Improving cooperation between the transport modes of the logistics chain, the need for investments in eliminating cross-border dead-ends and building missing links, the development of innovative solutions for rail freight transport, the elaboration of new legislative frameworks that would favour the rail transport competitiveness and the development of intermodal transport are criteria of the “essential elements” category in developing a transport system that would meet the challenges imposed by new mobility requirements and tendencies while ensuring the establishment of internationally-connected transport networks.
Moreover, the consolidation of transport activities has to contribute to the development of a single transport system and to the delivery of reliable logistics solutions for cross-border traffic where railway transport plays a vital role. Intermodal competitiveness is already a status quo in some transport modes and railway transport has to provide competitive services.
The challenges that transport operators and their customers (shippers) are facing are elaborated upon by Mr. Peter Wolters, Secretary General European Intermodal Association (EIA).
RailwayPRO: Freight transport was consolidated due to liberalization, but the logistics chain is fragmented. How do you explain this situation and what is the role of railway transport in this context?
Peter Wolters: At first glance, liberalisation has ‘cut’ the market using different systems in many different pieces, while intermodal and interoperable approaches have to stick them together. For the intermodal market, it was supposed to increase the quality and number of players, while decreasing prices. At second inspection, logistic chains are not fragmented in themselves. It is the quality of different infrastructures and services which make the difference. You may choose different modalities – or you may be obliged to use different modalities.
RailwayPRO: Is the consolidation of railway transport activities a barrier to the development of an open transport sector, or does it mean the development of competitive commercial solutions compared to the other transport modes?
Peter Wolters: Consolidation of freight traffic is contributing to seamless transport and logistics solutions across borders via the rail mode. Intermodal competition is already the status quo in other modes. From now on, the rail mode should also be able to offer competitive services thanks to the liberalisation process. Liberalisation supported the rail mode in various Member States with a strong, mature and sustainable policy. However, road still sets the benchmark. Liberalization allows anybody to use any modality, if well implemented.
RailwayPRO: In your opinion, what are the most efficient measures for optimising cooperation between transport modes, keeping in mind that the logistics chain still faces many infrastructure-related issues, as well as the legal and organisational frameworks?
Peter Wolters: From the organisational point of view, it is like in a football team: 11 average players in the right roles make a stronger team then 11 top players playing a role which is not their own. Put together different competing modalities, matching them according to their natural vocation and performance; enable them to communicate continuously via any kind of neutral ‘arbiter’ or platform.
From the tactical point of view, control is an important element for successful intermodal transport. It requires collaborative, co-modal, planned operations, standardization of industrial processes and bundling of freight at an early stage.
Innovation is another important enabler to modernize (rail) intermodality. Let me use SHIFT²RAIL as an example. As we all know, SHIFT²RAIL seeks focused Research and Innovation and market-driven solutions by accelerating the integration of new and advanced technologies into innovative rail pro-
duct solutions. We have great respect for the legislative lobby efforts executed by the rail supplying industry, supported by their partners, while we advocate more decision-making power for the ERA.
However; the rail supply industry needs to actively seek co-operation on issues which up to now too often have been considered as competitive and not the subject of common research and innovation development. Take an issue such as new materials (but there are also others): one could have achieved much more if there had been trust in co-operative efforts. If capacity increases, which is one of the fundamentals of SHIFT²RAIL, then one must not do business as usual by individual activities, but by trust in co-operative efforts: it is a common responsibility. If horizontal cooperation with other industries doesn’t take place, there might be fewer potential customers who understand (and purchases) rail products.
We need true entrepreneurs with a cross-industry vision and end-to-end logistics supply chain strategies. As a result of that, but only as a result, we can develop any kind of technical solution, not the other way around. Among our members we have some FMCG (fast moving consumers goods) multinationals. They all love rail, however, they want to voice their end-to-end supply chain requirements to make sure rail meets their demands, before they purchase rail solutions.
Similar observations are expressed in the “Technical Innovation Circle for Rail Freight Transport’ (TIS). This group consists of a broad range of rail wagon stakeholders, customers, shippers and scientific researchers. They concluded in their ‘White Paper Innovative Rail Freight Wagon 2030’ that ‘isolated improvements of individual freight wagon components is unlikely to result in any significant advantages in terms of growth, competitiveness when it comes to the strategic important integration into modern global logistic supply chains’. Five growth factors have been identified for successful introduction of the innovative rail freight wagon: Low Noise; Light Weight; Long Running; Logistics capable; LCC oriented’.
