“Good news for a militarily stronger Europe”, wrote the Dutch infrastructure state secretary Annet Bertram on LinkedIn. “All nine member states that are members of the ‘North Sea Baltic’, a rail freight corridor that runs from the North Sea ports to the Baltic states, have signed a new ‘joint declaration’. This is about cooperation and improvement of rail transport along this connection.”

Military mobility has been added to this declaration – meaning that “Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Sweden want to work more closely together in the field of military transport”, says Bertram. “This allows military trains to run quickly and unhindered on this connection if necessary. The need for this is great, given the current geopolitical situation.”

Experts on military mobility from the involved countries have also spoken to each other, allowing for more far-reaching collaboration and knowledge sharing.

The Netherlands places great importance on international coordination for military purposes, highlights the state secretary. “For example, these transports on the railways must be given priority if they are urgent, to prevent a train with tanks, for example, from being forced to wait until there is space. Rail yards are also being adapted to make them more suitable for military trains.”

Dutch Defence deals with Deutsche Bahn

Simultaneously, the Dutch Ministry of Defence has concluded a military mobility deal with Deutsche Bahn, RailFreight.com’s sister publication SpoorPro reports. As part of the agreement, the Ministry recently acquired two wagons for personnel travelling with military transports to secure and inspect them.

For military rail transport, dedicated military escort wagons are provided for personnel who travel alongside to secure the cargo. These carriages offer basic amenities, including seating areas and a restaurant.

The Dutch Ministry of Defence states that these wagons are suitable for use across Europe. They can be made available for military transport within ten days, after which they are transported by locomotive to the required location.

LTG Cargo gets NATO greenlight

On the other end of the North Sea – Baltic Corridor, the Lithuanian rail freight operator LTG Cargo is now permitted to participate directly as a supplier in NATO procurement procedures.

“LTG Cargo has been a trusted logistics partner to NATO allies for nearly a decade, but until now we have carried out shipments through cooperation with other European carriers”, explained Eglė Šimė, CEO of LTG Cargo. “From now on, we have the opportunity to work directly to support military mobility.”

“Over the past four years, we have increased the volume of military trains we transport by as much as 70 percent. We possess specific expertise and experience and are ready to strengthen our participation in allied rotations to help ensure the security of the entire region”, Šimė continued.

It is a bold strategy, but also a familiar one. Post-war Britain embraced the new town model with mixed success. Some places flourished, others struggled with identity, connectivity and economic purpose. This time, there’s an attempt to integrate transport thinking from the outset. The New Towns Taskforce report references rail repeatedly. Yet the question remains whether rail is being treated as a central organising principle—or simply as an afterthought once again.

Seven sites, seven different rail stories

The seven locations identified by ministers present a varied and uneven picture of rail opportunity. Tempsford, in Bedfordshire, stands out as the most obvious candidate for a modern railway town. Sitting at the intersection of East West Rail and the East Coast Main Line, it has the makings of a genuinely rail-led community. If planned correctly, it could anchor both passenger connectivity and logistics flows in a way rarely seen in contemporary British development.

Elsewhere, the picture becomes more complicated. Crews Hill and Chase Park in Enfield are already served by the Enfield Loop, yet its development potential is constrained by intense local opposition and competing land uses. It may well have the makings of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange, whether that is politically palatable or not. Meanwhile, Thamesmead, long emblematic of 1960s planning failure, sits on the edge of London’s logistics heartland, where rail could yet play a transformative role if properly integrated.

The remaining sites lean more towards regeneration than true new towns. Leeds South Bank and Manchester Victoria North are urban renewal projects, dressed in new town language. Their rail futures are tied to wider and uncertain mass transit ambitions. Brabazon, on the north edge of Bristol, perhaps offers the strongest industrial and employment potential, with rail able to support both passenger access and light industrial logistics. Milton Keynes, already defined by roads, remains an outlier, despite the West Coast Main Line running through its core, and Network Rail’s out-of-town headquarters there too.

