Enhancing the competitiveness of interna
Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
Enhancing the competitiveness of international rail freight services
Udo Sauerbreya; Stefan Mahlera
a
Railistics GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany
Abstract
The international rail freight business in Europe is still far behind its capabilities and the targets of all market
opening initiatives by the EU. International rail transport in Europe increased but has not reached a significant
market share during the last years if the whole of Europe is taken into account. One of the main factors
influencing the competitiveness of rail freight are the costs of providing the services. The paper follows a
market-oriented approach and analyses the costs of cross-border rail freight services on certain European
corridors with a special focus on the influence of political and legal requirements on the costs. Several fields
where a change in political and legal requirements can lower the costs of international rail freight services in
Europe are identified. The paper shows therewith ways for an improvement of the competitiveness of rail freight
in the European transport market.
Keywords: rail freight; competitiveness, costs; political and legal requirements
Résumé
Le secteur de transport de fret ferroviaire européen est toujours derrière ses possibilités et les objectifs de toutes
les initiatives de la UE pour l’ouverture du marché. Si en prend en considération tous les pays Européens, le
transport de marchandise ferroviaire international a grandi mais n’est pas arrivé à capter une part considérable du
marché. Un des facteurs les plus influents sur la compétitivité sont les coûts pour offrir les services. Cet article
suit une approche orientée marché et analyse les coûts des services ferroviaires transfrontaliers sur certains
couloirs européens avec une focalisation spéciale sur l’influence des spécifications politiques et juridiques.
Plusieurs domaines sont identifiés où un changement de ces spécifications peut diminuer les coûts des services
ferroviaire international. L’article démontre par cela, des possibilités pour améliorer la compétitivité du fret
ferroviaire sur le marché du transport européen.
Mots-clé: fret, ferroviaire ; compétitivité ; coûts ; spécifications politique et juridique
Udo Sauerbey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
2
1. Introduction
The international rail freight business in Europe is still far behind its capabilities and the targets of all market
opening initiatives by the EU. International rail transport in Europe increased but has not reached a significant
market share during the last years if the whole of Europe is taken into account. Before the European Community
decided to make the railway more competitive the rail freight transport has witnessed a strong fluctuation in the
last years. While in 2005 in the EU-25 just about 378 billion tkm got transported via rail the transported freight
slightly decreased until 2012 to about 375 billion tkm (Eurostat2012).
However, on certain cross border corridors in Europe a highly competitive, successful and efficient service has
been introduced. The success stories in Europe have several aspects in common. Technical, political,
administrative, commercial and operational aspects are the basis for such positive examples. To increase the
number of such corridors with efficient service provision would help customers such as the chemical, car or steel
industry and consumer goods transport in several countries, would increase the added value of service providers,
and would significantly improve the carbon footprint. Several interoperability and regulation initiatives
implemented by the EU have not been able to create a full European-wide network of such corridors so far.
This paper addresses the weaknesses of the system with special regard to administrative and legal requirements
for rail freight. These requirements and their impact on the competitiveness, in terms of costs, of rail freight are
analysed in-depth. The paper shows therewith possible ways for improving the competitiveness of rail freight
services in Europe.
2. Methodology
One of the main factors reducing the competitiveness of rail freight are costs, Therefore this paper concentrates
on the various costs of rail freight services. These are influenced by many factors, including technical,
operational, political, administrative, legal and commercial aspects. Especially legal and political requirements
often lead to higher costs and therefore have a negative impact on the competitiveness of rail freight compared to
other modes. For this reason the paper focuses on the impact of political and legal requirements on the
competitiveness of rail freight. The paper follows a clear market-oriented approach. A multi-step methodology
was identified as best for this purpose.
As rail freight in Europe is to a large part concentrated on several main corridors and political and investment
decisions on national as well as European level are often also based on a corridor principle (e.g. the TEN-T
priority axes) the paper adopts a corridor oriented approach. Therefore first a brief introduction in relevant
corridors is given.
Second step is the calculation and analysis of exemplary costs for typical rail freight services on selected
corridors. This includes a break-down of the total costs into cost categories and the different national sections of
the respective corridor. The cost break-down will serve as basis for further analysis later. A short review of
previous research projects will also deliver input for the analysis. The next step is an in-depth analysis of the
costs with special regard to costs induced by political and legal requirements. In order to identify the “weakest
part of the chain” the analysis sheds light on the costs (influenced by political and legal requirements) which
have the highest (negative) impact on the competitiveness of rail freight services. By this analysis the potential
for enhancing the competitiveness of international rail freight services by a change in political and legal
requirements
3. Corridors
3.1. TEN-T priority axes
One of the aims of the European Union, and wish of numerous of its citizens, is to get an efficient and good
working Trans European transport network which will benefit millions of Europeans by facilitating intraEuropean travel and the exchange of goods and services over the European borders. To achieve this, a
considerable amount of money needs to be allocated to the Trans-European network for new construction,
upgrading and other improvements of transport infrastructure. With regard to railways the main objectives are
Udo Sauerbrey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
higher line speeds, improvement for longer trains and the achievement of interoperability on the European rail
network.
The European Union has defined a Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) and 30 priority axes based on
their European added value. These cover the main European transport corridors and all different modes of
transport (European Commission 2012a):
Road
Rail
Maritime
Inland waterways
Air
Logistics
Co-modality
Innovation
To manage the technical and financial implementation the Commission established the Trans-European
Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA). The financing programme contains over 8 billion € for
2007-2015 and is therefore one of the most important financing means for financing transport infrastructure in
Europe (European Commission 2012a). The total project costs from 2010-2020 for the priority axes (or projects)
have been estimated to over 500 billion €, further investment will be needs until the expected completion of all
projects in 2030.
The importance of rail in the generation of a Trans-European transport network can be seen in the fact that 18
out of the 30 priority projects are railway projects (TEN-TEA 2010). In the following the analysis concentrates
on two priority axes (or projects). These two axes should be exemplary for the whole variety of rail freight in
Europe. Therefore one axis with a deep international co-operation and many successful international rail freight
services and one axis with a lower number of successful international rail services and a lower degree of
international cooperation should be taken. Furthermore Western Europe as well as the new Middle and Eastern
European member states should be taken into account. The two chosen priority axes 22 and 24 do fulfil best
these requirements.
