901

1 CONSTRUCTION OF THE OUTER PORT IN THE

PORT OF GDYNIA

The Port of Gdynia is currently the second in Poland

in terms of total cargo weight transshipped (after the

Port of Gdansk). It is a modern all-in-one port, where

the following facilities are located:

− bulk terminals: Aalborg Portland Polska Ltd.,

Alpetrol Ltd., Baltic Bulk Terminal Ltd., Baltic

Grain Terminal Ltd., HES Gdynia Bulk Terminal

Sp. z o.o., Koole Tankstorage Gdynia Ltd;

− ro-ro and conventional general cargo terminals

operated by OT Port Gdynia Ltd;

− two container terminals located in the Western

Port: BCT (Baltic Container Terminal Ltd.) and

GCT S.A. (Gdynia Container Terminal S.A.).

Transshipments at the port are steadily increasing

and, despite the unfavourable global situation,

reached record levels in 2020 (Figures 1 and 2). The

response to this growing demand should be the port

expansion. It is also necessary due to the rapid

development of competing sea ports in the Baltic and

North Sea basin and the forecasts indicating an

increase in container throughput in Polish sea ports to

a level of approx. 9.5 million TEUs in 2050.

Figure 1. Total transshipments in Port of Gdynia between

2016 and 2020 (in thousand tonnes) [23]

Safety of Rail-Road Crossings at the Hinterland of the

Port of Gdynia

M.J. Nowakowski

Gdynia Maritime University, Gdynia, Poland

ABSTRACT: In order to exploit the possibilities of the Outer Port in the Port of Gdynia, it is necessary to ensure

appropriate transport accessibility from the hinterland. Rail transport will play a leading role in this area. In this

context, it is important to ensure appropriate technical and operational parameters along the entire length of the

Polish part of the TEN-T network. In the immediate vicinity of Gdynia this means the comprehensive

modernisation of the railroad line no. 201. The most frequently mentioned parameters include the speed of

goods trains, useful lengths of station tracks and permissible axle loads. Far too little attention is paid to the

issue of traffic safety at the numerous rail-road crossings located on the line. This is an especially important

subject for the residents of areas adjacent to the line, especially in the context of a radical increase in rail traffic.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 15

Number 4

December 2021

DOI: 10.12716/1001.15.04.24

902

Figure 2. Container transshipments in the Port of Gdynia

between 2016 and 2020 (in TEUs) [23]

The existing container terminals have limited

handling capacity, and above all — in comparison

with the competitive port of Gdansk in this respect —

are not able to handle the largest ocean-going vessels.

Hence the decision to launch an investment called

“Construction of the External Port of the Port of

Gdynia”. Since there is no possibility of enlarging the

Port of Gdynia towards the land, as it is surrounded

by the residential and commercial districts of Gdynia,

and the possibilities of acquiring new land around the

existing port basins have been practically exhausted,

the decision was made to locate the External Port on a

new pier built outside the existing Southern

Breakwater, in the waters of the Gulf of Gdańsk in the

area of the Main Approach Fairway.

The most important functional element located at

the new jetty will be a deepwater container terminal

capable of handling ocean-going vessels with Baltmax

parameters, i.e. up to 430 metres long, 60 metres wide

and with a draught of up to 15.5 metres (Figure 3).

This will increase the container handling capacity of

the Port of Gdynia from the current 1.8 to 4.3 million

TEUs [22].

Figure 3. Visualization of the Outer Port in the Port of

Gdynia [22]

An increase in transshipment in the port is

tantamount to an increase in traffic on its connections

with the hinterland. Most of this increase will concern

railway transport. This is based on the assumptions

included in [35]. They predict, among other things,

shifting 30% of road freight transport over distances

greater than 300 km to other modes of transport (rail,

water transport) by 2030, and 50% of this type of

transport by 2050.

In 2018, the 24-hour average number of goods

trains arriving at the Port of Gdynia was 21.75 pairs,

of which 2.25 pairs concerned traffic towards

Wejherowo [14]. As for the projected volumes, they

are presented in the document “Development of the

Feasibility Study for the task: ‘Improvement of

infrastructure of railway access to the Port of Gdynia

— Preparatory works’” developed in 2015. The

forecasted increase in the amount of reloaded goods,

primarily containers, will translate into an increase in

the number of goods trains necessary to serve the

Gdynia Port station to 109 pairs per day in the

perspective of 2045 [9]. An over fivefold increase in

the number of trains compared to the present state

requires a careful examination of the capacity of the

railway lines connecting Gdynia with the hinterland.

2 RAILWAY TRANSPORT CORRIDORS IN THE

HINTERLAND OF THE PORT OF GDYNIA

The need to connect the newly built port in Gdynia

with the hinterland by means of an efficient railway

transport was understood already in the interwar

period. Therefore, one of the most important

infrastructural investments of the Second Republic of

Poland was the construction of railway line No. 201,

running through Bydgoszcz Leśna, Wierzchucin,

Lipowa Tucholska, Koscierzyna, Somonino and

Gdynia. It formed part of the so-called Coal Main Line

connecting Silesia with the newly established port,

bypassing the Free City of Gdansk. After the end of

WWII, as a result of the change of national borders

and electrification of the railway line No. 131

Chorzów Batory - Tczew, its use for freight transport

was marginalised [15]. Goods trains from Silesia to

Gdynia started running via Tczew, sharing the Tczew

– Gdańsk Główny route with trains running on line

no. 9 Warszawa Wschodnia Osobowa – Gdańsk

Główny, and further to Gdynia on line no. 202

Gdańsk Główny - Stargard.

