“As a result, the port-rail area has different operational and infrastructural needs, which should be reflected in the legal regime applicable to the port-rail interface”, the two associations highlighted in a joint paper. What they are asking is to assess, together with EU legislators, to what extent the current regulatory framework of the port-rail interface can be simplified without hampering safety and interoperability.

Better port-rail coordination

Concerning the cooperation between ports and railways, CER and ESPO underlined how fragmentation continues to be a challenge. The main issues they identified are “fragmented planning, complex interfaces between actors, different IT-systems, limited data exchange and last-mile cost challenges”. According to them, port authorities, railway undertakings, infrastructure managers and terminal operators all need to ramp up their commitment. They should prioritise the standardisation of IT systems and data exchange as well as planning and investments.

It’s all about the money, money, money

The last issue brought up in the joint paper published by CER and ESPO is adequate funding. Despite acknowledging the importance of mechanisms such as the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and the implementation of the TEN-T corridors, they pointed out the need for more. For example, the two associations are asking to increase the CEF package for 2028-2034 to 100 billion euros, compared to the current 81 and change.

They are not alone in this quest, as the same request was recently brought forward by the European Economic and Social Committee. “Adequate EU grants remain indispensable to address infrastructure gaps, strengthen dual-use readiness and support projects with high European added value”, the CEF and ESPO’s joint paper stressed. The cries for help continue to be many, coming from all sides of the logistics and supply chain industry, but managing to be listened to remains the most significant obstacle.

European Cargo Experience

The synergies between ports, terminals and railways will be one of the focal points of the upcoming European Cargo Experience. This brand new event, organised jointly by RailFreight.com and our sister publications World Cargo News and ProjectCargo Journal, will take place in Gdansk on 6 and 7 May 2025.

By gathering players from various sectors, the European Cargo Experience will be the perfect opportunity to have meaningful discussions about the current situation and how it can be improved. Find out more about the programme here and register for the event here, the Early Bird discount only lasts another week.

However, this requirement will not be made mandatory, thus road freight companies will be allowed to use the extra space to transport more goods. This is bad news for rail freight for two reasons. First, it makes road transport even more attractive, as prices are likely to lower even more if one journey can transport more goods. Secondly, a significant number of rail wagons will not be able to accommodate EMS, hindering interoperability.

There is still a glimmer of hope

All these problems were (once again) highlighted by six sector associations, including UIRR, ERFA, CER, RFF, UIP and UNIFE. “The road transport sector can expect economic gains – but society will have to wait for any reduction of the environmental footprint of logistics”, they said in a joint statement in reaction to the Council’s adoption of the general approach. Not all is necessarily lost, though. According to the six signatories, there is still hope.

The vision of a real European, interoperable logistics ecosystem can still be achieved if three parameters are met. First, WDD incentives should only apply to zero-emission vehicles or vehicles involved in intermodal transport. Second, interoperability between different modes of transport should be ensured. Finally, Member States should be required to carry out studies on the potential impact of EMS on their roads. “Any outcome falling short of these parameters will trigger an undesirable reverse modal shift from rail to road”, they underlined.

The impact on society

Introducing EMS on European roads would not only hamper the rail freight sector, but also have a negative impact on society and our pockets, as RFF’s latest campaign We All Pay For highlights. More money for road maintenance and more and graver accidents are just the main problems. There would also be more pollution, especially if the reverse modal shift feared by the rail freight industry continues to grow.

What happens now?

The Council’s adoption of a general approach basically means that the EU Member States agreed on the current version of the WDD. This was a key step before the start of trialogue negotiations with the Commission and Parliament, after which the Directive can be adopted.

Once EMERS is active, military transports would typically be entitled to rail slot allocation within six hours of the application. Importantly, the affected other users of the rail network would not be entitled to compensation. Under certain conditions, rail vehicles could also be allowed to operate outside their typical area of operation for which they received authorisation.

When it comes to the question of the rolling stock fleet, the Commission proposes to create a ‘Military Mobility Solidarity Pool.’ Member States can voluntarily register their capabilities for military transport, including both their own assets and those acquired through agreements with civilian operators. These capabilities can then be procured by Member States to fill in the gaps in military transportation.

