COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Seventh monitoring report on the development of the rail market under Article 15(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
Date: 2021-01-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, combined transport, common transport policy, rail transport, reduction of gas emissions, services of general interest, sustainable mobility, trans-European network, transport infrastructure

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 13.1.2021  SWD(2021) 1 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Seventh monitoring report on the development of the rail market under Article 15(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council   {COM(2021) 5 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 
1.1 

1.2 
1.3 

2. 
2.1 
2.2 

3. 
3.1 
3.2 

3.3 

Rail and sustainability 

Environmental performance of rail 
1.1.1  Emissions 
1.1.2  Energy consumption 
1.1.3  Noise 
Green financing and cost internalisation 
Resilience 

The state of the union railway network 

Description 
Infrastructure management 
2.2.1 
2.2.2 
2.2.3 

Infrastructure governance 
Infrastructure expenditure 
Infrastructure funding and financing 

The evolution of rail services 

Traffic volumes 
The passenger market 
3.2.1  Rail passenger policy developments 
3.2.2  Evolution of passenger volumes 
3.2.3  Evolution of rail passenger revenues 
The freight market 
3.3.1  Rail freight policy developments 
3.3.2  Evolution of freight volumes 
3.3.3  Evolution of rail freight revenues 
3.3.4  Multimodal and intermodal transport 

The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Charging principles for service facilities, additional and ancillary services 
Passenger stations 

4. 
4.1 
4.2 
4.3  Other service facilities 
4.4 

Complaints related to access to service facilities 

5. 
5.1 

5.2 

5.3 
5.4 
5.5 
5.6 
5.7 

5.8 

The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Harmonisation 
5.1.1  EU legislation 
Licensing of railway undertakings 
5.2.1  Active licences 
5.2.2  Average fee to obtain a licence 
5.2.3  Average time to obtain a licence 
Charging principles for the infrastructure 
Access charges for different categories of passenger trains 
Access charges for different categories of freight trains 
Infrastructure managers’ revenue calculated for passenger and freight trains 
Capacity allocation and congestion 
5.7.1  Allocating capacity 
5.7.2  Managing capacity shortages 
Rail transport services covered by public service contracts 
5.8.1  PSO scope 

1 

15 
16 
16 
18 
19 
20 
25 

28 
28 
33 
34 
37 
42 

52 
52 
57 
57 
58 
65 
69 
69 
72 
76 
79 

81 
82 
82 
84 
89 

91 
91 
91 
93 
94 
95 
95 
96 
98 
102 
106 
110 
111 
115 
119 
120 

 
 
 
5.9 

5.8.2  PSO award 
5.8.3  PSO compensation 
Degree of market opening and utilisation of access rights 
5.9.1  Opening of the freight market 
5.9.2  Opening of the passenger market 
5.9.3  Challenges of market opening 

5.10  State aid 
5.11  Regulatory bodies 
5.12  Development of employment and social conditions in the rail market 

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

5.13  Digitalisation 
5.14  External dimension of rail transport policy 

6. 
6.1 
6.2 

6.3 

6.4 

7. 

The quality of rail services 

Safety 
Punctuality and reliability of passenger services 
6.2.1  Punctuality by category of passenger services 
6.2.2  Reliability by category of passenger services 
6.2.3  Frequency, frequency intensity and average speed of direct passenger rail connections 
Punctuality and reliability of freight services 
6.3.1  Punctuality by category of freight 
6.3.2  Reliability by category of freight 
6.3.3  Average timetabled speed of freight services 
Passenger rights 

Conclusions 

121 
123 
125 
126 
126 
132 
137 
139 
144 
144 
152 
161 
167 

170 
170 
175 
175 
177 
178 
182 
182 
183 
184 
185 

188 

2 

 
 
 
 
Table of figures 

Figure  1:  Share  of  GHG  emissions  by  transport  mode  (rail,  road,  domestic  aviation,  domestic 
navigation, pipeline transport, etc.) (% of million tonnes CO2 equivalent, EU27 2018) ....................... 17 
Figure  2:  Share  of  CO2  emissions  of  transport  modes  (rail,  road,  domestic  aviation,  domestic 
navigation, pipeline transport, etc.) (% of million tonnes, EU27 2018) ................................................ 17 
Figure 3: Share of each transport mode (including rail) on total energy consumption per country (% in 
2018)...................................................................................................................................................... 18 
Figure 4: Cost of railways per inhabitant (infrastructure expenditure plus PSO compensation) 2015-
2018 ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 
Figure  5:  Length  of  national  networks  per  country  (thousand  line-km,  2018)  and  relative  change 
(2015-2018) ........................................................................................................................................... 29 
Figure 6: Density of railway network relative to surface area and population per country (line-km per 
million people and line-km per thousand km2, 2018) ........................................................................... 30 
Figure  7:  Percentage  of  electrified  network  per  country  (2018)  and  change  in  the  percentage  of 
electrified network (2015 vs 2018) ....................................................................................................... 31 
Figure 8: Development of high-speed lines in Europe, current and potential (line-km, current 2015-
2019, further for those under construction) ......................................................................................... 32 
Figure 9: Length of dedicated high-speed line per country (line-km, 2015-2019) ............................... 33 
Figure 10: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion of maintenance and renewals (EUR billion, 
2011-2018) ............................................................................................................................................ 37 
Figure  11: Expenditure on infrastructure  and  proportion of maintenance  and  renewals  per  country 
(EUR billion, 2018) ................................................................................................................................. 38 
Figure 12: Expenditure on infrastructure per inhabitant per country (EUR, 2018) .............................. 39 
Figure 13: Expenditure on infrastructure per household per country (EUR, 2018) .............................. 39 
Figure  14:  Expenditure  on  maintenance,  renewal  and  enhancement  per  line-km  per  country  (EUR 
thousand, 2015-2018) ........................................................................................................................... 40 
Figure 15: Expenditure by category by country (EUR billion, average of 2015-2018) .......................... 41 
Figure  16:  Expenditure  on  high-speed  rail  by  typology  of  expenditure  and  by  Member  State  (EUR 
billion, average 2015-2018) ................................................................................................................... 42 
Figure 17: Rail infrastructure funding by source and country (EUR billion, 2018) ................................ 43 
Figure  18:  Allocation  of  CEF  transport  funds  to  rail  actions  per  Member  State  and  per  funding 
objective (April 2020) ............................................................................................................................ 47 
Figure 19: Allocation of CF and ERDF funding per line-km (EUR thousand per line-km, May 2020) .... 49 
Figure 20: Passenger and freight volumes (pax-km, tonne-km and train-km, 2005-2018) .................. 53 
Figure 21: Passenger and freight volumes, compound annual growth rate per country (2015-2018)  54 
Figure 22: Relative share of passenger and freight train-km on total train-km per country (% in 2018) 
and evolution (2015-2018) .................................................................................................................... 55 
Figure 23: Utilisation of rail infrastructure for passenger transport per country (millions of pax-km per 
line-km in 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) ......................................................................................... 56 
Figure 24: Utilisation of rail infrastructure for freight transport per country (millions of tonne-km per 
line-km in 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) ......................................................................................... 57 
Figure 25: Propensity to travel by rail 2018 and compound annual growth rate per country (pax-km 
per inhabitant, 2015-2018) ................................................................................................................... 59 
Figure 26: Passenger land transport modal split (% in 2007-2018) ...................................................... 60 
Figure  27:  Passenger  land  transport  modal  split  by  country  (%  in  2018)  and  change  in  percentage 
points for rail (2015-2018) .................................................................................................................... 61 
Figure  28:  Evolution  of  rail  passenger  traffic  volumes  (domestic,  international  and  proportion  of 
international in total traffic) (billion pax-km, 2007-2018) .................................................................... 62 
Figure  29:  Passenger  traffic  volumes  (domestic,  international  and  proportion  of  international  on 
total) by country (pax-km in 2018) ........................................................................................................ 63 

3 

 
 
 
Figure  30:  Compound  annual  growth  rates  of  domestic,  international  and  total  passenger  traffic 
volumes per country (%, 2015-2018) .................................................................................................... 64 
Figure  31:  Number  of  pax-km  per  passenger  train-km  per  country  (passenger  trains’  load  factor) 
(2018) and evolution (2015-2018) ........................................................................................................ 65 
Figure  32:  Railway  undertakings’  revenues  from  passenger  transport  services  per  country  (billion 
EUR, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) ................................................................................................. 66 
Figure 33: Railway undertakings’ revenues from passenger transport services per pax-km per country 
(EUR per passenger-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) .................................................................. 67 
Figure  34:  Railway  undertakings’  revenues  from  passenger  transport  services  per  train-km  per 
country (EUR per passenger train-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) ............................................ 68 
Figure 35: Sources of passenger railway undertakings’ revenue per country (% in 2018) ................... 69 
Figure 36: Freight land transport modal split (%, 2007-2018) .............................................................. 73 
Figure 37: Freight land transport modal split by country (% in 2018) and change in percentage points 
for rail (2015-2018) ............................................................................................................................... 73 
Figure  38:  Evolution  of  rail  freight  traffic  volumes  (domestic,  international  and  proportion  of 
international in total traffic) (billion tonne-km, 2007-2018) ................................................................ 75 
Figure  39:  Rail  freight  traffic  volumes  (domestic,  international  and  proportion  of  international  on 
total) by country (tonne-km, 2018) ....................................................................................................... 75 
Figure  40:  Number  of  tonne-km  per  freight  train-km  per  country  (freight  trains  load  factor)  (2018) 
and evolution (2015-2018) .................................................................................................................... 76 
Figure  41:  Railway  undertakings’  revenues  from  freight  transport  services  per country  (billion  EUR, 
2018) and evolution (2015-2018) .......................................................................................................... 77 
Figure  42:  Railway  undertakings’  revenues  from  freight  transport  services  in  tonne-km  per  country 
(EUR per thousand tonne-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) ......................................................... 78 
Figure  43:  Railway  undertakings'  revenues  from  freight  transport  services  in  freight  train-km  per 
country (EUR per freight train-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) .................................................. 79 
Figure 44: Average distance between stations by country (km, 2018) ................................................. 83 
Figure 45: Number of stations by passengers per day by country (2018) ............................................ 83 
Figure 46: Proportion of stations by passengers per day by country (2018) ........................................ 84 
Figure 47: Number of freight terminals by country (2018) ................................................................... 85 
Figure 48: Number of marshalling yards by country (2018) ................................................................. 86 
Figure 49: Number of maintenance facilities by country (2018) .......................................................... 87 
Figure 50: Number of maritime and port facilities linked to rail activity by country (2018) ................ 88 
Figure 51: Number of refuelling facilities by country (2018) ................................................................ 89 
Figure 52: Number of complaints being processed and decisions made by country (2018) ................ 90 
Figure 53: Pending infringement proceedings in the field of rail transport, 31 July 2019 .................... 93 
Figure 54: Number of active railway licences per country (2018) ........................................................ 94 
Figure 55: Average fee to obtain a licence by country (EUR, 2015 and 2018) ...................................... 95 
Figure 56: Average time to obtain a licence by country (calendar days, 2015 and 2018) .................... 96 
Figure 57: Access charges (excluding markups) for different categories of passenger trains, by country 
(EUR per train-km, 2018) ....................................................................................................................... 98 
Figure  58:  Access  charges  (excluding  mark-ups)  for  suburban  and  regional  passenger  trains  by 
country, (EUR per train-km, 2015 and 2018) ........................................................................................ 99 
Figure  59:  Access  charges  (excluding  mark-ups)  for  conventional  long-distance  passenger  trains  by 
country, (EUR per train-km, 2015 and 2018) ...................................................................................... 100 
Figure 60: Access charges (excluding mark-ups) for high-speed passenger trains by country (EUR per 
train-km, 2015 and 2018) .................................................................................................................... 101 
Figure 61: Access charges (excluding mark-ups) for different categories of freight trains, by country 
(EUR per train-km, 2018) ..................................................................................................................... 102 
Figure  62:  Access  charges  (excluding  mark-ups)  for  1  000  tonne  freight  trains  by  country  (EUR  per 
train-km, 2015 and 2018) .................................................................................................................... 103 

4 

 
 
 
Figure  63:  Access  charges  (excluding  mark-ups)  for  1  600  tonne  freight  trains  by  country  (EUR  per 
train-km, 2015 and 2018) .................................................................................................................... 104 
Figure  64:  Access  charges  (excluding  mark-ups)  for  6  000  tonne  freight  trains  by  country  (EUR  per 
train-km, 2015 and 2018) .................................................................................................................... 105 
Figure 65: Infrastructure managers' revenue  earned from charges  (TACs, station charges  and other 
charges) paid by passenger trains, per country (EUR billion, 2015 and 2018) ................................... 106 
Figure  66:  Proportion  of  infrastructure  managers'  revenue  earned  from  TACs,  station  charges  and 
other charges on total charges paid by passenger trains, per country (% in 2018)............................ 107 
Figure  67:  Infrastructure  managers'  revenue  earned  from  charges  (TACs,  freight  terminals  charges 
and other charges) paid by freight trains, per country (EUR million, 2015 and 2018) ....................... 108 
Figure  68:  Proportion  of  infrastructure  managers'  revenue  earned  from  TACs,  freight  terminals 
charges and other charges on total charges paid by freight trains, per country (%, 2018) ................ 109 
Figure 69: Share of passenger and freight charges on infrastructure managers' total revenues earned 
from trains, per country (% in 2018) ................................................................................................... 110 
Figure  70:  Network  utilisation  per  country  (thousand  train-km  per  line-km,  2018)  and  evolution 
(2015-2018) ......................................................................................................................................... 111 
Figure 71: Successful and rejected path allocations for scheduled path allocations per country (million 
path allocations, 2018) ........................................................................................................................ 113 
Figure 72: Successful and rejected path allocations for ad hoc path allocations per country (thousand 
path allocations, 2018) ........................................................................................................................ 114 
Figure 73: Total length of track declared congested (total and freight corridors) (km, 2012-2018) .. 115 
Figure 74: Principal types of services prioritised by infrastructure managers (number of MS assigning 
each priority, 2018) ............................................................................................................................. 118 
Figure 75: Share of passenger traffic offered respectively under a PSO and commercial rail services 
per country (% of pax-km, 2018) ......................................................................................................... 120 
Figure  76:  Share  of  passenger  traffic  offered  respectively  under  domestic  and  international  PSO 
services per country (% of pax-km, 2018) ........................................................................................... 121 
Figure 77: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded per country (billion pax-km, 2018) .. 122 
Figure 78: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded per country (million train-km, 2018) 123 
Figure 79: Apparent average PSO compensation per country (EUR per train-km, 2018) ................... 124 
Figure 80: Share of PSO and commercial fares on total revenues of railway undertakings (% in 2018)
 ............................................................................................................................................................. 125 
Figure 81: Competitors’ market share in the rail freight market per country (% in 2018) and change in 
percentage points (2015-2018) ........................................................................................................... 126 
Figure 82: Competitors' market share in  the commercial passenger market per country (% in 2018) 
and change in percentage points (2015-2018) ................................................................................... 128 
Figure  83:  Competitors'  market  share  in  the  PSO  passenger  market  per  country  (%  in  2018)  and 
change in percentage points (2015-2018) .......................................................................................... 130 
Figure 84: Stock of locomotives and railcars (number per country, 2015-2018) ............................... 135 
Figure  85:  Stock  of  coaches,  railcars,  trailers  for  passenger  transport  (number  per  country,  2015-
2018).................................................................................................................................................... 135 
Figure 86: Stock of goods transport wagons (number per country, 2015-2018) ................................ 136 
Figure  87:  Regulatory  bodies  staff  dealing  with  rail  market  access,  (number,  available  to  the 
Commission on 1st April 2020) ........................................................................................................... 140 
Figure  88:  Regulatory  bodies  staff  dealing  with  rail  market  access  (employees,  as  available  to  the 
Commission on 1 April 2020, per billion train-km and per billion transport units, 2018) .................. 141 
Figure  89:  Proportion  of  infrastructure  managers  and  railway  undertakings  on  total  rail  employees 
per country, (% in 2018) ...................................................................................................................... 144 
Figure  90:  Total  number  of  employees  in  the  rail  market  (infrastructure  managers  plus  railway 
undertakings) per country (number, 2015 and 2018) ......................................................................... 145 
Figure 91: Total number of employees of the infrastructure managers per country (number, 2015 and 
2018).................................................................................................................................................... 146 

5 

 
 
 
Figure 92: Total number  of employees  of the  railway undertakings per country (number, 2015 and 
2018).................................................................................................................................................... 147 
Figure  93:  Number  of  employees  of  the  main  railway  undertaking  per  country  (number,  2015  and 
2018).................................................................................................................................................... 148 
Figure 94: Number of employees of other railway undertakings per country (number, 2015 and 2018)
 ............................................................................................................................................................. 149 
Figure  95:  Number  of  train  drivers  of  main  and  other  railway  undertakings  per  country  (number, 
2015 and 2018) .................................................................................................................................... 150 
Figure 96: Number of valid EU train driver licences, (2018) ............................................................... 151 
Figure  97:  Total  employees  (main  infrastructure  managers  plus  railway  undertakings)  by  gender 
structure, (% in 2018) .......................................................................................................................... 152 
Figure 98: Main infrastructure managers' employees by gender structure (% in 2018) .................... 153 
Figure 99: Main railway undertakings' employees by gender structure (% in 2018) .......................... 153 
Figure  100:  Employees  by  age  group,  main  railway  undertakings  and  infrastructure  managers  (%, 
2015-2018) .......................................................................................................................................... 155 
Figure 101: Main railway undertakings’ employees by age group and country, (% in 2018) ............. 155 
Figure 102: Main infrastructure managers’ employees by age group and country, (% in 2018)........ 156 
Figure 103: Employees of main infrastructure manager by contract  type  (permanent or temporary) 
per country, (% in 2018) ...................................................................................................................... 157 
Figure 104: Employees of main railway undertaking by contract type (permanent or temporary) per 
country, (% in 2018) ............................................................................................................................ 157 
Figure 105: Employees of main infrastructure manager by contract type (full-time or part-time) per 
country, (% in 2018) ............................................................................................................................ 158 
Figure  106:  Employees  of  main  railway  undertaking  by  contract  type  (full-time  or  part-time)  per 
country, (% in 2018) ............................................................................................................................ 159 
Figure 107: Employees of main infrastructure manager in training per country, (% in 2018) ........... 160 
Figure 108: Employees of main railway undertaking in training per country, (% in 2018) ................. 160 
Figure 109: ERTMS deployment on CNCs for the period 2017-2023 .................................................. 163 
Figure 110: Fatality risks of different transport modes (fatalities per billion pax-km, 2014-2018) .... 171 
Figure 111: Significant rail accidents and resulting casualties (number, 2010-2018) ......................... 172 
Figure 112: Significant rail accidents by type of accident (number, 2012-2018) ................................ 174 
Figure 113: Punctuality of regional and local passenger services per country (%, 2015-2018) ......... 176 
Figure  114:  Punctuality  of  long-distance  and  high-speed  passenger  services  per  country  (%,  2015-
2018).................................................................................................................................................... 176 
Figure 115: Reliability of regional and local passenger services per country, (%, 2015-2018) ........... 177 
Figure 116: Reliability of long-distance and high-speed passenger services per country (%, 2015-2018)
 ............................................................................................................................................................. 178 
Figure 117: Frequencies of direct rail connections, 2019 ................................................................... 180 
Figure 118: Average speeds of direct rail connections, 2019 ............................................................. 181 
Figure  119:  Length  by  inhabitant  of  rail  connections  departing  in  the  country,  by  speed  category, 
2019 ..................................................................................................................................................... 182 
Figure 120: Punctuality of domestic and international freight services per country (% in 2018) ...... 183 
Figure 121: Reliability of domestic and international freight services per country (% in 2018) ......... 184 
Figure 122: Average timetabled speed of freight services per country, (Km/h, 2018) ....................... 185 

6 

 
 
 
 
Table of tables 

Table 1: External costs in the EU28 in 2016 (all figures are PPS adjusted) ........................................... 24 
Table 2: EU27 Main infrastructure managers with less than 100% share of total route length (2018) 34 
Table 3: Institutional setting of the main infrastructure manager, EU27 (except CY and MT) ............. 35 
Table 4: Contractual agreements between competent authorities and infrastructure managers ...... 36 
Table 5: Allocation of CEF transport funds to railway actions (April 2020) .......................................... 45 
Table 6: Allocation of CEF funds to railway actions per funding objective (April 2020) ....................... 45 
Table 7: Allocation of CEF transport funds to rail actions per envelope and per Member State (April 
2020)...................................................................................................................................................... 46 
Table 8: ERDF and CF allocated in rail programmes (May 2020) .......................................................... 48 
Table 9: ERDF and CF allocated in rail programmes per Member State (EUR million, May 2020) ....... 48 
Table 10: EFSI financing – Approved operations until December 2019 ................................................ 50 
Table 11: Status of transposition of Rail Directives, 31 December 2018 .............................................. 92 
Table 12: Track declared to be congested (total including freight corridors) per country, (km, 2015-
2018).................................................................................................................................................... 116 
Table 13: Nodes declared to be congested per country, (km, 2015-2018)......................................... 116 
Table 14: Main railway gauge and electric current used per country (2018) ..................................... 133 
Table 15: State aid decisions 2015-2018 ............................................................................................. 138 
Table 16: Regulatory bodies' sources of funding (2018) ..................................................................... 142 
Table 17: Regulatory bodies with integrated competences for the rail market (2018) ..................... 143 
Table 18: Serious accidents 2019-2020 (update 15 August 2020) ...................................................... 173 

Table of boxes 

Box 1: European Year of Rail 2021 ........................................................................................................ 16 
Box 2: European Commission COVID-19 related measures for rail ...................................................... 26 
Box 3: PRIME benchmarking ................................................................................................................. 33 
Box 4: Extensive study on infrastructure managers’ funding and financing ......................................... 43 
Box 5: Rail freight corridors ................................................................................................................... 71 
Box 6: European Rail Facility Portal ....................................................................................................... 81 
Box 7: Electricity charging ..................................................................................................................... 97 
Box 8: Energy metering ......................................................................................................................... 97 
Box 9: Reservation charges ................................................................................................................. 117 
Box 10: Development of international passenger transport, in particular night trains and high-speed 
trains .................................................................................................................................................... 127 
Box 11: Development of low-cost rail services ................................................................................... 129 
Box 12: Language pilot train drivers (Translate4rail) .......................................................................... 151 
Box 13: Gender aspects in rail ............................................................................................................. 154 
Box 14: Skills shortages, Blueprint initiative and the rail sector ......................................................... 161 
Box 15: Issues logbook - Provision for interoperability and harmonisation of operations ................ 166 
Box 16: Regulation on electronic Freight Transport Information (eFTI) ............................................. 167 
Box 17: Second safety culture twinning programme .......................................................................... 174 
Box 18: Eurobarometer on passenger rights ...................................................................................... 187 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of abbreviations 

ASEAN 

Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

B2A 

B2B 

CAGR 

CCA 

Business to administration 

Business to business 

Compound annual growth rate 

Cross-cutting activities 

CCS-TSI 

Control command and signalling - technical specifications for interoperability 

CEF 

CF 

CNC 

COTIF 

CO2 

dB 

Connecting Europe Facility 

Cohesion Fund 

Core network corridor 

Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail 

Carbon dioxide 

Decibel 

DG MOVE 

European Commission Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 

DMT 

DTLF 

EDP 

EEA 

EET 

EFSI 

EFTA 

eFTI 

EIB 

ELETA 

ENE-TSI 

ENRRB 

ERA 

ERADIS 

ERDF 

ERTMS 

Deployment management team 

Digital Transport and Logistics Forum 

European deployment plan 

European Environment Agency OR European Economic Area 

Economic equilibrium test 

The European Fund for Strategic investments 

European Free Trade Association 

Electronic freight transport information 

European Investment Bank 

Electronic exchange of information on estimated time of arrival 

Energy - technical specification for interoperability 

European Network of Rail Regulatory Bodies 

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 

8 

 
 
 
ESIFs 

ETA 

ETCS 

GEURL 

GHG 

GIS 

GSM-R 

GTFS 

H2020 

IEA 

ILU 

IM 

INEA 

IRG-Rail 

ITU 

km 

KPI 

MaaS 

NEBs 

NIP 

NSA 

OSJD 

OTIF 

PAYG 

pax-km 

PRIME 

PSA 

PSC 

PSO 

include  Cohesion  Fund,  European 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds, 
Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, European Maritime and Fisheries 
Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

Estimated time of arrival 

European Train Control System 

Group of Experts towards Unified Rail Law 

Greenhouse gas 

Geographic Information System 

Global System for Mobile communications - Railways 

General transit feed specification 

Horizon2020 

International Energy Agency 

Intermodal loading unit 

Rail infrastructure manager 

EU Innovation and Networks Executive Agency 

Independent Regulators’ Group – Rail 

Intermodal transport unit 

Kilometre 

Key performance indicator 

Mobility as a service 

National enforcement bodies 

National implementation plan 

National safety authority 

Organisation for Cooperation of Railways 

Organisation for International Carriage by Rail 

Pay as you go 

Passenger kilometres 

Platform of Rail Infrastructure Managers in Europe 

Programme support action 

Public service contract 

Public service obligation 

9 

 
 
 
REGIO 

RFC 

RMMS 

European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 

Rail freight corridor 

Rail Market Monitoring Survey 

RMMS Regulation 

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1100 for rail market monitoring 

RNE 

ROSCO 

RU 

SERAC 

SWD 

RailNetEurope 

Rolling stock company 

Railway undertaking 

Single European Railway Area Committee 

Staff working document 

S2R (JU) 

Shift to Rail (Joint Undertaking) 

TAC 

Track access charges 

TAF - TSI 

Telematics applications for freight 

TCR 

TEG 

TEN-T 

TEU 

Temporary capacity restriction 

Technical Expert Group 

Trans-European Transport Network 

Twenty-foot equivalent unit 

TRAMOS-Rail 

Transport Monitoring System – Rail 

TTR 

TSI 

TimeTable redesign 

Technical specifications for interoperability 

tonne-km 

Tonne kilometres 

The Agency 

European Union Agency for Railways, until June 2016 called European Railway Agency 
(ERA) 

train-km 

Train kilometres 

UIC 

UIRR 

UNECE 

WHO 

Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer 

Union Internationale pour le transport combiné Rail-Route 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

World Health Organization 

10 

 
 
 
 
List of countries 

EU 

EU13 

EU15 

EU27 

EU28 

European Union 

EU Member States having joined the EU in or after 2004 

EU Member States having joined the EU before 2004 

All current EU Member States 

EU Member States between 1 July 2013 and 31 January 2020 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

HR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

NO 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Croatia 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Norway  

EU Member 1973-2020 

Member of EEA since 1994, of EFTA since 1960 

11 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 

This Commission staff working document accompanies the Seventh Report from the Commission to 
the Council and the European Parliament on monitoring development of the rail market (‘the Seventh 
Report’). 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 (the ‘Recast Directive’), according to which the European Commission must 
report to the European Parliament and the Council every 2 years on: 

1.  the evolution of the internal market in rail services (Chapter 3); 

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

(Chapter 4); 

3.  the framework conditions (Chapter 5 and Chapter 6), including: 

infrastructure charging; 

 
  capacity allocation; 
 
investment made in infrastructure; 
  developments with regard 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 public service contracts (PSCs); 
licensing; 

4.  the state of the Union railway network (Chapter 2); 

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

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

7.  infrastructure limitations (Chapter 5); and 

8.  the need for legislation (Conclusions). 

An overview of rail as a sustainable mode of transport is also included (Chapter 1).     

The focus of the Seventh Report and this accompanying staff working document is on developments 
between 2015 and 2018. When the RMMS Regulation is the only source, trends are assessed for the 
period 2015-2018 to ensure data comparability. When using other sources, trends may be presented 
over a longer period.  

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

In addition to the rail market report, the EU Agency for Railways publishes a bi-annual report on safety and 
interoperability 
(https://www.era.europa.eu/library/corporate-publications/safety-and-
interoperability-progress-reports_en ). 

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.  

12 

 
 
 
                                                           
The  sources  of  data  include  responses  to  the  Rail Market Monitoring  Survey  (‘the  RMMS’),  the  EU 
Transport  in  Figures  statistical  pocket  book5,  Eurostat6,  IRG-RAIL,  statistics  collected  by  various 
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  under  the  aegis  of  the  Single  European  Railway  Area 
Committee (SERAC). 

All current EU Member States are covered, except Cyprus and Malta, as they have no railways. 

Data  for  the  United  Kingdom  is  presented  throughout  the  Seventh  Report  and  this  accompanying 
staff working document as during the reference period until 2018 the country was still participating 
in  the  RMMS  as  an  EU  Member  State.  Aggregated  data  and  averages  refer,  however,  only  to  the 
EU27 (i.e. to the current EU Member States). The totals and averages for the EU28 are also provided, 
either in the text or in the Excel file published on the DG MOVE website together with the Seventh 
Report8.   

As Norway participates in the RMMS but is not a Member of the European Union, Norwegian data 
are shown in graphs per country but not included in EU27 totals and EU27 averages.  

The implementing act for rail market monitoring 

The  first  five  RMMS  reports  drew  on  Member  States’  voluntary  responses  to  the  RMMS 
questionnaire. 

The Seventh Report is the second report to actually draw on the mandatory data collection set out in 
the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1100 for rail market monitoring9 (‘the RMMS 
Regulation’) applicable from 1 January 2016. It is also the first report to be produced after the end of 
the transitional period for the implementation of the RMMS Regulation, in 2018. 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  using  the  TRAMOS-Rail  (Transport  Monitoring 
System  –  Rail)  web  tool.  This  Seventh  Report  therefore  benefits  from  better-defined  data 
requirements,  a  mandatory  collection  process  and  a  validation  review,  which  has  gradually  led  to 
more consistent and coherent data after the end of the transitional period in 2018.  

Member  States  have  until 31 December of each year  to  submit  in  TRAMOS-Rail  the  data  from  the 
RMMS questionnaire for the previous year. DG MOVE then reviews the consistency of inputs for each 
Member State in January, asking for additions or clarifications if needed. The process is closed by the 
end of the first quarter. Every 2 years, when preparing the biennial report, DG MOVE performs more 
in-depth  data  checks  across  countries  and  years  to  verify  the  coherence  and  consistency  of  the 

5   The  Report  is  based  on  preliminary  Statistical  pocketbook  data  available  at  31  August  2020.  The  2020 
Statistical  pocketbook  is  available  on  the  DG  MOVE  website.  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-
fundings/statistics/pocketbook-2020_en     

6   http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/transport/data/database  
7   UIC, UIP. 
8   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/market/market_monitoring_en  
9   Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/1100  of  7  July  2015  on  the  reporting  obligations  of  the 

Member States in the framework of rail market monitoring, OJ L 181, 9.7.2015, p. 1. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                           
RMMS database. Estimates or other reliable data sources are used in case of data gaps. Finally, time 
series are checked against data published in the previous RMMS report and other similar (though not 
fully  comparable)  data  in  order  to  identify  and  explain  any  major  deviation.  Estimates,  alternative 
sources and discontinuities are duly reported in the relevant parts of the accompanying staff working 
document. 

The refinements implemented during the transitional period may have led some Member States to 
alter the data and approach they use to respond, which may result in some comparability issues over 
time.  However,  steps  have  been  proactively taken  by  both  the  Commission  and  Member  States  to 
ensure that these comparability issues have been minimised wherever possible. The Commission has 
started discussions with Member States to identify developments in the rail market, improvements 
in data availability, new methodologies, definitions and methods of collecting data that may make it 
desirable to amend the RMMS questionnaire in the Annex to the RMMS Regulation. 

14 

 
 
 
Rail and sustainability 

1. 

Rail and sustainability 

Transport  is  central  to  the  European  economy  and  daily  life,  and  demand  for  it  continues  to  rise. 
Estimates suggest  increases in European passenger and freight  transport by 42%  and 60%  by 2050 
respectively.  However,  transport  generates  around  a  quarter  of  all  EU  greenhouse  gas  (GHG) 
emissions10    –  which  have  serious  health  and  environmental  consequences.  As  public  awareness 
about climate change increases, demand for sustainable forms of transport does too – be it for cross-
border  travel  or  for  everyday  commutes.  Transporting  more  freight  by  rail  instead  of  by  road  is 
another essential element of making transport more sustainable. To accelerate sustainable transport 
across Europe, having an attractive rail system with sufficient capacity and modernised infrastructure 
will be key.  

With the European Green Deal, the European Commission has proposed to cut GHG emissions by at 
least 55% by 2030, and to achieve climate neutrality by 205011. To achieve climate neutrality, a 90% 
reduction in overall transport emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels is needed. This will be one 
main objective of the forthcoming Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy. To meet this challenge, 
rail will have to take up a bigger share of the transport system. Through its policies and legislation, 
the EU aims to make rail more efficient, affordable and innovative. EU policies focus on aspects that 
are  crucial  for  developing  a  strong  and  competitive  rail  industry  and  a  green  and  sustainable 
transport system overall. These are: 

  Facilitating a strong and competitive rail sector  

Establishing a single European railway area where railway companies can operate in a single 
and competitive  EU-wide market i.e. the same rail operator can offer services anywhere  in 
Europe, without  national borders. This will bring down costs  and make  rail more attractive 
for passengers.  

  Removing barriers to seamless rail transport  

EU  legislation  harmonises  diverging  safety,  administrative  and  operational  requirements 
across the  EU. In this way, the  same train will be able to run on networks all over Europe, 
following  the  same  rules.  The  EU  Agency  for  Railways  (ERA)  has  a  mandate  to  issue  single 
safety certificates and vehicle authorisations, which are valid in multiple European countries.  

  Developing a modern rail infrastructure network  

Capacity constraints  and ageing infrastructure are hampering rail traffic. That is why public 
and  private  investment  in  Europe’s  infrastructure  is  needed,  in  particular  for  cross-border 
links. 

  Stimulating innovation  

Tackling challenges and opportunities such as rising transport demand, decarbonisation and 
digitalisation  requires  innovative  solutions.  The  Shift2Rail  Joint  Undertaking  is  a  public-
private partnership in the rail sector, providing a platform for EU research and innovation. 

10  European  Environment  Agency 

(2019):  Greenhouse  gas  emissions 

from  transport 

in  Europe. 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport-emissions-of-greenhouse-
gases/transport-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases-12 . See also Section 1.1.1.  

11   Emissions  reduction  targets  are  compared  to  1990  levels.  The  European  Commission  will  now  start 
preparing  detailed  legislative  proposals  on  how  this  target  can  be  achieved.  The  Commission  will  review 
and,  where  necessary,  propose  to  revise  by  June  2021  all  relevant  policy  instruments  to  achieve  the 
additional emission reductions (https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu-climate-action/2030_ctp_en).  

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Rail and sustainability 

For rail to fulfil its role in the European Green Deal as an attractive and effective alternative to more 
polluting modes of transport, it has to be safe, punctual, reliable, affordable and inclusive, and able 
to adapt  to the  changing needs of passengers  and industries. This depends on the performance of 
both rail operators and infrastructure managers.  

Box 1: European Year of Rail 2021 

On 4 March 2020, the European Commission proposed to make 2021 the European Year of Rail, to support 
the delivery of its European Green Deal objectives in the transport field12. The European Year of Rail 2021 
will  support  the  efforts  of  the  EU,  the  Member  States,  regional  and  local  authorities,  and  other 
organisations to increase the share of passengers and freight moving by rail. Through a series of dedicated 
events, campaigns, initiatives and projects in 2021, the European Year will promote rail as a  sustainable, 
innovative  and  safe  mode  of  transport.  It  will  highlight  its  benefits  for  citizens,  the  economy  and  the 
climate.  By  reaching  out  to  the  broader  public,  in  particular  to  young  people,  the  initiative  intends  to 
convince  more  people  and  businesses  to  make  use  of  rail.  It  will  also  help  to  step  up  the  pace  of  rail 
modernisation and focus on the remaining challenges to create a true single European railway area without 
borders. 

1.1 

Environmental performance of rail 

Rail has the potential to play a significant role in accelerating the reduction of transport emissions, 
being the most carbon-efficient motorised way to travel. In 2018, rail accounted for only 2% of total 
EU27 energy consumption in transport, while carrying 12.6% of goods and 6.9% of passengers of all 
transport modes (land, air and waterways).    

1.1.1 

Emissions 

In 2018, the transport sector (including international aviation and maritime) accounted for 27.2% of 
the total GHG emissions13 in the EU27 (27.9% in EU28). Within the transport sector, (Figure 1) shows 
how  rail  represented  only  0.4%  of  GHG  emissions  from  all  transport  modes  in  the  EU27  (0.5%  in 
EU28),  while  continuing  to  be  the  only  mode  to  have  almost  continuously  reduced  such  emissions 
since 199014. 

12   At the time of drafting the report, the Commission’s proposal (COM(2020)78) was still being discussed in 
the  European  Parliament  and  in  the  Council  under  the  co-decision  procedure.  On  12  November  2020, 
negotiators  from  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  reached  a  provisional  agreement,  which  is 
subject to formal approval by both institutions. 

13   GHG emissions from transport by mode, including international bunkers and indirect CO2 but excluding land 
use,  land  use  change  and  forestry.  Rail  excluding  indirect  emissions  from  electricity  consumption.  The 
European Environment Agency (EEA, https://www.eea.europa.eu/ ) is the main provider for EU-wide GHG 
emissions  data.  The  GHGs  are:  carbon  dioxide  (CO2),  methane  (CH4),  nitrous  oxide  (N2O),  sulphur 
hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC).  

14   The Statistical pocketbook 2020 provides further details by country, sector and mode. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure  1:  Share  of  GHG  emissions  by  transport  mode  (rail,  road,  domestic  aviation,  domestic  navigation, 

pipeline transport, etc.) (% of million tonnes CO2 equivalent, EU27 2018) 

Rail and sustainability 

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. 

When  considering  only  CO2,  in  2018  the  transport  sector  (including  international  aviation  and 
maritime)  accounted  for  32.6% of  the  total  CO2  emissions15  in  the  EU27  (33.4%  in  EU28).  Figure  2 
shows how within the transport sector rail represented only 0.4% of CO2 emissions from all transport 
modes in the EU27 (0.5% in EU28). Rail has continued to be the only transport mode to have almost 
continuously reduced these emissions since 199016. 

Figure  2:  Share  of  CO2  emissions  of  transport  modes  (rail,  road,  domestic  aviation,  domestic  navigation, 

pipeline transport, etc.) (% of million tonnes, EU27 2018) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. 

Looking at rail from a life-cycle perspective  shows  that train operations are not the only  source of 
emissions for rail transport. The construction of railway infrastructure, the manufacturing of rolling 

15   Including international bunkers and indirect CO2 but excluding land use, land use change and forestry. Rail 

excluding indirect emissions from electricity consumption. 

16   The Statistical pocketbook 2020 provides further details by country, sector and mode. 

17 

Road71,8%Rail0,4%Air transport13,2%Total navigation14,1%Other transport0,5%EU27Road71,7%Rail0,4%Air transport13,2%Total navigation14,2%Other transport0,5%EU27 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Rail and sustainability 

stock,  and  its  maintenance  and  disposal  are  all  activities  producing  emissions17.  Despite  these 
considerations, the overall benefits of using trains remain significant.  

Finally, a modal shift to rail would have beneficial effects not only in terms of improved air quality 
but also in terms of reduced congestion.   

1.1.2 

Energy consumption 

The transport sector accounted for 30.5% of the total final energy consumption in the EU27 in 2018 
(31%  for  EU28);  by  contrast,  within  the  transport  sector  rail  accounted  for  only  1.9%  of  the  final 
energy consumption (2.0% for EU28). The distribution per country is available in Figure 3.  

Figure 3: Share of each transport mode (including rail) on total energy consumption per country (% in 2018) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. 

Rail  transport  not  only  represents  a  minor  part  of  transport’s  energy  use,  but  it  also  saves  overall 
energy consumption. According to a report18 published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 
cooperation  with  the  International  Railway  Association  (UIC),  if  the  world’s  passenger  and  freight 
traffic  currently  served  by  rail  was  transported  by  other  transport  modes,  global  oil  demand  for 
transport would be 16% higher.   

The IEA-UIC report also shows that rail significantly outperforms other transport means in terms of 
energy efficiency, measured as tonne oil equivalent per passenger kilometre or per tonne kilometre. 
Rail is the most energy-efficient motorised land passenger mode and the second most efficient mode 
overall after shipping19.  

17   The  Future  of  Rail  –  Opportunities  for  energy  and  the  environment,  International  Energy  Agency,  in 

collaboration with UIC, 2019.  

18   The  Future  of  Rail  –  Opportunities  for  energy  and  the  environment,  International  Energy  Agency,  in 

collaboration with UIC, 2019.  

19   World averages.  

18 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%LVCZSELTHURODKATDEFIFREEBEPLHRSKNLITSILUESIEBGELPTEU27UKNO% of energy consumptionRailRoadDomestic aviationDomestíc navigationPipeline transport, etc. 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Rail and sustainability 

Two major factors influence the energy intensity of rail:  

-  Specific energy consumption of different typologies of trains: under the same conditions, 

electric trains are less energy intensive than diesel trains, given the higher efficiency of their 
engines and their higher capacity to enable regenerative braking and minimise inertial losses;  

-  Train capacity and utilisation rates: the higher the occupancy rate or the load factor, the 

lower the energy intensity. 

