Study exploiting the possibility of creating a rail ... · Study exploiting the possibility of creating a rail freight corridor linking Belgium and Poland . ... 2.2.2 Rail transport

Study exploiting the possibility of creating a rail

freight corridor linking Belgium and Poland

Study exploiting the possibility of creating a rail

freight corridor linking Belgium and Poland

drs. A.A. Roest Crollius

This report has been financed by Infrabel

Reference R20100134/31332000/ARC/LJO

Final version

Zoetermeer, September 2010

© The use of figures and/or text from this report is permitted if the source is clearly

mentioned. Copying of this report is only permitted with written permission from NEA.

Study exploiting the possibility of creating a rail freight corridor linking Belgium and Poland

R20100134.doc 1 September 2010

Contents

1 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 3 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Chapter 1 – Current situation on the market and its’ potential

for further development 3 1.2.1 Freight volumes analysis on the corridor Belgium – Poland /

Czech Republic 3 1.3 Intermodal transport analysis 5 1.4 Chapter 2 - Identification of barriers to further development 8 1.5 Chapter 3 Selection of the Paths 8 1.6 Action Plan focusing on Belgium 9 1.6.1 Elaboration of the action plan 11

2 CURRENT SITUATION ON THE MARKET AND ITS’ POTENTIAL FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT 17

2.1 Freight volumes analysis on the corridor Belgium – Poland /

Czech Republic 17 2.1.1 Background and Methodology 17 2.1.2 Results 23 2.1.3 Conclusions 39 2.2 Intermodal transport analysis 40 2.2.1 Rail shuttle connections and market parties 42 2.2.2 Rail transport compared to other transport modes 48 2.3 Conclusions 59

3 IDENTIFICATION OF BARRIERS TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT 63

3.1 Introduction 63 3.2 Barriers as viewed by the stakeholders 63 3.3 Institutional barriers & issues 64 3.4 Operational barriers & issues 65 3.5 Technical barriers & issues 66 3.6 Market barriers & issues 66 3.7 Conclusions 67

4 SELECTION OF THE PATHS AND RAIL TERMINALS 69

4.1 Introduction 69 4.1.1 Main considered rail traffic routes between Belgium and

Relations with other international European programs 71 4.1.2 Relations with other international European programs 72 4.2 The Belgium initiative 73 4.3 Rail Routes 74 4.3.1 Montzen route 74 4.3.2 Main barriers 74 4.3.3 Iron Rhine 75 4.3.4 Main barriers for revitalizing the Iron Rhine 76 4.3.5 Via the Netherlands - Rotterdam - Betuwelijn or Osnabruck 77 4.3.6 Comparing routes 77

Study exploiting the possibility of creating a rail freight corridor linking Poland and Belgium

2 R20100134.doc September 2010

4.3.7 Corridor Capacity 79 4.4 Road 79 4.5 Rail terminals 79 4.5.1 Antwerp 80 4.5.2 Zeebrugge 81 4.6 Infrastructure Projects 82 4.6.1 Zeebrugge 84 4.7 Conclusions 85

5 REFERENCES 87

6 APPENDIX 89 6.1 Traction providers and rail operators in Belgium 89 6.2 List of Interviews 90 6.3 A complete list of terminals in Belgium 90 6.4 Rail maps 91 6.1 Table: Action Plan for Rail Freight Corridor Belgium – Poland

(complete version) 96 6.4.1 Elaboration of the action plan 102



1 Management Summary

1.1 Introduction

In addition to the existing rail legislation, a latest legislative development was

that the position (EU) No 2/2010 of the Council at first reading with a view to the

adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council

concerning a European rail network for competitive freight was published 4 May

2010. Within this regulation proposal, a total of nine principle routes of freight

corridors are selected to be used as the base for the establishment of European

rail freight corridors in the near future. In addition, clear and tighter rules are

proposed in this regulation proposal concerning the establishment, organization

and management of the rail freight corridors. This regulation proposal

demonstrates the resolution of policy makers in facilitating the rail freight sector

in Europe. Besides, it shows the crucial role the principle routes will play in

establishing the European rail freight corridors. Among all principle routes, route

Bremerhaven/Rotterdam/Antwerp-Aachen/Berlin-Warsaw-Terespol (Poland-

Belarus border)/Kaunas is one of them. NEA Transport research and training

(NEA) has been executed recently a ‘study exploiting the possibility of creating a

rail freight corridor linking Poland and The Netherlands’. Infrabel has requested

NEA to carry out a similar study for Belgium in order to include Belgium in this

corridor study.

The Management Summary provides an overview of the results of Task 1 (market

situation and forecasting), 2 (barriers to the market) and 3 (corridor description)

and the Action Plan.

1.2 Chapter 1 – Current situation on the market and its’ potential for further development

1.2.1 Freight volumes analysis on the corridor Belgium – Poland / Czech Republic

Overall, it can be concluded that the rail freight volumes in the corridor Belgium

– Poland/Czech Republic are rather limited. Especially compared to other

volumes on the corridor such as between Belgium and Germany or between

Poland and Germany.

In the direction from Belgium to Poland/Czech Republic, the rail freight volume is

169.000 tons or about 223 trains in 2007 towards Poland and 23.000 tons or

about 31 trains towards the Czech Republic. For future years, the volumes

towards Poland ranges between 271.000 tons in the low growth scenario for

2020 (index 1.6) to more than 422,000 tons (index 2.5) in the middle scenario in

2030 to 558.000 tons in the high growth scenario for the year 2030 (index 3.3)

and 718.000 tons (index 4.2) in 2040.



Towards the Czech Republic, volumes vary between 33.000 (index 1.4) in the

low scenario for 2020 and 46,000 (index 1.9) in the middle scenario in 2030 and

57.000 (index 2.4) in 2030 and 69.000 (index 3) in 2040 in the high scenario.

In the other direction from Poland/ Czech Republic to Belgium, the rail freight

volume is 332.000 tons or about 305 trains from Poland and about 100.000 tons

or 112 trains from the Czech Republic in 2007. For future years, the volume from

Poland ranges between 436.000 tons in the low growth scenario for 2020 (index

1.3) to 700,000 tons (index 2.1) in the middle scenario for 2030 to more than

1.629.000 tons in the high growth scenario for the year 2030 (index 4.9) and

2.391.000 tons in 2040 (index 7.2). Volumes from the Czech Republic vary

between 131.000 tons (index 1.3) in the low scenario for 2020, 211,000 tons

(index 2.1) in the middle scenario in 2030 and 490.000 tons in 2030 (index 4.9)

and 720.000 tons in 2040 (index 7.2) in the high scenario. An overview of the

volumes per year per direction, per scenario is provided below.

Total volumes between BE and PL / CZ in all scenarios

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2007 2020 L 2030 L 2040 L 2020 T 2030 T 2040 T 2020 H 2030 H 2040 H

Scenario

Volu

me

in 1

000

tonn

es

BE -> CZBE -> PLCZ -> BEPL -> BE

Although the rail freight volumes have a strong growth resulting from macro-

economic developments and global developments in the transport market, the

market share of rail increases up to 2040 at most with a couple of percentage

point for the low and the trend scenario. Only in the high scenario with a high

economic growth and measures towards internalization we see rather high

market shares. However, given the set up of the exercise these percentages

should be treated with the utmost care – especially the % for 2040. Note that for

example over the scenarios analysed by Federaal Planbureau, the highest modal

share for rail was 17% on average for Belgium as a whole.

In the scenario calculations specific developments in the rail freight market in

the corridor and specific actions to stimulate the use of rail freight transport

have not been taken into account.



If specific developments in the rail freight market are expected and measures

and policies are introduced to stimulate the use of rail freight transport, there

might be a higher potential for rail freight transport on this corridor.

Comparing traffic flows in the Dutch-Poland, Dutch-Czech Republic study to the

Belgium-Poland and Belgium-Czech Republic study shows that there are more or

less two corridors: a strong Belgium-Poland and Dutch-Czech Republic traffic

flow and a much weaker Belgium-Czech Republic and Dutch-Poland traffic flow.

1.3 Intermodal transport analysis

Based on the intermodal transport analysis between Belgium and Poland, a

SWOT-analysis1 can be drawn. This analysis is visible in table 2.9.

Table 1.1 SWOT-analysis rail transport between Belgium and Poland

Strengths Weaknesses

- Low transport costs;

- Sustainable way of freight transport;

- Safe transport mode (if theft concerned);

- Antwerp as important hub of second largest

deep-sea operator MSC;

- Sufficient terminal capacity.

- Currently low amount of deep-sea cargo to

fill complete trains; strong competition

from ports in Germany and Baltic states;

- High access fees in Poland;

- Complex organization;

- Long term investments.

Opportunities Threats

- Further development rail services to Central

and Southern parts of Poland;

- Growing transport flows (especially deep-sea

traffic) after economic crisis;

- Growth potential in port of Antwerp due to

availability of sufficient container handling

capacity.

- Developing as a strong rail corridor for

(amongst others) metal products.

- Increasing imbalance in trade flows;

- Ongoing lack of cargo due to strong

competition from other and/or better

situated seaports;

- Lack of economies of scale in times of

economic downturn.

In 2007, rail freight volumes between Belgium and Poland were about 170,000

ton (Belgium to Poland) and 332,000 ton (Poland to Belgium). Currently, from

Belgium to Poland, the commodities mainly transported by rail are foodstuffs and

manufactured intermediate and final goods (which are transported mainly in

intermodal transport units). From Poland to Belgium mainly metal products and -

to a lesser extend - also chemicals, manufactured goods and foodstuffs are

transported. Concerning the other commodities, the volumes are zero or close to

zero. This trade pattern is also visible in the rail transport corridor between the

Czech Republic and Belgium.

1 SWOT means: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.



For future years, Belgium to Poland volume ranges between 271,000 ton in the

low growth scenario for 2020 to 558,000 ton for the year 2030 and 718,000 ton

for the year 2040 in the high growth scenario. In the medium scenario (T),

transport volumes grow from 309,000 in 2020 to 516,000 in 2040. Belgium to

Czech Republic volumes ranges between 33,000 ton in the low growth scenario

for 2020 to approximately 57,000 ton for the year 2030 and 69,000 ton for the

year 2040 in the high growth scenario. In the medium scenario transport flows

vary from 37,000 in 2020 to about 53,000 in 2040. We would, however, like to

point out here that – given the set up of the model – the predictions for the year

2040 are less reliable and should be treated with care.Vice versa, for both Poland

and the Czech Republic, the growth figures from these countries to Belgium are

expected to develop much faster, although these remain rather low for the Czech

Republic compared to Poland. From Poland to Belgium the volumes ranges

between 436,000 ton in the low growth scenario for 2020 to about 700,000 in

the middle scenario in 2030 to even more than 1.6 million ton in the high growth

scenario for the year 2030; especially the metal products are expected to grow

considerably. The predictions for the year 2040 in the high scenario go even

further but, as mentioned before, are less reliable.

These forecasts are much higher than the most optimistic forecast for the

Netherlands in which rail volumes are expected to grow to a maximum of 1.2

million in 2040 (high growth scenario). Hence, these Poland – Belgium forecasts

underline the high potential of the Belgium – Poland rail corridor. From the Czech

Republic to Belgium the volumes ranges between 131,000 ton in the low growth

scenario for 2020 to 211,000 ton in 2030 in the central scenario to 490,000 ton

in the high growth scenario for the year 2030 and even till 720,000 tons in 2040.

In more detail, it can be concluded that especially the metal products (regarding

both Poland and the Czech republic) and containerized goods (between Belgium

and the Czech Republic) show a strong growth on these corridors. Because the

rail freight volumes are expected to grow fast, the market share of rail could

increase from 7% in 2007 to 8% in the middle and 9% in the high growth

scenario in 2030 (Belgium to Poland) and from 20% in 2007 to 21% in the

medium scenario in 2030 and 39% in the high growth scenario in 2030 (Poland

to Belgium). Finally, the market share of rail could increase from 13% in 2007 to

15% in the medium scenario and 16% in the high growth scenario in 2030

(Belgium to Czech Republic) and from 26% in 2007 to 28% in the medium

scenario in 2030 (Czech Republic to Belgium). In the high scenario this share

increases to 51% in 2030. Even taking into account that this is a scenario with

larger economic growth and measures aimed at a model shift towards rail, this

seems to be a too high modal share. Modal shares for 2040 are even higher, but

are likely overestimated in the case of transport from the Czech Republic/Poland

to Belgium.

Analyzing the intermodal transport market between Belgium and Poland, the

highest potential for rail transport is on the corridor between Belgium and the

centre (Poznan - Warsaw) and the South (Wroclaw – Katowice) of Poland. On

these corridors, rail transport has – especially if lightweight cargo is transported

- a cost advantage over short sea shipping via Polish seaports, due to long

distances of pre- and end haulage. Rail transport has also a clear cost advantage

over road transport if pre/end haulage is limited.



The more origin and/or destinations of cargo are located Southwards and near a

rail terminal, the higher is the potential for rail transport. In addition, the

majority (87%) of all rail shipments (measured in weight) from Belgium to

Poland currently has a destination in the central or Southern part of Poland. In

the other direction, these parts in Poland are even stronger involved: 94% of all

rail shipments (measured in weight) from Poland to Belgium has an origin in the

central or Southern part of Poland.

Another important development is the growing consciousness of sustainable

supply chains in which rail transport will play an important role. If cargo transit

times are considered, those supply chains which ‘allow’ some longer transit times

in certain parts of the supply chain, rail transport can be a good transport

alternative. While some rail services have even competitive transit times

compared to road transport, rail transport is for all parts in Poland much faster

than short sea shipping via Polish seaports. Above all, frequencies of rail

transport services between Belgium and Poland are higher than for short sea

shipping. There is not enough cargo to load short sea vessels (almost) full every

day of the week, while rail transport offers a daily service between both

countries; a higher transport frequency means a higher degree of flexibility for

shippers. Finally, it is worth mentioning that especially rail services over the

weekend have an advantage over road transport, because of the driving ban on

Sunday within Germany. Table 2.10 shows the strengths and weaknesses of rail

transport over road and short sea shipping. Regarding transport costs it is clear

that short sea shipping only has an advantage over rail transport if origin and/or

destinations of cargo are located in the Northern part of Poland, close to the

Polish seaports of Gdansk/Gdynia.

Strengths and weaknesses of rail transport compared to other transport modes

Transport costs Transit times Flexibility

Rail versus road

lightweight goods + - -

Rail versus short sea

lightweight goods

+ (Southern regions)

- (Northern regions) + +

Rail versus road

heavy goods + - -


heavy goods



In short, rail transport has potential if cargo is or has:

• Originated and/or a destination in Central/Southern Poland;

• High and low weight density; however the advantage towards the other

modalities is stronger for light weight goods, because of weight restrictions.

• Predictable well in advance;

• Expected to be produced and transported in a sustainable way.



1.4 Chapter 2 - Identification of barriers to further development

The barriers to the transport of goods between Poland and Belgium which have

been presented above, are those reported by the interested parties who are

operating on the market of rail transport. These barriers are subjective opinions

and they do not always coincide with the opinions of others participants of the

market. However, in most cases, the identified barriers are the same or similar.

The barriers focused on Beglium corridor as there are limited operators running

trains to Poland and the Polish are described in detail in the Netherlands-Poland

corridor study.

When analyzing the railway freight market Belgium and Poland it must be noted

that there is a strong competition with the others means of transport and also

inside the railway market (especially between block trains). This competition

results in the most important feature of the services offered to the customer

being the price of carriages of goods between Belgium and Poland. The vast

majority of the interviewees focused on the fact that as regards transport offers,

customers choose the cheapest offer. Only few times the quality of transport was

more stressed on. Indeed, only a few interviewees declared that in addition to

price, other factors such as quality of transport service play an important role. In

addition, significant importance was given to the inadequacy of infrastructure

and the additional scope of services offered.

1.5 Chapter 3 Selection of the Paths

This Task has been presenting the features of the Belgium railways in their

relations to Poland. For each route the advantages and disadvantages are

described including the bottlenecks. The main terminals are described including

some caracteristics and the most important infrastructure projects relevant to

the corridor Belgium – Poland are presented.

An overwiew is provided between the main alternative routes from Antwerp to

Hannover and from Hannover to Poland. Following routes were considered:

• Antwerp – Montzen – Hannover

• Antwerp – Rotterdam – Duisburg – Hannover

• Antwerp – Rotterdam – Osnabruck – Hannover

• Antwerp – Duisburg – Hannover (Iron Rhine)

The three available routes show quite some differences; the route via Rotterdam

and Osnabruck is currently the fastest, the shortest and the cheapest; which will

change with the opening of revitalished Iron Rhine. The Iron Rhine is according

the schedule the fastest, shortest and nearly the cheapest route to Hannover in

future.

Especially the track access charges are (of the existing routes) much lower at the

Rotterdam-Osnabruck route than the other two current options. However for this

last route the locomotive has to been adopted with the Dutch safety and energy

system. Moreover, the route can coop with the current level of freight trains, but

faces congestion when traffic rises.



As track access charges in Belgium and the Netherlands are cheaper than in

Germany, it reduces TAC costs when taking the route which is avoiding extra

kilometers in Germany. The Iron Rhine is the shortest, but, most probably, due

to the higher German access charges not the cheapest.

The Anwerp – Montzen – Hannover route is or will be included in the existing and

planned to be implemented European transport rail services corridors such as

ERTMS corridors, TEN-T corridors or RailNetEurope (RNE corridor 3).

The proposed revitalished Iron Rhine Railway line is a future alternative to

Poland being the shortest route to Hannover and much cheaper than the Montzen

route.

In order to allow the efficient implementation of the transport of goods in the

planned corridors, appropriate actions should be proposed and laid down. These

activities should be coordinated one another and should be associated with the

adaptation and adequate maintenance of the railway and terminal

infrastructures.

1.6 Action Plan focusing on Belgium

A complete version of Action Plan for Rail Freight Corridor Belgium – Poland

(hereinafter: the Corridor) is made and provided in the Appendix 6.1. This

Action Plan is made on the basis of the Action Plan of developing corridor The

Netherlands – Poland1 with focus on Belgium. In total, seven measures (listed in

the 1st column) are brought forward, each of which presents the development of

one specific aspect of the Corridor. Under each measure a set of milestones

(listed in the 2nd column) are generated, adding up to a total of forty-one

milestones for all seven measures. For each milestone, primary stakeholders are

determined from four types of stakeholders (listed in the 3rd column), namely,

Ministries of Transport (MoTs), Infrastructure Managers (IMs), National Safety

Authorities (NSAs), and Rail Regulators (RRs), to be responsible for the

execution of the milestone. Besides, the level of workload (listed in the 4th

column) and the period for implementation (listed in the 5thcolumn) are

estimated for each milestone.

The timeline for implementing the Action Plan is between 1 to 5 years. Therefore

long term milestones have an estimated 5 year period, short term milestones up

to two years and medium in between. Since Germany, despite being one of the

Corridor states, is not involved in this study, stakeholders concerned in the

Action Plan are those in Belgium, the Netherlands and in Poland.

While all of these milestones are made for the Corridor, a few of them are of

particular relevance for Belgium. Given this, we deduct from the Action Plan

Complete Version the milestones that are custom-made for Belgium.

1 Reference: NEA (2010), Study ‐ Exploiting the Possibility of creating a rail freight corridor linking Poland and the Netherlands, Zoetermeer, 2010



As seen in Table 1.4, in total fourteen milestones focus on Belgium (They are

also marked * in Appendix 6.1).

Table 1.4: Action plan particularly for Belgium on Rail Freight Corridor Belgium -

Poland

Measures Milestones Primary

Stakeholders

Level of

Work-

load

Implemen-

tation

Period

(1) *Improve synchronisation of timetabling

with the Corridor members: taking into

account of, among others, the integrative

planning of alternative routes BE/NL – DE

including part of the ERTMS corridor A, C, &

F, Montzen route, and Iron Rhine.

