db 2 (brochure)

Transcription

db 2 (brochure)

Deliverable Work Package B2
Corridor-specific Reports
(incl. Action Plans)
The TREND Project is funded under the 6th Framework
Programme of the European Commission
Project No: TREN-05-FP6TR-S07.43661-513504
Towards new Rail freight quality and concepts in the European Network in respect to market Demand
Deliverable Work Package B2 –
Corridor-specific Reports (incl. Action Plans)
© DB AG/ Seyferth
Instrument: Co-ordination Action
Thematic Priority: Sustainable Surface Transport
Start date of project: 01.02.2005
Duration: 18 Months 31.07.2006
This report has been elaborated by
HaCon Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH
Hannover, Germany
KombiConsult GmbH
Frankfurt, Germany
Gruppo CLAS
Milano, Italy
Deliverable Work Package B2 – Corridor-specific Reports
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
I
II
III
IV
V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................12
FRAMEWORK OF TREND AND OBJECTIVE OF CORRIDOR STUDY................13
METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................13
CORRIDOR MAP.........................................................................................................14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................15
1
TREND CORRIDOR A.................................................................................................20
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.1.4
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
2
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
3
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
Diagnosis of freight impediments and current actions to alleviate them........................................20
Introduction in TREND Corridor A.....................................................................................................20
Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor A.........................................................................................24
Diagnosis of existing and potential future freight impediments......................................................24
Alleviation projects already under way.............................................................................................29
Action plans.......................................................................................................................................31
Introduction of action plan methodology..........................................................................................31
Short-term actions – package of measures I....................................................................................31
Medium-term actions – package of measures II..............................................................................34
Long-term actions – package of measures III...................................................................................36
Other actions – package of measures IV..........................................................................................36
TREND CORRIDOR B-WEST....................................................................................37
Introduction in TREND Corridor B-West............................................................................................37
Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor B-West...............................................................................41
Action plans.......................................................................................................................................49
TREND CORRIDOR B-EAST.....................................................................................54
Introduction in TREND Corridor B-East.............................................................................................54
Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor B-East.................................................................................57
Action plans.......................................................................................................................................61
Table of Contents
4
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
5
5.1
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
6
6.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.1.3
6.1.4
6.2
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
6.2.4
7
7.1
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.1.4
7.2
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
7.2.4
TREND CORRIDOR C.................................................................................................66
Introduction in TREND Corridor C......................................................................................................66
Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor C..........................................................................................75
Action plans.......................................................................................................................................87
Medium-term measures – package of measures II..........................................................................91
TREND CORRIDOR D.................................................................................................97
Introduction in TREND Corridor D.....................................................................................................97
Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor D.......................................................................................102
Diagnosis of existing and potential future freight impediments....................................................103
Alleviation projects already under way...........................................................................................109
Action plans..................................................................................................................................... 110
Introduction of action plan methodology........................................................................................ 110
Short-term actions – package of measures I.................................................................................. 110
Medium-term actions – package of measures II............................................................................ 112
Long-term actions – package of measures III................................................................................. 113
Other actions – package of measures IV........................................................................................ 113
TREND CORRIDOR E................................................................................................ 114
Diagnosis of freight impediments and current actions to alleviate them...................................... 114
Introduction of TREND Corridor E.................................................................................................... 114
Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor E........................................................................................ 116
Diagnosis of existing and potential future freight impediments.................................................... 117
Alleviation projects already under way........................................................................................... 119
Action plans..................................................................................................................................... 119
Introduction of action plan methodology........................................................................................ 119
Short-term actions – package of measures I.................................................................................. 119
Medium-term actions – package of measures II............................................................................121
Long-term actions – package of measures III.................................................................................122
TREND CORRIDOR F................................................................................................124
Diagnosis of freight impediments and current actions to alleviate them......................................124
Introduction of TREND Corridor F....................................................................................................124
Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor F........................................................................................127
Diagnosis of existing and potential future freight impediments....................................................127
Alleviation project already under way............................................................................................130
Action plans.....................................................................................................................................132
Introduction of action plan methodology........................................................................................132
Short-term actions – package of measures I..................................................................................132
Medium-term actions – package of measures II............................................................................133
Long-term actions – package of measures III.................................................................................135
Table of Figures
8
CLUSTERING OF CORRIDORS...............................................................................136
9
EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................137
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
Framework and objectives of evaluation........................................................................................137
Criteria for evaluation......................................................................................................................137
Evaluation of corridors with respect to the envisaged IP...............................................................139
Recommendations............................................................................................................................142
Table of Figures
Figure I-1
Figure III-1
Figure IV-1
Figure V-1
Figure V-2
Figure V-3
Figure V-4
Companies and representatives involved.................................................................................12
Meetings of TREND work package B2......................................................................................14
Overview about European corridor-related research projects.................................................14
Overview of TREND corridors....................................................................................................15
Comparison of TREND corridors’ main characteristics.............................................................16
Rail freight impediments caused by cross border activities.....................................................17
Overview of infrastructural and technical interoperability on
TREND corridors.........................................................................................................................18
Figure 1.1.1–1
Map of TREND Corridor A.................................................................................................... 20
Figure 1.1.1–2
Figure 1.1.1–3
TREND Corridor A in Italy...........................................................................................................20
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic on
TREND Corridor A in Italy...........................................................................................................21
TREND Corridor A in Slovenia....................................................................................................21
TREND Corridor A in Slovenia....................................................................................................21
TREND Corridor A in Hungary....................................................................................................22
TREND Corridor A in Hungary....................................................................................................22
Total volume of freight amongst Corridor A countries 2004
(rail, road, waterway, sea) [1000 t/a].........................................................................................23
Rail freight by transport modes amongst
Corridor A countries 2004..........................................................................................................23
Average processing time for border crossing procedure
(according to schedule)..............................................................................................................25
Infrastructural impediments ascribed to lines capacity...........................................................26
Main technical and operational parameters on
TREND Corridor A – infrastructure.............................................................................................27
TREND Corridor A – traction.......................................................................................................27
TREND Corridor A – international services................................................................................28
Permitted train parameters for non-stop operating on Corridor A...........................................28
Co-operation of RU.....................................................................................................................32
Co-operation of RU – IM.............................................................................................................32
Quality Management System....................................................................................................33
Priority of short-term low budget infrastructure measures......................................................33
Corridor control centre...............................................................................................................33
Priority rules between freight and passenger trains................................................................34
Co-operation between Infrastructure Managers......................................................................34
Figure 1.1.1–4
Figure 1.1.1–5
Figure 1.1.1–6
Figure 1.1.1–7
Figure 1.1.1–8
Figure 1.1.1–9
Figure 1.1.3–1
Figure 1.1.3–2
Figure 1.1.3–3
Figure 1.1.3–4
Figure 1.1.3–5
Figure 1.1.3–6
Figure 1.2.2–1
Figure 1.2.2–2
Figure 1.2.2–3
Figure 1.2.2–4
Figure 1.2.2–5
Figure 1.2.3–1
Figure 1.2.3–2
Table of Figures
Figure 1.2.3–3
Figure 1.2.3–4
Figure 1.2.3–5
Figure 1.2.4–1
Figure 1.2.5–1
Figure 1.2.5–2
Figure 1.2.5–3
Communication between Railway Undertakings......................................................................35
Extension of interoperable traction concepts...........................................................................35
Prioritising of freight trains........................................................................................................35
Long-term actions......................................................................................................................36
Alleviation of capacity differences and bottlenecks................................................................36
Developing the corridor concept by alleviating problems in interfacing with
terminals/ports...........................................................................................................................36
Other measures..........................................................................................................................36
Figure 2.1.1–1
Map of TREND Corridor B-West......................................................................................... 37
Figure 2.1.1–2
Figure 2.1.1–3
TREND Corridor B-West in the Netherlands.............................................................................37
TREND Corridor B-West in the Netherlands.............................................................................37
TREND Corridor B-West in Germany.........................................................................................38
TREND Corridor B-West in Germany.........................................................................................38
TREND Corridor B-West in Switzerland....................................................................................39
TREND Corridor B-West in Switzerland....................................................................................39
TREND Corridor B-West in Italy.................................................................................................39
TREND Corridor B-West in Italy.................................................................................................40
Total volume of freight amongst Corridor B-West countries 2003
(rail, road, waterway) [1000 t/a]................................................................................................40
Rail freight by transport modes amongst Corridor B-West countries 2003.............................41
Average processing time for border crossing procedure (according to schedule)...................42
Main technical and operational parameters on TREND Corridor B-West................................44
Permitted train parameters for non-stop operating on Corridor B-West.................................45
Intermodal profiles in Switzerland and Italy.............................................................................45
Maximum train lengths between Freiburg and Milano............................................................45
Maximum gross loads between Freiburg and Milano..............................................................46
Corridor control centre...............................................................................................................50
Developing the corridor concept by alleviating problems in interfaces with
terminals/ports...........................................................................................................................53
Other measures..........................................................................................................................53
Figure 2.1.1–4
Figure 2.1.1–5
Figure 2.1.1–6
Figure 2.1.1–7
Figure 2.1.1–8
Figure 2.1.1–9
Figure 2.1.1–10
Figure 2.1.1–11
Figure 2.1.3–1
Figure 2.1.3–2
Figure 2.1.3–3
Figure 2.1.3–4
Figure 2.1.3–5
Figure 2.1.3–6
Figure 2.1.3–7
Figure 2.2.2–1
Figure 2.2.2–2
Figure 2.2.2–3
Figure 2.2.2–4
Figure 2.2.2–5
Figure 2.2.3–1
Figure 2.2.3–2
Figure 2.2.3–3
Figure 2.2.3–4
Figure 2.2.3–5
Figure 2.2.4–1
Figure 2.2.5–1
Figure 2.2.5–2
Figure 2.2.5–3
Table of Figures
Figure 3.1.1–1
Map of TREND Corridor B-East.......................................................................................... 54
Figure 3.1.1–2
Figure 3.1.1–3
Figure 3.2.5–3
TREND Corridor B-East in Germany...........................................................................................54
TREND Corridor B-East in Denmark/Germany..........................................................................55
TREND Corridor B-East in Austria.............................................................................................55
TREND Corridor B-East in Austria.............................................................................................55
TREND Corridor B-East in Italy..................................................................................................56
TREND Corridor B-East in Italy..................................................................................................56
Volume of rail freight on dedicated relations in Corridor B-East 2003 [1000 t/a]....................56
Rail freight by transport modes on Corridor B-East 2003.........................................................57
Infrastructural impediments ascribed to stations/nodes capacity..........................................58
Main technical and operational parameters on TREND Corridor B-East.................................59
terminals/ports...........................................................................................................................65
Other measures..........................................................................................................................65
Figure 4.1.1–1
Map of TREND Corridor C.................................................................................................... 66
Figure 4.1.1–2
Figure 4.1.1–3
Figure 4.1.1–4
TREND Corridor C: Variations’ overview...................................................................................66
TREND Corridor C in Germany...................................................................................................67
TREND Corridor C in Germany...................................................................................................67
TREND Corridor C in the Czech Republic...................................................................................68
TREND Corridor C in the Czech Republic...................................................................................68
TREND Corridor C in Slovakia....................................................................................................69
TREND Corridor C in Slovakia....................................................................................................69
TREND Corridor C in Austria......................................................................................................69
TREND Corridor C in Austria......................................................................................................69
TREND Corridor C in Hungary....................................................................................................70
TREND Corridor C in Hungary....................................................................................................70
TREND Corridor C in Romania....................................................................................................71
TREND Corridor C in Romania....................................................................................................71
Figure 3.1.1–4
Figure 3.1.1–5
Figure 3.1.1–6
Figure 3.1.1–7
Figure 3.1.1–8
Figure 3.1.1–9
Figure 3.1.3–1
Figure 3.1.3–2
Figure 3.1.3–3
Figure 3.1.3–4
Figure 3.2.2–1
Figure 3.2.2–2
Figure 3.2.2–3
Figure 3.2.2–4
Figure 3.2.3–1
Figure 3.2.3–2
Figure 3.2.3–3
Figure 3.2.3–4
Figure 3.2.3–5
Figure 3.2.4–1
Figure 3.2.5–1
Figure 3.2.5–2
Figure 4.1.1–5
Figure 4.1.1–6
Figure 4.1.1–7
Figure 4.1.1–8
Figure 4.1.1–9
Figure 4.1.1–10
Figure 4.1.1–11
Figure 4.1.1–12
Figure 4.1.1–13
Figure 4.1.1–14
Table of Figures
Figure 4.1.1–15
Figure 4.1.1–16
Figure 4.2.5–3
TREND Corridor C in Serbia-Montenegro..................................................................................71
TREND Corridor C in Serbia-Montenegro..................................................................................71
TREND Corridor C in Bulgaria....................................................................................................72
TREND Corridor C in Bulgaria....................................................................................................72
TREND Corridor C in Turkey.......................................................................................................72
Total volume of freight amongst Corridor C countries 2003
(rail, road, waterway) [1000 t/a]................................................................................................73
Rail freight by transport modes amongst Corridor C countries 2003.......................................74
Cluster of future “Very high” expectations amongst Corridor C destinations.........................75
Required infrastructure for cross border activities...................................................................79
Infrastructural impediments ascribed to stations/nodes capacity..........................................79
Infrastructural impediments ascribed to lines capacity and quality........................................79
Train path availability per day for additional regular freight trains on Corridor C...................80
Main technical and operational parameters on TREND Corridor C
(Seaport branch).........................................................................................................................81
Main technical and operational parameters on TREND Corridor C (Ruhr branch)...................81
Response times to train path requests amongst Corridor C countries....................................83
Average processing time within marshalling yards on Corridor C............................................84
Transport data and document exchange amongst Corridor C countries..................................85
terminals/ports...........................................................................................................................96
Other measures..........................................................................................................................96
Figure 5.1.1–1
Map of TREND Corridor D.................................................................................................... 97
Figure 5.1.1–2
Figure 5.1.1–3
TREND Corridor D in the Netherlands.......................................................................................97
TREND Corridor D in the Netherlands.......................................................................................97
TREND Corridor D in Germany...................................................................................................98
TREND Corridor D in Germany...................................................................................................98
TREND Corridor D in Poland.......................................................................................................99
TREND Corridor D in Poland.......................................................................................................99
TREND Corridor D in Lithuania...................................................................................................99
TREND Corridor D in Lithuania...................................................................................................99
TREND Corridor D in Latvia......................................................................................................100
Figure 4.1.1–17
Figure 4.1.1–18
Figure 4.1.1–19
Figure 4.1.1–20
Figure 4.1.1–21
Figure 4.1.2–1
Figure 4.1.3–1
Figure 4.1.3–2
Figure 4.1.3–3
Figure 4.1.3–4
Figure 4.1.3–5
Figure 4.1.3–6
Figure 4.1.3–7
Figure 4.1.3–8
Figure 4.1.3–9
Figure 4.1.3–10
Figure 4.2.2–1
Figure 4.2.2–2
Figure 4.2.2–3
Figure 4.2.2–4
Figure 4.2.3–1
Figure 4.2.3–2
Figure 4.2.3–3
Figure 4.2.3–4
Figure 4.2.3–5
Figure 4.2.4–1
Figure 4.2.5–1
Figure 4.2.5–2
Figure 5.1.1–4
Figure 5.1.1–5
Figure 5.1.1–6
Figure 5.1.1–7
Figure 5.1.1–8
Figure 5.1.1–9
Figure 5.1.1–10
Table of Figures
Figure 5.1.1–11
Figure 5.1.1–12
Figure 5.2.5–3
TREND Corridor D in Estonia....................................................................................................100
Total volume of freight amongst Corridor D countries 2003
(rail, road, waterway) [1000 t/a]..............................................................................................100
Rail freight by transport modes amongst Corridor D countries 2003.....................................101
Typical market segments served by rail freight amongst
Corridor D countries 2003........................................................................................................102
Average processing time for border crossing procedure (according to schedule).................104
Infrastructural impediments ascribed to stations/nodes capacity........................................105
Infrastructural impediments ascribed to lines capacity and quality......................................105
Main technical and operational parameters on TREND Corridor D (main branch)................106
TREND Corridor D (alternative branches)................................................................................106
Co-operation of RU................................................................................................................... 110
Co-operation of RU – IM........................................................................................................... 110
Quality Management System.................................................................................................. 111
Priority of short-term low budget infrastructure measures.................................................... 111
Corridor control centre............................................................................................................. 111
Priority rules between freight and passenger trains.............................................................. 112
Co-operation between Infrastructure Managers.................................................................... 112
Communication between Railway Undertakings.................................................................... 112
Extension of interoperable traction concepts......................................................................... 112
Prioritising of freight trains...................................................................................................... 113
Long-term actions.................................................................................................................... 113
Alleviation of capacity differences and bottlenecks.............................................................. 113
terminals/ports......................................................................................................................... 113
Other measures........................................................................................................................ 113
Figure 6.1.1–1
Map of TREND Corridor E....................................................................................................114
Figure 6.1.1–2
Figure 6.1.1–3
Figure 6.1.1–4
Figure 6.1.1–5
Figure 6.2.2–1
Figure 6.2.2–2
Figure 6.2.2–3
Figure 6.2.2–4
Figure 6.2.2–5
Figure 6.2.3–1
Figure 6.2.3–2
Figure 6.2.3–3
Figure 6.2.3–4
Figure 6.2.4–1
Figure 6.2.4–2
Figure 6.2.4–3
Figure 6.2.4–4
Figure 6.2.4–5
Corridor E in France; branches West and East........................................................................ 115
Corridor E in Switzerland......................................................................................................... 115
Corridor E in Italy...................................................................................................................... 116
Marshalling Yards and Terminal Facilities on TREND Corridor E............................................ 116
Co-operation of RU................................................................................................................... 119
Co-operation of RU – IM; West branch....................................................................................120
Co-operation of RU – IM; East branch.....................................................................................120
Quality Management System..................................................................................................120
Priority short-term low budget infrastructure measures........................................................121
Priority rules between rail freight- and passenger trains.......................................................121
Co-operation between Infrastructure Managers....................................................................121
Communication between Railway Undertakings....................................................................122
Extension of interoperable traction concepts.........................................................................122
Establish rules and tools to manage trains along Corridor E..................................................122
Improve co-ordination of national control centres..................................................................123
Monitor planned upgrading and extension of infrastructure..................................................123
New solutions for the existing HERMES system....................................................................123
Development of ERTMS on the corridor sections...................................................................123
Figure 5.1.1–13
Figure 5.1.1–14
Figure 5.1.3–1
Figure 5.1.3–2
Figure 5.1.3–3
Figure 5.1.3–4
Figure 5.1.3–5
Figure 5.2.2–1
Figure 5.2.2–2
Figure 5.2.2–3
Figure 5.2.2–4
Figure 5.2.2–5
Figure 5.2.3–1
Figure 5.2.3–2
Figure 5.2.3–3
Figure 5.2.3–4
Figure 5.2.3–5
Figure 5.2.4–1
Figure 5.2.5–1
Figure 5.2.5–2
Table of Figures
Figure 7.1.1–1
Map of TREND Corridor F....................................................................................................124
Figure 7.1.1–2
Figure 7.1.1–3
Figure 7.1.1–4
Figure 7.1.1–5
Figure 7.2.2–1
Figure 7.2.2–2
Figure 7.2.2–3
Figure 7.2.2–4
Figure 7.2.3–1
Figure 7.2.3–2
Figure 7.2.3–3
Figure 7.2.3–4
Figure 7.2.4–1
Figure 7.2.4–2
Figure 7.2.4–3
Figure 7.2.4–4
Figure 7.2.4–5
Corridor F in Spain:...................................................................................................................125
Corridor F in France..................................................................................................................125
Corridor F in Germany...............................................................................................................125
Marshalling Yards and Terminal Facilities on TREND Corridor F............................................126
Co-operation of RU...................................................................................................................132
Co-operation of RU – IM...........................................................................................................133
Quality Management System..................................................................................................133
Priority short-term low budget infrastructure measures........................................................133
Priority rules between rail freight and passenger trains........................................................133
Co-operation between Infrastructure Managers....................................................................134
Communication between Railway Undertakings....................................................................134
Extension of interoperable traction concepts.........................................................................134
Establish rules and tools to manage trains along the corridor...............................................135
Improve co-ordination of national control centres..................................................................135
Monitor planned upgrading and extension of infrastructure..................................................135
New solutions for the existing HERMES system....................................................................135
Development of ERTMS on the corridor sections...................................................................135
Figure 8-1
Characterisation of corridors (or segments of corridors)........................................... 136
Figure 8-2
Typing of investigated corridors..............................................................................................137
Figure 9.3–1
TREND corridors’ evaluation with respect to the envisaged IP..............................................139
Table of Appendices
Appendix 1.1
Appendix 1.2
Appendix 1.3
Appendix 2.1
Appendix 2.2
Appendix 2.3
Appendix 2.4
Appendix 2.5
Appendix 2.6
Appendix 2.7
Appendix 2.8
Appendix 2.9
Appendix 3.1
Appendix 3.2
Appendix 3.3
Appendix 4.1
Appendix 4.2
Appendix 4.3
Appendix 4.4
Corridor A – Detailed statistic rail freight transport data......................................................143
Corridor A – Detailed statistic road freight transport data....................................................143
Corridor A – Detailed statistic waterway freight transport data...........................................143
Corridor B-West – Detailed statistic rail freight transport data............................................144
Corridor B-West – Detailed statistic road freight transport data..........................................144
Corridor B-West – Detailed statistic waterway freight
transport data...........................................................................................................................144
Corridor B-West – Important technical parameters for
infrastructure – complete corridor (main route only)..............................................................145
traction – complete corridor (main route only)........................................................................145
service – complete corridor (main route only).........................................................................146
Corridor B-West – Detailed technical parameters for infrastructure....................................146
Corridor B-West – Detailed technical parameters for traction..............................................147
Corridor B-West – Detailed technical parameters for service...............................................148
Corridor B-East – Important technical parameters for infrastructure....................................149
Corridor B-East – Important technical parameters for traction.............................................149
Corridor B-East – Important technical parameters for service..............................................149
Corridor C – Detailed statistic rail freight transport data......................................................150
Corridor C – Detailed statistic road freight transport data....................................................150
Corridor C – Detailed statistic waterway freight transport data...........................................151
Corridor C – Typical market segments served by rail freight 2003........................................152
10
Table of Appendices
Appendix 4.5
Appendix 4.6
Appendix 4.7
Appendix 4.8
Appendix 4.9
Appendix 4.10
Appendix 4.11
Appendix 5.1
Appendix 5.2
Appendix 5.3
Appendix 5.4
Appendix 5.5
Appendix 5.6
Appendix 6
Appendix 7.1
Appendix 7.2
Corridor C – Expectations regarding future development of
rail freight market.....................................................................................................................154
Corridor C – Important technical parameters for infrastructure (Seaport branch)................157
Corridor C – Important technical parameters for traction
(Seaport branch).......................................................................................................................158
Corridor C – Important technical parameters for service
(Seaport branch).......................................................................................................................159
Corridor C – Important technical parameters for infrastructure
(Ruhr branch).............................................................................................................................160
Corridor C – Important technical parameters for traction
(Ruhr branch).............................................................................................................................161
Corridor C – Important technical parameters for service
(Ruhr branch).............................................................................................................................162
Corridor D – Detailed statistic rail freight transport data......................................................163
Corridor D – Detailed statistic road freight transport data....................................................163
Corridor D – Detailed statistic waterway freight transport data...........................................164
Corridor D – Important technical parameters for
infrastructure – complete corridor (main route only)..............................................................164
traction – complete corridor (main route only)........................................................................165
service – complete corridor (main route only).........................................................................165
Corridor E – Overview technical specifications......................................................................166
Corridor F – Overview technical specifications.......................................................................167
Corridor F – Statistic data on freight flows (2003)..................................................................167
11
I Acknowledgements
I Acknowledgements
This Corridor Report represents the results of intensive
co-ordination work, which has been performed within
work package B2 of the TREND Project. It reflects
the situation and the necessary actions for the Corridors as seen by the TREND participants involved –
both Partners and Experts – at the end of 2005. In the
course of several working meetings, representatives
from some 30 companies (Railway Undertakings [RUs]
and Infrastructure Managers [IMs]) contributed their
specific input in terms of expert-knowledge into the
study.
Figure I-1:
The input was compiled, structured and cross-checked
by the TREND Corridor Leaders HaCon (Corridors B, C,
D), KombiConsult (Corridors E, F) and Gruppo CLAS
(Corridor A) who wrote this final Corridor Report.
The process was guided by HaCon as Work Package
Leader. We thank all our experts (including their assistants and/or collaborators) for the co-operation in
performing this study. A special “Thank you” is dedicated to Jacques Dirand and his team from the CER in
Brussels for supporting us in the co-ordination activities of this corridor study.
Companies and
representatives involved
1
2
ADIF – Administrador de
Infraestructuras Ferroviarias
BDZ – Bulgarian State Railways
3
ČD – České dráhy
4
Spain
Bulgaria
Francisco Contreras Martinez,
Santiago Badillo
Krassimir Borissov Anguelov
•
Czech Republic
Danuse Marusicova
•
ČD – Telematika
Czech Republic
Tomáš Michalec
•
5
DB Netz
Germany
Michael Pohl
6
Lokomotion
Germany
Wera Gruehn, Niels Jaeger
7
MAV – Hungarian State Railways
Hungary
László Daczi, Zsuzsanna Ring
•
•
8
MAV Cargo
Hungary
Mónika Kurdi
•
•
9
Poland
Piotr Pszczólkowski
10
PLK – PKP Polskie Linie Kollejowe
ProRail Spoorontwikkeling
Netherlands
11
Railion Deutschland
Germany
12
Railion Deutschland
Germany
Alexander Van Andel,
Marcel Kroeze
Frank Weppner,
Ferhat Haciimamoglu
Roland Hartkopf, Frank Frühling
13
Railion Deutschland
Germany
Sandra Kuhlmann
F
E
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
14
RCA – RailCargoAustria
Austria
Dietmar Schratt
15
RENFE Operadora
Spain
16
RFF – Réseau Ferré de France
France
Manuel Sanchez Garzon,
Juán Antonio Gil Vera
Michel Gaspard
17
RFI – Rete Ferroviaria Italiana
Italy
Andrea Pepe
•
18
SZ – Slovenske železnice
Slovenia
Igor Hribar
•
19
SNCF Fret
France
20
TCDD – Turkish State Railways
Turkey
Antoine Varoquaux,
Bertrand Minary, Christian Abellan
Hülya Cilgi
21
Trenitalia Logistica
Italy
Francesco Del Vecchio
22
TX Logistik
Germany
Burkhard Bräkling
23
Slovakia
Vladimir Cebo
Slovakia
Ján Simco, Marek Chachalak
25
ZSR – Železnice Slovenskej
Republiky
ZSSK – Železničnej spoločnosti
Slovensko
GruppoClas
Italy
26
HaCon
Germany
27
KombiConsult
Germany
Carlo Vaghi, Gabriele Grea,
Roberto Zucchetti
Marian Gaidzik, Lars Deiterding,
Jan Hildebrandt
Rainer Mertel, Uwe Sondermann,
Markus Middendorf
24
D
Corridor involvement
C
Representative
BEast
Country
BWest
Company
A
No
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
12
II Framework of TREND
and objective of corridor study
II Framework of TREND and
objective of corridor study
The European Commission’s White Paper developed
a general framework of actions aimed at strengthening the rail freight sector and contributing to advancing an innovative, competitive and integrated Pan-European network of rail freight services. TREND seeks
to recommend a coherent series of individual actions
as a detailed “break down” within the White Paper’s
general framework. Another key result is the elaboration of the “Terms of Reference” for the envisaged
Integrated Project (IP) “New Concepts for Trans-European Rail Freight Services” and the support of the
potential proposers for the Integrated Project during
the preparation phase. In contrast to a scientific study
the TREND Project is a Co-ordination Action which
involved the stakeholders actively. The final results
have been agreed with the responsible actors within
the stakeholders.
Within this framework, three main outputs of the
TREND work package B2 are to be highlighted:
1. The data gathered within the TREND corridor
studies (six corridors in total) feeds a comprehensive web-based geo-referenced information system (“GIS”) that includes all relevant project findings with respect to the railway infrastructure.
2. A selection of suitable freight corridors, based on
this broad and deep knowledge, for a future Integrated Project to be selected under the 6th Framework Programme of the European Commission.
3. The Corridor Action Plans, as agreed upon by the
stakeholders, which can be implemented by the
business partners as a follow-up activity.
The detailed data gathering of all experts involved in
TREND B2 and the analysis of the compiled information of the six TREND corridors will give a detailed insight into these important freight corridors. Nevertheless, the conclusions and recommendations will not be
based “only” upon the results of the TREND corridor
studies, but also on all important corridor studies performed so far (CER corridors, TEN corridors, IQ-C corridor study, Brenner Action Plan and BRAVO Project,
etc.). The main milestones towards the final “IP-Corridor-Recommendation” are listed hereunder.
TREND will:
1. Provide an objective inventory of the problems on
the corridors.
2. Indicate their cause or combination of causes.
3. Place and rank the problems in areas e.g. legislative, organisational, technical problems, interoperability, distorted competition, etc.
4. Provide an expert vision on the relevance of problems with regard to the corridor’s performance.
5. Derive jointly agreed comprehensive action plans.
6. Improve freight service and thus market share
(modal shift).
7. Identify RTD Needs with respect to the future Integrated Project.
This corridor report is the final result of the TREND work
package B2 and represents an important milestone
towards the overall objective of the TREND Project.
IIIMethodology
The corridors investigated under the TREND umbrella
were selected when starting the TREND Work package B2. The conception and refinement of the corridor characteristics were done by means of an iterative
process between the TREND Project Management,
the TREND partners and the experts who were involved as subcontractors in the project. The final decision about the corridors was mainly based on the following criteria:
• Volume of existing freight flows (road, rail,
waterways)
• Future market development potential (growth of
rail and potential for modal shift)
• Existing and foreseeable capacity problems
• Potential for quick improvements
• Capability of improvement initiatives already
underway
• Commitment and motivation of stakeholders
• Cohesion with ERTMS corridors (European Rail
Transport Management System)
• Integration of new Member States of the European Union
13
IIIMethodology
Based on this evaluation scheme the following six corridors (with Corridor B divided into variant West and
East) were chosen for a detailed analysis:
• Corridor A: Italy (Adriatic coast) – Slovenia –
Hungary
• Corridor B-East: Scandinavia (German border/ferry
ports) – Germany – Austria – Italy
Meetings of TREND
work package B2
Date
Location
• Corridor C: Germany (Seaports and Ruhr area) –
Czech Republic/Austria – Slovakia – Hungary –
Serbia/Romania – Bulgaria – Turkey
Subject
• Corridor E: France (Seaports and UK via tunnel) –
Switzerland – Italy
• Corridor F: Germany (Ruhr area and possible
branch to Poland) – France – Spain
• Corridor B-West: Netherlands (Seaports) –
Germany – Switzerland – Italy
Figure III-1:
• Corridor D: Netherlands (Seaports) –
Germany – Poland – Lithuania – Latvia – Estonia
Participants
23.02.05 Bruxelles
(Belgium)
Workpackage Kick-Off
TREND Partners involved
in B2
26.04.05 Hannover
(Germany)
1st Corridor Workshop –
Corridors A, D, F
TREND Partners involved in
B2 and Experts of Corridors
A, D, F
27.04.05 Hannover
(Germany)
1st Corridor Workshop –
Corridors C, E
C, E
28.04.05 Hannover
(Germany)
1st Corridor Workshop – TREND Partners involved in
Corridors B East & West B2 and Experts of Corridors
B East+West
13.06.05 Milano
(Italy)
2nd Corridor Workshop –
All Corridors
TREND Partners involved
in B2 and All B2- (Corridor-)
Experts
18.07.05
Mainz
(Germany)
3rd Corridor Workshop –
Corridors B, C, E, F
B, C, E, F
19.07.05
Mainz
(Germany)
3rd Corridor Workshop –
Corridors A, D
A, D
The final routing of the six TREND corridors was finally agreed at a joint meeting of all parties involved
in TREND work package B2. This meeting took place
in Milano (Italy) on June 13th, 2005.
The last corridor workshop in Mainz was dedicated to
the final adjustment of the Data Gathering Tables and
the agreement on possible improvement measures
that are likely to improve the situation of rail freight
on the respective corridors. Thus, the results of this
meeting are the basis for this report.
The data gathering concerning the characteristics,
main problems, alleviation projects etc. on the TREND
corridors was done by means of standardised tables
that were harmonised for all TREND corridors. These
tables were filled by the experts on the basis of their
company- and country-specific expert knowledge. The
results were discussed and verified in two working
meetings (for better understanding see the overview
of TREND B2 working meetings).
All data documented in this report have been gathered from the TREND data and action plan tables. In
some cases information gaps had to be filled by analysing additional sources. These sources are documented by footnotes on the respective page.
IVCorridor Map
The following map shows a geographical overview
over the corridor studies performed so far in Europe,
including the TREND corridors, the CER corridor studies (CER corridors 2, 3 and 5), the IQ-C corridor study
and the Brenner Action Plan (dotted yellow lines).
Most of the sections of these corridors are part of the
Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T); TEN-T
corridor sections that are not involved in the corridor
studies appear red.
Figure IV-1:
Overview about European corridor-related research projects
14
V Executive Summary
V Executive Summary
This corridor report comprises the results of the
TREND work package B2. Within this work package
the following six European freight corridors were subject to a deeper analysis:
All results presented here are based on the input of
the TREND B2 experts (both Infrastructure Managers
and representatives of Railway Undertakings), who
contributed their specific knowledge to the analysis.
• Corridor A: Italy (Adriatic coast) – Slovenia –
Hungary
(1) Geographic extent and routing of the
TREND corridors:
• Corridor B-West: Netherlands (Seaports) –
Germany – Switzerland – Italy
The extent and routing of the TREND corridors were
discussed, fine-tuned and agreed upon in the 1st Corridor Workshop in Hannover in April 2005. The final corridor selection makes reference to the most important
freight flows (in terms of current volume and growth
potential) across Europe. The selection took account
