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.

80 weeks of paused operations is a lot, but the Dutch had to adapt. The work started in late 2024.

Since then, there have been diversions along other routes and a reduction in capacity. The Netherlands has had to run many thousands of trains less than previously. Naturally, last year’s announcement by Germany that the Third Track connection wouldn’t be completed in the coming decade came as a major disappointment and setback.

German unclarity hinders Dutch infrastructure planning

Germany does not have the capacity to work on the Third Track project. The country is working on a major overhaul of its entire rail network. Other projects are higher on the priority list.

RailFreight.com’s sister publication SpoorPro reported that the Dutch infrastructure manager ProRail still has no plan on how to cope with this situation. “It is still too early to say exactly what impact the works in Germany will have”, spokesperson Marcella Wesseling told SpoorPro. “Whether additional freight trains will be diverted depends on the nature, scale and schedule of the works in Germany. The German side has not yet provided this overview.”

Clearly, coordination between the Dutch and German infrastructure managers is lacking. This puts rail work in the Netherlands in question. ProRail and DB InfraGO had earlier agreed on a timeline that would allow the Dutch to work on ERTMS implementation and renovations in Eindhoven and Venlo.

Political games?

The head of the Dutch rail freight association, Hans-Willem Vroon, told SpoorPro about his suspicions that there are some political games going on. “Perhaps Germany is also sending a signal to The Hague that it believes the Venlo-Kaldenkirchen and Oldenzaal-Bad Bentheim border crossings should be used more frequently.” These are alternative border crossings that could facilitate diversions from the Third Track works.

“Moreover, I suspect that DB InfraGO is deliberately holding back the growth of rail traffic because their rail network simply cannot cope. It is striking, after all, that in Switzerland the complaints about the German feeder and outbound lines are even greater than here, and Switzerland does operate with multiple border crossings.” These include Basel, Schaffhausen and St. Margarethen.

The Hamburg port achieved a 7.3% growth in the container segment in 2025 – much more than Rotterdam (+3.1%) and Antwerp (+0.7%).

TEU versus tonnes

Container growth in Hamburg distinguishes itself even more from Rotterdam when taking volumes into consideration. Yes, there was growth in Rotterdam in terms of TEU, but the tonnage metric fell by 0.2%. “More import containers, lower export volumes due to the weakened European competitiveness, and the decline in transhipment led to increased transhipment of empty containers”, says the Rotterdam port.

By contrast, Hamburg achieved growth in tonnages too – by no less than 4.6%. While the port did not disclose its container tonnage figure for 2025, it likely sits at around 81 million tonnes. Antwerp and Rotterdam still lead the way in Europe with 149.5 and 133.2 million tonnes respectively.

Where does Hamburg’s growth come from? It was Asian exporters in particular that reached Hamburg more and more often. At the same time, policymakers in the White House severely damaged the transatlantic business with their tariffs.

Minister Jean-Luc Crucke (Mobility, Climate and Ecological Transition, representing Belgium) and outgoing State Secretary Thierry Aartsen (Infrastructure and Water Management, representing the Netherlands) signed a joint declaration on this matter in Antwerp.

New challenges in a rapidly changing world demand swift action, according to the signatories Crucke and Aartsen. The joint statement states that geopolitical and geoeconomic relations are changing rapidly and that this calls for increased cooperation in areas such as accessibility, security, and military mobility.

‘New impetus and acceleration’

Belgium and the Netherlands are already collaborating to strengthen cross-border connections. The challenge now is to further develop the potential of the collaboration between the two countries and remove all possible obstacles. “Our collaboration with the Netherlands has always been constructive,” says Belgian Minister Jean-Luc Crucke, “but at times it lacked ambition. Today, we want to breathe new life into it, so that we can strengthen our ties and accelerate the development of safe and efficient cross-border rail connections.”