Priority Axis 22:
The priority axis 22 covers the corridor Athina-Sofia-Budapest-Wien-Praha-Nürnberg/Dresden. This corridor
forms the most important railway link between Greece and the South East European member states on the one
side and the rest of Europe on the other side. The aim is to improve the connectivity between these two parts of
Europe. Therefore the project includes e.g. the modernization of railway sections and the optimization of railway
stations. As the length of the axis is 3,575 km and it crosses seven member states the project has also a special
place in the TEN-T network. Between 2007 and 2013 ultimately the project got funded with €21, 9 million and
47 % of the whole line is completed. The most problematic points of the axis are generally the cross-border
sections. The public debt crisis severely affecting some member states along the axis has also adverse effects on
the project. Despite this in 2012 some progresses could be achieved in Greece between Tithorea-Domokos and
with some smaller station and line upgrading projects (European Commission 2012b).
Priority Axis 24
This Priority axis covers the railway axis Lyon/Genoa-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerp with a length of
2,100 km crossing five member states and Switzerland in transit. This axis connects the North Sea ports of
Rotterdam and Antwerp with parts of Germany, Switzerland, France, Northern Italy and finally the
Mediterranean Basin in Genoa. The most important traffic on this route is intermodal transport mainly
originating in one of the main ports along the axis. The corridor is one of the best working cross-border rail
corridors in Europe even if large sections of the corridor still need to be upgraded. Today, on the corridor Genoa
– Antwerp who is called by the EU as one of the six main axes in Europe, 28.5 billion tkm are transported. For
2020 an increase up to 56 billion tkm is estimated. The projects costs between 2007 and 2013 were nearly 500
Mio € (TEN-TEA 2010).
Udo Sauerbey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
4
Fig. 1Volume of international freight traffic along priority axis 24
3.2 Interoperability
The achievement of interoperability is one of the main aims of the European rail policy. The implementation of
ERTMS as one of the main contributors to better interoperability in Europe is also one of the priority projects of
the TEN-T and there were six ERTMS-corridors defined. The corridors A and E are overlapping the priority
axes 24 and 22 respectively. Even if significant progress has been achieved in the last years, there are still
significant differences between the member states and the individual corridors in the deployment of the different
components of ERTMS. Other factors of interoperability are for example the harmonisation of possible train
lengths and weights.
3.3 Differences between the corridors
The analysed corridors show many differences not only in their infrastructural configuration but also in
organisational issues directly influenced by political and legal requirements. These differences can, to some
extent, explain the differences in the utilisation of the two corridors. The corridor Rotterdam-Genoa along
priority axis 24 is one of the main arteries of the European rail freight network with a comparatively high modal
share of rail and is therefore strongly used by cross-border freight trains. In contrast there are comparatively few
international rail freight services along priority axis 22 leading to a lower market share of rail.
Along priority axis 24 the legal framework and the necessary procedures at border crossings cause less problems
for international train operations and the infrastructure for interoperability (ERTMS etc.) is further developed
than along the priority axis 22. Furthermore the liberalisation of rail freight and therefore the intra-modal
competition is further developed in the countries along the priority axis 24. According to the liberalisation index
for rail freight 2011of IBM and Deutsche Bahn the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany are in position 2, 3 and 4
with Switzerland and Italy also among the advanced group. Several countries along the priority axis 22 are
among the bottom group in Europe (e. g. Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Greece) (IBM 2011).
4. Calculation and analysis of exemplary costs for rail freight services
Political and legal requirements have a large impact on the costs and therefore the competitiveness of rail freight
services. The usage of assets, for example, can significantly increase through political decisions towards
interoperability as there will be no more need to change locomotives at borders. Otherwise if a country
politically decides against interoperability there will be a need to change locomotives at the border. Therefore the
Udo Sauerbrey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
usage of this asset will decrease and the costs will increase resulting in lower competitiveness of rail freight. In
the following exemplar trains on two corridors are calculated showing the effects of those political decisions.
The costs used in this article are based on actual market prices gained in various projects in European rail freight
and through a continuous observation of the European rail freight market which was published in parts (e.g NEA
2008). Next to observed market prices also the published prices of infrastructure managers and other service
providers are taken as basis. Calculated are exemplar costs for running a train on the respective corridor. The
actual costs of individual train operators and specific trains will naturally vary to some extent, but the calculated
costs represent an average and, more importantly, show a realistic and average distribution of the individual cost
components.
Generally the costs of rail freight services can be split into the following main cost-components:
Locomotive costs
Wagon costs
Access costs
Energy costs
Labour costs
In addition to these categories there are overhead costs of the operator which are often calculated as percentage
of the remaining total costs.
The first corridor to be analysed is the corridor Rotterdam- Busto Arsizio, crossing the Netherlands, Germany,
Switzerland and Italy along priority axis 24. The second corridor runs from Antwerp to Vienna crossing Belgium,
Germany and Austria.
The overall costs for a round trip on the first corridor are 33,195.33 Euro. In Detail the costs have to be divided
into costs per country and Kilometre to get a realistic picture of the costs implied by political and legal
requirements. As the corridor Rotterdam-Northern Italy is one of the most heavily used corridors for intermodal
rail transport in Europe the calculation is carried out for a container train between the port of Rotterdam (RSC
Waalhaven) and the intermodal terminal of Busto Arsizio near Milan. The calculation of the individual cost
categories is described below. As example for the costs of missing interoperability it is assumed that in the
Netherlands and Italy special Diesel locomotives are necessary. On the Dutch Betuwe-line there was long time
no electric locomotives available capable to run with 25 kV AC and the installed train control system. In Italy
again a diesel locomotive was chosen, due to the fact that at the beginning of liberalisation there was a lack of
licensed electric locomotives capable of running to Switzerland and Germany. This was especially true for open
access operators on the Italian market (Meanwhile the situation has significantly improved and the use of electric
locomotives is standard).
The locomotive costs comprise the costs of depreciation, interest, insurance, and maintenance (again divided in
fix and running maintenance). All costs were calculated as annual costs with actual investment costs for
appropriate locomotive types and typical industry values (e.g. an insurance rate of 2.2% of investment costs). For
Germany and Switzerland a standard AC locomotive able to run in Germany, Switzerland and Austria was taken.