of previous projects and stakeholders interest.
• Corridor B-East: Scandinavia (German border/ferry
ports) – Germany – Austria – Italy
• Corridor C: Germany (Seaports and Ruhr area) –
Czech Republic/Austria – Slovakia – Hungary –
Serbia/Romania – Bulgaria – Turkey
Figure V-1:
Overview of
TREND corridors
• Corridor D: Netherlands (Seaports) –
Germany – Poland – Lithuania – Latvia – Estonia
• Corridor E: France (Seaports and UK via tunnel) –
• Corridor F: Germany (Ruhr area and possible
branch to Poland) – France – Spain
On the basis of the analysis of the corridors a coherent conception of individual measures (“Action Plans”)
was developed for each corridor aiming at improving the competitiveness of rail freight services. The
methodology of work bases on TREND work package
B1 and was further refined in the starting phase of
TREND B2. The main working steps were:
1. Agreement upon geographical extent and routing
of the corridors.
2. Analyses of the corridors, especially as concerns
current freight volume (incl. modal split), analysis of the rail infrastructure and border crossing
procedures.
3. Diagnosis of impediments and problems that are
jeopardising the development of rail freight services on the corridors.
4. Analysis of alleviation projects already under way.
5. Deduction of action plans, sub-divided into
priorities.
15
V Executive Summary
(2) Analysis of the corridors
Figure V-2:
Comparison of TREND corridors’ main characteristics 1
The length of the analysed TREND corridors varies between 1,100 km (Corridor E) and 2,900 km (Corridor C),
the number of involved countries is between 3 and 9.
Corridor A
I. Corridor length
[km]
II.Involved
countries
thereof transited
III.Locations on the
corridor route
with
• terminals for
intermodal
service
road/rail
• marshalling
yards
IV.Rail freight
interface
concentration
(= ∑ III.*100/I.)
V. Freight transport
amongst corridor
countries 2003
(rail, road, waterway)
VI.Modal split
rail/ road/waterway 2003
Corridor B
East 2
Corridor C
2,300
1,200
3
4
3
9
3
4
3
6 – 7
21
16 – 17
13
17 – 22
1,600 2,600 – 2,900
29
5 – 6
5
10 – 20
2.2
1.8 – 1.9
1.1
0.9 – 1.6
26.0 Mio t
276.3 Mio t
n.a.
n.a.
17/53/30
13/45/42
n.a.
n.a.
As far as adequate data has been provided the total freight flows (rail, road, waterway) amongst these
countries vary from 26 Mio t on Corridor A to 277 Mio
t on Corridor B-West. The following conclusions could
be drawn for all TREND corridors:
• The corridor destinations contribute unevenly
to the total amount: As a general rule it can be
stated that the two strongest relations represent
more than half of the all transport modes‘ volume.
• Most relations are directionally unbalanced.
• Rail freight traffic currently represents a poor modal split of 8 % to 17 %.
• Higher modal splits of rail on parts of the corridors
are due to impediments limiting road transports or
specific conditions favouring other modes of transport (e.g. alpine transit by rail, inland waterways
on Corridor B-West).
• The experts forecasted a significant increase of
freight volume on all TREND corridors.
(3) Diagnosis of rail freight impediments
Corridor D 3
I. Corridor length
(in km)
II.Involved
countries
thereof transited
III.Locations on the
corridor route
with
• terminals for
intermodal
service
road/rail
• marshalling
yards
IV.Rail freight
interface
concentration
(= ∑ III.*100/I.)
V. Freight transport
amongst corridor
countries 2003
(rail, road, waterway)
VI.Modal split
rail/ road/waterway 2003
Corridor B
West
The following figure provides an overview over general specifications of the TREND corridors.
2,500
Corridor E 4
Corridor F
1,100 – 1,250 2,200 – 2,500
6
2 – 3
3
6
2 – 3
3
The diagnosis of impediments that are jeopardising
the development of rail freight transport was structured as follows:
a) Border crossing bottlenecks
b) Other infrastructural impediments
10
8 – 11
10 – 23
c) Lack of interoperability
d) Resource problems
8
6 – 7
9 – 16
0.7
1.1 – 1.6
0.8 – 1.8
254.4 Mio t
11/38/52
49.3 Mio t 5
24/76/n.a.
116.9 Mio t
8/75/17
1: Different values refer to alternative routings on the respective corridor
2: Including Danish/German border, but without Scandinavia
3: Main route only
4: Including Channel Tunnel, but without UK
5: Without waterway volume
e) Operational problems
(a) Border crossing bottlenecks
The main border crossing related problems can be assigned to the following groups of impediments (see
also Figure V- 3):
• multiple loco changes due to different technical/
infrastructural railway equipment (current systems, signalling systems)
• lack of mutual transport and technical train trust
• missing operational co-ordination (e.g. lack of
communication, double work)
• administrative burdens (e.g. double authority /
customs procedures)
16
V Executive Summary
• insufficient transport data management, which often requires multiple data pickup/correction/modification and manual document transfers
• lack of co-operative rolling stock and personal
dispatching
• insufficient infrastructure causing complex shunting movements
• transhipment of loading units/wagon loads or axle
change of wagons due to different track gauges
• specific problems due to special geographic situations (like the Channel Tunnel)
(b) Other infrastructural impediments
mainly concern the lack of capacities and operational
quality within the stations/nodes or along the lines.
These problems lead to expensive operational procedures - especially within the nodes - increasing the
total costs and deteriorating the market position of
rail freight traffic.
The following different types of impediments due to
the infrastructure are to be distinguished:
• high traffic volume leading to capacity restrictions
for additional rail freight
• limitations of the intermodal gauge, caused e.g. by
tunnel sections
• speed restrictions due to disadvantageous line
layout
• single track line sections
• insufficient length of tracks in stations, limiting
the maximum train length
• congested intermodal terminals
(c) Lack of interoperability
A variety of operating and technical parameters leads
to a lack of interoperability on each corridor (see Figure V-4), triggered by
• different energy systems
• varying widths of the pantograph
• incomplete electrification
• changes of permitted train parameters (length,
load, line category, intermodal gauge)
• different signalling systems. The new European
ETCS levels 1 and 2 have only been implemented
in dedicated corridor parts
Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor
A
B West B East 6
C
I. Min/max total time need for cross border activities per direction
II.Min. required amount of loco driver
changes per direction
III.Number of loco changes per
direction 7 due to different
1h
2/4 h
1/1,5 h
14/28 h
2
3
3
5 – 6
• energy systems
2
2
1
1 – 3
• signalling systems
2
3
2
≥ 3
• pantograph widths
IV.Quality deficiencies because of time
loss due to
1
1
1
≥ 1
• lack of mutual train trust
o
o
o
–
• missing operational co-ordination
o
o
+
–
• administrative problems
o
+
+
–
• insufficient transport data and
document management
o
o
o
–
• lack of co-operative dispatching
o
–
o
–
• customs clearance procedures
amongst corridor countries
o
o
+
–
• insufficient infrastructure causing
complex shunting movements
o
+
o
o
• transhipment of loading
units/wagon loads or
axle change of wagons
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
• specific problems
Corridor Corridor Corridor
D
E 8
F
I. Min/max total time need for cross border activities per direction
II.Min. required amount of loco driver
changes per direction
III.Number of loco changes per direction 7
due to different
2/7 h
1/2 h
4/24 h
1
1
2
3
1
1/2
≥ 2
1
1/2
• pantograph widths
IV.Quality deficiencies because of time
loss due to
0
1
2
• lack of mutual train trust
–
+
+
• missing operational co-ordination
–
o
o
• administrative problems
o
o
+
• insufficient transport data and
document management
–
n.a.
n.a.
• lack of co-operative dispatching
–
o
+
• customs clearance procedures
amongst corridor countries
o
o
o
• insufficient infrastructure causing
complex shunting movements
o
o
–
• transhipment of loading
units/wagon loads or
axle change of wagons
–
+
–
• specific problems
+
–
+
• energy systems
• signalling systems
Figure V-3:
Different values refer to alternative routings on the respective corridor
Rail freight impediments
caused by cross border
activities
+ criteria does not influence negatively in level of rail freight quality
o criteria influences slightly negative in level of rail freight quality
– criteria influences significantly negative in level of rail freight quality
6 Including Danish/German border, but without Scandinavia
7 Assumption: No multi-system loco used
8 Including Channel Tunnel, but without UK
17
V Executive Summary
(especially within the Baltic States) causes delays in
the border crossing procedures.
• changes of track gauge (e.g. Corridor D/Baltic
States, Corridor F/Spain)
Figure V-4:
Overview of
infrastructural and
technical interoperability on
TREND corridors 9
• dissentient wagon coupling modes (Corridor D/
Baltic States)
(e) Operational impediments mainly concern
the following aspects:
• only sporadic employment of interoperable loco
drivers
Corridor
A
Corridor
B West
Corridor
B East 10
Corridor
C
I.
Different track gauges
1
1
1
1
II.
III.
IV.
Max/min speed for
freight trains [km/h]
Different wagon
coupling modes
Max/min line category
120
120
120/120
120/65
1
1
1
1
C2/D3
D4/D4
D4/C3
D4/C2
V. Max/Min train length [m]
750/450
750/555
750/515
750/500
VI. Max/min intermodal
gauge
P/C 80 –
P/C 32
P/C 80 –
410/
45-364
2,735/
1,300
5
P/C 80 –
410/
45-364
2,800/
1,100
2
P/C 80 –
410/
45-364
3,000/
1,100
≥ 3 – 5
VII. Max/min permitted
train mass [t]
VIII.Different signalling
systems
IX. Different current systems
2,000/
1,300
3 – 5
2
4
2
2 – 3
X. Complete electrification
–
✓
✓
–
XI. Different widths of
pantograph
1
2
2
≥ 2
Corridor
F
Corridor
E 11
Corridor
F
I.
Different track gauges
2
1
2
II.
III.
IV.
Max/min speed for
freight trains [km/h]
Different wagon
coupling modes
Max/min line category
120/≤ 80
120/80
120/90
2
1
1
D 4/≤ C3
D4
D4
V. Max/Min train length [m]
750/540
750/550
750/500
VI. Max/min intermodal
gauge
P/C 80 –
410/
≤70-400
5,100/
≤1,600
≥4
P/C 60 –
390/
45-364
3,640/
1,100
3
P/C 80 –
410/
45-364
2,800/
820
3
≥4
4
4
VII. Max/min permitted
train mass [t]
VIII.Different signalling
systems
IX. Different current systems
X. Complete electrification
–
✓
✓
XI. Different widths of
pantograph
1
n.a.
n.a.
10Including Danish/German border, but without Scandinavia
11Including Channel Tunnel, but without UK
• The controlling of cross border train operations is
already done by bilateral control centres in some
cases; however, mostly controlling issues are still
separated on national dispatching systems
• Time loss due to operations in marshalling yards
(single wagon traffic)
• Heterogeneous EDP-standards; from complete absence of EDP-solutions to totally EDP-supported
procedures
• Time loss due to other operations (e.g. low permitted speed for freight trains)
(4) Alleviation projects already under way
Several cross-border alleviation projects have already
been started in order to overcome the above mentioned problems. Some of them represent a bunch of
single measures, such as the implementation of OneStop Shops (OSS) or the “ZEUS project”. The following projects have been mentioned as of particular
importance:
• CIFFA: Cross border operation centre for interchange between SNCF and Railion, including common dispatching of interoperable locos and train
paths (Corridor F)
• Several activities of RENFE and SNCF Fret in order
to improve border crossing operations, bundled in
projects like MUM, GOTI or SISIFO
• Increase of amount of trust trains (especially for
intermodal trains), leading to a considerable reduction of the required border processing time
(d) Resource problems
9 Max-/min values may
refer to different routings on the
respective corridor
• Operational priority of passenger trains over
freight trains in infrastructure bottlenecks, such as
metropolitan nodes, and in conflict situations
Another main impediment concerns the rolling stock,
especially the multi-system locos. In many cases interoperable engines for different signalling systems
are regarded too expensive by the Railway Undertakings. Other reasons for the lack of locomotives are insufficient dispatching systems (especially on Corridor
E/France) or breakdowns due to their obsolete technical status. Furthermore the poor quality of the wagons
• Upgrading signalling and control systems to the
status of ETCS and GSM-R
• The establishment of the new European loco
driver license for cross border rail traffic
• Common quality agreements and common priority
rules for train path planning/operation
18
V Executive Summary
Alleviation projects within the TREND corridors’ countries mainly concentrate on upgrading infrastructure
(line doubling, levelling steep gradients, and station
reconstruction).
Medium-term actions – package of measures II:
• Analyse management of international freight traffic through congested areas, focusing on priority
rules between freight and passenger trains
(5) Action plans
• Intensify the co-operation amongst IMs and between IMs and RUs at “service planning” level
and at “operational” level
The alleviation measures and projects for the TREND
corridors have been elaborated and agreed upon by
the TREND experts, representing the respective Railway Undertaking / Infrastructure Manager. A classification into three types of actions (= packages of
measures) according to their priority and realisation
timeframe (short-term, medium-term, long-term) shall
facilitate a better overview to the reader. The structure of these action plans is comparable to the one
that has already been used in the CER corridor studies and in the Brenner Action Plan. The action plans
are completed by a fourth group of measures (“other
measures”).
Short-term actions – package of measures I:
• Improve and intensify the co-operation that has already started amongst Railway Undertakings
• Improve and intensify the co-operation that has already begun between Railway Undertakings and
Infrastructure Managers
• Improve communication and data exchange to optimise the interfaces between RUs, to optimise resource control and customer information
• Extend the existing corridor-related interoperable
traction concepts
• Prioritise freight trains
Long-term actions – package of measures III:
• Establishing rules and tools to manage trains
along the corridor (RU operating centres)
• Improving co-ordination of national traffic control
centres (between IMs)
• Monitor the planned upgrading and extension of
the railway infrastructure (lines, nodes, marshalling yards, terminals)
• Elaborating of new solutions for the existing
HERMES system
• Elaborate an implementation plan for quality management tools
• Development of ERTMS on the corridor
• Define priority projects for improving infrastructure bottlenecks
Other actions – package of measures IV:
• Developing the corridor concept by alleviating capacity differences and bottlenecks
• Developing the corridor concept by alleviating
problems in interfacing with terminals/ports
• Other measures
© DB AG/Klee
19
1 TREND Corridor A
1.1 Diagnosis of freight impediments and current actions to alleviate them
1 TREND Corridor A
1.1
Figure 1.1.1–1:
Map of TREND Corridor A
Diagnosis of freight impediments and
current actions to alleviate them
1.1.1 Introduction in TREND Corridor A
Corridor A extends from Italy through Slovenia to
Hungary. It begins at Gioia Tauro container hub seaport. From Gioia Tauro the corridor runs via Paola and
Taranto to Bari. From Bari, after having joined the
branch from Brindisi, the corridor covers the whole
Adriatic line until Bologna. For the purpose of the
present corridor definition, the railway triangle connecting the important railway nodes of Verona, Padova and Bologna has been taken into account. The
corridor reaches Slovenia through the cross border
station of Villa Opicina/Sezana. In Slovenia the corridor runs from the Italian border via Ljubljana and Pragersko to the Hungarian border at Hodos. An alternative
route has been considered to connect the port of Koper. The corridor reaches the Ukrainian border through
Hungary, at Zahony terminal (see Figure 1.1.1–1).
The length of the corridor (calculated on its “main
route”) is 2,280 km.
As a first positive factor to enhance interoperability,
the track gauge is 1,435 mm on the whole corridor.
Moreover, the trains are coupled with screw coupler
and buffers on all involved railways.
The corridor line starts in Gioia Tauro, then follows
the Jonian line from Sibari to Taranto, where it collects the traffic coming from the container terminal
at Taranto seaport. From Bari to Bologna the corridor
covers the Adriatic line, through Pescara, Ancona and
Rimini. For the purpose of the present corridor definition, the railway triangle connecting the important
railway nodes of Verona, Padova and Bologna has
been taken into account. The corridor reaches Slovenia through the cross border station of Villa Opicina/
Sezana (see Figure 1.1.1–2).
Figure 1.1.1–2:
TREND Corridor A in Italy
BRENNERO
Main Route
Alternative
DOMODOSSOLA
CHIASSO
MILANO
Today
TARVISIO
BOLZANO
TORINO
UDINE
CERVIGNANO
VERONA MESTRE
PIACENZA
ARQUATA
GENOVA
FERRARA
BOLOGNA
RIMINI
VENTIMIGLIA
PISA FIRENZE
ANCONA
CAMPIGLIA M.
PESCARA
ORTE
CIVITAVECCHIA
FOGGIA
BARI
CASERTA
BRINDISI
SALERNO
LECCE
TARANTO
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic
on this corridor sector are listed in Figure 1.1.1–3.
SIBARI
PAOLA
LAMEZIA
GIOIA
TAURO
PALERMO
MESSINA
MELITO P.S.
ARAGONA CATANIA
SIRACUSA
20
1 TREND Corridor A
Location
Port terminals for
Ro-Ro and sea-rail
unaccompanied intermodal transport (semi
trailers/swap bodies)
Terminals for
unaccompanied intermodal transport (road/
rail and port container
terminals)
Gioia Tauro (seaport)
✓
Taranto (seaport)
✓
Brindisi (seaport)
✓
Brindisi CEMAT
Bari (seaport)
Figure 1.1.1–3:
Marshalling yards for
conventional single
wagon traffic
Important entry/handling
points for rail freight traffic on
TREND Cor-ridor A in Italy 12
✓
✓
✓
✓
Bari Ferruccio
✓
✓
Pescara
✓
✓
Ancona Falconara
✓
✓
Ferrara
✓
Lugo
✓
Bologna Interporto
✓
Padova Interporto
✓
Verona Quadrante Europa
✓
Verona Porta Nuova
✓
✓
Venezia Marghera
✓
✓
Cervignano
✓
Trieste (seaport)
✓
✓
Villa Opicina (border m.y.)
Figure 1.1.1–4:
✓
TREND Corridor A in Slovenia
In Slovenia the corridor follows the East-West main
line until Ljubljana. In Divaca the branch connecting
Koper seaport merges.
Main Route
HODOS
Alternative
MAR-SPI
MURSKA SOBOTA
MARIBOR
The connection to Hungary is ensured by the new built
non-electrified line from Ormoš to Hodoš (cross border
station; see Figure 1.1.1–4).
JES-ROS
JESENICE
PRAGERSKO
CAC-SRE
ORMOZ
CELJE
GROBELNO
ZIDANI MOST
LJUBLJANA
SEVNICA
NOVA GORICA
DOBOVA
SEZANA
DIVACA
PIVKA
OPC-VIL
PRESNICA
KOPER
ILI-SAP
BUZ-RAK
Figure 1.1.1–5:
TREND Corridor A in Slovenia 13
Location
Port terminals for
Ro-Ro and sea-rail
unaccompanied intermodal transport (semi
trailers/swap bodies)
Terminals for
unaccompanied intermodal transport (road/
rail and port container
terminals)
Sežana (border m.y.)
Koper Tovorni (seaport)
conventional single
wagon traffic
✓
✓
Ljubljana Zalog
✓
Ljubljana Moste KT
✓
Celje
✓
✓
12Based on: European
Commission „Integrated Services
in the Intermodal
Chain“; Trenitalia,
CEMAT
13Based on:
European Commission „Integrated
Services in the
Intermodal Chain“;
SŽ, Adriakombi
21
1 TREND Corridor A
HIDASNEMETI
Main Route
In Hungary the corridor runs from the border station of
Öriszentpeter, through Zalalovo, Boba until Budapest.
From Budapest to Szolnok the corridor takes advantage from the choice between two possible routes.
The corridor reaches the Ukrainian border (where a
different track gauge exists) at Zahony terminal.
Zahony
Alternative
FELSOZSOLCA
HEGYESHALOM
KOMAROM
VAC
SOPRON
GYOR
TATABANYA
FUZESABONY
HATVAN
BUDAPEST
DEBRECEN
ERD
SZOMBATHELY
PUSPOKLADANY
SZEKESFEHERVAR
UKK
SZENTGOTTHARD
SZABADBATTYAN
TAPOLCA
NYIREGYHAZA
SZOB
SZOLNOK
An alternative route, connecting Hungary with
Croatian seaports, has been considered as well. It
leads from Gyekenyes border station to Budapest, via
Kaposvar and Szekesfehervar (see Figure 1.1.1–6).
BIHARKERESZTES
KUNSZENTMIKLOS-TASS
KECSKEMET
SIOFOK
ZALALOVO
FONYOD
KISKUNFELEGYHAZA
Oriszentpeter
BEKESCSABA
PINCEHELY
NAGYKANIZSA
MURAKERESZTUR
LOKOSHAZA
KISKUNHALAS
KAPOSVAR
GYEKENYES
KELEBIA
SZEGED
PECS
MAGYARBOLY
The total rail freight transport volume between Italy
and Hungary adds up to six destinations, to which
transit traffic has been added, to take into account
that the corridor through Slovenia (and Hungary) is the
main route (for terrestrial modes) for import and export traffic between Italy and Central Eastern Europe
countries.
Figure 1.1.1–6:
TREND Corridor A in Hungary
© Intercontainer Austria
Figure 1.1.1–7:
points for rail freight traffic on TREND Corridor A in
Hungary 14
Location
Terminals for unaccompanied
intermodal transport (road/rail
and port container terminals)
Öriszentpeter (border m.y.)
✓
Zalalovo
✓
Zalaegerszeg
✓
Boba
✓
Veszprem
✓
Kaposvar
✓
Szekesfehervar
✓
Budapest Kelenfold
14Based on:
European Commission „Integrated
Services in the
Intermodal Chain“;
MÀV
conventional single wagon traffic
✓
Budapest BILK
✓
Budapest Joszefvaros
✓
✓
Ujszasz
✓
Szolnok
✓
Szajol
✓
Puspokladany
Debrecen
✓
✓
Nyiregyhaza
Zahony
✓
✓
✓
✓
22
1 TREND Corridor A
Country Destination
2,100
12,300
• 52 % (i.e. 13.7 Mio t/a) of the total volume is handled by road transport. The “waterway” transport
is reported at 30 %, but also short-sea-shipping
transport is included. It has to be reminded that
the statistical sources provided by experts from
RUs for the present survey consider “waterway”
transport also the transfer of goods performed by
sea for at least one segment. Rail overall modal
split is then 17 %.
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
)
ou
nd
)
tb
ou
(W
es
tb
as
ns
it
(E
Tr
a
Tr
a
ns
it
ga
un
H
nd
ia
lo
ve
n
ry
-S
ry
-H
un
- It
Sl
ov
en
ia
ry
ga
al
ry
ga
ia
y
0 %
ov
en
• There is a strong heterogeneity in the rail modal split. The rail split is in general lower for traffic to and from Italy (also due to the presence of
short sea shipping) and particularly low between
Italy and Slovenia. It reaches the relevant rate
of 45-46 % for the traffic between Slovenia and
Hungary.
80 %
lo
ve
n
• The ratio of transit traffic is particularly relevant:
it adds up to 6.8-6.9 Mio t (52 % of the total traffic on the corridor).
90 %
Sl
• The unbalanced traffic is growing year by year,
due to EU enlargement. A general increase of import traffic to Italy is reported after May 2004, following the entering in EU of Slovenia and Hungary.
The traffic increase is particularly relevant for rail,
due to the traffic of raw materials westbound.
Figure 1.1.1–9:
Rail freight by transport
modes amongst Corridor A
countries 2004
100 %
-S
• The strongest relation, despite of the mode of
transport, is Italy-Slovenia, with an about balanced traffic.
ly
More detailed statistic transport data are listed in Appendix 1. The main transport structures can be described as follows:
A closer look shows the proportion of the railway
transportation modes: conventional trains or intermodal trains differentiating, where possible, between
block trains and single wagons. Suitable data have
been provided for the six relevant destinations and
for transit traffic by the RUs (see Figure 1.1.1–9). The
corridor appears to be devoted to conventional traffic,
which is demanded in 79 % of the cases (by average
among destinations).
It a
The total freight traffic sums up at about 26 Mio t in
2004 (see Figure 1.1.1–8). It has to be kept in mind that
the volumes listed underneath represent not only the
corridors but the total flows amongst the involved
countries.
6,900
6,800
ga
4,900
un
5,200
Transit (from Italy to
other destinations)
un
Sub-Total
Total volume of freight
amongst Corridor A countries
2004 (rail, road, waterway,
sea) [1000 t/a]
3,800
H
1,700
y
2,100
4,300
4,200
al
Hungary
1,100
1,100
-H
3,100
Sub-Total
- It
3,200
Slovenia
Hungary
ly
Italy
Slovenia
ia
Italy
It a
Country Origin
Figure 1.1.1–8:
Transit (from other
origins to Italy)
Conventional block trains
Conventional single wagon
Intermodal trains (Block trains and single wagon)
• Conventional single wagon trains feature the rail
freight’s majority on Italy’s inbound destinations,
whilst the traffic in export shows a small but significant percentage of intermodal traffic, due to
the establishment of some block train intermodal
relations from Verona/Padova/Bologna terminals.
• Intermodal transport plays the lion’s share only in
Slovenia-Hungary relations (66 % of the total).
23
1 TREND Corridor A
For the future the consulted experts forecast a strong
increase of the total freight market within Corridor A,
especially due to:
• the development of trade between Italy and the
new EU Member countries
• the powerful increase of traffic at Gioia Tauro and
Taranto container terminals
The growth of the Gioia Tauro port has been remarkable: from 572,000 TEU in 1996 to 3,080,710 TEU in
2003. Though the main traffic is a transhipment one,
the sea-land traffic (O/D Italy) is very significant. Taking only January and February of 2005, the overall
handling of TEU amounted to 523,292, 13 % more
than the same period in the previous year. It is probable that the target of 4-5 million TEU, forecast by the
year 2010, can be reached before that date.
Nevertheless the throughput in Taranto increased up
to 763,000 TEU in 2004.
1.1.2 Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor A
Corridor A is one of the most important axes in Europe,
connecting some of the most relevant container hubs
in Southern Italy (Gioia Tauro and Taranto) with some
of the most relevant intermodal terminals in Europe
(Verona, Bologna, Padova) and furthermore with some
of the most promising markets on the enlarged EU
(Slovenia, Hungary). Of course the current rail freight
transport has to be developed with specific organisational and infrastructure measures, even if some episodes of interoperability (between Italy and Slovenia)
have been already put in place.
The challenge for rail is to capture the foreseen increase in the total transport demand along the corridor as a whole, and along corridor power segments
(Southern Italy seaports to Northern Italy, and from
there to Slovenia/Hungary).
1.1.3 Diagnosis of existing and potential
future freight impediments
1.1.3.1 Structuring of impediments
The results of TREND B2 presented hereunder derive
directly from the TREND Data Gathering Tables; exceptions will be expressly stated. The results of the
meetings were analysed and taken into account, as
well. This report shall make the TREND results comparable to corridor studies already performed in other
projects prior TREND in order to achieve a harmonised
information base for a future Integrated Project (IP).
Thus the TREND corridor report will refer to the structuring of the action plans that had already been developed in the CER corridor reports:
a) Infrastructure problems;
b) Operational problems (especially co-ordination
and harmonisation);
c) Resource problems.
1.1.3.2 Infrastructural impediments for rail freight
transport on the corridor
1.1.3.2.1 Border crossing bottlenecks as impediments
The main border problems result from the different
signalling systems and different languages at the borders (see also chapter 1.1.3.3).
The difference of current systems, almost widespread
in European rail borders, does not appear to be a barrier, since the cross border traffic between Italy and
Slovenia can be performed by 3kV locos, and the traffic between Slovenia and Hungary by diesel locos.
Anyway a complete corridor relation cannot be performed with the same locomotive.
The loss of time required for multisystem locomotives
at the borders (e.g. those displaced between Italy and
Slovenia) appears to be due to organisational problems (the most relevant is the lack of mutual accep
tance of drivers).
In all other cases the locomotive has to be changed at
the border.
A further and relevant infrastructural impediment is
due to the different track gauge between Hungary and
Ukraine (Zahony terminal).
All in all the scheduled time for border crossing purposes along the Corridor A can be seen in Figure
1.1.3–1.
24
1 TREND Corridor A
Border
Italy/Slovenia
(interoperable trains)
Processing time
per train
Activities (including
technical and operational
procedures)
Total = 65 min
10 min
change of loco (driver)
technical/wagon inspection
(scan)
15 min
brake test (reduced)
40 min
commercial inspection
20 min
train registration
30 min
data input
Figure 1.1.3–1:
Average processing time for
border crossing procedure (according to schedule)
Without loco change. Scan
is performed under a “trust
handover” agreement between
RUs, by one RU only
wagon exchange
10 min
document exchange
10 min
train formation/departure
Total = 60 min
Total time calculated on
technical operations only
10 min
change of loco
35 min
technical/wagon inspection
15 min
brake test
45 min
commercial inspection
20 min
train registration
30 min
data input
5 min
Remarks
Total time calculated on
technical operations only
35 min
5 min
Slovenia/Hungary
wagon exchange
10 min
document exchange
10 min
train formation/departure
In addition to time delay border crossing activities
also require considerable infrastructure resources and
costs. At the borders the following infrastructure resources are provided for interchange purposes:
• Italy/Slovenia (Villa Opicina): 8 tracks
• Slovenia/Hungary (Hodos): 5 tracks
• Hungary/Ukraine (Zahony): 13 tracks
The performance of border crossing activities was
rated as „good“ between both borders.
Custom clearance procedures are reported to be necessary between Hungary and Ukraine.
1.1.3.2.2 Other infrastructural impediments for rail
freight quality
A number of infrastructural impediments have been
reported as a lack of capacities in the stations/nodes
or along the lines. These missing resources make it
difficult or even impossible to acquire additional rail
freight traffic on the corridor. Furthermore they lead to
expensive operational modes – especially within the
nodes – which increase the total costs and worsen
the market position of rail freight traffic.
For elimination of these impediments measures to increase lines and nodes capacities have to be planned
cohesively (see also chapter 1.1.4).
• Infrastructural impediments ascribed to stations/
nodes capacity:
– Gioia Tauro seaport: The difference in power
voltage between the access track to the port
and the main line allows the shunting of trains
to Rosarno (10 km distance) only by splitting the
train and recoupling it before entering the main
line.
– Bari node: Currently trains have to change
direction in Bari Centrale, which takes 25
minutes.
– Ljubljana Moste KT: The actual terminal capacity of 500 TEU/day is considered scarce and not
meeting the demand increase rate.
– Koper seaport marshalling yard: The capacity is
reported as scarce.
– Boba: Changing of engines (diesel to electric locos) and direction required.
25
1 TREND Corridor A
– Zahony: At Hungary/Ukraine border, different
track gauges cause the already mentioned lack
of interoperability.
Figure 1.1.3–2:
Infrastructural impediments
ascribed to lines capacity
Country
Italy
Line/Section
Gioia Tauro – Paola
Paola – Taranto
P/C 32 from Gioia Tauro to Rosarno
Taranto – Bari
Brindisi – Bari
single track between Polignano and Fasano (20 km)
Padova – Venezia Mestre
Monfalcone – Villa Opicina
Bologna – Verona
(complete corridor)
Koper – Divaca
Ormož – Ljutomer
Ljutomer – Hodoš
Hungary
Bottleneck caused by
• line category: C3
• max train length: 450 m between Metaponto and Taranto
single track section
Foggia – Ancona
Slovenia
The infrastructural impediments ascribed to lines capacity are listed in Figure 1.1.3–2
Hodoš – Zalalovo
Zalalovo – Zalaegerszeg
Zalaegerszeg – Boba
Boba – Veszprem
• single track between Ortona and Casalbordino, between
Campomarino and Lesina and between Apricena and
S.Severo
• P/C 32 loading gauge between Termoli and Ancona
• capacity exploitation: 88 %
capacity exploitation: 81 %
• between Monfalcone and Villa Opicina 140 train paths/day in
both directions
• currently only 30 – 40 additional train paths available
line category C3 and single track section between Bologna and
Nogara
max. train load: 1,600 t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
scarce rail capacity in the shunting sections
capacity exploitation of the line: 94 %
single track line
20 % slope Hrpelje-Rodik (4 km)
25 % slope Koper t.-Prešnica (21 km)
power supply restraints
insufficient IT interface
These limitations are causing reduced train length and
weight, the requirement of additional uphill locomotives,
high average dwelling time of wag-ons, delays of inbound
and outbound trains and lengthy in/outbound processes
• single track line
• 21 km long inter station section Ormož – Ljutomer
• short main tracks on stations Ljutomer and Ormož
• 11 % slope Ljutomer – Ivanjkovci
• diesel traction
• limited axle load
• These limitations are causing reduced section through-put of
trains, reduced train length and weight, higher traction costs,
noise disturbance and reduced wagon loading utilisation
• single track
• diesel traction
• single track
• diesel traction
• max. train load: 1,300 t
• single track
• diesel traction
• trains longer than 300 m are not allowed to stop
• single track
• diesel traction
• trains longer than 350 m are not allowed to stop
single track
Veszprem – Szekesfehervar • single track
• 20 km/h speed limitation at node
Line category: C3, except Hodoš – Zalalovo (D3) and
(complete corridor)
Nyiregyhaza – Zahony (C2)
26
1 TREND Corridor A
205
122
118
D4
C3
D4
D2
118
2293
137 40
364
D3
69
100
114
52
598
Zahony
Szolnok
96
236
1435 mm
C3
C3
75
km/h
120 km/h
Budapest
Szekesfehervar
Boba
Hodos
Ormoz
Hungary
MAV
1435 mm
D4
Maximum
Speed
Pragersko
Ljubljana
Villa Opicina
141
1435 mm
Track
Gauge
Figure 1.1.3–3:
Main technical and operational parameters on TREND
Corridor A – infrastructure
Slovenia
SZ
513
1331
Distance
Line
Category
Venezia
Italy
RFI
110
103
Bologna
Foggia
Bari
Country
IM
129
Figure 1.1.3–3, Figure 1.1.3–4 and Figure 1.1.3–5
give an overview about the most important technical
and operational parameters for rail freight traffic on
TREND Corridor A.
Brindisi
Bari
Taranto
Paola
Gioia Tauro
1.1.3.3 Lack of interoperability as impediment for rail
freight transport
80
km/h
80
km/h
C2
90
km/h
100
km/h
Tracks
Figure 1.1.3–4:
Country
Track
Gauge
Relevant
Clearance
Signalling
System
Energy
System
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
Italy
1435 mm
BACC / RSDD
Indusi
1450 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (SLO)
Zahony
Szolnok
Budapest
1435 mm
UIC-505-1
ERTMS
Level 1
Diesel
DC 3 kV
Szekesfehervar
Hungary
1435 mm
UIC-505-1
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (I)
Boba
Slovenia
UIC-505-1
1450 mm
Hodos
Ormoz
Pragersko
Ljubljana
Villa Opicina
Venezia
Bologna
Foggia
Bari
Brindisi
Bari
Taranto
Paola
Gioia Tauro
Corridor A – traction
Diesel
EVM
AC 25 kV / 50 Hz
2050 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (H)
Basic locomotive with three country packages (I, SLO, and H)
Basic locomotive: e. g . Bombardier Traxx F 140 MS or Siemens ES 64 U4
27
Italy
Track
Gauge
Coupler
600 m 450 m
Intermodal
Gauge
Maximum
Train Mass
Figure 1.1.3–5:
Corridor A – international
services
520 m
P/C 45
480 m
Hungary
MAV
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
Screw coupler
with buffers
Screw coupler
with buffers
575 m
625 m
P/C 32
575 m
550 m 597 m 550 m 500 m
P/C 80
1600 t
The compilation shows the existence of several technical parameters which affect interoperability on the
corridor:
– in Italy and Slovenia DC 3 kV and
Zahony
Screw coupler
with buffers
600 m
P/C 80
1900 t
Szolnok
Budapest
Szekesfehervar
Boba
Hodos
Ormoz
Pragersko
Ljubljana
Slovenia
SZ
• Two current systems are used by the involved railway companies
500 m
750 m
P/C 80 or P/C 50
1600 t
1300 t
2000 t
3300 t
This means that a locomotive generally applicable on
the corridor would have to be compatible with
• two current systems, plus diesel
• two widths of pantograph
• four different signalling systems
– BACC/RSDD/SCMT in Italy
– in Hungary AC 25 kV, 50 Hz
– a diesel section crossing Slovenia and Hungary
• The width of the pantograph is 2,050 mm in Hungary and 1,450 mm in Slovenia and Italy.
• In each country a dedicated national signalling
system is used. The ERTMS level 1 is established
in Hungary, on a section between the Slovenian
border and Boba. In Italy, the complete Adriatic
line is going to be converted. Further lines will not
be converted to SCMT (Sistema Controllo Marcia
Treno), which is ERTMS-compatible.
© DB AG/ Klee
Villa Opicina
Venezia
Bologna
Foggia
Bari
Country
Maximum
Train Length
Brindisi
Bari
Taranto
Paola
Gioia Tauro
1 TREND Corridor A
– Indusi in Slovenia
– ERTMS level 1 on selected Hungary lines
– EVM in Hungary
The SCMT signalling system that is going to be implemented on the most part of Italian network is reported to be fully compatible to ERTMS system. Thus
it seems sensible that this implementation will not
lead to a further system.
The maximum permitted parameters for a freight
train to operate along the whole corridor are listed in
Figure 1.1.3–6.
From Gioia Tauro
to Zahony
Intermodal gauge
P/C 32
Train length
450 m
Train gross load
1,300 t
Figure 1.1.3–6:
Permitted train parameters for non-stop operating on Corridor A
The main limitations, affecting the organisation of a
whole corridor service, are:
• profile limitation to P/C 32 between Foggia and
Bologna
28
1 TREND Corridor A
• train length limitation to 450 m on Paola – Taranto
section. However, trains longer than 300 m are not
allowed to stop in a short section in Hungary.
• train weight limitation to 1,300 t in Hungary
On the other hand, there are no interoperability problems on the corridor line concerning:
1.1.3.4.2 Time loss due to operations in marshalling
yards (single wagon)
The minimum time for a wagon to pass a marshalling
yard was stated by the railway undertakings as:
• Bari (reversal of direction) (Italy): 30 min
• the track width (1,435 mm)
• Villa Opicina – Sezana (Italy-Slovenia border):
65 min for interoperable trains
• the wagon coupling mode (screw coupler and
buffers)
The highest time reported for a wagon to stay in a
marshalling yard is 240 – 360 minutes.
1.1.3.4 Operations as impediment for rail freight
transport
1.1.3.4.3 Exchange of data and transport documents
Operational impediments on Corridor A mainly concern the following aspects:
• cross border train path planning
• time loss due to operations in marshalling yards
• exchange of data and transport documents
1.1.3.4.1 Cross border train path planning
Cross border train path planning on Corridor A follows
RNE guidelines. This means for example that „One
Stop Shops (OSS)“ have been established.
The infrastructure managers shall apply the following response times when replying to a customer‘s request for a train path concerning the running timetable period:
• One working day when making an offer concerning pre-planned international train paths.
Data exchange with rail production system is done via
HERMES interface in all involved countries.
Interchange of the consignment note is done manually
along the corridor.
Every country along the corridor has its own national
braking sheet and wagon list. The change is made
manually at the border even if the loco is not changed
(multi-system loco).
1.1.4 Alleviation projects already under way
Further activities integrated in ”action plans” are
listed in chapter 1.2.
1.1.4.1 Cross border improvement actions under way
• Co-operation projects between Trenitalia and SŽ:
several projects are under way in order to improve
the existing functions of the effective cross border
common operation centre in Villa Opicina. The following actions are the most relevant:
• Five working days when making an offer concerning minor adaptations to pre-planned international
train paths, as well as related cross-links, feederlines and use of terminals.
– common Quality Service Centre responsible for
daily and weekly planning and management of
border-crossing freight operations on BC Villa
Opicina and Gorisia/Nova Gorica
• Thirty calendar days when making an offer concerning tailor-made international train paths as
well as the use of associated terminals. In any
case, the IMs shall provide the customer with a
relevant answer within five working days.
– trust based handover of wagons for 85 % of all
trains
• Five working days when confirming that an international train path has been allocated following
the final request by the customer, provided that
within three working days from the customer’s final request the contact IM has received confirmation of the allocation from the partner IM(s).
– reorganisation of border-crossing activities
(working time alignment, new division of activities performed by TI and SŽ at the border crossings (braking test, inspections etc.)
– entrusting the ”RU releasing” with the responsibility of the braking test at Villa Opicina and
Gorisia
29
1 TREND Corridor A
– renewal of the agreement on the border-crossing activities
– increasing number of trains in the technical
trust system
• Co-operation projects between SŽ and MÀV: several projects are under way in order to optimise
cross border activities between Slovenia and Hungary. The following actions are the most relevant:
– introduction of the trust based handover of
wagons
– optimisation of the border-crossing activities
1.1.4.2 Alleviation projects within the TREND
Corridor A countries
• Italy:
– upgrading of alternate route for freight traffic From Gioia Tauro to Bari, consisting in the
improvement of track speed on the CosenzaSibari-Metaponto section and upgrading of the
Rosarno-Paola and Metaponto-Taranto sections;
currently under construction; planned to be finished in 2006; calculated costs are 42.9 Mio €
– upgrading of the entire coastal route from Reggio Calabria to Battipaglia in order to eliminate
all obstacles (gauge, train length and electric
power) to freight traffic; currently under construction; planned to be finished in 2010; calculated costs are 230 Mio €
– completion of the doubling of the Bari-Taranto
line and new connection to the MetapontoTaranto line; currently under construction;
planned to be finished in 2009; calculated costs
are 466.5 Mio €
– doubling and electrification of the Bari-Lecce
(including the Polignano-Fasano section); currently under construction; planned to be finished in 2006; calculated costs are 217 Mio €
– technical improvement of the whole BolognaBari route:
– new Command and Control centre in Bari
– completion of the coded current block
system
– upgrading of electric traction facilities
currently under construction; planned to be finished in 2008; calculated costs are 293.5 Mio €
– doubling of the entire Pescara-Bari route, including all the single track sections; currently
under construction; planned to be finished in
2009; calculated costs are 478 Mio €
– new bridge on the Po river at Occhiobello; currently under construction; planned to be finished in 2006; calculated costs are 60 Mio €
– quadrupling of tracks on the Padova-Mestre
section with upgrading of the signalling system;
currently under construction; planned to be finished in 2006; calculated costs are 467 Mio €
– between Monfalcone and Villa Opicina works
are in progress for bidirectional block – upgrading of the electric line and installation of Train
Run Control System from Latisana to Trieste
and from Bivio Aurisina to Villa Opicina; currently under construction; planned to be finished between 2006 and 2007
– doubling of all the single track sections on Bologna-Verona line; currently under construction;
planned to be finished in 2008; calculated costs
are 892.3 Mio €
• Slovenia:
– reconstruction and enlargement of Ljubljana
intermodal terminal; currently under feasibility
study development
– construction of the second track Koper-Divača;
preliminary design done; planned to be finished
in 2015; calculated costs are 823 Mio €
– implementation of additional technical solutions
and operational concepts to increase efficiency
of port operations at Koper; currently under
construction; planned to be finished in 2006;
calculated costs are 3.1 Mio €
– implementation of ERTMS/ETCS and implementation of GSM-R on the entire Slovenian
sector of the corridor; feasibility study; calculated costs are 154 Mio €
– modernisation of the line and signalling devices,
building of two energy supply plants and two
traffic bypasses, reconstruction of the stations
Divača and Koper; construction of the second
track Koper-Divača; preliminary designs ready;
planned to be finished in 2008 (stations) and
2015 (doubling); calculated costs are 946.6 Mio €
30
1 TREND Corridor A
1.2 Action plans
– Ljubljana – Pragersko line: reconstruction of
the stations Sava, Kresnice, Trbovlje; currently
under construction; planned to be finished in
2006; calculated costs are 34 Mio €
– Ljubljana – Pragersko line: modernisation of
level crossings and construction of passenger
underpasses at the railway stations up to Murska Sobota; upgrading the line to D4 category;
currently under design; planned to be finished in
2012; calculated costs are 258.3 Mio €
– Pragersko – Hodoš line: modernisation of the
line Pragersko-Ormož, upgrading of signallingsafety and telecommunication devices, reconstruction of Kidričevo, Ptuj, Moškanjci and
Ormož station, bridging structures; electrification of the railway line Pragersko-Hodoš; currently under tendering and design; planned to
be finished in 2007 – 2009; calculated costs are
126 Mio €
• Hungary:
– Zalalövő (exc)-Zalacséb-Salomvár (inc) substructural works: finished in 2004 – 2005
– Zalalövő (exc) – Bagod (exc) sub and superstructure works: finished in 2005 – 2006
– Bagod-Zalegerszeg track construction: finished
in 2005 – 2007
– Zalegerszeg triangle track construction: finished
in 2002 – 2003
– Zalegerszeg (exc) – Ukk (exc) track rehabilitation: finished in 2005 – 2007
– Ukk (inc) – Boba track triangle. Rehabilitation in
2006 – 2007
– Székesfehérvár-Boba renovation: making the
EU supporting application 2006. Approval plan
in 2005 – 2006
– reconstruction Sülysáp (inc) – Tápiószecső (inc):
finished in 2003 – 2004
– reconstruction Tápiószecs_ (inc) – Nagykáta
(inc): finished in 2005 – 2006
– Nagykáta (exc) – Újszász (exc) rail rehabilitation
(ballast screening, rail replacement, track adjustment): finished in 2006 – 2007
– EU supporting application for Szajol-Debrecen-Záhony (2006), approval plans for SzajolPüspökladány (2005 – 2006) and approval plans
for Nyiregyháza-Záhony OH (2005 – 2006) in
progress
1.2 Action plans
1.2.1 Introduction of action plan
methodology
The alleviation measures and projects for TREND Corridor A have been elaborated and agreed upon by
the TREND experts. A classification into three action
plans (= packages of measures) according to their priority and realisation timeframe (short term, medium
term and long term measures) shall facilitate a better
overview to the reader. The structure of these action
plans is comparable to the one that has already been
used in the CER corridor studies.
Each measure described in the following action plans
is followed by a table indicating the entities are (or
should be) responsible to carry it through. The letters
”n.a.” mean ”not applicable”.
Further activities already underway are described in
chapter 1.1.4.
1.2.2Short-term actions –
package of measures I
1.2.2.1 Improve and intensify the co-operation
that has already started amongst railway
undertakings
• Remove existing traction bottlenecks by providing sufficient resources (locomotives and drivers):
Procurement of interoperable multi-current locomotives and/or better organisation of resource
dispatching,
• Ensure the availability of the resources required
for international freight transport by means of
agreements on service guarantees
• Extend the responsibilities of existing border
crossing ”operational” centres or establish new
ones in the field of resource control and in the field
of optimisation of the organisation
31
1 TREND Corridor A
1.2 Action plans
Italy – Slovenia
Slovenia – Hungary
Done:
• Deployment of interoperable locomotives (3 of
Trenitalia, 3 of SŽ) for cross-border operations
(Ljubljana – Cervignano). The maximum traffic
is 4 trains/day
• The process of implementation 2006 of SŽ
provides for the purchase of new multi current
locomotives (6 of a total programme of 20 in
2006)
Not done:
Acceptance of foreign drivers
II.Ensure availability of re- Done:
sources
Operational since 2003 (Villa Opicina and Sezana
cross borders). Personnel of a single IM manage
each cross border centre. Extension of responsibilities foreseen
III.E xtended responsibility Done:
of cross-border
• Villa Opicina and Sezana operation centres are
operation centres
operating since 2001 with responsibilities of
cross-border traffic management, quality management and real time information to customers
• Extension foreseen: Villa Opicina operation
centre will be responsible also for Gorisia/
Nova Gorica cross border.
I. Remove interoperable
resource bottlenecks
Hungary – Ukraine
(border)
Not done:
The deployment of diesel
interoperable locos is foreseen. Agreement underway
between SŽ and MAV
Not done:
Problems due to different
track gauges
Not done
Not done
Not done:
• Deeper research needed
by SZ and MAV
• Establishment of border
operation centre and connection with existing one
in Villa Opicina for integrated corridor management.
Not done
Figure 1.2.2–1:
Co-operation of RU
Figure 1.2.2–2:
Co-operation of RU - IM
1.2.2.2Improve and intensify the co-operation that
has already begun between Railway Undertakings and Infrastructure Managers
• Simplify and/or standardise administrative
procedures
Italy – Slovenia
I. Tail signal lamp
II.Braking sheet
III.Wagon list/train
consist report
IV.Regulation of
hazardous goods
V. Regulation of
out-of-gauge-loads
• Remove operational obstacles at border crossings
by harmonising the ”operational/safety” rules (e.g.
tail lamps, braking sheets, wagon list/train consist reports, treatment of hazardous goods, out-ofgauge regulations for through trains).
Partially done:
• Change at border still needed; only interoperable trains to and from Italy don‘t change tail
signal
• Monitoring Group in progress (RFI, Trenitalia,
SŽ, AŽP-Slovenian Railway Agency)
Partially done:
• Change at border still needed
SŽ, AŽP)
• Exchange is not done in electronic version.
Need to adapt the data to the respective technical rules
Partially done:
• Change at border still needed
SŽ, AŽP)
• Exchange is not done in electronic version
Partially done:
• International RID rules adopted
• Control at cross-border for all trains is done
• Leaflet UIC No 471-3-O (control only in origindestination of the train) not applied by SŽ for
transit trains
• Deeper research needed by Trenitalia, SŽ,
Governments and EU.
Not done:
• No bilateral agreement in force
• UIC Leaflet 502 and reliance agreement adopted.
Hungary – Ukraine
(border)
Not done:
Deeper research needed by
MÀV Infra, SŽ and AŽP
Not done:
MÀV-UZ regular meetings
Not done
Not done:
Not done
Not done:
Not done:
Deeper research needed
by SŽ, MÀV, Governments
and EU
Not done:
Not done:
Not done:
Need to adapt the data to the MÀV-UZ regular meetings
respective technical rules
32
1 TREND Corridor A
1.2 Action plans
1.2.2.3Elaborate an implementation plan for
quality management tools
• Elaborate Quality Management and Measurement
Systems (taking into account UIC guidelines)
• Elaborate harmonised quality agreements
amongst RUs and between RUs and IMs (determination of service levels, development of a system
of compensations)
• Investigate the possibility to develop a comput
erised Quality Management System along the
corridor
Italy – Slovenia
I. Quality Management and
