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 Febetra view, in defense of “Weights and Dimensions”

“These days, rail operators are seizing on the revision of the European Weights and Dimensions directive to seek confrontation and demonise road transport. They are fiercely opposed to proposals that would make road transport more efficient and environmentally friendly, such as allowing 44-tonne lorries to cross the border between two neighbouring Member States, such as Belgium and France, for example, which each allow 44-tonne lorries for national transport on their territory.

The current ban on crossing the border with 44-tonne lorries in such cases is completely absurd. It prevents road hauliers from further reducing their ecological footprint. Cross-border transport with 44 tonnes instead of 40 tonnes would also mean fewer lorries and therefore have a positive impact not only on the environment but also on mobility.

It is absolutely unclear to Febetra why Longer Heavier Vehicles, (LHVs) are portrayed as the devil incarnate in railway circles without any form of process. With a length of 25.25 metres, an LHV remains a dwarf compared to a freight train of 650 or even 740 metres. It is as if an elephant were terrified of being eaten by a tiny mouse.

Let’s be serious. Anyone who sees LHVs as a competitor to rail, which will bring about a reverse modal shift, is either malicious or hallucinating. In road transport circles, the war rhetoric used by the railways is perceived as if the railways cannot stomach the fact that road transport wants to achieve further efficiency gains.”

The road is #1

“Two LHVs transport as much as three conventional combinations. This means that one third fewer vehicles are needed to transport the same amount of goods. Contrary to what is claimed in railway circles, the EMS (European Modular System) does indeed reduce the number of vehicles on the roads and CO2 emissions. With a length of 25.25 metres, they are really no competition for 650-metre freight trains.

Road transport is the absolute number one traditional mode of transport in all European Member States. With a market share of around 75%, road transport leaves other modes, such as rail and inland waterway transport, far behind. Road transport owes its success to intrinsic qualities that other modes have much less of. Just think of its flexibility and the ability of lorries to reach almost any point on the map.

Let us also remain realistic. There are very few supermarkets that can be supplied by any means other than road transport. For parcel services, for example, only delivery vans and cargo bikes are currently suitable. And until further notice, the first and last mile will remain the exclusive domain of lorries, delivery vans and cargo bikes.

The volume of goods to be transported is so large that every mode of transport can more than hold its own. Incidentally, road transport cannot transport everything and does not want to transport everything. Road hauliers are by no means fundamentalists of the road. The days when road hauliers regarded rail and inland waterways as the enemy are long gone.

The more freight the other modes carry, the more space there is on the roads for freight flows that are not suitable for transport by rail or inland waterways. Rail and inland waterways, for example, are ideally suited to transporting bulk goods. That is their core business. It is only natural that they focus on that. Road transport has no problem with that whatsoever.”

The RailGood view, critical of “Weights and Dimensions”

“A new directive for longer and heavier lorries is putting additional pressure on intermodal rail transport”, argues Hans-Willem Vroon of RailGood. “Parts of the LHVs cannot technically be loaded onto existing wagons. Terminals are facing logistical challenges. Road transport with LHVs is also becoming more competitive in Europe. There is a real chance that rail volume will be lost to road transport. If lorries or parts of them can no longer be transported by train, a crucial link in the chain will be lost.

Meanwhile, rail continues to struggle with high costs for using the rail infrastructure, serious infrastructural limitations, high administrative burdens and extremely expensive tech push with insufficient added value. The rail infrastructure is too often unreliable and unavailable, while road transport can count on perfect interoperability. Road transport in Europe is dirt cheap, often with poor working conditions and a significantly lower level of safety.

Competitive rail freight transport is not coming to fruition because it is not being facilitated by the EU Member States, despite the EU’s fine strategic plans. State aid to certain national railway companies distorts competition on the railways and is poison for entrepreneurship. Remnants of the Staatsbahn culture inhibit entrepreneurship.”

