Growth on the China-Europe route stands in relatively stark contrast to the developments seen in 2025. During that year, the total number of train trips grew by only 3.2% to approximately 20,000. At the same time, the volume transported fell by 1.3% to 2.1 million TEU. China saw fewer outbound trips (9,898 trips, -6.1%) and more inbound operations (10,100, +14.4%).

Chinese railway authorities have strengthened coordination and operations on the China-Europe route since the start of 2026, according to the state rail operator China Railway. Moreover, the company optimised scheduling to align with market demand. In addition, China has sought to optimise the digital port system to make customs clearance more efficient.

Impact of the Iran war

It is important to note that the China-Europe rail freight volume in January and February 2025 fell by 11% year-on-year. The current early-year increase is therefore a partial rebound of last year’s losses.

Meanwhile, it is useful to bear in mind that the data from January and February 2026 relate to the period preceding the Iran war. The ongoing hostilities in the Middle East have caused fuel prices to surge, which could push maritime rates up. Simultaneously, the conflict is exerting pressure on air freight operations.

This could bode well for China-Europe rail freight, which could bypass high-risk areas and is less sensitive to changes in energy prices. In other words, the early-year growth could continue in the coming months.

When logistics follows industry again – this time from China

In 1984, six years after China launched economic reform, Volkswagen established its first joint ventures in China. That marked the beginning of decades of successful European industrial engagement with the Chinese market.

Two years later, in December 1986, DHL Express followed the same path, forming a joint venture with Sinotrans. CEVA Logistics started active operation in China around the same period.

Logistics followed industry. As European multinationals sourced from China and sold into the Chinese market, European forwarders followed their customers. They built networks, navigated regulation and became deeply embedded in their customers’ global supply chains. Over time, China has became one of the most strategically important logistics markets.

A similar dynamic is emerging again. This time, the direction runs from east to west.

Industrial upgrading and the export shift

China’s exports surplus surpassed one trillion US dollars in 2025, underlining its continued central role in global trade. Europe remains a key destination, alongside Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East and Türkiye.

The structure of exports has changed. Electric vehicles, batteries, renewable energy equipment and advanced machinery now account for a growing share of export value. These sectors were explicitly prioritised in the 2015 “Made in China 2025” strategy. The objective was clear: move up the value chain and reduce reliance on imported core technologies.

A decade later, the shift has become visible, mostly in the automotive sector. China has been the world’s largest car exporter in volume since 2023. In parallel, German carmakers’ combined sales in China have declined markedly from their 2021 peak, with total volumes down by double digits by 2025. BMW was particularly affected, with China sales falling roughly 25–27% over the same period.

In fact, according to Merics, a think-tank Berlin, the number of product categories primarily sourced from the US and EU has halved over the past two decades. This structural transformation has direct implications for logistics.

Outbound freight volumes are reinforced by higher-value industrial exports. On the China–Europe rail corridor, for instance, the imbalance between westbound and eastbound flows has widened since 2023. That year, for every eastbound container to China, roughly 1.8 containers moved westbound. In early 2024, the ratio rose to 4.8. By 2025, it approached 7.

Similar trends can be observed across multiple modes and lanes. Such asymmetry affects pricing dynamics, equipment reposition and corridor economics. If Chinese manufacturing continues to expand in Europe-facing sectors, this imbalance is unlikely to reverse in the near term.

Chinese companies expanding into Europe

Chinese products are not the only ones moving westward. Their producers are expanding into Europe as well. Trade tensions with the United States, EU anti-subsidy measures and intense domestic price competition have accelerated Chinese overseas investment.

CATL and BYD are building factories in Hungary. JD.com has moved to acquire control of Ceconomy, the parent of MediaMarkt and Saturn in Germany. Consumer brands such as Pop Mart have opened retail stores in London, Rome, Berlin and Amsterdam.

As Chinese industries expand into Europe, logistics providers follow. Just as DHL, Kuehne+Nagel and Schenker followed European manufacturers into China decades ago.

Major players such as state-owned COSCO Shipping and Sinotrans, together with Cainiao and JD Logistics, are expanding their European presence. Investments and long-term leases are visible in port terminals, warehousing facilities, distribution centres and last-mile networks. These moves support both market entry and manufacturing setups.

Implications for European rail and forwarding

For European forwarders, this represents a structural shift rather than a temporary market cycle.

