There is no doubt that the transfer of freight to rail, which is now transported by road, and thus achieve the decarbonisation targets set by Europe, will be achieved largely by relying on two main modes: Motorway Rail and container transport. In both systems, the goods travel in a unit, which in the case of the rail motorway is the road semi-trailer itself and in the other is a standardised container. Both procedures have their advantages and disadvantages, which we are going to analyse, using the following table:

1.- Investment in transport units.

The goods are transported in a unit that is owned by the operator who contracts the service for his client. In the case of the Autopista Ferroviaria, the unit is the same trailer that is used for road transport (in fact, it requires a small adaptation that many of the semi-trailers that circulate in Spain already have as standard). In the case of containers, these are units that must be provided, either through rental or purchase. There are millions of containers in the world, but in Spain very few road companies have them. Many more have adapted semi-trailers.

2.- Use of existing routes.

In the case of containers, practically the entire RFIG (General Interest Railway Network) is suitable for container transport, as they have been running on it for more than 50 years. In the case of the rail motorway, this can only be used on specific routes where the necessary modifications have been made to the infrastructure to adapt the gauges. (At present, there is only one route planned, which is from Valencia to Madrid, where it is not necessary to adapt the gauges, as these are suitable for the rail motorway).

3.- Need for investment in gauge upgrading

In most of the Spanish rail network, it will be necessary to modify the infrastructure to allow for the heights of wagons loaded with semi-trailers in the case of the rail motorway, if there are tunnels or bridges on the planned route with smaller gauges than necessary, as occurs in most of the RFIG. In the case of container transport, this is not necessary in the current RFIG.

4.- Investment in wagons

There are wagons on the market suitable for both rail motorways and container transport, although in the latter case the wagon is somewhat cheaper. What does seem logical, and what is being done in most of the existing European rail motorways, is the use of wagons suitable for the transport of semi-trailers as well as containers, although this means an increase in the cost of acquisition.

5.- Tare of the wagons

The tare weight of the wagons required for transporting semi-trailers by rail is higher than the tare weight of the wagons for transporting ISO containers, with an axle load of 22.5 T in both cases. For example, an 80‘ wagon for the transport of two 40’ containers has a tare weight of around 26 T. and a wagon for the transport of two semi-trailers exceeds 30 T.

6.- Use of existing infrastructure

Trains of container wagons can use almost all of the current RFIG. However, rail motorway trains encounter the difficulty caused by the gauges of bridges and tunnels, which are insufficient for the passage of wagons loaded with semi-trailers, which means that they must be restricted to use them on specific routes that have previously had their gauges adapted, which takes time and money.

7.- Exploitation of the existing network

For the reasons given in some of the previous points, it is clear that container rail transport has an advantage over semi-trailer rail transport in the use of the existing RFIG in Spain which, as a result of the construction of high-speed lines, is currently under-utilised.

8.- Payload of goods per transport unit.

As the tare weight of the container is lower than that of the semi-trailer, the difference is transformed into a greater net quantity of goods transported per Uti (transport unit, whether container or semi-trailer) if the density of the goods transported allows it.

9.- Handling of Utis in terminals.

All container terminals in the world have container handling elements, but only those with gripper handling elements can handle semi-trailers, provided that they have the corresponding adaptation. (In some cases it is possible to opt for the use of trays in the wagons which are actually handled, carrying the semi-trailer on top, which in any case represents a greater tare weight).

The solution adopted in some countries for the rail motorway for horizontal transhipment requires an investment in the terminal which is much higher than that needed for an equivalent terminal for containers.

10.- Occupation of terminal space

The fact that containers can be stacked gives an advantage in terms of the need for less space occupation in terminals for each ILT. At present and according to the EU itself, most terminals have capacity problems.

11.- Versatility and flexibility

Once the semi-trailer is in the terminal and unloaded, it is removed by a tractor unit to travel what is known as the ‘last mile’ by road, just as has happened the other way round for its arrival at the terminal of origin. As the rail motorway is subject to a specific and fixed itinerary, the operator who owns the semi-trailer normally has organised the necessary structure and means, either in-house or subcontracted, to cover the last mile. In the case of containers, the system is similar but, in this case, it is necessary to have a tractor unit and also a container trailer.

12.- Universality

Container transport has a worldwide presence. It is perfectly organised and regulated and there are thousands of maritime and land terminals that accept its processing and handling worldwide. Transport by rail motorway is limited to certain specific routes where the infrastructure has been adapted. These routes have little connection with each other. They often originate in ports, as a continuation of maritime motorways, the latter being very successful, for example between Spain and Italy.

Conclusions

A simple examination of the graph shows an abundance of green in favour of containerised transport, justified by the eleven points above. This being the case, why is Spain firmly committed to the rail motorway? It is not for economic or technical reasons, but simply for strategic reasons. In a country where more than 90% of goods are moved by road and where road haulage companies are very jealous of their client portfolios, together with the fact that they do not trust promises of rail improvements, which leads them not to make investments to transfer traffic to rail, the solution seems to lie in the rail motorway which allows the road haulier to test its correct operation without the need to make investments.

The logical evolution of the rail motorway will be to replace it with container transport, given its technical and economic advantages. Once the road hauliers who switch to the rail motorway will have tested the reliability and loyalty of the railways.

On 12 July 1972, RENFE inaugurated the new TECO service for the transport of containers, with characteristics more typical of passenger trains in terms of timetables, reliability, etc. At the beginning, some road companies timidly contributed their goods to the railways, so that the annual growth in container transport exceeded double digit percentages, and so in 1990 RENFE transported 3.9 million tonnes in containers, and in 2006 the figure reached 6.9 million tonnes. Part of the initial traffic was lost due to service defects or price and only intermodal traffic originating in the ports has made it possible to reach 12.6 million tonnes in 2021.

The question then arises: if container transport has clear technical and economic advantages over the rail motorway, would it not have been more sensible to help container transport by avoiding the large investments in adapting the gauges required by the rail motorways?

C.O.I.I.M.

Transport and Logistics Commission