‘Make intermodal rail competitive’

“Entrepreneurial organisations representing commercial (intermodal) rail freight operators, such as RailGood, have been calling on the national governments of EU Member States and the EU for years to take swift and decisive action to eliminate structural bottlenecks:

• A lack of interoperable and competitive diversion capacity during track works
• Too often unreliable rail infrastructure
• A dire lack of 740-metre train length routes
• An unfair playing field with infrastructure charges for running trains and shunting
• The expensive and fragmented ERTMS roll-out
• The imposition of other unprofitable tech push (DAC)
• Overregulation
• A severely watered-down compromise on the Railway Capacity Regulation

These issues are being discussed are policy documents are being written for years on end, sometimes even decades. ‘Mañana, mañana’ is too fast.

Frustrating road transport is pointless. What does work is making (intermodal) rail freight transport structurally competitive. Europe urgently needs a reset in its mobility strategy and, not least, in its implementation. What will rail freight transport actually get in return for the new EU Directive on Weights and Dimensions?

All modes of transport are necessary to keep the European economy running efficiently. The European road network is reaching its capacity limits. (Intermodal) rail freight transport is desperately needed to make transport more sustainable, but it must be competitive. Road transport and rail are competitors on the one hand, but at the same time they also need each other very much. It does not help to strengthen the competitive position of road transport without facilitating competitive intermodal rail freight transport. This would destroy something valuable.”

“Kijfhoek plays a crucial role in the distribution of goods from the ports to industrial zones in the Netherlands and Europe”, Aartsen stated. “With this impulse, we’re making rail freight safer, more efficient and more attractive for companies.”

The 30 million euros are drawn from a 79 million euro fund to improve freight transportation in the Netherlands by inducing a modal shift from the road to inland waterways and the railways. In other words, the ministry has decided to use nearly 40% of those funds to help SWL.

Taking traction away from DB Cargo

In the Dutch policy plan “Vision of the Future for Rail Freight 2050”, the government also highlights that the current format of the gravity shunting yard, in which DB Cargo provides locomotive traction, no longer matches the size and projected size of SWL traffic. It wants to change the operating model with a neutral service offering at the site. That means that infrastructure manager ProRail will take over DB Cargo’s shunting locomotives and that the service offering will periodically be put to the market. That should also improve the accessibility of shunting at Kijfhoek for other companies that offer SWL services.

The investment in SWL could be seen as a remarkable decision. Whereas European leaders in SWL traffic Germany and Switzerland seem to be killing it off, the Netherlands is going the other way by giving it a helping hand. The Dutch rail freight association RailGood has responded negatively to the 30 million euro investment, and points to the situation in Germany.

The investment hurts intermodal and block trains

“A waste of Dutch tax payer money”, director Hans-Willem Vroon says on LinkedIn. “Wrong political choice. […] First, the German government injects billions of euros into its own loss-making state company for many years. Then, the European Commission puts an end to it towards 2029, which has hindered a healthy functioning of the market on the railways for years.”

The bottom line, according to RailGood, is that only a few large industries with foreign shareholders will be able to enjoy subsidised transport for a couple of years more. “The continuation of single wagonload transport with state support is unhealthy, not goal-oriented and keeps volumes away from transporters of intermodal and block trains.”

The primary issue with constantly changing TSIs is that it brings a seemingly endless list of imposed expenses to rail companies. “We must be realistic about the fact that there are financial restrictions and organisations have limited capacity to tackle every digitalisation ambition of the European Commission, even with European funding”, notes Miguel Rebelo de Sousa, executive director of the Portuguese rail association APEF.

Financial risk of changing TSIs

Oliver Smock, policy advisor at the German rail freight association Die Güterbahnen, concurs with that idea. “Frequent TSI updates […] heighten financial risks”, he says.

“Vehicles recently equipped with costly new technologies may need to be retrofitted again within just a few years. The combined cost of equipment, engineering, technicians, vehicle downtimes, and authorisation processes is substantial. This financial uncertainty discourages investment in railway undertakings and undermines the intermodal competitiveness of rail freight”, Smock explains.

