"DAC and ETCS present significant challenges for European railway infrastructure," said Martin Hořínek, President of ŽESNAD.CZ

In an exclusive interview with RAILTARGET, the president of the ŽESNAD.CZ association, Martin Hořínek, discussed the main topics addressed during the Rail Summit. He highlighted the challenges posed by the Digital Automatic Coupler (DAC), the issues related to the constant development of the ETCS system, and the lack of infrastructure capacity. Hořínek emphasized that finding effective solutions to these problems is crucial for the future of rail transport and its ability to compete with road alternatives.

Mr. Hořínek, could you briefly summarize today’s Rail Summit meeting that took place in Fantova Hall?

We gathered friendly associations of freight railway operators from all over Europe this time. We range basically from Germany to the south of Europe, and we discussed the problems we face. We identified the biggest problems that hinder us in our goal to shift goods from road to rail. These problems are primarily the looming DAC, meaning Digital Automatic Coupling, which we don’t want to stop, but we want to moderate the development so that the technical evaluation is done first to determine which variant is suitable, that it is tested, that co-financing is ensured, and that a quality financial analysis is performed. Because this involves an enormous amount of money, and if someone forcibly imposed this new technology on us, it would harm the railway sector, as we wouldn't be able to bear the costs.

Another topic was ETCS. Not that we are against ETCS, but we have problems with the continuous development of new versions, and those operators who purchased ETCS years ago, knowing that from January 1st next year they must have ETCS, logically bought locomotives with the available versions. The available baselines, and now we’re finding that suddenly we must upgrade to higher versions, pay for upgrades, to be able to operate on some sections because those were built on a higher version than when we bought the locomotives.

And the third part of our discussion was infrastructure. That means a lack of capacity, especially on the main corridors, and I emphasize – we didn’t only discuss the Czech Republic. Since there were representatives from across Europe, we discussed this across the entire European infrastructure.

So can we say that all freight rail operators are troubled by the same problems?

Yes, exactly. All the associations representing other operators agreed that these topics are common and that we all have the same problems across Europe.

Did today’s meeting result in any statement that you intend to communicate further with European institutions?

First of all, we will release the initial conclusions to the media this afternoon—just the general ones, so they can fit on social media—so you’ll definitely receive that from us. And in the coming days, a memorandum will be prepared, which will contain our detailed demands, and then we will send that to the transport ministers of the countries from which today's representatives were present, as well as to DG Move in Brussels.

So, could it be said that a sort of – joint block, a united effort across Central and Southern Europe was established here in Prague?

Exactly, madam. Today, Prague witnessed a common effort and determination to move forward and enable more freight on the railways and shift goods from road to rail. But just because we wish for something doesn’t mean it will happen, so we stated what we need to create better conditions for the transfer of goods, and it will now be up to those who have it in their hands to do something about it.

You are, of course, the president of the Czech Republic's freight operators’ association ŽESNAD.CZ and there were also representatives of Slovakia’s AROS and others here. You repeatedly, together, claim that the investment into Digital Automatic Coupling must be fully covered, 100%, for all freight rail operators. You’ve said that it shouldn't just be 100% but even 120%, because, of course, there are additional costs, like adapting trains that can’t be in operation, and so on. Now voices are saying that operators may get only 50% of the total investment. Is that acceptable to you, or is it alarming?

It’s, of course, unacceptable because 50% can’t even remotely cover what awaits us. Because we have costs for the conversion, and to this day, no one has even said how much it will cost, because the final variant hasn’t been chosen or approved yet. Whether it will be the most autonomous version if I can put it that way, this variant 5 can connect and disconnect everything. On top of that, there are tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of wagons in Europe that can’t be equipped with this coupling at all, and thus the wagons we scrap—we won’t be scrapping wagons that are only eight years old. There are plenty of wagons between five and ten years old, which were manufactured relatively recently, and they won’t ever be able to be fitted with this. The reason for that is the trend towards making wagons as light as possible with the maximum possible storage capacity. Therefore, these wagons have weakened structures, and if DAC were installed on them now, they wouldn’t withstand the strength tests. It simply wouldn’t work. So, we have a big threat here that if someone mandates it and doesn’t fund it 100%, or even more, it will mean huge existential problems for operators if they are forced to scrap these new wagons and buy new ones. Economically, it just doesn’t make sense.

And what do you think would be the best practical solution, the most ideal scenario for operators?

Well, speaking for our association, the best scenario would be if each operator or wagon owner could do their own financial analysis—whether it’s worth it for them or not. Because some run unit trains, some don’t, and there are many operators, and wagon owners, with specific operating conditions. Everyone should do their own analysis and say, "Yes, I want to do this," meanwhile figuring out what the co-financing will be, and deciding whether to proceed or not. And those who say, "For me, it’s a nonsensical economic move," won’t go for it and will continue to operate their trains because they know they almost don’t need shunters, they run unit trains, and there’s no point in wasting 40,000 euros per wagon because the customer won’t pay for it.

So, from your point of view, it should be on a voluntary basis?

Yes, that’s what I wanted to say—voluntarily.

And if I ask about the pioneer train projects, what’s your take on that?

Well, we didn’t apply for that. And we didn’t want to. It’s clear that if the project is to get going somehow, then trying it out in practice is necessary. So, two years of running pioneer trains is fine, but it should have been determined first who would pay for it. Not "apply first" and then those who did apply find out that there’s no way to finance it yet and that no one has discussed it with them. So that was poorly conceived. Those who applied realized there’s a problem—there’s no money for it.

ŽESNAD.CZ is active in international policy, and you have your own lobbyist in Brussels who, let’s say, helps with international relations. Do you see that as a positive step?

Absolutely. At first, we hesitated about using this person, because we had to pay him. It’s official, he needs money for it. In the end, we decided to give it a try for a short time, and we’ve been working with him for about a year now. And for us, it’s been a very good step. He’s helped us, not just with DAC, but also with issues like capacity declarations or capacity management of the railway, which is currently being discussed at the European Commission. The capacity regulation.