Poland's accession to the European Union was an

important impulse for the development of rail

connections between Gdynia Port and the hinterland,

as a result of which the Gdynia Port station directly

serving the port was included in the trans-European

TEN-T and AGTC networks [24]. This is a kind of

ennoblement, but also a great challenge in terms of

technical and operational requirements. For users of

rail freight transport, the most important are three

basic parameters, the values of which were ultimately

defined for the lines included in the network in [5] as

follows:

− the minimum road speed for goods trains — 120

km/h;

− goods train length —750 m;

− acceptable axle loads — 200 kN/axle (221 kN/axle

at 100 km/h).

The location of the Port of Gdynia in the system of

the Polish part of the TEN-T and AGTC networks is

shown in Figure 4. It also includes the names of

border stations located on transport corridors used in

relations with the Port of Gdynia.

903

Figure 4. Location of Gdynia in the Polish part of the TEN-T

and AGTC networks. Based on [18, 24].

The most important direction for goods transport

from the Port of Gdynia is currently the C-E 65

corridor leading south to the border crossings with

the Czech Republic (Chałupki and Zebrzydowice) and

Slovakia (Zwardoń). The connection is currently

provided by a line consisting of three railway lines

numbered (in order) 202, 9 and 131. This is one of the

best adapted freight railway corridors in Central

Europe. The listed main railway lines and their

complementary freight bypasses and connectors are

fully electrified, double track, suitable for the relevant

speeds, axle loads and have the required useful track

lengths. The requirements listed in [24] are fulfilled on

the route Gdynia Port – Tarnowskie Góry for the

destination points in Zebrzydowice and Zwardon or

to the station Herby Nowych in the direction to

Chałupki. The remaining part of the route runs

through the Upper Silesian Industrial District and the

Rybnik Coal District. The dense railway network in

the area causes numerous difficulties, primarily

associated with obtaining adequate station track

lengths and operating speeds. The works carried out

and planned will enable the passage of trains with a

length of 750 m on the entire Gdynia Port –

Zebrzydowice/Chałupki route after 2024.

However, the key problem of the C-E 65 corridor

lies right outside the gates of the port of Gdynia. It is

the capacity of the Gdynia – Tczew section. The

dynamic development of sea ports in Gdańsk and

Gdynia goes hand in hand with the development of

the Tricity agglomeration. This is associated not only

with the development of trade, but also with the

growing demand of the population of the Tricity

agglomeration for agglomeration and inter-

agglomeration transport. The proverbial drop that

broke the camel's back was the ill-considered

conversion of the Gdańsk-Oliwa station into a

passenger station within the project “Modernisation

of the E65/C-E65 railway line on the section Warsaw –

Gdynia – the area of LCS Gdańsk, LCS Gdynia”. As a

result, on line 202, which is the backbone of the Tri-

city transportation system, the critical route Gdańsk

Wrzeszcz – Sopot was created, on which, due to the

unfavorable location of SBL interlocking semaphores,

the train interval is additionally extended by trains

stopping at Gdańsk Oliwa station (in practice — by all

passenger trains running between Gdańsk and Gdynia

on line 202) [10]. The analyses presented in [10, 11]

show that currently the main railway corridor of the

Pomeranian conurbation on the section Gdańsk

Główny – Gdynia Główna is characterised by

completely exhausted or depleting capacity.

Additional traffic from the port of Gdynia forecasted

in the perspective of 2045 will not be able to be

handled by this section. This has resulted in renewed

interest in line no. 201 as an alternative route

connecting Gdynia with the hinterland by rail.

Currently, the project “Works on the alternative

transport route Bydgoszcz – Tricity” is being

implemented, which assumes, among others,

upgrading the 201 line to double-track along its entire

length, its electrification and adaptation to the

requirements defined in [24]. When the works are

completed, railway lines 201 and 131 will form the

core of the connection between the Port of Gdynia

station and the southern border of Poland.

An alternative connection to the Czech Republic is

provided by a corridor connecting Gdynia with the

Międzylesie-Lichkov border crossing. The initial

section of the route runs together with the corridor to

Chałupki/Zebrzydowice/Zwardoń, i.e. via lines 201

and 131. At the Inowrocław railway junction the route

deviates to the south-west and via line 353 runs

through Gniezno to the Kobylnica station and then via

line 394 to the Poznań-Franowo station. After passing

through Poznań railway junction the route leads from

Luboń along line 271 to Wrocław-Popowice station

and further through Brochów and Lamowice to

Międzylesie.

Currently, the Gdynia Port – Międzylesie corridor

has full TEN-T and AGTC network parameters only in

the sections to Inowrocław (without line no. 201) and

on line no. 271 from Luboń to Wrocław-Popowice.

Travel on the remaining part of the route encounters

numerous operational restrictions. In the section

Inowrocław – Gniezno – Poznań Franowo there is a

train speed limit of 70-100 km/h. The final section of

the corridor, from Wrocław to Międzylesie, permits

the passage of trains with a maximum length of 640

metres. The investment works in progress will allow

trains of a length of 750 metres to run from 2028 [16,

30].

