In other words, the line is located in sparsely populated territory, not usually associated with great economic or political importance. But the Iron Ore Line is different, the name reveals why: it is a key artery for mining products from the area.

LKAB, the largest mining company in the region, calls the railway “a critical link in the green transition” and cites its “crucial importance for Europe’s future economic development and access to critically important raw materials”.

The share of Iron Ore Line freight in Sweden

Its large role in Swedish rail freight is reflected in the country’s annual statistics reports. It has separate datasheets with and without ore transportation on the Iron Ore Line. Due to their sheer volume, including the ores might paint a skewed picture of rail freight elsewhere in the country.

Out of the total rail freight volume of 68,3 million tonnes in 2023, 25,7 million tonnes was ore on just the Iron Ore Line (37,6%). The impact of the derailments in early 2024 also immediately became clear. In contrast to other rail freight transportation in Sweden, which grew by 2,2%, ore traffic on the Iron Ore Line shrank by 12%.

Rail disruptions = fewer mining products

The numbers show that the Iron Ore Line is economically crucial to Sweden, despite being a single-track railway in a remote area on the periphery of the country and the continent as a whole. Without it, the mines would not be able to export their products in the same way, leading to reductions in output.

That is exactly what happened after the derailments in 2024: “In view of the limited capacity on the Iron Ore Line, during the quarter LKAB decided to cut back production of finished products by around a million tonnes on an annual basis. As part of optimising mine production in the operating locations it was also announced that production in Konsuln, which is adjacent to the Kiruna mine, is being mothballed”, the company explained.

That wraps it up regarding the situation as it is today. Yet, the Iron Ore Line will -most likely- grow even further in importance. That has everything to do with Europe’s ambition for “strategic autonomy” and a shift away from China. Beijing has control over the world’s largest rare earth mineral reserves, and as of 2024, China produced around 70% of all rare earth oxides.

New rare earth mineral deposit

Europe wants to be more independent, and that includes raw material independence. It just so happens to be that Sweden discovered large rare earth mineral deposits close to the existing mines in the north. A blessing for Sweden, but also a blessing for Europe, which expects a 500% increase in the rare earth mineral demand by 2050. By 2030, Sweden has the potential to meet approximately 18% of that demand.

This would make Sweden a key supplier for the continent, while also contributing to Europe’s goal of reducing its reliance on China. However, mining operations in the new deposit are expected to start only 10 to 15 years from now. And for comparison: Sweden has found one million tonnes worth of rare earth minerals, whereas China has a reserve of 44 million tonnes.

The rare earth factor, even if it is something for the long term, comes on top of the already existing mining output in the area: Sweden is Europe’s leading iron ore producer and fourth largest copper producer. It also mines zinc and lead in other parts of the country.

LKAB too highlights the mines’ role in the green transition and the growing role of the Iron Ore Line: “As the mining industry and steel companies shift towards fossil-free iron and steel, the Ore Railway becomes even more important. The iron from the mines is planned to soon be joined by new important products, critical minerals and metals vital for food production and for European industry.”

The company sees the Iron Ore Line as a critical link for the green transition and for development in the Nordics and Europe. “A vital artery where the pressure from larger volumes of goods and new residents will increase dramatically in the coming years.”

NATO and the military

That was it for the economic part. Besides ore transportation, the railway has recently gained a new significance elsewhere. With Sweden’s accession into NATO, the country will need to have its infrastructure in order to facilitate military transports. The key railway line for the country in this context is indeed the Iron Ore Line.

It links up to the Norwegian port of Narvik, which was a major battle theatre in WWII. The central prize was access to Swedish ore all-year round due to freezing in the Bothnia Gulf. In contemporary times, Narvik is also a gateway into the far north areas of Europe. That makes it a prime target for NATO adversaries, which also explains why there were so many suspicions of sabotage after derailments in early 2024. From both an economic and military point of view, the Iron Ore Line is being propelled forward into continental significance.

Future-proofing and higher TACs?

In order to future-proof the railway, Sweden is investing. LKAB’s dream of a double track railway across the entire length of the line is out of reach for the time being. Instead, Sweden is betting on station extensions and passing loops to improve capacity. The upgrade plan also involves an axle load improvement to 32.5 tonnes on large sections of the railway.