More options for the Commission

The Commission also wants to be able to implement acts requiring railway undertakings to register its vehicles that are suitable for military transport. In consultation with ERA, it also wants to be able to formulate technical parameters to specify which vehicles are suitable for such operations.

The new proposal also stresses the need for dual-use infrastructure improvements. It requires Member States to remove bottlenecks, reinforce bridges, increase loading capacities and improve rail access to ports and terminals. Interoperability is another focal point, with the proposal mandating a prioritisation of migrations to standard gauge as well.

Lastly, the proposal pursues the harmonisation and digitalisation of customs forms. Cross-border permissions should be granted within three working days.

CER welcomes the proposal

The Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies (CER) has responded positively to the Commission’s proposal. “Today’s Military Mobility Package is crucial to ensure fast and seamless military movements across Europe, in which railways play a key role”, commented executive director Alberto Mazzola.

“CER calls for the swift adoption of the Package in the interests of EU defence readiness and improved continental connectivity as a whole. With a systemic approach to the railway system to facilitate military transportation, addressing infrastructure, procedures, capabilities and governance gaps in a dual-use perspective, we can deliver maximum benefits for civilian and military users alike.”

CER did highlight some points for improvement, namely the necessity for “ambitious and predictable funding” for infrastructure corridors and hotspots, estimated at 100 billion euros. It also says that the existing rolling stock fleet should be replenished before starting to pool capabilities.

Consequently, CER calls for investments in port rail infrastructure, including 740-metre loading tracks, digitalised track management and direct ship-to-rail transfer facilities. Moreover, CER argues that rail planning should accompany port expansions, so that future bottlenecks can be avoided.

Hinterland and corridors

An important aspect of using ports to their full potential is having solid hinterland connections. For that reason, the European rail community calls for an accelerated implementation of the European Transport Corridors, as well as expanded rail-road terminal infrastructure along those routes.

However, these corridors also extend beyond the EU’s borders, and so cooperation with non-Member States is also desired, says CER. “Some strategically relevant ports, either outside EU territory or with access routes through non-EU countries are crucial for European Transport Corridors. The EU should enhance coordination with these third countries and provide significant infrastructure funding to improve rail transport flows to and from these key ports.”

Türkiye and Greece

CER highlights the Turkish Tekirdağ port, as well as Greece’s Thessaloniki and Piraeus ports as examples. Tekirdağ links up to the Western Balkans – Eastern Mediterranean and Baltic Sea – Black Sea – Aegean Sea corridor. The Greek ports provide hinterland connectivity through North Macedonia and Serbia, but coordination is a necessity to make use of those rail access routes.

Lastly, CER wants to reduce costs for rail incurred in ports by improving competition and providing targeted operating aid, for example for shunting and transshipment. The organisation also wants a revision of the Combined Transport Directive to boost the modal shift towards intermodal operations.

“The EU and its member states should strive to streamline administrative procedures in order to accelerate the needed regulatory clearances to enable the swift, large scale, cross-border movements of military assets and convoys, as reiterated in the EU’s Military Mobility Action plans”, CER continues. “In this context it may be necessary to consider the procedures for extraordinary shipments, establishing priorities as appropriate for military convoys.”

Crisis coordination

CER has some ideas of its own on how to proceed. “There is a need to create a functional governance system (at the EU and Member State level, as well as with relevant institutions such as NATO) to enable military and civilian regular coordination and cooperation, involving the representatives of the railway system but also other critical modes (port infrastructures and sidings). A steering structure could prove to be essential for coordinating actions particularly during a crisis”, the association says.

Moreover, CER highlights the need for increased security resilience in the rail sector. As such, Europe should implement a strategy to protect “critical railway infrastructure and its support systems from direct actions (from hybrid attacks including cyber attacks) that could damage or impede operations and enhance the cyber security of the railways system.” By extension, Europe should ensure that critical operations continue through redundant systems and that critical infrastructure can be quickly restored in the event of a crisis.

Rolling stock and money

Additionally, Europe should replenish the rolling stock fleet adapted to military transport. That includes special purpose vehicles, “such as those capable of operating in different operational environments or adapted to specific needs, including for the transport of specialised military personnel and medical support”, CER says.

