The VAP promotes freight transport by rail.

The VAP Asso­cia­ti­on of Ship­pers cam­paigns for mar­ket-ori­en­ted frame­work con­di­ti­ons and an attrac­ti­ve Swiss rail freight sys­tem. Rele­vant topics:

Freight industry

  • How do we shape the future of freight trans­port?
  • What moves the freight industry?
  • An over­view of the play­ers in rail freight transport.

Network

Here you will find useful infor­ma­ti­on on rail­roads, their orga­niza­ti­on and net­work access.

Financing

Infor­ma­ti­on on finan­cial sup­port and char­ges in freight transport.

Sites

Ever­y­thing about free loa­ding, ter­mi­nals, sidings or even mul­ti­mo­dal logi­stics hubs.

Interoperability

The VAP is com­mit­ted to har­mo­ni­zing the frame­work con­di­ti­ons so that trains can run effort­less­ly on Euro­pean rail networks.

Sustainability

For a far-sigh­ted future, various areas need to be desi­gned sustainably.

Innovation

How can we drive inno­va­ti­on in freight transport?

Operations

In favor of fair com­pe­ti­ti­on, we want to uti­li­ze the strength of all modes of trans­port and com­bi­ne them opti­mal­ly. Becau­se this makes the route shorter – and more eco­no­mic­al – for everyone.

​Events

Here you will find fur­ther infor­ma­ti­on and docu­ments on our events Forum Freight Trans­port, our Gene­ral Assem­bly and others.

Motion CO<sub>2</sub>-free rail freight transport

Motion CO2-free rail freight transport

The moti­on 20.3222 «Rail freight trans­port and con­tri­bu­ti­on to redu­cing CO2 emis­si­ons» sub­mit­ted by VAP Pre­si­dent and Coun­cil­lor of Sta­tes Josef Ditt­li was adopted by both Coun­cils. The aim is to draw up a plan of mea­su­res that out­lines how rail freight trans­port and mul­ti­mo­dal logi­stics solu­ti­ons can make a bet­ter con­tri­bu­ti­on to redu­cing CO2 emis­si­ons. In the action plan, tech­ni­cal, ope­ra­tio­nal, infra­struc­tu­ral, legal and finan­cial opti­ons are to be iden­ti­fied, eva­lua­ted and put tog­e­ther into a pro­mi­sing packa­ge of mea­su­res. The can­tons, rail­ways, logi­stics ser­vice pro­vi­ders and ship­pers are to be invol­ved in the work of the fede­ral administration.

Harnessing the sustainability of rail freight

With the Green Deal, the Euro­pean Union aims to beco­me cli­ma­te-neu­tral by 2050. On 28 August 2019, the Fede­ral Coun­cil ali­gned Swiss green­house gas tar­gets with this. As a con­se­quence, the trans­port sec­tor must redu­ce CO2 emis­si­ons by 90%. Freight rail is an essen­ti­al part of the solu­ti­on towards CO2 neu­tra­li­ty. For exam­p­le, SBB Cargo uses hybrid loco­mo­ti­ves on the last mile. Trains use 90% hydro­power for their pro­pul­si­on, and from 2025 it will be 100% rene­wa­ble ener­gy. Rail freight should the­r­e­fo­re take up a hig­her share of trans­ports. In trans­port logi­stics, there is a trend towards smal­ler con­sign­ment sizes, shorter tran­sit times and hig­her punc­tua­li­ty requi­re­ments. Only a mul­ti­mo­dal logi­stics chain with the freight rail­way as a strong link can do jus­ti­ce to this packa­ge of tasks. Here, logi­stics ser­vice pro­vi­ders bund­le the goods or packa­ges for the rail­way and syn­chro­ni­se them with the time­ta­ble. Pro­mo­ting mul­ti­mo­dal logi­stics solu­ti­ons in all com­bi­na­ti­on forms of rail, road, Rhine favours ener­gy-effi­ci­ent and CO2-opti­mi­sed trans­port solu­ti­ons and reli­e­ves the envi­ron­ment in social, eco­lo­gi­cal as well as eco­no­mic terms. The fede­ral govern­ment should sup­port this mul­ti­mo­da­li­ty with sui­ta­ble measures.

