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 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 t train gross weight, up to 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 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 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 Route Lead time (days)* Change of gauge Border crossing Prices ($)* Duisburg - Transsib - Zabaikalsk - Beijing16.5RF - PRC Duisburg - Transsib - Mongolia - Beijing17MON - PRC Duisburg -Transsib - Kazakhstan - Beijing22KAZ - PRC 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 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 – Dostyk12.6KAZ-PRC Poti – Actau – Dostyk11KAZ-PRC 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 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

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

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 TSR Transsib KazakhstanTRACECACentral no competition9,24%7,42%1,89%5,74% competition7,89%5,86%1,25%4,30%

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! Tariq van Rooijen Adriaan Roest Crollius