Time for a change of course: The fragmentation of European rail infrastructure – A historically grown obstacle

The fragmentation of European rail infrastructure – a historically grown obstacle with modern implications

The European railway landscape is characterized by remarkable technical diversity, manifested particularly in the different track gauges. This heterogeneity is not accidental, but rather the result of a complex historical development in the 19th century, in which national interests, diverging technical standards, and, not least, military-strategic considerations led to a fragmentation of the rail infrastructure. The choice of a specific track gauge was often a deliberate political and economic decision aimed at protecting one's own infrastructure from use by competing companies or potential military adversaries.

Today, this historically developed fragmentation represents a significant obstacle to the vision of a unified European transport area. The different track gauges are considered one of the most serious technical barriers to seamless and efficient cross-border rail transport, particularly in the freight sector. However, the interoperability of the rail network is crucial for the functioning of the European single market, the achievement of the EU's ambitious climate targets through increased modal shift to rail (within the framework of the European Green Deal), and the associated economic and environmental benefits.

Recent geopolitical upheavals, particularly the war in Ukraine, have dramatically highlighted the strategic importance of a high-performance and interoperable rail infrastructure. The ability to transport goods and materials quickly and reliably over long distances is essential not only for civilian supply security but also for military mobility and collective defense capabilities. In this context, the concept of “dual-use logistics”—the shared civilian and military use of logistics infrastructure—is gaining increasing relevance.

Interestingly, a paradoxical development emerges here: While in the 19th century different track gauges were deliberately designed as military barriers to hinder enemy invasions, the modern defense strategy of NATO and the EU requires precisely the overcoming of these barriers. The rapid deployment of troops and equipment over long distances, especially along the east-west axes, is now a key military requirement. The existing track gauge differences, which once served a defensive purpose, are now an operational obstacle to this modern military mobility. Consequently, the harmonization of track gauges or the creation of efficient solutions to overcome them, for example through dual-use infrastructure projects, has itself become a military-strategic necessity. This represents a remarkable reversal of the original logic: What once served defense through differentiation now requires defense capability through integration and interoperability.

Fragmentation arose from differing national track gauges, technical standards, and political decisions in the 19th century. Today, it leads to significant problems for cross-border rail transport, particularly freight. The most important **modern implications** are:

• Economic impact: The lack of interoperability between the different track gauges and systems increases transport costs and reduces the efficiency of rail transport.
• Environmental challenges: The EU aims to shift traffic from road to rail to reduce CO₂ emissions. However, fragmentation makes it difficult to achieve these climate goals.
• Geopolitical and military significance: The war in Ukraine has shown that a high-performance and interoperable rail infrastructure is crucial for security of supply and military mobility.
• Technical and infrastructural adjustments: Solutions such as track switching systems, multi-rail tracks or dual-use logistics are gaining importance in order to overcome fragmentation.

The original logic of fragmentation – national demarcation and military defense – is now being reversed: A harmonized and interoperable rail infrastructure is increasingly becoming a strategic necessity for the economy, the environment and security.

The fragmentation of European rail infrastructure is more than just a technical problem. It is also a symptom of deeper challenges in the European integration process, where considerations of national sovereignty and short-term cost calculations often conflict with long-term, shared goals. Converting track gauges or implementing comprehensive interoperability solutions involves immense costs and complex planning procedures, which often causes national governments to hesitate. The current debate on dual-use logistics could serve as a new lever to overcome national resistance to expensive infrastructure projects. By directly linking these investments to national and supranational security interests, which enjoy higher political priority in the current geopolitical climate, funding could be mobilized, for example, from defense budgets or specific EU funds such as the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) for military mobility. This offers the opportunity to accelerate the modernization of rail infrastructure, including overcoming track gauge issues. However, it also means that the prioritization of infrastructure projects may in the future be guided more by strategic considerations than by purely economic or environmental ones.

Related to this:

• The importance of modal split and the role of dual-use logistics in transport policy

The diversity of track gauges in Europe: A detailed inventory

The European railway map is a patchwork of different track gauges. This diversity has profound implications for the interoperability and efficiency of rail transport. A close examination of the prevailing systems is essential to understanding the resulting challenges and potential solutions.

Standard gauge (1435 mm): The dominant standard

Standard gauge, with a distance of 1435 mm (equivalent to 4 feet 8.5 inches) between the inner edges of the railheads, is the most widely used track gauge in the world. It originated in Great Britain, where George Stephenson used it for the Stockton and Darlington Railway (opened in 1825), considered the first public railway with steam locomotives. It was legally established as the standard gauge in Great Britain as early as 1846. From there, it spread with the expansion of railway technology to large parts of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, as well as North America and China. In Germany and most Western European countries, it is the dominant track gauge. Worldwide, approximately 60% of all railway lines are standard gauge. In the EU, the total rail network comprised around 202,131 km in 2022, the vast majority of which was standard gauge.

Broad-gauge systems: The major outliers

Besides standard gauge, there are significant broad gauge networks in Europe that have a major influence on cross-border traffic.

Russian broad gauge (nominally 1520 mm, historical/Finland 1524 mm):

This system is the second largest in the world and shapes the railway infrastructure in Russia, most of the successor states of the Soviet Union (CIS countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan), as well as in Finland. The decision to adopt this gauge in the Russian Empire was based on strategic considerations to hinder invasions from the West, as well as on differing technological developments. Originally, the gauge was 1524 mm (5 feet). In the 1970s, it was reduced to 1520 mm in the Soviet Union to optimize track gauge and reduce wear. Finland nominally retained the 1524 mm gauge, but tolerances are designed to allow for cross-border traffic on the 1520 mm network.

Iberian broad gauge (1668 mm):

This track gauge is characteristic of Spain and Portugal. Approximately 72% of the Spanish network uses this gauge. Historically, Spain (originally 1672 mm, equivalent to six Castilian feet) and Portugal (originally 1664 mm, equivalent to five Portuguese feet) chose slightly different dimensions. It wasn't until 1955 that they agreed on the compromise of 1668 mm. Here, too, strategic reasons, such as the fear of invasions after the Napoleonic Wars, played a role in choosing a track gauge that differed from the rest of Europe. A unique feature in Spain is the parallel development of a high-speed network in standard gauge (1435 mm), which leads to internal track gauge limitations and the need for gauge-changing systems or segregated traffic.