A major aspect is the calculated number of locomotives needed for such a transport. This number depends on the
utilization and performance of the asset. The more kilometres the locomotive is able to haul the train, the lower
the costs for the asset.
In the example the need for locomotives based on 260 trains per year and direction was calculated with average
productivity figures. The calculation showed the need for one locomotive each in the Netherlands and Italy and
two locomotives for Germany and Switzerland together. The calculated costs rose to about 471,000 € in the
Netherlands, 865,000 € in Germany and Switzerland, and 393,000 € in Italy.
The difference of the locomotive costs per unit (here: train kilometre) is significant. For the Netherlands (144 km)
total locomotive costs of 6.30 € per train kilometre, for Germany and Switzerland (622+ 247 km ) 1.91 € and for
Italy (88 km) 8.58 € have to be calculated (see fig. 3). This difference is mainly resulting from the utilization as
the investment costs for main line locomotives are comparable. The utilization is influenced by the operations
Udo Sauerbey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
6
plan of the railway undertaking but its optimization is limited by differences on technical level, by infrastructure
management principles and by national restrictions on administrative level.
The calculation of wagon costs was also based on actual purchasing prices of wagons and take into account
depreciation, interest, insurance, and maintenance. Two different types of typical intermodal wagons were
chosen (5x Sgns and 15xSggmrss), this allows for 75 TEU to be transported. The resulting length takes also the
existing restrictions on the corridor into account. To carry out 260 round trips per year three wagon sets were
needed, so a total of 15 Sgns and 45 Sggmrss had to be taken into account. The total wagon costs are calculated
as about 552,000 €.
The next cost category are infrastructure costs. These were calculated based on the respective access charges of
the different infrastructure managers and take the length of the trains and the maximum weight into account. The
access charges for one way in the Netherlands were 125.08 €, in Germany 2,704.48 €, in Switzerland 1,218.00 €
and in Italy 206.84 €.
In the Netherlands and Italy diesel costs based on the diesel consumption (in litre/km) of the used locomotive
type were computed for the calculation of energy costs whereas in Germany and Switzerland the consumption of
electric energy in kWh/km (Germany) and kWh/ton in Switzerland. The calculated total energy costs for one
way were 371.05 € (Netherlands), 1,872.75 € (Germany), 577.58 € (Switzerland) and 202.25 € in Italy.
The last main cost category are labour costs. As all administrative staff and staff for additional services are
included in overhead costs, the labour costs of train drivers are taken here. The costs were calculated based on
the average salaries per year which range from 20,400 € in Italy to 48,299 € in Switzerland. Other input factors
were the number of working hours per year, the labour costs factors and average productive hours per working
hour, which showed also considerable difference between the affected countries. In Italy it had to be taken into
account that two drivers were required. The resulting labour costs per hour range from 33.20 € to 71.54 € in
Switzerland.
An overview on the proportion of the different cost factors (excluding overhead) can be found in the following
figure. It is clearly visible that access costs have the highest share in the total costs followed by locomotive costs
and energy costs. Wagon costs and labour costs have a comparative small share in total costs.
Fig. 2: Overview costs for the corridor Rotterdam – Busto Arsizio
The total costs per country are highest in Germany and lowest in the Netherlands. However it has to be taken
into account that the length of the different national sections largely vary. Therefore a further break down of
costs as costs per kilometre and per country is carried to out to have a reference level. This can be seen in the
following figure showing that not Germany but Italy is the most expensive country on the corridor per km. This
is mainly due to the high locomotive costs, but also the higher labour costs. Wagon costs do not differ between
Udo Sauerbrey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
the countries as the same wagon set is used in all countries. The energy costs are higher in Italy and the
Netherlands due to the use of diesel locomotives in these countries. The access costs per km also widely differ
between the individual countries.
Fig. 3: Divided costs per kilometre per country
The second corridor runs from Antwerp North in Belgium to the central marshalling yard in Vienna, Austria.
The total costs for one round trip are 29,844.30 Euro. Again the costs are broken down into costs per country and
kilometre. Antwerp is one of the main ports for liquid bulk in Europe and there are considerable flows of liquid
bulk between the Eastern member states of the EU and the port of Antwerp via the marshalling yard in Vienna.
Therefore a train for liquid bulk was chosen for the calculation. This was carried out with the same methodology
as for the Rotterdam-Busto Arsizio corridor.
For the calculation of locomotive costs a diesel locomotive was assumed for the section in Belgium and one
electric loco for Germany and Austria. For 260 round trips per year one diesel loco is sufficient, but there is a
need of two electric locomotives. The total costs rise to 471,000 € per year for the Diesel loco in Belgium and
828,000 € for the standard AC electric locos for Germany and Austria. Again the costs per unit (train kilometre
are significant, see fig. 4) The wagon costs for three wagon sets (54 tank wagons type Zans in total) are about
524,000 € per year.
The access charges were also calculated based on the Network statements of the respective Infrastructure
Managers and differ considerably between 372.65 € for one way in Belgium, 1,192.72 € one way in Austria and
2,229.80 € one way in Germany. The energy costs are calculated in litre/km (Belgium) and kWh/km (Germany,
Austria). For one way the energy costs are about 346.99 € in Belgium, 2,204.87 in Germany and 720.71 in
Austria. The labour costs (train driver) per effective hour are highest in Belgium (56.27 €). The costs in Germany
and Austria are quite close (33.20 € and 34.83 respectively). The difference compared to Belgium is mainly due
to the higher annual salary in Belgium.
Again access costs have the highest proportion on the total costs (excluding overhead). In contrast to the
Rotterdam-Busto Arsizio corridor the second category is energy costs followed by locomotive costs. Again
labour costs and wagon costs have a comparably low share.
Udo Sauerbey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
8
Fig. 4: Overview costs for the corridor Antwerp North – Vienna
The same break down of costs as for the first corridor shows that Belgium has the highest cost per km and
Germany has the lowest, but the difference to Austria is only marginal. Mainly the locomotive costs are higher
for the Belgian section which can partly be explained by the lower usage of the locomotive for the comparable
short section in Belgium. Also labour costs are higher in Belgium. In contrast access charges and energy costs
are higher in Austria and Germany.