The often-changing TSIs provide an even bigger obstacle for those operating internationally: not each country implements newly mandated trackside systems at the same time, meaning that international interoperability suffers, and costs increase.

Cost control

Those costs are a major headache for rail companies, so Gherghinescu’s words seem to have made the European rail freight sector very happy. “Finally someone who understands”, says Dutch rail freight association director Hans-Willem Vroon. “Cost control is an absolute necessity. No one benefits from unaffordable innovation, except those who profit from it and have turned it into a hobby that is paid for by taxpayers. The focus must be on realising customer value and facilitating competitive transport.”

Vroon’s Romanian counterpart from association OPSFPR, Simona Istrate, concurs and highlights the difficulty for countries with outdated infrastructure and limited budgets. “Regulatory stability helps with planning and investment, while frequent revisions can block or delay projects”, she says.

An obstacle to innovation

At the same time, won’t a TSI freeze hinder innovation? After all, if old technologies are mandated, there is no room for technological advancements. Respondents do not have any major concerns about this.

“Technological development often outpaces what is feasible in the railway sector, where retrofitting vehicles and infrastructure is a long and complex process”, explains Oliver Smock. For instance, First-of-Class development often takes multiple years before full fleet retrofitting can even begin. Longer freeze cycles would allow time for new technologies to be thoroughly tested and would help prevent shortages by giving manufacturers enough time to scale up production efficiently”, he adds.

However, the success of frozen TSIs may not be as easily achieved as it seems. One respondent, who wishes to remain anonymous, points out that there are some conditions that TSI freezes need to meet: they have to be tailored to the TSI in question, and be consensual.

Different TSIs, different freezing periods

“Some technical TSIs, for example, WAG [rolling stock and freight wagons] TSI, would benefit from a longer validity without changes, 5 years could probably be optimal”, the respondent explains. “But, freezing is possible only after an absolute consensus of all parties interested, the stakeholders. This would also present some certainty for the producers, manufacturers of the vehicles.”

A five-year freeze may not always be the right approach. “However, other TSIs, such as the Telematics TSI, should stay as it is, that is 3 years, in particular because the progress in the IT area is very fast and a longer period might hinder the introduction of innovations.”, the respondent adds.

Despite these side notes, the message remains clear: European rail freight is overwhelmingly positive about Gherghinescu’s aim to reduce costs for the industry. What’s more, innovation outpaces the speed of implementation, so market parties consider it better to pause mandated tech changes for multiple years.

That, however, may require a mindset change in Brussels: “Some of our members have expressed concerns that these [TSI] revisions are becoming an end in themselves”, comments Oliver Smock. What the EU needs could be a better eye for stakeholders’ concerns.

Based on the above data, nearly half of all freight trains in the Netherlands (those in the 601 to 1,600 bracket in 2025) would see their TACs grow by around 44%. Heavier freight trains, between 1,601 and 3,200 tonnes in 2025, would be subject to a 19% increase. Those are big jumps. However, the bad news does not end there: Traction prices for electricity will also increase by around 41%.

There is, despite the bad news, also an upside to the story: parking and shunting fees will shrink by 13% to 43%, rail freight association RailGood points out on LinkedIn.

But alas, there is a setback for rail freight here too. Intermodal operators will have to start paying almost three times as much in annual rent for long non-electrified sidings, where they set up their spare sets of wagons. “Spare sets are needed to cope with the dynamics of the transport chain and provide customers with a still somewhat acceptable delivery time and reliability”, RailGood elaborates. “That is necessary because of the many works and infrastructure disruptions on the railways.” And what’s more, the Dutch infrastructure ministry will also stop its subsidies on these infrastructure fees from 2026 onwards.

There might be a good reason for these growing charges. After all, infrastructure managers need money to maintain and improve the rail network. However, RailGood does not see any qualitative improvement, which is reasonably to be expected. Besides the growing TACs, the association also condemns the still exorbitantly high parking and shunting fees, which are not nearly seen at similar levels in Germany and Belgium, even with the planned fee reductions.