Measurement
System
II.Quality Agreements
• Develop common rules to handle delayed trains
between RUs and IMs
1.2.2.4Define priority projects for improving
infrastructure bottlenecks
Develop recommendations for low-budget short-term
infrastructure measures and for a ”whole-corridor-coordinated” plan of important infrastructure upgrades.
1.2.2.5Implementation of a dedicated
corridor control centre
Done:
• Realised since 2001 by
Trenitalia and SŽ
• RFI provides their
customers with Train
info: train path buyers
can enter the Traffic
Management System
and can monitor the
progress of their trains
and causes of delay on
RFI network.
Done:
• Quality agreement
signed since 2001
by Trenitalia-SŽ
• RFI has implemented
since 2005 the
“Performance regime”
on RFI network.
Done:
Installed by SŽ (same as
at Brenner station).
III.Computerised
Quality Management System (QMS)
IV.Common Rules Partially done:
of handling de- Realised since 2001 by
layed trains
SZ and TI – for selected
trains.
– Co-ordination with timetable construction and
marketing
Italy – Slovenia
Not yet done:
Not done
• Planned for 2006
by SŽ and MÀV
• Pilot implementation of UIC RU - RU
Standard Agreement
Not done
Not done
Not done
Not done
I. Priority of low Not done:
Done:
budget shortTo be envisaged by in- • Realised since 2001 by
term measures ternational Round TaSŽ Infra and MÀV Infra
ble (“Corridor Cham• Intergovernmental
pion” – approach)
group, quarterly meetings existing, extended
to interoperability issues
– Object: avoid capacity bottlenecks caused by
civil works
Hungary
– Ukraine
(border)
Not done
Figure 1.2.2–4:
Priority of short-term low
budget infrastructure measures
• Improvement of daily business by regular meetings
of the operation management
Italy – Slovenia
• Co-ordination of cross-border timetables
• Transparency for train path prices
Not done
Quality Management System
• Exchange of operational data (train path statistics
and forecasts)
– Co-ordination of regional/central planning
Not yet done:
• Planned for 2006
by SŽ and MÀV
• Since now UIC and
CER guidelines are
applied.
Hungary
– Ukraine
(border)
Figure 1.2.2–3:
• Setup of a corridor dedicated operational control
system
• Co-ordination of rail construction operations
Slovenia – Hungary I. Setup of a corridor dedicated
operational
control system
Slovenia –
Hungary
Hungary – Ukraine
(border)
Not yet done:
Deeper research needed by Trenitalia and SŽ
• Alternative 1: integrating the operating centre of Villa Opicina
with possible additional operating centre in Hodoš
• Alternative 2: change business model and consider joint venture or other alliance possibilities for integrated corridor management
Figure 1.2.2–5:
Corridor control centre
33
1 TREND Corridor A
1.2 Action plans
1.2.3 Medium-term actions –
package of measures II
Figure 1.2.3–1:
Priority rules between freight
and passenger trains
1.2.3.1 Analyse the management of international
freight traffic through congested areas, focusing on priority rules between freight and passenger trains
Italy – Slovenia
I. Priority rules of freight
vs. passenger trains
Partially done:
• One-way operation split (night-day) between
Thyrrenian/ Adriatic Corridor
• Deeper research needed by RFI and SŽ Infra.
Not done:
Deeper research needed by
SŽ, MÀV
Hungary – Ukraine
(border)
Not done
1.2.3.2Intensify the co-operation amongst IMs and
between IMs and RUs at ”service planning”
level and at ”operational” level
• Evaluate the existing operational schemes and
analyse capacity increases by harmonising the
schemes (train speed etc.)
• Improve timetables to reduce transport times on
some links
Figure 1.2.3–2:
Co-operation between
• Ensure timely and systematic international information exchange (e.g. implementation of the TSI
Telematics for Freight”)
Italy – Slovenia
Not done:
No catalogue paths on the
corridor
II.Improve time tables to Partially done:
reduce transport times Process of implementation
2005 – 2006 by RFI, Trenitalia
and SŽ
III.Ensure timely and sys- Partially done:
tematic international in- RFI and SŽ participate in
formation exchange
RNE working group.
IIIB.Implementation of
Not done:
TAF (Telematic
Implementation Plan for TSI
Applications for
TAF
Freight) TSI
IV.International catalogue Not done:
train paths
No catalogue paths on the
corridor
V. Provide reliable inforDone:
mation on train location • RFI Traininfo, see Figure
and delay
1.2.2–3
• RFI participates in EUROPTIRAIL Project
I. Evaluate the availability
of train paths
• Improve the co-operation and co-ordination between IMs to create a train path catalogue for
international freight services according to market
requirements
• Provide reliable information on train location and
train delays by the IMs and RUs. This may include
the evaluation of the applicability of IT systems
currently under development (CROBIT, USE-IT,
EUROPTIRAIL …)
Hungary – Ukraine
(border)
Not done
Not done
Partially done:
Process of implementation 2005 – 2006 by
MÀV and SŽ
Not done
Partially done:
MÀV and SŽ participate in RNE working group
Not done
Not done:
Implementation Plan for TSI TAF
Not done
Not done:
No catalogue paths on the corridor
Not done
Partially done:
• MÀV: Extending existing train monitoring system to customer information
• SŽ Infra and Tovorni Promet (RU) share the
same information system. The system needs
to be separated in future
Not done
34
1 TREND Corridor A
1.2 Action plans
1.2.3.3Improve communication and data exchange
to optimise the interfaces between RUs,
to optimise resource control and customer
information
• Evaluate and prioritise the existing weak points in
the fields of communications and data exchange
and prepare an implementation plan to eliminate
them
• Agree on ensuring a high quality and validity in
data collection and on improving existing forms of
data interchange
Figure 1.2.3–3:
• Replace existing manual interfaces by electronic
exchange of operational data
I. Improve communication and data exchange
Communication between
Railway Undertakings
Italy – Slovenia
Hungary – Ukraine
(border)
• Trenitalia - SŽ: actually only Hermes 30;
extension of exchange foreseen
• Examination of data exchange from electronic
consignment note based on COTIF/CIM rules
Examination of data exchange from electronic consignment note based on COTIF/CIM rules
Examination of exchanging
data of freight notes even between OSJD/SMGS and
COTIF/CIM regimes
1.2.3.4 Extend the existing corridor-related interoperable traction concepts
• Enhance traction efficiency by optimising the use
of locomotives and by developing agreements for
the mutual acceptance of locomotive drivers
Figure 1.2.3–4:
Extension of interoperable
traction concepts
• Standardise and simplify approval procedures
Italy – Slovenia
I. Optimising use of
locomotives
II.Deployment of interoperable locomotives
III.Agreement on mutual
acceptance of locomotives and drivers
IV.Standardisation of
approval procedure
Done:
Realised since 2003 by TI and SŽ
Partially done:
Bilateral agreement signed
between SŽ and MÀV
Done:
Partially done:
• The deployment of interoperable electric locos Implementation plan for
on Ljubljana - Cervignano section is foreseen
deployment of diesel locos
to be extended to Trieste and Bologna
• The involvement of CESIFER (The RFI safety
department in charge of issuing safety authorisations) is needed
Not done:
Partially done:
Foreseen in the long term
• Since 2003 locomotives cross border only if
they have the „failure book“
• Agreement for mutual acceptance of drivers
only at border stations
Done:
Not done:
Since 2003.
Foreseen in the long term
Hungary – Ukraine
(border)
Not done
Not done
Not done
Not done
Figure 1.2.3–5:
1.2.3.5 Prioritise freight trains (time windows)
Prioritising of freight trains
Italy – Slovenia
I. Prioritise freight trains
(Time windows)
RFI: During freight peak hours (23:00 – 06:00)
• freight 1 paths are ranked in class 2
• freight 2 paths are ranked in class 3
n.a.
Hungary – Ukraine
(border)
n.a.
35
1 TREND Corridor A
1.2 Action plans
1.2.4Long-term actions –
package of measures III
Figure 1.2.4–1:
Long-term actions
along corridor (RU operating centres)
HERMES system
Italy – Slovenia
I. Establish rules and
tools to manage trains
along the corridor
II.Improve co-ordination
of national traffic control centres
III.Monitor timely upgrading and extension of
railway infrastructure
Hungary – Ukraine
(border)
See 1.2.2.5
Not done
Not done
Not done
Done:
• IMs monitor the implementation
• International Round table („Corridor Champion“) with authority to steer the money would
be welcome
Done:
• International Round table
(„Corridor Champion“)
with authority to steer the
money would be welcome
• To be envisaged by RAILDATA
• MÀV is member SŽ is observer
Partially done:
ETCS from border to Boba.
Done:
with authority to steer the
money would be welcome
n.a.
IV.Development of new
solutions for the existing HERMES system
• To be envisaged by RAILDATA
• Trenitalia is member, SŽ is observer
V. Development of
ERTMS on the parts of
the corridor
Partially done:
Italy: Adriatic Line to be equipped with SCMT
system by 2007
Figure 1.2.5–1:
1.2.5Other actions – package of measures IV
Alleviation of capacity
differences and bottlenecks
Italy – Slovenia
n.a.
1.2.5.1 Developing the corridor concept by
alleviating capacity differences and
bottlenecks
Hungary – Ukraine
(border)
see chapter 1.1.4.2
I. Developing the corridor
concept by alleviating
capacity differences
and bottlenecks)
Figure 1.2.5–2:
Developing the corridor
problems in interfacing
with terminals/ports
1.2.5.2Developing the corridor concept by
alleviating problems in interfacing with
terminals/ports
Italy – Slovenia
I. Remove physical
bottlenecks
II.Provision of „terminal
services“ on a
timetable basis
Figure 1.2.5–3:
Other measures
see chapter 1.1.4.2
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
1.2.5.3Other measures
Italy – Slovenia
I. Other measures
Hungary – Ukraine
(border)
n.a.
n.a.
Hungary – Ukraine
(border)
n.a.
36
2 TREND Corridor B-West
2.1 Diagnosis of freight impediments and
2.1.1 Introduction in TREND Corridor B-West
The Corridor B-West connects the Ports of the Netherlands via Germany and Switzerland with Italy. It extends from Rotterdam via Duisburg and Köln along
the Rhine to Basel. In Switzerland the corridor line diverges into the Gotthard- and the Lötschberg-Simplon
route. Both routes converge in Milano again (see Figure 2.1.1–1). The length of the corridor is about 1,200
km, with only small differences between the Gotthardand Lötschberg-line.
The corridor line starts in Rotterdam, follows the
planned new BETUWE line, connects to the existing
network at Zevenaar and proceeds to the German border at Emmerich (see Figure 2.1.1–2).
Figure 2.1.1–1:
Map of TREND
Corridor B-West
Main Route
DELFZIJL
Today
LEEUWARDEN
GRONINGEN
NIEUWESCHANS
MEPPEL
UITGEEST
ZWOLLE
LELYSTAD
HAARLEM
WIERDEN
DEVENTER
SCHIPHOL
BREUKELEN
LEIDEN
DEN HAAG
HENGELO
IJSSELBURG JCT
UTRECHT
VELPERPOORT JCT
SCHIEDAM GOUDA
Emmerich/Zevenaar
ZWIJNDRECHT
LAGE ZWALUWE
BREDA
VLISSINGEN
TERNEUZEN
BOXTEL
ESSEN
SAS-VAN-GENT
EINDHOVEN
NEE-WEE
BLERICK
ROERMOND
Figure 2.1.1–2:
TREND Corridor B-West
in the Netherlands
Location
Rotterdam (seaport)
Terminals for
unaccompanied intermodal transport service
road/rail
conventional single
wagon traffic
✓
Kijfhoek/Rotterdam
Figure 2.1.1–3:
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic on TREND
Corridor B-West in the Netherlands 15
✓
Remarks
15Based on:
Wikipedia: „List of
important shunting
yards“; „Europäisches
Übereinkommen über
wichtige Linien des
internationalen kombinierten Verkehrs
und damit zusammenhängende Einrichtungen (AGTC)“, state:
08.03.2005
37
In Germany the corridor follows the most important
and highly frequented main line along the Rhine via
Duisburg, Köln, Mainz, Karlsruhe to Basel (Switzerland border, see Figure 2.1.1–4).
Figure 2.1.1–4:
TREND Corridor
B-West in Germany
FLENSBURG
Main Route
SASSNITZ
PUTTGARDEN
KIEL
STRALSUND
NEUMUNSTER ROSTOCK
CUXHAVEN
LUBECK BUTZOW
HAMBURGSCHWERIN
LUDWIGSLUST
LEER
BREMEN
PASEWALK
SZC-TAN
ANGERMUNDE
UELZEN
STENDAL
CELLE
BERLIN
LEHRTE
FRANKFURT AN DER ODE
LOHNE HILDESHEIM MAGDEBURG
MUNSTER
DESSAU
ALTENBEKEN
COTTBUS
HAMM
GOTTINGEN
HALLE S
HAGEN
RIESA
KASSEL
GROSSHERINGEN JCT GORLITZ
KOLN
GERA
BAD SCHANDAU
MARBURG
BONN
ZWICKAU
FULDA
KOBLENZ
HOF
ROHRBACH JCT MARKTREDWITZ
MAINZ
WURZBURG
TRIER
BIBLIS
RHEINE
Emmerich/Zevenaar
MANNHEIM
SAARBRUCKEN
HORB
FREIBURG
SINGEN
Basel
Figure 2.1.1–5:
points for rail freight traffic
on TREND Corridor
B-West in Germany 16
Location
ANSBACH SCHWANDORF
KARLSRUHE
STUTTGART
Terminals for accompanied intermodal transport road/rail
ULM
REGENSBURG
INGOLSTADT
NEU-PAS
AUGSBURG
BRA-MUH
MUNCHEN
KEPMTEN
FRE-SAL
KUFSTEIN
Terminals for unaccompanied intermodal
transport road/rail
conventional single
wagon traffic
Emmerich
✓
Duisburg
✓
Neuss
✓
Köln
✓
✓
Mannheim
✓
✓
Ludwigshafen
✓
Karlsruhe
✓
Freiburg
✓
Basel/Weil
✓
Southwards Basel the corridor line separates (see Figure 2.1.1–6) into the
• Lötschberg route via Olten, Thun, LötschbergBase-Tunnel, Brig, Simplon-Tunnel and the
• Gotthard route via Olten, Gotthard-Base-Tunnel,
Giubiasco, Chiasso. In Giubiasco the route splits
up into another branch towards Luino; this branch
joins the Lötschberg-route at Busto Arsisio (Italy).
16Based on:
important shunting
Übereinkommen...“;
l.c.
38
Figure 2.1.1–6:
TREND Corridor
B-West in Switzerland
SCHAFFHAUSEN
Main Route
Basel
WINTERTHUR
BRUGG
St Margrethen
DELEMONT
OTHMARSINGEN
OLTEN
MOUTIER
THALWIL
ZUG
BIEL
LUZERN
BERN
NEUCHATEL
BUCHS
ARTH-GOLDAU
SARGANS
LANGNAU
AUV-PON
CHUR
FRIBOURG
THUN
VALLORBE
DAILLENS JCT
SPIEZ
LAUSANNE
BRIG
BRI-DOM
Iselle
BEL-GEN
MARTIGNY
GIUBIASCO
Luino/Pino
GIU-LUI
LUGANO
Chiasso
Figure 2.1.1–7:
on TREND Corridor
B-West in Switzerland 17
Location
via route
transport road/rail
conventional single
wagon traffic
✓
✓
✓
Basel
Lötschberg, Gotthard
Brig
Lötschberg
✓
Aarau
Gotthard
✓
Castione-Arbedo
Gotthard
✓
Lugano
Gotthard
Chiasso
Gotthard
✓
✓
✓
The Lötschberg branch continues via Domodossola,
Arona and Gallarate towards Milano. An alternative
route via Novara is available as well.
✓
The junction of the two main branches is in the north
of Milano (see Figure 2.1.1–8).
Figure 2.1.1–8:
TREND Corridor
B-West in Italy
BRENNERO
Domodossola/Iselle
Luino/Pino
BOLZANO
Chiasso
Main Route
TARVISIO
UDINE
CERVIGNANO
VERONA
TORINO
MILANO
PIACENZA
ARQUATA
MESTRE
FERRARA
BOLOGNA
GENOVA
VENTIMIGLIA
RIMINI
PISA FIRENZE
ANCONA
CAMPIGLIA M.
ORTE
PESCARA
CIVITAVECCHIA
FOGGIA
BARI
CASERTA
SALERNO
BRINDISI
LECCE
SIBARI
PAOLA
LAMEZIA
PALERMO
ARAGONA
MESSINA
MELITO P.S.
17Based on:
important shunting
l.c.
CATANIA
SIRACUSA
39
Figure 2.1.1–9:
on TREND Corridor
B-West in Italy 18
Location
Domodossola II
✓
Busto Arsisio-Gallarate
✓
Novara
✓
Milano
✓
Figure 2.1.1–10:
✓
2.1.1–10). It has to be kept in mind that the volumes
listed underneath represent not only that of the corridor but the total flows of the involved countries.
Country Destination
Country Origin
Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
Switzerland
Italy
Total
Germany
128,963.8
66,065.9
809.3
1,618.0
68,493.2
Switzerland
Italy
Total
5,045.2
4,093.2
138,102.2
12,259.3
20,572.4
98,897.6
2,299.0
8,474.3
5,366.0
25,275.3
159,605.1
The detailed statistic transport data are listed in Appendix 2. The main transport structures can be described as follows:
• The 12 destinations contribute unevenly to the total amount: The two strongest relations (Netherlands – Germany and vice versa) represent about
70 % of the all transport modes‘ volume. Other
main traffic flows are Germany – Italy and vice
versa
• With the exception of Germany – Italy all relations
are unbalanced (i.e. the difference between the
directional flows is more than 20 %)
18Based on: Wikipedia: „List of important shunting yards“;
„Europäisches
l.c.
conventional single
wagon traffic
✓
The total rail freight transport volume between the
Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland an Italy adds up
to 12 destinations with 276.3 Mio t in 2003 (see Figure
amongst Corridor B-West
countries 2003 (rail, road,
waterway) [1000 t/a]
transport road/rail
• 36.2 Mio t or 13 % of the total goods amount is
transported by rail, with a strong heterogeneity on
the particular destinations. Between Germany and
Italy rail transportation mode reaches about 50 %
of the modal split, due to alpine restrictions for
road traffic. Other relations with a high rail transportation rate are Switzerland – Italy, Switzerland – Netherlands, Germany – Switzerland and
Netherlands – Italy. In contrast destinations as
Germany – Netherlands (and vice versa) or Netherlands – Switzerland represent only a poor modal
split value for rail transport
30,801.5
3,908.2
21,212.7
26,964.6
276,275.6
• Extremely strong waterway destinations lead
from the Netherlands (sea ports) along the Rhine
to Germany and Switzerland and vice versa. Most
of the other relations are negligible small. All in
all waterway transport contributes by 42 % or
116.8 Mio t/a to the total transport volume. However the main part of this waterway volume refers only to the first corridor section between the
Netherlands and Germany
• 45 % (i.e. 123.2 Mio t/a) of the total volume is
handled by road transport. Unlike rail and waterway transport, road traffic has a strong position in
almost all relations
A closer look shows the proportion of the railway
transportation modes
• conventional block trains
• conventional single wagon transport and
• intermodal trains (block trains + single wagon)
Suitable data have been provided for 10 out of 12 destinations by the Railway Undertakings (see Figure
2.1.1–11). With each about 38 % conventional block
trains and intermodal transport participate strongest
in the total amount of these 10 relations.
40
Figure 2.1.1–11:
modes amongst Corridor
B-West countries 2003
100 %
90 %
80 %
70 %
Conventional
block trains
60 %
Conventional
single wagon
50 %
40 %
Intermodal trains
(Block trains and
single wagon)
30 %
20 %
10 %
m
N
et
er
G
N
et
he
rla
nd
s –
G
an
er
y
m
– he
an
N
rla
et
y
n
h
Sw
ds
er
la
– it z
nd
Sw
le
s
rla
it z
nd
le
r
– la
N
nd
et
N
h
et
er
he
la
n
rla
nd ds
It a
s –
ly
G
– It
er
N
al
et
m
y
he
an
y –
rla
Sw
S
nd
w
it z
s
it z
le
le
rla
r
nd
la
nd
– G
e
rm
G
er
an
m
y
an
y
– It a
It a
ly
– ly
G
er
m
an
y
0 %
• Alpine transit destinations are dominated by intermodal trains
• Conventional block trains constitute the rail
freight’s majority on Netherlands – Germany destination (and vice versa). Container transport in
advance of and continuation of overseas transport
via Rotterdam is mostly taken over by inland navigation (along the Rhine, also turnover to rail and
road in Duisburg)
• Conventional single wagon traffic has a strong
position especially for the Germany – Switzerland
destination (and vice versa)
For the foreseeable future the traffic volume is even
forecasted to increase considerably. In this context
the building of the freight dedicated BETUWE line in
the Netherlands is likely to open new options for rail
transport to and from Rotterdam as well as for the
chemical industry in the Netherlands.
Currently, railway infrastructure capacities are depleted on many sections along the corridor. Thus rail
freight transport has to prove its ability to take over a
significant part of the expected volume increase.
For the future, the consulted experts forecast a strong
increase of the total freight market within Corridor
B-West, especially along the Rhine between Germany and the Netherlands and between Germany and
Switzerland.
2.1.2 Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor
B-West
The Corridor B-West is one of the most important
North-South-axis in Europe, connecting the biggest
European seaport (Rotterdam) via the industrial zones
along the Rhine with the north Italian industrial centre
(Milano). Therefore the high amount of existing freight
flows is no surprise; however current rail freight transport has only a small share in this volume.
© DB AG/Schmid
41
All in all the scheduled time for border crossing purposes along the Corridor B-West can be seen in Figure 2.1.3–1.
In addition to time delay border crossing activities
costs. At the Switzerland/Italy border the following
infrastructure resources are provided for interchange
purposes:
• Domodossola: 10 tracks
• Domodossola II: 36 tracks
a) Infrastructure problems
and harmonisation)
c) Resource problems
19In railway engineering, a catenary structure consists of overhead lines used to
deliver electricity to
a railway locomotive,
multiple unit, railcar,
tram or trolleybus
through a pantograph
or a trolleypole.
These structures consist of an upper structural wire in the form
of a shallow catenary, short suspender
wires, which may or
may not contain insulators, and a lower
conductive contact
wire. By adjusting the
tension in various elements the conductive wire is kept parallel to the centerline
of the track, reducing the tendency of
the pantograph or
trolley to bounce or
sway, which could
cause a disengagement at high speed.
(Source: Wikpedia,
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Catenary,
accessed 20th April
2006, 17.03 hours.)
In other cases the locomotive has to be changed at
the border. In Switzerland the ETCS system requires
an additional locomotive on the Lötschberg tunnel
route.
current systems and different signalling systems (see
also chapter 2.1.3.3).
Due to these technical handicaps multi-system locomotives are required to avoid time loss at the borders.
At present these multi-system locos are used between
the Netherlands and Germany in most cases.
Figure 2.1.3–1:
• Luino: 10 tracks
Additional aspects:
• In Domodossola II (Switzerland/Italy) the lack of
a multi-current catenary 19 leads to an additional
shunting movement of the complete train from the
arrival track to the departure track. In the meantime a project has been set up to eliminate this
problem; the funding has been ensured, so the
work should begin soon.
• At the Netherlands/German and the German/
Switzerland border the Infrastructure Managers
criticised that the border staff did not communicate sufficiently and suggested regular meetings.
• However the performance of border crossing activities was rated as ”good” or ”very good” between the Netherlands/Germany and Germany/
Switzerland the Railway Undertakings.
Average processing time for border crossing procedure
(according to schedule)
Border
Processing time
per train
Netherlands/
Germany
3 min
50 - 60 min
10-30 min
Germany/
Switzerland
Switzerland/Italy
Included activities
only PVG data transfer
Remarks
without change of loco or technical
equipment
with loco change
1h
change of train control system without loco change
and pantograph
with loco change
via Schaffhausen
0h
change of loco
• via Basel, without change of loco or
technical equipment
• parallel working on both border
sides
• cross border performance rated as
„good“/“very good“
via Domodossola, Chiasso
with customs clearance
customs clearance procedure required
for about 70 % of the trains
2h
3h
42
2.1.3.2.2Other infrastructural impediments for rail
freight quality
Other infrastructural impediments mainly concern lack
of capacities in the stations/nodes or along the lines.
These missing resources make it difficult or even impossible to acquire additional rail freight traffic on the
corridor. Furthermore they lead to expensive operational modes – especially within the nodes – which increase the total costs and worsen the market position
of rail freight traffic.
For elimination of these impediments measures to increase lines and nodes capacities have to be planned
• Infrastructural impediments ascribed to stations/
nodes capacity:
– Node Chiasso: The freight relay yard has only
few tracks and does not operate during 24 h/d.
Consequence: Many transit trains have to be
moved in other nodes areas causing a longer
transit time.
– Node Chiasso: The actual position of the Italian engine shed is not appropriate to the freight
trains‘ operation modes. Consequence: Interference between trains to/from the south and
freight locomotives going/coming to/from the
engine shed.
– Node Luino: Only three freight tracks are more
than 600 m long. Consequences: Some freight
trains from/to north must be shunted in other
station’s areas.
• Infrastructural impediments ascribed to lines capacity are listed in Figure 2.1.3–2.
Country
Line/Section
Netherlands/
Germany
Germany
Zevenaar – Emmerich
junction of BETUWE line
Freiburg – Basel
profile P/C 70 - 400
Basel Bad – Basel SBB
insufficient capacity due to high traffic volume
Basel – Chiasso
Pratteln – Brugg
Germany/
Switzerland
Switzerland
Rotkreuz – Erstfeld
Giubiasco – Luino
Giubiasco – Luino
Basel – Olten
• single track
• insufficient capacity due to high traffic volume
Bern – Thun
Thun – Brig
only single track with P/C 80 - 405 profile
Lötschberg Base-Tunnel
• single track
• high traffic volume
Switzerland/Italy Brig – Domodossola
Italy
Domodossola – Novara
(via Borgomanero)
Novara – Milano
Domodossola – Arona
Luino – Laveno
• single track
• max. train length: 575 m
• profile P/C 80 – 410
• profile P/C 22
insufficient capacity
Gallerate – Rho
• single track
• short passing tracks
• insufficient capacity
no further capacity due to high traffic volume
Busto Arszio – Milano
Chiasso – Milano
max. train gross load: 1,600 t
Luino – Gallerate
Luino – Busto Arsisio
lines in Italy
Figure 2.1.3–2:
43
freight transport
Country
Relevant
Clearance
Track
Gauge
Netherlands
Germany
Milano
Chiasso
Basel
Freiburg
(Brsg)
Ludwigshafen
Mannheim
Cologne
Emmerich
Rotterdam/
Maasvlakte
Main technical and
operational parameters on
TREND Corridor B-West
Oberhausen
Duisburg
Figure 2.1.3–3:
Figure 2.1.3–3 gives an overview about the most important technical and operational parameters for rail
freight traffic on TREND Corridor B-West. More detailed results can be found in Appendices 2.4 to 2.9.
Switzerland
Italy
UIC-505-1
G2 EBO
EBV 2
UIC-505-1
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
120 km/h
80 - 90 km/h
120 km/h
Screw coupler
with buffers
Screw coupler
with buffers
Screw coupler
with buffers
Tracks
Maximum
Speed
(Freight trains)
Coupler
Line
Category
Maximum
Train Length
Intermodal
Gauge
100 km/h 120 km/h 100 km/h
(Betuwe-Route)
100 km/h
Screw coupler
with buffers
D4
D4
700 m
690 m
(Betuwe-Route)
615 m 540 m 690 m
Energy
System
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
750 m
D4
600 m
575 m
(Old Line)
P/C 80-410
P/C 80-410
P/C 70-400
2735 t
Maximum
Train Mass
Signalling
System
D4
ERTMS / ETCS
(Betuwe line)
ATB / Crocodile
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
2000 t
PZB / LZB
(Betuwe line)
DC 1,5 kV
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
1950 mm
1950 mm
P/C 60-384
P/C 60-390
1700 t
1600 t
Signum / ZuB 121 BACC / RSDD
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
1450 mm
DC 3 kV
1450 mm
The figure shows a large variety of operating and
technical parameters which affect interoperability on
the corridor:
• The width of the pantograph amounts to 1950 mm
in the Netherlands and Germany and to 1450 mm
in Switzerland and Italy
• All European current systems are used by the involved railway companies:
• In each country a dedicated national signalling
system is used. The new European ETCS level 2
will be only established on Betuwe line, Bern Thun line and the Lötschberg base-tunnel. Further
lines will not be converted to ETCS in the foreseeable future however.
– in Germany and Switzerland AC 15 kV, 16.7 Hz
– in Italy DC 3 kV and
– in the Netherlands on old lines, in Kijfhoek
(marshalling yard of Rotterdam) and in Zevenaar
(German border) DC 1.5 kV; on the main part of
BETUWE line AC 25 kV, 50 Hz
• This means that a locomotive generally applicable
on the corridor would have to be compatible with:
– four current systems. A use of diesel locomotives is prohibited southwards of Basel because
of the long alpine tunnels.
44
– two widths of pantographs
• The maximum permitted parameters for a
freight train to operate along the whole corridor are listed in Figure 2.1.3–4 (see also Figure
2.1.3–5, Figure 2.1.3–6 and Figure 2.1.3–7)
– five different signalling systems
·
·
·
·
·
ETCS level 2 in the Netherlands and Switzerland (Lötschberg route)
Figure 2.1.3–4:
Permitted train parameters
for non-stop operating
on Corridor B-West
ATB/Crocodile in the Netherlands
PZB 90/LZB in Germany
via Gotthard route
via Lötschberg route
P/C 60-384
P/C 45-364
Signum/ZuB 121 in Switzerland (Gotthard
route)
Intermodal gauge
Train length
575 m
575 m
BACC/RSDD in Italy
Train gross load
1,600 t
1,300 t
Giubiasco
P/C 60-384
P/C 60-384
Chiasso
Gotthard
P/C 60 - 390
P/C 60-384
P/C
80-410
P/C 70-400
Freiburg
Luino
Basel
P/C 80-405
Lötschberg
- old Line P/C 80-410
P/C 80-405
Frutigen
Lötschberg
- Base-Tunnel -
P/C Busto
50 - 364 Arsizio
P/C
45-364
P/C
45-364
P/C 50 - 380
P/C 80-405
Brig
Milano
P/C 80-410
Domodossola
Novara
double track
single track
• Trains with profile P/C 80-405 and P/C 80-410
have to use the Basel – Lötschberg – Simplon –
Domodossola – Novara line. However beyond Novara these trains are not permitted to continue to
Milano.
Figure 2.1.3–5:
• Northwards of Basel the profile is limited to
P/C 70-400 by the Freiburg (Brsg) – Basel line
Intermodal profiles in
Switzerland and Italy
Figure 2.1.3–6:
Maximum train lengths
between Freiburg and Milano
Giubiasco
600 m
600 m
Chiasso
Gotthard
575 m
600 m
750 m
Freiburg
Luino
Basel
700 m
700 m
700 m
Thun
Frutigen
700 m
Brig
Milano
555 m
575 m
555 m
Lötschberg
- old Line 750 m
Lötschberg
- Base-Tunnel -
Busto
555 m Arsizio
575 m
Domodossola
Novara
double track
single track
45
Giubiasco
2000 t
1700 t
Chiasso
Gotthard
1600 t
2000 t
2735 t
Luino
Freiburg
Basel
2000 t
2000 t
3200 t
Thun
Frutigen
1300 t
Brig
Milano
1600 t
1600 t
1600 t
Lötschberg
- old Line 4000 t
Lötschberg
- Base-Tunnel -
Busto
1600 t Arsizio
1600 t
Domodossola
Novara
double track
single track
Figure 2.1.3–7:
Maximum gross loads
between Freiburg and Milano
On the other hand, there are NO interoperability problems on the corridor line concerning
• the track gauge (1,435 mm)
• the line category (D4)
• the wagon coupling mode (screw coupler and
buffers)
A look at the future situation (2015) of terminals for
combined transport reveals that some of the main terminals along the corridor will have to face severe capacity problems as well. Particularly in Köln, Neuss,
Mannheim/Ludwigshafen and Milano the rate of employment – depending on terminal infrastructure and
transfer equipment – is forecasted to exceed the
100 % level, in spite of upgrading measures 20.
Another main impediment concerns the rolling stock.
As shown in chapter 2.1.3.3, a freight train to pass the
complete corridor would have to be provided with a
”4 current-system locomotive”. Taking Railion´s 189
class, a suitable engine has been licensed in the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Italy. Nevertheless
only a small amount of these locomotives is available
yet, the more so as for transalpine freight trains double traction mode will be requested.
© DB AG/Lautenschläger
2.1.3.4 Resources as impediment for rail freight
transport
20MVA, KombiConsult,
Kessel+Partner:
„Study on infrastructure capacity
reserves for combined transport by
2015“; Final report;
Freiburg/Frankfurt
am Main/Paris 2004
Rhine) and Switzerland/Italy (Basel – Gotthard). Even
when planned and current infrastructure measures
(BETUWE, Offenburg – Freiburg, NEAT) have been
completed, a high utilisation of Corridor B-West infrastructure will remain with some exposed bottlenecks
(e.g. Basel area) 20.
The current problems concerning infrastructure capacity have been already mentioned above (see chapter 2.1.3.2). In consideration of the forecasted volume increase (see chapter 2.1.1) the situation will
even worsen: As shown in rail capacity research on
the corridor Benelux – Germany – Switzerland – Italy with planning horizon 2015 the utilisation of capacity shall increase up to more than 100 % on most
corridor sections, especially in Germany (along the
transport
Operational impediments on Corridor B-West mainly
concern the following aspects:
• Cross border train path planning
• Exchange of data and transport documents
46
Cross border train path planning on Corridor B-West
follows RNE guidelines. This means for example that
”One Stop Shops (OSS)” have been established.
The Infrastructure Managers shall apply the following response times when replying to a customer‘s request for a train path concerning the running timetable period:
• One working day when making an offer concerning pre-planned international train paths
train paths, as well as related cross-links, feederlines and use of terminals
lands, if the loco is not changed (multi-system loco). In
all other cases country-specific braking sheets/wagon
lists have to be exchanged, partially electronically and
partially manually.
2.1.4Alleviation projects already under way
Further activities integrated in ”action plans” are
listed in chapter 2.2.
• One-Stop Shops (OSS): Cross-border train path orders are co-ordinated by the ”Contact OSS” 21
– RNE marketing organisation founded in September 2002 in Berlin and based in Wien since
December 2003 22
case, the Infrastructure Manager shall provide the
customer with a relevant answer within five working days
– OSS network in use
2.1.3.5.2 Time loss due to operations in
marshalling yards (single wagon)
– Regular information exchange via conference
calls
yard was stated by the Railway Undertakings as:
– Standardised, multilingual train path order
documents
• Gremberg and Mannheim (Germany): 3 h
– Regular quality surveys
• Milano (Italy): 2 – 3 h
– Catalogue of available train paths
• Domodossola II (Italy): 40 – 60 min
– Harmonisation of train path order processes
However the actual time requested for a wagon to
stay in a marshalling yard is much higher (often 1 – 2
days).
– Provision of IT support tools (e.g. Pathfinder)
HERMES interface in all involved countries. Problems
exist for example between Switzerland and Italy, because HERMES does not provide all data requested by
the information processing systems.
Interchange of the consignment note is completely
done by EDI standard between Netherlands/Germany
and Germany/Switzerland. Between Switzerland and
Italy the exchange is done partially manually.
braking sheet and wagon list. An international braking sheet and wagon list without change at the border is only used between Germany and the Nether-
– Corridor OSS co-ordination group ProRail/DB
Netz/SBB/RFI established
– New contact ”OSS Switzerland” established
– RNE homepage online
• Pathfinder: internet application for train path
requests and allocations
• Priority rules for train operations
(Switzerland/Italy)
– 6:00 to 22:00
class 1: Passenger
class 2: Regional Passenger
class 3: Freight international
class 4: Freight national
– 22:00 to 6:00
class 1: Freight
class 2: Passenger
class 3: Regional Passenger
21IQ-C: International
Group for Improving the Quality of
Rail Transport in the
North-South-Corridor; Progress-Report;
June 2004
22IQ-C: Improving the
Quality....., l.c., Appendix 2; Deutsche
Bahn
47
• Common rules to handle delayed trains (Switzerland/Italy): Principle: Trains running in advance
shall not cause delays to trains on time – Conflicts
between delayed trains are to be solved by application of the following train path priority:
class 1: Eurostar
class 2: Intercity – Eurocity
class 3: Euronight – Express – Interregional –
Direct – Freight 1
– Building new line or upgrading old line respectively between Offenburg and Basel. Line
sector Freiburg – Basel is already under construction, Offenburg – Freiburg still in planning phase; calculated costs are 2,230 Mio €;
planned to be finished in 2017. Afterwards line
capacity shall increase from 364 to 576 trains a
day.
• Switzerland:
class 4: Regional – Metropolitan – Freight 2
– Freight bypass between Basel Bad and Basel
SBB
class 5: Single wagon – Locos – Empty wagons –
Conditional trains
– Gotthard base tunnel (in use by 2014/15) and
Lötschberg base tunnel (in use by 2007/08)
During commuter peak hours (6:00 –9:00 and
17:00 – 19:00) Interregional, Direct, Regional and
Metropolitan train paths are ranked in class 1.
During freight peak hours (23:00 – 06:00) Freight 1
paths are ranked in class 2 and Freight 2 paths are
ranked in class 3.
– Wiesenberg tunnel between Basel and Olten to
increase capacity
– Generally: increasing freight trains‘ speed up to
100/120 km/h
• Italy:
• Definition and acceptance of a simplified customs
procedure for transit EU-goods including Switzerland to be implemented by summer 2004
– Upgrading of interlocking installation in Node
Luino: 1st phase in 2004 and 2nd phase in 2005;
project in progress.
• Quality assurance
– Extension of track length (6 tracks) in Luino to
630 m; project in progress.
– Netherlands/Germany: by definition of common quality standards, meetings and contact
RU – RU
– Germany/Switzerland: by definition of common quality standards, meetings and contact
RU – RU
– Extension to 600 m of the passing tracks between Luino and Gallarate, construction of
the Sesto Calende ”by-pass” to increase the
line capacity to 75 freight trains/day by 2005;
project in progress.
– Construction of a relay in Domodossola II yard
with 4 – 6 tracks providing for power switch by
2007; project in progress.
Corridor B-West countries
• Netherlands:
– Building new BETUWE line between Rotterdam
and Emmerich/Germany for freight trains exclusively; currently under construction, planned to
be finished in 2007.
• Germany:
– Upgrading train capacity on line sector Wesel –
Oberhausen (due to junction of BETUWE line)
from 290 trains/d to 366 trains/d; calculated
costs are 3 Mio €; currently under construction;
planned to be finished in 2007.
– Upgrading the gauge between Domodossola
and Arona to PC 45 and to PC 50 between Arona and Gallarate by 2005; project in progress.
– Interventions on the line to increase the permitted train length to 650 m between Domodossola II and Novara by 2007; the profile will be
upgrated to PC 80 until Novara by 2006; project
in progress.
– Straightening of the Novara – Domodossola (alternative) line by means of a new single track
section near Gozzano, work in progress; finished until 2008.
48
2.2 Action plans
methodology
The alleviation measures and projects for TREND Corridor B-West have been elaborated and agreed upon by
plans (= packages of measures) according to their priority and realisation timeframe (short-term, mediumterm, long-term) shall facilitate a better overview to
the reader. The structure of these action plans is comparable to the one that has already been used in the
CER corridor studies. The action plans are completed
by a fourth group of measures (”other measures”).
2.2 Action plans
procedures
tail lamps, braking sheets, wagon list/train consist
reports, treatment of hazardous goods and out-ofgauge regulations for through trains)
Netherlands –
Germany
Germany –
Switzerland
I. Tail signal lamp
Done
Done
chapter 2.1.4.
II.Braking sheet
consist report
IV.Regulation of
hazardous goods
Railion: bi-lingual
braking sheets
Done
Railion: tri-lingual
braking sheets
Done
that has already started amongst Railway
Undertakings
dispatching.
agreements on service guarantees.
of optimisation of the organisation.
Switzerland –
Italy
no activity until
UIC solution
Part of IQ-C Plan
Part of IQ-C Plan
Part of IQ-C Plan
Part of IQ-C Plan
2.2.2.3Elaborate an implementation plan for quality
management tools
• Elaborate quality management and measurement
systems (taking into account UIC guidelines)
of compensations)
corridor
between RUs and IMs
Figure 2.2.2–1:
Co-operation of RU
I. Remove interoperable
resource bottlenecks
II.Ensure availability
of resources
III.E xtended responsibility
of cross-border
operation centres
V. Regulation of outof-gauge-loads
Venlo not allowed n.a.
for hazardous
goods; alternative routing („bypass“); shunting
in other stations
n.a.
n.a.
Figure 2.2.2–2:
Co-operation of RU – IM
Netherlands – Germany
Germany – Switzerland
n.a.
co-operation BLS – Railion co-operation SBB – TI
n.a.
n.a.
Railion applies CIFFA
experience to all centres
Railion – SBB apply CIFFA
experience to all centres
co-operation SBB – TI;
TX – TI
Not planned
between SBB and TI
49
2.2 Action plans
Figure 2.2.2–3:
Netherlands –
Germany
Figure 2.2.2–4:
budget infrastructure
measures
n.a.
n.a.
Application of UIC, CER
guidelines
Done
n.a.
Pilot implementation of UIC
RU – RU Standard Agreement
III.Computerised Quality
Management System (QMS)
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
IV.Common Rules of handling de- n.a.
layed trains
n.a.
see chapter 2.1.4.1
and forecasts)
I. Priority of low
IQ-C-Group
budget short-term
measures
Germany –
Switzerland
n.a.
marketing
Switzerland –
Italy
civil works
RFI has implemented performance regime
2.2.2.5Implementation of a dedicated corridor control centre 23
system
of operation management
Netherlands –
Germany
Figure 2.2.2–5:
23Source for chapter
2.2.2.5: IQ-C:
Improving the
Quality....., l.c.
Measurement System
Netherlands –
Germany
Germany –
Switzerland
Germany –
Switzerland
I. Setup of a corridor
dedicated operational
control system
Project EUROPTIRAILS (part of ERTMS programme):
• project has started by end of 2003 / beginning of 2004, planned to be finished
by end of 2005
• objects: cross-border, transparent communication, presentation and handling
of international freight trains
• focus: ad-hoc-timetable construction, train path dispatching, quality control
II.Exchange of operational
data
no activities until
finalisation of new
operational control
system
Data exchange since
January 2003. Objective: optimising of
train path and border
processing
• Data exchange planned for
2004. Objective: optimising of train path and border
processing
• Installation of RFI-infosystem MERCURIO at SBB and
Installation of SBB-info system Pro-Surf at RFI.
Objects: improvement of
train path information and
ad-hoc dispatching.
III.Co-ordination of rail
construction operations
annual co-ordination
of main projects
co-ordination meeting
November 2003
co-ordination meetings under
construction
IV.Improvement of daily
n.a.
business by regular
meetings of the operation
management
• 2 regional meetings
per year „Improvement rail traffic at
Basel border“ (DB/
SBB/BLS)
• 3 meetings per year
about Basel bypass
(DB/SBB/SNCF).
n.a.
V. Co-ordination of
cross-border timetables
at least
annual meetings
n.a.
n.a.
VI.Transparency for
train path prices
International train path price information system EICIS in use on Corridor BWest
50
2.2 Action plans
2.2.3Medium-term actions –
freight traffic through congested areas,
focusing on priority rules between freight and
passenger trains
Netherlands –
Germany
I. Priority rules of freight vs.
passenger trains
RNE
Germany –
Switzerland
Switzerland –
Italy
RNE
Netherlands –
Germany
SBB - RFI
Germany –
Switzerland
RNE
RNE
RNE
II.Improve time tables to reduce
transport times
RNE
RNE
Done
III.Ensure timely and systematic
international information
exchange
see chapter 2.2.2.5
see chapter 2.2.2.5
• SBB – TI
• see also chapter
2.2.2.5
IV.International catalogue
train paths
Freight Freeway Catalogue of pre-constructed train paths within
the scope of RNE, distributed by OSS 24
V. Provide reliable information
on train location and delay
Railion by GPS
some links
requirements
currently under development (CROBIT, USE-IT, EUROPTIRAIL …)
Figure 2.2.3–2:
of train paths
Railion by GPS
Figure 2.2.3–1:
Priority rules between
freight and passenger trains
n.a.
information
them
data interchange
Netherlands –
Germany
I. Improve communication and data
exchange
n.a.
Germany –
Switzerland
n.a.
Figure 2.2.3–3:
Switzerland –
Italy
Examination of
electronic consignment note used by
TI – SNCF
24Source: IQ-C:
Improving the
Quality....., l.c.
51
2.2 Action plans
2.2.3.4Extend the existing corridor-related
interoperable traction concepts
Figure 2.2.3–4:
traction concepts
of locomotives (taking into account an economic
acceptable deployment of interoperable locomotives) and by developing agreements for the mutual acceptance of locomotive drivers
Netherlands –
Germany
Germany –
Switzerland
I. Optimising use of locomotives Railion for BETUWE Line at
Emmerich station
Railion for BETUWE Line at
II.Deployment of interoperable
locomotives
Emmerich station
• RU and certification procedures
acceptance of locomotives
• partially cross-border operating
and drivers
locodrivers 25
• mutual recognition of locos: not
yet done 25
IV.Standardisation of approval
Manufacturers and Certification
procedure
Agencies
n.a.
n.a.
mutual recognition of locos and
drivers: not yet done 25
n.a.
Application of UIC, CER
guidelines
Pilot implementation of UIC
RU – RU Standard Agreement
• ongoing
• mutual recognition of locos
and drivers: not yet done 25
ongoing
2.2.3.5Prioritise freight trains (Time windows)
Netherlands –
Germany
(Time windows)
Germany –
Switzerland
BETUWE line for freight
trains exclusively
different RU/RU solutions
for the section and train
• time priority in Italy
• Luino line dedicated to freight
• tunnel Monte Olipino II: freight priority
basics for national legislation (definition in 2003, realisation in 2006) 25 :
• terms of application for current/planned timetable
• train path construction
• train path allocation
Figure 2.2.3–5:
Figure 2.2.4–1:
Netherlands –
Germany
Long-term actions
25Source: IQ-C:
Improving the
Quality....., l.c.
HERMES system
I. Establish rules and tools to
manage trains along the corridor
II.Improve co-ordination of national traffic control centres
III.Monitor timely upgrading
and extension of railway infrastructure
IV.Development of new solutions for the existing
HERMES system
V. Development of ERTMS on
the parts of the corridor
Germany –
Switzerland
Joint centre like CIFFA n.a.
Chiasso operating centre
n.a.
n.a.
RFI
Regular Meetings between Transport Ministries and IM
Members of RAILDATA
Basel node part of
IQC group + trilateral
strategic group 2020
Members of RAILDATA
RFI - SBB
ProRail (Betuwelijn);
DB whole corridor
ETCS: planned but
financing open
n.a.
n.a.
Members of RAILDATA
52
2.2 Action plans
bottlenecks
Figure 2.2.5–1:
Netherlands –
Germany
Germany –
Switzerland
I. Developing the corridor
see chapter 2.1.4
concept by alleviating capacity
differences and bottlenecks)
terminals/ports
Figure 2.2.5–2:
Developing the corridor concept
by alleviating problems in
interfaces with terminals/ports
Netherland
Germany
Switzerland
Italy
I. Remove physical bottlenecks Upgrading terminals for
combined transport in
Rotterdam by 2012/15
up to 1 Mio LU 27 per
year
Upgrading terminals for
Basel by 2007/08 up to
200,000 LU per year
• Busto Arsisio II and
III/Gallarate up to
400,000 LU per year
• Novara by 2012 up to
700,000 LU per year
II.Provision of „terminal
services“ on a timetable basis
n.a.
• Weil/Basel by
2003/04
• Ludwigshafen KTL
by 2005 up to
242,000 LU per year
• Köln Eifeltor by 2008
up to 300,000 LU per
year
• Duisburg DIT by 2010
up to 150,000 LU per
year
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
26
Netherlands –
Germany
I. Other measures
n.a.
Germany –
Switzerland
n.a.
Figure 2.2.5–3:
Other measures
n.a.
26MVA, KombiConsult,
Kessel+Partner:
„Study on infrastructure capacity...“, l.c.
27LU = Loading Unit
53
3 TREND Corridor B-East
Figure 3.1.1–1:
Map of
TREND Corridor B-East
3.1.1 Introduction in TREND Corridor B-East
The Corridor B-East connects Scandinavia via Germany and Austria with Italy. Within the scope of
TREND, Scandinavia is represented by the logistic entry to Germany (Danish border at Flensburg/Padborg
and Rostock seaport).
The corridor route has a length of 1,590 km and extends from Flensburg/Rostock via Hamburg and
München along the Brenner to Bologna (see Figure
3.1.1–1).
The corridor line starts with two branches in Flensburg/Padborg and in Rostock; both branches converge
at Hamburg and continue via the main north-southline until Celle. From now on the corridor route avoids
the more passenger dedicated lines and switches over
to the more freight train prioritised line via Lehrte and
Hildesheim instead. Way down to south Corridor BEast follows the ”old” main line via Göttingen, Bebra,
Würzburg, Augsburg, München, Rosenheim to Kufstein (Austrian border, see Figure 3.1.1–2).
Figure 3.1.1–2:
TREND Corridor B-East in
Germany
FLENSBURG
SASSNITZ
PUTTGARDEN
KIEL
STRALSUND
NEUMUNSTER ROSTOCK
CUXHAVEN
LUBECK BUTZOW
HAMBURGSCHWERIN
LUDWIGSLUST
LEER
BREMEN
LOHNE
MUNSTER
ALTENBEKEN
HAMM
GOTTINGEN
HAGEN
KASSEL
KOLN
BONN
MARBURG
FULDA
KOBLENZ
TRIER
ANGERMUNDE
UELZEN
STENDAL
CELLE
BERLIN
LEHRTE
FRANKFURT AN DER ODE
HILDESHEIM MAGDEBURG
RHEINE
MAINZ
PASEWALK
SZC-TAN
DESSAU
COTTBUS
HALLE S
RIESA
GERA
BAD SCHANDAU
ZWICKAU
ROHRBACH JCT
WURZBURG
HOF
MARKTREDWITZ
BIBLIS
MANNHEIM
ANSBACH SCHWANDORF
SAARBRUCKEN
REGENSBURG
KARLSRUHE
STUTTGART
INGOLSTADT
NEU-PAS
HORB
ULM AUGSBURG
BRA-MUH
MUNCHEN
FREIBURG
SINGEN
BAS-FRE
KEPMTEN
FRE-SAL
KUFSTEIN
54
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic on the German corridor sector are listed Figure
3.1.1–3.
Location
Terminals for
accompanied
transport service
road/rail
Terminals for
Marshalling yards
unaccompanied
for conventiontransport service
al single wagon
road/rail
traffic
In Austria the route follows the river Inn to Innsbruck,
where the step-up to the Brenner pass begins. At the
Brenner the corridor line traverses into Italy (see Figure 3.1.1–4).
Taulov (Dk)
✓
Rostock
✓
Hamburg
✓
✓
Hannover
✓
✓
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic on the Austrian corridor sector are listed in Figure
3.1.1–5.
Göttingen
✓
Augsburg
✓
München
✓
✓
✓
Figure 3.1.1–3:
GMUND
BRE-BER
SUMMERAU
PASSAU
ABSDORF
LINZ
BRA-MUH
SANKT POLTEN STADLAUDEV-MAR
KITSEE
WELS
ATTNANG PUCHHEIM
HEGYESHALOM
SALZBURG
WIENER NEUSTADT
Kufstein
LAUTERACH
FELDKIRCH
INN-MIT
SOPRON GYSEV
BISCHOFSHOFEN
WORGL
points for rail freight traffic on
in Denmark/Germany 28
SELZTHAL
BRUCK
St MICHAEL
SCHWARZACH StVEIT
INNSBRUCK
GRAZ
Brennero
FEHRING
SPIELFELD-STRASS
VILLACH
KLAGENFURT
ROSENBACH
Figure 3.1.1–4:
in Austria
Location
Terminals for
accompanied transport
service road/rail
Innsbruck
Wörgl
✓
Brennersee
✓
Terminals for
unaccompanied transport service road/rail
conventional single
wagon traffic
✓
✓
Figure 3.1.1–5:
on TREND Corridor B-East
in Austria 28
28Based on:
important shunting
l.c.
© DB AG/Neuhaus
55
Reaching Italy the corridor route continues to Bologna
via Bolzano, Trento and Verona (see Figure 3.1.1–6).
Brennero
MILANO
PIACENZA
ARQUATA
GENOVA
VENTIMIGLIA
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic on the Italian corridor sector are listed in Figure
3.1.1–7.
UDINE
CERVIGNANO
CHIASSO
TORINO
TARVISIO
BOLZANO
DOMODOSSOLA
VERONA
MESTRE
FERRARA
BOLOGNA
PISA FIRENZE
The involved Railway Undertakings supplied only a
fragmentary set of transport data. Therefore analysis of the transport market in Corridor B-East is restricted to dedicated rail freight destinations (see Figure 3.1.1–8).
RIMINI
ANCONA
CAMPIGLIA M.
ORTE
CIVITAVECCHIA
PESCARA
FOGGIA
BARI
CASERTA
SALERNO
The main statements resulting from these data are:
BRINDISI
LECCE
• The corridor’s rail flows are extremely affected by
two main relations: Germany – Austria and Germany – Verona (each vice versa).
SIBARI
PAOLA
LAMEZIA
PALERMO
MESSINA
• Almost all of the corridor’s rail freight volume dedicated to Italy ends up in Verona (gate function of
Verona-Interporto). Further flows to/from Bologna
are almost negligible small.
MELITO P.S.
ARAGONA
CATANIA
SIRACUSA
Figure 3.1.1–6:
in Italy
Figure 3.1.1–7:
on TREND Corridor B-East
in Italy 29
Location
Terminals for
accompanied transport
service road/rail
Terminals for
unaccompanied transport service road/rail
Bolzano
✓
Trento
✓
✓
Verona
✓
✓
Bologna
conventional single
wagon traffic
✓
Figure 3.1.1–8:
✓
Destination
Volume of rail freight on
dedicated relations in
Corridor B-East 2003
[1000 t/a] 30
Origin
Denmark
Germany
Austria
Italy
Verona
Denmark
n.s.
Germany
n.s.
Austria
n.s.
Italy
Verona
Bologna
101.0
0.0
n.s.
6,941.1 31
5,905.8
1,279.9
2.9
Bologna
97.3
0.0
2,053.9
32.8
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
29Based on:
important shunting
l.c.
30Source: Trenitalia
