Railway safety in the European Union : safety overview 2017.
Date: 2018-01-09
Institutions: European Union Agency for Railways
Subjects: EU Member State, activity report, rail network, rail transport, transport accident, transport safety

Railway Safety in the 
European Union

Safety overview 2017

Report

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls 
(though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Neither the Agency nor any person acting on behalf of the Agency  
is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017

Print 
PDF 

ISBN 978-92-9205-383-3 
ISBN 978-92-9205-384-0 

ISSN 2529-6302 

doi:10.2821/813806 
doi:10.2821/474487 

TR-AG-17-101-EN-C
TR-AG-17-101-EN-N

© European Union Agency for Railways, 2017

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
For any use or reproduction of individual photos, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

 
Contents

Safety overview ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2

A background note about the data and their collection ����������������������������������������������� 4

Key figures ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 5
Accident outcomes .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Trend analyses.............................................................................................................................................................. 7
Accidents, fatalities and serious injuries ....................................................................................................10
Risk levels ......................................................................................................................................................................12
Intermodal comparison of risk ........................................................................................................................16

Accident outcomes �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 17
Significant accidents ..............................................................................................................................................17
Accidents and incidents involving transport of dangerous goods ..........................................20
Suicides on railway premises ............................................................................................................................21
Casualties (fatalities and serious injuries) from significant accidents ......................................25
Precursors to accidents ........................................................................................................................................27
Accident costs ............................................................................................................................................................30

Safety of infrastructure ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 31

Traffic volumes ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 33

Independent accident investigation ������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 39

Serious accidents in 2016 �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 41

Background information ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 44

List of abbreviations ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 46

List of country codes ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47

CONTENTS | 1

Safety overview

This electronically published overview report complements the biennial report on railway 
safety performance in the European Union. It sets out the railway safety performance in 
the European Union for the year 2015. The findings published here are from the common 
safety  indicator  (CSI)  data  for  2015,  plus  information  on  significant  accidents  from  the 
European Railway Accident Information Links (ERAIL) system covering 2016.

We thank the Member States for their cooperation in ensuring that all the CSI data were 
received on time (30 September 2016).

Overall, the CSI data demonstrated that railway safety in the EU-28 has continued to show 
a general improvement since 2010. Up to 2015 the number of fatalities and serious injuries 
was down, as was the number of significant accidents. We are concerned, however, by 
a stagnation in the reduction of the number of fatalities to:

•  level-crossing users, and

•  employees.

Neither of these indicators showed improvement in the 3 years from 2013 to 2015. In add-
ition, the number of precursor incidents rose sharply, principally driven by track buckles. 
There are several reasons why such precursors might have become more common, but 
without further data at EU level it is not possible to know with any certainty what these 
might be. We can only say at this stage that the trend reflects either:

•  better or increased reporting of precursor incidents;

•  an increase in railway safety risk; or

•  a combination of the above.

Without better safety management data, reporting systems and analysis we cannot begin 
to address the root causes and drivers of such changes. We hope to work with national 
safety authorities to achieve better understanding and sharing of what is already collected 
nationally.

Looking ahead to the data from 2016 on the Agency’s ERAIL system, it is a matter of deep 
concern that we see an increase in each of the numbers of fatalities in train collisions and 
derailments and the number of accidents with five or more fatalities. This should serve as 
a call to action for us all to work harder to control risks and maintain a sustainable and safe 
railway system.

European Union Agency for Railways

13 July 2017

2 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

SAFETY OVERVIEW | 3

A background note 
about the data and 
their collection

We are aware that some national safety authorities (NSAs) experienced problems in up-
loading their data to the European Railway Accident Information Links (ERAIL) (1) system 
(common safety indicator (CSI) section). The Agency is working to ensure these problems 
will not arise again and, in parallel, we are exploring the options for and costs of a new 
IT solution as part of the common occurrence reporting project (2), which is intended to 
develop wider reporting and data sharing over the next 5 years.

In reporting the trends or the direction of trends (upwards or downwards) we have nor-
mally used the 2011-2015 period, sometimes with a comparison to the 2015 data. Occa-
sionally we have used the 10-year period from 2006 to 2015. In previous reports the norm 
was  to  look  back  over  the  last  3  years. While,  due  to  a  lack  of  consistent  data,  this  was 
acceptable when the Agency first started to report, we now have between 6 and 10 years 
of indicator data supplied to us with consistent definitions. Where we have consistent data 
for longer time periods we use these to illustrate the medium- and longer-term trends.

(1)  ERAIL: European Rail Accidents Information Links is a public database hosted by the Agency in order that the 

national investigation bodies in each Member State can share information and recommendations relating to safety 
occurrences in the European railway system.

(2)  http://www.era.europa.eu/Core-Activities/Safety/Safety-Performance/Pages/Common-occurrence-reporting.aspx

4 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

Key figures

Accident outcomes

Over the last 4 reported years there have been on average just over 2 000 significant acci-
dents each year on the railways of the EU Member States. Accidents to persons caused by 
rolling stock in motion and level-crossing accidents constitute more than three quarters 
of railway accidents, excluding suicides. In these accidents on average just under 1 100 
persons are killed and 900 persons seriously injured each year. There has been a long-term 
downward trend in all these indicators.

In 2015 all of these CSIs continued to improve across the EU, with 1 808 significant acci-
dents resulting in 963 fatalities and 684 persons seriously injured. The year-to-year reduc-
tion between 2014 and 2015 is significant for accidents, fatalities and serious injury num-
bers. These main outcomes decreased over recent years (Figure 1).

4 000

3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0

1 367

1 380

2 292

2 224

2 069

1 980

2 076

1 104

1 249

1 050

1 015

911

1 808

819

684

1 517

1 478

1 383

1 270

1 206

1 135

1 129

1 054

963

 2007*

 2008*

 2009*

 2010

 2011

 2012

 2013

 2014

 2015

Fatalities

Serious injuries

Signiﬁcant accidents

 Figure 1: Significant accidents and resulting casualties (EU-28; 2010-2015)

* Not all EU-27 Member States reported during the 2006-2009 period.

In addition to collating and reporting the CSIs from the NSAs, the relevant national inves-
tigation bodies (NIBs) report serious and catastrophic accident investigations in the ERAIL 
system. In 2014 we were able to report, for the first time since the Agency’s inception, that 

KEY FIGURES | 5

there had been no catastrophic railway accidents (3) in the Member States. However, there 
were two catastrophic collisions or derailments on EU railways in 2015 and three in 2016.

It should be noted that the 2015 data exclude the accident at Eckwersheim (France). This 
accident took place on 14 November 2015, during the testing phase for a new high-speed 
line, and involved the derailment of a test train. The Bureau d’enquêtes sur les accidents 
de transport terrestre (BEA-TT — the French NIB) reported the occurrence in ERAIL (under 
the  category ‘Other’).  In  October  2016  the  Établissement  public  de  sécurité  ferroviaire 
(EPSF — the French NSA) informed us that they considered the accident outside of the 
scope of the railway safety directive (4) for the purposes of reporting. The final report on 
the  accident  was  published  by  BEA-TT  on  23  May  2017  (5). There  are  clearly  lessons  to 
be learnt from this accident and a judicial inquiry is still in progress, therefore we have 
refrained from including this occurrence in the safety statistical reporting.

Although  the  2015 and 2016  catastrophic  accident  outcomes  are  below  the  average 
number of accidents in this category recorded over the past decade, they are nevertheless 
a deterioration in comparison to the result achieved in 2014 and in the 2010-2014 period 
(see Figure 2).

The trend in the accident rate per billion train-kilometres for accidents resulting in five or 
more fatalities is downward over the 1980-2016 period.

The data in Figures 2 and 3 come from the historical archive of railway accidents main-
tained by the Agency; they show the number of major accidents and resulting fatalities for 
the 37 years covering the 1980-2016 period. This historical archive includes not only train 
collisions and derailments with five or more fatalities, but also major level-crossing acci-
dents,  train  fires  and  accidents  involving  groups  of  persons  struck  by  rolling  stock  in 
motion. Figure 2 is a composite graph showing the numbers of railway accidents resulting 
in more than five fatalities and the total number of fatalities per year. Such accidents are 
sometimes described as catastrophic due to the size of their impact on society and on the 
railway sector, although this term is not defined by legislation.

250

200

s
e
ti

i
l

a
t
a
F

150

100

227

)
s
e
ti

i
l

a
t
a
f
e
v
ﬁ
≥
(

s
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
A

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

191

174

Fatalities

Accidents

121

98

98

85

86

80

66 71

52

33 37

46

46

40 36

64

52

68

56

38

30

97

68

39

38

10

0 10

17 22 18

28

8

42

50

0
1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

0

 Figure 2: Railway accidents with five or more fatalities (1980-2016) (6)

(3)  A catastrophic accident can be described as one with more than five fatalities, but it should be noted that this term 

is not defined by legislation.

