Corridor X is an important transport axis for the Western Balkan region but is being marginalized in current EU transport policy. Efforts are underway to integrate Corridor X into the future EU Rail Freight Corridor network to attract more traffic. Corridor X faces barriers like borders that hamper traffic flows compared to other corridors like Corridor IV. Steps taken so far include optimizing border procedures but infrastructure upgrades and support from transport ministries is still needed to realize Corridor X's potential.

1. Thomas Wimroither – Association <Corridor X PLUS>, Secretary General
South East Europe Rail & Public Transport Development – Belgrade, June 5th, 2013
Pan-European Corridor X on Track
For Becoming a Modern Rail-Freight-Corridor

2. Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X
 Some current trends in European transport policy with reference to the development of
a trans-European corridor network seem to marginalise the most important transport
axis for the Western Balkan region, which is undoubtedly Pan-European Corridor X.
 In this regard the EU-Regulation 913/2010 serves as a very good example in providing
the implementation of several new Rail-Freight-Corridors such as the more eastern
located Pan-European Corridor IV as future Rail-Freight-Corridor 7, but unfortunately
not of Corridor X.
 For this very reason numerous stakeholders along Corridor X started to pool their
forces for the purpose of meeting all requirements for an integration of Corridor X to
this future Rail-Freight-Corridor-Network.
2
Introduction

3. Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X
I. What is a Rail-Freight-Corridor?
II. How other Rail-Freight Corridors perform?
III. Pan-European Corridor X in Comparison with Corridor IV
IV. What has been achieved? – What still needs to be done?
V. Conclusions
3
Table of Contents

4. 4
Regulation (EU) No. 913/2010
concerning a European rail network for competitive freight
• is the basis for the implementation of 9 Rail-Freight-Corridors almost all over Europe
• aims at a professional corridor approach towards customers (railway undertakings, terminal
owners and operators, ports, forwarders logistic providers etc.) that makes borders
disappear
• ensures harmonised investment plans along each corridor in accordance with a corridor-
wide elaborated transport market study focussing on future market developments and
addressing customer needs
• provides one single ONE-STOP-SHOP for each corridor as single contact point for
customers interested in using the corridor
I. What is a Rail-Freight-Corridor?
Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X

5. 5
Regulation (EU) No. 913/2010
concerning a European rail network for competitive freight
• aims at a harmonised approach with regard to
 capacity allocation
 the management of network operation
 performance management for freight trains
 the trans-national-coordination of maintenance-works
• requires the publication of trans-national corridor-information-documents for the whole
corridor as marketing- and sales-tool
• takes into account the needs of passenger transport
• in order to attract more freight traffic to such RFCs
I. What is a Rail-Freight-Corridor?
Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X

6. 6Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X
II. How other Rail-Freight Corridors
perform?

7. Rail Freight Corridors (RFCs) – 1st part
7Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X
II. How other Rail-Freight Corridors
perform?

8. Rail Freight Corridors (RFCs) – 2nd part
8Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X
II. How other Rail-Freight Corridors
perform?
≈ CORRIDOR IV (PETC)

9. 9
Owing to EU-Membership of
all countries along Corridor
IV (except Turkey) there is
hardly any barrier for
passengers and goods.
In contrast, along Corridor X
the situation is significantly
worse.
Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X
III. Pan-European Corridor X in
Comparison with Corridor IV

10. 10
• In Austria traffic flows have increased during recent years towards Corridor IV, but even more
towards Corridor X; destinations (and origins) of trains are mainly Koper, Ljubljana and Maribor
• Currently there are no regular direct freight services between Austria and Croatia
• Between Austria and Serbia the number of direct freight trains has decreased during recent
years
• Direct block trains from Germany/Benelux to Greece/Turkey disappeared at the beginning of
the economic crisis
> after having returned they run exclusively via Hungary
> in earlier years there were such trains via Hungary as well as via Slovenia and Croatia
> there are no direct block trains from Germany/Benelux to Greece since 2009
Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X
III. Pan-European Corridor X in
Comparison with Corridor IV

11. 11
View of Operators and Railway Undertakings
• DB and RCA founded RUs in Romania and Bulgaria, RCA makes preparation to found an RU in
Greece, RCA bought MAVCargo (now RailCargoHungaria)
• The distance from German Ruhr Area and Benelux Countries to Greece and Turkey is shorter
via Budapest and Belgrade than via Ljubljana and you have to cross one border less
• RUs prefer to use the Danube Axis via Vienna and Budapest in spite of crossing the Alps
(Tauern and Karawanken) – production costs
• Running to Greece via Romania means not to leave the EU (more simple border procedures),
running to Turkey means to leave the EU only near Svilengrad (Bulgaria)
• Missing resources and capacity on some corridor sections as well as infrastructure that has to
be upgraded (not only along Corridor X)
Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X
III. Pan-European Corridor X in
Comparison with Corridor IV

12. 12
B O R D E R S H A M P E R T R A F F I C F L O W S
Route Via Corridor Number of Border Crossings
EU-EU
EU-nonEU +
nonEU-EU
nonEU-
nonEU
Total
Austria
–
Turkey
HU-RO-BG IV 3 1 0 3 + 1 = 4
HU-SRB-BG Xb 1 3 0 1 + 3 = 4
SLO-HR-SRB-BG X 1 3 1 1 + 4 = 5
Austria
–
Greece
HU-RO-BG IV 4 0 0 4
HU-SRB-BG Xb 2 2 0 2 + 2 = 4
SLO-HR-SRB-BG X 2 2 1 2 + 3 = 5
SLO-HR-SRB-
FYROM
X 1 2 2 1 + 4 = 5
Optimal border procedures based on shortest possible stops are a key requirement for the
competitiveness of Corridor X !!!
Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X
III. Pan-European Corridor X in
comparison with Corridor IV

13. 13
1. Measurements to cut border stops (examples)
• Optimisation of border procedures
• Intensified use of IT-software-solutions
• Technical as well as constructional modernisation
• Provision of locomotives in time
• Signing of trust agreements
• Improved approach when dealing with missing loading tackles
• Trans-national deployment of locomotives – cooperation of railway undertakings
• Customs and border controls during train run (passenger transport)
Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X
IV. What has been achieved? –
What still needs to be done?

14. 14
2. Other requirements
Upgrading of infrastructure (more double-track sections, electrification,
improvements in the field of axle load / load per meter), elimination of speed
restrictions, removal of bottlenecks
Acting in concert with all stakeholders
 Railway undertakings and infrastructure managers are already on board
 Some ministries and other state authorities as well as other
beneficiaries of an implementation of a new RFC along Corridor X
are still rather passive
Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X
IV. What has been achieved? –
What still needs to be done?

15. 15Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X
V. Conclusions
The member railways of Corridor X PLUS agreed on a routing for a new RFC along
Corridor X:
Nevertheless: Transport ministries and state authorities are requested to support and
promote this proposal more actively.
* Formal approval form the Bulgarian railway infrastructure manager NRIC underway
Villach (A) – Ljubljana (SLO) –
– Zagreb (HR) – Belgrade (SRB) – Niš (SRB) – Sofia (BG)*
Graz (A) – Maribor (SLO) –

16. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
For further information please visit our homepage
www.kx-plus.com
and don’t hesitate to contact us!
16Attracting more Traffic to Corridor X