from TREND data
gathering tables, unless otherwise stated
31Source: Railion from
TREND data gathering tables
56
• With the exception of Germany – Austria (and
vice versa), where all three modes participate in
the total rail freight volume, the destinations are
dominated by one rail transport mode (see Figure
3.1.1–9):
100 %
90 %
80 %
70 %
– Conventional block trains on Germany – Bologna
relation (and vice versa)
60 %
50 %
– Intermodal trains on Denmark – Verona and
Germany – Verona relation (and each vice
versa)
40 %
30 %
20 %
3.1.2 Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor
B-East
Nevertheless Corridor B-East has got a strong strategic position for the involved Railway Undertakings
which shall even increase in the near future. Indicators for this development are the currently agreed intensification of co-operation between Green Cargo
(Sweden) and Railion (Germany) 33 or the expansion of Hupac rail service on Taulov – Busto Arsisio
destination 34.
m
an
y
It a
G
ly
m
er
Au
st
–
ria
–
It a
G
er
Au
–
an
y
m
er
G
ly
/V
/V
er
er
o
on
na
G
a
er
–
m
G
an
er
y
m
–
an
It a
It a
y
ly
ly
/B
/B
ol
ol
og
og
na
na
–
G
er
m
an
y
an
y
ria
st
ar
m
en
D
–
a
–
ly
ar
k
en
m
/V
er
on
It a
ly
/V
er
on
a
k
0 %
D
The Corridor B-East is of great importance for the
European transport system and of vital interest for
stakeholders of transport and logistic industry. However it is necessary to improve rail transport service to
exploit the still increasing volumes. Especially goods
traffic from and towards Scandinavia is still dominated by road. Transport centres like Padborg (Denmark) concentrate an enormous goods volume, but
show only a poor rail freight share.
10 %
It a
and harmonisation)
Figure 3.1.1–9:
Rail freight by
transport modes on
Corridor B-East 2003 32
current systems and different signalling systems (see
Normally a train from Denmark to Italy via Corridor BEast gets three loco changes at
• Danish/German border
• Kufstein (Germany/Austria); not required if transport is done by Lokomotion/RTC
32Source: Trenitalia,
except for Germany –
Austria: Railion
• Brennero (Austria/Italy)
33See „Nordschiene
wird ausgebaut“;
Deutsche Verkehrs
zeitung No. 123,
15.10.2005
Due to these technical handicaps multi-system locomotives are required to avoid time loss at the borders.
However at Denmark/Germany border locos are still
changed because interoperable engines for different
signalling systems are regarded as too expensive by
the Railway Undertakings.
34See „Hupac mit eigenen Zügen am
Kombi-Hub Taulov“;
Deutsche Verkehrs
zeitung No. 122,
13.10.2005
57
Border
Processing time
per train
Denmark/Germany
n.s.
Germany/Austria
5 min
15 min
Included activities
Austria/Italy
border crossing procedure
30 - 50 min
Remarks
with loco change
new transport documents
•
•
Figure 3.1.3–1:
•
•
•
Austria – Germany
• different braking sheets, tail signals required 35
• no customs clearance required
• cross border performance rated as „excellent“
Germany – Austria
new transport documents,
change brake position into „G“
– of loco only (if wagons‘ gross • no customs clearance required
load is between 800 and
• cross border performance rated as „good“.
1,200 tons)
– of loco + first 5 wagons
(if wagons‘ gross load is
more than 1,200 tons)
change of loco
shunting
• no customs clearance required
train control
• cross border performance rated by 90 %.
An overview of the scheduled time for border crossing purposes along the Corridor B-East can be seen in
Figure 3.1.3–1.
In addition to loss of time border crossing activities
costs. In Brennero station 11 tracks are provided for
interchange activities.
Furthermore the lack of a relay yard in Brennero station leads to complex operating movements during
loco change.
freight quality
of capacities in the stations/nodes or along the lines
(see Figure 3.1.3–2, Figure 3.1.3–3). These missing resources make it difficult or even impossible to acquire
additional rail freight traffic on the corridor. Furthermore they lead to expensive operational modes – especially within the nodes – which increase the total
costs and worsen the market position of rail freight
traffic.
For elimination of these impediments measures to increase lines and nodes capacity have to be planned
Figure 3.1.3–2:
ascribed to stations/nodes
capacity 35
Country
Node/station
Germany
München – Riem
Austria/Italy
Brennero
unfavourable infrastructure connection for southbound
trains via München Ost (e.g. singletracked sections, train
direction changes)
no relay yard
Italy
Verona Q.E.
(train entry/depart, holding yard)
insufficient infrastructure capacity for additional transport
volume
Figure 3.1.3–3:
Infrastructural impediments ascribed to lines capacity
35Studiengesellschaft
für den kombinierten
Verkehr, HaCon, KombiConsult: „Erarbeitung von Konzepten
und Handlungsempfehlungen für eine
zielgerichtete Weiterentwicklung des
internationalen Kombinierten Verkehrs
Schiene - Straße“;
FuE-Projekt-Nr.
96.0744/2002; Frankfurt/Main, Hannover
2003
Country
Line/Section
Hamburg – Uelzen
high traffic volume
Bebra – Fulda
Fulda – Flieden
Augsburg – München
high traffic volume
München – Rosenheim
high traffic volume
Austria/Italy
step-up to Brenner pass
Italy
Nogara – Bologna
• max. train length: 550 m (north side)
• max. train length: 600 m (south side)
• single track
• line category: C3
max. train gross load: 1,600 t
Germany
lines in Italy
58
Germany
Relevant
Clearance
Track
Gauge
Austria
Bologna
Nogara
Verona
Brennero
Kufstein
München
Country
Innsbruck
Lehrte (Hannover)
Hamburg
Flensburg
Rostock
Italy
G2 EBO
G2 EBO
UIC-505-1
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
120 km/h
120 km/h
120 km/h
Screw coupler
with buffers
Screw coupler
with buffers
Screw coupler
with buffers
D4
D4
Tracks
Maximum
Speed
(Freight trains)
Coupler
Line
Category
Maximum
Train Length
750 m
750 m
530 m
750 m
600 m
P/C 80-410
Intermodal
Gauge
Maximum
Train Mass
650 m
1800 t
2000 t
2000 t
1800 t
P/C 80-410
C3
515 m
P/C 80-410 P/C 45-364
1100 t
1600 t
PZB / LZB
PZB / LZB
BACC / RSDD
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
1950 mm
1950 mm
2000 t
Signalling
System
Energy
System
D4
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
freight transport
freight traffic on TREND Corridor B-East. More detailed results can be found in Appendix 3.
The compilation shows a considerable variety of operating and technical parameters which affect interoperability on the corridor:
• Two of the four European current systems are
used by the involved railway companies:
1800 t
2800 t 1800 t
2800 t
• This means that a locomotive generally applicable
on the corridor would have to be compatible with
– two current systems
DC 3 kV
1450 mm
Figure 3.1.3–4:
Main technical and
operational parameters on
– two widths of pantographs
– two different signalling systems (PZB 90/LZB in
Germany and Austria and BACC/RSDD in Italy)
• A freight train to operate on the corridor without
restriction is limited by
– a maximum train length of 515 m
– a maximum gross load of 1,600 t
– In Germany and Austria AC 15 kV, 16.7 Hz
– a maximum axle load of 20.0 t
– In Italy DC 3 kV
– the profile P/C 45 – 364 (for intermodal trains)
• The width of the pantograph amounts to 1,950 mm
in Germany and Austria and to 1,450 mm in Italy.
The relevant link for these values is the section
Nogara – Bologna
• All in all there are two different signalling systems
used; one in Germany and Austria and one in Italy.
The new European ETCS level 2 will not be established in either of the corridor’s countries in the
foreseeable future.
On the other hand, there are no interoperability problems on the corridor line concerning
• the wagon coupling mode
(screw coupler and buffers)
59
transport
The current problems concerning infrastructure capacity have been already mentioned above (see chapter 3.1.3.2). In consideration of the forecasted volume
increase the situation will even worsen: As shown
in rail capacity researches on corridor Scandinavia – Germany – Austria – Italy with planning horizon 2015 the utilisation of capacity shall increase up
to more than 100 % on several corridor sections. Particularly concerned are the respective railway lines in
Germany (Hamburg – Hannover, Bebra – Fulda) and
Austria, even in consideration of current infrastructure measures (see chapter 3.1.4) 36. Further investments (e.g. the so called ”Y-line” project in Germany)
would be necessary to ease the mentioned bottleneck
situations.
combined transport makes clear that some of the main
terminals along the corridor will have to face severe
capacity problems as well. Particularly in Taulov and
Hamburg the rate of employment – depending on terminal infrastructure and transfer equipment – is forecasted to exceed the 100 % level, in spite of upgrading measures 37.
An analysis of reasons for intermodal train delay on
the Brenner axis stated, next to terminal problems,
the main causes as lack of locos and loco personnel 37.
Between Fritzens-Wattens and Bolzano double traction mode is required, and an additional pushing engine for trains going south. Looking at the personnel
situation the FS regulations require two engine drivers
between Fritzens-Wattens and Verona.
transport
Cross border train path planning on Corridor B-East
follows RNE guidelines. This means the realisation of
”One Stop Shops (OSS)” for example. The Infrastructure Managers shall apply the following response
times when replying to a customer‘s request for a
train path concerning the running timetable period:
• One working day when making an offer concerning pre-planned international train paths
• Five working days when making an offer concerning minor adaptations to preplanned international
train paths, as well as related cross-links, feederlines and use of terminals
case, the Infrastructure Managers shall provide
the customer with a relevant answer within five
working days
HERMES interface at the Austrian/Italian border between TI/RCA and Lokomotion/RTC respectively; in
the course of this exchange some problems concerning data structures are to be corrected. TI and RCA
also exchange consignment notes, braking sheets and
wagon lists electronically.
On the other hand there is no data interchange via EDI
between Railion and Lokomotion; these RUs exchange
the consignment note manually (driver/driver).
3.1.3.5.3 Time loss due to other operations
Adding of an additional loco in Bolzano takes another
20 minutes.
Operational impediments on Corridor B-East mainly
concern the following aspects:
36MVA, KombiConsult, Kessel+Partner:
Freiburg/Frankfurt
am Main/Paris 2004
• Time loss due to other operations
Verkehr, HaCon,
KombiConsult:
„Erarbeitung von
Konzepten......“; l.c.
60
• One-Stop Shops (OSS): Cross-border train path orders are co-ordinated by the ”Contact OSS” 38
December 2003 39
– regular information exchange via conference
calls
– standardised, multilingual train path order
documents
– regular quality surveys
– catalogue of available train paths
– harmonisation of train path order processes
– provision of IT support tools (e.g. Pathfinder)
• Pathfinder: internet application for train path requests and allocations
• ÖBB establishes the new European loco driver license for cross border rail traffic
• Common rules to handle delayed trains (Austria/
Italy): Principle: Trains running in advance shall not
cause delays to trains on time – Conflicts between
delayed trains are to be solved by application of
the following train path priority:
class 1: Eurostar
class 2: Intercity – Eurocity
class 3: Euronight – Express – Interregional –
Direct – Freight 1
class 4: Regional – Metropolitan – Freight 2
class 5: Single wagon - Locos – Empty wagons –
Conditional trains
During commuter peak hours (6:00 – 9:00 and
17:00 – 19:00) Inter-regional, Direct, Regional and
Metropolitan train paths are ranked in class 1.
During freight peak hours (23:00 – 06:00) Freight 1
paths are ranked in class 2 and Freight 2 paths are
ranked in class 3
3.2 Action plans
• Quality control/assurance by co-ordination centre
TI-RCA + RFI-ÖBB in Brenner station
• Test for abandonment of braking sheet between
Lokomotion/RTC
• Attempt to change the regulations responsible
for brake position changes between Germany and
Austria
3.1.4.2 Alleviation projects within the
TREND Corridor B-East countries
• Germany: Upgrading train capacity on line sector Augsburg – München from 364 trains/d to 576
trains/d; calculated costs are 270 Mio €; currently
under construction; planned to be finished by 2010
• Italy:
– Technical upgrading of Bologna – Verona –
Brennero – line: new control centre in Verona, upgrading of electric traction equipment;
project in progress, to be finished by end of
2006; costs: 272.9 Mio €
– Doubling all single track sections on Nogara –
Bologna link; project in progress, to be finished
by end of 2008; costs: 892.3 Mio €
3.2 Action plans
methodology
The alleviation measures and projects for TREND Corridor B-East have been elaborated and agreed upon by
chapter 3.1.4.
June 2004
Quality....., l.c.,
Appendix 2; Deutsche Bahn
61
I. Remove
interoperable
resource
bottlenecks
3.2 Action plans
Denmark –
Germany
Germany –
Austria
Austria –
Italy
see also
chapters 3.1.4,
3.2.5.2
• part of
„Brenner action
plan 2005“
• see also chapters 3.1.4,
3.2.5.2
part of „Brenner
action plan 2005“
• part of
„Brenner action
plan 2005“
• see also chapters 3.1.4,
3.2.5.2
part of „Brenner
action plan 2005“
II.Ensure
availability
of resources
Railion-DSB
III.E xtended
responsibility
apply CIFFA to
of cross-border
all centres
operation centres
• done (Brenner
• done (Brenner
Service Stelle)
Service Stelle)
• part of
• part of
„Brenner action
„Brenner action
plan 2005“
plan 2005“
Figure 3.2.2–1:
Figure 3.2.2–2:
Denmark –
Germany
I. Tail signal lamp
done
II.Braking sheet
Germany –
Austria
Austria –
Italy
Railion:
bi-lingual
braking sheets
done
Austrian accept of
German signals
Joint use of data of
Austrian electronic
system
done
no activity until
UIC solution
working group
n.a.
done
n.a.
n.a.
done
n.a.
n.a.
Denmark –
Germany
IV.Common Rules of
handling delayed
trains
procedures
management tools
III.Computerised
Quality
Management
System (QMS)
agreements on service guarantees
reports, treatment of hazardous goods and out-ofgauge regulations for through trains)
Figure 3.2.2–3:
I. Quality
Management and
Measurement
System
II.Quality
Agreements
• Remove existing traction bottlenecks by providing
sufficient resources, e.g. procurement of interoperable multi-current locomotives and/or better organisation of resource dispatching
Co-operation of RU
consist report
IV.Regulation of
hazardous goods
V. Regulation of outof-gauge-loads
Undertakings
Germany –
Austria
Austria –
Italy
n.a.
done
n.a.
Railion internal
• part of
„Brenner action
plan 2005“
• ongoing in BRAVO
• part of „Brenner action plan
2005“
• done in
BRAVO, e.g.
Demonstration of a Quality Management System
(QMS) 40
projected in
BRAVO
• part of
„Brenner action
plan 2005“
• ongoing in BRAVO
• part of „Brenner action plan
2005“
• done in
BRAVO, e.g.
Demonstration of a Quality Management System
(QMS) 40
projected in
BRAVO
n.a.
n.a.
of compensations)
corridor
between RUs and IMs
40BRAVO (Brenner Rail Freight Action Strategy Aimed At
Achieving A Sustainable Increase Of Intermodal Transport
Volume By Enhancing Quality, Efficiency And System Technologies); Integrated Project within the Sixth Framework
Programme, Contract no. 506391, Annex I – „Description of
work“
62
3.2 Action plans
Denmark –
Germany
I. Priority of low
n.a.
budget short-term
measures
Germany – Austria
• part of
• part of
„Brenner action
„Brenner action
plan 2005“
plan 2005“
• ongoing in BRA- • ongoing in BRAVO
VO
3.2.3.1 Analyse management of international freight
traffic through congested areas, focusing on
priority rules between freight and passenger
trains
Figure 3.2.2–4:
budget infrastructure measures
Denmark –
Germany
I. Priority rules of
RNE
freight vs. passenger trains
some links
Austria – Italy
Germany –
Austria
Austria – Italy
• ÖBB – RFI
• DB – ÖBB
• part of
• part of
„Brenner action
„Brenner action
plan 2005“
plan 2005“
Figure 3.2.3–1:
EUROPTIRAIL…)
• Develop IT system to provide the customers – in
case of delay – with Estimated Time of Availability
(ETA)
requirements
Denmark – Germany
of train paths
RNE
II.Improve time tables to
reduce transport times
RNE
III.Ensure timely and systematic international information exchange
train paths
V. Provide reliable information on train location
and delay
VI.Develop IT system
for Estimated Time of
Availability (ETA)
no problem with Railion
RNE
GIS & GPS based
localisation tool
n.a.
Germany – Austria
Austria – Italy
• part of „Brenner action
plan 2005“
• done in BRAVO
• done
plan 2005“
• DB - ÖBB/RNE
plan 2005“
done
plan 2005“
• done in BRAVO
part of „Brenner action
plan 2005“
Figure 3.2.3–2:
• ÖBB - RFI/RNE
plan 2005“
done
• ongoing
• ongoing
• part of „Brenner action • part of „Brenner action
plan 2005“
plan 2005“
• part of „Brenner action plan 2005“
• BRAVO: Demonstration of Estimated Time of Availability (ETA) function: Integration of terminal management systems, operation control systems, realtime location and GPS systems 41
41BRAVO, Annex I, l.c.
63
3.2 Action plans
3.2.3.3Improve communication and data
exchange to optimise the interfaces
between RUs, to optimise resource
control and customer information
them
data interchange
Figure 3.2.3–3:
Denmark –
Germany
I. Improve
communication
and data exchange
n.a.
Germany – Austria
plan 2005“
• projected in BRAVO
Austria – Italy
• Examination of electronic
consignment note used by TI – SNCF
• projected in BRAVO
3.2.3.4Extend existing corridor-related interoperable
traction concepts
Figure 3.2.3–4:
traction concepts
Denmark – Germany
locomotives
n.a.
Germany – Austria
Done
Austria – Italy
Done
BRAVO: Demonstration of radio-controlled pushing
loco 42
II.Deployment of
interoperable
locomotives
Railion/Manufacturers
develop less expensive
locos
Done
Done
• done in BRAVO, e.g. Demonstration of an innovative
employment scheme on multi-current locos 42
• done
• ÖBB - RFI / Certification
Agencies
plan 2005“
plan 2005“
Done
Manufacturers/Certification Agencies
approval procedure
3.2.3.5 Prioritise freight trains (Time windows)
Figure 3.2.3–5:
Denmark – Germany
(Time windows)
no problem within Railion
Germany – Austria
Austria – Italy
high priority to international freight trains by flexible
disposition on the track in
Austria
high priority to international freight trains by flexible
disposition on the track in
Austria
64
3.2 Action plans
Denmark –
Germany
This package of measures aims at
• Elaborating new solutions for the existing
HERMES system
bottlenecks
Germany –
Austria
I. Establish rules and Apply joint centre
tools to manage
like CIFFA
trains along the corridor
Railion – RCA;
LM – RTC
Austria –
Italy
Railion – TI;
LM – RTC
BRAVO: Sustainable and
open corridor management system 43
II.Improve co-ordination of national traffic control centres
III.Monitor timely upgrading and extension of railway infrastructure
IV.Development of
new solutions
for the existing
HERMES system
V. Development of
ERTMS on the
parts of the
corridor
DB - ÖBB
ÖBB - RFI (Brenner
Service Stelle)
„Feste Querung
Fehmarn Belt“
strategic planning
only
Members of
RAILDATA
International Round International Round
table („Corridor
table („Corridor
Champion“)
Champion“)
Members of
RAILDATA
Members of
RAILDATA
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Figure 3.2.4–1:
Long-term actions
Denmark – Germany
I. Developing the corridor concept by
bottlenecks)
Germany – Austria
Austria – Italy
see chapter 3.1.4
Figure 3.2.5–1:
Figure 3.2.5–2:
terminals/ports
I. Remove physical bottlenecks 44
problems in interfacing with
terminals/ports
Denmark
Germany
Upgrading terminal for combined
transport in Taulov up to 120,000
LU 45 per year
New terminal for
combined transport in Lehrte/
Hannover by
2007, designed
for 200,000 LU
per year
Austria
Italy
n.a.
• Upgrading terminals for combined
transport in
– Bologna Interporto by 2008
up to 235,000 LU per year
– Verona Q.E. up to
380,000 LU per year
• New terminal for combined transport
in Isola della Scala
part of „Brenner action plan 2005“
II.Provision of „terminal services“
on a timetable basis
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
III.Improve co-ordination of long
distance trains, shunting
movements and terminal operation
within the terminals
IV.Unburden congested terminals
by switching to other terminals
n.a.
n.a.
Denmark – Germany
I. Other measures
n.a.
Germany – Austria
n.a.
Austria – Italy
n.a.
Figure 3.2.5–3:
Other measures
44MVA,
KombiConsult,
Kessel+Partner:
45LU = Loading Unit
65
4 TREND Corridor C
Figure 4.1.1–1:
Figure 4.1.1–2:
Map of TREND Corridor C
TREND Corridor C:
Variations´ overview
“Ruhr branch”
Austria
Line variant Line variant
“North”
“South”
Hungary
4.1Diagnosis of freight impediments and
Germany
Line variant
“Seaport branch”
Bremen/Bremerhaven
Hamburg
Czech Republic
Line variant
“South”
Line variant
“West”
Line variant
“North”
Slovakia
Line variant
“East”
Line variant “North”
Main route
Alternative route
Romania
Main route
Alternative route
Bulgaria
Turkey
Main route
4.1.1 Introduction in TREND Corridor C
The Corridor C connects Germany with Turkey. Its origin is located either in the German North sea ports or
in the Rhein-/Ruhr area. On the way to Halkali/Istanbul Corridor C traverses Austria, the Czech Republic
and Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia-Montenegro, Romania
and Bulgaria (see Figure 4.1.1–1).
According to the actual and foreseeable transport
structures numerous corridor variations had to be
evaluated. These variants consider
• alternative branches (routing includes different
starting/end points of the corridor)
Line variant “South”
Serbia
Alternative route
4 TREND Corridor C
• alternative routes (routing does not include different starting/end points of the corridor, but different traversed countries)
• alternative lines (routing only includes different
railway lines within the same respective country)
Due to these variations nine countries are involved in
Corridor C planning (see Figure 4.1.1–2). Four out of
these nine countries participate in any routing (Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey). Furthermore
66
4 TREND Corridor C
two or three other countries have to be included, depending on the respective corridor route. So the total number of Corridor C countries varies from six (via
Austria, Serbia/Romania) to seven (via Czech Republic, Slovakia, Serbia/Romania).
Depending on the respective routing the total length of
Corridor C varies between about 2,600 km and 2,900
km; taking course via Serbia (alternative line) turns out
to be slightly shorter than via Romania (main line).
The corridor has its origin in Germany and traverses
the country within two branches (see Figure 4.1.1–3).
The ”Ruhr branch” starts in Duisburg and follows the
Rhine to Mainz, bypasses the node Frankfurt/Main
via Wiesbaden, Darmstadt and Aschaffenburg and
reaches the Austrian border at Passau via Würzburg
and Nürnberg, with a line variant via Ansbach.
The ”Seaport branch” combines the rail freight flows
from the main North Sea ports (Bremerhaven/Bremen,
Hamburg) at Lehrte/Hannover. From Lehrte the Seaport branch runs along the east-west-mainline via
Hannover and Braunschweig to Magdeburg and further on via Güterglück and Dresden towards the Czech
border at Bad Schandau.
Location
“Seaport branch”
“Ruhr branch”,
main line
“Ruhr branch”,
line variant
FLENSBURG
SASSNITZ
PUTTGARDEN
KIEL
STRALSUND
NEUMUNSTER ROSTOCK
CUXHAVEN LUBECK BUTZOW
LEER
HAMBURGSCHWERIN
LUDWIGSLUST
ANGERMUNDE
UELZEN
SEELZE/
STENDAL
CELLE
BERLIN
HANNOVER
LEHRTE
FRANKFURT
RHEINE
LOHNE HILDESHEIMMAGDEBURG
AN DER ODER
MUNSTER
DESSAU
COTTBUS
ALTENBEKEN
HAMM
Duisburg
GOTTINGEN HALLE S
HAGEN
RIESA
KASSEL
KOLN
GERA
BAD SCHANDAU
MARBURG
BONN
ZWICKAU
FULDA
KOBLENZ
HOF
MAINZ
WURZBURG
TRIER
BIBLIS
MANNHEIM
ANSBACH SCHWANDORF
SAARBRUCKEN
REGENSBURG
KARLSRUHE
STUTTGART
INGOLSTADT
PASSAU
HORB
ULM AUGSBURG
BRA-MUH
MUNCHEN
FREIBURG
FRE-SAL
SINGEN KEPMTEN
KUFSTEIN
BAS-FRE
Figure 4.1.1–3:
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic on the German corridor sector are listed in Figure
4.1.1–4.
Terminals for
unaccompanied
intermodal transport road/rail
Marshalling
yards for conventional single
wagon traffic
Remarks
Hamburg
✓
✓
Bremerhaven
✓
Bremen
✓
Hannover
✓
✓
• Seaport branch only
• starting terminal for the “Hansa-Hungaria-Container-Express (HHCE)” to Sopron, with connection to further trains to Romania, Bulgaria and
Turkey
• starting terminal for intermodal service to Wien,
Wels, Budaörs, Budapest, Györ, Bratislava
• starting terminal for intermodal service to
Budaörs, Budapest, Györ
• starting terminal for intermodal service to Wien
Seaport branch only
Dresden
✓
✓
• currently served only by conventional single wagon traffic
• accompanied intermodal service („Rolling Road“)
to Lovosice closed down since June 2004
• Ruhr branch only
• starting terminal for Combined Block Train (TCS)
to Köseköy
Ruhr branch only
✓
• currently served only by conventional single wagon traffic
Ruhr branch only
Duisburg
✓
Köln
✓
Mainz
✓
Nürnberg
✓
Regensburg
✓
PASEWALK
SZC-TAN
BREMEN
• also accompanied intermodal service
TREND Corridor C in Germany
Figure 4.1.1–4:
points for rail freight traffic on TREND Corridor C in
Germany 46
46based on: Wikipedia: „List of important shunting yards“;
„Europäisches
Übereinkommen über
wichtige Linien des
internationalen kombinierten Verkehrs
und damit zusammenhängende Einrichtungen (AGTC)“, state:
08.03.2005, Kombiverkehr, ZSR
67
4 TREND Corridor C
Figure 4.1.1–5:
„Seaport branch“ – main line
TREND Corridor C in the
Czech Republic
„Seaport branch“ – line variant „North“
FRY-ZAW
DECIN HLN
„Seaport branch“ – line variant „South“
LIBEREC
USTI NAD LABEM
TURNOV
VSETATY
LYSA NL
KARLOVY VARY
PRAHA LIBEN
CHEB
MARIANSKE LAZNE
LIC-MIE
KOLIN
KUTNA HORA hl.n.
BEROUN
CHOCEN
CESKA TREBOVA
OSTRAVA SVINOV
PLZEN hl.n.
SVITAVY
BENESOV U PRAHY
CESKY TESIN
HAVLICKUV BROD
HRANICE NA MORAVE
PREROV
TABOR
NEZAMYSLICE
PROTIVIN
BRNO hl.n.
VESELI n/l
HOR-PUC
NEDAKONICE
C.BUDEJOVICE
BRECLAV
HOR-SUM
© Turkish State Railways
Crossing the Czech Republic the main line of the Seaport branch of Corridor C leads via Praha, Brno and
Breclav to Kuty at the Slovakian border (see Figure
4.1.1–5). A line variant ”North” bypasses Praha northwards via Strekov, Vsetaty and Lysá nad Labem to
Kolín. This line variant is often used for trains which
are limited by clearing gauge on the main line. A second line variant ”South” takes a short cut from Kolín
to Brno via Havlickuv Brod.
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic on the Czech corridor sector are listed in Figure
4.1.1–6.
Figure 4.1.1–6:
on TREND Corridor C in the
Czech Republic 47
Location
Decin
Marshalling
wagon traffic
✓
Lovosice
✓
Praha
✓
Kolin
47based on: Wikipedia:
„List of important...“,
l.c., Carpathia Group
Terminals for
unaccompanied
✓
✓
Remarks
Seaport branch only
• destination terminal for intermodal service from
Duisburg
• accompanied intermodal service („Rolling Road“)
to Dresden closed down since June 2004
Duisburg
Seaport branch only
Ceská Trebova
✓
Seaport branch only
Brno
✓
Breclav
✓
• pickup terminal for the “Carpathia Express” from
Havlickuv Brod to Löközhaza (Romania)
• pickup station for the “Carpathia Express” from
Havlickuv Brod to Löközhaza (Romania)
68
4 TREND Corridor C
The Seaport branch of Corridor C traverses the very
west of Slovakia. Here the branch diverges into two
line variants, both heading for Hungary (see Figure
4.1.1–7) in order to join the Ruhr branch there. The line
variant ”West” crosses the Hungarian border at Rajka,
the line variant ”East” at Stúrovo.
CADCA
MUS-PLA
HOR-PUC
PUCHOV
ZILINA
VRUTKY
STRBA
POPRAD
BARCA
HANISKA P. K.
HID-KEC
KUTY
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic on the Slovakian corridor sector are listed in Figure 4.1.1–8.
LEOPOLDOV
„Seaport branch“
GALANTA
BRATISLAVA PETRZALKA
RAJKA
Line variant „East“
NOVE ZAMKY
Line variant „West“
STU-SZOB
KOMARNO
TREND Corridor C in Slovakia 48
Bratislava
HAN-UZH
CIERNA
NAD TISOU
DEVINSKA N V
Figure 4.1.1–8:
Location
PRESOV
MARGECANY
Figure 4.1.1–7:
transport road/rail
conventional single
wagon traffic
✓
✓
Seaport branch only
✓
Seaport branch, line variant East only
Stúrovo
The Ruhr branch of Corridor C runs through Austria instead of Czech Republic and Slovakia. The route follows the main western-eastern line to Wien via Wels
and Linz. Beyond the Austrian capital the Ruhr branch
continues towards Hungary; however it splits up into
a line variant ”North” (via Hegyeshalom) and a line
Remarks
TREND Corridor C in
Slovakia
variant ”South” via Sopron (see Figure 4.1.1–9). From
Austria to Hungary both border crossings are currently
about evenly frequented by rail freight traffic.
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic on the Austrian corridor sector are listed in Figure
4.1.1–10.
Figure 4.1.1–9:
TREND Corridor C in Austria
GMUND
PASSAU
„Ruhr branch“
BRE-BER
SUMMERAU
ABSDORF
Line variant „North“
LINZ
BRA-MUH
SANKT POLTEN STADLAUDEV-MAR
WELS
Line variant „South“
KITSEE
ATTNANG PUCHHEIM
HEGYESHALOM
SALZBURG
WIENER NEUSTADT
SOPRON GYSEV
LAUTERACH
FELDKIRCH
KUFSTEIN
WORGL
INN-MIT
INNSBRUCK
SELZTHAL
BISCHOFSHOFEN
SCHWARZACH StVEIT
BRUCK
St MICHAEL
GRAZ
BRENNERO
FEHRING
SPIELFELD-STRASS
VILLACHKLAGENFURT
ROSENBACH
Location
transport road/rail
conventional single
wagon traffic
Wels
✓
✓
Linz
✓
✓
St. Pölten
✓
Ruhr branch only
l.c.
✓
• destination terminal for intermodal
service from Bremen, Hamburg,
Duisburg
49based on: Wikipedia: „List of important...“, l.c., Ökombi,
Kombiverkehr
Wien
✓
Remarks
• accompanied service
• starting terminal for Rolling Road
service to Arad (Romania)
• destination terminal for intermodal
service from Hamburg, Duisburg
Ruhr branch only
Figure 4.1.1–10:
points for rail freight
traffic on TREND Corridor C
in Austria 49
69
4 TREND Corridor C
Figure 4.1.1–11:
TREND Corridor C in
Hungary
„Ruhr branch“
„Seaport branch“
Line variant „West“
Line variant „East“
HIDASNEMETI
ZAHONY
FELSOZSOLCA
NYIREGYHAZA
HEGYESHALOM
SZOB
KOMAROM
SOPRON
VAC
FUZESABONY
GYOR
HATVAN
TATABANYA
DEBRECEN
BUDAPEST
ERD
SZOMBATHELY
UKK
SZENTGOTTHARD
ZALALOVO
PUSPOKLADANY
SZOLNOK
SZEKESFEHERVAR
SZABADBATTYAN
KUNSZENTMIKLOS-TASS
TAPOLCA
SIOFOK
BIHARKERESZTES
KECSKEMET
FONYOD
KISKUNFELEGYHAZA
BEKESCSABA
PINCEHELY
NAGYKANIZSA
MURAKERESZTUR
KISKUNHALAS
LOKOSHAZA
KAPOSVAR
GYEKENYES
KELEBIA
PECS
SZEGED
Main route
MAGYARBOLY
Alternative route
Right beyond the Austrian/Hungarian border the line
variant ”West” of the Seaport branch meets the line
variant North of the Ruhr branch (see Figure 4.1.1–11)
in order to join the line variant South at Györ. Finally
all branches and all line variants merge in Budapest
to split up again into a main corridor route, continuing
towards Romania, and into an alternative route, takFigure 4.1.1–12:
traffic on TREND Corridor C
in Hungary 50
50based on: Wikipedia: „List of important...“, l.c., Ökombi,
Hungarokombi,
Kombiverkehr,
Intercontainer
Location
Terminals for
unaccompanied
Sopron
✓
Györ
✓
Budaörs
✓
Budapest
✓
Szolnok
✓
ing its way to the Serbian border at Kelebia. The main
route diverges once more into a line variant ”North”
via Ujszasz and a line variant ”South” (via Cegléd).
Both variants rejoin at Szolnok.
on the Hungarian corridor sector are listed in Figure
4.1.1–12.
Marshalling
wagon traffic
✓
Remarks
• also accompanied service
• destination terminal for the “Hansa-HungariaContainer-Express (HHCE)”
• starting terminal for the “Europe-Turkey-Container-Express” to Halkali
• starting terminal for the “Danubia Express” to
Bradu de Sus and Bucuresti, with further connections to terminals in Romania and Bulgaria
• destination terminal for Rolling Road service
from Wels
• Ruhr branch and Seaport branch/West only
Bremerhaven, Hamburg
• Ruhr branch and Seaport branch/West only
Bremerhaven, Hamburg
• also accompanied service
• destination terminal for Rolling Road service
from Wels
Bremerhaven, Hamburg, Duisburg
Main route only
70
4 TREND Corridor C
Crossing Romania the main route of Corridor C runs
along Arad, Brasov, Ploiesti to Bucaresti and further
on to Giurgiu. At Giurgiu the route crosses the Danube and proceeds towards Ruse, Bulgaria (see Figure
4.1.1–13).
Main route
VAD-VIC
HALMEU
SATU MARE
SUCEAVA
PASCANI
DEJ
ORADEA
IAS-UNG
APAHIDA
on the Romanian corridor sector are listed in Figure
4.1.1–14.
LOKOSHAZA
ARAD
TEIUS
COPSA MICA
VINTU DE JOS
DEVA
MARASESTI
SIBIU
TIMISOARA
BRASOV
GALATI
BRAILA
STAMORA MORAVITA
BUZAU
FAUREI
PLOIESTI
PITESTI
ORSOVA
TITU
FILIASI
BUCURESTI
CRAIOVA
Figure 4.1.1–14:
Figure 4.1.1–13:
Important entry/handling points
for rail freight traffic on
TREND Corridor C in Romania 51
TREND Corridor C
in Romania
Location
transport road/rail
Lököshaza
✓
Arad
✓
VIDELE
RISIORI
CALAFAT
FETESTI
MEDGIDIA
CONSTANTA
GIURGIU NORD
MANGALIA
conventional single
wagon traffic
Remarks
Simeria
✓
• Main route only
• destination terminal for the “Carpathia Express” from Havlickuv
Brod/Brno/Breslav (Czech Republic)
• Main route only
• accompanied intermodal service
• destination terminal for Rolling Road service from Wels
Main route only
Brasov
✓
Main route only
Ploiesti
✓
Main route only
✓
Main route only
Bucarest
✓
✓
The alternative route crosses Serbia-Montenegro instead of Romania. From the border crossing station at
Subotica the corridor line runs to Beograd and further
on via Resnik and Nis to the Bulgarian border at Dimi
trovgrad (see Figure 4.1.1–15).
Figure 4.1.1–15:
Alternative route
SUBOTICA
TREND Corridor C in
Serbia-Montenegro
BOGOJEVO
NOVI SAD
SID
VRSAC
BEOGRAD
RESNIK JCT POZERAVAC
SABAC
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic on the Serbian corridor sector are listed in Figure
4.1.1–16.
STAMORA MORAVITA
STARA PAZOVA JCT
LOZNICA
VALJEVO
V PLANA
PRAHOVO
LAPOVO
VRAZOGRNAC
POZEGA
KRALJEVO
VRBNICA
STALAC
NIS
DOLJEVAC
DIMITROWGRAD/
DRAGOMAN
KOSOVO POLJE
PODGORICA
BAZ-POD
Figure 4.1.1–16:
BAR
D JANKOVIC
Important entry/handling points
for rail freight traffic on
TREND Corridor C in Serbia-Montenegro 52
Location
Beograd
Nis
transport road/rail
conventional single
wagon traffic
Remarks
✓
✓
Alternative route only
✓
l.c., Ökombi, Carpathia Group
l.c., Kombiverkehr
71
4 TREND Corridor C
Figure 4.1.1–17:
TREND Corridor C in Bulgaria
In Bulgaria the main corridor route leads from Ruse via
Gorna Oryahocia and Dobova to Dimitrovgrad. In Dimi
trovgrad the alternative route, coming from Kalotina,
Sofia and Plovdiv, joins the main route. The common
Corridor C route proceeds to Svilengrad at the Turkish
border (see Figure 4.1.1–17).
Main route
Alternative route
CALAFAT
KAR-NEG
BRUSARCI
JASEN
• intermodal service from Lambach (Austria)
KASPICAN
VARNA
GORNA ORYAHOVICA
MEZDRA
• the ”Turkey Container Shuttle (TCS)”, combined
block train from Duisburg
SINDEL
KOMUNARI
KALOTINA
ILIYANCI JCT
KAZICENE JCT
KARLOVO
KARNOBAT
DABOVO
ZIMNICA
Marshalling yards for single wagon traffic are not
available within the Turkish section of Corridor C.
BURGAS
RADOMIR
STARA ZAGORA
GYUESEVO
DUPNICA
In Turkey the corridor extends from Kapikule to Hakali/
Istanbul (see Figure 4.1.1–19). Halkali is the location
of the only Turkish Corridor C terminal for intermodal
transport road/rail and furthermore destination terminal for
• the ”Europe-Turkey-Container-Express” from
Sopron
RUSE
LOM
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic on the Bulgarian corridor sector are listed in Figure 4.1.1–18.
MIHAYLOVO
PLOVDIV
DIMITROVGRAD
SVILENGRAD
KOULATA
Figure 4.1.1–18:
points for rail freight traffic on TREND Corridor C in
Bulgaria 53
Location
Terminals for unaccompanied intermodal transport
road/rail
Marshalling yards for conventional single wagon
traffic
Ruse
✓
✓
Main route only
Gorna Orjachowisa
✓
✓
Main route only
✓
Main route only
Tulovo
Remarks
Stara Zagora
✓
✓
Main route only
Sofia
✓
✓
Plowdiw
✓
✓
Dimitrovgrad
✓
Figure 4.1.1–19:
Main route
TREND Corridor C in Turkey
KAPIKUE
EDIRNE
ZONGULDAK
KARABUK
HALKALI
SAMSUN
ARIFIYE
ACH-DOG
KARS
AMASYA
BANDIRMA
BALIKESIR
ESKISEHIR
SINCAN
BALISIH
SIVAS
HANLI
CETINKAYA
ALAYUNT
MANISA
CUMAOVASI
AFYON
TATVAN VAN
KAP-QOT
DIYARBAKIRKURTALAN
KONYA
ULUKISLA
ADANA
l.c., BDZ
ERZURUM
BOGAZKOPRU
MALATYA
DINAR
GONCALI
ERZINCAN
NARLI
GAZIANTEP
FEV-MAY KARKAMIS
ISKENDERUN
NUSAYBIN
72
4 TREND Corridor C
The involved Railway Undertakings supplied only a
fragmentary set of all modes‘ transport data (see Figure 4.1.1–20). It has to be kept in mind that the volumes
listed underneath represent not only the corridor´s but
the total flows amongst the involved countries.
The nine Corridor C countries add up to theoretically
72 destinations. However, depending on the respective routing, six or seven countries will effectively be
involved with 30 or 42 destinations.
Figure 4.1.1–20:
amongst Corridor C countries
2003 (rail, road, waterway)
[1000 t/a] 54
Country Destination
Country Origin
Germany
Germany
Austria
19,612.7
Czech Republic
Austria
Czech
Republic
Slovakia
Hungary
Romania
SerbiaMontenegro
Bulgaria
Turkey
Total
24,042.6
10,452.5
1,738.3
3,162.6
442.9
123.2
218.5
1,935.3
42,115.9
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
145.0
n.s.
n.s.
5,760.0
2,126.0
521.0
n.s.
107.0
n.s.
n.s.
82.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
255.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
918.0
n.s.
n.s.
1,241.0
14,618.2
7,096.0
Slovakia
2,592.3
n.s.
5,067.0
Hungary
4,338.0
n.s.
768.0
n.s.
Romania
630.5
n.s.
97.0
n.s.
Serbia-Montenegro
230.6
n.s.
n.s.
Bulgaria
379.1
122.0
150.0
Turkey
Total
1,711.4
n.s.
44,112.8
n.s.
26.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
26.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
144.0
568.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
550.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
57.0
n.s.
n.s.
1,014.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
routing via Germany (Ruhr branch) - Austria - Hungary - Romania - Bulgaria - Turkey
routing via Germany (Seaport branch) - Czech Republic - Slovakia - Hungary - Romania - Bulgaria - Turkey
Detailed statistic transport data are listed in Appendices 4.1 to 4.3. The main transport structures can be
described as follows:
• The nine corridor countries have an uneven share
in the total freight amount, as far as known according to Figure 4.1.1–20: More than 85 % is represented by Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic, followed by a second group, consisting of
Slovakia and Hungary. The other four countries‘
contribution to the all transport modes‘ volume is
only some 5 % altogether.
By far strongest single relationship is between
Germany and Austria, followed by Germany/Czech
Republic and Czech Republic/Slovakia. Other destinations with volumes of note are Germany –
Hungary, Germany – Slovakia, Germany – Turkey
(each vice versa) and Czech Republic – Hungary.
• Most relationships are unbalanced (i.e. the difference between the directional flows is more than
20 %). Exceptions are Germany – Austria, Germany – Turkey and Czech Republic – Slovakia.
• Due to the lack of several all modes‘ data, conclusions about modal split values can be made only
for dedicated destinations: Rail transport has a
dominant position on several relations with modal split values up to more than 80 %. Most of
these destinations can be found amongst neighbour countries (e. g. Czech Republic – Slovakia,
Czech Republic – Hungary or Romania – Bulgaria).
However, at the same time most of these high
rail shares are based on a rather small absolute
volume.
On the other hand, rail share fades significantly
with increasing transport distance. Destinations
like Germany – Romania/Serbia/Bulgaria/Turkey
show only a very poor rail modal split value.
• The strongest waterway modal split values refer
to sea transport destinations as Germany – Turkey or Turkey – Bulgaria. All other relations with
considerable waterway share follow the Danube
(barge transport).
• Unlike rail and waterway transport, road traffic
has a strong position on all relations, especially on
almost all of the strongest volume destinations.
54Source: TREND data
gathering tables,
based on:
• all German and all
Turkish destinations
(except Turkey –
Czech Rep. and
Turkey – Bulgaria):
Railion
• Austria – Hungary:
RCA
• all Czech relations
(except Czech Rep. –
Germany): CD, data
refer to year 2004
• Slovakia – Austria
and Slovakia –
Hungary: ZSSK
• all Bulgarian destinations (except Germany – Bulgaria and
Czech Rep. –
Bulgaria): BDZ
73
4 TREND Corridor C
A closer look at the rail freight volume shows the proportion of the transportation modes
• conventional single wagon transport
• intermodal trains (block trains + single wagon)
Suitable data have been provided for 39 destinations
by the Railway Undertakings (see Figure 4.1.1–21).
Figure 4.1.1–21:
modes amongst Corridor C
countries 2003
• On seven out of 39 destinations all three transport modes participate considerably (i.e. by more
than 20 %) in the total rail freight volume: from
Germany to Hungary and the Czech Republic (each
vice versa), on Germany – Austria, Czech Republic – Slovakia and on Austria – Hungary.
• Conventional (block and single wagon) trains dominate the freight traffic especially from Hungary
southwards.
• Intermodal trains are mainly concentrated on dedicated Corridor C destinations. In most cases they
are based on special transport conditions (e.g. alpine transit on Germany – Austria) or logistic concepts (e.g. logistic trains for automotive industry
on Germany – Hungary).
The typical market segments of rail freight traffic
amongst the Corridor C countries are listed in Appendix 4.4.
100 %
90 %
80 %
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
-A
ria
an
y
er
G
Au
st
er
m
G
-G
us
tri
m er a
an m
a
y
Se
- S ny
rb
e
ia
r
- G bia
G
er
er
m
m
an
a
Tu ny
y
-T
rk
ey
u
G
- G rke
er
y
m
an er m
y
an
Ro
-R
y
m
om
an
i
a
a
G
ni
er
a
m Ge
r
a
m
Bu ny
a
- B ny
lg
a
G ria ulg
er
ar
m -G
i
an er a
m
y
H
- H an
un
un y
ga
G
ry
g
er
- G ar y
m
an
e
Cz
r
y
- C ma
ec
ny
h
ze
Re
ch
p.
R
G
- G ep
er
.
er
m
m
an
an
y
Sl
-S
y
ov
lo
ak
v
ia
ak
ia
Au - G
e
s
Au tria rm
st
- H any
r
un
Cz i a e c Cz ga
ec r y
h
Re h
Cz
p. R e
ec
- A p.
h
Re
us
Bu
p.
tr i
lg
a
-B
ar
u
ia
- C lg a
ria
ze
ch
Re
p.
0 %
100 %
Conventional
block trains
90 %
Conventional
single wagon
80 %
Intermodal
trains
(Block trains
and single
wagon)
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
74
Ro
m
ze
c
Cz
ec
h
ry
un
H
Cz
ec
h
ga
Re
p.
-C
-H
un
ga
ry
Re
h
Re
p.
p.
an - R
C z ia - o m
ec
Cz an
h
ia
Sl
R ec
ov ep h R
e
ak . ia
Sl p.
o
v
Cz
Cz
a
ec kia
ec
h
h
Re
Re
Tu
p.
p.
rk
ey
Tu
rk
-C
ey
Bu zec
h
lg
Re
ar
i
p.
Tu a T
rk
ey urk
Bu
- B ey
lg
ul
ar
ga
Ro i a r
Ro ia
m
an
m
an
B u ia
ia
lg
ar Bul
ga
ia
H
un r
g a H u ia
r y ng
- B ar
Bu
ul y
lg
ga
ar
ri
ia
Au
-A a
st
us
r
tr i
Bu i a a
B
lg
u
ar
l
g
ia
ar
Sl
ov - Sl ia
o
ak
va
ia
ki
-B
a
ul
ga
ria
0 %
4 TREND Corridor C
4.1.2Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor C
As documented above the transport structures of the
involved Corridor C countries do not represent a homogenous arrangement. In fact they can be classified
into (at least) four logistic clusters:
• The first cluster includes Germany and Austria.
Additional potential for rail transport is likely to be
found most of all in alpine transit (Corridor B-East).
Beyond it there is only little scope left to change
the modal split appreciably, since transport structures are long and well established.
• The second logistic cluster refers to the exchange
of goods between Germany/Austria with the
Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. EU membership of these countries has induced an increase
of transport volume in common and with Western
Europe, especially Germany. It is also obvious that
transport structures converge to Western Europe
rates with all consequences for rail freight (e.g. increase of high prised goods and logistic demands,
loss of market shares for conventional rail freight).
In the rail freight market, specialised transport logistics and intermodal transport chains are already
established. All in all, the transport situation provides a high potential; thus, urgent intervention is
required to strengthen the market position of rail
freight.
• The third cluster comprises the new and potentially future EU members Bulgaria, Romania and
Serbia. From the rail freight point of view these
countries are still dominated by former transport
structures (i.e. strong position of bulk cargo, high
share of rail transport, intermodal rail transport
less developed). Nevertheless changes are expected in the short to medium term, so rail freight
should be prepared.
• The fourth cluster consists of Turkey exclusively,
which plays a special role. EU membership is envisaged, but not to be expected within the next
few years. Nevertheless, the Turkish economy
actually produces high rates of increase, which is
expected to continue in the foreseeable future.
Since Germany is the most important trading partner, rail transport – which is virtually non-existent – should be able to partake in the forecasted
volume increase especially on this long term
destination.
For the assessment of Corridor C not only the present
transport structures, but also the perspectives for the
future have to be considered. Due to this purpose the
Commercial/Infrastructure Managers of the involved
Corridor C countries stated their estimations concerning the future development of the freight market in
general and the rail freight production systems in special. Figure 4.1.2–1 shows the cluster of ”very high”
increase expectations. More detailed results can be
found in Appendix 4.5.
The highest expectations for the development of the
total freight market concentrate on the first and second group of countries, as defined above, especially
between respective neighbour countries.
A closer look at the rail production systems shows the
highest forecast values for intermodal block trains; additionally to relations with high total market increase
several other – mostly long term – destinations are
included as well, especially Germany – Romania, Germany – Turkey or Austria – Bulgaria (each vice versa).
Summarising the expected developments to be potentially picked up by rail freight, the Seaport branch has
a slight advantage to the Ruhr branch.
Destination
Branch/
route
Germany ⇔
Czech Rep.
Germany ⇔
Slovakia
Germany ⇔
Hungary
Germany ⇔
Romania
Germany ⇔
Turkey
Austria ⇔
Czech Rep.
Seaport
branch
Seaport
branch
All branches/routes
All branches/routes
All branches/routes
No
Corridor C
destination
Ruhr
branch
Seaport
branch
Austria ⇔
Bulgaria
Czech
Rep. ⇔
Slovakia
Czech
Rep. ⇔
Hungary
Slovakia ⇔
Austria
Hungary ⇔
Bulgaria
Total
freight
market
Potential Potential Potential
for addfor adfor aditional
ditional
ditional
conveninterintertional sinmodal
modal
gle wagon
block
single
trains
wagon
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Seaport
branch
No
Corridor C
destination
All branches/routes
Potential
for additioal conventional block
trains
Figure 4.1.2–1:
Cluster of future ”Very high”
expectations amongst Corridor C destinations
•
•
•
•
•
75
4 TREND Corridor C
4.1.3Diagnosis of existing and potential
and harmonisation)
Figure 4.1.3–1:
Border
Germany/Austria
(Passau)
Germany/Czech
Rep. (Decin)
Processing time
per train
15 min
30 - 60 min
One of the main current impediments for rail freight
traffic on Corridor C results from border crossing operations. The involved Railway Undertakings provided
adequate data, as stated in Figure 4.1.3–1.
Included activities
• PVG data input
• change of loco driver
Operational activities:
• PVG data input
• if necessary, change of loco driver
• commercial inspection
• RID inspection
• make out the list of end owner
• acceptance of the train, checking
documents
• generate Wagon list
• hand out documents to engine driver
Remarks
•
•
•
•
stated by Railion
cross border performance rated as „good“
stated by Railion/CD
further activities and time need in case of
customs clearance (only for goods to district of the DECIN
• cross border performance rated as „good“
Technical activities:
• loco change, if necessary
• brake test
• generate Brake sheet
• technical inspection
5 min
Czech Rep./
Slovakia (Kuty)
30 - 70 min
Operational activities:
• commercial procedure
– make out the list of end owner
– calculation of transport charges
– inspection of goods in wagons
– inspection of customs seals
– inspection of loaded goods
– inspection of delivery date
– inspection of wagon label
• RID inspection
• acceptance of the train
• document processing
– verification of information in consignment
note
– process consignment note
– generate Wagon list
– handing out documents to loco driver
• change loco driver
only for intermodal trains: transport, technical
and RID confidence (see chapter 4.1.4.1)
• stated by CD/ZSSK/ZSR
• further activities and time need (60-90
min) in case of customs clearance (only for
goods from none EU-countries)
Technical activities:
• loco change
• technical inspection of the train, e.g.
– damaged wagons
– overloaded wagons
– bearings
– bogies
– couplers
• brake test
• generate brake sheet
5- 10 min
Deliverable
76
for trains with mutual transport and technical
trust (intermodal trains, logistic trains for automotive
industry)
Work
Package
B2 – Corridor-specific Reports
4 TREND Corridor C
Border
Processing time
per train
Slovakia/Hungary
(Sturovo)
80 min
(Rusovce)
90 min
Included activities
Operational activities (ZSR/ZSSK):
• change loco
• change loco driver
• process consignment note (CN)
• verification of information in CN
• calculation of transport charges
• inspection of goods in wagons
• customs seals
• inspection of loaded goods
• control of overloaded wagons
• inspection of delivery date
• inspection of wagon label
Remarks
• stated by ZSSK/ZSR
• further activities and time need (60 -90 min)
in case of customs clearance (only for goods
from none EU- countries)
Technical activities (ZSSK):
• technical inspection train, damaged wagons
• inspection of bearings, bogies
• check of couplers, coach bodies
• brake tests
10 min
Austria/Hungary
(Hegyeshalom)
n.s.
Hungary/
Romania
(Lököshaza)
Romania/Bulgaria
(Giurgiu Nord)
n.s.
Bulgaria/Turkey
(Svilengrad)
120 - 240 min
120 – 300 min
70 min
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
change loco (except for multi-system locos) •
change loco driver
•
Other activities not specified
change loco
•
change loco driver
•
•
change loco
•
change loco driver
•
Customs clearance
•
•
•
•
•
change loco
change loco driver
Customs clearance
• Customs clearance
• Other activities not specified
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
stated by ZSSK
for trains with mutual transport and technical trust
stated by MAV
normal customs clearance procedure, except for
AUDI trains.
stated by MAV
110 min for customs clearance procedure
cross border performance rated as „good“
stated by BDZ
border activities done on both sides separately
from different institutions
partially common parallel operational and technical
procedures
cross border performance rated as „poor“
stated by BDZ
border activities done on both sides separately
from different institutions
no common parallel operational and technical
procedures
cross border performance rated as „deficient“
stated by TCDD
additional time request for
customs clearance = 60 min
© DB AG/ Hermkes
Slovakia/Hungary
77
4 TREND Corridor C
Adding up all single values – with plausible estimation
of missing data – an educated guess can be made that
the total time loss caused by cross border activities
amounts to 20 – 24 h per direction. About three quarters of this total value accounts for the section from
the Hungarian/Romanian borderline southwards.
The main border problems, leading to this time loss can
be assigned to the following groups of impediments:
• Different technical/infrastructural railway equipment (current systems, signalling systems, see
The different current systems require multiple loco
changes (multi-system-locos are not available or
only exceptionally used at present). A special situation is the Bulgarian cross border stations via
