Special Report Rail freight transport in the 
EU: still not on the right 
trackEN 2016  NO 08
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
Enquiries: eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ContactForm.aspx  
Website: eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016
Print ISBN 978-92-872-4610-3 ISSN 1831-0834 doi:10.2865/53961 QJ-AB-16-008-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-872-4603-5 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/112468 QJ-AB-16-008-EN-N
EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-4593-9 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/214344 QJ-AB-16-008-EN-E
© European Union, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
For any use or reproduction of Figure 3, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder.
Rail freight transport in the 
EU: still not on the right 
track
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)Special ReportEN 2016  NO 08
02
 Audit team
The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or 
management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks 
to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and 
public interest.
This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber II — headed by ECA Member Henri Grethen — which specialises 
in structural policies, transport and energy spending areas. The audit was led by ECA Member Ladislav Balko, supported by 
the Head of his private office, Branislav Urbanic and Zuzana Frankova, Attaché; Pietro Puricella, Principal Manager; Fernando 
Pascual Gil, Head of Task; Kurt Bungartz, Aleksandra Klis-Lemieszonek, Nils Odins, Jelena Magermane and Di Hai, auditors.
From left to right: B. Urbanic, D. Hai, N. Odins, L. Balko, F. Pascual Gil, A. Klis-Lemieszonek, P . Puricella, Z. Frankova.

03
 Contents
Paragraph
 Glossary
I–XVII  Executive summary
VI–VII  About this audit 
VIII–XV  What the Court found 
XVI–XVII  What the Court recommends 
1–13  Introduction
1–4 Background
5–6 Rail freight stakeholders and forms
7–13  EU interventions regarding rail freight transport
14–18  Audit scope and approach
19–93  Observations
19–29  The performance of rail freight transport in the EU remains unsatisfactory overall
19–22  Road remains the leading mode of freight transport in the EU
23–27  Some Member States have nevertheless managed to increase the proportion of goods transported by rail
28–29  The poor performance of rail freight transport has not been helped by the low speed of trains
30–73  Many strategic and regulatory factors prevent rail freight from being more competitive
30–31  Rail freight must be made economically attractive so that the EU’s transport policy objectives can be 
achieved
32–36  The Commission has made efforts to improve the framework conditions for the transport of goods by rail, 
but a single European railway area is still a long way from being achieved
04 Contents 
37–43  Rail freight market liberalisation has achieved uneven progress in Member States and certain 
anti‑competitive practices still prevail
44–57  Traffic management procedures have not been adapted to the needs of the rail freight sector, even within 
EU rail freight corridors
58–63  Administrative and technical constraints still hamper the competitiveness of rail freight
64–67  The lack of transparency on the performance of the rail freight sector has not stimulated improvements in 
customer service
68–73  Charges for accessing rail infrastructure compare unfavourably to those for accessing roads
74–93  The infrastructure needs of the rail freight sector should be better targeted by EU funding
74–77  Overall more EU funds were allocated to roads than to rail infrastructure
78–83  When allocated to rail, EU funds did not specifically target rail freight needs
84–89  Examined rail infrastructure projects have delivered or are likely to deliver expected outputs, but so far no 
general improvements in rail freight transport performance have been achieved
90–93  The poor maintenance of the rail network affects the sustainability and the performance of EU‑funded 
infrastructure
94–100  Conclusions and recommendations
 Annex I — Legislative acts governing railway packages
 Annex II — EU allocations to rail per Member State for 2007 ‑2013
 Annex III — List of projects examined by the Court
 Annex IV — Rail freight transport as a share of total inland freight transport
 Annex V —  Rail freight modal share (inland freight) in the five Member States visited 
(2000  to 2013)
 Annex VI  —  Case study on the cross‑border section between Spain and France (rail freight 
corridor 6 Mediterranean)
 Reply of the Commission
05
 Glossary
Cohesion Fund : A fund aimed at strengthening economic and social cohesion within the European Union by 
financing environment and transport projects in Member States with a per capita GNP of less than 90 % of the EU 
average.
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) : A facility which since 2014 has provided financial aid to three sectors: energy, 
transport and information and communication technology (ICT). In these three areas, the CEF identifies investment 
priorities that should be implemented in the coming decade, such as electricity and gas corridors, the use of 
renewable energy, interconnected transport corridors and cleaner modes of transport, high -speed broadband 
connections and digital networks.
European Rail Traffic Management system (ERTMS) : A major European industrial project aimed at replacing the 
different national train control and command systems to promote interoperability. It has two basic components: the 
European Train Control System (ETCS), and a radio system for providing voice and data communication between the 
track and the train, using standard GSM frequencies specifically reserved for rail (GSM -R).
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) : An EU fund aimed at reinforcing economic and social cohesion 
within the European Union by redressing the main regional imbalances through financial support for the creation of 
infrastructure and productive job -creating investment, mainly for businesses.
Incumbent freight operator : The rail operator with a historically dominant position in the national market, 
deriving from a single integrated company which used to be responsible for the management of the rail 
infrastructure and provision of transport services.
Infrastructure manager : A body or undertaking responsible in particular for establishing, managing and 
maintaining railway infrastructure.
Interoperability : Interoperability is defined as the capability to operate on any stretch of the rail network without 
any difference. In other words, the focus is on making the different technical systems on the EU’s railways work 
together.
Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) : The Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) is 
the successor of the Trans -European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN -T EA), which was created by the 
European Commission in 2006 to manage the technical and financial implementation of its TEN -T programme. INEA, 
with its headquarters in Brussels, officially started its activities on 1 January 2014 in order to implement parts of the 
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), Horizon 2020, and other legacy programmes (TEN -T and Marco Polo 2007-2013).
Modal share : The share of total journeys, volume, weight, vehicle or transport performance (vehicle, tonne- or 
passenger -kilometres) of alternative modes of transport, such as road, rail, inland waterways, maritime and air 
transport, including non -motorised transport. In this report, modal share refers to rail freight transport.
New entrant : Any rail freight operator (other than the incumbent freight operator) licensed according to the 
applicable EU and national rules, operating in the competitive market.
06 Glossary 
One‑stop shop (OSS) : In the context of this report a single point of contact established for each rail freight corridor 
to deal with requests for international capacity.
Path : The capacity to run a train between two places over a given period.
Rail freight corridor (RFC) : Nine international market -oriented rail freight corridors crossing Europe established by 
Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 with the objective of enhancing and facilitating rail freight transport.
RailNetEurope : An association set up by a majority of European rail infrastructure managers and allocation 
bodies to enable fast and easy access to European rail. Its aim is to provide support to railway undertakings in their 
international activities (both for freight and passengers) and to facilitate the simplification, harmonisation and 
optimisation of international rail processes. The association also carries out a number of projects co -financed by 
TEN -T funds with a purpose to help with implementation of the rail freight corridors as set out in Regulation (EU) No 
913/2010.
Railway undertaking : A public or private rail operator licensed according to applicable EU legislation, the principal 
business of which is to provide services for the transport of goods and/or passengers by rail.
Regulatory body : The task of a regulatory body is to ensure that charges and arrangements for access set by the 
infrastructure manager comply with the applicable legislation and are non -discriminatory. It must be independent 
from any infrastructure manager, charging body, path allocation body or any railway undertaking. Any railway 
undertaking has the right to appeal to the regulatory body against decisions taken by the infrastructure manager 
concerning the network statement, the allocation process and its result, the charging scheme and arrangements for 
access in accordance with the applicable legislation. The regulatory body is also obliged to monitor the competitive 
situation in the railway market on its own initiative and may take measures to correct discrimination against 
applicants, market distortion and any other undesirable developments in the railway market.
Tonne‑kilometre : Unit of measurement for recording transport output, corresponding to the carriage of 1 tonne 
over 1 kilometre calculated by multiplying the quantity carried in tonnes by the distance covered in kilometres.
Train‑kilometre : Unit of measurement representing the movement of a train over 1 kilometre.
Trans‑European Transport Networks (TEN‑T) : A planned set of road, rail, air and water transport networks 
in Europe. The TEN -T networks are part of a wider system of Trans -European Networks (TENs), including 
a telecommunications network (eTEN) and a proposed energy network (TEN -E). The infrastructure development of 
the TEN -T is closely linked with the implementation and further advancement of EU transport policy. The new TEN -T 
regulation, revised in 2013, introduces a new approach to the development of an efficient infrastructure network 
and financial support targeted to EU added value projects.
07
 Executive  
summary
I
The mobility of goods is an essential component of the EU internal market, and one that is crucial for maintaining 
the competitiveness of European industry and services. It has a significant impact on economic growth and job 
creation. In recent years, inland freight transport volumes in the EU (comprising road, rail and inland waterways) 
have stabilised at around 2 300 billion tonne -kilometres per year, with road accounting for approximately 75 % of 
this total.
II
However, transport has also a negative impact on the environment and on the quality of life of EU citizens. It 
accounts for around one third of energy consumption and of total CO2 emissions in the EU. Promoting efficient 
and sustainable methods of transport such as rail and inland waterways over roads could help to lower Europe’s 
dependence on imported oil and reduce pollution. According to the European Environment Agency, CO2 emissions 
from rail transport are 3.5 times lower per tonne -kilometre than those from the road transport.
III
More sustainable methods of transport could also help to reduce the costs associated with road congestion, which 
are currently projected to increase by about 50 % by 2050, to nearly 200 billion euros annually, and cut the number 
of transport fatalities.
IV
The promotion of more efficient and sustainable methods of transport, and in particular of rail freight, has been 
a key part of EU policy for the last 25 years. As long ago as 1992, the European Commission set the shifting of the 
balance between different modes of transport as a main objective. In 2001, the Commission confirmed the impor -
tance of revitalising the rail sector, setting a target of maintaining the market share of rail freight in central and 
eastern European Member States at a level of 35 % by 2010. Finally, in 2011, the Commission set a target of shifting 
as much as 30 % of road freight being transported further than 300 km to other modes of transport such as rail or 
waterborne transport by 2030, and more than 50 % by 2050.
V
The EU’s policy objectives for shifting goods from road to rail have been translated into a series of EU legislative 
measures mainly aiming at opening the market, ensuring non -discriminatory access and promoting interoperabil -
ity and safety. The EU budget also contributed by approximately 28 billion euros to funding rail projects between 
2007  and  2013.
08 Executive summary  
About this audit
VI
Through this audit, the Court assessed whether the EU had been effective in enhancing rail freight transport. In par -
ticular, we reviewed whether the performance of rail freight transport in the EU, especially in terms of modal share 
and volume transported, had improved since 2000. We evaluated the strategic and regulatory framework set by the 
Commission and the Member States to determine whether it had been successful in promoting the competitiveness 
of rail freight transport. Finally, we also examined whether the EU funds available had properly targeted the specific 
infrastructure needs of the rail freight sector.
VII
Our audit was carried out at the Commission and in five Member States — the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, 
France and Poland — from mid-2014 until mid-2015. It included a review of 18 rail infrastructure projects intended 
to benefit, at least partly, rail freight transport.
What the Court found
VIII
Overall, the performance of rail freight transport in the EU remains unsatisfactory, and the position of road transport 
has grown further since 2000. Despite the EU policy objectives set by the Commission of shifting freight from road 
to rail and the EU funding available for rail infrastructure, rail freight transport performance in the EU is unsatisfac -
tory in terms of volume transported and modal share. On average, rail freight modal share at the EU level has actu -
ally declined slightly since 2011.
IX
In addition to the poor performance of rail freight transport in terms of volume and modal share, the average com -
mercial speed of freight trains in the EU is very low (only around 18 km/h on many international routes). This is also 
due to the weak cooperation between the national infrastructure managers. We found no evidence of a significant 
increase over the last decade. However, in rail freight corridors the average speed of trains is relatively comparable 
to the speed of lorries.
X
Rail freight transport has failed over the last 15 years to respond effectively to the competition presented by road 
transport in the EU. Shippers clearly prefer road over rail for transporting goods. Nevertheless, some Member States 
(such as Austria, Germany and Sweden) have managed to achieve better results in terms of modal share and vol -
umes transported by rail.
09 Executive summary  
XI
Market liberalisation has achieved uneven progress in Member States and a single European railway area is still 
a long way from being achieved. The EU rail network has by and large remained a system of 26 separate rail net -
works (Cyprus and Malta have no rail networks) which are not fully interoperable, with various infrastructure man -
agers, national safety authorities and very different national rules governing path allocation, management, pricing, 
etc.
XII
Traffic management procedures are not adapted to the needs of rail freight, even within rail freight corridors. This 
makes it difficult for rail to compete with other modes of transport, especially road transport whose infrastructure is 
easily accessible across all Member States.
XIII
Freight trains are charged for every kilometre of rail infrastructure used; this is not always the case for road trans -
port. Externalities produced by rail and road transport (environmental impacts and pollution, congestion, accidents, 
etc.) are not taken into account in a comprehensive manner when setting the price to be paid by users for access to 
infrastructure.
XIV
In three of the five visited Member States more EU funds were allocated to roads than to rail during the 2007-2013 
period, in particular as regards the Cohesion Fund and ERDF. When EU funds were allocated to rail transport they 
were not primarily used to target the needs of the rail freight sector.
XV
Poor maintenance of the rail network can affect the sustainability and the performance of EU -funded infrastructure. 
In order to provide a good quality service to rail freight operators and shippers, and in general to make rail freight 
transport competitive, a rail network needs not only to be renovated and modernised by the infrastructure man -
ager, but also to be regularly maintained. This is of particular importance for the rail freight corridors. Without the 
adequate maintenance of tracks, speed restrictions become necessary and rail lines progressively close.
10 Executive summary  
What the Court recommends
XVI
The strategic and regulatory issues identified in this report are of such nature that, if not addressed, extra funding 
for rail infrastructure, by itself, will not resolve the problems which we have identified. The Commission and the 
Member States should help infrastructure managers and railway undertakings to focus on increasing the com -
petitiveness of rail freight transport, particularly in terms of reliability, frequency, flexibility, customer orientation, 
transport time and price, as they are the main factors taken into account by shippers when choosing between the 
different methods of transport available.
XVII
In this respect the Court makes a number of recommendations which are focused on two main issues: first, neces -
sary improvements in the strategic and regulatory framework under which the transport of goods by rail is carried 
out. To this end the Commission, together with the Member States, should address the weaknesses observed in rail 
freight market liberalisation; traffic management procedures; administrative and technical constraints; monitoring 
and transparency of the performance of the rail freight sector; and fair competition between different modes of 
transport. Secondly, the Court recommends that better use be made of available EU funds in targeting the needs 
of the rail freight sector. To this end, the Commission and the Member States should ensure improvements in the 
following areas: consistent approach between policy objectives and fund allocation (with focus on rail freight cor -
ridors), selection, planning and management of projects and maintenance of the rail network.
11
 Introduction
Background
01 
The mobility of goods is an essential component of the EU internal market; it con -
tributes significantly to the competitiveness of European industry and services. 
It also has a substantial impact on economic growth and job creation. In recent 
years, inland freight transport volumes in the EU (comprising road, rail and inland 
waterways1) have stabilised at around 2 300 billion tonne -kilometres per year, 
with road accounting for approximately 75 % of the total.
02 
However, transport has also a negative impact on the environment and on the 
quality of life of EU citizens. It accounts for around one third of energy consump -
tion and total CO2 emissions in the EU2. Promoting efficient and sustainable 
methods of transport, such as rail and inland waterways over roads, could help 
lower Europe’s dependence on imported oil and reduce pollution. According 
to the European Environment Agency, CO2 emissions from rail transport are 3.5 
times lower per tonne -kilometre than those from road transport (see  Figure 1 ).1 Excluding pipelines, maritime 
and air transport.
2 European Commission, ‘EU 
transport in figures’, Statistical 
Pocketbook , 2014.Figure 1CO2 emissions per tonne‑kilometre in the EU in 2012
Source:  European Court of Auditors based on European Environment Agency data.Rail (diesel)Rail (electric)Rail (electric and diesel)Road
Rail (diesel) Rail (electric) Rail (electric 
and diesel)Road80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
12 Introduction 
03 
More sustainable methods of transport could also help to reduce the costs as -
sociated with road congestion, which are currently projected to increase by 
about 50 % by 2050, to nearly 200 billion euros annually3, and cut the number of 
transport fatalities (in 2012, there were 28 126 road fatalities in the EU, compared 
to 36 fatalities associated with rail transport4).
04 
A network of around 216 000 km of active railway lines exists in the EU5. This 
could potentially offer a sustainable alternative to road transport, especially 
over medium and long distances where rail freight transport has the potential to 
be more competitive. In the EU medium- and long -distance journeys generally 
involve trains crossing at least one border. The total cost of an international train 
journey varies across Europe; it depends on national access charges, the level of 
competition, the journey time and the economy of scale gained. In particular, sig -
nificant fixed additional costs related to the first and the last mile (e.g. loading/
unloading in terminals) is more evenly divided over medium and long distances. 
As a result the overall cost per tonne -kilometre for rail freight transport over such 
distances can be lower than if the same goods were transported by road. Rail, 
together with inland waterways in some geographical areas6, is also the most 
economical method of transport for certain specific types of goods, such as solid 
mineral fuels, raw materials and chemical products.
Rail freight stakeholders and forms
05 
The transport of goods by rail involves the participation of different stakehold -
ers, in particular: shippers (who choose the method of transport which best suits 
their needs), railway undertakings (rail freight operators who provide the ser -
vice of transporting goods, since 2007 competing on an open market in the EU), 
infrastructure managers (who own the infrastructure and are in charge, among 
other tasks, of allocating capacity on the infrastructure to railway undertakings), 
national regulatory bodies (in charge of ensuring fair and non -discriminatory 
access to the rail network to all railway undertakings) and national safety authori -
ties (responsible for issuing safety certificates for railway undertakings and for 
the delivery of authorisation of rail vehicles in cooperation with the European 
Railway Agency). Their role is summarised in Figure 2 .3 SEC(2011) 391 final of 28.3.2011 
‘Accompanying the White 
Paper — Roadmap to a Single 
European Transport 
Area — Towards a competitive 
and resource efficient 
transport system’.