Fig. 5: Divided costs per kilometre per country
5. Review of previous research projects
Regarding the competitiveness of international rail freight services two European research projects were
conducted in the sixth framework program: RETRACK (Reorganization of transport networks by advanced rail
freight concepts) and CREAM (Customer driven rail freight services on a European mega corridor based on
advanced business and operating models). Main objective of the RETRACK project was the development,
Udo Sauerbrey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
demonstration and implementation of an innovative and market tested rail freight service on the corridor
Rotterdam-Constanta (Janic 2012). The CREAM project aimed at the development, demonstration and
implementation of an innovative demand and customer driven intermodal rail service between Western Europe
and South Eastern Europe and further to Turkey and the Middle East (Janic 2012). Both projects had therefore a
similar scope. The main differences were that REATRACK comprised independent private rail operators
whereas CREAM was mainly driven by incumbent rail operators of the relevant countries. RETRACK was also
not only focused on intermodal rail transport.
The RETRACK project identified network incompatibilities, regulatory diversity and operational disparities
between the different countries involved as major risks for the operation of an international train service on the
corridor (Ludvigsen 2011). These factors are directly influenced by political and legal requirements. The
CREAM project also analysed different factors related to political and legal requirements. One main factor was
the legal framework and necessary processes at border crossings which have also a strong influence on the
necessary border crossing times and therefore on the costs of the rail freight service. The project analysed several
border crossings along the corridor and defined categories from A to C relating to problems at border crossings
(HaCon 2012). Most border crossings with few problems are in the western parts of the corridor whereas the
more problematic border crossings are concentrated in South Eastern Europe.
6. Analysis of costs influenced by political and legal requirements
Political and legal requirements have a considerable influence on the costs of rail freight services. This is true for
all five cost categories calculated in chapter 4: locomotive costs, wagon costs, access costs energy costs and
labour costs. Main issue, however, is the utilisation of assets which depends on several aspects, e.g. logistical
concepts, regulations and the possibility of interoperability.
In the following a few examples out of the calculations in chapter 4 are presented. Examples of the influence on
locomotive costs are shown by the calculation with diesel locomotives in the Netherlands and Italy in the first
corridor. In the Netherlands there was a political decision to build a new freight railway line from the port of
Rotterdam towards the German border (Betuwe line). This line was equipped with 25 kV AC in contrast to the
DC system in use elsewhere in the Netherlands. In addition the line was equipped with ETCS as train control
system. On the long run these decision facilitate the interoperability of the European rail system, but in short
term made the use of diesel locomotives necessary on the Dutch section as there were no suitable electrical
locomotives available. Therefore the locomotive costs rose for the Dutch section.
The use of diesel locomotives in Italy has a different background. In Italy the legal requirements for licencing
electrical locomotives were difficult to comply with for new independent rail operators. Therefore only the
incumbent had electrical locomotives all other operators needed to use diesel locomotives where a licensed type
was available. This leads to higher costs for independent operators.
The calculation of access costs per kilometre in chapter 4 shows considerable differences between the different
countries. The costs per kilometre in the Netherlands are for example less than a quarter of the costs per
kilometre in Germany and Switzerland and the costs in Italy are still about half of the German and Swiss costs.
Besides some smaller differences in the cost factors in the individual countries the access costs are mainly
defined by the question which extent of the total costs of the infrastructure are to be covered by the users and to
which extent by the government. In the Netherlands a high share of total costs is financed by government
resulting in very low access charges whereas in Germany a larger part has to be covered by the users resulting in
comparably high access charges.
In labour costs a possible example is the influence of legal requirements in Italy making two drivers necessary
whereas all other countries only require one. As a result the labour costs per kilometre in Italy are about double
the costs in Germany and the Netherlands.
Previous research suggests that lack of interoperability and problems arising at border crossings are further
factors which negatively influence the costs of cross-border rail services. The cost calculations in chapter 4 show
Udo Sauerbey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
10
that the use of different locomotives on the different national sections are a considerable cost factor due to the
need for more locomotives and the lower productivity of the locomotives. Problems at border crossings are more
difficult to calculate. The higher administrative effort at border crossings due to a difficult legal framework and
poor cross-border coordination would be part of the general overhead costs which are difficult to calculate
exactly for an individual train run. Longer border crossing times have an influence on all time-dependent costs of
the rail service, e. g. the wagon rent and labour costs. On the other hand they have an impact on the overall
transport time of goods and therefore on the attractiveness of the service for customers.
7. Conclusion
As the analyses above have shown political and legal requirements have a high impact on the costs of rail freight
services. Directly and indirectly they influence all different operational and administrative costs. There are
several fields where a change in political and legal requirements can lower the costs of rail freight services and
therefore improve the competitiveness which can result in modal shift to rail.
One major aspect are the requirements for licensing of locomotives and national requirements making
interoperability more difficult. These requirements can make the use of different locomotives in the individual
countries necessary. Therefore not only more locomotives are necessary but also the usage of the individual
locomotives is lower resulting in locomotive costs having a higher share in the total costs.
Another point are access costs which are mainly defined by the political decision to which extent the total costs
of the infrastructure are to be paid by the railway operator as user.
It is therefore important that political decisions on international and national level regarding rail related technical
and infrastructural decisions and regarding the respective administrative procedures are done with respect to the
impact on rail transport costs, especially in the freight sector. The market usually has very limited margins and
even a small change can cause the non-competitiveness of rail transport projects.
References
European Commission 2012a: European Commission; Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency –
A brief overview; Brussels; 2012
European Commission 2012b: European Commission; Annual Report of the coordinator – Priority Projects 22
Gilles Savary; Brussels, 2012
Eurostat 2012: Eurostat database, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database,
last, access 09.12.2013
Hacon 2012: HaCon; The CREAM project – Technical and operational innovations implemented on a European
rail freight corridor; Hannover; 2012
IBM 2011: IBM, Kirchner, Prof Dr. Dr. Dr. h.c. Christian; Rail liberalisation index 2011, Brussels, 2011
Janic 2012: Janic, Dr. Milan; Retrack Deliverable 9.2: Recommendations from comparison with evaluation
results of other corridor services; 2012
Ludvigsen 2011: Ludvigsen, Johanna: Retrack Deliverable 3.2: Outline of business plan; 2011
NEA 2008: NEA, Railistics; Cost and performance of European rail freight transportation; Zoetermeer 2008
TEN-TEA 2010: Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency; Priority Projects 2010 A detailed
analysis; Brussels; 2010
Enhancing the competitiveness of international rail freight services
Udo Sauerbreya; Stefan Mahlera
a
Railistics GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany
Abstract
The international rail freight business in Europe is still far behind its capabilities and the targets of all market
opening initiatives by the EU. International rail transport in Europe increased but has not reached a significant
market share during the last years if the whole of Europe is taken into account. One of the main factors
influencing the competitiveness of rail freight are the costs of providing the services. The paper follows a
market-oriented approach and analyses the costs of cross-border rail freight services on certain European
corridors with a special focus on the influence of political and legal requirements on the costs. Several fields
where a change in political and legal requirements can lower the costs of international rail freight services in
Europe are identified. The paper shows therewith ways for an improvement of the competitiveness of rail freight
in the European transport market.