Romania and Turkey, which are not electrified.
This implies an additional change of traction mode
from electric to diesel and back to electric again.
• Missing operational co-ordination and administrative problems on the two sides of a border.
Because train passing is not based on the rule of
mutual trust in most cases, a technical examination of the train is done on both sides of the border. Additionally some border procedures – as customs or police activities – are not only nationally,
but also within the same country separated into
several authorities (e.g. Bulgaria/Turkey).
Transport data management, which actually requires multiple data pickup/correction/modification and manual document transfers (see also
chapter 4.1.3.5.3).
• A lack of co-operative rolling stock and personal
dispatching:
– Common loco dispatching is still a great exception amongst the involved Corridor C Railway
Undertakings and mostly restricted to multisystem engines. More rare is the interoperable
employment of loco drivers. Apart from Railion/
RCA and Railion/CD Cargo, where loco drivers are changed on all Corridor C cross border
stations.
– Common rules for the use of wagons are based
on RIV 2000 guidelines amongst all Corridor
C countries. Further agreements are the AVV
(”Allgemeiner Verwendungsvetrag”, contract
between the wagon owner and the Railway
Undertaking, practiced by Railion and RCA)
or bilateral contracts. Common dispatching of
wagon pools does not exist.
Another indicator of the severity of impediments at the
border crossings is the rate of punctual trains (defined
as a train with less than a one hour delay), gauged at
the border crossing stations. Extremely low values for
punctual trains (less than 20 %) were stated by the
Slovakian Railway Undertakings (RU). The main reasons for these delays were not infrastructure capacity
problems in the first instance, but insufficient technology (interlocking technique), technological procedures
(e.g. processing of transport documents), lack of locos
or discordance between RU and IM.
Significantly higher values (about 80 %) for punctual
trains were stated by the Bulgarian RUs for the Romanian and the Turkish border crossing. The main reasons for train delays were the actual mode of border
control activities incl. loco change and the influence of
delays from other trains.
Quick improvement – without long term and expensive infrastructure and technique measures – of the
current situation could be reached for example by
consequent mutual train trusting. Electronic data interchange (for customs clearance as well) could also
provoke great effects; however, short-term realisation
prerequisites dedicated hard- and software conditions
which are not yet fulfilled within all Corridor C countries. To improve flexibility of personal dispatching the
European engine driver license, as implemented by
ÖBB, is a step forward, too.
78
4 TREND Corridor C
In addition to loss of time, border crossing activities
costs. Within the border stations the following infrastructure resources are provided for interchange
purposes:
Border
Border
crossing
station
Number of
tracks for
interchange
purposes
Germany/Austria
Passau
6
Germany/Czech
Republic
Bad Schandau
Decin HLN
Decin Vychod
Kuty
4
10
11
10
Sturovo
18
Austria/Hungary
Hegyeshalom
27
Hungary/Romania
Curtici
7
Romania/Bulgaria
Giurgiu Nord
7
Bulgaria/Turkey
Svilengrad
8
Czech Republic/
Slovakia
Slovakia/Hungary
freight quality
Other infrastructural impediments mainly concern
the lack of capacities and operational quality within
the stations/nodes or along the lines. These handicaps make it difficult or even impossible to acquire additional rail freight traffic on the corridor. Furthermore
they lead to expensive operational modes – especially
within the nodes – which increase the total costs and
deteriorate the market position of rail freight traffic.
Figure 4.1.3–3 and Figure 4.1.3–4 show the current
infrastructural impediments within the stations and
lines on Corridor C, as stated by the Infrastructure
Managers.
Country
Figure 4.1.3–2:
Node/
station
Slovakia
Bratislava main station
Hungary
Rajka station
Required infrastructure for cross border activities
Country
Germany
Line/Section
Hamburg – Uelzen
Uelzen – Celle
Bremen – Hannover
Hannover – Lehrte
Köln – Neuwied
Würzburg – Nürnberg
Czech Republic
Usti Nad Labem hl.n. – Praha
Liben
Usti Nad Labem hl.n. – Decin
Hln
Decin Hln – Decin PZ
Kolin – Praha Liben
Usti Nls – Lysa Nl
Slovakia
Bratislava Petrzalka – Rajka
Hungary
Hegyeshalom – Rajka
Szajol – Lokosgaza
Bulgaria
Complete corridor line
Plovdiv – Dimitrovgrad
Turkey
Kapikule – Halkali
Impediment caused by/remarks
•
•
•
•
40 km/h speed restriction
Seaport branch only
40 km/h speed restriction
Seaport branch, line variant West
only
Impediment caused by/remarks
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Figure 4.1.3–3:
capacity
line loaded 55 due to high traffic volume
Seaport branch only
line congested due to high traffic volume
Seaport branch only
Seaport branch only
Seaport branch only
Ruhr branch only
Ruhr branch only
reduction of permitted intermodal gauge due to several
tunnels on the line section
Seaport branch/main line only
reduction of permitted intermodal gauge within station
Usti NL due to platform roofs
reduction of permitted intermodal gauge due to several
tunnels on the line section
Seaport branch/line variant North only
Capacity restrictions due to single tracked line
Seaport branch, line variant West only
Seaport branch, line variant West only
Capacity restrictions due to single tracked line sections
Main route only
Main route only
Figure 4.1.3–4:
and quality
55rating for capacity
employment rate:
> 100 % = overloaded;
86 – 100 % = loaded;
70 – 85 % = congested
79
4 TREND Corridor C
Summarising these problems can be assigned to the
following types:
• single track line sections, mainly in the southern
part of the corridor
• high traffic volume leading to capacity restrictions
for additional rail freight (especially in Germany)
For elimination of these impediments some measures
to increase lines and nodes capacity are already underway (see chapter 4.1.4.2).
• complete tunnel section causing limitations of the
intermodal gauge (Czech Republic, Slovakia (only
in direction from south to north))
• speed restrictions due to disadvantageous line
layout (especially within nodes in Slovakia and
Hungary)
Within the framework of these infrastructural impediments, the Corridor C Infrastructure Managers reported available capacity for additional regular freight
trains per day. In Figure 4.1.3–5 the lowest of these
values for the respective corridor section is shown,
assuming Status Quo conditions, i.e. without planned
and/or current infrastructure measures.
Figure 4.1.3–5:
Train path availability per
day for additional regular
freight trains on Corridor C
Slovakia
80
4 TREND Corridor C
freight transport
separated in Seaport and Ruhr branch. Both figures
show the main routing via Romania instead of Serbia.
Line variants have been included as far as relevant for
the change of technical parameters. More detailed results can be found in Appendices 4.6 to 4.11.
Germany
DB Netz AG
Czech Rep.
CD
Slovakia
ZSR
Hungary
MAV
G2 EBO
UIC-505-1
UIC-505-1
UIC-505-1
Relevant
Clearance
1435 mm
Track
Gauge
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
Istanbul
Gorna Orj.
Stara Zagora
Dimitovgrad
Svilengrad
Campina
Bucuresti
Giurgiu
Lököshaza
Budapest
Cegled
Szajol
Bratislava
Galanta
Sturovo
Szob
Kuty
Poricany
Lysa NL
Figure 4.1.3–6:
Kolin
Svitavy
Dresden
Bad Schandau
Decin V.
Usti NLS
Praha
Rosslau
Hannover
Country
IM
Lehrte
Hamburg
Bremen
Figure 4.1.3–6 and Figure 4.1.3–7 give an overview
about the most important technical and operational
parameters for rail freight traffic on TREND Corridor C,
Romania
CFR
Bulgaria
BDZ
Turkey
TCDD
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
TREND Corridor C
(Seaport branch) 56
Tracks
29
550 m
P/C 45-364
1100 t
ERMTS
Level 1
AC 25 kV
50 Hz
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
Figure 4.1.3–7:
Istanbul
Campina
Bucuresti
Giurgiu
Szajol
Budapest
Lököshaza
2050 mm
Wien-Hütteldorf
Wien
Sopron
Hegyeshalom
Györ
Linz
Passau
Regensburg
Nürnberg
Ansbach
Würzburg
D2
0
m
50
550 m
0
53 m
0
m
P/C P/C
80-41045-364
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
Austria
ÖBB
G2 EBO
1435 mm
Track
Gauge
65
km/h
D4
750 m
1950 mm
65
km/h
Screw coupler Screw coupler
with buffers
with buffers
C2
P/C 80-410
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
Germany
DB Netz AG
G2 EBO
Relevant
Clearance
Screw coupler
with buffers
ERTMS
LVZ / LST EVM Level 1
1950 mm
Aschaffenburg
Darmstadt
Wiesbaden
Mainz-Bischofsheim
Köln
ERTMS LVZ /
Level 2 LST
DC 3 kV
1950 mm
Country
IM
C3
730 m
2000 t 1400 t 2000 t
LVZ /
LST
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
Energy
System
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
70
km/h
00
t
25
0
40 0 t
00
25 t
00
t
2500 t
PZB / LZB
Signalling
System
C2
650 m
P/C 70-400 P/C 47-360 P/C 47-377 P/C 70-400
P/C 80-410
100
km/h
Screw coupler
with buffers
D4
650 m
600 m
650 m 600 m 700 m
700 m 740 m
650 m
2000 t 3000 t
Screw coupler
with buffers
D4
750 m
Maximum
Train Length
Intermodal
Gauge
80
km/h
55
Screw coupler
with buffers
D4
Line
Category
100
km/h
00
11 t
0
15 0 t
0
14 0 t
00
t
120
km/h
12
Screw coupler
with buffers
Coupler
Maximum
Train Mass
80
120 km/h
km/h
100
km/h
Gorna Orjachowiza
Stara Zagora
Dimitovgrad
Svilengrad
120
km/h
Maximum
Speed
Hungary
MAV
UIC-505-1
Romania
CFR
Bulgaria
BDZ
Turkey
TCDD
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
TREND Corridor C
(Ruhr branch) 56
Tracks
PZB / LZB
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
1950 mm
PZB / LZB
EVM
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
1950 mm
P/C P/C
80-41045-364
2050 mm
550 m
P/C 45-364
00
11 t
0
15 0 t
0
14 0 t
00
t
t
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
D2
0
m
50
550 m
0
53 m
0
m
D4
750 m
ERTMS
Level 1
65
km/h
Screw coupler Screw coupler
with buffers
with buffers
C3 C2
00
t
t
00
00
1450 t
t
1800 t
33
1850 t
30
2000 t
Screw coupler
with buffers
P/C 80-410
P/C 70-400
t
2735t
P/C 80-410
00
Maximum
Train Mass
P/C 45-375
D3
650 m
20
P/C 80-410
D3 D4
700 m
t
Intermodal
Gauge
P/C 80-410
50
750 m
750 m
Maximum
Train Length
Screw coupler
with buffers
65
km/h
12
D4
70
km/h
55
Screw coupler
with buffers
D4
Line
Category
100 120 100 80 100
km/h km/h km/h km/h km/h
40
0
25 0 t
00
t
Screw coupler
with buffers
Coupler
Signalling
System
Energy
System
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
120
km/h
20
120
km/h
00
80
km/h
13
120
km/h
27
Maximum
Speed
1100 t
ERTMS
Level 1
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
AC 25 kV
50 Hz
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
56 Data gaps for intermodal gauge filled by:
IU2005, Commission
technique: “Carte
de codification des
lignes ferroviaires
pour le transport de
caisses mobiles”.
Planco Consulting
GmbH, HaCon GmbH:
“Machbarkeitsuntersuchung für ein KVAngebot Dortmund –
Türkei”; Essen/Hannover 2001
81
4 TREND Corridor C
The compilation shows a large variety of operating
and technical parameters that affect interoperability
on the corridor:
– AC 15 kV, 16.7 Hz in Germany and Austria
– maximum train mass (single traction mode) =
1,100 t (Bulgaria and Turkey), neglecting one
rather short line section in Slovakia to be operated only by 900 t trains in single traction
mode in direction from south to north; nevertheless regular operation is done with an additional pushing engine on this sector
– AC 25 kV, 50 Hz in the Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey
– intermodal gauge = P/C 45-364 (Bulgaria,
Turkey)
• The railway companies are using three current
systems on Corridor C:
– DC 3 kV in the Czech Republic
The corridor is not completely electrified; gaps
have to be stated at the Romanian/Bulgarian and
at the Bulgarian/Turkish border.
• Common signalling systems are currently used
in Germany/Austria (PZB/LZB), in the Czech Republic/Slovakia (LVZ/LST) and Austria/Hungary
(EVM).
Dedicated line sections within Corridor C countries have already been switched to the new European ETCS level 1 (Austria/Hungary, Romania) or
level 2 (Czech Republic).
• Assuming that the electrification gaps at the Bulgarian borders will be closed by current projects
(see also chapter 4.1.4), a locomotive to operate
on the complete corridor would have to be compatible with
– two current systems on the Ruhr branch and
with three systems on the Seaport branch
– at least five different signalling systems on
the Seaport branch and at least three systems
in case of taking the Ruhr branch. Since some
of the involved railway provided no adequate
data, the actual number of required signalling
systems is likely to be even higher
– two pantograph widths
57In Hungary line
category C2 means
permitted axle load =
21 t, differing from
the UIC class (20 t)
58MVA,
KombiConsult,
Kessel+Partner:
Freiburg/Frankfurt
am Main/Paris 2004
• The maximum train capacity is limited by the
southern part of the corridor:
– Line category C 2 (i.e. maximum wagon axle
load = 21 t 57, maximum wagon length load =
6.4 t/m) in Hungary
– maximum train length = 500 m in Bulgaria
No interoperability problems on the corridor line
concern
• wagon coupling mode (screw coupler and buffers)
transport
The actual problems concerning infrastructure capacity have been already mentioned above (see chapter
4.1.3.2). Due to forecasted development of rail freight
traffic reasonable lacks of capacity for the year 2015
are expected mainly in Germany, especially on line
sections
• Hamburg – Hannover
• Göttingen – Frankfurt (via Bebra)
• Köln – Frankfurt
as well as around node Hannover. In contrast no severe capacity problems are expected within the Czech
Republic, Slovakia and Hungary 58.
capacity problems as well. Particularly in Germany
(Hamburg, Köln), Austria (Wels, Wien) and Hungary
(Budapest) probable capacity gaps are forecasted 58.
Concerning the available capacities within the marshalling yards (single wagon train splitting/composing) no problems were stated by the Railway
Undertakings.
Another main impediment concerns the rolling stock,
especially multi-system locos. Rail transit through the
Czech Republic requires Three-System-Locos, as the
CD uses two different current systems (DC 3 KV and
AC 25 KV).
For cross border traffic Austria – Hungary ETCS will
be installed in 13 ”Taurus” locos.
82
4 TREND Corridor C
Turkish Railways reported a lack of personal and rolling stock.
4.1.3.5.1 Cross border train path planning and
controlling
A special problematic situation in Bulgaria results
from the interdependence of infrastructural and operational impediments, due to prioritising delayed passenger trains on single tracked line sections. Another
resource related problem in Bulgaria is the insufficient track layout parameters, causing the need (and
the lack) of additional pushing locos on sections with
steep gradient and reducing the permitted speed, especially in case of missing train maintenance, and finally leading to increasing operational costs.
Since all nine Corridor C countries are members of
FTE, the construction of cross border train paths follows RNE guidelines. This means for instance the use
of ”Pathfinder” as a common platform for data and information interchange or institutions like ”One Stop
Shops (OSS)” with the help of catalogue train paths.
According to these guidelines the Infrastructure Managers shall apply the following response times when
replying to a customer‘s request for a train path concerning the running timetable period:
transport
Operational impediments on Corridor C mainly concern the following aspects:
• Cross border train path planning and controlling
customer with a relevant answer within five working days.
Nevertheless other FTE/RNE components like ”One
Stop Shops (OSS)” are still missing in most of the Corridor C countries. Response times to train path requests were rated by the Infrastructure Managers as
listed in Figure 4.1.3–8:
IM definition interface
Rated as
Figure 4.1.3–8:
Response times to train
path requests amongst
Corridor C countries
Quality agreements
IM/IM
Stated by
Germany/Austria
„fast“
yes
DB Netz
Germany/Czech Republic
„slow“
yes
DB Netz
0.5 – 2 working days
no
CD
Czech Republic/Slovakia
no
CD
Czech Republic/Austria
according to working schedule of arrangement train traffic diagram for dedicated trains
or extra trains five working days before the re quested departure in (e.g. VW)
national traffic and 21 working days before the requested departure in international traffic
no
ZSR
CD
Slovakia/Hungary
according to working schedule of arrangement train traffic diagram no
or extra trains five working days before the requested departure in
national traffic and 21 working days before the requested departure in international traffic
minimum 1 day
no
ZSR
Hungary/Austria
minimum 1 day
no
MAV
Hungary/Romania
minimum 1 day
no
MAV
Bulgaria/Romania
“slow”
no
BG
Bulgaria/Turkey
“slow”
no
BG
MAV
83
4 TREND Corridor C
Alleviation projects to improve the stated cross border time losses are new bilateral border arrangements between Bulgaria/Romania and Bulgaria/Turkey. Studies about compensation within the scope of
new arrangements between IM and RU are under way
between the Slovakian/Czech and the Slovakian/Austrian authorities.
Passenger trains are given priority over freight trains
in train path planning and operation in Corridor C countries. The most often used ranking is:
1. International passenger trains
2. International/fast freight trains
Controlling of cross border trains operations is already
done by bilateral control centres in some cases (e.g.
Czech Republic – Germany/Austria/Slovakia). However
especially in the southern part of the corridor, controlling issues are still separated on national dispatching
systems (Bulgaria/Romania, Bulgaria/Turkey).
The average time for a wagon to pass a marshalling yard was stated by the Railway Undertakings as
shown in Figure 4.1.3–9.
However, the actual requested time for a wagon to
stay in a marshalling yard is much higher (often 1 – 2
days).
3. Other passenger trains
4. Other freight trains
In some cases freight trains are even ranked on third
position only, prioritised by international and also
by national passenger trains (MAV/ÖBB, MAV/ZSR,
MAV/CFR).
Figure 4.1.3–9:
Average processing time
within marshalling yards on
Corridor C
Country
Germany
Marshalling yard
Maschen
(Hamburg)
Gremberg
(Köln)
Nürnberg
Czech Republic Decin Hln
Praha Liben
Average
processing time
[min/train]
Remarks
170 Seaport branch only
180 Ruhr branch only
140 Ruhr branch only
240 – 260 Seaport branch only
Ceska Trebova
Brno Malomerice
Breclav Prednadr.
Slovakia
Baratislava Vychod
Bulgaria
Russe
Gorna Orjahovica
Tulovo
Stara Zagora
Dimitrovgrad
Sofia
Plovdiv
120/360 • Main route only
• Values refer to “simplified” and to
“complete” train processing
45/300 Values refer to “simplified” and to
30/200 • Alternative route only
30/200 • Alternative route only
84
4 TREND Corridor C
As shown in Figure 4.1.3–10, data exchange with rail
production systems and exchange of wagon list is
done via HERMES interface between Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
The consignment note is exchanged electronically between Germany and Austria as well as between the
Interface
Electronic
Data interchange (EDI) Consignment note
(CN)
related to production
Germany/Austria
via HERMES
DB Netz – ÖBB
Railion – RCA
Germany/Czech R. via HERMES
DB Netz – CD
Railion – CD Cargo
via HERMES
Czech R./Slovakia
CD – ZSSK
CD Cargo – ZSSK
Cargo
via HERMES
via HERMES
ZSK – MAV
ZSSK Cargo –
MAV
Czech Republic and Slovakia. Nevertheless, in most
cases this transport document is exchanged via fax
(from Germany to the Czech Republic) or by hand in
a paper version, either additionally (Czech/Slovakia)
or exclusively (Czech Republic to Germany/Austria).
However, operational tests for electronic data exchange are currently in progress, especially by CD.
via HERMES
done
Czech R./Austria
CD – ÖBB
CD Cargo – RCA
via HERMES
MAV – ÖBB
done
MAV – CFR
No electronic
interchange
BDZ – CFR
does not exist
BDZ – TCDD
does not exist
Exchange of
Braking sheet
Remarks
Wagon list
via EDI
Fahrlagenplanung
via HERMES
by Railion
Digital sender
(fax in)
Fahrlagenplanung
via HERMES
by Railion
by hand in the paper
version
In preparation: Bilateral data exchange
of CN subset
Bilateral data
exchange of CN
subset and by hand
in a paper version
According CIM rules
by hand in a paper
version
via HERMES and by CD
by hand in a
paper version
by hand in a paper
version
via HERMES and by CD
by hand in a paper version
International braking sheet (only paper version)
According CIM rules International braking sheet (only paper version)
n.s.
No exchange, done
separately by each
railway company
International
wagon list (only
paper version)
International
wagon list (only
paper version)
No exchange,
done separately
by each railway
company
via HERMES and
by hand in a paper version
by hand in the paper by hand in a paper
version
version
In preparation: Bilateral data exchange
of CN subset
n.s.
No exchange, done No exchange,
separately by each done separately
railway company
by each railway
company
n.s.
No exchange, done done
separately by each
railway company
No electronic
does not exist
does not exist
interchange
No electronic
does not exist
does not exist
interchange
In the southern parts of Corridor C the line is mainly
single tracked. In addition to potential capacity problems this circumstance decreases the operational flexibility, especially in case of train delays and the mostly
Figure 4.1.3–10:
Transport data and document exchange amongst
by ZSSK
by ZSSK
by MAV
by CD
by MAV
by MAV
by BDZ
by BDZ
practiced priority of passenger trains in these cases
(see also chapter 4.1.3.5.1).
The low maximum speed for freight trains, especially
in Bulgaria and Turkey weakens the position of rail
freight.
85
4 TREND Corridor C
• Project ZEUS (= Projekt zur Zusammenarbeit der
europäischen Schienengüterverkehrsunternehmen
BDZ, CD, CFR MARFA, GYSEV, HZ, ZS, MÁV, MZ,
OSE, Railion, RCA, SZ, TCDD, ZSSK Cargo): Support of the expected volume rail freight increase
on Corridor IV and X (Transeuropean Rail Freight
Network (TERFN)). The project started in 2004
and developed measures for rail freight quality advancement, based on concrete train routings. One
of the chosen trains is the ”Asia-Europe-Express”
from Köln to Istanbul, which had a demonstration
running in May 2004 with one multi-system loco
along the Ruhr branch of Corridor C.
Currently the following Corridor C Railway Infrastructure Undertakings provide OSS services: DB
Netz (Germany), ÖBB Netz (Austria), Raab-Oedenburg-Ebenfurther Eisenbahn AG/Györ-SopronEbenfurti Vasut-Rt. (Austria/Hungary).
• Pathfinder: internet application for train path requests and allocations.
• Since 2005 intermodal trains between Germany
and the Czech Republic are operating on the basis
of transport, technical and RID confidence. Thus
the required processing time for these dedicated
trains at the German/Czech border could be reduced down to five minutes.
At the Czech/Slovakian border the processing
time for intermodal trains has been decreased
from about 3 h (year 1993) down to about 30 minutes. By end of 2005 it is planned to operate these
trains on the basis of transport, technical and RID
confidence as well, in order to reduce the time
loss once more 61.
• ÖBB establishes the new European loco driver license for cross border rail traffic.
• Common quality agreements and common priority rules for train path planning/operation have
been established for dedicated international trains
between Germany/Austria and Germany/Czech
Republic.
© DB AG/Obst
• One-Stop Shops (OSS): Cross-border train path orders are co-ordinated by the ”Contact OSS” 59:
December 2003 60
59 IQ-C: International
June 2004
60 IQ-C: Improving the
Quality ..., l.c., Appendix 2; Deutsche
Bahn
61 CD Cargo: „Bulletin
of Czech Railways‘
Freight“; 2005
• Reconstruction and electrification of border
crossing station Svilengrad (Bulgaria/Turkey) in
progress, to be finished by 2010.
• Train monitoring on the Turkish side of Bulgarian/
Turkish border by new hard- and software; project
has started.
calls
• Germany:
documents
– Upgrading line sector Roderau – Dresden; currently under construction; planned to be finished by 2013
– Leveling steep gradient on line sector Würzburg – Gemünden by building new tunnel; currently in planning phase; to be finished by 2013;
costs: 136 Mio €
86
4 TREND Corridor C
4.2Action plans
• Austria:
– Line upgrading between Passau and Wels to
”high capacity standard”
– Line quadrupling between Linz and St. Valentin
• Czech Republic:
– Reconstruction of the railway station Usti NL
– The corridor line is a pilot project for the use
of GSM-R; first implementations are currently
done and will cover the section from Kolin to
Bratislava until 2007/08. On line section Kolín –
Poricany ETCS level 2 is actually installed.
• Slovakia: Upgrading of almost the complete corridor line, especially the border crossing stations and Bratislava main station; to be realised
between 2007 and 2020, the calculated costs
amount to some 800 Mio € altogether.
• Hungary: Upgrading of almost the complete corridor line, especially the single tracked section (except Hegeyshalom – Rajka). Measures partially already completed, partially under construction until
2007; the calculated costs amount to about 500
Mio € altogether.
4.2 Action plans
4.2.1Introduction of action plan
methodology
The alleviation measures and projects for TREND Corridor C have been elaborated and agreed upon by
chapter 4.1.4.
Due to a lack of any suitable data, cross-border action plans between Austria/Hungary, Hungary/Serbia
and Serbia/Bulgaria are missing within the following
tables. In contrast measures in co-operation between
the Czech Republic and Austria have been included
in order to provide all available information, although
there is no corridor routing variant between these two
countries.
• Bulgaria: Reconstruction and electrification of line
sections Plovdiv – Dimitrovgrad (alternative route)
and Dimitrovgrad – Svilengrad. The project is already underway and to be finished by 2009/10;
the calculated costs amount to about 334 Mio €.
87
4 TREND Corridor C
4.2Action plans
agreements on service guarantees.
Undertakings
• Remove existing traction bottlenecks by providing
sufficient resources (locomotives and drivers): Calculation of profitability and – if applicable – procurement of interoperable multi-current locomotives, better organisation of resource dispatching.
Figure 4.2.2–1:
Germany –
Czech Republic
Co-operation of RU
I. Remove
interoperable
resource
bottlenecks
II.Ensure availability of
resources
III.E xtended
responsibility
of cross-border operation
centres
Czech Rep. –
Austria
Railion / CD:
Line improvement
Dresden region
• no bottleneck
• ongoing
co-operation
n.a.
n.a.
no problems
concerning resources
done
• Railion / CD: GONG
agreement ongoing
for itermodal freight
trains, in progress for
other freight trains
• extension of current
practice to be envisaged
Not done, to be
envisaged
done
Slovakia – Hungary
Hungary –
Romania
I. Remove
interoperable
resource
bottlenecks
ZSR/MAV have no problems with traction, lines’
capacity
resources
Common training of staff MAV – BDZ
in cross border operation,
to ensure fluency, regularity and punctuality for
loco and crew changes,
planned by ZSSK CARGO
for 2006
• Rationalising of cross
MAV – BDZ
border activities
planned by ZSSK CARGO for 2006 in order
to establish clear responsibilities for border staff and operation
• Transit in trust also for
dangerous cargo
III.E xtended
responsibility
centres
Germany –
Austria
Infrastructure
improvement
Romania –
Bulgaria
Czech Republic – Slovakia
• ZSR/CD: no problems concerning traction, lines’ capacity
• ongoing co-operation
• no problems concerning resources
• Common training of staff in
cross border operation, to
ensure fluency, regularity
and punctuality for loco and
crew changes, planned by
ZSSK CARGO for 2006
• Rationalising of cross border activities planned by
ZSSK CARGO for 2006 in
order to establish clear responsibilities for border
staff and operation
• Concentration of CD/ZSSK
activities on one side of the
border
• Only short stop for dedicated (intermodal) freight
trains: no loco change, no
technical and no commercial inspection
• extension of current practice to be envisaged
Bulgaria – Turkey
Flooded area BDZ – TCDD bilateral
leads to large meetings
detour for the
RU; needs to
be improved
shortly
CFR – BDZ
BDZ – TCDD
CFR – BDZ
BDZ – TCDD
88
4 TREND Corridor C
4.2Action plans
procedures.
by harmonising the ”operational/ safety” rules
(e.g. tail lamps, braking sheets, wagon list/train
consist reports, treatment of hazardous goods and
out-of-gauge regulations for through trains).
Germany –
Czech Republic
Czech Rep. –
Austria
I. Tail signal lamp
No change
II.Braking sheet
No change
consist report
done
IV.Regulation
of hazardous
goods
• DB – CD – ZSSK + States • CD / RCA:
and EU
adoption of
• deeper research and imTSI,
plementation to be envis- • deeper reaged
search and
implementation to be
envisaged.
V. Regulation
of out-of gaugeloads
done
CD / RCA:
adoption of
TSI 62
CD / RCA:
adoption of TSI
CD / RCA:
adoption of TSI
Germany –
Austria
done
Romania –
Bulgaria
• Process of implementation 2004 – 2006 by
ZSSK CARGO: RID
rules have been implemented, mutual trust
still to be established
• project for transport
acceleration of dangerous goods according
guideline UIC 471-3
done: regulations according to CIM and COTIF
Bulgaria – Turkey
I. Tail signal lamp
done
n.a.
n.a.
BDZ – TCDD
II.Braking sheet
done
n.a.
n.a.
BDZ – TCDD
consist report
done
n.a.
n.a.
BDZ – TCDD
IV.Regulation
of hazardous
goods
• Process of implemenn.a.
tation 2004 – 2006 by
ZSSK CARGO: RID rules
have been implemented,
mutual trust still to be established
• ZSSK/MAV + States +
EU: project for transport
acceleration of dangerous goods according
guideline UIC 471-3
done: regulations according n.a
to CIM and COTIF
n.a.
n.a.
V. Regulation
of out-of gaugeloads
Figure 4.2.2–2:
done: Austria
CD – ZSSK
accepts German signals
done: common CD – ZSSK
use of Austrian
electronic system
done
CD – ZSSK
CD / RCA:
done
adoption of TSI
Hungary –
Romania
Czech Republic –
Slovakia
62TSI = technical specifications for interoperability, according
directive 2001/16/
EC. This directive requires adoption of a
first group of priority TSI within three
years, i.e. in 2004, in
the following areas:
• control / command
and signalling
systems
• telematic applications for freight
services
• traffic operation and
management, including staff qualifications for cross-border
services
• freight wagons
n.a.
according RIV annex 2,
UIC guideline 502
• noise problems deriving from rolling stock
and infrastructure
89
4 TREND Corridor C
4.2Action plans
management tools
Figure 4.2.2–3:
Quality Management
System
of compensations)
Germany –
Czech Republic
Czech Rep. – Austria
corridor
between RUs and IMs
Germany –
Austria
I. Quality Management
and Measurement
System
• Application of UIC,
CER guidelines
• Application of UIC, CER
guidelines
• extension of current practice to be envisaged
• Pilot implementation
of UIC RU – RU standard agreement
• Governmental agreement, ongoing in
BRAVO
but not IM / RU
• Only basic agreements between IM – IM with addition agreements for each
cross-border (management of operation, signalling systems, time table,
accidents …)
• extension of curent practice to be envisaged
n.a.
projected
in BRAVO
III.Computerised Quality n.a.
Management System
(QMS)
RU of DB – CD
IV.Common Rules of
handling delayed
trains
RU of RCA – CD
and Measurement
System (QMS)
Quality measuring
system
• currently worked out
by MÁV
• planned to be established by ZSSK Cargo
by 2007
Planned for 2006 by
ZSSK CARGO. Mutual
quality agreements to be
signed.
III.Computerised Quality • Introduction of compuManagement System
terised QMS planned
by ZSSK CARGO for
2006
• Introduction of common QMS to be envisaged
• planned for 2006 by
IV.Common Rules of
handling delayed
ŽSR
trains
• development of common rules to be envisaged
done
projected in
BRAVO
Hungary – Romania
• currently established by ZSSK Cargo from 2004 to 2007. For dedicated logistic trains already in operation
• extension of current practice to be
envisaged
• Only basic agreements between
IM – IM with addition agreements
for each cross-border (management of operation, signalling systems, time table, accidents …)
• process of implementation by
ZSSK Cargo from 2004 to 2007.
For dedicated logistic trains already in operation
• extension of current practice to be
envisaged
currently established by ZSSK Cargo
from 2004 to 2007. For dedicated logistic trains already in operation
• planned for 2006 by ŽSR
• development of common rules to
be envisaged
Romania –
Bulgaria
Bulgaria – Turkey
n.a.
n.a.
BDZ – TCDD
n.a.
n.a.
Agreement for improving border
crossing procedures between BDZ –
TCDD
n.a.
n.a.
n.a
n.a.
n.a.
Common agreements BDZ – TCDD
90
4 TREND Corridor C
4.2Action plans
Czech Republic –
Austria
Germany –
Czech Republic
I. Priority of low
budget shortterm measures
International Roundtable
„Corridor Champion“
n.a.
I. Priority of low
Germany –
Austria
ongoing in
BRAVO
Hungary –
Romania
• Upgrading line section to n.a.
Raijka from 1 to 2 tracks
• Including all trains into
quality system planned
by ŽSR for 2006, according UIC action plan for
border crossing ŽSR/
MAV
Romania –
Bulgaria
n.a.
Czech Republic –
Slovakia
Including all trains
into quality system
planned by ŽSR for
2006
Figure 4.2.2–4:
measures
Bulgaria – Turkey
n.a.
4.2.3Medium-term measures –
trains
Czech Republic –
Austria
Germany –
Czech Republic
DB - CD
CD - RCA
Realised within daily opera- n.a.
tion, according to the train
traffic diagram and management priority
schemes (train speed etc.).
some links.
• Ensure timely and systematic international information exchange on timetable adaptations due to
track works.
Hungary –
Romania
Germany –
Austria
DB - ÖBB
Romania –
Bulgaria
n.a.
Czech Republic –
Slovakia
Realised within daily
operation, according
to the train traffic diagram and management priority
Figure 4.2.3–1:
Bulgaria – Turkey
n.a.
requirements.
EUROPTIRAIL …).
91
4 TREND Corridor C
Germany –
Czech Republic
4.2Action plans
Czech Rep. – Austria
Germany –
Austria
I. Evaluate the
availability of train
paths
RU: DB/CD
not done:
no problem IM ÖBB/SZDC
done in BRAVO
II.Improve time
tables to reduce
transport times
RU: DB/CD
done within the scope of
regular time table update:
IM takes care for track
modernisation, RU cares
for use of adequate locos
regular time table update:
IM takes care for track
modernisation, RU cares
for use of adequate locos
done
• CD - RCA piloting test
III.Ensure timely and • DB/CD + RNE in
systematic internaprogress
• extension within impletional information
• extension within implementation of TSI to be
exchange
mentation of TSI to be
envisaged
envisaged
done: DB/ÖBB + RNE
IV.International catalogue train paths
V. Provide reliable information on train
location and delay
done
done: DB/CD + RNE
done: CD/ÖBB + RNE
• CD gets suitable inforongoing
• No common data platform, but GPS system
mation from train dis• National information
patcher
science systems CEVIS • National information science systems CEVIS
and CDZ: UIC-Project
according regulation
and CDZ: UIC-Project
according regulation UIC
UIC 407-1 (application
21) in progress
407-1 (application 21) in
progress
• extension within implementation of TSI to be • extension within implementation of TSI to be
envisaged
envisaged
I. Evaluate the
availability of train
paths
sufficient capacity, train
paths are offered by the
network statement published on website
• done within daily operaII.Improve time
tables to reduce
tion by ŽSR
transport times
• Rationalisation of cross
border activities and
exchange of time table
data to be envisaged
III.Ensure timely and Electronic system for musystematic interna- tual monitoring of trains in
tional information
real time still to be estabexchange
lished
IV.International cata- Realised by ŽSR in 2004
logue train paths
V. Provide reliable in- Process currently impleformation on train mented by ŽSR for dedilocation and delay cated trains
Hungary – Romania
No problem IM ZSR/SZDC: sufficient
capacity, train paths are offered by
the network statement published on
website
• done within the scope of regular
time table update: IM takes care for
track modernisation, RU cares for
use of adequate locos
• done within daily operation by ŽSR
• Rationalisation of cross border activities and exchange of time table
data to be envisaged
• CD - ZSSK done
• extension within implementation of
TSI to be envisaged
• Electronic system for mutual monitoring of trains in real time to be envisaged
Realised by ŽSR in 2004
• Process currently implemented by
ŽSR for dedicated trains
• National information science systems CEVIS and CDZ: UIC-Project
according regulation UIC 407-1 (application 21) in progress
• extension within implementation of
TSI to be envisaged
Romania –
Bulgaria
Bulgaria – Turkey
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
FTE Meetings and bilateral BDZ –
TCDD meetings for dedicated trains
n.a.
n.a.
n.a
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Intention to equip locos no train location system
with GPS rather than
equip infrastructure
Figure 4.2.3–2
exchange to optimise the interfaces between
RUs, to optimise resource control and customer information
them
data interchange
92
4 TREND Corridor C
4.2Action plans
Germany –
Czech Republic
I. Improve com- • Project ISR - database for the
munication
documentation of freight wagons
and data exmovements
change
• extension within implementation
of TSI to be envisaged.
I. Improve communication
and data exchange
Czech Republic –
Austria
• Project ISR - database for the
documentation
of freight wagons
movements
• extension within
implementationof
TSI to be envisaged.
Hungary – Romania
Currently data are exchanged ben.a.
tween ZSR and CD according UIC A
30. The exchange is in a testing operation phase. ZSR prepares implementation of TAFTSI.
Germany – Austria
projected in BRAVO
• Project ISR - database for the
documentation of freight wagons movements
• Currently data are exchanged
between ZSR and CD according UIC A 30. The exchange is
in a testing operation phase.
ZSR prepares implementation
of TAF-TSI.
• extension within implementation of TSI to be envisaged.
Romania – Bulgaria
n.a.
Bulgaria – Turkey
n.a.
Figure 4.2.3–3:
Figure 4.2.3–4:
traction concepts
Germany – Czech Republic
I. Optimising use
of locomotives
done: Railion - CD
done
II.Deployment of
interoperable locomotives
III.Agreement on
done
mutual acceptance of locomotives and drivers
IV.Standardisation continuing process
of approval procedure
I. Optimising use
of locomotives
• Planned for 2006 by
ZSSK CARGO
• extension of loco optimisation
to be envisaged
II.Deployment of
• currently evaluated within the
interoperable loscope of ZEUS project
• Purchase of multi-system/intercomotives
operable locomotives and unification of technical and operational conditions planned by ZSSK
CARGO
III.Agreement on
not done
mutual acceptance of locomotives and drivers
IV.Standardisation • ZSR approves the locos of all opof approval proerators
• development of standard approvcedure
al procedure to be envisaged
Czech Rep. –
Austria
Germany –
Austria
not done: loco
change at border
crossing
locos are not interoperable, change at
border crossing necessary
done
CD – ZSSK: Optimisation already
done for dedicated trains
done
locos are not interoperable, change at
border crossing necessary
continuing process
done
• CD – ZSSK: done (locos are interoperable)
• Unification of technical/operational conditions planned by
ZSSK CARGO
CD – ZSSK: only for locomotives
and for dedicated trains
done
Hungary – Romania
n.a.
• continuing process, ZSR approves the locos of all operators
• development of standard approval procedure to be envisaged.
Bulgaria – Turkey
Romania –
Bulgaria
currently evaluated within the
scope of ZEUS
project
scope of ZEUS
project
BDZ - TCDD
n.a.
n.a.
n.a
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
currently evaluated
within the scope of
ZEUS project
scope of ZEUS project
93
4 TREND Corridor C
4.2Action plans
4.2.3.5 Prioritise freight trains (Time windows)
I. Prioritise
freight trains
(Time windows)
I. Prioritise
freight trains
(Time windows)
Germany –
Czech Republic
Czech Republic – Austria
Germany – Austria
Priority:
1. international express trains
and intermodal trains
2. regular international trains
3. exceptional international
trains
Priority:
1. international express trains
and intermodal trains
2. regular international trains
3. exceptional international trains
high priority to international freight trains by
flexible disposition in
Austria
Priority:
1. international fast trains
2. other international trains
3. national fast trains
4. national trains
Hungary – Romania
Bulgaria – Turkey
Priority:
1. international fast trains
2. other international trains
3. national fast trains
4. national trains
Figure 4.2.3–5:
Figure 4.2.4–1:
Long-term actions
n.a.
n.a.
the railway infrastructure (lines, nodes, marshalling yards, terminals),
along the corridor (RU operating centres),
HERMES system,
centres (between IMs),
• Development of ERTMS on the corridor.
Germany –
Czech Republic
tools to manage trains daily operation
along the corridor
Czech Republic –
Austria
Germany – Austria
done within the scope Railion – RCA;
of daily operation
LM – RTC
• done by CD/RCA
• done by DB/ÖBB
• improvement of
data exchange (e.g.
implementation of
TSI) to be envisaged
International
III.Monitor timely up• Bilateral coordination after n.a.
Round table („Corrigrading and extension
the decision on harmonised infrastructure paramdor Champion“)
of railway infrastruceters and timing has been
ture
taken
IV.Development of new Members of RAILDATA
done (InterfaceMembers of RAILsolutions for the existProject)
DATA
ing HERMES system
II.Improve coordination • done by DB/CD
of national traffic con- • improvement of data exchange (e.g. implementatrol centres
tion of TSI) to be envisaged
V. Development of
ERTMS on the parts
of the corridor
n.a.
• pilot project of the
n.a.
• pilot project of the GSMGSM-R at the corriR at the corridor section
Kolín – Děčín (cross-bordor section Kolín –
der) and pilot project of
Břeclav (project in
the ETCS level 2 at the
preparation)
corridor section Kolín –
• extension to be enPoříčany (both projects are
visaged.
in progress)
• extension to be envisaged.
• done within the scope of daily
operation
• Logistic - operating centres to
be envisaged for train management and customer information
• done by CD/ZSSK
• improvement of data exchange
(e.g. implementation of TSI) to
be envisaged
Planned by ŽSR after 2010 modernisation of line CD/Kuty - Bratislava Main station
Currently ZSSK CARGO use
three kinds of UIC applications:
• A30: advance, notice, send to
another railway for RU and IM
• A38: international search for
missing wagon
• A40: data exchange of consignment notes (actually only
between ZSSK CARGO/CD)
• pilot project of the GSM-R
at the corridor section Kolín Břeclav (project in preparation)
• pilot project of the GSM-R at
the corridor section Břeclav Bratislava (project planned)
• extension to be envisaged.
94
4 TREND Corridor C
4.2Action plans
Logistic - operating centres to
tools to manage trains be envisaged for train manalong the corridor
agement and customer information
II.Improve coordination Improvement of TAFof national traffic con- TSI Planned by ŽSR by
trol centres
2007/2008
• Planned by ŽSR by 2016
III.Monitor timely upgrading and extension
after track doubling between Bratislava main staof railway infrastruction and Bratislava Nove
ture
Mesto
• common monitoring to be
envisaged
IV.Development of new Currently ZSSK CARGO use
solutions for the exist- three kinds of UIC applicaing HERMES system tions:
• A30: advance, notice,
send to another railway for
RU and IM
• A38: international search
for missing wagon
• A40: data exchange of
consignment notes (actually only between ZSSK
CARGO and CD)
V. Development of
ETCS + GSM-R pilot line exERTMS on the parts
ist in preparation
of the corridor
Hungary – Romania
Bulgaria – Turkey
n.a.
n.a.
BDZ - TCDD
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
common monitoring
to be envisaged
common monitoring
to be envisaged
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Implementation of IT systems
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
4.2.5Other actions –
package of measures IV
bottlenecks
Germany –
Czech Republic
I. Developing the
n.a.
corridor concept
by alleviating capacity differences and bottlenecks)
Czech Republic –
Austria
n.a.
I. Developing the
corridor concept
by alleviating capacity differences and bottlenecks)
GSM – R: pilot line Bratislava-Nové Zámky by
2005/06. The project
is submitted to the EU
funding. Collaboration
with CD and MAV.
n.a.
Hungary –
Romania
n.a.
Germany –
Austria
Romania –
Bulgaria
n.a.
Czech Republic –
Slovakia
GSM – R: pilot line Bratislava-Nové Zámky by
2005/06. The project
is submitted to the EU
funding. Collaboration
with CD and MAV.
Figure 4.2.5–1
Bulgaria – Turkey
n.a.
95
4 TREND Corridor C
4.2Action plans
terminals/ports
Czech Republic –
Austria
Germany –
Czech Republic
I. Remove physical
bottlenecks
• problems concerning load- no problem
ing gauge in tunnels at corridor line Praha – Děčín.
Alleviation depends on financial possibilities of the
IM (SŽDC).
• New terminal for combined transport in Lehrte/
Hannover by 2007, designed for 200.000 LU/a 63 .
on a timetable
basis
in progress
on a timetable
basis
• Upgrading capacity in
Köln Eifeltor up to
300,000 LU/a by 2008
• New terminal in NürnbergRoth Hafen, designed for
300,000 LU/a by 2007
• Expansion of terminal
Wien Freudenau Hafen
CCT up to 140,000 LU/a
by 2006/07
• Replacement of Wien
Nordwest by new terminal Wien Inzersdorf by
2007/08, designed for
160,000 LU/a
n.a.
in progress
I. Remove physical
bottlenecks
Germany – Austria 63
Hungary – Romania
• Single tracked sections
Bratislava main station Bratislava Nové Mesto (to
be doubled by 2016).
• 11 per mille gradient between Bratislava Nové
Mesto and Bratislava main
station.
• Upgrading terminal in Budapest to 300,000 LU/a 63
n.a.
• Modernisation of Bratislava main station planned
after 2015
• New terminal for combined transport in BrnoSlatina by 2008/09
• Modernisation of Lovosice terminal for unaccompanied service by end of
2007, designed for 1,100
TEU/d
Modernisation of marshalling yard Bratislava Vychod is
planned after 2010
Bulgaria – Turkey
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Figure 4.2.5–2:
terminals/ports
Germany –
Czech Republic
Figure 4.2.5–3
Other measures
I. Other
measures
Corridor-wide train monitoring system to be envisaged
I. Other
measures
Czech Rep. –
Austria
n.a.
Hungary –
Romania
Within framework of mod- n.a.
ernisation set-up of GSM-R
and ETCS will be continued
in order to ensure interoperability of international railway traffic.
Germany –
Austria
n.a.
Czech Republic –
Slovakia
Within framework of modernisation set-up of GSM-R
and ETCS will be continued
in order to ensure interoperability of international railway traffic.
Romania –
Bulgaria
n.a.
Bulgaria – Turkey
n.a.
LU/a = loading unit per
annum
96
5 TREND Corridor D
Figure 5.1.1–1:
Map of TREND Corridor D
Figure 5.1.1–2:
5 TREND Corridor D
TREND Corridor D in the
Netherlands
Main Route
5.1.1 Introduction in TREND Corridor D
Alternative
The Corridor D connects the Ports of the Netherlands
with the Baltic States. Starting in Rotterdam (sea
port) the line follows a main branch via Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia to Estonia. The total length of
this main route is about 2,500 km. In Germany an alternative corridor route diverges from the main line,
heading for the industrial centres in Poland around
Kraków (see Figure 5.1.1–1).
Today
In the Netherlands the corridor line starts in Rotterdam and follows the planned new BETUWE line to
the German border at Emmerich. An alternative line,
which is currently preferred by Railion, crosses the
Netherlands/German border at Hengelo/Bad Bentheim (see Figure 5.1.1–2).
on the Netherlands corridor sector are listed in Figure
5.1.1–3.
DELFZIJL
LEEUWARDEN
GRONINGEN
NIEUWESCHANS
MEPPEL
UITGEEST
ZWOLLE
LELYSTAD
HAARLEM
SCHIPHOL
LEIDEN
WIERDEN
DEVENTER
BREUKELEN
UTRECHT
DEN HAAG
GOUDA
SCHIEDAM
ZWIJNDRECHT
HENGELO
IJSSELBURG JCT
VELPERPOORT JCT
EMMERICH
LAGE ZWALUWE
BREDA
BOXTEL
ESSEN
VLISSINGEN
EINDHOVEN
TERNEUZEN
SAS-VAN-GENT
NEE-WEE
BLERICK
ROERMOND
Figure 5.1.1–3:
TREND Corridor D in the Netherlands 64
Location
Rotterdam (seaport)
Kijfhoek/Rotterdam
Terminals for
unaccompanied intermodal
transport service road/rail
Marshalling yards for conventional single wagon traffic
✓
✓
Remarks
64based on:
important shunting
l.c.
97
5 TREND Corridor D
FLENSBURG
Main Route
SASSNITZ
PUTTGARDEN
KIEL
STRALSUND
NEUMUNSTER ROSTOCK
Alternative
Today
LEER
HAMBURGSCHWERIN
LUDWIGSLUST
BREMEN
ANGERMUNDE
UELZEN
CELLE
LEHRTE
PASEWALK
SZC-TAN
STENDAL
BERLIN
FRANKFURT
LOHNE
AN DER ODER
MAGDEBURG
BAD BENTHEIM MUNSTER
DESSAU
ALTENBEKEN
COTTBUS
HAMM
GOTTINGEN HALLE S
HORKA
HAGEN
RIESA
KASSEL
GORLITZ
KOLN
GERA
BAD SCHANDAU
MARBURG
BONN
ZWICKAU
FULDA
KOBLENZ
HOF
MAINZ
WURZBURG
TRIER
BIBLIS
MANNHEIM
ANSBACH SCHWANDORF
SAARBRUCKEN
REGENSBURG
KARLSRUHE
STUTTGART
INGOLSTADT
NEU-PAS
HORB
ULM AUGSBURG
BRA-MUH
MUNCHEN
FREIBURG
FRE-SAL
SINGEN KEPMTEN
KUFSTEIN
BAS-FRE
Figure 5.1.1–4:
Location
TREND Corridor D
in Germany
Emmerich
service road/rail
In Germany both branches merge at Löhne/Westfalen
and run along the east-west-mainline via Hannover
and Braunschweig to Magdeburg. In Magdeburg Corridor D diverges into the main route, which continues
via Berlin to the Polish border at Frankfurt/Oder, and
an alternative line via Güterglück through the industrial centre in Saxony to the German/Polish border
crossing at Horka (see Figure 5.1.1–4).
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic on the German corridor sector are listed in Figure
5.1.1–5.
Marshalling yards
for conventional
single wagon traffic
BETUWE route only
✓
Hamm
Remarks
✓
BETUWE route only
Bielefeld
✓
BETUWE route only
Rheine
✓
Bad Bentheim route only
Hannover
✓
Figure 5.1.1–5:
Magdeburg
✓
traffic on TREND Corridor D
in Germany 65
Berlin
✓
Frankfurt/
Oder
✓
✓
✓
Main route only
© Kombiverkehr
• Main route only
• currently served by conventional single wagon traffic only
65based on:
important shunting
l.c.
98
5 TREND Corridor D
In Poland the main corridor line heads for the Lithuanian border at Trakiszki/Mockava via Kunowice,
Poznan, Warszawa and Bialystok. As a variant the
main line diverges at Sokótka into another branch via
Kuznica Bialostocka to Belarus.
GDYNIA
GDANSK
Main Route
Alternative
BRANIEWO
TRAKISZKI
TCZEW BOGACZEWO
BIALOGARD
SUWALKI
ILAWA
RUNOWO POMORSKIE
SZCZECIN DABIE
SOKOLKA
MAKSYMILIANOWO
BIALYSTOK
The ”Horka” route proceeds to the southern Polish industrial centre via Legnica, Wroclaw, Opole, Gliwice
and Katovice. This southern branch ends up at Kraków
(Figure 5.1.1–6), with the option to be continued and
connected to the main route later on.
KRZYZ
INOWROCLAW
POZNAN GORCZYN
RZEPIN
Frankfurt (Oder)/
Kunowice
FORST
KONIN
TERESPOL
KORYTOW PILAWA
LUKOW
NOWA SOL
OSTROW WIELKOPOLSKI
ZAGAN
WEGLINIEC
Horka
Warszawa
KUTNO
ZBASZYNEK
ZIELONA GORA
GOR-ZGO
FRY-ZAW
Important entry/handling points for rail freight traffic on the Polish corridor sector are listed in Figure
5.1.1–7.
GRABOWNO WIELKIE BELCHATOW
WIELUN
OLESNICA
WROCLAW BROCHOW
STRZELIN
OPOLE
LUBLIN
SKARZYSKO KAMIENNA
DOR-JAG
HERBY NOWE JCT
KOZLOW
MIEDZYLESIE
PRZEWORSK
KRAKOW GL
CHALUPKI
PRZEMYSL
NOWY SACZ
ZAKOPANE
Location
Figure 5.1.1–6:
service road/rail
conventional single
wagon traffic
Poznan
✓
✓
Main route only
Warszawa
✓
✓
Main route only
Wroclaw
✓
✓
Figure 5.1.1–7:
Gliwice
✓
traffic on TREND Corridor D
in Poland 66
Katowice
Kraków
✓
Remarks
TREND Corridor D in Poland
✓
✓
