In the short term, says North Sea Port, the partners intend to focus on using the existing rail infrastructure as efficiently as possible. “The use of sensor data provides a better and up-to-date insight into track occupancy and usage.”

“In addition, we are jointly exploring new concepts to further stimulate cooperation and opportunities for consolidation between shippers and carriers, even in a challenging market environment.” Improving the safety at level crossings will be another priority in the coming period, North Sea Port adds.

740-metre trains

In the long term, North Sea Port and ProRail will work on “structural solutions to infrastructure issues”. These include a cross-border Ghent–Terneuzen rail project and an expansion of storage and shunting tracks in the Sloehaven in Vlissingen.

North Sea Port aims for a modal shift to rail. By 2030, it wants rail freight to take a 15% modal share, up from the current 10%. Some steps have been taken towards that end: The rail network in the Terneuzen area is now capable of handling freight trains of up to 740 metres in length. In particular, the Sas van Gent, the Terneuzen-Zuid and Axel Aansluiting marshalling yards have tracks available for 740-metre long trains.

Instead of costly upgrades, the focus should be on modernising rolling stock fleets and fixing critical issues like level crossings and outdated tracks, argued Ganaylyuk.

This position could count on both disapproval and support. For example, Fiorenzo Ambrogio, who works for Europe’s first intermodal company (1969, according to Ambrogio himself), did not at all agree with Ganaylyuk’s point of view.

Costs change the picture

Ambrogio points to the broader impact of shorter trains on traffic and efficiency, a key point in Ganayluk’s article: Splitting a long train – such as an 800-metre train – into two shorter trains does not actually reduce overall waiting times at level crossings; in fact, it doubles the number of trains passing through the crossing. This results in more frequent closures, ultimately increasing total waiting time for road users, Ambrogio said. By contrast, Ganaylyuk argued that longer trains would achieve that effect by keeping level crossings closed for longer.

The second point of Ambrogio relates to costs. Operating two trains instead of one requires double the locomotives, double the personnel, and significantly higher operational costs, making the approach inefficient and economically unsound, he says.

What do customers want?

A more supportive response came in from Phil Mortimer, Director of TruckTrain Developments Ltd., a UK innovation company in the rail and intermodal freight market.

“This is all playing to the supply side economics of the rail sector but increasingly this [740-metre trains] separates rail from the market, which is not wanting infrequent massive trains but rather routine replenishment in smaller quantities”, Mortimer commented. “This is the fundamental flaw in the case for heavier trains particularly for the intermodal and logistics sectors which are driven by very different imperatives.”

Mortimer added to Ganaylyuk’s argument, saying that rail needs a more agile train model facilitating smaller and intermediate volumes and distances. Additionally, Mortimer believes that rail freight should operate at passenger train speeds to minimise the impact on fellow rail network users.

“A considerable body of technical, commercial and economic evaluation of short, fast, fixed formation (5-7 wagons) self-propelled bi-directional trains has been undertaken here to make rail a more attractive option for shippers. It looks to be feasible and a credible alternative to ‘more of the same’ using existing technology and operating models”, Mortimer told Ganaylyuk.

Passenger and freight at the same speed

That last comment – addressing train speeds – latches on to a central point of Ganaylyuk’s argument: he believes that longer trains reduce throughput. That has everything to do with lower speeds and the velocity mismatch with passenger trains, but also with longer loading and unloading times. Aligning train speeds could improve capacity and improve efficiency on the rail network by eliminating ‘hiccups’ – possibly a better alternative to longer trains.

In terms of engineering, Europe is stuck in the old days

A response by the retired American economist and railway teacher Jim Blaze focused on different points altogether: “It’s a lot more than just about train linear length between the locomotives and the last trailing [wagon]. Track infrastructure has geographic limits as to passing use of train paths – and more than length is important”, Blaze commented.

In terms of engineering, Europe is stuck in the old days, according to Blaze. Europe’s maximum axle loads have not improved since WW2, he says. The continent also lacks double-stack operations.

“To beat trucks, maritime and even pipeline competition rail freight needs more than longer trains”, Blaze claims.

Some reflections on the matter

These three highlighted reactions are just some of many. They reveal a – in the eyes of the current author – surprising diversity in perspectives on the need for 740-metre trains. The mainstream view is that 740-metre trains are a necessity and Europe needs to enable them as soon as possible.

Yet, not everyone holds this to be an undisputed truth. This also applies to ETCS, which may bring serious inefficiencies along with its implementation.