Access from Gdynia to the Terespol-Brest border

crossing is via the main corridors of the TEN-T

network: railway line no. 9 (corridor C-E 65) to the

Warsaw railway junction and further via railway line

no. 2 (corridor C-E 20). Railway line no. 9 is a double

track and electrified main line, upgraded to TEN-T

network parameters, connecting Tri-City with the

capital city. Railway line no. 2 is also a fully

modernised double track and electrified railway line

running from Warsaw to the border with Belarus and

further towards Moscow via Brest and Minsk. It is the

direct entrance to Poland of the China-Europe Silk

Road.

The corridor almost along its entire length has full

TEN-T and AGTC network parameters, except for the

Tczew and Warsaw railway junction. A weak point of

the entire corridor is the heavy passenger traffic and

the lack of an alternative route from Gdynia to

Terespol, bypassing the Tricity cross-city line.

Additionally, investments carried out under the

National Railway Programme do not envisage the

904

elimination of the onerous restriction of train length to

650 m in the area of the Warsaw railway junction [16,

30]. This will not be possible until after 2028.

The last of the corridors presented in Figure 4

leading from Gdynia to the border crossing in

Kuźnica Białostocka is an alternative to connecting

Gdynia with the China-Europe Silk Road. The core of

the route is railway line No. 9, which can be used to

reach Warsaw. Then, via connecting passages,

through the Warszawa Wschodnia Towarowa station

and railway line no. 449, one can reach railway line

no. 6, which runs to Kuźnica Białostocka itself.

Alternatively, you can exit at Iława from line no. 9 on

line no. 353 to Korsze and continue on line no. 38 to

Białystok, where you join up with line no. 6.

The corridor to the border crossing Kuźnica

Białostocka has full TEN-T and AGTC network

parameters only on railway line no. 9. On the

remaining lines there are operating difficulties in the

form of lowered axle loads, useful station track length

below 700 metres and parts of lines in single-track

standard. In addition, most lines are heavily laden

with passenger traffic, which affects the capacity of

the lines, especially in the sections near the

agglomeration. The most important investment in this

direction included in the National Railway

Programme is the project for modernisation and

construction of Rail Baltica [16, 30], which is

tangential to the corridor in question in the section Elk

– Bialystok. Equally important is the modernization

and electrification of railway line no. 38 in section

Korsze – Ełk. However, all these investments will not

enable 750 m long train traffic on the whole route

from Gdynia to Kuźnica Białostocka.

The current status of operational restrictions on

these TEN-T corridors is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Map of operational restrictions on the analysed

corridors — as of 12.2019 [14]

3 MODERNISATION OF HINTERLAND RAIL

TRANSPORT AS A CONDITION FOR THE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PORT OF GDYNIA

Operational parameters presented in [5] influence the

capacity of a railway line, which comes down to the

number of trains running on the line per day and their

weight [3]. The factors determining the weight of

trains are permissible axle loads (limiting the weight

of a wagon) and the usable length of station tracks,

which translates directly into the maximum length of

a train and, consequently, the number of wagons in its

composition. The maximum number of trains of a

given type per day is influenced by the operational

speeds of trains, types of junctions encountered on

route and station tracks and the train control system.

Adaptation of lines included in the TEN-T/AGTC

network to the postulates of [5] therefore means the

necessity of carrying out specific investment activities

in the rail transport infrastructure.

The most costly is usually to adapt the line to

increased train speeds. This usually requires

adjustment of the line’s geometric layout in horizontal

alignment to a various extent (depending on the

existing parameters of the line). In extreme cases, it is

necessary to relocate a section of the line, changing its

course in the field. In such cases, procedures typical

for construction of a new railway road (including

purchase of land) are applied. Apart from the routes,

the layouts of stations and traffic posts will also

require modernisation, with the replacement of

turnouts and new alignment of turnout routes as a

rule. For example, each double slip switch located in

the main tracks will have to be replaced with a pair of

ordinary turnouts (a slip switch allows travel at a

maximum speed of 100 km/h on the straight track).

The adaptation of the line to the new, longer length

of the goods train is also a significant interference in

the track systems of the stations, where at least one

additional main track must have a length enabling the

entry of such a train [27, 28, 32]. This should be

treated as an absolute minimum solution and the aim

should be to have a situation where the longest train

can be accommodated by any auxiliary main track.

The lengthening of the station layout forces the

occupation of adjacent land and is often hampered by

adjacent pre-station arches.

Adapting a line to the new, higher axle loads

requires an analysis of the substructure strength and

its reinforcement, as well as the selection of the

appropriate superstructure standard - type of rails,

sleepers, fasteners, ballast of the appropriate grade

and of a specified minimum thickness under the

sleepers. This often involves the replacement of the

entire superstructure of the track and station tracks.

The total thickness of the superstructure is then

increased, which requires the reconstruction of level

crossings along the entire length of the line and

adjusting the road profile at the crossing to the new

rail head profile. Larger axle loads also require

checking the load capacity of all railway bridges and

viaducts along the entire length of the line and, if

necessary, reinforcing or rebuilding them.

All the above-mentioned activities occur in the

context of an investment of key importance to the

efficient functioning of the External Port of Gdynia -

905

the modernisation of the railway line no. 201. The

implemented project “Works on the alternative

transport route Bydgoszcz – Tricity” assumes, among

other things

− upgrading the line to double-track over its entire

length;

− raising the maximum speed to 160 km/h for

passenger trains and to 120 km/h for goods trains;

− electrification of lines;

− modernisation of traffic control equipment.

