COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of railway infrastructure capacity in the single European railway area, amending Directive 2012/34/EU and repealing Regulation (EU) No 913/2010
Date: 2023-07-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: common transport policy, crisis management, management planning, rail transport, trans-European network, transport capacity, transport company, transport infrastructure, transport market, transport planning

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 11.7.2023  SWD(2023) 443 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of railway infrastructure capacity in the single European railway area, amending Directive 2012/34/EU and repealing Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 {COM(2023) 443 final} - {SEC(2023) 443 final} - {SWD(2023) 444 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ......................................................... 1 

1.1.  Political context ................................................................................................ 1 
1.2.  Interaction with other EU policy instruments .............................................. 2 
1.3.  Legal context .................................................................................................... 2 
1.4.  Economic context ............................................................................................. 2 
1.5.  Ex-post evaluation ........................................................................................... 6 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION ................................................................................................................. 9 

2.1.  What are the problems? .................................................................................. 9 
2.2.  What are the problem drivers? .................................................................... 11 
2.3.  How likely is the problem to persist? ........................................................... 24 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT?.......................................................................................................25 

3.1.  Legal basis ...................................................................................................... 25 
3.2.  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ............................................................ 25 
3.3.  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action ...................................................... 25 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ...........................................................................25 

4.1.  General objective ........................................................................................... 25 
4.2.  Specific objectives .......................................................................................... 26 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? ................................................................29 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? ............................. 29 
5.2.  Policy measures and policy options.............................................................. 31 
5.3.  Overview of policy options ............................................................................ 35 
5.4.  Description of policy options ........................................................................ 36 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ......................................................42 

6.1.  Economic impacts .......................................................................................... 42 
6.2.  Social impacts................................................................................................. 60 
6.3.  Environmental impacts ................................................................................. 61 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? .........................................................................................63 

7.1.  Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 63 
7.2.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 66 
7.3.  Coherence ....................................................................................................... 69 
7.4.  Subsidiarity and proportionality.................................................................. 69 

8. 

PREFERRED OPTION.....................................................................................................................70 

8.1.  Identification of the preferred policy option ............................................... 70 
8.2.  REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) ........................................ 73 
8.3.  Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach ............................................. 74 
8.4.  Sensitivity analysis of the policy options ..................................................... 74 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? ............................76 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .........................................................................................80 

1. 

LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES ..............................................................80 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING ....................................................................................................80 

EN 

I 

EN 

 
3.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB .....................................................................................................80 

4. 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY .......................................................................................83 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) ...........................................84 

1.  CONSULTATION  STRATEGY  AND  OVERVIEW  OF  CONSULTATION 

ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................84 

2. 

FEEDBACK ON THE CALL FOR EVIDENCE ............................................................................85 

3.  RESULTS OF THE OPEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION ..............................................................86 

3.1.  Questions on challenges and problems ........................................................ 87 
3.2.  Questions on measures and solutions .......................................................... 87 

4. 

TARGETED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ......................................................................88 

4.1.  Organisation and participants ..................................................................... 88 
4.2.  Outcome of the targeted stakeholder consultation ..................................... 89 
5.  WORKSHOPS  ON  THE  INITIATIVE  ORGANISED  VIA  PRIME  AND  RU-

DIALOGUE ....................................................................................................... 99 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? ......................................................................................100 

5. 

6. 

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE .............................................................100 

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS ....................................................................................101 

7.  RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS .........................................................106 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................107 

Description of the analytical methods used ............................................... 107 
1. 
2. 
Baseline scenario .......................................................................................... 112 
2.1.  Main assumptions of the Baseline scenario ............................................... 112 
2.2.  Baseline scenario results ............................................................................. 115 
Impacts of policy measure in terms of costs and cost savings ................. 119 
3. 
4. 
Direct transport impacts per policy option ............................................... 172 
4.1.  Impacts on infrastructure capacity ............................................................ 172 
4.2.  Impacts on train punctuality ...................................................................... 186 
4.3.  Impacts on temporary capacity restrictions ............................................. 192 
4.4.  Impacts on the reliability of rail transport services ................................. 193 
4.5.  Impacts on rail transport activity per policy option ................................ 195 
4.6.  Sensitivity analysis ....................................................................................... 200 

ANNEX 5: DATA AND INFORMATION ABOUT THE RAIL SECTOR..........................................203 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

5. 
6. 
7. 

8. 
EN 

Uncoordinated temporary capacity restrictions (TCRs) ......................... 203 
Reliability of rail services ............................................................................ 204 
Punctuality of rail services .......................................................................... 206 
Punctuality  of  international  trains  at  selected  border  crossing 
points ............................................................................................................. 210 
Speed of international rail freight services ............................................... 212 
Congested sections and overall length of rail networks ........................... 213 
Evidence  of  rail  infrastructure  capacity  requested,  allocated  and 
used ............................................................................................................... 215 
Changes / modifications of timetable requests .......................................... 217 

II 

EN 

 
9. 
Information supporting the ‘SME test’ for railway undertakings ......... 218 
10.  Regional differences of the rail network and rail markets in EU ........... 221 

ANNEX 6: RETAINED POLICY MEASURES .....................................................................................229 

ANNEX 7: DESCRIPTION OF THE TTR PROJECT .........................................................................244 

1.  Genesis .......................................................................................................... 244 
2.  Objectives ..................................................................................................... 244 
3.  Key elements ................................................................................................ 244 
4.  Ownership and support .............................................................................. 245 

ANNEX 8: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS ......................................247 

ANNEX 9: DISCARDED POLICY OPTIONS .......................................................................................253 

EN 

III 

EN 

 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

CEF 

ENIM 

ENRRB 

FTE 

GHG 

IM(s) 

Connecting Europe Facility 

European Network of Infrastructure Managers 

European network of rail regulatory bodies 

Full-time equivalent 

Greenhouse gases 

Rail infrastructure manager(s) 

IRG-Rail 

Independent Regulators’ Group - Rail 

Network Coordinator 

Operational  entity  supporting  the  European  Network  of 
Infrastructure Managers 

One-stop shop 

OPE TSI 

PaP(s) 

PCS 

PSO(s) 

Recast Directive  

RFC(s) 

RFC Regulation 

RINF 

EN 

A  joint  body  for  applicants  to  request  and  to  receive 
answers,  in  a  single  place  and  operation,  regarding 
infrastructure  capacity  for  freight  trains  crossing  at  least 
one border along a rail freight corridor 

Technical specification for interoperability relating to rail 
operations  and  traffic  management.  See  also  TSI(s) 
below. 

Pre-arranged  train  path(s).  Rail  infrastructure  capacity 
primarily  allocated  by  the  rail  freight  corridors  via  one-
stop shops. 

Path  Coordination  System 
management of RailNetEurope) 

(IT 

tool 

for  capacity 

Public  Service  Obligations  are  State-supported  public 
passenger  transport  services  that  transport  companies 
would  not  provide  on  their  own  initiative  for  lack  of 
economic viability. 

Directive  2012/34/EU  establishing  a  single  European 
railway area 

Rail  freight  corridor(s)  as  established  under  Regulation 
(EU) 913/2010 

Regulation  (EU)  913/2010  concerning  a  European  rail 
network for competitive freight 

EU  Register  of  railway  infrastructure.  A  web-based 

IV 

EN 

 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

RMMS 

RNE 

RU(s) 

SERA 

SSMS 

TAF TSI 

TAP TSI 

TCR(s) 

application  acting  as  a  single  entry  point  for  the 
publication of Member States’ infrastructure information. 

Rail market monitoring report 

RailNetEurope 

Railway undertaking(s) 

The  Single  European  Railway  Area  is  a  comprehensive 
EU approach to railways aimed at achieving a single EU 
market  for  railway  services,  implemented  by  Directive 
2012/34/EU, which includes, inter alia, EU rules for the 
management  of  railway  infrastructure,  the  provision  of 
railway services, the coordinated management of railway 
infrastructure  and 
regulatory 
traffic,  as  well  as 
supervision of rail stakeholders and services. 

Sustainable and smart mobility strategy 

Technical  specification  for  interoperability  relating  to 
telematics  applications  for  freight  services.  See  also 
TSI(s) below. 

Technical  specification  for  interoperability  relating  to 
telematics  applications  for  passenger  services.  See  also 
TSI(s) below. 

Temporary  capacity  restriction(s)  of  the  availability  or 
the parameters (e.g. reduced speed or train length) of rail 
infrastructure, due to planned works 

TEN-T 

Trans-European Transport Network 

TEN-T Regulation 

Regulation  (EU)  No 1315/2013  on  Union  guidelines  for 
the development of the trans-European transport network 

TIS 

Tonne-kilometre, 
tkm 

TPS 

EN 

Train  Information  System  (RailNetEurope’s  IT  tool  for 
traffic management) 

A  unit  of  measure  of  freight  transport  which  represents 
the transport of one tonne of goods (including packaging 
and tare weights of intermodal transport units) by a given 
transport  mode  (road,  rail,  air,  sea,  inland  waterways, 
pipeline etc.) over a distance of one kilometre. 

Train  Planning  System  –  an  IT  tool  of  the  company 
Hacon used, inter alia, for  constructing timetables 

V 

EN 

 
Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

TSI(s) 

TTR 

UIRR 

Technical specifications for interoperability are technical 
and  operational  standards,  which  must  be  met  to  allow 
the safe and uninterrupted movement of trains 

‘Timetable  Redesign  for  Smart  Capacity  Management’ 
project 

International Union for Road-Rail Combined Transport 

EN 

VI 

EN 

 
1.  INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

This  impact  assessment  accompanies  a  legislative  proposal  amending  the  rules  for  rail 
infrastructure  capacity  allocation  and  rail  traffic  management1  for  domestic  and  cross-
border  passenger  and  freight  trains  with  the  purpose  of  improving  the  performance  of 
railway transport, particularly of cross-border trains. 

1.1.  Political context 

Transport  by  railway  is  an  environmentally  friendly  mode  of  transport.  In  2020,  it 
performed 5.1% of intra-EU passenger transport and 11.5% of intra-EU freight transport 
while being responsible for only 0.4% of transport greenhouse gas emissions in the EU2. 
This can be explained by the energy efficiency of rail transport – which accounts for only 
1.5%  of  transport  energy  consumption  –  and  by  the  fact  that  most  train  kilometres  are 
performed on electrified lines3. In view of these and other favourable characteristics, such 
as its high level of safety, EU policy consistently promotes railway transport.  

Several Commission strategic policy documents refer to the general objective of boosting 
freight and passenger railway transport, as well as to the need to address specific aspects 
that  are  relevant  to  railway  performance.  One  of  these  aspects  is  the  management  of 
capacity of and traffic on the rail network, which is the topic of this initiative.   

The  European  Green  Deal  Communication4  confirmed  the  EU’s  goal  of  achieving 
climate neutrality by 2050 and the need to reduce transport emissions by 90% by 2050. It 
called for a strong boost to multimodal transport and for a substantial part of the 75% of 
inland  freight  carried  today  by  road  to  shift  onto  rail  and  inland  waterways,  recognising 
that  this  ‘…will  require  measures  to  manage  better,  and  to  increase  the  capacity  of 
railways…’.  The  sustainable  and  smart  mobility  strategy5  referred  to  the  need  to 
strengthen  cross-border  coordination  and  cooperation  between  rail 
infrastructure 
managers,  to  have  a  better  overall  management  of  the  rail  network  and  to  deploy  new 
technologies to boost rail freight. In the strategy, the Commission announced that it would 
propose  improved  rules  on  rail  capacity  allocation  in  line  with  the  ongoing  rail  sector 
initiatives. In the action plan to boost long distance and cross-border passenger rail6, 
the  Commission  further  detailed  its  intentions  by  announcing  that  it  would  work  on  an 
initiative  to  improve  capacity  allocation  and  traffic  management  processes,  aiming  at 
better  coordination  of  the  capacity  allocation  within  the  overall  rail  system,  covering 
passenger and freight services. 

The initiative contributes towards Sustainable Development Goal 13 (‘Take urgent action 
to combat climate change and its impacts’) by contributing to the increased availability of 
rail – an environmentally friendly mode of transport.   

1   For the purpose of this document, ‘capacity allocation’ refers to the attribution of train paths to railways 
transport operators up until a few days ahead of the train operation, while ‘traffic management’ means all 
actions,  in  particular  allocation  and  amendment  of  train  paths,  carried  out  by  infrastructure  managers 
close  to  or  during  the  train  operation,  with  the  purpose  of  ensuring  the  safe  and  smooth  circulation  of 
trains on the rail network. 

2   Source: Statistical pocketbook 2022, EU transport in figures - Publications Office of the EU (europa.eu).  
3   COM(2021) 810 final of 14 December 2021. 
4   COM(2019) 640 final of 11 December 2019. 
5   COM(2020) 789 final of 9 December 2020. 
6   COM(2021) 810 final of 14 December 2021. 

EN 

1 

EN 

 
                                                           
1.2. 

Interaction with other EU policy instruments 

This  initiative  complements  other  measures  that  aim  to  reduce  emissions  from  transport 
and promote the use of more sustainable modes including railways, like the introduction 
of  carbon  pricing  on  road  transport  and  the  facilitation  of  multimodal  travel  via  better 
ticketing.  Together  with  measures  that  improve  the  performance  and  attractiveness  of 
railway  transport  –  such  as  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  Single  European 
Railway Area and the ongoing work on technical specifications for the interoperability of 
the  railway  system  –  all  these  initiatives  contribute  to  boosting  demand  for  railway 
transport, which, however, the railway network must be capable of accommodating.  

The present proposal will help to ease congestion and generate additional capacity on the 
existing network. In parallel, the proposed revision of the TEN-T Regulation7 creates the 
conditions for expanding and improving transport infrastructure, building an effective EU-
wide and multimodal transport network. 

1.3.  Legal context 

Directive 2012/34/EU8 establishing a single European railway area (hereafter ‘the Recast 
Directive’) sets up the Union’s legal framework for the Single European railway area. In 
particular, it lays down the rules on: i) the management of railway infrastructure and  the 
activities of the railway undertakings; ii) the licencing of railway undertakings; and iii) the 
principles and procedures applicable to railway infrastructure charges and to the allocation 
of railway infrastructure capacity. The latter part, which provides the general framework 
for allocation of network capacity, is directly relevant to the present initiative. 

Regulation  (EU)  913/20109  concerning  a  European  rail  network  for  competitive  freight 
(hereafter  ‘the  Rail  Freight  Corridors  Regulation’  or  ‘the  RFC  Regulation’)  intends  to 
address the specific needs of rail freight and constitutes a lex specialis for freight. Based 
on  it,  Member  States  established  11  rail  freight  corridors  including  lines  crossing  the 
territory of at least two Member States and linking two or more terminals (see Figure 23 in 
Annex  5).  The  RFC  Regulation  provides  for  a  dedicated  governance  structure  of  these 
corridors and for special rules on capacity management and allocation, including the use 
of a one-stop shop for capacity requests. Corridor one-stop shops are another key feature 
of  the  RFC  Regulation  whose  objective  is  to  provide  railway  undertakings  and  other 
applicants  with  a  single  point  of  contact  for  the  submission  of  requests  for  capacity  on 
corridors spanning more than one network. 

1.4.  Economic context 

The  technical  characteristics  of  rail  imply  that  the  capacity  of  and  the  traffic  on  the  rail 
infrastructure must be managed at network level by a single actor to ensure the high level 
of  coordination  needed  for  safe  operations  and  efficient  use  of  the  network10.  The 
management and operation of rail infrastructure thus constitutes a natural monopoly that 

7   COM(2021) 812 final of 14 December 2021. 
8   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). 

9   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). 

10   This  must  be  done  throughout  different  stages:  long  and  medium-term  strategic  planning;  short-term 

definition of the timetable; real-time dispatching of trains and management of train circulation. 

EN 

2 

EN 

 
                                                           
requires detailed regulation and oversight, as provided in EU legislation. These tasks are 
assigned  to  rail  infrastructure  managers  (IMs),  who  supply  rail  infrastructure  services  to 
railway transport operators.  

The provision of rail transport services, on the contrary, has been liberalised in a gradual 
manner since 200711. The operators of railway transport services, referred  to  as ‘railway 
undertakings’  (RUs),  benefit  from  open  and  non-discriminatory  access  to  the  railway 
infrastructure and compete not only in the market for transport of passengers and freight, 
but also with respect to access to the network. Availability of train paths is indispensable 
for the provision of RUs’ services, but network capacity is a scarce resource, since not all 
train paths are of equal quality and certain lines are congested. 

The quality of infrastructure services provided by  IMs has direct and significant impacts 
on  the  performance  and  quality  of  rail  transport  services.  Poor  management  of  capacity 
does not fully exploit the network and limits the volume of transport services that RUs can 
offer. Poor management of traffic implies longer times to return to normal operations after 
any deviation from the plan and results in unnecessary delays to transport services. 

Rail infrastructure capacity availability, quality and issues differ between EU regions and 
Member  States.  These  differences  reflect  geographical,  topographical  and  historical 
circumstances  and  transport  policy  decisions  about  developing  and  using  rail.  To  begin 
with,  the  density  of  the  rail  network  differs  considerably  between  Member  States  and  a 
clear difference is noticeable between the central  and peripheral regions  of the EU, with 
the former having a denser network (see Annex 5, Figure 21). Traffic density also differs 
considerably,  as  does  the  predominant  use  (domestic  vs  cross-border  and  passenger  vs 
freight)  as  shown  by  the  data  in  Annex 5,section  10.  Whereas  passenger  traffic  is 
dominated  by  domestic  services,  freight  is  split  almost  in  equal  parts  between  domestic 
and cross-border. 

The  rail  freight  market  can  be  better  analysed  by  dividing  it  into  three  broad  segments: 
block  trains,  intermodal  trains,  and  single  wagon  business.  The  market  share  of  these 
different market segments depends on economic structure of a Member State or a region 
and  in  particular  on  the  presence  of  heavy  industry,  which  is  a  traditional  user  of  rail 
freight. 

A  block  train  transports  many  wagons  carrying  a  single,  generally  bulky,  commodity 
between  two  sidings.  These  are  the  trains  that  typically  carry  metal  ores,  coke,  coal  and 
lignite, basic metals, chemicals, agriculture products, and wood. To a large extent this is a 
captive and profitable market since road transport does not represent a viable alternative. It 
is,  however,  a  slowly  declining  market  considering  the  progressive  dematerialisation  of 
the economy.  

Intermodal  trains  carry  intermodal  loading  units,  such  as  containers  or  semi-trailers, 
between transhipment terminals. There is no available data on what is being transported in 
the units, but this is the segment that competes more directly with road transport. It is also 
a segment that is growing strongly. Data indicates that intermodal  rail freight has  grown 

11   Rail  freight  transport  has  been  completely  liberalised  in  the  EU  since  2007,  for  both  national  and 
international  services.  The  EU  market  for  rail  passenger  services  has  been  liberalised  since  2010  for 
international services and since 2019 for domestic services. 

EN 

3 

EN 

 
                                                           
by over 50% in tonne kilometres in the period 2011-202112 and its share expressed in rail 
freight tonne kilometres in the EU is growing steadily. The greater the distance that goods 
must  travel,  the  greater  the  advantage  of  rail  with  respect  to  road-only  transport.  The 
break-even point is generally considered to be at 300-400 km.  

Single wagon load trains are long distance trains that are assembled from various locations 
and  then  distributed  to  various  destinations.  The  need  to  accompany  these  trains  with 
feeder  and  distribution  traffic,  and  the  time  and  complexity  of  the  shunting  operations, 
makes  them  particularly  costly  and  generally  unprofitable.  This  segment  is  declining 
sharply,  although  there  are  technologies  that  could  greatly  reduce  the  cost  of  shunting 
operations (digital automatic coupling) and could revive this market sector. 

The  main  types  of  goods  transported  by  rail  in  2021,  based  on  tonne-kilometers,  were 
‘metal ores and other mining and quarrying products; peat; uranium and thorium’ (12.6%), 
‘coke  and  refined  petroleum  products’  (9.5%),  ‘basic  metals;  fabricated  metal  products, 
except  machinery  and equipment’ (8.9 %), and ‘chemicals,  chemical  products,  and man-
made  fibers;  rubber  and  plastic  products;  nuclear  fuel’  (8.2%).  In  terms  of  weight  (in 
tonnes),  the  main  type  of  goods  transported  were  ‘metal  ores  and  other  mining  and 
quarrying  products;  peat;  uranium  and  thorium’  (15.3%),  followed  by  ‘coal  and  lignite; 
crude petroleum and natural gas‘ (11.9%), ‘basic metals; fabricated metal products, except 
machinery  and  equipment’  (9.4%),  ‘coke  and  refined  petroleum  products’  (9.2%),  and 
‘chemicals, chemical products, and man-made fibers; rubber and plastic products; nuclear 
fuel’ (7.6%). Unidentifiable goods, which can be assumed to be indicative of the volume 
of  traffic  for  intermodal  trains,  represented  the  highest  share  of  27.5%  of  the  total 
measured  in  tonne-kilometres  and  22.1%  of  the  total  measured  in  tonnes,  as  shown  in 
Figure 113. 

Figure 1: Rail freight transport by type of goods 

12  UIC  Freight  Department,  2022  Report  on  Combined  Transport 
in  Europe,  January  2023 
(https://uic.org/IMG/pdf/2022_report_on_combined_transport_in_europe.pdf).  Analysis  based  on  Eurostat 
data. 
13 Railway freight transport statistics - Statistics Explained (europa.eu) 

EN 

4 

EN 

Note: data for Belgium are not included.Source:Eurostat (online data code: rail_go_grpgood) 
 
                                                           
There are strong differences in the Member States in the relative size of these segments, 
which largely reflect the structure of the economy. 

Rail transports some 1.6 billion tonnes of freight and 7.1 billion passengers every year in 
the EU14. National transport represents more than 90% of the total rail passenger transport 
traffic for all EU Member States, with a few exceptions (e.g. Luxembourg and Lithuania 
close to 70%, Austria with 77% and Slovenia with 80%) (see Annex 5, section 10, Table 
80). For freight, at EU level the share of national transport is more or less half of the total 
freight (2018 figures indicating domestic traffic at 48% of total rail freight, see Annex 5, 
section 10, Table 81). At Member State level, countries that registered the highest shares 
of cross-border  rail freight are located on key  corridors within  the European market  and 
have a relatively small territory (Slovenia, the Baltic Member States, Denmark, Slovakia, 
etc.).  The  Netherlands,  strategically  situated  in  the  heart  of  the  European  market,  has  a 
share of over 80% of cross-border freight measured as share of the total tonne-kilometres. 
The  key  port  of  Rotterdam,  with  large  sea/rail  transfers  of  goods  dispatched  within  the 
EU,  is  one  of  the  main  driver  for  this  large  share.  The  Baltic  States,  and  in  particularly 
Latvia  and  Estonia,  also  have  a  very  high  share  of  cross-border  rail  freight  above  90% 
(Annex 5,  section 10,  Table  81).  The  network  in  the  Baltic  States  has  the  Russian  track 
gauge and not the European standard gauge, which means that until now the vast majority 
of  the  rail  transit  freight  traffic  flows  in  the  Baltic  States  originated  in  Russia  and 
Belarus15. 

The EU rail network consists largely in mixed-use lines that serve different passenger and 
freight  transport  markets  on  the  same  infrastructure.  The  key  exception  are  high-speed 
lines  which  are  used  exclusively  for  long-distance  in  some  Member  States  and  some 
freight-only  lines  in  industrial  regions  and  logistics  hubs.  The  construction  of  new  rail 
infrastructure  has  differed  significantly  between  Member  States  as  do  the  resources 
dedicated to maintenance and renewal of the network. 

In terms of differences between different EU regions, it should be noted that the regional 
distribution  of  railway  infrastructure  is  shaped  by  specific  historical  developments, 
economic  developments  and  the  geographical  characteristics  of  regions.  For  example, 
some large EU Member States that have considerable distances between major cities have 
developed high-speed rail infrastructure (e.g., Germany, Spain, France and Italy). Some of 
the Member States that are more densely populated, such as Belgium or the Netherlands, 
have a higher frequency of (generally less rapid) trains. Several eastern European Member 
States have relatively extensive rail networks, reflecting a legacy from the communist or 
Soviet  era  when  there  was  often  a  greater  reliance  on  rail  (compared  with  road)  for 
transporting passengers and goods. Figure 22 in Annex 5 presents rail freight transport by 
NUTS2-level  region in 2020 – as measured by the quantity of goods loaded. In general, 
the lowest levels of rail freight transport were recorded in rural and peripheral regions of 
the  EU  (where  rail  infrastructure  was  often  less  extensive).  The  highest  levels  of  rail 
freight  transport  were  in  a  cluster  of  regions  centred  on  Germany  and  its  neighbours. 
Many of these regions are characterised as manufacturing centres, where goods are loaded 
onto  railways  to  be  transported  within  the  EU  and  also  to  the  EU’s  main  ports.  Others, 
such  as  Hamburg  and  Zuid-Holland,  are  regions  with  major  maritime  ports,  whereby 
goods  arriving  by  sea  are  loaded  onto  railways  to  be  transported  to  distribution  and/or 
manufacturing  centres.  Based  on  available  information,  the  highest  levels  of  rail  freight 

14 SWD(2021) 1 final of 13 January 2021. 
15 https://www.railbaltica.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/RB_CBA_FINAL_REPORT_0405.pdf 

EN 

5 

EN 

 
                                                           
transport  in  2020  were  recorded  in  the  German  regions  of  Düsseldorf,  Sachsen-Anhalt, 
Hamburg and Braunschweig (each had 26.9–29.9 million tonnes of goods loaded), as well 
as the Dutch region of Zuid-Holland (which includes the EU’s largest port of Rotterdam; 
18.9 million tonnes)16. 

As a result of demand and supply-side developments, the challenges with  respect  to  rail 
infrastructure capacity differ significantly between Member States. As a general tendency, 
Member  States  in  the  centre  and  north-west  of  the  EU  have  well-developed  and 
maintained rail infrastructure but face congestion issues due to high levels of demand and 
limited infrastructure expansion in the last decades. By contrast, in Member States at the 
periphery of the EU, capacity is often abundant but the quality of the infrastructure and its 
management  is  often  poor,  due  to  deferred  maintenance/renewal  and  a  general  under-
financing  of  the  rail  sector.  In  addition,  expenditure  on  maintenance  and  renewals 
increased in the past decade across the EU. While improving the situation in the medium 
to  long-term,  the  surge  in  infrastructure  works  poses  important  challenges  for  the 
provision of sufficient capacity in the short term. 

The  total  length  of  railway  tracks  that  was  declared  congested  in  the  EU  has  more  than 
tripled between 2015 and 2020. Germany, Romania and Lithuania in particular were the 
Member States reporting the highest number of kilometres of freight corridors congested 
(620, 320 and 309 km  respectively).  These figures on congestion, although indicative of 
the  different  situation  in  terms  of  available  capacity  in  different  Member  States,  may 
underrepresent the scale of the problem as some infrastructure managers appear to refrain 
from declaring lines as congested. 

This  initiative  consists  mainly  in  reviewing  the  legal  rules  applicable  to  IMs  and  to  the 
services  they  provide.  However,  since  the  performance  of  rail  transport  services  is  the 
combined  result  of  the  activities  of  all  the  operators  involved,  it  will  also  consider 
providing  adequate  incentives  to  other  stakeholders,  in  particular  the  RUs,  to  make  best 
use of the network’s capacity. 

1.5.  Ex-post evaluation 

In 2018, the Commission  produced a  report on the application of  the RFC Regulation17, 
followed, in 2021, by an evaluation18. The conclusions of the evaluation are that there had 
been limited use of the corridors’ structures and a general failure to attain the goals of the 
Regulation. Meanwhile, the developments during the COVID-19 pandemic – when more 
capacity  became  available  to  freight  following  the  collapse  of  passenger  transport  – 
confirmed  that  there  is  much  unexploited  potential  for  cross-border  rail  freight  and 
therefore  measures  to  improve  rail  freight’s  access  to  infrastructure  capacity  remain 
relevant. 

On  the  positive  side,  the  evaluation  found  that  the  RFC  Regulation  contributed  to  the 
objective of improved cooperation, and also – but to a lesser extent – to the objective of 
increasing  the  competitiveness  of  rail  freight  in  the  multimodal  transport  system.  Rail 
freight  corridors  also  provided  fertile  ground  for  initiatives  aiming  to  remove  technical 
and operational bottlenecks, modernise timetabling, and predict train arrival times. 

16 Railway freight transport statistics - Statistics Explained (europa.eu)  
17   COM(2018)  189  final  of  16 April  2018.  The  report  was  preceded  by  a  European  Court  of  Auditors’ 
report (European Court of Auditors, Rail freight transport in the EU: still not on the right track, Special 
Report No 8, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2016). 

18   SWD(2021) 134 final of 2 June 2021. 

EN 

6 

EN 

 
                                                           
The evaluation identified the following weaknesses: 

-  The  use  of  one-stop  shops  and  pre-arranged  train  paths  was  lower  than  expected 
to  provide  better  quality  and  more 

and 
infrastructure capacity for cross-border rail freight. 

the  Regulation  failed 

therefore 

-  The  Regulation  did  not  harmonise  tools  and  procedures,  which  were  in  use  at 

national level, thus failing to facilitate cross-border rail freight.  

-  The  contribution  of  the  Regulation  to  coordinating  cross-border  investments  was 

limited at best. 

-  The main stakeholders failed to monitor thoroughly the performance of rail freight 
services  with  a  view  to  developing  and  implementing  effective  plans  to  improve 
performance. 

-  There  was  limited  progress  at  best  on  improving  traffic  management  and 

coordination with terminals. 

Table 1 summarises the weaknesses identified by the evaluation and the way in which this 
impact  assessment  addresses  them,  together  with  more  general  improvements  to  the 
current provisions on capacity allocation. 

Table 1: Summary of the conclusions of the evaluation of the RFC Regulation and links to the IA 
Impact assessment 

Main ex post evaluation conclusions 

Conclusions on relevance 

Lack of good quality and quantity of rail infrastructure 
capacity for rail freight remains a key problem for rail 
freight’s performance and stands in the way of achieving 
EU’s policy goals. 

The impact assessment analyses tools and measures to 
improve the quality and quantity of infrastructure capacity by 
improving planning, allocation procedures and traffic 
management. 

The main tools and procedures of the Regulation that deal 
with rail capacity allocation are of limited relevance. 

The policy options include clarifying the legal provisions to 
support the use of the existing tools and consider new tools 
for capacity management and allocation. 

The Regulation is of limited relevance for addressing the 
different needs of rail freight in the EU, including those 
for high quality capacity requested at shorter notice, of a 
simple and applicant-friendly process of capacity 
allocation (covering the whole path) and of appropriate 
digital tools to facilitate all of this. 

The impact assessment tests several policy options to better 
accommodate the needs of different types of traffic, both 
freight and passengers, in the capacity allocation process. The 
increased use and interoperability of digital tools for capacity 
planning and allocation are also included in the policy 
options. 

Conclusions on effectiveness 

The governance structure of the rail freight corridors did 
not succeed in overcoming the prevailing focus on 
national approaches to managing international rail freight 
transport, possibly due to the lack of an independent 
entity or process representing EU level interests. 

The scope of the Regulation is limited to cross-border 
freight traffic, which does not allow a comprehensive 
optimisation of capacity and traffic management on the 
EU rail network, which consists predominately in mixed 
lines used by all types of rail traffic (passenger / freight; 
domestic / cross-border). 

The impact assessment studies the possibility to introduce an 
entity or entities at EU level with a varying scope of tasks, in 
order to improve coordination and ensure better services for 
cross-border rail by the infrastructure managers. 

The impact assessment includes policy options that define a 
single framework for capacity and traffic management 
covering all types of rail traffic (passenger / freight; domestic 
/ cross-border).  

The governance of RFCs did not involve relevant 
stakeholders: combined transport operators, logistic 
service providers or shippers from industry. 

The policy options provide for the involvement of these 
groups via the RFC governance or via a consultation process 
to be undertaken by the entities at EU level. 

Investment planning by RFCs did not result in 
coordination. 

This issue is addressed by the Commission proposal for 
revision of the TEN-T Regulation. 

The instruments set up by the Regulation (the one-stop 
shop, pre-arranged train paths and capacity reserve) did 

Possible changes to existing instruments or new tools and 
measures replacing them are included in the policy options. 

EN 

7 

EN 

 
Main ex post evaluation conclusions 

Impact assessment 

not produce significant improvements in the quality of 
capacity for rail freight.  

The tools of the Regulation do not cover all the processes 
and interactions necessary to plan and operate 
international rail freight services. Their performance 
remains lower than that of the equivalent national systems 
in terms of functionalities and completeness or accuracy 
of information. 

The Regulation does not provide legal competences to the 
regulatory bodies to supervise the consultation of 
potential applicants on capacity needs and there was no 
indication that monitoring the competition in the rail 
freight corridors has taken place. 
The Regulation did not clarify the role of regulatory 
bodies for capacity handled by the one-stop shop. 

Implementing measures to boost intermodality have been 
limited to a few pilot projects addressing specific aspects 
or local improvements rather than a general improvement 
of coordination between rail and other modes along the 
entire supply chain. 

Conclusions on efficiency 

The Regulation did not provide a framework for efficient 
performance of common tasks, which would be better 
carried in a broader set-up than on single corridors. 

Conclusions on coherence 

Overall the Regulation is coherent with EU legislation, 
but there is room to improve the interrelations in order to 
ensure effective and efficient implementation (namely 
with the TEN-T Regulation, the Recast Directive and 
secondary legislation adopted on its basis). 

Conclusions on EU added value 

The governance of the freight corridors was instrumental 
in launching several projects that improved cooperation 
on a single corridor (work on interoperability, on border 
crossing delays), on cross-corridor (the Customer 
Information Platform describing the conditions for use of 
RFCs) and even on the whole EU rail network (like the 
Timetable Redesign Project pilots). 

The lack of a true network approach hampered the 
achievement of a more integrated operating rail network 
for competitive freight. In the absence of legal obligations 
for network solutions, voluntary structures were set up at 
the level of the RFC network, but they lacked the 
necessary effectiveness and efficiency to contribute to the 
achievement of the objectives of the Regulation and to 
overcome the persistent problems of the sector in terms of 
competitiveness. 

Lack of appropriate digital tools has been identified as a 
problem driver and measures are put forward in the policy 
options to address it. 

The policy options either clarify the role of regulatory bodies 
for cross-border services or provide for additional rules on 
supervision and the processing of complaints related to 
capacity allocation for cross-border rail. 

Measures on cooperation (collaborative decision making) and 
on providing joint capacity offers (rail infrastructure and 
terminals) are included in the impact assessment. 

All policy options contain measures that introduce actions at 
network level with a varying scope. 

Some policy options envisage changes to Directive 
2012/34/EU. The Commission proposal for revision of the 
TEN-T Regulation addresses some issues as well. 

All policy options reinforce the aspects of cross-border 
cooperation and some build upon the result of cooperation 
projects launched by the sector’s stakeholders, notably the 
Timetable Redesign initiative. 

Several policy options contain measures at network level 
with varying scope.  

EN 

8 

EN 

 
 
2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1.  What are the problems? 

The  problems,  underlying  problem  drivers  and  consequences  that  are  relevant  for  this 
initiative are  presented in Figure 2. The public  consultation and the targeted stakeholder 
consultation  carried  out  as  part  of  the  impact  assessment  support  study  (‘the  support 
study’)19 indicated overall agreement with this analysis. 

Figure 2: Overview of drivers, problems and their consequences 

Problem 1: Poor performance of cross-border rail services, in particular freight 

At  present,  cross-border  rail  services  (in  particular  freight)  suffer  from  poor  reliability, 
punctuality,  and  predictability;  slow  speed;  and  long  transit  times20.  The  information 
available  from  the  evaluation  of  the  RFC  Regulation  suggests  that  freight  trains’ 
punctuality at departure is relatively poor and cannot be rectified during the train run, with 
punctuality at destination being even worse21. The evaluation concluded that: ‘Data shows 
that a considerable number of trains running on the rail freight corridors start with a delay 
of over 30 minutes’22. This makes rail services less attractive than other modes of freight 
transport23.  The  demand  for  rail  transport  services  depends  on  the  available  alternatives 

19   See Annex 2. 
20   See Annex 5, sections on punctuality, reliability, speed and on border crossing times for more details. 
21   The data showed that on some freight corridors only 50% of the trains were punctual at departure while 
the best performing corridor had results just above 80% (SWD(2021) 134 final of 2 June 2021, p 125). 

22   SWD(2021) 134 final of 2 June 2021, p. 56. See also Annex 5, section on punctuality of RFC trains. 
23   While  rail  passenger  transport  grew  in  terms  of  modal  share  and  volume,  freight  rail  modal  share 
stagnated  at  around  17%  (17.9%  of  all  land  freight  for  2018  and  16.9%  for  2019)  (see  Statistical 
pocketbook, EU transport in figures for 2020 and 2021). 

EN 

9 

EN 

PROBLEM DRIVERSPROBLEMSCONSEQUENCESPROBLEM DRIVER 1Legal and procedural obstacles for capacity managementPROBLEM DRIVER 2Insufficient performance and respect of capacity-related commitments by IMs and RUsPROBLEM DRIVER 3Inconsistent planning and provision of rail services across borders and modesPROBLEM DRIVER 4Inefficient, manual capacity and traffic management processesPROBLEM 1Poor performance of cross-border rail transport services, in particular freightPROBLEM 2Insufficient infrastructure capacity to absorb growth in rail traffic and transportECONOMIC Additional cost for IMs, RUs, terminal operators Additional administrative burden Inefficient functioning of the internal marketSOCIAL No public health improvement (air pollution and noise) due to modal shift to rail No improvement road safety due to modal shift to railENVIRONMENTAL No GHG, air pollution and noise reduction due to modal shift to rail 
 
                                                           
and  is  driven  by  various  factors  whose  relative  importance  differs  between  market 
segments.  The  cost  of  the  transport  service  is  an  obvious  determinant,  but  in  freight 
transport  –  particularly  in  the  context  of  complex  supply  chains  (e.g.  just-in-time 
production) – reliability and predictability play a major role in the choice of mode. 

65%  of  the  respondents  (80  out  of  97)  who  expressed  opinions  during  the  open  public 
consultation  appeared  supportive  of  this  problem,  mirrored  by  similar  views  collected 
during the targeted survey (60 out of 88 respondents). 

Problem 2: Insufficient infrastructure capacity to absorb growth in transport/traffic 

Railway  transport  not  only  struggles  to  attract  additional  customers,  particularly  for 
freight,  but  also  faces  difficulties  in  accommodating  existing  (and  prospective)  demand 
owing  to  the  limits  of  rail  infrastructure  capacity,  especially  on  certain  parts  of  the 
network. Indeed, the total length of railway tracks that was declared congested24 in the EU 
has  more  than  tripled  between  2015  and  202025.  In  total,  in  2020,  congestion  affected 
2 934 km of tracks26, more than half of which affected rail freight corridors (cross-border 
traffic), namely 1 816 km27. It is worth noting that the available figures may understate the 
scale  of  the  problem,  as  IMs  may  be  inclined  to  underreport  congestion28,  which  would 
automatically trigger the need for corrective action on their part29.  

The effects of congestion extend beyond the congested section: the entire train path (from 
origin to destination) suffers from the bottleneck effect created by the congestion, which 
severely limits the number of available train paths30. Congestion implies that certain trains 
are  either  denied  a  train  path  or  redirected  to  less  favourable  routes/times  that  do  not 
correspond  to  the  needs  of  demand.  Accordingly,  growth  of  rail  transport  is  not  only 
hindered by shortfalls in service quality that thwart potential demand (Problem 1), but also 
by  lack  of  available  capacity  on  the  network  (Problem  2)  that  act  as  physical  limit  to 
supply.   

The  vast  majority  of  respondents  who  expressed  opinions  during  the  open  public 
consultation (77 out of 93) agreed with this problem, supported by similar views collected 
during the targeted survey (83 out of 88 respondents). 

24   Directive  2012/34/EU  provides  a  legal  definition  of  ‘congested  infrastructure’  and  sets  the  rules  for 
declaring  and  managing  congestion  (see  Article  47  thereof).  Apart  from  this  legal  definition,  even 
infrastructure  that  is  not  declared  congested  might  be  insufficient  to  meet  applicants’  needs  and 
accommodate all requests for given train paths. 

25   Data  does  not  take  into  account  developments  for  congestion  in  Italy  due  to  a  change  in  reporting, 
reflecting the new criteria imposed by the Italian rail regulator ART to declare a section of the network 
saturated and making the 2020 figure not comparable with previous years. 

26   Plus 5 294 km for Italy alone, according to the new criteria to declare a section congested. 
27   Excluding Italy. 
28   See Annex 5, section on congestion. 
29   See Articles 47(2), 50 and 51 of Directive 2012/34/EU. 
30   Depending on the approach and the methodology employed, the length of congestion and its share on the 
network can drastically change. See impact assessment support study report (Ecorys et al., 2023) on the 
differences in congestion reported by the German IM and unofficial figures used by it for the purpose of 
planning. 

EN 

10 

EN 

 
                                                           
2.2.  What are the problem drivers? 

Trains can run on the rail network only after requesting and receiving a ‘train path’, that is 
availability  of  infrastructure  along  a  specific  route  over  a  given  period.  IMs  are 
responsible  for  allocating  train  paths  following  requests  from  train  operators,  RUs,  and 
other applicants. It is important to note that the allocation of train paths does not consist of 
a  simple  attribution  of  slots  based  on  clearly  defined  priority  criteria.  It  is  a  complex 
process of optimising the use of a network where freight and passenger trains use the same 
lines  but  have  different  destinations  and  different  driving  characteristics  (speed, 
acceleration  and  deceleration  profiles,  weights  and  lengths).  In  addition,  IMs  are 
responsible  for  maintaining  and  renewing  the  infrastructure  and,  for  this  purpose,  must 
schedule time windows to carry out the necessary works31. 

The  quality  of  allocated  capacity  is  not  uniform.  Capacity  is  considered  of  good  quality 
when is in line with the applicants’ needs in terms of train characteristics (e.g. speed and 
weight),  routings,  timings,  and  stability  vis-à-vis  external  disturbances  such  as  accidents 
(e.g.  availability  of  buffer  times  and  alternative  routes).  Typical  indicators  of  quality 
include  the  commercial  speed  that  is  guaranteed  to  an  applicant32 33.  The  quality  of 
capacity  also  depends  on  when  it  is  assigned:  rail  passenger  operators  need  advanced 
availability  to  enable  early-on  tickets  sales;  freight  transport  operators  need  capacity 
available  on  short  notice  in  line  with  the  volatile  customer  demand  imposed  by  today’s 
fast-paced supply chains.  

Therefore,  effective  capacity  management  pursues  three  objectives:  (i) maximisation  of 
rail traffic and network use; (ii) provision of train paths of high quality; and (iii) balanced 
allocation  of  capacity  to  different  services  (passengers  and  freight,  domestic  and  cross-
border)  matching  society’s  needs  to  the  best  extent  possible.  In  the  planning  phase,  a 
compromise  between  these  three  goals  must  be  found.  Currently,  several  factors 
(described  in  the  following  sections  as  problem  drivers)  prevent  effective  capacity 
management  and  result  in  sub-optimal  utilisation  of  infrastructure  capacity.  Freight 
transport and cross-border traffic are the market segments that suffer the most from these 
shortcomings. 

2.2.1.  Problem  driver 1:  Legal  and  procedural  obstacles  for  capacity 

management 

Problem  driver  1  is  linked  to  problem  1  and  problem  2.  The  capacity  management 
procedure  imposed  by  the  Recast  Directive  is  centred  around  an  annual  exercise  –  the 
definition  of  the  annual  working  timetable  –  that  allocates  most  capacity  based  on 
simultaneous  requests  from  all  applicants.  Requests  for  capacity  under  the  annual 
timetable  need  to  be  made  8  months  before  the  start  of  the  annual  timetable  (second 
Saturday  of  December  at  midnight).  The  IM  is  obliged  to  meet,  as  far  as  possible,  all 

31   Capacity restrictions mean that rail lines and nodes are partially or completely unavailable for traffic. 
32   A more detailed analysis in Morvant, C. (2015). Le processus de répartition des capacités sur le réseau 
ferré français : quelle place pour le fret ?, Architecture, aménagement de l’espace: Université Paris-Est. 
33   Technical  aspects  of  quality  are  addressed  by  the  Union’s  TEN-T  policy,  which  sets  infrastructure 
standards for key rail lines (core network), such as electrification of lines, maximum allowed axle load, 
minimum line speed, minimum requirements for train length, etc. The Commission proposal for revision 
of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  includes  additional  standards  like  loading  gauge  and  more  ambitious 
requirements for the core and comprehensive network (COM(2021) 812 final of 14 December 2021). 

EN 

11 

EN 

 
                                                           
requests and must adhere to the schedule for capacity allocation set out in the Directive34. 
This procedure does not enable a more strategic approach to maximise capacity utilisation 
through upfront planning, nor does it respond to the different time horizons of demand for 
rail transport services, as services might start after the annual timetable has been adopted 
and run into the next timetabling period.  

IMs  have  the  possibility  to  allocate  capacity  on  a  multi-annual  basis,  via  so-called 
‘framework agreements’, as well as to reserve capacity for ‘ad hoc’ requests for individual 
train  runs35.  However,  the  design  of  these  instruments  does  not  promote  more  efficient 
capacity  management.  Framework  agreements  must  be  concluded  long  before  the 
operation of trains and are subject to a complex set of criteria. Ad hoc requests are only 
possible for individual train runs, which even in the case of freight traffic remain a niche 
segment  (e.g.  agricultural  goods  during  the  harvest  period)36:  most  of  capacity  needs 
materialising after the deadline for application are for more than one train run.  

A  different  approach,  whereby  the  IM  would  withhold  a  bigger  part  of  the  capacity  for 
later allocation to meet the needs of different rail market segments including cross-border 
freight, is not compatible with the current regulatory framework.  

The  RFC  Regulation  derogates  from  the  rules  of  the  Recast  Directive  by  providing  a 
special  regime  covering  the  allocation  of  capacity  for  cross-border  freight  traffic.  In 
particular,  the  RFC  Regulation  allows  concerned  IMs  to  jointly  define  and  organise 
international  pre-arranged train  paths  (PaPs) and establishes one-stop  shops  for applying 
for  cross-border  capacity.  While  this  approach  addresses  the  issue  of  cross-border 
coordination  on  an  individual  corridor,  it  does  not  consider  the  need  for  coordination 
between the corridor and the rest of the network. However, cross-border freight transport 
requires train paths that include stretches going beyond the lines designated to corridors. 
As a result, the one-stop shops did not do away with the need for freight service operators 
to interact with national IMs. Instead of facilitating operations, one-stop shops ended up as 
an  additional  administrative  layer,  further  complicating  the  process.  Moreover,  the 
framework  established  by  the  RFC  Regulation  attributes  capacity  in  a  similar  fashion  to 
the Recast Directive: as part of the annual timetabling process (in the form of PaPs) and 
for  ad  hoc  requests  (in  the  form  of  reserve  capacity).  It  therefore  suffered  from  similar 
shortcomings  as  the  capacity  provided  by  the  Recast  Directive37.  Since  much  of  the 
capacity is  allocated  at  the planning stage in  the annual  timetable, this approach favours 
rail market segments (such as intermodal  trains), which run predictable,  regular services 
and  can  bid  early  for  precisely  the  capacity  that  they  need.  However,  it  leaves  other 
segments  that  can  only  plan  a  train  run  on  relatively  short  notice  (block  trains,  single 
wagonload, etc.), struggling to obtain the remaining rail infrastructure capacity. 

In the stakeholder consultation, on the one hand, the majority of the representatives of the 
railway undertakings indicated the ineffective rail capacity management as one of the most 

34   See Article 43(1) of and Annex VII to Directive 2012/34/EU.  
35  See Article 42 and Article 48 of Directive 2012/34/EU. 
36 ‘Individual freight trains’ are trains which do not have a recurrent schedule; they are organised for ad hoc 
needs (e.g. transport of agricultural products) and represent only a very small share of the rail freight market. 
Considering the large quantity of cargo, which is needed to justify the arrangement of a freight train, it is 
reasonable to expect that this market segment will remain a ‘niche’ in the foreseeable future. 

37   The evaluation of the Regulation showed that these instruments could not produce a major improvement 

in the quality of the capacity for cross-border freight.  

EN 

12 

EN 

 
                                                           
important problem drivers, while on the other hand the majority of the representatives of 
the infrastructure managers did not identify this as the most important problem driver. The 
explanations for these results are two-fold. The consultation used a different definition of 
the problem  driver  (PD1: ineffective rail capacity  management  and PD2: ineffective  rail 
traffic management), so it did not identify the legal framework as the problem driver, but 
rather  its  implementation.  Therefore,  the  question  was  perceived  as  an  assessment  and 
self-assessment of the performance of IMs. 

In terms of the detailed issues that contribute to problem driver 1, which was presented in 
the  consultation  process  more  as  a  performance  issue,  rather  than  a  legal  issue, 
stakeholders highlighted the lack of complete overview on the cross-border lines and the 
traffic  situation,  which  considered  to  contribute  to  problem  driver 1  to  a  large  extent  by 
31% and to a moderate  extent by 40% of  respondents.  For 20% of the stakeholders this 
factor contributes to a small extent (15%) or not at all (5%) to the driver. Differences in 
priority  rules  in  operations  adopted  on  the  two  sides  of  a  border  are  considered 
contributing  from  a  large  to  a  moderate  extent  to  ineffective  rail  traffic  management  by 
67%  of  respondents  and  to  a  small  extent  by  an  additional  17%  of  them.  Inadequate 
response to major traffic disruptions is considered as contributing to ineffective rail traffic 
management,  with  61%  of  respondents  believing  its  contribution  is  either  large  or 
moderate and 22% believing that it results in a small contribution. Stakeholders’ opinion 
on the contribution brought by the low priority given to cross-border freight traffic (vis-à-
vis national traffic) is more varied, with 51% of respondents believing that it contributes 
from a large to a moderate extent, 18% to a small extent, 19% attributing no contribution 
at all, while 13% does not know.  

The representatives of railway undertakings have largely identified the factors suggested 
in  the  questionnaire  as  contributing  to  a  large  or  moderate  extent  to  the  ineffective  rail 
traffic management. The representatives of the infrastructure managers are more sceptical 
and  their  opinions  vary.  With  regard  to  the  specific  factors,  a  large  majority  of  the 
representatives of the railway undertakings deem that all factors influence problem driver 
2. In particular, the inadequate response to major traffic disruptions and the differences in 
priority rules in operation adopted on the two sides of a border are the two more recurring 
responses. On the other hand, the infrastructure managers believe that the poor sharing of 
information among all the concerned stakeholders and the lack of complete overview on 
the  cross-border  network  and  traffic  situation  contribute  to  the  problem  driver  of 
ineffective  rail  traffic  management.  Finally,  one  can  note  that  the  responses  of  the 
representatives of the regulatory bodies follow the same patterns as those of infrastructure 
managers. 

2.2.2.  Problem  driver 2:  Insufficient  performance  and  respect  of  capacity-

related commitments by IMs and RUs  

Problem driver 2 is linked to problem 1 and problem 2.  

Priority criteria in the allocation of capacity and performance targets 

Passenger services constituted 80% of the traffic expressed in train-km on average in the 
EU in 201938. Freight operators complain that IMs give priority to passenger services and 

38   See 

7th  RMMS  Report 

(https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/rail/market/rail-market-

monitoring-rmms_en). 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
                                                           
that  this  is  a  major  contributor  to  disadvantaging  freight  in  capacity  planning  and 
allocation. This is confirmed by experts’ findings39.  

Priority  rules  differ  considerably  between  Member  States,  but  mostly  define  passenger 
traffic operated under public service obligations as the highest priority (Figure 3). Cross-
border freight traffic, which makes up half of all freight traffic and requires coordination 
between  IMs,  is  typically  lower  in  the  priority  ranking.  In  addition,  different  criteria 
applied by  IMs in  different  Member States multiply the risks that cross-border trains  do 
not  fulfil  the  conditions  to  be  allocated  capacity  as  a  priority  in  at  least  one  of  the 
segments of a cross-border train path. Moreover, a survey conducted by regulatory bodies 
indicates  that  only  a  very  few  IMs  allocate  scarce  capacity  based  on  socio-economic 
criteria and on the assessment of the specific situation of competing requests40. This can 
result  in  situations  where  certain  rail  segments  are  systematically  (de)prioritised 
regardless of the merits of individual services and cross-border trains face significant 
difficulties to get high quality capacity for the whole train run. For example, a rule that 
always  gives  priority  to  passengers  over  freight,  might  imply  that  a  passenger  train  off-
peak with very low occupancy rate, crowds out a fully loaded freight train. Better results 
could  be  achieved  if  infrastructure  managers  were  instructed  or  given  incentives  to  base 
their decisions on socio-economic criteria and on the assessment of the specific situation 
of  competing  requests.  Public  Service  Obligations  (or  ‘PSO’)  are  State-supported  public 
passenger  transport  services  that  transport  companies  would  not  provide  on  their  own 
initiative for lack of economic viability. They are often given the highest priority because 
of the State’s decision to fund them as services of general economic interest, which does 
not mean that profitable services operated on market terms are less valuable to the society. 

Neither the legal framework nor other mechanisms provide sufficient incentives for IMs to 
base their prioritisation decisions on criteria that better account for societal needs and the 
merits of all rail segments. Part of the problem may be that the financing and performance 
agreements41  concluded  between  Member  State  authorities  and  IMs  are  limited  to  the 
question of financing infrastructure managers and lack effective incentives to  reduce the 
cost  of  infrastructure  provision,  user-oriented  performance  targets  and  a  strategic  vision 
for the development  of the rail infrastructure42.  This  means that  Member States  may not 
fully  exploit  the  potential  of  economic  incentives  to  orientate  IMs’  efforts  to  reduce  the 
cost of infrastructure provision while improving the quality of infrastructure services. 

39  See  figure  Principal  types  of  services  prioritised  by  infrastructure  managers  (number  of  MS  assigning 
each priority, 2018) below and also Vassallo, Manuel and Fagan, Nature Or Nurture: Why Do Railroads 
Carry  Greater  Freight  Share  In  The  United  States  Than  In  Europe?,  Harvard  University,  Taubman 
Center Research Working Paper Series, 2005, p. 19 and European Parliament (2015),  Freight on Road: 
Why EU Shippers Prefer Truck to Train, pp. 31 and 33. 

40  See  IRG-Rail  (2019)  A  survey  of  congested  infrastructure,  priority  criteria  and  capacity  charges  in 
Europe (IRG-Rail (19) 4). At the moment, only Trafikverket (Sweden) and Banenor (Norway) carry out 
a situation-specific socio-economic evaluation of different timetable scenarios as a ‘last resort’, i.e. only 
if  the  coordination  process  defined  in  Article 46  of  Directive  2012/34/EU  has  failed  to  resolve  all 
conflicts.  In  some  other  cases,  e.g.  Austria,  socio-economic  evaluations  have  been  made  to  establish 
priority rankings between different types of traffic (e.g. passenger versus freight traffic); however, these 
rankings are applied mechanically to specific conflicts, without consideration of the specific situation 
41   Article  30  of  the  Recast  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  conclude  financing  and  performance 
agreements, which must include incentives to IMs to reduce the costs of providing infrastructure and the 
level of access charges and user-oriented performance targets. 

42   See for example the analysis of the French regulatory body on the draft performance agreement between 
the French State and SNCF Réseau: Autorité de Régulation des Transport (2022). Avis n° 2022009 du 8 
février  2022  relatif  au  projet  de  contrat  de  performance  entre  l’État  et  SNCF  Réseau  pour  la  période 
2021–2030. 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
                                                           
The  RFC  Regulation  introduced  performance  monitoring  as  an  explicit  task  of  the 
management boards of the freight corridors. However, the evaluation of the Regulation43 
showed that performance monitoring focuses on the volume of capacity offered, without 
taking into account adequately other aspects relevant to rail freight customers (e.g. door-
to-door punctuality) or to policy makers (e.g. modal share of rail along the corridors). For 
induce  significant  performance 
this 
improvements. 

reason,  performance  monitoring 

failed 

to 

Figure 3: Principal types of services prioritised by infrastructure managers (number of MSs assigning 
each priority, 2020) 

Source: Data from the draft 8th Rail Market Monitoring report (RMMS) 

Respect of commitments in the allocation process 

Apart from shortcomings in the allocation of capacity, capacity management suffers also 
from failure of both RUs and IMs to respect the commitments taken during the definition 
of the annual working timetable.  

For  RUs,  requesting  and  not  using  the  capacity  does  not  result  in  costly  penalties.  As  a 
result, many freight RUs request capacity months before they know the details of the train 
services that they intend to run44 and end up modifying or cancelling the request later in 
the process. This generates administrative efforts and costs for both applicants and IMs45. 
In  some  cases,  capacity  reserved  but  not  in  line with  actual  needs  cannot  be  utilised  for 
other purposes and is wasted. Information from stakeholders indicates that  only 20-25% 
of  all  capacity  requests  remain  stable  until  the  actual  train  run,  while  75-80%  are 
modified at one or more points in the process. The number of modifications of annual 
timetable requests by freight applicants is more than twice the number of similar requests 
by  passenger  applicants  owing  to  the  volatility  of  demand  for  freight  transport.  A 
stakeholder  study  indicates  that  any  change  requires  an  additional  administrative 

43   SWD(2021)  134  final  of  2  June  2021,  pp. 60-62.  The  evaluation  contains  an  extensive  analysis  of  the 

weaknesses in the implementation of performance monitoring. 

44   Passenger  trains  and  freight  trains  forming  part  of  intermodal  transport  normally  can  adhere  to  a  strict 
annual  schedule  (supply-driven  service).  Block  and  single  wagonload  trains  depend  on  individual 
contracts (demand-driven service) and capacity requests are often known only close to the train run. 
45   See  Annex  5,  Changes  /  modifications  of  timetable  requests  and  Evidence  of  requested,  allocated  and 

used capacity. 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
 
                                                           
effort  of  at  least  25%  of  the  request’s  cost46.This  practice,  combined  with  the  legal 
obligations for IMs to meet capacity requests within strict deadlines, results in situations 
where there is little capacity left for ad hoc trains on heavily utilised lines, which, in turn, 
puts pressure on applicants to request capacity during the annual timetable planning. 

The  Recast  Directive  provides  an  option  (but  not  an  obligation)  for  IMs  to  levy 
appropriate  charges  for  capacity  that  is  allocated  but  not  used.  According  to  an  analysis 
carried  out  by  regulatory  bodies47,  the  reservation  charge  schemes  put  in  place  by  IMs 
vary  widely.  However,  the  RUs’  persistent  overbooking  of  train  paths  to  safeguard 
capacity  (see  Annex  5)  suggests  that  reservation  charges  have  not  provided  effective 
disincentives against this behaviour. The Recast Directive does not envisage penalties for 
IMs  in  case  of  cancellations  or  modifications  of  already  allocated  train  paths48,  but 
requires  IMs  to  set  up  performance  schemes  to  encourage  RUs  and  IMs  to  improve  the 
performance of the railway network. The schemes may include penalties for actions which 
disrupt  the  operation  of  the  network,  compensation  for  undertakings  which  suffer  from 
disruption,  and  bonuses  that  reward  better-than-planned  performance.  Performance 
schemes have been established by most EU IMs, but an overview of performance schemes 
prepared by regulatory bodies in 2017 concluded that they improved performance only in 
a  few  countries49.  A  specific  challenge  is  that  performance  schemes  established  by 
individual IMs often lack incentives for traffic running on more than one network50.  

Altogether, reservation charges and performance schemes have not been sufficient to solve 
on their own the problems of overbooking capacity and late modifications of train paths. 

The  stakeholder  consultation  used  different  definitions  for  the  problem  drivers,  which 
resulted  in  respondents  addressing  different  issues,  which  were  nevertheless  relevant  for 
the  analysis  of  the  problem  drivers.  However,  both  organisations  representing  RUs  and 
some  IMs  expressed  views  in  position  papers  and  in  meetings  with  the  Commission 
indicating  that  performance  incentives  are  necessary  for  both  stakeholder  groups, 
confirming the relevance of the problem driver. 

In  regard  to  the  specific  issues  contributing  to  the  lack  of  incentives  for  improving 
capacity  and  traffic  management,  stakeholders  indicated  issues  that  prevent  proper 
performance  monitoring,  which  in  turn  makes  it  difficult  to  identify  the  need  for 
incentives for improving performance for capacity and traffic management. In particular, 
limited data sharing and the lack of commonly agreed concepts, definitions and indicators 

46   See TTR project Business Case study (https://cms.rne.eu/system/files/8.0_ttr_business_case_v3.0_2019-

05-15_0.pdf) and section 3.2 of impact assessment support study report (Ecorys et al., 2023). 

47  See IRG-Rail (2019). Review of reservation charges across IRG Rail members. Report IRG-Rail (19) 8 

(https://www.irg-rail.eu/download/5/650/ReviewofReservationCharges.pdf). 

48  Despite the absence of legal provisions on economic incentives for IMs related to capacity commitments, 
a  reciprocal  scheme  has  been  put  in  place  by  the  regulatory  body  and  the  IM  in  France;  see  IRG-Rail 
(2019) Review of reservation charges across IRG Rail members (IRG-Rail (19) 8). 

49   IRG-Rail concluded that ‘Only a few countries report that positive performance results can be attributed 
to their performance schemes. These are Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Italy and Portugal. Minimal effects 
or no clear results can be found in Austria, Finland, Belgium, France, Germany and Slovenia. In Greece, 
there  are  no  results 
the  Netherlands,  Norway,  Romania  and  Sweden 
Hungary,  Lithuania, 
available.’(https://www.irg-rail.eu/download/5/635/IRG-Rail174-IRG-Rail-
Overviewonperformanceschemes.docx) 

50  For  example,  delays  of  trains  entering  a  network  from  a  previous  network  are  often  ‘neutralised’,  i.e. 
considered  outside  of  the  scope  of  the  scheme,  neglected  in  the  calculation  of  performance-related 
payments and, therefore, do not provide economic incentives. 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
                                                           
for  performance  monitoring  (e.g.,  as  regards  punctuality)  are  considered  to  contribute 
from a large extent a moderate extent to problem driver 2 respectively by 65% and 55% of 
respondents. Moreover, 17% of respondents consider limited data sharing to contribute to 
a  small  extent,  but  the  figure  rises  to  25%  when  considering  lack  of  commonly  agreed 
concepts, definitions and indicators for performance monitoring. Limited data availability 
for  performance  monitoring  and  measurement  is  considered  contributing  to  the  driver 
from  a large to  a moderate extent by 56% of respondents,  while 19%  are of the opinion 
that it contributes to a small extent. The lack of a neutral performance monitoring platform 
involving  all  stakeholders  is  believed  to  contribute  to  the  lack  of  proper  analysis  of 
performance  from  a  large  to  a  moderate  extent  by  51%  of  respondents,  while  19% 
considers  its  contribution  to  be  small.  Finally,  the  limited  scope  of  performance 
measurement, either in geographical terms or due to aspects not monitored is believed to 
have  a  large  to  moderate  effect  on  the  ability  to  address  performance  issues  by  53%  of 
respondents and a small effect by 20% of them.  

When  it  comes  to  the  patterns  across  different  stakeholder  groups,  the  responses  were 
rather  comparable  after  disaggregating  them  by  the  two  main  stakeholder  groups  (i.e., 
infrastructure  managers  and  railway  undertakings).  The  only  pronounced  difference  was 
about the limited scope of performance measurement, either in geographical terms or due 
to  aspects  that  are  not  monitored.  In  this  case,  it  is  more  widely  identified  as  factor 
influencing  poor  performance  monitoring  by  the  representatives  of  the  railway 
undertakings (i.e., 82%, of which 68% choosing to a moderate or large extent), rather than 
the representatives of the infrastructure managers (i.e., 65%, of which 43% choosing to a 
moderate  or  large  extent).  Finally,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  for  both  factors  all 
representatives of the regulatory bodies agree that they contribute to the problem drivers 
of  ineffective  train  performance  monitoring  and  lack  of  effective  tools  to  incentivise 
performance improvement.  For the respondents  of this stakeholder  group, these problem 
drivers  can  be  linked  to  limited  data  sharing  and  the  limited  data  availability  for 
performance monitoring and measurement. 

2.2.3.  Problem driver 3: Inconsistent planning and provision of rail services 

across borders and modes  

Problem  driver  3  is  linked  to  problem  1  and  problem  2.  Planning  use  of  capacity  and 
subsequent management of traffic on the network involves matching  the requirements of 
several  categories  of  operators.  A  positive  outcome  is  best  achieved  by  effective 
coordination  of  the  involved  parties  at  all  stages  of  the  process.  The  evaluation,  the 
responses to the public consultation and the targeted stakeholder consultation emphasised 
weaknesses  in  coordinating  three  aspects  of  the  process:  i)  infrastructure  maintenance 
works; ii) train and terminals activity; iii) cross-border traffic management. 

Planning of infrastructure works 

The management of rail infrastructure involves maintenance, renewal and upgrade of the 
existing  infrastructure.  This  means  that  a  trade-off  must  be  found  between  allocating 
capacity  to  passenger  and  freight  transport,  and  scheduling  time  windows,  the  so-called 
temporary planned capacity restrictions (TCRs), for the execution of infrastructure works. 
TCRs  are  especially  disruptive  in  cases  where  there  are  few  or  no  alternative  routes  or 
when the works are poorly coordinated and result in successive closures along important 
routes.  Directive  2012/34/EU  requires  IMs  to  consult  applicants  and  to  publish 

EN 

17 

EN 

 
information on capacity restrictions 24 and 12 months before the publication of the annual 
timetable.  Nevertheless,  stakeholders51  continue  to  identify  poorly  managed  and 
coordinated TCRs as a major reason for reduced capacity of the rail network and indicate 
that  such  restrictions  result  in  considerable  costs  and,  in  extreme  cases,  rule  out  rail 
transport as a viable transport option52,53.  

The impact of works on traffic can be mitigated by effective planning – e.g. by carrying 
out simultaneously as many maintenance and renewal activities as possible on a given part 
of the network – and by ensuring that adequate re-routing options remain available during 
capacity restrictions54. A particular challenge is effective coordination between networks. 

Information  from  RUs  suggests  that  the  level  of  international  coordination  of  TCRs  – 
despite the existence of dedicated EU rules55  – is often insufficient and does not always 
take place. In some cases, coordination of TCRs involves only a publication and provision 
of information to the concerned neighbouring IMs and no attempt to synchronise works to 
minimise the impact of TCRs. Bilateral international coordination has no institutionalised 
procedures and is sometimes based on good relationships and individual contacts between 
employees of IMs56. The RFC Regulation did not have any major effect on the planning of 
TCRs  either;  its  evaluation  concluded  that  ‘the  users  (in  particular  the  RUs  and  the 
terminal managers and owners) still criticise that infrastructure works are announced too 
late  and  ‘that  works  are  not  really  coordinated’57.  On  some  networks,  TCRs  are  in  the 
hundreds on a weekly basis and in the tens of thousands for an entire year. In some cases, 
more  than  50%  of  the  issues  concern  changes  or  cancellation  of  previously  announced 
TCRs, indicating a severe lack of stability in planning and execution. Further evidence of 
the number and effects of TCRs is presented in Annex 5. 

Coordination of train and terminal activity 

For  loading/unloading  and  for  technical/operational  purposes,  trains  need  capacity  at 
designated  facilities  (passenger  stations,  terminals,  shunting  yards,  etc.).  The  train  paths 
for  accessing  these  facilities  are  not  always  aligned  with  the  capacity  schedule  of  the 
facility.  This  is  particularly  problematic  for  freight  trains  and  terminals  since  the  latter 
often have limited capacity for parking trains when they cannot process them upon arrival. 
Freight is particularly dependent on other operators at the departure and destination, as the 
cargo needs to be loaded and unloaded onto the train by a third party. The coordination for 

51   The  targeted  consultation,  part  of  the  support  study  for  this  impact  assessment,  asked  stakeholders  to 
what  extent  uncoordinated  planning  and  execution  of  infrastructure  works  is  contributing  to  the 
inefficiency  of  rail  capacity  management  and  allocation.  35  of  the  69  respondents  stated  that  it 
contributes  strongly  and  21  that  it  contributes  moderately.  See  the  consultation  report  in  the  impact 
assessment support study (Ecorys et al., 2023). 

52   See Annex 5, Evidence of temporary capacity restrictions affecting cross-border rail. 
53   This  problem  seems  to  have  intensified  in  recent  years.  Several  IMs  have  increased  the  volume  of 
maintenance and renewal works to reduce maintenance and renewal backlogs, profiting from an increase 
in funding made available by Member States. 

54   The impact of infrastructure works critically depends on the availability of alternative routes providing 
adequate characteristics (electrification, axle load, loading gauge, etc.) and distance. Even where viable 
alternatives exist, challenges related to operational and administrative barriers, such as the need for train 
drivers to have network-specific training, language competences, and route knowledge could still prevent 
effective re-routing of trains during TCRs. 

55   Annex VII to Directive 2012/34/EU 
56   See impact assessment support study report (Ecorys et al., 2023). 
57   SWD(2021) 134 final of 2 June 2021, Annex VII, sections 13 and 14. 

EN 

18 

EN 

 
                                                           
freight trains involves RUs, the IM, the facility operator, operators of relevant services at 
the facility, the client providing the cargo and the one taking over the cargo at arrival58.  

For the planning phase, the Recast Directive and Regulation (EU) 2017/217759 lay down 
rules  to  ensure  access  to  rail  facilities,  but  do  not  address  coordination  mechanisms. 
Solutions  to  the  coordination  challenge  are  provided  in  the  RFC  Regulation,  which 
introduces an advisory group of terminal operators to the management boards and requires 
procedures for optimal coordination of the allocation of capacity between IMs that takes 
account  of  access  to  terminals.  However,  some  participants  in  the  advisory  groups 
consulted within the evaluation of the RFC Regulation pointed out that there was one-way 
communication and terminal operators have limited influence on decisions already taken 
by  IMs  in  the  management  boards.  The  sub-optimal  coordination  at  terminals  results  in 
reduced punctuality and poor reliability of freight trains. 

Coordination of cross-border traffic 

Traffic management is about coordinating train movements on the network between start 
and end of the journey60. This activity is under the control of IMs which must coordinate 
among themselves in case of cross-border trains.   

Many cross-border trains (especially freight) do not stick to the timing provided with the 
train path. Evidence shows that on average in the EU, more than half of the cross-border 
freight trains are never on time (not within 30 minutes of their allocated train path)61. As a 
result,  IMs  need  to  manage  actively  the  traffic  to  ensure  safe  and  efficient  travel  on  the 
network.  Delays  in  one  Member  State  can  have  a  knock-on  effect  along  the  route  of  a 
cross-border  train  and  different  approaches  of  different  IMs  to  managing  delayed  trains 
can affect negatively the punctuality of cross-border trains62. 

At  present,  traffic  management  involves  the  sharing  of  limited  information,  but  it  lacks 
further  direct  data  exchange  and  dynamic  interaction  (including  automatised  decision 
support/decision making) between the involved systems (i.e., national traffic management 
systems,  terminal/yard  management  systems,  other  resource  management  systems). 
Therefore, IMs are not fully aware of the effects that their dispatching decisions will have 
on the train  run itself or on the networks in the subsequent neighbouring countries. This 
results  in  accumulating  delays  for  cross-border  trains.  Moreover,  there  are  no  uniform 
priority  rules  in  traffic  management,  which  means  that  a  cross-border  train  could  be 
considered a priority in  one Member State, but not after crossing the border in the other 
Member State.  

58   In some cases, the IMs also manage capacity at the facilities (including terminals), but this is not always 
the  case.  Coordinated  and  harmonised  paths  with 
terminal  slots,  shunting  operations,  and 
loading/unloading  time,  also  considering  the  availability  of  wagons  and  locomotives,  are  not  widely 
available as part of the capacity allocation process. 

59   Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2177  of  22 November  2017  on  access  to  service 

facilities and rail-related services (OJ L 307, 23.11.2017, p. 1). 

60   Traffic  management  involves  several  activities  such  as  signalling,  use  of  automatic  train  protection 
systems,  communication  systems,  etc.  In  this  context,  we  focus  on  the  monitoring  of  trains  and  the 
processes for making decisions on allocating rail infrastructure capacity as part of train operations. 

61   See Annex 5, section Punctuality of international rail freight services. 
62  The  average  punctuality  in  2020  for  rail  freight  in  EU27  was  64.1%  for  domestic  and  47.4%  for 
international services; 7.4% of domestic and 8.9% of international services were cancelled. Source: draft 
8th RMMS report. 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
                                                           
Coordination  of  traffic  management  becomes  critical  in  cases  of  disturbance  such  as 
incidents,  where  alternative  routes  must  be  provided.  The  evaluation  of  the  RFC 
Regulation  showed  that  despite  legal  provisions  obliging  IMs  to  put  coordination 
procedures in place63, major incidents often resulted in high numbers of cancelled trains. 
IMs  and  RFCs’  management  boards  made  efforts  to  implement  harmonised  rules  (the 
International  Contingency  Management  Handbook) for  rail freight,  but  the evaluation of 
the  RFC  Regulation  concluded  that  these  efforts  did  not  result  in  immediate  major 
improvements64. The coordination  mechanisms are mostly  generic and the  more specific 
ones  on  contingency  management  are  not  implemented  systematically.  They  result  in 
performance  deficiencies  for  cross-border  rail  that  are  manifested  mostly  as  lack  of 
reliability  (cancelled  or  late  trains,  increased  costs  due  to  longer  routes)  and  poor 
punctuality. 

The  definition  of  the  problem  driver  in  the  stakeholder  consultation  differed  from  the 
definition used in the impact assessment (lack of coordination on planning and operations 
between  stakeholders  involved  in  multimodal  transport  chains),  but  it  still  touched  upon 
the  main  issue  of  coordination.  62%  (51  out  of  83  respondents)  indicated  the  problem 
driver  being  relevant  for  problem  1  to  a  large  or  to  a  moderate  extent  and  22%  (18 
respondents) – to a small extent. 

The  problem  driver  was  more  widely  identified  as  a  driver  for  problem  2  by  the 
infrastructure managers. 