4 European Commission, ‘EU 
transport in figures’, Statistical 
Pocketbook , 2014.
5 European Commission, ‘EU 
transport in figures’, Statistical 
Pocketbook , 2014.
6 European Court of Auditors 
Special Report No 1/2015 
‘Inland Waterway Transport in 
Europe: No significant 
improvements in modal share 
and navigability conditions 
since 2001’ ( http://eca.europa.
eu).
13 Introduction 
06 
Several forms of rail freight transportation exist: single wagon (the client wants to 
transport a few wagons and the train is composed of wagons of different clients), 
full or block train (the client has enough goods to fill a train) and intermodal or 
combined rail–road transport (the container or trailer is lifted on the wagon).Source:  European Court of Auditors.Figure 2Main rail freight transport stakeholders
New entrant
A
New entrant
B
5
Regulatory bodies: to ensure a fair and non discriminatory
access to the rail network and services National safety authorities and European Railway Agency6
Goods are delivered to/f_inal customers4 3
IncumbentInfrastructure Manager establishes, manages andmaintains the railway infrastructureIf rail, railway undertakingstransport goodsOther methods oftransport (road, inlandwaterways, etc.)
2 1
Shippers choose the method of transport whichbest suits their needsGoods have to be transported to/from a factory or a port
14 Introduction 
EU interventions regarding rail freight transport
EU transport policy objectives for shifting goods from road to rail
07 
The promotion of more efficient and sustainable methods of transport, and in 
particular of rail freight, has been a key part of EU policy for the last 25 years. As 
early as 1992, the European Commission set shifting the balance between modes 
of transport as one of its main objectives7. In 2001, the European Commission 
confirmed the importance of revitalising the railways, setting the objective of 
maintaining market share of the rail freight sector in central and eastern Europe -
an Member States at 35 % by 20108. Finally, in 2011, the Commission set a target 
of shifting as much as 30 % of road freight transported over distances greater 
than 300 km to other modes of transport such as rail or waterborne transport by 
2030, and more than 50 % by 20509.
The legal framework governing rail freight transport
08 
The EU’s policy objectives for shifting goods from road to rail have been trans-  
lated into a series of EU legislative measures mainly aiming at opening the 
market, ensuring non -discriminatory access and promoting interoperability and 
safety. In particular, as a result of the three railway packages and the recast of the 
first railway package (see Annex I ):
— formerly integrated railway companies have been separated into national 
infrastructure managers and railway undertakings;
— the rail freight market was to be fully open to competition by 1 January 2007 
at the latest;
— national regulatory bodies were set up to ensure fair and non -discriminatory 
access to the rail network and services;
— the European Railway Agency was established, in charge mainly of develop -
ing safety and interoperability standards and harmonising technical specifi -
cations. The agency works closely with national safety authorities.7 COM(92) 494 final of 
2 December 1992 ‘White Paper 
— The Future Development of 
the Common Transport 
Policy — A Global Approach 
to the Construction of 
a Community Framework for 
Sustainable Mobility’.
8 COM(2001) 370 final of 
12 September 2001 ‘ White 
Paper — European transport 
policy for 2010: time to decide ’.
9 COM(2011) 144 final of 
28 March 2011 ‘White Paper 
— Roadmap to a Single 
European Transport 
Area — Towards a competitive 
and resource efficient 
transport system ’.
15 Introduction 
09 
In January 2013, the Commission adopted its proposal for the fourth railway 
package to complete a single European railway area. This package is organised 
around two main pillars: the technical pillar (among other things, enhancing the 
role of the European Railway Agency, which will become the body responsible 
for issuing safety certificates for railway undertakings and vehicle approvals in all 
Member States) and the governance and market -opening pillar (strengthening in 
particular the role of infrastructure managers and opening domestic passenger 
markets). Although discussions on the technical pillar have been going on for 
almost 3 years, at the time of the audit the package had not yet been approved 
by the Council and the European Parliament.
10 
In addition to the railway packages and other legislative acts10, applicable to the 
rail sector in general, there are earlier specific legislative measures which exclu -
sively address the transport of goods by rail. In 2007, the Commission adopted 
a Communication11 proposing a set of new actions that would promote the 
establishment of a European rail network with specific focus on freight corridors. 
Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 concerning a European rail network for competitive 
freight continued the line taken by the 2007 Communication, setting out rules 
for the selection, organisation, management and indicative investment planning 
of nine rail freight corridors (RFCs) (see Figure 3  and Box 1 ). The objective was to 
improve coordination between different stakeholders as regards traffic manage -
ment, access to infrastructure and investments in rail infrastructure, as well as 
to improve the continuity of traffic throughout the Member States, focusing on 
giving sufficient priority to rail freight traffic. In particular, Regulation (EU) No 
913/2010 specifically required that a ‘one -stop shop’ should be set up for each rail 
freight corridor to manage requests for infrastructure capacity for freight trains 
crossing at least one border along the corridor.10 Directive 2012/34/EU 
establishing a single European 
railway area (set out as 
a concept in the 2011 White 
Paper), 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.
11 COM(2007) 608 final of 
18 October 2007 ‘Towards 
a rail network giving priority 
to freight’.
16 Introduction Figure 3
Based on Regulation (EU) No 913/2010, this map was created by RNE and agreed with all RFCs.
Source:  www.rne.eu , ©RNE.European rail freight corridors
/
17 Introduction 
List of the nine rail freight corridors and start date according to Regulation (EU) 
No 913/201012
 οRFC1 Rhine–Alpine, covering the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Italy (November 2013)
 οRFC2 North Sea–Mediterranean, covering the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France 
(November 2013)
 οRFC3 ScanMed, covering Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria and Italy (November 2015)
 οRFC4 Atlantic, covering Portugal, Spain and France (November 2013)
 οRFC5 Baltic–Adriatic, covering Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Italy and Slovenia 
(November 2015)
 οRFC6 Mediterranean, covering Spain, France, Italy, Slovenia and Hungary (start date: November 2013)
 οRFC7 Orient, covering the Czech Republic, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Greece 
(start date: November 2013)
 οRFC8 North Sea–Baltic, covering Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Poland and Lithuania  
(start date: November 2015)
 οRFC9 Czech–Slovak, covering the Czech Republic and Slovakia (start date: November 2013)
12 Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 concerning a European rail network for 
competitive freight (OJ L 276, 20.10.2010, p. 22).Box 1
18 Introduction 
EU financial support in the field of rail freight infrastructure
11 
In order to help the Member States and regions to shift goods from road to 
rail, EU financial support is available for investments in rail infrastructure. Ap -
proximately 28 billion euros was allocated from the EU budget to rail between 
2007 and 2013: 23.5 billion euros through the Cohesion Policy (the European Re -
gional Development Fund (ERDF)13 and the Cohesion Fund14), and 4.5 billion euros 
through the Trans -European Network for Transport (TEN -T) Programme15, which 
has been replaced by the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) from 2014 onwards16. 
The amounts allocated by the EU to rail infrastructure projects in each Member 
State are presented in Annex II .
12 
The two main sources of EU funding for rail infrastructure projects operate on the 
following basis.
(a) Projects co -financed by the ERDF and Cohesion Fund are implemented under 
shared management between the Commission (the Directorate -General for 
Regional and Urban Policy) and the Member States. Projects are generally 
selected by the national managing authorities based on proposals submit -
ted by the implementing bodies, which in many cases are the infrastructure 
managers. The Commission itself examines major projects whose total cost 
exceeds 50 million euros (which is normally the case for rail infrastructure 
projects) and assesses operational programmes submitted by the national 
authorities, based on which all projects (regardless of the project cost) are 
implemented. Co -financing can be provided at rates of up to 85 %.
(b) The management of the technical and financial implementation of projects 
co-financed under the TEN -T Programme is the responsibility of the Innova -
tion and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), under the supervision of the 
Directorate -General for Mobility and Transport; the approval of each individ -
ual project submitted by the Member States’ authorities is the responsibility 
of the Commission. Co -financing rates vary: up to 20 % for works projects, up 
to 30 % for cross -border projects and up to 50 % for studies17.13 Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
5 July 2006 on the European 
Regional Development Fund 
and repealing Regulation (EC) 
No 1783/1999 (OJ L 210, 
31.7.2006, p. 1).
14 Council Regulation (EC) No 
1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 
establishing a Cohesion Fund 
and repealing Regulation (EC) 
No 1164/94 (OJ L 210, 
31.7.2006, p. 79).
15 Decision No 661/2010/EU of 
the European Parliament and 
of the Council of 7 July 2010 on 
Union guidelines for the 
development of the 
trans -European transport 
network (recast) (OJ L 204, 
5.8.2010, p. 1).
16 Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
11 December 2013 
establishing the Connecting 
Europe Facility, amending 
Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 
and repealing Regulations (EC) 
No 680/2007 and (EC) No 
67/2010 (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, 
p. 129).
17 Under the CEF, which replaces 
the TEN -T for 2014-2020, rail 
projects can benefit from 
a co -financing rate of up to 
20 % of the eligible costs for 
works projects, which can be 
increased to 30 % for rail 
projects addressing 
bottlenecks and to 40 % for 
rail projects concerning 
cross- border sections.
19 Introduction 
13 
The financial support provided by the EU18 focuses mainly on the construction 
of new rail lines or the renovation and upgrading of existing lines, which typi -
cally involves increasing the speed and axle load or adapting to interoperability 
requirements19. Except for projects on lines used exclusively by passenger trains 
(generally high -speed lines) or in rare cases on lines used only by freight trains, 
investments in rail infrastructure benefit both types of traffic. Box 2  contains 
a short description of two typical infrastructure projects which we examined dur -
ing this audit.18 EU financial support to 
individual projects is granted 
to complement national 
funding, at different 
co-financing rates, depending 
on the source of financing.
19 To a minor extent, the EU 
budget also supports 
investments into rolling stock; 
a number of 
non -infrastructure actions 
aimed at supporting the 
implementation of EU rail 
policy (via the TEN -T and CEF 
programmes); and research 
projects (for example through 
the Shift2Rail Joint 
Undertaking established 
following the entry into force 
of Council Regulation (EU) No 
642/2014 of 16 June 2014 (OJ 
L 177, 17.6.2014, p. 9) in order 
to boost and coordinate 
research and innovation in rail 
products, processes and 
services). However, these were 
not directly covered by this 
audit.
20 Introduction 
Examples of co‑financed rail infrastructure projects intended to benefit 
freight trafficBox 2
Photo 1  — Girona mercancías-Figueras bypass project (Spain)
Photo 2 — A freight train passing through the 
reconstructed Břeclav railway junction  
(Czech Republic)(a) One of the examined projects in Spain involved 
renovating the tracks, building two railway sid -
ings and adding a third rail to an existing track 
to allow both Iberian gauge (see paragraph 
62(e)) and standard European gauge trains to 
use the line. It was co -financed at a rate of 10 % 
under the TEN -T Programme, receiving a total of 
6.1 million  euros.
(b) Another examined project in the Czech Republic 
involved renovating and upgrading a rail junc -
tion, in particular increasing its axle load catego -
ry. It was co -financed by the Cohesion Fund at 
a rate of 85 %. The EU’s contribution was around 
59.9  million  euros.
21
 Audit scope  
and approach
14 
In this audit the Court assessed whether the EU had been effective in enhancing 
rail freight transport. To do this, we examined:
— whether the performance of rail freight transport in the EU, especially in 
terms of modal share and volume transported, had improved since 2000;
— whether the strategic and regulatory framework set by the Commission 
and the Member States had promoted the competitiveness of rail freight 
transport;
— whether the EU funds available had targeted the specific infrastructure needs 
of the rail freight sector.
15 
Our audit was carried out between mid-2014 and mid-2015 at the Commission, 
the INEA and in five Member States (the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France 
and Poland)20. These Member States cover all rail freight corridors at least par -
tially. Interviews were held with Commission staff, Member State authorities 
(transport ministries, infrastructure managers, regulatory bodies, safety authori -
ties, etc.), rail freight operators (both incumbent railway undertakings and new 
entrants) and other stakeholders (shippers, transport associations, etc.).
16 
The audit covered the period from 2001 when the Commission confirmed its ob -
jective of promoting environmentally friendly methods of transport, particularly 
railways. Where possible, good practices which could be shared between stake -
holders in other Member States were also identified.20 The Czech Republic, Spain and 
Poland were the three largest 
total recipients of EU funds for 
rail during the 2007-2013 
period; Germany and France 
were the main beneficiaries of 
the TEN -T funding for rail 
projects during the same 
period.
22 Audit scope and approach  
17 
In a previous report21 the Court already highlighted a number of obstacles to 
developing a strong and competitive European rail transport: rail infrastructure 
which was poorly adapted to cater for trans -European services (in particular 
missing cross- border links, bottlenecks on important axes, infrastructure in need 
of upgrading); interoperability problems caused by the fact that the European 
rail network is a system of national rail networks with specific technical and 
operational characteristics and administrative procedures; and a need to develop 
a competitive market for rail transport. While most of these obstacles remain 
to be effectively removed, in particular by way of adopting and implementing 
the 4th Railway Package, this report focuses specifically on the situation of rail 
freight. In addition, a recent study commissioned by the European Parliament 
analysing the results, efficiency and effectiveness of EU investment in rail infra -
structure was also taken into account22.
18 
In addition, 18 rail infrastructure projects co -financed by the Cohesion Fund, 
the ERDF and the TEN -T programme during the 2007-2013 period were selected 
for review. All of these were intended to benefit freight traffic, at least to some 
extent. Annex III  contains a list of projects examined by the Court.21 Special Report No 8/2010 
’Improving transport 
performance on 
Trans -European rail axes: Have 
EU rail infrastructure 
investments been effective?’ 
(http://eca.euroepa.eu ).
22 European Parliament, 
Directorate -General for 
Internal Policies, ‘Study on the 
Results and Efficiency of 
Railway Infrastructure 
Financing within the European 
Union’, 2015.
23
 Observations
The performance of rail freight transport in the EU 
remains unsatisfactory overall
Road remains the leading mode of freight transport in the EU
19 
Notwithstanding the efforts made by the Commission since the 2001 White 
Paper, the performance of the transport of goods by rail in the EU remains un -
satisfactory overall. The volume of freight transported annually by rail remained 
relatively stable between 2000 and 2012 (around 400 billion tonne -kilometres). 
During the same period, though, the volume of freight transported by road in -
creased (from 1 522 to 1 693 billion tonne -kilometres), as shown in Figure 4 .Figure 4Inland freight transport in the EU,  
in billion tonne‑kilometres
Source:  European Court of Auditors based on latest available Eurostat data.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012Billion tkm
Inland waterwaysRailRoadTotal inland freight3 000
2 500
2 000
1 500
1 000
500
0
24 Observations 
20 
This has resulted in the market share of rail freight as a proportion of total inland 
freight transport declining slightly. It decreased from 19.7 % in 2000 to 17.8 % in 
2013, whereas the proportion of goods transported by road increased slightly 
from 73.7 % to 75.4 % during the same period. This trend puts at risk the achieve -
ment of the target set in the Commission’s 2011 White Paper of shifting as much 
as 30 % of road freight being transported over distances greater than 300 km to 
other modes of transport such as rail or waterborne transport by 2030.
21 
However, our analysis showed that Switzerland, despite being a relatively small 
and mountainous country with no major heavy industry, has managed to main -
tain its rail freight modal share at above 40 % since 2000, reaching 48 % in 2013. 
A combination of regulatory measures (such as a heavy vehicle fee, subsidies for 
combined transport, a night and weekend driving ban, and restrictions on the 
maximum permitted weight and dimension of trucks) as well as investments in 
the renovation and building of new rail lines (in particular cross- Alpine tunnels), 
has contributed to enhancing rail freight transport performance in Switzerland. 
Within the EU a comparable increase can be observed in Austria, which also ap -
plied similar regulatory measures.
22 
Rail freight transport performs differently in other parts of the world, where it is 
often the predominant mode of transport, reaching market shares of 40 % and 
more (e.g. in the United States, Australia, China, India, and South Africa)23. This is 
generally due to a large proportion of raw materials being transported by rail, the 
countries referred to all covering large geographical areas subject to one sin -
gle national legislative order, language regime and technical system for railway 
services: the situation here cannot therefore be easily compared to the situation 
in the EU.
Some Member States have nevertheless managed to increase 
the proportion of goods transported by rail
23 
The general downward trend in the EU can be traced back to various problems 
that rail freight traffic is facing in many Member States, which has resulted from 
fragmentation of the European rail market into several national segments. These 
problems include a lack of competition in the market, rail traffic management 
procedures which are not adapted to the needs of rail freight, other administra -
tive and technical constraints. This situation is exacerbated by obsolete infra -
structure which has been neglected for years in favour of road transport, with rail 
infrastructure projects being focused on the development of high -speed lines.23 International Union of 
Railways (UIC) portal and 
European Commission, ‘EU 
transport in figures’, Statistical 
Pocketbook , 2014.