(4)  Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s 
railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/
EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure 
and safety certification (railway safety directive).

(5)  See http://www.bea-tt.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport_beatt_2015-016.pdf
(6)  All EU Member States, plus Norway and Switzerland, excluding Romania for the 1980-1989 period. Accidents on 

railway mainlines not covered by the railway safety directive are also included.

6 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

 
 
 
 
While the long-term trend is downwards, the number of accidents with multiple fatalities 
has risen since 2014. This negative trend is of concern to the Agency and others engaged 
with the oversight of railway safety. While the change in the number of accidents is not 
statistically significant, this is not true for the change in the number of fatalities occurring 
in 2016, therefore we consider that robust conclusions can be drawn from this worrying 
upward trend.

The overall level of railway safety in the EU, as measured by fatal train collisions and derail-
ments per billion train-kilometres, has also gradually improved since 1990, although there 
is considerable scatter from year to year.

i

m
k
-
n
a
r
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

b
r
e
p
s
t
n
e
m

l
i

a
r
e
d
d
n
a
s
n
o
i
s
i
l
l

o
c
n
a
r
t

i

l

a
t
a
F

20

20

19

14

13

13

11

10

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

17

14

13

25

20

15

11

10

10

8

7

6

9

5

6

6

7

6

5

4

5

4

3

5

0

s
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
A

0
9
9
1

1
9
9
1

2
9
9
1

3
9
9
1

4
9
9
1

5
9
9
1

6
9
9
1

7
9
9
1

8
9
9
1

9
9
9
1

0
0
0
2

1
0
0
2

2
0
0
2

3
0
0
2

4
0
0
2

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

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

Accidents / billion train-km

5-year moving average

Accidents

 Figure 3:  Fatal train collisions and derailments per billion train-kilometres (EU-28, 
Norway and Switzerland (7); 1990-2016 — train-kilometres for 2016 are 
an estimate based on 2015 data)

The  analysis  of  trends,  illustrated  in  Figure  3,  shows  a  reduction  in  the  accident  rate  of 
between 5.7 % (using the 5-year moving average rate of change) and 6.52 % (accident 
rate for individual years 1980 and 2015) per year. This gives a fall of 75 % from 1990 to 2015. 
Despite this long-term trend, the Agency is concerned to see that in 2016 there was a stat-
istically significant increase in these combined indicators.

For  further  information  regarding  fatal  train  collisions  and  derailments  in  2016  see  the 
section on serious accidents — Table 4.

Trend analyses

The Agency was set up in 2004. For the majority of Member States in the European Union 
CSI data now exist for the 10 years from 2006 to 2015. We note that three Member States 
(Greece, Hungary — possibly related to the migrant crisis — and the Netherlands) and 
the Channel Tunnel had 2015 outcomes for all fatalities that went against the three 5-year 
global trend averages or the 10-year global trend, and that one Member State, Austria, 
had a 2015 outcome that was worse than the three 5-year means. The trend analyses are 
shown in Figure 4.

(7)  Figure courtesy of Andrew W. Evans (Imperial College and University College London), based on own database of 
fatal train accidents and collisions and on the train-kilometre data from ERA, Eurostat and the Union internationale 
des chemins de fer.

KEY FIGURES | 7

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)
e
c
n
a
m
r
o
f
r
e
p
5
1
0
2
n
o
d
e
s
a
b
s
i

r
e
d
r
o
—
n
a
e
m

r
a
e
y
-
0
1
d
n
a
s
n
a
e
m

r
a
e
y
-
5

,

5
1
0
2

;

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S
d
n
a
y
a
w
r
o
N

,

8
2
-
U
E
(

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i

5
1
0
2
-
6
0
0
2

3
1
0
2
-
9
0
0
2

4
1
0
2
-
0
1
0
2

5
1
0
2
-
1
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

i

k
-
n
a
r
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

r
e
p
s
e
i
t
i
l

a
t
a
f
y
a
w

l
i

a
 R

:

4
e
r
u
g
i
F

0
2

.

8
1

.

6
1

.

4
1

.

2
1

.

0
1

.

8
0

.

6
0

.

4
0

.

2
0

.

0
0

.

8 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

d
n
a

-
5
e
h
t
h
t
o
b
r
o

f

d
n
e
r
t
d
r
a
w
n
w
o
d
e
h
t

i

i

t
s
n
a
g
a
g
n
v
o
m
5
1
0
2
n

i

e
c
n
a
m
r
o

f
r
e
p
s
e
t
a
t
S

’

r
e
b
m
e
M

l

i

a
u
d
v
d
n

i

i

n
a
g
n
i
t
a
c
d
n

i

i

d
e
r
e
h
t

,

s
r
e
k
r
a
m
e
g
n
a
r
o
d
n
a
d
e
r
h
t
i

w
d
e
g
g
a
fl
e
r
a

a
t
a
d
e
s
e
h
T

.

s
e
g
a
r
e
v
a
r
a
e
y
-
5
e
h
t
y
n
o
r
o

l

f

d
n
e
r
t
e
h
t

i

t
s
n
a
g
a
e
c
n
a
m
r
o

f
r
e
p
g
n
i
t
a
c
d
n

i

i

e
g
n
a
r
o
e
h
t
d
n
a
s
e
g
a
r
e
v
a
r
a
e
y
-
0
1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
U

K
S

I
S

E
S

O
R

T
P

L
P

O
N

L
N

V
L

U
L

T
L

T
I

E
I

U
H

R
H

R
F

I
F

S
E

L
E

E
E

K
D

E
D

Z
C

T
C

H
C

G
B

E
B

T
A

0
0
3

0
5
2

0
0
2

0
5
1

0
0
1

0
5

0

s
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
a

l
l

a
n

i

)
s
e
d
i
c
i
u
s
d
e
t
p
m
e
tt
a
g
n
d
u
l
c
x
e
(
d
e
r
u
n

j

i

i
y
l
s
u
o
i
r
e
s

s
n
o
s
r
e
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n

l

a
t
o
T

s
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
a

l
l

a
n

i

)
s
e
d
i
c
i
u
s
g
n
d
u
l
c
x
e
(
d
e

i

l
l
i
k
s
n
o
s
r
e
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n

l

a
t
o
T

s
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
a
t
n
a
c
ﬁ
n
g
i
s

i

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n

l

a
t
o
T

,
s
n
o
s
r
e
p
d
e
s
i
r
o
h
t
u
a
n
u
g
n
d
u
l
c
n
i
(
d
e
r
u
n

j

i

i

y
l
s
u
o
i
r
e
s

l

i

a
t
o
t
d
n
a
)
s
e
d
i
c
i
u
s
g
n
d
u
l
c
x
e
t
u
b
s
n
o
s
r
e
p
d
e
s
i
r
o
h
t
u
a
n
u
g
n
d
u
l
c
n
i
(

i

s
e
i
t
i
l

a
t
a
f

l

a
t
o
t

,
s
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
a
t
n
a
c
fi
n
g
i
s

i

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
 N

:

5
e
r
u
g
i
F

)
5
1
0
2

;

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S
d
n
a
y
a
w
r
o
N

,

8
2
-
U
E
(

s
y
a
w

l
i

a
r
n
o
)
s
e
d
i
c
i
u
s
d
e
t
p
m
e
t
t
a
g
n
d
u
l
c
x
e

i

KEY FIGURES | 9

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4 illustrates the detection of trends, both negative and positive, in railway safety. This 
suggests that further improvement in safety performance is possible. We discussed above 
the negative trends illustrated in the report, but we can also see positive improvements in 
a  number  of  priority  Member  States,  along  with  others  that  had  previously  exhibited 
lower levels of railway safety. By looking at the data and statistics in a different way we may 
be able to help to identify problem areas and, ultimately, drive further improvement in 
railway safety. These trend analyses are designed to help Member States in their tracking 
of continuous safety improvement set out in Article 4(1)(a) of Directive (EU) 2016/798.

Accidents, fatalities and serious injuries

The number one strategic objective of the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA) is to 
make the EU the world leader in railway safety. Although comparative data are not readily 
available, we believe that to achieve this the number of accidents, fatalities and serious 
injuries still has to be reduced. We have so far focused our efforts on achieving improve-
ment in those Member States not yet performing to the current EU average, where the 
rate of accidents, passenger fatalities and serious injuries is normalised either by usage or 
by  operational  or  network  parameters  (see  the  report  Railway safety performance in the 
European Union 2016 (8)).

This reduction in the variance of performance would support the wider strategic objective 
of creating a single European railway area. It is also a striking fact that, based upon the 
2011-2015 indicators, if all Member States were to achieve this normalised EU average the 
actual number of fatalities would have been reduced from 5 487 to 3 151 — more than 
450 fewer fatalities per year.

