COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Sixth report on monitoring development of the rail market
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, common transport policy, free competition, rail transport, services of general interest, trans-European network, transport company, transport infrastructure, transport market

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.2.2019  SWD(2019) 13 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Sixth report on monitoring development of the rail market {COM(2019) 51 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

Description 

The state of the union railway network 

1. 
1.1 
1.2  Missing links and cross border vision 
1.3 
Infrastructure management 
1.3.1 
1.3.2 
1.3.3 

Infrastructure governance 
Infrastructure expenditure 
Infrastructure funding and financing 

2. 
2.1 
2.2 

2.3 

2.4 
2.5 

The evolution of rail services 

Traffic volumes 
The passenger market 
2.2.1  Evolution of volumes 
2.2.2  Evolution of revenues 
The freight market 
2.3.1  Evolution of volumes 
2.3.2  Evolution of revenues 
The future of rail freight 
Rail noise 

The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Passenger stations 

3. 
3.1 
3.2  Other service facilities 
3.3 
3.4 

Complaints related to access to service to facilities 
The traction market 

4. 
4.1 
4.2 

4.3 

4.4 
4.5 

4.6 

4.7 

The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Infrastructure charging 
Capacity allocation and congestion 
4.2.1  Network utilisation 
4.2.2  Managing capacity shortages 
Rail transport services covered by public service contracts 
4.3.1  PSO scope 
4.3.2  PSO award 
4.3.3  PSO compensation 
Licensing 
Degree of market opening and utilisation of access rights 
4.5.1  Legal liberalisation and actual entry in the rail market 
4.5.2  Freight market opening 
4.5.3  Passenger market opening 
Development of employment and social conditions 
4.6.1  Employment in rail 
4.6.2  Socio-demographic structure of the rail labour market 
Harmonisation 
4.7.1  EU legislation 
4.7.2  Transposition 
4.7.3 
Infringements 
4.7.4  External dimensions of rail transport policy 
4.7.5  Regulatory bodies 

1 

12 
12 
18 
19 
19 
21 
26 

32 
32 
34 
34 
39 
40 
40 
44 
45 
48 

49 
51 
53 
57 
57 

59 
59 
68 
68 
69 
74 
74 
78 
84 
86 
89 
89 
94 
97 
103 
103 
105 
113 
113 
114 
114 
115 
116 

 
 
 
Digitalisation 

4.8 
4.9  Multimodal and intermodal transport 

4.9.1  Combined transport 
4.9.2 
4.9.3  New tools, consignment notes and cargo and vehicle positioning 

Internalisation of external costs 

5. 
5.1 
5.2 
5.3 
5.4 
5.5 

6. 
6.1 
6.2 

7. 

The quality of rail services 

Punctuality and reliability of passenger services 
Punctuality and reliability of freight services 
The role of regulators related to quality 
Safety 
Satisfaction with rail services 
5.5.1  Satisfaction with passenger services 
5.5.2  Satisfaction with Rail Freight Corridors’ services 

Performance of the railways 

Performance measured by main inputs and outputs 
The way forward for performance enhancement 

Conclusions 

120 
124 
124 
124 
125 

126 
126 
129 
132 
132 
135 
135 
137 

140 
140 
144 

148 

2 

 
 
 
 
Table of figures 

Figure 1: Length of national networks in 2016 and relative change 2011-2016................................... 12 
Figure 2: Density of railway network relative to surface area and population in 2016 ........................ 13 
Figure  3:  The  proportion  of  networks  electrified,  2016  and  change  in  percentage  electrified  2011-
2016 ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 
Figure 4: Development of high-speed lines in Europe .......................................................................... 15 
Figure 5: Length of dedicated high-speed line, 2012-2017 ................................................................... 17 
Figure 6: Institutional settings in the Member States, 2016 ................................................................. 20 
Figure 7: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion on maintenance and renewals, 2011-2016 . 22 
Figure  8: Expenditure  on  infrastructure  and  proportion  on maintenance  and  renewals  per  country, 
2016 ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 
Figure 9: Expenditure on maintenance, renewal and enhancement per line-kilometre, 2013-2016 .. 24 
Figure 10: Expenditure by category by country, average of 2015-2016 ............................................... 25 
Figure 11: Expenditure on high-speed rail by activity, by Member State, average of 2015-2016 ........ 26 
Figure 12: State rail infrastructure funding by source and country, 2016 ............................................ 27 
Figure 13: Distribution of Cohesion Fund and ERDF funding by Member State, 2014-2020 ................ 29 
Figure 14: Distribution of CEF funding by Member State, 2014-2016 .................................................. 30 
Figure 15: Allocation of CF and ERDF funding per line-kilometre in the 2014-2020 funding cycle ...... 30 
Figure 16: Passenger and freight volumes, 2005-2016 ......................................................................... 33 
Figure 17: Passenger and freight volumes, compound average annual growth 2011-2016 ................ 34 
Figure 18: Propensity to travel by rail 2016 and compound average annual growth 2011-2016 ........ 35 
Figure 19: Passenger land transport modal split, 2007-2016 ............................................................... 35 
Figure 20: Passenger land transport modal split by country, 2016 and change in percentage rail 2011-
2016 ....................................................................................................................................................... 36 
Figure 21: Passenger rail, tram and metro mode shares by country, 2016 .......................................... 36 
Figure 22: Passenger rail, bus, coach, tram and metro modal split by country, 2016 .......................... 37 
Figure 23: Evolution of rail passenger traffic volumes, 2007-2016 ....................................................... 38 
Figure 24: Passenger traffic volumes by country, passenger-kilometres, 2016 ................................... 39 
Figure 25: Sources of passenger railway undertakings’ revenue, 2016 ................................................ 40 
Figure 26: Rail freight activity per unit of GDP, 2016 and compound average growth rate 2011-2016
 ............................................................................................................................................................... 41 
Figure 27: Freight land transport modal split, 2007-2016 .................................................................... 42 
Figure  28:  Freight  land  transport  modal  split  by  country  2016  and  change  in  percentage  rail  2011-
2016 ....................................................................................................................................................... 42 
Figure 29: Evolution of rail freight traffic volumes, 2007-2016 ............................................................ 43 
Figure 30: Rail freight traffic volumes by country, 2016 ....................................................................... 44 
Figure 31: Freight revenue of railway undertakings by country, 2015 and 2016 ................................. 45 
Figure 32: Average distance between stations by country, 2016 ......................................................... 51 
Figure 33: Number of stations by passengers per day by country, 2016 .............................................. 52 
Figure 34: Stations by passengers per day by country, mix, 2016 ........................................................ 52 
Figure 35: Facilities: freight terminals by country, 2016 ....................................................................... 53 
Figure 36: Facilities: marshalling yards by country, 2016 ..................................................................... 54 
Figure 37: Facilities: maintenance facilities by country, 2016 .............................................................. 55 
Figure 38: Facilities: maritime and port facilities linked to rail activities by country, 2016 ................. 56 
Figure 39: Facilities: refuelling facilities by country, 2016 .................................................................... 56 
Figure 40: Complaints being processed and decisions made by country, 2016 ................................... 57 
Figure 41: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): passenger trains by type by country, 2016 ............. 61 
Figure 42: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): suburban and regional passenger trains by country, 
2013 and 2016 ....................................................................................................................................... 61 

3 

 
 
 
Figure  43:  Access  charges  (excluding  mark-ups):  conventional  long-distance  passenger  trains,  2013 
and 2016 ................................................................................................................................................ 62 
Figure 44: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): freight train by type by country, 2016 .................... 62 
Figure 45: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): freight train average by country, 2013 and 2016.... 63 
Figure 46: Access charges: infrastructure managers’ revenue from passenger trains, 2016 ............... 64 
Figure 47: Access charges: infrastructure managers’ revenue from freight trains, 2016 ..................... 64 
Figure 48: Access charges (including mark-ups): revenues from passenger trains, 2015 and 2016 .... 65 
Figure 49: Access charges (including mark-ups): revenues from freight trains, 2015 and 2016 .......... 66 
Figure 50: Access charges: revenues from station charges, 2015 and 2016 ........................................ 66 
Figure 51: Access charges: revenues from other charges from passenger operators, 2015 and 2016 67 
Figure 52: Access charges: revenues from other charges from freight operators................................ 67 
Figure 53: Access charges: average revenue from charges for the minimum access package, 2016 ... 68 
Figure 54: Network utilisation 2016, compound average growth rate 2011-2016 .............................. 68 
Figure 55: Total length of track declared congested, 2012-2016 ......................................................... 70 
Figure 56: Principal types of services prioritised by infrastructure managers, 2016 ............................ 72 
Figure 57: Successful and rejected scheduled path allocations, 2015 and 2016 .................................. 73 
Figure 58: Passenger-kilometres on PSO and commercial rail services, 2016 ...................................... 75 
Figure 59: Passenger-kilometres on domestic and international PSO services, 2016 .......................... 76 
Figure 60: Competent authorities for passenger rail services, 2018 .................................................... 79 
Figure 61: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded, 2016 .................................................. 80 
Figure 62: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded, 2016 .................................................. 82 
Figure 63: Apparent average PSO compensation, 2016........................................................................ 85 
Figure 64: Apparent proportion of PSO cost recovered through passenger fares, 2016 ..................... 86 
Figure 65: Active licences by country, 2016 .......................................................................................... 87 
Figure 66: Average fees to obtain a licence by country, 2015 and 2016 .............................................. 88 
Figure 67: Average time to obtain a licence by country, 2015 and 2016 ............................................. 88 
Figure 68: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the international freight market ............................. 89 
Figure 69: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the domestic freight market ................................... 90 
Figure 70: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the international passenger market ....................... 91 
Figure 71: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the domestic passenger market ............................. 92 
Figure 72: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the domestic long-distance passenger market ....... 93 
Figure 73: Legal liberalisation and first competitors in the domestic regional passenger market ....... 94 
Figure 74: Active railway undertakings in the freight market by country, 2016................................... 95 
Figure 75: Competitors in freight, market share, compound average growth rate 2011-2016 ........... 95 
Figure 76: Effective number of competitors in domestic rail freight, 2011 and 2016 .......................... 96 
Figure 77: Average size of new entrants in freight market by country ................................................. 97 
Figure 78: Active railway undertakings in the PSO and commercial passenger market by country, 2016
 ............................................................................................................................................................... 98 
Figure 79: Competitors in commercial passenger market, market share, 2016 ................................... 98 
Figure 80: Competitors in commercial passenger market, effective number, 2011 and 2016 ............ 99 
Figure 81: Competitors in PSO passenger market, market share, 2016 ............................................. 100 
Figure 82: Competitors in PSO passenger market, effective number, 2011 and 2016 ....................... 100 
Figure 83: Average size of new entrants in commercial and PSO passenger markets ....................... 101 
Figure 84: Employees of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings, 2016 .......................... 104 
Figure 85: Employees of infrastructure managers, 2011 and 2016 .................................................... 105 
Figure 86: Employees of incumbent railway undertakings, 2011 and 2016 ....................................... 105 
Figure 87: Employees by gender structure, 2016 ............................................................................... 106 
Figure 88: Employees by age group, 2012 and 2016 .......................................................................... 108 
Figure 89: Employees by age group and country, 2016 ...................................................................... 109 
Figure 90: Employees of main infrastructure managers by contract type, 2016 ................................ 110 
Figure 91: Employees of incumbent or main railway undertakings by contract type, 2016 .............. 110 
Figure 92: Employees of main infrastructure managers by time worked, 2016 ................................. 111 

4 

 
 
 
Figure 93: Employees of incumbent or main railway undertakings by time worked, 2016 ............... 111 
Figure 94: Employees of main infrastructure managers in training, 2016 .......................................... 112 
Figure 95: Employees of incumbent or main railway undertakings in training, 2016 ........................ 112 
Figure 96: Pending infringement proceedings in the field of rail transport, 13 July 2017 .................. 115 
Figure 97: Regulatory bodies’ staff dealing with rail market access, 2018 ......................................... 118 
Figure 98: Regulatory bodies’ funding in the EU ................................................................................. 119 
Figure 99: Regulatory bodies with integrated competences for the rail market, 2018 ...................... 120 
Figure 100: Punctuality of regional and local passenger services, 2014-2016 ................................... 126 
Figure 101: Punctuality of long-distance passenger services, 2014-2016 .......................................... 127 
Figure 102: Reliability of regional and local passenger services, 2014-2016 ...................................... 128 
Figure 103: Reliability of long-distance passenger services, 2014-2016 ............................................. 128 
Figure 104: Punctuality of domestic and international freight services, 2016 ................................... 130 
Figure 105: Reliability of domestic and international freight services, 2016 ...................................... 131 
Figure 106: Average timetabled speed of freight services, 2016 ........................................................ 131 
Figure 107: Fatality risk of different transport modes, 2011-2015 ..................................................... 133 
Figure 108: Significant rail accidents and resulting casualties, 2010-2016 ......................................... 134 
Figure 109: Significant rail accidents by type of accident, 2012-2016 ................................................ 134 
Figure 110: Overall population satisfaction index with railway transport, 2018 ................................ 137 
Figure 111: Stakeholders' assessment of RFCs' contribution to key rail freight challenges, 2016 ..... 139 
Figure 112: Trends in input indicators, 2011=100............................................................................... 142 
Figure 113: Trends in output indicators, 2011=100 ............................................................................ 142 
Figure 114: Average passenger revenue per passenger train-kilometre, 2016 .................................. 143 
Figure 115: Average freight revenue per freight train-kilometre, 2016 ............................................. 143 
Figure 116: Passenger and freight track utilisation, 2016 ................................................................... 144 
Figure 117: Passenger and freight vehicle utilisation, 2016 ............................................................... 144 

5 

 
 
 
 
Table of tables 

Table 1: Use of high-speed lines for high-speed services, 2016 ........................................................... 17 
Table 2: Allocation of EU funds to transport and rail projects for the EU funding cycle 2014-2020 .... 28 
Table 3: Allocation of CEF to railways, 2014-2016 ................................................................................ 28 
Table 4: Allocation of ESIF to railways, 2014-2020 ............................................................................... 29 
Table 5: Track and nodes declared to be congested, 2015 and 2016 ................................................... 69 
Table 6: Status of transposition of Rail Directives, 13 July 2017 ......................................................... 114 

Table of boxes 

Box 1: Measuring the high-speed network length ................................................................................ 16 
Box 2: European Court of Auditors report on the EU high-speed rail network .................................... 18 
Box 3: European Network of Infrastructure Managers PRIME ............................................................. 21 
Box 4: EFSI for rail .................................................................................................................................. 30 
Box 5: Cross-border harmonisation of technical and operational rules and issues log ........................ 48 
Box 6: Policy framework for tackling rail noise ..................................................................................... 48 
Box 7: New implementing Regulation on service facilities ................................................................... 49 
Box 8: European Rail Facility Portal ....................................................................................................... 50 
Box 9: Direct cost-based charging ......................................................................................................... 60 
Box 10: New timetabling delegated act and Timetable Review project (RNE) ..................................... 74 
Box 11: Night Trains .............................................................................................................................. 77 
Box 12: Emergence of low-cost services ............................................................................................... 78 
Box 13: Provisions on competitive tendering of rail PSCs in the Fourth Railway Package ................... 84 
Box 14: State of play of market opening in the passenger market ..................................................... 102 
Box 15: Implementing act on the Economic Equilibrium Test ............................................................ 103 
Box 16: Gender aspects in rail ............................................................................................................. 107 
Box 17: Training in the rail sector ........................................................................................................ 113 
Box 18: Passenger Rights ..................................................................................................................... 129 
Box 19: The Safety Culture Twinning Programme .............................................................................. 135 
Box 20: Monitoring financial performance ......................................................................................... 140 
Box 21: PRIME KPI and Benchmarking Subgroup ................................................................................ 146 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of abbreviations 

CAGR 
CEF 
CF 
CMS 
CNC 
dB 
DG JUST 
DG MOVE 
DOO 
ECA 
EFSI 
EIB 
ELETA 
ERA 
ERADIS 
ERDF 
ERTMS 
ESIFs 

ETA 
GFC 
GVA 
HICP 
IM 
INEA 
IRG-Rail 
ITU 
km 
KPI 
NIP 
NPV 
NSA 
PAYG 
p-km 
PPP 
PRIME 
PSC 
PSO 
Recast Directive 
REGIO 
RFC 
RMMS 
RMMS Regulation 

ROSCO 
RU 
RU Dialogue 

Compound average growth rate 
Connecting Europe Facility 
Cohesion Fund 
Consumer Markets Scoreboard 
Core Network Corridor 
Decibel 
European Commission Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
European Commission Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 
Driver-Only Operation 
European Court of Auditors 
The European Fund for Strategic investments 
European Investment Bank 
Electronic exchange of information on Estimated Time of Arrival 
European Union Agency for Railways (formerly European Railway Agency) 
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 
Estimated Time of Arrival 
Global Financial Crisis 
Gross Value Added 
Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices 
Rail infrastructure manager 
EU Innovation and Networks Executive Agency 
Independent Regulators’ Group – Rail 
Intermodal Transport Unit 
kilometre 
Key Performance Indicator 
National Implementation Plan 
Net Present Value 
National Safety Authority 
Pay As You Go 
passenger-kilometre 
Purchasing Power Parity 
Platform of Rail Infrastructure Managers in Europe 
Public Service Contract 
Public Service Obligation 
Directive 2012/34/EU establishing a Single European Railway Area 
European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 
Rail Freight Corridor 
Rail Market Monitoring Survey 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1100 for rail market 
monitoring 
Rolling stock company 
Railway undertaking 
Dialogue of Railway Undertakings 

7 

 
 
 
SERAC 
SMS 
SWD 
TAF 
TEN-T 
TSI 
tonne-km 
The Agency 

train-km 
UIC 
UIRR 

Single European Railway Area Committee 
Safety Management System 
Staff Working Document 
Telematics Applications for Freight 
Trans-European Transport Network 
Technical Specifications for Interoperability 
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 

8 

 
 
 
 
List of countries 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CH 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
EU 
EU13 
EU15 
EU28 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
NO 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Switzerland 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic/Czechia 
Germany 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
European Union 
EU Member States having joined EU in or after 2004 
EU Member States having joined EU before 2004 
All Current EU Member States 
Finland 
France 
Croatia 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Latvia 
Malta 
The Netherlands 
Norway 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Sweden 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
United Kingdom 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 

This Commission Staff Working Document accompanies the Sixth Report from the Commission to the 
Council and the European Parliament on monitoring development of the rail market. The data and 
graphs used in this document have been made available in Excel format on the DG MOVE website1. 

Coverage of the report 

This  document  presents  a  non-exhaustive  report2  covering  the  main  developments  in  the  EU  rail 
market  reflecting  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 must report to the European Parliament and the Council every two years on: 

1.  the evolution of internal market in rail services (Chapter 2); 

2.  services  to  be  supplied  to  railway  undertakings  as  per  Annex  II  to  the  Recast  Directive 

(Chapter 3); 

3.  the framework conditions (Chapter 4), including inter alia: 

infrastructure charging; 

 
  capacity allocation; 
 
investment made in infrastructure; 
  developments with regards to prices4; 
  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 PSCs; 
licensing; 

4.  the state of the Union railway network (Chapter 1); 

5.  the utilisation of access rights (Chapter 4); 

6.  barriers to more effective rail services (Chapter 4 and Chapter 5); 

7.  infrastructure limitations (Chapter 4); and 

8.  the need for legislation (Conclusions). 

The focus of this document is on developments between 2011 and 2016. 

The sources of data include Rail Market Monitoring Survey (hereinafter 'the RMMS') responses, the 
Statistical  pocketbook  ‘EU Transport  in  Figures’5,  Eurostat6,  IRG-RAIL,  statistics  collected  by various 

1   http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/market/market_monitoring_en . 
2  

In  addition  to  rail  market  report,  the  EU  Agency  for  Railways  publishes  bi-annual  reports  on  safety  and 
interoperability performance. 

3   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. 

4   Comprehensive monitoring of rail prices for customers is not possible due to the broad variety of services 

offered.  

5   http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/pocketbook-2016_en . 
6   http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/transport/data/database . 

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
sectoral  organisations7  and  ad  hoc  presentations  and  studies.  Contributions  have  also  been 
considered from the Member States, national regulatory bodies and stakeholders participating in the 
Working  Group  for  Rail  Market  Monitoring  in  the  framework  of  the  Single  European  Railway  Area 
Committee (SERAC). 

All EU Member States are covered, except Cyprus and Malta which have no railways. 

Norway participates in the RMMS, but data for Norway are not included in EU totals and averages. 

The implementing act for rail market monitoring 

Previous  RMMS  reports  drew  on  the  Member  States’  voluntary  responses  to  the  RMMS 
questionnaire. 

This sixth RMMS draws on the mandatory data collection set out  in the Commission Implementing 
Regulation  (EU)  2015/1100  for  rail  market  monitoring8  (hereinafter  'the  RMMS  Regulation') 
applicable  from  July  2015.  The  questionnaire  annexed  to  the  RMMS  Regulation  was  developed  in 
close  cooperation  with  the  Member  States  and  stakeholders  participating  in  the  SERAC  Working 
Group  for  Rail  Market  Monitoring.  While  building  mainly  on  the  previous  RMMS,  the  new 
questionnaire added some new indicators, particularly related to revenues and traffic outputs, public 
service obligation (PSO), infrastructure charges and employment. 

In addition, under the new regime, Member States' reports have been submitted electronically and 
validated through exchanges with the Commission. This sixth RMMS therefore benefits from better-
defined  data  requirements,  a  mandatory  collection  process,  and  a  validation  review,  which  should 
gradually lead to more consistent and coherent data after the end of the transitional period in 2018. 
It is recognised that these refinements of the sixth RMMS may have led some Member States to alter 
the data and approach they have used to respond, which may result in some issues with comparable 
time series. However, steps have been proactively taken by both the Commission and Member States 
to ensure that these comparability issues have been minimised wherever possible. 

7   UIC, UIPP. 
8   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, page 1. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

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, the objectives of 
the  Connecting  Europe  Facility10,  and  the  Cohesion  Fund11  priorities.  National  and  European 
authorities work together to ensure the necessary support for building new and improving existing 
rail infrastructure as a part of an EU-wide multimodal network. 

Figure 1 shows the reported length of the national rail networks of the EU Member States with rail 
networks, plus Norway (NO). 

Figure 1: Length of national networks in 2016 and relative change 2011-2016 

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n

i
l

d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

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

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

-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2018. Infill data from various other sources. 

The total length of the EU rail network in use in 2016 was around 221 thousand line-kilometres, 1,6% 
shorter than in 2011. 

Infrastructure density 

Figure 2 illustrates the diversity of railways in the different States. It compares the number of line-
kilometres  per  ten  thousand  square  kilometres,  on  the  horizontal  axis,  with  the  number  of  line-
kilometres per million population, on the vertical axis. 

9   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. 
10   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, 
page 129. 

11   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, page 281. 

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Figure 2: Density of railway network relative to surface area and population in 2016 

The state of the union railway network 

l

e
p
o
e
p
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

r
e
p
s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n
i
L

1 200

1 000

 800

 600

 400

 200

 0

 0

SE

FI

LV

NO

EE

LT

BG

FR

ES

IE

PT

EL

HR

RO

EU

SI

AT

PL
DK

IT

HU

SK

UK

NL

CZ

BE

DE

LU

 200

 400

 600

 800

1 000

1 200

1 400

Line-kilometres per 10 000 square kilometres

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2018. 

At the bottom left of the figure (yellow circles) are networks with low track density per 10 000 square 
kilometres  and  per  million  population.  These  networks  are  in  the  peripheral  Member  States  of 
Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. 

At the top left of the figure (grey diamonds) are networks with a low track density per 10 000 square 
kilometres but a high track density per million population. These include the Nordic and Baltic States 
of Norway, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. 

At the top right of the figure (blue triangles) are networks with medium and high track densities per 
10 000  square  kilometres  and  per  million  population.  These  include  primarily  Central  and  Eastern 
European  Member  States  of  Bulgaria,  Romania,  Croatia,  Slovenia,  Poland,  Austria,  Slovakia  and 
Hungary. 

Finally,  at  the  bottom  right  of  the  figure  (green  squares)  are  networks  with  high  track  densities, 
mainly  in  Northern  Europe:  France,  Denmark,  the  United  Kingdom,  the  Netherlands,  Luxembourg, 
Germany and Belgium. 

The groupings are particularly striking for: 

the Iberian networks of Spain and Portugal, which also share a track gauge; 
the Nordic States and the Baltic States; 

 
 
  neighbours Romania and Bulgaria, and Poland, Slovenia, Austria, Slovakia and Hungary; and 
 
the relatively densely populated Benelux countries, Germany, Denmark and the United 
Kingdom. 

Electrified lines 

Figure 3 shows the proportion of each network, measured in line-kilometres, that is electrified, and 
the EU average. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3: The proportion of networks electrified, 2016 and change in percentage electrified 2011-2016 

The state of the union railway network 

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n

i
l

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

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

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

-5%

0%

5%

10%

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2018. 

While  around  54%  of  the  total  EU  network  is  electrified,  this  proportion  ranges  from  under  3%  in 
Ireland  to over  95%  in  Luxembourg.  In Greece  and Portugal,  over  the  last  5  years, overall  network 
size  has reduced, while  additional lines  have  been electrified, resulting in a sudden increase in the 
proportion of electrified lines. 

High-speed lines 

The Commission regularly reports statistics on high-speed lines defined as the lines or of sections of 
lines on which trains can go faster than 250 km/h at some point during the journey. Figure 4 shows 
the  development  of  the  EU’s  high-speed  network,  which  by  the  end  of  2017  extended  to  over 
8400 line-kilometres. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Development of high-speed lines in Europe 

The state of the union railway network 

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n
i
L

9 000

8 000

7 000

6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

 0

5
8
9
1

6
8
9
1

7
8
9
1

8
8
9
1

9
8
9
1

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

7
1
0
2

Source:  Statistical  pocketbook,  2018,  lines  or  sections  of  lines  on  which  trains  can  exceed  250  km/h  at  some 
point. 

It  was  1989  before  the  network  reached  1 000  line-kilometres,  but  since  then  it  has  grown  by  an 
average  of  more  than  250  line-kilometres  per  year,  and  has  more  than  doubled  in  length  in  the 
13 years since 2003. 

15 

 
 
 
The state of the union railway network 

Box 1: Measuring the high-speed network length 

Reported length of high-speed network in Europe may vary depending on the reference source. 

In the annual DG MOVE publication ‘EU transport in figures - Statistical Pocketbook’, the Commission 
reports as high-speed lines the lines or of sections of lines on which trains can go faster than 250 km/h at 
some point during the journey. Due to the narrow scope, only 8 434 kilometres are reported as completed 
high-speed lines in Europe in 2017. The RMMS reporting on high-speed lines is based on this statistical 
publication.  

However, high-speed lines could be interpreted more inclusively by counting also lines allowing speeds of 
at least 200 km/h (and not necessarily exclusively dedicated to high-speed). 

For example, the TEN-T Guidelines, on which official measurements of the TEN–T network are based, 
follow this more extended definition of high-speed lines (Article 11( 2 a)), including three categories: 

 
 
 

specially built lines for speeds higher than 250 km/h; 
specially upgraded lines for speeds in the order of 200 km/h; and 
specially upgraded high-speed lines with special features, resulting from topographical constraints 
etc.  

This means that 10 600 kilometres are completed on the core network and 805 kilometres on the 
comprehensive network, or 11 400 kilometres in total. 

This definition is in line with the Directive 2008/57/EC (‘the Interoperability Directive’), which defines high-
speed lines as those that comprise: 

 

 

 

specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h 
(kilometres per hour); 
specially upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h (kilometres per 
hour); or 
specially upgraded high-speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief 
or town planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case. This category 
also includes interconnecting lines between the high-speed and conventional networks, lines 
through stations, access to terminals, depots, and other facilities travelled at conventional speed 
by ‘high-speed’ rolling stock.  

Figure 5 shows how the length of high-speed line has evolved over the four years 2012 to 2017. The 
first  high-speed  lines  in  the  EU  were  in  France,  which  in  2017  overtook  Spain  as  the  largest  high-
speed network. 

16 

 
 
 
Figure 5: Length of dedicated high-speed line, 2012-2017 

The state of the union railway network 

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

 500

 0

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n
i
L

ES

FR

DE

IT

PL

BE

NL

UK

AT

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2018. 

No new lines have been added to the relatively small networks in the United Kingdom and Belgium, 
which  have  now  been  overtaken  by  Poland,  where  since  December  2014  high-speed  services  are 
operated  on  the  224  line-kilometres.  There  has  been  slight  growth  in  the  high-speed  networks  of 
Italy. The greatest increases occurred in France, Germany and Spain, which have since 2012 put into 
service 676, 306 and 296 additional line-kilometres respectively. 

In France, more than 500 kilometres of new high-speed lines were put into service in 2017, including 
the new 302-kilometre Tours-Bordeaux line. The newest lines in France allow speeds of 320 km/h. 

Table 1: Use of high-speed lines for high-speed services, 2016 

Proportion of total network 
consisting of high-speed lines 
(proportion of line-kilometres) 

Passengers carried in high-
speed rolling stock 
(billion passenger-kilometres) 

Length of high-
speed lines 
(line-kilometres) 

Spain 

France 

Belgium 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Germany 

United Kingdom 

15.2% 

7.7% 

5.8% 

5.2% 

3.9% 

3.8% 

0.7% 

15.06 

50.54 

1.50 

12.79 

0.37 

27.21 

2.80 

2 413 

2 180 

209 

896 

120 

1 475 

113 

Source: Statistical pocketbook 2017, UIC data. 

Many  services  operated  using  high-speed  rolling  stock  extend  beyond  the  network  of  high-speed 
lines, so passengers carried in high-speed rolling stock are not necessarily travelling on a high-speed 
line. 

Spain’s new high-speed network forms nearly one line-kilometre in six (15%) of the national network. 
In  contrast,  the  United  Kingdom  has  a  single  short  high-speed  line  from  the  Channel  Tunnel  to 

17 

 
 
 
 
The state of the union railway network 

London  (0.7%  of  total  network),  although  it  is  used  relatively  intensively  by  Eurostar  international 
and Javelin domestic high-speed services. 

Box 2: European Court of Auditors report on the EU high-speed rail network 

In a recent special report12 the European Court of Auditors (ECA) recognises the benefits of the high-speed 
rail to support EU's sustainable mobility policy. 

Able to produce a carbon footprint lower than other forms of transport, high-speed rail contributes to 
relieve pressure on congested road networks, exhibits increased safety levels, provides its passengers with 
quick and comfortable travel and can provide socio-economic support to regions. 

The Commission recognised the importance of high-speed rail for a sustainable transport enabling 
economic growth and job creation. Completing a European high-speed rail network by 2050 and tripling 
the length of the existing high-speed rail network up to 30 000 kilometres by 2030 was one of the ten goals 
set in the White Paper on Transport 2011 for a competitive and resource-efficient transport system13. 

According to ECA it is unlikely that these objectives will be achieved. The report concludes that the current 
high-speed network is a patchwork of national high-speed lines rather than a true European high-speed 
network. They consider that a seamless and competitive cross-border high-speed rail is still some way off 
and make recommendations to the Commission on the planning of the EU high-speed rail network, on how 
to better target the EU co-funding for high-speed rail infrastructure investments, on simplifying cross-
border constructions and on possible actions to improve high-speed rail operations for passengers. 

The 28 Member States have more than 215 000 kilometres of rail lines, so prioritising high-speed rail will 
not happen overnight. In this context the Commission welcomes the report and recommendations from 
the Court and is fully supportive of the Court's objective of ensuring public money is well-spent. 

Several recommendations of the Court are timely, as they clearly support the Commission's ongoing efforts 
to better coordinate works and investments for the realisation of the Trans-European Transport Network, 
and to create a genuine level playing field between transport modes. The Commission has now put in place 
a clear long-term planning and governance, supported by strong rules, sound monitoring and adequate 
financing as recommended by the ECA. In addition, proposals recently made by this Commission as part of 
the next long-term budget (‘Connecting Europe Facility’) and Europe on the Move (‘Smart TEN-T’) will 
accelerate the completion of the high-speed network, while ensuring that public money is well-managed 
and well-spent. 

Source: ECA. 

1.2 

Missing links and cross border vision 

The TEN-T railway network,  with total length of 163 180 kilometres  (both comprehensive and core 
networks), has in the first instance to be implemented by Member States. In particular, the European 
Commission facilitates the implementation of the core network as the strategically most important 
part (43 % of the total length of the TEN-T railway network). The core network should be completed 
by 2030. 

The  Commission  supports  the  implementation  of  TEN-T  projects  in  two  ways:  funding  under  the 
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)14 and through coordination in the framework of the Core Network 

12   Special Report n. 19 ‘A European high-speed rail network: not a reality but an ineffective patchwork’, ECA, 

June 2018. 

13   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0144&from=EN. 
14   Information about all railway projects, which have so far been funded under the CEF 2014  – 2020, can be 
at  https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/projects-by-transport-

found 
mode/rail. 

18 

 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

Corridors  (CNC),  including  EU  level  horizontal  priorities  such  as  deployment  of  the  European  Rail 
Traffic Management System (ERTMS). 

Rail projects are addressed in a comprehensive way in the TEN-T Corridor work plans15 established by 
the  European  Coordinators,  with  the  aim  of  stimulating  a  shift  to  rail  as  a  sustainable  transport 
mode.  This  includes  the  completion  of  missing  links  and  the  removal  of  bottlenecks  as  well  as 
ensuring  coherent  standards  along  the  corridors  (requirements  for  axle  load,  train  lengths,  line 
speed).  Some  key  cross-border  projects  (which  at  the  same  time  overcome  geographical  barriers, 
such  as  the  Brenner  and  Lyon-Torino  Alpine  tunnels  or  the  Fehmarnbelt  Fixed  Link)  are  of  special 
European added value. 

Besides  the  rail  projects  on  the  core  network,  smaller  railway  projects  on  the  comprehensive 
network  and  beyond  can  also  be  important.  In  many  cases,  abandoned,  missing  or  unused  rail 
connections  across  the  borders  between  Member  States  limit  opportunities  for  cross-border 
cooperation  between  regions.  A  study  on  Comprehensive  analysis  of  the  existing  cross-border  rail 
transport  connections  and  missing  links  on  the  internal  EU  border16,  completed  in  March  2018, 
assesses the situation of such connections. 

The Commission's proposal for the Connecting Europe Facility 2021-2028 proposes to give increasing 
importance to such smaller scale rail infrastructure projects located on the comprehensive network 
of  the  TEN-T.  Other  projects,  which  may  also  be  important  as  access  routes  to  the  TEN-T 
infrastructure,  might  be  considered  for  support  under  other  EU  instruments,  such  as  Cohesion 
Fund (CF) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). 

