM. The two companies invested around 380 million euros to realise the project. The new terminal, located on the western side of the port, will have an annual throughput capacity of over one million TEUs. Rail freight is expected to play a significant role, increasing Rijeka’s competitiveness with the other Adriatic ports Koper and Trieste.

The activist group is continuing its protests against the logistics sector by other means. They have chained themselves to objects in the Maersk Rotterdam HQ and are making noise to disrupt the company’s activities for the day. Its demands for Maersk sound similar to those it issued to the rail sector: No more weapons to Israel.

“This occupation today is just the beginning”, explains a representative of Geef Tegengas. “As long as Maersk continues to earn from genocide, we are forced to take more and more frequent and drastic action.”

Interestingly, the group does not make any mention of climate change to Maersk. After all, one of the group’s key demands for rail was to become more environmentally friendly. In order to do that, the sector has to stop transporting fossil fuels such as coal and LNG, say the activists.

“With previous blockades of the port railway line, which have caused tonnes of economic damage, Geef Tegengas has shown its willingness to keep up the pressure”, the group adds to its announcement of the Maersk blockade.

Rail out of the picture?

In recent weeks, the group blockaded rail infrastructure in the Port of Rotterdam five times. Those blockades led to hundreds of thousands of euros in damages for rail freight companies.

In an earlier comment to RailFreight.com, Geef Tegengas explained that they would target other modes of transport as well. However, it also mentioned that rail “was not off the hook”, suggesting that port rail blockades are not completely out of the picture yet.

“This action is specifically about Maersk, focusing on its arms trade with Israel. For our actions so far, it is true that we focus on the entire logistics sector: from boat, to train, to plane and about all the mess linked to human rights violations transported by this sector. Now it is a shipping giant, next time it will be trucks, planes, ships or trains”, a representative of the activists commented.

The shipping companies have not spoken out publicly against the desired tariff increase. However, Hafer’s comments on LinkedIn suggest that they may have done so behind the scenes. By contrast, AmCham has openly criticised UZ’s proposal, saying that it may affect the country’s competitiveness and economy. UZ should directly involve the business community in making tariff-related decisions, the American organisation argued.

Counterarguments

In order to counteract the international pressure on UZ, Gebhard Hafer justifies the company’s tariff plans in his LinkedIn post. “Ukrainian Railways hasn’t indexed the cargo tariffs for more than two years already. The request is justified by the current industrial inflation rate in Ukraine, measured by the Producer Price Index (PPI), and by investment needs into infrastructure and rolling stocks. By blocking the indexation of cargo tariffs, the safety of railway transportation in Ukraine is affected!”

Ukrainian Railways proposed an across the board 37% tariff hike in December 2024. Nearly half a year has passed since then without an implementation of the plan. The latest update was that the country’s government looked to approve a tariff hike anywhere between 20% and 40%.

Now, the UZ supervisory board president seems to clarify on LinkedIn why the tariff hike is taking a while to get approval: Namely, businesses are blocking it. “The request for indexation of cargo tariffs was formulated and carefully justified by UZ in 2024 already. Since then it has been blocked by container lines, business associations and a couple of industries”, Hafer stated.

Rate change for containers?

Another tariff hike may also be coming to Ukraine, in addition to the proposed 37% increase. Hafer mentioned a specific outstanding request to increase the transportation rate for containers exceeding a weight of 26 tonnes and 30 tonnes. That idea “follows complaints from grain hopper wagon operators about cheaper container rates for transportation of grain and other bulk commodities.”

“The Panama Canal Railway Company represents an attractive infrastructure investment in the region aligned to our core services of intermodal container movement,” said Keith Svendsen, CEO of APM Terminals. “The company is highly regarded for its operational excellence and will provide a significant opportunity for us to offer a broader range of services to the global shipping customers we serve.”

Focus on US, Canada, Mexico

For seller Canadian Pacific Kansas City, the sale allows for an improvement of its business strategy. “The sale of this non-core asset creates value for our shareholders and reflects our commitment to optimise our assets as we focus on growing our core North American rail business through our unrivalled three-nation network connecting Canada, the United States and Mexico”, the company’s President and CEO Keith Creel explained.

The route of the whole journey starts from Nagoya and passes through the Chinese ports of Qingdao and Xian. From there, freight trains take the cargo through Kazakhstan and then to Poti, in Georgia. The goods are then transported for their final leg to Ambarli, in Türkiye.

“The route is intended for general trade shipments between Japan, South Korea, China, and Europe”, Danelia added. Maersk’s trust in the Middle Corridor is not something new. At the end of 2023, the company established an intermodal service connecting Poti to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan via this route.

Around the world via the Middle Corridor?

Initiatives such as this one led by Maersk show the growing interest in the Middle Corridor, which connects China and Europe via Central Asian countries. Despite often being considered only as an alternative route, more and more companies are highlighting the potential of this corridor.

If, on the one hand, Maersk considers it viable for a connection between Türkiye and Japan, Kazakhstan tested it as a way to reach the USA. Recently, a freight train left Almaty, in the Kazakh southeast and headed to Poti. There, the cargo was moved to the sea and crossed the Atlantic Ocean all the way to Houston, Texas.