A  fair  share  of  59  respondents  to  the  survey-questionnaire  (71%)  in  the  stakeholder 
consultation  believe  that  the  lack  of  capacity  products  (for  both  railways  and  terminals) 
fitting  customers’  needs  contributes  from  a  large  to  a  moderate  extent  to  the  lack  of 
coordination  on  planning  and  operations  between  stakeholders  involved  in  multimodal 
transport  chains;  19%  attribute  a  small  impact  to  this  factor,  while  the  remaining  10% 
either assess it does not contribute at all (3%), or do not know (7%). 

The  second-ranked  factor  contributing  to  the  problem  driver  is  the  different  planning 
timeframes  of  actors  to  which  63%  of  stakeholders  attribute  either  a  large  or  moderate 
contribution,  while  an  additional  12%  believes  the  effect  to  be  small.  25%  consider  the 
contribution to be null or do not know.  

More  than  half  of  respondents  (57%)  attributes  to  the  lack  of  digitalisation  of  the 
processes a large (25%) or moderate (32%) contribution to the poor coordination between 
different actors; 25% assesses the contribution to be small, while the remaining 17% either 
considers the factor not contributing at all, or do not know.  

The lack of coordination between customers, railways undertakings and terminal operators 
in  the  planning  phase  (rail  and  terminal  capacity)  is  considered  contributing  to  a  large 
extent by 24% of respondents, to a moderate extent by 29%, and to a small extent by 22%. 

63   See Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 913/2010 requiring the management boards to put in place procedures 

for coordinating traffic management along the freight corridor. 

64   Anecdotal information confirms this conclusion. In the incident in Modane between Italy and France in 
July 2019, which lasted 20 days, only 51 (9%) of the 539 originally planned freight trains were re-routed. 
The  accident  near  Auggen  in  Germany,  between  Basel  and  Freiburg  (Rhine  valley)  in  April  2020, 
interrupted  traffic  on  the  Rhine-Alpine  corridor  for  6  days.  Further  capacity  was  available  on  all 
deviation routes, due to the effect of Covid-19 mobility restrictions which reduced passenger transport on 
the network. Nevertheless, of the 870 trains originally planned, only about 23% were re-routed. 

EN 

20 

EN 

 
                                                           
10% of stakeholders assesses the contribution to be null, while an additional 15% do not 
know. 

The lack of coordination between customers, railways undertakings and terminal operators 
in the operational phase (yard and terminal operations and railway traffic management) is 
also  seen  as  contributing  to  a  large  extent  by  17%  of  responding  stakeholders,  to  a 
moderate extent by 37% and to a small extent by 12% of respondents. 

Other factors identified in the stakeholder consultation as contributing to problem driver 3 
are: (i) the lack of common understanding of operational processes and of the respective 
roles  of  all  stakeholders  involved,  which  is  considered  contributing  from  a  large  to  a 
moderate  extent  to  the  driver  by  38%  of  respondents  and  to  a  small  extent  by  another 
equal  share  (38%)  of  them;  and  (ii)  the  lack  of  use  of  digital  tools  due  to  their  poor 
performance and user-friendliness assessed to contribute from a large to a moderate extent 
to  the  driver  by  48%  and  to  a  small  extent  by  20%  of  respondents.  Finally,  30%  of 
respondents  state  that  the  lack  of  a  common  terminology  used  by  different  stakeholders 
contributes the problem driver from a large to a moderate extent and an additional 34% is 
of the opinion it contributes to a small extent. 

In terms of patterns across stakeholder groups, it is particularly interesting to note how the 
lack of capacity products (for both railway infrastructure and terminals) fitting customers’ 
needs  is  believed  to  be  a  factor  influencing  to  some  extent  the  lack  of  coordination  on 
planning  and  operations  between  stakeholders  involved  in  multimodal  transport  chains. 
This  holds  for  almost  all  the  representatives  of  the  railway  undertakings  (i.e.,  95%),  of 
which  52%  believe  that  it  has  a  large  influence  and  38%  that  has  a  moderate  influence, 
respectively. Although they agree considering this factor as an important aspect, the view 
of the representatives of the infrastructure managers is generally more moderate. 

2.2.4.  Problem  driver 4:  Insufficient  digital  tools  supporting  capacity  and 

traffic management processes  

Problem driver 4 is linked to problem 1 and problem 2. The RFC Regulation introduced 
one-stop shops in the rail freight corridors for the request of international train paths along 
those  corridors.  Although  it  did  not  mandate  use  of  any  specific  digital  tool,  the  Path 
Coordination System (PCS)65 had been developed for use by the one-stop  shops  and the 
applicants.  However,  given  the  inherent  complexity  of  timetable  planning  and  the 
numerous national specificities and processes to be respected, a deep integration between 
the  IMs’  planning  systems  and  the  PCS  has  not  been  achieved.  Accordingly,  there  is 
limited benefit from the use of PCS as central request tool and RUs often prefer to submit 
requests  through  the  national  systems,  as  confirmed  by  stakeholders  consulted  for  the 
evaluation of the RFC Regulation66. 

Digital  tools  are  important  not  only  for  managing  rail  infrastructure  capacity  at  the 
planning stage, but also in the operational phase i.e. in traffic management. When looking 
at operational tools for the dispatching and management/optimisation of the traffic, which 

65   PCS is a web-based international path request coordination system harmonising path requests and offers. 
The idea is that international path requests need only to be placed once, either into a domestic system or 
directly into PCS, from which the planning request is then sent to the national planning systems in which 
the planning is performed. 

66   The  evaluation provides  more information on the  shortcomings of one-stop shops in terms of  scope of 
services provided. Arguably, avoidance of PCS is also due to applicants avoiding the one-stop shops. 

EN 

21 

EN 

 
                                                           
are normally deeply integrated within the national command and control systems, it was 
established  that  international  train-paths  are  still  managed  at  national  level  as  separate 
segments.  There  is  no  detection  and  consideration  of  effects/conflicts  in  neighbouring 
countries and no use of real-time information for integrated service optimisation. 

Also, the required technology  enhancements  of the national/regional traffic management 
systems  are  included  in  the  Multi-Annual  Workplan  of  Europe’s  Rail  Joint  Undertaking 
and  are  planned  to  be  developed  in  the  first  project  phase  until  2025.  Their  effective 
implementation  will  however  require  the  necessary  set  up  of  joint  rules  and  respective 
legislation to allow and govern the cross-border management and optimisation activities.  

A  variety  of  digital  tools  are  already  in  use  at  national  level,  but  they  are  often  neither 
integrated nor interoperable, nor common to the majority of IMs. Stakeholders consulted 
in  the  context  of  the  support  study  pointed  out  that  the  development  of  digital  tools 
without  harmonised  processes  and  authority  able  to  enforce  harmonisation  and 
cooperation might lead to stranded investments. 

The stakeholder consultation showed that the problem driver was particularly relevant for 
problem 1  with  63%  of  respondents  suggesting  that  PD4  was  relevant  from  a  large  to  a 
moderate extent and 25% indicating only to a small extent. In regard to problem 2, 53% 
(42 out of 80 respondents) recognised the problem driver as contributing to a large or to a 
moderate extent to the problem and by 29% (23 respondents) – to a small extent; 

RUs assigned stronger importance to the problem drivers, compared to IMs. As indicated 
above, the questions on the problem drivers could also be interpreted as an assessment of 
the performance of IMs, which would explain, at least partially, the more reserved attitude 
in recognising the problem driver. 

In  terms  of  detailed  information  about  the  type  of  digital  systems  that  are  part  of  the 
problem driver, for 63% of the respondents the missing integration between RNE’s Path 
Coordination System and the national planning systems for path request contributes from 
a large extent to a moderate extent to the ineffectiveness of digital tools for planning and 
operation of rail services and an additional 18% is of the opining that it contributes to a 
small extent. The lack of connection of yard and terminal planning systems with railway 
planning systems has been indicated as a large contributing factor by 39% of respondents, 
while 15% attributes a moderate contribution and 20% a small contribution to such factor. 
Overall,  52%  of  respondents  considers  inadequate  methods  and  rules  for  cross-border 
traffic  management  to  contribute  largely  or  moderately  to  the  problem  driver  under 
analysis and an additional 15% of them believes it contributes to a small extent. 

Other  impacting  factors  considered  as  contributing  from  a  large  to  a  small  extent  to 
problem  driver 3  by  responding  stakeholders  are  as  follows:  lack  of  connection  of 
national/regional traffic management tools to enable cross-network management (61% of 
respondents);  poor  information  quality  and  availability  of  RNE’s  Train  Information 
System  (65%)  and  lack  of  connection  of  yard  and  terminal  operational  management 
systems with railway traffic management systems (58%). 

In  this  case  the  responses  provided  by  the  two  main  stakeholder  groups  are  more 
comparable, with the representatives of the railway undertakings being only slightly less 
diverging  and  positive  compared  to  the  opinions  provided  by  the  representatives  of  the 
infrastructure managers. Also, the responses of the representatives of the regulatory bodies 
show  similar  patterns,  despite  having  rather  different  distributions  due  to  the  lower 
EN 

22 

EN 

 
number of respondents.  The results are thus comparable to the aggregated figures across 
all stakeholder groups. 

2.2.5.  Contextual problem drivers not addressed by this initiative 

The  four  problem  drivers  described  above  refer  to  existing  obstacles  to  effective 
management of rail network capacity. There are however other factors that  contribute to 
the main problems identified in section 2.1, most notably, the limitations of the physical 
rail infrastructure in terms of bottlenecks and parameters67 of the infrastructure (contextual 
problem driver 1), and the lack of interoperability68,69 (contextual problem driver 2). Other 
infrastructure70  and 
policy 
interoperability71 and are therefore not further analysed in this context. 

initiatives  address 

to  physical 

the  aspects 

related 

The  views  of  all  stakeholder  groups  converged  on  the  relevance  of  these  contextual 
problem drivers for both problems. The respondents to the survey-questionnaire indicated 
that  the  limitations  related  to  the  physical  infrastructure  significantly  influence  the  poor 
performance  of  rail  freight  services.  Out  of  81  respondents,  76%  of  them  considers  this 
contextual  problem  driver  as  contributing  to  the  problem 1  from  a  large  to  a  moderate 
extent, 20% to a small extent and the remaining 4% not contributing at all to the problem 
or  they  do  not  have  an  opinion.  The  stakeholders  also  believe  that  the  second  relevant 
driver  is  the  lack  of  interoperability  in  terms  of  operational,  technical  and  safety-related 
aspects  (i.e.,  contextual  problem  driver 2),  indicated  by  72%  of  respondents  as 
contributing from a large to a moderate extent to the problem; by 14% to a small extent; 
by 9% not contributing at all to the problem. The remaining 6% do not have an opinion. 

The  respondents  to  the  survey-questionnaire  indicated  that  the  limitations  related  to 
physical  infrastructure  also  result  in  limited  capacity  of  the  rail  network  to  absorb 
additional  traffic  (problem 2).  Out  of  78  respondents,  78%  of  them  considers  the  driver 

67   The TEN-T Regulation gives an indication of the rail infrastructure parameters that would allow rail (in 
particular  freight)  to  operate  to  its  full  capacity.  They  include  uniform  track  gauge  of  1 435 mm, 
electrification, deployment of ERTMS, at least 22.5 t axle load, 100 km/h line speed and the possibility 
of running trains with a length of 740 m. 

68   Interoperability means the ability of a rail system to allow the safe and uninterrupted movement of trains 
which accomplish the required levels of performance. It can be categorised as differences in (i) technical 
systems (notably, command-control and signalling) and (ii) operational, administrative and safety-related 
requirements (language requirements for train drivers, technical checks of rolling stock at borders, etc.). 

69   Detailed evidence on the lack of cross-border interoperability in terms of operational, technical and 

safety-related aspects is provided by ERA’s 2022 ‘Report on Railway Safety and Interoperability in the 
EU’ (https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e55576d1-e894-11ec-a534-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en). Indicators on national rules for train operations and safety management are 
available from ERA’s 2020 ‘Report on Railway Safety and Interoperability in the EU’ 
(https://www.era.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/docs/safety_interoperability_progress_reports/repor
t_on_railway_safety_and_interoperability_in_the_eu_2020_en.pdf). 

70   See  the  Commission  proposal  for  revision  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  COM(2021)  812  final  of 
14 December 2021. The proposal intended to increase the capability of rail to absorb additional traffic by 
further specifying the requirements and introducing a new one – a standard for the loading gauge (P400). 
Further changes include operational line speed of 100 km/h for freight trains and of minimum 160 km/h 
for passenger trains (complementing the  high-speed network). The proposal envisages extension of the 
lines that must conform with these standards and updated schedule for upgrading them. 

71   The Commission and the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA) work together with stakeholders 
and Member States on the harmonisation of technical systems and of the above-mentioned requirements, 
in  particular  through  the  development  of  technical  specifications  for  interoperability  (TSIs)  and  the 
deployment of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). 

EN 

23 

EN 

 
                                                           
contributing to problem 2 from a large to a moderate extent; 13% to a small extent; 5% not 
at all and 4% do not have an opinion.  

Lack  of  interoperability  in  terms  of  operational,  technical  and  safety-related  aspects  is 
considered by 58% of respondents to contribute to a large or to a moderate extent and by 
25% to a small extent to problem 2. 

2.3.  How likely is the problem to persist? 

Problem  1:  Poor  performance  of  cross-border  rail  services  (in  particular  freight). 
Without  EU  level  action  the  poor  performance  of  cross-border  rail  services  is  likely  to 
persist  over  time.  The  rail  sector  launched  several  initiatives  aimed  at  improving  rail 
freight’s performance72 and, in particular, the Timetable Redesign Project (TTR)73 which 
is specifically addressed at improving the management of network capacity. However, for 
these  initiatives  to  become  something  more  than  pilot  projects  or  recommended  best 
practices,  rules  need  to  be  put  in  place  with  clearly  defined  obligations.  In  the  case  of 
TTR,  some  of  the  measures  cannot  be  implemented  without  a  change  to  the  EU  legal 
framework, as they are not in line with the current rules.  

A specific threat to the performance of rail (freight) transport for the next few years are the 
identified  as  a  major  problem  by 
temporary  capacity  restrictions,  which  were 
stakeholders74.  While  further  efforts  in  implementing  the  existing  rules  on  the  planning 
and  implementation  of  works  (in  particular  Annex  VII  of  Directive  2012/34/EU)  could 
reduce  the  negative  effect  of  temporary  planned  capacity  restrictions  (TCRs),  it  is  also 
clear  that  without  the  possibility  for  long-term  strategic  planning,  IMs  will  struggle  to 
accommodate the needs of the sector. 

infrastructure  capacity  to  absorb  growth 

in 
Problem  2:  Insufficient  rail 
transport/traffic.  As  explained  in  section  2.1,  congestion  is  a  growing  problem  for  the 
EU’s  rail  network75.  In  the  future,  infrastructure  capacity  will  need  to  accommodate  an 
increasing amount of demand: current trends and projections that take into account the EU 
climate change goals, suggest a considerable growth in the demand for transport services 
(see  section  5.1)  with  freight  and  passenger  rail  volumes  expected  to  grow  consistently 
until 2050. 

Although  significant  capacity  improvement  is  expected  in  the  next  decades  due  to 
improved infrastructure envisaged by the proposed revision of the TEN-T Regulation, the 
achievement  of  such  improvements  until  2050  (with  intermediate  deadlines  of  2030  and 
2040) is also expected to further increase the occurrence of TCRs on the network and to 
put  additional  pressure  on  the  system.  With  the  increase  in  transport  demand  and  with 
upcoming works, the problem of the lack of infrastructure capacity to absorb the growth of 
transport traffic will deteriorate, especially in the short and medium term. 

72   Some of those are the Sector Statement, 30 by 2030 by the Rail Freight Forward coalition, and ELETA. 
73   The  project  is  a  joint  initiative  of  infrastructure  managers  (represented  in  the  project  by  RNE)  and 
railway  undertakings  (Forum  Train  Europe).  The  project  description  is  available  on  RNE’s  website 
(https://rne.eu/capacity-management/ttr/). See also Annex 7. 

74   See Annex 5, section Evidence of temporary capacity restrictions affecting cross-border rail and support 

study  

75   The support study gathered information on 170 examples of congested rail sections in Europe. 

EN 

24 

EN 

 
                                                           
Stakeholders  who  provided  opinions  during  the  targeted  consultation,  consider  that  both 
problems  and the underlying drivers will continue to  hamper the  growth  of cross-border 
rail freight in the period until 2050. 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1.  Legal basis 

Title VI (Articles 90-100) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) establishes 
the EU’s right to act in the area of transport. Article 91(1)(a) of the TFEU provides that 
the Union has competence in the field of transport to lay down measures to adopt common 
rules  applicable  to  international  transport  to  or  from  the  territory  of  a  Member  State  or 
passing across the territory of one or more Member States. 

3.2. 

Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

The Union has already adopted legislation on rail infrastructure capacity management and 
rail traffic management  – the Recast Directive (in particular Chapter IV thereof) and the 
RFC  Regulation  (in  particular  Chapter  IV  thereof).  This  reflects  the  policy  goal  of 
achieving  a  Single  European  Rail  Area,  in  which  RUs  are  able  to  provide  transport 
services on an increasingly integrated and interoperable network. 

Action  at  EU  level  is  necessary  to  address  the  problems  and  their  underlying  drivers 
identified in section 2. This is obviously the case in order to remove obstacles in current 
EU legislation (problem driver 1), which prevent implementation of sector initiatives such 
as the TTR project. Poor incentives and performance schemes (problem driver 2) could, in 
principle,  be  re-designed  at  national  level  but  would  lack  the  scope  necessary  to  tackle 
cross-border  issues.  Possible  sector  initiatives  risk  to  make  little  progress  in  view  of 
conflicting  interests  among  stakeholders.  In  the  case  of  lack  of  coordination  (problem 
driver 3), the problem would be how to achieve an effective coordination at international 
level without clear legal rights and obligations, which need to be harmonised, at least to a 
lack  of 
certain 
harmonisation/interoperability of digital tools (problem driver 4), is unlikely to be solved 
by sectoral or national initiatives, in view of insufficient enforcement possibilities. 

the  EU.  Finally, 

territory  of 

extent, 

across 

the 

the 

3.3. 

Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

The adoption of a legal  framework at EU level  will  eliminate the differences in national 
rules and practices that stand in the way of maximising capacity use of the rail network, 
reduce  the  effectiveness  of  rail  traffic  management,  and  ultimately  result  in  the  poor 
performance of cross border rail. Action at EU level would also make it possible to put in 
place  effective  and  efficient  instruments  for  coordination  of  strategic  infrastructure 
capacity planning, address potential gaps in the mandate of regulatory bodies with regard 
to cross-border rail traffic, and introduce harmonised rules incentivising the reduction of 
cancellations of and amendments to capacity requests. 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

4.1.  General objective 

Railway  transport  has  an  important  role  to  play  in  the  transition  to  a  climate  neutral 
economy.  This  initiative  contributes  towards  Sustainable  Development  Goal  13  (‘Take 

EN 

25 

EN 

 
urgent  action to  combat climate change and its impacts’).  It  also  contributes to  reducing 
other  negative  externalities  like  road  congestion,  road  accidents  and  local  air  pollution. 
For this to happen, it is important to improve railway transport performance as well as to 
enable it to cater for growing levels of demand.  

The performance of railway transport and the increase of rail traffic depends on multiple 
factors,  many  of  which  are  outside  the  scope  of  this  initiative,  such  as  investments  in 
physical rail infrastructure, technical barriers and competition with other transport modes 
(which are addressed in other legislative proposals). Consequently, defining the absolute 
growth of rail traffic (passenger and freight) as the objective of this initiative would risk 
distorting  the  analysis,  as  much  of  the  growth  would  depend  on  such  external  factors. 
Considering  the  above,  the  focus  and  general  objective  of  this  initiative  is  to  allow  rail 
infrastructure  capacity  and  rail  traffic  to  be  managed  in  a  way  that  optimises  the 
utilisation of the network, thus improving the quality of services and accommodating 
larger amounts of traffic.  

This means that the initiative contributes directly to the objectives for the development of 
rail transport defined in the sustainable and smart mobility strategy (SSMS)76, including a 
50%  increase  in  rail  freight  traffic  by  2030  and  a  100%  increase  by  2050  as  well  as 
doubling high-speed passenger traffic by 2030 and tripling it by 2050. Sound management 
of infrastructure capacity can increase the usable capacity for any given level of physical 
infrastructure and is therefore a key enabler to achieving these objectives. Improvements 
in  infrastructure  management  can  be  implemented  faster  than  investments  and  should 
deliver significant impacts by 2030  already. However, better management alone will not 
be sufficient  in  each and every case.  Investments to  expand the  physical  capacity of rail 
infrastructure are a key element of TEN-T policy. The revision of the TEN-T Regulation 
on  the  basis  of  the  Commission’s  2021  proposal77  will  provide  further  impetus  in  this 
regard.  

4.2. 

Specific objectives 

To  address  the  identified  problem  drivers,  four  specific  objectives  have  been  set.  The 
specific objectives (SOs) and their correspondence with the problem drivers are presented 
in Figure 4 and discussed below. 

Specific  Objective  1  (SO1)  –  Enable  alternative  capacity  management  procedures. 
The current rules on capacity management, while intended to provide RUs equal and non-
discriminatory  access  to  the  rail  network,  are  not  adapted  to  the  different  needs  of  the 
various rail market segments and result in systematic disadvantages for freight and cross-
border  railway  transport,  including  both  freight  and  rail  passenger  services.  The  first 
specific  objective  of  this  initiative  is  to  enable  a  more  collaborative  approach  to  the 
management of network capacity  and a more effective planning cycle, providing  greater 
flexibility  to  IMs  and  corresponding  safeguards  for  RUs.  By  amending  the  rules  on 
capacity allocation in both the Recast Directive and the RFC Regulation, the initiative will 
address the limitations of the existing rules on capacity management for the whole single 
European railway area. 

76  COM(2020) 789 final 
77  COM(2021) 812 final and COM(2022) 384 final. 

EN 

26 

EN 

 
                                                           
SO1  also  ensures  that  the  capacity  management  procedures  will  make  it  easier  for  both 
IMs and RUs to stick to their commitments both by improving capacity planning and by 
providing  better  access  to  capacity  via  more  flexible  procedures  for  requesting  capacity. 
The  introduction  of  strategic  planning  in  the  capacity  management  process  will  allow 
policy  makers  and  RUs  to  develop  cross-border  rail  services  by  ensuring  that  sufficient 
capacity is available for such services. 

The new capacity management procedures should also provide a faster and more flexible 
construction  and  allocation  of  train  paths,  which  can  only  be  achieve  through  increased 
use of interoperable digital tools both by IMs and RUs. 

Figure 4: Relation between the specific objectives and the problem drivers 

Specific  Objective  2  –  Strengthen  incentives  to  improve  performance  of  rail 
infrastructure  and  rail  transport  services.  The  second  specific  objective  is  to  provide 
clear incentives and/or requirements for all key stakeholders to improve rail performance. 
For  IMs,  this  means  allocating  scarce  infrastructure  capacity  according  to  social, 
environmental and economic criteria. It also means keeping allocated capacity stable until 
the  day  of  the  train  run  and  implementing  maintenance  works  in  accordance  with  the 
agreed plan. For transport operators, it means requesting capacity in line with their actual 
needs, avoiding capacity hoarding behaviour that goes to the detriment of overall system 
performance. 

EN 

27 

EN 

PROBLEMDRIVERSProblem driver 1Legal and procedural obstacles for capacity managementProblem driver 2Insufficient performance and respect of commitments by IMs and RUsProblem driver 3Inconsistent planning and supply of rail services across borders and modesProblem driver 4Insufficient digital tools supporting capacity & traffic management processesSPECIFICOBJECTIVESSpecific objective 1Enable alternative capacity management proceduresSpecific objective 2Strengthen incentives to improve performanceSpecific objective 3Introduce more effective mechanisms for stakeholder coordinationSpecific objective 4Support the deployment of digital tools for capacity and traffic managementGENERAL OBJECTIVEImprove the performance of rail infrastructure and transport services, to better meet customers  needs and increase competitiveness with other transport options 
 
 
The  introduction  of  harmonised  rules  on  incentivising  the  performance  of  both  IMs  and 
RUs,  in  particular  in  the  process  of  planning  and  allocating  capacity,  will  address  the 
problem of frequent amendments of capacity requests and ensure a more reliable access to 
capacity,  which  will  allow  to  develop  rail  services.  Introducing  further  coherence  in  the 
planning and allocation of capacity will facilitate cross-border rail. 

Incentives for improved performance would help increase punctuality and facilitate traffic 
management, ultimately increasing the reliability of rail services (especially freight). 

Specific  Objective  3  –  Introduce  more  effective  mechanisms  for  stakeholder 
coordination. The establishment of a true single European rail area requires close cross-
border  coordination  and  cooperation  on  the  side  of  IMs  but  also  between  public 
authorities,  rail  transport  operators  and  regulators.  While  the  responsibility  for  the 
management  of  capacity  and  traffic  on  the  network  must  remain  at  national  level,  it  is 
important  to  significantly  improve  coordination  on  all  aspects  that  have  a  cross-border 
impact. Accordingly, the third specific objective is to strengthen the relevant governance 
structures  of  the  single  European  rail  area  to  support  better  coordination  at  all  stages  of 
planning and operations, including strategic capacity management, the planning of TCRs, 
capacity allocation, rescheduling as well as traffic and contingency management.  

Both cross-border freight and passenger rail would be able to benefit from clearer rules on 
capacity  and  traffic  management,  from  increased  convergence  of  IMs’  procedures  and 
practices and from more consistent rules across the internal EU borders. This should help 
those rail market  segments,  which include more cross-border traffic, such as freight, but 
also allow other market segments to grow by providing more cross-border services. 

Coordination of train and terminal activities would cover planning and operational aspects 
and should improve rail  freight’s overall performance  and when it is  part of multimodal 
transport. 

Specific Objective 4 – Support the deployment of digital tools for capacity and traffic 
management. Digitalisation is  a key  enabler  of  better capacity utilisation, more flexible 
responses to customer needs, increased reliability and resilience vis-à-vis disruptions. The 
current  fragmentation and (partial) duplication of tools, systems and standards should be 
corrected.  Existing  legally  mandated  standards  should  be  further  developed  with  a  clear 
focus on user and business  needs. The integration of rail with  customers and partners in 
passenger transport and freight logistics should be intensified based on open standards and 
clearly  defined  interfaces,  supporting  the  development  and  deployment  of  solutions  that 
increase  the  performance  and  cybersecurity  of  IT  systems  and  applications  for  capacity 
management and traffic management. The fourth specific objective of this initiative is to 
clarify  and  strengthen  the  legal  requirements  regarding  digitalisation  of  planning  and 
operations of rail capacity and traffic. 

In the targeted stakeholder survey, all four specific objectives received clear support from 
the 62 participants, with the strongest related to digitalisation (90%) and the lowest related 
to conditions for access to rail infrastructure (64%). 

EN 

28 

EN 

 
5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

5.1.  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

The EU Reference scenario 2020 (REF2020) is the starting point for the impact assessment of 
this initiative78. The REF2020 takes into account the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic that 
had a significant impact on the transport sector. More detailed information about the preparation 
process, assumptions and results are included in the Reference scenario publication79. Building 
on REF2020, the baseline has been designed to include the initiatives of the ‘Fit for 55’ package 
proposed by the Commission on 14 July 202180 and the initiatives of the RePowerEU package 
proposed by the Commission on 18 May 202281. The baseline scenario assumes no further EU 
level intervention beyond the current Rail Freight Corridors Regulation and the Recast Directive 
that sets up the Union’s legal framework for the Single European railway area82. A common 
baseline  was  developed  for  this  impact  assessment,  as  well  as  for  other  initiatives  related  to 
freight transport83. More details on the baseline are provided in Annex 4. 

In terms of transport network, the baseline scenario accounts for the proposed revision of 
the  TEN-T  Regulation84.  It  assumes  that  the  high-quality  TEN-T  rail  network  would  be 
gradually completed in three steps: 2030 for the core network, 2040 for the extended core 
network  and  2050  for  the  comprehensive  network.  It  also  assumes  full  electrification  of 
the  core  TEN-T  rail  network  by  2030  and  of  the  comprehensive  TEN-T  network  by 
205085.  

78   The EU Reference Scenario 2020 is one of the European Commission’s key analysis tools in the areas of 
energy, transport and climate action. It allows policy-makers to analyse the long-term economic, energy, 
climate and transport outlook based on the policy framework in place in 2020. National experts from all 
EU  countries  contributed  to  the  Reference  Scenario  2020  through  a  consultation  process,  and 
stakeholders have also contributed on technology assumptions. The EU Reference Scenario 2020 is the 
basis on which specific policy scenarios used to assess options informing the policy initiatives in the ‘Fit 
for 55’ package have been developed. The EU Reference Scenario has also been the basis for developing 
the scenarios underpinning the RePowerEU package proposed by the Commission on 18 May 2022. The 
EU  Reference  Scenario  and  the  scenarios  underpinning  the  ‘Fit  for  55’  package  and  the  RePowerEU 
package  share  the  same  macro-economic,  the  same  technology  assumptions  as  well  as  policies 
implemented or planned at Member State level (including the National Energy and Climate Plans). 

79   https://energy.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/energy-modelling/eu-reference-scenario-2020_en 
80   https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/delivering-european-green-

deal_en 

81   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_3131 
82   As explained in section 2.3, the rail sector launched several initiatives aimed at improving rail freight’s 
performance and, in particular, the Timetable Redesign Project (TTR) which is specifically addressed at 
improving  the  management  of  network  capacity.  However,  for  these  initiatives  to  become  something 
more than pilot projects or recommended best practices, rules need to be put in place with clearly defined 
obligations. In the case of TTR, some of the measures cannot be implemented without a change to the 
EU legal framework, as they are not in line with the current rules. Therefore, the TTR is not part of the 
baseline. 

83   Revision  of  the  Weights  and  Dimensions  Directive,  revision  of  the  Combined  Transport  Directive, 

proposal for an EU framework for harmonised measurement of transport and logistics emissions. 

84   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM%3A2021%3A812%3AFIN 
85   The TRUST and the ASTRA models have been used also for assessing the impacts of the policy options 
developed in the context of the impact assessment accompanying the revision of the TEN-T Regulation 
(SWD(2021)  472  final  of  14 December  2021).  The  baseline  scenario  thus  reflects  all  the  measures 
included in the preferred policy option of the impact assessment accompanying the revision of the TEN-
T  Regulation.  The  detailed  inputs  used  for  reflecting  these  measures  in  the  modelling  are  available  in 
Annex 4 of the impact assessment accompanying the revision of the TEN-T Regulation. 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
                                                           
The  baseline  also  incorporates  foresight  megatrends86  and  developments  captured  in  the 
2022  Strategic  Foresight  Report87.  Among  others,  it  captures  the  trend  of  increasing 
demand for transport as population and living standards grow as well as the links between 
the digital and green transition. In particular, the projected transport activity draws on the 
long-term population projections from Eurostat and GDP growth from the Ageing Report 
202188 by the Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs. 

In the Baseline scenario, EU transport activity is projected to grow post-2020, following 
the recovery from the COVID pandemic. Road transport would maintain its dominant role 
within the EU by 2050. Rail transport activity is projected to grow significantly faster than 
for road, driven in particular by the completion of the TEN-T core network by 2030 and of 
the  comprehensive  network  by  2050,  supported  by  the  CEF,  Cohesion  Fund  and  ERDF 
funding, but also by measures of the ‘Fit for 55’ package that increase to some extent the 
competitiveness  of  rail  relative  to  road  and  air  transport.  Passenger  rail  activity  is 
projected to go up by 24% by 2030 relative to 2015 (69% for 2015-2050). High speed rail 
activity,  in  particular,  would  grow  by  68%  by  2030  relative  to  2015  (169%  by  2050), 
missing however to deliver on the milestone of the SSMS of doubling its traffic by 2030 
and tripling it by 2050. Freight rail traffic would increase by 42% by 2030 relative to 2015 
(96% for 2015-2050)89 hence falling short of the milestone of the SSMS of increasing the 
traffic by 50% by 2030 and doubling it by 2050. 

As rail infrastructure capacity will need to accommodate an increasing amount of demand, 
by 2030 nearly 9 000 kilometres of  rail (about  6.5% of the network)  are  projected to  be 
affected  by  capacity  restrictions  in  the  baseline,  of  which  6 500 kilometres  would  be 
congested  (4.7%  of  the  network)  and  2 500 kilometres  highly  utilised  (1.8%  of  the 
network). By 2050, the rail network affected by capacity restrictions is projected to further 
increase to  20 200 kilometres  (about  14.6% of the network), of which 11 500 kilometres 
would be congested (8.3% of the network) and 8 700 kilometres highly utilised (6.3% of 
the network). Congestion on the network (expressed in train-kilometres) is projected to go 
up  from  94.3  million  train-kilometres  in  2020  to  159.3  million  train-kilometres  in  2030 
and  231.2  million  train  kilometres  by  205090.  This  is  despite  the  significant  capacity 
improvement  expected  in  the  next  decades  due  to  improved  infrastructure  envisaged  by 
the proposed revision of the TEN-T Regulation. 

Passenger  and  freight  train  punctuality  is  projected  to  deteriorate  by  2030  and  to  only 
somewhat  improve  post-2030,  driven  by  the  improved  infrastructure  envisaged  by  the 
proposed  revision  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation.  The  share  of  passenger  trains  that  are 

86   https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight/tool/megatrends-hub_en#explore  
87   COM(2022) 289 final of 29 June 2022. 
88  The  2021  Ageing  Report :  Underlying  assumptions  and  projection  methodologies  The  2021  Ageing 
Report: Underlying Assumptions and Projection Methodologies | European Commission (europa.eu)   
89   The  change  in commodities transported by rail  has  also  been taken into account (see  Annex 4, section 
4.2.2.,  in  the  part  dedicated  to  the  methodology  for  estimating  cost  savings  due  to  punctuality 
improvements).  As  regards  the  decreasing  volumes  of  goods  traditionally  transported  by  rail 
(commodities such as iron ore, coal, steel etc.), it is important to emphasize that in parallel to the decline 
in the volume of these commodities, intermodal transport of high-value intermediate and final goods has 
experienced strong growth, resulting in a change in the composition of goods transported by rail. 

90   These  estimates  are  based  on  the  TRUST  model.  As  explained  in  Annex  4,  the  TRUST  model  is  a 
European  transport  network  model  simulating  road,  rail,  inland  waterways  and  maritime  transport 
activity. TRUST covers the whole EU and its neighbouring countries and it allows for the assignment of 
passenger  and  freight  origin-destination  (OD)  matrices  at  NUTS3  level  (about  1  600  zones)  on  the 
multimodal transport network. 

EN 

30 

EN 

 
                                                           
punctual is projected to go down from 88.3% in 2020 to 87.8% in 2030 and to increase to 
90.3%  by  2050.  Freight  rail  is  expected  to  face  more  challenges  in  terms  of  punctuality 
relative  to  passenger  rail.  The  share  of  freight  trains  that  are  punctual  is  projected  to 
reduce from 58.4% in 2020 to 57.4% in 2030, increasing to 68.4% by 2050. 

Congestion  costs91  would  increase  by  about  14%  by  2030  and  32%  by  2050,  relative  to 
2015.  Congestion  on  the  inter-urban  network  would  be  the  result  of  growing  freight 
transport activity along specific corridors, in particular where these corridors cross urban 
areas with heavy local traffic.  

CO2 emissions from transport92 are projected to be 24% lower by 2030 compared to 2015, 
and 87% lower by 2050. The baseline scenario shows that the emission reductions from 
the  transport  sector  would  contribute  towards  the  ambition  of  at  least  55%  emission 
reductions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050, while relying to a significant extent on 
technological  solutions  (i.e.  the  uptake  of  low-  and  zero-emission  vehicles  and  of 
renewable and low carbon fuels) and carbon pricing. This would depart from the balanced 
approach underpinning the impact assessments accompanying the ‘Fit for 55’ package and 
the  staff  working  document  accompanying  the  REPowerEU  initiatives93,  showing  a 
combined  approach  of  carbon  pricing  instruments  and  regulatory-based  measures  to 
deliver on the increased climate ambition94.  

NOx emissions are projected to go down by 56% between 2015 and 2030 (85% by 2050), 
mainly driven by the electrification of the road transport and in particular of the light duty 
vehicles  segment.  The  decline  in  particulate  matter  (PM2.5)  would  be  slightly  lower  by 
2030 at 52% relative to 2015 (90% by 2050). 

The  baseline  scenario  reflects  the  projected  higher  energy  prices  driven  by  the  Russian 
invasion  of  Ukraine95.  Beyond  this  aspect,  it  was  however  not  possible  to  quantify  the 
impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the context of the baseline scenario, as there 
is large uncertainty with respect to its impacts, in particular for the medium to long term. 
While its impact is felt in terms of trade (e.g. grain, bulk fertilisers and hydrocarbons) and 
in certain geographical areas, the impact on the baseline of this initiative is expected to be 
relatively limited, although the problem of the lack of infrastructure capacity to absorb the 
growth of transport traffic may further deteriorate due to the changes in transport routes.  

5.2.  Policy measures and policy options 

As  a  first  step,  a  comprehensive  list  of  possible  policy  measures  was  established  after 
extensive consultations with stakeholders, expert meetings, independent research, and the 

91   External  costs  resulting  from  time  lost  in  road  transport  due  to  demand  of  road  space  exceeding  the 

supply. They arise mainly during peak periods in urban areas. 

92   Including international aviation but excluding international maritime. 
93   SWD(2022) 230 final of 18 May 2022. 
94   The  scenarios  underpinning  the  impact  assessments  accompanying  the  ‘Fit  for  55’  initiatives  and  the 
staff  working  document  accompanying  the  REPowerEU  initiatives  incorporated  a  broader  range  of 
policies (including this initiative) that were represented in a stylised way ahead of the actual proposals, to 
show the delivery of at least 55% emissions reduction target by 2030 and to account for the interaction 
with  the  forthcoming  initiatives.  The  scenario  reflecting  the  ‘Fit  for  55’  initiatives,  the  REPowerEU 
initiatives and the forthcoming initiatives shows the need to reduce emissions from transport by 26% by 
2030 relative to 2015 and by 94% by 2050. Therefore, this initiative contributes towards the at least 55% 
emissions reductions target by 2030 and achieving climate neutrality by 2050. 

95   SWD(2022) 230 final of 18 May 2022.  

EN 

31 

EN 

 
                                                           
Commission’s  own  analysis.  This  list  was  subsequently  screened  based  on  the  likely 
effectiveness,  efficiency  and  proportionality  of  the  proposed  measures  in  relation  to  the 
given objectives, as well as their legal and technical feasibility, following input from the 
stakeholders. 

5.2.1.  Retained policy measures 

Table 2 provides an overview of the retained policy measures and their links with problem 
drivers,  specific  objectives  and  policy  options.  A  more  detailed  description  of  the 
individual policy measures included in the policy options is presented in Annex 6. 

Table 2: Overview of the policy measures and their link with problem drivers, specific objectives and 
policy options (an X indicates that a measures is included in the respective policy option) 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective  

PO1  PO2  PO3  PO4 

Policy measure 

Policy options 

PD1 - 
Legal and 
procedural 
obstacles for 
capacity 
management 

SO1 - 
Enable 
alternative 
capacity 
management 
procedures 
through 
changes to 
legislation 

PM1 - Mandatory use of RFC one-stop shops: Make use of the 
corridor one-stop shops mandatory and clarify the functions of the 
corridor one-stop shops in capacity management and allocation for 
cross-border traffic 

X 

PM2-1 - Introduce a harmonised, directly applicable EU legal 
framework for railway capacity and traffic management 
supporting better utilisation of railway network capacity, including 
via more dynamic and market-oriented traffic and capacity 
management, and fair competition between rail operators 

PM2-2 - Introduce an ‘EU network statement’ defining the 
common set of harmonised rules and procedures for rail capacity and 
traffic management applicable on the entire EU rail network, 
complementing network statements of individual infrastructure 
managers; clarifying the status of infrastructure managers’ network 
statements 

PM3 - Introduce a strategic capacity management phase, which 
(i) establishes a multi-annual planning to optimise the quantity and 
quality of the capacity offer and (ii) provides a reserve of capacity for 
flexible allocation to individual applicants 

PM4 - Introduce new procedures for capacity allocation in line 
with market needs, in particular for flexibility and reliability, based 
on the outcomes of the strategic capacity management phase (PM3) 

PM5 - Introduce transparent and harmonised methods, based on 
socio-economic criteria, supporting the management of capacity 
on infrastructure where demand exceeds supply; methods should 
be applied in strategic capacity management (PM3), capacity 
allocation (PM4) and in contingency management (PM6) 

PM6 - Strengthen existing and introduce new mechanisms and 
procedures to ensure traffic continuity in the event of disruptions 
or planned non-availability of the network (infrastructure works) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

PD2 - 
Insufficient 
incentives to 
improve 
performance 

PM7 - Strengthen the monitoring of service quality and customer 
satisfaction on the freight corridors, notably by introducing a 
mandatory and harmonised set of performance indicators covering all 
relevant aspects of rail infrastructure service and rail transport 
services 

X 

SO2 - 

EN 

PM8 - Uphold commitments related to capacity: Introduce 
effective and reciprocal economic incentives to strengthen respect by 

X 

X 

X 

32 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective  

Strengthen 
incentives to 
improve 
performance 

PD3 - 
Insufficient 
mechanisms 
for 
stakeholder 
coordination 

SO3 - 
Introduce 
more 
effective 
mechanisms 
for 
stakeholder 
coordination 

Policy measure 

Policy options 

PO1  PO2  PO3  PO4 

all stakeholders of commitments related to capacity 

PM9 - Strengthen capacity-related rights of applicants (railway 
undertakings and others) vis-à-vis infrastructure managers, in 
particular for cross-border capacity and in the event of changes to 
allocated capacity 

PM10 - Entrust an independent expert body with reviewing the 
performance of rail infrastructure and transport services, providing 
advice to European Commission, the network of regulatory bodies 
(PM19) and other rail sector stakeholders. 

PM11 - Introduce an EU-level support and monitoring function 
addressing (i) compliance with agreed rules and procedures and (ii) 
the performance of infrastructure and transport services. The function 
involves the European network of infrastructure managers and the 
operational entity supporting it (PM20-1/PM20-2), the network of 
regulatory bodies (PM19) 

PM12 - Entrusting regulatory bodies with the review of multi-
annual agreements between Member State authorities and 
infrastructure managers to assess their consistency with the 
European performance scheme (PM13) and Member States’ 
indicative rail infrastructure development strategies. Entrusting the 
network of regulatory bodies to identify and promote best practices 
for such agreements 

PM13 - Introduce a European performance scheme to improve 
operational performance of rail services and providing a framework 
for national performance schemes 

PM14 - Strengthen governance of rail freight corridors and 
formalise a cross-corridor governance layer with defined 
competences 

PM15 - Introduce binding rules and procedures along corridors 
for the coordination of traffic management between infrastructure 
managers and between infrastructure managers and the operation of 
terminals  

PM16 - Introduce a high-level advisory / coordination platform 
at European level involving all stakeholders involved in multimodal 
rail freight transport  

PM17 - Introduce a European framework for the cross-border 
coordination of rail traffic management, including terminals and 
other rail facilities, based on the principles of collaborative decision-
making 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

PM18-1 - Conducting continuous transport market monitoring 
and analysis via cooperation of infrastructure managers 

X 

PM18-2 - Conducting continuous transport market monitoring 
and analysis at European level, carried out by ENIM (variant of 
PM18-1) 

PM19 - Strengthening the competences of the European network 
of regulatory bodies (Article 57 of Directive 2012/34/EU) and 
introducing a secretariat supporting its work 

PM20-1 - Empower the European Network of Infrastructure 
Managers (ENIM) as a coordination structure for capacity and 

EN 

33 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy measure 

Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective  

Policy options 

PO1  PO2  PO3  PO4 

traffic management, by assigning it with the responsibilities (i) to 
define harmonised EU procedures, rules and tools (PM2-2, PM3, 
PM4, PM5, PM6, PM24, PM25), (ii) to support and monitor 
implementation of such procedures, rules and tools (PM11) and 
(iii) to coordinate capacity management between networks (PM21) as 
well as by appointing an entity (‘the Network Coordinator’) to 
support ENIM in the operational implementation of these 
functions 

PM20-2 - Empower ENIM and the Network Coordinator as 
coordination and as planning / operational structure for capacity 
and traffic management, including all the responsibilities in PM20-
1, and with the addition of decision-making responsibilities in 
capacity management (PM22) and operational functions in traffic 
management (PM23) 

PM21 - Introduce an EU-level function supporting cross-border 
coordination of capacity management, including coordination 
and escalation mechanisms involving applicants and regulatory 
bodies. Entrusting ENIM (PM20-1) with the task to identify and find 
solutions to conflicts resulting from the non-alignment or 
disagreement between infrastructure managers relating to capacity 
management. If ENIM cannot provide a solution satisfactory for 
applicants concerned, the matter is forwarded to the network of 
regulatory bodies for a binding decision 

PM22 - Entrust the strategic capacity management phase to the 
European network of infrastructure managers. Entrusting ENIM 
(PM20-2), for all rail lines part of the European transport corridors, 
with decision-making competence relating to the strategic capacity 
management phase and with the competence to approve the 
outcomes of the capacity allocation process 

PM23 - Introduce an operational function at EU level supporting 
the coordination of traffic management, in particular for the 
management of major disruptions (‘crisis cell’)  

PM24 - Introduce legal requirements on the harmonised 
exchange of digital information supporting capacity and traffic 
management as well as customer information 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X  X 

X 

X 

PM25 - Comprehensive digitalisation and automation of capacity and 
traffic management providing a single interface at EU level and 
seamless end-to-end services for applicants (railway operators) 

X 

X 

X 

PD4 - 
Insufficient 
digital 
support tools 

SO4 - 
Support the 
deployment 
of digital 
tools 
enabling 
better 
capacity and 
traffic 
management 

5.2.2.  Discarded policy measures 

Some policy measures considered in the preparatory phase of the impact assessment were 
discarded  based  on  a  pre-screening,  providing  a  first  assessment  of  potential  impacts  in 

EN 

34 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
terms  of  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  proportionality  and  subsidiarity  and  based 
on stakeholder feedback. These measures include (i) an involvement of customers in  the 
governance of rail freight corridors; (ii) the mandatory establishment of a legal entity for 
each  rail  freight  corridor;  (iii) EU  rules  for  rail-related  activities  in  terminals;  (iv) the 
introduction of an entity in charge of monitoring and supervising rail traffic at EU level in 
real time and (v) a stronger centralisation of IT tools for capacity and traffic management. 
More detailed explanations on reasons for discarding them are provided in Annex9. 

5.3.  Overview of policy options 

The  retained  policy  measures  have  been  grouped  in  4  policy  options:  policy  option  1 
(PO1), policy option 2 (PO2), policy option 3 (PO3) and policy option 4 (PO4). Figure 5 
provides  a  high-level  overview  of  how  the  four  policy  options  were  built.  PO1  is  an 
evolutionary  development  of  the  current  legal  framework,  which  maintains  the  corridor 
approach to the cross-border coordination of capacity and traffic management as set out in 
the  RFC  Regulation.  By  contrast,  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  imply  a  switch  from  a  corridor-
based  to  a  network-based  approach  to  the  coordination  of  rail  capacity  and  traffic 
management,  covering  all  types  of  rail  transport  (passenger/freight,  domestic/cross-
border), that enable a more seamless approach on the entire rail network, not just on lines 
designated to corridors96.  

Figure 5: Overview of the four policy options - shared elements and differences 

PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  introduce  a  comprehensive  harmonisation  and  modernisation  of  the 
rules and procedures for capacity and traffic management. They therefore involve a more 
comprehensive review of the legal framework. 

The  main  difference  between  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  lies  in  the  stringency  and  ambition  of 
requirements and in the extent of centralisation of the decision-making process. PO2 relies 
on voluntary cooperation between the stakeholders concerned, in particular rail IMs, with 
no or very limited centralised coordination structures at EU level. PO3 extends PO2, from 
which  it  takes  over  most  of  the  measures,  and  entrusts  additional  responsibilities  for 
harmonisation  to  coordinating  bodies  at  EU  level,  making  use,  to  the  largest  extent 

96   However,  a  focus  on  the  most  strategic  lines  will  be  maintained  to  avoid  overregulation  on  lines  with 

regional importance and/or low traffic density. 

EN 

35 

EN 

Approach to cross-border coordinationPolicy option 1Policy option 2Policy option 3Policy option 4Responsibility to define common EU rules & implement monitoringCompetence for decision-making on capacity & traffic mgt. 
 
                                                           
possible, of existing entities. The mission of one of the coordinating entities in PO3 is to 
(i) develop common rules and procedures for capacity and traffic management and (ii) to 
monitor the implementation of these rules by individual IMs. As a counterbalance to this 
entity,  PO3  introduces  a  ‘network  of  regulatory  bodies’  in  charge  of  supervising  the 
activities of the IMs’ coordinating entity.  

Finally,  PO4  extends  the  remit  of  the  coordinating  entity  introduced  in  PO3  by  adding 
operational and decision-making tasks, such as the competence to take final decisions in 
case  of  disagreement/non-alignment  between  IMs  and  the  setup  of  a  European  traffic 
management function supporting the management of major incidents (‘crisis cell’). 

5.4.  Description of policy options 

5.4.1.  Policy option 1 – Strengthening the corridor approach 

In continuing the corridor approach, PO1 maintains key elements and tools introduced by 
the RFC Regulation and addresses their shortcomings by means of targeted interventions.  

PO1  addresses  SO1  (Enable  more  effective  capacity  management  procedures  through 
changes  to  legislation)  by  making  use  of  the  corridor  one-stop  shops  mandatory  for  the 
allocation  of  cross-border  infrastructure  capacity  (train  paths),  both  for  passenger  and 
freight services (PM1). This is intended to make the use of the one-stop shops in capacity 
management and allocation obligatory for all cross-border traffic on RFC lines, compared 
to the current situation where less than 20% of cross-border freight traffic is allocated via 
them.  PO1  also  extends  the  scope  of  the  functions  of  the  one-stop  shops  beyond  the 
capacity  allocation  phase  by  requiring  the  involvement  of  one-stop  shops  at  earlier  and 
later stages, such as the strategic planning phase  (e.g. scheduling of capacity restrictions 
due  to  infrastructure  works)  and  following  capacity  allocation  (e.g.  rescheduling  in 
response  to  unforeseen  changes  on  the  side  of  infrastructure  managers  and  railway 
undertakings), in order to eliminate the existing need for railway undertakings to revert to 
individual infrastructure managers for all activities other than capacity requests/allocation. 
In  addition,  as  regards  the  coordination  with  terminals,  PO1  will  require  corridor 
management boards to develop procedures on coordinating rail infrastructure and terminal 
capacity  allocation  together  with  the  terminal  advisory  groups.  With  respect  to  SO2 
(Strengthen  incentive  to  improve  performance),  PO1  strengthens  the  monitoring  of  the 
quality of rail transport services along the corridors (PM7). This involves the adoption of a 
mandatory  and  harmonised  set  of  performance  indicators  covering  all  aspects  of  rail 
infrastructure and transport services relevant for cross-border rail transport. The definition 
of  indicators  will  be  based  on  a  consultation  via  the  corridors’  advisory  groups  of  RUs, 
terminals  and  customers  of  rail  freight  services.  Publishing  the  results  of  performance 
monitoring can be considered as a ‘reputational’ incentive to improve performance.   

With respect to SO3 (Introduce more effective mechanisms for stakeholder coordination), 
PO1  strengthens  the  corridor  governance  structure  by  extending  and/or  clarifying  its 
competences  and  by  complementing  it  with  a  formal  cross-corridor  governance  layer  to 
coordinate  across  corridors  (PM14).  In  addition,  PO1  introduces  more  specific 
requirements as regards the coordination of traffic management between IMs, on the one 
hand, and between IMs and terminals, on the other (PM15). As regards the latter measure, 
whereas  Regulation  913/2010  merely  requires  infrastructure  managers  to  ‘put  in  place 
procedures  for  coordinating  traffic  management  along  the  freight  corridor’,  which 
produced  only  limited  results,  PO1  introduces  binding  rules  and  procedures  for 
coordination along corridors.  
EN 

36 

EN 

 
In relation to  SO4  (Support the deployment  of  digital  tools enabling better capacity  and 
traffic  management),  PO1  introduces  requirements  for  digital  exchange  of  information 
(PM24) – a measure included in all options. 

5.4.2.  Policy option 2 – Network approach based on common European rules 
and  procedures  implemented  via  cooperation  between  infrastructure 
managers 

This  policy  option  abandons  the  rail  freight  corridors  in  favour  of  a  network  approach. 
With respect to SO1, it introduces a common European legal framework for rail capacity 
management  and  allocation  that  applies  to  the  entire  network  (PM2-1).  It  also  adds 
transparent and harmonised methodologies for the partitioning of capacity to different rail 
infrastructure  users  (PM5)  based  on  socio-economic  criteria  and  taking  into  account  the 
need  for  infrastructure  works.  These  procedures  and  methods  involve  a  broad  range  of 
stakeholders – including public authorities, infrastructure users (RUs and other applicants) 
as  well  as  representatives  of  rail  transport  services  users  (passenger  and  freight).  The 
outcome of this phase are binding planning documents that safeguard capacity for defined 
rail transport market segments over a horizon of 5 to 10 years.  

These plans provide the basis for a strategic capacity management process (PM3) which 
(i) establishes  a  multi-annual  planning  procedure  to  optimise  the  quantity  and  quality  of 
the  capacity  offer  and  (ii)  provides  a  reserve  of  capacity  for  flexible  allocation  to 
individual  applicants  in  the  capacity  allocation  phase.  In  this  policy  option,  the  detailed 
rules  and  procedures  for  the  strategic  management  process  are  elaborated  based  on 
cooperation between IMs, following consultation of all relevant stakeholders. The actual 
implementation of the strategic capacity management process remains in the competence 
of  individual  IMs  and  is  under  the  scrutiny  of  regulatory  bodies.  Cross-border 
coordination is ensured by bilateral or multilateral cooperation between IMs. The results 
of the process are documented via a sequence of planning documents of increasing level 
of detail about the utilisation of capacity as the planning cycle progresses. The measure is 
closely related to the ‘advanced planning phase’ provided for under the already mentioned 
TTR project and the output related to capacity (capacity model/partitioning/supply). 

Following  the  outcomes  of  the  strategic  capacity  management  process,  PO2  introduces 
market-oriented procedures for allocating capacity to individual RUs and other applicants 
(PM4).  The  procedures  and  mechanisms  are  closely  related  to  the  allocation  concepts 
proposed  under  the  TTR  project,  such  as  capacity  allocation  on  the  basis  of  a  rolling 
planning  process  or  more  market-oriented  ways  to  allocate  capacity  rights  covering 
several  timetable periods.  A more detailed description of the TTR project,  and how it is 
reflected in the policy measures, is provided below: 

The ‘Timetable Redesign Project’ or ‘TTR project’ is a sector-driven initiative started in 2014 
with the view to develop a new capacity management process which better reflects the needs and 
constraints of rail freight traffic. 

The TTR project aims to achieve five general objectives: 

1)  to optimise the use of the capacity of the existing network, 
2)  to increase the quality of offered capacity, 
3)  to harmonise capacity management in Europe, for the benefit of cross-border services, 

and thereby increasing the stability and reliability of capacity, 

4)  to automate capacity management processes, and 

EN 

37 

EN 

 
 
5)  to improve the competitiveness of rail against other modes. 

To achieve these objectives, the TTR project introduces five key concepts: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

‘Advance planning’: TTR introduces a new and harmonised process for capacity 
management and allocation which replaces the annual planning exercise with a multi-
annual planning prepared in advance. 
The ‘advance planning’ concept is reflected in PM3 introducing a strategic capacity 
management phase. 
‘Rolling planning’: TTR introduces a new, more flexible process for the allocation of 
infrastructure capacity during the period of the current working timetable and with the 
possibility for RUs to be granted the right for infrastructure usage beyond the current 
timetable period. The new procedures introduced in PM4 cover this new ‘rolling 
planning’ concept. 
‘Commercial conditions’: TTR introduces financial incentives designed to incite both 
IMs and RUs to limit changes to allocated capacity with a view to stabilise the planning 
process. The introduction of such economic incentives is envisaged in PM8. 
‘Digital capacity management’: TTR introduces an ecosystem of IT systems supporting 
capacity management which builds, on the one hand, on a combination of upgrades to the 
existing IT systems of IMs, and on a ‘central IT layer’ at EU level on the other hand. 
Requirements concerning the deployment and use of IT systems supporting capacity 
management processes are introduced by PM25. 
‘International leading entities’: TTR relies on entities to ensure the effective coordination 
of the actual contents of the planning process and to ensure adherence to commonly 
agreed standards. 

This initiative supports the TTR project by providing, on the one hand, a set of policy measures 
designed to remove existing legal barriers to its implementation, and a set of policy measures 
supporting the rollout of TTR through the introduction of specific requirements on the other 
hand. 

Additional details on the TTR project can be found in Annex 7. 

In  this  policy  option,  capacity  allocation  remains  in  the  competence  of  individual  IMs. 
However,  for  cross-border  rail  services,  IMs  must  provide  seamless  capacity  via  IT 
applications covering cross-border capacity in a single place and operation (PM17).  

This  option also  strengthens  existing and introduces new procedures  and  mechanisms to 
ensure  traffic  continuity  in  the  event  of  emergency  or  crises  situations  (PM6).  This 
includes  mandatory  measures  to  prepare  for  major  network  disruptions  or  sanitary  or 
security crises and, potentially, rules for the re-allocation of capacity in such cases, subject 
to  pre-defined  criteria  and  safeguards  with  respect  to  the  fair  and  non-discriminatory 
treatment of applicants. 

As  regards  SO2,  PO2  clarifies  the  legal  requirements  for  effective  and  reciprocal 
economic incentives to  strengthen respect  by all  stakeholders of commitments related to 
capacity  (PM8).  This  comprises  obligatory  cancellation  charges  for  RUs,  i.e.  require 
payment  for  capacity  allocated  but  not  used.  It  also  introduces  charges  for  IMs  for 
unilaterally  cancelling  allocated  capacity,  or  for  making  substantial  changes  to  allocated 
train paths. The charges will take into account situations of force majeure. In addition, the 
policy option strengthens the legally defined rights of applicants related to capacity vis-à-
vis IMs (PM9), notably in relation to cross-border services and in the event of changes to 
EN 

38 

EN 

 
 
 
 
allocated capacity. In particular, IMs must ensure the consistency of train paths along the 
entire cross-border route97. 

In relation to SO3, PO2 introduces a requirement for IMs to conduct continuous transport 
market  monitoring  and  analysis  at  European  level  (PM18-1)  to  support  the  strategic 
capacity planning process outlined above. Market monitoring has to be carried out by IMs 
in cooperation with and must involve a consultation of all relevant stakeholders. PO2 also 
introduces a European  framework  for the coordination of rail traffic management  across 
borders  and  between  different  stakeholder  groups  (PM17).  These  stakeholders  will  be 
required  to  establish  the  actual  rules  and  procedures,  on  the  basis  of  collaborative 
decision-making and in close cooperation with the European Agency for Railways and the 
Europe’s Rail Joint Undertaking. Finally, PO2 requires the presence of a forum for high-
level exchange and coordination at European level involving all stakeholders involved in 
rail  transport  (PM16).  This  platform  will  involve  further  stakeholders  from  public 
authorities,  partners  and  customers  of  rail  transport  services  and  possibly  other  groups 
(supplier industry, civil  society,  and academia),  and will be chaired by the Commission. 
The platform can set up working groups operating based on the mandate from the plenary 
to address specific issues such as performance review and digital tools. It will replace the 
advisory  groups  of  the  rail  freight  corridors  and  ensure  systematic  involvement  of  the 
operators  of  freight  terminals  and  intermodal  transport  services  in  all  individual  policy 
measures. 

With respect to SO4 (digitalisation), PO2 requires IMs to provide single IT interfaces at 
EU level providing seamless end-to-end services for capacity management (PM25). This 
measure  complements  the  requirement  for  digital  data  exchange  common  to  all  policy 
options (PM24); it requires IMs to provide IT services and interfaces covering the entire 
capacity management process in  a single place and operation, going beyond the peer-to-
peer approach underlying PM2498. 

5.4.3.  Policy  option  3  –  Network  approach  supported  by  a  central  entity  in 
charge of defining common rules and monitoring their implementation 

This policy option also abolishes the rail freight corridors and adopts a network approach. 
It comprises the same measures as in  PO2 in  regard to  capacity management. However, 
entities  at  EU  level  are  introduced  to  ensure  that  uniform  rules  are  implemented  by  all 
IMs,  to  strengthen  coordination  and  monitoring  for  cross-border  capacity  and  traffic 
management.  

With  respect  to  SO1,  PO3  introduces  an  ‘EU  network  statement’  to  accompany  the 
network statements of individual  IMs99. The EU network statement sets out the concrete 
common rules and procedures for capacity and traffic management at EU level (PM2-2). 

97   It  is  common  practice  that  individual  IMs  modify  timings  and/or  routings  of  train  paths  without 
coordination with neighbouring IMs, potentially resulting in inconsistent train paths (different routes or 
inconsistent timing). 

98  The  technical  specifications  on  telematics  applications  for  freight  (see  Commission  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1305/2014)  provide  standards  and  interfaces  for  electronic  data  exchange  between  IMs  and  RUs. 
Data exchange is decentralised at peer-to-peer level, implying that data exchange on cross-border trains 
may be fragmented in national segments. 

99   Article 27 of the Recast Directive requires IMs to develop and publish a network statement which sets 
out  in  detail  the  general  rules,  deadlines,  procedures  and  criteria  for  charging  and  capacity-allocation 
schemes, including other information required to enable applications for infrastructure capacity. 

EN 

39 

EN 

 
                                                           
Its purpose is to support harmonisation of rules and procedures, by providing a common, 
mandatory  framework  for  the  network  statements  of  individual  IMs  thereby  ensuring 
consistency and complementing the harmonised legal framework (PM2-1). Preparation of 
the network statement is assigned to the EU network coordination entity (PM20-1). 

In relation to SO2, PO3 introduces an independent expert body responsible for reviewing 
the performance of rail infrastructure and cross-border rail transport services (PM10). The 
body is comprised of senior experts or managers bringing together technical, market and 
managerial  experience  in  railways,  acting  in  a  personal  capacity  as  independent  experts 
not  affiliated  with  any  particular  stakeholder  (group).  Its  primary  purpose  is  to  provide 
advice to the network of regulatory bodies and to the rail sector on all matters related to 
the  performance  of  cross-border  rail  services.  It  also  introduces  EU-level  support  and 
monitoring  that  addresses  (i)  compliance  with  agreed  rules  and  procedures  and  (ii)  the 
performance of infrastructure and transport services (PM11). 

With respect to SO3, PO3 empowers the European Network of Infrastructure Managers to 
carry  out  the  key  tasks  (PM20-1)  of  (i) developing  common  rules  and  procedures  for 
capacity  and  traffic  management,  (ii)  supporting  and  monitoring  the  implementation  of 
these rules by IMs and (iii) resolving inconsistencies between IMs in relation to capacity 
planning and allocation. The network will be supported by an operational entity (hereafter 
the “rail network coordinator”), to be designated by the Commission. The scope of such 
common  rules  and  procedure  includes  in  particular  measures  PM3,  PM4,  PM5  and 
PM6100. The governance of the entity assembles all main European IMs and the European 
Commission.  The central  coordination entity centralises European-level  transport market 
monitoring and analysis (PM18-2)101.  

As  regulatory  counterpart  to  ENIM,  policy  option  3  strengthens  the  competences  of  the 
European  network  of  regulatory  bodies  (PM19)  set  up  by  the  Recast  Directive.  The 
network  complements  national  regulatory  bodies  on  matters  involving  a  European  or 
cross-border  dimension;  it  acts  as  appeal  body  in  the  event  of  complaints  or  can  launch 
own-initiative  investigations.  Its  tasks  include  in  particular  the  regulatory  supervision  of 
the  activities  of  the  EU  network  coordination  entity  and  of  the  European  network 
statement. The option assigns ENIM (supported by an operational entity) with the task to 
carry out continuous transport market monitoring and analysis at European level (PM18-
2).  

In  addition,  PO3  provides  for  an  escalation  mechanism  to  resolve  disputes  at  European 
level  or  relating  to  cross-border  traffic  (PM21).  In  the  first  instance,  ENIM  and  the 
Network Coordinator  are given the task of identifying and finding solutions for cases of 
non-alignment  or  disagreement  between  IMs.  If  this  does  not  result  in  a  satisfactory 
solution, the matter is forwarded to the network of regulatory bodies (PM19) for a binding 
decision.   

With respect to digital support tools (SO4), policy option 3 includes the same measures as 
PO2. 

100  PM3,  PM4,  PM5  and  PM6  are  also  part  of  policy  option 2.  However,  in  policy  option  2  IMs  develop 
common rules and procedures based on voluntary cooperation, without a central coordination entity. 

101  In policy option 2, this function is carried out by IMs based on voluntary cooperation (M6-1). 

EN 

40 

EN 

 
                                                           
5.4.4.  Policy  option  4  –  Network  approach,  assigning  competences  in 
operational  decision-making  to  the  EU  network  of  infrastructure 
managers, supported by an operational entity  

This policy option builds on PO2 and PO3; it also abolishes the rail freight corridors. The 
key  feature  of  PO4  is  that  it  entrusts  the  EU  network  of  infrastructure  managers  with 
several  operational  and  decision-making  competences  relating  to  capacity  and  traffic 
management for cross-border rail traffic (PM20-2). 

In relation to SO1, PO4 includes the same policy measures as PO3. With respect to SO2, 
PO4 includes the measures of the PO3 and additionally assigns the network of regulatory 
bodies with the task to identify best practises with respect to the contractual agreements to 
be concluded between Member State authorities and IMs in accordance with Article 30 of 
Directive  2012/34/EU  and,  in  the  light  of  these  results,  gives  national  regulatory  bodies 
the responsibility to review the effectiveness of the multi-annual agreements concluded at 
national level (PM12). In addition, it introduces an EU performance scheme to strengthen 
the  incentives  for  IMs  and  RUs  to  improve  the  performance  of  rail  infrastructure  and 
transport  services  (PM13),  which  will  be  developed  with  support  from  the  independent 
performance review body (PM10). 

In  relation  to  SO3,  PO4  entrusts  an  entity  at  European  level  (PM20-2)  with  the 
competence to take final decisions as regards the strategic capacity management phase and 
the allocation of capacity for cross-border services (PM22). This implies that the planning 
documents of the capacity planning phase (network utilisation concepts etc.) for lines part 
of  the  TEN-T  network,  in  particular  lines  making  up  the  European  Transport  Corridors, 
are approved by ENIM; the latter also has the competence to approve the outcomes of the 
allocation of capacity (train paths) as far as cross-border traffic is concerned. As regards 
coordination  of  traffic  management,  PO4  introduces  an  EU  ‘crisis  management  cell’ 
providing  operational  support  for  the  coordination  of  traffic  management  during  major 
network  disruptions  and  emergency  /  exceptional  situations  (PM23).  The  crisis  cell  is 
established  as  a  part  of  the  EU  network  coordination  entity.  Its  key  function  is  to 
coordinate between operational stakeholders in the event of major incidents and crises on 
the  network  which  have  an  impact  on  cross-border  rail  traffic,  as  current  operational 
(‘real-time’) traffic management by infrastructure managers is typically done only at local 
and national levels with no dedicated entities to support the coordination of cross-border 
incidents  and  crises.  Other  measures  addressing  SO3  like  PM16  (Introduce  a  high-level 
advisory/  coordination  platform  at  European  level)  and  PM17  (Introduce  a  European 
framework  for  the  cross-border  coordination  of  rail  traffic  management)  are  common  to 
PO2, PO3 and PO4, and PM18-2 (Conducting continuous transport market monitoring and 
analysis  at  European  level)  and  PM19  (Strengthening  the  competences  of  the  European 
network of regulatory bodies) are common to PO3 and PO4. 

With respect to SO4, PO4 includes the same measures as PO2 and PO3.  

5.4.5.  Measure common to all four policy options 

With  respect  to  SO4,  all  four  policy  options  introduce  mandatory  requirements  and 
deadlines  for  the  implementation  of  the  technical  specifications  for  interoperability  on 

EN 

41 

EN 

 
telematics applications for freight102 and for providing the technical description of the rail 
network via the register of infrastructure103 (PM24). This measure complements ongoing 
Commission initiatives to revise the relevant technical railway legislation104. 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

This  section summarises the main expected economic, social and environmental impacts 
of  each  policy  option105.  The  proposed  measures  are  assumed  to  be  implemented  from 
2025 onwards, so the assessment has been undertaken for the 2025-2050 period and refers 
to EU27106. Costs and benefits are expressed as present value over the 2025-2050 period, 
using a 3% discount rate. Further details on the methodological approach and a description 
of the estimation of impacts in terms of costs and the direct transport and wider economic 
impacts are provided in Annex 4107. 

It should be emphasised that while some impacts were estimated with advanced methods, 
such  as  timetable  modelling,  others  had  to  be  based  mainly  on  plausible  assumptions  or 
could  not  be  monetised  at  all,  including  some  of  the  presumably  most  significant 
impacts108. Extensive efforts have been made to compile information and input data from 
stakeholders,  as  a  basis  for  the  estimation  of  impacts,  in  the  context  of  the  impact 
assessment  support  study.  The  feedback  was  mainly  limited  to  anecdotal  evidence. 
Therefore, a conservative approach was taken in which costs estimates are relatively high, 
while the estimates of benefits are at the low end of the spectrum. 

6.1.  Economic impacts 

This  section  provides  the  economic  impacts  of  the  policy  options  on  RUs  and  other 
applicants  for  capacity,  IMs,  public  authorities  (Member  States’  public  administrations, 
regulatory bodies responsible for the railway sector and the European Commission), and 
other  stakeholders  (terminal  operators  and  customers  of  rail  transport  services).  It  also 
provides  an  assessment  of  impacts  on  small  and  medium  enterprises  (SMEs),  on  the 

102  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No 1305/2014  of  11  December  2014  on  the  technical  specification  for 
interoperability  relating  to  the  telematics  applications  for  freight  subsystem  of  the  rail  system  in  the 
European Union and repealing the Regulation (EC) No 62/2006 (Text with EEA relevance), https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02014R1305-20210418 

103  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/777 of 16 May 2019 on the common specifications for 
the register of railway infrastructure and repealing Implementing Decision 2014/880/EU (Text with EEA 
relevance.), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019R0777. 

104  These  initiatives  also  include  changes  to  the  technical  specifications  for  interoperability  relating  to  the 
control-command  and  signalling  subsystems  (Commission  Regulation  (EU)  2016/919)  and  to  the 
operation and traffic management subsystem (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/773). 
105  The analysis in this section is based on Ecorys et al. (2023), Support study to the impact assessment on 
measures  to  better  manage  and  coordinate  cross-border  rail  traffic,  including  through  revised  rules  for 
capacity allocation and infrastructure charging in rail, and on the analysis of stakeholders' feedback. 
106  Cyprus and Malta do not have a rail system and are not expected to introduce a rail system. Hence, the 

analysis covers the other 25 Member States.  

107  As explained in Annex 4 (section 1), three models were used for the assessment of impacts of the policy 
options: (i) the Train Planning System (TPS) to simulate the timetabling process and estimate impacts on 
capacity; (ii) the TRUST model to derive the transport activity and assign the traffic on the network; (iii) 
the ASTRA model to derive the macroeconomic impacts, the environmental impacts and the impacts on 
safety. 

108  An  important  example  is  the  reduction  in  negative  impact  of  infrastructure  works  for  repairs, 
maintenance and renewal on the rail traffic. While anecdotal evidence clearly shows their magnitude to 
be  significant  in  the  current  situation  and  in  the  baseline,  it  has  not  been  possible  to  quantify  their 
possible reduction resulting from the policy measures. 

EN 

42 

EN 

 
                                                           
functioning of the internal market and competition, the competitiveness of the rail sector, 
congestion costs of the road transport sector and on digital by default. The results show a 
considerable difference in the magnitude of impacts – both on the cost and the benefit side 
– between the policy option adopting the corridor approach (PO1) and those adopting the 
network approach (PO2, PO3 and PO4). 

6.1.1.  Impacts on railway undertakings and other applicants in general 

All policy options are expected to lead to adjustment costs for RUs, while PO1 would also 
result in administrative costs, and PO2, PO3 and PO4 in adjustment costs savings relative 
to  the  baseline.  Each  category  of  costs/costs  savings  is  briefly  discussed  below,  while  a 
detailed analysis including the estimates and the assumptions used for deriving the costs 
and costs savings for each policy measure, by Member State where relevant, is provided in 
Annex 4 (section 3). 

Adjustment  costs  for  RUs.  In  terms  of  recurrent  adjustment  costs  for  2030  and  2050, 
PO1  shows  no  significant  costs  relative  to  the  baseline  (see  Table  3).  PO1  is  however 
expected to result in one-off adjustment costs of EUR 282.8 million due to investments in 
digital  tools  to  ensure  RUs  compliance  with  the  IM  systems  providing  capacity-related 
services (PM24) - a measure included in all options. 

PO2, PO3 and PO4 result in higher recurrent adjustment costs for RUs in 2030 and 2050 
compared to PO1 (see Table 3) mostly due to the strategic capacity management and new 
allocation procedures (PM3, PM4 and PM5)109, the EU framework for the coordination of 
traffic  management  and  terminal  operations  (PM17)  and  the  procedures  for  tackling 
disruptions  (PM6),  that  are  included  in  all  three  options.  These  measures  introduce 
important elements of the new approach to capacity and traffic management. They require 
additional efforts from RUs to provide input for long-term planning of capacity needs for 
different  rail  segments  and  for  preparing  contingency  plans.  This  input  is  voluntary,  but 
RUs  have  a  vested  interest  to  participate  in  the  process.  PO3  and  PO4  show  somewhat 
higher annual adjustment costs relative to PO2 (EUR 7.1 million for PO3 and PO4 in 2030 
and  2050,  compared  to  EUR 6.7  million  in  PO2)  due  to  the  monitoring  function  at  EU 
level  introduced  by  PM11.  All  three  options  are  expected  to  lead  to  one-off  adjustment 
costs of EUR 305.2 million, of which EUR 282.8 million linked to investments in digital 
tools (PM24), EUR 16.9 million to the strategic capacity management and new allocation 
procedures (PM3, PM4 and PM5), EUR 4.2 million to the procedures for disruption/non-
availability  (PM6)  and  EUR 1.3  million  to  the  EU  framework  for  the  coordination  of 
traffic management and terminal operations (PM17).  