1.3 

Infrastructure management 

1.3.1 

Infrastructure governance 

Member  States  often  have  a  single  national  infrastructure  manager,  or  a  dominant  infrastructure 
manager responsible for the  main network  and smaller ones  responsible for specific lines, regional 
infrastructure or service facilities. 

The  Fourth  Railway  Package,  whose  market  pillar  was  adopted  by  the  co-legislators 
in 
December 2016, proposes additional measures to ensure that infrastructure managers manage their 
networks in an optimised, efficient and non-discriminatory manner. 

Figure 6, reproduced from the Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the fifth RMMS, 
shows the national governance structures of the main infrastructure managers updated to 2016. 

15   The work plans of the European Coordinators can be found at 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure_en. 

16   http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/reports/2018/comprehensive-analysis-
of-the-existing-cross-border-rail-transport-connections-and-missing-links-on-the-internal-eu-border. 

19 

 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

Figure 6: Institutional settings in the Member States, 2016 

Integrated                                             Organisationally                                            Separated  

Integrated 

Integrated, 
separate 
body for 
essential 
functions 

A holding 
structure with 
limited 
independence 
guarantees 

A holding 
structure with 
strong 
independence 
guarantees 

Austria 
France 
Germany 
Italy 

Latvia 
Poland 
Slovenia 

Separated 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czech 
Republic 
Croatia 
Denmark 
Estonia 
UK 
(GB part) 

Finland 
Greece 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Spain 
Sweden 

Hungary 
Ireland 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 

l
l

u
F

s
n
o
i
t
c
n
u
f

M

I

f
o
e
p
o
c
S

l

a
i
t
r
a
P

IM in charge of all 
functions (incl. 
capacity allocation and 
charging) 

IM in charge of 
functions except the 
essential functions 
(capacity allocation 
and charging), which 
are under the 
responsibility of a 
separate body 

IM in charge of the 
essential functions, 
some parts delegated 
to railway undertaking 

Source: EC. 

No material changes in national governance structures have been reported since 2016. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The state of the union railway network 

Box 3: European Network of Infrastructure Managers PRIME 

PRIME brings together rail infrastructure managers at European level with a view to facilitating and 
improving rail services for transporting people and goods across Europe. 

PRIME was created on a voluntary basis in 2013 as a cooperation platform between the European 
Commission and European rail infrastructure managers. In 2017 it become a formal European Network of 
Infrastructure Managers as foreseen in the Fourth Railway Package. The tasks of the European Network of 
Infrastructure Managers include: 

developing EU rail infrastructure and tackling cross-border bottlenecks; 
supporting implementation of the single European railway area; 
exchanging best practices; 

 
 
 
  monitoring and benchmarking performance, exchanging best practices and contributing to the 

market monitoring; and 
cooperating on charging systems and the allocation of cross-border infrastructure capacity. 

 

PRIME has more than 35 member organisations and is co-chaired by the European Commission and 
industry. According to the Fourth Railway Package, the Member States must ensure that their main 
infrastructure managers participate in the work of the PRIME by the end of 2018. 

Work on specific topics is done in PRIME's six subgroups (KPIs and Benchmarking, Financing, Digitalisation, 
Safety Culture, Charges and EC Expert Group on Implementing Acts) and in two cooperation platforms - 
one with Railway Undertakings and another one with Regulatory Bodies17. The PRIME KPI and 
Benchmarking Subgroup published its first Benchmarking report in July 201818. 

1.3.2 

Infrastructure expenditure 

One  of  the  main  objectives  of  European  and  national  transport  policies  is  to  enhance  rail 
infrastructure  investments.  Over  the  period  2014  to  2020,  the  investment  required  for  the 
implementation  of  projects  necessary  to  contribute  to  the  TEN-T  networks  is  expected  to  be 
EUR 500 billion.  By  2030,  an  additional  investment  of  EUR  750  billion will  be  required  to  complete 
the TEN-T  networks.19  This will be financed primarily from the national budgets of Member States, 
but  with  a  significant  contribution  from  EU  grants.  In  addition,  however,  Member  States  and  rail 
infrastructure managers will need to invest and maintain parts of their national networks which are 
not included in the TEN-T networks. 

17   To learn more about PRIME, its activities and deliverables, visit its website 

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/multisite/primeinfrastructure/prime-news_en . 

18   https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/multisite/primeinfrastructure/content/subgroups_en . 
19   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t-guidelines/project-funding_en . 

21 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 7: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion on maintenance and renewals, 2011-2016 

The state of the union railway network 

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

b
R
U
E
(

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

9,7

10,7

8,8

2011

16,8

10,3

8,8

2012

17,0

9,3

12,1

2013

10,4

13,9

14,5

10,8

2015

7,9

13,1

13,8

11,3

2016

20,4

13,2

11,3

2014

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
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

Maintenance

Renewals

Enhancements

New infrastructure

Proportion of maintenance and renewals

Source: RMMS, 2018. 

Figure  7  shows  that  total EU  infrastructure  expenditure  rose  continuously  from  EUR  29.2  billion  in 
2011  to  EUR  49.5  billion  in  2015  and  then  fell  by  EUR  3.5  billion  in  2016,  primarily  due  to  lower 
expenditure  on  new  infrastructure.  Of  2016  expenditure,  25%  was  on  maintenance,  29%  on 
renewals,  27%  on  enhancements,  and  19%  on  new  infrastructure.  Compared  with  2011,  total 
maintenance  expenditure  in  2016  had  increased  by  28%,  renewals  by  30%  and  enhancements  by 
28%. 

Figure 8 shows total infrastructure expenditure by State. 

Figure 8: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion on maintenance and renewals per country, 2016 

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

m
R
U
E
(

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
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

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

LV HR PT EE

Maintenance

Renewals

Enhancements

New infrastructure

Proportion of maintenance and renewals

Source: RMMS, 2018. NO, SE included enhancements with renewals. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The state of the union railway network 

Not all countries20 were able to distinguish in their reporting the investments in new infrastructure 
from enhancements, but the information available suggests that France, Italy, Austria, Spain, Norway 
and Sweden invested most in new infrastructure in 2016. 

Total  infrastructure  expenditure  was  highest  in  the  United  Kingdom,  Germany  and  France.  In 
Germany,  federal  subsidies  in  2016  rose  by  EUR  800  million21  to  support  the  expansion  of  the 
regional  railway  system.  In  2018,  incumbent  rail  operator  Deutsche  Bahn  began  a  major  railway 
investment  plan  and  intends  to  spend  EUR  9.3  billion  (9.4%  more  than  in  2017)  on  maintenance, 
renewal and enhancement of tracks, stations, bridges and tunnels. 

Maintaining and renewing the existing network, to enhance its safety and operational performance, 
and  to  ensure  reliable  service,  is  a  major  challenge  for  infrastructure  managers,  particularly  in 
conditions  of  increasing  traffic  and  demanding  performance  targets  agreed  between  national 
authorities and operators. Maintenance  and renewals expenditure has been relatively low  in many 
Member  States,  not  only  because  of  a  shortage  of  funds,  but  also  because  priority  was  given  to 
investment  in  new  lines.  Catching  up  with  underinvestment  is often more  expensive,  in  the  longer 
term, than continuous routine maintenance of infrastructure. 

In 2016, total maintenance and renewal expenditure amounted to EUR 26 billion, i.e. 54% of the total 
expenditure22. The proportion of maintenance and renewal expenditure in the total varied between 
countries,  with  Central  and  Eastern  European  economies  spending  a  substantial  proportion  on 
maintenance  and  renewal  of  lines.  The  highest  proportion  was  for  Estonia  (100%),  and  the  lowest 
was  for  Greece  (5%).  France,  Germany  and  United  Kingdom  spent  an  average  of  63%  of  total 
expenditure  on  maintenance  and  renewal.  Between  2014  and  2016,  maintenance  and  renewal 
expenditure grew by an average of 23%, most significantly in Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Germany, while 
Hungary and Croatia showed the largest reductions. 

Figure 9 shows total maintenance, renewal and enhancement expenditure per line-kilometre in each 
Member State over the period 2013 to 2016. 

20   Norway and Sweden have explicitly stated that they combined renewals and enhancements, but it seems 

that Austria, Croatia and Estonia had the same reporting problem (zero value in enhancements). 

21   https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/EN/Standardartikel/Topics/Public-

Finances/Articles/2017-06-19-german-public-investment.html . 

22   Norway included.  

23 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 9: Expenditure on maintenance, renewal and enhancement per line-kilometre, 2013-2016 

The state of the union railway network 

)
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
t
R
U
E
(
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n

i
l

r
e
p
e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

2 000

1 800

1 600

1 400

1 200

1 000

 800

 600

 400

 200

 0

LU UK NL NO AT BE DK FR IT DE SE

SI

EL CZ ES

IE

LT PL

LV FI

SK BG EE HR HU PT RO

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: RMMS and Statistical pocketbook, 2018. No 2013 data for EL. 

Before 2015, expenditure on new infrastructure was reported as part of enhancement expenditure, 
so separate data for enhancement infrastructure and new infrastructure are only available for 2015 
and 2016. This also means that it is not possible to compare enhancement expenditure in 2011 and 
2016. However: 

  Total EU expenditure on enhancements in 2016 was EUR 13.1 billion, of which 79% was in 

five Member States: France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom. 

  Total (EU plus Norway) expenditure on new infrastructure fell from EUR 11.5 billion in 2015 
to EUR 9.1 billion in 2016, of which 86% was in six States: Austria, France, Italy, Norway, 
Spain and Sweden. 

Figure  10 shows  the average  annual expenditure in 2015-2016 by the  category of infrastructure  to 
which it related. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10: Expenditure by category by country, average of 2015-2016 

The state of the union railway network 

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

b
R
U
E
(

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

UK FR DE

IT

ES AT PL NO SE NL CZ BE DK FI

LU RO HU SI

SK EL

LV BG LT

IE HR PT EE

Conventional lines

Dedicated high-speed lines

Major stations

Major freight terminals

Source: RMMS, 2018. Estonia reported expenditure of EUR 0.1 billion. 

Most  maintenance,  renewal,  enhancements  and  new  construction  expenditure  during  2015-2016 
were  reported  under  the  category  of  conventional  lines23.  France  and  Spain  both  reported  having 
spent  large  portions of their overall  budgets  (EUR 4.36  billion and  EUR 3.64  billion  respectively)  on 
high-speed rail. 

Figure  11  shows  the  data  available on the  role  of  expenditure on  high-speed  lines.  In  the  top  four 
Member States by spend, most expenditure were allocated to the construction of new infrastructure. 

23   Some  Member  States  are  still  making  use  of  the  transitional  period  following  the  entry  into  force  of 
Regulation 2015/1100 to adjust existing data collection mechanisms to the format requested and they may 
have reported under conventional lines also the expenditure for dedicated high-speed lines, major stations 
and major freight terminals. 

25 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
Figure 11: Expenditure on high-speed rail by activity, by Member State, average of 2015-2016 

The state of the union railway network 

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

b
R
U
E
(

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

l

a
u
n
n
a
e
g
a
r
e
v
A

3

2

1

0

)
e
c
n
a
n
e
t
n
a
M

i

(
3
0
0
0

,

FR

ES

DK

IT

BE

UK

DE

NL

New infrastructure

Enhancements

Renewals

Maintenance

Source: RMMS, 2018. 

Expenditure on new infrastructure occurs only on networks which are being started or extended. Of 
total 2015-2016 expenditure on high-speed infrastructure, new infrastructure accounted for 100% in 
Denmark, 81% in France and 79% in Spain, but nothing in Germany and the UK, where expenditure 
was dominated by maintenance of the existing networks. 

1.3.3 

Infrastructure funding and financing 

Infrastructure  managers  obtain  resources  to  maintain  and  improve  their  rail  infrastructure  from  a 
variety  of  sources,  including  national  public  funding,  project  support  from  the  EU  and  railway-
generated funds such as revenue earned from track access charges. 

The  principal  source  is  national  government  budgets:  in  2016  national  budgets  contributed  about 
70% to total expenditure and investment. 

Figure 12 shows the States’ infrastructure funding by source24. 

24   Amounts  in  this  Figure  do  not  always  match  those  related  to  total  expenditure  by  category  due  to  data 

quality issues in RMMS. 

26 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
Figure 12: State rail infrastructure funding by source and country, 2016 

The state of the union railway network 

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

b
R
U
E
(

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

UK FR DE

IT AT ES NO SE PL NL CZ BE DK LU FI

EL HU BG RO SK

IE

LT

SI

LV HR PT EE

Public funds

EU funds

Own funds

Source: RMMS, 2018. 

Infrastructure managers’ own resources include infrastructure access charges that can contribute to 
operations,  maintenance  and  renewals.  The  proportion  of  total  funding  generated  internally  was 
highest in Latvia (100%), Lithuania and France (both 81%), followed by Slovakia (69%) and the United 
Kingdom (42%). 

In many States, however, funding generated by rail services was less than 10% of the total. In most 
Member  States,  infrastructure  access  charges  cover  between  5%  and  10%25  of  operations  and 
maintenance costs, although this proportion varies widely: 

 

 

In the Baltic States, high freight track access charges have in the past been sufficient to fund 
a large proportion of maintenance expenditure. 
In Germany, a fund based on a Performance and Funding Agreement between the federal 
government and Deutsche Bahn AG has been established to cover the maintenance cost of 
infrastructure. 

European  Union  funding  is  also  important  for  railway  infrastructure  investments.  European  Union 
funding  through  Cohesion  Fund  (CF),  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF),  the 
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), and the European Investment Bank (EIB) contribute an average of 
12% of the total funding for investment in rail infrastructure in Europe. Funding is also supported by 
private financing such as bank loans and by equity capital for large projects. 

Depending  on  national  policy  on  the  level  and  structure  of  access  charges,  most  infrastructure 
managers also require subsidies to fund their activities. To ensure that they have mid-term assurance 
on  the  availability  of  sufficient  funds,  Directive  2012/34/EU  obliges  Member  States  to  conclude 
contractual agreements between the competent authority and the infrastructure manager covering a 
period  of  at  least  five  years,  with  funding  in  many  States  conditional  on  the  achievement  of 
performance targets. 

25   "The results and efficiency of railway infrastructure financing within the EU", European Parliament, 2015. 

27 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
The state of the union railway network 

As yet, however, there is no comprehensive overview of the level of subsidies provided by national 
governments to rail infrastructure managers26. 

The  RMMS  survey  asked  States  to  provide  information  on  total  compensation  from  the  State 
pursuant  to  Article  30(2)  of  Directive  2012/34/EU.  Only  17  Member  States  provided  complete 
responses,  describing  compensation  arrangements  for  periods  ranging  from  one  year  to  nearly 
30 years. Only 11 Member States reported that the compensation was for a period of five years or 
more,  and  only  ten  reported  that  performance  indicators  had  been  agreed.  Many  Member  States 
reported  a  single  national  total  compensation,  but  Italy  listed  17  different  compensation  packages 
for various infrastructure managers for periods varying from one to ten years. The reported average 
annual  compensation  per  network  kilometre  varied  from  EUR 37  in  Lithuania  to  more  than 
EUR 3 million in Portugal.  

EU funding (Connecting Europe Facility and European Structural and Investment Funds) 

Around  EUR  33  billion  has  been  allocated  to  European  railway  investments  under  the  current 
framework. Table 2 shows that 74% of CEF funding and 37% of total EU transport funding has been 
allocated to the railway sector. Table 3 and Table 4 show the types of projects on which these funds 
were spent. 

Table 2: Allocation of EU funds to transport and rail projects for the EU funding cycle 2014-2020 

EUR billion 

ERDF and Cohesion Fund 

CEF 

Total 

All transport projects 

Railway projects 

Proportion of total invested in rail 

70.1 

19.7 

89.8 

18.7 

14.6 

33.3 

27% 

74% 

37% 

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

Table 3: Allocation of CEF to railways, 2014-2016 

2014 CEF call 

2016 CEF call 

Number of 
projects 

Granted 
funding, 
EUR million 

Number of 
projects 

Recommended 
funding, 
EUR million 

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 

477.8 

12.0 

63.1 

4 406.3 

4 959.2 

ERTMS 

Rail Interoperability 

Rail freight noise 

Multimodal logistics platforms 

Railways 

Total 

Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA). 

26   Some  Member  States,  such  as  the  United  Kingdom,  provide  comprehensive  data  about  the  financing  of 
their  rail  system  (see,  for  example  http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/gb-rail-industry-financial-
information/gb-rail-industry-financial-information-2014-15), but this practice is not common to all States. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

Table 4: Allocation of ESIF to railways, 2014-2020 

EUR million 

Cohesion Fund 

Railways (TEN-T core) 

Railways (TEN-T comprehensive) 

Other railways 

Mobile rail assets 

Total 

Source: DG REGIO. 

5 334.9 

4 089.4 

194.5 

158.9 

12 477.6 

European Regional 
Development Fund 
2 511.0 

424.8 

2 64.8 

668.8 

6 169.6 

Total 

7 854.9 

4 614.2 

4 159.3 

2 027.7 

18 647.1 

Figure 13 shows the distribution of Cohesion Fund and ERDF funding among the Member States. 

Figure 13: Distribution of Cohesion Fund and ERDF funding by Member State, 2014-2020 

HR 2,7%

LV 2,4%

Other 3,9%

EL 2,7%

PT 2,9%

BG 3,1%

SK 5,5%

PL 36,4%

HU 6,3%

IT 7,3%

RO 8,0%

CZ 9,5%

ES 9,3%

Source: INEA and DG REGIO. 

Poland  is  the  largest  beneficiary  of  CF  and  ERDF  funding,  receiving  36.4%  of  total  EU  funding.  No 
other Member State received more than 10%. 

Figure 14 shows that Poland is also largest beneficiary of CEF funding, with 40.1%, followed by the 
Czech Republic with 14.1%. No other Member State received more than 10%. 

29 

 
 
 
Figure 14: Distribution of CEF funding by Member State, 2014-2016 

The state of the union railway network 

PL 40,1%

HR 4,0%

Other 13,0%

BG 4,6%

SK 6,0%

RO 9,0%

HU 9,1%

CZ 14,1%

Source: INEA and DG REGIO. 

Figure  15  shows  the  rate  of  Cohesion  Fund  (CF)  and  ERDF  funding  per  line-kilometre  allocated  to 
each Member  State. This data  indicates that Poland was allocated more funding per line-kilometre 
than any other Member State. 

Figure 15: Allocation of CF and ERDF funding per line-kilometre in the 2014-2020 funding cycle 

)
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
t
R
U
E
(
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n

i
l

r
e
p
n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

A

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

368,0

283,5

235,7

224,4

213,9

192,0 186,5

152,3 146,4 142,1 138,9

126,6

109,3

98,5

80,0

PL

SK

LV

EL

PT

HR

CZ

HU

LT

BG

RO

SI

ES

EE

IT

UK

SE

FR

DE

3,6

2,9

1,6

0,8

Source: INEA, DG REGIO and Statistical pocketbook, 2017, operational programmes adopted at 23 June 2016 . 

Box 4: EFSI for rail 

The European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) was established in July 2015 as one of the three pillars 
of the Investment Plan for Europe, to help overcome the current investment gap in the EU. Jointly launched 
by the European Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group, the EFSI aims to mobilise 
private investment in projects which are strategically important for the EU. 

Backed by a budget guarantee from the European Union and own resources from the EIB Group, 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The state of the union railway network 

operations approved until July 2018 are expected to trigger EUR 335 billion in investment across the 28 EU 
Member States. This is more than the original goal of EUR 315 billion set in 2015. 

In December 2017, the EFSI 2.0 extended the lifetime of the EFSI until end-2020, covering the period of the 
current Multiannual Financial Framework. It also increases its target to mobilise at least EUR 500 billion of 
investments by end-2020 versus the original goal of EUR 315 billion by July 2018. 

EIB finance makes an important contribution to rail investment in Europe with an average of over EUR 4 
billion per year (from 2015-17 inclusive) in loans: 

EIB annual lending (signed projects) for the rail transport sector 

EUR million 

EU28 

non-EU 

Total 

2015 

5 547.5 

177 

5 724.5 

2016 

3 816.0 

204.8 

4 020.8 

2017 

2018 to date 

3 063.9 

40 

3 103.9 

1 649.5 

134 

1 783.5 

Source: EIB; 2018 data to 5 July 2018. 

The support given to rail projects under the EFSI has helped to mobilise significant additional public or 
private funds. The figure below shows for all rail projects approved and signed under the EFSI between 
2015 and 2017 both the specific EFSI financing and the total investment they are expected to attract. 

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
R
U
E

2 000

1 800

1 600

1 400

1 200

1 000

 800

 600

 400

 200

 0

2015

2016

2017

EFSI financing of rail projects

Total rail projects investment related to EFSI

Source: EIB – projects mainly related to rolling stock. 

The EFSI financing is the tranche of an operation that benefits from the support of the European Fund for 
Strategic Investments. This amount will sometimes differ from the total EIB financing amount of the same 
operation. 

The total investment related to EFSI refers to the total financing amount expected to be attracted for any 
particular EFSI project. This amount might come from public or private sources, and it includes EFSI 
financing provided by the EIB. 

Source: EIB, 2018. 

31 

 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

2. 

The evolution of rail services 

The traffic volume indicators in this section are mainly based on RMMS data, available as from 2007. 
RMMS  data  provide  breakdowns  of  volumes  in  terms  of  market  segments  (passenger/freight, 
domestic/international,  PSO/non-PSO).  Eurostat  data  are  used  to  assess  the  modal  split,  which 
require  combining  the  data  of  different  modes.  Passenger-kilometres  and  tonne-kilometres  as 
reported in Eurostat could however show slight differences with those reported in the RMMS due to 
variations  in  the  scope  of reporting,  potential  double  counting of transit volumes  and  adjustments 
performed in the RMMS (estimates and integration from other sources). Finally, for train-kilometres 
the  data  of  Eurostat,  UIC  and  IRG-Rail  have  been  combined  to  acquire  a  dataset  as  complete  as 
possible.  

The European rail transports some 1.6 billion tonnes of freight and 9 billion passengers every year. 
Rail  transport  is  critical  to  the  EU  strategy  for  a  more  sustainable  transport  sector,  economic  and 
social cohesion and connecting EU citizens, within and between Member States. 

Rail has the potential to play a significant role in accelerating the reduction of transport’s emissions. 
It only accounts for 2% of total EU energy consumption in transport, while in 2016 it carried 11.2% of 
freight  and 6.6% of passengers  of all transport modes  (land, air and waterways). It  is also the  only 
mode  having  almost  continuously  reduced  Green  House  Gas  (GHG27)  and  in  particular  carbon 
dioxide (CO2)  emissions  since  1990,  representing  in  2016  only  0.5%  of  total  emissions  from  all 
transport modes28.  

2.1 

Traffic volumes 

Figure  16  summarises  trends  in  passenger  and  freight  volumes  over  the  period  2005  to  2016  and 
Figure 17 shows the average annual rates of change over the period 2011 to 2016.  

Total  train-kilometres,  which  include  both  passenger  and  freight  train  movements,  remained 
substantially stable between 2009 and 2016, after a significant increase in the pre-crisis period.  

Rail transport's focus varies between countries. On average, 82.3% of total EU train-km are used for 
passenger transport. In Denmark, the United Kingdom and Luxembourg more than 90% of train-km 
are used for passenger transport, whereas Lithuania, Slovenia and Latvia are more freight oriented 
(around 50% or more train-km).  

27   The  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA,  https://www.eea.europa.eu/  )  is  the  main  provider  for  EU-wide 
GHGs  emissions  data.  GHGs  comprehends  carbon  dioxide  (CO2),  methane  (CH4),  nitrous  oxide  (N2O), 
sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC).  

28   Excluding indirect emissions from electricity consumption. 

32 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 16: Passenger and freight volumes, 2005-2016 

The evolution of rail services 

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
n
a
r
t

i

r
o
-
e
n
n
o
t

,
-
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
P

475

450

425

400

375

350

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Passenger-kilometres (billion)

Tonne-kilometres (billion)

Train-kilometres (10 million)

Source: RMMS, 2018. Infill data from various other sources and estimates. 

Rail passenger traffic continued to grow between 2011 and 2016 with a compound average growth 
rate  of 1.6%,  fully recovering  from  the  slight  decline experienced  in 2009  due  to  the  unfavourable 
economic climate across most of the EU. 

Rail freight traffic, in contrast, struggled to recover from the significant drop in volumes experienced 
in 2009, the low point of the economic crisis, with a peak in 2011 followed by a slow recovery from 
201229. 

29   Data  on  volumes  presented  in  the  6th  RMMS  Report  and  its  accompanying  Staff  Working  Document  are 
based on the figures reported in the yearly RMMS questionnaire by Member States and Norway. They may 
differ from those reported by Eurostat. The difference is due to the different scope of the two surveys and 
to potential double counting of transit volumes and adjustments applied in the RMMS to complete the time 
series (estimates and integration from other sources).  

33 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
Figure 17: Passenger and freight volumes, compound average annual growth 2011-2016 

Passenger-kilometres

Tonne-kilometres

The evolution of rail services 

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

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

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Source: RMMS, 2018. No freight data for LU and NL. 

Passenger and freight markets are discussed more in detail below. 

2.2 

The passenger market 

2.2.1 

Evolution of volumes 

Evolution of propensity to travel/rail travel per inhabitant 

Figure  18  shows  how  propensity  to  travel  by  rail,  measured  as  annual  passenger-kilometres  per 
inhabitant, varies significantly between States. 

34 

 
 
 
 
Figure 18: Propensity to travel by rail 2016 and compound average annual growth 2011-2016 

The evolution of rail services 

t
n
a
t
i
b
a
h
n

i

r
e
p
s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
P

1 600

1 400

1 200

1 000

 800

 600

 400

 200

 0

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

T
A

R
F

E
S

E
D

L
N

K
D

K
U

E
B

U I
T
E

Z
C

U
H

U
L

I

O F
N

K
S

S
E

L
P

E
I

I

T S
P

V
L

E
E

O
R

G
B

R
H

T
L

L
E

-15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2018 and Eurostat. 

Since 2011, the average propensity to travel in EU has slightly increased from 830 to 882 passenger-
kilometres  per  inhabitant  (+1.2%  of  cumulative  annual  growth  rate).  The  most  rail  travel  per 
inhabitant was in Austria, France and Sweden, with over 1 300 passenger-kilometres per inhabitant. 
The  least  rail  travel  per  inhabitant  was  in  Lithuania,  Greece,  Croatia  and  Bulgaria,  all  with  at  most 
around 200 passenger-kilometres per inhabitant. 

Passenger land transport modal split by Member State 

Passenger  car  dominates  total  passenger  land  transport  within  the  EU,  with  a  share  of  more  than 
80%  throughout  the  period  2007  to  2016.  Figure  19  shows  the  remaining  shares  carried  by  the 
modes of rail, bus and coach, and tram and metro. 

Figure 19: Passenger land transport modal split, 2007-2016 

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

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

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Rail

Bus and coach

Tram  and metro

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2018. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Over the period 2007 to 2016, rail mode share rose from 7.0% to 7.6%. Tram and metro mode share 
also rose, from 1.6% to 1.8%, possibly reflecting the continued investment in expansion of urban and 
suburban tram and metro networks. 

Bus and coach share fell from 9.9% to 9.3% between 2007 and 2016, whilst car share fell only 0.1% 
over the same period. 

Figure 20: Passenger land transport modal split by country, 2016 and change in percentage rail 2011-2016 

100%

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

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

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

SK
PL
NL
UK
CZ
ES
IT
EU28
NO
FI
DE
SE
BE
AT
FR
LU
EL
EE
PT
IE
LT
SI
HU
RO
BG
DK
LV
HR

AT NL FR SK SE HUDK UK DE CZ BE EU
28

PL ES IT FI NOLU PT RO LV IE HR BG SI EE LT EL

-3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3%

Rail

Car

Bus and coach

Tram and metro

Source: Eurostat and statistical pocketbook, 2018. 2011 data for EU27. 

Figure 21 compares the 2016 rail mode share and tram and metro mode share in each State. 

Figure 21: Passenger rail, tram and metro mode shares by country, 2016 

6
1
0
2

,
e
r
a
h
s
e
d
o
m
o
r
t
e
m
d
n
a
m
a
r
T

12%

11%

10%

9%

8%

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

EL

LT

HR

BG
EE
SI

LV

IE

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

CZ

RO

AT

ES

EUPL

HU
FR

UK

SE

PT

NO

FI

IT

LU
5%
7%
6%
Rail mode share, 2016

DE
BE

SK

DK

NL

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

Source: Eurostat and statistical pocketbook, 2018. 

In  most  States,  total  tram  and  metro  mode  share  was  less  than  2%,  but  in  Hungary,  Romania  and 
Austria was over 3% and for the Czech Republic over 10%. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Figure 22 shows the effect of including the mode share of bus and coach, which tends to be larger in 
smaller States with limited rail, tram or metro networks. 

Figure 22: Passenger rail, bus, coach, tram and metro modal split by country, 2016 

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

6
1
0
2

,
e
r
a
h
s
e
d
o
m
o
r
t
e
m
d
n
a
m
a
r
t

,

h
c
a
o
c

,
s
u
B

RO

EE

BG

EL

IE

SI

LT

HR

LV

FI

LU

ES

IT

PT

NO

CZ

HU

PL

EU

BE

DE

SK

AT

FR

SE

DK

UK

NL

0%

2%

4%

6%
Rail mode share, 2016

8%

10%

12%

Source: Eurostat and statistical pocketbook, 2018. 

On  the  left  (blue)  are  smaller  States  with  rail  mode  share  near  or  below  6%,  including  the  Baltic 
States, Greece, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Ireland and Croatia. 

On  the  upper  right  (dark  grey),  with  relatively  high  non-rail  public  transport  shares,  are  Member 
States  in  central  Europe  including  Austria,  Slovakia  and,  with  lower  rail  mode  share,  Poland  and 
Romania. Hungary and the Czech Republic (green) have both relatively high non-rail and rail public 
transport modal share. 

On  the  lower  right  (yellow),  with  relatively  low  non-rail  public  transport  share,  are  larger  Member 
States  in  western  Europe  including  Germany,  France  and  the  United  Kingdom,  but  also  the 
Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium. 

Evolution of rail passenger volumes 

Figure 23 shows the evolution of rail passenger volumes from 2007 to 2016. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 23: Evolution of rail passenger traffic volumes, 2007-2016 

The evolution of rail services 

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

b
(

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
P

22

369

22

381

22

376

20

380

25

390

28

398

25

398

25

404

27

413

27

423

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

c
i
f
f
a
r
t

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

i

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Domestic

International

Proportion of international traffic

Source: RMMS, 2018. Infill data from various other sources and estimates. 

EU railways transported in 2016 some 9 billion passengers30. Rail passenger traffic has been resilient 
to  the  financial  crisis  and  has  risen  from  391  billion  passenger  kilometres  in  2007  to  450  billion 
passenger kilometres in 2016 on about 6 trillion passenger-kilometres of land transport overall31.  

The  proportion  of  passenger-kilometres  reported  as  being  on  international  journeys  was  more 
impacted by the unfavourable economic climate, falling to 5% of the total passenger traffic, but rose 
thereafter and has since remained around 6%. 

Figure  24  shows  the  volumes  of  domestic  and  international  passenger  rail  travel,  measured  in 
passenger-kilometres, and the proportion of international traffic by State in 2016. 

30   DG MOVE estimates based on Eurostat.  
31   Statistical pocketbook 2018, includes cars, powered-two-wheels, buses and coaches, railway and tram and 

metro.  

38 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
Figure 24: Passenger traffic volumes by country, passenger-kilometres, 2016 

The evolution of rail services 

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

b
(

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
P

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

c
i
f
f
a
r
t

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

i

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

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

LV EE LU LT

Domestic

International

Proportion of international traffic

Source: RMMS, 2018. 

The figure shows that the largest rail markets are in Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy. 
In  three  of  these  Member  States,  well  below  5%  of  passenger-kilometres  are  on  international 
journeys. However, the proportion of international travel is 12% in France, which has high-speed rail 
links  into  the  United  Kingdom  (Eurostar),  Belgium,  the  Netherlands  and  Germany  (Thalys),  and 
Switzerland, Italy and Spain (TGV). 

The proportion of international traffic is also high in several smaller States, including Lithuania and 
Luxembourg (both over 30%), Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Austria (where national operator ÖBB 
operates both day and night trains to several other States). 

2.2.2 

Evolution of revenues 

Figure  25  shows  the  sources  of  passenger  railway  undertakings’  revenue  in 2016 which  have  been 
reported. 

The figure is structured as follows: 

  Above the horizontal axis is the revenue contributed by passengers through fares paid on 

either PSO or (if reported) commercial services. 

  Below the horizontal axis is the proportion of revenue contributed by competent authorities 

in the form of PSO support. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Figure 25: Sources of passenger railway undertakings’ revenue, 2016 

BG

HU

SK

EE

LV

HR

CZ

AT

RO

PL

SE

DE

IT

IE

ES

FI

LT

LU

PT

UK

e
u
n
e
v
e
r
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
p

l
l

a
f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

PSO fares

Commercial revenue

PSO compensation

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for EL, FR, NL and SI. Information on commercial services confidential for BE, DK 
and NO.  

In Member States such as Bulgaria and Hungary, most of the railway undertakings’ revenue is from 
PSO  support.  In  Bulgaria  this  amounts  to  almost  four  times  passenger  revenue:  passengers  only 
contribute  20%  of  total  railway  undertaking  revenue  while  80%  comes  from  subsidies.  In  other 
States, however, the need for support from competent authorities is less. 

In  the  extreme  case  of  the  United  Kingdom,  the  net  requirement  for  support  from  competent 
authorities  is  negative,  although  this  cannot  readily be  shown on  the  chart.  This  is  because,  in  the 
United  Kingdom,  many  services  which  are  subject  to  a  PSO  can  be  operated  profitably,  at  least  at 
current levels of access charges  and fare  (both of which, while  regulated, are subject  to change)32. 
Competitive tenders for many PSOs therefore result in a request for negative subsidy, indicating that 
the tenderer will pay the competent authority for the right to operate the service33. The result is that 
the  PSO  operators,  in  aggregate,  currently  receive  a  negative  subsidy  from  the  competent 
authorities.  

2.3 

The freight market 

2.3.1 

Evolution of volumes 

Evolution of rail freight tonnage relative to GDP 

In 2016, there was a strong disparity among European countries regarding the ratio of rail freight use 
compared to nominal GDP. The  high end of the scale  was  dominated by eastern European nations 
with  Latvia  and  Lithuania  demonstrating  the  highest  rates  of  rail  freight  relative  to  GDP  and  the 
others following closely. 

