INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

THE ENERGY AND

RESOURCES INSTITUTE
Creating Innovative Solutions for a Sustainable Future

MOVING TOWARDS A LOW-CARBON

TRANSPORT FUTURE
Increasing Rail Share in
Freight Transport in India
Working Paper – Container

1
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

THE ENERGY AND

RESOURCES INSTITUTE
Creating Innovative Solutions for a Sustainable Future

MOVING TOWARDS A LOW-CARBON

TRANSPORT FUTURE
Increasing Rail Share in
Freight Transport in India
Working Paper – Container

1
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

© The Energy and Resources Institute 2019

T E R I. 2019
Increasing Rail Share in Freight Transport in India: Working Paper – Container
New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute.
Project Report No. 2016UD05

About Shakti: Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation works to strengthen the energy security of India by aiding the
design and implementation of policies that support energy efficiency, renewable energy and sustainable mobility.

Disclaimer: The views/analysis expressed in this report/document do not necessarily reflect the views of Shakti
Sustainable Energy Foundation. The Foundation also does not guarantee the accuracy of any data included in this
publication nor does it accept any responsibility for the consequences of its use.

For more information

Project Monitoring Cell
TERI Tel. 2468 2100 or 2468 2111
Darbari Seth Block E-mail pmc@[Link]
IHC Complex, Lodhi Road Fax 2468 2144 or 2468 2145
New Delhi – 110 003 Web [Link]
India India +91 • Delhi (0)11

2
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Global Container Market 11
Container Market in India 11
Container Movement in India 12
Container Movement by Rail 12
Classification of Commodities in FOIS data of EXIM and Domestic Containers (in numbers) 15
EXIM Traffic 15
Zonal-Pair wise Distribution of EXIM Traffic 17
EXIM Traffic in Southern States 18
OD Analysis of EXIM container movement 18
Other opportunities for improving rail share of container traffic 21
Domestic traffic 23
Zonal-Pair wise Distribution of Domestic Traffic 25
OD Analysis of Domestic Container Movement 25
Policy-related Issues 32
Regulation of Competition 32
Operational Issues 35
Transit time 38
Infrastructural Issues 40
Inter-modal coordination for last mile connectivity 41
Issues in Freight Marketing and Commercial Services 42
Other Recommendations 42
ANNEXURE 44

3
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: World container port throughput (million TEUs) 11
Figure 2: Containerisation Levels in EU 11
Figure 3: Container traffic at Indian Ports 12
Figure 4: Chain of export/import-oriented goods moved through container 12
Figure 5: Share of container traffic in total traffic (in terms of tonnage) carried by Indian Railways (2017-18) 13
Figure 6: Growth of Container Traffic (in million TEU-KM) 14
Figure 7: Total container traffic (EXIM and domestic) carried by IR (2013-14 to 2017-18) tonnage (million tonnes) 14
Figure 8: Total earnings from IR’s container service during the last five years – Earnings (Rs crore) 14
Figure 9: Growth of EXIM container traffic by cargo type (in TEUs) 16
Figure 10: Total EXIM traffic (2013-14 to 2017-18) based on Lead categories 16
Figure 11: Growth of EXIM container traffic by cargo type 16
Figure 12: Growth of Heavy Cargo moved in EXIM containers over short, medium and long distances
(2013-14 to 2017-18) 17
Figure 13: Growth of Intermediate Cargo moved in EXIM containers over short, medium and long distances
(2013-14 to 2017-18) 17
Figure 14: Growth of Light Cargo moved in EXIM containers over short, medium and long distances
(2013-14 to 2017-18) 17
Figure 15: Total Domestic Container Traffic by cargo type (2013-14 to 2017-18) 24
Figure 16: Growth of Domestic Container Traffic by Cargo type (2013-14 to 2017-18) (in ‘000 TEUs) 24
Figure 17: Growth of Domestic Container Traffic by Cargo type (2013-14 to 2017-18) 24
Figure18: Growth of Heavy Cargo moved in Domestic containers over short, medium and long distances
(2013-14 to 2017-18) 25
Figure 19: Growth of Intermediate Cargo moved in Domestic containers over short, medium and long distances
(2013-14 to 2017-18) 25
Figure 20: Growth of Light Cargo moved in Domestic containers over short, medium and long distances
(2013-14 to 2017-18) 25
Figure 21: Events leading to the setting up of CONCOR 28
Figure 22: Liberalization of container operation by Indian Railways 29
Figure 23: CONCOR Market Share and Performance (2013-14 to 2017-18) 34
Figure 24: Possible effects of port congestion charges (from figure 9) 37

4
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Total IR traffic and earnings vis-à-vis container traffic and earnings 13
Table 2: Domestic and EXIM container traffic carried by Indian Railways 13
Table 3: Number of types of commodities moved in containers 15
Table 4: Classification of commodities based on Density and Distance 15
Table 5: Diversity of commodities carried by EXIM containers – by Density (No. of different types of
commodities) 16
Table 6: Percentage of Total TEUs of EXIM container traffic in railways (2013-14 to 2017-18) 17
Table 7: Distribution of Traffic (FOIS data, 2017-18) 18
Table 8: EXIM traffic by movement in Southern states (TEU-KM in millions) 19
Table 9: EXIM Traffic by southern movement (% of TEU-KM) 19
Table 10: Number of OD pairs involved in EXIM container movement 19
Table 11: OD Ranks based on NTKM (EXIM) 20
Table 12: Details of MDCC (Mundra) to PLPC (Ludhiana) OD 21
Table 13: Percentage share of MDCC (Mundra) to PLPC (Ludhiana) traffic in total EXIM traffic 21
Table 14: Details of container traffic between MDCC (Mundra) and PLPC (Ludhiana) 21
Table 15: Variety of commodities carries between MDCC (Mundra) and PLPC (Ludhiana) 22
Table 16: Details of MDCC (Mundra) to CMLK (Kathuwas) OD 22
Table 17: Details of traffic between from MDCC to CMLK 22
Table 18: Cargo movement analysis of JNPT-MDCC container traffic (2017-18) 23
Table 19: Cargo movement analysis of CMLK & TICD container terminals of CONCOR 23
Table 20: Cargo type wise diversity in commodities carried in domestic containers (No.) 23
Table 21: Domestic Traffic by Cargo type (TEUs in thousands) 24
Table 22: Percentage of total TEUs of domestic container traffic in railways by distance and density
(2013-14 to 2017-18) 25
Table 23: Distribution of Domestic Container Traffic (2017-18) 26
Table 24: Number of OD pairs for domestic container movement 26
Table 25: OD Ranks based on NTKM (Domestic) 27
Table 26: Categories of CTO Licenses 29
Table 27: Key interventions made by IR related to container movement 30

5
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

LIST OF TABLES
Table 28: Zonal OD wise traffic and CTO operations 32
Table 29: Change in Market Share of CTOs between 2013-14 and 2017-18 35
Table 30: IR Zone wise proportional EXIM traffic in TEUs originating and ending (2017-18) 38
Table 31: Percentage of Total EXIM Traffic in TEUs (2017-18) 39
Table 32: Cost incurred in transporting containers through rail vis-a-vis road transport 39
Table 33: Transit time comparison between road and rail on key ODs (in days) 40
Table 34: Incoming and Outgoing Zonal EXIM container traffic (TEUs) 41

6
 INCREASING THE SHARE OF INDIAN RAILWAYS IN THE MOVEMENT OF TOTAL NATIONAL FREIGHT

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) would like to express deep gratitude to the Member Traffic and Railway
Board directorates (Traffic, Commercial, Freight Marketing, and Coaching) for their support and guidance throughout
the study. TERI also thanks the officers at different zonal railways in sharing valuable inputs for the study. This report
would not have been possible without the support and guidance of the Indian Railways (IR).

TERI extends sincere thanks to various stakeholders (Concor and Association of Container Train Operators) and
industry representatives who shared their insights and ideas towards increasing the share of IR’s freight loading.

We also extend sincere gratitude to Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation in supporting TERI to undertake this study.

The project team also acknowledges the contribution of Mr Shri Prakash, Distinguished Fellow, TERI, and Mr Deepak
Nath, Independent Consultant and Ex-Railway Personnel towards reviewing and enriching the study with their
valuable suggestions and experience of the railways sector. We take this opportunity to thank the editorial and design
team at TERI for their contribution.

Project Team

Team Lead

Mr Shri Prakash

Project Investigator

Mr Sharif Qamar

Advisor

Mr Deepak Nath

Team

Mr Aravind Harikumar

Mr Sharif Qamar

Secretarial Assistance

Ms Sonia Khanduri

7
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

CONTAINERS
Global Container Market 800
750
As a conveyance foundation for sea freight, containers 700
entered the international market nearly six decades 650

million TEUs
ago and have since gained acceptance throughout the 600
world as a concept of unit load. Containers are uniform 550
metal boxes whose contents need not be unpacked 500
at each point of transfer. They have been designed 450
for convenient and fast handling of freight. Besides 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
World container
the enhanced convenience in discharge and loading port throughput 560 606 634 656 687 696 710 753
processes, containers also simplify scheduling and (million TEUs)

controlling and improved cargo protection against the Figure 1: World container port throughput (million TEUs)
weather. Source: UNCTAD
20
17.9 %
18
The movement of cargo in containers has proven to be 17.3 %
% of total cargo for each mode

16
cost effective and more efficient by facilitating faster 14
12
movement of cargo. By 2009, almost 90% of the world’s 10
8.7%
non-bulk cargo was moved by containers stacked in 8
6 6.0 %
transport ships (Ebeling, 2009). Overall, the volume 4
of goods carried through containers has increased 2
0
significantly from 102 million tonnes (mt) in 1980 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
to about 1,830 million tonnes in 20171. In terms of Railways Roadways Marime Inland Waterways

twentyfoot equivalent units (TEUs), the world container Figure 2: Containerisation Levels in EU
port throughput has increased at a compound annual Source: European Commission, 2018

growth rate (CAGR) of 4% between 2010 and 20172. in maritime freight movement, there is an increase
According to Lloyd’s list of top container handling ports3 in containerisation levels in rail cargo. However, the
, India’s JNPT and Mundra ports are ranked 28th and containerisation levels in road bound cargo declined
35th while China’s Shanghai port tops the chart. Notably, in the same period. This triggers the question if
seven Chinese ports are placed in the top 10 container containerised cargo is friendlier to rail than road and
handling ports in the world. highlights the scope of investigation regarding the
In 2016, 34.3% of the total cargo tonnes handled by 28 linkages between containerisation levels in shipping, rail,
European Union countries in deep sea shipping were and road.
containerised (European Commission, 2018). Figure 1
shows the trend in containerisation levels in Road, Rail, Container Market in India
Maritime, and Inland waterways movement of all cargo
India’s (export-import) EXIM trade has grown faster
in Europe.
than the gross domestic product (GDP) in the past two
Assessing the containerisation trends in Europe shows decades. This has boosted the growth in container traffic
that corresponding to increasing containerisation levels as shippers are increasingly shifting from bulk shipping

1
[Link]
2
[Link]
3
[Link]

9
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

or general cargo to container transport. The share of the convenience of moving these goods in containers,
containerised cargo in major Indian ports went up from containerized traffic has seen rapid growth over the last
8% in 1995-96 to 18% in 2008 (Planning Commission, decade. In India, the container traffic has seen a CAGR of
2008). From 2000 to 2011, the container traffic in Indian over 10% over the last ten years with most of the export-
ports grew at a CAGR of 13% and between 2011 and import containers (EXIM) being traditionally carried out
2018 it grew at a CAGR of approximately 6%, which is by the major ports. However, over the last few years,
attributed mostly to the global recession from 2008 this ratio has become skewed with non-major ports
onwards4 . competing heavily with the major ports for the container
traffic.
140.00

120.00
As with the global context, most of the container
100.00

80.00
business is being handled by trucks as compared to the
lakh TEUs

60.00
Indian Railways (IR), despite the fact that Indian Railways
40.00 has undertaken measures such as “opening up” the rail-
20.00 based container traffic movement to private operators
0.00
2000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 almost a decade ago in 2006.
-01 -09 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17

Total container traffic

at Indian Ports 20.01 78.61 80.01 91.56 98.46 98.55 99.57 112.57119.05125.47
Container Movement by Rail
Figure 3: Container traffic at Indian Ports
Source: Indian Container Market Report, Drewry & Gateway Research Container is one of the nine major bulk commodities
that account for a substantial share in total traffic as well
The road freight is usually carried by trucks equipped as earnings of Indian Railways. Container traffic accounts
with internal combustion engines (ICE) which are mostly for about 5% in total freight traffic (2017-18) of Indian
propelled by diesel. Achieving a higher share of railways Railways and about 4.9% in the total freight earnings.
in the inland container movement will mitigate tonnes of Majority (80% in terms of tonnage and 70% in terms
vehicular emissions and move India closer to its climate of net tonne km (NTKM)) of the total container traffic
change mitigation targets. This report attempts to assess during 2017-18 is accounted by the EXIM traffic, that is,
the challenges in such a modal shift of containers in India going to the ports or coming from the ports.
and undertakes an analysis of CRIS data from Indian
Railways (IR) and recommends steps to be taken by the
Indian Railways to improve its share in inland container
movement in India.