Total  adjustments  costs  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  relative  to  the 
baseline, are estimated to be the highest in PO3 and PO4 (EUR 435.1 million), followed 
by PO2 (EUR 429 million) and PO1 (EUR 282.8 million). The investments in digital tools 
to ensure RUs compliance with the IM systems (PM24) represent around 65% of the total 
adjustment costs in  PO3 and PO4, 66% in  PO2 and 100% in  PO1. Other measures with 
significant  contribution  to  adjustment  costs  are  the  strategic  capacity  management  and 
new allocation procedures (around 17% of the total adjustment costs in PO3 and PO4 and 

109  The  costs of PM3, PM4 and PM5 are assessed jointly. The measures are complementary to each other 
and the associated costs cannot be split between the measures. All three measures are included in PO2, 
PO3 and PO4.   

EN 

43 

EN 

 
                                                           
18% in PO2) and the EU framework for the coordination of traffic management (around 
10% of the costs in PO2, PO3 and PO4).  

Administrative costs for RUs. PO1 is estimated to result in limited administrative costs 
for RUs, estimated at EUR 0.1 million in 2030 and 2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 
3), driven by the strengthened monitoring of service quality and customer satisfaction on 
the  freight  corridors  (PM7).  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050, 
the 
administrative costs for PO1 are estimated at EUR 2.4 million relative to the baseline (in 
2021 prices).  

Adjustment costs savings for RUs. PO2, PO3 and PO4 would also result in adjustment 
cost  savings  for  RUs  due  to  the  improved  capacity  management  and  allocation  process, 
notably  from  greater  stability  of  allocated  paths  (PM4).  This  measure  is  estimated  to 
reduce costs in PO2 by EUR 20.2 million in 2030 and EUR 27.8 million in 2050 relative 
to the baseline, in PO3 by EUR 20.3 million in 2030 and EUR 28.1 million in 2050 and in 
PO4 by EUR 20.4 million in 2030 and EUR 28.9 million in 2050110. PO3 and PO4 lead to 
additional cost savings for RUs (see Table 3) due to the support function for cross-border 
coordination  of  capacity  management  at  EU  level  (PM21)  and  the  strategic  capacity 
management  for  TEN-T  at  EU  level  (PM22),  respectively.  These  measures  organise  the 
coordination  of  capacity  planning  between  IMs  or  central  capacity  planning  and  ensure 
access to higher quality of capacity for cross-border trains.  

Total adjustment cost savings, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the 
baseline,  are  estimated  to  be  the  highest  in  PO4  (EUR 540.6  million),  followed  by  PO3 
(EUR 482.8  million)  and  PO2  (EUR 415.3  million).  The  reduction  in  the  train  path 
requests  (PM4),  in  conjunction  with  the  improved  capacity  management  and  allocation 
process  introduced,  represents  around 78% of the cost  savings in  PO4, 87% in  PO3 and 
100% in PO2.  

Table 3: Recurrent costs and costs savings for RUs in the POs relative to the baseline scenario (EU27), 
in million EUR (2021 prices) in 2030 and 2050 

Difference to the baseline 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

Administrative costs  

PM7 Monitoring performance & satisfaction 
RFC 

2030  2050  2030  2050  2030  2050  2030  2050 
0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 
0.1 

0.1 
0.1 

Adjustment costs  

0.0 

0.0 

PM3 & PM4 & PM5 Strategic capacity 
management, new allocation procedures 
PM6 Procedures disruption / non-availability 
PM11 Monitoring function at EU level 
PM17 EU framework coordination traffic 
management & terminal operations 
PM18-1 Transport market monitoring by IMs 
PM18-2 Transport market monitoring by 
ENIM 

6.7 
3.4 

6.7 
3.4 

0.8 

0.8 

2.4 

2.4 

7.1 
3.4 

0.8 
0.3 
2.4 

7.1 
3.4 

0.8 
0.3 
2.4 

7.1 
3.4 

0.8 
0.3 
2.4 

7.1 
3.4 

0.8 
0.3 
2.4 

0.1 

0.1    

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

110  The  difference  in  the  costs  savings  between  the  options  is  due  to  the  different  rail  traffic  projected  in 
PO2, PO3 and PO4, which drives the needs for allocated train paths, and thus to higher costs savings due 
to greater stability of allocated paths in options with higher traffic. PO4 leads to the highest increase in 
rail traffic among the policy options relative to the baseline and therefore to the highest estimated costs 
savings due to the greater stability of allocated paths. 

EN 

44 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                           
PM24 IT Legal requirements digital data 
provision & exchange (TAF TSI, RINF) 

Adjustment costs savings  

PM4 Reduction train path requests 
PM21 Support function for cross-border 
coordination of capacity management at EU 
level 
PM22 Strategic capacity management for 
TEN-T at EU level 

Difference to the baseline 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

2030  2050  2030  2050  2030  2050  2030  2050 
0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

20.2 
20.2 

27.8 
27.8 

23.5 
20.3 
3.2 

32.4 
28.1 

26.1 
20.4 

36.7 
28.9 

4.3    

5.7 

7.9 

Total costs 
Total costs savings 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study. Note: excluding one-off adjustment costs.  

6.7 
20.2 

6.7 
27.8 

7.1 
23.5 

7.1 
32.4 

7.1 
26.1 

0.1 
0.0 

0.1 
0.0 

7.1 
36.7 

Other direct benefits for RUs. All policy options are expected to result in an increase of 
available  capacity  compared  to  the  baseline.  The  additional  capacity  was  calculated  in 
several steps (see Annex 4, section 4.1.1) and it took into account the different effect the 
policy  measures  would  have  on  single,  double  and  cross-border  lines.  The  modelling 
focused  on  the  ability  of  IMs  to  offer  additional  train  paths  by  implementing  the  PMs 
included  in  the  different  POs,  in  particular  on  congested  lines.  The  focus  was  on 
incorporating a maximum number of train paths. This also resulted in a reduction of the 
transport time due to more coordinated and informed path planning. 

The modelling of the impacts of the policy measures on rail infrastructure capacity for the 
policy options required the development of different model variants of a timetable. Three 
factors, explained in Annex 4 (section 4.1.1) were used for deriving the results: 

•  The time frame, which is split into three time horizons (2030, 2040, 2050). 

•  The  track  type  –  more  specifically  the  distinction  between  national  single  track, 

national double track and international/cross-border sections. 

•  The congestion status of the lines. 

This  additional  capacity  translates  into  an  increase  in  traffic  (expressed  in  train-km) 
estimated at 0.2% in PO1, 2.2% in PO2, 4% in PO3 and 7% in PO4 relative to the baseline 
in  2050111,112.  This  means  an  increase  in  traffic  in  2050  relative  to  the  baseline  of  13.9 

111  For 2030, the increase in traffic is estimated at 0.2% in PO1, 1.7% in PO2, 2.7% in PO3 and 3.6% in 

PO4 relative to the baseline.  

112 As explained in Annex 4, the TPS application quantifies the impacts of the policy measures included in 
the policy options in terms of increases in the number of train paths and improvements in punctuality. To 
derive  the  increase  in  rail  freight  traffic  in  tonne-kilometres  and  passenger  rail  traffic  in  passenger-
kilometres, the results of the TPS application in terms of increase in available train paths on congested 
sections  of  the  network  are  used  as  input  in  the  TRUST  model,  assuming  that:  (i)  additional  available 
train paths are allocated both to passengers and freight transport; (ii) the demand for additional rail paths 
fully  matches  the  new  supply,  meaning  that  all  additional  train  paths  on  congested  sections  of  the  rail 
network are fully exploited; (iii) the additional trains running on congested sections will travel on routes 
extending  beyond  the  congested  section  (bottleneck  effect  of  congested  sections).  In  addition, 
improvements in punctuality from the TPS application are used as input in the TRUST model, in terms 
of  reduction  of  travel  time.  Based  on  this,  the  TRUST  model  estimates  the  increase  in  passenger  and 
freight  transport  activity  in  terms  of  train-kilometres,  which  is  further  translated  in  the  model  into 
passenger-kilometres and tonne-kilometres by the use of occupancy rates and load factors, respectively. 

EN 

45 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                           
 
million  train-km  in  PO1,  139.6  million  train-km  in  PO2,  249.1  million  train-km  in  PO3 
and  432.8  million  train-km  in  PO4113.  These  estimates  are  based  on  an  IT  tool  for 
timetable  design,  which  was  used  to  simulate  an  actual  timetable  optimisation  using  a 
limited  number  of  representative,  real-world  case  studies;  the  estimation  is  explained  in 
more detail in Annex 4 (section 4).  

The  benefits  for  RUs  from  the  additional  traffic  are  monetised  accordingly114.  These 
results  provide  a  very  conservative  estimate  of  the  benefits.  PO4  results  in  the  highest 
benefits due to the increase of available capacity, estimated in monetary terms (see Table 
4)  at  EUR 2 759.1million  (expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  relative  to  the 
baseline),  followed  by  PO3  (EUR 2 575.7  million),  PO2  (EUR 1 981  million)  and  PO1 
(EUR 242.1 million). 

To provide another perspective on the impact of the policy measures on available capacity, 
it is also possible to provide a rough estimate of the additional infrastructure that would be 
required to  accommodate a  growth  in traffic  equivalent  to  the  estimations for the policy 
options  in  2050.  On  the  basis  of  some  stylised  assumptions  about  the  use  of  new 
infrastructure, this would require the construction of 43 km of new lines in PO1, 431 km 
in  PO2,  769 km  in  PO3  and  1 336 km  in  PO4.  The  cost  for  the  construction  and 
maintenance of the additional infrastructure in the period from 2025 to 2050 (expressed as 
present value) would amount to approximately EUR 0.5 billion in PO1, 4.7 billion in PO2, 
8.4 billion in PO3 and 14.6 billion in PO4. The purpose of the estimates is mainly to put 
into relation  the additional rail traffic  enabled by the  capacity  increase estimated for the 
four  policy  options.  Given  the  reliance  on  a  number  of  assumptions,  these  figures  were 
intentionally not used in the assessment of the policy options with respect to the efficiency 
criterion, i.e. the estimation of net benefits and benefit/cost ratio.  

All policy options are expected to result in improvements in punctuality compared to the 
baseline. These improvements are expected to be higher for freight than for passenger rail. 
PO4 is estimated to result in the highest benefits (EUR 664.9 million), followed by PO3 
(EUR 658  million),  PO2  (EUR 501.3  million)  and  PO1  (EUR 72.7  million).  These 
improvements  are  monetised,  using  assumptions  on  the  different  value  of  delays  for 
different EU regions, based on the ASTRA model. 

Table  4:  Monetised  benefits  due  to  increase  in  capacity  and  in  punctuality  in  the  POs,  expressed  as 
present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline (EU27), in million EUR (2021 prices) 

in 

capacity 

Increase 
traffic) 
Increase in punctuality 

(additional 

Difference to the baseline 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

242.1 

72.7 

1 981.0 

501.3 

2 575.7 

658.0 

2 759.1 

664.9 

In other words, the increase in capacity leads to an increase in the rail transport activity but there is no 
one–to-one relationship between them. The results are also different at rail section level. 

113  For  2030,  the  increase  in  traffic  is  estimated  at  8.2  million  train-km  in  PO1,  77.6  million  train-km  in 

PO2, 125.1 million train-km in PO3 and 162.5 million train-km in PO4 relative to the baseline.  

114  The monetary value of the benefits from additional capacity is estimated in an indirect way by estimating 
hypothetical costs savings for the operators of rail services resulting from the improvement in operational 
conditions accompanying a lower utilisation of capacity (higher stability of timetable, less delays etc.). 
These cost savings were considered to be a proxy for the value of additional capacity. See Annex 4 for a 
more detailed description of the estimation approach.  

EN 

46 

EN 

 
  
                                                                                                                                                                               
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

All  policy  options  reduce  the  negative  effects  of  TCRs  by  improving  the  planning, 
implementation and cross-border coordination of infrastructure works. They also increase 
rail’s  reliability.  RUs  will  benefit  directly  from  these  improvements.  It  is  expected  that 
the effects will be passed on to their customers (logistics operators, travel agencies, etc.), 
to consumers and businesses using rail transport. It was however not possible to quantify 
these effects115. 

Net costs/benefits for RUs. Overall, considering the costs, costs savings and other direct 
benefits  for  the  RUs,  all  policy  options  are  estimated  to  result  in  net  benefits  for  RUs, 
expressed as present  value over 2025-2050 (relative to  the baseline). PO4 would lead to 
the highest net benefits  (EUR 3 529.5 million), followed by PO3 (EUR 3 281.4 million), 
PO2 (EUR 2 468.4 million) and PO1 (EUR 29.6 million).   

6.1.2.  Impacts on infrastructure managers 

All  policy  options  are  expected  to  lead  to  adjustment  costs  for  infrastructure  managers, 
while  PO1  would  also  result  in  administrative  costs,  and  PO3  and  PO4  in  additional 
enforcement  costs  relative  to  the  baseline.  At  the  same  time,  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  would 
also result in adjustment and administrative costs savings for infrastructure managers116.  

Administrative  costs  for  infrastructure  managers.  PO1  is  expected  to  result  in 
recurrent administrative costs of EUR 1.3 million relative to the baseline in 2030 and 2050 
due to the introduction of a mandatory and harmonised set of performance indicators for 
rail freight corridors (PM7), which would go beyond the current performance monitoring 
carried  out  by  the  management  boards  (see  Table  5  and  Table  6).  Expressed  as  present 
value over 2025-2050, the administrative costs for PO1 are estimated at EUR 23.9 million 
relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices).  

115  Analysing  the  effects  of  planned  works  was  a  major  challenge  due  their  large  number,  the  lack  of 
systematic  information  about  restrictions  from  infrastructure  works  at  EU  level,  and  limited  analytical 
capabilities  of  infrastructure  managers  in  relation  to  the  impacts  of  such  restrictions  on  cancelled  and 
rerouted trains. Some of the key practical challenges include: (1) Infrastructure managers communicate 
legally  required  information  on  capacity  restrictions  in  various  formats,  ranging  from  generic  IT 
platforms  to  spreadsheets  and  emails.  Systematic  evidence  on  the  volume  and  impacts  of  capacity 
restrictions could not be provided on this basis. (2) Infrastructure managers claim that they cannot assess 
the impacts of capacity restrictions. Infrastructure managers do not systematically offer alternative train 
paths  to  railway  undertakings  in  the  event  of  unforeseen  capacity  restrictions,  i.e.  they  simply  cancel 
train paths affected without replacement.  Railway undertakings therefore request alternative train paths 
themselves.  As  a  consequence,  infrastructure  managers  cannot  link  the  initial  train  run  to  the  new  one 
without  further,  manual  analysis.  EU  legislation  on  technical  aspects  of  rail  defines  the  concept  of  a 
unique  identifier  for  each  individual  train  service  (the  so-called  ‘Train  ID’),  which  would  allow  to 
establish  this  link  in  an  automated  manner,  thereby  enabling  an  analysis  of  the  impacts  of  capacity 
restrictions in terms of additional distance, travel time, cancellations etc. However, the concept has not 
been implemented so far. Due to the limited amount of information available, the impacts of the policy 
options on capacity restrictions due to planned infrastructure works could only be estimated indirectly, as 
part  of  the  estimate  about  additional  capacity  generated  by  the  initiative.  The  estimation  approach  is 
outlined  in  section  4.1.1  of  Annex  4  (in  particular  steps  2  and  3,  4  and  5  of  the  methodological 
description).  The  effect  of  the  measures  is  adjusted  for  the  different  policy  options  by  applying  a 
resistance  factor  to  reflect  the  reduction  in  the  effectiveness  of  the  measures  with  the  reduced 
centralisation  of  the  coordination.  These  adjustments  include  also  the  reduction  in  the  effectiveness  of 
the policy measures on coordination of works. 

116  A  detailed  analysis  including  the  estimates  and  the  assumptions  used  for  deriving  the  costs  and  costs 
savings for each policy measure, by Member State where relevant, is provided in Annex 4 (section 3). 

EN 

47 

EN 

 
                                                           
Adjustment  costs  for  infrastructure  managers.  Infrastructure  managers  are  the 
stakeholder group which is estimated to bear the highest share of total adjustment costs in 
PO2, PO3 and PO4, while in PO1 RUs would bear the highest share of adjustment costs. 
PO1  would  result  in  EUR 59.1  million  one-off  costs,  and  recurrent  costs  of  EUR 2.3 
million in 2030 and EUR 0.2 million in 2050 relative to the baseline. Of these, the highest 
one-off and recurrent adjustment costs (EUR 58.8 million one-off costs and recurrent costs 
of  EUR 2.2  million  in  2030  and  EUR 0.1  million  in  2050  relative  to  the  baseline)  are 
associated  to  digital  tools  to  ensure  RUs  compliance  with  the  IM  systems  providing 
capacity-related services (PM24), while the introduction of  binding rules  and procedures 
for  coordination  of  traffic  management  (PM17)  would  lead  to  EUR 0.3  million  one-off 
costs and EUR 0.1 million recurrent costs in 2030 and 2050 relative to the baseline (see 
Table 5 and Table 6). 

PO2, PO3 and PO4 are estimated to lead to significantly higher adjustment costs than PO1 
due to the change to the network-based approach to the coordination of rail capacity and 
traffic management. These three policy options include few common measures that lead to 
adjustment  costs  for  IMs  and  are  related  to  the  introduction  of:  (i)  strategic  capacity 
management and new allocation procedures (PM3, PM4 and PM5), (ii) procedures in case 
of  disruption/non-availability  (PM6),  (iii)  a  high-level  advisory/coordination  platform  at 
European level (PM16), (iv) an EU framework for the coordination of traffic management 
and terminal operations (PM17), (v) digital tools to ensure RUs compliance with the IM 
systems (PM24), and (vi) digitalisation and automation of capacity management (PM25). 
The  common  measures  are  estimated  to  lead  to  one-off  adjustment  costs  of  EUR 677.4 
million,  and recurrent  costs of  EUR 48.5 million  in  2030 and  EUR 27.2  million  in  2050 
relative to the baseline (see Table 5 and Table 6). Of these common measures, the highest 
share  of  costs  relates  to  the  measure  on  the  digitalisation  and  automation  of  capacity 
management (PM25). In addition, in PO2 the introduction of transport market monitoring 
by  IMs  (PM18-1)  would  add  one-off  adjustment  costs  of  EUR 4.2  million  and  recurrent 
costs of EUR 1.8 million in 2030 and 2050 relative to the baseline. Thus, PO2 is estimated 
to  result  in  total  one-off  adjustment  costs  of  EUR 681.6  million  and  recurrent  costs  of 
EUR 50.2 million in 2030 and EUR 29.2 million in 2050 relative to the baseline. 

PO3 and PO4 also include costs related to the ENIM plus the Network Coordinator, which 
will  assist  IMs  at  EU  level  in  the  planning  and  management  of  capacity.  Some  of  these 
costs differ between PO3 and PO4, as the Network Coordinator performs different tasks in 
each option. More specifically, in addition to the common measures included in PO2, PO3 
and  PO4,  both  PO3  and  PO4  include  adjustment  costs  for  the  introduction  of  a 
performance review body (PM10), for the monitoring function at EU level (PM11) and the 
transport  market  monitoring  by  ENIM  (PM18-2).  These  three  measures  are  estimated  to 
lead together to one-off adjustment costs of EUR 4 million and recurrent costs of EUR 4.1 
million in 2030 and 2050 relative to the baseline, of which the highest share of the costs is 
attributed  to  the  transport  market  monitoring  by  ENIM  (PM18-2).  In  addition,  PO3 
accounts  for  the  preparation  of  the  network  statement  by  the  EU  Network  Coordinator 
(PM20-1) and the support function for cross-border coordination of capacity management 
at  EU  level  (PM21),  that  are  estimated  to  add  recurrent  costs  of  EUR 5  million  in  2030 
and EUR 6.5 million in 2050 relative to the baseline. In total, PO3 is estimated to result in 
one-off adjustment costs of EUR 681.4 million and recurrent costs of EUR 57.5 million in 
2030 and EUR 38.1 million in 2050 relative to the baseline (see Table 5 and Table 6). 

PO4 additionally accounts for the introduction of the EU performance scheme (PM13), it 
entrusts an entity at European level (PM20-2) with the competence to take final decisions 

EN 

48 

EN 

 
as  regards  the  strategic  capacity  management  phase  and  the  allocation  of  capacity  for 
cross-border  services  (PM22)  and  introduces  an  EU  ‘crisis  management  cell’  (PM23). 
These  measures  together  are  estimated  to  result  in  one-off  adjustment  costs  of  EUR 2.5 
million  and  recurrent  costs  of  EUR 15.7  million  in  2030  and  EUR 20.3  million  in  2050 
relative to the baseline, of which the highest share of the costs is attributed to the strategic 
capacity  management  phase  and  the  allocation  of  capacity  for  cross-border  services 
(PM22). They add to those of the common measures included in PO3 and PO4. Overall, 
PO4  is  estimated  to  lead  to  total  one-off  adjustment  costs  of  EUR 683.9  million  and 
recurrent costs of EUR 68.2 million in 2030 and EUR 51.8 million in 2050 relative to the 
baseline (see Table 5 and Table 6). 

Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  relative  to  the  baseline,  PO4  is  expected  to 
result  in  the  highest  total  adjustment  costs  among  the  policy  options  (EUR 1 812.8 
million,  of  which  EUR 683.9  million  one-off  costs),  followed  by  PO3  (EUR 1 596.5 
million, of which EUR 681.4 million one-off costs), PO2 (EUR 1 452.8 million, of which 
EUR 681.6 million one-off costs) and PO1 (EUR 81.6 million, of which EUR 59.1 million 
one-off costs). The largest share of the costs in PO1 (97% of the total adjustment costs) is 
associated to digital tools to ensure RUs compliance with the IM systems (PM24). In PO2, 
PO3  and  PO4  the  largest  share  of  the  costs  can  be  attributed  to  the  digitalisation  and 
automation  of  capacity  management  (49%  of  the  total  adjustment  costs  in  PO2,  45%  in 
PO3 and 39% in PO4), followed by the strategic capacity management and new allocation 
procedures  which  involve  considerable  organisational  changes  (21%  of  the  total 
adjustment  costs  in  PO2,  19%  in  PO3  and  17%  in  PO4),  the  introduction  of  an  EU 
framework  for  coordination  of  traffic  management  and  terminal  operations  (16%  of  the 
total  adjustment costs in PO2, 15% in  PO3 and 13% in  PO4), and the strategic capacity 
management  phase  and  the  allocation  of  capacity  for  cross-border  services  (14%  of  the 
total adjustment costs in PO4). 

Table 5: Recurrent costs and costs savings for IMs in the POs relative to the baseline scenario (EU27), 
in million EUR (2021 prices) in 2030 and 2050 

Difference to the baseline 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

Administrative costs  

PM7 Monitoring performance & satisfaction RFC 

Adjustment costs  

PM3 & PM4 & PM5 Strategic capacity management, 
new allocation procedures 
PM6 Procedures disruption / non-availability 
PM10 Performance review body 
PM11 Monitoring function at EU level 
PM13 EU performance scheme 
PM15 Binding rules & procedures for coordination of 
traffic management 
PM16 High-level advisory/coordination platform at 
European level  
PM17 EU framework coordination traffic 
management & terminal operations 
PM18-1 Transport market monitoring by IMs 
PM18-2 Transport market monitoring by ENIM 
PM20-1 Empower the European Network of 
Infrastructure Managers 

203
0 
1.3 
1.3 
2.3 

203
0 
0.0 

205
0 
0.0 

203
0 
0.0 

205
0 
0.0 

205
0 
1.3 
1.3    
0.2  50.2  29.2  57.5  38.1  68.2  51.8 
13.5  13.5  13.5  13.5  13.5  13.5 

205
0 
0.0 

203
0 
0.0 

3.4 

3.4 

0.1 

0.1    

3.4 

3.4 

3.4 

3.4 
0.01  0.01  0.01  0.01 
2.0 
0.2 

2.0 
0.2 

2.0 

2.0 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

9.5 

9.5 

9.5 

9.5 

9.5 

9.5 

1.8 

1.8    

2.1 
0.2 

2.1 
0.2    

2.1 

2.1 

EN 

49 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
PM20-2 Designate and/or empower an entity at EU 
level 
PM21 Support function for cross-border coordination 
of capacity management at EU level 
PM22 Strategic capacity management for TEN-T at 
EU level 
PM23 EU traffic management support function 
PM24 IT Legal requirements digital data provision & 
exchange (TAF TSI, RINF) 
PM25 Digitalisation and automation of capacity 
management 

Enforcement costs  

PM11 Monitoring function at EU level 

Administrative costs savings  

PM2-1 Harmonised legal framework for railway 
capacity and traffic management 

Difference to the baseline 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

203
0 

205
0 

203
0 

205
0 

203
0 

205
0 

203
0 
0.3 

205
0 
0.3 

4.8 

6.3    

2.2 

0.1 

2.2 

0.1 

2.2 

0.1 

12.3  16.9 

2.8 
2.2 

2.8 
0.1 

19.8 

0.9  19.8 

0.9  19.8 

0.9 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.4 
0.4 

0.4 
0.4 

0.7 
0.7 
0.4 
0.4 

0.7 
0.7 
0.4 
0.4 

0.7 
0.7 
0.4 
0.4 

0.7 
0.7 
0.4 
0.4 

0.0  23.8  31.4  23.9  31.8  24.0  32.5 
3.6 
3.6 

3.6 

3.6 

3.6 

3.6 

Adjustment costs savings  

0.0 

PM2-1 Harmonised legal framework for railway 
capacity and traffic management 
PM4 Reduction train path requests 

20.2  27.8  20.3  28.1  20.4  28.9 
1.5  50.2  29.2  58.2  38.8  68.9  52.5 
Total costs 
0.0  24.3  31.9  24.4  32.2  24.4  32.9 
Total costs savings 
6.6  44.5  19.6 
1.5  25.9 
Total net costs/costs savings 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study. Note: excluding one-off adjustment costs; for 
the category ‘total net costs/costs savings’ a positive value stands for net costs and a negative value for net 
benefits.  

3.6 
0.0 
3.6 

-2.6  33.9 

Table  6:  One-off  adjustment  costs  for  IMs  in  the  POs  relative  to  the  baseline  scenario  (EU27),  in 
million EUR (2021 prices) in 2030 and 2050 
One-off costs 

Difference to the baseline 

One-off adjustment costs  

PM3 & PM4 & PM5 Strategic capacity management, new 
allocation procedures 
PM6 Procedures disruption / non-availability 
PM13 EU performance scheme 
PM15 Binding rules & procedures for coordination of traffic 
management 
PM17 EU framework coordination traffic management & 
terminal operations 
PM18-1 Transport market monitoring by IMs 
PM18-2 Transport market monitoring by ENIM 
PM24 IT Legal requirements digital data provision & exchange 
(TAF TSI, RINF) 
PM25 Digitalisation and automation of capacity management 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

PO1 

59.1 

PO2 
681.6 
67.7 

PO3 
681.4 
67.7 

PO4 
683.9 
67.7 

16.9 

16.9 

16.9 
2.5 

0.3    

5.0 

5.0 

5.0 

4.2    

58.8 

58.8 

4.0 
58.8 

4.0 
58.8 

529.0 

529.0 

529.0 

Enforcement  costs  for  infrastructure  managers.  In  PO3  and  PO4,  the  introduction  of 
the monitoring function at EU level (PM11) is estimated to lead to recurrent enforcement 
costs for infrastructure managers, estimated at EUR 0.7 million in 2030 and 2050 relative 

EN 

50 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
to the baseline. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, the enforcement costs for PO3 
and PO4 are estimated at EUR 12.5 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices).  

Administrative  costs  savings  for  infrastructure  managers.  The  introduction  of  a 
harmonised  legal  framework  for  railway  capacity  and  traffic  management  and  the 
abolition of the rail freight corridors (PM2-1) in PO2, PO3 and PO4 is expected to lead to 
administrative  costs  savings  of  EUR 0.4  million  from  2025  onwards  relative  to  the 
baseline  (i.e.  EUR 17 836  per  year  on  average  per  infrastructure  manager117).  These 
savings  come  from  removing  the  obligations  to  collect  and  publish  the  information 
contained in the network statement for national networks regarding the freight corridor, to 
produce  customer  satisfaction  surveys  and  to  monitor  the  performance  of  rail  freight 
services on the freight corridors and publish the survey and monitoring results. The policy 
measure  will  also  remove  the  need  for  management  boards  to  publish  annual  reports, 
important  and  informative  documents,  which  was  undertaken  on  the  boards’  own 
initiative.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  total  administrative  costs 
savings  for  infrastructure  managers  are  estimated  at  EUR 8.2  million  relative  to  the 
baseline (in 2021 prices). 

Adjustment  costs  savings  for  infrastructure  managers.  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  are  also 
expected  to  result  in  adjustment  cost  savings  from  the  harmonised  legal  framework  for 
railway  capacity  and  traffic  management  and  the  abolition  of  the  rail  freight  corridors 
(PM2-1) and from the reduction in the train path requests resulting from the new approach 
for  capacity  and  traffic  management  (PM4).  The  transition  from  corridor-based  to  a 
network-based  approach  and  the  abolition  of  the  rail  freight  corridors  results  in  cost 
savings related to the governance and operation of the rail freight corridors (including the 
one-stop  shops)  and  all  the  activities  carried  out  by  the  management  boards  related  to 
capacity and traffic management. Thus, PM2-1 would lead to adjustment costs savings for 
infrastructure  managers  of  EUR 3.6  million  per  year  relative  to  the  baseline  from  2025 
onwards.  In  addition,  PM4  is  estimated  to  reduce  costs  in  PO2  by  EUR 20.2  million  in 
2030 and EUR 27.8 million in 2050 relative to the baseline, in PO3 by EUR 20.3 million 
in  2030  and  EUR 28.1  million  in  2050  and  in  PO4  by  EUR 20.4  million  in  2030  and 
EUR 28.9  million  in  2050118.  By  making  the  capacity  management  process  more  stable, 
both IMs and RUs (as explained in section 6.1.1) would reduce wasted efforts for repeated 
changes to  the timetable, as RUs would  be able  to  request  and  get  high  quality capacity 
closer  to  the  time  of  the  train  run  and  IMs  would  be  incentivised  to  limit  changes  to 
allocated  train  paths.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  adjustment  costs 
savings  for  infrastructure  managers  are  estimated  to  be  the  highest  in  PO4  (EUR 490.5 
million),  followed  by  PO3  (EUR 485.3  million)  and  PO2  (EUR 481.9  million).  Around 
86% of the total adjustment costs savings are associated to the reduction in the train path 
requests.  

Net  costs  for  infrastructure  managers.  Overall,  net  recurrent  costs  for  infrastructure 

117  As  explained  in  Annex  4,  estimations  about  costs  and  cost  savings  for  infrastructure  managers  and 
allocation bodies are made on the basis of the (simplifying) assumption that there is one infrastructure 
manager / allocation body per Member State with a rail system. This results in a total of 25 infrastructure 
managers / allocation bodies: EU27 without Cyprus and Malta, which do not have a rail system. 

118  The  difference  in  the  costs  savings  between  the  options  is  due  to  the  different  rail  traffic  projected  in 
PO2, PO3 and PO4, which drives the needs for allocated train paths, and thus to higher costs savings due 
to greater stability of allocated paths in options with higher traffic. PO4 leads to the highest increase in 
rail traffic among the policy options relative to the baseline and therefore to the highest estimated costs 
savings due to the greater stability of allocated paths. 

EN 

51 

EN 

 
                                                           
managers are estimated to be the highest in PO4 (EUR 44.5 million in 2030 and EUR 19.6 
million in 2050 relative to the baseline), followed by PO3 (EUR 33.9 million in 2030 and 
EUR 6.6 million  in  2050). PO2 would result in  net  recurrent  costs of  EUR 25.9 in  2030 
and net recurrent costs savings of EUR 2.6 in 2050 relative to the baseline, and PO1 in net 
recurrent costs of EUR 3.6 million in 2030 and EUR 1.5 million in 2050. These come in 
addition to the one-off costs estimated at EUR 683.9 million in PO4, EUR 681.4 million 
in PO3, EUR 681.6 million in PO2 and EUR 59.1 million for PO1. Expressed as present 
value over 2025-2050 (relative to the baseline) all policy options are estimated to lead to 
net  costs  for  infrastructure  managers.  The  highest  net  costs  are  estimated  for  PO4 
(EUR 1 326.5  million),  followed  by  PO3  (EUR 1 115.5  million),  PO2  (EUR 962.6 
million) and PO1 (EUR 105.5 million).  

Other direct benefits for infrastructure managers. The additional traffic is expected to 
benefit  mostly  RUs.  Other  direct  benefits  for  IMs  were  not  possible  to  estimate  for  two 
reasons. Firstly, the principles laid down in the Recast Directive119 envisage that charges 
for the use of rail infrastructure should cover the cost that is directly incurred as a result of 
operating a train service. Additional traffic will therefore result in increase in revenue, but 
they may cover only the marginal costs and would not change considerably the financial 
situation of IMs. Secondly, as an exception and under certain conditions, mark-ups can be 
charged  to  obtain  full  recovery  of  the  costs  incurred  by  the  IMs,  but  it  is  difficult  to 
assume how IMs will structure the charges in the future. Hence, assessing the contribution 
of  additional  traffic  to  improving  the  financial  situation  of  IMs  would  be  speculative120. 
Improvements  in  punctuality  from  the  policy  measures  were  also  estimated  only  as 
benefits for RUs, even though they could have limited benefits for IMs through additional 
traffic and optimised use of resources. As IMs are expected to contribute to the increase of 
rail  traffic  and  to  decarbonisation  of  transport,  the  direct  benefits  are  de  facto 
implementation  of  their  legal  obligation  to  ‘ensure  optimal  and  efficient  use’  of  rail 
infrastructure121.  

6.1.3.  Impacts on public authorities, including regulatory bodies 

This section discusses the impacts of the policy options on the national public authorities, 
the  European  Commission  and  EU  funding.  National  public  authorities  include  both 
Member States’ bodies responsible for  rail policy  and its implementation and regulatory 
bodies for the railway sector. 

Impacts on national public authorities 

PO3  and  PO4  are  expected  to  lead  to  adjustment  costs  for  national  public  authorities, 
while PO2, PO3 and PO4 would result in enforcement costs. At the same time, PO2, PO3 
and  PO4  would  also  result  in  adjustment  and  administrative  costs  savings  for  national 
public authorities122.  

Adjustment costs for national public authorities. In PO3 and PO4, the costs related to 

119 See Articles 31 and 32 of Directive 2012/34/EU. 
120  IMs  may  benefit  from  additional  revenues  in  case  the  infrastructure  charging  systems  involves  a 
significant share of mark-ups on the direct cost incurred, in line with Article 32 of Directive 2012/34. 

121 See Article 8(3) of Directive 2012/34/EU. 
122  A  detailed  analysis  including  the  estimates  and  the  assumptions  used  for  deriving  the  costs  and  costs 

savings for each policy measure is provided in Annex 4 (section 3). 

EN 

52 

EN 

 
                                                           
the secretariat of the EU Board of Regulators (PM19)123, which will prepare the opinions, 
guidelines,  reports,  recommendations,  common  positions  and  identify  the  best  practices 
and  organise  the  work  of  national  regulatory  bodies  in  working  groups,  is  estimated  at 
EUR 0.3 million per year from 2025 onwards relative to the baseline. In addition, in PO4 
the introduction of the  EU performance scheme (PM13)  would require an  assessment of 
the  compliance  of  national  performance  schemes  with  the  European  one  leading  to 
recurrent costs estimated at EUR 0.1 million from 2025 onwards (see Table 7). Expressed 
as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  PO3  is  estimated  to  result  in  adjustment  costs  of 
EUR 5.9 million and PO4 to costs of EUR 8.2 million, relative to the baseline. 

Enforcement costs for national public authorities. PO2, PO3 and PO4 are expected to 
result  in  enforcement  costs  for  national  public  authorities  relative  to  the  baseline.  The 
introduction  of  the  strategic  capacity  management  and  new  allocation  procedures  (PM3, 
PM4  and  PM5),  common  to  the  three  policy  options,  is  expected  to  lead  to  costs  for 
regulatory bodies for scrutinising the strategic planning (EUR 3.4 million one-off costs in 
2025, followed by recurrent  costs of  EUR 0.7 million  relative to  the baseline from  2026 
onwards).  The  introduction  of  procedures  in  case  of  disruption/non-availability  (PM6), 
also common to the three options, is expected to add one-off costs of EUR 0.8 million in 
2025 and recurrent costs estimated at EUR 0.2 million from 2026 onwards. Overall, PO2 
would result in one-off costs of EUR 4.2 million in 2025 and recurrent costs estimated at 
EUR 0.8 million from 2026 onwards (see Table 7). 

PO3 and PO4 result in additional enforcement costs for regulatory bodies relative to PO2, 
related  to  the  additional functions  allocated  to  European  Network  of  Regulatory  Bodies. 
These tasks are mainly related to the control and monitoring of the European Network of 
Infrastructure  Managers.  More  specifically,  relative  to  PO2,  PO3  provides  for  an 
escalation  mechanism  to  resolve  disputes  at  EU  level  or  relating  to  cross-border  traffic 
(PM21),  estimated  to  lead  to  recurrent  costs  of  EUR 0.2  million  in  2030  and  EUR 0.3 
million in 2050. Thus, PO3 would result in total one-off costs of EUR 4.2 million in 2025 
and recurrent  costs of  EUR 1.1 million  in  2030 and  EUR 1.2 million  in  2050 relative to 
the baseline (see Table 7).  

Costs  between  PO3  and  PO4  differ  due  to  the  different  approach  to  strategic  capacity 
management.  PO3  (in  particular  PM21)  envisages  a  more  decentralised  approach  for 
strategic capacity planning, which would allow some part of the oversight to be carried out 
by national bodies in cooperation with each other. PO4 requires more work to be done at 
EU level, with additional resources needed, and comes at higher cost estimated at one-off 
costs  of  EUR 4.2  million  in  2025  and  recurrent  costs  of  EUR 1.7  million  in  2030  and 
EUR 1.9  million  in  2050  relative  to  the  baseline  (see  Table  7).  The  two  measures  that 
bring  additional costs in PO4 relate to  the  competence to  take final  decisions as regards 
the  strategic  capacity  management  phase  and  the  allocation  of  capacity  for  cross-border 
services  (PM22)  and  the  responsibility  to  review  the  effectiveness  of  the  multi-annual 
agreements concluded at national level (PM12). 

Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  enforcement  costs  for  national  public 
authorities are estimated  to  be the highest  in  PO4 (EUR 37.6 million), followed by PO3 
(EUR 25.1 million) and PO2 (EUR 20.2 million). Around 75% of the enforcement costs in 
PO2, 60% in PO3 and 40% in PO4 are associated to the introduction of strategic capacity 
management  and  new  allocation  procedures  (PM3,  PM4  and  PM5).  The  introduction  of 

123  This will act as a virtual body and no costs for offices are foreseen. 

EN 

53 

EN 

 
                                                           
procedures  in  case  of  disruption/non-availability  (PM6)  would  represent  around  25%  of 
the enforcement costs in PO2, 20% in PO3 and 13% in PO4, while the competence to take 
final  decisions  as  regards  the  strategic  capacity  management  phase  and  the  allocation  of 
capacity  for  cross-border  services  (PM22)  is  estimated  to  provide  around  34%  of  the 
enforcement costs in PO4. 

Adjustment  costs  savings  for  national  public  authorities.  In  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  the 
harmonised  legal  framework  for  railway  capacity  and  traffic  management  and  the 
abolition  of  the  rail  freight  corridors  (PM2-1)  is  expected  to  lead  to  adjustment  costs 
savings estimated at EUR 0.4 million per year from 2025 onwards relative to the baseline 
(see Table 7). These cost savings would result mostly from terminating the participation in 
the  executive  boards,  which  includes  direct  labour  costs  but  also  overheads  (i.e.  travel 
costs for an average of 2 meetings per year per RFC) for the Member States participating 
in  the  corridors124.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  adjustment  costs 
savings for national public authorities are estimated at EUR 6.8 million in PO2, PO3 and 
PO4.  

Administrative  costs  savings  for  national  public  authorities.  The  introduction  of  a 
harmonised  legal  framework  for  railway  capacity  and  traffic  management  and  the 
abolition of the rail freight corridors (PM2-1) in PO2, PO3 and PO4 is expected to lead to 
administrative  costs  savings  of  EUR 0.1  million  from  2025  onwards  relative  to  the 
baseline  (see  Table  7).  These  costs  savings  would  result  from  the  abolishment  of  the 
biennial reports of the executive boards of the RFCs125. Expressed as present value over 
2025-2050, the total  administrative costs savings in PO2, PO3 and PO4 are estimated at 
EUR 2.6 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices). 

Table  7:  Recurrent  costs  and  costs  savings  for  public  authorities  in  the  POs  relative  to  the  baseline 
scenario (EU27), in million EUR (2021 prices) in 2030 and 2050 

Difference to the baseline 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

Adjustment costs  

PM13 EU performance scheme 
PM19 Creating a EU Board of Regulators 
supported by a secretariat 

Enforcement costs  

PM3 & PM4 & PM5 Strategic capacity 
management, new allocation procedures 
PM6 Procedures disruption / non-availability    
PM12 RB review of MS/IM agreements 
PM21 Support function for cross-border 
coordination of capacity management at EU 
level 
PM22 Strategic capacity management for 
TEN-T at EU level 

0.0 

0.0 

2030  2050  2030  2050  2030  2050  2030  2050 
0.4 
0.1 
0.3 

0.4 
0.1 
0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.3 

0.3 

0.3 

0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.8 
0.7 

0.8 
0.7 

1.1 
0.7 

1.2 
0.7 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.3    

1.7 
0.7 

0.2 
0.3 

1.9 
0.7 

0.2 
0.3 

0.6 

0.8 

Adjustment costs savings 

0.0 

0.0 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

124  Ireland,  Cyprus,  Malta  and  Finland  do  not  participate  in  the  governance  of  any  rail  freight  corridor. 

Some Member States participate in several corridors. 

125 The cost estimates are based on the Decision authorising the use of lump sum contributions for technical 
assistance under the Connecting Europe Facility – Transport sector, of 13 December 2021. The Decision 
provides  the  estimated  costs  for  these  reports  for  2021-2024.  The  costs  of  the  reports  are  assumed  to 
remain constant over time in 2021 prices in the baseline scenario.  

EN 

54 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                           
PM2-1 Harmonised legal framework for 
railway capacity and traffic management 

Difference to the baseline 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

2030  2050  2030  2050  2030  2050  2030  2050 
0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

Administrative costs savings  

0.0 

0.0 

PM2-1 Harmonised legal framework for 
railway capacity and traffic management 

0.1 
0.1 

0.1 
0.1 

0.1 
0.1 

0.1 
0.1 

0.1 
0.1 

0.1 
0.1 

0.0 
Total costs 
0.0 
Total costs savings 
0.0 
Total net costs 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study. Note: excluding one-off adjustment costs.  

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

0.8 
0.5 
0.3 

1.4 
0.5 
0.9 

0.8 
0.5 
0.3 

1.5 
0.5 
1.0 

2.2 
0.5 
1.7 

2.4 
0.5 
1.9 

Net costs for national public authorities. Overall, net recurrent costs for national public 
authorities (see Table 7) are estimated to be the highest in PO4 (EUR 1.7 million in 2030 
and EUR 1.9 million in 2050 relative to the baseline), followed by PO3 (EUR 0.9 million 
in  2030  and  EUR 1  million  in  2050)  and  PO2  (EUR 0.3  million  in  2030  and  in  2050). 
These  come  in  addition  to  the  one-off  costs  of  EUR 4.2  million  in  all  three  options. 
Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  (relative  to  the  baseline)  PO4  results  in  net 
costs  for  national  public  authorities  of  EUR 36.4  million,  followed  by  PO3  (EUR 21.7 
million) and PO2 (EUR 10.9 million).   

Impacts on the European Commission and the use of EU funds 

PO3  and  PO4  are  expected  to  lead  to  adjustment  costs  for  the  European  Commission, 
while PO2, PO3 and PO4 would also result in adjustment costs savings due to a reduction 
in the use of EU funds126.  

Adjustment  costs  for  the  European  Commission.  PO3  and  PO4  result  in  adjustment 
costs  for  the  Commission  due  to  the  setting  up  of  a  performance  review  body  that  will 
advise the Commission on improving performance monitoring and related methodological 
issues. The adjustment costs for the expert body are estimated on the basis of the existing 
Performance Review Body of the single European sky127. The Union budget provides for a 
special  allowance  of  a  maximum  of  EUR 600  in  the  form  of  a  daily  unit  cost  for  each 
working day for the members of the Performance Review Body. The adjustment costs for 
the European Commission are estimated at EUR 0.1 million per year from 2025 onwards 
relative to the baseline. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, the total adjustment 
costs are estimated at EUR 1.8 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices). 

Adjustment cost savings due to a reduction in the use of EU funds. PO2, PO3 and PO4 
are expected to result in adjustment costs savings due to the introduction of a harmonised 
legal  framework  for  railway  capacity  and  traffic  management  and  the  abolition  of  the 
RFCs (PM2-1). Part of the costs related to the governance and operation of the rail freight 
corridors,  overheads  (including  for  IT)  and  cost  of  external  services  (transport  market 
studies,  some  external  services  provided  by  RNE,  etc.)  are  eligible  for  EU  funding. 
According  to  the  evaluation  of  the  RFC  Regulation,  the  EU  funding  is  estimated  at 
EUR 6.3 million per year (in 2021 prices) and it is assumed to remain constant over time 
in real prices in the baseline. PM2-1 would thus result in adjustment costs savings for the 

126  A  detailed  analysis  including  the  estimates  and  the  assumptions  used  for  deriving  the  costs  and  costs 

savings for each policy measure is provided in Annex 4 (section 3). 

127 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2296 (OJ L 344, 17.12.2016, p. 92). 

EN 

55 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
                                                           
EU estimated at EUR 6.3 million per year. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, the 
adjustment costs savings are estimated at EUR 116.7 million (in 2021 prices). However, it 
can  be  expected  that  the  EU  will  continue  to  provide  some  form  of  support  for 
implementing the policy measures resulting from this initiative and the costs savings could 
be cancelled by future funding. At this stage it is not possible to estimate the amount of a 
possible future EU budget contribution. 

6.1.4.  Impacts on other stakeholders 

Terminal operators 

Estimating the costs/cost savings and other benefits for terminal operators is complicated 
due to the large divergence in their size, the transport markets served, the organisation of 
operations and their business models. Therefore, due to these caveats, the estimated costs 
for terminal operators should be regarded as order of magnitude. PO1 is expected to lead 
to  administrative  costs  for  terminal  operators,  while  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  to  adjustment 
costs128.  

Administrative  costs  for  terminal  operators.  PO1  is  estimated  to  result  in  limited 
administrative costs for terminal operators, estimated at EUR 0.1 million in 2030 and 2050 
relative  to  the  baseline,  driven  by  the  strengthened  monitoring  of  service  quality  and 
customer  satisfaction  on  the  freight  corridors  (PM7).  Expressed  as  present  value  over 
2025-2050, the administrative costs for PO1 are estimated at  EUR 2.4 million relative to 
the baseline (in 2021 prices).  

Adjustment costs for terminal operators. In PO2, PO3 and PO4 the EU framework for 
coordination of traffic management and terminal operations (PM17), which involves rules, 
procedures and tools for coordination of train and terminal operations, is estimated to lead 
to  one-off  costs  of  EUR 0.5  million  in  2025,  followed  by  recurrent  adjustment  costs 
estimated at EUR 0.9 million from 2026 onwards. Expressed as present value over 2025-
2050,  total  adjustment  costs  for  terminal  operators  are  estimated  at  EUR 17  million 
relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices). 

Other direct benefits. All policy options are expected to result in an increase of available 
capacity compared to the baseline. This  additional capacity translates into an increase in 
traffic (expressed in train-km) estimated at 0.2% in PO1, 2.2% in PO2, 4% in PO3 and 7% 
in  PO4  relative  to  the  baseline  in  2050129.  In  addition,  improvements  in  punctuality  are 
expected mostly for freight  trains.  Terminal  operators should benefit from  the additional 
traffic and improved punctuality. This should result in additional revenues and operational 
cost savings. However, as explained above, the complicated structure of the sector and the 
data gaps do not allow for a sound estimate of these benefits. 

Rail customers 

Similar  to  terminal  operators,  rail  customers  are  expected  to  benefit  from  the  additional 
capacity  in  all  policy  options.  Rail  customers  vary  from  citizens  and  various  businesses 
using  passenger  rail  to  specialised  transport  companies  (multimodal  operators,  logistics 
services providers, freight forwarders, transport organisers, etc.) and numerous businesses 

128  More details are provided in Annex 4 (section 3). 
129  For 2030, the increase in traffic is estimated at 0.2% in PO1, 1.7% in PO2, 2.7% in PO3 and 3.6% in 

PO4 relative to the baseline.  

EN 

56 

EN 

 
                                                           
using or planning to use freight transport in  general. All of them are expected to benefit 
from  the  additional  rail  capacity  and  operational  improvements.  Estimating  and 
monetising  such  impacts  is  complicated  by  the  large  number  of  rail  users,  their  very 
different profiles (including the value of rail services for them) and the lack of information 
on  how  costs  savings  could  be  passed  on  to  rail  customers.  Therefore,  these  economic 
benefits are not estimated in this impact assessment and all the benefits from the increase 
in traffic and operational cost savings are assigned to RUs. 

6.1.5.  Impacts on SMEs 

SMEs in the rail sector include some RUs, in particular new entrants, as well as terminal 
operators and customers of rail transport services130. Therefore, the initiative is considered 
relevant for the SMEs and the SME test has been performed.  

Step (1) of SME test (identification of affected businesses). The exact number of SMEs 
among RUs, or their market share, could not be established as information on SMEs is not 
reported  separately  in  rail  market  statistics  by  Eurostat,  regulatory  bodies  or  sector 
associations.  Nevertheless,  information  available  about  the  market  share  of  new  entrant 
RUs and about their number suggests that a significant number of the new entrants in rail 
freight transport classify as SMEs131. In the freight transport, the average annual turnover 
of  non-incumbent  RUs  is  far  below  the  upper  threshold  for  an  SME  (EUR  50 million 
turnover) in the majority of Member States. Similarly, in passenger transport, the average 
annual  turnover  of  non-incumbent  RUs  is  below  the  threshold  of  EUR  50 million,  with 
only one exception in  Poland.  It  is  therefore safe to  assume that a significant  number of 
freight and passenger RUs are indeed SMEs. These aggregate statistical figures have been 
corroborated  by  a  few  samples  of  RUs,  for  which  staff  numbers  and  turnover  could  be 
found. 

The market share of the SMEs among RUs is likely to remain low in the baseline but in 
the  policy  options  (especially  in  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4)  new  entrants  could  provide  a 
significant  boost  to  competition  in  market  segments  where  incumbents  continue  to 
dominate. SMEs could be successful in market niches such as seasonal touristic trains or 
in remote regions132. 

Step (2) of SME test (consultation of SME stakeholders). SMEs constitute a significant 
share of the stakeholders involved in the consultation activities: 25 out of 75 respondents 
to  the  survey-questionnaire  in  the  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  were  submitted  by 
SMEs. In addition, approximately 15133 of the 47 stakeholder interviews were conducted 
with  representatives  of  SMEs.  The  specific  needs  and  challenges  for  SMEs  were  duly 
taken into account throughout the impact assessment; key issues are mentioned below. 

Step (3) of SME test (assessment of the impacts on SMEs). As shown in section 6.1.1, 
all policy options  are estimated to  result in  net  benefits  for RUs. PO4 would  lead to  the 

130  The  main  infrastructure  managers,  typically  in  charge  of  the  entire  network  of  strategic  importance 
within  a  Member  State,  are  far  beyond  the  thresholds  for  SME  with  staff  in  the  thousands  or  tens  of 
thousands.  Smaller  infrastructure  managers  are  typically  exempted  from  EU  market  regulation  on  the 
basis of Article 2 of Directive 2012/34/EU (‘Exclusions from the scope’). 

131  See section 9 of Annex 5 for more detailed information. 
132  However, due to network effects and economies of scale it is likely that successful passenger RUs will 

grow out of the SMEs category sooner or later. 

133  The exact number will be verified, as far as the availability of exact company data allows. 

EN 

57 

EN 

 
                                                           
highest  net  benefits  (EUR  3,529.5  million),  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050 
relative  to  the  baseline,  followed  by  PO3  (EUR  3,281.4  million),  PO2  (EUR  2,468.4 
million) and PO1 (EUR  29.6 million). It was not possible to separate in the analysis the 
net benefits for SMEs. It is however expected that a share of the net benefits will accrue to 
new  entrants  and  SMEs.  On  the  cost  side,  SMEs  will  have  to  make  investments  in  IT 
interfaces,  as  other  RUs.  However,  as  the  relevant  measure  includes  IT  interfaces 
standardized  at  European  level  (PM24)  and  the  right  to  interact  with  all  EU  IMs  via  a 
single  interface,  this  is  expected  to  be  particularly  beneficial  for  SMEs,  which  in  the 
current  situation  face  significant  disadvantages  vis-à-vis  larger  RUs  due  to  the  need  to 
deploy national or network-specific interfaces.  

Step (4) of SME test (minimizing negative impacts on SMEs). It should be noted that a 
key  issue  highlighted  by  respondents  in  the  stakeholder  consultation  is  the  difficulty  for 
small  RUs,  given  limited  resources,  to  actively  contribute  to  consultation  processes 
concerning strategic matters, i.e. of non-operational nature. PO2, PO3 and PO4 include a 
number of such processes, notably in the context of strategic capacity management (PM3), 
transport  market  analysis  (PM18-1,  PM18-2)  and  the  development  of  new  rules  and 
processes (PM2-1, PM2-2) or  IT tools (PM24,  PM25). PO2, PO3 and PO4 mitigate this 
challenge  to  a  certain  extent  by  replacing  the  corridor  approach  to  cross-border 
coordination  with  a  network  approach,  reducing  the  number  of  interfaces  (groups  and 
meetings)  between  RUs  and  IMs  at  EU  level.  Another  important  element  is  the 
cooperation  between  RUs,  which  can  nominate  representative  bodies  defending  the 
common  interests  vis-à-vis  infrastructure  managers  and/or  other  (groups)  of  RUs  in 
capacity management. In PO1 there is no significant change in the consultation processes 
concerning  strategic  matters  relative  to  the  baseline,  so  no  major  impacts  on  SMEs  are 
expected. 

6.1.6.  Impacts  on  the  internal  market,  competition  and  the  single  European 

railway area 

All policy options are expected to have a positive impact on the functioning of the internal 
market. Improving the planning and operations of rail infrastructure allows RUs to deliver 
better rail transport services for the benefit of freight customers and passengers throughout 
the Union. Better rail transport services are expected to have knock-on effects throughout 
the  entire  economy,  leveraging  the  initial  impact  on  the  transport  sector.  This  is  also 
expected  to  lead  to  positive  impacts  on  GDP,  which  is  estimated  to  increase  by  around 
0.1% in 2030 and 0.2% in 2050 in PO3 relative to the baseline (corresponding to EUR 7 
billion increase in 2030 and EUR 30 billion increase in 2050) and by around 0.1% in 2030 
and 0.3% in 2050 in PO4 (corresponding to EUR 8 billion increase in 2030 and EUR 47 
billion increase in  2050). PO1 and PO2 would lead to  more limited impacts  on GDP134. 
PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  will  result  in  a  higher  level  of  harmonisation  and  integration  of  rail 

134  In  relation  to  the  impacts  on  GDP  growth,  as  explained  in  Annex  4  (section  1),  the  ASTRA  model 
consists of several  modules, including an economic  module, a population and social structure  module, a 
foreign  trade  module,  a  transport  module,  a  vehicle  fleet  module  and  an  environment  module.  The 
economic  module  covers  various  elements  related  to  the  macro-economic  aspects:  supply  side,  demand 
side  (with  a  sophisticated  investment  module),  an  input-output  model  (based  on  25  economic  sectors), 
employment  and  government  budget.  GDP,  employment,  final  energy  consumption  and  investments  are 
among  the  main  outputs  provided  by  the  economic  module  of  ASTRA.  In  the  context  of  this  impact 
assessment,  for assessing the  impacts of the policy options on GDP, the results of the TRUST  model in 
terms of transport activity have been used as inputs in the ASTRA model. The impacts on GDP growth are 
a result of the ASTRA model. 

EN 

58 

EN 

 
                                                           
infrastructure  services,  than  PO1,  which  will  benefit  operators  developing  cross-border 
services,  thus  providing  opportunities  for  more  competition  and  contributing  to  a  single 
European railway area. In addition, PO3 and PO4 strengthen the role of regulatory bodies 
at European level, which will enable them to address counter-competitive practices. This 
will  help  to  create  a  single  European  market  for  rail  transport  services,  in  particular  for 
cross-border traffic. 

6.1.7.  Impacts on the competitiveness of the rail sector 

As explained in section 6.1.1, the biggest share of the additional adjustment costs for RUs 
compared to the baseline are related to digitalisation and the accelerated implementation 
of  the  mandatory  requirements  for  the  technical  specifications  for  interoperability  on 
telematics applications. On the other hand, all policy options and in particular PO2, PO3 
and PO4 will result in benefits for RUs (especially freight) due to the improved quality of 
capacity, punctuality and reliability, which will allow better utilisation of RUs’ resources 
(see  Table  4,  in  section  6.1.1).  Overall,  all  policy  options  are  estimated  to  result  in  net 
benefits for RUs (EUR 3 529.5 million in PO4, EUR 3 281.4 million in PO3, EUR 2 468.4 
million in PO2 and EUR 29.6 million in PO1, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 
relative to the baseline). Therefore, it can be concluded that all policy options are expected 
to  improve  the  competitiveness  of  RUs,  although  the  positive  impact  of  PO2,  PO3  and 
PO4 would be higher than that of PO1.  As regards the price-competitiveness of rail, the 
potential  for  RUs  to  pass  on  the  net  cost  savings  generated  by  the  measures  of  this 
initiative  to  their  customers,  in  particular  in  the  freight  segment,  may  create  positive 
knock-on effects in other, client industries such as the automotive sector or the chemical 
industry.  Naturally,  benefits  to  such  other  industries  would  also  benefit  the  sectoral 
competitiveness of EU companies at international level. 

IMs  will  bear  the  biggest  share  of  the  costs,  but  as  they  are  natural  monopolies,  no 
competitiveness issues arise. 

6.1.8.  Impacts on congestion costs for road transport 

The reduction in the road transport activity in PO2, PO3 and PO4, enabled by better rail 
transport services for the benefit of freight customers and passengers, leads to a decrease 
in  the external  costs of inter-urban road  congestion for passenger cars and freight  heavy 
goods  vehicles.  This  reduction  is  estimated  at  around  EUR 3 531  million  in  PO4, 
EUR 2 375 million in PO3 and EUR 1 370 million in PO2 relative to the baseline over the 
2025-2050 period, expressed as present value. In PO1 the decrease in congestion costs is 
more  limited  (EUR 181  million)  due  to  the  lower  reduction  in  road  transport  activity 
relative to the other three options135,136. 

6.1.9.  Digital by default  

All policy options will have a positive impact on the application of the ‘digital by default’ 
principle,  introduced  by  the  common  measure  on  requirements  for  digital  exchange  of 
information (PM24), included in all options. The impact would be higher in PO2, PO3 and 

135  The impacts on congestion costs for road transport were quantified with ASTRA and TRUST models. 
136  The 2019 Handbook on the external costs of transport has been used to monetise the costs. Source: 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
                                                           
PO4  relative  to  PO1,  as  they  all  require  IMs  to  provide  single  IT  interfaces  at  EU  level 
providing seamless end-to-end services for capacity management (PM25). 

6.2. 

Social impacts 

Social impacts are assessed in terms of impacts on employment, public health, road safety 
and impacts on the protection of fundamental rights. 

6.2.1.  Impacts on employment 

All  policy  options  are  expected  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  employment  in  the  sector, 
although the impact of PO2, PO3 and PO4 is expected to be higher relative to PO1, driven 
by the switch from the corridor-based to the network-based approach to the coordination 
of rail capacity and traffic management. The increase in capacity and thus in the rail traffic 
would  lead  to  higher  gross  value  added  for  the  sector,  and  thus  to  an  increase  in 
employment relative to the baseline. According to the ASTRA model, economy-wide (in 
net  terms),  the  number  of  employed  persons  in  PO4  is  estimated  to  increase  by  1.46 
million cumulatively over the period 2025-2050 (58 520 additional employed persons per 
year on average), relative to the baseline. In PO3 the number of employed persons would 
increase by 1.06 million over 2025-2050 (42 320 additional employed persons per year on 
average)  relative  to  the  baseline,  followed  by  PO2  (0.71  million  additional  employed 
persons  over  2025-2050  or  28 560  per  year  on  average)  and  PO1  (5 000  additional 
employed persons over 2025-2050 or 200 per year on average)137. The higher impacts in 
PO4  and  PO3,  relative  to  PO2  and  PO1,  are  due  to  the  higher  impacts  of  the  measures 
included in the options on capacity and additional traffic138.  

6.2.2.  Impacts on public health  

PO2, PO3 and PO4 lead to an increase in rail  traffic and a reduction in the road and air 
transport  activity  relative  to  the  baseline139.  Although  PO1  results  in  similar  type  of 
impacts,  their  magnitude  is  much  more  limited  than  in  the  other  three  policy  options. 
Enabling  higher  use  of  more  sustainable  transport  modes  would  result  in  reduced  air 
pollutant emissions and subsequent positive impacts on public health. Savings in external 
costs  of  air  pollutants  are  estimated  to  be  the  highest  in  PO4  (EUR 1 026  million), 
followed by PO3 (EUR 681 million), PO2 (EUR 416 million) and PO1 (EUR 36 million), 
expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  (relative  to  the  baseline)140.  The  reason  for 

137 In relation to the impacts on job creation, as explained in Annex 4 (section 1), the ASTRA model consists 
of several modules, including an economic module, a population and social structure module, a foreign 
trade  module,  a  transport  module,  a  vehicle  fleet  module  and  an  environment  module.  The  economic 
module covers various elements related to the macro-economic aspects: supply side, demand side (with a 
sophisticated investment  module), an input-output  model (based on 25 economic sectors), employment 
and  government  budget.  GDP,  employment,  final  energy  consumption  and  investments  are  among  the 
main outputs provided by the economic module of ASTRA. In the context of this impact assessment, for 
assessing the impacts of the policy options on job creation, the  results of the TRUST model in terms of 
transport activity have been used as inputs in the ASTRA model. The impacts on job creation are a result 
of  the  ASTRA  model.  They  consider  all  the  economic  sectors,  going  beyond  just  the  transport  sector. 
Thus, this represents the economy-wide net effect on job creation. 

138  Although  higher  productivity  driven  by  technological  progress  can  reduce  the  demand  for  labour,  this 

effect does not offset the positive effect on employment. 

139  See Annex 4 (section 5) for more details on the ASTRA model results.  
140 The 2019 Handbook on the external costs of transport has been used to monetise the costs. Source: 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1 

EN 

60 

EN 

 
                                                           
higher  savings  in  external  costs  of  air  pollutants  in  PO4  and  PO3,  relative  to  PO2  and 
PO1, is the higher increase of available rail capacity in these options that results in higher 
increase  in  rail  traffic  relative  to  the  baseline.  The  reduction  of  air  pollutant  emissions 
would be particularly relevant in urban nodes.  

6.2.3.  Impacts on road safety  

The reduction in the road transport activity in PO2, PO3 and PO4, enabled by better rail 
transport  services  for  the  benefit  of  freight  customers  and  passengers,  would  lead  to  a 
decrease in the cumulative number of fatalities and injuries from road transport over 2025-
2050 of 0.1% in PO2, 0.2% in PO3 and 0.3% in PO4 relative to the baseline. The effect is 
the highest in PO4 due to the higher reduction in the road transport activity in this policy 
option. PO1 results in very limited decrease in the number of fatalities and injuries, below 
0.1% relative to the baseline. The reduction in the external costs of accidents is estimated 
at around EUR 4 194 million in PO4, EUR 2 802 million in PO3, EUR 1 608 in PO2 and 
only  EUR 181  million  in  PO1  relative  to  the  baseline  over  the  2025-2050  period, 
expressed as present value (in 2021 prices)141. The 2019 Handbook on the external costs 
of  transport142  has  been  used  to  monetise  the  costs.  According  to  the  Handbook,  the 
external cost of a fatality in 2021 prices is estimated at around EUR 3.6 million and that of 
a serious injury at around EUR 0.5 million. 

6.2.4.  Impacts on fundamental rights  

The policy options were assessed to determine if they have an impact on the fundamental 
rights  and/or  equal  treatment of EU citizens.  The starting point of the assessment  of  the 
fundamental  rights  is  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union143.  All 
options were assessed having regard to the relevant EU instrument and it was concluded 
that they maintain full respect for human and fundamental rights and none will have any 
negative impact thereon. 

6.3.  Environmental impacts 

The analysis of environmental impacts covers CO2 emissions and air pollutant emissions. 
The environmental impacts were quantified with the ASTRA model. 

6.3.1.  Impact on CO2 emissions 

The reduction in the CO2 and air pollutant emissions is mainly driven by the higher use of 
more sustainable transport modes and the reduction in the road and air transport activity. 
The highest CO2 emissions reductions from the transport sector144 relative to the baseline 
are projected for PO4 (0.2% decrease in 2030 and 0.9% in 2050 or 1 491 thousand tonnes 
of CO2 saved in  2030 and 902 thousand tonnes saved in  2050), followed by PO3 (0.2% 
decrease in 2030 and 0.4% in 2050 or 1 195 thousand tonnes of CO2 saved in 2030 and 
450 thousand tonnes saved in 2050) and PO2 (0.1% decrease in 2030 and 0.2% in 2050 or 
778 thousand tonnes of CO2 saved in 2030 and 244 thousand tonnes saved in 2050). PO1 
shows very limited emissions reductions relative to the baseline (below 0.1% for 2030 and 
2050 or 87 thousand tonnes of CO2 saved in 2030 and 27 thousand tonnes saved in 2050) 

141 The impacts on the number of fatalities and injuries were derived with the ASTRA model.  
142  Source: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1 
143 OJ C 326 of 26.10.2012 p.2 
144 Excluding powered 2-wheelers and international maritime.  

EN 

61 

EN 

 
                                                           
due to the lower increase in the capacity of the rail network in this option. In cumulative 
terms, over 2025-2050, PO4 is estimated to result in 39 million tonnes of CO2 emissions 
saved, PO3 in 26 million tonnes of CO2 emissions saved, while PO2 and PO1 in 15 and 1 
million  tonnes of CO2 emissions saved, respectively. The reduction in  the external  costs 
related  to  CO2  emissions  is  estimated  at  EUR 4 979.1  million  in  PO4,  followed  by  PO3 
(EUR 3 309.3 million), PO2 (EUR 1 919.6 million) and PO1 (EUR 140.7 million)145. 

It should be noted that the reason for the limited CO2 emissions reductions from transport 
is  the  fact  that  the  baseline  scenario  already  reflects  the  ‘Fit  for  55’  initiatives  and  the 
REPowerEU initiatives, as well as the proposed revision of the TEN-T Regulation. On the 
other hand, as explained in section 5.1, the scenarios underpinning the impact assessments 
accompanying the ‘Fit for 55’ initiatives146 and the staff working document accompanying 
the REPowerEU initiatives147 took into account a broader range of policies (including this 
initiative) that were represented in a stylised way ahead of the actual proposals, to show 
the  delivery  of  at  least  55%  emissions  reduction  target  by  2030  and  to  account  for  the 
interaction  with  the  other  forthcoming  initiatives.  Therefore,  this  initiative  contributes 
towards  the  at  least  55%  emissions  reductions  target  by  2030  and  achieving  climate 
neutrality by 2050.    

6.3.2.  Impact on air pollutant emissions 

Similarly to  CO2 emissions, the reduction in  air  pollution emissions  is  mainly driven by 
the higher use of more sustainable transport modes and the reduction in the road and air 
transport  activity.  CO  emissions  from  the  transport  sector148  are  projected  to  reduce  by 
0.1% in PO2, PO3 and PO4 in 2030 relative to the baseline and only marginally (by less 
than 0.1%) in PO1. For 2050, CO emissions would reduce by 0.7% in PO4, 0.3% in PO3 
and  0.1%  in  PO2,  while  the  CO  emissions  reduction  due  to  PO1  is  expected  to  be 
marginal. In cumulative terms, over 2025-2050, PO4 is estimated to result in 65 thousand 
tonnes of CO emissions saved, PO3 in 34 thousand tonnes of CO saved, while PO2 and 
PO1  in  19  and  1  thousand  tonnes  of  CO  emissions  saved,  respectively.  For  NOx 
emissions, PO4 is projected to lead to reductions of 0.2% in 2030 (0.8% in 2050) in NOx 
emissions  from  the  transport  sector  relative  to  the  baseline,  while  PO3  would  result  in 
emissions reductions of 0.1% in 2030 (0.4% in 2050). PO2 and PO1 show a more limited 
effect  on  NOx  emissions  from  the  transport  sector  (less  than  0.1%  decrease  in  2030  for 
both PO2 and PO1 and 0.2% decrease in 2050 for PO2, with PO1 showing only marginal 
decrease for 2050). In cumulative terms, over 2025-2050, PO4 is estimated to result in 129 
thousand tonnes of NOx emissions saved, PO3 in 84 thousand tonnes of NOx saved, while 
PO2 and PO1 in 48 and 2 thousand tonnes of NOx emissions saved, respectively.  

With regard to particulate matter (PM) emissions, all policy options would lead to a very 
marginal increase in emissions relative to the baseline. This however is not linked to the 
energy/fuel use but can be explained by increased PM emission from rail transport due to 
higher  wear  and  tear149,  as  a  consequence  of  increased  rail  activity.  This  increase  in 

145 The 2019 Handbook on the external costs of transport (Source: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1) has been used to monetise the costs. 

146 Delivering the European Green Deal (europa.eu) 
147 SWD(2022) 230 final of 18 May 2022. 
148 Excluding powered 2-wheelers and international maritime.  
149  Emission from wear and tear are currently not part of EMEP/EEA Guidebook, which does not consider 
non-exhaust emissions of rail transport as a separate category, so reporting with respect to the emission 
inventory is not clear. However, it is included here for sake of completeness. 

EN 

62 

EN 

 
                                                           
emissions  slightly  overcompensates  the  reduction  in  the  PM  emissions  from  road 
transport.  In  cumulative  terms,  over  2025-2050,  PO4  is  estimated  to  result  in  239 
additional tonnes of PM emissions relative to the baseline, PO3 in 199 additional tonnes of 
PM,  while  PO2  and  PO1  in  36  and  18  additional  tonnes  of  PM  emissions,  respectively. 
For  VOC  emissions,  PO4  and  PO3  are  projected  to  lead  to  reductions  of  0.1%  in  2030 
(0.5% decrease in PO4 and 0.2% in PO3 for 2050) in VOC emissions from the transport 
sector relative to the baseline, while PO2 and PO1 would result in emissions reductions of 
less  than  0.1%  in  2030  (0.1%  decrease  in  PO2  and  less  than  0.1%  decrease  in  PO1  in 
2050).  In  cumulative  terms,  over  2025-2050,  PO4  is  estimated  to  result  in  10  thousand 
tonnes of VOC emissions saved, PO3 in 6 thousand tonnes of VOC saved, while PO2 and 
PO1  in  3  and  0.1  thousand  tonnes  of  VOC  emissions  saved,  respectively.  Overall,  the 
reduction  in  the  external  costs  related  to  air  pollutant  emissions  is  estimated  at 
EUR 1 026.5  million  in  PO4,  followed  by  PO3  (EUR 681  million),  PO2  (EUR 415.5 
million) and PO1 (EUR 36.2 million), expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative 
to the baseline150. 

All  policy  options  are  consistent  with  the  environmental  objectives  of  the  European 
Green  Deal  and  the  European  Climate  Law151,  although  PO1  only  marginally 
contributes to the CO2 emissions and air pollution emissions reductions. All policy options 
contribute  towards  Sustainable  Development  Goal  13  (‘Take  urgent  action  to  combat 
climate change and its impacts’), although PO1 only marginally. No significant harm is 
expected on the environment in any of the policy options. 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

7.1.  Effectiveness 

The  assessment  of  effectiveness  looks  at  the  extent  to  which  the  general  and  specific 
objectives  (SO)  of  the  intervention  are  met.  Table  8  provides  the  link  between  policy 
objectives and assessment criteria. 

Table 8: Link between objectives and assessment criteria 
Assessment criteria  
General 
objective 

Specific objective 

Allow rail 
infrastructure 
capacity and 
rail traffic to be 
managed in a 
way that 
optimises the 
utilisation of 
the network, 
thus improving 
the quality of 
services and 
accommodating 
larger amounts 
of traffic 

SO1 – Enable 
alternative capacity 
management 
procedures in the legal 
framework 

SO2 - Strengthen 
incentives to improve 
performance of rail 
infrastructure and rail 
transport services 

SO3 - Introduce more 
effective mechanisms 
for coordination 
between stakeholders, 
in particular across 
borders 

Expected  increase  in  available  and  usable  rail  infrastructure  capacity, 
meeting the needs of different rail market segments, enabling an increase in 
rail traffic. 
Expected  improvement  in  performance  of  rail  transport  services,  notably 
punctuality, resulting in an increase of rail traffic. 
Cost savings for IMs and applicants from better quality and management of 
capacity,  notably  resulting  from  a  reduction  in  cancelled  or  modified  train 
path requests. 
Expected  improvement  of  planning  and  implementation  of  infrastructure 
works resulting in reducing their negative impact. 