At present, the 201 line has a local character and

the traffic on it is characterised by the intensity of a

dozen or so pairs of trains per day (except for the

Glincz - Gdynia Główna section, where it increased to

32–52 pairs of trains per day after launching the PKM

line). This is practically exclusively passenger traffic

[9]. An increase in traffic generated by Gdynia Port

station to 109 train pairs per day in 2045 and

operational limitations on lines no. 9 and 202 will

necessitate redirecting approx. 80% of this value to

line no. 201, which means an increase in freight traffic

to 90 train pairs per day. Such a dramatic increase in

freight traffic will mean that the line, which is

currently used by an average of 20 pairs of trains per

day (mostly railbuses), will not only change its

character, but will also have a considerable impact on

the environment in which it runs.

The railway line, connecting the territory along its

course, must at the same time secure the functioning

of local transport running across its course. Such

interaction with the environment is provided by —

among others — road-rail-road crossings. Their

influence on the costs and final effects of

modernisation of railway lines has been

underestimated several times in the past in Poland.

This was, among others, the case during consecutive

modernizations of railway line no. 3 Warszawa

Zachodnia – Kunowice [3] and during the

modernization of railway line no. 9 Warszawa

Wschodnia - Gdańsk Główny to the speed of 200

km/h [19]. In the first case, resignation from the

reconstruction of crossings into collision-free two-

level crossings effectively limited the operating speed

on the line despite its favourable geometrical

parameters in this respect. In the second case, delays

in the construction of collision-free crossings

increased the travel time of Pendolino trains on the

route from Warsaw to Gdańsk by several minutes.

4 RAIL-ROAD CROSSINGS AT THE BACK OF THE

PORT OF GDYNIA

4.1 Traffic safety at rail-road crossings

A rail-road crossing is, according to the definitions

given in [26, 33], a single level crossing of a railway

line or siding with a public road. If the public road is

intended only for pedestrian traffic, we are dealing

with a crossing. The basic task of rail-road crossings is

to enable road traffic participants to safely cross the

railway line.

Article 25 of the law [21] stipulates the absolute

priority of a rail vehicle at a rail-road crossing, while

Article 28 defines the duties of a road traffic

participant, formulating them as follows: “The driver

of a vehicle, when approaching a railway crossing and

when passing through a crossing, is obliged to

exercise particular care. Before entering the track, he is

obliged to check whether a rail vehicle is approaching

and to take appropriate precautions ...”. This

provision and the fact that the braking distance of a

train is an order of magnitude longer than the braking

distance of a car (see [7, 12]) force installation of the

majority of safety devices and markings only on the

road side in order to warn road users of an

approaching train. From the railway line side, only

the W 6a and W 6b indicators are installed and — in

justified cases — crossing warning boards informing

about the efficiency of road traffic protection devices

at the crossing [13].

Crossings are categorised according to the safety

features used on them. The best secured category A

crossings are those operated by a qualified worker

and equipped with a horn that closes the whole width

of the carriageway. At the opposite end are category

D crossings, which do not have any protective devices

apart from “Stop” and “St. Andrew's Cross” road

signs . The criteria according to which a crossing is

qualified to a given category are the number of tracks

on the crossing, traffic product, train speed and

visibility conditions [26].

The number of crossings and rail-road crossings on

the PKP network has been systematically decreasing

for several years. Currently (beginning of 2021) there

are 13936 such crossings (including 482 crossings, i.e.

category E and 850 non-public crossings - category F),

which means a decrease by 4189 in relation to the year

2000 [1]. To this should be added the so-called “wild”

crossings, the number of which — according to the

data of the General Headquarters of the SOK — in

2019 was 44150 [31]. Unfortunately, these are the

places where most accidents occur on the railway

network, involving hundreds of victims. This can be

traced to the summary presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Casualties at rail-road crossings of all categories

and illegal crossings 2015-2019. Based on [31]

What escapes common attention is the fact that

mass crossing of tracks in unauthorised places causes

significant losses in the ballast, which violates the

conditions of stability of the contactless track in these

places and may cause a railway disaster. Figure 6

shows an unauthorised crossing on the Reda – Hel

line less than a year after the main track repair. The

lack of ballast from the front of the sleepers is clearly

visible, which in this case — in the horizontal curve of

the contactless track — poses a danger of buckling.

Accidents at places designed for crossing railway

lines (at crossings and rail-road crossings) occur

irrespective of the category of the crossing, as shown

in Table 2. They are most often caused by the mistakes

of road users — disregarding the “Stop” sign and red

906

lights, driving under falling horns, slaloming around

closed semicrossings and driving on the tracks when

there is no room to exit the crossing.

Figure 6. Defects in the ballast at an illegal track crossing

Table 2. Accidents at crossings of all categories 2015-2019.

Based on [31]

Despite numerous activities carried out by the

President of UTK, the infrastructure manager, the

Railway Guard and the Police, accidents at rail-road

crossings constitute a major part of all railway

accidents (Figure 7). It should be noted that the

influence of railway sector entities on minimising risk

at these places is limited. Their role is limited to

equipping crossings with modern protection and

warning devices for drivers, installing systems to

record violations of laws by road traffic participants

and building collision-free (two-level) crossings.

