RETRACK: Setting up
innovative rail freight services
Reorganising of Transport networks by Advanced RAil freight Concepts
Tariq van Rooijen - TNO
Adriaan Roest Crollius - Panteia
October 17, 2012, Moscow
Introduction EU Policy
Before 1991 the operations of incumbent operators were
national boundary focused; few were operating cross-country
pan-European services.
Since 1991 different EU directives and Railway Reform
Packages have made European rail freight operation open and
non-discriminatory access; The incumbent and new entrants
operate in the market on a competitive and commercial basis.
RETRACK, made up of new private entrants, was funded to
research and demonstrate pan-European rail freight services.
Page 2
RETRACK corridor as of 2012
Role of Transpetrol:
- Train Operator & Sales
- Rail Operator Germany
- Coordinator between Retrack and
the other Railnetworks of TP
RETRACK Railway operators
- Romania: various forwarders & railways
- Hungary: CER
- Austria: LTE
- Germany: Transpetrol
- Benelux: Rurtalbahn
Amsterdam
Rotterdam
Ruhr Area
Gent
Cologne
Antwerp
Linz
Donauwörth
Györ
Ingolstadt
Villach
Train Characteristics (Cologne-Györ):
- Wagon groups & single wagons
- All commodities
- Transit in less than 24 h
- 650m to 700 m in length
- 1.900 t train gross weight, up to 2.300 t realised
- Frequency: 3/4 roundtrips per week
- “Hub’s” in Cologne, Györ and Rotterdam
Sopron
Page 3
The RETRACK train service
Pilot findings and conclusions
After some problems at its start, RETRACK has become a successful
commercial demonstration project between North sea and Black sea;
The train service will continue to run after the project terminates.
RETRACK offers a flexible, pragmatic, and adaptive service to cope with
the different market requirement;
RETRACK has been a test case for EC reform packages and
deregulatory directives;
The RETRACK service is considered reliable by customers; as a result
the customer number and base have increased;
RETRACK is established with some long-term customers; Also the
partners have established long term operational relationship with clear
roles and responsibilities;
The asset utilization of RETRACK service is increasing;
The RETRACK service has achieved some modal shift from road to rail.
Eurasian corridors
In the final phase of the project, after the European corridor
has been set up, RETRACK investigated possibilities for future
extension of the RETRACK corridor further East.
Page 6
Broader perspective of RETRACK –
connection to China
Substantial trade relations between China and EU
Logistics development of Southern and Eastern Europe
Improvement of transport infrastructure in the Central Asia, Russia
and Eastern Europe countries
Maritime transport growth limitations
Upcoming industrial development in West China provinces
Necessity to have alternative rail land bridge from European Union to
China
7
RETRACK STUDY
Rail freight developments in Russia and China and
the impact on Europe
•Inventory and assessment of rail freight strategies and
developments in China and Russia
•Potential for Eurasia land bridge rail corridors and
logistics developments along the corridors.
•Action Plan to improve the Eurasia rail corridors
8
Studied Eurasia Landbridge
rail corridors
Main connection hubs in
Western Europe :
•Duisburg
•Budapest
•Bucharest
•Bratislava
Destination in China :
•Lanzhou
•Beijing
9
Routes to China via Transsib
Assessment of three rail routes:
1) TransSib – PRC via Zabaikalsk (reference case):
Moscow – Yekaterinburg – Novossibirsk – Irkutsk
– Ulan-Ude – Zabaykalsk – Manzhouli – Beijin – Lanzhou (10782 km)
2) TransSib – PRC via Kazakhstan:
Moscow – Yekaterinburg – Kurgan – Petropavlovsk – Astana – Mointy – Aktogay –
Dostyk – Urumqi – Lanzhou (6718 km)
3) TransSib – PRC via Mongolia:
Moscow – Yekaterinburg – Novossibirsk – Irkutsk – Ulan-Ude – Naushki – Zamyn
Uud – Jining – Beijin (8756 km)
10
Assessment of
TransSiberian routes
Supply chain requirements of the corridor
- Shipment compatibility
Common technological base of the infrastructure and train operation standards. Different development of
signaling systems (Mongolia – EU ERTMS)
- Lead time and prices
Route
Lead time
(days)*
Change of
gauge
Border
crossing
Duisburg - Transsib - Zabaikalsk - Beijing
16.5
RF - PRC
1
Duisburg - Transsib - Mongolia - Beijing
17
MON - PRC
2
Duisburg -Transsib - Kazakhstan - Beijing
22
KAZ - PRC
2
* Consultant assessment
Prices
($)*
3200
3000
3200
Major barriers
Strong control of the RZD over Russian rail
market (e.g. monopolistic pricing, existence
of preference schemes, indirect operational
discrimination)
High price and frequent tariff fluctuations
Limited availability of platform wagons in
Russia
Shortage of handling capacities at the
gauge change stations
Lack of punctuality and dwell times
Summarizing TransSiberian
routes
High potential technical capabilities
Continous infrastructure improvements on the corridor
Time advantage high value cargo
Alternative solution for heavy loads or dangerous goods
Routes to China via TRACECA
Assessment of two rail routes:
1) TRACECA– PRC via Turkmenbashi
Poti – Boyuk Kasik – Baku – Turkmenbashi – Chardzou – Khodza Davlet – Tashkent – Arys – Almaty –
Dostyk - Urumqi – Lanzhou (4006 Km)
2) TRACECA – PRC via Actau:
Poti – Boyuk Kasik – Baku – Aktau – Kandagash – Arys – Almaty – Dostyk - Urumqi – Lanzhou (4619.
Km)
14
Assessment of TRACECA routes
Supply chain requirements of the corridor
- Shipment compatibility
Common technological base of the infrastructure and train operation standards.
