Content uploaded by Xu Zhang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Xu Zhang on Feb 18, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Eurasian Rail Freight in the One Belt One Road Era
Hans-Joachim Schramm * **
Xu Zhang ***
*) Department of Global Business and Trade, Institute for Transport and Logistics Manage-
ment, WU Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, 1090 Wien, Austria, E-mail: hschramm@wu.ac.at
**) Department for Operations Management, Copenhagen Business School, 2000 Frederiks-
berg, Denmark, E-mail: hsc.om@cbs.dk
***) School of Transport Engineering, Environment and Planning, Technological University
Dublin, E-mail: xuzhang1@mydit.ie
Abstract
This paper presents an overview of the recent development of Eurasian rail freight in the One
Belt, One Road Era and further evaluates its service quality in terms of transit times and
transport costs compared to other transport modes in containerised supply chains between Eu-
rope and China. A trade-off model of transit time and transport costs based on quantitative data
from primary as well as secondary sources is developed to demonstrate the market niche for
Eurasian rail freight vis-a-vis the more established modes of transport of sea, air, and sea/air.
In a scenario analysis, further goods attributes influencing modal choice are employed to show
for which cargo type Eurasian rail freight service is favourable.
According to our calculations, Eurasian rail freight is about 80% less expensive than air freight
with only half of the transit time of conventional sea freight. Our scenario analysis further sug-
gests that for shipping time sensitive goods with value ranging from 1.23 USD/kg to 10.89
USD/kg as well as goods with lower time sensitivity and value in a range of 2.46 USD/kg to
21.78 USD/kg, total logistics costs of Eurasian rail freight service beat all other modes of
transport. Hence, Eurasian rail freight seems to be an option beneficial in terms of transport
cost, transit time, reliability and service availability, which enables shippers to build up agile
and sustainable supply chains between China and Europe.
Keywords
One Belt, One Road; Belt and Road Initiative, container block train; quality of service; transport
cost; transit time
1. Introduction
In 2013, the term ‘One Belt, One Road’ (OBOR) came into the spotlight as China’s masterplan
initiative to revive the Ancient Silk Road was announced by Chinese president Xi Jinping. The
OBOR initiative (or shortly BRI following NDRC, 2015) is often communicated as a “national
vision” and “foreign strategy” towards regional cooperation, and it is also mentioned in relation
to infrastructural project construction and investments (van der Leer and Yau, 2016).
Basically, the BRI includes two major parts - the New Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-
Century Maritime Silk Road (hereinafter referred to as the Belt and the Road respectively).
2
Both represent a network of ports, railways, roads, pipelines, and utility grids connecting China
with Central Asia, West Asia, and parts of South Asia, Europe, and Africa (NDRC, 2015; Tian,
2016). Though, the BRI is more than just physical connections (Tian, 2016), it provides a blue-
print framework for Chinese diplomatic, commercial, and foreign infrastructure policies to get
access to new markets for trade and investments (van der Putten and Meijnders 2015). The aims
of the BRI are to (1) promote connectivity of Asian, European and African continents via land,
sea and air, (2) establish and strengthen regional cooperation and partnerships among the coun-
tries along these routes, and (3) facilitate flow of economic resources and integration of markets
(Song, 2015). Currently, the Eurasian rail freight only take a small share of the total transport
volume between China and Europe (Kaplan, 2016). However, with a rapid growth of freight
transport on the rail routes along the Belt, the Ancient Silk Road trading routes are coming back
to life again as container block trains, have emerged as an alternative transport mode there in
recent time (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: China-Europe rail freight continues to soar
Source: CRCT (2018)
In terms of transit time, a typical container block train from e.g. Chongqing to Western Europe
takes at present 14 to 20 days on the Belt route, which is half of the time than shipments spend
on the Road route with 31 to 48 days (Kaplan, 2016; Kuester, 2017; Seo et al., 2017). In terms
of transport costs, rail is regarded to be much cheaper than pure air transport (Davies, 2017).
Therefore, with a speed advantage against sea and price advantage against air, Eurasian rail
freight seems to fit a market niche in modern supply chains with great potential to grow its
market share in the future. It is expected, that the potential rail freight volume on the Belt routes
will grow 50 times from 2012 to 2020 (Luica, 2013) and according to the five-year development
plan issued by the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the num-
ber of trains is expected to reach 5,000 by 2020 (Luo, 2017).
Although these really impressive figures circulating, research in Eurasian rail freight between
China and Europe is so far subject to merely anecdotal empirical evidence, consultancy work
or policy studies (Davydenko et al., 2012; UNECE, 2012, 2017; Galushko, 2016; Jakóbowski
et al., 2018; Vinokurov et al., 2018) and only a few recent scholarly contributions are worth
mentioning like Rodemann and Templar (2014), Chen et al. (2017), Besharati et al. (2017), Seo
et al. (2017), or Panova et al. (2018), as well as some in Chinese language discussed in Liu et
al. (2018). Other recent works like Song and Na (2012), Regmi and Hanaokab (2012), Tsuji
(2013) or Moon et al. (2015) focused on transports via Trans-Siberian Railway with a short sea
leg from China, South Korea and/or Japan to Russian Far East.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Container block trains p.a.
Trains WB Trains EB
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
TEU transported p.a.
TEU WB TEU EB
3
The aim of this paper is provide an objective overview of the present Eurasian rail freight mar-
ket. Therefore, desk research of sources available in English, Russian and Chinese language are
complemented by interviews with main players being active on this market. In the following,
common routings, major players, present bottlenecks and service quality issues of Eurasian rail
freight are discussed in Sections 2, before the trade-off between transit times and transport costs
compared with other modes of transport followed by a scenario analysis based on cargo type to
demonstrate the market nice for Eurasian rail freight services in Section 3. The paper concludes
then in Section 4 with a discussion of the results in a wider context, followed by managerial
implications, limitations and suggestions for further research.
2. Eurasian Rail Freight Transport in the OBOR Era
Dating back more than 3,000 years, the Ancient Silk Road emerged between Asia and Europe,
it ran 15,000 km between the old capital city Xi’an in China and the Roman Empire, connecting
China, India, Persia, Arabia, Egypt and Rome along the route (Otsuka, 2001; Lin, 2011). Com-
modities such as silks, gems, gold, silver, carpets, tea, paper, spices were carried by camels or
donkeys transporting between Asia and Europe (Otsuka, 2001), as Marco Polo recorded in the
late 13th century, it took him four years to travel along the entire Ancient Silk Road by foot
(Woods, 2015). Later in the 17th century, as European voyagers thrived the maritime trading
route, this land route faded out due to its overall longer transport time (Otsuka, 2001).