Figure 7. Percentage of rail accidents in 2019 by category

[31]

Accidents at rail-road crossings are commonly

thought of as a collision between a heavy, multi-tonne

train and a passenger car, which is clearly associated

with casualties among road users only. However,

changes in the structure of road and rail traffic have

led to an increasing number of heavy road vehicles

with trailers being driven on the roads, and to an

increasing number of relatively light rail buses

appearing on rail lines, especially local ones. As a

result, a new category of accident has been observed:

collisions between a light train and a heavy road

vehicle. In such situations, casualties also occur

among the train passengers, and the material losses

include a premium-class train set that is sent for costly

repairs or a totaled rail bus. One of the most tragic

accidents of its kind occurred in Spain at Masalfasar

station in November 1976. There, a passenger train

from Barcelona collided with a lorry loaded with steel

girders at a crossing. After the collision, the train

pushed a trailer with girders in front of it for several

hundred metres, destroying residential buildings

located along the track. Fourteen people were killed

and 21 injured [4].

It should be stressed that the only measure that

will eliminate the risk of an accident at a rail-road

crossing is its removal or replacement with a collision-

free (two-level) crossing. This is an expensive

solution, but the only one that is 100% effective. This

is confirmed by the fact that despite modernization

works at crossings and educational campaigns such as

‘Safe crossing’ or ‘Railway ABC campaign’, the

number of fatalities remains at a constant level of

about 50 people per year and the number of seriously

injured people — about 30 people/year. Sweden's

experience in implementing the Vision Zero Initiative

in road traffic has encouraged some countries to

promote the same vision for rail-road crossings. In

Australia, the State Government of Victoria, as part of

the Level Crossing Removal Project (LXRP) plan,

decided to convert 75 crossings located in the

Melbourne metropolitan area into collision-free

crossings [17]. The most frequently cited benefits of

this solution are improved traffic safety, reduced

congestion and increased rail capacity. In Europe, a

similar approach was implemented in Spain,

restrictively limiting the possibility of leaving single

level crossings in the case of railway projects [8]. This

has been reflected in the relevant legislation.

Activities carried out in Poland to improve safety

at railway and road crossings are not unequivocally

positive. This was shown in the report of the Supreme

Chamber of Control where only the activities of the

President of UTK were assessed positively (however

indicating their low importance) while the activities of

the infrastructure manager, road managers and the

Police were assessed negatively [2]. The report also

points to a significant inconsistency in activities aimed

at improving safety at crossings. On the one hand,

there is a tendency to install modern safety devices on

crossings, which relates to their reclassification from

category D to B and C, while on the other hand

regulations have been introduced which make it

difficult to change this category. This refers to the

basic parameter for the categorisation of crossings, i.e.

the traffic product, whose threshold values were

significantly increased in 2015 [26, 29]. This is

presented in Table 3. These changes, made against the

opinion of the President of UTK and in many cases

making it practically impossible to reclassify D

category crossings to a higher (better protected)

907

category, should be clearly assessed as savings made

by the infrastructure manager at the expense of traffic

safety.

Table 3. Changes in the threshold values of the product of

traffic, qualifying a rail-road crossing into a given category.

Based on [26, 29]

4.2 4.2 Rail-road crossings on line 201

Information on the number and categories of rail-road

crossings located on the transport corridors leading to

the Port of Gdynia is presented in Table 4. This

summary does not fully reflect the situation on the

aforementioned corridors due to the fact that the

density of crossings on their particular parts is highly

diversified.

Table 4. Rail-road crossings by category on individual TEN-

T corridors leading from Gdynia Port station. Based on [18]

The most favourable situation is on the route to

Terespol, where line no. 9 is practically devoid of

crossings except for short sections that were not

adjusted to 200 km/h during the last modernisation.

The two largest clusters of crossings are near Rybno

Pomorskie (8 crossings between km 166.476 and

184.439) and the crossing over Narew near Modlin (6

crossings between km.41.258 and 49.840). On the

entire line no. 9 there are only 22 crossings, the

remaining 89 are located between Warsaw and

Terespol. The situation is also good on the route to

Międzylesie, where category C and D crossings were

removed from the section between Gniezno and

Poznan-Kobylnica during the last modernisation.

However, the most interesting is the initial

fragment of the corridor, common for the relations to

Chałupki, Zebrzydowice, Zwardoń, and Międzylesie,

running on the line no. 201. There are 105 crossings

and rail-road crossings (as of January 2021), the

structure of which is shown in Table 5.

Implementation of the project “Works on the

alternative transport route Bydgoszcz – Tricity”

means the reconstruction of 40 category D and C rail-

road crossings into category B crossings and removal

of the remaining ones. This raises an understandable

controversy among the residents of municipalities

adjacent to the investment, for whom even the

temporary elimination of crossings for the duration of

the works often means the isolation of two parts of the

city and a significant extension of daily mandatory

travel. Local authorities are not interested in the

construction of two-level crossings, because if they are

constructed as road viaducts or pedestrian bridges

over the railway tracks, the obligation of further

maintenance of such facilities falls on local

governments, which results from the provisions of

[20]. There are also situations, when the administrator

of the railway line informs about the need to preserve

the crossing, but in the light of the law (§6-12 of the

regulations [25, 26]) this is not possible, because the

crossing is not located on a public road. A case, which

is unique in Poland, is when the owner of a private

plot of land cedes it to a municipality in order to leave

a rail-road crossing located there [34].

Table 5. Rail-road crossings on the railway line No. 201 by

category — as at 01.2021 [1]

To learn more about the needs and possibilities of

reconstruction of rail-road crossings on the line no.

