JOINT TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE

Discussion Paper No. 2009-5
February 2009

Railway and Ports Organization in
the Republic of South Africa andTurkey: The Integrator’s Paradise?
Louis S THOMPSON
Thompson, Galenson and Associates
Saratoga, CA
UNITED STATESJOINT TRANSPORT RESEARCH CENTRE

Discussion Paper No. 2009-5

Prepared for the Round Table of 5-6 February 2009 on
Integration and Competition Between Transportand Logistics Businesses

RAILWAY AND PORTS ORGANIZATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
AND TURKEY: THE INTEGRATOR’S PARADISE?

Louis S. THOMPSON
Thompson, Galenson and Associates
Saratoga, CA 95070
UNITED STATESJanuary 2009

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent positions of Thompson, Galenson and Associates, the OECDor the International Transport Forum.

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 20091

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.

STRUCTURAL DEFINITION AND DISCUSSION OF “LOGISTICS” ......................... 4

2.

THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (RSA) CASE ...................................................... 7
2.1. Spoornet in perspective ................................................................................................ 8
2.2. NPA and SAPO in perspective..................................................................................... 92.3. Pipelines ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.4. Regulation of Transnet ............................................................................................... 10
2.5. Assessment of the system performance and structure ................................................ 11
2.6. Reform initiatives ....................................................................................................... 12

3.

THE TURKEY CASE ...................................................................................................... 123.1. TCDD’s rail network .................................................................................................. 13
3.2. TCDD’s ports ............................................................................................................. 14
3.3. Regulation .................................................................................................................. 14
3.4. Assessment of System Performance .......................................................................... 15
3.5. Reform Initiatives ....................................................................................................... 15

4.

THE RSA AND TURKEY CASES COMPARED........................................................... 16

5.

IMPRESSIONS FOR DISCUSSION BASED ON RSA AND TURKEY ....................... 17

NOTES ..................................................................................................................................... 20
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 22
Saratoga, January 2009

2

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

INTRODUCTION

There seems to be an inevitable tendency among transport experts to focus on “their” partof the production system without looking at transport from the point of view of the customer –the shipper/receiver. The result is often either a fascination with pieces of technology or afocus on a single mode. From this point of view, concerns for “efficiency” and economies ofscale tend to dominate, while the functioning of the entire door-to-door network andespecially the issues of competition within the network often receive short shrift. One
purpose of this conference is to correct this.
Having said this, this paper is written from the point of a land transport practitioner,
specifically a railways expert. My view of the system, its linkages and competitive forces, isshaped by this perspective. In the course of my career at the World Bank, I have visited many
ports and discussed issues of interaction with land-side modes, but will readily defer to ports
experts for the details of port operation.
This paper looks in detail at the cases of two countries – the Republic of South Africa(RSA) and Turkey -- that exhibit extreme cases of transport organization. In both countries,
the railway and most of the ports are under unitary control, with essentially no regulation andonly limited information available to assess behavior. If economies of scale are important, if
the “integration” achieved by organizational unification is truly beneficial, and if competition
is not needed to limit the behavior of the unified organizations, then these countries should beat the cutting edge of system performance, with high efficiency, low costs and excellent
service. If the reverse is true, then they furnish at least a few data points for the analysis of
the importance of diversity of organization and competition within the system.
I am a former employee of the World Bank and have worked with Bank teams in both
RSA and Turkey. In order to avoid confidentiality issues, I have used only publicly available
data or public sources of information. In all cases, opinions given in this report about RSA or
Turkey are mine and should not be attributed to the World Bank or any of its members or
Directors.
It is hard to understand or appreciate the RSA or Turkey cases without a broader
discussion and framework of how the pieces of the logistics chain fit together and how
competition exists within the system. This paper will begin with a brief discussion of thepieces of the system and how they fit together. It will attempt to highlight how “integration”
and “competition” happen within the system in order to show, in a conceptual sense, how
RSA and Turkey differ from other countries.

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 20093

1. STRUCTURAL DEFINITION AND DISCUSSION OF “LOGISTICS”

The terms “integration” and “competition” are easy to use, but are much harder to pin
down in practice. In fact, they are highly complex in their nature and in the combinations or
permutations that exist in the system. Integration is actually a spectrum of possible
relationships that distinguish it from true independence, which might be defined as separate
activities (or entities) that interact only at arms’ length. Degrees of integration can begin withinformation sharing (advance notice of arriving traffic), various kinds of cooperation(common billing), joint ventures to own facilities used in common (rail tracks or truck
warehousing in a port), and extending to common ownership either in a single company orwithin a broader conglomerate or holding company.1
Within the integration spectrum there is no necessary argument that ownership should beeither public or private – there are plenty of examples of both, and of mixes depending on thespecific case. In practice, some pieces of the system tend to be privately owned (deep sea
shipping and landside trucking), while other pieces (port real estate, aids to water navigation,and roads) are almost always publicly owned. Despite differences of ownership, quite close
cooperation and even joint venture ownership are possible.
Perhaps more important, the simple usage of “competition” to imply the set of actions
taken by one party to maximize its objectives in conflict with others is at best only a partial
description of the way the system actually works. Competitors may very well have multiple,
unclear or even unpredictable objectives that will produce unexpected outcomes. Possible
objectives could include maximizing the efficiency of the transport system; but, they can also
include generating the highest returns (economic and/or financial) for a distinct link or for theentire chain. Other important objectives clearly include explicit social issues such as
employment generation as well as local, regional or national development, sometimes inconflict with other localities, regions or countries. Quite frequently since the attack on theWorld Trade Center, “security” concerns (more or less well defined) have become paramount.
Finally, political objectives such as various kinds of “equalization” or cross support from onepart of the network to another can govern the behavior of parts (or all) of the system. Ports(sea or air) and their inland linkages are the critical foundations for commercial interaction
among nations: as such, they are unlikely to be allowed to focus solely on their own interests.
Finally, in a number of cases the underlying incentives that drive significant parts of the
behavior of the system are not sufficiently acknowledged. A good example is labor
employment and wages. Because ports have an effective “monopoly” on a nation’s access toworld trade, there are economic rents to be extracted from port activities if any of the port
actors are so inclined. When all the ports in a country are commonly owned, and/or when allof the ports have the same labor union, the rents are potentially multiplied. The same is true
for customs officials who can, in some countries, extract bribes for easing cargo flow.2 In
both cases, it can be in the interest of the parties to limit competition and inhibit linkages.
4

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

Overall, the point to be emphasized is that the interaction between structure (“linkages” ormergers) and competition or integration is not always obvious or straightforward.
Logistics has been defined as the management of the total cost of transport anddistribution from producer gate to receiver gate. In simpler terms, transport is what a mode
produces; effective and efficient logistical management is what the customer actually needs.
Logistics necessarily involves cost, speed and reliability of transport, but also includes loss
and damage, time value of inventory, handling costs at interchanges and nodes, packaging,size of shipment, etc.
In reading the papers for this conference, “logistics” seems to be used mostly tocharacterize containerized flows of relatively high-value products and the remainder of thispaper adopts this usage. It deserves emphasis, however, that bulk shippers of iron ore, grain
or coal represent a significant share of international trade, and they also want service to be
integrated across modes from origin to destination, although the relative tradeoffs between
transport costs and speed and reliability of service may differ from containers.
Another important qualification is that the analysis of logistics in this conference seems tofocus on sea ports. While this may be true for sheer tonnage moved, it leaves out airports thatare increasingly important in cargo value. As an example, the largest port in the U.S.
measured by cargo value rather than tonnage is JFK airport in New York City. Three of thelargest ten ports in the U.S. measured by value of cargo are airports. It would be interesting tocompare the value of the cargo received at Schipol and Frankfort airports with the values ofcargos at Rotterdam or Hamburg.
In very broad terms, Figures One and Two outline the workings of the logistics network as
it relates to this conference.3 Figure One starts with one port serving essentially one set ofinternal receivers or shippers (its “hinterland”). Figure Two expands the picture to cover two
ports and two hinterlands.
Figure One shows a set of deep sea carriers serving a port that may have one or morewaterside facilities (quays and cranes). The port may have one of more land side facilities formoving and storing containers and loading them onto the landside modes. An incoming
container (or other commodity) then could be loaded onto a truck, a railway or an inlandbarge, and each of these modes can have competing carriers. Once a container is loaded intoa surface carrier, it may then go through and inland handling or consolidation facility before
reaching the ultimate receiver. There can even be added links, such as rail shipment from theport to a subsequent handling facility where shipments are then directed by trucks to final
receivers.
At this level, horizontal competition could be manifested at a number of points: competing
ocean carriers (Carrier 1 versus Carrier 2 or Carrier 3), competing water-side unloading
opportunities (A versus B or C), competing land-side loading and cargo management (Xversus Y or Z), intra-modal competition (truck company 1 versus truck company 2), railway
versus railway, etc). There can also be inter-modal competition when railways compete withtrucking and inland water modes (e.g. railway 1 versus trucker 1). Finally, there can be
L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 20095

