On 24 June 2008, a study on the transhipment terminals on the Rotterdam-Genoa rail freight corridor was presented at the Busto Arsizio terminal. Around 70 guests from the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Italy had taken up the invitation from the transport ministries involved to participate in the workshop followed by a visit of the terminal. Hinne Groot from the Dutch ministry of transport was satisfied with the response: “The role of the terminals as the primary link between the railways and the road or water is often underrated. At the Busto Arsizio workshop we received some important suggestions from the invited stakeholders.”
The study, compiled by the consulting firms NEA, HaCon, Rapp Trans, Gruppo Class, examines the effects of terminal operation on the quality of combined transport, taking into account the role of the terminal operators, infrastructure managers and railway companies. The action plan derived from the study should help to improve the quality, efficiency and capacity of the terminals at corridor level. The study was commissioned by the interministerial working group for the improvement of quality on the Rotterdam-Genoa corridor (IQ-C).
In the subsequent discussion with the stakeholders, the shortage of capacity emerged as the main problem area. By 2020 it is anticipated that the transhipment volume on the Rotterdam-Genoa corridor will treble. Whilst there is still some surplus capacity at a few terminals, the major hubs with a gateway function, such as Duisburg, Ludwigshafen, Novara and Busto, are operating close to capacity. “Even today we cannot achieve further growth in certain economic areas for lack of terminal capacity,” noted Bernhard Kunz from combined transport operator Hupac. To avoid damaging the growth opportunities for combined transport, he said that the upgrading of terminal capacities should therefore begin in good time.
Improvements in processes and quality may well make some contribution to the increase in capacity. But it is also essential for the whole transport chain to be involved, as it emerged during the discussion. “If all the trains were on time, we would have 20% more capacity and 20% lower costs,” was how Cor Hoenders from the RSC Rotterdam terminal summed it up. The extension of operating times to 24 hours a day and seven days a week would also increase the capacity. But there are severe limits to this approach: “If the trucks are not allowed to run at weekends and the industry limits the receipt of goods to normal office hours, this step will not help us much,” commented Sergio Bisagni from Eurogateway Novara.
In their role as an interface between the railway and the end customer, the terminals are thus heavily dependent on outside factors. The technical requirements of the transhipment terminals are another example. To allow rational production, the length of the trains – and thus the length of the transhipment platforms – has to be harmonised along the entire corridor, yet this requires substantial investments in the terminals and railway equipment. All the same, a lot can be achieved with intelligent planning. “We need more storage capacity to cope with the strong growth in maritime transport,” said Hans Pieper from the German terminal operating company DUSS. In contrast, Bernhard Kunz of Hupac favoured a mixture of maritime and continental transport. “The heavy continental transport load units are an ideal complement to the light containers used in maritime transport,” noted Kunz. “Mixed trains make the most efficient use of the scarce rail capacity.”
Innovative operational concepts such as the bonus-malus system, where the price motivates carriers to pick up the load units more quickly, also relieve the strain on the terminals and free up more space. These are urgently needed, because according to Stefan Wendel of the EEIG (European Economic Interest Grouping) “Corridor Rotterdam-Genoa” of infrastructure companies, rail freight transport between Rotterdam and Genoa is expected to double from 2007 to 2020. The planned measures to expand the railway infrastructure will result in a capacity increase of about 50%. So if future demand is to be fulfilled, there will also need to be a corresponding improvement in terminal capacity.
All stakeholders were in agreement that a coordinated approach would be highly beneficial for the future development of the terminal issue. The initiators of the study suggested the formation of a working group by the terminal operators to facilitate the exchange of experience and coordination with the corridor management. Other steps proposed in the action plan of the study are the synchronisation and coordination of the infrastructure expansions, the development of an incentive scheme for terminal investments and the formation of a “pushing group” to extend the logistics operation time to 24 hours a day and seven days a week along the whole corridor and the whole transport chain.
