3RX Feasibility study alternative Rhein – Ruhr Rail Connection and State of Play trilateral discussions Brussels, 25/11/2019

Willem Vuylsteke

Flemish Ministry of Mobility and Public Works

2

3RX?• 3RX connects Antwerp (Belgium) with Mönchengladbach (Germany),

via Lier and Mol (Belgium), Weert, Roermond, Venlo (The

Netherlands) and Viersen (Germany).

– As the section Antwerp – Lier is common with the Montzen route,

the study has concentrated on the section between Lier and

Mönchengladbach.

• An alternative for revitalisation of the historical Iron Rhine route

and for the previously studied A52 route,

3

3RX?• Makes as much as possible use of existing rail infrastructure.

• The study compares the 3RX with the two alternatives (historical

Iron Rhine, A52 route).

• Concept was developed to expand capacity of the East-West rail

routes between the Flemish and Dutch North Sea Ports and

Germany, thereby supporting a modal shift policy towards rail....

• The 3RX could relieve existing routes, but also provide an

alternative route in case one of the other East-West rail routes

would be temporarily unavailable (e.g. accident on Montzen route in

2013).

4

3RX?• Commissioned by the Flemish Government and co-financed by the

European Union (CEF Transport programme).

• A five party steering committee to oversee the study

(representatives from the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium,

Nordrhein-Westfalen and Flanders)

• Carried out by AR-T-ECO-RAIL and with support of the rail

infrastructure managers

– Consortium of consultancy companies from all three countries

involved (Arcadis, TML, Ecorys en Railistics)

• Duration: 2015-2017

• All results publicly available on

http://departement-mow.vlaanderen.be/nl/press-release/opnieuw-

perspectief-voor-ijzeren-rijn

5

Assumptions• Design capacity of 72 trains per day (both ways)

• Full electrification

• State of the art safety systems (ERTMS).

• Curves are assumed to avoid the necessity of a change of direction

of the train. From a commercial point of view the route is only

attractive if rail traffic can run East-West with at maximum one

stop for changing direction of the train.

• Mitigating measures

6

7

8

Necessary measures• Belgium/Flanders

– Electrification Mol - Hamont – border BE/NL (in construction)

– Track doubling Mol – border BE/NL (in study)

• Netherlands

– Electrification border BE/NL – Weert

– Measures Budel - Weert (bird directive) connection with Weert

– Curve at Roermond

– Track doubling Roermond-Venlo

– Yard Venlo

– ERTMS

• Germany

– Track doubling Kaldenkirchen – Dülken

– Curve Viersen

9

Costs• Cheapest solution is estimated at € 770 million (prices 2015,

including risk provision, excluding vat; uncertainty margin: + or -

30%).

10

Costs• Taking into account the commitments already made by Belgium

and Germany, an additional investment commitment of €590

million (excluding vat) would be required.

– Belgium: section Mol– Neerpelt – Hamont/Dutch border

(electrification) (€46,3 mln)

– Germany: section Dutch/German border - Kaldenkirchen –

Dülken, section Viersen (€133,4 mln)

– The Netherlands: interested in developing passenger transport on

the two border sections (Weert – Hamont - Antwerp; Eindhoven –

Venlo – Düsseldorf).

11

Costs• The investment cost of 3RX is substantially cheaper than either the

revitalisation of the historical route, or the construction of the A52

alternative.

– Investment cost reactivation historical route = updating existing

study

– Investment cost A52 route has not been analyzed in detail,

estimates are between 0.9 and 1.7 billion

12

Expected freight traffic on 3RX• Expected average daily use is 17 to 20 trains in 2030, increasing to

19 to 23 trains in 2040

– Increased use if curve at Venlo is constructed

• 3RX relieves Montzen route

• 3RX would also relieve the Brabant route, the Aachen marshalling

yard and the Aachen-Düren-Köln route

13

Benefits of 3RX• Presently the Montzen route is the predominant route for rail

freight transport between the Flemish seaports and the German

hinterland. However, this route has several limitations.

– longer transport distance and time as 3RX

– inclinations and the need to change direction at Aachen for

southbound trains: negative impact on time and costs.

• Not the case for 3RX!

• 3RX is a substitute for Montzen route and can also relieve Brabant

route.

– The current alternative Brabant-, Betuwe- and Athus-Meuse

routes all imply much longer travel distances, as well as the need

for trains to change direction at least once. Moreover, the

capacity of these routes to cope with additional rail freight is

limited.

14

Benefits of 3RX• BASF: “In comparison to Montzen-Route, the number of trains

required for the same transport volume on the 3 RX-Route would

be reduced by 25% same transport volume does require 25% less

trains. Which does represent a significant reduction of total costs,

energy consumption and noise emissions.”

15

Benefits of 3RX• Benefits of passenger transport were not taken into account in the

study and would increase the benefits of 3RX

• Strategic importance of 3RX (chemical cluster – security of supply

of Ruhr area – logistics hotspots in Limburg)

• Alternative to Montzen route in the event of calamities: of great

importance for operational reliability of the network.

16

Necessity of new East-West railconnection

• The Antwerp port authority expects that freight traffic flows

between the port and its German hinterland will continue to rise

from currently around 68 million tonnes yearly up to 90 million

tonnes in 2030

• Ambitious modal shift goals of port of Antwerp

17

Way forward: political process• Several political contacts in 2018 between the five governments

involved.

• Installation of a trilateral international working group on the

follow-up of the 3RX study.

– On invitation of German Minister Scheuer and State Secretary

Ferlemann.

– DE (BMVI), NRW, BE, VL, NL, Dutch regional delegation (province

of Limburg + city of Venlo)

– Kick-off meeting in December 2018, second meeting in July 2019.

– So far mainly discussions on the mandate/ToR of this working

group.

18

Way forward: political process

• For 2020 focus of international working group expected on

– improving the SCBA

– impacts on livability and environment

– financing strategy

Need for win-win-win situation > synergies with passenger

transport

19

Way forward: financing

• 3RX study (2015-2017) learnt that financing will most probably have

to come from public sources.

• In our view conclusion of political consensus (including financing)

should be settled in a State Treaty between the Member States

concerned (with a MoU as a possible intermediate step).

20

Way forward: financing• Making optimal use of available EU financing opportunities under

CEF Transport

– Quick win, CEF call 2019 on cross-border sections.

• Belgium successfully submitted a study proposal on doubling tracks

online 19 between Balen and Neerpelt.

• The Netherlands successfully submitted a study proposal on

removing bottlenecks on the section Venlo – Kaldenkirchen.

– As of 2021, access to new funds under CEF 2.

• The section Antwerp – Duisburg is a pre-identified cross-border link

on the comprehensive network. This increases chances for EU co-

financing for 3RX.

21

Way forward: procedures• Finding a political consensus is now a priority.

• Various legal steps need to be taken and various in-depth studies

will be required: estimated time differs by country, but could take

up to 10 years.

• The construction works would additionally take 7 to 13 years.