However, the emerging Eurasian land bridge revives the Ancient Silk Road as a land route for
trading between east and west – not by camel or donkey but by railway (Otsuka, 2001), and
goods remain in the same container for the entire intermodal journey (Rodrigue, 2017). It con-
nects cities in Europe with Russian Far East and China by railway lines running through East
Asia, Central Asia, Southern Russia, Eastern Mediterranean, Arabian Peninsula and Europe
(Lin, 2011). Given that at least some parts of the Eurasian land bridge follow the same track
with the Ancient Silk Road, thus it is also called “New Silk Road” or “Modern Silk Road”
(Zhang, 2013; NDRC, 2015). This New Silk Road includes two major rail land bridges between
Europe and Asia as shown in Figure 2, namely:
• The Trans-Siberian Railway (TSR, or First Eurasian Land Bridge) served as the main
land bridge between Russian Far East and Western Europe from the late 1960s until the
early 1990s (Lilliopolou et al., 2005; Pieriegud, 2007). The TSR starts from the Russian Far
East Pacific seaports Vladivostok and Nakhodka running west through Russian Federation
to Moscow, and further reaches European countries such like Finland, Latvia and Poland
through different rail routes (Zhang, 2013; OSJD, 2017), at the east end, maritime links
connecting the aforementioned Russian seaports with China, South Korea or Japan are also
considered as natural extension of the intermodal transport routes of this traditional Eura-
sian land bridge (Zhang, 2013).
• The New Eurasian Land Bridge (NELB, or Second Eurasian Land Bridge) originally
spans from the pacific port of Lianyungang in China running through China, Kazakhstan,
Russian Federation, Belarus to Rotterdam in the Netherlands (Islam et al., 2013; OSJD,
2017) with a variety of intermodal terminals as points of origin and destination in between.
4
Figure 2: Route of the Trans-Siberian Railway (red) and the New Eurasian Land Bridge
(green), Source: http://en.osjd.org/dbmm/download?vp=68&load=y&col_id=121&id=258
Present Eurasian Rail Freight Main Route Characteristics
The abovementioned TSR and NELB are the current two main routes connecting Asia to Eu-
rope (Sárvári and Szeidovitz, 2016). Notably, these two major Eurasian land bridges consist of
several train routings across various countries with individual branch lines that partially share
the same main line sections as well (Rodemann and Templar, 2014). They can be described as
follows:
The Northern Corridor provides three alternative branch lines connecting China and Europe
via TSR (Islam et al., 2013, Galushko, 2016), namely:
• China – TSR via Alashankou/Dostik and transit through Kazakhstan (Kazakh route)
• China – TSR via Erenhot/Zamyn-Uud and transit through Mongolia (Mongolian route)
• China – TSR via Manzhouli/Zabajkalsk (Manchurian route)
Trains on this route start somewhere in China, head via one of the three border crossings for
the TSR toward west and enter European Union at Brest/Malaszewicze, Chop/Dobra or (but to
much less extent) via Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and/or the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad
(OJSD, 2017). However, it is noted that the classic TSR line starting in Vladivostok or Na-
chodka is not considered in the BRI development strategy (Sárvári and Szeidovitz, 2016).
The Central Corridor provides an alternative east-west route through Kazakhstan and Russian
Federation to connect China and Europe called NELB. Trains on this route cross the Chinese -
Kazakh border at Alashankou/Dostik or Altynkol/Khorgos and usually run further west via rail-
way lines south to the TSR towards the aforementioned border crossings to European Union.
This route is the main target of the Belt in the BRI (Sárvári and Szeidovitz, 2016).
Meanwhile, it is worth to mention that there is the Southern Corridor called the Trans-Caspian
International Transport Route (TITR, http://titr.kz/en) upcoming which runs through Kazakh-
stan, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan and Georgia further to Turkey, Ukraine or European coun-
tries. However, this routing requires at least one ferry trip across the Caspian Sea, and trans-
cends Caucasus towards the Black Sea or Turkey to reach Europe and these multiple border
crossings, ferry trips and current geopolitical issues in the Caucasus region make it rather unat-
tractive at present (Sárvári and Szeidovitz, 2016).
Current Development of Eurasian Rail Freight Services
In March 2011, China launched the China Railway Express (CRE) freight service with the aim
to enhance connectivity with markets in Central Asia and Europe along the Belt of BRI (Luo,
2017). Originating from different parts of China, these container block trains have different
5
routings: trains starting in the western part of China like Urumqi, Chongqing, Chengdu and
Wuhan go via Alashankou or Altynkol to Europe, whereas trains from the east coastal and
northern region such as Putian, Suzhou and Zhengzhou leave China via Manzhouli or Erenhot
and follow the TSR to Europe (Luo, 2017; OSJD, 2017; CRCT, 2018). By end of 2017, the
main intermodal terminals on the European side were Malaszewicze, Warsaw, Duisburg or
Hamburg, with some dedicated block trains also end at Budapest, Klaipeda, Lodz, London,
Madrid, Muuga, Nuremberg, Pardubice, Riga, Rotterdam, Schwarzheide or Tilburg (OSJD,
2017; CRCT, 2018).
6
Market Player
Function
Example
Shipper
Cargo owner, clients of
forwarders
Siemens-Fujitsu, BSH, BMW, HP*, Apple*, Acer*,
Foxconn*, Haier*, Samsung*, Audi*, Volkswagen*,
Volvo*, Decathlon*, etc.
Forwarder
Organises transport
on behalf of shippers
Kuehne & Nagel, DB Schenker, DHL*, GEFCO*,
HAL Logistics*, Cosco Logistics*, Sino Railway*,
Sinotrans*, Kerry Logistics*, Pantos Logistics*, DSV*,
Belintertrans*, Silvirom*, Gebr. Weiss*, Panalpina*, etc.
Container operator
Container carrier,
organises dedicated
block trains or single
container transports
InterRail Services, Russkaya Troyka, Hupac Interna-
tional Logistics, Far Eastern Transport Group (DVTG)*,
Far East Land Bridge (FELB)*, China Railway Express
(CRE)*, Sino Railway*, Hunan Xiang Ou Express Lo-
gistics*, Hao Logistics*, YuXinOu Logistics*, Yiwu CF
Intl. Logistics*, HLT Intl. Logistics Ningbo (H&T)*,
Wuhan Asia-Europe Logistics (WAE)*, etc.