25 Observations 
24 
Although the situation of the rail freight sector remains generally unsatisfac -
tory in terms of modal share and volume transported, the scale of the issue is 
not uniform across the EU. Our analysis of Eurostat data shows that overall in 
10 out of 26 Member States the modal share of goods transported by rail has 
increased24 between 2000 and 2013. Other Member States have seen their per -
formance decrease, for example all central and eastern European Member States 
whose modal share in 2000 was relatively high. Moreover, our analysis illustrates 
that both increase and decrease in the rail freight share took place regardless of 
the level of the modal share achieved (see Table 1 ). Statistical data for all Member 
States are provided in Annex IV .24 Based on Eurostat data ( http://
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/
database ). Cyprus and Malta 
do not have any rail network.Table 1Rail freight modal share across the EU
Rail freight modal share  
in 2013Rail freight modal share in 2013 and trend between 2000 and 2013 
Above 40 %Austria (42.1 %)
Estonia (44.1 %) and Latvia (60.4 %)
Between 30 % and 40 %Sweden (38.2 %)
Lithuania (33.6 %)
Between 20 % and 30 %Germany (23.5 %)  and Finland (27.8 %)
Czech Republic (20.3 %) , Hungary (20.5 %), Slovakia (21.4 %) and Romania (21.9 %)
Between 10 % and 20 %Italy (13 %), United Kingdom (13.2 %), Belgium (15.1 %) and Denmark (13.2 %)
France (15 %), Poland  (17 %), Croatia (17.4 %), EU average (17.8 %)  and Slovenia (19.3 %)
Below 10 %Netherlands (4.9 %)
Ireland (1.1 %), Greece (1.2 %), Luxembourg (2.4 %), Spain (4.6 %) , Portugal (5.9 %) and Bulgaria (9.1 %)
Note:  the Member States visited for this audit and the EU average are in bold type.
Source:  European Court of Auditors based on Eurostat data.
26 Observations 
25 
As regards the Member States visited for this audit, the modal share of goods 
transported by rail decreased between 2000 and 2013 in four of them (the Czech 
Republic, Spain, France and Poland) and increased in one (Germany), as shown by 
Figure 5  and  Annex V .Figure 5Rail freight modal share (inland freight transport) in %
Source:  European Court of Auditors based on Eurostat data.20132000
051015202530354045
Poland France Spain Germany Czech republic EU
27 Observations 
26 
In particular, in the Czech Republic and Poland, rail freight transport performance 
suffers from the poor condition of the rail network (which is not helped by the 
priority given in the allocation of EU funds to roads in both Member States), the 
relatively high level at which access charges are set, and the lack of independ -
ence of the regulatory body (see paragraph 43 and Table 3 ) (especially in the 
case of the Czech Republic). For these two Member States, this has led to a fail -
ure to meet the 2001 White Paper targets for the central and eastern European 
Member States. Spain has suffered from a slow and incomplete market liberalisa -
tion process, and in France performance had been adversely affected by the lack 
of a heavy vehicle fee as well as the poor quality of paths offered to rail freight 
transport.
27 
In the case of Germany the comparatively high share of rail freight is due to the 
country’s central location and high level of industry, but also to the early liberali -
sation of the rail freight market, the introduction of a road toll for heavy vehicles 
in 2005, and the existence of a relatively strong and independent regulatory 
body.
The poor performance of rail freight transport has not been 
helped by the low speed of trains
28 
The poor performance of rail freight transport in terms of volume and modal 
share in the EU is not helped by the average commercial speed of freight trains. 
Simply put, freight trains run slowly and their speed has not significantly in -
creased over the last decade. On some international routes freight trains run at 
an average speed of only around 18 km/h25. This is also due to weak cooperation 
between the national infrastructure managers 26. In central and eastern European 
Member States, the average speed is between 20 and 30 km/h. For example, in 
Poland our audit found that in 2014 the average commercial speed of freight 
trains was 22.7 km/h.
29 
Our analysis showed, however, that the situation is significantly better in some 
rail freight corridors, where the average speed is around 50 km/h27. This is closer 
to the average speed of trucks (around 60 km/h).25 Average freight train speeds 
are measured from the 
departure at the station of 
origin until the arrival to the 
station of destination of 
a freight train — this is usually 
not the door -to-door speed, 
since freight trains usually do 
not operate door -to-door, but 
between different service 
facilities (train formation or 
maintenance facilities, 
marshalling yards, etc.).
26 SWD(2013) 12 final of 
30 January  2013 ‘Impact 
assessment of the fourth 
railway package’, p. 21.
27 E.g. this was the case of 
corridor 1 Rhine–Alpine.
28 Observations 
Many strategic and regulatory factors prevent rail 
freight from being more competitive
Rail freight must be made economically attractive so that the 
EU’s transport policy objectives can be achieved
30 
Every day thousands of tonnes of goods are transported across the EU to factor-  
ies, warehouses or final customers. Rail freight (and combined rail–road trans -
port) is in direct competition with road haulage: shippers regularly compare the 
two when deciding which mode of transport to use. They naturally choose the 
one which best suits their needs, taking mainly into account: reliability, price, 
customer service, frequency and transport time28. In other words shippers choose 
methods of transport on the basis of business criteria, and not on the basis of EU 
policy priorities.
31 
As mentioned above, some products such as raw materials are by nature more 
suitable for transporting by rail (see paragraph 4). However, to be competitive 
with the road transport for other types of goods, the rail sector faces several 
challenges which have an impact on shippers’ choice such as timetable, access 
charges or punctuality (see Figure 6 ).28 Risk of loss and damage, 
flexibility and environmental 
impact are also taken into 
consideration ( source:  
European Intermodal 
Association, ‘Intermodal 
yearbook 2011 and 2012’).
29 Observations 
Comparison of some of the challenges faced by rail freight transport compared 
to road
Source:  European Court of Auditors.Figure 6
Trains generally need to stop
to change locomotive, 
driver, etc.Freight is disadvantaged
in terms of priority on tracksUse of every km of track
 is chargedNo door to door transportLimited number of railway
undertakingsOne locomotive and one 
driver for each countryPath requests in advance
Crossing bordersManagement of traﬃcAccess chargesFirst and last KMIntramodal 
competitionAdministrative
barriersAccess to 
infrastructure
Prior to 
transport
Transport timeReliability and
transport timePriceFlexibility and
 priceFrequency, 
customer service
and priceFlexibility and
 priceFlexibility
18 % 
of inland freight75 % 
of inland freightLess frequent stops Freight is not
disadvantagedIn some countries 
for freeDoor to door
transportSigni/f_icant number
of road transport
companiesOne truck and 
one driver for the 
whole EUNo request in
advance neededRoad
Transport
 phaseRail
FACTORY
30 Observations 
The Commission has made efforts to improve the conditions 
for the transport of goods by rail, but a single European 
railway area is still a long way from being achieved
32 
Over the last 15 years, the Commission has made efforts to improve the condi -
tions for transporting goods by rail. In particular, it has produced several different 
railway packages and other legislative measures (see paragraphs 8 to 10). These 
measures were intended to open up national markets, harmonise rules, better 
target EU funding on sustainable modes of transport and make railways more 
competitive and interoperable at EU level in order to achieve a single European 
railway area.
Infringement procedures
33 
To ensure that these conditions were actually implemented in practice, the Com -
mission has launched a substantial number of infringement procedures concern -
ing Directives 91/440/EEC and 2001/14/EC29 (see Table 2 ). For 14 out of 2630 Mem -
ber States the procedures led to a judgment by the European Court of Justice. 
The most common reasons for infringements are in the areas of: performance 
scheme creating incentives to improve the performance of the railway network, 
the separation of accounts between the incumbent railway undertaking and the 
infrastructure manager, calculation of access charges and non -communication 
of transposition measures. Furthermore, the Commission launched additional 
infringement procedures concerning the safety and interoperability directives 
(respectively 2004/49/EC and 2008/57/EC).
34 
In particular, the five Member States visited had been subject to infringement 
procedures concerning access charges set by the infrastructure manager, the 
independence of regulatory bodies and infrastructure managers, lack of per -
formance scheme, non -communication of transposition measures, capacity 
allocation rules and the separation of accounts between the incumbent railway 
undertaking and the infrastructure manager.29 If a Member State fails to 
incorporate EU directives into 
its national law or is suspected 
of breaching Union law, the 
Commission can launch 
a formal infringement 
procedure. Such a procedure 
contains a number of steps set 
out in the Treaties, each of 
which is laid down in a formal 
decision.
30 Cyprus and Malta do not have 
any rail network.
31 Observations Table 2Infringement procedures
Infringement procedures that have led to a judgment of the European Court of Justice concluding that the Member State concerned has 
failed to correctly transpose/implement EU law
Member State Subjectlack of a performance scheme
separation of accounts
calculation of track access charges
non‑communication of transposition 
measures
reducing costs of providing infrastructure 
and level of access charges
direct costs principle for calculation of 
access charges
capacity allocation rules
independence of infrastructure manager 
(path allocation)
management independence of infrastruc ‑
ture manager (setting of charges)
balancing accounts of an infrastructure 
manager
judicial appeal against decisions of the 
regulatory body
management independence of railway 
undertakings
Bulgaria √ √
Czech Republic √ √ √ √
Germany √1√
Ireland √
Greece √ √
Spain √ √ √
France √ √1√
Italy √1√
Hungary √ √ √
Austria √1
Poland √ √1√ √
Portugal √ √
Slovenia √ √ √ √
United Kingdom √
1 Pending cases.
Note 1:  The Member States visited for this audit are in bold type.
Note 2: The number of infringement procedures referred to by the Court of Auditors only concerns procedures relating to Directives 91/440/EEC 
and 2001/14/EC. Additional infringement procedures were launched concerning the safety and interoperability directives (respectively 2004/49/
EC and 2008/57/EC).
Source:  European Court of Auditors based on Commission data.
32 Observations 
Other measures
35 
The Commission has also promoted the coordination of various rail freight stake -
holders contributing to the development of platforms and working groups, such 
as the European Network of Rail Regulatory Bodies (ENRRB), the Platform for Rail 
Infrastructure Managers in Europe (PRIME) and the Dialogue of Railway Under -
takings (RU Dialogue) as well as appointing a European coordinator for network 
corridors and an additional one for the European Rail Traffic Management System 
(ERTMS)31. Additionally, the Commission has set up nine rail freight corridors, 
each with its own governance structure and one -stop shop to ensure that traffic 
management, access to the infrastructure and investment in rail infrastructure 
are coordinated well (see paragraph 10).
36 
Notwithstanding this effort, at the time of the audit a single European railway 
area was still a long way from being achieved: the EU’s rail network is still a sys -
tem of 26 (Cyprus and Malta have no rail networks) separate rail networks which 
are not fully interoperable. Across the continent there are various infrastructure 
managers (with at least one dominant infrastructure manager per Member State), 
national safety authorities, and very different national rules governing path allo -
cation, management, pricing, etc. All of this hampers the competitiveness of rail 
freight transport.
Rail freight market liberalisation has achieved uneven 
progress in Member States and certain anti‑competitive 
practices still prevail
Position of the incumbent freight operator
37 
Historically, in 26 Member States a single integrated company was responsible for 
managing the rail infrastructure and providing transport services. The first rail -
way package, adopted in in 2001, required a certain separation to be introduced 
between these two activities: infrastructure managers and incumbent railway 
undertakings (freight operators).31 These coordinators act in the 
name of the European 
Commission and on its behalf. 
Their mandate includes 
drawing up the relevant 
corridor work plan; supporting 
and monitoring 
implementation of the work 
plan; regularly consulting the 
corridor forum; making 
recommendations in areas 
such as transport 
development along corridors 
or access to funding sources; 
and reporting annually to the 
European Parliament, Council, 
Commission and the Member 
States concerned on the 
progress achieved.
33 Observations 
38 
The second railway package of 2004 required Member States to fully open their 
rail freight transport markets by 1 January 2007. Since then, any licensed rail -
way undertaking has been able to request access to rail infrastructure, apply for 
a path, and provide services for the transport of goods in competition with other 
rail operators (including the incumbent freight operator)32.
39 
However, market liberalisation has not reached the same level in all Member 
States. In Slovakia and Slovenia the market share of the incumbent freight 
operator at the time of the audit was still at around 90 % and in six other Mem -
ber States (Ireland, Greece, Croatia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Finland) the rail 
freight market remains closed in practice, as the incumbent freight operator 
accounts for 100 % of the market share. In the five visited Member States, even 
if the market share of new entrants has grown constantly since the opening of 
the market, one single railway undertaking, the incumbent freight operator, 
still accounts in each country for at least 64 % (in tonne -km) of market share, 
the remainder being divided across other rail freight operators; the share of the 
incumbent freight operator was considerably higher in Spain (81 %), as shown in 
Figure 7 . In the whole EU, on average, the incumbent freight operators account 
for 66 % of the rail freight market.32 The rail freight market in some 
Member States visited (such as 
Germany) was opened even 
before the deadline.Figure 7Rail freight market shares of the incumbent freight 
operator and new entrants (in 2013)
Source:  European Court of Auditors based on data provided by national authorities.Other rail freight operatorsIncumbent
Poland France Germany Spain Czech 
Republic90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
34 Observations 
40 
The incumbent freight operators still benefit in a certain number of cases from 
their historic dominant position, and conflicts of interest may still exist and lead 
to discriminatory practices, impairing the competition in rail services. Such prac -
tices include the following.
(a) Access to terminals and point infrastructure (such as sidings, marshalling 
yards). Terminals and other essential facilities are a key part of rail infrastruc -
ture. In some cases new entrants have difficulty in accessing those facilities 
on the same terms as the incumbent freight operator (see Box 3(a) )33.
(b) Train path allocation. In order to transport goods, rail freight operators first 
have to ask the infrastructure manager for the capacity needed to run a train 
between two places over a given period. In some cases the incumbent freight 
operators still benefit from some advantages in the allocation of paths (see 
Box 3(b) ).
(c) Availability of rolling stock . New rail operators may have problems in ac -
cessing the rolling stock to start their activity (especially locomotives which 
are expensive), whereas the incumbent freight operators have inherited 
an extensive fleet of locomotives and wagons from the old integrated rail 
company which was often subsidised with public funding. Incumbent freight 
operators are generally reluctant to rent or sell excess rolling stock to com -
petitors at a fair price (see Box 3(c) ).
(d) Maintenance of rolling stock. Locomotives and wagons have to be regularly 
maintained. The access to the maintenance centres can be difficult for new 
entrants, as in some cases they are partly owned by the incumbent freight 
operator.
41 
Moreover, the EU rail freight market is also facing a process of consolidation with 
incumbent freight operators buying other rail freight operators both in their 
home market and in other Member States. This may impair competition, as the EU 
market may come to be dominated by a small number of major companies. For 
example, the German incumbent freight operator has become the main opera -
tor in three other Member States — Denmark, the Netherlands and the United 
Kingdom after having acquired new entrants.33 Article 13 of Directive 2012/34/
EU introduced 
a comprehensive set of new 
rules to address difficulties in 
accessing terminals and other 
service facilities, the deadline 
for transposition was in 
June 2015.
35 Observations 
Regulatory bodies
42 
As part of the process of liberalisation, Member States were required to set up 
national regulatory bodies to ensure non -discriminatory access to the rail net -
work34. However, in practice, the regulatory body established by each Member 
State did not always enjoy the independence, powers and resources they needed 
to carry out their duties. This led the Commission to launch several infringement 
procedures against certain Member States (see paragraph 33 and Table 2 ).
43 
Our audit found that in the five visited Member States, the number of staff as -
signed to regulatory tasks and the bodies’ operational and financial independ -
ence situation still varied significantly. Table 3  shows the situation of regulatory 
bodies in each visited Member State at the time of the audit:34 Directive 2001/14/EC of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 
26 February 2001 on the 
allocation of railway 
infrastructure capacity and the 
levying of charges for the use 
of railway infrastructure and 
safety certification (OJ L 75, 
15.3.2001, p. 29).Examples of practices limiting competition: Poland, France, Spain
(a) In Poland  the incumbent freight operator owns via subsidiary companies most of the country’s rail 
terminals, including important border terminals. One such terminal is located on a major route along one 
of the rail freight corridors. Access to this terminal should be provided to other rail freight operators on 
a fair and non -discriminatory basis, but at the time of the audit this was not put into practice: the termi -
nal’s capacity was mostly booked by the incumbent freight operator. This presented an obstacle to new 
entrants, who were obliged to take longer routes through another border point.
(b) In France , the incumbent freight operator has been allocated fixed paths (paths which are less subject 
to changes because of maintenance works, etc.) far more often than other operators. In 2014, about 80 % 
of the total paths allocated to the incumbent freight operators were fixed, compared to 68 % of those al -
located to new entrants.
(c) In Spain , none of the incumbent freight operator’s excess locomotives or wagons have been sold to other 
rail operators within the Spanish market, although some of the extra rolling stock was sold to operators 
in other countries. In April 2014 the Spanish government established a separate company, still within the 
same business group as the incumbent, for renting out rolling stock. However, by the time of the audit, 
not a single locomotive or wagon had yet been rented by this company to new entrants. In addition, the 
incumbent freight operator is the only operator with locomotives authorised to run freight trains both in 
Spain and on the international Perpignan–Figueras section.Box 3
36 Observations 
Traffic management procedures have not been adapted 
to the needs of rail freight sector, even within rail freight 
corridors
44 
The rail network in the EU is generally designed for mixed traffic; in other words, 
freight and passenger trains normally use the same tracks. For the rail network 
to operate, traffic management procedures have to be in place for allocating 
and managing paths. This is done individually by each infrastructure manager. 
However, as explained below, these procedures are generally not adapted to the 
specific needs of rail freight transport, which is cross -border in more than 50 % of 
cases, even within the rail freight corridors (see also paragraph 52). This makes it 
difficult for rail to compete with other modes of transport, especially road trans -
port, the infrastructure for which is openly accessible across the EU. Table 3Regulatory bodies in the Member States visited  — key figures
Member StateNo of staff dealing 
with regulatory 
issuesIndicator: km 
of network 
per staffNo of complaints 
received by the 
time of the auditIndependent 
budgetIndependent from transport ministry
Czech Republic 1 9 570 Not provided NoNo.  