In Lithuania the Western European track gauge of
1,435 mm ends at Sestokai. Near Kaunas both line
variants converge and take course as a united corridor
route to the border to Latvia (see Figure 5.1.1–8).
MEI-SAR
SIAULIAI
DAU-SAP
JONAITISKIAI
on the Lithuanian corridor sector are listed in Figure
5.1.1–9.
LINKAICIAI
KLAIPEDA
PAGEGIAI
GAIZIUNAI
KAUNAS
KAISIADORYS
KAZLU RUDA
LENTVARIS
KYBARTAI
GUD-VIL
SESTOKAI
Main Route
Alternative
Figure 5.1.1–9:
LEN-POR
on TREND Corridor D in Lithuania 66
Location
Sestokai
BEN-VIL
TRAKISZKI
service road/rail
conventional single
wagon traffic
Remarks
Figure 5.1.1–8:
TREND Corridor D in
Lithuania
Main route only
✓
Siauliai
✓
Vilnius
✓
66based on:
important shunting
l.c.
99
5 TREND Corridor D
From the border crossing in Meitene the Latvian section continues to Riga and further on to Valga (see Figure 5.1.1–10). Along the corridor route neither terminals for intermodal transport nor marshalling yards
are available. The Latvian marshalling yards are located in Daugavpils and Skirotava. 67
From Valga the corridor proceeds northwards through
Estonia to end up in Tallin (see Figure 5.1.1–11). In Tallin the only Estonian marshalling yard is located; terminals for intermodal transport rail/road are not
available.
PER-RIG
Figure 5.1.1–10:
TREND Corridor D in Latvia
VALGA
VENTSPILS
TUKUMS
RIGA
PYT-REZ
JELGAVA
LIEPAJA
KRUSTPILS
REZEKNE
MEITENE
REZ-SEB
DAU-SAP
DAUGAVPILS
DAU-POL
DAU-TUR
Figure 5.1.1–11:
TREND Corridor D in Estonia
TALLIN
NARVA
TAPA
The total rail freight transport volume between the
Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and
Estonia adds up to 30 destinations with 254.4 Mio t
in 2003 (see Figure 5.1.1–12). It has to be kept in mind
that the volumes listed below represent not only the
corridors but the total flows amongst the involved
countries.
TARTU
PARNU
VALGA
Figure 5.1.1–12:
amongst Corridor D
countries 2003 (rail, road,
waterway) [1000 t/a]
Country Destination
Country
Origin
Netherlands
Germany
Poland
67State joint stock company „Latvian Railway“: Network statement 2005
Netherlands
Germany
128,963.8
66,065.9
Poland
Estonia
Total
65.4
49.7
0.0
130,451.5
11,811.3
1,605.9
953.3
558.5
80,994.9
398.0
61.0
80.0
28,704.7
27,065.0
Lithuania
74.4
2,648.8
553.0
Latvia
71.4
5,566.1
101.0
Estonia
Latvia
1,372.6
1,100.7
Total
Lithuania
1,393.0
443.0
43.2
2,033.3
24.0
179.0
637.0
67,355.6
166,277.0
13,861.9
2,691.3
3,094.0
115.0
4,784.2
370.0
6,551.5
1,123.5
254,403.3
2,916.5
100
• conventional block trains on the Netherlands –
Germany route (and vice versa) and on Poland –
Germany
• conventional single wagon traffic on Germany –
Lithuania (and vice versa)
Figure 5.1.1–13:
• intermodal trains on Netherlands – Poland (and
vice versa)
modes amongst
Corridor D countries 2003
100 %
90 %
80 %
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0 %
• 38 % (i.e. 96.1 Mio t/a) of the total volume is handled by road transport. Unlike rail and waterway
transport, road traffic has a strong position on almost all relations.
N
et
• Strong waterway destinations lead from the Netherlands (sea ports) along the Rhine to Germany
and vice versa. Most of the other waterway relations are of a rather small absolute amount, but
represent extremely high modal split values in
some cases, e.g. Germany – Baltic States (and
vice versa) via sea transport. Generally water
transport contributes by 52 % or 131.1 Mio t/a to
the total transport volume. However the main part
of this waterway volume refers only to the first
corridor section between the Netherlands and
Germany.
Suitable data have been provided for 8 out of 30 destinations by the Railway Undertakings (see Figure 5.1.1–
13). With the exception of Germany – Poland, where
all three modes participate in the total rail freight volume, each relation is dominated by one rail transport
mode.
nd
s –
G
an
er
y –
m
N
an
N
et
et
y
he
he
rla
rla
nd
nd
Po
s
s –
la
nd
P
ol
– an
N
et
d
G
he
er
r
la
m
n
an
y – ds
Po
P
la
ol
nd
an
G
– d
er
G
e
m
rm
an
an
y –
Li
y
Li
th
th
ua
ua
ni
ni
a –
a
G
er
m
an
y
• 27.3 Mio t or 11 % of the total goods amount are
transported by rail, with a strong heterogeneity
on the particular destinations. Especially in some
Baltic States the rail transportation mode reaches
high modal split values, up to 60 % and more
(Lithuania – Poland, Lithuania – Latvia). Other relationships with a high rail transportation rate are
Poland – Germany and vice versa.
• intermodal trains (block trains and single wagon)
m
• With the exception of Netherlands – Poland and
Netherlands – Lithuania all relations are unbalanced (i.e. the difference between the directional
flows is more than 20 %).
• conventional single wagon transport
rla
On the other hand the proportion of freight traffic in the Baltic States amongst each other and in
exchange with the other corridor countries is only
7 % of the total traffic altogether.
er
• The 25 destinations contribute unequally to the
total amount: The two strongest relations (Netherlands – Germany and vice versa) represent more
than 75 % of the all transport modes‘ volume. Adding Germany – Poland (and vice versa) more than
90 % are covered.
A closer look at the rail freight volume shows the proportion of
he
More detailed statistic transport data are listed in Appendices 5.1 to 5.3. The main transport structures can
be described as follows:
G
5 TREND Corridor D
101
5 TREND Corridor D
Country
Origin
Country Destination
Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
n.s.
Poland
Lithuania
food and feeding
stuff
agriculture and
forestry
–
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
• food and animal
stuff
n.s.
Poland
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
solid fuels
Lithuania
• agriculture and
forestry
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
• crude oil
• mineral
products
• crude oil
• mineral
products
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
Latvia
agriculture and
forestry
• solid fuels
• crude oil
• mineral
products
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
Estonia
agriculture and
forestry
• crude oil
• mineral
products
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
food and animal
stuff
Typical market segments
served by rail freight
amongst Corridor D
countries 2003
Estonia
• vehicles
• machines
• semi finished
and finished
products
Germany
Figure 5.1.1–14:
Latvia
The typical market segments of rail freight traffic
amongst the Corridor D countries are listed in Figure 5.1.1–14. The overview evidently shows that rail
freight traffic from the Baltic States to Western Europe is dominated by agriculture and forestry products (to the Netherlands) and by crude oil/mineral oil
products (to Germany) respectively. Vice versa the rail
flows are affected by vehicles, machines, semi finished/finished and food products.
solid fuels
solid fuels
5.1.2Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor D
As documented above the destinations of Corridor D
accumulate to a considerable amount of freight volume. Since rail freight contributes only 11 % to this,
an educated guess can be made that there should be
enough potential to be tapped by new and innovative
rail freight services.
However, a closer look shows that Corridor D can be
divided in three logistic parts:
The first part includes the Netherlands and Germany.
Freight flows between these two countries are by far
the biggest proportion of the total volume of the cor-
102
5 TREND Corridor D
ridor. This volume is forecasted to increase due to the
development and continuation of overseas transport to
and from Rotterdam. For rail freight service additional
volume is likely to be acquired as an effect of the new
BETUWE line. Beyond it there seems to be only little scope left to change the modal split in a nameable
way since transport structures between the Netherlands and Germany are long and well established.
In the last year rail freight traffic especially in Latvia
has increased considerably, mainly due to bulk cargo
(oil, coal) exchange with Russia 68. Nevertheless EU
membership of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia will intensify connections with western destinations. Therefore it is a special challenge to enable rail freight to
take over a considerable amount of the additional
volume.
The second logistic part refers to the exchange of
goods between the Netherlands/Germany and Poland.
These relations (especially Germany – Poland and vice
versa) are of considerable amount at this stage and
– as a consequence of Polish EU membership – are expected to grow fast in the foreseeable future.
As another outcome of EU membership, not only
the volume but also the structures of transport will
change. Today rail transport from Poland to Germany
is dominated by bulk cargo; intermodal transport is
nearly irrelevant, considering the total amount. Future volume increase will extend to new markets (time
sensible and high prised goods), which require transport quality demands that actual rail freight services
are unable to fulfil. Participation in new markets requires a great leap forward.
EU membership has immediately alleviated former
cross border impediments for road traffic, while rail
freight is still severely handicapped by a lack of coordinated transport organisation and operating at the
German/Polish border as well as by a currently poor
technical standard of infrastructure and rolling stock
in Poland.
Regarding the railway infrastructure in Poland there
are good pre-conditions for additional transport volume, as no severe capacity problems on the lines of
Corridor D are expected, taking the planned or current
infrastructural measures for granted.
On the whole transport situation with Poland provides
a high potential for improvement; nevertheless urgent
intervention is required to strengthen the market position of rail freight.
Thirdly the Baltic States represent an external (rail)
transport area. Historically oriented towards Russia and
among each other, goods exchange with the other corridor countries (Netherlands, Poland) is rather poor or
(Germany) dominated by overseas transport at present.
The infrastructural and technical railway structures are
significantly different and in addition linguistic problems aggravate cross border transport and trade.
The results of TREND B2 presented below derive directly from the TREND Data Gathering Tables; exceptions will be expressly stated. The results of the meetings were analysed and taken into account, as well.
This report shall make the TREND results comparable
to corridor studies already performed in other projects
prior TREND in order to achieve a harmonised information base for a future Integrated Project (IP). Thus
the TREND corridor report will refer to the structuring
of the action plans that had already been developed in
the CER corridor reports:
a) Infrastructure problems,
and harmonisation),
c) Resource problems.
The main border problems result from two groups of
impediments:
• different technical/infrastructural railway equipment (current systems, signalling systems, track
gauges, see also chapter 5.1.3.3) and
• a lack of operational co-ordination and administrative problems on both sides of a border.
At the German/Polish border different current systems require a change of loco (multi-system locos are
not available or are not used at present). Using the alternative border crossing at Horka, the traction mode
has to be changed twice (from electric to diesel and
back to electric again), due to non-electrified sections. Complementary to the locos the drivers usually
change at the border as well.
68see M. Radloff: “Mit
55 Mio. t Rekord geschafft”. Deutsche
Verkehrszeitung Nr.
21, 18.02.2006, S. 3
103
5 TREND Corridor D
© DB AG/ Lautenschläger
The actual average border crossing time is between 2
and 6 hours per train, due to uncoordinated proceedings on both sides of the border. Because train passing is not based on the rule of mutual trust, a technical
examination of the train is done on both sides of the
border, combined with a new issue of transport documents 69, 70; electronic data interchange is not practiced at present.
At the borderline from Poland to Lithuania additional
problems accrue from a different track gauge and
an extensive lack of electrification within the Baltic
States.
The difference of track gauges between 1,435 and
1,520 mm causes the necessity of either reloading the
freight, or shifting the wagon body onto bogies of the
other gauge or using wagons with automatic wheel
set gauge change. A facility for automatic wheel set
gauge change is installed at Mockava (border crossing
Poland/Lithuania), where wheel sets of type SUW2000 (PKP) and DB AG/Rafil V can be handled; this facility is currently used for passenger trains between
Warszawa and Vilnius exclusively.
Due to these technical handicaps multi-system locomotives could be one module to reduce time loss
at the borders. However even at Netherlands/Germany border locos are still changed because Alstom
and Siemens locos are not compatible and an upgrade is regarded as too expensive by the Railway
Undertakings.
An overview of the scheduled time for border crossing purposes along Corridor D can be seen in Figure
5.1.3–1.
Figure 5.1.3–1:
Border
Netherlands/
Germany
(Emmerich)
Processing
time per train
3 min
50 – 60 min
Netherlands/
Germany
(Bad Bentheim)
69PKP: „The PKP
Group´s position on
public consultation
announced by the European Commission
concerning transport between the EU
and third countries“;
Warszawa 2005
Verkehr, HaCon,
KombiConsult:
„Erarbeitung von
71SMGS = Agreement
on International
Goods Transport by
Rail
104
35 min
Germany/
Poland
(Frankfurt/O.)
2 – 4 h
Germany/
Poland
(Horka)
4 – 6 h
Included activities
only PVG data transfer
with change of loco
• change of loco
• PVG data transfer
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
change of loco
mostly change of loco driver
technical examination
issue of transport documents
change of loco
mostly change of loco driver
technical examination
issue of transport documents
Poland/
Lithuania
n.s.
Poland/
Belarus
n.s.
Lithuania/Latvia
n.s.
• reloading cargo
• recollecting all transport data (for
SMGS-consignment note 71 )
• reloading cargo
• recollecting all transport data (for
SMGS-consignment note)
n.s.
Latvia/Estonia
n.s.
n.s.
Remarks
without change of loco or technical
equipment
• mostly no loco change (Diesel engines)
• no driver change
• trusted trains
• cross border performance rated
as „good“
• mostly change of loco driver
• Employment schemes allow loco
drivers of Railion Nederland to operate until Rheine and Osnabrück
cross border performance rated as
„not good“
• time need for loco change: 30
min
• 2 x loco change in Hoyerswerda
and in Horka due to not electrified line section between Hoyers
werda and Horka and different
current system in Poland
• cross border performance rated
as „not good“
• for alleviation project see chapter
5.1.4
5 TREND Corridor D
Additional aspects:
• At the Netherlands/German border the Infrastructure Managers criticised that the border staff did
not communicate sufficiently and suggested regular meetings.
• At the German/Poland border the IMs stated missing co-operation between the neighbour-RUs and
a lack of co-planning.
• In addition to loss of time, border crossing activities also require considerable infrastructure resources and costs. Within the border stations the
following infrastructure resources are provided for
interchange purposes:
– Netherlands/Germany (Emmerich): 3 tracks (but
used for national trains as well)
– Germany/Poland (Frankfurt/O.): 6 tracks (for
both directions)
5.1.3.2.2Other infrastructural impediments for rail
freight quality
of capacities and operational quality within the stations/nodes (see Figure 5.1.3–2) or along the lines (see
Figure 5.1.3–3). These handicaps make it difficult or
even impossible to acquire additional rail freight traffic on the corridor. Furthermore they lead to expensive
operational modes – especially within the nodes –
which increase the total costs and deteriorate the
market position of rail freight traffic.
For elimination of these impediments measures to increase lines and nodes capacity have to be planned
cohesively.
Country
Node/station
Poland/ Lithuania
border crossing stations
Poland
Bialystok
– Germany/Poland (Horka): 5 tracks
– Germany/Poland (Kunovice): 2 tracks
nodes Katowice,
Warszawa, Wroclaw
Figure 5.1.3–2:
capacity
Impediment caused by
• insufficient length of tracks
• insufficient reloading
capacity 72
some tracks without connection
to rail control centre
several infrastructural and/or operational bottlenecks 73
– Poland/Lithuania (Trakiszki): 1 track
– Poland/Belarus (Kuznica Bialostocka): 1 track
Country
Germany
Line/station
Wunstorf – Hannover
• line congested due to high traffic volume
• double tracked section (rest of the line: 4
tracks)
line loaded due to high traffic volume
Hannover – Lehrte
Knappenrode – Horka
Zbąszynek – Poznań Górczyn
• line loaded due to high traffic volume
• single tracked section
line congested due to single tracked section at
Oder bridge
extension of transit time by 0,5 min/train due to
radio-active control system
• medium line quality
• crossings without adaptation for 160 km/h
medium line quality
Minden – Wunstorf
Germany/ Poland Border crossing at Frankfurt/Oder
Poland
Impediment caused by
Kunowice – Rzepin
Rzepin – Zbąszynek
Poznań Górczyn – Swarzędz
medium line quality
Swarzędz – Konin
medium line quality
Konin – Kutno
• medium line quality
• lack of automatic electric block system
medium line quality
Kutno – Łowicz
Łowicz – Warszawa Odolany
poor line quality
Warszawa – Kuznica Bialostocka
several single tracked sections
Warszawa Odolany – Warszawa Targówek
speed restrictions
Warszawa Targówek – Warszawa Michałów
poor line quality
Warszawa Rembertów – Warszawa Zielonka poor line quality
Warszawa Zielonka – Tłuszcz
Łowicz – Pilawa
Pilawa – Małkinia
Białystok – Trakiszki
Suwałki – Trakiszki
• poor line quality
poor line quality
• poor line quality
poor line quality
extension of transit time by 0,5 min/train due to
radio-active control system
Figure 5.1.3–3:
and quality
72PKP: „The PKP
Group´s position
on public consultation...“, l.c.
Verkehr, HaCon,
KombiConsult:
„Erarbeitung von
105
5 TREND Corridor D
freight transport
The current infrastructural situation of intermodal
transport 74 in Poland is affected by insufficient productivity and complicated operational procedures,
e.g.
freight traffic on TREND Corridor D, main branches
(i.e. BETUWE line in the Netherlands, corridor line via
Warszawa in Poland and continuation to Estonia).
• overaged transshipment facilities (gantry cranes,
reach stackers), often with restricted bearing
capacity,
Track
Gauge
Netherlands
ProRAIL
UIC-505-1
1435 mm
1435 mm
Poland
PLK
UIC-505-1
Lithuania
LG
Latvia
LDZ
1435 mm
1520 mm
1520 mm
100 120 km/h 100
Screw coupler
with buffers
D4
700 m
P/C 80-410
600 m
C3
750 m
Tallin
Valga
Automatic coupler
without buffers
23,5 t
600 m
5100t
PZB / LZB
KHP
(Betuwe line)
DC 1,5 kV
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
DC 3 kV
1950 mm
1950 mm
1950 mm
Rotterdam/Kijhoek
Relevant
Clearance
Track
Gauge
Tracks
Maximum
Speed
(Freight trains)
Coupler
Line
Category
Maximum
Train Length
Intermodal
Gauge
Netherlands
UIC-505-1
1435 mm
100 km/h
120
km/h
Screw coupler
with buffers
615 540
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
750 m
690
100
km/h
80
km/h
Screw coupler
with buffers
D4
650 m 550
2500 t
ATB / Crocodile
PZB / LZB
DC 1,5 kV
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
1950 mm
600 m
P/C 80-410
2765 t
Diesel
1435 mm
D4
(Old Line)
P/C 80-410
Diesel
Poland
UIC-505-1
Screw coupler
with buffers
D4
Maximum
Train Mass
Signalling
System
Energy
System
Germany
G2 EBO
1435 mm
4600 t
Diesel
Falkenberg
Knappenrode
Horka
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
Gliwice
(Betuwe line)
ATB / Crocodile
2500 t
Wroclaw
Signalling
System
P 75-405 C 77-407 P/C 70-400
Wegliniec
2735 t
Country
106
650 m 700 m
Automatic coupler
without buffers
(Old Line)
P/C 80-410
Figure 5.1.3–5:
TREND Corridor D
(alternative branches)
Verkehr, HaCon,
KombiConsult:
„Erarbeitung von
80
km/h
Automatic coupler
without buffers
C4
D4
750 m
(Betuwe-Route)
615 540 690
ERTMS / ETCS
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
80
60
km/h km/h
Screw coupler
with buffers
D4
690 m
Maximum
Train Mass
Energy
System
1520 mm
(Old Line)
Screw coupler
with buffers
Magdeburg
Intermodal
Gauge
90
km/h
Hannover
Maximum
Train Length
(Betuwe-Route)
100 km/h
80
100
km/h km/h
Löhne
Line
Category
120
km/h
Bad Bentheim
Coupler
Estonia
EVR
Some double tracked sections
Tracks
Maximum
Speed
(Freight trains)
Riga
Meitene
Kaunas
Sokolka
Warsaw
Poznan
Frankfurt/Oder
Rzepin
Magdeburg
Berlin
Germany
DB Netz AG
G2 EBO
Krakow
Relevant
Clearance
Kattowice
Country
IM
Hannover
TREND Corridor D
(main branch)
Emmerich
Rotterdam/Kijhoek
Figure 5.1.3–4:
Oberhausen
• lack of stationary brake filling and inspection
installations.
Sestokai (LG)
Additionally the parameters for the alternative lines
(i.e. Bad Bentheim route in the Netherlands, branch to
Krakow in Poland), are listed in Figure 5.1.3–5. More
detailed results can be found in Appendices 5.4 to 5.6.
• inadequate loading track lengths and storage
areas,
P 75-405 C 77-407 P/C 70-400
2100 t
1600 t
KHP
Diesel
DC 3 kV
Deliverable Work Package1950B2mm– Corridor-specific Reports
1950 mm
5 TREND Corridor D
The compilation shows a large variety of operating
and technical parameters which affect interoperability on the corridor:
• In the Netherlands, Germany and Poland the track
gauge is 1,435 mm. In these countries trains are
coupled by screw coupler and buffers. In contrast
the track gauge amounts to 1,520 mm in the Baltic
States; these railway companies also use an automatic coupling system. Thus at the Polish/Lithuanian border the cargo has to be reloaded or the
wagons have to be regauged.
• All four European current systems are used by
the railway companies between Rotterdam and
Sokolka:
The only parameter to stay constant throughout the
whole (electrified) corridor is the width of the pantograph (1,950 mm).
transport
The actual problems concerning infrastructure capacity have been already mentioned above (see chapter
5.1.3.2). Due to forecasted decrease of rail freight traffic in Poland reasonable lacks of capacity for the year
2015 are expected only around node Hannover 75. Between Berlin and the German/Polish border upgrading
measures incl. the finalisation of the new Oder bridge
will ease the current bottleneck situation.
– in the Netherlands DC 1.5 kV (old lines) and AC
25 kV, 50 Hz (BETUWE line)
– in Germany AC 15 kV, 16.7 Hz
The electrified part of the corridor line ends in
Sokolka (Poland). In the Baltic States electric traction mode is restricted to dedicated passenger
trains in the periphery of the capitals. For (transit) freight trains Diesel traction mode will be
required.
• All corridors countries use their own, national signalling system. Additionally the new European
ETCS level 2 will be established on BETUWE line
by 2007; further corridor lines will not be switched
over to ETCS in the foreseeable future. On the
other hand there is only one signalling system
throughout the Baltic states.
• This means that a locomotive to operate on the
entire 1435 mm section would have to be compatible with
– four current systems
– four different signalling systems (ETCS level 2
in the Netherlands, ATB/Crocodile in the Netherlands, PZB 90/LZB in Germany, KHP in Poland)
• A freight train to operate on the corridor without
restriction is limited by
– a maximum train length of 600 m (540 m on Bad
Bentheim branch, 550 m on Kraków branch)
© DB AG/Schulz
– in Poland DC 3 kV
capacity problems as well. Particularly in Poland additional capacity needs are forecasted for the terminals in Gliwice, Poznan and Warszawa 75.
Concerning the available capacities within the marshalling yards (single wagon train splitting/composing) no problems were stated by the Railway
Undertakings.
Another main impediment concerns the rolling stock.
At present the poor quality of the rolling stock especially within the Baltic States causes delays in train
take over 76.
transport
Operational impediments on Corridor D mainly concern the following aspects:
– a maximum axle load of 21.0 t
– the profile P/C 70 – 400 (for intermodal trains)
76PKP: „The PKP
Group´s position
107
5 TREND Corridor D
Cross border train path planning between the Netherlands and Germany follows RNE guidelines. This
means the realisation of ”One Stop Shops (OSS)” for
example. The Infrastructure Managers should apply
the following response times when replying to a customer‘s request for a train path concerning the running timetable period:
customer with a relevant answer within five working days.
Between Germany and Poland cross border train
paths are constructed according FTE/RNE as well,
however the response time to a customer´s request
has been stated as a minimum of 3 and normally 15
working days. Within the planning and operating procedures freight trains are prioritised lower than passenger trains.
Eastwards of Poland (border to Lithuania and Belarus) scheduling of train paths follows bilateral agreements. The normal response time for a train path request amounts to 15 working days as well.
yard was stated by the Railway Undertakings as:
• Seelze (Hannover/Germany): 190 min
• Seddin (Berlin): 180 min
The actual time for a wagon to stay in a marshalling
yard is much higher (often 1 – 2 days).
Data exchange with rail production systems is done
via HERMES interface between the Netherlands and
Germany. Amongst these two countries the interchange of the consignment note is done via EDI standard as well.
In all other corridor-involved countries, neither electronic data interchange nor electronic exchange of the
consignment note is practiced yet.
braking sheet and wagon list. An international braking sheet and wagon list without change at the border is only used between Germany and the Netherlands, if the loco is not changed (multi-system loco). In
all other cases country-specific braking sheets/wagon
lists have to be exchanged.
The Baltic States do not accept the CIM consignment
note, but the SMGS consignment note instead. Thus
all transport data have to be collected again manually
at the Polish/Lithuanian border.
© DB AG/Jazbec
108
5 TREND Corridor D
5.2 Action plans
• The low maximum speed for freight trains in Poland and especially within the Baltic States weakens the position of rail freight 77.
• Train tracing is practiced only from Rotterdam
until the German/Polish border. Within Poland
train information is provided by Polzug for intermodal trains. However, for other trains in Poland
or within the Baltic States no information concerning the actual position or state of the train is
available 78.
• One-Stop Shops (OSS) for Netherlands/Germany/
Poland: Cross-border train path orders are co-ordinated by the ”Contact OSS” 79
– RNE marketing organisation founded 2002 in
Berlin
calls
documents
• Pathfinder: internet application for train path requests and allocations
• Bilateral agreements for controlling/operating
cross border trains between Poland/Lithuania
Horka and to improve the technical and commercial transfer systems. As a total result of these
measures the border crossing time is aimed to be
decreased to max. 45 minutes 81.
TREND Corridor D countries
• Netherlands: Building new BETUWE line between
Rotterdam and Emmerich/Germany for freight
trains exclusively; currently under construction,
planned to be finished in 2007.
• Germany: Upgrading train capacity on line sector
Wesel – Oberhausen (due to junction of BETUWE
line) from 290 trains/d to 366 trains/d; calculated
costs are 3 Mio €; currently under construction;
planned to be finished by 2007.
• Poland:
– Line upgrading between Kunovice and Rzepin;
project done by about 90 %, to be finished by
2007; costs: 24 Mio €.
– Line upgrading between Rzepin and Poznan;
project in analysing phase; planned to be realised by 2013; calculated costs: 286.9 Mio €.
– Node Poznan: new railway control centre under construction, to be finished by 2009; costs:
105 Mio €.
– Line upgrading between Swarzedz and Kutno;
– Line upgrading between Kutno and Warszawa;
77PKP: „The PKP
Group´s position
– Line upgrading between Warszawa and Tluszcz;
project in analysing phase; planned to be realised 2007 – 2013.
Verkehr, HaCon,
KombiConsult:
„Erarbeitung von
• Common quality agreements including border
crossing meetings between the Netherlands and
Germany
– Line upgrading between Lowicz and Czachowek; project in analysing phase; planned
to be realised by 2009; calculated costs:
297.5 Mio €.
• RIV 2000 as a common employment scheme for
wagons between the Netherlands, Germany and
Poland
– Line upgrading between Czachowek and Pilawa; project in analysing phase; planned to be
realised by 2013; calculated costs: 340 Mio €.
• Building new Oder bridge for border crossing
Frankfurt/Oder; start of project by 2006 80
– Line upgrading between Tjuszcz and Sokolka;
project in analysing phase; planned to be realised 2007 – 2013.
• German/Polish border at Horka: PKP plans to shift
the point of power switching from Wegliniec to
June 2004
Verkehr, HaCon,
KombiConsult:
„Erarbeitung von
81Additional information by PKP
109
5 TREND Corridor D
5.2 Action plans
5.2 Action plans
methodology
The alleviation measures and projects for TREND Corridor D have been elaborated and agreed upon by
The experts from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia provided no information concerning existing or envisaged
action plans. Therefore these three countries were
aggregated to ”Baltic States” within the following
tables.
chapter 5.1.4.
Figure 5.2.2–1:
dispatching,
agreements on service guarantees,
procedures,
Co-operation of RU
Netherlands –
Germany
I. Remove
interoperable
resource
bottlenecks
resources
III.E xtended
responsibility
centres
Undertakings
Germany –
Poland
Poland –
Baltic States
see chapter 5.1.4 • Upgrading line Horka –
Wegliniec (second
track, electrification) 82
• see chapter 5.1.4.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Railion applies
CIFFA experience to all centres
n.a.
DB - PKP concentrate activities on one side of the
border
Figure 5.2.2–2:
n.a.
reports, treatment of hazardous goods and out-ofgauge regulations for through trains).
Germany –
Poland
Poland –
Baltic States
I. Tail signal lamp
done
n.a.
n.a.
II Braking sheet
Railion: bi-lingual braking sheets
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
III.Wagon list / train con- done
sist report
n.a.
IV.Regulation of hazard- Venlo not allowed for hazardous
ous goods
goods; alternative routing („bypass“);
shunting in other stations
n.a.
n.a.
V. Regulation of out-ofgauge-loads
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
82Bundesverkehrs
wegeplan (BVWP)
2003 for section Knappenrode – Horka –
German/Polish border
110
5 TREND Corridor D
5.2 Action plans
management tools
systems (taking into account UIC guidelines),
of compensations),
Netherlands –
Germany
Germany –
Poland
and Measurement
System
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
done
n.a.
n.a.
III.Computerised Quality
Management System
(QMS)
IV.Common Rules of
handling delayed trains
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
corridor,
Figure 5.2.2–3:
Quality
Management System
between RUs and IMs.
Netherlands –
Germany
I. Priority of low
5.2.2.5Implementation of a dedicated corridor
control centre 83
system
and forecasts)
II.Exchange of operational
data
III.Co-ordination of rail construction operations
IV.Improvement of daily
business by regular meetings of the operation management
V. Co-ordination of crossborder timetables
VI.Transparency for train
path prices
• IQ-C-Group
• Capacity research
within the scope
of UIC project
„EURAILINFRA“
(2015/2020) 83
Germany –
Poland
n.a.
Poland –
Baltic States
n.a.
Figure 5.2.2–4:
marketing
Priority of short-term
low budget infrastructure
measures
civil works
of the operation management
I. Setup of a corridor dedicated operational control
system
Poland –
Baltic States
Germany –
Poland
Poland –
Baltic States
Project EUROPTIRAILS (part of ERTMS n.a.
programme):
• project has started by end of 2003/
beginning of 2004, planned to be finished by end of 2005
• objects: cross-border, transparent
communication, presentation and handling of international freight trains
• focus: ad-hoc-timetable construction,
train path dispatching, quality control
no activities until finalisation of new opn.a.
erational control system
annual co-ordination of main projects
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
at least annual meetings
annual international meetings 84
n.a.
International train path price information
system EICIS in use
Figure 5.2.2–5:
n.a.
n.a.
Quality....., l.c.
84additional information PKP
111
5 TREND Corridor D
5.2 Action plans
some links
trains
Netherlands –
Germany
I. Priority rules of freight
vs. passenger trains
RNE
Germany –
Poland
Poland –
Baltic States
n.a.
RNE 85
Figure 5.2.3–1:
Figure 5.2.3–2:
Netherlands –
Germany
Germany –
Poland
Poland –
Baltic States
of train paths
II.Improve time tables
RNE
RNE 85
n.a.
RNE
RNE 85
n.a.
III.Ensure timely and systematic international information exchange
train paths
see chapter
5.2.2.5
n.a.
n.a.
Freight Freeway Catalogue of
preconstructed train paths within the scope of RNE, distributed
by OSS 86
V. Information on train loca- Railion by GPS n.a.
tion and delay
Netherlands –
Germany
I. Improve communication
and data exchange
n.a.
Germany –
Poland
Figure 5.2.3–4:
Extension of interoperable traction concepts
85additional information
PKP
86source: IQ-C: Improving the Quality....., l.c.
Verkehr, HaCon,
KombiConsult:
„Erarbeitung von
88additional information
PKP
locomotives
II.Deployment of interoperable locomotives
approval procedure
them
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Figure 5.2.3–3:
EUROPTIRAIL …)
data interchange
Poland –
Baltic States
n.a.
requirements
Railion for BETUWE Line at Emmerich
station
Railion for BETUWE Line at Emmerich
station
• RU and certification procedures - partially cross-border operating loco drivers 87
• mutual recognition of locos: not yet
done 87
Manufacturers and Certification Agencies
Germany –
Poland
Poland –
Baltic States
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Manufacturers and
Certification Agencies 88
112
5 TREND Corridor D
5.2 Action plans
5.2.3.5Prioritise freight trains (Time windows)
I. Prioritise freight trains BETUWE line for freight trains exclusively
(Time windows)
basics for national legislation (definition in
2003, realisation in 2006) 89 :
• terms of application for current/planned
timetable
• train path construction
• train path allocation
Germany –
Poland
Figure 5.2.3–5:
Poland –
Baltic States
n.a.
n.a.
Figure 5.2.4–1:
Long-term actions
Netherlands –
Germany
along the
corridor
II.Improve co-ordination
of national traffic
control centres
III.Monitor timely
upgrading and extension of railway infrastructure
IV.Development of new
solutions for the
existing HERMES
system
V. Development of
ERTMS on the parts
of the corridor
HERMES system
Germany –
Poland
Joint centre like
CIFFA
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Regular Meetings be- n.a.
tween Transport Ministries and IM
n.a.
Members of
RAILDATA
n.a.
n.a.
ProRail (Betuwelijn);
DB whole corridor
ETCS planned but
financing open
n.a.
n.a.
5.2.5Other actions –
package of measures IV
Figure 5.2.5–1:
bottlenecks
Netherlands
– Germany
I. Developing the corridor concept by alleviating capacity
terminals/ports
Netherlands
I. Remove physical
bottlenecks 90
II.Provision of „terminal services“ on a
timetable basis
Rotterdam by 2012/15
up to 1 Mio LU 91 per
year
n.a.
Germany
New terminal for combined transport in
Lehrte/Hannover by
2007, designed for
200,000 LU per year
n.a.
Germany –
Poland
Poland
Baltic States
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Germany – Poland
n.a.
Poland –
Baltic States
see chapter 5.1.4
I. Other measures
Poland –
Baltic States
Poland – Baltic States
n.a.
Figure 5.2.5–3:
Other measures
Figure 5.2.5–2:
terminals/ports
Quality....., l.c.
90MVA,
KombiConsult,
Kessel+Partner:
91LU = Loading Unit
113
6 TREND Corridor E
passes Dijon, Lyon (Rhone valley line) and enters Italy at Modane border crossing station. The alternative route passes Metz, then enters Switzerland via
Basel border crossing and takes the usual north/south
transit route towards Chiasso and Milano region. The
B2 work package did not count with input from experts based in the United Kingdom. However, due to
the high volume of freight crossing the British Channel (currently mainly by ferry) and the new opportunities of the Channel (rail-) Tunnel these factors will be
taken in account wherever suitable. Please see Figure
6.1.1–1 for a geographical overview over TREND Corridor E.
Figure 6.1.1–1:
Map of TREND Corridor E
6 TREND Corridor E
6.1.1 Introduction of TREND Corridor E
The TREND Corridor E links France (starting in Calais/
connected to the Channel Tunnel) with the important
industrial region of Milano (northern Italy). When analysing the traffic flows on Corridor E it became clear
that between Metz region and Milano region the
corridor had to be split up in two branches, according to the actual transport structure. The main route
The total length of the TREND Corridor E varies between 1,250 km for the western branch via Lyon;
(some 1,000 km in France, ca. 250 in Italy) and 1,100 km
for the eastern branch (some 700 km in France, ca.
350 km in Switzerland, ca. 50 km in Italy). Although
the Swiss transit is shorter than the western branch,
the positive effect on the transport time is compensated by the need of an additional border crossing.
The total rail freight transport on this corridor in 2003
was of 11.9 Mio. tonnes. Compared to the road volume
of 37.4 Mio. tonnes rail counts with a market share of
ca. 24 %.
The results presented in this Corridor Study are based
on the input of the experts who were involved in the
data gathering of TREND Corridor E.
114
6 TREND Corridor E
The following maps show the detailed course of the
corridor in the involved countries including an alternative route via Southern France (branch West; see
dashed line) which is sometimes used for conventional
single wagon transport. TREND Corridor E crosses international borders at Modane/Bardonecchia, St.
Louis/Basel and Chiasso.
Calais
Main Route
Alternative
Metz
© DB AG/Klee
Dijon
Basel
Modane/
Bardonecchia
To be considered
for single wagon traffic
Figure 6.1.1–2:
The alternative route passes Switzerland via the highly
frequented north/south transit line Basel – Chiasso:
Corridor E in France;
branches West and East
Main Route
SCHAFFHAUSEN
Alternative
Basel
WINTERTHUR
BRUGG
OTHMARSINGEN
DELEMONT
MOUTIER
THALWIL
ZUG
BIEL
NEUCHATEL
AUV-PON
LUZERN
BERN
FRIBOURG
VALLORBE
DAILLENS JCT
St Margrethen
OLTEN
BUCHS
ARTH-GOLDAU
SARGANS
LANGNAU
CHUR
THUN
SPIEZ
LAUSANNE
BRIG
BRI-DOM
BEL-GEN
GIUBIASCO
MARTIGNY
GIU-LUI
LUGANO
Chiasso
Figure 6.1.1–3:
Corridor E in Switzerland
115
6 TREND Corridor E
The end of TREND Corridor E is Milano, which is
reached either via Torino (branch West) or via Chiasso
(branch East).
Main Route
BRENNERO
Alternative
TARVISIO
BOLZANO
UDINE
CERVIGNANO
CHIASSO
MILANO
Modane/
Bardonecchia
VERONA MESTRE
PIACENZA
TORINO
ARQUATA
GENOVA
FERRARA
BOLOGNA
RIMINI
VENTIMIGLIA
PISA FIRENZE
ANCONA
CAMPIGLIA M.
CIVITAVECCHIA
FOGGIA
BARI
CASERTA
SALERNO
BRINDISI
LECCE
SIBARI
PAOLA
LAMEZIA
PALERMO
MESSINA
MELITO P.S.
ARAGONACATANIA
SIRACUSA
Figure 6.1.1–4:
Corridor E in Italy
On its route via France and Italy, Corridor E passes
several important handling points for rail freight traffic. Besides terminals for unaccompanied intermodal
transport both Italy and France still count with a network of marshalling yards, enabling Railway Undertakings in both countries to offer conventional single
wagon transports to their customers. The main locations are listed hereunder.
Figure 6.1.1–5:
Marshalling Yards and Terminal Facilities on TREND
Corridor E
Location TREND Corridor E has been chosen according to
clearly defined criteria (cf. chapter III). The corridor
counts with a high traffic volume and a considerable
modal split for rail. The main attractiveness of TREND
Corridor E resides in the connection of the British Islands with central Europe. The Alps as natural barrier of road transport increases the attractiveness of
rail transport on the corridor even more. On the Switzerland branch the rail sector counts with a particularly strong political/regulatory support of the Swiss
government.
This assessment is supported by the dynamic change
of the legal and infrastructural framework that the rail
sector faces in Switzerland and which to a high extend is independent from the developments in the European Union (most recently: The increase of the tonnage limit for trucks to 40 tons, the advanced progress
of the Lötschberg base tunnel project, the projected
Gotthard base tunnels).
PESCARA
ORTE
6.1.2 Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor E
Apart from these long-term investments several shortand mid-term measures show the importance that is
given to this axis by the companies involved in activities on the corridor, such as the investment in the Modane tunnel that shall improve the processing time at
that border crossing from 2008 onwards.
intermodal transport
Marshalling yards
France (from Lille to Metz):
Dunkerque
✓ Location: Grande-Synthe
Lille
✓ (2 x) Locations: Dourges, Lomme
Metz
✓ Location: Somain
✓ Location: Woippy
Eastern Branch (from Metz to Milano via Switzerland):
Strasbourg
(F)
✓
✓ Location: Hausbergen
✓ Location: Muttenz
Basel
(CH)
✓
Aarau
(CH)
✓
Lugano
(CH)
✓
Chiasso
(CH)
✓
(I)
✓
Busto
(I) ✓ (3 x); Locations: Smistamento, Certosa,
Segrate
Western Branch (from Metz to Milano via Dijon / Lyon / Modane):
Milano
116
✓ Location: Smistamento
Dijon
(F)
Lyon
(F)
✓ Location: Venissieux
✓ Location: Sibelin
✓ Location: Orbassano
✓ Location: Gevrey
Torino
(I)
✓
Novara
(I)
✓
Milano
Deliverable
Work
(I) ✓ (3 x); Locations: Smistamento,
Certosa,
Segrate
Package✓B2Location:
– Corridor-specific
Smistamento Reports
6 TREND Corridor E
garded an organisational/operational bottleneck, not
an infrastructural.
Concerning the other border crossings of Corridor
E capacity problems were claimed for international
freight trains entering Basel from the west bank of the
Rhine River. Due to a high amount of commuter trains
in the area these trains have to pass Basel main station whose transiting capacity seems to be highly saturated. For the French-Italian border crossing no problems were mentioned.
directly from the TREND Data Gathering Tables and
B2 co-ordination meetings. The unified structure of
the report shall make the results comparable to corridor studies already performed in other projects prior
TREND in order to achieve a harmonised information base for a future Integrated Project (IP). Thus all
TREND corridor reports refer to the structuring of the
action plans that had already been developed in the
CER corridor reports:
and harmonisation)
The problems will be prioritised according to their importance (relevance for limitation of rail freight quality today and in the future) and time line of a possible solution of the problem (short-term, medium-term,
long-term). It will be evaluated which of the alleviation ideas that have come across could be put in practice as part of an Integrated Project.
The natural barrier between Great Britain and central
Europe is the English Channel. Since the Eurotunnel
was finished, this natural bottleneck is theoretically
overcome for rail transport given the fact that the tunnel is 100 % dedicated to rail transport. Nevertheless
and due to several problems that will not be mentioned
in detail, up to now rail did not achieve the modal split
that was expected when opening the tunnel. One of
the main problems is that the infrastructure and resources of the tunnel are dedicated to Eurotunnel and
are managed by the company itself. Freight trains are
hauled by purpose-built, dual-system electric locomotives; other locomotives are not authorised to pass
the Eurotunnel. This gives Eurotunnel a monopoly for
the stretch, preventing competition and thru-traction
that implies further negative consequences. Another
problem is the prohibition of hazardous goods transports after the tunnel fire which further limits the
potential for rail. Thus the Eurotunnel should be re-
freight quality
Apart from the border crossings the experts mentioned few infrastructural bottlenecks on Corridor
E. The most important infrastructural bottleneck appears to be the highly frequented Rhone valley – line
between Dijon and Lyon where congestion (together
with the priority of passenger trains) often result in
a lack of punctuality of freight trains. A further impediment, which only concerns single wagon traffic in
France is the marshalling yard in Lyon centre, which is
constantly congested. Both impediments are not likely
to be solved by short- or mid-term measures but need
long-term investments in the infrastructure. Thus possible alleviation projects are not likely to be treated by
means of an Integrated Project.
freight transport
Like all international freight corridors, TREND Corridor
E faces a variety of national power- safety- and signalling systems:
• France: 1.5 kV DC in southern France;
25 kV 50 Hz AC in northern / western France;
safety systems: TVM; KVB, BRS
• Italy: 3 kV DC; safety systems: BACC, RSDD
• Switzerland: 15 kV 16 2/3 Hz; safety systems: SIGNUM, ZUB 121
Like in other international rail freight corridors the result of this variety is the need of multi-system locomotives and/or locomotive changes (in case of conventional single system locomotives) in order to overcome
these interfaces. Nevertheless, the involved Railway
Undertakings affirmed a satisfactory situation concerning cross border operations between France/
Switzerland/Italy. The level of interoperability on
the corridor has been increased in selected areas.
117
6 TREND Corridor E
For example the French 437000 SNCF locomotives are
authorised to enter Switzerland until Basel. As a next
step Trenitalia plans to purchase 20 interoperable locomotives for French-Italian border crossing operations. For the Swiss-Italian border crossing 20 interoperable TI E412 are already homologated, another 40
will be purchased.
ard or are just missing because of a lack of dispatching
optimisation. This is especially the case for transport
to and from France, both inside the country and concerning the provision of resources at the border when
performing a change of a locomotive. Nevertheless,
the partners have taken several measures for improving the situation (see above).
The inflexibility and long duration of the homologation processes of locomotives/locomotive types from
abroad is a well known and still ongoing problem in
many European countries. High prerequisites, whose
justifications in some cases appear to be more than
questionable, prolong the duration of the homologation processes. The result is a significant increase of
the costs of the interoperability limiting its positive
effects.
transport
© DB AG/Hartmann
Another focus of the interoperable improvement measures is the training of locomotive drivers. Up to now
only some drivers are accepted bilaterally for interoperable employment, for a few particular trains and
limited sections of the network. A lot of activities are
in progress aiming at defining agreements on mutual
acceptance of locomotives and loco-drivers. However,
the current situation still shows a very limited level
of interoperable operations on the border crossings of
TREND Corridor E. Despite of this the Railway Undertakings are satisfied with the current situation.
Apart from this ”technical” interoperability in terms of
multi-current locomotives etc. the partners stated a
lack of the so called ”administrative interoperability”,
which is aimed at the standardisation and harmonisation of EDI processes, documents etc. This missing
interoperability causes a significant amount of delays
and (in comparison to the technical interoperability)
could possibly be implemented with less investments
than the technical interoperability.
transport
The delayed and insufficient provision of adequate
rolling stock appears to be a severe impediment for
rail freight transport quality on TREND Corridor E. The
lack of locomotives frequently causes delays; locomotives break down due to the obsolete technical stand-
Different organisational structures and the resulting problems in the co-ordination of international rail
freight transport are still an important impediment for
improved quality of rail freight transport in Europe.
The level of application of the EC Directive 2001/12/
EC concerning the organisation of the rail freight sector still varies widely in the countries affected by
TREND Corridor E. The lack of harmonisation affects
significantly the performance of the border crossings
procedures, where different responsibilities, different ways of operating freight trains, and even different form of company-organisations limit the success
of harmonisation efforts.
A complete harmonisation of all organisational structures and ”ways of doing things” will not be possible
and is not even desired by the EC. Whilst they do not
affect the interfaces with other rail freight companies (especially those interacting at the border crossing stations), processes that have proven their viability in the respective countries shall be maintained,
even though they are not harmonised with the operations of other countries. Nevertheless, all participants
agreed upon an increasing need of harmonisation at
the border crossings and are willing to perform the
necessary steps.
Concerning operative infrastructure procedures (train
path dispatching) passenger trains in general still have
priority over freight trains, even though a freight train
runs on schedule and competes with a delayed passenger train. This problem occurs especially on infrastructure bottlenecks, such as metropolitan nodes.
118
6 TREND Corridor E
6.2 Action plans
Generally the Railway Undertakings involved in TREND
Corridor E stated that they are currently quite satisfied
with their own cross border performance. Nevertheless, some alleviation projects have been launched.
They can be split up in two blocks of measures:
a) Improvement of supply of interoperable locomotives. Launch of several investment projects
that will show effects after the delivery of the
locomotives.
b) Concerning the ”administrative interoperability”
several working groups on Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) have been established aiming at the
standardisation and harmonisation of information
structures and systems in order to accelerate and
improve the quality of the data interchange between the participants.
Quality Agreements do already exist on bilateral/national level, for example between RFI and TI. Setting
up a Quality Management System (incl. quality agreements) on international level is regarded a mid-/longterm necessity. Positive experiences taken from the
BRAVO Project have proven the possibility of implementing such a system on an international multilateral basis but have shown the high level of resources
demanded for the implementation, as well.
6.2 Action plans
6.2.1Introduction of action plan
methodology
The alleviation measures and projects for TREND
Corridor E have been elaborated and agreed upon by
plans (= packages of measures) according to their priority and realisation timeframe (short-term, mediumterm and long-term measures) will facilitate a better
overview to the reader. The structure of these action
plans is comparable to the one that has already been
used in the CER corridor studies.
Each measure described in the action plans is followed
by a table indicating the entities that are (or should be)
mainly responsible to carry it out. A question mark indicates that an issue has not been discussed or that
