270 likes | 283 Views
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.
E N D
RETRACK: Setting up innovative rail freight servicesReorganising 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.
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 • 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 Ingolstadt Villach Sopron
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.
Broader perspective of RETRACK – connection to China • Necessity to have alternative rail land bridge from European Union 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 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: • 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 * Consultant assessment
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 * Consultant assessment
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
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
Analysis overview of competing routes for the corridor West Europe-Inland China
Assessment for 2020 Opportunities for the rail landbridge between EU and China Share of each corridor in the total transport volume between EU-27 and China, in both directions Competition and non-competition cases
Operational characteristics of the RETRACK – China northern connection
Operational characteristics of the RETRACK – China southern connection
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! Adriaan Roest Crollius +31 79 32 224 19 a.roest.crollius@panteia.nl Tariq van Rooijen + 31 88 866 86 26 tariq.vanrooijen@tno.nl