Sweden’s upgrade plans for the Iron Ore Line are relatively big, in the sense that they don’t fit in the budget. For that reason, Stockholm has tasked the Swedish Transport Administration and infrastructure manager Trafikverket with exploring public-private partnership (PPP) funding, an unusual step to take for Sweden.

It refers to the potential additional funding and more efficient implementation of projects as a justification. In order to generate private interest, however, it is also floating higher track access charges to create revenue streams.

The outcome of the assessment is twofold: First, the Netherlands needs to rethink its rail strategy, and from that follows point number two: money (600 million euros in investments to be precise).

Dutch rail policy has long focused on efficiency and punctuality, which has served its purpose well. However, times are changing and so are the needs of the railways. Sabotage, cyber attacks and military transportation are the new themes that need to be dealt with.

From prevention to recovery

“Current policy assumes incidental, non-intentional disruptions due to, for example, bad weather. That assumption is a thing of the past”, the Dutch infrastructure ministry says. State Secretary Aartsen also highlighted that the Netherlands needs to move beyond just prevention, but also work on “absorption” and “recovery”.

“A targeted disruption can have a large impact on the network”, the OFL report says. A case in point was the large-scale rail disruption during the NATO summit in the Hague, although an official cause has not yet been established. During complex disruptions, solutions depend on the knowledge of “small groups of experts”, meaning that solutions can take a long time if the experts are unavailable. Interesting to know is that the NATO summit rail disruption prompted the state secretary to commission the investigation in question.

Bureaucracy and infrastructure

A grim picture emerges when looking at the Dutch readiness for military transportation. RailFreight.com’s sister publication SpoorPro attended the presentation of the OFL report at a Dutch military base, and writes: “Aartsen’s face was filled with astonishment when he heard from a military transport specialist that it currently takes 28 days to enter Germany with military equipment.” This does not have so much to do with infrastructure as it does with bureaucracy, as it is the red tape (in both countries) that is keeping trains on one side of the border.

But when looking at hard infrastructure, things are also far from perfect. For example, military trains may require adjacent rails to remain unoccupied, so they can interrupt regular civilian traffic for hours. Military transportation would be highly disruptive to other forms of traffic on the already congested Dutch railways.

In a letter to parliament, State Secretary Aartsen says that the Netherlands needs to improve its railways in various ways for military mobility purposes: more capacity in port areas, facilitating 740-metre trains, efficient border crossings and electrification of strategic routes.

Dutch rail freight association RailGood sees an opportunity for the government to meet the demands of the civilian rail freight sector through military-related plans. After all, 740-metre trains, more capacity for freight, electrification and, RailGood adds, the implementation of ERTMS for interoperability have long been on the sector’s wishlist.

The Italian government has been very vocal regarding its commitment to the project, but nothing concrete has yet happened. Salvini remains hopeful that the final approval from CIPESS (the national authority tasked with reviewing and possibly greenlighting the project) will arrive before the end of the month.

Numbers are off

However, this is not Salvini’s hottest take on the project. The Italian transport minister claimed that freight trains will take 15 minutes to cross the bridge compared to the current 180. In reality, this equation might be missing a few variables. The Mercitalia rail ferry currently takes about 20 minutes to transport wagons across the Messina Strait.

Other than the actual time needed to cross the Strait, the 180 minutes mentioned by Salvini also include waiting times once the ferry arrives, transfers on the railways and the prioritisation of passenger trains. On the other hand, these problems run the very concrete risks of not being solved, as the rail infrastructure in Sicily and Calabria is still lagging behind. Moreover, passenger trains would still be given priority over freight trains once they cross the bridge.

In other words, the sole act of crossing the bridge would be reduced from the 20 minutes needed by ferry with the 15 minutes needed by train. Despite this, the remaining 160 minutes it usually takes for a train to be properly dispatched will not magically disappear unless the infrastructure surrounding the bridge on both sides is massively improved. Both the ministry and the Italian railway holding Ferrovie dello Stato have made many pledges for huge investments in Sicily and Calabria, but much time is needed before any result will be visible.