horizontal competition between chains: that is, the green path involving liner 1, port facility
A, port facility X and Trucker 1 could compete with the blue path involving liner 2, port
facility B, port facility Y and Railway 2.
One type of potential integration is obvious. If all of the shipping lines integrate (merge),then the port might benefit from use of larger ships, but would lose the competition among
liner companies. The same could occur among port facilities, trucking companies, rail
companies or inland water operators. It is harder to argue in favor of multiple port ownershipand control although ostensible concerns for managing port specialization (or national
security) have caused countries to do so. These types of mergers have been called“horizontal” integration, and they have been generally considered questionable because of
their impact on intra-modal competition, especially when the owner is a private entity.4 In
many cases, government agencies or enterprises are allowed more market power because ofthe (arguable) assumption that they will necessarily act in the broader public interest.
The other type of integration, by linkage, is also clear. It is argued that the quality andcost of logistics services is affected by the connection between services: the quality of theentire linkage chain suffers if the transfer from link to another is defective. As a result, it canbe argued that allowing a liner company to own port facilities, or allowing a railway to own
part of a port (or, in some cases, allowing a railway to own a trucking company) could
guarantee effective and low cost linkages and thus increase efficiency. By extension, an
entire chain could be owned by one entity.5 In theory, an increase in this type of linkintegration ought to increase competition at the link versus link level.
Depending on the structure of the system, however, linkage integration also offers
opportunities to suppress competition. Suppose, for example, a railway owns a port (or ispart of a common holding company). It is easy to see how the common entity might control
trucking, competing railway or inland water entry to the port in order to favor the owning
railway. There are a number of similar ways in which completing a particular link could
reduce access by potentially competing participants to a crucial facility. Linkage integration
is not always good: in fact, it is always a balance between potentially improved service to one
shipper versus denial of access to all other shippers and competitors.
Figure Two raises the issues at a higher level, where there are competing ports competing
hinterlands, and more potential carrier combinations. In this case, there are two ports
competing with each other for service to hinterlands that partially overlap (see red and black
paths). The efficiency of a particular port can increase the size of the overlapping area forwhich it can offer service.
From this perspective, more possibilities for “integration” emerge, at least some of whichclearly can reduce the competition for logistics services from the point of view of thereceiver/shipper. For example, if the two ports are under common control, the owner could
limit competition or establish tariffs that would force traffic to travel along a desired line thatmight benefit the owner but not be optimum for the shipper. Or, if there is only one railway
serving both ports, the railway might well establish its tariffs in order to steer traffic through afavored port.
6

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

As suggested above, the objectives of the owners would then become critical. If all parties
are motivated by economic efficiency alone, then the flows through the system would
presumably be optimum for all. If, on the other hand, any of the parties has market power andis motivated by financial maximization, then flows might well be distorted in the interest of
the owner. If any of the actors is a public authority pursuing social or political goals, then theultimate effect on flows through the system would be unpredictable (at least on efficiency
grounds): this would be especially difficult to predict if the ports, land operating companies orhinterlands are in different countries and subject to different social, political or national
priorities.
The above discussion necessarily underlines the issue of regulation where market power
exists. In principle, it should be possible for a potential regulator to analyze the operation of aport to determine whether the operator is abusing a market position, either by excessive tariffs
or by discriminatory tariffs that favor one shipping line or one access mode over another. It
should be possible to determine whether the port is acceptably efficient, and it should also be
possible to regulate the tariffs and services of trucks, railways and inland water operators
where it can be shown that they have market power.
In practice, even at the individual public operator level, it is difficult or even impossible to
do so, partly because of the challenge of asking one public authority to regulate another (whenboth are subject to the same political control and neither may be seeking fully definableobjectives) and partly because few public or private operators are willing (or are required) to
produce and publish the information needed to analyze and control their behavior.
This is even more difficult at the linkage or chain level, even though it is at this level thatthe logistics system is most affected. Even in the case of a single country, a regulator would
need authority and expertise in all of the links – shipping lines, ports, trucks, railways andinland water, along with the related warehousing, interchanges, etc. It is even more difficultat the multi-country level because of conflicts of national interests and the non-existence ofregulators with real multi-national authority.
With this as background, how can we use the examples of RSA and Turkey to analyze
what happens when the various kinds of potential “integration” are carried to their logicalextreme?

2. THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (RSA) CASE

The Republic of South Africa (RSA) is one of the largest countries, and is by far the mostdeveloped economy, in Africa. Partly as a result of its wealth, and partly because of its longstanding inclusion of western capital and management skills, RSA has had a relatively well

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 20097

developed transport network. Figure Three provides a general picture of South Africa and its
transport network, which includes approximately 362,000 Km of highways (of which about
74,000 km are paved), 21,000 Km of railways, 3900 Km of pipelines and 7 major sea ports.
The organization of the rail, ports and pipelines is shown in Figure Four. The national
agency controlling these three sectors is a state-owned holding company, Transnet. Transnet
holds an effective monopoly in all of these sectors. Rail is further divided between the
Freight Rail activity (previously known as Spoornet) and Rail Engineering (doing business asTranswerk). Ports is divided between the National Ports Authority (NPA), which owns andperforms the landlord function of almost all of RSA’s ports, and Port Terminals (South
African Port Operations, or SAPO) which owns and manages the operations function ofalmost all of RSA’s ports. Pipeline (called Petronet) owns and operates all significant
petroleum pipelines in RSA. Transnet is owned and is under the nominal tutelage of the
Department of Public Enterprises. To complete the picture, the highway system is under thecontrol of the Department of Transport and its highway agency (SANRAL), which is also
tasked with overall transport policy and some aspects of highway regulation.
Transnet is the successor company to South African Transport Services (SATS). SATS
was formed during the days of apartheid and the non-recognition by the international
community of the apartheid regime. The highly centralized and inwardly focusedorganization of SATS was a response to the need to marshal all of the State’s resources andlimit access to outside information as the regime struggled for survival. Transnet inherited theSATS roles and authorities and has retained them with two significant exceptions: 1) South
African Airlines was spun off, primarily because Transnet wanted to transfer the losses to theGovernment; and, the rail passenger functions of the old Spoornet were spun off to the South
African Commuter Corporation (SARCC) and to a new intercity passenger rail company(Shosoloza Meyl), again in order to remove the passenger financial burden from Transnet.
Transnet is a major corporation on a world scale, with total assets valued in the range of
US$10 billion and annual revenues in the range of US$3 billion. Table 1 gives some of thedetails of the performance of Transnet and its divisions for the past three years. The profits of
NPA and Petronet are very high, as is the return on net investment of NPA, Petronet and
SAPO.6 Spoornet’s profits are relatively low, and because Spoornet has about 40 percent ofTransnet’s assets with only about 20 percent of its income, its return on net assets is much
lower than the rest of the organization.

2.1. Spoornet in perspective

Table 2 provides basic size and operational data for most of the world’s railways.
Spoornet is highlighted in this Table (as is TCDD, to be discussed below). Overall, Spoornet
appears to be a relatively large and efficiently operated railway. It accounts for about two
percent of the world’s track Km and carries nearly two percent of the freight tonnage (1.29
percent of the world’s tonne-Km). Spoornet’s freight traffic (tonne-Km) is greater than thatof any E.U. railway. Its labor productivity (output per staff measured in Traffic Units (tonneKm + passenger-Km)/Employee)) exceeds all E.U. railways, and its traffic density (TU/Km
8

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

of line) exceeds all European railways except for the Baltics and Switzerland. According toSouth African MOT estimates, Spoornet carries about 20 percent of all freight tonnage, andabout 36 percent of all freight tonne-Km.7
The appearance is somewhat deceptive, however. In fact, Spoornet contains two highdensity bulk operations that are effectively distinct from the remainder of the system. One of
the high density operations – the Sishen to Saldanha iron ore line – see Figure One, carries
about 30 million tonnes on only 880 Km of line. The other high density line – the Coal
Export line from the Ermelo region to the Port of Richards Bay – see Figure One, carries
about 70 million tonnes of coal on only 574 Km of line. The entire remainder of the railway,
known as the General Freight Business (GFB), carries around 80 million tonnes of mixed
traffic, including all of the containerized traffic, on the remaining 20,000 Km of line. Putanother way, the two major bulk lines account for only 6.7 percent of the line-Km, but
generate 56 percent of the tonnage and about 60 percent of the tonne-Km carried by therailway.
Thus, the GFB, which provides the rail part of RSA’s critical container logistics linkages
to the world, actually performs at density levels below those of E.U. countries, and almost
certainly would show lower productivity levels if data were available to support thecalculation.8 Although international tariff comparisons are notoriously difficult, roughcalculations indicate that the tariffs on the iron ore traffic (in PPP US$/Tonne-Km terms) areslightly below the levels charged by US Class I railways for iron ore. Tariffs on the Coal
export traffic are two to three times U.S. Class I levels for coal, and the GFB tariffs are 4 to 7
times higher than U.S. Class I practice for other cargos.
The physical condition of the railway mirrors its three businesses. The iron ore line istechnically up to date: the 30 million tonne-Km/Km traffic density is high, the 30 tonne axle
load is fully up to world best practice (typical E.U. practice is 22 tonnes, typical U.S. Class I
practice is 30 tonnes), and the 50 KV, 50 Hz electric traction system is highly efficient.9 The
70 million tonne-Km/Km traffic density on the coal export line is quite high, and the 25 KV,
50Hz electric traction system is standard world practice, but the 25 tonne axle load issomewhat low by heavy tonnage railway practice. Aside from these nearly world classsystems, though, the remainder of the system is in relatively poor condition, with overage
locomotives (average age of 25 years) and increasing derailments.

