Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RETRACK: Setting up innovative rail freight services
Reorganising of Transport networks by Advanced RAil freight
Concepts Tariq van Rooijen - TNOAdriaan 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
Page 3
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
Rotterdam
Amsterdam
Antwerp
Gent Cologne
Ruhr Area
Linz
Villach
Györ
Sopron
Donauwörth
Ingolstadt
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
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 EULogistics development of Southern and Eastern EuropeImprovement of transport infrastructure in the Central Asia,
Russia and Eastern Europe countriesMaritime transport growth limitationsUpcoming industrial development in West China provinces
7
Necessity to have alternative rail land bridge from European Union to China
8
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
Main connection hubs in Western Europe :
•Duisburg•Budapest•Bucharest•Bratislava
Destination in China :•Lanzhou•Beijing
9
Studied Eurasia Landbridge rail corridors
Routes to China via Transsib
10
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)
Assessment of TransSiberian routes
RouteLead time(days)*
Change of gauge
Border crossing
Prices
($)*
Duisburg - Transsib - Zabaikalsk - Beijing 16.5 RF - PRC 1 3200
Duisburg - Transsib - Mongolia - Beijing 17 MON - PRC 2 3000
Duisburg -Transsib - Kazakhstan - Beijing 22 KAZ - PRC 2 3200
Supply chain requirements of the corridor
- Shipment compatibility
Common technological base of the infrastructure and train operation standards. Different development of signaling systems (Mongolia – EU ERTMS)
- Lead time and prices
* Consultant assessment
Major barriers
Strong control of the RZD over Russian rail market (e.g. monopolistic pricing, existence of preference schemes, indirect operational discrimination)High price and frequent tariff fluctuationsLimited availability of platform wagons in RussiaShortage of handling capacities at the gauge change stationsLack of punctuality and dwell times
Summarizing TransSiberian routes
High potential technical capabilitiesContinous infrastructure improvements on the corridorTime advantage high value cargoAlternative solution for heavy loads or dangerous goods
Routes to China via TRACECA
14
Assessment of two rail routes:
1) TRACECA– PRC via Turkmenbashi
Poti – Boyuk Kasik – Baku – Turkmenbashi – Chardzou – Khodza Davlet – Tashkent – Arys – Almaty – Dostyk - Urumqi – Lanzhou (4006 Km)
2) TRACECA – PRC via Actau:Poti – Boyuk Kasik – Baku – Aktau – Kandagash – Arys – Almaty – Dostyk - Urumqi – Lanzhou (4619. Km)
Assessment of TRACECA routes
Route
Lead time(days)* Change of gauge
Border crossing
Prices
($)*
Poti – Turkmenbashi – Dostyk 12.6 KAZ-PRC 5
3100
Poti – Actau – Dostyk 11 KAZ-PRC 3 3100
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 safeHigh and not transparent costsUnreliable travelling time
Routes to China via Kazakhstan
17
Assessment of one rail route:
Proposed Central Kazakhstan corridor
Aksaralskaya – Kandagash – Arys – Almaty – Dostyk (3896 Km)
Forecast of the volumes and structure of the freight flows between EU and Kazakhstan for the period before 2030
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
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
Construction materials
Food and animal feed
Chemical products
Metals and metal products
Other
Fuels and solid metals
Other
Petrol and petroleum products
Agriculture products
Metals and metal products
Industrial machinery and transport vehicles
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
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
Construction materials
Food and animal feed
Chemical products
Metals and metal products
Other
Fuels and solid metals
Other
Petrol and petroleum products
Agriculture products
Metals and metal products
Industrial machinery and transport vehicles
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 ChinaOD:
Urumqi-Berlin
Trans Siberia
Via Manzhhouli - Moscow
All Water
Via - Lianyungan - Rotterdam
Transsib via Kazachstan
TRACECA
Via Dostyk - Aktau - Baku - Poti
Travelling distance (km)
13,982 24,660 7,773 14,385
Transport costs (US $/ Container)
3,903 2,559 6,773
No. of custom and transshipment points
3/2 1/2 4/2 4/6
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
Maritime corridor, tonne 45,859,526 29,537,987
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
Scenario / year
Corridor
TSRTranssib
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 train
Lead time single wagon load train
Border crossings
TransSib – Kazakh route
Duisburg - Moscow 5 6 3
Moscow – Dostyk 8 12 1
Dostyk – Lanzhou 5 11 1
Total Duisburg - Lanzhou 18 29 5
TransSib – Mongolian route
Duisburg - Moscow 5 6 3
Moscow – Zamyn Uud 10 20 1
Zamyn Uud – Lanzhou 7 12 1
Total Duisburg - Lanzhou 22 38 5
TransSib – Manchurian route
Duisburg - Moscow 5 6 3
Moscow – Zabaykalsk 7 12 -
Zabaykalsk – Lanzhou 10 12 1
Total Duisbrug – Lanzhou 22 30 4
Operational characteristics of the RETRACK – China southern connection
Sections of the route Lead time block train
Lead time single wagon load train
Border crossings
TransSib – Kazakh route
Bratislava - Moscow 3,5 8 3
Moscow – Dostyk 8 12 1
Dostyk – Lanzhou 5 11 1
Total Duisburg - Lanzhou 16,5 32 5
Central corridor
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
TRACECA – Turkmenbashi route
Bucharest - Poti 2 5 2
Poti – Dostyk 21 24 4
Dostyk – Lanzhou 5 11 1
Total Bucharest – Lanzhou 28 40 7
Conclusions
In 2010 TransSiberian and Transsib – Kazakhstan railroutes are the most attractive optionsIn reality all transports go via TransSiberian corridorIn 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
+ 31 88 866 86 26 [email protected]
Adriaan Roest Crollius
+31 79 32 224 [email protected]