In the past, a significant share of freight volumes were controlled by European manufacturers and buyers, particularly in industrial and automotive supply chains. Procurement decisions were made in European headquarters, and European forwarders benefited from established customer relations and alignment.

Today, Chinese companies increasingly drive logistics demand. Procurement power is gradually shifting from European to Chinese headquarters.

In the short term, international forwarders with established pan-European networks remain essential. Regulatory complexity, customs procedures and labour frameworks require local expertise.

Over the medium term, competitive dynamics may evolve. Chinese exporters may prefer logistics partners aligned with their language, digital systems and decision-making speed, particularly when service quality and pricing are comparable.

At the same time, Europe’s fragmented and highly regulated logistics environment creates natural barriers to rapid market capture. This opens space for both competition and cooperation.

Invest early – secure your position

When DHL entered China, it relied on Sinotrans to navigate regulation and build local networks. Chinese logistics companies expanding into Europe now face a similar reality. They bring volume, capital and close ties to headquarters in China. They will need local partners who can provide regulatory depth, network density and established customer relationships.

Those who invest early in understanding China’s industrial strategy, corporate expansion patterns and business culture may secure long-term positioning on both ends of the trade lanes.

Not every European logistics company had the opportunity to enter China in the 1980s. This time, the strategic engagement may happen at home.

The Maxmodal Silk Road Index (MSRI) for 20-foot containers rose from 11,180 to 11,271 in December, reflecting sustained year-end cost pressure across Eurasian rail and multimodal corridors. Over the same period, the Maxmodal Suez Canal Index (MSCI) climbed to 3,105, driven primarily by higher deep-sea freight rates and a series of operational disruptions affecting European on-carriage.

As a result, the spread between the two indexes narrowed to 8,166 points, down from 8,223 in November. According to Maxmodal, this compression reflects a faster month-on-month increase in deep-sea–related costs rather than any structural improvement in the competitiveness of maritime routes. Early January indicators already point to easing pressure, as container rates on Asia–Europe sea lanes began to soften at the start of 2026.

Rail corridors remain under broad-based pressure

Rail-based Silk Road costs continued their gradual upward trend in December. The MSRI increased by 0.82% month-on-month for 20-foot containers and by 0.77% for 40-foot units, pointing to persistent cost pressure across multiple corridors rather than a single regional bottleneck.

Both the Middle Corridor and the South Corridor recorded positive dynamics. The Middle Corridor index increased by 0.9% for 20-foot containers, while the South Corridor rose by 0.7%. This resulted in a slight narrowing of the price spread between the two routes to 3,249 index points, equivalent to a 0.1% month-on-month contraction.

Despite these movements, Silk Road route rankings remained broadly unchanged. The most competitive routings continued to run via the Kazakhstan border crossings at Dostyk and Altynkol, combined with Black Sea access through Poti and Constanța. These routes retained a cost advantage of up to 26–27% compared with alternative configurations.

Eastern and Trans-Caspian segments drive the index

December’s MSRI growth was increasingly shaped by eastern and Middle Corridor segments, with contributions spread across several macro-regions. The China Border–Caspian Sea corridor was the single largest contributor, accounting for 25.5% of the index movement, supported by firmer transit pricing and year-end activity.

Black Sea–Central Europe remained an important stabilising segment at 21.2%, although its influence was less dominant than in November. Strong upstream momentum was also visible on the Xi’an–China Border leg, which contributed 20.8%, reflecting resilient outbound rail flows from inland China.

Additional support came from Caspian Sea segments (16.8%), the South Caucasus (7.7%) and the Black Sea (6.9%), while domestic Chinese legs around Xi’an remained broadly neutral. Overall, the structure of the index in December was more balanced and east-weighted, pointing to a wider distribution of cost drivers heading into early 2026.

Deep-sea rates dominate Suez Canal index rise

The MSCI increased more sharply than the rail index in December, rising by 5.01% for 20-foot containers and by 5.64% for 40-foot units. Maxmodal attributes 90.6% of this monthly increase to the deep-sea leg on Asia–North Europe routes.

Europe on-carriage contributed 5.8% to the MSCI increase, largely due to disruption-driven cost pressure. A full closure of the Elbe Valley rail corridor from 1 to 10 December, restrictions at Rotterdam World Gateway and RSC between 10 and 21 December, and prolonged barge congestion in Antwerp-Bruges and Rotterdam reduced inland capacity and raised effective costs.