The NATO idea

One of the latest ideas from the Italian government of the project is to include the costs for the construction of the Messina Strait Bridge in the increased defence spending imposed by NATO. The organisation asked its members to increase their defence spending to 5% of their GDP by 2035: 3.5% in pure defence expenses and 1.5% for security, which includes infrastructure.

The south of Italy, and Sicily in particular, play a pivotal role for NATO, as there are many bases such as the Naval Air Station in Sigonella and the telecommunication facility in Niscemi. Already in 2023, the Italian government underlined that a bridge across the Messina Strait would be a fundamental infrastructure for military mobility.

NATO would still need to accept the proposal of the Italian government, a procedure which might facilitate the realisation of the bridge. Most importantly, however, the Italian government must secure the funds needed for the initiative. The government led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni needs to find 13.5 billion euros for the construction and three additional billion euros every year for maintenance.

Will it hinder maritime traffic?

One last question mark concerning the Messina Strait Bridge project is its impact on maritime traffic. The Messina Strait is one of most active shipping routes in Europe as it connects the Thyrrenian and Ionian Sea. If the bridge is built following the current project (which was drafted in 2011), some of the bigger ships might not be able to pass underneath it.

The navigable corridor under the bridge would be 70 metres under normal conditions and 65 metres in case of heavy traffic. On the other hand, these calculations do not seem to take into consideration that the conditions of the sea might change due to tidal movements or weather changes. Already in 2023, for example, there were 20 ships taller than 65 metres crossing the Messina Strait in a north-south direction and vice versa.

Military mobility is the new hot topic in transport and logistics. In order to get you up to speed, this explainer answers some key questions on what it means for rail. It explores why rail is important for security, which challenges are ahead of Europe, which possible solutions there are and what it all means for the rail freight sector. Lastly, there is a short history about European rail military mobility.

1. Why is rail suddenly so important for Europe’s security?

The deteriorating security situation in Europe has put rail centre stage as a key component in defense. Russia’s occupation and annexation of Crimea in 2014 revived the need to boost military capabilities among allied NATO countries – including logistical capabilities. With the full-scale invasion of Ukraine that started in 2022, that need has grown drastically.

That is because logistics can help deter aggression and prevent conflict, not to mention its role in an active conflict. In an interview with RailFreight.com, former commander of US Army Europe Ben Hodges explained that rail is key in deterrence. In his words, it is all about showing the adversary that you can move more troops and equipment faster than they can. If an adversary then concludes that a military operation is too risky of an affair, there won’t be one.

This is where rail comes in. Trains are crucial in moving a lot of freight quickly and over long distances. It is uniquely suitable to transport heavy and dangerous military equipment, such as vehicles, artillery systems and air defense units. A single train can replace an entire road convoy.

Moreover, roads are often not suitable for the heavy weight of military vehicles: for example, a German Leopard 2 tank can weigh up to 70 tonnes, whereas most European roads can handle a maximum weight of 40 tonnes.

2. What are the challenges for rail military mobility in Europe?

Experts have identified challenges in many different areas. First and foremost are infrastructure limitations: weak bridges, tunnels that are too small for military equipment, different rail gauges between countries and similar obstacles.

Then there are rolling stock constraints. Europe has far too few wagons adapted to military needs, and civilian rail companies typically do not reserve wagons for defense purposes. Moreover, legal and procedural issues remain an obstacle. Countries authorise transport, in particular when it comes to dangerous goods, in different ways. That complicates the issuance of permits and can delay transport.

Lastly, there is the question of expertise. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has “forgotten” how to move troops and equipment on a large scale. Even moving a brigade (consisting of 3,000 to 5,000 troops) would prove to be a challenge, let alone a division (between 10,000 and 25,000). How does one even organise such movements across many countries?

3. Which steps can Europe take to boost its military capacity on rail?

There is an estimated 94% overlap between the civilian freight and military rail network. And fortunately, a lot of the measures that are good for civilian freight are also good for military mobility. In that sense, Europe can achieve a lot by simply continuing ongoing efforts to improve rail freight.