The first EU Technology Platform for Logistics has been launched recently (‘ALICE’) to address all kinds of collaborative issues. It will contribute to the targets set in HORIZON 2020, among which is making efficient use of all transport modes through research & innovation. Various industrial partners are openly venting their supply chain requirements. We endorse this new TP for logistics research, while EIA as an NGO will use the outcomes of ALICE within our parallel policy and promotional activities in a global intermodal context.
The Megatruck is another hot issue in the context of the question ‘optimising cooperation between transport modes’. From all the arguments which have been vented, nobody is critically asking “are those trucks fully loaded, half, or even empty (return trips)”? As long as truckers are being paid per trip instead of filling the truck optimally (= 80% full in terms of weight and volume), this Megatruck discussion is a ‘non-issue’. Over the last 40 years, whenever intermodal gave more space to the trucking industry, it has never been used for any kind of sustainable target. This is understandable since most truckers are small family companies who accept any trip. How many IRU (road) members, especially SMEs, would go bankrupt since they can’t even afford to pay a Mega-loan?
On the other hand; multinational shippers, as users of intermodal, do have the intelligence and purchase power to drive filling rate quality up, equally large freight integrators. Ports and maritime terminal operators could play a crucial ‘orchestrating’ steering function as well. We have to be critical: what about filling rates of rail wagons in Europe and overseas maritime containers? Allow me to make a conservative ‘back of the envelope’ calculation: Europe could save € 160 BLN if all vehicles and loading units were at least 80% full. We could ‘buy’ TEN-T and build stronger bridges for Megatrucks…
Internalisation of external costs is another very important legal enabler for developing sustainable transport. Recently, a victory has been won via the Swiss court which could be an important precedent. The legal debate went to the heart of to what extent congestion is an external or internal cost. Some stakeholders stated that lorries could not be fully charged for some external costs (congestion and accidents). According to the Alpen Initiative and T&E, the federal court overruled this decision by saying that the calculation of these costs may be disputable from a technical point of view, but they are legally correct according to Swiss law and traffic transport policy. Since Switzerland is at the heart of intermodal transport, it will have positive implications, especially for Alp-crossing infrastructure. Probably it is the first time ever that a court overruled transport law by finding that that congestion costs are indeed external.
Legal issues to be resolved on relevant global intermodal transport and also combined transport (road/rail) matters are plentiful. Common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States do vary (Directive 92/106/CEE – ‘Establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States’). Also, legislation differs concerning rules for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community, the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic, and the maximum authorised weights (Council Directive 96/53/EC). To defend the interests of its members, EIA succeeded in harmonizing and legalising the use of 45 ft. pallet wide containers in EU cross border use.
RailwayPRO: Has the financial crisis deepened the problems in the railway and logistics sector or has it been the source of more sustainable and efficient solutions for the development of a transport system that would answer market needs?
Peter Wolters: The crisis has hit everybody, but mostly small and weaker truckers. Road price dumping is the result which impacted railways since they are bound to higher fixed costs. Railways able to offer an integrated package with end-to-end services will survive more easily. Railways in close contact with their customers are more likely to be able to explain and convince them to have patience while searching jointly for a solution. Customers increasingly investigate rail + intermodal solutions because they want to expand their client base via new markets. One of the findings of various studies (e.g. UIC) is the position of hinterland traffic as the growth segment for the near future. The study foresees a traffic shift from the North-South axis to the East-West and anticipates an average growth rate of 8% providing some important conditions are met.
RailwayPRO: What are the opportunities for carriers by 2020 considering the following two aspects: the efficient use of all transport modes and the situation regarding the activity of new operators vs. incumbent operators? What is the role of railway transport in the development of these strategies?
Peter Wolters: Opportunities are the same for everybody competing. The best will usually win, unless a specific market offers unfair competing conditions. There are in Europe not many 100% privately owned intermodal operators left. An exception to this rule is e.g. road-rail operator Ambrogio Trasporti (Italy). If we take a closer look at other operators we can observe some are disappearing like Novatrans, Trailstar, TRW (former UIRR members). Others are going a very particular way, like Cemat (Italy) and Hupac (Switzerland) becoming more and more incorporated in their ‘mother rail’ companies. It leaves Kombiverkehr (Germany) as the last remaining free animal in the wild, but rather alone. They are all doing a good job taking the commercial risk filling trains and trucks, much depending on the quality offered by rail traction providers per corridor.