201, an on-site inspection was conducted on its section

between the passenger station Błądzim-Dworzec at

km 63.325 and the crossing within county road no.

1027C between the villages Zielonka and Cekcyn at

km 75.608, where there are 11 public rail-road

crossings. Particular attention was paid to

maintaining visibility triangles at the studied

crossings as the most important condition for road

traffic safety. The results are not optimistic: the front

of the train from the required distance is visible only

at one of the investigated D category crossings. At the

remaining crossings the lack of visibility occurs in at

least one triangle, with an average value of 3

unobserved triangles. It should be noted that

according to [26], for an intersection angle of not less

than 60° and the correct distance of the “St. Andrew's

Cross” sign from the outermost rail at the crossing

(i.e. 5.00 m), the distance L in the 5 m and 10 m

triangles from which the front of the oncoming train

should be visible for a speed of 120 km/h is 660.00 m.

This means that at four of the crossings tested this

value is greater than the distance between the adjacent

crossings.

When considering — in the perspective of 2045 —

the necessity of upgrading the category or converting

the analyzed crossings to collision-free crossings only

due to the existing regulations, the available

information on the volume and structure of railway

traffic and road traffic volume was analyzed. This

information is important for calculating the product of

traffic and the daily traffic closing time at the crossing.

As mentioned, the line currently carries only

passenger traffic. The traffic forecast for 2045 made in

[9] predicts an increase in passenger traffic to the level

of 28 pairs of trains per day. To this should be added

the previously assumed freight traffic volume of 90

train pairs. This gives a total of 118 pairs of trains per

day, i.e. an increase of 102 pairs compared to the

current traffic.

908

The planned increase of the maximum train speed

on the line No. 201 to 160 km/h requires, according to

[26], reclassification of category D crossings to at least

category B. At these crossings it is required to meet

visibility conditions for 5 m triangles. Assuming

Vmax=160 km/h for the calculations and taking into

account the extension of the second track with the

distance between track axles equal to 4.00 m we obtain

(while maintaining the other design conditions) the

value of L=1040.00 m. It is greater than the distance

between adjacent crossings for five out of 10 analyzed

cases.

Information about the volume and structure of rail

traffic and the volume of road traffic shall be relevant

for the calculation of the traffic product and the daily

traffic closure time at the crossing for the passage of

trains.

Of the crossings visited, only one — 201 064 565 —

lies at the intersection with a provincial road (DW240)

for which results of traffic volume surveys performed

by the General Directorate for National Roads and

Motorways (GDDKiA) as part of the General Traffic

Measurement are available. The last measurement for

which results are available was performed in 2015 [6].

The average 24-hour traffic volume SDR was then

6570. Forecasting the increase in traffic volume

according to the principles presented in [37] in

Appendices 2 and 3, the value SRD=11027 was

obtained for the year 2045. According to [26], this

value qualifies the crossing to be reconstructed as a

collision-free intersection. The most favourable option

at this location is to build a road overpass along the

DW240 road. There is space in the area to construct a

temporary diversion and crossing for the duration of

the project.

Traffic forecast for 2045 made in [9] predicts an

increase in passenger traffic to the level of 28 pairs of

trains per day. To this should be added the previously

assumed goods traffic volume of 90 pairs of trains.

This gives a total of 118 pairs of trains per day (an

increase of 102 pairs compared to the current traffic).

When analysing the crossing closure time necessary

for trains to pass, the crossing equipment and traffic

structure should be taken into account. For the

calculations it was assumed:

− length of goods trains 750 m;

− average length of passenger trains (assuming 50%

of traffic is handled by multiple units) 300 m;

− equipping category A crossings with semi-

autonomous crossing systems;

− retrofitting of category B crossings with automatic

crossing systems with traffic signals and horns to

close the traffic in the direction of entry and exit

from the crossing;

Assuming time norms according to [26, 36], the

minimum crossing closure times necessary per day to

allow rail traffic with the projected volume for the

year 2045 were determined. The results obtained are:

− 09 h 48 min. 44 sec. for category A;

− 05 h 21 min. 16 sec. for category B;

These values do not formally qualify the crossings

for conversion to collision-free crossings, however

they must be taken into account in the case of A

category station crossings. In these locations the train

speeds may be considerably lower than those

assumed for the calculations, which will result in the

daily crossing closure time exceeding 12 hours.

According to [25, 26], this is the basis for conversion

to a two-level crossing.

The 201 067 899 category D rail-road crossing

enables crossing from the forest car park in the

Wierzchlas settlement, located on the western side of

the track, to the Leon Wyczółkowski Forest Reserve of

Old Polish Yew, located on the opposite side of the

line. A pedestrian bridge over the tracks could be built

in this place instead of the crossing. Crossing 201 063

932 should be rebuilt in the same way.

The vicinity of the recently removed 201 074 756

crossing on county road 1028C looks interesting. On

satellite maps at kilometre 74.539 (217 m before the

existing crossing, on the opposite side of the Zielonka

Pomorska passenger stop) one can clearly see the

preserved road embankments which are the remains

of the former viaduct over the railway line. This

viaduct was probably destroyed during the war. It

seems to be a good time to rebuild it and eliminate the

crossing at km 74.756. A sketch of the proposed

solution is presented in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Proposal to replace the decommissioned 201 074

756 rail-road crossing with a rebuilt road viaduct at the

Zielonka Pomorska passenger stop and to restore the

historical alignment of the 1028C county road

Taking into account “Vision Zero” on the analysed

fragment of the line no. 201, it is possible to propose

reconstruction of two crossings into pedestrian

bridges over the tracks, construction of four road

viaducts, one crossing under the tracks and

elimination of the remaining four crossings. The

reconstruction of one road viaduct should also be

included.

