As trilogue negotiations continue over the EU’s Weights and Dimensions Directive (WDD), the decades-old friction between road and rail has intensified. Rail freight and combined transport organisations have stepped up their efforts to prevent revised rules from facilitating the wider cross-border operation of “gigaliners”, a move they argue would run counter to EU climate and modal-shift goals.
In a joint statement released on 23 February 2026, a coalition including the UIRR, CER, and ERFA argued that while the WDD revision should incentivise zero-emission trucks, it must not create a “backdoor” for European Modular Systems (EMS) to expand across borders unchecked.
The signatories warn that the current legislative path fails to address the potential fallout for the wider transport ecosystem. Specifically, they cite concerns over:
- Reverse modal shift: Making long-distance road haulage more competitive than rail.
- Infrastructure strain: Accelerated wear and tear on bridges and roads.
- Safety and congestion: The impact of significantly longer vehicle combinations on road safety and congestion.
The overhaul of Directive 96/53/EC — the EU rulebook for heavy goods vehicle limits — is now in its final “trilogue” stage. This involves three-way negotiations between the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission to reach a final compromise.
While the European Parliament adopted its position in early 2024, transport ministers only agreed on the Council’s “general approach” on 4 December 2025.
Not the first pushback from the rail sector
This is far from the first time rail and combined transport stakeholders have sounded the alarm. As early as November 2023, Ákos Érsek, strategic chief advisor at the International Union for Road-Rail Combined Transport (UIRR), urged lawmakers to align the WDD debate with the revision of the Combined Transport Directive.
Érsek’s argument remains the cornerstone of the rail sector’s opposition: allowing 44-tonne, 25-metre trucks creates a substantial cost advantage for road haulage that is almost impossible to counterbalance through traditional support measures. The February 2026 statement reinforces this, arguing that decarbonisation efforts should not unintentionally reshape competition in favour of road-only options.
The “ZEV-only” demand: No extra weight for diesel
A central pillar of the coalition’s demands is that additional weight allowances must be reserved exclusively for zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs).
The signatories oppose review mechanisms that could allow heavier internal combustion engine (ICE) trucks to remain on the road under extended transitional rules. For hauliers, the outcome is critical: battery-electric and hydrogen trucks carry a weight penalty due to their fuel systems. While the industry agrees that ZEVs need a “payload bonus” to remain viable, the rail sector insists this must not be used to keep heavier diesel trucks in operation.
The coalition is also calling for strict caps on length derogations. This is not merely a competitive concern but a practical one. In practice, vehicle configurations must remain compatible with:
- Rail wagons and “pocket” wagons.
- Intermodal terminal cranes.
- Standardised loading units.
The statement warns that allowing longer truck combinations without strict limits would undermine the efficiency of standardised intermodal flows, and could require costly adjustments in intermodal infrastructure and operations.
Monitoring, enforcement, and member state control
Beyond the technical specs, the coalition is pushing for more robust governance. They are demanding:
- Ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments to track the actual effect of these changes on modal shift.
- Stronger enforcement tools to ensure that weight and length exemptions are not being abused.
- Explicit member state control to prevent the “uncontrolled” cross-border deployment of EMS through EU-level mandates.
For hauliers, this could translate into a higher administrative burden, including tighter roadside controls and more rigorous documentation for cross-border operations.
To bolster their case, the coalition cited recent data indicating public sentiment is on their side. They cited an EU-wide survey of 5,400 citizens across all 27 Member States, which found that only 2% supported the cross-border circulation of longer, heavier trucks. A separate 2024 survey of 8,000 people across nine Member States found that over 60% of respondents in countries like France, Italy, and Austria oppose “megatruck” deployment.
Where the negotiations stand
The Council’s position from December 2025 aimed to provide clarity for cross-border operations, including the use of EMS between consenting neighbouring states. However, the rail sector argues this “clarity” is too permissive.
For operators, the next key question is how the final compromise handles three fronts:
- Zero-emission allowances: Whether the weight bonus remains simple enough for fleet planning.
- EMS safeguards: Whether the final text includes explicit brakes on cross-border expansion.
- Compliance burden: Whether new monitoring requirements add practical friction to international routes.
The shape of the final deal will determine whether EMS remains a national policy choice or becomes a harmonised EU reality.
Three things to watch: What the trilogue deal means for your fleet
As the European Parliament, Council, and Commission hammer out the final text, the outcome for road transport depends on three specific technical compromises:
1) The ZEV payload “bonus” vs. diesel parity
The industry is watching to see whether the extra weight allowance for zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) remains a straightforward incentive or becomes more complex in practice. If the rail coalition wins its “ZEV-only” demand, any transitional weight extensions for internal combustion engines would be limited.
2) The “backdoor” for cross-border gigaliners
Will the final directive allow European modular systems (EMS) to cross borders by default between consenting neighbours, or will it require additional conditions aimed at protecting intermodal compatibility? For hauliers, this is the difference between seamless international routes and a patchwork of national rules that stop at the border.
3) The compliance and enforcement “friction”
Keep an eye on the monitoring and enforcement clauses. If the coalition’s push for impact assessments and common indicators makes it into the law, cross-border operators should expect closer scrutiny and potentially more frequent roadside inspections, depending on how the rules are implemented.