Expected improvement of coordination procedures between all stakeholders 
involved in a freight train run. 
Expected  increase  in  reliability  of  rail  transport,  in  cases  of  force  majeure 
and during periods of infrastructure works. 

150 The 2019 Handbook on the external costs of transport (Source: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1) has been used to monetise the costs. 

151 Regulation(EU) 2021/1119 

EN 

63 

EN 

 
                                                           
General 
objective 

Specific objective 

Assessment criteria  

SO4 -  Support the 
deployment of digital 
tools for capacity and 
traffic management 

Extent  to  which  IT  tools  for  capacity  requests,  capacity  planning  and 
allocation  and  traffic  management  respond  to  the  needs  of  all  rail  market 
segments. 

Concerning  SO1,  all  options  are  expected  to  result  in  additional  rail  infrastructure 
capacity, although PO2, PO3 and PO4 clearly have a much bigger impact than PO1. The 
same  applies  to  meeting  the  needs  of  all  rail  market  segments  in  terms  of  access  to 
capacity. PO1 relies on the existing tools to support cross-border traffic and its impacts are 
limited as it does not address the core capacity issue for rail freight  – i.e. not fitting into 
the  annual  timetable  process.  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  introduce  a  new  approach  to  capacity 
management,  which  is  expected  to  result  in  significant  benefits.  This  is  due  mostly  to  a 
more strategic management of capacity, allowing to optimise the provision of capacity in 
line  with  market  needs  over  a  longer  time  horizon  and  safeguarding  capacity  to  be 
allocated  later  in  the  calendar  year.  The  options  differ  in  terms  of  total  impact  and  how 
much time is needed to realise their full potential. According to the quantitative analysis, 
PO4  and  PO3  show  the  highest  impact  on  capacity  resulting  in  benefits  for  railways 
undertakings (estimated at EUR 2 759.1 million in PO4, expressed as present value over 
2025-2050  relative  to  the  baseline,  and  EUR 2 575.7  million  in  PO3),  followed  by  PO2 
(EUR 1 981  million),  while  the  benefits  of  PO1  are  more  limited  (EUR 242.1  million). 
PO2, PO3 and PO4 also result in significantly higher improvements in the performance of 
rail  transport  services,  notably  punctuality,  relative  to  PO1.  The  benefits  for  railways 
undertakings  due  to  improved  punctuality  are  estimated  at  EUR 664.9  million  in  PO4, 
EUR 658  million  in  PO3  and  EUR 501.3  million  in  PO2,  while  the  impacts  of  PO1  are 
more limited (EUR 72.7 million). Thus, PO4 and PO3 are equally effective in addressing 
SO1,  followed  by  PO2.  It  should  be  noted  that  this  result  is  highly  dependent  on  the 
hypothesis  that,  in  PO4,  the  Network  Coordinator  achieves  full  optimisation  of  capacity 
on the TEN-T network lines for which it assumes the responsibility of strategic capacity 
planning.  However,  this  working  hypothesis  does  not  account  for  the  possible 
inefficiencies that, in PO4, could derive from mismatches between the capacity planning 
for the TEN-T lines carried out by the future Network Coordinator and the lines managed 
by IMs on the national network. Indeed, the number of intersections between TEN-T and 
non-TEN-T lines is considerable and potential mismatches would need to be addressed in 
what  could  be  a  time-consuming  coordination  process.  This  potential  source  of 
inefficiency is hard to quantify, but it has been evoked also by stakeholders and appears to 
constitute a non-negligible risk. In view of these considerations, the effectiveness of PO4 
is subject to much greater uncertainty than that of PO1, PO2 and PO3.  

Concerning SO2, PO1 does not address the challenges in the baseline resulting from the 
instability in the capacity management process,  which leads to a waste of efforts and, in 
the worst case, of usable network capacity. It relies on strengthening the existing corridor 
performance  monitoring,  while  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  introduce  a  harmonised  incentive 
scheme that encourages a higher respect of commitments related to capacity, both on IM 
and  RU  side,  improving  the  stability  of  capacity  planning  and  significantly  reducing  in 
this  way  their  workload  related  to  capacity  management.  The  costs  savings  for 
infrastructure  managers  from  the  greater  stability  of  allocated  paths  are  estimated  to  be 
similar in PO2, PO3 and PO4: EUR 415.3 million in PO2, expressed as present value over 
2025-2050, EUR 418.6 million in PO3 and EUR 423.9 million in PO4. Each modification 
of  a  train  path  concerns  both  infrastructure  managers  and  railway  undertakings  (i.e. 
irrespective  which  side  requests  a  change  initially,  the  other  side  will  have  to  adjust  its 
EN 

64 

EN 

 
 
 
planning accordingly) and the costs savings for railways undertakings are thus assumed to 
be the same  as  those for infrastructure managers. PO2, PO3 and PO4 contain additional 
measures that ensure equal treatment of cross-border applicants with national traffic. Thus, 
PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  are  assessed  to  be  equally  effective  and  much  more  effective  than 
PO1. 

Concerning SO3, PO1 is expected to have negligible impacts on coordination procedures 
between  all  stakeholders  involved  in  train  runs  (including  in  other  modes  for  freight 
traffic)  due  to  its  reliance  on  structures  and  tools  pre-existing  in  the  baseline  and  to  the 
persistence of the  fragmentation  resulting  from  a corridor  approach. PO2, PO3 and PO4 
are expected to have a positive effect with respect to this criterion, as they harmonise the 
procedures  for  capacity  and  traffic  management  (i.e.  planning  and  operations).  This 
creates a more solid basis for effective coordination procedures. Important differences in 
the  effectiveness  for  cross-border  traffic  between  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  come  from  the 
different  mechanisms  ensuring  cross-border  coordination.  The  reliance  on  voluntary 
cooperation between infrastructure managers in PO2 is expected to limit both the degree 
of harmonisation and the exploitation of its benefits compared to PO3 and PO4 where the 
‘Network  Coordinator’  provides  operational  support.  In  PO4,  a  single  interlocutor  (the 
Network Coordinator) responsible for the planning of capacity on the TEN-T lines would 
bring  about  two  effects:  simplify  coordination  along  the  TEN-T  lines  but  require  an 
additional  coordination  process  for  the  part  of  the  rail  journeys  taking  place  outside  the 
TEN-T lines; it is difficult to anticipate which of the two effects will prevail in comparing 
with PO3. 

As regards the increase in reliability of rail transport, PO1 is expected to deliver limited 
positive impacts, based on a set of procedures to coordinate traffic management between 
IMs in a harmonised manner. PO2 delivers more significant improvements resulting from 
strengthened  requirements  regarding  contingency  planning  and  a  more  comprehensive 
approach to coordinate operations based on collaborative decision-making. PO3 and PO4 
have  even  stronger  positive  impacts  resulting  from  dedicated  support  by  the  network 
coordinator in (i) contingency planning to prepare for disruptions (PO3 and PO4) and in 
(ii) operational  traffic  management  during  disruptions  (PO4  only).  Overall,  PO4  is  most 
effective  in  addressing  SO3,  followed  by  PO3  and  PO2.  PO1  is  expected  to  result  in  a 
more limited impacts.   

Concerning SO4, PO2, PO3 and PO4 include a comprehensive measure to digitalise and 
automate capacity management, providing a virtual ‘one-stop shop’ functionality for RUs 
in  the form  of a single digital  interface  at  EU level  for capacity management.  PO1 does 
not  provide  such  functionalities  and  can  only  make  a  limited  contribution  through 
requirements  for  digital  exchange  of  information.  Thus,  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  are  equally 
effective in addressing SO4 and more effective than PO1. A more detailed assessment of 
the effectiveness of the policy options is provided in Annex 8. 

As  explained  above,  the  effectiveness  of  the  POs  with  respect  to  SO1  and  SO2  in 
monetary terms can be compared on the basis of the most important direct effects for the 
main  stakeholder  groups  (IMs  and  RUs).  These  include  the  impacts  from  increases  in 
available  capacity  (and  traffic)  and  in  train  punctuality  for  RUs  (SO1)  and  the  cost 
reductions from the reduced number of amendments and cancellations of capacity requests 
(SO2) for RUs and IMs. The results indicate that PO3 and PO4 have the strongest direct 
impact especially for RUs. 

EN 

65 

EN 

 
Table 9: Summary of the  effectiveness of the policy options  expressed as direct benefits for IMs and 
RUs – present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline (EUR million in 2021 prices) 

Specific objectives 
SO1 
SO2 

PO1 
314.8 
- 

Policy options 

PO2 
2 482.3 
415.3  

PO3 
3 233.7 
418.6  

PO4 
3 424 
423.9  

Table  10  provides  a  summary  of  the  comparison  of  the  options  against  the  baseline 
scenario in terms of effectiveness. The following ranking symbols have been used: from 
'+' (more effective than the baseline) to '++++' (much more effective than the baseline); 0 
indicated no or negligible impacts. 

Table 10: Summary of the effectiveness of the policy options – qualitative comparison 

Policy options 

Specific 
objectives 
SO1 
SO2 
SO3 
SO4 

PO1 

+ 
0 
+ 
+ 

PO2 

+++ 
++++ 
++ 
++++ 

PO3 

++++ 
++++ 
+++ 
++++ 

PO4 

++++ 
++++ 
++++ 
++++ 

As indicated above the measures in PO1 are expected to have limited or no effect in most 
of the cases. This is mostly due to them relying on the instruments available at present to 
the rail freight corridors, which, even with improvements, are likely to face considerable 
limitations. PO2 is expected to be more effective, as it shares a number of policy measures 
with  PO3  and  PO4  (e.g.  for  SO2).  However,  the  lack  of  a  clear  and  established 
coordination mechanism between  IMs for capacity management, raises uncertainty about 
the impact in regard to SO1 and SO3. 

Finally, PO3 and PO4 contain policy measures that provide the necessary mechanisms to 
ensure that  the new approach for capacity management is  implemented and coordinated. 
PO4 has a relatively higher impact based on the assumption that more coordination at EU 
level will provide more improvements in capacity management and allocation. However, 
as outlined in section 8.4, a number of factors raise uncertainty about the effectiveness of 
PO4, whereas these risks are expected to be lower for PO3. 

7.2.  Efficiency 

Efficiency concerns the ‘extent to which objectives can be achieved for a given cost (cost 
effectiveness)’. In all policy options, the benefits outweigh the increase in costs, relative to 
the baseline. The estimates of costs and benefits are summarised in Table 11. 

Table 11: Summary of costs and benefits of policy options – net present value for 2025-2050 compared 
to the baseline (in million EUR), in 2021 prices 

Difference to the baseline 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

Railway undertakings  
Administrative costs  
Adjustment costs 
Adjustment costs savings  
Other direct benefits 
Increase in capacity 
Increase in punctuality 
Infrastructure managers 

EN 

2.4 
282.8 
0.0 
314.8 
242.1 
72.7 

66 

0.0 
429.0 
415.3 
2 482.2 
1 981.0 
501.3 

0.0 
435.1 
482.8 
3 233.7 
2 575.7 
658.0 

0.0 
435.1 
540.6 
3 424.0 
2 759.1 
664.9 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Difference to the baseline 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

Administrative costs  
Adjustment costs 
Enforcement costs  
Administrative costs savings  
Adjustment costs savings  

Public authorities 
Adjustment costs  
Enforcement costs  
Adjustment costs savings 
Administrative costs savings  

European Commission and EU funding 

23.9 
81.6 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

Adjustment costs  
Adjustment cost savings 

0.0 
0.0 
Operators of terminals and multimodal transport services 
2.4 
0.0 

Administrative costs  
Adjustment costs  

Reduction in external costs 

CO2 emissions 
Air pollution 
Fatalities and injuries 
Congestion 
Total costs 
Total benefits 
Net benefits 
Benefits to costs ratio 

140.7 
36.2 
159.4 
181.4 
393.1 
832.5 
439.3 
2.1 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

0.0 
1 452.8 
0.0 
8.2 
481.9 

0.0 
20.2 
6.8 
2.6 

0.0 
116.7 

0.0 
17.0 

1 919.6 
415.5 
1 607.8 
1 369.5 
1 919.1 
8 826.1 
6 907.0 
4.6 

0.0 
1 596.5 
12.5 
8.2 
485.3 

5.9 
25.1 
6.8 
2.6 

1.8 
116.7 

0.0 
17.0 

3 309.3 
681.0 
2 801.6 
2 374.8 
2 094.0 
13 502.7 
11 408.8 
6.4 

0.0 
1 812.8 
12.5 
8.2 
490.5 

8.2 
37.6 
6.8 
2.6 

1.8 
116.7 

0.0 
17.0 

4 979.1 
1 026.5 
4 193.7 
3 530.8 
2 324.9 
18 319.5 
15 994.6 
7.9 

The major cost element of the policy options, except for PO1, consists of adjustment costs 
for the digitalisation and automation of capacity management. Other significant groups of 
costs,  included  in  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4,  are  adjustment  costs  related  to  strategic  capacity 
management  and  new  allocation  procedures,  the  introduction  of  an  EU  framework  for 
coordination  of  traffic  management  and  terminal  operations,  and  the  requirement  for 
digital  exchange  of  information  that  is  included  in  all  options.  In  terms  of  stakeholders’ 
groups,  the  highest  share  of  the  costs  consists  of  adjustment  costs  for  infrastructure 
managers  and  railways  undertakings  (i.e.  the  stakeholders  involved  in  delivering  rail 
infrastructure and transport services).  

PO1,  comprising  a  limited  set  of  measures  aiming  to  improve  existing  structures  and 
mechanisms, shows the lowest total costs, estimated at EUR 393.1 million relative to the 
baseline,  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050.  PO2,  PO3  and  PO3  show 
significantly higher costs of EUR 1 919.1 million, EUR 2 094.0 million and EUR 2 324.9 
million,  respectively.  The  main  difference  in  terms  of  costs  between  PO1,  on  the  one 
hand, and PO2, PO3 and PO4, on the other, comes from the additional investments in the 
digitalisation  and  automation  of  capacity  management,  the  introduction  of  a  strategic 
capacity management phase, additional procedures to ensure traffic continuity in the event 
of  infrastructure  non-availability  and  of  a  framework  to  coordinate  traffic  management 
and 
to  PO2 
(EUR 174.9 million)  result  mainly  from  staffing  ENIM  (including 
the  Network 
Coordinator),  responsible  for  coordinating  between  IMs  and  monitoring  performance  of 
rail infrastructure and transport services at European level. PO4 shows the highest costs of 

terminal  operations.  The  additional  costs 

in  PO3  compared 

EN 

67 

EN 

 
 
all policy options  as a  result of the  additional functions assigned to  the  IM coordination 
entity  in  this  policy  option:  taking  over  strategic  capacity  management  from  IMs  on  the 
most  strategically  important  lines  of  the  TEN-T  network  and  an  operational  support 
function in traffic management. 

In  terms  of  benefits,  the  policy  options  result  in  improvements  in  the  capacity  and 
punctuality for RUs and IMs, costs savings for the public authorities and IMs due to the 
abolition of the rail freight corridors (PO2, PO3 and PO4), costs savings due to the greater 
stability of allocated paths for RUs and IMs (PO2, PO3 and PO4), as well as in reductions 
in the external costs of transport. The benefits related to improvements in the performance 
of rail transport in terms of capacity and punctuality accrue to RUs in the first instance but 
might be passed on the customers of rail transport services. 

As  regards  total  benefits,  PO1  stands  out  with  a  clearly  lower  level  of  total  benefits 
estimated  at  EUR 832.5 million  relative  to  the  baseline,  expressed  as  present  value  over 
2025-2050. PO4 shows the highest total benefits of EUR 18 319.5 million, while the total 
benefits  of  PO2  and  PO3  amount  to  EUR 8 826.1 million  and  EUR 13 502.7  million, 
respectively. The difference between PO1, on the one hand, and PO2, PO3 and PO4, on 
the other, is  mainly driven by benefits  generated by the introduction of new procedures, 
rules,  as  well  as  IT  tools  and  applications,  where  PO1  relies  mainly  on  existing 
instruments of limited effectiveness. Compared to PO2, the total benefits increase in PO3 
and  PO4  with  the  introduction  of  additional  support  and  management  functions  at  EU 
level, resulting in a more effective and seamless implementation of the common European 
framework. 

Overall,  all  policy  options  result  in  net benefits  relative  to  the  baseline.  PO4  shows  the 
highest  net  benefits,  estimated  at  EUR 15 994.6  million  expressed  as  present  value  over 
2025-2050,  followed  by  PO3  (EUR 11 408.8  million)  and  PO2  (EUR 6 907.0  million). 
PO1 results in significantly lower net benefits of EUR 439.3 million. PO4 also shows the 
highest benefit to cost ratio (7.9), followed by PO3 (6.4), PO2 (4.6) and PO1 (2.1). 

However, the efficiency of PO4 is subject to considerable uncertainties.  PO4 results in a 
new  split  of  responsibilities:  (i) a  geographical  split  between  lines  where  capacity  is 
managed  at  EU  level  (TEN-T)  and  at  national  level  (rest  of  the  network);  and  (ii) a 
functional  split  between  the  management  of  capacity  (ENIM)  and  the  development, 
renewal and maintenance of infrastructure (individual IMs).  

As  regards  the  geographical  split,  PO4  gives  better  results  on  cross-border  lines  by 
employing  a  single  entity  in  charge  for  capacity  management  on  all  TEN-T  lines. 
However,  PO4  requires  additional  coordination  between  the  lines  managed  at  EU  and 
national level, particularly in urban and industrial nodes. The TEN-T network comprises 
around  80  border  crossings  but  more  than  400  urban  nodes.  It  was  considered 
proportionate  to  limit  the  modelling  work  described  in  section  4.1  of  Annex 4  to 
simulating capacity increases at the level of single lines. This fully captures the benefits of 
better cross-border coordination in PO4 but it does not cover wider network-level effects 
in nodes. Modelling a timetable for the whole EU network would have required an amount 
of resources disproportionate to the purpose of the analysis. Overall, the limitations of the 
analysis  mean  that  the  benefits  of  PO4  cannot  be  assessed  with  the  same  degree  of 
certainty as those of the other POs. 

The  functional  split  in  competences  for  maintenance  and  renewal  of  the  infrastructure 
(which would remain in the competence of individual IMs) and for capacity management 
(which  would  be  transferred  to  the  EU  level  –  ENIM)  may  be  problematic  because  it 
EN 

68 

EN 

 
concerns one of the key challenges facing rail capacity today: the planning and execution 
of infrastructure works for maintenance and renewal. This  adds to the uncertainties over 
the benefits of PO4. 

On the costs side, the effort for coordinating the strategic planning between the Network 
Coordinator, which is in charge of strategic capacity management on the lines of the TEN-
T network with the highest strategic importance, and national IMs who are responsible for 
the  rest  of  the  national  network,  could  result  in  higher  efforts  and  costs  than  expected. 
Separating the strategic capacity management (Network Coordinator) from the allocation 
phase, the planning and implementation of infrastructure works and network development 
(responsibility  of  the  IMs)  increases  the  uncertainty  that  the  capacity  benefits  will  be 
realised in full. 

7.3.  Coherence 

Internal coherence assesses how various elements of the revised legislation or new legal 
act  function  together  to  achieve  the  objectives.  This  does  not  only  concern  the  existing 
RFC Regulation or a possible new legal act itself, but also any accompanying secondary 
legislation (delegated and/or implementing acts). Although all four policy options address 
the  identified  problems,  PO1  relies  on  a  corridor-based  approach,  using  the  governance 
and the tools of the existing rail freight corridors (specified in the RFC Regulation), while 
PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  introduce  a  network-based  approach  with  a  different  level  of 
intervention.  The  new  approach  means  that  the  two  sets  of  legal  rules  on  capacity 
allocation  –  one  in  the  RFC  Regulation  and  the  other  in  Chapter  IV,  Section  3  of  the 
Recast  Directive  –  will  be  replaced  with  a  new  Regulation.  PO1  shares  only  one  single 
measure with the other three options. All options contain measures that are fully coherent, 
with  measures  for  the  IMs  acting  as  natural  monopolies  being  complemented  with 
measures on regulatory supervision. 

External  coherence  concentrates  on  the  compliance  of  the  initiative  with  national 
policies,  other  EU  instruments  and  relevant  EU  policies,  as  well  as  international 
obligations.  All  identified  policy  options  show  strong  links  to  several  EU  instruments. 
There is an obvious link with the Recast Directive, which contains a number of relevant 
legal definitions and provides the broad framework for the Union rail sector, as well as a 
number of detailed rules on the functioning of IMs, regulatory bodies, rights of applicants 
for capacity, licensing of RUs, charging for the use of rail infrastructure, etc. The initiative 
is linked to the EU policy on infrastructure development (TEN-T Regulation) and with the 
legislation on interoperability.  Both  issues are identified as important  contextual drivers. 
All  options are consistent with the existing legislation, including the legislative proposal 
for the amendment  of the TEN-T Regulation  adopted in  2021 and strengthen the link to 
interoperability  legislation  and  in  particular  with  the  technical  specification  for 
interoperability relating to telematics applications for freight services. 

7.4. 

Subsidiarity and proportionality 

The  intervention  addresses  the  deficiencies  in  EU  rules  on  capacity  management, 
identified  in  the  evaluation  of  the  RFC  Regulation.  These  can  only  be  addressed  at  EU 
level. The policy options tackle issues of cross-border coordination for capacity and traffic 
management,  infrastructure  works,  performance  schemes  that  affect  cross-border  traffic 
and  therefore  cannot  be  addressed  at  national  or  bilateral  level.  This  being  said,  PO4 
introduces  a  significant  element  of  centralisation  in  the  capacity  management  process, 
with  the  Network  Coordinator  taking  over  the  responsibility  for  the  strategic  capacity 

EN 

69 

EN 

 
management  phase.  Stakeholders  have  raised  concerns  in  this  respect,  in  particular  IMs 
and regulatory bodies. 

In  terms  of  proportionality,  PO1  largely  retains  the  current  balance  for  decision-making 
between  IMs  (national  level)  and  corridors  (EU  level).  It  strengthens  the  cross-corridor 
cooperation. PO2 envisages a transition to a network approach based largely on voluntary 
cooperation between IMs which raises uncertainty about the effectiveness of coordination 
of  capacity  planning.  Both  PO1  and  PO2  do  not  address  the  limitations  of  national 
regulatory  bodies  in  relation  to  cross-border  traffic.  PO3  and  PO4  envisage  some  of  the 
decisions related to capacity planning to be taken at EU level. 

PO3  is  proportional  to  the  goals  of  the  initiative  of  introducing  new  rules  for  capacity 
management for the whole rail traffic, including cross-border trains. The latter requires a 
reinforced  mechanism  of  coordination  compared  to  the  current  rail  freight  corridors’ 
governance. 

PO4 assigns the strategic capacity planning of rail infrastructure capacity for lines part of 
the TEN-T network to the Network Coordinator. This allows for better planning of cross-
border  train  paths,  but  requires  new  coordination  processes  to  address  potential 
mismatches  between  the  capacity  planning  for  the  TEN-T  and  the  non-TEN-T  lines. 
Depriving  IMs  of  the  responsibility  for  capacity  planning  on  the  TEN-T  lines  might  be 
considered  disproportionate  at  a  stage  in  which  passenger  rail  is  still  predominantly 
national152 and represents roughly 80% of the rail traffic. 

8.  PREFERRED OPTION 

8.1. 

Identification of the preferred policy option 

Even though all policy options are in line with the general objective and include measures 
that  address  all  specific  objectives  and  problem  drivers,  there  is  a  clear  difference  in 
effectiveness between PO1 and the other three options. The former is far less effective, as 
it relies on policy instruments (like the rail freight corridors’ one-stop shops) that have not 
been able to make a significant impact on capacity management, traffic management or on 
the performance of rail freight services. The measures included will not address the issue 
that  trains  travelling  on  RFC  and  non-RFC  lines  follow  two  different  sets  of  processes, 
rules and tools – the ones of the RFC Regulation and the Recast Directive, respectively. 
This also results in less efficient use of resources by RUs and IMs. 

When  addressing  SO1  (Enable  alternative  capacity  management  procedures),  all  policy 
options  are  expected  to  result  in  additional  rail  infrastructure  capacity  on  capacity-
constrained  lines  and  nodes,  and  positive  impacts  on  punctuality.  PO4  and  PO3  are 
however  expected  to  be  equally  effective  and  more  effective  than  PO2  and  PO1  in 
addressing  SO1  due  to  the  higher  increase  in  capacity  and  improvements  in  punctuality 
mostly driven by better capacity planning of cross-border traffic (PM20-1 and PM20-2). 

Concerning SO2 (Strengthen incentives to improve performance of rail infrastructure and 
rail transport services), PO2, PO3 and PO4 are expected to result in similar costs savings 
for  IMs  and  RUs  from  the  greater  stability  of  allocated  train  paths.  The  slightly  higher 
impact on costs savings in PO4 relative to PO3 can be explained by the fact that the higher 

152 International rail passenger traffic is only around 6-7% of total passenger traffic. 

EN 

70 

EN 

 
                                                           
rail  traffic  in  PO4  is  accompanied  by  a  higher  reduction  in  the  modifications  to  the 
planned train paths. Even more importantly, PO2, 3 and 4 improve the quality of capacity 
by improving TCRs planning and implementation (PM8 and 9).  The impacts of PO1 are 
negligible.  

When  addressing  SO3  (Introduce  more  effective  mechanisms  for  coordination  between 
stakeholders,  in  particular  across  borders)  PO1  delivers  limited  positive  impacts  while 
PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  result  in  significant  benefits  due  to  harmonisation  of  processes  and 
rules  (PO2,  PO3,  PO4)  and  due  to  the  introduction  of  a  network  coordinator  supporting 
IMs in the cross-border planning and operational tasks (PO3). PO4 goes further than PO3 
in  attributing  responsibilities  to  the  coordination  entity  (Network  Coordinator),  which 
makes this PO difficult to assess with certainty: improvements in the coordination process 
along the TEN-T lines could be accompanied by difficulties in coordination with the rest 
of the rail network (infrastructure managers). 

Concerning  SO4  (Support  the  deployment  of  digital  tools  to  enable  better  capacity  and 
traffic  management),  PO1  has  limited  effects  by  ensuring  interoperability  of  the  IT 
systems  for  capacity  management.  POs  2,  3  and  4  all  envisage  a  comprehensive 
digitalisation of capacity management services, which will allow to make full use of the 
new  rules  on  capacity  and  traffic  management  and  thus  have  a  profound  effect  on 
improving access to and quality of capacity. 

Concerning the efficiency, PO2, PO3 and PO4 result in significant net benefits relative to 
the baseline,  with  the net  benefits  being the highest  in  PO4, followed by PO3 and PO2. 
The benefit to cost ratio is estimated at 7.9 for PO4, 6.4 for PO3, 4.6 for PO2 and 2.1 for 
PO1. 

PO4 shows the highest benefit to cost ratio. It results in the highest costs, born mostly by 
IMs,  but  these  costs  are  overcompensated  by  the  significant  benefits  due  to  increased 
capacity  and  improved  punctuality,  which  accrue  mostly  to  RUs  as  direct  beneficiaries. 
The  highest  costs  come  from  investments  for  IT  development  and  deployment,  required 
for the implementation of the new allocation processes, but additional resources are also 
required  for  staffing  ENIM  (and  the  Network  Coordinator),  responsible  for  strategic 
capacity planning on the TEN-T network lines.  In fact, whereas the higher costs of PO4 
with  respect  to  the  other  options  can  be  projected  with  some  confidence,  the  actual 
realisation of the higher benefits, especially with respect to PO3, is subject to considerable 
uncertainties  as  explained  in  section  7.2.  It  is  difficult  to  quantify  the  impact  of  these 
uncertainties,  but  they  are  likely  to  significantly  reduce,  and  possibly  eliminate,  PO4’s 
advantage in terms of benefit to cost ratio with respect to PO3. 

PO3 ranks second in terms of benefit to cost ratio and PO2 ranks the third. The difference 
between  the  two  are  the  higher  costs  for  PO3  for  the  work  of  the  two  central  entities153 
(ENIM and  the ENRRB). They are overcompensated by the higher increase in  available 
capacity  and improvements  in  punctuality.  IT-related investments  are expected to  be the 
same as in PO4 and are by far the biggest contributor to costs for both policy options. 

PO1 shows the lowest  benefit to  cost  ratio. Even though it results in  the lowest  costs, it 
increases slightly the administrative burden, does not produce significant cost savings and 

153  The European Network of Infrastructure Managers and the European Network of Regulatory Bodies. 

EN 

71 

EN 

 
                                                           
results in very limited benefits due to increase in capacity and punctuality compared to the 
baseline. 

Concerning  internal  coherence  and  external  coherence,  all  POs  are  coherent. 
Concerning external coherence, PO1 keeps the existing RFC governance, which is given 
the  task  to  contribute  to  EU  transport  infrastructure  policy  by  providing  feedback  to  the 
European  Coordinators154  in  the  proposal  for  a  regulation155  replacing  the  TEN-T 
Regulation156. In PO2, PO3 and PO4, this feedback mechanism will be taken over by the 
Network  Coordinator,  which  coordinates  input  by  individual  IMs  from  a  cross-border 
perspective. PO2, PO3 and PO4 will replace the advisory groups in the RFC governance 
with a new platform for consulting rail stakeholders, which will be broader in terms of the 
stakeholder groups involved, in particular by adding customers of rail transport services, 
and  more  efficient  as  regards  issues  to  be  addressed  at  EU  level,  by  avoiding 
multiplication of exchanges in 11 corridors, and more flexible with respect to issues that 
require  more  local  approaches,  allowing  address  issues  at  the  most  appropriate  level 
possible.  All  policy  options  envisage  supporting  the  implementation  of  standardised 
digital  information  exchange  between  operation  stakeholders  in  line  with  the  technical 
specification for interoperability relating to telematics applications for freight services by 
requiring compliance of IM and RU systems for specified implementation deadlines. 

All  policy  options  are  in  line  with  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  addressing  issues  that 
cannot  be  solved  by  an  intervention  at  national  level.  This  being  said,  PO4  introduces  a 
significant  element  of  centralisation  in  the  capacity  management  process,  with  the 
Network Coordinator taking over the responsibility for the strategic capacity management 
phase. Stakeholders have raised concerns in this respect, in particular IMs and regulatory 
bodies.  

In addition, all policy options meet the requirements of the proportionality principle but, 
as in the case of subsidiarity, stakeholder feedback on PO4 has been mixed. PO4 assigns 
the  strategic  capacity  management  of  lines  that  are  part  of  the  TEN-T  network  to  the 
Network  Coordinator,  thus  depriving  IMs  of  an  important  function.  This  move  is  rather 
controversial and might be considered not entirely justified in view of the uncertainty of 
the  additional  benefits  that  it  would  generate  with  respect  to  the,  less  radical,  PO3.  It  is 
important  to  highlight  that  the  behavioural  response  of  parties  involved  in  the 
implementation of the measures will have an influence on the success of the initiative, and 
that  evidence  from  the  evaluation  of  the  RFC  Regulation  has  shown  that  the  formalistic 
implementation of rules can undermine the effectiveness of measures. In this regard, PO3 
has the advantage over PO4 of eliciting a more positive response of stakeholders. 

Overall,  considering  the  assessment  of  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence,  subsidiarity 
and  proportionality  of  the  four  options,  the  analysis  points  at  PO3  as  the  preferred 
policy  option,  since  it  brings  the  best  balance  between  the  objectives  which  must  be 

154  The  European  Coordinators  facilitate  the  coordinated  implementation  of  the  European  Transport 
Corridors and the horizontal priorities for the implementation of the trans-European transport network. They 
are designated by the Commission with one European Coordinator for each Corridor and for each horizontal 
priority. 
155  COM(2021) 812 final of 14 December 2021. 
156 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  and  repealing  Decision 
No 661/2010/EU (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 1). 

EN 

72 

EN 

 
                                                           
achieved, the degree of proportionality of the intervention, the costs and benefits incurred 
and the confidence that can be placed on the assessment of impacts.  

Stakeholders’ views in the stakeholder consultation were divergent and there was no clear-
cut  majority  for  one  policy  option,  although  support  for  a  new  approach  to  capacity 
management, inspired by TTR prevailed. A higher number of railway undertakings were 
supportive of PO3 and the option was supported by some IMs. The latter mostly expressed 
support for PO 2. Some RUs and IMs alluded to a combination of PO2 and PO3 or a step-
wise implementation of PO3. 

With regard to PO4, the most contentious issue is the introduction of tasks for entities at 
EU  level.  While  the  feedback  from  the  public  consultation  on  the  policy  options  was 
positive overall, including on this particular element, the targeted stakeholder consultation 
showed  that  several  stakeholder  groups  had  doubts.  IMs  expressed  strong  opposition 
towards  the  introduction  of  a  central  entity  ,  which  would  take  over  management 
competences from individual IMs under PO4, and voiced  a preference for either PO2 or 
PO3. RUs, on the other hand, appeared more supportive of the centralised mechanisms of 
PO4.  The  members  of  the  rail  freight  corridors  governance  (both  IMs  and  public 
authorities  responsible  for  rail  policy)  considered  a  mix  of  PO2  and  PO3  as  the  best 
approach and considered PO4 to be unrealistic. RUs were more supportive of the concept 
of central entities. Regulators supported options PO2 and PO3 and considered PO4 as too 
costly and time consuming for implementation157. 

On  the  basis  of  what  precedes  and  the  analysis  above,  PO3  is  selected  as  the  preferred 
policy option. 

8.2.  REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 

This  initiative  is  a  follow-up  to  the  evaluation  of  the  RFC  Regulation158,  completed  in 
2021159, and it is part of the Greening freight package, included in the Commission work 
programme  2023160.  This  initiative  has  an  important  REFIT  dimension  in  terms  of 
streamlining and updating the rules on rail infrastructure capacity to suit better the needs 
of  different  rail  market  segments,  in  particular  cross-border  freight.  The  initiative  will 
repeal Regulation (EU) 913/2010, which lays down rules applicable only to the rail freight 
corridor  lines,  and  thereby  replace  the  current  two  sets  of  rules  for  capacity  and  traffic 
management161 with a single one for the whole EU network. 

The preferred policy option is expected to lead to administrative costs savings for national 
public authorities due to the implementation of a harmonised legal framework for railway 
capacity and traffic management and the abolition of the rail freight corridors, estimated at 
EUR 2.6 million relative to the baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050. The 
initiative will result in simplifications for applicants for capacity involved in cross-border 
rail services by making the process of capacity allocation more efficient. It will also result 

157 See Annex 2 for further details. 
158 The evaluation was included in Annex II REFIT initiatives of the Commission  work programme 2020, 

COM(2020) 37 final of 29 January 2020. 

159 SWD(2021) 134 final of 2 June 2021. 
160 See point 8, Annex I, COM(2022) 548 final of 18 October 2022. 
161 The Recast Directive is lex generalis on capacity and traffic management, whereas the RFC Regulation is 

applicable only to the RFC lines. 

EN 

73 

EN 

 
                                                           
in a reduction of administrative costs for IMs, estimated at EUR 8.2 million relative to the 
baseline, expressed as present value over 2025-2050. 

8.3.  Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach  

PO3  will  result  in  limited  administrative  cost  savings  for  IMs,  of  EUR 0.4  million  from 
2025  onwards  relative  to  the  baseline  (i.e.  EUR 17 836  per  year  on  average  per 
infrastructure  manager162),  due  to  the  envisaged  abolition  of  the  rail  freight  corridors. 
Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, they are estimated at EUR 8.2 million relative 
to  the  baseline  (in  2021  prices).  As  explained  in  section  6.1.2,  the  savings  come  from 
removing  the  obligations  for  management  boards  to  collect  and  publish  information,  in 
particular to produce customer satisfaction surveys and to monitor the performance of rail 
freight services. The policy measure will also remove the need for management boards to 
publish annual reports, which they do on their own initiative. 

The  preferred  policy  option  is  expected  to  result  in  adjustments  costs  estimated  at  EUR 
435.1  million  for  RUs,  EUR  1  596.5  million  for  IMs,  and  EUR  17  million  for  terminal 
operators, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline. At the same 
time, it would also result in adjustment costs savings of EUR 482.8 million for RUs and 
EUR 485.3 million for IMs over the same period. 

8.4. 

Sensitivity analysis of the policy options 

Policy options 2, 3 and 4 introduce a new approach to capacity management. This creates 
challenges  for  all  involved  stakeholders  and  in  particular  infrastructure  managers  and 
railway  undertakings.  Overall,  the  introduction  of  the  new  approach  and  the  different 
policy  measures  in  the  POs  increase  to  a  different  degree  the  level  of  uncertainty  of  the 
estimations of the impacts. This warrants performing sensitivity analysis on the modelling 
results  of  the  additional  capacity  created  in  the  different  POs,  to  complement  the  cost-
benefit analysis in identifying the preferred policy option. The differences in the results on 
available capacity have a knock-on effect on a number of outputs that were modelled for 
this impact assessment, such as the estimates of the monetary value of the direct benefits 
from the additional freight and passenger capacity. 

Two  main  factors  create  uncertainty:  the  higher  level  of  complexity  and  ambition  of  a 
policy  option  and  the  effectiveness  of  the  coordination  between  infrastructure  managers 
and ENIM regarding traffic that goes both on TEN-T lines and the rest of the network. 

For the first factor, the key assumption is that a higher level of complexity and ambition of 
a policy option results in a higher level of uncertainty about its outcomes, as the necessary 
adjustments  increase  compared  to  the  baseline.  Therefore,  increasing  uncertainty  factors 
were assigned to the POs (the lowest for PO1 and the highest for PO4). One adjustment 
was  made  for  PO2,  where  the  lack  of  a  solid  coordination  mechanism  for  cross-border 
traffic  was  assessed  to  result  in  the  same  uncertainty  factor  as  the  more  complex  PO3. 
While  PO2  contains  no  policy  measure  on  coordination,  PO3  has  a  relatively 
straightforward mechanism introduced by PM20-1. For PO4, the uncertainty is the highest 
in  particular  due  to  the  complexity  of  PM20-2,  PM22  and  PM23.  The  simulation  of  the 

162  As  explained  in  Annex  4,  estimations  about  costs  and  cost  savings  for  infrastructure  managers  and 
allocation bodies are made on the basis of the  (simplifying) assumption that there  is one infrastructure 
manager / allocation body per Member State with a rail system. This results in a total of 25 infrastructure 
managers / allocation bodies: EU27 without Cyprus and Malta, which do not have a rail system. 

EN 

74 

EN 

 
                                                           
timetable process in TPS focuses on individual lines, including cross-border lines. Policy 
option 4 fares very well in this respect, because capacity on cross-border lines is managed 
by the central entity. Therefore, the analysis in PO4 produces results on the premise that 
there are no remaining inconsistencies in the planning of capacity for cross-border traffic. 
However, the modelled results of PO4 assume the smooth implementation of higher and 
more complex requirements and dependencies towards the coordination of traffic between 
the  lines  managed  by  the  central  entity  (TEN-T  lines)  and  those  managed  by  individual 
infrastructure  managers  (the  rest  of  the  network)  than  for  the  other  policy  options. 
Therefore,  there  is  more  uncertainty  regarding  potential  inconsistencies  in  the  capacity 
planning and allocation. 

This  uncertainty  factor  is  also  applied  to  calculate  upper  bounds.  The  modelling  of  the 
train  paths,  includes  a  buffer  zone.  This  buffer  was  part  of  the  simulated  scheduling 
process  to  consider  short  operational  delays.  For  PO4,  these  buffers  had  the  highest 
relative  negative  impact  due  to  the  proportionally  high  number  of  lines  on  the  network. 
Therefore,  the  reversed  uncertainty  factors  are  the  basis  for  the  upper  bounds  of  the 
sensitivity analysis on the results of the additional capacity.  

The second factor driving the sensitivity analysis is the uncertainty about the effectiveness 
of  the  coordination  between  infrastructure  managers  and  ENIM  regarding  traffic  using 
both TEN-T lines (where ENIM is competent for planning) and the rest of the network (in 
competence of infrastructure managers). This is introduced by PM20-2. The TEN-T lines 
are  still  heavily  used  for  domestic  traffic,  which  often  does  not  start  on  these  lines  and 
hence  would  need  to  be  coordinated  between  infrastructure  managers  and  ENIM.  This 
coordination might not always be smooth. The central value (CV) used for the estimation 
of  the  impacts  of  the  options  in  section  6  assumed  a  full  continuation  of  the  domestic 
services. Therefore, for a lower bound (LB) calculation, a 50% reduction of the modelled 
impact of additionally available train paths is assumed for PO4, while for the upper bound 
(UB) a doubling of the additionally available train paths has been assumed. For the other 
policy  options  this  uncertainty  is  scaled  down  by  halving  the  previous  value  (i.e.,  from 
policy option 4, to policy option 3, to policy option 2 and to policy option 1). 

The results of the sensitivity analysis are provided in Table 12. 

Table  12:  Results  of  the  sensitivity  analysis  on  the  additional  rail  infrastructure  capacity  created  in 
POs 1 to 4 (LB – lower bounds; CV – central value; UB – upper bounds) relative to the baseline  

Policy  
option 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

2030 

CV 

0.19% 

1.55% 

2.55% 

LB 

0.17% 

1.32% 

1.92% 

UB 

0.19% 

1.63% 

2.68% 

LB 

0.19% 

1.55% 

2.55% 

PO4 

2.79% 
3.33% 
Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

1.74% 

3.66% 

2040 

CV 

0.20% 

1.82% 

3.40% 

5.33% 

UB 

0.21% 

1.91% 

3.57% 

5.86% 

LB 

0.21% 

1.71% 

2.76% 

3.35% 

2050 

CV 

0.23% 

2.01% 

3.67% 

6.39% 

UB 

0.23% 

2.11% 

3.85% 

7.03% 

The results show that the preferred policy option, PO3 has relatively stable results with an 
increase in the available rail infrastructure capacity between 2.7 and 3.9% in 2050 relative 
to  the  baseline.  Policy  option  4,  which  had  the  best  cost-benefit  ratio  in  the  modelled 
results, shows considerable uncertainty especially in regard to the lower bound. 

The effect of available capacity has a stronger impact on direct benefits and external costs, 
as  these  are  the  categories  that  have  the  most  direct  link  to  rail  traffic.  The  results  of 

EN 

75 

EN 

 
sensitivity analysis in terms of total costs, total benefits, net benefits and benefits to costs 
ratio for PO3 and PO4 are presented in Table 13. As shown in section 7.2, these are the 
policy options with the highest benefits to costs ratio and therefore have been retained for 
further analysis.  

Table 13: Summary of costs and benefits of policy options – net present value for 2025-2050 compared 
to  the  baseline  (in  million  EUR),  in  2021  prices  for  POs  3  and  4  (sensitivity  analysis).  LB  –  lower 
bounds, CV – central value and UB – upper bounds 

Total costs 
Total benefits 
Net benefits 
Benefits to costs ratio 

PO3: difference to the baseline 
LB 
CV 
2 094.0 
2 094.0 
9 553.3  13 502.70 
11 408.8 
7 459.4 
6.4 
4.6 

UB 
2 094.0 
14 084.7 
11 990.8 
6.7 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

PO4: difference to the baseline 
CV 
2 324.9 
18 319.5 
15 994.6 
7.9 

LB 
2 324.9 
9 714.7 
7 389.7 
4.2 

UB 
2 324.9 
19 963.5 
17 638.6 
8.6 

The results of the sensitivity analysis show that if risks are considered the estimates of the 
additional capacity and the total costs and benefits for POs 3 and 4 change considerably. 
In particular, the lower bound of PO4 in terms of benefits to costs ratio is below that of all 
the variants of PO3. The sensitivity analysis confirms the benefits of selecting PO3 as the 
preferred  policy  option,  which  shows  lower  uncertainty  with  respect  to  the  benefits  to 
costs ratio. 

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The  initiative  will  be  implemented  in  conjunction  with  other  legislative  initiatives  put 
forward  by  the  Commission,  which  address  challenges  related  to  rail  infrastructure 
development, interoperability in rail and multimodal transport. 

As regards rail infrastructure development, the baseline scenario includes the completion 
of  the  core  TEN-T  network  by  2030  and  of  the  comprehensive  TEN-T  by  2050.  It  also 
assumes  the  full  electrification  of  the  core  TEN-T  rail  network  by  2030  and  of  the 
comprehensive  TEN-T  rail  network  by  2050,  which  is  in  line  with  the  existing  TEN-T 
Regulation.  In addition  to  these developments,  the Commission  proposal on the revision 
of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  is  also  included  in  the  baseline.  It  envisages  accelerated  and 
better  aligned  TEN-T  implementation  (e.g.  for  ERTMS  deployment),  the  addition  of 
infrastructure requirements for rail relevant for intermodal transport (P400 loading gauge), 
extending the scope of rail freight infrastructure standards to the comprehensive network 
(22.5 t axle load, 100 km/h line speed for freight and the possibility of running trains with 
a  length  of  740 m),  digitalisation  of  passenger  and  freight  terminals  and  upgrading  their 
infrastructure (740 m long tracks under the crane, electrification, etc.) and the introduction 
of a minimum passenger line speed of 160 km/h for the passenger core network. 

The  initiative  will  complement  all  these  infrastructure-related  measures  by  providing  a 
legal framework that would allow IMs to maximise the use of the network and prioritise 
better  rail  traffic  on  congested  or  capacity  constrained  infrastructure,  which  in  turn  will 
maximise  the  value  of  infrastructure  investments.  Better  rail  infrastructure  capacity 
planning  and  allocation  will  allow  to  make  full  use  of  improvements  in  possible  speed, 
train length and in ERTMS deployment. The measures of the initiatives on coordination of 
rail and terminal operators and the digitalisation of rail-related services will allow to take 
full advantage of terminal infrastructure improvements and the digitalisation of terminals. 

EN 

76 

EN 

 
 
The  measures  in  this  initiative  ensure  synergies  with  other  initiatives  in  the  Fit  for  55 
package  of  initiatives163,  such  as  the  revision  of  the  Energy  Taxation  Directive164,  the 
RePowerEU  plan  and  with  future  Commission  proposals  for  revision  of  the  Combined 
Transport Directive165 and CountEmissions EU166. The initiative should help increase rail 
traffic, which should improve EU’s transport energy efficiency and reduce the dependence 
of EU transport on imported fossil fuels, which is in line with the measures put forward in 
the  Energy  Taxation  Directive  proposal  and  with  the  RePowerEU  plan.  The  taxation 
proposal envisages linking energy taxation rates to the energy content of energy products 
and  electricity,  while  RePowerEU  advocates  for  increased  electrification  including  in 
transport.  The  proposal  for  revision  of  the  Combined  Transport  Directive  will  provide  a 
boost  for  multimodal  transport  and  the  measures  to  improve  the  performance  of  rail 
terminals  will  further  support  an  increased  role  for  rail  in  the  multimodal  chain.  The 
initiative should facilitate the development of rail transport services and thus provide more 
options  for  those  who  want  to  reduce  their  transport  carbon  footprint,  information  on 
which should become increasingly available, as it will be based on transparent harmonised 
rules on calculating and reporting transport-related greenhouse gas emissions. 

The initiative will be successful if it will bring about an improvement in the management 
of  capacity  and  traffic  that  results  in  visible  progress  of  rail  performance.  This,  in  turn, 
will  trigger  greater  demand  for  rail  transport,  which  could  be  accommodated  thanks  to 
greater availability of capacity. 

Ultimately, a successful scenario is one in which there is growing modal share of rail and 
an  increasing  number  of  cross-border  rail  services,  which  would  translate  into  a  better 
environmental performance of the EU transport system.     

The  Commission  services  will  monitor  the  implementation  and  effectiveness  of  this 
initiative  through  a  number  of  actions  and  a  set  of  core  indicators  that  will  measure 
progress  towards  achieving  the  operational  objectives.  These  indicators,  as  well  as  the 
operational  objectives  will  be  developed  based  on  the  advice  of  a  performance  review 
body,  which  will  include  independent  experts  with  experience  in  rail,  coming  from 
different  stakeholder  groups.  Data  will  be  provided  by  ENIM  and  in  particular  by  the 
supporting operational entity - the Network Coordinator, which also play an important role 
in  defining  the  operational  objectives.  The  quality  of  data  is  expected  to  increase 
following the application of uniform definitions and methods for collecting and presenting 
the  data,  which  the  rail  network  coordinator  should  develop  in  cooperation  with  the 
Commission.  Data  and  analysis  on  competition  developments  and  implementation  is 
expected to be provided by the ENRRB.  Improvements in quality of the information are 
expected due to the collaboration of regulatory bodies. 

Taking  into  account  the  interaction  with  the  initiatives  outlined  above,  when  developing 
the performance indicators, the following will be taken into consideration: 

  Monitoring  capacity  use  (traffic)  with  less  trains,  including  optimising  stopping 
patterns and runtimes, minimising block occupation time, profile of freight trains 

163 COM(2021) 550 final of 14 July 2021. 
164 COM(2021) 563 final of 14 July 2021. 
165 
revision-of-Combined-Transport-Directive_en 
166 
emissions-%E2%80%98CountEmissions-EU%E2%80%99_en 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13010-Sustainable-transport-

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13217-Count-your-transport-

EN 

77 

EN 

 
                                                           
in particular 740 m trains, developments of containerised transport on rail, changes 
in planned and actual train speed. 

  Monitoring energy efficiency of rail transport and of EU transport in general. 
  Monitoring rail market developments, in particular the development of new cross-

border and long-distance rail transport services. 

The  performance  indicators  will  be  linked  to  rail  capacity  and  traffic  management  or  to 
coordination  of  rail  and  rail-related  services  in  rail  facilities  to  ensure  that  they  can 
identify  the  effect  of  the  policy  measures  included  in  the  proposal.  Nevertheless,  the 
synergies between the policy initiatives mentioned above will also result in measuring the 
combined effects of some measures (e.g. the increase in traffic of 740 m trains will depend 
both  on  the  investments  in  and  the  development  of  rail  infrastructure  and  infrastructure 
management to allow for the construction of train paths for such trains).The table below 
provides  an  overview  of  performance  areas,  corresponding  operational  objectives  and 
possible indicators. 

Table 14: Performance areas, corresponding operational objectives and possible indicators 

Performance area 

Operational objectives 

Possible indicators 

Physical infrastructure 
and its capabilities 

(note: achievement of 
these objectives is beyond 
the scope of this initiative 
but indicators are 
contextual variables for 
monitoring other 
performance areas) 

Infrastructure capacity 
management (quality and 
outcome of capacity 
planning processes) 

  Increase the volume of 
physical infrastructure 
  Increase the capabilities of 
physical infrastructure 
  Improve the state-of-repair 
of physical infrastructure 

  Length of lines by track numbers (single, 

double, quadruple etc.) 

  Length of lines equipped with ERTMS 
  Theoretical capacity of lines / tracks 

(headway between two trains) 

  Volume of temporary and permanent 

speed restrictions 

  Increase the volume of 

capacity offered 

  Train path-km offered 
  Number of connections in nodes per train 

  Increase quality and match 

path 

with market needs of 
capacity offered (timings, 
connections in nodes, etc.) 

  Increase the stability of 

capacity offered 

  Share of train paths allowing 740 m 

length trains 

  Share of train paths suffering from 
inconsistencies between networks 

  Average time to respond to ad-hoc path 

  Increase respect of processes 

requests 

(e.g. timeline) 

  Increase in consistency of 
cross-border capacity 
  Reduce impact of capacity 
restrictions due to works on 
traffic 

  Planned dwelling times of trains at border 

crossings 

  Average lead time for publication of 
capacity restrictions due to works 

Traffic management and 
contingency / crisis 
management (quality and 
outcome of operational 
processes) 

  Reduce volume of delays 
  Increase traffic continuity in 

  Sum of or average delay-hours  
  Share of trains that can be re-routed in the 

the event of network 
disruptions or crises 

event of disruptions 

  Accuracy of estimated-time-of-arrival 

  Provide relevant and up-to-

information 

date information to 
customers 

  Actual dwelling times of trains at border 

crossings 

Digital tools and services 

  Provide information about 
physical infrastructure and 
its capabilities in digital 

  Completeness of information in digital 

EU rail infrastructure register 

  Share of cross-border train paths allocated 

EN 

78 

EN 

 
 
 
Performance area 

Operational objectives 

Possible indicators 

Services provided to 
passengers and freight 
customers 

form 

  Digitalise capacity planning 
and allocation processes 
  Provide rail customers with 
relevant and up-to-date 
information  

via a single IT interface 

  Share of train paths generated 

automatically and instantaneously 

  Share of shipments with estimated time-

of-arrival information 

  Increase the volume of rail 

  Passenger-kilometres and tonne-

kilometres (freight) 

  Train-kilometres 
  Modal share of rail (passenger / freight) 
  Frequency of passenger services (direct & 

connections) 

  Delays 
  Share of cancelled services 

passenger and freight 
transport 

  Increase speed, frequency, 
connectivity, punctuality 
and reliability of passenger 
and freight transport 
services 

  Decrease time to launch new 

rail transport services 
  Improve scope and quality 
of information provided to 
customers 

The initiative will provide a legal framework for the development of more detailed rules, 
procedures and templates, which will be laid down in non-legislative acts. Therefore, the 
implementation period should reflect the entry into effect of these acts. Five years after the 
end of the implementation date of all the relevant legislation (including the adoption and 
entry  into  effect  of  the  necessary  implementing  and  delegated  acts),  the  Commission 
services  should  carry  out  an  evaluation  to  verify  to  what  extent  the  objectives  of  the 
initiative have been reached. 

EN 

79 

EN 

 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

The  lead  DG  is  the  Directorate-General  for  Mobility  and  Transport  DG  MOVE,  Unit  C3:  Single 
European Rail Area 

DECIDE reference number: PLAN/2021/10644. 

Item 8.a) in Annex I to Commission Work Programme 2023, headline ‘A European Green Deal’, 
part of the Greening freight package167. 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The Call for evidence168 was published on 8 March 2022. 

This impact assessment was coordinated by an Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG), involving the 
following  Commission  Services:  Secretariat-General,  Legal  Service,  Directorate-General  for 
Competition (COMP), Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (EMPL), 
Directorate-General  for  the  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  (GROW), 
Directorate-General  for  Environment  (ENV),  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation 
(RTD), 
for 
Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement  Negotiations,  as  well  as  the  European  Union  Agency  for 
Railways  (ERA),  the  European  Climate,  Infrastructure  and  Environment  Executive  Agency 
(CINEA) and Europe’s Rail Joint Undertaking (EU-Rail). 

(ESTAT),  Directorate-General 

the  Joint  Research  Centre 

(JRC),  Eurostat 

The Inter-Service Steering Group met 5 times: on 12 January, 18 February, 23 May, 10 November 
2022 and 26 January 2023. It was consulted throughout the different steps of the impact assessment 
process: notably on the draft staff working document.  

3.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

The draft report was submitted to the RSB on 1 February 2023 and was discussed by the Board on 
1 March 2023. RSB issued a positive opinion on 3 March 2023. Recommendations from the Board 
have been addressed in the revised version of the Impact Assessment report as detailed in the table 
below. 

Table 15: Modifications of the IA report in response to RSB recommendations 
Detailed RSB comments 

Modifications to the IA report  

(1) The report should better explain the parameters used 
as model inputs to estimate the key specific impacts of the 
policy options. In particular, it should better explain how 
capacity restrictions (both in terms of general limitations 
in available capacity and more specific temporary 
restrictions due to maintenance and renewal infrastructure 
work) were taken into account in the modelling. It should 

Additional explanations on capacity and corresponding 
assumptions have been added in sections 5.1, 6.1.1 and 
Annex 4 (sections 2.1.4 and 4.1.1). 

The explanations on the articulation between TRUST and 
ASTRA models to estimate the net job creation and the 
GDP growth have been added in footnotes in sections 
6.1.7 and 6.2.1., and clarifications regarding the way these 

167  COM (2022) 548 final of 18 October 2022. 
168  International freight and passenger transport – increasing the share of rail traffic 

(https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13134-International-freight-and-passenger-
transport-increasing-the-share-of-rail-traffic_en). 

EN 

80 

EN 

 
                                                           
Detailed RSB comments 

Modifications to the IA report  

be clearer on all parameters and assumptions used to 
estimate the increase in available rail network capacity 
and rail freight transport activity. It should also better 
explain the articulation between the TRUST and ASTRA 
models to estimate the net job creation and the GDP 
growth. The report should undertake a sensitivity analysis 
to better account for the uncertainty of the outputs, such 
as the estimated potential 4% increase in rail capacity 
thanks to the preferred policy option of the initiative. 

(2) The report should provide further argumentation on 
the choice of the preferred option given that it does not 
have the best Benefit Cost Ratio. It should further explain 
the source of uncertainties and limitations of the cost 
benefit analysis to strengthen the justification of the 
preferred option. To complement the cost benefit analysis, 
the report should more explicitly compare the options in 
terms of effectiveness, in particular delivery on the 
specific objectives of the initiative. It should bring out 
more clearly how the options differ in terms of key 
benefits, including any available quantitative estimates. 

(3) The report should more clearly outline the failures of 
the current Rail Freight Corridors system, and better 
explain how the 2021 evaluation findings fed into the 
report. The intervention logic should make a more direct 
link between the identified problems and corresponding 
objectives, clarifying how they address problems other 
than capacity restraints for freight transport. The report 
should further explain to what extent capacity increase is 
a key enabler to reach the rail transport objectives 2030 
and 2050 set out in the Commission’s Sustainable and 
Smart Mobility Strategy. 

(4) The report should be clear on what success would look 
like in terms of increase of freight and passenger 
transport, linking the achievements of this initiative with 
parallel, complementary, initiatives addressing other 
barriers to the growth of rail transport. It should explain 
how the achievement of success of this initiative would be 
monitored while adequately reflecting the progress of 
other relevant initiatives. It should establish a set of 
operational objectives linked to monitoring indicators. 

(5) The views of different stakeholder groups should be 
more visible throughout the report. 

models were used to assess impacts on transport activity 
were inserted in section 4.1.1. of Annex 4.  

Sensitivity analysis has been performed and the results in 
terms of rail capacity, net benefits and benefits to costs 
ratio are provided in section 8.4 and Annex 4 (section 
4.6). 

The efficiency section (section 7.2) has been reinforced, to 
better explain the source of uncertainties and limitations of 
the cost benefit analysis. This has been complemented by 
the sensitivity analysis presented in section 8.4. In 
addition, the section on effectiveness (section 7.1) has 
been revised and tables have been added to more clearly 
present the assessment. Furthermore, insights collected 
from stakeholder consultation activities were included in 
the text of Section 8.1 to strengthen the justification for 
the choice of preferred option. 

Section 1.5 on ex-post evaluation has been reinforced, and 
it now also includes a table linking the conclusions of the 
evaluation to the impact assessment.  

The intervention logic has been revisited. The problem 
tree in section 2 has been revised to clearly indicate the 
links between problem drivers, problems and 
consequences. In addition, the wording of the problem 
drivers 2, 3 and 4 has been fine tuned. The one-to-one 
correspondence between specific objectives and problem 
drivers in Figure 4, that over-simplified the relationships 
between the specific objectives and problem drivers, has 
been revisited. The wording of specific objective 1 has 
been also be fine-tuned. In relation to the overall 
intervention logic, Table 1 of the impact assessment report 
links the various elements: problem drivers, specific 
objectives, policy measures and policy options. 

Section 4.1 explains how the capacity increase is a key 
enabler to reach the rail transport objectives 2030 and 
2050 set out in the Commission’s Sustainable and Smart 
Mobility Strategy. 

Section 9 has been reinforced and now discusses how 
success would look like in terms of increase of freight and 
passenger transport, linking the achievements of this 
initiative with parallel, complementary, initiatives 
addressing other barriers to the growth of rail transport.  

A table has been added in section 9 linking operational 
objectives to monitoring indicators.  

The views of the different stakeholders groups have been 
made more visible throughout the report (e.g. sections 
2.2.1 to 2.2.5).  

EN 

81 

EN 

 
Detailed RSB comments 

Modifications to the IA report  

(6) The introduciton section of the report should better 
clarify that the initiative covers all type of rail traffic 
(passenger and freight) and not only the freight segment. 

(7) The ‘economic context’ section of the report should 
provide additional background to better describe the 
current rail market situation. 

(8) The purpose and way of working of corridor one-stop 
shops under the RFC Regulation should be better 
explained. 

The words ‘passenger and freight’ were added more 
systematically throughout Section 1. 

Section 1.4 of the report was significantly reinforced and 
now includes new paragraphs and a new figure providing 
additional facts and figures concerning rail freight and 
infrastructure management0 

Additional clarifications were inserted in Section 1.3 of 
the report. 

(9) The report should also better explain how the one-stop 
shops would work under PO1 of the initiative. 

Additional clarifications were inserted in Section 5.4.1 
and in Annex 6 of the report. 

(10) And explanation should be provided as to why 
‘individual freight trains’ are considered a ‘niche’ 
segment and why it is expected that this will remain true 
in the future. 

(11) The section on priority criteria in the context of 
capacity allocation and PSOs should explain the meaning 
of the acronym ‘PSO’. 

Explanations were added in a footnote in Section 2.2.1. 

The text of Section 2.2.2 was updated to include an 
explanation of the acronym ‘PSO’. 

(12) If data is available, the report should provide 
additional background regarding how the challenges 
concerning the cross-border coordination if rail traffic 
differ between Member States. 

For lack of comprehensive data, additional text regarding 
the challenges related to the cross-border coordination of 
traffic faced identified in the evaluation of the RFC 
Regulation was added in Section 2 of Annex 5.  

(13) The report should explain why the growth of rail 
transport is not the general objective of the initiative. It 
should also explain how the initiative contributes to the 
milestones of the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy 
(SSMS), and the interplay between this initiative and 
other initiatives. 

(14) The report should better explain the assumptions 
related to rail infrastructure underpinning the baseline 
scenario. 

Section 4.1 of the report was revised to further justify the 
rationale for defining the objective of the initiative and to 
clarify the links between the initiative and the SSMS and 
other initiatives. 

Annex 4 of the report was updated to better explain how 
the preferred option of the revision of the TEN-T 
Regulation was factored in modelling for the baseline 
scenario. 

(15) The report should better explain how the ‘crisis cell’ 
envisaged in PM23 would work. 

Clarifications on the ‘crisis cell’ in PM23 were introduced 
in Section 5.4.4. 

(16) The report should clarify how the TTR project fits 
into the policy measures envisaged in the initiative. 

(17) The report should explain the similarities and 
differences between the proposed EU performance 
reviewing body under PM10 and the existing one in the 
area of aviation. 

(18) The section regarding the impact of the initiative on 
SMEs should provide more information regarding how 
the SME test was conducted. 
(19) The section of the report concerning impacts on 
competitiveness should be revised to explain the potential 

EN 

82 

A box describing the TTR project in more detail and its 
relationship with the policy measures of the initiative was 
added in Section 5.4.2 of the report. 

Additional explanations were added in the description of 
PM10 in Annex 6 of the report. 

Paragraphs explaining the methodology and outcome of 
the SME test in Annex 11 were moved into Section 6.1.5. 
of the report. 
Section 6.1.7 of the report was updated accordingly. 

EN 

 
Detailed RSB comments 

Modifications to the IA report  

for improving the price competitiveness of rail. 

4.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The  impact  assessment  is  based  on  several  sources,  using  both  quantitative  and  qualitative  data, 
collected from Member States and industry. This includes: 

  The ex-post evaluation of the Rail Freight Corridors Regulation  

  Stakeholder consultation activities (see Annex 2) 

  External support study carried out by an independent consortium (Ecorys, TRT, Hacon, M-Five)  

  Commission’s experience in monitoritung and implementing the RFC Regulation and the Recast 

Directive  

  The Commission monitoring reports on the development of the rail market 

  Samples  of  quantitative  datasets  from  industry  associations  RailNetEurope  and  Forum  Train 

Europe. 

EN 

83 

EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) 

This annex provides a summary of the result of the consultation activities, carried out as part of this 
impact  assessment  in  view  of  the  possible  review  of  the  EU  legal  framework  for  railway 
infrastructure  capacity  allocation  and  rail  traffic  management.  It  provides  a  basic  analysis  of  the 
responses of stakeholder groups involved in  the  consultation  process  and a summary of the main 
issues  which  they  raised.  A  more  detailed  description  is  provided  in  the  consultation  report, 
forming part of the impact assessment support study undertaken by an external consortium. 

The objective of the consultation activities were to collect information and opinions of stakeholders 
on the key  problems and problem  drivers, definition  of relevant  policy  objectives linked to those 
problem  areas  and  the  identification,  definition  and  screening  of  policy  measures  that  could 
eventually be incorporated into policy options for this impact assessment. 

1.  CONSULTATION STRATEGY AND OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

The consultation strategy was developed from the start of the process by the Commission services 
and addressed the following stakeholder groups:  

  Representatives  of  individual  infrastructure  managers,  allocation  bodies  and  stakeholder 

organisation representing them;  

  Railway  undertakings  (freight  and  passenger)  and  their  stakeholder  organisations,  in 

particular those undertakings using the services of the Rail Freight Corridors;  

  Members  of  executive  and  management  board  of  the  Rail  Freight  Corridors,  including 

members of the permanent management offices;  

  Terminal operators and owners, including those participating in the advisory groups of the 

Rail Freight Corridors;  

  Representatives  of  the  Member  States’  ministries  responsible  for  rail,  in  particular  those 

involved in the work of the Rail Freight Corridors and local authorities;  

  Economic  operators  that  are  customers  of  rail  services,  in  particular  freight  forwarders, 

shippers, intermodal operators and their organisations;  
  Representatives of rail regulators, including IRG-Rail;  
  Representatives of national and national safety authorities;  
  Other relevant stakeholders, such as NGOs and civil society;  
  Academia and research institutes;  
  Citizens.  

The consultation covered all stakeholder groups identified in the initial consultation strategy. The 
consultation activities took place in 2022 and included: 
-  A consultation on the call for evidence169, 
-  An open public consultation170, 
-  Two focus group meetings, organised by the external contractors, 
-  Surveys and interviews managed by external contractors, 
-  Two  stakeholder  events,  organised  by 

the  Commission  via  PRIME171  (targeting 

infrastructure managers) and RU-Dialogue172 (targeting railway undertakings). 

169 International freight and passenger transport – increasing the share of rail traffic (europa.eu)  
170 International freight and passenger transport – increasing the share of rail traffic (europa.eu) 
171 Platform of Rail Infrastructure Managers in Europe (PRIME) for cooperation between infrastructure managers and 
the Commission services. 
172 A forum for rail undertakings, involving the Commission services and the European Union Agency for Railways. 

EN 

84 

EN 

 
                                                           
The  consultation  included  the  collection  and  analysis  of  position  papers  (18  submitted  alongside 
responses to the OPC and 15 additional position papers provided for the support study during the 
stakeholder consultations). 

Both quantitative and qualitative tools were used in analysing data obtained from stakeholders. 

Limitations of the stakeholder consultation 

It was particularly difficult to gather input from IMs on estimates on congested lines. Stakeholders 
were  also  asked  to  comment  on  how  they  might  be  impacted  by  the  various  proposed  measures 
(and especially on cost assumptions regarding the implementation of TTR), but they were not able 
to provide detailed estimates on the monetised costs and benefits.  

The  policy  measures  were  further  refined  after  they  were  presented  to  some  stakeholder  groups. 
Therefore, not all stakeholder groups were consulted on the wording used in the impact assessment. 
Nevertheless, the nature of the measures and their essential elements did not change. 

2.  FEEDBACK ON THE CALL FOR EVIDENCE 

The call for evidence was open for feedback between 8 March and 5 April 2022 on Have your say 
webpage. As part of the initial feedback mechanism, there were 67  valid responses (including 15 
position  papers  and  documents)  were  received:  31  from  citizens,  9  public  authorities,  9 
companies/business  organisations,  9  business  associations,  3  NGOs,  3  trade  unions,  1  consumer 
organisation and 2 other respondents. 

The responses focused on the measures needed to boost rail (with different respondents focusing on 
passenger,  freight  or  both).  Most  respondents  expressed  support  for  the  initiative  (public 
authorities, citizens, NGOs, business associations, companies) and some citizens expressed general 
support  for  rail.  Suggestions  for  additional  measures  included  implementing  a  level  playing  field 
among  the  different  transport  modes  (business  associations,  trade  unions,  citizens),  increasing 
investments  in  rail  infrastructure  (business  associations),  developing  further  the  Timetable 
Redesign  Project  (business  associations),  working  on  through  ticketing,  deprioritising  PSOs173, 
improving  data  exchange  in  rail  (public  authority)  and  capacity  management  organised  by 
supranational  regions  (citizen).  Some  respondents  (NGO)  addressed  the  draft  policy  options, 
expressing  support  for  the  more  ambitious  ones  (options  2  and  3,  which  propose  a  network 
approach  to  capacity  management).  A  trade  union,  some  business  associations  and  some  citizens 
were against the EU focussing on long-distance (freight) trains and instead insisted on focusing on 
commuter  and  intercity  trains,  expanding  rail  infrastructure  and  making  rail  more  affordable. 
Regional issues (rail market problems in Spain e.g.) were also raised by some (NGOs and business 
associations). 

Some respondents (companies from the rail sector, public authorities) expressed preference for the 
policy  option  which  would  improve  the  RFCs.  Some  business  associations,  trade  unions,  public 
authorities expressed reservations about an entity at EU level responsible for capacity management, 
but  others  (citizens,  companies)  explicitly  supported  it.  One  respondent  (a  company)  saw  the 
options  as  evolutionary  stages.  A  respondent  (trade  union)  suggested  that  trade  unions  should  be 
represented in the advisory groups of the RFC governance. 

173 Public service obligations are state-supported public passenger transport services in the general interest that transport 
companies would not provide on their own initiative. They are regulated in the Recast Directive and in PSO Regulation 
(Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007). 

EN 

85 

EN 

 
                                                           
Some suggestions for additional measures (level playing field and changing rules for road transport, 
rail infrastructure investments, direct support to railway undertakings, etc.) could not be taken into 
consideration, as they are being addressed by other Commission initiatives. 

3.  RESULTS OF THE OPEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

The public consultation opened on 30 March 2022 and closed on 22 June 2022. The total number of 
responses  to  the  questionnaire  was  123.  This  includes  18  written  contributions.  The  Commission 
services received 1 late reply by email  and corrections to  1 reply  after the deadline. More details 
about  the  results  of  the  open  public  consultations  are  available  in  the  factual  summary  report 
published on the Commission’s Have your say website and in the consultation report forming part 
of  the  impact  assessment  support  study.  The  highest  rate  of  responses  came  from  business 
(companies  34,  associations  13),  citizens  (31  EU  and  1  non-EU)  and  public  authorities  (27). 
Respondents included also 7 NGOs, 2 consumer organisations, 2 trade unions and 1 environmental 
organisation.  Many  of  the  respondents  are  related  professionally  to  rail,  including  some  of  those 
who replied as citizens. 

Table 16: Classification of respondents per stakeholder group according to their relationship with rail 

Stakeholder category 

Number of responses  % of responses 

Citizens 

Railway undertaking providing freight services 

Railway undertaking providing passenger services 

Rail infrastructure managers and allocation bodies 

Rail regulatory body 

Transport operators of other modes (e.g., road hauliers) 

Terminal owners and operators 

Multimodal operators (MTOs) 

Logistics services providers, freight forwarders and transport organisers 

Industry and commerce 

Umbrella organisations and associations representing the rail stakeholders 

Non-governmental organisations (not specialising in rail transport) and civil society 

Ministries, regulatory bodies, national safety authorities and other public authorities 

Research and academia 

Other  

Total 

22 

9 

6 

11 

11 

2 

3 

1 

2 

1 

16 

5 

19 

0 

15 

17.9% 

7.3% 

4.9% 

8.9% 

8.9% 

1.6% 

2.4% 

0.8% 

1.6% 

0.8% 

13.0% 

4.1% 

15.4% 

0.0% 

12.2% 

123 

100.0% 

Respondents  came  from  20  Member  States.  Further  10  responses  were  received  from  Norway, 
Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom and 2 responses did not provide information on the 
country  of  origin.  Germany,  Belgium,  France  and  Sweden  provided  the  highest  numbers  of 
responses (a total of 57 responses between them, or 47% of all the responses). 

Responses  from  legal  entities  included  42  responses  from  large  organisations  (i.e.,  with  250  or 
more employees), 18 from micro organisations (i.e., between 1 and 9 employees), 17 from medium-
size  organisations  (i.e.,  between  50  and  249  employees)  and  13  from  small  organisations  (i.e., 
between  10  and  49  employees).  Some  33  respondents  did  not  provide  information  on  the  size  of 
their organisation. 
EN 

EN 

86 

 
 
The  number  of  replies  ‘I  do  not  know’  or  ‘I  have  no  opinion’  varied,  sometimes  surpassing  one 
third  of  the  replies,  indicating  that  some  of  the  questions  required  considerable  knowledge  about 
rail infrastructure and traffic management and about particular rail market segments (e.g. freight). 

3.1.  Questions on challenges and problems 

The majority of respondents agreed that the challenges to  cross-border rail listed in the questions 
were important. 58 out of the 82 respondents agreed with the fact that higher prices of rail freight 
services  compared  to  other  modes  of  transport  is  a  challenge,  mostly  economic  operators  stating 
that other issues are more important than pricing. 80 out of the 97 respondents agreed with the issue 
of poor performance of rail freight compared to other modes of transport. The few respondents who 
disagreed were citizens or business organisations (companies). 68 out of the 85 respondents agreed 
with the fact that insufficient availability of scheduled rail freight services is also one of the main 
challenges  facing  the  sector.  Lack  of  capacity  was  identified  (77  out  of  the  93  responses)  as  a 
problem both for cross-border passenger and freight railway transport. 

The only question where respondents were  almost  evenly split  was whether amendments of train 
paths  after  allocation  was  a  problem  for  passenger  rail,  with  41  agreeing  and  30  disagreeing  that 
this is a problem. 

