COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Fifth report on monitoring developments of the rail market
Date: 2016-12-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, common transport policy, free competition, rail transport, transport infrastructure, transport market

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.12.2016  SWD(2016) 427 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Fifth report on monitoring developments of the rail market {COM(2016) 780 final}  
 
 
List of abbreviations 

CEF 
DG MOVE 
EFSI 
ERADIS 

ERDF 
ERTMS 
ESIFs 

GVA 
HICP 
IM 
INEA 
km 
KPI 
NIP 
NPV 
NSA 
p-km 
PPP 
PRIME 
PSO 
Recast Directive 
REGIO 
RFC 
RMMS 
RMMS Regulation 

RU 
RU Dialogue 
TEN-T 
t-km 
the Agency 

train-km 
UIC 
UIRR 

Connecting Europe Facility 
EC Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 
European Fund for Strategic investments 
the  European  Union  Agency  for  Railways  database  of  interoperability  and 
safety 
European Regional Development Fund 
European Railway Traffic Management System 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  include  Cohesion  Fund,  European  Regional 
Development  Fund,  European  Social  Fund,  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  and  the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
Gross Value added 
Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices 
Rail infrastructure manager 
EU Innovation and Networks Executive Agency 
kilometre 
Key performance indicator 
National Implementation Plan 
Net Present Value 
National Safety Authority 
passenger-kilometre 
Purchasing Power Parity 
Platform of Rail Infrastructure Managers In Europe 
Public Service Obligation 
Directive 2012/34/EU establishing a Single European Railway Area 
EC Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 
Rail Freight Corridor 
Rail Market Monitoring Survey 
Commission 
monitoring 
Railway undertaking 
Dialogue of Railway Undertakings 
Trans-European Transport Network 
tonne-kilometre 
European Union Agency for Railways, until June 2016 called European Railway 
Agency (ERA) 
train-kilometre 
Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer 
Union Internationale pour le transport combiné Rail-Route 

Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/1100  for  rail  market 

2 

 
 
List of Countries 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CF 
CH 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
EU 
EU13 
EU15 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
NO 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cohesion Fund 
Switzerland 
Cyprus 
the Czech Republic/Czechia 
Germany 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
European Union 
EU Member States having joined EU as from 2004 
EU Member States having joined EU before 2004 
Finland 
France 
Croatia 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Latvia 
Malta 
the Netherlands 
Norway 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Sweden 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
the United Kingdom 

3 

 
 
Table of Contents 

2.3.1. 
2.3.1. 
2.3.2. 
2.3.3. 

THE STATE OF THE UNION RAILWAY NETWORK 

Passenger rail stations 
Other service facilities 

THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNAL MARKET IN RAIL SERVICES 

Traffic volumes 
Passenger market 
Freight market 

THE EVOLUTION OF FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS IN THE RAIL SECTOR 

Infrastructure charging 
Capacity allocation and congestion 

Evolution of volumes 
Future of rail freight 
Rail noise 
Rail freight in multimodal context 

Description 
Missing links and cross border vision 
Infrastructure management 
Infrastructure density 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 
LIST OF COUNTRIES 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
FIGURES 
TABLES 
BOXES 
INTRODUCTION 
1. 
1.1. 
1.2. 
1.3. 
1.4. 
2. 
2.1. 
2.2. 
2.3. 

0 
3 
4 
6 
8 
8 
9 
11 
11 
15 
16 
17 
18 
18 
19 
22 
22 
26 
27 
28 
3.  THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNAL MARKET IN SERVICES TO BE SUPPLIED TO RAILWAY UNDERTAKINGS  30 
31 
3.1. 
34 
3.2. 
38 
4. 
38 
4.1. 
42 
4.2. 
42 
43 
44 
45 
45 
49 
52 
52 
55 
61 
69 
69 
73 
76 
76 
78 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
86 
86 
88 
90 
90 
91 

Licensing 
Degree of market opening and utilisation of access rights 
Legal liberalisation and actual entry in the rail market 
Freight market opening 
Passenger market opening 

4.4.1.  Overall evolution of fares and tickets 
4.4.2. 
4.4.3. 

4.2.1.  Network utilisation rates 
4.2.2. 
Congested sections 
4.2.3.  Managing capacity shortage 

Employment in rail 
Socio-demographic structure of the rail labour market 

Fares and tickets in different market segments 
Intermodal competition 

Infrastructure expenditure 
Funding and financing 

Rail transport services covered by public service contracts 

Punctuality and reliability 
Safety 

Developments as regards prices of passenger services 

Development of employment and social conditions 

PSO scope 
PSO compensation 

Infrastructure expenditure and funding 

The quality of passenger rail services 

EU legislation 
Transposition 

4.8.1. 
4.8.2. 
4.8.3. 

4.10.1. 
4.10.2. 

Harmonisation 

4.6.1. 
4.6.2. 

4.3.1. 
4.3.2. 

4.9.1. 
4.9.2. 

4.5.1. 
4.5.2. 

4.7. 
4.8. 

4.10. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

4.6. 

4.9. 

4 

 
4.10.3. 

Infringements 

4.11. 
5. 
5.1. 
5.2. 
5.3. 
6. 

Digitalisation 

FUNDING AND EFFICIENCY OF THE RAILWAYS 

Funding of railways 
Performance in terms of main inputs and outputs 
The challenge of performance management 

CONCLUSIONS 

92 
94 
96 
96 
97 
101 
104 

5 

 
 
Figures 

Figure 1 – 

Length of national rail networks (2014) and relative change since 2009 (length of lines, 
thousand km) ................................................................................................................................... 11 
The proportion of electrified networks (2014) and relative change since 2009 (%) ....................... 13 
Figure 2 – 
Length of dedicated high speed lines (km, 2015) ............................................................................ 13 
Figure 3 – 
Long term evolution of high speed lines in Europe (km) ................................................................. 13 
Figure 4 – 
Figure 5 – 
Institutional setting in the Member States (end 2015) ................................................................... 16 
Figure 6 –  Density of railway network in terms of surface area and population (2014) .................................. 17 
Evolution of traffic volumes since 2005 and average annual change of train-km since 2009 (%) .. 18 
Figure 7 – 
Evolution of rail passenger traffic volumes ..................................................................................... 19 
Figure 8 – 
Figure 9 – 
Passenger land transport modal split (%) ........................................................................................ 19 
Figure 10 –  Passenger land transport modal split by Member State (2014) and change since 2009 (in 

percentage points) ........................................................................................................................... 20 

Figure 11 –  Passenger traffic volumes by Member State (p-km, 2014), proportion of international traffic (%) 

and average annual change of volumes since 2009 (%) .................................................................. 21 

Figure 12 –  Propensity to travel by rail (2014) and its average annual change since 2009 (p-km per year per 

inhabitant) ....................................................................................................................................... 22 
Figure 13 –  Evolution of rail freight traffic volumes ........................................................................................... 23 
Figure 14 –  Freight land transport modal split (%) ............................................................................................. 24 
Figure 15 –  Freight land transport modal split by Member State (2014) and change since 2009 (in percentage 

points) .............................................................................................................................................. 24 

Figure 16 –  Freight traffic volumes (t-km) by Member State (t-km, 2014), proportion of international traffic 

(%) and average annual change of volumes since 2009 (%) ............................................................ 25 

Figure 17 –  Stations' density in relation to network length (number of passenger stations per 1 000 line-km, 

2014) ................................................................................................................................................ 31 
Figure 18 –  Number of stations serving more than 10 000 travellers per day ................................................... 31 
Figure 19 –  Number of stations serving less than 10 000 travellers per day ..................................................... 32 
Figure 20 –  Number of freight terminals (2014) ................................................................................................ 34 
Figure 21 –  Number of marshalling yards and train formation facilities (2014) ................................................ 35 
Figure 22 –  Number of storage sidings (2014) ................................................................................................... 35 
Figure 23 –  Number of maintenance facilities (2014) ........................................................................................ 36 
Figure 24 – 
 Number of maritime and port facilities linked to rail activities (2014) .......................................... 36 
Figure 25 –  Number of refuelling facilities (2014) .............................................................................................. 37 
Figure 26 –  Track access charges for different categories of trains (EUR per train-km, applicable 2016) ......... 39 
Figure 27 –   Average revenue from the charges for the minimum access package (EUR per train-km, 2014) ... 40 
Figure 28 –  Evolution of track access charges (EUR per train-km, projected 2013 and 2016) ........................... 41 
Figure 29 –  Network utilisation rates (thousand train-km per line-km, 2014) and relative change since 2009  42 
Figure 30 –  Evolution of infrastructure expenditure  ( billion EUR)  and proportion of maintenance and 

renewal expenditure ....................................................................................................................... 46 

Figure 31 –  Total infrastructure expenditure in Member States (million EUR) and proportion of maintenance 

and renewal expenditure ................................................................................................................ 47 
Figure 32 –  Maintenance and enhancement expenditure in Member States in relation to their network length 
(thousand EUR, per line-km) ............................................................................................................ 48 
Figure 33 –  Distribution of allocated funding by Member States (2014-2020) .................................................. 51 
Figure 34 –  Total allocated EU rail funding in Member States in relation to their network length (2014-2020, 

thousand EUR per line-km) .............................................................................................................. 51 
Figure 35 –  Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices: rail transport/all transport ............................................... 53 
Figure 36 –  Fare revenue per p-km (2012) ......................................................................................................... 53 
Figure 37 –  Average annual change in revenue per p-km (2007-2012) ............................................................. 54 
Figure 38 –  Suburban fares: monthly or 30-day (PPP-adjusted fare EUR per km) ............................................. 56 
Figure 39 –  Regional fares: peak single (PPP-adjusted fare EUR per km) ........................................................... 57 
Interurban fares under 300 km: peak single(PPP-adjusted fare EUR per km) ................................. 58 
Figure 40 – 
Interurban fares above 300 km: peak single (PPP-adjusted fare EUR per km) ................................ 59 
Figure 41 – 

6 

 
 
Figure 42 –  High speed fare: peak single (PPP-adjusted fare per km) ................................................................ 59 
Figure 43 – 
International fares: peak single (PPP-adjusted fare EUR per km) .................................................... 60 
Figure 44 –  Comparison of rail and car travel: regional trips ............................................................................. 62 
Figure 45 –  Comparison of rail and car travel: intercity trips under 300 km ...................................................... 63 
Figure 46 –  Comparison of rail and car travel: intercity trips over 300 km ........................................................ 64 
Figure 47 –  Comparison of rail and coach travel: interurban trips under 300 km ............................................. 65 
Figure 48 –  Comparison of rail and coach travel: international trips ................................................................. 66 
Figure 49 –  Comparison of rail and air travel: interurban trips over 300 km (lowest observed fare) ................ 67 
Figure 50 –  Comparison of rail and air travel: international trips (lowest observed fare) ................................. 68 
Figure 51 –  Punctuality of regional and local passenger services, percentage of services on time ................... 70 
Figure 52 –  Punctuality of long distance passenger services, percentage of services on time .......................... 71 
Figure 53 –  Reliability of regional and local passenger services, percentage of services cancelled .................. 71 
Figure 54 –  Reliability of long-distance passenger services, percentage of services cancelled ......................... 72 
Figure 55 –  Proportion of high and good satisfaction scores for railway stations and rail services .................. 72 
Figure 56 –   Significant accidents and resulting causalities ................................................................................. 75 
Figure 57 –   Significant accidents per type of accident (EU-28) .......................................................................... 75 
Figure 58 –  PSO Services as % of total passenger services (2014) ..................................................................... 77 
Figure 59 –   Split of PSO national, PSO international and non PSO services - EU (million p-km, 2014) .............. 77 
Figure 60 –  Percentage of traffic under PSO for both type A and type B traffic (2014) ..................................... 78 
Figure 61 –  PSO compensation per train-km (EUR/train-km, 2014) .................................................................. 79 
Figure 62 –  Proportion of fare-box revenue (2014) ........................................................................................... 79 
Figure 63 –  Trend in total number of active railway undertakings .................................................................... 80 
Figure 64 –   Legal liberalisation and entry of the first competitor in the freight market ................................... 82 
Figure 65 –   Legal liberalisation and entry of the first competitor in the passenger market .............................. 82 
Figure 66 –  Market share of competitors in the freight market (2014, % of t-km) and evolution 2011-2014 (in 

percentage points) ........................................................................................................................... 83 
Figure 67 –  Number of active railway undertakings in freight market (2014) ................................................... 84 
Figure 68 –  Market share of competitors in the passenger market (2014, % of p-km) and evolution 2011-2014 
(in percentage points) ...................................................................................................................... 84 
Figure 69 –  Number of active railway undertakings in passenger market (2014) .............................................. 85 
Figure 70 –  Proportion of labour force between infrastructure managers and railway undertakings (2014) ... 86 
Figure 71 –  Staff employed in incumbent rail undertakings (2014, thousand) .................................................. 87 
Figure 72 –  Staff employed in infrastructure managers (2014, thousand) ........................................................ 87 
Figure 73 –  Gender structure of railway staff (2012) ......................................................................................... 88 
Figure 74 –  Age pyramid of workers in rail (thousand employees, 2012) .......................................................... 88 
Figure 75 –  Railway staff structure per age ........................................................................................................ 89 
Figure 76 –  Transposition monitoring: market, interoperability and safety Directives ..................................... 92 
Figure 77 –  Monitoring of infringement proceedings: market, interoperability and safety Directives ............. 92 
Figure 78 –   Cost and contribution of rail sector (billion EUR, 2012 in 2010 prices) ........................................... 96 
Figure 79 –  Trends in input indicators (2007=100) ............................................................................................ 97 
Figure 80 –  Trends in output indicators (2007=100) .......................................................................................... 97 
Figure 81 –  Trends in financial indicators (2007=100, adjusted for HICP) .......................................................... 98 
Figure 82 – 
 Operating costs per train-km by Member State (EUR per train-km, 2012) .................................... 98 
Figure 83 –  Passenger track utilisation and freight track utilisation (2012) – absolute figures ......................... 99 

7 

 
Tables 

Table-1 – 
Table-2 – 
Table-3 – 
Table -4 – 
Table -5 –  Global distribution of allocated funds to transport and rail projects from EU funds under current 

Utilisation high speed lines for high speed services (2014) ............................................................. 14 
Ownership (O) and management (M) of stations serving more than 25 000 travellers per day .... 32 
Ownership (O) and management (M) of stations serving less than 1000 travellers per day .......... 33 
Congested sections and nodes ........................................................................................................ 43 

financial framework (2014-2020, billion EUR) ................................................................................. 50 
Table -6 –  Distribution of funds from CEF to railways (2014-2020) ................................................................. 50 
Table -7 –  Distribution of allocated funds to rail investment from European Structural and Investment funds 
(2014-2020, million EUR) ................................................................................................................. 50 
Table -8 –  Quality: services defined as on time in the RMMS .......................................................................... 70 
Table -9 – 
Serious accidents in Europe (2014) ................................................................................................. 76 
Table -10 –  Fatality risk in different modes (2009-2013) ................................................................................... 76 
Table -11 –  Proportion of international PSO in total PSO services (2014) ......................................................... 77 
Table -12 –  Market entry by domestic Open Access Operators ......................................................................... 85 

Boxes 

12 
Box 1 – 
Challenges with the quality of network data 
15 
Box 2 – 
Evaluation of the Train Drivers Directive 
21 
Box 3 – 
Turning around the negative trends in Estonia and Romania 
23 
Box 4 – 
Interoperability of rail networks 
25 
Box 5 – 
Inland freight transport modal split – adjusted methodology 
26 
Box 6 – 
Revitalising rail freight 
28 
Box 7 – 
Policy framework for tackling rail noise 
29 
Box 8 – 
Promoting combined transport 
30 
Box 9 – 
Service facilities and services - compliance with current rules and future developments 
33 
Box 10 –  Accessibility of stations to persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility 
38 
Box 11 –  Direct cost based charging 
43 
Box 12 –  Measuring available capacity 
46 
Box 13 – 
52 
Box 14 – 
54 
Box 15 –  National fare data 
60 
Box 16 –  Anomalies in fares 
69 
Box 17 –  Monitoring the quality of rail freight services in future 
73 
Box 18 – 
Passenger Rights 
74 
Box 19 – 
The Fourth Railway Package and the Recast of the Railway Safety Directive 
Provisions on competitive tendering of rail public service contracts in the Fourth Railway Package 79 
Box 20 – 
81 
Box 21 – 
Licensing data as available in ERADIS database 
89 
Box 22 – 
Training in the rail sector 
93 
Box 23 – 
Further harmonisation 
99 
Box 24 –  Global efficiency gaps 
101 
Box 25 – 
102 
Box 26 – 

Performance management in the existing EU law 
PRIME and its work on KPIs and best practice benchmarking 

Categories of infrastructure expenditure 
European Fund for Strategic Investments 

8 

 
 
 
 
Introduction 

This Commission Staff Working Document accompanies the Fifth Report from the Commission to the 
Council and the European Parliament on monitoring development of the rail market. While the Fifth 
Report provides a very compact overview of the latest trends, the current documents develops each 
topic  in  more  depth.  In  addition,  on  the  DG  MOVE  website,  the  data  and  graphs  used  in  this 
document have been made available in Excel format1.  

Coverage of the Report 

This document presents a non-exhaustive report2 covering the main developments in EU rail market 
along  the  lines  of  the  topics  listed  in  Article 15  (4)  of  Directive  2012/34/EU  establishing  a  single 
European  railway  area3  (hereinafter  the  'Recast  Directive'),  according  to  which  the  European 
Commission has to report every two years to the European Parliament and the Council on: 

1.  The evolution of internal market in rail services;  
2.  Services to be supplied to railway undertakings (Annex II to the Recast Directive)  
3.  The framework conditions, including inter alia:  

infrastructure charging 

investment made in infrastructure 

 
  capacity allocation 
 
  developments as regards prices 
  quality of rail transport services 
 
 
  degree of market opening 
  harmonisation between Member States 
  development of employment and related social conditions  

rail transport services covered by public service contracts 
licensing 

4.  The state of the Union railway network 
5.  The utilisation of access rights 
6.  Barriers to more effective rail services 
7. 
Infrastructure limitations 
8.  The need for legislation. 

The main focus of this document is on developments between 2009 and 2014. Where available, 2015 
data are incorporated. Depending on data availability, some comparisons are drawn with the 2011 
(rather than the 2009) situation. 

The  sources  of  data  include  Rail  Market  Monitoring  Survey  (RMMS)  responses,  the  Statistical 
in  Figures"4,  Eurostat5,  statistics  collected  by  various  sectoral 
pocketbook  "EU  Transport 
organisations6  and  ad  hoc  presentations  and  studies.  Contributions  from  the  Member  States, 
national regulators and stakeholders participating in the Working Group for Rail Market Monitoring 
in  the  framework  of  the  Single  European  Railway  Area  Committee,  have  also  been  considered.  In 

1 
2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/market/market_monitoring_en 
In addition to rail market report, the European Union Agency for Railways publishes bi-annual reports on safety 
and interoperability performance 
Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single 
European railway area OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 32 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/pocketbook-2016_en. 
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/transport/data/database 
UIC, UIPP 

9 

 
                                                 
addition, the results of two studies commissioned by the EC in 2014-2015 – Cost and Contribution of 
the  Rail  Sector  and  Prices  and  Quality  of  Rail  Passenger  Services7  -  have  formed  the  basis  for  the 
analysis presented in sections 4.4 and 4.5. 

All EU Member States are covered, except Cyprus and Malta having no railways. In addition Norway 
participates  in  the  Commission's  Rail  Market  Monitoring  exercise  (hereinafter  'the  RMMS')  and  is 
included in most parts of the report. However, EU total and average figures, where presented, do not 
include Norway or Switzerland. In addition, 2013 and 2014 RMMS responses were not received from 
Greece  and  Ireland  did  not  respond  to  the  2014  survey.  Croatian  data  are  available  only  as  from 
2013.  

The implementing act for rail market monitoring 

This  is  the  last  report  drawing  on  voluntary  RMMS  questionnaires  to  Member  States.  As  from  July 
2015  the  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/1100  for  rail  market  monitoring8 
(hereinafter 'RMMS Regulation') sets rules for mandatory data collection. The questionnaire annexed 
to  the  Regulation  was  developed  in  close  cooperation  with  the  Member  States  and  stakeholders 
participating in the Working Group for Rail Market Monitoring. While mainly building on the existing 
RMMS,  the  new  questionnaire  includes  also  some  new  indicators,  e.g.  on  revenues  and  traffic 
outputs, public service contracts, infrastructure charges and employment. With a better defined data 
requirements and a mandatory collection process, the new reporting arrangements are expected to 
lead to more consistent and coherent data. Member States' reports will be submitted electronically 
and, after validation, will be made publicly accessible. 

7 
8 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/studies/rail_en.htm 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1100 of 7 July 2015 on the reporting obligations of the Member 
States in the framework of rail market monitoring, OJ L 181, 9.7.2015, p. 1 

10 

 
                                                 
1. The state of the Union railway network 

1.1.  Description 

The rail network is the backbone of the EU's transport infrastructure. The importance attached to rail 
as a sustainable and clean mode of transport is reflected in the TEN-T Guidelines9, in the objectives of 
the  Connecting  Europe  Facility10  and  the  Cohesion  Fund11  priorities.  National  and  European 
authorities  are  working  together  to  ensure  the  necessary  support  for  building  new  but  also  for 
improving existing rail infrastructure as a part of EU-wide multimodal network.  

Figure 1 –  Length of national rail networks (2014) and relative change since 2009 

(length of lines, thousand km) 

 45

 40

 35

 30

 25

 20

 15

 10

 5

 0

E
D

R
F

L
P

T
I

K
U

S
E

E
S

O
R

Z
C

I

U F
H

T
A

G
B

O
N

E
B

K
S

L
N

K
D

R
H

T
P

L
E

E
I

V
L

T
L

I

E S
E

U
L

ES
FR
EU
BE
NL
FI
UK
DK
IT
SK
IE
LT
LU
HU
RO
CZ
SI
LV
EE
SE
DE
BG
PL
HR
AT
NO
PT
EL

-20% -10%

0%

10%

Source: Statistical pocketbook 2016 (based on UIC, IRG annual market monitoring reports, national statistics (BE, DE, FR) 
and Eurostat, DE 2009 - an estimate 

The total length of rail network in 2014 was about 220 thousand kilometres (km), which is about 2% 
more than in 2009. As shown in Figure 1, in relative terms the rail network in use has increased the 
most in Spain and France and decreased in Greece, Portugal, Norway and Austria.  

9 

10 

11 

Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union 
guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, OJ L 348/1, 20.12.2013 
Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing 
the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010, OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 129 
Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the 
Cohesion Fund, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 281 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Box 1 –  Challenges with the quality of network data 

Network length is usually expressed in line-km, which refers to a rail route between two points. A line section 
can consist of single or multiple tracks – i.e. the pairs of rails. Sparsely populated countries have a higher share 
of  single  tracks,  where  smaller  centrally  positioned  and  densely  populated  countries  have  a  high  share  of 
multiple tracks.  

While data on the length of lines is usually available, there could be significant variations in reported values for 
some  countries  depending  on  the  scope  of  reporting.  For  example,  for  the  biggest  European  network  in 
Germany, depending on source, the following data can be found: 

Source 

Reporting year 

Value (km) 

Comment 

Eurostat 

2013 

41 328 

IRG Rail 

2014 

38 836 

Statistics  collected  on  a  voluntary  basis  from  the 
National  Statistical  Institutes,  the  reported  value 
may include lines of trams and industrial railways 

All  lines  in  commercial  use  managed  by  different 
infrastructure managers  

UIC 

2013 

33 446 

Only the network of DB Netz AG 

Regarding data on the number of tracks, line speed and electrification, data are collected by Eurostat, but on a 
voluntary basis,  which  affects  availability  and  data  coverage.  Therefore,  in  this document  all  network  data  is 
taken  from  the  DG  MOVE  publication  'EU  transport  in  Figures,  Statistical  pocketbook  2016',  where  the  data 
from various sources (UIC, Eurostat, national statistics, sectoral sources) are combined using the best available 
options.  

At the same time good quality data on the network and its capabilities, such as maximum axle load, length of 
trains, electrification, line speed etc. are essential for monitoring the network quality and interoperability. In 
addition, many key performance indicators (such as traffic volumes and costs) are 'normalised' using line and 
track kilometres. Therefore, DG MOVE has undertaken, with the assistance of a consultant and in cooperation 
with  Member  States  and  the  sector,  a  task  of  populating  the  TENtec  database12  with  good  quality  network 
data, covering at least the core and comprehensive network. DG MOVE is also cooperating with Eurostat as to 
refine the definitions applicable to network statistics and thus improve the quality of reporting. 

According to available statistics from Eurostat, about 60% of rail lines are single track. In Belgium, the 
United Kingdom and the Netherlands the share of multiple tracks (double or more) is more than 70%, 
while  in  sparsely  populated  Finland  and  Sweden  less  than  20%  of  the  whole  network  has  multiple 
tracks.  

Since  2009,  it  is  estimated  that  2800 km  of  electrified  lines  has  been  added  to  the  European  rail 
network. The proportion of electrified lines has since 2009 increased 1.6 percentage points and was 
in  2014  52%.  As  shown  in  Figure 2,  there  are  marked  differences  between  the  Member  States  -  in 
Luxembourg and Belgium more than 80% of lines are electrified, while in the Baltic States and Ireland 
electrification  rates  are  below  15%.  Most  progress  between  2009  and  2014  was  made  in  absolute 
terms in Spain (+781 km) and in relative terms in Greece (+87%). For the coming years Banedanmark 
(Danish  infrastructure  manager)  and  Network  Rail  (the  UK  infrastructure  manager)  have  launched 
large-scale projects for the electrification of major parts of their networks. 

12 

TENtec is the EC information system to coordinate and support the TEN-T policy by storing and managing 
technical, geographical and financial data for the analysis, management and political decision-making related to 
trans-European transport networks and the Connecting Europe Facility.  

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 2 –  The proportion of electrified networks (2014) and relative change since 2009 (%) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

EL - 87% 

EL
PT
ES
FI
HU
SE
BE
DE
EU
CZ
FR
NL
BG
UK
RO
SK
IT
AT
DK
EE
IE
LT
LU
SI
PL
HR
LV
NO

U
L

E
B

L
N

E
S

T
I

G
B

T
A

T
P

O
N

L
P

S
E

I
F

U
E

E
D

R
F

I

K S
S

U
H

O
R

R
H

Z
C

K
U

K
D

L
E

V
L

E
E

T
L

E
I

-20%

0%

20%

Source: Statistical pocketbook 2016 (based on UIC, IRG annual market monitoring reports, national statistics (BE, DE, FR) 
and Eurostat  
Note: Reported reduction in electrified lines in LV and NO could be due to changes in the scope of reporting (e.g. exclusion 
of side tracks without regular traffic in Norway) 

Travel speeds and high speed network 

There  are  major  differences  between  countries  in  terms  of  travel  speeds.  Despite  the  significant 
investment  in  the  modernisation  of  the  rail  network  in  Eastern  Europe,  there  are  still  regional 
networks  where  maximum  permitted  speed  for  passenger  trains  is  120 km  per  hour  or  even  less. 
These are mainly in the Baltic States, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria13. 

As regards the travel speed of freight trains, in some national networks and international rail freight 
corridors it is 50-60 km/h. However for the most of international freight trains, especially in central 
and  eastern  Europe,  the  average  speed  is  between  20  and  30  km/h.  On  some  international  routes 
freight trains run at an average speed of only around 18 km/h14. 

Figure 3 –  Length of dedicated high speed lines 

Figure 4 –  Long term evolution of high speed 

(km, 2015) 

lines in Europe (km) 

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

 0

S
E

R
F

E
D

T
I

L
P

E
B

L
N

K
U

T
A

Source: Statistical pocketbook 2016 

10 000

8 000

6 000

4 000

2 000

 0

5
8
9
1

7
8
9
1

9
8
9
1

1
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

1
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

5
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

1
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

13 
14 

6th Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion 
The report of the European Court of Auditors ‘Rail freight transport in the EU: still not on the right track’. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
High speed lines15 make up part of the rail networks of Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the 
United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria (see Figure 3) and since 2015 also in Poland. In total 3.4% 
of the European rail network is high speed. Over the last six16 years the high speed network has been 
expanded by 1 400 km (31%). More than 110 billion passenger-km (p-km) or 26% of all p-km in 2014 
were  run  on  high  speed  lines.  The  Spanish  high  speed  network  with  its  2 871 km  in  operation  and 
1 200 km under construction is the second largest in the world after China17. In Denmark, Germany, 
France, Italy and Austria, another 1 200 km of high speed lines are under construction and new lines 
are planned in the United Kingdom and Sweden. In addition, large sections of the conventional rail 
network  have  been  upgraded  for  use  by  high-speed  trains.  By  2030  the  planned  high-speed  TEN-T 
should extend to over 30 000 km18. 

Building  high  speed  lines  requires  significant  investment  and,  while  there  is  always  a  societal 
dimension linked to railway developments, achieving high utilisation rates is nevertheless crucial for 
mitigating burdens. A recent study by the Feder Foundation19 noted that only one high speed line in 
Europe  –  Paris/Lyon  –  generates  profits  while  all  other  high  speed  lines  are  dependent  on  public 
subsidies. Table-1 presents the utilisation rates of high speed lines by high speed trains in 201420. The 
best utilisation rate has been achieved by High Speed 1 in the United Kingdom, operating a dedicated 
line between London and the Channel Tunnel. Achieving high utilisation rates is more challenging for 
larger networks. In these terms the French high speed network clearly outperforms the others. The 
use of extensive high speed networks in Spain is 5 times lower than in in France and almost 4 times 
lower than in Germany. In the Netherlands, after  the technical difficulties of launching the services 
with FYRA-trains, Thalys-trains are the only high speed trains operated on HLS-Zuid.  

Table-1 –  Utilisation high speed lines for high speed services (2014) 

BE 

DE 

ES 

FR 

IT 

NL 

UK 

Traffic with high speed rolling 
stock (million p-km) 

Length of high speed lines (km) 

910 

209 

24 316 

12 788 

50 659 

12 794 

1 352 

2 515 

2 036 

923 

242 

120 

4 360 

113 

Proportion of high speed network 
compared to total network 
(line km) 

Utilisation rate 
(million high speed p-km per 
line km per year) 

6% 

3% 

16% 

7% 

5% 

4% 

1% 

4.4 

18.0 

5.1 

24.9 

13.9 

2.0 

38.6 

Source: Statistical pocketbook 2016, based on UIC data 

15 

16 

17 

18 
19 

20 

High speed lines are defined as lines or sections of lines on which trains can go faster than 250 km/h at some 
point during the journey 
Data on high speed networks are available also for 2015, therefore comparison is made not between 2014 and 
2009, but between 2015 and 2009 
Study on the Results and Efficiency of Railway Infrastructure Financing within the European Union, Directorate-
General for Internal Policies, European Parliament, 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/552308/IPOL_STU(2015)552308_EN.pdf 
6th Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion 
Albalate and Bel, 2015, referred to in the Study on the Results and Efficiency of Railway Infrastructure Financing 
within the European Union 
Usage of high speed lines by conventional trains is excluded from this analysis 

14 

 
 
                                                 
1.2.  Missing links and cross border vision 

Cross-border  projects  to  remove  missing  links  and  bottlenecks  between  national  networks  and 
creating  the  European  single  rail  area  are  key  components  of  the  TEN-T  policy  supported  by  CEF 
financing. For instance – Öresund – the fixed rail and road link between Denmark and Sweden – has 
been completed and has brought positive socio-economic benefits to neighbouring regions. On-going 
projects  include  for  example  Evora-Merida  (PT/ES),  Gent-Terneuzen  (BE/NL),  Trieste-Divača  (IT/SI), 
Karlsruhe-Basel  (DE/CH)  and  Katowice-Žilina  (PL/SK).  The  estimated  cost  of  completing  the  TEN-T 
network is EUR 700 billion, a significant part of which goes to cross-border projects. 

In addition, assuring connection between smaller cities in neighbouring countries can contribute to 
improved economic and social well-being. These links, even if not included in the TEN-T Network, can 
serve as feeder lines providing access to the TEN-T comprehensive network. Other initiatives, mostly 
stimulated through EU regional policy, are intended to identify and support such projects, if viable.  

In response to the initiative of the EP Committee of Transport and Tourism, which aimed to map the 
cross-border rail sectors having been abandoned over the last decades, DG MOVE proceeded with an 
analysis  of  a  selection  of  discontinued  local  connections.  The  aim  was  to  identify  necessary 
conditions for taking some of these projects forward and key factors for them being successful. The 
results  are  summarised  in  the  brochure  State  of  Play  of  Cross  Border  Railway  Sections  in  Europe 
(February 2016). 

The  results  of  the  analysis  showed  that  apart  from  traditional  financing  issues,  there  are  many 
additional barriers for implementing cross border rail projects. These include: 

  administrative and legal hurdles, such as different permission, concession and procurement 

rules in Member States; 

  political barriers, such as unaligned political priorities or opposition from local communities 

 

to building a line; 
technical barriers in terms of different standards applicable to rail lines and rolling stock , 
variations in safety certification rules; 

  operational barriers, such as different languages, infrastructure charging approaches, issues 

with ticket sales and with the access to service facilities. 

Several efforts are ongoing to facilitate and overcome these obstacles. The Fourth Railway Package 
has given a new role to the European Union Agency for Railways (the Agency)21 to provide EU level 
safety certification and vehicle authorisation. Some operational barriers, as regards train drivers, will 
be addressed during the ongoing evaluation of the Train Drivers Directive22 and implementing rules 
will be established to facilitate access to service facilities23. DG MOVE has also commissioned a study 
on  'Permitting  and  facilitating  the  preparation  of  the  TEN-T  Core  Network  Corridors'  and  the  new 
Procurement Directive24 contributes to the simplification of cross-border projects. 

Box 2 – 

Evaluation of the Train Drivers Directive 

It is not only networks and rail vehicles, but also train drivers that need to be interoperable across the borders. 
Consequently, the main objective of the Train Drivers Directive is to facilitate the mobility of train drivers in the 

21 
22 

23 
24  

Until 16 June 2016 called European Railway Agency 
Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of 
train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community, OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 51 
See Box 9 for further information 
Directive  2014/25/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26 February  2014  on  procurement  by 
entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243 

15 

 
                                                 
context  of  the  increasing  opening  of  the  railway  market  while  as  a  minimum  maintaining  the  current  safety 
levels. The Directive lays down conditions and procedures for the certification of train drivers operating rolling 
stock  on  the  railway  market  of  the  EU.  It  also  specifies  the  tasks  of  competent  authorities  in  the  Member 
States, train drivers and other stakeholders such as railway undertakings and infrastructure managers. 
The report25 submitted in December 2013 by the Agency was a first assessment of the implementation of the 
Directive. In addition to its benefits, the assessment concluded that the Directive has some unclear or outdated 
provisions  and  therefore  the  scheme  is  not  fully  effective  in  terms  of  achieving  a  harmonised  EU-wide 
certification system for train drivers. The latter, however, is crucial for ensuring  safety, non-discrimination of 
drives as well as for cost-efficient cross-border operations. 

Building  on  the  report  of  the  Agency,  the  Commission  is  currently  conducting  an  evaluation  of  the  Directive 
with  the  aim  to  provide  a  complete  overview  of  its  implementation  as  well  as  the  effectiveness  of  its 
provisions. Depending on its results, the evaluation may form the basis for a review of the Directive. 

1.3. 

Infrastructure management 

Management of rail infrastructure is in the hands of national infrastructure managers. Each Member 
State has one 'main' (incumbent) infrastructure manager taking care of the core part of the network, 
and other smaller infrastructure managers (mostly few, but e.g. in Germany and Sweden couple of 
dozens).  These  smaller  infrastructure  managers  are  responsible  e.g.  for  specific  lines,  for  regional 
infrastructure or for lines linking railways and service facilities. Transparent and non-discriminatory 
access  to  rail  infrastructure  is  of  a  paramount  importance  for  attracting  more  operators  to  the 
market. Infrastructure manages are also working on removing bottlenecks, raising efficiency as well 
as improving service quality, punctuality and reliability. 

The Fourth Railway Package has proposed further measures to ensure that infrastructure managers 
perform  all  the  functions  needed  to  run  rail  operations  in  an  optimised,  efficient  and  non-
discriminatory manner. Network efficiency can be improved further by pursuing interoperability and 
encouraging cross-border cooperation. 

An  overview  of  various  national  governance  structures  of  the  main  infrastructure  managers  is 
provided in the scheme below. 

Figure 5 – 

Institutional setting in the Member States (end 2015) 

25 

http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/141118%20Art%2033%20report%20V1.1_final.pdf 

16 

IntegratedIntegrated, separate body for essential functionsA holding structure with limited independence guaranteesA holding structure with strong independence guaranteesIM in charge of all  functions (incl. capacity allocation and charging)IrelandAustriaFranceGermanyItalyPolandBelgiumLatviaPoland *SloveniaBelgiumBulgariaCzech RepublicCroatiaDenmarkEstoniaUK (GB part) FinlandGreeceNetherlandsPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSpainSwedenIM in charge of functions, except  the essential functions (capacity allocation and charging), which are under the responsibility of a separate bodySloveniaHungaryIrelandLithuaniaLuxembourg IM in charge of the essential functions, some parts delegated to railway undertakingFranceSeparatedOrganisationally IntegratedSeparatedScope of IM functionsFullPartial 
 
                                                 
Since 2012 the following changes have taken place: 

 
 

 

 

In Belgium, the infrastructure manager is no longer part of a holding; 
In Slovenia, a holding structure was created and infrastructure manager's functions were 
merged; 
In Ireland, essential functions of infrastructure manager were separated, as required in case 
of integrated structures; 
In France, a new holding structure was set up, and all infrastructure management functions 
were reattributed to one single infrastructure manager, which is a subsidiary of the holding;  

  Poland has a particular form of holding structure, where the State rather than the holding 

controls the infrastructure manager. 

1.4. 

Infrastructure density  

The Czech Republic, Belgium and Luxembourg with high population densities, have the most dense 
rail networks in terms of territorial coverage. Density of rail networks per inhabitant is the highest in 
sparsely  populated  Nordic  countries,  where  ensuring  connectivity  of  different  regions  requires 
relatively  more  km  of  lines.  Interestingly,  the  Czech  Republic  and  Hungary  score  high  and  Portugal 
and Greece low both in terms of lines per surface area as well as per inhabitant. 

Figure 6 –  Density of railway network in terms of surface area and population (2014) 

1 400

1 200

1 000

 800

 600

 400

 200

 0

CZ BE DE LU HU SK NL UK DK PL AT SI

FR IT Avg HR RO BG EE ES LV PT IE

LT SE

FI

EL NO

Line km per 10 000 km2

Line km per million people

Source: Statistical pocketbook 2016, based on Eurostat, UIC, IRG-Rail annual reports (BE, DE, FR), national statistics, 
Eurostat, estimates 

17 

 
 
 
2. The evolution of the internal market in 

rail services 

There are slight differences in total p-km and tonne-kilometres (t-km) as reported in the RMMS and 
Eurostat due to variations in the scope of reporting. The traffic volume indicators in this section are 
based on RMMS data (available as from 2007), because it provides break-downs between PSO and 
non-PSO  services,  domestic  and  international  services  and  to  some  extent  also  traffic  volumes  in 
different market segments. Eurostat data (as presented in Statistical pocketbook 2016) are used to 
assess  the  modal  split,  which  requires  combining  the  data  of  different  modes.  Finally,  for  train-
kilometres (train-km), the data of UIC, Eurostat and IRG-Rail have been combined in order to acquire 
a  dataset  as  complete  as  possible.  Data  on  train-km  per  type  of  traffic  (freight  and  passengers)  is 
unfortunately only partially available in Eurostat dataset and therefore is not used in the analysis. 

2.1.  Traffic volumes 

Figure 7 looks at the evolution of traffic volumes for passengers and freight over the last 10 years. 
Despite an unfavourable economic climate across much of the EU since 2009, rail passenger outputs 
were  almost  not  impacted  by  the  crisis  and  have  continued  to  grow  on  average  1%  per  year.  Rail 
freight outputs in t-km in contrast dropped heavily in 2009, the low point of economic crisis and have 
not yet fully recovered. Total train-km (including both passenger and freight train movements) have 
effectively not increased indicating possibly certain productivity gains. 

Figure 7 –  Evolution of traffic volumes since 2005 and 

average annual change of train-km since 2009 (%) 

460

440

420

400

380

360

340

320

300

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

Freight - bil tonne-km

Passengers - bil passenger km

Trains - 10 mil train km

IE
DK
EE
SE
AT
LU
IT
UK
NL
NO
BE
DE
HU
EU
LT
FI
LV
SI
ES
SK
CZ
FR
PT
RO
BG
PL
HR
EL

-10% -5% 0% 5% 10%

18 

 
 
 
  
Source: p-km RMMS, except IE and ES (Eurostat) and t-km RMMS, except  IE, EL, ES and RO (Eurostat), train-km 2009 UIC, 
2014 Eurostat, except  BE, DK, FR, NL ( IRG Rail 4th Annual Market Monitoring Report) and PT (an estimate). 

2.2.  Passenger market 

Figure 8 –  Evolution of rail passenger traffic volumes 

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
p
n
o

i
l
l
i

b

440

430

420

410

400

390

380

370

360

350

340

22 

370 

25 

28 

25 

25 

22 

15 

16 

383  385  387  391 

399  398 

404 

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

i

f
o
e
r
a
h
s

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

Domestic

International

Share of international traffic

Source: RMMS except EL, ES, IE where a mixture of Eurostat data and 
estimates is used 

In  2014,  about  9.4 billion  rail 
trips were made in EU countries. 
According  to  RMMS  data,  over 
the 
last  five  years  to  2014, 
passenger  rail  demand  in  the  EU 
increased  by  30 billion  p-km  to 
429 billion.  This  represents  an 
average  growth  rate  of  1.5%  per 
annum.  About  6%  of  passenger 
traffic is international. 

increased, 
traffic 

While  domestic 
travel  has 
constantly 
the 
remained 
international 
the  same  compared  to  2014.  An 
increase  of  5%  or  more  took 
place  only 
in 
Portugal.  

in  France  and 

While  volumes  have  grown,  the  modal 
land 
share  of  passenger 
transport  at  the  EU  level  has  shifted 
only  a  half  of  percentage  point  from 
7.1% to 7.5%. 

rail 

in 

Figure 9 –  Passenger land transport modal split (%) 

10,0 

9,8 

9,4 

9.2 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

83,6 

83,3 

83,6 

83,1 

States. 

It  should  however  be  noted  that  there 
are  marked  differences  between 
Member 
Some  Western 
European  countries  (the  Netherlands, 
the United Kingdom) face the challenge 
of  accommodating  a  modal 
shift 
rail  on  already  saturated 
towards 
networks.  Rail's  modal  share  has 
increased  also  in  the  Czech  Republic 
and  Slovakia.  At  the  same  time  some 
other  Eastern  European  and  peripheral 
countries  (Latvia,  Slovenia,  Bulgaria, 
Croatia)  cancel  services  due  to  financial  constraints  and  decreased  demand.  The  latter  is  often 
caused by low quality of services, where low frequency, long travel times and old fleet cause people 
to switch to other modes. This will in turn lead to a drop in revenue and to a vicious circle of service 
deterioration.  

Source: Eurostat and Statistical pocketbook 2016 

Coaches, buses and trolley buses

Passenger cars

Trains

9
9
9
1

4
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

4
1
0
2

6,6 

7,5 

6,9 

7,1 

0%

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10 – Passenger land transport modal split by Member State (2014) 

and change since 2009 (in percentage points) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

T
A

K
D

U
H

L
N

R
F

E
S

K
U

Z
C

E
D

E
B

U
E

K
S

S
E

T
I

L
P

I
F

O
N

O
R

U
L

T
P

V
L

R
H

E
I

I

G S
B

E
E

T
L

L
E

CZ
UK
ES
AT
IT
SK
DK
NL
EU
LT
DE
NO
BE
SE
IE
LU
EE
FI
FR
PT
EL
HU
SI
LV
BG
PL
RO
HR

Trains

Passenger cars

Motor coaches, buses and trolley buses

-3

0

3

Source: Eurostat and Statistical pocketbook 2016 

Figure 10 shows that rail's modal share in passenger transport is higher than the EU average (7.5%) in 
nine  Member  States  -  Austria,  Denmark,  Hungary,  the  Netherlands,  France,  Sweden,  the  United 
Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Germany and Belgium, while Spain, Italy and Slovakia are also catching 
up. In Croatia, Romania, Poland and Bulgaria rail's share has declined more than 1 percentage point.  

According  to  Figure 11  the  main  markets  for  passenger  rail  travel  are  in  large  and  high-income 
Western European Member States. The growth of rail use since 2009 varied significantly, the largest 
relative increases in p-km over the last 5 years being in the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic and 
Luxembourg.  An  average  decrease  of  4  %  or  more  per  year  has  taken  place  in  Romania26,  Bulgaria 
and  Greece.  Most  dramatic  reduction  has  taken  place  in  Croatia,  where  according  to  available 
statistics passenger traffic has halved over the last 5 years27.  

The divergence in growth rates in Member States reflects the impacts of a broad range of exogenous 
and endogenous factors. For example, increased access to car ownership and higher car use in EU13 
Member  States  has  suppressed  rail  demand  in  these  countries.  Conversely,  the  opening  of  new 
infrastructure or services, such as the West Coast Main Line upgrade works in the United Kingdom 
(2008) have supported rail demand and encouraged modal shift. Congestion on roads is also a strong 
factor supporting demand  for rail services, in particular if facilitated by a suitable service offer and 
appropriate public policies (such as scarcity charge)28.  

26 
27 

28 

However, this trend may have turned around - see Box 3 
The  dramatic  decrease  in  HR  might  be  partly  caused  by  methodological  issues:  since  the  integrated  transport 
system and ticketing has been introduced in Zagreb area, the passengers using integrated passes and tickets are 
not anymore included in railway statistics. 
Source: Study on the Cost and Contribution of the Rail Sector(2015) 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Figure 11 – Passenger traffic volumes by Member State (p-km, 2014), proportion of international traffic (%) 

and average annual change of volumes since 2009 (%) 

m
k
-
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
p
n
o

i
l
l
i

b

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

E
D

R
F

K
U

T
I

S
E

L
N

L
P

E
S

T
A

E
B

Z
C

U
H

K
D

I

O F
R

T
P

Domestic

International

E
I

L
E

K
S

G
B

O
N
Share of international

R S
H

I

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

i

f
o
e
r
a
h
s

UK
CZ
LU
ES
AT
SK
DE
NO
IT
EU
EE
SE
NL
DK
BE
LT
IE
FR
FI
SI
HU
PT
PL
LV
EL
BG
RO
HR

V
L

U
L

T
L

E
E

-10%

0%

10%

Source: RMMS, except EL, ES, IE where a mixture of Eurostat data and estimates is used 
Note: FR – drop in international traffic between 2012 and 2013 is due to a break in time series 

In Eastern Europe, upgrading rail infrastructure and rolling stock and thus enhancing service quality 
appears of being the lever to support modal shift towards rail. 

Box 3 – 

Turning around the negative trends in Estonia and Romania 

9 000

8 000

7 000

O
R

6 000

300

250

200

E
E

,

m
k
-
p
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

,

m
k
-
p
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

 0

150

100

50

0

5
0
0
2

6
0
0
2

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

RO

EE

Source: RMMS 

to  national 

Until 2014, the volume of rail passenger services 
both 
in  Estonia  and  Romania  had  been 
decreasing for more than 5 years. But it appears 
that both countries have managed to turn these 
negative developments around. In 2014 p-km in 
Estonia increased 27% and in Romania 13% and, 
according 
growth 
continued  in  2015  (further  +5%  in  Estonia  and 
+4% in Romania). In both countries the upgrades 
of  certain  lines  allowed  for  higher  speeds  and 
this  helped  the  railways  to  gain  popularity.  In 
Estonia,  in  addition,  new  rolling  stock  was  put 
into service, while in Romania ticket prices were 
reduced. It remains to be seen whether positive 
trends can be maintained. 

statistics, 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rail travel per inhabitant in Member States varies by a factor of ten. In 2014, estimated rail travel 
per  capita  was  almost  1 400 km  per  year  in  Austria  and  France,  and  more  than  1000  in  Sweden, 
Denmark,  Germany and the Netherlands; it keeps growing in all  these countries. At the same time 
the propensity to travel by rail was less than 100 km in Lithuania and Greece29. 

Figure 12 – Propensity to travel by rail (2014) and its average annual change since 2009 

(p-km per year per inhabitant) 

1 600

1 400

1 200

1 000

 800

 600

 400

 200

 0

T
A

R
F

E
S

K
D

E
D

L
N

K
U

E
B

T
U I
E

U
H

U
L

Z
C

I
F

O
N

S
E

K
S

L
P

E
I

I

T S
P

V
L

G
B

O
R

R
H

E
E

T
L

L
E

Source: RMMS and Eurostat 

2.3.  Freight market 

CZ
UK
ES
DE
AT
LT
SK
EE
LU
EU
IT
NL
NO
DK
SE
FR
IE
BE
FI
HU
SI
PT
LV
PL
BG
EL
RO
HR

-10% -5%

0%

5%

2.3.1.  Evolution of volumes 

In 2014, more than 1.7 billion tonnes of freight was carried on EU railways. Figure 13 shows that rail 
freight  outputs  (t-km),  while  still  being  7%  lower  than  the  2007  peak  levels,  have  recovered  14% 
between 2009 and 2014 reaching according to RMMS data to 417.6 billion t-km and showing average 
increase of 3% per year.  

In  terms  of  t-km,  more  than  50%  of  traffic  in  2014  was  cross-border,  giving  to  rail  freight  a  much 
stronger European dimension than is the case for passenger traffic (where the proportion of cross-
border  traffic  is  only  around  6%).  The  proportion  of  cross-border  rail  freight  is  expected  to  grow 
further, taking into account that the competitive advantage of rail freight vis-à-vis road tends to grow 
with distance. 

29 

It  should  be  noted  that,  as  an  indicator,  the  propensity  to  travel  depends  besides  rail  demand  also  on  the 
characteristics of the service offer – average distance travelled is usually higher in countries with a well-developed 
inter-city long distance network. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
the 

At  the  same  time  this  means 
that  rail  freight  is  particularly 
lack  of 
affected  by 
interoperability  and  sometimes 
lack  of  cooperation  between 
the  national  railway  networks, 
or in other words – the absence 
of a Single European Rail Freight 
Area. 

Figure 13 – Evolution of rail freight traffic volumes 

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n
n
o
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

b

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

231 

222 

208 

193 

211 

214 

190 

178 

218 

218 

187 

197 

221 

206 

203 

203 

52%

51%

50%

49%

48%

47%

46%

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

i

f
o
e
r
a
h
s

7
0
0
2

8
0
0
2

9
0
0
2

0
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

Domestic

International

Share of international

Source: RMMS 

Box 4 – 

Interoperability of rail networks 

There cannot be Single European Rail Area without interoperable networks and rolling stock able to run across 
national  borders.  In  addition,  standardisation  of  systems  and  equipment  in  its  broader  sense  is  crucial  for 
achieving scale efficiencies and thus helping to reduce costs. Like highlighted in various parts of this document, 
lack of interoperability remains a key issue for international rail traffic. 

For  instance,  across  the  EU,  there  are  six  standards  for  track  gauge,  6  different  power  standards  and  4 
pantograph profiles for electric power supply. Loading gauges for freight wagons and containers also differ. For 
instance, Eurostar, the Channel Tunnel high speed train operator, which has started preparations for launching 
passenger services  on  the  route  London- Rotterdam-Amsterdam  in  late  201730,  would  need  to  find a  way  to 
comply  with  10  different  technical  subsystems.  Specific  EU  legislation  exists  to  promote  interoperability  and 
overcome  such  differences31,  which  is  implemented  with  the  assistance  of  the  Agency.  The  Agency  provides 
also  detailed  analysis  of  the  trends  of  implementation  of  interoperability  across  the  EU  in  its  biennial 
interoperability reports32.  

In  addition  operational  limitations  in  terms  of  capabilities  of  different  network  sections,  such  as  maximum 
speed,  electrification  and  permitted  train  length/axle  load,  can  limit  cross-border  rail  transport.  The  TEN-T 
Regulation33 has set capability standards for the TEN-T core and comprehensive network. 

30 

31 

32 
33 

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/high-speed/single-view/view/eurostar-plans-details-of-london-
amsterdam-service.html 
Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the interoperability of 
the rail system within the European Union, OJ L 138, 26.5.2016, p. 44 
http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Interoperabilitybiennialreport-2015.aspx 
Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013  

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14 – Freight land transport modal split (%) 

6,5 

5,9 

5,9 

6,6 

74,0 

75,9 

77,5 

75,4 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

As  shown 
in  Figure 14  rail's 
modal  share  in  inland  freight 
railways, 
(including 
transport 
roads and inland waterways) was 
18% 
in  2014  and  has  been 
relatively  constant  for  several 
as  with 
years. 
passenger  transport,  behind  a 
stable EU level average there are 
widely  diverging  trends  at  the 
Member State level.  

However 

0%

10%

18,0 

19,5 

16,6 

18,2 

9
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

9
9
9
1

Figure 15  shows  that  the  modal 
in  total 
share  of  rail  freight 
surface transport varies between 
80%  in  Latvia  and  1%  in  Ireland. 
Overall,  rail 
is  more 
dominant in the Baltic States and 
several 
Scandinavia. 
Eastern European countries (Slovenia, Romania and Hungary) have managed to significantly improve 
the  rail's  share  in  freight  transport.  A  drastic  decrease  has  taken  place  in  Estonia  due  to  rapidly 
dropping transit volumes (see below). 

Source: Eurostat and Statistical pocketbook 2016 

Inland waterways

freight 

Lately 

Railways

Roads

4
1
0
2

Figure 15 – Freight land transport modal split by Member State (2014) and change since 2009 (in percentage 

points) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

V
L

T
L

E
E

I

K S
S

T
A

I

U F
H

E
S

O
R

Z
C

L
P

R
H

E
D

U
E

G
B

T
O I
N

K
U

T
P

K
D

E
B

R
F

U
L

S
E

L
N

L
E

E
I

SI
RO
HU
FI
IT
PT
SK
ES
DK
EU
AT
UK
DE
IE
BE
FR
BG
EL
NL
HR
LU
CZ
NO
PL
LT
SE
LV
EE

Railways

Roads

Inland waterways

-20

0

20

Source: Eurostat and Statistical pocketbook 2016 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Box 5 – 

Inland freight transport modal split – adjusted methodology 

The freight modal split data at the Member State level in this RMMS report differ from those used in earlier 
RMMS reports, given the changes applied by Eurostat for calculations.  

The modal split is based on the total inland freight transport performance expressed in t-km. Complying with 
the  relevant  EU  legal  acts,  data  on  rail  and  inland  waterways  transport  are  reported  according  to  the  ’
territoriality  principle’  (transport  on  the  national  territory,  regardless  of  the  nationality  of  the  haulier). 
However, road transport data is reported according to the nationality of the haulier (regardless of where the 
transport  activity  took  place).  Therefore,  according  to  the  new  methodology,  road  transport  data  have  been 
adjusted according to the ’territoriality principle’ before calculating the modal split. More information on 
how this is done is available: 

 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Freight_transport_statistics_-
_modal_split#Data_sources_and_availability. 

Figure 16 – Freight traffic volumes (t-km) by Member State (t-km, 2014), proportion of international traffic 

(%) and average annual change of volumes since 2009 (%) 

DE - 112 total, 
of which 50% 

m
k
-
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

b

50

40

30

20

10

0

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

i

f
o
e
r
a
h
s

DE PL FR AT UK SE IT LV CZ LT BE RO ES HU FI SK NL SI NO BG EE DK HR PT LU EL IE

Domestic

International

Share of international

Source: RMMS, except for EL, ES, IE, PT, RO where a mixture of Eurostat data and estimates is used 
Note: BE: there appears to be a break in time series for international traffic as from 2013 

BE - 31% 

BE
ES
LU
DK
SI
HU
AT
IE
LT
DE
UK
PL
EU
CZ
IT
NL
RO
BG
FI
SE
LV
FR
PT
NO
HR
SK
EL
EE

-20%

0%

20%

As shown in Figure 16, countries with the highest absolute freight volumes are Germany, Poland and 
France.  In  small  Member  States,  such  as  Estonia,  Latvia,  the  Netherlands,  Slovenia,  Denmark  and 
Luxembourg more than 90% of freight is international. Since 2009 (the low-point of economic crisis), 
in Spain, Luxembourg and Denmark34 average annual increase has been close to 10% or more. Only in 
Croatia, Slovakia, Greece and Estonia there has been a further overall decline. 

Estonia  observed  a  decline  in  freight  volumes  of  51%  since  2009.  Rail  freight  traffic  in  the  Baltic 
States consists mostly of bulk cargo originating in the Russian Federation and delivered to the ports 

34 

In BE, the reported rapid increase in freight volumes might be due to a break in data series which seems to have 
been taken place between 2012 and 2013, where freight volumes more than doubled 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of  the  Baltic  Sea.  These  transit  flows  have  been  unstable  over  the  recent  years  due  to  political 
instability, but also since the new Russian ports at the Baltic Sea have taken over a major part of this 
business.  Of  the  three  Baltic  States,  Estonia  was  most  seriously  hit  and  it  appears  that  some  of  its 
freight traffic has been displaced to neighbouring Latvia, in part, due to lower access charges (both 
rail track access charges and port fees) in Latvia35. 

2.3.1.  Future of rail freight 

Despite  the positive developments  listed  above,  it is  clear  that  with the current pace it will not  be 
possible to reach the objective of the 2011 White Paper36 to shift 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2050 of 
long-distance  road  freight  to  more  energy-efficient  transport  modes  such  as  rail  and  inland 
waterways. The European Court of Auditors notes in its report  Rail freight transport in the EU: still 
not on the right track that overall, despite the EU policy objectives and the EU funding available for 
rail infrastructure, the performance of rail freight transport in the EU remains unsatisfactory. Market 
opening has achieved uneven progress in Member States and a Single European Railway Area is still a 
long  way  from  being  achieved.  As  regards  the  travel  speed  of  freight  trains,  in  some  national 
networks  and  international  rail  freight  corridors  it  is  50-60  km/h.  However  for  the  most  of 
international freight trains, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, the average speed is between 
20 and 30 km/h. On some international routes freight trains run at an average speed of only around 
18  km/h37.  Different  national  rules  govern  path  allocation,  infrastructure  management  and  pricing 
making  it  more  difficult  for  rail  to  compete  with  other  modes  of  transport  (in  addition  to  other 
factors like the lack of level playing field between the different modes, the type of goods transported 
etc).  This  is  particularly  true  for  road  transport,  whose  infrastructure  is  easily  accessible  across 
borders. As a result, rail freight transport performs poorly in terms of volume and modal share. The 
Court  therefore  recommends  that  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  should  help  the 
infrastructure  managers  and  railway  undertakings  to  increase  further  the  competitiveness  of  rail 
freight  transport,  particularly  in  terms  of  reliability,  frequency,  flexibility,  customer  orientation, 
transport time and price. 

Box 6 – 

Revitalising rail freight 

Recognition  that  longer-distance,  cross-border  transport  is  most  likely  to  shift  from  road  to  rail  is  being 
reflected in EU policies, as it is the case with the development of the Rail Freight Corridors (RFC)38, which is the 
key  element  of  the  European  strategy  to  revitalise  rail  freight.  The  establishment  of  RFCs  and  their 
corresponding governance structures aims at improving the conditions for rail freight traffic along the corridors 
and to trigger its development in terms of volume, market share, quality and reliability. The corridor approach 
also  fosters  the  cooperation  between  different  stakeholders  (primarily  the  Member  States  and  the 
infrastructure managers), the coordination in terms of capacity offer, traffic management and conditions of use 
of the infrastructure, the harmonisation of processes and rules as well as prioritisation of investment. All nine 
corridors  have  been  now  set  up  and,  based  on  the  experience  and  feedback  gathered  so  far  (including 
stakeholder consultation process); an evaluation of the RFC Regulation is currently ongoing. The purpose of the 
evaluation is to assess whether there is a need to strengthen the corridor concept and to adapt it to the new 

35 

36 

37 
38 

Cargo  volumes  handled  at  Latvian  ports  increased  by  23%  between  2004  and  2012  (see  Rijkure.  A  and  Sare.  I 
(2013), The Role of Latvian Ports Within Baltic Sea Region, European Integration Studies, 2013 No 7) 
White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient 
transport system, adopted on 28 March 2011 (COM/2011/0144) 
http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/NewsItem.aspx?nid=6971 
Embedded in the Rail Freight Corridor Regulation  - Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the European Parliament and 
of  the  Council  of  22 September  2010  concerning  a  European  rail  network  for  competitive  freight,  OJ  L  276, 
20.10.2010, p. 22 

26 

 
 
                                                 
needs and expectations of the sector.  

In addition, the Commission fully supports the Rotterdam Ministerial Declaration and Sector Statement on rail 
freight39, in the elaboration process of which it has closely participated. For the follow-up, it is crucial that the 
relevant  national  authorities  would  immediately  launch  efforts  to  increase  the  quality  and  reliability  of  rail 
freight services in Europe. 

Rail  freight  has  to  face  several  challenges,  which  are  to  different  degrees  relevant  to  all  market  segments  - 
trainload, wagonload and combined traffic: 

  A quality challenge: improving reliability and punctuality, i.e. through higher interoperability and 

better co-operation across borders in the field of traffic and infrastructure management. 

  A cost challenge: improving cost competitiveness by higher productivity and more efficient train 

operations, i.e. through improved and harmonised infrastructure standards, and by providing a more 
level playing field between transport modes. 

  A service challenge: adding new added-value service features, supported by deployment of innovative 

technology, allowing rail to (re-)enter new / lost market segments. 

  A political challenge: securing societal and political acceptance and support of rail freight, such as in 

the area of rail noise. 

Crucially, good last-mile infrastructure is vital for the development of rail freight. Discussions are ongoing with 
stakeholders  on  how  to  best  address  these  issues,  including  e.g.  facilitation  of  access  to  information  on 
European  last-mile  infrastructure  and  identification  of  success  features  for  support  programmes  for 
modernisation and new constructions. 

Finally,  it  is  important  to  ensure  that  the  same  principles  are  applied  for  charges  and  taxes  on  different 
transport  modes,  notably  the  'user  pays'  and  'polluter  pays'  principles,  and  that  the  overall  framework 
conditions  for  various  transport  modes  converge.  This  will,  at  the  end,  benefit  rail  freight.  The  Commission 
services  have  carried  out  substantial  work  in  the  past  on  the  internalisation  of  external  costs  which  also 
involved  taxation  and  charges,  and  this  work  will  be  continued  in  the  future.  A  comprehensive  study  on 
internalisation  of  external  costs  in  transport,  which  will  inter  alia  present  a  detailed  analysis  of  transport 
related taxes and charges, will be launched in 2017. 

2.3.2.  Rail noise 

Rail  freight  noise  is  the  most  sensitive environmental  problem  for  the  railway  sector  and  a  serious 
nuisance for citizens living close to railway lines. The European Environment Agency estimates that 
nearly 14 million Europeans are affected by rail noise.  

A number of initiatives have been already adopted at the EU level in order to reduce noise exposure, 
including the Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC, Technical Specification for Interoperability 
(TSI)  on  Noise40,  financial  assistance  under  the  CEF  and  modalities  for  noise-differentiated  track 
access  charges41.  However,  despite  the  efforts  of  the  Commission  and  Member  States,  progress  in 
tackling  rail  noise  is  rather  slow.  There  is  a  risk  that  excessive  levels  of  railway  noise  can  lead  to 
uncoordinated unilateral actions by Member States along the most important European rail lines, in 
particular the Rhine-Alpine corridor, such as applying speed restrictions and restrictions on operating 
at night. Such restrictions would negatively impact the competitiveness of rail freight.  

39  

40 

41 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/news/doc/2016-06-20-ten-t-days-2016/rfc-declaration.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/news/doc/2016-06-20-ten-t-days-2016/corridor-sector-
statement.pdf 
Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  1304/2014  of  26  November  2014  on  the  technical  specification  for 
interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘rolling stock — noise’, OJ L 356, 12.12.2014, p. 421 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/429 of 13 March 2015 setting out the modalities to be followed 
for the application of the charging for the cost of noise effects, OJ L 70, 14.3.2015, p. 36 

27 

 
                                                 
 
Box 7 – 

Policy framework for tackling rail noise 

Given that more than 50 % of rail freight transport is international and many wagons run across borders, any 
attempt to combat rail noise at source needs a European response. In order to assess what further steps could 
be envisaged, the Commission conducted an Impact Assessment in 2014, which indicated that at present the 
most  effective  way  to  mitigate  rail  noise  is  by  retrofitting  the  existing  freight  wagons  with  composite  brake 
blocks. This technical solution reduces rail noise by up to 10 dB which equals a 50% reduction in audible noise 
for  humans.  The  Impact  Assessment  showed  also  that  the  preferable  approach  would  be  a  policy  mix 
encompassing application  of harmonised noise-charging principles,  financial  support both at EU  and  national 
level, development of noise-related standards of railway infrastructure and a revision of the TSI on Noise. 
The  Staff  Working  Document  on  rail  freight  noise  reduction42  encapsulates  the  whole  policy  framework.  The 
Commission now envisages a revision of the TSI Noise so that in future the noise limit values become gradually 
applicable  not  only  to  new  wagons  but  also  to  existing  fleet;  first  to  international  wagons  (suggested  timing 
2022)  and  then  to  the  whole  fleet  (suggested  timing  2026).  It  is  paramount  to  provide  stakeholders  with  a 
stable timeframe, which will allow them to anticipate the necessary investment and to adopt suitable market 
strategy.  The  Agency  has  started  preparations  for  the  revision  of  the  TSI  Noise  with  planned  adoption  mid-
2017. 

2.3.3.  Rail freight in multimodal context 

Railways seldom provide door-to door delivery and therefore development of multimodal solutions 
is  vital  for  its  attractiveness.  The  study  conducted  by  the  Commission  on  the  design  features  for 
support-programs  for  investment  in  last  mile  infrastructure  (i.e.  the  movement  of  goods  from  a 
transportation hub to final destination) noted that while block trains and single wagon load transport 
still  dominate  the  European  rail  freight  market  with  1.45 billion  tonnes  (82%),  the  intermodal 
transport  accounts  for  0.31 billion  tonnes  (18%)  and  is  growing.  The  latter  is  triggered  by  rising 
maritime volumes, relevance for alpine transit and substitution of single wagon transport. 

The  above  mentioned  study  also  looked  at  the  changes  in  the  framework  conditions  for  the  rail 
freight market in Europe and concluded that over the last decades the opening of transport markets 
has led to increased intermodal competition for rail freight. There has been also a shift in the range 
of transported goods and with new cargo types the customers expect faster delivery and transparent 
transport chains with real-time information.  

Therefore, to ensure that rail freight remains competitive, it is crucial to support its functioning in the 
intermodal  context  and  to  develop  efficient  solutions  of  combined  transport43.  According  to  UIRR, 
the Association of European Road-Rail Combined Transport, the performance or rail-road combined 
transport has over the last year grown by  12.2% in 2014 and 5.23% in 2015 in terms of t-km. Shorter 
distance domestic traffic has been decreasing, while cross-border and in particular intercontinental 
combined  transport  is  increasing  (+27%  in  2015).  Subsequently,  the  average  distance  travelled 
increased  from  780 km  in  2014  to  882 km  in  2015,  proving  once  again  that  combined  rail-road 
transport  in  longer  distance  and  cross-border  services  is  more  competitive  vis-à-vis  road-only 
services than short distance (domestic) transport. 

42 
43 

SWD(2015) 300 final, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/doc/2016-01-05-cswc-rail-noise-reduction.pdf 
Multimodal  transport  is  any  transport  using  several  modes  of  transport  for  one  journey  without  any  specific 
characteristics or limitations. Intermodal transport is type of multimodal transport where the goods are carried in 
intermodal  load  unit  such  as  container  or  trailer  and  it  is  the  load  unit  that  is  transhipped  from  one  mode  to 
another as opposed to the goods being reloaded. Combined transport is a type of intermodal transport where the 
road leg is limited to a short distance and the major part of the route is carried out by rail, inland waterways or 
maritime transport. 

28 

 
                                                 
Box 8 – 

Promoting combined transport 

Given  that  the  EU  has  not  yet  fully  internalised  external  costs  of  all  transport  modes,  the  market  does  not 
provide appropriate price signals to users for shifting towards sustainable modes. Therefore, to ensure further 
development of combined transport, suitable legal and policy frameworks are needed to ensure wider use and 
investment into infrastructure and logistical solutions. 
The  Combined  Transport  Directive44  targets  this  market  failure  by  supporting  combined  transport  with 
regulatory and fiscal measures. It was adopted more than 20 years ago and was evaluated in the framework of 
the REFIT agenda in 201645. The evaluation identified several shortcomings, which the Commission is planning 
to  address  through  an  amendment  of  the  Directive.  The  planned  amendment  is  expected  to  give  a  further 
boost  to  combined  transport  in  the  EU  and  thus  support  sustainable  development  of  the  whole  transport 
system.  By  improving  the  competitiveness  of  combined  transport  as  an  alternative  to  road  transport,  the 
initiative  will  contribute  to  decarbonisation  and  reduce  transport  related  environmental  pollution  as  well  as 
improve road traffic safety and reduce congestion.  

To support the development of combined transport, it is important that the clearance gauge of a line 
gives access to standard container trains. The Commission will publish a report providing the analysis 
of  the  state  of  the  network  in  these  terms  and  suggest  measures  for  respective  enhancements  in 
early 2017. 

44 

45 

Directive 92/106/EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined 
transport of goods between Member States, OJ L 368, 17.12.1992, p. 38 
SWD  (2016)  140  (evaluation  report)  and  SWD  (2016)  141  (executive  summary)  http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/evaluation/search/download.do?documentId=17165337  

29 

 
 
                                                 
3. The evolution of the internal market in 

services to be supplied to railway 
undertakings 

The Recast Directive introduced a set of new rules for service facilities and rail related services. The 
new  legal  framework  applies  to  a  broad  range  of  facilities  including  passenger  stations,  freight 
terminals,  marshalling  yards  and  train  formation  facilities,  storage  sidings,  maintenance  facilities, 
cleaning  and  washing  facilities,  maritime  and  inland  port  facilities  and  refuelling  facilities.  The 
provisions  also  cover  the  services  provided  in  these  facilities  as  well  as  additional  and  ancillary 
services  such  as  traction  current  supply,  pre-heating  of  trains,  arrangements  for  transport  of 
dangerous goods, access to telecommunication networks and ticketing services in stations. 

Box 9 – 

Service facilities and services - compliance with current rules and future developments  

The  new  rules  introduced  by  the  Recast  Directive  have  not  yet  been  transposed  in  all  Member  States.  Even 
where they have been transposed, basic rules such as publication of access conditions and charges are often 
not  yet fully complied with. There are various reasons for this, including a lack of awareness of operators of 
services facilities and a degree of resistance towards publication of information that is considered as sensitive 
by certain stakeholders (e.g. charges for access to facilities). Given fragmentation of the market (a large range 
of  different  owners  and  operators  of  various  sizes),  there  could  be  gaps  in  terms  of  overview  of  all  service 
providers46 and this complicates proper enforcement further. 

Yet several  Member  States have already made  progress  by gradually  improving compliance  with  the  existing 
legal framework, and some have even tackled problems not yet addressed in the Recast Directive. These range 
from the development of templates to facilitate publication of information to sharing real time information on 
trains  arriving  at  the  facility  and  attempts  to  align  deadlines  for  path  allocation  and  allocation  of  capacity  in 
service facilities. 

In order to ensure a more coherent development of the service facilities market, the Commission services are 
currently  preparing  an  implementing  act  to  complement  the  basic  legal  framework.  The  act  should  help  to 
codify best practice at an early stage and prevent divergences in implementation, which can be detrimental to 
the objective of a Single European Rail Area.  

The Commission also aims at reducing the cost of traction current, which currently accounts for 10 to 30% of 
the  transportation  price.  For  instance,  following  EC  requests,  DB  Netz  (Germany)  opened  access  to  other 
current suppliers to its network. This resulted in a significant drop of energy prices and increase in third-party 
suppliers' market share.   

Another aim is to create conditions allowing the suppliers to shift from an estimates based consumption billing 
to meter based billing. The latter would incentivise utilisation of energy friendly rolling stock and driving styles. 
Necessary  conditions  include  on-board  metering  systems,  transmission  interfaces  for  metered  data  and  a 
clearance system. SNCF Reséau (France) and ProRail (the Netherlands) have started to test a clearance system.  

The  main  aim  of  the  legislation  is  to  increase  the  transparency  of  access  conditions  and  charges 
applied and to ensure non-discriminatory access to facilities. Therefore, ownership and management 
of  facilities  needs  to  be  monitored.  RMMS  information  is  rather  complete  for  stations  but  still 
fragmented for other facilities and there is room for improvement as regards monitoring of this part 
of  the  rail  market.  In  particular  definitions  of  the  various  categories  of  facilities  have  not  yet  been 

46 

The UK for example highlighted that (1) the majority of freight facilities have so far been unregulated and are 
operated by commercial entities and their exact number is not known. Many freight sites are controlled by freight 
operators but they are not clearly disaggregated into yards, sidings, refuelling, freight maintenance etc.  

30 

 
 
                                                 
harmonised.  Therefore  any  data  presented  in  this  section  must  be  interpreted  with  care.  The 
Commission  services  are  cooperating  with  national  regulators  and  Member  States  to  refine 
definitions and improve the quality of reporting.  

3.1.  Passenger rail stations 

There were about 30 000 stations in the EU in 201447, of which about 300 were large stations serving 
more than 25 000 travellers per day.  

Figure 17 – Stations' density in relation to network length 

(number of passenger stations per 1 000 line-km, 2014) 

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

As  shown  in  Figure 17, 
Austria,  Czech  Republic 
and  Slovakia  have  more 
than  250  stations  per 
1 000 
less 
line-km  (i.e. 
than  5 km  between  two 
stations)  while  Finland, 
Ireland 
and 
Belgium 
have, 
to 
according 
RMMS data, less than 50 
stations  per  1 000  line-
km (i.e. more than 20 km 
on average between two 
stations).  

T
A

Z
C

K
S

I

U S
L

R
H

T
P

U
H

E
D

L
E

K
U

T
I

L
P

g
v
A

L
N

K
D

R
F

O
R

S
E

O
N

E
E

V
L

G
B

T
L

E
S

E
I

I

E F
B

Source: Number of stations:  RMMS and  IRG Rail 4th Annual Market Monitoring Report 
for  EL, HR and SK. Length of lines: Statistical pocketbook 2016 

Figure 18 – Number of stations serving more than 10 000 travellers per day 

193 

121 

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

84 

87 

47 

36 

31 

21 

39 

19 

15 

14 

26 

11 

15 

9 

20 

6 

19 

12 

6 

4 

9 

3 

6 

2 

1 

0 

1 

0 

3 

1 

0 

1 

0 

10 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

DE

FR UK NL

AT

ES

IT

PL

DK

PT

SE

CZ

FI

LU

LV NO EE HU

IE

LT

RO

SI

Stations serving over 25 000 travellers per day

Stations serving 10 000-25 000 travellers per day

Source: RMMS (data 2013 for IE), BE, EL, HR and SK - data not available. 

Figure 18 and Figure 19 present the number of stations in different size clusters. Germany, France 
and  the  United  Kingdom  have  the  highest  number  of  large  stations  serving  more  than  10 000 
travellers  per  day.  Bulgaria,  Lithuania  and  Slovenia  reported  that  they  do  not  have  such  stations48. 

47 
48 

Includes estimates for countries where data were not  available (BE, EL, HR, IE, SK) 
Data for IE are for 2013, data not available for BE, EL, HR and SK  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Germany, France, Poland and the Czech Republic have a high number of smaller stations, serving less 
than  10 000  travellers  per  day.  Very  small  stations  serving  less  than  1 000  travellers  per  day 
outnumber the stations serving between 1 000 and 10 000 travellers per day in all countries except in 
the Netherlands. 

Figure 19 – Number of stations serving less than 10 000 travellers per day 

4 500

4 000

3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

 500

 0

4576 

1671 

2350  2326  2323 

2080 

1508 

906 

1262  1179  1095 

937 

445 

226 

209 

425 

225 

252 

95 

33 

400 

140 

378 

74 

297 

297 

10 

36 

260 

11 

121 

159 

140 

48 

128 

2 

123 

22 

122 

3 

232 

116 

27 

63 

20 

43 

DE

FR

PL

CZ

IT UK HU AT

ES

RO SE

PT

BG NO SI

DK

FI

LT

LV

EE NL

IE

LU

Stations serving 1000- 10 000 travellers per day

Stations serving less than 1000 travellers per day

Source: RMMS 2014 except for IE and PL (2013 data) and BE, EL, HR, SK (data not available). For EE and SE: estimates for 
number of stations serving less than 1 000 travellers. 

As shown in Table-2, ownership/management of large stations is concentrated in the hands of a few 
players.  Infrastructure  managers  or  incumbent  railway  undertakings  are  managers  and  often  also 
owners.  Governments  own  large  stations  in  7  countries,  leaving  the  management  to  infrastructure 
managers or integrated companies.  

Table-2 –  Ownership (O) and management (M) of stations serving more than 25 000 travellers per day 

Number of stations 
(2014)  

3 

6 

121 

14 

47 

N/A 

11 

1 

1 

21 

15 

9 

6 

N/A 

2 

4 

36 

1 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

ES 

FR 

HR 

IT 

LV 

LU 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

NO 

Incumbent 
railway 
undertaking 
O, M 

Other 
RUs 

Infrastructure 
manager 

Integrated 
companies 

Government 

Other 
private 
operators 

O, M 

O, M 

O, M 

 O, M 

O 

O 

 O, M 

 O, M* 

O 

 M 

O 

O, M 

 O, M 

O, M 

 M 

M  

 M 

O, M 

 M 

O, M 

M 

O 

O 

 O 

 O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

Source: RMMS. FR data reflects the situation in 2014 before the 2015 national railway reform. In SE the main infrastructure 
manager manages platforms in stations, the state-owned Jernhusen owns and manage around 50 station-buildings (out of 
around 160), including the three largest; the rest is owned by various entities such as local municipalities and private 
companies. *= in ES the management of commuter stations is entrusted to Renfe Operadora (incumbent RU). 

32 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
The  ownership/management  of  small  stations,  presented  in  Table-3,  is  more dispersed  across  the 
different players in all countries. In addition to government and main infrastructure managers, other 
railway  undertakings  and  private  operators  are  more  involved  in  ownership  and  management  of 
small stations.  

Table-3 –  Ownership (O) and management (M) of stations serving less than 1000 travellers per day 

Number of stations 
(2014) 

Incumbent 
railway 
undertaking 

Other 
RUs 

Infrastructure 
manager 

Integrated 
companies 

Government 

Other private 
operators 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

ES 

FR 

HR 

IT 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

NO 

297 

2 323 

159 

4 576 

122 

63 

1 095 

2 350 

N/A 

2080 

123 

128 

43 

1 262 

116 

1 179 

2 326 

378 

937 

260 

N/A 

140 

400 

1 508 

297 

O, M 

O, M 

O, M 

 M 

O, M 

O, M 

O 

O 

O, M 

M  

O, M 

 M 

 M 

 M 

O, M 

O, M 

O 

 O, M* 

O 

 M 

O 

O, M 

 M 

O, M 

O, M 

 M 

O, M 

O, M 

 M 

O, M 

O 

O, M 

O, M 

 M 

O, M 

O, M 

 M 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O, M 

O, M 

O 

O, M 

 O 

Source: RMMS. FR data reflects the situation in 2014 before the 2015 national railway reform *= in ES the management of 
commuter stations is entrusted to Renfe Operadora. 

Accessibility of stations for travellers with reduced mobility (including disabled people, people with 
temporary  mobility  restraints,  elderly  and  accompanying  persons  such  as  parents  with  buggies) 
remains an EU wide challenge. Accessibility issues arise at different stages of a rail journey, not only 
at  boarding  a  train  and  during  the  journey,  but  also  in  the  preparatory  stage.  Given  the  societal 
dimension of  rail  transport,  it is  important  for  the sector  to  tackle this  challenge making rail  travel 
accessible to everybody and bringing new customers to rail.  

Box 10 –  Accessibility of stations to persons with disabilities and persons with reduced mobility 

Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  1300/2014  of  18  November  2014  on  the  technical  specifications  for 
interoperability relating to the accessibility of the Union's rail system for persons with disabilities and persons 
with reduced mobility (PRM TSI) applies since 1 January 2015. The rules apply to infrastructure (e.g. obstacle-
free routes in railway stations, visual and spoken information, platform width and height, and boarding aids) 
and  to  rail  carriages  (e.g.  doors,  wheelchair  spaces,  and  information),  making  accessibility  a  mandatory 
requirement for newly built, upgraded or renewed rail infrastructure and rolling stock. 

33 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
The  Regulation  requires  Member  States  to  adopt  National  Implementation  Plans  (NIPs)  to  progressively 
eliminate  all  barriers  to  accessibility.  The  NIP  contains  a  strategy,  including  the  criteria  and  priorities  for 
stations and units of rolling stock to be designated for renewal or upgrading. This strategy shall be formulated 
in cooperation with infrastructure managers, station managers, railway undertakings and, where relevant, with 
other  local  authorities.  Representative  associations of users including persons with reduced mobility shall be 
consulted. The NIPs shall be notified to the Commission by 1 January 2017. Within six months of completion of 
the notification process, the Commission has to prepare a comparative overview of the strategies contained in 
the  NIPs.  On  the  basis  of  this  overview,  and  in  cooperation  with  the  Advisory  Body,  the  Commission  shall 
identify priorities and criteria to further guide the implementation of the Regulation. 

3.2.  Other service facilities 

Freight terminals 

Based on RMMS data and as shown in Figure 20, Poland has the highest number of freight terminals, 
followed by Romania, France and Slovakia (with more than 400 terminals each). The widely diverging 
definitions  used  by  Member  States  for  freight  terminals  explain  the  major  variations  in  figures 
between similar countries. For instance, Poland included 978 tracks with the possibility to load and 
unload owned by PKP PLK, while the United Kingdom reported only intermodal terminals49.  

Figure 20 – Number of freight terminals (2014) 

1 200

1 000

 800

 600

 400

 200

 0

978 

800 

602 

433 

212 

150 

97 77 53 30 23 18 18 18 16 15 11  8  6  4  3  3  3  2 

L
P

O
R

R
F

K
S

R
H

E
D

L
E

T
I

S
E

O
N

E
S

T
A

U
H

T
P

K
U

Z
C

L
N

E
E

I

G S
B

K
D

E
I

T
L

U
L

Source: RMMS 2014 except for EL and IE (2012 data) and SE (DG MOVE 
estimates). For PL the figure indicates the tracks owned by PKP PLK with 
the possibility to load and unload, whereas there were 32 intermodal 
terminals at the end of 2014. UK figure refers only to intermodal freight 
terminals. 

Marshalling yards and train formation facilities 

is  mixed. 

Ownership/management of freight 
terminals 
Non-
incumbent  undertakings  own  and 
manage terminals only in Germany 
and  the  United  Kingdom.  The 
government  may  own  terminals 
Italy, 
in  Bulgaria,  Croatia, 
(as 
Luxembourg,  Hungary  Portugal, 
Slovakia,  Sweden  and  the  United 
Kingdom)  but  does  not  manage 
are  mostly 
them. 
managed 
infrastructure 
managers 
(in  12  out  of  23 
responding  countries)  or  other 
private operators (in 11 countries).  

Terminals 

by 

As  shown  in  Figure 21,  France,  Finland  and  the  United  Kingdom  reported  the  highest  number  of 
marshalling yards and train formation facilities. However, again, there are divergences in definitions. 
For example, Germany's 71 marshalling yards and train formation facilities include only installations 
with  gravity  hill;  including  those  without  gravity  hill  would  bring  the  figure to  236.  Poland  has 
reported 29 installations both with and without gravity hills (including 21 with gravity hill).  

49 

For comparison, as PL clarified, that there were 32 intermodal terminals at the end of 2014 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Figure 21 – Number of marshalling yards and train formation facilities (2014) 

505 

500

400

300

269 

166 

101 92  87  76  74  71 

51 

200

100

0

34  29  23  19  19  18  10  9  9  7  5  4  1  1  1 

FR FI UK AT IT SE LT EE DE CZ RO PL HU EL HR SI NO IE LV SK BG PT DK LU NL

Source: RMMS except for FR and UK (2013 data) and EL and IE (2012 data) 

In terms of ownership and 
management, 
the 
infrastructure  managers 
are  owners  of  marshalling 
in  14  out  of  22 
yards 
responding 
countries. 
own 
Governments 
marshalling yards but they 
the 
outsource 
management,  often 
to 
infrastructure  managers 
(e.g.  in  Bulgaria,  Croatia, 
Lithuania, 
Italy, 
Hungary, 
Luxembourg, 
Portugal and Slovakia).  

Storage sidings 

 Storage  sidings  are  sidings 
dedicated to temporary parking 
of railway vehicles between two 
assignments. 

there  are  profound 
Again 
differences  in  definitions  used 
in  various  countries  as  well  as 
important  reporting  gaps  (only 
16  countries  provided  data  in 
the  RMMS).  In  most  countries 
having 
data, 
provided 
infrastructure  managers  own 
and  manage  storage  sidings. 
Government 
is 
Croatia, 
reported 
and 
Luxembourg,  Hungary 
Slovakia,  without  associated 
management functions.  

ownership 
in 

Figure 22 – Number of storage sidings (2014) 

20 000

18821 

18 000

16 000

14 000

12 000

10 000

8 000

6 000

4 000

2 000

 0

3063 2600 

2035 

1011 

309  250  183  76  33  17  6 

3 

0 

0 

0 

DE PL CZ

SE AT BG RO HU NL DK EL

IE

PT

FI

LT LU

Source: RMMS 2014 except for EL and IE (2012 data). Figure for PL refers to 
stopping tracks; figure for CZ refers to all operational sidings on the network. In 
DE DB Netz AG had refined their infrastructure portfolio, therefore the 2014 
figure is significantly lower compared to 2013 (some tracks are no longer 
marketed as storage sidings).  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Maintenance facilities 

Similar  caveats  in  terms  of  definitions  and  comparability  apply  to  maintenance  facilities.  Poland's 
data  as  reported  in  Figure 23  for  example,  includes  five  levels  of  maintenance  from  basic  running 
checkouts to facilities for general overhauls.  

Figure 23 – Number of maintenance facilities (2014) 

600 

289 

148 

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

48  36  35  27  18  18  14  12  11  10  10  8  8  7  6  3  3  2 

PL DE IT SE CZ AT FR HU LV NO SI NL EE EL DK FI

IE LT BG HR LU

Source: RMMS 2014, except for EL and IE (2012 data), HR and NL (2013 data) and SE (DG 
MOVE estimates). Figure for PL includes facilities of 5 levels of maintenance, from basic 
running checkouts of the technical state to facilities where general overhauls are done. 
Figure for DK covers only maintenance and technical facilities on state lines.  

8  maintenance 
The 
reported  by 
facilities 
Denmark  cover  at  the 
same  time  only  major 
maintenance 
and 
facilities  on 
technical 
state lines.  

Based  on 
the  data 
provided  by  22  Member 
States,  ownership  and 
management 
of 
maintenance  facilities  is 
across 
distributed 
different  players.  The 
government is owner but 
never  a  manager  of 
facilities. 
maintenance 
railway 
'Other 
undertakings' 
and 
private  operators  often 
own  and  manage  these 
facilities. 

Maritime and port facilities linked to rail activities 

As  shown  in  Figure 24,  Italy,  Germany,  Romania,  the  United  Kingdom  and  Sweden  reported  the 
highest number of these installations.  

Figure 24 –  Number of maritime and port facilities linked to rail activities 

(2014) 

266 

135 

50  47 

37 

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

19  17  16  9 

8 

8 

8 

7 

7 

6 

5 

1 

1 

0 

IT DE RO UK SE

FI

ES NO HR HU LV PL BG CZ PT AT LU SI

LT

Source: RMMS, data 2014, FR and SK not relevant. Data for NO include 6 port facilities 
without tracks and/or lifting capacity. 

on 

the 

Based 
data 
reported  by  21  Member 
States, most maritime and 
port facilities linked to rail 
activities  are  owned  and 
by 
managed 
private 
In  Germany 
operators. 
and 
the 
Romania 
government  owns  and 
manages the installations, 
whereas only in Germany, 
Slovenia  and  the  United 
Kingdom  the 
incumbent 
railway  undertaking  or 
railway 
other 
undertakings 
the 
owners.  

are 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
Refuelling facilities  

According  to  IRG-Rail,  the  market  of  refuelling  facilities  appears  to  be  more  competitive  than 
marshalling  yards,  given  the  high  number  of  these  facilities  which  are  operated  by  independent 
infrastructure managers. Also, in some cases – as in Norway- railway undertakings make use of on-
demand tank trucks in addition to refuelling facilities50.  

Figure 25 – Number of refuelling facilities (2014) 

320 

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

102 

74 

37  35  34  31  27  19  19  18  13  11  9 

8 

6 

1 

0 

DE PL

FR AT HU FI NO ES HR IT NL

LV EL

SI BG LT

LU PT

Source: RMMS 2014, SK declared figure not relevant. Figures for EL, ES, LV and FR are 
from 4th Annual Market Monitoring Report (2016) – IRG Rail.   

According  to  the  RMMS, 
and 
ownership 
management of refuelling 
facilities  is  spread  among 
various 
market 
including 
participants, 
non-incumbent operators. 
No  respondent  indicated 
government  at  the  same 
time  as  an  owner  and 
manager  of 
refuelling 
facilities.  

50 

4th Annual Monitoring Report (2016) by IRG-Rail 

37 

 
                                                 
 
 
4. The evolution of framework conditions 

in the rail sector 

4.1. 

Infrastructure charging 

Infrastructure  charges  enable  infrastructure  managers  to  recover  the  cost  they  incur  in  providing 
infrastructure to train operators. The core principle is that the charges should cover at least "direct" 
costs.  

Box 11 –  Direct cost based charging  

The  EU  rail  legislation  aims  to  provide  a  more  precise  calculation  of  direct  costs  as  a  basis  for  setting  track 
access  charges.  According  to  the  Recast  Directive,  the  charges  for  the  minimum  access  package  (the  core 
components of the infrastructure service, such as use of tracks, traction current, train control services) and for 
access to infrastructure connecting service facilities, shall be set at the cost that is directly incurred as a result 
of  operating  the  train  service.  The  clear  rules  on  the  modalities  calculating  the  undelaying  direct  costs  are 
specified in Commission Implementing Regulation 909/201551 

Direct  cost  based  infrastructure  charges  ensure  that  the  infrastructure  manager  does  not  lose  money  when 
accepting an additional train service and subsequently infrastructure managers should not reject any applicant 
willing to pay at least that level of charges. The rules for calculating direct costs include the prohibitions to levy 
higher  charges  for  deviated  trains  and  to  recoup  the  wear  and  tear  of  infrastructure  for  which  the 
infrastructure manager had received grants.  

Effective implementation of the principle of direct costs charging requires that infrastructure managers have a 
good overview of their assets and understanding of cost causation so that they are able to allocate costs to the 
different  services  and  various  types  of  vehicles.  By  so  doing  it  allows  the  infrastructure  managers  to  also 
incentivise the use of less damaging rolling stock. 

In  addition  to  direct  costs  there  are  other  components  of  charging  systems  that  infrastructure 
managers can use to enhance: 

 

the effective use of infrastructure capacity (e.g. scarcity charge, reservation charge, 
discounts to specific traffic flows) 

  environmental performance (modulation of charges depending on noise emission and usage 

of diesel/electric locomotives); 

  cost recovery of specific investment projects (charges based on long-term costs); and  
  operational performance (penalties/rewards linked occurrence/avoidance of service 

disruptions). 

In addition, mark-ups can be applied on top of the direct cost charges in market segments being able 
to pay such higher charges. The overall level of cost recovery through infrastructure charges affects 
the necessary level of government contribution and Member States may require different levels of 
cost recovery.  

51 

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/909 of 12 June 2015 on the modalities for the calculation of the 
cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service (Text with EEA relevance) OJ L 148, 
13.6.2015, p. 17 

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
As  a  result  of  this  and  other  factors,  the  level  and  approach  to  charging  may  vary  both  within  the 
charging  scheme  of  one  infrastructure  manager  as  well  as  between  Member  States.  The  current 
RMMS does not allow distinguishing between the various charging elements used by each Member 
State. Therefore, while comparing the level of charges as reported in the RMMS, the results need to 
be interpreted with caution. 

Figure 26 – Track access charges for different categories of trains (EUR per train-km, applicable 201652) 

Freight charges higher 

Passenger charges higher, mixed or equal 

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

E
E

V
L

T
L

Z
C

L
N

O
R

L
P

K
S

K
U

U
H

R
H

I

G F
B

Freight

I

E S
S
Intercity

E
D

S
E

E
B

R
F

T
A

T
I

U
L

T
P

K
D

O
N

Suburban

Source: RMMS 
Notes:  DK – break in time series as from 2016; HR, DE 2014 charges; LV 2015 charges; LT and SI arithmetic mean of 
min/max charges; FR - some train services excluded; EL, IE no data; NO – does no apply charges 

Figure 26 illustrates the different situations in Member States. In most countries charges for freight 
trains are higher than for passenger trains, but in Germany, Spain, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and 
Portugal the situation is the other way around. In Austria, Italy, Sweden and Denmark there are no 
big  differences  or  the  results  are  mixed.  Freight  charges  in  the  Baltic  States  are  particularly  high, 
which is to some extent justified due to higher permitted axle-loads. The intercity charges in Belgium, 
Germany,  Spain  and  France  are  relatively  higher  because  these  include  the  charges  for  dedicated 
high  speed  lines.  Suburban  charges  are  most  volatile  (varying  between  EUR 0.17  in  the  United 
Kingdom and 11.50 in France) because their levels depend on national approaches to PSO contracts 
and  rail  financing  (see  section  5.1).  In  France,  for  example,  the  regions  themselves  (rather  than 
railway  undertakings) pay  the so-called "redevance  d'access"  to  the infrastructure  manager  for  the 
rail services they have ordered under public service obligation. Norway does not apply charges to the 
major part of its network. 

52 

In the current RMMS, the Member States report the applicable track access charges 2 years ahead.  

39 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
9

8

7

6

2

3

4

5

10

package (EUR per train-km, 2014) 

Figure 27 –  Average revenue from the charges for the minimum access 

 Better  comparability  of 
charges 
average 
the  Member 
between 
States 
is  possible  by 
monitoring  the  average 
revenue  (i.e.  yield)  from 
track  charges  per  train-
km.  These  data  are 
for  most 
available 
Member  States 
in  the 
IRG-Rail  Annual  Market 
Monitoring  report  and 
are 
in 
presented 
Figure 27.  Only  charges 
for  the  minimum  access 
included 
package  are 
and  differentiation 
is 
freight 
made  between 
and  passenger  trains.  It 
to 
important 
is 
remember  that  this  is  an  average  value,  while  in  each  country  charges  for  specific  types  of  trains 
and/or  specific  lines  could  be  very  different  from  this  average.  The  extremes  on  Figure 26  and 
Figure 27  are  similar  –  the  highest  freight  charges  are  in  the  Baltic  States  and  the  lowest  in  Spain, 
while the highest passenger charges are in France. In Slovenia passenger trains which operate under 
public  service  contracts  are  exempt  from  track  access  charges;  therefore  the  average  passenger 
charge per train-km is very low.  

Source: IRG-Rail 4th Annual Market Monitoring Report 

Data not available 

Passenger

T
U I
H

Freight

T F
A

g
v
A

O
N

O
R

G
B

R
H

K
U

K
D

E
D

L
N

U
L

E
B

T
P

Z
C

R
F

V
L

K
S

E
E

S
E

E
S

L
P

L
E

T
L

E
I

I
S

0

1

I

Figure 28  presents  the  evolution  of  the  applicable  track  access  charges  between  2013  and  2016  in 
various market segments in each Member State, as reported in the RMMS. The figures show that the 
infrastructure managers with high charges and rapidly decreasing traffic levels may need to alter the 
level of their charges as to generate a constant level of revenues. This can trigger a shift from rail to 
road,  unless  the  traffic  is  largely  international.  It  should  be  also  noted  that  the  Polish  and  the 
Bulgarian  infrastructure  managers  have  reduced  their  direct  cost  based  charges  in  response  to  an 
infringement procedure before the EU Court of Justice. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 28 – Evolution of track access charges (EUR per train-km, projected 2013 and 2016) 

Suburban trains 

Intercity trains 

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

E
D

V
L

S
E

E
B

R
F

T
L

T
A

L
P

T
I

E
E

U
L

L
N

O
R

K
S

U
H

K
U

E
S

Z
C

T
P

G
B

I

R S
H

I
F

K
D

E
I

L
E

O
N

2013

2016

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

R
F

V
L

E
D

E
B

T
I

T
A

T
P

O
R

T
L

U
L

K
S

L
P

U
H

L
N

K
D

E
E

E
S

G
B

Z
C

S
E

I
S

I

R F
H

K
U

E
I

L
E

O
N

2013

2016

Freight trains 

E
E

V
L

T
L

Z
C

T
A

L
N

E
D

O
R

L
P

K
S

E
B

T
I

K
U

U
H

R
H

R
F

I

G F
B

E
S

T
P

I

U S
L

K
D

S
E

E
I

L
E

O
N

2013

2016

Source: RMMS 
Notes: DK – break in time series as from 2016; HR, DE 2014 charges; LV 2015 charges; LT and SI arithmetic mean of min/max 
charges; FR - some train services excluded; UK increase only in line with inflation and currency movements; data for several 
Member States missing, NO – does no apply charges 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2.  Capacity allocation and congestion 

4.2.1.  Network utilisation rates 

Capacity allocation schemes should encourage infrastructure managers to optimise the use of their 
infrastructure, while ensuring fair and non-discriminatory access of all operators to tracks.  

Figure 29 – Network utilisation rates (thousand train-km per line-km, 2014) and relative change since 2009 

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

IE
DK
EE
SE
AT
NO
LU
IT
UK
NL
DE
BE
HU
Avg
LT
LV
FI
SI
PT
CZ
SK
ES
FR
BG
RO
PL
HR
EL

NL UK DK LU AT BE DE IT Avg CZ FR SI SE PT ES HU NO SK PL IE LV FI LT HR RO BG EE EL

-10%

0%

10%

Source: Eurostat and Statistical pocketbook 2016 (based on UIC, IRG annual market monitoring reports, national statistics 
and estimates 

Figure 29 shows that rail infrastructure in some parts of Europe is increasingly busy. The Netherlands 
has  by  far  the  most  saturated  network  running  about  50  thousand  train-km  per  each  line-km  per 
year and, according to available data, 70% of Dutch railway lines consist of multiple tracks. The next 
group of countries – the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Denmark, Austria, Belgium and Germany run 
about 30 thousand train-km per each line-km per year, being still much higher than the EU average 
of 19 train-km per line-km. In all these Member States rail demand continues to increase setting high 
demands on infrastructure managers to accommodate the additional traffic, while at the same time 
maintaining the state of the network and its service quality. Over the last five years, the utilisation 
rates  have  in  relative  terms  increased  significantly  also  in  Ireland,  Denmark,  Estonia  and  Sweden 
while declining in Greece, Croatia, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.  

Network utilisation rates provide a good basis for evaluation to what extent infrastructure managers 
are capable to recoup their costs from user charges. Network utilisation in Central Europe is three to 
five  times  that  in  the  South  East  of  the  Europe,  which  means  that  the  infrastructure  managers  in 
Central  Europe  can  achieve  better  cost  recovery  rates.    At  the  same  time,  many  networks  with 
already low utilisation rates have seen further strong decline of traffic levels, limiting their potential 
to recover the cost. This results in a widening financing gap, which can trigger a downward spiral for 
the rail system in that country as a whole, unless the State raises its subsidies.   

42 

 
 
 
 
4.2.2.  Congested sections 

Congested  sections  are  of  a  particular  concern  in  international  corridors,  given  that  saturated 
networks lead to degraded performance: rejected path requests, delays and longer recovery times in 
case  of  disruptions.  Therefore,  according  to  Article 47  of  the  Recast  Directive,  where  after 
coordination  of  the  requested  train  paths  it  is  not  possible  to  satisfy  requests  for  infrastructure 
capacity, the relevant section has to be declared congested. The infrastructure manager has to carry 
out a  capacity  analysis  to identify  the  reasons  for  the congestion  and  develop  measures  for  easing 
the situation. According to the RMMS, in 2014 ten Member States had declared part of their network 
or certain nodes congested  - in total more than 2000 km of tracks and 6 big passenger stations. In 
Sweden, the whole area of Stockholm has been declared congested. 

Table -4 –  Congested sections and nodes53 

Member State 

2014 

Tracks (km) 

thereof high-speed lines (km) 

thereof lines for passenger 
transport (km) 

Stations serving over 25 000 
travellers per day (number) 

Freight terminals (number) 

Marshalling yards and train 
formation facilities (number) 

2013 

Tracks (km) 

thereof high-speed lines (km) 

thereof lines for passenger 
transport (km) 

Stations serving over 25 000 
travellers per day (number) 

Freight terminals (number) 

Marshalling yards and train 
formation facilities (number) 

AT 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

HU 

IT 

NL 

RO 

SE 

UK 

NO 

12 

0 

507 

84 

89 

355 

175 

193 

XXX* 

652 

12 

507 

89 

175 

193 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

XXX 

XXX 

XXX 

71 

2 

71 

2 

12 

581 

507 

84 

348 

214 

181 

71 

12 

507 

348 

1 

2 

1 

71 

2 

2 

Source: RMMS 
* Indicates the whole Stockholm area 

In  addition  to  the  sections  which  have  been  officially  declared  congested,  there  are  many  sections 
with  highly  saturated  traffic  levels.  However,  it  is  very  challenging  to  capture  the  extent  of  this 
problem at the network level due to measurement difficulties.  

Box 12 –  Measuring available capacity  

Railway capacity can be defined as the maximum number of trains that may be operated using a specific part of 
the infrastructure within a given time period and with a fixed level of service. Theoretical capacity is a complex 
issue depending not only upon infrastructure characteristics (e.g. signalling system, number of tracks, etc.), but 
also on the way it is utilised and its operating conditions such as temporary speed reductions, mix and length of 
trains running and heterogeneity and frequency of services. Therefore, capacity estimation requires usually a 
line by line assessment and very detailed data of the railway system (infrastructure and timetables). 

53 

As provided in Article 22 of Directive 2001/14/EC or, if transposed, Article 47(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU; situation 
at the end of the reporting period 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
At  the  same  time,  having  a  robust  overview  of  constraints  and  remaining  available  capacity  is  pertinent  for 
replying to important policy questions, such as: 

Is the existing rail infrastructure able to absorb the forecasted/expected traffic? 

 
  Would the already planned interventions such as TEN-T policy and ERTMS (European Rail Traffic 
Management System) deployment guarantee an adequate available capacity and consequently 
adequate reliability and level of service? 

  Will the congestion on some parts of the network become an extremely limiting issue for passenger or 

freight trains? 

  Would the existing network be able to accommodate the potential demand of open access 

competitive services, which may require capacity at peak hours or along more profitable corridors? 

The options for overcoming this gap in data and assessment is addressed in detail in the JRC Technical report 
Capacity assessment of railway infrastructure54. The Commission services have also launched a data collection 
exercise which should allow assessing the level of saturation of the TEN-T network. 

4.2.3.  Managing capacity shortage  

Scarcity charges 

To  some  extent,  capacity  problems  can  be  managed  by  applying  scarcity  charges  which  reflect  the 
scarcity of capacity of the identifiable section during periods of congestion. According to UIC, in 2012 
Austria,  Denmark,  Germany,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,  Sweden  and  the  United  Kingdom  used 
scarcity  charges55.  EU  law  only  allows  such  scarcity  charges  for  a  longer  time  if  the  infrastructure 
manager can demonstrate that it has exhausted all possible measures to do away with the causes of 
the problem. In order to ensure that applied scarcity charges were in line with EU rules and were not 
discriminatory, regulatory bodies need to develop the institutional capability to assess the capacity 
analyses and capacity enhancement plans of the infrastructure managers. 

Framework agreements 

Framework  agreements  are  used  for  setting  out  the  rights  and  obligations  of  an  applicant  and  the 
infrastructure manager in relation to allocated infrastructure capacity and charges to be levied over a 
period longer than one working timetable period. Framework agreements are currently used by the 
main infrastructure managers in Germany, Austria, Italy, the United Kingdom, France and Greece. In 
conditions of limited capacity, it is important to set certain rules to framework agreements to ensure 
optimal use of infrastructure. The Commission accordingly adopted an Implementing Regulation on 
framework  agreements56  which  established  criteria  for  concluding  and  amending  framework 
agreements in case other applicants are interested in the same capacity and no other solution can be 
found to fulfil their request. 

54 

55 
56 

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC100509/jrc100509_capacity%20 
assessment%20of%20railway%20infrastructure.pdf 
UIC (2012) INFRACHARGES, UIC Study on Railway Infrastructure Charges in Europe - Final Report 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/545 of 7 April 2016 on procedures and criteria concerning 
framework agreements for the allocation of rail infrastructure capacity, OJL 94, 8.4.2016, p.1 

44 

 
 
 
                                                 
Better planning capacity restrictions 

Railway  undertakings  have  underlined  the  importance  of  more  timely  and  specific  information  on 
upcoming capacity restrictions in line with the guidelines of RailNetEurope57. The negative impact of 
planned capacity restrictions, such as maintaining a line, cannot be avoided but can be mitigated if 
infrastructure managers would consult railway undertakings beforehand and, in case of international 
services, coordinate among themselves to minimise the impact on users. Therefore, the Commission 
services are considering a review of scheduling rules as foreseen in Annex VII of the Recast Directive, 
to ensure the necessary lead times are respected.  

Priority Rules 

In congested  lines  the priority  rules  become important. In  general,  with few  exceptions,  passenger 
traffic has priority over freight and international over domestic. However, specific rules depend  on 
transport strategies of each Member State. 

In most Member States the rules for prioritisation of path allocation requests in case of conflicting 
interests are  set in national legislation, but for example in France, Croatia and Sweden the priority 
rules  have  been  provided  only  in  the  network  statements  of  the  infrastructure  managers.  In  the 
Netherlands  legislation  provides  both  priority  rules  and  minimum  capacity  allocations  for  each 
market segment. In the United Kingdom, track access contracts between the infrastructure manager 
and railway undertakings are pre-approved by the regulatory body. 

In  many  countries  (e.g.  Hungary,  Latvia,  Poland,  Norway)  PSO  services  get  the  first  priority  due  to 
their  high  value  to  society,  while  in  some  other  countries  (Austria,  Estonia  and  Romania) 
international  passenger  traffic  is  prioritised.  Often  express  trains  get  preferential  treatment 
compared to commuter traffic.  

As  a  result  both the process  of  how  the priorities  are  defined and to  which  market segments  they 
apply,  are  very  divergent.  This  can  create  obstacles  for  railway  undertakings  operating  across 
borders, in particular to freight operators.  

4.3. 

Infrastructure expenditure and funding  

4.3.1.  Infrastructure expenditure 

Fostering  railway  infrastructure  as  part  of  the  development  of  the  TEN-T  networks  has  been  a 
prominent issue of European transport policy. The completion of the TEN-T network requires about 
550 billion  EUR until  2020.  The  total  costs  until  2030  for  all  transport  modes  are  estimated  by  the 
Commission services at EUR 1.5 trillion58. 

57 
58 

http://www.rne.eu/timetabling-documents 
2011 Transport White Paper 

45 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 30 – Evolution of infrastructure expenditure  ( billion EUR)  and 

proportion of maintenance and renewal expenditure 

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

16,8 

9,7 

10,7 

10,3 

8,8 

2011

8,8 

2012

17,0 

9,3 

12,1 

20,4 

13,4 

10,6 

2013

2014

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

s
l
a
w
e
n
e
r
d
n
a
e
c
n
a
n
e
t
n
a
m

i

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

Maintenance

Enhancements

Renewal

Share of maintenance and renewals

Source: RMMS 

Box 13 –  Categories of infrastructure expenditure  

According to the RMMS, 
infrastructure 
has 
expenditure 
constantly 
increased 
over  the  last  four  years 
from  EUR 29 billion 
in 
201159  to  more  than 
in  2014. 
EUR 45 billion 
maintenance 
The 
expenditure 
has 
while 
fluctuated, 
investment  into  renewal 
and  enhancements  has 
increased. 
continuously 
25% 
of 
In 
infrastructure 
expenditure  went  on 
maintenance,  29%  on 
renewals  and  45%  on 
enhancements,  while  in 
2013 
respective 
proportions  were  32%, 
24% and 44%.  

2014 

the 

The  RMMS  required  reporting  of  infrastructure  expenditure  up  to  2014  according  to  the  following  three 
categories: 
 

"maintenance" – non-capital expenditure that the infrastructure manager carries out in order to 
maintain the condition and capability of the existing infrastructure 
"renewals" - capital expenditure on a major substitution work on the existing infrastructure which 
does not change its overall performance 
"upgrades" (or "enhancements") - capital expenditure on a major modification work of the 
infrastructure which improves its overall performance. 

 

 

The RMMS Regulation adds the fourth category "new infrastructure", which was earlier included in "upgrades". 
Differentiating  between  "maintenance"  and  "renewals"  or  "renewals"  and  "upgrades"  is  not  always 
straightforward. Therefore data reported contain some adjustments and is prone to national interpretation. 

As  shown  in  Figure 31,  in  2014,  the  total  infrastructure  expenditure  was  highest  in  the  United 
Kingdom  and  in  France  –  much  higher  than  in  Germany,  even  if  the  German  network  is  by  far  the 
largest in the EU. Both in France and the United Kingdom, the infrastructure managers have to catch 
up  with  the  years  of  under-investment  having  at  the  same  time  significant  investment  into 
enhancements (including new infrastructure) ongoing. In Germany, the infrastructure expenditure in 
2014 also increased rapidly (+57% compared to 2013) and additional 2 billion EUR was provided for 
maintenance and renewals. 

59 

Earliest data available 

46 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 31 – Total infrastructure expenditure in Member States (million EUR) and proportion of maintenance 

and renewal expenditure 

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

10.000

9.000

8.000

7.000

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

s
l
a
w
e
n
e
r
d
n
a
e
c
n
a
n
e
t
n
a
m

i

f
o
e
r
a
h
S

UK FR DE IT

ES PL

SE AT NL NO BE HU CZ DK FI

LT RO LV SK LU SI HR PT BG

Maintenance

Renewal

Enhancements

Share of maintenance and renewals

Source: RMMS 
Notes: CZ maintenance and renewal merged, EL, EE, IE data not available, HU some difficulties in categorisation 

Maintenance and renewals 

In  conditions  of  increasing  traffic  in  many  States  and  demanding  performance  targets  agreed  with 
public authorities and operators, maintaining the existing network in order to uphold its safety and 
operational performance and to ensure reliable service, presents a major challenge for infrastructure 
managers. Many infrastructure managers have suffered from chronic maintenance underinvestment 
due to a shortage of funds, but also due to the fact that over the last decade priority was often given 
to the investment into new lines. Liquidating accumulated maintenance backlogs is in general more 
expensive and disruptive to services than continuous routine maintenance. Therefore it is important 
to ensure a sufficient and stable level of maintenance and renewal expenditure. 

In  2014  Infrastructure  managers  invested  EUR 24 billion  in  maintenance  and  renewal  of  lines.  A 
median  proportion  of  this  expenditure  in  total  infrastructure  expenditure  was  52%.  The  extremes 
varied  between  4%  in  Spain,  where  very  high  proportion  of  investment  goes  into  new  high  speed 
lines  and  100%  in  Croatia.  Since  2011  spending  on  maintenance  and  renewal  has  increased  on 
average  6%  per  year,  most  significantly  in  Romania,  Norway,  Latvia,  Germany  and  Belgium.  The 
countries with remarkable decrease were Spain and Poland. 

Figure 32  gives  an  overview  of  the  evolution  of  maintenance  and  renewal  expenditure  since  2011 
(the  earliest  available  data)  in  Member  States  per  line-km60.  It  should  be  emphasised,  that 
expenditure  between  Member  States  should  not  been  benchmarked.  An  adequate  level  of 
expenditure  has  to  be  established  for  each  network  individually,  given  that  this  depends  on  many 
factors  including  the  length  of  the  network,  its  architecture  (e.g.  distance  between  nodes  and 
switches, signalling system, geographical conditions), the number of tracks, the traffic intensity and 

60 

In analytical terms the use track-, rather than line-km for normalisation of maintenance costs would have been 
more appropriate, given that the States with a higher share of multiple tracks (e.g. BE, LU, NL, UK, FR) have also 
higher costs per line kilometre. However, good quality track-km data is not available (see Box 1) 

47 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
current  state  of  the  network.  For  example,  in  France  maintenance  costs  are  predicted  to  increase, 
given that the country has to catch up with a maintenance backlog. In the Netherlands, the state of 
the network is good and maintenance expenditure is expected to decline due to efficiency gains. The 
high cost of the Luxembourg network is due to its specific architecture allowing trains to run either 
on left or right track in both directions and due to the relatively short distances between the nodes.  

Figure 32 – Maintenance and enhancement expenditure in Member States in relation to their network length 

(thousand EUR, per line-km) 

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

LU NL UK AT NO BE FR LV DE DK Avg LT HR SE

IT

SI

FI

SK CZ PT PL HU BG RO ES EE

IE

EL

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: RMMS 
Notes: EL no data for 2013 and 2014, EE partial information, IE no data for 2014, HU in 2014 difficulties in distinguishing 
between enhancement and renewal expenditure 

The  most  notable  relative  yearly  increase  in  maintenance  and  renewal  costs  in  2014  took  place  in 
Germany  (+72%);  but  also  in  the  United  Kingdom  and  Latvia.  The  countries  with  continuous 
increasing  trend  of  maintenance/renewal  expenditure  per  line-km  were  Austria,  Norway,  Belgium, 
France, Latvia, Sweden and Portugal.  

Enhancements 

At  the  EU  level  investment  into  network  enhancements  have  since  2011  almost  doubled  reaching 
EUR 20.5 billion  in  2014.  At  the  Member  State  level,  the  year-to-year  amounts  are  volatile, 
depending  on  project  pipeline  and  availability  of  funding.  The  top  5  –  France,  Spain,  the  United 
Kingdom, Italy and Poland – accounted for more than 60% of total EU enhancement investment in 
2014. In addition Norway (not included in EU total), invested EUR 1.1 billion to enhance its network. 

High speed lines 

Not all Member States (e.g. the United Kingdom and Germany, and France partially) have managed 
to  distinguish  between  the  expenditure  to  high  speed  and  conventional  network.  Nevertheless,  at 
least EUR 7 billion (or 16% of total expenditure) were in 2014 reported to have been spent on high 
speed  lines,  of  that  EUR 4 billion  in  France,  EUR 2.5 billion  in  Spain  and  EUR 0.4 billion  in  Italy.  In 
Spain, the investment into new high speed lines absorbed 90% of total infrastructure expenditure. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.3.2.  Funding and financing 

Sources to cover infrastructure expenditure include: 

  own resources of infrastructure managers in the meaning of track access charges and other 

revenues; own resources are in general used for maintenance, but to a limited extent also 
for investment; 'other revenues' include income from renting facilities, such as shops in 
stations or selling land or structures no longer needed for railways; 

  national subsidies in the meaning of network grants; depending on country, subsidies can be 

used for investment only, or both for investment and maintenance expenditure; 

  EU funds (grants)- for investment only; 
  Bank loans – usually for investment only. 

According  to  the  study  The  Results  and  Efficiency  of  Railway  Infrastructure  Financing  within  the 
European Union Railway61 more than 50% of railway infrastructure investment has previously been 
funded by national budgets. EU co-funding added an average of 12% and the remainder was financed 
by concessions, PPPs, loans, equity capital or, to a lesser extent, by track access charges. 

National funding and contractual agreements 

Regarding  national  funding,  there  is  at  the  moment  no  comprehensive  overview  of  the  level  of 
subsidies  provided  by  national  governments  to  rail  infrastructure  managers62.  To  ensure  that  the 
infrastructure  manager  has  mid-term  assurance  on  availability  of  sufficient  funds,  the  Recast 
Directive  obliges  the  Member  States  to  conclude  contractual  agreements  between  the  competent 
authority  and  the  infrastructure  manager  covering  a  period  of  at  least  five  years.  Contractual 
agreements  should  contain  performance  targets  the  achievement  of  which  conditions  the  agreed 
level of funding.  

By the end of 201463 at least five Member States (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal and 
Finland)64 had no contractual agreement with any of their rail infrastructure managers. The duration 
of existing  contracts varied between one year  (for  some smaller networks) and 30 years in case of 
the  HighSpeed1  concession  of  in  the  United  Kingdom.  In  general,  in  Eastern  European  countries 
duration  of  contracts  was  about  3-4  years,  while  in  Western  European  countries  7-8  years.  Most 
Member States had performance indicators attached to existing contracts, although the complexity 
varied  widely  from  reliability  indicators  only  to  a  range  of  50+  indicators  covering  costs  savings, 
energy performance, productivity, average speed, possessions, customer satisfaction etc.  

EU funding 

The EU can co-fund or support rail projects through the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Regional 
Development  Fund  (ERDF)65,  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF),  the  European  Investment  Bank 
(EIB) (mainly loans) and through the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI, guarantees). CEF 
is the main EU funding instrument for TEN-T investment, while CF and ERDF are mostly used by EU13. 

61 

62 

63 
64 
65 

A study commissioned by the policy department of budgetary Affairs of the European Parliament, 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/552308/IPOL_STU(2015)552308_EN.pdf 
Some  countries,  e.g.  UK  provide  comprehensive  data  about  the  financing  of  their  rail  system  (c.f. 
http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/gb-rail-industry-financial-information/gb-rail-industry-financial-
information-2014-15), however this practice is not common to all States 
The transposition deadline of the Recast Directive was June 2015 
EL, IE – no data; NO has also no agreement, but it is not a Member State 
Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund are along with European Social Fund, European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development part of the European 
Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs) which is European Union's main investment policy tool. 

49 

 
                                                 
These funds play a major role in bridging the infrastructure investment gap in Europe, which is one of 
the Commission's top priorities. 

In  total  more  than  EUR 33 billion  in  grants  under  the  current  financial  framework  (2014-2020)  has 
been allocated to rail investment. As shown in Table -5, almost three quarters of the CEF funding and 
37%  of  total  EU  transport  funding  has  been  dedicated  to  rail.  Table  -6  and  Table  -7  provide  an 
overview of distribution of funds between different types of projects.  

Table -5 –  Global distribution of allocated funds to transport and rail projects 

from EU funds under current financial framework (2014-2020, 
billion EUR) 

ERDF and Cohesion Fund 

CEF 

Total 

Rail projects 

18.7 

14.6 

33.3 

All transport 
projects 
70.1 

Proportion of 
rail investment 
27% 

19.7 

89.8 

74% 

37% 

Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), DG REGIO 

Table -6 –  Distribution of funds from CEF to railways (2014-2020) 

2014 CEF call 

2015 CEF call 

Number of 
projects 

Granted funding, 
 million EUR 

Number of projects 

ERTMS 

Rail Interoperability 

Rail freight noise  

Multimodal logistics platforms 

Railways 

TOTAL 

18 

8 

2 

10 

81 

119 

251.5 

28.1 

6.2 

30.1 

9 339.1 

9 655.0 

19 

4 

15 

33 

71 

Recommended 
funding, 
million EUR 
477.8 

12.0 

63.1 

4 406.3 

4 959.2 

Source: INEA 
Note: In 2015, railways and rail interoperability proposals could only be submitted by cohesion Member States and 
the rail freight noise priority was not addressed, as it is part of the annual work programme 

Note 

Table -7 –  Distribution of allocated funds to rail investment from European Structural and Investment funds 

(2014-2020, million EUR) 

Railways (TEN-T core) 

Railways (TEN-T comprehensive) 

Other railways 

Mobile rail assets 

TOTAL 

Cohesion Fund 

5 334.9 

4 089.4 

1 694.5 

1 358.9 

12 477.6 

European Regional 
Development Fund 
2 511.0 

424.8 

2 464.8 

668.8 

6 169.6 

Total 

7 854.9 

4 614.2 

4 159.3 

2 027.7 

18 647.1 

Source: DG REGIO 
Note: Numbers are based on the Operational Programmes adopted (as 23 June 2016), not 
including urban transport, intelligent transport systems and multi-modal transport investment 

50 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 33  shows  how  EU  rail  funding is  distributed  among the  Member States.  Poland  is by  far  the 
most prominent  beneficiary  receiving  during  this  financial  framework in  total  almost  EUR 10 billion 
(equals  to  30%  of  total  EU  funding).  Overall,  the  distribution  of  funds  under  the  CEF  is  more 
dispersed than under CF and ERDF. 

Figure 33 – Distribution of allocated funding by Member States (2014-2020) 

CF+ERDF 

CEF 

EL 
3% 

PT 
3% 

BG 
3% 

Other 
9% 

Other 
22% 

PL 
21% 

SK 
6% 

HU 
6% 

IT 
7% 

PL 
36% 

FR 
4% 

DK 
4% 

RO 
8% 

ES 
9% 

CZ 
10% 

AT 
5% 

ES 
5% 

CZ 
6% 

RO 
8% 

HU 
6% 

DE 
11% 

IT 
8% 

Source: DG REGIO 

Source: INEA 

Figure 34 – Total allocated EU rail funding in Member States in relation to their 
network length (2014-2020, thousand EUR per line-km) 

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

If  normalised  by  line-
km  (Figure 34)  Poland 
remains 
the  main 
beneficiary  with  more 
thousand 
than  500 
EUR per line-km. 

L
P

L
E

T
P

V
L

K
S

T
L

R
H

Z
C

I

U S
L

U
H

O
R

K
D

G
B

E
E

S
E

g
v
A

T
I

T
A

E
D

L
N

R
F

E
B

K
U

E
I

I

E F
S

Source: INEA, DG REGIO, Statistical pocketbook 2016 (based on UIC, IRG annual market 
monitoring reports, national statistics (BE, DE, FR) and Eurostat) 

Increasingly, the railways have to find ways to use other sources to finance their infrastructure than 
traditional  public  sector  grants.  This  would  allow  them  to  gain  further  support  for  instance  also 
through the European Fund of Strategic investments (EFSI). 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Box 14 – 

European Fund for Strategic Investments 

Bridging  the  investment  gap in  Europe  to  stimulate  the  European  economy  is  one  of President  Juncker's  top 
priorities.  The  transport  sector  can  make  an  important  contribution  to  this  agenda.  The  European  Fund  for 
Strategic Investments (EFSI) is the heart of the Investment Plan for Europe which aims to address market gaps 
by mobilising private investment.  

EFSI support can be combined with EU grants from the CEF, Horizon 2020 as well as from European Structural 
and Investment Funds, in particular from CF and ERDF. 

Companies, utilities, public sector entities, national promotional banks or other banks, and bespoke investment 
platforms can apply. With no specific target allocated by sector, EFSI can support operations consistent with EU 
policies,  recognising  the  importance  of  investment  in  transport  infrastructures  but  also  equipment  and 
innovative technologies: 

  Ports, locks, airports, roads, dedicated rail lines connecting urban centres, logistic platforms and the 
deployment of traffic management systems on track and on-board trains (ERTMS) or planes (SESAR). 

  Rehabilitation and upgrade of the road and rail networks, including in urban city areas. 
  Greening of maritime and inland waterways infrastructure, fleets and vehicles, including LNG for ships 

 

or barges, alternative fuels, including electric mobility for cars. 
Investment involving entities located or established in Member States and extending to countries 
falling within the scope of pre-accession and neighbourhood policies. 

The  European  Investment  Advisory  Hub66  has  been  set  up  as  a  joint  initiative  of  the  Commission  and  the 
European  Investment  Bank  to  help  strengthen  and  accelerate  investment.  Services  available  via  the  Hub 
include project development support throughout all stages of the project cycle, as well as upstream or policy 
advice on market studies, sector strategies and project screening. 

4.4.  Developments as regards prices of passenger services 

Sections 4.4 and 4.5 of this document are mostly based on the Commission Study on the prices and 
quality  of  rail  passenger  services67    conducted  by  Steer  Davies  Gleave  in  2015-2016.  The  study 
investigated  how  the  fares  and  quality  standards  applicable  to  rail  passenger  services  in  Member 
States are set and have evolved. It differentiates between suburban, regional and  intercity services 
and  covers  all  Member  States  as  well  as  Norway  and  Switzerland.  The  study  also  assessed  the 
competitiveness of rail vis-à-vis air and road travel.  

4.4.1.   Overall evolution of fares and tickets 

Each year millions of fares are calculated and marketed by a wide range of national, regional, local 
and urban authorities and operators. Therefore it is very challenging to assess the overall evolution 
of  rail  fares  at  EU  level.  Nevertheless,  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  get  an  indication  of  historical 
trends by using Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) and average yields. 

HICP seems to be the only comparable tool available to track the trends of rail prices in all Member 
States. However it should be noted that at this level of disaggregation, the reliability of conclusions 
based on HICP data is limited68. Therefore the results presented on Figure 35 need to be interpreted 
with care. 

66 
67 
68 

www.eib.org/eiah 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/studies/rail_en.htm 
The HICP aims to be representative of the developments in the prices of all goods and services (in total prices of 
around 700 products/services are collected every month in different locations across the euro area )and 
measures the average change over time in the prices paid by households for a representative basket of essential 
consumer goods and services. The small sample of rail products included in this basket may not be representative 
of the rail market in general 

52 

 
                                                 
In this chart, a value greater than zero suggests that rail travel is becoming more expensive than a 
basket of transport services (private and public) across all modes and vice versa.  

Figure 35 – Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices: rail transport/all 

transport  

relative 

the  divergence 

In  all  but  two  Member  States 
rail 
(Belgium  and  Sweden), 
travel  appears  to  be  becoming 
more  expensive 
to 
other  modes.  While  across 
is 
Europe 
modest  (approximately  1%  per 
year),  Estonia  and  Latvia  are 
notable  outliers  where 
rail 
increased 
travel  prices  have 
considerably  quicker  than  the 
prices  of  other  modes. 
In 
Estonia  this  may  be  due  to  the 
reduction 
freight 
transit  traffic,  which  previously 
cross-subsidised 
passenger 
journeys.  

in  Russian 

Source: Steer Davies Gleave study Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, 
analysis of Eurostat HICP data 

However,  there  are  examples 
where open access competition (e.g. in Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Sweden) has 
led to fare reduction on certain lines. 

National average yield data 

A  further  possible  way  to  compare  national  rail  fares  is  to  use  the  average  yields  –  i.e.  the  ratio 
between  the  total  passenger  revenue  and  p-km  reported  at  national  level.  However  such  a  ratio 
includes  multiple  ticket  types  and  mixes  the  impacts  of  the  changes  in  fares  with  the  impacts  of 
changes in passengers' travelling habits.  

Figure 36 – Fare revenue per p-km (2012) 

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services  
Note: Data is not available for all countries 

Figure 3669  presents  average 
yields  per  Member  State 
in 
2012.  The  highest  average 
yields are found in high-income 
EU15 Member States with well-
developed, 
high-quality 
passenger  networks.  Sweden  is 
an  exception  to  this  general 
observation,  having  average 
fares broadly half those charged 
in  neighbouring  Denmark  and 
Finland. 
observed 
The 
difference  in  average  yield  may 

69 

There is no systematic information available on passenger revenues at the moment. The RMMS Regulation is 
expected to remedy the situation. Average yields for some Member States are provided in the IRG Rail 4th Annual 
Market Monitoring Report (2016). In addition, the study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services (2015) 
analysed the average yields. For some States the results provided in both sources are similar, while they diverge 
for others. Apart from different reporting periods (Prices and Quality -2012 and IRG 2014), another reason for 
differences is assumingly linked to the reflection of PSO compensation. In the IRG Rail report PSO compensation is 
explicitly excluded, while in the Prices and Quality study (which acquired data from public annual reports) there 
was always no clarity whether PSO compensation was included or not. In the analysis above, the data from Prices 
and Quality study are used because it covers a larger number of Member States (24 compared to IRGs 10). 

53 

 
                                                 
 
 
reflect  the  proportion  of  operational  costs  covered,  through  necessity  or  design,  by  subsidies.  As 
discussed  later  in  section  4.6.2,  the  operating  cost  recovery  from  fare  revenue  in  EU15  is  typically 
higher  than  elsewhere  in  the  EU.  However,  in  some  markets  fares  may  be  low,  even  if  railway 
undertakings seek to maximise revenues, because of either low incomes or competition from other 
modes70. 

Figure 37 shows the average annual change in 
average  yield  between  2007  and  2012  for  a 
sample  of  Member  States  where  data  was 
available.  In  the  majority  of  cases,  average 
yields have risen, although the average rate of 
increase  varied  considerably.  The  very  high 
increases in average yield in Greece may be a 
result  of  large  reductions  in  the  number  of 
passenger  services  on  offer  and  consequent 
rail  use.  Despite  well-
reductions 
documented  increases  in  the  United  Kingdom 
rail fares, average yields fell between 2007 and 
2012.  This  is  probably  due  to  passengers 
shifting  from  First  Class  and  unrestricted 
tickets  to  Standard  Class  and  yield-managed 
advance purchase tickets71.  

in 

Figure 37 – Average annual change in revenue per p-

km (2007-2012) 

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services  
Note: average annual change calculated as a compound 
annual growth rate , data not available for all countries 

Box 15 –  National fare data 

Some Member States publish time series data on national rail fares. Some results available are provided below. 

Trends in Anytime fares in Great Britain (nominal) 

The UK Office of Rail and Road publishes time 
series  data  on  rail  fares,  which  indicates  a 
steady  annual  increase  in  the  real  value  of 
most  fares  over  the  period  as  whole,  in  the 
range of between 1% and 2% per annum. 

Source: UK Office of Rail and Road 

70 

71 

In some Member States, particularly where services are poor, there is evidence of rail being considered an 
‘inferior good’ – i.e. a good for which demand falls when consumer income rises 
Due to the way in which the data presented has been constructed, part of the change in average yield in UK may 
also be due to a fall in the value of the pound relative to the euro over the same period, leading to an apparent 
fall in revenues when converted to euros 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Rail fare trends in Sweden 

in  rail  fares  and  patronage 

In Sweden, the Royal Institute of Technology 
has  produced  a  report72  which  describes  the 
changes 
in 
Sweden  between  1990  and  2015.  According 
is  a  considerable 
to  this  analysis,  there 
variation  in  Swedish  rail  fares  (per  10 km) 
over  the  past  25  years.  The  price  of  SJ 
Express’ highest fare has grown steadily year 
on  year,  whilst  the  lowest  priced  SJ  Express 
fare  decreased  dramatically  between  1990 
and  2008  and  has  almost  levelled  off  since. 
This  is  indicative  of  SJ’s  pricing  policy,  which 
the 
has  been 
introduction of yield management. The prices 
of other specific rail products have remained 
broadly 
the 
exception  of  the  RPTA  Monthly  pass  which  has  grown  steadily  and  has  almost  doubled  since  1990.  The 
downward trend observed on SJ services from 2014 can be partly explained by the complete market opening of 
Swedish railways in 2010. This has introduced some competition on the network and has pushed SJ to lower its 
fares. 

Source: The Royal Institute of Technology (KTH Sweden) 

influenced  by 

terms,  with 

strongly 

in  real 

fixed 

Rail fare trends in Finland 

Source: Statistics Finland 

The  Finnish  Transport  Agency  also  provided 
an  extract  of  time-series  fares  data,  which 
shows  a  steady  increase  in  in  the  cost  of  a 
200km trip between 2002 and 2012. Between 
2012 and 2015 the sample trip was changed, 
however, the trend observed is similar. Since 
the data only represents a trip type, it is not 
possible  to  infer  whether  fares  on  average 
followed the same pattern 

4.4.2.  Fares and tickets in different market segments  

This section presents an overview of rail fares in various market segments in each Member State. The 
analysis  is  based  on  an  illustrative  single  station-to-station  journey,  and  fares  per km  for  other 
station-to-station  pairs  might  be  considerably  different.  The  fare  data  were  collected  during 
November  2015  and  are  converted  at  the  market  exchange  rates  and  expressed  in  PPP-adjusted 
euros  to  reflect  differences  in  purchasing  power  in  different  Member  States.  All  fares  per km  have 
been calculated using the straight-line distance between the two cities identified. In some countries 
this will be closely related to the distance by rail but in others, such as Denmark, which has a large 
number of islands, this is not the case. Straight-line distances allow meaningful comparisons between 
modes  and  reflect  the  impact  of  direct  versus  indirect  routing  by  different  modes  within  this 
comparison. 

72 

KTH Sweden (2015) Development of supply and prices on Swedish railway lines 1990-2015 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.4.2.1.Suburban fares 

Suburban fares73 are almost invariably in all Member States administered by the competent authority 
and may be common to rail and other modes. They are often "policy driven" aiming to increase train 
ridership, but some Member States consider also cost-recovery targets. However, no individual fare 
was set by calculating the “cost” of the service to which it applies. A range of single fares apply, but 
regular commuters will typically buy weekly, monthly or annual tickets, often valid on all modes, and 
offering increasing levels of discount relative to single tickets. Zonal fares structures are predominant 
in suburban  markets as  to simplify  ticketing arrangements. There can be a wide variation between 
the suburban fares applied in cities in the same Member State. 

l

i

-

0

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

t
o
L

0,45

0,35

0,25

0,15

0,05

Figure 38 – Suburban fares: monthly or 30-day (PPP-adjusted fare EUR per km) 

Figure 38  outlines 
for 
results 
the 
selected 
station 
pairs.  There  are 
significant 
differences,  but  no 
clear-cut 
split 
between  EU13  and 
was 
as 
EU15 
observed 
the 
analysis  of  average 
yields 
(Figure 36). 
Most  of  the  fares 
between 
are 
EUR 0.07 
and 
EUR 0.20  per  km 
(PPP 
adjusted), 
Prague  and  Dublin 
being  at  lower  and 
higher  extremes.  In 
Dublin  a  monthly 
zonal  ticket  is  poor 
value  if  used  only 
for  commuting  by 
train  between  Dun 
and 
Laoghaire 
Connolly  (EUR 0.31  per km after  PPP  adjustment)  and  it  is  cheaper  to  a  buy  single  ticket (EUR 0.21 
per km after). In Prague fare levels do not appear to have been changed since 2011 and remain the 
lowest among the observed countries. 

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on railway and transport 
authority websites, 
Note: monthly or 30-day fares have been divided by 40 to estimate the effective single fare for 
a commuter 

AT BE CH CZ DE DK EE

Month/30-day transferable

f
r
o
d
s
r
e
z
n
E
M
-
B
-
a
n
n
e
V

Month/30-day personal

Month/30-day off-peak

Month/30-day resident

IT NL NO PL PT

a
r
r
a
c
n
e
u
F
-
d
i
r
d
a
M

t
s
O
e
d
e
f
r
e
t
h
c
i
L
-
n

m
o
h
n
e
s
o
R
-
o
l
s
O

FR HR HU IE

e
n
n
a
p
a
C
-
e
m
o
R

e
t
e
v
s
e
S
-
b
e
r
g
a
Z

n
i
t
o
d
a
R
-
e
u
g
a
r
P

a
t
s
y
r
C
-
n
o
d
n
o
L

p
e
e
t
e
r
e
m
e
z
S
-

e
r
i
a
h
g
o
a
L
n
u
D

t
t
a
m
a
l
F
-
n
r
e
B

-
n
e
g
a
h
n
e
p
o
C

o
R
-
e
l
-
y
s
i
o
h
C
-

s
a
e
B
/
z
u
e
u
Q

t
h
c
e
r
d
n
e
o
H

d
n
u
e
n
e
e
H

-
a
v
a
l
s
i
t
a
r
B

m
o
h
k
c
o
t
S

d
p
a
k
n
a
v
I

t
s
e
p
a
d
u
B

w
o
t
s
a
P
-

s
u
e
a
r
i
P
-

p
u
r
t
s
o
G

m
a
d
r
e
t
s

s
l
e
s
s
u
r
B

w
a
s
r
a
W

i
k
n
i
s
l
e
H

-
n
o
b
s
i
L

SK UK

n
a
p
a
T
-

s
n
e
h
t
A

e
c
a
a
P

in 

d
e
g
a
L

s
i
r
a
P

i
l
r
e
B

b
u
D

-
n
n

m
A

-
n

a
T

SE

ES

EL

FI

i
l
l

e

a

l
i

i
l

l
l

-

-

.

.

l

l

l

l

i

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

i

i

l

4.4.2.2.Regional and interurban fares 

Regional  and  interurban  fares  may  be  set  by  national,  regional  or  local  competent  authorities.  In 
Member  States  with  opened  rail  markets  some  fares  may  be  regulated  or  left  to  the  market.  For 
instance,  Sweden  has  no  regulated  fares,  but  long-distance  operators  must  accept  local  fares 
administered  by  County  authorities.  In  the  United  Kingdom,  a  range  of  fares  are  regulated  with  a 
degree of flexibility varying by location, market segment and ticket type. 

73` 

For the purpose of the analysis it was assumed that a suburban network consist of at least one line with regular 
services at intervals of 30 minutes or less connecting at least five stations within 10 km. Using this criterion it 
appeared that there were no regular suburban services in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, Romania and 
Slovenia. 

56 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The analysis covered a range of fares on regional, interurban and high-speed routes including peak 
and off-peak single and return tickets and monthly passes. The overall conclusions were: 

  The fares vary widely between Member States, ticket-types and booking horizons. 
  On regional routes, in many Member States there is only one fare, and a return ticket costs 

the same as two single tickets.  

  For interurban trips under 300 km, fares are often lower if booked in advance or restricted 

to off-peak trains. Where season tickets are available they are often significantly cheaper 
than buying daily tickets.  

  For interurban trips over 300 km, fares per km tend to be lower than at shorter distances 
and may sometimes be constrained by competition from air services. Advance booking 
discounts are often available on more expensive Western European networks, with savings 
of up to 70% on full fares. 

  For journeys on domestic high speed routes, fares varied widely. Advance booking discounts 

and yield management systems are common. 

  For international journeys, fares per km are often higher than the domestic equivalent. 

Below  are  the  fares  of  regional  and  domestic  and  international  interurban  trips  analysed  in  more 
detail. 

Regional fares 

Regional  fares74  varied  from  EUR 0.26  per km  between  Lausanne  and  Biel  in  Switzerland  (where 
many citizens buy annual all-lines passes) to EUR 0.017 per km (for a monthly ticket) from the city of 
Ostrava to Prerov. 

Figure 39 – Regional fares: peak single (PPP-adjusted fare EUR per km) 

0,30

0,25

0,20

0,15

0,10

0,05

0,00

l

i

e
B
-
e
n
n
a
s
u
a
L

e

j
l

e
C
-
a
n
a

j
l

b
u
j
L

n
ó

l
l

e
t
s
a
C
-
a
i
c
n
e
a
V

l

i

g
r
o
b
V
-
s
u
h
r
Å

z
n
i
L
-
g
r
u
b
z
l
a
S

h
c
i
w
s
p
I
-
e
g
d
i
r
b
m
a
C

i

n
d
z
a
r
a
V
-
b
e
r
g
a
Z

g
r
u
b
s
i
u
D
-
e
n
g
o
o
C

l

p
r
e
w
t
n
A
-
t
n
e
h
G

e

l
l

o
w
Z
-
t
h
c
e
r
t
U

i

n
i
r
e
t
a
K
-
i
k
i
n
o
a
s
s
e
h
T

l

l

e
a
D

-
n
e
g
r
e
B

l

o
a
S
-
u
k
r
u
T

g
r
o
b
g
n
i
s
l
e
H
-
ö
m
a
M

l

n
o
t
n
e
M

-
s
e
n
n
a
C

l

y
a
w
a
G
-
k
c
i
r
e
m
i
L

i

o
n
z
e
n
G
-
n
a
n
z
o
P

a
z
á
h
y
g
e
r
í
y
N
-
n
e
c
e
r
b
e
D

i

n
d
e
u
H
-
s
u
u
c
n
u
S

i

v
o
š
e
r
P
-
e
c
i
s
o
K

a
n
n
e
v
a
R
-
a
n
g
o
o
B

l

s
a
n
u
a
K
-
s
u
n

i

l
i

V

l

e
i
f
a
n
e
P
-
o
t
r
o
P

e
r
e
v
k
a
R
-
n
n

i
l
l

a
T

s
l
i

p
v
a
g
u
a
D
-
s
l
i

p
t
s
u
r
K

v
o
r
e
r
P
-
a
v
a
r
t
s
O

i

a
c
i
n
m
Z
-
s
a
g
r
u
B

s
e
g
r
e
i
v
s
i
o
r
T
-
g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

CH SI

ES DK AT UK HR DE BE NL EL

FI

SE NO FR IE HU PL RO SK IT

LT PT EE LV BG LU CZ

On Day of Travel

Week in advance

Month in Advance

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on railway and transport authority websites 
The most expensive fares were usually found on journeys in Western Europe, although some of the 
highest  peak  single  fares  were  found  in  Slovenia  and  Croatia.  Discounts  for  booking  in  advance  or 
booking  a  round  trip  were  only  available  in  a  few  Member  States  and  no  distinction  was  made 
between peak and off-peak regional journeys. Finally, only in about half of all Member States was it 

74 

Selection of station pairs covering distances of 50-100 km, which do not involve a major city. 

57 

 
 
                                                 
readily  possible  to  find  a  season  ticket  fare,  although  it  is  probable  that  fares  may  be  available  on 
request at a ticket office. For Member States where data was available, the saving per km75 ranged 
from 2% in Sweden to 88% in Belgium. 

Interurban fares 

A  distinction  was  made  between  interurban  journeys  below  and  above  300 km.  For  the  former 
group,  there  were  no  effective  domestic  interurban  services  in  either  Luxembourg  or  Slovenia 
(Figure 40).  Interurban  services  over  300 km  exist  in  only  16  of  the  28  States  with  rail  networks 
(Figure 41). 

Figure 40 – Interurban fares under 300 km: peak single(PPP-adjusted fare EUR per km) 

0,70

0,60

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00

f
f
i
d
r
a
C
-
n
o
d
n
o
L

t
r
a
g
t
t
u
t
S
-
h
c
i
n
u
M

z
a
r
G

-
a
n
n
e
V

i

a
c
n
e
u
C
-
d
i
r
d
a
M

r
e
m
m
a
h
e

l
l
i
L

-
o
l
s
O

s

i

m
e
R
-

s
i
r
a
P

u
k
r
u
T
-

i
k
n
i
s
l
e
H

k
r
o
C
-
n

i
l

b
u
D

s
a
r
t
a
P
-

s
n
e
h
t
A

e
g
e
i
L

-

s
l
e
s
s
u
r
B

o
r
b
e
r
Ö

-

l

m
o
h
k
c
o
t
S

k
e

j
i
s
O

-
b
e
r
g
a
Z

d
e
g
e
z
S

-

t
s
e
p
a
d
u
B

l

s
e
p
a
N

-
e
m
o
R

h
c
i
r
ü
Z
-
e
n
n
a
s
u
a
L

l

g
r
o
b
a
A
-
n
e
g
a
h
n
e
p
o
C

o
r
a
F
-
n
o
b
s
i
L

a
ț
n
a
t
s
n
o
C
-

t
s
e
r
a
h
c
u
B

i

n
e
g
n
n
o
r
G

-

m
a
d
r
e
t
t
o
R

n

i
l

b
u
L

-

w
a
s
r
a
W

u
t
r
a
T
-
n
n

i
l
l

a
T

a
d
ė
p
a
K
-

l

i

s
u
n

i

l
i

V

a
n

i
l
i

Ž
-
a
v
a
l
s
i
t
a
r
B

o
n
r
B
-
e
u
g
a
r
P

l

v
i
d
v
o
P
-
a
i
f
o
S

s
l
i

p
v
a
g
u
a
D

-
a
g
R

i

UK DE AT

ES NO FR DK

FI

IE

EL BE

SE HR HU IT CH RO PT NL PL

EE

LT

SK BG LV CZ

On Day of Travel

Week in advance

Month in Advance

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on railway and transport authority websites 

The  highest  peak  single  fare  found  for  trips  under  300 km  was  an  unregulated  single  fare  of  £109 
from London Paddington to Cardiff, equivalent after PPP adjustment to nearly EUR 0.60 per km and 
twice the cost of the next highest fare in Germany. However, other, advance purchase fares for this 
corridor with the same operator were as low as EUR 0.20 per km. For those Member States where it 
was possible to find monthly fares, these were significantly cheaper than 20 peak return tickets: the 
effective discount ranged from 19% in Latvia to 90% in Belgium. 

75 

Calculated in comparison to 20 peak return tickets 

58 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
l

l

i

-

l
i

M

n
a

0,35

0,30

0,25

0,20

0,15

0,10

0,05

0,00

i
l
r
e
B

n
o
y
L

a
s
a
a
V
-

n
ö
K
-
n

w
a
l
c
o
r
W

k
c
u
r
b
s
n
n

n
e
g
r
e
B
-
o
l
s
O

a
n
o
e
c
r
a
B
-
d
i
r
d
a
M

h
g
r
u
b
n
d
E
-
n
o
d
n
o
L

EUR per km) 

Figure 41 – Interurban fares above 300 km: peak single (PPP-adjusted fare 

The  highest  fare  found 
for  trips  over  300 km 
was 
an  unregulated 
single  fare  of  £140.50 
Kings 
London 
from 
Cross 
Edinburgh, 
to 
equivalent  after  PPP 
adjustment 
to  nearly 
EUR 0.30  per km.  On 
both  interurban  routes 
under 
above 
and 
300 km,  discounts  were 
available  when  booking 
in 
and/or 
having  a  round  trip. 
the  more 
Particularly 
Western 
expensive 
European 
networks 
often offered savings of 
In  Eastern 
over  50%. 
Europe 
advance 
booking  discounts  were 
less common, but at the 
same  time,  the  walk-up 
fare  on  these  routes 
lower.  In 
was  usually 
the  pool  of  routes  under  consideration,  the  route  Prague-Ostrava  shows  the  lowest  fare.  Three 
operators provide passenger transport services on that line (not under PSO). 

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on railway and 
transport authority websites 
Note: In FR, DE, IT and ES, some or all of the journeys may be undertaken on high-speed 
rail infrastructure using high-speed rolling stock and the respective fares may be relatively 
higher, given that track access charges for high speed services are typically greater than 
those for conventional rail. This may affect comparisons drawn between Member States, 
but at the same time journeys on these corridors are both typical and representative. 

Month in Advance

e
c
i
s
o
K
-
a
v
a
l
s
i
t
a
r
B

Week in advance

advance 

On Day of Travel

o
t
r
o
P
-
n
o
b
s
i
L

i
k
i
n
o
a
s
s
e
h
T
-

ES NO PL

a
n
r
a
V
-
a
i
f
o
S

m
o
h
k
c
o
t
S

t
s
e
r
a
h
c
u
B

UK DE

-
e
u
g
a
r
P

RO SK

BG CZ

-
a
n
n
e
V

w
a
s
r
a
W

i
k
n
i
s
l
e
H

a
v
a
r
t
s
O

-
e
m
o
R

ö
m
a
M

s
n
e
h
t
A

a
r
a
o
s
i

m
T
-

s
i
r
a
P

AT

PT

FR

SE

EL

IT

FI

-

-

I

l

l

l

i

i

High speed fares 

Domestic services that operate mainly or wholly on high speed lines in seven Member States were 
in  this  category  and  Figure 42 

considered 
summarises the findings. 

Figure 42 – High speed fare: peak single (PPP-adjusted 

fare per km) 

0,45
0,40
0,35
0,30
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,05
0,00

m
a
d
r
e
t
t
o
R
-
m
a
d
r
e
t
s

m
A

d
r
o
f
h
s
A
-
s
a
r
c
n
a
P
t
S
n
o
d
n
o
L

l

n
ö
K
-
n

i
l
r
e
B

n
o
y
L
-
s
i
r
a
P

l

a
n
o
e
c
r
a
B
-
d
i
r
d
a
M

n
a

l
i

M
-
e
m
o
R

e
g
e
i
L
-
s
l
e
s
s
u
r
B

UK

NL
On Day of Travel

ES

DE
Week in advance

FR

IT

BE

Month in Advance

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, 
based on railway and transport authority websites 

The  highest  fare  found  was  an  unregulated 
off-peak single fare of £29.50 from Ashford to 
London,  equivalent  to  over  EUR 0.40  per km, 
assumingly  reflecting  the  explicit  premium 
placed  upon  high-speed  domestic  services  to 
support capital cost recovery. The lowest fare 
found  was  EUR 0.05  per km  in  Italy,  for  a 
week-ahead  fare  using  open  access  operator 
Italo.  This  low  fare  may  be  as  a  consequence 
of  competition  with  the  incumbent  operator 
Trenitalia.  

and 

Advance  booking  discounts 
yield 
management  systems  on  high-speed  services 
appear to be offered only in France, Germany, 
Italy  and  Spain.  Nevertheless,  the  highest 
per km fare for both peak single and off-peak 
return  fare  types,  in  the  United  Kingdom  and 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the Netherlands respectively, are on routes that do not appear to be yield managed. 

International fares 

Figure 43  summarises  the  average  fares  for  a  selection  of  international  routes.  The  highest 
international  fare  found  was  a  single  fare  of  £170  from  London  St  Pancras  to  Paris  Gare  du  Nord, 
equivalent after PPP adjustment to nearly EUR 0.58 per km. The two routes served by Eurostar (Paris 
to  London,  Brussels  to  London)  are  the  most  expensive  journeys  within  the  sample,  reflecting 
assumingly  (1) the  premium  charged  by  HighSpeed1  in  the  United  Kingdom  to  support  capital  cost 
recovery and (2) high access chargers applicable in the Channel Tunnel. The lowest peak fare found 
was EUR 0.031 per km from Bratislava to Prague. 

Most  international  fares  per km  are  roughly  equal  to,  or  higher  than  the  fares  for  equivalent 
domestic journeys. At the same time, the advance booking discounts for international services are in 
general higher (up to 70%). This is likely to be because a greater proportion of international services 
are operated by non-incumbent operators who have the flexibility to yield manage. 

Figure 43 – International fares: peak single (PPP-adjusted fare EUR per km) 

0,70

0,60

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00

n
o
d
n
o
L
-
s
i
r
a
P

s
i
r
a
P
-

s
e
l
s
s
u
r
B

n
o
d
n
o
L

-

s
l
e
s
s
u
r
B

a
v
e
n
e
G
-
n
a

l
i

M

e

l
l
i

e
s
r
a
M
-
a
n
o
e
c
r
a
B

l

l

n
ö
K
-
n
o
d
n
o
L

i

a
n
n
e
V
-
e
u
g
a
r
P

t
r
u
f
k
n
a
r
F
-
s
i
r
a
P

g
r
e
b
m
e
r
u
N
-
a
n
n
e
V

i

r
e
v
o
n
n
a
H
m
a
d
r
e
t
s

-

m
A

n

i
l
r
e
B
-
ń
a
n
z
o
P

g
r
u
b
n
e
h
t
o
G

-
o
l
s
O

d
i
r
d
a
M
-
n
o
b
s
i
L

g
r
u
b
s
r
e
t
e
P
t
S
-
i
k
n
i
s
l
e
H

g
r
u
b
n
r
e
h
t
o
G
-
n
e
g
a
h
n
e
p
o
C

l

-

o
l
s
O
m
o
h
k
c
o
t
S

t
s
a
f
l
e
B
-
n

i
l

b
u
D

w
a
s
r
a
W
-
n

i
l
r
e
B

l

e
s
a
B
-
g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

t
s
e
p
a
d
u
B
-
a
r
a
o
s
i

m
T

i

l

i
k
i
n
o
a
s
s
e
h
T
-
a
i
f
o
S

e
u
g
a
r
P
-
a
v
a
l
s
i
t
a
r
B

FR-UK BE-UK BE-FR IT-CH ES-FR FR-DE AT-DE UK-DE CZ-AT NL-DE NO-SE PL-DE FI-RU PT-ES DK-SE SE-NO IE-UK LU-CH DE-PL RO-
HU

BG-EL SK-CZ

On Day of Travel

Week in advance

Month in Advance

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on railway and transport authority websites 

Box 16 –  Anomalies in fares 

While analysing the fare data, some 'anomalies' in set fares were identified. Anomalous fares can be result of 
yield  management  practices,  but  could  be  caused  also  by  inconsistent  fares  structures.  The  latter  can  arise 
where  two  different  authorities  set  fares,  for  example  at  the  boundary  between  competent  authorities  or 
where the regulatory framework allows differential changes to different types of fares. For instance: 

 

 

In Slovakia the kilometric fare, set in 2011 for suburban trips, is EUR 0.50 for the first five km and then 
an additional EUR 0.05 per km. This means that, for the 14-km journey examined, the kilometric fare 
of EUR 0.95 undercuts the cash single fare of EUR 1.20. 
In Greece and Romania, the return fares for regional trips were more than two single fares, in Bulgaria 
and France the same phenomenon was noted for selected trips under 300 km. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.4.3.  Intermodal competition 

The  Study  on  Prices  and  Quality  of  Rail  Passenger  Services  also  assessed  how  the  travel  costs  and 
journey times in rail compare to equivalent journeys by car, bus or coach and air travel on regional 
and  intercity  routes76.  The  fares  chosen  were  based  on  the  cheapest  peak  single  for  travel  on  the 
day77.  The  suburban  segment  was  not  analysed,  given  that  there  was  no  detailed  information  or 
assumptions  available  on  car  parking  charges,  congestion  levels  and  journey  time  reliability  for 
selected routes.  

It appeared that over very long distances airlines offer both the lowest costs and the fastest journey 
time,  and  are  the  dominant  mode.  For  domestic  or  international  journeys  over  300 km  rail 
operators may have to charge less than airlines unless they can offer a faster journey time between 
city  centres  (possible  on  high  speed  lines).  Coach  operators  can  compete  with  both  air  and  rail  by 
offsetting longer journey times with lower fares. Car is less attractive because of the cost and time 
penalties of entering and parking in large cities. Also, it is not possible to work or rest while driving. 

For domestic interurban journeys under 300 km, air travel is not normally available, and coach and 
rail fares tend to depend on their relative speed and frequency, hence their market power. Car usage 
remains relatively unattractive due to the above-mentioned cost and time penalties of entering and 
parking in large cities. 

On regional journeys, rail may face competition from coach but car may set an effective ceiling on 
their fares, unless there are extra high time and cost penalties linked to congestion and parking. Both 
rail  and  coach operators  may  be  constrained  to  set  fares,  in some cases  through PSO  contracts,  at 
levels low enough either to attract passengers from car or to be affordable to those with no car. 

In  every  case  the  actual  choice  of  mode  may  depend  on  the  characteristics  of  the  travelling  party. 
Airlines  can  offer  extremely  low  fares  up  to  one  year  ahead,  whereas  rail  can  rarely  confirm 
timetables this far ahead due to its reliance on engineering  timetables issued by the infrastructure 
managers. This constrains the scope for rail operators to compete with airlines over longer booking 
horizons or to provide complementary travel services and through-ticketing. 

4.4.3.1.Competition with car 

The  analysis  on  car  competition  considered  one  person  per  car  and  took  into  account  the  fleet 
structure, fuel cost and toll charges78. The result of the comparative analysis of costs and speeds of 
car79 and rail travel for regional and interurban corridors are shown below. 

76 

77 
78 

79 

In addition, Steer Davies Gleave assessed also frequency and reliability of services in various modes. For details, 
see http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/studies/doc/2016-04-price-quality-rail-pax-services-final-
report.pdf 
Fares booked one month ahead can be lower.  
For a detailed description of the methodology  see The Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, 
point 5.2 
Car cost includes fuel, tolls and marginal costs for wear and tear 

61 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 44 – Comparison of rail and car travel: regional trips 

Cost of travel 

Speed of travel 

most 

For 
regional 
(Figure 44)  and  interurban 
(Figure 45)  trips  less  than 
300 km, 
journeys 
rail 
appear  more  expensive  on 
a  fare  per km  basis  than 
the  equivalent  journey  by 
car.  The  largest  disparities 
for regional and interurban 
journeys  less  than  300 km 
are in Switzerland between 
Lausanne and Biel, and the 
United  Kingdom  between 
London  and  Cardiff,  where 
the estimated cost of a rail 
journey  is  more  than  five 
times  the  cost  of  a  car 
journey.  

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on railway and 
transport authority websites 
Note: data are for a single station-to-station pair and may not be representative 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
rail 

While 
journeys  are 
generally  more  expensive 
journeys,  also 
than  car 
among 
EU13  Member 
States,  the  disparity  is  less 
marked.  Rail  journeys  are 
cheaper  for  both  regional 
journeys 
and 
in 
less 
Czech 
Bulgaria, 
Republic, Italy, Portugal and 
Romania. 

interurban 
than 

300 km 

the 

Figure 45 – Comparison of rail and car travel: intercity trips under 300 km 

Cost of travel 

Speed of travel 

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on railway and 
transport authority websites 
Note: data are for a single station-to-station pair and may not be representative 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Similar trends were found in the longer distance interurban market (over 300 km) with rail journeys 
only cheaper than the equivalent journey by car in a handful of cases as shown in Figure 46. 

Figure 46 – Comparison of rail and car travel: intercity trips over 300 km 

Cost of travel 

Speed of travel 

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on railway and 
transport authority websites 
Note: data are for a single station-to-station pair and may not be representative 

The  figures 
indicate  that 
across all market segments, 
more 
rail 
expensive 
journeys  also  tend  to  be 
faster.  Rail  has  a  higher 
average  speed  than  car  for 
both 
and 
regional 
interurban  trips  under  than 
300 km 
in  most  EU15 
countries.  The  fastest  rail 
journeys,  relative  to  the 
equivalent  journey  by  car, 
in 
are 
France  between  Paris  and 
Reims and in Spain between 
Madrid  and  Cuenca,  where 
rail  has  twice  the  average 
speed  of  car. 
Interurban 
trips  over  300 km  are 
almost always faster by rail. 

interurban 

trips 

In  contrast,  car  travel 
is 
faster  than  rail  for  both 
regional  and 
interurban 
in  Bulgaria,  Croatia 
trips 
and  Portugal.  The  slowest 
rail service relative to car is 
in 
regional  corridor 
the 
Bulgaria  between  Burgas 
and  Zimnica  where  car  is 
more 
times 
faster than rail. 

three 

than 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
4.4.3.2.Competition with coach 

Barriers to entering the coach market can still exist in some European countries. The analysis in this 
segment  focussed  on  comparison  of  prices  and  travel  speed  in  interurban  trips  under  300 km  and 
international  destination  pairs80.  The  findings  for  interurban  trips  under  300 km  are  presented  in 
Figure 47.   

Figure 47 – 
under 300 km 

Comparison of rail and coach travel: interurban trips 

Cost of travel 

Speed of travel 

is 

of 

than 
journey 

Most 
rail 
interurban 
journeys appear to be more 
the 
expensive 
equivalent 
by 
coach. This may be because 
rail  offers  superior  journey 
time, comfort and reliability 
therefore 
and  coach 
inferior 
perceived  as  an 
mode.  None 
the 
investigated 
interurban 
coach fares was higher than 
0.2 EUR per km; the highest 
coach  fare  found  was  22 
EUR in  Austria  between 
Vienna  and  Graz  in  Austria. 
The  largest  price  difference 
is the journey in the United 
Kingdom  between  London 
and Cardiff, where rail is six 
times 
the 
the  cost  of 
journey  by  coach.  Peak  rail 
fares  between  these  points 
are  not  regulated while the 
connecting M4 motorway is 
often congested. 

Latvia 

the  Czech 
For  Bulgaria, 
Republic, 
and 
Lithuania  coach  fares  are 
higher  than  the  equivalent 
rail  fare  while  coach  trips 
are  only  marginally  faster 
than  the  corresponding  rail 
service. In all other Member 
States  apart  from  Greece 
and Croatia, rail services are 
typically 
faster  than  the 
parallel coach service. 

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on railway and 
transport authority websites 
Note: data are for a single station-to-station pair and may not be representative 

80 

For a detailed description of the methodology  see The Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, 
point 5.15 

65 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Figure 48 – Comparison of rail and coach travel: international trips 

Cost of travel 

Speed of travel 

journeys, 

equivalent 

international 
Findings  for 
in 
trips  are  presented 
Figure 48 
Most 
international  rail  services 
are  more  expensive  than 
the 
coach 
service.  As  with  interurban 
domestic 
this 
may  be  because  rail  often 
offers  faster  journeys  and 
can  therefore  operate  as  a 
“price-maker”. 
market 
However,  in  two  corridors 
between  Romania 
and 
Hungary,  and  Bulgaria  and 
Greece,  coach  fares  are 
between  two  and  three 
times  greater 
the 
equivalent rail fare, despite 
being 
speeds 
average 
similar  between  modes.  In 
this  case  it  is  likely  that 
there are additional factors 
such  as  service  frequency 
and  quality  which  permit 
coach  operators  to  charge 
a much higher fare. 

than 

to 

and 

The high speed rail services 
London 
from  Paris 
Frankfurt 
(FR/UK) 
(FR/DE)  are 
fastest 
relative  to  the  equivalent 
coach 
The 
services. 
in 
percentage  difference 
fares is largest on the Paris 
to  Frankfurt  route,  where 
the  rail  fare  is  over  five 
the 
the  cost  of 
times 
equivalent 
fare. 
absolute 
However, 
difference  is  largest  on  the  Eurostar  operated  Paris  to  London  route  where  the  rail  fare  per km  is 
EUR 0.42 higher than the equivalent journey by coach.  

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on railway and 
transport authority websites 
Note: data are for a single station-to-station pair and may not be representative 

coach 

the 

the 

International  coach  journeys  are  more  expensive  than  rail  between Sofia  and  Thessaloniki  (BG/EL), 
Timisoara  and  Budapest  (RO/HU)  and  Bratislava  and  Prague  (SK/CZ).  Along  these  corridors,  and  as 
with domestic interurban services, coach can compete because it is almost as fast as, or faster than, 
the  parallel  rail  service.  Largely  as  a  consequence  of  poor  rail  infrastructure,  travel  in  Bulgaria  is 
consistently cheaper and slower by rail than by car or coach, suggesting that rail is the inferior mode 
of land transport. 

66 

 
 
 
4.4.3.3.Competition with air 

A  sample  of  interurban  (over  300 km)  and  international  station  pairs  was  assessed.  Air  travel 
assessment  includes  allowances  for  access  and  egress  costs  and  time  and  check-in  and  border 
controls at the origin and destination airports81. 

Figure 49 – Comparison of rail and air travel: interurban trips over 300 km 

(lowest observed fare) 

Cost of travel 

The costs of travelling by air 
were  more  than  rail  on  all 
interurban routes except in 
Germany  and  Spain.  The 
most  expensive  air  costs, 
relative  to  rail  fares,  were 
in Finland between Helsinki 
and  Vaasa  and  the  Czech 
Republic  between  Prague 
and  Ostrava.  Both  air 
routes 
serve 
mainly  business  travellers 
with  a  relatively  inelastic 
demand for travel. 

seem 

to 

Speed of travel 

In  most  cases,  on  routes 
where rail travel was faster 
it  was 
travel, 
than  air 
nevertheless 
less 
expensive.  For  example  in 
France,  between  Paris  and 
Lyon rail offered double the 
average speed, and half the 
price  of  air  travel.  The 
corridor  in  Spain  between 
Madrid  and  Barcelona 
is 
the only route on which rail 
was both faster and slightly 
more  expensive  than  the 
air,  suggesting  that  rail  is 
the  superior  mode  on  this 
route. 

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on railway and 
transport authority websites 
Note: data are for a single station-to-station pair and may not be representative 

81 

For a detailed description of the methodology  see The Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, 
point 5.24 and 5.25 

67 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
air 

The 

Rail  was  more  expensive 
than 
for  more 
international  journeys  than 
interurban 
domestic 
journeys. 
largest 
difference  in  fares  was  on 
Eurostar between Paris and 
is 
London  (FR/UK)  which 
twice  as 
the 
equivalent  journey  by  air 
and  30%  more  expensive82. 
Air  fares  between  Prague 
and  Vienna  (CZ/AT)  were 
eight  times  higher  than  rail 
fares. This route is operated 
by  a  single  airline  and  the 
main  market  may  be  last 
minute business travellers. 

fast  as 

Figure 50 – Comparison of rail and air travel: international trips (lowest 

observed fare) 

Cost of travel 

Speed of travel 

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on railway and 
transport authority websites 
Note: data are for a single station-to-station pair and may not be representative 

82 

The fares used in the analysis were based on the cheapest peak single for travel on the day, Eurostar fares can be 
much lower when booked a month ahead 

68 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
4.5.  The quality of passenger rail services 

This section assesses the quality of passenger rail services. Freight services are not covered, because 
there is so far no systematic and comparable data on quality available83. 

Box 17 –  Monitoring the quality of rail freight services in future 

The  6th RMMS  report  in  two  years'  time will  hopefully provide  some insights,  as  some  data  are expected  to 
become available. First, according to the new RMMS Regulation, the Member States are expected to report on 
the punctuality of rail freight services, and where available also on the average speeds.  

In  addition,  several  industry  initiatives  for  performance  monitoring  are  ongoing.  In  its  recent  Statement 
Boosting  International  Rail  Freight84,  the  sector  commits  to  work  towards  provision  of  a  generic  and 
comparable set of key performance indicators on the quality of service in Rail Freight Corridors (RFC) at regular 
intervals.  Each  RFC  has  to  publish  a  yearly  performance  report  and  needs  for  that  purpose  a  set  of  key 
Performance Indicators (KPIs). KPIs across the corridors are for the time being not harmonized and therefore 
RailNetEurope has developed a set of common KPIs for infrastructure managers. In parallel, the ECCO project 
bringing together the railway undertakings using the RFCs, is developing a set of KPIs reflecting the operators 
perspective. The International Rail Freight Subgroup of the RU Dialogue is trying to steer the process.  

The corridors commit to communicating these performance indicators transparently along the corridors to the 
customers  and  to  the  public.  The  Commission  will  follow  up  the  implementation  of  these  commitments  and 
assesses whether complementary steps have to be undertaken in the context of the ongoing evaluation of the 
RFC Regulation. 

4.5.1.  Punctuality and reliability  

The information in this section builds on punctuality and reliability data from the RMMS dataset85. It 
should be noted that methods for calculating punctuality differ between Member States. In addition, 
data for some Member States or segments is missing. 

According to the RMMS, a train should be considered as punctual if it is delayed by 5 minutes or less 
for regional services, and by 15 minutes or less for long-distance services. Member States that define 
on time services differently from this are reported in Table -8. 

83 

84 

85 

Some data is available from the report of Rail Freight Corridors (see http://www.rne.eu/rfc-corridors for links to 
all corridors), but not necessarily comparable 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/news/doc/2016-06-20-ten-t-days-2016/corridor-sector-
statement.pdf 
available only for years 2012-2014 

69 

 
                                                 
Table -8 –  Quality: services defined as on time in the RMMS 

AT 
DK 
FR 

DE 
LT 
NL 
ES 

PL 
UK 

Regional services 
Delayed 5 minutes or less 
Delayed by 2 minutes 29 seconds or less 
Delayed 5 minutes and 59 seconds or less 

Long-distance services 
Delayed 5 minutes or less 
Delayed by 4 minutes 59 seconds or less 
Delayed by: 
 

5 minutes or less for a journey of a maximum duration of 
one hour and a half 
10 minutes or less for a journey of a duration between one 
hour and a half and three hours 
15 minutes or less for a journey of a minimum duration of 
three hours 

 

 

Delayed by 5 minutes 59 seconds or less 
Delayed 5 minutes or less 
Delayed 3 minutes or less 
Delayed by: 
 

Less than 10 minutes for "middle distance" 
services 
Less than 3 minutes for "commuter services 

 
Delayed 5 minutes or less 
Delayed 5 minutes or less 

Delayed by 5 minutes 59 seconds or less 
Delayed 5 minutes or less 
Delayed 5 minutes or less 
Delayed by: 
Less than 5 minutes (AVE long-distance services) 
Less than 10 minutes (other long-distance services) 

Delayed 5 minutes or less 
Delayed 10 minutes or less 

Source: RMMS 

The comparability of statistics is further complicated by the fact that the selection of measurement 
points may vary86. 

Figure 51  illustrates  that  the  proportion  of  regional  and  local  services  arriving  at  their  destination 
“on-time”  ranges  from  99%  in  Estonia  to  78%  in  Hungary.  However,  given  the  range  of  exogenous 
and endogenous factors that might affect the level of punctuality, as well as variations in thresholds, 
this comparison between the Member States cannot be considered conclusive.  

Nevertheless, it seems that the best performing Member States have small passenger rail networks, 
and Spain is the only large network recording punctuality over 95%. This can be due to the fact that 
utilisation rates of the Spanish network are relatively low. Three of the best performing regional and 
local networks are those of the Baltic  States where the number  of passenger services is limited on 
the infrastructure dominated by freight traffic.  

Figure 51 – Punctuality of regional and local passenger services, percentage of services on time 

100%

95%

90%

85%

80%

75%

EE

LV PT

FI

LT DK AT

IE

ES BG NL

SK DE PL NO CZ

SE

SI

LU UK FR RO IT HR BE HU

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on RMMS data  
Note: definition of “on time” varies, see Table -8 

2012

2013

2014

The punctuality of long-distance services is shown in Figure 52 and tends to be worse than regional 
and local services. The number of on-time trains ranges from 99% in Estonia to 63% in Croatia.  

86 

E.g. punctuality can be measured as an average across all stations on the line or only at the final station 

70 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
Figure 52 – Punctuality of long distance passenger services, percentage of services on time 

100%

95%

90%

85%

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%

EE LV IE

LT

FI RO NL ES DK IT NO SE UK CZ FR SI PT HU AT SK BG EL PL BE DE HR

Source: Study on  Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on RMMS data  
Note: definition of “on time” varies, see Table -8 

2012

2013

2014

Germany  and Italy,  two  of  the largest  networks  have some of the lowest  long-distance punctuality 
scores, both with fewer than 75% of services being on time. While the punctuality threshold used in 
Germany is stricter than in Italy (5:59 and 15 minutes respectively) the punctuality of long-distance 
services in Germany is nevertheless significantly worse than in Austria, the Netherlands and Denmark 
which  apply  an  even  stricter  5-minute  threshold.  As  with  regional  and  local  services,  the  relatively 
small networks of the three Baltic States (and Ireland) are the best performing. Punctuality may be 
hardest  to  maintain  on  busy  lines,  particularly  if  they  carry  a  mix  of  long-distance  and  regional 
passenger services and freight services. 

Reliability is defined as the proportion of scheduled passenger services that are cancelled. As can be 
seen  in  Figure 53  and  Figure 54,  comparable  data  is  only  available  for  some  Member  States.  As  a 
consequence it is difficult to make meaningful generalisations. 

Figure 53 – Reliability of regional and local passenger services, percentage of services cancelled 

18%

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

HU

SI

LT

PT

IT

DK UK

FR NO NL

SE

ES

FI

LU RO DE

BG AT HR

CZ

PL

EE

2012

2013

2014

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on RMMS data 

Based on data available, it can be said that a high level of cancellation is limited to operations in a 
few  Eastern  European  Member  States.  This  may,  in  part,  explain  Lithuania's  relatively  strong 
performance  against  punctuality  metrics:  if  a  train  is  cancelled  it  cannot  be  recorded  as  late.  No 
Western  or  Central  European  Member  States  cancelled  more  than  3%  of  regional  or  5%  of  long-
distance services. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 54 – Reliability of long-distance passenger services, percentage of services cancelled 

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

BG

HU

LT

NO

UK

NL

PT

DK

SE

FR

IT

FI

RO

ES

DE

PL

HR

CZ

EE

SI

Source: Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on RMMS data 

2012

2013

2014

Customer satisfaction 

The principal source of comparable pan-European data on customer satisfaction with rail services is 
the Eurobarometer survey of Europeans’ satisfaction with rail services, which was last undertaken in 
2012-2013. Overall, at that time roughly half (51%) of respondents scored their level of satisfaction 
with  railway  stations  and  rail  services  as  “high”  or  “good”,  with  the  remainder  (49%)  recording 
“medium”  or  “low”  satisfaction  levels.  Positive  satisfaction  scores  were  typically  more  prevalent  in 
Western European Member States. However, Germany and Denmark underperformed compared to 
their  Northern  European  peers,  and  Latvia  outperformed  the  other  Baltic  States  by  a  considerable 
margin. A slightly larger  proportion (55%) of respondents scored their level of satisfaction with rail 
services as “high” or “good” compared to satisfaction with railway stations. 

Figure 55 – Proportion of high and good satisfaction scores for railway stations and rail services 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

FI UK IE

LU BE FR ES AT LV NL CZ PT DK SE SK DE HU SI

LT

EL HR RO IT

PL BG EE

Rail travel

Railway stations

Source: Study on Prices and Quality of Rail Passenger Services, based on Flash Eurobarometer 382a 2012-2013,  
Note: “High” and “good” satisfaction scores have been combined 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
Box 18 –  Passenger Rights  

When buying a rail ticket, passengers expect services to take place as promised – i.e. departing and arriving on 
time.  However,  if  it  happens  that  a  train  is  cancelled  or  delayed,  passengers  have  the  right  to  adequate 
information  and  if  the  delay  is  more  than  one  hour,  EU  rules  apply  for  refund,  rerouting,  meals  and 
accommodation. These rules are set in the  Rail Passenger Rights Regulation87 in application since 2009. The 
Regulation provides a basic set of rights to protect rail passengers on their journeys in the EU, notably in case 
of  accidents,  long  delays  or  missed  connections.  It  also  contains  provisions  for  assisting  passengers  with 
disabilities  or  reduced  mobility.  The  overall  aim  is  to  give  assurance  to  rail  passengers  that  their  rights  are 
protected and by so doing increase the attractiveness of rail vis-à-vis other modes. 

In August 2013, the EC adopted a report to the European Parliament and Council on the application of the Rail 
Passenger  Rights  Regulation.  The  report  showed  that,  in  general,  the  application  of  the  Regulation  was 
satisfactory.  However,  it  also  identified  some  major  shortcomings  which  impede  uniform  rail  passenger 
protection in the EU: 

  The Regulation allows Member States to exempt certain domestic services from the application of the 

entirety of the Regulation. Currently, only 5 Member States apply the Regulation in full. 

  Owing to exemptions, the rights of persons with disabilities or reduced mobility to assistance may be 
reduced in certain Member States; these rights need also to be updated in line with the commitments 
the EU and Member States made by adhering to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities.  

  Enforcement is not uniform among Member States. This creates an unequal playing field regarding the 

rules applied to railway undertakings and could therefore distort competition.  

  There are currently no consistent responses to ensure that passengers who are stranded in situations 
of major transport disruption (e.g. massive strikes, natural catastrophes, terrorist attacks etc) receive 
adequate assistance and protection in all Member States.  

  Railway undertakings have to pay financial compensation to passengers for delays of more than one 

hour irrespective of the cause of the delay and even in cases where undertakings were not responsible 
and could not prevent it (force majeure). Passenger rights legislation for other transport modes 
includes a clause exempting transport companies from having to pay compensation in such situations. 
This could result in an unequal playing field for rail operators. 

The Commission services have started to assess the economic, social and environmental impacts of different 
policy  options  for  best  tackling  these  problems.  The  aim  is  to  strike  the  balance  between  the  adequate 
protection of passengers' rights and the economic burden on the rail sector. Depending on the results of the 
impact assessment, the Commission may table a revised proposal of the Regulation in early 2017. 

4.5.2.  Safety 

A  common  regulatory  framework  for  railway  safety  is  set  in  Directive  2004/49/EU88  (the  Railway 
Safety  Directive).  With  a  view  to  establishing  a  Single  European  Rail  Area,  the  Directive  sets  out  a 
framework  for  harmonising  national  safety  rules,  safety  certification  of  railway  undertakings,  the 
tasks  and  roles  of  the  national  safety  authorities  and  the  investigation  of  accidents.  The  Agency 
prepares a thorough report on the safety performance of European railways.89  

Managing and monitoring safety 

Rail  safety  in  Europe  is  managed  at  operational,  Member  State  and  EU  level.  The  railway 
undertakings  and  the  infrastructure  managers  are  expected  to  assess  the  risks  relating  to  the  safe 

87 

88 

89 

Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail 
passengers’ rights and obligations, OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 14 
Directive 2004/49/EC of 29 April 2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on safety of the 
Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and, OJ L 
164, 30.4.2004 p. 44; was in force in 2014. The Fourth Package replaced it with Directive (EU) 2016/798 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on railway safety, OJ L 138, 26.05.2016, p. 102. 
http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Railway-Safety-Performance.aspx 

73 

 
                                                 
operation of trains and establish a safety management system. At Member State level, the national 
safety  authorities  (NSAs)  evaluate  the  quality  of  safety  management  systems  when  issuing  safety 
certificates for operators and safety authorisations for infrastructure managers. 

The  NSAs  have  the  legal  obligation  to  report  to  the  Agency  all  significant90  accidents  occurring  on 
their  territory.  In  case  of  serious91  accidents,  the  National  investigation  Bodies  must  notify  the 
Agency of the ongoing investigations and send to the Agency their final report once the investigation 
is closed. 

Box 19 – 

The Fourth Railway Package and the Recast of the Railway Safety Directive 

The Fourth Railway Package includes the recast of the Railway Safety Directive, involving principally a revision 
of safety certification arrangements and migration to a single safety certificate. Instead of the current two-part 
system, a single safety certificate, valid in all Member States in which the railway undertaking operates, is to be 
granted on the basis of a single application. This is consistent with the general objective of the Fourth Package: 
to  eliminate  administrative  and  technical  barriers  so  as  to  enhance  the  competitiveness  of  rail  versus  other 
modes of transport.  

In  addition,  the  Agency  would  have  a  greater  role  and  become  an  EU-wide  authority  as  regards  safety 
certification of railway undertakings. NSAs will continue to act as principal supervisors for railway undertakings 
and to issue safety authorisations for infrastructure managers. To ensure that they do so according to similar 
criteria  and  procedures,  the  Agency  would  be  authorised  to  monitor  their  activity,  performance  and 
organisation of NSAs.  

90 

91 

"Significant accident" means any accident involving at least one rail vehicle in motion, resulting in at least one 
killed or seriously injured person, or in significant damage to stock, track, other installations or environment, or 
extensive disruptions to traffic. Accidents in workshops, warehouses and depots are excluded. Significant damage 
is damage that is equivalent to EUR 150,000 or more. 
"Serious accident" means any train collision or derailment of trains, resulting in the death of at least one person 
or serious injuries to five or more persons or extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the 
environment, and any other similar accident with an obvious impact on railway safety regulation or the 
management of safety; 'extensive damage' means damage that costs at least EUR 2 million in total.  

74 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Safety Performance in 2014 

Figure 56  and  Figure 57  present  the  main  indicators  of  safety  performance,  as  collected  by  the 
Agency.  

Figure 56 –  Significant accidents and resulting causalities 

4 500

4 000

3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

 500

 0

1367 

1380 

1104 

1249 

2292 

2224 

2069 

1980  2076 

1050 

1015 

911 

819 

1517 

1478 

1383 

1270 

1206 

1135 

1129 

1054 

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Fatalities

Serious injuries

Significant accidents

Source: "Railway Safety Performance in the European Union 2016", the Agency 
Note: EU-28 for 2010-2014 and EU-27 for 2007-2009 

Figure 57 –  Significant accidents per type of accident (EU-28) 

continued 

There were about 1 000 rail 
fatalities  in  2014.  Railway 
safety 
to 
improve between 2009 and 
fatalities, 
2014, 
serious 
and 
significant  accidents  all 
decreasing.  

injuries 

with 

two 

Excluding  suicides,  more 
than 
thirds  were 
persons 
to 
accidents 
caused  by  rolling  stock  in 
motion  and  level  crossing 
latter  not 
accidents,  the 
being  related  directly  to 
the rail system. 

2069 

2075 

1980 

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

 500

 0

1207 

1155 

1211 

573 

510 

506 

124 

101 

97 

97 

108 

104 

14 

30 

31 

81 

76 

100 

Collisions

Derailments Level-crossing

accidents

Accidents to
persons

Fires in rolling
stock

Other
accidents

Total

Source: "Railway Safety Performance in the European Union 2016", the Agency 

2012

2013

2014

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In 2014 seven accidents, as reported in Table -9, were categorised as serious.  

Table -9 –  Serious accidents in Europe (2014) 

Date 

12/01/2014 

26/01/2014 

12/07/2014 

17/07/2014 

01/08/2014 

MS 

IT 

DE 

BG 

FR 

DE 

Location 

Accident 

Outcome 

Firenze SMN 

Collision of train with buffer stop 

1 fatality, damage 

Bitterfeld - Wolfen 

Freight train derailment 

damage 

Kaloyanovets 

Passenger train derailment 

1 fatality, damage 

Denguin 

Rear-end trains collision 

2 serious injuries, damage 

Mannheim Hbf 

Trains collision 

4 serious injuries, damage 

13/08/2014 
Passenger train derailment 
Source: "Railway Safety Performance in the European Union 2016", the Agency  

Tiefencastel 

CH 

1 fatality, 4 serious injuries, damage 

Table -10 – Fatality risk in different modes (2009-2013) 

Rail  remains  nevertheless  one  of  the  safest  modes  of 
transport.  

Transport mode  

Fatalities per billion p-km 

Airline passenger 

Railway passenger 

Bus/Coach occupant 

Car occupant 

Powered two-wheelers 

0.01 

0.14 

0.16 

2.28 

37.50 

Source: Safety Report 2015, the Agency 
Note: EU-27 in 2008-2012 

4.6.  Rail transport services covered by public service contracts 

Public Service Obligations (PSO) mean requirements defined or determined by a competent authority 
in order to ensure public passenger transport services in the general interest that an operator, if it 
were considering its own commercial interests, would not assume or would not assume to the same 
extent or under the same conditions without reward92.  

4.6.1.  PSO scope 

According to the RMMS, 68% of the p-km by rail in 2014 were made using PSO services (291 billion p-
km out of 428 in EU2893). Compared to  2012 the proportion of PSO services in total rail passenger 
services has increased 4 percentage points. 

Like  shown  in  Figure 58,  the  proportion  of  PSO  services  in  the  total  passenger  traffic  varies  widely 
between  the  Member  States.  In  Denmark,  Ireland,  Croatia,  Greece  and  Luxembourg  all  passenger 
services  are  under  PSO.  In  general,  the  larger  Western-Europeans  countries  (except  the  United 
Kingdom) have relatively less PSO services. 

92 

93 

Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public 
passenger transport services by rail and by road, OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p.1 
Data 2014 except EL and ES (2012) and IE and NL (2013) 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 58 – PSO Services as % of total passenger services (2014) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

DK IE HR EL

LU SI

FI UK HU RO NL EE CZ BG SK BE LV PL NO AT LT

IT PT DE ES

SE FR

PSO

non PSO

Source: RMMS, 2014 data except for IE and NL (2013) and EL and ES (2012). Domestic PSO for FR includes also the train 
services TET, TER and Transilien (operated only by SNCF, and not by RATP) 

Public  service  obligations  target  almost  exclusively  national  lines;  in  international  traffic  the 
proportion is only 1%, Luxembourg having the highest share of international lines under PSO.  

Figure 59 –   Split of PSO national, PSO international and non PSO 

Table -11 – Proportion of international PSO in 

services - EU (million p-km, 2014) 

total PSO services (2014) 

1% 

31% 

68% 

PSO  intern.

PSO national

Non PSO  services

PSO 
(international) 

PSO 
(national + 
international) 

% of 
International 
PSO in total 

LU 
SI 

SK 

IE 

DK 

HR 

NL 

PL 

BE 

DE 

UK 

115 
109 
234 
96 
388 
43 
752 
407 
183 
100 
51 

409 
686 
2 351 
1 568 
6,804 
927 
17 018 
13,851 
9 917 
54 300 
62 173 

28% 
16% 

10% 

6% 

6% 

5% 

4% 

3% 

2% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

Source: RMMS, data 2014 except for IE and NL (2013), only countries 
for  which  the  split  between  domestic  and  international  PSO  was 
available (excludes CZ, EL, ES and SE). 

Source:  RMMS,  2014  data  except  for  IE  and  NL 
(2013),  only  countries  having 
reported  PSO 
contracts for international services. 

The  RMMS  asked  the  Member  States  to  report  also  the  proportion  of  the  traffic  under  PSO  for 
type  A  (regional,  suburban)  and  type  B  (long  distance)  traffic.  The  results  are  summarised  in 
Figure 60.  As  expected,  regional  and  suburban  traffic  is  more  often  subject  to  PSO,  while  long 
distance traffic is more suitable for commercial services.  

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 60 – Percentage of traffic under PSO for both type A and type B traffic94 (2014) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

EE

BG

HR

LU

IT

FI

AT

FR

PT

PL

UK

DE

DK

NO

SK

HU

Part of Type A traffic under PSO

Part of Type B traffic under PSO

Source: RMMS, data 2014, only for those Member States who provided data 

4.6.2.  PSO compensation 

Ensuring the provision of public rail services usually implies the need for compensating undertakings 
which,  either  after  a  tender  or  a  direct  award,  commit  to  a  certain  level  of  service95.  In  most 
countries providing data via the RMMS, the PSO compensation  per train-km  is higher than EUR 596 
and the total support provided was around EUR 20 billion..  

In  terms  of  trends  the  picture  is  mixed:  between  2011  and  2014,  PSO  compensation  increased  in 
absolute  terms  in  10  countries  (Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  Estonia,  France,  Italy, 
Luxembourg,  Latvia,  Poland,  Norway)  and  decreased  in  7  countries  (Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  
Hungary, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, the United Kingdom). Lithuania, the Netherlands, the United 
Kingdom  and  Finland  rely  less  on  subsidies  as  a  source  of  income,  their  proportion  of  farebox 
revenue  in  total  revenues  of  PSO  operations  being  significantly  above  the  average.  Nevertheless, 
their PSO obligations cover almost all the passenger lines (except in Lithuania).  

94 
95 

96 

UIC type A includes suburban and regional traffic and UIC type B includes intercity traffic 
The United Kingdom represents a notable exception, where PSO arrangements overall result in net revenue for 
the State. This is linked to the peculiar structure of the British passenger market with its system of concessions 
where railway undertakings either receive or pay compensations to operate certain lines, the cost of which is 
recuperated through rail fares. 
Excluding Romania, which is clearly an outlier 

78 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 61 – PSO compensation per train-km (EUR/train-km, 2014) 

Figure 62 – Proportion of fare-
box revenue (2014) 

RO EUR 113 

 30

 25

 20

 15

 10

 5

 -

LT
NL
UK
FI
PT
PL
AT
ES
DK
SE
NO
CZ
IE
FR
LV
DE
IT
BE
EE
HR
SI
SK
BG
HU

RO FR LU BE  NO IT DK AT DE IE LV SK HU ES BG EE HR CZ PL EL SI

 FI PT LT  UK

0%

50%

100%

Source: RMMS, 2014 data except EL, ES, IE (2012). In DE a small amount of regional 
traffic (about 11 m train-km) are not subsidised, whereas a very small part of long-
distance traffic services receives subsidies. FI includes traffic compensated with 
exclusive rights without any direct financial compensation. BG includes total amount of 
PSO compensation and compensation for tariff obligations. DK: ticket revenue from 
gross contract Oresund not deducted.  

Source: RMMS, data 2014 except 
for PL, SE (2013), BE, IE, ES, PT 
(2012), CZ (estimates). FR: average 
of Transilien, TER, TET. 

Box 20 –  Provisions on competitive tendering of rail public service contracts in the Fourth Railway Package 

The  "market  pillar"  proposals  of  the  Fourth  Railway  Package 
include  amendments  to  Regulation 
(EC) No 1370/2007  introducing  the  principle  of  competitive  awards  of  public  service  contracts  for  passenger 
transport by rail and a number of other provisions fostering the cost-efficiency of public rail transport services. 
More specifically, the agreement reached by the European Legislator in April 2016 will introduce the principle 
of competitive award of rail public service contracts at the latest in 2023. Under certain circumstances Member 
States  can  choose  to  continue  to  directly  award  rail  contracts,  for  instance  in  case  of  small,  complex  or 
technically  and  geographically  isolated  networks,  however,  in  this  case  provisions  for  quality  and/or  cost-
efficiency  improvements  need  to  be  ensured  in  contractual  conditions  using  clearly  defined  performance 
targets.  Competent  authorities  would  publish  a  reasoned  decision  on  such  a  direct  award  and  inform  the 
European Commission within one month. To encourage compliance with legal requirements, competitors can 
ask for an independent assessment of that decision as part of a review process.  

Additionally, to foster competition for rail contracts, competent authorities will have to undertake and publish 
an assessment of whether they must take measures to ensure non-discriminatory access to rolling stock, which 
is  the  most  important  market  entry  barrier  for  new  railway  operators.  Finally,  the  legal  text  clarifies  the 
conditions  under  which  competent  authorities  can  define  public  service  obligations  and  their  scope  of 
application as well as measures of staff protection in the case of a change of public transport operator. 

79 

 
 
 
 
4.7.  Licensing 

A railway licence is an authorisation issued by a licensing authority  to an undertaking, by which it's 
capacity to  provide rail transport services as a railway undertaking is recognised.  Fees for licensing 
can  range  from  none  to  EUR  70 000,  depending  on  Member  State  and  content  of  application.97 
Licensing of railway undertakings is regulated by Articles 16 to 25 of the Recast Directive. Licensing 
ensures that access rights to railway infrastructure are applied throughout the EU in a uniform and 
non-discriminatory manner. A licence may cover only passenger or freight services or both. It is valid 
throughout the EU, as long as the railway undertaking fulfils the obligations laid down in European 
legislation.  

The  Commission  adopted  the  implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/17198  on  certain  aspects  of 
licensing  procedure  to  facilitate  access  to  the  market  of  new  operators.  The  act  reduces  the 
administrative  fees  for  start-up  railway  undertakings  and  shortens  the  time-to-market.  It  ensures 
that national licensing authorities publish all relevant licensing data immediately on the website  of 
the Agency.  

According to IRG data (Figure 63), between 2012 and 2014 Germany had the highest and Finland and 
Greece  the  lowest  number  of  active  undertakings  (1  and  2,  respectively).  In  the  same  period,  the 
total number of active undertakings showed a clear increasing trend in Poland, France99 and Hungary. 
A slight decrease appeared in Bulgaria and the Netherlands.  

Figure 63 – Trend in total number of active railway undertakings 

100

80

60

40

20

0

82 

33 

35 

30 

26 

26 

30 

44 

43 

15 

13 

10 

5 

1 

2 

12 

5 

10 

4 

AT

BE

BG

HR

DK

FI

FR

DE

UK

EL

HU

IT

LV

NL NO

PL

SK

SI

ES

SE

Source: 4th Annual Market Monitoring Report (2016) – IRG Rail, data not available for all countries 

2012

2013

2014

97 

98 

99 

Impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
the European Union Agency for Railways, SWD (2013) 8. 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/171 of 4 February 2015 on certain aspects of the procedure of 
licensing railway undertakings Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 29, 5.2.2015, p. 3 
France changed its reporting practices to IRG in that period: until 2013 only undertakings with a safety certificate 
were included, whereas from 2014 all undertakings providing rail transport services for passengers were reported 
(4th Annual Market Monitoring Report (2016) – IRG Rail, page 20) 

80 

 
 
                                                 
 
Box 21 – 

Licensing data as available in ERADIS database 

Licences  for  the  performance  of  rail  transport  services  within  the  EU  and  the  European  Economic  Area 
according  to  the  Recast  Directive  and  the  relevant  national  legislation  should  be  uploaded  by  national 
authorities  on  ERADIS,  the  Agency's  database  of  interoperability  and  safety100.  Therefore,  in  principle,  the 
information about the number of licences by different categories (active/inactive, freight/passenger etc) should 
be available from this database. 

 The 2014 RMMS questionnaire still asked the Member States to report the data about licensing in case it was 
not  up  to  date  in  ERADIS.  In  total,  15  countries  provided  licensing  data  in  the  RMMS,  10  countries  did  not 
provide  data  but  declared  that  the  ERADIS  database  was  up  to  date  and  2  countries  did  not  provide  any 
information. Of the 15 countries having provided licensing data, 6 declared that the ERADIS database was up to 
date whereas the remaining 9 did not give any indication on the status of ERADIS.  

Comparing the ERADIS figures to RMMS data or to the information in the IRG-Rail Annual Market Monitoring 
Report showed however in most cases significant inconsistencies. It is not clear whether this is due to a delayed 
upload of instances in ERADIS or due to different interpretations of the data to be reported. Therefore, future 
effort  is  needed  to  clarify  the  reasons  behind  the  inconsistencies  and  to  improve  the  data  quality  and 
accessibility in ERADIS.  

4.8.  Degree of market opening and utilisation of access rights 

Over the last 25 years the opening of the rail market to competition has been one the major areas of 
effort by the Commission, aiming at developing a strong and competitive rail transport sector and at 
strengthening the position of railways vis-à-vis other transport modes. Rail freight transport has been 
opened since the beginning of 2007, for both national and international services101, while the market 
for  international  rail  passenger  services  (including  cabotage)  has  been  opened  since  1 January 
2010102. The provisions for opening domestic rail passenger services as from December 2020103 are 
included in the Fourth Railway Package. 

100 

101 

102 

103 

The ERADIS database on licences is publicly available on the website of the Agency 
(https://pdb.era.europa.eu/safety_docs/licences/default.aspx ) 
Directive 2004/51/EC of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the 
Community's railways (Second railway package of 2004), OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 44 
Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 amending Council 
Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways and Directive 2001/14/EC on the 
allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure (Third 
railway package of 2007), OJ L 315/44 3.12.2007, p.44 
The rules to request paths will enter into force in January 2019, but trains will effectively be able to run as from 
December 2020 (timetable 2021) 

81 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.8.1.  Legal liberalisation and actual entry in the rail market 

Many of the Member States opened their rail freight markets before the European legal obligation 
(Figure 64). This has not been the case for passenger markets, which have so far been opened in less 
than half of the countries (Figure 65).  

Figure 64 –  Legal liberalisation and entry of the first competitor in the freight market 

Source: IRG Rail, 4th Annual Market Monitoring Report (2016), Annex 
Notes: 

* EE had a new freight entrant before legal liberalisation on 1st March 2003 
** UK: The dates given refer to the liberalisation of the market in Great Britain; the rail market 
in Northern Ireland continues to be owned by the State. Where exact dates are not available, 
they have been set to the appropriate year 

Figure 65 –  Legal liberalisation and entry of the first competitor in the passenger market 

Source: IRG Rail, 4th Annual Market Monitoring Report (2016), Annex, FR, EL, NO, ES: international services).  
Notes:  * UK: The dates given refer to the liberalisation of the market in Great Britain; the rail market in Northern Ireland 

continues to be owned by the State 
**IRG Rail considers the market of NO partly liberalised in January 2010 although a new operator entered the 
market already in 2006  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Legal liberalisation, however, does not correspond necessarily to real cases of competition and a gap 
between  de  jure  liberalisation  and  new  entry  is  quite  common.  In  some  cases,  as  in  Greece  and 
Luxembourg for freight and in Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Greece, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Spain for 
passenger  transport,  entry  never  occurred  after  de  jure  liberalisation104.  At  the  same  time,  Estonia 
and  Norway  had  new  entrants  (in  freight  and  passenger  markets  respectively)  before  the  markets 
were opened. 

4.8.2.  Freight market opening 

As shown in Figure 66, the market shares of competitors (i.e. undertakings other than the incumbent 
or principal undertaking) in the rail freight market widely differ between the Member States. In the 
majority  of  States  the  market  share  of  competitors  is  higher  than  20%,  while  in  seven  countries 
(Sweden,  the  United  Kingdom,  Bulgaria,  Norway  Romania,  Italy  and  in  the  Netherlands)  it  is  more 
than 40%. In Finland, de jure liberalised since 2007, a competitor entered the market in 2012 and had 
not yet achieved noticeable market presence in 2014105.  

Figure 66 – Market share of competitors in the freight market (2014, % of t-km) 

and evolution 2011106-2014 (in percentage points)  

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

BG
SE
CZ
BE
NO
HU
FR
IT
DE
AT
PL
NL
UK
SK
DK
ES
HR
SI
PT
FI
LU
LT
EL
IE
LV
EE
RO

E
S

K
U

G
B

O
N

T
O I
R

L
N

U
H

R
F

L
P

E
D

E
E

Z
C

E
B

K
D

V
L

T
A

S
E

T
P

I

K S
S

R
H

E
I

L
E

T
L

I

U F
L

-20%

0%

20%

Source: RMMS, 2011- 2014 data except SE (2010 data used for 2011), PT and SI (2012 data used for 2011), LU (2010 data 
used for 2011 and 2012 data for 2014), IT 2014 data 4th Annual Market Monitoring Report (2016) – IRG Rail 

In a majority of Member States the market shares of competitors in rail freight transport continued 
to increase between 2011 and 2014, in particular in Bulgaria, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Belgium, 
Norway and Hungary (more than 10 percentage points). In Belgium and the Czech Republic the main 
alternative operators doubled their market shares, while in Bulgaria the growth of the competitors' 

104 
105 

106 

Data taken from the 4th Annual Market Monitoring Report (2016) by IRG Rail 
VR Group’s first competitor in rail logistics began operations in the Imatra area in autumn 2012. A third railway 
company aiming to provide freight services has obtained a safety certificate from the Finnish Transport Safety 
Agency in 2015 
In this section 2014 data is compared to 2011, given that 2009 data was incomplete 

83 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
market  share  (+18  percentage  points)  was  spread  between  various  operators.  Exceptions  to  this 
growing trend were Estonia and Romania, where the main alternative operators lost about quarter of 
their market shares between 2011 and 2014.  

80

60

40

69 

100

number 

Figure 67 – Number of active railway undertakings in freight market (2014) 

of 
The 
in 
undertakings  active 
freight  market 
the 
was 
(Figure 67) 
in 
particularly 
Poland, 
Germany, 
Slovakia, 
Austria, 
Hungary  and  Italy.  No 
trend 
clear,  common 
can  be 
in 
Europe  looking  at  the 
variation in the number 
of 
railway 
undertakings  between 
2012  and  2014.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  for  an  assessment  of  competitive  pressure,  the 
number of active railway undertaking should be monitored together with their market share.  

Source: 4th Annual Market Monitoring Report (2016) – IRG Rail 

AT BE BG HR DK FI FR DE UK EL HU IT LV NL NO PL SK SI ES SE

identified 

active 

25  25 

high 

11  9 

5  1 

18 

10 

40 

13 

27 

18 

20

4 

1 

3 

8 

3 

9 

0

4.8.3.  Passenger market opening 

Figure 68 – Market share of competitors in the passenger market (2014, % of p-km) 

and evolution 2011-2014 (in percentage points)  

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

PL
AT
CZ
FR
SK
RO
IT
DE
HU
PT
LV
FI
SI
LU
LT
HR
ES
EL
IE
BG
UK
DK
BE
NO
EE

UK PL IT DE AT LV NO RO PT DK CZ EE FR SK HU BE BG IE EL ES HR LT LU SI FI

EE -52 pp 

Source: RMMS, 2011-2014 data, except for Ireland (2013 data used for 2014), PT (2012 data used for 2011) NL and SE 
(confidential), LU (estimates) IT data from 4th Annual Market Monitoring Report (2016) - IRG Rail . 

Figure 68  demonstrates  that  market  shares  of  competitors  in  the  rail  passenger  market  are 
comparatively  lower  and  less  diverse  than  in  the  freight  market,  also  due  to  the  different  stage  of 

-10%

0%

10%

84 

 
 
 
 
 
market  opening.  In  most  countries  incumbents  keep  a  market  share  of  well  over  80%,  with  the 
notable  exceptions  of  Poland  (44.3%)107  and  the  United  Kingdom  (11%108).  At  least  in  15  countries 
competing operators have entered the rail passenger markets. 

Similarly, the progression in market shares of alternative operators between 2011 and 2014 has been 
more modest in the passenger rail transport market than in the freight market. The pace of growth 
was the highest in Poland, Austria and the Czech Republic – around 6 percentage points. In Estonia in 
2014,  the  predecessor  of  the  incumbent  Estonian  Railways  'Elron',  earlier  operating  only  suburban 
services,  took  over  all  domestic  passenger  services  from  Edelaraudtee  (ex-new  entrant  passenger 
operator). This means that 
as 
from  2014,  all  but 
international  services  (6% 
of  the  market)  are  again 
operated by an incumbent 
operator.  

Figure 69 – Number of active railway undertakings in passenger market 

(2014) 

100

80

60

40

20

0

13 

2  1  1 

10 

12 

1 

25 

19 

13 

3 

2 

8  4 

2 

3 

1  1 

17 

AT BE BG HR DK FI FR DE UK EL HU IT LV NL NO PL SK SI ES SE

Source: 4th Annual Market Monitoring Report (2016) – IRG Rail 

in  Figure 69, 
As  shown 
the  United 
Germany, 
Kingdom, 
and 
Italy 
Sweden  had  the  highest 
number  of  undertakings 
active 
in  passenger  rail 
transport.  

IT 

CZ 

AT 

DE 

NTV 

HKX  

Jul-12 

for 

Begun 

Ended 

Sep-11 

Dec-12 

Dec-11 

Service 

RegioJet 

Westbahn 

Arenaways 

giving 

Leo Express 

InterConnex 

Long distance 

Long distance 

Long distance 

Long distance 

Long distance 

Country  Open access operator 

Table -12 – Market entry by domestic Open Access Operators 

Competition  in  passenger 
railways takes the form of 
(a) competition 
the 
market - via public service 
service 
or 
contracts 
concessions, 
an 
undertaking  the  exclusive 
right  to  operate  on  a 
specific route or bundle of 
and 
routes, 
in 
(b) competition 
the 
market  where 
two  or 
more  operators  compete 
on  the  same  route  (open 
and 
access). 
suburban 
are 
usually run through public 
service contracts, whereas 
long  distance  and  high 
speed trains may be more 
frequently operated under 
open access. In the United 
Kingdom  a  particular  franchising  system  with  competitively  tendered  public  service  contracts  for 
bundles  of  lines  has  been  put  in  place.  Open  access  competition  in  the  passenger  rail  transport 

Source: RMMS 2014, Steer Davies Gleave analysis Competition in passenger rail 
services in Great Britain, March 2016 – CMA, http://www.topky.sk  
Note: excluding cabotage by high speed international services and airport-only 
operators) 

Regional 
trains 

Wrexham Shropshire & Marylebone 

Öresundstå(Veolia) 

Dec-01  Dec-14 

First Hull Trains 

Grand Central 

Long distance 

Long distance 

Long distance 

Long distance 

Long distance 

Long distance 

Long distance 

Long distance 

MTR express 

High speed 

BlåTåget 

RegioJet 

Mar-15 

Nov-10 

Nov-11 

Dec-11 

Dec-14 

Dec-07 

Feb-12 

Sep-00 

Apr-12 

Jan-11 

Jan-08 

UK 

SK 

SE 

107 
108 

Incumbent's market shares in Poland calculated with reference to PKP Intercity SA and PKP SKM sp Z.o.o.  
Given the peculiar structure of the UK market the term "principal' is used instead of “incumbent” undertaking.  

85 

 
 
                                                 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
market  has  developed  in  Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Italy,  Slovakia,  Sweden  and  the 
United Kingdom, with different degrees and results. In the Czech Republic two alternative operators 
compete  directly  with  the  incumbent  on  the  Prague-Ostrava  route.  In  Slovakia  Regiojet  operates 
domestic  open-access  long-distance  services  between  Košice  and  Bratislava.  In  Italy  open  access 
competitor NTV targeted the high speed line.  

4.9.  Development of employment and social conditions 

4.9.1.  Employment in rail 

Based on the RMMS, about 900 000 people were employed either by railway undertakings (549 000) 
or  infrastructure  managers  (357 000)  at  the  end  of  2014.  In  many  Member  States  railway 
undertakings are among the largest national employers109. 

Within  the  sector,  railway  undertakings  generally  employ  a  higher  proportion  of  labour  force 
compared to infrastructure managers.  The overall percentage of  staff in infrastructure  managers is 
higher in South and Eastern Europe and lower in Northern Europe (Figure 70). 

Figure 70 – Proportion of labour force between infrastructure managers and railway undertakings (2014) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

FI NL EE DK LU BE DE FR IE

LT

SI

SE

IT UK CZ PT PL ES HU NO BG RO AT SK HR LV

Railway undertakings

Infrastructure managers

Source: RMMS 2014 except for IE (data 2013 for RUs and IMs) and BE (data 2013 for IMs). FR infrastructure managers' staff 
includes RFF and SNCF Réseau.  

Total  employment  has  decreased  between  2014  and  2011  by  4%  being  relatively  more  significant 
among infrastructure managers.  

109 

EC, Impact Assessment for the Fourth Railway Package – Part 1 (30/1/2013) http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:0f7c7e73-b211-418a-88dc-e211a3e21c17.0001.05/DOC_1&format=PDF  

86 

 
 
                                                 
 
Figure 71 – Staff employed in incumbent rail undertakings (2014, thousand) 

 120

 100

 80

 60

 40

 20

 0

40%

20%

0%

-20%

-40%

-60%

-80%

-100%

-120%

FR DE IT CZ AT PL NL RO BE HU ES SK BG FI DK LT SE

SI

LV NO LU PT IE

EL HR EE

2011

2014

Variation (%)

Source: RMMS. UK 2011 and 2014, HR and EE 2011 not available. EL data 2012 and IE data 2013 for 2014. CZ 2014: whole CD group. DK 
2014: includes DSB, Oresund, Private lines and Metro (Freight N/A). DE 2011: not including incumbent's IM and rail related facilities staff. 
EE 2014: includes Estonian Railways, GoRail, ELRON and Edelaraudtee. NL 2014: includes NS staff outside NL. SE 2014:  SJ AB and Green 
Cargo AB. NO 2014: include NSB Persontog (NSB AS and Gjøvikbanen AS), Flytoget AS, CargoNet, Cargo Link, LKAB Malmtrafikk AS and 
Grenland Rail.  

Figure 72 – Staff employed in infrastructure managers (2014, thousand) 

 60

 50

 40

 30

 20

 10

 0

20%

0%

-20%

-40%

-60%

-80%

-100%

-120%

FR PL DE UK IT RO CZ HU SK AT BG ES BE LV NL SE LT NO PT EL

SI DK IE LU FI HR EE

2011

2014

Variation (%)

Source: RMMS. Data 2014 not available for EL, data 2011 not available for HR and EE. BE and IE: data 2013 for 2014. EE 2014: Estonian 
Railways, Edelaraudtee.  ES 2014: Adif + Adif AV. FR: RFF and SNCF Réseau. NL 2014: ProRail, Keyrail. NO 2011 and 2014: including 
temporary workers. SI 2014: SŽ-Infrastructure company.  

There  is  a  gradual  move,  especially  by  new  entrants,  towards  creating  multifunctional  positions 
(except in the case of drivers) leading to new types of jobs, requiring relatively higher qualifications 
and continuous in-job training109.  

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.9.2.  Socio-demographic structure of the rail labour market 

Structure by gender  

Figure 73 – Gender structure of railway staff (2012) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

L
E

K
S U
E

U
L

T
I

I

T F
P

I
S

R
F

E
D

G
B

U
H

O
R

L
N

K
S

Z
C

K
D

L
P

O
N

V
L

T
L

E
E

E
S

T
A

Active population MEN

Active population WOMEN

Railway MEN

Railway WOMEN

Source: UIC, Eurostat 

Structure by age  

Figure 73  shows  that  women  are 
underrepresented  in  the  railway 
sector.  The  proportion  of  rail 
female  workers  is  typically  lower 
than the corresponding proportion 
of  females  in  active  population. 
The proportion of women is higher 
(but still less than 50%) in Sweden, 
Estonia and Austria110.  

and 

The  highest  proportions  of  female 
employment  in  the  railway  sector 
are  found  in  the  human  resource 
departments 
the 
finance/controlling  departments, 
whereas  in  professions  such  as 
maintenance  personnel  of  rolling 
stock,  shunters  and  drivers  the 
proportion  of  women 
is  very 
low111.  

demonstrates 

Figure 74 
that 
workforce  in  the  rail  sector  is 
ageing.  The  structure  per  age 
tends  towards  older  workers, 
with proportion of workers older 
than  40  years  typically  higher 
than  50%.  The  age  pyramid  of 
force 
railway 
the 
large 
demonstrates 
contingent 
is 
expected  to  leave  the  railways 
soon 112.  

labour 
a 
that 

of  workers 

Figure 74 – Age pyramid of workers in rail 

(thousand employees, 2012) 

 350

 300

 250

 200

 150

 100

 50

 0

Railway staff
<30

Railway  staff
30-39

Railway staff
40-49

Railway staff
50-59

Railway staff
>60

The  proportion  of  workers  older 
in  2012 
than  50  years  was 
particularly high in Spain, Greece, 
Finland and Italy113.The proportion of railway staff younger than 30 years is typically lower than the 
correspondent proportion on total active population. 

Source: UIC 2012 

110 
111 

112 

113 

UIC (2012) 
"Women In Rail "Study on the situation of women in the rail sector and on the implementation of the European 
social partners' Joint Recommendations", 2012 
Panteia – Background information for the study "Analysis of the trends and prospects of jobs and working 
conditions in transport", November 2013, unpublished  
UIC (2012) 

88 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
The percentage of people under the age of 30 is the lowest in Greece, Spain and Portugal, but this 
age group is underrepresented also in Romania and Sweden.  

Figure 75 – Railway staff structure per age 

long 

recruitment 
After 
in 
freezes,  rail  companies 
many 
have 
countries 
recently  begun  to  recruit 
again, also due to the ageing 
Job 
workforce 
opportunities  have  been 
created  for  young  people, 
including 
throughout 
apprenticeship schemes115.  

profile114. 

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

I

I
S

T
I

T
L

L
E

L
P

E
S

S
E

E
E

K
S

V
L

R
F

Z
C

T
P

U
L

T
A

L
N

E
D

G
B

O
R

U
H

O
N

K F
D

Active population 30-39

Active population <30 years

Active population 40-49 years Active population >50 years

The  ageing  of  staff  increases 
for  developing 
the  need 
lifelong learning programmes 
for  different  age  groups,  on 
the one hand, and increasing 
recruitment  efforts,  on  the 
other.  It  is  also  important  to 
avoid  a  loss  of  knowledge 
and competencies112116 when 
in 
generations 
particular  for  key  occupations  with  skill  shortages  like  drivers,  engineers  and  other  technical 
professions.  Actions  to  deal  with  skill  shortages  will  have  to  take  into  account  the  perceived 
attractiveness  of  the sector,  which varies  greatly depending  on  country,  respective  socio-economic 
context  and  the  nature  of  the  enterprise.  Secure  employment,  good  remuneration,  good  career 
development opportunities under good working conditions and positive corporate climate are today 
the most common elements referred to in countries where the sector is considered attractive117114.  

Source: UIC 2012 and Eurostat 

Railway  staff 30-39

Railway staff 40-49

Railway staff >50

Railway staff <30

change, 

Box 22 – 

Training in the rail sector 

The  European  railway  sector  is  facing  significant  challenges  including  changing  legal  framework,  new 
technologies  and  competitive  pressures,  which  have  an  impact  on  competences  and  skills  required  from  the 
railway's workforce.  

Railway undertakings have own training facilities or they buy training services on the market, either from other 
railway undertakings or from independent rail training centres. In-house vocational education and training also 
plays an important role in accompanying younger people into rail careers.  

The  UIC  introduced  the  Expertise  Development  Platform,  an  open  meeting  for  members,  which  takes  place 
twice a year. The core objective of the Platform is to enhance the workforce development through sharing best 
practice in rail training across the sector. The Platform includes a Core Group to provide strategic direction and 
working  groups  on  topical  issues,  such  as  rail  trainers’  development,  benchmark  train  drivers’  training 
programmes and customer service training. A World Congress on Rail Training has been organised every two 
years since 2011. 

114 
115 
116 
117 

"Promoting employment and quality of work in the European rail sector", EVA Academy, ETF, CER (2016).  
"The economic footprint of railway transport in Europe", ECORYS on behalf of CER (2014)  
Panteia (2013) 
EVA Academy, ETF, CER (2016).  

89 

 
                                                 
 
 
4.10.  Harmonisation 

During  the  past  25  years  the  Commission  has  been  very  active  in  pursuing  a  restructuring  of  the 
European  rail  transport  market  and  the  reinforcement  of  the  position  of  rail  compared  with  other 
transport modes. The Commission's efforts have focussed on three main areas:  

  opening the rail transport market to competition;  
 
  developing rail transport infrastructure,  

improving the interoperability and safety of national networks; and  

with  an  ultimate  goal  to  create  a  Single  European  Railway  Area.  To  this  end,  the  Commission  has 
engaged  in  a  gradual  harmonisation  of  market  access,  interoperability  and  safety  rules  of  the  rail 
sector and the elimination of redundant and obsolete national rules. 

4.10.1.  EU legislation 

The legislative action of the Commission has been particularly active over the last 15 years with the 
adoption of three rail packages:  

  First Railway Package ("rail infrastructure package"), 2001: enabled rail operators to have 
access to the trans-European network on a non-discriminatory basis for the purpose of 
operating international freight services. The First Package was recasted in 2012 by Directive 
2012/34/EU; 

  Second Railway Package, 2004: fully opened the rail freight market to competition as from 
1 January 2007, created the European Railway Agency, introduced common procedures for 
accident investigation and established Safety Authorities in each Member State; 

  Third Railway Package, 2007: introduced open access rights for international rail passenger 
services including cabotage by 2010, introduced a European train driver licence and it 
strengthened the rail passengers' rights118.  

In  addition,  the  Fourth  Railway  Package  is  in  the  final  stages  of  adoption.  The  technical  pillar, 
focusing on interoperability, safety and a renewed role for the Agency entered into force on 15 June 
2016. The technical pillar includes:  

  Regulation (EU) 2016/796 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on 
the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No 881/2004119; 
  Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on 

the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union120;  

  Directive (EU) 2016/798 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on 

railway safety121.  

Regarding the market pillar, a final trilogue has been successfully concluded, paving the way for the 
adoption of this last part of the Fourth Package by the end of 2016. The market pillar includes:  

118 

119 

120 

121  

For further information, see DG MOVE website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/packages/2007_en.htm  
Regulation (EU) 2016/796 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union 
Agency for Railways, OJ L 138, 26.5.2016, p.1 
Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the interoperability of 
the rail system within the European Union, OJ L 138, 26.5.2016, p. 44 
Directive (EU) 2016/798 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on railway safety, OJ L 
138, 26.5.2016, p.102 

90 

 
                                                 
  a proposal to amend the Regulation 1370/2007 ("PSO Regulation") introducing the principle 

of competitive tendering for public service contracts; 

  a proposal to amend the Directive 2012/34/EU ("Governance Directive" or "Recast 

Directive") regarding the opening of the market of domestic passenger transport services by 
rail and the governance of the railway infrastructure; 

  a proposal to repeal Regulation (EEC) No 1192/69 on common rules for the normalisation of 

the accounts exempting certain payments to railway companies from state aid rules. 

The Fourth Railway Package will conclude the opening and structural reforms of the railway market.  

4.10.2.  Transposition  

Rail Directives can only have their intended effects if they are completely and correctly transposed 
into Member States’ national law by the foreseen deadlines. Therefore the Commission services are 
monitoring  the  progress  of  Member  States  in  terms  of  transposition  deficit  (the  gap  between  the 
number  of  rail  Directives  adopted  at  EU  level  and  those  transposed  by  Member  States)  and 
compliance deficit (the number of incorrectly transposed Directives). It also works together with the 
Member States and stakeholders to facilitate and support their efforts for effective implementation 
of the legislation for a Single European Rail Area. 

To  calculate  the  percentage  of  directives  that  constitute  the  transposition  deficit  of  each  Member 
State, the Commission services include: 

  Directives for which no transposition measures have been communicated after expiry of the 

transposition deadline; 

  Directives declared as partially transposed by Member States after notification of some 

transposition measures by the end of the transposition deadline; 

  Directives declared as completely transposed by Member States, but for which the 

Commission has opened an infringement procedure for non-communication and the 
Member State has not notified new transposition measures after the latest procedural step 
taken by the Commission. 

The  transposition  deficit  does  not  include  those  Directives  declared  as  completely  transposed  by  a 
Member State, but for which transposition measures are still under examination by the Commission 
(i.e. there has been no procedural step taken after the latest notification).  

The  compliance  deficit  measures  the  number  of  Directives  transposed  where  infringement 
proceedings  for  non-conformity  have  been  initiated  by  the  Commission,  as  a  percentage  of  the 
number  of  rail  Directives  notified  to  the  Commission  as  either  "fully  transposed"  or  "requiring  no 
further transposition measures"122.  

The  transposition  delay  measures  the  time  in  months  elapsed  between  the  deadlines  for 
transposition provided in the Directives and the status of 'non-transposed' (see above) registered on 
10 December 2015.  

122 

When interpreting the statistics on compliance deficit, it should be kept in mind that ultimately only the Court of 
Justice can rule that a Directive has not been transposed correctly 

91 

 
                                                 
Figure 76 – Transposition monitoring: market, interoperability and safety Directives 

Source: Single Market Scoreboard database (data extraction March 2016) 
Note: calculation made on transposition notifications sent to the Commission by 10 December 2015 for Directives with a 
transposition deadline on or before 31 October 2015 

4.10.3.  Infringements 

Infringement proceedings may be started when the Commission considers that e.g. an EU  Directive 
has not been transposed timely and correctly into national law, or Single Market rules (either in the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or in secondary legislation) have been incorrectly 
applied.  Infringement  proceedings  only  start  when  a  letter  of  formal  notice  is  sent  to  the  Member 
State in question. 

This  section  does  not  include  cases  for  late  transposition  (known  as  non-communication  cases)  in 
order  to  avoid  such  cases  being  counted  twice  as  they  are  already  treated  in  the  transposition 
section. The number of infringement proceedings shows the number of cases with the status "open" 
on  1  December  2015.  The  compliance  delay  shows  the  number  of  months  elapsed  between  the 
ruling of the Court and the resolution of the case (date of the Commission's decision of closure).  

Figure 77 – Monitoring of infringement proceedings: market, interoperability and safety Directives 

Source: Single Market Scoreboard database (data extraction March 2016) 
Note: Calculation made on the number of infringement cases with the status "open" on 1 December 2015 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Box 23 – 

Further harmonisation 

Harmonisation and standardisation of various aspects of rail operations across the borders is crucial for a true 
Single  European  Rail  Area.  The  following  texts  outline  additional  legal  and  voluntary  actions  seeking  to 
overcome the fragmentation of rail networks and services. 

International train paths 

The  Recast  Directive  requires  the  Member  States  to  ensure  that  infrastructure  managers  cooperate  on 
application of charging schemes to the operation of train services which cross several national networks and 
establish  appropriate  cross-border  procedures.  The  aim 
is  to  guarantee  optimal  competitiveness  of 
international rail services and ensure the efficient use of the railway networks. They should also cooperate to 
enable mark-ups and performance schemes (Article 37). In addition, infrastructure managers shall cooperate in 
the allocation of infrastructure capacity on more  than one network, establishing appropriate procedures and 
organising train paths crossing more than one network accordingly (Article 40). 

The  Member  States  have  taken  steps  to  ensure  that  their  main  infrastructure  managers  comply  with  these 
requirements within the framework of the RFC, being supported by RailNetEurope123. In accordance with the 
Article 14.1 of the Regulation (EU) No 913/2010, the Executive boards of the RFC have to define a framework 
for  capacity  allocation  concerning  their  respective  corridor.  Several  frameworks  for  specific  corridors  were 
adopted in 2012. In 2014 and 2015, however, given the overlap of corridors and taking into account the need 
for a network approach, required by the railway undertakings, the Member States have agreed on a common 
Framework  for  Capacity  Allocation  for  the  9  rail  freight  corridors  (including  a  harmonised  set  of  KPIs  for 
capacity  allocation).  According  to  Article  14,  infrastructure  managers  jointly  organise  international  pre-
arranged train paths for freight trains running on the corridor. 

Network statements 

Members  of  RailNetEurope  have  voluntarily  agreed  on  a  common  structure  and  implementation  guide  for 
drafting infrastructure managers’ Network Statements, according to Article 27 of the Recast Directive. 

Cooperation between national regulatory bodies  

Furthermore,  Article 55  of  the  Recast  Directive  requires  that  regulatory  bodies  cooperate  for  the  purpose  of 
coordinating their decision-making across the EU. They should, in particular, develop common principles and 
practices for making the decisions. An increase in complaints with a cross-border dimension, requiring stronger 
cooperation between regulatory bodies, is expected as a result of the establishment of the RFCs and further 
development of the Single European Railway Area. Regulatory bodies have already concluded for each RFC a 
cooperation agreement. These agreements have been harmonised and the rules are similar for each corridor. 

National rules 

Interoperability and safety are significantly affected today by the existence of a large number of national rules. 
The  current  distinction  of  national  rules  into  two  categories  (a)  national  technical  rules  in  the  meaning  of 
Article 17  of  Directive  2008/56/EU  and  (b) national  safety  rules  in  the  meaning  of  Article 8  of  Directive 
2004/49/EC disappears under the Fourth Railway Package. 

National technical rules (including those covering maintenance) have been progressively replaced by technical 
specifications for interoperability (TSIs). The Agency estimated that the number of national technical rules for 
new vehicles made redundant by the scope extension of TSIs is more than 9000124.  

National  safety  rules  (including  those  covering  operations  and  staff  competencies)  will  be  replaced  by  TSIs, 
Common Safety Methods, Common Safety Targets and safety management systems.  

The Agency has prepared a programme plan with three main milestones: 

 
 

cleaning up of technical rules for vehicle authorisation by the end of 2016; 
cleaning up of redundant national safety rules, as identified in the report of the Task Force on national 

123 

124 

Association  set up by  a  majority of  European  Rail  Infrastructure  Managers  and  Allocation  Bodies to enable  fast 
and  easy  access  to  European  rail,  as  well  as  to  increase  the  quality  and  efficiency  of  international  rail  traffic 
(http://www.rne.eu/) 
considering only rules not linked to interfaces with fixed installations 

93 

 
 
                                                 
safety rules, by the end of 2016; 

  harmonisation of operational rules by 2019.  

The Commissioner Violeta Bulc wrote to the Member States on 26 April 2016 to ask their commitment with a 
first objective of a reduction of 50 % of redundant or obsolete national rules by the end of 2016. 

Licences 

The Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/171 of 4 February 2015 focused on certain aspects of the procedure of 
licensing  railway  undertakings  and,  in  particular,  on  a  common  template  for  the  licence  document.  Licences 
issued in accordance with chapter III of the Recast Directive shall use the standard format set out in Annex I 
and II to the Implementing Regulation.  

Harmonisation in the framework of the Rail Freight Corridors 

The  RFC,  as  governance  structures  dedicated  to  cross-border  rail  freight  (involving  Ministries,  infrastructure 
managers, railway undertakings and terminals), are often the forum where (cross-border) rail freight issues of 
different  nature  are  brought  up  and  discussed.  It  leads  to  harmonisation  or  helps  identifying  the  need  for 
harmonisation  within  a  corridor,  between  the  corridors  or  at  European  level.  Experience  has  shown  that 
harmonisation  at  the  RFC  level  has  in  certain  cases  positively  influenced  the  convergence  and  evolution  of 
national rules and procedures. 

In  practice,  working  groups  are  usually  set  up,  composed  of  experts  (of  the  relevant  departments  of  the 
infrastructure  managers  or  other  organisations  like  the  ministries,  railway  undertakings,  National  Safety 
Authorities and Regulatory Bodies, the Agency, the Commission, etc.) to tackle particular issues. In some RFCs 
working  groups  have  been  set  up  to  tackle  issues  highly  relevant  for  rail  freight  but  not  directly  within  the 
scope of the Regulation, for instance ERTMS operational rules.  

4.11.  Digitalisation 

Digitalisation offers important opportunities to revitalise the railway sector; it has across-the-board 
potential to increase safety levels, reliability, improve performance and efficiency of the rail system, 
provide  better  services  and  fundamentally  change  the  way  companies  interact  with  customers  or 
organise their operations. The disruptive benefits of digitalisation are also affecting other sectors and 
modes of transport and significant changes are expected to occur in customer's behaviour patterns. 
In this regard, it is urgent that the rail sector promotes speedy implementation of existing initiatives 
as well as cooperates in underlying commercial questions that prevent creation of new services for 
the end-users.  

Initiatives that are already underway include the following: 

  Automatic Train Operation (ATO) in parallel with ERTMS deployment will reduce operating 
costs for railway undertakings and maintenance costs for infrastructure managers as well as 
improve network capacity and punctuality; 

  The  Agency  is  currently  developing  a  system  of  common  occurrence  reporting  which  will 
allow both the reporting of urgent safety defects and the gathering of incident data. This will 
allow the sector to develop a risk model at a European level and therefore support better 
safety decisions and risk management. It should move the sector to a system of predict and 
prevent  rather  than  the  current  system  which  relies  on  lagging  indicators.  The  Agency,  in 
collaboration with the European Aviation Safety Agency, is exploring the benefits a big data 
approach could bring; 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
  While  the  TAF  TSI  (technical  specification  for  interoperability  relating  to  telematics 
applications for freight services) provides the basis for standardised exchange of information 
between  the  actors,  its  successful  implementation  is  still  to  be  achieved.  It  will  be  fully 
operational  by  2021.  Further  developments  of  the  TAF  TSI  could  enhance  inter  alia  the 
response to dangerous goods incidents by providing information quickly to the emergency 
services.  With  regards  to 
implementation  of  TAP-TSI  (technical  specifications  for 
interoperability  on  telematics  applications  for  passengers),  the  late  establishment  of  its 
governance entity is delaying some functions that this entity is supposed to undertake; 

  At the same time online and mobile apps and sale channels profoundly change the way how 
customers expect to interact with the transport system. This raises customer expectations 
to be able to purchase Mobility as a Service, using multiple modes of transport in a seamless 
journey,  with  bookings  and  payments  managed  collectively  for  all  legs  of  the  trip.  Multi-
modal  journey  planners  are  increasingly  used  by  passengers  and  the  unavailability  of 
timetable data for rail does not encourage its use. Moreover, the Commission would like to 
see  more  progress  on  through  ticketing  across  the  modes.  While  digital  technology  can 
certainly  facilitate  operations,  it  does  not  solve  underlying  commercial  issues.  In  order  to 
survive in this environment, it will be crucial for rail operators to address jointly these issues, 
improve  access  to  their  data  and  cooperate  with  other  operators  to  develop  offers  for 
through ticketing; 

  The  One  Stop  Shop  as  a  digital  single  entry  point  in  Europe  for  applications  for  vehicle 
authorisations  and  safety  certifications  is  an  innovative  tool  introduced  by  the  Fourth 
Railway Package. It aims at simplifying the procedures and at ensuring level playing field and 
equal treatment for applicants across Europe. 

95 

 
 
 
 
5. Funding and efficiency of the railways 

Given  the  monopolistic  or  semi-monopolistic  nature  of  railways,  there  is  a  broad  acceptance  that 
closer  monitoring  and  managing  of  the  performance  of  the  sector  would  lead  to  efficiency 
improvements.  In  order  to  guide  the  future  policies  and  decide  on  adequate  level  of  funding,  it  is 
important to identify the critical success factors enabling an improvement in the performance of rail. 

This chapter provides a high level overview of the funding of railways and its performance in terms of 
some core indicators, based on the Commission 2015 Study on the Cost and Contribution of the Rail 
Sector125.  The  study  provided  a  "broad  brush"  analysis  of  the  trends  in  overall  performance  of 
different  national  rail  systems  between  2003  and  2012126.  It  also  included  a  scenario  analysis 
assessing the potential societal benefits of a better performing rail sector. 

Finally, it looks at the existing measures and sector initiatives for managing the performance of the 
railways.  

5.1.  Funding of railways 

Figure 78 –  Cost and contribution of rail sector (billion EUR, 2012 in 2010 

prices) 

 120

 100

 80

 60

 40

IM cost 

36,4 

Operator cost 

75,7 

Other 

10,7 

Subsidy 

35,0 

Freight revenue 

20,0 

in  the  EU 

The  overall  cost  of 
rail 
operations  and  infrastructure 
in 
management 
2012  was  around  110 billion 
EUR,  60%  of  which  was 
covered  by  passenger  and 
freight revenue, 30% by public 
subsidy  to  rail  operators  and 
infrastructure  managers  and 
remainder  by  other 
the 
sources of income. 

Passenger revenue 

46,4 

 0

 20

On average, the split between 
infrastructure  and  operator 
approximately 
costs 
30%:70%.  This 
largely  a 
function  of  the  dominance  of 
a 
passenger 
number  of  larger,  higher  income  Member  States.  In  those  countries  where  freight  traffic  plays  a 
more  significant  role,  the  proportion  of  total  costs  accounted  for  by  the  infrastructure  manager  is 
greater. 

Source: Study on the Cost and Contribution of the Rail Sector 

railways 

Income

Costs

in 

is 

is 

On  the  income  side  of  the  equation,  roughly  60%  of  costs  are  covered  by  fare-box  and  freight 
revenue (40% passenger and 20% freight) and a further 30% by subsidy. The remaining 10% (around 
EUR 10.7 billion) is a residual balancing item that is likely to include freight income not captured at 
the Member State level (data was not available for all Member States) and other sources of income 
such as property rents and retail revenue. 

125 

126 

The Cost and Contribution of the Rail Sector, Steer Davies Gleave (2015) 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/studies/doc/2015-09-study-on-the-cost-and-contribution-of-the-rail-
sector.pdf 
Therefore data and time series in this chapter mostly run until 2012 only and not until 2014 as in the other 
chapters 

96 

 
                                                 
 
The  Issue  Paper  Solid  Infrastructure  Financing  for  an  Efficient  Rail  System127,  distributed  after  the 
workshop  organised  by  SNCF  Group  in  2015,  noted  that  while  almost  everywhere  the  rail  sector 
relies  on  public  investment,  the  way  funds  are  channelled,  differs.  European  countries  have  two 
principle  funding  models.  Some  countries  (e.g.  the  United  Kingdom,  Switzerland,  the  Netherlands, 
Sweden)  allot  subsidies  primarily  to  infrastructure  managers  and  keep  access  charges  low.  Others 
(e.g.  France,  Belgium,  Germany)  primarily  subsidise  transport  services  through  PSO  contracts.  This 
forces their infrastructure managers to adopt higher access charges through mark-ups.  

For  instance,  Sweden  allots  78%  of  public  subsidies  to  its  infrastructure  manager  Trafikverket, 
whereas Belgium channels only 17% of public grants to Infrabel. As a result, according to the RMMS, 
the  track  access  charges  in  Belgium  for  suburban  trains  were  projected  to  be  six  and  for  intercity 
trains four times higher than in Sweden in 2016. The charges applicable to freight trains in Belgium 
are significantly lower than charges for passenger trains (though still higher than in Sweden), given 
that freight operations do not get public subsidies.  

5.2.  Performance in terms of main inputs and outputs 

Rolling stock fleet sizes (vehicles) for both passenger and freight appear to have been in decline since 
2009.  This  may  be  due  to  changes  in  the  characteristics  of  rolling  stock  such  as  increasing  seat 
densities and larger freight wagons, or economic effects such as asset disposal or stabling during the 
economic crisis. There has also been a decrease in employment in the rail sector. However, this trend 
could be attributed to structural changes in the sector (particularly outsourcing).  

Figure 79 – Trends in input indicators (2007=100) 

Figure 80 – Trends in output indicators (2007=100) 

110

100

90

80

110

100

90

80

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2007
Train kilometres

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Rail passenger kilometres

Freight rolling stock

Passenger rolling stock

Rail tonne kilometres

Employees

Source: Study on the Cost and Contribution of the Rail Sector, various sources 

As  already  indicated  in  section  2.1,  rail  passenger  outputs  and  total  train-km  (including  both 
passenger  and  freight  train  movements)  have  grown,  while  rail  freight  outputs,  while  recovering 
since the depth of the recession in 2009, have still declined overall. 

127 

http://www.inno-v.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/24022015-Issue-Paper-pour-envoi.pdf 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
130

120

110

100

140

adjusted for HICP) 

Figure 81 – Trends in financial indicators (2007=100, 

Figure 81  presents  EU-wide  trends 
in 
passenger  revenue,  total  operating  costs 
and  subsidies,  adjusted  to  reflect  2007 
prices  by  using  the  European  Central 
Bank’s  Harmonised  Index  of  Consumer 
Prices  (HICP).  Operating  costs  cover  both 
passenger  and freight operations  and  are 
inclusive  of  financing  and  depreciation 
costs but, to avoid double accounting, are 
net of track access revenues128. Passenger 
revenue  has  increased significantly,  while 
total  operating  costs  have  remained 
broadly  static  in  real  terms.  It  is  not, 
however,  possible  to  draw  definitive 
conclusions  regarding  unit  costs  due  to 
the  mixed 
fortunes  of  passenger 
(increase)  and  freight  (decrease)  traffic 
over  the  period.  Data  regarding  the  quantity  of  public  subsidy  is  volatile  at  an  EU-wide  level  and 
there  is  no  discernible  long-term  trend.  In  broad  terms,  therefore,  the  burden  of  funding  Europe’s 
railways has remained relatively static between 2007 and 2012, but with considerable year-on-year 
variation. 

Source: Study on the  Cost and Contribution of the Rail Sector 

Passenger revenue

Operating costs

Subsidies

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

80

90

the 

Finally, 
Figure 82  describes 
total  operating  costs  per  train-
km  by  Member  State.  While 
there are a few notable outliers 
and 
(in  particular  Greece 
Croatia), 
of 
spread 
operating  costs  lies  broadly  in 
the  range  of  20  –  40 EUR per 
train-km.  Towards  the  upper 
lie  high-
end  of  this  range 
European 
income  Western 
Member 
including 
States 
Belgium,  the  Netherlands  and 
Austria  with 
and 
still.  A 
Luxembourg  higher 
number  of  Central  European 
Member States  lie towards  the 
lower  end  of 
range 
including  the  Czech  Republic, 
Hungary and Poland. 

France 

the 

Figure 82 –  Operating costs per train-km by Member State (EUR per 

train-km, 2012) 

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT LV LT LU HU NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

Railway undertaking(s)

Infrastructure manager(s)

Source: Study on the  Cost and Contribution of the Rail Sector 

Further  analysis  of  primary 
(track utilisation and train utilisation) KPIs led to the conclusion that the range of factors which affect 
the relative efficiency of rail networks in different Member States are many and/or complex. Some 
conclusions drawn are outlined below: 

128 

It was not possible to include freight revenue within this analysis due to lack of a comprehensive dataset for all 
Member States 

98 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
  There is a generally established trade-off between freight and passenger track utilisation and 

(see Figure 83 below); 

Figure 83 – Passenger track utilisation and freight track utilisation (2012) – 

absolute figures 

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

k
c
a
r
t

/

m
k
e
n
n
o
t
(
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
l
i
t
U
k
c
a
r
T
t
h
g
e
r
F

i

)

m
k

LV 

LT 

EE 

PL 

SK 

SI 

RO 

HR 
EL 

BG 

0

FI 

CZ 

IE 

1

SE 
HU 

PT 
LU 
ES 

AT 

DE 

BE 

FR 

IT 

DK 

2

3

UK 

4

5

Passenger Track Utilisation (passenger km / track km) 

Source: Study on the Cost and Contribution of the Rail Sector 

NL 

6

Millions 

  Changes in track and train utilisation varied considerably between Member States. For 

 

 

example, the former grew by 30% in the Netherlands over the five years between 2007 and 
2012, while in Greece it fell by 64%; 
In passenger rail, relatively few countries achieve high levels of both track and train 
utilisation. Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom appear to be 
leveraging their capital assets most efficiently overall, although Sweden achieves high levels 
of train utilisation; 
In freight markets, the Member States that border the North Sea and/or serve the Alpine 
region achieve higher capital utilisation. Countries on the periphery, notably Bulgaria and 
Greece, report much lower levels of both train and track utilisation. 

Box 24 –  Global efficiency gaps  

In the context of the Study on the Cost and Contribution of the Rail Sector, Steer Davies Gleave was also asked 
to conduct an efficiency gap analysis to assess the comparative efficiency of national rail systems in 4 clusters. 
Clustering  was  necessary  to  compare,  to  the  extent  possible,  like-for-like  and  thus  control  the  impact  of 
exogenous factors (such as geopolitical conditions, characteristics of network etc) that are beyond the ability of 
railway managers and policy-makers to influence.  

The  total  capital  productivity  was  assessed  using  Data  Envelopment  Analysis,  which  included  both  track  and 
train  (both  freight  and  passenger)  related  inputs,  but  excluded  (very  conservatively)  labour  productivity  and 
financial  efficiency.  The  results  by  cluster  are  shown  below  and  indicate  how  efficient  Member  States  have 
been in combining track infrastructure and rolling stock assets to deliver outputs. 

With  the  exception  of  Poland,  Member  States  in  cluster  C  appear  to  perform  particularly  poorly  against  this 
specification of inputs and outputs. 

The basic premise of this scenario is that all Member States currently operating away from the efficient frontier 
(technical efficiency coefficient less than 1) move gradually towards the frontier. It was further assumed that 
the savings gained are directly translated into additional railway outputs, as measured by p-km and freight t-
km. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Total capital productivity technical efficiency scores (2012) 

t
n
e
i
c
i
f
f
e
o
c
y
c
n
e
i
c
i
f
f
e

l

a
c
i
n
h
c
e
T

1,00

0,90

0,80

0,70

0,60

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00

BE DK IE LU NL AT FI DE ES FR IT SE UK BG CZ HU PL RO EE EL HR LV LT PT SI SK

Cluster A

Cluster B

Cluster C

Cluster D

Static input-output analysis was then used to estimate the impact of changes in productivity in the rail sector 
on the wider economy as shown in the table below. 

Estimates of the impact of economic impact of improvements in total capital productivity (to 2030) 

Impact 

Direct GVA (million EUR, present value) 

Indirect GVA (million EUR, present value) 

Direct employment 

Indirect employment 

External benefits (million EUR, present value) 

Increase in p km in 2030 (million) 

Increase in t km in 2030 (million) 

Value 

32 300  

31 400 

1 630 

1 620 

75 

200 000 

260 000 

Source: Study on the Cost and Contribution of the Rail Sector, Net Present Values expressed in million euros (2010 
prices, 2010PV) for the period 2015-2030. Employment is expressed in full-time equivalent (FTE) units. Figures may 
not tally due to rounding 

The  conclusions  was  that  some  Member  States,  notably  Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Hungary  and  Romania 
have substantial scope for improving the total capital productivity of their railways.  

If  all  Member  States  were  to  achieve  the  levels  of  capital  productivity  equivalent  to  the  highest  performing 
peers  in  their  cluster,  the  net  present  value  of  the  resulting  increase  in  direct  Gross  Value  Added  (GVA) 
between 2015 and 2030 could be EUR 32 billion. When including indirect GVA generated by upstream sectors, 
the benefits would rise to 64 billion EUR. The increase in rail activity resulting from reinvesting the operating 
surpluses  can  generate  1  600  direct  jobs  and  a  broadly  equivalent  number  of  indirect  jobs  over  the  period 
2015-2030. 

If, in addition to capital productivity also labour productivity and financial efficiency were targeted, the savings 
could be considerably higher.  

100 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3.  The challenge of performance management 

It  is  evident  that  the  railway  business  is  complex  and  multidimensional  and  direct  unconditional 
comparison  between  national  systems  is  mostly  meaningless.  In  addition,  the  variables  influencing 
the  different  areas  of  rail  performance  are  often  beyond  the  control  of  a  railway  operator  or 
infrastructure manager, depending e.g. on geo-political factors, political priorities or past investment. 
For instance the performance in terms of cost per km of a specific railway undertaking depends on 
the  scale  of  operations,  mix  between  passenger/freight/high-
many 
speed/conventional/long  distance/commuter  traffic  as  well  as  wage  levels,  maintenance  backlogs 
and existing industrial agreements129. In addition, prices for passenger operations are often regulated 
or  administered  and  public  policy  plays  a  key  role  in  setting  investment  priorities  and  specifying 
passenger sector outputs130. Nevertheless, even if the outputs are determined, the question remains 
on how it could be ensured that these were produced at minimum cost. 

factors  such  as 

Box 25 –  Performance management in the existing EU law  

KPIs  as  a  regulatory  tool  for  performance  management  are  sometimes  perceived  of  being  new  topic  for 
railways. Actually, performance related elements are already part of European railway legislation. 

Technical regulation, focussing on interoperability and safety includes for example the following performance 
related elements: 

  The Agency has to monitor progress on the safety and interoperability of the Union rail system 

(Article 35 of the Agency Regulation131); 

  Common safety indicators and targets have been gradually introduced in EU safety regulation to 

ensure that safety is maintained at a high level (Articles 5-7 of the Safety Directive132); 

  The Core Network Corridors need to comply with certain infrastructure standards according to the 
agreed performance targets and timelines. There are also provisions for monitoring activities in the 
multimodal corridors (Article 39 of the TEN-T Guidelines133). 

As  regards  EU  market  regulation,  performance  elements  are  brought  in  as  to  (a)  incentivise  cooperation 
between the market participants (railway undertakings, infrastructure managers, customers, public authorities) 
and (b) smoothen cross-border operations: 

  The Recast Directive includes provisions on: 

  performance schemes encouraging railway undertakings and infrastructure managers to minimise 

disruptions and improve the reliability and punctuality of services (Article 35, Annex VI); 

  contractual agreements between the infrastructure managers and authorities for infrastructure 
funding; these agreements have to include performance indicators (Article 30, Annex V)134. 

  The Fourth Railway Package, when adopted, introduces certain further elements: 

  infrastructure managers shall cooperate across the borders to monitor and benchmark 

performance and to contribute to rail market monitoring (Article 7f of the amended Recast 
Directive); 

  for directly awarded PSO contracts, performance requirements have to be defined in the contracts; 

including punctuality of services, frequency of train operations, quality of rolling stock and 
transport capacity for passengers (Article 5 of the amended Regulation 1370/2007). 
  The Passenger Rights Regulation135 requires rail undertakings to establish and monitor quality 

management standards. 

  Rail Freight Corridor Regulation136 requires management boards to monitor and publish performance 

of rail freight services on Corridors. 

129 

130 
131 
132  
133 
134 
135 

European Transport Regulation Observer, May 2016, 
http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/41844/FSR_Observer-2016-2.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 
A.S.J. Smith and C. Nash — Discussion Paper 2014-22 — © OECD/ITF 2014 5 
Regulation (EU) 2016/796  
Directive (EU) 2016/798  
Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013  
See section 4.3.2 of this report 
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 

101 

 
                                                 
The way forward for performance enhancement 

Aiming at the development of a comprehensive performance culture in the sector, the different rail 
stakeholders have been working on this topic for many years.  Several transnational working groups 
and  fora,  including  for  instance  UIC,  RailNetEurope,  the  TEN-T  core  network  and  Rail  Freight 
in  discussions  on  performance 
Corridors,  PRIME  and  RU  Dialogue,  are  currently  engaged 
enhancement.  

Box 26 –  PRIME and its work on KPIs and best practice benchmarking 

PRIME  (Platform  for  Rail  Infrastructure  Managers  in  Europe)  and  the  Commission  services  seek  together  to 
enhance the performance of rail networks across Europe. PRIME promotes a competitive and resource efficient 
transport system and its members share the aspiration for a better performance and international cooperation 
of rail sector. 

The PRIME KPI subgroup was established in spring 2014 with the objective of agreeing on a holistic set of KPIs 
allowing  to  benchmark  the  performance  and  best  practices  across  all  business  domains  of  infrastructure 
management,  including  e.g.  safety  and  environmental  performance,  punctuality,  track  utilisation,  capacity, 
security,  cost  efficiency  and  financial  performance.  Under  industry  leadership  (subgroup  is  chaired  by 
Trafikeverket, Sweden) and with the participation of DG MOVE and the Agency, the subgroup agreed to work 
together to select KPIs, develop robust definitions, make respective adjustments in national practices and set 
up  a  system  for  data  collection  and comparison.  The  purpose  of  the  exercise  is  not  ranking of  infrastructure 
managers by individual KPIs, but rather developing a comprehensive overview of how different infrastructure 
managers function and where could be scope for mutual learning.  

The  experience  during  the  two  years  of  work  has  shown  that  agreeing  on  common  comprehensive,  yet 
compact set of KPIs is easier said than done. There has been lots of iteration during the process (define, test, 
redefine, add, cut …). The balance between simplicity (not too many) and usefulness (enough to identify the 
drivers  behind  the  observed  trends)  has  been  hard  to  achieve.  Another  challenge  has  been  reaching 
comparability. For instance, while everyone agreed that punctuality indicator is of key importance, hardly any 
two infrastructure managers measured it in the same way.  

Despite the difficulties, PRIME is about to set up a data collection platform and start to analyse the first set of 
data. 

The Fourth Railway Package foresees the establishment of the European Network of Infrastructure Managers, 
which is anticipated to be created on the basis of PRIME. Tasks of the new formal network include monitoring 
and  benchmarking  performance,  exchanging  best  practices  and  contributing  to  the  rail  market  monitoring 
activities. This development will give further impetus to the work of the PRIME KPI subgroup.  

The  12th  European  Rail  Forum  in  May  2016,  bringing  together  rail  stakeholders  from  Europe  and 
beyond,  discussed  how  to  define,  measure  and  improve  the  performance  of  the  European  railway 
system137.  There  was  a  broad  consensus  that  European  railways  have  issues  with  cost,  quality  of 
services  and  market  share  (i.e.  in  principle  modal  share  of  rail).  There  are  many  areas  that  can  be 
looked at  in  order  to  measure  progress  and  it is  important to  differentiate  between  measures  and 
mechanisms  applied according to the context. For instance,  KPIs  need to be  defined differently for 
monopoly  situations  (e.g.  infrastructure  management)  and  public  service  contracts,  while  in 
competitive  part  of  the  sector  (open  market  competition),  feedback  from  end  customer  can  be 
crucial.  The  suggestion  was  that  KPIs  and  targets  would  have  to  be  developed  by  the  sector  and 
monitored by a public authority. 

136 
137 

Regulation (EU) No 913/2010  
http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/41844 

102 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
The Commission is participating in discussions and supports the sector-driven bottom-up approach. It 
is  important  to  acknowledge  that  performance  management  is  a  process  that  takes  time  to 
implement as it goes through the different stages: 

1.  Focusing: identifying topics, actors and indicators; 
2.  Monitoring: collecting data, agreeing on definitions, achieving comparability, improving 

transparency; 

3.  Benchmarking: making comparisons, learning from results; 
4.  Target setting: to be developed in cooperation with the sector and in a stepwise manner. 

The  Commission  is  also  acting  as  an  intermediary  between  the  various  initiatives  with  the  aim  to 
harmonise  indicators  and  to  eliminate  overlaps  in  data  collection.  It  is  also  working  closely  with 
national  rail  regulatory  bodies,  which  according  to  the  Recast  Directive  have  a  task  to  monitor  the 
developments in rail market. 

103 

 
6. Conclusions 

Over  the  past  two  decades,  the  European  legislator  has  considerably  developed  the  EU  rail  acquis 
encouraging  competitiveness  and  market  opening.  The  overarching  idea  has  been  that  greater 
competition makes for a more efficient and customer-responsive industry. In parallel measures have 
been  taken  to  improve  the  interoperability  and  safety  of  national  networks  and  to  encourage  the 
development of an integrated rail system leading to a Single European Rail Area. 

Despite  several  positive  developments  presented  in  this  document,  such  as  increased  passenger 
volumes and investment in infrastructure as well as gradual (although uneven) opening of national 
rail markets, it is clear that at the current pace it will not be possible to reach the objectives set for 
rail  sector  in  the  2011  White  Paper.  Overall,  rail  freight  is  still  not  on  the  right  track  and  a  Single 
European Railway Area is still a long way from being achieved. 

legislation  designed  to  bring  about  the  desired  performance 

In  this  context  the  focus  of  the  Commission  in  the  coming  years  will  be  on  the  implementation  of 
existing 
improvements.  The 
transposition and implementation of the Recast Directive is in its final stages, while the preparations 
for  implementation  of  the  technical  pillar  of  the  Fourth  Package  have  been  launched.  The 
Commission services work closely with the Agency, Member States, national regulatory  bodies and 
stakeholders through forums such as the European Network of Rail Regulatory Bodies, PRIME and RU 
Dialogue  to  ensure  that  the  Union  legislation  is  implemented  in  the  most  efficient  way  and  is 
understood by the sector.  

The Commission services continue preparations for the implementing act on access to services and 
service facilities (Article 13 of the Recast Directive), the delegated act on scheduling rules (Annex VII 
of  the  Recast  Directive),  and  have  launched  the  revision  of  the  Technical  Specification  of 
Interoperability on Noise, Rail Passenger Rights Regulation and the Combined Transport Directive. In 
addition, the ongoing evaluations of the Rail Freight Corridor Regulation and Train Drivers Directive 
may lead to updates of these acts in the coming years.  

There  are  also  other  ongoing  actions  addressing  the  challenges  faced  by  the  sector,  including 
implementation of the TEN-T Guidelines and deployment of ERMTS, securing funding and financing 
for  rail  infrastructure  projects,  embracing  opportunities  provided  by  digital  technologies  and 
launching projects under Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking. Furthermore, Commission services continue to 
engage with the sector in the areas of rail security, multimodality and a level playing field across the 
modes, including effective application of user pays/polluter pays principles.  

Finally,  this  report  has  highlighted  several  gaps  and  shortcomings  in  rail  market  data  which  the 
Commission services plan to address in cooperation with various stakeholders. In particular by: 

 

 

implementing the new RMMS Regulation (including developing common definitions for 
service facilities) in cooperation with the Member States and national rail regulatory bodies;  
improving data availability on rail freight performance in cooperation with sector 
organisations and the governing bodies of the Rail Freight Corridors, 

  enhancing data availability on the state of infrastructure and its capabilities in the TENtec 

database, 

  conducting a new Eurobarometer survey on rail customer satisfaction, 
  enhancing availability and content of licensing data in ERADIS database in cooperation with 

Member States authorities and the Agency, 

  agreeing on harmonised performance measures (including reliability and punctuality) based 

on the respective work of PRIME and RU Dialogue. 

104