5 SUMMARY

The routes of most railway lines in Poland were laid

out in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. By

now, the surroundings of these lines have undergone

significant changes: the settlements adjacent to the

lines have become denser and the network of road

links of various categories that connects them has

expanded. The natural tendency to use the shortest

possible route has resulted in an increasing number of

rail-road crossings on the railway lines. These

crossings, often located with distances between each

909

other much shorter than recommended by

regulations, pose a great threat to traffic safety and

pose a significant economic and social problem when

modernising railway lines.

For years there has been a conviction in Poland

that it is possible to increase safety at crossings by

installing more modern safety devices, in particular

by upgrading category D crossings to category B and

C crossings. Statistics contradict this view. The

accident rate, which relates the number of accidents at

crossings of a given category to the total number of

such crossings in the period 2013-2019, was highest at

category D crossings only three times (in 2016, 2017

and 2019), in other years the infamous winner of the

classification was the category C crossing. What is

equally important, the analogous competition

between category D and B crossings gives a result of

4:3. This authorises the conclusion that the mass

conversion of D to B crossings planned for the

modernisation of the 201 line will not reduce the

number of accidents.

The only safe way of intersecting a railway line

with a motor road, by which the “Vision Zero” can be

achieved, is a collision-free crossing. Modernization of

lines belonging to TEN-T corridors to the standards

presented in [5] is a good opportunity to convert

crossings to two-level crossings. This should be

legally sanctioned. As traffic safety and the reduction

of external transport costs are in the focus of attention

of the European institutions and “Vision Zero” is a

very high-profile topic, with a suitably careful

application there should be no problems in obtaining

additional EU funds for this purpose. Delaying the

reconstruction until the regulatory criteria are met at

the crossings will necessitate the introduction of

temporary train speed restrictions for the duration of

the works. This will cause a decrease in the

commercial speed of trains and as a result — the

capacity of the line no. 201.

REFERENCES

1. Baza Przejazdów Kolejowych: PKP PLK S.A.

(2021).

2. Bezpieczeństwo ruchu na przejściach i przejazdach

kolejowo-drogowych: Informacja o wynikach

kontroli. Najwyższa Izba Kontroli Departament

Infrastruktury, Warszawa (2017).

3. Bogdaniuk, B., Towpik, K.: Budowa, modernizacja

i naprawy dróg kolejowych. PKP Polskie Linie

Kolejowe (2010).

4. Catorce muertos y veintiún heridos, en un

accidente ferroviario cerca de Valencia: Diario El

País. (1976).

5. European Agreement on Important International

Combined Transport Lines and Related

Installations (AGTC): Done at Geneva on 1

February 1991. UN (2010).

6. Generalny Pomiar Ruchu w roku 2015: GDDKiA,

https://www.gddkia.gov.pl/pl/2551/ GPR-2015, last

accessed 2021/01/22.

7. Gil, D., Szemetyłło, W.: Niebezpieczna luka w

edukacji młodych kierowców, https://www.szkola-

jazdy.pl/niebezpieczna-luka-w-edukacji-mlodych-

kierowcow/, last accessed 2021/05/14.

8. Giol, J.P.: La problemática de los pasos a nivel en la

red ferroviaria de ancho ibérico y las actuaciones

preventivas en el periodo 19752009. Revista Vía

Libre  Técnica. 8, 121–144 (2014).

9. Gleba, R., Grulkowski, S., Szczepiński, D.,

Zariczny, J.: Znaczenie analiz ruchowych w

procesie optymalizowania zakresu

infrastrukturalnych inwestycji kolejowych. Zeszyty

Naukowo-Techniczne Stowarzyszenia Inżynierów

i Techników Komunikacji w Krakowie. Seria:

Materiały Konferencyjne. Nr 3(110), 63–82 (2016).

10. Gleba, R., Grulkowski, S., Zariczny, J.: Problem

zdolności przepustowej linii kolejowych w

obszarze aglomeracji trójmiejskiej. Zeszyty

Naukowo-Techniczne Stowarzyszenia Inżynierów

i Techników Komunikacji w Krakowie. Seria:

Materiały Konferencyjne. Nr 2(104), 145–165

(2014).

11. Gleba, R., Grulkowski, S., Zariczny, J.:

Wielowariantowa analiza wpływu modernizacji

linii kolejowej nr 201 na dostępność kolejową

gdyńskiego portu. Zeszyty Naukowo-Techniczne

Stowarzyszenia Inżynierów i Techników

Komunikacji w Krakowie. Seria: Materiały

Konferencyjne. Nr 2(104), 167–182 (2014).

12. Instrukcja o prowadzeniu ruchu pociągów Ir-1:

PKP PLK S.A. , Warszawa (2017).

13. Instrukcja sygnalizacji Ie-1 (E-1): PKP PLK S.A. ,

Warszawa (2019).

14. Jackiewicz, K.: Kolejowa obsługa Portu

Zewnętrznego w Gdyni. Uniwersytet Morski w

Gdyni (2020).