Irish broad gauge (1600 mm):

The Irish broad gauge of 1600 mm is widely used on the island of Ireland (Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland). It is a relatively isolated system without a direct land connection to other European track gauge systems, which limits direct interoperability problems with the continent, but is relevant within the island and for ferry traffic.

Narrow-gauge railways (< 1435 mm): Diversity for specific purposes

Besides the major standard and broad gauge systems, Europe boasts an enormous variety of narrow gauges, typically below 1435 mm. Common examples include meter gauge (1000 mm), Bosnian gauge (760 mm), as well as 750 mm and 600 mm gauges. These railways were often built for cost reasons (lower construction costs) or to better adapt to difficult terrain (tight curve radii in mountainous regions). They served and continue to serve specific industrial applications (mining, field, industrial, and forestry railways) or provide access to regions of tourist interest (e.g., numerous mountain and museum railways in Switzerland and Austria). They play a negligible role in international through freight traffic but are important for local and regional supply and tourism. The long list of smaller and often industrially used narrow gauges reveals an often overlooked fragmentation at the local and regional level. While this does not directly hinder transcontinental freight transport, it complicates local logistics and connections to main networks, as direct transshipment of goods without reloading or special transfer techniques (such as rollbocks) is often not possible.

Historical, technical, economic and military reasons for the track gauge differences (synthesis)

Today's diversity of track gauges is the result of a complex interplay of various factors:

Technically: Early railway engineers experimented with different track gauges to find optimal solutions for stability, speed, and load capacity. Narrow gauges allowed for tighter curve radii and were therefore advantageous in mountainous terrain. Broad gauges promised greater stability and larger load capacities.

Economically: Narrow-gauge railways were often cheaper to build and maintain. Sometimes, different track gauges were also chosen to protect national industries or to prevent foreign competitors from using the country's infrastructure.

Military: Particularly in countries like Russia and Spain, track gauges that deviated from the standard were deliberately chosen to make enemy invasions and supply transports more difficult in the event of war.

Historically and politically: Railways emerged in an era of strong nation-states and little international coordination. The choice of track gauge was primarily considered a national matter, without extensive consideration of pan-European interoperability.

It is important to recognize that "standardization" to standard gauge is a relative term. Even within Europe's standard gauge networks, there are significant differences in loading gauges, electrification systems, and train control systems, which further restrict interoperability. Track gauge is therefore only one—albeit a very fundamental—of many interoperability problems. Even if all lines had the same track gauge, trains would not automatically be able to operate freely across borders. Focusing solely on track gauge is therefore too narrow a view; it is a systemic problem with many interacting technical and administrative variables.

The decisions made for a particular track gauge also had long-term "lock-in" effects. Once an extensive network and corresponding rolling stock were established for a specific gauge, the costs and effort of converting entire networks became immense. This explains the remarkable persistence of historical track gauge differences despite the obvious disadvantages for international traffic. It is often more economical to accept the inefficiencies at system boundaries than to convert the entire system. Ukraine's current considerations to convert its network to standard gauge underscore the significance of such decisions, which are often motivated by profound geopolitical realignments.

Overview of main track gauges in Europe and their characteristics

Overview of main track gauges in Europe and their characteristics – Image: Xpert.Digital

An overview of the main track gauges in Europe and their characteristics shows that standard gauge (1435 mm) is the most widespread worldwide. It is found in large parts of Western, Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, North America, and China, with an estimated network length of over 200,000 km in the EU alone. Originally established in Great Britain and the standard there since 1846, it has become the de facto standard. Nevertheless, challenges arise at the system boundaries due to incompatibility with broad and narrow-gauge networks.

The Russian broad gauge (1520 mm or historically 1524 mm) is primarily used in Russia, the CIS countries, Finland, and Mongolia. As the second largest network in the world, it dates back to the Tsarist Empire and was introduced for strategic reasons. Today, it requires gauge conversion or transshipment at border crossings to standard gauge networks, such as those to Poland or Romania.

The Iberian broad gauge (1668 mm) is primarily used in Spain and Portugal, where it covers approximately 11,200 km, representing 72% of the Spanish railway network. Its development is based on the adaptation of different foot measurements. To facilitate interoperability, the Spanish high-speed network was built on standard gauge, as gauge changes would otherwise be necessary at the border with France.

The Irish broad gauge of 1600 mm is limited to Ireland and Northern Ireland, with approximately 2400 km in Ireland. Due to its geographical isolation from the continental European network, interoperability issues primarily arise internally or bilaterally with the United Kingdom.

Narrow gauge railways with gauges below 1435 mm are primarily used in mountainous regions or for industrial purposes, including in countries such as Switzerland, Austria, France, Germany, and Spain. They offer advantages such as lower construction costs and greater adaptability to difficult terrain, including tight curves and steep gradients. Since they are generally not compatible with standard or broad gauge networks, transshipment or special solutions like transporter wagons are necessary. Long-distance transport plays a negligible role on these lines.

The Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) currently use the Russian broad gauge, but are planning to convert important corridors to standard gauge as part of Rail Baltica.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the Baltic states currently use the Russian broad gauge, but are planning to convert important corridors to standard gauge as part of the Rail Baltica project.

Related to this:

• Goods from road to rail: Logistics hubs & high-tech – locations for transshipment, logistics, trade and production

Challenges posed by track gauge differences in international freight transport

The coexistence of different track gauge systems in Europe leads to significant operational, economic, and strategic challenges in international freight transport. These are particularly evident at system boundaries and negatively impact the efficiency and competitiveness of rail as a mode of transport.

Operational complications and inefficiencies at system boundaries

Interruptions in the flow of transport are inevitable at the interfaces of different track gauges. Transshipping goods from wagons of one gauge system to wagons of another, changing entire bogies, or using special gauge-changing facilities for vehicles with variable track gauges are the common methods for overcoming these system breaks. However, each of these methods has its own specific disadvantages:

Time loss and costs: All of the aforementioned methods are time-consuming and expensive. Manually transshipping goods can take several hours per wagon, depending on the type of cargo and the available infrastructure. Changing bogies, for example at the Spanish-French border, can take approximately two hours for an entire 700-meter-long freight train. Even if the physical handling of containers at modern terminals can be completed in four to five hours, the associated documentation and processing often take considerably longer, meaning the entire process at the border can take up to 24 hours. These delays result in longer overall transport times and higher operating costs.