‘New operators vs. incumbent operators’: in 10-15 years we will all recall this period with a smile. New and incumbent will learn from each other, they need each other, just as we are observing in other modes. Sometimes we even observe a staff swap between the two. However, every subsector needs ‘fresh blood’ to grow, otherwise it becomes a corroded business, not strong enough to quickly respond to changing market trends. We have to safeguard openness, progress and consequent innovation within a free market. Therefore, we must maintain open Associations as a ‘counterbalance’ to build bridges to other initiatives or entities perceived as closed shops.
The intermodal chain is as strong as its weakest link
RailwayPRO: Which are the necessary legislative and financial steps to be taken in Member States to ensure the competitiveness of railway freight transport and to determine the development of intermodal transport?
Peter Wolters: A true separation of infrastructure (EU Directive 2012, single European railway area) is actually all that is needed. The perfect ‘one solution for all’ may not exist, we can discuss exact interpretations and timing.
Rail infrastructure network is a sort of natural monopoly. Consequently, competition is most appropriate between railway undertakings using that same rail network. In Spain, Sweden and the UK, there is no misunderstanding concerning the separated network ownership and consequent roles of operating undertakings. In Poland, Austria, Germany and Italy, network owners and undertakings form one and the same ‘happy integrated family’. They don’t want to be separated by a ‘higher hand’ from Brussels..
Financial steps of Member States should be more oriented towards ‘saving’ instead of ‘paying’. On one hand, intermodal obviously needs more investment on critical cross border bottlenecks, missing links in certain corridors and other typical projects with a European dimension (e.g. ERTMS). However, on the other hand, Member States and the transport industry are tossing unnecessary resources out of the window which could be saved, especially when it concerns making better use of existing infrastructure, vehicles etc. I will come back to that later.
The highest return from infrastructure investment in terms of jobs is directed to more middle class jobs, which has increased in relevance especially in EU emerging regions between ‘Baltic and Black Sea’. An analysis executed by a specialist department in the White House (USA) suggests that 61 percent of the jobs directly created by investing in infrastructure would be in the construction sector, 12 percent would be in the manufacturing sector, and 7 percent would be in retail trade, a total of 80 percent across these three sectors. Nearly 90 percent of the jobs in the three sectors most affected by infrastructure spending would be middle class jobs, defined as those paying between the 25th and 75th percentile of the national distribution of wages.
Member States should keep their promise if a budget has been earmarked to develop intermodal transport but never actually been released (Italy). Other Member States who talk a lot about sustainability and intermodality should ‘walk like they talk’ and develop concrete intermodal implementation strategies. France is an example. They started very promisingly (mouvement de Grenelle) in 2010. However, at the end of 2013, road users will have to pay a new sort of eco-tax (‘Ecomouv’) for all roads. Intermodality is supposed to be one of the objectives of the tax. However, there is no tax strategy to stimulate intermodal (yet), while we can only hope revenues will be used for real sustainable traffic targets instead of just filling the French State caisses.
We advise Member States to create intermodal units or at least Task Forces within their structures enabling better communication, sharing of information and streamlining of investments within a coherent intermodal policy framework. Having functionaries responsible for rail, road and waterborne is obvious. However, more profitable would be to create a mode-overlapping intermodal (or Supply Chain & Logistics) structure. I remember the old times when Neil Kinnock was EU Commissioner for transport in Brussels. He had the idea to create some kind of overlapping intermodal superstructure with the ‘pillars’ rail, road, air etc. Unfortunately he was called back to the UK for political reasons earlier than planned.
Sharing of data and information as le-gislative acts to get more out of infrastructure and benefits for businesses is an unexplored opportunity for Member States to reach sustainable targets.
