Rail is becoming an increasingly important part of port modernisation across West Africa. But expanding railway capacity is only one part of the challenge. The reliability of the infrastructure supporting that capacity will determine whether ports can move cargo efficiently or face disruption when critical assets fail.
A railway switch, also known as a set of points, may appear insignificant compared with a locomotive or a kilometre of track. Yet a fault at a critical junction can block an entire route, delay trains, disrupt terminal operations and force cargo back onto already congested roads. The consequences extend beyond the railway itself, affecting cargo evacuation, truck movements and delivery schedules.
This is why predictive maintenance deserves greater attention as ports invest in rail connectivity.
The Port of Hamburg in Germany offers a useful example. The Hamburg Port Authority (HPA) has installed sensors on its most frequently used railway points. These sensors transmit data in real time to a central information system, enabling operators to monitor asset condition, identify early signs of deterioration and determine where maintenance or repairs may be needed before a fault disrupts operations.
The scale of the operation explains the importance of this approach. Hamburg’s port railway spans 289 kilometres of track, includes more than 760 points and handles approximately 210 freight trains daily. It moved 46.2 million tonnes of cargo in 2024. At this level of activity, an unexpected failure at a critical junction can have consequences across the wider logistics network.
The principle is straightforward: maintenance decisions should increasingly be informed by the actual condition of an asset, rather than relying exclusively on scheduled inspections or waiting for a breakdown. Sensors provide data that helps maintenance teams identify developing problems, prioritise interventions and plan repairs around operational requirements.
This does not eliminate the need for physical inspections or qualified railway engineers. Rather, it gives them additional evidence to determine where attention is most urgently required. Hamburg’s wider smartPORT programme also uses digital tools to transfer inspection data into information systems for analysis and follow-up.
The implications for West Africa are timely. Nigeria is expanding rail connections from Apapa towards Tin Can Island, while plans for a rail link serving Lekki Deep Sea Port offer an opportunity to incorporate asset monitoring into future infrastructure. In Côte d’Ivoire, Abidjan’s Container Terminal 2 has a direct rail connection, while its mineral terminal also relies on rail. Ghana’s Tema–Mpakadan railway is progressing towards fuller operations, and Togo’s transport programme includes rehabilitation of the railway connecting the Port of Lomé to the Adétikopé Industrial Platform.
These projects create an opportunity to consider maintenance requirements alongside construction and rehabilitation. In Ghana, a recent audit identified deficiencies involving railway switches, signalling and level-crossing controls on the Tema–Mpakadan line. This reinforces the importance of ensuring that infrastructure investments are supported by effective maintenance and monitoring arrangements.
However, installing sensors across an entire network should not be the starting point. Port authorities and railway operators must first identify the assets whose failure would cause the greatest operational disruption. At Apapa, for instance, the priority could be the critical switches and crossings whose failure would interrupt rail evacuation and return more containers to the road corridor. On new or rehabilitated lines, provision for sensors, power, communications and data integration can be considered during design, potentially avoiding more expensive retrofits later.
A successful programme also requires clear procedures for acting on the information collected. Alerts must reach the responsible engineering teams, maintenance schedules and spare-parts planning must respond to validated findings, and performance must be measured against a baseline. Without these arrangements, monitoring risks becoming another dashboard that provides information without changing operational decisions.
This also highlights the importance of connecting rail performance with the wider movement of cargo through a port. When a railway line is disrupted, the consequences can extend to truck appointments, terminal activity and access roads. Integrating information across these operations would help port managers anticipate disruption and coordinate alternative arrangements before congestion builds. As ports adopt more intelligent mobility infrastructure, this ability to connect asset condition with operational planning will become increasingly important.
For West African ports, the objective should not be to adopt technology simply because it is available. It should be to protect the capacity being created through new infrastructure, reduce avoidable disruption and make maintenance expenditure more evidence-based. Achieving this requires both reliable physical assets and the ability to coordinate the operational decisions that depend on them.
After identifying the railway assets whose failure would cause the greatest disruption, port operators and authorities must use maintenance records, repair costs and potential cargo delays to establish priorities. A pilot involving a few critical switches can then test whether sensor alerts enable earlier intervention and reduce unplanned downtime. The results should be measured against existing performance before any wider investment is approved. On new or rehabilitated lines, provision for monitoring should be considered at the design stage to avoid costly retrofits.
Jama Onwubuariri is Managing Director, TTP and Director, West African Truck Terminals (WATT)
Related News