For example, implementation of the rail security and management system ERTMS could improve international compatibility and make cross-border traffic easier. And a robust infrastructure network with redundant capacity could ensure sufficient rail availability at all times. The (much-desired by the rail freight sector) 740-metre trains would boost transport capacity significantly for both military and civilian needs.

A notable mention is Rail Baltica. The Baltic states are perhaps Europe’s most vulnerable countries, connected to its allies only via the narrow Suwałki corridor. Only a railway, a highway and a provincial road connect Lithuania with Poland. That is not a lot, and when it comes to the railway, a gauge change is also needed. That demands very costly time.

Rail Baltica aims to resolve that problem by building a standard gauge railway all the way up to Tallinn, Estonia. However, the project is mired in financial problems, especially in Latvia. It remains unclear when Rail Baltica will reach completion. One thing is clear however: it is taking much too long.

When it comes to rolling stock, Europe simply needs more of it for military purposes. But Ben Hodges has also suggested a programme where rail operators would have to guarantee that they can show up with enough rolling stock to move two brigades on a 72-hour notice. In return, they can get preferential access to government contracts.

Moreover, Europe also needs a clear framework to coordinate defense movements, in order to make sure that the military can move quickly. Unfortunately, there is no clear picture on how agencies will work together for so-called Reception, Staging, and Onward Movement (RSOM, the various stages in moving troops and equipment around) and how movements would be prioritised according to operational needs.

NATO’s JSEC is supposed to help with that, but experts are unsure of the role it really plays in coordination. Either way, a functional governance structure is necessary, potentially with prioritised rail access for the military over civilian traffic.

This is not an exhaustive overview of all the ideas and suggestions that people have suggested, but it should give an idea of the sorts of things that experts are discussing.

4. What does all of this mean for the rail freight sector?

A focus on robust rail infrastructure and interoperability will make rail more competitive compared to other modes of transport – something that the sector keeps pushing for. In that sense, military mobility developments could be very promising for the civilian freight business.

Beyond that, it is likely that rail companies will be involved in military affairs more and more in the future. We are already seeing that happen: The German Bundeswehr has reached out to logistics companies, among which is DB Cargo, to see what they can contribute to the army’s logistics needs. The Polish operator PKP Cargo trained with the army to practice loading of military equipment, and Dutch infrastructure manager ProRail is researching what the military needs in terms of infrastructure.

5. How did we get where we are now with rail military mobility?

During the Cold War, NATO placed high priority on logistics in Europe. Once the Cold War was over, the alliance’s focus shifted from fighting a large war in Europe to expeditionary operations elsewhere. As a result, European logistics became less important. Rail infrastructure for defense needs and international coordination faded into the background.

Starting in the early 2000s, many Eastern European countries became NATO members. They brought with them different rail regulations and standards, and in the case of the Baltic states, a different rail gauge altogether. That complicates rail logistics if you need to move from west to east, but at the time, it was not yet a primary concern.

Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea changed the picture. NATO started thinking again about European logistics, and (some) money started to flow. The EU’s Connecting Europe Facility allocates financing to projects for military mobility, and the standard gauge Rail Baltica project was started. Within the framework of PESCO, European states also started coordinating military mobility regulations and policies.

“I started getting interested in military mobility back in around 2015 and 2016, when I was still the commander of US Army Europe and the US had just deployed small units up into Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland as part of NATO’s forward presence”, Hodges recalls.

“I noticed that we were having trouble getting repair parts up to one of the units. I then asked the commander: ‘What is the problem? Why are you not able to get parts?’ And he said: ‘Sir, we cannot move military equipment across national boundaries without all kinds of paperwork.’”

Speed is key

That was a major lesson to learn for Hodges. “I thought, you have got to be kidding me. These are NATO countries and EU countries and yet you need all kinds of permissions to cross borders. I’m not talking about tanks here, I’m talking about repair parts.”

The experience of getting those repair parts to the Baltic States reflects a major issue in European military transport via rail. The objective, says Hodges, is speed. “The key is that this is about deterrence: the Russians seeing that we can move faster than them.” Rail is important, because that is how you could move a lot of the heavy equipment very fast: tanks, howitzers, armoured fighting vehicles, and more.