The need for specialized infrastructure: Border crossings between different track gauge systems require significant investments in specialized infrastructure. This includes elaborate transshipment terminals with cranes and storage areas, track systems for bogie changes, and complex automated gauge-changing facilities. This infrastructure not only ties up capital but also valuable land in border regions that are often already heavily used.

Increased risk of damage: Every single transshipment operation carries the risk of damaging the transported goods. This is a significant cost factor, especially for sensitive or high-value goods, and can reduce the attractiveness of rail transport.

Complexity in scheduling: Different track gauges often go hand in hand with different wagon types, loading dimensions, and container sizes. This complicates scheduling and optimal utilization of available wagon space and can lead to inefficiencies in the logistics chain.

Bottlenecks at border crossings, especially on west-east routes

The borders between the EU's standard-gauge rail network and the broad-gauge networks of Eastern Europe (especially Poland/Belarus and Poland/Ukraine) represent critical bottlenecks in Eurasian freight transport. The Małaszewicze (Poland) / Brest (Belarus) border crossing, for example, is one of the most important transshipment points on the New Silk Road and was chronically congested even before the recent geopolitical upheavals. The capacity limits of the transshipment facilities there are frequently reached, leading to significant congestion of freight trains and long waiting times. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that, in addition to the technical differences in track gauge, differing operational regulations, lengthy customs procedures, and language barriers often slow down the processing.

The combination of track gauge differences and these other interoperability barriers (such as different signaling technologies or power systems) creates a cascade of inefficiencies. These lead to a drastic reduction in the average transport speed and reliability of international rail freight. However, low speed and a lack of predictability are crucial competitive disadvantages for rail compared to the more flexible and often faster road freight, especially over medium distances. This, in turn, hinders the politically pursued goal of a significant shift of traffic from road to rail, which is of great importance for achieving climate targets in the transport sector.

The bottlenecks at the EU's eastern borders have taken on a new, strategic dimension in the wake of the Ukraine war. They are no longer merely logistical challenges for trade, but have proven to be critical vulnerabilities for the security of supply and the military mobility of the EU and NATO. The dependence on a few heavily congested border crossings with lane-changing facilities increases the vulnerability of the entire logistics chain for civilian goods and military equipment. This explains the increased political and financial focus on modernizing these border crossings and searching for alternative corridors, including dual-use considerations.

Impact on the competitiveness of rail freight transport

The delays, additional costs, and reduced flexibility caused by track changes significantly impair the competitiveness of rail freight compared to road transport. While trucks offer door-to-door service without interrupting the supply chain, rail is disadvantaged on many international routes due to these system breaks. The share of rail in total freight volume in the EU has stagnated for years at a relatively low level of around 17-18% (based on tonne-kilometers). This contradicts the EU's objectives to significantly increase the share of rail and inland waterway transport in line with sustainable development and the European Green Deal.

Interoperability barriers beyond track gauge

The problem of track gauge differences is exacerbated by a number of other technical and administrative interoperability obstacles, which further complicate cross-border rail transport:

Different train control and signaling systems: Despite efforts to introduce a unified European system (ERTMS – European Railway Traffic Management System), its implementation is lengthy and costly. Many national systems exist in parallel, requiring the use of multi-system locomotives or complex retrofitting and locomotive changes at borders.

Varying power systems and electrification levels: Europe has a multitude of different railway power systems (voltage, frequency). Furthermore, not all lines are electrified. This also necessitates the use of expensive multi-system locomotives or time-consuming locomotive changes.

Different loading gauges and vehicle clearance lines: The permissible maximum dimensions of vehicles and loads vary between countries and routes. This can restrict the use of certain wagon types or the transport of oversized loads, or necessitate special routing.

Administrative and regulatory differences: Different operating regulations, approval procedures for vehicles and personnel, diverging safety standards and national working time regulations for train drivers represent further obstacles to smooth international rail operations.

It is becoming clear that the problems at track gauge boundaries are often not solely technical in nature. A lack of coordination between the railway companies and authorities involved, insufficient investment in modern and high-capacity transshipment facilities, and slow and inefficient administrative processes contribute significantly to exacerbating the situation. The European Court of Auditors has repeatedly criticized the slow implementation of EU strategies to improve interoperability and the ineffective use of funding. This suggests that, in addition to technical solutions, considerable efforts are needed in the areas of organization, management, and political cooperation to sustainably eliminate bottlenecks in European rail freight transport.

Dual-use logistics experts - Image: Xpert.Digital

The global economy is currently undergoing a fundamental transformation, a watershed moment that is shaking the foundations of global logistics. The era of hyper-globalization, characterized by the relentless pursuit of maximum efficiency and the "just-in-time" principle, is giving way to a new reality. This new reality is marked by profound structural breaks, geopolitical power shifts, and increasing fragmentation of economic policy. The once taken-for-granted predictability of international markets and supply chains is dissolving and being replaced by a period of growing uncertainty.

Related to this:

• Strategic resilience in a fragmented world through intelligent infrastructure and automation – The job profile of the dual-use logistics expert

Solutions and technologies for overcoming track gauge problems

Given the significant challenges that different track gauges pose for international freight transport, various technical and operational solutions have been developed over time. These aim to facilitate the transfer of goods and vehicles between different track gauge systems and to minimize the associated time losses and costs.

Transshipment of goods

Transferring freight from wagons of one track gauge system to wagons of another is the most traditional and widespread method of overcoming track gauge differences.

Containers and swap bodies: The increasing standardization of loading units, particularly through ISO containers and swap bodies, has significantly simplified this process. These units can be relatively easily transferred between different modes of transport (truck, ship, rail) and thus also between trains of different track gauges using cranes. This is the dominant method in intermodal transport.

Transshipment terminals: High-performance terminals equipped with gantry cranes or reach stackers and with sufficient track and parking areas are required for transshipment. The efficiency and management of these terminals are crucial for the speed of the entire transshipment process.

Disadvantages: Despite the advantages of standardization, transshipment has its drawbacks. It is time-consuming (3-5 hours per wagon, with the entire border crossing, including documentation, potentially taking up to 24 hours), incurs additional costs due to handling and terminal fees, and carries an increased risk of cargo damage with each transshipment. Furthermore, containers often do not utilize the loading capacity of railway wagons optimally, compared to wagons specifically designed for certain goods.

Related to this:

• REGIOLOG SOUTH | Dual-Use Logistics Infrastructure Pilot Project: For Civil Resilience and Military Readiness

Technical lane-changing systems for vehicles

To avoid the time-consuming transshipment of goods themselves, systems were developed that allow the vehicles to be adapted to the respective track gauge.

