An important meeting was held in Brussels on 30 th March between the UIRR (International
Union for Road-Rail Combined Transport), ERA (European Union Agency for Railways), ESC
(European Shippers’ Council) and FERRMED.

The purpose of the meeting was to update attendees on the FERRMED study and
review the main data collection and improvement actions. One of the most important
points on the agenda was the analysis and discussion of the concepts, procedures, and
tests of the FERRMED FAST, FLEXIBLE INTEGRATED RAIL-ROAD SYSTEM OF TRANSPORT
known as +FIRRST.
The methodology and calibration used for traffic data collection was considered sound.
It was noted that no other organisation or association was known to be carrying out
such a study.
The attendees agreed that it was right to consider 500 net tonnes per train in 2015 and
700 – 900 for 2030. For all the scenarios it was agreed that 15 net tonnes per truck
should be considered.
The traffic maps elaborated from the data were considered very useful. ERA was very
interested in the information in the thematic maps, and it was agreed that a specific
meeting between ERA and FERRMED would be arranged to discuss the thematic maps
and contents of the Study in detail.
The UIRR also agreed on the Thresholds calculation (65 %) and how the Backbone has
been determined and the Hubs defined. UIRR recommended using the format-
template of the Rail Facilities Portal for the Intermodal terminals, which is, in fact, the
format used in the study, although we have used other sources of information. Also,
the UIRR stated that the process for determining locations for new terminals is an
important part of the study and must be explained and presented to the European
Commission.
Some points about how the capacity of terminals is determined, were discussed. An
important point was the UIRR’s view that reach stackers are not as efficient as gantry
cranes and have higher operational costs. UIRR remarked that terminals under 800 m
are not efficient and that all of them should be able to accommodate trains up to
740m in length. 400-700m-length terminals are at the limit of acceptable levels of
(in)efficiency, and terminals shorter that 400m are completely inadequate. In
FERRMED’s view, there is another important factor, which is if the terminal is pass-
through or dead-end.
When discussing bottlenecks, the UIRR suggested that the growth in passenger trains
(mostly in high-speed lines and commuter trains) should not affect freight trains. An
increase of 5 % in passenger trains would be a realistic scenario.
The FERRMED Study final report will be duly reviewed to avoid redundancies, to clearly
state its sources of information, to properly explain the acronyms and to accurately
present the ratios, parameters and bibliography.
Due to the importance of the discussion of the +FIRRST system, this point is
reproduced here in full from the minutes of the meeting.

UIRR comments:
The UIRR is concerned about how +FIRRST trains will access a railway system that has a
fixed schedule. If a train loses its slot, the next one could be assigned in 8h due to the
safety buffers. 
The UIRR thinks that in 10 years, technology will let us know precisely where trains are
and their arrival times, and that will make intermodality much easier.
The UIRR’s biggest concern is that +FIRRST trains won’t have a reliable timetable,
because every day it will be different. 
It is also very important to consider the regulations regarding drivers, as in some
countries they can work 8h, but in others 6h, and sometimes they have to stop for a
rest of 2h. 
FERRMED comment:
+FIRRST System is a completely new concept to manage path assignation to freight
trains. This principle stands in the context of full, real-time knowledge of where trucks
and trains are located at any time. This means that the railway control system is
backed by at least ERTMS level 3. In this case, it is possible to insert additional trains
considering the real time location between two trains that are en route (in transit). 
Moreover, the +FIRRST System has different levels of implementation:
• Level 1: the train works with the corresponding assigned path as the freight
trains work today, but the freight wagons are duly electrically interconnected to know
everything about them including the possibility of reefer ILU interconnection. Full
ERTMS is. Drivers’ availability according to different shifts properly interchanged,
avoiding any kind of delay. 
• Level 2: the freight train works with 2 possibilities, “point to point” (PtP) and
“stops at intermediate terminals” (Sai). The second (Sai), has enough time margin to
stop at intermediate predefined terminals. The concept for Sai trains is to operate like
passenger trains, but of course, with longer stops regarding time for loading/unloading
the corresponding ILUs. Full ERTMS useful but not necessary. The +FIRRST trains have a
fixed composition of freight wagons duly electrically interconnected, if possible through
the DAC system. Drivers’ availability according to different shifts properly interchanged,
avoiding any kind of delay.
• Level 3.1: the freight train works with a predetermined schedule to stop at
requested intermediate terminals (Sar) previously committed 3h before the train
departs from the origin terminal. In this regard, the train schedule is fully defined for
intermediate terminals (because we know beforehand the ILUs that will be
loaded/unloaded case by case) as well as the ETA at the destination terminal. Full
ERTMS implementation compulsory. The +FIRRST trains have a fixed composition of
freight wagons duly electrically interconnected through the DAC coupling system.
Drivers’ availability according to different shifts properly interchanged, avoiding any
kind of delay.
• Level 3.2: freight trains work using the same procedure as in level 3.1 but with
the possibility to introduce additional loading/unloading in the predetermined
intermediate terminals, and even to add additional stops, according to certain rules

regarding the space availability in the train and avoiding significant changes to the
predetermined schedule established at the origin terminal. Full ERTMS implementation
compulsory. The +FIRRST trains have a fixed composition of freight wagons duly
electrically interconnected through the DAC coupling system. Drivers’ availability
according to different shifts properly interchanged, avoiding any kind of delay. 
UIRR comment:
The UIRR believes that the only way of achieving the 30% target is to have reliable and
fixed timetables for freight trains, like passenger trains, and to do that PtP trains must
be empowered. 
An alternative is having transhipment terminals such as the Lehrte terminal. E.g. a train
coming from Murcia could go to Lyon, and there make a transhipment to a train going
to Frankfurt rather than having a direct train from Murcia to Frankfurt. 
FERRMED comment:
FERRMED’s view is that current PtP freight trains cannot absorb all the additional
traffic requested by the EC (30% of railway freight share over 300km by 2030) even in
the case that we make changes train to train in the terminals (of course transhipment
of ILUs train to train is also considered in the case of +FIRRST System terminals). In fact,
this assertion is based on the wide range of different freight flow destinations from
each NUT 3/NUT 2. In any case, the FERRMED Study foresees the analysis of the
theoretical number of PtP, Sai and Sar trains requested to properly interlink the
different NUTs to achieve the 30% of railway share.
It was agreed that another ERA, ESC, FERRMED and UIRR working session would be
organised for June 2022. On this occasion, other stakeholders may be invited to
participate.
A specific meeting to discuss all the elements of the FERRMED Study, particularly the
+FIRRST System, will be held between ERA and FERRMED in Valenciennes.