Let’s take Singapore as an out-of-the-box (urban traffic) example where a certain ministry decided to share data aiming at getting a better return on infrastructure investment. Data was released by the Singaporean authorities concerning planning, designing, development, management and maintenance of their transit systems, roads and related facilities. To further enhance land transport planning, a solution for intermodal data analytics such as car-bus-train travel was required. Anonymised data was made available to the industry and public to co-create and co-develop new information services. Adoption rate by the public for the new applications was spectacularly high (13 million requests for new traffic information services). Can rail transport learn from these outcomes? They provide a better understanding of public transport demand management. The EIA learned of these cases when invited as an expert by the ITF (OECD body).
RailwayPRO: Transport markets are characterised by monopoly. How does this situation affect the entire logistics chain and cooperative relationships between operators, railway infrastructure managers and ports?
Peter Wolters: In Western Europe, we do not have monopolies, except ‘natural’ ones like infrastructure as elaborated upon before. If a new monopoly or ‘suspicious’ agreements between players are being discussed, Brussels has to be consulted first. Example: three years ago, EIA visited DG Competition to ask the Commissioner if a new innovative horizontal collaboration approach including the exchange of certain planning data between partners in a logistic chain (via a neutral platform) would be allowed. The reply was positive. Intermodal mission accomplished, let the market do the rest! Monopolies are pro-
ducts of the past; collaborative partnerships and harmonizing standardized processes via neutral, tactical controlling mechanisms is the future.
RailwayPRO: Over the coming years, Central Asian countries foresee the sale of railway companies which, in turn, buy logistics companies. What impact will these developments have on the railway market in Europe, but also on the entire logistics chain on the Europe-Asia axis?
Peter Wolters: A ‘skill for money’ swap is already taking place; western experience will move to Asian countries. One of the impacts on the entire logistics chain on the Europe-Asia axis will be more (regional) value creating activities alongside (inter-regional) rail transport. The ‘new marketplace’ will influence rail transport, which is positive if rail wants to act as a complimentary service provider alongside maritime and road transport, serving the automobile vehicle industry, IT manufacturers etc. Examples of developments to be observed closely:
– COSFRE obtained ‘International Intermodal Transportation Certificate’ and ‘NVOCC Qualification Certificate’ issued by Chinese Ministry of Communications. Thanks to the good relationship with the Chinese Ministry of Railways, COSFRE has signed an Agreement of Strategic Cooperation with China Railway Container Transport Co. Ltd ,China Railway International Multimodal Transport Co., Ltd and China Railway Intermodal Co., Ltd. Currently, COSFRE operates over 120 sea-rail transport services, including 40 sea-rail express routes. COSFRE is also running new Euro-Asia land-bridge rail services.
– Chinese railway (CRCTC, member EIA) has planned to construct 18 large-sized railway container terminals. Up to date, nine (9) terminals have been put into operation, including Dalian, Zhengzhou, Wuhan, Xi’an, Qingdao, Shanghai, Chengdu, Chongqing and Kunming Terminals. At present, preparations are started for the construction of Urumqi, Shenzhen, Ningbo and Lanzhou terminals. All of these terminals are or will be equipped with highly advanced equipments like gantry cranes, front-handling mobile cranes, large security instruments, smart doors and IT equipments. These terminals will provide storage for fast loading/unloading for container trains. Through optimized transshipment process between trucks and trains, seamless intermodal transport is guaranteed in those terminals.
– Russian Railways Logistics in cooperation with its subsidiary YuXinOu (Chongqing) Logistics Co., Ltd. sent the first container train from China to Europe with the CIM/SMGS Common Consignment Note already in 2012. The final goal of the joint venture is to create a logistics company with 3 PL door-to-door services.
– Chinese companies play a growing role within the port of Barcelona, which is the main automotive vehicle Hub port in South Europe. Barcelona acts as a distribution centre for Spain and France for Chevrolet cars manufactured in Korea. It signed an agreement with Mazda through the Barcelona terminal which will distribute these cars, manufactured in Hiroshima, through seven countries in Europe and the Mediterranean area. The SEAT factory in Spain also manufactures other models of the Volkswagen group, such as the Audi Q3, another car that can be seen on the Chinese market. General Motors announced its plan to start exporting the vehicles it produces in Zaragoza (Spain) to China in August 2013.
To facilitate this kind of development, EIA signed a Letter of Support for its member Port of Barcelona to obtain TEN-T aid to better connect Spanish terminal – EU hinterland (different gauge) railway infrastructure. The EU authorities approved it, which is beneficial for intermodal, rail industry, Asia-Europe corridors and the vehicle industry all in one!