National railway
company
Provision of traction,
infrastructure, wagons,
tariff policy
Russian Railways (RZD), Belarussian Railways (BC),
Kazakhstan Railways (KZH)*, Chinese Railways
(KZD)*, Deutsche Bahn (DB)*, Polish State Railways
(PKP)*, Latvian Railways (LDZ)*, Railcargo Austria*
Affiliated company
for container
transport
Organises and operates
intermodal transport on
behalf of railways
DB Intermodal, TransContainer, KTZ Express*, United
Transport & Logistics Company (UTLC)*, CRInter-
modal*, China Railway Container Transport (CRCT)*,
Trans Eurasia Logistics (TEL)*, YuXinOu Logistics*
Container owners
Owns containers for own
transport and/or leasing;
shipping companies,
leasing companies
Maersk, Evergreen, Seaco, China Railway Express*,
Far East Land Bridge (FELB)*, TransContainer*,
Far Eastern Transport Group (DVTG)*, Pantos Logis-
tics*, China Railway Container Transport (CRCT)*, etc.
Terminal operator
Handling of containers
on behalf of container
transport companies
and container owners
Deutsche Umschlaggesellschaft Schiene-Straße (DUSS),
TransContainer, Duisport*, Russian Railways (RZD)*,
Far Eastern Transport Group (DVTG)*, CRIntermodal*,
China Railway Container Transport (CRCT)*,
PKP Cargo*, KTZ Express*
Railway agency
Books transport on be-
half of train operator
Kaztransservice, Transrail, Belintertrans*
Customs agents
Customs clearance on
behalf of forwarders
Far Eastern Transport Group (DVTG)*, PKP Cargo*,
United Transport & Logistics Company (UTLC)*,
TransContainer*, Pantos Logistics*, Belintertrans*
Table 1: Principal market players in Eurasian rail freight container transport
Source: Davydenko et al., (2012), Pieriegud (2007), updates by the authors indicated with “*”
Currently, most of the goods transported on these Eurasian rail freight routes between China
and Europe are mainly household appliances, machinery and equipment, automotive vehicles
and spare parts, food and beverages, garment and electrical products (Wang, 2017). The type
of cargo transported by rail gradually shifted to higher value-added goods (Sárvári and Szei-
dovitz, 2016), whereas the types of cargo on the return trips from Europe to China are high-
value automotive products and luxury products as well as foodstuff and beverages.
Furthermore, it is important to understand who the major players in this container block train
market are. As there is no central organization or an integrated corridor management platform,
these Eurasian rail freight corridors comprise a variety of different market players due to the
railway systems spanning multiple countries and operators, which forms a complex contractual
network (Davydenko et al., 2012; UNECE, 2017; Jakóbowski et al., 2018). Table 1 shows prin-
ciple market players in Eurasian rail freight container transport as identified by Davydenko et
7
al., 2012), Pieriegud (2007), and updated based on author’s desk research and interviews with
main players in the Eurasian rail freight market.
Bottlenecks in Eurasian Rail Freight Operations
With its obvious advantage over traditional sea freight and air freight between Asia and Europe,
Eurasian rail freight has been witnessed a growing trend of popularity in recent years. However,
operating long-haul container block trains across multiple countries in short time is not easy, as
complex legal environment, technical limitations, physical constrains, capacity limits, and po-
litical issues post bottlenecks in Eurasian rail freight operations (Islam et al., 2013). In the fol-
lowing, some current bottlenecks in Eurasian rail freight operations will be elaborated.
Complex legal environment: As these block trains cross various countries, consequently, po-
litical and legal differences occur which has been identified as the primary bottleneck in Eura-
sian rail freight operations (Rodemann, 2013). From the operation perspective, differences in
transport and customs law lead to arbitrary transport documentation and border crossing proce-
dures (Kallas, 2012, Galushko, 2016, Jakóbowski et al., 2018; Zhu and Filimonov, 2018) which
slows down transit time and heavily affects service reliability. But at least some recent improve-
ments can noted: (1) the International Rail Transport Committee (CIT, https://www.cit-rail.org)
established a combined CIM-SMGS consignment note as a commonly accepted transport doc-
ument along the Belt route (Galushko, 2016), (2) the foundation of the Eurasian Customs Union
(EACU, http://www.eurasiancommission.org) including Russian Federation, Belarus, and Ka-
zakhstan in 2010 eased at the same time transit through these countries and (3) China joined
the TIR Carnet transit framework in 2017 which will allow soon end-to-end transit operations
(UIBE and IRU, 2017). However, along the Eurasian rail freight routes, national monopolies in
railway operations are still common so that no free market entry is possible. This is again a
major inhibitor, too, especially due to the fact that at present, almost all container block trains
between China and Europe have to pass through Russian territory (Rodemann, 2013;
Jakóbowski et al., 2018).
Technical limitations: Along the New Silk Road, railway technology lacks unified standardi-
zation which hinders interoperability of railway systems (Galushko, 2016, Panova et al., 2018).
For example, Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Belarus as well as other Commonwealth of In-
dependent States (CIS) countries have broad gauge (1,520 mm), while China and most Euro-
pean countries use standard gauge (1,435 mm). Automatic gauge change technologies are ex-
isting but not in wide-spread use, so that either boogies of wagons have to be exchanged or
cargo have to be trans-loaded onto wagons with the correct gauge wide at least two times be-
tween China and Europe. However, the wide-spread use of 40’ containers (FEU) ease these
interoperability issues considerably - but it still takes about two to four hours to complete the
trans-load for a container block train. Beside this, technical infrastructure of railways en route
such as double track lines or electrification cannot taken for granted, which will also hinder an
uninterrupted transport (Liu, 2014).
Physical constrains: Rail operators always tend to use longer trains to make transports, customs
and documentations process more efficient (Woods, 2015). However, in China, a block train
can carry around 55 FEUs, on the TSR up to 75 FEUs, while in Europe, they are usually limited
to max. 44 FEUs, and also all freight trains have to give priority to passenger trains. Besides,
there is also limit on the structure gauge (or minimum clearance outline), in line with height
and width of tunnels and bridges that allow a train to access. Due to limited clearance for two
FEUs put on each other, container block trains running between China and Europe cannot run
double-stacked to add on capacity. What’s more, extreme weather condition with minus 40°
8
Celsius in Siberia can be a challenge for many sensitive goods. But according to Woods (2015)
and InterRail (2017), nowadays containers for such block trains are equipped with thermal in-
sulation and active temperature control systems whenever necessary.
Imbalanced cargo volume: In general, demand for goods exported from China to Europe is
higher than the other way around. Accordingly, the number of westbound block trains are about
three times of the eastbound ones (InterRail, 2017; Besharati et al., 2017; Vinokurov et al.,
2018, Jakóbowski et al., 2018). Reasons for this discrepancy are that (1) unlike in maritime
shipping, intermodal terminals in China are not co-located with distribution hubs and onward
carriage to final destinations may add up costs (Sárvári and Szeidovitz, 2016), (2) many Chinese
companies still hesitate to use the Belt route (Seo et al., 2017), and (3) it is not easy to fill
eastbound containers with European goods demanded at China as Russian Federation has im-
posed a ban on both import and transit of certain European food stuff through its territory and
so containers and wagons leave Europe quite often empty (Brinza, 2017; Jakóbowski et al.,
2018). However, a trend towards a more balanced ratio of westbound and eastbound cargo vol-
umes has been witnessed by major players such as DB Schenker (Woods, 2015) and InterRail
(InterRail, 2017).