Not a new concern

SR Ditt­li had alre­a­dy sub­mit­ted a simi­lar inter­pel­la­ti­on in March 2019 (19.3148 «CO2-free rail freight trans­port and Ener­gy Stra­tegy 2050»), which sug­gested a reduc­tion in the train path price in con­nec­tion with the train path price revi­si­on as of Janu­ary 2021 to pro­mo­te sus­tainable rail freight trans­port. In Decem­ber 2019, seve­ral moti­ons with iden­ti­cal wor­ding fol­lo­wed in par­lia­ment cal­ling for a sup­port packa­ge for public trans­port based on its sus­taina­bi­li­ty. This new moti­on is now inten­ded to trig­ger a stra­tegy defi­ni­ti­on geared towards pas­sen­ger and freight trans­port in order to pre­vent a fur­ther expan­si­on of pas­sen­ger trans­port at the expen­se of freight trans­port capa­ci­ties on the net­work. Above all, howe­ver, the remai­ning legal, ope­ra­tio­nal and tech­ni­cal hurd­les in the road/rail inter­face that hin­der mul­ti­mo­dal logi­stics solu­ti­ons are to be remo­ved as far as possible.

Progress for automation in rail freight transport

Progress for automation in rail freight transport

The Coun­cils adopted the moti­on «Trans­port­ing more effi­ci­ent­ly by rail through auto­ma­ti­on» by VAP Pre­si­dent and Coun­cil­lor of Sta­tes Josef Ditt­li in the autumn or win­ter ses­si­on 2020. The Euro­pe-wide intro­duc­tion of digi­tal auto­ma­tic cou­pling, auto­ma­tic train pre­pa­ra­ti­on and other digi­tal plat­forms is a main prio­ri­ty. By 2022, the mem­ber sta­tes want to agree on a pan-Euro­pean imple­men­ta­ti­on strategy.

Automation of the last mile

VAP Pre­si­dent and Mem­ber of the Coun­cil of Sta­tes Josef Ditt­li had sub­mit­ted the moti­on 20.3221 «Trans­port­ing goods by rail more effi­ci­ent­ly through auto­ma­ti­on» on 4 May 2025. It calls for a con­cept for the finan­cing and coor­di­na­ted imple­men­ta­ti­on of tech­ni­cal inno­va­tions that in par­ti­cu­lar enable (par­ti­al) auto­ma­ti­on of the last mile in rail freight trans­port and sim­pli­fy the manage­ment of the road/rail inter­face in mul­ti­mo­dal logi­stics chains.

Based on Art. 10 of the Freight Trans­port Act (GüTG), the Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on can pro­mo­te invest­ments in tech­ni­cal inno­va­tions. In order to ensu­re inter­ope­ra­bi­li­ty, the finan­cing and coor­di­na­ti­on of a large-scale intro­duc­tion of new tech­no­lo­gies, coor­di­na­ted with Euro­pe, is indis­pensable, espe­ci­al­ly in sys­tem trans­port for the bund­ling of large quan­ti­ties. Howe­ver, this requi­res an indus­try-wide and inter­na­tio­nal­ly coor­di­na­ted concept.

Digital Automatic Coupling (DAK)

At Euro­pean level, a com­pa­ra­ble initia­ti­ve was taken with the «Digi­tal Auto­ma­tic Cou­pling Char­ter». On 29 June 2020, the final report for the crea­ti­on of a con­cept for the migra­ti­on of a digi­tal auto­ma­tic cou­pling sys­tem (DAK) for rail freight trans­port (SGV) was pre­sen­ted. The Ger­man Fede­ral Minis­try of Trans­port and Digi­tal Infra­struc­tu­re (BMVI) com­mis­si­ons and finan­ces the crea­ti­on of a con­cept for the migra­ti­on of a DAK in rail freight transport.

The DAK in rail freight trans­port is seen as a cen­tral ele­ment to increase the com­pe­ti­ti­ve­ness of rail freight trans­port com­pared to road freight trans­port. The big­gest chall­enge in intro­du­cing a DAK is to deve­lop and imple­ment a migra­ti­on stra­tegy that is sup­port­ed by all. The fol­lo­wing key data were used for the study:

  • Affec­ted by the migra­ti­on are: 432’000 to 485’000 exis­ting freight wagons and 17’000 trac­tion units
  • Pro­cu­re­ment costs of EUR 4’000 to 5’000 for a DAK
  • Con­ver­si­on costs of EUR 2,500 per freight wagon and EUR 5,300 per trac­tion unit
  • Pro­cu­re­ment and instal­la­ti­on of auto­ma­ti­on com­pon­ents per freight wagon: EUR 5’000
  • Total costs of an EU-wide migra­ti­on, inclu­ding auto­ma­ti­on com­pon­ents: EUR 6.4 to 8.6 bn.
  • Mone­ti­sa­ti­on of the bene­fits for the EU-27, incl. Switz­er­land, Great Bri­tain and Nor­way: annu­al bene­fit poten­ti­al of approx. EUR 760 million.
  • Pay­back peri­od in the base­line sce­na­rio: 18 years

Curr­ent­ly, four cou­pler manu­fac­tu­r­ers (CAF, Wab­tec, Voith, Dell­ner) are deve­lo­ping pro­to­ty­pes of a DAK. These will be instal­led in DB and GATX test wagons and tes­ted throug­hout Euro­pe by spring 2021. The aim is to agree on the cou­pler type in 2021 and to start with a migra­ti­on of the DAK in 2023/2024 at the latest. It is assu­med that a migra­ti­on should take six to eight years and be com­ple­ted by 2030.

Committed to technical innovation

The VAP has also signed the DAK Char­ter. It is com­mit­ted to the rapid and com­pre­hen­si­ve auto­ma­ti­on and digi­ta­li­sa­ti­on of rail freight trans­port as part of the 2017 «Memo­ran­dum of Under­stan­ding on the Pro­mo­ti­on and Imple­men­ta­ti­on of Tech­ni­cal Inno­va­tions in Swiss Rail Freight Trans­port» bet­ween the Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on, VöV and Cargo Forum Switz­er­land. SBB’s pilot pro­jects, which are made pos­si­ble and sup­port­ed within the frame­work of this agree­ment, should soon be brought to imple­men­ta­ti­on matu­ri­ty. In doing so, it is important to avoid half-hear­ted indi­vi­du­al solu­ti­ons and to trig­ger a coor­di­na­ted nati­on­wi­de auto­ma­ti­on initiative.

Four private logistics service providers take a stake in SBB Cargo

Four private logistics service providers take a stake in SBB Cargo

The four fami­ly-owned com­pa­nies Gal­li­ker, Plan­zer, Bert­schi and Cami­on Trans­port are taking a 35% stake in SBB Cargo AG under the name «Swiss Combi AG». The com­pa­nies stand for cus­to­mer ori­en­ta­ti­on, inno­va­ti­on and mar­ket-ori­en­ted solutions.

SBB Car­go’s cus­to­mers will bene­fit from this accu­mu­la­ted expe­ri­ence as an ope­ra­tor of logi­stics net­works and from its broad cus­to­mer base. The newly foun­ded com­pa­ny has it in its power to coun­ter the fears expres­sed in many quar­ters of fur­ther incre­asing mar­ket domi­nan­ce with com­ple­te trans­pa­ren­cy and com­pe­ti­ti­on-ori­en­ted action. It can help wagon­load traf­fic, SBB’s core busi­ness, to regain momen­tum after years of decline.

It remains to be seen to what ext­ent the law on the orga­ni­sa­ti­on of rail­way infra­struc­tu­re pas­sed last year and the asso­cia­ted ordi­nan­ces will be able to spur the fur­ther deve­lo­p­ment of rail freight trans­port as a whole. The frame­work con­di­ti­ons for rail freight trans­port are still poor in the area of plan­ning con­s­truc­tion sites and line clo­sures as well as regu­la­ting the non-dis­cri­mi­na­to­ry ope­ra­ti­on of sidings and ter­mi­nals. Also, despi­te this invol­vement and the for­mal inde­pen­dence of SBB Cargo, it remains com­ple­te­ly open whe­ther a balan­ced infra­struc­tu­re and real estate poli­cy will be pos­si­ble within the SBB Group in the future or whe­ther it will con­ti­nue to act uni­la­te­ral­ly in favour of pas­sen­ger traffic.

Revised train path price in 2021

Revised train path price in 2021

The 2021 revi­si­on of the track access char­ge will lead to a reduc­tion of CHF 30 mil­li­on in freight trans­port. After the 2013 revi­si­on brought an increase of CHF 25 mil­li­on, the cost block for freight rail­ways is now back at the 2013 level. Accor­din­gly, the costs for rail freight trans­port in the mar­ket should fall. Due to the newly intro­du­ced bonus for trains with a length of over 500m of 1Rp/train km, there is an incen­ti­ve for the for­ma­ti­on of long trains and thus the use of fewer train paths.