Bogie or wheelset exchange: In this traditional method, the complete bogies or individual wheelsets of the wagons are physically exchanged at the system boundary. This requires special lifting equipment and a pool of exchange bogies for the respective target track gauge. The process is also time-consuming; for a 700-meter-long freight train, it can take around two hours.

Automatic track gauge changing systems and vehicles with variable track width: These modern systems allow the track width of the wheelsets to be adjusted while the vehicle passes through a special track gauge changing system.

Talgo system (Spain): Originally developed for passenger transport between Spain (Iberian broad gauge) and France (standard gauge), it is also used for freight wagons with an axle load of up to 22.5 tons. The gauge change is performed at slow speeds (approx. 15 km/h) by a special system that unlocks, shifts, and relocks the wheel discs on the axles. This significantly reduces time and costs.

System SUW 2000 (Poland): Developed by Ryszard Suwalski, this system also allows for automatic adjustment of the wheel gauge while passing through a gauge-changing facility. It is interoperable with the German Rafil Type V system and is used on the Polish borders with Ukraine and Lithuania. For a freight train with 32 wagons, the gauge-changing time with SUW 2000 II can be reduced to approximately 4 hours, compared to 12 hours for a bogie change.

Other systems (e.g. Rafil Type V, DB AG/Knorr-Bremse): There are other, partly compatible systems that are based on similar principles of automatic track adjustment.

General operating principle: Most of these systems are based on relieving the wheels, unlocking the wheel discs, shifting them laterally on the axle and then relocking them in the new track width.

Advantages: Significant time savings compared to transshipment or bogie changes, no transshipment of the goods themselves (thus reducing the risk of damage), and the possibility of continuous use of the same vehicles across system boundaries.

Disadvantages/Challenges: Higher acquisition costs for the special wheelsets, bogies, and vehicles, as well as for the stationary gauge-changing facilities. Furthermore, the more complex technology incurs additional maintenance costs. Its use in freight transport is currently limited, which could indicate high implementation costs, a lack of standardization between different systems, or a lack of political and economic will for widespread adoption.

Multi-rail tracks (three- or four-rail tracks)

Multi-rail tracks allow the operation of vehicles of different track gauges on the same track section by laying additional rails.

Four-rail track: Here, two complete tracks of different gauges are interlocked, so that four rails run parallel (e.g. on the Przemyśl–Chyriv line in Ukraine).

Three-rail track: In this variant, one rail is shared by both track gauges, while a separate second rail is laid for each gauge. This only works well technically if the difference between the track gauges is sufficiently large so that the third rail does not collide with the fastening elements of the outer rails. The difference between standard gauge (1435 mm) and Russian broad gauge (1520 mm) of only about 85 mm is often too small for this purpose, necessitating four-rail track or separate parallel tracks. The transition from Iberian broad gauge to standard gauge, however, is more suitable for three-rail track.

Application: Multi-rail tracks are mainly found in border stations, in transshipment terminals, on short connecting lines between networks or in workshops that service vehicles of different track gauges.

Disadvantages: The construction of multi-rail tracks is more expensive; in particular, the switch designs are complex and require a lot of maintenance. Furthermore, speed restrictions may apply on such track sections.

Rolling carriages / rolling blocks (for narrow-gauge to standard-gauge transitions)

For the transition between narrow-gauge and standard-gauge (or, less frequently, broad-gauge) networks, transporter wagons or transporter blocks are often used. In this process, the complete narrow-gauge wagons are loaded onto special standard-gauge chassis (transporter wagons), or the axles of the narrow-gauge wagons are placed on small, lower chassis (transporter blocks). This method is of lesser importance for the transition between the main track gauge systems in international long-distance freight transport, but it represents an important and widespread solution in narrow-gauge areas to enable the direct onward transport of goods without transshipment.

The increasing containerization of freight transport has established transshipment as a pragmatic, if not always optimal, solution for track gauge differences. The focus of investments and optimization efforts is therefore often shifting from direct vehicle interoperability through gauge-changing systems to increasing the efficiency and capacity of transshipment terminals. However, this also means that the performance of the overall system depends heavily on these terminals, which themselves can become bottlenecks if they are not adequately sized or efficiently managed.

Ultimately, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the track gauge problem. The choice of the “right” approach is highly context-dependent and determined by factors such as traffic volume, the type of goods being transported, the required transport speed, available investment funds, and long-term strategic objectives. A combination of different approaches—for example, transshipment for flexible container transport, automatic gauge conversion for certain block train connections in bulk freight, and multi-track sections at border stations and terminals—is therefore likely to remain the reality on the European rail network.

Comparison of technical and operational solutions for track gauge differences in freight transport

Comparison of technical and operational solutions for track gauge differences in freight transport – Image: Xpert.Digital

Solution approach: Transshipment of containers/swap bodies

The system works by using a crane to transfer goods in standardized loading units, such as containers or swap bodies, between railcars of different track gauges. This is typically used in intermodal transport, for less-than-truckload (LTL) shipments, and for numerous types of goods. The estimated time required for transferring goods is approximately 3 to 5 hours per railcar, while the entire process at the border, including documentation, can take up to 24 hours. Investment and operating costs are considered moderate, particularly with regard to terminal infrastructure and handling. Key advantages include flexibility, the use of standardized units, and integration into multimodal transport chains. Disadvantages include the time-consuming process, the associated costs, an increased risk of damage, and potentially poor loading capacity utilization. Examples of locations where this system is used include numerous terminals at track gauge boundaries, such as in Małaszewicze, Chop, or on the Spanish-French border.

Solution approach: Bogie replacement

The entire process relies on completely replacing the bogies of the wagons with those of the target gauge. This method is typically used in certain block train operations or with specific wagon types such as passenger cars and some freight wagons. The process takes approximately two hours for a 700-meter-long train. Costs are relatively high, both in terms of investment for specialized equipment and a pool of exchange bogies, and in operating costs, which are considered medium to high. A key advantage is that transshipment of goods is unnecessary. However, disadvantages include the significant time investment, the expensive infrastructure, and the limited availability of exchange bogies. While this method was more common in freight transport in the past, it is now less frequent. One example of this is its use on the Spanish-French border in Cerbère/Portbou.