no decision could be suggested at this stage. The reasons for this mainly reside in missing expert knowledge for the subject and/or region; ”n.a.” stands for
”not applicable”.
Undertakings
dispatching,
for international freight transport (e.g. locomotives, drivers) by means of agreements on service
guarantees,
Figure 6.2.2–1:
Co-operation of RU
UK – France
France – Italy
I. Remove
interoperable
resource
bottlenecks
n.a.
Eurotunnel provides sufficient resources but has a traction monopoly in the tunnel
II.Agreement on
service guarantees
?
III.Border crossing operation
centres
?
Partially done
level of technical interoperability is satisfying to the partners; on administrative level is
still a lot of work to do;
EDI – working groups are in
process (TI – SNCF – IMs)
Not done
Quality agreements between
RFI and TI on national level.
Needs to extend to intl. level
(SNCF, TI, RFF, RFI)
Done
Modane border crossing centre implemented and running
satisfactory
France – Switzerland
Partially done
Private RUs like BLS run interoperable trains; incumbent
RUs have purchased several
interoperable locos but are still
waiting for the start of the interoperable traction
II.Agreement on Not done
Partially done
service guar- (SNCF, SBB etc.)
(Contracts for intermodal
antees
trains sometimes contain quality clauses)
III.Border cross- Partially done
Partially done
ing operation joint SNCF/SBB team exists in Ba- Realised in 2004 between
centres
sel marshalling yard; a real “cenRFI and SBB - contract for the
tre” does not exist – SBB, SNCF
management of bordercrossing traffic
TI – not planned between SBB
and TI
I. Remove
interoperable
resource
bottlenecks
Partially done
SNCF locos authorised to enter
Basel; “true” interoperability is
not envisaged
119
6 TREND Corridor E
I. Tail Lamp
II.Braking Sheet
III.Wagon List /
Train Consist
Report
IV.Regulations
on Hazardous
Goods
V. Regulation on
out-of-gaugeloads
6.2 Action plans
UK – France
France – Italy
Done
A convention between
SNCF, EWS and Eurotunnel is running satisfactory
?
Done
(for interoperable trains) –
employment of French night
signal and Italian day signal
Partially done
(for trains performed interoperable there is one agreed braking
sheet); otherwise not (SNCF,
TI, RFF, RFI)
Done
(EDI via HERMES)
Done
(data interchange by
HERMES)
Done
International (RID) + national rules applied
Done
Preconditioned studies before all shipments except
for Combined Transport
Done
RID + Employment of UIC Leaflet 471-3-O
Done
(employment of Leaflet 502)
Figure 6.2.2–2:
Figure 6.2.2–3:
Co-operation of RU – IM;
West branch
Co-operation of RU – IM;
East branch
I. Tail Lamp
II.Braking Sheet
III.Wagon List /
Train Consist
Report
IV.Regulations
on Hazardous
Goods
V. Regulation on
out-of-gaugeloads
Not done
(SNCF – SBB)
Not done
no activities envisaged by partners
until UIC-solution; consequence:
Need to chance tail signal at border
(SBB, RFI, TI)
Not done
Partially done
(SNCF-SBB)
EDI is partially implemented, further improvements to be developed
by IQ-C Project (IQ-C members)
Done
Not done
EDI done by HERMES Improvements to be developed
in IQ-C Plan (SBB, TI, RFI) (IQ-C
members)
Partially done
Partially done
International (RID) +
Employment of UIC Leaflet 471-3-O
national rules applied by TI; further improvements envisaged in IQ-C Project (IQ-C members)
Not done
Partially done
(SNCF –SBB)
Employment of UIC Leaflet 502;
further improvements envisaged as
part of IQ-C Project (IQ-C members)
• Simplify and/or standardise administrative procedures. Remove operational obstacles at border
crossings by harmonising the ”operational/safety”
rules (e.g. tail lamps, braking sheets, wagon list/
train consist reports, treatment of hazardous
goods and out-of-gauge regulations for through
trains).
management tools
of compensations) – Take into account experiences from other project and work already done;
e.g. UIC ”Standard Quality Agreement between
RUs”, BRAVO Project etc.,
corridor,
Figure 6.2.2–4
UK – France
France – Italy
I. Quality Management and Measurement System
?
Not done
(SNCF – SBB)
Not done
(TI application of CER / UIC
guidelines) (SBB, TI)
?
Not done
(RFI offers access to traffic management system to customers,
but no further quality management measures) (all participants)
Partially done
(“Quality Label” between SNCF
and TI since 2000; Pilot quality
agreement running between RFI
and TI on national level)
Not done
(SNCF – SBB)
Not done
(see “Quality Management System) (all participants)
No harmonisation
(handling according to national
rules) (TI, SNCF, IMs)
Not done
(SNCF – SBB)
Partially done
(Some quality agreements for intermodal block trains; some on
national level between RFI and
TI). Need of extension to international trains (TI, SBB etc.)
Not done
(TI – SBB etc.)
III.Computerised Qual?
ity Management
System
IV.Common Rules of
No
handling delayed
harmonisation
trains
120
France –
Switzerland
Not harmonised
(treated by national
centres) – SNCF, SBB
Deliverable Work
Partially done
(in place for some intermodal block trains, but no general
Package
B2 – Corridor-specific Reports
agreement) (SBB, TI, IMs)
6 TREND Corridor E
6.2 Action plans
6.2.2.4Define priority projects for improving infrastructure bottlenecks
• Develop recommendations for low-budget shortterm infrastructure measures and for a ”wholecorridor-co-ordinated” plan of important infrastructure upgrades.
UK – France
France – Italy
I. Priority low budg- Not done
Not done
et shortterm
(to be envisaged involving the (to be envisaged involving the
measures
“Corridor Co-ordinator”)
I. Priority low budg- Not done
Not done
et shortterm
(to be envisaged involving the (to be envisaged involving the
measures
Figure 6.2.2–5:
freight traffic through congested areas, focusing on priority rules between freight and passenger trains
Priority short-term low budget
infrastructure measures
UK – France
I. Priority rules
freight trains vs.
passenger trains
some links
track works
Done
Fixed priority rules give freight
trains priority over passenger
trains at night (contrary during
the day)
I. Priority rules
freight trains vs.
passenger trains
?
France – Italy
Not done
(France: New System under
preparation) (RFF, SBB)
Done
(Luino and Monte Olimpino II
tunnels dedicated to freight
transport)
EUROPTIRAIL …)
requirements
UK – France
I. Evaluation of harmonisation
of operational schemes
II.Timetable improvements
III.Information exchange on
time table adaptations
IV.International catalogue train
paths
V. Reliable information on train
location and delays
?
?
?
?
?
I. Evaluation of harmonisation
of operational schemes
II.Timetable improvements
IV.International catalogue train
paths
V. Reliable information on train
location and delays
?
?
?
Figure 6.2.3–1:
Priority rules between rail
freight- and passenger trains
Figure 6.2.3–2:
Co-operation between Infrastructure Managers
France – Italy
Not done
(RFF / RFI)
Not done
(RFI / RFF – RFI will review the timetables after finalisation of Modane
tunnel construction)
Not done
(RFI / RFF; possibly involvement of RNE)
Partially done
(Process is guided by international institutions like RNE, FTE)
Partially done
(Ongoing RNE Project on tracking and tracing); RFI has implemented
tracking and tracing – system on national level
Partially done
(Intl. catalogue train paths existing according to RFI)
Done
IQ-C Project.
Partially done
(EDI via Raildata Orpheus system and Hermes 30)
Done
Not done
(IMs in co-operation with RNE)
Partially done
Partially done
(Ongoing RNE Project)
(RFI System working on national basis)
121
6 TREND Corridor E
6.2 Action plans
UK – France
information
France – Italy
I. Implementation plan on
eliminating weak points
II.Agreements on data
quality and validity
To be envisaged
See I.
To be envisaged
(SNCF, TI)
See I.
See I.
See I.
eliminating weak points
II.Agreements on data
quality and validity
To be envisaged
(SNCF, SBB)
See I.
To be envisaged
(SNCF, TI)
See I.
See I.
See I.
them
data interchange
Figure 6.2.3–3:
UK – France
n.a
(no interoperability via
Eurotunnel)
II.Increase of interop- Not done
erable locomotives (not envisaged)
France – Italy
I. Optimise the use
of locomotives
Not done
(all RUs)
III.Agreement on mu- Not done
tual acceptance of (not envisaged)
locomotive drivers
?
locomotive approval procedures
Partially done
(Modalor trains performed
interoperable); no further increase planned
Not done
(Further research needed between RFI /RFF)
Not done
(RFF / RFI / national authorities)
I. Optimise the use
Partially done and
of locomotives
ongoing
II.Increase of interop- Ongoing
erable locomotives
III.Agreement on mutual acceptance of
locomotive drivers
?
locomotive approval procedures
?
• Standardise and simplify locomotive approval procedures, especially for multi-system locomotives
Partially done and ongoing
6.2.4.1 Establish rules and tools to manage trains
along the corridor, aiming at
co-ordinating the various bilateral border
crossing ”operational” centres (between RUs)
Partially done and ongoing
(TI to purchase additional interoperable locomotives)
Partially done
(interoperable locomotive deployment only in exceptional cases) SBB and SBB Italia
working on agreement on mutual acceptance of locomotive
drivers with IG
Not done
(RFF, RFI, national authorities)
Figure 6.2.3–4:
traction concepts
UK – France
manage trains along corridor
Figure 6.2.4–1:
Establish rules and tools
to manage trains along
Corridor E
?
manage trains along corridor
To be envisaged
EurOptirail Project as first improvement step is ongoing
France – Italy
To be envisaged
EurOptirail Project as first improvement step is ongoing
Partially done
(TI – Chiasso operating centre)
122
6 TREND Corridor E
6.2 Action plans
6.2.4.2Improve the co-ordination of national traffic
control centres along the corridor
UK – France
?
I. Improve the co-ordination of national
traffic control centres
France – Italy
To be envisaged
EurOptirail Project ongoing
To be established
EurOptirail Project ongoing
Figure 6.2.4–2
Improve co-ordination of national control centres
To be envisaged
(SNCF, TI)
6.2.4.3Monitor the planned upgrading and
extension of the railway infrastructure (lines,
nodes, marshalling yards, terminals) with respect to major bottlenecks
UK – France
?
I. Monitor planned upgrading and extension of the railway infrastructure
?
I. Monitor planned upgrading and extension of the railway infrastructure
France – Italy
Done
Figure 6.2.4–3
Monitor planned
upgrading and extension of
infrastructure
To be envisaged
(RFI / SBB)
6.2.4.4Elaborate and develop new solutions for the
existing HERMES system
UK – France
?
I. New solutions for the existing HERMES
system
?
I. New solutions for the existing HERMES
system
France – Italy
To be checked by RFI
(whether members of RAILDATA)
Figure 6.2.4–4
New solutions for the
Done
(TI – Member of RAILDATA)
6.2.4.5 Development of ERTMS on the corridor
sections
UK – France
France – Italy
I. Development of ERTMS on the corridor
sections
?
To be checked
(Check national implementation plans)
I. Development of ERTMS on the corridor
sections
Under discussion
(for Athus Basel link) (RFF, SBB)
?
Figure 6.2.4–5
Development of ERTMS on
the corridor sections
123
7 TREND Corridor F
Figure 7.1.1–1:
Map of TREND Corridor F
7 TREND Corridor F
7.1.1 Introduction of TREND Corridor F
The TREND Corridor F links Spain and Germany, including a branch towards Poland. This branch represents a connection to TREND Corridor D which connects the Ports of the Netherlands via Germany and
Poland with the new Baltic Member States of the European Union. The total length of TREND Corridor F
varies between ca. 2,200 and 2,500 km, depending on
the branch of the corridor (ca. 600 km in Spain, 1,000
in France, 800 in Germany).
The total rail freight transport between the three
countries involved in Corridor F was some 9.5 Mio.
tonnes in 2003. The modal split of rail is relatively
poor, amounting to 8,1 % of a total freight of 116.9
Mio. tonnes (2003) on the corridor.
124
7 TREND Corridor F
Starting on the western side in Spain, Corridor F comprises a North- and a South-Branch (according to the
major traffic flows on rail).
The North branch (”Atlantic Branch”) starts in Madrid
and passes Valladolid and Burgos towards the French
border in Irún/Hendaye. In 2004 1.81 Mio. tonnes of
rail freight passed the Irún/Hendaye border crossing
of which 45 % was conventional and another 55 % intermodal rail transport. The traffic flow is rather balanced between southbound (France towards Spain)
and northbound (Spain towards France) transports.
The ”Mediterranean Branch” of Corridor F exceeds
the ”Atlantic Branch” in terms of traffic volume. It
starts in Valencia as a major centre of chemical industry in Spain, passes Barcelona (where the majority of today’s intermodal transport between Spain and
central Europe is sourced or bound to), and crosses
the French border at Port Bou/Cerbères border crossing station. 2.37 Mio. tonnes of rail freight transports
pass through Bou/Cerbères (2004) and account for
some 57 % of all rail transports crossing the Spanish/
French border (4.18 Mio. tonnes in 2004). The freight
structure on the Mediterranean Branch is different to
the Atlantic Branch, being clearly dominated by intermodal block train traffic (some 75 % of the freight volume). Furthermore in Port Bou/Cerbères southbound
rail transports outnumber northbound transports in
terms of tons (64 % vs. 36 %).
In France Corridor F passes the highly frequented
railway lines via a) Bordeaux – Tours – Paris (Atlantic Branch) or b) Montpellier – Lyon – Dijon (Mediterranean Branch). The junction of the two branches is
Metz. East of Metz the corridor is divided into two
new branches, either towards a) Köln via border crossing Apach/Perl or b) Poland via Forbach/Saarbrücken
border crossing – Mannheim – Mainz. Depending on
the final destination of the trains, the Polish border is
either crossed at Frankfurt/Oder (direction Warszawa)
or Horka (towards Kraków region).
Irun/Hendaye
Oviedo
La Coruna
Bilbao
Alsasua
Miranda de Ebro
Santiago
Leon
Orense
Vigo
VALENCA
San Sebastian
Burgos
Port Bou/Cerbère
Castejon
Puebla de Sanabria
Venta de Banos
Valladolid
Main Route
Riaza
Salamanca
Lerida
Zaragoza
Manresa
Barcelona
Fayon
Reus
Fuentes de Onoro
Avila
Ulldecona
Madrid Chamartin
Monfrague
MAR-VAL
Valencia
Alcazar de San Juan
Albacete
Ciudad Real
Puertollano
Aljucen
Xativa
La Encina
Alicante
Linares
Cordoba
Huelva
Murcia
Moreda
Granada
Sevilla
Bobadilla
Almeria
Malaga
Cadiz
Algeciras
Figure 7.1.1–2:
Corridor F in Spain
Main Route
Alternative
Perl/Apach
Saarbrücken/
Forbach
Paris
Metz
Orleans
Dijon
Tours
Lyon
Borbeaux
Irun/Hendaye
Montpellier
Port Bou/Cerbère
Figure 7.1.1–3:
Corridor F in France
FLENSBURG
Main Route
Alternative
SASSNITZ
PUTTGARDEN
KIEL
STRALSUND
NEUMUNSTER ROSTOCK
LEER
HAMBURGSCHWERIN
LUDWIGSLUST
BREMEN
UELZEN
PASEWALK
SZC-TAN
ANGERMUNDE
Direction Warszawa
STENDAL
CELLE
BERLIN
LEHRTE
RHEINE
FRANKFURT AN DER ODER
LOHNE HILDESHEIMMAGDEBURG
MUNSTER
DESSAU
ALTENBEKEN
COTTBUS
HAMM
GOTTINGEN HALLE S
HORKA Direction Krakow
HAGEN
RIESA
KASSEL
KOLN
GERA
BAD SCHANDAU
MARBURG
BONN
ZWICKAU
FULDA
KOBLENZ
HOF
MAINZ
WURZBURG
TRIER
BIBLIS
Perl/Apach
MANNHEIM
ANSBACH SCHWANDORF
Saarbrücken/
REGENSBURG
KARLSRUHE
Forbach
STUTTGART
INGOLSTADT
NEU-PAS
HORB
ULM AUGSBURG
BRA-MUH
MUNCHEN
FREIBURG
FRE-SAL
SINGEN KEPMTEN
KUFSTEIN
BAS-FRE
Figure 7.1.1–4:
Corridor F in Germany
125
7 TREND Corridor F
Please see the following figure (Figure 7.1.1–6) for important handling points of rail freight traffic on TREND
Corridor F. In Spain conventional single wagon transport is no longer offered to the rail freight customers.
Figure 7.1.1–5:
Marshalling Yards and
Terminal Facilities on
TREND Corridor F
Location Thus, the marshalling yards are of minor importance
(apart from the border crossing stations Port Bou and
Irún).
intermodal transport
Marshalling yards
Germany (Eastern Branch; Polish border to Forbach):
Frankfurt/Oder
(Polish border)
Berlin
✓ (currently no transhipments)
✓ Location: Großbeeren
Halle/Saale
✓ Location: Seddin
✓ (no intl. functions)
Erfurt
✓ (limited importance)
Bebra
Frankfurt/Main
✓ (2 x); Locations: FIT,
Frankfurt East (DUSS)
Mannheim
✓ (2 x); Locations: Rhenania,
Handelshafen (DUSS)
Ludwigshafen
✓
✓ (2 x); Locations: BASF, TriPort
Saarbrücken
Germany (Western Branch; Köln to Perl/Apach):
Köln
✓ (2 x); Locations: Eifeltor (DUSS),
Port (Niehl)
Koblenz
✓ Location: Gremberg
✓ (limited importance)
France (Atlantic Branch):
Metz
Paris
✓ (3 x); Locations: Noisy le Sec, Valenton,
Rungis
Tours
✓ (2 x); Locations: Le Bourget,
Villeneuve-Saint-Georges
✓ Location: St. Pierre des Corps
Bordeaux
✓
Bayonne
✓ Location: Mougerre
✓ Location: Hourcade
France (Mediterranean Branch):
Metz
Dijon
✓ Location: Gevrey
Lyon
✓ Location: Vénissieux
Avignon
✓
Perpignan
✓
✓ Location: Sibelin
Spain (Atlantic Branch):
Irún
✓
Vitoria
✓
✓
Miranda de Ebro
Venta de Baños
Valladolid
✓
Madrid
✓ Location: Abroñigal
✓ (2 x); (no intl. functions)
✓
✓
Spain (Mediterranean Branch):
Port Bou
Granollers
✓
Barcelona
✓ (2 x); Locations: Port / Morrot
Zaragoza
✓
Tarragona
✓ Location: Constanti
Castellón de la Plana
Valencia
✓
✓ (2 x); Locations: Port / Silla
126
7 TREND Corridor F
7.1.2 Reasons for analysing TREND Corridor F
As has been mentioned above, the selection of the
TREND corridors was done on the basis of clearly defined criteria. TREND Corridor F fits with all the criteria, especially with a high traffic volume and a poor
modal split of rail, leading to a high potential for future
increases of rail freight volume on the axis. Up to now
Railway Undertakings were not able to exploit this potential. Recently the incumbent Railway Undertakings,
Railion and SNCF, have launched a successful project
implementing a cross border operations centre at the
border France-Germany. This CIFFA (Centre Interoperabilite Fret Franco Allemagne) institution has become
a success story and the CIFFA principles could serve
as a benchmark for other border crossings, especially
in the new EU Member States in Eastern Europe. On
the other hand those countries have extensive experience in streamlining border crossing procedures. Mutual benchmarking of improvement measures for problems in all of the corridors should help increase best
practice and the modal split for rail.
In contrast with the ”old” CER Corridor 2 the TREND
Corridor F has a branch to the Polish border crossings
Frankfurt (Oder) and Horka. This branch connects the
TREND Corridor F to other TREND corridors that examine the axis from the western Polish borders towards the Baltic Countries. The perspective of a mutual benchmarking together with the high modal shift
potential on the corridor encouraged the TREND Consortium to examine this corridor.
The results of TREND B2 presented hereunder derive directly from the TREND Data Gathering Tables
and co-ordination meetings with the TREND Experts.
This report shall make the TREND results comparable
to corridor studies already executed in other projects
prior TREND in order to achieve a harmonised information base for structuring a future Integrated Project
(IP). The TREND corridor reports therefore structure
the problems and the action plans in the same way as
the CER corridor reports:
and harmonisation)
The problems will be prioritised according to their importance (relevance for limitation of rail freight quality today and in the future) and time line of a possible solution of the problem (short-term, medium-term,
long-term). By this it will be evaluated which of the
improvement ideas that have come across could be
put into practice as part of an Integrated Project.
TREND Corridor F presents numerous infrastructural
impediments that harm the quality of rail freight ser
vices on the axis. A distinction can be made between
the bottleneck ”border crossing” and other infrastructure bottlenecks on the course of the corridor (within
the countries). Most of the infrastructure bottlenecks
will not be eliminated in the short- or medium-term
due to the required investment volumes and the long
planning periods. This means that the Railway Undertakings will deal better with this ”status quo” and develop operational procedures that decrease the impact
of these infrastructural problems wherever possible.
The most obvious infrastructure problem on the corridor is the change of the track gauge between France
and Spain, which implies the necessity of extraordinary measures to pass the border. In the case of intermodal transports the load units are transhipped from
wagon to wagon with a gantry crane, a procedure that
despite upcoming capacity problems in Irún and Port
Bou generally works without major problems due to
the long experience of the involved partners. Nevertheless, it has become difficult for Intermodal Operators to obtain new transhipment slots in Irún or Port
Bou due to the congestion of the installations in the
border crossing stations and terminals.
Conventional rail transport faces even more problems
in overcoming the track gauge interface. One possibility is the change of the wagon-axle, a procedure
that is done at the moment especially for automotive rail transports (parts and finished cars, as well).
The processing time of both the transhipment of load
units and the axle change is some three hours, which
is a considerable disadvantage in comparison to other
border crossings with interoperable rail traction. Nevertheless, due to the generally long distance of the
rail transports crossing the border between Spain
and France, the effect is limited and customers know
about the duration. However, if the aim is shifting new
127
7 TREND Corridor F
traffic volumes from road to rail, even on shorter distances, this processing time at the border will be a
major impediment, if not a decisive factor.
The situation of the conventional rail transports
where wagon-axles cannot be changed is considerably worse. In these cases the freight itself has to be
transhipped from one wagon to another. This leads
to processing times of up to three days at the border.
Looking at the significant share of conventional rail
transport at the two border crossing stations Port Bou
(25 %) and Irún (50 %) this limits the performance of
relatively high volumes of rail freight transports.
First concepts of cross border co-operation have
been launched on the border crossing Port Bou and
Irún. Those are called MUM (”Mando Unico de Mercancías” – Port Bou) and GOTI (”Gestión Operativa de
Transportes Internacionales” – Irún), and comprise
shared offices between RENFE and SNCF, where the
co-ordination and communication between the Railway Undertakings are improved, especially by bilingual employees of both RUs sitting together in a common office. MUM and GOTI do not include electronic
interfaces between the different information systems
or the dispatching of common resources, so both are
still at a relatively low co-operation level in comparison to the cross border operation centres between
France and Germany.
The border crossings between France and Germany
have fewer structural problems, although signalling
and security systems vary significantly from each
other. Recently RAILION and SNCF have established
CIFFA as a cross border operations centre to overcome the severe interoperable problems that both
Railway Undertakings faced before when crossing the
border. The project has shown positive results and the
performance has improved significantly (see chapter
7.1.4.1). By this, the capacity of the border crossing
infrastructure in Forbach/Saarbrücken, Apach/Perl,
Strassbourg/Kehl has increased and train path availability is not scarce at the moment. The situation on
the border crossings between Germany and Poland is
described in the report of Corridor D and thus is not
treated here.
freight quality
Besides the border crossing problems the rail freight
sector faces other infrastructure problems, as well.
The majority of these impediments require longterm improvement projects, if solutions can only be
achieved by construction measures.
In Spain the standard maximum freight train length is
still limited to 450 m. Thus 600 m/700 m long international freight trains entering Spain from France need
to be split into two trains in Spain which leads to quality deficiencies. Alleviation projects to increase the
maximum train length to 600 m are underway. Nevertheless, the problem remains an important issue for
further improvements.
As in most countries in Europe, on an operational level,
regular passenger trains have priority over regular
freight trains, even though the freight train running on
schedule ”competes” with delayed passenger trains.
This situation might improve with the opening of several new high-speed lines in Spain/France. The ”old”
infrastructure will be released from passenger traffic
and some lines may even become ”Dedicated Freight
Lines”. The positive effects of this de-mixing of types
of traffic on the rail infrastructure are obvious.
In terms of infrastructure, some line sections of TREND
Corridor F show scarce or no availability of additional
train paths. A list of the most critical line sections is
included hereunder. Against the background of the expected growth of international freight traffic, capacity
increasing measures in terms of optimised production
concepts or infrastructure upgrading are urgently required here:
• Spain:
– Connection of Port of Bilbao to main line
Irún – Madrid
– Line Madrid – Irún: Villafría – Venta de Baños;
Villalba – Pitis
– Line Port Bou – Valencia: Valencia – Castellón;
Vandellos – Tarragona
– Line Zaragoza – Port Bou: Zaragoza – Reus
128
7 TREND Corridor F
• France:
– Total section between German border and
Dijon – lack of line capacity due to high traffic
volume of passenger and freight trains
– Section Montpellier to Cerbères (Spanish border); congested due to insufficient border crossing infrastructure
– Nodes Paris, Perpignan, Montpellier
• Germany:
– Mannheim region: Poor state of Mannheim
marshalling yards affects punctuality of freight
trains processed there
– Line Horka (Polish border) – Halle: Section
Horka – Knappenrode congested
– Node Frankfurt/Fulda: Section Hanau – Bebra
congested
– Section Saarbücken – Forbach is highly saturated but improvement measures are under
construction
freight transport
TREND Corridor F is characterised by a diversity of
current and safety and signalling systems (see Appendix 7). Currently, the three participating countries use
four different systems:
• Spain: 3 kV DC
• France: 1.5 kV DC in southern France;
25 kV 50 Hz AC in northern/western France
• Germany: 15 kV 16 2/3 Hz AC
Apart from the different systems currently in use,
each country employs at least one unique safety and
signalling system. Thus, locomotives operating on the
infrastructure of more than one country of the corridor
are to be equipped with at least two safety-packages.
This circumstance leads to a significant increase in
the loco-price. The only alternative to the employment
of multi-system locos is a loco- and driver-change at
the border leading to a processing time of at least
20 minutes, generally more.
During the information gathering of TREND B2 the experts made clear that the employment of interoperable locos is only viable if an extra stop at the border
is eliminated. If the dispatching procedures require a
stop at the border anyway, the additional costs caused
by the employment of multi-current locomotives cannot be compensated by a cut of the transport time.
In this case, the interchange procedures at the border
are to be optimised in order to minimise the processing time.
SNCF and Railion have opted for thru-traction between the two countries and have increased their
stocks of multi-system locomotives. A considerable number of Railion´s type 189 locomotives have
been assigned to a common multi-system-locomotive pool. This pool is managed under the exclusive responsibility of CIFFA between the marshalling yards
Mannheim/Köln (Gremberg) and Metz (Woippy). SNCF
plans to allocate the same number of interoperable
437000 locos to the common pool but is still waiting
for the homologation of the German authorities.
© DB AG/Lautenschläger
129
7 TREND Corridor F
7.1.3.4 Resources as impediment for
rail freight transport
The main ”critical” resources that appear as impediments for quality of rail freight transport on this corridor are the provision of locomotives and locomotive
drivers.
Deficits still reside in the punctual provision of locomotives. Contrary to the situation some years ago, the
reason is not yet a lack of interoperable locomotives.
Now all trains passing the border between Germany
and France are operating without locomotive change
and without loco driver change at the border crossing station. Once all French 437000 locomotives are
approved by the German authorities there will be (for
the time being) a sufficient number of interoperable
locos for the actual traffic volumes. In order to face
the prognosticated growths of the traffic volume, the
stock will need to be extended further.
Apart from the situation at the border crossings, the
lack of locomotives and loco drivers is still a severe
problem for the quality of international rail freight
service. Especially in France, where the loco pool is
particularly old, missing locomotives (due to damage)
is a main cause of major delays in international rail
freight transport from/to or transiting France.
Nevertheless, the problem of missing and/or damaged
locos affects Germany and Spain, as well. In Spain a
high number of the RENFE locos are obsolete and/or
not in suitable condition to pull trains with characteristics required by today’s rail freight customers. By
2009 considerable investments are foreseen to acquire new freight locos and refurbish the loco pool.
7.1.3.5 Operations as impediment for
rail freight transport
Different organisational structures and the resulting problems in the co-ordination of international rail
freight transport are still an important impediment for
improved quality of rail freight transport in Europe.
The application of the EC Directive 2001/12/EC concerning the organisation of the rail freight sector still
varies widely in the countries affected by TREND Corridor F.
Thus, the harmonisation of the processes within the
companies involved in international rail freight transport on this corridor is still limited. The lack of harmonisation appears especially at the border crossings,
where different responsibilities, different ways of op-
erating freight trains, and even different organisational forms limit the success of harmonisation efforts
of cross border operations to a great extent.
A complete harmonisation of all organisational structures and ”ways of working” will not be possible and
is not even desired by the EC. Whilst they do not affect
the interfaces with other rail freight companies (especially those interacting at the border crossing stations), processes that have proven their viability in the
respective countries shall be maintained, even though
they are not harmonised with the operations of other
countries. Nevertheless, the participants should show
more flexibility in harmonising those processes that,
due to their heterogeneous structure at international
level, limit the cross border performance.
Concerning operative infrastructure procedures (train
path dispatching), passenger trains in general still
have priority over freight trains, even though the
freight train runs on schedule and competes with a
delayed passenger train. This problem occurs especially on infrastructure bottlenecks, such as metropolitan nodes. Thus, some delays of freight trains are still
caused by this prioritisation of passenger transport.
7.1.4 Alleviation projects already under way
All the participating companies of TREND Corridor F
agree upon the necessity of alleviation measures to
improve the current situation. Up to now the performance of international rail freight services on this corridor has not been meeting customer requirements
concerning quality of transport to an extent that (in
competition to road transport) is likely to attract a
growing market share for rail. Nevertheless, a couple
of actions have already been initiated, short- mediumand long-term measures, particularly concerning the
border crossing.
7.1.4.1 CIFFA as a benchmark for improved
cross border procedures
As stated above, SNCF and Railion (for the respective
border crossings between France and Germany) have
launched a cross border operation centre called CIFFA.
CIFFA´s area of responsibility comprises the border
crossings Apach/Perl (line section between Gremberg
marshalling yard and Woippy marshalling yard) and
Forbach/Saarbrücken (line section between Mann
heim marshalling yard and Woippy). An extension to
Kehl/Strassbourg border is under preparation. CIFFA
is operating to the satisfaction of all participants.
130
7 TREND Corridor F
CIFFA (within the ”Mannheim – Woippy” project) has
a high level of decentralised competences that were
assigned to this institution by the headquarters of
SNCF Fret and Railion. Today CIFFA dispatches interoperable locomotives and loco drivers from it’s own
pools. The responsibility for these pools is exclusively
in the hands of CIFFA, interventions from outside are
not foreseen.
The CIFFA competences even go beyond the dispatching of locomotives and loco drivers. Train paths are issued and controlled similarly as well as all data and
information on the CIFFA-border crossings, these are
exchanged using EDI. The CIFFA offices are located at
the Forbach border crossing station so that employees
are directly involved in the process. The only borderspecific activity that is still to be controlled by CIFFA
is the change of the brake-position at Apach/Forbach.
The effect of CIFFA has been a reduction of the cross
border processing time to an average of 3 minutes.
to be extended to Port Bou (MUM).
Spain has ongoing studies of innovative techniques of
overcoming the track gauge interface between France
and Spain. Recently tests with an interoperable locomotive (TRAVCA – ”Tren de alta velocidad con cambio de ancho”) have begun but are still aimed exclusively at passenger trains. Nevertheless, once this
technique has proven its viability it could be applied to
freight transport, as well. Furthermore, at the border
crossing Cerbères/Port Bou a new UIC line connecting Figueras and Perpignan is under construction. This
line is intended for mixed traffic and will eliminate the
necessity of stopping at the bottleneck station Port
Bou for those trains operating on the new UIC line.
Thus, the quality and reliability of rail freight transport between France and Germany has improved significantly as an effect of the CIFFA-establishment and
can be considered as a benchmark for optimised cross
border procedures in terms of ”operation”.
Thus, the extent of co-operation between SNCF Fret
and RENFE is considerably below the CIFFA level, but
has already brought an improvement of reliability of
the cross border co-operation. RENFE Operadora and
SNCF Fret are planning an intensification of this cooperation in order to further streamlining and improving border crossing procedures. Whether the CIFFAapproach and -experiences can serve as a benchmark
for this (besides the ”structural” limitation of different
track gauges) remains to be seen.
7.1.4.2 Other cross border improvement
actions under way
TREND Corridor F – countries
At the rail border crossing between France and Spain,
RENFE and SNCF Fret as (up to now) the only two Railway Undertakings operating international rail freight
trains crossing this border, have launched several alleviation projects aiming at improving the performance of cross border operations. MUM (Cerbères/Port
Bou) and GOTI (Hendaye/Irún) are border crossingspecific alleviation projects. These concepts comprise
common offices of both Railway Undertakings at the
border station – one office in Irún and another in Port
Bou. In the common offices bilingual personnel from
both companies work together in order to improve and
harmonise the procedures at the border, especially regarding data interchange concerning incoming trains.
Nevertheless, both MUM and GOTI concepts do not
comprise EDI interfaces, nor do they include the allocation of resources other than the staff itself. The
RENFE-Project SISIFO is a pilot project for the webbased interchange of wagon data between France
and Spain and in the future will assure a better data
flow towards the overtaking Railway Undertaking (at
a first stage only RENFE). It is already in service for
trains crossing the border in Irún (GOTI) but still needs
All countries have launched diverse alleviation
projects for improving the situation of rail freight
transport within their territory. Those projects differ
significantly concerning their possible impact, the investment volume and the time horizon of their realisation. Due to the long time horizon (especially for large
scale infrastructure projects), the financing is sometimes not fully guaranteed. Experiences in past years
suggest that realisation of some or all projects could
be regarded doubtful.
Apart from the border crossing improvement projects,
Spain has launched several infrastructure alleviation
projects, partly funded by the European Commission.
Currently several construction measures are been carried out for increasing the maximum weight and length
of trains (600 m on important freight corridors) by the
year 2008. As an effect of these measures freight
trains entering Spain from France will no longer have
to be cut into several parts due to their higher length
and weight. In the medium and long term several UIC
High Speed Lines will be opened in Spain, connecting
all major cities. This will lead to a release of older con-
131
7 TREND Corridor F
7.2 Action plans
ventional infrastructure giving more train path capacity to rail freight transport.
SNCF has launched an investment programme in
freight locomotives in order to significantly improve
the resource situation for international rail freight
transport. This programme is targeted to the period
2006 – 2009 so that first improvements, including increased reliability, a decrease of delays, and lower
loco damages, will be evident from 2006 onwards.
Both in France and in Germany several infrastructure measures are envisaged, especially for improving
the situation in major metropolitan bottlenecks, such
as Perpignan, Paris, Thionville, Lyon in France or the
stretch Ludwigshafen – Forbach in Germany.
7.2 Action plans
methodology
The alleviation measures and projects for TREND
Corridor F have been elaborated and agreed upon by
plans (packages of measures) according to their priority and delivery timeframe (short-term, medium-term
and long-term measures) will facilitate a better overview to the reader. The structure of these action plans
is comparable to the one that has already been used
in the CER corridor studies.
Figure 7.2.2–1:
Co-operation of RU
Each measure described in the following action plans
is followed by a table indicating the entities that are
(or should be) responsible to carry it through. A question mark indicates that an issue has not been discussed or that no decision could be suggested at this
stage; ”n.a.” means ”not applicable”.
Undertakings
dispatching
for international freight transport (e.g. locomotives, drivers) by means of agreements on service
guarantees
Spain – France
I. Remove interoperable Partially n.a. due to different track
resource bottlenecks gauge.
Interoperable loco “TRAVCA” incl. automatic change of axle gauge has been
developed in Spain only for passenger
transport.
RENFE plans to train loco drivers for RFF
network in order to allow them entering
Cerbères and Hendaye station.
II.Agreement on service Not done
guarantees
RENFE Operadora to introduce service
guarantee system on national level; could
possibly be benchmark for SNCF Fret.
Infrastructures to be included in the process (RENFE Op., SNCF Fret, IMs)
III.Border crossing oper- Partially done
ation centres
MUM and GOTI as first steps of co-operation/harmonisation need to be intensified. SISFO as data interchange approach
needs to prove its reliability, to be introduced in daily business extended to border crossing Cerbères/Port Bou (SNCF
Fret, RENFE Op.)
France – Germany
Partially done
Interoperable resources efficiently dispatched by CIFFA. SNCF due to deliver
the total amount of 20 interoperable locos to the CIFFA loco pool. Still lack of interoperable locomotive drivers and missing common train path dispatching rules
Not done
To be envisaged by SNCF Fret/Railion/
Stinnes
Done
CIFFA has been introduced successfully
and has received high competences. Border Crossing Kehl / Strassbourg still to be
included in CIFFA competences by CIFFA
(SNCF Fret / Railion).
132
7 TREND Corridor F
7.2 Action plans
7.2.2.2 Improve and intensify the co-operation that
• Simplify and/or standardise administrative procedures. Remove operational obstacles at border
crossings by harmonising the ”operational/safety”
rules (e.g. tail lamps, braking sheets, wagon list/
train consist reports, treatment of hazardous
goods and out-of-gauge regulations for through
trains).
7.2.2.3 Elaborate an implementation plan for quality
management tools
Spain – France
I. Tail Lamp
II.Braking Sheet
III.Wagon List/
Train Consist
Report
IV.Regulations
on Hazardous
Goods
V. Regulation on
out-of-gaugeloads
of compensations) – Take into account experiences from other project and work already done;
e.g. UIC ”Standard Quality Agreement between
RUs”, BRAVO Project etc.,
corridor,
7.2.2.4 Define priority projects for improving
• Develop recommendations for low-budget shortterm infrastructure measures and for a ”wholecorridor-co-ordinated” plan of important infrastructure upgrades.
I. Priority low budget
shortterm measures
n.a. due to no interoperability
(up to now)
Generally n.a. because trains
change lengths, weight etc. (up
to now)
n.a.
Up to now wagons do not
operate interoperable
Not done
Regulations to be harmonised in
co-operation between RENFE,
SNCF Fret, IMs and authorities
Not done
co-operation between Railway
Undertakings, Infrastructure
Managers and authorities
Harmonisation is done
Not done
co-operation between Railion,
SNCF Fret, IMs and authorities
Figure 7.2.2–2:
Measurement
System
II.Quality agreements
III.Computerised
IV.Common
Rules of handling delayed
trains
Spain – France
France – Germany
Partially done
Some trains under quality monitoring (=Quality Measuring System). No harmonised Quality
Management System. (SNCF,
RENFE)
Not done
RENFE / ADIF are working
on quality agreements for domestic transport that (once in
service) needs to be extended
to international traffic. (SNCF,
RENFE, IMs)
Not done
To be envisaged by RENFE /
SNCF Fret (incl. Railion for corridor wide approach)
Not done
To be envisaged by RUs in cooperation with IMs
Partially done
Some trains under quality monitoring (=Quality Measuring System). No harmonised Quality
Management System. (SNCF,
Railion)
Not done
Pilot quality agreement between DB Netz and Railion envisaged. (SNCF, Railion, IMs)
Not done
To be envisaged by SNCF Fret /
Railion (incl. RENFE for corridor
wide approach)
Not done
To be envisaged by RUs in cooperation with IMs
Figure 7.2.2–3:
Quality Management
System
Spain – France
France – Germany
Not done
To be envisaged by international Round
Table
(“Corridor Co-ordinator” – approach)
trains
Not done
To be envisaged by international Round
Table
(“Corridor Co-ordinator” – approach)
France – Germany
Figure 7.2.2–4:
Priority short-term low
measures
Spain – France
I. Priority Rules
freight trains vs.
passenger trains
France – Germany
Partially done
ADIF is introducing new “train path
slot system”; no further consideration of type of train (“Freight Train”
or “Passenger Train”); “slot” gives
Railway Undertaking the right to
use this train path. (ADIF, RFF)
To be envisaged
RFF / DB Netz.
Figure 7.2.3–1:
Priority rules between rail
freight- and passenger trains
133
7 TREND Corridor F
Figure 7.2.3–2:
7.2 Action plans
7.2.3.2 Intensify the co-operation amongst IMs and
track works
requirements
some links
Spain – France
I. Evaluate
harmonisation of
operational
schemes
II.Timetable
improvement
III.Information
exchange on
IV.International
catalogue
train paths
V. Reliable
information
on train location and
delays
France – Germany
To be envisaged
(RNE / IMs in co-operation
with RUs)
To be envisaged
(RNE / IMs in co-operation
with RUs)
See I.
See I.
See I.
See I.
To be envisaged
(RNE responsible for the
elaboration of international
catalogue train paths)
To be envisaged
(IMs in co-operation with
RUs) Exploit existing cross
border co-operations like
MUM, GOTI and SISFO
To be envisaged
(RNE responsible for the
elaboration of international
catalogue train paths)
To be envisaged
(IMs in co-operation with
RUs) CIFFA has access to
both DB Netz and RFF IT systems, but NO EDI interface.
Introduce EDI interface.
7.2.3.3 Improve communication and data
Figure 7.2.3–3:
Spain – France
France – Germany
To be envisaged
SISIFO as a first step towards
an improved data exchange
between RENFE and SNCF
Fret
See I.
To be envisaged
CIFFA as a first step towards
an improved harmonisation of
data access between Railion
and SNCF Fret
See I.
II.Agreements
on data quality and validity
III.Information
See I.
exchange on
time table
adaptations
See I.
data interchange
7.2.3.4 Extend the existing corridor-related
• Standardise and simplify locomotive approval procedures, especially for multi-system locomotives
Figure 7.2.3–4:
traction concepts
them
eliminating
weak points
EUROPTIRAIL …)
Spain – France
I. Optimise the use of
locomotives
II.Increase of interoperable locomotives
n.a. (up to now)
n.a.
Up to now – RENFE / SNCF Fret: Evaluate the employment of interoperable locos with automatic adaptation of axle
gauge, e.g. TRAVCA-concept – see
7.1.4.2.
III.Agreement on mutual RENFE/SNCF
acceptance of locoRENFE loco drivers being trained since
motive drivers
2005 until 2006 with the aim to allow
RENFE drivers entering station Hendaye
and Cerbères; could be adapted to total
RFF network at a later stage
n.a.
locomotive approval
Deliverable Work
procedures
134
France – Germany
Done
(CIFFA)
Done
(CIFFA)
Done
CIFFA – mutual acceptance of interoperable locomotive drivers in the stretch Mannheim – Woippy
Not done
Authorities
on harmonisation
as
Package
B2 working
– Corridor-specific
Reports
an ongoing process, but needs to be accelerated
7 TREND Corridor F
7.2 Action plans
7.2.4.1 Establish rules and tools to manage trains
along the corridor, aiming at
co-ordinating the various bilateral border
crossing ”operational” centres
(between RUs)
Spain – France
To be envisaged
tools to manage trains MUM/GOTI as a first step to improve
along corridor
border crossing performance but NO
train management (RENFE, SNCF)
France – Germany
Partially done
CIFFA does train management successfully on the stretch Mannheim/Woippy.
Apart from this stretch no harmonised
rules and tools along the corridor
Figure 7.2.4–1:
Establish rules and
along the corridor
7.2.4.2 Improve the co-ordination of national traffic
control centres along the corridor
Spain – France
RNE to determine necessary harmonisation/collaboration between Infrastructures
France – Germany
RNE to determine necessary harmonisation/collaboration between Infrastructures
Figure 7.2.4–2:
Improve co-ordination of
national control centres
7.2.4.3 Monitor the planned upgrading and extension
of the railway infrastructure (lines, nodes,
marshalling yards, terminals) with respect to
major bottlenecks
Spain – France
I. Monitor planned
upgrading and
extension of the
railway infrastructure
Done
France – Germany
Done
Figure 7.2.4–3:
Monitor planned upgrading
and extension
of infrastructure
7.2.4.4 Elaborate and develop new solutions for the
HERMES system
Spain – France
I. New solutions for the To be envisaged by RAILDATA.
France – Germany
To be envisaged by RAILDATA.
Figure 7.2.4–4:
New solutions for the
7.2.4.5 Development of ERTMS on the corridor
sections
Spain – France
I. Development of
ERTMS on corridor
sections
France – Germany
To be envisaged by IMs
To be envisaged by IMs
Check national implementation plan (RFF, Check national implementation plan (DB
ADIF)
Netz, RFF)
Figure 7.2.4–5:
Development of ERTMS on
the corridor sections
135
8 Clustering of corridors
8 Clustering of corridors
As it has been shown in the previous chapters the
freight corridors analysed within TREND are characterised by the heterogeneous situation of those factors that determine the performance of rail freight
service. Above all this refers to the level of co-operation and harmonisation of the border crossing procedures. Due to the length of the corridors and the
amount of countries involved (especially in Corridors
C and D) even within the corridors different progress
levels have to be distinguished.
So before performing the detailed evaluation of the
TREND Corridors, a rough clustering concerning those
characteristics of the TREND corridors shall facilitate
an overview of the above mentioned progress levels,
which is complementary to the detailed assessment
with respect to the potential for an Integrated Project
(see chapter 9).
The TREND Corridors have been analysed according
to their main characteristics as concerns…
• cross border operation and level of co-ordination
• successful business cases demonstrating innovation and level of customer orientation
• potential for improvements and innovations
• current modal shift and prognosticated market
growth
… and results in a categorisation of the status of development for rail freight.
Three different categories from ”Standard” via ”Advanced” to ”Top” and the respective criteria have
been defined (Figure 8–1).
Figure 8-1:
Characterisation of corridors (or segments of
corridors)
Category I
"Top"
The category ”Standard” is defined by the traditional processes at the borders and the affected parties which generally speaking count with a low level
of performance resulting in a large need for improvements and innovations. Provided that the mentioned
improvements have been done, the modal shift of rail
is supposed to be increased significantly. The overall
development status of rail freight has been assessed
as ”low”.
The second category is denominated ”Advanced”,
as border crossing operations have already been improved, but still remain insufficient for achieving a
competitive performance of rail freight services along
the corridor. Business cases and the offered services
do not fit totally the requirements of the market and
are therefore often not competitive to road transport. This type of corridor has reasonable potential
for improvement and innovations in several aspects.
A significant potential for increasing the volume of rail
freight has been identified, either based on the growing transport market in general or by a modal shift
from road to rail.
The objective – and thus benchmark for the other two
categories - could be the category ”Top”, where good
practices for the cross border operations have been
introduced. Suitable solutions, which are competitive to road transport, have been developed and the
impact of additional improvements is thus limited. A
further increase of the market share of rail is often
limited by the infrastructure capacity. These corridors
can be characterised as ‘ripe’ with a ‘high’ status of
development of rail freight services.
Category II
"Advanced"
Category IIII
"Standard"
Crossborder operation
and co-ordination
mostly good/advanced
practises
Business cases and
level of service
suitable solutions
(competitive to road)
already improved processes (but often not really sufficient)
solutions not totally fitting
the existent (road) market
Potential for improvements and innovations
Modal shift and market
growth
mainly for dedicated
objectives
potential for increase of
market share often limited
by infrastructure capability
reasonable
(serveral aspects)
potential for increase rail
share (modal shift and/or
market growth)
traditional/historical and
general insufficient processes
more or less inadequate
offers compared to (road)
market
general high
(all aspects)
high potential for increase
