Rail transport could be competitive with road transport in terms of both price and time, says Ákos Érsek, chief policy advisor of the International Road-Rail Combined Transport Association (UIRR), who recently spoke to Trans.iNFO.
The expert sees the European Commission’s recent directive on combined transport as a step forward, as he expects the member states to come up with concrete proposals.
Trans.iNFO spoke to Ákos Érsek immediately after the European Commission published its proposed changes to combined transport. Although he did not have the opportunity to study the document in detail in such a short time, we asked him to evaluate the draft.
Here’s what he had to say:
Ákos Érsek: There are many positive elements in this committee’s proposal. The first is that, until now, only cross-border, i.e. international intermodal transport, could be considered combined transport, but the proposal extends the scope of the Combined Transport Directive so that domestic transport can now also be considered combined transport. That is the first positive element.
The second very positive element for me is that the proposal quantifies the external economic effects, i.e. the externalities, between public road transport and its analogous combined transport, door-to-door combined transport.
This is a huge step and will essentially be the first real practical application of the Commission’s “Handbook on the External Costs of Transport”. This guide is perhaps the world’s most robust one in the field of transport, based on a long-standing scientific methodology supported by empirical data.
The third point I would like to emphasise is the directive to encourage Member States to draw up a strategic freight transport vision or plan for their own territory. While several countries have already prepared this, neither Hungary nor Poland have yet to do so. Spain does have a programme called Mercancias 2030, which already refers to combined transport, but the directive would force Member States to specifically address the objectives to be achieved with combined transport in these strategic plans.
These specifics will help to make a more serious shift to combined transport truly measurable and feasible. In this way, it will be possible to see what is happening, which is why it is very important that each Member State has an empirical target expressed in figures.
The third and fourth points also relate to figures and measurability. Each Member State will have to prepare a system for the various forms of support provided in the directive that will result in a reduction of at least 10% in the price level of combined transport. Here, of course, an interesting question arises as to where we set the basis for comparison, i.e. this raises an interesting question: where do we put the benchmark, i.e. in relation to whether the price of combined transport should be reduced by 10%?
But if we assume that combined transport should be competitive with road transport, and since road prices are well known, we already know where the benchmark is.
Trans.iNFO: Does this mean that combined transport can only develop with the help of the state and the EU?
Ákos Érsek : The UIRR’s aim is to create a business model in the sector that is not dependent on state subsidies. In this way, we want to avoid what is often the case in other sectors of freight transport, particularly in the single wagonload sector, where the lack of state support leads to difficulties in operation.
But this is not only our objective; I have just come back from a parliamentary breakfast (European Parliament breakfast – editor) where the chairman of the committee responsible for amending the Combined Transport Directive concluded his presentation by saying that the Commission’s ideal objective in the long term is to internalise all externalities and to abolish legislation such as the Combined Transport Directive.
In other words, take action so that the system can operate on a purely market basis. That is what we want to achieve.
Trans.iNFO: But how can we get here? With regulations that make road transport more expensive, such as the German toll increase?
Ákos Érsek : Until now, the road sector has benefited from being able to emit CO2 without paying for it. Also, simply because for a very long time society had no idea what these carbon dioxide emissions meant for the environment. We all had to learn what nitrogen oxides, PM10 and PM2 were.
But now the situation is different; we know the effects of pollutant emissions, and there is a social consensus that those who pollute must pay for it.
The Handbook on the External Costs of Transport takes a serious look at an issue that affects road transport pricing policy. According to the Handbook, it is possible to double current freight rates, but this drastic change cannot be implemented immediately because it would have serious economic repercussions. However, a new balance is needed to satisfy our sense of justice and to ensure that road transport does not become an unsustainable part of the overall transport mix. As the market has an important role to play in this process, changes must be made in a market-compatible way.
Market conformity means that the market must be regulated on a quantifiable basis, with price manipulation mechanisms. Since price is the main indicator of the market, the handbook mentions a 10% price reduction, which is also recommended by the Directive, although it is not yet certain whether this is sufficient. The recent Combined Transport Directive recommends that Member States implement promotional subsidies with an effect of at least 10%. This seems to be a good direction for now, but further analysis is needed to determine whether this level of support is sufficient or not.