Learning from the first generation

The original New Towns programme offers important lessons, particularly in what not to do. Many developments of the 1950s and 1960s were shaped by the prevailing belief that the private car would dominate transport. Rail infrastructure was often marginalised or poorly integrated into urban design. The consequences are still visible today in places where stations sit far from centres of activity, disconnected from the communities they were meant to serve.

Take Livingston in central Scotland as a case in point. It has grown into a substantial town with a strong industrial base, yet its rail provision remains peripheral. Livingston North and Livingston South stations serve the settlement, but neither is embedded in a true civic or commercial heart. Industrial estates, meanwhile, are almost entirely road-dependent. This is not a failure of rail as a mode, but of planning decisions made decades ago.

Across Europe, more integrated approaches have delivered better outcomes. Dutch new towns such as Almere and Lelystad demonstrate how rail can be embedded at the core of urban development, supporting both commuting and economic activity. The UK now has an opportunity to revisit that model, but only if rail is treated as essential infrastructure, rather than an optional extra.

Building with rail in mind

Rail’s role in these new towns extends far beyond passenger transport. The construction phase alone represents a vast logistical challenge. Moving materials, aggregates and prefabricated components by rail could significantly reduce road congestion and emissions. In effect, this is a civil engineering programme of national scale—“Housing Surge To You,” if one were to borrow from the language of major infrastructure projects.

Yet the Taskforce report is notably light on rail freight. The only meaningful reference comes not in the seven preferred locations, but in the now-sidelined proposal at Heyford Park. There, plans for the Oxfordshire Strategic Rail Freight Interchange offered a glimpse of what integrated planning might look like. Freight, housing and connectivity were considered together, rather than in isolation. That approach appears largely absent elsewhere.

This is a missed opportunity. Britain may be largely post-industrial, but that does not negate the need for efficient freight networks. Modern railway towns are not built around steelworks and shipyards. They are built around intermodal hubs, distribution centres and high-value, low-volume logistics. If the new towns are to succeed economically, rail freight must be part of the conversation from the outset.

A question of ambition

Ultimately, the success of these new towns will hinge on the ambition of their planners. Rail can support jobs, improve sustainability and enhance connectivity—but only if it is embedded in the DNA of each development. Retrofitting rail infrastructure after the fact is always more expensive, more disruptive and less effective. Greenfield sites offer a rare chance to get it right first time.

There are encouraging signs. Tempsford could become a genuine railway town for the twenty-first century. Brabazon has the potential to integrate rail into a new industrial landscape. Even Thamesmead, with the right investment, could be reconnected to London’s wider transport network. But these are possibilities, not guarantees. Without firm commitment, they risk becoming diluted or deferred.

So, what part has rail really played in planning these new communities? The answer, at present, is uncertain. It is mentioned often, but rarely defined. Passenger connectivity is acknowledged, but freight is largely overlooked. If this programme is to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, rail must move from the margins to the centre of the conversation. Otherwise, today’s new towns will become tomorrow’s missed opportunities.

There was cross-party warmth, plenty of nodding in agreement, and a familiar chorus about growth, resilience and decarbonisation. Yet beneath the polite applause lies a harder truth. The sector is still waiting for the UK government to match rhetoric with resolve. In fairness, it is not the only sector seeking some decisiveness. It iss becoming a bit of a political joke. However, if rail freight is to grow by 75% by 2050 – a target ministers are fond of quoting – then it is high time to get on the footplate and start driving. The time for incrementalism has surely passed.

A reception worth its salt – and its spend

Parliamentary receptions are not cheap. I speak from experience, having signed off such events in Edinburgh, and I suspect the catering bill here would have troubled the four-figure mark as well. So, if you are going to spend a wagonload of members’ money in Westminster, you had better make it count. The Rail Freight Group did just that, arriving not empty-handed but armed with Freight Forward – a report with both substance and intent.

They were right to do so. As the premier advocates for the sector, the Rail Freight Group has a duty to speak up, especially within earshot of the debating chamber. If not them, then who? The report makes a clear and compelling case for rail freight as an economic enabler, a decarbonisation tool, and a pillar of national resilience. Sure, they’re all the buzzwords, yes, but underpinned by real-world examples.