Normalising the data in this way allows an assessment of performance relative to risk ex-
posure, or an understanding of the rate at which the railways in Member States are mov-
ing passengers and goods without harm. Although undoubtedly a useful form of analysis, 
this can create a distorted picture of rail safety if used by itself.

As the Member States previously identified for support (9) on the basis of normalised data 
improve, additional improvement may be found by targeting those Member States with 
the highest absolute numbers of accidents, as shown in Figure 5.

(8)  http://erail.era.europa.eu/documents/SPR.pdf
(9)  The priority countries programme.

10 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

KEY FIGURES | 11

One important area in which improvement has not been seen is in the number of worker 
fatalities (Figure 6).

126

129

110

96

70

82

77

72

63

38

38

38

44

46

29

30

28

29

49

34

  2006*

  2007*

  2008*

  2009*

  2010

  2011

  2012

  2013

  2014

  2015

Worker fatalities

Worker serious injuries

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

 Figure 6: Fatalities and serious injuries to railway workers (EU-28; 2006-2015)

* Excludes Croatia prior to 2010.

We have analysed the number of fatalities and serious injuries to railway workers over the 
10-year period from 2006 to 2015. While the number of workers seriously injured fell from 
126 in 2006 to 49 in 2015 (a fall of over 60 %), the number of fatalities fell from 38 in 2006 
to 34 in 2015 (just over a 10 % fall). The trend over the 3 years from 2013 saw an increase 
in the number of worker fatalities of more than 20 % from 28 in 2013 to 34 in 2015. Had 
the worker fatality outcome trend followed that for worker serious injuries, we would have 
expected only 15 worker fatalities in 2015, i.e. 19 fewer fatalities than were reported.

Risk levels

Accident risk is expressed as the number of outcomes per exposure. Considering all rail-
way fatalities (excluding suicides), the fatality risk per million train-kilometres in the 2011-
2015 period was 0.27 fatalities per million train-kilometres in the EU Member States. The 
figure for 2015 alone is lower at 0.23 fatalities per million train-kilometres. Values of risk 
vary greatly between Member States, with a more than 30-fold difference between Mem-
ber State safety outcomes. The distribution of Member States’ accident risk, expressed as 
the fatality risk per million train-kilometres over the 5 years from 2011 to 2015, is shown 
in Figure 7.

12 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

 Figure 7:  Railway accident fatality risk on EU railways: fatalities per million train-

kilometres (2011-2015)

Personal risk for railway passengers can be expressed in terms of passenger fatalities per 
passenger-kilometre. For the EU-28 over the 5 years from 2011 to 2015 and 2015 alone, the 
fatality risk range was between 0 and 0.085 fatalities per 100 billion passenger-kilometres 
respectively. Figure 8 maps the passenger fatality risk over the 5 years from 2011 to 2015 
by Member State.

KEY FIGURES | 13

 Figure 8:  Map of personal risk on railways: passenger fatalities per 100 billion 
passenger-kilometres (EU-28, Norway and Switzerland; 2011-2015)

In the last safety overview report (covering the 2006-2013 period) we reported that six 
Member States and the Channel Tunnel had recorded no passenger fatalities in the review 
period,  thus  their  passenger  fatality  risk  is  zero.  In  this  report  we  look  further  into  this 
aspect. We observe an increase in the number of Member States reporting zero passenger 
fatality risk per year (see Figures 8 and 9).

14 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

18

16

15

12

12

8

7

6

5

3

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

 Figure 9:  Number of EU Member States with one or more years (continuous) with 

zero passenger fatalities

So far, year on year, we have seen only growth and stability in the numbers of Member 
States  with  zero  continuous  passenger  fatality  risk.  If  a  Member  State  has  a  passenger 
fatality, they would be excluded at the next analysis — this will actually happen to at least 
one, if not more, of these Member States in the reporting period for 2016 due to accidents 
during that year. This will be seen in the 2018 safety performance report.

Within our 10-year reporting period (2006-2015) three Member States reported zero pas-
senger fatality risk for the full period — Ireland, Lithuania and Slovenia. It may be even 
longer than this for some of these Member States — Lithuania’s official statistics portal 
gives zero passenger fatalities for all years back to 2004 (10).

Within the data reported to the Agency the Channel Tunnel had zero passenger risk for 
9  years  of  CSI  reporting  and  Luxembourg  for  7  years  (due  to  their  entry  dates  into  the 
reporting system). Other Member States reporting over the full 10 years, but with a lower 
number of years with zero passenger fatalities, include the United Kingdom with 8 years, 
Latvia with 6 years and Belgium, Greece and Croatia with 5 years.

There are certain limitations in these benchmarking indicators: they rely on the numbers 
of fatalities only, since serious injury data are not believed to be fully comparable between 
countries,  and  the  period  considered  is  not  of  the  same  length  because  of  the  limited 
compatibility of certain data before 2009.

Similarly, one can show the levels of risk for different types of persons and different expos-
ure. This is done within the framework of common safety targets (CSTs) and national refer-
ence values (11), where the values exist for six categories of person and sometimes for two 
types of exposure.

(10)  See http://osp.stat.gov.lt/en/statistiniu-rodikliu-analize?id=2037&status=A
(11)  See Report — 2017 assessment of achievement of safety targets (http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Docu-

ments/2017%20Assessment%20of%20Achievement%20of%20Common%20Safety%20Targets.pdf ).

KEY FIGURES | 15

Intermodal comparison of risk

Comparisons of fatality risks for travelling passengers (occupants) reveals that rail is one 
of the safest modes of transport. The fatality risk for an average passenger is about 0.10 
fatalities per billion passenger-kilometres, comparable with the risk of commercial flight 
passengers  of  0.06  fatalities  per  billion  passenger-kilometres. The  fatality  risk  for  a  train 
passenger is lower than the risk for a bus/coach passenger.

Transport mode used by 
user

Airline passenger (on EU 
territory)

Railway passenger

Bus/coach occupant (note: figures 
relate to the 2010-2014 period not 
2011-2015)

Maritime vessel passenger

Car occupant

Car driver

Car passenger

Powered two-wheelers

Fatalities per billion passenger-kilometres

0.06

0.10

0.19

0.27

2.67

1.82

0.85

37.80

 Table 1:  Fatality risk of passengers using different modes of transport (EU-27; 

2011-2015) (12)

(12)  Sources: European Commission, DG Mobility and Transport, Statistical pocketbook 2016 — EU transport in figures, 2016; 
Eurostat, extracts from various transport statistics taken in April 2017, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database; 
European Maritime Safety Agency, Annual overview of marine casualties and incidents 2016. Also note, air and sea: only 
domestic and intra-EU-28 transport. Data concerning bus and coach occupants for 2015 are not yet available and 
hence the previous figures covering the 5 years from 2010 to 2014 are used instead. 

16 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

Accident outcomes

Significant accidents

The lowest number of significant accidents for the 2011-2015 period was recorded in 2015. 
Three categories of accidents decreased, i.e. accidents to persons, level-crossing accidents 
and derailments of trains (see Figure 10). However, there were increases in the numbers 
of collisions of trains, fires in rolling stock and all other types of accidents. Using standard 
statistical methods, these decreases in accidents to persons, level-crossing accidents and 
derailments of trains are statistically significant (13), however the increases relating to colli-
sions of trains, fires in rolling stock and other accidents are not. Table 2 below indicates the 
number of accidents by category in 2015 compared with the mean number of accidents 
per year over the 5 years from 2011 to 2015, the difference between the actual number in 
2015 and the mean, and whether or not the change was statistically significant.