When assessing whether deficiencies in the performance of railway undertakings in freight causes 
poor performance for rail, the different stakeholder groups did not demonstrate major differences in 
opinion, although some railway undertakings and their associations disagreed that this is a problem. 
80 out of 97 replies confirmed that this was a problem. 

The situation was  similar in  regard to  assessing the quality of  services  provided by infrastructure 
managers,  where  again  the  majority  (68  out  of  85  respondents)  agreed  that  this  is  a  problem  and 
those respondents who disagreed were mostly representatives of infrastructure managers. 

3.2.  Questions on measures and solutions 

The  majority  of  respondents  assessed  positively  the  proposed  measures  to  support  actions  within 
the existing framework of the rail freight corridors. 

On the use of plans for the utilisation of capacity on the rail network, the majority of respondents 
agreed with such a measure and the most popular approach was coordinating such plans between 
IMs  within  the  existing  structures  of  the  rail  freight  corridors  (54  out  of  100  respondents).  23 
thought that alignment should be supported by a single EU entity responsible for the entire network 
of  strategic  lines  in  Europe.  22  respondents  thought  that  alignment  should  be  supported  by  a 
bilateral processes, involving only the infrastructure managers concerned. In general, the responses 
were similarly distributed within each stakeholder category with a statistically meaningful number 
of respondents. 

On the introduction of clear rules to define how capacity should be split between different types of 
traffic (national, regional, cross-border, passenger, freight, etc.), the majority (63 out of 109) was in 
favour of introducing binding rules at EU level. 33 respondents stated that there should be rules at 
EU level that, but  that these rules should only provide  guidance.  Finally, 13 respondents  thought 
there should be no rules at all. 

On the introduction of an entity at EU level responsible for rail infrastructure capacity management, 
the majority of respondents saw a need for such an entity and supported all of the functions listed in 

EN 

87 

EN 

 
the questionnaire: development of a harmonised network of rules (57 out of 76), supervising IMs 
(72 out of 93), traffic management on important lines (only 52 out of 91), providing one-stop shop 
services for applicants requesting capacity (51 out 85). 

52 out of 101 respondents agreed with the introduction of an EU layer for regulatory supervision of 
rail and 42 out  101 supported only coordination between existing regulators on the basis of clear 
rules. 

Respondents agreed with all venues outlined in the questionnaire on improving the performance of 
rail in multimodal transport including different coordination measures (89 out of 91; 83 out 84; 77 
out  of  81  respondents)  and  even  more  ambitious  bonus-malus  schemes  for  incentivising 
performance (57 out of 69). 

Respondents  overwhelmingly  supported  (84  out  of  86)  stricter  approach  to  progressing  with  the 
digitalisation of rail-related services, such as having clear deadlines. 

On traffic management, respondents supported in large numbers all possible venues: harmonisation 
at technical level (87 out of 102), harmonisation of processes (68 out of 103) and of priority rules 
for rail traffic (59 out of 98). All stakeholder groups provided similar pattern of replies. 

On monitoring of performance, respondents supported both strengthening the cooperation between 
IMs, RUs and other stakeholders (67 out of 82) and the introduction of an independent entity for 
the supervision of performance monitoring (58 out of 86). 

4.  TARGETED STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

4.1.  Organisation and participants 

Most targeted stakeholder consultation activities were undertaken during 2022 as part of the impact 
assessment  support  study,  namely  two  rounds  of  survey-questionnaires,  two  rounds  of  targeted 
interviews  and  two  focus  group  meetings  (on  31 March  and  6 July,  attended  by  42  and  47 
stakeholders  and  experts  respectively).  The  first  round  of  surveys  was  dedicated  to  the  problem 
definition and the second one to the policy measures. The interview programme focused largely on 
the policy options. The Commission also organised the above-mentioned workshops in PRIME and 
RU-Dialogue on 14 and 15 December 2022. 

EN 

88 

EN 

 
Table 17: Overview of targeted stakeholder consultation activities undertaken by the external consortium 

Consultation activity 

Number of 
stakeholders invited 

Number of responses 

Survey-questionnaire round 1  322174 

Targeted interviews phase 1 
First focus group meeting 
Survey-questionnaire round 2  322176 

After analysing and filtering the data, 94 questionnaires 
received, of which 68 fully completed 
19 
42175 
After analysing and filtering the data, 85 questionnaires 
received, of which 75 fully completed 
28177 
Targeted interviews phase 2 
47178 
Second focus group meeting 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

28 
132 

25 
60 

For the survey-questionnaire of round 1 respondents came from 20 Member States (SE, FI, LV, LT, 
PL, HU, CZ, SK, HR, SI, IT, AT, DE, DK, NL, BE, FR, ES, PT, LU) and Norway and Switzerland. 
In Round 2, respondents  came from  21 Member  States (SE,  LV,  LT, PL, HU, CZ, SK, RO, BG, 
EL, HR, IT, AT, DE, DK, NL, BE, FR, ES, PT, LU) and Norway and Switzerland. 

Interviewees  were  selected  from  individual  organisations,  taking  into  account  their  involvement 
and technical expertise in the rail sector, notably when it comes to infrastructure capacity allocation 
and traffic management. The list of interviewees was representative of all stakeholder groups and 
included  infrastructure  managers  and  allocation  bodies,  railway  undertakings,  terminal  operators, 
rail regulators, representatives of the national  ministries responsible for railways, members of the 
governance structure and representatives of the rail freight corridors, rail customers, academia / rail 
experts. The consultation report of the support study provides further details on the interviewees. 

Representatives of all key stakeholder groups were also selected for the focus group meetings. 

4.2.  Outcome of the targeted stakeholder consultation 

The  problem  definition,  objectives  and  measures  have  evolved  throughout  the  impact  assessment 
and  hence  their  wording  used  during  the  various  phases  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  was  not 
identical with the final one presented in this report, while not varying significantly in substance.  

4.2.1.  Analysis of the problems and their drivers 

The  majority  of  stakeholders  recognised  all  5  problem  drivers  as  relevant  to  problem  1–  poor 
performance  of  cross-border  rail  transport  services,  although  the  assigned  importance  differed 
considerably among the drivers. 

 

ineffective  rail  capacity  management  (i.e.,  Problem  Driver  1)  is  considered  by  54%  of 
respondents contributing from a large to a moderate extent and by 27% to a small extent; 

174 Number of individual contacts invited. Multiple individual contacts have been reached out for one entity. 
175 Number of invitees that joined the first focus group meeting. 
176 Number of individual contacts invited. Multiple individual contacts have been reached out for one entity. 
177  Number  of  interviewees  that  agreed  to  be  consulted  with  a  targeted  interview  and  resulting  from  those  who  have 
declined the invitation and those who have spontaneously approached to study team (e.g., as follow up  activity of 
the second focus group meeting).  

178 Number of invitees that joined the second focus group meeting. 

EN 

89 

EN 

 
                                                           
 

 

 

 

ineffective  rail  traffic  management  (i.e.,  Problem  Driver  2)  by  55%  from  a  large  to  a 
moderate extent and by 26% to a small extent; 
ineffective digital tools for planning and operation of rail services (i.e., Problem Driver 3) 
by 63% from a large to a moderate extent and by 25% to a small extent; 
ineffective  train  performance  monitoring  and  lack  of  effective  tools  to  incentivise 
performance  improvement  (i.e.,  Problem  Driver  4)  by  47%  from  a  large  to  a  moderate 
extent and by 34% to a small extent. 
lack  of  coordination  on  planning  and  operations  between  stakeholders  involved  in 
multimodal  transport  chains  (i.e.,  Problem  Driver  5)  by  62%  (51  out  of  83  respondents) 
from a large to a moderate extent and by 22% (18 respondents) to a small extent. 

As regards the patterns across the different stakeholder groups, most railway undertakings and rail 
regulatory  bodies  generally  agreed  to  a  larger  extent  with  the  problem  definition  than  the  overall 
sample of respondents.  A majority of them agreed to a large or moderate extent that the problem 
drivers  were  negatively  affecting  the  performance  of  cross-border  rail  transport  services. 
Infrastructure  managers  showed  a  more  moderate  and  fragmented  perception  regarding  the 
influence of the problem drivers to problem 1 and they were more evenly split across the spectrum 
of responses. 

The majority of the representatives of the railway undertakings indicated problem drivers 1 and 2, 
contextual driver 2 (lack of interoperability) and problem driver 3 as most important. The majority 
of the representatives of the infrastructure managers indicated problem driver 3, contextual driver 2 
and problem driver 5. 

The situation was similar for the 3 problem drivers underlying problem 2 – limited capacity of the 
rail network to absorb additional traffic: 

 

 

 

ineffective rail capacity management and allocation (i.e., Problem Driver 1) by 62% (50 out 
of  81  respondents)  from  a  large  to  a  moderate  extent  and  by  20%  (16  respondents)  to  a 
small extent; 
ineffective digital tools for planning and operation of rail services (i.e., Problem Driver 3) 
by  53%  (42  out  of  80  respondents)  from  a  large  to  a  moderate  extent  and  by  29%  (23 
respondents) to a small extent; 
ineffective rail traffic management (Problem Driver 2) by 51% (40 out of 79 respondents) 
from a large to a moderate extent and by 27% (21 respondents) to a small extent. 

For  problem  2  similar  response  patterns  to  the  ones  previously  described  for  problem  1  emerged 
when analysing the responses of the two main stakeholder groups (IMs and RUs). In particular, one 
can notice that most of the representatives of RUs generally agreed with the problem drivers, with 
almost all respondents having agreed to some extent that all problem drivers were actually affecting 
the  limited  capacity  of  the  railway  network  to  absorb  additional  rail  traffic.  IMs  showed  a  more 
moderate and fragmented perception regarding the influence of the problem drivers on problem 2, 
as the respondents of this category were more evenly split across the spectrum of responses.  

With  regards  to  the  different  views  on  the  influence  of  single  problem  drivers,  respondents  from 
both  groups  converged  on  contextual  driver  1.  The  majority  of  RUs  identified  problem  drivers  1 
and  2,  contextual  driver  2  (lack  of  interoperability)  and  problem  driver  3  as  most  important,  and 
IMs identifying problem drivers 5, 3 and contextual driver 2. Lack of coordination on planning and 
operations  between  stakeholders  involved  in  multimodal  transport  chains  (i.e.,  problem  driver  5) 
was more widely identified by the infrastructure managers as a driver for problem 2, compared to 
problem driver 3 and contextual driver 2. For this stakeholder category, the latter problem drivers 
were more linked in problem 1.  

EN 

90 

EN 

 
Rail  regulatory  bodies  showed  comparable  patterns  to  the  ones  identified  for  the  infrastructure 
managers on the problem drivers for problem 2. 

Both contextual drivers (limitations of the physical rail infrastructure and lack of interoperability) 
were identified as very important for the two problems targeted by this initiative by all respondents. 

The  interviews  in  round  1  showed  interviewees  agreeing  with  the  links  between  problems  and 
drivers. Both the replies to the questionnaires and the interviews provided important insights of the 
factors  contributing  to  the  problem  drivers  and  the  mechanisms  by  which  they  result  in  the  2 
problems, which were used in refining the problem definition. Further details are available in the 
consultation report accompanying the support study. 

4.2.2.  How will the problems evolve 

The replies to the targeted consultation showed the expectations of stakeholders for up to 2050 of 
the large majority (total of 69 respondents) that congestion and overlap with passenger traffic due 
to  inefficient  use  of  available  infrastructure  to  increase  highly  (22%)  or  moderately  (35%)  with 
only  17%  of  the  respondents  that  believes  that  the  situation  will  not  change.  Few  stakeholders 
envisage a moderate (10%) or high (7%) decrease of congestion and 9% do not have an opinion. 

Without  special  capacity  safeguards  for  rail  freight  transport,  there  is  a  risk  that  high-quality 
capacity will not be available, leading to an increased loss of competitiveness of the sector. 

The  poor  performance  of  rail  freight  services  (Problem  1)  in  terms  of  punctuality,  speed  and 
reliability,  is  generally  expected  to  remain  unchanged  or  deteriorate.  In  the  absence  of  any  EU 
intervention, the vast majority of stakeholders expects a stability or even a worsening (increasing) 
of the factors contributing to  ineffective rail capacity (Problem  Driver 1)  and traffic management 
(Problem Driver 2). 

For  Problem  1,  contextual  driver  1  is  most  concerning  to  respondents.  Ineffective  rail  capacity 
management and allocation ranks second, with 37% of respondents (out of a total of 67) attributing 
a  large,  18%  a  moderate,  and  28%  a  small  contribution  respectively;  13%  of  the  respondents 
attributes no impact to this problem driver. 

For  Problem  2  (limited  capacity  of  the  rail  network  to  absorb  additional  traffic),  the  picture  was 
similar  with  47%  of  respondents  (a  total  of  68)  attributing  a  large,  16%  a  moderate,  and  19%  a 
small contribution respectively and only 4% see no impact from problem driver 1. Problem driver 2 
is  also  a  major  concern,  with  49%  of  67  respondents  saying  that  the  ineffective  rail  traffic 
management will contribute from a large (27%) to a moderate (22%) extent to the limited capacity 
of the rail network to  absorb additional traffic and 27% believes that it will  contribute to a small 
extent. 

Both  the  replies  to  the  questionnaires  and  the  interviews  provided  important  insights  on  the 
expectations  on  the  evolvement  of  the  problem  drivers  and  the  2  problems  without  an  EU 
intervention. Further details, in particular on the effect of the sector initiatives, are available in the 
consultation report accompanying the support study. 

4.2.3.  Policy objectives 

The initial formulation of the specific objectives (5 instead of the 4 used in the impact assessment) 
produced  the  results  outlined  below  expressed  in  reply  to  the  stakeholder  survey,  indicating  an 
overall support. The most relevant specific objectives according to stakeholders were (i) support of 

EN 

91 

EN 

 
digitalisation of rail capacity and traffic management and (ii) improve coordination on planning and 
operation between stakeholders involved in multimodal transport chains. 

Figure 6: Stakeholders’ views on the specific objectives 

4.2.4.  Policy measures 

Stakeholders  were  presented  with  a  list  of  26  potential  policy  measures,  covering  the  initial  5 
specific objectives. These measures were kept without major changes (except for PM26, which was 
discarded). The measures took into account (i) the existing initiatives of the rail sector (i.e., TTR, 
European  Virtual  Traffic  Management  Network,  Q-ELETA179,  Collaborative  Decision  Making 
approach and Enhanced Data Interoperability for Combined Transport) and (ii) both legislative and 
non-legislative measures that could amend Regulation (EU) 913/2010 and Directive 2012/34/EU.  

In  the  interviews  and  in  the  focus  group  meetings,  stakeholders  provided  further  details  and 
confirmed an overall positive assessment of the measures. Infrastructure managers asked for more 
flexibility  in  light  of  national  specificities  (e.g.,  for  TCR  planning).  Railway  undertakings  noted 
that  some  flexibility  for  amending  the  allocated  capacity  would  be  needed  by  some  market 
segments.  Terminal  operators  and  owners  identified  information  exchange  as  the  most  relevant 
measure.  Regulatory  bodies  believed  more  clarity  on  future  role  of  the  European  network  of 
regulatory bodies is needed. Academia representatives believed that PaPs are useful and could be 
combined  with  clock-face  timetable  of  passenger  trains  and  that  binding  rules  work  better  than 
voluntary compliance for cooperation between infrastructure managers. 

The overall level of support for the policy measures is presented in the figures below. 

179 Q-ELETA is a project run by UIRR on electronic exchange of estimated time of arrival information. 

EN 

92 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
Regarding Problem driver 1: Ineffective rail capacity management and allocation, the figure below 
presents  the  views  of  stakeholders  participating  to  the  targeted  questionnaire  as  to  the  extent  to 
which  each  policy  measure  is  likely  to  address  the  driver  (note  that  the  wording  of  the  policy 
measures is not  always identical with that presented in Section 5.2 and Annex 6, since the list of 
measures was subject to subsequent streamlining and clarification). 

Figure 7: Views of stakeholders participating to the targeted questionnaire as to the extent to which each policy 
measure is likely to address the problem driver 1 (Ineffective rail capacity management and allocation) 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

According to the consulted stakeholders, the most impactful policy measure is the introduction of 
harmonised,  directly  applicable  EU  framework  for  rail  capacity  and  traffic  management  (policy 
measure 2-1). The policy measure designed to introduce new procedures for capacity allocation in 
line with market needs, in particular for flexibility and reliability and the introduction of a strategic 
planning  phase  and  harmonised  methodology  based  on  socio-economic  criteria  supporting  the 
capacity  management  on  infrastructure  where  demand  exceeds  supply  were  also  perceived  as 
EN 

EN 

93 

 
 
impactful.  Measures  envisaging  further  action  at  EU  level,  in  particular  via  central  entities  or 
further  harmonisation  of  rules,  were  also  identified  as  impactful,  although  to  a  lesser  extent. 
Overall,  the  measures  included  in  PO1  were  considered  as  less  effective,  but  they  were  still 
identified as providing for moderate improvement. 

Regarding  Problem  driver  2:  Ineffective  rail  traffic  management,  the  figure  below  presents  the 
views  of  stakeholders  participating  to  the  targeted  questionnaire  as  to  the  extent  to  which  each 
policy measure is likely to address the driver (note that the wording of  the policy measures is not 
always  identical  with  that  presented  in  Section  5.2  and  Annex  6,  since  the  list  of  measures  was 
subject to subsequent streamlining and clarification). 

Figure 8: Views of stakeholders participating to the targeted questionnaire as to the extent to which each policy 
measure is likely to address the problem driver 2 (Ineffective rail traffic management) 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

Policy  measure  2-1,  introducing  binding  rules  and  procedures  for  the  coordination  of  traffic 
management  (including  coordination  between  IMs  and  terminals)  was  identified  again  as  the 
measure  that  could  produce  the  strongest  improvement.  PM17,  collaborative  decision-making 
(which is a voluntary measure) was also identified as impactful. Stakeholders perceived the other 
measures  corresponding  to  PMs  2-2,  11,  20-1  and  23  (numbering  as  per  section  5)  addressing 
problem driver 2 slightly less positively, but overall all measures were seen as effective. 

EN 

94 

EN 

 
  
Regarding  Problem  driver 3:  Ineffective digital  tools  for planning and operations  of  rail services, 
the figure below presents the views of stakeholders participating to the targeted questionnaire as to 
the extent to which each policy measure is likely to address the driver (note that the wording of the 
policy measures is not always identical with that presented in Section 5.2 and Annex 6, since the 
list of measures was subject to subsequent streamlining and clarification). 

Figure 9: Views of stakeholders participating to the targeted questionnaire as to the extent to which each policy 
measure  is  likely  to  address  the  problem  driver  3  (Ineffective  digital  tools  for  planning  and  operations  of  rail 
services) 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

These policy measures were identified as among the most effective. Policy measure 24, introducing 
harmonised exchange of digital information through implementation of TAF TSI received the most 
support with 46 out of 81 respondents believed that it would result in large improvement and 17 out 
of 81 saw a moderate improvement. PM25 (and discarded measure 26) also received strong support 
with  41  out  of  80  respondents  believed  that  it  would  result  in  large  improvement  and  23 
respondents  citing  moderate  improvement.  Regarding  Problem  driver  4:  Ineffective  train 
performance  monitoring,  in  particular  for  cross-border  trains,  and  lack  of  effective  tools  to 
incentivise  performance  improvement,  the  figure  below  presents  the  views  of  stakeholders 
participating to the targeted questionnaire as to the extent to which each policy measure is likely to 
address  the driver (note  that the wording of the  policy measures is  not  always identical  with  that 
presented  in  Section  5.2  and  Annex  6,  since  the  list  of  measures  was  subject  to  subsequent 
streamlining and clarification). 

EN 

95 

EN 

 
 
Figure 10: Views of stakeholders participating to the targeted questionnaire as to the extent to which each policy 
measure  is  likely  to  address  the  problem  driver  4  (Ineffective  train  performance  monitoring,  in  particular  for 
cross-border trains, and lack of effective tools to incentivise performance improvement) 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

Financial incentives (PM8) were identified as the most effective measure from this group. 30 out of 
80 respondents identified the measure as a large improvement and 24 as a moderate improvement. 
The  results  show  dwindling  support  for  more  stringent  measures  aimed  at  IMs,  such  as  PM12, 
which  envisages  a  review  by  the  regulatory  bodies  of  contractual  agreements  between  IMs  and 
Member  States’  authorities,  to  ensure  that  they  are  kept  in  line  with  the  national  strategies  to 
develop rail. 

Stakeholders  indicated  that  coordinating  entities  at  EU  level  could  result  mostly  in  moderate 
improvements,  but  the  replies  did  not  indicate  that  they  were  considered  as  the  most  effective 
instrument.  It is possible that stakeholders’ doubts could be due to them not finding a strong  link 
between the measures and the specific objective as initially worded. 

Regarding  Problem  driver  5:  Lack  of  coordination  on  planning  and  operations  between 
stakeholders  involved  in  multimodal  transport  chains,  the  figure  below  presents  the  views  of 
EN 

EN 

96 

 
 
 
stakeholders  participating  to  the  targeted  questionnaire  as  to  the  extent  to  which  each  policy 
measure is likely to address the driver (note that the wording of the policy measures is not always 
identical with that presented in Section 5.2 and Annex 6, since the list of measures was subject to 
subsequent streamlining and clarification). 

Figure 11: Views of stakeholders participating to the targeted questionnaire as to the extent to which each policy 
measure  is  likely  to  address  the  problem  driver  5  (Lack  of  coordination  on  planning  and  operations  between 
stakeholders involved in multimodal transport chains) 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

One  of  the  key  measures  for  POs  2,  3  and  4  –  PM3  (introduce  a  strategic  capacity  management 
phase)  was  identified  as  largely  effective  by  36  out  of  74  respondents.  Stakeholders  saw  binding 
rules  and  procedures  for  traffic  management  (including  with  terminals)  as  the  most  effective 
measure from the package, with 22 out of 73 respondents seeing the measure as effective and 23 
having  more  limited  expectations.  Several  other  measures  were  identified  as  largely  effective, 
including  PM23,  which  is  of  operational  nature,  envisaging  a  ‘crisis  cell’  at  EU  level  to  address 
major disruptions on the rail network. 

The  measures  on  performance  monitoring  and  those  supporting  long-term  planning  (the  ones 
related to transport market studies) were identified as least impactful. 

EN 

97 

EN 

 
 
4.2.5.  Policy options 

The targeted stakeholder consultation on the policy options consisted of two rounds of interviews 
with  key  stakeholders  to  collect  their  views.  The  consultants  used  a  preliminary  list  of  3  policy 
options for the first round: 

  Policy option 1: Refinement of the existing legal framework for rail freight and passenger 

traffic; 

  Policy option 2: Comprehensive modernisation and harmonisation of rules, procedures and 

tools for freight and passenger traffic and 

  Policy  option  3:  Stronger  centralisation  of  decision-making  and  operational  functions  at 

European level. 

The outcome of the first round of interviews indicated a preference of the infrastructure managers 
and the members of the executive and management boards of the corridor for policy option 2. The 
views of rail services customers and rail regulators were more nuanced, highlighting a need for a 
gradual approach. 

A list of more refined 4 policy options, which corresponds to what is presented in this report, was 
used for the second round of interviews: 

1  Policy option 1: Strengthening the corridor approach; 
2  Policy option 2:  Introducing  a network approach based on common rules and cooperation 

between infrastructure managers; 

3  Policy  option  3:  Introducing  a  network  approach  based  on  common  rules  defined  and 

monitored by central entities; and 

4  Policy  option  4:  Introducing  network  approach  based  on  common  rules  defined  and 
monitored by central entities at European level and with certain operational responsibilities 

In  the  second  round  of  interviews,  the  infrastructure  managers  mostly  supported  option  2.  Two 
believed that options 1 or 2 are acceptable. One supported option 3 and one indicated support for 
TTR without identifying a preferred policy option. Two interviewees considered option 4 as very 
promising from theoretical point of view, but unrealistic concept. 

The interviewed railway undertakings expressed divergent views. Two incumbent RUs were clearly 
not supportive of measures involving an EU entity (one of them chose explicitly option 2). Three 
interviewees (including one incumbent and one new entrant) supported the introduction of a central 
entity, even suggesting a combination of POs 3 and 4. 

5 members of the governance of 4 rail freight corridors  (both management and executive boards) 
considered a mix of options 2 and 3 as the best approach and found option 4 detached from reality. 
Some also see option 1 as promising. 

One rail regulator representative identified option 2 as preferable. The representatives of the other 
two  regulatory  bodies  supported  option  2  (one  indicating  option  1  and  the  other  option  3  as 
alternative). 

A terminal  manager did  not  support the introduction of a centralised entity  (i.e., policy options 3 
and 4) and suggested focusing more on finding solutions on the corridor level (option 1). 

Economic operators that are customers of rail services prefer policy option 3 but could see option 2 
as being considered a more realistic scenario. 

EN 

98 

EN 

 
NGOs supported options 3 and 4. 

5.  WORKSHOPS ON THE INITIATIVE ORGANISED VIA PRIME AND RU-DIALOGUE 

The workshop with IMs and allocation bodies took place on 14 December 2022. IMs and allocation 
bodies  from  15  Member  States  (Belgium,  Czechia,  Germany,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  Lithuania, 
Hungary,  Netherlands,  Austria,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovenia,  Slovakia  and  Sweden)  and  2  third 
countries  (Switzerland  and  Norway)  attended.  They  were  joined  by  representatives  of  ERA, 
national  safety  authorities,  stakeholder  organisations  (CER180,  EIM181,  RNE)  and  economic 
operators. 

The workshop with RUs took place on 15 December 2022. RUs operating internationally and set up 
in  12  different  Member  States  (Belgium,  Czechia,  Germany,  Greece,  France,  Italy,  Luxembourg, 
Hungary,  Netherlands,  Austria,  Poland  and  Sweden)  attended.  They  were  joined  by  stakeholder 
organisations (CER, ERFA182, Forum Train Europe, UIC183, UIP184, UIRR, UTP185). 

The Commission service presented the measures included in this impact assessment. 

Those  IM  representatives  who  took  the  floor  in  the  PRIME  meeting  expressed  support  for  the 
initiative,  as  it  followed  a  market  approach  to  capacity  management.  Some  indicated  that  for  the 
new  approach  to  work  clear  rules  for  the  relations  between  IMs  and  between  IMs  and  applicants 
should  be  set.  Some  expressed  concerns  about  discarding  the  corridor  concept  completely,  as  it 
allowed  for  focused  cooperation  on  specific  problems  (which  would  be  difficult  in  a  network 
approach) and provided for the involvement of the policy makers (national  public authorities and 
ministries of transport). 

Those  who  made  comments  in  the  RU-Dialogue  meeting  supported  the  initiative  as  inspired  by 
TTR  and  stressed  the  importance  of  IM-RU  coordination  in  the  strategic  planning  of  capacity. 
Participants  highlighted  the  need  for  improvements  in  the  planning  and  implementation  of  TCRs 
(identifying  financing  agreements  between  public  authorities  and  IMs  as  crucial).  The  measure 
introducing  a  European  network  statement  gave  rise  to  contradicting  opinions  including  some 
concerns about the concept. A few participants expressed reservations towards the introduction of 
entities at EU level to support the implementation of the measures. 

180 Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies. 
181 European Rail Infrastructure Managers. 
182 European Rail Freight Association. 
183 International Union of Railways. 
184 International Union of Wagon Keepers. 
185 Union des transports publics et ferroviaires. 

EN 

99 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

5.  PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

Summary of the implementation of the preferred policy option  

The focus of the initiative is to help optimise the use of the rail network, by the introduction of a 
new set of rules on capacity management implying a shift from a corridor-based to a network-based 
approach  covering  all  types  of  rail  transport  (passenger/freight,  domestic/cross-border).  The 
preferred  policy  option  (PO3)  addresses  other  important  issues,  such  as  optimising  traffic 
management, reducing the negative effect of infrastructure works on rail traffic, digitalisation and 
interoperability  of  IMs’  capacity  management  systems,  improving  the  coordination  of  rail  with 
other operators in multimodal terminals.  

The impacts of the measures included in the preferred policy option are expected to fall on different 
stakeholder groups: RUs, IMs, rail regulatory bodies, terminal operators and rail customers in the 
broad sense. 

Implications for RUs 

The new rules on capacity allocation will allow more rail infrastructure capacity to be available for 
requests  after  the  publication  of  the  annual  timetable.  They  will  allow  for  capacity  requests  that 
extend  beyond  the  period  of  the  annual  timetable.  This  means  that  RUs  will  be  able  to  request 
capacity closer to the time of the train run, which is particularly important for many freight RUs. 
The  measures  addressing  the  coordination  and  timely  implementation  of  infrastructure  works, 
combined  with  better  coordinated  and  harmonised  rules  on  traffic  and  contingency  management, 
should improve the quality of rail services, including punctuality and reliability and thus make rail 
a  more  attractive  mode  of  transport.  RUs  will  also  benefit  from  better  services  provided  by  IMs 
following  further  digitalisation  of  the  capacity  management  and  allocation  process.  Freight  RUs 
should benefit from the measures targeting the coordination with terminals and thus strengthen their 
position  in  multimodal  transport.  The  costs  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  preferred  policy 
option  stem  from  a  stricter  implementation  of  interoperability  requirements  for  the  digital  tools 
used for requesting capacity. 

Implications for IMs 

IMs  will  bear  the  biggest  share  of  the  costs  in  the  preferred  policy  option,  with  digitalisation  of 
capacity  management  being  the  most  costly  element  (adjustment  costs).  IMs  should  benefit  from 
the improved process of capacity management, which should result in reduction of costs related to 
managing  amendments  to  applications  for  capacity  and  cancellations.  Additional  cost  savings  are 
expected from abandoning the RFC concept and terminating IMs’ participation in the management 
boards. Furthermore, IMs will get coordinated at EU level through ENIM and with the support of a 
Network Coordinator, which could result in operational benefits (e.g. the Network Coordinator will 
be responsible for a transport market study for the whole EU). The biggest positive result for IMs 
would  be  the  more  efficient  use  of  rail  infrastructure.  As  explained  in  section  6.1.2,  IMs  cannot 
profit from the increase in traffic, but they can still benefit from optimised use of resources. 

EN 

100 

EN 

 
 
Implications for rail regulatory bodies 

Rail regulatory bodies are expected to incur increased enforcement costs, due to the additional tasks 
related to monitoring the strategic planning of rail infrastructure capacity. The additional tasks will 
be  assigned  mostly  to  the  ENRRB.  The  preferred  policy  option  will  result  in  some  cost  savings 
stemming from abandoning the RFCs. The main regulatory benefit will result from empowering the 
regulatory  bodies  through  the  ENRRB  to  address  issues  with  capacity  allocation  and  traffic 
management in cases of cross-border traffic. 

Implications for terminal operators and other stakeholders 

The  preferred  policy  option  is  expected  to  result  in  improved  train  punctuality  and  reliability. 
Terminal  operators  will  benefit  from  more  punctual  trains,  as  they  will  be  able  to  improve  the 
planning and use of  resources. The preferred policy option  could  result in  increase of  adjustment 
costs following the facilitation  of voluntary decentralised collaboration between rail stakeholders. 
Due to the voluntary nature of the collaborative decision-making, it can be assumed that these costs 
will materialise only for those economic operators that implement it. It is expected that the measure 
will  produce  cost  savings  or  increase  in  revenues,  which  will  be  higher  than  the  costs.  However, 
these benefits could not be monetised.  

Rail customers includes a wide range of economic operators and citizens. For logistics operators, 
forwarders  and  others  involved  in  organising  transport,  there  will  be  additional  opportunities  for 
using a sustainable mode of transport thanks to the increased capacity and improved performance 
of  rail  freight.  End  customers  of  rail  freight  services  should  benefit  from  the  improvements  in 
punctuality  and  reliability,  which  could  reduce  losses  due  to  disrupted  production  processes  and 
allow for better planning of resources (e.g., warehouse capacity). 

Users of rail passenger services will also benefit from an increased supply of cross-border services 
due to  improvements in  capacity management. Punctuality and reliability for passenger trains  are 
expected to improve less than for freight, but a positive effect is nevertheless projected. 

6.  SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option (Policy option 3) 

Description 

Benefits for railways 
undertakings from an 
increase of available 
capacity, expressed as 
present value over 2025-
2050 relative to the baseline 

Benefits for railways 
undertakings from 
improvements in 
punctuality, expressed as 
present value over 2025-
2050 relative to the baseline 

Amount 

Direct benefits 

EUR 2 575.7 million 

EUR 658 million 

Comments 

Benefits to RUs due to the increase in the 
available capacity estimated at 
EUR 2 575.7 million, expressed as present 
value over 2025-2050 relative to the 
baseline. This is due mostly to a more 
strategic management of capacity, allowing 
to optimise the provision of capacity in line 
with market needs over a longer time 
horizon and safeguarding capacity to be 
allocated later in the calendar year. 

Benefits to RUs due to improvements in the 
performance of rail transport services, 
notably punctuality, estimated at EUR 658 
million, expressed as present value over 
2025-2050 relative to the baseline. 

Adjustment costs savings 

EUR 482.8 million 

Adjustment costs savings for railway 

EN 

101 

EN 

 
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option (Policy option 3) 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

for railway undertakings, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050 relative to 
the baseline 

Administrative costs 
savings for infrastructure 
managers, expressed as 
present value over 2025-
2050 relative to the baseline 

EUR 8.2 million 

Adjustment costs savings 
for infrastructure managers, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050 relative to 
the baseline  

EUR 485.3 million 

Administrative costs 
savings for national public 
authorities, expressed as 
present value over 2025-
2050 relative to the baseline 

EUR 2.6 million 

Adjustment costs savings 
for national public 
authorities, expressed as 
present value over 2025-
2050 relative to the baseline 

EUR 6.8 million 

undertakings due to the improved capacity 
management and allocation process, 
notably from greater stability of allocated 
paths and the support function for cross-
border coordination of capacity 
management at EU level. Expressed as 
present value over 2025-2050 relative to the 
baseline, the adjustment costs savings for 
railway undertakings are estimated at 
EUR 482.8 million. 

Administrative costs savings for 
infrastructure managers, due to the 
introduction of a harmonised legal 
framework for railway capacity and traffic 
management and the abolition of the rail 
freight corridors, estimated at EUR 0.4 
million annually relative to the baseline (i.e. 
EUR 17 836 per year on average per 
infrastructure manager). Expressed as 
present value over 2025-2050 relative to the 
baseline the administrative costs savings 
are estimated at EUR 8.2 million. 

Adjustment costs savings for infrastructure 
managers due to the introduction of a 
harmonised legal framework for railway 
capacity and traffic management and the 
abolition of the rail freight corridors, and 
from the reduction in the train path requests 
resulting from the new approach for 
capacity and traffic management. The costs 
savings are estimated at EUR 485.3 million 
expressed as present value over 2025-2050 
relative to the baseline. 

Administrative costs savings for national 
public authorities due to the introduction of 
a harmonised legal framework for railway 
capacity and traffic management and the 
abolition of the rail freight corridors, 
leading to the abolishment of the biennial 
reports of the executive boards of the rail 
freight corridors. Expressed as present 
value over 2025-2050, the total 
administrative costs savings are estimated 
at EUR 2.6 million relative to the baseline. 

Adjustment costs savings for national 
public authorities due to the introduction of 
a harmonised legal framework for railway 
capacity and traffic management and the 
abolition of the rail freight corridors, 
leading to the termination of the 
participation in the executive boards, which 
includes direct labour costs but also 
overheads (i.e. travel costs) for the Member 
States participating in the corridors. 
Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, 
the adjustment costs savings for national 

EN 

102 

EN 

 
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option (Policy option 3) 

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Adjustment cost savings in 
terms of use of EU funds, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050 relative to 
the baseline  

EUR 116.7 million 

Improvement in the 
functioning of the internal 
market  

Reduction in external costs 
of CO2 emissions, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050, relative to 
the baseline 

Reduction in external costs 
of air pollutant emissions, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050, relative to 
the baseline 

Reduction in external costs 
of road accidents (fatalities 
and serious injuries), 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050, relative to 
the baseline 

Indirect benefits 

EUR 3 309.3 million 

EUR 681 million 

EUR 2 801.6 million 

public authorities are estimated at EUR 6.8 
million. 

Adjustment cost savings due to a reduction 
in the use of EU funds, driven by the 
introduction of a harmonised legal 
framework for railway capacity and traffic 
management and the abolition of the rail 
freight corridors. Part of the costs related to 
the governance and operation of the rail 
freight corridors, overheads (including for 
IT) and cost of external services (transport 
market studies, some external services 
provided by RNE, etc.) are eligible for EU 
funding. Expressed as present value over 
2025-2050, the adjustment costs savings are 
estimated at EUR 116.7 million. 

Positive impact on the functioning of the 
internal market. Improving the planning 
and operations of rail infrastructure allows 
railway undertakings to deliver better rail 
transport services for the benefit of freight 
customers and passengers throughout the 
Union. 

Indirect benefit to society at large, due to 
the tonnes of CO2 emissions saved, enabled 
by better rail transport services for the 
benefit of freight customers and passengers 
and a decrease in the road and air transport 
activity relative to the baseline. The 
reduction in the external costs of CO2 
emissions is estimated at EUR 3 309.3 
million, expressed as present value over the 
2025-2050 horizon relative to the baseline. 

Indirect benefit to society at large, due to 
the tonnes of air pollutant emissions saved, 
enabled by better rail transport services for 
the benefit of freight customers and 
passengers and a decrease in the road and 
air transport activity relative to the baseline. 
The reduction in the external costs of air 
pollutant emissions is estimated at 
EUR 681 million, expressed as present 
value over the 2025-2050 horizon relative 
to the baseline. 

Indirect benefit to society at large, due to 
the lives saved and injuries avoided, 
enabled by better rail transport services for 
the benefit of freight customers and 
passengers and a decrease in road transport 
activity relative to the baseline. The 
reduction in the external costs of road 
accidents is estimated at EUR 2 801.6 
million, expressed as present value over the 
2025-2050 horizon relative to the baseline. 

EN 

103 

EN 

 
 
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option (Policy option 3) 

Description 

Reduction in external costs 
of congestion, expressed as 
present value over 
2025-2050, relative to the 
baseline 

Amount 

EUR 2 374.8 million 

Positive impact on GDP 
relative to the baseline 

GDP increase of 0.1% in 2030 and 0.2% in 2050 
relative to the baseline. This translates into 
EUR 7 billion increase in GDP relative to the 
Baseline in 2030 and EUR 30 billion increase in 
2050. 

Positive impacts on 
employment relative to the 
baseline (additional persons 
employed over 2025-2050) 

1.06 million additional persons employed over 
2025-2050 (42 320 additional persons employed 
per year on average) 

Comments 

Indirect benefit to society at large, enabled 
by better rail transport services for the 
benefit of freight customers and passengers 
and a decrease in road transport activity 
relative to the baseline. The reduction in the 
external costs of congestion is estimated at 
EUR 2 374.8 million, expressed as present 
value over the 2025-2050 horizon relative 
to the baseline. 

Indirect benefit to society at large. Better 
rail transport services are expected to have 
knock-on effects throughout the entire 
economy, leveraging the initial impact on 
the transport sector. This is also expected to 
lead to positive impacts on GDP, which is 
estimated to increase by around 0.1% in 
2030 and 0.2% in 2050 relative to the 
baseline (corresponding to EUR 7 billion 
increase in 2030 and EUR 30 billion 
increase in 2050). 

Indirect benefit to society at large. The 
increase in capacity and thus in the rail 
traffic would lead to higher gross value 
added for the sector relative to the baseline, 
and to an increase in employment. 
Economy-wide, the number of additional 
persons employed would increase by 1.06 
million over 2025-2050 (42 320 additional 
persons employed per year on average) 
relative to the baseline. 

Administrative cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach 

Administrative costs 
savings for infrastructure 
managers (annual average) 

EUR 0.4 million per year on average 

Administrative costs savings for 
infrastructure managers, due to the 
introduction of a harmonised legal 
framework for railway capacity and traffic 
management and the abolition of the rail 
freight corridors, estimated at EUR 0.4 
million annually relative to the baseline (i.e. 
EUR 17 836 per year on average per 
infrastructure manager). Expressed as 
present value over 2025-2050 relative to the 
baseline the administrative costs savings 
are estimated at EUR 8.2 million. 

EN 

104 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option (Policy option 3) 

Citizens/Consumers 

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

- 

- 

For public 
authorities: 
EUR 5.9 
million 

For the 
European 
Commission: 
EUR 1.8 
million 

For railways 
undertakings: 
EUR 305.2 
million 

For infrastructure 
managers: 
EUR 681.4 
million 

For railways 
undertakings: 
EUR 129.9 
million 

For 
infrastructure 
managers: 
EUR 915.2 
million  

For operators of 
terminals and 
multimodal 
transport 
services: 
EUR 0.5 million 

For operators of 
terminals and 
multimodal 
transport 
services: 
EUR 16.5 
million 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

For 
infrastructure 
managers: 
EUR 12.5 
million 

For public 
authorities: 
EUR 4.2 
million 

For public 
authorities: 
EUR 20.9 
million 

- 

- 

- 

Costs related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach 

For railways 
undertakings: 
EUR 305.2 
million 

For infrastructure 
managers:  
EUR 681.4 
million 

For railways 
undertakings: 
EUR 129.9 
million 

For 
infrastructure 
managers: 
EUR 915.2 
million  

For operators of 
terminals and 
multimodal 
transport 
services: 
EUR 0.5 million 

For operators of 
terminals and 
multimodal 
transport 
services: 
EUR 16.5 
million 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

105 

EN 

Direct adjustment costs, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050, relative to 
the baseline 

Direct administrative costs 

Direct regulatory fees and 
charges 

Direct enforcement costs, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050, relative to 
the baseline 

Indirect costs 

Direct adjustment 
costs, expressed 
as present value 
over 2025-2050, 
relative to the 
baseline  

Total   

Indirect 
adjustment costs 

Administrative 
costs (for 
offsetting) 

EN 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.  RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 

III. Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option (Policy Option 3) 
Expected progress towards the Goal 
Relevant SDG 

Comments 

SDG No 13 - Take urgent 
action to combat climate 
change and its impacts 

0.2% decrease in CO2 emissions 2030 and 0.4% 
in 2050, relative to the baseline, or 1 195 
thousand tonnes of CO2 saved in 2030 and 450 
thousand tonnes of CO2 saved in 2050 

The reduction in the CO2 emissions is 
mainly driven by the higher use of more 
sustainable transport modes and the 
reduction in the road and air transport 
activity. In cumulative terms, over 2025-
2050, the preferred policy option is expected 
to result in 26 million tonnes of CO2 
emissions saved. 

EN 

106 

EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

1.  Description of the analytical methods used  

The analytical  framework used for the purpose of this impact assessment  builds on the PRIMES-
TREMOVE, ASTRA and TRUST models, complemented by the Train Planning System (TPS) and 
the assessment of the administrative costs, etc.186 

The baseline scenario has been developed using the PRIMES-TREMOVE model by E3Modelling. 
PRIMES-TREMOVE  has  a  successful  record  of  use  in  the  Commission’s  energy,  transport  and 
climate policy assessments. In particular, it has been used for the impact assessments underpinning 
the ‘Fit for 55’ package, the impact assessments accompanying the 2030 climate target plan187 and 
the  staff  working  document  accompanying  SSMS188,  the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  long  term 
strategy189 as well as for the 2020 and 2030 EU’s climate and energy policy framework.  

ASTRA and TRUST, together with the TPS, are the main models used to assess the policy options 
presented in this impact assessment. The ASTRA and TRUST models have also been used in the 
impact  assessment  of  the  revision  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation190,  whose  preferred  policy  option  in 
terms  of  TEN-T  transport  network  is  reflected  in  the  baseline  scenario  of  the  present  impact 
assessment. For the baseline scenario, these three models have been calibrated on the results of the 
PRIMES-TREMOVE model.  

The proposed measures are assumed to be implemented from 2025 onwards, so that the assessment 
has been undertaken for the 2025-2050 period and refers to EU27. Costs and benefits are expressed 
as present value over the 2025-2050 period, using a 3% discount rate. 

PRIMES-TREMOVE model  

The  PRIMES-TREMOVE  transport  model  projects  the  evolution  of  demand  for  passengers  and 
freight  transport,  by  transport  mode,  and  transport  vehicle/technology,  following  a  formulation 
based  on  microeconomic  foundation  of  decisions  of  multiple  actors.  Operation,  investment  and 
emission costs, various policy measures,  utility factors and congestion are among the drivers that 
influence  the  projections  of  the  model.  The  projections  of  activity,  equipment  (fleet),  usage  of 
equipment, energy consumption and emissions (and other externalities) constitute the set of model 
outputs.  

The  PRIMES-TREMOVE  transport  model  can  therefore  provide  the  quantitative  analysis  for  the 
transport  sector  in  the  EU,  candidate  and  neighbouring  countries  covering  activity,  equipment, 
energy  and  emissions.  The  model  accounts  for  each  country  separately  which  means  that  the 
detailed  long-term  outlooks  are  available  both  for  each  country  and  in  aggregate  forms  (e.g.  EU 
level). 

186  Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study. 
187  SWD(2020) 176 final of 17 September 2020. 
188  SWD(2020) 331 final of 9 December 2020. 
189   COM(2018) 773 final of 28 November 2018. 
190  For more details, see Annex 4 of the impact assessment of the revision of the TEN-T Regulation (SWD(2021) 472 

final). 

EN 

107 

EN 

 
 
                                                           
In  the  transport  field,  PRIMES-TREMOVE  is  suitable  for  modelling  soft  measures  (e.g.  eco-
driving, labelling); economic measures (e.g. subsidies and taxes on fuels, vehicles, emissions; ETS 
for transport when linked with  PRIMES;  pricing of congestion and other externalities such as air 
pollution, accidents and noise; measures supporting R&D); regulatory measures (e.g. CO2 emission 
performance  standards  for  new  light  duty  vehicles  and  heavy  duty  vehicles;  EURO  standards  on 
road  transport  vehicles;  technology  standards  for  non-road  transport  technologies,  deployment  of 
Intelligent Transport Systems) and infrastructure policies for alternative fuels (e.g. deployment of 
refuelling/recharging  infrastructure  for  electricity,  hydrogen,  LNG,  CNG).  Used  as  a  module  that 
contributes to the PRIMES energy system model, PRIMES-TREMOVE can show how policies and 
trends  in  the  field  of  transport  contribute  to  economy-wide  trends  in  energy  use  and  emissions. 
Using  data  disaggregated  per  Member  State,  the  model  can  show  differentiated  trends  across 
Member States.  

The  PRIMES-TREMOVE  has  been  developed  and  is  maintained  by  E3Modelling,  based  on,  but 
extending  features  of,  the  open  source  TREMOVE  model  developed  by  the  TREMOVE191 
modelling  community.  Part  of  the  model  (e.g.  the  utility  nested  tree)  was  built  following  the 
TREMOVE model.192 Other parts, like the component on fuel consumption and emissions, follow 
the COPERT model. 

Data inputs 

The  main  data  sources  for  inputs  to  the  PRIMES-TREMOVE  model,  such  as  for  activity  and 
energy consumption, come from  EUROSTAT databases and from  the Statistical  Pocketbook  ‘EU 
transport in figures’193. Excise taxes are derived from DG TAXUD excise duty tables. Other data 
comes from different sources such as research projects (e.g. TRACCS project) and reports. 

ASTRA model 

ASTRA is  a strategic model  based on the Systems  Dynamics Modelling approach simulating  the 
transport system development in combination with the economy and the environment until the year 
2050.  

ASTRA  consists  of  different  modules,  each  related  to  one  specific  aspect  such  as  the  economy, 
transport demand or the vehicle fleet. The main modules cover the following aspects: 

  Population and social structure (age cohorts and income groups) 

  Economy  (e.g.  GDP,  input-output  tables,  employment,  consumption  and  investment  both  at 

aggregate and at sectoral level) 

  Foreign trade (inside EU and to partners from outside EU) 

  Transport (including demand estimation, modal split, transport cost and infrastructure networks) 

191 Source: https://www.tmleuven.be/en/navigation/TREMOVE 
192  Several  model  enhancements  were  made  compared  to  the  standard  TREMOVE  model,  as  for  example:  for  the 
number of  vintages (allowing representation of the choice  of second-hand cars);  for the  technology categories  which 
include vehicle types using electricity from the grid and fuel cells. The model also incorporates additional fuel types, 
such  as  biofuels  (when  they  differ  from  standard  fossil  fuel  technologies),  LPG,  LNG,  hydrogen  and  e-fuels.  In 
addition,  representation  of  infrastructure  for  refuelling  and  recharging  are  among  the  model  refinements,  influencing 
fuel choices. A major model enhancement concerns the inclusion of heterogeneity  in the distance of stylised trips; the 
model  considers  that  the  trip  distances  follow  a  distribution  function  with  different  distances  and  frequencies.  The 
inclusion of heterogeneity was found to be of significant influence in the choice of vehicle-fuels especially for vehicles-
fuels with range limitations. 
193 Source: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics_en  

EN 

108 

EN 

 
                                                           
  Vehicle fleet (passenger and freight road vehicles by segment and drivetrain) 

  Environment (including air pollutant emissions, CO2 emissions, energy consumption). 

The economy module simulates the main economic variables. Some of these variables (e.g. GDP) 
are  transferred  to  the  transport  generation  module,  which  uses  the  input  to  generate  a  distributed 
transport  demand.  In  the  transport  module,  demand  is  split  by  mode  of  transport.  The  traffic 
performance by mode is associated with the composition of the fleet (computed in the vehicle fleet 
module) and the emissions factors (defined in the environmental module), in order to estimate total 
emissions. 

Several  feedback  effects  take  place  in  the  ASTRA  model.  For  instance,  the  economy  module 
provides  the  level  of  income  to  the  fleet  module,  in  order  to  estimate  vehicle  purchase.  The 
economy  module  then  receives  information  on  the  total  number  of  purchased  vehicles  from  the 
fleet  module  to  account  for  this  item  of  transport  consumption  and  investment.  Furthermore, 
changes in the economic system immediately feed into changes of the transport behaviour and alter 
origins, destinations and volumes of European transport flows. 

The  indicators  that  ASTRA  can  produce  cover  a  wide  range  of  impacts;  in  particular  transport 
system  operation,  economic,  environmental  and  social  indicators.  The  environment  module  uses 
input  from  the  transport  module  (in  terms  of  vehicle-kilometres-travelled  per  mode  and 
geographical context) and from the vehicle fleet module (in terms of the technical composition of 
vehicle fleets), in order to compute  fuel  consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutant 
emissions from transport. ASTRA also estimates the upstream emissions (well-to-tank) due to fuel 
production and vehicles production. Therefore, well-to-wheel emissions can be provided as well. 

Strategic  assessment  capabilities  in  ASTRA  cover  a  wide  range  of  transport  measures  and 
investments with flexible timing and levels of implementation.  

Geographically,  ASTRA  covers  all  EU  Member  States  plus  United  Kingdom,  Norway  and 
Switzerland. The model is built in Vensim software and is developed and maintained by TRT, M-
Five and ISI Fraunhofer. 

Data inputs 

ASTRA  is  calibrated  on  the  EUROSTAT  database  and  data  from  the  Statistical  Pocketbook  ‘EU 
transport in figures’194.  

TRUST model 

TRUST  is  a  European  scale  transport  network  model  developed  and  maintained  by  TRT  and 
simulating road, rail, inland waterways and maritime transport activity. TRUST covers the whole 
Europe  and  its  neighbouring  countries  and  it  allows  for  the  assignment  of  passenger  and  freight 
origin-destination (OD) matrices at NUTS3 level of detail (about 1 600 zones) on the multimodal 
transport network195.  

Road rail, inland waterways and maritime transport modes are covered in separate modules, each 
with its own matrices that are then assigned simultaneously on the multimodal transport network.  

TRUST  is  built  in  PTV-VISUM  software  environment.  The  assignment  algorithm  used  is 
Equilibrium Assignment which distributes demand for each origin/destination pair among available 
alternative routes, according to Wardrop first principle. This principle assumes that each traveller is 
identical,  non-cooperative  and  rational  in  selecting  the  shortest  route,  and  knows  the  exact  travel 
time he/she will encounter. If all travellers select routes according to this principle the road network 

194  Source: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics_en  
195 Further information on TRUST is available on http://www.trt.it/en/tools/trust/ 

EN 

109 

EN 

 
                                                           
will  be  at  equilibrium,  such  that  no  one  can  reduce  their  travel  times  by  unilaterally  choosing 
another route of the same OD pair. This principle has been extended to consider generalised travel 
cost instead of travel time, where generalised travel cost can include the monetary cost of in-vehicle 
travel time, tolls, parking charges and fuel consumption costs. The impedance function is defined in 
terms of generalised time from an origin O to a destination D. Travel costs are  defined separately 
by  link  types  using  combinations  of  fixed,  time-dependent  and  distance-dependent  parameters. 
Travel  time  is  estimated  endogenously  by  the  model  as  result  of  the  assignment.  Speed-flow 
functions  are  used  to  model  the  impact  of  traffic  on  free-flow  speeds,  given  links  capacity.  The 
model iterates until a pre-defined convergence criterion for equilibrium is reached. 

TRUST can be used in the context of impact assessments and for supporting policy formulation and 
evaluation. It is particularly suitable for modelling road charging schemes for cars and heavy goods 
vehicles as well as policies in the field of infrastructure. 

Data inputs 

The  main  data  sources  for  inputs  to  the  TRUST  model  are  the  EUROSTAT  database  and  the 
Statistical  Pocketbook  ‘EU  transport  in  figures’196,  TENtec  Information  system197  and  ETISplus 
database. 

Train Planning System (TPS) 

The modelling of the effects of the policy measures on rail infrastructure capacity was done using 
the  Train  Planning  System198.  TPS  is  a  multi-user  system  software  application,  facilitating  the 
process  of  rail  network  capacity  management  and  used  for  capacity  management  by  several 
infrastructure  managers  in  the  EU.  It  allows  for  real-life  planning  of  infrastructure  capacity  in 
different  time  frames  (strategic,  timetable,  ad  hoc,  etc.),  detection  of  train  path  conflicts, 
implementing  restrictions  into  capacity  planning  (e.g.  TCRs),  automatically  identifying  and 
resolving  conflicts  in  capacity  planning,  exact  runtime  calculation  and  ultimately  optimising 
capacity management and allocation. These elements of TPS allow for the introduction of specific 
rules  and  limitations  to  capacity  planning  and  allocation,  based  on  the  different  policy  measures, 
and simulating their effect with the construction of fully realistic train paths and timetables. 

The most relevant features of TPS for the modelling are:  

  Capacity  planning  for  all  time  horizons  (strategic,  framework,  long  and  short  term,  ad-hoc, 

etc.) up to offline production planning (integration with traffic management systems) 

  Microscopic infrastructure with detailed interlocking system/information  
  Train path editor 
  Highly accurate dynamic runtime calculation 
  Automatic conflict detection  
  Automatic route finder  
  Decision support / Slot finder / Automatic decision support for conflict resolution  
  Managing different planning rules  
  Timetable production with different operating days / train versions / timetable variants  
 
Import/export of trains including merging/validation/correction of train path/data  
  Synchronisation of operational data (Temporary Capacity Restrictions)  
 

Infrastructure data setup and maintenance  

196 Source: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics_en  
197 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure-ten-t-connecting-europe/tentec-information-system_en 
198 Train Planning System is a private multi-user system software application of Hacon Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH. 

EN 

110 

EN 

 
                                                           
  Handling restrictions (e.g., temporary capacity restrictions, speed restrictions, etc.) 
  UIC compression method 406 for assessment of capacity utilisation  
  Synchronous railway traffic simulation 
 
  Monitoring and analysis. 

Integration platform (external business processes, systems, and portals) 

Data inputs 

Timetable  data  for  sections  of  the  RFC  Baltic-Adriatic  was  used  as  sample  input  data  for  the 
modelling exercise. In addition, information published by RFCs and included in the evaluation of 
the  RFC  Regulation,  network  statements  as  well  as  figures  from  RMMS  and  Eurostat  were 
considered, amongst others to ensure the representativeness of the timetable data. 

-  For the simulation of the impact of the policy measures: 
Timetable and train run data for the whole area of RFC Baltic-Adriatic was provided by RNE to the 
consortium  for  the  impact  assessment  support  study.  An  infrastructure  model  from  the  Austrian 
Südbahn from Wien to Bruck a. d. Mur was used as a representative double track line, whereas the 
basic infrastructure model between the Graz and Wien regions including the line toward the AT/SI 
border  via  Spielfeld  Straß  was  used  as  basis  for  a  hypothetical  representative  cross-border  case 
study. The line between Divaca and Koper in Slovakia was used as basis to create a representative 
single track use case. 

For the average maximum speed of European railroad lines the data is from a 2015 TENtec study 
and  the  Open  Railway  Map  as  well  as  from  model  train  configuration  data  that  was  checked  for 
consistency with the RFC timetable data.  

-  For estimating the share of congested lines: 
The  impact  assessment  used  data  from  RMMS,  network  statements,  timetable  data  and  input  by 
stakeholders collected via the impact assessment support study. 

-  For the evaluation of the impacts on punctuality and reliability 
RMMS  is  the  source  for  data  on  train  punctuality.  For  the  calculations  leading  to  the 
quantifications, RMMS was also used as well as Eurostat and IRG Rail. 

-  For the evaluation of the impact on TCRs 
Data from RFCs on the TCR implementation schedule was used as well as data from Eurostat to 
evaluate the number of trains on selected sections. 

As  explained  above,  ASTRA,  TRUST  and  Train  Planning  System  (TPS)  have  been  used  for  the 
assessment of impacts of the policy options. More specifically:  

  The Train Planning System (TPS) to simulate the timetabling process and estimate impacts on 

capacity;  

  The TRUST model to derive the transport activity and assign the traffic on the network;  

  The ASTRA model to  derive the macroeconomic impacts,  the environmental impacts  and the 

impacts on safety.  

EN 

111 

EN 

 
 
2.  Baseline scenario 

In  order  to  reflect  the  fundamental  socio-economic,  technological  and  policy  developments,  the 
Commission  prepares  periodically  an  EU  Reference  Scenario  on  energy,  transport  and  GHG 
emissions.  The  socio-economic  and  technological  developments  used  for  developing  the  baseline 
scenario for this impact assessment build on the latest EU Reference scenario 2020 (REF2020)199. 
The same assumptions have been used in the policy scenarios underpinning the impact assessments 
accompanying the “Fit for 55” package200. 

2.1.  Main assumptions of the Baseline scenario 

The  main  assumptions  related  to  economic  development,  international  energy  prices  and 
technologies are described below. 

2.1.1.  Economic assumptions 

The modelling work is based on socio-economic assumptions describing the expected evolution of 
the European society.  Long-term projections on population  dynamics and economic activity  form 
part of the input to the model and are used to  estimate transport activity, particularly relevant for 
this impact assessment.  
Population  projections  from  Eurostat201  are  used  to  estimate  the  evolution  of  the  European 
population,  which  is  expected  to  change  little  in  total  number  in  the  coming  decades.  The  GDP 
growth projections are from  the Ageing Report 2021202 by  the  Directorate  General  for Economic 
and Financial Affairs, which are based on the same population growth assumptions. 

Table 18: Projected population and GDP growth per Member State 

Population 

GDP growth 

EU27 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

2020 
447.7 

8.90 

11.51 

6.95 

4.06 

0.89 

10.69 

5.81 

1.33 

5.53 

67.20 

83.14 

10.70 

9.77 

4.97 

2025 
449.3 

9.03 

11.66 

6.69 

3.94 

0.93 

10.79 

5.88 

1.32 

5.54 

68.04 

83.48 

10.51 

9.70 

5.27 

2030 
449.1 

9.15 

11.76 

6.45 

3.83 

0.96 

10.76 

5.96 

1.31 

5.52 

68.75 

83.45 

10.30 

9.62 

5.50 

2020-‘25 
0.9% 

2026-‘30 
1.1% 

0.9% 

0.8% 

0.7% 

0.2% 

0.7% 

1.6% 

2.0% 

2.2% 

0.6% 

0.7% 

0.8% 

0.7% 

1.8% 

2.0% 

1.2% 

0.8% 

1.3% 

0.6% 

1.7% 

2.0% 

1.7% 

2.6% 

1.2% 

1.0% 

0.7% 

0.6% 

2.6% 

1.7% 

199 EU Reference Scenario 2020 (europa.eu) 
200 Policy scenarios for delivering the European Green Deal (europa.eu) 
201 EUROPOP2019 population projections: Eurostat - Data Explorer (europa.eu)   
202  The  2021  Ageing  Report :  Underlying  assumptions  and  projection  methodologies  The  2021  Ageing  Report: 
Underlying Assumptions and Projection Methodologies | European Commission (europa.eu)   

EN 

112 

EN 

 
 
  
                                                           
Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Population 

GDP growth 

2020 
60.29 

1.91 

2.79 

0.63 

0.51 

17.40 

37.94 

10.29 

19.28 

5.46 

2.10 

47.32 

10.32 

2025 
60.09 

1.82 

2.71 

0.66 

0.56 

17.75 

37.57 

10.22 

18.51 

5.47 

2.11 

48.31 

10.75 

2030 
59.94 

1.71 

2.58 

0.69 

0.59 

17.97 

37.02 

10.09 

17.81 

5.44 

2.11 

48.75 

11.10 

2020-‘25 
0.3% 

2026-‘30 
0.3% 

1.4% 

1.7% 

1.7% 

2.7% 

0.7% 

2.1% 

0.8% 

2.7% 

1.1% 

2.1% 

0.9% 

1.4% 

1.9% 

1.5% 

2.0% 

4.1% 

0.7% 

2.4% 

0.8% 

3.0% 

1.7% 

2.4% 

1.6% 

2.2% 

Beyond the update of the population and growth assumptions, an update of the projections on the 
sectoral  composition  of  GDP  was  also  carried  out  using  the  GEM-E3  computable  general 
equilibrium model. These projections take into account the potential medium- to long-term impacts 
of  the  COVID-19  crisis  on  the  structure  of  the  economy,  even  though  there  are  inherent 
uncertainties  related  to  its  eventual  impacts.  Overall,  conservative  assumptions  were  made 
regarding the medium-term impacts of the pandemic on the re-localisation of global value chains, 
teleworking and teleconferencing and global tourism. 

2.1.2. 

International energy prices assumptions  

Alongside  socio-economic  projections,  transport  modelling  requires  projections  of  international 
fuel prices. The table below shows the oil prices assumptions of the baseline and policy options of 
this impact assessment, that draw on the modelling underpinning the REPowerEU package203.  

Table 19: Oil prices assumptions  
Oil 

2015 

in $'15 per boe 

in €'15 per boe 

2020 

2030 

2040 

2050 

52.3 

47.2 

39.8 

35.8 

92.1 

83.0 

97.4 

87.8 

117.9 

106.3 

2.1.3.  Technology assumptions 

Modelling scenarios is highly dependent on the assumptions on the development of  technologies, 
both  in  terms  of performance and  costs. For the  purpose of the impact  assessments  related to  the 
Climate Target Plan and the Fit for 55 policy package, these assumptions have been updated based 
on  a  rigorous  literature  review  carried  out  by  external  consultants  in  collaboration  with  the  JRC. 
Continuing the approach adopted in the long-term strategy in 2018, the Commission consulted on 
the technology assumption with stakeholders in 2019. In particular, the technology database of the 
PRIMES  and  PRIMES-TREMOVE  models  (together  with  GAINS,  GLOBIOM,  and  CAPRI) 
benefited from a dedicated consultation workshop held on 11 November 2019. EU Member States 
representatives also had the opportunity to comment on the costs elements during a workshop held 
on  25 November  2019.  The  updated  technology  assumptions  are  published  together  with  the  EU 

203 SWD(2022) 230 final of 18 May 2022. 

EN 

113 

EN 

 
 
  
 
                                                           
Reference  Scenario  2020204.  The  same  assumptions  have  been  used  in  the  context  of  this  impact 
assessment. 

2.1.4.  Assumptions regarding the railway network affected by capacity limitations 

The completeness  of the  data on currently  congested and highly utilised rail sections is  uncertain 
and  the  impact  assessment  support  study  did  not  succeed  in  improving  the  quality  of  data.  Only 
limited and incomplete data had been collected. 

For the modelling purposes, the official data on congestion of the rail network in EU27 as reported 
in RMMS (see Annex 5) has been used as starting point. 

Table 20: Total length of track declared congested (total and freight corridors) (km, 2012-2018) 

Year 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Total length of track declared congested [km] 

700 

1 745 

1 414 

1 042 

1 601 

1 811 

2 261 

Source: Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study, based on data from 7th RMMS Report (2020)  

Although this data might be underreported and may not reflect the actual network usage, it is the 
only quantitative information available that could be used as a starting point for the the purpose of 
this impact assessment. 

Based  on  the  assumption  that  data  underreports  the  congestion  on  EU’s  rail  network,  it  was 
estimated  that  the  length  of  the  EU  rail  network  affected  by  capacity  restrictions  (i.e.,  not  only 
congested but generally affected by high utilization levels) in 2018 was slightly more than double 
of the one declared (i.e., about 5 000 km). 

Starting from this assumption for 2018, and assuming increasing rail capacity limitations driven by 
the expected growth of rail traffic until 2050, projections were made on the expected length of the 
EU rail network affected by capacity limitations (see section 2.2 of Annex 4). 

2.1.5.  Policies in the baseline scenario  

Building on REF2020, the baseline has been designed to include the initiatives of the ‘Fit for 55’ 
package  proposed  by  the  Commission  on  14 July  2021205  and  the  initiatives  of  the  RePowerEU 
package proposed by the Commission on 18 May 2022206. The baseline scenario assumes no further 
EU  level  intervention  beyond  the  current  Rail  Freight  Corridors  Regulation  and  the  Recast 
Directive that sets up the Union’s legal framework for the Single European railway area. 

204 https://energy.ec.europa.eu/document/download/5959845e-435c-4780-9281-
b64a709b273b_en?filename=ref2020_technology_assumptions.zip 
205 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/delivering-european-green-deal_en 
206  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_3131 

EN 

114 

EN 

 
 
                                                           
In terms of transport network, the baseline scenario accounts for the proposed revision of the TEN-
T Regulation207. It assumes that the high-quality TEN-T rail network would be gradually completed 
in  three  steps:  2030  for  the  core  network,  2040  for  the  extended  core  network  and  2050  for  the 
comprehensive network. It also assumes full electrification of the core TEN-T rail network by 2030 
and of the comprehensive TEN-T network by 2050.  

The  baseline  also  incorporates  foresight  megatrends208  and  developments  captured  in  the  2022 
Strategic  Foresight  Report209.  Among  others,  it  captures  the  trend  of  increasing  demand  for 
transport as population and living standards grow as well as the links between the digital and green 
transition.  In  particular,  the  projected  transport  activity  draws  on  the  long-term  population 
projections  from  Eurostat  and  GDP  growth  from  the  Ageing  Report  2021210  by  the  Directorate 
General for Economic and Financial Affairs. 

2.2.  Baseline scenario results 

In  the  Baseline  scenario,  EU  transport  activity  is  projected  to  grow  post-2020,  following  the 
recovery from the COVID pandemic. Road transport would maintain its dominant role within the 
EU by 2050. Rail transport activity is projected to grow significantly faster than for road, driven in 
particular  by  the  completion  of  the  TEN-T  core  network  by  2030  and  of  the  comprehensive 
network by 2050, supported by the CEF, Cohesion Fund and ERDF funding, but also by measures 
of the ‘Fit for 55’ package that increase to some extent the competitiveness of rail relative to road 
and  air  transport.  Passenger  rail  activity  is  projected  to  go  up  by  24%  by  2030  relative  to  2015 
(69% for 2015-2050). High speed rail activity, in particular, would grow by 68% by 2030 relative 
to 2015 (169% by 2050), missing however to deliver on the milestone of the SSMS of doubling its 
traffic by 2030 and tripling it by 2050. Freight rail traffic would increase by 42% by 2030 relative 
to  2015 (96% for 2015-2050) hence falling short  of the milestone of the SSMS of increasing the 
traffic by 50% by 2030 and doubling it by 2050.  

Congestion  costs  would  increase  by  about  14%  by  2030  and  32%  by  2050,  relative  to  2015. 
Congestion  on  the  inter-urban  network  would  be  the  result  of  growing  freight  transport  activity 
along  specific  corridors,  in  particular  where  these  corridors  cross  urban  areas  with  heavy  local 
traffic.  

CO2  emissions  from  transport211  are  projected  to  be  24%  lower  by  2030  compared  to  2015,  and 
87% lower by 2050. The baseline scenario shows that the emission reductions from  the transport 
sector  would  contribute  towards  the  ambition  of  at  least  55%  emission  reductions  by  2030  and 
climate neutrality by 2050, while relying to a significant extent on technological solutions (i.e. the 
uptake  of  low-  and  zero-emission  vehicles  and  of  renewable  and  low  carbon  fuels)  and  carbon 
pricing.  This  would  depart  from  the  balanced  approach  underpinning  the  impact  assessments 
accompanying  the  ‘Fit  for  55’  package  and  the  staff  working  document  accompanying  the 
REPowerEU  initiatives212,  showing  a  combined  approach  of  carbon  pricing  instruments  and 
regulatory-based measures to deliver on the increased climate ambition. It should be noted that the 
scenarios  underpinning  the  impact  assessments  accompanying  the  ‘Fit  for  55’  initiatives  and  the 

207  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=COM%3A2021%3A812%3AFIN 
208 https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/foresight/tool/megatrends-hub_en#explore  
209 COM(2022) 289 final of 29 June 2022. 
210  The  2021  Ageing  Report :  Underlying  assumptions  and  projection  methodologies  The  2021  Ageing  Report: 

Underlying Assumptions and Projection Methodologies | European Commission (europa.eu)   

211  Including international aviation but excluding international maritime. 
212  SWD(2022) 230 final of 18 May 2022. 

EN 

115 

EN 

 
                                                           
staff  working  document  accompanying  the  REPowerEU  initiatives  took  into  account  a  broader 
range  of  policies  (including  this  initiative)  that  were  represented  in  a  stylised  way  ahead  of  the 
actual  proposals,  to  show  the  delivery  of  at  least  55%  emissions  reduction  target  by  2030  and  to 
account for the interaction with the forthcoming initiatives. The scenario reflecting the ‘Fit for 55’ 
initiatives,  the  REPowerEU  initiatives  and  the  forthcoming  initiatives  shows  the  need  to  reduce 
emissions  from  transport  by  26%  by  2030  relative  to  2015  and  by  94%  by  2050.  Therefore,  this 
initiative contributes  towards the at  least  55%  emissions reductions target  by 2030  and achieving 
climate neutrality by 2050. 

NOx emissions are projected to go down by 56% between 2015 and 2030 (85% by 2050), mainly 
driven  by  the  electrification  of  the  road  transport  and  in  particular  of  the  light  duty  vehicles 
segment. The decline in particulate matter (PM2.5) would be slightly lower by 2030 at 52% relative 
to 2015 (90% by 2050). 

Projected passenger train punctuality 

Passenger train punctuality is measured in accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU)  2015/1100213  and  reported  in  RMMS.  For  passenger  trains,  the  figures  show  the  share  of 
trains  that  depart  and  arrive  within  5  minutes  of  the  allocated  time.  In  the  baseline  scenario 
punctuality  is  expected  to  deteriorate  by  2030  compared  to  2020  and  to  only  somewhat  improve 
post-2030, driven by the improved infrastructure envisaged by the proposed revision of the TEN-T 
Regulation. The share of passenger trains that are punctual is projected to go down from 88.3% in 
2020 to 87.8% in 2030 and to increase to 90.3% by 2050 (see Table 21).  

Table 21: Projected passenger train punctuality in the baseline scenario  
2020 
Region 

2030 

2040 

2050 

Share of 
traffic 
(%) 

Share of 
punctual 
trains (%) 

Share of 
traffic 
(%) 

Share of 
punctual 
trains 
(%) 

Share of 
traffic 
(%) 

Share of 
punctual 
trains 
(%) 

Share of 
traffic 
(%) 

Share of 
punctual 
trains 
(%) 

9.8% 

91.8% 

9.8% 

91.3% 

9.8% 

92.3% 

9.8% 

93.8% 

17.4% 

84.1% 

17.4% 

83.6% 

17.4% 

84.6% 

17.4% 

86.1% 

14.7% 

87.1% 

14.7% 

86.6% 

14.7% 

87.6% 

14.7% 

89.1% 

58.0% 

89.3% 

58.0% 

88.8% 

58.0% 

89.8% 

58.0% 

91.3% 

Northern Europe 

Central  and  Eastern 
Europe 

Southern Europe 

Western Europe 

EU total 

100.0% 

88.3% 

100.0% 

87.8% 

100.0% 

88.8% 

100.0% 

90.3% 

Punctuality 
development 

-0.5% 

+0.5% 

+2.0% 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

Projected freight train punctuality 

213 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). 

EN 

116 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Freight  train  punctuality  is  measured  in  accordance  with  Commission  Implementing  Regulation 
(EU) 2015/1100 and reported in RMMS. For freight trains the figures show the share of trains that 
start  and  arrive within 15 minutes of the allocated time. Despite the broader limit  of 15 minutes, 
freight shows bigger problems with punctuality compared to passenger rail. In the baseline scenario 
punctuality  is  expected  to  deteriorate  by  2030  compared  to  2020  and  to  only  somewhat  improve 
post-2030, driven by the improved infrastructure envisaged by the proposed revision of the TEN-T 
Regulation.  Freight  rail  is  expected  to  face  more  challenges  in  terms  of  punctuality  relative  to 
passenger  rail.  The  share  of  freight  trains  that  are  punctual  is  projected  to  reduce  from  58.4%  in 
2020 to 57.4% in 2030, increasing to 68.4% by 2050. 