2.2. NPA and SAPO in perspective

The RSA has seven significant commercial ports (Figure One). Of these, Durban, Cape
Town and Port Elizabeth handle mostly containers and higher value cargos. Saldanha Bay
handles the iron ore exports from the Sishen to Saldanha line, while Richards Bay handles thecoal exports from the Ermelo to Richards Bay line. The Port of Mossel Bay handles mostly
bulk liquids while the Port of East London handles a mix of containers and bulk cargo.
Transnet is now developing a new port at Ngqura that will handle a mix of containers andbulk cargo and that is targeted to be a transshipment hub for Southern Africa. Table 3 gives ageneral picture of the scale and nature of operations at the various ports. It deserves emphasis
L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 20099

that, while NPA has a monopoly over the landlord function at all ports, the SAPO monopoly
primarily extends to containers and higher valued commodities. Private operators underleases handle a majority of the bulk commodities; but, as with Spoornet, Transnet’s port
management remains fully in control of all of the commodities, especially containers, which
are significant in the logistics system.
It is somewhat harder to analyze the efficiency of ports than of railways. The general
picture of the Transnet ports is one of efficiency for the bulk ports at Richards Bay andSaldanha Bay as compared with relative inefficiency at the remainder. Port productivity is
described as “…very low by international benchmarks. The Durban container terminal lifts
on average 17 containers (TEUs) per hour, whereas the international norm is at least 35 TEUs
per hour. From a service point of view, the problem is even more severe due to a hugeamount of congestion. The equipment used at most of the container terminals is old andgenerally in poor condition. Although some newer cranes are in operation at Durban container
terminal, the average age of the cranes is about 30 years compared to the international normof around 20 years.”10 Other observers have similarly concluded that the South African ports
have productivity levels for containers and higher value cargo about 50 to 70 percent ofcomparable ports elsewhere, while the bulk ports are relatively efficient. Moreover,productivity at non-bulk ports appears to have been declining over time in some of the more
important ports. In addition, water side congestion is generally rated as serious.
For reasons that have never clearly been articulated in current policy, tariffs in RSA public
ports are equalized. That is, all public ports have the same charges. At least partly because of
the low productivity and higher costs, and at least partly because of the extremely highprofitability of Transnet’s maritime activities, port charges in RSA are generally cited as high,though the percentage disparity from other countries is not available.

2.3. Pipelines“The pipeline industry in South Africa is characterized by the monopolistic position ofPetronet, a subsidiary of Transnet. Petronet owns and operates almost the entire network withthe exception of one crude oil line from Saldanha to Milnerton.”11 The 3300 Km pipeline
network operated by Petronet (and additional 600 Km are operated privately) carries about 16
billion liters of oil products (refined and crude) and about 334 million cubic meters of Gas.
There are no data on comparable prices, but the high profit margins and the solid return on net
assets suggest that the prices are not low.

2.4. Regulation of Transnet

Transnet has been largely unregulated, both in economic areas and in safety. According to
the NFLS, “Transnet develops rail policy (by default, due to its dominance), conducts
economic and safety regulation, provides and maintains infrastructure, and is also responsible
for freight transport operation.”12 As to ports, the NFLS also states that “[e]conomic andsafety regulation at the ports is solely administered by the agencies, themselves, while seaside
10

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

regulation is conducted by the South African Maritime Safety Authority (SAMSA) and theDepartment of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.”13 A recent tariff increase proposed byPetronet was limited by the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA), which is,interestingly, an energy and not a transport regulator.

2.5. Assessment of the system performance and structure

It would be difficult to provide a more cogent assessment than that provided by the NFLS,
a product of the Ministry of Transport. A number of quotations are listed below:“The National Freight Logistics strategy [NFLS] is a response to the freight system’s
inability to fulfill the demand for cargo movement at prices, levels of service, quality ofservice, and at acceptable levels of reliability in a manner that supports the national
developmental strategies. This failure stems from an inappropriate institutional andregulatory structure that does not punish inefficiency and reward efficiency. It is structurally
incapable of appropriately allocating external costs and raising efficiency…This strategy
signals a shift toward demand-delivery of freight logistics services, rather than a supply
approach.” (pg ii)
The freight system in South Africa is fraught with inefficiencies at system and firm levels.
There are infrastructure shortfalls and mismatches: the institutional structure of the freightsector is inappropriate…and the regulatory frameworks are incapable of resolving problems
in the industry. (pg ii)…South African products that move in the hinterland face a difficult challenge in terms of
the inefficiencies in our ports and rail environment. (pg 3)
The existence of operations entities within the same holding company as the infrastructurecompanies exacerbates perverse behavior and pricing further, while transfer pricing
entrenches the inability to introduce competition in the medium and long term without radical
shifts in regulatory and industrial restructuring leadership from the state. (pg 6)
The operating environment is characterized by open competition on the one hand (as it theroad and airfreight sectors), whilst on the other hand it is characterized by monopolies that
reduce efficiency and the value proposition to customers (as in the ports and rail sectors). In
addition, shortfalls in infrastructure provision and poor infrastructure maintenancecontribute to a poor value proposition to customers and add to the logistics cost burden.
(pg 9)
Our infrastructure is inappropriate for the development path of our country, and needs tobe revamped… Furthermore, our regulatory regime has not been inadequate to constrain thepricing of monopoly infrastructure entities. The infrastructure monopolies have extracted
huge margins from the movement of cargo, without ensuring sustainable levels of
re-investment. These profits have tended to be used to subsidise inefficient operations and

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 200911

loss making components in other areas of the transport and logistics sector, rather thanraising our capacity over time. (pg 9)
Monopolies that are sustained within the freight logistics sector contribute significantly tohigh levels of inefficiency. This leads to a situation in which there is little incentive to reduce
costs. This is mainly a consequence of the excessive market power held by organizations
within the Transnet group. Again, these are strongly evident in ports and rail… (pg 9)”
Even Transnet acknowledged, in its 2008 Annual Report “[t]he company was not
sufficiently oriented towards its customers – in fact, Transnet’s inefficiences were rubbing off
on some of its major customers in the form of real losses of international opportunities” and“[l]ow efficiencies resulted in congestion at the ports and unstable service delivery in freighttransport.”

2.6. Reform initiatives

The issues discussed above have been well known and much discussed in the RSA for
decades, and have been the focus of a number of studies over the time. Minor changes havebeen suggested, and some legislation has been passed. For example, the National Ports Act
provided for the corporatization of the NPA into a separate company wholly owned byTransnet for the purpose, apparently, of clarifying the performance of the landlord function
and subjecting its activities to some level of regulation. Transnet opposed this law and has
thus far persuaded the Government not to initiate the corporatization process. No othersignificant reform is in process.
It is hard for an outsider to explain why so little reform has taken place despite the clear
need for change and the repeated studies and relatively accurate diagnoses of the kind ofreform that would work. To some extent, there are clearly higher priorities of theGovernment, and political conflicts over the past few years may well have made reform
difficult. Perhaps equally important, the lack of progress simply reflects the ability of a wellfunded and deeply entrenched state enterprise to resist reforms that threaten the power of theagency and its ability to deliver on a vast number of political and social tradeoffs that it has
accepted over the years.