Collisions of trains

Derailments of trains

Level-crossing accidents

Accidents to persons

Fires in rolling stock

Other accidents

All accidents

Number of 
accidents 2015

Mean number 
of accidents per 
year 2011-2015

+/– compared to 
the mean

Statistically 
significant at the 
5 % level

123

77

469

1 024

30

85

1 808

96

99

540

1 282

21

90

2 128

27

– 22

– 71

– 258

9

– 5

– 320

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

 Table 2:  Comparison of significant accidents in 2015 compared to the 5-year mean 

(2011-2015) and whether the change observed in 2015 was statistically 
significant or not

(13)  Savage, I., The economics of railroad safety, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2014, p. 178. The test examined 

whether there was a greater than 5 % probability that the decreases did not occur at random at the 95 % significance 
level for all the accident subclassifications. By using the 5 % probability level we assessed whether such changes 
could occur at random once in 20 years. See http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~ipsavage/103-manuscript.pdf

ACCIDENT OUTCOMES | 17

8
0
8
1

6
7
0
2

0
8
9
1

9
6
0
4 2
2
2
2

4
2
0
1

1
1
2
1

5
5
1
71
0
2
1

1
5
4
1

9
6
4

6
0
5

0
1
5

3
7
5

7
1
5

s
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
a

l
l

A

s
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
a
r
e
h
t
O

n

i

s
e
r
i
F

k
c
o
t
s
g
n

i
l
l

o
r

s
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
A

s
n
o
s
r
e
p
o
t

g
n
i
s
s
o
r
c
-
l
e
v
e
L

s
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
a

s
t
n
e
m

l
i

a
r
e
D

i

s
n
a
r
t

f
o

s
n
o
i
s
i
l
l

o
C

i

s
n
a
r
t

f
o

5
8

0
0
1

6
7

1
8

6
7

0
3

1
3

0
3

4
1

6
1

7
7

4
0
1

8
0
1

7
9

1
9

3
2
1

4
2
1

1
0
1

7
9

3
7

0
0
5
2

0
0
0
2

0
0
5
1

0
0
0
1

0
0
5

0

18 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

5
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

)
5
1
0
2
-
1
1
0
2

;

8
2
-
U
E
(

t
n
e
d
i
c
c
a
f
o
e
p
y
t

r
e
p
s
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
a
t
n
a
c
fi
n
g
S

i

i

:

0
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Accidents to persons represent 60 % of significant accidents, and together with level-crossing 
accidents,  but  excluding  suicide  events,  account  for  85  %  of  all  accidents.  Collisions  and 
derailments together account for 10 % of all accidents (Figure 11).

1 %

4 %

5 %

5 %

25 %

60 %

2 %

5 %

4 %

7 %

26 %

57 %

Accidents to persons

Level-crossing accidents

Collisions

Derailments

Other accidents

Fires in rolling stock

Accidents to persons

Level-crossing accidents

Collisions

Derailments

Other accidents

Fires in rolling stock

 Figures 11a and 11b:  Breakdown of significant accidents per type (EU-28; 2011-

2015 and 2015)

In 2015 the proportions of accidents in each category were broadly similar when com-
pared to the 2011-2015 period, though with slightly higher proportions of accidents in the 
cat egories of level-crossing accidents, collisions, fires in rolling stock and other accidents, 
and with lower proportions in the categories of accidents to persons and derailments.

ACCIDENT OUTCOMES | 19

 
 
 
 
Accidents and incidents involving transport of 
dangerous goods

When a railway accident involves dangerous goods, whether they are being transported 
or  not,  it  must  be  reported  under  a  separate  category  of  accident:  accidents  involving 
dangerous goods. Depending on the type and consequences, an accident involving dan-
gerous goods may also be reported in duplicate as a significant accident. In 2015 Member 
States reported a total of 14 accidents involving dangerous goods, of which seven involved 
the release during the accident of the dangerous goods being transported (Table 3). The 
14 accidents involving dangerous goods occurred in eight EU Member States.

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Number of accidents involving at least one railway vehicle 
transporting dangerous goods in which dangerous goods 
were NOT released

Number of accidents involving at least one railway vehicle 
transporting dangerous goods in which dangerous goods 
WERE released

Total number of accidents involving at least one railway 
vehicle transporting dangerous goods

19

9

28

13

10

23

9

11

20

15

16

31

7

7

14

 Table 3: Railway accidents involving dangerous goods (EU-28; 2011-2015)

The reporting of accidents involving the transport of dangerous goods is governed by the 
RID (14) and notably means that not only accidents but also incidents could be eligible for re-
porting under CSI data (in order to prevent double counting they are considered separately).

(14)  RID: the Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail, appearing as Appendix C to 

the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail concluded in Vilnius on 3 June 1999.

20 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

Suicides on railway premises

Suicide events are reported separately from other railway accidents. Since the classifica-
tion of suicide cases is subject to national practices, there is a high degree of uncertainty 
about their real numbers as compared to unauthorised person (trespasser) fatalities. For 
this reason, these data are presented together in Figure 12.

The Det Norske Veritas (DNV) study on the Assessment of the impact of rail suicides on EU 
railways (15) recommended that:

What would be of benefit is to simplify and harmonise the existing reporting arrangements 
so that they are clearer and more transparent.

DNV went on to further recommend the use of harmonised definitions, for example the 
amendment and use of the X81 code of the ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification 
of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision) classification system and the har-
monisation of the guidance used by police in categorising railway suicides and trespasser 
fatalities.

Since 2010 suicides have ranged between 2 756 and 2 982 annually. Since the peak in the 
number of suicides in 2012 of 2 982, they have fallen back to 2 762 in 2015. When assessed 
at Member State level (see Figure 12a) it is apparent that Member States need to improve 
and harmonise their classification of suicides. This is vital in understanding their causes 
and, ultimately, improving the management of this risk.

(15)  DNV GL, Review of data quality and approach of the Agency annual report on safety — Assessment of the impact of rail 
suicides on EU railways, 9 December 2015 (http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/DNV%20
COR%20study%20-%20Task%202%20report.pdf ). See page 53.

ACCIDENT OUTCOMES | 21

4 000

3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

849

766

804

655

681

704

591

855

928

940

2 614

2 413

2 762

2 756

2 890

2 982

2 819

2 895

2 762

1 000

1 874

500

0

2006 *

2007 *

2008 *

2009 *

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Suicides Unauthorised persons

 Figure 12:  Suicide fatalities and unauthorised persons fatalities on railways (EU-28; 

2006-2015)

A positive point that can be taken from Figure 12 is the fall in the numbers of unauthorised 
persons being killed. In the past 5 years there has been a reduction from 804 (2011) to 591 
(2015), a fall of 26 %. Whether or not they are ‘railway caused’, these events are a source of 
appalling personal tragedy, including the impact on railway staff, along with significant 
delays and unnecessary costs for the rail system as a whole.

In recent years we have considered the use of different methods to normalise suicide fa-
tality statistics (see footnote 15), for example by using the correlation with national overall 
suicide rates, the availability of the railway to the public expressed by total train-kilometres 
or traffic density. Figure 12b on the following page shows the comparative analyses of 
suicides/million  train-kilometres  for  2015,  the  three  5-year  means  for  2015-2011,  2014-
2010 and 2013-2009 and the 10-year mean for 2015-2006.

22 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

E
D

R
F

L
P

K
U

Z
C

L
N

U
H

T
I

S
E

O
R

H
C

T
A

E
B

K
S

E
S

T
P

I
F

G
B

R
H

K
D

T
L

I
S

V
L

L
E

O
N

E
E

U
L

E
I

T
C

0
0
0
6

0
0
0
5

0
0
0
4

0
0
0
3

0
0
0
2

0
0
0
1

0

s
t
n
e
d
i
c
c
a

l
l

a
n

i

d
e

l
l
i
k
s
n
o
s
r
e
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n

l

a
t
o
T

s
e
d
i
c
i
u
S

)
5
1
0
2
-
1
1
0
2

;

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S
d
n
a
y
a
w
r
o
N

,

8
2
-
U
E
(

s
y
a
w

l
i

a
r
n
o
s
e
i
t
i
l

a
t
a
f
e
d
i
c
i
u
s
d
n
a
s
e
i
t
i
l

a
t
a
f
y
a
w

l
i

a
r

l
l

 A

:

a
2
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

ACCIDENT OUTCOMES | 23

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8
2
U
E

R
H

L
N

Z
C

K
S

T
P

E
E

I
F

E
B

E
D

I
S

H
C

G
B

T
A

R
F

V
L

E
S

S
E

U
H

O
R

K
U

K
D

L
P

T
I

L
E

U
L

T
L

O
N

E
I

T
C

6
0
0
2
-
5
1
0
2

9
0
0
2
-
3
1
0
2

0
1
0
2
-
4
1
0
2

1
1
0
2
-
5
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

0
6
1

.

0
4
1

.

0
2
1

.

0
0
1

.

0
8
0

.

0
6
0

.

0
4
0

.

0
2
0

.

0
0
0

.

24 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

e
h
t

—
6
0
0
2
-
5
1
0
2
d
n
a
9
0
0
2
-
3
1
0
2

,

0
1
0
2
-
4
1
0
2

,

1
1
0
2
-
5
1
0
2

,

5
1
0
2

;

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S
d
n
a
y
a
w
r
o
N

,

8
2
-
U
E
(

s
y
a
w

l
i

a
r
n
o
s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i

i

k
-
n
a
r
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

r
e
p
s
e
d
i
c
i
u
s
y
a
w

l
i

a
r
n

i

s
d
n
e
r
 T

:

b
2
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

)
t
l
u
s
e
r
5
1
0
2
r
i
e
h
t
n
o
p
u
d
e
s
a
b
s
i

s
e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

f
o
g
n
i
t
r
o
s

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  normalised  data  show  significant  increases  in  the  rates  of  suicides  per  million 
train-kilometres in Croatia, Slovakia, Estonia and Latvia. The changes seen in 2015 result from:

•  an increase in the number of suicides (Slovakia and Latvia);

•  a decrease in the number of train-kilometres operated (Croatia);

•  a combination of both of the above (Estonia).