Already today, four out of five trains in the EU run on electricity20, and fleet renewals are driving the 
gradual  replacement  of  diesel  vehicles  with  better-performing  diesel  engines  or  electric  vehicles. 
Electric hybrid battery trains and hydrogen trains are also coming into use. Railway undertakings are 
increasingly promoting the use of traction electricity from renewable sources (hydroelectric power, 
sun  and  wind21)  and  are  starting  to  install  on-board  energy  meters  for  energy  consumption  or  to 
introduce eco-driving programmes.  

The  utilisation  of  rail  has  been  increasing  in  Europe  in  the  past  few  years.  Passenger  rail  volumes 
were  consistently  growing  and  rail  freight  was  finally  recovering  from  the  financial  and  economic 
crisis,  while  estimated  load  factors  appear  to  have  also  slightly  increased.  However,  the  COVID-19 
pandemic has taken a heavy toll on rail volumes in 2020; its impact has still to be fully assessed. 

1.1.3 

Noise 

According  to  the  World  Health  Organization  (WHO),  environmental  noise  is  an  important  public 
health  issue  with  negative  impacts  on  human  health  and  well-being,  featuring  among  the  top 
environmental risks to health.  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  figures  for 2017  show  that  the 
number  of  people  exposed  to  harmful  noise  levels  produced  by  railways,  although  significant,  is 
lower than the number of people exposed to harmful noise levels produced by road22. Railway noise 
affects nearly 22 million people (of which approximately 10.9 million people exposed to railway noise 
outside  urban  areas  and  approximately  10.7  million  people  exposed  to  railway  noise  inside  urban 
areas23). Given the predominantly international nature of rail freight transport (more than 50% of rail 
freight wagons run across borders), any attempt to reduce rail noise at source needs a coordinated 
European response.  

The most cost-efficient measure to achieve this reduction is the retrofitting of existing freight wagons 
with  ‘silent’,  composite  brake  blocks,  replacing  cast  iron  brake  blocks.  Recently  built  wagons  are 
already  equipped  with  composite  brake  blocks,  thereby  complying  with  the  more  stringent  noise 
limit values introduced in 2011. 

A number of initiatives have been already adopted at the EU level to reduce noise exposure. These 
include:  

- 
- 

the Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC;  
the technical specification for interoperability (TSI) on noise, which was revised in 201924;  

20   http://www.cer.be/sites/default/files/publication/CER%20Factsheet%20Climate%202018.pdf  
21   Electric trains are less carbon intensive than diesel trains if their primary energy sources have low-carbon 

content.  

22   While noise from roads or railways causes similar health effects, aviation noise is more harmful at the same 
noise levels. Any comparison between modes should consider not only the number of people exposed, but 
also the magnitude of health effects at similar noise levels. 
23   Environmental noise in Europe – 2020, EEA Report No 22/2019 

(https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental-noise-in-europe ).  

24  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  1304/2014  of  26  November  2014  on  the  technical  specification  for 
interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘rolling stock — noise’, as amended by Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/774 of 16 May 2019. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                           
Rail and sustainability 

- 

financial assistance under the CEF for the retrofitting of rail freight wagons with ‘silent’ brake 
technology25 (which to date has allowed for the co-financing of retrofitting of some 207 000 
‘noisy’ wagons); and  

-  a  European  framework  laying  down  modalities  for  noise-differentiated  track  access 

charges26.  

However, despite the efforts of the Commission and Member States, there is still 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.  

The  2019  revision  of  the  TSI  Noise  mandates  the  introduction  of  ‘quieter  routes’  from  December 
2024.  This  affects  the  railway  lines  in  the  EU  with  the  busiest  freight  traffic,  on  which  only  ‘silent’ 
freight wagons may be operated. By the end of 2017, some 350 000 freight wagons present in the EU 
still  needed  to  be  retrofitted  with  ‘silent’  brake  blocks27.  By  mid-2020  this  number  had  fallen  to 
approximately 100 000, excluding freight wagons that cannot be retrofitted for technical reasons, as 
well as freight wagons for which retrofitting would not be economically feasible. 

The  Commission  is  also  evaluating  the  results  of  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  on  noise 
differentiated track access charges (EU) 2015/429 (NDTAC). The Commission will assess in particular 
the progress of retrofitting wagons, the balance between bonus deductions and malus payments, the 
passing on of the incentives from railway undertakings to wagon keepers, as well as the cumulative 
level  of  bonuses  wagons  have  received  from  different  schemes.  Based  on  the  results  of  the 
evaluation, the Commission may, if deemed appropriate, decide to revise the framework.  

1.2 

Green financing and cost internalisation  

In order to increase its relevance in the modal share of individual and business users, rail needs to 
become more  competitive against  other modes. This involves  deploying sufficient investments and 
adequate customer-focused innovations.  

In 2018, the total cost of railways, defined as infrastructure expenditure (irrespective of the funding 
source28) plus PSO compensation, was around EUR 138.20 per EU27 inhabitant (EUR 138.58 including 
the  UK),  which  is  an  increase  of  5.6%  compared  to  2015.  Whereas  infrastructure  expenditure 
decreased  by  1.7%,  PSO  compensation  increased  by  20.8%  in  the  same  period  according  to  the 
figures reported in the RMMS (Figure 429).  

25   Regulation  (EU)  No  1316/2013  of  11  December  2013  establishing  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility,  
amending Regulation  (EU)  No  913/2010  and  repealing  Regulations  (EC)  No  680/2007  and  (EC)  No 
67/2010. 

26   Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/429  of  13  March  2015  setting  out  the  modalities  to  be 

followed for the application of the charging for the cost of noise effects.  

27   ERA, Full Impact Assessment, Revision of the NOl TSI: Application of NOI TSI requirements to existing freight 

wagons   
(https://www.era.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/docs/recommendation/006rec1072_full_impact_ass
essment_en.pdf). 

28   Funding infrastructure sources reported in the RMMS are public domestic funds, EU funds and own funds of 
the  main  infrastructure  managers  and  other  owners  of  major  stations  and  freight  terminals,  like  access 
charges.   

29   Trends  reported  here  are  significantly  influenced  by  the  improvements  in  RMMS  data  reporting  of  PSO 

compensation after the first year of implementation of Regulation 2015/1100.  

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 4: Cost of railways per inhabitant (infrastructure expenditure plus PSO compensation) 2015-2018 

Rail and sustainability 

Source: RMMS, 2020, Eurostat, 2020. Missing data for EL, PL, RO and ES. 

The cost of railways as defined above rests heavily on public funding and in turn on taxpayers. This is 
due not only to the PSO compensation but also to the infrastructure expenditure element.  

in  rail 

Expenditure 
is  also  mainly  financed  through  public  funding: 
EUR 28.8 billion  (domestic  public  funds  and  EU  funds)  in  2018  for  the  EU27,  roughly  equivalent  to 
80% of the total funding30 according to figures reported in the RMMS by Member States.  

infrastructure 

in  fact 

Considering  only  domestic  public  funds  and  PSO  compensations  (i.e.  excluding  EU  funding  and 
infrastructure  managers’  own  funding),  in  2018  the  cost  of  railways  for  the  EU27  was  around 
EUR 111 per capita.  

Green taxonomy 

Green  bonds  and  climate-aligned  bonds  represent  so  far  only  a  small  share  of  the  financing 
instruments  used  to  finance  rail  projects.  However,  a  growing  green  bond  market  could  enable  a 
significant  share  of  investment  in  the  EU’s  railway  sector  to  be  financed  by  green  bonds,  thus 
diversifying from traditional public financing sources.  

Reorienting  capital  flows  towards  a  more  sustainable  economy  requires,  however,  establishing  a 
clear  classification  system  for  sustainable  activities,  i.e.  an  EU  taxonomy  to  define  how  ‘green’  a 
company or public institution is as regards its investments and turnover.  

Following its action plan on financing sustainable growth31 (March 2018), the European Commission 
established, in July 2018, a Technical Expert Group (TEG) on sustainable finance32. The expert group’s 
remit was to develop recommendations for technical screening criteria for economic activities to be 
considered environmentally sustainable.  

30   EUR 33.7 billion (about 76%) for EU28.  
31   https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/sustainable-finance-renewed-strategy_en  
32   https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/sustainable-finance-technical-expert-group_en  

21 

88,4582,3983,6686,9242,4548,5751,4051,280204060801001201401602015201620172018EUR per inhabitantEU27Infrastructure expenditurePSO compensation 
 
 
 
                                                           
Rail and sustainability 

In  May  2019,  the  Commission  published  a  study  providing  an  overview  of  classification  systems 
(taxonomies)  which  determine  environmentally  sustainable  activities  within  the  transport  sector 
both globally and in the EU. The study also analysed the green bonds market and its state of play33. 
According to the findings, in 2017 13% (EUR 15.9 billion) of green bonds in Europe were dedicated to 
transport projects; the majority of these green bonds were railway projects. The green bonds market 
has  grown  significantly  over  the  past  10  years,  but  according  to  the  study  there  is  further  growth 
potential if market bottlenecks – such as the lack of a green bonds definition and framework or the 
lack of information and market knowledge – are properly addressed. 

Based on this study and on almost 2 years of intensive discussions, in March 2020 the TEG published 
its  recommendations  for  technical  screening  criteria  for  economic  activities  (TEG  report  on 
EU taxonomy34).  

Based  on  the  TEG  report,  the  Commission  in  turn  presented  a  proposal  for  a  regulation  on  the 
establishment  of  a  framework  to  facilitate  sustainable  investment:  this  was  the  Taxonomy 
Regulation35,  which  entered  into  force  on  12 July 2020  following  its  adoption  by  the  European 
Parliament and the Council.  

The Taxonomy Regulation sets six environmental objectives:  

1)  climate change mitigation;  
2)  climate change adaptation;  
3)  the sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources;  
4)  the transition to a circular economy;  
5)  pollution prevention and control; and  
6)  the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems. 

To establish the degree to which an investment is environmentally sustainable, an economic activity 
must qualify as environmentally sustainable. The Taxonomy Regulation establishes that this happens 
where that economic activity:  

-  substantially contributes to at least one of the environmental objectives; 
-  does not significantly harm any of the remaining objectives;  
-  complies  with minimum safeguards as defined in the Taxonomy Regulation; and 
-  complies  with  technical  screening  criteria  established  by  the  Commission  in  specific 

delegated acts.   

The Commission is set to publish a first delegated act by end-2020 presenting the technical criteria 
(based  on  the  TEG  report)  for  the  climate  change  mitigation  and  the  climate  change  adaptation 
objectives,  for  entry  into  force  end-2021.  A  further  delegated  act  covering  the  four  remaining 
objectives should be adopted by end-2021, for entry into force end-2022.  

Transport-related  activities  (both  operations  and  manufacturing)  contribute  substantially,  both 
directly and indirectly, to (at least) the climate change mitigation objective. Therefore, most of the 
relevant technical screening criteria for transport investments will be already published by end-2020, 
falling at least within the scope of the first delegated act.  

To  make  a  substantial  contribution  to  climate  mitigation,  the  activities  and  technical  screening 
criteria included in the Taxonomy need to focus on the main emissions sources from the transport 

33   Development of a methodology to assess the ‘green’ impacts of investment in the rail sector, (May 2019),  

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/news/2019-06-24-study-rail_en  

34   https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/200309-sustainable-finance-teg-final-report-taxonomy_en  
35   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32020R0852  

22 

 
 
 
                                                           
sector,  supporting  reduction  in  GHG  emissions  and  indirectly  accelerating  modal  shift  towards  less 
polluting transport modes such as rail and inland waterways36.  

Rail and sustainability 

The transport taxonomy mainly concerns operations of vehicle/vessel fleets and rolling stock (both 
including  telematics 
wagons  and 
applications such as ERTMS, focusing on three categories of criteria:  

locomotives)  and  the  associated  enabling 

infrastructure, 

-  efficient, low- and zero direct emission fleets 
- 
fuel substitution to net-zero carbon fuels 
- 
improving the efficiency of transport system – modal shift.  

The manufacturing sector is also a high producer of emissions, and some manufacturing activities are 
therefore included in the taxonomy. For transport, the taxonomy includes the manufacture of  low-
carbon  fleets  and  vehicles  in  road,  rail  and  waterborne.  Most  eligible  actions  relate  to  the 
manufacture of zero-emission vehicles, although until 2025 some low-emission vehicles could still be 
eligible (in accordance with EU emission standards).  

Finally, transport of captured CO2 by rail, ship or pipeline is also covered.  

Cost internalisation 

On the costs side, another aspect to take into account when considering rail competitiveness against 
other modes is the relative capacity of different modes to internalise external costs caused by their 
activities,  in  particular  their  environmental  impact.  Internalising  external  costs  would  make  them 
part of the decision-making process of transport users.  

In  2019,  the  Commission  funded  an  independent  study  on  sustainable  transport  infrastructure 
charging  and  internalisation  of  transport  externalities.  The  study  provided  an  overview  of  the 
progress made by EU Member States towards the full internalisation of external and infrastructure 
costs of transport and tried to identify approaches for further internalisation. The results show only 
partial internalisation of external and infrastructure costs of transport in the EU2837.  

The total external costs of transport in the EU27 were estimated at EUR 867 billion (EUR 987 billion 
for EU28), composed as follows:  

-  costs of accidents (29%) 
-  costs of congestion38 (26%) 
-  environmental costs39  (45%). 

These aggregate figures hide large differences between transport modes. Overall, road transport is 
the largest contributor to external costs (EUR 721 billion in EU2740, i.e. 83% of the total costs mainly 
due to passenger cars), whereas rail represents only 2% of the total external costs of transport. Table 
1 shows external costs for the EU28. 

36 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/2003
09-sustainable-finance-teg-final-report-taxonomy-annexes_en.pdf  

37   Sustainable  Transport  Infrastructure  Charging  and  Internalisation  of  Transport  Externalities,  June  2019 

(https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/sustainable/internalisation-transport-external-costs_en).  

38   Only  includes  congestion  costs  for  road  transport  as  it  was  not  possible  to  estimate  congestion  costs  for 

other modes.  

39   Climate change, air pollution, noise, well-to-tank and habitat damage.  
40   EUR 820 billion for EU28.  

23 

 
 
 
                                                           
Table 1: External costs in the EU28 in 2016 (all figures are PPS adjusted)  

Rail and sustainability 

Source: Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities (2019). 

Supporting the modal shift towards rail would have a significant impact on external costs, given: (i) 
its  higher  safety  compared  to  other  means  of  land  transport;  (ii)  its  larger  loading  capacity,  which 
would  help  reduce  congestion  on  roads;  and  (iii)  its  better  energy  efficiency  and  lower  emissions, 
which would decrease air pollution and climate effects.  

External and total infrastructure costs of transport are only partly internalised by current taxes and 
charges in the EU28. For most transport modes, for example, the study found that only 15 to 25% of 
the  overall  external  and  infrastructure  costs  are  covered.  On  average,  trains  were  found  to  have 
lower coverage ratios than road vehicles; however, they are also responsible for a smaller amount of 
external costs compared to road. Even excluding fixed infrastructure costs from the analysis, current 
taxes  and  charges  do  not  cover  the  external  and  (variable)  infrastructure  costs  for  most  modes. 
However, given the relevance of fixed infrastructure costs in rail, trains score much better, and high-
speed  trains  even  see  their  taxes  and  charges  exceed  their  costs.  This  indicator  is  in  line  with  the 
Commission’s policy to realise full internalisation of external costs, including wear and tear costs. It 
recognises that fixed infrastructure costs are sunk costs and that paying for these costs may result in 
(further) underutilisation of existing infrastructure (e.g. rail).  

Focusing only on infrastructure cost coverage41, the study concluded that there is a limited use of the 
‘users-pays’ principle in the EU28. For most modes, only 15 to 30% of the total infrastructure costs 
are covered by infrastructure charges. Exceptions are aviation and maritime transport. The variable 
infrastructure  costs  (i.e.  wear  and  tear  costs)  are  instead  broadly  covered  by  the  revenues  from 
infrastructure charges across almost all vehicle categories.  

41   The overall infrastructure cost coverage ratio provides an insight into whether revenues from infrastructure 

charges internalise all infrastructure costs.  

24 

Vehicle categoryTotal external costsAverage external costsPassenger transport modesEUR billionEUR-cent/pax-kmPassenger car56512.0Bus/coach193.6Motorcycle4124.5High-speed train11.3Electric passenger train2.6Diesel passenger train3.9Aircraft48a3.4Light commercial vehicleEUR billionEUR-cent/vkmLight commercial vehicle11824.7Freight Transport modesEUR billionEUR-cent/tkmHeavy goods vehicle784.2Electric freight train1.1Diesel freight train1.8IWT vessel31.9Maritime vessel98a0.7a= rough estimations115 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Rail and sustainability 

1.3 

Resilience  

Transport  infrastructures  are  essential  for  the  functioning  of  society  and  the  economy.  Their 
increasing  interdependence  makes  them  more  complex  to  operate  and  requires  a  significant 
coordination  effort.  Breakdowns  due  to  climate  change,  incidents  or  technical  failures  can 
compromise essential flows of goods or the ability to meet citizens’ needs for mobility.  

Interruptions of service  in  railways can be  due  to different reasons and can range  in severity from 
simple disturbances in daily operations to disruptions linked to technical failures/weather conditions 
and finally to exceptional and unexpected events like natural disasters or (as experienced recently) a 
global pandemic.  

In  recent  years,  the  EU  railway  sector  has  demonstrated  its  resilience  in  the  light  of  very  adverse 
situations.  Coordination  and  cooperation  between  infrastructure  managers  and  with  railway 
undertakings and public authorities have played an essential role in ensuring this resilience.  

In  case  of  severe  disruptions,  the  EU  infrastructure  managers  can  today  trigger  a  contingency 
procedure,  as  provided  for  in  the  Handbook  for  International  Contingency  Management.  The 
handbook was drafted after the severe Rastatt accident in 2017 to avoid traffic interruptions on rail 
freight corridors (RFCs) and ensure that rail freight continuously feeds supply chains42.  

Since the adoption of the handbook in May 2018, international contingency management plans have 
been  triggered  –  partially  involving  cooperation  by  different  RFCs  –  after  the  following  four 
international incidents43: 

  A derailment on the Scandinavian–Mediterranean RFC that disrupted traffic between 

Hamburg and the German-Danish border from 2-6 August 2020. 

  A collision at Auggen on the Rhine–Alpine RFC between a train and elements of a road bridge 
under construction, impacting traffic between Germany and Switzerland on the rail line 
between Müllheim and Schliengen from 2-8 April 2020. 

  Two incidents in 2019 on the Mediterranean RFC: (i) a mudslide that interrupted rail traffic 

between France and Italy (Saint Michel de Maurienne and Modane) from 3-22 July 2019; and 
(ii) heavy rainfalls that impacted the line connecting France and Spain between Montpellier 
and Narbonne from 23 October to 25 November 2019. 

The handbook is currently being updated by RailNetEurope (RNE) to improve and possibly adapt the 
processes described in it.  

More recently, the EU rail sector has experienced a significant disruption to business continuity due 
to  a  huge  drop  in  passenger  mobility  and  (partially)  in  freight  transport  due  to  the  COVID-19 
pandemic. 

According  to  information  shared  by  the  sector44,  during  the  first  half  of  2020  average  estimated 
decline  in  rail  passenger  revenues  for  EU27  was  about  -34%,  with  a  total  estimated  loss  close  to 
EUR 10  billion.  Even  though  rail  freight  operators  proved  to  be  the  backbone  of  logistics  chains 
during the first months of the crisis and kept large flows of goods moving, the freight segment also 

42   The  contingency  plans  based  on  the  handbook  were  developed  with  the  support  of  the  Commission  and 
endorsed by the EU infrastructure managers. The RFCs are the platforms for coordination and cooperation 
after such events. 

43   Data available at August 2020.  
44   CER overview of COVID-19 impact on the rail market.  

25 

 
 
 
                                                           
Rail and sustainability 

felt the effects of the pandemic. Over the same period, the average estimated decline in rail freight 
revenues  for  EU27  was  about  -15%,  with  a  total  estimated  loss  of  about  EUR  1.25  billion.  These 
estimates  include  the  months  of  January  and  February,  which  were  before  the  start  of  the  crisis 
caused by the pandemic.  

During  the  peak  of  the  crisis  in  March  and  April  2020,  ridership  went  down  by  more  than  90%  in 
several countries and even after the end of lockdown rail passenger numbers have not returned to 
pre-crisis levels in many countries. The freight segment also felt the impact of the pandemic due to 
the slowdown in economic activities such as car manufacturing and sales.  

Furthermore,  rail  infrastructure  managers  were  impacted  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic  due  to  the 
overall reduction in traffic flows and declining revenues from track access charges.  

Box 2: European Commission COVID-19 related measures for rail 

The  outbreak  of  COVID-19  in  2020  caused  lockdowns  and  other  restrictive  measures  that  had  a  deep 
impact on rail transport. Keeping transport services running was of crucial importance for the functioning 
of the EU's internal market, the maintenance of its supply chains and its effective response to the common 
public health crisis. 

The European Commission took relief measures to ensure continued and uninterrupted transport services. 
The main objectives were to:  

safeguard operational continuity and basic connectivity across borders; 

- 
-  ensure the availability of  goods and essential services while protecting health; 
-  provide legal grounds for exceptional measures in accordance with the regulatory framework in 

force; and 

-  enable financial support measures while preserving the integrity of the internal market. 

In an effort to mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the transport sector, including 
the rail sector, the Commission proposed and implemented a number of measures:   

-  Publication of guidelines to ensure EU passenger rights are applied in a consistent manner across 

the EU45 (March 2020).  

-  New practical advice on how to implement its guidelines for border management, in order to keep 
freight moving across the EU during the pandemic (March 2020). To ensure that EU-wide supply 
chains continued to operate, Member States were requested to designate, without delay, all the 
relevant internal border-crossing points on the trans-European transport network46 (TEN-T) as 
‘green lanes’ border crossings. The green lane47 border crossings had to be open to all freight 
vehicles, whatever goods they were carrying. Crossing the border, including any checks and health 
screening, should not take more than 15 minutes. To keep transport moving, the Commission 
recommended that Member States should take action to ensure the free movement of all workers 
involved in international transport, whatever the transport mode48.  

-  Adoption of a temporary framework for State aid measures49 (March 2020 and following 

amendments).   

-  Publication of an overview of the State aid rules and public service obligations rules applicable to 

the land transport sector during the COVID-19 outbreak50 (May 2020).  

45   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/c20201830_en.pdf  
46   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/green-lanes.pdf  
47   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/c20201897_en.pdf  
48   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_468  
49   https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/what_is_new/covid_19.html  
50 

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/what_is_new/land_transport_overview_rules_during_coronav
irus.pdf  

26 

 
 
 
                                                           
Rail and sustainability 

-  Regulation (EU) 2020/698 laying down specific and temporary measures in view of the COVID‐19 
outbreak concerning the renewal or extension of certain certificates, licences and authorisations 
and the postponement of certain periodic checks and periodic training in certain areas of transport 
legislation (May 2020, for all transport means). The measures introduced to protect public health 
made it difficult for some transport operators, individuals and national administrations to 
complete certain formalities required under EU law, such as renewing licences. The validity date of 
certain certificates, licences and other authorisations was therefore allowed to be extended. 
Certain periodic checks in road, rail, inland waterways transport and maritime security were also 
postponed temporarily51.  

-  Directive (EU) 2020/70052 of 25 May 2020 amending Directives (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2016/798, 

as regards the extension of their transposition periods and the delegated Regulation (EU) 
2020/78253 of 12 June 2020 amending Delegated Regulations (EU) 2018/761 and (EU) 2018/762 as 
regards their dates of application following the extension of the transposition deadline of Directive 
(EU) 2016/798. This Directive allowed for a three-month extension of the deadline by which some 
Member States had to transpose EU law on rail safety and interoperability. The delay aimed to 
ensure that the sector has legal clarity and could focus its time and resources on coronavirus 
recovery (May/June 2020).  

-  Regulation 2020/1429 aiming to reduce the financial burden on the rail sector caused by the 

COVID-19 pandemic through temporary eased rules on charges (October 202054).  

51   Regulation  (EU)  2020/698  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  May  2020  laying  down 
specific and temporary measures in view of the COVID‐19 outbreak concerning the renewal or extension of 
certain  certificates,  licences  and  authorisations  and  the  postponement  of  certain  periodic  checks  and 
periodic  training  in  certain  areas  of  transport  legislation  (OJ  L  165,  27.5.2020,  p.  10),  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R0698&from=EN).  

52   Directive (EU) 2020/700 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 amending Directives 

(EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2016/798, as regards the extension of their transposition periods (OJ L 165, 
27.5.2020, p. 27), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2020.165.01.0027.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2020:165:TOC.   

53   Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2020/782  of  12  June  2020  amending  Delegated  Regulations  (EU) 
2018/761  and  (EU)  2018/762  as  regards  their  dates  of  application  following  the  extension  of  the 
transposition deadline of Directive (EU) 2016/798 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 188, 
15.6.2020, p. 14), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32020R0782.  

54   Regulation (EU) 2020/1429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 October 2020 establishing 
measures  for  a  sustainable  rail  market  in  view  of  the  COVID-19  outbreak  (OJ  L  333,  12.10.2020,  p.  1), 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R1429&from=EN.  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

2. 

2.1 

The state of the union railway network 

Description 

National  and  European  authorities  cooperate  to ensure  all  the  necessary  support  for  building  new 
rail infrastructure  and improving the  existing one  as a part of an EU-wide multimodal network. An 
integrated  EU-wide  transport  network  on  long-distances  could  bring  to  the  people  and  the 
businesses  of  the  Union  significant  benefits,  with  the  more  efficient  integration  of  people  and 
economies. Cross-border regions’ exchanges are also important. Lack of cross-border accessibility is 
one of the main obstacles preventing individuals and organisations to experience the benefits of the 
internal market; tackling missing cross-border rail links could help improving the offer for sustainable 
mobility  for  people  in  border  regions55.  The  TEN-T  Guidelines56,  the  objectives  of  the  Connecting 
Europe  Facility57,  and  the  Cohesion  Fund58  priorities  reflect  the  importance  attached  to  rail  as 
enhancer of the internal market and as a sustainable and clean mode of transport.  

Focusing on domestic networks, Figure 5 shows the reported length of the national rail networks of 
the EU Member States plus the United Kingdom and Norway59. 

55   ‘Comprehensive  analysis  of  the  existing  cross-border  rail  transport  connections  and  missing  links  on  the 
internal  EU  borders’,  DG  REGIO,  2018  (https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/transport/comprehensive-
analysis-existing-cross-border-rail-transport-connections-and-missing-links ).  

56   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. 
The  TEN-T  policy  is  currently  under  revision.  A  summary  of  the  results  of  a  full  evaluation  should  be 
published  by  the  end  of  2020.  A  proposal  for  a  revision  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  is  currently  planned  for 
2021.  

57   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. 

58   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. 

59   Cyprus and Malta are not represented in this report since they do not have railways.  

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

Figure 5: Length of national networks per country (thousand line-km, 2018) and relative change (2015-2018) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. Infill data from various other sources. 

The total length of the EU27 rail network in use in 2018 was around 201 000 line kilometres (217 000 
for EU28), which is a decrease of 0.4% compared to 2015.  

Infrastructure density 

Figure 6  illustrates the  diversity of railways in the  different  States. It compares the number of line 
kilometres  per  thousand  square  kilometres,  on  the  horizontal  axis,  with  the  number  of  line 
kilometres per million inhabitants, on the vertical axis. 

29 

-10%0%10%20%EEIENLELLTDEATBGPLLVPTHRFISKLUSISEROBECZESDKITHUFRNOUK051015202530354045DEFRPLITESSEROCZHUFIATBGSKBENLHRPTDKELIELTLVSIEELUUKNOthousand line-km 
 
 
 
 
The state of the union railway network 

Figure  6:  Density of railway network relative to  surface area  and population per country (line-km per million 

people and line-km per thousand km2, 2018) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. 

The  chart  shows  how  the  rail  network  of  Nordic  and  Baltic  countries  (Finland,  Norway,  Sweden, 
Estonia,  Latvia  and  Lithuania)  is  very  dense  when  related  to  their  population,  but  quite  sparse  if 
related  to  their  surface  area.  On  the  other  side,  we  have  countries  like  Belgium,  Germany, 
Luxembourg and the Netherlands, with a very dense rail network when related to their territory, but 
more  sparse  when  related  to  their  population  (especially  in  the  Netherlands).  In  Greece,  the  rail 
network  is  sparse  when  related  both  to  the  population  and  the  country’s  surface  area,  whereas 
Czechia has the densest network looking at both indicators at the same time.  

Electrified lines 

Figure 7 shows the proportion of the electrified network in 2018, measured in line kilometres, and 
the change compared to 2015. 

30 

SEFILVCZHUEELTSKHRSIBGATROPLDELUDKIEFRESBEITPTELNLEU27NOUK02004006008001 0001 200020406080100120140line-km per million inhabitantsline-km per thousand km² 
 
 
 
 
The state of the union railway network 

Figure  7:  Percentage  of  electrified  network  per  country  (2018)  and  change  in  the  percentage  of  electrified 

network (2015 vs 2018) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. 

While around 56% of the total EU27 network was electrified in 2018 (54% for EU28), this proportion 
ranges widely across countries from 5% in Ireland to 95% in Luxembourg. The EU27 network counted 
an  additional  855 km  of  electrified  route  since  2015,  an  increase  of  1.2  %  (for  EU28:  additional 
1 599 km for an increase of 1.7%).  

According  to  the  latest PRIME  benchmarking  report,  in  2018,  around  75%  of  total  train-kilometres 
were  travelled  thanks  to  electricity-powered  trains60  .  In  several  cases  a  higher  network  utilisation 
and density appear to be a driver for electrification; since electrifying lines require high investments, 
electrification  makes  economically  more  sense  on  busy  lines.  On  lower  density  networks  other 
approaches  may  be  more  convenient,  as  for  example  battery  powered  trains  and  hybrid-diesel 
electric locomotives.  

High-speed lines 

The Commission reports every year statistics on high-speed lines, which are defined as the lines or 
sections of lines on which trains can go faster than 250 km/h at some point during the journey61.  

Figure 8 shows the development of the EU’s high-speed network (not including the UK), which by the 
end of 2019 extended to 9 169 line kilometres (9 282 for EU28). 

60 PRIME benchmarking report 2018, available at:  
(https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/multisite/primeinfrastructure/sites/primeinfrastructure/files/prime_external_r
eport_200610.pdf ), Figure 35 comparing data provided by 12 peer infrastructure managers. 
61   Except for Austria, for which a maximum speed of 230 km/h is considered.  

31 

-6%-2%2%6%10%SIELFRDKHULTFIATBEDEITCZESPLBGLVROLUSKHRPTSEIEEENLEU27UKNO0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%LUBESEATITBGNLPTESPLFRFIDESISKHUROHRCZELDKLVEELTIEEU27NOUKProportion of line-km 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

Figure  8:  Development  of  high-speed  lines  in  Europe,  current  and  potential  (line-km,  current  2015-2019, 

further for those under construction) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. 

When  considering  also  the  length  of  high-speed  lines  currently  reported  under  construction,  the 
estimated EU27 network would have a size of 11 228 line kilometres in 2027 (11 341 for EU28). 

The  EU27  high-speed  network  increased  by  almost  1  300 km  between  2015  and  2019  (+17%)62. 
Figure 9 shows how the length of high-speed lines evolved from 2015 to 2019 in different countries.  

62   For EU28 +16%.  

32 

 02 0004 0006 0008 00010 00012 00020152016201720182019potential in 2027line-kmEU27 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

Figure 9: Length of dedicated high-speed line per country (line-km, 2015-2019) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. 

Spain is the country with the largest high-speed network (around 3 300 line kilometres). No new lines 
were  added  to  the  relatively  small  networks  in  Poland  and  Belgium  between  2015  and  2019.  The 
largest increase compared to 2015 can be seen in France (additional 676 line kilometres) and in Spain 
(additional 295 line kilometres).  

2.2 

Infrastructure management 

An  efficient  management  and  adequate  funding  of  the  rail  infrastructure  is  fundamental  for  the 
provision of efficient and sustainable rail transport services.    

Box 3: PRIME benchmarking 

The PRIME KPI subgroup was set up in 2014 with two main objectives: to monitor common trends at the 
EU level; and to benchmark  performance and by doing so to strive for better results. In 2020, the group 
presented  its  third  benchmarking  report,  covering  the  years  2012-201863.  Compared  to  the  first  two 
reports,  this  edition  includes  a  number  of  new  indicators,  a  more  complete  dataset  and  four  new 
participants  (in  total  19).  Five  infrastructure  managers  are  in  the  transitional  phase  to  join.  Taking  into 
account  its  wider  reach,  this  year’s  report  offers,  for  the  first  time,  more  detailed  explanations  and 
contextual information to make the wealth of data more accessible.  

For  the infrastructure managers, benchmarking helps to understand where each organisation stands and 
where  there  is  potential  for  improvement.  For  the  European  Commission,  there  is  an  invaluable 
opportunity to identify best practice and to monitor the progress with respect to EU policy priorities. For all 
stakeholders, it is an opportunity to observe trends as they evolve, to identify strengths and weaknesses of 

63   https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/multisite/primeinfrastructure/content/prime-members-present-third-

benchmarking-report_en  

33 

 0 5001 0001 5002 0002 5003 0003 500ESFRDEITPLBENLATDKUKline-km20152016201720182019 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

the system. 

PRIME members have jointly agreed on the key performance indicators that are relevant for their business. 
The progress on common data definitions and KPIs is documented in the catalogue, which is continuously 
refined  and  publicly  available  on  the  PRIME  website.  PRIME  continues  to  work  on  making  PRIME  key 
performance  indicators  (KPIs)  more  robust,  comparable  for  benchmarking  purposes  and  more  complete, 
by  covering  additional  aspects.  This  work  will  also  serve  as  a  basis  for  discussions  on  the  future  RMMS 
framework. 

2.2.1 

Infrastructure governance 

The  optimised,  efficient  and  non-discriminatory  management  of  the  railway  infrastructure  is 
essential for the development of railway services.  

Member  States  often  have  a  single  national  infrastructure  manager  responsible  for  the  entire 
national  network.  In  other  cases,  the  main  infrastructure  manager  operates  together  with  smaller 
ones responsible for specific lines, regional infrastructure or service facilities as shown in Table 2.  

Table 2: EU27 Main infrastructure managers with less than 100% share of total route length (2018) 

Member state 
CZ 
FR 
PL 
HU 
IT 
SE 
AT 
EE 
DE 
DK 

Share of total route length 

98% 
98% 
96% 
94% 
91% 
89% 
88% 
85% 
85% 
79% 

Source: Eighth Annual Market Monitoring Working Document, IRG-Rail 2020. 

Within the Fourth Railway Package, Directive 2016/2370 introduced additional measures to ensure 
that infrastructure managers manage their networks in an efficient and non-discriminatory manner, 
in  particular  when  they  are  part  of  a  vertically  integrated  undertaking64.  Table  3  provides  an 
overview of the institutional settings of the main infrastructure managers in the EU27 (year 2020).  

64   As defined in Article 1(c) of Directive 2016/2370/EU.   

34 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

Table 3: Institutional setting of the main infrastructure manager, EU27 (except CY and MT) 

Vertically integrated  with RU(s) 

Fully separated from 
RU(s) 

Distinct legal entities  

under a common holding 
company 

In a relation of parent 
company - subsidiary  

Department within the 
same company 

State  
administrative unit 

Public Agency 

DK 

FI, SE 

State-owned company  

BE, BG, CZ,  
EE, EL, ES,  
HR, NL, PT,  
RO, SK 

AT, DE,  
FR, IT, LT,  
PL, SI 

HU (IM = parent 
company),  

IE (the IM is a department 
of the RU) 

LV (IM = parent company) 

LU (the IM is a 
department of the same 
company as the 
passenger and freight 
RUs) 

Source: Desk research, May 2020. 

In  almost  all  Member  States,  the  infrastructure  managers  are  performing  essential  functions 
(infrastructure charging and path allocation) for their network. In Hungary, Ireland and Luxembourg 
both the infrastructure charging and path allocation are performed by a separate body. In Czechia, 
the capacity allocation is performed by an independent allocation body but only for privately owned 
railway undertakings.   

Railway  infrastructure  managers  are  usually  only  in  charge  of  the  management  of  railway 
infrastructure, with some notable exceptions: in Finland, Väylävirasto’s modal competence covers all 
public  passenger  and  freight  traffic  on  state-owned  railroads,  state-owned  road  infrastructure  and 
most Finnish waterways and channels. In Portugal, Infraestruturas de Portugal’s modal competences 
include rail and road infrastructure. In Sweden, Trafikverket is competent for railway infrastructure, 
long-term infrastructure planning for road traffic, management of rail traffic, shipping and aviation, 
as  well  as  for  the  construction  and  operation  of  state  roads  and  railways.  The  Swedish  Transport 
Administration may also, in agreement with the Swedish Maritime Administration, take responsibility 
for the implementation of infrastructure projects in fairways, locks and canals.  

Directive 2016/2370 provides for the main infrastructure managers to participate and cooperate in a 
European network of infrastructure managers to facilitate the provision of efficient and effective rail 
services within the Union. The Platform of Rail Infrastructure Managers in Europe (PRIME65), created 
initially on a voluntary basis in 2013, became in 2017 the formal European Network of infrastructure 
managers, as provided for in the Fourth Railway Package.  

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

35 

 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

Contractual agreements 

EU transport policy aims to set the legal framework for infrastructure managers and Member States 
to provide rail infrastructure at the best value for money. Maintaining the infrastructure is crucial for 
the  competitiveness  of  the  rail  system  as  a  whole.  However,  there  is  still  concern  about  the 
sustainable financing of existing rail infrastructure, the quality of infrastructure service and the issue 
of how to get infrastructure managers to perform better.  

Article 30(2) of Directive 2012/34/EU provides for contractual agreement to be concluded between 
the competent authority and the infrastructure manager, covering a period of not less than 5 years 
and  including  elements  as  specified  in  the  Directive.  Table  4  shows  the  contractual  agreements  as 
reported in 2018 by Member States in the RMMS. 

Table 4: Contractual agreements between competent authorities and infrastructure managers 

Number of contractual 
agreements 

Performance indicators 
included 

Monitoring body  

AT 
BE 
BG 
CZ 
DE  
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 
LU 
LV 
NL 

PL 

PT 
RO 

SE 

SI 
SK 

UK 

NO 

Source: RMMS 2020.  

YES 
YES 
YES 
n/a 
YES 
YES 
YES 
n/a 
n/a 
n/a 
NO 
NO 
NO 
NO 
YES 
YES (all) 

YES 
YES 
NO 
NO 
YES 
NO 
YES 
YES 
NO 
NO 
YES 
YES 

YES 
YES 
YES 
NO 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

1 
1 

2 

1 

12 

1 
1 
1 
1 

2 

1 
1 

2 

1 
1 

3 

1 

NO 
YES 
YES 
NO 
YES 
NO 
YES 
n/a 
n/a 
n/a 
YES 
NO 
YES 
YES 
YES 
YES (6) 
NO (6) 
YES 
NO 
YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 
NO 
NO 
NO 
YES 

YES 
YES 
YES 
YES 

36 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
The state of the union railway network 

2.2.2 

Infrastructure expenditure 

The EU has set very ambitious goals to realise a core Trans-European transport (TEN-T) network by 
2030  and  a  comprehensive  network  by  205066.  Realising  the  core  network  alone  requires 
investments  of  around  EUR  500  billion  over  2021-203067.  Rail  is  particularly  involved  since  rail 
infrastructure is an important element of the TEN-T network. In April 2019, the Commission launched 
a review of the TEN-T policy68. In the past few years, awareness was raised on new dimensions of the 
TEN-T policy, as for example the movement of military forces (troops, assets and equipment) within 
and beyond the EU, which was identified in the action plan on military mobility69. 

Enhancing  rail  infrastructure  investments  is  also  one  of  the  main  objectives  of  national  transport 
policies.  Member  States  have  the  obligation,  stemming  from  Article  8  of  Directive  2012/34/EU,  to 
publish an indicative rail infrastructure development strategy in order to meet future mobility needs 
in  terms  of  maintenance,  renewal  and  development  of  their  infrastructure  based  on  sustainable 
financing of the railway system. 

Figure  10  shows  the  total  annual  infrastructure  expenditure  as  the  sum  of  network  maintenance, 
renewals,  upgrades  and  investments  into  new  infrastructure  of  the  EU27  Member  States  for  the 
years 2011 to 2018 for EU27. The dotted line  indicates  the share of maintenance  and renewals on 
total infrastructure expenditure. 

Figure 10: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion of maintenance and renewals (EUR billion, 2011-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

66   TEN-T comprises two network ‘layers’: 

- 
- 

the core network includes the most important connections, linking the most important nodes. 
the comprehensive network covers all European regions. 
The backbone of the core network is represented by nine core network corridors, which were identified 
to streamline and facilitate the coordinated development of the core network.  