Solution approach: Talgo automatic track gauge changing system

Vehicles with special Talgo wheelsets pass through a system that automatically adjusts the track gauge. This system is primarily used in passenger transport but is also suitable for freight wagons with an axle load of up to 22.5 tons. A 100-meter-long train traveling at 15 km/h takes approximately 24 seconds to change gauge. While the investment costs are very high due to the required specialized vehicles and the system itself, operating costs are low to medium. The system offers significant advantages, including fast processing without transshipment and the continuous use of vehicles. Disadvantages include high investment costs, the proprietary nature of the system, and its limited use in freight transport. Examples of such systems in operation can be found on the Spanish-French border, for example in Irun and Portbou, as well as on the Moscow-Berlin line with the Strizh trains.

Solution approach: Automatic track reversal system SUW 2000

Vehicles with SUW 2000 wheelsets pass through a system that automatically adjusts the track gauge and is interoperable with Rafil Type V. Typical applications include passenger and freight transport. The time required per train or wagon is significantly less than with bogie changes, meaning that adapting a 32-wagon train takes only about four hours instead of twelve. While the investment costs are very high due to the specialized vehicles and equipment, the operating costs are low to medium. Advantages include fast throughput, the elimination of transshipment, continuous vehicle use, and interoperability with other systems. Disadvantages include the high investment costs and the still limited deployment of the system. Examples of deployment locations include the Polish-Ukrainian border in Przemyśl and the Polish-Lithuanian border.

Solution approach: Four-rail track

Two track gauges are made possible by four parallel rails on the same track bed. Typical applications include border stations, short connecting lines, terminals, and workshops. Since no direct time is required for gauge conversion, speed reductions may occur. Investment and operating costs are relatively high, particularly due to the complex track construction and very elaborate switches, while maintenance is moderately expensive. Advantages include the possibility of simultaneous operation, whereas disadvantages include the high construction and maintenance costs, the demanding switches, and the limitation to short distances. Examples of deployment locations include the Przemyśl–Khyriv line in Ukraine and various border stations.

Solution approach: Three-rail track

One rail is shared, while two others define the different track gauges. This technique is similar to the four-rail track, but only makes sense with a sufficiently large difference in track gauge, such as between Iberian and standard gauge, but not between Russian and standard gauge. There is no direct time expenditure for gauge conversion, although speed reductions may occur. Investment and operating costs are in the mid-range, with track construction and the complex turnouts accounting for the higher costs, while maintenance is average. Advantages of this solution are that it is cheaper than a four-rail track, whereas disadvantages include its technical limitations and the complexity of the turnouts. An example of its application is the Brohltalbahn railway in Germany, which combines standard and meter gauge.

Related to this:

• DU-Logistics² | Dual-Use Logistics: Integration of rail and road for civilian and military purposes

Modernization of logistics infrastructure: Strategies and projects in Germany and Europe

Overcoming the fragmentation of the European rail network caused by track gauge differences and other technical barriers is a key prerequisite for efficient and competitive freight transport. Numerous strategies and projects at both EU and individual member states aim to modernize logistics infrastructure.

EU strategies to promote interoperability and rail freight

The European Union has long pursued the goal of creating a unified European railway area. Various policy initiatives and funding instruments are intended to help reduce the technical and administrative barriers to cross-border transport.

TEN-T Policy (Trans-European Transport Networks): The centerpiece of EU infrastructure policy is the TEN-T program. It aims to build an efficient, EU-wide, and multimodal transport network encompassing railways, inland waterways, short-sea shipping lanes, and roads, connecting key hubs such as cities, ports, and airports. The network is structured in three tiers: the core network is scheduled for completion by 2030, the extended core network by 2040, and the complete network by 2050. The most recent revision of the TEN-T Regulation in 2024 (based on Regulation (EU) 2024/1679) further specified the infrastructure requirements and, in particular, gave greater consideration to the needs of military mobility (dual-use). The requirements include, for example, a minimum speed of 160 km/h on passenger lines of the core and extended core network, the comprehensive deployment of ERTMS, and support for freight trains up to 740 meters in length. Nine European Transport Corridors, which also integrate the existing rail freight corridors, serve to coordinate the planning and implementation of investments along the most important transport axes.

ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System): The introduction of a unified European train control and signalling system (ERTMS) is a key element in improving interoperability. ERTMS is intended to replace the multitude of national systems and thus facilitate cross-border rail traffic. However, implementation is proceeding more slowly than originally planned and is associated with high costs. In countries like Germany, where existing national systems still have a long remaining service life, ERTMS is initially being introduced only as a supplementary system in some cases.

Promoting intermodal transport: The EU actively promotes the shift of freight transport from road to more environmentally friendly modes of transport such as rail and inland waterways. Strategies such as the “Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area” (2011) and the “Strategy for Sustainable and Smart Mobility” (2020) formulate corresponding targets. However, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has repeatedly pointed out unrealistic targets and inadequate implementation of these strategies.

Standardization of track gauge to 1435 mm as a goal: To further improve interoperability, the European Commission has set the goal of establishing the standard gauge of 1435 mm as the standard for all member states. Countries with different track gauges, such as Ireland, Finland, the Baltic States, Portugal, and Spain, are encouraged to develop plans for how their networks can be integrated into the standard-gauge TEN-T corridors.

Major infrastructure projects with a focus on west-east axes

Along the important west-east transport corridors in Europe, several large infrastructure projects are in the planning or implementation phase, which also address aspects of track gauge compatibility:

Rail Baltica: This project is one of the most ambitious undertakings to overcome track gauge differences. It envisions the construction of a continuous standard-gauge (1435 mm) rail line from Warsaw (Poland) through Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia to Tallinn, with a potential extension to Helsinki via a tunnel. The main objective is to connect the Baltic states, which currently use the Russian broad-gauge network, to the European standard-gauge network. This is of great importance for passenger and freight transport, as well as for military mobility along NATO's eastern flank. Construction has begun in all three Baltic countries, with approximately 15% of the main line under construction by the end of 2024. However, financing and adherence to the precise timeline remain challenging. Originally planned for 2026, the aim is now to complete the cross-border connections by 2030, although the initial phase often involves only a single-track section.

Modernization of border terminals and transshipment facilities:

Małaszewicze (Poland, border with Belarus): This terminal is a key transshipment point for traffic on the New Silk Road and at the border with the broad-gauge network. Extensive modernization measures are planned to increase capacity from the current approximately 17 to up to 55 train pairs per day and to enable the handling of longer trains (up to 1050 m on broad gauge and 750 m on standard gauge). Funding is primarily provided by Poland, as EU funding may be limited due to political relations with Belarus.

