Rail Baltica Growth Corridor, Project meeting WP4

1. Rail Baltica Growth Corridor, Project meetingWP4 25/11/2011

2. Project Team Piotr Dwojacki, PhD (College of Business and Administration) Maciej Komosa, PhD (Consultant, expert in evaluation projects) Miron Mironowicz, MSc. (Expert in transport) Magdalena Jażdżewska-Gutta, MSc. (Assistan Lecturer of University of Gdansk)

3. Interview meetings Latvia - DB Schenker – logistics service provider - BMGS customer - Kreiss – truck carrier - Pindstrup Latvia - customer - Sungate – logistics services - LDz – rail infrastructure management - MSC LATVIA – sea carrier - TRANSPORTBETONS MB - customer - DSV Transport – logistics service provider - LUKOIL BALTIJA R - customer

4. Interview meetings Lithuania - ORLEN Lietuva - customer of freight transport - DSV TRANSPORT – logistics service provider - JSC Lithuanian railways – rail services and infrastructure - AB Achema – producer of fertilizers - AD REM Group – logistics services provider - Lietuvos Geležinkeliai, AB - Transimeksa – logistics services provider - Schenker (28.11) - Gefco Baltic (29.11) - Maxima Grupe (28.11)

5. Interview meetings Poland • - CTl Logistic – rail carrier • - PKP CARGO Logistics – rail services provider • - PKP CARGO S.A - rail services provider • PKP CARGO service sp. z o.o. - rail services provider • Polimex-Mostostal SA – customer of freight transport • - Adampol Sp. z o.o. - customer of freight transport

6. Interview meetings Germany - Müller - Die lila Logistik- logistics services provider - Leipa Logistik (28.11)

7. SOME DIFFICULT ISSUES • Language! • Could tell more • Members of board of management • Did not want to reveal confidential information (e.g. in the area of networking) • Problems with German respondents • Not interested in RB project • Don’t have time

8. UnderstandingRailBaltica… • „The simple way to get to the Western countries by railway and the simple way to transport goods and people from the western part of Russian Federation to the Western Europe” • „In Poland goods are usually transported on the line N-S and Rail Baltica will connect the E with W”

9. Directions • Latvia, Lithuania (mainly E-W) • from seaports to the East (mainly Russia) – East-West direction • Sometimes: Kaunas, Riga, Tallin („the inland connection – not really” – sea carrier) • Germany, Poland (E-W) • Berlin or German border to Łódź or Warsaw • Rail Baltica: N-S

10. A bottleneck? • Lithuania to Poland? • Lithuanian customer: • „to Klaipeda and Tallin mainly railway, to areas in Poland mainly trucks” • „I: Which part of existing RB railway needs improvement? • R: The part to Poland • I: Which of those parts give you the most trouble? • R: Poland”

11. Routes, directions • The customer decides about everything • „what are the main obstacles in using rail transport on the Berlin-Kaunas-Tallinn route? • Nobody operates this route”

12. Otherbottlenecks? • Not enough wagons (LV) – limited resources

13. Passengervs. cargo • Modernisation – first for passenger cargo • In the situation of congestion – passenger train goes first • Not good for cargo operators

14. passengers • Culture of using railways • „it’s not a profit making area” (LT)

15. Whodoesintermodal? • Rather railway operators offer trucking service • Trucking companies treat railways as competitors

16. Intermodal perspective • Enabling transportation that would eliminate the need of changing of the loading unit, whilst re-loading of goods increases the cost of transport considerably, would for sure generate an attractive solution • Reloads are quite expensive. Less reloads we have, the more attractive itis [the transport mode] (Latvia, Poland)

17. Intermodal perspective I – „What are the barriers to increase the intermodal transport in the company?” R – „It is combination for passengers, number of reloads from box to box, from unit to unit. It is kind of risk of enemies, of loss customers, when we are talking about reloading containers, sea to truck, from truck to rail.”

18. RailBaltica • Needed vs. not important?

19. Important • „ to rail all the goods in the same wagon from Europe to Latvia. Right now we do not have this option. This would be easier and save a lot of time” (LV)

20. Not important • „Does your comapny have any expectations towards Rail Baltica? • No. It does not concern us” • (sea carrier)

21. RailBaltica - assessment • Cannot say anything as it doesn’t exist – talking about non-existing product • Someone must offer services in this route

22. Competitiveness • RB must be more competitive than sea and road transport • What does competitiveness mean? • Speed • Cost

23. Competitiveadvantage: „Fast and cheap” • „[competitive transport] is ease of use, reasonable price, speed, door to door transport, faster than flights” • „First of all this is the speed of delivery and possibility to reduce the costs of delivery” • „in some cases the cost of transportation by the railway is similar to transportation by the air. It is quite expensive”