67   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2019-09-cbs3-report.pdf  
68   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t/review_en  
69   http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-2521_en.htm  

37 

7,47,710,99,89,09,59,810,27,67,46,19,410,310,19,710,47,814,414,616,79,59,08,610,010,37,99,18,00%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%05101520253035404520112012201320142015201620172018% of EUREUR billionEU27MaintenanceRenewalsUpgradesNew InfrastructureProportion of maintenance and renewals 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

Total EU27 infrastructure expenditure rose from EUR 22.8 billion in 2011 to EUR 38.7 billion in 201870 
(from EUR 29.2 billion to EUR 47.5 billion for EU28). Of 2018 expenditure, 26% was on maintenance, 
27% on renewals, 26% on upgrades and 21% in investments into new infrastructure.  

The  RMMS  gathers  data  on  expenditure  in  new  investments  only  since  2015.  Between  2015  and 
2018,  the  share  of  maintenance,  renewals  and  upgrades  expenditures  into  the  existing  network 
slightly  increased, whereas  the  share  of  new  investments was  more variable and  finally  decreased 
probably due to budgetary reasons.  

Figure  11  shows  the  total  annual  infrastructure  expenditure  per  country  in  2018  as  the  sum  of 
network maintenance, renewals, upgrades and investments into new infrastructure. The horizontal 
bar chart indicates the relative share of maintenance and renewals of existing infrastructure in total 
annual expenditures. 

Figure 11: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion of maintenance and renewals per country (EUR billion, 

2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

Total infrastructure expenditure in 2018 was highest in Germany, France, Italy and the United 
Kingdom. Highest expenditure for new infrastructure has been reported in Austria and Spain, 
whereas highest expenditure for infrastructure upgrades can be seen in the United Kingdom and 
Italy71. 
In 2018, total maintenance and renewal expenditure in the EU27 amounted to EUR 20.6 billion (25.8 
for EU28), i.e. 53% of the total expenditure (54% for EU28). The highest proportion was for Latvia and 
Estonia (100%), and the lowest was for Greece (5%). 

70   With a peak of EUR 39.1 billion in 2015 (for EU28: peak of EUR 49.5 billion in the same year).  
71   Not all countries were able to distinguish in their reporting between investment in new infrastructure and 

upgrades.  

38 

012345678910DEFRITATESPLNLSECZBEDKFILUSKHUSIIEHRLVELLTBGPTEEUKNOEUR billionMaintenanceRenewalsUpgradesNew Infrastructure0%50%100%LVEEIEHUFIHRLTFRBENLSKCZLUDESIBGPTATSEDKESPLITELUKNO% of EUR 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

Figure 12 shows the total annual infrastructure expenditure per inhabitant in 2018 per country. 

Figure 12: Expenditure on infrastructure per inhabitant per country (EUR, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020, Eurostat, 2020.  

In 2018 the average infrastructure expenditure per inhabitant in the EU27 was EUR 87 (EUR 93 for 
EU28). The highest level by far can be seen in Luxembourg (EUR 706 per inhabitant).   

Using different  metrics, in 2018 the  average  infrastructure expenditure per household in the EU27 
was  EUR  194  (EUR  223  for  EU28).  Looking  at  the  distribution  per country  (Figure  13), Luxembourg 
shows again the highest value (EUR 1 691 per household).  

Between 2015 and 2018, the average expenditure either per inhabitant or per household increased 
only in Estonia, Portugal, Germany, Croatia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Italy, Slovakia and Finland. 

Figure 13: Expenditure on infrastructure per household per country (EUR, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020, Eurostat, 2020. 

39 

0100200300400500600700800LUATSEDKCZSINLFRDEBEFILVITSKPLLTIEESEEHRHUBGELPTEU27NOUKEUR per inhabitant 0 200 400 600 8001 0001 2001 4001 6001 800LUATDKCZSESIFRNLBESKDELVFIITPLIEHRESLTEEHUBGELPTEU27UKEUR per household 
 
 
 
 
 
The state of the union railway network 

Figure  14  shows  the  sum  of  annual  infrastructure  maintenance,  renewal  and  enhancement 
expenditure per line kilometre per country for the years 2015 to 2018. 

Figure  14:  Expenditure  on  maintenance,  renewal  and  enhancement  per  line-km  per  country  (EUR  thousand, 

2015-2018)  

Source: RMMS, 2020, Statistical pocketbook, 2020. RO 2017, 2018 not available, Issues with EE 2015 data. 

The EU27 average rose slightly from EUR 143 000 per line kilometre to EUR 153 000 per line 
kilometre in 2018 (182 000 for EU28). Luxembourg reported the highest expenditure, whereas 
Greece and Romania are at the lowest end of the surveyed countries. 

40 

 0 200 400 600 8001 0001 200LUNLBEFRATITDKSIDECZPLIESKLVFIHRSELTESEEPTHUBGELROEU27UKNOEUR thousand per line-km2015201620172018 
 
 
 
 
 
The state of the union railway network 

Figure 15 shows the average annual infrastructure expenditure per country from 2015 to 2018 as a 
sum  of  average  expenditures  for  conventional  lines,  high-speed  lines,  major  stations  and  major 
freight terminals. 

Figure 15: Expenditure by category by country (EUR billion, average of 2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

Average total infrastructure expenditure was highest in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. 
The same applies for expenditure for conventional lines. Average expenditure for high-speed lines 
was highest in France and Spain. According to the figures reported in the RMMS72, expenditure for 
major stations was highest in Germany and the Netherlands, while expenditure for major freight 
terminals was highest in Austria.  

72   Reporting on stations and freight terminals expenditure is quite fragmented.  

41 

012345678910DEFRITESATPLSENLCZBEDKFILUSKHUSIELIELVBGLTROHRPTEEUKNOEUR billionConventional linesDedicated high-speed linesMajor stationsMajor freight terminals 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

Figure  16  shows  the  data  available  on  average  annual  expenditure  dedicated  to  high-speed  lines 
between 2015 and 2018. 

Figure  16:  Expenditure  on  high-speed  rail  by  typology  of  expenditure  and  by  Member  State  (EUR  billion, 

average 2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Partially missing data for BE, DE, IT, NL. 

In  the  top  three  Member  States  by  expenditure  (France,  Spain  and  Germany),  more  than 
EUR 4 billion on average were allocated to upgrades over the relevant period. Another EUR 3.5 billion 
on  average  were  allocated  to  the  construction  of  new  infrastructure.  Infrastructure  maintenance 
(EUR 0.6 billion) and renewals (EUR 0.2 billion) played a minor role in these countries.  

2.2.3 

Infrastructure funding and financing 

A  modern, 
competitiveness and to meet the challenges linked to sustainable, smart and inclusive growth.   

is  necessary  to  strengthen  the  EU’s  global 

integrated  rail  transport  system 

Resources to maintain and improve the rail infrastructure come from a variety of sources, including 
national  public  funding,  EU  projects’  support  and  railway-generated  funds  such  as  revenue  from 
track access charges.  

Overall, the EU27 Member States reported EUR 35.7 billion of funding for rail infrastructure in 2018 
(44.6 for EU2873). National budgets contributed to total expenditure  and investment by about 70% 
(more  precisely  72%  in  EU27  and  69%  in  EU28),  whereas  EU  co-financing  accounted  for  8%  in  the 
EU27 (7% EU28). The remaining share of financing (19% for EU27 or 25% for EU28) came from other 

73   Member States did not indicate in the RMMS the source of funding for about EUR 3 billion of total EUR 38.7 

billion reported as infrastructure expenditure.  

42 

01234FRESDEDKITBELTNLCZUKEUR billionMaintenanceRenewalsUpgradesNew Infrastructure 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

sources, including loans, equity financing and charges74. The United Kingdom, France and Germany 
show a significant share of own funds, whereas the highest share of EU funds was received by Poland 
(Figure 17).  

Figure 17: Rail infrastructure funding by source and country (EUR billion, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. RO not available. 

Box 4: Extensive study on infrastructure managers’ funding and financing 

The  platform  of  rail  infrastructure  managers  in  Europe  (PRIME)  will  carry  out  an  extensive  study  of 
infrastructure managers’ charging and funding mechanisms, which will be completed in 2021.The study will 
assess how the mechanism of railway funding can make a difference and enable an infrastructure manager 
to  deliver  tangible  improvements.  These  improvements  could  be  in  all  dimensions  of  the  railway’s 
performance including safety, punctuality, capacity, efficiency and sustainability.  

The study will consist of two parts:  

-  an overview of railway funding and financing, exploring in detail state funding; and  
-  an overview of track access charging including its various components.  

The aim will be to:  

-  describe the existing structures and mechanisms of railway funding and financing in each Member 

State; 

-  understand the reasoning behind the national systems, considering the individual context; 
-  highlight the experience made with these systems, both with regard to positive outcomes as well 

as difficulties encountered;  
identify lessons learnt and experiences that can be shared to inform policy and implementation; 

- 

74   Percentages rounded here, so apparently do not add up to 100%. For exact figures, see the Excel file 

published on DG MOVE website: 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/market/market_monitoring_en .  

43 

012345678910DEITFRATESPLNLSECZBEDKFISKHUSILUIEHRLVELLTBGPTEEUKNOEUR billionPublic fundsEU fundsOwn funds 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

and  

-  draw some conclusions that might help stakeholders to review their existing arrangements and 

provide inspiration for further improvement. 

Focusing  on  EU  funding  and  financing75,  different  instruments  are  available  in  order  to  provide 
financial  support  to  the  rail  sector  in  achieving  a  sustainable,  smart  and  inclusive  growth  and 
ensuring EU global competitiveness:  

-  Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) 
-  European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFs), including notably:  

o  Cohesion Fund (CF) 
o  European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 

-  European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) 
-  Horizon 2020  

Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) 

CEF general goals  

The Connecting  Europe  Facility76  is an EU funding instrument for strategic investment in transport, 
energy and telecom infrastructure77 with a total financial envelope of more than EUR 30 billion under 
the  current  CEF  programming  period  2014-202078.  The  CEF  funds  rely  on  a  general  CEF  envelope, 
available to all Member States, and a cohesion envelope for eligible Member States funded with CF 
resources.  

This programme is implemented through grants and financial instruments. Grants represent the vast 
majority  of  allocated  funds,  with  an  indicative  envelope  of  EUR  28.8  billion  for  the  three  pillars 
(transport, energy and telecom79). The Innovation and Networks Executive  Agency (INEA) manages 
CEF grants, as well as part of the programme support  actions (PSAs).  CEF financial instruments are 
managed with the  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB) to which  they  provide  risk-bearing  capacity  for 
eligible investments. In some cases, CEF grants and financial instruments can be associated under the 
same project.  

CEF for transport  

In  the  transport  sector,  the  CEF  implements  the  TEN-T,  supports  investments  in  cross-border 
connections  and  missing  links  and  promotes  sustainability  and  digitalisation.  It  supports  studies 
(including  pilot  deployment  activities)  and  building  works  for  new  transport  infrastructure  or  for 
rehabilitating and upgrading existing infrastructure.  

The  transport  sector  is  the  major  beneficiary  of  CEF  funding  for  the  current  programming  period 
2014-2020,  with  a  grant  budget  alone  of  EUR  23.7  billion,  including  EUR  11.3  billion  reserved  for 
Member States eligible for cohesion funding. Funding is mainly directed to actions on the TEN-T core 

75   Funding  refers  to  non-repayable  support  in  the  form  of  grants,  financing  refers  to  repayable  support 

including debt.    

76   CEF Regulation: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1316 
77   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/cef_en  
78   The key features of the CEF, its achievements until July 2019 and a brief outlook on future challenges are 
available here: https://ec.europa.eu/inea/sites/inea/files/cefpub/cef_implementation_brochure_2019.pdf .  

79   See previous footnote. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

network and actions linked to horizontal priorities, such as the deployment of ERTMS in rail (notably 
covered  under  the  Blending  Facility80).  As  noted  above,  CEF  support  can  also  be  delivered  through 
the CEF Debt Instrument, which de-risks specific EIB investments in the sector.  

As of April 2020, EUR 21 billion were already allocated to actions in the transport sector, i.e. 84% of 
total CEF allocated funds so far. Of this, EUR 11.1 billion (53%) came from the CEF general envelope 
and EUR 10 billion (47%) from the cohesion envelope.  

CEF for rail  

A predominant part of the CEF funding for transport (69%) has been allocated to railway actions, as 
shown by Table 5.  

Table 5: Allocation of CEF transport funds to railway actions (April 2020) 

CEF transport mode 

Rail 

 - of which cohesion envelope 
 - of which general envelope 

Road 
Maritime 
Air 
Inland waterways 
Other 
Grand Total 

Number of projects 

Actual funding (EUR bn) 

% funding 

323 
99 
224 
181 
148 
74 
65 
3 
794 

14.7 
7.9 
6.7 
2.0 
1.6 
1.6 
1.3 
0.0 
21.2 

69% 
54% 
46% 
10% 
7% 
7% 
6% 
0% 
100% 

Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA). 

Table 6 shows how the majority of CEF funds allocated to rail (97.8%) aimed at removing bottlenecks 
bridging missing links and enhancing rail interoperability, in particular on the core network corridors 
and  for  the  European  Rail  Traffic  Management  System  (ERTMS).  The  table  presents  data  following 
the three funding objectives of the CEF regulation.  

Table 6: Allocation of CEF funds to railway actions per funding objective (April 2020) 

Number of 
projects 

Actual contribution 
(EUR bn) 

% funding 

Funding objective 1 - Removing bottlenecks, bridging missing  

    links, enhancing rail interoperability 

European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) 
Pre-identified projects on the core network corridors 
Pre-identified projects on the other sections of the core network 
Projects on the core and comprehensive networks 
Projects to connect with neighbouring countries 
Rail interoperability 

Funding objective 2 - Sustainable and efficient transport systems 

Freight transport services 
New technologies and innovation 
Rail freight noise 

Funding objective 3 - integration, interconnection  

    and interoperability of transport modes 

Better accessibility to transport infrastructure for disabled persons 
Multimodal logistics platforms 

Nodes of the core network 

Grand total 

Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA). 

241 

58 
116 
15 
26 
1 
25 
33 
9 
7 
17 
49 

1 
22 
26 

323 

14.4 

1.0 
12.4 
0.7 
0.2 
0.0 
0.1 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.1 
0.2 

0.0 
0.1 
0.1 

14.7 

97.8% 

6.5% 
84.2% 
4.8% 
1.5% 
0.0% 
0.8% 
0.6% 
0.2% 
0.1% 
0.4% 
1.6% 

0.0% 
0.6% 
1.0% 

100.0% 

80   https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/apply-funding/blending-facility  

45 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

If  we  look  at  the  allocation  of  CEF  transport  funds  to  rail  actions  by  Member  State,  we  see  that 
Poland is the major beneficiary of CEF funds for rail (19% of total allocated funds). Looking in details 
at CEF funds under the cohesion envelope, which represent 54% of total allocated funds, Poland is by 
far the major beneficiary, followed by Czechia and Hungary. From the general envelope,  Germany, 
Italy and France are the major beneficiaries (Table 7). 

Table 7: Allocation of CEF transport funds to rail actions per envelope and per Member State (April 2020) 

Country 

General envelope 

Cohesion envelope 

TOTAL 

Number of 
projects 

Actual 
funding  
(EUR m) 

% funding 
from general 
envelope 

Number of 
projects 

Actual 
funding  (EUR 
m) 

% funding 
from 
cohesion 
envelope 

Actual 
funding  (EUR 
m) 

% funding 

753.1   
111.4   
352.4   
896.3   
1 730.1   
719.5   
178.3   
17.4   
511.3   
557.5   
27.3   
847.6   
262.1   
840.5   
11.6   
1 202.6   
310.7   
28.0   
271.5   
157.3   
2 788.3   
598.1   
798.7   
150.2   
278.2   
208.1   

67.1   

5.13% 
0.76% 
2.40% 
6.11% 
11.79% 
4.90% 
1.21% 
0.12% 
3.48% 
3.80% 
0.19% 
5.78% 
1.79% 
5.73% 
0.08% 
8.20% 
2.12% 
0.19% 
1.85% 
1.07% 
19.00% 
4.08% 
5.44% 
1.02% 
1.90% 
1.42% 

0.46% 

352.3   
857.9   

4.44% 
10.80% 

177.3   

2.23% 

506.5   

6.38% 

261.4   
840.5   

3.29% 
10.59% 

310.7   

3.91% 

270.4   

3.41% 

34.28% 
5.89% 
10.06% 

2.11% 
2.61% 

2 722.1   
467.9   
798.7   

167.4   
207.3   

7 940.5   

54.11% 

100.00% 

14 675.3   
100.00% 

100.00% 

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

UK 

20  
26  
3  
4  
51  
6  
2  
8  
5  
44  
5  
49  
3  

3  
27  

6  
2  
22  
10  
7  

13  
6  
4  

9  

TOTAL 

335  

753.1   
111.4   
0.1   
38.4   
1 730.1   
719.5   
1.0   
17.4   
4.8   
557.5   
27.3   
847.6   
0.7   

11.6   
1 202.6   

28.0   
1.1   
157.3   
66.2   
130.1   

150.2   
110.8   
0.8   

67.1   

6 734.8   
45.89% 

11.18% 
1.65% 
0.00% 
0.57% 
25.69% 
10.68% 
0.01% 
0.26% 
0.07% 
8.28% 
0.40% 
12.59% 
0.01% 
0.00% 
0.17% 
17.86% 
0.00% 
0.42% 
0.02% 
2.34% 
0.98% 
1.93% 
0.00% 
2.23% 
1.65% 
0.01% 

1.00% 

4 
32 

3 

6 

4 
10 

4 

3 

19 
4 
6 

5 
10 

100.00% 

110 

Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA). 

46 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
The state of the union railway network 

Looking  at  the  allocation of  CEF  transport  funds  to rail  actions  per Member  State  and  per  funding 
objective  (Figure  18),  we  see  that  the  majority  of  funding  goes  to  Poland,  Germany  and  Italy,  in 
particular for Funding Objective 1.  

Figure 18: Allocation of CEF transport funds to rail actions per Member State and per funding objective (April 

2020) 

Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA). 

European structural and investment funds (ESIFs) 

Over  half  of  EU  funding  is  channelled  through  the  five  European  structural  and  investment  funds 
(ESIFs81). Most of the support provided under the ESIFs is channelled through grants. 

Under  the  2014-2020  multiannual  financial  framework,  cohesion  policy  focused  on  11  thematic 
objectives, sustainable transport and network infrastructure being one of them.  

The  Cohesion  Fund  (CF82)  and  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF83)  were  the  main 
sources of funding for this thematic objective.  

Both the CF and the ERDF are managed together by the Member States and the Commission through 
partnership agreements (whereas part of the CF is directly channelled through CEF, as noted above).  

81   European Regional Development  Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), Cohesion Fund (CF), European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).  
82   The CF aims to reduce economic and social disparities and to promote sustainable development. It is aimed 
at Member States  whose gross national income per inhabitant  is less than 90% of the EU average (in  the 
MFF  2014-2020  this  included  BG,  HR,  CY,  CZ,  EE,  EL,  HU,  LV,  LT,  MT,  PL,  PT,  RO,  SK  and  SI 
(https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/cohesion-fund/).   

83   The ERDF aims to strengthen economic and social cohesion in the EU by correcting imbalances between its 
regions. The ERDF resources are available to all regions within the Union, depending on the category of the 
beneficiary  region, 
less  developed  regions 
(https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/erdf/).  

i.e.  more  developed  regions,  transition  regions  and 

47 

 0 5001 0001 5002 0002 5003 000PLDEITCZFRHUROATDKPTESELBGLTSILVHRSKEENLSEBELUFIIEUKEUR millionFunding Objective 1Funding Objective 2Funding Objective 3 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

Overall  26%  of  CF  and  ERDF  funding  for  transport  was  allocated  to  rail-related  projects  (EUR  18.6 
billion out of EUR 70.7 billion). The detail of rail allocation is provided in Table 8.  

Table 8: ERDF and CF allocated in rail programmes (May 2020) 

Railways (TEN-T Core) 
Railways (TEN-T comprehensive) 
Other railways 

Mobile rail assets 

TOTAL 

Source: DG REGIO. 

Cohesion Fund  
(EUR million) 

European Regional Development 
Fund  
(EUR million) 

 Total 
(EUR million) 

5 658 
3 670 
1 709 

1 359 

2 655 
483 
2 296 

797 

8 312 
4 153 
4 006 

2 156 

18 627 

Looking at the distribution of allocated funds per Member States (Table 9), we see that Poland has 
been the major beneficiary, followed by Czechia. 

Table 9: ERDF and CF allocated in rail programmes per Member State (EUR million, May 2020) 

Railways  
(TEN-T Core) 

Railways  
(TEN-T comprehensive) 

Other  
railways 

Mobile  
rail assets 

Total 

of which: 
from CF 

of which: 
from ERDF 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DE 
EE 
ES 

FR 
GR 
HR 
HU 
IT 
LT 
LV 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
TC 
UK 

538.00 
212.41 

29.81 
1 471.65 

434.70 
390.00 
480.00 
636.75 
244.14 
404.89 
1 184.14 
207.00 
1 253.49 
17.97 
198.00 
605.84 
3.60 

3.19 

926.21 

277.44 

286.28 

29.81 
10.41 

42.60 

230.00 
205.04 

22.54 
2 260.64 
239.00 
29.12 
5.25 

121.72 
6.36 
23.89 

32.49 
209.39 

8.00 
50.00 
170.00 
509.53 
62.27 
2.50 
2 452.47 
86.78 
6.53 
6.69 

72.23 
30.18 
25.82 

50.21 
300.00 
176.97 

939.04 

183.71 

210.00 
1.50 
8.61 

3.19 
538.00 
1 702.34 

92.12 
1 691.45 

485.30 
490.21 
1 180.00 
1 528.29 
306.41 
429.93 
6 836.31 
532.78 
1 472.86 
29.91 
198.00 
1 009.79 
41.64 
58.31 

538.00 
1 702.34 

92.12 

281.25 
490.21 
1 140.00 

244.14 
429.93 
5 009.70 
446.00 
1 118.28 

158.00 
745.84 

Total 

8 312.39 

4 152.59 

4 005.53 

2 156.32 

18 626.83 

12 395.80 

Source: DG REGIO. 

3.19 

1 691.45 

204.05 

40.00 
1 528.29 
62.27 

1 826.61 
86.78 
354.58 
29.91 
40.00 
263.95 
41.64 
58.31 

6 231.03 

48 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
The state of the union railway network 

Figure 19 shows the rate of CF and ERDF funding per line kilometre allocated to each Member State, 
with Poland being allocated more funding per line kilometre than any other Member State. 

Figure 19: Allocation of CF and ERDF funding per line-km (EUR thousand per line-km, May 2020) 

Source: INEA, DG REGIO and Statistical pocketbook 2020.  

European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) 

Established in July 2015 as one of the three pillars of the Investment Plan for Europe, EFSI was jointly 
launched by the European Commission and the EIB Group (European Investment Bank and European 
Investment Fund - EIF) to help overcome the investment gap in the EU and foster economic growth, 
employment and competitiveness after the global economic and financial crisis. EFSI thereby aims to 
mobilise private investment in projects that are strategically important for the EU, including rail. 

EFSI initially consisted in a EUR 21 billion programme (EUR 16 billion portfolio guarantee from the EU 
budget  and  a  5  EUR  billion  capital  contribution  from  the  EIB)  expected  to  leverage  up  to  EUR  315 
billion in investments by mid-201884. Given the success of the programme, its investment period was 
extended until end-2020, with an additional EUR 10 billion portfolio guarantee from the EU budget, 
an additional 2.5 EUR billion capital contribution from EIB and a raised target in terms of investments 
to mobilise up to EUR 500 billion85.  

84   Allowing EIB to provide funding for economically viable projects with a higher risk profile than usually taken 

on by the bank.  

85   https://www.eib.org/attachments/documents/efsi_in_2019_en.pdf  

49 

368,8278,4231,1211,7209,3188,2181,0163,8160,3152,2136,8133,5106,491,189,22,70,93,6050100150200250300350400PLSKLVELPTHRCZSILTHUROBGESITEESEBEUKAllocation per line-km (EUR thousand) 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

Table 10 shows the total investment mobilised under EFSI and the total EIB financing benefiting from 
the EFSI coverage (for approved operations).  

Table 10: EFSI financing – Approved operations until December 2019 

Total EFSI (EIB + EIF) 
Total EFSI EIB 
EFSI objective: Development of transport infrastructures,  
    and equipment and innovative technologies for transport 

Rail  

Source: EIB. 

Horizon 2020 – Shift2Rail 

  - out of which rolling stock 

Investment mobilised  
by EFSI  
(EUR million) 

Investment covered by EFSI 
guarantee 
(EUR million) 

458.0 
329.0 
36.2 

5.1 
5.0 

84.2 
75.4 
11.3 

1.6 
1.5 

Horizon 2020 (H2020) is the financial instrument implementing the Innovation Union, a Europe 2020 
flagship  initiative  aimed  at  securing  Europe’s  global  competitiveness.  Funding  opportunities  under 
H2020 are set out in multiannual work programmes, prepared by the European Commission within 
the  framework  provided  by  the  H2020  legislation  and  through  a  strategic  programming  process 
integrating EU policy objectives in the priority setting.  

Under  H2020,  the  ‘Transport  Challenge’  is  allocated  a  budget  of  EUR  6  339  million  for  the  period 
2014-2020 and will contribute to four key objectives, each supported by specific activities:  

- 

resource efficient transport that respects the environment by making aircraft, vehicles and 
vessels cleaner and quieter to minimise transport systems’ impact on climate and the 
environment, by developing smart equipment, infrastructures and services and by improving 
transport and mobility in urban areas. 

-  better mobility, less congestion, more safety and security with a substantial reduction of 

traffic congestion; with a substantial improvement in the mobility of people and freight; by 
developing new concepts of freight transport and logistics and by reducing accident rates, 
fatalities and casualties and improving security. 

-  a global leadership for the European transport industry by reinforcing the competitiveness 
and performance of European transport manufacturing industries and related services 
including logistic processes and retaining areas of European leadership (e.g. such as 
aeronautics). 

-  socio-economic and behavioural research and forward looking activities for policy-making. 

The aim is to support improved policy-making, which is necessary to promote innovation and 
meet the challenges raised by transport and the societal needs related to it. 

The rail research and innovation is not done under traditional work programmes in H2020 but by the 
Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking (S2R JU86), established by Council Regulation (EU) No 642/201487.  

S2R  JU  fosters  the  introduction  of  better  trains  to  the  market  (quieter,  more  comfortable,  more 
dependable, etc.), which operate on an innovative rail network infrastructure reliably from the first 

86   https://shift2rail.org/  
87   The  Transport  Challenge  of  the  H2020  contains  also  a  number  of  cross-modal  topics  for  which  the  rail 
supply industry may still apply. Other H2020 work programmes (e.g. security) have also topics focusing on 
transport, relevant for the rail industry (https://shift2rail.org/participate/other-funding-of-interest/). 

50 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                           
The state of the union railway network 

day  of  service  introduction,  at  a  lower  life-cycle  cost,  with  more  capacity  to  cope  with  growing 
passenger  and  freight  mobility  demand.  All  this  is  developed  by  European  companies,  thereby 
increasing their competitiveness in the global marketplace. 

S2R JU also aims to support modal shift by making rail more attractive to users. For passengers, this 
focuses  on  more  travel  options,  more  comfort  and 
freight 
forwarders/shippers, rail freight should offer a more cost-effective, punctual and traceable shipment 
option. 

improved  punctuality.  For 

The  maximum  financial  contribution  of  the  Union  to  S2R  JU  is  EUR  450  million,  matched  by  a 
contribution of EUR 470 million from the industry members.  

The European Commission is planning to put forward a proposal for a European Partnership on Rail 
Research  and  Innovation  in  accordance  with  the Treaty on  the  Functioning of the  European  Union 
(TFEU),  building  upon  the  current  Shift2Rail  Joint  Undertaking,  currently  called  ‘Transforming 
Europe’s  Rail  System’.  The  future  Rail  European  Partnership  will  focus  on  accelerating  research, 
development and demonstrations of innovative technologies and operational solutions, enabled by 
digitalisation and automation88.  

88   For further information see: https://shift2rail.org/shift2rail-successor/. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of rail services 

3. 

The evolution of rail services 

Traffic volume indicators of this section expressed in passenger kilometres and tonne kilometres are 
based  on  RMMS  data  as  available  from  2005  on.  This  data  covers  exactly  the  scope  of  Directive 
2012/34/EU and provides breakdowns of volumes in terms of market segments (passenger/freight, 
domestic/international, PSO/non-PSO). Eurostat also reports traffic volumes in passenger kilometres 
and tonne kilometres  per country, but  figures  could 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 for missing 
data). 

Since  data  on  train  kilometres  has  been  reported  in  the  RMMS  only  after  the  entry  into  force  of 
Regulation 2015/1100, figures reported by Eurostat, UIC and IRG-Rail have been combined to acquire 
a dataset as complete as possible for the years before 2015.  

Finally,  to  assess  the  modal  split,  which  requires  combining  the  data  of  different  modes,  only 
Eurostat data are used. 

3.1 

Traffic volumes 

Rail transports some 1.6 billion tonnes of freight and 7.1 billion passengers every year in the EU2789 
(1.6 and 8.9 respectively in EU2890). Rail transport is critical as it offers a more sustainable transport 
option,  strengthens  economic  and  social  cohesion  and  connects  EU  citizens,  within  and  between 
Member States.  

The  present  report  covers  data  up  to  2018  and  therefore  does  not  provide  any  evidence  of  the 
impact  of the  COVID-19 pandemic on the sector. While  rail, especially freight, continued to run all 
throughout 2020, the number of international passengers has been severely down during lockdowns, 
and demand overall reduced by uncertainty and economic downturn.  

89   Source  Eurostat.  Freight  data  EU27  do  not  include  BE,  which  labelled  data  confidential;  passenger  data 

EU27 do not include BE, HU, NL and PL, which labelled data confidential. 

90   See previous footnote.  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of rail services 

Figure 20 summarises trends in passenger and freight volumes over the period 2005 to 2018. 

Figure 20: Passenger and freight volumes (pax-km, tonne-km and train-km, 2005-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Infill data from various other sources and estimates. The 2015 and 2016 data for RO are 
estimates;  the  data  also  include  adjustments  to  the  2018  pax-km  value  for  BE,  the  2015  and  2016  tonne-km 
values for ES, NL and LU, and the 2015 and 2016 train-km values for IE. 

Total train kilometres, which include both passenger and freight train movements, remained for the 
most part  stable between 2009 and 2018, after a significant increase in the period before the 2008 
financial and economic crisis. Total passenger services measured in passenger kilometres increased 
quite  smoothly,  whereas  freight  services  measured  in  tonne  kilometres  increased  comparatively 
more over the same period, albeit with a few ups and downs.  

53 

3 0003 2003 4003 6003 8004 0004 2004 4004 60030032034036038040042044046020052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018pax/freight train-km (million)pax/tonne-km (billion)EU27passenger servicesfreight servicestotal train-km 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

On average, passenger traffic in terms of passenger kilometres in Europe increased by 2.5% annually 
between 2015 and 2018 (CAGR; 2.4%  including the UK),  as shown by  Figure 21. Freight  services in 
terms  of  tonne  kilometres  increased  by  4.1%  in  the  same  period  (3.8%  including  the  UK).  Highest 
increase for passenger  services was  in Estonia (+13%), whereas  Croatia lost  7% annually. In freight 
services,  the  highest  increase  was  in  Bulgaria  (+22%),  whereas  Luxembourg  and  Ireland  lost  29% 
annually.  

Figure 21: Passenger and freight volumes, compound annual growth rate per country (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Data adjusted for BE, EE, RO. 

54 

-40 %-30 %-20 %-10 %0 %10 %20 %30 %BGHUNLELPTFIHRSELTDEPLSIEECZITATFRSKDKLVBEESROLUIEEU27NOUKfreight-10 %-5 %0 %5 %10 %15 %EEROSKLTCZPTPLIEBEFIDEATESITNLSELVLUHUFRBGDKSIELHREU27UKNOpassenger 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Rail  transport’s  focus  varies  between  countries.  On  average,  80%  of  all  train  kilometres  run  in  the 
EU27  in  2018  were  passenger  services  (82%  in  EU28).  Figure  22  shows  that  the  highest  share  of 
passenger  services  is  reported  for  Ireland  (97%),  Denmark  (95%),  the  United  Kingdom  (94%), 
Luxembourg  and  the  Netherlands  (both  93%).  The  highest  share  of  freight  services  is  reported  for 
Latvia (62%), Lithuania (61%) and Slovenia (53%). Based on available data, between 2015 and 2018 
passenger services increased by 53 million train kilometres in Romania and decreased by 34 million 
train kilometres in France. For freight services, in the same period the highest growth was in Poland 
(+13  million  train  kilometres)  and  the  largest  decline  was  in  the  United  Kingdom  (-4  million  train 
kilometres) and in Latvia (-2 million train kilometres). 

Figure  22:  Relative  share  of  passenger  and  freight  train-km  on  total  train-km  per  country  (%  in  2018)  and 

evolution (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. RO 2015 and 2016 estimated. 

55 

-50050PLDECZITSENLSKESBEATPTLTEESIIEELHRLVLUBGHUFIDKROFRUKNOm pax train-km-1001020PLESDEFIITCZHUSIPTLTHRSKSEFREEATDKNLBGBEELLUIEROLVNOUKm freight train-km0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%IEDKLUNLELROITBEESFRPTHUSECZDEEEATBGHRSKFIPLSILTLVEU27UKNO% of train-kmpassengerfreight 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Figure 23 shows the intensity of use of the rail network for passenger transport measured in million 
passenger kilometres  per line  kilometre  in 2018 per country, as well as the evolution compared to 
2015. 

Figure 23: Utilisation of rail infrastructure for passenger transport per country (millions of pax-km per line-km 

in 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020, Statistical pocketbook, 2020. BE 2017 and 2018 adjusted. 

On  average,  in  2018  the  EU27  network  was  used  by  2.02  million  passenger  kilometres  per  line 
kilometre  (2.18 for  EU28).  The  Netherlands  had  by  far  the  highest  passenger  traffic  density  (6.19), 
while  Latvia  had  the  lowest  (0.24).  Overall,  between  2015  and  2018  European  passenger  traffic 
density  increased  slightly  by  0.15  million  passenger  kilometres  per  line  kilometre  (0.16  for  EU28). 
According  to  data  available  in  the  RMMS,  over  the  same  period  Belgium  reported  the  highest 
increase  (+0.36 million  passenger  kilometres  per  line  kilometre  and  Denmark  the  highest  decrease 
(-0.1).  

56 

-0.500.5BEPTSKITCZATFRPLDEESROIEEELUSEFILTNLHULVBGSIELHRDKEU27UKNOm pax-km per line-km01234567NLFRBEITATDEDKPTESLUSEPLIESKCZHUFISIELROEEBGLVHRLTEU27UKNOmillion pax-km per line-km 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Figure  24  shows  the  intensity  of  use  of  the  rail  network  for  freight  transport  measured  in  million 
tonne kilometres per line kilometre in 2018 per country, as well as the evolution compared to 2015. 

Figure 24: Utilisation of rail infrastructure for freight transport per country (millions of tonne-km per line-km in 

2018) and evolution (2015-2018)  

Source: RMMS, 2020, Statistical pocketbook, 2020. Data for PT adjusted. 

On average, in 2018 the EU27 network was used by 2.17 million tonne kilometres per line kilometre 
(2.09  for  EU28).  Latvia  and  Lithuania  had  the  highest  freight  traffic  density  (9.60  and  8.84  tonne 
kilometres  per  line  kilometre  respectively),  while  Ireland  had  the  lowest  (0.04).  Overall,  between 
2015 and 2018 freight traffic density in the EU27 increased slightly by 0.26 million tonne kilometres 
per line kilometre (0.23 for EU28). According to data available in the RMMS, over the same period 
the  Netherlands  reported  the  highest  increase  (+1.43  million  tonne  kilometres  per  line  kilometre) 
and Luxembourg the highest decrease (-1.59).  

3.2 

The passenger market 

3.2.1 

Rail passenger policy developments 

Since 2001, four consecutive railway packages focused on market opening and the harmonisation of 
rules  and  standards  to  the  benefit  of  the  passengers  and  the  sector  overall.  While  international 
passenger services were opened to competition in 2010, the process was finally completed with the 
market pillar of the Fourth Railway Package, which established:   

-  open access to domestic passenger services from the 2021 timetable; and 
-  competitive  tendering  as  the  standard  for  attributing  public  service  obligations  in  rail 

passenger transport (with certain limited exceptions) from December 2023.  

Despite  being  still  too early  to  assess  the overall  impact  of  the  Fourth  Railway  Package on  the  rail 
passenger market, some key trends can be already identified (see Section 5.9.2).  

57 

-2.000.002.00NLLTBGHUSIDEPLFISEPTATHRCZITFREESKELDKIEESROLVBELUEU27NOUKm ton-km per line-km024681012LVLTATSINLDEBEPLSKSEEEFICZBGHUITPTFRHRDKLUROESELIEEU27UKNOmillion tonne-km per line-km 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Tendering PSOs rather than awarding them directly can produce significant savings in public funding 
of  the  rail  sector,  while  increasing  the  efficiency  and  convenience  of  service  provided,  ultimately 
leading to higher passenger satisfaction.  

The possibility to enter the passenger rail market via open access has led the development of low-
cost  services,  targeting  passengers  that  would  usually  have  opted  for  other,  cheaper  modes  of 
transport. Low-cost offers are often multimodal, for example integrating rail and buses/coaches.   

High-speed  services  are  particularly  attractive  for  open  access  and  show  potential  for  growth,  as 
shown for example by competitive services successfully offered on the Italian high-speed rail market 
and  the  interest  shown  by  railway  undertakings  in  the  process  for  introducing  open  access  in  the 
Spanish high-speed rail market.   

After  many  years  of  declining  services,  night  trains  are  now  experiencing  a  significant  comeback. 
Night train connections are increasingly available both under commercial and publicly funded offers 
in many Member States.  

More  generally,  cross-border  connections  have  become  the  focus  of  increased  attention  from  rail 
providers and Member States alike. On 2 June 2020, 25 Member States plus Norway and Switzerland 
signed  a  political  statement  on  the  development  of  cross-border  rail  passenger  services91.  On 
21 September 2020,  Germany  announced  discussions  to  launch  a  Trans  Europe  Express  2.0  for 
international  high-speed  and  overnight  rail  services  aiming  to  make  trains  more  competitive  with 
short-haul aviation92.  

Significant  barriers  to  entry  remain.  New  entrants  risk  lacking  the  financial  resources  to  buy  new 
rolling stock, or rolling stock appropriate for specific services as night trains. A limited secondary and 
leasing  market  for  rolling  stock  can  further  jeopardise  the  ability  of  alternative  operators  to  enter 
new markets. Passengers must be able to get an overview of available transport services and book 
tickets with ease. When multiple providers are operating passenger rail transport services, seamless 
through-ticketing93  is  fundamental  to  ensure  adequate  passenger  rights.  Rail  will  only  be  able  to 
attract more customers if ticketing is substantially improved. The same is true also for integration of 
rail with other modes, as customers increasingly view mobility as a service (see Section 5.13).       

3.2.2 

Evolution of passenger volumes 

Figure  25  shows  how  propensity  to  travel  by  rail,  measured  as  annual  passenger  kilometres  per 
inhabitant, varies significantly between states. 

91   https://www.permanentrepresentations.nl/permanent-representations/pr-eu-

brussels/documents/publications/2020/06/04/political-statement-for-coalition-of-the-willing-
development-international-rail-passenger-transport.  

92   Trans  Europe  Express  (TEE)  is  a  former  international  first-class  railway  service.  It  was  founded  in  1957, 

operating in western and central Europe. It ceased operations in 1995. 

93   Where a traveller can purchase a single ticket for its entire journey using multiple railway companies.  

58 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of rail services 

Figure  25:  Propensity  to  travel  by  rail  2018  and  compound  annual  growth  rate  per  country  (pax-km  per 

inhabitant, 2015-2018) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020, Eurostat, 2020. 2017 and 2018 data for BE adjusted. 

Each citizen of the European Union travelled 909 passenger kilometres on average annually in 2018 
(926 if we  consider EU28). The highest propensity to travel by rail can be  found in Austria (1 504), 
and the lowest in Greece (108). Comparing RMMS available data, the propensity to travel in the EU27 
increased by 2.4% annually between 2015 and 2018 (2.2% if we consider EU28). Estonia shows the 
highest increase (+16%), whereas Croatia appears to have lost 6%.  

Passenger transport modal split 

Looking  at  the  EU27  performance  by  mode  (all  modes  included  i.e.  land,  air  and  sea  transport 
modes), in 2018, railways had a modal share of only 6.9% against 71.7% for passenger cars94.  

If we focus instead only on land transport (passenger cars, buses and coaches, railways and tram and 
metro), railways represented 7.8% of the modal split95.  