Container Movement in India

Largely driven by services sector growth, India has been
witnessing rapid growth in the white goods, engineering
goods, and fast moving consumer goods markets. Given

Primary CFSs/ Secondary Ocean

transport Ports
transport ICDs transport

Figure 4: Chain of export/import-oriented goods moved through container

4
Indian Container Market Report, Drewry & Gateway Research (2018)
[Link]

10
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

Table 1: Total IR traffic and earnings vis-à-vis container traffic and earnings
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Total IR traffic and earnings
Traffic (million tonnes) 1,014 1,054 1,098 1,104 1,109 1,162
Earnings (in Rs. crore) 85,262 93,472 1,05,313 1,09,287 1,04,475 1,13,024
NTKM (in billions) 691 652 686 656 620 658
Container traffic and earnings
Traffic (million tonnes) 41.1 43.54 48.3 45.84 47.6 54.31
Earnings (in Rs. crore) 3,432 3,767 4,333 4,843.5 5,212 5,510
NTKM (in billions) 49.97 52.10 47.88 45.43 45.88 49.73
% share of container traffic in total IR traffic 4.05% 4.13% 4.40% 4.15% 4.29% 4.67%
% share of earnings from container in total IR 4.02% 4.03% 4.11% 4.43% 4.99% 4.88%
earnings
Source: Railway Board

¾¾ Over the last five years (2013-18), container traffic

Domesc, 20%
volume has increased at a CAGR of 6%. On the other
hand, earnings from container traffic increased at a
CAGR of 10% during the same period.
Other traffic Container
carried by rail 5% ¾¾ The domestic container traffic volume has increased
95% EXIM, 80%
at a CAGR of 0.1% in 5 years whereas EXIM container
traffic volume increased at a CAGR of by 7.4% from FY
2013-14 to FY 2017-18.
1
¾¾ During the same period, earnings from domestic
containers increased at a CAGR of 5.3% and from
Figure 5: Share of container traffic in total traffic (in terms of tonnage) earnings EXIM containers increased at a CAGR of
carried by Indian Railways (2017-18);
Source: Indian Railways
11.9%.

Table 2: Domestic and EXIM container traffic carried by Indian Railways

Year TEU-KM NTKM Earnings Earnings/ Average lead
(in million) (in million) (Rs crore) NTKM (in km)
2013-14 Domestic 23.25% 30.59% 30.90% 73.03 1,459
EXIM 76.95% 69.41% 69.10% 71.98 1,109
Total 2,579 52,101 3,767.0 72.3 1,284
2014-15 Domestic 28.05% 31.26% 26.87% 77.78 1,426
EXIM 71.95% 68.74% 73.13% 96.3 869
Total 2,159 â 47,876 â 4,333.1 á 90.51 á 1,147.5 â
2015-16 Domestic 25.47% 27.28% 24.40% 95.34 1,371
EXIM 74.53% 72.72% 75.60% 110.85 898
Total 1,591 â 45,429 â 4,843.5 á 106.62 á 1,134.5 â

11
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

Table 2: Domestic and EXIM container traffic carried by Indian Railways

Year TEU-KM NTKM Earnings Earnings/ Average lead
(in million) (in million) (Rs crore) NTKM (in km)
2016-17 Domestic 24.84% 29.36% 26.06% 100.82 1,376
EXIM 75.16% 70.64% 73.94% 118.92 857
Total 1,938 á 45,878 á 5,212.0 á 113.61 á 1,116.5 â
2017-18 Domestic 26.90% 29.42% 25.93% 97.67 1,334
EXIM 73.10% 70.58% 74.07% 116.27 810
Total 2,328 á 49,731 á 5,510.0 á 110.8 â 1,072 â
Note: The arrows indicate increase (↑) or decrease (↓) from the preceding year
Source: CRIS & TERI Analysis

Of the 54 million tonnes carried through containers in Even though the EXIM container rail traffic seems to
Indian Railways, 20% are domestic services (Railway increase if measured in terms Tonnage or Earnings, when
Board, 2018). The Container Corporation of India measured in terms of TEU-KM, it is clear that the container
(CONCOR) initiated domestic container movement in traffic has in fact, decreased in the period considered in
1991. The tonnage of domestic container increased at a this report (2013-14 to 2017-18). However, the domestic
CAGR of 0.1% in the last 5 years (Railway Board, 2018). container traffic has increased in the period from 595
However, this does not paint a true picture because 22% TEU-KM in 2013-14 to 626 TEU-KM in 2017-18.
of total truck movement in the country is accounted
60
by closed body trucks (CBTs), which highlight the huge
50
potential for containerisation of domestic freight in India.
40
million tonnes

TEU-KM is a better indicator of NTKM for analysing 30

container traffic through railways. For example, same 20
number of containers moving a light commodity and a 10
heavy commodity will have same TEU-KM but different 0
NTKM. The heavier commodity traffic will show a higher 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Domesc 10.93 10.5 9.04 9.79 10.97
NTKM. However as the freight rates and the traffic
EXIM 32.61 37.8 36.8 37.81 43.34
congestion depends on the container units and not on Total 43.54 48.3 45.84 47.6 54.31
the weight of the commodity, it is rational to consider
Figure 7: Total container traffic (EXIM and domestic) carried by IR (2013-
TEU-KM instead on NTKM for analysing container flow. 14 to 2017-18) tonnage (million tonnes);
Figure 3 illustrates the flow of overall container traffic in Source: Indian Railways

India.
6,000
3,000
5,000
2,500
4,000
2,000
million TEU-KM

Rs crore

3,000
1,500
2,000
1,000
1,000
500
0
0 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Domesc 1,164 1,164 1,182 1,358 1,429
Domesc 595 606 405 481 626
EXIM 2,603 3,169 3,662 3,854 4,081
EXIM 1,985 1,554 1,186 1,457 1,702
Total 3,767 4,333 4,844 5,212 5,510
Total 2,579 2,159 1,591 1,938 2,328
Figure 8: Total earnings from IR’s container service during the last five
Figure 6: Growth of Container Traffic (in million TEU-KM) years – Earnings (Rs crore);
Source: CRIS Source: Indian Railways

12
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

It must be noted that EXIM container traffic is the driver multiple names for the same commodity or commodity
of total container traffic in India. Therefore, the analysis type. For example, paper is spelt as papr or papar or white
and recommendations of this report focus more on EXIM paper for different observations in the data set.
container flows.
However, the commodities have been categorised based
on their density as light, intermediate or heavy cargo
Classification of Commodities in (Ravibabu, 2013). The observations were also classified
FOIS data of EXIM and Domestic based on their distance as long, medium, and short leads.
Containers (in numbers)
A vast variety of commodities move in EXIM containers as EXIM Traffic
compared to domestic containers. The containerisation The diversity of commodities of all the three categories
of commodities in international trade continues to rise, in EXIM traffic has increased more than two-fold from
the evidence of which is clearly visible as due to the rise 9,745 commodities to 20,605 commodities between
in diversity of commodities in EXIM containers carried by 2013-14 and 2017-18. This could be accounted due
railways in India. to increasing containerisation of international trade.
Due to higher containerisation levels in shipping
Table 3: Number of types of commodities moved in freight, import traffic has higher containerisation levels.
containers The choice of ‘when to containerise an export cargo’
Financial Year EXIM Domestic influences whether the cargo will be moved through
rail or road. Factors determining the choice include
2013-14 9,745 818
cost of transportation, ease of transportation/hassle-
2014-15 11,776 841 free movement, documentation required, safety of
2015-16 12,739 716 consignment, scheduled time for export, etc. An export-
oriented manufacturer may have three choices of
2016-17 18,652 730
containerising his cargo enumerated as follows:
2017-18 20,605 741
1. Containerise at the factory
Source: CRIS
2. Containerise at the nearest freight station
The actual diversity of commodities may be lesser than 3. Containerise at the port
the numbers above as the commodity data from CRIS has

Table 4: Classification of commodities based on Density and Distance

Type of Cargo based on Tonnage per TEU Type of movement Tonnage per TEU
Density based on distance
Heavy Cargo More than 16 tonnes per Long Lead More than 750 km
TEU
Intermediate Cargo Between 4 and 16 tonnes Medium Lead Between 250 km and 750
per TEU km
Light Cargo Less than 4 tonnes per Short Lead Less than 250 km
TEU
Source: Ravibabu, Research in Transportation Economics

13
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

Table 5: Diversity of commodities carried by EXIM containers – by Density (No. of different types of commodities)
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Heavy cargo 5,141 6,158 6,590 9,707 10,832 (46.3%)
Intermediate 4,347 5,335 5,759 8,531 9,324 (53.4%)
cargo
Light cargo 257 283 390 414 449 (0.3%)
Total 9,745 11,776 12,739 18,652 20,605 (100%)
Source: CRIS & TERI Analysis

The highest number of diverse commodities carried in Total EXIM traffic 2013-14 to 2017-18 in TEUs

EXIM containers are heavy cargo i.e. with an average

weight of more than 16 tonnes per TEU. Least diversity Short Lead
14%
is observed in the light cargo category, which accounted
for 0.3% share in EXIM traffic. This sprouts the question
Long lead
of whether light cargo has low containerisation levels Medium 50%
in international freight movement. If not, then are there Lead
36%
cheaper options available for inland transport of light
containerised cargo arriving at Indian ports.