Fortunately for those who adhere to the mainstream perspective, 740-metre trains are central to European rail policy. They are part of EU guidelines on implementing the TEN-T network, for example.

There is no reason to think that the EU will change its mind on train length ambitions. However, the email exchanges following the publication of Ganaylyuk’s piece, as well as the responses on social media, have proven to be fruitful. They reflect the industry’s diverse views, helping to establish a conscious weighing of pros and cons.

Drawbacks of 740-metre trains include, for example, a mismatch between the service offering (longer trains) and supposed customer demands (more frequent trains). On the other hand, longer trains could help rail freight operators substantially by reducing the costs associated with train movements.

Perhaps longer trains won’t create customer value by increasing the frequency of services. They could instead provide an impetus by lowering the cost of transportation – a different avenue of progress. But again, it is worth being mindful of the downsides. They could give a hint as to where the future rail freight industry may find its customers, and where it will cede its modal share to the road and rivers.

Increasing efficiency is a reasonable goal that meets the public interest, since it is aimed in particular at reducing the cost of freight transportation services. Why are these requirements – increasing the permissible mass and dimensions of a car trailer and increasing the length and mass of a train – questionable from the point of view of public interests and the interests of the carriers themselves?

When it comes to automobiles, the disadvantages are numerous. In short, it causes discomfort for other road users, provides only dubious benefits for the car carrier and solves problems that are temporary. Moreover, there are other simpler and cheaper ways to increase efficiency.

What then, about the much-desired longer trains in Europe? The motives of railway carriers are identical to those of the road sector – increasing the volume and mass of cargo transported by one locomotive and one locomotive crew in one allocated window in the traffic schedule.

Longer trains equal a sharp throughput reduction

Why is this approach, like the road sector’s approach, also wrong? Why does it not meet the interests of society and the interests of market participants – manufacturers and operators of rolling stock?

First of all, freight trains in general (and of those increased length especially) interfere with the movement of other trains. They not only increase the load on the infrastructure but (and this is the main thing) sharply reduce throughput.

The interval between trains is formed by several components. These include: the time of exit from the station to the main track, the train separation distance to ensure safety, and passing intermediate “bottlenecks”. Those are sections with reduced speed associated with both switches and simply with relief or temporary restrictions due to poor quality.

Freight trains usually move through these sections at speeds up to 40 kilometres per hour. Passenger trains, which are much shorter – typically ranging from 60 to 300 metres and only rarely reaching 400 metres – benefit from greater acceleration, allowing them to pass through these areas significantly faster. By contrast, freight trains, often as long as 600 metres and with much slower acceleration, can take up to a full minute to clear a single bottleneck.

An increase of 20% in length increases the time to pass these places by a corresponding fraction. In fact, it can grow by 40-50% because the rear part of the train passes at a speed lower than 40 kilometres per hour.

Also when they’re not moving, longer trains present their drawbacks. The longer the train, the longer it has to prepare for departure. It has to wait for all containers to arrive, for example, and load them for longer. The same applies to unloading. When counting the time spent waiting for a train to form as part of the total delivery time, then longer trains lose out.

Social and economic impact

On a practical level, longer freight trains not only take more time to clear infrastructure bottlenecks, but also create additional social inconvenience. When passing passenger platforms, long trains extend the duration of discomfort for passengers. At level crossings, longer trains increase closure times and, consequently, disruption for other road users. And for the economy, longer trains block the movement of cars or passengers at level crossings for a longer time.

Therefore, longer time intervals are required to let longer trains pass, which creates obstacles in the operational coordination of schedules. Accordingly, it leads to an increase in time spent on the route due to unproductive downtime. In addition, the carrier must use a more powerful and, accordingly, more expensive locomotive.

For longer trains, it is necessary to rebuild the station tracks – which costs society money and is sometimes technically impossible because the infrastructure was created a long time ago and, as a rule, there is no reserve of land plots. Moreover, the reconstruction of the electrification network may be required to pass locomotives of greater power.

Public money for a suboptimal solution?

This requires public investments. However, before these investments are made, it is necessary to assess how justified these investments are. Is it possible to achieve an increase in transport efficiency not by satisfying these requirements, but by other solutions instead?

Indeed, a superficial analysis shows that the lobbyists of such a solution – intermodal carriers – use extremely inefficient rolling stock. It is reasonable to expect that they invest in more efficient fleets.