94   See Statistical pocketbook 2020.  
95   Excluding powered two-wheelers.  

59 

-10%0%10%20%EEROLTSKPTCZPLIEBEFILVESITDEATNLHUSEFRLUBGDKELSIHREU27UKNOCAGR (%) 0 200 400 600 8001 0001 2001 4001 600ATFRSEDENLDKBECZITFIHUSKLUESPLIEPTEELVSIROBGHRLTELEU27UKNOpax-km per inhabitant 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of rail services 

Figure 26 shows the passenger land transport modal split between 2007 and 2018 in the EU27. 

Figure 26: Passenger land transport modal split (% in 2007-2018) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. 

Passenger  car  transport  dominates  total  passenger  land  transport  within  the  EU27,  with  a  share 
consistently higher  than 80%  between 2007 and 2018. Throughout the same period, the  rail mode 
share rose from 7.3% to 7.8%, while tram and metro’s modal share rose from 1.6% to 1.7%. At the 
same time, the modal share of bus and coach transport fell from 10.5% to 9.1%.  

Between  2015  and  2018  in  particular,  the  modal  share  of  passenger  cars  in  EU27  land  passenger 
transport increased from 81 % to 81.4 %, whereas rail increased from 7.6 % to 7.8 %, with significant 
differences across countries. 

60 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018% of pax-kmEU27RailwaysPassenger carsBuses and coachesTram and metro 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Looking at each country, Figure 27 shows that in 2018, Austria, the Netherlands and France were the 
only countries where rail had a share of more than 10%.  

Figure 27: Passenger land transport modal split by country (% in 2018) and change in percentage points for rail 

(2015-2018) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020; excluding CY and MT. 

Between  2015  and  2018,  rail’s  modal  share  increased  the  most  in  Poland,  Czechia,  Austria  and 
Estonia, and decreased the most in Denmark, Hungary and Croatia (Figure 27). 

61 

-505PLCZATEEDEFRSKFINLBEESIESELTPTITBGLVLUELROSIHRHUDKEU27UKNOChange % points0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%ATNLFRSKSEDECZHUDKBEPLESITFILUPTROLVIEEEHRBGSILTELEU27UKNO% of pax-kmrailwayspassenger carsbuses and coachestram and metro 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Evolution of rail passenger volumes 

In 2018, railways transported some 7.1 billion passengers96 in the EU27 (8.9 in EU28). 

Figure  28  shows  the  evolution  of  rail  passenger  traffic  as  a  sum  of  domestic  and  international 
services  for  the  EU27  for  the  years  2007  to  2018  (therefore  excluding  the  United  Kingdom  and 
Norway). The dotted line indicates the share of international in total passenger traffic services. 

Figure 28: Evolution of rail passenger traffic volumes (domestic, international and proportion of international in 

total traffic) (billion pax-km, 2007-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Infill data from various other sources and estimates. The 2015 data for BE, EE, EL, LU and 
RO are estimates. 

Total EU27 rail passenger traffic rose relatively continuously, from 342 billion passenger kilometres in 
2011 to 404 billion passenger kilometres in 2018 (from 415 to 473 in EU28), out of around 5 trillion 
passenger kilometres of land transport overall (6 trillion in EU28). Domestic services increased from 
320  to  377  billion  passenger  kilometres  in  2018  (from  390  to  444  for  EU28).  The  proportion  of 
international passenger services ranged between 5% (year 2010) and 7% over the entire period in the 
EU27. 

96   Source Eurostat. Passenger data EU27 do not include BE, HU, NL and PL, which labelled data confidential.  

62 

3203303253263333393383423493573773772021201923262323262524280%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%050100150200250300350400450500200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018proportion of international traffic (%)pax-km (billion)EU27domesticinternationalproportion of international 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of rail services 

Figure  29  shows  the  volumes  of  domestic  and  international  passenger  rail  travel,  measured  in 
passenger kilometres, and the proportion of international traffic by state in 2018. 

Figure  29:  Passenger  traffic  volumes  (domestic,  international  and  proportion  of  international  on  total)  by 

country (pax-km in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. BE 2018 adjusted. 

The largest rail passenger markets are in Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy. 93% of all 
passenger kilometres in the EU27 stem from domestic passenger services (94% in EU28). 
Unsurprisingly, considering its size, Luxembourg is the country with the most internationally oriented 
rail passenger market (29% of the total passenger traffic), whereas Greece has the lowest proportion 
of international passenger travel (0.2%). 

63 

020406080100120DEFRITESPLNLSEATBECZHUDKROFIPTSKIEBGELHRSILVLTLUEEUKNOpax-km (billion)domesticinternational0%20%40%LULTATSICZBEFRSKDKROLVDEEEHUIEHRPLSEFIPTESNLBGITELEU27UKNOproportion of international passenger services 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Figure 30 shows the compound annual growth rates for domestic, international and total passenger 
traffic volumes from 2015 to 2018 for each country. 

Figure  30: Compound annual growth rates of domestic, international and total passenger traffic volumes per 

country (%, 2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. BE 2018 estimated, BE, EE, EL, LU and RO 2015 estimated. 

Total  passenger  traffic  increased  by  2.5%  annually  in  the  EU27  between  2015  and  2018  (2.4%  in 
EU28). Passenger volumes decreased only in Bulgaria, Denmark, Slovenia, Greece and Croatia.  

Within total volumes, both the domestic and international segments increased.  

Domestic  passenger  kilometres  increased  by  2.6%  annually  in  the  EU27  (2.4%  in  EU28).  Domestic 
passenger volumes decreased only in Bulgaria, Denmark, Greece, Slovenia and Croatia.  

International  passenger  kilometres  increased  by  2.0%  annually  in  the  EU27  (same  as  in  EU28).  A 
number of countries reported a decrease in international passenger volumes, including France, the 
Netherlands and Greece.  

Traffic expressed in passenger kilometres provides a first measure of the demand for rail passenger 
services.  A  train  occupancy  rate  (expressed  for  example  as  the  percentage  of  available  seats 
occupied)  would  be  an  important  indicator  to  assess  if  the  supply  of  those  services  matches  the 
demand. Lacking information on available seats, Figure 31 provides instead an overview of passenger 
trains’  load  factor,  measured  as  the  ratio  between  passenger  kilometres  and  passenger  train 
kilometres per country in 2018, and its evolution compared to 2015.  

64 

-100%-50%0%50%100%150%ROESBECZSKBGPLFIDESILTEELUITATDKIEPTHUSEHRLVFRNLELEU27UKNOInternational-10%0%10%20%EEROSKLTCZPTPLIEBEFIDEATESITNLSELVLUHUFRBGDKSIELHREU27UKNOTotal-10%0%10%20%EELTSKROPTIEPLCZATNLFIDEITLVSEESFRLUHUBEBGDKELSIHREU27NOUKDomestic 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Figure  31:  Number  of  pax-km  per  passenger  train-km  per  country  (passenger  trains’  load  factor)  (2018)  and 

evolution (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. RO 2015 and 2016, BE 2018 and IE 2015 estimated. 

On  average  in  2018,  EU27  passenger  trains  were  loaded  with  139  passengers  (138  for  the  EU28). 
France had by far the highest load factor (257), followed by Italy, Spain and Portugal, all above the 
EU27 average. Croatia had the lowest load factor (50). Overall, the load factor in the EU27 increased 
slightly  by  7  passengers  per  train  between  2015  and  2018  (same  as  for  the  EU28).  Based  on  the 
available  data,  Romania  and  France  reported  the  highest  increase  (+28  and  +26  respectively).  The 
load factor decreased only in Bulgaria, Sweden, Slovenia, Greece  and, in particular, Croatia (with a 
decrease of 12 passengers per train compared to 2015). 

3.2.3 

Evolution of rail passenger revenues 

The  RMMS  collects  data  on  total  revenues  from  passenger  services  and  its  components  (fare 
revenues  from  commercial  services,  fare  revenues  from  PSO  services  and  PSO  compensation). 
Despite  the  clear improvement in data quality since the first year of implementation of the RMMS 
Regulation in 2015, some gaps and inconsistencies in the input data remain.  

65 

-2002040ROFRPTIEEEFISKLVBEESLTATDECZLUNLPLITHUDKBGSESIELHREU27UKNOchange in pax-km/train-km050100150200250300FRITESPTBEIENLFIPLDEATELSKLVSEHUDKROEECZLTBGSILUHREU27UKNOpax-km per train-km 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Figure 32 shows the reported revenues from passenger transport services per country in 2018 as well 
as the evolution compared to 2015. 

Figure  32:  Railway  undertakings’  revenues  from  passenger  transport  services  per  country  (billion  EUR,  2018) 

and evolution (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. BG, EE, FR, EL, SI and ES estimated, BE and RO not available. 

Germany,  France  and  the  United  Kingdom  appear  to  have  had  by  far  the  highest  amounts  of 
revenues  from  passenger  transport  services  in  2018  (EUR  15.7,  14.4  and  13.1  billion  respectively). 
The lowest amount was reported for Lithuania (EUR 0.03 billion). Based on the available data, France 
appears  to  have  had  the  highest  increase  compared  to  2015  (+EUR  6.31  billion)  and  Hungary  the 
highest decrease (EUR 0.50 billion).  

As  a  rough  indicator  of  the  economic  performance  of  railway  undertakings  providing  passenger 
services,  the  total  amount  of  passenger  revenues  can  be  related  either  to  traffic  expressed  in 
passenger  kilometres  or  in  passenger  train  kilometres.  Traffic  expressed  in  passenger  kilometres 
provides an indication of the average return that undertakings can expect from a passenger, whereas 
traffic expressed in train kilometres provides an indicator of the average return that undertakings can 
expect from a passenger train.  

66 

-50510FRDEITPLPTIEELLVSEDKNOchange in EUR billion024681012141618DEFRITESNLATCZDKSEPLFIPTHUIELUBGSKELHRSILVEELTUKNOEUR billion 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Figure 33  shows the  railway  undertakings’ revenues from passenger transport services  in 2018 per 
country as well as the evolution compared to 2015, measured in EUR per passenger kilometre. 

Figure 33: Railway undertakings’ revenues from passenger transport services per pax-km per country (EUR per 

passenger-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. BE 2018 adjusted. 

In 2018, the EU27 railway undertakings’ revenue per passenger kilometre was on average EUR 0.13 
(EUR  0.14  for  UK).  Luxembourg  had  by  far  the  highest  unit  revenue  (EUR  0.46),  and  Slovakia  the 
lowest  (EUR  0.03).  Unit  revenues  based  on  passenger  kilometres  increased  slightly  between  2015 
and  2018  by  EUR  0.03  in  both  the  EU27  and  EU28.  According  to  RMMS  reporting,  Spain  had  the 
highest increase (+EUR 0.13), Hungary the highest decrease (-EUR 0.07).  

67 

0,000,050,100,150,200,250,300,350,400,450,50LUDKCZDEFRATNLEEHRSIESLVITELIESEFIBGPTPLLTHUSKEU27NOUKEUR per pax-km-0,100,000,100,20ESCZEEFRBGELATDEDKITPTLVIEHRSKLTPLSEFIHUEU27NOUKChange in EUR per pax-km 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Figure 34  shows the  railway  undertakings’ revenues from passenger transport services  in 2018 per 
country as well as the evolution compared to 2015, measured in EUR per passenger train kilometres. 

Figure 34: Railway undertakings’ revenues from passenger transport services per train-km per country (EUR per 

passenger train-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. BG, EE, FR, EL, SI, ES and RO estimated, BE 2018 not available. 

In  2018,  the  EU27  railway  undertakings’  revenue  per  train  kilometres  was  on  average  EUR  18.04 
(EUR 19.06  for  EU28).  France  had  the  highest  unit  revenues  (EUR  39.57),  and  Hungary  the  lowest 
(EUR 3.02). In the EU27, unit revenues based on train kilometres increased between 2015 and 2018 
by  EUR  4.97  (EUR  4.22  in  EU28).  According  to  RMMS  reporting,  Spain  had  the  highest  increase 
(+EUR 19.87), while Hungary had the highest decrease (-EUR 5.97).  

Figure  35  shows  the  sources  of  railway  undertakings’  revenues  from  the  provision  of  passenger 
services as reported in the RMMS for the year 2018.  

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. 

68 

051015202530354045FRLUITESDKDENLATLVIECZFIELEESEPTSIPLHRBGLTSKHUEU27UKNOrevenue in EUR per train-km-100102030ESFRCZEEBGATIEPTDELVITELFILTSKDKPLSEHRHUEU27NOUKChange in EUR per train-km 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Figure 35: Sources of passenger railway undertakings’ revenue per country (% in 2018)  

Source: RMMS, 2020. BE, DK, EL, NL and RO not available. 

In many Member States, most of the railway undertakings’ revenue is from PSO support from 
competent authorities. In 2018, reported revenues from commercial fares amounted to EUR 15.2 
billion in the EU27 (EUR 16.3 billion in EU28), i.e. 51% of the total revenues (38% for EU28). 

3.3 

The freight market 

3.3.1 

Rail freight policy developments 

Increasing  the  modal  share  of  rail  freight  remains  a  Commission  policy  objective,  as  recently 
reaffirmed  in  the  Communication  on  the  European  Green  Deal97.  Nevertheless,  rail  freight  has 
continued  to  face  performance  issues  with  punctuality  and  reliability  in  comparison  to  road.  The 
sector  has  continued  to  struggle  with  challenges  over  infrastructure  bottlenecks,  interoperability 
problems and digitalisation. In terms of operations, challenges also remain in particular with border 
delays and international traffic management in cases of disturbance.  

The overall situation of rail freight remains unsatisfactory: its modal share is around 19%. Figure 37 
shows  a  mixed  picture  for  changes  in  the  modal  share  in  the  past  3  years  in  EU  countries,  with 
Estonia, Slovakia and Latvia recording a sharp decline. To have a meaningful environmental impact, 
far larger volumes of freight need to be carried by rail.  

In its communication on a European Green Deal, the Commission stated that ‘…a substantial part of 
the  75%  of  inland  freight  carried  today  by  road  should  shift  onto  rail  and  inland  waterways.’  To 
achieve this, rail freight traffic must grow considerably over the next decade, starting immediately. 

97   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - The European Green Deal 
COM/2019/640 final (https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en).  

69 

-800%-700%-600%-500%-400%-300%-200%-100%0%100%LUBGHUSKEELVHRSIELPLLTATFRDKITIEDEESSECZFINLPTEU27NOUK% of all passenger service revenue PSO faresCommercial faresPSO compensation 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of rail services 

Unlike passenger rail, freight  traffic  is predominantly international. This is because  the competitive 
advantage  of  rail  freight  increases  with  distance.  This  strong  international  and  intra-EU  dimension 
means that rail freight is suffering from the lack of a truly single European railway area, in particular 
from  the  lack  of  interoperability  between  the  different  networks  and  the  lack  of  coordination  of 
operations (at the borders or in terms of rail capacity and traffic management for example). Some of 
rail  freight’s  features,  such  as  low  speed,  higher  operational  complexity  involving  terminals,  and 
inferior  punctuality  in  comparison  to  passenger  traffic,  make  freight  a  less  desirable  customer  for 
infrastructure managers. 

To  address  these  issues,  the  Commission  is  pursuing  a  number  of  initiatives.  The  Fourth  Railway 
Package  set  out  the  general  regulatory  framework:  once  fully  implemented,  it  will  strengthen  the 
framework conditions for an efficient market organisation and will simplify administrative processes 
and  strengthen  interoperability,  supported  by  a  broader  role  for  the  European  Union  Agency  for 
Railways.  These  simplifications  will  significantly  reduce  costs  for  operators.  These  regulatory 
measures  are  complemented  by  the  Commission’s  infrastructure  development  policy,  the  TEN-T 
network,  with  significant  financial  support  provided  under  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility.  This  is 
necessary  because  a  well-developed  infrastructure,  free  of  bottlenecks  and  missing  links  and  with 
infrastructure  parameters tailored  to  freight  (such  as  740 m  train  length),  is  a precondition  for  rail 
freight development.   

The  rail  freight  corridors  (RFCs,  see  Box  5)  remain  the  key  element  of  the  Commission’s  policy  to 
boost rail freight. Their aim is 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). The Commission is evaluating the legal framework 
for  the  RFCs  (Regulation  913/2010)  with  the  purpose  of  identifying  needs  for  any  additional 
legislative measures.  

The Commission initiatives alone cannot be comprehensive. The success of the EU’s rail freight policy 
will depend on the efforts of Member States, infrastructure managers and other stakeholders. This is 
particularly relevant in a context where Member States are working on economic recovery measures 
following the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important that rail freight measures feature prominently. 

The  role  of  rail  stakeholders  is  also  fundamental.  The  Commission  places  high  expectations  on the 
sector  and  provides  strong  political  support  to  the  implementation  of  the  Rotterdam  Sector 
Statement98 and, more recently to the ‘Rail Freight Corridors: The Future of Rail Freight in Europe99’ 
ministerial  Declaration,  signed  during  the  ‘Innovative  Rail  Transport  –  Connecting,  Sustainable, 
Digital’ ministerial  conference  in  Berlin  (21 September 2020).  By  signing  the Berlin  Declaration,  the 
EU Member States reiterated their commitment to support international rail freight by:   

further strengthening and developing the rail freight corridors  

- 
-  supporting the rail freight stakeholders to enable them to better adapt to market needs  
-  enhancing rail freight transport as one of the most environmentally friendly ways of moving 

freight  

-  supporting further technical and operational harmonisation  
-  acknowledging that strong rail freight requires skilled workers.  

98   Sector Statement ‘Boosting international rail freight’: 

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

99   https://www.cer.be/sites/default/files/publication/200921_Berlin%20Ministerial%20Declaration.pdf  

70 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of rail services 

For rail freight services to become more reliable and flexible, some actions should be undertaken by 
the sector, namely:  

-  making the timetabling process more efficient and flexible (for example along the lines 

- 

suggested in the ‘timetable redesign’ project);  
improving information exchange, such as through the sharing of a reliable estimated time of 
arrival between the parties involved in a train run;  

-  developing KPIs to adequately measure rail freight performance;  
-  accelerating the pace towards solving cross-border interoperability issues, where progress is 

urgently needed in coordination with the Issues Logbook initiative (see Box 15);  

-  ensuring a better coordination of temporary capacity restrictions; and  
-  developing and implementing processes for contingency situations100.  

Box 5: Rail freight corridors 

Source: www.rne.eu, ©RNE. 

100  For example by developing the European Rail Infrastructure Managers Handbook for International 

Contingency Management (version 1.5 available here: http://rne.eu/wp-
content/uploads/International_Contingency_Management_Handbook_final_v1.5.pdf).  

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of rail services 

Corridors 

Countries covered 

Start date 

RFC1 Rhine–Alpine 

NL, BE, DE, IT 

RFC2 North Sea–Mediterranean 

NL, BE, LU, FR 

RFC3 Scandinavian–Mediterranean 

SE, DK, DE, AT, IT  

RFC4 Atlantic 

PT, ES, FR  

RFC5 Baltic–Adriatic 

PL, CZ, SK, AT, IT, SI 

RFC6 Mediterranean 

ES, FR, IT, SI, HU 

November 2013 

November 2013 

November 2015 

November 2013 

November 2015 

November 2013 

RFC7 Orient-East Med 

CZ, AT, SK, HU, RO, BG, EL 

November 2013 

RFC8 North Sea–Baltic 

DE,NL, BE, PL, LT  

RFC9 Czech–Slovak / Rhine Danube 

CZ, SK 

RFC10 Alpine-Western Balkan 

AT, BG, HR, RS, SI 

RFC11 Amber 

SI, HU, SK, PL 

November 2015 

November 2013 

March 2018 

January 2019 

3.3.2 

Evolution of freight volumes 

Freight transport modal split 

Looking at the EU27 performance of all modes (i.e. road, rail, inland waterways, pipelines, sea and air 
transport) in 2018, rail had a modal share of 12.6%101.  

Focusing instead only on land transport (road, rail and inland waterways but excluding pipelines102), 
rail represented 18.7% of the modal split. 

Figure 36 shows the freight land transport modal split between 2007 and 2018 (pipelines excluded). 
Road  transport  dominates  total  freight  land  transport  within  the  EU27,  with  a  share  consistently 
higher  than  70%  between  2007  and  2018.  Throughout  the  same  period,  the  rail  mode  share 
fluctuated between 17% and 19%, reaching 18.7% in 2018. Inland waterways varied between 6% and 
7%. 

101  See Statistical pocketbook 2020.  
102  Figures related to land freight transport including pipelines are available in the Statistical pocketbook 2020.  

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of rail services 

Figure 36: Freight land transport modal split (%, 2007-2018) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020. 

Between 2015 and 2018 in particular, the road modal share in EU27 land freight transport increased 
from  74.2 %  to  75.4 %,  whereas  rail  decreased  from  18.8 %  to  18.7 %,  with  significant  differences 
across  countries.  Figure  37  shows  the  modal  shares  for  rail,  road  and  inland  waterways  in  each 
Member State. 

Figure  37: Freight  land transport  modal split by country (% in 2018) and change in percentage points for rail 

(2015-2018) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2020; excluding CY and MT. 

73 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018% of tonne-kmEU27RailRoadInland Waterways-10-505LTFIHRLUBGPLSEDKCZDEELNLSIPTIEITBEATESFRHUROLVSKEEEU27NOUKChange % points0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%LVLTEESISKATSEFIROCZHUPLHRDEBGPTITDKBEFRLUNLESELIEEU27NOUK% of tonne-kmRailRoadInland Waterways 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Rail has the highest modal 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 
Estonia,  Slovenia  and  Sweden.  In  contrast,  rail  has  the  lowest  modal  share  in  Ireland,  Greece  and 
Spain. 

Inland  waterways  are  a  major  competitor  for  rail  in  Member  States  with  access  to  major  rivers 
including the Netherlands, Romania, Bulgaria and Belgium. 

The  evolution  of  modal  share  between  2015  and  2018  has  been  mixed.  The  modal  share  of  rail 
increased  more  in  Lithuania,  Finland  and  Croatia,  and  decreased  significantly  in  Estonia,  Slovakia, 
Latvia, Romania and Hungary.  

Evolution of rail freight volumes 

In 2018, around 1.55 billion tonnes of freight was carried on EU27 railways103 (1.63 in EU28). 

Figure 38 shows the evolution of rail freight traffic in Europe from 2007 to 2018 measured in tonne 
kilometres,  separately  for  domestic  and  international  services  (bars),  as  well  as  the  proportion  of 
international on total rail freight traffic (dotted line).  

Total  EU27  rail  freight  traffic  rose  from  385  billion  tonne  kilometres  in  2015  to  435  billion  tonne 
kilometres  in  2018  (from  405  to  452  in  EU28)  out  of  around  2.3  trillion  tonne  kilometres  of  land 
transport104 overall (2.4 for EU28).  

Domestic services increased from 187 to 209 billion tonne kilometres in 2018 (from 207 to 226 for 
EU28).  

The proportion of international rail freight services remained consistently above 50% over the entire 
period in the  EU27,  peaking in 2014 at  54.9% of total rail traffic (51.9%  in EU28) and then coming 
down to 52.0% in 2018 (50.0% in EU28).   

103  Source Eurostat. Freight data EU27 do not include BE, which labelled data confidential. 
104 Excluding pipelines.  

74 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of rail services 

Figure  38:  Evolution  of  rail  freight  traffic  volumes  (domestic,  international  and  proportion  of  international  in 

total traffic) (billion tonne-km, 2007-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Infill data from various other sources and estimates. For 2016, there is a revision of some 
RMMS inputs and estimates compared with the sixth RMMS report. 

Figure 39 shows the volumes of domestic and international rail freight traffic by country in 2018, as 
well as the evolution of tonne kilometres compared to 2015. 

Figure  39:  Rail  freight  traffic  volumes  (domestic,  international  and  proportion  of  international  on  total)  by 

country (tonne-km, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Data for BE and PT adjusted. 

75 

1971971691782011861751771871851952092312221771972071922092141982192292260%10%20%30%40%50%60%050100150200250300350400450500200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018proportion of international traffic [%]tonne-km (billion)EU27domesticinternationalproportion of international0%50%100%150%SILVELDKEESKNLHUATLTLUHRCZITBEDEBGPLSEFRFIPTESROIEEU27NOUKProportion of international freight services0102030405060708090DEPLFRSEITFIBECZESATROBGLTPTHUNLSKHRLVEEDKSIIELUELUKNOtonne-km (billion)domesticinternational 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Rail freight traffic volumes in 2018 were highest in Germany, Poland and France. Slovenia and Latvia 
reported the highest proportion of international rail freight traffic (98%) followed by Greece (97%); 
Ireland and the United Kingdom reported the lowest proportions (0% and 0.4% respectively). 

Traffic expressed in tonne kilometres provides a first measure of the demand for rail freight services. 
Figure 40 gives an overview of the load factor of freight trains, measured as the ratio between tonne 
kilometres and freight train kilometres per country, in 2018 and its evolution compared to 2015. 

Figure  40:  Number  of  tonne-km  per  freight  train-km  per  country  (freight  trains  load  factor)  (2018)  and 

evolution (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020; 2015, 2016 data for NL adjusted. 

On  average,  EU27  freight  trains  were  loaded  with  583  tonnes  in  2018  (580  in  EU28).  The  Baltic 
countries  have  a  significantly  above-average  load  factor  (the  highest  being  in  Latvia,  with  1  891 
tonnes);  the  lowest  load  factor  is  in  Ireland  (167  tonnes).  Overall,  the  load  factor  in  the  EU27 
between 2015 and 2018 increased by 35 tonnes  per train (33 in EU28). Based on RMMS data, the 
highest  increase  can  be  found  in  the  Netherlands  (+456),  whereas  Luxembourg  apparently 
experienced a decrease of 843 tonnes per train compared to 2015. 

3.3.3 

Evolution of rail freight revenues 

The  RMMS  collects  data  on  railway  undertakings’  total  revenues  from  the  provision  of  freight 
services. Despite the clear improvement in data quality since the first year of implementation of the 
RMMS Regulation in 2015, some gaps and inconsistencies in the input data remain. 

76 

 0 200 400 600 8001 0001 2001 4001 6001 8002 000LVLTEENLBEBGFIDKPLSEHUATSKROFRDEITLUSIELHRPTCZESIEEU27NOUKtonne-km per train-km-1 000- 500 0 5001 000NLBGLVHUELSELTDEFIPTATFRHRSICZITPLSKDKEEBEIEESROLUEU27NOUKChange in tonne-km/train-km 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Figure 41 shows the reported revenues from rail freight per country in 2018 as well as the evolution 
compared to 2015. 

Figure 41: Railway undertakings’ revenues from freight transport services per country (billion EUR, 2018) and 

evolution (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. BE not available; CZ, LU, NL, SI, ES 2015 not available. 

Germany  reported  by  far  the  highest  rail  freight  revenues  in  2018  (EUR  5.51  billion),  while  Ireland 
reported the lowest (almost zero). Based on RMMS data, Czechia experienced the highest increase 
(+EUR  0.78  billion),  while  the  United  Kingdom  recorded  the  highest  decrease  (-EUR  0.38  billion) 
compared to 2015. 

As a rough indicator of the economic performance of railway undertakings providing freight services, 
the total amount of freight revenues can be related to traffic expressed either in tonne kilometres or 
in freight train kilometres. Traffic expressed in tonne kilometres provides an indication of the average 
return  that  undertakings  can  expect  from  transported  tonnes,  whereas  traffic  expressed  in  freight 
train  kilometres  provides  an  indicator  of  the  average  return  that  undertakings  can  expect  from  a 
freight train. 

77 

-0,500,000,501,00CZFRDEESNLPLSKITHUATLTFILUDKPTSIHRBGEEBECYMTIEELROSELVNOUKchange in bn EUR 0123456DEPLFRATCZITSESKHULTLVFIESNLROBGPTHRDKEELUELSIIEUKNOEUR billion 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Figure  42  shows  the  railway  undertakings’  revenues  from  freight  transport  services  in  2018  per 
country,  as  well  as  the  evolution  compared  to  2015,  measured  in  EUR  per  thousand  tonne 
kilometres. 

Figure  42:  Railway  undertakings’  revenues  from  freight  transport  services  in  tonne-km  per  country  (EUR  per 

thousand tonne-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Data for BE, CZ, LU, NL and SI incomplete. 

On average,  in 2018 the  EU27 railway undertakings’ revenues from freight transport services  were 
EUR  34.75  per  thousand  tonne  kilometres  (EUR  35.54  in  EU28).  Luxembourg  reported  by  far  the 
highest freight revenues per thousand tonne kilometres (EUR 113.93), while Slovenia had the lowest 
(EUR  1.87).  Overall,  revenues  in  the  EU27  increased  slightly  by  EUR  2.53  per  thousand  tonne 
kilometres  (EUR  1.56  in  EU28).  Based  on  RMMS  data,  Estonia  appears  to  have  experienced  the 
highest increase compared to 2015 (+ EUR 32.34 per thousand tonne kilometre), while Hungary had 
the highest decrease (- EUR 15.47).  

78 

020406080100120LUSKIECZATDEFRPLHUELROESITHRFIPTDKSELTEELVBGNLSIEU27UKNOEUR per thousand tonne-km-20,000,0020,0040,00ESIESKROFRDKITATPTLTPLLVEEHRDEFISEBGELHUEU27NOUKChange in EUR per thousand tonne-km 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of rail services 

Figure  43  shows  the  railway  undertakings’  revenues  from  freight  transport  services  in  2018  per 
country and the evolution compared to 2015, measured in EUR per freight train kilometres. 

Figure 43: Railway undertakings' revenues from freight transport services in freight train-km per country (EUR 

per freight train-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Data for BE, CZ, LU, NL and SI incomplete. 

On average, in 2018 the  freight  revenues  of railway undertakings in the EU27 were EUR 20.25 per 
train  kilometre.  Luxembourg  reported  the  highest  revenues  per  train  kilometre  (EUR  52.79),  while 
Slovenia reported the lowest (EUR 0.86). Overall, revenues in the EU27 slightly increased compared 
to  2015  by  EUR  2.32  per  train  kilometre  (by  EUR  1.77  in  EU28).  Based  on  RMMS  data,  Slovakia 
reported  the  highest  increase  compared  to  2015  (+EUR  11.38  per  train  kilometre),  while  Estonia 
reported the highest decrease (-EUR 8.19). 

3.3.4  Multimodal and intermodal transport 

According  to  recent  studies  and  all  main  stakeholders,  intermodal  transport  continues  to  be  the 
fastest-growing  segment  in  rail  transport.  However,  no  comprehensive  and  comparable  data  are 
currently  gathered  systematically  on  intermodal  transport  in  general,  nor  on  intermodal  transport 
involving a rail leg. The  Commission carried out  a comprehensive study in 2014 and again in 2017. 
The  study  established  that  between  2011  and  2015  intermodal  transport  involving  a  rail  leg 
constituted 32% of all intermodal operations and grew 14% in tonne kilometres (10% in twenty-foot 
equivalent units - TEUs) within the same period105. The 14% growth is attributable to the rail leg of 
the  total  intermodal  operation.  The  UIC  data,  when  corrected  for  geographical  scope,  suggests  a 
further 8.2% increase in TEUs between 2015 and 2017.  

105  Consultations and related analysis in the framework of impact assessment for the amendment of Combined 

Transport Directive (92/106/EEC) (2017) available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/37e91145-e14a-11e7-9749-01aa75ed71a1 and Analysis of the EU combined transport (2015)  
available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/675724ad-969f-11e7-b92d-
01aa75ed71a1.  

79 

0102030405060LULTLVSKATEEPLFIFRDEDKCZHURONLSEELITBGHRPTIEESSIEU27UKNOEUR per freight train-km-10,0,010,020,0SKESFRDKATHUITDEROPTLVBGIELTHRELSEPLFIEEEU27NOUKChange in EUR per freight train-kilometre 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of rail services 

According to the Commission study, 63% of operations involve more than one Member State, while 
58% of operations are covered by the Combined Transport Directive106. Those not covered are mostly 
national  operations.  An  average  rail  intermodal  operation  has  a  rail  leg  of  615  kilometres  and 
involves  2.2  transhipments,  with  road  legs  on  average  102  kilometres  each.  The  Commission  is 
reviewing  different  possibilities  to  improve  data  collection  for  intermodal  transport,  including 
possibility to gather data through the RMMS network.  

In November 2017, the Commission adopted its proposal to amend Directive 92/106/EC (Combined 
Transport Directive107) with the aim to provide new and more effective support measures for modal 
shift.  The  proposed  amendments  would  have  considerably  increased  the  eligibility  of  intermodal 
operations (from 41.7% to 72.7%) for the support provided under the Directive and were assessed to 
bring about an additional modal shift to rail, inland waterways and short sea shipping of 69.9 billion 
tonne kilometres in the period until 2030. However, taking into account amendments made by the 
co-legislators,  as  well  as  the  new  far-reaching  objectives  of  the  European  Green  Deal,  the 
Commission  has  decided  to  withdraw  the  current  proposal  and  prepare  a  new,  more  ambitious 
proposal in 2021, as well as review other related EU instruments to strengthen intermodal transport.  

To support the development of intermodal transport from a technical point of view, the Commission 
developed a technical specification for interoperability relating to telematics applications for freight 
services  (TAF-TSI)  to  digitalise  information  related  to  rail  freight  traffic  flows.  This  will  achieve  the 
following:    

-  establish a Single train ID and accompanying tools to facilitate tracking of trains and goods 

by rail and other operators; 

-  allow the two-way exchange of a dynamic, reliable estimated time of arrival (ETA) between 

- 

- 

freight terminals, ports, intermodal operators, and shippers;  
link the train positioning (or train running information) and its ETA to a harmonised train 
composition (Issues Logbook action No 3); 
link  the  above-mentioned  data  to  wagons, 
commercially 
e-consignment  notes 
disclosure/diffusion and making the information available along the logistics chain.  

intermodal 
loading  units 
sound  way,  preventing 

in 

a 

(ILUs)  and 
accidental 

106  The Combined Transport Directive specifically covers rail intermodal operations involving at least two 

Member States where the rail leg is at least 100 km and the road leg is up to the nearest suitable rail station 
(see Article 1 for a more precise definition of the scope).  
More in general:  
- 

‘multimodal transport’ is any transport using several modes of transport for one journey without any 
specific characteristics or limitations; 
‘intermodal transport’ is a type of multimodal transport where the goods are carried in an intermodal 
load unit such as a container or trailer and it is the load unit that is transhipped from one mode to 
another as opposed to the goods being reloaded; and  
‘combined transport’ is a type of intermodal transport where the road leg is limited to a short distance 
and the major part of the route is carried out by rail, inland waterways or maritime transport. 
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.  

80 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

4. 

The evolution of services supplied to railway 
undertakings 

Directive 2012/34/EU lays down rules for service facilities and services supplied therein. The aim of 
the Directive was to increase the transparency of access conditions and charges applied and ensuring 
non-discriminatory access. 

Provisions apply to a broad range of facilities and services, listed in points 2, 3 and 4 of Annex II to 
Directive  2012/34/EU.  These  include  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. Additional and ancillary services are also 
covered,  such  as  traction  current  supply,  pre-heating  of  trains,  arrangements  for  transport  of 
dangerous goods, access to telecommunication networks and ticketing services.  

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. It also makes 
provision  for  sharing  and  accessing  information  and  for  developing  cooperation  between  service 
facility operators and infrastructure managers. 

Information on service facilities and rail-related services is particularly important for freight services. 
The Rail Facility Portal (see  Box 6)  provides the sector with a unique  entry point  for gathering and 
sharing information between interested parties. 

The RMMS monitors service facilities. However, whereas information is largely complete and reliable 
for stations, information on other service facilities remains fragmented and not always comparable 
across countries. Data presented in this section must therefore be interpreted with care.  

Commission services are working with Member States with a view for the Commission to propose an 
amendment  to  Regulation  2015/1100  in  order  to  improve  the  data  gathering  process  on  service 
facilities. 

Box 6: European Rail Facility Portal 

The European Rail Facility Portal became operational in 2019. The Commission created the Portal as a tool 
for  the  rail  sector,  which  can  serve  as  a  single  entry  point  for  gathering  and  sharing  information  on  rail 
facilities and services between interested parties. It covers both rail freight and passenger facilities. 

Information  on  service  facilities  and  rail-related  services  is  particularly  important  for  freight.  In  2020, 
RailNetEurope  became  the  portal’s  manager  and  is  currently  running  the  portal  in  cooperation  with  the 
International  Union  of  Combined  Road-Rail  Transport  Companies  (UIRR).  A  large  number  of  business 
associations are providing support to the project by sitting on the Portal’s Governance Board. 

The Commission developed the Rail Facility Portal with the purpose of providing 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 to remedy the lack of easy access to information on 
rail  facilities  and  last-mile  infrastructure,  which  will  in  turn  contribute  to  better  planning  of  rail  services. 
Service  facility  operators  can  use  it  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  is  both  a  market  tool  and  a  compliance  tool.  The  new  portal  manager  will  ensure  a  close 
connection  of  the  portal  to  rail  facility  operators.  This  should  contribute  to  a  high  number  of  new 
descriptions appearing in the portal in the coming months. New features will be introduced, which should 
respond to the portal users’ needs and facilitate compliance with legal rules. The acceptance of the portal 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

by the sector, as the ‘tool of choice’, both for inputting and for consulting information on the EU rail service 
facilities,  will  be  the  key  success  factor.  The  portal  provides  a  unique  opportunity  to  avoid  piecemeal 
publication of information on services facilities, and thus make such information usable and useful for the 
benefit  of  the  rail  market.  The  portal  will  evolve  in  accordance  with  the  needs  of  all  stakeholders.  The 
guarantor for this is the portal’s Governance Board, which includes virtually all relevant rail stakeholders. 
The  wide  participation  of  the  sector  in  the  management  of  the  portal  will  also  contribute  to  its 
development as a user-friendly and business-oriented tool. Depending on the rail sector’s needs, it could 
become an important element in a future process of digitalisation of services provided for and by rail.  

4.1 

Charging principles for service facilities, additional and ancillary services  

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  for  the  access  to  rail  infrastructure,  charges  imposed  for  track  access  within  service 
facilities and the  supply  of basic services in such facilities108  must  not  exceed the cost  of providing 
them  plus  a  reasonable  profit.  The  charge  for  additional  and  ancillary  services  must  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  mandatory  that  the  network  statement,  available  free  of  charge,  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 https://railfacilitiesportal.eu). 

4.2 

Passenger stations 

There were more than 29 000 stations in the EU27 in 2018 (almost 32 000 in EU28), of which slightly 
more than 300 were large stations serving more than 25 000 travellers per day (around 350 in EU28).  

In  2018,  the  average  distance  between  stations  in  the  EU27  was  6.9  kilometres  (6.8  in  EU28).  In 
Finland there is by far the greatest average distance between stations (30 kilometres, equivalent to 
only  34  stations  on  average  per  1  000  kilometres  of  line)  whereas  the  Austrian  network  has  the 
shortest  average  distance  between  stations  (3.6  kilometres,  equivalent  to  281  stations  on  average 
per 1 000 kilometres of line) (Figure 44).  

108  Different  service  facility  types  and  rail-related  services  are  enumerated  in  points  2  to  4  of  Annex  II  to 

Directive 2012/34/EU.  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Figure 44: Average distance between stations by country (km, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020, Statistical pocketbook, 2020. 

Figure  45  shows  the  numbers  of  stations  with  different  passenger  volumes  per  day  in  2018  per 
country. 

Figure 45: Number of stations by passengers per day by country (2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. No data for ES. Data for HR, LU, PT, RO and SK adjusted. 

The highest number of stations by far was reported by Germany (6 987, almost one quarter of the 
EU27 total), while the lowest was reported by Luxembourg (68).  

83 

05101520253035FIHRSELTIEBGLVESEEFRNLITPLELBEDEDKROPTHUSKSILUCZATEU27NOUKkm 01 0002 0003 0004 0005 0006 0007 0008 000DEFRPLCZITROESHUATSKSEBEPTDKNLELBGSIFIHRIELVLTEELUUKNOStations over 25 00010 000 to 25 0001 000 to 10 000under 1 000 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Figure  46  shows  the  proportion  of  stations  with  different  passenger  volumes  per  day  in  2018  per 
country. 

Figure 46: Proportion of stations by passengers per day by country (2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. No data for ES. Data for HR, LU, PT, RO and SK adjusted. 

With the notable exception of the Netherlands, at least half the stations on all networks serve fewer 
than a thousand travellers per day. These smaller stations make up the majority (80%) of all stations 
in  the  EU27  (78%  for  EU28).  Large  stations  serving  more  than  25  000  travellers  per  day  are  less 
relevant in numerical terms (representing only 1% of the total), despite their major importance for 
network interconnection.  

4.3 

Other service facilities  

The RMMS collects data from Member States on the number of other service facilities as referred to 
in Annex II to Directive 2012/34/EU. 

However, discrepancies in the definition of each type of service facility and gaps in inputs at national 
level limit the comparability of figures across Member States and across years, meaning that caution 
is necessary when drawing conclusions from the inputs received. 

Further to this, the RMMS does not collect data on the actual or foreseeable use of such facilities: the 
mere  reporting  of  a  facility  in  the  RMMS  therefore  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  this  facility  is 
regularly used (or could be used at short notice or in the near future).  