– DB Schenker operated the first freight train from China to Hamburg on behalf of the city of Zhengzhou (north-central China). The train with 51 containers arrived in the freight yard in Hamburg-Billwerder in August 2, 2013. The growing Chinese goods traffic, together with the ongoing shift from production-intensive industries to the Chinese hinterland is offering ample opportunities for these kinds of members. In the past two years, more than 300 freight trains were sent to and from China by DB Schenker.
– GEFCO observes a development of three intercontinental axes: Mongolia/China, Russia/China and China/Kazakhstan. An increase in consumption flows to Central Asia is being observed, as well as an increase in flow of raw materials – oil, gas, iron alloys – from Central Asia to Europe. Furthermore, a move towards business conducted by rail is expected, even if it is not the only alternative due to cheaper maritime transport. However, rail is a strong alternative to air transport. Rail transport will be integrated into the logistic chain, responding to manufacturers’ demands relating to costs, time efficiency and notably the environmental aspect.
GEFCO is also partner within an EU (FP7) project TELLISYS aiming at developing a new, innovative modular ‘MegaSwapBox’ loading unit applicable for rail, inland / short sea shipping, including an adapted low deck tractor for road transport. The impact on railway markets in west- and east Europe as well as the logistics chain will be analysed by scientific partners like RWTH Aachen, while EIA member WECON, a manufacturer of intermodal loading units, will deliver expertise for a new kind of trailer.
– Volga Logistics Association was accepted as member of EIA in 2013. They have ambitions and ample capacity to build and operate container growth via terminals, logistic parks etc.
Average orders from EU consumers to be produced in China are becoming smaller; retailers place more orders more frequently, implying more transport. Rail can answer these trends, however it will have to form new partnerships in corridors in a ‘modern jacket’ . Logistic platforms will have to be developed with rail as the backbone between ports, cities and regions from Asia to Europe. Which strategies can intermodal offer?
Three strategies are being discussed between EIA and its members: Specialisation and concentration of production centres; Outsourcing; Lower inventories & Just in Time supplies. All strategies imply more transport and longer transport chains. The consequence is also a concentration of logistics and transport in very close communication with each other, while customers also demand to be updated continuously.
This requires large IT investments. In the past, rail investigated using their tracks as ‘telephone lines’. However, this proposal – and wonderful business opportunity – was abandoned. As we all know, IT suppliers such as we know them today stepped into this rail (tracking & tracing) market, all on customers’ demand.
What is the strategy of a multinational like Hewlett Packard concerning Europe-Asian railway developments? In Central and Eastern Europe, HP employs staff in 27 countries including CIS and is one of the largest technology companies in that region. Their strategy is to provide open, state of the art, customized solutions adapted for their special environment. HP engages with international and local partners to build innovative technologies for railways that allow interoperability and enable high cost savings.
Logistic platforms as an enabler to add value for all these players along the logistics chain exist in many forms: distribution centres, logistic centres, dry ports, port distribution centres, distriparks, freight villages. The social economic impact can be substantial; direct employment equals 10 employees per 1.000 M2 of warehouse; indirect employment to the local economy is 30/60 employees per every gross surface hectare. Customers are railway operators, logistics operators, warehouse companies; shipping lines & agents, importers & exporters; container depot etc. One has to distinguish their functionalities. E.g. a freight village is ‘an area within which all activities related to transport, logistics and distribution of goods are carried out by several different operators’ (definition Europlatforms). Intermodal connections and proximity to customs offices are part of the success factors (read also EIA ‘Intermodal Yearbook’ 2012).
According to a feasibility study for a new intermodal service between Bologna (Italy) and the Moscow region, 324.000 tons (value € 1.9 BLN) was exported from Bologna to Moscow in 2012. About 28% was containerized traffic, mainly cera-
mics, food and vehicles. Regional imported goods from Moscow totalled 838.000 tons (value € 319 MLN), mainly iron and steel products, wood, paper, chemicals. The study also contains an analysis of intermodal infrastructures in Italy and the Moscow region to be potentially involved in the project. It provides interesting insights on the current transport models adopted by the regional companies exporting/importing to/from Russia.