IMs Medium Short-term

(2) *Extend to the Corridor the Beligum

policy of surcharge of cancelling train-paths

reserved by RUs in order to stimulate RUs

to make efficient planning and avoid

possible discriminative actions.

IMs Medium Short-term I. Achieving

Corridor Path

Planning (5) *Explore possibility to provide updated,

delay-related information (e.g. data from

Europtirail) timely available also to rail

operators who have direct, frequent

contacts with customers, so that rail

operators and LSPs (logistics service

providers) can timely adjust operational &

logistical planning according to new

situations.


III. Achieving

Corridor

Capacity

Planning

(2) *Plan medium/long term scenarios of

state financing on removing capacity

bottlenecks, taking into account its

consistency with TEN-T and ERTMS

progress, and with the maintenance,

upgrade, reconstruction, and charging

planning of the Corridor states.

IMs Medium Long-term

IV. Establishing

Corridor

Performance

Regime

(3) *Derive appropriate incentives for IMs

or RUs to improve the reliability and traffic

performance along the Corridor.

IMs Low Medium-term

(1) *Investigate on the possibility for a

single working language on the Corridor

(e.g. English or single code language).

NSAs/IMs High Medium-term

V. Improving

Corridor

Interoperability

(2) Speed up licensing process along the

Corridor to facilitate quicker access of the

RUs to the corridor countries.

NSAs High Short-term



(1) *Ensure and maintain independence of

infrastructure manager from the national

railways for path allocation, neutrality of

the terminals, shunting yards, and/or

related facilities, which belong to or

operated by the infrastructure managers.

MoTs High Medium-term

(2) *Consider public financial support for

new open terminals along the Corridor.

Open up existing terminals, shunting yards,

and fuelling facilities (i.e. within the Port of

Antwerp/BE)

MoTs Medium Medium-term

(5) *Monitor the terminal handling charges

and the degree of neutrality of terminals,

shunting yards, and facilities along the

Corridor.

RRs Medium Long-term

VI. Striving for

Corridor Level-

Playing-Field

(6) *Assign more competence to and

increase autonomy of the Rail Regulators

with regard to competition issues, market

monitoring, inspection, and single case

proceedings.


(3) *Consider future extension of the

Corridor to Czech, Belarus, Ukraine,

Lithuania, and Russia.

MoTs Medium Short-term

(5) *Verify the Corridor by regularly

evaluating and monitoring the freight traffic

on the Corridor, particularly the critical

border-crossing nodes (e.g. Port of

Antwerp, Aachen-West).

MoTs Low Short-term VII. Establishing

corridor

governance

structure (7) *Cooperate with other Rail Regulators

along the Corridor to deal with issues and

complaints, provide advices for national

governments and the EC on certain legal

acts and/or operational/technical

requirements.

RRs Low Long-term

1.6.1 Elaboration of the action plan

The measures and the milestones in the Action Plan are elaborated in the

following section.

I. Achieving Corridor Path Planning

(1) The synchronisation of timetabling among corridor infrastructure managers

concerns exploring opportunities for developing cross-border timetabling on

the Corridor, like the catalogue path developed by RNE for the RNE corridors. A

common deadline of annual timetable delivery by all corridor infrastructure

managers can be considered.



Here, attention needs to be drawn regarding consistencies with:

(a.) the progress on developing renowned corridors (e.g. ERTMS Corridor A, B

& F; RNE Corridor C02, C03, & C05; Principle routes of freight corridors No.1,

No.2, & No.8; TEN-T rail freight axes No 5 and No 23; TERFN network where

BE, NL and DE are concerned; Pan European Corridors No 2 and No 3);

(b.) the integrative planning of several alternative routes on border-crossing

stretch BE/NL – DE on e.g. ERTMS Corridors A, C, & F; RNE Corridors C02, C03

& C05; Principle routes of freight corridors No.1, No.2, & No.8; the Iron Rhein

route; and the Montzen route,);

(c.) the differences between corridor states regarding track maintenance

planning and priority rules.

(2) Extend the existing Belgium policy to the corridor-wide policy, where

railway undertakings are subject to a fee in case it cancels – outside of the

official annual path application phase and path scheduling amendments phases

(6 times/yr) – the train-paths it has requested earlier. The objective is to

stimulate railway undertakings to make better operational planning and to

avoid possible discrimination by preoccupying many unnecessary paths in order

to keep the competitors out of the market.

(5) Explore possibility of providing the updated information concerning a

running service including, among others, timetables of path and of shunting

yards and stations, real-time train movements (e.g. data from Europtirail

applied in Belgium) timely available, not only to the railway undertakings, but

also to the rail operators that have direct & frequent contact with the end

customers (e.g. shippers, LSPs) who need to know, especially when delays

occurs, the locations of their trains, wagons and cargos; the remaining

duration; and the estimated arrival time. This allows both rail operators and

end customers to timely adjust their operational and logistical planning

according to the updated situations. The service performance of rail operator is

also improved.



III. Achieving Corridor Capacity Planning

(2) Based on the results of capacity analysis, make medium- and long- term

scenarios of infrastructure financing in order to anticipate capacity growth and

mitigate capacity bottlenecks from technical and operational constraints. These

scenarios need to focus on both the tracks within the country and tracks

linking gates and hubs at border-crossing areas (e.g. Port of Antwerp, terminal

Aachen-West, Port of Rotterdam; Zevenaar – Emmerich; Oldenzaal – Bad

Bentheim; Frankfurt (Oder) – Kunowice; Horka – Bielawa Dolna; Szczecin).

The infrastructure planning also needs to be consistent with the rail projects in

TEN-T (e.g. priority axes No 5), and the progress on ERTMS corridor A, C and

F. This shall also take into account the maintenance, upgrading and

reconstruction, and the charging plan of the corridor states. In Beligum,

current investment plan is for period 2001-2012 and the next investment plan

2013-2025 is under preparation.

IV. Establishing Corridor Performance Regime

(3) Since causes and duration of delays could be monitored via the EPR

(European Performance Regime), implementation of appropriate financial

incentives can be suggested for infrastructure managers or railway

undertakings to improve the traffic performance and the reliability of train

services along the Corridor.

V. Improving Corridor Interoperability

(1) Introduce cross-acceptance of approval procedure of rolling stocks on the

Corridor by using the IRL (International Requirement List) in conformity with

the common checklist according to the EC Directive 2008/57/EC. Scale up the

existing bilateral agreements between NL-DE for cross acceptance of train

crews to a corridor-wide implementation, in conformity with the Directive

2007/59 on engine driver licensing and certification. Consider using the same

approach for cross-acceptance of freight wagon if necessary. Increase time and

cost efficiency of this procedure. Have dialogue with the railway undertakings

for impact assessment of this cross-acceptance action.

(2) Investigate the possibilities to achieve using one single working language

for service operation, for example in English or code language, in accordance

with the TSI regarding working language for service operation that is codified

in TSI Operations Chapter 4.2.1.5. However, it should be born in mind that

compatibility with relevant Belgium legislation (i.e. law of 1962) should be

taken into account.



VI. Striving for Corridor Level-playing-field

(1) Ensure and maintain independence of the infrastructure managers from the

national railway companies for path allocation; and keep neutral and open

those terminals, shunting yards, and/or related facilities which belong to or

operated by the infrastructure managers. To reduce further possible

discriminative behaviours of the national railways, the option to break down

the holding structure to which both infrastructure manager and railway

undertaking belong can be considered, since this structure seems to bring

doubts internally and externally regarding the level of independence of the

infrastructure managers from the national railway undertaking. However, the

compatibility with relevant EC legislation should be taken into account.

However, this only applies if the holding structure is not compatible with

relevant EC legislation.

(2) Public financial support to the construction of new open terminals along the

Corridor (the Netherlands (e.g. in Valburg, and Poland). Open up the existing

terminals, shunting yards, and fuelling facilities in Belgium (i.e. Port of

Antwerp). This milestone shall improve the accessibility of (intermodal)

infrastructure facilities along the entire corridor.

(5) The corridor Rail Regulators are also recommended, if possible, to take the

monitoring role in assessing the discrepancies in handing charges between

different terminals, as well as the degree of neutrality of terminals, shunting

yards, and other facilities open to all railway undertakings.

(6) Increase the scope of competence of the corridor Rail Regulators with

regard to imposing penalty on competition issues, inspection, market

monitoring power, and competence of carrying out single case proceedings. A

complete separation of the Rail Regulator from the government increases its

level of independence and neutrality. This shall help implement the above

tasks more effectively and ensure level-playing-field on the Corridor.

VII. Establishing Corridor Governance Structure

(3) Extension of the Corridor is needed in the future to correspond to the

traffic flows. In particular, extending the Corridor to other bordering countries

on the other side, need to be considered (e.g. Czech, Belarus, Ukraine,

Lithuania and Russia)..

(5) Verify the Corridor by regularly monitoring and evaluating the freight

traffic along the Corridor, paying particular attention to the traffic that passes

critical border-crossing points (e.g. Port of Antwerp; Port of Rotterdam;

Montzen-Aachen; Essen – Roosendaal along Corridor C; Zevenaar – Emmerich;

Odenzaal – Bad Bentheim; Franktfurt (Oder) – Kunowice; Horka – Bielawa

Dolna; Szczecin.)



(7) Cooperate with other Rail Regulators along the Corridor for identifying

crucial issues and dealing with complaints relevant for the Corridor; based on

which provide advices for national governments and the EC regarding

possibilities of adjusting certain legal acts and/or harmonising certain

operational and technical requirements.



2 Current situation on the market and its’ potential for further development

2.1 Freight volumes analysis on the corridor Belgium – Poland / Czech Republic

2.1.1 Background and Methodology

In 2008 about 60 million tons of goods were transported over the Belgian railway

system. The rail freight market in Belgium appears to be very international

oriented as in 2008 63% of the transported tons have an international link. This

% even rises to 74% if we consider tonkm instead of tons1. The focus of this

document lies on the transport flows between Poland and the Czech Republic and

Belgium. Previously, TNO(2008) made a similar scenario calculation for the rail

corridor Netherlands-Poland.

TML produced scenario calculations for rail freight transport (and other modes of

transport) between Belgium and Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. This

has been done for a number of scenarios (low growth, trend growth and high

growth) and for three time horizons 2020, 2030 and 2040. These scenario

calculations provide good insight in the current and future expected rail freight

flows on the corridor Belgium – Germany – Poland – Czech Republic. Besides, by

analyzing transport of other modes also freight flows can be identified that are

potential for rail freight transport.

Methodology

An important starting point for the scenario calculations are the Traffic Forecasts

Iron Rhine (2007), the TNO study on scenario calculations Rail freight transport

on corridor Netherlands – Poland (2009) and the study by the Bundesamt für

Güterverkehr (2010). Furthermore a study analyzing rail freight flows in Belgium

by FOD Economie, KMO, Middenstand en Energie (2010) and data originating

from the TRANS-TOOLS model2 was also used. Note that both the Traffic

Forecasts for the Iron Rhine and the TNO study made forecasts for rail freight

using the European transport model TRANS-TOOLS as a base.

Scenarios

The background scenarios are the same as in the scenarios used in the Traffic

Forecasts of the Iron Rhine and in the TNO study. They differ in the assumed

economic growth and in the assumed transport policy.

1 FOD Economie, KMO, Middenstand en Energie (2010); Analyse van het goederenvervoer per

spoor in België. 2 http://energy.jrc.ec.europa.eu/transtools/TT_model.html



Key uncertainties in scenarios

The approach used has a number of uncertainties. More specifically, the following

uncertainties are identified:

• Representativeness and validity of base year

• Socio-economic developments

• Developments in the transport market, including the potential reactivation of

the Iron Rhine

The next sections describe the way these uncertainties have been treated in the

modeling approach.

Representativeness and validity of base year

2007 was chosen as a base year as it is also the base year in the TNO report.

This year was chosen as the base given the recent strong development of rail

transport, which was believed to be structural. Using older data would not take

into account these changes.

We first compared data on transport flows, reported in the following studies:

• the traffic forecasts Iron Rhine (2007)

• the TNO study (2008)

• original Transtools data

• the study by Bundesamt für Güterverkehr (2010)

• the study by FOD Economie (2010)

Table 2.2 shows the data reported in these studies for the transport flows of

interest for this study. Some studies report transport flows only for the year

2005 or only for the year 2007, while other studies such as the study by the

Bundesamt für Güterverkehr (2010) and by the FOD Economie (2010) report

longer time series.

Table 2.2 Comparison transport flows (1000 tons)

From To Transtools TNO rapport

(2008)

Bundesamt für Güterverkehr

(2010)

Traffic Forecast Iron Rhine

(2007)

FOD Economie

(2010)

Base year 2005 2007 2007 2005 2007

BE DE 5923 4900* 4116 7957

BE PL 130 230 155

BE CZ 167 133 22

DE BE 6676 2450* 2132 4491

DE NL 4006 2450 3872

DE PL 2875 2960 7592

DE CZ 2052 4100

NL DE 12206 16270 17400*

NL CZ 254 91

NL PL 280 270 213

PL BE 412 121 307

PL DE 8529 7650 4518

PL NL 145 63



CZ BE 296 68 92 99

CZ DE 6142 3721

CZ NL 293 65

* Data for 2008 in stead of for 2007

The comparison is not always straightforward as different base years are

reported, but in general the orders of magnitude correspond. Notable are the

differences between the transport flows reported between:

• Belgium and Germany by the German Bundesamt für Güterverkehr (2010)

and the Belgian FOD Economy (2010). Figures stated differ with a factor 1.6

for the direction Belgium-Germany and a factor 1.8 in the direction Germany-

Belgium.

• Belgium and the Czech Republic, where the Bundesamt für Güterverkehr

(2010) reports a transport flow which is about 6 times higher than the

volumes used in the Traffic Forecasts Iron Rhine. Notable here is that the

German study reports transport flows between Belgium and the Czech

Republic of 49 thousand tons in 2005 and of 45 thousand tons in 2009,

making the difference much smaller. Hence, there seems to be a lot of

fluctuations in these transport flow.

• Germany and Poland in the TNO study and the Bundesamt für Güterverkehr

(2010). The number stated by Bundesamt für Gütereverkehr (2010) is about

2.5 times higher than the numbers stated by TNO (2008).

None of the data sources can be used as a single starting point as none of the

studies report data for all links needed. We have opted for freight rail transport

to combine the results of the Traffic Forecasts and the study by the Bundesamt

für Güterverkehr (2010) as this combination leads to the greatest consistency

and as the Traffic Forecast figures where checked with data from B-rail.

Remember that both studies gave very different results for the Czech Republic.

We have opted to use the number stated by the vervoersprognoses as:

• the time series reported by the Bundesamt für Güterverkehr (2010) show

that in most years traffic flows are closer to the 22 thousand tons used in the

Iron Rhine forecasts than the 133 thousand tons reported for the year 2007.

• it was asked to be as consistent as possible with the Iron Rhine forecast

study.

For freight transport using other modes such as road and inland waterways we

relied on TRANS-TOOLS -data.

Apart from the problems with the initial data itself, opting for 2007 also implies

that the recent economic crisis is not taken into account. The study by

Bundesamt für Güterverkehr (2010) clearly shows a sharp decline in rail

transport between 2008 and 2009. For example, the number of goods train in

the year 2009 fell by 21% to 67 trains a day in each direction for east-west

transport operations. During the same period, the volume of transport from

Germany in the direction of the CEE countries fell by almost 50%, mainly due to

a strong decline in transport between Germany and Poland. In westwards

direction, total transport volume decreased by roughly 9% compared to 2008.

Hence, using data for 2009 – if available – would lead to a very different picture.



Considering both elements, the representativeness and validity of the base year

is one of the key uncertainties in the scenarios.

Socio-economic developments

As far as the socio-economic development is concerned, expectations in a

European trend scenario developed for the European Commission and

implemented, amongst others, in the TRANS-TOOLS project and the Iron Rhine

forecasts are the starting point.

Three distinct scenarios are used, one with a low economic growth (scen 1), one

with a medium growth (scen2) and one with a higher growth (scen3). The lower

growth scenario presumes a growth in Europe 0.5% lower than the growth in the

European trend scenario: 1.80% instead of 2.30% per annum for the EU25

(period 2005-2020). The higher growth scenario presumes a growth in Europe

0.5% higher than growth in the European trend scenario: 2.80% instead of

2.30% per annum for the EU25 (period 2005-2020). Table 2.2 below shows the

assumed yearly growth rates of GDP within the countries of relevance for this

analysis. For the growth rates until 2030 we relied on the growth rates used for

the Traffic Forecasts Iron Rhine. For the growth between 2030-2040 we used the

forecasts used within the PRIMES model as the Iron Rhine study was limited until

2030.

Table 2.3 Used yearly growth rates GDP (%)

scen1 scen 2 scen3

2005-

2020

2020-

2030

2005-

2030

2030-

2040

2005-

2020

2020-

2030

2005-

2030

2030-

2040

2005-

2020

2020-

2030

2005-

2030

2030-

2040

BE 1.71 1.07 1.45 1.12 2.18 1.55 1.93 1.17 2.66 2.02 2.40 1.23

NL 1.52 1.01 1.31 1.09 1.94 1.45 1.74 1.13 2.36 1.90 2.17 1.18

DE 1.36 0.71 1.10 1.08 1.75 1.03 1.35 1.10 2.13 1.34 1.82 1.14

CZ 2.69 1.61 2.25 1.12 3.44 2.32 2.94 1.16 4.18 3.03 3.72 1.21

PL 3.50 2.31 3.02 1.16 4.47 3.33 4.01 1.23 5.44 4.35 5.00 1.33

Source: Traffic Forecasts Iron Rhine, PRIMES model

These forecasts include a certain expected evolution of oil and energy prices. In

the long term, these prices are expected to increase. However, the evolution of

energy prices does not have a great influence on expected modal shares as both

modes (road and rail) are affected by increased energy costs, fuel price is only

one element of the cost structure and modal choices are not only based on cost

differences.

Developments in the transport market

The developments expected in the transport market will affect transportation

costs and times and will consequently affect, amongst others, the choice

between the different types of transport.



Within the Traffic Forecasts of the Iron Rhine, two distinct scenarios concerning

the developments in the transport market were used:

• A scenario (scenario A) with moderate developments including the

liberalization of rail transport;

• A more extensive scenario (scenario B) including the developments of the

previous scenario and including charges for external costs.

The moderate scenario A is based on a continuation of current policies. This

includes the policy as proposed by the European Commission in its White Paper

(European Commission, 2001), and in addition to it, Keep Europe Moving

(European Commission, 2006). One of the goals of this policy is to achieve a

shift from transportation by road to inland waterways and rail transportation.

For infrastructure, all projects currently in progress and all those that have

passed the definitive decision to be built have been included. For rail, it is

implicitly assumed that the capacity can facilitate any increase in demand, thus

the same transportation time can be offered. There are (except for the well-

known planned projects) no new rail connections expected. With respect to the

reactivation of the Iron Rhine, the traffic forecasts showed that the largest

potential for the Iron Rhine comes from economic growth and shifts from other

rail tracks. The reactivation of the Iron Rhine would cause only a small modal

shift.

The main reason for this small modal shift is that the reactivation of the Iron

Rhine mainly influences transport in the region Antwerp and North-Rhine-

Westfalen. The distance between these areas is relatively short; this is, less than

200 km. For such short distance, no large modal shifts can be expected as – in

general – rail transport is not concurrent on short distances. In summary, the

reactivation of the Iron Rhine does not really influence the scenario forecasts.

For rail transport a user charge of € 2.50 (real) per train kilometer is assumed

for the whole period 2020-2040 throughout Europe. Currently, the rate for most paths is lower in Belgium with prices varying around 1.4-2.5 euro/km1. Prices

vary with traction, time, weight, etc. A rail fee increase is expected in order to

charge all costs caused by the user to the user. A similar charge will be applied

in all countries across Europe. For road, a toll of € 0.15 per vehicle kilometer is

expected for the entire period 2020-2040 for the whole of Europe.