24. Competition: road transport • The demand shows that Europe needs road transport. Fruits cannot be transported by trains, because the time of transport is too long and it is not compatible. It would probably be [important] for Russia. (Latvia)

25. Competition: sea transport • „Rail Baltica is, in a way, a competitive project, as it will enable transportation from the Hamburg port, through Berlin, to Warsaw, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and that eliminates the need of sea transportation” (Poland)

26. Competition: air transport • „Today’s mobility is low cost airlines, especially for young people. This really opens the world” (Latvia)

27. Competition: pipelines transport • „using the railway is very expensive (…) this is very expensive comparing to the transport by the oil pipeline”

28. Factors influencing competitiveness • Amount of elements for one project in one region in one time (construction projects - customers’ perspective) • Oversize - unitslonger than 40-45 feet - size, it is too complicated for logistic process the roads • Density of stations / terminals

29. Price • Should be cheaper • Price for the access to infrastructure (even 25-30 PLN - 5-7 EUR per km)

30. Prices The only condition that it [Rail Baltica] would be interesting for us, it could be very cheap. Then we will use it instead of our trucks. The price must cover the risk of railway (…) – It should be for free. (Latvia)

31. TIME 1 • Time of loading of a train • Longer than truck • Shorter than train • Time to change the gauge of tracks: • „few to less than 20 hrs” (PL)

32. Time 2 • Kaunas to Berlin by truck: • 60 hrs (25 hrs pure driving) (DE) • Tallin to Warsaw/Berlin truck • 36 hrs sea • 60+12 hrs road • Tallin to Berlin: 24-30 hrs would be attractive • Kaunas to Berlin • 3-4 working days would be sufficient (customer) • 1500 EUR per trailer (price) • 14-20 hrs (road) (trucking company)

33. Time 3 • Passenger • Kaunas to Berlin 20 hrs (a guess) by bus • -Riga to Tallin 9 hrs by rail • Tallin to Warsaw should be 10 hrs • Warsaw to Berlin 7 hrs

34. Speed • Rail (cargo) • Poland: 22 km/h (some places 14 km/h) • Latvia: 40 km/h • Europe: 60 km/h • Truck: • 60 km/h (average) – German company • 80 km/h (PL) • What speed? • 50-60 km/h would be attractive • 100 km/h for freight (LV) • 120 km/h – standard required by EC

35. standards • Gauge: narrow vs. wide track • Common (Europaen) standards

36. Capacity • Is not a problem – there is excess capacity

37. Reloading • Reloading to other wagon or changing from truck to train (or the other way round) • Not suitable for all products (e.g. fruit, fertilizers) • Time-consuming

38. Terminals • Should include couple of terminals • Availability of terminals • Important for customers • Availabity of rail-road terminals for customers – max. Of 40 km (DE)

39. Modalshift • Forecast: „could shift 10 mln tons per year from road to rail” (if there is the same gauge) • 750 m of train carries the same load of cargo as 3 km of trucks

40. Someideas • Semi-trailers • „possible”, „interesting”

41. RB as seen by somecustomers • Will get opportunity to chose the way of transport

42. Competitiononcemore • RB seen as a competition (THREAT) • Sea transport (can be complementary as well) • For bulk cargo • Trucking companies • Not for bulk cargo • „Trucking lobby is too great” (said by railway operator) • Free the trucks for other customers (or it will be easier for us to get a truck) – problem of limited resources and high demand • The gap is getting bigger and bigger

43. Total product! • Speed • Price • Quality • Paperwork • Regular and often connection (not once a week - DE) • Trustworty, on time safe (DE) CUSTOMER DECIDES!

44. Customerdecides! • Factors for RB success: • „There must be cargo” • „Cargo to carry”

45. Competitiveadvantage • Bulk • Overgauge • Time and cost?

46. „Operationalities” • Need to „unify custom processes. And unify the amounts of payment” (Latvia), • Challenge: „Different systems of the documents required going to transit through the countries” (Lithuania)

47. Action • Modernisation/building: „The ones who will gain sth from this should do sth” (LV)

48. networking • Universities – training, internships, sometimes planning and analyses • „You need to create clusters of cooperation” (PL) • Cooperation in order to increase profit • Mainly suppliers and customers • Competitors – rarely • Producers: • Producers’ organisations

49. networking • Rail – cooperation with seaports (sometimes and only cooperation) (LT)

50. Networking • The Association of Harbors • Construction Association in Latvia • Latvian Logistic Association • Latvian Supply Chain Cluster • Association of Producers of Building Materials in Latvia • Latvian Association of Transportation • PKP Group • Polish International Freight Forwarders Association – PIFFA (PISIL) • University of Latvia, Transport and Communication institute and Riga Technical University