Service Quality
It is commonly agreed that service quality is characterised by customer’s perception on service
(Shainesh and Mathur, 2000), so that it can be defined as “the difference between customer
expectations of service and perceived service” (Shahin, 2006). Accordingly, when service qual-
ity is to be evaluated, the difference between the services that customers expect and the services
perceived has to be examined. There are an array of factors and determinants to measure service
quality (Prasad and Shekhar, 2010). The most common used metrics for measurement of service
quality is called SERVQUAL, firstly proposed by Parasuraman et al., 1988). There, five di-
mensions - tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy are used as basic in-
struments for service quality measurement in order to examine gaps between expectations and
perceptions (Parasuraman et al., 1988; Zeithaml et al., 1990). Although the SERVQUAL in-
struments has been widely used, proven to be valid and reliable in different service contexts,
they still need to be modified and adapted to reflect specific service settings (Prasad and
Shekhar, 2010). Based on the SERVQUAL metrics, RAILQUAL has been developed as a ser-
vice quality scale to measure the rail service quality passenger transport with three additional
dimensions - convenience, comfort and connection - added to the basic five SERVQUAL met-
rics (Prasad and Shekhar, 2010). To understand the service quality of freight transport, there
are an array of variables proposed by researchers in investigating shippers’ freight service de-
cision choice between different transport modes. Matear and Gray (1993) applied principal
components analysis to explore the underlying structure of the service choice decision for ship-
pers and freight suppliers when choosing between sea and air modes of transport (see Table 2).
Five principal component - carrier, route, timing, price characteristics and control over other
parties have been considered as important factors in modal choice.
Among these five principle components, Matear and Gray (1993) pointed out that frequency,
reliability (i.e. punctuality concerning time of arrival) and capacity (i.e. the availability of
freight space) are the most important ones. Later on, Rodemann (2013) as well as Seo et al.,
2017) confirmed that transport cost, transit time, as well as transit time reliability are the major
modal choice decision criteria concerning goods transports between China and Europe.
9
Principal Component
Service Attributes
Carrier characteristics
Arrival time; Fast response to problems; Handle special requirements and urgent
deliveries; Good relationship with carrier.
Route characteristics
Proximity to origin and destination; Optimised route choice.
Timing characteristics
High service frequency; On time collection and delivery; Short transit time;
Price characteristics
Low price; Value for money price; Special offer or discounts.
Control over other parties
Transport preference of trading partner; Documentation completed carrier.
Table 2: Service attributes for service choice decision
Source: Adapted from Matear and Gray (1993)
3. Comparison of Transport Modes
Now we want to examine the service quality of rail freight compared to the other current exist-
ing transport solutions carrying containerised cargo between China and Europe, namely sea, air
and sea/air transport modes.
1
As mentioned before, transport cost and transit time have been
identified as the two major components contribute to the service quality of freight transport. To
achieve this purpose, a trade-off model and a scenario analysis will be constructed based on
transport costs and transit time, to compare the cost and time differences of sending a contain-
erized shipment from China to Europe by sea, air, sea/air, or rail respectively.
Data Collection
Quantitative data obtained in this study includes quotes of transport, transit time, distance of
each routes for each mode on each route (see Table 3). In order to maintain the integrity and
reliability of data collection process, freight rates for rail and sea/air were requested from major
container operators or forwarders through direct contacts in Austria, Germany, China and Ka-
zakhstan and average freight rates for sea and air were retrieved from Freightos
(http://www.freightos.com) and SeaRates (http://www.searates.com). Both freight rates and
transit times presented are averages based on a sample of quotations for each transport leg.
Furthermore, a set of assumptions have been made to make the different modes comparable:
• Transport routes are all terminal-terminal intermodal, excluding local cartage service at both
origin and destination. Accordingly, ancillary costs (i.e. fees for customs clearance, security
checks, agency, insurance, document and container handling) are not included.
• Freight rate quotations for all modes of transport are for a FEU full container load (FCL)
freight-all-kinds. The cargo transported in a FEU by sea and rail is assumed max. 20 tonnes,
and for air and sea/air max. 10 tonnes. Concerning transport capacity, it is assumed that max.
45 FEU can be transported per block train, max. 3 FEU per plane (Rodemann, 2013; Woods,
2015) and 9,000 FEU or more per vessel by sea (Rodemann, 2013).
• Transit times stated were as indicated by the freight operators or forwarders. However, de-
lays caused by congestions at intermodal terminals, border crossing points, documentation
handling processes still occur on a regular basis (Galushka, 2016).
1
The sea/air concept is a multimodal transport of cargo by sea on its first leg followed by air
which comes along with „half the time half the cost“ (Raguraman and Chan, 1994).
10
Data Collected
Data Type
Source
Collection Method
Rail
FEU FCL freight rate for all
possible routes from Asia to
Europe, transit time along
major corridors
European and Central Asian
block train operators
Chinese and Central Asian
rail freight forwarders
Direct contacts,
online enquiries,
site visits,
skype call meetings
Sea
FEU FCL freight rate from
China to Germany
Transit time for the routes
Route distance
Freightos.com
SeaRates.com
Drewry container freight
rate monthly report
Online enquiries,
secondary data collection
Air
Unit rate (per kg) and transit
times from China
to Germany
Freightos.com
SeaRates.com
Online inquiries
Sea/Air
Unit rate (per kg) from
China to Germany
Transit time for the routes
European freight forwarder
Sea/air freight operator
Direct contacts
Emails
Secondary data collection
Distance
Separate distance of each
transport leg and total dis-
tance of each route
SeaRates.com
Ecotransit.org
Online enquiry
Table 3: Data collection summary
It is noted as all the primary data from direct contacts were collected during the period from 1st
June to 31st July 2017, freight rate quotations and transit times stated may be subject to change
due to the volatility of the freight rates in the marketplace. In this sense, the freight rates and
transit times presented here reflect a “snapshot” of current market situation and need to be con-
sidered in a more general context.
Transit Times and Costs Comparison Results
To build up a realistic and at the same challenging scenario, Shanghai in China and Hamburg
in Germany were selected as the origin and destination points, as both cities have a seaport
serving as a major container hub with direct connection on the China-Europe trade lane and are
quite often used when it comes on freight rate benchmarking.