84 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%NLIEDKLUDEFIITSEBEESFRPTLVATSKPLEECZHUHRSIBGLTROELEU27UKNO% of stationsover 25 00010 000 to 25 0001 000 to 10 000under 1 000 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Freight terminals 

Based on RMMS data, there were around 894 freight terminals in the EU27 in 2018 (932 in EU28). 

Figure 47 shows the reported number of freight terminals in 2018 by state. 

Figure 47: Number of freight terminals by country (2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020; no data for IE, LV, 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. Italy and 
Germany reported the highest number of freight terminals in the EU27.  

85 

227203927447423627242019191717965332113837050100150200250ITDEELNLBEEEPLSEHUROFRPTATCZSKHRSIBGDKLTFILUUKNOFreight terminals 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Marshalling yards and train formation facilities 

Based on RMMS data, there were around 294 marshalling yards and train formation facilities in the 
EU27 in 2018 (307 in EU28). 

Figure 48 shows the reported number of marshalling yards and train formation facilities in 2018 by 
State. 

Figure 48: Number of marshalling yards by country (2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020.No data for EE, IE, ES and 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 to form or rearrange trains. 

86 

6533302821201816151386554111111113010203040506070DEROITCZPLHUFILVLTSEATSKFRELPTBEBGHRDKLUNLSIUKMarshalling yards 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Maintenance facilities 

Based on RMMS data, there were around 964 maintenance facilities in the EU27 in 2018 (1 116 in 
EU28). 

Figure 49 shows the reported number of maintenance facilities in 2018 per country. 

Figure 49: Number of maintenance facilities by country (2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. No data for CZ, EE, FR and ES.  

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

87 

367143113623935332826181615151212127442115233050100150200250300350400DEITPLROSEBGBELTSKLVDKFIPTELNLSIHRATHUIELUUKNOMaintenance facilities 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Maritime and port facilities 

Based on RMMS data, there were around 635 maritime and port facilities in the EU27 in 2018 (661 in 
EU28). 

Figure 50 shows the reported number of maritime and port facilities in 2018 per country. 

Figure 50: Number of maritime and port facilities linked to rail activity by country (2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. No data for EE, FR, LV, LT, LU, SK and ES.  

88 

1661301204437361818141488644431267020406080100120140160180DEROBEITNLSEFIPLBGHRDKHUPTATCZELIESIUKNOMaritime and port facilities 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Refuelling facilities 

Based on RMMS data, there were around 830 refuelling facilities in the EU27 in 2018 (833 in EU28). 

Figure 51 shows the reported number of refuelling facilities in 2018 per country. 

Figure 51: Number of refuelling facilities by country (2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. No data for EE, IE, LU, ES and SE.  

4.4 

Complaints related to access to service facilities 

Figure 52 shows the number of complaints being processed by regulators, as well as the number of 
decisions  by  regulators  in  2018  per  country.  It  should  be  stressed  that  reported  decisions  are  not 
necessarily  in  response  to complaints  raised  in the same  year,  since  there  could  be  a  considerable 
time lag between the filing of a complaint and its resolution.  

89 

36766403835353433262020181817121211119883050100150200250300350400DECZLTROATHUFRFISKDKPLBGHRNLBEITELPTSILVNOUKRefuelliing facilities 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings 

Figure 52: Number of complaints being processed and decisions made by country (2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. No data for RO and ES. 

Germany’s regulator had to process the highest number of complaints on access to service facilities 
in 2018 (eight). Three decisions on such complaints were taken by the German, French and Polish 
regulators.  

90 

0123456789DEATFRPLELHRFIITLVNLBECZDKEEHUIELTLUPTSKSISENOUKActionscomplaints processeddecisions taken 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

5. 

5.1 

The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Harmonisation 

5.1.1 

EU legislation 

Overview of EU legislative elements 

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 modes109. 

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) 

881/2004; 

-  Directive (EU) 2016/797 on the interoperability of the rail system within the EU (Recast of 

Directive 2008/57/EC); and 

-  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 public service contracts 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 amending Regulation (EC) 1370/2007, dealing with the award of 

public service contracts for domestic passenger transport services by rail;  

-  Directive 2016/2370/EU amending 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; 

-  Regulation (EU) 2016/2337 repealing Regulation (EEC) 1192/69 on the normalisation of the 

accounts of railway undertakings. 

109  EU  legislative  measures  are  accompanied  by  a  number  of  implementing  and  delegated  acts  which  are 

available on the DG MOVE website https://ec.europa.eu/transport/home_en.  

91 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

The two key features of the market pillar are: 

- 

- 

‘Competitive tendering’ as the standard choice for awarding public service contracts: This 
principle will fully apply from 3 December 2019. The unconditional possibility of directly 
awarding public service contracts is allowed until 24 December 2023. After that date, the 
direct award procedure will only be allowed in limited and well-defined circumstances110. 
‘Open access’ from the 2021 timetable: Member States may limit rights of access only if the 
exercise of these rights would compromise the economic equilibrium of one or more PSCs. 

Transposition 

Rail Directives can only have their intended effects if they are completely and correctly transposed 
into Member States’ national law by the deadlines and effectively applied thereafter. The European 
Commission ensures the monitoring of the EU legislation’s transposition.  

Table 11 shows the status of transposition of rail Directives111 at 31 December 2018.   

Table 11: Status of transposition of Rail Directives, 31 December 2018 

Directive 

Number of countries which the EC considered 
had not (fully) transposed  at 31 December 2018 

2016/2370 (am. 2012/34) – Governance  

2016/882 (am. 2007/59) – Language requirements 

2012/34 – Single European railway area 

Source: DG MOVE, 2020. 

21 

1 

1 

110  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/workshops/2018-pso-workshop-proceedings.pdf  
111  The deadline for the transposition of Directive 2016/2370 was 25 December 2018. For the two directives of 
the  Fourth  package  technical  pillar  (2016/0797-  Safety  and  2016/0798  -  interoperability)  the  deadline  for 
transposition was 16 June 2019 at the earliest so they were not relevant to consider in the table. 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Infringements 

Figure  53  shows  the  number  of  pending  infringement  proceedings  in  the  field  of  rail  transport  at 
31 July 2019 (non-communication, non-conformity or incorrect application cases). 

Figure 53: Pending infringement proceedings in the field of rail transport, 31 July 2019 

Infringements 

1 

2 

3 

4 

none 

Source: DG MOVE, 2020. 

5.2 

Licensing of railway undertakings 

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,  which 
ensure that access  rights  to railway infrastructure  are  applied throughout  the EU in a uniform and 
non-discriminatory manner.  

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

A licence may cover passenger, freight or traction services and is valid throughout the EU, as long as 
the railway undertaking fulfils all the obligations laid down in European legislation.  

To  further  facilitate  access  to  the  market  by  new  operators,  the  Commission  adopted  the 
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. 

According  to  Directive  2012/34/EU,  the  Implementing  Regulation  and  the  relevant  national 
legislation, information on the licences for the performance of rail transport services within the EU 
and  the  European  Economic  Area  must  be  communicated  by  national  licensing  authorities  to  the 
European Union Agency for Railways (ERA) through a common template available in all EU languages 
and therefore made publicly available on the European Railway Agency Database of Interoperability 
and Safety (ERADIS112).  

5.2.1 

Active licences 

Licences of railway undertakings can be active or passive: 

  Active licence:  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 licence: 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. 

The number of active licences reported in the RMMS is showed in Figure 54. 

Figure 54: Number of active railway licences per country (2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

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

94 

050100150200250300350400450500DEPLCZSEROHUNLESATFRITSKEEBGLTBEPTHRDKSILVFIELIELUUKNONumber of active licenses 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Overall 1 082 active licences were reported in the EU27 in 2018 (1 126 in EU28). Germany reported 
the highest number of licensed railway undertakings (434), together with Poland (113) and Czechia 
(88).  Ireland and Luxembourg reported the lowest number of active licences (2). 

5.2.2 

Average fee to obtain a licence 

Figure 55 shows the reported average fees to obtain a licence in 2015 and 2018 in each country. 

Figure 55: Average fee to obtain a licence by country (EUR, 2015 and 2018) 

Source:  RMMS,  2020.  FR  and  NO  reported  that  licence  costs  are  zero.  In  LV  the  charge is  a  state  duty,  not  a 
licence fee. SK 2015 not available. 

Portugal  reported  the  highest  fee  level  for  2018  (EUR  37  500)  followed  by  Bulgaria  and  Denmark, 
whereas  Croatia  reported the  lowest  fee  (EUR  5)  and  in  France  and  Norway  licences  appear to  be 
obtained for free. Fees significantly increased between 2015 and 2018 in Romania, Luxembourg and 
Czechia,  whereas  Sweden  reported  a  significant  decrease.  In  Latvia,  the  payment  is  a  state  duty 
rather than a licence fee.  

5.2.3 

Average time to obtain a licence 

Figure 56 shows the reported average number of calendar days to obtain a licence in 2015 and 2018 
in different countries. 

95 

 05 00010 00015 00020 00025 00030 00035 00040 00045 000PTBGDKESHUNLDEITLUROELEESIPLSEFICZBESKATIELTHRLVUKNOEUR20152018 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 56: Average time to obtain a licence by country (calendar days, 2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. SK 2015 and RO 2018 not available. 

Many countries reported an average time to obtain a licence of 90, 60 or 30 calendar days (3 months, 
2 months or a month). Poland reported the longest average time  for 2018 (261 days), followed by 
Spain (120) and the United Kingdom (108). In Germany, the reported average time to obtain a licence 
was only 3 calendar days. Remarkable changes over the surveyed period are visible in Poland, Spain. 
Luxembourg, Croatia and United Kingdom (major increases) and in Sweden (major decrease). 

5.3 

Charging principles for the infrastructure 

Infrastructure  managers  recover  the  cost  related  to  the  provision  of  infrastructure  for  train 
operations with infrastructure charges. The basic principle is that the charges should cover at least 
the ‘direct’ costs of the train run, referring to the costs incurred by a train run over the network, i.e. 
the costs of the interaction of train and infrastructure.  

To incentivise the optimal use of their infrastructure, infrastructure managers can additionally apply 
other charging components:  

- 

to improve environmental performance, charges can reflect noise emissions or the usage of 
diesel/electric locomotives;  

-  an effective use of infrastructure capacity can be incentivised through mechanisms such as a 

- 

scarcity charge, a reservation charge or discounts to specific traffic flows; 
the costs of specific investment projects can be recovered by charges based on long-term 
costs; and 

-  a performance scheme can enhance operational performance through penalties/rewards 
linked to the occurrence/avoidance of service disruptions, applicable to both railway 
undertakings and infrastructure managers.  

96 

050100150200250300PLESATBEBGITLUSKSISEFRELIENLHRCZFILVLTPTEEDKHUDEUKNOCalendar days20152018 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

In addition, Member States may make provision for mark-ups to be applied on top of the direct cost 
charges in market segments that are able to pay such higher charges. Nevertheless, market segments 
that can at least pay the direct costs and a rate of return must 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;  Member  States  may  require  different  levels  of  cost 
recovery. 

Currently  the  RMMS  does  not  allow  the  possibility  to  distinguish  between  the  various  charging 
elements used by each Member State. Therefore, while comparing the level of charges reported by 
Member States, the results need to be interpreted with caution.  

Box 7: Electricity charging 

Electricity  charging  or  the  charging  of  track  current  is  not  directly  regulated  by  Directive  2012/34/EU  or 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/909. Electricity charging is dealt with under the Electricity 
Directive113 and the Electricity Regulation114.  

Regulation (EU) 2015/909115 focuses on mechanical wear and tear, i.e. of the interaction of the train with 
the rail infrastructure. It gives guidance on the calculation of the costs directly incurred by the train run and 
therefore  does  not  focus  on  charging  energy  consumption  or  on  charges  for  the  use  of  electric  supply 
equipment. Such equipment, like cables or transformers, is generally not subject to wear and tear from the 
operation of the train service. Under this Regulation, therefore, the costs of electric supply equipment are 
not  to be considered in the  calculation of costs directly incurred by the operation of a  train service. The 
Regulation also does not discriminate based on how trains are powered.  

Box 8: Energy metering 

Electrical  traction  energy  constitutes  one  of  the  key  variable  cost  elements  for  railway  undertakings, 
influencing  the  competitiveness  of  rail.  However,  in  many  Member  States,  infrastructure  managers  or,  if 
relevant,  energy  suppliers  are  not  able  to  invoice  the  electrical  traction  energy  based  on  measured 
consumption,  as  they  do  not  have  the  actual  data.  As  a  result,  many  railway  undertakings  are  charged 
based on rough estimates and have little incentive to reduce their consumption.  

To  make  energy  invoicing  based  on  measured  consumption,  railway  undertakings  should  install  energy 
meters on board their electric traction units. Such meters are already mandatory on all new, renewed and 
upgraded electric traction units; however, most of the existing rolling stock does not have such meters yet. 
The aim should be to retrofit those electric traction units with the energy meters as quickly as possible in 
order to reap full benefits of energy invoicing-based or measured consumption.  

Member  States  should  make  sure  that  there  is  an  operational  settlement  system  in  place  taking  into 
account the relevant legislation concerning the energy market and able to allocate the measured energy 
consumption  to  the  correct  railway  undertaking.  According  to  Regulation  (EU)  1302/2014116  (ENE-TSI, 

113  Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for 
the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU, OJ L 158, 14.6.2019, p. 125–199.  
114  Regulation  (EU)  2019/943  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  June  2019  on  the  internal 

market for electricity, OJ L 158, 14.6.2019, p. 54–124.  

115  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,  C/2015/3766,  OJ  L  148, 
13.6.2015, p. 17–22.  

116  Commission Regulation (EU)  No 1302/2014 of 18 November 2014 concerning a  technical specification for 
interoperability relating to the rolling stock — locomotives and passenger rolling stock subsystem of the rail 
system  in  the  European  Union.  Consolidated  version  available  here:  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02014R1302-20200311.  

97 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Technical  Specification  for  Interoperability,  subsystem  energy)  there  is  an  obligation  to  do  this  by  July 
2020. By 2022, Member States should also ensure that a data collection system able to collect data coming 
from the on-board meters is established.  

Infrastructure managers and railway undertakings have undertaken to comply with the deadlines provided 
in the ENE-TSI in a sector declaration. 

5.4 

Access charges for different categories of passenger trains 

As explained in paragraph 5.3, the RMMS does not allow the possibility to distinguish between the 
various elements of charging applied across infrastructure managers and Member States. Therefore, 
while  comparing  the  level  of  charges  as  reported  in  the  following  pages,  the  results  need  to  be 
interpreted with caution.  

Figure  57  compares  estimates  of  typical  access  charges  (excluding  mark-ups)  per  country  in  2018, 
measured in EUR per train kilometre, for three different types of passenger trains. 

Figure 57: Access charges (excluding markups) for different categories of passenger trains, by country (EUR per 

train-km, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

Overall,  Belgium  appears  to  have  the  highest  level  of  track  access  charges  in  2018,  while  Hungary 
appears to have  the  lowest. Exceptionally high track access charges  appear to be  applied for high-
speed passenger services in the United Kingdom. 

98 

02468101214161820BELVESFRITEERONLSKPTELLUIEATPLSEDEBGLTDKHRFICZSIHUUKNOEUR per train-kmsuburban and regionalconventional long-distancehigh-speed 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 58 shows access charges (excluding mark-ups) for suburban and regional passenger trains per 
country for 2015 and 2018, measured in EUR per train kilometre. 

Figure 58: Access charges (excluding mark-ups) for suburban and regional passenger trains by country, (EUR per 

train-km, 2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. DE, NO 2015 not available. EL, HU 2015 estimated. 

The figure shows how  charges  have  changed in several Member States, most  notably  in Spain and 
Denmark (increasing) and Hungary and Lithuania (decreasing).  

99 

0123456789BELVESFRITEEROPTLUATIEPLELNLSKSEDKDEBGSIHRCZHULTFIUKNOEUR per train-km20152018 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 59 shows access charges (excluding mark-ups) for conventional long-distance passenger trains 
per country for 2015 and 2018, measured in EUR per train kilometre. 

Figure  59:  Access  charges  (excluding  mark-ups)  for  conventional  long-distance  passenger  trains  by  country, 

(EUR per train-km, 2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. DE, NO 2015 not available. EL, HU 2015 estimated. 

The figure shows  how  charges  have changed in several  Member States, most notably Latvia, Spain 
and Denmark (increasing) and Austria, Lithuania, and Hungary (decreasing). 

100 

0123456789BELVFRITIEPTRONLLUPLATSKESELSELTDEHRBGCZSIDKFIHUUKNOEUR per train-km20152018 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 60 shows access charges (excluding mark-ups) for high-speed passenger trains per country for 
2015  and  2018,  measured  in  EUR  per  train  kilometre117.  Track  access  charges  for  high-speed  rail 
(excluding mark-ups) were higher than other passenger charges, reaching in 2018 a maximum in the 
United Kingdom (EUR 18) and in Belgium (EUR 10.6 per train kilometre).  

Figure 60: Access charges (excluding mark-ups) for high-speed passenger trains by country (EUR per train-km, 

2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. NL 2015 estimated. 

The  figure  shows  how  charges  have  changed,  most  notably  in  Spain  (decreasing)  and  the  United 
Kingdom (increasing). 

117 The RMMS asks more precisely for track access charge, excluding mark-ups, for ‘passenger trains providing 

high-speed services on dedicated high-speed lines’.  

101 

02468101214161820BEESITFRNLDKATHRCZHUIELVLUPLPTSIUKNOEUR per train-km20152018 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

5.5 

Access charges for different categories of freight trains 

Figure  61  compares  estimates  of  typical  access  charges  (excluding  mark-ups)  per  country  in  2018, 
measured in EUR per train kilometre, for freight trains of three different maximum gross tonnages. 

Figure  61: Access charges (excluding mark-ups) for different  categories of freight trains, by country (EUR per 

train-km, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

Overall,  highest  track  access  charges  are  achieved  in  the  Baltic  States.  Unusually  high  track  access 
charges are achieved for 6 000 gross tonne freight trains in Norway118.  

118 Average track access charges for the 6 000 gross tonne freight category can be influenced from the tonnage 
of trains running the network, which can be significantly higher than 6 000 gross tonne (ex. in Norway for 
example where full load trains up to 8 500 gross tonne can run through the network). 

102 

0510152025LTLVEEFIPLIEHUSENLSKCZATROITBEDEFRBGHRLUSIELPTDKESNOUKEUR per train-km1 000 gross tonnes1 600 gross tonnes6 000 gross tonnes 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 62 shows access charges (excluding mark-ups) for 1 000 gross tonne freight trains per country 
for 2015 and 2018, measured in EUR per train kilometre. 

Figure  62:  Access  charges  (excluding  mark-ups)  for  1  000  tonne  freight  trains  by  country  (EUR  per  train-km, 

2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. HU 2015 estimated. DE, NO 2015 not available. 

The figure shows how charges have changed in several Member States, most notably Denmark and 
Slovakia (increasing) and Estonia and Lithuania (decreasing).  

103 

024681012LVRONLSKPLATCZFREELTITBEBGFIPTHRDESEELHULUDKSIESIEUKNOEUR per train-km20152018 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 63 shows access charges (excluding mark-ups) for 1 600 gross tonne freight trains per country 
for 2015 and 2018, measured in EUR per train kilometre. 

Figure  63:  Access  charges  (excluding  mark-ups)  for  1  600  tonne  freight  trains  by  country  (EUR  per  train-km, 

2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. LU, HU 2015 estimated. DE, NO 2015 not available, FR 2018 not available. 

The figure shows how charges have changed in several Member States, most notably Denmark and 
Slovakia (increasing) and Estonia (decreasing).  

104 

024681012LVIEPLSKNLCZLTATROEEFIBGITBEHRHUSEELPTDELUSIDKESUKNOEUR per train-km20152018 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 64 shows access charges (excluding mark-ups) for 6 000 gross tonne freight trains per country 
for 2015 and 2018, measured in EUR per train kilometre. 

Figure  64:  Access  charges  (excluding  mark-ups)  for  6  000  tonne  freight  trains  by  country  (EUR  per  train-km, 

2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. HU 2015: estimate, BE, DE, LU 2015 not available, FR 2018 not available. 

The  figure  shows  how  charges  have  changed  in  several  Member  States,  most  notably  Estonia  and 
Denmark (increasing) and Norway (decreasing).  

105 

0510152025303540LTLVEEFIPLHUSENLITBEDELUSIPTDKATHRCZIENOUKEUR per train-km20152018 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

5.6 

Infrastructure managers’ revenue calculated for passenger and freight 
trains 

Figure 65 shows the infrastructure managers’ reported revenues from passenger trains through track 
access charges, station charges and other charges per country for 2015 and 2018. In the RMMS, only 
charges  collected  by  the  infrastructure  managers  need  to  be  reported.  These  therefore  include 
charges for station facilities only if owned or managed by infrastructure managers.  

Figure  65:  Infrastructure  managers'  revenue  earned  from  charges  (TACs,  station  charges  and  other  charges) 

paid by passenger trains, per country (EUR billion, 2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. LU 2018 adjusted, Revenues from TACs not available for HU and LU 2015, Revenues from 
station charges not available for BG, CZ, EL, FI, LV, PT and RO for both years. 

Overall, the highest revenues passenger services’ charges in 2018 were achieved in Germany, France 
and the United Kingdom. The lowest revenues (almost zero) in Slovenia119.  

119  PSO trains are exempted from paying track access charges in Slovenia.  

106 

012345678DEFRITESBEATNLPLHUROSEDKIECZPTSKLVEEFILUELBGHRLTSIUKNOEUR billion20152018 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 66 shows the infrastructure managers’ share of track access, station and other charges in total 
revenues from passenger trains per country in 2018. 

Figure 66: Proportion of infrastructure managers' revenue earned from TACs, station charges and other charges 

on total charges paid by passenger trains, per country (% in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. LU 2018 adjusted, SE reports consolidated figures for TACs and station charges, so it is not 
possible to represent their respective weight on the total charges. 
In 2018, track access charges represented on average 88% of the infrastructure managers’ revenues 
from passenger trains in the EU27 (89% in EU28). Norway reported the lowest share of track access 
charges  on total infrastructure managers’ revenues from passenger services  (38%). Station charges 
can make up to 49% of the total, as reported by Hungary. Sweden reported negative revenues from 
other charges due to quality fees paid by the infrastructure manager.   

107 

-20%0%20%40%60%80%100%120%SEFILVLUSIBGBECZEEPLFRROELESIENLPTSKATITDEHRLTHUDKEU27UKNO% of infrastructure manager revenuetrack access chargesstation chargesother charges 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 67 shows infrastructure managers’ reported revenues from freight trains through track access 
charges, freight terminals charges and other charges per country for 2015 and 2018. In the RMMS, 
only charges collected by the infrastructure managers need to be reported. These therefore include 
charges for freight terminals only if owned or managed by infrastructure managers.  

Figure  67:  Infrastructure  managers'  revenue  earned  from  charges  (TACs,  freight  terminals  charges  and  other 

charges) paid by freight trains, per country (EUR million, 2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Revenues from TACs not available for HU and LU 2015, Revenues from freight terminals 
not available for BG, EL, ES, NO and PT for both years and for HU and EE (only 2015). 

Germany  reported  the  highest  revenues  of  infrastructure  managers  from  freight  services  in  2018, 
while Greece reported the lowest revenues. 

108 

 0 200 400 600 8001 0001 200DEPLLTFRLVITATROHUCZSENLBEFISKEEDKBGPTSIHRESIELUELUKNOEUR million20152018 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 68 shows infrastructure managers’ share of track access, freight terminals and other charges 
in total revenues from freight trains per country in 2018. 

Figure  68:  Proportion  of  infrastructure  managers'  revenue  earned  from  TACs,  freight  terminals  charges  and 

other charges on total charges paid by freight trains, per country (%, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. LU 2018 adjusted, Revenues from TACs not available for HU and LU 2015, Revenues from 
freight terminals not available for BG, EL, ES, NO and PT for both years and for HU and EE (only 2015). 

In 2018, track access charges represented on average 84% of the infrastructure managers’ revenues 
from freight trains in the EU27 (same as in EU28). Denmark reported the lowest share of track access 
charges  on  total  revenues  of  infrastructure  managers  from  freight  services  (16%).  Freight  terminal 
charges can make up to 19% of the total as reported by Portugal. Sweden reported negative revenue 
from freight terminal charges, and Greece reported negative revenue from other charges.   

109 

-20%0%20%40%60%80%100%120%SEELATFILUNLSIEEIECZBGPLLTBEROITFRSKHRDELVESHUPTDKEU27NOUK% of instrastructure manager revenuetrack access chargesfreight terminal chargesother charges 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure  69  shows  the  share  of  passenger  and  freight  charges  in  total  revenues  of  infrastructure 
managers’ revenues from trains per country in 2018. 

Figure  69:  Share  of  passenger  and  freight  charges  on  infrastructure  managers'  total  revenues  earned  from 

trains, per country (% in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

In  2018,  passenger  services  represented  on  average  86%  of  the  total  revenues  of  infrastructure 
managers from trains in the EU27 (90% in EU28). Spain reported the highest share (99%), Slovenia 
the lowest (1%). 

5.7 

Capacity allocation and congestion 

The  capacity  of  railway  networks  to  accommodate  trains  to  carry  passengers  or  freight  is  not  the 
same  everywhere  in  the  European  Union.  Some  networks  (or  parts  of  networks)  have  a  limited 
capacity  available  for  further  traffic,  whereas  others  are  underused.  Figure  70  shows  the  reported 
average network utilisation separately for passenger and freight trains measured in train kilometres 
per line kilometre in 2018 per country, as well as the evolution compared to 2015. Despite the fact 
that these broad national averages say nothing about  the emptiest parts of the  network, they can 
provide some indications about which networks are on average busier than others.  

110 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%ESIEFRBELUELITNLDEDKPTHUATSESKROCZHRBGPLEEFILVLTSIEU27UKNO% of instrastructure manager revenuepassenger trainsfreight trains 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 70: Network utilisation per country (thousand train-km per line-km, 2018) and evolution (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020, Statistical pocketbook, 2020. RO 2015 and 2016 estimated; Infill data from various other 
sources and estimates. 

In  2018,  the  EU27  network  had  an  intensity  of  use  of  18.2  thousand  train  kilometres  per  line 
kilometre  (19.5  for  EU28).  The  most  intensively  used  networks  in  2018  were  those  of  western 
Europe, in particular in the Netherlands, with an intensity of use of 50.6 thousand train kilometres 
per line kilometre. Greece appears to have the lowest intensity of use with only 4.8 thousand train 
kilometres per line kilometre. In terms of segments, 80% of the intensity of use was due to passenger 
trains (14.5 thousand train kilometres per line kilometre).  

Overall, the intensity of use  of the  network  increased slightly by 0.6 thousand train kilometres per 
line kilometre between 2015 and 2018 (a broadly equal increase in both the EU27 and EU28). Based 
on  RMMS  data,  Czechia  reported  the  highest  increase  over  the  period  (+2.2  thousand  train 
kilometres  per  line  kilometre)  and  the  Netherlands  the  largest  decrease  (-1.3  thousand  train 
kilometres per line kilometre).  

5.7.1 

Allocating capacity 

Successful and rejected path allocations for scheduled and ad hoc train paths 

Timetables structure and organise the use of railway infrastructure in the form of ‘train paths’: train 
paths determine the train (by number), the time of use and the individual trajectory of the train. The 

111 

0102030405060NLATDKLUDEBEITCZSIFRSEPTSKPLHUESIEFILTLVHRBGEEROELEU27UKNOthousand train-km per line-kmfreightpassenger-2024CZPLSKSIITBESEPTLTESHUHRATDEFIEEELBGFRIERODKLULVNLEU27UKNOthousand train-km/line-km 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

basis for building timetables are path requests by railway undertakings and other applicants120. With 
this,  infrastructure  managers  create  a  usage  plan,  i.e.  the  timetable,  which  reconciles  all  path 
requests in the best possible way, given the available infrastructure capacity. 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  at  shorter  notice.  Path  allocation  requests 
may  be  accepted  or  rejected  by  an  infrastructure  manager  to  resolve  conflicting  applications  for 
infrastructure capacity.  

Member  States  are  required  to  follow  the  path  coordination  processes  set  out  in  Article  46(1)  of 
Directive  2012/34/EU.  Annex  VII  to  the  same  Directive121  specifies  a  mandatory  timeline  for 
establishing  the  yearly  timetable  and  introduces  coordination  and  consultation  processes  between 
infrastructure managers and applicants.  

Despite EU path coordination rules having been in place for a long time, the timetabling procedures 
have  evolved  nationally  and  lack  Europe-wide  harmonisation,  which  creates  barriers  for  a  smooth 
cross-border traffic.  

Further to this, the current timetabling process does not really fit the business model of rail freight in 
particular. A significant part of the demand is volatile and cannot be planned long in advance, so ad 
hoc requests for train paths are in principle the most appropriate method to accommodate capacity 
needs.  However,  rail  freight  path  requests  are  also  made  within  the  annual  timetable  process 
(scheduled paths), to avoid the risk of not receiving ad hoc train paths of suitable quality (or even 
none at all) at a later stage.  

This  often  leads  to  suboptimal  ordering  behaviour  and  thus  to  a  suboptimal  management  of 
infrastructure  capacity,  resulting  in  a  waste  of  resources.  In  fact,  train  paths  often  need  to  be 
modified or even cancelled at a later stage, when the actual capacity needs materialise.  

120  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. 

121  As replaced by Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2017/2075 of 4 September 2017 replacing Annex VII to 
Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a single European railway 
area (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec_del/2017/2075/oj ).  

112 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 71 shows the reported number of successful and rejected scheduled path allocation122 in 2018 
per country. 

Figure  71:  Successful  and  rejected  path  allocations  for  scheduled  path  allocations  per  country  (million  path 

allocations, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

According  to  RMMS  data,  24.4  million  path  allocations  were  successfully  scheduled  in  2018  in  the 
EU27 (24.7 in E28) and just 0.2 million rejected.  

Similarly  for  ad  hoc  path  allocation  (shown  in  Figure  72),  about  3  million  ad  hoc  paths  were 
successfully allocated in the EU27 (about 4 million in EU28), with just nine thousand rejected. Paths 
for freight services represented 72% of all ad hoc paths successfully allocated in EU27 (58% in EU28).  

122  The definition related to the count of path allocations still need to be refined in the RMMS, as shown for 
example  by  the  striking  difference  between  France  and  Germany  in  scheduled  paths  which  have  been 
allocated. These differences could depend, for example, on how daily paths have been recorded (as any of 
1,  7,  28  or  365).  The  section  on  capacity  allocation  in  the  RMMS  questionnaire  will  be  reviewed  when 
Regulation 2015/1100 is revised.  

113 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure  72:  Successful  and  rejected  path  allocations  for  ad  hoc  path  allocations  per  country  (thousand  path 

allocations, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

Framework agreements between infrastructure managers and railway undertakings 

Article 42 of Directive  2012/34/EU  allows the conclusions of framework agreements for the  use of 
the infrastructure for longer than one working timetable period. To provide railway undertakings and 
new entrants with fair access to the railway infrastructure and to optimise the use of infrastructure, 
the  Commission  adopted  in  2016  Implementing  Regulation  2016/545123  on  procedures  and  criteria 
relating to framework agreements for the allocation of railway infrastructure.  

At June 2020, framework agreements were applied by the infrastructure managers of Austria, Italy, 
Norway and the United Kingdom. Framework agreements will be used in Spain to open the domestic 
high-speed  rail  market124  starting  from  the  2020-2021  timetable.  To  facilitate  the  access  of  new 
operators,  the  infrastructure  manager  ADIF  opted  to  sign  framework  agreements  for  three  high-
speed  packages  (A,  B  and  C)  in  which  three  complementary  railway  offers  could  coexist  for  the 
commercial high-speed services. These framework agreements have a duration of 10 years and any 
candidate remains able to request capacity independently from this procedure.  

123  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/545 of 7 April 2016 on procedures and criteria concerning 

framework agreements for the allocation of rail infrastructure capacity (Text with EEA relevance) 
C/2016/1954, OJ L 94, 8.4.2016, p. 1–11.  

124  RENFE (revised decision https://www.cnmc.es/expedientes/stpdtsp01320  ), ILSA 

(https://www.cnmc.es/expedientes/stpdtsp01420 ) and Rielsfera 
(https://www.cnmc.es/expedientes/stpdtsp01520 ).  

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

5.7.2  Managing capacity shortages 

Infrastructure  managers  need  to  meet  all  capacity  requests  adequately  in  a  fair  and  non-
discriminatory manner and have to survey the usage of infrastructure capacity. Methods need to be 
developed to deal with any capacity constraints, enabling additional requests to be satisfied. Reasons 
for  congestion  and  measures  that  are  to  be  taken  in  the  short  and  medium  term  need  to  be 
identified.  If,  after  coordination  and  consultation,  train  path  demand  cannot  be  matched,  the 
relevant section of infrastructure must be declared congested. 

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 (or will soon not be possible) to satisfy requests for 
infrastructure capacity. The RMMS surveys both tracks and nodes that have been declared congested 
by infrastructure managers in each country according to Article 47125.  

Figure 73 shows the trends in the total length of track declared congested over the period 2012 to 
2018 in the EU27. The congested tracks belonging to rail freight corridors, which are already included 
in the total congested tracks, are also reported separately in the chart for more clarity.   

Figure 73: Total length of track declared congested (total and freight corridors) (km, 2012-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

The total length of track declared congested in the EU27 has constantly risen since 2015 and in 2018 
has reached 2 261 kilometres (3 432 in EU28), including 1 339 kilometres of rail freight corridors. This 
represents more than twice the 2015 level of congested tracks, (almost the double for parts included 
in rail freight corridors).  

125  Tracks  and  nodes  that,  despite  being  almost  saturated,  have  not  been  officially  declared  congested 

according to Article 47 are not covered by RMMS statistics.  

115 

 0 5001 0001 5002 0002 5002012201320142015201620172018kmEU27total lengthof which: rail freight corridors 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Table  12  shows  the  distribution  by  country  of  total  length  of  track  declared  congested  over  the 
period 2015-2018. 

Table 12: Track declared to be congested (total including freight corridors) per country, (km, 2015-2018) 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

AT 
DE 
DK 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
NO 
PL 
RO 
SE 
SI 
UK 

12 
507 
84 
0 
12 
163 
0 
71 
4 
260 

0 
1 171 

12 
681 
84 
58 
12 
387 
0 
71 
4 
363 

0 
1 171 

12 
731 
42 
58 
12 
152 
293 
150 
0 
346 
165 
0 
1 171 

12 
731 
42 
0 
4 
240 
591 
171 
0 
329 
267 
45 
1 171 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

The  network  with  the  greatest  length  of  declared  congested  track  is  that  of  the  United  Kingdom, 
which  accounted  for  32.5%  of  total  congested  track  in  2018.  There  is  also  extensive  congestion  in 
Germany,  Italy  and  Romania,  and  a  significant  increase  between  2017  and  2018  in  Lithuania  and 
Sweden.  

Germany, Romania and Lithuania in particular were  the countries reporting the highest number of 
kilometres of freight corridors congested (620, 320 and 309 respectively in 2018).  

Between 2015 and 2018, no country declared any kilometre of a high-speed line as congested.   

Table 13 shows the number of nodes declared congested according to Article 47. 

Table 13: Nodes declared to be congested per country, (km, 2015-2018) 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

DE 
DK 
EE 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LV 
NL 
NO 
PL 
RO 
SE 
UK 

2 
1 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 

0 
2 
1 
9 
6 
1 

2 
1 
1 
2 
2 
1 
0 
2 
1 
2 
1 

4 
1 

2 
1 
1 
2 
3 
0 
2 
0 
0 
2 
0 
2 
5 
1 

2 
1 
1 
0 
2 
0 
4 
0 
0 
2 
0 
1 
6 
1 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

Sweden and Lithuania reported the highest number of nodes declared congested for 2018, 6 and 4 
respectively.  

116 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Principles for dealing with congestion 

After  a  section  of  infrastructure  has  been  declared  congested,  a  new  capacity  enhancement  plan 
needs  to  be  developed  or  an  existing  one  needs  to  be  applied.  For  a  new  plan,  the  infrastructure 
manager has to carry out a capacity analysis within 6 months, which results in the respective capacity 
enhancement  plan  within  a  further  six  months.  Such  plans  have  to  display  the  reasons  for  the 
congestion, the  likely future  development of traffic, any constraints on infrastructure development 
as well as the options and costs for capacity enhancement, including likely changes to access charges. 
This  forms  the  basis  to  take  a  decision  to  remediate  the  congestion.  The  users  of  the  relevant 
congested infrastructure are to be consulted on the plan and its measures.  

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

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

The  infrastructure  manager  may  also  employ  priority  criteria  to  allocate  infrastructure  capacity,  if 
scarcity  charges  are  not  levied,  or  have  not  achieved  a  change  in  traffic  demand  behaviour.  The 
criteria need to reflect the importance of a service to society relative to any other service, which will 
consequently be excluded. The importance of transport services under public service requirements 
and  of  national or  international  rail  freight  have  to be  taken  into  consideration.  Compensations  to 
infrastructure managers for losses of revenues due to the capacity allocation to certain services may 
be  granted,  even  including  effects  related  to  the  exclusion  of  a  service  in  another  Member  State. 
Procedures and criteria have to be described in the network statement.  

Box 9: Reservation charges 

Reservation charges are charges that infrastructure managers may apply for capacity that is allocated but 
not  used.  Infrastructure  managers  have  the  right  (but  are  not  obliged)  to  levy  these  charges  if  railway 
undertakings  or  applicants  do  not  use  the  capacity  they  have  ordered  and  have  been  allocated. 
Nevertheless, infrastructure managers are obliged to levy a reservation charge, in case of a regular failure 
of use. The aim of the charges is to incentivise efficient use of capacity.  

The  conditions  on  how  the  infrastructure  managers  impose  these  charges,  including  the  criteria  to 
determine the failure to use allocated capacity must be published in their network statement. This ensures 
a transparent, objective and non-discriminatory application of the charge. Any party, railway undertaking 
or applicant that orders paths and regularly fails to use them will have to pay the charge.  

The  topic  of  reservation  charges  and  force  majeure  incidents  has  been  tackled  in  the  PRIME  charges 
subgroup,  a  working  group  under  the  platform  of  European  infrastructure  managers.  Force  majeure 
incidents result in non-usage of allocated train paths, literally speaking after the incident has disrupted the 
train path. This is especially relevant for international trains that cross more than one network. 

A conclusion of the subgroup is that, on a national scale, infrastructure managers do not levy reservation 
charges if rail traffic cannot be operated due to force majeure impacts. Nevertheless, the definition of what 
is force majeure differs from Member State to Member State.  

117 

 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Priority rules and 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,  but  only  as  set  out  in  Articles  47  and  49 
(congested and specialised infrastructure). Many infrastructure managers make use of priority rules, 
and  the  principal  types  of  service  given  priority  –  as  they  have  been  reported  in  the  RMMS  –  are 
summarised in Figure 74.  

Figure  74:  Principal  types  of  services  prioritised  by  infrastructure  managers  (number  of  MS  assigning  each 

priority, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

Passenger  services  under  PSO  appear  to  be  given  the  highest  priority  in  a  significant  number  of 
countries (13) whereas international passenger services are given the highest priority in 7 countries. 
Interestingly, only 3 countries reported giving the highest priority to freight (2 to international and 1 
to domestic freight services). 

Capacity restrictions due to infrastructure works 

Infrastructure works are necessary to develop and maintain railway infrastructure, but at the same 
time  they  restrict  available 
impact  of  capacity  restrictions  on 
international  rail  freight  traffic  appears  to  be  particularly  severe.  This  is  because  infrastructure 
managers usually prioritise the much faster and more punctual passenger trains, which leaves limited 
access to rail infrastructure for freight trains. 

infrastructure  capacity.  The 

EU legislation126 lays down rules to ensure there is a predictable schedule for and at least some level 
of coordination of infrastructure works across Member States. The purpose is to limit the impact of 

126  

In particular Article 12 of 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, and Annex VII point 8 of 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. 32–77.  

118 

02468101214161820PSOInternationalpassengerInternationalfreightDomesticpassengerDomestic freightDomestic High-SpeedMember States assigning each priorityPriority 1Priority 2Priority 3Priority 4Priority 5 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

works on international rail traffic. Infrastructure works are subject to coordination rules, in particular 
along the rail freight corridors. However, coordination can only be effective if works are planned and 
executed in a timely manner.  

The coordination of capacity restrictions across networks is challenging due to significant differences 
in  the  way  infrastructure  works  are  planned,  financed  and  executed  in  different  networks.  Sound 
planning and execution of infrastructure works by infrastructure managers require a reliable financial 
framework and appropriate incentives to improve performance. As most infrastructure managers are 
dependent  on  public  funding  for  at  least  part  of  maintenance  and  renewal  expenditure,  Member 
States have an important role to play. 

EU legislation requires Member States to have contractual agreements127 between their competent 
authorities  and  infrastructure  managers,  among  other  things  to  ensure  sound  financing  of 
infrastructure works.  

5.8 

Rail transport services covered by public service contracts 

The  concept  of  public  service  obligation  (PSO)  is  defined  in  Regulation  (EC)  1370/2007.  In  the 
Regulation, a PSO is defined as a requirement defined or determined by a competent authority to 
assure the provision of 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, which was amended in the  Fourth Railway Package by Regulation (EU) 2016/2338, 
aims  to  create  an  internal  market  for  public  passenger  transport  services  by  complementing  the 
general rules on public procurement.  

