At Dutch rail freight yards and terminals, freight trains are often still handled in the traditional way. An electric locomotive brings the train to a port area, after which a diesel shunting locomotive takes care of the final leg into the yard. This costs time and money and causes additional emissions. The Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (I&W) sees opportunities in an alternative that has already proven itself in Germany and Austria: coasting entries.
A recent exploratory study conducted by Buck Consultants International and VanD Rail Consultancy shows that various locations in the Netherlands are also suitable for this approach. According to Rob Beijsens, policy officer for rail freight transport at I&W, the next step is to test the concept in practice. “It is actually very strange that we are not doing this in the Netherlands yet,” says Beijsens. “It is a proven concept. It is already being applied in Germany and Austria, and the study we conducted […] also demonstrates that there are locations in the Netherlands where it could be promising.”
When coasting into the terminal, the electric locomotive remains coupled to the train. Instead of a locomotive change, the train enters a track without overhead lines at sufficient speed and then rolls to the desired position on the terminal. In doing so, the locomotive no longer provides traction and therefore consumes no power. This offers several advantages. The number of shunting movements decreases, diesel shunting locomotives are less necessary, and train handling can proceed more quickly.
According to Beijsens, exact figures regarding the number of fewer movements are not yet available. “The goal of the future pilot is to further develop the business case in which such data also play a role.” In addition, the concept aligns well with the ambition to further electrify freight transport. Coasting entry distinguishes itself from many other logistical innovations because virtually all parties involved can benefit from it, according to Beijsens. “If you look at emissions, costs, and time, there are many advantages to this concept. I think almost all parties in the chain would be open to this.”
Organisation over technology
Technical feasibility does not appear to be the biggest obstacle. The desk study shows that the principle is applicable at various locations, provided the distance between the last overhead line and the terminal is not too long. After all, if a train has to coast too far, there is a risk that it will stall before reaching its destination. The challenge therefore lies primarily in the organisation. A train coasting into a terminal must be certain that there is actually room to proceed. Otherwise, it might come to a standstill in marshalling yards or switchyards. “At a certain point, you have to be 100% certain that the train can enter the terminal,” says Beijsens. “Operationally, that is probably where the greatest difficulty lies.”
A potential pilot following the study therefore focuses less on the technology itself than on the operational setup of the process. In this regard, the communication between traffic control, the terminal, and the train driver is central. The parties involved must be certain that the train can reach the terminal before leaving the electrified track.
RTW1 and BTT
At the same time, the elimination of locomotive switches also yields operational benefits. Fewer shunting movements mean a simpler and more efficient process in marshalling yards. In practice, several variants are conceivable. According to Beijsens, the most elegant solution is a situation in which the locomotive ends up directly under the next section of overhead line after loading or unloading. At other locations, an external power source can be used to return the locomotive to an electrified track. “It is really about the layout per terminal. Where should a sign be placed? Which principle do we apply? We have to make those kinds of choices now.”
The first phase of the research has now been completed. This involved examining where the concept is already being applied, what preconditions apply, and which terminal locations are potentially suitable. “The next step in the research is to demonstrate that the concept is also feasible in the Netherlands by means of a demonstration at one of the desired locations and the development of the associated business case. For this, Rail Terminal West 1 on the Maasvlakte and Barge Terminal Tilburg appear to be the most suitable,” says Beijsens.
Financing pilot
In addition to the operational trial, a business case must also be developed. Although the concept is expected to save time and shunting costs, the electric locomotive remains coupled to the train for a longer period. The question is exactly how those benefits and costs relate to each other. “The expectation is that it should be advantageous in terms of time and locomotive costs. But we do have to demonstrate that,” says Beijsens.
The required investments appear limited for the time being. In many cases, it primarily involves operational agreements and relatively simple adjustments to the infrastructure. Only when additional overhead lines prove necessary will costs rise further. “In principle, it just involves a sign and operational agreements,” says Beijsens. Proposals for a follow-up phase are currently being developed. Later this year, it should become clear whether funding will become available for pilots and further development.
Shunting by a single party?
In addition to coasting entries, Beijsens was involved in a feasibility study into ‘bundling concepts’ in the Waalhaven and Botlek — ports in Rotterdam. It investigated whether rail activities could be organised more efficiently by concentrating shunting movements at a single party or a central service provider. According to Beijsens, the study shows that potential is indeed present. Fewer locomotives could serve more trains, reducing costs, emissions, and waiting times. “There are gains in terms of time, emissions, and efficiency. Some locomotives currently drive through the entire port area and mainly just wait for each other.”
At the same time, organising such a bundling concept is significantly more complex than coasting entries. While the latter offers almost exclusively benefits, bundling concepts touch directly upon commercial interests, competitive relationships, and the structure of the railway market. “The study shows that the concept can indeed yield profits, but that it is legally and commercially very difficult,” states Beijsens.
International carriers without authorised last-mile locomotives can gain easier access to the market via the neutral feeder, which increases competition within the rail freight sector. This creates opportunities for new entrants but may simultaneously conflict with the interests of existing market players. In addition, questions regarding market forces and state aid arise if governments were to play a greater role in the organisation of such concepts.
Antwerp experience
The study therefore also examined experiences in Antwerp, Belgium. These show that bundling can yield organisational benefits, but that the financial returns are less clear for the time being. According to Beijsens, any potential next step therefore lies primarily with the market itself. “I think the most feasible option is for us to take that step together with the rail freight sector.”
That does not mean, however, that nothing is happening. According to Beijsens, cooperation between carriers, terminals, and other parties is already growing. In situations involving disruptions, for example, carriers are increasingly taking over each other’s trains. Initiatives such as Rail Connected are also stimulating cooperation in the Port of Rotterdam. “The cooperation is there. These kinds of initiatives do exist. Just not yet at the level of a bundling concept.”
According to Beijsens, the research shows that bundling offers opportunities for more efficient handling of rail transport, but also that, as mentioned, further steps depend primarily on the willingness of market parties to cooperate in this regard.
This article was originally published by our sister publication SpoorPro.