Trans.iNFO: The European Union has issued several directives and plans on how to make transport greener in general, such as encouraging the introduction of electric trucks and possibly longer, larger trucks. Don’t you think that these proposals do conflict with the guidelines for combined transport?
Ákos Érsek: Yes, we do, and at the beginning of September we raised our voice on the Weights and Dimensions Directive. The Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies, together with the European Rail Freight Association, called on the legislator to wait for the Combi Directive before making a decision on Counted Emissions.
We are currently awaiting a study by a consulting company which will show that the introduction of longer and heavier trucks in the market for low-density goods, i.e. pallet quantities of 400 kilos or less, would give road transport a price advantage of almost 40% if 44 25-metre long trucks were used.
Our position is that this is unacceptable and that combined transport cannot be compensated with a 10% price reduction, because if public roads can reduce their costs by 40%, combined transport must be able to do the same.
Moreover, even if the railways were to operate efficiently, there would be no efficiency reserve in this combined transport system if the 740-metre train length and 2,000-tonne gross weight were allowed under the TEN-T regulation.
Trans.iNFO: Would it be possible for road freight transport to reduce its emissions footprint to such an extent that it could catch up with combined transport in this respect?
Ákos Érsek: The Combined Transport Directive states that intermodal transport only becomes combined transport if the footprint of its external effects is at least 40% smaller than that of road transport. We believe that public roads will not be able to achieve this, even if 25-metre lorries are allowed. Even if the 44-tonne unit is pulled by an electric truck, it is not possible to achieve the kind of reduction that combined transport is capable of.
Not even if we use 740 metre trains on most lines. Although there are places where 850 metre freight trains are possible, for example between Germany and Denmark, most places run 550, 600 or 650 metre trains. So switching to a 740 metre train is not the same as lengthening an 18 metre truck by 50%.
This is why we believe that the Weights and Dimensions Directive should be significantly improved from the version proposed by the Committee. We have asked the European Parliament’s Transport Committee to postpone the amendment deadline of 21 November to allow sufficient time to evaluate the Estate Car Directive and to amend the Weights and Dimensions Directive accordingly.
Trans.iNFO:When we talk about combined transport, and especially when by combined we mean the inclusion of rail transport in the transport of goods, it is inevitable to talk about whether the rail network is ready to take on more serious load volumes. Is the infrastructure reliable and strong enough to make rail, or at least combined transport with road, competitive?
Ákos Érsek: Yes, the answer is definitely yes. A good example of this was the Covid period, when passenger traffic virtually stopped and the punctuality of freight trains suddenly rose to over 85 per cent.
We need to think about what the track capacity regulation says, i.e. whether we prioritise passenger or freight trains in terms of access to infrastructure.
It is important to note that the railway infrastructure is designed for an axle load of 22.5 tonnes. The lightest rail vehicle, an electric locomotive, has an axle load of 17.5 tonnes, while the heaviest freight train has an axle load of 22.5 tonnes. So the axle load is between 17.5 and 22.5 tonnes. On the other hand, on public roads, heavy commercial vehicles, which make up only 2% of the vehicle fleet, have an axle load of 11.5 tonnes, and the next heaviest axle load is another 3 tonnes. And among passenger cars, some have a load per axle of between five and six hundred kilograms.
These figures show that public roads are not really suitable for transporting large masses of people.
Another consideration is the length of the train. In Hungary, you can sometimes see intercity trains consisting of three or four single-deck carriages. There is also a motor train that consists of two uniform 50-metre-long locomotives, but it hardly carries any passengers. Meanwhile, in Switzerland, the locomotive pulls a 16-storey line of carriages.
I would say that in many cases we are wasting the capacity of the locomotive, not to mention the fact that such trains take up the track. Instead of such a train, a 2,000-tonne, 740-metre-long freight train could easily run, taking 50 lorries off the roads.
This is exactly the dilemma that the Track Capacity Regulation is talking about when it says that the route has to be determined on the basis of social, societal and environmental impacts as well as a cost-benefit analysis.
Let me add one more figure: currently, there are six passenger trains for every freight train. If this ratio were five instead of six, the number of freight trains could be doubled.