127  Article 30(2) of Directive 2012/34/EU.  

119 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

5.8.1 

PSO scope 

Figure 75 shows the share of passenger kilometres offered respectively under a PSO and commercial 
rail services per country in 2018. 

Figure 75: Share of passenger traffic offered respectively under a PSO and commercial rail services per country 

(% of pax-km, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. The data for BE, PT, EL and FR are estimates. RO not available. 

In 2018, PSO passenger services represented on average 60% of the total passenger kilometres in the 
EU27128  (66%  in  EU28).  According  to  RMMS  data,  all  passenger  traffic  was  covered  by  a  PSO  in 
Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands.  

Over 30% of passenger kilometres are on commercially operated services in Austria, Germany, Italy 
and  Sweden  (countries  where  commercial  services  are  offered  also  by  alternative  operators),  and 
Spain, France and Portugal (countries with the lowest share of services offered under PSO, 8%129).   

Services are provided on a commercial basis without a PSO typically in domestic long-distance  and 
interurban markets. International services appear to be rarely provided under a PSO. Figure 76 shows 
the share of passenger traffic offered respectively under domestic and international PSO services per 
country in 2018, as reported in the RMMS.  

128 From 53% in 2015.  
129 In Portugal, the incumbent operator CP no longer received compensation and all its traffic was considered 

as commercial.  

120 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%LUDKIENLHUHRBGSIELFIEELVSKPLBECZLTATDEITSEESFRPTEU27NOUK% of pax-kmPSOcommercial 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure  76:  Share  of  passenger  traffic  offered  respectively  under  domestic  and  international  PSO  services  per 

country (% of pax-km, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

On  average,  in  2018,  domestic  passenger  services  represented  98.3%  of  the  total  PSO  passenger 
kilometres  in  the  EU27  (98.6%  in  EU28).  Among  countries  that  reported  having  international  PSO 
services, Luxembourg (23%), Slovenia (20%) and Czechia (15%) had the highest share of international 
PSO  services  on  total  PSO  services,  whereas  Germany  and  Norway  (1%),  together  with  the  United 
Kingdom (less than 0.5%), had the smallest.  

5.8.2 

PSO award 

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) 1370/2007 ‘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.’ 

The  nature  and  areas  of  responsibility  of  competent  authorities  for  passenger  rail  services  vary 
between states.  

-  One single national authority can be competent for rail passenger transport, or other tiers of 
government can be responsible at their own geographical level (typically a region, province 
or county with a capital city or administrative centre). Most states with devolved authorities 
also have a national competent authority that can, if needed, specify PSOs for services linking 
different regions130.  

-  These arrangements can involve one single national public service contract (PSC) that serves 

the entire country or a large number of PSCs. Such contracts can be with a national 

130 This is not  always the case:  in Germany, for  example, the competent  authorities are  the Länder, three of 
which  cover  only  the  cities  of  Berlin,  Bremen  and  Hamburg;  in  addition,  interregional  public  service 
contracts typically require the cooperation of two or more Länder.  

121 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%DEPLSKDKSECZSILUEU27UKNO% of pax-kmdomestic PSOinternational PSO 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

incumbent operator, with established regional and local operators, or through competitive 
tendering.  

Each competent authority is required to publish once a year an aggregated report on: (i) the public 
service obligations for which it is responsible; (ii) the selected public service operators; and (iii) the 
compensation payments and exclusive rights granted to the said public service operators by way of 
reimbursement131.  

Direct award versus tendering 

Figure  77  shows  the  proportion  of  PSO  services,  measured  in  passenger  kilometres,  which  were 
competitively tendered or directly awarded in 2018 per country. 

Figure 77: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded per country (billion pax-km, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. No data available for NL. 

Of the 229 million PSO passenger kilometres in the EU27 in 2018 (296 in EU28), 26% were on services 
which  had  been  competitively  tendered  (43%  in  EU28).  The  highest  amounts  of  competitively 
tendered volumes were in Germany and the United Kingdom. In relative terms, 85.6% of all the EU27 
competitive  tendering  occurred  in  the  two  Member  States  which  liberalised  their  services  early 
(74.3%  in  Germany  and  11.3%  in  Sweden).  If  we  consider  the  EU28,  93.2%  of  all  competitive 
tendering occurred in Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom (35.4% Germany, 5.4% Sweden and 
52.4% United Kingdom). According to RMMS data, limited competitive tendering was also introduced 
in Portugal, Italy, Bulgaria, Poland, Denmark and Czechia. 

131  Article 7 of Regulation (EC) 1370/2007, now amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/2338.  

122 

01020304050607080DEFRITPLESBEATCZHUSEDKROFIPTSKIEBGELHRLVSILUEELTNLUKNObillion pax-kmcompetitively tendereddirectly awarded 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Overview of PSO contracts awarded during the reported period 

The  RMMS  collects  information  related  to  the  size  of  PSO  contracts  (if  any)  awarded  during  any 
reference  year. Figure  78 shows the  size of directly awarded and competitively tendered contracts 
measured in train kilometres in 2018 per country: 

  The numbers on the horizontal axis show the number of contracts awarded, 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 awarded in each state. 

Figure 78: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded per country (million train-km, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

The  largest  competitively  tendered  PSO  contract  was  reported  by  Germany,  covering  nearly  10 
million  train  kilometres.  The  largest  directly  awarded  PSO  contract  was  reported  by  Hungary, 
covering 72 million train kilometres. A few countries have several directly awarded PSO contracts of 
remarkable  size  (Poland,  Italy,  France,  Greece,  Germany  and  Latvia);  others  reported  just  one 
contract.  

5.8.3 

PSO compensation 

Apparent levels of PSO compensation 

Figure  79  shows  the  apparent  average  levels  of  PSO  compensation  measured  in  EUR  per  train 
kilometre in 2018 per country.  

123 

0102030405060708090DE18DK1NO1HU2PL12IT28FR3HR1SI1EL25DE7LT1LV2SE1EE1AT1CZ1ES1million train-km per yearcompetitively tendereddirectly awarded 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 79: Apparent average PSO compensation per country (EUR per train-km, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Data for NL not available. 

In  2018,  the  apparent  average  PSO  compensation  in  the  EU27  was  EUR  10.51  per  train  kilometre 
(8.57 in EU28). France and Luxembourg have the highest apparent average PSO compensation (EUR 
27.30  and  EUR  24.10  per  train  kilometre  respectively); 
in  contrast,  Portugal  reported  no 
compensation.  

Share of PSO and commercial fares on total revenues of railway undertakings  

Figure 80 shows the share of PSO and commercial fares in the total revenues of railway undertakings 
in 2018 per country. Total revenues include PSO fares, commercial fares and PSO compensation, but 
exclude PSO operators’ revenue from other sources, such as catering, car parking and concessions on 
stations.  

124 

051015202530FRLUBEATITESLVDEDKSKIEEEHUSISEELBGLTCZROPLHRFIPTEU27NOUKEUR per train-km 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 80: Share of PSO and commercial fares on total revenues of railway undertakings (% in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. BE, NL and RO not available. 

In 2018, the share of PSO and commercial fares in the total revenues of railway undertakings in the 
EU27  was  on  average  47%  (65%  in  EU28).  In  Czechia,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  and  Portugal  PSO  costs 
appear  to  have  been  fully  recovered  by  fares,  whereas  Luxembourg  shows  the  lowest  coverage 
(12%).  

5.9 

Degree of market opening and utilisation of access rights 

EU legislation has provided for an incremental opening of the rail market gradually over the years.   

  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 Directive 2016/2370/EU and 

Regulation (EU) 2016/2338, liberalised the remaining passenger services, subject to measures to 
protect PSOs. 

Some Member States, however, opened their rail markets in advance of the creation of a formal right 
of entry through EU liberalisation. On the other hand, in other cases, legal market opening has not 
resulted in any significant market entry by competitors.  

125 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%CZIELTPTFISKSEESHUDEITDKFRATPLELSIHRLVEEBGLUEU27UKNO% of PSO and commercial fares on total RUs revenues 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

5.9.1 

Opening of the freight market 

The following paragraphs provide an overview of the competitive environment at the end of 2018, 12 
years after the liberalisation of rail freight services in the EU in 2007. 

Evolution of competitors’ market share in the freight market 

The competitors’ average market share in the EU27 rail freight market increased from 34% to 42% 
between 2015 and 2018. The increase in the EU28 was from 35% to 43% over the same period.  

Figure 81 shows the shares of the domestic freight markets, as measured in tonne kilometres, which 
are  not  served  by  the  historic  incumbent  operator.  The  chart  on  the  right  shows  the  change  in 
percentage points of the competitors’ market share between 2015 and 2018. 

Figure  81:  Competitors’  market  share  in  the  rail  freight  market  per  country  (%  in  2018)  and  change  in 

percentage points (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. NL 2015 adjusted, one operator with 100% market share in EL, IE, LT and LU. 

Competitors  have  the  largest  market  share  in  Romania  (64%),  and  the  smallest  in  Finland  and 
Estonia.  In  each  of  Lithuania,  Ireland,  Luxembourg  and  Greece,  one  operator  has  a  100%  market 
share.  The  highest  growth  between  2015  and  2018  was  reported  for  Czechia  and  Croatia  (33  and 
30 percentage  points  more  respectively),  whereas  a  major  decline  was  reported  in  Estonia 
(-28 percentage points).  

5.9.2 

Opening of the passenger market 

The following paragraphs provide an overview of the competitive environment existing both in the 
commercial and in the PSO rail passenger services at the end of 2018. This means that the domestic 
market  opening  imposed  by  the  Fourth  Railway  Package  (from  December  2019)  cannot  yet  be 
reflected  in  the  data;  the  presence  of  alternative  operators  depends  on  whether  and  how  far  a 
country decided to open its passenger market before the date imposed by the EU legislation.   

126 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%RONLITBGDEHUSEFRPLCZESHRLVATDKSKBESIPTEEFIEU27UKNO% of tonne-km-50%0%50%CZHRNLHUDEDKESPLATFRSKITROSIPTBGLVSEBEEEEU27NOUKchange in % points  
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

On average, competitors had 14% market share in national passenger markets132 in the EU27 in 2018 
(24% in EU28), an increase of 2 percentage points since 2015 (1 percentage point for the EU28).  

Box 10: Development of international passenger transport, in particular night trains and high-speed trains 

Night train services, which used to be common in the past, have suffered from declining competitiveness, 
including due to competition from low-cost airlines. However, the climate emergency has rekindled public 
interest in the provision of these services, which offer an attractive alternative to flights on certain longer 
distances. Due to the related CO2 savings, they fit with the Commission vision for a European Green Deal 
and with the pledge, signed by 25 Member States plus Norway and Switzerland on 2 June 2020, to develop 
international rail connections via an international rail passenger platform133. 

While  there  may  be  a  business  case  for  unsubsidised  night  train  services,  at  least  on  certain  popular 
connections, user demand may still be insufficient at this time to encourage the launch of new services or 
the  relaunch  of  services  abandoned  in  the  past.  The  economics  of  night  train  services  are  difficult  to 
ensure. Compared to daytime rail transport  services, night train services require costly specialised rolling 
stock, can carry fewer passengers per train and necessitate more personnel.  

Some  Member  States  wish  to  kick-start  the  development  of  night  services,  which  are  typically 
international, for  example by concluding public  service  contracts that ensure a  fair remuneration for rail 
operators.  For  example,  Sweden  is  investigating  connections  to  Germany  (with  potential  extensions  to 
Belgium  and  the  Netherlands)  and  the  Netherlands  is  considering  strengthening  cross-border  passenger 
services, including night train services, for instance, between Amsterdam and Vienna. Night train services 
between Vienna and Brussels were re-established in early 2020.  

At the same time, unsubsidised night trains have also started appearing. RegioJet seasonal overnight train 
service  opened  in  July  2020  to  connect  Czechia’s  capital  Prague  with  Rijeka  in  Croatia.  The  multimodal 
service, planned to run from July to September, targets Czech, Slovak and Hungarian holidaymakers, with 
RegioJet providing bus transfers to 30 tourist destinations on the Croatian coast. RailJet is also planning to 
launch  a  night  service  connecting  Vienna  and  Warsaw  every  day  from  December  2020.  The  Swedish  rail 
operator Snälltåget plans to operate its night trains between Stockholm and Berlin via Malmö, Copenhagen 
and Hamburg from 2021. 

High-speed rail services also offer a valid alternative to less sustainable transport modes. At the request of 
the European Parliament, in 2020 the Commission commissioned a study on cross-border long-distance rail 
passenger services, with a special focus on night train services. The results of the study, which will focus on 
the  obstacles  for  the  setting-up  and  running  of  cross-border  passenger  services,  are  expected  mid-
2021.Perceived obstacles today include the lack of easy ticketing options for passengers, the availability of 
suitable rolling stock, high infrastructure access charges for cross-border long-distance services and a lack 
of coordination in the setting-up of cross-border train paths. 

Evolution of competitors’ market share in the commercial passenger market 

On average, competitors had a 10% market share in national commercial passenger markets in the 
EU27 in 2018, an increase of 2 percentage points compared to 2015. For the EU28, the average was 
12%, also an increase of 2 percentage points on 2015.  

132  PSO and commercial services considered together.  
133  https://www.permanentrepresentations.nl/permanent-representations/pr-eu-

brussels/documents/publications/2020/06/04/political-statement-for-coalition-of-the-willing-
development-international-rail-passenger-transport .  

127 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure  82  shows  the  shares  of  the  commercial  (non-PSO)  passenger  market,  as  measured  in 
passenger  kilometres,  which  are  not  served  by  the  historic  incumbent  operator.  The  chart  on  the 
right  shows  the  change  in  percentage  points  of  the  competitors’  market  share  between  2015  and 
2018. 

Figure 82: Competitors' market share in the commercial passenger market per country (% in 2018) and change 

in percentage points (2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. BG, DK, HR, FI,  EL, LT, LU, SI, ES reported no competitors in  commercial services with a 
market share of 1% or more for 2018. There were no commercial passenger market services in IE. No data were 
available for NL and RO.  

Competitors dominate the commercial passenger market in Estonia, Latvia and the United Kingdom. 
The data on the United Kingdom can be misleading, as all pre-existing services, including those that 
are commercially viable, are operated under a PSO, and hence all non-PSO services are operated by 
new  entrants.  Competitors  have  significant  market  shares  also  in  Czechia,  where  even  though  the 
percentage appears lower than in Lithuania and Estonia, the amount of passenger kilometres offered 
under  commercial  services  is  significantly  higher.  Germany  and  Poland  reported  the  lowest 
competitors’ market  shares in the  segment (1%  and 2%  respectively), with Poland having reported 
also the largest drop since 2015 (-14 percentage points).  

128 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%EELVCZSKBEITATSEHUFRPTPLDEEU27UKNO% of pax-km-20%-10%0%10%20%HUITSEATDEEEFRLVPLEU27UKchange in % points 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Box 11: Development of low-cost rail services 

Rail low-cost offers started to emerge in the EU already back in 2013, both for high-speed and conventional 
services.  

Service 

Description 

OUIGO 

-  Subsidiary of SNCF 
-  Offering  low-fares,  high-speed  services  (has  expanded  its  initial  offer  and  now  reaches  41 

destinations in France) 
Launched in 2013 

- 

IZY 

Low-cost brand of Thalys 

- 
-  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:    

o  Flixtrain  started  offering  services  on  the  Berlin–Stuttgart  (via  Frankfurt)  and  Hamburg–
Cologne conventional lines in 2018. It extended its services to cover the Berlin–Cologne 
line in 2019 and was planning to extend its services in 2020 to seven new towns on the 
Berlin–Cologne line and on the Stuttgart-Hamburg line. 

o  FlixTrain (Flixbus Sverige) has  been allocated train paths on the  Stockholm–Gothenburg 

and Stockholm–Malmö lines starting from 2020.   

o  The company wanted to enter also the  French market with connections Paris–Brussels, 
Paris–Lyon, Paris–Nice (night train), Paris–Toulouse and Paris–Bordeaux, but gave up its 
plans in April 2020.  

-  FlixTrain  uses  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 

- 

Avlo  

- 

Low-cost RENFE service, initially due to be launched by Q1-2019 under the commercial name of 
EVA. The launch of the high-speed low-cost service (under the new name of Alta velocidad low-
cost, Avlo) was postponed until April 2020, when finally the COVID-19 pandemic obliged RENFE to 
revise its project and postpone it until further notice. 

-  The service was meant to offer low-fares, no-frills high-speed services between Madrid, Zaragoza 

and Barcelona, integrated with other modes. 

Rielsfera 

-  The French incumbent SNCF will expand its OuiGo low-cost offer to domestic high-speed services 
that will be opened in Spain from December 2020. Rielsfera, a subsidiary of SNCF, signed in May 
2020 a framework agreement with the Spanish high-speed infrastructure manager to provide five 
return connections per day between Madrid and Catalonia, five between Madrid and the Valencia 
region and five between Madrid and Andalusia. Service is expected to start at Easter 2021. 

Source: desk research (Sep 2020) 

Evolution of competitors’ market share in the PSO passenger market 

On average, competitors had a 16.2% market share on national PSO passenger markets in the EU27 
in  2018.  This  level  remained  almost  constant  compared  to  2015  (-0.5  percentage  points).  For  the 
EU28 the average was 32%, a slight decrease of 2 percentage points compared to 2015. 

Figure  83  shows  the  shares  of  the  PSO  passenger  market,  as  measured  in  passenger  kilometres, 
which are not served by the historic incumbent operator. The chart on the right shows the change in 
percentage points of the competitors’ market share between 2015 and 2018. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure  83:  Competitors'  market  share  in  the  PSO  passenger  market  per  country  (%  in  2018)  and  change  in 

percentage points (2015-2018) 

Source:  RMMS,  2020.  The  data  for  PT  in  2015  represent  an  estimate.  No  competitors  in  the  PSO  passenger 
market were reported by BE, BG, HR, EE, FI, FR, EL, HU, IE, LT, LU, SI and ES.  

In  2018,  competitors  had  the  highest  market  shares  of  the  PSO  passenger  market  in  the  United 
Kingdom (87%) and Sweden (72%). In Latvia, by contrast, only 0.1% was in the hands of competitors. 
The  highest  growth  of  competitors’  market  shares  was  reported  by  Sweden  (+4  percentage  points 
between 2015 and 2018), whereas a major decline was reported for the Netherlands (-10 percentage 
points) and Poland (-9 percentage points).  

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

The  Fourth  Railway  Package  opened  domestic  passenger  markets  to  competition  in  all  Member 
States134.  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.  

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  with  the  need  to  protect  the 
economic equilibrium of services provided under an existing public service contract. Member States 
can therefore restrict open access to their rail infrastructure 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.  

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

130 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%SEPLDEITRODKPTATNLCZSKLVEU27UKNO% of pax-km-20%-10%0%10%20%SEDEITPTDKLVSKROATCZPLNLEU27UKNOchange in % points 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

In November 2018, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1795 laying down 
the procedure and criteria for the application of the economic equilibrium test (EET) adapted to a rail 
market fully open to competition135. The regulation covers:  

- 

rules for notification of a planned new rail passenger service to infrastructure managers and 
regulatory bodies; 
the deadline for requesting the economic equilibrium test; 
information requirements and procedure for the economic equilibrium test;  

- 
- 
-  contents of the economic equilibrium test and assessment criteria; and 
-  cooperation between regulatory bodies competent for a proposed new international 

passenger service. 

A number of regulators published on their websites further details on the methodology they follow 
when implementing the economic equilibrium test.  

A number of economic equilibrium tests have been required and performed in Member States, now 
also under the new Regulation. A non-exhaustive list is set out below:   

-  Request for an economic equilibrium test rejected  

  FR: request of Région Hauts-de-France concerning new international service by 

Flixtrain, 2020 

  CZ: request of Ministry of Transport concerning new international rail passenger 

service by Leo Express, 2019 

  FR: request of French State concerning new domestic service by Flixtrain, 2019  
  PL: Leo Express, withdrew request for entry before a decision was taken, 2017 

-  Economic equilibrium test performed, positive decision for the new service 

  FR: request of Régions Bourgogne-FrancheComté et Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes 

concerning new domestic service by Flixtrain, 2020 

  FR: request of Région Occitanie concerning new domestic service by Flixtrain, 2020 
  PL: five cases about new domestic services by Arriva, 2017  
  FR: request of Region Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur concerning new international 

service by Thello, 2013  

-  Economic equilibrium test performed, positive decision for the new service 

  PL: one case about new domestic service by Arriva, 2017. 

The decisions are usually available on the respective regulator’s website. 

135  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.  

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

5.9.3 

Challenges of market opening 

Interoperability 

Technical aspects can have a major impact on the capacity of operators to provide their rail transport 
services across borders and in different countries.  

Differences in track gauges and electric current available for traction (presented in  Table 14) mean 
that  the  same  locomotives  and  wagons  cannot  be  used  in  all  countries.  An  expansion  of  activities 
across borders could imply in some cases that the railway undertaking has to arrange for new rolling 
stock and new traction vehicles.  

132 

 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Table 14: Main railway gauge and electric current used per country (2018) 

Track gauge 
Mm 

Electric current 

dc volts 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 

EE 
IE 
EL 

ES* 

FR 

HR 
IT 
CY 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT 
NL 
AT 
PL 
PT 

RO 
SI 
SK 
FI 
SE 
UK 

 1 435  
 1 435  
 1 435  
 1 435  
 1 435  

 1 520  
 1 600  
     600  
 1 000  
 1 435  
 1 000  
 1 435  
 1 668  
 1 000  

 1 435  
 1 435  
 1 435  
 -  
 1 520  
 1 520  
 1 435  
 1 435  
 -  
 1 435  
 1 435  
 1 435  
 1 000  
 1 668  
 1 435  
 1 435  
 1 435  
 1 524  
 1 435  
 1 435  
 1 600  
(N-IRL) 

                       3 000  

                       3 000  
                       3 000  
 800-1 200  
 (contact rail)  
                       3 000  
                       1 500  

                       1 500  

                       3 000  
 750-850  
 (contact rail)  
                       1 500  
                       3 000  
                       3 000  
 -  
                       3 000  

 -  
                       1 500  

                       3 000  

                       3 000  
                       3 000  

                           750  
 (contact rail)  

ac volts 
                      25 000  
                      25 000  
                      25 000  
                      25 000  
                      15 000  

  50  HZ  
  50  HZ  
  50   Hz  
  50  HZ  
  16.7 Hz  

                      25 000  

  50  HZ  

                      25 000  

  50  HZ  

                      25 000  
                      25 000  
                      25 000  
 -  

                      25 000  
                      25 000  
                      25 000  
 -  

  50  HZ  
  50  HZ  
  50  HZ  
 -  

  50  HZ  
  50  HZ  
  50  HZ  
 -  

                      15 000  

  16.7 Hz  

                      25 000  
                      25 000  

  50  HZ  
  50  HZ  

                      25 000  
                      25 000  
                      15 000  
                      25 000  

  50  HZ  
  50  HZ  
  16.7 Hz  
  50  HZ  

Source: Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer, railway companies 
Notes: 1 435 mm = standard gauge  
* ES: new lines have a gauge of 1 435 mm and an electric current of 25 000 volts, 50 Hz 
UK: (N-IRL): Northern Ireland 

Source: Statistical pocketbook 2020. 

National  rules,  i.e.  binding  rules  adopted  in  a  Member  State  containing  railway  safety  or  technical 
requirements other than those laid down by EU or international rules, may be applied in addition to 
EU  rules only  under  certain  conditions,  as  laid  down  in  Directive  (EU)  2016/797  and  Directive  (EU) 
2016/798.  National  rules  are  being  gradually  replaced  by  rules  based  on  common  standards, 
established  by  common  safety  methods  (CSMs)  and  technical  specifications  for  interoperability 
(TSIs),  since  their  persistence  can  represent  a  significant  obstacle  to  rail  interoperability.  ERA  is  in 
charge of examining the existing national rules in order to ensure that only national rules that are in 
conformity with EU law are applied.  

133 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Signalling  systems  can  also  pose  a  significant  barrier  to  interoperability.  The  existence  of  national 
Class-B systems on parts of the EU railway infrastructure implies that rolling stock must be equipped 
with  specific  interfaces  (adapted  to  a  specific  Class-B  system)  in  order  to  allow  for  proper 
communication  between  the  vehicles  and  the  infrastructure,  thus  ensuring  smooth  and  safe 
operations.  Whereas  domestic  incumbent  operators  are  usually  equipped  with  these  specific 
interfaces,  new  entrants  may  have  difficulties  procuring  them,  especially  when  the  amount  of 
equipment they need is not sufficient to ensure a viable business case for manufacturers.  

Trains  need  certifications  and  homologations  before  being  authorised  to  access  the  infrastructure. 
Certifications  and  homologations  are  provided  by  specialised  companies.  Given  the  knowhow 
needed  for  this  kind  of  activity,  these  specialised  companies  may  be  subsidiaries  of  incumbent 
railway operators. In this case,  particular attention must  be  paid to ensure that competition is not 
hindered through the authorisation process.  

When a company wants to access a new domestic market, it must perform test runs before its trains 
are  actually  allowed  to  access  the  infrastructure.  However,  test  runs  also  need  capacity  allocation 
and are not possible everywhere on a network. The limited availability of paths and tracks for testing 
can entail delays which could hamper the entry plans of new entrants.  

Rolling stock and traction market 

Smooth and non-discriminatory access to rolling stock is fundamental for alternative rail operators to 
enter new markets or to extend their service offer.   

Alternative,  smaller  passenger  operators  in  particular  sometimes  lack  the  appropriate  financial 
resources  to  engage  in  significant  investments  to  buy  new  rolling  stock  in  order  to  enter  a  new 
domestic  market  in  open  access  or  to  compete  for  bigger  PSO  contracts.  Further  to  this,  the 
secondary and leasing markets for rolling stock can be very limited, making it harder for new entrants 
to access rail markets.  

Adequacy  of  the  rolling  stock  also  can  be  a  significant  deterrent  for  market  entry  and  fair 
competition.   

Locomotives  must  be  compatible  with  the  infrastructure  on  which  they  are  to  be  operated,  with 
compatibility determined by track gauge, structure gauge, coupling and signalling equipment and, if 
electrified, the electrification system (which may use trackside rails or overhead catenary supplying 
power at several different voltages).  

134 

 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 84 shows the number of locomotives and railcars by country from 2015 to 2018.  

Figure 84: Stock of locomotives and railcars (number per country, 2015-2018) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook 2020. 

The fleet size ranges from 47 locomotives and railcars in Portugal up to 16 480 in Germany.  

Figure  85  shows  the  number  of  coaches,  railcars,  trailers  for  passenger  transport  by  country  from 
2015 to 2018.  

Figure 85: Stock of coaches, railcars, trailers for passenger transport (number per country, 2015-2018) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook 2020. 

135 

 02 0004 0006 0008 00010 00012 00014 00016 00018 000DEFRPLNLSECZITROATESBEHUSKDKFIBGIESIEEHRELLTLVLUPTUKNOnumber of locomotives and railcars2015201620172018 02 0004 0006 0008 00010 00012 00014 00016 00018 00020 000DEFRITPLESCZBENLSEATROHUDKSKFIPTBGELHRIELVSIEELULTUKNOnumber of coaches, railcars, trailers for pax transport2015201620172018 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

The fleet size ranges from 192 coaches, railcars and trailers for passenger transport in Lithuania up to 
18 059 in Germany.  

Figure 86 shows the number of goods transport wagons by country from 2015 to 2018.  

Figure 86: Stock of goods transport wagons (number per country, 2015-2018) 

Source: Statistical pocketbook 2020. No data for DK, NL, SE, UK and NO available.  

The fleet size ranges from 442 goods transport wagons in Ireland up to 87 990 in Poland.  

As  for  intermodal  wagons  that  are  used  for  combined  transport,  it  is  difficult  to  have  a 
comprehensive  picture  of their  number  and  types.  The  number of  studies  available  for  intermodal 
fleets is very limited. An overview of the combined transport wagon fleet for 2017 (quantity, type, 
average age, ownership) is provided in the UIC’s Combined transport in Europe 2018 report136.  

The lack of suitable rolling stock is often cited as one of the main reasons for the decline and limited 
uptake of (cross-border) night train services, as well as for the limited development of cross-border 
(long-distance)  passenger  rail  services.  For  night  trains,  a  dedicated  part  of  the  rolling  stock  is 
equipped with couchettes or beds. Since such rolling stock can only be used for night services, it idles 
during  the  day  time.  This  not  only  increases  the  acquisition  costs  of  these vehicles,  but  also  limits 
productive operating hours. Furthermore, a lack of interoperable high-speed trains and rolling stock 
hampers  the  introduction  of  cross-border  high-speed  and  conventional  services  by  new-entrant 
companies or other companies wishing to expand their business. 

In its study on long-distance cross-border passenger rail services, the Commission will investigate to 
what extent lack of suitable rolling stock is a real obstacle to the development of new services and 
will look at possible ways to remove this obstacle.  

136  https://uic.org/IMG/pdf/2018_report_on_combined_transport_in_europe.pdf .  

136 

 010 00020 00030 00040 00050 00060 00070 00080 00090 000100 000PLDEROCZEEATITSKFRBEESHUFILVLTHRBGELLUPTSIIEnumber of goods transport wagons2015201620172018 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Finally, the lack of access to qualified personnel for rolling stock (together with the high initial cost of 
purchasing the rolling stock and interoperability/technical barriers) is also reported (by IRG-Rail137) as 
one of the most commonly observed barriers to entry in both passenger and freight rail markets. 

Ticketing 

The  choice  for  consumers  to  purchase  cross-border/cross-operator  rail  tickets  is  rather  restricted 
today.  This  situation  strongly  reduces  the  possibility  to  aggregate  different  travel  options  and 
combine separate tickets or even buy a single ticket covering the entire journey (through-ticketing), 
especially when multiple train operators are involved. This harms passengers’ choice and hinders fair 
competition between different rail transport providers.  

The  Commission  published  in  2019  a  study  that  highlighted  the  challenges  of  delivering  EU-wide 
integrated ticketing and payment systems and set out possible actions and initiatives at EU level in 
pursuit of this goal138.  

In addition, Directive 2016/2370139 enables the Commission to monitor developments related to the 
availability  of  common  information  and  through-ticketing  systems.  By  31 December 2022,  the 
Commission must produce a report, to be accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals. 

Removing  the  barriers  to  ticket  distribution  will  ensure  a  truly  level  playing  field  among  operators 
and  across  Member  States,  help  open  the  market,  better  integrate  rail  into  the  wider  transport 
system and benefit consumers.  

5.10 

State aid 

Public  funding  represents  a  significant  part  of  rail  sector  financing,  not  only  to  build  and  maintain 
railway infrastructure, but also to fund unprofitable passenger transport services.  

Specific Commission guidelines140  concern the  implementation of Articles 93 and 107 of the Treaty 
on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  clarifying  the  rules  governing  public  funding  for 
railway undertakings. They deal in particular with the following aspects:  

-  public financing of railway undertakings by means of infrastructure funding;  
-  aid for the purchase and renewal of rolling stock;  
-  debt cancellation by states with a view to the financial rejuvenation of railway undertakings;  
-  aid for restructuring railway undertakings;  
-  aid for the needs of transport coordination; and  
-  state guarantees for railway undertakings.  

137 Eighth Annual Market Monitoring Working Document, IRG-Rail 2020. The direct award of PSO contracts was 

also indicated as a main entry barrier specifically for the PSO segment. 

138 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/af05b3eb-df43-11e9-9c4e-01aa75ed71a1 .  
139 Directive 2016/2370 of the European Parliament and the Council amending Directive 2012/34/EU as regards 
the  opening  of  the  market  for  domestic  passenger  transport  services  by  rail  and  the  governance  of  rail 
infrastructure. 

140 The Commission guidelines provide guidance on the compatibility with the TFEU of State aid to railway 
undertakings (Communication from the Commission — Community guidelines on State aid for railway 
undertakings, OJ C 184, 22.7.2008, p. 13–31 available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52008XC0722%2804%29 ) 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Table  15  provides  a list of the  State  aid cases  for which a decision was taken during the reference 
period of the RMMS report (2015-2018).  

Table 15: State aid decisions 2015-2018 

Case 
number 
SA.38115 

Working title 

Prodloužení režimu Interoperabilita v železniční 
dopravě (ex N 469/2008 a SA.35948) 

Member 
 state 

Czechia 

Decision  
date 
25-03-2015 

SA.40404  Régime d'aide au service transitoire d'autoroute 

France 

26-05-2015 

ferroviaire alpine 

SA.39606  Régime d'aide transitoire au service transitoire 

Italy 

26-05-2015 

d'autoroute ferroviaire alpine 

SA.38229  Régime d'aides luxembourgeoises au transport 

Luxembourg 

03-06-2015 

SA.41472 

SA.41100 

SA.39962 

SA.42476 

SA.45156 

combiné 
Prolongation of a scheme to operate scheduled 
services of combined transport of goods 
Innovationsförderprogramm Kombinierter 
Güterverkehr 
Aid scheme for the modernisation and 
construction of combined transport terminals. 
Czech Republic. 
Betuweroute - compensation to rail during 
construction works 2016 - 2020 
Plateforme multimodale à Bettembourg / 
Dudelange 

Belgium 

09-07-2015 

Austria 

11-08-2015 

Czechia 

12-08-2015 

Netherlands 

18-04-2016 

Luxembourg 

16-06-2016 

SA.43666  Reduction of the KWKG surcharge for railways    Germany 

22-08-2016 

SA.44627 

Ferrobonus – incentive for rail transport 

Italy 

24-11-2016 

SA.43008  Guidelines on funding for Transhipment 

Germany 

14-12-2016 

Facilities for Combined Transport - Aid scheme 
prolongation 

SA.45482  Rail freight transport scheme 

Italy 

19-12-2016 

SA.46720  Guidelines on the construction, extension and 

Germany 

21-12-2016 

SA.46341 

SA.44621 

SA.46672 

SA.46749 

SA.46046 

SA.47109 

SA.47779 

reactivation of private railway sidings 
Scheme on funding for transhipment facilities 
for combined transport of non-federal 
companies 
Securing interoperability of railways transport 
(Individual subprograms annex 1, A)  
Exemption from the excise duty of the fuel used 
in rail and inland waterway transportation 
Aid for investment in logistics centre in the Port 
of Pitea 
Exemption from the excise duty of the fuel used 
in the inland waterway transportation 
Prolongation du régime de promotion du 
transport combiné ferroviaire et du trafic diffus 
pour 2017-2020 
Friuli Venezia Giulia - Interventi per lo sviluppo 
del trasporto combinato 

Germany 

04-01-2017 

Czechia 

07-04-2017 

Hungary 

12-04-2017 

Sweden 

19-04-2017 

Slovakia 

03-05-2017 

Belgium 

06-06-2017 

Italy 

14-06-2017 

SA.32544  Restructuring of the Greek Railway Group - 

Greece 

16-06-2017 

TRAINOSE S.A. Positive  

SA.31250   Measure implemented by Bulgaria in favour of 
BDZ Holding EAD SA, BDZ Passenger EOOD 
and BDZ Cargo EOOD. 
Liaison express directe entre l’aéroport Charles-
de-Gaulle et la Gare de l’Est  
ERTMS funding for Danish rail freight operators 

SA.45997 

SA.38283 

SA.46806 

SA.48485 

SA.48634 

Aid for combined transport in the Province of 
Trento 
BMVIT - Prolongation of a programme 
supporting the development of connecting 
railways and transfer terminals in intermodal 
transport 2018 – 2022 
Subsidy Scheme Rail Freight 

Bulgaria 

16-06-2017 

France 

26-06-2017 

Denmark 

11-07-2017 

Italy 

25-07-2017 

Austria 

15-09-2017 

Denmark 

12-10-2017 

SA.48759 

Prolongation of IT freight transport scheme  

Italy 

25-10-2017 

SA.48390 

Aid scheme supporting rail freight transport in 
certain production forms 2018–2022 

Austria 

25-10-2017 

138 

Decision document/link 

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/
case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_38115 
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/256142/256142_1724084_217_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/256238/256238_1724080_210_2.pdf  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/
case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_38229  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/
case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_41472 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/
case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_41100 
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/255511/255511_1685635_116_2.pdf  

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/261568/261568_1830631_109_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/263877/263877_1846377_77_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/261435/261435_1834096_110_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/264873/264873_1872028_67_2.pdf  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/
case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_43008 

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/265803/265803_1871682_140_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/266640/266640_1856227_75_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases1/201921/265853_2070613_119_2.pdf  

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/263043/263043_1923128_167_4.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/266524/266524_2054545_139_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/266720/266720_1898414_86_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/266732/266732_1904651_80_2.pdf  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/
case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_47109  

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/
case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_47779 
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/ise
f/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_3254
4 
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/ise
f/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_3125
0 
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/268612/268612_1991029_170_4.pdf  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/
case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_38283  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/266882/266882_1931637_96_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/270030/270030_1939480_90_2.pdf  

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/270299/270299_1950845_105_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/270506/270506_1946056_102_2.pdf  
https://prodmx.comp.cec.eu.int/isis/case_de
tail/index.cfm?case_key_value=269739  

 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

SA.48093 

Intermodal Transport 

Poland 

31-10-2017 

SA.47429 

Incentives for combined transport in Croatia 

Croatia 

06-11-2017 

SA.48858 

Incentivazione del trasporto combinato 

Italy 

06-12-2017 

SA.49631 

SA.48972 

State aid scheme for RO-LA Combined 
Transport 
Verlängerung FörderRL IaTPS  

Romania 

13-12-2017 

Germany 

13-12-2017 

SA.48483  Régime d''aides aux installations terminales 

France 

03-01-2018 

embranchées (ITE) 

SA.49749 

SA.50395  Offshore-surcharge reduction for railway 
undertakings in Germany 
Environmental compensation for rail freight 
transport 
Podpora přepravních jednotek kombinované 
dopravy 
Prolongation du PLAN D'AIDES A LA 
MODERNISATION ET A L'INNOVATION 
(PAMI)  

SA.49153 

SA.48804 

Germany 

27-03-2018 

Sweden 

20-04-2018 

Czechia 

15-05-2018 

France 

29-05-2018 

SA.51036  Modification of scheme SA. 48093 (2017/N) – 

Poland 

07-06-2018 

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/269295/269295_1946510_106_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/267973/267973_1945583_56_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/270658/270658_1957380_68_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/272053/272053_1971630_115_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/270845/270845_1953877_76_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/271735/271735_1966772_79_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/273319/273319_1989766_99_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/272227/272227_1984674_114_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/271167/271167_1989527_132_3.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/270577/270577_2007190_113_2.pdf  

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/274522/274522_1991727_80_2.pdf  

C5/2010 

SA.50165 

SA.50584 

Aid for the implementation of intermodal 
transport projects  
Railway company Cargo Slovakia a.s. (ZSSK 
Cargo)  
Support for the promotion of energy efficiency in 
rail transport 
Structural aid measure reducing the cost 
disadvantage of bundling volumes transported 
by rail/inland waterways to and from Flemish 
seaports in order to promote a modal shift 

Slovakia 

20-07-2018 

Germany 

26-07-2018 

Belgium 

24-10-2018 

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/ise
f/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_C5_2010  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/272954/272954_2028683_135_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/275891/275891_2026100_166_2.pdf  

SA.51956  Richtlinie zur Förderung des 

Germany 

10-12-2018 

Schienengüterverkehrs über eine anteilige 
Finanzierung der genehmigten Trassenentgelte 
(af-TP) 

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/276131/276131_2035014_97_2.pdf  

SA.51229  NORMA RETROFIT:  Measures to support the 

Italy 

18-12-2018 

SA.50115 

rail transport of goods in Italy  
FVG Region- Intermodal rail transport of iron 
slabs 

Italy 

20-12-2018 

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/277288/277288_2050978_99_2.pdf  
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/c
ases/272838/272838_2051050_129_2.pdf  

Source: DG COMP.  

5.11 

Regulatory bodies 

Under  Directive  2012/34/EU,  regulatory  bodies  have  the  power  to  act,  of  their  own  accord  or  in 
response to a complaint, to: 

  prevent/redress discrimination; 
  check access to the network and service facilities, charging, capacity allocation; 
  monitor the competitive situation; 
  adopt non-binding opinions on the infrastructure managers’ business plans, contractual 
agreements with the Member States on infrastructure financing, 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. 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

To comply with their duties, EU law gives regulators the power to request information, including data 
for  market  monitoring,  from  all  actors  and  to  impose  penalties  and  fines  if  there  is  no  reply. 
Regulatory  bodies’  decisions,  which  must  be  published,  should  be  immediately  binding  and  not 
subject to control by another administrative instance (judicial review). 

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  EU  railway  law;  in 
order  to  do  so,  they  have  to  participate  and  work  together  in  a  network  that  convenes  at  regular 
intervals, i.e. the European Network of Rail Regulatory Bodies (ENRRB). 

Directive 2012/34/EU requires Member States to staff and manage their regulatory bodies in a way 
that guarantees their independence. 