China pre-carriage added a further 3.6%, indicating broadly stable upstream pricing conditions rather than a surge in inland demand.

Looking ahead, Maxmodal notes that early January data suggest a potential moderation in index momentum, as deep-sea container rates have started to decline, indicating that December’s narrowing of the rail–sea spread may prove temporary.

A good reason to inquire more about the company’s motivations, RailFreight.com thought, but let’s start with some of the basics: Rhenus Group has acquired a rail-connected container terminal in the south of Kazakhstan, setting it up for further development of integrated logistics services in the region, according to the logistics provider.

The ‘QAZContargo’ terminal is connected to national and international routes, among which is the Middle Corridor, connecting Asia and Europe overland. As such, the facility supports the growing import, export and transit volumes between China, Europe and across Central Asia. Rhenus hopes that the combination of its existing freight forwarding services and terminal infrastructure will strengthen its activities and supply chains in the region.

“Diversification rather than decoupling”

The acquisition of the QAZContargo terminal, however, is also informed by our rapidly changing world. Geopolitics is not leaving Central Asia untouched, and neither are rising logistics and compliance costs, Rhenus tells RailFreight.com. Together with a need for greater flexibility and responsiveness to customer demand, they are leading to a regionalisation of supply chains across Eurasia.

“Rather than retreating from global trade, companies are reconfiguring their networks to reduce dependency on single routes or gateways and to position logistics capabilities closer to key markets”, elaborates Rhenus. For Asia-Europe trade, the company sees diversification rather than decoupling. “China remains central, while Southeast Asia, India, and Türkiye are gaining importance as complementary hubs.” Moreover, inland rail corridors across Eurasia are becoming key enablers of resilient and adaptive supply-chain networks, in the words of the German logistics provider.

The result: inland capacity and multimodal corridors are growing in strategic importance. Rhenus’ recent moves are a response to that development. It points out that terminal infrastructure is a bottleneck across Eurasia: Terminals struggle to keep up with the growing trade volumes. The German company does not expect Eurasian terminals to close the gap in the coming decade.

This situation presents both a challenge and a clear opportunity

These capacity constraints are compounded by the growing demand of customers. As shippers expect predictability and transparency, Rhenus seems to move into the region to take matters into their own hands. It says that modern terminals need to offer real-time visibility, flexible capacity management and offer consolidation, customs and distribution services.

“For Rhenus, this situation presents both a challenge and a clear opportunity. Beyond traditional forwarding activities, the focus lies on expanding handling capacity at key logistics and economic hubs, strengthening intermodal integration, and improving last-mile connectivity. These investments are fully aligned with customer demand for faster, more reliable, and more cost-efficient transport solutions across Eurasia”, the company explains.

Containerisation: one of the factors behind the Rhenus acquisition

At the same time, the increasing rate of containerisation in Central Asia has also pushed Rhenus to acquire the QAZContargo terminal. Containerisation in the region is still at an early stage: adoption sits around 6-8% depending on the market and research methodology. That is well behind Europe and East Asia, says Rhenus. It also reflects the high share of bulk commodities, historically wagon-based rail systems and limited inland terminal infrastructure. Unsurprisingly, containers are mostly used on China-Europe routes.

Nevertheless, there is a clear demand for a further adoption of containers as a standardised carrying unit. Rhenus considers that a strategic shift in how supply chains are designed and managed. “Containers enable greater reliability, improved cargo security, faster transshipment, and seamless intermodal connectivity across rail, road, and sea.”

“To scale these benefits sustainably, modern intermodal terminals are essential. In this sense, the growing importance of container-based transport was one of the factors behind the decision to acquire and further develop this terminal in Kazakhstan”, Rhenus says.

Developing consumer market

It is primarily retailers and e-commerce companies in the Almaty area that currently make use of Rhenus’ new terminal and that might benefit from its integrated intermodal services. However, there is not a single large industry that dominates. The container terminal also handles industrial and manufacturing goods, automotive components and chemical and energy-related products.

Yet, with Kazakhstan’s developing consumer market and industrial base, more of these goods are transported in containers and via scheduled rail services. “The terminal is therefore designed to serve a diversified customer base across multiple industries”, says Rhenus.

For example, the Altynkol-Khorgos border crossing has far surpassed initial expectations for 2025. Over 16.1 million tonnes of freight passed the checkpoint in both directions. This is 9% more than an internationally agreed upon plan within the framework of the Organisation for Co-operation between Railways (OSJD), explains the Kazakh national rail operator KTZ.

Kazakhstan exported 5.3 million tonnes of freight through the border crossing. In the opposite direction, 3,589 trains entered Kazakhstan for transit purposes.

A similar trend further north

At the same time, the Alashankou-Dostyk border crossing saw a record number of China-Europe freight trains in 2025. A total of 8,165 trains passed the location in 2025, 6.3% more than in 2024.

Efficiency improvements have allowed trains to be inspected and cleared immediately upon arrival, a customs officer is quoted as saying in the Chinese publication Xinhua. The measures include the increased use of intelligent inspection systems and image recognition technology.

The overall clearance time at Alashankou was cut by 18.4% compared to 2024. That was highly necessary due to the many delays incurred at both Alashankou/Dostyk and Altynkol/Khorgos in the past years. Now, a freight train can change gauges and complete reloading procedures in around two hours, an operations manager at Alashankou told Xinhua.

In early 2025, Kazakhstan and China decided to double the maximum number of freight trains that can pass through the border crossing each day. At Alashankou, that translated into a maximum of 28 daily trains. At Altynkol, 15 trains were allowed to pass daily.

The findings point to a month of diverging dynamics: steady, corridor-specific improvements along the Eurasian landbridge, and a sharp ocean-driven rebound on the Suez route. For shippers and forwarders active on China–Europe corridors, the data suggests renewed competitiveness of Black Sea rail–sea options and a narrowing gap between the Middle Corridor and southern routings.

Black Sea corridors provide most of the Silk Road uplift

The western end of the Silk Road was the clear driver of MSRI growth in November. Black Sea–Central Europe connections accounted for more than 80% of all index movement, supported by higher inland demand and improved short-sea stability. The Black Sea region itself contributed a further 22.2%.

By contrast, the Caspian and South Caucasus segments weighed on the index. Seasonal weather disruptions, cancelled sailings, and softer westbound flows pushed Caspian crossings down by 7.7%, while the South Caucasus dipped by 5.7%.

Despite these headwinds, both Silk Road corridors grew. The Middle Corridor rose by 0.9% and the South Corridor by 0.6%, narrowing their spread and confirming that rate strength was concentrated in Europe-facing legs rather than inland Central Asia.

Deep-sea repricing dominates Suez Index surge

The MSCI increase was driven almost entirely by deep-sea freight. The deep-sea leg accounted for 98.8% of the monthly movement, while inland elements — China pre-carriage (+2.9%) and Europe on-carriage (–1.7%) — cancelled each other out.

Asia–North Europe spot rates saw tactical price increases of around 18–22% compared with October. According to the report, this shift reflected carriers re-anchoring the market from a low base rather than any major change in fundamentals. Inland trucking, port handling and rail-to-hinterland pricing in both China and Europe remained effectively flat.

Market sentiment also improved following news that Maersk intends to resume Suez Canal transits in early December, restoring confidence in service continuity.

Caspian weakness offsets inland stability in Central Asia

Inland segments across China, Xinjiang gateways and Central Asia were broadly stable. Road-to-Xi’an rates increased slightly and rail tariffs at Xi’an, Kashgar, Altynkol and Dostyk remained unchanged month-on-month. Throughput at inland hubs grew in the low single digits, reflecting structural westbound demand.

However, late-autumn conditions on the Caspian exerted downward pressure. Container volumes fell by 2–4% month-on-month as weather-related sailing cancellations slowed trans-Caspian flows. Forwarders responded with slight freight reductions of 0.5–1.1%.

Rail–sea routes via Dostyk and Altynkol remain the most competitive

For November, the most cost-competitive links from China to Duisburg again ran via Dostyk or Altynkol combined with Poti and Constanța. These multimodal chains offered price advantages of up to 27% compared with alternative routings.

The strong performance of these segments aligns with the month’s broader pattern: robust western traction, limited inland volatility and weather-driven softness on the southern Caspian interface.

MSRI–MSCI spread narrows as Suez rebounds

With the Suez route experiencing a stronger price recovery, the MSRI–MSCI spread (20-foot) narrowed from 8,354 in October to 8,223 in November. This reflects the comparatively steady rise in Silk Road prices against a more pronounced deep-sea reset.

Outlook: Stable inland flows with western corridors in focus

November’s data depicts a corridor system shaped by predictable seasonal patterns and the re-emergence of deep-sea pricing power. Inland nodes in China and Central Asia remain stable, while Europe-facing rail–sea chains continue to absorb global ocean rate swings.

For shippers planning 2026 contracting cycles, the report’s authors note that the recent ocean spike “may prove temporary”, potentially creating opportunities for more favourable long-term agreements if demand does not strengthen significantly.

Full report is available on https://index.maxmodal.com/

As a result, a new effort to boost and streamline transportation along the Middle Corridor’s southern route is underway. ETRIA can count on sympathy from more than just its members: the railway administrations of China, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Türkiye, Austria and Azerbaijan all acknowledged the need for and supported the idea of improving the southern route. They also named the route, which goes through Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Türkiye, the ‘Eurasian Transport Route’ (ETR).

“The purpose of establishing the association is to attract extra volumes of the transit cargo, develop integrated logistics products, create a unified technology for transportation processes, implement an efficient tariff policy, and optimise costs along the Eurasian Transport Route”, explains Secretary General of ETRIA, Rashad Majidov.

What’s on the agenda?

In 2026, ETRIA plans to assess current intermodal transportation along the route. It hopes to identify and eliminate bottlenecks and implement IT solutions and digital platforms for transportation management, scheduling, and manage resources and priorities.

ETRIA hopes to attract more members and absorb more countries into the Eurasian intermodal transport ecosystem. That includes countries on the trans-Afghan corridor, China and countries in the CEE region. In the long-term, the association strives to become “an enabler of increased trade and economic prosperity and a driver of growth in the countries benefiting from the ETR.”

Azerbaijan has assumed leadership over ETRIA, which the country sees as a success for its strategy to attract transit freight. It strengthens the position of ADY as one of the main operators in the region, Azerbaijani media write. That turns the country into a “strategic dispatch center where key decisions are made on the organisation of transit [along the ETR]”.

In turn, ADY cultivates a capacity to influence tariff policies, standardise logistics procedures, develop digital platforms for transport coordination and attract international investments in rail projects.

The geopolitical factors contributing to the gloomy picture drawn between 2022 and today are well known and require no further introduction or analysis. Despite some brief upticks in rail traffic and volumes resulting from disruptions in sea shipping, Eurasian rail remained flat in terms of development and growth. Flat remained also the sentiment regarding the industry’s future, to say the least.

Nevertheless, the patience and agility shown by operators and forwarders during this time, and the not-so-loud but gradual, methodical and targeted evolution of the corridor, are now becoming visible, all the more after some recent developments in late November.

Commitment as strong as ever

During the European Silk Road Summit 2025, organised by RailFreight.com in Milan, several things stood out from the fruitful discussions and exchanges. To avoid an extensive list, let’s focus on two highlights and see how they correlate with the latest news from China.

Highlight number one concerned the competition with maritime transport. Decreasing rates and overcapacity could mean Eurasian rail’s market share shrinks in the coming decade. However, this might not be the case if things are put into perspective. China-Europe rail was never intended to compete directly with maritime transport. Instead, as many conference participants underlined, its competitive advantage lies in serving niche, high-value markets that require fast transit times and safety rather than competitive prices.

Highlight number two, and probably the most important, is that no matter the competition, China’s political commitment to developing Eurasian rail is as strong as ever. That was underscored by Yingnan Yao, China-Europe business analyst, who explained that China will not simply give up on its Belt and Road Initiative goals due to a series of hiccups. On the contrary, Chinese policy is fully focused on developing Eurasian rail routes and trade, and since this commitment is in place, Silk Road rail will continue to flourish.

Full timetables prove commitment

While those discussions were taking place in a conference centre in Milan, the second China Railway Express Cooperation Forum was held in Xi’an, and this forum brought forward some news. To put it simply, for some time now, China has been moving away from dispatching westbound freight trains at random and has implemented a fixed, full timetable with predictable booking, departure, and transit times.

The critical development in this case is that the timetable was just enriched with seven new routes, as seen below. These updates bring the total to seventeen scheduled China–Europe freight services. Each year, over a thousand trains operate on set timetables, connecting nine cities in China with six destinations in Europe.