Noise bonus still granted

The noise bonus remains in place, but under­goes two nega­ti­ve chan­ges: The bonus will be redu­ced from 2 Rp/km per axle to 1.6 Rp/km per axle. In addi­ti­on, the bonus will only be gran­ted if the goods train con­cer­ned con­ta­ins only low-noise wagons. A sin­gle freight wagon equip­ped with grey cast iron brake blocks leads to the loss of the noise bonus for the rail­way under­ta­king (RU). The RUs have a respon­si­bi­li­ty not to clas­si­fy any wagons with grey cast iron brake blocks, other­wi­se they will be lia­ble to pay dama­ges to the kee­pers of low-noise freight wagons. The noise bonus amounts to around CHF 30 mil­li­on per year. If it were to be fur­ther redu­ced or can­cel­led, the com­pen­sa­ti­on for the 2013 train path price surchar­ges gran­ted with the 2021 train path price would be lost.

Criticism remains unheard

The fun­da­men­tal cri­ti­cism of the FOT’s train path pri­cing model by the indus­try asso­cia­ti­ons once again went unhe­ard. The defi­ni­ti­on of the stan­dard mar­gi­nal costs in the various route cate­go­ries is not fair to the ori­gi­na­tor. What is nee­ded is a dif­fe­ren­tia­ti­on of the route cate­go­ries accor­ding to pas­sen­ger and freight traf­fic. This is becau­se each route cate­go­ry is pri­ma­ri­ly defi­ned, built and ope­ra­ted accor­ding to the needs of pas­sen­ger traf­fic. Freight traf­fic, with its com­pa­ra­tively mode­st train kilo­me­t­res and demands on the net­work, does not defi­ne the stan­dards and thus the so-cal­led stan­dard mar­gi­nal costs per cate­go­ry in the mixed ope­ra­ti­on of pas­sen­ger and freight traf­fic. Nevert­hel­ess, it must bear them in full. This is not fair to the pol­lu­ter. Ins­tead, a lower approach to the stan­dard mar­gi­nal costs should be appli­ed to freight traf­fic in each cate­go­ry, in accordance with its demands on the stan­dard of development.

A step in the right direction

After all, the last reduc­tion in the train path price has its ori­g­ins in the signal boxes and the costs for ope­ra­ti­ons manage­ment. This may be inter­pre­ted as a first step in the right direc­tion of increased pol­lu­ter-pays fairness.

Federal Council puts together package of measures to strengthen modal shift

Federal Council puts together package of measures to strengthen modal shift

With the ope­ning of the Ceneri Base Tun­nel in Decem­ber 2020, ano­ther piece of the puz­zle for an effi­ci­ent north-south con­nec­tion through Switz­er­land will be com­ple­ted. Howe­ver, the expan­si­on of the inter­na­tio­nal freight cor­ri­dor is delay­ed by at least a deca­de. As a result, the pro­duc­ti­vi­ty gains in inter­na­tio­nal com­bi­ned trans­port are only half as great as ori­gi­nal­ly planned.

The Fede­ral Coun­cil ack­now­led­ges the delay­ed imple­men­ta­ti­on in prin­ci­ple and pres­ents a “packa­ge of mea­su­res to streng­then modal shift” in the modal shift report of 13 Novem­ber 2019. Howe­ver, from the per­spec­ti­ve of the Swiss freight trans­port indus­try, the pro­po­sed mea­su­res are not suf­fi­ci­ent. In order to main­tain the com­pe­ti­ti­ve­ness of UCT (Unac­com­pa­nied Com­bi­ned Trans­port) in tran­sal­pi­ne traf­fic and to con­ti­nue the modal shift, the indus­try is cal­ling for addi­tio­nal measures.