RailwayPRO: To what extent is the electrification of railway transport the backbone of intermodal transport? How can it be profitable for door-to-door transport?
Peter Wolters: For freight, it is not relevant today. Often we have to share the same infrastructure. With an infrastructure of its own, non-electrified and thus much cheaper, intermodal transport could be quicker and cheaper than it is today.
Electrification becomes door-to-door in new initiatives such as ‘Platform for the electrification of surface transport’. Members are ALSTOM, AVERE, CER, EIA, ETRA, EURELECTRIC, EUROBAT, Going Electric, NISSAN, POLIS, UITP, UNIFE. The aim of this platform is to get to know each other, ultimately to open the way for fully electrified door-to-door multimodal transport.
This group, which regards electrification as an enabler for complete mobility solutions, is giving guidance for EU legislative processes on how to get ‘the max’ out of electrification for all modes. Ongoing discussions relate to e.g. definition of alternative fuels as a means to substitute fossil sources in the energy supply chain contributing to decarbonisation; alternative fuels infrastructure (location of recharging points preferably near Logistic Centres) among many other issues.
The first Electric Truck producer for door-to-door purposes knocked on the door of EIA recently. Obviously we were curious as to what extent it could be integrated in existing intermodal (rail) processes, or to what extend it would compete. This electric truck is built on the chassis of a standard road vehicle. It carries heavy loads of up to 30 tons. It pretends to be the ’truck of the last mile’; from any freight area to the city center; from railway stations to manufacturing industries; from sea to inland terminals or directly to the end customer; in the port areas for container handling, etc. It can be equipped with an e-card that can ‘recognize’ and communicate with charging stations.
Electrification and energy supply obviously go hand in hand, while rail seeks energy savings solutions. There are new kids on the block which may surprise some railway undertakings. With the Rail Energy Management System from Hewlett Packard for example, railway undertakings can save more than 10% of energy and 15% of diesel consumption, by optimizing the energy usage of trains. By optimizing Train Management and Monitoring, train composition, dispatching HP is dedicated to help railways to increase their efficiency. The HP i-Rail Portfolio contains a set of solutions that addresses all key areas within a modern railway in respect of infrastructure-, passenger- , cargo- and energy management.
The EIA observes with great interest this combination between clean mass transports and high tech, individual mobility concepts in an electrified multimodal way. We could imagine that East European countries, building their passenger and freight infrastructure, might learn from the ‘success with a high price’ (congestion) of the West by using electrified door-to-door concepts.
RailwayPRO: What is the role of the SPECTRUM project in a new rail freight offering that can compete with road and air? How can the competitiveness of rail transport be explored in unexploited markets in order to create a high development potential?
Peter Wolters: SPECTRUM aims to develop a rail freight train that provides a service for ‘high value, low density and time sensitive’ goods with the performance characteristics of a modern inter-urban passenger train. This initiative takes a longer term, radical approach to deliver a new rail freight offering that can compete with road and air in the growing sectors of logistics where rail freight previously has had little to offer.
This project identified the top 50 traffic relations and grouped them according to certain segments and product types per relation. Corridors identified as being of initial interest are, among others, between Central Romania and Lombardy, Italy, corridors between Northwest France and Northwest Germany and extra EU flows have been analysed in relation with Turkey. The actual requirements for a SPECTRUM-train in terms of interoperability depend on the countries to be served and the type of goods to be transported and therefore the type of rail vehicle to be used. Minimum requirements: maximum speed of at least 140 km/h; locomotive power of more than 5 MW (for a train with about 1000 tons gross weight); Acceleration of about 0.5 m/s2 with equivalent high performance braking including regenerative and disc brakes. Several cargo handling options have been analysed including horizontal transshipment techniques (CargoBeamer, Metrocargo etc).
Partners are, among others, GreenCargo, Innovatrain, TCDD, Trafikverket, UIC and industrial users such as P&G, FloraHolland etc. The project leader is the UK based NewRail. EIA members who participate in this industrial research project can contribute to this imitative while learning about early results.
RailwayPRO: What are the demands of customers as regards transport services and what is the answer of operators to these demands?
Peter Wolters: Customers’ priorities are price and quality. Furthermore, reliable options, security, value added services (like manipulation) nearby. Intermodality (or co-modality) should be stimulated, empty movements and cost reduced, load factors should be increased.