Table 4 summarises the transport costs and average transit times of shipping a single FCL ship-
ment of one FEU from Shanghai to Hamburg for four modes of transport on a terminal-terminal
basis for 2017 compared to figures raised by U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2006) with sea/air
calculated separately based on historical freight quotations available to the authors.
By freight rate, sea was and is still the cheapest option and air is very much higher than the
other modes. Sea/air transport costs are around half of air, whereas Eurasian rail freight is about
80% less costly than air and ranked next to sea as the second cheapest option. In terms of transit
time, which includes the actual time of transport plus time when a container is waiting at ter-
minals or borders crossings for customs clearance or trans-loading gauge changes etc., air (3 to
5 days) is by far the fastest transport solution from China to Europe, and rail (14 to 16 days) or
sea/air (18 to 20 days) are about half of the time than sea (usually 30 to 34 days, but could be
much longer when a container is subject to transhipment en route).
11
Transport
Mode
Year
Distance
(km)
Transit Time
(days)
Transport Cost
(USD/FEU)
Cost/Distance
(USD/km)
Transport Speed
(km/day)
Rail
2017
11,249
16
6,350
0.56
703.1
Rail
2006
-
47
8,450
-
-
Sea
2017
20,053
32
2,410
0.12
626.7
Sea
2006
-
30
2,740
-
-
Air
2017
8,822
4
32,490
3.68
2,205.5
Air
2006
-
5
25,000
-
-
Sea/Air
2017
16,008
19
16,650
1.04
842.5
Sea/Air
2006
-
19
22,600
-
-
Table 4: Transport costs and transit times for different transport modes in 2006 and 2017
Source: U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2006), own calculations.
Furthermore, these different modes of transport come along with different routing, so that the
distance of each mode travelled varies and cost per kilometres is in line with the total transport
cost of each mode. In terms of average transport speed, sea/air (about 843 km/day) is faster than
rail (about 704 km/day), but due to its slower sea leg (about 627 km/day), the total transit time
of sea/air is still higher than Eurasian rail freight.
Finally, most striking is a significant shift of transit times in the past decade from 45-50 days
to 16 days on average with now only 1 or 2 days of variation due to different routing. While
rail freight rates have shown a slightly decreasing trend in recent years as well, the transport
costs decreased from 8,450 USD to nowadays 6,350 USD for a FEU from Shanghai to Ham-
burg. On some specific routes from inland China cities (i.e. Chongqing or Changsha) to Ger-
many via Kazakhstan, these transport costs can be even lower with around 3,700 to 4,500 USD
due to subsidies granted by Chinese government (Bresharati et al., 2017; Qiwen and Xianliang,
2017; Vinokurov et al., 2018).
Scenario Analysis Based on Cargo Type
In the previous section it has been discovered that rail comes along with much shorter transit
time than sea and much lower cost than air which qualify it to be an alternative mode of
transport to fit into the market niche of shipping high-value and time-sensitive goods. But goods
transported by Eurasian rail freight cover a wide range from high value goods such as luxury
products, machinery and equipment, automotive vehicles and spare parts, time-sensitive goods
such as food and beverage, to general commodities such as textile and construction material.
Goods are considered to be time sensitive when they are subject to depreciation and uncertain
demand due to “inventory holding costs, perishability, rapid technological obsolesce, and un-
certain demand” (Hummels, 2007; Hummels and Schaur, 2013). Furthermore, inventory hold-
ing costs include capital cost of the goods in transit, cost of buffer stock at destination ware-
house to accommodate variation in arrival time. In addition to this, depreciation costs include
spoilage of perishable goods or rapid technological obsolescence. Hence, time of goods spend
in transit will impose a combination of inventory holding and depreciation costs on consumers.
Moreover, Hummels and Schaur (2013) defined estimated value of time per day transit time
which depends mainly on the value of cargo and expressed these time costs in tariff equivalents
12
by calculating the estimated value of one day saved in transit for each product. To reflect how
much consumer’s value of timely delivery for the full range of product categories being traded
and shipped, it was estimated that each day of goods in transit is equivalent to a tariff of about
1% per day levied on value of cargo for most goods employing trade and shipping data from
U.S. imports of merchandise database. This estimation varies over the type of goods, as bulk
products and raw materials are less time sensitive than complex manufactures and perishable
goods are subject to rapid depreciation, such as fresh fruit and vegetables (Hummels, 2007). As
the daily depreciation rate of goods with high time sensitivity and high value can be as high as
about 2%, one day in transit translates into a tariff equivalent of 2%.
When combining these findings with transit times and transport cost figures as shown in Table
4, estimated values of time per days in transit can now be employed for scenario analysis to
include time sensitivity and value of cargo transported. Then the value of time in transit (defined
as a combination of inventory holding and depreciation cost) allows to assess the relations be-
tween transport costs, transit time and total logistics costs for goods of high versus low time
sensitivity between different modes of transport. Or more strictly defined:
• Inventory holding and depreciation costs are incorporated in form of a tariff equivalent as
a proxy. In line with the estimations of Hummels and Schaur (2013), this tariff equivalent
is set to 1% per day of cargo value for goods with lower time sensitivity, and 2% per day
for goods with higher time sensitivity.
• Calculation of total logistics costs only include the direct transport costs and indirect inven-
tory holding and depreciation costs during the transit expressed in this tariff equivalent.
• An average shipment is assumed to be 10 tons per FEU, so that cargo value in USD per kg
can be easily calculated and compared over all four modes of transport.
Figure 3: High time vs. low time sensitivity scenario
Results of the scenario analysis are shown in Figure 3 and can be summarized as follows:
Whenever goods shipped have a low time sensitivity, and cargo value is around 2.55 USD/kg,
rail is almost equal to sea and after around 21.78 USD/kg, air gets cheaper than rail. If goods
shipped have a high time sensitivity, rail is already cheaper than sea for cargo values of higher
than 1.23 USD/kg and air is then cheaper when cargo value is higher than 10.89 USD/kg.
Hence, in both scenarios, sea is the cheapest mode of transport when cargo value is low. Then
rail fits into the niche and becomes the cheaper solution for cargo values ranging from relative
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Tsd USD High Time Sensitivity Scenario
Rail
Sea
Air
Sea/Air
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Tsd USD Low Time Sensitivity Scenario
Rail
Sea
Air
Sea/Air
USD/kg
USD/kg
13
low value to average and high value goods with sea/air always coming along with higher total
logistics costs.