Higher rates of suicide on the railways were seen in 2015 when compared to the short- 
and medium-term trends in Greece, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium and 
the Netherlands. Lower rates in 2015 compared to the short- and medium-term trends are 
seen in Lithuania, Italy, the United Kingdom, Romania, Austria, Germany and the Czech 
Republic.

Improvements in 2015 and improving trends were observed in Ireland, Norway, Luxem-
bourg, Hungary, Spain, France, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Finland and Portugal.

Casualties (fatalities and serious injuries) from 
significant accidents

In parallel with the decrease in railway accidents, the total number of casualties, excluding 
suicides, has fallen steadily in recent years. There were 1 206 fatalities reported for 2011, 
and by 2015 this had fallen to 963, a reduction of just over 20 %.

1 400

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

1 206

1 129

1 135

1 054
963

804

681 704

655

591

373 300
282

309

288

97

38 36

15 27

30 46 28 29 34

Passengers

Employees

Level-crossing 
users
2012

2011

2013

Unauthorised 
persons
2014

2015

25 25 23 24 23

Other persons

Total persons

 Figure 13: Number of fatalities per victim category (EU-28; 2011-2015)

The Agency is particularly concerned with the stagnation in improvement in two categor-
ies: level-crossing users and employees.

Level-crossing fatalities represent just under 28 % of railway fatalities, but only about 1 % 
of road-user fatalities. While we do not currently collect the causes of level-crossing acci-
dents, it is commonly asserted that a significant majority of level-crossing accidents are 
caused by misuse of level crossings by road users. Nevertheless, better understanding of 
the root causes and human factors of this misuse could support improved management 
of this significant railway risk. This would undoubtedly include collaboration with actors in 
the road sector and relevant authorities, although these risks are marginal as a proportion 
of road-accident risk.

ACCIDENT OUTCOMES | 25

 
 
 
Understanding  the  causes  of  employee  accidents  and  fatalities  would  also  no  doubt 
improve management of this risk, which is more directly within the control of railway compan-
ies. These  fatalities  and  injuries  represent  a  significant  financial  and  resource  cost  to  the 
railway, as well as the clear human cost.

2 %

4 % 3 %

28 %

63 %

73 %

1 % 7 %

1 %

17 %

Passengers

Employees

 Level-crossing users

1 %

 Unauthorised persons

Other persons

Suicides

Fatalities on railways
disregarding railway suicides 

Fatalities on railways including
railway suicides 

 Figure 14:  Relative share of fatalities per victim category among railway and all 

fatalities (EU-28; 2011-2015)

In 2015 there were seven persons seriously injured for every 10 railway fatalities. This ratio 
is higher for fatalities among passengers and employees and lower for level-crossing users 
and unauthorised persons (trespassers) because of the typically more severe outcomes 
for these last two categories. In 2015 there were 684 persons seriously injured in railway 
accidents in the EU-28, a fall of just under 35 % from 2011 (see Figure 15).

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

220228

193

120

89

7782726349

1 050

1 015

911

847

684

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

438

313

308

331

267

3456424640

336296

287

281

239

Passengers

Employees

Level-crossing
users 

Unauthorised
persons 

Other persons

Total persons

 Figure 15: Seriously injured persons per victim category (EU-28; 2011-2015)

For 2015, as for all recorded years, there are high statistical correlations between signifi-
cant accidents and fatalities and serious injuries. All of the correlations are greater than 
0.85. While correlation is not necessarily causation, we can nevertheless test the strength 
of  the  correlation  between  fatalities  and  serious  injuries  through  the  coefficient  of 
determination (the value of the correlation coefficient squared). This gives a coefficient of 
0.72, suggesting a 72 % causal association between the numbers of fatalities and serious 

26 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

 
 
 
injuries, i.e. if there are 10 fatalities there are likely to be seven associated serious injuries. 
Therefore, if the number of fatalities can be reduced then there is also likely to be a fall in 
the number of serious injuries.

Precursors to accidents

‘Precursors to accidents’ are incidents that, under other circumstances, could have led to 
an accident. The indicators reported to the Agency are: broken rails, track buckles, signals 
passed  at  danger,  wrong-side  signalling  failures,  broken  wheels  and  broken  axles  (Fig-
ure 16).

The reporting of these precursor occurrences is undoubtedly useful. However, the Agency 
currently has very limited ability to assess the quality or consistency of the reporting of 
these events. The Agency’s project to develop common occurrence reporting across Eur-
ope, which may include an increase in the categories of mandatory reporting set out in EU 
legislation, should support an increase in data quality and consistency. With that in mind, 
some of the changes illustrated below may reflect a change in reporting practice rather 
than the apparent significant changes in underlying risk.

ACCIDENT OUTCOMES | 27

9
0
6
3
1

0
6
9
0
1

2
9
3
0
1

9
5
5
1
1

0
9
5
9

9
6
1
4

9
0
1
4

0
2
0
4

2
4
4
5

6
8
4
4

2
1
7
6

0
2
1
4

3
1
7
3

5
0
5
3

3
1
2
2

3
4
2
2

1
6
1
2

6
6
0
2

6
9
0
2

7
2
4
2

6
7
4

9
5
5

5
0
5

2
7
4

1
3
4

9

1
1

8
8

4
4

3
3

0
0
0
4
1

0
0
0
3
1

0
0
0
2
1

0
0
0
1
1

0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
9

0
0
0
8

0
0
0
7

0
0
0
6

0
0
0
5

0
0
0
4

0
0
0
3

0
0
0
2

0
0
0
1

0

28 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

s
r
o
s
r
u
c
e
r
p

l

a
t
o
T

s
l
i

a
r
n
e
k
o
r
B

s
e
l
k
c
u
b
k
c
a
r
T

d
e
s
s
a
p
s
l
a
n
g
S

i

r
e
g
n
a
d
t
a

e
d
i
s
-
g
n
o
r
W

s
e
r
u

l
i

a
f
g
n

i
l
l

a
n
g
i
s

s
l
e
e
h
w
n
e
k
o
r
B

s
e
l
x
a
d
n
a

5
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

)
5
1
0
2
-
1
1
0
2

;

8
2
-
U
E
(

s
r
o
s
r
u
c
e
r
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n
d
e
t
r
o
p
e
R

:

6
1
e
r
u
g
i
F

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Over the 2011-2015 period the total number of precursor incidents grew from 9 590 to 
13 609, an increase of just under 42 %. This increase has been driven in part by the num-
bers of wrong-side signalling failures (just over 10 %), but principally by the very significant 
increase  in  track  buckles  (a  67  %  increase  between  2014 and 2015  and  an  over  200  % 
increase between 2011 and 2015). Some of these increases may be due to better report-
ing of the precursor events. However, buckling of the track is primarily driven by extremes 
of temperature. Poor maintenance, reductions in the levels of maintenance and the use of 
different or inappropriate materials (as a way of reducing infrastructure costs) may also 
contribute to these changes. Figure 17 on the following page shows the number of track 
buckles reported in 2015 by Member State.

4 500

4 000

3 500

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0

4 439

182

26 14 38

0

0

55 0

2

32

306

163

76

37 10

0

1

4

0

5

31 48

128

0

50

5

12

AT BE BG CH CT CZ DE DK EE EL ES

FI

FR HR HU IE

IT

LT LU LV NL NO PL PT RO SE

SI

SK UK

1 117

 Figure 17: Reported number of track buckles (EU-28, Norway and Switzerland; 
2015)

Further investigation revealed that 2015 was the second-warmest year on record across 
Europe, with several Member States experiencing top-5-year events (where the tempera-
ture  for  a  given  year  is  among  the  top-five  annual  average  temperatures),  for  example 
Spain, Italy (16) and Finland (warmest year), Germany and Austria (second-warmest year), 
France (third-warmest year) and Netherlands (fifth-warmest year). We observe a pattern 
between the location and number of track buckles and the analysis of temperature per-
centiles for 2015 shown in Figure 18 below. Those Member States showing the highest 
number of track buckles were much warmer than average or the warmest on record. Fur-
ther work, along with more detailed analysis of the precursors and climate data, would be 
needed to understand if these observations are correlated, and if so the strength of the 
correlations.

(16)  ISPRA — Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale, Climate indicators in Italy 2015 — Edition XI, 
July 2016 (http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/en/publications/state-of-the-environment/climate-indicators-in-ita-
ly-2015-edition-xi).

ACCIDENT OUTCOMES | 29

 Figure 18: Land and ocean temperature percentiles (2015) (17)

Accident costs

Understanding the economic impact of significant accidents allows better safety management 
and investment decisions, ultimately benefiting the competitive success of railways. Figure 19 
shows the information collected for each Member State for 2015. It has five components:

•  cost of fatalities,

•  cost of injuries,

•  cost of material damage,

•  cost of damage to the environment,

•  cost of delays.