Keywords: rail freight; competitiveness, costs; political and legal requirements
Résumé
Le secteur de transport de fret ferroviaire européen est toujours derrière ses possibilités et les objectifs de toutes
les initiatives de la UE pour l’ouverture du marché. Si en prend en considération tous les pays Européens, le
transport de marchandise ferroviaire international a grandi mais n’est pas arrivé à capter une part considérable du
marché. Un des facteurs les plus influents sur la compétitivité sont les coûts pour offrir les services. Cet article
suit une approche orientée marché et analyse les coûts des services ferroviaires transfrontaliers sur certains
couloirs européens avec une focalisation spéciale sur l’influence des spécifications politiques et juridiques.
Plusieurs domaines sont identifiés où un changement de ces spécifications peut diminuer les coûts des services
ferroviaire international. L’article démontre par cela, des possibilités pour améliorer la compétitivité du fret
ferroviaire sur le marché du transport européen.
Mots-clé: fret, ferroviaire ; compétitivité ; coûts ; spécifications politique et juridique
Udo Sauerbey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
2
1. Introduction
The international rail freight business in Europe is still far behind its capabilities and the targets of all market
opening initiatives by the EU. International rail transport in Europe increased but has not reached a significant
market share during the last years if the whole of Europe is taken into account. Before the European Community
decided to make the railway more competitive the rail freight transport has witnessed a strong fluctuation in the
last years. While in 2005 in the EU-25 just about 378 billion tkm got transported via rail the transported freight
slightly decreased until 2012 to about 375 billion tkm (Eurostat2012).
However, on certain cross border corridors in Europe a highly competitive, successful and efficient service has
been introduced. The success stories in Europe have several aspects in common. Technical, political,
administrative, commercial and operational aspects are the basis for such positive examples. To increase the
number of such corridors with efficient service provision would help customers such as the chemical, car or steel
industry and consumer goods transport in several countries, would increase the added value of service providers,
and would significantly improve the carbon footprint. Several interoperability and regulation initiatives
implemented by the EU have not been able to create a full European-wide network of such corridors so far.
This paper addresses the weaknesses of the system with special regard to administrative and legal requirements
for rail freight. These requirements and their impact on the competitiveness, in terms of costs, of rail freight are
analysed in-depth. The paper shows therewith possible ways for improving the competitiveness of rail freight
services in Europe.
2. Methodology
One of the main factors reducing the competitiveness of rail freight are costs, Therefore this paper concentrates
on the various costs of rail freight services. These are influenced by many factors, including technical,
operational, political, administrative, legal and commercial aspects. Especially legal and political requirements
often lead to higher costs and therefore have a negative impact on the competitiveness of rail freight compared to
other modes. For this reason the paper focuses on the impact of political and legal requirements on the
competitiveness of rail freight. The paper follows a clear market-oriented approach. A multi-step methodology
was identified as best for this purpose.
As rail freight in Europe is to a large part concentrated on several main corridors and political and investment
decisions on national as well as European level are often also based on a corridor principle (e.g. the TEN-T
priority axes) the paper adopts a corridor oriented approach. Therefore first a brief introduction in relevant
corridors is given.
Second step is the calculation and analysis of exemplary costs for typical rail freight services on selected
corridors. This includes a break-down of the total costs into cost categories and the different national sections of
the respective corridor. The cost break-down will serve as basis for further analysis later. A short review of
previous research projects will also deliver input for the analysis. The next step is an in-depth analysis of the
costs with special regard to costs induced by political and legal requirements. In order to identify the “weakest
part of the chain” the analysis sheds light on the costs (influenced by political and legal requirements) which
have the highest (negative) impact on the competitiveness of rail freight services. By this analysis the potential
for enhancing the competitiveness of international rail freight services by a change in political and legal
requirements
3. Corridors
3.1. TEN-T priority axes
One of the aims of the European Union, and wish of numerous of its citizens, is to get an efficient and good
working Trans European transport network which will benefit millions of Europeans by facilitating intraEuropean travel and the exchange of goods and services over the European borders. To achieve this, a
considerable amount of money needs to be allocated to the Trans-European network for new construction,
upgrading and other improvements of transport infrastructure. With regard to railways the main objectives are
Udo Sauerbrey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
higher line speeds, improvement for longer trains and the achievement of interoperability on the European rail
network.
The European Union has defined a Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) and 30 priority axes based on
their European added value. These cover the main European transport corridors and all different modes of
transport (European Commission 2012a):
Road
Rail
Maritime
Inland waterways
Air
Logistics
Co-modality
Innovation
To manage the technical and financial implementation the Commission established the Trans-European
Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA). The financing programme contains over 8 billion € for
2007-2015 and is therefore one of the most important financing means for financing transport infrastructure in
Europe (European Commission 2012a). The total project costs from 2010-2020 for the priority axes (or projects)
have been estimated to over 500 billion €, further investment will be needs until the expected completion of all
projects in 2030.
The importance of rail in the generation of a Trans-European transport network can be seen in the fact that 18
out of the 30 priority projects are railway projects (TEN-TEA 2010). In the following the analysis concentrates
on two priority axes (or projects). These two axes should be exemplary for the whole variety of rail freight in
Europe. Therefore one axis with a deep international co-operation and many successful international rail freight
services and one axis with a lower number of successful international rail services and a lower degree of
international cooperation should be taken. Furthermore Western Europe as well as the new Middle and Eastern
European member states should be taken into account. The two chosen priority axes 22 and 24 do fulfil best
these requirements.