To interpret these results, it is important to understand value/weight ratios and carrier liability
for cargo. According to own calculations based on EUROSTAT COMEXT dataset DS-016890
from 2000-2013, the export price of goods traded between China and European Union (EU)
ranges from around 6 USD/kg to 23 USD/kg, and the majority share of the products have a
value under 6 USD/kg. Moreover, it is important to note, that carriers on all transport modes
have certain liability limits for loss or damage of goods being transported. For example, air
carrier liability is limited to about 26 USD/kg (or max. 19 SDR/kg following to Montreal Con-
vention of 1999 or IATA Resolution 600a), in rail freight it is max. 22 USD/kg (or max. 17
SDR/kg according to CIM of 1999 and SMGS of 2015 with no limitation other than value of
cargo) and in sea freight usually max. 3 USD/kg (2.5 SDR/kg in Hague-Visby Rules of 1968,
see e.g. https://www.ivt-int.org/en/basics/).
Based on the above findings, preferred modal choice can be split in 2x2 scenarios as follows:
Scenario I: High-value cargo with high time sensitivity: Whenever cargo value is above 12
USD/kg (120,000 USD per FEU), it can be generally considered as high-valued (U.S. Chamber
of Commerce, 2006). This is especially true for automotive spare parts and high-tech products,
which may require frequent weekly replenishment. In this scenario, air with the shortest transit
time of less than one week and most of the time lowest total logistics costs is the most favour-
able solution. However, whenever special space and weight limitation occur for air, rail with
less restriction on cargo type and much larger capacity available might be an alternative solution
at least in some cases.
Scenario II: High-value cargo with low time sensitivity: High-value cargo with low time sen-
sitivity can be luxury garments and leather goods. In this scenario, rail with about 2 weeks
transit time is able to cover a wide range of goods from 2.46 USD/kg to 21.48 USD/kg with the
lowest total logistics costs in comparison to all other modes of transport.
Scenario III: Low-value cargo with high time sensitivity: When the average cargo value is
around 6 USD/kg (60,000 USD per FEU) or less, this can be considered as low-value cargo. In
this scenario, for goods with short lead-time demand (e.g. high-fashion apparel, electronic ap-
pliances), rail continues to be the favourable option with half of the transit time than sea and
much lower transport cost and larger capacity than air. Rail is able to provide cheapest total
logistics cost for a range from 1.23 USD/kg to 10.89 USD/kg.
Scenario IV: Low-value cargo with low time sensitivity: For the majority share of transport
goods with low-value of less than 2.46 USD/kg, sea with by the far largest shipping capacity
available is the cheapest solution closely followed by rail.
Discussion of Results
BRI must be considered as a major enabler to the rapid development of Eurasian rail freight
within the last decade and it can be regarded favourable for three reasons:
Faster than sea and cheaper than air: In Section 3.2, a general comparison based on the costs
and transit times among rail, sea, air and sea/air was conducted, which pointed out that Eurasian
rail freight is about 80% cheaper than air with only half of the transit time of sea. Besides, a
historical shift of its positioning in the market has also been captured - its transit time has sig-
nificantly shortened from one month (or more) to only two weeks or even less. The driving
force behind this significant improvement of its service in recent years can be traced back to
two main factors. On one hand, BRI focuses on the Central Corridor rather than the traditional
14
Northern Corridor, which helps to boost domestic economy in the rural west part of China, as
well as avoids to deal with Russian monopoly on the TSR. Therefore, new railway infrastruc-
ture projects and dedicated container block train services launched under BRI have greatly re-
vived Eurasian rail freight. On the other hand, changes to global trading patterns and increasing
demand for the speed to market also drive the development of intermodal logistics solutions
both within Europe and along the New Silk Road (Davies, 2017).
Alternative to air for time-sensitive goods: Certainly, a pure transport cost comparison is not
sufficient, as other costs occur during the transport process like inventory-holding and depreci-
ation cost are worth to take into consideration. Therefore, in Section 3.3, they have been incor-
porated to compare the total logistics costs of rail, sea, air as well as sea/air where rail stands
out as the most favourable transport solution when it comes on time sensitive goods with a
cargo value ranging from 1.23 USD/kg to 10.89 USD/kg. In the past, air used to be the only
option when shipping high-value, time-sensitive goods. But as transit time shortened and
transport service got more reliable, rail becomes a perfect alternative for time-sensitive goods,
especially for those with average cargo value not necessarily worth to be transported by air.
Besides, rail freight with higher capacity than air can accommodate almost all kinds of contain-
erized cargo, which again demonstrates higher service availability.
Alternative to sea for low-value goods: Again, our scenario analysis found that when shipping
goods with low time sensitivity, rail would be the cheapest option for cargo ranging from 2.46
USD/kg to 21.78 USD/kg. Sea used to be the best option for low-value goods. However, present
short-term flexibility tactics executed by liner shipping companies like slow steaming and re-
routing of vessel as well as blanking of sailings results in longer and less reliable transit times
(Munim and Schramm, 2016) and this cannot fulfil the requirement for today’s agile supply
chains. In this case, rail with a speed advantage over sea can also cover a wide range of goods
from low to high value. Instead of to upgrade from sea to air (or sea/air), rail gives the customer
a window of opportunity to meet deadlines without bearing full expense of air (Davies, 2017).
Since the global economy continues to slow down, the world searches for new engines to drive
trade growth, the BRI offers “a major development framework and opportunity for connectiv-
ity, international trade and economic development” (Davies, 2017). The momentum of Eurasian
rail freight has already been witness to enhance connectivity and trade growth between China
and Europe. Implications of this on supply chains can be summarized as follows:
Not competition, but another option: Our calculations in Section 3.2 clearly demonstrate that
Eurasian rail freight service is an emerging competitive solution - faster than sea and significant
cheaper than air. However, rather than being seen as a threat, it provides a potential alternative
for companies that no longer like to consider air (or sea/air) as the only options when shipping
high-value and/or more time-sensitive goods. This offers a cost-efficient option to tailor freight
lead time relevant to production (Davies, 2017).
The value of short transit time: Matear and Gray (1993) suggested that when shipper and
freight forwarders making the decision on freight service choice, transit time is frequently con-
sidered as more important than a low freight rate. As shown in Section 3.3, a substantial amount
of inventory holding and depreciation costs will add up to the total logistics costs during
transport if transit time of a shipment is too long. This is especially critical for perishable or
time-sensitive goods with frequent changes in consumer preferences (U.S. Chamber of Com-
merce, 2006). Eurasian rail freight with shorter transit time than conventional sea and higher
reliability is able to help shippers to reduce total logistics costs and gain more flexibility on
cash flow and liquidity.
15
Bring agility to supply chains: Shorter and more reliable transit times give Eurasian rail freight
advantage of higher accountability. On one hand, this will allow companies have more control
over their logistics operation and production forecasting (Zhang, 2013); on the other hand, it
will encourage companies conduct “just-in-time” business practices with timely delivery in or-
der to reduce production costs by minimising inventory (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2006).