3. THE TURKEY CASE

The Turkish Republic, a nation of approximately 72 million, lies between Europe andAsia. It has borders with Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Iran and Iraq. It
has long coastlines on the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, and commands the Bosporus andthe Dardanelles (the only connection between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea). It is also
12

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

the transit country for several major oil pipelines from the Middle East to the Black Sea andthe Mediterranean. Turkey’s transport system thus has major international significance.
Turkey enjoys a relatively extensive highway system of approximately 427,000 Km andhas a number of private trucking companies. Its 7,500 Km of pipelines are focused on oil andgas, much of it transit traffic. The “Republic of Turkey General Directorate of State Railways
Administration” (TCDD), operates both the national railways system (8,697 Km of line) andseven of the country’s major sea ports. TCDD thus has held a monopoly on all rail services
and controls a majority14 of the port activity in the country. Figure Five shows the layout of
the rail network and the seven TCDD ports as well as the Port of Ambarli.
Many of the railway lines in Turkey were originally built by private companies. Upon theformation of the Turkish Republic in 1923, all private railway lines were nationalized andcombined into the “General Administration of Railways and Ports,” which was formed in
1924. In 1953, TCDD took its current form as a state owned enterprise (State Economic
Enterprise, or SEE, established to provide a monopoly railway service) under the supervisionof the Ministry of Transport. TCDD is thus a unitary enterprise, not a holding company,
operating the seven ports as a division of the enterprise. In addition, similar to Transwerk in
RSA, TCDD has subsidiaries that are the monopoly suppliers to TCDD of manufacture of
locomotives under license (Tulomsas), manufacture of passenger coaches (Tuvasas), andmanufacture of freight wagons (Tudemsas).
Figure Six shows the current organization diagram of the enterprise. Table 4 gives anoverall picture of the financial performance of TCDD over the past five years.

3.1. TCDD’s rail network

Table 2 compares TCDD to the world’s railways. TCDD is smaller than Spoornet andcarries significantly less freight traffic, but carries more passenger traffic. TCDD’s laborproductivity and traffic density are significantly less than Spoornet (though, Spoornet’s GFB
network would be much more comparable to TCDD). TCDD’s labor productivity and traffic
density are somewhat below E.U. averages, but not markedly so in many cases. Since 1990,
TCDD’s traffic has been essentially stagnant; with freight growth of 1.3 % compoundedannually, intercity passenger traffic growth of 0.9 % annually, and suburban passenger trafficshrinking by about 4 % annually. TCDD now carries about two percent of Turkey’s
passenger-Km (98% by road) and about 5 percent of Turkey’s tonne-Km (92% by road and
3% by pipeline).15 In both cases, the railway role has been gradually shrinking for the past 25
years.
Table 4 highlights another aspect of railway performance – TCDD loses money in all its
areas of rail activity. The ratios of revenue to expenses in 2007 are: suburban passenger,
79.3%; intercity passenger, 16.7%; and, freight, 31.9%. These ratios are unusual in two
aspects: 1) freight is highly unprofitable; and, 2) suburban passenger traffic is lessunprofitable than either freight or intercity traffic. The losses on passenger service are largely
generated by tariffs that average about one-third those in the E.U. (one-fourth the U.S. levels)
L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 200913

and somewhat lower productivity than the E.U. Losses on the freight traffic have essentiallythe same causes, though the tariff disparity is not as great. Interestingly, a part of the freightlosses is caused by the fact that TCDD has reduced its freight tariffs significantly over the
past 20 years, while neither traffic nor productivity grew significantly. Moreover, as Table 2
shows, TCDD has a much higher percentage of passenger traffic than Spoornet and the U.S.
system, though TCDD is roughly comparable with many E.U. railways in its passenger tofreight traffic proportions.
In technical terms, TCDD’s maximum axle load of 20 tonnes puts it at the low side of
E.U. practice for freight traffic, and makes it difficult for TCDD’s freight operator to competewith trucks. In addition, about 80 percent of TCDD’s traffic is concentrated on half the
network, meaning that the remainder of the system is even less financially justified (forfreight or passenger services).
TCDD is also a problem from a national perspective, as Table 4 shows. TCDD’s railway
losses have risen to the range of US$ 1 billion annually, making it the largest deficitary public
enterprise, accounting for about 0.3 percent of GDP. Subsidies paid by Government are now
in the range of US$ 500 million.

3.2. TCDD’s ports

Table 5 profiles the seven ports operated by TCDD (as shown in the TCDD Annual
Statistics). All of the seven ports handle general cargo and break bulk. At around 800,000
TEU, Izmir is the major container port, though Haydarpasa and Mersin handle lesser amountsof containers.16
It is difficult to assess the efficiency of the TCDD ports. A World Bank analysis statedthat a proposed project in Turkey “… will reduce the logistical costs associated with thecurrent inefficiencies and high costs of both the railway and port sub-sectors, allowing
importers and exporters to develop existing trade-related businesses.”17 As Table 4 shows, if
the high port profits, now used to support rail losses, were reduced to normal levels, port
tariffs could probably be reduced by as much as 30 to 50 percent, with a direct impact onTurkey’s trade competitiveness.

3.3. Regulation

TCDD’s tariffs and safety have been essentially unregulated, leaving TCDD free to set its
tariffs. In practice, TCDD has been constrained by the normal degree of political interferencein the affairs of state enterprises. More important, there has probably been a relationshipbetween the size of TCDD’s subsidies and its tariff policy. This is may be a part of the
explanation of the unusually high suburban tariffs: but, there is no apparent explanation for
TCDD’s low freight tariffs.

14

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

3.4. Assessment of System Performance

It is common in World Bank loans for the Government to issue a “Letter of Development
Policy” to the Bank that provides the underlying Government evaluation of the performanceof the economic sector involved in the loan and states the policies to be followed by theGovernment in deploying loan funding. The Minister of Transport’s letter stated “[i]ncommon with many rail companies throughout Europe TCDD’s performance has declined inrecent years. Passenger numbers have declined by around 50 % during the 10-year period, toa market share of round 2%. Over the same period freight traffic has declined by around 10%
to a market share of around 4%. At the same time TCDD’s financial position is precarious.
TCDD made a loss of 292 million US $ in 2003 and expected loss for the year 2004 is 513
million US $. Treasury has transferred 331 million US $ to TCDD in 2003.”18 The Minister
also stated three objectives: “(i) to significantly reduce the current fiscal burden of TCDD on
public finance, (ii) to increase the competitiveness of the Turkish economy by reducing thelogistic costs associated with the inefficiencies of the railway and port sub-sectors; and (iii)
contribute to Turkey’s accession to the European Union.”19 There is little doubt that Turkey
pays a high price for the railway’s inefficiencies and the high costs of TCDD’s ports.

3.5. Reform Initiatives

After a number of years of discussion, and TCDD resistance to change, the Government
has decided to restructure TCDD. The approach consists of two elements: restructuring of therailway, and separation and concessioning of the ports.
3.5.1. Railway Reform
The railway reform program is broadly based on the E.U. model, with a separated infrastructure
manager (no decision on accounting versus institutional separation), open access for freight operatorsthat might want to compete with TCDD’s freight operator, infrastructure access charges (to be
developed), TCDD railway operators will be structured as autonomous public corporations under
Government ownership, suburban passenger operations will be transferred to local governments withservices provided by TCDD under contract, or by private operators, and the three manufacturingsubsidiaries will be divested. In addition, the reform program includes a component for labor force
adjustment and a significant component for asset modernization. In parallel, a regulatory body for
infrastructure charges, licensing and safety certification will be developed, along with development
and publication of an MIS to produce all required reporting information.
3.5.2. Port Reform

After years of discussion (and encouragement from the E.U. and the World Bank), theTurkish Government gave the Privatization Agency the task of concessioning the ports. As oftoday, the status of concessioning is:• Mersin was contracted for 36 years in 2007 and is now in private operation.
• Iskenderun is now in the tender process• Izmir has completed the tender process and the 49 year contract is pending approval of theState Council
L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 200915

• Derince has completed the tender process and the 36 year contract is pending State Council
approval• Samsun has completed the tender process and has Privatization Agency approval. It will now
go to the State Council• Bandirma has completed the tender process and has Privatization Agency approval. It will
now go to the State Council• Haydarpasa was closed.

The process for each port is fully complete only after State Council approval of thecontract. Before approval, port revenues and costs remain on the TCDD books. Afterapproval, excess staff will remain on TCDD books until the staff adjustment program is
implemented.

4. THE RSA AND TURKEY CASES COMPARED

There are a number of similarities and differences between the two cases:• Transnet is a holding company, whereas TCDD operated the railways as an integral division.
• Transnet control covered rail, most ports and pipelines whereas TCDD had no control overpipelines.
• Transnet overall is profitable and, at least according to its Annual Report, each of its Divisions
is profitable as well (though Spoornet is only marginally so, and appears to have been
marginally unprofitable in the past). The TCDD rail network is strongly unprofitable, and port
profits have been insufficient to cover railway losses.
• After the transfer of the intercity and suburban passenger functions, Spoornet is totally focusedon freight, with passenger losses now the responsibility of Government. TCDD has a major
passenger component in both intercity and suburban areas, similar to Spoornet 15 years ago.
Port profits in Turkey have thus not only been supporting rail freight activities, but have also
leaked out into the passenger sector.
• Both TCDD and Transnet are essentially unregulated and both have had a strongly dominantposition in port traffic, though Transnet faced some competition in bulk traffic through theports of Saldanha Bay and Richards Bay, and TCDD faced container competition from thePort of Ambarli. Trucking competition was the only significant constraint on their pricing andservice behavior.
• By virtue of their public ownership and at least partial monopoly position, both were subject topolitical intervention in policy decisions.
• Because of their employment level and economic power, both were able to resist reform formany years (and Transnet is still successful in doing so).
• Interestingly, TCDD publishes Annual Reports that provide a reasonable amount of
information with which to assess its operations (better, in fact, than most E.U. railways)
whereas Transnet has, in the name of “integration,” ceased publication of such data.
• Most important, despite having access to all of the economies of scale of large organizations
with significant market power, and despite the opportunities for “coordination” that unificationof rail and ports (and pipelines) arguably offers, neither entity is efficient, neither offers
16

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

adequate service to the country, and neither was able to maintain its assets properly. Bothcharged high prices in the ports sector, harming the international logistics and trade position of
the country.

5. IMPRESSIONS FOR DISCUSSION BASED ON RSA AND TURKEY

I have used the word “Impressions” rather than conclusions because two cases do notcharacterize the full range of relationships in the logistics area, nor do they constitute a dataset
adequate to support strong conclusions. With this acknowledged at the outset, the RSA andTurkey cases do suggest a number of points for debate.
Ownership and control of ports with a common hinterland poses the risk of manipulated
tariffs for a number of reasons. There is the temptation to “equalize” tariffs either in order topromote access to remote regions or to favor one or another part of the hinterlands for partisan
political reasons. Perhaps more important, without competition, the ports offer an irresistible
opportunity to generate monopoly rents that are then transferred to employees or the owning
agency, or others, usually with highly opaque accounting. Consolidated accounting erases theability to measure the results of any individual port.
Link-type integration can also be bad if it denies others access to one of the links. In RSA
and in Turkey, the port operator has (or had) a clear incentive to favor rail access over trucks(though the RSA Government’s lack of control of overweight trucks has a countervailing
impact), partly because of the internal corporate relationship and partly because the rail linkoffers another opportunity to generate or distribute a monopoly rent from the port. Moreover,when rail and port are commonly owned, the resulting consolidation of information makes itvery difficult to isolate the performance of the parts.
Having a single rail operator for multiple ports is also probably questionable, especiallywhen the rail operator is not efficient. This could put the rail operator in the position ofgenerating rents that competition between the ports might otherwise generate. It could also
permit the rail operator to favor one of the hinterlands over another. This effect could be
alleviated by highly effective truck and/or water competition, but the full effect will dependon the size and shape of the hinterland affected. Both of these effects would be more serious
in RSA if the ownership of the ports is devolved to local authorities, and they will be more
serious in Turkey when (assuming the process is completed) the ports are privately operated
by separated companies.
Using port profits to support rail losses and rail investment hurts both port and rail. It
results in higher port tariffs than are necessary, reducing the productivity of the entire
economy. It also drains the port of investment needed for rehabilitation, replacement andexpansion, and it harms the freight system of the country if, as is the case in Turkey and was
the case in RSA, the port surpluses are used to support rail passenger deficits and
L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 200917

investment.20 The only significant case to be made for non-transparent transfer of funds
generated from one place in an “integrated” system to another part of the system is politicalconvenience.
Lack of transparency and information, especially under consolidated reporting makes
oversight and regulation at any point difficult if not impossible. The increasing consolidationof Transnet in RSA has removed even the vestiges of independent accounting for Spoornet,
and has made port-by-port results in NPA or SAPO difficult. In response, RSA is beginningto create regulators for some port functions, but it seems clear that the new regulators will behobbled by lack of information and attempts to implement regulations that will inevitably
conflict with policies and political objectives (port equalization is a good example).
The injection of explicit (or hidden) political objectives makes behavior unpredictablebecause the objectives often conflict with explicit efficiency objectives and with market
forces. The result is usually unfavorable to a proper functioning of the networks.
Governments, such as RSA, have justified their controls of the entire network on the basis ofcompetition with other nations, apparently believing that it is somehow nations that arecompeting to form logistics chains. In fact, a complete logistics chain is a complex set ofinteracting pieces, only a very few of which are open for public intervention. Attempts by
Governments to influence the logistics chains are almost certain to fail. This obviously raises
the question of what should be the role (if any) of governments in the logistics chain?
Figures One and Two, along with the RSA and Turkey cases raise a critical question for
the E.U. It is clear that the Commission, beginning with Directive 91-440 and continuing
through its subsequent Directives and Packages, intended to ensure that, on the rail side, there
would be effective competition at all ports, no matter who the port owner or rail infrastructure
manager might be. In Figure One and Figure Two terms, this would have meant that every(independent) port in the E.U. should at least in theory have competitive rail entry from allnational freight operators. Moreover, as the Commission’s policy has evolved, it should bepossible for each E.U. port to enjoy access by multiple private operators as well. In practice,
the programs of several railways, notably DB Holding and Railion, pose a paradox. DB’s
action to acquire many other freight operators in Europe, without fully breaking theconnection with infrastructure (in Germany) poses a threat of a number of the kinds of
reduction of competition, both by merger and by linkage, that would reduce freight rail
competition in the E.U., not only in port access, but across much of Europe as well. In
addition, ownership of, for example, both the old DB cargo and the old NS Cargo, could
expose the ports of Rotterdam and Hamburg (for example) to a single rail carrier with clearly
mixed and less than transparent motives. It is worthwhile asking again who is competing andfor what in assessing the future structure of the E.U. rail freight sector, both throughownership and access charges.
At least in RSA and Turkey, integration and merger probably did reduce competition, andthe economies have paid a significant price through underinvestment and inefficiency. A
reasonable suggestion is that both mergers and the various levels of “integration” ought tosubject to a reasonable burden of proof. While it seems likely that many kinds of integration
will be justifiable, this cannot be taken on faith.
18

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

As an example of what rail versus rail competition can do, for ports, railways and thelogistics system, it is interesting to cast a brief glance at the US railways since the Staggers
Act deregulated the system.
Prior to the deregulation, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC – now called the
STB, or Surface Transportation Board) had tightly controlled almost all aspects of rail
competition, including tariffs and mergers. In 1981, in the first year of deregulation, there
were 37 private rail freight companies, and the average tariff charged was about US$0.0429
per tonne-Km (in 2006 constant $). By 2006, the average freight tariff had fallen to
US$0.0194 per tonne-Km, a 55 percent reduction in constant terms. This was not just an
artifact of the increase in coal shipments based on cheaper Western coal (coal rates fell byover 61 percent), but was felt in all commodities, including containers (reduction of about 46
percent in real terms), with percentage reductions ranging from 28 to 51 percent in real terms.
After deregulation, a number of major things happened: first, the railways employed
innovative technology in order to improve the efficiency of labor and capital; second, anumber of operating methods were adopted (especially unit trains) that permitted much higher
efficiency; third, tariff innovations, especially contract tariffs21 where railways could invest in
support of guaranteed volumes, permitted a much more direct relationship between what therailway could sell and the customer wanted to buy. Finally, in apparent contradiction of theneed for more competition, the number of Class I (large) railways was allowed to decrease
through merger from 37 to 9, largely because the railways successfully argued that thesewould mostly have an end-to-end effect increasing length of haul and increasing
competitiveness with trucks rather than being side-to-side mergers which would reduce rail
competition. At least in this case, largely end-to-end mergers (linkage) did increase
competition, with major benefits for the economy.

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 200919

NOTES1.

It is worth noting that common ownership does not necessarily guarantee integration. In manycases conglomerates are notorious for having poorly coordinated or even competing subsidiaries.

2.

Some countries generate up to 40 percent of their total government revenues from import duties.

3.

These Figures are considerably simplified purely for the purpose of highlighting the major
possibilities of competition and integration or merger. In particular, Figure Two could be
expanded to show three ports or more, multiple hinterlands, etc. In addition, for simplicity, bothFigures look at inbound flow on a ship entering a port in the country of destination. It does notshow the mirror image system in the country of origin. For simplicity these Figures look at aone-way flow: obviously all flows could be reversed. Finally, pipelines are excluded from the
Figures because they are significant only in bulk flows: in some ports and countries this is asignificant share of tonnage and value sent through the overall logistics chain.

4.

Not all possibilities for horizontal competition exist in all cases. Small ports may have only one
liner and one set of handling facilities in any case. Few ports (the larger U.S. ports might be theexception) have competing railways, but most ports have competition among trucking companies.
Not all ports have inland water services.