Those examples matter. Moving millions of tonnes of food to supermarket shelves, exporting cars to European markets, and transporting critical minerals. This is not abstract policy, but the daily business of keeping the UK functioning. Legal eagle Lydia Cullimore of Burges Salmon captured the mood well, describing the report as a “clear and compelling position paper” that highlights both current value and future opportunity. It is difficult to disagree. Case made. Well, not quite.

Growth, but on whose terms?

The report’s central thesis is straightforward. It proposes that rail freight can do more. It can help decarbonise logistics, strengthen domestic supply chains, and support emerging industries. Electrification, alternative traction, and technological innovation all feature prominently. In fact, rail in general and rail freight in particular, is an embodiment of future industrial function that everyone can see passing through every station, every day. The direction of travel is clear, even if the track ahead is less so. Ambition alone does not lay rail.

The sector’s growth hinges on capacity, access and policy certainty. These are three areas where government performance has been, at best, uneven. Rail advocate and friend of the sector, Rupert Brennan-Brown’s intervention at the reception struck a chord, particularly his emphasis on safeguarding access rights for freight operators. Without long-term certainty, private investment will always hesitate at the signal.

This is where the conversation inevitably turns to Great British Railways. That overarching body that will, eventually, rule the roost over the re-nationalised railways (freight operations excepted). However, those forthcoming reforms offer an opportunity to embed freight at the heart of the network, rather than treating it as an afterthought. Opportunity, though, is not necessarily the same as outcome. The risk remains that, in a system dominated by passenger priorities, freight will once again find itself squeezed into the margins. Time to make a song and dance in the House? Absolutely yes.

Fine words, familiar promises

To be fair, ministers are saying the right things. I’ve lost count of how many transport ministers have given me their personal reassurances for one project or another. This week, the flamboyant rail minister Lord Hendy reaffirmed his support for the sector and the growth target, while opposition voices have called for statutory protections to underpin investment. There is, as Lydia Cullimore noted, a reassuring degree of cross-party consensus.

Consensus without action is a well-worn Westminster tradition. The rail freight sector has heard these commitments before. Cue a procession of ministers (cross-bench) pulling off the right signals on capacity, on modal shift, on decarbonisation. Progress has been made, certainly, but rarely at the pace or scale required. The result is a lingering sense that rail freight is perpetually on the cusp of a breakthrough, yet never quite allowed to break through.

If Freight Forward does one thing well, it is to crystallise that frustration into a constructive agenda (perhaps that’s where I’ve been going wrong). It sets out not just what rail freight delivers, but what it needs. There should be investment in infrastructure, protection of access rights, and a regulatory framework that encourages growth rather than constrains it. None of this is revolutionary. All of it is necessary.

The real test lies ahead

Ultimately, the success of this report will not be measured by the quality of the reception or the warmth of the parliamentary applause. It will be judged by what happens next. Will the government translate endorsement into policy? Will Great British Railways be structured in a way that genuinely supports freight? Will the promised growth materialise, or remain an aspiration?

There are reasons for cautious optimism. The economic case is stronger than ever, the environmental imperative is undeniable, and the sector itself is more coordinated in its messaging. Freight Forward is, in many ways, a mature document – confident in its arguments and pragmatic in its recommendations.

But maturity on one side of the table must be matched on the other. If government is serious about growth, resilience and decarbonisation – and it insists that it is – then rail freight must move from the periphery to the mainstream of transport policy. Otherwise, we will be back in Westminster in a year or two, raising another glass, unveiling another report, and asking the same question. Minister, what, exactly, are we waiting for?

Moreover, the measure is said to be particularly important for infrastructure sections where there is a deficit in throughput capacity.

Still controversial

“‘Ship or pay’ is one possible form of interaction between the infrastructure owner and the freight owner”, commented Pavel Ivankin, President of the National Research Center for Transportation and Infrastructure and Member of the State Council Commission on Transport, to Russian media.