Areas of improvement

What, then, should Europe focus on to achieve said speed on rail? Hodges identifies three key areas for improvement, namely diplomatic or legal obstacles, the state of infrastructure and capacity. “This is not about train speed, but rather about how fast you can act and move things from A to B.”

In order to cut some of the red tape, Hodges has proposed a military equivalent to Schengen. “In Europe, you can, let’s say, move apples via truck from Poland to Portugal without stopping once. However, a military convoy will get stopped over, and over, and over again at every border crossing.” That does not help in moving quickly and deterring a potential adversary. “Obviously we would have to be in compliance with all safety and hazardous material rules, that makes sense. But you have to be able to move quickly.”

Rail infrastructure

When it comes to infrastructure, things are, simply said, not adequate. “Particularly the further east you go”, Hodges says. For example, transporting a Patriot air defense launcher becomes very difficult if bridges and tunnels cannot accommodate it. Most rail tunnels in Europe would be able to let a Patriot launcher go through, but it only takes one to stop it in its tracks.

Similarly, the various rail gauges in Europe are a challenge to be overcome. For example, rail logistics in the Baltic states becomes more difficult as a result of their broad 1520-millimetre gauge infrastructure. Most of Europe, including Poland and Germany, operate on the standard 1435-millimetre gauge. When a train carrying military equipment reaches Lithuania, one first needs to transfer everything onto a different train before continuing onwards. That takes time, and reduces speed.

Capacity

Then, there is the question of capacity. Is there enough rail to move things? “For example, DB Cargo is one of the critical organisations that we depend on”, says Hodges. “But the capacity of DB Cargo is not even a quarter of what’s needed to move armour brigades simultaneously.”

During the Cold War era, armies were not entirely dependent on rail operators for their mobility needs. “There were military organisations that were part of the ministries of defense that were specifically for rail movement. You even had rail wagons. I don’t remember the numbers, but we weren’t totally dependent on the private sector. Then after the end of the Cold War we thought we would never need this again”, says Hodges.

The former commander refers to an arrangement in the United States that could also work as a solution for Europe. Washington has the so-called Civil Reserve Air Fleet, which allows air carriers to get priority business with the Department of Defense. In return, they guarantee that they can deliver air freight transport on very short notice during emergencies.

A similar programme could work across the Atlantic Ocean. “The German Bundeswehr could pay some amount of money to DB Cargo to guarantee that they can show up with enough rail to move two brigades on 72 hours notice, just hypothetically speaking”, says Hodges. “I have also advocated for nations to get credit for their two 2 per cent [NATO defense spending requirement] if they paid for rail capacity that was on standby for very short notice.”

The Ukrainian experience

When looking beyond the EU and NATO, the one European country that has been forced to use its rail network in a military crisis is, of course, Ukraine. Is there anything the EU can learn from its experience at war?

“I have been impressed with how Ukraine has managed to keep trains moving. Everybody I’ve ever talked to that went to Ukraine for a visit, you know, they get on the train in Poland somewhere and then they ride across to Kyiv, and it’s always on time”, says Hodges.

“So even though the Russians have been attacking infrastructure, the Ukrainians managed to keep things moving, so it’s something about their resilience that is impressive. But I would also say that having some redundancy, you know, the ability to reroute whenever there is damage to a railway, the Ukrainians seem to have mastered how to do that as well. Rapid repair, redundancy.”

The reconstruction work specifies that the line should be upgraded to make it possible for trains to get from Białystok to Ełk in 55 minutes, travelling at a speed of up to 200 km/h, with construction works planned from 2029.

“The reconstruction of the Białystok – Ełk line is an investment that the inhabitants of the region have been waiting for for years,” said Poland’s Minister of Infrastructure Dariusz Klimczak on announcing the bid from Białystok. “Shorter travel times, better travel comfort and greater safety are specific benefits that will change the daily lives of travellers,” he added.

Poland keeping it in the Western fold

Piotr Wyborski, President of the Management Board of PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe SA, added that the tender would also be exceptional for another reason: “For the first time, contractors based outside the EU, EEA and entities from countries that are not covered by the WTO government procurement agreement will be excluded from the procedure. This is our decision and reaction to the recently announced judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).”