Chop (Ukraine, borders with Slovakia/Hungary): Chop is another important transshipment station with existing gauge-changing facilities for traffic between Ukraine's broad-gauge network and the standard-gauge networks of Slovakia and Hungary. Modernization and expansion projects are underway, partly with EU funding, to increase capacity and improve efficiency.

Further terminals on the EU's eastern border: Other terminals in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania on the border with Ukraine are also being expanded and modernized to facilitate trade with Ukraine and strengthen the resilience of European supply chains, especially in light of the war and the need for alternative transport routes.

Fehmarnbelt Tunnel (Denmark/Germany): This immersed tunnel, currently under construction, will significantly reduce travel and transport times between Scandinavia and Central Europe. While some analyses anticipate positive effects for rail freight, others point out that without accompanying investments in the approach lines in Sweden and Denmark to eliminate bottlenecks, there is even a risk of rail freight being shifted to road transport.

Brenner Base Tunnel (Austria/Italy): As the centerpiece of the Scandinavian-Mediterranean Corridor, the Brenner Base Tunnel will massively increase the capacity for transalpine rail freight (planned for up to 222 freight trains per day in the base tunnel). Although primarily a north-south axis, it contributes to relieving congestion on the overall network and can indirectly influence east-west traffic as well.

Modernization projects in Spain and Portugal: On the Iberian Peninsula, parts of the broad-gauge network (1668 mm) are being converted to standard gauge (1435 mm) or supplemented by new standard-gauge high-speed lines. Important freight corridors such as the Mediterranean Corridor and the Atlantic Corridor are being expanded and modernized to improve connections to the rest of the European network.

Projects in the Western Balkans: With financial and technical support from the EU, the countries of the Western Balkans are expanding and modernizing their rail infrastructure. The focus is often on electrification and the development of important international corridors.

Germany's role as a central transit nation and national modernization initiatives

Due to its geographical location in the heart of Europe, Germany plays a key role as a logistics hub. A large portion of European transit traffic, particularly on the east-west axes, traverses Germany. The German government has launched various programs to strengthen rail freight, such as the "Master Plan for Rail Freight," and is planning significant investments in the refurbishment and modernization of the existing network. Key priorities include expanding the network to accommodate 740-meter-long freight trains, upgrading the eastern corridor, and modernizing important railway junctions. Nevertheless, Germany faces major challenges: a significant backlog of investment, capacity bottlenecks on many lines and at key junctions, and the slow implementation of digitalization (especially ETCS) are impacting the performance of the German rail network.

Despite ambitious EU-wide strategies and significant investments in major projects, the actual realization of a seamlessly interoperable European rail network remains a task that will extend over decades. The complexity arises from the need to harmonize diverging national interests, differing technical starting points, and enormous financing requirements. The repeated criticism by the European Court of Auditors regarding unrealistic targets and inadequate implementation of EU strategies underscores this challenge.

The modernization of key terminals at the rail gauge boundaries, such as Małaszewicze or Chop, is not only crucial for civilian trade (e.g., within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative or EU-Ukraine trade), but has also gained additional strategic urgency due to its dual-use potential. The capacity and efficiency of these terminals are directly linked to their ability to handle military logistics flows along the important east-west axis. Thus, civilian and military interests converge in the modernization of these hubs, potentially increasing investment and political support for such projects.

Germany's central role and its existing infrastructure deficits mean that delays or shortcomings in modernizing the German network and its connections to the Eastern Corridors will have far-reaching negative consequences for pan-European freight flows and the military mobility of NATO and the EU. The success of pan-European interoperability and dual-use strategies therefore depends significantly on Germany's commitment and progress in this area.

Benefit from Xpert.Digital's extensive, five-fold expertise in a comprehensive service package | R&D, XR, PR & Digital Visibility Optimization - Image: Xpert.Digital

Xpert.Digital possesses in-depth knowledge across various industries. This allows us to develop tailored strategies precisely aligned with the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continuously analyzing market trends and monitoring industry developments, we can act proactively and offer innovative solutions. The combination of experience and expertise generates added value and provides our clients with a decisive competitive advantage.

More information here:

• Benefit from Xpert.Digital's 5 areas of expertise in one package – starting from just €500/month

Dual-use logistics: A catalyst for the modernization of rail infrastructure

The concept of dual-use logistics, meaning the ability of infrastructures and systems to serve both civilian and military purposes, has gained considerable importance in recent years. Particularly in the context of European rail infrastructure, it is proving to be a potential catalyst for urgently needed modernization measures, especially on the strategically important east-west axes.

Related to this:

• Hybrid, multimodal logistics transport (road-rail) in Germany with civil-military dual use

Definition and relevance of dual-use logistics in the European context

Dual-use logistics infrastructure refers to transport routes and facilities—such as rail networks, roads, ports, airports, and especially transshipment terminals—that are designed, built, or upgraded to meet the requirements of both civilian freight and passenger transport and the specific needs of military transport. The strategic necessity arises from the changed geopolitical situation, particularly the war in Ukraine, which has brought the requirements for robust military mobility and a secure civilian supply chain to the forefront. The goal is to leverage synergies between civilian and military requirements and to avoid the development of parallel, potentially redundant infrastructures.

The role of military mobility (EU & NATO initiatives) as a driver for infrastructure investment

Various initiatives at EU and NATO level underline the growing importance of military mobility and drive investment in dual-use infrastructure:

EU Action Plan on Military Mobility: The current Action Plan (Version 2.0, for 2022-2026) provides a comprehensive framework for developing a well-connected military mobility network. Key priorities include shorter response times, resilient infrastructure, and promoting investment in dual-use transport infrastructure along the TEN-T network.

The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) for military mobility: This specific EU financing mechanism provided approximately €1.7 billion for the co-financing of dual-use projects for the period 2021-2027. These funds have now been fully allocated to 95 projects in 21 countries, with Germany benefiting significantly to the tune of over €296 million.

PESCO project “Military Mobility”: This initiative within the framework of the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) serves as a platform for simplifying and standardizing cross-border military transport procedures with the aim of reducing bureaucratic hurdles.

NATO logistics initiatives: NATO emphasizes the need for the rapid deployment of forces and equipment, which places high demands on civilian infrastructure, including railways. Rail transport capacity has been identified as a key factor in this context.