New timetable routes:

• Zhengzhou – Hamburg
• Xi’an – Prague
• Jinan – Budapest
• Chongqing – Budapest
• Xi’an – Budapest
• Changsha – Poznań
• Shijiazhuang – Warsaw

Full-schedule train links Xi’an to Česká Třebová

Does this development indicate a shrinking or growing market? In moderate terms, it might not indicate an aggressively growing market, but it could signal a market that is here to stay and will provide stability and more options for its customers.

Forget maritime competition

During the second China Railway Express Cooperation Forum, Nguyen Chinh Nam, deputy general director of Vietnam Railways Corporation, commented that “the rapid development of China-Europe freight trains expands international logistics capacity, offering diversified transport options and reducing reliance on maritime routes”.

At the same time, Guo Zhuxue, chairman of China State Railway Group, underlined that operating with full timetables has reduced travel time by over 30% on average, while also cutting rail rates by over 40% since the service’s inception. And customers are happy because of that, as voiced by Yuan Gen, vice general manager of Shaanxi Konka Smart Home Appliance Co., Ltd., a regular China-Europe rail customer who has seen rail slashing shipping time from 45 days by sea to just one or two weeks, accounting currently for over 60% of the company’s export volume.

Other industries benefiting similarly include new energy vehicles and machinery, for example, and, in general, high-value cargo. All in all, the message in this case is quite clear. Forget maritime competition and focus on critical industries that are here to stay and benefit from premium rail service.

Rail will not overtake maritime transport, and as mentioned before, this is not the aim. The aim is to function as a constantly developing transport and trade backbone, a great alternative, but most importantly, the first option for industries that really matter. And if everything goes according to plan, it will eventually become the first choice for more customers.

In contrast, the newly introduced Maxmodal Suez Canal Index (MSCI) — which tracks combined deep-sea and rail connections via the Suez Canal — declined by 1.82% (20’) and 2.01% (40’), reflecting weakness in deep-sea freight markets, subdued European imports and vessel overcapacity.

The rate spread between MSRI and MSCI widened further, highlighting diverging trends between resilient overland corridors and declining maritime rates.

Central Asia leads growth in overland freight

The China Border–Caspian section accounted for nearly all MSRI growth in October, contributing almost 98% of the total index expansion. This was largely due to a 14% rise in rates on the Kashgar–Andijan route, where stronger seasonal demand and higher cross-border service costs pushed up prices. According to UzContargo Andijon: “Despite brief weather-related delays in the mountain passes, truck availability remained sufficient, ensuring stable service reliability across the corridor”.

Other inland and Caspian segments, including Alat–Poti, Altynkol–Aktau and Akhalkalaki–Duisburg, saw smaller gains, while Black Sea–linked routes experienced moderate declines (–8.7%) due to weak maritime markets.

Maritime weakness drags down the MSCI

The MSCI fell sharply in October, primarily due to persistent softness on Asia–Europe deep-sea routes. Rates dropped to USD 3,022 (20’) and USD 4,225 (40’) per container. The Shenzhen–Antwerp (33%), Shenzhen–Hamburg (29%), and Shanghai–Rotterdam (17%) routes were the main contributors to the decline.

Deep-sea reductions dominated overall movements, while inland European connections such as Antwerp–Duisburg (–24%) and Rotterdam–Duisburg (–10%) provided limited stability through steady rail and terminal operations. Overall, deep-sea rates remain under heavy pressure from overcapacity and muted European demand.

Regional performance

• Caspian and South Caucasus: Ports such as Turkmenbashi and Aktau saw small, offsetting rate changes — a sign of overall stability in the Caspian region. Meanwhile, Alat–Poti and Akhalkalaki–Duisburg reported minor cost increases of 1–3%, linked to infrastructure and energy costs.
• Black Sea and Central Europe: Rates across the Black Sea softened slightly, with Poti–Constanța and Poti–Istanbul routes falling by up to 2.5%. Inland routes such as Constanța–Duisburg eased by around 2%, reflecting improved equipment availability and stable throughput across hubs like Duisburg and Istanbul.
• Middle vs South Corridor: Both the Middle Corridor (via Kazakhstan and the Caspian) and the South Corridor (via Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) recorded growth. The South Corridor expanded more sharply due to stronger performance on the Kashgar–Andijan and Andijan–Turkmenbashi segments. However, the Middle Corridor remains structurally more competitive, benefiting from lower costs, greater connectivity and improvements under the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR) initiative.

Most competitive routes

The most competitive rail–sea routes from China to Duisburg in October remained those via Dostyk and Altynkol, via Poti and Constanța, where rates were up to 27% lower than the route via Kashgar.