Furthermore, for the whole of Europe liberalization of the rail market across

Europe is expected including the implementation of the so-called "third railway

package". Due to this fact it is expected that the level of rail service will improve

(lower turnaround time and lower transport costs).

In the more extensive scenario B, it is also assumed, in addition to all these

developments, that a charge on external costs is introduced. Table 2.3 shows the

rates for freight.

1 Based on calculations using information stated in Infrabel (2009) for 2 routes and for two time

periods



Table 2.4 Charges external freight costs.

2020 2030-2040

Road 0,075 euro/vrtgkm 0,15 euro/vrtgkm

Rail 0,005 euro/tkm 0,01 euro/tkm

Inland shipping 0,005 euro/tkm 0,01 euro/tkm

Source: Traffic Forecasts Iron Rhine (2007)

Combination of key uncertainties

By combining the different variants of the socio-economic development (low,

moderate, high) with the variants of the development in the transport market

(moderate, more extensive) 6 different scenarios can be distinguished. The

combination of low economic growth with further developments in the transport

market and the combination of high economic growth with moderate

developments in the transport market will not be used because they add little to

the range of scenarios. Besides that, the combination of moderate economic

growth with further developments in the transport market is not used because

this scenario is slightly distinctive compared to the scenario of moderate

economic growth with moderate developments in the transport market.

Finally, following the TNO study and the Iron Rhine forecasts, the three following

combinations were chosen to be further elaborated:

• Low economic growth, moderate developments in the transport market

(LG scenario);

• Moderate economic growth, moderate developments in the transport

(GG scenario);

• High economic growth, further developments in the transport (HV scenario).

Among these three, the GG scenario can be considered as the reference. This

scenario contains the European trend scenario in terms of economic growth. In

terms of developments in the transport market it is close to the proposed policy

and the anticipated developments of the future. This scenario describes current

and expected future developments, not taking into account 'extreme'

developments. These three scenarios are combined with three time horizons,

namely 2020, 2030 and 2040. This means that there have been made

calculations for 9 scenario situations (3 scenarios for each of the 3 time

horizons).

Table 2.5 Overview of distinguished scenarios

2020 2030 2040

Low economic growth, moderate developments transport market (LG) X X X

Moderate economic growth, moderate developments transport market (GG) X X X

High economic growth, further developments transport markt (HV) X X X

Methodology rail corridor Belgium – Poland/Czech Republic study

For the rail corridor Belgium – Poland/Czech Republic, the transport flows from

the Traffic forecasts Iron Rhine and Bundesamt für Güterverkehr study are the

basis. However, a number of modifications have been made.



The modifications mainly concern the base year data. The Iron Rhine study data

is upgraded to the year 2007 using the TNO study and the German study.

Then in a next step new scenario calculations have been made with TRANS-

TOOLS and the results of the TNO study. based on updated base year data. In

the next figure an overview is given of the annual growth of GDP in the European

trendscenario. In the past, total transport grew faster than GDP in the EU25,

while rail transport grew slower than GDP (FOD Economie, 2010).

Concerning the results, it is stressed that the scenario calculations are mainly

based on macro-economic developments. Specific developments in the rail

freight market in this corridor are not taken into account.

2.1.2 Results

Rail freight volumes on the corridor in 2007

First of all the rail freight volumes on the corridor in the year 2007 have been

analysed. In the next two figures the country – to – country volumes of border

crossings on the corridor Belgium – Poland/Czech Republic are illustrated.

Figure 2.1: Rail freight corridor BE – PL/CZ, volumes in 2007, direction from

Belgium to Poland/Czech Republic

Rail freight corridor BE - PL & BE - CZ, volumes in 2007, Belgium to Poland & Czech Republic directionVolumes at border crossing by country relation

0.0001000.0002000.0003000.0004000.0005000.0006000.0007000.0008000.0009000.000

border BE-DE border DE-PL border DE-CZ

Border crossing

Volu

me

in 1

000

tonn

es

BE-DE BE-PL DE-PL BE-CZ NL-PL DE-CZ NL-CZ

Figure 2.1 shows that the largest flow in the corridor concerns the rail freight

flow between Germany and Poland, followed by the rail freight flow between

Belgium and Germany. The rail freight volume between Belgium and Poland

(passing the borders BE-DE and DE-PL) is relatively limited with about 170.000

tons per year. Volumes between Belgium and the Czech Republic are even lower

with about 23.000 tons transported per year.



Figure 2.2 Rail freight corridor BE – PL/CZ, volumes in 2007, direction from

Poland/Czech Republic to Belgium

Rail freight corridor BE - PL & BE - CZ, volumes in 2007, Poland & Czech Republic to Belgium direction

Volumes at border crossing by country relation

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

border PL-DE border CZ-DE border DE-BE

B or de r c r ossi ng

PL-DE PL-BE PL-NL CZ-DE CZ-BE CZ-NL DE-BE

In the direction from Poland/Czech Republic to Belgium, the flow with the highest

volume is between Poland and Germany, followed by the flow between the Czech

Republic and Germany. The volume between Poland and Belgium is about

332.000 tons in 2007 and about 100.000 tons between Czech Republic and

Belgium. The transport flows between Poland/Czech Republic and Belgium are

larger than the flows towards the Netherlands, while in the direction towards

Poland/Czech Republic the volumes departing in the Netherlands are higher than

the ones departing in Belgium.

Next, we consider the transport flows towards and from Germany and Poland in

somewhat more detail. We have divided both countries into three parts: a

Northern part, a Central part and a Southern Part. Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show how

both countries are split. Given the size of the country we did not make this

distinction for the Czech Republic.



Figure 2.3: Split Germany

Source: own division based on NUTS 2 regions as shown in TransTools



Figure 2.4 Split Poland

Source: own division based on NUTS 2 regions as shown in TransTools.

Figure 2.5 shows that the largest transport flow from Belgium to Germany is

directed towards the centre of Germany (48%), followed by North Germany

(33%). Half (52%) of the transport towards Poland is directed the centre of the

country and 35% travels to the south of Poland.



Figure 2.5 Rail freight corridor BE-DE, BE-PL, BE-CZ, volumes by destination

region

Rail freight volumes 2007 BE - DE & BE - PL Volumes by destination region

0.000

500.000

1000.000

1500.000

2000.000

2500.000

3000.000

3500.000

4000.000

4500.000

5000.000

BE-DE BE-PL BE-CZ

Country relation

Vol

ume

in 1

000

tonn

es

BE-DE_North BE-DE_Middle BE-DE_South BE-PL_North BE-PL_Middle BE-PL_South BE-CZ

Figure 2.6 shows the transport flows towards Belgium. For Germany, about 47%

of total rail transport originates from the centre of Germany, 44% from the north

and only 9 % from the south of Germany. This corresponds to the trend that is

observed in Figure 2.5 shows that the largest transport flow from Belgium to

Germany is directed towards the centre of Germany (48%), followed by North

Germany (33%). Half (52%) of the transport towards Poland is directed the

centre of the country and 35% travels to the south of Poland.

Figure 2.5For Poland the figure clearly shows that most (80%) transport

originates from the south of Poland, while only 14% originates from the centre

and 5% from the north.



Figure 2.6 Rail freight corridor DE-BE, PL-BE, CZ-BE, volumes by destination

region

Rail freight volumes 2007 DE - BE & PL - BE Volumes by destination region

0.000

500.000

1000.000

1500.000

2000.000

2500.000

DE-BE PL-BE CZ-BE

Country relation

Volu

me

in 1

000

tonn

es

DE_North-BE DE_Middle-BE DE_South-BE PL_North-BE PL_Middle-BE PL_South-BE CZ-BE

Figure 2.7 shows the rail freight volumes between Belgium and Poland in 2007

by commodity group. The commodity metal products has the highest volumes in

the direction PL-BE, while food stuff and other products have the highest share

in the direction BE-PL. “Other products” concern manufactured goods and

intermediate and final products, these goods are mainly transported in

containers. Lower volumes are transported by rail for the commodities chemicals

and agricultural products. For the other commodities, the volumes are zero or

close to zero. If we assume a loading of 700 ton per train for the goods 0,1,5,8,9

and a loading of about 1200 ton per train for the other types of goods, these

volumes implies that about 223 trains are running from Belgium to Poland and

about 305 trains from Poland to Belgium.



Figure 2.7 Rail freight volumes in 2007 between Belgium and Poland by

direction

Rail freight volumes between BE and PL by commodity type and direction in 2007total volume 502.000 tonnes

0

50

100

150

200

250

Agriculturalproducts

Foodstuffs Solid mineralfuels

Ores, metalwaste

Metalproducts

Buildingminerals

Fertilisers Chemicals Otherproducts

Petroleumproducts

Commodity

Volu

me

in 1

000

tonn

es

BE -> PL PL -> BE

Figure 2.8 shows the same results for transport between Belgium and the Czech

Republic. With respect to the type of goods transported, there is not really a

difference with the transport flows between Belgium and Poland. In the direction

CZ-BE, the main goods transported are metal products (42%) and other products

(41%). In the opposite direction, mostly other products are transported (55%),

followed by foodstuff (19%) and metal products (18%). Using the same

assumptions about weight as before, this comes down to about 31 trains from

Belgium to the Czech Republic and 112 trains from the Czech Republic to

Belgium.



Figure 2.8 Rail freight volumes in 2007 between Belgium and the Czech

Republic by direction

Rail freight volumes between BE and CZ by commodity type and direction in 2007total volume 124.000 tonnes

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45



Ores, metalwaste

Metalproducts

Buildingminerals


Petroleumproducts

Commodity

Volu

me

in 1

000

tonn

es

BE -> CZ CZ -> BE

The next figures contains the freight volumes between Belgium and Poland/Czech

Republic for all transport modes (road, rail, inland waterways and maritime). As

we had no data available for the other modes, we had to rely on TRANS-TOOLS

data. We have opted here to consider only TRANS-TOOLS data – also for rail for

consistency reasons. Remember that for rail there were a lot of differences in the

data reported by different studies and by the TRANS-TOOLS model (Table 2.2).

The effect on total volumes is relatively small as rail has a rather small share

and as for most relationships (except for the Czech Republic) the flows stated

are very similar.

The total volume transported between Belgium and Poland is about 3.9 million

tons compared to 588.000 tonnes for only rail transport (both directions

together). Between Belgium and the Czech Republic the total volume transported

is about 2.7 million tons compared to 500.000 tons for rail transport only.

Remember that based on the traffic forecasts for the Iron Rhine we only

assumed a total volume of 124.000 tons transported via rail. Using this figure for

rail, would make that rail only has a market share of 2%, while using TRANS-

TOOLS data, rail has a market share of about 20%.

The market share of rail transport in the direction from Belgium to Poland is 8% (road 79%, maritime1 13%), in the other direction from Poland to Belgium the

market share is 22% (road 46%, maritime 32%). For transport from Belgium to

the Czech Republic, rail has a modal share of 14% (72% road and 14%

maritime), while in the direction to Belgium, rail has a market share of 29%

(55% road and 16% maritime).

1 Maritime includes both short sea shipping and inland waterways



In general, rail freight had a modal share in Belgium of 13.8% compared to

70.6% for road and 13.8% for inland waterways in 20071.

Figure 2.9: Freight volumes in 2007 between Belgium and Poland by direction,

all transport modes

Rail freight volumes between BE and PL by commodity type and direction in 2007total volume 502.000 tonnes

0

50

100

150

200

250


Foodstuf fs Solidmineralfuels

Ores, metalwaste

M etalproducts

Buildingminerals

Fert ilisers Chemicals Otherproducts

Petroleumproducts

C o mmo d it y

BE -> PL PL -> BE

Figure 2.10: Freight volumes in 2007 between Belgium and Czech Republic, all

transport modes

Total freight volumes between BE and CZ by commodity type and direction in 2007All transport modes - total volume 2.4 million tonnes

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700



Crude oil Ores, metalwaste

Metalproducts

Buildingminerals


Petroleumproducts

Commodity

Vol

ume

in 1

000

tonn

es

BE -> CZ CZ -> BE

1 FOD Economie, KMO, Middenstand en Energie (2010).



Total future volumes by scenario on the corridor

In figure 2.11 the total volumes of freight transport between Belgium and Poland

and between Belgium and the Czech Republic are given. The effect of the

different assumptions in economic growth and policy scenario is clearly

presented in this figure. In the low scenario, rail transport increases with about

51% between 2020 and 2007 for transport between Belgium and Poland and with

44% between Belgium and the Czech Republic (both directions together). For the

scenario with a medium economic growth, we see an increase in transport of

about 68% between Belgium and Poland and of 58% between Belgium and the

Czech Republic. We can compare this with the historical growth of total transport

in the EU25 between 1995 and 2007, where there was an increase of 40%1. For

flows between Belgium and Poland the difference in 2030 between the medium

(T) and the low scenario is about 21%; the difference between the high and the

medium scenario is about 23%. In 2040, transport between Belgium and Poland

has increased with 97% compared to 2007 in the low scenario and with 226% in

the high scenario. For transport between Belgium and the Czech Republic the

expected increase between 2040 and 2007 is lower – varying from 77% in the

low scenario to 178% in the high scenario.

Figure 2.11 Total volumes between Belgium and Poland / Czech Republic by

scenario

Total volumes between BE and PL / CZ in all scenarios

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2007 2020 L 2030 L 2040 L 2020 T 2030 T 2040 T 2020 H 2030 H 2040 H

Scenario

Volu

me

in 1

000

tonn

es


Figure 2.12 contains the rail freight transport between Belgium and Poland/Czech

Republic. In the low scenario, freight rail transport increases between 2007 and

2020 with 34% between Belgium and Czech Republic and with 41% between

Belgium and Poland (both directions together).

This is somewhat lower than the growth in total freight transport we saw before,

but much higher than the growth in freight rail observed in the past. In the

EU25, freight rail increased with 17% in the period 1995-20072.

1 FOD Economie (2010) 2 FOD Economie (2010)



Figure 2.12 Rail freight volumes between Belgium and Poland/Czech Republic

by scenario

Rail freight volumes between BE and PL / CZ in all scenarios

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

2007 2020 L 2030 L 2040 L 2020 T 2030 T 2040 T 2020 H 2030 H 2040 H

Scenario

Volu

me

in 1

000

tonn

es


The next six figures show the rail freight volumes by commodity between

Belgium and Poland/Czech Republic for the low growth scenario, the trend

scenario and the high growth scenario.

From these figures it becomes clear that for flows between Belgium and Poland

especially the metal products and for flows between Belgium and Czech Republic

also other products (containerized goods) show a strong growth. Note that for

the Czech Republic total volumes remain rather low, especially when compared

to Poland. Using the same wheight assumptions as before we find that in 2020

about 325 (low scenario) to 441 (high scenario) trains are going from Belgium to

Poland and about 372 (low) to 740 (back) from Poland to Belgium. The fact that

the difference between high and low is higher from freight between Poland to

Belgium than from Belgium to Poland is caused by the type of goods (and hence

the weight of the trains) transported. For the relationship Belgium-Czech

Republic the volumes are again lower, varying from 40 (low) to 51 (high) in the

direction of the Czech Republic and between 136 (low) to 271 (high) in the

direction of Belgium.



Figure 2.13 Freight volumes between Belgium and Poland by commodity, low

growth scenario

Rail freight volumes betw een BE and PL by commodity, European trendscenario, low grow th variant

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0

Agricu

ltural

prod

ucts

Foods

tuffs

Solid m

ineral

fuels

Crude o

il

Ores, m

etal w

aste

Metal p

roduc

ts

Buildin

g mine

rals

Fertilis

ers

Chemica

ls

Other p

roducts

Petrole

um pr

oduc

ts

Commodity

Volu

me

in 1

000

tonn

es

BE -> PL 2007BE -> PL 2020BE -> PL 2030BE -> PL 2040

PL -> BE 2007PL -> BE 2020PL -> BE 2030PL -> BE 2040

Figure 2.14 Freight volumes between Belgium and Czech Republic by

commodity, low growth scenario

Rail freight volumes between BE and CZ by commodity, European trendscenario, low growth variant

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0


Foodstuffs Solidmineralfuels

Crude oil Ores, metalw aste

Metalproducts

Buildingminerals


Petroleumproducts

Commodity

Volu

me

in 1

000

tonn

es

BE -> CZ 2007

BE -> CZ 2020BE -> CZ 2030

BE -> CZ 2040

CZ -> BE 2007

CZ -> BE 2020

CZ -> BE 2030CZ -> BE 2040



Figure 2.15 Freight volumes between Belgium and Poland by commodity, trend

scenario

Rail freight volumes between BE and PL by commodity, European trendscenario

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0

Agricu

ltural

prod

ucts

Foods

tuffs

Solid m

ineral

fuels

Crude o

il

Ores, m

etal w

aste

Metal p

roduc

ts

Buildin

g mine

rals

Fertilis

ers

Chemica

ls

Other p

roducts

Petrole

um pr

oduc

ts

Commodity

Volu

me

in 1

000

tonn

es

BE -> PL 2007

BE -> PL 2020BE -> PL 2030

BE -> PL 2040

PL -> BE 2007

PL -> BE 2020

PL -> BE 2030PL -> BE 2040


commodity, trend scenario

Rail freight volumes between BE and CZ by commodity, European trendscenario

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0

Agricu

ltural

prod

ucts

Foods

tuffs

Solid m

ineral

fuels

Crude o

il

Ores, m

etal w

aste

Metal p

roduc

ts

Buildin

g mine

rals

Fertilis

ers

Chemica

ls

Other p

roducts

Petrole

um pr

oduc

ts

Commodity

Volu

me

in 1

000

tonn

es

BE -> CZ 2007

BE -> CZ 2020BE -> CZ 2030

BE -> CZ 2040

CZ -> BE 2007

CZ -> BE 2020

CZ -> BE 2030CZ -> BE 2040



Figure 2.17 Freight volumes between Belgium and Poland by commodity, high

growth scenario

Rail freight volumes between BE and PL by commodity, European trendscenario, high growth variant

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0

Agricu

ltural

prod

ucts

Foods

tuffs

Solid m

ineral

fuels

Crude o

il

Ores, m

etal w

aste

Metal p

roduc

ts

Buildin

g mine

rals

Fertilis

ers

Chemica

ls

Other p

roducts

Petrole

um pr

oduc

ts

Commodity

Volu

me

in 1

000

tonn

es

BE -> PL 2007

BE -> PL 2020BE -> PL 2030

BE -> PL 2040

PL -> BE 2007

PL -> BE 2020

PL -> BE 2030PL -> BE 2040


commodity, high growth scenario

Rail freight volumes between BE and PL by commodity, European trendscenario, high growth variant

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0

Agricu

ltural

prod

ucts

Foods

tuffs

Solid m

ineral

fuels

Crude o

il

Ores, m

etal w

aste

Metal p

roduc

ts

Buildin

g mine

rals

Fertilis

ers

Chemica

ls

Other p

roducts

Petrole

um pr

oduc

ts

Commodity

Volu

me

in 1

000

tonn

es

BE -> CZ 2007

BE -> CZ 2020BE -> CZ 2030

BE -> CZ 2040

CZ -> BE 2007

CZ -> BE 2020

CZ -> BE 2030CZ -> BE 2040

Figure 2.19 shows the market share of rail freight transport between Belgium

and Poland. In the direction Belgium to Poland, the market share of rail transport

increases from 7% in 2007 to 9% in the high growth scenario in 2040.



In the direction from Poland to Belgium, the market share equals already 20% in

2007, decreases slightly in the low growth scenario and reaches more than 46%

in the high growth scenario in 2040. Even, taking into account that this is a

scenario with a larger economic growth and with measures aimed at a modal

shift towards rail, this seems like a too high modal share.

Figure 2.19 Market share of rail transport between Belgium and Poland by

scenario

Figure 2.21 shows the evolution in market shares for rail between Belgium and

the Czech Republic. From Belgium to Czech Republic we see an increase from a

13% modal share in 2007 to a share of about 16% in the high scenario in 2040.

