Fleet Differentiation: the missing accelerator for modal shift

Poul van den Elshout
1 day ago
4 min read

Updated: 15 hours ago

Inland shipping does not have a single problem. It has a recurring pattern: we keep optimizing what already performs well on the main corridors, while structurally leaving potential untapped on the capillaries—smaller canals, side branches, and urban connections. If you had to pick one topic from the Vision Document that returns in almost every chapter, it is fleet differentiation: a fleet architecture that does not treat “bigger and more efficient” as the default, but takes the network as the starting point.

The network is large, but our fleet is not using it

Europe has more than 42,000 km of inland waterways and over 250 TEN-T inland ports. A significant part of that network consists of smaller canals and side branches—exactly where many industrial sites, peri-urban transshipment points, and construction logistics are located. This is where modal shift can be won: fewer road kilometres, less congestion, and a shorter “last mile” to the quay.

Yet the long-term trend of recent decades is scaling up: average payload increases while the number of small vessels declines. Literature even warns about the disappearance of smaller inland vessels—with direct consequences for accessibility and the attractiveness of inland shipping in a fine-meshed network. In effect, the fleet retreats to a handful of main arteries.

Fleet differentiation is not nostalgia (it is network strategy)

Fleet differentiation does not mean “back to small.” It means: multiple modern vessel families side by side, aligned with corridor profiles (CEMT class, depth, bends, lock dimensions), cargo types, and operational requirements (zero-emission zones, reliability, crew availability). You do not win by perfecting one vessel concept; you win by standardising a set of building blocks.

Concretely, you can think of a fleet consisting of:

Corridor vessels (main routes): high capacity, strong energy planning, maximum efficiency per tonne-kilometre.
Capillary and peri-urban fleet: shallow-draft, shorter rotations, frequent berthing/unberthing, designed for zero-emission zones.
Modular push-boat/barge concepts: standardised barges and push boats that scale per cargo flow and waterway profile (as demonstrated by projects showing that smaller, standardised systems can attract new flows and connect better to the core network).

Who must work together, and what is their role?

Fleet differentiation will not happen through ship design alone. It requires a coordinated transition across the full value chain, because every stakeholder controls a different “lock” in the system.

Shipowners/operators (rederijen/eigenaren): define real operational needs per corridor and segment (draft, lock constraints, ZE‑zones, frequency, crew model), commit to standardised vessel families instead of one‑off designs, and provide performance and operational data to prove reliability and total cost of ownership.
Shipyards and hardware suppliers: translate those needs into repeatable, modular platforms (standard interfaces for power modules, energy storage, automation, coupling systems), industrialise builds (shorter lead times, predictable quality), and offer retrofit packages so existing fleets can migrate in steps.
Charterers, freight forwarders, and shippers (bevrachters en verladers): create demand signals that make smaller and differentiated tonnage bankable—e.g., contracting for service levels (ETA reliability, emissions, frequency) rather than only price per tonne, providing longer contract horizons, and co‑designing network concepts (hub‑and‑spoke, urban quay delivery windows).
Policymakers and regulators (legislation and regulations): take the lead in actively stimulating fleet differentiation and not leaving this to the market. This means: (1) a clear corridor strategy with explicit objectives per waterway profile, (2) predictable, corridor-specific frameworks for emissions, safety, spatial integration and operational requirements, (3) scope for pilots through temporary regimes and designated test corridors, and (4) harmonisation of standards and permitting across national borders, so that differentiated fleet concepts become scalable and can be deployed across borders.
Financial institutions and investors: develop financing products that fit modularity and retrofit (asset‑based finance for modules, performance‑linked loans, portfolio approaches across multiple vessel families), value residuals based on upgrade paths, and de‑risk first movers through blended finance where appropriate.
Classification societies, inspection bodies, and certification authorities (keuringsinstanties): turn innovation into “insurable and certifiable reality” by developing practical approval routes for modular systems, alternative fuels, and automation; harmonise interpretation to avoid project‑by‑project reinvention; and help define safe operating envelopes for new vessel types on specific corridors.

In short: shipping companies and shipyards build the platforms, but policymakers and shippers are the driving force that actually triggers the transition, policymakers with clear corridor choices, predictable frameworks, and scaling up through pilots; shippers with long-term demand, contracts on service and emissions, and commitment to new network concepts. Financiers enable the scaling up of proven solutions, and inspection bodies make innovation insurable and certifiable.

The real business case: access and reliability, not only €/ton-km

A lot of decision-making gets stuck on a narrow KPI: cost per tonne-kilometre on the main corridor. But the economic value of fleet differentiation sits precisely in:

Access to new quays and customers (industry, urban construction logistics, regional hubs).
Shorter pre- and end-haul (fewer truck kilometres; faster compliance in zero-emission zones).
A better service pattern (higher frequency with smaller units can be more valuable to shippers than occasional “very large” sailings).
Risk diversification (low water, congestion, disruptions: not everything depends on one vessel type).

2035: a corridor portfolio + “capillaries as a product”

Towards 2035, the difference will be made by defining a corridor portfolio: which corridors receive dedicated investments (energy, digitalisation, potentially semi-autonomy), and which regions get a “capillary product” with small, zero-emission or hybrid vessels. That requires collaboration between operators, terminals, municipalities, and waterway authorities. Municipalities can steer deployment on capillaries through quay policy, shore power, operating conditions, and process digitalisation.

2050: the fleet as a system—hardware, energy, and data become one design question

A recurring point in the Vision Document is that fleet strategy cannot be separated from fuels, infrastructure, and digitalisation. The fleet of 2050 “carries” sustainability in the design: energy interfaces, digital integration layers, and service concepts (remote support, performance services) are part of the vessel architecture.

A practical start: 4 steps you can take today

Build a waterway portfolio: segments with hard constraints (depth, lock length, bend radius) and soft requirements (zero-emission zones, noise limits, urban time windows).
Choose 2–3 standardised vessel families (not 20 exceptions): corridor, capillary, modular.
Contract on performance (ETA reliability, emissions, availability) rather than only tonnage.
Design “retrofit-ready”: standard positions for energy containers/modules, and an open digital backbone (more on that later).