“Traction solutions will be needed to operate cross-border in alternative scenarios, i.e. locomotives equipped with internal combustion engines in the case of a wide scale shortage of the electric power system.” CER also points to the need for appropriate wagons and maintenance, parking and fuelling facilities.

In terms of financing, a clarification of the dual-use requirement is “urgently needed”, because it defines the basis of eligibility of measures under EU-funding. Moreover, defense needs should become a mainstream part of funding instruments, says CER in its position paper.

On the other hand, European institutions seem to struggle to find a definition of combined transport that satisfies all parties involved. “Despite ongoing negotiations (…) in the Council, the Hungarian Presidency has reached an impasse”, CER said. This ‘stalemate’, as the association put it, is especially affecting the opportunity of reducing combined transport costs and implementing the Electronic Freight Transport Information system (eFTI).

Another argument brought forward by CER is that the Combined Transport Directive and the Weights and Dimensions Directive are somewhat countering each other. The former “provides an instrument that encourages support” the latter “sets in place immediate EU-wide incentives that enhance the competitiveness of road transport”, CER lamented.

More specifically, the top priorities identified in a joint letter sent to the EC were the deployment of the European Train Control System, the Future Railway Mobile Communication System (FRMCS) and the Digital Automatic Coupling. “The TSI amendment related to FRMCS should be made available as soon as the specifications are delivered, expected by the end of 2026 – beginning 2027”, the letter stated.

These are the ten associations that sent the joint letter to the DG Move, the mobility and transport branch of the European Commission.

• European Rail Rolling Stock Lessors (AERRL)
• Alliance of Passenger Rail New Entrants (ALLRAIL)
• Community of European Railways and Infrastructures Companies (CER)
• European Infrastructure Managers (EIM)
• European Federation of Museum & Tourist Railways (FEDECRAIL)
• Notified Bodies Association (NB-Rail)
• International Union of Private Wagons (UIP)
• International Union of Combined Road-Rail Transport Companies (UIRR)
• International Association of Public Transport (UITP)
• The European Rail Supply Industry Association (UNIFE)

Also read:

• ‘Businesses should brace ahead of new Import Control System’
• Is the Capacity Management Directive taking the wrong turn?
• Do EU citizens know what’s at stake with the EU’s transport policies?

To provide some context, the plenary session of the EU Parliament will vote on a regulation on “the effective coordination of economic policies and multilateral budgetary surveillance”. Simply put, the Parliament will vote on a regulation that will provide clarity and guidelines on the EU’s financial and investment strategy and fund allocation.

How is rail freight affected by this? According to the vote’s outcome, the rail freight industry will be able to determine the investment focus and how funds will be allocated. For the three parties voicing that the EU should be consistent, committed, and explicit, investments should focus on “assets, quality of jobs, operational safety, infrastructure, and modernisation of rolling stock and fleets”.

Do not deepen investment deficits

ETF, CER and UITP claim that in the past four years, the rail and public transport sectors have responded to the challenges posed by COVID and the energy crisis, proving their commitment to EU policies and keeping cargo and passengers moving.

However, the two sectors currently face the risk of financial unviability, considering that the gap between costs and revenues keeps widening. “The application of new EU fiscal rules should not contribute to deepen the investment deficits built over the years, exacerbate reductions in transport service, with subsequent depreciation of working conditions and irreversible impacts on worker shortages,” the three parties stress.

Moreover, they demand more transparency on the processes followed after adopting the updated regulations. Their legal adoption should be followed by intense engagement with the industry while providing more clarity on available official information and data sharing in cases like implementing the Recovery instrument, among other things.

Also read:

• European Parliament to approve TEN-T revision today

• EU Parliament’s plenary says yes to ‘monstertrucks’ after all

• New combined transport definition is still too vague, says TRAN Committee

What are the CER demands?

Other than more flexibility when allocating capacity, the participants asked for a better dialogue between Railway Undertakings, Infrastructure Managers (IMs) and applicants. This would be achieved through the establishment of a European Railway Undertaking Platform, CER pointed out. Moreover, sufficient funding must be deployed for the implementation of the Timetabling Capacity Redesign and the Digital Capacity Management. For these initiatives, CER is calling for Member States to provide funds for at least five years.