Figure 87 shows the reported numbers of staff in the regulatory bodies per country. 

Figure 87: Regulatory bodies staff dealing with rail market access, (number, available to the Commission on 1st 

April 2020) 

Source: DG MOVE, 2020. EE, IT and NO not available. 

In  the  EU27,  there  are  227  employees  of  regulatory  bodies  dealing  with  rail  market  access  (239 
including the UK).  

Figure 88 relates the number of each regulatory body’s employees to the total passenger and freight 
train kilometres as a measure of the market they have to regulate.  

140 

0102030405060FRDEPLCZNLPTATBESELVBGHUROSIESHRDKFIELIELTLUSKUKnumber 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 88: Regulatory bodies staff dealing with rail market access (employees, as available to the Commission 

on 1 April 2020, per billion train-km and per billion transport units141, 2018) 

Source: DG MOVE, data on staff of regulatory bodies as available in April 2020, train-km 2018. No data for EE, 
IT and NO.  

Rail  regulatory  bodies  in  the  EU  are  mainly  funded  by  the  state  budget  (including  ministerial 
resources) and fees  paid by regulated operators (infrastructure managers, railway  undertakings, or 
both), as shown in Table 16.  

141 Transport units defined here as the sum of all passenger kilometres and all tonne kilometres. 

141 

0100200300400500LVELPTLUSILTBGIEHRFRBEPLCZNLFIATROSEDEDKSKHUESEU27UKemployees per billion train-km0510152025FIPTSIHRBEFRDKESCZBGRONLLVATSKHUPLDESEEU27UKemployees per billion TU 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Table 16: Regulatory bodies' sources of funding (2018) 

MS 
AT 
BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 
IT 
LT 

LU 
LV 

NL 
NO 
PL 

PT 
RO 

SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

Name of the RB 

Schienen-Control Kommission (SCK) 
Service de Régulation du Transport ferroviaire  
et de l’Exploitation de l’Aéroport de  
Bruxelles-National 
Railway Administration Executive Agency 

Urad pro pristup k dopravni infrastrukutre -  
Transport Access Infrastructure Authority 
Bundesnetzagentur 
Danish Rail Regulatory Body (Jernbanenaevnet)  
Estonian Competition Authority (Konkurentsiamet) 
Regulatory Authority for Railways (RAS)  
CNMC 
Finnish Rail Regulatory Body 
ART (Autorité de régulation des transports) 

Croatian Regulatory Authority for  
Network Industries HAKOM  

Ministry for Innovation and Technology, National  
transport authority (Unit for Railway Regulation) 
Commission for Railway Regulation 
Autorità di Regolazione dei Trasporti (ART) 
Communications Regulatory Authority of  
the Republic of Lithuania 

Institut Luxembourgeois de Régulation 
State Railway Administration 

Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM) 
Norwegian Railway Authority 
The Office of Rail Transport  
(Urząd Transportu Kolejowego) 
Autoridade da Mobilidade e dos Transportes (AMT) 
National Railway Supervision Council (Consiliul  
National de Supraveghere din Domeniul Feroviar)  
Transportstyrelsen 
AKOS Agencija za komunikacijska omrežja in storitve RS 
Dopravný úrad (Transport authority) NSAT 
Office of Rail and Road 

Source: DG MOVE, 2020. 

Funding (who) 

Industry 
Infrastructure manager and Brussels airport 

From the budget of the Ministry of Transport, 
Information Technology and Communications 
State budget 

State budget 
State budget 
State budget 
State budget 
State budget 
State budget 
State budget, fees paid by railway  
undertakings (+ coach and highways undertakings  
since 2016)  
Fee from infrastructure manager collected in turn  
from railway undertakings (percentage of total gross  
revenue of the railway services) 
Actors of the railway market (supervisory fee,  
administrative fee); state budget 
Department of Transport and industry levy 
Fees from regulated companies  
Fee from railway undertakings  

Rail fund 
Funded by industry as a levy from  
infrastructure manager 
Ministry of Economic Affairs 

State budget 

Regulatory fees charged to regulated entities 
State budget 

State budget 
Industry (IM, RUs) 
State budget 
Rail industry through licence fees and safety levy 

It is also interesting to look at the scope of rail regulatory bodies’ competences. In some countries, a 
regulatory body can be both the rail licensing authority and the rail safety authority. It can also be in 
charge of regulation in sectors other than rail, or it can be the competition authority of the country, 
as shown in Table 17. 

142 

 
 
 
 
  
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Table 17: Regulatory bodies with integrated competences for the rail market (2018) 

National 
safety 
authority? 
N 
N 

Multimodal?  

N 
Airport of Brussels national 

Y 

N 

N 
N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 
N 

N 

N 

Y 
N 

N 

N 

N 
N 

Y 
Y 

N 

N 

Y 
N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Aviation, road 

Telecom, postal, energy 
N 

Energy, water, postal, 
communications 
N 

Media, energy, postal, 
telecommunications, aviation,  
N 
Road, airports 

Communications, postal 

N 

N 
Port, airports and road 

Electronic communications, 
postal services  
Telecommunications, energy, 
postal  
N 
Telecommunications; 
transport; 
postal services; 
healthcare; 
energy 
N 
N 

Road, shipping logistics 

N 

Road, shipping, aviation 
Telecommunications, postal, 
media 
Road 

Road 

MS 

Name of the RB 

Licensing 
authority? 

Competition 
authority?  

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DE 
DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

Schienen-Control Kommission (SCK) 
Service de Régulation du Transport 
ferroviaire et de l’Exploitation de 
l’Aéroport de Bruxelles-National 
Railway Administration Executive 
Agency 
Urad pro pristup k dopravni 
infrastrukutre - Transport Access 
Infrastructure Authority 
Bundesnetzagentur 
Danish Rail Regulatory Body 
(Jernbanenaevnet)  
Estonian Competition Authority 
(Konkurentsiamet) 
Regulatory Authority for Railways 
(RAS)  
CNMC 

FI 
FR 

Finnish Rail Regulatory Body 
ART (Autorité de régulation des 
transports) 
Croatian Regulatory Authority for 
Network Industries HAKOM  
HU  Ministry for Innovation and 

HR 

Technology, National transport 
authority (Unit for Railway 
Regulation) 
Commission for Railway Regulation 
Autorità di Regolazione dei Trasporti 
(ART) 
Communications Regulatory 
Authority of the Republic of Lithuania 
Institut Luxembourgeois de 
Régulation 
State Railway Administration 
Authority for Consumers & Markets 
(ACM) 

Norwegian Railway Authority 
The Office of Rail Transport (Urząd 
Transportu Kolejowego) 
Autoridade da Mobilidade e dos 
Transportes (AMT) 
National Railway Supervision Council 
(Consiliul National de Supraveghere 
din Domeniul Feroviar)  
Transportstyrelsen 
AKOS Agencija za komunikacijska 
omrežja in storitve RS 
Dopravný úrad (Transport authority) 
NSAT 
Office of Rail and Road 

IE 
IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 
NL 

NO 
PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 
SI 

SK 

UK 

Source: DG MOVE, 2020. 

N 
N 

N 

N 

N 
N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 
N 

N 

Y 

Y 
N 

N 

N 

Y 
N 

N 
Y 

N 

N 

Y 
N 

Y 

Y 

Y 
Y 

N 

N 

N 
N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 
N 

N 

N 

N 
N 

N 

N 

N 
Y 

N 
N 

N 

Y 

N 
N 

N 

Y 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

5.12  Development of employment and social conditions in the rail market 

5.12.1 

Employment in rail 

In  2018,  just  over  916 000  people  were  reported  as  employed  in  the  EU27  railway  sector,  about 
527 000  of  them  by  railway  undertakings  (both  main  and  alternative  operators)  and  389 000  by 
infrastructure managers. For the EU28, just over 1 034 000 were employed, about 600 000 of them 
by railway undertakings and 434 000 by infrastructure managers142.  

Labour force of the rail market (infrastructure managers and railway undertakings) 

Figure  89  shows  the  reported  distribution  of  railway  employees  between  infrastructure  managers 
and railway undertakings per country in 2018. 

Figure 89: Proportion of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings on total rail employees per country, 

(% in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

On average in 2018, railway undertakings employed 58% of all EU27 railway staff (same percentage 
for  EU28).  The  proportion  of  the  railway  undertakings’  staff  of  total  rail  staff  appears  to  be  the 
highest in Finland (95%) and the lowest in Greece (34%). 

The  distribution  of  staff  between  railway  undertakings  and  infrastructure  managers  can  differ 
strongly across countries for several reasons, for example: 

  The different roles played by infrastructure managers and railway undertakings. Some activities 
can be the responsibility of infrastructure managers in a country and of railway undertakings in 
another (e.g. staffing stations, providing passenger information, security). 

142 Total employment data reported in the RMMS are not directly comparable with the Statistical pocketbook. 
This  is  because  the  Statistical  pocketbook’s  figures  are  based  on  Eurostat  data,  plus  estimates,  and  refer 
only to railway undertakings’ staff.  

144 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%ELLVATHRBGROSKPTFRIESIESHUPLCZEEITLUDEBELTDKNLSEFIEU27NOUK% of staffrailways undertakingsinfrastructure managers 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

  The degree of outsourcing which infrastructure managers or railway undertakings use. The staff 
of external providers do not appear in their statistics. Typical examples are maintenance and 
cleaning staff, staff responsible for the management and provision of rolling stock and staff 
carrying out work on infrastructure renewals and enhancements.  

Figure 90 compares how the absolute number of staff of the railway sector (infrastructure managers 
plus railway undertakings) evolved between 2015 and 2018 in each country. 

Figure  90:  Total number of  employees in the rail market  (infrastructure  managers plus  railway undertakings) 

per country (number, 2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Series break for FR between 2015 and 2018. 

Apart from France, for which the break in the employment time series reported from 2016 onward 
remains  unexplained,  Germany,  the  United Kingdom, Poland  and  Italy  are  the  countries with most 
staff (all have more than 70 000 employees).  

Estonia  and  Greece  appear  to  have  the  fewest  rail  staff  (about  2 000  employees  reported  each). 
Excluding again France, the countries where the number of staff increased most between 2015 and 
2018 are the United Kingdom and Germany (around 13 000 and 12 000 more staff respectively). In 
Italy, Bulgaria and the Netherlands staff numbers decreased over the same period by slightly more 
than 2 000 employees.  

145 

 050 000100 000150 000200 000250 000300 000FRDEPLITROCZHUBEATESSKNLBGSEDKLTLVHRPTSIFILUIEELEEUKNOnumber of employees (IMs ad RUs)20152018 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Labour force of the rail infrastructure managers 

Figure 91 compares how the absolute number of staff of the infrastructure managers (both the main 
one and the others – if any) evolved between 2015 and 2018 in each country. 

Figure 91: Total number of employees of the infrastructure managers per country (number, 2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. DK and SE 2015 not available, Series break for FR between 2015 and 2018. 

Apart  from  France,  the  largest  number  of  employees  of  infrastructure  managers  in  2018  were 
reported by the United Kingdom, Germany and Poland (all more than 40 000), whereas Finland and 
Estonia reported less than 1 000 employees. Based on RMMS data, excluding France, both the United 
Kingdom and Germany reported the highest increase in the number of infrastructure managers’ staff 
(both  adding  more  than  3 000  employees  over  the  surveyed  period),  whereas  Hungary,  Spain  and 
Sweden reported a decrease of more than 1 000 employees.  

146 

 020 00040 00060 00080 000100 000120 000140 000FRDEPLITROHUCZATSKESBGBELVHRNLLTDKPTSIIESEELLUEEFIUKNOnumber of IMs' employees20152018 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Labour force of the railway undertakings 

Figure 92 compares changes in the absolute number of staff of the railway undertakings (irrespective 
of whether they are incumbents or alternative operators) between 2015 and 2018 in each country. 

Figure 92: Total number of employees of the railway undertakings per country (number, 2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. BE, CZ, SI, NO 2015 not available, Series break for FR between 2015 and 2018. 

Apart from France, the highest number of staff for railway undertakings was reported by Germany, 
the United Kingdom, Poland and Italy (all with more than 40 000 employees). The smallest number of 
railway  undertakings’  employees  is  in  Greece,  well  below  1 000  employees.  Based  on  RMMS  data 
(and excluding France), the  highest increase in railway  undertakings’ staff between 2015 and 2018 
was  reported by the United Kingdom and Germany (more  than 8 000 employees  in both cases). In 
Italy, the Netherlands and Bulgaria, staff decreased by more than 2 000 employees. 

For comprehensive monitoring of the developments in the rail market, it is important to look at how 
employment evolved separately both in historical operators and in new entrants in the markets. 

147 

 020 00040 00060 00080 000100 000120 000140 000160 000FRDEPLITCZBEHURONLESATSKSEBGDKLTFIHRLVPTSILUIEEEELUKNOnumber of RUs employees20152018 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure  93  shows  the  reported  total  number  of  employees  of  the  incumbent  or  other  main  railway 
undertakings for 2015 and 2018 per country. 

Figure 93: Number of employees of the main railway undertaking per country (number, 2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

Apart from France, the largest number of employees of the main railway undertaking in 2018 was in 
Germany and Italy (both more than 30 000 employees), whereas Greece reported fewer than 1 000 
employees.  RMMS  data  suggest  that  apart  from  France,  the  largest  increase  in  staff  of  the  main 
railway undertaking between 2015 and 2018 was in Germany (more than 4 000 employees), whereas 
a significant decrease appears in Czechia (more than 2 000 employees fewer than in 2015).  

148 

 020 00040 00060 00080 000100 000120 000140 000160 000FRDEITPLCZBEROHUNLESSKATBGDKLTSEFILVHRPTSILUIEEEELUKNONumber of employees (main RUs)20152018 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 94 shows the reported total number of employees of other railway undertakings (alternative 
operators) for 2015 and 2018 per country. 

Figure 94: Number of employees of other railway undertakings per country (number, 2015 and 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. BE, CZ, SI, NO 2015 not available. 

The  United  Kingdom  appears  to  have  by  far  the  largest  number  of  staff  working  in  alternative 
operators  in  2018.  Poland,  Germany  and  Italy  also  had  more  than  10 000  employees  working  for 
operators other than the incumbent. Among the countries that reported figures on this point for the 
RMMS, Finland, Greece and Slovenia all reported fewer than 100 employees working for alternative 
operators.  Based  on  available  data,  between  2015  and  2018  the  staff  working  for  alternative 
operators  increased  more  in  the  United  Kingdom  and  Germany  (more  than  4 000  additional 
employees in both cases). The most  significant decreases were in the Netherlands and Italy, which 
each lost more than 2 000 employees in these undertakings.  

149 

 010 00020 00030 00040 00050 00060 00070 000PLDEITHUSEATBECZSKNLDKHRPTSIELFIIELVLUESUKNONumber of employees (other RUs)20152018 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Train drivers 

Figure  95  shows  the  reported  total  number  of  train  drivers  employed  by  main  and  other  railway 
undertakings for 2015 and 2018 per country. 

Figure  95:  Number  of  train  drivers  of  main  and  other  railway  undertakings  per  country  (number,  2015  and 

2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. BE, SE 2015 not available. 

In Germany, France, United Kingdom, Poland and Italy, more than 10 000 train drivers were working 
for  railway  undertakings.  Estonia  reported  the  lowest  number  of  employed  train  drivers  in  2018 
(158).  France  in  particular  appears  to  have  significantly  increased  the  number  of  train  drivers  (an 
increase of more than 8 000 between 2015 and 2018), followed by Poland, Germany and Belgium (all 
reporting an increase of more than 1 500 train drivers in the surveyed period). A significant decrease 
of more than 3 000 train drivers has been reported for Croatia.  

The RMMS collects information about the number of employees working for railway undertakings as 
train  drivers.  However,  not  necessarily  all  staff  that  have  a  train  driver  licence  are  in  active 
employment as a train driver. It is interesting therefore to look at the number of train driver licences, 
as this could provide a rough idea of available resources in case of a shortage of such a specialised 
and skilled function.  

Directive 2007/59/EC introduced an EU certification scheme for train drivers including the issuing of 
European  train  driver  licences  by  the  national  safety  authorities  and  harmonised  complementary 
certificates  by  the  employer.  All  train  drivers  should  hold  a  European  licence  from  October  2018 
onwards.  Figure  96  shows  the  reported  total  number  of  valid  EU  train  driver  licences  in  2018  per 
country, as collected by ERA from the national safety authorities.  

150 

 05 00010 00015 00020 00025 00030 00035 000DEFRPLITCZESATBESENLHUROSKDKBGFIHRSILVPTLTIELUELEEUKNONumber of train drivers20152018 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 96: Number of valid EU train driver licences, (2018) 

Source: European Union Agency for Railways (ERA). HU not available. 

Germany has issued the highest absolute number of EU train driver licences, followed by France, Italy 
and  Poland  (all  more  than  10 000  licences).  Some  reported  a  lower  number  of  EU  licences  issued 
than active train drivers. This is partly due to a delayed implementation of the EU train driver licence 
scheme  in  some  countries  and  partly  to  train  drivers’  mobility.  For  example,  Greece  and  Portugal 
reported no EU licence issued as of end-2018.  

Box 12: Language pilot train drivers (Translate4rail) 

The Commission has created the legal basis for exploring  alternative options to the current  train drivers’ 
language  requirements,  in  the  framework  of  pilot  projects.  The  alternative  options  could  consist,  for 
example, in a set of standard messages or electronic translation tools that help drivers ensure effective and 
efficient communication with the infrastructure manager and ensure a safety level at least equal with the 
current requirements. The legal basis in this case is provided by Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/554 of 
5 April 2019, which revises Annex VI to Directive 2007/59/EC on the certification of train drivers operating 
locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community. It is possible to request a derogation from 
the Commission for conducting pilot projects to test alternative options with train drivers having a level of 
language competence lower than B1 (the level currently required). 

The project Translate4Rail (translation for breaking language barriers in the railway field) is funded by the 
Shift2Rail  Joint  Undertaking  and  coordinated  by  the  Freight  Department  of  the  International  Union  of 
Railways  (UIC).  The  project  kicked  off  in  December  2019  and  has  a  duration  of  24  months.  It  aims  to 
develop a language tool that will provide drivers and traffic controllers with a set of predefined messages 
in normal and exceptional circumstances in all countries. Pilot testing will take place on different corridors. 
More information is available here: https://translate4rail.eu/ 

151 

 05 00010 00015 00020 00025 00030 00035 00040 00045 000DEFRITPLCZATBESKDKFIBGESLVROSISELULTIEEENLHRELPTUKNumber of EU licences 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

5.12.2 

Socio-demographic structure of the rail labour market 

The  rail  sector  is  traditionally  characterised  by  an  ageing  workforce  and  a  predominance  of  male 
workers.  

Further  to  these  traditional  characteristics,  technological  developments  and  digitalisation  are 
profoundly impacting the employment structure and characteristics.  

Structure by gender 

Women account for about 21% of both the EU27 and EU28 railway workforce: for some professional 
categories of the rail sector, the gender gap can be even higher.  

Figure  97  shows  the  gender  mix  of  railway  staff  (main  infrastructure  managers  and  railway 
undertakings) per country in 2018, as reported in the RMMS. 

Figure 97: Total employees (main infrastructure managers plus railway undertakings) by gender structure, (% in 

2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

The highest share of women on the total workforce was reported by Estonia (51%) followed by other 
Baltic  and  northern  countries  such  as  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Finland,  Sweden  and  Denmark.  Ireland 
reported the lowest share (9%). 

The RMMS collects information on the gender mix, also distinguishing between employees of main 
infrastructure  managers  and  railway  undertakings.  Figure  98  shows  the  gender  mix  of  main 
infrastructure managers’ staff per country in 2018.  

152 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%IEATSILUBEESITPTHRELDEHUFRROBGNLCZSKPLDKLTSEFILVEEEU27UKNO% of staff (main IMs and RUs)menwomen 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 98: Main infrastructure managers' employees by gender structure (% in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

Estonia is still the country with the largest share of women (50%). For infrastructure managers the 
lowest share has been reported by Austria and Slovenia (8%). 

Figure  99  shows  the  gender  mix  this  time  for  the  main  railway  undertakings’  staff  (data  2018  by 
country). 

Figure 99: Main railway undertakings' employees by gender structure (% in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

Again, Estonia reported the highest share of women (51%). Ireland reported the lowest (8%). 

153 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%ATSIIEBELUHRITELESHUPTBGDEFRROSKNLCZLTPLDKLVFISEEEUKNO% of main IMs' staffmenwomen0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%IEATESPTLUSIFIITBEDEELHRFRDKHUNLROPLCZBGSKSELTLVEEUKNO% of main RUs' staffmenwomen 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Box 13: Gender aspects in rail 

The  transport  sector  is  not  gender  balanced.  Within  it,  the  rail  sector  remains  a  male-dominated  sector, 
especially in technical positions such as drivers or technicians and managerial positions.  

The objective of the Women in Transport – EU Platform for change, launched on 27 November 2017, is to 
strengthen women's employment and equal opportunities for women and men in the transport sector143.  

Several  EU  associations  from  the  rail  sector  have  joined  the  platform,  as  well  as  the  European  Union 
Agency for Railways and Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking. The EU associations may directly bring actions to the 
platform or channel actions from their members: 15 actions had been shared by June 2020, out of which 
eight are from the rail sector. 

The  website  of  the  platform  contains  a  declaration  (signed  by  a  number  of  rail  actors)  to  ensure  equal 
opportunities for women and men in the transport sector, an online module to exchange good practices 
and examples of measures that can be taken at company level to improve gender balance144.  

On 26 September 2019, the High-Level Conference ‘Towards a more inclusive and diverse transport sector’ 
took place, with the aim of promoting diversity and of raising awareness on its importance. At this event, 
the Commissioner for Transport launched a wide network of EU ‘diversity ambassadors’ for the transport 
sector.  

Finally,  the  Commission  published  in  December  2018  the  report  Business  case  to  increase  female 
employment in transport145. In the report, a number of case studies are performed with companies that are 
advanced  in  implementing  gender  equality  policies  and  measures  across  all  transport  modes.  A  cost-
benefit  analysis  is  applied  to  these  measures.  Their  transferability  to  smaller,  not  yet  gender  balanced, 
companies is also assessed. 

Structure by age 

An ageing workforce continues to be a concern for the sector, given the risk of losing specialised skills 
in the medium term.  

Figure 100 shows how in 2018 in the EU27 the average proportion of staff of railway undertakings 
who were older than 50 years was 42.4%. This is an increase of 2.2 percentage points compared to 
the  40.2% of 2015  (percentages  for EU28  were  42.1%  and  40%  respectively,  up  by  2.1  percentage 
points). However, the share of younger employees (below 30 years) working for railway undertakings 
has also increased in the EU27: from 8.2% in 2015 to 10.6% in 2018 (8.4% and 10.6% respectively for 
the EU28).  

Infrastructure  managers  tend  to  have  an  older  workforce,  but  the  share  of  younger  employees 
increased also for them between 2015 and 2018: from 7.9%  to 8.3%  in the EU27 (Figure 100) and 
from 8.4% to 8.7 in the EU28.  

143   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/social/women-transport-eu-platform-change_en  
144   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/social/women-transport-eu-platform-change_en   
145   The  study  is  available  here:    https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6f833428-54f9-

11e9-a8ed-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-93300850 .  

154 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 100: Employees by age group, main railway undertakings and infrastructure managers (%, 2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Data for 2015 were not available for RUs in LV, LU, ES and  SE. Data for 2015 were not 
available for IMs in ES, LU and LV.  

If  we  look  at  the  distribution  of  main  railway  undertakings’  staff  by  age  group  per  country  (Figure 
101),  the  proportion  of  more  aged  workforce  is  largest  in  Spain,  Romania,  Greece,  Bulgaria  and 
Lithuania, where over 50% of the workforce was over 50 in 2018. By contrast, less than 30% of the 
workforce  was  over  50  in  Luxembourg,  France,  Belgium  and  Finland.  Estonia  and  Luxembourg  are 
also the only countries to have reported a proportion of workers under 30 higher than 20%.  

Figure 101: Main railway undertakings’ employees by age group and country, (% in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

If we look at the distribution of main infrastructure managers’ staff by age group per country (Figure 
102), the  proportion  of more  aged workforce  is  greatest  in  Spain,  Greece  and  Estonia, where over 
60% of the workforce was older than 50 years in 2018. In contrast, less than 30% of the workforce 

155 

40,2%42,3%42,1%42,4%51,6%49,0%48,1%47,0%8,2%8,7%9,7%10,6%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%2015201620172018% of RU staff EU27over 5030 to 50under 3043,5%45,3%45,0%46,5%48,6%47,2%47,0%45,2%7,9%7,5%8,0%8,3%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%2015201620172018% of IM staff EU27over 5030 to 50under 300%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%ESROELBGLTPLITDKHRSKNLPTCZDESILVSEHUATIEEEFIBEFRLUNOUK% of staff (main RUs)over 5030 to 50under 30 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

were  over  50  in  France  and  Luxembourg.  Luxembourg  is  also  the  only  country  to  have  reported  a 
proportion of workers under 30 higher than 20%. 

Figure 102: Main infrastructure managers’ employees by age group and country, (% in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

Structure by contract type 

The RMMS also collects information on three  aspects of employment contracts, both for the main 
infrastructure manager and for the incumbent/other main railway undertakings:  

-  permanent or temporary contracts;  
- 
-  apprenticeships/training. 

full-time or part-time working hours; and 

Figure 103 and Figure 104 show the proportions of temporary and permanent employees of the main 
infrastructure  manager  and  the  incumbent/other  main  railway  undertakings  respectively,  per 
country in 2018.  

156 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%ESELEEHRPTBGITLTHURONLPLSISKDEDKCZLVSEIEATFIBEFRLUNOUK% of staff (main IMs)over 5030 to 50under 30 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 103: Employees of main infrastructure manager by contract type (permanent or temporary) per country, 

(% in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. PT 2018 adjusted, FR 2018 not available. 

All employees of infrastructure managers appear to have permanent contracts in Belgium, Denmark 
and Luxembourg, whereas in Ireland only 89% of them do.  

Figure 104: Employees of main railway undertaking by contract type (permanent or temporary) per country, (% 

in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

157 

82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%100%BEDKLUITBGEELTROLVPTHRSKSIATDECZESPLHUNLSEELFIIENOUK% of staff (main IMs)permanenttemporary80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%100%DKEEPTBELULVLTROHUBGHRFRFISIATESCZIESKELDENLPLITSEUKNO% of staff (main RUs)permanenttemporary 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

All employees of railway undertakings’ employees appear to have permanent contracts in Denmark, 
Estonia and Portugal, but in general the proportion is quite high almost everywhere. Only Sweden, 
Italy,  Poland,  the  Netherlands,  Germany  and  Norway  have  a  proportion  of  railway  undertakings’ 
employees with permanent contracts lower than 95%.  

Looking at contracts from the point of view of working hours,  Figure 105 and Figure 106 show the 
proportions  of  full-time  and  part-time  employees  per  country  in  2018  for  the  main  infrastructure 
managers and the main railway undertakings respectively.  

Figure 105: Employees of main infrastructure manager by contract type (full-time or part-time) per country, (% 

in 2018)  

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

All  infrastructure  manager’s  employees  appear  to  have  full-time  contracts  in  Portugal.  The  lowest 
share of full-time contracts can be found in the Netherlands (83%) and Belgium (88%).  

As  for  the  main  railway  undertakings,  all  employees  appear  to  have  full-time  contracts  in  Ireland, 
Portugal and Spain. The lowest share of full-time contracts can be found in Belgium (86%). 

158 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%PTBGROPLHUHRELSKCZIESISEITLTFIATLVDKLUDEESFREEBENLNOUK% of staff (main IMs)full-timepart-time 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 106: Employees of main railway undertaking by contract type (full-time or part-time) per country, (% in 

2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. No data 2018 for BG, EL and RO. 

Finally, Figure 107 and Figure 108 show the proportions of staff of the main infrastructure manager 
in  an 
and  the 
apprenticeship or other training (data 2018, per country146).  

incumbent/other  main  railway  undertaking  respectively  who  are  currently 

146 Data reported for these aspects have been not always consistent over the years.  

159 

75%80%85%90%95%100%IEPTESSKHRLTHUPLSILVNLCZITSEFIATEEDKLUFRDEBENOUK% of staff (main RUs)full-timepart-time 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 107: Employees of main infrastructure manager in training per country, (% in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. No data for BG, FR and LT 2018. 

Figure 108: Employees of main railway undertaking in training per country, (% in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. No data for BG, FR, EL, LT, RO and SE. 

160 

0123456789ATDESEELHUDKFIIEHRPLPTNLSKCZBEEEITLVLUROSIESNOUK% of staff (main IMs) 024681012ITDEATHUNLLUBEPLIEPTDKLVCZHREEFISKSIESUKNO% of staff (main RUs)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Training  needs  are  a  fundamental  aspect  of  employment  in  the  railway  sector,  given  increased 
digitalisation,  the  development  of  mobility  as  a  service  and  the  age  structure  of  the  staff.  The 
Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking contracted out three studies in the ‘Human capital’ working area of its 
research programme:  

- 

- 

- 

to study the socio-economic context of the rail sector: this study analyses the 
socio-economic aspects of human capital, notably the skills that will be needed in the future 
for the different categories of railway staff, from workers to engineers, railway managers and 
researchers147;  
to develop a preliminary prognosis on the impact of the market introduction of the 
Shift2Rrail research and innovation programme and its technologies on human capital148;  
to develop strategies and trainings based on the above analyses to bridge the skill gaps, with 
a special attention to ensuring increased flexibility of railway staff149.  

Box 14: Skills shortages, Blueprint initiative and the rail sector 

There are long-standing and emerging skill shortages for drivers, engineers and other technical professions 
in  the  European  railway  sector.  The  EU  supports  a  number  of  initiatives  aiming  at  improving  skills 
availability and the sector’s attractiveness.  

With a  budget  of EUR 4 million, ‘Rail supply and transport  industries’  (including both  manufacturing and 
provision of services) is one of the sectors included in the  4th wave of the Blueprint initiative, starting in 
2021.  The  Blueprint,  launched  as  part  of  the  Commission’s  skills  agenda,  is  a  framework  for  strategic 
cooperation  between  key  stakeholders  such  as  businesses,  education  and  training  providers,  social 
partners and public authorities to deliver sector-specific skills solutions for a number of issues. In the rail 
sector,  digitalisation  has  a  strong  impact  on  production,  processes,  operations  and  skill  needs.  The  key 
digital  innovations  include  driverless  operations,  automation  of  planning,  predictive  maintenance  and 
automation  of  traffic  control.  Under  the  coordination  of  the  University  of  Genoa,  the  STAFFER  (Skill 
Training  Alliance  For  the  Future  European  Rail  System)  Alliance,  including  key  European  suppliers, 
operators, infrastructure  managers and universities, will  address the shortages  in particular  occupational 
fields  such  as  system  engineers  and  architects,  software  developers,  IT  security  specialists  and  big  data 
analysts. The project started on 1 November 2020 and will have a duration of 4 years.  

5.13  Digitalisation 

Digital technologies are a key enabler for enhancing railways’ performance. A wider implementation 
of digital solutions will benefit customers and businesses alike. On the other side, digital  loopholes 
and  asymmetric  implementation can  generate technical  market  access  barriers and  hinder  smooth 
rail transport across borders.  

147 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e904c88d-cec3-11e9-992f-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-search  

148 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/101a3662-ced5-11e9-992f-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-search  

149 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6fd5b502-cecb-11e9-992f-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-104143013  

161 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

ERTMS 

The  European  Rail  Traffic  Management  System  (ERTMS)  has  several  advantages  in  comparison  to 
class-B  systems150.  In  addition  to  cross-border  interoperability,  ERTMS  allows  for  higher  safety, 
capacity and reliability, and a potential reduction in maintenance costs.  

Discussions on a European rail traffic management system have been ongoing for almost 40 years. 
However,  climate  change,  and  in  particular  the  pivotal  role  railways  will  play  in  transport’s 
contribution to the reduction of GHG emissions, as well as the overall move to digitalised railways, 
has made the swift deployment of the European Train Control System (ETCS) and the Future Railway 
Mobile Communication System (FRMCS) more urgent than ever.  

Long  disputed,  the  implementation  of  ERTMS  is  now  no  longer  questioned.  With  ageing  national 
systems, many Member States see ERTMS as the answer to the overall necessary modernisation of 
their railway systems. 

The question today is how quickly the transition from old, national systems can be organised, how 
the  future  evolution  of  ERTMS  can  be  made  simpler,  and  how  rapid  rollout  can  be  ensured  while 
ensuring  that  investments  are  not  lost  with  future  developments  as  ERTMS  will  constitute  the 
backbone for a digital, connected single European railway area.  

Modernising  railway  operations  through  digitalisation  is  additionally  an  important  European 
industrial project: ERTMS is already now  the gold standard for rail traffic management  systems, as 
can be seen in its deployment in a growing number of countries around the world.  

ERTMS is set out in the technical specification for interoperability, the CCS-TSI151.  

The  TEN-T  guidelines152  establish  ERTMS  as  one  of the  requirements  for  railway infrastructure  and 
sets  out  a  deadline  for  its  deployment  on  the  core  network  by  2030  and  on  the  comprehensive 
network by 2050. Building on this, the ERTMS European deployment plan (EDP153), adopted by  the 
European Commission in January 2017, sets out deadlines for deploying ERTMS on some sections of 
the  core  network  corridors  (CNCs)  for  the  period  2017-2023.  The  number  of  km  planned  for  each 
year are shown in the figure below:   

150 Class-B systems are national legacy signalling systems. In some countries, they need to co-exist with ERTMS. 

They make the ERTMS installations more complex and expensive to realise. 

151 Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/919 of 27 May 2016 on the technical specification for interoperability 
relating to the control-command and signalling subsystems of the rail system in the European Union 
(consolidated version) available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02016R0919-20200311.   

152  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.  

153  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/6  on  the  European  Rail  Traffic  Management  System 

European deployment plan on 5 January 2017.  

162 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Figure 109: ERTMS deployment on CNCs for the period 2017-2023 

Note: Indicative number of km for each year in the EDP. The top bar shows the overall obligations by 2030 and 
the bottom bar indicates the obligation broken down by years in the period from 2017 to 2023. 

The  planning  and  the  state  of  deployment of  ERTMS  are  constantly  monitored  by  the  Commission 
and  in  particular  by  Matthias  Ruete,  the  European  Coordinator  for  ERTMS,  who  in  June  2020 
published his work plan.  

In April 2020, 12% of the core network corridors were in operation with ETCS (i.e. 6 120 km) and 63% 
of the core network corridors with GSM-R154. According to the EDP, this signalling system should be 
deployed  on  15  682  kilometres  of  track  by  2023;  so  far,  the  system  has  been  installed  on  5  906 
kilometres of the planned track length (or 38%), which represents 78% of the target planned for the 
end of 2019.  

Most  delays  are  due  to  insufficient  national  budgets,  while  another  reason  is  that  the  lines  are 
usually  modernised  prior  to  ERTMS  deployment.  Any  delays  in  the  works  due  to  longer  tendering 
procedures, insufficient  quality of documentation or a lack of industrial capacity affect  subsequent 
ERTMS deployment. In some cases, national systems currently in use have not reached obsolescence 
or there is a limited amount of rolling stock equipped with ERTMS: this can result in a lack of urgency 
from  the  infrastructure  manager’s  point  of  view.  Finally,  lack  of  experience  with  the  new  ETCS 
Baseline 3 and availability of latest ETCS products are another of the recurrent reasons for delays. 

In the last 5 years, approximately 5 000 new vehicles have been introduced in Europe. However, only 
some  900  of  the  new  vehicles  are  equipped  with  ERTMS  as  most  of  them  were  subject  to  some 
derogations or were exempted from the requirement to fit ERTMS (for example because of use on 
regional  services).  The  total  number  of  vehicles  already  retrofitted  is  estimated  at  approximately 
2 700.  

It is evident that delays in one Member State jeopardise investments made by other Member States 
on  the  same  corridor.  The  Commission  considers  that  a  greater  effort  is  needed  to  ensure  that 
deadlines previously agreed are met.  

154  All  data  provided  in  this  work  plan  are  based  on  the  alignment  of  the  core  network  corridors  and 

deployment deadlines as set out in the EDP in force, including the UK.  

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

In order to mitigate some of the previously stated reasons for delays, the European Coordinator for 
ERTMS and the European Commission have taken since 2017 a very active role in the monitoring of 
trackside  deployment  and  on-board  retrofitting,  with  the  support  of  the  ERTMS  Deployment 
Management Team (DMT155). Deployment monitoring reports and lessons learnt for different ERTMS 
challenges have been produced and are dealt with mainly through ERTMS Stakeholders Platform and 
ERTMS Action Plan156.  

Provision of digitally enhanced passenger services  

Developing mobility as a service (MaaS) calls for a good level of integrated mobility domestically and 
across borders, providing people with a sustainable alternative to private car use and ownership. The 
efficient  integration of rail passenger transport into the wider network of public transport  has two 
main prerequisites:  

-  a shared, integrated information system; and 
-  a shared, integrated ticketing system. 

shared, 

integrated 

common 
A 
ticketing/commercial tools and the existence of reference standards and technical interfaces for data 
exchange.  

needs  wide-ranging 

agreements, 

ticketing 

system 

A shared, integrated information system is needed to make relevant information easily available to 
all actors, including passengers, on: (i) the service planned (availability of the service); (ii) the service 
as it is deployed (real-time information); and (iii) pricing, ticketing, etc.  

Some  tools  have  already  been  developed  for  urban  and  suburban  rail  transport,  the  aim  being  to 
reach the following objectives:  

-  Accurate real-time localization using satellite-based positioning for tracking and tracing is  

being gradually deployed in rail and urban public transport vehicles, providing the necessary 
data about the vehicle position to the integrated information systems. The standardised use 
of position navigation timing (PNT) services for rail logistics will be included in 2022 TSI 
revision (TAF TSI). On satellite positioning / enhanced odometry using global navigation 
satellite system (GNSS) for rail signalling, it will be important to leverage on best practices 
across transport modes and from the aerospace and defence sectors. 

- 

- 

Smart card tickets enable passengers to carry a pass covering a journey, line or number of 
zones, permitting unlimited travel for a period. Smart card tickets can also be pre-loaded 
with cash to allow pay as you go (PAYG) for individual journeys. A national smart card system, 
OVchipkaart, now operates in the Netherlands.  

‘Contactless’ payment, developed in London but being licensed 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, most PAYG systems require that passengers 
present their tickets at readers or ticket barriers at the start, and sometimes the end, of each 
journey. PAYG systems not based on ticket gates but on mobile phone apps with check-in 
and permanent localisation of the customer are being implemented or are already in the 

155 DMT is a consultant facility established by the Commission. 
156 ERTMS deployment action plan. European Commission. 2017. Available online:  

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2017-ertms-deployment-action-plan.pdf 

164 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

rollout phase in some Member States. Provision of information, however, raises a number of 
challenges for the industry and for regulatory bodies and competition authorities. For 
example:  

o  To establish a level playing field between rail operators, new entrants may need to 
be given non-discriminate full technical and commercial access to the existing pan-
European booking platforms, which have historically been controlled by the 
incumbent operator. 

o  To be better able to connect and compete with other modes, full 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 1 year 
ahead, but in the case of railways this may only be possible up to 3 months ahead. 

However, framework conditions in the sector still need to evolve:  

-  Real-time data based on accurate vehicle localization relying on European satellite-based 

positioning systems (i.e. Galileo) needs to be available so that in case of disruptions railway 
undertakings and ticket vendors can properly inform passengers via websites, apps and 
station information displays.  

-  Where smart cards or PAYG systems are used, mechanisms backed by contractual 

agreements are needed to: (i) identify or estimate on which service(s) the passenger 
travelled and to which operator(s) their fares should be allocated or apportioned, including 
clearing between the involved operators; and (ii) make the appropriate payments.  

- 

- 

So far, smart card and PAYG systems are often confined to a city or region. However, PAYG 
systems using existing smartphone infrastructure are in the rollout phase in some Member 
States.  

Shared ticketing and information systems would avoid market fragmentation and enable the 
passenger to choose the most suitable offer.  

Provision of digitally enhanced freight services  

Digitalisation provides  the opportunity for railways to offer  better services to customers and to be 
logistics  chains  from  an  administrative,  contractual  and 
integrated 
better 
operational point of view.  

into  multimodal 

Collection  and  exchange  of  reliable  data  improve  the  efficiency,  reliability  and  maintenance  of 
transport operations, allow for smooth modal integration and ultimately add value to transport itself 
(tracking  and  tracing,  smart  contracts,  certification  of  goods  conditions,  electronic  exchange  of 
documentation cutting red tape, etc.).  

The Commission supports several initiatives concerning the railway and logistics ‘data layer’: 

- 

Initiatives intended to achieve a more efficient and responsive capacity allocation process across 
networks:  

o  TimeTable Redesign (TTR) (led by RailNetEurope – RNE)  

165 

 
 
 
 
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

o  Temporary Capacity Restriction (TCR) (led by RailNetEurope – RNE) 

o  Evolution  of  capacity  and  traffic  management  at  European  level  (by  the  PRIME  Digital 

subgroup). 

