TSI: Many wagons for semi-trailers transport to be sidelined 29/07/25
< ZurückTSI Wagon might cause many wagons for semi-trailers transport to be sidelined
TSI Wagon is a key policy led by the European Agency for Railways (ERA) to boost the rail transport of semi-trailers, as it aims at making it safer by improving the king-pin locking mechanism attaching them to the wagons. However, much of the industry is largely unsatisfied, especially when it comes to the proposed specifications. RailFreight.com had an exclusive interview with Eric Feyen, technical director at UIRR, who explained how some wagons might become unsuitable for these services.
“The TSI Wagon introduces new requirements on intermodal wagons which are impractical, extremely costly and disproportionate to the risks of assets confronted with strong crosswinds”, Feyen said. The main worry is that the specifications for the interlocking device proposed by ERA have not been tested enough. The vertical locking force of 85kN required for the king-pin has only been tested in a workshop, without considering aerodynamics and cross winds. “A simple lifting of the wagon in a workshop was not sufficient to demonstrate the fulfilment of the TSI Wagon under all possible operating conditions”, Feyen mentioned.
Aftermath of the Great Belt Bridge accident
This poses a great problem, as the need for new and safer TSIs for the rail transport of semi-trailers comes from a deadly accident that killed eight people in Denmark in 2019. A semi-trailer loaded on a DB Cargo train crossing the Great Belt Bridge (Storebæltsbroen in Danish) was partially detached due to a weak interlocking mechanism trying to fight too strong winds. This caused the unit to ‘hang’ on the side of the train and be hit by a passenger train coming from the opposite direction, leading to one of the worst rail disasters in Danish history.
Not only safety issues
Other than the lack of testing under extreme conditions, Feyen identified some issues in the device itself and its connection to the wagons. These “requirements appear to be extremely impracticable for most of the wagons currently authorised”, he added. As a result, many wagons for the transport of semi-trailers, vital for the modal shift to rail in Europe, may no longer be used. “It’s an issue that could lead to much greater disruptions to semi-trailer traffic not only for Denmark but also for the whole of Europe”, Feyen alarmed.
Wagon manufacturers seem to share UIRR’s concerns. On multiple occasions, representatives of this industry brought forward various proposals to make the TSI Wagon clearer and make it have a positive impact on safety. Their suggestions included new requirements about crosswind and “a modern design following unified design cases”.
Another issue is that ERA and the European Commission focussed most of their attention on pocket wagons. However, there are other wagon types apt to the rail transport of semi-trailers. “To date there has been no evaluation on other types of wagons such as CargoBeamer, Lohr, Helrom etc…, this rolling stock is also within the scope of the TSI Wagon”, Feyen stressed, adding that “the wagon manufacturers clearly stated that a risk analysis has to be performed for every single series.
Communication problems
Last but not least, the UIRR specialist underlined a few issues concerning communication between the institutions and the stakeholders. “Many flaws pre-date the starting of the procedure”, Feyen clarified. For example, right after the accident in Denmark, the Danish National Investigation Body asked the National Safety Authority to perform a risk analysis which was never performed. “UIRR has regularly pointed out that a detailed risk assessment on the Great Belt Bridge should be first carried out before proposing any changes to legislation and/or standards”, he said.
Then, there was the Full Impact Assessment, which was never properly discussed by the Joint Network Secretariat (JNS) as it was presented only at a very late stage. UIRR has also submitted a list of questions to ERA and brought them up in various instances. However, “UIRR has not received any official response to this list”, Feyen claimed. Finally, he stated that UIRR was informed of the EC’s revision of the technical document by various national associations rather than directly from the institution. This means that the JNS expert group was bypassed and their responses during public consultation were ignored.