When measured in terms of TEUs, the container traffic Figure 10: Total EXIM traffic (2013-14 to 2017-18) based on Lead
for intermediate and light cargo increased from 2013- categories
Source: CRIS
14 to 2017-18; while, TEUs of heavy cargo carried by
IR decreased in the period under consideration. It is When measured in terms of TEU-KM, CRIS data indicates
observed that there was a considerable fall in traffic for a fall in container traffic for heavy, intermediate, and light
heavy and intermediate cargo categories during 2013- cargo moved through rail. For clearer understanding
14 to 2015-16. of data, the EXIM traffic was split into nine categories
through combinations of distance and density.
Growth of EXIM traffic (in TEUs)
1.80 Growth of EXIM traffic (in thousand TEU-KM)
1.60
1.40 1,400
thousand TEUs

1.20 1,200
thousands TEU km

1.00 1,000
0.80
800
0.60
0.40 600
0.20 400
0 200
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
0
Heavy Cargo 1,280.07 1,057.73 841.99 1,056.46 1,257.60 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Intermediate Cargo 910.54 1,103.43 843.42 1,180.09 1,571.69 Heavy Cargo 1,284 805 611 732 841
Light Cargo 1.54 2.40 2.45 2.88 2.58 Intermediate Cargo 700 747 573 723 859
Light Cargo 1 1 2 2 2
Figure 9: Growth of EXIM container traffic by cargo type (in TEUs)
Source: CRIS Figure 11: Growth of EXIM container traffic by cargo type
Source: CRIS

In terms of distance moved or lead, about 50% of the The highest amount of TEUs carried in the last 5 years
EXIM container traffic accounted for longer lead (>750 was of intermediate cargo over long distances followed
km), followed by medium lead and short lead. This by heavy cargo for long distances; the least traffic
supports the argument that IR is preferred for medium was in light cargo. This raises a question whether this
to longer leads while short lead is dominated by road. corresponds to similar lower levels of containerisation

14
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

of light cargo in international trade. Light cargo over The proportion of light cargo on IR EXIM traffic is
long distances moved the least amount of traffic in TEUs negligible. Amongst the little light cargo that was moved
among the nine categories considered here. from 2013-14 to 2017-18, the majority was over long
and medium distances. This also raises the question on
Table 6: Percentage of Total TEUs of EXIM container whether 4 tonnes per TEU is an appropriate classification
traffic in railways (2013-14 to 2017-18) of light cargo like electronics. However, it must be noted
Distance à Long Medium Short Total that, even though insignificant, light cargo traffic has
Weight â Lead Lead Lead increased by more than 13 times from just 13 TEUs in
Heavy Cargo 24.21% 22.21% 5.49% 51.92% 2013-14 to 164 TEUs in 2017-18.
Intermediate 26.02% 13.93% 8.12% 48.08% Light Cargo < 4 tonnes/TEU
120
Cargo
100
Light Cargo 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
80
Total 50.23% 36.15% 13.62% 100.00% 60

TEUs
Source: CRIS & TERI Analysis
40

20
TEUs of heavy cargo carried over long distances (more
0
than 750 km) has declined by almost 55% from 2013-14 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Long Lead 0 0 7.4 0 63.6
to 2017-18. The overall TEUs of EXIM heavy cargo carried
Medium Lead 7.2 0 81 1.8 97.2
in the same period have declined by 1.8%. Short Lead 5.4 0 5.4 2.8 3.6

700 Heavy Cargo > 16 tonnes per TEU

600 Figure 14: Growth of Light Cargo moved in EXIM containers over short,
thousands TEUs

500 medium and long distances (2013-14 to 2017-18)

400
300
200 Zonal-Pair wise Distribution of EXIM
100
0
2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017-
Traffic
14 15 16 17 18 There 16 Railway Zones considered here and hence
Long Lead 542 572 528 492 362 256 Origin-Destination (OD) pairs of Zones possible.
Medium Lead 415 478 433 482 481 However, 179 (70%) of such possible Zonal OD pairs
Short Lead 69 103 142 137 116
have a negligible (close to zero) percentage of total EXIM
Figure 12: Growth of Heavy Cargo moved in EXIM containers over container traffic flowing through them. More than 50%
short, medium and long distances (2013-14 to 2017-18);
Source: CRIS of the EXIM container traffic is moved in the western
corridor between Western Railway, North Western
Overall TEUs of intermediate cargo carried in EXIM
Railway, and Northern Railway. The Western DFC is
containers increased by 30%. This is primarily because
expected to decongest these routes.
of a 290% increase in TEUs carried for medium distances
and 480% increase in TEUs carried for short distances.
4 tonnes/TEU ≤ Intermediate cargo ≤ 16 tonnes/TEU
700
TEUs in thousands

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Long Lead 598 613 614 535 322
Medium Lead 149 235 236 373 443
Short Lead 58 163 122 220 275

Figure 13: Growth of Intermediate Cargo moved in EXIM containers

over short, medium and long distances (2013-14 to 2017-18)

15
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

Table 7: Distribution of Traffic (FOIS data, 2017-18)

Source: CRIS & TERI Analysis

EXIM Traffic in Southern States ¾¾ Traffic both originating and ending in the 5 southern
states (South-South).
For the purpose of this study, TERI classified five states
of India as ‘southern states’—Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, ¾¾ Traffic neither originating nor ending in the 5
Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. This section has southern states (Non-South).
been added in the analysis to gain clarity in EXIM Table 9 indicates the share of movement of EXIM
container movement in southern India as the container containers from the southern region.
throughput of ports in the above states is increasing
rapidly every year. For instance, the Kochi Port saw an It can be observed that the container traffic in TEU-
increase of container traffic of more than 16% from KM from other states to the southern states and
2016-17 to 2017-18. Hence, it will be interesting to from southern states to the other states has reduced
assess the corresponding container flows by rail in the significantly from 2013-14 to 2017-18. However, the
southern region. For the same purpose, the EXIM FOIS container traffic within southern states has increased
data for the years 2013-14 to 2017-18 were segregated from 0.99% of total EXIM TEU-KM in 2013-14 to 2.26% of
in 4 categories, enumerated as follows: the same in 2017-18.

¾¾ Traffic originating from the 5 southern states and

OD Analysis of EXIM container
ending in any of the other states (South-Others).
movement
¾¾ Traffic originating in any of the other states and
The origin and destination stations of container cargo
ending in one of 5 southern states (Others-South).

16
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

through railways indicated in the CRIS data were paired stations. These OD pairs were then ranked based on the
together and converted into one variable to simplify the standard deviation of their ranks based on NTKM across
analysis. Table 10 summarises the station pairs hence the 5 years5. The standard deviation of pairs which
formed. started their operations late (after 2013-14) or ended
their operations early (before 2017-18) was calculated
It is clear that the number of OD pairs for domestic from the variation only amongst their years of operation.
container cargo is more than EXIM. Further, it is also clear
that the absolute number of OD pairs for both domestic The above OD pairs must be studied in depth to
and EXIM are increasing. The pairs identified above for understand the reasons for the rise or fall in the EXIM
each year were ranked based on their NTKM. traffic on their respective routes. It has been attempted
to analyse some of them in the next section.
To further filter these pairs, all the OD pairs with their
NTKMs ranked 20 or better than 20 in at least one of the
MDCC to PLPC
years (2013-14 to 2017-18) were selected. This led to the
selection of 36 EXIM OD station pairs, paired between 18 The EXIM OD pair with the highest variation in its rank
stations and 41 domestic OD station pairs between 44 based on NTKM is Mundra (MDCC) to Pristine Mega

Table 8: EXIM traffic by movement in Southern states (TEU-KM in millions)

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Non South 1,652.43 1,485.59 1,131.70 1,374.42 1,580.45
Others-South 177.62 20.35 18.10 35.62 51.75
South-Others 135.05 23.88 16.72 19.16 31.00
South-South 19.73 23.99 19.47 27.60 38.40
Grand Total 1,984.82 1,553.81 1,185.99 1,456.80 1,701.60
Source: CRIS

Table 9: EXIM Traffic by southern movement (% of TEU-KM)

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Non South 83.25% 95.61% 95.42% 94.35% 92.88%
Others-South 8.95% 1.31% 1.53% 2.44% 3.04%
South-Others 6.80% 1.54% 1.41% 1.32% 1.82%
South-South 0.99% 1.54% 1.64% 1.89% 2.26%
Grand Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Source: CRIS

Table 10: Number of OD pairs involved in EXIM container movement

Financial Year EXIM Pairs Total Pairs
2013-14 278 696
2014-15 288 758
2015-16 337 803
2016-17 371 785
2017-18 426 885
Source: CRIS

17
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

Table 11: OD Ranks based on NTKM (EXIM)

OD Ranks based on NTKM (EXIM)
Standard
OD
Deviation
Stations 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
of OD ranks
across years
1 MDCC-PLPC - - 137 38 14 65.20
2 MDCC- 139 90 81 22 1 55.43
CMLK
3 TICD-MDCC 9 14 10 17 127 51.31
4 DICD-PPSP 27 18 39 94 125 46.57
5 IBBM-MDCC - 108 18 4 30 46.56
6 MDCC-PDLL 84 82 41 34 11 31.77
7 MDCC-PGFS 4 2 11 23 77 31.07
8 PGFS-MDCC 7 12 25 35 67 23.82
9 PPSP-CMLK 61 8 24 9 3 23.70
10 DICD-MDCC 6 9 7 20 57 21.53
11 ISNL-MDCC - - 20 11 50 20.42
12 JNPT-MKPP 60 47 35 24 8 20.12
13 ICDD-MDCC 8 10 8 7 53 20.04
14 JNPT-CWCN 19 23 33 37 69 19.73
15 PPSP-TICD 3 4 3 13 46 18.49
16 GDGH- 17 21 19 12 56 17.65
MDCC
17 PPSP-GDGH 43 19 13 6 5 15.50
18 PPSP-DICD 20 31 21 45 51 13.99
19 ICDD-JNPT 16 17 38 44 20 13.04
20 CWCN- 5 6 12 15 37 12.98
MDCC
Source: CRIS

Logistics Park (PLPC) in Ludhiana. The NTKM rank of (Ludhiana) almost doubled in terms of all the parameters
this OD pair went form 137 in 2015-16 to 14 in 2017-18. discussed in Table 13.
Standard deviation of the rank of NTKM across 3 years for
this pair is 65.2. It should be noted that PLPC, Ludhiana, This station pair went from contributing 0.8% of total
was operationalized in February 2016. EXIM NTKM in 2016-17 to 1.44% of total EXIM NTKM in
2017-18. This pair has an average lead of about 1,300
The share of traffic and earnings between MDCC and
PLPC (Ludhiana) has been increasing over the years. km. For the purpose of this report, such ODs have been
Between 2016-17 and 2017-18, the share of MDCC-PLPC classified as long leads.

5
This was done in order to identify OD pairs with high NTKM variation across the years and also with a considerable absolute share of the total NTKM in
at least one of the years.

18
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

The diversity in commodities carried in EXIM containers of 133% in the period 2013-14 to 2017-18. The container
from MDCC to PLPC (Ludhiana) expanded from just traffic from MDCC to CMLK grew from just 1,043 TEUs in
84 commodity types in 2016-17 to 544 different 2013-14 to 72,199 TEUs in 2017-18 which constituted 4%
commodities in 2017-18. One of the key factors of IR’s total container traffic in terms of TEUs. The reason
explaining this trend could be shift in traffic one terminal for such a high rate of growth could be the emergence
to this particular terminal. This is a phenomenal increase of CMLK as a transhipment hub as well as movement of
and factors leading to such an increase should be double stack container trains to the terminal. Although
studied further. Kathuwas MMLP was officially inaugurated in March
2016, the formal operation began in 2013-146.
MDCC to CMLK
The NTKM for EXIM containers in this route increased Other opportunities for improving rail
from 0.03% of total EXIM NTKM in 2013-14 to 2.97% of share of container traffic
the total in 2017-18. For the entire traffic on this route,
TERI assessed to the origin and destination stations to
CONCOR is both the consignor and consignee.
identify the top origin and destination points in terms
The traffic (in TEUs) from MDCC to CMLK grew at a CAGR of container traffic measured in terms of TEUs. From the

Table 12: Details of MDCC (Mundra) to PLPC (Ludhiana) OD

From To
Station code MDCC PLPC
Station name Mundra Port Cargo Complex Pristine Mega Logistics Park Private
Limited
Division Ahmedabad Ambala
State Gujarat Punjab
Zone Western Railway Northern Railway
Distance Approx. 1,350 km
Source: CRIS

Table 13: Percentage share of MDCC (Mundra) to PLPC (Ludhiana) traffic in total EXIM traffic
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
(%) Share of NTKM 0.08% 0.83% 1.44%
(%) Share of TEU 0.03% 0.27% 0.49%
(%) Share of Freight/earnings 0.05% 0.52% 0.99%
(%) Share of Tonnage 0.04% 0.41% 0.70%
Source: CRIS

Table 14: Details of container traffic between MDCC (Mundra) and PLPC (Ludhiana)
Sum of NTKM Sum of FRGT Sum of TEU
Year in million tonnes km (%) increase in Rs crore (%) increase In TEUs (%) increase
2015-16 17.73 - 1.60 - 557.8 -
2016-17 172.95 875.3% 16.86 951.2% 6132 999.3%
2017-18 245.45 41.9% 26.38 56.5% 9,788.4 59.6%
Total 436.13 - 44.84 - 16,478.2 -
Source: CRIS

19
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

Table 15: Variety of commodities carries between MDCC (Mundra) and PLPC (Ludhiana)
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Variety of commodities 13 84 544
carried in containers
Total TEUs 557.8 6,132 13,297.6
Source: CRIS