It was disappointing to read that these intermodal companies insist on increasing the length of the trains for military mobility as well. Without mentioning details in open sources, this is definitely the wrong goal – a long train is a tempting target and the elimination of the consequences is not proportionately complicated. The same holds true for civilian freight trains.

The goal of allowing trains over 740 metres long as the TEN-T standard should be “not a priority”. It can be solved in stages after resolving more pressing goals – eliminating level crossings and reducing the share of single-track and non-electrified lines. These are much more important for the development of intermodal transportation.

Do you want to share your view? You can reach out to the RailFreight.com editorial team, or to Borys Ganaylyuk via the button below. You can also leave a comment.

That does not mean that parliament wants 740-metre trains to become possible all across the country – it only singles out the Brabant, Betuwe and Bentheim routes. Those are crucial for freight traffic, especially from the Port of Rotterdam towards Germany. Fortunately, the Netherlands has already allocated money for those upgrades, but real work is lagging. In addition, the Dutch parliament calls upon the government to agree with Germany on cross-border coordination, especially in the direction of Poland and Czechia.

TACs and other fees

Besides 740-metre trains, there was a proposal on the table to return track access charges (TACs), as well as parking and shunting fees, to 2022 levels. “Rail freight has been shrinking for three years and its competitiveness is under pressure”, the parliamentary motion says. TACs have grown significantly since 2022 and will be much higher than in other countries until at least 2029.

Moreover, parking and shunting fees have multiplied six-fold since 2023. That is a major burden for the rail freight industry in the country financially, but also hinders a modal shift, because the road sector does not pay similar fees.

The TAC and fees proposal could not count on significant support in parliament. It fell short of a majority, getting only 45 votes out of the needed 76.

Even though European-level policy has set a goal of a fifty per cent market share growth for rail freight by 2030 and a doubling by 2050, the committee emphasises that Dutch rail freight still plays a “relatively modest role” in freight transportation. With the widely expected growth of freight volumes in the coming years, the advisory body makes an appeal to the government with various policy suggestions to increase the share of rail in freight transportation.

“Level playing field”

The committee points out that rail freight is not competitive in the Netherlands. In order to attract more customers, the Netherlands ought to create a “level playing field” and the incoming government should create the preconditions to make that possible, write the rail advocates.

In particular, the government should work on overdue maintenance and modernisation of rail infrastructure. Moreover, track access, shunting and parking charges should be adjusted to match the charges in neighbouring countries and the costs incurred by other transport modalities. The committee also calls for infrastructure upgrades to facilitate 740-metre trains and support for the implementation of ERTMS. The latter has been a chaotic process, threatening to burden the sector with hundreds of millions of euros in additional costs.

Environment and sustainability

In order to reach zero emissions for the Dutch rail freight sector, the government should electrify the remaining parts of the rail network, the committee writes in the letter. On these sections, ERTMS should also be installed in favour of the obsolete ATBNG system. The new government can further contribute to decarbonisation by increasing the capacity of port shunting stations, subsidising old diesel locomotives and reducing the barriers for the introduction of hybrid locomotives. Lastly, the committee calls upon the ministry to develop a “coherent vision” on spatial planning, especially in light of noise pollution and transportation of dangerous goods.

Also read:

• Mixed passenger and freight trains could soon be seen in the Netherlands
• Dutch rail freight volumes fell by 10% in 2023
• Words versus reality: “The Dutch Second Chamber is being misled,” says head of rail organisation

Helping modal shift

The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management has made 7,260,000 euros available because the use of longer freight trains will make rail transport cheaper in the long run and thus contribute to the ‘modal shift’ from road to rail in the corridor. The investment will be spread over the next three to four years.

Gotthard and Ceneri Tunnels with longer trains

The two tunnels were built to facilitate rail freight traffic from Italy to Switzerland. Furthermore, they are substantially improving traffic between hubs on the North-South axis. Positioned in the heart of the Alps, they were long-awaited to allow more trains to travel between Switzerland-Italy and reduce road congestion. Their construction parameters provide for the use of bigger trains than usual. Specifically, the tunnels can handle trains up to 740 metres long, 4 metres high, and 2,000 tonnes heavy.

However, the tunnels do not reach their full transport potential. To run this kind of trains through them, corresponding infrastructure and legislation for the whole Rhine-Alpine route is a must. Unfortunately, the rail infrastructure network still has many gaps, not allowing the realisation of such a project. Additionally, countries such as Germany or the Netherlands are not fully allowing the use of 740 metre-long trains, making it impossible to create a continuous and flawless longer-train network.