- 

Initiatives intended to increase the available real-time information on trains, wagons and goods, 
both for business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-administration (B2A) processes: 

o 

Issueslog No 3, linking a train to its status (ready/running etc.), position and composition  

o  defining train identifiers, developing a good estimated time of arrival (ETA) methodology 

with electronic exchange of information on estimated time of arrival (ELETA)  

o 

linking  the  real-time  available  information  to  the  intermodal  loading  units  (when 
relevant)  and  eventually  to  the  goods  transported  –  the  e-consignment  note,  for 
business  purposes  (‘B2B’)  and  the  electronic  freight  transport  information  (eFTI)  for 
administrative authorities (‘B2A’).  

Box 15: Issues logbook - Provision for interoperability and harmonisation of operations 

Cross-border operational and interoperability issues remain one of the biggest and more urgent obstacles 
hindering  cross-border  traffic,  particularly  rail  freight,  and  are  hindering  the  full  exploitation  of  existing 
infrastructure and infrastructure investment.  

To  overcome  those  obstacles,  since  May  2018  DG  MOVE  has  strengthened  its  joint  initiative  with  the 
European  Union  Agency  for  Railways  (ERA),  involving  the  rail  freight  corridors,  stakeholders,  sector 
associations  and  the  relevant  authorities.  The  solution  to  these  issues  takes  the  form  of  a  ‘rail  technical 
operational issues logbook157’. The logbook is a tool to monitor the progress of the actions performed to 
resolve the main technical operational issues hampering international rail freight traffic.  

Following a stakeholder consultation, the Commission identified three priorities with great impact on the 
issues listed and focused the collective work on those three areas, so that quick resolutions are achieved. 

In September 2018, the Commission established a core team and a project plan dedicated to each priority 
in order to find concrete solutions to the three issues, which are: 

  braking 
 
 

tests and technical checks at borders and within Member States 
real-time communication about train composition. 

Significant  progress  has  been  made  since  then  in  particular  in  the  analysis  of  the  national  safety  and 
operation rules (from Member States or infrastructure managers) and in the setting-up of pilot projects to 
prove  that  solutions  on  paper  also  work  on  the  ground. What  is  still  missing  is  the  deployment  of  those 
solutions  at  European  level,  which  the  Commission  hopes  will  lead  to  a  significant  improvement  for 
efficient rail freight cross-border operations. 

157  The logbook and its explanatory documents are available on DG MOVE website: 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/interoperability/interoperability/ope-tsi_en.  

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

Box 16: Regulation on electronic Freight Transport Information (eFTI) 

The Regulation on electronic freight transport information (eFTI), a new regulation that aims to reduce 
administrative burden and promote digitalisation in transport and logistics, was adopted in July 2020158. By 
establishing a set of general and harmonised requirements for the electronic exchange of information 
between operators and authorities, the regulation will enable digital business-to-authority exchanges of 
the information necessary to check compliance with a range of EU and national legislation on freight 
transport. The authorities will be required to accept the information presented by the operators 
electronically when the operators do so in compliance with the requirements of the regulation. The 
operators, by contrast, will have the option, not the obligation, to use digital means instead of paper. In 
addition, the standards to be set, such as the data model and requirements concerning identification, 
authentication, user rights and cybersecurity, will also facilitate information exchanges between businesses 
themselves, including in the context of multimodal transport operations.  
The eFTI Regulation applies to information requirements set in several EU legal acts that regulate rail 
freight transport: Regulation No 11/1960 on non-discrimination of tariffs, Directive 2008/68 on dangerous 
goods, Directive 92/106 on combined transport and Regulation 1013/2006 on waste shipments. Transport 
information required by national legislation regulating rail freight will also be concerned. In addition, if any 
future implementing or delegated act under Directive (EU) 2016/797 on rail interoperability refers to 
freight information to be exchanged by rail operators with the authorities, that information will also be 
concerned. 

The eFTI Regulation will start to apply as of mid-2024, with authorities under a full obligation to accept the 
electronic information applying as of mid-2025. Within the next 3 years, the Commission will prepare and 
adopt  implementation  specifications,  on  the  basis  of  which  the  Member  State  authorities  and  the 
economic  operators  will  develop  and  implement  the  necessary  IT  tools.  A  wide  group  of  experts  –  the 
Digital Transport and Logistics Forum (DTLF) – in which the rail sector is also strongly represented, assists 
and advises the Commission in developing the specifications for implementation. 

5.14 

External dimension 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, as the basis for free market access.  

The bilateral Land Transport Agreement ensures cooperation between Switzerland and the EU in rail 
matters,  providing  for  reciprocal  opening  of  land  transport  and  complementing  the  Free  Trade 
Agreement.  Through  the  implementation  provisions  to  the  Railway  Ordinance,  Switzerland  applies 
the  European  technical  specifications  for  interoperability  (TSIs)  as  accepted  standards  and  rules  of 
diligence.  

The  Commission  provides  support  to  the  candidate  countries  and  potential  candidates  for  EU 
membership, particularly on the development and financing of the rail component of trans-European 
transport  networks,  and  for  the  transposition  and  implementation  of  the  EU  rail  transport  acquis. 
The  European  Union  Agency  for  Railways  provides  technical  assistance  to  the  beneficiaries  of  the 
instrument  for  pre-accession  assistance  (IPA).  In  December  2019,  ERA  and  the  Commission’s 
Directorate-General  for  Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement  Negotiations  signed  a  new  grant 
agreement for the period 2020-2022. 

In  the  Western  Balkans  region,  the  Commission  is  also  active  through  the  Transport  Community 
Treaty159. The Transport Community is based on the progressive integration of transport markets and 

158  Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 on electronic 
freight transport information (’the eFTI Regulation’) (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/1056/oj).  

159  Treaty establishing the Transport Community, OJ L 278, 27.10.2017, p. 3. 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

legislation, 

networks  on  the  basis  of  the  relevant  EU 
including  on  technical  standards, 
interoperability, safety, security, traffic management, competition, social policy, public procurement 
and  the  environment.  It  is  supported  by  a  Permanent  Secretariat,  based  in  Belgrade,  Serbia.  On 
10 December 2018,  the  six  regional  partners  adopted  a  Joint  declaration  for  a  new  Regional  Rail 
Strategy, endorsed by Transport Ministers and representatives at the second Ministerial Council of 
the Transport Community. At the Western Balkans Summit in Poznan in July 2019, the EU confirmed 
its commitment to strengthen cooperation and to support the new regional rail strategy. During the 
second  half  of  2019,  the  Transport  Community’s  Technical  Committee  on  Railways  developed  a 
comprehensive  rail  action  plan  focusing  on  market  opening,  rail  border-crossing  operations, 
interoperability and the modernisation of the rail network infrastructure. 

As regards the opening of the rail market in the Western Balkans, some important development are 
worth mentioning. Currently, there are five private railway undertakings in Serbia, with 15% of the 
market  share,  two  in  Albania,  with  40%  of  the  market  share  and  one  in  Kosovo,  with  45%  of  the 
market share. Montenegro’s rail legislation is in line  with the rail market opening but  no company 
has showed interest so far. On the  other hand, North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina still 
have  to  remove  some  pieces  of  legislation  that  are not  compliant  with  rail  market opening.  These 
obligations  are  stated 
found  at 
https://www.transport-community.org/ 

the  Rail  Action  Plan.  More 

information  can  be 

in 

The development of southern rail transport connectivity involves close cooperation with Turkey. EU 
cooperation and technical assistance in the rail sector also extends further towards the neighbouring 
countries, notably in the Mediterranean and in the southern and eastern regions.  

international 

At 
level,  the  Commission  continues  to  contribute  to  the  activities  of  the 
Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF), including in two new bodies 
established  in  2019  (the  Working  Group  of  Legal  Experts  and  Ad  Hoc  Committee on  Cooperation). 
The European Union acceded to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF160) 
in  July  2011,  and  became  a  member  of  OTIF  with  the  status  of  ‘regional  economic  integration 
organisation’.  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,  cooperate  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 rail transport services 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 between railway companies. The  OSJD 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  work  through  its  participation, 
coordination  and  active  role  in  relevant  initiatives.  Important  developments  are  taking  place  with 
regard  to  the  ongoing  reform  process  to  adapt  OSJD  to  the  current  administrative,  legal  and 
economic situation in the rail sector. 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, which in turn will underpin new business opportunities for EU industry as a whole.  

160  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. 

168 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector 

The  Commission  and  several  EU  Member  States  also  participate  in  the  Group  of  Experts  towards 
Unified  Rail  Law  (GEURL)  within  the  United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe  (UNECE).  In 
February  2013,  the  project  received  political  support  when  37 member countries  of  UNECE  signed 
the  Joint  Declaration  on  the  promotion  of  Euro-Asian  rail  transport  and  activities  towards  unified 
railway law. In April 2019, the Commission submitted a formal document161 to the 19th session of the 
GEURL stressing the importance of developing unified railway law using a pragmatic and step-by-step 
approach. The paper analysed the opportunity and benefits of creating, as a first step, a single legal 
and liability regime for Euro-Asia rail freight traffic, through the adoption of a global convention for 
the contract of international carriage of goods by rail. 

The EU rail transport sector can benefit from increased engagement with strategic partners and high- 
growth  economies  beyond  the  direct  neighbourhood.  In  2019,  this  reflection  resulted  in  the 
organisation of a joint EU-India seminar on common rail issues in New Delhi together with the Indian 
Ministry  of  Transport.  The  EU-India  summit  of  2020  will  be  an  opportunity  to  discuss  follow-up 
actions  and  further  cooperation  activities.  In  2020,  the  Commission  will  explore  possible  increased 
cooperation with the ASEAN region and with Africa.  

161  Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2019) 152 final, 27.3.2019 ‘Contribution to the 19th session of 
the  UN  ECE  Group  of  Experts  towards  Unified  Railways  Law:  Options  available  for  converting  URL  into  a 
legally binding instrument – URL as contract of carriage’s convention’. 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The quality of rail services 

6. 

The quality of rail services 

6.1 

Safety 

Safety remains the top priority for the development of the single European railway area.  

Directive  (EU)  2016/798  was  included  in  the  Fourth  Railway  Package  as  a  recast  of  the  Safety 
Directive  (Directive  2004/49/EC).  Directive  2016/798 aims  to  improve  access  to  the market  for  rail 
transport  services  by  laying  down  common  principles  for  the  management,  regulation  and 
supervision of railway safety, and by providing for more effective safety certification arrangements 
and  the  migration  to  a  single  safety  certificate.  With  the  full  transposition  by  Member  States,  the 
Directive also provides for a framework to be put in place to ensure equal conditions for all entities in 
charge  of  vehicle  maintenance  through  application  of  the  same  certification  requirements  and 
conditions  across  the  EU.  The  purpose  of  this  certification  system  is  to  provide  a  framework  for 
harmonising  requirements  and  methods  to  assess  the  ability  of  entities  in  charge  of  maintenance 
across the EU.  

The  European  Union  Agency  for  Railways  became  an  EU-wide  authority  for  safety  certification  of 
railway  undertakings.  By  the  beginning  of  June  2020,  ERA  had  issued  14  single  safety  certificates, 
including for major players in the sector. National safety authorities continue to act as the principal 
supervisors for railway undertakings and issue safety authorisations for infrastructure managers. ERA 
monitors  the  activities  of  national  safety  authorities  (NSAs),  their  performance  and  organisation 
through  three-year  cycle  audits  and  through  heightened  collaboration  with  the  NSA  network, 
ensuring the alignment of criteria and procedures with those used by the Agency itself.  

The Agency monitors the progress on safety and interoperability of the EU rail system, as mandated 
by Regulation (EU) 2016/796. Every 2 years the Agency publishes a report on progress on safety and 
interoperability  in  the  single  European  railway  area162  together  with  a  number  of  other  technical 
monitoring reports.  

162  See the Report on Railway Safety and Interoperability in the EU 2020 available at 

https://www.era.europa.eu/library/corporate-publications/safety-and-interoperability-progress-
reports_en.  

170 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The quality of rail services 

Figure 110 shows the risk of a fatal accident per billion passenger kilometres for different modes in 
2014-2018 as reported by the Agency for the EU28. 

Figure 110: Fatality risks of different transport modes (fatalities per billion pax-km, 2014-2018) 

Source: European Union Agency for Railways (ERA). 

The fatality risk of travelling by car is almost 50 times higher than travelling by train. Travelling by bus 
has  a  fatality  risk  almost  four  times  higher  than  travelling  by  train.  Road  is  the  riskiest,  whereas 
aircrafts remain the safest mean of transport with a fatality risk equivalent to about two thirds that 
of rail. 

171 

2,450,230,050,030123carcoachtrainaircraftfatalities/billion pax-kmEU28 
 
 
 
 
The quality of rail services 

Figure  111  shows  the  number  of  significant  rail  accidents,  fatalities  and  serious  injuries  over  the 
period 2010 to 2018 as provided by the Agency for the EU27163. 

Figure 111: Significant rail accidents and resulting casualties (number, 2010-2018) 

Source: European Union Agency for Railways (ERA). 

Rail safety is continuously improving. Significant accidents decreased by 25%, serious injuries by 39% 
and fatalities by 31%.  

163  Figures for EU28 are available in the Report on Railway Safety and Interoperability in the EU 2020 

(https://www.era.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/docs/safety_interoperability_progress_reports/repo
rt_on_railway_safety_and_interoperability_in_the_eu_2020_en.pdf).  

172 

1245115110931095102993994293385512261041996899810672813747750223021461994189620221764174217771671 0 5001 0001 5002 0002 5003 000201020112012201320142015201620172018significant accidents (number)numberEU27fatalitiesserious injuriessignificant accidents 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The quality of rail services 

Table 18 lists the most serious train accidents of the latest 2 years.  

Table 18: Serious accidents 2019-2020 (update 15 August 2020) 

Source: Desk research by DG MOVE. 

173 

DateLocationDescription2 JanStorebælt Low Bridge near Nyborg (DK)A passenger train collided with a road lorry trailer.  Eight passengers killed and 16 others injured. 6 FebUnkel Station (DE)  Fire on a freight train causing serious disruption to rail services in the Rhein Valley.  8 FebCastellgali (ES)Two trains collided. One fatality, 12 others seriously injured with many other passengers having suffered less serious or minor injuries. 15 JunKąty Wrocławskie – Mietków (PL)A passenger train hit a car at a level crossing. The five people in the car were killed.25 JunHrastovlje (SI)Derailment of a train, no fatalites or injuries. 14 JulCernozice (CZ)  Four people killed in a level crossing accident. 15 JulAvenay‐Val‐d’Or (FR)  A passenger train hit a car at a level crossing.6 FebLodi (IT)A Frecciarossa high-speed train that set off from Milan derailed at Ospedaletto Lodigiano (Lodi) along the Milan-Bologna line. The accident resulted in two fatalities (the two train drivers) as well as 31 people with injuries. 5 MarchClose to Saverne, Alsace (FR)A TGV train of the line Strasbourg-Paris derailed. One fatality and 20 injured.2 AprAuggen (DE)A 100-tonne concrete slab fell from a railway bridge onto the railway line. A train ran into the obstacle.2 JunLa Hiniesta (ES)  A high-speed passenger train collided with a car outside a level crossing and derailed. The collision resulted in two fatalities.7 JulPernink (CZ)Two passenger trains collided on a regional railway line near station Pernink, on a single track line Karlovy Vary – Johanngeorgenstadt (DE), resulting in two fatalities and nine serious injuries.14 Julnear Český Brod Station (eastern Prague) (CZ)A passenger train and a freight train collided, killing a driver and injuring dozens of passengers. 31 Julnear Soure (PT)A high-speed train (Alfa Pendular) collided with a railway maintenance machine killing two people and injuring at least 30 other people.12 AugCarmont near Stonehaven (Scotland, UK)A train derailment caused three fatalities and six injuries.20192020 
 
 
 
 
The quality of rail services 

Figure 112  represents  significant  rail accidents  by different types  over the period 2012 to 2018, as 
provided by the Agency for the EU27164. 

Figure 112: Significant rail accidents by type of accident (number, 2012-2018) 

Source: European Union Agency for Railways (ERA). 

The  major  types  of  accidents  decreased  during  the  period  2012  to  2018.  Accidents  to  persons 
(currently 56% of all rail accidents) were reduced by 19%, and level-crossing accidents (currently 26% 
of all rail accidents) were reduced by 22% compared to 2012.  

Box 17: Second safety culture twinning programme 

The multi annual work programme 2014-2020 under the Connecting Europe Facility gave the Commission 
the opportunity to launch a programme support action in the field of ‘safe and secure infrastructure’. 

A first twinning programme was undertaken by a consortium of 12 EU infrastructure managers in 2017 to 
assist  European  rail  infrastructure  managers  in  sharing  knowledge  and  best  practice  across  railways  to 
support new approaches to safety management165. 

Encouraged by the results obtained, the Commission decided to launch twinning programme II, enlarging 
the  scope  of  participation  to  all  relevant  stakeholders  in  the  domain  of  safety:  national  safety  agencies, 
national investigation bodies, railway undertakings and infrastructure managers.  

164  Figures  for  EU28  are  available  in  the  Report  on  Railway  Safety  and  Interoperability  in  the  EU  2020 
(https://www.era.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/docs/safety_interoperability_progress_reports/repo
rt_on_railway_safety_and_interoperability_in_the_eu_2020_en.pdf ).  

165 Final report of the twinning programme is available here:  https://safety.networkrail.co.uk/safety/industry-

groups/european-safety-culture-twinning-programme/ .  

174 

 0 5001 0001 5002 0002 5002012201320142015201620172018numberEU27accidents to personslevel-crossing accidentscollisions of trainsderailments of trainsfires in rolling stockother accidents 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The quality of rail services 

The twinning programme II will run from the third quarter of 2020 to 2022 and will cover different topics 
including: 

-  safety management and behaviours;  
-  development of common principles for management of railway safety;  
-  occurrence reporting and use of information safety-related tools (E-rail, SAIT, own resources);  
- 
- 

transition towards a more mature safety culture; and  
implementation of safety culture and management, both within organisations and across borders.  

By working collaboratively for a period of time in a twin host organisation, participants will be able to share 
information, challenges, good practice and innovation in safety processes, systems and culture. This is an 
opportunity  to  share  good  practices  and  useful  experience  with  peers  in  similar  circumstances  and  to 
overcome the traditional separate working practices of rail stakeholders.  

The twinning programme II should result in a structured approach and a shared understanding of both the 
opportunities  and  benefits,  and  of  the  barriers  to  a  more  mature  and  fair  safety  culture.  It  should  also 
reinforce the practices used in occurrence reporting in railways. 

6.2 

Punctuality and reliability of passenger services 

6.2.1 

Punctuality by category of passenger services 

Under the RMMS, Member States are requested to report the number of passenger services arriving 
on time (meaning with a delay of five minutes or less). However, different definitions of punctuality 
applied in Member States and the variability in the quality of data provided at the beginning of the 
implementation  of  Regulation  2015/1100  make  it  difficult  to  obtain  fully  comparable  data  across 
countries and years166.  

Figure 113 shows the reported punctuality of services classified as regional or local per country for 
the years 2015 to 2018. 

166 This is another aspect that should be improved in the future revision of Regulation 2015/10.  

175 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The quality of rail services 

Figure 113: Punctuality of regional and local passenger services per country (%, 2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. No data 2015 for ES, LU; no data 2016 for ES, NO; no data 2017 for ES. 

The EU27 average punctuality of regional and local passenger services slightly decreased from 93.1% 
in  2015  to  90.2%  in  2018  (92.5%  to  89.6%  in  EU28).  Estonia  and  Latvia  reported  the  highest 
punctuality  level  in  2018  (99.0%),  whereas  countries  such  as  Hungary,  Slovenia  and  Romania  are 
currently at  the  lowest end of the EU27  sample. In Greece,  punctuality seems to have  significantly 
improved (from 43.7% to 92.7%), whereas in Romania it decreased from 83.5% to 62.1%.  

Figure 114  shows  the  reported punctuality of services classified as long-distance  or high-speed per 
country for the years 2015 to 2018. 

Figure 114: Punctuality of long-distance and high-speed passenger services per country (%, 2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. No 2015 data for EE, ES, LU; no data 2016 for EE, ES, LU and NO; no data 2017 for EE, ES. 

176 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%EELVATFIDKNLLTIEBGELPLESCZPTFRBESESKDELUITHRHUSIROEU27NOUK% of services classified as punctual20152016201720180%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%LVLTNLESDKATBEBGIEPLFICZSKFRSEDELUHUROHRITPTSIELEU27NOUK% of services classified as punctual2015201620172018 
 
 
 
 
 
The quality of rail services 

The  EU27  average  punctuality  of  long-distance  and  high-speed  passenger  services  decreased  from 
84.9%  in  2015  to  78.7%  in  2018  (84.2%  to  77.4%  for  the  EU28).  Latvia  reported  the  highest 
punctuality level for 2018 (98.3%), whereas countries such as Slovenia and Greece are  currently  at 
the  lowest  end  of  the  EU27  sample.  Punctuality  in  this  category  appears  to  have  significantly 
improved in Bulgaria (from 59.5% to 84.7%), whereas Portugal reported a significant decrease (from 
76.1% to 52.8%). 

6.2.2 

Reliability by category of passenger services 

The average reliability of local and regional passenger services in the EU27, measured as the share of 
cancelled services on total services, decreased between 2015 and 2018 (Figure 115). A higher bar in 
the chart means a higher percentage of services cancelled on total and thus a lower reliability. The 
share of cancelled services passed from 1.4% to 1.9% (1.6% to 2.2% for EU28). Lithuania reported the 
highest  share  of  cancellations  in  2018  (4.2%),  whereas  reliability  was  higher  (at  least  in  2018)  in 
countries such as Slovenia, Estonia and Latvia.  

Figure 115: Reliability of regional and local passenger services per country, (%, 2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Estimates for NL 2016. HR 2017 and 2018 not available. 

Figure  116  shows  the  reported  reliability  of  long-distance  and  high-speed  passenger  services, 
measured  as  the  share  of  cancelled  services  on  total  services.  Here  too,  a  higher  bar  in  the  chart 
means a higher percentage of services cancelled on total and thus a lower reliability.  

177 

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%LTELLUDKFRPTITSENLBEDEESPLBGATIEFIROSKCZHUSIEELVEU27NOUK% of services cancelled2015201620172018 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The quality of rail services 

Figure 116: Reliability of long-distance and high-speed passenger services per country (%, 2015-2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Estimates for NL 2016. HR 2017 and 2018 not available. 

The EU27 average reliability of long-distance and high-speed passenger services increased between 
2015  and  2018,  with  the  share  of  cancelled  services  passing  from  1.5%  to  1.3%.  In  the  EU28, 
however,  reliability  decreased,  with  the  share  of  cancelled  services  passing  from  1.7%  to  1.8%. 
Luxembourg  reported  the  highest  share  of  cancellations  in  2018  (5.7%),  whereas  reliability  was 
highest (at least in 2018) in countries such as Slovenia and Latvia.  

6.2.3 

Frequency, frequency intensity and average speed of direct passenger rail 
connections 

To explore more in depth the performance of the rail network in Europe, a geographical approach is 
required, although to produce indicators it is necessary to collect, transform and harmonise complex 
datasets from various rail service providers across Europe.  

This analysis uses the information extracted from timetables of rail passenger services in Europe167, 
applying  the  approach  from  Poelman  and  Ackermans  (2016168).  The  main  data  source  was  the 
MERITS database of rail timetables from the UIC169, integrated with datasets of national and regional 
operators for a better coverage. To prepare the timetable information and to create a georeferenced 
dataset, the data has been converted to the GTFS data model170.  

167  Data  coverage  to  be  improved  in  further  versions  of  the  analysis  (e.g.  coverage  of  the  Zaragoza–Teruel–

Valencia link in Spain).   

168  Poelman,  H.  and  Ackermans,  L.,  Towards  regional  and  urban  indicators  on  rail  passenger  services,  using 
information,  European  Commission,  DG  Regional  and  Urban  Policy,  Brussels,  2016 

timetable 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/working-papers/2016/from-rail-
timetables-to-regional-and-urban-indicators-on-rail-passenger-services. 

169  https://uic.org/passenger/passenger-services-group/merits. 
170  For a description of the GTFS specification, see: https://developers.google.com/transit/gtfs/reference.  

178 

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%10%LUELNLBEPTLTDEDKFIBGFRITSEATSKPLESIEROCZHUSILVEU27UKNO% of services cancelled2015201620172018 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The quality of rail services 

The basic unit of analysis is any direct train trip connecting two train stations and leaving between 
6:00 and 20:00 on a weekday in October 2019. The analysis covers all EU countries, EFTA countries, 
the  United Kingdom  and Western  Balkan countries.  For  each  connection  between two  subsequent 
stops,  frequency  is  calculated  as the  average  hourly number of  trips  by  direction.  For the  network 
speeds, due to the lack of geographic data for the physical railway network, estimates are calculated 
using straight lines (Euclidean speeds), which are therefore lower than the actual vehicle speeds.  

Figure 117 shows the frequency of direct train trips. Many high-frequency connections can be found 
around  major  European  cities,  especially  in  Germany,  Belgium,  the  Netherlands,  Switzerland, 
Denmark and Austria. Frequencies are low in Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania and Greece, and in areas 
beyond commuting distance of the main cities in Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Finland.   

179 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The quality of rail services 

Figure 117: Frequencies of direct rail connections, 2019 

Source: DG REGIO and Joint Research Centre calculations from sources specified in the chart.  

Figure  118  shows  the  estimated  speeds  of  the  direct  rail  connections,  providing  a  complementary 
look  to  the  frequencies.  In  fact,  the  presence  of  high-speed  rail  services  in  countries  like  Spain, 
France,  Germany and Italy, as well as the use of tilting trains to reach high speeds in conventional 
railway  lines  in  northern  Europe,  compensates  for  lower  frequencies  in  longer  distances.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  more  visible  how  in  eastern  Europe  rail  services  are  also  comparatively  slower. 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
The quality of rail services 

Secondary lines in several countries also operate at lower speeds, often due to physical geographical 
limitations.  

Figure 118: Average speeds of direct rail connections, 2019 

Source: DG REGIO and Joint Research Centre calculations from sources specified in the chart. 

181 

 
 
 
 
 
The quality of rail services 

Timetable  information  makes  it  possible  to  calculate  an  indicator  of  service  intensity,  dividing  the 
aggregated  vehicle  trip  length  (in  vehicle-kilometres)  by  the  total  population  of  the  country.  The 
indicator can be broken down by speed category. The results are shown in Figure 119. 

Figure 119: Length by inhabitant of rail connections departing in the country, by speed category, 2019 

Source: DG REGIO and Joint Research Centre calculations from sources specified in the chart. 

The graph highlights the substantial difference in service intensity between countries, as well as the 
share  of  higher  speed  services  in  the  total  length  of  all  trips.  Relatively  high-speed  trips  above 
100 km/h  account  for  a  large  share  in  Finland,  Sweden  and  France,  whereas  the  availability  of  rail 
services is higher in Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg and Austria, and outside the EU, in Switzerland. 
Except  Sweden,  these  countries  have  a  smaller  area  and  a  lower  population  than  the  others  in 
Europe have, but are transit countries, hence the high service intensities. On the other hand, eastern 
European  countries  tend  to  have  an  availability  of  rail  connections  per  capita  lower  than  the  EU 
average, indicating both low frequencies and low service speeds. 

6.3 

Punctuality and reliability of freight services 

6.3.1 

Punctuality by category of freight 

Under the RMMS, Member States are requested to report the number of freight services arriving on 
time  (defined  as  those  having  a  delay  of  15  minutes  or  less).  However,  different  definitions  of 
punctuality applied in Member States and the variability in quality of data provided at the beginning 

182 

051015202530354045CHDKSELUATCZDENLUKHUBENOFRFISKSIITEEESPLIEHRLVPTBGROLTMERSELBAMKXKALVehicle km/1000 inhabitants< 60 km/h60-80 km/h80-100 km/h>=100 km/hEU totalEU >= 60 km/hEU >= 80 km/hEU >=100 km/hRail connections departing between 6:00 and 20:00 on a weekday in October 2019 from any station in the country.Speed calculated along straight lines representing the connection between two subsequent stops.Due to limitations in the input data results may be incomplete for some countries.Sources:UIC, national and regional rail operators, OpenStreetMap, REGIO-GIS 
 
 
 
 
 
The quality of rail services 

of  the  implementation  of  Regulation  2015/1100  make  it  difficult  to  obtain  fully  comparable  data 
across countries and years171. 

Figure 120 shows the reported punctuality of domestic and international freight services per country 
in 2018.  

Figure 120: Punctuality of domestic and international freight services per country (% in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. Data for EL and RO not available. 

On average, the EU27 punctuality in 2018 was 60.0% for domestic and 53.2% for international freight 
services  (for  EU28  punctuality  was  63.0%  and  53.2%  respectively).  Lithuania  reported  the  highest 
punctuality (98.7% for domestic, 99.5% for international freight services), whereas in Croatia freight 
services appear to be less punctual (21.7% for domestic, 38.8% for international).  

6.3.2 

Reliability by category of freight 

Figure 121 shows the reported reliability of domestic and international freight services, measured as 
the share of cancelled services on total services, for the year 2018. A higher bar in the chart means a 
higher percentage of services cancelled on total and thus a lower reliability.  

171 This is another aspect that should be improved in the future revision of Regulation 2015/1100.  

183 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%LTIENLESLVBGATFISEDKBEFRDEROLUITSKPTPLHUSICZHREU27UKNO% of services classified as punctualdomesticinternational 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The quality of rail services 

Figure 121: Reliability of domestic and international freight services per country (% in 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. HR not available. 

On average, in 2018 7.3% of domestic and 11.0% of international freight services were cancelled in 
the  EU27  (6.8%  and  11.0%  respectively  for  the  EU28).  Bulgaria  reported  the  highest  cancellation 
rates  (53.0%  domestic,  80.6%  international),  whereas  Latvia  and  Lithuania  appear  to  have  enjoyed 
the most reliable freight services in 2018.  

6.3.3 

Average timetabled speed of freight services 

The RMMS collects data on the average timetabled speed of both domestic and international freight 
services, on a voluntary basis. A majority of Member States provided this information in the RMMS 
(Figure 122 shows the reported figures for 2018). 

184 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%BGSKITROPTSINLPLLUFISEDKFRIEESHUATDECZLVLTEU27NOUK% of services cancelleddomesticinternational 
 
 
 
 
The quality of rail services 

Figure 122: Average timetabled speed of freight services per country, (Km/h, 2018) 

Source: RMMS, 2020. 

The  reported  average  timetabled  speed  of  domestic  freight  services  ranges  from  17 km  per  hour 
(Romania) up to 80 km per hour (Ireland). The reported average  timetabled speed of international 
freight services ranges from 25 km per hour (Bulgaria) up to 70 km per hour (Slovenia). International 
freight  services  appear  to  be  significantly  faster  than  domestic  freight  services  in  Czechia,  Slovakia 
and Belgium; the reverse is valid for Portugal, Denmark and France.  

6.4 

Passenger rights 

Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations172 establishes:  

free of charge assistance (for people with disabilities or reduced mobility);  

-  passengers’ rights to information, reservations and tickets;  
-  assistance, care and compensation in the event of delay or cancellation;  
- 
-  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.  

On 1 October 2020, the European Parliament and the Council reached a political agreement173 on the 
recast of the Regulation. The new rules are expected to enter into force in the first half of 2021 and 
will apply after a two-year transition period. 

172  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. 

173 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COMMITTEES/TRAN/DV/2020/10-

28/RAILPAXconsolidatedtextoftheprovisionalagreement_EN.pdf  

185 

0102030405060708090IEDKSIPTFRESITDELUCZLTLVHRSKPLBEBGROKm/hdomesticinternational 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The quality of rail services 

The most important new rules include:  

a)  a  provision  on  real-time  traffic  and  travel  information,  which  would  make  it  possible  to 

further develop the ticketing market;  

b)  an  obligation  for  rail  carriers  belonging  to  one  sole  undertaking  (100%  ownership  of 
subsidiary  companies  included)  and  performing  international,  long-distance  domestic  and 
regional rail services to offer such services on the basis of a through-ticket;  

c)  the reduction of the pre-notification periods (from 48 hours to 24 hours) when people with 
disabilities  or  reduced  mobility  request  assistance,  so  that  they  can  travel  more 
spontaneously without facing obstacles to their journey;  

d)  the passenger’s right to self-rerouting and reimbursement of the additional public transport 
(rail  or  bus)  ticket  where  carriers  do  not  offer  a  timely  solution  (within  100  minutes)  to 
continue the journey;  

e)  the possibility to transport assembled bicycles  on board new and major refurbished trains, 

which would increase the options for multi-modal and green journeys; and  

f) 

the  introduction  of  a  ‘force  majeure’  clause,  exempting  carriers  from  liability  to  pay 
compensation 
‘extraordinary 
circumstances’; this would ensure a level playing field with other transport modes174.  

for  delays,  missed  connections  and  cancellations 

in 

While the scope of the Regulation covers all railway services, Member States may decide to exempt 
urban, suburban and regional services (apart from certain mandatory requirements). Member States 
that currently have in place exemptions for domestic rail services may keep them until their expiry 
date in December 2024. Beyond that date, an exemption for domestic long-distance rail services may 
be  granted  only:  (i)  by  one  of  the  Member  States  currently  applying  an  exemption;  (ii)  only  from 
certain  exhaustively  listed  provisions;  and  (iii)  only  for  a  period  not  exceeding  5  years.  Where  it  is 
technically  not  feasible  for  an  infrastructure  manager  to  distribute  real-time  data  to  any  railway 
undertaking,  ticket  vendor,  tour  operator  or  station  manager,  the  respective  Member  State  may 
apply an exemption from the provision on real-time information for a maximum of 9 years but will 
have to re-assess the technical impossibility every second year at the latest. Member States will have 
to notify the Commission, providing information on the reasons that made the exemption necessary 
and indicating the measures they envisage taking to improve the situation. 

174  Carriers  may  be  exempted  from  paying  compensation,  but  not  from  other  financial  obligations  such  as 
reimbursement  of  the  ticket  price  and  re-routing  to  the  final  destination,  payments  for  killed/injured 
passengers or damaged/lost luggage/mobility equipment. Strikes by rail carriers’ staff and acts or omissions 
by  other  railway  undertakings  using  the  same  infrastructure,  or  by  infrastructure  or  station  managers, 
cannot trigger the force majeure clause. The ‘extraordinary circumstances’ are events that the carrier could 
neither avoid nor prevent in spite of having taken the care required. The provision covers, among others, 
extreme weather conditions, major public health crisis and terrorist attacks.  

186 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The quality of rail services 

Box 18: Eurobarometer on passenger rights 

The latest Eurobarometer on passenger rights (EB Special No 485, field work February-March 2019), shows 
that while 34% of EU citizens used long-distance rail transport in the year to February-March 2019, only 8% 
are  aware  that  the  EU  has  established  specific  passenger  rights  in  that  field.  Among  rail  transport  users, 
only a minority feel they were well informed by the transport company about their passenger rights: 26% 
before travel, 23% during and 19% after. The most common disruption to rail travel is a delay in departure 
of 1 to 2 hours. More than 4 in 10 rail travellers (43%) who have experienced at least one disruption to 
their travel in the 12 months preceding the survey say that some form of remedial action was taken, most 
commonly the reimbursement of the ticket (17%). Thinking about the most significant disruption faced by 
rail travellers in that same period, 44% say they were satisfied with the way it was handled by the railway 
undertaking.  Only  one  quarter  (24%)  of  the  respondents  who  experienced  disruption  during  rail  travel 
lodge an official complaint, compared to 37% in air transport. 

Passenger  rights  rules  should  be  easily  understandable  and  provide  legal  certainty  to  passengers,  the 
industry and the competent authorities. 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Conclusions 

7. 

Conclusions 

The  rail  sector  makes  a  substantial  contribution  to  EU27  economic  and  social  cohesion,  directly 
employing more than 900 000 people and moving some 1.6 billion tonnes of freight175 and 7.1 billion 
passengers176 each year.  

Greater use of rail is critical to satisfy  the  demand for more sustainable transport and would have 
substantial positive effects on pollution and energy consumption, helping to achieve the ambitious 
emission cuts set out in the European Green Deal.  

While  rail  passenger  volumes  have  increased  consistently  over  the  past  few  years,  rail  freight 
volumes  have  increased  more  unevenly.  Train  movements,  both  for  passengers  and  freight,  have 
remained stable, while demand for sustainable forms of transport has increased together with public 
awareness about climate change.  

Despite these positive developments, rail is not yet achieving its full potential. Rail transport needs to 
become more punctual and reliable compared to other modes by increasing its customer orientation 
and making better use of innovation. It must also become more efficient and affordable.  

To help the sector face its main market challenges, EU action is focusing on four objectives:  

1.  A competitive market  

Fair  access  to  the  market  for  all  operators  will  allow  for  the  introduction  of  new,  multimodal 
offers and increased choice for passengers and businesses. 

To this end, the market pillar of the Fourth Railway Package introduced competitive tendering as 
the  standard  procedure  for  attributing  public  service  contracts,  with  a  transition  period  until 
December  2023.  It  also  opened  access  to  commercial  provision  of  rail  domestic  passenger 
services,  starting  with  the  2021  timetable.  The  Commission  will  be  particularly  vigilant  in 
monitoring the correct transposition and application of the Fourth Railway Package, to ensure it 
achieves its full potential in the medium term.  

Fair  competition  between  transport  modes  should  also  be  promoted,  by  ensuring  each  mode 
pays for its external costs.  

2. 

Improved cross-border rail services  

Crossing internal EU borders must become a smoother process in order to increase rail’s modal 
share. Removal of interoperability barriers, deployment of the ERTMS, availability of appropriate 
rolling stock and availability of train drivers are fundamental to this goal.  

At the request of the  European Parliament, the Commission launched a study on cross-border, 
long-distance  connections,  with  a  special  focus on  night  train  services;  a  report  is  expected  by 
mid-2021.  

175 Eurostat, EU27 except BE, which labelled data confidential.  
176 Eurostat, EU27 except BE, HU, NL and PL, which labelled data confidential.  

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Conclusions 

3.  Better rail infrastructure performance  

Ensuring the efficient provision of rail transport services requires a well-developed infrastructure 
free of bottlenecks and missing links. The EU will continue its infrastructure development policy 
through the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), with significant financial support being 
provided to rail under  the  Connecting Europe  Facility. A more  extensive  high-performance  and 
high-speed network will become available by the end of 2030 with the completion of major TEN-
T projects.  

The  rail  sector  absorbs  a  significant  amount  of  public  funding.  A  growing  green  bond  market 
could  allow  a  switch  towards  private  financing  of  sustainable  investments.  The  Taxonomy 
Regulation177  and  its  delegated  acts  establish  the  necessary  framework  and  criteria  for  a  clear 
classification system to identify sustainable activities.  

Increasing levels of congestion are creating bottlenecks, particularly along the main rail corridors, 
and major maintenance works are preventing the efficient use of the network. The Commission 
supports  the  sector’s  new  approaches  to  capacity  allocation  and  management  based  on 
interconnected digital platforms/tools and their prompt implementation. 

4.  More customer orientation  

Rail services must meet customers’ needs. Improved punctuality and reliability and better access 
to services in rail facilities are a priority for both passenger and freight services.  

Passengers’  rights  to  information,  assistance,  journey  continuation  and  compensation  must  be 
guaranteed  to  boost  the  use  of  rail.  The  proposal  of  the  Commission  to  recast  Regulation (EC) 
1371/2007178,  on  which  an  agreement  was  reached  in  October  2020  with  the  European 
Parliament and the Council, should improve the rights of passengers with disabilities or reduced 
mobility,  clarify  rules  on  enforcement  and  complaint-handling  and  ensure  better  passenger 
protection in cases of travel disruption.  

The rail freight corridors remain the key element of the Commission’s policy to boost rail freight. 
The  evaluation  of  the  legal  framework  for  Regulation  913/2010179  is  preparing  the  ground  for 
additional legislative measures. 

The  Commission  fully  supports  initiatives  to  improve  the  efficiency  and  flexibility  of  the 
timetabling process, the process for dealing with contingency situations and the coordination of 
temporary capacity restrictions.  

177   Regulation  (EU)  2020/852  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  June  2020  on  the 
establishment  of  a  framework  to  facilitate  sustainable  investment,  and  amending  Regulation  (EU) 
2019/2088, OJ L 198, 22.6.2020, p. 13-43. 

178   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.  

179   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. 

189 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Conclusions 

Promoting  digitalisation  is fundamental  for  making  rail  more  attractive  to  businesses. The  new 
Regulation  on  electronic  freight  transport  information  (eFTI180)  will  enable  digital  business-to-
authority exchanges of information. The Commission is also planning to put forward a proposal 
for a European Partnership on Rail Research and Innovation, building upon the current Shift2Rail 
Joint Undertaking. The future partnership will focus on accelerating research and development of 
innovative technologies and operational solutions, facilitated by digitalisation and automation. 

The European Year of Rail 2021 will further support efforts to increase the share of passengers and 
freight moving by rail, sharing knowledge and best practices.  

180   Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 on electronic 

freight transport information, OJ L 249, 31.7.2020, p. 33-48. 

190