Body under the responsibility of the transport 
ministry. 
Germany 50 82682‑112 per year 
(freight and pas ‑
senger services)YesYes.  
Budget approved by the Ministry of Economy; 
president and two vice‑presidents are ap ‑
pointed by the Federal President.
Spain 3 4 658 2Yes 
(since 2013)Yes.  
President and management board appointed by 
the Parliament.
France 36 813 15Yes 
(since 2011)Yes.  
Out of 7 members, 4 are nominated by the gov ‑
ernment and the remaining 3 are nominated 
by the Parliament and Economic, social and 
environmental council.
Poland 17 1 136 5 YesPartially.  
President appointed by the prime minister 
and two deputy presidents appointed by the 
minister responsible for transport.
37 Observations 
Capacity allocation
45 
In order to run a train within the rail network of a country, a railway undertak -
ing first has to ask the responsible infrastructure manager to allocate a path (the 
capacity needed to run a train between two places over a given period). This is 
done using a procedure set by each infrastructure manager: rail freight operators 
can generally either apply for a path well in advance under the annual timetable, 
or request a path at a later stage on an ad hoc basis among those still available 
within the reserve capacity. However, the timing set by the infrastructure man -
agers for the construction of the annual timetable is not adapted to the needs 
of the freight transport sector, as paths have to be booked around 1 year in 
advance. Unlike passenger traffic, which is more regular and easier to plan, it is 
difficult for freight operators to anticipate their future demand so far in advance 
and reserve the most suitable paths available on the network.
46 
Rail freight operators, especially smaller ones, are therefore generally forced to 
use the ad hoc system (for example, this happens in 90 % of cases in Poland). 
Under this system only a limited number of paths are available (those not yet 
booked through the annual timetable especially by passenger trains). This often 
gives rise to one of two situations: either only a limited number of paths are 
available, with the result that the shipper may have no suitable path to choose 
from (so a potential customer uses an alternative mode of transport, usually road 
transport) or a less suitable path is offered (e.g. a longer, more circuitous route), 
generally leading to higher costs and more time needed.
47 
Reservation charges paid by freight operators may be a useful instrument to dis -
courage ‘empty’ reservations, however asymmetric penalty systems can further 
exacerbate the difficulties rail freight operators face in using the annual time-  
tabling system (see Box 4 ).
Example of asymmetric penalty systems: the Czech Republic
In the Czech Republic  a penalty is now applied if a path has been booked but not used. It is more than 40 % 
higher (per train -kilometre) for freight than for passenger transport.Box 4
38 Observations 
Examples of disadvantageous priority order: Poland and Czech Republic
In Poland  freight trains are sixth and seventh in the order of eight priority categories (the eighth being empty 
passenger trains).
In the Czech Republic , the infrastructure manager applies a set of priority rules under which international 
freight transport is given the lowest priority.Box 548 
Under Articles 39 and 47 of Directive 2012/34/EU Member States must determine 
specific capacity allocation rules for different services. In case of a conflict (when 
two or more rail freight operators request the same path), and if the coordination 
process whereby the infrastructure manager proposes alternative routes to the 
operators cannot resolve it, infrastructure managers apply a set of priority rules 
which generally disadvantage freight traffic (see Box 5 ).
49 
Articles 37 and 40 of Directive 2012/34/EU introduced specific cooperation re -
quirements between infrastructure managers as regards capacity allocation and 
charging for cross -border rail services. Taking into account that the deadline for 
transposition of the directive was June 2015, it is too early to assess the impact of 
these new legal obligations.
Management of the circulation of trains
50 
Once paths have been allocated to the railway undertakings and trains are 
running on the network, the infrastructure manager is responsible for traffic 
management. Trains have to be rescheduled or stopped every day to take into ac -
count network disturbances, maintenance works on certain lines, delays of other 
trains, etc. In these cases infrastructure managers give priority to passenger traf -
fic leading to significant delays to freight trains, regardless of the nature of goods 
transported or the reason for the delay.
51 
In addition, maintenance work generally takes place at night, which is the time 
when rail network capacity tends to be more accessible to freight trains.
39 Observations 
European rail freight corridors
52 
The aim of the rail freight corridors regulation35 was to facilitate and promote rail 
freight traffic operations, including traffic management. In particular, it estab -
lished nine rail freight corridors (RFCs), six of which have been in operation since 
November 2013. At the time of the audit the remaining three were scheduled to 
start operations in November 2015 (see Box 1 ).
53 
One of the major innovations in the rail freight corridors has been the establish -
ment of one -stop shops (OSS), which allow operators to request a train path in 
the form of so called pre -arranged paths (PaPs) or reserve capacity for freight 
trains crossing at least one border along the corridor in a single place and in 
a single operation. This development means that a rail freight operator wishing 
to organise a freight train journey along the corridor no longer needs to con -
tact each infrastructure manager in the Member States concerned individually. 
Instead, it can address its request for a path to the OSS. PaPs cannot be cancelled 
in the last 2 months before the scheduled departure of the train.
54 
The international pre -arranged paths and reserve capacity proposed are reserved 
for freight trains, with priority to trains crossing at least one border; in case of 
a conflict the priority rules are set out in the Framework for Capacity Allocation 
defined by the Executive Board of the rail freight corridors.
55 
Although the average speed of freight trains in the corridors is higher than in the 
rest of the network (see paragraph 29), our audit found that in practice, in the 
first year of operation, the rail freight corridors have supported rail freight traffic 
only to a limited extent and many of the shortcomings described above apply. In 
particular, the following situations can be observed.
(a) The number and quality of the PaPs made available, as well as the timetable 
for requesting a path via the OSSs, are not adapted to the needs of freight 
transport. PaPs have to be requested approximately 1 year in advance, too 
early to anticipate in the freight transport sector. However there is some re -
serve capacity for ad hoc traffic planning; this allows a path to be requested 
around 2 months in advance.
(b) The rules of circulation on the European rail freight corridors are the same 
rules applied by infrastructure managers in all Member States (with the ex -
ception of the United Kingdom); these disadvantage freight trains if there is 
a network disturbance (see paragraph 50).35 Regulation (EU) No 913/2010.
40 Observations 
56 
We also found that the rules and procedures governing the nine rail freight cor -
ridors are not harmonised either along or between corridors. Moreover, there is 
no obligation in the legislation for rail freight corridors to adopt common proce -
dures. This does not facilitate rail freight operations across Europe (see Box 6 ).
Examples of non‑harmonised rules: rail freight corridors 4 Atlantic, 7 Orient and  
9 Czech–Slovak
In rail freight corridor 4 , which covers Portugal, Spain and France, PaPs are made available 7 days a week in 
Spain and Portugal, whereas in France they are made available only 5 days a week due to maintenance works 
on the network and the limited opening hours of the terminals.
The deadline for a rail freight operator to apply for reserve capacity is 60 days before the departure of the 
train on the  rail freight corridor 7 , which covers Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Austria, 
Romania and Slovakia, but 30 days before departure on the  rail freight corridor 9 , which covers the Czech 
Republic and Slovakia. This difference applies even within the territory of a single Member State.
To address this situation, in October 2015, the management boards of each corridor agreed to apply a harmo -
nised 30 days deadline which will be in place only as of 2017.Box 6
57 
As a result, the take -up of PaPs in some areas has been very low. For example, in 
the Czech Republic, on rail freight corridor 9 Czech–Slovak only 3 out of 24 PaPs 
had been booked for 2015 and not a single PaP had been booked on rail freight 
corridor 7 Orient. For 2015, only 5 out of the 14 available PaPs on rail freight cor -
ridor 4 Atlantic had been requested on the Spanish section of this corridor.
41 Observations 
Administrative and technical constraints still hamper the 
competitiveness of rail freight
58 
Different national regulations and rules applicable to rail freight operators in 
the EU are the result of the separate development of 26 railway networks and 
of differences in how the EU railway regulatory framework has been interpreted 
and transposed. The Commission has managed to remove some administrative 
and technical barriers, for example by establishing the European Railway Agency 
under the second railway package. This agency plays a central role in promoting 
interoperability, harmonising technical standards, and developing a common 
approach to safety, in close cooperation with the Member States and rail sector 
stakeholders.
59 
However, as the Court reported in 201036, certain administrative and technical 
constraints still persist, increasing the cost of transporting goods by rail and mak -
ing rail freight operation more complex. In addition, those constraints can result 
in market access barriers, especially for new entrants.
60 
These barriers include lengthy procedures for approving vehicles and issuing 
safety certificates for railway undertakings. Each vehicle must be authorised 
by the safety authority of each Member State where it will be used, resulting in 
costly and lengthy procedures. The total additional costs associated with the 
vehicle authorisations issued by the national safety authorities amount to around 
1.6 million euros per vehicle37. In order to facilitate this process, some Mem -
ber States have signed agreements on the mutual recognition of rolling stock 
authorisation procedures, but these do not always cover freight wagons. These 
administrative constraints should be significantly reduced if the technical pillar of 
the fourth railway package, enhancing the role of the European Railway Agency 
in the authorisation process, is finally approved by the Council and the European 
Parliament and properly implemented.36 Special Report No 8/2010.
37 SWD(2013) 8 final of 
30 January  2013 ‘Impact 
assessment of the Fourth 
railway package’.
42 Observations 
61 
Language requirements for locomotive drivers are another issue. It is compulsory 
for a locomotive driver to be able to communicate in the language of the coun -
try in which the train is travelling. As a result, unlike in the aviation sector where 
there is only one operational language, it is usually necessary to change the 
driver at the border point, which is costly and cumbersome.
62 
The constraints also concern technical aspects of train operations which hinder 
interoperability.
(a) Different signalling systems: any locomotive entering a country must be 
equipped with a national signalling system which means that locomotives 
crossing a border must have at least two or three signalling systems installed 
on board. The Commission, in close cooperation with the Member States and 
other rail stakeholders, is developing and implementing a European signal -
ling system, ERTMS, intended to replace national signalling systems. How -
ever, ERTMS is being implemented slowly and is experiencing interoperability 
problems.
(b) Different electrification systems are used in different Member States, and 
sometimes even within one country (e.g. the Czech Republic and France). 
A lack of electrified lines can also cause problems.
(c) Differences in the maximum length of trains (for example, trains may be 
450 m long in Spain, while trains of up to 740 m are allowed in France). This 
significantly reduces the competitiveness of transporting goods by rail.
(d) Different categories of axle load.
(e) Lack of a standard European track gauge (for example, standard gauge trains 
are unable to run on lines in Spain or the Baltic states; trains have to stop at 
the border to transfer their goods to other trains which can run on the local 
track gauge).
63 
Some of these constraints have been addressed in the revised TEN -T regulation 
adopted in 2013. For example the regulation requires the core network to be 
upgraded to the specific standards, unified across the EU. These include respec -
tive technical specifications for interoperability (TSI), ERTMS deployment, electri -
fication (although no specific type of electrification is imposed), possibility to run 
trains of 740 m length with 100 km/h and 22.5 t axle load. The migration to the 
standard UIC gauge (1 435 mm) is also a priority for the core network. The above -
mentioned requirements have to be implemented by 2030 for core network and 
until 2050 for the comprehensive network.
43 Observations 
The lack of transparency on the performance of the rail 
freight sector has not stimulated improvements in customer 
service
64 
Customer service is one of the main factors for shippers when choosing the 
mode of transport (see paragraph 30). The service provided by the rail operators 
includes not only the price of the service but also the reliability or the transport 
time. However, the infrastructure managers are not formally obliged to publicly 
disclose network performance data such as paths allocated and cancelled, aver -
age speed of freight traffic on the network, network punctuality and reliability. 
As a result, infrastructure managers have no pressure to improve the perfor -
mance of the network and shippers have difficulties in obtaining reliable infor -
mation on the customer service offered by rail freight operators, especially new 
entrants, since the data they might provide to advertise their services cannot be 
cross -checked.
65 
This kind of data is already collected for passenger traffic under voluntary Rail -
way Market Monitoring Scheme (RMMS) managed by the Commission; however, 
this has not yet been extended to freight traffic. The Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU)2015/1100 will, as from 2016, oblige the Member States to provide 
RMMS data, including successful and rejected path allocations, punctuality and 
cancellations of freight services, number and description of complaints relating 
to service facilities38. If the regulation is properly enforced, the publication of 
these data should contribute to transparency and encourage infrastructure man -
agers and operators to improve the quality of the services provided. Information 
on average speed of freight services remains however optional.
66 
The rail freight corridors regulation already attempted to increase the transpar -
ency of the performance of rail freight services on freight corridors. According to 
the regulation, performance indicators should be set at the level of each corridor, 
monitored every year and the results should be published in the corridors’ annual 
reports. Moreover, the management board of each corridor is obliged to launch 
a satisfaction survey for the users of the freight corridor and to publish its results 
once a year. However, our analysis shows that some limitations still persist.38 Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2015/1100 of 
7 July 2015 on the reporting 
obligations of the Member 
States in the framework of rail 
market monitoring (OJ L 181, 
9.7.2015, p. 1).
44 Observations 
(a) The satisfaction survey only covers rail freight corridors, and the ques -
tionnaire that the Member States are required by Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2015/1100 to complete does not contain any evaluation of users’ sat -
isfaction with the whole network. But rail freight operators, and especially 
shippers, are interested in the performance of the entire network: how much 
time it takes to transport a container from point A to point B and how reliable 
the service is, regardless of the rail line to be used (whether or not it is a rail 
freight corridor).
(b) Performance indicators are defined individually for each rail freight corridor, 
and might not therefore be consistent or comparable.
67 
More generally, we also noted that the Commission does not regularly monitor 
two other key elements of its rail freight policy.
(a) The progress made towards the achievement of the rail freight policy targets 
set in the 2011 White Paper, of shifting as much as 30 % of road freight trans -
ported over distances greater than 300 km to other modes of transport by 
2030 and more than 50 % by 2050. In addition, no intermediate targets have 
been set.
(b) The share of goods transported by electric locomotives, whose CO2 emissions 
are lower than those of diesel locomotives (the Commission only has informa -
tion on the share of electrified lines, not on their usage).
Charges for accessing rail infrastructure compare 
unfavourably to those for accessing roads
68 
In order to run a locomotive within a country’s rail network, a railway undertak -
ing has to ask the infrastructure manager in charge of the management of the 
infrastructure to allocate it a path. The infrastructure manager sets an access 
charge which must be paid by the railway undertaking for the use of every 
kilometre of the rail network. These charges can account for 20 % to 35 % of the 
operational costs borne by rail freight operators.
45 Observations 
69 
Access charges are determined by each infrastructure manager on the basis 
of the general provisions of Directives No 2001/14/EC and No 2012/34/EC and 
a Commission implementing regulation39. Rail access charges for freight trains 
vary significantly across the Member States, even in the same rail freight corridor 
(see Figure 8 ). Also, they do not always reflect the condition of the infrastructure.39 Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2015/909 of 
12 June 2015 on the modalities 
for the calculation of the cost 
that is directly incurred as 
a result of operating the train 
service (OJ L 148, 13.6.2015, pp. 
17–22), which specifies the 
rules to be applied by 
infrastructure managers.Figure 8Track access charge per train‑km (in euro) in 2014  
(based on a freight train of 1 000 gross tonnes)
Source:  European Court of Auditors, based on RMMS questionnaires (Annex 8 of SWD(2014) 186) —  
for France and Italy, data refers to 2013.ES DKSE LU SI EL PT FRFI UK HU BG BE IT NL DESK PL AT RO CZ EE LT IE LV12
10
8
6
4
2
0
46 Observations 
70 
In addition, rail access charges for freight trains in the EU are on average 28 % 
and 78 % higher than for intercity passenger trains and suburban trains respec -
tively40. This was the case for two of the five Member States visited.
(a) In the Czech Republic, the fee for using infrastructure consists of two elem-  
ents: the price for traffic management and the price for the infrastructure 
itself. Together, these amount to an average of approximately 1.50 euros per 
train -km and 1.75 euros per thousand gross tonne -km for freight trains and 
0.25 euros per train -km and 1.35 euros per thousand gross tonne -km for pas -
senger trains.
(b) In Poland, average access charges (in train -km) for freight trains remain 
significantly higher for freight trains than for passenger trains (approximately 
3.3 euros compared to 1.6 euros in 2015), although they have decreased since 
2013.
71 
On the other hand, trucks access road infrastructure at no cost except charges 
for toll roads or roads covered by a heavy vehicle fee, if such a fee exists. The EU 
directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infra -
structures41 stipulates that the cost of constructing, operating and developing 
infrastructure can be recovered by charging road users for tolls and vignettes. 
However, the use of tolls and vignettes is not mandatory in the EU. Out of the 
five visited Member States, a heavy vehicle fee for trucks was in place in the 
Czech Republic, Germany and Poland. In these three Member States, the rate per 
tonne -kilometre is lower than the average track access charge. In the Czech Re -
public and Poland, the fee only applied on a limited length of road (around 20 % 
and 15 % of the national road networks respectively). In Spain and France, trucks 
usually have to pay the toll only on motorways. This situation further reduces the 
competitiveness of freight transport by rail compared to road in terms of cost 
(see example in Box 7 ).40 According to the Fourth 
Report to the Council and the 
European Parliament on 
monitoring development of 
the rail market (COM(2014) 353 
final of 13 June 2014).
41 Directive 1999/62/EC (OJ L 187, 
20.7.1999, p. 42), as modified 
by Directive 2006/38/EC (OJ 
L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 8) and by 
Directive 2011/76/EU (OJ L 269, 
14.10.2011, p. 1).