Consequently, upgrading the infrastructure and allowing longer trains in the Rhine-Alpine route would prove beneficial in multiple ways. First of all, longer trains mean fewer trains on tracks. In this way, network operators could manage infrastructure easier. Secondly, they mean more payload per train for combined transport operators. Overall, longer trains would also mean fewer trucks on roads since they will carry more cargo at once.

Text continues below image

Shared thinking and planning

As Hupac puts it explicitly, “the various stakeholders need to overcome national thinking even more consistently and adopt a corridor perspective focusing on freight transport requirements”. By transport requirements, the intermodal company means three specific things: secured freight transport capacities through international network utilisation, integrated operational management on the entire corridor, and priority for freight traffic over long distances in the event of operational disruptions.

Nevertheless, the most critical step in succeeding the modal shift is shared planning for capacity increases. Among the priorities, for instance, is the capacity increase south of Mannheim with a continuous double track and electrification on the Wörth-Lauterbourg-Strasbourg line. Hupac says that fulfilling this objective by 2030 would be the ideal scenario. In practice, it would mean more capacities on Rhine’s left bank and a good alternative to other frequently congested routes. After all, waiting for the four-track expansion on Rhine’s right bank in 2040 could prove very late in terms of reaching modal shift objectives.

Also read:

• How long until using longer trains?
• 835-metre long train from Germany to Sweden
• Ceneri Base Tunnel, is it really the missing link on the corridor?
• Rhine valley still closed-DB Netz urged to act

“With this expansion we can increase the rail freight volumes from Moerdijk to the European hinterland. Rail is very suitable for quickly depositing large amounts of freight over long distances. Moreover, the costs are more profitable and it has a smaller CO2 footprint, ”says Baladien.

Sustainability strategy

This means that rail also fits well in the sustainability strategy of the Port of Moerdijk, which aims to be the most sustainable port in the Netherlands by 2030. To this end, the so-called Rail Freight Table was created in 2015, where all stakeholders – ranging from shippers and customers to ProRail – come together to think about ways to make even better use of the railways.

“You don’t just realise growth. Good coordination is very important. For example, you must have the right rail capacity in the right places. With the extra tracks, we will soon have more buffer moments. In addition, we worked with ProRail on fine-tuning our planning”, Baladien says about the work of the group.

In this way, rail can keep pace with the growth ambitions of the Port of Moerdijk. The port already has a million square metres of large-scale warehousing, but another million square metres can be added. “If you want to facilitate that, the rail infrastructure has to grow with it”, says Baladien. The commercial manager emphasises the importance of expectation management. “The stakeholders and those involved must understand from each other what can be done now and what needs to be done in the longer term.”

New regular link to Antwerp

In this sense, the new scheduled intermodal cargo service between the port of Moerdijk and Antwerp, introduced earlier this month by the Belgian rail freight operator Lineas, is a welcome development. The freight train runs three times a week. In addition, Lineas is increasing the frequency of transport between Rotterdam and Antwerp to eight return journeys per week. The new scheduled service will enable carriers and shippers to move intermodal volumes three times a week between Port of Moerdijk and Lineas’ Main Hub in Antwerp. The line has a total transport capacity of 270 TEU per week. Via the Antwerp hub, freight can be shipped by rail throughout Europe via Lineas’s Green Xpress Network.

“We are pleased that Lineas has chosen Moerdijk and that there is a frequent connection. We want to be fast and reliable and that includes such connections”, says Baladien. “We strive for such an extensive network of destinations. The more destinations, the easier it is to bundle goods and ensure that you are as effective as possible.”

Baladien expects many more connections to be added in the long term, although that is not an end in itself. It is just as important to maintain or expand the frequency on the connections. “Everything must show that we are seriously connected with the hinterland.”

This was announced by infrastructure manager ProRail, which has been carrying out tests with 740-metre length trains last year. The conventional length of freight trains in the Netherlands is 550 or 650 metres. However, significant capacity wins can be achieved, a welcome result on the heavily congested railway network.

Advantages

“With 740-metre long trains we make better use of the railway capacity. And that is good news, because we are rapidly approaching the limits of this capacity”, said ProRail in a statement. The country has 7000km of railway track to be divided among 34 carriers of freight and passenger transport. There is not much room for new railway available, so the current capacity must be managed more efficiently.