Priority Axis 22:
The priority axis 22 covers the corridor Athina-Sofia-Budapest-Wien-Praha-Nürnberg/Dresden. This corridor
forms the most important railway link between Greece and the South East European member states on the one
side and the rest of Europe on the other side. The aim is to improve the connectivity between these two parts of
Europe. Therefore the project includes e.g. the modernization of railway sections and the optimization of railway
stations. As the length of the axis is 3,575 km and it crosses seven member states the project has also a special
place in the TEN-T network. Between 2007 and 2013 ultimately the project got funded with €21, 9 million and
47 % of the whole line is completed. The most problematic points of the axis are generally the cross-border
sections. The public debt crisis severely affecting some member states along the axis has also adverse effects on
the project. Despite this in 2012 some progresses could be achieved in Greece between Tithorea-Domokos and
with some smaller station and line upgrading projects (European Commission 2012b).
Priority Axis 24
This Priority axis covers the railway axis Lyon/Genoa-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerp with a length of
2,100 km crossing five member states and Switzerland in transit. This axis connects the North Sea ports of
Rotterdam and Antwerp with parts of Germany, Switzerland, France, Northern Italy and finally the
Mediterranean Basin in Genoa. The most important traffic on this route is intermodal transport mainly
originating in one of the main ports along the axis. The corridor is one of the best working cross-border rail
corridors in Europe even if large sections of the corridor still need to be upgraded. Today, on the corridor Genoa
– Antwerp who is called by the EU as one of the six main axes in Europe, 28.5 billion tkm are transported. For
2020 an increase up to 56 billion tkm is estimated. The projects costs between 2007 and 2013 were nearly 500
Mio € (TEN-TEA 2010).
Udo Sauerbey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
4
Fig. 1Volume of international freight traffic along priority axis 24
3.2 Interoperability
The achievement of interoperability is one of the main aims of the European rail policy. The implementation of
ERTMS as one of the main contributors to better interoperability in Europe is also one of the priority projects of
the TEN-T and there were six ERTMS-corridors defined. The corridors A and E are overlapping the priority
axes 24 and 22 respectively. Even if significant progress has been achieved in the last years, there are still
significant differences between the member states and the individual corridors in the deployment of the different
components of ERTMS. Other factors of interoperability are for example the harmonisation of possible train
lengths and weights.
3.3 Differences between the corridors
The analysed corridors show many differences not only in their infrastructural configuration but also in
organisational issues directly influenced by political and legal requirements. These differences can, to some
extent, explain the differences in the utilisation of the two corridors. The corridor Rotterdam-Genoa along
priority axis 24 is one of the main arteries of the European rail freight network with a comparatively high modal
share of rail and is therefore strongly used by cross-border freight trains. In contrast there are comparatively few
international rail freight services along priority axis 22 leading to a lower market share of rail.
Along priority axis 24 the legal framework and the necessary procedures at border crossings cause less problems
for international train operations and the infrastructure for interoperability (ERTMS etc.) is further developed
than along the priority axis 22. Furthermore the liberalisation of rail freight and therefore the intra-modal
competition is further developed in the countries along the priority axis 24. According to the liberalisation index
for rail freight 2011of IBM and Deutsche Bahn the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany are in position 2, 3 and 4
with Switzerland and Italy also among the advanced group. Several countries along the priority axis 22 are
among the bottom group in Europe (e. g. Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Greece) (IBM 2011).
4. Calculation and analysis of exemplary costs for rail freight services
Political and legal requirements have a large impact on the costs and therefore the competitiveness of rail freight
services. The usage of assets, for example, can significantly increase through political decisions towards
interoperability as there will be no more need to change locomotives at borders. Otherwise if a country
politically decides against interoperability there will be a need to change locomotives at the border. Therefore the
Udo Sauerbrey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
usage of this asset will decrease and the costs will increase resulting in lower competitiveness of rail freight. In
the following exemplar trains on two corridors are calculated showing the effects of those political decisions.
The costs used in this article are based on actual market prices gained in various projects in European rail freight
and through a continuous observation of the European rail freight market which was published in parts (e.g NEA
2008). Next to observed market prices also the published prices of infrastructure managers and other service
providers are taken as basis. Calculated are exemplar costs for running a train on the respective corridor. The
actual costs of individual train operators and specific trains will naturally vary to some extent, but the calculated
costs represent an average and, more importantly, show a realistic and average distribution of the individual cost
components.
Generally the costs of rail freight services can be split into the following main cost-components:
Locomotive costs
Wagon costs
Access costs
Energy costs
Labour costs
In addition to these categories there are overhead costs of the operator which are often calculated as percentage
of the remaining total costs.
The first corridor to be analysed is the corridor Rotterdam- Busto Arsizio, crossing the Netherlands, Germany,
Switzerland and Italy along priority axis 24. The second corridor runs from Antwerp to Vienna crossing Belgium,
Germany and Austria.
The overall costs for a round trip on the first corridor are 33,195.33 Euro. In Detail the costs have to be divided
into costs per country and Kilometre to get a realistic picture of the costs implied by political and legal
requirements. As the corridor Rotterdam-Northern Italy is one of the most heavily used corridors for intermodal
rail transport in Europe the calculation is carried out for a container train between the port of Rotterdam (RSC
Waalhaven) and the intermodal terminal of Busto Arsizio near Milan. The calculation of the individual cost
categories is described below. As example for the costs of missing interoperability it is assumed that in the
Netherlands and Italy special Diesel locomotives are necessary. On the Dutch Betuwe-line there was long time
no electric locomotives available capable to run with 25 kV AC and the installed train control system. In Italy
again a diesel locomotive was chosen, due to the fact that at the beginning of liberalisation there was a lack of
licensed electric locomotives capable of running to Switzerland and Germany. This was especially true for open
access operators on the Italian market (Meanwhile the situation has significantly improved and the use of electric
locomotives is standard).
The locomotive costs comprise the costs of depreciation, interest, insurance, and maintenance (again divided in
fix and running maintenance). All costs were calculated as annual costs with actual investment costs for
appropriate locomotive types and typical industry values (e.g. an insurance rate of 2.2% of investment costs). For
Germany and Switzerland a standard AC locomotive able to run in Germany, Switzerland and Austria was taken.
A major aspect is the calculated number of locomotives needed for such a transport. This number depends on the
utilization and performance of the asset. The more kilometres the locomotive is able to haul the train, the lower
the costs for the asset.