The cost of accessing the international section between France and Spain
The international rail section between Perpignan and Figueras is managed by a private concessionary which 
is responsible for setting access charges for trains. The total cost of the construction of this newly built line 
amounts to 1.1 billion euros, of which 162 million euros was provided from EU funds. In this section of rail the 
cost of accessing the infrastructure is six times higher for a train than the amount that the equivalent number 
of trucks42 would pay for using the highway between the same two points.
42 Considering that the average freight load per train in France is 475 tonnes (according to the 2013 Annual Market Monitoring Report of the 
Independent Regulator’s Group -Rail IRG -Rail), approximately 12 trucks of 40 tonnes would be needed to transport the same volume of goods.Box 7
47 Observations 
72 
In addition, externalities produced by rail and road transport (environmental 
impacts and pollution, congestion or accidents, etc.) are not taken into account in 
a comprehensive manner when setting the price to be paid by users for access to 
infrastructure. This adds to the disadvantages of rail freight transport compared 
to roads.
73 
In addition to balancing the access charges between different methods of 
transport, there are other measures which can be applied to promote rail freight 
transport. These include road traffic restrictions for lorries and subsidies for 
companies carrying out rail–road combined transport. Such practices are ap -
plied, for example, in Switzerland where the modal share of rail freight in Swit -
zerland is 170 % higher than the EU average. Within the EU a comparable increase 
can be observed in Austria, which also applied similar regulatory measures (see 
paragraph 21).
The infrastructure needs of the rail freight sector 
should be better targeted by EU funding
Overall more EU funds were allocated to roads than to rail 
infrastructure
74 
In three of the five Member States visited, more EU funds had been allocated to 
roads than to rail during the 2007-2013 period (as shown in Figure 9 ) even though 
the Commission’s policy prioritised more sustainable and efficient methods of 
transporting goods (see paragraph 7).
75 
Our audit showed that the allocation of EU funds to road and rail varied signifi -
cantly between Cohesion policy funding (ERDF and Cohesion Fund) and the 
TEN -T programme. Whereas TEN -T funds were allocated mainly to rail compared 
to roads43, the Cohesion policy funding prioritised roads in the Czech Republic, 
Germany and Poland. In these three Member States, Cohesion policy funding al -
located to rail during the 2007-2013 period amounted respectively to 69 %, 38 % 
and 35 % of the amounts allocated to roads44.43 In France 793 million euros 
was allocated to rail and 
21 million euros to roads. In 
Spain 484 million euros was 
allocated to rail and 
52 million euros to roads. In 
Germany 798 million euros 
was allocated to rail and 
23 million euros to roads. In 
the two other Member States 
visited (the Czech Republic 
and Poland) a very limited 
number of rail and road 
projects were co -financed by 
the TEN -T programme.
44 The Czech Republic: 
approximately 2.7  billion  euros 
for rail and 3.9 billion euros to 
roads; Germany: 
0.75 billion euros for rail and 
2 billion euros; Poland: 
5.5 billion euros and 
15.8  billion  euros (the 
Commission did not accept 
the request for reallocation of 
funds dedicated to rail to road 
investments, submitted by the 
Polish authorities in June 
2011).
48 Observations 
76 
In addition, under the Cohesion policy funding schemes, transport projects could 
benefit from a co -financing rate of up to 85 %, whereas the co -financing rates 
of the TEN -T programme during the 2007-2013 period, which had a major focus 
on rail, were lower: up to 20 % for works projects, up to 30 % for cross -border 
projects and up to 50 % for studies. Since road projects were usually financed 
under the Cohesion Fund/ERDF, they have benefited in general from a higher 
co-financing rate than investments in rail infrastructure.
77 
This situation will tend to continue during the 2014-2020 period, with the CEF 
(the successor programme to TEN -T) focusing on rail investments45 and Cohesion 
policy funding prioritising roads. Of the five visited Member States, this particu -
larly concerns the Czech Republic and Poland, where Cohesion policy allocations 
to rail amount to 1.8 billion euros and 6.8 billion euros respectively, whereas 
2.9 billion euros and 14.6 billion euros respectively will be available for roads. This 
represents 62 % and 47 % of the total amounts allocated to roads. In comparison 
with the 2007-2013 period, Poland, unlike the Czech Republic, has increased both 
the amount and the percentage of funds allocated to rail versus roads.EU funds (ERDF, Cohesion Fund and TEN‑T) allocated to rail  
and roads during the 2007 ‑2013 period (million euro)
45 Preliminary figures provided 
by the Commission for the 
CEF: the Czech Republic (rail 
257 million euros and no EU 
funding for roads), Germany 
(rail 2.26 billion euros and road 
41.3 million euros), Spain (rail: 
731 million euros and road 
41.0 million euros), France (rail: 
1.53 billion euros and road 
41 million euros), and Poland 
(rail: 1.52 billion euros and 
road 414  million  euros).Figure 9
Source:  European Court of Auditors based on information provided by the Commission,  
INEA and national authorities.RoadsRail
Poland France Germany Spain Czech 
Republic18 000
16 000
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0
49 Observations 
When allocated to rail, EU funds did not specifically target 
rail freight needs
78 
In order to enhance the competitiveness of rail freight transport, the rail network 
should meet the needs of the freight sector. It is generally accepted that in par -
ticular, it should46:
 ο easily allow borders to be crossed as rail freight transport is more competi -
tive over medium and long distances (which in Europe generally implies 
the transport of goods between different Member States) through better 
cross -border connections and enhanced rail interoperability;
 ο provide good connections to/from significant generators of freight traffic 
and support development of multimodal logistics platforms including con -
nections to inland and maritime ports and airports;
 ο provide point infrastructure and last -mile facilities to make it easier for freight 
to enter and exit the rail system, and provide interfaces to other transport 
modes (in particular, to facilitate rail–road combined transport if necessary);
 ο allow longer trains to run, in order to reduce the unit cost per tonne of goods 
transported.
79 
However, we found that the EU funds allocated to rail infrastructure projects dur -
ing the 2007-2013 period in the five Member States visited focused primarily on 
rail passengers’ needs (e.g. high -speed lines, see Box 8 ) or on mixed lines used 
more by passenger trains. They did not target the needs of rail freight.46 TEN -T Guidelines, EU 
directives, Commission policy 
papers, interviews with the 
stakeholders during the audit.
Example of prioritisation of high speed lines: Spain 2007 ‑2013
In Spain , around 95 % of Cohesion Fund and ERDF funding for rail were dedicated to high -speed lines. Even if 
some of the high -speed rail lines were expected to serve both passenger and freight traffic, in practice, due to 
their technical characteristics, freight and passenger trains cannot use parallel tracks (in opposite directions) 
simultaneously. As a result, the high -speed rail lines are now almost exclusively devoted to passenger traffic, 
except the Barcelona-Figueras-Perpignan sections.Box 8
50 Observations 
80 
Investments in rail connections to ports and cross -border sections, which are 
more relevant for freight, have been limited, as shown in Table 4 . This is particu -
larly noticeable in the case of the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund; the TEN -T pro -
gramme focused more on cross- border sections. Box 9  provides examples from 
two Member States.
Problems with rail connections to ports: Poland and France
In Poland , significant problems were noted with access to the port of Gdynia where, according to rail freight 
operators, freight trains could be stopped up to 10 hours before being granted access to the port. A report on 
capacity demand prepared by the regulatory body indicates that the investments which are needed to elimi -
nate the bottlenecks in this area are planned to be carried out in the 2014-2020 period.
In France , the rail network which connects ports to their hinterland is generally in poor condition, with very 
low door -to-door speeds in some cases (for example, 6 km/h between the large port of Le Havre and Paris ac -
cording to a study carried out by the European Parliament47). In the seven biggest ports in France, only 11.5 % 
of goods were transported by rail in 2012.
47 European Parliament study ’Freight on road: why EU shippers prefer truck to train’, 2015.Box 9 Table 4EU funds allocated to cross‑border rail sections and rail connections to ports in the 
2007 ‑2013 period (in million euros and in % of the EU funds allocated to rail)
Cross -border rail projects Rail connections to ports
ERDF/CF TEN -T1Total ERDF/CF TEN -T Total 
Euro % Euro % Euro % Euro % Euro % Euro %
France 0 0 % 769 59 % 769 52 % 2.5 1 % 5.8 0.4 % 8.3 1 %
Spain 0 0 % 456 94 % 456 10 % 0 0 % 1 0.2 % 1 0 %
Germany 24 4 %2299 37 % 323 21 % 123 16 % 5.5 0.7 % 129 8.3 %
Poland 35 1 % 0 0 % 35 1 % 1.1 0.1 % 0 0 % 1.1 0.1 %
Czech Republic 343 13 % 0.37 1 % 344 12 % NA (no seaports)
1 Not including ERTMS.
2  Only taking into account the 675.2 million euros under the Operational Programme Transport (which accounts for 90 % of rail allocations in 
Germany).
Source:  European Court of Auditors based on information provided by the national authorities.
51 Observations 
81 
In addition, EU funding, with the exception of TEN -T funding in France and Spain 
(see Table 4 ) did not prioritise other rail freight needs in terms of infrastructure. 
Some examples of this can be found below.
(a) No priority was given to renovating and improving point infrastructure and 
last-mile facilities. For example, in Poland, at a border station with Germany, 
the station had been fully renovated but the only track for unloading was 
closed due to its poor condition.
(b) No priority was given to adapting the network to longer trains. Currently, the 
maximum permitted length of trains varies between Member States and even 
on the same rail freight corridor within one country (see paragraph 62(c)).
82 
Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 stipulates that investment plans must be prepared 
for each rail freight corridor to help to identify specific needs for rail freight infra -
structure investments. For the six rail freight corridors that started operation in 
November 2013 the plans were indeed available; however, no financial commit -
ment from the Member States concerned has followed.
83 
Finally, the Commission does not monitor how much EU funding for rail infra -
structure projects has been allocated to support projects with a freight compo -
nent, cross -border sections, or the sections connecting ports to the rail network. 
This makes it more difficult for the Commission to ensure that the needs of the 
rail freight sector are being effectively targeted by EU funding.
Examined rail infrastructure projects have delivered or are 
likely to deliver expected outputs, but so far no general 
improvements in rail freight transport performance have 
been achieved
84 
Our audit also included a review of 18 rail infrastructure projects intended to 
benefit, at least to a certain extent, rail freight transport (see Annex III ). We found 
that overall outputs were delivered or are likely to be delivered according to the 
project specifications, without major changes in the scope of works (e.g. in the 
number of kilometres of tracks renovated or built, the electrification systems put 
in place, etc.) or major cost overruns.
52 Observations 
85 
As regards the performance, the full anticipated impact of the individual pro -
jects can only be confirmed once the works on the whole rail line to which they 
belong are finalised. In some cases, though, we noted that there has been a lack 
of coordination of investments; this has led to the network being developed 
in a piecemeal fashion. This was particularly noticeable in two projects located 
along the same corridor connecting France and Spain (corridor 4 Atlantic): one of 
these was barely used by any freight trains, and the traffic levels on the other fell 
significantly short of what had been forecast. A case study in Annex VI  provides 
more information on these two projects.
86 
Some projects focused on increasing the speed of rail freight trains and resulted 
in time savings of a few minutes. However such minor improvements did not help 
increase the volume of goods transported. In fact, it decreased significantly. This 
shows a low cost -efficiency of the projects co -funded from the EU budget (see 
Box 10 ).
Examples of projects resulting in time savings but not in increasing the freight 
traffic: Czech Republic
In the Czech Republic two projects we examined consisted in an upgrade of mixed use rail infrastructure. 
They improved the quality of the respective lines and increased maximum speed and this resulted in the 
reduction of the journey time of freight trains. However, the performance (in tonne -km) of the rail freight 
transport fell between 2007 (the last year before the works started) and 2013.
Project 1 : an EU contribution of 36.1 million euros to save 5.5 minutes on a stretch of 39 km. However, the 
amount of goods transported by rail fell from 358 million tonne -km in 2007 to 159 million tonne -km in 2013.
Project 2 : an EU contribution of 116.7 million euros to save 12 minutes on a stretch of 40 km. However, the 
amount of goods transported by rail fell from 224 million tonne -km in 2007 to 187 million tonne -km in 2013.Box 10
53 Observations 
87 
Six projects were significantly delayed, which put at risk the performance of the 
whole rail line on which they are implemented (see  Box 11 ).
88 
Finally, although the rail lines were designed for mixed use, no quantified targets 
for freight traffic were set in the project application of 8 of the 18 rail infrastruc -
ture projects selected. This lack of quantified objectives in terms of number of 
freight trains, volume of goods to be transported or time savings was noted 
especially in Spain and Poland, where none of the examined project applications 
contained any quantified target for freight48. On the other hand, forecasts for the 
number of passengers were generally included in project applications.
89 
This situation makes it more difficult to evaluate which projects are most needed 
from a freight perspective, and to select the projects with the highest added 
value. However, we noted that all these projects had been individually approved 
by the Commission between 2008 and 2013, as it is compulsory for ERDF/Cohe -
sion Fund major projects and all TEN -T projects (see Annex III ).48 With the exception for Spain 
of the international section 
Perpignan–Figueras 
implemented together with 
French authorities.Examples of delays in project implementation: Poland and Spain
In Poland , four projects selected for review are facing significant delays and are likely not to be completed 
before the end of the eligibility period (national authorities have acknowledged that one of the projects is go -
ing to be phased into the 2014-2020 period). These delays were mainly due to a lack of administrative capacity 
of the infrastructure manager.
In Spain , two projects are expected to be completed with around a 3 -year delay. In both cases the projects 
concern the first phase of the construction of a new line. They cover the construction of the track -bed which 
is necessary for the subsequent installation of the tracks, of the communication and signalling systems and 
of the electrification. As a result the start of operations of the whole line where those individual projects are 
located has been delayed.Box 11
54 Observations 
The poor maintenance of the rail network affects the 
sustainability and the performance of EU‑funded 
infrastructure
90 
In order to provide good quality service to railway undertakings and more gener -
ally to shippers, and to make rail freight transport competitive the rail network 
not only needs to be renovated and modernised by the infrastructure manager 
to meet rail freight specific needs (see paragraph 76), but also to be regularly 
maintained.
91 
However, despite the business plans and indicative infrastructure development 
strategies to be established by the infrastructure managers49, rail lines more 
often used by freight trains and with limited passenger traffic are more generally 
subject to closures and to speed restrictions (see Box 12 ). This has an impact on 
the performance of the rest of the rail network in terms of the volumes of goods 
transported, including the sections which could have potentially benefited from 
EU funds, as the possibility of transporting goods from their point of production 
to the consumption centres is hampered.
92 
The lack of priority given by infrastructure managers to the maintenance of the 
rail lines used more often by freight trains is a result of the preference given to 
passenger lines, which are more politically sensitive, and in some cases by the 
low profits generated by rail freight transport. Our analysis showed that out of 
the five visited Member States, in the two where the rail freight modal share was 
lowest, Spain and France, the revenue generated from access charges paid by rail 
freight operators was also very low.49 Directive 2012/34/EU of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 
21 November  2012 
establishing a single European 
railway area (recast) (OJ L 343, 
14.12.2012, p. 32).
Poor maintenance of rail lines mainly used by freight trains: France
In France , rail freight has been affected by the poor maintenance of the rail lines more used by freight trains 
(around 76 % of lines with no passenger traffic are subject to temporary speed limitations) and the closure of 
a significant number of secondary rail lines, which nonetheless remains important for freight trains because it 
allows goods to be transported from their point of production to where they are consumed.Box 12
55 Observations 
93 
Given a difficult competitive situation in intermodal competition, the ability of 
the freight sector to pay access charges needs to be taken into account. If an 
analysis of the freight sector indicates that this market segment is not able to pay 
higher charges (i.e. charges going beyond the costs directly incurred as a result of 
operating the train service), Article 32(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU would even pro -
hibit the levying of higher charges (i.e. mark -ups) by the infrastructure manager. 
Our audit found that low access charges did not incentivise infrastructure manag -
ers to invest in renovating and maintaining rail lines (see Box 13 ).
Examples of low level of revenues for infrastructure managers generated by rail 
freight transport: France and Spain
In France , investments in rail freight infrastructure are not attractive for the infrastructure manager because 
of their low profitability. Freight represents 15 % of all rail traffic, but only 3 % of the fees collected by the 
infrastructure manager and 7 % of its income if the freight compensation paid by the state is included. This 
situation may partly explain the priority given in France to investment intended to develop rail passenger traf -
fic in comparison to rail freight.
In Spain , the revenue from access charges collected from freight trains amounted to 3,8 million euros in 2013, 
which represents less than 1 % of total revenue from access charges (including those paid by railway under -
takings for passenger traffic).Box 13
56
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
94 
Overall, the Court found that the EU had not been effective in enhancing rail 
freight transport. Rail freight transport in the EU has failed over the last 15 years 
to respond effectively to the competition presented by road transport. Shippers 
show a clear preference for road compared to rail for the transport of goods. As 
a result, and despite the EU’s policy objectives of shifting goods from roads to 
rail, the rail freight transport performance in the EU is persistently unsatisfactory 
in terms of modal share and volumes transported, although some Member States 
have managed to improve their performance. The strategic and regulatory issues 
identified in this report are of such nature that, if not addressed, extra funding for 
rail infrastructure will not by itself resolve the problems identified and increase 
the competitiveness of rail freight transport.
The performance of rail freight transport in the EU is not 
satisfactory
95 
In the visited Member States, the volume and modal share of goods transported 
by rail show a generally negative trend. This jeopardises the achievement of 
the targets set out in the Commission’s 2011 White Paper. The general shrinking 
trend in the visited Member States reflects various problems that rail freight traf -
fic is facing in the EU: lack of competition in the market, rail traffic management 
procedures not adapted to the needs of the rail freight sector, the low speed of 
freight trains, administrative and technical constraints, and obsolete infrastruc -
ture (see paragraphs 19 to 29).