Moreover, rail must be made a more attractive modality, industry players have said. Rail freight transport is an important modality, among others for the port of Rotterdam. However, it still competes heavily with the road. One way of dealing with this competition is reducing the costs of rail. The use of longer trains is a way to reduce those costs, as it requires fewer drivers and it saves on the rental of expensive locomotives. The aim is to increase rail freight volumes from 42 million tonnes in 2016 to 54-61 million tonnes in 2030.

Bottlenecks

In order to fully benefit from longer trains they need to be facilitated on the entire network. Currently, the large terminals and the Harbor Line in Rotterdam are capable of handling 740 meters. The Betuweroute is suitable for 740 meters up till the German border at Zevenaar/Emmerich. At Emmerich, just over the border, there is a length restriction of 690 meters,

According to ProRail, this is a first step. “The careful introduction of 740-metre long trains gives us the opportunity to investigate where bottlenecks appear and how we can respond. In this we work together with the German rail sector.

“Bottlenecks can be solved by investing in longer tracks in the port of Rotterdam. Longer waiting tracks may have to be built along the railway tracks in Tilburg and Eindhoven, among others. ProRail will determine which measures are needed together with the ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management.”

International relevance

Upgrading the Dutch railway network is not only relevant for the rail freight industry in the Netherlands, as the country is an important part of the Rhine-Alpine corridor running across Europe to Italy. In 2022, it will be possible to operate a 740-meter long train on the route Milan-Basel-Cologne-Venlo. If the Dutch network is not upgraded on time, it will form a bottleneck on this rail freight corridor.

Another important piece of the puzzle is the border crossing with Germany at Bad Bentheim-Oldenzaal. This is an important part of the North Sea Baltic corridor, which has huge potential as the volumes of traffic between the Netherlands and Poland is continuously on the rise. The corridor is the second of the TEN-T core network in terms of volumes, after the Rhine Alpine corridor.

New Silk Road

LTE is also the main carrier in the Netherlands transporting goods destined for China. It carries its trains up till Poland, where they are taken over by RTSB. General Manager of LTE Markus Bertram will make a pitch to Dutch policymakers at the European Silk Road Summit, arguing which steps must be taken to further improve the Dutch connection to the New Silk Road.

The European Silk Road Summit is a two-day international event taking place on 26 and 27 November in Venlo, the Netherlands. The programme of the event can be viewed here, registration for the event is here. Among the policymakers responding to the pitch of Bertram are ProRail and the Dutch ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management.

Also read:

• The Netherlands: 740-metre trains in timetable 2020
• ‘The railways must upgrade railways for 740-metre trains now’

Beginning this month, the German federal transport minister Andreas Scheuer announced that a detailed cost-benefit analysis had been made, studying the current Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan. The selected projects should increase the number of freight and passenger trains on the German rail network. A budget of 6.35 billion Euros has been set aside for the realisation.

740-metre trains

A budget of 680 million Euros has been reserved for upgrades allowing for more 740-metre trains on the network. 21 stations have been identified for extension projects, requiring an investment of 470 million Euros. The stations are distributed equally throughout the network, including important hubs as Duisburg, Hamburg and Mannheim.

Currently only eleven per cent of trains in Germany can operate with the standard European 740-metre length, and this is often due to minor network limitations. An upgraded network that allows unrestricted access to 740-metre trains is expected to eliminate bottlenecks and boost the efficiency of the railway network.

Bottlenecks

However, the extension works are not the only approach towards eliminating bottlenecks.The hubs in the rail network must be better connected, explained Enak Ferlemann, representative of the German federal government for rail transport. “Politicians have never focused on the hubs,” said Enak Ferlemann, the representative of the German federal government for rail transport. “The government now wants to thoroughly address these focal points.”

Thus, 22 lines will be extended or rebuilt. For example, around 1.8 billion Euros will be invested in and around the network of Hamburg. At the Cologne junction, a second track will be laid on a section of the route between Münster and Dortmund. The rail link between North Rhine-Westphalia and the North Sea ports will also being improved. The completion of these projects is expected to take several years.

Track access charges

On 5 September, the German Federal Ministry for Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI), DB Netze and the Eisenbahn-Bundesamt (EBA) presented the German incentive scheme for freight operators. The track access charges will be reduced by more than 45 per cent in Germany from 1 July 2018, retroactively.

The scheme is called TraFöG, translated ‘price support for freight traffic’. The ministry supports the sector with a budget of 375 million Euros per calendar year, a fund available until 30 June 2023 and evaluated in 2021. The regulation is now in the final phase for notification to the European Commission and is expected to be published and in force this year.