TEN-T Regulation and Dual Use: The revised TEN-T Regulation (2024) enshrines the concept of a military mobility network in EU law and obliges the Commission to identify priority military mobility corridors. This increasingly transforms the TEN-T network into a dual-use infrastructure.

These initiatives create a strong incentive for member states to consider military requirements in infrastructure planning and to prioritize corresponding projects. This represents a paradigm shift: infrastructure planning is no longer viewed solely from a civilian economic or environmental perspective, but acquires a strong security policy dimension. This can shift priorities and realign financing mechanisms, for example by mobilizing funds from defense budgets for infrastructure projects that simultaneously deliver significant civilian benefits.

Synergies and challenges in the implementation of dual-use projects on the railway

The implementation of dual-use projects in rail transport offers both significant synergy potential and specific challenges:

Synergies

Accelerated modernization of civilian infrastructure can be achieved through military necessities and the associated provision of financial resources.

The increase in capacity, the improvement in resilience and the raising of technical standards (e.g. higher load-bearing capacities of bridges, larger clearance profiles for tunnels, expansion for 740m trains) benefit both civilian and military users.

Improved interoperability, for example through the accelerated introduction of ERTMS or the standardization of terminal processes, benefits all road users.

challenges

Diverging priorities: Civil planning often focuses on cost-efficiency and regularity, while military requirements emphasize robustness, speed, and the ability to handle peak loads (e.g., large convoys, heavy equipment).

Security aspects: Protecting critical dual-use infrastructure from physical attacks, sabotage or cyberattacks, as well as ensuring information security during military transport, requires special measures.

Complex coordination: Planning, financing and operation of dual-use infrastructure require close coordination between numerous actors (military, civilian authorities, infrastructure operators, transport companies) at the national and international level.

Financing: Long-term and sustainable financing for dual-use projects, especially after the expiration of specific funding programs such as CEF for military mobility, must be ensured. The allocation of costs between defense and transportation budgets also needs to be clarified.

Track gauge differences: The specific problem of track gauge incompatibility at the boundaries with broad-gauge networks is not automatically solved by dual-use investments. Military equipment, often transported on standard-gauge railcars, still needs to be transshipped or transported on gauge-convertible systems at these boundaries. However, the dual-use logic can justify investments in more efficient transshipment terminals or gauge-conversion facilities at these strategic boundaries, as they are critical for military mobility.

Concrete examples of dual-use projects and plans

Along the west-east corridors and in Germany, there are already concrete approaches and projects that take dual-use aspects into account:

CEF-funded projects in Germany: Within the framework of the CEF for military mobility, funds have been approved for the expansion of passing loops, the strengthening of bridges for heavier loads, and the expansion of terminals for combined transport. The aim is to improve the network's accessibility for long and heavy freight trains, which benefits both civilian and military transport.

Rail Baltica: This major project is explicitly considered a dual-use undertaking with high military relevance for NATO's eastern flank. By creating a continuous standard-gauge rail link through the Baltic states, which currently use the Russian broad-gauge network, military deployment capabilities in this strategically important region will be significantly improved.

Modernization of terminals on the EU's eastern borders: The expansion and modernization of transshipment terminals such as Małaszewicze (Poland) and Chop (Ukraine) serve to increase transshipment capacity and efficiency. This is of great importance for both civilian trade (e.g., the Belt and Road Initiative, EU-Ukraine traffic) and military logistics.

Finland's potential conversion to standard gauge: Finland's considerations regarding converting its broad-gauge network to European standard gauge are also discussed in the context of NATO membership and the associated need for improved military logistics and connectivity to the Western defense alliance.

Identification of priority military mobility corridors: The EU, in cooperation with its Member States and NATO, has identified priority corridors for military transport, which often include important east-west axes. Investments in upgrading these corridors are prioritized accordingly.

Prioritizing dual-use corridors, particularly along west-east axes, also carries the risk of concentrating investment on a few strategic routes. If overall funding for transport infrastructure remains limited, other equally important but purely civilian north-south connections or regional networks could be disadvantaged. This creates the risk of a “two-tier infrastructure,” where strategically and militarily important corridors are modernized while other parts of the network are potentially neglected. A balanced development strategy is therefore essential.

Selected dual-use rail infrastructure projects and initiatives in Europe relevant to west-east traffic and track gauges

Selected dual-use rail infrastructure projects and initiatives in Europe relevant to west-east traffic and track gauges – Image: Xpert.Digital

Project/Initiative: CEF for Military Mobility (EU)

The EU's "CEF for Military Mobility" initiative pursues both civilian and military objectives. At the civilian level, the focus is on increasing efficiency, expanding capacity, and modal shift. For military purposes, the aim is to accelerate troop and equipment movements, strengthen the resilience of supply chains, and improve interoperability. Key stakeholders include the European Commission and Member States such as Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, and Hungary. Funding is provided by the EU through the CEF program (approximately €1.7 billion until 2023, now fully allocated) and through national co-financing. A key focus is the adaptation and improvement of standard-gauge lines for heavier loads and longer trains, the expansion of combined transport terminals, including at track gauge boundaries, and preparation for the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) to enhance interoperability.

Project/Initiative: Rail Baltica

Rail Baltica is a comprehensive infrastructure project aimed at connecting the Baltic states to the European standard-gauge rail network, thereby boosting trade and tourism. The project also has a military dimension: it is intended to improve mobility on NATO's eastern flank and enable the rapid deployment of reinforcements. Key stakeholders include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the EU, and indirectly, Finland. Funding is provided through the EU's Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and national budgets. Specifically, a completely new standard-gauge line with a track gauge of 1435 mm is being built through areas previously served by broad-gauge lines with a gauge of 1520 mm.

Project/Initiative: Modernization of the Małaszewicze Terminal (PL)

The modernization of the Małaszewicze terminal in Poland pursues a dual objective: On a civilian level, it aims to increase transshipment capacity for trade between the EU and Asia within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative and to enable the handling of longer trains. On a military level, the initiative serves the efficient handling of military goods at the border with the broad-gauge rail network in Belarus. Key players in the project are Polish companies such as CARGOTOR and PKP Cargo. Financing is provided through Polish national funds, although private investors may also be involved. A central aspect is the improvement of the transshipment facilities at the interface between the standard gauge (1435 mm) and broad gauge (1520 mm) to promote interoperability.