The competitiveness of European rail freight transport is still 
hampered by many strategic and regulatory factors
96 
Shippers decide which mode of transport to use on the basis of business criteria 
and not on the basis of EU policy priorities. To shift goods from roads to rail, it is 
therefore essential to ensure that rail freight transport in the EU is as competi -
tive as possible. However, this competitiveness is still hampered today by many 
strategic and regulatory factors.
(a) Market liberalisation has achieved uneven progress in Member States: regula -
tory bodies do not always have sufficient competence to ensure that new 
entrants are treated fairly and without discrimination. Certain practices ob -
served in rail services affect competition in terms of access to terminals and 
other facilities, train path allocation, availability and maintenance of rolling 
stock, etc. In addition, the market is experiencing a process of consolidation; 
this reduces the scope for effective competition (see paragraphs 37 to 43).
57 Conclusions and recommendations 
(b) Rail traffic management procedures (particularly capacity allocation and 
the management of the circulation of trains) are not adapted to the specific 
needs of the rail freight sector, even within rail freight corridors (see para -
graphs 44 to 57). Persistent administrative and technical constraints also in -
crease the cost and complexity of transporting goods by rail (see paragraphs 
58 to 63).
(c) A lack of transparency on the performance of the rail freight sector does not 
stimulate improvements in the customer service offered to the users of the 
rail infrastructure (rail freight operators and shippers) (see paragraphs 64 
to 67).
(d) There is not a level playing field between different modes of transport: rail 
freight is disadvantaged compared to road in terms of the cost of access to 
the infrastructure (see paragraphs 68 to 73).
97 
In general, the Court recommends that the Commission and the Member States 
improve the strategic and regulatory framework under which the transport of 
goods by rail is carried out. In order to achieve this, the Commission and the 
Member States should take the following action.
Recommendation 1 — Rail freight market liberalisation
The Commission and the Member States should ensure that the national regu -
latory bodies possess, and can actually exercise, the necessary powers, inde -
pendence and resources to carry out the tasks assigned to them, in particular to 
prevent, together with competition authorities, anti -competitive practices being 
committed by infrastructure managers and incumbent railway undertakings.
Recommendation 2  — Traffic management procedures
(a) The Commission and the Member States should, within their respective re -
mits, initiate the adaptation, in particular in rail freight corridors, of the traffic 
management rules applied by infrastructure managers to the specific needs 
of the rail freight sector. This regards, for example, the timetable for path al -
location and the number and the quality of the paths on offer.
(b) The Commission should, within its remit, initiate the harmonisation of the 
rules and procedures governing various rail freight corridors to facilitate 
rail freight operations across Europe, as well as considering how a consist -
ent approach to path allocation could best be ensured across the whole rail 
network.
58 Conclusions and recommendations 
Recommendation 3  — Administrative and technical 
constraints
(a) The Commission, together with the Member States, should simplify and 
harmonise the procedures for vehicle approval and for issuing safety cer -
tificates to railway undertakings. This would be helped by a rapid adoption 
of the fourth railway package (which involves enhancing the position of the 
European Railways Agency) by the Parliament and the Council and its proper 
implementation.
(b) The Commission and the Member States should also assess the possibility of 
progressively simplifying language requirements for locomotive drivers to 
make medium- and long -distance rail freight traffic in the EU easier and more 
competitive.
Recommendation 4  — Monitoring and transparency of the 
performance of the rail freight sector
(a) The Commission should regularly monitor progress made towards achieving 
the 2011 Transport White Paper targets for shifting goods from road to rail. In 
view of the long planning horizons in rail sector (going up to 2050), interme -
diate targets should also be set in future policy papers.
(b) The Commission and the Member States should evaluate the satisfaction 
level of rail freight operators, shippers and other users of the entire rail net -
work to promote good quality service for the users of the rail network.
(c) The Commission should take the necessary steps to ensure that Member 
States effectively participate in the Railway Market Monitoring Scheme 
(RMMS) and should initiate the harmonisation of quality and performance 
monitoring across rail freight corridors.
Recommendation 5  — Fair competition between different 
modes of transport
The Commission and the Member States should promote a level playing field 
between the different methods of transport by introducing additional regulatory 
and/or other measures to support rail freight traffic when necessary. As regards 
the cost of accessing infrastructure, consideration should be given to external-  
ities such as environmental impacts, congestion or the number of accidents pro -
duced by each method of transport.
59 Conclusions and recommendations 
Rail freight infrastructure needs should be better targeted by EU 
funding
98 
In addition to improving the regulatory and strategic framework, enhancing rail 
freight transport competitiveness requires a rail network adapted to specific 
rail freight needs, which entails making the best possible use of the available 
funding.
99 
Our audit identified in this regard that the infrastructure needs of the rail freight 
sector needs to be better targeted by EU funding.
(a) The allocation of EU funds was not always aligned with the EU policy objec -
tives of shifting goods from road to rail, as in three of the five visited Mem -
ber States more EU funds in total were allocated to roads than to rail during 
the 2007-2013 period. This is particularly the case for Cohesion Fund and 
ERDF funding (see paragraphs 74 to 77).
(b) When allocated to rail, overall EU funds had not targeted the specific needs 
of rail freight transport in the five visited Member States. Limited invest -
ments had been made with the aim of streamlining the process of crossing 
borders, providing good connections to significant generators of freight 
traffic, allowing longer trains to run, providing point infrastructure and 
last-mile facilities to make it easier to transport goods to final customers, or 
facilitating rail–road combined transport where necessary (see paragraphs 
78 to 83).
(c) Overall, the examined co -financed rail infrastructure projects had delivered 
their expected outputs, but in general had not yet resulted in an increase in 
rail freight transport performance in terms of tonnes of goods transported 
by rail (see paragraph 84 to 89).
(d) The rail network, in order to provide good quality service to railway under -
takings and more generally to shippers, needs to be regularly maintained. 
Closures and poor maintenance of parts of the rail network, generally lines 
which are more frequently used by freight trains, have an impact on the 
performance of the rest of the network (including sections which could have 
potentially benefited from EU funds), as they make it more difficult to trans -
port goods by rail as close as possible from the point of production to where 
they are needed (see paragraphs 90 to 93).
60 Conclusions and recommendations 
100  
The Court recommends that the Commission and the Member States make better 
use of available EU funds.
Recommendation 6  — Consistent approach between policy 
objectives and fund allocation
(a) The Commission and the Member States should allocate available EU funding 
for transport infrastructure in line with the EU transport policy objectives, en -
hancing a sustainable, competitive and efficient rail freight transport system. 
In particular, EU funds should target as a priority bottlenecks and missing 
links such as rail connections to ports and cross -border areas, as well as other 
measures with a potentially high impact on rail freight transport competitive -
ness such as the renovation of point infrastructure and last -mile facilities.
(b) The Commission should then monitor how much EU funding is actually in -
vested into rail freight projects (or projects with a rail freight component).
Recommendation 7  — Selection, planning and management 
of projects
(a) The Member States, together with the Commission, should improve the 
coordination of rail investments in order to maximise their effectiveness and 
avoid the rail network being developed in a piecemeal fashion. In this con -
text, funding of investments in rail freight corridors should be prioritised.
(b) The Commission and the Member States should assess projects’ capacity to 
increase rail freight performance and sustainability. Quantitative objectives 
for freight (e.g. volume to be transported, number of freight trains, average 
commercial speed of freight trains and how it is related to the increase in 
maximum design speed, etc.) should be systematically included in project 
applications.
61 Conclusions and recommendations 
This report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Henri GRETHEN, Member 
of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 24 February 2016.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
 PresidentRecommendation 8  — Rail network maintenance
The Member States should, in the framework of the business plans and indicative 
infrastructure development strategies set by the infrastructure managers, ensure 
the proper maintenance of the rail network (including last -mile facilities), in par -
ticular in rail freight corridors. The Commission should verify that Member States 
implement those strategies.

62
 Annexes Annex ILegislative acts governing railway packages
Railway package Legislative act
First railway package  
(adopted in February 2001)Directive 2001/12/EC of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the 
Community’s railways
Directive 2001/13/EC of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/CE on the licensing of railway 
undertakings
Directive 2001/14/EC of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying 
of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification
Second railway package  
(adopted in April 2004)Directive 2004/49/EC of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council 
Directive 95/18/CE on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/CE on the allocation of 
railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety 
certification
Directive 2004/50/EC of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the 
trans‑European high‑speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on the interoperability of the trans‑European conventional rail system
Directive 2004/51/EC of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the 
Community’s railways
Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing 
a European Railway Agency 
Third railway package  
(adopted in October 2007)Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 amending Council 
Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways and Directive 2001/14/EC on the 
allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure
Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of 
train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community
Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road 
and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations
Regulation (EC) No 1372/2007 of 23 October 2007 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 on the 
organisation of a labour force sample survey in the Community 
Recast first railway package Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing 
a single European railway area (recast)
Fourth railway packageCommission proposal of January 2013 has not been yet adopted by the European Parliament and the Council. 
An agreement was reached on technical pillar in October 2015 whereas governance and market‑opening 
pillar is still under discussion.
63 Annexes Annex IIEU allocations to rail per Member States for 2007 ‑2013 (euro)
Member State ERDF/CF  (as of 21.11.2013) TEN-T  (as of 01.12.2013) Total 2007-2013
Belgium 0 38 368 723 38 368 723
Bulgaria 312 000 000 1 550 000 313 550 000
Czech Republic 2 757 734 752 75 418 778 2 833 153 530
Denmark 0 102 425 000 102 425 000
Germany 769 493 444 566 166 086 1 335 659 530
Estonia 185 307 991 14 528 479 199 836 470
Ireland 16 750 000 10 724 000 27 474 000
Greece 761 942 391 34 258 192 796 200 583
Spain 4 045 448 445 302 881 069 4 348 329 514
France 203 128 796 442 229 850 645 358 646
Croatia 221 634 478 0 221 634 478
Italy 2 275 968 478 250 233 670 2 526 202 148
Cyprus 0 0 0
Latvia 256 300 000 17 504 744 273 804 744
Lithuania 580 370 413 61 773 402 642 143 815
Luxembourg 0 8 335 754 8 335 754
Hungary 1 720 106 773 14 250 000 1 734 356 773
Malta 0 0 0
Netherlands 423 500 66 411 325 66 834 825
Austria 0 293 227 541 293 227 541
Poland 5 557 540 807 30 377 657 5 587 918 464
Portugal 363 160 743 86 019 797 449 180 540
Romania 1 784 367 036 0 1 784 367 036
Slovenia 449 567 581 77 369 000 526 936 581
Slovakia 1 093 086 960 50 425 000 1 143 511 960
Finland 10 198 058 81 865 000 92 063 058
Sweden 11 605 373 210 898 000 222 503 373
United Kingdom 86 863 617 75 339 333 162 202 950
Cross ‑border 79 971 793 1 496 471 548 1 576 443 341
EU 23 542 971 429 4 409 051 948 27 952 023 377
Source:  European Court of Auditors, based on Commission databases.
64 Annexes Annex IIIList of projects examined by the Court
MS Code TitleEU 
funding 
sourceEU 
contribution  
(in euro)Commission 
decisionCo-financing 
rateTotal cost  
(in euro)
CZ 2010CZ161PR012Optimisation of the Horni Dvoriste state 
border ‑Ceske Budejovice railway lineCohesion 
Fund36 062 780 21.12.2011 85 % 50 646 773
CZ 2008CZ161PR015Optimisation of the Plana u M.L. ‑Cheb line 
(except stations)Cohesion 
Fund116 710 460 13.9.2010 85 % 159 695 770
CZ 2009CZ161PR010Electrification of Zabreh ‑Sumperk track 
sectionCohesion 
Fund46 458 142 19.9.2011 85 % 56 615 535
CZ 2008CZ161PR005Reconstruction of the Railway Junction 
Breclav, 1st ConstructionCohesion 
Fund70 303  930 5.12.2011 85 % 98 242 674
DE2011 ‑DE‑
161PR005Electrification of railway line Reichenbach ‑ 
Landesgrenze Sachsen Bayern (Module 1)ERDF 25 700  000 21.2.2012 65 % 60 000  000
DE2012 ‑DE‑
161PR001Electrification of railway line Reichenbach ‑ 
Landesgrenze Sachsen Bayern (Module 2)ERDF 22 000  000 20.7.2012 65 % 56 000  000
DE2009 ‑DE‑
161PR010Upgrading railway line Rostock ‑Berlin 
(module 1)ERDF 39 800  000 19.4.2011 65 % 60 800  000
DE2012 ‑DE‑
161PR006Upgrading railway line Rostock ‑Berlin 
(module 2)ERDF 39 800  000 05.2.2013 65 % 60 800  000
DE 2007 ‑DE‑01050 ‑PNew railway line Erfurt ‑Leipzig/Halle,  
Erfurt ‑Halle sectionTEN‑T 48 850 000 5.12.2008 6.42  % 762 000  000
ES 2008ES161PR001‘High speed line Madrid ‑León ‑Asturias. 
Section: Variante de Pajares. Sub‑section: 
La Robla ‑Túneles de Pajares y Túneles de 
Pajares ‑Sotiello ‑Campomanes ‑Pola de Lena 
(Fase I)’Cohesion 
Fund253 953  331 27.10. 20 0 9 80 % 377 547 173
ES 2009ES162PR012‘High speed line Madrid ‑Castilla‑La Mancha ‑
Comunidad Valenciana ‑Región de Murcia. 
Section: Elche‑Murcia Platforma Fase I’ERDF 131 300  576 8.4.2010 80 % 203 125 891
ES 2008 ‑ES‑92512‑ PUpgrading of the Barcelona ‑France line and 
access for operating an international gaugeTEN‑T 6 150 000 4.5.2009 9.99  % 61 542 534 
ES 2009 ‑ES‑92516 ‑PHigh speed railway line Paris ‑Madrid: section 
Mondragón ‑ElorrioTEN‑T 5 225 400 6.9.2010 10 % 52 254 000
FR 
and 
ES2007 ‑EU‑03110 ‑PWorks for construction of a high speed rail ‑
way section between Perpignan and FiguerasTEN‑T 69 750 000 3.12.2008 25 % 279 000  000
65 Annexes 
MS Code TitleEU 
funding 
sourceEU 
contribution  
(in euro)Commission 
decisionCo-financing 
rateTotal cost  
(in euro)
PL 2011PL1661PR001Modernisation of the railway line E30/C ‑E30 
Kraków ‑Rzeszów, stage IIICohesion 
Fund559 949 536 19.11.2012 85 % 989 501 956
PL 2013PL161PR017Modernisation of the railway line E 75 Rail 
Baltica, Warsaw‑ Białystok ‑Lithuanian 
border, stage I, section Warsaw‑
Rembertów‑Zielonka‑Tłuszcz (Sadowne)Cohesion 
Fund220 382  666 26.11.2013 85 % 444 209 017
PL 2012PL161PR058Modernisation of railway line E 20/C ‑E 20, 
section Siedlce ‑Terespol, stage IICohesion 
Fund106 688 713 27.9.2013 85 % 162 833  314
PL 2010PL161PR005Modernisation of railway line E 65/C ‑E 65 
Warsaw‑ Gdańsk, section LCS CiechanówCohesion 
Fund207 251  518 24.3.2011 85 % 367 901 203
Note:  for the Czech Republic and Poland the amounts in euro were determined based on information contained in Commission’s databases or on 
the last available exchange rate.Annex III
66 Annexes Annex IVRail freight transport as a share of total inland freight transport
GEO/TIME 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
EU 19.7 18.8 18.3 18.2 17.9 17.7 18 17.9 17. 8 16.5 17.1 18.3 18.1 17. 8
Belgium 11.6 10.4 10.7 11 12 13.4 15.4 15.3 15.9 12.8 14.5 15.2 15 15.1
Bulgaria 45.2 36.7 33.1 34.3 29.2 25.4 27.1 25.1 20.5 11.9 10.7 11.4 8.9 9.1
Czech Republic 31.9 30.1 26.6 25.4 24.7 25.5 23.8 25.3 23.3 22.1 21 20.7 21.8 20.3
Denmark 7.9 8.2 7.9 7.9 9.1 7. 8 8.2 7. 8 8.7 9.2 13 14 12 13.2
Germany 19.2 18.6 18.8 18.4 19 20.3 21.4 21.9 22.2 20.9 22.2 23 23.1 23.5
Estonia 62.7 68.8 69.7 70.9 67. 3 64.6 65.3 56.8 44.7 52.7 54.2 51.5 47 4 4.1
Ireland 3.8 4 2.9 2.5 2.3 1.7 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 1 0.9 1.1
Greece 2.1 1.9 1.6 2.3 1.6 2.5 1.9 2.9 2.7 1.9 2 1.7 1.3 1.2
Spain 7. 2 6.8 5.9 5.7 5.3 4.7 4.6 4.2 4.3 3.6 4.1 4.4 4.5 4.6
France 20.6 19 19.1 18.1 17 16 15.7 15.7 15.9 15 13.5 14.9 15.2 15
Croatia NA 21.2 21.1 21.5 20.4 23.1 24.3 25.2 21.8 20.6 21.2 20.2 19.8 17.4
Italy 11 10.6 9.6 10.4 10.1 9.7 11.4 12.3 11.7 9.6 9.6 12.2 14 13
Latvia 73.5 72.6 70.8 72.5 71.6 70.2 61 58.1 61.3 69.8 61.9 63.8 64.2 60.4
Lithuania 53.4 48.3 47.7 50 48.7 43.9 41.6 41.5 41.9 4 0.1 40.9 41.2 37.7 33.6
Luxembourg 7.9 6.5 5.6 5 5.3 4.1 4.6 5.5 2.9 2.3 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.4
Hungary 28.8 28.3 28.6 27.9 28 25 23.9 20.9 20.6 17.1 19.6 20 20.5 20.5
Netherlands 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.8 4.2 4.4 4.8 5.5 5.4 4.9 4.6 5 5.1 4.9
Austria 30.6 29.6 29.3 28.7 31.4 32.8 33.8 34.8 37.4 36.4 39 39.9 40.8 42.1
Poland 42.5 38.2 37. 2 35.5 33.7 30.8 29.4 26.4 24 19.4 19.4 20.5 18 17
Portugal 7.6 6.7 6.9 7 5.3 5.4 5.1 5.3 6.1 5.7 6.1 6 6.8 5.9
Romania 49.1 43.1 34.4 30.4 27. 8 21.7 19.4 18.9 19 19.4 23.5 28 24.2 21.9
Slovenia 28.1 27 30 30 25.9 22.7 21.8 20.8 17. 8 16 17.7 18.6 17.9 19.3
Slovakia 41.7 42.4 40.9 37. 5 34.3 29.5 30.9 25.5 23.4 19.6 22 20.9 19.8 21.4
Finland 24 24.4 23.2 24.5 23.8 23.3 27.1 25.9 25.7 24.1 24.8 25.8 26.6 27. 8
Sweden 35.3 35.7 34.4 35.5 36.1 36 35.8 36.4 35.1 36.8 39.3 38.2 39.7 38.2
United Kingdom 9.8 10.6 10.2 10.1 12.2 11.7 11.7 11.1 11.6 12.1 11.2 12 11.9 13.2
Note:  Cyprus and Malta do not have a rail network.
Source:  Eurostat.
67 Annexes Annex VRail freight modal share (inland freight) in the five Member States visited 
(2000  to 2013)
PolandEUFranceEU
GermanyEU
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 200045.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.02013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 200025.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
(a) (a) 
68 Annexes Annex V
SpainEUCzech RepublicEU
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.035.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 20002013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Source:  European Court of Auditors based on Eurostat data.
69 Annexes 
Case study on the cross‑border section between Spain and France (rail freight 
corridor 6 Mediterranean)
Out of 18 projects selected by the Court for a review, two are located on rail freight corridor 6 between Barce -
lona (Spain) and Perpignan (France).
Every year, around 90 million tonnes of goods cross the border between France and Spain in heavy goods vehi -
cles (around 19 000 lorries per day), mostly via the west and east coasts. Only 3.1 million tonnes of those goods 
are transported over the Pyrenees by rail per year; this represents around 3 % of the total inland freight traffic 
between these two countries1.
The main objective of the first project on this corridor was to add a third rail to one of the existing tracks to 
allow standard gauge trains to run on the line, and to ensure that the Spanish rail network could operate using 
European standards on this line. The project cost was 61.5 million euros, with an EU contribution of 6.1 mil -
lion euros; it was put into operation in December 2010. However, during 2011 and 2012, the third rail installed 
as part of the project was only used by a maximum of two to three freight trains per day. Since the entry into 
service of a new high -speed line in January 2013 with a similar route, not a single freight or passenger train has 
ever used the third rail.
The other project concerns the new international Perpignan-Figueras railway section between France and 
Spain. The quantitative targets in terms of the number of freight trains and the tonnage of goods transported 
on this section once the project is completed are far from being achieved. The total cost of the project selected 
on this line was 279 million euros, with an EU contribution of almost 70 million euros. In the first 3 years of op -
eration (2011-2013) the annual number of freight trains was 357, 636 and 931 respectively, compared to a target 
of 8 665 freight trains set for the first year of operation (i.e. in 2009) and a target of 19 759 freight trains in 2019. 
In practical terms it means that, on average, fewer than four freight trains used the line per day.
1 European Commission, ‘EU transport in figures’, Statistical Pocketbook , 2014, and Observatorio hispano -francés del tráfico en los Pirineos.Annex VI
Photo 3  — Perpignan-Figueras international section: high potential but scarce 
traffic
70 Annexes Annex VIOur analysis shows that the lack of competitiveness within this section and the resulting underperformance 
was mainly due to problems with the coordination of the investment on both sides of the border. In France, the 
Perpignan -Montpellier line is congested, not equipped with ERTMS, and constrained in many technical param-  
eters, including several level crossings along a stretch of 150 km. The renovation of the line, which is not a prior -
ity for France, is not likely to start before 2030. In Spain, on the Barcelona -Figueras section, a number of ports 
and factories that are important sources and destinations for freight are not yet connected to the rail network 
with the standard gauge. In addition the length of freight trains is limited to around 500 metres instead of 
the European standard of 740 metres, and freight trains are regularly stopped to let passenger trains pass. 
This illustrates that the rail freight corridor concept is still not fully taken into account by the relevant national 
authorities.
71 Reply of  
the Commission
Executive summary
VIII
The Commission considers that performance of the EU programmes should be measured against baseline scenarios. 
As a baseline scenario, the 2001 White Paper highlighted the ‘risk of road haulage enjoying a virtual monopoly for 
goods transport’ in the EU in the future, if no action is taken.
Against this background, the Commission considers that the relative stability in the modal share of railway freight 
transport is a moderate success, especially taking into consideration the restructuring of the economies of the cen -
tral and eastern European Member States resulting in the decrease of the share of most tonne -km oriented tradi -
tional industries. Moreover, the Commission is confident that with the actions recently undertaken the modal share 
of rail freight will increase in the years to come.
The problems identified and described by the Court in this report are partially due to the fact that the competition 
is not based on a level playing field (internalisation of external costs). Also, the effects of the policy can be meas -
ured in the medium to long term; as such, more time is needed.
IX
The Commission would like to point out that the projects examined by this audit delivered substantial time -savings.
X
The Commission would like to point out that the significant investments in rail have helped to reduce the decline in 
the market share of rail.
XI
The Commission is confident that full implementation of the Directive 2012/34/EU and the adoption of the 4th Rail -
way Package as proposed by the Commission will contribute towards achieving the target of the Single European 
Railway Area.
XII
The Commission is aware of problems encountered by freight operators with regard to traffic management proce -
dures and is in the process of assessing possible solutions to address these problems.
Reply of the Commission 72
XIV
Cohesion funding is not specifically targeted to rail freight as such and may cover all different modes of transport 
with a view to reducing regional disparities. In some Member States in which there is a mixture of less developed 
and more developed regions (like Germany) the focus of ERDF and Cohesion Fund might be in regions which are not 
the areas with priority freight corridors.
The Commission, moreover, considers that important efforts were made to target much needed investments in rail, 
e.g. through the TEN -T projects.
XV
The Commission recalls that maintenance is a national competence and is not eligible for EU funding.
However, the necessity of maintenance is taken into account for funding purposes, as follows:
— During the 2007-2013 period, maintenance costs were considered and included in the CBAs as well as feasibility 
studies for the calculation of the funding gap.
— As regards ESIF Funds, under the 2014-2020 programming period maintenance is regularly included in pro -
grammes as a conditionality in major project applications.
This problem is also addressed in Article 8 of the RECAST Directive 2012/34/EU.
XVI
The Commission agrees that enhancing performance of rail is key in supporting rail freight. It has consequently 
launched the process both with the infrastructure managers (through the Platform of Rail Infrastructure Managers 
in Europe — PRIME) and railway undertakings (through the RU Dialogue) to develop key performance indicators 
with the aim to enhance efficiency and customer focus of the sector. In addition, performance is monitored at the 
level of Rail Freight Corridors and TEN -T core network corridors.
XVII
In terms of the alignment of policy objectives with fund allocations, the Commission would like to point out that the 
methodologies used are such as to ensure that there is a strong focus on key objectives, such as the completion of 
the TEN -T corridors and, therefore, the successful completion of corridors of European added value.
The Commission points out that it applies strict cost benefit methodologies and economic considerations when 
it comes to the evaluation of projects. There are established project evaluation procedures for selecting quality 
projects.
Reply of the Commission 73
Audit scope and approach
17
The Commission considers that most of these issues have been addressed under the 4th Railway Package. In addi -
tion, they are already dealt with in the revised TEN -T Guidelines and the new financing instrument of the CEF.
Observations
19
The Commission considers that performance of the EU programmes should be measured against baseline scenarios. 
As a baseline scenario, the 2001 White Paper highlighted the ‘risk of road haulage enjoying a virtual monopoly for 
goods transport’ in the EU in the future, if no action is taken.
Against this background, the Commission considers that the relative stability in the modal share of railway freight 
transport is a moderate success, especially taking into consideration the restructuring of the economies of the cen -
tral and eastern European Member States resulting in the decrease of the share of most tonne -km oriented tradi -
tional industries. Moreover, the Commission is confident that with the actions recently undertaken the modal share 
of rail freight will increase in the years to come.
20
The Commission considers that the new EU regulations such as the revised TEN -T Guidelines and the new financing 
instrument of the CEF will help to redress the trend and will work towards the achievement of the target in the Com -
mission’s 2011 White Paper.
22
When comparing the rail markets of countries like USA, Australia, China, India and South Africa to the EU, important 
differences concerning the legal framework and technical conditions also need to be taken into account, which 
have an impact on the development of the respective railway markets.
26
Infringement procedures were launched against Poland and the Czech Republic concerning incomplete/incorrect 
transposition of Directives 2001/14/EC and 91/440/EEC; the European Court of Justice delivered its judgments in May 
and July 2013 respectively (cases C-512/10 and C-545/10). Both Member States have since taken measures to ensure 
compliance with EU law, in particular as regards calculation of track access charges. These measures are expected to 
lead to a reduction of the level of access charges in the Member States concerned.
The rail infrastructure (and infrastructure in general) in the Czech Republic and Poland has been suffering from 
almost five decades of under -maintenance and neglect. The Commission is confident that the investments made in 
these Member States will bear fruit in the years to come.
Reply of the Commission 74
28
The Commission would like to point out that the projects examined by this audit delivered substantial time -savings 
(Box 9 ).
32
As the deadline for Member States to transpose the directive was June 2015, the Commission is confident that full 
implementation of the directive will contribute towards achieving the target of the Single European Railway Area.
36
The Commission is confident that full implementation of the Directive 2012/34/EU and the adoption of the 4th Rail -
way Package as proposed by the Commission will contribute towards achieving the target of the Single European 
Railway Area.
40(a)
The Commission notes that the deadline for transposition of Article 13 of Directive 2012/34/EU which has introduced 
a comprehensive set of new rules to address difficulties in accessing terminals and other service facilities, expired 
only in June 2015.
42
The Commission has addressed this through Directive 2012/34/EU and the 4th Railway Package.
Article 56 of Directive 2012/34/EU has considerably extended the powers of regulatory bodies; transposition date 
was only June 2015.
In the context of the negotiations on the 4th Railway Package, a further strengthening of regulatory bodies, includ -
ing an extension of their powers, is being discussed.
45
The Commission is aware of problems encountered by freight operators with regard to the annual scheduling 
process for train paths and is in the process of assessing possible solutions to address these problems. However, it 
needs to be recalled that this process, which is enshrined in Directive 2012/34/EU, is designed to ensure a balanced 
treatment of passenger and freight operators as well as incumbents and new entrants. An annual deadline for sub -
mission of capacity requests facilitates the coordination of conflicting requests and ensures fair and equal treatment 
of all applicants.
55
The Commission considers that while certain measures, such as the harmonisation of operational rules, can be 
expected to have a positive impact more quickly, other measures, in particular those linked to infrastructure 
improvements, will rather have an impact in the medium- to long -term.
Often the governance structure set up in corridors works and has enabled to identify precise issues hampering rail 
freight traffic, particularly cross -border traffic, and to put around the table all the relevant stakeholders to solve 
them.
Reply of the Commission 75
56
The Commission notes that in some fields progress has been made, even for the harmonisation between the differ -
ent Rail Freight Corridors (RFCs) (e.g. common Framework for capacity allocation for all of the 9 RFCs as of timetable 
2016).
In certain areas, the work towards the harmonisation of processes is progressing through projects of RailNetEurope.
The Commission acknowledges the necessity of further harmonisation in this field so that the RFCs can produce all 
their benefits towards the development of rail freight.
57
The Commission considers that the specific situation of each region in Europe (e.g. economic situation, presence of 
big ports, industrial base, quality of the already existing infrastructure, of the last -mile infrastructure) and the differ -
ent business models in different Member States should for example be also taken into account.
62(a)
As regards ERTMS, the Commission has appointed a European Coordinator for the ERTMS deployment who is cur -
rently implementing his Breakthrough programme for ERTMS. This programme consists of five objectives that need 
to be achieved by the end of 2016. The Coordinator will then submit a proposal for the ERTMS Deployment Plan 
(EDP) for 9 Core Network Corridors so that the current EDP for 6 ERTMS Corridors can be repealed. Member States 
should ensure that major part of ERTMS implementation along the Corridors is finalised by 2027, using the financial 
opportunities provided by the ongoing (2014-2020) and future programming period (2020-2027).
The coordinator has concluded what will be implemented by 2020. These data will be then translated into different 
activities converging into a single coherent implementation plan from technical and deployment perspectives.
64
Infrastructure managers have to offer performance schemes to reduce disruptions and delays as part of their charg -
ing schemes in accordance with Article 35 and Annex VI of Directive 2012/34/EU. In addition, contractual agree -
ments between infrastructure managers and states, which establish the level of public compensation to infrastruc -
ture managers, have to specify user -oriented performance targets in the form of indicators and quality criteria, as 
specified in Article 30 and Annex V of Directive 2012/34/EU. These performance targets put pressure on infrastruc -
ture managers to ensure the agreed level of performance, given that non -compliance may result in lower compen -
sation or other form of penalty.
Further, the Commission is working with infrastructure managers in the framework of PRIME on best performance 
benchmarking.
Reply of the Commission 76
66(b)
The key performance indicators (KPIs) for the allocation process have been harmonised in the common Framework 
for capacity allocation applying to all the 9 RFCs, agreed in October 2015. Operations and market development KPIs 
are in the process of being harmonised through a project of RailNetEurope.
67
The Commission is working closely with Eurostat to produce the indicators needed to monitor the White Paper 
goals. The timeliness and quality of indicators will however depend on the availability of Member States data.
Common Commission reply to paragraphs 74 and 75
The objectives of Cohesion policy in the area of transport are to build a sustainable, multi -modal, seamless and 
reliable transport system. As a consequence, Cohesion funding is not specifically targeted to rail freight as such and 
may cover all different modes of transport with a view to reducing regional disparities. In some Member States in 
which there is a mixture of less developed and more developed regions (like Germany) the focus of ERDF and Cohe -
sion Fund might be in regions which are not the areas with priority freight corridors.
The Commission, moreover, considers that important efforts were made to target much needed investments in rail, 
e.g. through the TEN -T projects.
77
It is necessary to underline that EUR 11.3 thousand million have been transferred from the Cohesion Fund to the 
Connecting Europe Facility to be spent in line with the objectives of the CEF regulation, i.e. in most cases on the 
rail projects located on the TEN -T Core Network Corridors; the approval of each individual project submitted by the 
Member States’ authorities is the responsibility of the Commission. Here, the co -financing rates are those applied 
in case of the Cohesion Funds, i.e. up to 85 % in case of rail infrastructure projects. The CEF favours rail projects, as 
only 10 % of the respective national envelopes of the CEF cohesion part may be used for road projects and road 
projects may be co -financed only if they involve a cross -border section.
The existence of a comprehensive transport plan, with a mature project pipeline is an ex ante  conditionality for 
receiving ESI Funds support in the 2014-2020 period. While an overall objective of the plan must be to catalyse 
a transition to a more sustainable transport system, it might well be that — in view of the infrastructure already in 
place and the identified needs — the greatest investment effort might be needed for the road sector.
For 2014-2020, the planning of allocations was done with a view to allowing complementarity between ESIF and the 
CEF, rather than simply comparing percentages. In this respect, an additional EUR 1.1 thousand million in the Czech 
Republic and EUR 3.5 thousand million in Poland were allocated almost exclusively to rail through CEF. This fact 
changes dramatically the comparison: some EUR 2.8 thousand million for the Czech Republic and EUR 10.2 thousand 
million for Poland were allocated to rail.
Furthermore, the Commission considers that the analysis should take into account all transport modes. For example, 
in Poland, for 2014-2020 more funds are allocated to sustainable modes of transport versus road transport.
79
Many of the investments made for rail have significantly benefited in parallel passenger and freight operations in 
the Member States examined.
Reply of the Commission 77
The Commission wishes to highlight that under the TEN -T programme funds were targeted on rail projects and 
on rail cross -border sections in particular. Out of 30 priority projects (PP), 22 concerned rail cross -border sections, 
and PP5 and PP16 specifically targeted rail freight lines. The financing under the TEN -T programme was centred on 
the PP1.
In line with Council decision of 6 October 2006 on Community strategic guidelines on cohesion (2006/702/EC) the 
Commission did not favour freight over passenger modes.
Box 8 — Example of prioritisation of high speed lines: Spain — 2007 ‑2013
While railway investments in Spain in 2007-2013 were mainly devoted to passenger traffic, in 2014-2020 the focus 
has been put on inter -modality, inter -operability and especially freight (see the Spanish Partnership Agreement, 
pp. 145-148). In general, only those projects having the greatest potential impact on growth and jobs will be consid -
ered for co -financing.
Freight railway lines along TEN -T core corridors with international connections (i.e. Mediterranean and Atlantic corri -
dors) will be supported in all types of regions as the expected internal rate of return and the socioeconomic impact 
of these projects is considered very high, including the spillover effects.
In less developed and transition regions (i.e. Extremadura, Andalusia, Castilla -La Mancha and Murcia) some sections 
of high -speed lines will be co -financed provided that they belong to TEN -T networks. Most of these lines will be 
designed for a mixed traffic (passengers and freight).