5.

In fact, there was a point at which one railway company, CSX in the U.S., did own deep ocean
and inland water shipping, and did control certain port facilities.

6.

Because Transwerk has only one customer (Spoornet) and Spoornet only one supplier ofmaintenance services, it is difficult to say what Transwerk’s performance would be if it were an
arm’s length entity.

7.

NFLS, p. 4.

8.

The last year in which Transnet published a Divisional Report for Spoornet was in 2004. In
2004, the labor productivity for the Coal Export line was given as 13.86 million TU/Employee,with the productivity of the Iron Ore line at 24.99 million TU/Km, and the GFB shown as 1.49
million TU/Km. It should be noted, however, that even the 1.49 million level shown for the GFB
exceeds most E.U. railways, probably because the GFB did not involve passenger services
whereas most E.U. railways carry a high percentage of passenger traffic. See Spoornet 2004, pg
60.

9.

50 KV traction is actually unusually high, but is possible in this application because the spacearound the railway permits higher clearances.

10. NFLS, p. 24.
11. NFLS, p. 20.
20

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

12. NFLS, p. 8.
13. NFLS, p. 8.
14. The Port of Ambarli, the largest container facility in Turkey, has been private (Zeybek 2008,
Table 3)
15. TCDD Istatistik Yilligi, p. 108, p. 109.
16. TCDD 2007 lists the Izmir throughput at 898 000 TEU, whereas Zeybek, 2008, states that thecapacity of Izmir is only 443 000 TEU. The source of this discrepancy is not clear. In addition,according to Zeybek, the capacity of Ambarli is 1.5 million TEU, making it the largest container
port in Turkey.
17. World Bank 2005, p. 3.
18. World Bank 2005, p. 29.
19. World Bank 2005, p. 29, p. 30.
20. It is interesting to note that Transnet’s monopoly ownership of the pipelines in RSA actually
produced even higher operating income ratios that in the ports – money that also did not yield
adequate maintenance of the pipelines, let alone the ports or railways.
21. The ICC had ruled that contract tariffs were illegal, before the Staggers Act.

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 200921

Table 1. Transnet Revenue and EBITDA* Table by Division(Millions of Rand)
2006
2007
Returnon NetEBITDA
Assets
EBITDA
Revenue
EBITDA%(%)
Revenue
EBITDA%

Revenue

EBITDAEBITDA%

Freight Rail (Spoornet)

14,055

2,910

20.7

8.8

14,574

3,522

24.2

16,598

5,151

31.0

Rail Engineering (Transwerk)

3,645

738

20.2

48.6

7,310

1,088

14.9

8,156

1,188

14.6

National Ports Authority (NPA)South
African
Ports
Organization (SAPO)

5,438

4,242

78.0

24.9

6,107

4,628

75.8

6,843

5,198

76.0

3,585

1,193

33.3

29.7

4,098

1,561

38.1

4,843

1,810

37.4

Pipelines (Petronet)

1,060

860

81.1

16.3

1,218

931

76.4

1,292

990

76.6

Total

26,034

10,301

39.6

16.7

26,889

11,14941.5

13,185

43.8* Earnings Before Interest, Depreciation and Amortization
Note: most recent exchange rates have been: one Euro=13.251 Rand, and one US$=10.2415 Rand. PPP$ multiplier is~2.5
Source: Transnet Annual Reports 2006, 2007,2008.
Return on net assets is not available after 2006.
estimated.

22

Red, italicised numbers are

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 20092008

30,091

Table 2

International Railway Comparisons

LATIN AMERICA:
Argentina (all concessions)
Bolivia (all concessions)
Brazil (all concessions)
Chile (Fepasa Only)
Mexico (all concessions)
Peru (all concessions)
Uruguay
AFRICA (SUB SAHARAN):
Cameroun
Congo--CFCO
Cote D'Ivoire (all of Sitarail)
Gabon
Ghana
Kenya
MalawiNamibia
Nigeria
Senegal/Mali (Transrail)
Spoornet
Sudan
Tanzania
TAZARA
UgandaZaire
ZambiaZimbabwe
MIDDLE EAST&N. AFR:
Algeria
Egypt
Iran
JordanMoroccoSaudi Arabia
Syria
Tunisia
EUROPE & C. ASIA:
Albania
Turkey (TCDD)
Macedonia
Yugoslavia
Croatia
RussiaUkraineKazakhstan
BelarusGeorgia
Armenia
Uzbekistan
EAST ASIA:
China
Republic of Korea
Malaysia
Mongolia
Thailand
Viet Nam
SOUTH ASIA:
Bangladesh
India
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
DEVELOPED COUNTRIESAustria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
FinlandFranceGermany
GreeceHungary
IrelandIsraelItaly
LatviaLithuania
Netherlands
PolandPortugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
United Kingdom
Japan
New Zealand
Canada: Via Rail
Canada:Canadian National
Canada:Canadian Pacific
USA:Amtrak
USA:All Class I Railways

Year

Total
Route km

Total
Locs

Freight
Wagons

2005
2004
2005
2004
2005
2002
2005

18,504
2,743
27,6662,379
17,382
1,580
3,003

461
54
2,394

23,5001,907
90,1191,088

32,560

22

1,788

2005
2005
2004
2004
2004
2002
2004
1995
2005
2005
2005
2005
2006
2000
2004
2005
1999
1997

1,016
795
1,261
810
977
2,634
710
2,382
3,557
1,546
20,247
5,478
2,722
1,860
259
3,641
1,273
2,759

67
29
20
20
61
152
24
50
126

2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2002
2005

Passenger- Freight
Freight
Passengers kilometers Tonnes Tonne-km(000)(000,000) (000,000) (000,000)
253,318705
215,136

7,845
264
3,336

950
517

80
12

2,646
115
86
75
43
136
62
169

1,130
1,070
807
548
750
5,154
478
1,627
2,744
602
94,210
4,651
1,828
2,235
1,431
3,876
5,758
11,385

1,021
500
100
200
2,340
4,794
395
124
1,526
500
3,100
100
694
1,641

325
135
10
95
85
288
26
49
363
275
991
40
433
518

400
830
1,598

140
186
583

3,572
5,150
7,131
293
1,907
1,020
2,450
1,909

221
671
606
19
199
56
183
174

10,026
11,592
19,848
346
5,707
2,060
5,313
3,903

27,300451,100
19,400929
40,837
11,14918,5001,100
1,417
36,804

2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005

447
8,697
699
3,809
2,726
85,24522,001
14,204
5,498
1,515
711
4,014

58
531
56
365
278
12,213
4,370
1,702
606
322
56
286

824
16,102
1,525
10,561
7,330
540,529
150,254
88,541
25,281
11,732
3,846
10,406

2005
2005
2005
2005
2004
2005

62,200
3,392
1,667
1,810
4,044
2,671

16,453
587
100
111
278
321

2005
2005
2005
2005

2,855
63,465
7,791
1,200

2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2000
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005

5,690
3,542
4,154
9,513
2,212
959
5,732
29,28634,218
2,576
7,730
1,919
899
16,225
2,375
1,772
2,813
19,507
2,839
10,844
3,659
1,228
14,484
9,867
3,011
15,81020,052
3,904
13,49031,894
21,96236,000153,787

76
2,073
1,669
382
23,1981,290,000

922,720
2.19
0.94

115,8202.28
0.46

4,044,368
2.33
0.40

World Total
Spoornet Percent
TCDD Total

P-Km as% of TU

Staff

Average
Freight
Traffic
Lead,
tonne-km
OutputStaff
Density
Freight per Wagon per staff per km (000 of TU
(km)
(000)
(000 TU) of Line per km)

23.4
1.3
387.6
8.6
97.2
2.2
1.3

12,262
969
221,300
1,795
70,899
750
331

39
21
1
10
4

5,300
785
24,469590
14,000
1,200
511

524
734
571
210
729
341
251

522
508
2,456

1.8
0.6
0.6
3.9
1.9
2.2
0.2
1.8
0.1
1.5
182.2
1.3
1.7
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.6
12.0

1,052
231
501
2,219
242
1,538
38
1,082
105
541
109,721
766
1,970
780
218
444
554
4,871

24
37
2
4
26
16
41
4
78
34
1
5
18
40
24
25
11

2,200
600
3,126
1,300
3,777
7,000
487
1,944
13,6181,500
32,516
11,800
9,000
4,175
1,150
13,6003,400
12,025