The judgment that Wyborski is referring to comes from October 2024, when the EU court ruled that companies from countries that don’t have agreements with the EU to allow fair access to each other’s public contracts can’t use EU laws to demand equal treatment when bidding for projects in the bloc. That means countries that are eligible include all EU nations; non-EU EEA members such as Norway and Iceland; and WTO GPA countries like the US, UK, Japan, Canada, and Australia. Therefore, it’s partly an economic move.

A NATO side project

However, as the EU has been increasingly vocal about reducing reliance on external powers for critical infrastructure, particularly amid growing tensions with countries like Russia and China, there’s a strong geopolitical angle here. Indeed, the Rail Baltica project is not only a major civilian infrastructure development; it’s also expressly part of the EU’s strategy to boost its military mobility in Europe.

As the CEO of Lithuania’s LTG Group, Egidijus Lazauskas, said earlier this year: “Rail Baltica is fundamental for faster military mobility and for the overall security of the region. We estimate that the number of NATO military trains arriving in Lithuania has increased every year since 2019, with a 40 per cent increase in 2023. The need for the infrastructure is high and mutual.”

To give an idea of how non-Western companies are being increasingly kept out of the European rail loop, a Turkish association of companies that back in 2023 offered to build the Rail Baltica route were excluded from the procurement on the recommendation of Latvia’s State Security Service. This is despite Türkiye being a NATO-member state (it still has big military contracts with Russia) and the consortium offering a cheaper price than competitors.

What is Poland demanding from the tender?

As for the specifics of Poland’s new tender, the planned works include 100 km of railway line, with a total of 8 stations and 10 stops. A second track will be built along the entire length of the line to boost capacity, while PKP PLK specifies that the line will have to be decked out with European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) Level 2.

It adds that technical stations will need to be built in the region of Podlasie and the village of Lipińskie Małe. After the works are completed, the company says the supervision of the route to Ełk will be taken over by the Local Railway Traffic Control Centre in Białystok as part of the digital upgrade.

PKP PLK also states that the new platforms will need to be of the same standard as on the rebuilt Czyżew – Białystok line, another section of the Rail Baltica project. There will apparently be six stations and 10 stops for passengers along the track where the platforms will be adapted to the needs of people with limited mobility.

New stops, no level crossings

Two entirely new stops will be created along the line at Dziękonie, which will replace the Czechowizna stop, and Ciemnoszyje. Some of the stations will also move so that the railway is closer to residents – this will be the case at the Białystok Starosielce station and the Białystok Bacieczki, Fasty and Borsukówka stops.

The modernisation will also see the replacement of level crossings with safer, grade-separated junctions like tunnels and viaducts. This includes plans for 20 road viaducts, 12 railway viaducts, and 12 underpasses. These upgrades mean drivers won’t have to stop for passing trains, and trains will be able to travel at speeds of up to 200 km/h once the ETCS system is fully operational. Freight transport will also improve, with the upgraded line supporting freight trains travelling up to 120 km/h and reaching lengths of 750 metres.

EU funded, with more cash expected

The investment is part of several Rail Baltica projects, co-financed by the European Union’s Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). Specific projects include work on the Białystok–Knyszyn and Osowiec–Ełk sections, which have received EU funding, while the Knyszyn–Osowiec section is currently applying for additional EU support.

This article was orginially published on our sister publication RailTech.com

For example, much military equipment enters Scandinavia through Norway’s Narvik port, where the only rail connection leads to Sweden’s Malmbanan. From there, equipment can continue its trip to the south and east. This is exactly what happened during NATO’s Immediate Response exercise earlier in 2024.

“Good Nordic cooperation”

“The agreement is a direct result of Bane NOR’s role in total defense and the good Nordic cooperation on social security and transport preparedness. The agreement involves a significant improvement in capacity for military transport on the railway both in Norway and Sweden, between the countries, and to other countries in Europe”, Bane NOR’s CEO states.