32   In  addition,  even  where  capacity  exists  for  commercial  services,  the  United  Kingdom’s  regulatory  body 

restricts open access commercial entry to protect the economic equilibrium of PSO services. 
33   This negative subsidy requirement is normally referred to in the United Kingdom as a ‘premium’. 

40 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Growth in the use of rail freight services was significantly outpaced by that of the GDP between 2011 
and  2016,  resulting  in  a  negative  average  annual  growth  rate  across  many  of  member  states, 
suggesting that rail freight is playing less of a role in economic development than in previous years. 
Only countries to have registered a positive growth were Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Spain, 
Italy and Portugal. 

Figure 26: Rail freight activity per unit of GDP, 2016 and compound average growth rate 2011-2016 

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
R
U
E
r
e
p
s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n
n
o
t
d
n
a
s
u
o
h
T

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

EE
LU
LV
IE
UK
RO
LT
SE
PL
HR
EL
BE
EU28
DE
FR
DK
BG
SK
FI
AT
NL
NO
CZ
HU
SI
ES
IT
PT

LV LT PL SI EE SK HU CZ RO BG AT HR SE FI DE EU
28

BE PT FR IT NO ES NL DK UK LU EL IE

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10%

Source: Statistical Pocketbook 2018, Eurostat 2018. 

Freight land transport modal split by Member State 

Road  remains  the  dominant  mode  within  the  EU  also  in  freight  transport  and  continues  to  handle 
around three-quarters of net tonne-kilometres. Its weight in the modal mix is however lower than in 
the  passenger  transport,  remaining  around  75%.  Figure  27  shows  the  shares  of  rail  and  inland 
waterways, the principal modes for heavy or bulk goods, compared to road. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 27: Freight land transport modal split, 2007-2016 

The evolution of rail services 

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n
n
o
t

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2007

2008

2009

2010

Rail

2011

Road

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Inland waterways

Source: Eurostat. 

Rail  mode  share  has  been  broadly  constant  between  2007  and  2016.  However,  since  the  peak 
reached  in  2011  (almost  19%)  the  share  decreased  but  managed  to  remain  around  17%  in  2016, 
while road’s share increased from 75% to 76%. 

The  overall  share  of  inland  waterways  has  been  broadly  constant  over  the  period,  with  some 
variation but little overall change, and continues to be just over 6% of tonne-kilometres transported. 

Figure 28 shows the rail, road and inland waterway mode shares in each Member State. 

Figure 28: Freight land transport modal split by country 2016 and change in percentage rail 2011-2016  

100%

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n
n
o
t

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

EE
LT
LV
SE
PL
RO
HR
LU
SK
CZ
UK
NO
BG
AT
EU28
DK
FI
SI
BE
DE
EL
NL
IE
HU
FR
ES
IT
PT

LV LT EE SK SI AT RO SE HU FI CZ PL DE EU
28

HR BG IT PT NO BE DK FR UK LU NL ES EL IE

-30%

-10%

10%

Rail

Roads

Inland waterways

Source: Eurostat. 

Rail has the highest mode share in Latvia and Lithuania, primarily because their rail networks carry 
large  volumes of transit traffic to and from the  Russian Federation. Rail’s share  is also high for the 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

States of Slovakia, Slovenia and Austria. In contrast, rail has the lowest mode share in the insular or 
peninsular Member States of Ireland, Greece and Spain, where there is less scope for international or 
transit traffic. 

Inland  waterways  are  a  major  competitor  to  rail  in  Member  States  with  access  to  major  rivers 
including  Romania  and  Bulgaria,  which  border  the  Danube,  and  Belgium,  the  Netherlands  and 
Germany, with access to the Scheldt, Meuse and Rhine. 

The evolution of modal share between 2011 and 2016 has been clearly negative for the majority of 
the  countries. Particularly relevant  has  been the  decrease  in the  Baltic  States. The  share  increased 
only in Portugal and Italy (more than 3 percentage points), whereas it remained substantially stable 
in Spain and France. 

Evolution of rail freight volumes 

In 2016 around 1.6 billion tonnes of freight was carried on EU railways34. Figure 29 shows that output 
in  tonne-kilometres,  while  still  being  less  than 7%  lower than  the  2007  peak  level,  have  recovered 
15% between 2009 and 2016 reaching according to RMMS data35 to 419 billion tonne-kilometres out 
of overall 2.5 trillion in land transport36. 

Figure 29: Evolution of rail freight traffic volumes, 2007-2016 

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

b
(

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n
n
o
T

231

222

197

178

208

193

209

214

198

209

218

218

187

197

222

207

197

199

207

209

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

55%

54%

53%

52%

51%

50%

49%

48%

47%

46%

45%

c
i
f
f
a
r
t

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

i

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Domestic

International

Proportion of international traffic

Source: RMMS, 2018. Infill data from various other sources and estimates. 

Around  half  of  total  rail  freight,  measured  by  net  tonne-kilometres,  is  cross-border:  rail  freight  is 
increasingly competitive to road freight at longer distances. International freight peaked during 2014 
at 53% of total rail traffic and then came down to 50% in 2016. This significant cross-border element 
gives  to  rail  freight  a  stronger  European  dimension  compared  to  passenger  traffic,  where  the 

34   Source: DG MOVE estimates based on Eurostat. 
35   Data  on  volumes  presented  in  the  6th  RMMS  Report  and  its  accompanying  Staff  Working  Document  are 
based on the figures reported in the yearly RMMS questionnaire by Member States and Norway. They may 
differ from those reported by Eurostat. The difference is due to the different scope of the two surveys and 
to potential double counting of transit volumes and adjustments applied in the RMMS to complete the time 
series (estimates and integration from other sources).  

36   Statistical pocketbook 2018, includes road, rail, inland waterways and pipelines.  

43 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

proportion of international journeys remains around 6%. A lack of interoperability and cooperation 
between  national  railway  networks  can  hugely  affect  rail  freight  transport  and  its  competitiveness 
with alternative modes. 

Figure 30 shows the volumes of domestic and international rail freight by State in 2016. 

Figure 30: Rail freight traffic volumes by country, 2016 

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

b
(

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n
n
o
T

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

c
i
f
f
a
r
t

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n

i

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

DE PL FR UK CZ SE IT

FI

ES AT RO BE LT BG NO PT HU SK HR NL LV DK EE SI

EL LU

Domestic

International

Proportion of international traffic

Source: RMMS, 2018. IE volumes too small to appear in the graphic (0.1 bn tonne-km). 

The largest volumes of rail freight are in Germany, followed by Poland and France. 

The chart shows that international rail freight represents only a small proportion of the total in the 
island  economies  of  Ireland  and  the  United  Kingdom,  and  less  than  half  of  the  total  in  the  large 
economies  of  Spain,  France,  Germany  and  Italy.  In  contrast,  international  rail  freight  represents  a 
large  proportion  of  the  total  in  smaller  States.  This  illustrates  the  importance  of  giving  small,  and 
particularly landlocked Member States, efficient links and access to ports. 

2.3.2 

Evolution of revenues 

Evolution of rail freight revenues 

Figure 31 shows reported revenues from rail freight by State in 2015 and 2016. As with rail freight 
volumes in Figure 30, Germany is by far the largest contributor, followed by Poland. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 31: Freight revenue of railway undertakings by country, 2015 and 2016 

The evolution of rail services 

n
o

i
l
l
i

b
R
U
E

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

DE

PL UK AT

FR

SE

IT

LV

LT HU FI

SK

2015

RO NO BG HR PT DK

EL

BE

EE

LU ES

SI
2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for CZ and NL, IE too small figure to be represented. No 2015 data for BE, EE, ES, 
LU. No 2016 data for FR. 

Between  2015  and  2016,  rail  freight  revenues  rose  in  Germany  (from  EUR  5.1  billion  to 
EUR 5.4 billion), but fell in Poland (from EUR 1.8 billion to EUR 1.6 billion) and the United Kingdom 
(from EUR 1.3 billion to EUR 1.0 billion). 

2.4 

The future of rail freight 

Transport currently accounts for a quarter of all EU greenhouse gas emissions, 72% of which come 
from  the  road  sector.  A  part  of  the  EU's  ambitious  policy  to  fight  climate  change  is  therefore  to 
promote  rail  freight.  To  deliver  it,  the  Commission  has  a  coherent  Strategy  for  Low-Emission 
Mobility37  and  has  set  modal  shift  objectives  in  its  2011  White  Paper:  30%  of  road  freight  over 
300 kilometres should shift to other modes such as rail or waterborne transport by 2030, and more 
than 50% by 2050, facilitated by efficient and green freight corridors. In this context, rail freight has a 
central  role  to  play  in  the  transport  model  of  the  future  and  is  considered  as  a  priority  by  the 
Commission. 

However,  the  overall  situation  of  rail  freight  remains  critical:  its  modal  share  is  stagnating  around 
17%.  Figure  28  shows  that  the  modal  share  has  increased  slightly  in  Italy  and  Portugal,  but  has 
declined  in  almost  all  Member  States.  To  reach  the  modal  shift  objectives,  far  larger  volumes  of 
freight need to be carried by rail. 

Although  exogenous  factors  such  as  the  evolution  of  the  industrial  structure  and  the  state  of  the 
wider economy and productive situation affect modal choice, the main lever to achieve growth of rail 
freight  is  to  secure  the  shippers'  trust  vis-à-vis  rail  as  a  reliable  and  cost-effective  mode  to  move 
goods across Europe. In other  words, rail freight  needs to become more  competitive. In particular, 
the quality, reliability and flexibility of the rail freight services offered need to be increased sharply, 
which will in turn contribute to address the cost challenge rail freight is facing. 

37   2016 Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility: 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/strategies/news/doc/2016-07-20-
decarbonisation/com%282016%29501_en.pdf. 

45 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
The evolution of rail services 

In 2016 almost 50% of European rail freight was cross-border, down from 52% in 2014. To achieve EU 
climate objectives the share of international rail freight traffic should continue to grow. On the one 
hand,  this  is  driven  by  further  European  economic  integration,  on  the  other  hand,  because  the 
competitive advantage of rail freight increases with distance. This strong European dimension means 
that rail freight is particularly suffering from the lack of a truly Single European Rail Area, in particular 
from the lack of interoperability between the different networks and of coordination of operations, 
such as at the borders or in terms of rail capacity and traffic management. 

To  tackle  the  situation,  the  Commission  is  pursuing  an  agenda  of  complementary  initiatives  and 
actions. The Fourth Railway Package is setting the general regulatory framework: its market pillar will 
reinforce  the  framework  conditions  for  an  efficient market organisation  and  its  technical  pillar  will 
simplify  the  processes  and  reduce  costs,  particularly  through  an  extended  role  for  the  European 
Union Agency for Railways. This will complement, on the one hand, the Commission's long-standing 
policy  to  achieve  interoperability  (including  the  efficient  and  coordinated  deployment  of  ERTMS), 
with a current focus on solving practical cross-border operational issues (see Box 5) and, on the other 
hand, the Commission's infrastructure development policy through the TEN-T policy, with significant 
financial  support  provided  under  the  CEF.  A  well-developed  infrastructure,  free  of  bottlenecks  and 
missing links and with infrastructure parameters targeted to freight is a precondition for rail freight 
development. 

These key policies are accompanied by efforts to tackle the issue of rail noise, to better embed rail in 
the  multimodal  transport  system  by  deploying  digital  technologies  and  to  foster  innovation, 
particularly through the activities of the Shift2Rail Joint undertaking. 

In parallel, the Rail Freight Corridors remain the key element of the Commission's policy to boost rail 
freight.  They  are  intended  to  trigger  rail  freight  development  in  terms  of  volume,  market  share, 
quality and reliability along the  main freight  axes, through fostering cooperation, coordination and 
harmonisation  at  different  levels  and  in  different  areas  (such  as  rail  capacity,  traffic  management, 
conditions of use of the infrastructure, processes). As illustrated in the report from the Commission 
to  Council  and  European  Parliament  on  the  application  of  the  Rail  Freight  Corridor  Regulation 
(Regulation  913/2010)  published  in  April  201838,  the  Rail  Freight  Corridors  have  achieved  positive 
results,  but  the  pace  of  change  needs  to  be  accelerated.  The  progress  accomplished  by  the  Rail 
Freight  Corridors  is  mainly  in  the  hands  of  the  Member  State  authorities  and  infrastructure 
managers,  but  the  Commission  continues  to  promote  their  ambitious  development.  In  the  coming 
years the Commission services will launch an evaluation of Regulation 913/2010 to  assess whether 
there is a need to revise it. 

Finally,  rail  freight  cannot  be  considered  in  isolation  from  other  modes:  its  competitiveness  also 
depends  on  the  framework  for  intermodal  competition.  This  is  why  the  Commission  is  striving  for 
equal  conditions  for  intermodal  competition,  such  as  through  the  Mobility  Package  and  the 
Eurovignette  initiative  (see  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/news/2017-05-31-europe-
on-the-move_en ). 

With the legislative framework largely in place and other support actions on track, ambition set out 
in the White Paper in respect of rail freight can be achieved only if rail freight is high on the agenda 
of all relevant parties. 

This includes high-level commitment at national level, as the societal and political acceptance of rail 
freight  should  be  ensured.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  Commission  intends  to  strengthen  the 

38   Report on the application of Regulation (EU) 913/2010, in accordance to its Article 23: 

 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0189&from=EN. 

46 

 
 
                                                           
The evolution of rail services 

coordination of its rail freight policy with those of the Member States and engaged, in this context, in 
accompanying the Austrian Presidency of the Council in its activities to follow up on the Rotterdam 
Ministerial Declaration on rail freight39 in the second half of 2018. 

Active  progress  is  also  required  from  the  rail  sector,  as  most  of  the  structural  changes  can  only 
happen within the concerned organisations and processes. The Commission places high expectations 
on the sector and provides strong political support to the implementation of the Rotterdam Sector 
Statement40. Instrumental actions to be  undertaken and delivered by the sector for the rail freight 
services to gain in reliability and flexibility include: 

  making  the  timetabling  process  more  efficient  and  flexible  (such  as  through  the  TTR 

 

project41); 
improving information exchange, such as through the sharing of a reliable Estimated Time of 
Arrival between the parties involved in a train run (see ETA); 
  developing KPIs to adequately measure rail freight performance; 
  accelerating the pace towards solving cross-border interoperability issues, where progress is 

urgently needed; 

  ensuring a better coordination of temporary capacity restrictions; and 
  developing and implementing processes for contingency situations, as discussed next. 

Interoperability of rail networks 

Following an incident near the city of Rastatt in Germany in autumn 2017, a stretch of line on the rail 
freight corridor Rhine Alpine was closed for rail traffic for seven weeks. This important north-south 
corridor is a core connection for rail freight and links the ports of Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp 
with Switzerland and Italy. A major hurdle was that diversionary routes were limited in capacity and 
interoperability.  The  incident  led  to  big  financial  losses,  a  drop-in  market  share  and  reputational 
damage for the rail freight industry. 

DG MOVE reacted to this incident with the organisation of meetings open to European stakeholders. 
It was important to establish a platform for exchange for finding European solutions and establishing 
measures that help to remedy the consequences of such incidents much more effectively in future. 

The  output  of  the  meetings  is  the  Handbook  for  International  Contingency  Management42,  put 
together  in  cooperation  between  rail  stakeholders.  It  describes  standards  that  will,  in  the  event  of 
international disruption, allow for the continuation of rail traffic, in addition to assuring transparency 
of  the  status  of  the  disruption  and  its  impact  on  traffic  flows  for  the  relevant  stakeholders.  All 
measures of the Handbook will be applied from the start of the 2019 timetable in December 2018. 

39   Ministerial Declaration ‘Rail Freight Corridors to boost international rail freight’: 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/infrastructure/news/doc/2016-06-20-ten-t-
days-2016/rfc-declaration.pdf. 

40   Sector Statement ‘Boosting international rail freight’: 

http://www.cer.be/sites/default/files/publication/160520_Sector_Statement_RFC.pdf. 

41   Redesign of the International Timetabling Process (TTR). 
42   http://www.rne.eu/rneinhalt/uploads/International_Contingency_Management_Handbook_final_v1.5.pdf. 

47 

 
 
                                                           
The evolution of rail services 

Box 5: Cross-border harmonisation of technical and operational rules and issues log 

Cross-border operational and interoperability issues are one of the biggest and urgent obstacles hindering 
cross-border traffic, particularly rail freight. The Rastatt incident showed once more how much impact such 
obstacles have. This is why DG MOVE has sought to use the post-accident momentum to strengthen its 
joint initiative with the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA), involving the Rail Freight Corridors, the 
sector associations and the relevant authorities, and aiming at initiating efficient processes to tackle these 
issues through a so-called Rail Technical Operational Issues Logbook43. The logbook will serve as a 
repository of all the main technical operational issues hampering international rail freight traffic. With this 
initiative the Commission and ERA intend to prioritise issues with great impact and focus the work, so that 
quick resolutions are achieved. 

2.5 

Rail noise 

Noise  is  one  of  the  most  widespread  public  health  problems  in  the  European  Union,  with  serious 
costs to society. Railways, and especially rail freight traffic, are the second most important source of 
noise in Europe with at least 19 million people estimated to be exposed to levels above 55 dB. 

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 noise, financial assistance under the CEF, and modalities for noise-differentiated track access 
charges. However, despite the efforts of the Commission and Member States, progress in tackling rail 
noise  is  rather  slow.  There  is  also  a  risk  that  excessive  levels  of  railway  noise  can  lead  to 
uncoordinated unilateral actions by Member States, such as applying speed limits and restrictions on 
operating at night. 

Box 6: Policy framework for tackling rail noise 

Given that more than 50 % of rail freight wagons run across borders, any attempt to combat rail noise at 
source needs a European response. 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 Commission now 
envisages a revision of the TSI Noise following the ‘quieter routes’ approach so that the noise limit values 
become applicable not only to new wagons but also to the existing fleet. A 'quieter route’ is a part of a 
network identified on the basis of traffic intensity where only wagons complying with TSI Noise pass-by 
limit values will be permitted to circulate as of December 2024. 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 finalised preparations for the revision of the TSI Noise with a 
planned adoption by the end of 2018. 

In 2018 it will launch also the evaluation of the existing Commission Regulation on Noise Differentiated 
Track Access Charges. 

43   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/rail-nip/rail-technical-operational-issues-logbook-

explanatory-document.pdf. 

48 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

3. 

The evolution of services supplied to railway 
undertakings 

Directive 2012/34/EU defines rules for service facilities and rail related services, aiming at increasing 
the transparency of access conditions and charges applied to ensure non-discriminatory access. 

Provisions  apply  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. 

Services provided in these facilities and additional and ancillary  services  as traction current supply, 
pre-heating of trains, arrangements for transport of dangerous goods, access to telecommunication 
networks and ticketing services in stations are also covered by the Directive. 

A new implementing Regulation on service facilities, adopted in 2017, makes provisions for sharing 
and  accessing  information  and  for  developing  cooperation  between  service  facility  operators  and 
infrastructure managers. 

Box 7: New implementing Regulation on service facilities 

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 lays down the details of the procedure and criteria to be 
followed for access to service facilities and to the services supplied in these facilities listed in points 2, 3 
and 4 of Annex II to Directive 2012/34/EU. 

The Implementing Regulation repeats the principle of establishment and publication of a service facility 
description and provides a detailed list of information that service facility operators shall make publicly 
available. This can be done either by publishing the information on their own website or on a common web 
portal and providing the infrastructure managers with a link to be included in the network statement. 
Another option is providing the infrastructure managers with the relevant ready-to-be-published 
information to be included in the network statement. The Implementing Regulation requires infrastructure 
managers to provide a common template for service facility descriptions developed by the railway sector in 
cooperation with regulatory bodies. RailNetEurope (RNE) has developed such a template, discussed it with 
the market and published it on their website. 

In addition, the Implementing Regulation highlights the need for better cooperation between service 
facility operators and infrastructure managers with the aim of ensuring that the allocation of capacity on 
infrastructure and in service facilities is consistent where necessary. It also refers to the coordination of 
conflicting requests and, where the coordination procedure has not enabled the reconciliation of 
conflicting requests, to the application of predetermined priority criteria. Regarding requests that cannot 
be accommodated at all following the application of priority criteria, it is mentioned that the concerned 
service facility operator and the concerned applicant shall jointly assess whether there are viable 
alternatives allowing operating the relevant freight or passenger service on the same or alternative routes 
under economically acceptable conditions. 

Last but not least, it provides for the possibility to exempt certain service facility operators from the 
application of all or some of the provisions of the Implementing Regulation with the exception of certain 
provisions concerning the obligation to publish a service facility description. 

Information on service facilities and rail related services is particularly important for freight services. 
Expected to be launched in mid-2019, the Rail Facility Portal could provide the sector with a unique 
entry point for gathering and sharing information between interested parties. 

49 

 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Box 8: European Rail Facility Portal 

The Rail Facility Portal is being currently developed as a single EU user-friendly and market-oriented GIS-
based portal, mapping and providing key information on the rail service facilities and last-mile 
infrastructure in Europe. The portal aims at remedying the lack of easy access to information on rail 
facilities and last-mile infrastructure and will therefore contribute to the better planning of rail services. It 
will also provide an efficient tool for the service facility operators to comply with their obligation to publish 
information on access conditions pursuant to Directive 2012/34/EU and Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2017/2177. The portal will therefore be both a market tool and a compliance tool. 

The pilot portal ‘Rail Freight Locations’ (railfreightlocations.eu) is the basis for the new European Rail 
Facility Portal, which is expected to become gradually operation as from mid-2019. New functionalities will 
be introduced, such as the indication of available capacity at the facilities or reporting capabilities, and an 
initial ‘critical mass’ of data will be fed. This will be accompanied by a self-sustainable management 
concept for the permanent operation phase, as DG MOVE intends to hand over the portal to the sector. 
Although the portal will also be developed for passenger facilities, the focus will first be put on rail freight. 

The acceptance of the portal by the wide sector, as the ‘tool of choice’ both for feeding and consulting 
information on the EU rail service facilities, will be the key success factor. DG MOVE is expecting the sector 
to support the use of the portal, which is a unique opportunity to avoid a piecemeal publication of 
information on services facilities, and thus to make such information usable and useful for the benefit of 
the rail market. 

RMMS information is largely complete for stations. However, despite the introduction of Regulation 
2015/1100, information on other service facilities remains fragmented and not always comparable. 
Data  presented  in  this  section  must  therefore  be  interpreted  with  care.  The  Commission  services 
have  started  working  with  Member  States  and  the  Consortium  developing  the  portal  on  common 
definitions for reporting purposes to improve the quality of reported data. 

Charging principles for service facilities, additional and ancillary services 

Any public or private entity responsible for managing one of more service facilities or supplying one 
or  more  services  to  railway  undertakings  referred  to  in  points  2  to  4  of  Annex  II  of  Directive 
2012/34/EU  shall  be  considered  as  a  service  operator  under  Article  3(12)  of  the  same  Directive. 
Different  service  facility  types  and rail-related services  are enumerated in Annex II points 2 to 4 of 
Directive 2012/34/EU. 

Service facilities in principle  supply services  related to the nature of the  facility itself. For example, 
freight  terminals  are  installations  where  services  of  loading,  unloading  and  transhipment  of  goods 
from and to freight trains or wagons are supplied. These services are defined as basic. Additional and 
ancillary  services  are  services  supplementary  to  the basic  ones.  For  instance,  in  the  case  of  freight 
terminals  additional  services  may  comprise  tailor-made  contracts  for  control  of  transport  of 
dangerous goods and ancillary services may comprise technical inspection of rolling stock. 

Charging principles for service facilities and rail-related services differ from the ones applied to rail 
infrastructure. While direct costs and possibly mark-ups (and eventually other charging components) 
are  levied  by  the  infrastructure  manager,  charges  imposed  for  track  access  within  service  facilities 
and the supply of basic services in such facilities shall not exceed the cost of providing them plus a 
reasonable  profit  (direct  costs).  The  charge  for  additional  and  ancillary  services  shall  similarly  not 
exceed  the  cost  of  providing  the  single  service  including  a  reasonable  profit,  except  when  these 
services are offered by more than one supplier. 

Applicants must have easy access to information on any service facility and its rail related services. 
For  that  reason,  it  is  obligatory  that  the  network  statement,  which  is  available  free  of  charge, 

50 

 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

contains a section on information on access to and charging for gaining access to service facilities as 
well as for the  provision of rail-related services. Alternatively, the information can be published on 
the  website  of  the  service  facility  or  on  a  common  web  portal  (see  Box  8:  European  rail  locations 
portal). 

Charging  principles  ensure  transparency  and  non-discrimination.  Any  individual  negotiation  on 
charges  or  discounts  not  based  on  the  above  principles  would  undermine  the  principle  of  non-
discrimination. 

3.1 

Passenger stations 

There were more than 31 000 stations in the EU in 201644, of which about 330 were large stations 
serving more than 25 000 travellers per day. 

Figure  32  shows  the  average  distance  between  stations  on  each  national  network  for  which 
information is available. 

Figure 32: Average distance between stations by country, 2016 

)
s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
(

s
n
o
i
t
a
t
s
n
e
e
w
t
e
b
e
c
n
a
t
s
i
d
e
g
a
r
e
v
A

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

FI

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

LU CZ AT

Source: RMMS, 2018 and Statistical Pocketbook, 2018. 2015 data for HU. 

Slovakia  reported  927  stations  on  the  network  of  which  only  695  are  active,  and  the  analysis  has 
therefore been based on 695 stations on a network of 3 626 line-kilometres.  

In 2016 the average distance between stations in EU was about 7 kilometres.  

The  Austrian  network  has  the  shortest  average  distance  between  stations  at  3.5  kilometres 
(283 stations  per  1 000  line-kilometres),  followed  by  the  network  of  the  Czech  Republic  at 
3.7 kilometres  (271  stations  per  1 000  line-kilometres).  The  largest  average  distances  between 
stations are in the Scandinavian and Baltic networks of Finland (over 30 kilometres, or 33 stations per 
1 000 line-kilometres), Sweden, Lithuania  and Latvia, and also Bulgaria. 

44   Includes  estimates  for  countries  were  data  were  not  available,  as  reported  under  the  graphics  of  this 

paragraph. 

51 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Figure 33 shows the relative numbers of stations with different passenger volumes per day. Figure 34 
shows the relative mix of stations with different passenger volumes per day. 

Figure 33: Number of stations by passengers per day by country, 2016 

s
n
o
i
t
a
t
S

7 000

6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

 0

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

FI

IE

LV LT

EE LU

Over 25 000/day

10 000 to 25 000/day

1 000 to 10 000/day

Under 1 000/day

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for HR. 2015 data for HU, RO. 

Figure 34: Stations by passengers per day by country, mix, 2016 

s
n
o
i
t
a
t
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

NL

IE UK DE LU FI DK SE ES BE FR NO PT

IT

LV AT SK HU PL CZ

SI

Over 25 000

10 000 to 25 000

1 000 to 10 000

EE BG RO LT
Under 1 000

EL

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for HR. 2015 data for HU, RO. 

Figure 33 shows that Germany has almost 7 000 stations on its network, over one quarter of the EU 
total. In contrast Luxembourg has only 42 stations, reflecting the size of the country and the largely 
suburban and regional nature of its network. 

Figure 34 shows the proportion of stations in each network serving different numbers of passengers 
per day. Except in the case of the Netherlands, at least half the stations on all networks serve fewer 
than  1 000  passengers  per  day,  equivalent  to  500  round  trips.  Four  networks,  in  Bulgaria,  Greece, 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Lithuania and Slovenia, have no stations serving more than 10 000 passengers per day, and Romania 
has only one. 

3.2 

Other service facilities 

The RMMS collected data from Member States on the  numbers of other service facilities, whether 
for the use of freight operators or for the storage and fuelling of trains, as referred to in Annex II of 
Directive 2012/34/EU. 

In many cases, however, the current discrepancies in the definition of each type of service facility at 
national level limit the comparability of figures across Member States and suggest caution in drawing 
conclusions from the inputs received45. 

Moreover, the RMMS does not collect data on the use of such facilities, whether there was a realistic 
need  for  them  in  the  foreseeable  future,  or  whether  they  were  sufficiently  well-maintained  to  be 
used at short notice. The mere existence of a facility in fact does not necessary imply that this facility 
is regularly used (or could be used in future). 

Freight terminals 

Based on data reported for the RMMS, there were around 2 358 freight terminals in the EU in 2016.  
Figure 35 shows the reported number of freight terminals in 2016 by State. 

Figure 35: Facilities: freight terminals by country, 2016 

1 600

1 400

1 200

1 000

 800

 600

 400

 200

 0

i

s
l
a
n
m
r
e
t

t
h
g
e
r
F

i

1 401

341

149

92

68

51

42

38

34

24

23

18

18

17

14

10

4

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

RO FR DE

EL

IT

ES

EE UK PL NL

SE AT

PT

CZ NO SK

SI

BG DK HR HU LT

FI

LU

Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2016 data or suitable proxy for IE (last reported in 2012), BE or LV. 2015 data for ES. 

The  RMMS  Regulation  defines  freight  terminals  as  a  facility  equipped  for  the  transhipment  and 
storage of intermodal transport units, where at least one of the modes of transport is rail. Romania 
reported high numbers of such freight terminals, with 1 401 in 2016. Major freight terminals are also 
defined, as those with a capacity of over 100 000 containers or over 1 million tonnes per year. 

45   Data are also often incomplete, with gaps and different definitions applied. 

53 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Marshalling yards and train formation facilities 

Based on data reported for the RMMS, there were around 452 marshalling yards and train formation 
facilities in the EU in 2016. 

Figure 36 shows the reported number of marshalling yards and train formation facilities in 2016 by 
State. 

Figure 36: Facilities: marshalling yards by country, 2016 

s
e
i
t
i
l
i
c
a
f
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
a
r
t
d
n
a
s
d
r
a
y

i

g
n

i
l
l

a
h
s
r
a
M

149

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

67

51

45

24

18

18

15

13

9

8

6

5

5

5

4

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

UK DE CZ

IT

PL

FI

SI

LT

SE

LV AT

SK

FR

EL RO PT HU NL BE BG HR DK

EE

LU

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data or suitable proxy for ES, IE or NO. 

The RMMS Regulation defines a marshalling yard as a site or a part of a site equipped with several 
tracks or other equipment used for railway vehicle marshalling operations,  including switching, and 
which use gravity as a means of formation or rearrangement of trains. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Maintenance facilities 

Based on data reported for the RMMS, there were around 1 667 maintenance facilities in the EU in 
2016. 

Figure 37 shows the reported number of maintenance facilities in 2016 by State. 

Figure 37: Facilities: maintenance facilities by country, 2016 

474

335

s
e
i
t
i
l
i
c
a
f
e
c
n
a
n
e
t
n
a
M

i

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

200

184

105

39 37 35 34 31 28 26 23 17 17 15 15 14 12 10

7

3

2

2

2

PL DE FR RO IT

SE CZ BG SK AT

LT UK NO DK LV BE

FI

PT

SI

EL HR NL HU IE

LU

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data or suitable proxy for EE or ES. 2015 data for FR. 2014 data for EE. 

Maintenance facilities are facilities where rolling stock is maintained, including both heavy and light 
maintenance, to keep it in operation. 

Maritime and port facilities 

Based on data reported for the RMMS, there were around 702 maritime and port facilities in the EU 
in 2016. 

Figure 38 shows the reported number of maritime and port facilities in 2016 by State. 

55 

 
 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Figure 38: Facilities: maritime and port facilities linked to rail activities by country, 2016 

143

130

 250

232

s
e
i
t
i
l
i
c
a
f

t
r
o
p
e
m

i
t
i
r
a
M

 200

 150

 100

 50

 0

30

23

19

18

17

14

13

9

8

8

8

6

6

6

4

4

1

1

1

IT

DE RO SE NO PL

FI

ES

BG UK

FR HR HU LV

CZ DK

PT

AT

EL

IE

LU SK

1

SI

Source: RMMS, 2018. 2015 data for FR and HU. 2014 data for ES and LV. No data or suitable proxy for BE, EE, 
LT, NL. 

Italy reported the largest number of links to port and maritime facilities, 232, but commented that 
only 24 of them are directly connected to the network of RFI, the main infrastructure manager. 

Refuelling facilities 

Based on data reported for the RMMS, there were around 954 refuelling facilities in the EU in 2016. 

Figure 39 shows the reported count of facilities refuelling locomotives and multiple units. 

Figure 39: Facilities: refuelling facilities by country, 2016 

s
e
i
t
i
l
i
c
a
f

g
n

i
l

e
u
f
e
R

352

179

 400

 350

 300

 250

 200

 150

 100

 50

 0

71

40

37

36

33

27

26

20

18

18

18

17

11

10

9

9

8

8

4

2

1

DE

IT

RO LT

AT

FR

FI

ES

SK DK BG HR

PL NL

EL

BE

PT

SI

LV NO UK HU LU

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data or suitable proxy for CZ, EE, IE, SE. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Germany reported the highest number, 352 such facilities, followed by Italy with 179 and Romania 
with 71. 

3.3 

Complaints related to access to service to facilities 

Complaints currently being processed and decisions taken 

Figure  40  shows  data  in  relation  to  complaints  and decisions  made  in  2016,  provided  by  23 of  the 
States. Complaints reported relate primarily to: 

  access to facilities; 
 
infrastructure charging; and 
  quality of services provided. 

Figure 40: Complaints being processed and decisions made by country, 2016 

s
n
o
i
t
c
A

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

PT HR DK DE

EL

IT NO AT BE BG CZ

Decisions taken

FI HU IE

EE
LV LT
Complaints being processed

LU NL

PL RO SK

SI

ES UK

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for ES, FR, RO and UK. No data on complaints being processed for EL. 

Portugal made the most decisions, with other States reporting limited or no complaints activity. 

Some complaints also relate to processes for bidding for track access. The RMMS survey also asked 
States to report whether any complaints relate to the interpretation of the European railway acquis. 

Decisions are  not  necessarily  in  response  to  complaints  raised  in  the  same  year,  as there  can  be  a 
considerable time lag between a party making a complaint and the resolution of the complaint. The 
feedback received from Member States through RMMS suggests that each uses different approaches 
to  complaints  management  and  regulation  more  broadly,  meaning  that  there  is  likely  to  be 
considerable  variation  in  the  categorisation  and  recording  of  complaints  for  the  purposes  of 
reporting. 

3.4 

The traction market 

Many  passenger  services  are  operated  by  multiple  units,  which  carry  their  own  source  of  power 
(typically  electric  or  diesel,  although  a  small  number  of  hybrid  and  battery-powered  vehicles  have 
been  used)  and  interface  with  signalling  systems.  Other  passenger  services,  and  almost  all  freight 

57 

 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

services,  require  traction  provided  by  locomotives  carrying  this  equipment.  Locomotives  may  be 
designed for use with passenger services, freight services, or both. 

Locomotives  must  be  compatible with the  infrastructure over  which  they  are  to  be  operated,  with 
compatibility  defined  by  track  gauge,  structure  gauge,  coupling  and  signalling  equipment  and,  if 
electrified,  electrification  system  (which  may  use  trackside  rails  or  overhead  catenary  supplying 
power  at  several  different  voltages).  Suitable  maintenance  facilities  and,  for  diesel  locomotives, 
fuelling  points,  must  also  be  available  on  or  near  the  infrastructure  over  which  they  are  to  be 
operated. For international passenger and freight services, this often means that the locomotive (and 
crew)  must  be  changed  at  each  border.  Technical  Specifications  for  Interoperability  (TSIs)  are 
intended to reduce the variety of systems in use, particularly in signalling and control, through the 
European Railway Traffic Management System (ERTMS). 

An  operator  wishing  to  enter  the  market  or  to  expand  its  services  may  buy  new  or  used  traction 
equipment or lease it from another party such as a rolling stock company. New entry and expansion 
are easiest when one or more of these options is available and, ideally, there is a competitive supply 
market.  Lack  of  suitable  traction,  or  an  unwillingness  of  an  existing  owner  to  sell  or  lease  it  on 
reasonable terms, can be a major barrier to market entry. Equally, lack of an alternative use, or of an 
attractive resale value, for existing traction can be a major barrier to market exit. 

In some Member States there are relatively developed markets for the leasing of traction equipment. 
In  the  United  Kingdom,  three  privately-owned  rolling  stock  companies  (ROSCOs)  were  created  in 
1995.  ROSCOs  have  also  been  established  in  other  Member  States  including  Germany,  the 
Netherlands  and  Sweden.  On  4  June  2018,  Finland’s  incumbent  railway  undertaking,  VR  Group, 
agreed with the Ministry of Transport and Communications that a new rolling stock company would 
be established, although it is not yet clear whether this will supply traction. 

Useful data on the availability of traction equipment in the Member States are limited. Locomotives 
may  be  listed  as  available  but  may  no  longer  comply  with  safety  and  technical  standards,  be 
maintained in operable condition, or meet the technical requirements (track gauge, structure gauge, 
coupling,  signalling  system,  electrification  type)  needed  to  operate  any  service.  The  key  issue  is 
whether existing and potential operators can obtain suitable equipment on reasonable terms.  

58 

 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

4. 

The evolution of framework conditions in the rail 
sector 

4.1 

Infrastructure charging 

Infrastructure  charges  enable  infrastructure  managers  to  recover  the  cost  related  to  provision  of 
infrastructure  for  train  operations.  The  core  principle  is  that  the  charges  should  cover  at  least  the 
‘direct’ costs of the train run referring to those costs incurred to the infrastructure manager due to 
the interaction of train and infrastructure. 

In addition to direct costs there are other components of charging systems that infrastructure man-
agers can apply to enhance the optimal use of their infrastructure or to set incentives: 

 

 

 

 

the effective use of infrastructure capacity can be incentivised through mechanisms such as a 
scarcity charge, a reservation charge or discounts to specific traffic flows; 
to improve the environmental performance, charges can reflect noise emissions or the usage 
of diesel/electric locomotives; 
the  costs  of  specific  investment  projects  can  be  recovered  by  charges  based  on  long-term 
costs); and 
the  operational  performance  can  be  addressed  by  a  performance  scheme  involving  penal-
ties/rewards 
linked  to  occurrence/avoidance  of  service  disruption  both  by  railway 
undertakings and infrastructure managers. 

In addition, mark-ups can be applied on top of the direct cost charges in market segments being able 
to pay such higher charges. At the same time, market segments that can at least pay the direct costs 
shall  not  be  excluded  from  the  use  of  the  rail  infrastructure.  The  overall  level  of  cost  recovery 
through  infrastructure  charges  is  interdependent  with  the  level  of  government  contribution  and 
Member States may require different levels of cost recovery. 

59 

 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Box 9: Direct cost-based charging 

The EU rail legislation provides the basis for the calculation of direct costs which are core for 
setting track access charges. According to Directive 2012/34/EU, the charges for the minimum 
access package (the essential 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. 
Commission Implementing Regulation 909/201546 specifies the rules on the modalities 
calculating the underlying direct costs. 

Direct cost based infrastructure charges intend to ensure optimum effective use of the available 
infrastructure capacity by ensuring that every market segment that can at least pay the direct 
costs shall not be excluded from the use of the rail infrastructure, while the infrastructure 
manager has always the right to charge at least for the cost of each train run. The infrastructure 
managers shall integrate in their calculation of direct costs those costs that they can objectively 
and robustly prove to be incurred by the operation of the train service. The rules for calculating 
direct costs include the prohibition 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 
can allocate costs to different services or even to different types of vehicles. By doing so, it also 
allows the infrastructure managers to incentivise the use of less damaging rolling stock. 

Access charges for different categories of passenger trains 

As explained above, 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  41  compares  estimates  of  typical  access  charges  (excluding  mark-ups),  in  EUR  per  train-
kilometre, for three different types of passenger train. 

46   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. 

60 

 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 41: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): passenger trains by type by country, 2016 

e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
n
a
r
t

i

r
e
p
R
U
E

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

BE UK LV DE ES

FR IT AT

IE

LT EE RO PT LU NL SK HU PL

EL

SE BG HR DK CZ

SI

FI NO

Suburban and regional

Long-distance

High-speed

Source: RMMS, 2018. DE data including mark-ups.  

Figure 42 compares track access charges for typical suburban and regional passenger trains in 2013, 
where available, and 2016. 

Figure 42: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): suburban and regional passenger trains by country, 2013 and 

2016 

12

10

e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
n
a
r
t

i

r
e
p
R
U
E

8

6

4

2

0

FR

LV DE

BE

IT

LT HU IE

AT

SK

EL NL BG EE HR

CZ

SE

SI

FI UK DK

PT RO NO

2013

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2013 data for DK, PT, RO. NO.DE data including mark-ups.   

The  figure  shows  how  charges  have  changed  in  several  Member  States,  most  notably  France, 
Belgium, Estonia and the United Kingdom. In practice, while changes in charges affect infrastructure 
managers, they may have little or no effect on operator behaviour if suburban and regional services 
are specified by a PSO, where changes in charges are compensated through different levels of public 
subsidies. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure  43  compares  track  access  charges  for  conventional  long-distance  trains  in  2013,  where 
available, and 2016. The  results are mixed and overall there  are more  changes than for the access 
charges of suburban and regional passenger trains. 

Figure 43: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): conventional long-distance passenger trains, 2013 and 2016 

e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
n
a
r
t

i

r
e
p
R
U
E

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

LV DE FR

IE BE EE

LT AT PL

IT RO LU HU NL

EL BG UK CZ HR SE

SI

FI DK PT

ES NO

2013

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2013 data or suitable proxy for PT,  DK, ES, NO. No 2016 data or suitable  proxy for 
EE.DE data 2016 including mark-ups. 

Access charges for different categories of freight trains 

Figure  44  shows  track  access  charge  rates  (excluding  mark  ups)  for  freight  trains  of  different 
maximum gross tonnage. 

Figure 44: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): freight train by type by country, 2016 

e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
n
a
r
t

i

r
e
p
R
U
E

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

LT LV IE

FI

EE PL HU SE SK NL AT CZ RO DE BE
1 000 tonne

1 600 tonne

IT BG LU FR HR UK SI
6 000 tonne

EL PT DK NO ES

Source: RMMS, 2018. For DE: split by train type not available, figure here includes mark-ups.  

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Latvia,  Estonia,  France,  Portugal  and  Denmark  apply  a  fixed  charge  per  train-kilometre.  This  can 
incentivise  railway  undertakings  to  assemble  long  trains  which  make  efficient  use  of  limited 
infrastructure capacity, provided they operate at sufficient speed. However, they may not reflect the 
direct cost of the train run, given that in general heavier train runs cause higher wear and tear than 
the lighter trains. 

In most other States, access charges increase with train size, although not necessarily pro rata with 
tonnage. Italy stated that its track access charges change at 1 000 and 1 600 tonnes as follows: 

  EUR 2.04 up to 999 tonnes; 
  EUR 2.51 from 1 000 to 1 599 tonnes; and 
  EUR 2.50 from 1 600 to 5 999 tonnes, with no charge specified at 6 000 tonnes or above. 

The figure shows these three charges but in practice the charges at exactly 1 000 and 1 600 tonnes 
are in the next higher band. 

The largest variation in charges reported was in Lithuania, with a difference of EUR 8.40 per tonne-
kilometre  between  the  1 600  tonne  and  6 000  tonne  categories.  The  largest  difference  in  charges 
reported was in Finland, with a factor of 3.8 between the 1 600 tonne and 6 000 tonne categories. 

 Figure 45 shows how reported average freight charges have changed between 2013 and 2016. 

 Figure 45: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): freight train average by country, 2013 and 2016 

e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
n
a
r
t

i

r
e
p
R
U
E

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

IE

LV LT

EE CZ RO AT PL DE SK

IT BG BE HU UK FR PT

FI

EL

SI

LU SE

ES HR DK NL

2013

2016

Source:  RMMS,  2018.  No  data  2013  for  HR,  DK  and  NL.  Split  by  tonne  not  available  for  DE  2016.  2014 
1 000 tonne data for 2016 for IE. 

The largest reported increases in access charges for freight trains were in Sweden (46%) and France 
(24%)  and  the  largest  reported  reductions  were  in  Lithuania  (-52%),  Slovakia  (44%)and  the  United 
Kingdom (42%). 

Figure  46  shows  infrastructure  managers’  reported  revenues  from  passenger  trains  through  track 
access charges, station charges and other charges. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Infrastructure managers’ revenue collected for passenger and freight trains 

Figure 46: Access charges: infrastructure managers’ revenue from passenger trains, 2016 

e
u
n
e
v
e
r

r
e
g
a
n
a
m
e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

i

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

SE CZ

FI

LV LT LU PT

SI BG BE EE RO FR PL UK EL

IE AT NL NO SK DE IT HR ES HU DK

Track access charges

Station charges

Other charges

Source: RMMS, 2018. 

Sweden  reported  negative  revenue  from  other  charges,  resulting  from  net  penalties  paid  the 
infrastructure  manager  under  the  performance  scheme.  Not  all  infrastructure  managers  own  or 
manage  stations  and  therefore  all  their  revenue  comes  from  track  access  charges.  In  Hungary, 
however station charges provide 46% of the total revenues. ‘Other charges’ in Italy relate to traction 
energy and in Denmark to the use of the bridges across the Storebælt and Øresund. 

Figure  47  shows  the  main  infrastructure  managers’  reported  revenues  from  freight  trains  through 
track access charges, freight terminal charges and other charges. 

Figure 47: Access charges: infrastructure managers’ revenue from freight trains, 2016 

e
u
n
e
v
e
r

r
e
g
a
n
a
m
e
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
a
r
f
n

i

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

EL

SE AT

FI

LU NL

SI NO LT PT EE

Track access charges

IE CZ BG PL BE UK IT RO SK DE HR FR LV HU DK ES
Other charges

Freight terminal charges

Source: RMMS, 2018. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Greece reported negative revenue from other charges, and Sweden reported negative revenue from 
freight terminal charges, resulting from net penalties paid for under-performance. 

In Germany, DB Netz earned EUR 101 million from freight terminal charges. Revenues from freight 
terminal charges in Hungary, France, Slovakia and Poland did not exceed EUR 2 million and  several 
Member  States  reported  no  revenues  from  freight  terminal  charges.  We  assume  that  in  these 
countries  terminals  are  (mostly)  not  owned  by  the  main  infrastructure  manager.  Other  charges  in 
Denmark  are  due  to  bridge  charges,  there  is  no  information  about  the  nature  of  other  charges  in 
Spain. 

Figure 48 and Figure 49 compare revenues from passenger and freight track access charges, including 
mark-ups, where applicable, in 2015 and 2016. 

Figure 48: Access charges (including mark-ups): revenues from passenger trains, 2015 and 2016 

n
o

i
l
l
i

b
R
U
E

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

UK FR DE

IT BE ES NL AT PL

SE HU RO CZ
2015

PT SK LV DK FI

IE
2016

LT LU BG NO EL EE HR SI

Source: RMMS, 2018. 2015 no data for LU, HU. 

65 

 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 49: Access charges (including mark-ups): revenues from freight trains, 2015 and 2016 

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
R
U
E

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

DE PL

LT FR AT

IT

LV CZ RO UK SE NL BE

FI

SK EE BG SI

PT HR HU ES NO DK IE

EL

LU

2015

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2015 data for HU or LU. 

Figure 50 compares revenue from station charges, where available, in 2015 and 2016. 

Figure 50: Access charges: revenues from station charges, 2015 and 2016 

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
R
U
E

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

DE

UK

ES

FR

HU

AT

NL

PL

IE

SK

NO

HR

EE

2015

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. BE, BG, CZ, DK, FI, EL, IT, LV, LT, LU, PT, RO, SI and SE did not report revenues from station 
charges in the RMMS questionnaire. 

Figure 50 only reports revenue from charges at stations owned by the main infrastructure manager. 
Revenues from station charges rose in Germany, from EUR 826 million in 2015 to EUR 853 million in 
2016, while in the United Kingdom they fell from EUR 457 million to EUR 415 million over the same 
period. In contrast, they generally remained at 2015 levels in Austria, the Netherlands, Poland and, to 
a limited extent, Spain and France. 

Figure 51 and Figure 52 show the variation in revenues from other charges collected from passenger 
and freight train operators, where available, among the States. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 51: Access charges: revenues from other charges from passenger operators, 2015 and 2016 

 250

 200

 150

 100

 50

 0

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
R
U
E

IT

FR

UK

DE

DK

ES

HU

NL

RO

SK

PL

BE

EL

HR

BG

IE

SE

2015

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. AT, CZ, EE, FI, LT, LU, LV, NO, PT and SI did not report revenues from other charges from 
passenger operators in the RMMS questionnaire in both years; same for ES, HU, NL, SK and  EL for 2015. 2016 
no data for IE. 

As noted above, Sweden reported negative revenue from other charges resulting from net penalties 
paid for under-performance. 

Figure 52: Access charges: revenues from other charges from freight operators 

 120

 100

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
R
U
E

 80

 60

 40

 20

 0

DE

FR

LV

IT

ES

PL

RO

DK

UK

SK

BE

CZ

HU

HR

BG

SE

IE

PT

EL

2015

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. AT, EE, FI, LT, LU, NL, SI and NO did not report revenues from other charges from freight 
operators in the RMMS questionnaire for both years; same for LV and HU for 2015. 

Greece reported a small negative revenue from other charges. 

Figure 53 shows the average revenue from the charges for the minimum access package in 2016 in 
each State reported by IRG-Rail. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 53: Access charges: average revenue from charges for the minimum access package, 2016 

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

)
R
U
E
(
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
n
a
r
t

i

r
e
p
e
u
n
e
v
e
R

LT

EE

LV DK EU PL RO DE AT BE NL

IT

FI

FR UK HU SK

LU BG PT

EL HR

SI NO ES

Freight

Passenger

Source: IRG-Rail, 2018. No data for CZ, IE, SE. 

4.2 

Capacity allocation and congestion 

4.2.1  Network utilisation 

Figure  54  shows  the  reported  average  intensity  of  use  of  the  infrastructure  in train-kilometres  per 
year per route-kilometre47. 

Figure 54: Network utilisation 2016, compound average growth rate 2011-2016 

50 000

45 000

40 000

35 000

30 000

25 000

20 000

15 000

10 000

e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
t
u
o
r

r
e
p
s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
n
a
r
T

i

5 000

 0

L
N

K
U

T
A

K
D

U
L

E
D

E
B

I

T S

I

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

Z
C

U
E

R
F

E
S

T
P

K
S

U
H

L
P

O
N

S
E

E
I

V
L

I

R F
H

O
R

G
B

E
E

T
L

L
E

-10%

0%

10%

Source: RMMS, 2018 and Statistical pocketbook, 2018 

47   In practice trains may carry many more passengers, or tonnes, in some networks, or parts of networks, than 
others.  These  broad  national  averages  say  nothing  about  the  emptiest  parts  of  the  network,  but  provide 
some indication about which networks are on average busier than others. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

The  most  intensively-used  networks,  on  average,  are  those  of  north  west  Europe  including  the 
Netherlands  (operating  almost  50 000  train-kilometres  per  route-kilometre  in  2016),  the  United 
Kingdom, Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Germany and Belgium. The least intensively-used networks 
are those of the Baltic States, Greece, Finland, Romania and Bulgaria. Low network utilisation means 
that  the  fixed  costs  of  operations,  maintenance  and  renewals  of  the  infrastructure  need  to  be 
recovered from, or justified by, a smaller volume of trains and passenger or freight traffic. 

4.2.2  Managing capacity shortages 

Sections and nodes declared congested 

Congestion underlines the existence of infrastructure limitations not allowing all potential traffic to 
transit  on  the  network.  Article  47  of  Directive  2012/34/EU  requires  that  infrastructure  managers 
declare  as  ‘congested’  any  infrastructure  for  which  it  has  not  been  possible  to  satisfy  requests  for 
infrastructure  capacity.  The  Directive  also  makes  provision  for  a  capacity  analysis  and  a  capacity 
enhancement plan.  

Table 5 summarises the lengths of track, and numbers of nodes, declared to be  congested in 2015 
and 2016 by eight Member States plus Norway. No States declared any dedicated high-speed line to 
be congested. 

Table 5: Track and nodes declared to be congested, 2015 and 2016 

State 

United Kingdom 

Germany 

Italy 

Romania 

Denmark 

Norway 

Ireland 

Austria 

Poland 

Total track 
(kilometres) 

Rail freight corridors 
(kilometres) 

Nodes 

2015 

2016 

2015 

2016 

2015 

1 171 

507 

163 

260 

84 

71 

12 

12 

4 

2016 

1 171 

681 

387 

363 

84 

71 

12 

12 

4 

396 

67 

260 

67 

24 

570 

67 

363 

67 

24 

1 

2 

1 

9 

1 

2 

2 

1 

16 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

8 

EU total (this excludes Norway) 

2 213 

2 714 

790 

1 067 

Source: RMMS. 

The  network  with  the  greatest  length  of  declared  congested  track  is  that  of  the  United  Kingdom, 
which  accounted  for  over  40%  of  total  congested  track  in  2016.  There  is  extensive  congestion  in 
Germany,  Italy  and  Romania,  each  of which  has  declared  more  than 100  kilometres of  track  to  be 
congested. 

Figure 55 combines the information in Table 5 with available historic data to show the trends in the 
total length of track declared congested over the period 2012 to 2016. 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 55: Total length of track declared congested, 2012-2016 

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i

K

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

 500

 0

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Total track

Rail Freight Corridors

Source: RMMS, 2018. 

The  total  length  of  track  declared  congested  (including  in  Norway)  is  rising  and  has  now  reached 
nearly 3 000 kilometres, including 1 000 kilometres of rail freight corridors. This suggests that further 
growth of traffic in some passenger and freight markets will be constrained, at least until alternative 
routes or additional capacity are available. 

Principles for dealing with congestion 

Infrastructure  managers  need  to  survey  the  usage  of  infrastructure  capacity  to  meet  all  capacity 
requests  adequately.  If  capacity  is  constrained,  methods  to  deal  with  this  need  to  be  developed. 
Reasons for congestion and measures that are to be taken in the short and medium term need to be 
displayed to ease the congestion. If, after coordination and consultation, train path demand cannot 
be matched, the relevant section of infrastructure must be declared congested. 

After  a  declaration  of  congestion,  either  the  infrastructure  manager  must  carry  out  a  capacity 
analysis within six months and produce a capacity enhancement plan within a further six months, or 
an  existing  capacity  enhancement  plan  must  be  realised.  Any  capacity  enhancement  plan  shall 
display  the  reasons  for  the  congestion,  the  likely  future  development  of traffic,  any  constraints  on 
infrastructure  development  and  the  options  and  costs  for  capacity  enhancement,  including  likely 
changes to access charges. On this basis, a decision of measures to overcome the congestion needs 
to be taken. The users of the relevant congested infrastructure are to be consulted on the plan and 
its measures. 

Where congestion exists, Article 31 of Directive 2012/34/EU permits infrastructure managers to levy 
a charge which reflects the scarcity of capacity of the identifiable section of the infrastructure during 
periods  of  congestion.  The  declaration  of  congestion  on  congested  infrastructure  is  therefore  a 
prerequisite for levying such a charge. 

70 

 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

IRG-Rail  (2017)  reported  that  scarcity  charges  were  in  use  in  Austria,  Estonia,  France,  Italy, 
Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  Norway,  Slovenia  and  Sweden48.  Poland  makes  provision  for  scarcity 
charges but does not impose them. 

If scarcity charges are not levied, or have not achieved changing the traffic demand behaviour, the 
infrastructure  manager  may  also  employ  priority  criteria  to  allocate  infrastructure  capacity.  Such 
criteria need to reflect the importance of a service to society relative to any other service, which will 
consequently  be  excluded.  Member  States  might  take  measures  to  ensure  that  the  importance  of 
transport services under public service requirements and of national or international rail freight are 
taken  into  consideration.  Compensations  to  infrastructure  managers  for  losses  of  revenues  due  to 
the capacity allocation to certain services may be granted. This also includes effects of any exclusion 
of  a  service  in  another Member  State.  All  procedures  and  defined  criteria  shall  be  reflected  in the 
network statement. 

If no capacity enhancement plan is produced, or no progress with the measures agreed in the plan is 
made,  the  infrastructure  manager  must  cease  levying  any  charges  for  the  use  of  the  relevant 
infrastructure.  Otherwise,  if  the  plan  cannot  be  realised  due  to  unforeseen  reasons,  or  if  the 
measures in the plan prove not to be economically of financially viable, the infrastructure manager 
may continue to levy the charge in agreement with the regulatory body. 

Framework agreements 

Article  42  of  Directive  2013/34/EU  makes  provision  for  framework  agreements  for  the  use  of  the 
infrastructure  for  longer  than  one  working  timetable  period.  However,  the  EU  rail  industry  is 
characterised  by  dominant  operators,  some  of  which  may  have  close  ties  with  infrastructure 
managers  that  could  use  framework  agreements  to  monopolise  infrastructure  capacity  for  many 
years. The Commission implemented a Regulation, from December 2016, on procedures and criteria 
relating  to  framework  agreements  for  the  allocation  of  railway  infrastructure,  to  provide  new 
entrants with fairer access to the railway infrastructure and to optimise its use. 

Priority rules (priority services) 

Article  45  of  Directive  2012/34/EU  permits  the  infrastructure  manager  to  give  priority  to  specific 
services within the scheduling and coordination process. Many infrastructure managers make use of 
priority rules, and the principal types of service given priority are summarised in Figure 56. 

48   'Overview of charging practices for the minimum access package in Europe', IRG-Rail (2017). 

71 

 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 56: Principal types of services prioritised by infrastructure managers, 2016 

y
t
i
r
o
i
r
p
h
c
a
e

i

g
n
n
g
i
s
s
a
s
e
t
a
t
S

r
e
b
m
e
M

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

PSO

International
 passenger

International
 freight

Domestic
 passenger

Domestic
 freight

Domestic
 high-speed

Priority 1

Priority 2

Priority 3

Priority 4

Priority 5

Priority 6

Source: RMMS, 2018. 

Note that: 

  Two large Member States, France and Germany, did not report any priority rules. 
  Two Member States with relatively liberal markets, Sweden and the United Kingdom, stated 
that priority was based on a range of decision-making criteria or on overall optimisation of 
the timetable. 

  Between 2015 and 2016, some infrastructure managers reported that they had changed 

their priority rules. 

The services most commonly prioritised are those provided under PSO, which are given Priority 1 in 
11  Member  States.  The  next  most  commonly  prioritised  services  are  international  passenger 
services, followed by international freight services, then other domestic and passenger services. It is 
often necessary to prioritise international services to allow the creation of end-to-end paths crossing 
borders  between  Member  States.  Where  they  operate,  domestic  high-speed  services  are  normally 
given a high priority. 

Some infrastructure managers allocate high priority to other types of service. For example: 

 

 

 

 
 

In Austria (and Norway), a high priority is given to services operated under framework 
agreements. 
In Belgium, slow freight trains are given fourth priority, behind passenger trains and fast 
freight trains. 
In Finland, top priority is given to passenger traffic necessary for connections and freight 
traffic for the processing industry. 
In Croatia, second priority is given to combined freight transport. 
In Hungary and Lithuania, low priority is allocated to maintenance trains. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Successful  and  rejected  path  allocations  scheduled  and  ad  hoc  train  paths,  numerous 
services 

Member  States  are  required  to  follow  the  path  coordination  processes  set  out  in  Article  46(1)  of 
Directive 2012/34/EU, which permits either: 

scheduled path allocations, as part of a scheduled regular service; or 

 
  ad hoc allocations, in the event of unforeseen disruptions. 

Path  allocations  wither  may  be  accepted  or  rejected  by  an  infrastructure  manager  to  resolve 
conflicting applications for infrastructure capacity. 

Figure 57 shows the reported number of successful and rejected scheduled path allocations49 in 2015 
and 2016. 

Figure 57: Successful and rejected scheduled path allocations, 2015 and 2016 

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

(

s
n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l

a
h
t
a
P

 6

 5

 4

 3

 2

 1

 0

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

5
1
0
2

6
1
0
2

FR

IT

CZ

PL

NL

AT

UK

BE

HU

SK

PT

FI

DE

EL

LV

ES

DK

SI

HR

NO

RO

BG

EE

LT

IE

Successful scheduled path allocations

Rejected scheduled path allocations

Successful ad hoc path allocations

Rejected ad hoc path allocations

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for LU and SE. No 2015 data for EL, LV. 

Timetabling and planning of capacity restrictions 

The  use  of  railway  infrastructure  is  organised  on  the  basis  of  timetables,  which  predetermine  the 
trajectory of individual trains in the form of so-called ‘train paths’. The basis for building timetables 
are  path  requests  by  railway  undertakings  and  other  applicants50.  On  this  basis,  infrastructure 
managers develop a timetable which reconciles all path requests in the best way possible, given the 
infrastructure  capacity  available.  Path  requests  can  be  either  submitted  under  the  yearly  working 
timetable,  designed  for  planned  traffic  and  on  a more  long-term  basis,  and  as  ad-hoc  requests  for 
spot traffic on short notice. 

49   The definitions in the RMMS reporting as regards the count of path allocations still need to be refined. For 
instance currently total for FR is almost 5 million and total for DE is only 190 000. These differences could be 
a result of on how daily path has been recorded - as any of 1, 7, 28 or 365. 

50   In  addition  to  railway  undertakings,  the  term  ‘applicants’  includes  other  persons  or  legal  entities  with  an 
interest  in  procuring  infrastructure  capacity,  such  as  shippers,  freight  forwarders  or  combined  transport 
operators. 

73 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

As  other  elements  of  the  European  railway  system,  the  timetabling  procedures  have  evolved 
nationally and lack harmonisation, which hinders cross-border traffic. 

Another  issue  is  the  adequacy  of  the  timetabling  process  to  the  business  models  of  rail  freight 
transport. A material share of market demand is volatile and cannot be planned long in advance. For 
such  market  segments,  ad-hoc  path  requests  would  be  the  most  appropriate  method  to 
accommodate capacity needs. However, to secure infrastructure capacity, requests are rather made 
in the framework of the annual timetable process, thereby avoiding the risk of not receiving an ad 
hoc  train  path  of  suitable  quality  (or  even  none  at  all)  due  to  the  late  stage.  This  often  leads  to 
suboptimal  management  of  infrastructure  capacity  and  a  waste  of  resources,  since  train  paths  are 
typically modified or even cancelled, when the real capacity needs become more precise. 

Last  but  not  least,  insufficient  coordination of  capacity  restrictions creates  significant  problems  for 
running trains in certain regions of Europe. Capacity restrictions are necessary to allow maintenance 
and enhancement works on the infrastructure but their impact on rail traffic needs to be minimised 
by proper coordination at national and international level. 

Box 10: New timetabling delegated act and Timetable Review project (RNE) 

To improve this situation, the new Annex VII of Directive 2012/34/EU specifies a  mandatory timeline for 
the  establishment  of  the  yearly  timetable  and  introduces  coordination  and  consultation  processes 
between infrastructure managers and applicants. Capacity restrictions due to major planned infrastructure 
works must be taken into account at an early stage in the timetable process. This improves reliability for 
applicants, enabling both a better use of the infrastructure and more competitive transport services. 

In parallel to this change in legislation, infrastructure managers and railway undertakings have launched a 
common effort to completely redesign the international timetable process with the goal to better respond 
to the market needs of both passenger and freight transport. For example, passenger operators would be 
able to secure train paths earlier than today, allowing them to start ticket sales sooner. Freight operators 
would benefit from a more flexible process allowing them to respond to demand on short notice. Thus, the 
specific requirements of each market segment will be better reflected in the process. 

In 2017, the TTR project (‘redesign of the international timetable process’) was launched by RailNetEurope 
(infrastructure  managers)  and  Forum  Train  Europe  (applicants).  The  project  addresses  the  details  of  the 
timetable  process,  supporting  IT  tools,  the  commercial  and  legal  framework  as  well  as  a  monitoring 
process.  The  new  timetable  process  is  planned  to  be  introduced  in  a  gradual  process  until  2025.  Key 
elements  of  the  new  approach  are  currently  being  tested  in  three  pilot  projects  situated  on  Rail  Freight 
Corridor  lines,  covering  the  Mannheim-Miranda  de  Ebro,  Munich-Verona  and  Rotterdam-Antwerp  links 
until December 2020. 

4.3 

Rail transport services covered by public service contracts 

4.3.1 

PSO scope 

Regulation  1370/2007,  now  amended  by  Regulation  (EU)  2016/2338,  defines  a  Public  Service 
Obligation (PSO) as a requirement defined or determined by a competent authority to assure 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  reward.  The  Regulation  was  intended  to  create  an  internal  market  for  public 
passenger transport services by complementing the general rules on public procurement. 

In 2016, just over 60% of total EU rail passenger-kilometres were travelled on services covered by a 
PSO. Figure 58 shows how this proportion varies among the States for which data are available. 

74 

 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 58: Passenger-kilometres on PSO and commercial rail services, 2016 

100%

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

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

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

RO DK IE HR NO BE LU SI

EL UK FI HU CZ EE LV BG SK PL AT LT DE

IT

SE

ES

FR PT

PSO

Non-PSO

Source: RMMS, 2018. No recent data for NL. 

As  indicated  on  the  left  of  the  chart,  all  domestic  rail  passenger  travel  on  services  in  Romania, 
Denmark  and  Ireland  was  covered  by  a  PSO.  On  the  right  of  the  chart,  in  contrast,  several  large 
Member States  leave  the  incumbent operator to provide  services on a commercial basis without a 
PSO,  typically  in  long-distance  and  interurban  markets.  Over  30%  of  passenger-kilometres  are  on 
commercially-operated services in Austria, Germany, Italy and Sweden, which have commercial open 
access  operators,  and  in  Spain  and  France,  which  do  not.  Lithuania  also  has  a  large  proportion  of 
travel on services which are not covered by a PSO. 

In  Portugal,  around  60-70%  of  services  were  reported  as  covered  by  a  PSO  until  2014,  but  this 
proportion  appears  to  be  only  8%  in  2016  because  the  incumbent  CP  did  not  receive  anymore 
compensations and all its traffic was considered as commercial.  

The  only  large  network  which  does  not  leave  most  long-distance  services  to  be  provided 
commercially is the United Kingdom where, since 1996, all the services of the former incumbent have 
been covered by PSOs, and the only non-PSO services are those provided by open access operators. 
The implications of this and other factors for apparent levels of subsidy in the United Kingdom are 
discussed in the paragraph on PSO compensation. 

Figure  59  shows  that  six  Member  States  and  Norway  specified  a  PSO  for  some  international 
passenger services. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 59: Passenger-kilometres on domestic and international PSO services, 2016 

100%

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

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

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

UK

DE

PL

NO

DK

SK

SE

CZ

SI

Domestic PSO

International PSO

Source: RMMS, 2018. 

States reported almost 3 billion passenger-kilometres of travel on cross-border PSO services in 2016 
although the data appear to be incomplete. 

Poland,  Slovakia,  the  Czech  Republic  and  Slovenia  reported  passenger  travel  on  international  PSO 
services,  but  do  not  identify  across  which  borders  the  services  operate,  and  hence  it  is  not  clear 
whether travel in other Member States has been reported by them. The largest volume reported was 
in the Czech Republic, with over 1.3 billion passenger-kilometres, representing almost 16% of travel 
on  PSO  services  in  the  Czech  Republic.  The  largest  proportion  of  PSO  passenger  travel  on 
international  services  was  in  Slovenia,  with  20%  of  the  total,  although  this  amounted  to  only 
100 million passenger-kilometres. 

Denmark reported that 350 million passenger-kilometres occur on international PSO services, which 
operate  into Sweden, over the  Oresund Bridge,  and possibly  into Germany, across the  land border 
between the two Member States. Germany did not report any corresponding data, but Sweden did, 
although Sweden has services to both Denmark and Norway. Belgium, Croatia, Luxembourg and the 
Netherlands reported international PSO in past RMMS surveys but not for 2016. 

The  United  Kingdom  reported  50  million  passenger-kilometres,  which  must  occur  on  the  cross-
border Enterprise services linking Belfast with Dublin, in Ireland, but these account for only 0.08% of 
total passenger-kilometres on PSO services. Ireland did not report corresponding data for the part of 
the service in its territory. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Box 11: Night Trains 

The Commission receives many Parliamentary questions and letters from citizens about the gradual 
disappearance of passenger night trains. 

Passenger night trains can be defined as any train consisting partly or wholly of rolling stock dedicated to, 
or reconfigured for, overnight travel. Night trains often differ from day trains in their patterns of 
operation, and passenger night services have several constraints that day-time services do not experience 
(or to a lesser extent): 

  Reaching the destination within a given time slot is more relevant than to reach it as quickly as 

possible. 

  Many night trains split and join portions. 
  Night trains may operate only on some days of the week (or month, or during some seasons, or 

 

around specific holidays). 
Freight traffic may limit the commercial speed, punctuality and reliability of passenger night 
trains. 

Staff work overnight. 

  Main central stations focus on commuter flows in the morning. 
 
  More staff and cleaning work are needed. 
  Dedicated rolling stock operates only at night, so that usage is not maximised. 

Unfortunately, no consistent data are available to monitor the use and users of night train services, but an 
ad hoc study commissioned  by the European Parliament  in 201751 found that night travel in Europe has 
been declining for a long time. Night trains appear to have lost  business passengers and are mainly used 
for leisure travel. 

Night  trains  also  face  fierce  and  growing  competition,  particularly  from  aviation  and  coaches.  The 
liberalisation  of  intra-EU  air  services  in  1993  has  led  to  the  growth  of  low-cost  airlines  within  Europe. 
International  coach  services  were  also  liberalised  in  2011,  and  three  large  Member  States  (Germany, 
France  and  Italy)  also  liberalised  domestic  coach  services  which  over  domestic  long-distance  are  avid 
competitors to night trains.  Many coach operators also provide overnight  services, and their fares often 
undercut even the cheapest seats on night trains. 

The EU plays only a limited role in relation to night trains, setting the overall regulatory framework for the 
entire  sector.  The  provision  of  rail  services  is  in  first  place  a  matter  for  railway  undertakings,  Member 
States or regional authorities based on business/public service considerations. 

According to the study for the European Parliament, domestic night trains operate in 11 Member States, 
either under a PSO (national or specific to night trains) or commercially. International night trains currently 
serve or pass through 18 Member States, but three of them appear to be only connected by night trains to 
Russia. Night trains operated on a clearly commercial basis seem to be restricted to: 

 
 

a corridor including the service offered by SJ between Stockholm and Malmo in Sweden; and 
the ÖBB Nightjet network radiating from Vienna to a large area of central/Eastern Europe plus 
Slovenia, Croatia and Italy. 

The measures of the Fourth Railway Package may help to generate more demand for rail services and such 
improve  the  business  case  also  for  overnight  trains,  creating  new  services  and  improving  the  customer-
orientation of rail operators through competition. 

Source: Steer Davies Gleave for the EP. 

51   ‘Passenger night trains in Europe: the end of the line?’, 

Steer Davies Gleave for the TRAN Committee of the European Parliament, 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/601977/IPOL_STU(2017)601977_EN.pdf . 

77 

 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Box 12: Emergence of low-cost services 

A low-cost offer for rail services is emerging in the EU. In addition to existing services as Ouigo and Izy, 
FlixTrain recently entered the long-distance German market and RENFE announced the launch of a new 
low-cost service in Spain in 2019. According to a study commissioned by Getlink in 201852, a low-cost rail 
service could use peripheral stations to connect London to Paris via the Channel Tunnel with a slight longer 
travel time and overall cost saving between 25% and 30% compared to the premium offer of Eurostar. 

Service 

Description 

OUIGO 

Subsidiary of SNCF. 

 
  Offering low-fares, high-speed services (8 destinations to the north, the north-

west and the south-east of France). 
Launched in 2013. 

 

IZY 

Low-cost Thalys' brand. 

 
  Offering low-fares, standard-speed services on conventional lines between 

Brussels and Paris. 
Launched in 2016. 

 

FlixTrain 

  Brand of FlixMobility group, as FlixBus. 
 

Long-distance, low-fares train connections between Hamburg and Cologne 
(launched March 2018) as well as between Berlin and Stuttgart (launched April 
2018). 
FlixTrain plans to apply later this year for the rights to operate additional German 
routes from 2019. 
FlixTrain will use a similar model to FlixBus, where FlixMobility handles network 
development, technology, sales, marketing and quality management, while 
operations and fleet management are provided by experienced external partners 
(Leo Express, BahnTouristikExpress, BTE, MRCE). 
Integrated offer with FlixBus services. 

 

 

 

EVA 

Low-cost RENFE service. 

 
  Offering low-fares, no-frills high-speed services between Barcelona and Madrid, 

integrated with other modes. 
Launch announced by Spanish Ministry for the first quarter of 2019. 

 

4.3.2 

PSO award 

Public contracting authorities 

Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, now amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/2338, sets out the principal 
that  ‘Where  a  competent  authority  decides  to  grant  the  operator  of  its  choice  an  exclusive  right 
and/or compensation, of whatever nature, in return for the discharge of public service obligations, it 
shall do so within the framework of a public service contract.’ 

52   http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2018/07/01/20005-20180701ARTFIG00093-des-trains-low-cost-pourraient-
bientot-rejoindre-londres.php ; https://investir.lesechos.fr/actions/actualites/recap-week-end-getlink-
pousse-a-une-offre-low-cost-entre-paris-et-londres-presse-1776080.php. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

In practice, the nature and areas of responsibility of competent authorities for passenger rail services 
varies between States, as shown in Figure 60 drawn from a recent report for the Commission53. 

Figure 60: Competent authorities for passenger rail services, 2018 

Source: KCW, 2018. 

In a number of States, there is a single national competent authority for rail passenger transport. In 
many cases, there is also a single national incumbent railway and, as a result, there may be a single 
national public service contract (PSC) between the two parties. 

In other States, procurement of rail transport has been devolved to other tiers of government. This is 
typically  a  region,  province  or  county  with  a  capital  city  or  administrative  centre,  although  in 
Germany the competent authorities are the States (Länder), three of which cover only the cities of 
Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg. More complex arrangements occur in the United Kingdom, where the 
competent authorities for rail services include a kingdom (Scotland), a principality (Wales), a province 
(Northern  Ireland)  and  three  cities  (London,  Manchester  and  Liverpool).  These  arrangements  can 
involve  a  large  number  of  PSCs,  whether  with  a  national  incumbent  operator,  with  established 
regional and local operators, or through competitive tendering. 

Most  States  with  devolved  authorities  also  retain  a  national  competent  authority  which  can,  if 
needed,  specify  PSOs  for  services  linking  different  regions.  The  exception  is  Germany,  where  all 
responsibility for rail is devolved, and interregional PSCs typically require the cooperation of two or 
more Länder. 

53   ‘Comprehensive analysis of the existing cross-border rail and transport connections and missing lings on the 

internal EU borders’, KCW and others, March 2018. 

79 

 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Note that Article 7 of Regulation 1370/2007, now amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/2338, requires 
that ‘Each competent authority shall publish once a year an aggregated report on the public service 
obligations  for  which  it  is  responsible,  the  selected  public  service  operators,  the  compensation 
payments  and  exclusive  rights  granted  to  the  said  public  service  operators  by  way  of 
reimbursement.’ 

Direct award versus tendering 

Figure  61  shows  the  proportion  of  PSO  services,  measured  in  passenger-kilometres,  which  were 
competitively tendered or directly awarded in 2016. 

Figure 61: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded, 2016 

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

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

UK DE FR

IT

PL

ES BE AT CZ HU DK SE RO FI
Competitively tendered

SK NO IE BG EL HR SI
Directly awarded

LV LU PT

EE

LT

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for NL. 

Of the EU total 2016 PSO passenger-kilometres, 41% were on services which had been competitively 
tendered. However, over 96% of this competitive tendering occurred in three Member States which 
liberalised their services early: 

  57.0% in the United Kingdom, where long-distance services are subject to a PSO and 

competitively tendered, although during 2016 some operations had been directly awarded 
on a temporary basis; 

  33.5% in Germany, where some competent authorities continue to procure services by 

direct award; and 

  5.5% in Sweden, where all PSO services are competitively tendered. 

According to data provided for this survey, limited competitive tendering has also been introduced in 
Portugal, Bulgaria, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Poland and Italy. In the Netherlands, the Passenger 
Transport Act of 2000 introduced competitive tendering at regional level54. 

54   “Competitive  Tendering  in  Local  and  Regional  Public  Transport  in  the  Netherlands”,  ITF  2016-12  

https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/competitive-tendering-public-transport-
netherlands_.pdf. 

80 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

The  Fourth  Railway  Package  provides  for  the  gradual  opening  of  public  service  contracts’  market 
from  December  2019,  giving  a  choice  between  competitive  tendering  and  direct  award  until 
December 2023. From 24 December 2023 the principle of competitive tendering will apply and direct 
award will be possible only on the basis of exemptions. 

Reforms  to  put  in  place  an  industry  structure  compatible  with  the  requirements  of  the  Fourth 
Railway Package have been approved in France and are also underway in Norway and Finland. 

In France, a wide-ranging railway reform is currently underway. A framework law designed to align 
French legislation to the 4th railway package was adopted in June 2018. In the wake of the reform, 
the legal monopoly of the incumbent railway undertaking SNCF will come to an end. From December 
2019, responsibility for procuring regional railway services will be transferred to the Regions, some of 
which are actively preparing for competitive tendering. As of 2020, open access will be introduced, 
including on the high-speed network. 

In Norway, monopoly operator NSB has been restructured to create a separate rolling stock leasing 
company and ticketing and retail company. Rail services will be split into packages, two of which have 
already  been  identified,  for  competitive  tendering.  Package  South  includes  services  between 
Stavanger  and  Oslo,  and  Package  North  includes  services  between  Trondheim  and  Oslo  and  local 
diesel  services.  Invitations  to  tender  for  Package  South,  on  a  net  cost  basis,  were  issued  in 
October 201755. 

In 2017, the Finnish government presented an ambitious reform with the aim of opening passenger 
rail  transport  to  competition.  Market  opening  will  be  based  on  tendering  and  on  the  corporate 
reorganisation  of  VR,  the  incumbent  railway  undertaking,  to  guarantee  an  equal  and  competition-
neutral environment for all service providers. In particular: 

  Three  companies  will  be  separated  from  VR  Group  Ltd:  a  rolling  stock  company,  a 

maintenance company and a real estate company. 

  A concession contract will be tendered for local passenger rail services in Southern Finland, 

and also used as a guide for further tenders. 

Role of regulatory bodies in the PSO awarding process 

Before December 2016, in the absence of common rules governing the award of PSCs, some Member 
States introduced competitive tendering of PSCs while most awarded them directly. The disparity in 
the rules among the Member States pose difficulties for railway operators to exploit the full potential 
of  operating  in  an  internal  market.  The  Fourth  Railway  Package  introduced  a  framework  for 
competitive award of rail PSCs. According to the framework, under certain circumstances, Member 
States could directly award rail contracts, but in that event would be required to publish a reasoned 
decision  behind  the  award  and  to  ensure  quality  and  cost  efficiency  improvement  using  clearly 
defined performance targets in the contract. 

Overview of PSO contracts awarded during the reporting period 

States were asked to provide information on the size of PSO contracts let during 2016. 

Several States let no PSO contracts during that year, and the remainder let a mix of directly-awarded 
and competitively-tendered contracts, summarised in Figure 62: 

55   Further  details  are  provided  at  https://www.jernbanedirektoratet.no/en/railway-tenders/upcoming-

tenders/ 

81 

 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

  The numbers on the horizontal axis show the number of contracts let, where this is more 

than one. 

  The length of the bars on the figure shows the range between the smallest and largest 

contract of each type let in each State. 

Figure 62: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded, 2016 

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

)
s
e
r
t
e
m
o

i

l
i
k
-
n
a
r
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

(

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

l

a
u
n
n
A

UK

4

IT

2

SE

2

DE

31

NL

1

PL

1

PL

17

IT

28

SI

1

EL

25

FI

1

LT

1

LV

2

EE

1

DE

9

FR

2

NL

1

CZ

1

DK

1

Competitive tenders

Direct awards

Source: RMMS, 2018. 

Competitive tenders of up to more than 32 million train-kilometres per year were let in 2016: 

 

  The United Kingdom let the largest contract, for services on the Greater Anglia franchise, 
using its system of leasing rolling stock, rather than requiring the new operator to provide 
stock. The smallest of the four contracts let was for 2.7 million train-kilometres. 
In Italy, the larger of two competitively-awarded contracts was for over 18 million train-
kilometres. 
In Sweden, the larger of two contracts, for the Mälardalen services to Stockholm, was for 
12 million train-kilometres. 

 

Direct awards of up to 40 million train-kilometres per year were let in 2016, with contract durations 
of up to ten years or around 2026: 

  Slovenia directly awarded all national services for ten years. 
 

Italy made direct awards for up to nine years, although the largest, for over 23 million train-
kilometres, was only for one year. 

  Greece directly awarded all services for five years in a series of 25 small packages, the 

largest of which was for over 8 million train-kilometres. 

  Poland and Estonia directly awarded all national services for one year, in the case of Poland 

totalling 40 million train-kilometres. 

Net cost and gross cost public service contracts 

Public Service Contracts (PSC) can take many forms, although a common distinction is between net 
cost contracts and gross cost contracts. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

In a net cost contract, the railway undertaking providing the contracted services receives the revenue 
from the services, at least partly with the aim of providing an incentive to improve service levels and 
quality  to  maximise  that  revenue.  Net  cost  contracts  were  the  chosen  model  when  the  United 
Kingdom decided to subject its existing PSCs to competitive tender in the mid-1990s. However, they 
can have disadvantages: 

  Where revenues are low compared with costs, or the demand for rail services is inelastic to 
their quality (as can be the case with urban, suburban and commuter networks), revenue 
may provide little effective incentive to improve quality. Under these circumstances, it may 
be necessary to introduce a performance regime, whereby payments to the railway 
undertaking are related to the quality of service delivered. 

  Railway undertakings may be unable to make reliable forecasts of revenue, particularly for 

longer term contracts, which can mean that they either earn higher-than-expected profits or 
incur losses. This can lead either to the withdrawal of the railway undertaking, or to a 
mechanism to share revenue risk with the competent authority, blunting the intended 
incentives to improve quality. 

  Railway undertakings may only be willing to take the risk associated with revenue if they are 
also allowed to set fares, which can lead both to inconsistencies in the level and structure of 
fares and the need for some regulation of maximum fares. 

In a gross cost contract, in contrast, the competent authority receives the revenue from the service. 
The  railway  undertaking  is  not  exposed  either  to  the  risks  of  a  poor  demand  forecast  or  to  any 
resulting incentive to improve quality, which must instead rely on a performance regime. Gross cost 
contracts may be used: 

  where revenues are shared between different modes, such as within a large urban area 

where many passengers use multimodal tickets, and it can be difficult to apportion revenue 
to rail; 

  where the competent authority wishes to retain the flexibility to change the level and 

structure of fares; or 

  where forecasting demand and revenue are difficult and railway undertakings are not 

prepared to accept exposure to the resulting risk. 

Further  types  of  contract  have  been  adopted,  particularly  for  transition  arrangements  at  the 
beginning or end of PSCs. 

No comprehensive EU-wide database exists on PSCs and the basis on which they have been awarded. 
In general, however: 

  Gross cost contracts are typically used in PSCs for urban and suburban services, where fares 
are fixed and revenue is often shared between rail and other modes, or regional services, 
where fares revenue is low in relation to costs. 

  Net cost contracts are most likely to be used on interurban or long-distance services 

although, except for in the United Kingdom, many such services are in practice operated 
commercially and not subject to PSCs. 

83 

 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Box 13: Provisions on competitive tendering of rail PSCs in the Fourth Railway Package 

On  24  December  2017,  Regulation  (EU)  2016/2338  concerning  the  opening  of  the  market  for  domestic 
passenger  transport  services  by  rail  entered  into  force.  This  Regulation  amended  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1370/2007  and  set  new  rules  for  competent  authorities  when  they  act  in  the  field  of  public  passenger 
transport to guarantee the provision of services of general interest. 

Most importantly, the amendment of the Regulation established the principle of competitive tendering of 
rail  public  service  contracts.  This  principle  will  fully  apply  from  3  December  2019.  The  unconditional 
possibility  to  directly  award public  service  contracts  in  rail  will  no  longer  be  possible  from  25  December 
2023.  During  this  transitional  period,  Member  States  should  gradually  introduce  the  principle  of 
competitive tendering in their rail transport markets. 

After  24  December  2023,  competent  authorities  may  deviate  from  applying  the  principle  of  competitive 
award  only  in  exceptional  situations  specified  in  the  Regulation.  These  exemptions  encompass  the 
possibility to award the public service contract directly in situations when a competent authority considers 
that the direct award is justified by structural and geographical characteristics of the market or network, 
and  if  the  contract  results  in  an  improvement  in  quality  of  services  or  cost-efficiency,  or  both,  in 
comparison  to  the  previous  one.  The  competent  authority  must  publish  its  substantiated  direct  award 
decision. 

The  new  Regulation  also  requires  competent  authorities  to  lay  down  specifications  of  public  service 
obligations  and  their  scope  of  application  while  respecting  the  proportionality  principle  and  ensuring 
consistency with the policy objectives stated in public transport policy documents of the Member States. 
These objectives should be achieved in a cost-effective manner. 

To  contribute  to  fair  and  non-discriminatory  tendering  conditions  for  all  railway  undertakings  the  public 
service  contract  will  require  public  transport  operators  to  provide  competent  authorities  with  the 
information  necessary  for  the  preparation  of  the  tender  (such  as  passenger  demand,  fares,  costs  and 
revenues).  Competent  authorities  must  then  share  the  information  with  all  interested  parties  during  a 
tendering procedure. 

With a view to launching a competitive tendering procedure, competent authorities must also make public 
an assessment whether it is necessary to take measures to ensure non-discriminatory access to rail rolling 
stock. In compliance with State Aid rules competent authorities may take measures to ensure such access, 
for instance, by acquiring rolling stock, guaranteeing the financing of rolling stock, committing to takeover 
rail  vehicles  after  the  contract  finishes  and  creating  rolling  stock  pools  jointly  with  other  competent 
authorities. 

Finally, public service operators must  comply with obligations applicable in the field of social and labour 
law established by Union law, national law or collective agreements. 

4.3.3 

PSO compensation 

Apparent levels of PSO compensation 

Figure 63 shows the apparent average levels of PSO compensation per train-kilometre paid in each 
Member State. 

84 

 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 63: Apparent average PSO compensation, 2016 

n
o
i
t
a
s
n
e
p
m
o
c
e
g
a
r
e
v
a

t
n
e
r
a
p
p
A

)
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
n
a
r
t

i

r
e
p
R
U
E
(

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

FR BE AT

IT NO DE DK LV SK HU IE

ES

EE BG SI

RO CZ HR PL

SE

FI

LT

LU UK

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for EL, NL, PT.  

The  average  compensation  is  negative  in  the  United  Kingdom,  where  bidders  for  PSO  contracts 
(‘franchises’) may pay a ‘premium’ (negative subsidy) where they judge that services can be operated 
profitably at current (regulated) levels of access charges and fares. 

Apparent levels of PSO compensation per train-kilometre vary widely, for several reasons: 

  The PSO requirement typically requires that the operator of the PSO services pays access 
charges to the infrastructure manager56, and the level of these access charges therefore 
affects the payment required for the operator to maintain economic equilibrium. In the 
United Kingdom, for example, average fares on PSO services are relatively high, and access 
charges for the regulatory period 2014-2019 are lower than in the past. On average, PSO 
operators pay a ’premium’ to operate the service, rather than requiring a subsidy, with the 
result that the apparent level of subsidy paid is negative. 

  Trains vary widely in length, capacity, stopping pattern, traction type, quality and age. A 

train-kilometre of output, and the cost of producing it, varies even between trains operated 
on the same route with the same stopping pattern. Even if operated by the same train and 
crew, stopping services cost more than express services, because they take longer to 
produce each train-kilometre. 

  Fares vary widely, depending on the range of fares available and the extent to which they 

are regulated or specified by national, regional or local competent authorities. 

  Demand is sometimes broadly stable throughout the day, week and year and is sometimes 

highly peaked to serve daily commuting or annual festivals and holiday periods. The capacity 
of PSO services may need to be sufficient to serve peak demand, but may generate little 
revenue at other times when the services are still socially necessary. 

56   In Slovenia, passenger trains operating under PSCs are exempt from track access charges 

85 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Apparent recovery of PSO costs from passenger fares 

Figure 64 shows the apparent proportion of PSO costs which are recovered through passenger fares 
(but  excluding  PSO  operator  revenue  from  other  sources,  such  as  catering,  car  parking  and 
concessions on stations). 

Figure 64: Apparent proportion of PSO cost recovered through passenger fares, 2016 

s
t
s
o
c
O
S
P
f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
p
t
n
e
r
a
p
p
A

s
e
r
a
f

r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
p
m
o
r
f
d
e
r
e
v
o
c
e
r

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

UK LU NL PT

LT

FI

ES

IE

IT NO DE DK SE

EL PL RO AT CZ HR LV BE EE SK HU BG

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for FR and SI. 

The proportion of costs recovered through passenger fares may vary widely for the reasons set out 
above. In the case of at least some competent authorities, however, there may be an explicit policy 
that cost recovery should not be less than, or not be more than, a proportion intended to distribute 
costs between passengers and taxpayers. 

4.4 

Licensing 

A railway licence is an authorisation issued to an undertaking by a licensing authority recognising its 
capacity to provide rail transport services as a railway undertaking. Licensing of railway undertakings 
is  regulated  by  Articles  16  to  25  of  Directive  2012/34/EU.  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.  Licensing  ensures  that  access  rights  to  railway 
infrastructure are applied throughout the EU in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner. 

To  facilitate  access  to  the  market  by  new  operators,  the  Commission  adopted  implementing 
Regulation  (EU)  2015/171  on  certain  aspects  of  the  licensing  procedure.  This  reduced  the 
administrative fees  for start-up railway undertakings and shortened the  time to market. It ensured 
that national licensing authorities publish all relevant licensing data on ERA’s website. 

Active licences 

A count of licences can be considered as a proxy for the number of active railway undertakings in a 
Member State. At any one time, licences can be active or passive: 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

  Active licences: a licence granted to a railway undertaking that has started and not ceased 
operations within the periods fixed by the Member State in accordance with Article 24(4) of 
Directive 2012/34/EU. 

  Passive  licences:  a  licence  granted  to  a  railway  undertaking  that  has  not  started  or  has 
ceased operations within the periods fixed by the Member State in accordance with Article 
24(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU, and licences which have been suspended or revoked. 

According to the Recast Directive and the relevant national legislation, licences for the performance 
of  rail  transport  services  within  the  EU  and  the  European  Economic  Area  must  be  uploaded  by 
national  licensing  authorities  to  the  European  Railway  Agency  Database  of  Interoperability  and 
Safety (ERADIS)57. 

Figure 65 shows the total number of active licences by State reported at the end of 2016, according 
to RMMS. 

Figure 65: Active licences by country, 2016 

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

-

s
e
s
n
e
c
i
l

e
v
i
t
c
A

DE PL CZ UK NL HU ES AT SK SE RO IT

FR EE BG LT PT DK BE HR NO LV SI

FI

EL

IE

LU

Source: RMMS, 2018, PL data from ERADIS. 

At  the  end  of  2016,  Germany  reported  448  active  railway  undertakings,  reflecting  the  highly 
fragmented  nature  of  railway  undertaking  operations  there.  Poland  and  the  Czech  Republic  also 
reported over 100 active railway undertakings and the United Kingdom reported more than 50. 

Average fee to obtain a licence 

States were asked to provide information on the average fee and time required to obtain a licence. 

Figure 66 shows the reported average fees in 2015 and 2016. 

57   Available at https://eradis.era.europa.eu/. 

87 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 66: Average fees to obtain a licence by country, 2015 and 2016 

R
U
E

45 000

40 000

35 000

30 000

25 000

20 000

15 000

10 000

5 000

 0

PT BG LV DK ES HU NL DE

IT

LU SE RO EL

EE

SI

PL

FI

CZ BE

SK

IE UK AT

LT HR

2015

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. FR and NO reported that licence costs are zero. LV charge is a State duty, not a licence 
fee. 

Charges more than doubled in Latvia, where the payment is a State duty rather than a licence fee, 
and rose in Luxembourg, Romania and the Czech Republic. Latvia joined Bulgaria and Denmark with 
charges of around EUR 15 000, but the highest charges were in Portugal. 

Average time to obtain a licence 

Figure 67 shows the reported average number of calendar days to obtain a licence in 2015 and 2016. 

Figure 67: Average time to obtain a licence by country, 2015 and 2016 

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

s
y
a
d
r
a
d
n
e
a
C

l

SE

ES PL AT BE BG IT

LU SK

SI UK FR EL

IE NL RO HR CZ

FI

LV LT PT EE DK DE HU

2015

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for NO. No 2016 data for HU. 

Many  Member  States  reported  an  average  time  to  obtain  a  licence  of  90,  60  or  30  calendar  days 
(three  months,  two  months  or  a  month).  Sweden,  Spain  and  Poland  reported  the  longest  times, 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

although  the  exact  time  might  depend  on  the  complexity  of  the  application,  or  the  number  of 
queries, and might not be the fault of the licensing authority. Nonetheless in Germany, where many 
licences are held, the reported average time to obtain a licence was only 10 calendar days. 

4.5 

Degree of market opening and utilisation of access rights 

4.5.1 

Legal liberalisation and actual entry in the rail market 

IRG-Rail  is  a  network  of  independent  rail  regulatory  bodies  from  31  EU  and  non-EU  countries.  It 
produces an annual Market Monitoring Report58 including, among other things, data on the dates of 
(de jure) legal liberalisation and (de facto) market entry, which are summarised in the charts below. 
The principal dates of liberalisation set out in EU legislation are: 

  From 1 January 1993, limited access was established by Directive 91/440/EEC. 
  From 1 January 2007, the Second Railway Package liberalised international and domestic rail 

freight services. 

  From 3 December 2009, the Third Railway Package liberalised international passenger 

services and some cabotage. 

  From 2 December 2019, the Fourth Railway Package, through Regulation (EU) 2016/2338, 

will liberalise remaining passenger services, subject to measures to protect PSOs. 

However, in some cases market entry had never been explicitly prohibited, and has been permitted 
in advance of the creation of a formal right of entry through liberalisation. 

Legal liberalisation and licensing of first competitor in the freight market 

Figure 68 shows the dates of legal liberalisation and the first recorded licence of a competitor in the 
international freight market. 

Figure 68: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the international freight market 

NO

SK
HU

SI

ES

BG

HR

EL

SE
LT
EE

FI

PL

LU

FR

PT

RO

IT

LV

AT

DK

BE

NL

DE
UK

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

7
1
0
2

New entry before liberalisation

Liberalisation then new entry

Liberalisation but no new entry before the end of 2016

Source: IRG-Rail, 2018. No data for CZ and IE. 

58   Sixth  IRG-Rail  Market  Monitoring  Report  2018  available  at  https://irg-rail.eu/irg/documents/market-

monitoring/186,2018.html .  

89 

 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Early  liberalisers of the  international freight market were the United Kingdom (the  Channel Tunnel 
opened  in  1994)  and  Germany,  both  of  which  saw  rapid  new  entry.  As  other  Member  States 
liberalised,  however,  new  licences  were  often  slow  to  appear:  seven  years  in  the  case  of  the 
Netherlands, and nine years in the case of Portugal. 

Nonetheless, there have now been new licences in international rail freight transport in all but four 
Member  States:  Finland,  Estonia,  Lithuania  and  Sweden.  Finland  has  only  one  rail  link  to  another 
Member  State  and,  at  least  pending  completion  of  the  Rail  Baltica  project,  the  main  links  from 
Estonia and Latvia are to the Russian Federation. Sweden has an established cross-border rail freight 
flow, from Kiruna to the port of Narvik in Norway. 

Figure 69 shows the dates of legal liberalisation and the first recorded licence of a competitor into 
the domestic freight market. 

Figure 69: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the domestic freight market 

SI

NO

FI

HR

EL

BE

SK
HU
FR
FR

PT

LT
EE

PL

BG

ES

LU

RO

IT

LV

AT

DK

NL

DE
UK
SE

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

7
1
0
2

New entry before liberalisation

Liberalisation then new entry

Liberalisation but no new entry before the end of 2016

Source: IRG-Rail, 2018. No data for CZ and IE. 

Sweden reported licences in 1992, although the market was not formally liberalised until 1996. It was 
rapidly joined by the United Kingdom and Germany, both of which liberalised in response to Directive 
91/440/EEC which came into force on 1 January 1993. Other Member States opened their markets in 
the following years. 

From  1  January  2007,  the  Second  Railway  Package  liberalised  all  rail  freight  through  the  then 
Member States, including Belgium, Greece, Finland and Slovenia. Croatia liberalised its market before 
joining the EU on 1 July 2013. All these States now have at least one licenced domestic rail freight 
operator. 

However, the period between market opening and new entry can be long. In Greece, it took almost 
nine years for the first licence to be issued for a new domestic freight operator. No new licences for 
domestic  operators  have  emerged  in  Lithuania  and  Estonia,  where  rail  freight  is  dominated  by 
international transit traffic to the Russian Federation, or in Luxembourg, which reported no domestic 
rail freight. 

90 

 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Legal liberalisation and entry of first competitor in the passenger market 

Figure 70 shows the dates of legal liberalisation and the first recorded licence of a competitor into 
the international passenger market. 

Figure 70: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the international passenger market 

HR

EL

DK

AT
NO

SI

NL
FI
BG

PL

SE
HU

ES

PT
LU

SK

BE
BE

FR

LT
EE

RO

DE

UK

IT

LV

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

7
1
0
2

New entry before liberalisation

Liberalisation then new entry

Liberalisation but no new entry before the end of 2016

Source: IRG-Rail, 2018. No data for CZ and IE. 

The United Kingdom and Germany were the first Member States to licence international passenger 
open access, in the case of the United Kingdom by Eurostar services through the Channel Tunnel on 
14 November 1994. Within five years they had been joined by Latvia and Italy. 

In contrast to the initiatives taken by many States to open their rail freight markets, Figure 70 shows 
that  many  did  not  license  international  open  access  passenger  services  until  these  services  were 
liberalised by the Third Railway Package from 3 December 2009. In practice, Spain issued  a licence 
before this date, and France and Slovakia issued licences soon afterwards. 

However, many States have issued no licences for open access international passenger services. This 
includes Sweden, normally an early liberaliser: no open access services operate across its borders to 
either Copenhagen in Denmark or Oslo in Norway. 

Figure 71 shows the dates of legal liberalisation and the first recorded licence of a competitor into 
the domestic passenger market. 

91 

 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 71: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the domestic passenger market 

HU

IT

PL
RO

SK

LT
EE

ES

BG

LU

DE
UK

LV

AT

SE

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

7
1
0
2

New entry before liberalisation

Liberalisation then new entry

Liberalisation but no new entry before the end of 2016

Source: IRG-Rail, 2018, for States which have liberalised domestic services. No data for BE, DK, EL, FR, HR, NL, 
PT, SI, FI, NO, CZ, IE. 

Liberalisation  of  the  domestic  passenger  market  will  not  formally  be  required  until  the  Fourth 
Railway Package comes  into force on 2 December 2019. Nonetheless, several Member States have 
already  benefited  from  liberalisation.  Sweden  notionally  opened  the  market  in  1993  but  licensing 
was subject to regulatory restrictions until 2010. 

Most other Member States that have opened their markets have issued new licences. The exceptions 
are Luxembourg, Estonia and Latvia (which have only small networks) and Bulgaria. 

Figure 72 shows the dates of legal liberalisation and the first recorded licence in the domestic long-
distance passenger market. 

92 

 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 72: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the domestic long-distance passenger market 

SK

HU

LT

EE

IT

PL

RO

BG

LU

LV

AT

DE

UK

SE

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

7
1
0
2

New entry before liberalisation

Liberalisation then new entry

Liberalisation but no new entry before the end of 2016

Source: IRG-Rail, 2018, for States which have liberalised domestic services.  No data for BE, DK, EL, ES, FR, HR, 
NL, PT, SI, FI, NO, CZ, IE. 

IRG-Rail  reports  that  few  Member  States  have  issued  licences  to  provide  long-distance  passenger 
services. Early liberalisers Sweden, the United Kingdom and Germany have seen competition, but in 
Sweden this was after a lag of seven years. 

None  of  the  other  Member  States  which  have  liberalised  their  markets  since  1998  have  issued 
licences  to  provide  long-distance  passenger  services.  In  many  cases,  the  incumbent  operator  has 
continued  to  operate  services,  in  some  cases  in  the  absence  of  a  PSO  and  hence  notionally  on  a 
’commercial’ basis. In practice, such incumbent operators may not identify or report whether some 
long-distance services are being operated at a loss. 

Figure 73 shows the dates of legal liberalisation and the first recorded entry of a competitor into the 
domestic regional passenger market through competitive tenders. 

93 

 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 73: Legal liberalisation and first competitors in the domestic regional passenger market 

NO

DK

PT

SK

HU
IT

LT
EE

NL

PL

BG

LU

LV
AT

RO

DE

UK

SE

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

7
1
0
2

New entry before liberalisation

Liberalisation then new entry

Liberalisation but no new entry before the end of 2016

Source: IRG-Rail, 2018, for States which have liberalised domestic services. No data for BE, EL, ES, FR, HR, SI, FI. 

Four  Member  States  reported  having  held  competitions  to  provide  domestic  regional  passenger 
markets  in  advance  of  de  jure  liberalisation.  However,  most  Member  States  have  seen  no 
competitions for the provision of regional passenger services. 

4.5.2 

Freight market opening 

Number of active railway undertakings in the freight market 

States  were  asked  to  list  principal  and  other  freight  railway  undertakings,  if  necessary  grouped 
and/or  anonymised  if  they  chose  the  option  of  keeping  information  confidential.  In  a  number  of 
cases  railway  undertakings  with  lower  market  shares  were  grouped  under  the  category  “others”. 
Figure 74 therefore shows the reported number of active railway undertakings in the freight market 
in each State in 2016. In the figure, “others” has been interpreted to mean “at least two more”. For 
example, the Netherlands reported one main operator plus “others”, which the chart represents as 
“at least three (solid), and may be more (tapered)”. 

94 

 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 74: Active railway undertakings in the freight market by country, 2016 

s
g
n
i
k
a
t
r
e
d
n
u
y
a
w

l
i

a
r
e
v
i
t
c
A

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

IE

EL

LT

LU EE

FI

LV

IT

PT

SI NL RO HR BE

FR NO BG ES UK SE AT CZ DE HU SK PL

Source: RMMS 2018. No data for DK. PL two principal operators are in the same group. 

Poland reported two incumbent domestic freight operators, PKP Cargo and PKP LHS, which however 
are in the same group, plus at least eleven other operators. 

Evolution of market shares of competitors in the freight market 

Figure 75 shows the shares of the domestic freight market, as measured in tonne-kilometres, which 
are  not  served  by  the  historic  incumbent  operator.  The  chart  on  the  right  shows  the  percentage 
change in new entrant market share between 2011 and 2016. 

Figure 75: Competitors in freight, market share, compound average growth rate 2011-2016 

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n
n
o
t

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

%
1
0

,

IT

BE

SK

CZ

AT

BG

DE

HU

ES

NO

FR

SI

PL

PT

NL

RO

DK

LV

UK

SE

EE

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

-50% -25% 0%

25% 50%

Source: RMMS, 2018. One operator with 100% share in EL, IE, LT, LU. 

On  average,  competitors  had  39%  market  shares  in  national  markets  in  2016,  an  increase  of  13% 
compared to 2011. Figure 76 illustrates the effective number of operators in each domestic freight 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

market, using the reciprocal of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) as a broad measure of the level 
of competition59. 

Figure 76: Effective number of competitors in domestic rail freight, 2011 and 2016 

s
r
o
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
c

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f
E

4

3

2

1

0

BG PL UK NO DE SE HU BE FR CZ

IT NL ES RO AT LV SK EE HR PT

SI

FI

EL

IE

LT LU DK

2011

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. 

The HHI cannot identify whether, for example, some operators dominate or monopolise one or more 
regions  or  products,  or  control  all  the  rail  wagons  suitable  for  a  particular  commodity.  It  is 
nonetheless a broad measure of the extent to which there has been new entry in the market60. 

Four Member States (Greece, Ireland, Lithuania and Luxembourg) still have only a single domestic rail 
freight  operator.  All  the  other  Member  States  have  at  least  some  competition  and,  with  the 
exceptions of Estonia and Romania, there was more effective competition in 2016 than in 2011. On 
this  measure,  the  most  competitive  markets  in  2016  were  Bulgaria,  Poland,  the  United  Kingdom, 
Norway, Germany and Sweden. 

Average size of new entrants in the freight market 

In  many States, the  incumbent  rail freight operator has been joined by one or more new entrants. 
Figure 77 shows the average size of these new entrants, measured in million train-kilometres within 
that State. 

59   The  HHI  is  the  sum  of  the  squares  of  the  market  shares  of  each  operator.  This  has  the  effect  that  if,  for 
example, two operators each have 50% market share, the HHI is 0.5 and the reciprocal of the HHI, shown on 
the chart, is two. In practice, the market is unlikely to be divided equally among the operators. 

60   The RMMS results contained an ‘other’ category (an aggregation of small RUs with a market share of more 
than 1% but not in the top nine), which was considered a single entity in the HHI calculations, which has the 
effect of reducing the measure of competitiveness. 

96 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 77: Average size of new entrants in freight market by country 

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

(

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

i

l
i
k
-
n
a
r
t
e
g
a
r
e
v
A

 14

 12

 10

 8

 6

 4

 2

 0

FI

HR

SK

EE

PT

ES

BG

SI

NO HU

AT

LV

CZ

BE

SE

UK

PL

FR

RO

DE

IT

Source: RMMS, 2018. No new entrants in LT, SE (see Figure 68). No data for DK, EL, IE, LT, LU, NL. 

The  largest  new  entrants  are  in  North  West  Europe,  particularly  in  Italy,  Germany,  France  and  the 
United  Kingdom,  and  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe,  notably  in  Romania  and  Poland.  Denmark, 
Greece, Ireland, Lithuania and Luxembourg have only one operator in the freight market. 

Member States provided information on the market shares of the largest freight operators on their 
networks, but to preserve confidentiality many did not identify the operators, and the RMMS does 
not require their ownership to be revealed. Information on ownership released by IRG-Rail suggests 
that, as of May 2018, patterns of freight activity outside the country of ownership include: 

  German activity in Bulgaria, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom; 
  Polish activity in the Czech Republic and Slovakia; 
  Slovenian activity in Hungary; and 
  Swedish activity in Norway and the United Kingdom. 

4.5.3 

Passenger market opening 

Number of active railway undertakings in the passenger market 

Figure 78 shows the reported number of active railway undertakings in the passenger market. In the 
figure, “others” has been interpreted to mean “at least two more”. For example, Latvia reported one 
main PSO operator plus “others”, which the chart represents as “at least three (solid), and may be 
more (tapered)”. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 78: Active railway undertakings in the PSO and commercial passenger market by country, 2016 

15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

s
g
n
i
k
a
t
r
e
d
n
u
y
a
w

l
i

a
r
e
v
i
t
c
A

BE

IE BG EE EL ES HR LT LU SI

FI

FR PT HU SK DK IT

LV NL RO NO SE CZ PL AT DE UK

PSO

Commercial

Source: RMMS 2018. No data on commercial operators in BE, CZ, DK, IE, NL, RO. 

Member States were asked to report railway undertakings with a market share of more than 1%, and 
may  in  principle  have  excluded  some  small  railway  undertakings,  including  those  operating 
commercially.  On  this  basis,  every  State  except  France,  Hungary  and  Slovakia  reported  more  PSO 
railway undertakings than commercial railway undertakings, and Poland, Austria, Germany and the 
United  Kingdom  all  reported  many  more  PSO  railway  undertakings  than  commercial  railway 
undertakings. 

Evolution of market shares of competitors in the commercial passenger market 

Figure 79 shows the shares of the commercial (non-PSO) passenger market, which is not served by 
the historic incumbent operator. 

Figure 79: Competitors in commercial passenger market, market share, 2016 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

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

DK

DE

HR

HU

PL

FR

SE

AT

IT

SK

LV

EE

UK

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for BE, CZ, IE, NL and RO. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

The Member States with the highest new entrant shares are the United Kingdom, Estonia, Latvia and 
Slovakia. However, the data for the United Kingdom may be misleading, as all pre-existing services, 
including those which were commercially viable, are operated under a PSO, and hence all non-PSO 
services are operated by new entrants. While the Czech Republic has not replied, there is established 
open access competition there, with two new entrants, RegioJet and Leo Express, operating between 
Prague and Ostrava. 

Figure  80  illustrates  the  effective  number  of  operators  in  each  commercial  passenger  market,  as 
measured in passenger-kilometres, using the reciprocal of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) as a 
broad measure of the amount of competition. 

Figure 80: Competitors in commercial passenger market, effective number, 2011 and 2016 

s
r
o
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
c

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f
E

3

2

1

0

UK SK

IT AT SE FR HU PL DK HR DE LV BG EE

FI

EL

LT LU PT

SI

ES NO NL RO CZ BE

IE

2011

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2016 data for BE, CZ, IE, NL, RO. No 2011 data for FR, LU, PT, SE. 

Most  networks  have  only  a  single  operator  of  commercial  services,  but  by  2016  Latvia,  Germany, 
Poland,  Hungary,  France,  Sweden,  Austria,  Italy,  Slovakia  and  the  United  Kingdom  had  more  than 
one. In the case of the United Kingdom, all the commercial operators are new entrants and there are 
no incumbent commercial services. There are also three operators in the Czech Republic which did 
not provide data for 2016. 

Evolution of market shares of competitors in the PSO passenger market 

Figure 81 shows the shares of the PSO passenger market, as measured in passenger-kilometres, not 
served by the historic incumbent operator. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 81: Competitors in PSO passenger market, market share, 2016 

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

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

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

PT

UK

SE

PL

DE

IT

RO

NO

SK

AT

DK

NL

CZ

HU

LV

0,1%

Source: RMMS, 2018. All other Member States reported a single operator. 

In Portugal, the apparent 100% commercial share occurs because in 2016 the only PSO contract was 
with  the  non-incumbent  Fertagus,  all  other  operations  being  reported  as  commercial.  In  the  UK, 
there is no incumbent operator, but the chart shows the 87% share of all operators other than the 
largest, Govia Thameslink. 

Figure 82 illustrates the effective number of operators in each PSO passenger market, as measured in 
passenger-kilometres, again using the reciprocal of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) as a broad 
measure of the amount of competition. 

Figure 82: Competitors in PSO passenger market, effective number, 2011 and 2016 

s
r
o
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
c

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f
E

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

UK PL

SE DE

IT NO RO SK AT DK NL CZ HU LV BE BG HR EE

FI

FR EL

IE

LT LU PT

SI

ES

2011

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2011 data for UK, SE, FR, LU, PT. 

Most networks have either only a single PSO operator or a dominant incumbent and a small number 
of minor operators. The exceptions are Italy, Sweden, Poland, Germany and the United Kingdom. In 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

the United Kingdom, where there is no longer an incumbent, the effective number of competitors is 
more than eight, as measured by the reciprocal of the HHI. 

The  estimated  average  of  competitors'  market  shares  in  both  PSO  and  commercial  passenger 
markets in 2016 was 25%, an increase of 6% compared to 2011.  

Average size of new entrants in the passenger market 

Figure 83 illustrates the average size of new entrants in the PSO and commercial passenger markets, 
as measured in million passenger-kilometres. 

Figure 83: Average size of new entrants in commercial and PSO passenger markets 

)
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

(

s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
p
e
g
a
r
e
v
A

6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

 0

5 662

3 533

2 928

8

19

31

40 143 162 238

666

427

225 262 336 343 473

1

62

84

HU EE

PL

LV

SK

SE DE AT UK

IT

LV AT

CZ DK

SK NO PT RO PL

SE DE

IT UK

Commercial

PSO

1 468

940 949

Source: RMMS, 2018. 2015 data for FR. 

Within  commercial  services  Italy  stands  out,  with  new  entrants  of  average  size  almost  3  billion 
passenger-kilometres, followed by the United Kingdom (0.7 billion passenger-kilometres) and Austria 
(0.4 billion passenger-kilometres). 

Presence of passenger incumbents abroad 

Member States provided information on the market shares of the PSO passenger operators on their 
networks, but to preserve confidentiality some did not identify the operators, and the RMMS does 
not  require  them  to  identify  the  ownership  structure  of  the  operators.  Information  on  ownership 
released by IRG-Rail61 suggests that, as of May 2018, patterns of PSO passenger activity outside the 
country of ownership include: 

  Czech activity in Slovakia; 
  German activity in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland and the United Kingdom; 
  French activity in Germany and the United Kingdom; 
  Netherlands activity in Germany and the United Kingdom; 
  United Kingdom activity in Germany; 
  Hong Kong activity in Sweden and the United Kingdom; and 

61   https://irg-rail.eu/irg/documents/market-monitoring/186,2018.html. 

101 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

 

Japanese activity in the United Kingdom. 

Box 14: State of play of market opening in the passenger market 

Despite  the  adoption  of  legislation  designed  to  open  rail  markets,  as  outlined  in  previous  sections,  the 
mode share of railways in intra-EU transport has remained below 8% (see Figure 19). The lack of common 
rules governing the award of PSCs led some Member States to introduce competitive tendering and others 
to rely on direct awards. The differences in regulatory systems among the Member State made it difficult 
for railway companies to exploit the full potential of operating in an internal market. 

Consequently,  the  ‘market  pillar’  proposal  of  the  Fourth  Railway  Package  proposed  amendments  to 
Regulations  1370/2007  to  remove  remaining  legal,  institutional  and  technical  barriers  for  improving  the 
quality  and  efficiency  of  rail  passenger  transport  services.  The  proposal  introduced  a  framework  for 
competitive  award  of  PSCs  for  public  transport  by  rail  and  several  provisions  fostering  frequency  and 
punctuality of services, cost-efficiency of public rail transport services, customer satisfaction, and quality of 
rolling stock. 

Following the provisional agreement reached by the European Legislator on 19 April 2016, the European 
Parliament  Committee  on  Transport  and  Tourism  adopted  the  proposals  on  5  December  2016,  and 
subsequently the  legislative  proposal was finally approved by the European Parliament  on 13 December 
2016 to  introduce the principle of  competitive award of  rail PSCs.  Under certain circumstances  Member 
States  could  choose  to  directly  award  rail  contract  and  would  publish  a  reasoned  decision  behind  the 
award of such contract, however in such cases provisions for quality and/or cost efficiency improvement 
needed to be ensured in the contract using clearly defined performance targets. 

In  addition,  to  increase  competition  for  rail  contracts,  Member  States  must  ensure  effective  and  non-
discriminatory  access  to  suitable  rail  rolling  stock  for  operators  wishing  to  provide  public  passenger 
services  by  rail.  Finally,  transparency  in  the  definition  of  public  service  obligations  and  the  geographical 
scope  of  PSCs  as  well  as  implementing  measures  of  staff  protection  in  the  case  of  a  change  of  public 
transport  operator.  The  impact  assessment  showed  that  the  proposed  amendments  would  have  an 
economic, environment and social impact amounting to a net present value of  between EUR 21 and EUR 
29 billion over the 2019 to 2035 period. 

Scope for regulatory bodies to limit open access in the passenger market 

The  Fourth  Railway  package  opens  domestic  passenger  markets  to  competition  in  all  Member 
States62.  Railway  undertakings  must  be  granted  the  right  of  access  to  railway  infrastructure  in  all 
Member  States  for  the  purpose  of  operating  rail  passenger  services  under  equitable,  non-
discriminatory  and  transparent  conditions.  Railway  undertakings  will  have  the  right  to  pick  up 
passengers at any station and set them down at another. 

The EU legislator, however, put in place mechanisms to balance the objective of effectively opening 
up the market for domestic 'open access' rail passenger services in the EU with the need to protect 
the economic equilibrium of services provided under an existing public service contract. 

Railway undertakings' right  to access  rail infrastructure to provide 'open access' passenger services 
on Member States' domestic markets can be restricted only where the national rail regulatory body 
decides, on the basis of an objective economic analysis, that the new service would cause substantial 
damage to the economic equilibrium of the existing public service contract, in terms of profitability 
of  the  services  or  higher  net  cost  to  the  competent  authority.  This  is  the  only  situation  in  which 

62   See in particular Directive 2016/2370 amending Directive 2012/34/EU. 

102 

 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Member  States  may,  if  their  legislation  provides  for  it,  restrict  access  to  their  infrastructure  once 
passenger markets are fully opened to competition in 2019. 

Box 15: Implementing act on the Economic Equilibrium Test 

In November 2018 the Commission adopted a  draft implementing act on the Economic Equilibrium  Test 
(EET)63. This legislation, which has been negotiated with Member States, is designed to provide guidance 
to  regulatory  bodies  who  may  be  called  upon  to  carry  out  an  objective  analysis  (the  EET)  to  establish 
whether  a  new  open-access  service  would  have  a  substantial  impact  on  the  economic  viability  of  an 
existing public service. 

The new implementing act replaces implementing Regulation 869/2014  which  was tailored for a  market 
where only international passenger traffic was open to competition. 

The  new  Regulation  establishes  not  only  general  criteria,  but  also  a  clear  procedure  and  timeline  for 
requesting  and  performing  the  economic  equilibrium  test,  to  ensure  legal  certainty  for  all  the  parties 
involved. In particular, it prescribes: 

  Rules  for  notification  of  a  planned  new  rail  passenger  service  to  infrastructure  managers  and 

regulatory bodies 

  Deadline for requesting the economic equilibrium test 
 
 
  Cooperation between regulatory bodies competent  for a  proposed new international  passenger 

Information requirements and procedure for the economic equilibrium test 
Contents of the economic equilibrium test and assessment criteria 

service. 

4.6 

Development of employment and social conditions 

4.6.1 

Employment in rail 

Labour 
railway 
Staff employed in incumbent undertakings versus alternative undertakings 

infrastructure  managers 

force 

and 

of 

undertakings 

In  2016  just  over  one  million  people  were  reported  as  employed  in  the  European  railway  sector, 
about 600 000 of them by railway undertakings and 440 000 by infrastructure managers. However, a 
large part of the apparent increase on earlier years results from the restructuring of the railways in 
France, as illustrated in Figure 86 below. 

Figure  84  shows  the  reported  distribution  of  these  staff  between  infrastructure  managers  and 
railway undertakings in 2016. 

63   Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1795  of  20  November  2018  laying  down  procedure  and 
criteria for the application of the economic equilibrium test pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2012/34/EU 
of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 294, 21.11.2018, p. 5–14.  

103 

 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 84: Employees of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings, 2016 

100%

f
f
a
t
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

EL

LV AT HR RO SK NO PT BG HU ES EE FR IE

SI

PL CZ UK LU IT

LT BE DE DK NL SE

FI

Railway undertakings

Infrastructure managers

Source: RMMS, 2018. 

In practice, the distribution of staff between railway undertakings and infrastructure managers varies 
for several reasons, including that: 

  The respective roles of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings vary: for example, 
activities such as staffing stations, or providing passenger information, or security, may be 
the responsibility of the infrastructure manager in some cases and railway undertakings in 
others. 

  Either or both parties may be part of larger organisations, so the number of staff associated 

with railway infrastructure or operations may need to be estimated by the parent 
organisation. 

  Either or both parties may subcontract activities to other organisations, whose staff do not 
appear as part of the rail industry. Examples include maintenance and cleaning staff, those 
responsible for the management and provision of rolling stock, particularly where there are 
rolling stock companies (ROSCOs), and staff carrying out work on infrastructure renewals 
and enhancements. 

While the distribution of staff varies for the reasons set out above, the data suggest that in markets 
with  extensive  liberalisation,  such  as  the  United  Kingdom,  Italy,  Germany  and  Sweden,  a  large 
majority of staff may be employed by railway undertakings64. 

Figure 85 and Figure 86 show that employment growth within the sector varies, with a significant fall 
in employment in the Central, Eastern and Southern European Member States, and a rise in those in 
Northern Europe. 

64   Employment  data  published here  are  in  some  cases  not  directly  comparable  with  2014  data  published  in 
the Fifth RMMS report. In the case of multimodal infrastructure managers for example, instead of providing 
the total staff of the infrastructure manager as in previous surveys, for 2016 Member States were asked to 
estimate the number of people working on rail activities. In addition, under Regulation 2015/1100, Member 
States also provided data for non-incumbent infrastructure managers; this was not the case for 2014 data. 
Also, employment  data  reported by Member States in the RMMS questionnaire are not  comparable with 
the Statistical pocketbook 2018, based on Eurostat data and referring only to railway undertakings' staff.  

104 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 85: Employees of infrastructure managers, 2011 and 2016 

150 000

120 000

f
f
a
t
S

90 000

60 000

30 000

 0

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

2011

2016

Change (2016 staff / 2011 staff)

Source: RMMS, 2018.  

Figure 86: Employees of incumbent railway undertakings, 2011 and 2016 

160 000

140 000

120 000

100 000

f
f
a
t
S

80 000

60 000

40 000

20 000

 0

150%

100%

50%

0%

-50%

-100%

)
f
f
a
t
s
1
1
0
2
/

f
f
a
t
s
6
1
0
2
(
e
g
n
a
h
C

60%

40%

20%

0%

-20%

-40%

-60%

-80%

-100%

)
f
f
a
t
s
1
1
0
2
/

f
f
a
t
s
6
1
0
2
(
e
g
n
a
h
C

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

2011

2016

Change (2016 staff / 2011 staff)

Source: RMMS, 2018. 2014 data for 2011 for EE. 2013 data for 2011 for HR. 

Between 2011 and 2016, reported employment rose by 8% in total, comprising a fall of 0.2% among 
railway undertakings and a rise of nearly 22% among infrastructure managers. However, as can be 
seen from the figures, this change appears to be dominated by increases in the number of reported 
staff at both infrastructure manager and incumbent railway undertaking in France.  

4.6.2 

Socio-demographic structure of the rail labour market 

Structure by gender 

Following  the  adoption  of  Regulation  2015/1100  (‘the  RMMS  Regulation’),  the  RMMS  survey  now 
collects data on gender and age structure of the rail staff. 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 87 shows the gender mix of railway staff reported by the Member States and Norway. 

Figure 87: Employees by gender structure, 2016 

f
f
a
t
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

AT

IE

SI

ES

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

SE

LT

LV EE

Men Women

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for LU. 

On average, only 21% of the EU’s rail workforce were women. The proportion of female staff varies 
widely, rising to 50% (‘equality’) in Estonia and over 30% in the other Baltic States and Sweden. 

The most recent survey published by rail social partners65 provides some additional insights: 

  Between 2013 and 2016, the proportion of female railway workers had generally risen, by 
3.2% for on-board personnel, 3.1% for engineers, 1.4% for managers, 1.2% for traffic 
management and 0.4% for locomotive drivers. 

  Nearly one-third, 32.4%, or of on-board personnel were women although, at the other 

extreme, only 2.2% of locomotive drivers were women. 

From  2016,  several  measures  have  been  implemented  to  promote  employment  and  career 
development  of  women,  including  initiatives  to  improve  health  and  hygienic  conditions,  flexible 
working hours, reduced working time, unpaid leave, and review of recruitment procedures. 

65   CER  (2017),  Fourth  annual  report  on  the  development  of  women’s  employment  in  the  European  railway 

sector, joint recommendation of the CER – ETF- EIM project. 

106 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Box 16: Gender aspects in rail 

The rail sector remains a male dominated sector, especially when it comes to technical positions such as 
drivers or technicians and managerial positions. 

In addition to the challenges related to work-life balance and violence66 , one of the main barriers to tackle 
to  attract  young  people  and  women  to  the  rail  sector  is  cultural  because  of  persisting  negative 
stereotypes.  This  is  true  also  for  younger  people  in  general  of  either  sex.  It  follows  from  the  study  on 
‘Making the transport sector attractive to future generations’67 that the rail transport sector is emotionally 
disconnected from young people. Their image of the typical rail worker is a modest 40-50 male, train driver 
or conductor. They see rail professions as stable but routine and monotonous. 

As the rail workforce is ageing, it is crucial to tackle these issues if we want to make the sector attractive. 

To increase the gender balance of the transport sector and to make it appealing to women, the Women in 
Transport – EU Platform for change was launched on 27 November 201768. The Platform is action oriented. 
Several  EU  associations  from  the  rail  sector69  have  joined  the  Platform,  as  well  as  the  European  Union 
Agency  for  Railways  (ERA).  The  EU  associations  may  directly  bring  actions  to  the  Platform  or  channel 
actions from their members. 

A  Declaration  to  ensure  equal  opportunities  for  women  and  men  in  the  transport  sector  and  an  online 
module to exchange good practices are now also available online70. The Declaration has already gathered 
signatories from the rail sector, including 836 employees from the Italian railway company, Ferrovie dello 
Stato Italiane. 

Finally,  the  Commission  has  commissioned  a  study  entitled  a  ‘Business  case  to  increase  female 
employment  in  transport’71  which  presents  the  benefits  of  more  gender  balanced  teams,  with  good 
practices,  including  from  the  railway  sector,  and  which  provides  a  toolkit  for  companies  interested  in 
increasing their gender balance. 

Structure by age 

Following  the  adoption  of  Regulation  2015/1100  (‘the  RMMS  Regulation’),  the  RMMS  survey  now 
collects  data  on  the  age  of  the  workforce,  subdivided  into  three  groups.  Figure  88  compares  the 
reported  proportion  of  staff  in  each  group  with  the  equivalent  distribution  in  2012,  based  on  UIC 
data, reported in the RMMS 5 Staff Working Document (Figure 37). 

66   http://www.etf-europe.org/files/extranet/-

75/47768/ETF%20summary%20report%20VAW%20at%20work%20in%20transport%20EN.pdf. 

67   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/social/studies/social_en  
68   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/social/women-transport-eu-platform-change_en. 
69   CER (Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies; 

UIP (International Union of Wagon Keepers); 
UNIFE (Association of the European Rail Industry); and 
ETF (European Transport Workers' Federation). 

70   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/social/women-transport-eu-platform-change_en. 
71   Not yet published when this report was finalised. 

107 

 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 88: Employees by age group, 2012 and 2016 

f
f
a
t
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Under 30

30-50

2012

2016

Over 50

Source: RMMS, 2018 and UIC (for 2012). 

If the age of railway workers was equally distributed between 20 and 60, then 25% would be over 50 
and 25% would be under 30. In contrast, in 2012, around 40% of the railway workforce were over 50, 
and  fewer  than  10%  were  under  30,  suggesting  that  there  could  be  potential  future  staffing 
shortages as older workers retire. This may be exacerbated by factors such as: 

long-term recruitment freezes due to the financial crisis; 

 
  State budgets cuts; and 
  changes to national pension schemes that require workers to work longer. 

However, as the figure shows, the overall age profile had improved slightly by 2016, with 37% of the 
workforce over 50 and 12% under 30. At least two effects may have contributed to this change: 

  Older workers may have been retiring. 
  New entrant operators may have been hiring relatively young staff. 

Despite the apparent improvement in the age pyramid over the years, the high percentage of railway 
staff older than 50 in 2016 still suggests that a large contingent of workers is expected to leave the 
railways soon. 

Figure 89 shows the distribution of railway staff by age group in the different States, sorted by the 
proportion over 50 years old. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 89: Employees by age group and country, 2016 

100%

f
f
a
t
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ES

EL

IT DK BG PL PT HR NL CZ

SE
Under 30

SK EE DE NO LT
Over 50

30-50

LV HU FI AT BE

IE RO SI UK FR

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for LU. 

The effect of an aged workforce appears to be greatest in Spain, Greece and Italy, where over 50% of 
the workforce were over 50 years old in 2016. In contrast, less than 35% of the workforce were over 
50  in  France,  the  United  Kingdom  and  Slovenia,  although  in  France  this  may  partially  reflect  the 
relatively young retirement age granted to some railway workers72. France and the United Kingdom 
also  have  a  relatively  high  proportion  of  workers  under  30,  at  least  compared  with other  Member 
States. 

Structure by contract type 

The RMMS survey also collected information on three aspects of employment contracts: 

  whether staff were permanent or temporary (employers may wish to have sufficient 

permanent staff to deal with normal levels of activity); 

  whether their working hours were full-time or part-time (employees may wish to have the 
option of working patterns compatible with their other activities, such as childcare or 
education); and 

  whether they were in apprenticeships or training (employers and employees may both 

benefit from higher skills). 

Figure 90 and Figure 91 show the proportions of temporary and permanent employees of the main 
infrastructure manager and the incumbent or other main railway undertakings, where available. 

72   Locomotive drivers could retire as early as 52 in France. 

109 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 90: Employees of main infrastructure managers by contract type, 2016 

100%

f
f
a
t
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

98%

96%

94%

92%

90%

88%

86%

84%

BE DK ES

IT RO FR EE

LV LT

PT HR UK BG DE

SK AT

SI

EL NO SE HU IE

PL NL

FI

Permanent

Temporary

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for CZ, LU. 2015 data for ES, FR. 

Figure 91: Employees of incumbent or main railway undertakings by contract type, 2016 

f
f
a
t
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

100%

98%

96%

94%

92%

90%

88%

86%

84%

82%

EL

PT

ES DK RO HU FI

AT

IE DE

FR

LV HR LT

Permanent

BE UK
SI
Temporary

IT

SK

EE BG NO PL

SE

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for CZ, LU, NL. 

Most States reported that 90% or more of the staff of their infrastructure managers and incumbent 
or  main  railway  undertakings  were  permanently  employed.  This  may  reflect  practical  issues, 
including  the  need  for  highly  trained  staff  such  as  locomotive  drivers  and  signal  operators  to  be 
retained  within  the  railway,  and  also  past  or  historic  employment  policies,  particularly  where 
permanently employed railway staff have a particular status73. 

Figure  92  and  Figure  93  show  the  proportions  of  full-time  and  part-time  employees  of  the  main 
infrastructure manager and the incumbent or other main railway undertakings, where available. 

73   Such as ’Cheminot’ in France or ’Beamte’ in Germany. 

110 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 92: Employees of main infrastructure managers by time worked, 2016 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

f
f
a
t
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

LT

IE

PL

HR

HU

EL

SK

UK

SI

IT

SE

AT

FI

NO

LV

DK

DE

FR

NL

BE

Full time

Part time

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for BG, CZ, EE, ES, LU, PT, RO. 2015 data for FR, IT, LT. 

Figure 93: Employees of incumbent or main railway undertakings by time worked, 2016 

f
f
a
t
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

RO

PT

HU

LT

LV

PL

IE
Full time

SI

SE

NO

IT

NL
FI
Part time

AT

UK

DK

FR

DE

BE

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, HR, LU, SK. 2015 data for PT. 

Most  infrastructure  managers  and  railway  undertakings  reported  that  80%  or  more  of  their  staff 
were employed full time. Railways operate seven days a week over long hours (and in some  cases 
24 hours per day) and many functions, including control and signalling staff, and train crew and on-
board staff, cannot be provided solely by staff employed for a 5-day week during normal hours. 

Figure 94 and Figure 95 show the proportions of employees who are currently in an apprenticeship 
or  other  training  within  either  the  main  infrastructure  manager  and  the  incumbent  or  other  main 
railway undertakings, where available. 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 94: Employees of main infrastructure managers in training, 2016 

f
f
a
t
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

10%

9%

8%

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

AT

DE

NO

HU

FI

NL

EL

DK

IT

PL

UK

SE

IE

SK

HR

Apprenticeship/trainee

Non-apprenticeship

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for BE, BG, CZ, EE, ES, FR, LT, LU, LV, RO, SI. 2015 data for IT. 

Figure 95: Employees of incumbent or main railway undertakings in training, 2016 

f
f
a
t
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

10%

9%

8%

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

DE

SE

PL

IT

AT

UK

HU

BE

IE

NL

RO

DK

LV

NO

Apprenticeship/trainee

Non-apprenticeship

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, LT, LU, PT, SI, SK. 2015 data for RO. 

Austria reported that 8% of the staff of the main infrastructure manager, ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG, were 
in apprenticeships or training. Germany reported that over 5% of the incumbent railway undertaking, 
Deutsche Bahn AG, were in apprenticeships or training. However, many infrastructure managers and 
railway undertakings reported that no staff were in any formal training programme. 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Box 17: Training in the rail sector 

There are long-standing and emerging skill shortages for drivers, engineers and other technical professions 
in the European railway sector. In addition to a number of efforts undertaken at EU level to improve the 
sector’s attractiveness, some railway companies have begun funding students’74 college course/university 
degrees,  particularly  for  occupations  such  as  engineering  with  significant  skills  shortage.  Apprenticeship 
schemes75  have  been  designed  to  attract  young  people,  providing  paid  employment  opportunities  and 
training for a long-term career in the railway sector. However, regional differences in skills shortages will 
also have to be taken into account. 

There  have also been advances in the use of technology to improve railway efficiency and safety and to 
change the customer experience. For example: 

  Travel agents and station-based sales staff may be replaced by internet-based booking tools and 

by station ticket machines respectively. 
Station-based ticket inspectors may be replaced, at least in part, by automatic gates. 

 
  Train guards may be displaced by Driver-Only Operation (DOO) or replaced by on-board catering, 

ticket inspection or security staff. 

Modern trains may be more reliable and be designed to take significantly less time to maintain, clean and 
prepare. 

4.7 

Harmonisation 

4.7.1 

EU legislation 

Following  Directive  91/440/EEC,  effective  from  1  January  1993,  the  Commission  has  adopted  four 
railway packages: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

In  2001,  the  First  Railway  Package  (‘rail  infrastructure  package’)  allowed  rail  operators  to 
access  the  trans-European  network  on  a  non-discriminatory  basis  for  the  purpose  of 
operating international freight services. 
In 2004, the Second Railway Package liberalised the rail freight market from 1 January 2007, 
introduced  common  procedures  for 
investigating  accidents,  and  established  safety 
authorities in the Member States. 
In  2007,  the  Third  Railway  Package  introduced  open  access  rights  for  international  rail 
passenger  services  and  a  European  train  driver  licence,  and  strengthened  rail  passengers’ 
rights. 
In  2016,  the  Fourth  Railway  Package  was  adopted  to  complete  the  single  market  for  rail 
services and to make it more competitive with other transportation modes. 

The technical pillar of the Fourth Railway Package, adopted by the Council in April 2016, focused on 
interoperability, safety and a renewed role for the European Rail Agency. It included: 

  Regulation (EU) 2016/796 on the EU Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) 

no 881/2004; 

  Directive (EU) 2016/797 on the interoperability of the rail system within the EU (Recast of 

Directive 2008/57/EC); and 

74   Promoting employment and quality of work in the European rail sector, CER (2016) 
75   Study on a pilot project: Making the EU transport sector attractive to future generations,  A study prepared 

for the European Commission DG Mobility and Transport (2017) 

113 

 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

  Directive (EU) 2016/798 on railway safety (Recast of Directive 2004/49/EC). 

The  market  pillar  of  the  Fourth  Railway  Package,  adopted  in  December  2016,  was  intended  to 
complete  the  process  of  market  opening  that  began  with  the  implementation  of  the  First  Railway 
Package. It laid down rules for improving impartiality in the governance of railway infrastructure, and 
introduced  the  principles  of  mandatory  tendering  for  PSCs  in  the  railway  sector  to  enhance 
competition in rail passenger service markets, thereby encouraging railway operators to improve the 
quality  of  their  services,  and  their  cost  effectiveness.  The  market  pillar  comprises  two  Regulations 
and a Directive. 

  Regulation (EU) 2016/2338 amends Regulation (EU) 1370/2007 dealing with the award of 

PSCs for domestic passenger transport services by rail. It came into force on 
24 December 2017 and many of its provisions apply from the timetable of 2 December 2019. 

  Directive 2016/2370/EU amends Directive 2012/34/EU dealing with the opening of the 

market of domestic passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway 
infrastructure. Many of its provisions apply from the timetable of 14 December 2020. 
  Regulation (EU) 2016/2337 repeals Regulation (EEC) 1192/69 on the normalisation of the 

accounts of railway undertakings. 

Two key features of the market pillar are: 

 

 

‘Competitive tendering’ from the 2020 timetable: with certain limited exceptions, 
competent authorities which have recourse to a third party other than an internal operator 
must award PSCs on the basis of a competitive tendering procedure. 
‘Open access’ from the 2021 timetable: Member States may limit rights of access only if the 
exercise of the right would compromise the economic equilibrium of one or more PSCs. 

4.7.2  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 and effectively applied thereafter. 

Transposition monitoring of EU regulation 

At 13 July 2017, the status of transposition of rail Directives was as set out in Table 6. 

Table 6: Status of transposition of Rail Directives, 13 July 2017 

Directive 

Number of countries which the EC considers had 
not transposed at 13 July 2017 

2016/882 (am. 2007/59) – language requirements 

2014/106 – Interoperability 

2012/34 – Single European Rail Area 

Source: DG MOVE. 

4.7.3 

Infringements 

7 

1 

5 

Monitoring of infringement proceedings related to the EU market regulation 

Infringement proceedings may be started when the Commission considers that, for example, an EU 
Directive  has  not  been  transposed  timely  and  correctly  into  national  law,  or  Single  Market  rules 

114 

 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

(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. However, only the Court of Justice can rule regarding a breach of EU law. 

Figure  96  shows  the  number  of  pending  infringement  proceedings  in  the  field  of  rail  transport  at 
13 July 2017. 

Figure 96: Pending infringement proceedings in the field of rail transport, 13 July 2017 

Source: DG MOVE Transport Scoreboard. 