Table 16: Details of MDCC (Mundra) to CMLK (Kathuwas) OD

From To
Station Code MDCC CMLK
Station Name Mundra Port Cargo Complex Greenfield PFT of CONCOR
Neemrana served by Kathuwas
Division Ahmedabad Jaipur
State Gujarat Rajasthan
Zone Western Railway North Western Railway
Distance Approx. 1,000 km
Source: TERI Analysis

Table 17: Details of traffic between from MDCC to CMLK

Sum of NTKM Sum of FRGT Sum of TEU
Year in million (%) increase in Rs crore (%) increase in TEUs (%) increase
tonne km
2013-14 6.34 - 1.01 - 1,044
2014-15 46.92 640% 6.76 570% 6,487 521%
2015-16 68.88 47% 13.13 94% 10,556 63%
2016-17 271.04 293% 49.05 274% 37,973 260%
2017-18 507.03 87% 93.04 90% 72,199 90%
Grand Total 900.21 162.99 128,259
Source: CRIS and TERI Analysis

two OD lists, the stations which were both origins and It is well established that containerised import cargo
destinations in the data were segregated for the year traffic is more likely to be moved by rail as the cargo
2017-18. The difference between the incoming and might already be arriving at the port in ISO containers.
outgoing container traffic at the nodes, identified in the However, regarding export traffic, as it might be cheaper
previous step, was evaluated. to containerise the cargo at the port, the cargo might be
arriving by trucks (not in ISO containers) till the port for
From the above analysis JNPT (Jawaharlal Nehru Port export.
Trust) and MDCC (Mundra Port Cargo Complex) were
identified as the major distribution nodes with handling There is a huge deficit in rail-based export container flow
28% and 29%, respectively, of the total EXIM container compared to the rail-based import container flow at the
traffic in India. Both of these nodes have high outgoing Mundra port. The Mundra port is a commercial port and
traffic over incoming traffic. is the second largest port in India in handling container

6
[Link]

20
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

Table 18: Cargo movement analysis of JNPT-MDCC container traffic (2017-18)

Distribution Nodes % total EXIM Incoming Traffic Outgoing Traffic Difference
containers in India (Export Traffic) (Import Traffic)
(in TEUs)
(1) (2) (3) (4) = (3-2)
JNPT 28% 397,029 409,409 12,382
MDCC 29% 297,809 515,080 217,277
Source: CRIS

Table 19: Cargo movement analysis of CMLK & TICD container terminals of CONCOR
Station Incoming traffic Outgoing traffic Incoming over
(TEUs) (TEUs) Outgoing
(1) (2) (3) (4)=(2-3)
Greenfield PFT of CONCOR CMLK 342,781 221,670 121,111
Neemrana served by Kathuwas
Tughlakabad Inland Container TICD 201,968 121,517 80,450
Depot (CONCOR)
Source: CRIS

traffic. In 2016-17, the Mudra port handled a total of 4.2 easier containerisation at the terminals may help capture
million TEUs of container cargo. The total rail incoming this opportunity.
and outgoing container traffic at Mundra for the same
year was just 0.78 million TEUs which is just 18% of the
total TEUs handled at the port. TERI recommends further
Domestic traffic
analysis for understanding of container traffic at Mundra In contrast to the EXIM container traffic, the diversity of
Port and also discussions for making railways, ‘container the commodities being carried has decreased for all the
friendly’ at the port. Similarly, of the 4.83 million TEUs three cargo types. However, similar to the EXIM traffic,
handled by JNPT in 2017-18, only 0.8 million TEUs (17%) the highest and lowest degree of diversity is amongst
reached or left the port by rail. the heavy cargo and light cargo categories, respectively.

The terminals of CONCOR in Kathuwas and Tughlakabad Table 20: Cargo type wise diversity in commodities
(TICD) were identified as major consumption centres in carried in domestic containers (No.)
the FOIS data for 2017-18. Both of these terminals have 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017-
a huge deficit between incoming and outgoing traffic. 14 15 16 17 18
Only 65% of the TEUs arriving at CONCOR terminal in
Heavy Cargo 667 667 627 608 621
Kathuwas by rail also leave the terminal by rail. Even
Intermediate 145 166 108 117 116
if there is no actual trade flow, the empty containers
Cargo
have to find their way back to the ports or wherever
it is in demand. It is clear that even such flows are not Light Cargo 6 8 3 5 4
happening through rail. Similarly, only 60% of incoming Total 818 841 738 730 741
rail containers in Tughlakabad, left the private freight Source: CRIS

terminal (PFT) by rail.

There is a negligible amount of diversity in light cargo
The above opportunities clearly indicate a preference of carried in domestic containers. As per CRIS data, these
railways in import traffic than in export traffic. Facilitating are mainly consumer goods, such as shoes, candles,

21
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

packaged soaps, and also cars and various other auto Growth of Domesc Traffic (TEUs in thousands)

industry products. The heavy cargo in containers include 500

a large diversity of products, such as food grains like 400

thousand TEUs
rice, scrap metals, cement, tiles, etc. The intermediate 300
200
cargo also has a wide variety of consumer products,
100
such as blankets and plastics to goods like plywood and
0
glassware. 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Heavy Cargo 390 393 325 331 437
Table 21: Domestic Traffic by Cargo type (TEUs in Intermediate Cargo 24 37 36 30 31

thousands) Light Cargo 0 0 13 0 0

2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017-

14 15 16 17 18 Figure 16: Growth of Domestic Container Traffic by Cargo type (2013-14
to 2017-18) (in ‘000 TEUs)
Heavy Cargo 389.6 393.3 325.4 331.5 436.7 Source: CRIS

Intermediate 24.2 37.1 36.4 30 31.1

Cargo Growth of Domesc Traffic (TEU-KM in Millions)
700
Light Cargo 0.02 0.1 12.8 0.2 0.04
600
Total 413.9 430.5 374.5 361.6 467.8

thousand TEUs
500
400
Source: CRIS
300
200
Total Domesc Traffic in TEUs
(2013-14 to 2017-18) 100
0
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Light Cargo Heavy Cargo 570 571 381 458 603
Intermediate 0.10%
Cargo Intermediate Cargo 24 35 24 23 23
6.00% Light Cargo 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 17: Growth of Domestic Container Traffic by Cargo type (2013-14

to 2017-18);
Source: CRIS

Heavy Cargo
93.90%
accounts for the least traffic. The light cargo carried
over long, medium, and short distances in domestic
Figure 15: Total Domestic Container Traffic by cargo type containers in India is negligible. This shows a vast
(2013-14 to 2017-18); potential for railways to capture domestic freight of light
Source: CRIS
goods over long distances. Most electronic goods fall in
It is pertinent to mention here that domestic traffic is the light cargo categories.
predominantly heavy cargo and around 94% of the total
container traffic carried by the IR in the period 2013-14 The traffic of intermediate cargo over medium distances
to 2017-18 has been goods with density more than 16 has increased mainly due to fall in average lead from
tonnes per TEU. 2013-14 to 2017-18. While the intermediate cargo
carried over long distance declined from 6,000 TEUs to
Most domestic traffic handled by IR is heavy cargo and 5,000 TEUs, the intermediate cargo carried over medium
TEUs of light cargo moved by IR is miniscule. distances increases from 8,000 TEUs to 10,000 TEUs.
Unlike the EXIM traffic, there is no noticeable difference in Domestic light cargo through containers in rail is an
domestic traffic trends in Freight Operation Information absent market. There is no stable demand for this
System (FOIS) data, when measured in terms of TEU-KM service. The TEU level of light cargo over long distances
instead of TEUs. is negligible. There was no container of any light cargo
moved for a distance more than 750 km in the entire
The domestic container traffic is mainly heavy cargo
period of 2013-14 to 2017-18.
(93.9%). Similar to EXIM container traffic, light cargo

22
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

Table 22: Percentage of total TEUs of domestic container traffic in railways by distance and density (2013-14 to 2017-18)
Distance à Long Lead Medium Lead Short Lead Total

Weight â
Heavy Cargo 75.2% 17.1% 1.6% 93.9%
Intermediate Cargo 1.8% 3.6% 0.6% 6.0%
Light Cargo 0.0% 0.0% 0.10% 0.10%
Total 77.0% 20.7% 2.3% 100.0%
Source: CRIS

Heavy cargo > 16 tonnes per TEU Zonal-Pair wise Distribution of Domestic
400
350 Traffic
300
Thousand TEUs

250 There 16 Railway Zones considered here and hence 256

200
150 OD pairs of Zones possible. However, 85 (33%) of such
100
50 possible Zonal OD pairs have no domestic container
0
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 traffic flowing through them. More than 17% of the
Long Lead 336 327 276 260 255 Domestic container traffic is moved in the western
Medium Lead 64 65 64 72 65 corridor, between Western Railway, North Western
Short Lead 8 8 7 4 4 Railway and Northern Railway. This relative volume is
Figure18: Growth of Heavy Cargo moved in Domestic containers over lower compared to EXIM traffic which has over 50%
short, medium and long distances (2013-14 to 2017-18); traffic concentrated between these three zones. The
Source: CRIS
4 tonnes/TEU ≤ Intermediate cargo ≤ 16 tonnes/TEU domestic traffic is relatively more distributed across the
25 zones as compared to EXIM traffic. Further, even though
20 the overall domestic volumes are little, there is some
Thousand TEUs

15 traffic between 67% of the zonal pairs while the same for
10 EXIM traffic is just 30%.
5
0
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 OD Analysis of Domestic Container
Long Lead 6 8 9 7 5
Medium Lead 8 20 18 15 10
Movement
Short Lead 2 2 1 4 2 The origin and destination stations of container cargo
Figure 19: Growth of Intermediate Cargo moved in Domestic through railways indicated in the CRIS data were paired
containers over short, medium and long distances (2013-14 to 2017-18) together and converted into one variable to simplify the
Source: CRIS
analysis. Table 23 summarises the station pairs hence
Light cargo < 4 tonnes/TEU
formed.
70
60
Traffic in total TEUs

50 It is clear that the number of OD pairs for domestic

40
30 container cargo is more than EXIM. Further, it is also clear
20 that the absolute number of OD pairs for both domestic
10
0 and EXIM are increasing. The pairs identified above for
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
each year were ranked based on their NTKM.
Long Lead 0 0 0 0 0
Medium Lead 0 16 0 0 2 To further filter these pairs, all the OD pairs with their
Short Lead 0 66 0 0 1 NTKMs ranked 20 or better than 20 in at least one of the
years (2013-14 to 2017-18) were selected. This led to the
Figure 20: Growth of Light Cargo moved in Domestic containers over selection of 36 EXIM OD station pairs, paired between 18
short, medium and long distances (2013-14 to 2017-18);
Source: CRIS stations and 41 domestic OD station pairs between 44

23
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

stations. These OD pairs were then ranked based on the started their operations late (after 2013-14) or ended
standard deviation of their ranks based on NTKM across their operations early (before 2017-18) was calculated
the 5 years7. The standard deviation of pairs which from the variation only amongst their years of operation.

Table 23: Distribution of Domestic Container Traffic (2017-18)

Source: CRIS & TERI Analysis

Table 24: Number of OD pairs for domestic container movement

Financial Year Domestic Pairs Total Pairs
2013-14 454 696
2014-15 520 758
2015-16 528 803
2016-17 486 785
2017-18 541 885
Source: CRIS

7
This was done in order to identify OD pairs with high NTKM variation across the years and also with a considerable absolute share of the total NTKM in
at least one of the years.