As part of the military logistics streamlining effort, Sweden also intends to upgrade infrastructure along the Malmbanan. While reference is often made to the route’s importance for northern Sweden’s mines, its connection to Narvik makes it a crucial military logistics route as well. Swedish authorities have specifically pointed to the country’s NATO membership as a reason to upgrade the line.

Also for civilian use

When not in military use, the specification requirements in the deal make sure that the wagons can be employed for civilian use as well. Bane NOR can use purchased Norwegian wagons internally or rent them out for civilian freight transport that includes heavy loads. “This is important to keep the wagons in good condition and ready for use, and also increases capacity in civilian freight transport”, according to the Norwegian company.

At the same time, the transport administration tells RailFreight.com that they are not excluding any explanation for the derailment. “We are looking at every scenario and possible cause”, says a spokesperson.

A vital rail line

Earlier, two trains on the Iron Ore Line derailed in short succession in late 2023 and early 2024. The route was closed for traffic for approximately three months.

The two earlier derailments caused some suspicion to arise about possible sabotage by Sweden’s adversaries. Sweden never identified a definitive cause, however.

The Iron Ore Line is a vital piece of rail infrastructure. It provides transport avenues for some of Europe’s largest mines. It also is a key piece of military infrastructure, especially since Sweden’s accession to NATO. Sweden will be upgrading the line in the coming years to grow its capacity.

Also read:

• Despite sufficient capacity, Sweden and Denmark eye Öresund rail expansion
• How can Sweden enhance rail freight capacity along the Öresund axis?
• Sweden upgrades Iron Ore Line, possibly raises TACs for funding

Now, the Swedish government has instructed the country’s transport administration to prioritise and prepare upgrades on the Iron Ore Line. Recently, the line was out of operation for approximately 80 days after two derailments. The reopening of the line after the first derailment in December 2023 was followed by another derailment four days later.

Sounding the alarm

Consequently, 60 large businesses and decision-makers sounded the alarm and appealed to the government to take action on the Iron Ore Line. According to Swedish media, mining company LKAB loses about ten million euros a day when the line is not operational. Military experts also pointed to the strategic importance of the line.

The government has now commissioned the Swedish Traffic Administration to prioritise work on the line. According to a report by the administration, two railway yards will be extended along the line, as well as four rendezvous points. Between the mining towns of Svappavaara and Kiruna, the railway will be upgraded in order to facilitate trains with an axle load of 32,5 tonnes. Currently, the maximum axle load is 30 tonnes. This would mean that each train could carry an additional 680 tonnes of ore.

Likewise, Sweden plans to upgrade the rail between Kiruna and the Norwegian border to facilitate trains with a maximum axle load of 32,5 tonnes. Additional crossing points for reindeer and other wild animals will also be added to the line. Lastly, the upgrades include track, catenary and switchgear replacements.

Capacity

By 2030, the Traffic Administration expects that the daily number of trains running on the Iron Ore Line will increase by 8. On its most busy segments, 34 freight trains will pass on a daily basis, up to a total of 53 trains per day, including passenger trains.

Without any upgrades on the line, capacity usage may increase up to 92 per cent by 2030. The line between the towns of Boden and Luleå, an extension of the Iron Ore Line, would go over capacity. If the envisioned upgrades are carried out, the Iron Ore Line would be kept at a capacity of approximately 70 per cent, whereas the planned double track between Boden and Luleå would limit usage on that section to 40 per cent.

Also read:

• Nurminen Logistics opens rail link connecting Finland with port of Gothenburg
• How can Sweden enhance rail freight capacity along the Öresund axis?
• Kombiverkehr extends Swedish links with two new services

Despite accusing the government coalition in 2019 of making the mistake of joining the BRI, Tajani pointed out that Italy still wants to have a good relationship with China. A similar stance was taken by Meloni, who underlined that the two countries can have a solid relationship even if the BRI agreement is terminated. When asked if he expects China to retaliate once Italy decides to leave the initiative, Tajani answered with a quite vague “I don’t know”.

Also read:

• Italy: Government and industry might not be on the same page on BRI
• France says Italy should leave the BRI and favour more democratic alliances
• No BRI, no problem: Italy just got a new connection to China