Crucially, there is a real risk that poor performance and high prices will lead rail freight to lose out to other modes of transportation: the notorious reverse modal shift. Despite that, there does not seem to be much interest on the side of the Dutch authorities, be it parliament or the ministry, to really invest in rail freight.

That is incomprehensible to RailGood: “Government parties feel there is no budget to reduce infrastructure charges for rail freight. There is money for everything, including at the Ministry of Infrastructure, but not for this.” Notably, the ministry decided to invest one billion euros in a highway from the Port of Rotterdam to Germany.

The Romanian experience

It is clear that the rail freight sector suffers from the soaring infrastructure charges. However, in the long run, it may very well have negative repercussions for the infrastructure manager itself as well. For example, Romania’s infrastructure CFR hiked infrastructure charges at a somewhat similar pace during the past couple of years.

TACs grew by 8% in 2023 and another 15% in 2024. Other service fees, such as shunting and parking, rose by up to 65% on 1 April 2025. In other words, the average rail operator could be paying 33,000 euros per month in fees in 2025, as opposed to 20,000 euros in 2024.

OPSFPR, the private rail freight association in Romania, concluded that the charge increases backfired on CFR. The infrastructure manager saw its March 2025 TAC revenues drop by more than 1,3 million euros compared to March 2023. The conclusion was that there is no long-term gain from these hikes, even if short-term revenue grows.

Generalsanierung is just the tip of the iceberg

According to them, the Generalsanierung programme is “just the tip of the iceberg”. One of the points they raised is that prolonged closures entailed in the plan cannot be standard practices. This is especially true when finding alternative routes becomes highly complicated. For example, during the closure of Rhine Valley railway in August 2024, a consortium of industry players created an alternative route through the Offenburg-Wörth line.

However, this route runs through France, which means it was necessary to always deploy two drivers, one speaking French and one speaking German. Moreover, it was necessary to utilise diesel locomotives, as many sections of the alternative route are not electrified. This resulted in a slower, more expensive and less climate-friendly transport option, which is not what the rail freight industry should be aiming for.

An unsolvable problem?

The German rail infrastructure is in dire need of being massively renovated. The Generalsanierung programme was conceived to try and improve the situation in the quickest manner. However, this translates into many main lines being closed at different times up until 2030 at the very least. Germany is not the only country in Europe facing similar problems. In Italy, for example, the industry has been dealing with capacity restrictions connected to infrastructure upgrades for the past couple of years. In this case, however, things should start to improve by 2027.

There is therefore, for good reason perhaps, skepticism that favourable policy proposals will see the light of the day in the ministry’s future scenario. The debate also did not change much in that regard for private rail freight association RailGood. “Politicians do not understand the issues and their urgency”, concludes RailGood frontman Hans-Willem Vroon.

Debate misses the point

Parliamentarians spent about three quarters of the three-hour long debate on discussions about dangerous goods transport on the mainline network, especially in view of the concerns of people living alongside the tracks. “The much-needed facilitation of competitive rail freight transport was, unfortunately, not really the main topic of the rail freight debate”, Vroon comments. Vroon singles out Marieke Koekkoek, representative of the party Volt, for her thorough understanding of the problems we face. The rest was not really on top of it.

“The mainline network for dangerous goods transport is not even among the top five concerns of the rail freight industry. Less than ten per cent of rail freight volume concerns high-consequence dangerous goods. And rail has a share of less than one per cent in the modal split in this in the Netherlands. Rather, the debate should have been about the ongoing recession in the sector. We have had shrinking business for three years in a row now”, says Vroon.

What does Dutch rail freight need?

In an ideal world, the state secretary would come up with solutions for a level playing field, the RailGood representative argues. That includes a reform of the sky-high parking fees for trains in the Netherlands, which Vroon says should go back to 2022 levels, albeit with a correction for inflation.

At the same time, there needs to be a new approach to track access charges. Those are set to increase significantly next year. “But that should also be accompanied by better quality and reliability of infrastructure. If infrastructure manager ProRail does not deliver, rail companies should receive compensation”, Vroon argues.

