4 June 2015
To Danish MEPs and members of the Transport Committee of The Danish
Parliament
Advancing rail freight transport through longer freight trains
The Ecological Council urges all Danish politicians, MEPs as well as members of the Transport
Committee of the Folketing, to advance rail freight transport by means including longer
freight trains. This would reduce CO2 emissions and traffic congestions as well as air pollution,
which would decrease as railways are electrified in the years to come.
Purpose: to boost railway freight transportation, energy savings, reduction in pollution and
the growing impact of trucks on European infrastructure.
Designing a capable, available, flexible and competitive European network of rail freight
corridors may be crucial to the rail freight development seeing as domestic differences in
security systems, braking systems, language usage, inflexible administrative requirements to
cross-border path requests as well as bottlenecks have vastly diminished the usefulness of
freight trains.
Coordinated and collective European decisions are needed along with a targeted Danish effort
as a supplement and for local development.
The Rail Freight System and its use should be advanced in both Denmark and Europe
Europe






Focusing on the ”Corridor Projects” and aiming for optimization, streamlining, simplification
and the establishment of good market conditions for rail freight. The idea of common, capable
and streamlined corridors without technical barriers at borders is good, but not without
significant opposition and attending to national interests.
The possibility of travelling with longer freight trains than today. See further down.
Supporting the development and introduction of new lifting and loading techniques. Support
with funding, research initiatives, investments and by announcing what may be anticipated in
Danish the terminals, hence enabling development.
Securing good conditions for freight trains in new terminals and systems for instance by
improving the signalling system by allowing trains to reverse, benefitting several aspects of
transportation.
Adapting freight train taxation to make rail freight transport cost-competitive.
Expansion of railroads to prevent bottle necks.
Denmark

A vision for the future of rail freight transport in Denmark
Mapping and utilization of the opportunities for rail freight that emerge from electrification
(several railway companies operate on electrified sections exclusively). The construction of
“long passing loops” north of Fredericia, across West Funen and on Zealand as well as
mounting new signal facilities, establishing a more direct train service through the Femarn-

tunnel to major parts of Europe as well as the establishment of double tracks in South Jutland
and terminal facilities in Esbjerg and Hirtshals.
The improvements are numerous, but an overall goal to measure the initiatives up against is
needed.
The improvements to rail freight transport have primarily been adopted to benefit other
purposes, and an overall rail freight strategy, which would stand to reason for an effort this
comprehensive, has not been laid out.
Terminal coverage in Denmark. From early intentions to a specific plan of action. The Fehmarn
belt tunnel will change the landscape, and the terminal locations are already characterized by
mere coincidences. We lack an intermodal terminal north of Fredericia in either Aarhus or
Aalborg. We also need to settle whether both Taulov and Padborg can make it when the
Fehmarn belt tunnel kicks in. Some smaller, modern goods sidings will be needed to replace
the many that are dismantled.
At present it is suggested that the possibility of using longer freight trains is supported
A number of experiments and investments have been performed in the EU in recent years to
establish opportunities of travelling with longer freight trains than currently possible. The
front runners are France, Germany, Sweden and Denmark. Many train operators and their
customers are extremely interested in the possibilities. The benefits are many:
-
-
Rational transport results in profit (cheaper transport for operators, primarily).
Higher capacity in the rail network (please see the CER-report: ”Longer trains, Facts &
Experiences in Europe, May 2014”).
In various projects, DB Netze and others have documented a net increase in capacity.
Some capacity is lost because trains will travel and accelerate a bit slower. But more is gained
from fewer trains being needed, freeing up paths in the rail network in which bottle necks are
currently seen. The gains may be greater, less or even negative, but an increase in capacity of
20% can be anticipated on average.
The environment will benefit as reductions in both energy consumption and pollution has
been documented (most distinctly in the Swedish ELVIS-experiment)
The impending Fehmarn corridor will fit freight trains as long as 1,000 m travelling through
Denmark. But seeing as a substantial part of Danish rail freight transport is transit traffic, the
corridor will not matter unless both Southern Sweden and Northern Germany are also able to
handle trains of 1,000 m. Sweden is working to increase the permitted length of trains in
Southern Sweden especially. At the moment, Germany is only working to permit 835 m long
trains on the new railway between Puttgarden and Lübeck (with a rail link to Hamburg)
although DB Netze is interested in even longer trains on the main sections of Germany in the
long run.
The so-called Transport Market Study covers the ScanMed Corridor Project (Stockholm/Oslo
via Denmark and to Sicily). In the study, train operators and companies in market for rail
freight transport were asked which corridor improvements they prioritized. The study
concluded that longer freight trains were not only prioritized by the most respondents, but
were also assessed as the most crucial improvement.
-2-
Longer trains
43 (16%)
Enhancement measure
Better intermodality
39 (15%)
Better overall availability
36 (14%)
Lower prices
36 (14%)
More flexible opening hours
28 (11%)
Heavier trains
28 (11%)
Longer opening hours
23 (9%)
Higher speeds
19 (7%)
0
10
20
30
40
No of mentions (% of mentions)
50
,
Figure 1: Enhancement measures suggested by stakeholders. Source: Transport Market Study, ScanMed-Corridor.
In light of this fact, it seems rather unambitious for the Corridor Projects and the “Work Plan
of European Coordinator Pat Cox” to merely aim for the maximum train length of 740 m that
has already been established in the TEN-strategies, and which is unambitious at best in a
North European context.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
5
7
15
9
17
None
Low
4
4
5
17
5
9
9
10
4
3
Maximum axle load
Train speed
5
3
Train weight
Medium
9
15
17
6
3
2
Train length
12
High
Very high
Don't know/no answer
Figure 2: Rating of importance of technical parameters. Source: Transport Market Study, ScanMed-Corridor.
One may object to raising the maximum train length to a high, harmonised standard in the
entire length of the corridor citing that it would be both costly and unrealistic. But the
Transport Market Study shows that in important sections of the corridor there are
significantly more “corridor trains” (trains that cross a border, starting and ending in a
corridor) than in other sections of the corridor. And literally no trains travel through the
-3-
entire corridor. The sections between Southern Sweden and Northern Germany as well as
between Southern Germany and Northern Italy are some of the heaviest in this matter.
Thus, it would be worthwhile to ensure a good capacity on these sections, and longer freight
trains are an obvious (and relatively cheap) measure, part of the solution. This is an issue for
European politicians. In accordance with the principle of striking while the iron is hot, the
current focus is the Southern Swedish-Northern German corridor via Fehmarn.
We recommend that politicians seek to advance longer freight trains through the European
Parliament, through the Danish vote in the Council of Ministers and through other fora in
which they have or may obtain access.
Figure 3: Corridor trains on major O/D relations (both directions, 2012). Source: Transport Market Study, ScanMedCorridor.
-4-