Germany will finalise its construction works on the so-called Third Track on 17 May. After 80 weeks of disruptions in the Dutch-German border area, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Looking back, the Dutch infrastructure ministry is satisfied with how it all went. Can rail freight say the same?
Between 20 April and 17 May, Germany is conducting its last intensive leg of construction works on the Emmerich-Oberhausen railway. It is building a third track, for which both existing tracks are now closed. This is a major disturbance for freight traffic from the Port of Rotterdam, as the closed railway is an extension of the main rail artery into the port hinterland.
For that reason, the 80 weeks of construction work was major news in Dutch rail freight. Despite coordination hiccups between the DB InfraGO and ProRail, the German and Dutch infrastructure managers, the Netherlands’ ministry said that things generally went well, logistically speaking.
An operator’s perspective
RailFreight.com reached out to Rotterdam Rail Feeding (RRF) to gauge the company’s views now that the end is nearing. RRF specialises in traffic between the Netherlands and Germany, and has been one of the main parties affected by the closures. “The works have had a large impact on our operations”, RRF says.
The operator has encountered capacity restrictions, longer transit times and a high degree of uncertainty in planning. “This required constant adjustments, coordination with partners and sometimes rerouting trains. Logistics companies are looking for reliable solutions to their logistical issues. Long-lasting works, regardless of their necessity, cause considerable problems.”
One such problem relates to costs. There is a perception that many negative effects are left for the rail operators to resolve: “all extra costs fall to these companies or their customers, and these are substantial”, RRF explains. As a consequence of extra costs and lower reliability, some shippers started to look elsewhere. A modal shift in favour of other transport modes was the outcome, even if others were keen to find alternative (rail-based) solutions.
A superficial view is deceptive
The Dutch ministry’s view that logistics remained intact may be accurate. However, says RRF, “the fact that trains kept going does not mean that it went well.” The works have led to substantial economic consequences for stakeholders.
“For many parties, including ourselves, there have been significant operational and commercial consequences. It is important that these experiences are taken into account in future projects so that the impact can be further limited.”
The economic impact has been significant — but what about the infrastructural consequences? Companies have had to reroute through other border crossings (Bad Bentheim, Venlo), which Germany possibly sees as desirable.
The two crossings have held up as alternative routes, but have also proven limited in their capacity. “They are useful as a temporary solution, but not readily suitable for structurally taking over large volumes from the main route. This underscores the importance of robust and well-prepared diversion routes within the European rail network”, comments RRF.