State Secretary Thierry Aartsen agrees: “The world is changing rapidly. Good cross-border cooperation is therefore strategically important – both economically and militarily. And as a traveler, you must be able to travel to another country easily. We are now giving new impetus and acceleration to the cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands in the field of rail. This declaration is a fantastic first step in that direction. It contributes to the new cabinet’s commitment to continue working on improving the accessibility and safety of our country in an international context.”

Ghent-Terneuzen connection

Both parties also indicate that they do not intend to limit themselves to a mere declaration of intent. They will not only focus on improving connectivity, but Belgium and the Netherlands also want to expand the capacity of cross-border lines. Furthermore, new connections such as 3RX and the rail freight connection between the ports of Ghent and Terneuzen should be considered. Furthermore, new connections between the Dutch provinces of Brabant and Limburg and Belgium are being explored. It has been decided to explore, among other things, a connection between Brainport Eindhoven and Belgium. Both countries also want to further coordinate efforts on increased capacity for cross-border military mobility and improved rail resilience.

To ensure the successful completion of these projects, both countries have agreed that the responsible ministers will meet at least once a year. This will be supplemented by biannual meetings of the Belgian-Dutch working group, as well as meetings between experts on each rail dossier. The intention is for Belgium and the Netherlands to sign a framework agreement covering a series of rail dossiers this summer.

According to the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, the agreements build on existing collaboration and on rail agreements between Belgium and the Netherlands from 2022. However, the intensification requires additional efforts and, where necessary, substantive deepening. Therefore, it has been agreed to involve regional parties and rail infrastructure managers in the approach, where necessary and relevant.

Iron Rhine and 3RX

And so, the Belgians have finally put the 3RX connection back on the Dutch political agenda . The benefits of this renewed connection primarily benefit the Port of Antwerp. The 3RX route – the Rhein-Ruhr-Rail connection – is an alternative to the Iron Rhine rail link, proposed since 2017, intended to connect the Port of Antwerp with the German Ruhr region. The route largely follows existing railway lines, unlike the original, more controversial route. Reactivating the existing Iron Rhine route is out of the question for the Netherlands because part of it runs right through the De Meinweg national park.

For that reason, the Belgians are pursuing a detour via Venlo (Netherlands, on the border with Germany): the 3RX route. Between 2016 and 2017, Transport & Mobility Leuven, part of the Catholic University of Leuven, conducted research into the reactivation of the Iron Rhine and what it would require. The lion’s share of the work – and therefore the costs – would be borne by the Netherlands.

The report concluded: “The cheapest solution for creating a line is a combination of doubling and electrifying various sections (in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany), constructing a new railway curve near Roermond (Netherlands), and various works near Venlo to divert the train. The total investment cost of this option is estimated at 770 million euros (including risk provision, excluding VAT; uncertainty margin: around 30%).”

The study’s traffic analysis already showed that the 3RX line will primarily be used for traffic between the Belgian seaports and the Rhine-Ruhr region. “It is assumed that the line will be used by an average of 17 to 20 trains daily in 2030, and by 19 to 23 trains in 2040. The traffic forecast shows that the 3RX would also relieve congestion on the Brabant Route, the Aachen marshalling yard, and the Aachen-Düren-Cologne line.”

Aside from relieving the burden on the Brabant Route, reactivating the Iron Rhine doesn’t seem to offer much benefit to the Netherlands. Will the two countries finally break the deadlock? Time will tell. Meanwhile, sister publication SpoorPro has submitted questions to State Secretary Thierry Aartsen about the silent, yet expressed, desire of Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever to merge the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp, or at least to steer towards a more extensive form of cooperation.

This article was originally published by our sister publication SpoorPro.

Connection to Rotterdam

The newly acquired terminal at Chemelot, an industrial zone that hosts many chemical companies, in the southern province of Limburg currently primarily serves freight trains from Italy. They will soon be supplemented by trains from Rotterdam. BTT will launch a direct rail link between the Dutch seaport and Chemelot for containers bound for the Limburg region.