Table 22: Projected freight train punctuality in the baseline scenario 
2020 
Region 

2030 

2040 

2050 

Share of 
traffic 
(%) 

Share of 
punctual 
trains (%) 

Share of 
traffic 
(%) 

Share of 
punctual 
trains 
(%) 

Share of 
traffic 
(%) 

Share of 
punctual 
trains 
(%) 

Share of 
traffic 
(%) 

Share of 
punctual 
trains 
(%) 

10.1% 

77.5% 

10.1% 

76.5% 

10.1% 

82.5% 

10.1% 

87.5% 

26.0% 

38.6% 

26.0% 

37.6% 

26.0% 

43.6% 

26.0% 

48.6% 

10.5% 

58.6% 

10.5% 

57.6% 

10.5% 

63.6% 

10.5% 

68.6% 

53.3% 

64.5% 

53.3% 

63.5% 

53.3% 

69.5% 

53.3% 

74.5% 

Northern Europe 

Central  and  Eastern 
Europe 

Southern Europe 

Western Europe 

EU total 

100.0% 

58.4% 

100.0% 

57.4% 

100.0% 

63.4% 

100.0% 

68.4% 

Punctuality 
development 

-1% 

+5% 

+10% 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

Evolution of congested lines 

Congested lines are defined in  the Recast  Directive and  reported by  IMs. To project  the share of 
congestion,  a  number  of  variables  need  to  be  taken  into  account:  traffic  developments, 
infrastructure  works,  new  infrastructure,  etc.  No  projections  on  congestion  of  the  network  were 
provided by IMs during the stakeholders’ consultation. Information from other stakeholders (RUs 
in  particular)  collected  in  the  context  of  the  impact  assessment  support  study,  suggests  that  the 
figures reported by IMs are lower than the actual length of congested lines. 

The  baseline  projections  draw  on  the  officially  reported  congested  lines  and  a  number  of 
assumptions. More specifically, drawing on stakeholders’ consultation in the context of the impact 
assessment support study, it has been assumed that the actual status of congestion is more than 2 
times higher than the officially declared sections of the network and that the effects extend beyond 
the  congested  sections.  The  length  of  the  congested  lines  and  of  the  highly  utilised  lines  was 
estimated in km. 

According  to  the  TRUST  model,  as  rail  infrastructure  capacity  will  need  to  accommodate  an 
increasing amount of demand, by 2030 nearly 9 000 kilometres of rail (about 6.5% of the network) 

EN 

117 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
are  projected  to  be  affected  by  capacity  restrictions  in  the  baseline,  of  which  6 500 kilometres 
would  be  congested  (4.7%  of  the  network)  and  2 500 kilometres  highly  utilised  (1.8%  of  the 
network). In 2040 about 12 800 kilometres of rail (about 9.2% of the network) are projected to be 
affected  by  capacity  restrictions  in  the  baseline,  of  which  9 000 kilometres  would  be  congested 
(6.5% of the network) and 3 800 kilometres highly utilised (2.7% of the network). By 2050, the rail 
network affected by capacity restrictions is projected to further increase to 20 200 kilometres (about 
14.6% of the network), of which 11 500 kilometres would be congested (8.3% of the network) and 
8 700 kilometres highly utilised (6.3% of the network).  

As shown in the table below, congestion on the network (expressed in train-kilometres) is projected 
to go up from 94.3 million train-kilometres in 2020 to 159.3 million train-kilometres in 2030 and 
231.2  million  train  kilometres  by  2050.  This  is  despite  the  significant  capacity  improvement 
expected in the next decades due to improved infrastructure envisaged by the proposed revision of 
the TEN-T Regulation. 

The projections consider that sections that are currently highly utilised might be congested in the 
future and that sections that currently are not affected by capacity limitations will start experiencing 
high utilization and saturation in the future. Over time, congestion is assumed to affect an increased 
number of sections along the main traffic corridors and to be more concentrated in central European 
countries (i.e., mainly in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Italy and Denmark) 
and less pronounced in the other Member States. 

Table 23: Evolution of congestion in the baseline scenario (in million train-kilometres) 

Member State 

2020 

2030 

2040 

2050 

AT 

BE 

DK 

ES 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

IE 

IT 

NL 

PT 

SE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

EE 

HU 

LV 

LT 

MT 

PL 

3.01 

3.46 

0.85 

0.23 

0.03 

4.51 

69.95 

0.00 

0.01 

3.60 

1.76 

0.28 

2.23 

0.04 

0.00 

2.37 

0.00 

0.40 

0.01 

0.09 

0.00 

1.36 

5.54 

5.53 

1.52 

0.38 

0.07 

7.47 

6.69 

7.59 

2.08 

0.47 

0.09 

9.31 

115.87 

144.03 

0.00 

0.01 

7.28 

2.78 

0.48 

3.60 

0.07 

0.00 

4.01 

0.01 

1.09 

0.01 

0.16 

0.00 

3.15 

0.00 

0.02 

7.61 

2.82 

0.55 

4.42 

0.07 

0.00 

5.00 

0.01 

1.47 

0.02 

0.19 

0.00 

3.97 

7.56 

9.39 

2.71 

0.54 

0.11 

10.20 

168.00 

0.00 

0.02 

8.61 

3.74 

0.63 

5.40 

0.09 

0.00 

7.17 

0.01 

1.67 

0.02 

0.22 

0.00 

4.67 

EN 

118 

EN 

 
Member State 

2020 

2030 

2040 

2050 

RO 

SI 

SK 

LU 

HR 

EU27 

0.02 

0.06 

0.01 

0.00 

0.01 

94.29 

0.03 

0.19 

0.03 

0.00 

0.01 

0.03 

0.30 

0.04 

0.00 

0.01 

0.04 

0.35 

0.04 

0.00 

0.01 

159.30 

196.80 

231.21 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

3.  Impacts of policy measure in terms of costs and cost savings 

This section explains the inputs used and assumptions made to estimate the direct impacts of policy 
measures in terms of cost and cost savings. Synergies between the measures included in the options 
are taken into account in this section. 

Estimations about costs and cost savings for infrastructure managers and allocation bodies are made 
on  the  basis  of  the  (simplifying)  assumption  that  there  is  one  infrastructure  manager  /  allocation 
body  per  Member  State  with  a  rail  system.  This  results  in  a  total  of  25  infrastructure  managers  / 
allocation bodies: EU27 without Cyprus and Malta, which do not have a rail system.  

PM1:  Mandatory  use  of  RFC  one-stop  shops  for  placing  capacity  requests  for  cross-border 
freight and passenger traffic 

In  the  baseline,  the  use  of  the  one-stop  shops  is  optional  and  limited  to  freight  traffic  on  lines 
designated  to  rail  freight  corridor.  PM1  envisages  making  the  use  of  the  corridor  one-stop  shops 
mandatory  for  all  cross-border  traffic,  including  passenger  and  freight  and  all  types  of  requests 
(annual timetable and ad-hoc), and extending the scope of the one-stop shop to the entire capacity 
management process, including changes after the first allocation of capacity. 

The measure is intended to strengthen the role of the one-stop shops in the allocation of capacity, 
including through a better coordination of works restricting available capacity.  

The measure will introduce harmonised rules for management of capacity involving more than one 
corridor by assigning clear responsibilities to the one-stop shops. This would require that requests 
for capacity on lines of more than one corridor will be submitted to a single one-stop shop and the 
latter will organise the construction of train paths in close cooperation with infrastructure managers 
involved. 

Adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 

In  the  baseline,  there  are  11  one-stop  shops,  one  for  each  rail  freight  corridor.  Each  of  them 
employs roughly 1 full time equivalent  (FTE) and they  are  funded by infrastructure managers.  In 
PM1, the number of employees is expected to increase to 3 to 5 FTEs per one-stop shop, depending 
on  the  traffic  intensity  for  the  different  corridors.  However,  this  would  not  result  in  additional 
labour  costs  for  infrastructure  managers  as  the  measure  essentially  consists  in  shifting  the 
coordination  process  for  the  management  of  capacity  (train  paths  and  work  restricting  the 
availability  of  capacity)  from  infrastructure  managers  to  the  one-stop  shops.  Therefore,  the 
additional costs for infrastructure managers due to PM1 are expected to be negligible relative to the 
baseline.  

EN 

119 

EN 

 
Adjustment cost savings for railway undertakings (RU) 

The costs savings for RUs and other applicants due to PM1 are expected to be limited relative to 
the  baseline.  The  measure  does  not  address  a  key  limitation  of  the  one-stop  shops  –  namely  that 
their  scope  is  limited  to  on  stage  part  of  the  overall  capacity  management  process,  namely  the 
(initial)  request  for  and  allocation  of  a  train  path  –  therefore  not  simplifying  significantly  the 
process  for  the  operators  of  cross-border  train  services.  Therefore,  no  cost  savings  for  RUs  are 
considered for this policy measure.  

Providing for a single point for submission of requests in the form of a single IT tool at EU level 
reduces  the  costs  of  managing  capacity  for  cross-border  capacity,  by  lifting  the  need  to  manage 
capacity  in  parallel  in  several  national  IT  systems.  The  overall  cost  savings  related  to  IT  are 
estimated under PM24. 

PM2-1: Introduce a harmonised, directly applicable EU legal framework for railway capacity 
and traffic management 

This measure will abolish the rail freight corridors, including their governance structure and bodies, 
notably the corridor offices and one-stop shops. The evaluation of the RFC Regulation provides an 
overview  of  the  costs  related  to  operating  and  the  governance  of  the  corridors.  These  costs  are 
mostly borne by the infrastructure managers. 

Adjustment cost savings for infrastructure managers 

The  measure  will  result  in  adjustment  costs  savings,  including  direct  labour  costs  related  to  the 
governance  and  operation  of  the  rail  freight  corridors,  overheads  (including  for  IT)  and  cost  of 
external services (transport market studies, some external services provided by RNE, etc.). 

The evaluation of the RFC Regulation indicated that the total adjustment costs for the 11 RFCs are 
estimated at EUR 55 million for a period of 6 years, or an average of EUR 9.2 million per year in 
2016 prices. EU funding represented EUR 35 million over the 6 years, or EUR 5.8 million per year 
in 2016 prices. Expressed in 2021 prices, this is equivalent to eligible costs of EUR 10 million per 
year, of which EUR 6.3 million per year being covered by EU funding. In the baseline, the eligible 
costs  and  EU  funding  are  assumed  to  remain  constant  over  time.  Thus,  PM2-1  would  lead  to 
adjustment  costs  savings  for  infrastructure  managers  of  EUR 3.6  million  per  year  relative  to  the 
baseline from 2025 onwards. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, the total adjustment costs 
savings are estimated at EUR 66.7 million (in 2021 prices).  

Administrative cost savings for infrastructure managers 

In  addition,  PM2-1  also  results  in  costs  savings  relative  to  the  baseline  for  the  collection  and 
publication of the information contained in the network statement for national networks regarding 
the  freight  corridor,  for  producing  customer  satisfaction  surveys  and  for  monitoring  the 
performance  of  rail  freight  services  on  the  freight  corridors  and  publishing  the  survey  and 
monitoring  results.  Most  of  these  represent  administrative  costs  savings  for  the  infrastructure 
managers.  

According to the evaluation of the RFC Regulation, the overall costs for producing the management 
board’s  annual  reports  amount  to  an  average  of  nearly  EUR 30 000  per  year  per  corridor,  or 
EUR 330 000 for all corridors per year in the baseline. The abolition of the rail freight corridors in 
PM2-1 would thus result in administrative costs savings related to the production of management 
board’s  annual  reports  of  EUR 330 000  per  year  from  2025  onwards  relative  to  the  baseline. 

EN 

120 

EN 

 
Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  total  costs  savings  are  estimated  at  EUR 6.1 
million.   

The  publication  of  the  information  extracted  from  the  national  network  statements  is  an  annual 
activity that is estimated to require on average 10 person-days of work per IM and 10 person-days 
of  work  for  the  administration  of  the  rail  freight  corridors  (usually  organised  in  a  permanent 
management  office)  in  the  baseline,  assuming  8  hours  of  work  per  day.  The  information  is  then 
published  via  RNE’s  Customer  Information  Platform  (CIP).  To  estimate  the  costs  savings  due  to 
PM2-1,  the  tariffs  per  hour  from  the  Eurostat  Structure  of  earnings  survey,  Labour  Force  Survey 
data for Non-Wage Labour Costs (i.e. ISCO 2 – professionals) have been used (EUR 37.5 per hour 
in  2021  prices).  The  costs  savings  due  to  PM2-1  for  IM  (including  RFCs)  are  thus  estimated  at 
EUR 107 869 per year from 2025 onwards (in 2021 prices). Expressed as present value over 2025-
2050, the total costs savings are estimated at EUR 2 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices).  

The collection of the input and the publication of the customer satisfaction surveys for each RFC is 
an annual activity. Most RFC management boards outsourced this activity to RNE. In the baseline, 
RNE dedicates 0.15 FTE per year and pays an annual fee of EUR 299 for an online survey tool. To 
estimate  the  costs  savings,  the  tariffs  per  hour  from  the  Eurostat  Structure  of  earnings  survey, 
Labour  Force  Survey  data  for  Non-Wage  Labour  Costs  (i.e.  ISCO  3  –  technicians  and  associate 
professionals) have been used (EUR 31.1 per hour in 2021 prices). The costs savings due to PM2-1 
related to  the collection of the input and the publication of the customer surveys are estimated at 
around EUR 8 030 per year from 2025 onwards (in 2021 prices). Expressed as present value over 
2025-2050, the total costs savings are estimated at EUR 147 859 million relative to the baseline (in 
2021 prices).  

Total administrative costs savings for IMs due to PM2-1 are estimated at EUR 0.4 million per year 
from 2025 onwards relative to the baseline (i.e. EUR 17 836 per year on average per infrastructure 
manager).  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  total  administrative  costs  savings  are 
estimated at EUR 8.2 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices). 

Adjustment cost savings for railway undertakings (RU) and terminal operators 

The main costs for the railway undertakings and terminal operators in the baseline arise from the 
participation  in  the  freight  corridors’  advisory  groups.  The  participation  in  these  groups  is 
voluntary.  In  the  context  of  the  evaluation  of  the  RFC  Regulation,  railway  undertakings  and 
terminal operators reported a wide range of costs linked to the participation in the advisory groups 
(mostly direct labour costs and travel costs) estimated at EUR 0 to 20 000 per RU annually in the 
baseline.  Information  from  the  management  boards  suggests  that  participation  can  vary 
considerably  (as  it  is  voluntary).  Normally,  a  relatively  small  number  of  RUs  and  even  smaller 
number of terminal operators participate in the work of the advisory groups of the corridors. Due to 
the high level of uncertainty about the cost for participation in the advisory groups and the varying 
numbers  of  participants,  it  was  not  possible  to  estimate  the  adjustment  cost  savings  for  RUs  and 
terminal operators due to PM2-1. 

Adjustment  cost  savings  for  public  authorities  (national  public  administrations  and  regulatory 
bodies, and EU funding) 

National  public  administrations  and  regulatory  bodies.  Cost  savings  for  public  authorities  would 
result  mostly  from  terminating  the  participation  in  the  executive  boards,  which  includes  direct 

EN 

121 

EN 

 
labour costs, but also overheads (like travel costs for an average of 2 meetings per year per RFC) 
for the Member States participating in the corridors214.  

The assumptions and the estimates for the labour, travel and accommodation costs are based on the 
Decision  authorising  the  use  of  lump  sum  contributions  for  technical  assistance  under  the 
Connecting  Europe Facility  – Transport sector, of 13 December 2021.  The Decision provides the 
estimated costs for the period 2021-2024.  

Labour  costs  are  estimated  for  participation  in  corridor  and  cross-corridor  meetings  and  internal 
coordination.  For  the  period  2021-2024,  they  are  estimated  at  EUR 313 830  per  year.  In  the 
baseline  scenario,  these  costs  are  assumed  to  remain  constant  over  time  in  real  prices.  Thus,  the 
abolition of rail freight corridors in PM2-1 would lead to labour costs savings of EUR 313 830 per 
year from 2025 onwards. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, the total labour costs savings 
are estimated at EUR 5.8 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices).  

The  travel  costs  in  the  baseline  and  the  respective  savings  due  to  PM2-1  are  estimated  only  for 
physical  meetings.  The  share  of  physical  meetings  is  estimated  at  40%  of  all  meetings.  This  is 
based on the developments during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that virtual meetings are an 
effective  way  to  reduce  travel  costs  but  cannot  fully  replace  physical  meetings  of  a  governance 
structure  coordinating  between  members  from  different  Member  States  and  stakeholders  groups. 
This  assumption  results  in  two  physical  meetings  per  corridor  per  year  and  two  physical  cross-
corridor meetings per year.  

The assumption is that costs for travel (a return trip either by rail or air, depending on the distance), 
accommodation  (one  night)  and  subsistence  (one  daily  rate)  for  one  person  will  be  covered.  The 
applicable  rates  are  taken  from  Commission  Decision  C(2021)35  of  12 January  2021  authorising 
the  use  of  unit  costs  for  travel,  accommodation  and  subsistence  costs  under  an  action  or  work 
programme under the 2021-2027 multi-annual financial framework. 

For  corridor-specific  meetings,  it  was  assumed  that  the  meetings  are  held  in  the  Member  States 
involved in the corridor on a rotating basis. For cross-corridor meetings, it was assumed that (i) half 
of  the  meetings  would  take  place  in  Brussels  and  (i)  the  other  half  at  a  well-accessible  location 
other than Brussels. Historic information shows that such meetings are held in a variety of locations 
such  that  the  exact  locations  of  these  meetings  for  the  future  cannot  be  established.  Only  for  the 
sake of estimating the travel  costs, the rates applicable to  Vienna  were applied, due to  its central 
location  and  the  accommodation  rates  which  are  comparable  to  the  average  across  the  EU.  The 
travel and accommodation costs per year were thus estimated at EUR 56 120.  

Thus, the abolition of rail freight corridors in PM2-1 would lead to travel and accommodation costs 
savings of EUR 56 120 per year from 2025 onwards. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, 
the  total  travel  and  accommodation  cost  savings  are  estimated  at  EUR 1  million  relative  to  the 
baseline (in 2021 prices). 

Total  adjustment costs savings for public authorities in  PM2-1 are estimated at  EUR 369 950 per 
year from 2025 onwards relative to  the baseline. Expressed as present  value over 2025-2050, the 
total  adjustment  costs  savings  are  estimated  at  EUR 6.8  million  relative  to  the  baseline  (in  2021 
prices). 

214  Ireland, Cyprus, Malta and Finland do not participate in the governance of any rail freight corridor. Some Member 

States participate in several corridors. 

EN 

122 

EN 

 
                                                           
EU funding.  As explained above, part of the costs related to  the governance and operation of the 
rail freight  corridors, overheads (including for  IT) and  cost  of  external  services  (transport market 
studies, some external services provided by RNE, etc.) are eligible for EU funding. According to 
the evaluation of the RFC Regulation, the EU funding is estimated at EUR 6.3 million per year (in 
2021 prices) and it is assumed to remain constant over time in real prices in the baseline. PM2-1 
would  thus  result  in  adjustment  costs  savings  for  the  EU  estimated  at  EUR 6.3  million  per  year. 
Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  adjustment  costs  savings  are  estimated  at 
EUR 116.7 million (in 2021 prices). 

Administrative cost savings for public authorities  

Administrative  cost  savings  for  the  public  authorities  would  result  from  the  abolishment  of  the 
biennial reports of the executive boards of the RFCs. The cost estimates are based on the Decision 
authorising the use of lump sum contributions for technical assistance under the Connecting Europe 
Facility  –  Transport  sector,  of  13 December  2021.  The  Decision  provides  the  estimated  costs  for 
these reports for 2021-2024. 

For the period 2021-2024, the costs for the biennial reports are estimated at EUR 139 031 per year. 
In the baseline scenario, these costs are assumed to remain constant over time in real prices. Thus, 
the  abolition  of  rail  freight  corridors  in  PM2-1  would  lead  to  administrative  costs  savings  of 
EUR 139 031 per  year from  2025 onwards. Expressed as present  value over 2025-2050, the total 
administrative  costs  savings  are  estimated  at  EUR 2.6  million  relative  to  the  baseline  (in  2021 
prices). 

PM2-2: Introduce a European network statement 

The  European  network  statement  will  define  the  detailed  and  harmonised  rules  and  procedures 
applying on the entire EU railway network, in particular as regards cross-border cooperation within 
the  new  EU  legal  framework  for  railway  capacity  and  traffic  management,  complementing  the 
network  statements  of  infrastructure  managers  on  all  rules  and  procedures  that  are  harmonised 
across the EU. Network statements developed and published by individual infrastructure managers 
in accordance with Article 27 of Directive 2012/34/EU will need to be consistent with the general 
framework defined by the European network statement.  

Adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 

Infrastructure  managers  will  need  to  contribute  to  the  preparation  of  the  European  network 
statement by the European Network of Infrastructure Managers. Infrastructure managers will also 
need  to  amend  the  network  statements  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  European 
network  statement.  The  amendment  is  expected  to  lead  to  a  one-off  effort  to  ensure  consistency, 
with  relatively  minor  efforts  for  the  preparation  of  the  annual  network  statements.  The  costs  for 
these activities are expected to be limited and are not further quantified.  

Adjustment costs for the European Network of Infrastructure Managers  

ENIM  will  need  to  prepare  the  European  network  statement  in  collaboration  with  individual 
infrastructure  managers,  consult  stakeholders  concerned,  notably  applicants,  and  engage  with 
regulatory bodies. Only  a one-off effort for the preparation of the European  network statement is 
envisaged. The costs for these activities are expected to be limited and are not further quantified. 

Enforcement  costs  for  national  regulatory  bodies  and  for  the  European  Network  of  Regulatory 
Bodies (the ENRRB) 

EN 

123 

EN 

 
The ENRRB must verify compliance of the European network statement with European legislation, 
in  particular  provisions  on  capacity  and  traffic  management  introduced  by  the  present  initiative. 
National regulatory bodies will need to assess the compliance of the network statements published 
by infrastructure managers with the European one and take action to ensure compliance, if needed. 

The provisions of the European network statement would replace provisions that are included in the 
network  statements  of  individual  infrastructure  managers  in  the  baseline.  A  single  conformity 
assessment  of  these  provisions  by  the  ENRRB  replacing  conformity  assessments  for  each 
infrastructure managers in the EU by national  regulatory bodies, in  principle enable cost  savings. 
However,  such  a  single  conformity  assessment  will  also  require  that  national  regulatory  bodies 
agree  on  a  common  assessment  in  the  framework  of  the  ENRRB,  which  will  require  additional 
coordination efforts. It is expected that the reduction in the workload due to the single conformity 
assessment  of  the  provisions  of  the  European  network  statement  by  the  ENRRB  will  offset  the 
workload required for additional coordination. Thus, no significant costs for the national regulatory 
bodies and the ENRRB are expected due to PM2-2.    

PM3: Strategic capacity management phase 

PM3 (included in PO2, PO3 and PO4) introduces a strategic capacity management phase, which (i) 
establishes a multi-annual  planning to  optimise the quantity  and quality  of the capacity offer and 
(ii) provides a reserve of capacity for flexible allocation to individual applicants. 

This measure introduces a structured process for the strategic management of railway infrastructure 
capacity. The purpose of strategic planning is to optimise the use of the available rail infrastructure 
in line with the market needs of all segments of rail transport, while taking into account the need for 
infrastructure  maintenance  and  renewal.  The  results  of  the  process  should  be  documented  in 
planning documents (capacity strategy, model, network utilisation plans). 

The  strategic  management  process  is  steered  by  infrastructure  managers  who  must  involve 
operators  of  rail  transport  services  and  other  stakeholders  concerned  (public  authorities,  non-RU 
applicants, terminals etc.) throughout the process and is subject to scrutiny by regulatory bodies.  

The process is implemented in an incremental and continuous manner, covering a time horizon of 
at  least  5  years. The process  starts  with  a  general  planning for the long-term end of the planning 
horizon, which is gradually detailed and updated in the continuous planning process. The ultimate 
stage of the strategic capacity management process provides the basis for capacity allocation in the 
following  timetable  period  (calendar  year),  in  which  capacity  is  allocated  via  new,  flexible 
procedures (PM4). 

The  responsibility  to  carry  out  strategic  capacity  management  is  entrusted  to  individual 
infrastructure  managers.  Costs  are  expected  to  consist  mainly  of:  (i)  staff  cost  for  infrastructure 
managers for carrying out the corresponding planning and consultation activities, (ii) staff cost for 
railway undertakings and other applicants for rail infrastructure capacity in providing input into and 
in reviewing the results of the planning process, and (iii) costs of regulatory bodies to scrutinise the 
strategic management phase. 

The  adjustment  costs  for  infrastructure  managers  and  railways  undertakings  of  PM3  are  jointly 
assessed  together  with  PM4  and  PM5.  The  measures  are  complementary  to  each  other  and  the 
associated costs cannot be split between the measures. All three measures are included in PO2, PO3 
and PO4.   

Adjustment cost for infrastructure managers  
EN 

124 

EN 

 
The  workload  for  infrastructure  managers  has  been  estimated  based  on  assumptions  about  the 
planning  and  consultation  activities,  taking  into  account  key  influencing  factors  such  as  network 
length and the intensity of network utilisation. The key assumption is that the recurrent workload 
resulting  from  strategic  capacity  management  is  3 FTE  per  1 000 line-km  for  a  network  with  the 
median traffic intensity (13 173 train-km per line-km per year). As the workload does not increase 
and  decrease  proportionally  with  the  traffic  intensity,  the  workload  for  the  most  intensively  used 
network (48 604 train-km per line-km per year, around 3.7 times the median) is assumed to be 2.5 
times the workload for the median traffic intensity network (7.5 FTE per 1 000 line-km), while the 
workload  for  the  least  intensively  used  network  (3 856  train-km  per  line-km,  around  29%  of  the 
median) is  assumed to be 50% of the workload for the median traffic intensity network (1.5 FTE 
per 1 000 line-km). It is assumed that strategic capacity management is carried out for the lines part 
of the TEN-T core and extended core networks as included in the Commission’s 2021 proposal for 
the TEN-T Regulation. 

The  recurrent  adjustment  costs  for  infrastructure  managers  are  estimated  at  EUR 13.5  million 
relative to  the baseline from 2026 onwards. Expressed as present  value  over 2025-2050, they are 
estimated at EUR 235.6 million relative to the baseline in PM3 (included in PO2, PO3 and PO4). 

The workload to prepare the first version ever of the strategic planning documents is estimated to 
be significantly higher than the recurrent workload. The corresponding one-off costs are estimated 
at 15 FTE per 1 000 line-km for a network with median traffic intensity. This is equivalent to the 
recurrent workload of 5 years, reflecting the additional efforts required to prepare such documents 
from scratch. In order to take into account the effect of network load, the same correction factors 
were used as for the recurrent workload. The one-off adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 
are estimated at EUR 67.7 million relative to the baseline in 2025. 

The one-off adjustment costs in 2025 and the recurrent adjustment costs in 2030 and 2050 relative 
to the baseline by Member State are provided in Table 24. 

Table  24:  One-off  and  recurrent  adjustment  costs  for  infrastructure  managers  by  Member  State  due  to  PM3 
relative to the baseline (in EUR) 

2025 (one-off) 

Costs for IMs 
2030 (recurrent) 

2050 (recurrent) 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
NL 
AT 
PL 

EN 

2 613 648 
236 092 
849 054 
2 063 105 
19 350 581 
120 252 
424 449 
485 752 
5 638 356 
12 581 762 
177 375 
7 544 753 
217 754 
204 210 
214 911 
578 477 
2 291 988 
2 417 260 
1 798 400 

125 

522 730 
47 218 
169 811 
412 621 
3 870 116 
24 050 
84 890 
97 150 
1 127 671 
2 516 352 
35 475 
1 508 951 
43 551 
40 842 
42 982 
115 695 
458 398 
483 452 
359 680 

522 730 
47 218 
169 811 
412 621 
3 870 116 
24 050 
84 890 
97 150 
1 127 671 
2 516 352 
35 475 
1 508 951 
43 551 
40 842 
42 982 
115 695 
458 398 
483 452 
359 680 

EN 

 
  
2025 (one-off) 

Costs for IMs 
2030 (recurrent) 

2050 (recurrent) 

PT 
RO 
SI 
SK 
FI 
SE 
Total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

790 316 
718 772 
306 686 
284 078 
1 032 316 
4 723 847 
67 664 196 

158 063 
143 754 
61 337 
56 816 
206 463 
944 769 
13 532 839 

158 063 
143 754 
61 337 
56 816 
206 463 
944 769 
13 532 839 

The total one-off and recurrent adjustment costs due to PM3, expressed as present value over 2025-
2050 relative to the baseline, are estimated at EUR 303.5 million. 

Adjustment cost for railway undertakings 

The workload for railway undertakings and other applicants is more difficult to estimate due to the 
high  number  of  railway  undertakings  active  in  the  liberalised  rail  transport  market  and  due  to 
uncertainties about the exact implementation of the planning and consultation processes. Therefore, 
cost  for  railway  undertakings  and  other  applicants  have  been  estimated  at  aggregate  level,  as  a 
share of the total  costs  for infrastructure managers. This  share is  assumed to  be 25%  and applies 
both to recurrent and to one-of cost (first implementation of first strategic management phase). 

The recurrent adjustment costs for railway undertakings are estimated at  EUR 3.4 million relative 
to the baseline from 2026 onwards, while the one-off adjustment costs at EUR 16.9 million relative 
to the baseline in 2025. 

The  costs  for  railway  undertakings  relative  to  the  baseline,  including  one-off  adjustment  costs  in 
2025 and the recurrent adjustment costs in 2030 and 2050, are provided by Member State in Table 
25. 

Table  25:  One-off  and  recurrent  adjustment  costs  for  railways  undertakings  by  Member  State  due  to  PM3 
relative to the baseline (in EUR)  

2025 (one-off) 

Costs for RUs 
2030 (recurrent) 

2050 (recurrent) 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
NL 
AT 

EN 

653 412 
59 023 
212 264 
515 776 
4 837 645 
30 063 
106 112 
121 438 
1 409 589 
3 145 441 
44 344 
1 886 188 
54 439 
51 053 
53 728 
144 619 
572 997 
604 315 

126 

130 682 
11 805 
42 453 
103 155 
967 529 
6 013 
21 222 
24 288 
281 918 
629 088 
8 869 
377 238 
10 888 
10 211 
10 746 
28 924 
114 599 
120 863 

130 682 
11 805 
42 453 
103 155 
967 529 
6 013 
21 222 
24 288 
281 918 
629 088 
8 869 
377 238 
10 888 
10 211 
10 746 
28 924 
114 599 
120 863 

EN 

 
  
  
2025 (one-off) 

Costs for RUs 
2030 (recurrent) 

2050 (recurrent) 

PL 
PT 
RO 
SI 
SK 
FI 
SE 
Total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

449 600 
197 579 
179 693 
76 672 
71 019 
258 079 
1 180 962 
16 916 049 

89 920 
39 516 
35 939 
15 334 
14 204 
51 616 
236 192 
3 383 210 

89 920 
39 516 
35 939 
15 334 
14 204 
51 616 
236 192 
3 383 210 

Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, the total (one-off and recurrent) adjustment costs for 
railway  undertakings  due  to  PM3  are  estimated  at  EUR 75.8  million  relative  to  the  baseline,  of 
which EUR 16.9 million one-off costs.    

Enforcement cost for regulatory bodies  

The  costs  for  regulatory  bodies  related  to  regulatory  scrutiny  of  the  strategic  management  phase 
have  been  estimated  at  5%  of  the  adjustment  cost  for  infrastructure  managers,  both  for  recurrent 
and for one-off cost. 

The  enforcement  costs  for  regulatory  bodies  are  estimated  at  EUR 0.7  million  relative  to  the 
baseline from 2026 onwards, while the one-off adjustment costs at EUR 3.4 million relative to the 
baseline  in  2025.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  total  (one-off  and  recurrent) 
enforcement costs for regulatory bodies due to PM3 are estimated at  EUR 15.2 million relative to 
the baseline, of which EUR 3.4 million one-off costs. 

PM4:  Introduce  new  procedures  for  capacity  allocation  in  line  with  market  needs,  in 
particular for flexibility and reliability 

The adjustment costs for infrastructure managers and railways undertakings are jointly considered 
for PM3, PM4 and PM5 as explained above. The measures are complementary to  each other and 
the associated cost savings cannot be split between the measures. All three measures are included in 
PO2, PO3 and PO4.  

The measure should increase the respect of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings (and 
other  applicants)  of  commitments  related  to  capacity.  This  should  increase  the  stability  in  the 
planning process,  thereby  reducing the costs for  repeated updates of the  planning. On the side of 
infrastructure  managers,  fewer  train  paths  should  be  modified  or  cancelled  for  reasons  under  the 
control  of  infrastructure  managers,  notably  the  re-scheduling  of  capacity  restrictions  to  enable 
infrastructure  works  for  repair,  maintenance  and  renewals,  the  so-called  planned  temporary 
capacity restrictions (TCRs). On the side of the railway undertakings, capacity requests should be 
placed only once the exact capacity needs of the RUs are known, avoiding the current practise to 
place train path requests as a precautionary measure to ‘reserve’ capacity but without knowledge of 
the specific capacity needs (timing, routing, train parameters etc.) 

The  measure  should  result  in  a  significant  reduction  of  the  number  of  changes  to  train  paths,  in 
particular for freight RUs, in conjunction with strategic capacity management (PM3) and with the 
economic  incentives  for  stakeholders  to  respect  commitments  related  to  capacity  (PM8).  This  is 
expected to result in adjustment cost savings for infrastructure managers and railway undertakings, 
who would need to process a smaller number of changes to train paths.  

EN 

127 

EN 

 
  
Adjustment cost savings for infrastructure managers 

The basis for the estimation of costs savings resulting from new capacity allocation procedures is 
information  about  the  capacity  allocation  process  in  the  Commission’s  report  on  rail  market 
monitoring215, more specifically indicator 2.2 on allocated and rejected train paths, as contained in 
the TRAMOS database compiling RMMS data.216,217 

On the basis of this information, the possible reduction in the number of train path requests and the 
associated  adjustment  cost  savings  were  estimated  as  follows,  drawing  upon  information  from  a 
business case prepared for the TTR initiative218: 

  Step  1:  Projected  evolution  of  the  number  of  train  path  requests.  The  number  of  train  paths 
requests in the baseline and in the policy options is assumed to increase over time at the same 
rate as the projected rail traffic activity. 

  Step  2:  Estimation  of  changes  to  train  paths  in  the  baseline.  The  number  of  allocated  and 
rejected paths includes also changes to train paths, as each request for a change to a train paths 
results either in a re-allocation or rejection of a train path. Based on the TTR business case, the 
number  of  changes  to  the  train  path  per  train  in  the  baseline  were  assumed  to  be  0.7  for 
passenger trains, 2.3 for freight trains with capacity allocated in the annual timetable and 0.5 for 
freight  trains  with  capacity  allocated  on  an  ad-hoc  basis.  The  total  number  of  changes  to  the 
train paths in the baseline is derived by multiplying the number of changes to the train path per 
train with the number of train path requests.  

  Step 3: Estimate the reduction in the number of changes to train paths in the policy options. The 
reduction in changes to train paths relative to the baseline was estimated at 30% for passenger 
trains (0.2 changes per train in absolute terms), 43% for freight trains with capacity allocated in 
the  annual  process  (1.0  changes  per  train  in  absolute  terms)  and  30%  for  freight  train  with 
capacity  allocated  on  an  ad-hoc  basis  (0.5  changes  per  train  in  absolute  terms).  These 
assumptions  are  more  conservative  than  the  assumptions  made  in  the  TTR  business  case,  i.e. 
assume  a  lower  reduction  and,  consequently,  lower  cost  savings.  The  estimates  also  take  into 
account the different evolution of rail traffic activity in the policy options, which has an impact 
on the number of train path requests. This results in different estimates for the total reduction of 
the number of changes to the train paths in PO2, PO3 and PO4. 

  Step 4: Estimate the reduction in the workload and cost savings resulting from the reduction in 
the changes to train paths. The reduction in the workload was based on assumptions from the 
TTR  business  case  analysis.  The  workload  resulting  from  each  change  to  a  train  path  was 
estimated at 1.375 hours, which is 25% of the workload to prepare a train path in the first place, 
which in turn is estimated at 5.5 hours per train path. Staff cost savings for planning activities 
were estimated based on average unit staff cost (EUR/hour) for the ISCO 2 occupational level. 

215  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, SWD(2021) 1 final 
216  Accessible at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tentec/policy/tramos/. 
217  Prior to further calculation steps, the data from TRAMOS had to be standardised, as the definitions underlying the 
figures  for  different  Member  States  are  not  harmonised.  In  some  Member  States,  each  individual  running  day  is 
counted as an individual  ‘path allocation’,  i.e. a train running 365 days a  year  with the  same  timetable is counted as 
365 path allocations, whereas in other MS such a train is counted as a single path allocation. The following assumptions 
regarding the average number of running days per request and year are: passenger trains  – 250 running days per year; 
freight  trains  using  capacity  allocated  in  annual  timetable:  100 running  days  per  year;  freight  trains  using  ad  hoc 
capacity: 10 running days per year. 
218  RailNetEurope and Forum Train Europe (2019) Redesign of the International Timetabling Process (TTR). Business 
Case. Draft Version 3.0, 15 May 2019 (https://cms.rne.eu/system/files/8.0_ttr_business_case_v3.0_2019-05-15_0.pdf). 

EN 

128 

EN 

 
                                                           
Table 26 presents the number of train paths and the number of changes in train paths in the baseline 
in 2030 by Member State, the reduction in the number of changes in the train paths in PO2 relative 
to the baseline in 2030 and the costs savings for infrastructure managers (the same as for the rail 
undertakings as explained below) relative to the baseline in 2030. Table 27 and Table 28 show the 
changes relative to the baseline for PO3 and PO4 by Member State. 

Table 32 shows the estimated annual cost savings relative to the baseline in 2030, 2040 and 2050 
for  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  and  the  total  costs  savings  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050 
relative to the baseline. 

Adjustment cost savings for railway undertakings 

The  new  process  of  capacity  allocation  will  result  in  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  requests  for 
amendments  or  cancellation  of  allocated  capacity.  This  is  expected  to  result  in  adjustment  costs 
savings for railways undertakings. 

For obvious reasons, each modification of a train path concerns both infrastructure managers and 
railway undertakings: irrespective which side requests a change initially, the other side will have to 
adjust its planning accordingly. 

Therefore, cost savings for railway undertakings were estimated on the basis of the same approach 
and the same assumptions as for the infrastructure managers.  In particular, the same  assumptions 
were made regarding the work time needed to process each individual change, the qualification of 
the staff in charge of this task (ISCO 2) and the related unit staff costs. The cost savings for railway 
undertakings are presented in Table 29 (for PO2), Table 30 (for PO3) and Table 31 (for PO4). 

EN 

129 

EN 

 
Table 26: Estimation of cost savings for infrastructure managers from the reduction of changes to train paths for 2030 in PO2 relative to the baseline 

Train paths number in the baseline 

Changes to train paths number in 
the baseline 

Reduction in the train paths number 
in PO2 

Costs savings for IMs (in thousand EUR) in PO2 
relative to the baseline 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Total 

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 

12 644 
7 761 
789 
56 049 
246 702 
10 635 
415 
641 

61 738 

1 297 
23 517 
1 037 
12 971 
742 
17 022 
3 541 
1 939 
396 
9 539 
20 508 
2 326 
2 245 
3 919 
4 422 
4 184 

4 526 
1 504 
430 
5 985 
24 570 
217 
91 
36 

3 326 

106 
5 375 
594 
782 
0 
5 029 
914 
264 
1 030 
1 224 
1 172 
390 
5 032 
2 545 
887 
3 651 

6 118 
5 812 
22 044 
42 518 
942 088 
2 741 
14 
123 

68 650 

59 
0 
11 785 
17 129 
0 
33 
6 079 
199 
0 
11 363 
66 984 
1 094 
86 
1 769 
45 963 
16 451 

8 851 
5 433 
552 
39 234 
172 691 
7 445 
291 
449 

43 217 

908 
16 462 
726 
9 080 
519 
11 915 
2 479 
1 357 
277 
6 677 
14 356 
1 628 
1 572 
2 743 
3 095 
2 929 

10 410 
3 459 
989 
13 766 
56 511 
499 
209 
83 

7 650 

244 
12 363 
1 366 
1 799 
0 
11 567 
2 102 
607 
2 369 
2 815 
2 696 
897 
11 574 
5 854 
2 040 
8 397 

3 059 
2 906 
11 022 
21 259 
471 044 
1 371 
7 
62 

34 325 

30 
0 
5 893 
8 565 
0 
17 
3 040 
100 
0 
5 682 
33 492 
547 
43 
885 
22 982 
8 226 

2 540 
1 561 
159 
11 291 
49 789 
2 138 
83 
129 

12 463 
263 
4 720 
210 
2 610 
151 
3 422 
711 
389 
79 
1 917 
4 124 
472 
454 
795 
887 
840 

4 544 
1 512 
433 
6 025 
24 761 
218 
92 
36 

3 360 
107 
5 393 
597 
784 
0 
5 052 
918 
265 
1 033 
1 229 
1 177 
395 
5 084 
2 583 
889 
3 662 

921 
876 
3 333 
6 421 
142 407 
413 
2 
18 

10 401 
9 
0 
1 779 
2 578 
0 
5 
916 
30 
0 
1 712 
10 093 
167 
13 
269 
6 906 
2 475 

156 
114 
2 
290 
3 365 
152 
2 
4 

525 
15 
297 
4 
49 
10 
204 
12 
26 
2 
118 
83 
14 
9 
50 
25 
18 

279 
110 
5 
155 
1 673 
16 
2 
1 

141 
6 
340 
12 
15 
0 
302 
16 
18 
21 
75 
24 
11 
100 
161 
25 
77 

56 
64 
35 
165 
9 623 
29 
0 
1 

438 
1 
0 
34 
48 
0 
0 
16 
2 
0 
105 
204 
5 
0 
17 
192 
52 

491 
287 
42 
610 
14 661 
197 
4 
5 

1 104 
22 
637 
50 
112 
10 
506 
45 
46 
22 
298 
311 
30 
109 
227 
241 
148 

EN 

130 

EN 

 
 
  
Train paths number in the baseline 

Changes to train paths number in 
the baseline 

Reduction in the train paths number 
in PO2 

Costs savings for IMs (in thousand EUR) in PO2 
relative to the baseline 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Passenger 

Freight, ad 
hoc 
1 269 102 

Freight, 
annual 

160 266 

Freight, ad 
hoc 
634 557 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

102 197 

70 149 

Freight, ad 
hoc 
191 744 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

5 544 

3 583 

Freight, ad 
hoc 
11 089 

Total 

20 216 

354 886 
69 680 
Total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

506 979 

Table 27: Estimation of cost savings for infrastructure managers from the reduction of changes to train paths for 2030 in PO3 relative to the baseline 

Train paths number in the baseline 

Changes to train paths number in 
the baseline 

Reduction in the train paths number 
in PO3 

Costs savings for IMs (in thousand EUR) in PO3 
relative to the baseline 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Total 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 

ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 

12 644 
7 761 
789 
56 049 
246 702 
10 635 
415 
641 

61 738 

1 297 
23 517 
1 037 
12 971 
742 
17 022 
3 541 
1 939 
396 

4 526 
1 504 
430 
5 985 
24 570 
217 
91 
36 

3 326 

106 
5 375 
594 
782 
0 
5 029 
914 
264 
1 030 

6 118 
5 812 
22 044 
42 518 
942 088 
2 741 
14 
123 

68 650 

59 
0 
11 785 
17 129 
0 
33 
6 079 
199 
0 

8 851 
5 433 
552 
39 234 
172 691 
7 445 
291 
449 

43 217 

908 
16 462 
726 
9 080 
519 
11 915 
2 479 
1 357 
277 

10 410 
3 459 
989 
13 766 
56 511 
499 
209 
83 

7 650 

244 
12 363 
1 366 
1 799 
0 
11 567 
2 102 
607 
2 369 

3 059 
2 906 
11 022 
21 259 
471 044 
1 371 
7 
62 

34 325 

30 
0 
5 893 
8 565 
0 
17 
3 040 
100 
0 

2 549 
1 568 
160 
11 341 
50 050 
2 150 
83 
129 

12 521 
265 
4 735 
211 
2 621 
152 
3 434 
713 
390 
80 

4 559 
1 518 
435 
6 051 
24 871 
219 
92 
36 

3 377 
108 
5 409 
600 
786 
0 
5 066 
921 
266 
1 036 

924 
880 
3 347 
6 448 
143 040 
415 
2 
18 

10 454 
9 
0 
1 786 
2 585 
0 
5 
919 
30 
0 

156 
114 
2 
291 
3 382 
153 
2 
4 

527 
15 
298 
4 
49 
10 
205 
13 
26 
2 

280 
110 
5 
155 
1 681 
16 
2 
1 

142 
6 
341 
12 
15 
0 
302 
16 
18 
21 

57 
64 
36 
166 
9 666 
30 
0 
1 

440 
1 
0 
35 
49 
0 
0 
16 
2 
0 

493 
289 
42 
613 
14 729 
198 
4 
5 

1 109 
22 
639 
50 
113 
10 
508 
45 
46 
22 

EN 

131 

EN 

 
 
  
 
  
Train paths number in the baseline 

Changes to train paths number in 
the baseline 

Reduction in the train paths number 
in PO3 

Costs savings for IMs (in thousand EUR) in PO3 
relative to the baseline 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Total 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

6 677 
1 224 
NL 
14 356 
1 172 
PL 
1 628 
390 
PT 
1 572 
5 032 
RO 
2 743 
2 545 
SE 
3 095 
887 
SI 
2 929 
3 651 
SK 
354 886 
69 680 
Total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

9 539 
20 508 
2 326 
2 245 
3 919 
4 422 
4 184 
506 979 

Freight, ad 
hoc 
11 363 
66 984 
1 094 
86 
1 769 
45 963 
16 451 
1 269 102 

2 815 
2 696 
897 
11 574 
5 854 
2 040 
8 397 
160 266 

5 682 
33 492 
547 
43 
885 
22 982 
8 226 
634 557 

1 927 
4 138 
473 
456 
799 
889 
842 
102 676 

1 235 
1 180 
396 
5 109 
2 597 
891 
3 672 
70 430 

1 720 
10 122 
167 
13 
271 
6 920 
2 482 
192 557 

118 
84 
14 
9 
50 
25 
18 
5 571 

76 
24 
11 
100 
162 
25 
78 
3 598 

105 
204 
5 
0 
17 
192 
53 
11 137 

299 
312 
30 
110 
228 
242 
148 
20 306 

Table 28: Estimation of cost savings for infrastructure managers from the reduction of changes to train paths for 2030 in PO4 relative to the baseline 

Train paths number in the baseline 

Changes to train paths number in 
the baseline 

Reduction in the train paths number 
in PO4 

Costs savings for IMs (in thousand EUR) in PO4 
relative to the baseline 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Total 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 

ES 
FI 
FR 

12 644 
7 761 
789 
56 049 
246 702 
10 635 
415 
641 

61 738 

1 297 
23 517 

4 526 
1 504 
430 
5 985 
24 570 
217 
91 
36 

3 326 

106 
5 375 

6 118 
5 812 
22 044 
42 518 
942 088 
2 741 
14 
123 

68 650 

59 
0 

8 851 
5 433 
552 
39 234 
172 691 
7 445 
291 
449 

43 217 

908 
16 462 

10 410 
3 459 
989 
13 766 
56 511 
499 
209 
83 

7 650 

244 
12 363 

3 059 
2 906 
11 022 
21 259 
471 044 
1 371 
7 
62 

34 325 

30 
0 

2 556 
1 574 
160 
11 378 
50 258 
2 158 
84 
129 

12 564 
267 
4 749 

4 570 
1 523 
437 
6 069 
24 959 
220 
92 
36 

3 389 
108 
5 424 

927 
883 
3 357 
6 467 
143 547 
416 
2 
19 

10 493 
9 
0 

157 
115 
2 
292 
3 396 
154 
2 
4 

529 
16 
299 

280 
111 
5 
156 
1 687 
16 
2 
1 

143 
6 
342 

57 
64 
36 
166 
9 701 
30 
0 
1 

442 
1 
0 

494 
290 
42 
615 
14 783 
199 
4 
5 

1 113 
22 
641 

EN 

132 

EN 

 
 
  
 
  
Train paths number in the baseline 

Changes to train paths number in 
the baseline 

Reduction in the train paths number 
in PO4 

Costs savings for IMs (in thousand EUR) in PO4 
relative to the baseline 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Total 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

726 
594 
HR 
9 080 
782 
HU 
519 
0 
IE 
11 915 
5 029 
IT 
2 479 
914 
LT 
1 357 
264 
LU 
277 
1 030 
LV 
6 677 
1 224 
NL 
14 356 
1 172 
PL 
1 628 
390 
PT 
1 572 
5 032 
RO 
2 743 
2 545 
SE 
3 095 
887 
SI 
2 929 
3 651 
SK 
354 886 
69 680 
Total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

1 037 
12 971 
742 
17 022 
3 541 
1 939 
396 
9 539 
20 508 
2 326 
2 245 
3 919 
4 422 
4 184 
506 979 

Freight, ad 
hoc 
11 785 
17 129 
0 
33 
6 079 
199 
0 
11 363 
66 984 
1 094 
86 
1 769 
45 963 
16 451 
1 269 102 

1 366 
1 799 
0 
11 567 
2 102 
607 
2 369 
2 815 
2 696 
897 
11 574 
5 854 
2 040 
8 397 
160 266 

5 893 
8 565 
0 
17 
3 040 
100 
0 
5 682 
33 492 
547 
43 
885 
22 982 
8 226 
634 557 

212 
2 630 
152 
3 444 
714 
391 
80 
1 934 
4 149 
475 
457 
802 
891 
844 
103 052 

601 
788 
0 
5 078 
924 
266 
1 039 
1 239 
1 183 
398 
5 127 
2 608 
892 
3 679 
70 649 

1 790 
2 590 
0 
5 
921 
30 
0 
1 725 
10 144 
168 
13 
272 
6 930 
2 486 
193 194 

4 
49 
10 
206 
13 
26 
2 
119 
84 
14 
9 
50 
25 
18 
5 592 

12 
15 
0 
303 
16 
18 
21 
76 
24 
11 
101 
162 
25 
78 
3 609 

35 
49 
0 
0 
16 
2 
0 
106 
205 
5 
0 
17 
192 
53 
11 175 

50 
113 
10 
509 
45 
46 
22 
300 
313 
30 
110 
229 
242 
148 
20 377 

Table 29: Estimation of cost savings for railway undertakings from the reduction of changes to train paths for 2030 in PO2 relative to the baseline 

Train paths number in the baseline 

Changes to train paths number in 
the baseline 

Reduction in the train paths number 
in PO2 

Costs savings for RUs (in thousand EUR) in PO2 
relative to the baseline 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Total 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CZ 

12 644 
7 761 
789 
56 049 

4 526 
1 504 
430 
5 985 

6 118 
5 812 
22 044 
42 518 

8 851 
5 433 
552 
39 234 

10 410 
3 459 
989 
13 766 

3 059 
2 906 
11 022 
21 259 

2 540 
1 561 
159 
11 291 

4 544 
1 512 
433 
6 025 

921 
876 
3 333 
6 421 

156 
114 
2 
290 

279 
110 
5 
155 

56 
64 
35 
165 

491 
287 
42 
610 

EN 

133 

EN 

 
 
  
 
  
Train paths number in the baseline 

Changes to train paths number in 
the baseline 

Reduction in the train paths number 
in PO2 

Costs savings for RUs (in thousand EUR) in PO2 
relative to the baseline 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

246 702 
10 635 
415 
641 

24 570 
217 
91 
36 

Freight, ad 
hoc 
942 088 
2 741 
14 
123 

DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

172 691 
7 445 
291 
449 

43 217 

61 738 

3 326 

68 650 

ES 
908 
106 
FI 
16 462 
5 375 
FR 
726 
594 
HR 
9 080 
782 
HU 
519 
0 
IE 
11 915 
5 029 
IT 
2 479 
914 
LT 
1 357 
264 
LU 
277 
1 030 
LV 
6 677 
1 224 
NL 
14 356 
1 172 
PL 
1 628 
390 
PT 
1 572 
5 032 
RO 
2 743 
2 545 
SE 
3 095 
887 
SI 
2 929 
3 651 
SK 
354 886 
69 680 
Total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

59 
0 
11 785 
17 129 
0 
33 
6 079 
199 
0 
11 363 
66 984 
1 094 
86 
1 769 
45 963 
16 451 
1 269 102 

1 297 
23 517 
1 037 
12 971 
742 
17 022 
3 541 
1 939 
396 
9 539 
20 508 
2 326 
2 245 
3 919 
4 422 
4 184 
506 979 

Freight, ad 
hoc 
471 044 
1 371 
7 
62 

34 325 

30 
0 
5 893 
8 565 
0 
17 
3 040 
100 
0 
5 682 
33 492 
547 
43 
885 
22 982 
8 226 
634 557 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Total 

49 789 
2 138 
83 
129 

12 463 
263 
4 720 
210 
2 610 
151 
3 422 
711 
389 
79 
1 917 
4 124 
472 
454 
795 
887 
840 
102 197 

24 761 
218 
92 
36 

3 360 
107 
5 393 
597 
784 
0 
5 052 
918 
265 
1 033 
1 229 
1 177 
395 
5 084 
2 583 
889 
3 662 
70 149 

142 407 
413 
2 
18 

10 401 
9 
0 
1 779 
2 578 
0 
5 
916 
30 
0 
1 712 
10 093 
167 
13 
269 
6 906 
2 475 
191 744 

3 365 
152 
2 
4 

525 
15 
297 
4 
49 
10 
204 
12 
26 
2 
118 
83 
14 
9 
50 
25 
18 
5 544 

1 673 
16 
2 
1 

141 
6 
340 
12 
15 
0 
302 
16 
18 
21 
75 
24 
11 
100 
161 
25 
77 
3 583 

9 623 
29 
0 
1 

438 
1 
0 
34 
48 
0 
0 
16 
2 
0 
105 
204 
5 
0 
17 
192 
52 
11 089 

14 661 
197 
4 
5 

1 104 
22 
637 
50 
112 
10 
506 
45 
46 
22 
298 
311 
30 
109 
227 
241 
148 
20 216 

56 511 
499 
209 
83 

7 650 

244 
12 363 
1 366 
1 799 
0 
11 567 
2 102 
607 
2 369 
2 815 
2 696 
897 
11 574 
5 854 
2 040 
8 397 
160 266 

EN 

134 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
Table 30: Estimation of cost savings for railway undertakings from the reduction of changes to train paths for 2030 in PO3 relative to the baseline 

Train paths number in the baseline 

Changes to train paths number in 
the baseline 

Reduction in the train paths number 
in PO3 

Costs savings for RUs (in thousand EUR) in PO3 
relative to the baseline 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Total 

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 
Total 

12 644 
7 761 
789 
56 049 
246 702 
10 635 
415 
641 

61 738 

1 297 
23 517 
1 037 
12 971 
742 
17 022 
3 541 
1 939 
396 
9 539 
20 508 
2 326 
2 245 
3 919 
4 422 
4 184 
506 979 

4 526 
1 504 
430 
5 985 
24 570 
217 
91 
36 

3 326 

106 
5 375 
594 
782 
0 
5 029 
914 
264 
1 030 
1 224 
1 172 
390 
5 032 
2 545 
887 
3 651 
69 680 

6 118 
5 812 
22 044 
42 518 
942 088 
2 741 
14 
123 

68 650 

59 
0 
11 785 
17 129 
0 
33 
6 079 
199 
0 
11 363 
66 984 
1 094 
86 
1 769 
45 963 
16 451 
1 269 102 

8 851 
5 433 
552 
39 234 
172 691 
7 445 
291 
449 

43 217 

908 
16 462 
726 
9 080 
519 
11 915 
2 479 
1 357 
277 
6 677 
14 356 
1 628 
1 572 
2 743 
3 095 
2 929 
354 886 

10 410 
3 459 
989 
13 766 
56 511 
499 
209 
83 

7 650 

244 
12 363 
1 366 
1 799 
0 
11 567 
2 102 
607 
2 369 
2 815 
2 696 
897 
11 574 
5 854 
2 040 
8 397 
160 266 

3 059 
2 906 
11 022 
21 259 
471 044 
1 371 
7 
62 

34 325 

30 
0 
5 893 
8 565 
0 
17 
3 040 
100 
0 
5 682 
33 492 
547 
43 
885 
22 982 
8 226 
634 557 

2 549 
1 568 
160 
11 341 
50 050 
2 150 
83 
129 

12 521 
265 
4 735 
211 
2 621 
152 
3 434 
713 
390 
80 
1 927 
4 138 
473 
456 
799 
889 
842 
102 676 

4 559 
1 518 
435 
6 051 
24 871 
219 
92 
36 

3 377 
108 
5 409 
600 
786 
0 
5 066 
921 
266 
1 036 
1 235 
1 180 
396 
5 109 
2 597 
891 
3 672 
70 430 

924 
880 
3 347 
6 448 
143 040 
415 
2 
18 

10 454 
9 
0 
1 786 
2 585 
0 
5 
919 
30 
0 
1 720 
10 122 
167 
13 
271 
6 920 
2 482 
192 557 

156 
114 
2 
291 
3 382 
153 
2 
4 

527 
15 
298 
4 
49 
10 
205 
13 
26 
2 
118 
84 
14 
9 
50 
25 
18 
5 571 

280 
110 
5 
155 
1 681 
16 
2 
1 

142 
6 
341 
12 
15 
0 
302 
16 
18 
21 
76 
24 
11 
100 
162 
25 
78 
3 598 

57 
64 
36 
166 
9 666 
30 
0 
1 

440 
1 
0 
35 
49 
0 
0 
16 
2 
0 
105 
204 
5 
0 
17 
192 
53 
11 137 

493 
289 
42 
613 
14 729 
198 
4 
5 

1 109 
22 
639 
50 
113 
10 
508 
45 
46 
22 
299 
312 
30 
110 
228 
242 
148 
20 306 

EN 

135 

EN 

 
 
  
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

Table 31: Estimation of cost savings for railway undertakings from the reduction of changes to train paths for 2030 in PO4 relative to the baseline 

Train paths number in the baseline 

Changes to train paths number in 
the baseline 

Reduction in the train paths number 
in PO4 

Costs savings for RUs (in thousand EUR) in PO4 
relative to the baseline 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Total 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 

ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 

12 644 
7 761 
789 
56 049 
246 702 
10 635 
415 
641 

61 738 

1 297 
23 517 
1 037 
12 971 
742 
17 022 
3 541 
1 939 
396 
9 539 
20 508 
2 326 
2 245 
3 919 
4 422 

4 526 
1 504 
430 
5 985 
24 570 
217 
91 
36 

3 326 

106 
5 375 
594 
782 
0 
5 029 
914 
264 
1 030 
1 224 
1 172 
390 
5 032 
2 545 
887 

6 118 
5 812 
22 044 
42 518 
942 088 
2 741 
14 
123 

68 650 

59 
0 
11 785 
17 129 
0 
33 
6 079 
199 
0 
11 363 
66 984 
1 094 
86 
1 769 
45 963 

8 851 
5 433 
552 
39 234 
172 691 
7 445 
291 
449 

43 217 

908 
16 462 
726 
9 080 
519 
11 915 
2 479 
1 357 
277 
6 677 
14 356 
1 628 
1 572 
2 743 
3 095 

10 410 
3 459 
989 
13 766 
56 511 
499 
209 
83 

7 650 

244 
12 363 
1 366 
1 799 
0 
11 567 
2 102 
607 
2 369 
2 815 
2 696 
897 
11 574 
5 854 
2 040 

3 059 
2 906 
11 022 
21 259 
471 044 
1 371 
7 
62 

34 325 

30 
0 
5 893 
8 565 
0 
17 
3 040 
100 
0 
5 682 
33 492 
547 
43 
885 
22 982 

2 556 
1 574 
160 
11 378 
50 258 
2 158 
84 
129 

12 564 
267 
4 749 
212 
2 630 
152 
3 444 
714 
391 
80 
1 934 
4 149 
475 
457 
802 
891 

4 570 
1 523 
437 
6 069 
24 959 
220 
92 
36 

3 389 
108 
5 424 
601 
788 
0 
5 078 
924 
266 
1 039 
1 239 
1 183 
398 
5 127 
2 608 
892 

927 
883 
3 357 
6 467 
143 547 
416 
2 
19 

10 493 
9 
0 
1 790 
2 590 
0 
5 
921 
30 
0 
1 725 
10 144 
168 
13 
272 
6 930 

157 
115 
2 
292 
3 396 
154 
2 
4 

529 
16 
299 
4 
49 
10 
206 
13 
26 
2 
119 
84 
14 
9 
50 
25 

280 
111 
5 
156 
1 687 
16 
2 
1 

143 
6 
342 
12 
15 
0 
303 
16 
18 
21 
76 
24 
11 
101 
162 
25 

57 
64 
36 
166 
9 701 
30 
0 
1 

442 
1 
0 
35 
49 
0 
0 
16 
2 
0 
106 
205 
5 
0 
17 
192 

494 
290 
42 
615 
14 783 
199 
4 
5 

1 113 
22 
641 
50 
113 
10 
509 
45 
46 
22 
300 
313 
30 
110 
229 
242 

EN 

136 

EN 

 
 
  
Train paths number in the baseline 

Changes to train paths number in 
the baseline 

Reduction in the train paths number 
in PO4 

Costs savings for RUs (in thousand EUR) in PO4 
relative to the baseline 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Passenger 

Freight, 
annual 

Freight, ad 
hoc 

Total 

8 397 
160 266 

8 226 
634 557 

844 
103 052 

3 679 
70 649 

2 486 
193 194 

18 
5 592 

78 
3 609 

53 
11 175 

148 
20 377 

2 929 
3 651 
SK 
354 886 
69 680 
Total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

4 184 
506 979 

Freight, ad 
hoc 
16 451 
1 269 102 

EN 

137 

EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Table 32: Adjustment costs savings for infrastructure managers and railway undertakings relative to 
the baseline resulting from PM4, in PO2, PO3 and PO4 (in million EUR, 2021 prices) 
Year(s) 

Infrastructure managers 
PO3 

Railway undertakings 
PO3 

PO2 

PO4 
Total cost savings expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline  

PO2 

PO4 

2025–2050  

415.3 

418.6 

423.9 

415.3 

418.6 

423.9 

Recurrent cost relative to the baseline 

20.4 
2030 
25.6 
2040 
28.9 
2050 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

20.3 
25.1 
28.1 

20.2 
24.9 
27.8 

20.2 
24.9 
27.8 

20.3 
25.1 
28.1 

20.4 
25.6 
28.9 

PM5:  Introduce  transparent  and  harmonised  methodologies  and  processes 
supporting a strategic partitioning and safeguarding railway infrastructure capacity  

The ultimate purpose of this measure is to define objective and transparent methodologies 
to assign capacity in case demand exceeds supply. Such methodologies could be used in 
different stages of the capacity management process. The key application envisaged is the 
strategic  capacity  management  phase  (PM3)  where  such  methodologies  could  help  to 
safeguard  capacities  for  different  rail  transport  services  but  the  measure  could  also  be 
applied  in  the  allocation  of  train  paths  to  individual  railway  undertakings  and  other 
applicants  (PM4)  or  as  a  part  of  procedures  to  ensure  traffic  continuity  in  the  event  of 
disruptions or planned non-availability of the network (PM6).  

Costs resulting from this measure have been considered jointly with PM3, PM4, PM5 and 
are presented in the section above covering PM3. 

PM6: Strengthen existing and introduce new mechanisms and procedures to ensure 
traffic  continuity  in  the  event  of  disruptions  or  planned  non-availability  of  the 
network 

The  measure  will  require  IMs  to  prepare  contingency  plans,  which  identify  alternative 
routes for rail traffic in case of unforeseen disruptions (force majeure incidents: accidents, 
natural disasters etc.) or due to planned non-availability of infrastructure (notably due to 
works for infrastructure maintenance and renewal). These plans will not only identify the 
lines to be used in such cases but also, in so far as practicable and proportionate, comprise 
planning for the capacity available on such lines during contingencies. 

In addition, the measure will introduce the possibility for unilateral cancellations of train 
paths  by  infrastructure  managers  in  very  specific  cases  of  disruptions  and  taking  into 
account socio-economic considerations, based on the methodologies developed as part of 
PM5. 

Adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 

The  main  adjustment  costs  would  result  from  the  workload  to  prepare  and  continuously 
update  contingency  plans  providing  capacity  on  alternative  routes  in  the  event  of  non-
availability  of  the  main  lines  and  from  the  management  and  of  allocation  of  during 
disruptions.  Similar  to  PM3  this  is  assumed  to  result  in  recurrent  workload  for  the 
preparation and implementation and in a one-off effort to prepare the first version of the 
contingency plans.  

EN 

138 

  EN 

 
  
The  recurrent  effort  is  estimated  at  0.75  FTE  per  1 000  line-km  for  a  network  with  the 
median  traffic  intensity  (13 173  train-km  per  line-km  per  year)  per  year  from  2026 
onwards relative to the baseline, while the one-off costs for preparing contingency plans in 
2025  at  3.75  FTE  per  1 000  line-km  for  a  network  with  median  traffic  intensity.  This 
represents around 25% of the effort required for PM3 (strategic capacity management for 
normal,  undisturbed  situations),  which  takes  into  account  that  the  planning  for 
contingencies will not be as detailed as the planning for normal operations. Following the 
same approach for the calculation of the costs as in PM3, the one-off adjustment costs for 
infrastructure  managers  are  estimated  at  EUR 16.9  million  in  2025,  and  the  recurrent 
adjustment costs at EUR 3.4 million from 2026 onwards relative to the baseline. The total 
one-off and recurrent adjustment costs due to PM6, expressed as present value over 2025-
2050 relative to the baseline, are estimated at EUR 101.5 million. 

Adjustment costs for railway undertakings 

Railway undertakings will provide input to the contingency management by IMs such that 
market needs are properly taken into account. The RUs will provide first input to prepare 
contingency plans and review and make suggestions for the contingency plans prepared by 
IMs. It is estimated that this will require one fourth of the effort for IMs. This assumption 
takes  into  account  the  respective  tasks  of  infrastructure  managers,  planning  and 
management, and railway undertakings, providing input. The one-off adjustment costs for 
railway  undertakings  are  estimated  at  EUR 4.2  million  in  2025,  and  the  recurrent 
adjustment costs at EUR 0.8 million from 2026 onwards relative to the baseline. The total 
one-off and recurrent adjustment costs for railway undertakings due to PM6, expressed as 
present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline, are estimated at EUR 25.4 million. 

Arrangements  for  coordinating  contingency  between  RUs  will  not  be  mandated  by  this 
measure and it will be done on voluntary basis. Thus, the costs related to arrangements for 
coordinating contingency are not assessed. 

The  measure  will  make  a  positive  contribution  due  to  increased  reliability  for  trains  of 
higher  priority.  The  impact  from  the  increased  reliability  is  presented  in  section  4  of 
Annex 4 below. 

Enforcement costs for national regulatory bodies and the European Board of Regulators 

Regulatory  bodies  and  the  European  Board  of  Regulators  will  provide  regulatory 
supervision of contingency management by infrastructure managers and ENIM, covering 
both the preparation of contingency plans and the management of actual contingencies. 

The enforcement costs for regulatory bodies and  the ENRRB are estimated at 5% of the 
costs for infrastructure managers, both for recurrent and for one-off costs. Thus, the one-
off  enforcement  costs  are  estimated  at  EUR 0.8  million  in  2025,  and  the  recurrent 
enforcement  costs  at  EUR 0.2  million  from  2026  onwards  relative  to  the  baseline.  The 
total one-off and recurrent enforcement costs for regulatory bodies and the ENRRB due to 
PM6, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline, are estimated at 
EUR 5.1 million.  

EN 

139 

  EN 

 
PM7:  Strengthen  the  monitoring  of  quality  of  service  and  customer  satisfaction  on 
the freight corridors 

The  measure  will  introduce  a  mandatory  and  harmonised  set  of  performance  indicators 
covering  all  relevant  aspects  of  rail  infrastructure  service  (capacity  and  traffic 
management) and rail transport services, based on a consultation of railway undertakings, 
terminals and customers of rail freight services.  The indicators will be defined in  a non-
legislative act by the Commission. 

The  measure  builds  on  Article  19(2)  of  the  RFC  Regulation,  which  requires  monitoring 
the performance of rail freight services on the freight corridors and the publishing of the 
results once a year, but does not define specific performance indicators and leaves it to the 
management boards to define those for each corridor. 

Administrative costs for infrastructure managers 

Infrastructure managers will need to collect or extract, process, check the data required for 
these indicators and publish them. The effort required to do so would differ considerably 
depending on the availability of the data in digital format, the IT tools used by the IMs, the 
size  of  the  network,  the  volume  of  traffic,  etc.  Assessing  the  precise  effort  for  each 
individual  IMs  is  not  possible  at  this  stage,  but  it  is  estimated  that  on  average  each  IM 
would need 1 FTE. The administrative costs for IMs are estimated at EUR 1.3 million per 
year  relative  to  the  baseline  from  2025  onwards.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-
2050,  the  total  administrative  costs  are  estimated  at  EUR 23.9  million  relative  to  the 
baseline (in 2021 prices). 

Administrative costs for railway undertakings 

Railway undertakings will need to contribute by providing input for the decision-making 
process for the indicators, but also by scrutinising the data and the indicators themselves. 

Providing detailed calculations on the administrative costs for railway undertakings is not 
possible, as the participation in the process will be voluntary and it is possible that smaller 
RUs will provide input via stakeholder organisations. Nevertheless, it can be expected that 
the  costs  would  be  at  around  10%  of  the  costs  for  IMs.  The  administrative  costs  for 
railway  undertakings  are  estimated  at  EUR 0.1  million  per  year  relative  to  the  baseline 
from 2025 onwards. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, the total administrative 
costs are estimated at EUR 2.4 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices). 

Administrative costs for terminal operators 

The  tasks  for  terminal  operators  will  be  similar  to  those  for  railway  undertakings.  The 
same  logic  and  limitations  to  the  estimates  apply.  Costs  for  terminal  operators  are 
estimated to be at around 10% of the costs for IMs. The administrative costs for terminal 
operators  are  estimated  at  EUR 0.1  million  per  year  relative  to  the  baseline  from  2025 
onwards.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  total  administrative  costs  are 
estimated at EUR 2.4 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices). 

EN 

140 

  EN 

 
PM8:  Uphold  commitments  related  to  capacity  (introduce  effective  and  reciprocal 
economic incentives to strengthen respect by all stakeholders of commitments related 
to capacity) 

The  measure  introduces  fees  levied  (i) on  railway  undertakings  and  other  applicants  for 
not using capacity that has been allocated to them and (ii) on infrastructure managers for 
modifying  or  cancelling  capacity  that  has  been  allocated  to  applicants.  The  purpose  of 
these  fees  is  to  incentivise  all  stakeholders  to  respect  their  commitments  with  respect  to 
capacity  requested  (railway  undertakings)  and  capacity  allocated  (infrastructure 
managers).  The  respect  of  commitments  should  reduce  problems  resulting  from  (i) an 
“overbooking”  of  capacity  by  railway  undertakings,  which  can  result  in  a  waste  of 
capacity  if  capacity  is  not  released  sufficiently  earlier  or  not  at  all  and  (ii) avoidable 
manipulation cost resulting from repeated changes to train paths.  

The rate of the fee will need to be sufficiently high as to dissuade both RUs and IMs from 
defaulting on their  commitments. It  is  possible that the rate will differ between Member 
States,  as  it  will  be  calculated  on  the  basis  of  economic  indicators  that  would  differ 
between Member States. The fees will not apply to cases of force majeure. 

The  measure  complements  the  introduction  of  new  procedures  for  capacity  allocation 
(PM4), by ensuring that capacity safeguarded for flexible ad-hoc allocation is not misused 
by applicants to ‘block’ capacity for their own use. 

Charges for railway undertakings 

The purpose of the measure is to provide economic incentives to railway undertakings and 
infrastructure managers in the form of charges for cancellations and changes to allocated 
capacity, with a view to reduce changes to  capacity commitments with  negative impacts 
on other stakeholders. 

The measure is not designed to generate additional net infrastructure charges for railway 
undertakings or infrastructure managers but it is rather meant to have a dissuasive effect 
(negative incentive). Therefore, charges are assumed to be zero for railway undertakings 
and  infrastructure  managers  if  aggregated  over  the  entire  period  of  the  analysis.  In  the 
unlikely  case  that  one  group  (RUs  or  IMs)  would  consistently  out-perform  the  other 
group,  net  payments  could  persist  over  longer  time  periods  but  it  is  impossible  to 
anticipate this with any degree of certainty. 

It is  also  unclear if or to what  extent such charges will be passed on to  customers. This 
could in particular apply to rail freight transport, where changes relative to earlier planning 
may actually be the result of requests by customers of rail transport services. 

In  addition,  if  the  policy  measure  is  effective,  it  should  result  in  a  drastic  reduction  of 
changes  to  capacity  requests,  implying  that  in  any  case  charges  for  RUs  would  be 
negligible.  Therefore,  no  cost  resulting  from  this  measure  are  considered  in  the  impact 
assessment. 

EN 

141 

  EN 

 
Charges for infrastructure managers 

The arguments regarding the charges for railway undertakings apply in an analogous way 
to  infrastructure managers. Therefore, the net  additional charges resulting from  PM8 are 
assumed to be close to zero. 

However,  for  this  assumption  to  hold,  the  performance  of  infrastructure  managers  with 
respect to capacity management needs to improve significantly. The efforts necessary for 
such  performance  improvements  are  reflected  in  the  estimation  of  costs for  the  strategic 
capacity management phase (PM3), for new and strengthened procedures for contingency 
management (PM6), for the implementation of digital data exchange (PM24) and for the 
digitalisation and automation of capacity management (PM25). 

Adjustment cost savings 

The measure is expected to contribute to a significant reduction in the number of changes 
to  train  paths.  This  reduction will lead to  direct  cost  savings for infrastructure managers 
and  railway  undertakings  for  the  processing  of  such  changes  and  the  adjustment  of  the 
resource planning of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings. These cost savings 
cannot be attributed to a single policy measure and have therefore been estimated jointly 
for PM3, PM4 and PM8 and they are presented under PM4 above. 