4.7.4 

External dimensions of rail transport policy 

The  implementation  of  the  EU  rail  acquis  by  Switzerland  and  EEA  Countries  ensures  a  level  of 
harmonisation and interoperability for the rail industries, which is the basis for free market access. In 
rail  matters,  Switzerland  cooperates  with  the  EU  through  the  bilateral  Land  Transport  Agreement, 
which provides for reciprocal opening of land transport and complements the Free Trade Agreement. 
Switzerland  applies  the  European  Technical  Specifications  for  Interoperability  (TSIs)  as  accepted 
standards and rules of diligence (Implementation provisions to the Railway Ordinance). 

The  Commission  provides  support  to  the  candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries  for  EU 
membership,  particularly  for  the  planning,  development  and  financing  of  the  rail  component  of 
trans-European  transport  networks,  and  for  the  transposition  and  implementation  of  the  EU  rail 
acquis. The Transport Community Treaty76 , which was signed between the EU and the six Western 
Balkan  countries  (Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia, 
Kosovo77,  Montenegro  and Serbia)  and  has  been  applicable  since  2017,  provides  a  strong  basis  for 
the progressive integration of the region, including through agreements on rail freight corridors. In 

76   Treaty establishing the Transport Community, OJ L 278, 27.10.2017, p. 3. 
77   This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ 

Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence. 

115 

 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

addition to investments, a new rail strategy is needed to bring the Western Balkans into the main EU 
network  and  market  and  to  promote  the  gradual  opening  of  the  regional  rail  market78.  The 
development of the southern rail transport corridor also involves close cooperation with Turkey. EU 
cooperation  and  technical  assistance  in  the  rail  sector  also  extends  further  beyond  towards  the 
neighbouring countries, notably in the southern and eastern regions. 

Since  1st  July  2011,  the  European  Union  acceded  to  the  Convention  concerning  International 
Carriage  by  Rail  (COTIF)79,  and  became  a  member  of  the  Intergovernmental  Organisation  for 
International  Carriage  by  Rail  (OTIF),  which  brings  together  46  States  of  the  Pan-European  region, 
including 26 EU Member States. OTIF develops uniform legal regimes for international rail transport 
as  regards  technical  interoperability,  dangerous  goods  and  railway  contract  law.  OTIF  and  the 
European  Commission,  assisted  by  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Railways  (ERA),  co-operate  to 
maintain equivalence between EU and OTIF legislation concerning railway interoperability and safety 
to the  extent necessary for international rail traffic, in order to facilitate  the rail transport services 
and  recognition  of  authorisations  between  the  EU  Member  States  and  non-EU  OTIF  Contracting 
States. 

The  Organization  for  Cooperation  between  Railways  (OSJD)  is  a  platform  for  rail  cooperation  at 
ministerial  level  and  at  the  level  of  railway  companies  that  brings  together 28  countries  (including 
nine  EU  member  States),  with  a  view  to  creating  a  common  rail  transport  space  in  Eurasia.  The 
Commission,  with  the  assistance  of  ERA,  contributes  to  OSJD  works  through  its  participation, 
coordination and active role in relevant initiatives. Important developments take place in regard to 
the  ongoing  reform  process  to  adapt  OSJD  to  the  current  administrative,  legal  and  economic 
situation  in  the  rail  sector  where  the  Commission  sees  potential  to  promote  further  alignment  of 
OTIF and OSJD regimes to contribute to more favourable rail transport conditions between Europe 
and Asia to underpin the new business opportunities for EU industry as a whole. 

At  global  level,  the  European  Commission  and  some  Member  States  participate  in  the  Group  of 
Experts  towards  Unified  Rail  Law  (GEURL)  created  in  2011  within  the  United  Nations  Economic 
Commission for Europe (UNECE), which aims at unifying railway contract law with a particular focus 
on  Euro-Asian  rail  transport  linkages.  In  February  2013,  the  project  received  political  support  as 
37 member  countries  of  UNECE  signed  the  Joint  Declaration  on  the  promotion  of  Euro-Asian  rail 
transport  and  activities  towards  unified  railway  law.  In  February  2018,  the  mandate  of  the  GEURL 
was extended for two more years with the objective of preparing a legal instrument for the contract 
of  carriage  of  goods  across  the  Eurasian  continent  (when  neither  the  provisions  of  OTIF  nor  OSJD 
apply, i.e. interface law), and to organise a series of pilot tests on designated freight corridors. 

4.7.5  Regulatory bodies 

Role and resources 

Under Directive 2012/34/EU, on complaint or ex-officio, Regulatory Bodies have the power to: 

  prevent/redress discrimination; 
  check access to network and service facilities, charging, capacity allocation; 
  monitor the competitive situation; 

78   A  credible  enlargement  perspective  for  and  enhanced  EU  engagement  with  the  Western  Balkans, 

COM(2018) 65 final. 

79   Council Decision 2013/103/EU of 16  June 2011 on the  signing and conclusion of the Agreement  between 
the  European  Union  and  the  Intergovernmental  Organisation  for  International  Carriage  by  Rail  on  the 
Accession  of  the  European  Union  to  the  Convention  concerning  International  Carriage  by  Rail  (COTIF)  of 
9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999, OJ L 51, 23.2.2013, p. 1. 

116 

 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

  adopt non-binding opinions on the infrastructure managers' business plans, contractual 

agreement with the Member States on infrastructure financing and capacity enhancement 
plans); 

  audit the accounts of railway undertakings, operators of service facilities and infrastructure 

managers to check accounting separation; 

  draw conclusions from the accounts on State aid, informing competent authorities; and 
  perform the Economic Equilibrium Test. 

The Fourth Railway Package further extended the scope of regulatory bodies' powers to check: 

  discrimination in traffic management, infrastructure renewals, maintenance; 
  compliance with separation requirements; and 
  conflicts of interest. 

To  comply  with  their  duties,  EU  law  gives  regulators  the  power  to  request  information  from  all 
actors,  including  data  for  market  monitoring,  and  to  impose  penalties  and  fines  if  no  reply. 
Regulatory  bodies'  decisions,  which  must  be  published,  should  be  immediately  binding  and  not 
subject to control of another administrative instance (judicial review). 

National  law  in  some  cases  even  extends  regulatory  powers  beyond  what  is  enshrined  in  EU  law. 
Multi-modal  regulatory  bodies  can  in  some  countries  perform  economic  equilibrium  tests  across 
modes.  In  Italy  the  regulatory  body  sets  ex-ante  criteria  for  the  determination  of  track  access 
charges,  criteria  for  PSO  awards  (either  competitive  or  direct)  including  scope,  method  of 
compensation  and  efficiency  improvements  and  works  on  the  definition  of  network  effects  and 
efficient costs. In Portugal the regulator issues opinions on public service contracts, including on the 
calculation of financial compensation. 

Directive  2012/34/EU  (article  57)  requires  national  regulatory  bodies  to  cooperate  among 
themselves  and  with  other  authorities.  Regulatory  bodies  must  exchange  information  on  decision 
making principles and practice and on the problems of interpreting transposed Union railway law; in 
order  to  do  so,  they  have  to  participate  and  work  together  in  a  network  that  convenes  at  regular 
intervals (European Network of Rail Regulatory Bodies – ENRRB). 

Directive  2012/34/EU  imposes  to  Member  States  to  staff  and  manage  their  regulatory  bodies  in  a 
way which guarantees  their independence.  Figure  97  shows the  numbers of staff in the regulatory 
bodies. 

117 

 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 97: Regulatory bodies’ staff dealing with rail market access, 2018 

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

FR DE PL UK PT NL BE AT SE LV BG RO HU ES

SI

IE HR FI

EL DK CZ SK LU

Source: Darebo 2018. No data for EE, IT, LT and NO. 

Rail regulatory bodies in the EU are mainly funded by State budget (including Ministerial resources) 
and  fees  paid  by  regulated  operators  (infrastructure  managers,  railway  undertakings  or  both),  as 
shown in Figure 98. 

118 

 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 98: Regulatory bodies’ funding in the EU 

State budget (including
ministries)

Rail fund

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Industry

Railway undertakings

Infrastructure managers

Source: Darebo 2018. No data for NO. 

In a number of countries, rail regulatory bodies have also other functions related to the sector, they 
act  as  national  licensing  authorities,  national  safety  authorities,  passenger  rights  enforcement 
authorities, or they can be at the same time competition authorities, as shown in Figure 99. 

119 

 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 99: Regulatory bodies with integrated competences for the rail market, 2018 

6

10

8

8

Competition authority

Licencing authority

Safety authority

Passengers' rights enforcement authority

Source: Darebo, 2018. 

4.8 

Digitalisation 

Digitalisation is crucial for Railways for two main reasons: 

1)  It enhances the internal efficiency and effectiveness of railways, improving the capacity, use 
of  infrastructure  and  the  level  of  safety,  by  increasing  the  on-board  intelligence,  and 
decreasing the equipment needed by as much as 70% (notably track-side). 

2)  Digitally enhanced services for passengers and for freight add value for railways and can be 
better  integrated  in  a  multimodal  logisgtic  chain,  for  freight  services,  or  in  Mobility  as  a 
Service schemes, for passengers. 

Improving internal efficiency of Railways 

As  far  as  the  internal  efficiency  gains  are  concerned,  digitalisation  can  increase  infrastructure 
capacity,  between  20%  and  50%  depending  on  the  traffic  type  and  signalling  used.  Among  the 
induced  benefits,  aside  the  higher  share  of  railways  and  the  avoided  greenhouse  gas  emissions, 
savings from avoided infrastructure investments shall also be considered and quantified. 

Train control systems ensure that trains stop where necessary and travel at a speed safe for the line 
improve  performance.At  the  same  time, 
and  modern  signalling  systmes  can  drastically 
incompatibility of national legacy control systems constitute a significant barrier to interoperability of 
the  European  railways.  ERTMS  ("European  Rail  Traffic  Management  System")  is  a  major  industrial 
project  being  implemented  by  Europe,  a  project  which  will  serve  to  make  rail  transport  safer  and 
more  competitive.  ERTMS  (is  a  common  European  standard  and  its  deployment  will  provide  the 
backbone for a digital, connected Single European Rail Area. Further to this, ERTMS will also enable 
the introduction of innovative technologies to the rail sector in an effective manner. 

On  5  January  2017  the  European  Commission  adopted  the  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/6 
setting the new ERTMS European Deployment Plan (EDP). The EDP provides for about 30-40% of the 
Core  Network  Corridors  to  be  equipped  by  ERTMS  by  2023  (15  672  km).  Only  one  third  of  that  is 

120 

 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

currently in operation so there is much still to do in the coming years. Around 2600 km should be put 
in operation with European Train Control System (ETCS)  in 2018 (including 820 km of Spanish lines 
already  in  operation  under  ETCS  1  to  be  migrated  to  ECTS  2).Track-side  equipment  can  be  at  the 
same  time  reduced  by  as  much  as  70%  thanks  to  innovative  version  of  ERTMS,  with  important 
savings on renewal, maintenance and fostered reliability. 

Further energy savings linked to Automatic Train Operation (ATO), coupled with future lighter trains 
and  higher  loading  factor  can  lead  to  energy  savings  between  20%  and  50%.  Also,  ATO  in  parallel 
with ERTMS deployment will reduce operating costs for railway undertakings and maintenance costs 
for infrastructure managers, while further improving network capacity and punctuality. 

In  addition,  the  use  of  remote  sensing  on  board,  slart  trackside  devices  and  drones  provides  the 
opportunity to collect a great amount of “big data”, monitoring constantly the essential parameters 
to prevent failure of rail infrastructure and mobile assets, while optimising maintenance. 

Provision digitally-enhanced passenger services 

Ensuring  a  good  level  of  integrated  mobility  involving  a  wide  rail  network  across  national  borders, 
and  a  (or more)  urban  centre  /  poles  connected  with  rail  services  is  a  challenge  for  the  success  of 
railways,  in  an  environment  where  Mobility  as  a  Services  (MaaS)  provides  a  viable  alternative  to 
provate car use and ownership.  

The efficient integration of public transport with rail calls for: 

  a  shared,  integrated  ticketing  system  –wide-ranging  agreements,  common  ticketing  / 
commercial  tools  and  the  existence  of  reference  standards  and  technical  interfaces  are 
needed to ease this process; 

 

 a  shared,  integrated  information  system,  allowing  for  relevant  information  to  be  easily 
available– this include awareness raising on the availability of the service (service planned), 
real-time  information  on  the  service  (service  deployed),  pricing,  ticketing,  etc.  (–  e.g.:  a 
multimodal travel companion currently being developed under Shift2Rail). 

MaaS "I" 

MaaS "J" 

Increasing  use  of  Information  Technology  (IT)  is  providing  customers  with  various  means  of 
interacting with transport systems, including railways. These include, typically: 

  before  travel,  information  enabling  them  to  plan  their  journey,  such  as  information  on 

timetables, facilities and fares; 

  during  travel,  real-time  information  on  services  and  disruption,  and  communications 

through WIFI and other media; and 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

  after travel, processes for Pay As You Go (PAYG) fares and for claiming compensation and 
refunds  for  delays  and  cancellations  -  some  railway  undertakings  now  automatically 
refund some or all of the fare if it was specific to a train which ran late or was cancelled. 

Before  travel,  railway  undertakings,  like  other  transport  services  including  air  and  coach  travel, 
provide  information  in  electronic  format  on  their  timetables,  facilities  and  prices.  Timetables, 
facilities  and  prices  may  be  published  on  the  website  of  the  railway  undertaking,  by  other  parties 
such  as  the  infrastructure  manager,  or  by  specialist  apps  or  websites  related  to  particular  urban 
areas, international travel, or niches such as railway sleeper services. Information can be included on 
facilities for the disabled as well as on services such as facilities on trains and at stations, including 
information on local transport connections and taxis. Not all websites or apps are able to quote fares 
information or sell tickets, which now come in distinct forms: 

  Conventional paper tickets may be sold at a station, collected from a machine, or sent by 

post. 

  E-tickets,  often  with  a  barcode  or  QR  code  capable  of  operating  ticket  gates,  may  be 
printed  at  home.  In  some  cases  they  are  valid  only  with  a  unique  document,  so  as  to 
avoid fraud by printing duplicates. 

  M-tickets may be downloaded onto, and stored on, a mobile device, which in some cases 

can be used to operate a ticket gate. 

During travel, passengers now have access to a range of real-time information. Information on train 
departures and arrivals has long been displayed at stations and on platforms, but may now also be 
available on trains, websites and apps. This enables travellers to identify that a train is delayed, will 
depart from a different platform, will no longer be on time for  an original connection, or has been 
cancelled. Onboard displays may now indicate which toilets are occupied (or working) and in which 
parts of the train seats are still available. 

Two major innovations have aided travel on urban and suburban rail networks: 

  Smart  card  tickets  may  allow  passengers  to  carry  a  pass  covering  a  journey,  line  or 
number of zones, permitting unlimited travel for a period, or be pre-loaded with cash to 
allow  Pay  As  You  Go  (PAYG)  for  individual  journeys.  A  national  smart  card  system,  OV-
chipkaart, now operates in the Netherlands. 

 

‘Contactless’  payment,  developed  in  London  but  being  licenced  to  other  cities,  allows 
passengers to use a credit or debit card, or a mobile phone, to register the start and end 
of each journey and to pay in arrears. 

However, PAYG systems require that passengers present their tickets at readers, or ticket barriers, at 
the start, and sometimes the end, of each journey. Where there is a culture that stations should be 
open, as in Germany, paper tickets remain the norm. 

Provision of information raises a number of challenges for the industry and for regulatory bodies and 
competition authorities. For example: 

  To  establish  a  level  playing  field  with  other  modes,  timetable  and  pricing  information 
needs to be available sufficiently far in advance for potential passengers to plan and book 
with  confidence.  Airlines  typically  offer  booking  one  year  ahead,  but  in  the  case  of 
railways this may only be possible three months ahead. 

  To  establish  a  level  playing  field  between  rail  operators,  new  entrants  may  need  to  be 
given  non-discriminate  access  to  booking  platforms  (and  ticket  offices  and  ticket 
machines) which have historically been controlled by the incumbent operator. 

122 

 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

  To provide accurate real-time information on station information displays, websites and 
apps, one system (typically provided by the infrastructure manager) must have access to, 
and present, information on the services of all relevant railway undertakings. 

  Where  smart  cards  or  PAYG  systems  are  used,  mechanisms  are  needed  to  identify,  or 
estimate, on which service(s) the passenger travelled and to which operator(s) their fares 
should be allocated or apportioned, and to make the appropriate payments. 

  With the exception of the Netherlands, smart card and PAYG systems tend to be confined 

to a city or region, rather than operating across a Member State. 

Provision of digitally-enhanced freight services 

Digitalisation provides the opportunity for Railways to be a fully integrated multimodal component of 
the  single  EU  transport  area  and  the  productive  and  logistic  chains,  from  an  administrative, 
contractual and operational point of view. 

Such a transparent approach leads to the provision of improved products to the customers and total 
transparency on the means of transport used, up to freight  operators to manage  the door-to-door 
service. 

It is increasingly important for rail to combine the full capacity provided by long block trains along the 
freight  routes  (starting  from  the  Rail  Freight  Corridors),  with  flexible  services  (stop-and-go  in 
automated terminals, thus overcoming the dichotomy single wagonload / full trainload. 

Managing such services calls for a digital logistic management integrated in real-time with the Traffic 
(and Wagon/ITUs) Management System. 

Enhanced  multimodal 
integration  for 
freight  shall  be  pursued  via  electronic 
management  of  all  the  commercial 
elements: 
content 
consignment 
information,  ownership  and  contractual 
and insurance-related. 

blockchains, 

Evolving  towards  red-tape  free  e-freight 
calls  for  a  smooth  interface  of  public 
registers  with  Distributed 
Ledger 
Technology (DLTs), such as the one used 
in 
both 
transparency, traceability and encryption 
ensuring 
of 
secure/selective 
digitalised 
information  flows  and  proceeding  – 
including  administrative  and  contractual 
ones. 

sensitive  data, 

ensuring 

thus 

fully 

gathering 

Information 
(both 
administrative  and  logistic-related)  shall 
start  from  the  port  /  entry  point  in  the 
EU via multimodal digital interfaces, with 
the Logistic Single Window environment, 
with  a  multimodal  EU-wide,  single 
e-consignment note. 

123 

 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Smart train and goods real-time tracking and tracing requires an enhanced reliability of train services 
with a credible, tested ETA. 

Digitalisation of rail services should be accompanied by a digitalisation of freight operations, enabling 
efficiency in energy (therefore CO2 reduction) and capacity. Bringing electrification to the rail freight 
will also enable new digital technology to emerge, from automatic couplers to virtual coupling. 

A rail freight system fully connected will allow further improvements with the managing of Big Data. 
Intelligence can be built around predictive maintenance, mobility management, and the creation of 
new smart services. 

Business  analytics  coupled  with  Artificial  Intelligence  can  provide  reliable  transport  demand 
forecasts, therefore allowing the network to be used at its optimal capacity and cost efficiency. 

4.9 

Multimodal and intermodal transport 

4.9.1 

Combined transport 

In November 2017, as part of the Second Mobility Package80, the Commission adopted its proposal to 
amend Directive 92/106/EC (Combined Transport Directive81) with an aim to provide new and more 
effective support measures for modal shift. The proposed amendments would considerably increase 
the  eligibility  of  intermodal  operations  (from  41.7%  to  72.7%)  for  the  support  provided  under  the 
Directive  and  were  assessed  to  bring  along  an  additional modal  shift  to  rail,  inland  waterways  and 
short sea shipping of 69.9 billion tonne-kilometres in the period until 2030. For the rail sector, the 
most  important  amendments  are  the  inclusion  of  national  combined  transport  operations,  the 
removal of a minimum distance for eligible rail legs and new economic support measures, including 
support  for  transhipment  terminal  building  and  encouragement  for  Member  States  to  provide 
appropriate operational support for combined transport operations. 

The  proposal  is  currently  in  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure  with  both  the  Council  and  the 
European  Parliament  discussing  their  amendments.  The  negotiations  are  expected  to  continue  at 
least until mid-2019. 

In  addition,  the  CEF  Transport  201882  call  for  proposals  included  a  new  priority  for  the  support  of 
investments  in  combined  transport  transhipment  terminals  that  is  aimed  at  supporting  the 
amendments proposed by the Commission. 

4.9.2 

Internalisation of external costs 

Providing  the  correct  price  signals  and  taking  account  of  externalities  is  key  for  making  the  right 
modal choices and for any discussion on multi-modal transport. 

As a first step, the Commission published in 2018 a case study analysis of the burden of taxation and 
charges  on  transport.  It  gathered  information  on  taxes,  charges  and  subsidies  for  twenty  carefully 
selected representative routes for all modes of transport. 

This prepared the  ground for a more comprehensive study on the internalisation of external costs, 
which  is  ongoing  and  will  allow  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  the  ‘user  pays’  and  ‘polluter  pays’ 
principles are implemented in the EU countries and in other advanced economies. The study, called 
‘Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities’, aims at 

80   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/news/2017-11-08-driving-clean-mobility_en. 
81   Council 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. 38–42 

82   https://ec.europa.eu/inea/sites/inea/files/2018_cef_transport_call_text_final.pdf. 

124 

 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

assessing the current state-of-play of the extent of internalisation per mode and per country, and at 
identifying options for further internalisation and provide recommendations on possible applications. 
This will be achieved through an update of the handbook on external costs, a fresh analysis on the 
total  and  average  external  costs,  an  assessment  and  comparison  of  internalisation  measures  with 
infrastructure  charges  and 
external  costs,  as  well  as  an  assessment  and  comparison  of 
infrastructure–related expenditure. 

4.9.3  New tools, consignment notes and cargo and vehicle positioning 

In  logistics,  one  of  the  most  important  requirements  of  end  customers  (i.e.  the  actual  shippers  of 
goods) is the reliability of the transport services provided. In an ideal situation, this means on-time 
delivery according to schedule. As this cannot always be ensured, reliability of transport services also 
includes  that  shippers  are  constantly  provided  with  reliable  and  up-to-date  information  about  the 
estimated time  of arrival (ETA) of their shipments. In addition to that, exchanging ETA information 
between  all  partners  involved  is  a  prerequisite  for  improving  the  operational  efficiency  within  the 
logistics chain. 

Digitalisation has a huge potential to generate and provide such information to end customers based 
on  close  cooperation  of  all  actors  in  the  logistics  chain.  In  EU  legislation,  information  exchange 
related to the provision of freight services by railway undertakings, including connections with other 
modes, is covered by the Technical Specifications for Interoperability on ‘telematics applications for 
freight’  (TAF  TSI).  TAF  TSI  provides  a  technical  framework  for  data  exchange  but  does  not  specify 
concrete systems and processes. 

Implementing data exchange in practice is where the ELETA projects comes in. The project, launched 
by  a  consortium  of  6  intermodal  operators  coordinated  by  the  Royal  Dutch  Transport  Federation, 
aims  to  demonstrate  the  practical  benefits  of  exchanging  ETA  data,  paving  the  way  for  a  network-
wide roll-out. The project was launched following the commitments and priorities identified by the 
railway sector in its 2016 declaration ‘Boosting International Rail Freight’83. 

The  project  will  implement  data  exchange  for  12  existing  intermodal  trains  as  a  pilot  application, 
including all partners involved (terminals, intermodal operators, railway undertakings). The technical 
approach is based on the establishment of a communication channel between all partners, based on 
the  existing,  TAF-TSI  compliant  ‘Train  Information  System’,  and  the  development  of  an  integrated 
methodology  to  calculate  ETA  based  on  information  provided  by  multiple  partners.  An  impact 
assessment will estimate the benefits of a network-wide roll-out of ETA data exchange based on the 
experiences gained in the project. 

More information about the ELETA project is available at the project:  
http://www.uirr.com/projects/ongoing/item/21-electronic-exchange-of-eta-information/34-
ongoing.html. 

83   Sector  Statement  on  Rail  Freight  Corridors:  ‘Boosting  International  Rail  Freight’,  Brussels,  20  May  2016, 

available at  
http://www.cer.be/sites/default/files/publication/Corridor_Sector_Statement_20160520_final.pdf. 

125 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
The quality of rail services 

5. 

The quality of rail services 

5.1 

Punctuality and reliability of passenger services 

Punctuality by category of services (regional/local, long-distance passenger services) 

States were asked to report the proportion of passenger services arriving with a delay of 5 minutes or 
less,  although  arrival  time  is  often  checked  only  at  the  end  of  a  journey  and  not  at  intermediate 
stations. 

Figure  100  shows  the  reported  punctuality  of  services  classified  as  regional  or  local  in  each  of  the 
States in 2014, 2015 and 201684. 

Figure 100: Punctuality of regional and local passenger services, 2014-2016 

l

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

i

s
n
a
r
t

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

EE

LV LT DK AT

FI NL NO PT DE

SK

PL

IE

SE

LU CZ

FR HR UK BE RO IT BG SI HU

2014

2015

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for ES, no reliable estimates for EL.  No 2016 data for NO. No 2015 data for LU. 
No 2014 data for IE, LU, HR, BE. 

On the definitions used, an average of 90% of passenger services were punctual. In 2016, punctuality 
was highest in the relatively small networks of the Baltic States, and worst in Bulgaria. 

Figure 101 shows the reported punctuality of services classified as long-distance in each of the States 
in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Luxembourg does not classify any services as long-distance. 

84   According  to  RMMS,  a  train  is  defined  as  punctual  if  it  is  less  than  five  minutes  late,  but  definitions  vary 
between States and types of service. For example, Germany reported that a train is defined as punctual if it 
is less than six minutes late (up to 5 minutes 59 seconds late). 

126 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 101: Punctuality of long-distance passenger services, 2014-2016 

The quality of rail services 

l

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

i

s
n
a
r
t

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

EE

LV LT

FR BE AT

IE

FI

ES DK NO NL UK SE

PL RO DE PT CZ HR SK

IT HU BG SI

2014

2015

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for LU. No 2016 data for EE, NO, ES. No 2015 data for EE, ES. No 2014 data for 
BE, IE, E, HRL. 

Long-distance services tend to be less punctual than regional and local passenger services, primarily 
because they operate over longer distances, and often over busier lines, and interact with a greater 
number of other services en route. On many networks, reported punctuality in 2015 and 2016 was 
lower than in 2014 This is due to a change in methodology  – in 2014 the long-distance punctuality 
threshold  was  15  minutes,  while  in  2015  it  was  lowered  to  5  minutes  –  in  line  with  the  threshold 
applicable to local and regional services. 

Reliability by category of service 

States were asked to report the proportion of passenger services cancelled. 

Figure  102  shows  the  reported  proportion  of  services  classified  as  regional  or  local  which  were 
cancelled, in each of the States in 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 102: Reliability of regional and local passenger services, 2014-2016 

12%

The quality of rail services 

d
e

l
l

e
c
n
a
c

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

LV EE HU SK CZ

IE RO ES AT PL

SI HR FI DE SE PT NL DK BG LU FR NO BE

IT

EL UK LT

2014

2015

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2016 data for NO, ES. No 2015 data for LU, LV, ES. No 2014 data for LU, LV, IE, BG, BE, 
EL, SK, HR. 

Reported cancellation rates in 2016 were below 2% in most of the States. 

Figure 103 shows the reported cancellation rates of services classified as long-distance in each of the 
States in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Luxembourg does not classify any services as long-distance. 

Figure 103: Reliability of long-distance passenger services, 2014-2016 

d
e

l
l

e
c
n
a
c

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

18%

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

EE

IE

CZ AT RO ES

PL

SI

IT

PT

FR SE

SK

FI DK BG DE HR NL UK BE

LT NO EL HU

2014

2015

2016

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for LU, LV. No 2016 data for EE, ES, NO.  No 2015 data for EE, ES. No 2014 data 
for IE, AT, RO, SK, BG, BE, EL, HR. 

Greece, Norway, Lithuania, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Hungary all reported cancellation rates 
of over 3% in one or more years. 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The quality of rail services 

Box 18: Passenger Rights 

Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations85 (the Regulation) aims to protect 
rail  passengers  in  the  EU.  It  establishes  passengers’  rights  to  information,  reservations  and  tickets, 
assistance,  care  and  compensation  in  the  event  of  delay  or  cancellation,  free  of  charge  assistance  (for 
persons with disabilities and for persons with reduced mobility), compensation in the event of an accident, 
a quick and accessible system of complaint handling and full application and effective enforcement of EU 
law through national enforcement bodies (NEBs) designated by Member States. 

The  Regulation  does  not  apply  to  all  railway  services:  Member  States  may  exempt  urban,  suburban  and 
regional  services  from  the  application  of  the  Regulation  (apart  from  certain  mandatory  requirements). 
Domestic long-distance services can be exempted until 2024 at the latest. 

The extensive use of these exemptions leading to a non-uniform application of the provisions was one of 
the  main  issues  leading  to  a  proposal  for  revision  of  the  Regulation  adopted  by  the  Commission  in 
September  2017.  Other  shortcomings  were  insufficient  information  for  passengers  and  overall  weak 
enforcement of the rules. 

Under  the  proposed  new  rules  domestic  long-distance  services  will  no  longer  be  exempted  from  the 
Regulation,  while  Member  States  will  be  allowed  to  continue  with  exemptions  of  urban,  suburban  and 
regional services, except if they are provided across a border. The Commission's aim is also to further align 
rail  passengers'  rights  with  existing  legislation  on  other  transport  modes,  particularly  as  concerns  non-
discrimination, disability training, contingency planning, complaint-handling and enforcement. In the same 
spirit of consistency, the Commission proposed to introduce a new clause exempting rail companies from 
having to compensate passengers for delays due to force majeure circumstances, in line with the practices 
in other transport modes. In addition, the proposal strengthens the rights of persons with disabilities and 
of  persons  with  reduced  mobility.  Member  States  will  no  longer  be  able  to  allow  exemptions  from  the 
provision of assistance and compensation for damaged mobility equipment. Information must be provided 
in accessible  formats in line  with the requirements proposed in the European Accessibility Act. Rail staff 
will have to be trained accordingly. 

5.2 

Punctuality and reliability of freight services 

Punctuality by category of services (domestic, international freight services) 

Since 2015, States have been asked to report on the performance of freight services. 

Figure 104 shows the reported punctuality of domestic and international freight services in 201686. 
On the definition used, on average 62% of freight services were classified as punctual.  

85   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). 

86   According  to  RMMS,  freight  services  are  defined  as  punctual  if  they  arrive  with  a  delay  of  15  minutes  or 

less. 

129 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 104: Punctuality of domestic and international freight services, 2016 

The quality of rail services 

l

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

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

BG

LT

UK

IE

NL

FI

AT

FR

SE

DK

PT

DE

RO BE

IT

SI

CZ

PL

SK

HR HU EE

Domestic

International

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for EL, ES, LU, LV, NO. No domestic data for EE. No international data for IE, NL, 
FI. 

Most States reported that domestic freight services were more punctual than international services. 
This  reflects  the  fact  that  international  freight  services  travel  over  longer  distances,  may  not  be 
allocated  a  high  priority,  and  can  be  subject  to  delays  at  borders  which  do  not  apply  to  domestic 
services. 

Reliability by category of service 

Since 2015, States were also asked to report the proportion of freight services cancelled. 

Figure  105  shows  the  reported  cancellation  rates  of  domestic  and  international  freight  services  in 
2016. Not all States have this data available yet. In addition, assessment is not always straightforward 
because  it  is  not  easy  to  distinguish  between  the  cancelled  due  to  commercial  reasons  (i.e  at  the 
request  of  a  customer)  and  rail  related  reasons.  Therefore,  further  efforts  need  to  be  done  to 
improve data quality and availability in this regard. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 105: Reliability of domestic and international freight services, 2016 

100%

The quality of rail services 

d
e

l
l

e
c
n
a
c

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

f
o
n
o
i
t
r
o
p
o
r
P

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

LT

DE

AT

HU

UK

IE

SE
FI
Domestic

DK

PL
International

PT

SI

IT

RO

HR

SK

BG

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for BE, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FR, LU, LV, NL, NO. No international data for DE, IE, FI, LT. 

Average timetabled speed of freight services 

States were optionally asked to provide estimates of the averaged timetabled speed of domestic and 
international freight services. Figure 106 summarises the responses provided87. 

Figure 106: Average timetabled speed of freight services, 2016 

r
u
o
h
r
e
p
s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i

K

80

74

73

70

70

64

64

60

60

56

49

45

45

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

39

39

38

36

32

47

41

32

29

32

31

31

29

30

24

24

IE

DK

SI

NL

PT

FR

CZ

LT

RO

SK

HR

PL

HU

BE

BG

EE

Domestic

International

Source:  RMMS,  2018.  No  data  for  AT,  DE,  EL,  ES,  FI,  IT,  LU,  LV,  SE,  UK,  NO.  No  domestic  data  for  EE.  No 
international data for IE, LT. 

While  international  freight  trains  were  less  punctual  than  domestic  ones,  their  average  speeds,  at 
least within any given national network, were broadly similar, possibly because the same timetable 

87   Optional in RMMS questionnaire. 

131 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
The quality of rail services 

paths may be used by either domestic or international freight trains. Figure 106 does not, however, 
show whether delays at crossing points between national networks materially reduce overall average 
speeds for international freight. 

5.3 

The role of regulators related to quality 

Scope  and  responsibilities  for  the  monitoring  of  quality  of  rail  transport  services  differ  across  the 
Member States and Norway. 

The  Directive  2012/34/EU  provides  for  Member  States  to  supply  to  the  Commission  on  an  annual 
basis  the  necessary  information  on  the  evolution  of  framework  conditions  in  the  railway  sector, 
including quality of rail transport services (Article 15(3)). 

Directive  1371/2007  establishing  rights  and  obligations  for  rail  passenger  service  users  states  that 
railway undertakings should define, manage and monitor service quality standards for rail passenger 
services  and  that  Member  States  must  publish  every  year  a  report  on  their  service  quality 
performance together with their annual report. These  reports must  be  available on the website  of 
the Agency88. 

IRG-Rail published89 a list of the main indicators of quality of rail services that are monitored by the 
independent  bodies  in  charge  of  the  enforcement  of  Regulation  1371/2007  (regulatory  bodies  or 
other institutions) in 24 Member States and Norway. 

Unfortunately,  these  national  indicators  are  not  directly  comparable,  due  to  differences  in  the 
definitions  of  indicators  to  monitor  (sometimes  even  between  different  responsible  bodies  in  the 
same country). This is particularly true for delays. 

Frequency of collection and publication of delays and cancellations also differs. 