They are also demanding that any new governance structure shall avoid excessive administrative burdens for IMs. Additionally, CER is asking that “the functions of the Network Coordinator should be undertaken by the sector itself”. However, no more specifications were provided concerning this. Finally, they welcomed the introduction of criteria applied in case of scarce infrastructure capacity. On the other hand, they stress the importance of clearly defining the criteria, how they are applied and how often they will be reviewed.

Also read:

• EU sets frail foundations for intermodal transport’s future
• ‘All modes need to be equally efficient,’ says EC’s transport officer
• ‘Common vision is necessary to implement Capacity Regulation’
• MEP wants to take power from IMs with regulation amendments

Associations like UIRR, CER and ERFA have stressed that the intermodal measures included in the WDD are irrelevant or ineffective for rail freight transport. For instance, Akos Ersek, chief policy advisor at UIRR, pointed out in an interview with Railfreight.com that deploying heavier and longer commercial trucks could prove tricky since heavy cargo should, in principle, travel on rail and not on trucks.

On the other hand, leading policymakers like Kristian Schmidt, director of land transport at DG Move, underlined to RailFreight.com that the WDD revision would benefit intermodality by “ensuring intermodal compatibility and incentivising road operators to engage in intermodal operations”. However, a study commissioned jointly by ERFA, CER, UIC, UIP and UIRR and carried out by the consultancy firm d-fine seems to challenge this argument.

Widespread use of gigaliners

The five parties insist on their initial position that the WDD revision proposals are “impractical, ineffective, or unnecessary”. Their study found that the “proposed increase in the permissible gross weight of trucks and the authorisation of EMS would lead on average to a modal shift from rail to road of up to 21 per cent for all rail segments and 16 per cent for combined transport”.

Simply put, the five associations warn that the EU Commission’s approach will result in the widespread use of gigaliners, decreasing operational costs by up to 25 per cent and outperforming combined transport, despite simultaneously raising external costs to 2,2 billion euros.

Compatibility a real issue

Despite Kristian Schmidt reassuring that the WDD revision would ensure intermodal compatibility, this does not seem to be the case. The d-fine study found, for instance, that the proposed increase of 30 cm in vehicle height would already pose challenges since “21 EU Member States have a 4-metre height limit for trucks.” At the same time, the WDD revision projects a limit of 4,30 metres for trucks carrying high-cube containers.

Longer trucks will also create challenges for intermodal operations. The joint study points out that “none of the longer EMS truck combinations can be handled in combined transport without increased operational complexity”. Longer than 13,6 metres, semi-trailers are technically incompatible with combined transport assets. At the same time, longer and heavier vehicles will also hinder terminal operations since they will, in many cases, not be suitable for transit via access roads, while many terminals do not possess the proper equipment to handle such heavy loads.

Some proposals

For this reason, the five associations demand that the gross weight limit for border crossing trucks remain at 40 tonnes and not at 44 as the Commission proposed. Only zero-emission vehicles should be allowed an additional gross weight as long as the batteries they use require it. Finally, the five parties stress that standard dimensions for loading units should be maintained despite the introduction of gigaliners because that is the only way to ensure intermodal compatibility as promised by the EU Commission.

“We do not see a positive impact”

All parties involved in the study stressed that they struggled to identify the relevance of such measures and how they could positively impact freight transport and rail. Conor Feighan, secretary general of ERFA, commented that the industry cannot see how the WDD revision could bring forward positive developments. Moreover, Gilles Peterhans, secretary general of UIP, pointed out that longer and heavier trucks will also dictate future rail investments which will not be industry-oriented but instead focus on adapting to road transport requirements.

Alberto Mazzola, executive director at CER, said that “rail freight will lose more volumes than the European Commission predicted,” and the current WDD “is not a measure of greening freight transport”. Indeed, the EC’s prediction spoke of approximately 5,5 billion tonne-kilometres in losses for rail, while the d-fine study illustrated the losses at around 140 billion tonne-kilometres, a substantial difference.

François Davenne, director general at UIC, also raised some interesting points. He mentioned that the EC lacks a systemic approach considering both rail and road transport. He also stressed the issue of batteries by asking a simple but critical question: “Will there be enough batteries to decarbonise the road sector?” he wondered. His point was that if there are not enough resources to decarbonise truck operations, then the WDD measures will end up disrupting the freight market almost irreversibly by benefiting diesel operations.