In  addition,  this  measure  will  contribute  to  a  better  utilisation  of  available  infrastructure 
capacity, due to a reduction of railway undertakings’ practice to “overbook” capacity. The 
benefits  of  additional  capacity  have  been  estimated  separately  and  are  presented  in 
section 4.1.  

PM9: Strengthen capacity-related rights of applicants (railway operators and others) 
vis-à-vis infrastructure managers, in particular for cross-border capacity and in the 
event of changes to allocated capacity 

The  measure  will  require  infrastructure  managers  to  manage  train  paths  as  a  single, 
integral  entity  (from  origin  to  destination),  also  when  this  involves  more  than  one  rail 
network. In practice this means that IMs will: 

  Accept  requests  and  communicate  allocation  decisions  in  a  single  place  and  in  one 

operation. 

  Ensure  that  any  post-allocation  changes  to  train  paths  –  in  terms  of  timing,  routing, 
parameters, (e.g. due to  capacity restrictions)  – must be made in a way that ensures a 
viable train path, coordinated across the rail networks (e.g. no negative dwelling times 
at border crossings; no discontinuities in routing, no changes to train parameters, etc.) 
and must be communicated to RUs in a single operation. 

  IMs  will  accept  cancellations  of  train  paths  due  to  force  majeure  irrespective  of  the 
network concerned by the incident, i.e. they will not charge cancellation charges where 
the event that affected the train took place on another network. 

This measure is closely related to PM25, as described below. 

Adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 

No  considerable  increase  in  costs  related  to  the  coordination  of  capacity  allocation  is 
expected from this measure. However, a crucial precondition for infrastructure managers 
to implement this measure is the deployment of supporting IT systems and application to 
EN 

142 

  EN 

 
coordinate  changes  to  allocated  train  paths.  The  cost  of  introducing  such  systems  and 
applications  are  considered  under  PM25.  This  will  allow  infrastructure  managers  to 
manage changes to train paths in a collaborative manner, on the basis of agreed processes 
defined  in  the  European  network  statement  (PM2-2).  No  considerable  increase  in  costs 
related to the coordination of capacity allocation is expected from this measure.  

Adjustment costs for ENIM 

In policy  options  3 and  4, the ENIM  and the Network Coordinator assist the  IMs  in  the  
coordination of capacity allocation across several networks, in monitoring the compliance 
of IMs with the agreed processes defined in the European network statement (PM2-2) and 
in monitoring the outcome of the capacity allocation process. 

Adjustment cost savings for railway undertakings 

The positive effects from the simplification of the capacity allocation process for RUs will 
mostly result from an increased stability of capacity allocated by infrasatructure managers. 
The corresponding cost savings have been estimated under PM4. 

PM10: Introduce an independent expert body in charge of reviewing performance of 
rail infrastructure and transport services 

The  body  is  composed  of  independent  experts,  fulfilling  their  mandate  in  a  personal 
capacity and bringing together a broad range of senior-level expertise (industry, academia, 
customers of rail services, etc.). 

The  body  will  provide  analysis  and  advice  to  the  Commission,  to  ENIM  and  to  the 
ENRRB on the development and implementation of performance monitoring (PM11) and 
on  initiatives  and  instruments  to  improve  performance  related  to  capacity  management 
(e.g.  PM3,  PM4,  PM5,  PM6,  PM8,  PM9),  traffic  management  (PM17)  and  market 
monitoring  (PM18-2).  In  PO4,  the  performance  review  body  will  in  particular  provide 
advice  on  the  development  and  implementation  of  the  European  performance  scheme 
(PM13). 

The body will collect  and use information from different stakeholder groups, but mostly 
from ENIM, individual infrastructure managers, railway undertakings, terminal operators 
and customers of rail transport services. 

Adjustment costs for the European Commission 

PM10 would result in adjustment costs for the European Commission. The most important 
part  of  the  costs  is  represented  by  recurrent  labour  costs.  The  number  of  members  is 
estimated  at  11  (a  minimum  of  2  members  with  work  experience  for  an  infrastructure 
manager,  railway  undertaking,  terminal  operator,  shipper  or  similar,  in  academia  and  a 
chair). 

The  adjustment  costs  for  the  expert  body  are  estimated  on  the  basis  of  the  existing 
Performance Review Body of the single European sky219. The Union budget provides for a 
special  allowance  of  a  maximum  of  EUR 600  in  the  form  of  a  daily  unit  cost  for  each 
working day for the members of the Performance Review Body. 

219 Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2296 (OJ L 344, 17.12.2016, p. 92). 

EN 

143 

  EN 

 
                                                           
An average of 15 working days per year from 2025 onwards is assumed for the members 
of the body relative to the baseline. The adjustment costs are estimated at EUR 99 000 per 
year from  2025 relative  to  the baseline. Expressed as present  value  over  2025-2050, the 
total  adjustment  costs  are  estimated  at  EUR 1.8  million  relative  to  the  baseline  (in  2021 
prices). 

Adjustment costs for ENIM 

ENIM will provide support services to the performance review body, namely (i) technical 
support services and (ii) secretariat services.  

The  technical  support  services  cover  data  collection,  processing  and  calculation  of 
performance indicators and are an integral part of the activities of ENIM in performance 
monitoring (subtask (ii) of PM11). 

The  workload  for  the  secretariat  services  is  estimated  at  0.2  FTE  from  2025  onwards 
relative  to  the  baseline.  To  estimate  the  costs,  the  tariffs  per  hour  from  the  Eurostat 
Structure of earnings survey, Labour Force Survey data for Non-Wage Labour Costs (i.e. 
ISCO  2  –  professionals)  have  been  used  (37.5  EUR per  hour  in  2021  prices).  The 
adjustment  costs  for  ENIM  are  estimated  at  EUR 12 884  per  year  from  2025  onwards. 
Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  total  adjustment  costs  are  estimated  at 
EUR 237 242 relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices). 

PM11:  Introduce  a  monitoring  function  at  European  level  covering  (i) compliance 
with  agreed  rules  and  procedures  and  (ii) the  performance  of  infrastructure  and 
transport services 

ENIM  will  perform  the  task  of  (i) monitoring  compliance  with  common  European  rules 
and procedures, as set out in the harmonised EU legal framework for capacity and traffic 
management  (PM2-1)  and  in  the  European  network  statement  (PM2-2)  and  of 
(ii) monitoring  the  performance  of  cross-border  capacity  and  traffic  management  with 
support from the Network Coordinator. 

Monitoring activities should cover the entire capacity and traffic management process on a 
continuous basis, from  strategic to  operational  phases. These activities should cover any 
activities  carried  out  at  national  level  by  infrastructure  managers,  in  particular  in  the 
implementation  of  PM2-2,  PM3,  PM4,  PM5,  PM6,    PM8,  PM13  and  PM17.  therefore, 
only the additional workload and costs at EU level relative to the baseline are considered 
here. 

In  carrying  out  its  monitoring  tasks,  the  Rail  Network  Coordinator  coordinates / 
cooperates with the following stakeholders: 

  Performance review body (PM10) 
 
Individual IMs 
  Member States 
  RUs and other applicants 
  Customers of rail transport services (and/or representative organisations). 
Enforcement costs for ENIM 

The monitoring will be performed by the Network Coordinator, on behalf of ENIM.  

EN 

144 

  EN 

 
The workload for compliance monitoring (sub-task i) is estimated at 1 FTE to monitor the 
compliance of 10 infrastructure managers / allocation bodies, resulting in a total workload 
of approximately 2.5 FTE for 25 Member States with a rail system220.   

Ex-post  monitoring  of  performance  of  rail  infrastructure  and  transport  services  (sub-
task ii) will involve tasks such as the definition of performance indicators, the collection 
of  information  from  European-level  IT  systems  such  as  RINF,  the  European  Capacity 
Model  Tool,  PCS,  TIS,  and  from  other  sources  (including  at  national  level),  compiling, 
verifying,  analysing  of  information,  as  well  as  reporting  and  consulting  stakeholders  on 
the results and developing proposals for measures to improve performance. The work will 
be  focused  on  cross-border  traffic,  checking  the  performance  and  quality  of  service,  for 
example as regards the consistency of the strategic planning of capacity between different 
market segments. The total workload for sub-task ii relative to the baseline is estimated at 
8 FTEs from 2025 onwards.  

The  overall  workload  for  PM11  for  ENIM  is  thus  estimated  at  10.5  FTE  from  2025 
onwards relative to the baseline. Total labour costs are estimated using the tariff per hour 
from the Eurostat Structure of earnings survey, Labour Force Survey data for Non-Wage 
Labour  Costs  (i.e.  ISCO  2  –  professionals)  (37.5  EUR per  hour  in  2021  prices). 
Enforcement  costs  for  ENIM  are  estimated  at  EUR 0.7  million  per  year  from  2025 
onwards  relative  to  the  baseline.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  total 
enforcement  costs  are  estimated  at  EUR 12.5  million  relative  to  the  baseline  (in  2021 
prices). 

Regarding performance monitoring, a precondition for ENIM to be in a position to carry 
out this task is the introduction of central  IT systems at EU level and of IT interfaces of 
this  central  systems  to  the  systems  of  individual  IMs.  The  corresponding  costs  are 
considered under PM24 and PM25. 

Adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 

The  analysis  of  ENIM  will  be  based  on  information  prepared  by  individual  IMs.  To  a 
large  extent,  the  Network  Coordinator  will  extract  such  information  from  documents 
prepared  by  infrastructure  managers  and  IT  systems.    However,  IMs  would  need  to 
provide  additional  information  that  cannot  be  obtained  from  readily  available  material 
and/or  in  an  automated  manner,  e.g.  on  the  practical  implementation  of  processes  or  on 
aspects that cannot be formalised and/or quantified. The workload assumed to respond to 
such  requests  is  estimated  at  1  FTE  per  infrastructure  manager;  this  estimate  covers 
contributions  from  experts  in  different  departments  of  the  infrastructure  managers. 
Adjustment costs for IMs are estimated at  EUR 1.3 million per year from 2025 onwards 
relative to the baseline. The total adjustment costs expressed as present value over 2025-
2050, are estimated at EUR 24 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices). 

Enforcement costs for regulatory bodies 

220  Some  Member  States  have  more  than  one  rail  infrastructure  manager;  in  some  Member  States  the 
number  is  significant.  For  example,  Germany  has  a  total  of  180 accredited  rail  IMs  (see 
https://www.eba.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Eisenbahnunternehmen/EIU/eiu_oeff.xlsx)  but  a 
single  one,  DB  Netz  AG,  is  responsible  for  33 193 km  of  lines  which  include  the  entire  network  of 
European and national importance (e.g. all TEN-T lines are part of the network of DB Netz AG). For the 
sake of simplicity, the analysis abstracts from the specific situation in each Member State and assumes 
one IM per Member State. 

EN 

145 

  EN 

 
                                                           
No additional enforcement costs for regulatory bodies result from this measure. Verifying 
infrastructure mangers’ compliance with legislation is a task that is already foreseen in the 
baseline;  the  only  difference  is  that  regulatory  bodies  would  check  compliance  with 
European  rules  rather  than  national  ones  as  a  consequence  of  this  measure,  with  no 
impacts on costs.  

Enforcement costs for the ENRRB 

No additional enforcement costs for the ENRRB result from this measure. 

Adjustment costs for RUs 

Railway undertakings should be involved in the performance monitoring process, e.g. by 
providing  input  to  the  selection  and  definition  of  performance  indicators,  verifying  and 
interpreting  results  and  designing  improvement  measures.  Given  the  high  number  of 
railway undertakings in the EU and the difficulty to anticipate their exact contributions to 
the  process,  the  cost  estimates  are  based  on  the  assumption  that  RUs’  costs  will  be 
approximately 25% of costs for IMs. Adjustment costs for RUs are estimated at EUR 0.3 
million  per  year  from  2025  onwards  relative  to  the  baseline.  Expressed  as  present  value 
over  2025-2050,  they  are  estimated  at  EUR 6  million  relative  to  the  baseline  (in  2021 
prices). 

Adjustment  costs  for  terminal  operators  and  for  customers  of  rail  transport  services 
(multimodal operators, shippers etc.) 

These stakeholder groups should be involved in the performance monitoring process, e.g. 
by providing input to the selection and definition of performance indicators, verifying and 
interpreting  results  and  designing  improvement  measures.  Given  the  high  number  of 
companies  in  these  stakeholder  groups  in  the  EU  and  the  difficulty  to  anticipate  their 
involvement and exact contributions to the process, the costs cannot be estimated. 

PM12:  Entrust  regulatory  bodies  with  the  responsibility  to  review  the  contractual 
agreements  concluded  between  Member  State  authorities  and  infrastructure 
managers  and  to  assess  their  consistency  with  Member  States’  indicative  rail 
infrastructure development strategies, and entrust the network of regulatory bodies 
to identify and promote best practices for such agreements 

Directive  2012/34/EU  requires  (i)  Members  States  to  prepare  an  ‘indicative  rail 
infrastructure development  strategy’ (Article 8(1)) and (ii) Member State  authorities and 
infrastructure managers to  conclude multi-annual  contractual agreements (Article 30 and 
Annex  V).  Contractual  agreements  contain  elements  such  as  payments/funds  allocated, 
performance targets to be achieved, incentives for performance improvements with respect 
to all aspects of infrastructure management, including maintenance and renewal, and must 
cover a period of not less than 5 years. 

This  measure  aims  to  strengthen  implementation  and  to  trigger  a  broad  dialogue  on  the 
issue  involving  all  relevant  stakeholders,  in  particular  the  operators  of  rail  transport 
services,  infrastructure  managers,  Member  State  authorities,  the  European  Commission 
and others. 

Enforcement costs for regulatory bodies 

EN 

146 

  EN 

 
Regulatory  bodies  will  evaluate  the  correspondence  between  the  objectives  set  in  the 
indicative  rail  infrastructure  development  strategies  and  the  contractual  agreements  and 
assess the implementation of the agreements. The measure will require regulatory bodies 
to monitor on continuous basis the implementation of the agreements and possibly prepare 
reports  for  the  ENRRB  on  5  years  basis.  This  will  result  in  additional  labour  costs 
estimated  at  0.1  FTE  per  year.  The  annual  costs  are  estimated  at  EUR 129 875  per  year 
from  2025 onwards relative to  the baseline. Expressed as present  value over 2025-2050, 
they are estimated at EUR 2.4 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices). 

Costs  for  participation  in  meetings  organised  by  the  ENRRB  in  relation  to  this  measure 
are  estimated  at  EUR 60 000  per  year  from  2025  onwards  relative  to  the  baseline  (i.e. 
covering 2 meetings per year and 1 participant per regulatory body). Expressed as present 
value over 2025-2050, they  are estimated  at  EUR 1.1 million  relative to  the baseline (in 
2021 prices).  

Total  enforcement  costs  for  regulatory  bodies  due  to  PM12  are  estimated  at  EUR 0.2 
million per year from 2025 onwards. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, they are 
estimated at EUR 3.5 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices). 

Possible  additional  costs  could  arise  in  cases  where  penalties  will  be  levied  for  non-
implementation of the agreements and possible litigation, but such additional costs cannot 
be estimated. 

Enforcement costs for the ENRRB 

The ENRRB will collect  information  about the outcome of the  actions of the regulatory 
bodies. The outcome of this process could be European guidelines and recommendations 
on  the  structure,  content,  priorities  and  review  of  such  agreements  with  the  purpose  of 
promoting  best  practices.  This  is  estimated  to  require  1 FTE  from  2025  relative  to  the 
baseline,  with  annual  costs  estimated  at  EUR 64 442.  Expressed  as  present  value  over 
2025-2050,  the  total  costs  are  estimated  at  EUR 1.2  million  relative  to  the  baseline  (in 
2021 prices). 

Adjustment costs for RUs, terminal operators and rail customers 

Stakeholders  could  be  invited  to  discussions  on  this  topic  in  the  Single  European  Rail 
Area Forum or in meetings set up by the ENRRB. Meetings in the forum on this issue can 
be combined with discussions of other topics, so no additional costs are estimated for this 
specific action. 

PM13:  Introduce  a  European  performance  scheme  to 
improve  operational 
performance  of  rail  services  and  provide  a  framework  for  national  performance 
schemes 

Performance schemes are an instrument defined in Article 35 of Directive 2012/34/EU to 
improve the performance of the rail network. As they are designed to work nationally, the 
incentives  provided  by  the  schemes  are  less  effective  for  cross-border  traffic  (e.g.  by 
disregarding delays incurred on a previous network).  

In  PM13,  the  Commission  will  consult  the  sector  and  adopt  a  European  performance 
scheme,  which  could  identify  a  minimum  set  of  elements  to  be  included  in  national 
performance  schemes.  The  Commission  will  assess  the  compliance  of  the  national 

EN 

147 

  EN 

 
performance scheme after they have been reviewed by ENIM and  the ENRRB. PM13 is 
expected to lead to adjustment costs for ENIM and ENBR, as discussed below.  

Adjustment cost for IMs 

National  performance  schemes  are  implemented  already  now.  They  will  need  to  be 
amended and further developed in line with future European requirements. No significant 
additional costs are expected for the IMs relative to the baseline.  

Adjustment costs for ENIM 

In order to prepare a proposal for a European performance scheme, ENIM is expected to 
need to evaluate the existing performance schemes. The evaluation will result in one-off 
costs for an evaluation study of approximately EUR 2.5 million in 2025, which could be 
carried out by the network coordinator. 

The  Network  Coordinator  will  need  to  collect  information,  monitor  and  analyse  the 
implementation  of  the  scheme  and  propose  changes  and  improvements  to  the  rules  to 
ENIM. This is estimated to require 2 FTEs, with annual costs estimated at  EUR 128 844 
from 2025 onwards relative to the baseline. 

The  assessment  of  the  compliance  of  national  performance  schemes  with  the  European 
one will also require organising 2 meetings per year by ENIM, estimated at  EUR 60 000 
per year for the reimbursement of the travel expenses of the participants.  

Total adjustment costs for ENIM are estimated at EUR 2.7 million in 2025 and EUR 0.2 
million from 2026 onwards relative to the baseline. Expressed as present value over 2025-
2050, the total adjustment costs are estimated at EUR 6 million relative to the baseline (in 
2021 prices) of which EUR 2.5 million one-off costs in 2025. 

Adjustment costs for the ENRRB 

The  assessment  of  the  compliance  of  national  performance  schemes  with  the  European 
one will require 1 FTE for the ENRRB, with annual costs estimated at EUR 64 422 from 
2025 onwards relative to the baseline. In addition, the ENRRB is expected to organise 2 
meetings per year, estimated at EUR 60 000 per year for the reimbursement of the travel 
expenses of the participants.  

Total  adjustment  costs  for  the  ENRRB  are  estimated  at  EUR 0.1  million  from  2025 
onwards  relative  to  the  baseline.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  they  are 
estimated at EUR 2.3 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices). 

PM14:  Strengthen  corridor  governance  and  formalise  a  cross-corridor  governance 
layer with defined competences 

The  measure  requires  the  establishment  of  a  governance  structure  addressing  all  cross-
corridor  issues  for  infrastructure  managers  (management  boards)  and  Member  States 
(executive boards).  

Adjustment costs for public administrations 

The  measure  can  be  implemented  by  turning  the  existing  Network  of  Executive  Boards 
(an organisation of the members of the RFC executive boards) and its secretariat into an 
EN 

148 

  EN 

 
entity set up on the basis of an EU legal act, as the executive board of the RFCs. ENIM 
will  adopt  rules  that  would  apply  for  all  corridors  (like  the  framework  for  capacity 
allocation),  assess  RFCs’  performance,  provide  input  on  sector  guidelines  (RNE 
guidelines),  follow  the  implementation  of  political  declarations,  disseminate  good 
practices, and address horizontal issues.  

Based on the current experience, this would require on average organising 2 meetings per 
year and a secretariat of 2 people who work annually approximately 80 hours in total on 
organising  ENIM’s  business.  Considering  the  fact  that  these  meeting  already  take  place 
and  that  many  meetings  are  being  organised  as  videoconferences,  the  costs  from  any 
additional activities are estimated to be negligible relative to the baseline. 

Adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 

The measure can be implemented in  a similar fashion  for an RFC management board at 
EU  level  by  designating  the  existing  RFC  Network  as  the  entity  that  will  ensure  better 
coherence  of  the  work  of  the  management  boards  by  identifying  common  approaches, 
common  templates  and  best  practices,  provide  input  on  sector  guidelines  (RNE 
guidelines),  contribute  with  the  identification  of  specific  implementation  measures  to 
political  declarations  on  rail  and  address  horizontal  issues.  The  RFC  Network 
representative  will  also  be  able  to  discuss  such  issues  with  the  Network  of  Executive 
Boards and contribute to the decision-making process in that entity. 

Based on the current experience, this would require on average organising 2 meetings per 
year  of  25  IM  representatives  and  a  secretariat  of  2  people  who  work  annually 
approximately 80 hours in total on organising ENIM’s business.  Considering the fact that 
these  meeting  already  take  place  and  that  many  meetings  are  being  organised  as 
videoconferences,  the  costs  from  the  additional  activities  are  estimated  to  be  negligible 
relative to the baseline. 

PM15:  Introduce  binding  rules  and  procedure  for  the  coordination  of  traffic 
management between infrastructure managers and between infrastructure managers 
and the operation of terminals 

This measure introduces binding rules, procedures and objectives for the coordination of 
rail and terminal capacity and for operations at terminals that affect train performance. 

Adjustment costs for terminal operators 

The measure will ensure that terminal operators provide information on available capacity 
to  infrastructure managers with  the purpose of better coordinating rail infrastructure  and 
terminal capacity and simplifying the planning process for railway undertakings. 

The  obligation  to  provide  information  on  capacity  availability  stems  from  the  Recast 
Directive and from Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 (in particular 
Article 6(3) on real-time reporting of capacity availability). Therefore, the measure is not 
expected to result in significant costs for terminal operators relative to the baseline. 

Terminal operators will also be obliged to provide early warnings for delays in terminals 
using  the  procedures  defined  in  the  technical  specifications  relating  to  telematics 
applicants  for  freight  (TAF  TSI).  The  latter  is  defined  in  Commission  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1305/2014. The measure will only clarify existing legal obligations. 

EN 

149 

  EN 

 
Thus, PM15 is not expected to result in significant additional costs for terminal operators 
relative to the baseline, as it clarifies existing obligations for the provision of information 
and  confirms  that  infrastructure  managers  must  take  this  information  into  account  for 
capacity allocation and traffic management. 

Adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 

Infrastructure managers will be obliged to develop the necessary procedures to ensure that 
terminal  operators  on  their  network  can  provide  the  information  indicated  above.  They 
will  be  obliged  to  take  into  account  such  information  in  capacity  allocation  and  traffic 
management.  Infrastructure managers will also  be obliged to  pass  on the information  on 
delays to other infrastructure managers and to railway undertakings. In terms of workload, 
5 FTEs are estimated to be needed in 2025 for setting up the procedures (one-off) and 2 
FTEs  from  2026  onwards  for  recurrent  work.  Total  labour  costs  are  estimated  using  the 
tariff per hour from the Eurostat Structure of earnings survey, Labour Force Survey data 
for  Non-Wage  Labour  Costs  (i.e.  ISCO  2  –  professionals)  (37.5  EUR per  hour  in  2021 
prices). The one-off adjustment costs are estimated at EUR 322 109 in 2025 relative to the 
baseline,  followed  by  recurrent  adjustment  costs  of  EUR 128 844  from  2026  onwards. 
Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  total  adjustment  costs  are  estimated  at 
EUR 2.6 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices) of which EUR 0.3 million one-off 
costs in 2025.  

Adjustment cost savings for railway undertakings 

The improved ease of access to information on availability of capacity at terminals and on 
delays  should  result  in  reduced  efforts  for  retrieving  such  information  and  improve  the 
reliability of rail freight services. The cost reductions are, however, difficult to estimate. 

PM16:  Introduce  a  high-level  advisory  /  coordination  platform  at  European  level 
involving all stakeholders involved in multimodal rail freight transport 

The platform replaces the current advisory groups at corridor level, set up in accordance 
with  Article  8(7)  and  8(8)  of  Regulation  913/2010.  In  many  cases,  corridor  lines  are 
included  in  more  than  one  RFC,  which  created  duplication  of  the  meetings  for  some 
railway undertakings and terminal operators. 

The  recently  created  Single  European  Rail  Area  Forum  is  the  choice  for  the 
implementation  of  this measure.  The  forum  would  replace  the  Single  European  Railway 
Area Committee (SERAC) Working Group on RFCs. 

Adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 

The  current  11  advisory  groups  for  railway  undertakings  and  11  advisory  groups  for 
terminal operators hold on average 2 meetings per year. These groups will be abolished. 
The cost savings from the termination of the advisory groups are addressed in relation to 
PM2-1. 

The groups will be replaced by a more flexible approach, where most of the consultations 
will take place in a single forum. The measure will also provide the possibility for setting 
up  targeted  sub-groups  to  discuss  specific  topics  (e.g.  exchange  of  information  on 
estimated time of arrival), or regional issues (e.g. problems with dwelling times at certain 
border crossings or organisation of traffic for busy infrastructure like the Brenner pass). 

EN 

150 

  EN 

 
The  adjustment  costs  for  infrastructure  managers  (IM)  are  estimated  in  terms  of 
participation  of  1  IM  representative  in  2  annual  forum  meetings  and  in  2  technical  sub-
groups.  The  additional  resources  for  participation  in  sub-groups  on  specific  issues  as 
indicated above are covered in other policy measures (e.g. on digitalisation). The costs for 
the  participation  (i.e.  travel  costs)  in  2  annual  forum  meetings  by  all  infrastructure 
managers’  representatives  are  estimated  at  EUR 60 000  per  year  (i.e.  EUR 30 000  per 
meeting)  from  2025  onwards  relative  to  the  baseline.  Expressed  as  present  value  over 
2025-2050, total adjustment costs are estimated at EUR 1.1 million relative to the baseline 
(in 2021 prices). 

Adjustment costs savings for railway undertakings 

The costs for participation in the consultation activities for railway undertakings are very 
difficult to estimate as shown by the evaluation  of the RFC Regulation,  where estimates 
ranged from EUR 0 to 20 000 per year for different operators. 

It is expected that PM16 would result in a decrease in costs relative to the baseline, as the 
meetings will mostly take place in a single forum. Any additional meetings in sub-groups 
format  would  be  sporadic  in  nature.  It  was  however  not  possible  to  estimate  the  costs 
savings for railways undertakings due to PM16.    

PM17:  Introduce  a  European  framework  for  the  cross-border  coordination  of  rail 
traffic  management,  including  terminals  and  other  rail  facilities,  based  on  the 
principles of collaborative decision-making by adopting basic principles 

The measure refers to voluntary decentralised collaboration between rail stakeholders. In 
terms  of  rail  operations,  the  framework  covers  cross-border  coordination  of  traffic 
between  infrastructure  managers  and  the  coordination  between  infrastructure  managers 
and railway undertakings.  

As  regards  multimodal  freight  transport,  the  framework  involves  also  terminals,  taking 
into account the links to other transport modes at all levels of the logistics chain (transport 
operators, organisers and customers). 

The task to develop the framework will be given to ENIM and the Network Coordinator 
and the framework can be developed in a gradual manner, starting with a focus on rail and 
a set of core functionalities. 

The  framework  should  be  developed  based  on  a  close  involvement  of  all  stakeholders 
concerned,  notably  infrastructure  managers,  railway  undertakings,  operators  of  terminals 
and  other  rail  services  facilities,  multimodal  operators,  customers  of  (freight)  transport 
services, public authorities at European and national level, R&D organisations and system 
suppliers.  In  particular,  the  elaboration  of  this  framework  should  be  carried  out  in  close 
coordination  with  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Railways  and  Europe’s  Rail  Joint 
Undertaking,  in  particular  to  ensure  full  consistency  with  the  work  on  technical 
specifications for interoperability, notably TAF TSI and OPE TSI, and on the system pillar 
and  innovation  pillar.  The  rules  and  procedures  making  up  the  framework  should  be 
included  in  network  statements  and,  in  the  PO3  and  PO4,  in  the  European  network 
statement  (measure  2-2).  Rules  and  procedures  that  go  beyond  the  scope  of  network 
statements should be documented in an appropriate manner, e.g. guidelines / handbooks, 
standards, other reference documents such as description of service facilities in accordance 
with Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/2177. 
EN 

151 

  EN 

 
Adjustment costs for ENIM 

Infrastructure  managers  are  expected  to  have  the  leading  role  in  the  development  of  the 
framework.  They  will  also  need  to  reflect  the  rules  on  collaborative  decision  making  in 
their network statements. ENIM (together with the Network Coordinator) will have to set 
out  the  general  rules  for  the  measure.  The  programme  steering  and  management,  the 
development  of  processes,  rules  and  tools  by  the  Network  Coordinator  are  estimated  to 
result in one-off costs adjustment costs of EUR 5 million in 2025 relative to the baseline. 
Monitoring  the  effective  implementation  of  the  framework,  providing  feedback  to 
operational  stakeholders,  regularly  evaluating  the  impacts  of  the  framework  and  further 
developing  it  would  require  10  FTEs  from  2026  onwards  relative  to  the  baseline.  The 
estimate is motivated by the variety of performance challenges across Europe, the need to 
stay  in  close  touch  with  actual  operations  and  to  engage  in  conceptual  developments 
related to IT and operational processes; it is also in line with experiences of implementing 
collaborative  decision-making  in  aviation221.  Total  labour  costs  are  estimated  using  the 
tariff per hour from the Eurostat Structure of earnings survey, Labour Force Survey data 
for  Non-Wage  Labour  Costs  (i.e.  ISCO  2  –  professionals)  (37.5  EUR per  hour  in  2021 
prices).  Thus,  recurrent  adjustment  costs  are  estimated  at  EUR 644 218  from  2026 
onwards  relative  to  the  baseline.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  total 
adjustment costs for ENIM are estimated at EUR 16.2 million, of which one-off costs of 
EUR 5 million. 

Adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 

The  implementation  of  this  measures  will  require  the  deployment  of  IT  interfaces  to 
exchange  traffic  management  information  in  real-time.  The  corresponding  costs  are 
considered as part of PM24 and PM25.  

In  terms  of  activities,  PM17  implies  the  engagement  with  other  stakeholders  (railways 
undertakings,  terminal  and  intermodal  operators,  etc.)  at  strategic  level.  It  also  implies 
intensifying  the  operational  coordination  of  traffic  management  with  neighbouring 
infrastructure managers. In terms of engagement with other stakeholders at strategic level, 
the  additional  workload  in  terms  of  FTEs  at  Member  State  level  is  assumed  to  be  a 
function of the length of the network. However, the relationship is not linear as small IMs 
would  need  to  allocate  a  ‘base  level’  of  resources.  Overall,  at  EU  level  the  engagement 
with other stakeholders is estimated to require 33.3 FTE from 2026 onwards relative to the 
baseline. The additional workload associated to intensifying the operational coordination 
of  traffic  management  with  neighbouring  infrastructure  managers  is  estimated  by 
assuming  one  additional  FTE  per  infrastructure  manager,  plus  0.25  FTEs  for  each 
neighbouring infrastructure manager. At EU level, the operational coordination of traffic 
management  with  neighbouring  infrastructure  managers  is  estimated  to  result  in  42.5 
additional  FTEs  from  2026  onwards  relative  to  the  baseline.  Total  labour  costs  are 
estimated using the tariff per hour from the Eurostat Structure of earnings survey, Labour 
Force Survey data for Non-Wage  Labour Costs (i.e.  ISCO 2  – professionals) (EUR 37.5 
per hour in 2021 prices). The adjustment costs for infrastructure managers are estimated at 
EUR 8.8 million from 2026 onwards relative to  the baseline. Expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050, they are estimated at EUR 220.3 million. 

221  See  the  ex-post  impact  assessment  of  collaborative  decision-making  at  airports  by  Eurocontrol, 

https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2019-04/a-cdm-impact-assessment-2016.pdf. 

EN 

152 

  EN 

 
                                                           
The estimated adjustment costs for infrastructure managers by Member State and type of 
activity are provided in Table 33.  

Table  33:  Recurrent  adjustment  costs  for  infrastructure  managers  by  Member  State  due  to  PM17 
relative to the baseline (in EUR)  

Costs for cross-border 
coordination 

Cost for stakeholder 
consultation 

Total costs 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
NL 
AT 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SI 
SK 
FI 
SE 
Total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

2050 
233 550 
175 162 
233 550 
175 162 
321 131 
145 969 
116 775 
145 969 
175 162 
262 744 
175 162 
204 356 
175 162 
175 162 
204 356 
262 744 
175 162 
291 937 
204 356 
145 969 
175 162 
233 550 
233 550 
145 969 
175 162 
4 962 936 

2030 
233 550 
175 162 
233 550 
175 162 
321 131 
145 969 
116 775 
145 969 
175 162 
262 744 
175 162 
204 356 
175 162 
175 162 
204 356 
262 744 
175 162 
291 937 
204 356 
145 969 
175 162 
233 550 
233 550 
145 969 
175 162 
4 962 936 

2030 
96 369 
102 601 
175 176 
81 669 
575 587 
60 825 
71 349 
78 020 
261 536 
408 212 
81 991 
280 340 
70 926 
71 685 
58 387 
150 286 
88 384 
116 279 
298 423 
80 662 
193 766 
61 453 
96 733 
129 026 
195 635 
3 885 323 

2050 
96 369 
102 601 
175 176 
81 669 
575 587 
60 825 
71 349 
78 020 
261 536 
408 212 
81 991 
280 340 
70 926 
71 685 
58 387 
150 286 
88 384 
116 279 
298 423 
80 662 
193 766 
61 453 
96 733 
129 026 
195 635 
3 885 323 

2030 
329 918 
277 764 
408 726 
256 832 
896 718 
206 794 
188 124 
223 989 
436 698 
670 956 
257 153 
484 696 
246 089 
246 848 
262 744 
413 030 
263 546 
408 216 
502 780 
226 631 
368 929 
295 003 
330 283 
274 995 
370 797 
8 848 258 

2050 
329 918 
277 764 
408 726 
256 832 
896 718 
206 794 
188 124 
223 989 
436 698 
670 956 
257 153 
484 696 
246 089 
246 848 
262 744 
413 030 
263 546 
408 216 
502 780 
226 631 
368 929 
295 003 
330 283 
274 995 
370 797 
8 848 258 

Adjustment cost savings for infrastructure managers 

Optimisation  of  the  exchange  of  information  through  the  scheme  should  result  in  more 
time  for  infrastructure  managers  for  identifying  delays  (in  particular  at  departures)  for 
freight trains. This, in combination with PM15, should allow for better capacity allocation 
and  traffic  management,  reduction  of  effort  for  planning  and  amending  train  paths.  The 
potential  cost  savings  depend  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  scheme  and  the  number  of 
terminals that would participate. The effectiveness of the scheme could differ considerably 
between terminals, as they serve different market segments, provide different rail-related 
services and operate the rail infrastructure in the terminals with different approaches. 

At present there is only one feasibility study commissioned by RFC Rhine-Alpine, which 
noted that ‘as most of the key performance indicators for the proposed milestones are not 
monitored  today,  it  is  not  possible  to  define  clear  start  values/benchmarks  and 

EN 

153 

  EN 

 
  
consequently it is not possible to estimate detailed savings’.222 The study concluded that 
there  is  a  strong  link  to  digitalisation  of  information  exchange  between  stakeholders 
(digitalisation  is  included  in  PM24)  and  pointed  out  to  a  complex  interaction  of  the 
collaborative decision-making with other factors. Thus, it was not possible to estimate the 
adjustment cost savings for infrastructure managers. 

Adjustment costs for railway undertakings 

The adjustment costs for railways undertakings are estimated at  around 25% of those of 
infrastructure  managers  and  ENIM.  The  relation  in  costs  is  motivated  by  the  fact  that 
infrastructure managers and ENIM are charge of traffic management on the network, such 
their processes potentially need to be adjusted to implement this measure; the impacts on 
the  operational  processes  of  RUs  is  comparatively  lower.  One-off  adjustment  costs  in 
2025 are estimated at EUR 1.3 million, followed by recurrent adjustment costs estimated 
at EUR 2.4 million from 2026 onwards. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, total 
adjustment  costs  for  railway  undertakings  are  estimated  at  EUR 42.6  million  relative  to 
the baseline (in 2021 prices) of which one-off costs of EUR 1.3 million.   

Adjustment costs for terminal operators and intermodal operators 

The  adjustment  costs  for  terminal  operators  and  intermodal  operators  are  estimated  at 
around 10% of those of infrastructure managers and ENIM. This motivated by the much 
lower  complexity  of  rail-related  elements  of  terminal  operations  compared  to  tasks  of 
infrastructure managers and ENIM, namely managing the traffic on entire networks. One-
off  adjustment  costs  in  2025  are  estimated  at  EUR 0.5  million,  followed  by  recurrent 
adjustment costs estimated at EUR 0.9 million from 2026 onwards. Expressed as present 
value  over  2025-2050,  total  adjustment  costs  for  terminal  operators  and  intermodal 
operators  are  estimated  at  EUR 17  million  relative  to  the  baseline  (in  2021  prices)  of 
which one-off costs of EUR 0.5 million.   

Cost  savings  for  railway  undertakings  (and  shunting  operators),  terminal  operators  and 
intermodal operators 

Costs savings for railway undertakings, terminal operators and intermodal operators due to 
PM17 are strongly related to other policy measures. The cost savings for these measures 
cannot be split between the measures and are reported under the benefits resulting from an 
increase in punctuality (see section 4.2 of Annex 4). 

PM18-1:  Conducting  continuous  transport  market  monitoring  and  analysis  at 
European  level,  carried  out  by  infrastructure  managers  in  cooperation  with  the 
performance review body 

This measure introduces a systematic and continuous analysis of the evolution of demand 
for passenger and freight transport services in the form of prognoses or scenarios. Market 
monitoring and analysis  should cover all transport  modes, making it possible to  identify 
the potential to shift transport volumes from other modes to rail and to provide input in the 
capacity  management  process,  in  particular  the  strategic  capacity  management  phase 
(PM3). The market analysis will be carried out at European level by sector stakeholders on 
the basis of voluntary cooperation.  

222  https://cip.rne.eu/apex/download_my_file?in_document_id=9865 

EN 

154 

  EN 

 
                                                           
Adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 

Measure PM18-1 is included in PO2, where there is no central IM coordination entity.223 
Therefore, the infrastructure managers will need to set up a task force and outsource the 
study. The data collection and analysis of the transport market are estimated on the basis 
of the current costs of the RFCs and the feasibility study of RailNetEurope. They provide 
an indication about the frequency and the possible costs for such a study.  

Costs  for  transport  market  studies  for  RFCs  vary  considerably,  from  EUR 14 925  to 
EUR 459 000. The costs for all RFCs are approximately EUR 2 million. Considering the 
importance  of  the  transport  market  study  for  the  strategic  planning  phase,  for  which  it 
needs to  produce more  detailed results than the  existing RFC studies, it  is  expected that 
the costs would be higher than those for the market studies by RFCs. The one-off costs for 
the  study  in  2025  are  estimated  at  EUR 4  million.  Possible  updates  of  the  study  are 
assumed to take place every 5 years, and estimated at approximately 30% of the original 
cost.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  total  costs  for  the  study  and  the 
updates are estimated at EUR 9.5 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices), of which 
one-off costs of EUR 4 million.  

The  task  force  set  up  by  the  infrastructure  managers  would  need  to  draft  and  agree  on 
terms of reference for the study. Due to its complexity, the workload is estimated at 240 
hours (approximately 30 full working days for one employee) for  each  IM in  2025. The 
one-off adjustment costs are estimated at EUR 181 221 in 2025 relative to the baseline. 

In  addition  to  the  preparation  of  a  European  transport  market  study,  transport  market 
monitoring and analysis involves further tasks, including engagement with customers and 
potential  customers  of  freight  transport  and/or  their  representative  organisations, 
coordinating  with  national  authorities  on  transport  market  monitoring  (ministries, 
regulatory bodies). Furthermore, the results of transport market monitoring must be taken 
into  account  in  strategic  capacity  management  (PM3).  The  recurrent  workload  for  these 
tasks  (including  project  management  for  the  update  of  the  transport  market  study)  is 
estimated  at  0.5  FTE  per  infrastructure  manager.  The  recurrent  adjustment  costs  are 
estimated at EUR 0.6 million from 2026 onwards relative to the baseline224. Expressed as 
present value over 2025-2050, the total adjustment costs for drafting and agreeing on the 
terms  of  reference  for  the  study  and  for  the  monitoring  of  the  transport  market  are 
estimated at EUR 10.1 million relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices), of which one-off 
costs of EUR 0.2 million. 

Total adjustment costs for PM18-1 for infrastructure managers, expressed as present value 
over  2025-2050,  are  estimated  at  EUR 19.6  million  of  which  EUR 4.2  million  one-off 
costs in 2025. 

Adjustment costs for the Commission (performance review body) 

The costs for the performance review body are included in PM10. 

Adjustment costs for railway undertakings 

223 PM18-2 is a variant of this measure in which EU-level transport market analysis is carried out by ENIM 

in a centralised manner. 

224 Ireland, Cyprus, Malta and Finland do not participate in the governance of any rail freight corridor and 

are assumed not to participate in the recurrent task related to PM18-1.  

EN 

155 

  EN 

 
                                                           
Railway undertakings, terminal operators, shippers and other relevant stakeholders should 
provide input to market monitoring and analysis and be involved in validating the results 
and drawing conclusions, e.g. for strategic capacity management. However, as they are in 
a  contribution  role  their  workload  will  be  significantly  lower  than  that  of  infrastructure 
managers.  Due  to  the  wide  range  of  stakeholder  potentially  interested,  the  overall 
workload is assumed to be 25% of that cost of infrastructure managers. It is assumed that 
costs  will  mainly  accrue  to  railway  undertakings.  The  adjustment  costs  are  estimated  at 
EUR 142 581  per  year  from  2026  onwards.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050, 
the total  costs adjustment costs are estimated  at  EUR 2.5 million  relative to  the baseline 
(in 2021 prices). 

PM18-2:  Conducting  continuous  transport  market  monitoring  and  analysis  at 
European level, carried out by ENIM and the Network Coordinator  

In  PM18-2  the  tasks  of  market  monitoring  and  analysis,  in  particular  carrying  out  the 
transport  market  study  at  EU  level,  are  performed  by  ENIM  (with  the  support  of  the 
Network Coordinator). 

Adjustment costs for ENIM 

The costs for the transport market study and its updates are expected to be the same as in 
PM18-1. The one-off costs for the study in 2025 are estimated at EUR 4 million. Possible 
updates  of  the  study  are  assumed  to  take  place  every  5  years,  and  estimated  at 
approximately 30% of the original cost.  Expressed as present  value over 2025-2050, the 
total costs for the study and the updates are estimated at  EUR 9.5 million relative to the 
baseline (in 2021 prices), of which one-off costs of EUR 4 million. 

The  annual  activities  would  require  the  Network  Coordinator)  to  liaise  with  the 
infrastructure managers and other stakeholders, analyse the results of the transport market 
study,  draft  and  update  the  terms  of  reference,  meet  the  contractors  doing  the  study, 
discuss methodological issues, draw conclusions from the study results with a view for the 
strategic  capacity  management,  reach  out  to  potential  final  customers  of  rail  freight 
transport services, etc. The Network Coordinator will do these activities on behalf of the 
ENIM  and  the  individual  IMs.  This  approach  will  allow  for  cost  reductions  relative  to 
PM18-1 due to centralising these activities. The network coordinator is estimated to need 
5 FTEs from 2025 onwards for market monitoring, project management for the transport 
market  study  and  its  updates,  discussions  with  ENIM,  IMs  and  other  stakeholders  and 
dissemination of results. Total labour costs are estimated using the tariff per hour from the 
Eurostat  Structure  of  earnings  survey,  Labour  Force  Survey  data  for  Non-Wage  Labour 
Costs (i.e. ISCO 2 – professionals) (37.5 EUR per hour in 2021 prices). Adjustment costs 
are  estimated  at  EUR 322 109  from  2025  onwards  relative  to  the  baseline.  Expressed  as 
present value over 2025-2050, the total recurrent adjustment costs for ENIM are estimated 
at EUR 5.9 million relative to the baseline. 

Total adjustment costs for PM18-2 for ENIM are estimated at EUR 15.4 million expressed 
as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline (in 2021 prices), of which EUR 4 
million one-off costs. 

Adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 

Infrastructure  managers  will  contribute  to  market  monitoring  and  analysis  at  EU  level 
(including by engaging other stakeholders and especially RUs). They will contribute to the 
EN 

156 

  EN 

 
study and will make use of the results at national level. This implies in particular taking 
into  account  the  results  in  the  strategic  capacity  management  phase.  The  recurrent 
workload assumed for these activities is  0.5 FTE per  IM, estimated  at  EUR 570 326 per 
year from 2026 onwards. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, the total recurrent 
adjustment  costs  for  IMs  for  PM18-2  are  estimated  at  EUR 9.9  million  relative  to  the 
baseline (in 2021 prices). 

Adjustment costs for the Commission (performance review body) 

The costs for the performance review body are included in PM10. 

Adjustment costs for railway undertakings 

The costs for other stakeholders are the same as for PM18-1. It is assumed that costs will 
mainly  accrue 
to  railway  undertakings.  The  adjustment  costs  are  estimated  at 
EUR 142 581  per  year  from  2026  onwards.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050, 
the total costs adjustment costs are estimated  at  EUR 2.5 million  relative to  the baseline 
(in 2021 prices). 

PM19:  Strengthening  the  competences  of  the  European  Network  of  Regulatory 
Bodies (the ENRRB) and introducing a secretariat supporting its work 

The European Network of Regulatory Bodies acts as regulatory body on matters involving 
a  European  or  cross-border  dimension,  supervises  the  functioning  of  the  designated 
Network  Coordinator  (measure  20-1)  and  scrutinises  the  European  network  statement 
(measure  2-2).  It  acts  on  its  own  initiative  or  upon  stakeholders’  complaints  related  to 
cross-border services. 

The European network ensures a consistent implementation of the functions of regulatory 
bodies  on  European  and  cross-border  matters  on  the  basis  of  European  legislation  as 
amended  by  this  initiative  (see  measure  5)  by  adopting  binding  decision  in  cases  of 
diverging  practices  of  national  regulatory  bodies.  The  network  will  also  adopt  opinions, 
guidelines,  reports,  recommendations,  common  positions  and  best  practices  on  its  own 
initiative. In order to perform its duties, the network can oblige national regulatory bodies 
to provide information and statistics. The network will have a decision-making body made 
up of representatives of the national regulatory bodies and a secretariat set up and paid for 
by the regulatory bodies. The secretariat will be established as a self-standing body with 
own resources. 

Adjustment costs for the regulatory bodies 

The  decision-making  body  of  the  network  will  include  a  member  and  an  alternate  from 
each  Member  State  with  rail  network.    The  workload  for  the  secretariat  of  the  network, 
which will prepare the opinions, guidelines, reports, recommendations, common positions 
and identify, describe the best practices, organise the work of national regulatory bodies in 
working  groups,  etc.  is  estimated  at  5  FTEs  per  year  from  2025  onwards  relative  to  the 
baseline.  It  will  act  as  a  virtual  body  and  no  costs  for  offices  are  foreseen.  Adjustment 
costs are estimated at EUR 322 109 per year from 2025 onwards relative to the baseline. 
Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  the  total  adjustment  costs  for  PM19  are 
estimated at EUR 5.9 million. 

EN 

157 

  EN 

 
The national regulatory bodies will contribute to the work of the ENRRB via participation 
with experts in working groups. The participation and the mandate of the working groups 
can vary considerably and for this reason these costs cannot be estimated. 

PM20-1: Empower the European Network of Infrastructure Managers (ENIM) as a 
coordination structure for capacity and traffic management, by assigning it with the 
responsibilities to: (i) define harmonised EU procedures, rules and tools, (ii) support 
and monitor implementation of such procedures, rules and tools and (iii) coordinate 
capacity management between networks as well as by appointing an entity to support 
ENIM  in  the  operational  implementation  of  these  functions  (the  ‘Network 
Coordinator’) 

The cost estimates for this measure cover the role of ENIM as decision-making body. All 
costs  of  the  Network  Coordinator  for  specific  tasks  resulting  from  the  key  three 
responsibilities  of  ENIM  (point  (i)  to  (iii)  in  the  title)  are  covered  under  the  policy 
measures  resulting  in  such  tasks.  The  decision-making  role  results  in  comparatively 
limited  costs  related  to  the  decision-making,  i.e.  organising  and  following  up  to  the 
decisions  made  by  the  representatives  of  individual  infrastructure  managers  and  for 
coordinating with other bodies and stakeholders in the rail sector. 

Adjustment costs for ENIM 

The  decision-making  role  of  ENIM  requires  a  limited  number  of  regular  meetings  of 
representatives  of  individual  infrastructure  managers,  which  requires  secretarial  support. 
The  resulting  workload  is  estimated  at  3  FTEs  from  2025  onwards  for  preparing  a 
minimum  of  2  annual  meetings  and  ENIM  recommendations.  The  total  annual  labour 
costs amount to approximately EUR 193 265. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, 
total adjustment costs for ENIM are estimated at EUR 3.6 million. 

PM20-2:  Empower  the  European  Network  of  Infrastructure  Managers  as 
coordination  and  as  planning  /  operational  structure  for  capacity  and  traffic 
management, including all the responsibilities and the operational entity referred to 
in  PM20-1,  and  with  the  addition  of  decision-making  responsibilities  in  capacity 
management (PM22) and operational functions in traffic management (PM23) 

The  comments  regarding  the  costs  considered  under  PM20-1  apply  in  an  analogous 
manner  to  PM20-2.  However,  due  to  the  larger  set  of  responsibilities  of  ENIM  and  the 
Network Coordinator (in particular measures PM22 and PM23), the workload is assumed 
to be higher than for PM20-1.  

Adjustment costs for ENIM 

The  workload  for  ENIM  is  estimated  at  5  FTEs  from  2025  onwards  for  preparing  a 
minimum  of  2  annual  meetings,  ENIM  recommendations  and  also  covering  other 
responsibilities related to  capacity management.  The total  annual  labour costs amount to 
approximately EUR 322 109. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, total adjustment 
costs for ENIM are estimated at EUR 5.9 million. 

PM21:  Introduce  an  EU-level  function  supporting  cross-border  coordination  of 
capacity  management  between  infrastructure  managers,  including  consultation  and 
escalation mechanisms involving applicants and regulatory bodies.  

EN 

158 

  EN 

 
This  policy  measure  requires  ENIM  to  ensure  that  the  actual  results  of  the  capacity 
management and allocation processes, notably as defined in  PM3, PM4, PM5, PM8, are 
such  that  they  support  seamless  and  interoperable  cross-border  rail  transport  services  in 
line with market needs.  This operational implementation of this support function will be 
carried  out  by  the  network  coordinator,  the  operational  entity  supporting  the  European 
network  of  infrastructure  managers,  in  cooperation  with  individual  infrastructure 
managers. 

The  estimation  of  costs  for  the  different  stakeholder  groups  is  based  on  the  following 
assumptions: 

  The  need  for  coordination  concerns  mainly  the  strategic  capacity  management  phase 

(PM3) as fully consistent.  

  Coordination will be carried out jointly by individual infrastructure managers supported 
by  ENIM  as  a  facilitator.  This  means  that  the  measure  results  in  costs  both  for 
individual infrastructure managers and for ENIM. 

  The  coordination  process  will  include  a  consultation  mechanism  to  involve  railway 
undertakings  and  other  applicants  for  capacity  to  ensure  market  needs  are  properly 
taken  into  account  and  it  will  be  subject  to  regulatory  supervision,  both  by  national 
regulatory bodies and by the ENRRB. These activities will results in costs for railway 
undertakings and regulatory bodies, including the ENRRB. 

  The basic factor determining the workload resulting from the coordination of capacity 
management for any given pair of infrastructure managers is the number of rail border 
crossings to which coordination should apply. The geographical scope of cross-border 
coordination under this measure is assumed to be the core and extended core network 
as  defined  in  the  Commission’s  2021  proposal  for  revising  the  TEN-T  Regulation.225 
This includes 73 rail border crossings, most of which serve both passenger and freight 
transport.  In  addition  to  the  number  of  border  crossings,  two  contextual  factors 
affecting workload and costs are taken into account: (i) the length of the two networks 
concerned (ii) the network utilisation of the networks concerned. 

Based  on  these  common  assumptions,  costs  for  individual  stakeholder  groups  were 
estimated as follows. 

Adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 

The costs resulting from this measure were estimated as follows: 

  Step 1: The starting point is the number of rail border crossings part of the TEN-T core 
and extended core network per Member State.226 For each border crossing, a workload 
of  0.2 FTE  for  each  of  the  infrastructure  managers  involved  is  assumed,  i.e.  a  staff 
resource of 1 FTE can cover 5 border crossings. 

  Step  2:  This  basic  value  is  then  corrected,  individually  for  each  network,  taking  into 
account the length of lines included in TEN-T (core and extended core network). This 
reflects the fact that larger networks will result in a higher workload due to longer train 
journeys  and  a  greater  length  of  lines  to  be  taken  into  account  in  the  coordination. 

225  See COM(2021)812), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0812. 
226  The fact that in some Member States more than one infrastructure managers is concerned by the TEN-T 
core and extended core network was neglected for the sake of simplicity. In any case, at least in some of 
the  Member  State  concerned  (e.g.  HU),  there  is  a  single  allocation  body  which  should  ensure 
coordination of capacity management. 

EN 

159 

  EN 

 
                                                           
However, the effect is assumed to be less than proportional due to economies of scale 
and  scope.  The  factor  for  the  longest  network  (DE  at  9 656 km)  has  been  set  at  2.5, 
despite  a  length  of  7.4  times  of  the  median  (1 297 km).  The  factor  for  the  shortest 
network (LU at 112 km) has been set at 0.25. Correction factors for intermediate values 
of network length were calculated on the basis of linear interpolation. 

  Step 3: A second correction factor takes into account the impact of network utilisation 
on  the  workload  for  coordination.  More  intensively  used  networks  create  additional 
challenges for cross-border coordination, with a higher probability of conflicts between 
cross-border and domestic traffic and less margin to resolve such capacity conflicts. A 
range of correction factors was applied, assuming that the effect of network utilisation 
on workload is less than proportional: 2.5 for the most intensively used network (NL at 
48 604  train-km  per  line-km,  3.7 times  the  median  value  of  13 173 train-km  per  line-
km) and 0.25 for the least intensively used network (EL at 3 856 train-km per line-km). 
Correction factors for intermediate values of network utilisation were calculated on the 
basis of linear interpolation. 

  Step 4: The overall workload per Member State is derived as the product of the number 
of  border  crossings,  the  basic  workload  of  0.2 FTE  per  border  crossing  and  the  two 
correction factors, taking into account the increase in rail traffic over time. As PM21 is 
included  in  PO3  the  increase  in  the  rail  traffic  of  PO3  has  been  considered  for  the 
estimations.  

  Step  5:  The  annual  staff  costs  per  infrastructure  manager  resulting  from  the  measure 
were estimated on the basis of the average unit staff cost at ISCO 2 occupational level. 
The estimated adjustment costs for infrastructure managers in 2030 relative to the baseline 
(in 2021 prices), by Member State, are provided in Table 34. Adjustment costs for 2030, 
2040  and  2050  relative  to  the  baseline  are  provided  in  Table  35.  Expressed  as  present 
value over 2025-2050, total adjustment costs for infrastructure managers are estimated at 
EUR 80.4 million relative to the baseline.  

Table  34: Estimation  of  workload  and  staff  costs  for  infrastructure  managers  related  to  PM21 
(included in PO3) in 2030 relative to the baseline, by Member State 
MS 

Border crossings 
(number) 

Network length 
TEN-T (km) 

Unit staff cost 
(EUR/hour) 

Additional 
workload relative 
to the baseline 
(FTE) 

Additional 
staff cost 
relative to 
the baseline 
(EUR) 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 

13 
11 
4 
7 
20 
1 
1 
2 
5 
1 
14 
2 
11 
0 
5 
2 
4 

1 202 
1 250 
1 737 
1 466 
9 524 
917 
436 
1 735 
9 002 
1 297 
9 655 
693 
1 602 
440 
5 630 
845 
112 

5.1 
3.7 
0.5 
2.0 
17.6 
0.3 
0.0 
0.1 
2.1 
0.1 
8.9 
0.1 
2.7 
0.0 
2.5 
0.2 
0.4 

44.6 
52.9 
7.7 
18.7 
49.1 
51.8 
18.0 
21.7 
30.6 
42.5 
45.8 
14.1 
13.7 
49.4 
43.4 
12.8 
48.4 

391 243 
334 495 
7 150 
65 375 
1 483 568 
25 189 
1 473 
4 536 
108 674 
9 847 
702 295 
3 486 
63 344 
0 
188 382 
4 853 
29 650 

EN 

160 

  EN 

 
MS 

Border crossings 
(number) 

Network length 
TEN-T (km) 

Additional 
workload relative 
to the baseline 
(FTE) 

Unit staff cost 
(EUR/hour) 

Additional 
staff cost 
relative to 
the baseline 
(EUR) 

3 703 
LV 
142 473 
NL 
73 571 
PL 
18 089 
PT 
16 156 
RO 
116 121 
SE 
27 845 
SI 
46 410 
SK 
Total 
3 867 927 
Source: TENtec geographical information system; RMMS / TRAMOS database; Ecorys et al. (2023), impact 
assessment support study 

978 
797 
4 744 
1 462 
2 874 
3 925 
556 
729 
63 608 

0.1 
1.9 
2.9 
0.5 
0.7 
1.5 
0.8 
1.8 
56.5    

14.4 
44.6 
14.7 
21.0 
14.3 
45.3 
20.2 
15.4 

2 
5 
7 
2 
4 
4 
5 
11 

Adjustment cost for ENIM 

ENIM is considered to take a support role through the Network Coordinator such that the 
workload  for  coordination  depends  less  on  the  concrete  situation  of  different  border 
crossings; instead, it is mainly determined by the number of border crossings. 

The workload was estimated based on the following assumptions: 

  A  staff  resource  of  1 FTE  is  sufficient  to  support  the  coordination  of  5 border 

crossings, i.e. the resources for one border crossing are estimated at 0.2 FTE. 

  The scope of the cross-border coordination covers the 73 rail border crossings which 
are part of the core and extended core network in the Commission’s 2021 proposal for 
revising the TEN-T Regulation.227 

  Staff costs are estimated on the basis of the EU average for the ISCO 2 occupational 

level. 

The  adjustment  costs  for  ENIM  are  estimated  at  EUR 0.9  million  per  year  from  2025 
onwards.  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  they  are  estimated  at  EUR 17.3 
million relative to the baseline. The estimated adjustment costs for ENIM are provided in 
Table 35. 

Enforcement costs for regulatory bodies and the ENRRB 

Coordination  activities  of  infrastructure  managers  and  of  ENIM  under  this  measure  are 
subject  to  regulatory  scrutiny,  both  by  (national)  regulatory  bodies  and  by  the  ENRRB 
with a view to (i) verify and enforce compliance with EU legislation and (ii) to ensure fair 
and  non-discriminatory  access  to  infrastructure  capacity  for  railway  undertakings  and 
other  applicants  for  infrastructure  capacity.  This  will  result  in  enforcement  costs  for 
regulatory bodies and the ENRRB. 

These  costs  are  estimated  at  5%  of  the  costs  for  infrastructure  managers  and  ENIM,  or 
EUR 0.2 million in 2030 and EUR 0.3 million in 2050 relative to the baseline. Expressed 
as  present  value  over  2025-2050,  they  are  estimated  at  EUR 4.9  million  relative  to  the 

227  See COM(2021)812), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0812. 

EN 

161 

  EN 

 
  
                                                           
baseline.  The  enforcement  costs  for  regulatory  bodies  and  the  ENRRB  are  provided  in 
Table 35. 

Table  35: Adjustment  costs  for  ENIM  and  for  infrastructure  managers,  and  enforcement  costs  for 
RBs/ENRRB due to PM21 relative to the baseline (in million EUR, 2021 prices) 
Year(s) 

Individual IMs 

RBs/ENRRB 

ENIM 

Total costs expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline 

2025–2050  

0.2 
2030 
0.3 
2040 
2050 
0.3 
Source: TENtec geographical information system; RMMS / TRAMOS database; Ecorys et al. (2023), impact 
assessment support study 

3.9 
4.8 
5.4 

80.4 

17.3 
Recurrent cost relative to the baseline 
0.9 
0.9 
0.9 

4.9 

Adjustment cost savings for railway undertakings 

PM21 is  expected to  benefit railway  undertakings  and other applicants  for infrastructure 
capacity.  The  most  direct  benefit  are  reductions  in  workload  and  costs  in  managing 
capacity for cross-border rail transport services, resulting from a reduction in the need for 
railway  undertakings  to  address  inconsistencies  in  the  capacity  offered  by  infrastructure 
managers for cross-border trains.228  

The  reduction  in  workload  and  adjustment  costs  for  railway  undertakings  has  been 
estimated as follows: 

  The  starting  point  for  the  estimations  is  the  number  of  cross-border  train  paths  as 
reported  in  the  report  on  rail  market  monitoring  and  the  corresponding  TRAMOS 
database. 

  There is anecdotal evidence that a significant share of cross-border train  paths suffers 
from  inconsistencies  between  the  capacity  provided  by  individual  infrastructure 
managers,  e.g.  regarding  aspects  such  as  inconsistent  timing  and  routing  on  cross-
border  sections,  in  particular  in  the  event  of  changes  to  the  initial  planning.229  Such 
changes  come  from  infrastructure  managers  to  accommodate  works  scheduled  only 
after  the  allocation  of  train  paths.  Some  investigations  carried  out  by  rail  freight 
corridors indicate a share up to 80%230. As systematic information on this issue is not 
available, the following conservative assumptions regarding the share were made: 4% 
of  train  paths  allocated  in  the  annual  allocation  process  and  10%  of  the  train  paths 
allocated  on  an  ad-hoc  basis  suffer  from  inconsistencies.  The  absolute  number  of 
inconsistencies results from the total number of cross-border train paths and the shares 
assumed. The evolution of the number of inconsistencies was assumed to grow in line 
with rail traffic activity in PO3 until 2050.  

  The  reduction  in  workload  and  costs  for  railway  undertakings  are  driven  by  the 
reduction in the number of inconsistencies. As a conservative estimate, it was assumed 
that 50% of the inconsistencies can be avoided as a result of this measure. 

228  Ultimately,  better  coordination  between  infrastructure  managers  will  also  provide  operational  and 
commercial  benefits  through  improving  operational  quality  (notably  via  higher  punctuality)  and  by 
increase in the capacity available.  

229  Notable example: changes to train paths.  
230  Add reference to presentation of North Sea-Baltic RFC. 

EN 

162 

  EN 

 
  
  
                                                           
  The workload and  costs for RUs to  resolve each  inconsistency were estimated on the 
basis of the same assumptions as for PM4 (i.e. each inconsistency takes 1.375 hours of 
work by staff at ISCO 2 occupational level to be resolved). 

The  estimates  of  adjustment  cost  savings  for  railway  undertakings  in  2030,  by  Member 
State,  relative  to  the  baseline  are  provided  in  Table  36.  The  adjustment  cost  savings  for 
railway  undertakings  in  2030,  2040  and  2050  relative  to  the  baseline  and  the  total 
adjustment  costs  savings  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  relative  to  the 
baseline, are provided on Table 36. 

Table 36: Adjustment cost savings for railway undertakings due to PM21 (included in  PO3) in 2030, 
by Member State, relative to the baseline (in EUR, 2021 prices) 

Reduction in cross-border 
train path inconsistencies  

Costs savings for RUs (EUR) 

Annual 

Ad hoc 

Annual 

Ad hoc 

Total 

440 711 
AT 
391 295 
BE 
2 074 
BG 
363 965 
CZ 
347 829 
DE 
6 860 
DK 
71 
EE 
2 584 
EL 
0 
ES 
105 
FI 
217 304 
FR 
5 368 
HR 
112 598 
HU 
22 
IE 
242 279 
IT 
40 069 
LT 
1 628 
LU 
33 259 
LV 
499 652 
NL 
108 121 
PL 
14 173 
PT 
251 
RO 
156 819 
SE 
25 922 
SI 
165 395 
SK 
3 178 354 
Total 
Source:  rail  market  monitoring  report  /  TRAMOS  database;  TTR  business  case  and  Ecorys  et  al.  (2023), 
impact assessment support study 

273 082 
369 163 
28 
197 564 
15 886 
295 
50 
1 844 
0 
6 
217 304 
121 
43 996 
22 
241 825 
32 741 
1 006 
33 258 
300 576 
9 074 
6 397 
183 
155 200 
309 
93 920 
1 993 850 

167 629 
22 132 
2 045 
166 401 
331 943 
6 566 
21 
740 
0 
99 
0 
5 247 
68 601 
0 
454 
7 328 
622 
1 
199 077 
99 047 
7 776 
68 
1 620 
25 613 
71 475 
1 184 504 

4 453 
5 073 
3 
7 688 
235 
4 
2 
62 
0 
0 
3 451 
6 
2 340 
0 
4 050 
1 865 
15 
1 675 
4 903 
449 
222 
9 
2 492 
11 
4 439 
43 448 

2 734 
304 
192 
6 475 
4 912 
92 
1 
25 
0 
2 
0 
271 
3 649 
0 
8 
417 
9 
0 
3 247 
4 903 
269 
3 
26 
923 
3 378 
31 840 

Table 37: Adjustment cost savings for railway undertakings resulting from PM21 (included in PO3) 
relative to the baseline (in million EUR, 2021 prices) 
Year(s) 

Railway undertakings 
Total costs expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline 

2025–2050  

64.2 

Recurrent cost relative to the baseline 

3.2 
2030 
3.8 
2040 
4.3 
2050 
Source:  rail  market  monitoring  report  /  TRAMOS  database;  TTR  business  case  and  Ecorys  et  al.  (2023), 
impact assessment support study 

EN 

163 

  EN 

 
  
PM22: Entrusting ENIM with the competence to prepare, for all rail lines part of the 
European  transport  corridors,  the  strategic  capacity  management  phase  and  to 
approve the outcomes of the capacity allocation process 

PM22 transfers responsibility for the planning in the strategic capacity management phase 
(PM3 and PM5) from infrastructure managers to ENIM and the Network Coordinator for 
the  strategically  most  important  lines  of  the  TEN-T  network,  the  core  and  the  extended 
core  network  as  defined  in  the  Commission’s  2021  proposal  to  revise  the  TEN-T 
Regulation.231 This has the following consequences on adjustment cost: 

1.  The cost  for the strategic capacity management phase are borne by ENIM instead of 
the infrastructure managers. However, it is assumed that the sum of these costs at EU 
level will not change significantly, as the transfer of responsibility primarily shifts but 
does not change the magnitude of the workload. 

2.  The  transfer  of  responsibility  removes  the  discontinuity  in  strategic  capacity 
management at the borders between infrastructure managers included in the core and 
extended core network, as these lines are all managed by the Network Coordinator. At 
the  same  time,  it  creates  new  discontinuities  at  nodes  where  lines  of  the  core  and 
extended  core  network,  managed  by  the  Network  Coordinator,  are  connected  to  the 
rest of the rail network, managed by infrastructure managers. This creates a need for 
coordination.  Furthermore,  close  coordination  between  the  Network  Coordinator  and 
infrastructure  managers  is  needed  because  not  all  management  and  operational 
functions  are  transferred  to  the  Network  Coordinator,  including  the  scheduling  of 
works  for  infrastructure  repair,  maintenance  and  renewal,  capacity  (train  path) 
allocation and traffic management. The need for coordination will be most intense in 
network  nodes  where  lines  included  and  not  included  in  the  TEN-T  (extended)  core 
network  are  linked  to  each  other.  The  workload  resulting  from  these  coordination 
activities is assumed to result in adjustment costs for infrastructure managers. 

Adjustments costs for ENIM 

In line with the explanations above, the adjustment costs for ENIM resulting from PM22 
are assumed to be the same as the sum of the costs of the strategic capacity management 
phase for infrastructure managers in PM3, i.e. costs are simply shifted from infrastructure 
managers to ENIM. 

Adjustment costs for infrastructure managers 

As  outline  above  the  adjustment  costs  for  infrastructure  managers  result  from  the 
coordination between ENIM and infrastructure managers to ensure consistency in strategic 
capacity  management  where  the  lines  in  the  competence  of  ENIM  (TEN-T  core  and 
extended core network) and of infrastructure managers meet (rest of the rail network). 

They are estimated as follows: 

  Step 1:  The  basis  for  estimating  the  workload  for  coordination  are  the  urban  nodes 
included  in  the  Commission’s  2021  proposal  to  revise  the  TEN-T  Regulation.  This 
includes a total of 404 urban nodes located on the TEN-T network and with access to 
the rail network. 

231  COM(2021) 812 final of 14 December 2021. 

EN 

164 

  EN 

 
                                                           
  Step  2:  The  basic  workload  per  node  was  assumed  to  be  0.5 FTE  for  a  node  of  a 
population  of  1 million  inhabitants  in  the  corresponding  NUTS3  region.  This 
assumption  implies  that 1 FTE  is  sufficient  to  cover  2  nodes  of  1 million  population 
each. 

  Step 3: A first correction factor considers the population of the node as a proxy for the 
complexity of the rail network and of the rail services connected in a given node, both 
of which increase the workload for coordination. The correction factor varies between 
7.5  for  a  population  of  20 million  inhabitants,  1.0  for  the  reference  population  of 
1 million  and 0.25 for nodes with  a population  of less than 100 000 inhabitants.  The 
correction factors assume that the workload increases less than proportionally with the 
population node, due to economies of scale and scope. 

  Step  4:  A  second  correction  factor  was  applied  to  take  into  account  the  impact  of 
network utilisation on the workload resulting from coordination activities. Due to the 
lack of more detailed information, this was  done  at  the level  of overall utilisation  of 
the  entire  rail  network  at  the  level  of  Member  States  concerned.  The  factor  varies 
between 2.5 for the most intensively used network (NL at 48 604 train-km per line-km 
and  year),  1.0  for  the  median  network  utilisation  (13 173  train-km  per  line-km  and 
year) and 0.25 for the least intensively used network (EL at 3 856 train-km per line-km 
and  year).  Again,  the  workload  increases  less  than  proportionally  with  the  network 
utilisation. It takes into account the projected network utilisation levels over time, due 
to the increased rail traffic.   

  Step  6:  The  basic  workload  (0.5 FTE  per  node)  multiplied  by  the  two  correction 
factors gives the estimated workload per node. Staff cost resulting from the workload 
were estimated on the basis of the average staff unit costs for the ISCO 2 occupational 
level per Member State. 

The  adjustment  cost  for  infrastructure  managers  in  2030,  2040  and  2050  relative  to  the 
baseline and the total adjustment costs expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative 
to the baseline, are provided on Table 38. 

Enforcement costs for regulatory bodies and the ENRRB 

Coordination  activities  of  infrastructure  managers  and  of  ENIM  under  this  measure  are 
subject  to  regulatory  scrutiny,  both  by  (national)  regulatory  bodies  and  by  the  ENRRB 
with a view to (i) verify and enforce compliance with EU legislation and (ii) to ensure fair 
and  non-discriminatory  access  to  infrastructure  capacity  for  railway  undertakings  and 
other applicants for infrastructure capacity. This is expected to result in enforcement costs 
for regulatory bodies and the ENRRB. 

These  costs  are  estimated  at  5%  of  the  combined  adjustment  costs  of  infrastructure 
managers  and  ENIM.  The  enforcement  costs  in  2030,  2040  and  2050  relative  to  the 
baseline  and  the  total  enforcement  costs  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050 
relative to the baseline are provided in Table 38. 

Table 38: Adjustment costs  for infrastructure  managers and enforcement  cost for regulatory bodies 
and the ENRRB due to PM22 relative to the baseline (in million EUR, 2021 prices) 
Year(s) 

Individual IMs 

RBs/ENRRB 

2025–2050 

2030 

EN 

Total costs expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the 
baseline 

253.4 

Recurrent cost relative to the baseline 

12.3 

12.7 

0.6 

165 

  EN 

 
  
  
2040 
2050 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

15.1 
16.9 

Adjustment cost savings for railway undertakings 

0.8 
0.8 

Similarly to PM21, PM22 is expected to benefit railway undertakings and other applicants 
for infrastructure capacity. The most direct benefit is the reduction in costs for managing 
capacity for cross-border rail transport services, resulting from a reduction in the need for 
railway  undertakings  to  address  inconsistencies  in  the  capacity  offered  by  infrastructure 
managers for cross-border trains.232 

The key difference is that due to the centralisation of the strategic capacity management 
phase,  the  reduction  in  inconsistencies  at  borders  between  infrastructure  managers  is 
assumed to be higher. More specifically, the assumed share of inconsistencies removed is 
90% percent compared to the baseline, both for capacity allocated in the annual timetable 
and on an ad-hoc basis. All other input data and assumptions are the same to those used in 
the cost estimates for PM21. 

The  estimates  of  adjustment  cost  savings  for  railway  undertakings  in  2030,  by  Member 
State,  relative  to  the  baseline  are  provided  in  Table  39.  The  adjustment  cost  savings  for 
railway  undertakings  in  2030,  2040  and  2050  relative  to  the  baseline  and  the  total 
adjustment  costs  savings  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  relative  to  the 
baseline, are provided in Table 40. 

Table 39: Adjustment cost savings for railway undertakings due to PM22 in 2030, by  Member State, 
relative to the baseline (in EUR, 2021 prices) 

Reduction in cross-border train 
path inconsistencies  

Costs savings for RUs (EUR) 

Annual 

Ad hoc 

Annual 

Ad hoc 

Total 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 

8 037 
9 164 
5 
13 882 
425 
7 
4 
112 
0 
0 
6 230 
11 
4 224 
1 
7 311 
3 364 
27 

4 933 
549 
347 
11 692 
8 877 
167 
2 
45 
0 
3 
0 
489 
6 587 
0 
14 
753 
17 

492 827 
666 854 
51 
356 732 
28 709 
533 
90 
3 328 
0 
11 
392 282 
218 
79 418 
39 
436 478 
59 070 
1 813 

302 516 
39 982 
3 693 
300 460 
599 882 
11 863 
38 
1 335 
0 
179 
0 
9 478 
123 833 
0 
817 
13 220 
1 120 

795 343 
706 835 
3 745 
657 193 
628 591 
12 396 
128 
4 663 
0 
189 
392 282 
9 697 
203 251 
39 
437 294 
72 289 
2 933 

232  Ultimately,  better  coordination  between  infrastructure  managers  will  also  provide  operational  and 
commercial benefits through improving operational quality (notably via higher punctuality) and by increase 
in  the  capacity  available.  These  benefits  are  estimated  in  section 4  of  this  Annex,  covering  the  transport 
impacts of the four policy options. 