24
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

Table 25: OD Ranks based on NTKM (Domestic)

OD Ranks based on NTKM (Domestic)
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Standard
OD Stations
Deviation
of OD ranks
across
years
1 MILK-C 63 461 35 - - 238.28
2 CWCJ-CTCS - - - 206 15 135.06
3 NAC-CP 13 32 299 181 - 134.72
4 HZL-BLQR 6 33 198 - - 103.94
5 MVI-MLPM 9 10 20 45 164 65.58
6 CSRP-ICDP 93 15 73 27 155 56.13
7 HACG-JNPT 108 18 18 123 26 52.31
8 ICDS-ICDA 128 109 30 61 11 50.06
9 ICDS-ICDT 19 27 107 - - 48.66
10 CGDM-ICDT 16 66 - - - 35.36
11 CTCS-ICDA 101 42 19 20 20 35.23
12 MLPM-PDLL 12 11 14 21 92 34.88
13 MVI-HDCG 10 19 - - 70 32.36
14 SCIC-DRTA 68 18 13 30.41
15 CFCV-JSLS - - 70 15 25 29.30
16 NINS-ICPH - - 60 13 21 25.15
17 KLH-CTKR 26 15 44 - - 14.64
18 CTKR-ICDA 20 26 42 57 36 14.43
19 HDCG-KTIG - - - 38 18 14.14
20 MVI-CEDC - 35 10 7 10 13.08
Source: CRIS & TERI Analysis 8

8
Full out of station codes has been given in Appendix 1

25
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

REVIEW OF CONTAINER POLICY IN INDIA

In 1988, the Container Corporation in India (CONCOR) subsidiaries of foreign companies registered in India with
was established as a subsidiary to Indian Railways a minimum annual turnover of Rs 1,000 crore (Gangwar,
as a container train operator (CTO). A policy to allow 2012).
container operators other than CONCOR was announced
Historically, in freight movement, organisational reforms
in 1994. However, the policy did not trigger any private
in Indian Railways have been routed towards creation
participation in container operations. The guidelines
of subsidiaries like CONCOR (for specific operations)
were found to be restrictive for new entrants and there
or the reforms have been towards establishment of
was lack of clarity on the role of CONCOR vis-à-vis new
partnerships with the state governments and/or private
operators (Gangwar, 2012). Even though the Central
Warehousing Corporation (CWC) obtained the clearance players for infrastructure creation projects, such as
to run container trains, they did not immediately take up wagon manufacturing schemes. These projects did not
operations. Other than this, IR also gave permission to involve direct interface with the customers. The opening
Pipavav Rail Corporation Ltd (PRCL) in 2004 to operate up of container sector to private players (since 2006) is a
container train between Pipavav port and 15 inland new era for Indian Railways with respect to having direct
container depots (ICDs) of CONCOR. interface with customers.

The entire IR network was classified and grouped into

four categories on the basis of existing and anticipated
traffic volumes of ports. A one-time registration fee
of Rs 50 crore (for Category I licence) or Rs 10 crore
(for Categories II, III, and IV license) was payable to the
Ministry of Railways9.

Fourteen operators (including CONCOR) signed an

agreement with Indian Railways in the first round of
registration (January–February 2006) and10 operators
registered for Category I routes, 2 for Category II, and
2 for Category IV. The Ministry of Railways collected Rs
540 crore as registration fee from these operators. This
Figure 21: Events leading to the setting up of CONCOR
was a success considering that the drafting of The Model
In January 2006, at a point when the rail share of the Concession Agreement (MCA) (which is framework
containerized cargo was not above 30%, the Ministry of legalising the agreement between the operator and
Railways (MoR), Government of India, took a step further the MoR) was still underway. Eight of the 13 CTOs had
by allowing entry of private and public train operators to also sign MoUs with CONCOR to access its terminals.
to obtain licenses for running container trains in India. However, CONCOR put a restriction on them that they
The guidelines to the policy were based on the study should not use these terminals to take away existing
business/customers of CONCOR.
sanctioned by Ministry of Railways and conducted by
RITES, a multi-disciplinary consultancy under the MoR. Although 60 companies applied in the second round
The policy opened up to all Indian companies, including of registration (Dec’06 to Jan’07), only KRIBHCO and

9
[Link]
by%[Link]

26
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

Table 26: Categories of CTO Licenses

Classification Areas of Operation
EXIM Domestic
Category I Entire rail network of Indian
Railways
Category II Rail network connecting JNPT, Entire rail network excluding any
Mumbai Port to any location traffic from/to any location in or
excluding any location in or reached reached via National Capital Region
via NCR (NCR) route
Category III Rail network connecting ports of
Pipavav, Mundra, Chennai, Ennore,
Vizag, Kochi to any location
Category IV Rail Network connecting ports of
Kandla, New Mangalore, Tuticorin,
Halda, Kolkatta, Pradip and
Mormugao to any location
Source: Planning Commission (2006)

Figure 22: Liberalization of container operation by Indian Railways

Gammon displayed consistent interest. Finally, only The finalised MCA specified certain commodities as
KRIBHCO signed the MCA with IR for Category I routes. restricted/notified commodities which cannot be
It appeared that the one year period had given the moved in containers. These were iron ore, coke, coal,
private operators an opportunity to realistically assess and minerals (which accounted for 66% of IR’s traffic by
operational viability and gain deeper insights into originating tonnes and 63% by freight revenue)
container train operations.

27
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

Table 27: Key interventions made by IR related to container movement

Month and Year Policy Intervention
July, 2008 IR declared uniform haulage charges for EXIM and domestic containers regardless of the
commodities carried in them. The rates varied for empty flat wagons, loaded and empty
containers dependent on the weight (in TEU) and distance. The policy also presented
the guidelines for usage of Hub and its Spokes by private operators. Except for a few
notified commodities under the group of iron and steel, POL, cement, alumina and
stones, all container traffic was to be charged at Freight Any Kind (FAK) tariff. The notified
commodities were to be charged at an intermediate tariff rate called as Container Class
Rate (CCR). This was done to restrict the shift of these notified commodities which were
moved in significant volumes by IR General Wagons in significant volumes.
September, 2008 IR amended the uniform haulage charges to give 10% rebate to all domestic container
traffic with weight more than 20 Metric Tonnes.
December 2009 IR introduced Assured Transit Time (ATT) service for time sensitive containers. This
premium service was provided by the IR to Container Terminal Operators for a 10%
premium on standard haulage charges.
December 2010 In order to attract the piecemeal traffic not carried by railways, IR decided to permit CTOs
to use private sidings for handling and transportation of different commodities. The
permissions were given for a period of 6 months and were to be annually reviewed on
the basis of impact on rail traffic and rail coefficient.
March 2012 IR added to Hub and Spoke policy by defining the basis for approval of the Hub and
its Spokes by the Traffic Transportation Directorate of Railway Board. The policy also
mandated that an undertaking be taken from CTO desiring to move their container
through a Hub stating that no handling (cargo loading/unloading) will be done from the
container going through the Hub.
May 2012 On the basis of a multi-disciplinary committee report, IR approved the guidelines for
grievance redressal mechanism for CTOs. The policy also contained instructions for
conducting periodical meetings and the assigned nodal officers from Railways to ensure
effective implementation of MCA and holdings of the meetings.
June 2012 To attract the piecemeal traffic not carried by Railways from Industrial Units connected
with private rail sidings, Railway Board issued guidelines for considering access to trains
operated by CTOs to such private sidings for handling and transportation of commodities
in container trains.
March 2013 Railway Board approved the movement of Felspar (or Feldspar) in containers considering
the movement of the same by IR General Service Wagons to be of miniscule proportion.
Also, IR announced concession of 25% for movement of fruits and vegetables in containers.
June 2013 IR exempted mandatory 100% weighment of import containers
Railway Board partially relaxed the restriction on commodities by allowing all forms of
Ores, Minerals, Coal and Coke in import containers only which are transported purely
September 2013
under customs bond and seal. This permission was initiated on an experimental basis for
6 months and then extended for 6 more months in February 2014.
IR revised the list of notified commodities to add Fly Ash. The existing and the revised list
of notified commodities at this point were as follows

28
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

Existing list of Notified commodities Revised list of Notified commodities

Cement other than white cement and Fly Cement other than white cement; Slag;
May 2014
Ash; Slag; Iron and Steel; Bricks and Stones Iron and Steel; Bricks and Stones other than
other than Marble and Ceramic tiles; Marble and Ceramic tiles; Alumina; and
Alumina; and Petroleum products & Gases Petroleum products & Gases
July 2014 Railway Board approved movement of the restricted commodity, “Hydrated Lime” in
containers citing its movement to be miniscule by IR General Service Wagons.
August 2014 The permission for all forms of Ores, Mineral, Coal and Coke in import containers only was
extended for a period of 1 year.
February 2016 Railway Board decided to permit outward booking of import cargo after de-stuffing from
containers custom cleared at CTO’s ICDs, in IR General Service Wagons.
February 2017 Railway Board approved movement of the restricted commodity, “Quick Lime” in
containers citing its movement to be miniscule by IR General Service Wagons.
March 2017 Permission for all forms of Ores, Mineral, Coal and Coke in import containers only was
extended for a period of 6 months.
April 2017 Railway board approved movement of import containerised traffic of restricted
commodities (ores, minerals, coal and coke) at FAK rates, in seal cut containers.
August 2017 Permission for all forms of Ores, Mineral, Coal and Coke in import containers only was
extended for a period of 1 year.
December 2018 Review of haulage charges:

• 25% discount on per TEU haulage charges for movement of empty containers

• 25% discount on per TEU haulage charges for movement of empty flat wagons
Source: Policy Circulars, Railway Board; Compiled by TERI

29
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on analysis of CRIS data (2013-14 to 2017-18) and 2018). However, new entrants in such a capital-intensive
discussions with stakeholders, TERI has broadly classified transportation segment need access to key infrastructure
the recommendations based on whether they address which is owned by the incumbent. The market share of
the issues pertaining to IR operations, IR infrastructure the new CTOs has consistently increased in the period
or IR policy. The recommendations to address the under this study. The CTOs, other than CONCOR, moved
issues identified have been included along with each 31% of the total traffic in 2013-14 which became 38% in
highlighted issue. Other independent recommendations 2017-18. Even though the traffic carried by CONCOR, in
have been included at the end of this section. terms of TEU-KM, increased from 2015-16 to 2017-18 and
the market share of CONCOR declined from 68% to 62%
in the same period. This is a promising trend for ensuring
Policy-related Issues
competitiveness in the container rail movement in India.
The policy issues have been broadly classified as issues
in competition in container freight operation and issues To assess the level of competitiveness on IR, the traffic
in marketing or commercial services by IR. volumes were compared in OD Zones with the number
of CTOs operating in the same OD. Table 28 has been
colour scaled from high to low as green-yellow-red. The
Regulation of Competition
variation in the scales of volume and number of CTOs may
As was indicated in the policy review, CONCOR is an
be considered as a faint indicator of competition. Similar
incumbent in the market of Container Train Operators
to the traffic volumes, the CTOs are also concentrated
(CTOs). Most of the currently built ICDs are owned and
mainly on the western corridor (WR-NWR-NR). However,
managed by CONCOR. The stakeholders interviewed
there are OD zonal pairs, such as SR-SW and NW-NC
expressed that CONCOR can undercut prices owing to
where considerable amount of traffic is being moved
the wider operation levels and compensate the losses in
but CONCOR is the only CTO operating on the respective
non-competitive routes. Although it is true that CONCOR
routes.
moved 62% of the total TEU-KM carried by railways
(2017-18), this study did not find any evidence of such It is observed from the CRIS data that CONCOR’s market
predatory pricing by CONCOR. The problems identified share in terms of TEU-KM has declined in the period
with respect to maintaining a ‘level playing field’ are considered in this study from 69% in 2013-14 to 62% in
not new to an infrastructure-intensive field which 2017-18. It is to be noted that the share is measured in
has just opened for private participation (NITI Aayog, terms of TEU-km, while share based on tonnage could

Table 28: Zonal OD wise traffic and CTO operations

OD ZONES â Sum of TEU Percentage of Total TEUs Number of CTOs
operating in 2017-18
Grand Total 28,31,874 100% 15
WR-NR 3,61,276 13% 11
NR-WR 2,16,024 8% 12
CR-CR 1,53,270 5% 8
NW-NR 1,47,107 5% 8
NW-WR 1,33,697 5% 7
CR-WR 1,05,519 4% 5

30
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

Table 28: Zonal OD wise traffic and CTO operations

OD ZONES â Sum of TEU Percentage of Total TEUs Number of CTOs
operating in 2017-18
Grand Total 28,31,874 100% 15
CR-NR 90,491 3% 9
SR-SW 67,878 2% 1
CR-NC 61,646 2% 5
NR-NR 61,350 2% 8
WR-NC 56,572 2% 2
NW-NC 48,811 2% 1
ER-EC 42,138 1% 1
SW-SR 38,926 1% 1
ECO-ECO 38,154 1% 2
WC-CR 26,448 1% 3
CR-WC 15,840 1% 1
SR-SR 11,388 0% 1
SW-SC 10,679 0% 1
NC-NC 8,591 0% 1
WC-WR 8,175 0% 1
SEC-ECO 7,355 0% 1
ECO-KPT 6,729 0% 2
CR-NW 5,099 0% 1
SC-SC 4,872 0% 1
ECO-EC 4,658 0% 1
ECO-SE 3,884 0% 2
SEC-KPT 2,240 0% 1
NW-NE 2,208 0% 1
NF-ER 2,029 0% 1
EC-ER 2,027 0% 1
SE-EC 1,463 0% 1
NE-NW 1,241 0% 2
WC-KPT 1,160 0% 1
ECO-SEC 880 0% 1
NR-NE 718 0% 2
CR-SEC 584 0% 1
NC-WC 551 0% 1
NR-SE 528 0% 1
NC-NE 449 0% 1
NE-NR 227 0% 1
NR-SC 192 0% 1
NR-SW 160 0% 1

31
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

Table 28: Zonal OD wise traffic and CTO operations

OD ZONES â Sum of TEU Percentage of Total TEUs Number of CTOs
operating in 2017-18
Grand Total 28,31,874 100% 15
WR-SW 140 0% 1
ER-ER 118 0% 1
NE-CR 90 0% 1
ER-KPT 88 0% 1
CR-NE 75 0% 1
NR-ER 70 0% 1
NC-NR 48 0% 1
SR-CR 36 0% 1
SE-NF 30 0% 1
ER-NR 4 0% 1
CR-NF 2 0% 1
KPT: Calcutta Port Trust; Source: TERI Analysis

150
Market share of CONCOR
70
¾¾ SICAL Multi-Modal and Rail Transport Ltd (SICAL) lost
68 almost all of the traffic handled by it from 2013-14
100 66
to 2017-18, that is, approximately 100% decline in
crore TEU-KM

64
%

50 62 container operations.
60
¾¾ Fourcee Infrastructure Equipment Pvt. Ltd (FIEP) lost
0 58
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
97% of the traffic in the same period.
TEUkm (in Crores) 137 107 80 91 106
Market Share(%) 69 69 68 63 62 ¾¾ KRIBHCO Infrastructure Ltd lost 77% of its traffic in
terms of TEU-KM from 2013-14 to 2017-18.
Figure 23: CONCOR Market Share and Performance (2013-14 to
2017-18) ¾¾ Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd (ARIL) lost 50% of its
Source: CRIS
traffic in the period.
¾¾ Container Rail Road Services Pvt. Ltd (CRRS) lost 30%
indicate a higher share of CONCOR in total container
of the EXIM container traffic handled by them in
moved by rail. There is a need to assess the competition
2013-14.
levels in the container freight movement through IR.
¾¾ India Infrastructure Logistics Pvt. Ltd lost 15% of its
Table 28 shows that market shares of the top 13 CTOs traffic in the 5 years considered here.
from 2013-14 to 2017-18. It is observed that a few big
¾¾ Finally, CONCOR also lost 22% of it EXIM container
players in the market like Gujarat Pipavav Port Ltd (GRPL),
traffic measured in terms of TEU-KM in the period
Hind Terminals Private Ltd (HTPL), and Adani Logistics
2013-14 to 2017-18.
Ltd (ADIL) have increased their market share while the
others are losing their market share.
The Gainers
There are five CTOs who have gained traffic volumes and
The Losers
market share in the period considered in this study.
¾¾ The Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC) lost a
considerable share of traffic from 2013-14 to 2017- ¾¾ Boxtrans Logistics (BXTS) is the biggest gainer by
18. Its traffic volume measured in terms of TEU-KM increasing its traffic handling from 2013-14 to 2017-
declined by 87% from 2013-14 to 2017-18. 18 by 579% when measured in terms of TEU-KM.

32
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

Table 29: Change in Market Share of CTOs between 2013-14 and 2017-18 (in TEU-km)
Operator Code 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
CONCOR CONR 69% 69% 68% 63% 62%
Gujarat Pipavav Port Ltd. GRPL 7% 10% 11% 13% 12%
Hind Terminals Private Ltd. HTPL 5% 7% 7% 8% 9%
Adani Logistics Ltd. ADIL 2% 2% 2% 5% 5%
India Infrastructure Logistics IIPL 4% 6% 5% 4% 4%
Pvt. Ltd.
Boxtrans Logistics BXTS 0% 0% 1% 3% 3%
Container Rail Road Services CRRS 2% 3% 3% 2% 1%
Pvt. Ltd.
Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd. ARIL 2% 0% 0% 1% 1%
Distribution Logistics DLI 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
KRIBHCO Infrastructure Ltd. KRIL 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Central Warehousing CWC 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Corporation
Fourcee Infrastructure FIEP 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Equipment Pvt. Ltd.
Sical Multi-Modal and Rail SCAL 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Transport Ltd.
Note: CTOs highlighted in green are gainers while those highlighted in orange are losers;
Source: CRIS & TERI Analysis

¾¾ Adani Logistics Ltd (ADIL) increased its EXIM container Operational Issues
traffic by 65% in the period 2013-14 to 2017-18.
The operational issues in container traffic identified
¾¾ Hind Terminal Pvt. Ltd (HTPL) and Gujarat Pipavav through this study include issues related to tariff charged
Port Ltd gained 52% and 43%, respectively, of the by IR and issues related to transit time.
traffic handled by them in 2013-14 (measured in
terms of TEU-KM)
Tariff
¾¾ Distribution Logistics Pvt. Ltd (DLI) started operations
in EXIM container traffic only in 2014-15, but the traffic Haulage charges constitute about 75% of the operating
handled by them has been consistently increasing. cost for CTOs. The same haulage charges have been
increased over 10 times since the competition policy was
The basic analysis conducted using the FOIS data reveals
finalised in 2006 in order to allow private CTOs.
that a few large players are emerging in the competitive
market for container train operations. However, the In November 2014, an additional port congestion
fairness of the competition is undetermined in this study. surcharge of 10% was levied on all import-laden
To regulate the competitiveness so as to maximise to containers from all ports. The same charge was
potential of rail operations and the share of railways in discontinued by IR in April 2016 as it was restricting
inland container movement in India, TERI recommends the rail movement of import traffic. Figure 24 maps the
the establishment of an independent regulatory impact of the introduction and subsequent scrapping of
authority to monitor the same. It is also recommended port congestion charge by IR.
that IR simplifies the stringent concession agreement
provisions which restrict the sharing or pooling of rakes The increase in haulage charges is driving shipping lines
and terminals amongst the CTOs. to move away from the hinterland towards ‘port-to-port’

33
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

Issues and recommendations highlighted by ACTO

During the course of the study, TERI sought inputs from the private container train operators. The
recommendations from the CTOs have been listed below.

Suggestions related to domestic business

Restriction on commodities: It is suggested that Indian Railways restrict only coal and raw iron ore and allow all
other commodities to be carried in containers.

Haulage charges: The container class rate (CCR) charged for heavy commodities like iron and steel, alumina,
cement, stones, slag and petroleum products is almost double of normal haulage rate despite the fact that
CTO’s pay for empty haulage. It is also suggested that weight of the container be charged at freight all kind
(FAK) haulage rate so that CTO’s can carry some notified commodities.

Transit time: Light goods are generally more time sensitive and the chances of diversion of the same to road
are higher. Till the time Indian Railways resolve this issue, it will be very difficult to capture light good/valuable
consignments through rail containerization. The problem related to long time taken by container trains could
be resolved through time-tabled operation of container trains simultaneously augmenting capacity of existing
and developing new lines on congested route. DFC is expected to ease the issue of capacity constraint.

Access to terminals: Due to lack of terminals of private CTO’s shipping lines and other customers have to depend
on CONCOR for terminals.

¾¾ Allow access to CONCOR terminals built on Railway land to all CTO’s

¾¾ Charge CONCOR land licensing as per railway policy (6% of market rate) to ensure level playing field
¾¾ Bring policy for development of good sheds on PPP model
Other recommendations: Some of the other key recommendations by the CTOs are as follows.

¾¾ Allow examination of trains after 7,500 km as compared to the present practice of 6,000 km
¾¾ Allow all CTO’s to carry traffic for Bangladesh and Nepal, which is currently restricted to CONCOR

Suggestions related to EXIM business

Transit time: Movement from Ports (Mundra/Pipavav) to NCR and back takes 8-10 days thereby restricting
number of trips in a month to 3 which has led to poor turnaround and affected the commercials of CTO’s. It
has also increased dwell time at ports. As discussed earlier, DFC is expected to resolve the issue of high transit
time compared to road transport.

Imbalance in Exports and Imports at Ports: There is a huge imbalance in the export and import oriented container
traffic at ports. For instance, imports in containers are more than twice of exports in containers at Mundra Port.

¾¾ Export movement to Mundra in Trucks:

a) Over 500 truck-loads of rice in TEU’s (on an average) per day go from Punjab, Haryana, etc. to
Mundra port for export in containers
b) Further, around 150-200 trucks of yarn go by road per day, again from the same region to Mundra
for export
¾¾ Import Containers Detained at Mundra:

34
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

Average pendency of import containers awaiting clearance to the hinterland by rail ranges from 10,000 to
20,000 TEUs per day.

There is a need to balance traffic to the extent possible to reduce delay in clearance of imports. Increased
rail movement of exports in containers will lead to greater availability of rakes of wagons to clear import
containers. Efforts to balance traffic (Imports with Exports) by reduction in rail freight on rice exports (FAK
rate reduction on heavy weight slabs to capture rice export traffic movement by rail in containers). Also, FAK
reduction for export-oriented yarn movement to encourage its movement by rail.

Digital sharing of data between IT systems of service providers (Ice Gate & FOIS): Indian Railways have been
insisting on the weighment of Import containers destined to hinterland by rail from the ports. This is difficult to
achieve unless weighment details are digitally transfered from the Customs IT system (Ice Gate) to the Railways
IT system (FOIS). The same information is shared between customs and CONCOR, the same is not shared with
the CTOs. Hence the Imports, to be transported from the Ports onward to the hinterland, are subjected to 100%
weighment at Pipavav Port (except for CONCOR containers), which takes significant time. Arrangement should
be made to improve communication between customs and CTOs and Indian Railways could take a lead.

attempts to present the proportional inflow and outflow

of EXIM containers of all the zones of Indian Railways.
Growth of EXIM traffic (in thousand TEUs)
1.80 It is clear that most of the traffic is concentrated in the WR
1.60
1.40 and NR zones of IR. Table 30 shows the EXIM container
thousand TEUs

1.20 traffic in 2017-18 amongst 16 Zones of Indian Railways.

1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
¾¾ There 16 Railway Zones considered here and hence
0.20 256 ODs of Zones are possible.
0.00
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
¾¾ However, 179 (70%) of such possible Zonal OD pairs
Heavy Cargo 1,280.07 1,057.73 841.99 1,056.46 1,257.60
Intermediate Cargo 910.54 1,103.43 843.42 1,180.09 1,571.69
have a negligible (close to zero) percentage of total
Light Cargo 1.54 2.4 2.45 2.88 2.58 EXIM container traffic flowing through them.
¾¾ Even though the haulage charged by IR is uniform for
Figure 24: Possible effects of port congestion charges (from figure 9) its entire rail network. It is economically irrational to
have uniform pricing for uneven traffic levels.
movement. In October 2018, IR further increased the
Additionally, it is witnessed that container traffic by rail
haulage charges for containers by 5%11. While it may
over long distances is challenged by road transport. For
make economic sense to hike prices to improve services
instance, even though the distance between Mumbai
for the rising traffic in the Western corridor, it may not be
area ports and Dadri is over 1,500 km, CONCOR is faces
rational to have uniform pricing on a non-uniform traffic tough competition from road transport in moving lighter
distribution. commodities like readymade garments12.
Further, 55% of the EXIM traffic in terms of TEUs either Recommendations: IR could plan for designing of a
originates from or is destined to the Western Railway dynamic pricing system to attract traffic on decongested
(WR) Zone. Similarly, Northern Railways is the origin or rail lines; the potential for the same in highlighted in
destination of 37% of the EXIM container traffic. Table 29 Table 31.