579
385
880
569
129
691
158
615
827
350
602
589
1,152
1,231
241
370
339
406

2,987
393
364
1,319

8.3
10.1
30.3
2.9
32.9
2.6
5.9
10.8

1,471
3,917
19,127
1,024
5,919
1,192
1,812
2,067

39
91
37
34
25
17
39

10,50091,40013,700
600
9,300
1,600
11,5005,226

1,400
76,306900
13,50039,8001,338,723
518,400
15,900141,000
3,600
703
16,100

73
5,036
94
852
1,266
172,21752,655
12,12913,568
720
27
2,012

0.4
18.9
3.1
12.6
14.3
1,281.3
462.4
215.5
125.1
19.0
2.6
53.8

26
9,078
530
3,482
2,835
1,858,100
223,980
171,855
43,5596,127654
18,007

74
36
15
20
31
8
19
7
24
11
4
10

541,824
9,121
3,707
2,633
6,900
4,975

1,106,510
921,300
3,700
4,300
50,87312,800583,320
31,004
1,181
1,228
9,332
4,558

2,309.2
44.5
4.0
14.1
13.8
8.7

1,934,612
10,108
1,178
8,857
4,085
2,928

286
7,910
592
141

10,236
222,379
21,812
2,458

42,254
5,378,000
78,200114,400

4,164
575,70224,237
4,358

3.2
602.1
6.4
1.5

1,229
759
584
2,167
63
113
545
4,588
4,787
164
981
94
74
3,297
205
240
121
3,689
154
1,864
212
149
894
533
1,655
410
1,200

15,846
12,756
12,414
34,610191,600
186,600
33,700178,200
152,400
5,200
63,500962,700
1,785,400
10,000120,400
37,70026,800516,800
25,9006,700
321,100
218,000
130,600
91,50049,10015,700610,700
34,900275,900
1,082,000
8,683,900

8,470
9,150
2,389
6,631
5,459
248
3,478
76,15972,554
1,854
6,953
1,781
1,618
46,144894
428
14,73016,742
3,412
7,960
2,166
777
21,047
5,673
13,83043,200245,957

4,097

1,430

3,279
11,16235,456
156,751
3,204
16,658926
640
44,242
5,290
9,309
75,164
3,255
55,231
16,3703,946
17,238
7,290
10,7699,000

96,15355,48024,164

26,770,040
0.01
0.29

185

3,794
1,571
9,180
3,042
5,064
692
672

0.29
0.29
0.88
0.25
0.81
0.76
0.17

1,087
450
8,120
755
4,079
525
114

931
216
621
4,049
323
298
79
665
38
899
1,165
165
1,078
349
152
115
96
428

626
610
163
1,780
87
261
131
581
34
544
3,405
68
267
311
190
43
218
454

2.17
0.75
2.48
1.60
3.87
2.66
0.69
0.82
3.83
0.97
1.61
2.15
3.31
2.24
4.44
3.74
2.67
4.36

1,355
460
405
2,857
335
693
90
474
132
528
5,468
147
883
698
842
160
581
1,977

177
388
631
353
180
458
306
192

147
338
964
2,960
1,037
579
341
530

229
490
2,210
1,707
958
991
189
648

2.94
17.75
1.92
2.05
4.88
1.57
4.69
2.74

672
8,690
4,246
3,495
4,670
1,554
888
1,774

2,200
30,991
2,900
22,30014,2001,161,900
368,200
94,30078,30015,8004,745
35,400

65
479
171
276
198
1,450
484
797
348
322
250
335

32
564
348
330
387
3,438
1,491
1,941
1,723
522
170
1,730

45
455
215
194
289
1,747
751
1,951
730
433
143
566

4.92
3.56
4.15
5.85
5.21
13.63
16.74
6.64
14.24
10.43
6.67
8.82

221
1,623
893
1,138
1,504
23,817
12,574
12,953
10,391
4,519
957
4,987

23
75
50
12
70
61

1,665,588
29,3005,000
15,20019,00044,200

838
227
295
628
296
337

3,571
1,108
318
3,364
592
589

1,512
1,403
472
663
706
169

26.78
8.64
3.00
8.40
4.70
16.55

40,481
12,120
1,415
5,572
3,318
2,803

817
407,398
5,013
135

84
59
83
97

35,172
1,422,200
86,807
16,360

255
677
782
90

80
1,832
230
55

142
691
337
275

12.32
22.41
11.14
13.63

1,745
15,490
3,754
3,744

81.7
61.0
20.3
75.8

17,0368,130
5,164
14,385

1,075
637
416
416

10,311
9,706
41,89888,022
613
8,537
303
1,149
20,131
17,921
12,457

230
238
323
321
204
194
202
153
293
326
253

3,145
870
1,182
562
191
512
327
1,795
455
3,388
1,338

155.1
9.6
67.5
47.7
16.3
29.7

293
252
238
196
199
390

56.2
103.9
37.1
14.7

45,4382,422
16,032
9,326
3,245
11,586
13,1208,571
22,11022,632
4,078

47,20037,20033,70065,2003,170
3,300
10,300167,200
224,600
8,100
44,6005,500
1,600
99,10014,60011,30027,300127,700
8,600
67,10036,6008,100
19,10013,20025,900

209
133
254
190

44.8
40.7
129.7
274.6
3.0
44.0
1.5
7.5
68.7
54.9
49.3

605
744
290
570
822
672
1,800
796

540
465
224
322
1,722
3,200
1,280
706
715
305
347
379
1,729
669
1,289
1,140
540
487
678
358
314
497
1,709
1,424
865

212.6
120.4

262,589
183,100

1,723.0

2,478,914

33
53
32
32
100
2
26
65
45
75
45
85
58
70
5
3
100
27
58
33
19
19
64
30
62
66
92
100
100
-

8.30
10.50
8.11
6.85
1.43
3.44
1.80
5.71
6.56
3.14
5.77
2.87
1.78
6.11
6.15
6.38
9.70
6.55
3.03
6.19
10.00
6.60
1.32
1.34
8.60
0.00
6.76
1.04
0.23
0.70
0.75
0.53
1.06

4,483
4,879
1,818
2,209
2,468
11,010
2,300
4,031
4,693
958
2,004
1,086
3,078
4,085
7,922
7,271
5,236
3,188
2,055
2,212
3,141
3,275
2,253
1,905
7,440
4,131
13,395
1,045
106
8,233
8,337
241
16,119

9,610
1.90
0.20

8,523,997
1.29
0.11

8,681

2,203,604
0.04
0.23

21

135,600
4,064
3,059
22,246
16,44819,177
162,438

153
213
610
277

2,177

2,515

1,235
1,520

2,731
3,300

1,439

1,922

1,981
1,003
467
11,804
11,132453
15,261

6,957,264
0.47
0.45

Italicised railways are (or were) privately operated.
Source: World Bank Railway Database

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 200923

Table 3. South African Ports
Functions

Richards Bay
DurbanSaldanha
Cape Town
Port Elizabeth
East London
Mossel Bay

PublicBreak Bulk, Bulk,
Containers
Containers, Bulk,
Break Bulk
Break Bulk, Bulk
Containers, Bulk,
Break Bulk
Break Bulk, Bulk,
Containers
Break Bulk, Bulk,
Containers
Bulk, Break Bulk

Commodities

Bulk
Break Bulk,
Bulk
Bulk, Break
Bulk
Break Bulk,
Bulk

Coal, Steel, Iron Ore, Other
Steel, Granite, General
Cargo

48

Iron ore, other ores
GeneralCargo,
Fruit,
Timber, Meat and Fish

16

None

Ores, Fruit, Scrap
Cars and parts, General
Cargo
Oil, General Cargo

None
Liquid Bulk

* Export tonnage is about 122 Million Tonnes, Imports are about 39 million
Tonnes.
Source: National Freight Logistics Study24

Percent ofTonnage*

PrivateL.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

24

6
4
1
1

Table 4

General Profitability Analysis of TCDD operations (millions of constant 2007 US$)
$2,000.00$2,001.00$2,002.00$2,003.00$2,004.00$2,005.00$2,006.00$2,007.00

Suburban Passengers
Expenses

$

64.31

$

57.20

$

58.64

$

45.72

$

58.36

$

59.05

$

54.00

$

53.38

Revenues

$

43.62

$

38.51

$

36.14

$

33.00

$

34.42

$

40.98

$

42.88

$

42.32

Net Loss

$

20.69

$

18.69

$

22.50

$

12.71

$

23.94

$

18.07

$

11.12

$

11.06

Revenues/Expenses (%)

$

67.83

$

67.32

$

61.63

$

72.19

$

58.98

$

69.39

$

79.40

$

79.28

Mainline Passengers
Expenses$ 462.25
81.19$ 479.68
83.34

83.95

81.76

74.81

80.79

$ 383.55$ 358.09$ 403.89$ 398.05$ 403.92$ 420.22

Revenues/Expenses (%)