Different development of electrification systems (e.g. Georgia - Azerbaijan)
- Lead time and prices
Route
Poti – Turkmenbashi –
Dostyk
– Actau
– Dostyk
* Poti
Consultant
assessment
Lead
time
(days)*
Change of gauge
Border
crossing
Prices
($)*
3100
12.6
KAZ-PRC
5
11
KAZ-PRC
3
3100
Major barriers
Ferry transport on Caspian sea (monopoly
of CASPAR, lack of capacity Actau, no
coordination of railway wagon supply
between ports)
Multiple border crossings (not-unified
administrative procedures, time loss, lack of
transparency, not harmonized customs
procedures)
The corridor is not always safe
High and not transparent costs
Unreliable travelling time
Routes to China
via Kazakhstan
Assessment of one rail route:
Proposed Central Kazakhstan corridor
Aksaralskaya – Kandagash – Arys – Almaty – Dostyk (3896 Km)
17
Forecast of the volumes and structure of
the freight flows between EU and
Kazakhstan for the period before 2030
Fuels and solid metals
In the direction of EU:
2008: 32.7 mln t
2015: 37.0 mln t
2020: 38.6 mln t
2030: 47.1 mln t
Agriculture products
Metals and metal products
Petrol and petroleum products
Other
Construction materials
In the direction of Kazakhstan:
2008: 1.1 mln t
2015: 3.3 mln t
2020: 5.4 mln t
2030: 7.9 mln t
Metals and metal
products
Food and animal feed
Industrial machinery and
transport vehicles
Chemical products
Other
Source: Alexeev A. Transport infrastructure, priority projects. Presentation on 6th session of UNECE
Group of experts on EATL II, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Assessment of Central
Kazakhstan route
Currently not operational for international traffic, only for
regional and bilateral transport.
Offers alternative to existing Transsib and TRACECA corridors
with shorter connection between Western China and Eastern
Europe (in comparison to TRanssib) and less border – crossing
problems (in comparison to TRACECA).
Fully operational infrastructure wise, 20% electrified, 54%
double track
On-going railway infrastructure improvement projects
(electrification and modernization of railway lines as well as
construction of the new railway lines) will further shorten
travelling distance and time along Kazakhstan
Customs Union RF – Kazakhstan offers additional possibilities
Comparing routes
Analysis overview of competing
routes for the corridor West
Europe-Inland China
OD:
Urumqi-Berlin
Travelling
(km)
Trans Siberia
Via Manzhhouli Moscow
All Water
Via - Lianyungan Rotterdam
Transsib via
Kazachstan
TRACECA
Via Dostyk - Aktau Baku - Poti
distance
13,982
24,660
7,773
14,385
2,559
6,773
4/2
4/6
Transport costs
(US $/ Container)
3,903
No. of custom and
transshipment points
3/2
1/2
Summary of estimated 2010 rail corridor and maritime volumes between EU 27 and
China under assumption of rail corridor competition
To Europe
To China
TransSib directly to China corridor, tonne
669,325
418,845
TransSib - Kazakh corridor, tonne
747,150
462,866
TRACECA corridor, tonne
57,545
38,066
Central corridor, tonne
128,844
77,868
45,859,526
29,537,987
Maritime corridor, tonne
Assessment for 2020
Opportunities for the rail landbridge between EU and China
Share of each corridor in the total transport volume between EU27 and China, in both directions
Competition and non-competition cases
Corridor
Scenario / year
TSR
Transsib
Kazakhstan TRACECA
Central
2020- no competition
9,24%
7,42%
1,89%
5,74%
2020- competition
7,89%
5,86%
1,25%
4,30%
Operational characteristics of
the RETRACK – China northern
connection
Sections of the route
Lead time block Lead time single
train
wagon load train
Border
crossings
Duisburg - Moscow
5
6
3
Moscow – Dostyk
8
12
1
Dostyk – Lanzhou
5
11
1
Total Duisburg - Lanzhou
18
29
5
Duisburg - Moscow
5
6
3
Moscow – Zamyn Uud
10
20
1
Zamyn Uud – Lanzhou
7
12
1
Total Duisburg - Lanzhou
22
38
5
Duisburg - Moscow
5
6
3
Moscow – Zabaykalsk
7
12
-
Zabaykalsk – Lanzhou
10
12
1
Total Duisbrug – Lanzhou
22
30
4
TransSib – Kazakh route
TransSib – Mongolian route
TransSib – Manchurian route
Operational characteristics of
the RETRACK – China southern
connection
Sections of the route
Lead time block
train
Lead time single
wagon load train
Border
crossings
Bratislava - Moscow
3,5
8
3
Moscow – Dostyk
8
12
1
Dostyk – Lanzhou
5
11
1
Total Duisburg - Lanzhou
16,5
32
5
Bratislava – Aksaralskaya II
7,5
10
2
Aksaralskaya II - Dostyk
12
15
1
Dostyk – Lanzhou
5
11
1
Total Total Bratislava - Lanzhou
24,5
36
4
Bucharest - Poti
2
5
2
Poti – Dostyk
21
24
4
Dostyk – Lanzhou
5
11
1
Total Bucharest – Lanzhou
28
40
7
TransSib – Kazakh route
Central corridor
TRACECA – Turkmenbashi route
Conclusions
In 2010 TransSiberian and Transsib – Kazakhstan railroutes
are the most attractive options
In reality all transports go via TransSiberian corridor
In 2020 Central Kazakhstan corridor becomes a good
transport option, further development of the corridor is
essential besides the TransSib
RETRACK
Thank you!
Tariq van Rooijen
Adriaan Roest Crollius
+ 31 88 866 86 26
tariq.vanrooijen@tno.nl
+31 79 32 224 19
a.roest.crollius@panteia.nl