In the direction Czech Republic-Belgium we see an increase from 26% to 60% in

2030 in the high scenario. Again, a market share of 60% seems highly unlikely

and is caused by a relatively high market share in 2007 combined with the use of

a rather simplified model.

Market share rail freight transport Belgium - Poland

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2007 2020 L 2030 L 2040 L 2020 T 2030 T 2040 T 2020 H 2030 H 2040 H

Scenario

Mar

ket s

hare

in %

BE -> PL PL -> BE



Figure 2.20 Markets hare of rail transport between Belgium and Czech

Republic by scenario

Market share rail freight transport Belgium - Czech Republic

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2007 2020 L 2030 L 2040 L 2020 T 2030 T 2040 T 2020 H 2030 H 2040 H

Scenario

Mar

ket s

hare

in %

BE -> CZ CZ -> BE



2.1.3 Conclusions

Overall, it can be concluded that the rail freight volumes in the corridor Belgium

– Poland/Czech Republic are rather limited. Especially compared to other

volumes on the corridor such as between Belgium and Germany or between

Poland and Germany.

In the direction from Belgium to Poland/Czech Republic, the rail freight volume is

169.000 tons or about 223 trains in 2007 towards Poland and 23.000 tons or

about 31 trains towards the Czech Republic. For future years, the volumes

towards Poland ranges between 271.000 tons in the low growth scenario for

2020 (index 1.6) to more than 422,000 tons (index 2.5) in the middle scenario in

2030 to 558.000 tons in the high growth scenario for the year 2030 (index 3.3)

and 718.000 tons (index 4.2) in 2040.

Towards the Czech Republic, volumes vary between 33.000 (index 1.4) in the

low scenario for 2020 and 46,000 (index 1.9) in the middle scenario in 2030 and

57.000 (index 2.4) in 2030 and 69.000 (index 3) in 2040 in the high scenario.


volume is 332.000 tons or about 305 trains from Poland and about 100.000 tons

or 112 trains from the Czech Republic in 2007. For future years, the volume from

Poland ranges between 436.000 tons in the low growth scenario for 2020 (index

1.3) to 700,000 tons (index 2.1) in the middle scenario for 2030 to more than

1.629.000 tons in the high growth scenario for the year 2030 (index 4.9) and

2.391.000 tons in 2040 (index 7.2). Volumes from the Czech Republic vary

between 131.000 tons (index 1.3) in the low scenario for 2020, 211,000 tons

(index 2.1) in the middle scenario in 2030 and 490.000 tons in 2030 (index 4.9)

and 720.000 tons in 2040 (index 7.2) in the high scenario.


volume is 332.000 tons or 305 trains from Poland and about 100.000 tons or 112

trains from the Czech Republic in 2007. For future years, the volume from Poland

ranges between 436.000 tons in the low growth scenario for 2020 (index 1.3) to

more than 1.629.000 tons in the high growth scenario for the year 2030 (index

4.9). Volumes from the Czech Republic vary between 131.000 tons (index 1.3) in

the low scenario for 2020 and 490.000 tons in the high scenario in 2030 (index

4.9).

Although the rail freight volumes have a strong growth resulting from macro-

economic developments and global developments in the transport market, the

market share of rail increases up to 2040 at most with a couple of percentage

point for the low and the trend scenario. Only in the high scenario with a high

economic growth and measures towards internalization we see rather high

market shares. However, given the set up of the exercise these percentages

should be treated with the utmost care. Note that for example over the scenarios

analysed by Federaal Planbureau, the highest modal share for rail was 17% on

average for Belgium as a whole.



In the scenario calculations specific developments in the rail freight market in

the corridor and specific actions to stimulate the use of rail freight transport

have not been taken into account. If specific developments in the rail freight

market are expected and measures and policies are introduced to stimulate the

use of rail freight transport, there might be a higher potential for rail freight

transport on this corridor.

2.2 Intermodal transport analysis

Rail transport between Belgium and Poland consists of intermodal transport and

(finished) car transport. The intermodal transport market consists of indirect rail

shuttle services carried out on a daily basis in which different traction providers

are involved. Currently the market is growing after the transport volume collapse

caused by the economic crisis. The intermodal trains have a loading capacity of

approximately 80 TEU and the container slots are occupied by intermodal units

for both Germany as well as for Poland. This market will be discussed extensively

in the following paragraphs. Bulk transport by rail is carried out between the

Belgium seaports and the end customers in Europe. Every week a few trains are

departing from Belgium seaports with destination Germany. However hardly

(sporadic) bulk traffic is carried out between Belgium and Poland. On the axis

Belgium – Germany - Poland, 60% to 70% of the rail transport consists of

intermodal transport on the part between the Belgium seaports and the German

border terminals/Duisburg.

Intermodal transport can be described as a way of transporting freight in one

loading unit and in which the most efficient transport options are used for the

different legs of the door-to-door transport chain. Characteristic feature of

intermodal transport is its use of standard load units, which are carried by road

as well as rail or waterborne transport (sea, inland waterways). The intermodal

transport chain is visible in figure 2.22.

Figure 2.22 The intermodal transport chain

Source: TNO/VU, 2009

Figure 2.23 describes the typical intermodal traffic flow of maritime cargo with

maritime containers. Cargo coming from China with destination Poland is an

example of a cargo flow which takes this route.



Figure 2.23 Schematic overview of maritime intermodal transport chain

Source: NEA, 2010

Competition with other ports

Stakeholders indicate that the ports of Hamburg and Bremerhaven are much

stronger involved in deep-sea freight transport to and from Poland, due to the

closer location of these ports near Poland. Besides, shortsea shipping between

these ports as well as between other Baltic seaports and Polish seaports is very

cheap and a tough competitor of rail transport from and to Antwerp. Finally,

increasing direct calls from deep-sea vessels to Polish seaports is supposed to be

preferred compared to shipping via Antwerp. Hence, it is very hard for Belgium

to compete for Polish cargo; this is also reflected in the very low amounts of

intermodal units which are transported by rail between Belgium and Poland. It is

also possible that intermodal transport is used for continental flows. Figure 2.24

presents the typical continental intermodal chain. Continental flows have their

origin and destination within Europe and are usually door-to-door flows. This

market is dominated by road haulage but there are also intermodal transport

options. For example Ro-Ro services are often used within continental transport

chains or railway connections between inland terminals. For continental cargo,

the maritime container is less popular and the transport systems are usually

based on the movement of semi-trainers or swap-bodies or 45-foot pallet-wide

containers.

Figure 2.24 schematic overview of continental intermodal transport chain

Source: NEA, 2010



2.2.1 Rail shuttle connections and market parties

Within Belgium, B-cargo (part of NMBS/SNCB) is the largest operator1 with a

market share – measured in access fees paid - of approximately 94.5%. Crossrail

is the second largest company with a market share of 3.1%, followed by the

SNCF group with 1,8% and Trainsport 0.6%. Considering international rail

transport, the market share of B-cargo is with 80% lower than the market share

in the national and international rail market together. Regarding international

transport, B-cargo is organized in a venture called COBRA. This organization

delivers the traction within Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany and consists

of the partners DB Schenker rail, DB and B-cargo. The organization invoices the

partners separately for their traction services. B-cargo is responsible for the

Belgium part until Aachen or Duisburg. In these cities trains are coming from

and/or going to other European parts switch their locomotives here.

For example, the B-cargo locomotive which transported a train just from the port

of Antwerp picks-up a train coming from Italy or Germany and returns directly to

Antwerp. DB is responsible for the traction part after Duisburg and Aachen. The

majority of the origins and destinations of the trains is Antwerp. Annex 6.1

shows a complete list of the traction providers and rail operators within Belgium.

Figure 2.25 shows an example of intermodal transport between Belgium and

Poland. Within intermodal transport (both rail and short sea transport) always

some pre- and end haulage is included as well as minimum of two extra cargo

handlings; in this example these handlings concern the transshipment of

intermodal units in Antwerp from truck to train or shortsea vessel and

subsequently in Poland either in Gdansk from shortsea vessel to the truck or the

train or in Warsaw from the rail to the truck.

Figure 2.25 Intermodal transport from Belgium to Poland

Source: NEA, 2010

1 According to data of year 2008



Rail traction operators in Poland

In 2008, rail freight transport amounted to a total of 270 million ton, of which

142 million ton had been carried by PKP Group companies. PKP Cargo has the

biggest share in cargo transport in mass, with 134 million ton representing

49,6% of the total cargo mass. The share of private carriers in cargo transport in

mass is 47,3%.

Table 2.6 Table Rail traction operators in PL (biggest)

Traction provider Currently active in PL-NL traffic

PKP Cargo S.A. x

PKP LHS Sp. z o.o.

PCC Holding x

CTL Rail x

PTK Holding

Lotos Kolej

PKN Orlen

Source: CNTK, September 2009

Rail freight transport activities amounted in 2008 to a total of 51,092 million

tonkm. The carrier PKP Cargo performed more than 75% of the transport. The

shares of individual companies as regards mass transport in ton and transport

activities in tonkm are not proportional due to different average transport

distances from 41,2 km. to 443,7 km. (for PCC Holding and Lotos Kolej

respectively).

Figure 2.26 Poland: rail freight transport structure in 2008 (in ton)

PKP CARGO 49,6%

PKP LHS 3,1%

Private 47,3%

Others 6,0%

PTK Holding 11,6%

Lotos Kolej 1,9%

PCC Holding 21,8%

CTL Rail 5,1%

PKN Orlen 0,9%

PKP CARGO PKP LHS CTL Rail PCC Holding Lotos Kolej PTK Holding PKN Orlen Others

Source: CNTK, 2009



Intermodal transport operators

In Poland until 2005, the only intermodal transport company was PKP Cargo. In

2007, four intermodal transport operators were available. In addition to PKP

Cargo can be mentioned: PKP LHS Sp, z.o.o, one company of PCC Group and one

company of CTL Group. PKP Cargo still had the biggest market share in

intermodal transport operations in both mass transport (in tons) and transport in

tonkm, about 91%.

The remaining 9% summed up the shares of the three others actors, with the

largest share held by the PCC Group company. In addition to the mentioned four

traction providers, intermodal transport is performed in cooperation with the

following intermodal operators and intermodal terminal operators. Among

intermodal operators can be included:

• Hupac

• ERS Railways

• Kombiverkher

• Polzug

• PCC Intermodal

Figure 2.27 Poland: structure of the rail freight market in 2008 in (tonkm)

PKP LHS 5,6%

Others 3,0%PKN Orlen 1,3%PTK Holding 2,5%

Lotos Kolej 4,4%

PCC Holding 5,7%Private 23,2%

PKP CARGO 71,3%

CTL Rail 6,4%

PKP CARGO PKP LHS CTL Rail PCC Holding Lotos Kolej PTK Holding PKN Orlen Others

Source: CNTK, 2009

Intermodal terminals operators within Poland are:

• Spedcont

• Polzug

• Cargosped

• Schavemaker

• PCC Intermodal



It is worth mentioning that some companies combine two functions: intermodal

operator and intermodal terminal operator. It should also be noted that PKP

Cargo holds shares in Polzug and Cargosped (100% in the case of Cargosped and

as a minority shareholder in Polzug). Regarding the intermodal terminal operator

Spedcont, its shares are held by the Port of Gdynia Authority S.A. The intermodal

operators Hupac, ERS Railways, Polzug and Kombiverkher use on Polish soil the

services of the national carrier PKP Cargo whereas PCC Intermodal uses the

services of ITL Polska. Currently, only the rail operators Hupac and

Kombiverkehr offer regular rail services between Belgium and Poland. These

services are carried out on the wide shuttle network of these companies in which

different traction providers are involved; the services between Belgium and

Poland are indirect which are carried out via one or more hubs.

These hubs are Duisburg (Kombiverkehr) and Schwarzheide (Hupac). Currently,

there is not enough cargo to maintain a direct shuttle service between Belgium

and Poland. Tables 2.6 and 2.7 show the current (indirect) rail shuttle services

between Belgium and Poland. Together they offer eight services each week from

Belgium (Antwerp/Zeebrugge) to several destinations in Poland. Figure 2.28

shows these six Polish destinations which are currently included in these weekly

services. In May 2010 the majority of the intermodal transport units transported

between Belgium and Poland has Warsaw as origin and/or destination. There is a

considerable variance between transit times: these vary between approximately

41 hours (Kobylnica) and 155 hours (Malaszewicze) for Eastbound services and

between approximately 62 hours (Warsaw and Slawkow) and 117 hours

(Slawkow) for Westbound services. In general, if rail services start in ór just

before the start of the weekend, these services take one day longer.

Figure 2.28 Polish railway network and intermodal terminals currently used

Source: NEA, 2010

1

1=Warsaw-Pruszkow

2=Gadki/Kobylnica

3=Gliwice

4=Malaszewicze

5=Slawkow

6=Wroclaw

2

3

4

5

6



Table 2.7 Rail shuttle connections Belgium to Poland

Rail

operator Traction

Weekly

Frequency Terminal BE Terminal PL

Transit time (closing time-

cargo ready for pick-up)

Hupac Crossrail (BE)

Crossrail (DE)

PKP Cargo (PL)

5 x

1. Antwerp

Hupac

Terminal

1. Kobylnica

2. Slawkow

3. Warsaw Praga

41 hours (63.5 hours depart on

Friday)

62 hours (86 hours depart on

Thursday)


Friday)

Kombi-

verkehr

DB Schenker

3 x

(indirect)

3 x

(indirect)

3 x

(indirect)

1. Zeebrugge

2. Antwerp

Main hub

3. Antwerp

Combinant

terminal

1. Gadki

2. Gliwice

3. Slawkow

4. Warsaw-

Pruszkow

5. Wroclaw

6. Malaszewicze

1. Gadki

2. Gliwice

3. Slawkow

4. Warsaw-

Pruszkow

5. Wroclaw

6. Malaszewicze

1. Gadki

2. Gliwice

3. Slawkow

4. Warsaw-

Pruszkow

5. Wroclaw

6. Malaszewicze

75h. (99 h. depart on Thursday

and 123 h. depart on Friday)









107h. (155 h. depart on Friday)























Source: NEA, May 2010



Table 2.8 Rail shuttle connections Poland to Belgium

Rail

operator Traction

Weekly

Frequency Terminal BE Terminal PL

Transit time (closing time-

cargo ready for pick-up)

Hupac Crossrail (BE)

Crossrail (DE)

PKP Cargo (PL)

5 x

1. Kobylnica

2. Slawkow

3. Warsaw

Praga

1. Antwerp

Hupac Terminal


Wednesday, 92 hours depart on

Thursday/Friday)


Thursday, 117 hours depart on

Wednesday)


Thursday/Friday, 116 hours

depart on Wednesday)

Kombi-

verkehr

DB Schenker

2 x

(indirect)

2 x

(indirect)

2 x

(indirect)

1. Zeebrugge

2. Antwerp

Main hub

3. Antwerp

Combinant

terminal

1. Gadki

2. Gliwice

3. Slawkow

4. Warsaw-

Pruszkow

5. Wroclaw

6. Malaszewicze

1. Gadki

2. Gliwice

3. Slawkow

4. Warsaw-

Pruszkow

5. Wroclaw

6. Malaszewicze

1. Gadki

2. Gliwice

3. Slawkow

4. Warsaw-

Pruszkow

5. Wroclaw

6. Malaszewicze




















Short-sea shipping

The feeder connections between Poland and the Polish ports are operated by

different shipping lines as follows:

• Gdansk Port

- Unifeeder – once a week,

• Gdynia Port

- Unifeeder – once a week,

- Transfennica – once a week.



Transit time between Polish harbours (Gdansk and Gdynia) and the port of

Antwerp is about 120 to 150 hours. These connections are indirect. Ships to and

from Poland also visit other ports such as Hamburg, Bremerhaven.

Some lines provide service to both Gdansk and Gdynia. Connections with Gdynia

and Gdansk are affected by vessels operating in rotation. These rotating feeder

connections are responsible for the long transit time between Poland and

Antwerp. Feeders operating between Antwerp and the Polish seaports have a

capacity of about 800 to 1,000 TEU.

2.2.2 Rail transport compared to other transport modes

Analyzing rail transport in the scope of transport solutions within logistics

concepts, several important criteria can be distinguished:

1) Transit times

2) Transport costs

3) Reliability

4) Flexibility

5) Other criteria

Depending on the importance each shipper or customer add to the different

criteria of transport in question, he or she will select the transport service which

fits these requirements at best. Practically, this means that sometimes rail

transport is the best transport solution, sometimes road transport and

sometimes short sea transport. If, for example, for importers or exporters the

speed of being present on the market – this is for example true for consumer

electronics – is very important, in general road transport will be used, because

this kind of transport has overall the lowest transit times. Every day not being

present on the market with new fashion or trends means (big) losses for the

manufacturer or wholesaler of these products. On the other hand, if it is

important to ship products as cheap as possible – this can for example be true

for low value commodities – rail or short sea transport will be the best option.

After all it can be concluded that rail transport must fit in the logistic concept

within supply chains in order to choose rail transport between Belgium and

Poland. Among and within different commodity categories, substantial variance

exist regarding the importance of these different criteria.



Transit times

Table 2.8 shows the comparison of transit times from Antwerp to the different

rail terminal cities in Poland. It appears that road transport has the lowest

transit times, whereas rail and short sea transport always need some extra

transit time, because of pre- and end haulage and lower average speed of trains

and vessels. Short sea transport has the longest transit times, because of the

low average speed of this transport modality. In addition, for Central and

Southern Poland, the end haulage is considerable, giving a disadvantage to short

sea transport in those areas.

Table 2.9 Transit times and distances Antwerp - Poland (one-way) in hrs.

Road transport (door-door)

Rail transport (minimum)1 (door-door)

Intermodal operator

Short sea transport2 (door-door)

Warsaw

(Pruszkow)

31 h. (1300 km)3 58 h. (range = 58 – 127 h.) - Hupac

- Kombiverkehr

105 h.

Poznan

(Gadki)

(Kobylnika)

27 h. (960 km) 3 51 h. (range = 51 – 129 h.) - Hupac

- Kombiverkehr

105 h.

Slawkow 30 h. (1239 km) 3 70 h. (range = 70 – 128 h.) - Hupac

- Kombiverkehr

124 h.

Gliwice 30 h. (1185 km) 3 69 h. (range = 69 – 127 h.) - Kombiverkehr 124 h.

Wroclaw 28 h. (1029 km) 3 71 h. (range = 71 – 129 h.) - Kombiverkehr 124 h.

Malaszewicze 40 h. (1478 km) 103 h. (range = 103 – 161 h.) - Kombiverkehr 105 h.


Transport costs

Transport costs of one direct roundtrip by rail between Antwerp and Warsaw is

approximately in between 26.000 and 30.000 Euro (excluding costs for container

handling and pre/end-haulage). Due to a lack of cargo, the reality is that

container shuttles are not always fully utilized, which makes rail transport per

intermodal unit more expensive. To operate break-even a train must be utilized

for at least 80% - 85% on a roundtrip basis.

Figure 2.29 shows the cost structure of rail transport between Antwerp and

Warsaw. The calculation is based on a fixed container shuttle taking the

Monzenroute. This route is used by traction providers and is verified during the

interviews with these stakeholders.

1 Including 10 hours pre- and end haulage. There exists transit time difference between the rail services; that is why the minimum and range of transit times of the rail services has been presented.

2 Including 5 hours pre-haulage; end haulage depends on the origin / destination in Poland and varies between 2 (Gdansk) and 23 hours (Slawkow and Gliwice). Transit time on sea is equal to 4 days.

3 A transit time of 27-31 hours is rather optimistic; it depends on the road traffic crowd and speed of cargo stuffing (loading) at place of origin. If there is somewhere a delay of more than 1 – 2 hours, the transit time will be increased to approximately 44 hours (due to the truck driving time directive).