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

16.87

$

81.43

$ 504.22$ 396.34

15.63$$ 485.35

$

18.59

$

$ 478.84$ 381.07

17.96$$ 478.70

Revenues

17.37$$ 439.85

Net Loss

17.56$$ 467.50

16.78

$

84.00
16.66

Total Passengers
Expenses$ 526.57$ 536.87$ 526.14$ 485.56$ 537.06$ 537.89$ 539.36$ 557.60

Revenues$ 124.81$ 121.84$ 120.09$ 114.76$ 109.23$ 121.77$ 124.31$ 126.32

Net Loss$ 401.76$ 415.03$ 406.05$ 370.80$ 427.83$ 416.12$ 415.05$ 431.28

Revenues/Expenses (%)

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

23.70

22.69

22.82

23.63

20.34

22.64

23.05

22.65

Freight
Expenses$ 909.31$ 744.91$ 812.64$ 765.36$ 818.92$ 880.45$ 887.75$ 880.44

Revenues$ 205.34$ 187.31$ 209.03$ 231.10$ 256.88$ 271.13$ 275.79$ 281.08

Net Loss$ 703.97$ 557.60$ 603.61$ 534.27$ 562.04$ 609.32$ 611.96$ 599.36

Revenues/Expenses (%)

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

22.58

25.14

25.72

30.19

31.37

30.79

31.07

31.92

Total Railway
Expenses$1,435.88$1,281.78$1,338.78$1,250.93$1,355.98$1,418.34$1,427.11

Revenues$ 330.15$ 309.15$ 329.12$ 345.86$ 366.12$ 392.90$ 400.10$ 407.40

Net Loss$1,105.73$ 972.64$1,009.66$ 905.07$ 989.86$1,025.44$1,027.01$1,030.64

Revenues/Expenses (%)

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

22.99

24.12

24.58

27.65

27.00

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

27.70

28.04

$1,438.04

28.33

25

Port Services
Expenses$ 229.45$ 205.52$ 204.29$ 181.17$ 190.55$ 202.86$ 188.54$ 166.09

Revenues$ 369.91$ 378.76$ 418.57$ 359.88$ 342.17$ 333.61$ 360.98$ 257.38

Net$ (140.45)$ (173.24)$ (214.28)$ (178.71)$ (151.62)$ (130.75)$ (172.44)$

Revenues/Expenses (%)$ 161.21$ 184.29$ 204.89$ 198.64$ 179.57$ 164.45$ 191.46$ 154.96(91.29)$1,604.13

Grand Total TCDD
Expenses$1,665.33$1,487.30$1,543.07$1,432.10$1,546.53$1,621.20$1,615.65

Revenues$ 700.06$ 687.91$ 747.69$ 705.74$ 708.29$ 726.51$ 761.09$ 664.77

Net Loss$ 965.28$ 799.40$ 795.38$ 726.36$ 838.24$ 894.69$ 854.56$ 939.35

Revenues/Expenses (%)

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

Total Subsidies paid by Government$ 257.75

42.04

46.25

$ 381.10

48.45

49.28

45.80

44.81

47.11

41.44

$ 368.18$ 360.96$ 407.63$ 430.42$ 462.34$ 446.89$7,169.00$8,669.00$9,417.00$9,152.00$9,676.00$9,921.00

Output (000,000)
Tonne-Km$9,761.00$7,486.00

Passenger-km
Suburban$1,592.00$1,355.00$1,265.00$1,295.00$1,328.00$1,375.00$1,399.00$1,473.00

Intercity$4,215.00$4,149.00$4,017.00$4,583.00$3,835.00$3,661.00$3,878.00$4,080.00

TOTAL$5,832.00$5,568.00$5,282.00$5,878.00$5,163.00$5,036.00$5,277.00$5,553.00

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

Revenue/Tonne-Km (US$)

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

0.03

Revenue/Passenger-Km (US$)
Suburban

$

0.03

$

0.03

$

0.03

$

0.03

$

0.03

$

0.03

$

0.03

$

0.03

Intercity

$

0.02

$

0.02

$

0.02

$

0.02

$

0.02

$

0.02

$

0.02

$

0.02

Traffic Index: 1990=100
Freight$ 123.32

$

94.58

$

90.57

$ 109.53$ 118.98$ 115.63$ 122.25

Suburban

$

$

46.23

$

43.16

$

$

$

$

Mainline$ 121.16

Conversion Factor

1.26 Million Lire/US$

54.32$ 119.26$ 115.46

44.18$ 131.73

45.31$ 110.23

Source: TCDD, Istatistik Yilligi, various issues

26

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 200946.91

$ 105.23

47.73$ 111.47$ 125.34$

50.26$ 117.28

Table 5. TCDD Ports (2007)
Tonnes Handled (000)Haydarpasa
Derince
SamsunMersinIskenderun
Bandarma
Izmir
TotalsGeneralCargo, Break
Bulk (000tonnes)
651
3027
1616
3177
1846
8465
3210
21992

Containers(000 tonnes)
3277
4
0
2428
0
0
8858
14567

Containers(000 TEU)
397
1
0
232
0
0
898
1528

Outbound
1376
845
2276
367
538
3799
7740
16941

Inbound
2552
2186
3329
1480
1078
4666
4328
19619

Percent
tonnes
10.7
8.3
15.3
5.1
4.4
23.2
33.0
100.0

Total
3928
3031
5605
1847
1616
8465
12068
36560

Source: TCDD Annual Statistics, 2007, pg 75,76

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 200927

Horizontal and Link Competition with One Port

Land Modes

Port
Water
Side

Ocean Lines

A

Land
Side

Trucking

1
2

X

Line 1

3
Railways

Line 2B

Y

2
3Line 3
Water

C

Z

1
2
3

28

Discussion
Paper 2009-5— ©possible
OECD/ITF, 2009
Note: onlyL.S.
twoThompson
paths are—shown,
but manypaths are

ReceiverFigure One

1

Port and Hinterland Competition
Port Alpha
Ocean
Lines

Land Modes

Hinterland 1

TrucksRec
Rec

RailwaysRec

Rec

Figure Two

Water
Rec

Rec

Ocean
Lines

Port Beta

TrucksRec

Railways

Water

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

Rec

Rec

Hinterland 2

29

Figure 3

30

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

Figure 4

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 200931

Figure 5

32

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

Figure 6

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 200933

REFERENCES

SOUTH AFRICA
CSIR, “First Annual State of Logistics Survey for South Africa,” Pretoria, South Africa, November
2004
CSIR, “Second Annual State of Logistics Survey for South Africa,” Pretoria, South Africa, November
2005
Department of Public Enterprises, “Public Enterprises Strategic Plan,” Pretoria, South Africa, undated(2005?).
Department of Public Enterprises, “Annual Report 2005/2006,” Pretoria, South Africa, undated (2006?)
Department of Transport, “White Paper on National Transport Policy,” Pretoria, South Africa, 20
August 1996
Department of Transport, “Moving South Africa: A Transport Strategy for 2020,” Pretoria, South
Africa, undated (2000?)
Department of Transport, “National Freight Logistics Strategy,” Pretoria, South Africa, September
2005. (NFLS).
Department of Transport, “National Land Transport Strategic Framework 2006-2011,” Pretoria, South
Africa, July 2006
Department of Transport, “Strategic Plan 2006-2009,” Pretoria, South Africa, undated (2006?)
South African Institution of Civil Engineers (SAICE), “The SAICE Infrastructure Report Card forSouth Africa: 2006,” Vorna Valley, Midrand, South Africa, 2006
Spoornet, “Media Statement on Spoornet Restructuring,’ compiled jointly by Government,
SALSTAFF, SATAWU and UTATU, Johannesburg, South Africa, 27 February 2002
Spoornet, “The Spoornet Heritage,” from website, dated 2004-2005.
Spoornet, “Annual Divisional Report,” Johannesburg, South Africa, 2004.
Spoornet website

34

Downloaded from

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 2009

TURKEY
Harral, Winner, Thompson, Sharp and Lawrence (HWTSL), “Options for Reform, Turkish State
Railway,” analysis for the World Bank, 15 June 2002
Turkish State Railways (TCDD), “Istatistik Yilligi” (Annual Statistics) 2003-2007, Ankara, Turkey,
2007 (www.tcdd.gov.tr)
World Bank Project Appraisal Document, “Railways Restructuring Project in Support of the Railways
Restructuring Program,” Report No: 28049-TU, World Bank, Washington, DC, May 12, 2005
Zeybek, Hulya and Muhtesem Kaynak, “What Role for Turkish Ports in the Regional Logistics Supply
Chains?” Paper for International Conference on Information Systems, Logistics and Supply Chain,
Madison, Wisconsin, May 27, 2008. http://www.muhtesemkaynak.com/56.pdf

L.S. Thompson — Discussion Paper 2009-5 — © OECD/ITF, 200935