In addition, with more frequent scheduled container block trains and adding more terminals of
origin and destination, the Eurasian rail freight service is able to offer a variety of end-to-end
routing options, which again gives shippers more flexibility than sea and air. Moreover, high
reliability of service delivery and flexibility of service availability will bring agility to com-
pany’s supply chains, which potentially offer companies a chance to tailor made their supply
chains based on different product categories.
4. Conclusions
This paper examined the service quality of Eurasian rail freight based on transit times and
transport costs, and a scenario analysis with a special focus on cargo type and associated total
logistics costs has been used to identify its market niche. Taking a transport of a FEU from
Shanghai to Hamburg as an example, we found that present Eurasian rail freight service fits
into the sweet spot between the sea and air; it is about 80% cheaper than air with only half of
the transit time of conventional sea. Our scenario analysis further suggests that when shipping
time sensitive goods with cargo values ranging from 1.23 USD/kg to 10.78 USD/kg, rail is
cheaper than all other modes of transport and much faster than sea - the same is valid for goods
with lower time sensitivity ranging from 2.46 USD/kg to 21.78 USD/kg.
Moreover, some practical recommendations on the way forward for Eurasian rail freight service
development in the OBOR era should be noted. On strategic level, high-level collaborations
among government of countries and railway stakeholders along the Belt of BRI are required to
establish favourable legal and technical agreements to facilitate Eurasian rail freight operations.
On operational level, keep rail freight rates low to maintain competitiveness, optimise routing
to lower transit times, target market to seize profit, improve public awareness to gain business
are recommended for Eurasian rail freight operators to keep developing in this new OBOR era.
Reflecting research process and findings, some limitations have to be remarked. First, this paper
intends to examine the service quality of Eurasian rail freight and compares it with other modes
of transport. By doing this, it focused on two quantifiable attributes – transport costs and transit
time. However, there are other important attributes that contribute to service quality as well,
such as transit time reliability, service availability, environmental impact etc., which were men-
tioned in the paper but not included in the comparison model. Second, given that the Eurasian
rail freight market is still in its infancy state (Sárvári and Szeidovitz, 2016), rail freight quotes
collected by the authors may not fully reflect long-term competitive freight rates that companies
get in the markets, as freight quotes obtained e.g. from freight forwarders might be already
being bundled with other value-adding services on top of bare costs of rail transport. Moreover,
Chinese government is providing subsidies to Eurasian rail freight operations under BRI
(Bresharati et al., 2017; Qiwen and Xianliang, 2017), which may to some degree hide real costs
of transport service provision. Beside this, costs of local cartage service at both origin and des-
tination as well as other ancillary costs were not included in our calculations. In sum, this study
does not intend to provide a pricelist for individual business decisions, however it does offer
guidance for assessing transport options available for shippers. Last but not least, much larger
data samples, specific cost models and detailed market insights are required to get the full pic-
ture. Accordingly, further research could investigate traffic volume on the different rail routes
as shown in Section 2.1. to capture the Eurasian rail freight market landscape, thus to identify
16
market demand for rail and to provide recommendations for further route optimisation. More-
over, some key attributes of service quality briefly outlined in Section 2.4. such as transit time
reliability and service availability not explicitly included here may be subject to surveys to
capture full aspects of service quality. Finally another direction for further research would be
to collect more detailed data of freight costs and transit time which enables to compare total
logistics cost of shipping goods from specific origins to destinations by rail, sea, air and sea/air
respectively.
References
• Besharati, B., Gansakh, G., Liu, F., Zhang, X., Xu, M., 2017. The ways to maintain
sustainable China-Europe block train operation. Business and Management Studies 3(3),
25-33.
• Brinza, A., 2017. China’s Continent-Spanning Trains Are Running Half-Empty. Foregin
Policy (June 5, 2017) [online]. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/05/chinas-
continent-spanning-trains-are-running-half-empty-one-belt-one-road-bri/
• Chang, H.H., Huang, W.C., 2006. Application of a quantification SWOT analytical method.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling 43(1), 158-169.
• Chen, X., Zhu, X., Zhou, Q., Wong, Y.D., 2017. Game-Theoretic Comparison Approach
for Intercontinental Container Transportation. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3128372
• CRCT, 2018, Main Business - International Transport. China Railway Container Transport.
Available at: http://www.crct.com/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=lists&catid=22
(Assessed April 4, 2018).
• Davies, M., 2017. Modish response to new 'normal'. Logistics Manager No.4/2006, 34-37.
• Davydenko, I., Landa, M.I., Martens, R., Nesterova, N., Wark, T., 2012. Potential for
Eurasia land bridge corridors & logistics developments along the corridors. Research
Paper 6th Framework Programme, European Commission, Brussels.
• Galushko, D., 2016. Study on Corridors. OTIF, Berne.
• Hummels, D., 2007. Transportation Costs and International Trade in the Second Era of
Globalization. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(3), 131–154.
• Hummels, D., Schaur, G., 2013. Time as a Trade Barrier. American Economic Review,
103(7), 2935-2959.
• InterRail, 2017. ИнтерРейл Сервис - железнодорожные и мультимодальные
грузоперевозки. [InterRail Service - rail and multimodal trucking]. Available at:
http://www.interrail.ru/en/news/company-news/1032/
• Islam, D.M.Z., Zunder, T.H., Jackson, R., Nesterova, N., Burgess, A, 2013. The potential
of alternative rail freight transport corridors between Central Europe and China. Transport
Problems 8(4), 45-57.
• Jakóbowksi, J., Poplawski, K., Kaczmarski, M., 2018. The Silk Railroad. OSW Studies
No.72, Warshaw.
• Kaplan, Z., 2016. EATL: The Trade Prospects for EU and China, Istanbul.
• Knowler, G., 2017. Rising China-Europe backhaul demand spurs new services. Journal of
Commerce (May 9, 2017).
• Kuester, F., 2017. The New Silk Road – The Vision of an interconnected Eurasia Combined
Transport. Combined Transport Magazine (January 10, 2017) [online]. Available at:
http://combined-transport.eu/the-new-silk-road-obor.
17
• Van der Leer, Y., Yau, J., 2016. China’s New Silk Route: The Long and Winding Road.
PwC's Growth Market Centre. Available at: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/growth-markets-
center/assets/pdf/china-new-silk-route.pdf
• Lin, C., 2011. China‘s New Silk Road to the Mediterranean: The Eurasian Land Bridge and
Return of Admiral Zheng He. ISPSW Strategy Series: Focus on Defense and International
Security 49(165), 1–23.
• Liu, W., Song, Z., Liu, Z., Yelken, W., Song, T. Niu, F., Han, M., 2018. 一带一路"建设研
究进展 [Progress in research on the Belt and Road Initiative]. Acta Geographica Sinica
73(4), 620-636.