It appears that the access costs - to be paid to the infrastructure manager and

which are non-negotiable - count for approximately one-third of the total costs.

One of the reasons for the high share is the high amount of access costs in

Poland. Fixed costs for locomotives and wagons also count for approximately

one-third of the total costs. Other variable costs and labour costs are responsible

for the remaining one-third of the total costs. If direct transport costs per

kilometer are considered, it is clearly visible in the graph that within Poland

access costs are responsible for 44% of the total costs. For Belgium this share is

approximately 13%, while for Germany the share (30%) is twice as much

compared to the situation in Belgium. The reason why the pictures between the

three countries are different is caused by the different rail transport distances in

each country and different costs of the costs components. While access costs per

kilometer in Germany are less than twice the access costs per kilometer in

Belgium, the share of access costs in Germany is more than two times the share

in Belgium. This due to the fact that access costs increase proportionally with the

rail distance which results in a higher share..In this situation, total (direct) costs

of a containershuttle on the corridor between Belgium and Poland are compared

on country basis. Due to the fact that the total distance in Germany is four times

higher than in Belgium, the share of access costs will be higher than in Germany

and - also due to even higher access costs per kilometer - also in Poland. If

access costs are compared on basis of distance covered (per kilometer), then

access costs in Poland are higher than in both Germany and Belgium.



Figure 2.29 Cost per kilometer (direct costs) of rail transport between

Antwerp (BE) and Warsaw (PL) – based on a standard train on the

most populair route (Montzen route)

26%

8%

33%

25%

6% 2%

Locomotive costs

Wagon costs

Access costs

Energy costs

Labour costs

Shunting costs

Corridor Antwerp – Warsaw (total)

42%

7%13%

19%

13%

6%

Locomotive costs

Wagon costs

Access costs

Energy costs

Labour costs

Shunting costs

Belgium part

18%

9%

30%

37%

6%

Locomotive costs

Wagon costs

Access costs

Energy costs

Labour costs

German part



29%

7%

44%

15%

3%

2%

Locomotive costs

Wagon costs

Access costs

Energy costs

Labour costs

Shunting costs

Polish part

NEA 2010 - based on several sources, among others RAILISTICS 1

Figure 2.30 shows the cost structure of road transport between Belgium and

Poland; it appears that there is a large difference compared to rail transport.

While the share of labour costs is responsible for 6% of the total costs in rail

transport, it counts for at least 24% (and even 51% in case of a Belgium truck

driver) of the total costs in road transport. It appears that the share of energy /

fuel costs for both road and rail transport is more or less the same. The share of

fixed costs (e.g. depreciation of locomotives and wagons) is in rail transport

much higher than in road transport. Figure 2.31 shows the differences of road

transport costs if a Belgium, Polish or Bulgarian truck driver is used within the

freight transport market between Belgium and Poland. The level of labour costs

of Bulgarian truck drivers is the lowest compared to this level in all other EU

member states. It appears that if road transport is carried out by a Bulgarian

truck driver, the sum of the direct transport costs is approximately one-third

lower compared to the level in case road transport is carried out by a Belgium

truck driver.



8%

20%

14%

7%

51%

Figure 2.30 Cost structure (direct costs) road transport between Belgium and

Poland (radius 1,000 km) with truck drivers from different EU

countries, valid on the 1st of July 2009

Source: NEA, 2009

1- Labour costs BE: Costs and performance of European rail freight

transportation, NEA 2008

- Labour costs PL: CNTK

- Energy costs BE: Costs and performance of European rail freight

transportation, NEA 2008

- Energy costs PL: CNTK

- Locomotive / equipment costs: Costs and performance of European rail

freight transportation, NEA 2008

- Access charges BE: Infrabel, network statement

- Access charges PL: PKP PLK, network statement

Access charges DE: DB Netz, network statement

12%

32%

22%

10%

24%

10%

26%

18%8%

38%

Fixed costs per year

Fuel costs per year

Variable depreciation &maintenance costs per yearToll charges

Labour Costs per year

Belgium driver Polish driver

Bulgarian driver



To compare rail transport costs with road and short sea transport (including pre

and end-haulage), the costs calculation must be based on roundtrips for all

transport modalities to get comparable results: in this calculation it is assumed

that full containers are exported from Belgium to Poland and the same amount of

containers are returned empty from Poland to Belgium. In reality, however,

return cargo from Poland or neighbouring countries is – despite the imbalance -

part of the return trip of the train and hence transport costs per transport unit

will be somewhat lower. Another assumption which is included is that road

transport costs are calculated with labour costs of Polish truck drivers. Although

transport costs per container are in favour of rail transport, the average net

payload of a forty feet container transported by rail is bound to a maximum of

approximately 18 – 22 ton per forty feet container1; practically this means that if

heavy containers (more than 22 ton net weight) are loaded on the train, also

lightweight containers must be loaded to compensate for the total weight of the

train.

Figure 2.31 Cost structure road transport between Belgium – Poland (radius

1,000 km) with a Belgium, Polish and Bulgarian truck driver, valid

on 1st of July 2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Belgium driver Polish driver Bulgarian driver

Inde

x (B

elgi

um d

river

sce

nario

= 1

00)

Fixed costs Fuel costs Variable depreciation & maintenance costs Toll chargesLabour Costs

Source: NEA, 2009

The payload limits in rail and road transport for containers means that if

transport costs per weight unit (ton) are considered and heavy containers are

transported, short sea has a clear advantage over road and rail transport for

cargo from/to Gdansk.

1 Exact net weight of one forty feet container depends on the combination of wagons used and containers loaded on the train; a full loaded train has a maximum bruto weight of 1500 – 1700 ton.



First of all, this is because short sea shipping on this distance is much cheaper1

than road and rail transport and secondly because the maximum payload in short

sea transport is higher than in rail transport. For freight transport between

Belgium and Poznan/Wroclaw, rail transport has a clear costs advantage over

road and short sea transport. Freight transport between Belgium and Warsaw,

both rail transport and short sea shipping have a clear transport costs advantage

over road transport. The payload limit is also reflected in rail tariffs: the heavier

a container, the more a customer has to pay to the rail operator. In short sea

transport no tariff distinction is made between heavy and lightweight containers.

In short, it can be concluded that if transport costs between Belgium and Poland

per weight unit are considered, short sea transport has a clear advantage over

rail and road transport if origin or destination locations are situated in the

Northern or North-eastern part of Poland. However the dimension of this

advantage depends on the number of intermodal units transported between

Belgium and Poland and hence on the size and utilization rate of the short sea

vessel being in service.

Currently, there are hardly direct short sea services between Belgium and

Poland, which indicates that cargo hardly finds its’ way via short sea shipping

from Belgium to Poland and vice versa; hence it is not possible to maintain

(frequent) direct short sea services. If transport costs on the route between

Belgium and the Central and Southern part of Poland are investigated, rail

transport has a clear advantage over road and short sea transport. The results of

this transport costs comparison are presented in figure 2.32.

1 Assumed that short sea vessels on this corridor are loaded for approximately 90% with a

loading capacity of 500 TEU.



Figure 2.32 Comparison transport costs per ton (index: road transport = 100)

for different door-to-door connections between Belgium and

Poland1.

100 100 100 100

6863 66

61

77

43

86

64

0

20

40

60

80

100

Antwerp - Poznan Antwerp - Gdansk Antwerp - Wroclaw Antwerp - Warsaw

Inde

x (r

oad

tran

spor

t cos

ts =

100

)

Road Rail (including pre/end haulage) Short sea (including pre/end haulage)

Source: NEA, 2010

If transport costs between Belgium and Poland per volume unit are considered,

rail transport has – except for seaport regions in Poland - a clear advantage over

road and short sea transport. This advantage even exists if in the calculations

megatrailers (with a loading volume of +22% compared to 45 feet high cube

containers) in door-to-door road transport are used. The capacity advantage in

short sea shipping compared to rail transport, if maximum allowed weight is

considered, has been disappeared if the maximum loading volume of intermodal

units is considered: the loading volume of intermodal units in both short sea

transport and rail transport is equal. The dimension of the rail advantage

depends on several factors. Firstly, it depends on the number of intermodal units

transported between Belgium and Poland and hence on the utilization rate of the

train being in service between Belgium and Poland. Secondly, it depends on the

distance of the pre- and/or end-haulage between the rail terminal and the origin

and/or destination of the intermodal unit. In this research the utilization rate of

both the train and short sea vessel assumed is 90%. The results of the transport

costs comparison are presented in figure 2.33.

Rail and short sea transport from/to Gdansk is more or less at the same cost

level, because the costs advantage of short sea transport is dissolved by the high

transshipment charges in short sea shipping. The cost structure regarding the

different transport modes for the investigated routes is visible in figure 2.34.

1 For rail transport approximately 50 km pre - and end haulage is included. For Gdansk also for

short sea transport approximately 50 km pre - and end haulage is included.



Figure 2.33 Comparison transport costs per cubic metre (index: road transport

= 100) for different door-to-door connections between Belgium

and Poland.

100 100 100 100

5854 56

52

97

54

108

81

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Antwerp - Poznan Antwerp - Gdansk Antwerp - Wroclaw Antwerp - Warsaw

Inde

x (r

oad

tran

spor

t cos

ts =

100

)

Road Rail (including pre/end haulage) Short sea (including pre/end haulage)

Source: NEA, 2010

In the field of transport costs, the German Ministry of Transport recently

researched the effect of increasing road transport costs (by increasing the Maut

tariff) and concluded that increasing road taxes will have a very small effect on

shifting freight transport from road to water and rail transport1. Only if an out-of-

proportion tax increase up to 1 Euro per kilometer will be introduced, than

freight transport will significantly shift from road to water and rail. Furthermore,

they concluded that improving the quality of rail transport will result in a

significant modal shift as well. On the other hand, reducing user fees in rail

transport will not result in a significant modal shift to rail transport.

It should however be kept in mind that in this time - just after the economic

crisis - road transport tariffs are decreased to such a low level, on which it is

hard for rail transport to compete with road transport in terms of transport

prices. Above all, road transport tariffs can be reduced more easily than rail

transport tariffs, because road transport is less capital intensive and more labour

intensive (and not dependent on non-negotiable access charges) than rail

transport; if road transport firms ‘switch’ from Belgium to cheap East-European

truck drivers, transport costs can be reduced considerably, while rail transport

operators can hardly respond to such costs reductions. As soon as transport

volumes will grow and hence transport capacity become more scrace, this will be

translated in a tendency towards forcing up (road) transport tariffs.

Rail transport then is not only a competitor of road transport, but also an

additional transport alternative to road transport, which is needed to transport

the growing cargo flows. In the end, these developments will move rail transport

towards a (much) stronger position.

1 Source: Nieuwsblad Transport, 10 September 2009.



Figure 2.34 Cost structure (direct costs) road, rail and short sea transport (per

cubic metre) for door-to-door transport between Belgium and

Poland1.

€ -

€ 5,00

€ 10,00

€ 15,00

€ 20,00

€ 25,00

€ 30,00

Road Rail Shortsea

Road Rail Shortsea

Road Rail Shortsea

Road Rail Shortsea

Antwerp-Warsaw Antwerp-Gdansk Antwerp-Wroclaw Antwerp-Poznan

Tran

spor

t cos

ts p

er c

ubic

met

re

pre-haulage main transport end-haulage transhipment empty equipment handling

Source: NEA, 2010

Punctuality

All rail operators and traction operators indicate that currently the punctuality is

quite well. Before the start of the economic crisis in 2008, the punctuality was

somewhat worse, because more trains on the network result in a higher chance

on delays. The problem is that if during the start of a rail service the train has a

delay of one hour, the train will arrive approximately four hours later at the final

destination. The reason is that reserved train paths on this route will be missed

and this accumulation of missed train paths will in the end result in an increased

delay which can be up to four times higher than it was during the start of the

trip.

Other criteria

Besides transport costs, transit times and reliability (punctuality), other criteria

also influence transport mode decisions.

These are:

1) Value density of commodities

2) Safety (theft)

3) Sustainable transport

4) Slowing down supply chains

1 Road transport includes toll charges in Germany and Poland. Pre haulage from the consignor to

the sea terminal in Belgium, end haulage from the sea terminal to the consignee in Gdansk as well as the pre/end haulage from/to rail terminals is assumed to be approximately 50 kilometres.



Regarding sustainable transport it is worth mentioning that consumers are more

and more aware of ‘green’ products, which are produced and transported

environment-friendly. Hence, especially for consumer goods, supply chains profit

from sustainable transport solutions like rail transport. In the preceding

paragraph is became clear that especially transport flows of consumer goods are

expected to grow in the future. Hence, rail transport can play an important role

for this kind of transport flows. Slowing down supply chains means that a part of

transport flows within supply chains can be transported by slow transport modes

(e.g. rail), because this part exists of a guaranteed demand. For this guaranteed

demand, transport orders are known well in advance and can be planned

efficiently in intermodal transport chains.

Overall it can be concluded that while rail transport can be cheaper on transport

corridors, this cost advantage is often still too small to compensate for the less

quality of other transport criteria. Only, if rail transport between warehouses

and/or ports fits well in logistic concepts (which in turn are close related to

production and sales concepts) of shippers, this transport modality can be used.

In addition, scale in transport volumes has a positive effect on the utilization

rate of rail (and short sea) transport and hence a positive effect on the transport

costs. Scale is also necessary to maintain direct and frequent rail (and Shortsea)

services.

2.3 Conclusions

Based on the intermodal transport analysis between Belgium and Poland, a

SWOT-analysis1 can be drawn. This analysis is visible in table 2.9.

1 SWOT means: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.



Table 2.10 SWOT-analysis rail transport between Belgium and Poland

Strengths Weaknesses

- Low transport costs;

- Sustainable way of freight transport;

- Safe transport mode (if theft concerned);

- Antwerp as important hub of second largest

deep-sea operator MSC;

- Sufficient terminal capacity.

- Currently low amount of deep-sea cargo to

fill complete trains; strong competition

from ports in Germany and Baltic states;

- High access fees in Poland;

- Complex organization;

- Long term investments.

Opportunities Threats

- Further development rail services to Central

and Southern parts of Poland;

- Growing transport flows (especially deep-sea

traffic) after economic crisis;

- Growth potential in port of Antwerp due to

availability of sufficient container handling

capacity.

- Developing as a strong rail corridor for

(amongst others) metal products.

- Increasing imbalance in trade flows;

- Ongoing lack of cargo due to strong

competition from other and/or better

situated seaports;

- Lack of economies of scale in times of

economic downturn.

In 2007, rail freight volumes between Belgium and Poland were about 170,000

ton (Belgium to Poland) and 332,000 ton (Poland to Belgium). Currently, from

Belgium to Poland, the commodities mainly transported by rail are foodstuffs and

manufactured intermediate and final goods (which are transported mainly in

intermodal transport units). From Poland to Belgium mainly metal products and -

to a lesser extend - also chemicals, manufactured goods and foodstuffs are

transported. Concerning the other commodities, the volumes are zero or close to

zero. This trade pattern is also visible in the rail transport corridor between the

Czech Republic and Belgium.

For future years, Belgium to Poland volume ranges between 271,000 ton in the

low growth scenario for 2020 to 558,000 ton for the year 2030 and 718,000 ton

for the year 2040 in the high growth scenario. In the medium scenario (T),

transport volumes grow from 309,000 in 2020 to 516,000 in 2040. Belgium to

Czech Republic volumes ranges between 33,000 ton in the low growth scenario

for 2020 to approximately 57,000 ton for the year 2030 and 69,000 ton for the

year 2040 in the high growth scenario. In the medium scenario transport flows

vary from 37,000 in 2020 to about 53,000 in 2040. We would, however, like to

point out here that – given the set up of the model – the predictions for the year

2040 are less reliable and should be treated with care.Vice versa, for both Poland

and the Czech Republic, the growth figures from these countries to Belgium are

expected to develop much faster, although these remain rather low for the Czech

Republic compared to Poland. From Poland to Belgium the volumes ranges

between 436,000 ton in the low growth scenario for 2020 to about 700,000 in

the middle scenario in 2030 to even more than 1.6 million ton in the high growth

scenario for the year 2030; especially the metal products are expected to grow

considerably. The predictions for the year 2040 in the high scenario go even

further but, as mentioned before, are less reliable.



These forecasts are much higher than the most optimistic forecast for the

Netherlands in which rail volumes are expected to grow to a maximum of 1.2

million in 2040 (high growth scenario). Hence, these Poland – Belgium forecasts

underline the high potential of the Belgium – Poland rail corridor. From the Czech

Republic to Belgium the volumes ranges between 131,000 ton in the low growth

scenario for 2020 to 211,000 ton in 2030 in the central scenario to 490,000 ton

in the high growth scenario for the year 2030 and even till 720,000 tons in 2040.

In more detail, it can be concluded that especially the metal products (regarding

both Poland and the Czech republic) and containerized goods (between Belgium

and the Czech Republic) show a strong growth on these corridors. Because the

rail freight volumes are expected to grow fast, the market share of rail could

increase from 7% in 2007 to 8% in the middle and 9% in the high growth

scenario in 2030 (Belgium to Poland) and from 20% in 2007 to 21% in the

medium scenario in 2030 and 39% in the high growth scenario in 2030 (Poland

to Belgium). Finally, the market share of rail could increase from 13% in 2007 to

15% in the medium scenario and 16% in the high growth scenario in 2030

(Belgium to Czech Republic) and from 26% in 2007 to 28% in the medium

scenario in 2030 (Czech Republic to Belgium). In the high scenario this share

increases to 51% in 2030. Even taking into account that this is a scenario with

larger economic growth and measures aimed at a model shift towards rail, this

seems to be a too high modal share. Modal shares for 2040 are even higher, but

are likely overestimated in the case of transport from the Czech Republic/Poland

to Belgium.

Analyzing the intermodal transport market between Belgium and Poland, the

highest potential for rail transport is on the corridor between Belgium and the

centre (Poznan - Warsaw) and the South (Wroclaw – Katowice) of Poland. On

these corridors, rail transport has – especially if lightweight cargo is transported

- a cost advantage over short sea shipping via Polish seaports, due to long

distances of pre- and end haulage. Rail transport has also a clear cost advantage

over road transport if pre/end haulage is limited. The more origin and/or

destinations of cargo are located Southwards and near a rail terminal, the higher

is the potential for rail transport. In addition, the majority (87%) of all rail

shipments (measured in weight) from Belgium to Poland currently has a

destination in the central or Southern part of Poland. In the other direction,

these parts in Poland are even stronger involved: 94% of all rail shipments

(measured in weight) from Poland to Belgium has an origin in the central or

Southern part of Poland.

Another important development is the growing consciousness of sustainable

supply chains in which rail transport will play an important role. If cargo transit

times are considered, those supply chains which ‘allow’ some longer transit times

in certain parts of the supply chain, rail transport can be a good transport

alternative. While some rail services have even competitive transit times

compared to road transport, rail transport is for all parts in Poland much faster

than short sea shipping via Polish seaports. Above all, frequencies of rail

transport services between Belgium and Poland are higher than for short sea

shipping.



There is not enough cargo to load short sea vessels (almost) full every day of the

week, while rail transport offers a daily service between both countries; a higher

transport frequency means a higher degree of flexibility for shippers. Finally, it is

worth mentioning that especially rail services over the weekend have an

advantage over road transport, because of the driving ban on Sunday within

Germany. Table 2.10 shows the strengths and weaknesses of rail transport over

road and short sea shipping. Regarding transport costs it is clear that short sea

shipping only has an advantage over rail transport if origin and/or destinations of

cargo are located in the Northern part of Poland, close to the Polish seaports of

Gdansk/Gdynia.

Strengths and weaknesses of rail transport compared to other transport modes

Transport costs Transit times Flexibility

Rail versus road

lightweight goods + - -


lightweight goods



Rail versus road

heavy goods + - -


heavy goods



In short, rail transport has potential if cargo is or has:

• Originated and/or a destination in Central/Southern Poland;

• High and low weight density; however the advantage towards the other

modalities is stronger for light weight goods, because of weight restrictions.

