The proposed Zambia–Angola railway now has preferred builders. On 27 October, Africa Finance Corporation (AFC) announced its preferred EPC bidders for the two national sections of the approximately 830-kilometre greenfield line (AFC announcement).

That is meaningful progress. But from the owner's side, the next question is not simply who has been selected. It is what must come together before those teams can deliver a working railway.

In Part 3, we examined the DRC's retained rights. This week, we turn to a different project: the proposed direct connection from Chingola in Zambia to Luacano in Angola, joining the existing Zambia Railways and Benguela networks (project overview).

The Zambia Lobito Railway would create a new link between those networks; the existing Benguela line provides the onward route to Lobito's Atlantic port (project overview). Its financing and delivery milestones therefore need to be assessed separately from the Angolan operating railway and the DRC concession discussed earlier in this series.

AFC signed concession agreements with Angola and Zambia in September 2024 for financing, construction, ownership and operation of the new railway (AFC concession announcement). Its latest release identifies AFC as lead sponsor and developer, working through holding company Trans African Rail Company FZCO and project companies Zambia Lobito Railway Limited and Zambia Lobito Railway S.A. (AFC announcement).

That structure matters. Sponsor, project company and builder are distinct roles, even when announcements place them under the same corridor name.

For the Zambian section, AFC selected the consortium of Webuild, Mota-Engil and IC İçtaş Construction; for the Angolan section, it selected Mota-Engil and Odebrecht Engineering and Construction (AFC announcement). Webuild identifies itself as the lead for Zambia's Lot 1B (Webuild release).

AFC says negotiations will begin in November, aiming to conclude engineering, procurement and construction agreements within eight to twelve weeks, subject to satisfactory technical, commercial and legal negotiations (AFC announcement). Preferred-bidder selection is not a signed EPC contract, and the announcement does not establish authorization to begin construction.

My reading is that the project has narrowed an important uncertainty: who it intends to negotiate with. The remaining work is to agree scope, price, risk allocation, payment terms and the conditions under which execution can proceed. A capable builder cannot substitute for those decisions.

The proposed Zambia–Angola link: preferred-bidder selection advances procurement, but does not establish signed EPC contracts, financial close or authorization to start construction.

Graphic sources: AFC announcement; ZLR project overview; AfDB appraisal.

View the full-size Zambia railway guide

The published tender structure separates Angola's civil works and track laying, Zambia's civil works and track laying, and a third lot for signalling, systems and rolling stock (project tender overview). Webuild's description of the Zambian package includes bridges, stations and maintenance depots, not just track (Webuild release).

From an owner's perspective, those interfaces deserve as much attention as the individual contracts. Who ensures that track, bridges, signalling, trains and maintenance facilities are compatible? Who coordinates testing at the national boundary and the connections to the existing networks?

The October announcement names preferred bidders for the national sections; it should not be read as confirmation that every systems package or operating arrangement has been settled. I would want one integrated commissioning plan, with clear responsibility for turning separately delivered assets into a usable service.

In August, the African Development Bank Group announced approval of a $255 million African Development Fund loan and a $10 million grant from the Rome Process/Mattei Plan Financing Facility for Zambia's corridor participation (AfDB approval).

The associated appraisal identifies the Republic of Zambia as borrower and grant recipient, and describes railway viability-gap support alongside road works and trade facilitation (AfDB appraisal, pp. iii and 6–7). In plain language, viability-gap funding is support intended to help make the proposed public-private project financially workable; it is not customer freight revenue.

Those disclosures do not establish that the entire amount is available to the railway companies or that the full rail investment is financed. Before adding headline numbers together, I would trace each amount to its recipient, permitted use, conditions and disbursement status.

The project website currently targets financial close in the fourth quarter of 2027 (project updates). That is a published target, not completed financing or a guaranteed construction-start date. The owner needs a delivery schedule that reconciles contracting, financing, site readiness and procurement rather than treating them as independent announcements.

The AfDB appraisal states that the railway concessionaire is to establish a compensation fund as a condition precedent to disbursement of railway financing (AfDB appraisal, paragraph 43). That is an appraisal provision, not evidence that the fund has been established or compensation completed.

For me, this is where the project-development story becomes tangible. Land access, compensation and livelihood restoration are responsibilities to affected people, not paperwork to be pushed behind the construction programme. Their sequencing also matters to which work fronts can responsibly open.

A route on a map, an environmental study and a negotiated construction price answer different questions. None alone establishes that every section is ready for works.

I would watch for signed EPC agreements with clear interfaces; a financing package tied to the right entities and uses; and evidence that land, safeguards and operating preparations support the execution schedule. These are tests of readiness, not allegations that the project has failed them.

The preferred-bidder announcement deserves attention because it advances a real development process. But the railway's value will come from dependable transport, not the number of announcements made along the way. The work now is to connect the contracts, capital and operating responsibilities as carefully as the railway will connect the two countries.

Issue #11 · The Lobito Series, Part 5 of 5: Beyond the mineral train. We will examine how better transport could translate into wider opportunities for African communities and businesses, and which complementary investments and delivery choices would make that possible.

Passionate about African infrastructure. We will build — sooner or later. — Magnus

Africa Infrastructure Brief is a weekly Sunday newsletter on African infrastructure projects, deals and delivery. Written by Magnus, an owner-side infrastructure project management consultant with 20 years of experience across energy, marine and industrial projects in Africa and North America. Subscribe to Africa Infrastructure Brief.