Not all Member States report all cost components for accidents on their networks. This 
variation in reporting, along with the overall cost levels in Member States and traffic vol-
umes, partly explains the variations in accident costs shown below.

450.00

400.00

350.00

300.00

250.00

200.00

150.00

100.00

50.00

0.00

AT BE BG CH CT CZ DE DK EE EL ES

FI

FR HR HU IE

IT

LT LU LV NL NO PL PT RO SE SI

SK UK

Economic impact of fatalities 
Economic impact of serious injuries
Cost of material damages to rolling stock or infrastructure

Cost of damage to the environment
Cost of delays as a consequence of signiﬁcant accidents

 Figure 19:  Economic impact of significant accidents (EU-28, Norway and 

Switzerland; 2015; million EUR)

Using the data provided the estimated overall economic cost of significant accidents in 
2015 was at least EUR 1.61 billion.

(17)  See: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

30 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

Safety of infrastructure

Installation of automatic train protection (ATP) (18) systems is widely considered to be one 
of the most effective railway safety measures to reduce the risk of collisions between trains 
on mainline railways. The penetration of these systems into the national railway network 
and their use are shown in Figure 20. Since most Member States continue to report the 
percentage of lines equipped with train protection systems (TPS) (19) that have lower func-
tional requirements than ATP systems, direct comparison between them is not possible. 
The amendment of Annex I of Directive 2014/88/EU (20) introduced a new classification for 
reporting  on  different  types  of  TPSs  to  address  this  problem.  We  expect  to  see  these 
changes reflected in the 2018 safety performance report, to be published in March 2018.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

 AT

 BE  BG  CH  CT

 CZ

 DE  DK  EE

 EL

 ES

 FI

 FR  HR  HU  IE

 IT

 LT

 LU  LV  NL

 NO  PL

Percentage of tracks with ATP in operation 2015

Percentage of train-kilometres using operational ATP systems 2015

 Figure 20:  Percentage of main tracks equipped with ATP and percentage of 

train-kilometres using operational ATP systems (EU-28, Norway and 
Switzerland; 2015)

The  proportion  of  the  European  railway  network  fitted  with  ATP  systems  is  continuing 
to grow, however the graph shows a number of Member States with no values. In these 
cases the Member States did not report a value to the Agency, yet we are aware that some 
have ATP systems that are in operation, for example the United Kingdom, which has both 
ETCS- and non-ETCS-compliant systems for ATP.

There were 108 196 level crossings (21) in the EU Member States in 2014. On average there 
are just under five level crossings per 10 line-kilometres in the EU, with active level cross-
ings representing just under 53 % of all level crossings (Figure 21).

This year (2017) the Agency will work with NSAs to share analysis of these data and to 
understand how these risks are being addressed through targeted supervision and railway 
undertaking and infrastructure manager improvement measures.

(18)  ATP means a system that enforces obedience to signals and speed restrictions by speed supervision, including 

automatic stop at signals. Systems where track signalling information is substituted and/or supplemented by cab 
signalling are included.

(19)  TPS means a system that helps to enforce obedience to signals and speed restrictions with warning, warning and 

automatic stop or warning, automatic stop and discrete stop supervision.

(20)  Commission Directive 2014/88/EU of 9 July 2014 amending Directive 2004/49/EC (railway safety directive) as regards 

common safety indicators and common methods of calculating accident costs.

(21)  Level crossings are divided into two groups — active and passive. Passive level crossings are where roads cross the 
railway without any form of warning system or protection activated when it is unsafe for the user to traverse the 
crossing. Active level crossings are those where the crossing users are protected from or warned of the approaching 
train by devices activated when it is unsafe for the user to traverse the crossing.

SAFETY OF INFRASTRUCTURE | 31

Level crossings represent high-risk locations on the network. One of the measures that can 
help to manage these risks is the installation of appropriate protective equipment at both 
road- and railside.

s
g
n
i
s
s
o
r
c

l

e
v
e

l

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n
e
g
a
r
e
v
A

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n

i
l

0
0
1
r
e
p

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

 AT  BE  BG  CH  CT  CZ  DE  DK  EE  EL  ES  FI  FR  HR HU  IE 

IT  LT  LU  LV  NL NO  PL  PT  RO  SE  SI  SK  UK 

Passive level crossings per 100 line-km  48  6.7 3.6 5.1  0  43  13  16  17  31  14  43  14  34  41  46  6.7 8.3  9.1  9  17  78  42  15  21  37  36  29  28 

Active level crossings per 100 line-km  36  42  16  37  0  41  30  33  18  34  7.6 13  34  21  37  12  24  21  36  26  57  13  27  18  10  31  27  27  10 

EU 

23 

26 

 Figure 21:  Number of active and passive level crossings per 100 line-kilometres 

(EU-28, Norway and Switzerland; 2015)

Detailed  statistics  are  available  on  the  type  of  level  crossings  at  European  level.  In  Fig-
ure  22  the  data  for  the  EU  Member  States  show  that  level  crossings  with  automatic 
user-side protection and warning (barriers with lights) are the most common type of ac-
tive crossing (28 %), followed by level crossings with user-side warning (10 %). Passive (un-
protected) level crossings represent 48 % of all level crossings in the EU.

10 %

7 %

Active level crossings with automatic 
user-side warning

Active level crossings with automatic 
user-side protection

Active level crossings with automatic user-side 
protection and warning

28 %

Active level crossings with automatic 
user-side protection and warning, 
and rail-side protection

Active level crossings with manual 
user-side warning

Active level crossings with manual 
user-side protection

3 %

Active level crossings with manual user-side 
protection and warning 

2 %

2 %

0 %

Passive level crossings

 Figure 22:  Breakdown of level crossings types according to the level of protection 

(EU-28; 2015)

Each  of  these  crossing  types  are  further  subdivided  by  their  operational  characteristics 
and the types of safety protection offered.

48 %

32 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

 
 
 
 
 
 
Traffic volumes

Trains cover more than 4.1 billion kilometres in the EU every year. Passenger trains pro-
vided 79 % of the total number of train-kilometres (3.3 billion out of 4.1 billion train-kilo-
metres in 2015). The traffic volumes are relatively stable from year to year, thus having an 
insignificant impact on expected accident outcomes.

4200 

4000 

3800 

3600 

3400 

3200 

3000 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

Passenger train-km 

Freight train-km 

Other train-km 

Note: Vertical scale begins at 3 000 million train-kilometres

 Figure 23:  Development of train-kilometres (EU-28, Norway and Switzerland; 

2011-2015; millions)

Germany is the country with by far the highest number of train-kilometres, accounting 
alone for one quarter of all train-kilometres in the EU. It is followed by the United Kingdom 
and France, each reporting more than 500 million train-kilometres in the 2011-2015 period 
(Figure 24).

In 2015 passengers travelled 425 billion kilometres on board trains. The number of passen-
ger-kilometres has grown by 6.7 % since 2011, reflecting the recovery from the economic 
recession of 2008-2011. Figure 25 shows the changes by Member State (plus Norway and 
Switzerland) for each of the last 5 years (2011-2015). Significant increases are seen in Slo-
vakia (40 %), Greece (31 %), Luxembourg (21 %) and the United Kingdom (18 %), while 
substantial falls were seen in Croatia (– 36 %), Estonia (– 24 %), Bulgaria (– 24 %) and Latvia 
(– 19 %).

Passenger train-kilometres are also reported, which, taken with passenger-kilometres and 
the various infrastructure measures, allows an understanding of the relative use or density 
of  the  railway  system. These  data  can  be  used  as  normalisers  (allowing  a  comparative 
measure for all Member States on an equal basis) for the various occurrences reported, 
allowing us to measure the exposure incidence in any given year. Across the EU Member 
States, plus Norway and Switzerland, for the 5-year period from 2011 to 2015, for every 
passenger train-kilometre operated there were, on average, 125 passengers on board the 
train.  Figure  26  illustrates  the  range  of  values  by  country  or  reporting  entity. The  most 
heavily loaded trains are achieved by the passenger and shuttle train operators using the 
Channel Tunnel (560), and also in France (199) and Italy (156). The Member States with the 
lowest load factors are Luxembourg (48), the Czech Republic (57) and Croatia (64).

TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 33

K
U

K
S

I
S

E
S

O
R

T
P

L
P

O
N

L
N

V
L

U
L

T
L

T
I

E
I

U
H

R
H

R
F

I
F

S
E

L
E

E
E

K
D

E
D

Z
C

T
C

H
C

G
B

E
B

T
A

5
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

)
s
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

;

5
1
0
2
-
1
1
0
2

;

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S
d
n
a
y
a
w
r
o
N

,

8
2
-
U
E
(

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i

k
-
n
a
r
t

i

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
 N

:

4
2
e
r
u
g
i
F

0
0
0
1

0
0
8

0
0
6

0
0
4

0
0
2

0

34 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
U

K
S

I
S

E
S

O
R

T
P

L
P

O
N

L
N

V
L

U
L

T
L

T
I

E
I

U
H

R
H

R
F

I
F

S
E

L
E

E
E

K
D

E
D

Z
C

T
C

H
C

G
B

E
B

T
A

5
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

)
s
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

;

5
1
0
2
-
1
1
0
2

;

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S
d
n
a
y
a
w
r
o
N

,

8
2
-
U
E
(

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i

k
-
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
 N

:

5
2
e
r
u
g
i
F

TRAFFIC VOLUMES | 35

0
0
0
0
9

0
0
0
0
8

0
0
0
0
7

0
0
0
0
6

0
0
0
0
5

0
0
0
0
4

0
0
0
0
3

0
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
0
1

0

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8
2
-
U
E

K
U

K
S

I
S

E
S

O
R

T
P

L
P

O
N

L
N

V
L

U
L

T
L

T
I

E
I

U
H

R
H

R
F

I
F

S
E

L
E

E
E

K
D

E
D

Z
C

T
C

H
C

G
B

E
B

T
A

)
5
1
0
2
-
1
1
0
2

;

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S
d
n
a
y
a
w
r
o
N

,

8
2
-
U
E
(
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i

k
-
n
a
r
t

i

r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
p
r
e
p
s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i

k
-
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
 N

:

6
2
e
r
u
g
i
F

0
0
6

0
0
5

0
0
4

0
0
3

0
0
2

0
0
1

0

36 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
U

I
S

K
S

E
S

O
R

T
P

L
P

O
N

L
N

V
L

U
L

T
L

T
I

E
I

U
H

R
H

R
F

I
F

S
E

L
E

E
E

K
D

E
D

Z
C

T
C

H
C

G
B

E
B

T
A

5
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

)
s
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

;

5
1
0
2
-
1
1
0
2

;

d
n
a
l
r
e
z
t
i

w
S
d
n
a
y
a
w
r
o
N

,

8
2
-
U
E
(
y
r
t
n
u
o
c
y
b
s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i

k
-
e
n
n
o
t

t
h
g
e
r
f

i

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
 N

:

7
2
e
r
u
g
i
F

.
t
a
t
s
o
r
u
E

:

e
c
r
u
o
S

  | 37

0
0
0
0
2
1

0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
8

0
0
0
0
6

0
0
0
0
4

0
0
0
0
2

0

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Following a review of the statistics reported in the CSIs we discovered a number of incon-
sistencies in data for freight tonne-kilometres reported between Member States and over 
time. We are currently investigating the issues. However, in order to report this indicator we 
have reverted instead to the figures reported to Eurostat by the national statistical offices/
administrations for each country using the definition in the Illustrated glossary for transport 
statistics  for ‘gross  tonne-kilometre  hauled’  (22).  The  number  of  freight  tonne-kilometres 
increased  from 
in  2014  to  418  million 
tonne-kilometres in 2015 (an increase of 1.6 %). Between 2014 and 2015, 13 Member states 
experienced  a  fall  in  the  number  of  tonne-kilometres,  one  experienced  no  change  and 
15 saw an increase in the number of freight tonne-kilometres carried.

just  under  412  million  tonne-kilometres 

As with the passenger information, we can also derive the average loads carried per freight 
train-kilometre operated to gain an understanding of the relative use of freight train capa-
city  operated  over  the  railway  system.  Across  the  EU  Member  States,  plus  Norway  and 
Switzerland,  for  the  5-year  period  from  2011 to 2015,  for  every  freight  train-kilometre 
operated there were, on average, just over 518 tonnes on board the train.

3 500 

3 000 

2 500 

2 000 

1 500 

1 000 

500 

0 

AT  BE  BG  CH  CT  CZ  DE  DK  EE  EL  ES  FI  FR  HR  HU  IE 

IT  LT  LU  LV  NL  NO  PL  PT  RO  SE  SK  SI  UK 

EU-28 

 Figure 28:  Number of freight tonne-kilometres per freight train-kilometre (EU-28, 

Norway and Switzerland; 2011-2015)

Figure 28 illustrates the range of values by country or reporting entity. The most heavily 
loaded trains are achieved by the freight and shuttle train operators using the Channel 
Tunnel  (3  435  tonnes),  and  also  in  Latvia  (1  720  tonnes),  Lithuania  (1  572  tonnes)  and 
Estonia  (1  435  tonnes).  The  Member  States  with  the  lowest  load  factors  are  Ireland 
(212 tonnes), Luxembourg (308 tonnes) and Portugal (367 tonnes).

(22)  United Nations Economic Commission for Europe/International Transport Forum/Eurostat, Illustrated glossary for 

transport statistics, fourth edition, 2008.

38 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

Independent accident 
investigation

Since 2006 an average of 191 accidents and incidents per year have been investigated by 
the NIBs of Member States. This number has varied over the last 11 years, in the range of 
142 (2016) to 234 (2011). The overview of the number of investigations carried out by NIBs 
in Europe are shown in Figure 29.

234 

230 

209 

191 

179 

158 

165 

202 

203 

189 

142 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

 Figure 29:  NIB investigations opened into serious accident or incident occurrences 

notified in the ERAIL database per year (2006-2016)

According to the notifications to the Agency, in 2016 NIBs opened investigations into 142 
occurrences.  Since  NIBs  started  using  the  ERAIL  system  the  average  number  of  occur-
rences reported per year has been 191. This was down significantly on the previous year, 
2015,  when  203  investigations  were  opened,  representing  a  fall  of  just  over  30  %.  NIBs 
have indicated that some of the recent variation between years is due to the concentra-
tion on the more serious accidents that have occurred. Without further research it is not 
possible to say whether both the short-term and longer-term declines (a fall of 39.3 % over 
the 6 years from 2011 to 2016) are related to:

• 

improved safety, i.e. a reduction in the number of serious accident or incident occurrences;

•  concentration  by  the  NIBs  on  serious  accident  occurrences  (and  not  on  ‘near-miss’ 

occurrences);

•  problems relating to the ERAIL system, for example inputting of data related to occur-

rences; or

•  other reasons, for example new staff within NIBs not yet fully trained in the requirements 

for reporting.

Figure 30 shows that over the past 6 years (2011-2016) the percentage share of investi-
gations that were closed during the year following the occurrence averaged 67 %. The 
Agency  has  previously  underlined  the  benefit  of  producing  quick  reports  on  accidents 
and  publishing  the  findings  in  order  to  maximise  the  learning  and  improvement  that 
might be possible following an accident. It is concerned, however, that a number (just 
under 7 %) remain not yet closed after 5 years.

INDEPENDENT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION | 39

6
8

5
7

8
8
1

8
7
1

6
3
1

9
7
1

5
3
1

6
3
1

0
9
1

3
8
1

2
5

2
5
1

5
5
1

5
2
2

0
2
2

2
1
2

2
8
1

0
3
2

8
2
2

7
2
2

2
2
2

0
8
1

8
5
1

1
6
1

7
1

1
2

5
2

8
2

0
3

6
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

1
1
0
2

0
5
1

0
0
1

0
5

0

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

4
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

2
1
0
2

)
6
1
0
2
-
1
1
0
2
(
d
e
s
o
l
c
d
n
a
d
e
n
e
p
o
s
n
o
i
t
a
g
i
t
s
e
v
n

i

I

B
N

:

0
3
e
r
u
g
i
F

1
1
0
2

m
o
r
f

s
e
c
n
e
r
r
u
c
c
O

3
3

7
2

3
3

5
7

7
7

0
0
2

6
1

0
2

8
2

7
1

8
1

1
2

7
2

0
0
3

0
5
2

40 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

.

l

d
e
s
o
c
t
e
y
t
o
n
r
o
g
n
o
g
n
o
e
r
a
t
a
h
t

i

s
n
o
i
t
a
g
i
t
s
e
v
n

i

e
s
o
h
t

t
n
e
s
e
r
p
e
r

s
e
d
a
h
s

r
e
t
h
g

i
l

e
h
t
e

l
i

h
w

,

l

d
e
s
o
c
n
e
e
b
e
v
a
h
t
a
h
t

s
n
o
i
t
a
g
i
t
s
e
v
n

i

t
n
e
s
e
r
p
e
r

s
e
d
a
h
s

r
e
k
r
a
d
e
h
T

:

e
t
o
N

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Serious accidents in 2016

Serious  accidents  are  defined  in  EU  legislation  as  train  collisions  and  derailments  with 
one fatality or at least five serious injuries, or extensive damage (over EUR 2 million), and 
any  other  similar  accidents  with  an  obvious  impact  on  railway  safety  regulation  or  the 
management of safety. These accidents are subject to mandatory investigation by NIBs, 
according to Articles 3(l), 19   and 21 of the railway safety directive, with the requirement 
to normally deliver the final investigation report within a year. The 2016 accidents meeting 
the criteria on resulting casualties and material damage, and so categorised as serious, are 
listed in Table 4 below in chronological order of occurrence.