Lastly, there are the issues of 740-metre trains and the rail traffic management system ERTMS. The freight industry is primarily hoping that driving longer trains will become possible. “Where will the state secretary get the budget of a few hundred million euros for this?”, asks Vroon. The currently allocated budget is nowhere near sufficient. “With ten to twenty per cent of the budget for the current Dutch ERTMS program, all main routes can be made suitable for 740 metres of train length in the coming five to ten years, preferably in good synchronisation with Germany.”

ERTMS, a costly affair

When it comes to said ERTMS, the finances do not look much better. The Dutch government wants to equip a third of the mainline network exclusively with ERTMS level 2 baseline 3. That requires mass retrofitting, upgrading and earlier replacement of locomotives: a big expense at the cost of rail freight operators that will have to pay for it in the absence of subsidies.

Now, it turns out that only a third of the third (in other words, a ninth) will cost 4,2 billion euros. But even that number is already outdated, since Jansen informed the parliament about a 161 million euro increase in expected costs.

Consequently, RailGood maintains that there is absolutely no lack of ministerial budget for rail freight. It just has to be spent more effectively: “Certainly now that everyone realises that baseline 3 is not future-proof with the introduction of the communication system FRMCS in the 2030s”, says Vroon. “That was known since 2019 already, for which reason Switzerland chose not to invest in baseline 3.”

The policy statement (“Toekomstbeeld Spoorgoederenvervoer”) caused disappointment more than anything. “In conclusion: a lot of words, not specific, ‘lots of old wine in new bags’, no innovative policy, no decisive action to improve the competitiveness of (intermodal) rail freight”, that is how Dutch rail freight association RailGood characterised the ministry’s plan at the time. The government lacks a vision for rail freight.

A parliamentary debate on rail (including freight) was supposed to take place on 15 January. However, the freight debate was postponed to 3 April in favour of a lengthier debate on passenger rail security and migrants on trains. That could perhaps be taken as illustrative for the (lack of) political priority for rail freight.

Sounding the alarm

The debate is now set to take place after all. Ahead of the debate, the Logistics Alliance (Logistieke Alliantie) is sounding the alarm. The organisation, which includes major players such as the ports of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and infrastructure manager ProRail, earlier concurred with RailGood that the policy statement was a missed opportunity.

Even though the government is working on rail freight policy, the Logistics Alliance says that the matter is urgent. “The state of our infrastructure is deteriorating rapidly and we have all seen the emergency measures in Germany that it is now leading to”, says Elisabeth Post, president of the Alliance. Germany is undergoing a major years-long overhaul of its rail network which is a major obstacle for trains around the country.

“Governing means looking ahead and that is precisely what the Netherlands has always been very good at in the past. That is now also necessary for freight transport, because it is under pressure in all ways”, Post adds.

Logistics Alliance requests

In terms of looking ahead, what is it that requires political attention, according to the Alliance? Its concerns sound familiar to those voiced in Germany: First, Dutch politics should develop a policy agenda with a guarantee of structural financing. Secondly, the Logistics Alliance calls for prioritised restoration and maintenance of infrastructure. Budgets are currently insufficient, and infrastructure is deteriorating fast, it says.

Lastly, the organisation makes an appeal for electrification and capacity expansion on the Dutch railways, subsidies for the replacement of diesel locomotives and fewer barriers for hybrid locomotives. With the Dutch power network already working at maximum capacity, there also needs to be a plan to expand it by 2030.

Earlier in the year, the Logistics Alliance called for enabling 740-metre trains, a further implementation of ERTMS and improving infrastructure along the so-called Betuwe Line. It also wants a policy plan to develop multimodality and harmonised legislation for dangerous goods at a European level.

“Freight transport is the lifeline of our economy and society. Without decisive intervention, disruptions, further economic damage and loss of competitiveness are imminent”,the Logistics Alliance president concludes. “Tanks will also not be able to use our railways and roads when the need arises. We ask politicians to pay structural attention to and invest in infrastructure, reliability and sustainability. This is the only way to keep the Netherlands running and build a new and sustainable mobility system.”