Delayed implementation of the modal shift

With the ope­ning of the Ceneri Base Tun­nel in Decem­ber 2020, the NRLA pro­ject will be offi­ci­al­ly com­ple­ted. Howe­ver, the bene­fits for freight traf­fic in Alpi­ne tran­sit through Switz­er­land will only mate­ria­li­se with a con­sidera­ble time delay. Num­e­rous fac­tors con­tri­bu­te to the fact that the pro­duc­ti­vi­ty of the resour­ces used – loco­mo­ti­ves, per­son­nel, rail­way wagons, etc. – can­not be increased by far to the ext­ent and in the time frame ori­gi­nal­ly planned:

  • The delay­ed expan­si­on of the fee­der lines in the north makes it impos­si­ble to ope­ra­te 740 m trains.
  • Fre­quent and inter­na­tio­nal­ly uncoor­di­na­ted con­s­truc­tion sites with diver­si­ons and tem­po­ra­ry capa­ci­ty bot­t­len­ecks pre­vent the expec­ted reduc­tion in tra­vel time and lead to con­ti­nuous­ly incre­asing qua­li­ty defi­ci­ts. The con­se­quen­ces are delays and inef­fi­ci­ent use of resources.
  • Due to the non-coor­di­na­ted inter­na­tio­nal train path plan­ning, the tra­vel time savings in Switz­er­land will fizz­le out at the bor­ders for the time being.
  • The remai­ning gra­di­ents of the line and the ope­ra­tio­nal con­cept of the Gott­hard Base Tun­nel still requi­re the use of a second loco­mo­ti­ve for heavy trains.

Under these con­di­ti­ons, com­bi­ned trans­port ope­ra­tors can rea­li­se at most half of the ori­gi­nal­ly expec­ted pro­duc­ti­vi­ty effects. In order to main­tain the cur­rent volu­me in tran­sal­pi­ne com­bi­ned trans­port and to gain addi­tio­nal traf­fic volu­mes in the medi­um term with regard to the modal shift tar­get, the Swiss freight trans­port indus­try pro­po­ses a lon­ger-term ori­en­ta­ti­on of the modal shift poli­cy until 2030 with addi­tio­nal measures.

Extension of the payment framework for the promotion of transalpine UCT until 2030

In order not to jeo­par­di­se the posi­ti­ve results of the cur­rent modal shift poli­cy, the pro­mo­ti­on of tran­sal­pi­ne UCT must not be sus­pen­ded pre­ma­tu­re­ly. From the mar­ke­t’s point of view, an exten­si­on of the fun­ding mea­su­res until 2030 is neces­sa­ry. Only from 2030 onwards can the plan­ned fur­ther pro­duc­ti­vi­ty effects be expec­ted to be realised.

Fur­ther­mo­re, accor­ding to the moni­to­ring of the Fede­ral Office of Trans­port, the qua­li­ty defi­ci­ts of CT trains have con­ti­nuous­ly increased. While 75% of trains were less than one hour late in 2009, only 55% of all trains were late in the first half of 2019. Today, 12% of trains are even delay­ed for 12 hours or more. These qua­li­ty defi­ci­ts, dri­ven by the expan­si­on of the cor­ri­dor infra­struc­tu­re with num­e­rous con­s­truc­tion sites and capa­ci­ty rest­ric­tions, will con­ti­nue to weigh hea­vi­ly on pro­duc­ti­vi­ty until at least 2030.

The 2030 time hori­zon also crea­tes the neces­sa­ry invest­ment secu­ri­ty. Trans­port com­pa­nies will invest in con­tai­ners and cra­neable trai­lers, ope­ra­tors in rail wagons and ter­mi­nals, and rail­way com­pa­nies in loco­mo­ti­ves if lon­ger-term use of these capi­tal goods is ensured.

Subsidies for operating compensation for UCT amounting to CHF 55 million annually from 2024

An effi­ci­ent rail­way infra­struc­tu­re in com­bi­na­ti­on with train path pri­ces at the level of the neigh­bou­ring count­ries Ger­ma­ny and Italy enables Switz­er­land to ope­ra­te com­bi­ned trans­port on its own account – this gui­ding prin­ci­ple still holds true. Howe­ver, the ope­ra­tio­nal and infra­struc­tu­ral con­di­ti­ons on the north-south cor­ri­dor through Switz­er­land do not meet these requi­re­ments eit­her at pre­sent or in the coming years. During this peri­od, com­bi­ned trans­port ope­ra­tors and rail­way com­pa­nies will be able to increase pro­duc­ti­vi­ty by a maxi­mum of half of the ori­gi­nal­ly plan­ned value when the NRLA is completed.