Versteijnen doesn’t have any customers for the terminal yet, but he’s not worried about that. Discussions are underway with shipping companies and freight forwarders, and the director expects strong interest. “With the acquisition, we can serve an area from [the region of] West Brabant to South Limburg under a single banner.” BTT already operates several other rail and inland ports in the other southern province, Brabant.

“You see more and more shippers preparing for the truck levy. And that number will only increase. We want to be ready to absorb those volumes”, says Versteijnen.

Truck toll

BTT also transports goods by road, accounting for approximately 10% of all shipments. These are primarily short distances, such as collecting and delivering containers at the seaport terminals in Rotterdam. The company expects the truck toll to have little impact on these and other short journeys.

The consequences of the truck toll will be significant for many companies. According to a recent analysis by the accountancy association SRA, carriers that don’t pass the additional costs of the levy on to customers will retain a margin of only 1.52% after implementation, compared to 7.11% in 2024. The trade association Transport en Logistiek Nederland is urging carriers to discuss the rising costs with customers and partners in a timely manner.

This article was originally published by our sister publication NT.nl.

“Chemelot is a strategic anchor point”, says BTT. All back-office activities of the Geleen terminal will be integrated into the group in the coming months and centrally managed from the head office in Tilburg.

Terminal characteristics

The terminal features three tracks of 670 meters, two modern bridge cranes, 60,000 m² of land (with expansion potential) and a capacity of up to 100,000 containers and trailers per year.

BTT Multimodal specialises in multimodal transport. With 24 fixed barge windows and 14 maritime train connections per week, the group handles approximately 225,000 TEU by barge and 130,000 TEU by rail annually.

The total rail freight volume in the Netherlands in 2025 amounted to 38.1 million tonnes. This includes imports, exports, domestic and transit traffic and is a 4% (-1.6 million tonnes) decline compared to 2024.

In similar fashion to 2023 and 2024, the volume of coal has shrunk significantly. In 2024, 5 million tonnes of coal were transported on the Dutch rail network. Last year, this number fell by another 30% to 3.5 million tonnes. The huge impact of this trend on the overall volume is clear: the decrease in coal transportation of 1.5 million tonnes covers the vast majority of the total decline of 1.6 million tonnes.

Likewise, the volume of liquid bulk contracted by 0.3 million tonnes (-5%). Breakbulk and dry bulk both fell by around 0.1 million tonnes.

Intermodal stands, but does it stand strong?

By contrast, the intermodal segment has grown slightly, from 17.9 million tonnes in 2024 to 18.2 million tonnes in 2025. That is a cautiously positive development. As rail freight loses volumes in traditional segments, the intermodal sector provides new business opportunities.

However, as ProRail points out, intermodal is not risk-free. It is partially dependent on world trade. The inflow of containers in, for instance, the Port of Rotterdam rises when trade barriers are low and vice versa. Intermodal is also sensitive to supply chain disruptions, such as the inaccessibility of the Suez Canal or container shortages. Lastly, the competitiveness of rail compared with other modes of transport plays an important role in the size of intermodal rail.

A notable development concerns the growing popularity of the “rocktainer ore”: iron ore transported in intermodal loading units. At the same time, ProRail records a decline in ore transportation in conventional loading units, indicating a shift from one type of loading unit to another. The total volume transported in ILUs increased by 4% to 21.7 million tonnes. They now account for a 57% share of the entire rail freight volume.

Single wagonload on the decline

It appears that single wagonload (SWL) operations in the Netherlands are subject to some of the same pressures as elsewhere in Europe. SWL accounts for around half of the decline in the number of freight trains that cross the border with Germany. In total, 2,050 fewer trains crossed the border in 2025 compared to 2024. An important cause of this development is the switch from SWL trains to block trains, says ProRail.