An association of 16 parties that make an effort to improve logistics and trade in the Netherlands, including Schiphol Airport and the ports of Rotterdam and Amsterdam, as well as infrastructure manager ProRail, see it no different. The so-called Logistieke Alliantie commented: “The recent letter from the government about the future of rail is a missed opportunity, given the great need in rail freight transport.”

Abandonment of any ambition

“A clear vision and an associated financial investment agenda are urgently needed to stop the ongoing decline in freight transport and to make rail more attractive to carriers”, the alliance adds. In 2023, the sector record a 12 per cent loss when compared to 2022’s freight volumes, a trend that continued in 2024. A clear government policy and money are “necessary for both the environment and the economy”, according to the association.

In the policy plan, the infrastructure ministry announced its intention to follow the “steady development” scenario – which in practice means the abandonment of any ambition, writes publication SpoorPro. Earlier growth targets, as well as the ambitions as laid out in European policy (including the Green Deal), are completely out of sight. The Logistieke Alliantie is disappointed that the ministry has not come up with anything better, despite all the efforts from the rail sector.

Policy proposals

The association calls for 740-metre trains, further implementation of ERTMS and improving infrastructure along the so-called Betuwe Line. It wants a policy plan to develop multimodality and harmonised legislation for dangerous goods at a European level. The Dutch parliament is planning to have a debate on rail freight policy on Wednesday 15 January.

It was therefore not a good start to the 80-week period, says Hans-Willem Vroon, director of rail freight branch organisation RailGood. “And then there was also a little incident in Germany”, he says. “There was also no train traffic possible between Venlo and Viersen for almost 24 hours, due to security problems at the Kaldenkirchen traffic control post. Mechanics got to work on it, worked until a quarter to one at night, but were unable to solve the problem and simply went home. It was not until 8 o’clock the next morning that a new team arrived to look into the problem. In the meantime, trains were buffered or held at their departure station. Terrible!”

And so it goes on with the messages from rail freight carriers on social media. “That will be another 77 ‘fun’ weeks… Not a single train ran normally this week, if not the track in Germany, then in the Netherlands the tracks are causing problems”, says an experienced, qualified operations professional of a commercial company in rail freight transport.

‘Keine Fahrdienstleitern’

And there were more bizarre things. “For the first 2 of the 80 weeks, a large part of the right Rhein Strecke was out of action due to… and read along with us… no Fahrdienstleitern (train traffic controllers)”, another carrier reports. “This also caused trains to get stuck, which in turn caused new problems with our drivers, because they are bound by driving times, which are stricter for cross-border trains than national ones. For example, they are allowed to work a maximum of 80 hours in 14 days.”

Hans-Willem Vroon experiences it, reads all sorts of things about it and has all the misery dumped on him in all sorts of ways. Still, he says: “Deep respect for all operational professionals in rail freight transport to keep working hard with all these problems coming their way. And also for the ProRail people who are texting me and are, to put it mildly, getting a stomach ache from it: thank you and keep working on your end to clean up this logistical mess. Let’s all address those responsible and take appropriate improvement actions to prevent all these problems.”

‘Put an end to this as soon as possible’

The criticism is aimed particularly at German infrastructure manager DB InfraGO. “How on earth is it possible that during an 80-week diversion due to the closure and enormous reductions in rail capacity, the rail managers are delivering such poor performance towards their customers? Despite years of preparation. Rail freight transport between Europe’s largest port (Rotterdam) and Europe’s largest economy (Germany) and also the logistical artery in the Rhine-Alpine and North Sea – Black Sea corridors cannot serve its customers properly in this way and is therefore suffering commercial and financial damage.”

Vroon asks for “those responsible to put an end to this poor performance as soon as possible,” or to draw their conclusions and “let others do this.”

This article was originally published on our sister publication SpoorPro.nl.