• Liliopoulou, A., Roe, M., Pasukeviciute, I., 2005. Trans Siberian Railway: from inception
to transition. European Transport 29, 46-56.
• Luica, P., 2013. Russian Railways Logistics: Rail transit on Europe-Asia axis has a strong
potential. Available at: http://www.railwaypro.com/wp/russian-railways-logistics-rail-
transit-on-europe-asia-axis-has-a-strong-potential/
• Luo, W., 2017. China Railway Express carries weight of expections. Telegraph (May 24,
2017) [online]. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world/china-
watch/business/china-railway-express-freight/
• Matear, S., Gray, R., 1993. Factors Influencing Freight Service Choice for Shippers and
Freight Suppliers. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
23(2), 25–35.
• Moon, D.S., Kim, D.J., Lee, E.K., 2015. A Study of Competitiveness of Sea Transport By
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU, Asian Jounral of
Shipping and Logistics 31(1), 1-20.
• Munim, Z.H., Schramm, H.-J., 2017. Forecasting container shipping freight rates for the
Far East - Northern Europe trade lane. Maritime Economics and Logistics 19(1), 106-125.
• NDRC, 2015. Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-
century Maritime Silk Road. National Development and Reform Commission, available at:
http://en.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease/201503/t20150330_669367.html
• OSJD, 2017. List of Container and Contrailer Trains on the Railways of the OSJD Member
Countries (as of 13.10.2017). OSJD Bulletin No. 6/2017, 61-78.
• Otsuka, S., 2001. Central Asia’s rail network and the Eurasian land bridge. Japan Railway
& Transport Review 28(9), 42-49.
• Panova, Y., Hilletofth, P., Krasinskaya, J., 2018. Mitigating the break-of-gauge problem in
international transportation corridors. World Review of Intermodal Transportation
Research 7(7), 124-146.
• Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. Servqual: A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perc. Journal of Retailing 64(1), 12-40.
• Pieriegud, J., 2007. Container Transport on the CIS Railway Network. Railway Market -
CEE Review No.2/2007, 8-15.
• Prasad, M.D., Shekhar, B.R., 2010. Development of Railqual. Management Science and
Engineering 4(3), 87-94.
• Van der Putten, F.P., Meijnders, M., 2015. China, Europe and the Maritime Silk Road.
Clingendael, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Den Haag.
• Qiwen, D.U., Xianliang, S.H.I., 2017. A Study on the Government Subsidies for CR
Express Based on Dynamic Games of Incomplete Information. Periodica Polytechnica
Transportation Engineering 45(3), 162-167.
• Raguraman, K., Chan, C., 1994. The development of sea/air intermodal transportation.
Logistics and Transportation Review 30(4), 379–396.
18
• Regmi, M.B., Hanaokab, S., 2012. Assessment of intermodal transport corridors: Cases
from North-East and Central Asia. Research in Transportation Business & Management
5(12), 27-37.
• Rodemann, H., 2013. An Investigation into the Enablers and Inhibitors of Intermodal Rail
Freight Land Bridges between Asia and Europe, MSc thesis, Cranfield University.
• Rodemann, H., Templar, S., 2014. The enablers and inhibitors of intermodal rail freight
between Asia and Europe. Journal of Rail Transport Planning and Management 4(3), 70-
86.
• Rodrigue, J.-P., 2017. The Geography of Transport Systems. Routledge, New York.
• Sárvári, B., Szeidovitz, A., 2016. The Political Economics of the New Silk Road. Baltic
Journal of European Studies 6(1), 3–27.
• SeoY.J., Chen, F., Roh, S.Y., 2017. Multimodal Transportation: The Case of Laptop from
Chongqing in China to Rotterdam in Europe. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 33(3),
155-165.
• Shahin, A., 2006. SERVQUAL and model of service quality gaps: A framework for
determining and prioritizing critical factors in delivering quality services. In: Partha Sarathy
V., (ed.). Service quality – An introduction. ICFAI University Press, Andhra Pradesh, 117–
131.
• Shainesh, G., Mathur, M., 2000. Service Quality Measurement: The Case of Railway
Freight Services. Vikalpa 25(3), 15–22.
• Song, J.Y., Na, H.S., 2012. A Study on the Intercontinental Transportation Competitiveness
Enhancement Plan between Northeast Asia and Europe Using the Trans-Siberian Railway.
International Journal of Engineering and Technology 4(2), 208-212.
• Song, L., 2015. Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-
Century Maritime Silk Road. Belt and Road Portal (March 20, 2016). Available at:
https://eng.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/qwyw/qwfb/1084.htm
• Tian, J., 2016. One Belt and One Road: Connecting China and the world. McKinsey &
Company. Available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-
infrastructure/our-insights/one-belt-and-one-road-connecting-china-and-the-world
• Tsuji, H., 2013. Competitive Advantages and Disadvantages of Trans-Siberian Railway
Route. International Journal of Railway 6(4), 139-147.
• UIBE, IRU, 2017. TIR and the facilitation of unimpeded trade for China, IRU, Geneva.
• UNECE, 2012. Euro-Asian Transport Links Phase II Expert Group Report. Final Report
WP.5/2012/3. UNECE, Geneva.
• UNECE, 2017. Draft Euro-Asian Transport Links Phase III Expert Group Report. Informal
Document WP.5/2017/6. UNECE, Geneva.
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2006. Land Transport Options between Europe and Asia:
Commercial Feasibility Study, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington.
• Vinokurov, E., Lobyrev, V., Tikhomirov, A., Tsukarev, T., 2018. Silk Road Transport
Corridors. MPRA Paper No. 86184, Munich.
• Wang, D., 2017. 2016 年大陆桥运输指标与中欧班列相关数据分析及 2017 年中欧、
中亚班列发展预测 [2016 Continental Bridge Transportation Index and China-European
Class Data Analysis and 2017 Central and Central Asia Train Development Forecast], New
Silk Road Horizon No.3/2017, 23-36.
• Waters, W., 2017. Sea freight constraints create Europe-Asia air freight boom. Lloyd's
Loading List (March 23, 2017). Available at: http://www.lloydsloadinglist.com/freight-
directory/news/Sea-freight-constraints-create-Europe-Asia-air-freight-
boom/68890.htm#.WXB4RtOGOHo
19
• Woods, R., 2015. Intermodal motion. Air Cargo World No.10/2015, 36-38
• Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., 1990. Delivering quality service: Balancing
customer perceptions and expectations. Simon and Schuster.
• Zhang, H., 2013. Eurasian Landbridge: Past, Present and Future. MSc thesis, Cranfield
University.
• Zhu, Y., Filimonov, V., 2018. Comparative Study of International Carriage of Goods by
Railway between CIM and SMGS. Frontiers of Law in China 13(1), 115-136.