In the example the need for locomotives based on 260 trains per year and direction was calculated with average
productivity figures. The calculation showed the need for one locomotive each in the Netherlands and Italy and
two locomotives for Germany and Switzerland together. The calculated costs rose to about 471,000 € in the
Netherlands, 865,000 € in Germany and Switzerland, and 393,000 € in Italy.
The difference of the locomotive costs per unit (here: train kilometre) is significant. For the Netherlands (144 km)
total locomotive costs of 6.30 € per train kilometre, for Germany and Switzerland (622+ 247 km ) 1.91 € and for
Italy (88 km) 8.58 € have to be calculated (see fig. 3). This difference is mainly resulting from the utilization as
the investment costs for main line locomotives are comparable. The utilization is influenced by the operations
Udo Sauerbey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
6
plan of the railway undertaking but its optimization is limited by differences on technical level, by infrastructure
management principles and by national restrictions on administrative level.
The calculation of wagon costs was also based on actual purchasing prices of wagons and take into account
depreciation, interest, insurance, and maintenance. Two different types of typical intermodal wagons were
chosen (5x Sgns and 15xSggmrss), this allows for 75 TEU to be transported. The resulting length takes also the
existing restrictions on the corridor into account. To carry out 260 round trips per year three wagon sets were
needed, so a total of 15 Sgns and 45 Sggmrss had to be taken into account. The total wagon costs are calculated
as about 552,000 €.
The next cost category are infrastructure costs. These were calculated based on the respective access charges of
the different infrastructure managers and take the length of the trains and the maximum weight into account. The
access charges for one way in the Netherlands were 125.08 €, in Germany 2,704.48 €, in Switzerland 1,218.00 €
and in Italy 206.84 €.
In the Netherlands and Italy diesel costs based on the diesel consumption (in litre/km) of the used locomotive
type were computed for the calculation of energy costs whereas in Germany and Switzerland the consumption of
electric energy in kWh/km (Germany) and kWh/ton in Switzerland. The calculated total energy costs for one
way were 371.05 € (Netherlands), 1,872.75 € (Germany), 577.58 € (Switzerland) and 202.25 € in Italy.
The last main cost category are labour costs. As all administrative staff and staff for additional services are
included in overhead costs, the labour costs of train drivers are taken here. The costs were calculated based on
the average salaries per year which range from 20,400 € in Italy to 48,299 € in Switzerland. Other input factors
were the number of working hours per year, the labour costs factors and average productive hours per working
hour, which showed also considerable difference between the affected countries. In Italy it had to be taken into
account that two drivers were required. The resulting labour costs per hour range from 33.20 € to 71.54 € in
Switzerland.
An overview on the proportion of the different cost factors (excluding overhead) can be found in the following
figure. It is clearly visible that access costs have the highest share in the total costs followed by locomotive costs
and energy costs. Wagon costs and labour costs have a comparative small share in total costs.
Fig. 2: Overview costs for the corridor Rotterdam – Busto Arsizio
The total costs per country are highest in Germany and lowest in the Netherlands. However it has to be taken
into account that the length of the different national sections largely vary. Therefore a further break down of
costs as costs per kilometre and per country is carried to out to have a reference level. This can be seen in the
following figure showing that not Germany but Italy is the most expensive country on the corridor per km. This
is mainly due to the high locomotive costs, but also the higher labour costs. Wagon costs do not differ between
Udo Sauerbrey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
the countries as the same wagon set is used in all countries. The energy costs are higher in Italy and the
Netherlands due to the use of diesel locomotives in these countries. The access costs per km also widely differ
between the individual countries.
Fig. 3: Divided costs per kilometre per country
The second corridor runs from Antwerp North in Belgium to the central marshalling yard in Vienna, Austria.
The total costs for one round trip are 29,844.30 Euro. Again the costs are broken down into costs per country and
kilometre. Antwerp is one of the main ports for liquid bulk in Europe and there are considerable flows of liquid
bulk between the Eastern member states of the EU and the port of Antwerp via the marshalling yard in Vienna.
Therefore a train for liquid bulk was chosen for the calculation. This was carried out with the same methodology
as for the Rotterdam-Busto Arsizio corridor.
For the calculation of locomotive costs a diesel locomotive was assumed for the section in Belgium and one
electric loco for Germany and Austria. For 260 round trips per year one diesel loco is sufficient, but there is a
need of two electric locomotives. The total costs rise to 471,000 € per year for the Diesel loco in Belgium and
828,000 € for the standard AC electric locos for Germany and Austria. Again the costs per unit (train kilometre
are significant, see fig. 4) The wagon costs for three wagon sets (54 tank wagons type Zans in total) are about
524,000 € per year.
The access charges were also calculated based on the Network statements of the respective Infrastructure
Managers and differ considerably between 372.65 € for one way in Belgium, 1,192.72 € one way in Austria and
2,229.80 € one way in Germany. The energy costs are calculated in litre/km (Belgium) and kWh/km (Germany,
Austria). For one way the energy costs are about 346.99 € in Belgium, 2,204.87 in Germany and 720.71 in
Austria. The labour costs (train driver) per effective hour are highest in Belgium (56.27 €). The costs in Germany
and Austria are quite close (33.20 € and 34.83 respectively). The difference compared to Belgium is mainly due
to the higher annual salary in Belgium.
Again access costs have the highest proportion on the total costs (excluding overhead). In contrast to the
Rotterdam-Busto Arsizio corridor the second category is energy costs followed by locomotive costs. Again
labour costs and wagon costs have a comparably low share.
Udo Sauerbey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
8
Fig. 4: Overview costs for the corridor Antwerp North – Vienna
The same break down of costs as for the first corridor shows that Belgium has the highest cost per km and
Germany has the lowest, but the difference to Austria is only marginal. Mainly the locomotive costs are higher
for the Belgian section which can partly be explained by the lower usage of the locomotive for the comparable
short section in Belgium. Also labour costs are higher in Belgium. In contrast access charges and energy costs
are higher in Austria and Germany.
