Assessing the impact on mode competitiveness of improvements of the Trans-Eurasian railway network

Abstract This paper deals with the potential of the different modes of transport on the Eurasian connection, focusing on rail, and comparing with sea and air. Since 2008, a substantial uptake of the rail connection has been observed. The main question then is whether the competitiveness of this land bridge is actual and sustainable or not. First, the paper focuses on the latest developments of the actual physical capacity on the Eurasian connection. Mainly under Chinese impetus, substantial improvements of rail connections but also border crossings have been made. Second, the paper focuses on the actual competitiveness of the different modes on the Eurasian connection in the current-day transport volumes. It can be observed that also the transport on the Eurasian connection has been growing, especially by rail. However, by far the largest volumes of transport still happen by maritime transport. The third and main question of the paper is on whether the land bridge by rail would cost-wise be competitive enough to favour a large shift from sea to land. An adapted version of a chain cost model applied to seven city pairs shows that the cost of the maritime solution is notably higher the further away from the coast origin and/or destination are located. For rail, such significant cost differences are not found. Furthermore, the value of the goods plays a bigger role for rail than for maritime transport. Air transport, due to its higher charges, typically is only used by higher-value goods. When comparing the (combinations of) transport modes, it turns out that the rail costs are on average 1.5 times to twice as high as when using maritime transport, but the more westward the origin on the Chinese territory, the closer the ratio gets to 1. The sensitivity analysis shows that in particular using longer trains will allow strongly further reducing generalized rail chain costs, easily over a third of the base case costs. Substantially less generalized chain cost reductions are achieved when shortening transit times, even when the latter goes up to half the initial transit time. Fourth, looking at what would be needed to make a further shift to rail materialize on the Eurasian connection, three items pop up: rail border crossing capacity, traffic balance between both directions and backups to the TEN-T rail network.