5.4 

Safety 

Safety remains a priority for the development of the Single European Railway Area. The recast of the 
Safety  Directive  included  in  the  Fourth  Railway  Package  (Directive  2016/798)  provides  for  revised 
safety certification arrangements and migration to a single safety certificate. Instead of the current 
two-part system, a single safety certificate will be granted on the basis of a single application, to be 
valid in all Member States in which the railway undertaking operates. 

The  Agency  will  also  become  an  EU-wide  authority  for  safety  certification  of  railway  undertakings, 
while national safety authorities will continue to act as principal supervisors for railway undertakings 
and  to  issue  safety  authorisations  for  infrastructure  managers.  The  Agency  will  have  the  power  of 
monitoring activity, performance and organisation of the NSAs, to ensure alignment of criteria and 
procedures with those used by the Agency itself. 

Rail is expected to remain one of the safest modes of travel. Figure 107 compares the risk of a fatal 
accident per billion passenger-kilometres for different modes. 

88   Available at https://eradis.era.europa.eu/interop_docs/ruSQPreports/default.aspx . 
89   IRG-Rail, Sixth Annual Market Monitoring Working Document, March 2018 (page 37). 

132 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 107: Fatality risk of different transport modes, 2011-2015 

The quality of rail services 

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
r
e
p
s
e
i
t
i
l

a
t
a
F

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

37,80

2,67

Powered two wheeler
occupant

Passenger car
occupant

0,23

Bus/coach
passenger

0,10

Railway
passenger

0,06

Airline passenger
over EU28 territory

Sources: ERA, "Report on Railway Safety and Interoperability in the EU", 201890. 

While rail travel is not as safe as air travel, it is nearly twice as safe as travelling in a bus or coach and 
around 25 times safer than travelling in a car. 

Rail safety in Europe is managed at the operational level by both the individual Member States and 
the  EU.  Railway  undertakings  and  infrastructure  managers  assess  the  risks  associated  with  safe 
operations of  trains  and  establish  a  Safety Management  System  (SMS).  National  Safety  Authorities 
(NSAs) then assess the quality of SMSs before issuing safety certificates and safety authorisations to 
the operators and the infrastructure managers. 

NSAs  also  have  a  legal  obligation  to  report  all  significant  accidents.  National  Investigation  Bodies 
(NIB) must inform the Agency of the ongoing investigation, and send the final report to the Agency 
after the investigation is concluded. Figure 108 shows the number of significant accidents, fatalities 
and serious injuries over the period 2010 to 2016. 

90 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/multisite/era/sites/era/files/library/docs/safety_interoperability_progress_repo
rts/railway_safety_and_interoperability_in_eu_2018_en.pdf  

133 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
Figure 108: Significant rail accidents and resulting casualties, 2010-2016 

The quality of rail services 

3 000

2 500

2 000

1 500

s
t
n
e
d
i
c
n

I

1 000

 500

 0

1249

1050

1015

911

879

682

778

1270

1206

1135

1129

1054

962

964

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Fatalities

Serious injuries

Significant accidents

Source: ERA, "Report on Railway Safety and Interoperability in the EU", 2018. 

There were 964 fatalities in 2016 in Europe: the majority of which of level crossing users (255 people) 
and  unauthorised  persons  (600  people).  The  number  of  employee  and  passenger  fatalities  was  32 
and 44, respectively. Continuous improvements in technology, systems and railway procedures have 
contributed  to  a  trend  decline  in  all  three  indicators  over  the  period  shown.  Technologies  such  as 
ERTMS are expected to reduce accidents and casualties further as they are installed across more of 
the network. 

Significant rail accidents by type of accident 

Figure 109 subdivides the significant rail accidents shown in Figure 108 by type over the period 2012 
to 2016. 

Figure 109: Significant rail accidents by type of accident, 2012-2016 

s
t
n
e
d
i
c
n

I

1 400

1 200

1 000

 800

 600

 400

 200

 0

7
0
2
1

.

5
5
1
1

.

1
1
2
1

.

9
6
0
1

.

0
2
0
1

.

3
7
5

0
1
5

6
0
5

8
6
4

3
3
4

1
0
1

7
9

4
2
1

4
2
1

1
0
1

1
8

6
7

0
0
1

5
8

1
8

8
0
1

4
0
1

7
9

7
7

8
6

4
1

0
3

1
3

0
3

7
3

Accidents to persons

Level-crossing
accidents

Collisions

Other accidents

Derailments

Fires in rolling stock

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: ERA, "Report on Railway Safety and Interoperability in the EU", 2018. 

134 

 
 
 
 
The quality of rail services 

Only a relatively small proportion of accidents relate to collisions, derailments or fires. Around 60% 
of significant accidents were accidents to persons caused by rolling stock in motion. Around 25% of 
significant accidents took place at level crossings, where they are commonly caused by intrusion of 
pedestrians  or  road  vehicles  onto  the  railway.  Accidents  at  level  crossings  declined  consistently 
throughout the period. 

Box 19: The Safety Culture Twinning Programme 

The Multi Annual Work Programme 2014 under the Connecting Europe Facility-CEF gave the Commission 
the opportunity to launch a Programme Support Action (PSA) implemented by means of a grant to support 
a twinning programme for management staff of rail infrastructure managers with safety responsibility. The 
objective  of  this  PSA  was  to  assist  European  rail  infrastructure  managers  in  sharing  knowledge  and  best 
practice across railways to support new approaches to safety management. 

The Twinning Programme was undertaken by a consortium of twelve EU infrastructure managers in 2017, 
with a final conference held in Birmingham in December to share the learnings of the exchange visits also 
with  non-participants  organisations  (https://safety.networkrail.co.uk/safety/industry-groups/european-
safety-culture-twinning-programme/).  The  members  of  the  consortium  were  grouped  according  to 
matching criteria with a view to maximising the benefit and learning to be gained from experiencing the 
safety culture in each other’s organisation. By working collaboratively for a period of time in a twin host 
organisation,  participants  were  able  to  share  information,  challenges,  good  practice  and  innovation  in 
safety processes, systems and culture. 

Experiences and learnings focused on one or more of the following topics: 

 
 
 
 
 

safety management and behaviours; 
development of common principles for management of railway safety; 
occurrence reporting;  
transition towards a more mature safety culture; and  
implementation of safety culture and management, both within organisations and cross-border. 

As  participants  pointed  out,  ‘Different  organisations  must  approach  promotion  of  safety  and  a  safety 
culture in different ways. There is no one path to success. However, there is a shared understanding that 
rules alone do not make railways safe. Success requires an embedded culture where every member of staff 
feels  personally  responsible,  and  more  importantly,  personally  empowered,  to  promote  safe  working 
practices’. 

Source: EC, Twinning programme participants. 

5.5 

Satisfaction with rail services 

5.5.1 

Satisfaction with passenger services 

In  2018  DG  MOVE  commissioned  a  Eurobarometer  on  Europeans'  satisfaction  with  passenger  rail 
services91. This survey follows a previous survey on this topic (Flash 382a) carried out in 201392, and 
covers the following areas: 

 
 

satisfaction with rail services including buying tickets and train stations; 
the importance of rail services, including getting information and handling complaints; 

91  Flash  Eurobarometer  463  "Europeans’  satisfaction  with  passenger  rail  services",  September  2018, 
(http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/survey/getsurveydetail/instruments/flash/
surveyky/2172 ).  

92   Flash Eurobarometer 382a "Europeans' satisfaction with rail services", 

(http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/FLAS
H/surveyKy/1111/p/2). 

135 

 
 
                                                           
The quality of rail services 

 
 
 

 

satisfaction with the availability and reliability of trains and seats; 
satisfaction with the services on trains and their maintenance; 
satisfaction with various aspects of accessibility including the accessibility of stations and 
carriages, and assistance for persons with a disability or mobility issue; and 
the reasons for not travelling by train. 

Rail  travel  is  used  most  often  for  leisure  activities  (35%  of  rail  travellers)  or  for  going  on  holiday 
(23%).  

Satisfaction with frequency, punctuality and reliability of trains is increasing, but  there  is still room 
for  improvement.  Two  thirds  of  respondents  (66%)  are  satisfied  with  the  frequency  of  trains  –  an 
increase of seven percentage points since 2013. Despite an increase of four points since 2013, less 
than six in ten respondents are satisfied with the punctuality and reliability of railway travel (59%). 

Satisfaction  with  other  aspects  of  rail  services  has  also  increased  since  2013,  but  problems  with 
complaint-handling remain: only  a minority (38%) are  satisfied with easy and accessible complaint-
handling mechanisms. 

The respondents’ views were also sought on the importance of additional services such as provision 
of information, cleanliness and ease of buying tickets. More than nine in ten respondents considered 
that  the  cleanliness  and  good  maintenance  of  stations  (94%),  the  provision  of  information  about 
timetables and platforms (92%) or the ease of buying tickets (92%) were important. 

Satisfaction  with  the  accessibility  of  rail  services  for  persons  with  reduced  mobility  is  still 
problematic, but improving. Over half of all respondents (53%) are satisfied with the accessibility of 
stations or platforms – an increase of seven points since 2013. Less than half (41%) are satisfied with 
the  assistance  by  railway  or  station  staff  for  persons  with  disabilities  or  reduced  mobility  –  an 
increase of four points since 2013. 

Finally, when respondents identified specific reasons for not travelling by train, difficulties getting to 
the station was the most common reason reported by 16% of respondents, while 12% mentioned the 
inaccessibility of stations or platforms, and 10% mentioned the lack of pre-journey information about 
stations and accessible services. Fewer than one respondent in ten mentioned a lack of assistance by 
train or station staff (9%), inaccessibility of railway carriages (8%) or a lack of information (7%). 

An overall satisfaction with railway transport index was created to rank together respondents' replies 
on  satisfaction  with  rail  services  (getting  information,  getting  tickets,  complaint  handlings  and 
stations)  and  rail  travel  (frequency,  punctuality,  reliability,  services  and maintenance  on  the  train). 
Respondents in Austria (29.6), Ireland (29.5), Portugal (28.2) and Luxembourg (28.1) have the highest 
overall railway satisfaction index, while those in Bulgaria (20.8), Romania (21.2) and Hungary (22.5) 
have the lowest. 

136 

 
 
Figure 110: Overall population satisfaction index with railway transport, 2018 

The quality of rail services 

Source: Flash Eurobarometer 463 on Europeans' satisfaction with passenger rail services, 2018. 

Concerning comparison with other services, including transport services, DG JUST is publishing every 
two  years  the  Consumer  Markets  Scoreboard  (CMS)93.  The  CMS  tracks  the  performance  of  over 
40 markets  (15  goods  and  25  services markets),  including  railways,  as  assessed  by  consumers  with 
recent  purchasing  experience.  Findings  from  the  CMS  show  that  the  railway  market  is  a  low 
performing services market,  ranking only 21st  of the 25 services markets  considered. However, the 
overall Market Performance Indicator (MPI) score for the market for “Train services” has increased 
by  0.6  points  from  2015  to  2017.  In  addition,  the  proportion  of  consumers  who  experienced 
problems has decreased since 2015, whilst remaining higher than average.  

Furthermore,  European  consumers  can  seek  advice  and  assistance  from  their  national  European 
Consumer  Centre  when  they  have  an  issue  about  a  railway  journey  with  a  railway  company  from 
another Member State. Analysis of data from the European Consumer Centre94 network collected in 
2018 suggests that the most common reason rail passengers seek advice or assistance is because of 
delay (29%), followed by issues related to payment or terms and conditions of service (27.5%), and 
cancellations (22%).  

5.5.2 

Satisfaction with Rail Freight Corridors’ services 

As of today there is no regular quantitative survey of customers' satisfaction with rail freight services 
at EU level. Nevertheless, a wealth of qualitative information is provided by shippers as regards their 
requirements on transport and logistics services and by railway undertakings as regards their needs 

93   The  2018  edition  of  the  CMS  is  available  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/consumer-markets-
scoreboard_en , whilst the market reports from the Market Monitoring Survey, which constitutes the main 
statistical source for the CMS, are available here (see page 100 for the section on railways):  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/mms2017_final_report_-_part_ii.pdf   

94   https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumers/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/european-

consumer-centres-network_en#documents  

137 

 
 
 
                                                           
The quality of rail services 

for  using  rail  infrastructure.  This  section  provides  a  synthesis  of  such  evidence  the  European 
Commission  received  from  various  sources  such  as  position  papers,  open  public  consultation  or 
contributions to discussions on international rail freight during conferences or workshops. 

There seems to be a certain consensus on three priorities as regards customer satisfaction. 

First,  the  issue  of  reliability  is  frequently  raised  as  the  single  most  important  challenge  rail  freight 
faces today. 

On-time  delivery  is  essential  for  shippers  as  delays  can  have  significant  negative  impacts  on  their 
operations  and  business.  Rail  is  generally  not  perceived  to  be  on  par  in  this  regard  with  its  main 
competitor, road transport. 

The  lack  of  interoperability  as  well  as  operational  issues  are  reported  as  particularly  affecting 
reliability. The Rastatt incident is a good illustration of it: in August 2017, due to an incident during 
major engineering works, the Rhine valley line was interrupted, completely stopping traffic on one of 
the  busiest  rail  freight  corridors  in  Europe  for  seven  weeks.  The  impacts  of  the  event  were 
compounded by the fact that the diversion of traffic to parallel lines in other Member States was not 
fully effective due to interoperability barriers. Disruptions of this scale are relatively rare but smaller, 
more  frequent  disruptions  can  have  significant  impacts  as  well.  Customers  emphasise  the  need  to 
strengthen  the  resilience  of  the  rail  network  based  on  appropriate  divisionary  routes,  effective 
contingency management and, more generally, through a significant boost to operational flexibility 
stemming from a better interoperability of the European rail system. 

In addition, a particular challenge perceived by customers is the phenomenon of cascading delays, in 
which a relatively limited initial delay leads to a much more significant delay at destination due to the 
inability of the rail system to address unplanned situations in a flexible manner. 

Second, a closely related customer requirement is the provision of reliable shipment information, as 
a  100%  punctuality  cannot  be  expected  in  practice,  even  with  substantial  progress  in  terms  of 
reliability. Providing shippers with tracking and tracing information and the estimated time of arrival 
is  therefore  an  industry standard  in  logistics.  However,  rail  customers  state  that  they  often  do  not 
receive  such  information  for  rail  transport  services,  or  that  the  quality  of  the  information  is  not 
sufficient.  This  is  particularly  the  case  for  intermodal  transport  involving  rail  legs  where  the 
complexity  of  operational  arrangements  (involving  railway  undertakings,  terminals,  intermodal 
operators, forwarders) creates challenges of technical, contractual and commercial nature. 

Third, flexibility is another key area in which rail transport faces challenges according to shippers and 
railway undertakings. This is one of the key factors limiting the competitiveness of rail compared to 
road. 

A  lack  of  flexibility  in  operations  and  traffic  management  is  considered  by  customers  as  one 
underlying cause for the perceived lack of reliability of rail freight services. 

Another aspect of flexibility concerns the planning of rail freight transport. A key concern from the 
customer's  perspective  is  the  time  needed  to  launch  new  transport  services.  Shippers  expect  a 
response  time  similar  to  road  transport,  where  new  services  can  generally  be  started within  some 
days. For new rail services, according to customers the response time is of the order of months. This 
is partly due to the quite rigid rail timetabling procedures, but other factors may play a role as well. 

In  addition  to  these  three  key  areas,  customer  satisfaction  with  rail  freight  services  obviously 
depends on a number of other factors, such as transport costs, transit times and the availability of 
capacity.  Here,  the  assessment  by  customers  seems  to  vary  significantly  according  to  the  specific 
requirements of different market segments and the region considered. 

138 

 
 
The quality of rail services 

It is important to note that all the factors mentioned are closely interrelated. 

For  example,  satisfaction  with  the  cost  of  rail  freight  services  involving  high  volumes  and  covering 
long  distances  between  major  freight  hubs  appears  to  be  relatively  high.  The  situation  is  more 
challenging for the transport of smaller volumes over shorter distances, particularly if complex last-
mile  operations  are  involved  like  with  single  wagonload.  Likewise,  transit  times  of  rail  services  are 
considered  too  long  in  some  market  segments  but  do  not  seem  to  be  a  major  concern  in  others. 
Regarding  the  availability of  rail  freight  capacities,  key  issues  raised  by  customers  include  a  lack of 
links between rail and other modes (such as terminals and other last mile infrastructure), insufficient 
parameters  of  rail  infrastructure,  limiting  notably  intermodal  services  due  to  insufficient  loading 
gauges,  and  a  clear  general  national  political  tendency  to  favour  passenger  over  freight  transport, 
both in terms of operations and investments. 

In  the  framework  of  the  open  public  stakeholder  consultation  on  Regulation  (EU)  913/2010, 
concerning the Rail Freight Corridors, carried out in 2016, the contribution of RFCs to key challenges 
which  rail  freight  faces  were  assessed  by  stakeholders.  These  involve  quality,  i.e.  reliability  and 
punctuality of the services, the cost of rail services, the introduction of new and innovative transport 
services, the acceptance of rail freight on a political and societal level, as well as the improvement of 
cross-border operations. 

As Figure 111 shows, stakeholders are generally positive about the contribution of RFCs to improve 
rail freight services. Most stakeholders consider that RFCs address, or even address very well, most 
issues. The key exception concerns the cost challenge. 

Figure 111: Stakeholders' assessment of RFCs' contribution to key rail freight challenges, 2016 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Quality

Service

Acceptance

Cross-border

Cost

Very well

Addressed

Hardly addressed

Not at all

No opinion

Source: EC analysis of open public stakeholder consultation on Regulation (EU) 913/2010, 2016. 

In  conclusion,  the  satisfaction  of  the  end-customers  and  railway  undertakings  can  be  described  as 
mixed. The reliability, flexibility and quality of the rail freight services, as well as a smooth exchange 
of  information,  are  the  most  important  factors  for  end-customers  for  modal  choice.  All  these  are 
closely interrelated to the cost challenge rail freight is facing. However, the level of satisfaction varies 
substantially depending on the market segment considered. The evolution of such satisfaction would 
therefore need to be measured in a more systematic way in the future. 

139 

 
 
 
Performance of the railways 

6. 

Performance of the railways 

Given  the  monopolistic  or  semi-monopolistic  nature  of  railways,  there  is  broad  acceptance  that 
closer  monitoring  and  managing  of  the  performance  of  the  sector  would  lead  to  efficiency 
improvements.  However,  the  railway  business  is  complex  and  multi-dimensional,  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 on geopolitical factors, political priorities, past investment or 
viability  of  alternatives  offered  by  other  modes.  For  instance,  performance  in  terms  of  cost 
per kilometre  of  a  specific  railway  undertaking  depends  on  many  factors  such  as  the  scale  of 
operations,  mix  between  passenger/freight/high-speed/conventional/long-distance/commuter 
traffic as well as wage levels, maintenance backlogs and existing industrial agreements95. 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 outputs96.  

Therefore, this chapter does not aim to compare the performance of individual national railways, but 
provides  instead  an  overview  of  major  trends  at  EU  level  accompanied  with  snapshots  of  selected 
indicators (some of which have become available in RMMS only since 2015) at the national level. For 
deeper analysis and meaningful conclusions, longer time series and systematic analysis of contextual 
factors would be necessary. 

6.1 

Performance measured by main inputs and outputs 

The main inputs to rail system besides funding and revenues are rolling stock and employees. 

Box 20: Monitoring financial performance 

Financial data, such as total costs and financial inputs (revenues, financing, subsidies) of the rail sector, are 
scarce and fragmented. Within the RMMS framework, since 2008 data have been collected on infrastructure 
investment and PSO compensation. 
 According to the new reporting framework established by the RMMS Regulation, Member States have to 
report  also  the  revenues  of  the  railway  undertakings  and  main  infrastructure  managers.  Acquiring  the 
revenue  data  has  proved  being  challenging,  in  particular  for  the  freight  railway  undertakings  in  the 
conditions of open markets. Therefore, there were many gaps in the reported data during the first reporting 
year 2015. In 2016, the situation improved, but some problems remain. 

Still,  no  data  is  collected  on  the  costs  of  railway  undertakings  and  infrastructure  managers  apart  from 
maintenance costs. 

Therefore,  in  this  report  no  analysis  of  financial  performance  is  provided.  Below  you  can  find  a  2016 
snapshot, which could serve as a basis for more advanced analysis in the future, when data availability has 
improved. 

95   European Transport Regulation Observer, May 2016, 

http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/41844/FSR_Observer-2016-2.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y  

96   A.S.J. Smith and C. Nash — Discussion Paper 2014-22 — © OECD/ITF 2014 5 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Performance of the railways 

Financial performance, 2016 nominal values 

Financial inputs 
Passenger revenues* 

Commercial fare-box 

PSO fare-box 

Not identified 

PSO subsidy 

Freight revenues**  

Infrastructure subsidies 

National 

EU 

Outputs 

Total volume (million train-kilometre) 

Passenger volume (million passenger-kilometre) 

Freight volume (million tonne-kilometre) 

Length of track (thousand kilometre) 

64,5 

10,3 

22,7 

13,3 

18,3 

24,1 

31,4 

29,1 

2,3 

4.134,6 

450,0 

419,5 

220,6 

Financial input/output ratios 

Passenger revenues and subsidies per  passenger-kilometre (EUR) 
Freight revenues per  tonne-kilometre (EUR) 
Infrastructure subsidies per track kilometre (kEUR) 

143,4 
57,5 
142,5 

* 

** 

estimates for FR and NL 

estimates for FR and CZ 

Source: RMMS, 2018  

Freight rolling stock fleet sizes (vehicles) appear to have been in decline since 2011. This may be due 
to  changes  in  the  characteristics  of  freight  rolling  stock,  for  example  larger  freight  wagons,  or 
economic  effects  such  as  asset  disposal  or  stabling.  Given  that  freight  volumes  still  increase,  it 
indicates productivity improvements. Passenger rolling stock fleet size is also declining but in a lower 
pace. Employment in the sector has been increasing quite significantly since 2014.  

141 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 112: Trends in input indicators, 2011=100 

Performance of the railways 

110

100

90

80

70

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Employees

Passenger rolling stock

Freight rolling stock

Source: RMMS 2018, Statistical Pocketbook 2018. 

Rail passenger outputs in terms of total train-kilometres (including both passenger and freight train 
movements) remained essentially stagnant. Rail freight outputs measured in tonne-kilometres have 
not  reached  yet  the  levels  of  2011,  while  passenger  output  measured  in  passenger-kilometres  has 
been constantly increasing since 2011.  

Figure 113: Trends in output indicators, 2011=100 

110

100

90

80

70

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Rail passenger-km (billion)

 Rail tonne-km (billion)

Train-km (10 million)

Source: RMMS 2018, Statistical Pocketbook 2018. 

Figure  114  and  Figure  115  show  the  financial  performance  of  the  rail  sector,  as  measured  by  the 
revenues  (including  PSO  compensation)  per  train-kilometre  from  passenger  and  freight  activities, 
indicating striking differences 

142 

 
 
 
 
Figure 114: Average passenger revenue per passenger train-kilometre, 2016 

Performance of the railways 

R
U
E

 25

 20

 15

 10

 5

 0

UK

IT NO DK DE AT

ES

LV

FI

SE

IE

EL

PT

BE

PL

RO HR LU LT HU SK

CZ

EE BG

Source: RMMS 2018. No data for FR, NL, SI. 

Figure 115: Average freight revenue per freight train-kilometre, 2016 

 60

 50

 40

R
U
E

 30

 20

 10

 0

LT

BE

SK

LV UK AT

FI

PL DK DE

SI

SE NO HU RO EE

EL

BG

IT

HR

ES

PT

IE

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for CZ, FR, LU, NL. 

Figure  116  shows  that  the  trade-off  between  freight  and  passenger  track  utilisation.  Latvia  and 
Lithuania  record  the  highest  level  of  freight  track  utilisation  coupled  with  among  the  lowest 
passenger  track  utilisation.  The  Netherlands  shows  the  specular  utilisation  of  network,  clearly 
specialised  in  passenger  traffic,  other  mostly  passenger  oriented  networks  are  in  the  United 
Kingdom,  France,  Italy  and  Denmark.  Belgium,  Austria  and  Germany  have  relatively  good 
performance both in freight and passenger transport. 

143 

 
 
 
 
Figure 116: Passenger and freight track utilisation, 2016 

Performance of the railways 

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
l
i
t
u
k
c
a
r
t

t
h
g
e
r
F

i

)
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
k
c
a
r
t
/
s
e
r
t
e
m
o

l
i
k
-
e
n
n
o
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

(

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

LV

LT

SI

EE

FI

BG
NO
EL

1

PL
SK
CZ

SE

HU

IE

HR
RO

0

BE

AT

LU

DE

PT
ES

2

DK

IT

FR

UK

NL

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Passenger track utilisation
(Million passenger-kilometres per track-kilometre)

Source: RMMS 2018, Eurostat. 

The utilisation of passenger and freight vehicles is also another indicator 

Figure 117: Passenger and freight vehicle utilisation, 2016 

n
o
i
t
a
s
i
l
i
t
u
e
l
c
i
h
e
v

i

t
h
g
e
r
f
e
g
a
r
e
v
A

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

)
r
a
e
y
r
e
p
s
e
n
n
o
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

(

0,5

0,0

0

LT

SI

LV

FI

HU

CZ

BG

SK

PL

HR

LU

EL

2

RO

EE

1

FR

BE

DE

PT

IE

AT

ES

IT

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Average passenger vehicle utilisation
(Million passengers per year)

Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for DK, NL, SE, UK, NO. 

Further  comparing  passenger  and  freight  track  utilisation  with  passenger  and  freight  trains 
utilisation, Baltic States achieve lower passenger and freight train utilisation levels despite recoding 
among the highest track utilisation for freight. France, Italy and Austria perform relatively well both 
in terms of passenger and freight train utilisation levels.  

6.2 

The way forward for performance enhancement 

Aiming at the development of a comprehensive performance culture in the sector, rail stakeholders 
have  been  working  on  this  topic  for  many  years.  Several  transnational  working  groups  and  fora, 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Performance of the railways 

including for instance UIC, RailNetEurope, the TEN-T core network and Rail Freight Corridors, PRIME 
and  RU  Dialogue,  are  currently  engaged  in  discussions  on  performance  enhancement.  Also  many 
sectoral reports are available to compare performance in various domains, for instance:  

PRIME KPI and Benchmarking Subgroup published its first Benchmarking report in July 201897 
ERA Railway Safety and Interoperability in the EU 201898 

- 
- 
-  RailNetEurope has developed and is publishing Key Performance Indicators of rail Freight 

Corridors99 
IRG Rail has developed a list of indicators for publishing on its website100 

- 
-  BCG’s 2017 European Railway Performance Index (RPI)101 
ProRail/NS international benchmark 2011-2015102  
- 

97   https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/multisite/primeinfrastructure/content/subgroups_en . 
98    

https://www.era.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/docs/safety_interoperability_progress_reports/railw
ay_safety_and_interoperability_in_eu_2018_en.pdf  

99  http://www.rne.eu/rail-freight-corridors/rfc-kpis/  
100  https://www.irg-rail.eu/download/5/451/file.file  
101  https://www.bcg.com/publications/2017/transportation-travel-tourism-2017-european-railway-

performance-index.aspx  

102  https://www.prorail.nl/sites/default/files/benchmark.pdf 

145 

 
 
                                                           
 
Performance of the railways 

Box 21: PRIME KPI and Benchmarking Subgroup 

PRIME was created in 2013 as a cooperation platform between the European Commission and the European 
Rail Infrastructure Managers, with the view to facilitate the provision of efficient and effective rail services. 
Exchange of best practices and performance benchmarking are the formal tasks of PRIME (Platform of Rail 
Infrastructure Managers in Europe) who has since 2017 undertaken the role of the European Network of 
Infrastructure Managers as foreseen in the 4th Railway Package. 

Its KPI subgroup was set up with the goal to monitor and benchmark performance and by doing so to strive for 
better results. The group has identified a number of objectives and corresponding benefits which can be 
achieved through a benchmarking comparison of KPIs and exchange of best practices: 

• 

• 

• 

Share information, knowledge and practice between railway infrastructure managers (IMs) and learn from 
each other in order to improve performance and business development 
Share the results with the public can support engagement with key stakeholders: 

•  Data can be used to support negotiations with public authorities and trade unions, and it can also 

• 
• 

be used for engagement with regulators 
Provides evidence to monitor whether national or EU policies are working or not 
Is a communication tool vis-à-vis customers and business partners to indicate trends 
A further important outcome of the PRIME KPI work is a good quality, comparable and easily accessible 
dataset. 

Performance Benchmarking covers several dimensions of rail infrastructure management: punctuality, costs, 
resilience, sustainable development, safety, etc. Each organisation comes with its own history as well as often 
different governance and financing models. Therefore, there is no single measure of success that can be 
imposed, but there is always room for improvement. 

After four years of preparatory work, the group delivered its first benchmarking report in July 2018 covering 
the years 2012-2016 for 12 infrastructure managers. This first report presents in a factual manner the results 
across 35 indicators. It serves as a starting point for further data sharing and analysis. As indicated in the 
document, for some indicators, the data of individual infrastructure managers are still not available or deviate 
from agreed definitions, but the members continue their efforts to improve the comparability of data. The 
report and KPI definitions, which are documented in a PRIME KPI Catalogue, is available here: 

146 

 
 
 
 
Performance of the railways 

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/multisite/primeinfrastructure/content/subgroups_en 

For the future, the group intends to increase data availability - both KPIs and participants - and provide reports 
with in ‘depth analysis’ identifying trends and best practice. The goal is to give information and fruit for thought 
to stakeholders, researchers, economists and politicians. Above all,  the general objective for the project is to 
deliver insight and inspiration for better decisions on developing a sustainable and competitive infrastructure 
management  which  provides  high  quality  services,  as  expected  by  operators,  passengers  and  freight 
companies.  

Source: EC, PRIME KPI subgroup 

Most of these reports do not cover financial indicators due the lack of comprehensive data. 

The  Commission  is  acting  as  an  intermediary  between  the  various  initiatives  with  the  aim  of 
harmonising  indicators  and  eliminating  overlaps  in  data  collection.  It  is  also  working  closely  with 
national  rail  regulatory  bodies  who  are  responsible  for  monitoring  developments  in  rail  market  in 
accordance with Directive 2012/34/EU. 

147 

 
 
Conclusions 

7. 

Conclusions 

EU railways continue to grow, with passenger volumes in particular increasing significantly between 
2011  and  2016.  However,  freight  volumes  remain  volatile  and  led  to  a  loss  of  modal  share  in 
comparison with road transport in 2016. At the same time, rail markets are gradually opening up and 
safety  levels  remain  high. The  industry  is  gradually  becoming more  performance-based,  innovative 
and responsive to customer needs. 

Rail  is  an  important  contributor  to  EU  transport  mix,  providing  clean  mobility  and  a  high  level  of 
efficiency. While the satisfaction of Europeans with passenger rail services has increased compared 
to  5  years  ago,  there  is  still  room  for  improvement  on  passenger  rights.  The  negotiations  with 
legislators  on  the  Commission’s  2017  proposal  to  revise  Regulation  (EC)  1371/2007103  on  rail 
passengers’ rights and obligations are still ongoing. 

These developments have occurred against a background of substantial change within the industry, 
which has been driven by the structural changes initiated by EU legislation more than 20 years ago 
and  concluded  by  the  adoption  of  the  Fourth  Railway  Package  in  2016.  Implementation  of  the 
package’s technical pillar from June 2019 will further improve interoperability between national rail 
networks. It will also cut red tape for operations beyond one single Member State and strengthening 
the  role  of  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Railways.  The  market  pillar  completes  the  opening  of 
domestic markets as of December  2019 and imposes the  principle of competitive tendering as the 
rule  for  public  service  contracts  in  the  EU  by  December  2023  at the  latest,  with  direct  award  only 
allowed in exceptional cases.  

The  Commission  has  continued  to  work on  implementing  measures  necessary  for  effective  market 
functioning.  It  is  now  focusing  on  enforcement,  ensuring  that  both  pillars  of  the  package  are 
transposed and implemented correctly and that implementing acts are adopted and complied with.  

On the rail freight’s struggle to grow modal share, the international nature of these services makes 
them  sensitive  to  interoperability  barriers  and  cross-border  coordination  issues.  To  tackle  the 
situation,  the  Commission  is  pursuing  an  agenda  of  complementary  initiatives  and  measures.  The 
Commission’s 
interoperability  (including  the  efficient  and 
coordinated  deployment  of  ERTMS)  has  been  strengthened  recently,  with  the  focus  on  solving 
practical cross-border operational issues. 

long-standing  policy  of  achieving 

The  Commission’s  infrastructure  development  policy  in  the  form  of  the  Trans-European  Transport 
Network (TEN-T) policy aims to improve infrastructure by addressing bottlenecks and missing links. 
Under the next financial period, the Commission has proposed to use Connecting Europe Facility 2, 
Cohesion  Fund,  European  Regional  Development  Fund  and  InvestEU  financial  support  to  speed  up 
also  rail  digitalisation.  To  help  the  rail  industry  access  finance,  the  Commission  is  developing  a 
methodology  to  assess  the  green  components  in  rail  projects  under  its  action  plan  on  sustainable 
finance104. 

The rail freight corridors remain a key part of the Commission’s policy to boost rail freight. The Rail 
Freight Regulation105 and Train Drivers Directive106 are still being evaluated. To bolster rail freight, in 

103   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. 14–41. 

104  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/180308-action-plan-sustainable-growth_en 
105   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. 22–32 

148 

 
 
                                                           
Conclusions 

November 2017 the Commission proposed amending Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EC107 as 
part of its second mobility package to provide new and more effective support measures for shifting 
freight from road to rail. 

These key policies are accompanied by efforts to tackle the issue of rail noise, to better embed rail in 
the  multimodal  transport  system  by  deploying  digital  technologies  and  to  foster  innovation, 
particularly by way of the activities of the Shift2Rail108 joint undertaking. 

Furthermore,  rail  cannot  be  considered  in  isolation  from  other  modes:  its  competitiveness  also 
depends  on  the  framework  for  intermodal  competition.  This  is  why  the  Commission  is  striving  for 
equal  conditions  for  intermodal  competition,  such  as  through  the  mobility  package  including  the 
amendment  of  the  Eurovignette  Directive109.  The  Commission  has  also  commissioned  a 
comprehensive study on the internalisation of external costs in transport. This will help it to assess 
the  extent  to which  the  ‘user  pays’ and  ‘polluter  pays’  principles  are  implemented  in  the  Member 
States for all modes of transport. 

Reliable monitoring of the rail market remains a priority to be able to follow market developments 
and to benchmark performance.  

106   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. 51–78 

107   Council 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. 

108   https://shift2rail.org/  
109    https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/news/2017-05-31-europe-on-the-move_en  

149