15. Kotlarz, G., Dąbrowski, H., Wieczorek, E.:

Magistrala węglowa: najciekawsze linie kolejowe

Polski. Wydawnictwo Eurosprinter, Rybnik (2008).

16. Krajowy Program Kolejowy do 2023 roku:

Załącznik do uchwały nr 162/2015 Rady

Ministrów. , Warszawa (2015).

17. Level Crossing Removal Project:

https://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/, last accessed

2019/09/13.

18. Mapa interaktywna linii kolejowych:

http://mapa.plk-sa.pl/, last accessed 2021/02/15.

19. Nowakowski, M.J.: Przejazdy kolejowe na

modernizowanych i rewitalizowanych liniach

kolejowych — przepisy a rzeczywistość. Logistyka.

6, 7989–7998 (2014).

20. Obwieszczenie Marszałka Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej

Polskiej z dnia 3 marca 2020 r. w sprawie

ogłoszenia jednolitego tekstu ustawy o drogach

publicznych: Dziennik Ustaw 2020 poz. 470. (2020).

21. Obwieszczenie Marszałka Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej

Polskiej z dnia 9 grudnia 2019 r. w sprawie

ogłoszenia jednolitego tekstu ustawy — Prawo o

ruchu drogowym: Dziennik Ustaw 2020 poz. 110.

(2020).

22. Outer Port Gdynia:

https://www.port.gdynia.pl/en/outerport, last

accessed 2021/02/05.

23. Port Gdynia Statistics:

https://www.port.gdynia.pl/en/about-

port/statistics, last accessed 2021/02/06.

24. Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013

on Union guidelines for the development of the

trans-European transport network and repealing

Decision No 661/2010/EU: Official Journal of the

European Union L347 Vol. 56. (2013).

25. Rozporządzenie Ministra Infrastruktury i Rozwoju

z dnia 2 października 2018 r. zmieniające

rozporządzenie w sprawie warunków

technicznych, jakim powinny odpowiadać

skrzyżowania linii kolejowych oraz bocznic

kolejowych z drogami i ich usytuowanie: Dziennik

Ustaw 2018 poz. 1876. (2018).

26. Rozporządzenie Ministra Infrastruktury i Rozwoju

z dnia 20 października 2015 r. w sprawie

910

warunków technicznych, jakim powinny

odpowiadać skrzyżowania linii kolejowych oraz

bocznic kolejowych z drogami i ich usytuowanie:

Dziennik Ustaw 2015 poz. 1744. (2014).

27. Rozporządzenie Ministra Infrastruktury i Rozwoju

z dnia 30 czerwca 2014 r. zmieniające

rozporządzenie w sprawie warunków

technicznych, jakim powinny odpowiadać

budowle kolejowe i ich usytuowanie: Dziennik

Ustaw poz. 867. (2014).

28. Rozporządzenie Ministra Transportu i Gospodarki

Morskiej z dnia 10 września 1998 r. w sprawie

warunków technicznych, jakim powinny

odpowiadać budowle kolejowe i ich usytuowanie:

Dziennik Ustaw 1998 nr 151 poz. 987. (1998).

29. Rozporządzenie Ministra Transportu i Gospodarki

Morskiej z dnia 26 lutego 1996 r. w sprawie

warunków technicznych, jakim powinny

odpowiadać skrzyżowania linii kolejowych z

drogami publicznymi i ich usytuowanie: Dziennik

Ustaw 1996 nr 33 poz. 144. (1996).

30. Sprawozdanie z wykonania planu realizacji

Krajowego Programu Kolejowego do 2023 roku za

rok 2019. Załącznik do uchwały nr 73/2020 Rady

Ministrów: , Warszawa (2020).

31. Sprawozdanie ze stanu bezpieczeństwa ruchu

kolejowego w 2019 r: , Warszawa (2019).

32. Standardy techniczne: Szczegółowe warunki

techniczne dla modernizacji lub budowy linii

kolejowych do prędkości Vmax≤200 km/h (dla

taboru konwencjonalnego) / 250 km/h (dla taboru z

wychylnym pudłem). Tom I – Załącznik ST-T1-A6.

Układy geometryczne torów. , Warszawa (2017).

33. Standardy techniczne: Szczegółowe warunki

techniczne dla modernizacji lub budowy linii

kolejowych do prędkości Vmax≤200 km/h (dla

taboru konwencjonalnego) / 250 km/h (dla taboru z

wychylnym pudłem). Tom X. Skrzyżowania w

poziomie szyn oraz drogi równoległe. Tekst

jednolity zawierający zmiany wprowadzone

Uchwałą Zarządu PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A.

z dnia 31-01-2017 r. , Warszawa (2009).

34. Stencel, O.: Specyfika projektowania inwestycji

kolejowej w kontekście przejazdów i obiektów

inżynieryjnych na przykładzie przedsięwzięcia pn.

„Prace na alternatywnym ciągu Bydgoszcz –

Trójmiasto. Etap II”. Uniwersytet Morski w Gdyni

(2021).

35. White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European

Transport Area — Towards a competitive and

resource efficient transport system. Brussels,

28.03.2011 COM(2011) 144 final. (2011).

36. Wymagania na systemy zabezpieczenia ruchu na

przejazdach kolejowo-drogowych i przejściach Ie-

119: PKP PLK S.A. , Warszawa (2019).

37. Założenia do prognoz ruchu:

https://www.gddkia.gov.pl/pl/992/zalozenia-do-

prognoz-ruchu, last accessed 2021/02/15.