11
Haulage charges for empty containers and flats have been reduced by 25% in December 2018. However, the impact of the same is expected to be seen
in the coming months.
[Link]
12

of%20International%20Importance_26-[Link]

35
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

Table 30: IR Zone wise proportional EXIM traffic in TEUs originating and ending (2017-18)
Zonal Railway Originating Ending Both Either Originating or
Originating and Ending
Ending
(1) (2) (3) (4=1+2-3)
WR Western Railway 37% 25% 7% 55%
NR Northern Railway 16% 23% 2% 37%
CR Central Railway 17% 17% 5% 29%
NWR North Western 12% 16% 0% 28%
Railway
NCR North Central 6% 6% 0% 12%
Railway
SCR South Central 2% 3% 0% 4%
Railway
SWR South Western 2% 3% 0% 4%
Railway
SR Southern Railway 3% 2% 0% 4%
ECOR East Coast 2% 2% 1% 2%
Railway
WCR West Central 1% 1% 0% 2%
Railway
ECR East Central 0% 2% 0% 2%
Railway
ER Eastern Railway 2% 0% 0% 2%
NER North Eastern 0% 0% 0% 1%
Railway
SECR South East 0% 0% 0% 0%
Central Railway
SER South Eastern 0% 0% 0% 0%
Railway
NFR North Frontier 0% 0% 0% 0%
Railway
Source: CRIS

¾¾ More than 50% of the EXIM container traffic is moved has already shared the price reduction benefit to its
in the western corridor, between Western Railway, aggregators/clients. Going forward, IR should also look
North Western Railway, and Northern Railway. The at a long-term plan to determine tariff rates taking into
Western DFC will decongest these routes. consideration the price charged by the road transporters,
¾¾ As there is negligible traffic on other routes, it is not especially for intermediate and light goods.
rational to have uniform haulage charges throughout
the IR network.
Transit time
¾¾ Similar to different category licences issued to CTOs,
the haulage charges must also vary to maximize the Indian Railways does not follow any fixed time table or
potential of railways in moving containers. schedule for most freight trains. Amongst the freight
trains, container trains are not prioritised in any way with
Recent reduction in haulage charges (December
respect to transit time. The average speed of a container
2018) would benefit third party operators as CONCOR

36
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

Table 31: Percentage of Total EXIM Traffic in TEUs (2017-18)

Source: CRIS

Table 32: Cost incurred in transporting containers through rail vis-a-vis road transport
Stream Exports and Imports % variation (rail over road)
Cost (in Rs per TEU)
Size Rail Road
Ludhiana-Mundra 20’ 30,791 22,500 37%
40’ 46,186 45,000 3%
Palwal-Mundra 20’ 27,569 19,000 45%
40’ 41,435 38,000 9%
Sonepat-Mundra 20’ 27,569 20,000 38%
40’ 41,435 40,000 4%
Sonepat-Pipavav 20’ 29,647 22,000 35%
40’ 44,462 44,000 1%
Patli-Mundra 20’ 25,421 18,000 41%
40’ 38,268 36,000 6%
Note: The costs related to road transport are average and subject to variation on account of various factors, including diesel prices, availability of trucks, etc.
Source: Industry sources

37
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

Table 33: Transit time comparison between road and rail on key ODs (in days)
Stream Exports Stream Imports
Rail Road Rail Road
Ludhiana-Mundra 3.2 2.8 Mundra-Ludhiana 3.2 2.8
Palwal-Mundra 2.9 2.3 Mundra-Palwal 2.8 2.3
Sonepat-Mundra 2.8 2.6 Mundra-Sonepat 3.1 2.6
Sonepat-Pipavav 3.2 2.8 Pipavav-Sonepat 3.3 2.8
Patli-Mundra 2.1 2 Mundra-Patli 4.7 2
Source: Industry sources

train is as lower than 25 km per hour. High turnaround Access to Terminals

time and longer lead time emerge to be major [Link] CONCOR is the market leader with 81 ICDs/CFSs spread
the coming of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, throughout the country . Other CTOs are charged by
the transit time by trucks has significantly improved. As IR
CONCOR for usage of the infrastructure. Private CTOs
does not ensure transit time, the transit time assurances
indicate that the incumbent has an undue advantage in
made by the CTOs to their clients are often not met. Even
the absence of independent regulator.
though IR introduced Assured Transit Time (ATT) scheme
in December 2009, the execution of the same was
questioned by most stakeholders. However, with coming Empty Container Flows
of the Eastern and Western Dedicated Freight Corridors Eight zonal railways of IR have higher incoming traffic
(DFC), transit time is expected to improve significantly. of containers than outgoing traffic. Except South
Recommendations: TERI recommends IR to introduce Eastern Railway, none of these eight zones have port
scheduled freight trains on key routes and undertake connectivity. The highest deficit is in the Northern
rational prioritisation of the containers and other Railway with 209,070 TEUs of EXIM containers which
commodities identified as containerised freight by IR. enter the zone through rail but exit the zone through
Benchmarking of its activities should be done with other modes. As indicated from the analysis in this study,
the road transportation as well so as to overcome the Northern Railway is a major consumption zone and the
challenge of higher transit time and competition faced traffic is mainly import traffic from the western coast.
by IR. Even if there is no corresponding traffic of goods moving
out of the zone, the empty containers have to be moved
Infrastructural Issues to locations where the demand exists. As has been
observed from the literature review and interaction with
Several infrastructural issues came up during TERI’s
discussions with stakeholders and railway professionals. stakeholders, export traffic moving towards the ports
A broad classification of these issues has been conducted by road are usually containerised only at the ports due
for the purpose of this report—access to terminals, to lower loading costs at the port. This may mean that
management of empty containers, and issues concerning the cargo and the empty containers might be moving
last mile connectivity. Other than these, certain irrational towards the ports separately by road. There is a huge
restrictions on containerised commodities and terminals potential that such empty container flows could be
were also expressed as significant issues by many captured by IR so as to reduce the corresponding carbon
stakeholders. emissions on road.

13
[Link]

38
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

Table 34: Incoming and Outgoing Zonal EXIM container traffic (TEUs)
Zones Incoming TEUs Outgoing TEUs (Incoming -
Outgoing)
(1) (2) (3) = (1) -(2)
Northern Railway NR 6,61,223 4,52,153 2,09,070
North Western NW 4,58,019 3,37,660 1,20,359
Railway
East Central Railway EC 48,258 2,747 45,511
South Western SW 74,481 49,605 24,877
Railway
South Central SC 73,055 58,518 14,538
Railway
North Central NC 1,76,342 1,68,051 8,291
Railway
South Eastern SE 5,656 1,891 3,765
Railway
North Eastern NE 7,470 7,111 359
Railway
Source: CRIS

Recommendations: The issue has been resolved when by Mundra and JNPT ports are moved by rail. With the
the Indian Railways granted 25% discount on the extant introduction of the Direct Port Delivery (DPD) scheme,
haulage charge applicable for empty containers and it is mandated to decongest ports of import containers
empty flat wagons in December 201814. Further, TERI also within 24 hours of their arrival. This has impacted the
recommends FOIS database management by CRIS to flow of container traffic to port side CFSs and has in
map the empty container flows in India. The FOIS data turn impacted adversely the rail movement of import
could be effectively used by CTOs to source and optimise containers.
usage of empty containers.
Coordination with trucking companies
Inter-modal coordination for last mile Rail is the cheaper mode for long-distance movement of
connectivity heavy, intermediate or light cargo. However, shippers still
It is crucial to improve the coordination of IR with the opt for trucks due to transit time losses on account of
shipping and trucking industry in order to promote poor trucking coordination at the destination or origin
container traffic on railways. It was expressed by the CFS/ICD.
shippers that transfer of containers (or the goods within)
Recommendations: Improving the linkage from ICD
from rail to road for the last mile connectivity often leads
to the factory through partnerships with trucking
to a considerable loss in transit time.
companies will help manage most cargo movement
across long distances.
Rail–Port connectivity
As has been highlighted by the earlier data analysis,
only 18%–20% of the total container traffic handled

[Link]
14

39
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

Issues in Freight Marketing and report suggests automobile and textile as two industries
Commercial Services where commodities could be aggregated over a train
load for OD pairs.
Lack of Streamlined Procedures ¾¾ Improving efficiency in operations
TERI’s discussions with the industry stakeholders brought The railways board may strategize capturing empty
forward that there are no streamlined procedures for container flows, especially the return containers
changes in stabling charges, hub and spoke policies, from major consumption points in Northern India
weightment and haulage charges for containers. In like Kathuwas, Tughlakabad, and Ludhiana. As it is
fact, Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd (ARIL) and KRIBHCO highlighted in the OD analysis in this report, there is a
Infrastructure Ltd even filed a case with the Competition huge deficit in the number of outgoing containers over
Commission of India (CCI) against the MoR and CONCOR the number of incoming containers to these terminal
for arbitrary changes in stabling charges in violation stations. Capturing the same may increase the payload
of the competition policy to establish dominance . to fare ratio of flat wagons for containers operated by
Meanwhile, the case was closed after detailed discussion railways.
among the involved parties.

Other Recommendations
Issues in Container Logistics Services
¾¾ Improving containerisation services at Inland Tapping the Potential of Domestic Container
Container Depots and (inland) Private Freight Movement
Terminals.
As per CRIS data, 92% of the domestic traffic moved by
It was highlighted in the data analysis that the import IR is heavy cargo. Light cargo movement through rail is
traffic carried by IR is significantly more than the export negligible. As per FOIS data, only 45.8 TEUs of light cargo
traffic carried by IR. Through discussions with other (less than 4 tonnes per TEU) was moved in 2017-18 by
stakeholders and literature review, it was also found IR. There was no movement of light cargo for distances
that containerisation of export cargo is cheaper at greater than 1,000 km. Most electronic consumer goods
the ports due to economies of scale. Hence it is likely fall in the light goods category. There is wide scope for
that the export cargo is carried by truck to the port IR to capture the long lead traffic of light goods. TERI
and containerised there, in contrast to import cargo recommends further analysis into this for identifying
which is already arriving in containers. Therefore, TERI specific commodities.
recommends IR to facilitate improvement of container
handling at the ICDs/PFTs so as to attract the export
traffic to railways – probably through rate incentives,
faster approval process in conjunction with the customs
department, better infrastructure not only within ICD/
PFT but also around the terminals for faster evacuation/
entry, etc.

¾¾ Specialised services for commodities that could be

aggregated over a train load
Commodities compatible to be carried in containers
which could be aggregated over a train load for origin-
destination pairs must be identified based on industry
flows and existing FOIS data. Such commodities may be
offered specialised rates, guaranteed transit or other such
freight marketing services for promoting rail usage. This

40
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Drewry. (2016). Container Market in India. Drewry & Ravibabu. (2013). A nested logit model of mode choice
Gateway Research. for inland movement of export shipments: A
case study of containerised export cargo from
Ebeling, C. (2009). Evolution of a Box. Invention and
India. Research in Transportation Economics,
Technology, 23(4), 8-9.
91-100.
Gangwar, R. (2012). Container movement by rail in India:
A review of policy evolution. Transport Policy,
20-28.