“The infrastructure owner is interested in ensuring that the infrastructure volumes planned for use within the planning period are fully utilised. Freight owners, likewise, are interested in seeing the adopted plans translated into actual shipments.”

Not everyone is convinced of the effectiveness of the ‘ship or pay’ measure. The Russian Ministry of Energy and Federal Antimonopoly Service have spoken out against it. They reason that the changes will complicate shippers’ access to scarce infrastructure. Businesses are also said to oppose this mechanism.

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.

The need for a new document on state aid eligibility stems from the Fitness Check carried out by the Commission in 2020, which concluded that the current framework is obsolete. More specifically, the new ones no longer include the conditions on cancelling historic debt directly linked to the activity of rail transport and the specific conditions for restructuring freight branches of railway undertakings.

New services and interoperability

Regarding new services, financial support can be provided for a maximum of five years to purely rail or inland waterways connections. New services involving more modes of transport will not be eligible. New services also include pre-existing connections that have not been in operation for at least three years, the document specified. When it comes to rail interoperability, financial aid can be provided for ETCS, FRMCS, ATO, DAC, rolling stock adaptation to different electrical systems, different gauges and to transport intermodal loading units.

No funds for infrastructure use, some funds for sidings

The new guidelines do not include direct aid for infrastructure use, but Member States can provide support “to reduce the external costs of transport (…) to cover the costs linked to” it. This support can be applied to sustainable multimodal transport. Moreover, some infrastructure projects specific to rail freight, such as building, renewing or replacing private sidings, are now eligible for state aid. “Private sidings play a key role in reducing the need for first-/last-mile road transport for freight”, the Commission highlighted.

Who cannot apply?

Despite extending their scope, the guidelines still have thresholds assessing eligibility. For example, railway undertakings in difficulty cannot benefit from this type of state aid. These are companies losing half of their capital, under restructuring or insolvency and with large debts. State aid guidelines for them are regulated with a specific and separate document. Furthermore, aid cannot be granted for transport services on routes that have established capacity constraints that would prevent the modal shift.

Harsh reality check

Other than explaining the new state aid scheme, the EC’s documents included a few statements that finally recognised the struggles of the rail freight industry and its stagnating situation. “The Commission observes that rail freight transport services cannot always be operated on a commercial basis”, it admitted.

From inadequate rail links to terminals and the traditional fragmentation of the EU which hinders rail coordination, such schemes are now a necessity not only to increase the share of non-road modes, but also to avoid a decrease, the EC urged. Rail freight has been on a downward trajectory for a few years now in Europe, while the road seems to continue to grow.

The subsequently higher TACs for rail freight have been a major annoyance for the industry. Higher charges bring about higher costs. This hinders the competitiveness of rail freight companies. They already struggle to compete with the road sector.

“This ruling is the final nail in the coffin for the current German track access charge system”, commented Die Güterbahnen Managing Director Peter Westenberger.

Multi-million euro refunds

“Federal Transport Minister Schnieder must now prioritise presenting proposals for a fair, legally sound, reliable, and effective track access charge system that will boost transport volumes. We demand that the incorrect track access charge calculations for 2025 and 2026 be reversed as quickly as possible.”

The ruling is great news for TAC-paying rail freight companies operating in Germany. They can reclaim the overpaid charges. They expect the total figure to amount to a “three-figure million-euro sum”, between 100 million and 999 million euros.

Closely aligned

“90 to 95 per cent of what works for military mobility works for rail freight,” he said, arguing that investment in rail infrastructure, rolling stock and regulatory reform would deliver benefits across both sectors.

Heavy military equipment – including tanks, artillery and other oversized assets – can be transported far more efficiently by rail than by road. The same applies to dangerous goods such as ammunition, which are safer to move in large quantities by train.

However, Mazzola warned that Europe currently lacks sufficient rail wagons capable of handling military transport requirements. “If you need to move a line division, we need 100 trains with 8,400 wagons,” he said. “If there is a war with Russia, we would need 50 times that.”