It is true that the Swiss track price revi­si­on 2021 – which lowers the base price for freight trans­port and intro­du­ces dis­counts for long trains – makes a signi­fi­cant con­tri­bu­ti­on to sup­port­ing UCT. Nevert­hel­ess, a gap of about half of the ope­ra­ting com­pen­sa­ti­on of the refe­rence year 2018 remains, amoun­ting to CHF 110 million.

Based on this ana­ly­sis of the situa­ti­on, the freight trans­port indus­try demands that unac­com­pa­nied com­bi­ned trans­port (UCT) be sup­port­ed with ope­ra­ting con­tri­bu­ti­ons of CHF 55 mil­li­on per year until 2030. This will enable UCT to main­tain the cur­rent modal shift volu­me and, if neces­sa­ry, to lar­ge­ly absorb traf­fic growth. Should the frame­work con­di­ti­ons impro­ve more quick­ly than assu­med – for exam­p­le through a signi­fi­cant impro­ve­ment in qua­li­ty or a sus­tainable opti­mi­sa­ti­on of the inter­na­tio­nal time­ta­bles – addi­tio­nal traf­fic volu­mes could con­ti­nue to be gai­ned for UCT.

With the expec­ted fur­ther growth of UCT until 2030, the reduc­tion path of sub­si­dies per con­sign­ment would again be signi­fi­cant­ly impro­ved. Whe­re­as in 2011 an avera­ge of CHF 173 in ope­ra­ting sub­si­dies was paid per shifted truck­load, in 2018 this figu­re was still CHF 116. Accor­ding to the ideas of the freight trans­port indus­try, this amount would drop fur­ther to CHF 40–45 per shifted truck by 2030.

Expansion of access routes in the north

The NRLA con­cept for pro­mo­ting rail freight trans­port depends on effi­ci­ent, high-per­for­mance access lines to the base tun­nels in order to ensu­re the sup­p­ly of Euro­pe’s hig­hest-demand eco­no­mic loca­ti­ons. After the com­mis­sio­ning of the 4 m cor­ri­dor, the situa­ti­on will be as follows:

  • 3 access lines in Italy – via Chi­as­so, Luino and Domodossola
  • 2 lines in Switz­er­land – via Gott­hard and Lötsch­berg base tunnels
  • 1 access line north of Basel – via Karls­ru­he – Mann­heim – Colo­gne – Benelux

An alter­na­ti­ve must urgen­tly be crea­ted for the bot­t­len­eck in the north. The only effi­ci­ent alter­na­ti­ve route (flat track) is the route on the left bank of the Rhine via France. It is opti­mal for the high-volu­me Bel­gi­um – Italy route. In addi­ti­on, there is a direct con­nec­tion route with the cor­ri­dor on the right bank of the Rhine, which ser­ves to redu­ce the risk.

Howe­ver, these rou­tes do not yet cor­re­spond to the cor­ri­dor para­me­ters of the Swiss tran­sit axis and the­r­e­fo­re curr­ent­ly only carry a low volu­me of traf­fic. In order to make the capa­ci­ties on these alter­na­ti­ve rou­tes more usable for UCT through Switz­er­land, the Zeebrugge/Antwerp – Stras­bourg – Basel line and the Wörth – Lau­ter­bourg – Stras­bourg cross con­nec­tion must be upgraded to the para­me­ters 740 m train length, 4 m cor­ner height, 2000 t with one loco­mo­ti­ve, ETCS. This would also crea­te a sys­tem in the north with two fee­der lines and an alter­na­ti­ve route on the left bank of the Rhine.

The expan­si­on of a cor­ri­dor-com­pli­ant alter­na­ti­ve route via France is likely to be mana­geable in terms of costs. It is very much in the inte­rest of Switz­er­land and its tran­sit shift poli­cy. To imple­ment it, Switz­er­land needs a poli­ti­cal initia­ti­ve tog­e­ther with France and Bel­gi­um, which should lead to an inter­na­tio­nal trea­ty on infra­struc­tu­re deve­lo­p­ment. Par­lia­ment should call on the Fede­ral Coun­cil to take the cor­re­spon­ding initia­ti­ve in the form of an inter­na­tio­nal trea­ty. In addi­ti­on, the expan­si­on of the Rhine Val­ley rail­way in Ger­ma­ny must be pur­sued with vigour. The com­ple­ti­on of this con­trac­tual­ly agreed capa­ci­ty increase has been post­po­ned until 2040.