Customers joined EIA: manufacturing industries like Procter & Gamble and dairy producers like FrieslandCampina; soon one of the worldwide largest IT corporations. These shippers truly want to invest and develop more rail transport according to their supply chain, door-to-door performance indicators. Though they are big, they are not big everywhere. That’s the reason for entering EIA to search for partnerships, to make proposals to adapt EU legislation which hampers seamless, cross-border transport. Their interest is making smarter use of existing infrastructure, vehicles, capacity etc.
Example: one out of four vehicles in Europe runs empty. Of the ‘fully’ loaded vehicles, the average filling rate is 57%. Logically this means that the overall efficiency – or rather inefficiency – is only 43%. This again equates to a loss of € 160 BLN to EU economy. In terms of emissions, this equates to 1.3% of EU27 CO2 footprint. These are lots of saving opportunities! We have to be honest; though these statistics refer mostly to trucking vehicles, I wonder if rail (or other modes) would show very different figures. The EIA and its research partners are investigating how to turn ‘CO2 into €’ in certain innovative rail logistics projects.
RailwayPRO: Interoperability is still an important problem of the railway infrastructure, its absence being the cause of traffic flow drop. What do you think that the means for approaching this problem are and do you believe that a solution would lead to optimised traffic?
Peter Wolters: Interoperability is conceived as an expensive tool, yet worth paying for in the light of EU integration and keeping Europe moving. A number of nationalistic-minded industries have to get used to competition that may force a country to accept a common solution produced by another country. Already in the 1970’s there was a discussion about automatic wagon coupling. Hard working technical committees within UIC were very close to a positive decision, until a ‘high’ French authority suddenly withdrew, leaving the Secretary General of UIC at that time behind alone… It appeared that high speed passenger transport was conceived as more important than developing interoperable freight solutions. We have seen it more often: freight is paying the price for the success of passenger transport.
We need truly European entrepreneurs with a cross border infrastructure vision, being able to communicate these towards national ministries in various corridors, set aside their own (national industry) interests as a sacrifice for a seamless, competitive rail industry. If the other modes can do the interoperability ‘job’, traditional rail operators should at least take a look at the ‘kitchen’ of other modes to learn from them. Simply buying locomotives is not a strategy. Rail can be a strong partner within a production conveyer belt; it isn’t the conveyer belt itself, nor is maritime transport. Joined port-hinterland corridors have to be further developed to get the maximum out of port and rail investments.
RailwayPRO: The message of EIA to authorities refers to the need and importance of allocating investments to missing links, corridors, tackling congestion, interoperability and electrification. How can the authorities be persuaded to implement measures and projects that would deal with these problems?
Peter Wolters: The intermodal message of EIA wasn’t easy to convey at first instance at visits to the cabinets of EU Commission President BARROSO, EU Council President VAN ROMPUY and EU transport Commissioner KALLAS. Creating awareness about industrial realities has to be repeated over and over again, at a high level.
Example: at a bilateral meeting kindly offered by the cabinet of EU Commission President BARROSO last year (2012), the EIA Secretary General pointed to a small bottle of water on the meeting room table: ‘How do you think that bottle got there in the first place? A hard working, labour intensive, highly intelligent industry has brought it to you thanks to high (…) investments, probably while most of us were asleep at night’. A lively discussion followed.
The intermodal chain is as strong as its weakest link. The EIA strongly supports EU intervention wherever a local problem limits a complete network. This is a costly, time consuming process which is understood – and therefore funded – by visionary members of EIA stemming from all modes, who are truly committed to intermodal transport.
RailwayPRO: How can readers of Railway Pro be considered for best practice example?
Peter Wolters: Railway Pro readers can send their (potential) best practice to www.bestfact.net. ‘BESTFACT’ has been launched at the demand of the EU Commission (DG MOVE) who requested a neutral reference point for freight best practices. This EU initiative, including PTV as project coordinator and EIA as dissemination partner, produced a neutral, robust and replicable methodology for collecting and processing any freight cases, controlled by academic institutes with a good reputation. There are three pillars: Urban Transport; Green Logistics & Co-modality; E-Freight. For already identified best practices from other projects, simply surf: www.eia-ngo.com/category/best-practices.
Share on:
