REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Fourth report on monitoring development of the rail market
Date: 2014-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, free competition, market access, rail transport, transport infrastructure, transport market













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0353 - EN











|



52014DC0353

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Fourth report on monitoring development of the rail market /* COM/2014/0353 final */









REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Fourth report on monitoring development of
the rail market
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
1............ Evolution of internal
market in rail services. 4
1.1......... The objectives of the
White Paper on Transport (2011) 4
1.2......... The passenger rail
market today. 5
1.3......... Evolution of the
passenger rail market 8
1.4......... The rail freight market
today. 9
1.5......... Evolution of the rail
freight market 9
2............ Evolution of the
internal market in services to be supplied to railway undertakings. 11
2.1......... Stations. 11
2.1.1...... Stations across the
European Union. 11
2.1.2...... Ownership and management 12
2.1.3...... Access to station
facilities by railway undertakings. 14
2.1.4...... Quality of services in
stations (including accessibility by persons of reduced mobility) 14
2.2......... Freight terminals,
marshalling yards and storage facilities. 16
2.3......... Maintenance facilities. 18
2.4......... Other facilities: port
access, relief and refuelling facilities. 19
3............ Framework conditions. 20
3.1......... Infrastructure charging. 20
3.1.1...... Infrastructure charges for
freight services. 20
3.1.2...... Infrastructure charges for
intercity services. 21
3.1.3...... Infrastructure charges for
suburban services. 23
3.1.4...... Infrastructure charges –
overall rankings. 23
3.2......... Capacity allocation. 24
3.3......... Investments made in
infrastructure. 27
3.4......... Developments as regards
prices. 28
The annexes of this report are found in SWD(2014)
186
INTRODUCTION
According to Article 15 (4) of Directive
2012/34 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012
establishing a single European railway area (Recast)[1], the Commission has to
report every two years to the European Parliament and the Council on:
a)      The evolution of internal market in rail services; and
b)      services to be supplied to railway undertakings (Annex II to
Directive 2012/34/EU) 
c)      The framework conditions 
d)     The state of the Union railway network
e)      The utilisation of access rights
f)       Barriers to more effective rail services
g)      Infrastructure limitations
h)      The need for legislation
According to Article 15 (3) of Directive
2012/34/EU, the Commission has to monitor the “use of the networks” and the
“evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector”, in particular in
respect of:
·                        
Infrastructure charging
·                        
Capacity allocation
·                        
Investments made in infrastructure
·                        
Developments as regards prices
·                        
Quality of rail transport services
·                        
Rail transport services covered by public
service contracts
·                        
Licensing
·                        
Degree of market opening
·                        
Harmonisation between Member States
·                        
Development of employment and related social
conditions 
Directive 2012/34/EU has broadened the
scope of the Commission's regular reporting as compared to the previous
Directive[2]
which now includes the evolution of the internal market of service facilities
and framework conditions such as investments in infrastructure, price
developments, service quality, public service obligations and the development
of employment and related social conditions and that are presented for the
first time in the Rail Market Monitoring Scheme (RMMS) report. The Commission's
earlier reporting and monitoring obligations were covered under Directive
91/440 as amended by Directives 2001/12 and 2004/51 and implemented under
Regulation 91/2003 on rail statistics.
This report is the fourth report on the
development of the rail market and is accompanied by a staff working document SWD(2014) 186] providing all the annexes
containing most of the data supporting the assessments. The previous reports
were published in 2007[3],
2009[4] and 2012[5] and were systematically
accompanied by staff working documents containing the statistical annexes.
Data for this report has been collected
mostly from the Member States through questionnaires ('RMMS questionnaires'
sent in 2011 and 2012) and Eurostat, but has been completed by other sources
such as a Eurobarometer survey (service quality), publicly available railway
fare information, annual financial reports, data for the State aid scoreboard
or data provided by specific stakeholders (e.g. UIC[6], UNIFE[7]…). Data collection in
some of the recently added areas such as the internal market for rail services
is still being discussed in the context of the RMMS implementing act – as a
result, reporting in such areas is still fragmentary.
1.           Evolution of internal market in rail services
1.1.        The objectives of the White Paper on Transport (2011)
The White Paper on Transport (2011)[8] recommends that:
·                        
30% of the increase of  freight transport on
land over 300 km should be carried by rail or waterborne transport by 2030;
·                        
50% of road freight over 300 km should shift to
rail or waterborne transport by 2050;
·                        
The majority of medium-distance passenger
transport should go by rail by 2050.
BOX 1 – MEASUREMENT UNITS IN RAIL TRANSPORT
Passenger transport is mostly measured in
passenger(s) x km which are called passenger-km or p-km. Train-km refers to the
distance actually run by the train.
A train from Paris-Brussels transporting
500 passengers over 300 km will generate 150.000 passenger-km and 300 train-km.
Freight transport uses tonnes x km which
are called tonnes-km or t-km. 
1.2.        The passenger rail market today
Based on a Flash Eurobarometer survey
conducted in 2013[9]
with some 28.000 respondents aged more than 15 years, only 12% of Europeans are
regular users of trains (14% for suburban trains): 6% of Europeans take the
train at least once a week and 6% of them take the train “several times per
month” but 32% of them never take the train, although 83% of Europeans live
within 30 minutes of a train station[10]
(cf. graph 14bis). 
Graph
1- Frequency of rail use – national, regional and international trains - 2013
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 382a on Europeans'
satisfaction with rail services – Annex 2 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014)
186
It is interesting to note that suburban
rail use is much more polarised between a group of heavy users (14%) and
non-users (53%) than conventional trains. The group of heavy users is mostly
composed of youngsters and young commuters[11],
whereas the group of non-users is mostly composed of respondents above 55+ (39%
have never used a suburban train).
Graph
2- Frequency of rail use – suburban trains - 2013
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 382a on Europeans'
satisfaction with rail services – Annex 2 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014)
186
Rail services are to a very large extent
domestic services, which represent 94% of all EU passenger-km. International
services only represent 6% of all passenger-km, but are important in Luxembourg
(30%), Austria (15%), Belgium (13%), France and Latvia (both 11%).
Source: Eurostat
Source: Member States questionnaires, estimations
based on annual reports, UIC and Steer Davies Gleave (Study on 4th railway
package); data for EU and EEA (including Norway) are identical, – Annex 5a of
Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186
In terms of market segments, half of
European railway journeys can be assimilated to regional and suburban
services and half relate to long-distance/intercity or high-speed
services (27% of all pass-km in 2011[12]).
There are important variations across Member States: the UK is, for instance, mostly a commuter market whereas France, thanks to the TGV, is mostly a
long-distance market.
Source: RMMS questionnaires, as well as estimations
(sources: UIC datasets, Amadeus, annual reports of CP, FS and RENFE, White
Paper on Transport assumptions) – no data available for Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia  
High-speed trains almost exclusively
dominate the long-distance market in some Member States: in 2011, in France and Spain respectively, 58% and 49% of total passenger-km were travelled in high-speed
trains. 
Source: EU transport in figures, Statistical
pocketbook 2013, quoting UIC, – Annex 5b of Staff Working Document SWD(2014)
186 – In this graph, high-speed rail transport covers all traffic with
high-speed rolling stock (incl. tilting trains able to run 200 km/h). This does
not necessarily require high-speed infrastructure.
BOX 2 – RAIL MARKET
SEGMENTS
High-speed train
services (e.g. TGV, ICE…) and long-distance conventional train services (e.g.
Intercity), which often (but not always) require seat reservation, compete
mostly against air transport and, to some extent, cars and coaches. High-speed
trains operate (almost always) in dedicated infrastructure – since 1990, high-speed
tracks kilometres have increased 6-fold (from 1024 km to 6872 km in 2009[13]) – and
generally only stop in sizeable urban agglomerations.
Medium-distance/regional train services
(e.g. Inter-Regio) and suburban/commuter train services (e.g. RER, S-Bahn, Cercanias…)
compete mostly with cars and have free seating. Suburban/commuter train
services are often interconnected with metro networks. These services operate
almost exclusively with subsidies and public service contracts and call at a
high number of stations.  Suburban services require very often intensive-frequencies
railway operations (e.g. a train very 5-15 minutes).
1.3.        Evolution of the passenger rail market
As shown in
graph 6, the modal share of rail has been increasing since 2003.
However, despite some progress, the share
of rail travel journeys in the EU remains modest compared to other transport
modes like car and air. The modal share of rail in 2011 has remained stable at
6,2% compared to 2010.
Source: Eurostat – Annex 3 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014)
186 – Data for 2012 is not yet available
Since 1995, rail travel has grown
most compared to other modes in the United Kingdom (+70%), Sweden (+42%), France (+37%) and Belgium (+26%). On the other hand, it has decreased
by more than 60% in Greece, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia and Lithuania (-90%). Overall, the passenger rail modal share has grown by 16% in the EU15
since 1995 (no data is available for EU25) and by 3% in the EU25 since 2000. 
Source: Eurostat
As shown in graph 8 below, domestic rail
passenger services, which represented 94% of all passenger traffic in 2011,
has grown most in Denmark (+15%), Lithuania (+12%), Luxembourg and UK (+9%)
since 2010. Member States like Austria, Italy[14]
and Czech Republic, where there is now competition on domestic long-distance
lines, have also experienced robust growth (6-8% growth). After years of
decreasing rail traffic, Lithuania and Italy have been able to revert to
growth. The decline of railways in several Member States of South-East Europe
resulted from budget restrictions on public service compensations (-38% in Croatia and Greece). 
Source: Eurostat, Member States’ RMMS questionnaires
The European domestic rail passenger market
is evolving in several Member States. There are now one or more new entrant
unaffiliated railway undertakings competing on the long distance
Vienna-Salzburg, Naples-Rome-Milan/Venice/Turin and Prague-Ostrava lines. In
the Rome-Milan route, the transport share of rail has grown from 36% in 2008 to
66% in 2012. In these lines, incumbent railway undertakings have experienced an
increase of traffic (+10% for the Italian incumbent).
International rail services, which
represented 6% of rail passenger traffic in 2012[15], have continued their growth (+25% in the period 2004-2011) by growing
some 2% in 2011 and some 13% in 2012. Between 2010 and 2012, international
rail traffic has grown most in Finland (+42%) thanks notably to the
introduction of high-speed services between Helsinki and St-Petersburg. Growth
has been impressive in several Central and Eastern European Member States and also in Germany (+23%), France (+20%) and Italy (+13%), where the new entrant
Thello has opened night services between Paris and Venice. High-speed services
across the Channel have continued to grow (+5% of international rail traffic in
the UK).
Source: Eurostat, Member States’ RMMS questionnaires
There are signs however that international
passenger traffic is stagnating in important international rail markets like Belgium and the Netherlands, although several companies have started administrative proceedings or
expressed their interest to operate rail services on the London/Paris-Brussels-Köln/Amsterdam
axes. Finally, rail international services in crisis-hit Member States have
taken a toll. TrainOSE, the Greek incumbent, has halted all international
services, while cross-border passenger services have nosedived in Ireland (-78%), Croatia (-75%), Romania (-66%), Bulgaria (-50%), Spain (-24%), Portugal (-13%) and Slovenia (-10%). This could be a sign that subsidised public service
conventional trains operating over very long-distances are not competitive
vis-à-vis other modes, in particular low-cost airlines[16]– the same seems to
have taken place in Italy in the early 2000[17].

1.4.        The rail freight market today
Unlike passenger rail, rail freight is far more international: some 47% of all
tonne-km in the EU were international in 2011 (out of which 9% of all tonne-km
relate to transit). In Belgium, the Netherlands and in the Baltic States, more
than 70% of rail freight is international (originating in Germany and Russia), however, in the UK, only 2% of rail freight is international. In Germany, France and Italy, the other 3 major economies of the EU these percentages reach
respectively 39%, 19% and 50%. Finally, some 85% of the Danish rail freight
traffic is only in transit.
It is also important to underline that
Germany and its rail infrastructure play a central role in rail freight, representing alone 27% of all EU tonne-km, leaving far behind even
the second major European rail freight market, Poland (12%)[18]. Germany is also at the very heart of the EU rail network: it is by far the most transited Member State (28% of all transiting tonnes-km) together with Austria (13% of transiting
tonnes-km). 
1.5.        Evolution of the rail freight market
The share of rail freight among all modes
has remained stable since 1995 and reached 10,2% in 2010, before rebounding to
11% in 2011 and 10.9% in 2012. Rail freight has lagged behind the overall
growth of freight in the EU – rail freight has only grown 5% in tonne-km
since 1995 while the overall growth for all modes has been 22%.
Source: Eurostat– Annex 3 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014)
186
Since 1995,
the rail modal share has grown most in Northern Europe and has fallen in
Southern and Eastern Europe (less so in the Baltic States). Largest growth
rates were recorded in the Netherlands (+76%), Denmark (+71%) and the UK (+66%), but also in Germany, the largest rail freight market in Europe. In spite of a slight
growth in Italy (+ 4%), rail freight has decreased in France (-5%) and Spain (-54%). 
Source:
Eurostat
Since 2007, the year when rail freight
services have been opened to competition at EU level, traffic has continued to
grow strongly in Denmark (+79%), Austria (+15%), UK (+14%), but also in Romania, Ireland, Portugal and Latvia. Although the economic crisis lasted in Romania longer than in Northern Europe, rail freight grew due to high performing non-affiliated
freight operators since 2007.
Intermodal rail freight is growing, but
single wagonload is decreasing. The share of
intermodal rail freight has grown from 15% to 18% between 2007 and 2011
– albeit mostly in Germany, Ireland and Spain. Intermodal rail freight is
stagnating in France and Italy and remains small in Poland and the Baltic States (while growing fast[19]).
On the other hand, the single wagonload appears to be decreasing everywhere[20]
(Eurostat data series are incomplete). In Germany it went down from 39% of all
tonne-km in 2004 to only 26% in 2011. In Poland, it reached only 17% of all
tonne-km in 2010.
The portfolio of transported goods (cf.
graph) has remained stable and remains concentrated in commodities
(agriculture, minerals) or products in their first stages of industrial
processing (basic metals, chemicals)[21].
Coal, mineral ores, petroleum products and chemicals represented 57% of all
tonne-km. Transport of chemical products is the only segment that has grown in
absolute and relative terms since 2007 (+7%). Yet, interestingly this growth
has been concentrated in Germany, Scandinavia and the Baltic States - as
transport of chemicals has declined in Poland and France (- 38%). It is worth
underlining the importance of certain transports in some Member States: the
rail transport of coal in Poland is more important than the rail freight market
of 20 Member States (taken alone).
Source: Eurostat – "Other*"
includes miscellaneous articles (cf. footnote 21)
More than half of the decrease in
traffic in 2008-2012 can be explained by specific segment evolutions. In Germany, the increase of chemical and transport equipment
transport has not compensated important decreases in the rail freight transport
of agricultural products, coke, wood and basic metals. In France, most of the decrease has taken place in chemicals (unlike Germany), basic metals (like Germany) and metal ores, but there has been growth in the transport of grouped goods
(included in the segment "other"). Finally, more than half of the
decrease in Poland, the second largest rail freight market in the EU, derives
from a decrease in the transport of coal.
One also ought to ask whether specialisation
of rail freight in commodities and basic industrial products does not make its
business cycle particularly vulnerable to economic cycles (evolution of
commodity prices), energy policies (choices of specific energy sources) and
inventory management (commodities cost less to inventory than finished
industrial products). Additionally, to be successful, railway freight needs to
move into higher-added value "niches" and increase average transport
distances.
2.           Evolution of the internal market in services to be
supplied to railway undertakings
Information in this field is still
fragmentary. This report focuses on the structures of ownership and management
and reports on problems encountered in the access to those facilities that have
been declared officially.
2.1.        Stations
2.1.1.     Stations across the European Union
There are some 22.000 stations in the EU[22], out of which some 250
are “big stations” that have more than 25.000 travellers/day. The importance of
suburban services, which carry much more passengers, explains that some
small-sized Member States like the Netherlands have more big stations than
Spain or Italy (Luxembourg has for instance one big station). The fact that
some important suburban networks are part or not of the railway network covered
by the Railway directives could also play a role[23].  Urban
decentralisation may also explain why Germany has some 112 big stations,
against some 45 and 38 respectively in the UK and France (with Paris-Nord as
the busiest station in Europe). 
Source: RMMS questionnaires – Annex 6 of Staff Working
Document SWD(2014) 186
Density
of stations on the network would also vary from one Member State to the other. On average, the distance between two stations on the rail network does not
exceed 5 kilometres in Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece and Austria. In   Finland however, this distance goes up to an average of nearly 28 kilometres.

Source: Eurostat, latest data available for length of
lines, EIM, CER, infrastructure managers' network statements, number of
stations per MS as provided in RMMS questionnaires
This indicator does not imply that trains
will necessary stop at all of these stations. Nor does it give the average
distance for European citizens to the nearest station. The latest Eurobarometer
actually reveals that the Member States where the highest share of population
lives less than 10 minutes away from the nearest station are not those with the
highest station density on the network. Luxembourg and Denmark are the two Member States where this proportion is the highest while their average
distance between stations is above the EU-25 average. On the contrary, in Czech Republic and Slovakia, the share of population living within 10 minutes of the nearest
station is around EU-25 average although these two Member States have the
lowest distance between stations. This seems to indicate a discrepancy between
the spread of stations throughout the territory and the population repartition.
Graph 14bis- Population to the nearest station
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 382a on Europeans'
satisfaction with rail services – (telephone interviews of 28.036 EU citizens
above 15 years) – Annex 7 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186
2.1.2.     Ownership and management
In spite of various structures of ownership
of stations (cf. Table 1), in most cases stations are strongly linked to the
incumbent – either through the incumbent holdings (e.g. Ireland and Poland), a subsidiary thereof (e.g. Germany) or the holding’s infrastructure manager
(e.g. Austria, Italy). In many cases, there are complex arrangements of
ownership of stations – where the infrastructure manager owns platforms but the
railway incumbent owns the terminal (e.g. France, Netherlands and Belgium). In other Member States, stations are owned by independent infrastructure managers
(e.g. UK, Spain) or by the national government itself (Portugal, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Bulgaria).
Table 1 – Structures of ownership of stations in Europe
Sources: RMMS questionnaires’ contribution from Member
States, own research for missing information 
(grey background)
Management structures of stations are in
general identical to those of ownership. However, in those Member States whose
national government own stations (Bulgaria, Slovakia, Portugal, Hungary and Luxemburg), management is entrusted to the infrastructure manager[24]. In France, in spite of co-ownership with the French IM RFF, stations are completely managed by
the incumbent (SNCF Gares et Connexions). In the UK, Network Rail owns and
operates the top 14 largest stations while the rest is owned by Network Rail
but operated under lease by the main franchise operator.
In any case, stations are still owned or
managed (or at least partly) by incumbent railway operators in all Member
States except Bulgaria, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and the UK.
2.1.3.     Access to station facilities by railway undertakings
Stations may constitute bottlenecks in
particular where important stations are concentrated (e.g. Italian 8
mega-stations or Paris). NTV, the Italian new entrant in the Rome-Milan
high-speed line has to operate from Rome-Ostiense (instead of Termini) and
Milan-Porta Garibaldi (instead of Centrale). On the other hand, using
peripheral stations can also be part of a business strategy: Ouigo, the
low-cost rail service between Paris-Lyon provides cheaper fares departing from
Marne-la-Vallée (Eurodisney), in the outskirts of Paris.
Ownership and management of stations by
incumbents creates situations of suspicions of conflict of interest or actual
complaints. NTV has filed a complaint to the Italian competition authority
accusing Trenitalia of abuse of dominant position, amongst others as regards
the management of advertising in Italian stations. 
2.1.4.     Quality of services in stations (including accessibility
by persons of reduced mobility)
On average, Europeans are fairly satisfied
with stations (satisfaction rates have slightly increased since 2011). The 2013
Flash Eurobarometer survey estimates that 51% of Europeans have “high” or
“good” satisfaction levels as regards stations, and conversely 49% have
“medium” or “low” levels. Highest levels of satisfaction with stations were
reached in the UK (73%), Ireland (71%) and Luxembourg (70%). The below-average
satisfaction rates are found in Germany (40%), Italy (34%) and Central- and
South-Eastern Europe.
Graph 15 – Satisfaction index of railway stations (2013)
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 382a on Europeans'
satisfaction with rail services – (telephone interviews of 28.036 EU citizens
above 15 years) – Annex 7 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186
According to the same survey, 68% of
Europeans are satisfied with the provision of information about train
timetables and 67% with the ease to buy tickets. Europeans are less positive as
regards cleanliness of stations (57% of satisfaction) and access to
complaint-handling mechanisms (37%). Satisfaction with cleanliness of stations
is highest in Luxembourg, Austria (80%) and the UK (79%). The below-average
satisfaction rates are found in Germany, Italy and Central- and South-Eastern Europe.
Only 37% of Europeans report “high” or
“good” satisfaction levels with all the aspects of accessibility of persons
with reduced mobility. Satisfaction is highest in the UK (61%), Ireland (56%) and France (52%). The below-average satisfaction rates are found in Germany, Italy and Central- and South-Eastern Europe.
Graph 16 – Satisfaction index of accessibility of stations (2013)
Source: Flash
Eurobarometer 382a on Europeans' satisfaction with rail services – (telephone
interviews of 28.036 EU citizens above 15 years) – Annex 7 of Staff Working
Document SWD(2014) 186
More specifically, the majority of EU
citizens are positive for accessibility of ticket offices and vending machines
(51%), but less so with accessibility of platforms (46%) and carriages (42%) ,
and even much less with pre-journey information on accessibility (39%) or
assistance for persons with reduced mobility (37%). Dissatisfaction rates are
very high when citizens themselves are directly concerned (40% dissatisfaction
with accessibility of platforms and 42% as regards accessibility of carriages).
Questions of accessibility are essential to
improve the modal share of rail, in particular in the context of the ageing of
the European population. 34% of all Europeans never using the train cited at
least one accessibility issue as a reason to explain why they do not do so. Rail
appears not to be reaching some 19% of the EU population because of
accessibility issues.
2.2.        Freight terminals, marshalling yards and storage
facilities
Overall, freight terminals, marshalling
yards and storage sidings seem to be mostly owned and managed by incumbents’
holdings (in particular in the important freight markets like Germany, Austria,
Poland, Lithuania, Latvia), except in the UK and the Netherlands – where the
independent infrastructure manager predominantly owns them. In Portugal, Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Slovakia, they are State-owned but managed by the infrastructure
manager. Germany appears to account for the majority of reported freight
terminals.[25]
Table 2 –
Structures of ownership of freight terminals, marshalling yards and storage
facilities in Europe
Sources: RMMS questionnaires’ contribution from Member
States, own research for missing information 
(grey background)
2.3.        Maintenance facilities
Ownership of maintenance facilities remains
in most Member States under the responsibility of the incumbent railway groups,
with the notable exceptions of Romania, the UK and the Netherlands. 
Table 3 – Structures of ownership of
maintenance facilities in Europe
Sources: RMMS
questionnaires’ contribution from Member States, own research for missing
information 
(grey background)
2.4.        Other facilities: port access, relief and refuelling
facilities
The remaining facilities appear to be less
controlled by incumbent railway undertakings and witness a much greater
involvement of private companies. However, in Germany, Ireland, Latvia and Lithuania, these are mostly related to the railway incumbent.
Table 4 – Structures of ownership of
port access, relief and refuelling facilities in Europe
Sources: RMMS
questionnaires’ contribution from Member States, own research for missing
information 
(grey background)
3.           Framework conditions
3.1.        Infrastructure charging
The “main” infrastructure managers (cf.
Part 3.2) have collected from railway undertakings[26] an estimated € 15,7 billion  of infrastructure charges in 2012 (up
by 3% compared to 2011) based on financial accounts[27]. Infrastructure charges appear to have represented 41% of all of
the “main” infrastructure manager’s revenues (public funds appear to have represented
48% - cf. Part 3.2). 
BOX 3 – INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGING AND RAIL MARKET SEGMENTS
Railway undertakings pay "infrastructure charges" to
infrastructure managers for the use of rail infrastructure. Infrastructure
charging impacts rail freight, intercity and suburban services differently.
Rail freight is reputedly the most sensitive to variations of track access
charges. Track access charges also have an impact on the cost structure of
intercity services but only marginally on the final fare. Finally, as far as
public service obligations are concerned (whose rail fares are generally
regulated anyway), the level of track access charges is embedded in the
financial architecture of the railway system.
3.1.1.     Infrastructure charges for freight services
As shown in the graph hereunder, the
average track access charges in 2014 for a 1000 tonne freight train range between
1.60 €/train-km and 3.40 €/train-km, except in the Baltic States and Ireland.
In the Baltic States, infrastructure managers attract significant hinterland
traffic from Russia, which operates over very long distances and has a higher
average train mass. Networks in Europe's periphery tend to have very low or, in
case of Ireland, very high charges. The same holds for the smallest networks,
where border crossing problems are prevalent and therefore freight trains
cannot pay high charges.
Source: RMMS questionnaires - no data for Norway; *= for France and Italy, data refers to 2013, as these Member States did not provide data
for 2014. – Annex 8 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186
Although rail freight reputedly has
difficulty to bear “mark-ups” because of its narrow margins, freight trains
seem to pay more for access to tracks than passenger trains - the median
of all the Member States’ average track access charge for freight is higher
than those of intercity and suburban services[28], even when Ireland and
the Baltic States are excluded from the calculation[29]. Finally, it is
interesting to note that completely separated networks have generally lower
infrastructure charges[30].

The reported freight track access charges
for 2014 have decreased in Bulgaria (–36%), Czech Republic (-7%) and the Netherlands (-1%) and have remained stable in 8 Member States (hence decreasing de facto[31]). On the other hand,
they have substantially increased in Poland (+13%) and Sweden (+6,8%). With the exception of Poland and the Baltic States' networks, the process
of a certain levelling out of charges across Member States continues.
In some cases increases have been specific
to some segments: in Germany, in the context of increased congestion, track
access charges of feeder lines for freight trains with speeds between 50-100
km/h increased 12%, although the average freight track charge seems only to
have increased by 2% (hence in line with inflation) in 2014 compared to 2013.
Comparing the evolution of the European[32] average track-access
charge for freight suggests a steady decrease over the last years (-28% between
2008 and 2014). More interestingly, the standard deviation – that is the
dispersion of the values from the average – has dropped from 2.26 to just 1. In
other words, the different national track-access charges seem to be
increasingly converging towards the European average, which is helpful in the
context of the development of a Single European Railway Area for freight with
not only lower but standardized charges too.
Graph
17bis – Convergence of freight track access charges
3.1.2.     Infrastructure charges for intercity services
As shown in the graph
hereunder, the average track access charges in 2014 for a 500 tonne intercity
train also vary substantially: running an intercity train in Germany or France
(and Belgium) costs on average the double of that in Italy or Spain (which also
have high-speed networks) and 5 times more than in the UK, Czech Republic or
Sweden. Networks with high speed lines (BE, DE, FR, AT, IT, ES) can be found at
the "expensive" end of the scale, together with the Baltic States and
  Ireland.
Source: RMMS
questionnaires; *= for France and Italy, data refers to 2013, as these Member
States did not provide data for 2014.**= for Spain, average track access charge
for high-speed trains running on the network with speed limited at 260km/h – no
data for Norway - – Annex 8 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186
The reported intercity
track access charges for 2014 have increased in several Member States – in
particular in Poland (+43%), Austria (+23%), Spain (+14%) and Sweden (+8,4%,
albeit from a very low base). In Austria, the increase of 23% is based on a
high-speed surcharge, which has been rejected by the Austrian regulator on 27
September 2013, further to a complaint from the new entrant Westbahn, but is
now being appealed by ÖBB Infrastruktur before the Austrian High Administrative
  Court.
Finally, as far as the
evolution of track access charges for intercity trains is concerned, these have
remained stable, but their dispersion has increased.
3.1.3.     Infrastructure charges for suburban services
As shown in the graph
hereunder, the average track access charges in 2014 for a 140 tonne suburban
train are skewed. French suburban track access charges in 2013 are above
€ 10 train-km, while in 20 Member States they are all below € 2
train-km. German suburban track access charges are also well above those of most
Member States (yet in France they are twice as high as German ones). This
situation reflects the structure of financing of railways in France (where
regions pay track access charges for regional trains under public service
obligations (PSOs) directly to the infrastructure manager, which in turn pays
the main railway undertaking SNCF to provide maintenance services on the
infrastructure) and Germany (where regional authorities provide PSO subsidies
that include means to pay track access charges). Similarly, track access
charges for suburban rail services are lowest in the UK and Finland.
Source: RMMS
questionnaires No data for Norway; *= for France and Italy, data refers to
2013, as these Member States did not provide data for 2014 - – Annex 8 of Staff
Working Document SWD(2014) 186
As far as suburban track access charges are
concerned, they seem to have remained stable (slight decrease), but their
dispersion has increased.
3.1.4.     Infrastructure charges – overall rankings 
Overall, track access charges are on the
one hand the lowest in Denmark and Sweden and on the other hand the highest in Germany, the most transited network in Europe, and Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which have rail
networks rather isolated from the core of Europe[33]. To better reflect
market structure, it might be useful and necessary in the future to further
refine this analysis and distinguish between regional intercity services and
high-speed services (instead of a bulk analysis for intercity trains). Last but
not least, the fact that some Member States are well ranked in terms of low
level of charges has to be analysed with due care – Member States are under the
obligation under Directive 2012/34/EU to adequately fund their infrastructure
(low track access charges explain why the UK opts for significant investment
grants).
Graph
20 – Lowest TAC – rankings for the 3 segments
Source: RMMS questionnaires - No data for Norway; *= for France and Italy, data refers to 2013, as these Member States did not provide data for 2014. **= for
  Spain, average track access charge for high-speed trains running on the
network with speed limited at 260km/h.
Infrastructure charging
appears to be suffering from 3 main problems:
-       
Important transit networks placed in the centre
of the European rail system or carrying hinterland traffic levy higher charges
than smaller and peripheral networks. This situation prevails for both freight
and passenger trains. It hampers the integration of national rail systems,
whereby the high costs of interoperability exacerbates the conditions of cross
border traffic.   
-       
Track access charges in the East of the Union
remain higher for freight than for (suburban) passenger transport; which from
an economic point of view, suggests an insufficient level of compensation for
services under public service obligations, whereby infrastructure managers could
be recouping the resulting revenue losses through higher charges for freight
services. As a result, rail freight traffic could be becoming less competitive
than road and the railway undertakings cannot generate the funds they would
need for renewing their wagon fleet.
Finally, it has not
been possible to usefully take advantage of data requests as regards stations
and facilities charges, traction current and diesel, as Member States' data
collection has been rather piecemeal. Station and terminal charges would
account for a significant part in the total infrastructure charges where trains
travel short distances and stop frequently, in some Member States they account
for more than half of total infrastructure charges. Market segments that
require intensive use of facilities, such as open access regional passenger
trains and single wagon load, display the least intensive level of competition.

3.2.        Capacity allocation
BOX 4 – CAPACITY ALLOCATION
Infrastructure managers allocate path
access rights to railway undertakings every year based on the requests made by
the latter. Infrastructure managers also get ad hoc path requests, in
particular from rail freight companies who cannot predict their services one
year in advance. Path requests can be rejected if there is congestion.
Productivity of railway track varies between
Member States: At one extreme there are the dense networks of the Netherlands and the UK, under strong pressure of commuter services, followed by Germany, Austria and  Belgium, and at the other extreme, the relatively under-used rail networks of Baltic States and South-Eastern Europe. There are four times more trains-km per km of track[34] in the Netherlands than in Bulgaria, Romania and Estonia. 
Source :
Eurostat, UIC, RMMS (Bulgaria) - – Annex 9 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186
BOX 5 – CONGESTION OF
RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE
Services under
PSO generally have pre-reserved paths, as they require very intensive
frequencies throughout the day (in particular suburban trains).   High-speed
trains operate (almost always) in dedicated infrastructure and generally only
stop in sizeable urban agglomerations. Freight trains operate in many instances
with paths that are allocated ad hoc.
For each railway
line, there is a theoretical maximum level of trains ("maximal
capacity"). However, the difference between the real capacity and the theoretical
capacity results from a series of trade-offs like maintenance works, stopping
patterns, conflicting junction movements (trains at switches), rolling stock
mixes and off route constraints. The shape of rail networks also plays an
important role: trains are more easily rerouted in mesh networks (e.g. Germany) than in star-shaped networks (e.g. France, Spain) 
The European rail networks are
predominantly used by passenger trains (78% of all train-km), although there
are variations in terms of types of services between Member States. Trains
running on the intensely used networks of the UK and the Netherlands, but also in Ireland and Luxemburg, are mostly passenger trains. Trains in the sparsely
used networks of the Baltic States will mostly be freight trains. 
Source:
Eurostat, DB, ISTAT, INSEE – situation in 2011; EU average excludes DK, HU and
GR for which no data was found
Only 5 EU Member States (Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Romania and the UK) and Norway have declared part of their
infrastructure to be “congested” according to their responses to the RMMS
questionnaire. In total 1324 km of lines[35] 
(0,6% of the whole EU lines) have been declared congested and the greatest
bottleneck appears to be located in absolute terms in Germany (399 km), but
Denmark and Romania have important bottlenecks. 
Most Member States have opted for the
prioritisation of PSOs (cf. table 5), services with direct value for society
and high frequency services – which often in practice cover mostly commuter
services. EU market access law allows for the prioritisation of path
allocations in favour of services with value for society, PSOs and
international rail freight services. France has not reported any prioritisation
of rail services in the context of the RMMS. This prioritisation covers more
than 85% of all train-kms in the Netherlands, the UK, Luxembourg and Ireland (cf. graph 23).
Table
5 – Type of priorities in path allocation
Source: RMMS questionnaires
Source: RMMS questionnaires
Finally, a first attempt to take stock of
the quantity of rejected paths, suggests that France (4,1 %) and Poland (1,3 %) are experiencing the largest numbers of path rejections. In France, which
has not established service priorities, most rejections have actually concerned
local and regional services (2,3% of all path requests of local and regional
services, which represented 42% of all rejections), but the segment most hit
have been domestic and international freight (18% and 13% of path rejected
respectively). Path rejections have also been reported in Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Hungary (all less than 0,1%).
3.3.        Investments made in infrastructure
The total amount of reported State
grants for rail infrastructure managers varies according to various sources
from which it can be estimated (financial accounts of infrastructure managers,
State aid scoreboard and RMMS questionnaire on the compensation of multi-annual
contracts) and the gaps in data series, but remains overall around € 18-21
billion in 2012. 
All but 7 Member States (AT, CZ, EE, FI, GR, LV and PL) have concluded multi-annual
contracts with their infrastructure managers. Such contracts cover an
equivalent of 73% of the entire EU rail infrastructure and they last on average
5 years (in Spain they last for 2 years, whereas in Luxembourg, the multi-annual contract extends as long as 2024). There’s a wide variety of
performance indicators.  It is interesting to note that several Member States in Central and South-Eastern Europe use “train speed” as a performance incentive
whereas many congested networks (the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium) use punctuality or delays as performance indicators. 
As illustrated in Annex 10b of the Staff
Working Document SWD(2014) 186 accompanying this report, in terms of
investments in the network, slightly less than € 29 billion appear to
have been invested in the conventional network in 2012 (some 7% more than 2011)
and some € 34,5 billion in the whole rail network (including high-speed).
As far as the conventional network is concerned, the shares of maintenance
(29%), enhancement (36%) and renewal (35%) appear to be roughly
equal in 2012 (slightly less so in 2011, where renewals reached 39%). 
BOX 6 – MAINTENANCE, ENHANCEMENT AND RENEWAL
There are varying definitions of
'maintenance', 'enhancement' and 'renewal'. However, broadly speaking,
'enhancement' covers in general the extension and modernisation of
infrastructure through for instance new technologies (e.g. ERTMS, replacing level
crossings with underpasses or overpasses),   'renewal' covers the replacement
of assets putting the infrastructure back in the condition of when it was new
(e.g. replacing sleepers, ballast or rails, renewing a bridge) and
'maintenance' refers to actions that ensure the functioning and extend the life
time of existing assets (e.g. grinding, tamping, pruning trees and shrubs at
the track side).
Finally, railway-related projects financed
by EU funds, either under TEN-T or structural and cohesion funds, have amounted
to some 22 billion EUR through the period 2007-2013, hence some 3
billion EUR/year, representing some 2% of the EU annual budget.
The total EU funding for railway
infrastructure under the TEN-T 2007-2013 framework programme allocated by
the end of 2013 reached some 4.4 billion EUR for rail (including ERTMS),
corresponding to 65% of all TEN-T funds allocated by the end of 2013. 8
Member States (IT, FR, DE, AT, ES, SE, BE and DK) attracted 87% of all TEN-T
funding for rail during the period 2007-2013, whilst the remaining 19 Member
States absorbed 587 million EUR (hence each of them absorbed less than 110
million EUR).
Graph
24a – Allocated TEN-T funding for rail per Member State by the end of 2013
Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency
(INEA) - *Member States with less than 100 million EUR of TEN-T funding (taken
individually – these Member States have totalled 587 million EUR of funds
allocated to them).
Most of
the funding of rail projects between 2007 and 2012 took place through the
structural and cohesion funds (17 billion EUR). The major recipients have been Italy, Poland, Spain, the Czech Republic and Hungary (all in the range of 2 billion EUR or more).  
Source: European Commission, DG REGIO
As a
result, for the period 2007-2012, rail projects selected for EU funding were
concentrated in Italy, Spain, Poland and the Czech Republic. Member States like
 Denmark, Sweden and the UK remained largely aside of project funding.
Graph
24c – Earmarked EU funding for selected rail and ERTMS projects, 2007-2012
(million EUR)
Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency
(INEA), European Commission, DG REGIO
3.4.        Developments as regards prices
Nominal prices for railway services have
increased by 4% in 2012 compared to 2011, based on the harmonised consumer
price index (HCPI) – which includes urban transport. Major increases took place
in Central and South-Eastern Europe (in Slovakia, the increase reached 35%). In
  Sweden, prices have decreased by 1%.
Source:
Eurostat
These aforementioned variations are part of a similar trend. Since
2005, the reference year for the HCPI, rail prices have been increasing by more
than 50% in most Southern- and Central-Eastern Europe. In the UK and Italy, they have increased by more than 40% in nominal terms[36].
On the other hand, in Sweden, rail fares have increased only by 3,7% in nominal
terms.
Source:
Eurostat
However, rail fares since 2005 have
increased less than other modes of transport. In fact, in the EU27 rail fares
have increased by 0,15 percentage point less than transport prices
overall. This is particularly important as regards Sweden and the UK, where transport prices have increased by 17 and 15 percentage points more than rail
prices. On the other hand, in Southern- and Central-Eastern Europe, the high
rail price increases have overtaken the price increases of other modes. In Germany, rail price increases have been in line with transport prices increases.
Source: Eurostat
Rail fares have grown in line with the
prices of the operation of transport equipment, but it is interesting to note
that since 2005 the price of fuel has increased by 12 percentage points more
than rail fares. However, in Portugal and several Central- and South-Eastern
Member States, rail fares have increased more than fuel prices (with extremes
of 50 percentage points like in Latvia). In most "old" Member States (and Poland), rail fares increased less than fuel prices. In Belgium and Sweden, fuel has increased by more than 30 percentage points more than rail fares.
Source: Eurostat
Beyond this macro-economic outlook, it is
necessary to recall that the variation of fares greatly depends on the
structure of financing of the railway market. Public service obligations normally
have regulated prices, whereas commercial services have unregulated prices. In
some Member States, the public service obligations cover the entire territory (cf.
infra). This being said, in the UK, which falls in this category, unregulated
prices co-exist with the PSO regulated prices. In the Netherlands, the incumbent NS appears to be free to set fares. Finally, it is important to
underline that most long-distance and international services are commercial
services (cf. infra).
Rail fares in some commercial lines can
vary strongly in relative terms throughout the EU and one should underline
that, from a consumer perspective, day returns in some routes remain costly,
even if sometimes fidelity rail cards can halve fares[37] (cf. infra). Business
class same-day returns in the Paris-London, Madrid-Barcelona, Cologne-Munich
have been found to cost around 400 EUR, based on a price survey made by
Commission services in February 2013[38].
Similarly, booking a weekend trip 2 weeks in advance between Paris and London can still cost 260 EUR and an immediate departure from Madrid to Barcelona can cost
173 EUR. The fares of railway companies in commercial lines are also influenced
by competition of other modes (air and road transport). It also appears that in
some lines like London-Paris the vast majority of fares are reserved at lower
prices with reservations taking place between 6 weeks and 4 months in advance
or more, but at the same time, it is unclear if demand is influencing the
booking times or if pricing structures are ultimately influencing demand.
Finally, according to German authorities, the overall fares in Germany would fluctuate between 0,18 and 0,66 EUR/km, notably because of the effects
of fidelity cards.
The average day return business class fare
in February 2013 varied from 0,13 EUR/km on the Prague-Ostrava line (where 3
companies are competing against each other) up to 1,81 EUR/km on the
Paris-London line. Similarly, leisure fares[39]
evolved in a similar fashion from 0,09 EUR/km on the Prague-Ostrava line till
0,86 EUR/km on the Paris-London line. Interestingly, Ouigo – SNCF low-cost
service from Paris’ suburb of Marne-la-Vallée – and the Italian high-speed
operators were the cheapest high-speed services at around 0,25 EUR/km, 
half the price of the TGV and ICE services in France and Germany (0,40/0,45 EUR/km),
consequently well below international services in the PBKA[40] square or France-Germany
lines, where no competition has yet materialised (0,60 EUR/km).
Source:
Commission’s services price research and own calculations – cf. annexed data,
data collection on 19 February, 8 March and 1st April 2013,– Annex 11 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014)
186
For public service obligations, it is
useless to compare fares, as these are regulated. It is more useful to look at
the financing ratio of passengers versus public transport authorities.
[1]               OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 32.
[2]               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, OJ L
75, 15.3.2001, p. 29.
[3]               On 18 October 2007 the European Commission adopted a
Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on monitoring
development of the rail market COM(2007) 609, accompanied by staff working
document SEC(2007)1323; 
[4]               On 18 December 2009, the European Commission adopted
a Report to the Council and the European Parliament on monitoring development
of the rail market COM(2009)676, accompanied by Commission Staff Working
Document SEC(2009)1687
[5]               On 21 August 2012, the European Commission adopted
the third Report to the Council and the European Parliament on monitoring
development of the rail market COM(2012)0459, accompanied by Commission Staff
Working Document SWD(2012)246 final/2
[6]               Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer (UIC)
[7]               European association of railway equipment
manufacturers
[8]               White Paper – Roadmap to a Single European Transport
Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system COM (2011)
0144 final.
[9]               Flash Eurobarometer 382a on Europeans' satisfaction
with rail services, published on 16 December 2012. – 28.036 interviews were
conducted over the telephone (some 1000 respondents per Member State) with citizens aged more than 15 years. For more details, refer to Annex 1
[10]             Ibid.
[11]             Students travelling to work, school or university
[12]             EU transport in figures, Statistical pocketbook, 2013,
p.52
[13]             EU transport in figures, Statistical pocketbook 2013
[14]             Italian data, as provided in January 2014 by Italian
authorities – includes international traffic. 
[15]             This estimation  was made by using a mix of Eurostat
and RMMS statistics (completing gaps in Eurostat series)
[16]             Air traffic in the Lisbon-Madrid route has continued to
(slightly) grow over the period 2009-2011 
[17]             International passenger rail traffic has decreased by
50% in Italy since 2004
[18]             France (8%), Italy and UK (5%)
[19]             In Poland, volumes of intermodal have doubled since
2007 (source: Eurostat)
[20]             CER (2013), Rail Freight Status Report 2013
(p.37 fig. 24), reports that the share of single wagon load would have decreased
from 41% in 2002 to 31% in 2008, based on a variety of sources (Eurostat,
McKinsey, XRail)
[21]             The 33% of tonne-km representing "Other" (cf.
graph 12) includes often finished products in intermodal traffic.
[22]             There is no data for Romania, Poland, Finland and Portugal.
[23]             The definition of this indicator could be further
refined in the context of the RMMS implementing act
[24]             In Luxembourg, the infrastructure manager is part of
the incumbent’s holding
[25] No data for UK, Spain, Finland, Latvia and Belgium.
[26]             In some Member States, it is difficult to distinguish
between public funds and infrastructure charges.  In France, regions pay
themselves the so-called « redevance d’accès » of the rail
services under public service obligations that they purchase from SNCF. To be
able to map the financial flows from railway undertakings to infrastructure
managers, the payment of the redevance d’accès has been assimilated to a
subsidy.
[27]             Financial accounts may differ from regulatory accounts,
which fall under the supervision of national regulators
[28]             Median of the average track access charges in the
Member States for 1000 tonne freight trains is 2,31 versus 1,81 and 1,30 for
respectively intercity and suburban services.
[29]             Withdrawing the average freight track access charges of
the 4 more “expensive” networks (Baltic States and Ireland) brings down the
median for freight to 2,12 (versus 1,51 and 1,29 for respectively intercity and
suburban) and reduce the variance to 0,98 (which is then lower than those of
suburban and intercity trains).
[30]             The median freight track access charge of completely
separated networks (BG, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FI, GR, NL, RO, SE, SK and UK) was 1,93 EUR/train-km compared to other networks ; similarly the median rank was
10th against 15th for other networks. The main exceptions are LU and SI, which
have low freight track access charges.
[31]             Denmark, Spain, Finland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Latvia,
Romania and Slovakia – all these Member States have had inflation based on the
12-month November 2013 inflation rate; in Greece, based on that same indicator,
because of deflation (-0,7% inflation), stable track access have de facto
increased.  
[32]             Ireland and the Baltic States are excluded from this
calculation since they are isolated from the rest of the European network. All
data come from the RMMS questionnaires
[33]             Denmark ranks on average as the second cheapest rail
network (Sweden the fourth cheapest), whereas Latvia overall ranks 24th as the
most expensive (and Germany ranks 21st cheapest or 4th most expensive).
[34]             This calculation includes track managed by UIC members,
whereas other track, notably so called 'industrial track', is not considered in
this calculation.
[35]             Congestion declarations: UK 551
km, Germany 399 km, Romania 170 km, Norway 70 km and the Netherlands
47 km.
[36]             Data from the UK regulator (ORR) shows that rail fares
over the same period have evolved in different ways: between 2005 and 2012,
""advance" tickets in the London suburban services have only
increased by 14%, while "off peak" and "anytime" tickets
have increased 44% and 42% respectively. 
[37]             Heute vom Gleis gegenüber, Der Spiegel 14/2003 -  30.03.2013
[38]             The methodology of this fare analysis is provided in
the Commission staff working document annexed to this report and is still
subject to further refinement with the Member States in the context of the Rail
Market Monitoring working group of the Single European Railway Area Committee. 
[39]             The average was calculated between the fare of a
citytrip reserved 2-weeks in advance and an immediate departure
[40]             PBKA stands for Paris-Brussels-Köln (Cologne)-Amsterdam
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Fourth report on monitoring development of
the rail market
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.5......... Quality of rail
transport services. 44
3.5.1...... Rail services versus other
services. 44
3.5.2...... Quality of services. 44
3.5.3...... Frequency. 47
3.5.4...... Punctuality. 47
3.6......... Rail transport services
covered by public service obligations (PSOs) 48
3.6.1...... Public service obligations
and railway segments. 48
3.6.2...... Financing public service
obligations. 49
3.6.3...... Competitive tendering of
public service obligations. 51
3.7......... Licensing of railway
undertakings. 52
3.8......... Degree of market opening. 53
3.9......... Harmonisation between
Member States. 54
3.10....... Development of employment
and social conditions. 56
3.10.1.... Employment in rail 56
3.10.2.... Socio-demographic structure
of the rail labour market  57
3.10.3.... Training activities. 58
3.10.4.... Other aspects of working
conditions. 58
4............ State of the EU
network and infrastructure limitations. 59
4.5......... Variation of
infrastructure. 59
4.6......... Management of infrastructure. 59
4.7......... Electrification. 59
4.8......... Train movements. 59
5............ Utilisation of access
rights. 60
5.5......... Railway freight 60
5.6......... Passenger railways –
regional and suburban segments. 61
5.6.1...... Passenger railways – all
segments. 61
5.6.2...... Regional and suburban
segments. 61
5.6.3...... Rail high-speed and
long-distance segments. 61
5.7......... Passenger railways –
international services. 62
6............ Barriers to more
effective rail services. 62
7............ Conclusions. 62
The annexes of this report are
found in SWD(2014) 186
3.5.        Quality of rail transport services
3.5.1.     Rail services versus other services
Rail services continued to be quite badly
ranked in the Consumer Scoreboard, which compares several types of services in
the internal market. Rail ranked 27th in 2012 compared to other
internal market services in terms of the consumer market performance indicator[41] - only real estate,
mortgage and investment products fare worse, whereas airlines, postal services
and urban transport rank far better than rail.
3.5.2.     Quality of services
BOX 7 – PASSENGER RIGHTS REGULATION – THE MINIMUM SERVICE
QUALITY STANDARDS
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 on rail passengers'
rights and obligations[42]
lays down the following minimum service quality standards in its Annex III:
- Information and tickets
- Punctuality of services, and general principles
to cope with disruptions to services
- Cancellation of services 
- Cleanliness of rolling stock and station
facilities
- Customer satisfaction survey
- Complaint handling, refunds and
compensation for non-compliance with service quality standards
- Assistance provided to disabled persons
and persons with reduced mobility
3.5.2.1.  Overall
satisfaction
According to the Consumer Scoreboard, rail
also ranks 27th out of 30 internal market services in terms of
overall satisfaction (15% of consumers rate rail services between 0 and 4 in
scale of 0 to 10)[43].

Based on the Eurobarometer survey 2013, where
28,036 citizens in the EU were interviewed (some 1,000 interviews per Member State), it appears that only 58% of EU citizens are highly or fairly satisfied with
the level with rail services. 
Graph
31 – Satisfaction index of railway stations and travels (2013)
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 382a on Europeans'
satisfaction with rail services -– (telephone interviews of 28,036 EU citizens
above 15 years) – Annex 12 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186
In terms of overall satisfaction, Finland
and the UK top the satisfaction index with more than 75% of user satisfaction,
whereas Bulgaria and Estonia have less than 30% satisfied users. Italy has also a very low satisfaction rate (36%). More than 50% of respondents are
satisfied in Germany and Sweden, albeit below the EU average (55%).
As far as most indicators are concerned, it
is essential to underline that in general lowest satisfaction rates are found
in Italy and Central-/Southern-Eastern European Member States.
3.5.2.2.  Satisfaction
with retail transactions[44]
68 % of Europeans are satisfied with the
provision of information about train timetables
(16% dissatisfaction rate). As far as conventional trains[45] are concerned, satisfaction
has slightly increased since 2011 (3 percentage points), with big jumps in Poland and the Netherlands (satisfaction has increased by 16 and 12 percentage points respectively).
67% of Europeans are satisfied with the
ease of buying tickets in stations (17% dissatisfaction rate – although up to 37% in Germany).  The satisfaction rate[46] has remained stable
since 2011 (78% satisfaction) with big jumps in Austria and Greece (14 and 10 percentage points increase), but worryingly dissatisfactory in Italy, Denmark and Slovenia (all more than 10 percentage points decrease). Dissatisfaction is
slightly higher in rural villages (19% dissatisfaction) than in cities (14%
dissatisfaction). Europeans affected by accessibility issues (e.g. persons with
reduced mobility) are also slightly more dissatisfied (20% dissatisfaction). 
Only 36% of Europeans are satisfied with
complaint mechanisms (18% dissatisfaction –up to
31% in Italy). Satisfaction with complaint handling has jumped by 10
percentage points since 2011 – showing the first effects of the
implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007. Satisfaction has jumped by more
than 20 percentage points in 4 Member States (France, Latvia, Finland and Spain) and by 10-20 percentage points in 7 others. Satisfaction has only
decreased by more than 5 percentage points in the Czech Republic, Italy and Estonia. It is important to underline that 54% of consumers that experienced a problem
with trains complained to the railway undertaking or a third party, which is
below the 70% average for all services.[47]
Most Europeans are satisfied with the
availability of through tickets (58%), with highest levels being reached in
 France, Belgium and Finland (all above 70%), but also the UK and Germany. As with other satisfaction rates, Italy/Central/South-Eastern European Member States
underperforms (but also Sweden and Austria).
3.5.2.3.  Satisfaction
with on-board service[48]
Satisfaction with provision of
information during train journeys, in particular in case of delays has remained stable but insufficient (less than 50% of
satisfaction). The highest rates of satisfaction are found in the UK (70%), Finland and Ireland. Highest rates of dissatisfaction are found in France (47%) and Germany (42%). Since 2011, as far as conventional trains are concerned, great
improvements have taken place in Finland, Poland and the Netherlands (all above 9 percentage points increase).
Satisfaction with availability of staff:
58% of Europeans are satisfied with the
availability of staff in their Member State. Highest levels of satisfaction are
found in Belgium, Finland and Luxembourg (all above 70%), whereas Germany, (32%) Ireland and France have the highest degrees of dissatisfaction (all above
28%).
Satisfaction with cleanliness and
maintenance of rolling stock has remained insufficient.  Less than half of Europeans (48%) are satisfied with the cleanliness
of railway carriages, including toilets. Finland, Ireland and the UK top satisfaction (above 68%), while Italy, Romania and Bulgaria experience the lowest levels of
satisfaction (together with Germany and Central/South-Eastern Europe). Since
2011, on conventional lines, major increases took place in Austria, Poland and the
Czech Republic (all have increased by more than 10 percentage points) and major
decreases in Italy, Portugal and Latvia (all have decreased by more than 10
percentage points).
Satisfaction with bicycle access to
trains is highest in Denmark (47%) and the UK (44%). The highest levels of dissatisfaction are found in Romania (28%), France (24%) and Germany (20%).
3.5.3.     Frequency
Satisfaction with frequency is essential to
attract travellers to rail – as time is with price the most critical factor
affecting travel consumer decisions[49].
Overall, 59% of Europeans are satisfied with frequency according to the
Eurobarometer survey. The UK, Sweden and the Netherlands have the lowest
dissatisfaction rates for frequency. Italy, Central-/Southern-Eastern Europe
have the highest dissatisfaction rates (as in previous surveys). France and Germany have polarised opinions – satisfaction with frequency is above-average yet so is
dissatisfaction.
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 382a on Europeans'
satisfaction with rail services - – Annex 12 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014)
186
In terms of frequencies in important
high-speed lines, there are now some 4 trains/hour in the Italian high-speed
network, which has the advantage of crossing most important cities in a single
axis. The Paris-Nantes, Paris-Lyon and Frankfurt-Köln lines have also reached
at least 3 trains/hour. On the other hand, otherwise important lines like
Paris-London (which links the two major cities of the EU) are still at 1,5
trains/hour. 
Overall, in terms of surveyed networks (cf.
Analysis on fares), the highest frequencies are reached in the lines with
more than 1 operator like the Italian high-speed network, Vienna-Salzburg
and Prague-Ostrava with up to 2,5 trains/hour. The frequencies in
Paris-Benelux/Germany remain under 1 train/hour (on average).
Source: European Rail Timetable, Summer 2013 edition
3.5.4.     Punctuality
According to the Eurobarometer survey,
dissatisfaction[50]
with punctuality and reliability is the greatest in France (47%), Germany (42%) and Italy (38%) and the lowest in the UK, Estonia and Lithuania. Conversely,
satisfaction with punctuality is the greatest in Ireland, Latvia, Austria and the UK (above 73%).
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 382a on Europeans'
satisfaction with rail services - – Annex 12 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014)
186
Local and regional trains have been very
punctual in Latvia, Portugal, Austria and Lithuania – while Belgium and Hungary – two important commuter markets - perform badly[51]. Sweden and Italy also fall below 90% of punctuality. 
Long-distance trains have been very
punctual in Finland, Denmark and Italy while Poland and Lithuania perform badly. The punctuality rates of Germany and Portugal appear as lower because
they have been accounted from a 5 minutes threshold, although there is a high
degree of dissatisfaction of German travellers.
Sources: RMMS questionnaires and Trafikverket for Sweden (excludes suburban services)– data for Germany and Portugal covers delays above 6 and 3
minutes (respectively – cf. annex 14 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186
Sources: RMMS questionnaires and Trafikverket for
Sweden – data for Germany and Portugal covers delays above 6 and 5 minutes
(respectively) - annex 14 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186]
There are interesting contrasts in
punctuality rates. In Sweden and Italy, long-distance trains have been very
punctual in contrast to local trains. In Portugal and Lithuania, it has been exactly the opposite. None of the rates appear to explain the high
degree of dissatisfaction with punctuality and reliability in France. Finally, as far as high-speed services are concerned, AVEs in Spain have reached a punctuality rate of 99,2%, whereas in the more congested networks of France, TGVs have reached a 91% rate (and 85% for Thalys services in Belgium). Finally, as far as
combined freight is concerned, it appears that punctuality has reached 67% in
2011, with still 19% of trains delayed by more than 3 hours and 4% by more than
24 hours[52].
In terms of reliability, although series of
data are incomplete, Hungary performs worst with some 14% of trains cancelled. 
 Denmark, France, the UK and Norway had all some 2-3% of local trains
cancelled. The UK and Norway presented  similar percentages for long-distance
services. High-speed services appear to be highly reliable: less than 0,2% of
cancellations in France and Italy.
3.6.        Rail transport services covered by public service
obligations (PSOs)
3.6.1.     Public service obligations and railway segments
Public service obligations (PSOs) cover
some 62-65% of all EU passenger-km and some 74% of train-km in 2011-2012. The number of passenger-kilometres under PSO has changed in France (with the inclusion of the Trains d'équilibre du Territoire, increasing from 31% to
43% of all domestic passenger-kilometres) and Finland (where they increased
from 14% in 2010 to 45% in 2012).
Source: RMMS
questionnaires - annex 15 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186
The relative share of rail services under
PSOs and commercial services varies for the different market segments. In the UK, where most rail services are commuter services (cf. graph 4), PSOs cover 99% of all
domestic passenger-kilometres. This situation contrasts with France, which is mostly a high-speed market and where PSOs only cover 38% of all
passenger-kilometres.  
All suburban and regional services
(corresponding to 49% of all passenger-km) in Europe appear to be covered by
PSOs. High-speed services, which represented some 27% of all EU passenger-km,
do not seem to be operated under PSOs in any of the Member States, except maybe
in some domestic line sections in the Netherlands and Austria (e.g. Salzburg-Innsbruck). As a result, it can be assumed that the two-thirds of
the conventional long-distance services are operated as PSOs. Finally, PSOs can
cover the entire domestic networks, either with one or several public service
contracts, of some small-sized Member States like the Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary, Denmark and Ireland – or bigger Member States as it is the case of
the United Kingdom.
Source: RMMS questionnaires, own research, State aid
scoreboard; the situation in Poland could be 
slightly different with some commercial services running on regional lines
3.6.2.     Financing public service obligations
In 2011-2012 some 18 billion EUR[53] of public support have
been granted to railway PSOs in the EU, with alone some 6 billion EUR in Germany, 4,5 billion in France and 2 billion in Italy. Direct public support in the UK and the Netherlands is very low as these Member States cross-finance their loss-making services
through profitable services falling in the same public service contracts for
rail services and revenues from passenger fares (cf. infra). This partly explains
why Luxembourg or France provide some 18-17 EUR/train-km[54] of subsidies whereas
in the UK and the Netherlands public support is as low as 0,1-0,2 EUR/train-km.
As in France, the level of net support also varies in Germany[55]. Finally, there are
also some differences in the number of passengers per train in European PSOs:
in the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Italy and the UK there are some 120
passengers per train, whereas in the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Luxembourg, there are less than 60 passengers per train.
Source: RMMS
questionnaires, own research, State aid scoreboard, annex 15 of Staff Working
Document SWD(2014) 186
PSO costs have also been covered by
passenger fares, which have amounted to at least 21 billion EUR in the EU. As explained, in the UK or the Netherlands, passenger fares cover
99% of the PSO costs, whereas in Bulgaria, Germany, Italy and the Czech Republic, the taxpayer has supported more than 70% of PSO costs. 
Graph 41 – Who is paying public service
obligations?
(2012)
Source: RMMS questionnaires, own research,
annual reports of incumbents
BOX 8 – FINANCIAL FLOWS IN THE RAIL SECTOR
Based on the information provided by Member
States in the RMMS and the analysis of financial accounts of railway
undertakings (RUs) and infrastructure managers (IMs), it is possible to map the
main estimated financial flows (presented in the graph hereunder in € billion 
for the year 2012). Passengers have purchased from RUs some € 38 billion of
rail passenger services and businesses have purchased some € 11-13 billion of
rail freight services. RUs have paid some € 15 billion of track access charges
to IMs, which have received some € 18 billion of State grants. The compensation
of PSOs has amounted to some € 18-20 billion. Last but not least, IMs receive
some € 4 billion of other revenue (electricity, real estate…).
Graph 42 –
Financial flows in the rail sector (in billion EUR)
Source: Annual reports,
RMMS questionnaires
3.6.3.     Competitive tendering of public service obligations
Several Member States are tendering their
public service contracts for rail services. Some are doing so on a large scale
(the UK, Germany, Sweden,), whereas some others have only done so for a few
contracts (Poland, Italy, Denmark, Portugal, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Slovakia)[56].
In 2011, the UK launched the renewal of 5 franchises, while Germany and Slovakia reported the competitive tendering of respectively 18 and 1 public service
contract , of a smaller size, though.   
Interestingly, there seems to be an
emerging internal market for public service contracts (PSCs). A growing number
of these PSCs for rail are published in the OJEU (TED website) as any other
public procurement contract. The number of contract notices[57] for PSCs published in
2012 reached 41, hence a doubling since 2006 – overall 205 PSCs have been
published since then. The vast majority have been German tenders (some 113),
but this might be also due to the size of contracts and there are indications
that almost all German PSCs are published in the OJEU[58]. The publication of
contract award notices and ex-ante voluntary notices[59] has doubled since
2010, improving therefore transparency.
Table
6 -Public service contracts published in OJEU in 2012 per Member State
   || BG || CZ || DE || DK || IT || NL || PL || SE || UK || Total 
 Contract notices || 3 || 1 || 113 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 62 || 13 || 7 || 205 
Source: OJEU database TED
Source: OJEU database TED
The PSCs published in the OJEU present an
interesting sample of PSCs overall in the EU. In this context, it is
interesting to note that 76% of published PSCs used “better value for money”[60] as the
award criteria and only 23% used price as the only award criteria.
Based on a study of the European social
partners in rail, it appears that transfer of personnel is required in Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Netherlands, UK and Norway and is optional in Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Ireland, Poland and Sweden[61].
Additionally, in Austria, Denmark, Germany Netherlands and Sweden, where there are sectoral agreements, it is not strictly necessary to prescribe
social criteria in tender documents, as social standards apply to all
operators. 
3.7.        Licensing of railway
undertakings
Germany continues
to top by far the number of licences with 417 licences granted, followed by Poland. It is interesting to note that while all German and Dutch licences are
reported to the European Railway Agency (ERA), more UK licences are notified to
national authorities than to ERA (probably because most railway operations are
confined to the UK, given the low degree of cross-border freight traffic and
the fact that so far only Eurostar provides cross-border passenger services).
Another interesting peculiarity of the UK is the issue of licences for
‘operators of last resort’ – in case of bankruptcy of franchise[62] operators or
prolongation of tendering procedures. The number of licences is obviously very
low in those Member States where the incumbent still has a monopoly on domestic
passenger services.
Sources: European Railway Agency (ERADIS database),          
RMMS questionnaires filled by Member States - annex 16 of Staff Working
Document SWD(2014) 186
Most licences reported to ERA are for
freight (51%) – in particular in Germany and Poland.  According to ERA, some
200 licences have been reported for passenger rail, whereas some 550 concern
only freight – and 336 covered both. 
Sources: European Railway Agency (ERADIS database)- annex 16 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186
3.8.        Degree of market opening
Under EU law, the market of railway freight
services have been open since 2007 and the one of international passenger
services since 2010. For railway markets that are not open, it is important to
underline that there is currently no obligation at EU level to open passenger
domestic markets and that these represent 94% of all passenger-km in the EU.
In the context
of the impact assessment of the 4th railway package, Commission
services have estimated that in 2010, some 40% of the EU domestic passenger
railway market has been so far accessible to new entrants. Only two Member
States (Sweden and the UK) have fully opened their commercial services and services
under public service obligations, and across the EU 40% of all
passenger-kilometres are closed to competition. Repeating this exercise in
2012, based on 2010 assumptions,[63]
leads to the same results.
Graph 46 – Rail market structure (2012)
Source: RMMS questionnaires, impact
assessment 4th railway package, CER (2010), own estimations
10 Member States (with asterisk in graph), representing 20% of all passenger-kilometres, have
opened markets in a way that allows commercial services in open access to
co-exist with directly awarded PSCs. Further to the Bundesgerichtshof[64]
decision calling for generalised competitive tendering, Germany will not be part of this group anymore. In Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia, full open access co-exists with directly awarded PSCs covering all rail
services. PSCs in these Member States should be de jure competitively
tendered, however de facto only the incumbent participated.  
This percentage
has not changed substantially since no further opening has been reported,
except for rail tourist services in Spain. It is important to underline that press
reports[65]
suggest that the Czech Republic is considering increasing the tendering of
public service contracts and Spain ponders to open to competition some of its
commercial services. It is also important to underline that in Germany, the number of train-kilometres in PSO that have been competitively tendered has
progressed to up to 51%.
In spite of this
situation, European railway undertakings have been pursuing their
internationalisation. The shares of foreign sales of the main European railway
groups have become significant over the years: 
·        
DB appears to have made 42% of its turnover in
2012 outside Germany (as it controls inter alia Arriva and also the main
rail freight undertakings in the UK, Denmark and the Netherlands), 
·        
SNCF derives 24% of its turnover from outside France (even though the French market is fully closed to foreign competition), most notably
through its subsidiary Keolis (for  suburban trains) and its shares in NTV,
Westbahn, Eurostar and Thalys.
·        
NS, operating in a Dutch passenger market that
is almost fully closed to competition, appears to be making 38% of its turnover
outside the Netherlands through its subsidiary Abellio.
·        
Trenitalia is also active outside Italy (Netinera, the German subsidiary of Trenitalia represents some 5% of the latter’s
turnover).
3.9.        Harmonisation between Member States 
Rail Market Scoreboard
17 rail-related Directives have been
adopted since 2000. As of November 2013, the transposition period of 15 of them
has expired while it remains open for two (Directives 2012/34 and 2013/9). The
transposition deficit indicator – which was developed for the purpose of the Single
Market Scoreboard[66]
– indicates the percentage of Directives not transposed by a Member State
through national measures duly notified to the Commission, in relation to the
total number of Directives that should have been transposed by the cut-off date
(10th of November or 10th of April, as the Single Market
Scoreboard is published twice a year). The transposition deficit of the rail Directives
appears significantly higher than the general one for the Internal Market.
Source: European Commission
The rail related transposition deficit was
initially of 56%, which reflects the low timely transposition of the first
railway package into national laws (due April 2003). All of the 2004's entrants
had transposed it when joining which, along with the absence of new Directives
to be transposed by November 2004 and 2005, led to a decrease. The two peaks of
2006 and 2010 reveal a low on-time transposition of the second and third
railway packages. Although the deficit was practically resorbed in 2013, it may
rise again with the expiry of the transposition period for Directive 2013/9 amending
Directive 2008/57 (due in January 2014). As of late November 2013, only eight
Members States had notified national measures (BG, HR, IE, GR, IT, LV, PL, SE).
Source: European Commission
Overall, the on-time transposition is low.
Since 2000, only 32% of rail Directives were transposed on time while 6%
required more than two additional years to be transposed. If looking at Member
States individually, Romania performs best with 60% of on-time transposition.
On the other hand, Austria and Portugal have not transposed one single Directive
on time since 2000. 
Average delays for overdue Directives show
that in four Member States it takes on average 18 "extra" months for
rail Directives to be transposed (NL, LU, DE, UK). If considering market Directives
only, it goes beyond two years in one Member State (NL). 
Source:
European Commission; **- as explained in footnote 67, the average overall
delays for internal market reflect a general trend
Although subject to some caution, the
comparison of this data with the general trend for all of the internal market Directives[67] shows that 21 Member States
perform poorer for rail markets Directives than they do in other fields. This
figure goes down to 13 Member States if only taking into consideration rail
interoperability and safety Directives. The difference between rail and general
delays is particularly important for the afore-mentioned four Member States
(NL, LU, DE, UK), but also for SE, SI and GR. On the contrary, five Member
States perform better on rail Directives than they do for the internal market
overall (EE, SK, FI, RO, BG). 
Graph 50 – Infringements in rail
legislation
Source:
European Commission
The Commission has initiated 134
infringement procedures on rail related provisions: 130 on Directives and 4 other
on Regulations. By topic, 32% are on rail market provisions and 68% on
interoperability and safety. Yet, an analysis by type of infringements shows
that market provisions account for a disproportional 56% of all non-conformity
and incorrect application infringements. Conversely, 95% of all
non-notification infringements deal with interoperability and safety Directives.
For reasons of late or incorrect
transposition, Poland, Germany and France are the Member Stares against which
the most infringements were initiated. On the other hand Bulgaria and Luxembourg have had the least.
However, France and Italy come first in terms of infringements for non-conformity of the transposing measures
or incorrect application of the rail related Directives. Netherlands,
Luxembourg and the UK, three of the slowest Member States to transpose rail Directives,
have had only one non-conformity/incorrect application infringement initiated
against them.
Graph 51 – Infringements per Member State and per topic
Source: European Commission - (*) infringements
dismissed by European Court of Justice are not included
Source: European Commission - (*) infringements
dismissed by European Court of Justice are not included
3.10.      Development of employment and social conditions
3.10.1.   Employment in rail
Based on data provided by Member States in
the RMMS questionnaires, it appears that some 912,000 persons have been
employed either in railway undertakings (561,000) or in infrastructure management
(351,000)[68].
Employment in these two types of railway entities seems to have diminished by
4% in 2012 compared to 2011. Interestingly, as shown in the graph hereunder,
the overall percentage of staff in infrastructure management is generally
higher in South and Eastern Europe and lower in Northern Europe.
Source: RMMS
questionnaires
**/*for France, the share of jobs as
provided by France for the infrastructure management comprises both employees
of SNCF Infrastructures and Réseau Ferré de France under (**) and exclusively
Réseau Ferré de France (*).
Furthermore, new
entrants appear to be employing some 118,000 (21%) of the total. There appear
to be also some 118.000 train drivers (21% of all employees) across the EU,
incumbents and new entrants combined.  
Finally, 4 of the 5 most staff intensive
infrastructure managements (LU, AT, BE, SE, SK) in terms of jobs per kilometres
of infrastructure all operate small sized networks, whereby different levels of
outsourcing (infrastructure construction and maintenance) and different scopes
of activities remain out of consideration.
Source: RMMS questionnaires, annual reports
RFIREFER/RFF
3.10.2.   Socio-demographic structure of the rail labour market [69]
In all European Member States, the
proportion of men working in the rail sector is superior to the male share of
the overall active population. This overrepresentation is among the highest in
south European Member States  such as GR, ES and IT but also in LU and BE. In
GR and LU, more than 90% of all staff are men. A survey organised by the
European social partners in the rail sector[70]
among EU railway undertakings estimates the share of women at 19.5%, but
indicates that women are greatly underrepresented in some professions like
drivers, where only 1.4% of the workforce is female (in managerial positions,
18% of the workforce is female). According to this survey, the situation tends
to be better in Eastern Europe (in Latvia, 58% of engineers are female).
The rail sector is further characterized by
an acute underrepresentation of young people (less than 30 years old). In all Member
States where data is available, the share of staff under the age of 30 (blue
bar on the graph) is significantly lower than the proportion of young people in
the overall active population (light grey area on the graph). The percentage of
people under the age of 30 is the lowest in southern Member States  (GR, ES and
PT) but also in PL or CZ. On the other hand, FR, LV and LU have the largest
proportion of young rail staff, albeit still lower than the national average.
Conversely, the share of rail staff over the age of 50 (pink and red bars on
the graph) exceed the according proportion in the overall active population
(dark grey area) in all the Member States studied except RO. In GR and FI, more
than half of the rail staff is over 50 years old. In another 13 Member States,
staff over 50 account for one third or more of the total (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE,
EE,IT, LT, LV, NL, PL, PT, SK). In France, the proportion is only slightly over
the national average (27.5% in the rail sector against 26.8% nationally).
Although data is missing for countries such as SE and UK where the rail sector appears to be particularly dynamic, this section seems to indicate
an overall ageing of the rail labour force that may lead to a staff shortage
once the current staff reach retirement age.
Source: UIC (2010)
In most of the studied Member States, the
percentage of recently recruited staff is low generally due to downsizing of
the labour force in line with other economic sectors. In only 3 Member States
is the share of staff with less than 5 years of experience superior to the
share of staff with more than 30 years (LT, LV and RO). On the contrary, in 4
Member States, the largest of all groups by seniority is the +30 years one (BE,
  FI, DE and LU). In GR, PL and ES, more than 80% of the staff has over 20
years of seniority. In another 10 Member States, this proportion is above 50%
(SI, BG, PT, AT, DE, CZ, SK, HU, BE, FI). Due to the overall ageing of the
labour force, this low replenishment of staff may have adverse effects for the
sector, which may imply it has to downsize.
These evolutions plead for a thorough
monitoring in terms of statistics, notably to determine which professions are
most affected by this greying.
Source: UIC (2010)
3.10.3.   Training activities
BG, DK, FI, GR, HU, LT, NL, PT and UK reported in their RMMS questionnaires their main training activities. In most Member
States, training activities have been focused on drivers training and safety.
The following schemes deserve attention:
·        
In DK, railway undertakings and infrastructure
managers have developed a common training programme to support competence
acceptance between employers.
·        
In NL, a new train drivers school, fully independent
from railway undertakings, has been accredited by the Ministry of Education in
2011. 37 students graduated in spring 2013.
·        
In UK, the main infrastructure manager, Network
Rail, created the cross-rail industry paid graduate programme "Track and
Train", where recent graduates are placed 3 times for 6 months in
different areas of Network Rail and also in railway undertakings.   
3.10.4.   Other
aspects of working conditions
A study of the European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions[71]
provides some anecdotal evidence of the evolution of wages, temporary contracts
and flexible working. Although there appear to have been increases in wage
inequalities in Germany between old and new employees, there were actual wage
increases in Belgium, France, Italy, Lithuania and Sweden. The same study
indicates that temporary work remains very marginal in the rail sector, except
in Slovenia, where most contracts are temporary and are addressed by a
collective agreement. Initiatives appear to have taken in Slovakia, Spain and,   Czech Republic as regards flexible working time.
4.           State of the EU network and infrastructure limitations
4.5.        Variation of infrastructure
Between 2009-2011, EU railway
infrastructure has grown by 882km (+0,4%) reaching 216.297 km. This increase
masks variations among Member States: 981km and 602km of railway infrastructure
were added in respectively France and Spain, whereas 335km, 203km and 138km
were withdrawn in Austria, Bulgaria and Germany. In relative terms, the greatest
growth was recorded in the Netherlands (+130km, hence +5%) and the largest
decrease in Estonia (-127km, hence – 14%).
Source: EU Transport in figures, 2013, Statistical
Pocketbook 2013
Since 1995[72],
some 12.958km of rail infrastructure have been abandoned, with the largest
decreases taking place either in the Eastern Member States (Poland, Latvia,
Estonia) or in Germany (-8412km or a loss of 20%), and the largest increases
taking place in Slovenia/Croatia (+18%) and Spain (+1624km or +11%).
Source: EU Transport in figures, 2013, Statistical
Pocketbook 2013
4.6.        Management of infrastructure
The structures of
management of infrastructure have not evolved during the period 2011-2012,
except in Belgium, where the NMBS-SNCB Holding has been dismantled. Infrabel
and SNCB-NMBS are now two separate entities that have a common subsidiary in
charge of human resources. 
4.7.        Electrification
Overall, in terms of electrification, in
2011, only 53,2% of the EU rail infrastructure is electrified. There again,
there are important variations between Member States: electrification is low in
the UK, the Czech Republic (33% of the network) and extremely low in Greece (17%) and the Baltic Member States (6%).
4.8.        Train movements
The analysis of train movements in TEN
segments[73]
underlines the expected importance of rail freight traffic around cities, their
marshalling yards and ports. In 2010, 44 out of the 56 EU rail segments with
freight traffic above 60,000 trains/year[74]
(i.e.164 trains/day) were located in Germany and 7 were located in Austria (all in the Vienna-Salzburg axis). In Germany, the most important segments are
around the marshalling yards of Maschen (Hamburg), Seelze (Hanover) and Oberhausen (Duisburg). Important movements of freight trains are recorded around cities
like Cologne, Warsaw, Krakow and Innsbruck. 
The analysis of train movements also
suggests that the important freight traffic in Germany is feeding the port of Hamburg, and that Antwerp and Rotterdam are lagging behind in terms of rail freight
connections. Rail traffic around the port of Rotterdam only reached 32,600
trains/year (i.e. 89 trains/day)[75]-
i.e. Rotterdam rail freight only represented 25% of Hamburg’s rail
freight, where some 140.000 trains/year (i.e. 383 trains/day) circulated.
Traffic in the rail freight dedicated Betuwe line reaches "only" some
18.000 trains/year (50 trains/day). These conclusions seem to be confirmed by a
study of UIC which shows that the rail share of hinterland transport in Hamburg
reached 36.8% against 11% and 12% for respectively Rotterdam and Antwerp[76].
Similar trends can be seen for passenger
rail: the most important passenger rail movements are found in the vicinity of
important central stations with important commuter railway networks, like
London and Paris, but also in many German cities (Berlin, Frankfurt, Cologne,
Stuttgart) and important European cities (Amsterdam, Barcelona, Helsinki,
Stockholm and Vienna), which all have traffic above 200.000 trains/year (some
550 trains/day). Interestingly, segments around Rome and Madrid remain at
140.000 trains/year, while Luxembourg-City manages 75.000 trains/year, i.e. as
much as a 2-million inhabitant city like Budapest.
This suggests that cities with important
suburban train networks overlapping with the remaining train infrastructure are
or could become bottlenecks, either for high-speed services[77] or freight operations[78]. Similarly, in rail
freight, data suggests that traffic flows from the Ruhrgebiet to the Netherlands (and probably Belgium) are well below those reaching out Hamburg, who happens to have
the largest marshalling yard in Europe. It might well be interesting to analyse
the impact of these North-South rail freight traffic flows on the overall
congestion of the German network, in particular with the need to complete on
the German side interconnections with Belgium and the Netherlands. 
5.           Utilisation of access rights
5.5.        Railway freight
The rail freight market was opened to
competition in 2007. Since then new entrants have emerged in all but 3 Member
States (Finland, Ireland and Lithuania) and the total share of freight new
entrants[79]
in 2012 is estimated at 28%. DB, the German incumbent, is now the main
railway operator in Denmark and the Netherlands. Finally, in the UK and Romania, the principal railway undertaking has less than 50% of the market. 
Source: RMMS contributions from Member States; *for  Spain, data is based on the RENFE annual report and the RMMS questionnaire, whereas for Sweden, data is for 2010; ** includes VFLI, a subsidiary of incumbent; *** DB is the main
railway freight operator; **** not available - annex 19 of Staff Working
Document SWD(2014) 186
5.6.        Passenger railways – regional and suburban segments
5.6.1.     Passenger railways – all segments
Overall, the total
market share of all but the principal railway undertaking reaches 23%. However,
it is important to distinguish the situation of real new entrants, which
have been awarded contracts through competitive tendering and/or through open
access rights, from the one of other "non-incumbent" railway
undertakings to which exclusive rights for commercial services or public
service obligations have been directly awarded. This is important, for
instance, to distinguish the situation of rail in Poland, where non-incumbents
are regional operators, to which public service contracts have been directly
awarded, and the situation in the UK, where franchises have been tendered. In
these conditions, the market share of new entrants is estimated at 21% for the
whole EU.
Source: RMMS contributions from Member
States; RO= all non-incumbents appear to be regional operators; annex 19 of
Staff Working Document SWD(2014)
186
5.6.2.     Regional and suburban segments
The share of new entrants in regional and
suburban rail is the greatest in those Member States that have opted for
competitive tendering for public service contracts completely (the UK, Sweden) or extensively (Germany, Romania).  The same also applies to Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Austria and Poland, where some public service
contracts have been tendered. Hungary is a special case as there are two
incumbents. In the UK, the incumbent has been respectively completely dismantled
and franchises were awarded through competitive tendering. In Poland, the regional incumbent was dismantled and replaced by in-house operators owned by
Polish regions (through direct award). There are no new entrants in the
regional services inter alia in France, Spain and Belgium. Finally, in the context of a broadening of PSO tendering in the Czech Republic, Arriva has been doing some pilot tests services in open access in Prague suburban
services. 
Source: RMMS contributions from Member States,
completed with own calculations 
based on UIC, CER, annual reports, annex 19 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186
*there are 2 incumbents - this is the market of the small one; **no data for
Sweden
5.6.3.     Rail high-speed and long-distance segments
The share of new entrants in long-distance
services is the greatest in the UK, where the incumbent has been dismantled,
and Estonia, where the public service contract for long-distance services has
been awarded to a new entrant. There are new entrants in Sweden (Veolia, BluTag), Italy (Italo-NTV in the Italian high-speed network), the Czech Republic (LeoExpress and Regiojet, both in the Prague-Ostrava route) and Austria (Westbahn in the Vienna-Salzburg route).
A number of companies have made known their
intentions to open domestic commercial services in several Member States. MTR,
part of the broad MTR Group from Hong Kong, has indicated its intention to
start new services on the Stockholm-Goteborg line. Leo Express/DLA applied to
enter the Warsaw-Krakow/Katowice and Warsaw-Szczecin routes, but the
application was refused on administrative grounds[80].
Source: RMMS contributions from Member States,
completed with own calculations 
based on UIC, CER, annual reports, annex 19 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186
*all new entrants appear to be regional new entrants
** no data for Sweden
5.7.        Passenger railways – international services
Thello a joint venture between Veolia and
Trenitalia operating night services between Paris and Venice is the only new
entrant in international services. DB has indicated that it intends to operate
as a competitor to Eurostar on the Brussels-London line (originating in Frankfurt). Thello has also applied for a Belgian licence and the city of The Hague appears
to have signed an agreement with DB Arriva to link it with Brussels. Finally,
thanks to the opening of the France-Spain high-speed connection, SNCF and RENFE
are now offering Paris-Barcelona and Madrid-Marseille services.
6.           Barriers to more effective
rail services
The Commission has
identified the lack of opening of domestic passenger rail markets (which cover
94% of all passenger-km) and the inadequate portfolio of functions for
infrastructure managers as the two main obstacles in the area of market access
for a fully functioning Single European Railway Area. On the 30th
January 2013, the Commission adopted the 4th railway package
proposals to modify Directive 2012/34/EU and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 on
public passenger transport services by rail and by road[81] to fulfil these
objectives.  
7.           Conclusions
The assessment of this
report confirms the analysis made by the Commission when submitting the 4th
railway package proposals: the level of satisfaction with railway services
leaves great room for improvement, many high-speed infrastructures are
under-used (and their usage could be increased thanks to open access) and it is
necessary to ensure the efficiency of the important amounts of public funds
devoted to rail (some € 36 billion for infrastructure grants and public service obligations)
to ensure the sector's long-term viability in a context of constrained public
budgets. The assessment of this report also confirms the need to proceed with
the adoption of several implementing acts under Directive 2012/34/EU (direct
costs, economic equilibrium of public service obligations, RMMS statistics,
template for licences…).  Furthermore, it also shows that measures to improve
accessibility of persons with reduced mobility are likely to have a positive
impact for ridership overall. The completion of railway freight corridors can
help rail to increase its average transport distances (which make rail more
cost-effective and thus more competitive). Finally, this report also supports a
research and innovation programme under 'Shift2Rail' devoted to the improvement
of the quality of rail services, the reduction in the life-cycle cost of
railway transport, and an overall increase in reliability in the different rail
market segments, including rail freight (which needs to move more fluidly
throughout Europe carrying more high-added value products).
[41]             The Consumer Scoreboard’s Market Performance Indicator
is a composite index that takes into account 4 key aspects of consumer
experience (easiness to compare services, consumer’s trust that seller complies
with consumer protection law, problems experienced and overall consumer
satisfaction).
[42]             OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14.
[43]             Consumer Scoreboard 2012, page 27 – the internal market
averages are: 9% of 0-4 rating and 37% of  5-7 rating (for rail, the latter is
40%)
[44]             For more information, see also Annex 12 of Staff
Working Document SWD(2014) 186
[45]             The Flash Eurobarometer conducted in 2013 on the
quality of rail services follows up a similar exercise performed in 2011 –
however, the Flash Eurobarometer of 2011 does not cover suburban services. As a
consequence, comparison between the two surveys is only done for national,
international and regional services ("conventional").
[46]             Ibid.
[47]             Consumer Scoreboard 2012, page 24
[48]             Cf. Annex 12 of Staff Working Document SWD(2014) 186
[49]             Although the focus is on frequency, other time-related
variables play an important role in traveller's decision such as waiting time,
distance to station, in-vehicle journey time, transfers, ...
[50]             i.e. respondents that are fairly or very dissatisfied
with punctuality and reliability – excludes respondents without opinion
[51]             Ireland, Czech Republic and Estonia did not provide any
data.
[52]             UIRR, Road-Rail Transport: new developments and best
practices, 55. Session of the UNECE Working Party on Intermodal Transport and 
Logistics, 6-7 November 2011, available at www.unece.org
– this data seems to be confirmed by CER (2013) Rail Freight Status Report 2013,
where less than 70% of freight trains arrived within 15 minutes of their
scheduled time during the period 2008-2012. 
[53]             17,8 billion in 2011 (no data for Slovenia and Finland) and 18,4 billion in 2012 (no data for The Netherlands)
[54]             The "net public support" to a 140 tonne
suburban train in France is estimated to amount only to 7.1 EUR/train-km, as
10.9 EUR/train-km serve to pay track access charges.
[55]             The "net public support" to a 140 tonne
suburban train in Germany is estimated to amount only to 4.8 EUR/train-km
(deducting track access charges).
[56]             The number of tendered contracts in a Member State also depends on the contract size. There are only 19 franchises in the UK, whereas based on the Mofair report, there are at least 31 railway undertakings operating one or
several public service contracts in Germany.
[57]             Contract notices have been interpreted as calls for
competition and not notices used only for transparency (for which ex ante
voluntary notices or contract award notices are best suited)
[58]             The German RMMS questionnaire reports the tendering of
49 PSCs in 2009-2011, whereas there are 45 PSCs in OJEU/TED during the same
period. 
[59]             As far as rail is concerned, the number of contract
award notices for negotiated and accelerated procedures without prior
publication and voluntary ex-ante notices has doubled since 2009: there were on
average 12 publications in 2006-2009 and 22 for the period 2010-2012.
[60]             Social criteria, if used, are regrouped statistically
under this award criteria
[61]             CER-ETF (2012), Social Aspects and the protection of
staff in case of change of railway operator: the current situation, pp.66-67 –
in some Member States there are provisions of transfer of staff for urban
transport (which explains why some Member States that did not open their PSOs
to tendering are listed.
[62]             Franchises are UK public service contracts
[63]             These
assumptions have been based mostly on CER (2010) Public service in rail
transport in the European Union: an overview
[64]             Bundesgerichtshof Beschluss X ZB4/10 vom 8. Februar 2011
S-Bahn Verkehr Rhein/Ruhr 
[65]             Railway Gazette (2013), Czech passenger market
opening in sight, 17.10.2013
[66]             Single Market Scoreboard: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/
[67]             Due to the limited number of rail Directives (15)
compared to internal market's (over 1500), the calculation method for average
delays of transposition differ. While the internal market scoreboard calculates
the average delays at a cut-off date each year, the rail statistics show the
average 'net' delays for the 15 rail Directives (i.e. between the end the
transposition period and actual notification by a Member State). The graph
therefore indicates a general trend rather than a statistical-based accuracy. Sources:
internal market scoreboard n°12,14bis, 15,16,20,21,22,23,24. The indicator only
catches Directives not transposed on-time (there was a single case of full
non-transposition, but where the non-transposed Directive was repealed in the
meantime).
[68]             At least some 63,100 additional persons are working
with railway service facilities – however, numbers remain insufficiently
reliable to provide an EU-wide estimate.
[69]             Unless otherwise mentioned, all data in this section
comes from the 2010's International Railway Statistics published by UIC
(International Union of Railways). It provides no comprehensive datasets for IE,
  DK, UK and SE, which could therefore not be included in the age structure and
seniority studies. As for the structure per gender, data were provided by
Eurostat for SE and UK but not for IE and DK. These two Member States are thus
completely excluded from the scope of this section. Moreover UIC datasets for a
certain number of Member States deviates significantly from the figures
indicated in the RMMS questionnaires completed directly by the Member States
and transmitted to the European Commission's services. For these Member
States, the indicators developed in this section then ought to be interpreted
with caution. These Member States are: DE (inclusion of DB Schenker in the
UIC statistics), NL (Infrastructure manager ProRail not included in
UIC), AT, BE, PL, RO (fragmental UIC datasets). 
[70]             CER (2014), Results of the 2013 questionnaire on the
development of women employment in the railway sector in Europe, published
on 20.01.2014. This survey was a joint exercise between the European social
partners in rail:  employers (railway undertakings represented by CER, the
Community of European railways) and workers, (represented by ETF, European
Transport Workers Federation)
[71]             Employment and industrial relations in the railway
sector, study of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions, 2012 
[72]             The first TEN decision dates
back from 1996.
[73]             Data on
traffic in TEN infrastructures and, in most cases in non-TEN, is collected by Eurostat
as part of Annex G of Regulation 91/2003 every 5 years (2005 and 2010, which
was just recently released). Data for Belgium and Greece is missing for 2010,
data for Bulgaria and Romania was not recorded in 2005, as these were not yet
EU Member States. 
[74]             30,000
in each segment direction – hence 60.000 trains in both directions.
[75]             Data
for Antwerp is not available in 2010. 
[76]             UIC (2012): 2012 Report on Combined transport in Europe, December 2012, p.80
[77]             As
indicated under quality of services, frequencies of high-speed services still
have room for growth (except in France).
[78]             Swedish rail freight
undertakings have identified Copenhagen, which manages 180.000 trains/year, as
a major difficult cross point. In Germany, the highest increases of track
access charges took place on regional lines.
[79]             Given
that the freight sector does not have any more public service obligations and
is legally completely open, "Railway undertakings other than the principal
undertaking" give a good estimation of the market penetration of new
entrants (since the market leader is almost always the incumbent). In the UK, further to the dismantling of British Rail, it could be argued that all rail freight
undertakings are new entrants. 
[80]             PKP PLK rejects Leo Express access bid, International
Rail Journal, 22.07.2013 – It appears that the application was rejected as the
regulator had not  been consulted on the impact of those services on the
economic equilibrium of public service obligations.
[81] OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 1.