UGüTG: Prohibition of discrimination and the disclosure of prices

UGüTG: Prohibition of discrimination and the disclosure of prices

The draft of the UGüTG pro­vi­des for a ban on dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on for all trans­port ser­vices offe­red, in par­ti­cu­lar also for ser­vices offe­red above ground in city logi­stics. During its deli­be­ra­ti­ons, the Coun­cil of Sta­tes cri­ti­cis­ed this ban on dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on and the dis­clo­sure of prices.

The VAP wel­co­mes the ban on dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on and the dis­clo­sure of pri­ces. The lin­king of under­ground main trans­port with above-ground dis­tri­bu­ti­on from a sin­gle source obvious­ly ent­ails the risk of discrimination.

Our expe­ri­ence with SBB Car­go’s wagon­load traf­fic, the ser­vice of the last mile to pri­va­te sidings and ter­mi­nals as well as access to pri­va­te ter­mi­nals is clear: a mono­po­ly offer from a sin­gle source is fatal for the loa­ding indus­try. A spe­ci­fic pro­hi­bi­ti­on of dis­cri­mi­na­ti­on must the­r­e­fo­re be pro­vi­ded as a regu­la­to­ry mea­su­re in addi­ti­on to the gene­ral­ly appli­ca­ble Car­tel Act. Com­pe­ti­ti­on with other trans­port sys­tems such as rail or road does exist. But just as rail freight trans­port is the only mode of trans­port that can offer the night jump, the com­bi­ned offer of city logi­stics and main run of Cargo sous ter­rain enjoys a uni­que USP. This is also the reason why the Con­fe­de­ra­ti­on has an eco­no­mic inte­rest in this infra­struc­tu­re and deci­ded to enact the UGüTG.

 Access to other pri­va­te infra­struc­tures is also spe­ci­fi­cal­ly regu­la­ted by law in a non-dis­cri­mi­na­to­ry man­ner. Access to ter­mi­nals is regu­la­ted in Art. 6 para. 1 lit. d Freight Trans­port Ordi­nan­ce, GüTV: Con­di­ti­ons, pri­ces and dis­counts must be non-dis­cri­mi­na­to­ry and dis­c­lo­sed on the inter­net. For the ser­vice of sidings and ter­mi­nals (last mile), trans­pa­ren­cy has unfort­u­na­te­ly been redu­ced: Art. 6a GüTV only requi­res the gene­ral descrip­ti­on of the “assess­ment of the price”. Art. 5 para. 3 lit. c of the UGüTG is also for­mu­la­ted in this sense: “Cal­cu­la­ti­on of the price”. This is the mini­mum vari­ant to pro­tect cus­to­mers against the mono­po­ly provider.

The price should be in line with the mar­ket. This is also the case for ter­mi­nal access and last mile ser­vice. But it must not be dis­cri­mi­na­to­ry, for exam­p­le by pro­vi­ding a dis­count for par­ti­cu­lar­ly close “fri­ends” that can­not be jus­ti­fied from an eco­no­mic point of view. The prin­ci­ples deve­lo­ped in con­nec­tion with net­work access to the rail net­work have pro­ven their worth and should also apply to city logi­stics and under­ground main­line services.

For these reasons, the VAP recom­mends that Par­lia­ment adopt Art. 5 UGüTG unchanged.

Motion Borloz

Motion Borloz

On 11 March 2020, FDP Natio­nal Coun­cil­lor Fré­dé­ric Bor­loz sub­mit­ted moti­on 20.3084 «Cla­ri­fy­ing regu­la­ti­ons on lia­bi­li­ty in the trans­port of goods by rail». With this moti­on, he is deman­ding that the Fede­ral Coun­cil cla­ri­fy regu­la­ti­ons on lia­bi­li­ty in the trans­port of goods by rail. The cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on should in par­ti­cu­lar con­cern the dis­tri­bu­ti­on of risks and the regu­la­ti­on of legal reme­dies bet­ween rail­way under­ta­kings (RUs) and wagon kee­pers, as well as the legal con­se­quen­ces of inci­dents invol­ving dan­ge­rous goods.