• Predictable well in advance;

• Expected to be produced and transported in a sustainable way.



3 Identification of barriers to further development

3.1 Introduction

The first chapter of this study presented a forecast of the rail freight exchanges

between the Netherlands and Poland. The TNO study clearly highlighted in its

conclusion that if developments, measures and policies were decided in order to

stimulate freight flow, then the perspectives of the Belgium-Polish rail freight

corridor would significantly be improved.

Since trade improvement is a direct consequence of business efficiency, it

appears meaningful and compulsory to tackle the current barriers to

development as seen and felt by the different market players who partly were

presented in the previous chapter.

Consequently, the main purpose of this subchapter is to identify and analyse the

barriers as seen by stakeholders. These barriers will later enable consultants to

elaborate an Action Plan to be enforced across the studied european corridor.

Moreover, the corridor approach, governance and advantages in comparaison

with classical international train routes will also be developped.

3.2 Barriers as viewed by the stakeholders

To identify constraints in international freight transport by rail the consultant

contacted the stakeholders to identify the constraints and barriers from the

perspective of all involved stakeholders. These stakeholders are the current and

possible railway operators, forwarding companies, terminal operating companies,

infrastructure managers and national authorities. A list of iterviewed persons is

in the Annex)

The approach adopted by the Consultant takes into account the fact, that the

opinions of particular “players” can be very subjective. It should be however

noted that these subjective views are very often the basis of real decisions.

The barriers identified can be a perception of a single stakeholder. The scale of

the survey and the limited timeframe made it impossible to verify each barrier.

However as long as these barriers are mentioned, they will hinder rail cargo

transport as perception is an very important element in business.

The barriers identified in the interviews with the stakeholders have been

structured into the following groups:

• institutional barriers,

• technical barriers,

• market barriers,

• operational barriers.



3.3 Institutional barriers & issues

• Although there has been in the past complain on Infrabel with regard to its

cancellation, under special circumstance, of train path which Infrabel had

already allocated to a private undertaking. But in general, Infrabel tries to be

as independent as possible and Infrabel is considered by most interviewed

market players as neutral in allocating train paths to all the railway

undertakings that are operating in the Belgium market.

• Certain rail operator and undertaking consider the policy of Infrabel

deconstructive, in which a railway undertaking is subject to a fee in case it

cancels – outside of the official annual path application phase (in April) and

path scheduling amendments phases (6 times a year) – the train paths which

it requested earlier and will not use due to changing market and operational

planning. This policy increases the operational costs for the rail operator and

is considered not good for the rail freight market which faces fierce

competition with the road transport. However, others market players and

Infrabel consider it as positive incentive to drive the railway undertakings

and rail operators to make better, efficient, and more realistic organizational

and operational planning, and to prevent unnecessary preoccupation of too

many train paths without using them in the end. Under such policy, paths

can be utilized most efficiently among all the railway undertakings and the

change that certain railway undertaking reserves extra train paths in order

keep the other undertakings out of the market can be avoided.

• The Belgium Rail Regulator (DRS) has the competence of investigating,

monitoring, giving advices, and if necessary penalizing the infrastructure

manger for unlawful practices with regard to different issues (e.g. content of

the Network Statement), access charges, network access. However, it does

not have competence in changing access changes or imposing penalties with

regard to competition issues. In case of strong market distortion or anti-

competitive behaviors observed DRS may transfer these issues to the

Belgium competition authority (Competition Council) where market

competition issues are dealt with.

• In 2007 there was the issue with regard to monopolistic provision of training

facilities and certification of train-drivers by the national railway company

SNCB, which was stipulated in a Belgium national royal decree. This issue has

been resolved for the moment: the national royal decree has been adjusted;

and at the moment three railway companies in Belgium offer training and

certification service for train drivers: (a.) SNCB-Logistics; (b.) Crossrail; (c.)

Trainsport.

• Lack of cross-acceptance of certification for train drivers is still an issue in

Belgium. Besides, railway undertakings from the Netherlands face extra

language requirement with regard to driver certification process for entering

the Belgium market. Furthermore, without cross-acceptance of certification

for train drivers the effort to train a train-driver is very high.

For example, it costs approximately 60,000 Euro excluding salaries and all

equipment costs, takes about 5-6 months training period and 1 year practice

in order to certify a driver in the Netherlands.



• There is lack of cross-acceptance of certification for locomotives. Railway

undertaking that invest in multi-system locomotive cannot use it on

international corridor as they need to wait very long time to have this

locomotive certified to drive on the Belgium network. Diesel locomotives are

used in the meantime.

3.4 Operational barriers & issues

• Within the port the most important bridge Lillobrug needs to be closed for

trains to pass and opened for deep-sea vessels to pass. At the moment,

priority is often given to the deep-sea vessels and the trains have to wait.

This affects the transit time and reliability of trains.

• The use of One-Stop-Shop (OSS) for applying train paths on international

corridors is rather limited. In the case where certain company did use OSS, it

did not function properly. Certain private undertaking has tried applying the

same train paths via OSS and via individual infrastructure managers. The

result was that this undertaking received response from the individual

infrastructure managers much quicker than from OSS. The reason that OSS

gives slow response is speculated to be lack of good communication between

the corridor infrastructure managers.

• The speed of infrastructure manager to respond to requests from railway

undertaking for ad-hoc train paths has an impact on the waiting time of the

train service during its operation. Response from ProRail is rather quick;

usually within 45 minutes; response speed from Infrabel is also improved;

response from DB Netz is relatively slower: 6 – 8 hours.

• The yearly-based train path application process is considered rather rigid and

longsome for freight services. This system forces the operational planning

made by the rail operator to be finalized before paths are requested and also

to be fixed one year in advance. This is not always convenient and realistic

for the operator, given the market dynamics, adjustments to service

offerings, frequent fluctuations in volume and economic conditions.

• Terminals in Belgium are not open 24/7. The fact that in the weekends

terminals are closed and tracks are closed for maintenance is not convenient

for the service operation.

• There is some level of information exchange between Infrabel and the railway

undertakings. But there is lack of information exchange down to the rail

operators who have direct contact with the end customers who are the

stakeholders that want to know at any time the location of their

train/wagons/cargoes, how long it will still take to the final destination, and

estimated arrival time.



3.5 Technical barriers & issues

• Before the stretch Montzen – Aachen West was fully electrified, all trains

(>1100 tons) from Germany needed to be pushed by diesel push-locos from

Aachen West till Montzen due to a steep climb. This increases operational

costs of the railway undertakings. The condition has been improved since the

electrification since January 2009. Big push-locomotives are in most cases

not needed anymore with TRAXX multi-system locomotives. Trains can go

directly to Aachen without the need to stop at Montzen yard for changing

locomotives.

• The infrastructure capacity at Aachen West is considered to be rather limited.

• The rail infrastructure capacity within port of Antwerp is generally saturated.

Besides, the length of the rail track at Noordzee Terminal (913) is considered

to be not long enough. Trains are split up at this terminal for loading and

unloading.

• Maximum train length: the maximum length of freight trains is in principle

600 m excluding traction units (In comparison, the maximum length of

passenger trains: towed units is 400 m or 16 vehicles).

3.6 Market barriers & issues

• In general the rail terminal facilities and shunting yards (e.g. mainhub)

operated by IFB at the Port of Antwerp are considered not open to all parties.

Many private undertakings have limited access to these terminals and yards

and this leads to operational inefficiency. Certain rail operators lose

confidence and decided to use those terminals and shunting yards that are

not operated by IFB.

• Within port of Antwerp there are in total 22 shunting yards, among others,

the main one (mainhub) is owned by SNCB-Logistics. At the moment little

problem is recognized with regard to shunting service at Main hub for Single

Wagon business since SNCB-Logistics is the only party that handles single

wagonloads. However, in the future in case more parties coming in the

market of Single Wagon business, lack of open access to shunting services

might be an issue.

• At the Mainhub in Antwerp, IFB has established National Rail Container

Network (NARCON) with government subsidy. NARCON provides daily

national rail connections between Mainhub and Zeebrugge and five Belgium

inland terminals: Courtrai, Genk, Mouscron, Charleroi, and Athus. The

containers are repositioned at Mainhub (rail-to-rail) according to their final

destinations on both directions. However, the fact that IFB is the only

operator who can use this subsidized NARCON system; any other rail

operator cannot access this system signals market distortion due to

discriminative behavior from the incumbent.



• The fuelling system operated by B-Cargo at Port of Antwerp is generally not

open to other private railway undertakings. To respond this issue, several

mobile fuelling systems have been installed in the port to resolve the

problem but are subject to safety and environmental requirements.

Meanwhile, private players are in negotiation with the non-IFB terminal

operators for possibilities of fuelling at their terminals. Crossrail has built its

own fuelling station in Montzen yard on a track rented by Infrabel.

• Maintenance service for wagons and locomotive is also considered as an issue

in Port of Antwerp. However, the situation is expected to improve as the

Dutch maintenance company Shunter took over the Antwerp based

maintenance company Sati.

3.7 Conclusions

The barriers to the transport of goods between Poland and Belgium which have

been presented above, are those reported by the interested parties who are

operating on the market of rail transport.

These barriers are subjective opinions and they do not always coincide with the

opinions of others participants of the market. However, in most cases, the

identified barriers are the same or similar.

The barriers focused on Belgium corridor as there are limited operators running

trains to Poland and the Polish are described in detail in the Netherlands-Poland

corridor study.

When analyzing the railway freight market Belgium and Poland it must be noted

that there is a strong competition with the others means of transport and also

inside the railway market (especially between block trains). This competition

results in the most important feature of the services offered to the customer

being the price of carriages of goods between Belgium and Poland. The vast

majority of the interviewees focused on the fact that as regards transport offers,

customers choose the cheapest offer. Only few times the quality of transport was

more stressed on. Indeed, only a few interviewees declared that in addition to

price, other factors such as quality of transport service play an important role.

In addition, significant importance was given to the inadequacy of infrastructure

and the additional scope of services offered.



4 Selection of the Paths and Rail terminals

4.1 Introduction

The current situation of rail freight between Belgium, the Ruhr Area and Poland

has been presented in the previous two chapters. The analysis carried out

revealed that the rail freight transport between the two countries only represents

few percents of the total freight flow. The reasons to this situation have to be

found, among others, in the current barriers which have been reported by

various participant of the rail market in both countries. The fundamental barriers

have been presented in Task 2. However, on the basis of the forecasts realized in

the first chapter and the analysis of identified problems and barriers in the

following chapter, there are noticeable possibilities for improving and developing

rail freight traffic between the two countries. The study will now discuss the

conditions which have to be fulfilled in order to improve the transport of goods

by train and will present a proposal of the potential paths/corridors which could

be realized in the future. Therefore, this chapter will first detail the main

transport corridors from Belgium to the Ruhr Area / Hannover (the corridor

between Germany and Poland is described in the Belgium – Poland corridor

study) used for the carriage of goods, and secondly will describe the main

terminals in Belgium. The development plans of railway infrastructures and

terminals along the transport lines/corridors in Belgium will also be presented.

Before analyzing and detailing all the parameters necessary for suggesting a

coherent and effective rail freight corridor between Belgium and Poland, railways

networks will be displayed.



Figure 4.1 Rail network Belgium

Source: Infrabel, 2010

Figure 4.2 presents the main currently used rail traffic routes between the

Belgium and Poland. In principle the link port of Antwerp with Central and

Southern Poland through Germany.

Figure 4.2 Main considered rail traffic routes between Belgium and Poland

Bron: NEA, 2010



Figure 4.2 underlines easily the existing links between the three countries. 3

border-crossings would be connecting Belgium and German lines in the frame of

this project, while up to 4 locations would allow to enter the Polish network.

These 12 combinations will allow consultants in further subchapters to suggest

the most relevant possible train routes between Belgium and Poland. In the

following subchapters, the possible train and paths will be analyzed; They have

to be taken into account at the moment a rail freight corridor between Belgium

and Poland is designed.

4.1.1 Main considered rail traffic routes between Belgium and Relations with other international European programs

Before detailing the corridor proposal and in order to provide relevance,

coherence and potential to the studied corridor, a special attention will be paid to

the existing traffic routes and to the relations between this project and the

different European programs.

The existing routes – shown in blue on the previous map – have undeniable

connections with the several trans-European projects such as RNE, ERTMS or

TEN – T. They will be analysed briefly, and will also be highlighted how these

different frameworks are complementary, and why the study for the creation of a

freight corridor between Belgium and Poland is necessary to them.

Figure 4.3 presents the RailnetEurope corridor nr 3 – Rotterdam/Antwerp -

Berlin – Warsaw / Katowice.

Figure 4.3 RailNetEurope corridor 3

Source: RailNetEurope 2009



4.1.2 Relations with other international European programs

The existing routes – shown in blue on the previous map – have undeniable

connections with the several trans-European projects such as RNE, ERTMS or

TEN – T. They will be analysed briefly, and will also be highlighted how these

different frameworks are complementary, and why the study for the creation of a

freight corridor between Belgium and Poland is necessary to them.

The maps in annex 6.4 present both ERTMS and TEN – T priority projects

networks. Some commentaries can already be made.

First of all, it has to be noticed, in comparison with the previous figure 4.3, that

the currently operated train routes between Belgium and Poland are already

following the ERTMS F corridor, at least from Germany. Indeed, ERTMS F corridor

is starting in Antwerp instead of Rotterdam. The TREND Route D also studied

similar links and connections. TREND Project has been playing a major part in

the development of most of pan-European rail freight corridors.

East – West transport links are usually not enough promoted either as

alternatives, either as necessities. Nonetheless, the ERTMS F corridor and the

Belgium – Poland freight rail corridor are mostly matching. This only can be

meaning that such an initiative from the Ministries of Belgium and Poland is

fundamental on a European point of view.

However, no TEN – T intermodal priority projects is aiming at connecting the

North Sea with Poland, as only inland waterways are currently promoted.

Therefore, the development of international rail connection between Belgium and

Poland has to be put on the TEN – T EA agenda. The B – PL rail freight corridor is

a real opportunity to achieve it.

This is all the more critical than the broad-vision of TEN – T corridors seems to

be discarding any transnational lines through Germany, though it could be a real

market opportunity to attract cargo and goods from / to Russia and Asia.

On that topic, it has to be mentioned that currently a large amount of Russian

and Chinese cargo is sent by feeders from Kaliningrad to German harbours,

where they are later dispatched all over the European Union. Providing rail

routes from the East border of the European Union to its main harbours, i.e.

from the Polish borders to the North of the Germany, Belgium and the

Netherlands, would definitely be a decisive step taken for increasing the rail

freight market share.

The current organisation of infrastructure managers RNE provides already East –

West corridors. In the case of rail links between Belgium and Poland, the

common points are even more than obvious. If are taken into account the

barriers seen by stakeholders of the rail freight market, including the lack of

business efficiency of the One-Stop-Shop, a clear conclusion can be drawn:

potential rail freight between Belgium and Poland is a major issue, and this

corridor feasibility study is one of the means to tackle it.



A closer look at the figure 4.4 also puts into the spotlight the necessary logical

cooperation with Belgium and Germany in the frame of the Dutch – Polish

corridor, so Antwerp, Rotterdam and Hamburg harbours could attract more cargo

and customers as then an efficient and competitive rail freight service could be

provided between the West and the East of the European Union.

In view of this, the detailed suggested routes through Belgium, Germany and

Poland will now be presented. Indications concerning the main routes used for

road transport will also be provided.

Figure 4.4 Comparison of ERTMS F and RNE 03 corridors

S

ource: European Commission, Department of Transports.

4.2 The Belgium initiative

The Belgium government proposes to link both corridor A and F to Antwerp. The

following map provides the overview how the routes should link to both

corridors.

Corridor A should take the Montzen route from Cologne with an alternative the

Iron Rhine; Corridor F should take the Iron Rhine, with an alternative the

Montzen Route.



Figure 4.5 proposed extensions of corridor A and F to Belgium

Red – corridor A

Green corridor F

4.3 Rail Routes

In this sub-chapter, a freight rail corridor between Belgium and Poland will be

suggested. This suggestion will be based on the characteristics of railways in the

involved countries.

4.3.1 Montzen route

The Montzen route is the international freight track in Belgium that has the

largest amount of traffic: daily 120 trains, yearly loaded with 8.2 million tons of

goods. About 40% of the traffic is related to the Ports of Antwerp or Zeebrugge.

In Germany, 20% of the Montzen trains heads to the North (direction Duisburg),

80% to the South (direction Koln).

4.3.2 Main barriers

Aarschot bottleneck

In Belgium, it is assumed that on a given section, for more than 12 trains per

hour and per direction, the possibility of capacity problems becomes fairly likely

(12 trains/hour is similar to an average train sequence of 5 minutes). This is a

general rule of thumb for the possible capacity problems along a route, taking

into account the intersections in stations, level track intersections, level

crossings, timetable with limited margins. For Aarschot, this rule of thumb needs

to be adapted a little. Two major freight traffic flows come together in Aarschot:

one from Antwerp and one from Zeebrugge is exceeded near Langdorp station.



If we consider the Aarschot triangle and take account of the fact that trains run

on the left side in Belgium, it is easy to see that train traffic coming from Hasselt

and running toward Antwerp is hindering the traffic coming from Aarschot and

running toward Hasselt. The same applies to traffic coming from Antwerp to

Aarschot and traffic coming from Hasselt to Antwerp. It may be assumed that

such crossing takes at least 6 minutes: path actuation / passage of train 1/

clearing route / new path actuation / passage of train 2 / clearing route.

Montzen

The route is crossing the hills around Montzen. Although the route has been fully

electrified two years ago, still there are limitations on the weight of the freight

train. The maximum weight fpr one electro locomotive is 800 ton. Heavy freight

trains need extra locomotive power (diesel locomotive push locomotiv) for the

track between Montzen and Aachen. The advantage of this double track route is

that it is limited to freight trains between Glons and Aken. THerefor the train

schedule is optimized to freight trains.

Aachen

At the junction in Aken West the freight trains heading north do not have to

change directions, where the trains heading south have to change directions.

However currently nearly all trains change locomotives in Aken West, because B-

Cargo and DB Schenker have the agreement to stop at Aken West so both

operators have their locomotives run on their own network. This shunting takes

quite some capacityat the Aken West shunting yard. Therefor the capacity at

Aken West is reduced to 5.5 trains per hour per direction.

4.3.3 Iron Rhine 1

The Iron Rhine is a former railway line connecting the port of Antwerp with the

German Ruhr area. In 1998, Belgium asked the Netherlands to reactivate the

Iron Rhine. The argumentation for this was the expansion of freight transport

from the port of Antwerp to the German Ruhr area. The current route to

Germany, the Montzen route, is up to 50 km longer than the Iron Rhine for some

destinations and contains some slopes which make it difficult to drive heavy

trains. The Iron Rhine would allow longer and heavier freight trains a shorter

route to North and Central Europe.

1 Text SCBA Iron Rhine – commissioned by Infrabel – executed by TMLeuven and TNO - 2009



Figure 4.6 Iron Rhine route

4.3.4 Main barriers for revitalizing the Iron Rhine

Within the framework of the corridor study an additional Iron Rhine study was

not foreseen. Therefore the consultant provides the conclusion of the most

recent Iron Rhine study, namely the the SCBA (social cost benefit analysis)

realized by the Commissie van Onafhankelijke Deskundigen in 20091.

The 5 project alternatives for the Iron Rhine (historical route, A52 route, diesel,

electrified, background scenario) all lead to negative benefits (so net costs) for

the society: for Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and the other countries

together. The net present value of the costs to society varies from 335 to 530

million euro. For this, an investment of 440 to 680 million is need by the 3

countries, which is the net present value of an investment of about 590 to 750

million euro.