Block trains are cheaper and faster for shippers, who are now choosing to send entire trains less frequently as opposed to a couple of wagons every day. The consequence is that SWL services operate with lower frequencies or are cancelled altogether, the Dutch infrastructure manager explains.

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.

The infrastructure ministry highlights four policy plans to promote multimodal transportation. It wants to eliminate obstacles to multimodal operations, focus on the advantages that each mode of transportation offers, focus on corridor-based operations and develop multimodal nodes.

In practice, this means that the ministry will “challenge” stakeholders to develop multimodal operations, the document says. It also mentions 740-metre trains, a connection to the “Third Track” in Germany, TEN-T links and harmonised international rules as steps that should help make multimodality a standard option for transport.

Moreover, the Netherlands wants to continue developing multimodal hubs to streamline operations in those locations. It mentions places such as Rotterdam, border town Venlo and the industrial port Moerdijk.

Little budget for these Dutch ambitions

The policy agenda not only focuses on rail, but emphasises that trains are suitable for long-distance movements. Inland shipping is the preferred choice for bulk, and air for fast deliveries and high-value freight. The road offers short-distance flexibility.

That is the vision that the Dutch infrastructure ministry has formulated in short. It is accompanied by a budget of 79 million euros for the coming three years. The goals, including a “large impulse in logistics by resolving logistical bottlenecks”, seem rather ambitious if supported by a relatively meagre budget – even if it would all go to rail infrastructure (which it won’t).

To break it down: the Netherlands is allocating 9 million euros to a modal shift subsidy. 42 million euros will be spent on using “the right mode of transportation at the right time and place” (including infrastructure projects), 30 million of which go to the often unprofitable single wagonload operations at rail yard Kijfhoek.

Furthermore, 8 million euros will be spent on digitalisation. Lastly, 20 million euros will go to the abovementioned “large impulse in logistics by resolving logistical bottlenecks” at nine different locations in the country.

Putting it in perspective

One can reasonably wonder how 20 million euros over three years will translate into a large impulse for multimodal transport at nine different locations. These hubs can count on an average budget of 740,000 euros each annually. By comparison: a planned turnback siding in the south of the Netherlands is projected to cost either 50 million euros or 190 million euros, depending on the chosen location. The ministry concedes that “not all ambitions for the coming five years can be fulfilled with this.”

Moreover, if the Netherlands spends 9 million euros on a modal shift subsidy, then Germany spends nearly over three times as much in track access charge subsidies per million tonne transported via the railways, based on 2024 data. As it stands now, the Dutch policy agenda will likely fall short of having a real impact. That is a concern, considering that rail traffic will have to grow to around 60 million tonnes (+50%) annually by 2030, according to infrastructure minister Robert Tieman.

Dutch rail freight reacts

The Dutch rail freight association RailGood responds to the policy agenda on LinkedIn: “Many words, little vision”. RailGood underlines that the Netherlands needs to meet structural conditions to make rail competitive on long-distance operations: restrictions on infrastructure fees, a minimum investment of 140 million euros for 740-metre trains, ERTMS implementation and “the basics in order”. That means reliable infrastructure, accessibility of terminals and redundancy, RailGood says.

METRANS explains that it has been unable to achieve planned capacities in all ports in northern Germany, including Hamburg, Bremerhaven and Wilhelmshaven. Hamburg terminals are operating with delays of several hours. There are also cancellations without replacement slots.

Both exports and imports through the German ports are disrupted. This is due to traffic restrictions imposed by the German infrastructure manager DB InfraGO and the continued disruption of train circulation in the region. Additionally, METRANS explains that all services passing through Germany and Rotterdam remain affected.

The cold has not yet left Poland

The winter weather remains present further east, in the Polish port city of Gdańsk. Ice is causing delays of 12-15 hours. The BalticHub terminal has reduced the number of truck slots by 70%, which has a negative impact on container transportation between Gdańsk and the neighbouring port city Gdynia.