Position of the VAP

The VAP, as the repre­sen­ta­ti­ve of the ship­ping indus­try, tog­e­ther with sci­ence­indus­tries, as the pro­fes­sio­nal asso­cia­ti­on of the che­mi­cal indus­try, oppo­ses moti­on 20.3084. The moti­on cites as an exam­p­le the inci­dent that took place in the sum­mer of 2009. This moti­on cites the inci­dent at Dail­lens in May 2015 as an exam­p­le and jus­ti­fies the need for cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on as fol­lows. First­ly, the wagon kee­per is only lia­ble in the event of an acci­dent if the RU can prove that he is at fault. Second­ly: It is not clear who is respon­si­ble for the qua­li­ty of the (rol­ling) stock. Both asser­ti­ons are false.

Valid arguments

Since the Dail­lens inci­dent, the inter­na­tio­nal legal frame­work has been sub­stan­ti­al­ly adapt­ed. On 1 July 2015, Appen­dix D to the Con­ven­ti­on con­cer­ning Inter­na­tio­nal Car­ria­ge by Rail (COTIF) ente­red into force. Artic­le 7 sta­tes: «The per­son who has made the wagon available for use as a means of trans­port on the basis of a con­tract in accordance with Artic­le 1 shall be lia­ble for the dama­ge cau­sed by the wagon if he is at fault.» Clau­se 2 sta­tes that the con­trac­ting par­ties may make devia­ting agree­ments. This is what the appro­xi­m­ate­ly 600 pri­va­te sec­tor con­trac­ting par­ties did and updated the Gene­ral Con­tract of Use for Wagons (GCU) as of 1 Janu­ary 2017. Artic­le 7 cla­ri­fies the main­ten­an­ce obli­ga­ti­ons of the wagon kee­per, Artic­le 27 descri­bes the prin­ci­ple of lia­bi­li­ty: «The kee­per is lia­ble for the dama­ge cau­sed if he is at fault.» And: «Fault is pre­su­med if he has not pro­per­ly ful­fil­led his obli­ga­ti­ons under Artic­le 7.»

Lack of practicability

The Bor­loz moti­on places the lia­bi­li­ty issue in a natio­nal con­text, alt­hough it is an inter­na­tio­nal issue. Respon­si­bi­li­ties and con­trols are cle­ar­ly regu­la­ted supra­na­tio­nal­ly and under trea­ty law. A natio­nal law amend­ment – or wha­te­ver is meant by «cla­ri­fy­ing pro­vi­si­ons» – would affect the prac­ti­ca­bi­li­ty for rail freight trans­port in and through Switz­er­land. The inter­na­tio­nal­ly appli­ca­ble trans­port regu­la­ti­ons have long since com­pli­ed with the requi­red incen­ti­vi­sa­ti­on and tigh­tening of lia­bi­li­ty. The deman­ded tran­si­ti­on to strict lia­bi­li­ty for wagon kee­pers is unneces­sa­ry, as in the event of an inci­dent there are no insu­rance gaps under civil law in the mat­ter of lia­bi­li­ty, for exam­p­le with regard to com­pen­sa­ti­on pay­ments, as pre­vious inci­dents have shown.

Draft Federal Law on the Underground Transport of Goods

Draft Federal Law on the Underground Transport of Goods

The VAP wel­co­mes the frame­work law on under­ground freight trans­port pre­sen­ted by the Fede­ral Coun­cil. We see an under­ground trans­port sys­tem as a posi­ti­ve addi­ti­on to the exis­ting pos­si­bi­li­ties on water, road and rail. The bill offers a libe­ral, risk-ori­en­ted and auto­no­mous frame­work for the con­s­truc­tion and ope­ra­ti­on of the faci­li­ties, so that effi­ci­ent and thus eco­no­mic­al mul­ti­mo­dal trans­port can suc­ceed. Cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­ons are still neces­sa­ry, par­ti­cu­lar­ly in the coor­di­na­ti­on of pro­ce­du­res at fede­ral and can­to­nal level. The FOT should be given a clear coor­di­na­ti­on role for this.

The invol­vement of state and state-rela­ted com­pa­nies rai­ses ques­ti­ons, as does the inten­ti­on to design city logi­stics as a one-stop ser­vice by the ope­ra­tors of the under­ground trans­port sys­tem. The VAP pre­fers a com­pe­ti­ti­on-ori­en­ted city logi­stics in order to exclude mar­ket power and discrimination.

No results found.