The major reason why the project performs so poorly is that it mainly substitutes

rail traffic on the existing Montzen route that has not yet reached its capacity

limits. The user cost advantage of switching between the two lines is limited and

there is only a small reduction of congestion on the road. These small benefits

can never compensate the large investment cost. Even if the growth of rail traffic

from Antwerp to Germany is much stronger than expected by the models, the

benefits are too small to compensate the large investment cost.

If one wants to take on the project anyway, society’s losses are minimized when

the start of the project is delayed, when one electrifies the whole Iron Rhine and

when one selects the A52 route.

1 Final Report Social cost-benefit analysis Iron Rhine, TM Leuven/TNO, 13 February 2009.

Commissioned by Infrabel, under the authority of the Belgium Minister of Civil Service and Public Entreprise and the Dutch Minister of Transport, Public Works and Water Management



Note that the estimate of the investment costs (480 million €) for this variant is

based on the IVV study, while DB Netz estimates the investment costs

amounting to about 500 up to 900 million €.

4.3.5 Via the Netherlands - Rotterdam - Betuwelijn or Osnabruck

This route will lead north from Antwerp to Roosendaal and Rotterdam. At

Rotterdam trains can head north east to Bad Bentheim or East to Duisburg.

Antwerpen - Rotterdam

This route has enough capacity when the High Speed Trains are running on the

new constructed High Speed line which will divert most passenger trains from

the traditional passenger route passing Roosendaal at the moment. A barrier for

taking this route is that the locomotives should be accepted for the Netherlands

as well, instead being adapted only to the Belgium and German safety and

electricity system.

The routes from Rotterdam onwards are described in detail in the Netherlands-

Poland corridor report, to summarize shortly the optional routes including their

main barriers:

Betuwelijn

This route takes the train up north from Antwerp to Rotterdam Kijfhoek, where

the train heads east taking the Betuwelijn to the Ruhr. This route has enough

capacity as the HST will divert most passenger trains from the traditional route

passing Roosendaal The freight trains have to change direction at Rotterdam

Kijfhoek, the Rotterdam shunting area, which is the entrance to the Betuwelijn.

Moreover the locomotive should be equipped with 4 safety systems and be

equipped with the 4 electricity systems as the Betuweroute is equipped with

ETCS and 25KV, therefore the locomotive needs to be equipped with the

Belgium, Dutch, Betuweroute and German system.

Via Osnabruck

This route takes the train up north from Antwerp to Rotterdam Kijfhoek– Gouda

– Breukelen – Amsterdam – Amersfoort – Apeldoorn - Deventer – Almelo - Bad

Bentheim. This route is easily congested as the capactiy is limited passing quite

some big cities in the Netherlands.

Brabantroute

This route takes the train up north from Antwerp - Tilburg – Eindhoven – Venlo

and Monchengladbach. This route is easily congested and if the train is not

routed via Koln, it should change direction in the Ruhr Area. As this is not

regarded as an alternative route, this route will not be elaborated further in

detail.

4.3.6 Comparing routes

In this paragraph the described routes are compared: the 4 routes from Antwerp

to Hannover and Hannover to Warsaw / Katowice.



Following tables compare the time, distance, track access charges, average

speed and cost (TAC) per km for the different routes between Antwerp and

Hannover and the routes Hannover – Warsaw and Hannover – Katowice.

Table 4.1 Comparing route Antwerp - Hannover

Antwerp – Hannover

Indicative time in hours

Km TAC

Average speed

TAC per km

Antwerp –

Aachen –

Duisburg -

Hannover

9.30 567 €1320

60 €2.32

Antwerp –

Rotterdam –

Osnabruck –

Hannover

7.45 492

€1043

66 2.11

Antwerp -

Rotterdam –

Duisburg –

Hannover

8.50 601

€1387

70

2.30

Iron Rhine (not

revitalished yet)

6.54 483

(depends on

choosen

variant)

€1139 70 €2.35

Source: RailNet Europe & NEA,. Based on following TAC: Belgium €1.40, the Netherlands €1.70,

Germany €2.70.

The three available routes show quite some differences; the route via Rotterdam

and Osnabruck is currently the fastest, the shortest and the cheapest; which will

change with the opening of revitalished Iron Rhine. The Iron Rhine is according

the schedule the fastest, shortest and nearly the cheapest route to Hannover in

future.

Especially the track access charges are (of the existing routes) much lower at

the Rotterdam-Osnabruck route than the other two current options. As track

access charges in Belgium and the Netherlands are cheaper than in Germany, it

reduces TAC costs when taking the route which is avoiding extra kilometers in

Germany. The Iron Rhine is the shortest, but, most probably, due to the higher

German access charges not the cheapest.



Table 4.2 Comparing route Hannover – Warsaw / Katowice

Hannover - Poland

Indicative time

Km

TAC (700m, 1600t,

100km/h)

Average speed

TAC per km in €

Hannover –

Berlin - Warsaw

16 874 €4225 54 4.83

Hannover –

Wroclaw -

Katowice

16.45 742

€3165 45 4.27

Source: NEA calculated, based on RailNet Europe, December 2009

In Poland the TAC is twice the Belgium/Dutch/German level, that explains the

difference. The speed is a little bit lower due to the conditions of the Polish

railway network.

4.3.7 Corridor Capacity

As calculated in chapter 2, the number of trains from Belgium to Poland are quite

limited, compared to other destinations on the corridor. The number of trains

from Belgium to Poland is 223 and to the Czech Republic 31 trains per year.

From Poland to Belgium 305 are ruinning and 112 trains from the Czech

Republic. This gives an average less than 1 per day East bound and 1.2 train per

day West bound.

Even the highest growth index for 2040 from Poland to Belgium is 4.9, which has

the heaviest traffic flow. This will lead to an average of 5 trains per day on the

corridor. An increase of 4 trains per day. This number should not lead to

congestion, especially taking into account the foreseen infrastructure projects to

accommodate the increased traffic on the Montzen route (paragraph 4.6), the

under used capacity on the Betuweroute and the planned freight rerouting in the

Netherlands to Osnabruck.

4.4 Road

The main route for road transport is the highway from Antwerp / Zeebrugge in

Belgium via the Netherlands to the Dutch – German border: A21 – A67 – A40 –

A2: Antwerp – Eindhoven – Essen – Dortmund for all destinations in Poland. The

choice of this route will depend on preferences of drivers and the choice of

border crossing between Germany and Poland.

The length is about 1300 km for both Antwerp - Warsaw and Katowiche.

Congestion problems frequently occur around the cities of Antwerp, Eindhoven

and the Ruhr especially during peak hours.

4.5 Rail terminals

Belgium has quite some rail terminals as shown in Annex 6.3. However for the

rail transport to Poland only the terminals in Antwerp and Zeebrugge have

transport in these directions.



Figure 4.8

As seen in Chapter 2 Antwerp and Zeebrugge are the most important rail

destinations. There for the rail terminals in these ports are described more in

detail.

4.5.1 Antwerp

The most import rail terminals are located in Antwerp. Antwerp is the 2nd biggest

rail port in Europe, with 30 million tones overslag in 2008. There is 1055 km tracks in

the port with an open access infrastructure. Each terminal has a rail connection. There

are 22 shunting yards in Antwerp and daily departure of around 250 freight trains to

most European destinations.

An open access infrastructure is provided with 1100 km (700 miles) of railway

tracks, 22 public rail sidings and a rail link to each terminal in the port. Antwerp

has 10 container railterminals and 5 of them are directly connected to a deepsea

terminal.



Figure 4.9 Rail terminals in the Port of Antwerp

4.5.2 Zeebrugge

In Zeebrugge, rail transport is a very important partner for the supply and

transport of maritime cargo. In 2000, 205,000 railway wagons accounted for a

cargo volume of 5 million tons, or 14 % of the hinterland traffic.

More than 65 % of these wagons involve the transport of containers. Via the

‘North European Network’ (NEN), Zeebrugge is connected with important inland

terminals such as Antwerp, Athus, Duisburg, Muizen, Bressoux, Mouscron and

Genk by means of daily block trains.



From these railway platforms, the containers are further distributed over the

European continent. The transport of new cars represents about 40,000 wagons

(20 %), whereas combined transport (trailers on track) accounts for 20,000

movements (10 %). Furthermore, rail also plays an important role in the

transport of conventional cargo (fruit, sugar, paper pulp, pipes).

Figure 4.10 Port of Zeebrugge

4.6 Infrastructure Projects

Even though the program of this study includes the realisation of a 5 years

Action Plan which will enable to solve barriers and clear bottlenecks, the success

perspectives of the corridor also depends on how its railways infrastructure and

terminals characteristics evolution has already been planned by the relevant

market participants. Consequently, future plans by country will now be listed.

In both the port of Antwerp and the port of Zeebrugge some rail infrastructure

improvements are ongoing:

• Liefkenshoek railway tunnel

• Second railway access on the right bank



Figure 4.11 Liefkenshoek Rail Tunnel

This new rail connection under the Scheldt is very important for opening up the

port to the hinterland and it solves the congestion problem with the existing

Kennedy Rail Tunnel. The 16,2 km long tunnel connects directly the lines between

the Antwerp and the Left bank, from the Deurganckdok on the left bank to the

Antwerp North marshalling yard on the right bank. The freight trains avoid the

Kennedy Tunnel bottleneck and the congested corridor Antwerpen-Berchem en

Antwerpen-Schijnpoort.

Total investment for the Liefkenshoek Rail Tunnel, scheduled for completion at

the end of 2011, amounts to 685 million euro. This amount, as well as its

financing, has been approved. 50 million euro is coming from Infrabel and 635

million euro from the private sector via a Public Private Partnership (PPP)

concession.



Figure 4.12 Second rail access to Aarschot and the Montzen line

A second step in increasing capacity on the Right Bank is the construction of a

second rail access. This is the continuation of the investments in the Schijn

bifurcation. The 28-km long connection extends from Antwerp-North via Ekeren,

Merksem, Deurne, Schoten, Wijnegem, Wommelgem, Ranst to the railway line

Lier-Aarschot. The construction of the second rail access is essential to the

further development of the Port of Antwerp, and will contribute to improved

mobility since more freight traffic can be handled by train.

The second rail access will be a major priority in the coming investment plan

2008-2012. Despite the elimination of the aforementioned bottlenecks on the

existing goods axis, there is still a need for a second rail access for the Port of

Antwerp in the future. In real terms Infrabel intends to construct a new double-

track goods line, line 16A, that will start at the Antwerp North marshalling yard

in Lier and connect to line 16 with a junction to line 15 (Iron Rhine). For this

project various feasibility studies and technical preliminary studies have already

been conducted at TUC Rail. Various alternatives are still being examined for this

new track route, to have a total length of approx. 25 km at present.)

4.6.1 Zeebrugge

As rail traffic continues to grow, the Port Authority pleads for the construction of

a third track between Zeebrugge and Bruges and for the extension of the section

between Bruges and Ghent by a third and fourth track. In the port itself the

marshalling yard was modernized for the efficient arrangement of wagons into

long block trains.



The Zeebruges-Formation station will therefore undergo a modernisation of the

station infrastructure and expansion of its capacity. An additional siding of 16 to

24 tracks will be added from arrival to departure while sidings A (9 tracks) and B

(19 tracks), currently separated by the main lines, will be merged into one siding

of 28 yard tracks. A new signalling box will also be constructed (as part of the

plan to integrate the boxes). This work will improve the safety and efficiency of

port installations.

4.7 Conclusions

This chapter has been presenting the features of the Belgium railways in their

relations to Poland. For each route the advantages and disadvantages are

described including the bottlenecks. The main terminals are described including

some caracteristics and the most important infrastructure projects relevant to

the corridor Belgium – Poland are presented.

An overwiew is provided between the main alternative routes from Antwerp to

Hannover and from Hannover to Poland. Following routes were considered:

• Antwerp – Montzen – Hannover

• Antwerp – Rotterdam – Duisburg – Hannover

• Antwerp – Rotterdam – Osnabruck – Hannover

• Antwerp – Duisburg – Hannover (Iron Rhine)

Based on some categories like speed, distance in kilometers and track acces

charges the revitalished Iron Rhine would be the most optimal, currently the

route via Rotterdam and Bad Bentheim is most optimal. However for this last

route the locomotive has to been adopted with the Dutch safety and energy

system. Moreover, the route can coop with the current level of freight trains, but

faces congestion when traffic rises.

The Anwerp – Montzen – Hannover route is or will be included in the existing and

planned to be implemented European transport rail services corridors such as

ERTMS corridors, TEN-T corridors or RailNetEurope (RNE corridor 3).

The proposed revitalished Iron Rhine Railway line is a future alternative to

Poland being the shortest route to Hannover and much cheaper than the Montzen

route.

In order to allow the efficient implementation of the transport of goods in the

planned corridors, appropriate actions should be proposed and laid down. These

activities should be coordinated one another and should be associated with the

adaptation and adequate maintenance of the railway and terminal

infrastructures.



5 References

• Bundesamt für Güterverkehr (2010), Marktbeobachtung Güterverkehr, Ost-

West Eisenbahngüterverkehr

• Chen, M, ea (2007), Vervoersprognose Ijzeren Rijn – Traffic Forecasts Iron

Rhine

• European Commission (2001), White Paper

• European Commission (2006), Keep Europe Moving

• FOD Economie, K.M.O, Middenstand en Energie (2010), Analyse van het

Goederenverkeer per spoor in België

• Hertveldt, B. ea (2009), Langetermijnvooruitzichten voor transport in

België: referentiescenario, Federaal Planbureau België

• Infrabel (2008) Network Statement 2008

• TNO studie (2008), Scenario calculations Rail freight transport on the

corridor Netherlands – Poland.

Websites

• http://energy.jrc.ec.europa.eu/transtools/

• www.railcargo.nl

• www.interferryboats.be

• www.bueker.net

• www.b-rail.be



6 Appendix

6.1 Traction providers and rail operators in Belgium

Maritime rail terminal operators at Port of Antwerp

• Noordzeeterminal PSA

• Europaterminal PSA

• Deuganck Terminal PSA

• Cirkeldyk (MSC Home Terminal)

• Antwerp Gateway DP World

Main rail-road terminals at Port of Antwerp

• Hupac Terminal Antwerpen (HTA);

• Mainhub (IFB) (biggest terminal in Antwerp);

• Terminal Zomerweg (IFB);

• Combined Terminal Antwerp (Combinant) (BASF, Hupac, IFB);

• Antwerpen-Schijnpoort (IFB); Rail operators active in the Belgium market

• IFB (BE)

• Xpedys (BE)

• Rail Force (BE)

• Quadrum Raillogistics (BE)

• Ewals Cargo Care

• HUPAC Intermodal (CH)

• MSC Medlog (CH or BE): only for MSC maritime containers

• Naviland Cargo (FR)

• Rail Link Europe (FR)

• Kombiverkehr (DE) Traction providers active and have safety certificates to operate in the Belgium market for the moment

• SNCB-Logistics (BE)

• Crossrail (CH or BE)

• Fret SNCF Benelux (Captrain Benelux)

• Veolia Cargo Nederland (NL) (Captrain Benelux)

• Trainsport (BE) (on FR, BE, DE routes)

• DB Schenker Rail Nederland (NL)

• ERS Railways (NL)

• ACTS (NL)

• Rotterdam Rail Feeding (RFF) (NL)

• CFL Cargo (LUX)

• SNCF (FR) (Captrain Benelux)



6.2 List of Interviews

Personal interviews

Organization Interviewee

1. B-cargo Jan Wets

2. Captrain Martijn Loois

3. DB Schenker rail Benelux Arend Sonneveld

4. FOD Mobiliteit en Vervoer, Directie Spoorvervoer Joannes Peeters

5. InterFerryBoats Ghislain Bartholomé

6. Infrabel Guy Vernieuwe

7. Port of Antwerp Helen De Wachter

8. Quadrum Patrick Wallays

9. Railforce Daniel Vanparijs

Telephone interviews

Organization Interviewee

1. Hupac Dirk Fleerakkers

2. Kombiverkehr (Optimodal) Wouter van Dijk

3. Xpedys Lieven van den Berge

6.3 A complete list of terminals in Belgium

Renory

Antwerpen Cirkeldyck

Antwerpen Mainhub

Antwerpen Zomerweg

Antwerp Gateway Terminal

Hupac Terminal Antwerpen

Combinant Athus

Brussels Terminal Intermodal

Charleroi logistics center

Genk Euroterminal

Haven Genk

Liege Logistics Intermodal

Dry Port Mouscron / Lille International

Dry Port Muizen

Oostende Port

L.A.R

Container Handling Zeebrugge (CHZ)

APM Terminals Zeebrugge

Zeebrugge Cobelfret

Zeebrugge P&O Ferries



6.4 Rail maps

ERTMS and TEN – T intermodal priority projects map.



Source: TEN – T EA, 2009

ERTMS and TEN – T priority projects map.



Source: TEN – T EA, 2009



TEN – T projects and international connections.



Source: TEN – T EA, 2009.



6.1 Table: Action Plan for Rail Freight Corridor Belgium – Poland (complete version)

Measures Milestones Primary Stakeholders Level of Workload Implementation Period

(1) *Synchronise timetabling along the Corridor: taking into account of, among

others, the integrative planning of alternative routes BE/NL – DE including part

of the ERTMS corridor A, C, & F, Montzen route, and Iron Rhine.


(2) *Introduce common policy where RUs pay for the cancellation of paths in

order to stimulate RUs to make efficient operational planning and avoid possible

discriminative actions.


(3) Harmonise different levels of calculation of access charges and/or other

charging methods. Charges for using electricity or other facilities should be

calculated based on consumption instead of flat rate.

IMs High Medium-term

(4) Introduce the use of EICIS (European Infrastructure Charging Information

System) on the Corridor for the RUs to calculate path charges, station and

shunting fees during path request process.


(5) *Explore possibility to provide updated, delay-related information (e.g. data

from Europtirail) timely available also to rail operators who have direct, frequent

contacts with customers, so that rail operators and LSPs can timely adjust

operational & logistical planning according to new situations.


I. Achieving Corridor Path

Planning

(6) Monitor the synchronisation of timetabling and harmonisation of access

charges on the Corridor. RRs Low Short-term

(1) Reduce corridor path rejection frequency by setting up corridor monitoring

system. IMs Low Short-term

II. Improving Corridor Path

Allocation Process

(2) Reduce response time for path requests (especially via OSS) by setting up

corridor monitoring system, and improve communication between IMs. IMs Low Short-term



(3) Offer paths which adapt as much as possible to the logistical requirements of

the applicants (e.g. several route options and associated charge options and

transport time.); dialogue with RUs concerning their satisfaction of the paths

allocated compared to their requests.


(4) Clarify liability issues among local OSSs, OSS where disturbance occurs, and

RNE with regard to which one is responsible for the delay & the Corridor path

delivery.

IMs Low Short-term

(5) Improve the transparency of path allocation processes by using web

applicant (e.g. Pathfinder). Make information of ad-hoc path quickly available. IMs Medium Short-term

(6) Monitor the Corridor IMs concerning path allocation procedures in conformity

with Network Statements. RRs Low Long-term

(1) Implement computer programmes in line with TSI TAF to monitor online the

real-time train traffic on the Corridor, including contracted timetables, delays,

forecast running advice, etc.


(2) *Plan medium/long term scenarios of state financing on removing capacity

bottlenecks, taking into account its consistency with TEN-T and ERTMS progress,

and with the maintenance, upgrade, reconstruction, and charging planning of

the Corridor states.

MoTs Medium Long-term

III. Achieving Corridor

Capacity Planning

(3) Prepare short-term plan to be performed in 2-3 years for most cost-efficient

actions with hard and soft measures on reducing smaller-scaled but critical

capacity bottlenecks.

IMs Low Short-term



(4) Carry out terminal studies in the Corridor states, with regard to capacity

forecast, terminal locations in relation to the Corridor and the other relevant

international corridors.

MoTs Medium Short-term

(5) Explore opportunities for operating longer, heavier, and faster trains along

the Corridor, paying attention to their fitting with the track, waiting tracks,

sidings, and the rail terminals.