Fig. 5: Divided costs per kilometre per country
5. Review of previous research projects
Regarding the competitiveness of international rail freight services two European research projects were
conducted in the sixth framework program: RETRACK (Reorganization of transport networks by advanced rail
freight concepts) and CREAM (Customer driven rail freight services on a European mega corridor based on
advanced business and operating models). Main objective of the RETRACK project was the development,
Udo Sauerbrey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
demonstration and implementation of an innovative and market tested rail freight service on the corridor
Rotterdam-Constanta (Janic 2012). The CREAM project aimed at the development, demonstration and
implementation of an innovative demand and customer driven intermodal rail service between Western Europe
and South Eastern Europe and further to Turkey and the Middle East (Janic 2012). Both projects had therefore a
similar scope. The main differences were that REATRACK comprised independent private rail operators
whereas CREAM was mainly driven by incumbent rail operators of the relevant countries. RETRACK was also
not only focused on intermodal rail transport.
The RETRACK project identified network incompatibilities, regulatory diversity and operational disparities
between the different countries involved as major risks for the operation of an international train service on the
corridor (Ludvigsen 2011). These factors are directly influenced by political and legal requirements. The
CREAM project also analysed different factors related to political and legal requirements. One main factor was
the legal framework and necessary processes at border crossings which have also a strong influence on the
necessary border crossing times and therefore on the costs of the rail freight service. The project analysed several
border crossings along the corridor and defined categories from A to C relating to problems at border crossings
(HaCon 2012). Most border crossings with few problems are in the western parts of the corridor whereas the
more problematic border crossings are concentrated in South Eastern Europe.
6. Analysis of costs influenced by political and legal requirements
Political and legal requirements have a considerable influence on the costs of rail freight services. This is true for
all five cost categories calculated in chapter 4: locomotive costs, wagon costs, access costs energy costs and
labour costs. Main issue, however, is the utilisation of assets which depends on several aspects, e.g. logistical
concepts, regulations and the possibility of interoperability.
In the following a few examples out of the calculations in chapter 4 are presented. Examples of the influence on
locomotive costs are shown by the calculation with diesel locomotives in the Netherlands and Italy in the first
corridor. In the Netherlands there was a political decision to build a new freight railway line from the port of
Rotterdam towards the German border (Betuwe line). This line was equipped with 25 kV AC in contrast to the
DC system in use elsewhere in the Netherlands. In addition the line was equipped with ETCS as train control
system. On the long run these decision facilitate the interoperability of the European rail system, but in short
term made the use of diesel locomotives necessary on the Dutch section as there were no suitable electrical
locomotives available. Therefore the locomotive costs rose for the Dutch section.
The use of diesel locomotives in Italy has a different background. In Italy the legal requirements for licencing
electrical locomotives were difficult to comply with for new independent rail operators. Therefore only the
incumbent had electrical locomotives all other operators needed to use diesel locomotives where a licensed type
was available. This leads to higher costs for independent operators.
The calculation of access costs per kilometre in chapter 4 shows considerable differences between the different
countries. The costs per kilometre in the Netherlands are for example less than a quarter of the costs per
kilometre in Germany and Switzerland and the costs in Italy are still about half of the German and Swiss costs.
Besides some smaller differences in the cost factors in the individual countries the access costs are mainly
defined by the question which extent of the total costs of the infrastructure are to be covered by the users and to
which extent by the government. In the Netherlands a high share of total costs is financed by government
resulting in very low access charges whereas in Germany a larger part has to be covered by the users resulting in
comparably high access charges.
In labour costs a possible example is the influence of legal requirements in Italy making two drivers necessary
whereas all other countries only require one. As a result the labour costs per kilometre in Italy are about double
the costs in Germany and the Netherlands.
Previous research suggests that lack of interoperability and problems arising at border crossings are further
factors which negatively influence the costs of cross-border rail services. The cost calculations in chapter 4 show
Udo Sauerbey/ Transport Research Arena 2014, Paris
10
that the use of different locomotives on the different national sections are a considerable cost factor due to the
need for more locomotives and the lower productivity of the locomotives. Problems at border crossings are more
difficult to calculate. The higher administrative effort at border crossings due to a difficult legal framework and
poor cross-border coordination would be part of the general overhead costs which are difficult to calculate
exactly for an individual train run. Longer border crossing times have an influence on all time-dependent costs of
the rail service, e. g. the wagon rent and labour costs. On the other hand they have an impact on the overall
transport time of goods and therefore on the attractiveness of the service for customers.
7. Conclusion
As the analyses above have shown political and legal requirements have a high impact on the costs of rail freight
services. Directly and indirectly they influence all different operational and administrative costs. There are
several fields where a change in political and legal requirements can lower the costs of rail freight services and
therefore improve the competitiveness which can result in modal shift to rail.
One major aspect are the requirements for licensing of locomotives and national requirements making
interoperability more difficult. These requirements can make the use of different locomotives in the individual
countries necessary. Therefore not only more locomotives are necessary but also the usage of the individual
locomotives is lower resulting in locomotive costs having a higher share in the total costs.
Another point are access costs which are mainly defined by the political decision to which extent the total costs
of the infrastructure are to be paid by the railway operator as user.
It is therefore important that political decisions on international and national level regarding rail related technical
and infrastructural decisions and regarding the respective administrative procedures are done with respect to the
impact on rail transport costs, especially in the freight sector. The market usually has very limited margins and
even a small change can cause the non-competitiveness of rail transport projects.
References
European Commission 2012a: European Commission; Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency –
A brief overview; Brussels; 2012
European Commission 2012b: European Commission; Annual Report of the coordinator – Priority Projects 22
Gilles Savary; Brussels, 2012
Eurostat 2012: Eurostat database, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database,
last, access 09.12.2013
Hacon 2012: HaCon; The CREAM project – Technical and operational innovations implemented on a European
rail freight corridor; Hannover; 2012
IBM 2011: IBM, Kirchner, Prof Dr. Dr. Dr. h.c. Christian; Rail liberalisation index 2011, Brussels, 2011
Janic 2012: Janic, Dr. Milan; Retrack Deliverable 9.2: Recommendations from comparison with evaluation
results of other corridor services; 2012
Ludvigsen 2011: Ludvigsen, Johanna: Retrack Deliverable 3.2: Outline of business plan; 2011
NEA 2008: NEA, Railistics; Cost and performance of European rail freight transportation; Zoetermeer 2008
TEN-TEA 2010: Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency; Priority Projects 2010 A detailed
analysis; Brussels; 2010