80  
See Commission reply to paragraphs 74 and 75.
83
The Commission monitors overall investments in rail infrastructure since most of the lines are of mixed use and 
it is difficult to separate monitoring in monetary terms the passenger and freight components of individual 
investments.
In the spirit of the new TEN -T guidelines and the CEF regulation, the Commission aims at streamlining the overall 
coordination and monitoring of projects under TEN -T corridors.
86
The Commission considers that projects should be assessed on their merits based on the project cost–benefit analy -
sis. Increasing the volume of goods is an indicator which does not depend only on the type of investments, but 
also on other macroeconomic factors. Not reaching this result cannot be considered only as a consequence of the 
investments made. Furthermore, there are also other benefits apart from time savings such as increased safety and 
compliance with regulatory requirements (TSI, etc.). In addition, the Commission would like to note that time saving 
relates not only to rail freight but also to travel time for passengers and these should be taken into account for the 
purpose of assessing a project’s performance. Lastly, the full added value for freight transport might only material -
ise after the whole section/corridor is completed.
1 In case of the five Member States sampled, to provide some examples of this focus, the financing was awarded to the following projects:  
DE: Karlsruhe-Basel with particular focus on the freight traffic with construction of additional tracks for freight only (PP24),  
Emmerich-Oberhausen, key connection to the freight only Betuwe line (PP24); FR: Lyon-Torino (PP3), FR: Perpignan-Figueras (PP3),  
FR: Contournement Nîmes-Montpellier (PP3), ES: Evora-Merida.
Reply of the Commission 78
Box 11 — Examples of delays in project implementation: Poland and Spain
In Spain two projects (Túneles de Pajares-Sotiello and (Sotiello -Campomanes) were supposed to be finalised in 2011.
Concerning Tuneles de Pajares, the geological conditions of the project required a change of the technical project 
which was finished in 2013, instead of 2011.
Concerning Sotiello the instability of the land required emergency works and conditioned the normal implementa -
tion of the works. The project has not yet been finished..
With regard to the project performance and the achievement of the project’s and programme’s objectives, in both 
of the above cases the delays might be needed to ensure successful project finalisation.
88
The share of and the situation of rail freight transport is being currently evaluated at national level in Spain, but no 
figures are currently available. The sector of rail freight transport has traditionally been a very minor percentage of 
the total transport. The inclusion of freight in transport projects has only been a recent development which can be 
observed in the most recent major project2 submitted to the Commission.
89
Under the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF, Member States select projects in accordance with the objective of pro -
grammes negotiated with the Commission. Moreover, the management and control system of those programmes 
should ensures that the projects with high value for achieving the programme’s objectives are selected.
90
The Commission recalls that maintenance is a national competence and is not eligible for EU funding.
However, the necessity of maintenance is taken into account for funding purposes, as follows:
— During the 2007-2013 period, maintenance costs were considered and included in the CBAs as well as feasibility 
studies for the calculation of the funding gap.
— As regards ESIF Funds, under the 2014-2020 programming period maintenance is regularly included in pro -
grammes as a conditionality in major project applications.
91
The Commission is in the process of checking these business plans and indicative infrastructure development strate -
gies required under Article 8 of Directive 2012/34/EU; it needs to be taken into account that infrastructure develop -
ment strategies only had to be published by December 2014.
2 The most recent project including rail freight in Spain is part of the corridor Madrid-Portuguese border, i.e. TEN -T Atlantic Corridor. In this 
project, trains will absorb circa 25 % of the freight traffic in the region (11 million tonnes by train, 43 million tonnes by road). The freight transport 
represents 1.06 % of the income of this corridor.
Reply of the Commission 79
92
Member States decide at national level whether infrastructure managers may charge mark -ups or only costs directly 
incurred for access to the railway infrastructure. If a Member State allows for mark -ups, the infrastructure manager 
has to take into account the principle of ‘market can bear’, which is enshrined in Article 32 of Directive 2012/34/
EU. This rule aims at ensuring that market segments, whose ability to pay is limited (this is often the case for freight 
operators), are not prevented from operating rail transport services as a result of high track access charges.
During the 2007-2013 programming period, the Spanish authorities gave priority to passenger lines, therefore 
investments on freight lines had been reduced accordingly. See also Commission’s reply to paragraph 79 and Box 8.
Conclusions and recommendations
94
The Commission considers that performance of the EU programmes should be measured against baseline scenarios. 
As a baseline scenario, the 2001 White Paper highlighted the ‘risk of road haulage enjoying a virtual monopoly for 
goods transport’ in the EU in the future, if no action is taken.
Against this background, the Commission considers that the relative stability in the modal share of railway freight 
transport is a moderate success, especially taking into consideration the restructuring of the economies of the cen -
tral and eastern European Member States resulting in the decrease of the share of most tonne -km oriented tradi -
tional industries. Moreover, the Commission is confident that with the actions recently undertaken the modal share 
of rail freight will increase in the years to come.
The problems identified and described by the Court in this report are partially due to the fact that the competition 
is not based on a level playing field (internalisation of external costs). Also, the effects of the policy can be meas -
ured in medium to long term; as such, more time is needed.
95
The Commission agrees that these trends are largely the result of regulatory and cost considerations of transport 
companies and road hauliers, and in order for them to be reversed, there needs to be a larger emphasis placed on 
these issues.
The Commission draws attention to the fact that the trends in the share of rail in the freight markets result also from 
the fragmentation of the European rail market into several national segments. The rail freight is most effective for 
medium and long distances which in the case of Europe involves crossing of at least one border (see paragraph 4). 
The fragmented national networks lack common and interoperable rules and standards and create additional costs 
for operators, on top of first/last mile (e.g. changing of locomotives for regulatory reasons and training require -
ments for drivers).
Reply of the Commission 80
96(a)
The Commission has addressed this through the Recast (Directive 2012/34/EU) and the fourth railway package.
Article 56 has considerably extended the powers of regulatory bodies; transposition date was only June 2015.
Article 13 brought substantive improvements of the legal framework concerning access to service facilities and rail 
related services.
In the context of the negotiations on the fourth railway package, a further strengthening of regulatory bodies, 
including an extension of their powers, is being discussed.
96(b)
The Commission is aware of problems encountered by freight operators with regard to traffic management proce -
dures and is in the process of assessing possible solutions to address these problems.
A number of these administrative and technical constraints are being addressed through EU legislation in place or 
to be adopted (e.g. technical pillar of the 4th railway package, deployment of ERTMS) and specifically on the RFCs 
through the setting up of a certain number of specific working groups.
96(c)
The rail freight corridors already strive for transparency of the performance of rail freight services on freight cor -
ridors. In accordance with the regulation, performance indicators have been set at the level of each corridor, are 
being monitored every year and the results are being published.
Recommendation 1
The Commission, as far as it is concerned by it, accepts this recommendation and has taken the necessary measures 
addressing the issue through the Directive 2012/34/EU and the fourth railway package.
Member States now have to address it in
(i) transposing the legislation, in particular Directive 2012/34/EU fully/correctly (deadline for transposition was June 
2015) and
(ii) giving regulators the required resources in accordance with Art. 55(3) and 56(5) of Directive 2012/34/EU.
The Commission will closely monitor the implementation of the directive.
Reply of the Commission 81
Recommendation 2(a)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and steps have already been taken by the Commission towards 
addressing these issues.
For example, as regards the process linked to the establishment of timetables for path allocation, the Commission 
has put in place a regulatory framework through Directive 2012/34/EU which contains provisions setting out dead -
lines and rules to be complied with by infrastructure managers (in particular Articles 43 and following and Annex 
VII). Article 43 of Directive 2012/34/EU provides for a possibility for the Commission to adopt delegated acts amend -
ing the schedule for the timetabling process set out in Annex VII. Depending on the outcome of a future evaluation 
of the implementation of these provisions on the basis of feedback/evidence from the sector, the Commission may 
consider changing this Annex.
Recommendation 2(b)
The Commission accepts the recommendation.
Stakeholders have taken the lead in harmonising in certain areas (e.g. the common Framework for capacity 
allocation).
An evaluation of the RFC regulation will be conducted in 2016 taking into account what has already been done or 
is in the process of being done, and assessing whether there are areas where harmonisation is needed through an 
intervention from the Commission.
Recommendation 3(a)
The Commission accepts this recommendation and considers that these issues are being addressed through the 4th 
Railway Package for which it has made legislative proposals in January 2013.
Recommendation 3(b)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and has already taken steps towards its implementation. As far as 
language requirements for cross -border sections are concerned, the relevant annex of Directive 2007/59/EC is in the 
process of being amended.
The upcoming evaluation of the train driver directive in 2016 will examine whether legislative changes are needed, 
but while assuring an adequate safety level.
Recommendation 4(a)
The Commission accepts the recommendation on monitoring progress towards achieving the 2011 Transport White 
Paper target and partially accepts the recommendation on intermediate targets.
The Commission is working closely with Eurostat to produce the indicators needed to monitor the White Paper 
goals. The timeliness and quality of indicators will however depend on the availability of Member States data.
In the case of future policy papers, the Commission agrees that intermediate targets are in principle desirable and 
will consider the opportunity of setting intermediate targets depending on the scope of the initiative, relevance 
and timeliness of indicators.
Reply of the Commission 82
Recommendation 4(b)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and considers it partially implemented.
Article 56(7) of Directive 2012/34/EU introduced a new obligation for regulatory bodies to consult representatives of 
users of the rail freight and passenger market at least every 2 years. The findings of these consultations are valuable 
input for such evaluation.
Moreover, a satisfaction survey of the users of the RFCs is being conducted once a year, with the results being pub -
lished by the RFCs.
Recommendation 4(c)
The Commission accepts the recommendation.
Regarding RMMS, the Commission has already adopted an implementing act (Commission implementing Regula -
tion (EU) 2015/1100 Of 7 July 2015) which obliges Member States to fulfil their reporting obligations and therefore 
considers it already implemented.
Regarding rail freight corridors, the Commission considers it partially implemented. A degree of harmonisation is in 
the process of being partly achieved through a project of RailNetEurope. Through an evaluation of the RFC regula -
tion, the Commission will assess the need for further harmonisation in this area, taking account of the outcome of 
RailNetEurope project.
Recommendation 5
The Commission accepts the recommendation and agrees on the principle to promote level of playing field.
98
Under the 2014-2020 MFF, the newly created CEF instrument focuses almost entirely on projects with clear European 
added value, in particular cross -border rail projects and the ERTMS deployment. Focusing on cross -border sections 
and interoperability will necessarily be beneficial for rail freight services, since rail freight is particularly competitive 
for medium and long distances.
The Commission considers that efforts were made, and will continue to be made, to target rail investments, e.g. in 
the case of the TEN -T Programme.
98(a)
With regards to ESIF Funds, comparing only rail to road in only three out of 28 Member States does not consider that 
building a comprehensive, sustainable, multi -modal, seamless and reliable transport system requires investments in 
all modes of transport: rail, maritime, aviation, inland waterways, and roads, as well as in multi -modal infrastructure.
Striking the right balance is not an exercise of allotting predefined shares of the available budget to one transport 
mode or another. Instead, the analysis must take into account the needs of various Member States and regions in 
different modes of transport.
Reply of the Commission 83
The TEN -T programme, the main instrument of EU funding to implement the EU transport strategy, specifically 
targeted rail which was the main beneficiary of the funds. 56% of the available funds were allocated to rail projects 
topped up with additional 7% spent on ERTMS implementation, compared to only 4% allocated to traditional road. 
This approach is continued under the newly created CEF.
98(b)
The TEN -T programme specifically targeted rail projects, cross -border sections in particular (see paragraph 77). 
Moreover, the projects aiming at developing mixed or High Speed lines were beneficial for freight, also by creating 
additional capacity on conventional and other parallel lines. It is also methodologically difficult to separate in mon -
etary terms the impacts of investments targeting mixed lines made on freight or passenger traffic.
It should be also noted that several new governance tools have been introduced by the TEN -T regulation for the 
implementation of the TEN -T core network (Core Network Corridors, European Coordinators, Corridor Work Plans, 
Corridor Fora). These tools help better monitor TEN -T implementation and the identification of a project pipeline 
that serves the EU policy objectives, among which rail freight development takes a central part.
98(c)
The Commission considers that rail infrastructure is a key element but has to be accompanied by necessary opera -
tional and legislative measures. The 4th Railway Package will bear fruit only when fully implemented. Moreover, the 
market conditions (economic crisis) did not favour development of rail freight services in the past few years.
See replies to paragraphs 25 and 84.
98(d)
The Commission points out that maintenance is Member States’ competence and is not eligible for EU funding in 
general.
See the Commission’s reply to paragraph 88.
100
The new TEN -T and CEF frameworks aim at making a better use of EU funds by targeting projects with high EU 
added value such as rail cross -border links and addressing bottlenecks, rail connections to ports and airports, in 
alignment with technical standards established by TEN -T regulation. The Commission negotiates with the Member 
States operational programmes under ERDF and CF in order to achieve the main objective of Cohesion Policy, i.e. 
cohesion between better developed and less developed regions. The Commission considers that the regulations 
for the 2014-2020 period further facilitate this process by establishing ex ante  conditionalities and performance 
framework.
Reply of the Commission 84
Recommendation 6(a)
The Commission accepts this recommendation and is already implementing it. In the new regulations for the 2014-
2020 cohesion policy framework, it has introduced an ex ante conditionality in order to ensure that the conditions 
necessary for effective support are in place. These include a long -term strategic plan which should be established 
prior to any funding decision.
The Commission shares the view that rail infrastructure planning should be carried out in the context of overall 
planning of transport networks. This is made clear in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the Trans -European Transport Net -
work. Objectives of the trans -European network include ‘the interconnection and interoperability of national 
transport networks’, the ‘optimal integration and interconnection of all transport modes’ and ‘the efficient use of 
infrastructure’.
In this context, the Commission considers that optimum performance also requires long -term strategic planning at 
national level and that cross -border effects should be taken into account.
The CEF financing will be centred on projects with high EU added value. The funds allocated to TEN -T projects 
under the newly created CEF will be available only for projects which comply with the TEN -T regulation, i.e. allow -
ing for 100 km/h speed, 22.5 t axle load and 740 m train length. The result will be the improvement of conditions 
for rail freight operations. Moreover, CEF will focus on the access to the freight generators aiming at developing the 
intermodality, in particular the rail connections to ports. There is also a specific priority targeting the multimodal 
platforms (rail–road terminals). The Commission will make sure that they best target the needs of the European rail 
network.
Recommendation 6(b)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and considers it is partially implemented.
The Commission already monitors how much EU funding is invested for rail freight projects in the context of the CEF 
implementation.
Taking into consideration the mixed use of most of the lines, the Commission will monitor the amounts of funds 
spent on projects which do not target passenger traffic only (high speed lines).
Recommendation 7(a)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and considers it is partially implemented.
TEN -T/rail freight corridors, TEN -T Guidelines, pre -identified sections and priorities in the CEF regulation, TSIs as well 
as ex ante  conditionality No 7.2 requirement establish a Comprehensive Transport Plan framework which facilitates 
the process of developing rail corridors in a way which is not fragmented.
The newly created CEF targets in particular the Core Network Corridors. The maximising of effects of actions under -
taken at EU and national level is the spirit of the new TEN -T regulation. This underpins the funding strategy for CEF. 
The TEN -T regulation envisages creation of an EU -wide network. The new legislation strengthened the mandate of 
the European Coordinators whose tasks include, among others, the facilitation of a coordinated implementation of 
the multimodal core network corridors. This will allow exploiting potential synergies and complementarity between 
actions undertaken at national levels and within different programmes. This approach is believed to minimise the 
risk of a patchwork of projects resulting in a development of a fragmented network.
Reply of the Commission 85
Recommendation 7(b)
The Commission accepts the recommendation and, insofar it is concerned by it, considers it as implemented with 
the existence of the cost–benefit analysis (CBA) framework.
The CBA is a necessary element of all CEF application for funding. The CBA uses traffic forecasts to quantify financial 
and economic advantages of a given project, and these involve freight traffic for mixed lines as well. Only projects 
with a positive CBA receive CEF funding.
In the selection process, the Commission will pay due attention to the projects with the highest EU economic added 
value which in most cases involves rail freight traffic.
With regard to ESIF, the Commission would like to point out that the mentioned elements must be included in the 
information provided for the approval of major projects (in particular the feasibility study and the cost–benefit 
analysis). Legal references: for 2007-2013, Article 40 of the Regulation (EC) 1083/2006; for 2014-2020, Article 101 of 
the Regulation (EU) 1303/2013.
The Commission notes that Member States are also requested to carry out ex ante  funding gap analyses for revenue 
generating non -major projects3.
Recommendation 8
The Commission notes that the first part of this recommendation is addressed to the Member States and accepts 
the second part of the recommendation.
The Member States, with the support of their regulatory bodies, should, in the framework of the business plans and 
indicative infrastructure development strategies set by the infrastructure managers, ensure the proper maintenance 
of the rail network (including last -mile facilities), in particular in rail freight corridors.
3 Guidance note on Article 55(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, COCOF 08/0012/03.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
 one copy:  
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
  more than one copy or posters/maps:  
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
The promotion of more efficient and sustainable methods 
of transport, in particular rail freight, has been a  key part 
of EU policy for the last 25 years. The EU budget 
contributed some 28 billion euros to funding rail projects 
between 2007 and 2013. This report asseses whether the 
EU has been effective in enhancing rail freight transport 
and whether EU rail freight transport performance has 
improved in terms of modal share and volume transported 
since 2000. We found that, overall, rail freight transport 
performance remains unsatisfactory, while the position of 
road transport has grown further.
EUROPEAN
COURTOF AUDITORS