of market share (modal
shift and market growth)
Status of development
for rail freight
High
In progress
Low
136
9 Evaluation and recommendations
As most of the corridors are heterogeneous and, in addition, the development is different from category to
category, it was difficult to assign one single type to
each country section. However, a rough overview of
the investigated corridors is given in Figure 8–2. The
Figure comprises the level of development regarding
interoperability, cross border operations and the potential for improvements and modal shift. Two significant findings are on the one hand that some corridors are already well developed, and that on the
other hand the actual stage of development can be
significantly different along the corridors as well as
between them.
9.1 Framework and objectives of evaluation
B-East
Scandinavia
Germany
Austria
Italy
B-West
Netherlands
Germany
Switzerland
Italy
E
France
Switzerland
F
Germany
France
A
Italy
Slovenia
D
Netherlands
C
Germany
Germany
Austria
Czechia Slovakia
Poland
Hungary
Italy
Spain
Hungary
Lithuania
Romania
Latvia
Bulgaria
Estonia
Turkey
Figure 8-2:
9 Evaluation and
recommendations
Typing of investigated
corridors 92
9.1 Framework and objectives of evaluation
The TREND Corridor Analysis is providing three kinds
of results:
1. A comprehensive knowledge base detailing the
current state of rail freight along the corridors.
This is included in this report and can be partly
displayed and used in the Geo-referenced Information System (GIS). Infrastructure related results
have been transferred to TREND work package B5
and are accessible through the TREND website.
2. Corridor Action Plans that have been mutually
agreed between the stakeholders that can be implemented by the business partners. The Action
Plans are an integral part of respective corridor related chapters.
3. Evaluation of the corridors with respect to the envisaged Integrated Project (IP) ”New Concepts for
Trans-European Rail Freight Services”. The IP will
be finally selected and awarded by the European
Commission in the framework of the 4th Call (closing December 2005).
The IP’s scope will be a business solution using to
management and operational models involving external business relationships: such as collaboration with
other mode operators and infrastructure providers;
management of contractual arrangements with customers; strategic relationships with financial institutions; and/or market communication. The IP will aim
to launch seamless freight services in (at least two)
corridors.
Within the scope of work package B2 a comparison
and evaluation shall complete the examination of the
TREND corridors. This final chapter therefore provides
an evaluation framework that allows the recommendation of at least two corridors for the envisaged IP
”New Concepts for Trans-European Rail Freight Ser
vices”. Thus the main focus is upon the establishment of new transport concepts and innovative transport techniques, not upon upgrading or building new
infrastructure.
9.2 Criteria for evaluation
The evaluation of the corridors takes place against criteria which are either on-hand (such as the transport
volume and interest by the business partners) or presented in the European Commission’s work programme
for the 4th Call 93. As a basis for evaluation five groups
of in total eleven criteria have been worked out and
harmonised within the TREND work package B3 (see
Figure 9.3–1). In detail the criteria are the following:
• Corridor freight volume separate for rail (1) and
road (2) in million tonnes by 2002/3. The precise
figures which have been elaborated in two market
studies in the framework of TREND work package B3, and which have been agreed upon with
the stakeholders, have been transferred into evalu
ation points by means of a transparent scale.
92Colors: see Figure
8–1
93European Commission, Thematic Priority 1.6. Sustainable Development,
Global Change and
Ecosystems 1.6.2:
Sustainable Surface
Transport, Workprogramme 2002-2006
Year 2005 update Call 4A, June 2005.
137
9.2 Criteria for evaluation
• Estimated growth rates for the increase of corridor volume separated for rail (3) and road (4) in %
for the time horizon 2002/3 to 2008. The year
2008 has been selected because the envisaged
IP shall start its demonstration by then. The rates
have been agreed upon with the stakeholders.
The before mentioned criteria are essential as a
measuring stick for the impact of proposed and implemented measures in freight services.
• Stakeholder evaluation of corridor results with respect to
– (5) Existing (infrastructure) capacity problems
identified in the scope of the Corridor analysis
and
– (6) Potential for short-term improvement within
the time frame of the Integrated Project (most
probably 3 – 4 years), thus 2007-2010.
– (7) Experienced commitment of stakeholders to
collaborate in a joint project.
• Compliance with existing European Commission initiatives to implement the Tran-European
(Rail) Transport Network (8) and the European Rail
Transport Management System (ERTMS) (9).
• Congruence with specific aims of the 4th call
namely to involve active New Entrant railway undertakings (10) and New Member States and Candidate Countries (11).
• A final assessment of factors, e.g. the existence of
ongoing European projects which are already dealing with the improvement of the Corridor or its
section, and which would therefore limit the value
added of additional RTD funding; in order to reflect
this limitation 1 point has been subtracted to derive the final scoring.
Each of these criteria has been rated within a scale
with the following expressions:
5: excellent, criterion completely fulfilled
4: very good/very high, criterion preponderantly
fulfilled
3: good/high, criterion partly fulfilled
2: fair/moderate, criterion preponderantly not
fulfilled
1: poor/low, criterion (almost) completely not
fulfilled
0: not at all or very limited, criterion not fulfilled
Different criteria can thus be linked by adding the
points set into a final scoring. A sensitivity analysis
has shown that reasonable but different weights for
the criteria will not significantly change the picture so
that it has agreed to use the un-weighed criteria. The
result of the evaluation is shown and explained in Figure 9.3–1.
138
Similarity to
other Corridor
Studies
Austria
BRAVO
Switzerland
TREND B West
small
139
0 to 2.9
3 to 5.9
0
6 to 8.9
low/small
1
9 to 11.9
2
12 to 14.9
3
good/high
4
15 and more
Classification
0 to 9.9
10 to 19.9
20 to 29.9
30 to 39.9
40 to 49.9
50 and more
Road
Mio. tons
n.s.
41.2
37.4
n.s.
10
17
26
23
36
27
53
38
22
20
36
23
0 to 4.9
5 to 14.9
15 to 24.9
25 to 34.9
35 to 44.9
45 and more
Rail
Growth in %
4
3
5
3
Classification
very good/very high
Rail
Mio. tons
2
37.4
86.1
0
4
2
1
2
2
2
0
35
1
2
3
2
4
3
5
4
2
2
4
2
4
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
0 to 4.9
5 to 14.9
15 to 24.9
25 to 34.9
35 to 44.9
45 and more
Road Growth
in %
n.s.
25
15
18
17
26
33
20
17
16
16
15
16
16
13
5
4
1
3
3
3
2
5
3
2
5
4
3
4
2
1
1
2
4
4
2
4
1
4
4
4
3
4
2
4
2
1
1
3
3
1
3
2
5
0
2
4
5
4
0
5
5
5
5
2
3
3
2
3
5
0
5
0
1
5
5
0
5
5
5
0
0
2
1
3
1
1
0
3
0
2
5
5
3
4
5
5
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
n.s.
2.64
1.91
2.82
2.09
2.36
3.00
2.64
2.73
2.73
2.82
1.82
2.82
2.82
3.55
2.73
2.00
2)
2)
1)
1)
1)
1)
2.64
1.91
2.82
2.09
Lack of stakeholder commitment
2)
1)
n.s.
5
10
2
7
8
16
1.36
5
2.00
2.64
3
1.73
2.73
11
15
1.82
11
1.82
11
11
1.82
1.82
1
3
8
3.55
2.73
2.00
Traditional north-south axis with competition in place;
high level of research knowledge already available; limited impact of IP
see TREND B-West
see TREND B-West
see TREND B-West
see TREND E
4
see TREND A
4
see TREND F
see TREND C
see TREND F
see TREND F
2
5
2
1
2
see IQ-C/TREND B-West
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
9.3 Evaluation of corridors with
respect to the envisaged IP
large
Italy
Switzerland
Germany
8.4
2
2
1
3
6.2
41.7
25.6
12.4
28.3
29.2
20.5
9.9
0
28
Classification
5
Germany
Italy
France
Hungary
8.5
8.0
4.2
11.9
3
5
1
3
2
3
1
5
9.9
4
3
2
TEN-T Rail
Classification
Netherlands
TREND B West
France
Netherlands
Italy
Italy
TREND B West
TREND E
TREND A
France
France
Slovakia
Germany
France
Spain
Germany
TREND C
TREND F
France
Germany
France
Switzerland/Italy
9.7
16.5
3.8
9.1
7.6
11.2
4.2
18.4
4
45.7
26
22
ERTMS
Impact on
attractiveness for IP
IQ-C
CER 5
CER 3
Spain
France
CER 2
TREND F
Spain
TREND F
France
CER 2
Estonia
TREND F
Poland
Poland
Germany
Germany
TREND E
CER 2
Slovakia
Italy
Austria
Slovakia/Slovenia Turkey
Germany
Germany
BRAVO
Germany
Italy
14.0
5
3
3
Classification
TREND D IQ-C/
Netherlands
TREND B-West
TREND C
Switzerland
IQ-C / CER 5
Switzerland
18.1
26
29
Scoring
Restriction limiting
potenital for IP
Scandinavia
Germany
IQ-C
Germany
2
1
Congruence Congruence
with EU-Ini- with 4th Call
tiatives
Ranking (1. – 16.)
TREND
B-East
Netherlands
IQ-C
Rail in Mio t 2003
TREND
B-West
Road in Mio t 2002
15.7
Rail in % 2003 – 2008
20.7
Road in %
2002 – 2008
0
0
Existing capacity
problems
2.7
Potential for quick
improvements
0.6
Experienced commitment of partners
Hungary
Stakeholder
evaluation
New entrant-RU
Activities
Slovenia
Expected growth rates
New Member States/
candidates
Slovenia
Italy
Corridor freight volume
Provisional scoring
CER 3
Corridor Section
Final Scoring
TREND A CER 3
Corridor
9.3 Evaluation of corridors with respect to the envisaged IP
TREND corridors’ evaluation
with respect to the
envisaged IP
Figure 9.3–1:
(1) (2)
(5)
Under the headline ”corridor freight volume” the transport volume in terms of million tonnes per year has
been transferred into evaluation points by means of a
transparent scale. The analysis shows the differences
of the present volumes between road and rail, and between the corridors. The corridor sections with the
largest quantities of goods transported (both ways) on
rail are Switzerland – Italy, The Netherlands – Germany, and Germany – Poland, while the largest aggregated road flows are between Spain - France, The
Netherlands – Germany, Germany – Poland followed
by France – Italy and France – Germany.
Based on the corridor results on the existing – and remaining – rail infrastructure ”capacity problems” the
corridor sections can be assessed. The largest quantifiable bottlenecks have been identified at the FrenchSpanish border, in line sections in Germany, Switzerland and (north) Italy.
(3) (4)
Based on the previous market studies and the ”estimated growth rates” which have been agreed upon
with the stakeholders the future potential of the corridors can be assessed. Generally, transport volume increase is expected within all corridors, with peak values on Corridors C and D. The criterion market volume
for additional rail freight services indicates which rate
of the expected market increase can be exploited by
new rail freight services and techniques. Indicators
are e.g.
• high existing and forecasted freight volume
• low current modal split value for rail freight
• actual lack of high quality rail transport services
In this respect Corridor C shows the best perspectives: Its new EU members and candidate countries
show above-average economical growth rates, which
are expected to continue for the foreseeable future.
This expected volume increase is not yet covered by
adequate rail freight services, which implicates a big
chance for innovative services and techniques.
Considerable additional rail freight potential can also
be expected for Corridor B-East (mainly by developing the Scandinavian market), Corridor D (in case of
high quality rail transport offers on Poland destination) and F (mainly Spain relation by solving the track
gauge problem).
On Corridors B-West and E high level rail freight services have already been established for several years,
further volume increase is mainly expected due to
new infrastructure or within the scope of common
transport market growth rates.
Looking at the respective corridors it can be stated
that most of the capacity problems on the lines are
subject to current improvement activities, particularly
on Corridor B-West (Betuwe-line, upgrading Offenburg-Freiburg, freight bypass for node Basel, Gotthard/Simplon-tunnel) and also on Corridors B-East and F.
On Corridors C and D there are several ”white spots”
with unknown activities, especially in South Eastern
Europe and the Baltic States; on Corridor E as the only
exception from the rule no nameable ”line” capacity
improvement activity has been stated.
Despite all these measures underway most of the bottleneck situations within the nodes and the terminals
remain valid in the next year.
Next to these infrastructural activities several projects
have been launched to improve daily operation, e.g.
co-ordination centre in Brenner station, CIFFA at the
German – French border, or MUM and GOTI at the
French – Spanish border. A serious unsolved organisational problem remains in the form of the Eurotunnel (Corridor E).
(6)
The aspect ”Potential for short-term improvements”
fits to those corridor related problems which can be
alleviated by measures with short- (and probably
mid-) term effects, mainly caused by administrative
measures, optimised data exchange and technical
improvement.
In this respect two groups of corridors have to be
distinguished: The first group comprises the corridors with long established rail transport structures
(B-West, B-East, and F). Within this category transport organisation has been optimised in the course of
time and in daily operation. This manifests itself for
example in relatively small time loss at the borders,
compared to Corridor C or D, or in well-rehearsed operational procedures. Due to this the scope for improvements by further short-term administrational or
operational measures is rather small. Suitable components could be
140
• mutual acceptance of loco drivers
(8) (9)
• filling remaining gaps of electronic data
interchange
The European Commission has launched two initiatives with respect to infrastructure improvement, alleviation of bottlenecks and rail traffic management
and commissioned high level representatives to co-ordinate the activities with respect to the implementation of the ”Trans European Transport Network” and
the ”ERTMS”. Since it is vital for the IP to comply with
those initiatives, the congruence of the corridor sections with the target sections of these corridor co-ordinators has been evaluated. Only the Corridor B-West
is entirely covered while the other corridors are partly
dealt with by the European co-ordinators.
• consequent prioritising of freight trains
• using common braking sheets and tail signals
• changing rules for brake position between Germany and Austria (B-East)
The second group implicates the Corridors A, C and D.
Within these corridors short-term measures could be
a big step forward, for example
• on Corridor A (trust based handover of trains
already in place at the cross border centre
Italy/Slovenia)
• on Corridor C (train operating on the basis of
transport, technical and RID confidence, co-ordination of border activities)
• by transport management on Corridor D (e.g. using
common transport documents also in the Baltic
States)
• by electronic data exchange, keeping in mind that
the hardware and knowledge conditions have to
be completed first (especially in South Eastern Europe, Corridor C)
On Corridor D and F a further large potential for technical improvement lies in new techniques for track gauge
change (borderlines Poland/Lithuania, France/Spain).
(7)
The ”Interest of stakeholders in corridor wide transport services” refers to the stakeholders’ intention to
establish a new rail freight service not only on dedicated destinations, but covering the whole corridor
length. This interest is a necessary condition for stable and economically sustainable transport services.
In this regard a great interest has been stated on almost all corridors, with Corridor D as the only exception due to less interest in rail freight services to/from
the Baltic States.
(10) (11)
The 4th Call is targeting two additional features which
is the involvement of active ”new entrant railway undertakings” and ”New Member States” as well as Accession countries. A considerable number and market
share of new entrant railways was seen in corridors
B only, while in other countries they have just started
their activities. New EU members/Accession countries
are directly integrated only in three corridors. Corridor
C takes the first place in this criterion with in six countries of this group (including the candidates Bulgaria,
Romania and Turkey). The Corridor D involves three
and corridor A two new Member States.
The final evaluation takes account of the reasoning
of additional public funding in the framework of an IP
which is fulfilled especially in the event of missing financial resources to carry out the necessary research
and development work by the respective countries
or institutions. In particular those (traditional north
– south) corridors where competition is already in
place might have difficulties to identify common ”precompetitive” tasks for a joint research project, while
on other corridors it is basically the lack of commitment that jeopardises mutual collaboration although
this is a prerequisite in the intended IP. Some corridor sections have therefore been marked and ranked
accordingly.
141
9.4 Recommendations
9.4 Recommendations
Within this framework the most urgent needs with respect to the implementation of an Integrated Project
(IP) on ”New Concepts for Trans-European Rail Freight
Services” have to be seen on:
• Parts of Corridors D (namely The Netherlands
– Germany) where a new dedicated freight railway line will come into operation and requires the
proper integration into the networks and operation concepts including interoperability.
• The entire Corridor C with its high potential in
south-east Europe. This corridor might be connected to sections dealt with in Corridor A (interoperability aspects for the transit through Slovenia based on the Italy-Slovenia common practice).
In contrast the operating risks and additional research
needs on Corridors B and E are comparatively manageable and should therefore be mainly taken over
by the involved Railway Undertakings and (potential)
customers.
The recommendation made in the framework of the
TREND Co-ordination Action with respect to the Integrated Project can under no circumstances replace
competitive elaboration and submission of proposals
and independent evaluation and selection which is to
be made by the European Commission services in the
framework of the 6th Framework Programme.
• The Spanish – French border and the transit
through France.
142
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 1.1: Corridor A –
Detailed statistic rail freight transport data
Country Destination
Country Origin
Italy
Italy
Slovenia
Hungary
200
Slovenia
300
Hungary
500
800
Sub-Total
800
1,000
Sub-Total
Transit (from other origins to Italy)
a.) Total rail freight
[1000 t/a]
400
200
800
500
1,300
700
2,500
1,600
500
Transit (from Italy to other destinations)
Total
4,600
Country Destination
Country Origin
Italy
Slovenia
Hungary
Total
Italy
Slovenia
Hungary
5 %
9 %
45 %
6 %
43 %
46 %
7 %
b.) Modal split rail freight
23 %
18 %
Detailed statistic road freight transport data
Country Destination
Country Origin
Italy
Italy
Slovenia
Hungary
2,968
Slovenia
1,653
Hungary
1,537
939
Sub-Total
3,190
3,907
Sub-Total
867
3,835
611
2,264
a.) Total road freight
[1000 t/a]
2,476
1,478
8,575
2,431
2,662
Total
13,668
Country Destination
Country Origin
Italy
Slovenia
Hungary
Total
Italy
Slovenia
Hungary
88 %
55 %
97 %
54 %
57 %
54 %
39 %
b.) Modal split road freight
35 %
52 %
Detailed statistic waterway freight transport data
Country Destination
Country Origin
Italy
Italy
Slovenia
Hungary
32
Slovenia
1,147
Hungary
63
Sub-Total
1,210
Sub-Total
65
33
–
a.) Total waterway freight
(including short-seashipping and transportation made with a waterway segment) [1000 t/a]
1,147
63
–
32
33
1,275
2,769
3,938
Total
7,892
Country Destination
Country Origin
Italy
Slovenia
Hungary
Total
Italy
Slovenia
1 %
37 %
3 %
–
57 %
Hungary
3 %
–
b.) Modal split waterway
freight (including shortsea-shipping and transportation made with a
waterway segment)
40 %
30 %
143
Appendices
Appendix 2
Appendix 2.1: Corridor B-West –
[1000 t/a]
Country Destination
Country Origin
Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
Switzerland
Italy
Total
Germany
10,939.3
2,135.3
243.3
Switzerland
Total
335.4
1,044.1
12,318.8
3,214.1
10,509.7
15,859.1
895.4
2,248.7
12,449.2
36,214.0
Italy
Total
1,110.0
724.7
4,484.7
578.0
3,103.3
16,534.0
4,127.5
Italy
5,787.4
Country Destination
Country Origin
Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
Germany
8 %
3 %
Switzerland
26 %
7 %
26 %
21 %
Switzerland
30 %
Italy
45 %
18 %
15 %
Total
5 %
10 %
19 %
9 %
51 %
16 %
39 %
27 %
19 %
46 %
13 %
Appendix 2.2:Corridor B-West –
[1000 t/a]
Country Destination
Country Origin
Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
Germany
37,031.3
35,543.6
Switzerland
829.7
3,049.1
40,910.1
8,796.5
52,419.4
129.0
3,976.5
Italy
893.3
20,128.9
3,330.1
36,565.9
61,136.7
12,239.1
Total
8,079.3
Switzerland
Total
Italy
1,403.5
5,509.0
24,352.3
13,249.1
123,190.8
Italy
Total
Country Destination
Country Origin
Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
Germany
29 %
54 %
Switzerland
16 %
74 %
30 %
66 %
43 %
53 %
61 %
65 %
Switzerland
16 %
74 %
Italy
55 %
80 %
85 %
Total
53 %
38 %
58 %
79 %
49 %
45 %
[1000 t/a]
Country Destination
Country Origin
Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
Switzerland
Italy
Total
3,880.1
0.0
84,871.8
958.9
1,236.8
30,581.2
437.0
273.5
0.0
634.7
0.0
28,822.5
81,899.9
4,839.0
freight
0.0
710.5
634.7
1,236.8
116,798.2
Country Destination
Country Origin
Netherlands
Netherlands
Switzerland
63 %
77 %
0 %
61 %
8 %
6 %
31 %
0 %
8 %
5 %
42 %
43 %
Switzerland
54 %
5 %
0 %
3 %
0 %
42 %
51 %
23 %
Total
Italy
Total
Germany
Germany
Italy
144
Switzerland
28,385.5
Italy
Total
Germany
80,991.7
2 %
Appendices
Appendix 2
173
173
Distance
in km
Country
IM
Track
Gauge
Line
Category
73
8
64
265
669
1192
3
61
311
311
Milano
Chiasso
Basel
Freiburg (Brsg)
195
39
39
Netherlands
ProRail
Germany
DB Netz
Switzerland
SBB / BLS
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
D4
D4
D4
D4
100 km/h 120 km/h 100 km/h
120 km/h
(Betuwe-Route)
100 km/h
Maximum
Speed
Ludwigshafen
Mannheim
Köln
Oberhausen
Duisburg
Emmerich
Rotterdam/Maasvlakte
Important technical parameters for infrastructure –
complete corridor (main route only)
Italy
RFI
120 km/h
80 - 90 km/h
(Old Line)
Tracks
Country
Track
Gauge
Relevant
Clearance
Signalling
System
Netherlands
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
Switzerland
Milano
Chiasso
Basel
Freiburg (Brsg)
Ludwigshafen
Mannheim
Köln
Germany
Italy
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
UIC-505-1
G2 EBO
EBV 2
UIC-505-1
ERTMS / ETCS
(Betuwe line)
ATB / Crocodile
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
Energy
System
Oberhausen
Duisburg
Emmerich
Important technical parameters for traction –
PZB / LZB
(Betuwe line)
DC 1,5 kV
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
1950 mm
1950 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (NL)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (D/A)
Signum / ZuB 121 BACC / RSDD
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
1450 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (CH)
DC 3 kV
1450 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (I)
Basic locomotive with four country packages (NL, D/A, CH, and I)
145
Appendices
Appendix 2
173
173
Distance
in km
Country
IM
Track
Gauge
Line
Category
73
8
64
265
669
1192
3
195
Milano
Chiasso
Basel
61
311
311
39
39
Netherlands
ProRail
Germany
DB Netz
Switzerland
SBB / BLS
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
D4
D4
D4
D4
100 km/h 120 km/h 100 km/h
120 km/h
(Betuwe-Route)
100 km/h
Maximum
Speed
Freiburg (Brsg)
Ludwigshafen
Mannheim
Köln
Oberhausen
Duisburg
Emmerich
Important technical parameters for service –
Corridor B West completeimportant
corridor (main
route
only)
technical
parameters
for infrastructure
80 - 90 km/h
Italy
RFI
120 km/h
(Old Line)
Tracks
37
259
Country
IM
Track
Gauge
52
46
39
311
350
39
Switzerland
SBB
Italy
RFI
Switzerland
SBB
Italy
RFI
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
D4
Line
Category
Chiasso
46
296
Distance
in km
Giubiasco
Luino
Giubiasco
Basel
Milano
(Gallarate)
a.) Gotthard route
Milano (Monza)
Detailed technical parameters for infrastructure
D4
D4
D4
D4
120 km/h
Maximum
Speed
120 km/h
Distance
in km
Country
IM
Track
Gauge
Line
Category
128
28
Switzerland
SBB
24
59
Switzerland
BLS
23
256
14
Switzerland
SBB
90
90
87
107
107
Italy
RFI
Italy
RFI
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
D4
D4
D4
D4
D4
D4
120 km/h
120 km/h
Base-tunnel
Tracks
Only one track
P/C 80 - 405
Milano (Rho)
Busto Arizio
Milano (Rho)
Novara
Domodossola
41
363
Switzerland
BLS
Maximum
Speed
146
Brig
Base-tunnel
Ferden
Frutigen
Brig
Frutigen
Thun
Bern
Basel
b.) Lötschberg route
Domodossola
Tracks
Appendices
Appendix 2
Detailed technical parameters for traction
Switzerland
Track
Gauge
Energy
System
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
Italy
1435 mm
1435 mm
EBV 2
UIC-505-1
EBV 2
Signum / ZuB 121
BACC / RSDD
Signum / ZuB 121
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
DC 3 kV
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
1450 mm
1450 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (CH)
Italy
1435 mm
UIC-505-1
BACC / RSDD
DC 3 kV
1450 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (I)
Milano (Monza)
Chiasso
Switzerland
1435 mm
Relevant
Clearance
Signalling
System
Giubiasco
Luino
Giubiasco
Basel
Country
Milano
(Gallarate)
a.) Gotthard route
1450 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (CH)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (I)
Country
Track
Gauge
Relevant
Clearance
Signalling
System
Energy
System
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
Switzerland
Switzerland
Switzerland
Switzerland
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
EBV 3
EBV 3
EBV 4
Signum
ZuB 121
ETCS
Level 2
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
1450 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (CH)
Italy
Italy
1435 mm
1435 mm
EBV3
UIC-505-1
UIC-505-1
BACC / RSDD
BACC / RSDD
Signum / ZuB 121
ETCS Level 2
Signum / ZuB 121
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
1450 mm
1600 mm
1450 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (CH)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (CH)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (CH)
DC 3 kV
1450 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (I)
Milano (Rho)
Busto Arizio
Domodossola
Novara
Domodossola
Brig
Base-tunnel
Ferden
Brig
Frutigen
Frutigen
Thun
Bern
Basel
DC 3 kV
1450 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (I)
147
Appendices
Appendix 2
Chiasso
Giubiasco
Luino
Giubiasco
Basel
Country
Milano
(Gallarate)
a.) Gotthard route
Milano (Monza)
Detailed technical parameters for service
Switzerland
Italy
Switzerland
Italy
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
Screw coupler
with buffers
Screw coupler
with buffers
Screw coupler
with buffers
Screw coupler
with buffers
600 m
555 m
600 m
575 m
Intermodal
Gauge
P/C 60-384
P/C 50 - 364
P/C 60-384
P/C 60-390
Maximum
Train Mass
2000 t
1600 t
1700 t
1600 t
Transloading
Facility
Marshalling
Yard
Track
Gauge
Coupler
Maximum
Train Length
Country
Track
Gauge
Coupler
Maximum
Train Length
Intermodal
Gauge
Maximum
Train Mass
Switzerland
1435 mm
Screw coupler
with buffers
2000 t
1435 mm
1435 mm
P/C 80 - 405
2000 t
Screw coupler
with buffers
750 m
Switzerland
1435 mm
Screw coupler
with buffers
700 m
P/C 80-410
P/C 80 - 405
4000 t
1300 t
Italy
Milano (Rho)
Busto Arizio
Domodossola
Milano (Rho)
Novara
Domodossola
Brig
Ferden
Frutigen
Switzerland
700 m
3200 t
Base-tunnel
Switzerland
Screw coupler
with buffers
700 m
P/C 80 - 405
Brig
Frutigen
Thun
Bern
Basel
Italy
1435 mm
1435 mm
Screw coupler
with buffers
Screw coupler
with buffers
575 m
555 m
P/C 80 - 410
1600 t
P/C
45-364
P/C
50-380
P/C
45-364
1600 t
148
Appendices
Appendix 3
204
181
165
698
1141
Distance
in km
Country
IM
97
73
1590
Germany
DB Netz AG
1435 mm
Track
Gauge
Line
Category
Maximum
Speed
110
37
236
339
32
71
Austria
ÖBB
Italy
RFI
1435 mm
1435 mm
D4
D4
120 km/h
120 km/h
Bologna
Verona
Nogara
Brennero
Innsbruck
Kufstein
München
Lehrte (Hannover)
Hamburg
Flensburg
Rostock
Appendix 3.1: Corridor B-East –
Important technical parameters for infrastructure
D4
C3
120 km/h
Tracks
Country
1435 mm
G2 EBO
G2 EBO
UIC-505-1
PZB / LZB
PZB / LZB
BACC / RSDD
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
1950 mm
1950 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (D/A)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (D/A)
Signalling
System
Bologna
Verona
Nogara
Brennero
Austria
Relevant
Clearance
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
Innsbruck
Germany
1435 mm
Track
Gauge
Energy
System
Kufstein
München
Lehrte (Hannover)
Hamburg
Flensburg
Rostock
Appendix 3.2:Corridor B-East –
Important technical parameters for traction
Italy
1435 mm
DC 3 kV
1450 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (I)
Basic locomotive with two country packages (D/A and I)
Country
Germany
Austria
1435 mm
1435 mm
Screw coupler
with buffers
Screw coupler
with buffers
Bologna
Nogara
Verona
Bolzano
Trento
Brennero
Insbruck
Kufstein
Wörgl
München
Augsburg
Göttingen
Lehrte (Hannover)
Hamburg
Flensburg
Rostock
Appendix 3.3:Corridor B-East –
Important technical parameters for service
Italy
Transloading
Facility
Marshalling
Yard
Track
Gauge
Coupler
Maximum
Train Length
750 m
750 m
530 m
750 m
600 m
P/C 80-410
Intermodal
Gauge
Maximum
Train Mass
650 m
1800 t
2000 t
2000 t
1800 t
2000 t
P/C 80-410
1800 t
2800 t 1800 t
2800 t
1100 t
1435 mm
Screw coupler
with buffers
600 m
515 m
P/C 80-410 P/C 45-364
1600 t
149
Appendices
Appendix 4
Appendix 4.1: Corridor C –
Country Destination
Country Origin
Germany
Germany
Austria
6,941.1
Austria
5,905.8
Czech Rep.
4,665.0
5,180.1
Slovakia
743.1
672.0
Hungary
978.8
n.s.
Romania
Czech
Rep.
3,317.3
347.5
Slovakia
Hungary
Romania
469.1
1,251.5
68.6
n.s.
5,280.3
n.s.
n.s.
17.4
3,916.8
1,509.5
317.8
n.s.
20.3
20.0
2,250.0
n.s.
n.s.
31.2
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
193.8
86.0
n.s.
780.3
66.0
3,800.3
199.7
n.s.
27.2
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
34.8
n.s.
Serbia-Monten.
1.6
n.s.
Bulgaria
1.6
1.2
19.5
Turkey
0.1 95
0.0
1.0
n.s.
2.1
n.s.
SerbiaMonten.
16.4
n.s.
Bulgaria
5.6
n.s.
38.9
397.6
n.s.
59.0
40.0
0.0
Turkey
0.1 94
33.2
0.0
527.3
154.0
[1000 t/a]
Country Destination
Country Origin
Germany
Germany
Austria
29 %
Austria
30 %
Czech Rep.
32 %
Czech
Rep.
32 %
28 %
73 %
Slovakia
Hungary
Romania
27 %
40 %
15 %
n.s.
n.s.
12 %
n.s.
61 %
n.s.
19 %
35 %
n.s.
n.s.
38 %
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
76 %
n.s.
n.s.
85 %
n.s.
n.s.
75 %
n.s.
26 %
n.s.
Romania
6 %
n.s.
28 %
n.s.
Serbia-Monten.
1 %
n.s.
Bulgaria
0 %
n.s.
0 % 96
n.s.
29 %
0 % 96
3 %
71 %
23 %
Turkey
Turkey
n.s.
Hungary
1 %
Bulgaria
68 %
Slovakia
SerbiaMonten.
13 %
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
13 %
8 %
27 %
70 %
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
4 %
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
28 %
SerbiaMonten.
85.3
Bulgaria
Turkey
110.2
656.2
76.3
52 %
[1000 t/a]
Appendix 4.2:Corridor C –
Country Destination
Country Origin
Germany
Germany
Austria
16,290.3
Czech
Rep.
6,862.5
Hungary
Romania
1,229.1
1,637.2
335.8
Austria
13,114.8
Czech Rep.
9,550.1
1,915.9
Slovakia
1,393.0
n.s.
1,266.8
Hungary
2,483.8
n.s.
568.3
n.s.
Romania
541.9
n.s.
69.8
n.s.
n.s.
Serbia-Monten.
199.8
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Bulgaria
231.4
90.3
130.5
1,334.3
203.1
25.0
Turkey
893.5
Slovakia
n.s.
1,843.2
n.s.
n.s.
616.5
n.s.
14.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
78.3
203.2
n.s.
86.7
37.1
n.s.
n.s.
41.0
n.s.
n.s.
40.8
18.0
n.s.
119.3
0.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
54.7
147.7
n.s.
4.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
385.3
198.0
94data refers to 2003
statistics. 2004 value
is 136.5 [1000 t/a]
is 91.7 [1000 t/a]
is about 1 %
150
Appendices
Appendix 4
Country Destination
Country Origin
Germany
Germany
Austria
68 %
Czech
Rep.
66 %
Slovakia
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Turkey
76 %
SerbiaMonten.
69 %
71 %
52 %
72 %
n.s.
n.s.
50 %
34 %
n.s.
n.s.
54 %
32 %
n.s.
29 %
39 %
n.s.
81 %
65 %
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
50 %
n.s.
n.s.
16 %
n.s.
n.s.
13 %
n.s.
Austria
67 %
Czech Rep.
65 %
27 %
Slovakia
54 %
n.s.
Hungary
57 %
n.s.
74 %
n.s.
Romania
86 %
n.s.
72 %
n.s.
n.s.
Serbia-Monten.
87 %
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Bulgaria
61 %
74 %
87 %
54 %
38 %
26 %
n.s.
Turkey
78 %
n.s.
96 %
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
25 %
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
38 %
36 %
Country Destination
Country Origin
Germany
Germany
Austria
811.2
Czech
Rep.
272.7
Austria
592.1
0.0
Czech Rep.
403.1
0.0
Slovakia
456.2
n.s.
0.0
Slovakia
Hungary
Romania
40.1
274.0
n.s.
n.s.
0.0
Bulgaria
Turkey
38.5
SerbiaMonten.
21.5
102.7
1,279.0
n.s.
n.s.
49.3
n.s.
0.0
0.0
n.s.
0.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
9.8
n.s.
n.s.
20.4
n.s.
n.s.
18.4
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Hungary
875.4
n.s.
0.0
n.s.
Romania
53.8
n.s.
0.0
n.s.
n.s.
Serbia-Monten.
29.2
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Bulgaria
146.1
30.5
0.0
9.9
50.4
22.7
n.s.
Turkey
377.0
n.s.
0.0
n.s.
n.s
n.s.
n.s.
0.0
n.s.
101.4
198.0
[1000 t/a]
Country Destination
Country Origin
Germany
Germany
Austria
3 %
Czech
Rep.
3 %
Austria
3 %
Czech Rep.
3 %
0 %
Slovakia
18 %
n.s.
0 %
Hungary
20 %
n.s.
0 %
Romania
0 %
Slovakia
Hungary
2 %
9 %
9 %
SerbiaMonten.
17 %
47 %
66 %
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
34 %
n.s.
0 %
0 %
0 %
n.s.
0 %
0 %
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
12 %
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
8 %
n.s.
2 %
n.s.
n.s.
Romania
9 %
n.s.
0 %
n.s.
n.s.
Serbia-Monten.
13 %
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Bulgaria
39 %
25 %
0 %
38 %
35 %
4 %
n.s.
Turkey
22 %
n.s.
0 %
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Bulgaria
Turkey
n.s.
n.s.
10 %
36 %
freight
151
Appendices
Appendix 4
Appendix 4.4:Corridor C – Typical market segments served by rail freight 2003
Country Destination
Country Origin
Germany
Germany
Austria
• Manufactured
goods classified by
material
• Machinery and
transport equipment
• Misc. manufactured
articles
Czech Rep.
Slovakia
Hungary
• Misc. manufactured • Manufactured
articles
goods classified
• Chemical products
by material
• Beverages, tobacco • Machinery and
transport equip• Mineral fuels and
lubricants
ment
• Misc. manufactured articles
• Manufactured
goods classified by
material
• Machinery and
transport equipment
articles
• Chemical products n.s.
• Beverages, tobacco
n.s.
Austria
• Manufactured goods
classified by material
• Machinery and transport equipment
articles
Czech Rep.
articles
• Oils and fats
• Oils and fats
• Manufactured
goods classified by
material
Slovakia
articles
Machinery and transport equipment
• Mineral fuels and
lubricants
• Crude minerals except fuels
Hungary
articles
n.s.
• Misc. manufactured n.s.
articles
• Oils and fats
Romania
articles
n.s.
• Beverages, tobacco n.s.
n.s.
Serbia-Monten.
articles
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Bulgaria
• other commodities
Beverages, tobacco
other commodities
• Oils and fats
articles
Turkey
other commodities
• Magnesite
Crude minerals except n.s.
• other commodities. fuels
• Oils and fats
• Machinery and
transport equipment
• Chemical products.
• Machinery and
transport equipment
• Oils and fats
• Mineral fuels and
lubricants
• White goods
• industrial cargo
152
Appendices
Appendix 4
Country Destination
Country Origin
Romania
Serbia-Monten.
Bulgaria
Turkey
Germany
• Machinery and transport
equipment
equipment
• Automotive construction
materials
• chemicals, wooden materials
• polymer
• pipes
• glass products
Austria
n.s.
n.s.
• Mineral fuels and lubricants
• Crude materials except
fuels
Czech Rep.
Manufactured goods classi- n.s.
fied by material
Beverages, tobacco
Slovakia
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Hungary
n.s.
n.s.
•
•
•
•
n.s.
• Oils and fats
equipment
n.s.
n.s.
Romania
Serbia-Monten.
n.s.
Bulgaria
n.s.
Turkey
articles
n.s.
Cosmetics
Industrial cargo
other commod.
Misc. manufactured articles
• Chemical prod.
• Oils and fats
equipment
• Food and live animals
153
Appendices
Appendix 4
Expectations regarding future development of rail freight market
very low
low
high
very high
very low
low
high
very high
Germany – Czech Rep.
(and vice versa)
Germany – Slovakia
Slovakia – Germany
Germany – Austria
(and vice versa)
Germany – Hungary
(and vice versa)
Germany – Romania
(and vice versa)
Germany – Serbia
(and vice versa)
Germany – Bulgaria
(and vice versa)
Germany – Turkey
(and vice versa)
Slovakia – Austria
Future development of total freight market
Potential for additional intermodal block trains
Potential for additional conventional block trains
Potential for additional intermodal single wagon
Potential for additional conventional single wagon
154
Appendices
very low
Appendix 4
low
high
very high
Czech Rep. – Turkey
(and vice versa)
Czech Rep. – Slovakia
(and vice versa)
Romania – Czech Rep.
Czech Rep. – Romania
Hungary – Czech. Rep.
Czech Rep. – Hungary
Bulgaria – Czech Rep.
Bulgaria – Czech Rep.
Austria – Czech Rep.
(and vice versa)
Slovakia – Bulgaria
very low
low
high
very high
155
Appendices
Appendix 4
very low
low
high
very high
very low
low
high
very high
Bulgaria – Slovakia
Austria – Bulgaria
Bulgaria – Austria
Hungary – Bulgaria
Bulgaria – Hungary
Bulgaria – Romania
Turkey – Bulgaria
Bulgaria – Turkey
156
Appendices
Appendix 4
189
591
Country
IM
164
40
251
441
Germany
DB Netz AG
120
km/h
Maximum
Speed
100
km/h
120
km/h
13 49
222
88
14
Lököshaza
Budapest
Cegled
Szolnok
Szajol
Szob
Sturovo
Galanta
Devinska N.V.
Bratislava
58
71
Slovakia
ZSR
140
328
117
Hungary
MAV
1435 mm
1435 mm
D4
D4
C2
100
km/h
80
km/h
D4
Line
Category
141
Czech Rep.
CD
1435 mm
Track
Gauge
Ceská Trebova
Svitavy
Brno
Breclav
Kuty
Lysa NL
24 25
Kolin
Usti n. L. S.
Lovosice
Praha
Poricany
Dresden
Bad Schandau
Decin V.
Usti NLS
206
165
Distance
in km
Rosslau
Lehrte
Hannover
Bremerhaven
Bremen
Hamburg
Important technical parameters for infrastructure (Seaport branch)
1435 mm
C3
C2
120
km/h
80
km/h
120
km/h
100
km/h
12
116
107
27
57
Istanbul
Svilengrad
Dimitovgrad
Simeonovgrad
Tulovo
Stara Zagora
Gorna Orjachowiza
Giurgiu
Russe
Bucuresti
Ploesti
Campina
Ploesti
Ploesti
Arad
Lököshaza
Tracks
23 42
Romania
CFR
Bulgaria
BDZ
Turkey
TCDD
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
D4
70
km/h
D2
65
km/h
65
km/h
157
Appendices
Appendix 4
Country
Track
Gauge
Energy
System
Hungary
1435 mm
1435 mm
UIC-505-1
LVZ /
LST
ERTMS
Level 2
UIC-505-1
LVZ /
LST
1950 mm
EVM
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
1950 mm
ERTMS
Level 1
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
1950 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (CZ/SK)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (D/A)
UIC-505-1
LVZ / LST
DC 3 kV
Lököshaza
Szob
Budapest
Cegled
Szolnok
Szajol
Galanta
Slovakia
1435 mm
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
Sturovo
Czech Rep.
PZB / LZB
Signalling
System
Devinska N.V.
Bratislava
Germany
1435 mm
G2 EBO
Relevant
Clearance
Ceská Trebova
Svitavy
Brno
Breclav
Kuty
Bad Schandau
Decin V.
Usti n. L. S.
Lovosice
Praha
Poricany
Kolin
Dresden
Rosslau
Lehrte
Hannover
Bremerhaven
Bremen
Hamburg
Important technical parameters for traction (Seaport branch)
2050 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (CZ/SK)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (H)
Basic locomotive with six country packages (D/A, CZ/SK, H, R, BG, and TR)
Country
Track
Gauge
Romania
Bulgaria
1435 mm
1435 mm
Istanbul
Svilengrad
Dimitovgrad
Simeonovgrad
Tulovo
Stara Zagora
Gorna Orjachowiza
Giurgiu
Russe
Ploesti
Bucuresti
Campina
Ploesti
Ploesti
Arad
Lököshaza
Turkey
1435 mm
Relevant
Clearance
Signalling
System
Energy
System
ERTMS Level 1
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
AC 25 kV 50 Hz
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (R)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (BG)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (TR)
158
Appendices
Appendix 4
Lököshaza
Budapest
Cegled
Szolnok
Szajol
Szob
Sturovo
Galanta
Devinska N.V.
Bratislava
Ceská Trebova
Svitavy
Brno
Breclav
Kuty
Lysa NL
Kolin
Bad Schandau
Decin V.
Usti n. L. S.
Lovosice
Praha
Poricany
Dresden
Rosslau
Usti NLS
Country
Lehrte
Hannover
Bremerhaven
Bremen
Hamburg
Important technical parameters for service (Seaport branch)
Germany
Czech Rep.
Slovakia
Hungary
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
Transloading
Facility
Marshalling
Yard
Track
Gauge
Screw coupler
with buffers
Coupler
Screw coupler
with buffers
Screw coupler
with buffers
Screw coupler
with buffers
600 m
600 m
740 m
730 m
750 m
P/C 80-410
Country
Romania
Bulgaria
1435 mm
1435 mm
Istanbul
Svilengrad
Dimitovgrad
Simeonovgrad
Tulovo
Stara Zagora
Gorna Orjachowiza
2000 t 1800 t 1400 t 2000 t
Giurgiu
Russe
Bucuresti
Ploesti
Campina
2500 t
Ploesti
3000 t
Ploesti
Arad
2000 t
Lököshaza
Maximum
Train Mass
29
00
t
P/C 70-400
t
P/C 47-377
t
P/C 70-400 P/C 47-360
00
P/C 80-410
Intermodal
Gauge
650 m700 m
700 m
25
600 m
00
650 m
40
750 m
Maximum
Train Length
650 m
Turkey
Transloading
Facility
Marshalling
Yard
0
53 m
0
m
60
m
m
0
55
0
52
50
0
m
Screw coupler
with buffers
t
00
14
t
00
t
550 m
P/C 45-364
15
00
12
0
t
P/C 45-364
11
0
t
00
00
15
Maximum
Train Mass
55
0
0
P/C 80-410
t
Intermodal
Gauge
65
Maximum
Train Length
1435 mm
Screw coupler
with buffers
m
Screw coupler
with buffers
m
Coupler
12
Track
Gauge
1100 t
159
Appendices
Appendix 4
10
45
686
101
119
81 25
184
374
Germany
DB Netz AG
120
km/h
Maximum
Speed
80
km/h
127
D4
120
km/h
120
km/h
430
Lököshaza
Szolnok
Szajol
Györ
46
Budaörs
Budapest
Hegyeshalom
Sopron
65
140
117
Hungary
MAV
1435 mm
D4
Line
Category
19
Austria
ÖBB
1435 mm
Track
Gauge
Wien
St. Pölten
Wien-Hütteldorf
Wels
Linz
Passau
Regensburg
Nürnberg
89
44
103
90
Country
IM
Ansbach
Würzburg
Darmstadt
33
Aschaffenburg
Wiesbaden
Köln
185
Distance
in km
Mainz-Bischofsheim
Important technical parameters for infrastructure (Ruhr branch)
1435 mm
D3 D4
D3
100
km/h
100
km/h
C3
80
km/h
C2
100
km/h
12
116
107
27
57
Istanbul
Svilengrad
Dimitovgrad
Simeonovgrad
Tulovo
Stara Zagora
Gorna Orjachowiza
Giurgiu
Russe
Bucuresti
Ploesti
Campina
Ploesti
Ploesti
Arad
Lököshaza
Tracks
23 42
Romania
CFR
Bulgaria
BDZ
Turkey
TCDD
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
D4
70
km/h
D2
65
km/h
65
km/h
160
Appendices
Appendix 4
Country
Track
Gauge
Signalling
System
Austria
1435 mm
1435 mm
G2 EBO
G2 EBO
PZB / LZB
PZB / LZB
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
1950 mm
1950 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (D/A)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (D/A)
Lököshaza
Szolnok
Szajol
Györ
Budaörs
Budapest
Hegyeshalom
Sopron
Wien
St. Pölten
Wien-Hütteldorf
Wels
Linz
Passau
Regensburg
Nürnberg
Germany
Relevant
Clearance
Energy
System
Ansbach
Würzburg
Aschaffenburg
Darmstadt
Mainz-Bischofsheim
Köln
Wiesbaden
Important technical parameters for traction (Ruhr branch)
Hungary
1435 mm
UIC-505-1
EVM
ERTMS
Level 1
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
2050 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (H)
Basic locomotive with five country packages (D/A, H, R, BG, and TR)
Country
Track
Gauge
Romania
Bulgaria
1435 mm
1435 mm
Istanbul
Svilengrad
Dimitovgrad
Simeonovgrad
Tulovo
Stara Zagora
Gorna Orjachowiza
Giurgiu
Russe
Bucuresti
Ploesti
Campina
Ploesti
Ploesti
Arad
Lököshaza
Turkey
1435 mm
Relevant
Clearance
Signalling
System
Energy
System
ERTMS Level 1
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
AC 25 kV 50 Hz
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (R)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (BG)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (TR)
161
Appendices
Appendix 4
Lököshaza
Szolnok
Szajol
Györ
Budaörs
Budapest
Hegyeshalom
Sopron
Wien
St. Pölten
Wien-Hütteldorf
Wels
Linz
Passau
Regensburg
Nürnberg
Ansbach
Würzburg
Darmstadt
Aschaffenburg
Mainz-Bischofsheim
Köln
Wiesbaden
Important technical parameters for service (Ruhr branch)
Country
Transloading
Facility
Marshalling
Yard
Screw coupler
with buffers
650 m
1435 mm
1435 mm
t
00
t
00
Istanbul
30 t
00
t
t
00
00
20
Svilengrad
50
Tulovo
Stara Zagora
Bulgaria
27
1450 t
Romania
P/C 80-410
P/C 70-400
t
1800 t
750 m
20
P/C 80-410
13
P/C 80-410
Gorna Orjachowiza
1850 t
Ploesti
Campina
Ploesti
2000 t
700 m
Giurgiu
Russe
P/C 45-375
Bucuresti
2735t
Ploesti
Maximum
Train Mass
Arad
P/C 80-410
Lököshaza
Intermodal
Gauge
Screw coupler
with buffers
33
750 m
750 m
Maximum
Train Length
1435 mm
Screw coupler
with buffers
Dimitovgrad
Simeonovgrad
Coupler
Country
1435 mm
40
0
25 0 t
00
t
1435 mm
Track
Gauge
Turkey
Transloading
Facility
Marshalling
Yard
53 m
0
m
0
60
m
m
55
0
m
0
0
50
52
Screw coupler
with buffers
t
00
14
t
00
t
550 m
P/C 45-364
15
00
12
t
P/C 45-364
11
00
t
00
00
15
Maximum
Train Mass
55
0
0
P/C 80-410
t
Intermodal
Gauge
65
Maximum
Train Length
1435 mm
Screw coupler
with buffers
m
Screw coupler
with buffers
m
Coupler
12
Track
Gauge
1100 t
162
Appendices
Appendix 5
Appendix 5.1: Corridor D –
[1000 t/a]
Country Destination
Country Origin
Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
Poland
Germany
10,939.3
2,135.3
Poland
Estonia
Total
86.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
11,025.9
61.9
0.0
0.0
4,453.1
94.0
0.0
11.0
9,947.0
823.0
0.0
1,326.8
128.0
331.0
139.0
27,343.8
9,796.4
Lithuania
0.0
26.8
477.0
Latvia
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
Latvia
2,255.9
45.6
Estonia
Lithuania
203.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
260.0
2,180.9
20,762.5
2,819.5
358.9
1,083.0
260.0
Country Destination
Country Origin
Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
8 %
Poland
6 %
19 %
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Total
0 %
0 %
0 %
8 %
4 %
0 %
0 %
5 %
24 %
0 %
14 %
35 %
0 %
28 %
Germany
3 %
Poland
4 %
36 %
Lithuania
0 %
1 %
86 %
Latvia
0 %
0 %
0 %
46 %
Estonia
0 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
41 %
Total
3 %
12 %
20 %
13 %
35 %
59 %
35 %
5 %
9 %
12 %
11 %
Appendix 5.2:Corridor D –
[1000 t/a]
Country Destination
Country Origin
Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
Poland
Poland
37,031.3
1,280.7
65.4
49.7
0.0
38,427.1
7,741.2
600.2
212.5
117.0
44,214.5
304.0
61.0
69.0
10,450.3
115.0
1,322.6
35,543.6
Lithuania
Latvia
1,034.7
8,981.6
Lithuania
74.4
487.2
76.0
Latvia
71.4
317.5
101.0
240.0
Estonia
43.2
153.0
24.0
179.0
377.0
36,767.3
46,970.6
9,222.9
1,388.6
1,270.2
Total
570.0
Estonia
Total
Germany
242.0
971.9
776.2
543.0
96,162.6
Country Destination
Country Origin
Netherlands
Netherlands
Germany
29 %
Poland
Lithuania
Latvia
Total
93 %
100 %
100 %
0 %
29 %
66 %
37 %
22 %
21 %
55 %
76 %
100 %
86 %
36 %
41 %
100 %
28 %
Germany
54 %
Poland
94 %
33 %
Lithuania
100 %
18 %
14 %
Latvia
100 %
6 %
100 %
54 %
Estonia
100 %
8 %
100 %
100 %
59 %
55 %
28 %
67 %
52 %
41 %
Total
Estonia
65 %
15 %
27 %
48 %
38 %
163
Appendices
Appendix 5
[1000 t/a]
Country Destination
Country Origin
Germany
Netherlands
Netherlands
Poland
28,385.5
Poland
0.0
0.0
0.0
80,997.0
943.8
740.8
441.6
32,325.9
0.0
0.0
8,307.3
0.0
0.0
2,134.7
0.0
5,448.5
441.6
131,093.6
20.4
8,286.9
0.0
2,134.7
0.0
Latvia
0.0
5,448.5
0.0
Total
Total
Estonia
5.3
Lithuania
Estonia
Latvia
1,814.2
80,991.7
Germany
Lithuania
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,880.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
28,405.9
98,742.0
1,819.5
943.8
740.8
1,880.2
Country Destination
Country Origin
Netherlands
Germany
Netherlands
63 %
Germany
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Total
0 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
62 %
15 %
59 %
78 %
79 %
40 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
29 %
0 %
0 %
45 %
Poland
43 %
Poland
2 %
31 %
Lithuania
0 %
81 %
0 %
Latvia
0 %
98 %
0 %
0 %
Estonia
0 %
92 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
42 %
59 %
13 %
35 %
24 %
Total
83 %
0 %
64 %
39 %
52 %
Distance
in km
Country
IM
Track
Gauge
Line
Category
Maximum
Speed
173
173
Netherlands
ProRail
73
254
144
674
81
28
28
152
306
852
225 152
300
235
Germany
DB Netz AG
Poland
PLK
Lithuania
LG
Latvia
LDZ
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1520 mm
1520 mm
D4
D4
100 120 km/h 100
120
km/h
(Betuwe-Route)
100 km/h
D4
80
100
km/h km/h
C4
C3
90
km/h
80
60
km/h km/h
Tallin
Valga
Riga
Meitene
Kaunas
Sestokai (LG)
Sokolka
Warsaw
Poznan
Frankfurt/Oder
Rzepin
Magdeburg
135
Berlin
Hannover
Oberhausen
Emmerich
Rotterdam/Kijhoek
Important technical parameters for infrastructure –
complete corridor (main route only) 98
280
Estonia
EVR
1520 mm
23,5 t
80
km/h
(Old Line)
Tracks
98Corridor distance of
Latvia taken from:
State joint stock company „Latvian Railway“: Network statement 2005.
Corridor distance of
Lithuania and Estonia
approximately taken
from: “Rail map of
Europe”
164
Appendices
Appendix 5
Country
Signalling
System
Energy
System
1435 mm
UIC-505-1
G2 EBO
ERTMS / ETCS
Latvia
Tallin
Valga
Riga
Meitene
1520 mm
Estonia
1520 mm
1520 mm
Diesel
Diesel
UIC-505-1
(Betuwe line)
DC 1,5 kV
AC 15 kV/ 16,7 Hz
DC 3 kV
1950 mm
1950 mm
1950 mm
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (D/A)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (PL)
Basic locomotive
with one country
package (NL)
Kaunas
Lithuania
KHP
AC 25 kV/50 Hz
Sestokai (LG)
Poland
1435 mm
PZB / LZB
(Betuwe line)
ATB / Crocodile
Sokolka
Warsaw
Poznan
Berlin
Frankfurt/Oder
Rzepin
Germany
1435 mm
Width of
contact shoe
(pantograph)
Magdeburg
Hannover
Oberhausen
Netherlands
Track
Gauge
Relevant
Clearance
Emmerich
Rotterdam/Kijhoek
Important technical parameters for traction –
Diesel
Basic locomotive with three country packages (NL, D/A, and PL)
Country
Netherlands
Germany
Poland
Lithuania
Latvia
1435 mm
1435 mm
1435 mm
1520 mm
1520 mm
Screw coupler
with buffers
Automatic coupler
without buffers
Tallin
Valga
Riga
Meitene
Siauliai
Kaunas
Sestokai (LG)
Sokolka
Warsaw
Poznan
Berlin
Frankfurt/Oder
Rzepin
Magdeburg
Hannover
Hamm
Bielefeld
Emmerich
Rotterdam/Kijhoek
Important technical parameters for service –
Estonia
Transloading
Facility
Marshalling
Yard
Track
Gauge
Coupler
Screw coupler
with buffers
700 m
Maximum
Train Length
Intermodal
Gauge
Maximum
Train Mass
Screw coupler
with buffers
690 m
750 m
(Betuwe-Route)
615 540 690
(Old Line)
P/C 80-410
650 m 700 m
P/C 80-410
2735 t
2500 t
600 m
750 m
Automatic coupler
without buffers
1520 mm
Automatic coupler
without buffers
600 m
P 75-405 C 77-407 P/C 70-400
5100t
4600 t
165
Appendices
Appendix 6
Appendix 6: Corridor E –
Overview technical specifications
166
Appendices
Appendix 7
Appendix 7.1: Corridor F –
Overview technical specifications
Appendix 7.2: Corridor F –
Statistic data on freight flows (2003)
Country Origin
Germany
Destination
Country
France
France
Germany
Subtotal: Germany – France v.v.
Total freight
volume in Mio. t
30.2
Rail freight
volume in Mio. t
4.0
Modal Split rail
13.2 %
32.1
2.4
7.5 %
62.3
6.4
10.3 %
13.4 %
Germany
Spain
8.2
1.1
Spain
Germany
7.1
0.9
12.7 %
15.3
2.0
13.1 %
3.0 %
Subtotal: Germany – Spain v.v.
France
Spain
15.2
0.5
Spain
France
24.9
0.6
2.4 %
40.1
1.1
2.6 %
117.7
9.5
8.0 %
Subtotal: France – Spain v.v.
Total Corridor
167

db 2 (brochure)

Transcription

Similar documents

to the latest version of our brochure.

Summary of the 2015 - 2019 Corporate Plan

newismWhy more than ever, consumers lust after

pdf - Louisiana Byways

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

Development Corridor for Sustainable Growth in Egypt

West Trade Street/ Beatties Ford Road Corridor Charlotte, North

Building what matters - SNC

August-September 2011 - Concepts Direct, Inc.