41
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

ANNEXURE 1
Station codes of container handling centres

Station Code Details

ACDA AJNI CONTAINER DEPOT
ALIK ADANI LOGISTICS LTD-ICD
ALUM THE RAMCO CEMENTS LTD SDG BY ALU
ARIK ARSHIYA RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. (ARIL) ICD SDG
ASGN AARTI STEELS LTD SDG
BAT BATALA JN.
BBN BARBIL
BGKT BHAGAT KI KOTHI
BIZ BAIHATA
BMSB BHIMASAR
BNGD M/S BOISAR NEW GOODS SHED
BPRD BARPETA ROAD
BRGW BARGAWAN
C KIDDERPORE DOCKS
CBKB ICD SIDING AT BGKT
CCJS PFT OF CONCOR
CCMP CONCOR [Link]
CCPP M/S CONCOR PRIVATE SIDING
CCTA CONCOR CONTAINER TERMINAL ANKLESHWAR
CCTB CONCOR CONTAINER TERMINAL SIDING VADODRA YARD
CEDC COSSIPORE CONTAINER RAIL TERMINAL
CFCV CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION (CFS)
CGDM CONCOR SIDING GANDHIDHAM
CGPT M/S CONCOR GREEN FIELD PFT
CHD CHANDIA ROAD
CHIC PORT SIDE CONTAINER TERMINAL AT HOM
CKYR CONCOR SIDING KHODIYAR
CMCK ICD CONCOR MULTIMODAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SRV KLH
CMCN DOMESTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL SIDING OF M/[Link] NAGALAPALLE
CMCT M/S CONTINENTAL MULTIMODAL TERMINALS LTD.
CMLK M/S GREENFIELD PFT OF CONCOR NEEMRANA SERVED BY KATHUWAS
CNCP CONCOR’S PORT SIDE CONTAINER TERMINAL AT PARADEEP PORT

42
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

Station Code Details

CNGT GUNTUR JN. CONCOR SIDING
CP CHITPUR
CPIB CONCOR PVT. SDG OF M/S CONCOR
CRCC CHINCHWAD CONTAINER DEPOT
CRNM CONTAINER DEPOT NEW MULUND
CRTK TURBHE CONTAINER DEPOT
CSRP CONCOR SIDING
CSRR CONCOR DEPOT SIDING RAVTHA ROAD
CSTN SANAT NAGAR CONCOR SIDING
CTCS CONCOR TERMINALS , SHALIMAR
CTCT CONCOR TERMINALS AT TATANAGAR
CTDI BROWNFIELD PFT OF CONCOR TERMINAL DURGAPUR
CTKR CONCOR TERMINAL KOPT COAL DOCK ROAD
CWCJ M/S. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SEVA) LTD.
CWCN CENTRAL WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, NOLI
DCCS DAULATABAD CONCOR SIDING
DICD INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT DHANDARI KALAN
DLIB M/S DISTRIBUTION LOGISTICS INFRASTRUCTURE [Link].
DRTA DRONAGIRI RAIL TERMINAL
DSO DESHNOK
FCON CONTAINER SIDING FATUHA
FSL FOOD SPECIALITIES LTD, MOGA
GDGH GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS LTD GARHI HARSARU
GFCJ GREENFIELD PFT OF M/S CONCOR AT JSG
GFPA M/[Link] LOGISTICS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
GISN GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD SDG, NAGDA
GRFV M/S GATEWAY RAIL FREIGHT LIMITED SERVED BY VIRAMGAM
GTS GHATSILA
HACG HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.
HDCG HALDIA DOCK COMPLEX AND GENERAL
HIMB HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. (MAHAN ALUMINIUM SMELTER )
HMH HANUMANGARH JN.
HMY HARMUTI
HSA HASIMARA
HTPP M/S HIND TERMINAL PVT LTD
HTSD HIND TERMINALS PVT LTD
HZL HINDUSTAN ZINC SDG, CHANDERIYA
IAGR ICD SIDING ASAOTI
IBBM M/S INTRENATIONAL CARGO TERMINALS AND RAIL [Link].
ICAK M/S ADANI LOGISTIC LTD

43
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

Station Code Details

ICB IOC SIDING BAHAULI
ICBD BHUSAVAL ICD CONTAINER DEPOT
ICDA INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT
ICDD INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT, DADRI
ICDG INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT AT JUHI/KANPUR
ICDK ICD KANAKPURA SIDING
ICDM INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT,MALANPUR
ICDP INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT AT DHAPPAR
ICDS INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT SIDING SABARMATI
ICDT INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT AT CHENNAI TONDIARPET
ICDW INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT SERVED BY SGWF
ICDY INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT AT YAMUNA BRIDGE
ICMB INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT AT MORADABAD
ICOD INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT
ICPH INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT PHILLAUR
IDBR ICD BIRGANJ
IGCS INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT AT CHENNAI IRUGUR
IRLS KHARIYA KHANGAR CEMENT SIDING
ISNL INNOVATIVE B2B LOGISTIC SOLUTION LTD.
JNPT JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT
JSLS PFT OF M/S JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED
JSWV M/S JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LTD.
KIFH M/S KASHIPUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND FREIGHT TERMINAL [Link] SDG
KIIP M/S KRIBHCO INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ICD SERVED BY PALI
KKPS DALMIAPURAM CEMENT SDG, KALLAKKUDI-PALANGANATHAM
KPRK KANDLA PORT DOCK RAIL TERMINAL
KTIG TISCO SIDING, KALAMBOLI EXCHANGE YARD
KXG KHARIA KHANGAR
LNN LONAND
MAAL PRIVATE SIDING OF M/S HINDALCO INDU. LTD.(ADITYA ALUMINIUM)
MATP ASSOCIATED CONTAINER TERMINAL LTD.(ACTL) SIDING
MAVB PRIVATE SIDING OF M/S VEDANTA LIMITED
MDCC MUNDRA PORT CARGO COMPLEX
MGPV M/S GANGAVARAM PORT LTD.
MHPL M/S HASTI PETRO CHEMICAL & SHIPPING LTD AT SANAND
MHZR M/S HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD SIDING
MILK M/S CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION
MJCG M/S J.K. CEMENT WORKS LTD. SDG.
MJOG JUBILANT LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED
MKIG M/S KRIBHCO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD SIDING SERVED BY GOTHANGAON

44
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

Station Code Details

MKPP M/S KANPUR LOGISTICS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED
MLSW M/S UTTAM VALUE STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.
MPIB M/S PRISTINE MAGADH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
MRB MUNIRABAD
MRCJ M/[Link] CEMENTS LTD SDG SERVED BY JAGGAYAPET TOWN RLY STN
MRWN RAJASTAN SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS SIDING
MVI MORBI
NAC NAWA CITY
NKKH NIMPURA GOOD SHED COMPLEX
NNL NARNAUL
NTSJ M/S NAVKAR TERMINAL LIMITED AT TUMB
PAPK M/S. ADHUNIK ALLOYS AND OWER LTD. SERVED BY KANDRA STN
PCWD M/[Link] WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SEVA) LTD.
PDCR M/S DOMESTIC CONTAINER TERMINAL(CONCOR)
PDLL M/S ADDANI LOGISTIC, PATLI
PGFS M/S GATEWAY RAIL FREIGHT LTD SDNG
PKPK MS Krishnapatnam Port Company LTD,Siding
PLPC M/S PRISTINE MEGA LOGISTICS PARK PVT. LTD. (PFT)
PMKM M/S KRIBHCO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
PMSB M/S MONET ISPAT AND ENERGY LTD. SDG
PNCS M/S NAVKAR CORP. LTD
PPSP PIPAVAV PORT SDG.
PRTK RELIANCE RAIL TERMINAL,KANALUS
PSPG M/S. J K PAPER LIMITED
RICD INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT SIDING RATLAM
RK ROORKEE
ROU RAURKELA JN.
SCIC M/S SIDCUL CONCOR INFRA COMPANY LTD. PFT SIDING
SCLS M/S SHIV CARRIERS ROADWAYS PVT LTD
SICD SALEM MARKET-CONTAINER RAIL TERMINAL
SLH SILIARI
TICD INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT TUGLAKABAD
TMGP TATA METALIKS LTD
TPSK M/S BHARAT ALLUNINIUM CO. LTD, KORBA
TSIM TATA SPONGE IRON LTD.
TSLJ M/S PRIVATE SIDING OF M/S TATA STEEL LIMITED
TWS TISCO WORKS SITE, TATANAGAR JN.
VEN VERNA
VPDP INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TRANSHIPMENT TERMINAL SIDING
VZP VISHAKHAPATNAM-PORT

45
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

ANNEXURE 2
Terminals owned and operated by CONCOR

CONCOR’s region Exim terminals Mixed EXIM+Domestic Domestic Strategic No. of

(14) terminals (36) terminals (23) tie-ups (8) terminals
(Oct 2018)
CENTRAL (Services - 1. Daulatabad 1. Mihan - 7
are available in (Aurangabad) Nagpur***(MMLP)
Maharashtra ,
Chhattisgarh & MP)
2. Nagpur 2. Naya
Raipur***(MMLP)
3. Raipur
4. Mandideep (Bhopal)
5. Bhusawal
EASTERN(Services 1. Paradip Port 6. Majerhat (Kolkata) 3. Fatuha (Patna) 12
are available in (PSCT) 7. Balasore 4. Shalimar
West Bengal, Bihar, (Kolkata)
Odisha, Jharkhand, 8. Tatanagar 5. Durgapur***
Chhattisgarh & (Jamshedpur)
North Eastern 9. Amingaon (Guwahati) 6. Rourkela
states) 7. Haldia
8. Jharsuguda
***(MMLP)
9. Bodhjungnagar
NORTHERN 2. Tughlakabad 10. Moradabad 10. Okhla (Delhi) 1. Diwana 19
(Services are (Delhi)
available in Delhi 3. Babarpur 11. Rewari 11. Phillaur 2. Pali
, UP, Haryana, (Panipat) (Ludhiana)
Punjab , Rajasthan, 4. 12. Kanakpura (Jaipur) 12. Khemli 3. Dhappar
Himachal Pradesh) Dhandharikalan (Udaipur)
(Ludhiana)

13. Bhagat ki Kothi 13. Suranassi
 (Jodhpur)
14. Ballabhgarh 14. Dhappar

15. Baddi 15. Ahmedgarh -
JVC-PLIL ***(MMLP)
16. Kathuwas
(Neemrana)***(MMLP)

46
 INCREASING RAIL SHARE IN FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN INDIA

CONCOR’s region Exim terminals Mixed EXIM+Domestic Domestic Strategic No. of

(14) terminals (36) terminals (23) tie-ups (8) terminals
(Oct 2018)
NORTH CENTRAL - 17. Dadri (Greater - 4. Modi 8
(Services are Noida) Nagar
available in U.P, 18. Pantnagar - JVC-
Uttarakhand, M.P. & SCICL***(MMLP)
Rajasthan) 19. Malanpur (Gwalior)
20. Agra East Bank
(Agra)
21. Kanpur
22. Ravtha Road (Kota)
23. Madho Singh
(Varanasi)
NORTH WESTERN 5. Khodiyar 24. Vadodara 16. Sabarmati 5. 10
(Services are (Ahmedabad) (Ahmedabad) Jakhwada
available in Gujarat, 6. Chhanni 25. Gandhidham 17. Varnama 6. Hazira
Diu ) (Vadodara) ***(MMLP)
26. Ankleshwar 7. Sukhpur
(PFT)
SOUTHERN 7. Milavattan 27. Whitefield - - 8
(Services are (Tuticorin) (Bengaluru)
available in 8. Tiruppur 28. Irugur (Coimbatore)
Tamilnadu, 9. Harbour of 29. Tondiarpet
Karnataka & Kerala) Madras (Chennai) (Chennai)
30. Vallarpadam
31. New Mangalore Port
(NMPT)
SOUTH CENTRAL 10. 32. Sanathnagar 18. Nagulapally 8. 8
(Services are Vishakhapatnam (Hyderabad) (Hyderabad) Thimmapur
available in Andhra (MMLPV)*** ***(MMLP)
Pradesh, Karnataka 11. 33. Vishakhapatnam- 19. Guntur  
& Telangana) Krishnapatnam CFCV
(K-1)
34. Desur (Belgam)  
WESTERN (Services 12. New Mulund 35. Chinchwad (Pune) 20. Turbhe 9
are available in (Mumbai) (Mumbai)
MP, Maharashtra &
Goa)
13. Pithampur 36. Dronagiri Node 21. Miraj
(Indore) (Mumbai)
14. Ratlam 22. Tihi***(MMLP)
23. Balli***
Grand Total 81
Source: CONCOR

47
 WORKING REPORT – CONTAINER

THE ENERGY AND

RESOURCES INSTITUTE
Creating Innovative Solutions for a Sustainable Future

48