IMs Low Short-term

(1) Encourage the pilot European Performance Regime (EPR); set up an EPR

manager of the Corridor to monitor among others, the reliability, the delays,

average speed of trains in each corridor state, as well as path allocation

performance.


(2) Make critical traffic information (e.g. delays) timely available to the terminal

operators, RUs, and the rail operators. IMs Medium Short-term

(3) *Derive appropriate incentives for IMs or RUs to improve the reliability and

traffic performance along the Corridor. IMs Low Medium-term

IV. Establishing Corridor

Performance

Regime

(4) Monitor the level-playing-field on the Corridor by keeping track on e.g.

access to paths and associated facilities, priority rules applied in the actual

situation, and keep track on the reliability and traffic performance.


V. Improving

Corridor Interoperability



(1) *Investigate on the possibility for a single working language on the Corridor

(e.g. English or single code language). NSAs/IMs High Medium-term

(2) Speed up licensing process along the Corridor to facilitate quicker access of

the RUs to the corridor countries. NSAs High Short-term

(3) Deploy ERTMS at corridor level (eg signing MoU for ERTMS corridor F),

paying attention to the different ETCS-levels during the migration process. MoTs / IMs High Long-term

(4) Improve the certification process between the ETCS-equipped tracks and the

ETCS-equipped locomotives. NSAs Medium Long-term

(5) Participate in the related work of ERA on TSIs to replace the cross-

acceptance practice later on with a common interoperable practice. NSAs High Long-term

(6) Speed up railway line codification at the Corridor level, allowing the

customers choose in advance the right cargo size for the infrastructure and

thereby streamline the path application/allocation process.


(1) *Ensure and maintain high level of independence of infrastructure manager

from the national railways for path allocation, neutrality of the terminals,

shunting yards, and/or related facilities, which belong to or operated by the

infrastructure managers.

MoTs High Medium-term VI. Striving for Corridor

Level- Playing-Field

(2) *Consider public financial support for new open terminals along the Corridor.

Open up existing terminals, shunting yards, and fuelling facilities (i.e. within the

Port of Antwerp/BE)




(3) Investigate in the Network Statements regarding the consistency in rules

between the Corridor states, including priority rules; conditions for accessing

(ad-hoc) paths and related facilities (e.g. sidings, shunting); the access

charges; and charging systems; and qualification of path applicants.


(4) Monitor the degree of cooperation between the Corridor IMs regarding the

access condition. RRs Medium Long-term

(5) *Monitor the terminal handling charges and the degree of neutrality of

terminals, shunting yards, and facilities along the Corridor. RRs Medium Long-term

(6) *Assign more competence to and increase autonomy of the Rail Regulators

with regard to competition issues, market monitoring, inspection, and single

case proceedings.


(1) Refer to the governance structure the Corridor in the proposal of EC

Regulation “European Rail Network for Competitive Freight” for. Development of

frequent meetings between corridor RRs, IMs, and NSAs to enhance exchange of

data and cooperation.


(2) Seek possibilities for actual engagement from Germany in the Action Plan

implementation phase. MoTs Medium Long-term

(3) *Consider future extension of the Corridor to Czech, Belarus, Ukraine,

Lithuania, and Russia. MoTs Medium Short-term

(4) Explore integration possibility with the existing comparable corridors (e.g.

ERTMS Corridor A, C, and F, RNE (RailNet Europe) Corridor No 2, No 3, and No 5

)

MoTs High Medium-term

VII. Establishing corridor

governance structure

(5) *Verify the Corridor by regularly evaluating and monitoring the freight traffic

on the Corridor, particularly the critical border-crossing nodes (e.g. Port of

Antwerp, Aachen-West).

MoTs Low Short-term



(6) Be aware of the measures in this Action Plan and the measures in the

relevant existing legal acts (e.g. the three railway packages, interoperability

directive) and the forthcoming legal act. (i.e. on European Rail Network for

Competitive Freight).

MoTs Low Long-term

(7) *Cooperate with other Rail Regulators along the Corridor to deal with issues

and complaints, provide advices for national governments and the EC on certain

legal acts and/or operational/technical requirements.

RRs Low Long-term



6.4.1 Elaboration of the action plan

The measures and the milestones in the Action Plan (complete version) are elaborated in the following section.

I. Achieving Corridor Path Planning

Measure “Achieving Corridor Path Planning” concerns a set of seven milestones that deals with ex-ante planning for the use of paths.

(1) The synchronisation of timetabling among corridor infrastructure managers concerns exploring opportunities for developing cross-border

timetabling on the Corridor, like the catalogue path developed by RNE for the RNE corridors. A common deadline of annual timetable delivery by

all corridor infrastructure managers can be considered. Here, attention needs to be drawn regarding consistencies with:

(a.) the progress on developing renowned corridors (e.g. ERTMS Corridor A, B & F; RNE Corridor C02, C03, & C05; Principle routes of freight

corridors No.1, No.2, & No.8; TEN-T rail freight axes No 5 and No 23; TERFN network where BE, NL and DE are concerned; Pan European

Corridors No 2 and No 3);

(b.) the integrative planning of several alternative routes on border-crossing stretch BE/NL – DE on e.g. ERTMS Corridors A, B, & F; RNE

Corridors C02, C03 & C05; Principle routes of freight corridors No.1, No.2, & No.8; the Iron Rhein route; and the Montzen route;

(c.) the differences between corridor states regarding track maintenance planning and priority rules.

(2) Extend the existing Belgium policy to the corridor-wide policy, where railway undertakings are subject to a fee in case it cancels – outside of

the official annual path application phase and path scheduling amendments phases (6 times/yr) – the train-paths it has requested earlier. The

objective is to stimulate railway undertakings to make better operational planning and to avoid possible discrimination by preoccupying many

unnecessary paths in order to keep the competitors out of the market.

(3) Harmonise the level of access charges and/or the charging methods between corridor infrastructure managers. The fact that access charges

differ by country sometimes cause the railway companies to choose suboptimal route just to avoid paying higher access fees at certain country.

Besides, expensive charges make it hard for price-sensitive shippers and LSPs to opt for rail. Striving for a harmonised access charges along a

defined corridor shall increase the attractiveness of this corridor and competitiveness in rail.



(4) Introduce corridor-wide infrastructure charging information system (e.g. EICIS – European Infrastructure Charging Information System,

developed by RNE), which calculates the charges of paths, stations, shunting, or other track related services on a particular corridor, and

publicise these information to all railway undertakings. This system increases the transparency of charging process, prevents possible

discrimination against private undertakings, and contributes to the level-playing-field in the rail market.

(5) Explore possibility of providing the updated information concerning a running service including, among others, timetables of path and of

shunting yards and stations, real-time train movements (e.g. data from Europtirail applied in Belgium) timely available, not only to the railway

undertakings, but also to the rail operators that have direct & frequent contact with the end customers (e.g. shippers, LSPs) who need to know,

especially when delays occurs, the locations of their trains, wagons and cargos; the remaining duration; and the estimated arrival time. This

allows both rail operators and end customers to timely adjust their operational and logistical planning according to the updated situations. The

service performance of rail operator is also improved.

(6) Monitor the process of synchronising the timetabling and process of harmonising the charges on the Corridor in the Network Statements of

the Corridor states.



II. Improving Corridor Path Allocation Process

Measure “Improving Corridor Path Allocation Process” consists of six milestones. It aims at improving the efficiency and coordination during

path allocation, and the quality of paths allocated to the applicants.

(1) Reduce path rejection frequency along the Corridor by setting up a monitoring system.

(2) Reduce the time to respond path requests by setting up a monitoring system. Attention needs to be drawn regarding ad-hoc path requests

and the proper functioning of OSS: it takes generally much longer time to respond to requests via OSS than via individual infrastructure

managers. Communication between infrastructure managers is essential to make OSS service functioning.

(3) Offer the paths that adapt as much as possible the logistical requirements of the applicants. For example, if possible the infrastructure

manager may offer the applicants a few route options and thereby with different routes, access charges and transport time that associated to

the routes. Besides, dialogues with the undertakings concerning their satisfaction on the paths allocated as compared to the path they

requested may be needed to improve the level of path allocation service.

(4) Clarify liability matters between the Corridor infrastructure managers and RNE with regard to corridor path allocation. The railway

undertaking needs to send the ‘Path Order Form’ with its request details to both the local OSS and to the RNE. In case delay occurs, whether it

is the RNE, the local OSS, or the OSS of the Corridor state where disturbance takes place, that is responsible for the delay and for the delivery

of the Corridor path should be clarified.

Besides, either RNE or local OSS is suggested to make information in the ‘Path Order Form’ available to the rail regulators for possible

investigation concerning competition issues.

(5) Improve the transparency of path allocation processes by using e.g. pathfinder, a web application provided by RNE to the infrastructure

managers and path applicants that handles communication and coordination processes for international path requests and offers. Improve the

ad-hoc path allocation process by making the information timely available.

(6) Monitor corridor Infrastructure Managers concerning their path allocation process in conformity with the Network Statements, in particular,

the access to paths and to the related facilities, the use of priority rules, the charges, path allocation response time and rejection frequency.



III. Achieving Corridor Capacity Planning

Measure “Achieving Corridor Capacity Planning” concerns the planning, the utilisation and the improvement of infrastructure capacity. In total,

five milestones are developed.

(1) Apply real-time traffic management system (e.g. Europtirails from RNE) in consistency with the development of TAF-TSI (Technical

Specifications for Interoperability on Telematic Applications for Freight services), to monitor and manage online real-time train traffic on the

Corridor, in particular, the contracted timetables, the delays, the forecasts, and the running advice. The real-time train traffic data are then

recorded in order to be used to analyse capacity bottlenecks, and traffic performance along the Corridor.

(2) Based on the results of capacity analysis, make medium- and long- term scenarios of infrastructure financing in order to anticipate capacity

growth and mitigate capacity bottlenecks from technical and operational constraints. These scenarios need to focus on both the tracks within

the country and tracks linking gates and hubs at border-crossing areas (e.g. Port of Antwerp, terminal Aachen-West, Port of Rotterdam;

Zevenaar – Emmerich; Oldenzaal – Bad Bentheim; Frankfurt (Oder) – Kunowice; Horka – Bielawa Dolna; Szczecin). The infrastructure planning

also needs to be consistent with the rail projects in TEN-T (e.g. priority axes No 5), and the progress on ERTMS corridor A, C and F. This shall

also take into account the maintenance, upgrading and reconstruction, and the charging plan of the corridor states. In Beligum, current

investment plan is for period 2001-2012 and the next investment plan 2013-2025 is under preparation.

(3) Make plans for short-term (e.g. 2-3 years) and cost-efficient actions (soft and/or hard measures) to reduce those capacity bottlenecks which

are small-scaled (e.g. under-lines) but have critical impacts on the entire Corridor. These small scale projects require less finance and could be

well considered during economic downturn.

(4) Carry out studies on terminals in the Corridor states, with regard to the capacity forecast, locations of terminals in relation to the

development of the Corridor, and their relevance to the other relevant international corridors (e.g. ERTMS Corridor A, C and F; RNE Corridor No

2, No 5; TEN-T Priority Axes No 1, No 5, No 23; national corridors on the TERFN network; Pan-European Corridor No 2.)

(5) Explore opportunities for operating longer (e.g. >=700 meters), heavier (more axle load), and faster trains on the Corridor. The focus is on

the interface between the length of the tracks, the length of the waiting-tracks (NL: wachtsporen) and sidings, and the length of tracks at rail

terminals.



IV. Establishing Corridor Performance Regime

Measure “Establishing Corridor Performance Regime” aims at minimising disturbances of railway network operation and train operation. It

addresses the setting up of a performance regime in accordance with the EU Directive 2001/14/EC to monitor the performances of both

infrastructure managers and of the railway undertakings, and create incentives for performance improvement. However, it should be born in

mind that compatibility between this Corridor Performance Regime and the existing National Performance Regime shall first be assessed. To

implement this measure, four milestones are established.

(1) Introduce the pilot of performance regime (e.g. EPR (European Performance Regime) developed by RNE). By developing a set of KPIs, EPR

monitors railway undertakings with regard to their performance of actual path utilisation (e.g. departure punctuality, delay duration). EPR also

monitors the infrastructure managers with regard to their performance of path allocation (e.g. response time, rejection frequency, path

options), and on actual path dispatch (e.g. dispatching the contracted paths and associated facilities).

Other KPIs (e.g. transport time, average train speed, access charges, causes of delays) can be derived as well. The KPI data can be acquired

from both the real-time traffic management system (e.g. Europtirails) and from dialogues with the relevant parties.

(2) Make real-time traffic information (e.g. using particular application like Europtirails that is compatible with TAF-TSI common interface).

timely available to the railway undertakings, terminal operators, rail operators or even the LSPs or shippers. Particularly those information with

regard to disturbances due to congestions, short-noticed track maintenance, which lead to delays of the overall train services needs to be

passed on to the stakeholders down the chain.

(3) Since causes and duration of delays could be monitored via the EPR (European Performance Regime), implementation of appropriate

financial incentives can be suggested for infrastructure managers or railway undertakings to improve the traffic performance and the reliability

of train services along the Corridor.

(4) Based on the EPR findings, the Corridor Rail Regulators are suggested to monitor the level-playing-field on the Corridor in the actual

situations, in particular with regard to the actual access to the paths, to the related facilities, and the priority rules applied during congestion.



V. Improving Corridor Interoperability

To implement this measure, a total of eight milestones are established, which aims at improving the level of interoperability on the Corridor. In

total eight milestones generated in this measure.

(1) Investigate possibilities to achieve using one single working language for service operation, for example in English or code language, in

accordance with the TSI regarding working language for service operation that is codified in TSI Operations Chapter 4.2.1.5. However, it should

be born in mind that compatibility with relevant national legislation (i.e. in Belgium: law of 1962) should be taken into account.

(2) The licensing process, in particular licence B, needs be facilitated to enable the railway undertakings to quickly access the market outside of

its own country according to their requests. As such the level of competition on this corridor will increase.

(3) Deploy ERTMS on the Corridor, particularly on the stretch between Germany and Poland. Speed up the MoU process to establish the

principles for defining an EU deployment strategy for ERTMS on the Corridor or the existing ERTMS Corridor F. Take into account large additional

costs incurred to enable the operation of locomotives on different safety systems during the migration phase (e.g. ETCS level-1, ETCS-level 2,

and the existing national systems).

(4) The fitting between the ETCS-equipped tracks and the ETCS-equipped locomotives possibly made by different manufacturers need to be

improved.

(5) Participate in the work of ERA on TSIs in order to replace, in the near future, the cross-acceptance practice by the common interoperability

practice. This includes, among others, the setup of implementation plan on TAF-TSI.

(6) Railway line codification codifies the loading gauge parameters (width & height) and maximum cargo size parameters of the railway lines,

and makes the codification available to the rail customers. This allows potential rail customers to choose in advance the cargo size, intermodal

loading units, or wagons with dimensions that fit on the train tracks.



The availability of line codification also makes the path application process simplified and efficient, allowing rail customers choosing the right

cargo size, loading units, and wagon in advance & Therefore, speed up railway line codification on the Corridor is necessary. This milestone is

mostly relevant for Poland. In Poland the structural gauge (i.e. axle load) is already available; the maximum cargo/container size still needs to

be completed. There are measures being taken at the moment.

VI. Striving for Corridor Level-playing-field

The Measure “Striving for Corridor Level-playing-field” addresses cooperation between the Rail Regulators in taking active roles to ensure fair

and non-discriminatory market condition along the Corridor. In total six milestones are established for this measure.

(1) Ensure and maintain high independence of the infrastructure managers from the national railway companies for path allocation; and keep

neutral and open those terminals, shunting yards, and/or related facilities which belong to or operated by the infrastructure managers. To

reduce further possible discriminative behaviours of the national railways, the option to break down the holding structure to which both

infrastructure manager and railway undertaking belong can be considered, since this structure seems to bring doubts internally and externally

regarding the level of independence of the infrastructure managers from the national railway undertaking. However, the compatibility with

relevant EC legislation should be taken into account.

(2) Public financial support to the construction of new open terminals along the Corridor (the Netherlands (e.g. in Valburg, and Poland). Open

up the existing terminals, shunting yards, and fuelling facilities in Belgium (i.e. Port of Antwerp). This milestone shall improve the accessibility

of (intermodal) infrastructure facilities along the entire corridor.

(3) Ex-ante investigate the Network Statements with regard to: (a) priority rules applied for the allocation of paths in the annual timetabling, in

framework agreements, in ad-hoc situations, and actual path dispatch in case of onsite disturbances; (b) condition for accessing paths and

related facilities in different situations, particularly access to the sidings; (c) the national path charging system and charges; (d) qualification of

path applicants.



(4) The corridor Rail Regulators may not be able to facilitate the cooperation between the infrastructure managers, but they may take the

monitoring role in assessing the degree of cooperation between the infrastructure managers with regard to the allocation and dispatch of train

paths and the related services.

(5) The corridor Rail Regulators are also recommended, if possible, to take the monitoring role in assessing the discrepancies in handing

charges between different terminals, as well as the degree of neutrality of terminals, shunting yards, and other facilities open to all railway

undertakings.

(6) Increase the scope of competence of the corridor Rail Regulators with regard to imposing penalty on competition issues, inspection, market

monitoring power, and competence of carrying out single case proceedings. A complete separation of the Rail Regulator from the government

increases its level of independence and neutrality. This shall help implement the above tasks more effectively and ensure level-playing-field on

the Corridor.



VII. Establishing Corridor Governance Structure

To be able to implement, manage, and monitor the above six measures, a governance structure with key stakeholders is necessary, this is the

main tone of this measure. In total seven milestones are established for this measure.

(1) Refer to the Corridor organisational structure which has been developed on ERTMS Corridor A as best practice example for the governance

structure for the Corridor.

(2) Development of the Corridor would not be a big success without the support of the transit country Germany. Therefore, it is necessary to

seek actual involvement from key stakeholders in Germany for the implementation of this Action Plan.

(3) Extension of the Corridor is needed in the future to correspond to the traffic flows. In particular, extending the Corridor to other bordering

countries on the other side, need to be considered (e.g. Czech, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania and Russia).

(4) Explore possibilities to incorporate the Corridor with other existing corridors have geographic overlaps or intersects. (a) the Corridors that

concern particularly the Dutch and Belgium stretch of the Corridor are: ERTMS Corridor A; ERTMS Corridor C; RNE Corridor No 2; TEN-T Priority

Axes No 5. (b) the corridors that concern the Corridor are: ERTMS Corridor F; RNE Corridor No 5; the TERFN network where corridor countries

are concerned; Pan-European Corridor No 2; (c) TEN-T Priority Axes No 23 intersects the Corridor on Warsaw. TEN-T Priority Axes No 1

intersects the Corridor on Berlin.

(5) Verify the Corridor by regularly monitoring and evaluating the freight traffic along the Corridor, paying particular attention to the traffic that

passes critical border-crossing points (e.g. Port of Antwerp; Port of Rotterdam; Montzen-Aachen; Essen – Roosendaal along Corridor C; Wezet –

Eijsden (to be checked); Zevenaar – Emmerich; Odenzaal – Bad Bentheim; Franktfurt (Oder) – Kunowice; Horka – Bielawa Dolna; Szczecin.)

(6) Be aware of the similarities and distinctions between the measures in this Action Plan and those in the existing directives or regulations

(e.g. the three railway packages, interoperability directive), and the forthcoming regulation (i.e. on European Rail Network for Competitive

Freight, which is expected to be brought about in 2010).



(7) Cooperate with other Rail Regulators along the Corridor for identifying crucial issues and dealing with complaints relevant for the Corridor;

based on which provide advices for national governments and the EC regarding possibilities of adjusting certain legal acts and/or harmonising

certain operational and technical requirements.

Documents

Study exploiting the possibility of creating a rail ... · Study exploiting the possibility of creating a rail freight corridor linking Belgium and Poland . ... 2.2.2 Rail transport