Project/Initiative: Modernization of terminals on the Ukrainian border (e.g. Chop, Medyka, Dorohusk)

The modernization of terminals on the Ukrainian border, such as those in Chop, Medyka, and Dorohusk, pursues the civilian goal of facilitating trade between the EU and Ukraine and creating alternative transport routes. From a military perspective, the focus is on ensuring supplies and support, as well as the transshipment of military aid. Key stakeholders include Ukraine, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and the EU. Funding is provided by EU and national sources, as well as international donors. A central aspect is the expansion of transshipment capacities and gauge-changing facilities at the border to ensure interoperability between standard gauge (1435 mm) and broad gauge (1520 mm) railways.

Project/Initiative: National bridge strengthening programs (e.g. in Germany)

National bridge strengthening programs, such as those in Germany, pursue both civilian and military objectives. In the civilian sector, the aim is to increase the load-bearing capacity for modern freight wagons and heavy transport, while the military focus is on ensuring accessibility for heavy military vehicles according to MLC standards. The main stakeholders are the national transport ministries and infrastructure operators such as DB Infrago. Funding is primarily provided through national transport budgets, although co-financing from defense funds or EU funds, such as the CEF MM, is possible. A direct link to track gauges and interoperability is established by adapting standard-gauge infrastructure to higher load requirements, which indirectly affects interoperability with heavy rolling stock.

Project/Initiative: Expansion of passing loops / 740m network (e.g. in Germany)

The project to expand passing loops and the 740-meter network, for example in Germany, pursues both civilian and military objectives. From a civilian perspective, the aim is to operate longer freight trains more efficiently and increase the capacity of the rail network. From a military perspective, the goal is to enable the transport of longer military convoys by rail. The main stakeholders include national infrastructure operators and transport ministries. Funding comes from national transport budgets as well as EU funds, particularly from the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) program. An important aspect is the optimization of the standard-gauge infrastructure to handle heavier trains and longer trains and to ensure interoperability within the network.

Project/Initiative: Finnish considerations on gauge conversion

The Finnish gauge conversion project aims, from a civilian perspective, to improve integration into the European Economic Area and achieve efficiency gains. From a military perspective, it seeks to optimize logistical connections with NATO partners and enable faster deployment of equipment and troops without the need to change gauges at the Swedish border. The main actors in this project are Finland, and potentially the EU and NATO. Financing is currently unclear but could be provided at the national, EU, or NATO level. In the context of track gauges and interoperability, a conversion of the Finnish broad-gauge network (1524 mm) to the standard gauge (1435 mm) prevalent in Europe could be considered.

Dual-use logistics: An opportunity for modernizing the railways

The analysis of the different track gauges of railways in Europe and their impact on international freight transport, particularly on the west-east axes through Germany, reveals a complex picture of historically grown obstacles, current challenges, and promising solutions. The fragmentation of rail infrastructure due to different track gauges remains a core operational and economic problem that significantly impairs the efficiency and competitiveness of rail freight. This problem is further exacerbated by additional interoperability gaps in areas such as train control systems, power supply, and administrative procedures.

There is no universal solution to overcome these obstacles. Rather, a combination of different approaches is required

Optimizing freight handling: Especially for the growing container traffic, increasing efficiency in transshipment terminals at track gauge boundaries is of central importance.

Use of technical track-changing systems: Advanced automatic track-changing systems such as Talgo or SUW 2000 offer significant time and cost advantages for certain types of traffic, but their wider application is hampered by high investment costs and standardization issues.

Strategic infrastructure projects: Major projects such as Rail Baltica, which creates a continuous standard gauge connection to previously broad gauge regions, or the targeted modernization of key terminals at the system boundaries are essential.

Germany, as a central European transit nation and leading economic power, plays a key role. The efficiency of the German rail network and its connection to international corridors have a direct impact on pan-European freight flows. Existing shortcomings in the German network, such as investment backlogs and capacity bottlenecks, therefore negatively affect the vision of an integrated European railway area.

A significant new impetus for the modernization of rail infrastructure stems from the increased security policy importance of military mobility. The concept of dual-use logistics offers a substantial opportunity to accelerate and politically legitimize urgently needed investments in rail. The synergies between civilian efficiency requirements and military robustness and speed needs can enhance the resilience and performance of the entire European transport system. The modernization of European rail infrastructure, particularly overcoming the track gauge issue, is therefore no longer merely a matter of economic efficiency or environmental protection, but an integral component of European security architecture and strategic autonomy.

However, significant challenges remain for the future

Sustainable financing: Long-term, secure financing mechanisms are needed for infrastructure projects that extend beyond current funding periods and geopolitical cycles.

Accelerating planning and approval: Bureaucratic hurdles must be reduced in order to implement projects faster and more efficiently.

True interoperability: Efforts towards standardization must be consistently continued – not only for track gauges, but also for ERTMS, energy supply systems, digital platforms and cross-border administrative processes.

Balancing civilian and military priorities: It must be ensured that the prioritization of certain corridors and projects driven by dual-use requirements does not lead to the neglect of other important civilian transport needs or regional connections.

The successful utilization of the current dual-use dynamic for a comprehensive modernization of European rail infrastructure depends crucially on whether the often short-term, crisis-driven focus on military needs can be transformed into a long-term, sustainable strategy for an integrated European transport system. This system must meet both the diverse civilian requirements for competitive and environmentally friendly freight transport and the (potential) military requirements for fast and resilient mobility, without one side disproportionately dominating the other.

A consistent expansion of interoperable and high-performance rail corridors, driven by a shared European vision and supported by innovative technologies and the strategic use of dual-use synergies, offers immense opportunities. It can not only strengthen the competitiveness of rail in the European freight market and make a crucial contribution to achieving climate goals, but also sustainably consolidate Europe's economic and political integration as well as its strategic autonomy in a changing world.

Markus Becker

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

Head of Business Development

Chairman SME Connect Defense Working Group

LinkedIn

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development

Konrad Wolfenstein

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form below or simply call me on +49 7348 4088 965 (Munich) .

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

Xpert.Digital is a hub for industry focusing on digitalization, mechanical engineering, logistics/intralogistics and photovoltaics.

With our 360° Business Development solution, we support renowned companies from new business to after-sales.

Market intelligence, smarketing, marketing automation, content development, PR, mail campaigns, personalized social media and lead nurturing are part of our digital tools.

You can find more information at: www.xpert.digital - www.xpert.solar - www.xpert.plus