Date

Member State

Location

Accident

9.2.2016

Germany

Bad Aibling

Collision of two passenger trains

Accident outcomes 
reported in ERAIL

12 fatalities (23), 18 seriously 
injured

23.2.2016

Netherlands

Dalfsen

Passenger train/crane collision at 
active level crossing

1 fatality

16.5.2016

Greece

Sérres *

low resolution

Collision of two rail vehicles

2 fatalities, 2 seriously injured

5.6.2016

Belgium

Hermalle-sous-Huy

Passenger/freight train collision

3 fatalities, 10 seriously injured

12.7.2016

9.9.2016

Italy

Spain

Andria — Corato

Collision of two passenger trains

23 fatalities, 7 seriously injured

O Porriño

Passenger train derailment

4 fatalities, 13 seriously injured

16.9.2016

Slovakia

Vel’ký Meder *

28.11.2016

Hungary

Nyúl

29.11.2016

Romania

10.12.2016

Bulgaria

Bârsești

Hitrino

Passenger train/lorry collision at 
active level crossing

Freight train/lorry collision at 
passive level crossing

Freight train/light locomotive 
collision

1 fatality, 3 seriously injured

1 fatality

2 fatalities

Freight train derailment, fire

7 fatalities, 4 seriously injured

Table 4: Serious accidents in Europe (2016)
* Information input into ERAIL or further explanation required from NIB.

It was of concern to the Agency to find two accidents not reported or incorrectly reported 
into the ERAIL system in 2016. These are the accidents at Sérres in Greece and Vel’ký Meder 
in Slovakia. We are working with the relevant NIBs to understand these concerns.

The ERAIL system is the reporting tool for serious accidents and provides a degree of detail 
that cannot be obtained from the CSIs. It was noted above, in Figure 4, albeit based upon 
a forecast of the number of train-kilometres operated in 2016, that there was a likely deteri -
oration of railway safety in 2016, although the confirmation of this will have to await the 
outcome of the assessment of achievement of targets (CSTs) in 2018.

(23)  See https://www.eba.bund.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/EUB/DE/sonstige_Downloads/60_Zwischenbericht_Bad_
Aibling.pdf?blob=publicationFile&v=2, where on page 6 of 23 it is noted that one of the fatalities died in hospital 
2 months after the accident. This is outside the implementation guidance on CSIs, where a death (killed person) 
means any person killed immediately or dying within 30 days as a result of an accident, excluding suicides. However, 
as this fatality was as a direct cause of the accident we have included it in the table.

SERIOUS ACCIDENTS IN 2016 | 41

Based upon the noted outcomes of these 2016 accidents, a fatalities and weighted serious 
injuries (FWSI) calculation was made, and these are plotted onto a map showing the location 
and magnitude of the outcomes expressed as an FWSI number. To calculate the FWSI num-
ber the total number of serious injuries is divided by 10 and added to the number of fatalities.

 Figure 31:  Location of the most serious accidents showing their magnitude, 

expressed as an FWSI number (2016)

42 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

The location of all serious railway incidents and accidents reported in the ERAIL system 
(under  the  requirements  set  out  in  Articles  19(1),  19(2)  and  21(6)  of  the  railway  safety 
directive) in 2016 is shown in Figure 32 below.

 Figure 32: Location of all railway incidents and accidents available in ERAIL (2016)

SERIOUS ACCIDENTS IN 2016 | 43

Background information

European legislation requires Member States to report to the ERA on significant accidents 
and  serious  accidents  occurring  on  their  territory. The  NSAs  must  report  all  significant 
accidents. The NIBs must investigate all serious accidents, notify the ERA of these investi-
gations and, when closed, send the investigation report to the ERA. The term ‘significant 
accident’ covers a wider range of events than the term ‘serious accident’. The legislation 
provides the following definitions for these two groups of accident.

Significant accident

Directive 2004/49/EC, Commission Directive 2009/149/EC and 
Regulation (EC) No 91/2003

Serious accident

Directive 2004/49/EC

‘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 the environment, or extensive disruptions to traffic. Accidents 
in workshops, warehouses and depots are excluded (24). 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 can 
immediately be assessed by the investigating body to cost at least 
EUR 2 million in total (25).

Reporting of CSIs by NSAs.

Accident investigation by NIBs.

Each year the safety authority shall publish an annual report 
concerning its activities in the preceding year and send it to the 
Agency by 30 September at the latest. The report shall contain 
information on the development of railway safety, including 
an aggregation at Member State level of the CSIs laid down in 
Annex I (26).

Within 1 week after the decision to open an investigation 
the investigating body shall inform the Agency thereof. The 
investigating body shall send the Agency a copy of the final 
report normally not later than 12 months after the date of the 
occurrence (27).

 Table 5: Accidents reported to the ERA according to EU legislation

The current legislative framework does not require Member States to collect information 
on  all  railway  accidents.  The  reporting  is  often  limited  to  significant  accidents  and 
a selection of other events (defined by EU legislation such as CSIs). Additional data on inci-
dents are not necessarily collected by railway undertakings/infrastructure managers and 
the NSAs do not always rely on accident data when planning their supervision activities. 
Moreover, the information about less-serious accidents and incidents are not systematic-
ally collated at EU level.

The Agency is working with stakeholders to identify a broader data-sharing system at EU 
level, designed to improve risk-based decision-making, particularly focused on the man-
agement of multi-fatality accidents and the convergence of Member State safety perform-
ance. You can find more information on the Agency’s website (28).

The  overview  of  safety  performance  is  based  on  the  CSI  data  reported  to  the  ERA  as 
of  31  January  2017.  Any  changes  after  that  date  have  not  been  taken  into  account.  In 
some rare instances the figures may not be fully consistent with the figures presented in 
previous annual reports. This is due to the possibility given to NSAs in Annex I to correct 
wrongly reported data up to 1 year after their original reporting deadline.

(24)  Appendix to Annex I to the railway safety directive, Article 1.1.
(25)  Article 3(l) of the railway safety directive.
(26)  Article 18 of the railway safety directive.
(27)  Article 24 of the railway safety directive. 
(28)  http://www.era.europa.eu/Core-Activities/Safety/Safety-Performance/Pages/Common-occurrence-reporting.aspx

44 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

Information presented on serious accidents and their investigations is based on reports 
available  to  the  ERA  on  31  December  2016.  Any  event  occurring  after  that  day  is  not 
covered by this report. This report covers the railways in 26 of the 28 EU Member States; 
Cyprus and Malta do not have railway systems that are covered by EU legislation. These 
26 Member States are referred to as ‘Member States’, ‘EU’ or ‘EU-28’ (even though only 26 
Member States with railway systems plus the Channel Tunnel are reported) in the report. 
The Channel Tunnel is a separate reporting entity, so that relevant data are given separ-
ately to the French and United Kingdom data. The data are also reported by Norway and 
Switzerland. Therefore, there were a total of 29 reporting entities in 2014; the term ‘Europe’ 
was sometimes used for this complete group in the report.

 Figure 33: Overview of the current railway accident reporting in the EU (2016)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION | 45

List of abbreviations

ATP

CSI

CSTs

CT

ETCS

ERA

ERAIL

EU

EU-27

EU-28

FWSI

NIB

NSA

TPS

automatic train protection

common safety indicator

common safety targets

Channel Tunnel

European Train Control System

European Railway Agency

European Railway Accident Information Links

European Union

the 27 Member States of the EU as at 2009

the 28 current Member States of the EU

fatalities and weighted serious injuries

national investigation body

national safety authority

train protection system

46 | SAFETY OVERVIEW 2017

List of country codes

Belgium

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Denmark

Germany

Estonia

Ireland

Greece

Spain

France

Croatia

Italy

Cyprus

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Hungary

Malta

Netherlands

Austria

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Slovakia

Finland

Sweden

United Kingdom

Norway

Switzerland

Channel Tunnel

BE

BG

CZ

DK

DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

HR

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU

HU

MT

NL

AT

PL

PT

RO

SI

SK

FI

SE

UK

NO

CH

CT

LIST OF COUNTRY CODES | 47

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications:

• 

one copy: 
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

•   more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

 
European Union Agency for Railways
120 rue Marc Lefrancq
59300 Valenciennes
FRANCE
Tel. +33 (0)327096500 

era.europa.eu
Twitter @ERA_railways

For more information, please visit:
http://www.era.europa.eu/Core-Activities/Safety/ 
Safety-Performance/Pages/Monitoring-safety-performance.aspx

Making the railway system work better for society.