For example:

• Shanghai–Duisburg via Dostyk–Poti–Constanța: USD 9,828 (27% price advantage)
• Guangzhou–Duisburg via Altynkol–Akhalkalaki: USD 10,001 (26% price advantage)

By contrast, routes via Kashgar maintained higher price levels, averaging USD 13,000–13,500, underlining the east–west rate divergence across Eurasian corridors.

Full report is available on https://index.maxmodal.com/

“We are already observing growing international interest in the Middle Corridor for its strategic role as the land bridge between Asia and Europe and interest goes beyond on the infrastructure”, explains Nussupov. That includes policy coordination and trade facilitation, and yes, not just with China.

“So, from our side, trade reforms, infrastructure upgrades and digital innovation will help to attract more European and Chinese stakeholders that will hopefully position our country as the central player in future Eurasian trade”, adds Nussupov.

International interest creates Kazakh wins

Players from both east and west are taking an interest in the Central Asian country. The Chinese, for example, are involved in developing the Khorgos Eastern Gate port logistic terminal on the Kazakhstan-China border, a key node on Asia-Europe transport routes.

The Europeans help Kazakhstan and other Central Asian countries simplify trade documentation, harmonise customs procedures, and train officials and SMEs in a digital trade environment through the EU-funded Ready4Trade programme.

Those efforts, as well as hard infrastructure investments, not only contribute to streamlining logistics along the China-Europe route, but have another impact as well. “Better infrastructure along the Middle Corridor is creating new business opportunities for Kazakhstan’s companies and investors abroad, so we are becoming not just a transit country but also a growing trade partner and production hub.

Geoeconomic transformation

In that way, the investments in infrastructure pursue a “strategic geoeconomic transformation of trade flows and supply chain connectivity”, in the words of Nussupov, who identifies three key ‘wins’ for Kazakhstan: lower logistics costs and faster capital turnover can boost agricultural exports, enhance transit and stimulate domestic growth.

“These new developments enable Kazakh producers to access European and Chinese markets more easily”, says Nussupov. To illustrate, the investments help facilitate imports of high-tech and industrial equipment from Europe to support Kazakh domestic production and strengthen the country’s supply chains. In other words, the corridor is becoming a two-way channel for trade and investment, rather than just a transit route.

As for agricultural exports, Kazakhstan sees many European officials visiting the country to talk business, especially regarding the alignment of regulations. After all, when it comes to Europe, “we have to be at very high standards”, explains Nussupov.

Lastly, the investments, which also include upgrades at the Caspian Sea ports of Kuryk and Aktau, key railways like Dostyk-Moyynty and border crossings, boost the performance of rail transit.

Good old transit

That brings the discussion back to what the Middle Corridor is known for: transit on the China-Europe route. Regardless of the skepticism of Europeans, Kazakhstan sees a positive trend and expects even more in the future.

Previously, shipping freight along this route took 38 to 53 days, depending on border delays and congestion. As of October 2025, that time has been slashed to just 19 to 33 days, with plans to further reduce it to 14 to 18 days. In one notable instance, says Vice Minister Nussupov citing the World Bank, a shipment even completed the journey in just 13 days. The Kazakh segment of the route, from the border crossing at Dostyk to the Aktau port, now takes only five days.

Trade volumes are also on the rise. In 2020, the corridor handled around 1 million tonnes of freight. For 2025, the target is 5 million tonnes, with expectations to reach 11 million tonnes annually by 2030.

More money in exchange for certainty

This perhaps unlikely success comes amid a changing global logistics landscape. Nussupov points to a paradigm shift that began after the covid pandemic. “The first significant event was the Suez canal blockage which showed how easily global trade can be disrupted and how important it is to have alternative and reliable routes.”

“I remember the Baltic Dry Index rising up to the 5,000s. Reliability has now become the new currency of logistics.” The consequence is that companies now prefer to pay a bit more for a guarantee that goods will arrive on time, without unexpected delays or political risks along the route.

Many companies prefer to pay a bit more for the guarantee that their goods will arrive on time, without unexpected delays or political risks along the route. In this environment, the Middle Corridor is not just an alternative, but a strategic route that combines speed, safety, and sustainability. So I think that in this environment the Middle Corridor is not just an alternative, but a strategic route that combines speed, safety and sustainability.”