Wagon capacity

While some wagons are purpose-built for military equipment, most are dual-use and also serve commercial freight markets. Expanding wagon capacity would therefore strengthen both defence logistics and conventional cargo supply chains.

Port connectivity is another critical issue. According to Mazzola, even Europe’s largest seaports face limitations when it comes to moving large volumes inland by rail. “If you get ten ships in Rotterdam, only one load can be taken out of the port by rail,” he said, highlighting the need for stronger rail links between ports and inland corridors.

Military convoy

Bureaucracy also remains a major obstacle. A military convoy travelling by rail from France to Romania currently takes around 45 days, largely due to cross-border approval procedures. “Thirty of those 45 days are just permissions,” Mazzola said, warning that such timelines would be unacceptable during a crisis.

Proposals by the European Commission to cut approval times to three working days – and as little as six hours in emergencies – represent a step forward. However, Mazzola cautioned that mechanisms being developed to accelerate military rail movements currently fail to address a key issue for operators.

“If the emergency system is activated and the rules suddenly change, there is no compensation for railways,” he said. “We still need to pay salaries, suppliers and run the business.”

This article was originally published on our sister publication ProjectCargo Journal

“As a result, the port-rail area has different operational and infrastructural needs, which should be reflected in the legal regime applicable to the port-rail interface”, the two associations highlighted in a joint paper. What they are asking is to assess, together with EU legislators, to what extent the current regulatory framework of the port-rail interface can be simplified without hampering safety and interoperability.

Better port-rail coordination

Concerning the cooperation between ports and railways, CER and ESPO underlined how fragmentation continues to be a challenge. The main issues they identified are “fragmented planning, complex interfaces between actors, different IT-systems, limited data exchange and last-mile cost challenges”. According to them, port authorities, railway undertakings, infrastructure managers and terminal operators all need to ramp up their commitment. They should prioritise the standardisation of IT systems and data exchange as well as planning and investments.

It’s all about the money, money, money

The last issue brought up in the joint paper published by CER and ESPO is adequate funding. Despite acknowledging the importance of mechanisms such as the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and the implementation of the TEN-T corridors, they pointed out the need for more. For example, the two associations are asking to increase the CEF package for 2028-2034 to 100 billion euros, compared to the current 81 and change.

They are not alone in this quest, as the same request was recently brought forward by the European Economic and Social Committee. “Adequate EU grants remain indispensable to address infrastructure gaps, strengthen dual-use readiness and support projects with high European added value”, the CEF and ESPO’s joint paper stressed. The cries for help continue to be many, coming from all sides of the logistics and supply chain industry, but managing to be listened to remains the most significant obstacle.

European Cargo Experience

The synergies between ports, terminals and railways will be one of the focal points of the upcoming European Cargo Experience. This brand new event, organised jointly by RailFreight.com and our sister publications World Cargo News and ProjectCargo Journal, will take place in Gdansk on 6 and 7 May 2025.

By gathering players from various sectors, the European Cargo Experience will be the perfect opportunity to have meaningful discussions about the current situation and how it can be improved. Find out more about the programme here and register for the event here, the Early Bird discount only lasts another week.

‘Release to Service’ and ‘Release to Operation

’The amendments to the protocols ‘Release to Service’ and ‘Release to Operation’ clarify who is responsible for what, when responsibility transfers, and what information needs to flow between parties., UIP said. What is new is the explicit inclusion of Entities in Charge of Maintenance (ECM) “as the entity responsible for the outcome of maintenance”. Thus, there is a continuous and clear chain of responsibility from the ECM all the way to the RU using the wagons.

GCU Broker Platform

UIP, together with the European Rail Freight Association (ERFA) and the International Union of Railways (UIC), developed the GCU Broker Platform in 2019 and are continuously improving it. Its objective is to digitalise and optimise the obligatory exchange of data on defects and the outcome of repairs processes, UIP underlined. “The platform replaces what were often fragmented, paper-based or bilateral processes with a standardised digital exchange”. This, together with the clarified on-site maintenance rules, is expected to make the maintenance of rail freight wagons seamless and efficient.