EN 

166 

  EN 

 
  
                                                           
60 003 
LV 
902 609 
NL 
195 087 
PL 
25 598 
PT 
455 
RO 
283 432 
SE 
46 732 
SI 
298 345 
SK 
5 739 129 
Total 
Source:  rail  market  monitoring  report  /  TRAMOS  database;  TTR  business  case  and  Ecorys  et  al.  (2023), 
impact assessment support study 

2 
359 629 
178 714 
14 044 
124 
2 926 
46 176 
128 928 
2 138 958 

60 002 
542 981 
16 373 
11 554 
331 
280 505 
557 
169 416 
3 600 172 

3 021 
8 857 
810 
400 
17 
4 503 
20 
8 008 
78 440 

0 
5 866 
8 846 
486 
6 
47 
1 663 
6 094 
57 483 

Table  40: Adjustment  cost  savings  for  railway  undertakings  resulting  from  PM22  relative  to  the 
baseline (in million EUR, 2021 prices) 
Year(s) 

Railway undertakings 

Total costs savings expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline 

2025–2050 

116.7 

Recurrent cost relative to the baseline 

5.7 
2030 
6.9 
2040 
2050 
7.9 
Source:  rail  market  monitoring  report  /  TRAMOS  database;  TTR  business  case  and  Ecorys  et  al.  (2023), 
impact assessment support study 

PM23:  Introduce  an  operational  function  at  European  level  supporting  the 
coordination  of  traffic  management,  in  particular  for  the  management  of  major 
disruptions (‘crisis cell’) 

The  cell  will  be  staffed  by  infrastructure  managers.  It  will  organise  and  support 
coordination between operational stakeholders, including infrastructure managers, railway 
undertakings,  customers  of  rail  transport  services  and  other  relevant  actors.  It  will  carry 
out  an  independent  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  management  of  actual  crises  and  incidents 
(‘return on experience’). The task will be entrusted to the network coordination entity. 

Adjustment costs for ENIM 

The tasks stemming from the measure will be entrusted to the network coordination entity. 
The  ‘crisis  cell’  will  require  that  staff  is  always  available  for  organising  communication 
between  the  relevant  stakeholders.  The  workload  for  the  ‘crisis  cell’  is  estimated  at  40 
FTEs per year for experts at ISCO 2 level (professionals) and 3 FTEs per year for experts 
at  ISCO  1  level  (legislators,  senior  officials  and  managers).  Adjustment  costs  are 
estimated  at  EUR 2.8  million  from  2025  onwards  relative  to  the  baseline.  Expressed  as 
present value over 2025-2050, the total recurrent adjustment costs for PM23 are estimated 
at  EUR 52.2  million.  The  network  coordinator  will  provide  offices  and  equipment  and 
these are thus not considered in the costs calculations. 

Adjustment cost savings for infrastructure managers 

No  significant  labour  costs  savings  are  expected  for  infrastructure  managers  due  to  this 
measure,  as  the  management  of  the  incidents  will  remain  the  responsibility  of  the 
infrastructure managers and the ‘crisis cell’ will only provide improved coordination. 

EN 

167 

  EN 

 
 
Adjustment costs for other stakeholders 

There will be no additional costs for other stakeholders (in particular railway undertakings 
and terminal operators). They will be able to receive information from a single source, but 
they could still relate information to infrastructure managers or to the ‘crisis cell’. 

PM24:  Introduce  legal  requirements  on  the  harmonised  exchange  of  digital 
information  supporting  capacity  and  traffic  management  as  well  as  customer 
information 

The measure will introduce legally binding deadlines for infrastructure  managers for the 
implementation of digital information exchange with railway undertakings and other rail 
stakeholders  in  accordance  with  the  technical  specifications  for  interoperability  on 
telematics applications for freight (TAF TSI233). 

It  will  also  introduce  a  legal  requirement  for  infrastructure  managers  to  provide  the 
technical  description  of  the  railway  network  in  the  context  of  the  network  statement  via 
the  register  of  infrastructure  (RINF234).  The  publication  of  the  register  is  an  existing 
obligation235, and no additional costs are expected for the obligation to use the register in 
the network statements relative to the baseline. 

The adjustment costs associated to this measure are estimated on the basis of the business 
case developed by RailNetEurope236, which uses cost estimates prepared by infrastructure 
managers  for  investments  needed  for  the  implementation  of  the  Timetable  Redesign 
Project  and  own  estimates  of  RNE.  The  project  involves  making  all  IMs’  and  RUs’ 
systems TAF TSI compliant, but it does not identify the costs for this specific element. It 
is  estimated that approximately 10% of the overall  IT costs are  attributable to  achieving 
TAF TSI compliance. Compliance is mostly related to the structure and format of the data 
submitted by infrastructure managers and railway undertakings to other stakeholders. This 
would require the development and deployment of digital interfaces for existing systems 
compliant with TAF TSI. More detailed explanations on the steps for calculating the costs 
are presented under PM25. 

Adjustment cost for infrastructure managers 

The  estimates  of  adjustment  costs  for  infrastructure  managers  in  2030,  2040  and  2050 
relative  to  the  baseline  and  the  total  adjustment  costs  expressed  as  present  value  over 
2025-2050 relative to the baseline, are provided in  Table 41. Expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050, the total adjustment costs for IMs are estimated at EUR 74.5 million, of 
which one-off costs of EUR 56.1 million.  

233  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No 1305/2014  of  11  December  2014  on  the  technical  specification  for 
interoperability  relating  to  the  telematics  applications  for  freight  subsystem  of  the  rail  system  in  the 
European  Union  and  repealing  the  Regulation  (EC)  No 62/2006  (Text  with  EEA  relevance),  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02014R1305-20210418  
234 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/777 of 16 May 2019 on the common specifications for 
the register of railway infrastructure and repealing Implementing Decision 2014/880/EU. 
235  Directive  (EU)  2016/797  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11 May  2016  on  the 
interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (recast). 
236 https://cms.rne.eu/system/files/8.0_ttr_business_case_v3.0_2019-05-15_0.pdf 

EN 

168 

  EN 

 
                                                           
Table  41: Adjustment  costs  for  ‘the  network’,  individual  infrastructure  managers,  and  railways 
undertakings due to PM24 relative to the baseline (in million EUR, 2021 prices) 

Year(s) 

ENIM 

Individual IMs 

RUs 

Total costs expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative 
to the baseline 

2025–2050  

One-off 

4.5 

74.5 

One-off costs relative to the baseline 

2.7 € 

56.1 

Recurrent costs relative to the baseline 

2030 
2040 
2050 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

0.1 
0.1 
0.1 

2.1 
0.0 
0.0 

Adjustments costs for ENIM 

282.8 

282.8 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

As explained above, PM24 concerns the introduction of TAF TSI-compliant interfaces. It 
is  estimated  that  approximately  10%  of  the  overall  IT  costs  of  PM25  are  attributable  to 
achieving  TAF  TSI  compliance,  as  explained  under  PM25.  The  estimates  of  adjustment 
costs for ENIM in 2030, 2040 and 2050 relative to the baseline and the total adjustment 
costs expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline, are provided in 
Table 41. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, the total adjustment costs for ENIM 
are estimated at EUR 4.5 million, of which one-off costs of EUR 2.7 million.  

Adjustment costs for railway undertakings 

Limited  information  was  identified  in  the  literature  and  during  the  stakeholders’ 
consultation. Drawing on the TTR Business Case prepared by RailNetEurope, the IT costs 
for  railway  undertakings  are  assumed  to  be  roughly  30%  of  the  total  IT  costs  for 
infrastructure managers and RUs. Discussions with RNE confirmed this assumption. 

The costs for railway undertakings that can be attributed to this initiative concern mainly 
the  deployment  of  interoperable  interfaces,  which  allow  railway  undertakings  to  interact 
with  infrastructure  managers  via  automated  digital  information  exchange.  RU-specific 
functionalities, such as planning of resources of railway undertakings (e.g. locomotive and 
train driver scheduling), were not taken into account as they are part of the baseline. The 
entirety of IT costs for railway undertakings are assigned to PM24. More explanations on 
the steps for estimating the IT costs are provided under PM25.  

The  estimates  of  adjustment  costs  for  railway  undertakings  relative  to  the  baseline  are 
provided  in  Table  41.  The  total  costs  (i.e.  one-off  costs)  are  estimated  at  EUR 282.8 
million. 

PM25:  Comprehensive  digitalisation  and  automation  of  capacity  and  traffic 
management  providing  a  single  interface  at  EU  level  and  seamless  end-to-end 
services for applicants (railway operators)  

Adjustment cost for infrastructure managers 

Infrastructure  managers  are  already  investing  in  the  digitalisation  of  capacity  allocation 
services  and in  exchanging information across  IT systems  for capacity allocation, which 

EN 

169 

  EN 

 
  
  
  
are part of the baseline. Investments cover also the deployment of new functionalities to 
existing and planned IT systems or as part of planned system upgrades. 

The  adjustment  costs  related  to  IT  systems  for  PM25  are  estimated  on  the  basis  of  the 
business  case  prepared  by  RNE237,  which  uses  cost  estimates  prepared  by  infrastructure 
managers  for  investments  needed  for  the  implementation  of  the  Timetable  Redesign 
Project and own estimates of RNE. These costs cover also the changes needed to ensure 
compatibility  with  TAF  TSI  (included  in  PM24).  The  costs  for  individual  IMs  are  not 
available, but the available information on the IT systems in use238 suggests that they can 
vary considerably.  

The  IT  investment  costs  are  considered  one-off  costs,  with  investment  expenditures 
assumed to take place in the period 2025-2029.  

RNE’s business case was used as an indicator of the scale of the costs, but the costs had to 
be adjusted due to the different time frame, and also to reflect baseline developments. The 
information provided by RNE indicates that some investments have already been planned 
for the period 2022-2024. However, the only verifiable information available about these 
investments  concerns  a  project  receiving co-financing under CEF. Total  costs under this 
project  amount  to  approximately  EUR 147  million  for  2022-2024.  As  the  initiative  is 
envisaged to come into effect from 2025, all investments prior to this year are part of the 
baseline.  

RNE’s business case estimates IT costs up to 2029. It envisages costs for a central system 
and  for  individual  IT  systems  of  the  IMs.  RNE’s  business  case  estimates  total  IT  costs 
(including  for  IT  for  the  Network  Coordinator)  of  EUR 949  million,  expressed  in  2020 
prices. These estimates cover IT investments and training for 20 IMs and RUs.  

The following steps have been followed to estimate the costs for the impact assessment: 

Step 1: First, the total IT investment costs have been transformed in 2021 prices. The ratio 
between the  IM  and RU costs has been identified. Discussions with  RNE confirmed the 
assumption that RUs’ total costs would be approximately 30% of the total IT costs and the 
IMs’ costs the remaining 70% of the total IT costs. As the costs covered only 20 IMs, they 
have been further adjusted to account for 25 IMs.  

Step 2: As explained above, the IT costs estimated by RNE also covered planned costs for 
the period 2022-2024, which are part of the baseline. In order to estimate the costs due to 
the  initiative,  the  costs  for  2022-2024  have  been  deducted  from  the  total  IT  investment 
costs, drawing on the CEF project mentioned above. In addition, the IT developments for 
RUs  will  focus  on  ensuring  compliance  with  TAF  and  TAP  TSIs.  Therefore,  the  IT 
investment costs for RUs are included in PM24 and removed from the calculation of the 
costs for PM25. They are estimated at EUR 60 million per year on average between 2025 
and 2029. 

Step 3:  In the third step, the costs for  ENIM have been estimated. The share of ENIM’s 
costs is based on the CEF funding application mentioned above, where RNE’s costs (the 

237  RailNetEurope  (2019)  Redesign  of  the  International  Timetabling  Process  (TTR).  Business  Case.  Draft 
version 3.0. 15 May 2019, https://cms.rne.eu/system/files/8.0_ttr_business_case_v3.0_2019-05-15_0.pdf. 
238 As indicated in the impact assessment support study (Ecorys et al., 2023), IMs have different IT systems 
and varying level of digitalisation of services. 

EN 

170 

  EN 

 
                                                           
possible  future  network  coordinator)  are  about  5%  of  the  total  costs.  Thus,  the  share  of 
ENIM’s IT investment costs is estimated at 5% of the total IM costs. 

Step 4: In the fourth step, IT maintenance costs are estimated. 

Calculating  software  maintenance  costs  is  very  difficult  as  they  depend  on  a  number  of 
technical parameters: software architecture, programming language, validation and testing 
procedures,  documentation  requirements,  frequency  of  software  upgrades,  hardware 
requirements,  etc.  Furthermore,  software  maintenance  costs  include  performance  and 
functionality  improvements,  which  are  directly  related  to  new  functionalities,  but  also 
software license payments, staff training, etc., which are not directly related to the new IT 
functionalities,  but  are  rather  standard  business  costs,  which  will  occur  without  the 
implementation of PM25. 

Therefore, for IM’s it has been assumed that maintenance costs represent around 15% of 
the annual average IT investment costs. They are attributed to software maintenance for a 
period of up to  5  years after the full implementation of the new  IT functionalities (from 
2025  to  2034).  Software  maintenance  costs  post-2034  are  no  longer  attributed  to  the 
additional  functionalities,  but  represent  standard  software  maintenance  costs  and  are  not 
reflected in the calculations. 

The same assumptions were made for ENIM, except that software maintenance costs were 
extended  until  2050,  as  it  is  assumed  that  only  limited  elements  of  the  IT  system 
developed for the Network Coordinator would be put in place and maintained without the 
implementation  of  this  initiative.  As  explained  in  Section  3.2  above,  TTR  cannot  be 
implemented in full without changes to the legal framework. 

Step  5:  Estimate  the  costs  for  TAF/TAP  TSI  compliance.  It  is  assumed  that  10%  of  the 
total  IM’s  IT  costs  are  assigned  to  achieving  compliance  with  TAF  and  TAP  TSIs. 
Therefore,  the  total  cost  of  PM25  for  IMs  is  reduced  by  10%.  These  costs  are  then 
allocated to PM24 

The  estimates  of  adjustment  costs  for  infrastructure  managers  in  2030,  2040  and  2050 
relative  to  the  baseline  and  the  total  adjustment  costs  expressed  as  present  value  over 
2025-2050 relative to the baseline, are provided in  Table 42. Expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050, the total adjustment costs for IMs are estimated at EUR 670.7 million, of 
which one-off costs of EUR 504.8 million. 

Table  42: Adjustment  costs  for  individual  infrastructure  managers  and  ‘the  network’  due  to  PM25 
relative to the baseline (in million EUR, 2021 prices) 
Year(s) 

Individual IMs 

ENIM 

2025–2050  

One-off 

2030 
2040 
2050 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

Adjustment costs for ENIM 
EN 

171 

Total costs expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline 
40.9 
One-off costs relative to the baseline 
24.2 € 
Recurrent cost relative to the baseline 

670.7 

504.8 

0.9 
0.9 
0.9 

18.9 
0.0 
0.0 

  EN 

 
  
  
  
The digitalisation of capacity management and the new process outlined in PM3, PM4 and 
PM5  will  require  digital  information  exchanges  between  IMs.  In  PO2  this  information 
exchange will be carried out by RNE, but it will be of voluntary nature. In PO3 and PO4 
ENIM and the network coordinator will be responsible on the basis of legal obligations. 

The  investments  and  related  operational  costs  for  IT  will  accrue  to  the  EU  rail  network 
coordinator  (supervised  by  ENIM  in  PO3  and  PO4)  or  to  RNE  (in  PO2).  As  RNE  is 
expected to be the network coordinator in PO3 and PO4, in practice there is no difference 
in the allocation of these costs for POs 2, PO3 and PO4. 

The adjustment costs for ENM are estimated on the basis of the business case developed 
by RNE239, which made estimates for RNE’s investment needs for the implementation of 
the  Timetable  Redesign  Project.  The  calculations  are  explained  in  the  section  above  on 
adjustment costs for IMs. 

The  estimates  of  adjustment  costs  for  ENIM  in  2030,  2040  and  2050  relative  to  the 
baseline and the total adjustment costs expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative 
to the baseline, are provided on Table 42. Expressed as present value over 2025-2050, the 
total adjustment costs for ENIM are estimated at EUR 40.9 million, of which one-off costs 
of EUR 24.8 million. 

Europe’s  rail  is  also  working  on  digitalisation  of  rail-related  services,  but  these  are 
considered to go beyond the functionalities considered for this policy measure. 

4.  Direct transport impacts per policy option 

4.1.  Impacts on infrastructure capacity 

4.1.1.  Methodology, data and assumptions 

The effect of the policy measures on infrastructure capacity were estimated by simulating 
the implementation of the measures with the use of TPS software application on a digital 
twin of the EU rail network. The impacts were simulated via the use of 3 representative 
case  studies,  which  depict  different  congested  lines  on  the  EU  network:  single  track, 
double  track  and  cross-border.  During  the  modelling  exercises,  it  was  ensured  that  the 
models depicted a situation that can be considered representative for the EU (i.e. a realistic 
mix of trains, no section-specific unique traffic restrictions, etc.). None of these modelled 
use  cases  is  a  one-to-one  depiction  of  an  operational  section,  but  rather  a  representative 
EU use case. Each use case was modelled separately. Nevertheless, the capacity planning 
that was represented in the models could result in an actual, operational timetable on these 
use case sections. 

The  TPS  software  application  could  handle  large  scale  networks  and  could  model  the 
complete  European  network,  if  the  microscopic  infrastructure  information  was  available 
from  all  EU  infrastructure  managers.  As  this  was  not  the  case  and  only  selected 
infrastructure data was available, 3 sample models were used, which represent a congested 
double  track  line,  a  congested  single-track  line  and  a  congested  border  crossing  section. 
These were built up using sample data from real network sections. The types of trains used 

239 https://cms.rne.eu/system/files/8.0_ttr_business_case_v3.0_2019-05-15_0.pdf 

EN 

172 

  EN 

 
                                                           
were  imported  from  the  TPS  database  that  includes  more  than  5 000  different  type  of 
trains. Train frequencies, stopping patterns and other parameters were aligned with mixed 
line sections of the European network declared as congested. 

The  modelling  includes  mainly  manual  (timetable  planning)  work.  It  followed  common 
basic rules  of timetabling to  ensure proper connections and interchange  options between 
regional and long-distance passenger trains, etc.  

Expert  assessment  and  stakeholders’  consultation  results  were  used  as  input  for  the 
modelling of the effect of the policy options. The ability to offer additional train paths, in 
particular on congested lines, was selected as one of the key results of the impact of the 
policy  options.  The  focus  was  on  incorporating  a  maximum  number  of  train  paths.  This 
also  resulted  in  a  reduction  of  the  transport  time  due  to  more  coordinated  and  informed 
path planning. 

The modelling of the impacts of the policy measures on rail infrastructure capacity for the 
policy options  required the development  of different  model variants  of a timetable. This 
was performed in seven steps: 

Step 1: A variant of the timetable for the 3 case studies (hereafter ‘the basic variant of the 
timetable’)  was  prepared,  assuming  no  further  EU  level  action.  This  variant  of  the 
timetable was cross-checked with e.g. train numbers, train patterns, stopping patterns and 
runtimes  from  published  timetables  or  historic  data  provided  by  RailNetEurope240  for 
comparable lines. This variant reflects the baseline. 

Step  2:  A  variant  of  the  timetable  was  constructed  which  represented  the  maximum 
possible utilisation of the network’s capacity and includes elements which are planned to 
be  achieved  with  policy  measures  like  reduced  border  stopping  times  and  less  stops 
overall due to better cross-border coordination of train paths. This variant reflects PO4. 

The assumptions used in step 2, and the subsequent steps, are presented below: 

  This  variant  assumes  full  implementation  of  the  policy  measures  included  in  PO4, 
solving  conflicts  and  inefficiencies  through  a  transparent  overview  (and  decision 
making power) from an EU and not only national perspective. Therefore, in this variant 
the  train  paths  were  planned  with  the  minimum  train  sequence  (minimum  block 
occupation time).  

  It  assumes  that  the  policy  measures  addressing  coordination  of  infrastructure  works 
across borders are fully implemented and less trains are affected and cancelled due to 
uncoordinated infrastructure works. 

  The  additional  capacity  generated  in  this  variant  of  the  timetable  should  not  affect 
negatively any of the services (neither passenger, nor freight) regarding their transport 
time, if possible. 

  The variant of the timetable did not focus on avoiding bypassing stops or crossings on 
the singe track line just for reducing the transport time. This results only in a minor (up 
to  moderate)  improvement  of  the  average  speed,  but  in  a  significant  increase  of 
available paths to be offered to the market.  

240  RailNetEurope  provides  access  to  data  introduced  by  infrastructure  managers  in  the  Train  Information 
System. 

EN 

173 

  EN 

 
                                                           
  Around  50%  of  the  additional  capacity  for  freight  was  planned  by  incorporating 
capacity  bands  (capable  to  be  used  by  different  train  setups  and  speeds),  which  are 
dedicated for train path requests submitted after the adoption of the annual timetable241. 
These timetable bands offer an increased flexibility compared to a fixed train path and 
can be used by both passenger and freight transport services.  

  Different sizes of the bands were included using the maximum of space between fixed 
passenger services. Some could be used by up to 5 trains depending on the difference in 
train category and speed, some only by up to 2 trains.  

Step  3:  In  the  third  step,  to  represent  PO3,  a  resistance  factor  was  introduced  that 
automatically  increases  the  minimum  train  sequence  (increasing  the  specific  block 
occupation  time  by  a  factor  scalable  by  the  user)  and  therefore  limits  the  capacity 
utilisation  relative  to  PO4,  by  creating  conflicts  in  the  model.  These  conflicts  were  then 
checked and solved either by adjusting the train  paths whenever possible, or by deleting 
certain trains paths (trains services) if necessary to allow the construction of a conflict free 
timetable. Table 43 shows the result of these adjustments to the train paths. 

This  also  had  an  effect  on  the  maximum  number  of  trains  which  would  be  possible  to 
handle  in  the  capacity  bands.  Only  moderate  additional  resistance  was  assumed  because 
most policy measures that lead to higher utilisation of the network’s capacity are included 
in PO3. 

Step  4:  In  the  fourth  step  the  resistance  factor  was  increased,  to  represent  PO2.  This  is 
because  the  measures  included  in  PO2  are  expected  to  have  a  weaker  effect  on  the 
utilisation  of  the  network’s  capacity  relative  to  PO3.  This  is  especially  the  case  for  the 
international  component  (harmonised  and  checked  rules).  A  similar  approach  was 
followed as described in step 3. 

For PO1, the basic variant of the timetable was modelled for the selected time slots. This 
was  done  to  reflect  the  measures  specific  to  PO1  (the  mandatory  use  of  RFC  one-stop 
shops  for  all  cross-border  traffic,  combined  with  a  more  advanced  digitalisation  of  rail-
related services and improved national planning systems). The main benefits, albeit very 
limited, are expected from an improvement of international (freight) services, resulting in 
slightly more optimised train paths and a reduction in cross-border waiting times. This is 
in  line  with  the  views  expressed  by  stakeholders  in  interviews  which  have  indicated 
expectations for improvement, although very limited, in PO1. 

Step 5: The results on additional rail infrastructure capacity were calibrated and verified. 

The  outputs  of  this  step,  which  are  obtained  using  the  TPS  application,  consist  in  the 
number of additional train paths and the punctuality improvements induced by each policy 
option.  

The results of the policy options were cross checked to see if the magnitude of the effects 
with  regard  to  additional  train  runs  is  in  line  with  the  respective  results  of  the  pre-
assessment by experts, the relevant studies of RNE/FTE and other studies. The modelled 
decrease  in  transport  time  for  the  freight  trains  is  slightly  lower  than  shown  by  other 
studies,  but  as  explained  above  this  is  connected  and  justified  by  the  focus  on 

241  As  already  explained  above,  unlike  passenger,  the  majority  of  rail  freight  traffic  cannot  be  planned  on 
time for the annual timetable. 

EN 

174 

  EN 

 
                                                           
incorporating  additional  trains,  resulting  in  some  additional  train  stops  for  some  train 
paths.  

Step 6: The modelled results were extrapolated to estimate the effect on the entire EU rail 
network and over time, using also input from Eurostat and RMMS. 

Three factors, explained in detail below, were used for deriving the results: 

  The time frame, which is split into three time horizons (2030, 2040, 2050). 
  The  track  type  –  more  specifically  the  distinction  between  national  single  track, 

national double track and international/cross-border sections. 

  The congestion status of the lines. 

Step 7: The results of the TPS application in terms of increase in available train paths on 
congested sections of the network are used as input in the TRUST model, assuming that: 

(i)  additional  available  train  paths  are  allocated  both  to  passengers  and  freight 
transport;  

(ii)  the  demand  for  additional  rail  paths  fully  matches  the  new  supply,  meaning 
that  all  additional  train  paths  on  congested  sections  of  the  rail  network  are  fully 
exploited; 

(iii) the  additional  trains  running  on  congested  sections  will  travel  on  routes 
extending beyond the congested section (bottleneck effect of congested sections).  

In addition, improvements in punctuality from the TPS application are used as input in the 
TRUST model, in terms of reduction of travel time.  

As  a  result,  the  TRUST  model  estimates  the  increase  in  passenger  and  freight  transport 
activity  in  terms  of  train-kilometres.  The  model  then  converts  the  output  expressed  in 
train-kilometres  into  results  expressed  in  passenger-kilometres  and  tonne-kilometres  by 
taking  into  account  occupancy  rates  and  load  factors  for  passenger  and  freight  trains 
respectively.   

Table  43:  Summary  of  the  results  of  the  modelling  of  additional  train  paths  in  2050  after  the 
application of resistance factors 

 Number of train paths 

Baseline 

PO4 

PO3 

PO2 

Total by type / % increase 
comparted to baseline 

k
c
a
r
t

e
l
g
n
i
S

Passenger 

local 

long-distance 

Freight 

domestic 

international 

Planned speed 

Passenger 

local 

EN 

83 

46 

38 

8 

37 

16 

21 

69.4 

74.3 

69.8 

126 

52% 

110 

33% 

100 

20% 

46 

38 

8 

64 

16 

48 

73 

74 

70 

0% 

0% 

0% 

73% 

0% 

129% 

5% 

0% 

0% 

46 

38 

8 

54 

16 

38 

73 

74 

70 

0% 

0% 

0% 

46% 

0% 

81% 

5% 

0% 

0% 

46 

38 

8 

80 

16 

64 

77 

74 

70 

0% 

0% 

0% 

116% 

0% 

205% 

12% 

0% 

0% 

175 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 Number of train paths 

Baseline 

PO4 

PO3 

PO2 

long-distance 

Freight 

domestic 

international 

Number of train paths 

Passenger 

local 

long-distance 

Freight 

domestic 

international 

Planned speed 

Passenger 

local 

long-distance 

Freight 

domestic 

international 

Number of train paths 

Passenger 

local 

long-distance 

Freight 

domestic 

international 

Planned speed 

Passenger 

local 

long-distance 

Freight 

domestic 

international 

k
c
a
r
t

e
l
b
u
o
D

r
e
d
r
o
b
-
s
s
o
r
C

95.6 

63.2 

55.1 

69.4 

660 

547 

496 

51 

113 

13 

100 

72.9 

74.0 

72.7 

86.6 

67.9 

59.4 

69.0 

776 

595 

552 

43 

181 

54 

127 

59.1 

56.8 

54.7 

83.8 

66.6 

57.7 

70.4 

96 

79 

73 

81 

691 

547 

496 

51 

144 

13 

131 

73 

74 

73 

87 

70 

72 

70 

860 

595 

552 

43 

265 

54 

211 

61 

57 

55 

84 

70 

66 

71 

0% 

25% 

33% 

16% 

5% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

27% 

0% 

31% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

3% 

21% 

1% 

11% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

46% 

0% 

66% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

5% 

14% 

1% 

96 

72 

75 

71 

672 

547 

496 

51 

125 

13 

112 

75 

74 

73 

87 

77 

72 

77 

821 

595 

552 

43 

226 

54 

172 

61 

57 

55 

84 

70 

66 

72 

0% 

14% 

36% 

2% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

11% 

0% 

12% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

13% 

21% 

12% 

6% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

25% 

0% 

35% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

6% 

14% 

2% 

96 

72 

73 

71 

662 

547 

496 

51 

115 

13 

102 

75 

74 

73 

87 

77 

72 

78 

796 

595 

552 

43 

201 

54 

147 

60 

57 

55 

84 

70 

66 

71 

0% 

13% 

33% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

2% 

0% 

2% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

13% 

21% 

13% 

3% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

11% 

0% 

16% 

2% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

5% 

14% 

2% 

Time frame for the extrapolation 

As  explained,  all  policy  options  are  assumed  to  be  implemented  from  2025  onwards. 
However,  depending  on 
the  full 
the  policy  option,  a  different 
implementation  of  the  policy  measures  included  in  the  options  is  assumed.  This  means 
that  the  full  effect  of  the  measures  included  in  the  different  policy  options  on  the 
availability  of  additional  infrastructure  capacity  is  achieved  at  different  points  in  time. 

timeframe  for 

EN 

176 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 44 summarises the assumptions used for the effects of the policy measures included 
in the options on the availability of the additional infrastructure capacity. 

Table 44: Effects of the policy measures on the availability of the additional infrastructure capacity  

2030 

PO1 
PO2 
PO3 
PO4 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

100% 
90% 
80% 
60% 

2040 

100% 
100% 
100% 
90% 

2050 

100% 
100% 
100% 
100% 

This means that, for example for PO4, only 60% of the benefits of the policy measures on 
the availability of additional infrastructure capacity will be realised by 2030. By 2050, the 
policy measures included in PO4 will have full effect on the availability of the additional 
infrastructure capacity as modelled with the TPS software application mentioned above. 

The implementation schedule is based on stakeholders’ consultation and expert opinion242. 
It reflects the fact that PO3 and PO4 include measures for the setting up of structures at 
EU  level,  the  adoption  of  detailed  rules  and  procedures,  their  continuous  updating  and 
improvement,  in-depth  performance  monitoring  and  improvement,  deployment  of 
software  applications,  etc.,  which  will  take  time  to  fully  implement  and  lead  to  the 
expected benefits in full. 

A more sophisticated approach with  different  implementation  schedules for the different 
policy  measures  was  also  considered,  but  it  would  have  resulted  in  a  large  number  of 
scenarios with different implementation assumptions. 

Type of line (single, double and international) 

As  explained  above,  each  use  case  employed  one  of  three  types  of  lines:  a  single-track 
line, a double-track line and a cross-border line, with the latter featuring both double-track 
and single-track lines.  The increase in  the number of available train  paths as  well as  the 
development  of  train  speed  was  modelled  for  all  three  types  of  lines  (i.e.  the  three  use 
cases)  and  each  policy  option.  To  extrapolate  the  results  to  the  European  network,  the 
increase in the number of available train paths had to be applied to the corresponding type 
of line. 

Currently, no specific data is  available indicating the transport volumes per type of line, 
i.e.  transport  volumes  for  single  track,  double  track  and  cross-border  per  Member  State. 
Using both Eurostat values as well as the figures provided in the 8th RMMS report243, an 
estimation  of  the  difference  in  traffic  volumes  was  performed.  The  data  for  section-
specific and country-specific network length was used as the starting point. However, the 
network  length  alone  does  not  indicate  the  transport  volume  on  the  sections.  Therefore, 
sample  lines  from  each  country  were  randomly  selected  to  get  an  approximation  of  the 
network  traffic  density  for  single-track  and  double-track  lines.  Combining  the  network 
length  with  the  traffic  density  allows  for  an  estimation  of  the  weighted  single-track  and 

242  For  more  information  on  the  stakeholders’  consultation,  see  Ecorys  et  al.,  (2023)  impact  assessment 

support study. 

243 https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/rail/market/rail-market-monitoring-rmms_en 

EN 

177 

  EN 

 
 
                                                           
weighted  double-track  share  for  each  country’s  rail  volumes.  Finally,  the  share  of 
international traffic was derived directly from the RMMS figures.  

Table 45: Shares of rail traffic volumes by section types and national/international, by country  
Weighted double 
track share 

Share of 
international traffic 

Weighted single 
track share 

Share of national 
traffic 

Country 

AT 
BE 
DK 
ES 
FI 
FR 
DE 
EL 
IE 
IT 
NL 
PT 
SE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
EE 
HU 
LV 
LT 
MT 
PL 
RO 
SI 
SK 
LU 
HR 
EU-27 

34% 
9% 
29% 
40% 
76% 
6% 
31% 
49% 
58% 
26% 
15% 
56% 
64% 
56% 
- 
60% 
81% 
69% 
63% 
56% 
- 
33% 
52% 
52% 
52% 
22% 
78% 
34% 

66% 
91% 
71% 
60% 
24% 
94% 
69% 
51% 
42% 
74% 
85% 
44% 
36% 
44% 
- 
40% 
19% 
31% 
37% 
44% 
- 
67% 
48% 
48% 
48% 
78% 
22% 
66% 

79% 
48% 
94% 
15% 
37% 
37% 
42% 
97% 
0% 
53% 
84% 
24% 
39% 
41% 
- 
64% 
92% 
82% 
98% 
78% 
- 
39% 
14% 
98% 
89% 
74% 
68% 
53% 

21% 
52% 
6% 
85% 
63% 
63% 
58% 
3% 
100% 
47% 
16% 
76% 
61% 
59% 
- 
36% 
8% 
18% 
2% 
22% 
- 
61% 
86% 
2% 
11% 
26% 
32% 
47% 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study. Note: international and national traffic are 
counted separately.  

Congestion status 

The  congestion  status  determines  to  which  extent  the  model  results  are  applied  to  the 
matching  network  sections.  The  analysis  assumed  3  types  of  congestion  status  for  the 
sections of the network that influences the factor of the application of the model results: 
congested, highly utilised and non-congested. 

In general, the support study concluded that there is very limited to no data available on 
the future status of congestion. For the extrapolation of direct impacts, assumptions had to 
be  made  that  gave  an  estimation  on  the  future  status  of  congestion  in  different  Member 
States.  The  assumptions  used  for  the  3  types  of  congestion  status  (i.e.  congested  lines, 
highly utilised lines and non-congested lines) are described below. 

EN 

178 

  EN 

 
Congested  lines  are  defined  in  EU  legislation244,  but  the  figures  are  underreported  by 
infrastructure  managers.  Therefore,  the  support  study  used  a  broader  definition  of 
congested lines based on UIC’s recommendations on maximum usage of rail infrastructure 
(over  110%  of  UIC’s  maximum  recommended  usage).  For  highly  utilised  lines  the 
definition again employed UIC’s recommendation with use rates of 85% - 110% of UIC’s 
maximum recommended usage. The support study  collected additional information  from 
stakeholders on congestion, which allowed for a more realistic estimation of the length of 
the congested lines in 2030, 2040 and 2050. 

The  projected  share  of  congested  and  highly  utilised  infrastructure  for  the  whole  EU 
network is  6.5%, 9.2% and 14.6% respectively in 2030, 2040 and 2050. In other words, 
congestion is  expected to  increase steadily until  2050 due to  growing traffic and despite 
investments in rail infrastructure (including upgrades and new infrastructure). 

For  the  congested  share  of  the  network,  the  model  results  of  the  matching  section  type 
were directly applied. This means that the congested lines (single, double or international) 
showed  the  same  relative  increase  in  train  paths  as  the  modelled  ones  (respectively  for 
single, double or international lines). 

For  highly  utilised  network  sections,  only  80%  of  the  increase  in  the  availability  of 
infrastructure capacity was considered. In other words, the additional capacity created by 
the policy measures in the different policy options was reduced by 20%. This number is 
based  both  on  an  expert  assessment  as  well  as  on  the  comparison  of  network  utilisation 
rates  for  congested  and  highly  utilised  lines  according  to  UIC’s  recommendations. 
Additional capacity was also assigned to non-congested lines.  

It was not possible to carry out the extrapolation using trains’ origin-destination data, due 
to the lack of detailed data. Nevertheless, the bottleneck effect of congestion is taken into 
account in the extrapolation results. When relieving congestion on a part of the network, 
this  also  has  a  positive  effect  on  the  rest  of  the  O/D  route,  since  the  total  number  of 
available train paths on that route is limited by the congested section. 

To model this effect on a European level, it was decided to apply the findings of a study 
conducted by RISE  ICT/SICS245  that investigated the potential increase of  capacity on a 
selected  line  without  any  other  (negative)  effects  on  timetabling  or  capacity  allocation 
processes. The study concluded that the additional capacity amounts to 30%. Therefore, a 
factor  of  0.3  is  applied  to  the  non-congested  part  of  the  network,  meaning  that  the 
matching  section  type  will  receive  30%  of  the  modelled  additional  capacity  for  the 
corresponding time frame. 

4.1.2.  Results 

This  section  presents  the  modelling  results  regarding  the  number  of  train  paths  on  the 
modelled sections/lines as well as the results of the extrapolation on European level for the 
different policy options. The results represent direct benefits for railway undertakings. 

As explained above, 3 case studies were considered (each representing a different type of 
lines) and each having a different number and mix of trains (see Table 46). 

244 See Articles 3(20) and 47 of Directive 2012/34/EU. Stakeholders claim that infrastructure managers tend 
to underreport congestion. 
245 Aronsson, M. et. al.: Uncovered capacity in Incremental Allocation (2017). 

EN 

179 

  EN 

 
                                                           
Table 46: Number of daily train paths per train type and use case (basic variant of the timetable) 

Train (path) type 

Single track 

Double track 

Cross-border 

Freight 

Passenger 
local 
long-distance 

46 
38 
8 
37 
16 
21 
83 
Total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

domestic 
international 

547 
496 
51 
113 
13 
100 
660 

629 
586 
43 
198 
65 
133 
827 

Policy  measures  common  for  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4,  most  notably  the  strategic  capacity 
planning  (i.e.,  PM3,  PM4  and  PM5),  change  the  way  in  which  capacity  is  planned, 
allocated  and  coordinated.  However,  the  options  contain  different  measures  on 
coordination and these differences have an effect on the number of available train paths, 
with PO4 having the highest impact due to employing a central entity at EU level with an 
operational/capacity overview, a neutral  stakeholder independent  decision-making power 
fully  enabling  the  potential  for  maximising  traffic  by  fully  coordinating  cross-border 
capacity allocation and other measures which enable an optimised capacity allocation.  

The  additional  train  paths  are  assumed  to  be  generated  by  a  more  efficient,  coordinated 
and/or  harmonised  infrastructure  capacity  planning  and  allocation.  These  capacity  gains 
apply to the whole network and thus provide benefits for freight as well as for passenger 
services.  

Table 47 provides the result of the modelling exercise producing different variants of the 
timetable with additional number of train paths for the three use cases and time horizons. 

Table 47: Additional train paths per use case compared to the basic variant of the timetable 

Policy Option 

Use Case Model 

2030 

2040 

2050 

PO2 

Single Track 
Double Track 
Cross Border 

Total additional train paths PO 2 

PO3 

Single Track 
Double Track 
Cross Border 

Total additional train paths PO 3 

PO4 

Single Track 
Double Track 
Cross Border 

Total additional train paths PO 4 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

17 
2 
14 
33 
19 
11 
32 
62 
22 
16 
78 
116 

17 
2 
14 
33 
27 
16 
45 
88 
34 
25 
94 
153 

17 
2 
14 
33 
27 
16 
45 
88 
43 
31 
117 
191 

In comparison to the basic variant of the timetable, the average number of train paths  for 
2030-2050  increases  by  roughly  10%  for  PO4,  by  5%  for  PO3,  by  2%  for  PO2  and  by 
0.2%  for  PO1.  It  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  use  cases  in  PO2,  PO3  and  PO4  are 
constructing a timetable for congested lines. Theoretically, the increase of the number of 
train  paths  offered  on  a  line  that  is  not  congested  could  be  much  higher.  However,  as 

EN 

180 

  EN 

 
explained above, the real-world effect of the policy options on the supply of train paths for 
freight on non-congested lines (with limited existing constraints for an extended offer) is 
much lower246. 

Since  the  policy  options  contain  several  measures,  which  mainly  affect  cross-border 
traffic,  the  effect  on  this  model  is  higher.  Unlike  the  single  track  and  double  track  case 
studies, the cross-border case study contains  a border with two different  IMs on the two 
sides planning their national  timetables independent  from  each other. While some cross-
border trains have to wait for a long time in the baseline scenario due to bad coordination 
of  the  timetables  between  both  IMs,  the  trains  can  cross  the  border  fast  with  perfectly 
coordinated timetables in PO4. 

As mentioned above, for the extrapolation of the results, a 0.8 factor was applied to highly 
utilised (but not congested) lines and a 0.3 factor was applied to the respective outputs of 
the use case models for each time horizon for the non-congested line. The full effect that 
was modelled in the use cases was used for congested lines. As the share of congested and 
highly  utilised  network  increases  steadily  for  the  whole  period  analysed  in  the  impact 
assessment  (see  assumption  above),  the  effects  of  the  policy  options  also  increase  with 
time. Using the model results outlined above as input, the extrapolation on EU level yields 
the following results for additional train paths at country level (see Table 48), measured as 
an increase in percentage points compared to the extrapolation of the basic variant of the 
modelled timetable for the three use cases to the whole EU rail network. 

Table 48: Extrapolation of available train paths compared to the extrapolation of the basic variant of 
the timetable for the whole EU rail network 

Policy Option 

Member State 

2030 

PO2 

AT 
BE 
DK 
ES 
FI 
FR 
DE 
EL 
IE 
IT 
NL 
PT 
SE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
EE 
HU 
LV 
LT 

1.16% 
1.48% 
1.32% 
2.80% 
3.37% 
0.89% 
2.15% 
0.77% 
4.11% 
1.40% 
1.21% 
3.99% 
4.18% 
2.34% 
0.00% 
1.90% 
1.04% 
1.35% 
0.76% 
1.32% 

2040 

1.25% 
1.63% 
1.46% 
2.85% 
3.47% 
1.06% 
2.33% 
0.77% 
4.11% 
1.48% 
1.31% 
4.56% 
4.30% 
2.34% 
0.00% 
1.90% 
1.28% 
1.40% 
0.76% 
1.32% 

2050 

1.45% 
1.73% 
1.64% 
4.39% 
3.50% 
1.20% 
2.56% 
0.77% 
4.11% 
1.81% 
1.54% 
4.56% 
4.63% 
2.34% 
0.00% 
1.90% 
1.30% 
1.54% 
0.88% 
1.44% 

246  As  mentioned  above,  a  study  conducted  by  RISE  ICT/SICS  concluded  that  a  non-congested  line  can 
handle up to 30% of additional capacity without any conflicts in other timetabling elements. 

EN 

181 

  EN 

 
                                                           
Policy Option 

Member State 

2030 

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

0.00% 
1.54% 
2.91% 
0.75% 
0.97% 
0.89% 
2.01% 
1.72% 
1.70% 
2.08% 
2.11% 
3.34% 
3.96% 
1.38% 
2.71% 
1.31% 
4.80% 
1.85% 
1.92% 
3.99% 
4.51% 
2.86% 
0.00% 
2.46% 
1.59% 
1.89% 
1.30% 
1.85% 
0.00% 
2.02% 
3.41% 
1.29% 
1.51% 
1.39% 
2.57% 
2.24% 
2.16% 
2.66% 
2.72% 
3.99% 
4.63% 
1.89% 
3.34% 
1.70% 
5.69% 
2.33% 
2.48% 

182 

PO3 

PO4 

EN 

2040 

0.00% 
1.56% 
2.91% 
0.76% 
0.97% 
1.48% 
2.01% 
1.82% 
2.56% 
3.20% 
3.30% 
4.98% 
5.75% 
2.27% 
4.23% 
1.84% 
6.86% 
2.88% 
2.92% 
7.13% 
7.27% 
4.08% 
0.00% 
3.51% 
2.70% 
2.75% 
1.83% 
2.63% 
0.00% 
2.89% 
4.87% 
1.84% 
2.13% 
2.53% 
3.65% 
3.40% 
3.65% 
4.61% 
4.81% 
6.76% 
7.53% 
3.47% 
5.88% 
2.70% 
9.10% 
4.08% 
4.26% 

2050 

0.00% 
1.60% 
2.91% 
0.89% 
0.97% 
1.48% 
2.01% 
2.01% 
2.88% 
3.56% 
3.67% 
5.85% 
5.89% 
2.66% 
4.59% 
1.84% 
6.86% 
3.26% 
3.31% 
7.13% 
7.58% 
4.08% 
0.00% 
3.51% 
2.81% 
2.91% 
2.11% 
2.77% 
0.00% 
2.97% 
4.88% 
2.13% 
2.13% 
2.53% 
3.65% 
3.67% 
5.12% 
6.48% 
6.71% 
9.60% 
9.67% 
5.15% 
7.98% 
3.40% 
11.38% 
5.73% 
6.04% 

  EN 

 
Policy Option 

Member State 

2030 

4.54% 
5.22% 
3.41% 
0.00% 
2.98% 
2.01% 
2.35% 
1.69% 
2.30% 
0.00% 
2.49% 
4.02% 
1.68% 
1.92% 
1.79% 
3.09% 
2.77% 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

PT 
SE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
EE 
HU 
LV 
LT 
MT 
PL 
RO 
SI 
SK 
LU 
HR 
EU total 

2040 

9.26% 
9.56% 
5.45% 
0.00% 
4.78% 
3.85% 
3.83% 
2.69% 
3.68% 
0.00% 
4.01% 
6.43% 
2.71% 
3.06% 
3.55% 
4.93% 
4.73% 

2050 

11.58% 
12.48% 
6.83% 
0.00% 
6.00% 
5.04% 
5.07% 
3.91% 
4.83% 
0.00% 
5.18% 
8.06% 
3.93% 
3.85% 
4.45% 
6.18% 
6.39% 

The  effect  of  the  policy  measures,  aggregated  at  the  level  of  policy  options,  on  the 
availability of infrastructure capacity at EU level is provided in Table 49. 

Table 49: Increase in available and usable capacity on the EU27 rail network in terms of train-km, 
relative to transport activity (train-km) in the baseline 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

2030 

0.2% 

1.5% 

2.6% 

3.3% 

2040 

0.2% 

1.8% 

3.4% 

5.3% 

2050 

0.2% 

2.0% 

3.7% 

6.4% 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

Estimating the value of the additional train paths for rail freight 

The benefits from increases in capacity relative to the baseline are considered indirectly in 
the form of cost savings for RUs resulting from better operational conditions on congested 
parts  of  the  network  (sections  and  nodes):  congestion  on  a  line  implies  that  the  cost  per 
train-km of operating additional trains on the line increase the closer a line is to saturation, 
i.e. the  cost  function is  non-linear.  Implementing measures increasing  capacity on a line 
(such as the ones considered under this initiative) means that the cost of operating trains 
on congested lines will decrease for a constant volume of traffic (as the degree of capacity 
utilisation  decreases).  These  costs  savings  have  been  considered  as  a  proxy  for  the 
benefits of the additional capacity resulting from such measures, providing a lower limit 
of  the  value  (utility)  of  additional  train  services  to  society  at  large  (people  and 
businesses). It is assumed that most of these benefits are passed through to the customers 
of rail transport services. 

EN 

183 

  EN 

 
 
These  cost  savings  occur  on  the  congested  and  heavily  utilised  sections  of  the  network. 
Categories  of  costs  which  are  influenced  by  capacity  increases  on  congested  and  highly 
utilised sections of the rail network are: 

  personnel costs (e.g. train drivers)  
 
  cost of holding up capacity (vehicles). 

traction and energy costs 

The cost savings are estimated using the following steps: 

1.  Calculate  the  additional  train  kilometres  resulting  from  the  additional  train  paths 

produced by the policy measures. 

2.  Separate the rail network's congested and highly utilised parts for all options. 
3.  Estimate  the  changes  in  train  operating  costs  induced  by  better  capacity 
management. They are estimated at EUR 0.6 per train kilometre (without rail track 
charges)247. 

4.  Weighing  by  performance  weights  taken  from  service  quality  analysis  of  the 

options (see the section below on the impacts on punctuality).     
5.  Deriving the cost savings for all years of the evaluation horizon.  

The benefits from capacity increase for rail freight, expressed as present value over 2025-
2050 relative to the baseline are provided in Table 50.  

Table 50: Benefits from capacity increase for rail freight, expressed as present value over 2025-2050, 
in million EUR (2021 prices) 
Option 

PO3 

PO1 

PO2 

PO4 

Benefits from capacity 
increase 

139.5 

1 156.7 

1 525.1 

1 653.3248 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

Estimating the value of the additional train paths for passenger rail 

The quantification of benefits of passenger transport stemming from capacity increase is 
based on proxy calculations because a highly sophisticated approach  using differentiated 
supply and demand data was not possible. As a way of proxy estimation, the calculation of 
benefits  from  capacity  gains  for  passenger  transport  was  based  on  a  triangulation  using 
information from two approaches: 

1.  Backcasting  approach  using  the  results  for  traffic  shifted  to  rail  from  the  modal 

split calculations 

2.  Direct estimation of the utility stemming from additional passenger trains using an 

implicit utility approach. 

247 The  cost savings  were estimated in a  micro-study  for 3 train types carried out as part of the  modelling 
exercises for the timetable variants. A methodological study of BVU, TNS and KIT (2016) for the German 
Federal Transport Master Plan 2030 was also used in order to take into account different incremental costs 
for 3 different types of freight trains (single wagon, part block trains; full block trains and container trains). 
248 The lower figure for savings in PO4 compared to PO3 is connected to achieving 100% implementation 
and full impact later than in PO3. In an optimum case the implementation of the capacity relevant functions 
in  the  central  entity  are  implemented  in  PO4  in  the  same  timeframe  as  in  PO3,  and  only  some  specific 
functions will be implemented later. Then the savings in PO4 would be at least equal to PO3, if not higher 
considering  the  complete  period  until  2050.  However,  a  specific  split  for  the  implementation  of  different 
departments of the central entity was not modelled. 

EN 

184 

  EN 

 
                                                           
Approach 1 - Backcasting includes the following steps: 

  Step 1: Use the data from the modelling of the impacts with the ASTRA model (in 
train-kilometres, passenger-kilometres) for the baseline and the four policy options  
  Step 2: Calculate the differentials between of the values for each policy option vis-

à-vis the baseline 

  Step 3: Calculate the additional utilities by backward chaining. 
  Step 4: Calculate the additional utilities of the policy options using the differentials 
of service parameters derived in the punctuality analysis (see the section below). 
  Step  5:  Develop  tables  with  yearly  time  series  and  combine  option  results  with 

measures. 

Steps 1 and Step 2 used the changes in the passenger transport activity from the ASTRA 
model. Step 3 includes the backward chaining process of utility. This is based on the cost 
elasticity (% change of traffic relating to a 1% change of costs) and leads to the result that 
the  additional  utility  can  be  measured  by  the  ratio  of  additional  traffic  over  the  cost 
elasticity multiplied by the differential  of the customers’ average willingness  to  pay and 
the average price which they pay.  

Uadd =  

Δ𝑞

ε

 (VOT-p) 

Uadd – additional utility 

𝜀 – cost elasticity of passenger transport (if possible, differentiated by shares of regional, 
national transport, differentiated by travel purposes; otherwise: average figures taken from 
a methodological study249) 

Δ𝑞 – change in traffic in passenger km (value for policy option – baseline value) 

p – price per passenger km 

VOT – gross value of time/passenger km (assumed travel distance > 300 km) 

Based  on  a  literature  review250  an  estimated  VOT-p  value  of  EUR 0.003  per  passenger- 
kilometre was used for the calculations. This assumption that the value VOT-p is positive 
(it could in principle also be negative) is explained by the cost reductions achieved by the 
RUs  and  the  increased  market  dynamics  following  from  better  prospects  for  new 
businesses  on  rail  passenger  transport  in  a  market  which  is  presently  governed  by 
incumbents. 

Approach  2  -  Direct  estimation  of  the  utility  has  been  applied  for  achieving  a  higher 
certainty  about  the  order  of  magnitude  for  the  results  of  backcasting.  The  calculation 
process is described by the following steps: 

249  KCW,  StatisticEye  and  HTC  (2018):  Gutachten  zur  Bestimmung  der  Elastizität  der  Nachfrage  der 

Eisenbahnverkehrsunternehmen, Berlin. 

250  KCW,  StatisticEye  and  HTC  (2018):  Gutachten  zur  Bestimmung  der  Elastizität  der  Nachfrage  der 
Eisenbahnverkehrsunternehmen.  Berlin.  ITP,  Planco  und  TUBS  (2015):  Grundsätzliche  Überprüfung 
und  Weiterentwicklung 
der 
Nutzen-Kosten-Analyse 
Bundesverkehrswegeplanung.  München.  PTV,  TCI  und  H.U.  Mann  (2015):  Methodenhandbuch  zum 
Bundesverkehrswegeplan  2030.  Karlsruhe.    DLR  und  TTS  (2022:  Handlungsoptionen  für  eine 
ökologische Gestaltung der Transportmittelwahl im Güterfernverkehr. Berlin. 

Bewertungsverfahren 

der 

im 

EN 

185 

  EN 

 
                                                           
  Step 1: Use the data from the modelling of the impacts with the ASTRA model (in 
train-kilometres, passenger-kilometres) for the baseline and the four policy options  
  Step 2: Calculate the differentials between of the values for each policy option vis-

à-vis the baseline 

  Step 3: Multiply the differentials by train-kilometres cost change according to the 

rule of the half 

  Step 4: Multiply by the ratio of gross value added passenger over freight trains 
  Step 5: Take result for PO4 as benchmark and differentiate the results for the other 
policy  options  according  to  the  service  parameters  derived  in  the  punctuality 
analysis (see the section below). 

  Step 6: Allocate the yearly result for 2030, 2040 and 2050 to a full time profile.  

Step  3  uses  a  similar  approach  compared  to  the  measurement  of  the  implicit  utility  of 
additional  freight  transport  (see  above).  The  cost  differentials  of  passenger  train-km  are 
weighted  by  the  ratio  of  gross  value  added  for  passenger  over  freight  trains,  taking  the 
figures from the literature251.  

The benefits from capacity gains for passenger rail, expressed as present value over 2025-
2050 relative to the baseline are provided in Table 51.  

Table  51:  Benefits  from  capacity  increase  for  passenger  rail,  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-
2050, in million EUR (2021 prices) 

PO1 

PO2 

Benefits from  capacity 
increase 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

824.3 

102.6 

PO3 

1 050.6 

PO4 

1 105.8 

The results of application of approach (2)  yields a benefit of around  EUR 1 238 million, 
i.e.  the  benefits  are  estimated  to  be  about  12%  higher.  For  the  purpose  of  the  impact 
assessment, a conservative approach - approach (1) – has been used.  

4.2.  Impacts on train punctuality 

4.2.1.  Increase in punctuality of freight and passenger rail traffic 

The impacts on punctuality were estimated using assumptions on the effect of the policy 
measures and data from RMMS and RFC performance reports on punctuality. The effects 
on  punctuality  were  classified  as  high,  medium  and  low,  with  each  category  having  a 
different factor to calibrate the effect of the measures.  

The punctuality data identifies 18 delay reasons. They are classified in 3 categories: 

  delays due to systematic mismatch (capacity planning and allocation phase),  
  delays on the main line (operational delays) and  
  delays  in  the  first/last  mile  of  train  operations  (including  terminals  and  shunting 

yard operations). 

The following steps were followed: 

Step 1: Derive base figures for punctuality 

251 BNetzA (2021): Marktuntersuchung Eisenbahnen 2020. Berlin. Section 1.3.2. 

EN 

186 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
  Calculate aggregated punctuality figures per region (northern Europe, central and 

eastern Europe, western Europe and southern Europe) 

  Derive weighted punctuality share per region on the basis of national punctuality 

figures 

  Derive weighted share of ‘Systematic Mismatch’ per region 
  Calculate the relative influence of first and last-mile delays on freight punctuality 
  Derive  punctuality  improvement  figures  for  the  different  delay  reasons  and  for 

each region 

  Derive weighted punctuality share per region 

Step 2: Assess the delay reasons and their influence on delays 

Step 3: Estimate the impact of policy measures on these delay reasons 

Step  4:  Adjust  the  impact  based  on  limited  growth  modelling  and  the  implementation 
schedule 

The calculations assumed that 50% of the trains that are delayed at the end of a transport 
run would also cause delays at the start of the next transport run. This assumption resulted 
in  secondary  delay252  calculations,  which  were  checked  against  and  were  in  line  with 
existing data from the RFC performance reports. Secondary delays reflect the fact that not 
only are trains with a delayed arrival exposed to being delayed at their next departure, but 
also that a delayed arrival has negative effects on the overall network (such as insufficient 
terminal capacity to handle the peaks that are due to deviations in arrival times) that then 
results in delayed arrivals. 

The calculations present results for changes in punctuality for passenger and freight trains 
in 2030, 2040 and 2050, reflecting the assumption that some measures  would need more 
time to be fully implemented. 

The estimations attempt to take into account the future developments that would influence 
rail punctuality both positively and negatively. These include: 

  The implementation of the proposed revision of the TEN-T Regulation and other 

(accompanying) infrastructure construction works;  

  The gradual and comprehensive digitalisation of rail-related services in Europe; 
  The  increase  in  volume  for  freight,  as  outlined  in  the  baseline,  leading  to  big 

operational challenges. 

The  development  of  a  fully-fledged  baseline  on  punctuality  would  face  a  number  of 
difficulties  and  uncertainties  (e.g.  most  of  the  investment  decisions  are  taken  either  by 
national/regional  governments  or  private  companies  and  are  difficult  to  predict).  Instead 
expert  assumptions  were  used  that  punctuality  will  deteriorate  by  1%  in  2030  and  then 
improve  by  5  and  10%,  in  2040  and  2050  respectively.  The  baseline  projections  for 
punctuality  are  provided  in  section  2.2.  These  estimates  were  used  in  a  limited  growth 
model to  calculate the  changes in  the  effectiveness  of the policy measures that  correlate 
with a change in the baseline punctuality value. The policy measures’ effectiveness is in 

252 Secondary delays are delays caused by reasons that lie outside the transport run and are instead caused by 
other  delays  on  the  network.  While  these  secondary  delays  cannot  be  directly  impacted  by  the  policy 
measures, an improvement of the primary delay causes reduces the effect of these delays on the network, 
and thus reduces secondary delays. 

EN 

187 

  EN 

 
                                                           
reverse relation to the baseline value. The impacts on train punctuality in terms of increase 
of the percentage of punctual trains is presented below. 

Table  52:  Impacts  of  policy  options  on  train  punctuality,  values  are  the  increase  in  the  share  of 
punctual trains in percentage points relative to the baseline, for freight rail 

Development punctuality: freight 

Region 

Punctuality 
PO1 

Punctuality 
PO2 

Punctuality 
PO3 

Punctuality 
PO4 

Northern Europe 
Central and eastern Europe 
Southern Europe 
Western Europe 
Europe total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

4.7% 
15.2% 
12.3% 
7.4% 
9.7% 

10.1% 
24.1% 
14.0% 
15.8% 
17.2% 

12.5% 
32.0% 
20.3% 
19.7% 
22.2% 

14.1% 
37.4% 
24.4% 
22.3% 
25.6% 

Table  53:  Impacts  of  policy  options  on  train  punctuality,  values  are  the  increase  in  the  share  of 
punctual trains in percentage points relative to the baseline, for passenger rail 

Development punctuality: passenger 

Region 

Punctuality 
PO2 
2.0% 
Northern Europe 
3.6% 
Central and eastern Europe 
3.6% 
Southern Europe 
2.8% 
Western Europe 
3.0% 
Europe total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

Punctuality 
PO1 
0.5% 
0.8% 
0.7% 
0.4% 
0.5% 

Punctuality 
PO3 
3.2% 
5.8% 
5.7% 
4.7% 
4.9% 

Punctuality 
PO4 
3.4% 
6.4% 
6.5% 
5.2% 
5.4% 

4.2.2.  Operational cost savings for railway undertakings 

The  improvements  in  punctuality  were  also  calculated  as  time  saved,  which  allowed  for 
calculating  cost  savings  for  RUs.  Time  savings  will  have  a  positive  effect  on  other 
stakeholders  as  well,  but  the  assumption  is  that  the  biggest  effect  will  be  on  railway 
undertakings. 

The reduction in delay minutes relate to the baseline in 2030, 2040 and 2050. The figures 
for 2020 are presented to illustrate the scale of the reduction. 

Table 54: Reduction in delay  minutes for  freight rail in the policy options relative to the baseline in 
2030, 2040 and 2050 

Saved delay minutes: freight 

Region 

Country 

Delay 
minutes: 
2020 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO1 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO2 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO3 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO4 

e
p
o
r
u
E
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

EN 

DK 

EE 

LV 

LT 

FI 

SE 

97 225 

8 062 

32 819 

5 255 

173 214 

527 549 

4 544 

377 

1 534 

246 

8 095 

24 653 

9 774 

810 

3 299 

528 

17 412 

53 032 

12 134 

13 732 

1 006 

4 096 

656 

21 618 

65 842 

1 139 

4 635 

742 

24 464 

74 510 

188 

  EN 

 
 
 
Saved delay minutes: freight 

Region 

Country 

Delay 
minutes: 
2020 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO1 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO2 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO3 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO4 

e
p
o
r
u
E
n
r
e
t
s
a
e

d
n
a

l
a
r
t
n
e
C

e
p
o
r
u
E
n
r
e
h
t
u
o
S

e
p
o
r
u
E
n
r
e
t
s
e

W

NO 

77 430 

Total 

921 554 

425 793 

512 982 

258 025 

446 421 

153 155 

760 185 

SI 

SK 

HR 

RO 

BG 

HU 

CZ 

PL 

3 618 

43 066 

64 666 

77 908 

39 187 

67 799 

23 260 

115 451 

1 211 475 

183 990 

2 695 426 

409 361 

7 784 

92 640 

102 530 

123 525 

62 132 

107 497 

36 879 

183 051 

291 721 

649 053 

9 664 

115 016 

136 187 

164 074 

82 528 

142 785 

48 986 

243 140 

387 483 

862 115 

10 936 

130 158 

159 437 

192 085 

96 617 

167 161 

57 348 

284 649 

453 633 

1 009 294 

Total 

6 463 462 

981 621 

1 556 389 

2 067 297 

2 420 223 

EL 

IT 

PT 

ES 

38 625 

4 748 

1 426 424 

175 338 

179 575 

118 904 

22 074 

14 616 

Total 

1 763 528 

216 776 

AT 

BE 

FR 

DE 

IE 

LU 

NL 

CH 

524 123 

158 121 

1 000 664 

38 841 

11 718 

74 156 

5 630 876 

417 287 

638 

10 173 

39 760 

288 442 

47 

754 

2 947 

21 376 

5 422 

200 240 

25 209 

16 692 

247 563 

83 007 

25 042 

158 479 

891 781 

101 

1 611 

6 297 

45 682 

7 834 

289 295 

36 420 

24 115 

357 664 

103 343 

31 177 

197 304 

9 426 

348 093 

43 822 

29 016 

430 357 

116 931 

35 277 

223 247 

1 110 258 

1 256 239 

126 

2 006 

7 840 

56 873 

142 

2 270 

8 870 

64 351 

Total 

7 652 797 

567 125 

1 212 000 

1 508 927 

1 707 326 

16 801 342 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

1 808 588 

Total 

3 108 591 

4 048 904 

4 688 065 

Table 55: Reduction in delay  minutes for  freight rail in the policy options relative to the baseline in 
2030, 2040 and 2050 

Saved delay minutes: passenger 

Region 

Country 

Delay 
minutes: 
2020 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO1 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO2 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO3 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO4 

DK 

EE 

LV 

LT 

FI 

SE 

NO 

e
p
o
r
u
E
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

EN 

395 518 

1 801 

7 717 

12 475 

13 504 

5 387 

5 242 

28 027 

128 574 

1 109 785 

309 047 

25 

24 

128 

585 

5 052 

1 407 

189 

105 

102 

547 

2 508 

21 652 

6 030 

170 

165 

884 

4 055 

35 004 

9 748 

184 

179 

957 

4 390 

37 891 

10 552 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Saved delay minutes: passenger 

Region 

Country 

Delay 
minutes: 
2020 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO1 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO2 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO3 

Punctuality 
improvement 
PO4 

e
p
o
r
u
E
n
r
e
t
s
a
e

d
n
a

l
a
r
t
n
e
C

e
p
o
r
u
E
n
r
e
h
t
u
o
S

e
p
o
r
u
E
n
r
e
t
s
e

W

Total 

1 981 581 

SI 

SK 

HR 

RO 

BG 

HU 

CZ 

PL 

EL 

IT 

PT 

ES 

1 841 703 

15 368 

182 564 

368 132 

194 319 

106 585 

1 603 414 

1 353 811 

1 116 390 

47 320 

9 021 

1 523 

3 072 

1 622 

889 

13 380 

11 297 

9 316 

56 467 

343 

Total 

6 766 918 

3 526 956 

25 578 

244 205 

818 424 

1 771 

5 935 

AT 

BE 

FR 

DE 

IE 

LU 

NL 

CH 

576 107 

787 133 

2 885 383 

9 222 141 

79 322 

108 617 

584 066 

946 109 

2 476 

3 383 

12 400 

39 633 

341 

467 

2 510 

4 066 

Total 

15 188 877 

65 275 

38 661 

6 529 

13 165 

6 949 

65 864 

3 812 

57 342 

48 416 

39 925 

242 003 

1 716 

127 890 

8 855 

29 677 

62 501 

10 555 

21 284 

11 235 

106 481 

6 162 

92 704 

78 272 

64 546 

391 238 

2 717 

202 492 

14 020 

46 988 

67 656 

11 643 

23 478 

12 393 

117 458 

6 798 

102 261 

86 342 

71 200 

431 572 

3 060 

228 070 

15 791 

52 923 

16 093 

21 988 

80 601 

257 612 

2 216 

3 034 

16 315 

26 429 

424 288 

873 089 

27 234 

37 210 

136 401 

435 959 

3 750 

5 135 

27 611 

44 725 

29 710 

40 593 

148 801 

475 592 

4 091 

5 601 

30 121 

48 791 

718 026 

783 301 

1 437 982 

1 582 373 

Total 

4 636 905 

33 627 

168 137 

266 217 

299 844 

28 574 281 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

164 391 

Total 

For  rail  freight,  the  methodology  for  estimating  cost  savings  due  to  improvements  in 
punctuality included the following steps and assumptions: 

Step 1: Estimate the economic value of delays: 

  Taking data from studies in Germany as reference253; 
  The values of delay are  derived from surveys and statistical analysis for different 

commodity groups. 

  Purchasing  power  parities  (Eurostat)  are  applied  for  adjusting  to  country  price 

conditions and estimate the values of delay in all Member States. 

Step 2: Establish the future commodity mix over the next decades254 

253  PTV,  TCI  und  H.-U.  Mann  (2015):  Methodenhandbuch  zum  Bundesverkehrswegeplan  2030.  Freiburg 
and  BVU  und  TNS  Infratext  (2016);  Entwicklugn  eines  Modells  zur  Berechnung  von  modalen 
für  die 
Verlagerungen 
Bundesverkehrswegeplanung. Freiburg. 

für  die  Ableitung  konsistenter  Bewertungsansätze 

im  Güterverkehr 

EN 

190 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Use data on present shares of transported commodities 
  Estimate  the  decrease  in  the  transport  volumes  until  2050,  more  specifically  of 
traditional train cargo goods, as coal and other fossil fuels will be phased out (in 
line with the European Green Deal). 

  Estimate  the  commodity  groups  to  be  gained  by  railway  transport,  which  are 

currently not transported by rail. 

  Determine the composition of future commodity mix. 

Step 3: Derive average values of delay per wagon-minute. 

Step 4: Match values of delay, PPP and delay minutes for all policy options. 

Step 5: Calculate costs savings for 2030, 2040 and 2050 and applying linear interpolation 
for the years in-between. 

Delays are available per train, so for freight 30 wagons per trains were assumed. 

Cost  savings  for  freight  RUs,  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  relative  to  the 
baseline are provided in Table .  

Table 56: Benefits from punctuality/reliability gains for freight  rail, expressed as  present  value over 
2025-2050, in million EUR (2021 prices) 
Option 

PO3 

PO2 

PO1 

PO4 

Benefits from 
punctuality/reliability 
gains  

53.4 

407.5 

509.8 

520.3 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

For  passenger  rail,  the  methodology  for  estimating  cost  savings  due  to  improvements  in 
punctuality included the following steps and assumptions: 

Step 1: Estimate the average number of passengers per train for all Member States using 
statistics on train-km and passenger-km and the number of passengers as a proxy.  

Step  2:  Estimate  the  share  of  passenger  category  per  travel  purposes  (work,  leisure, 
etc.255). 

Step 3: Estimate the willingness-to-pay using value of travel figures from literature for the 
different categories of travel purposes256. 

Step  4:  Weigh  the  willingness  to  pay  for  the  different  categories  with  PPP  to  reflect 
income differences between Member States. 

254  The  estimates  were  based  on  expert  opinion  and  the  following  studies:  Umweltbundesamt  (2022): 
Handlungsoptionen für eine ökologische Gestaltung der Transportmittelwahl im Güterfernverkehr, UBA 
Texte  50/22;  Umweltbundesamt  (2022):  Handlungsoptionen  für  eine  ökologische  Gestaltung  der 
Langstreckenmobilität im Personen- und Güterverkehr. UBA Texte 52/22. 

255 Using the study PTV, TCI und H.-U. Mann (2015): Methodenhandbuch zum Bundesverkehrswegeplan 

2030, Freiburg. 

256 Values taken from the study BVU und TNS Infratext (2016); Entwicklugn eines Modells zur Berechnung 
von modalen Verlagerungen im Güterverkehr für die Ableitung konsistenter Bewertungsansätze für die 
Bundesverkehrswegeplanung, Freiburg. 

EN 

191 

  EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                               
Step 5: Calculate costs savings for 2030, 2040 and 2050 and applying linear interpolation 
for the years in-between. 

Cost savings for passenger RUs, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the 
baseline are provided in Table 57.  

Table  57:  Benefits  from  punctuality/reliability  gains  for  passenger  rail,  expressed  as  present  value 
over 2025-2050, in million EUR (2021 prices) 
Option 

PO3 

PO2 

PO1 

PO4 

Benefits 
punctuality/reliability 
gains  

from 

19.3 

93.8 

148.2 

144.7 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

4.3.  Impacts on temporary capacity restrictions 

Temporary  capacity  restrictions  (TCRs)  are  a  major  issue  for  rail.  A  number  of  policy 
measures address the problem. The estimation of their impact is focused on identifying the 
scale of the effects. Providing a more detailed estimate, which would include estimates of 
cost savings for the different stakeholders, is not possible due to lack of sufficient data on 
costs (for IMs, RUs, etc.) and implemented versus planned works. 

The analysis included the following steps: 

Step 1: Identify the share of international traffic using RMMS figures and provide average 
values  for  4  regions  (northern  Europe,  central  and  eastern  Europe,  southern  Europe  and 
western  Europe).  Some  measures  focus  on  cross-border  coordination  and  thus  have  a 
bigger effect on cross-border traffic. 

Step  2:  Use  the  number  and  duration  of  existing  TCRs  (over  16 500  cases  collected  by 
RFCs)  to  establish  3  categories  of  works  depending  on  their  impact:  high,  medium  and 
low.  Each  of  those  3  categories  results  in  a  different  combination  of  4  outcomes 
(cancellations; re-routings; operative disruptions, which still allow trains to use the regular 
route; no impact on the trains). 

Step 3: Assign an impact factor (using 4 categories: high, medium, low and no impact) for 
each policy measure on each of the four possible outcomes from the TCRs. 

Step 4: Calculate the impact from the different policy measures on freight and passenger 
and sum up the effects per policy option. 

The overall result indicates the potential effect (positive or negative) that the measures can 
have  expressed  in  percentage  terms.  It  was  not  possible  to  translate  this  effect  into 
physical  units  (e.g.  reduction  in  number  of  cancelled  trains,  train  kilometres  saved  from 
avoided  or  improved  re-routing,  etc.),  as  such  an  analysis  would  be  very  complex  and 
would  require  voluminous  data.  Consequently,  it  was  also  not  possible  to  monetise  the 
positive effect of the measures, even though it is clear that they can result in considerable 
cost savings for RUs (e.g. by reducing the number of cancelled trains), but also for other 
stakeholders. 

EN 

192 

  EN 

 
Table 58: Potential effect of the policy options on the TCR for total rail  

Development TCR impact: total 

Region 

TCR impact 
PO1 

TCR impact 
PO2 

TCR impact 
PO3 

TCR impact 
PO4 

Northern Europe 

Central and eastern Europe 

Southern Europe 

Western Europe 

-4.9% 

-6.3% 

-5.4% 

-5.8% 

-13.1% 

-11.9% 

-11.2% 

-11.6% 

Europe total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

-5.8% 

-11.8% 

-16.7% 

-16.3% 

-14.6% 

-15.6% 

-15.8% 

-17.5% 

-16.5% 

-15.2% 

-15.9% 

-16.1% 

Some  policy  measures  have  a  bigger  impact  on  cross-border  traffic,  which  is 
predominantly freight, hence the results differ between passenger and freight. 

Table 59: Potential effect of the policy options on the TCR for rail freight  

Development TCR impact: freight 

Region 

TCR impact 
PO1 

TCR impact 
PO2 

TCR impact 
PO3 

TCR impact 
PO4 

Northern Europe 

Central and eastern Europe 

Southern Europe 

Western Europe 

-8.1% 

-9.6% 

-9.1% 

-9.5% 

-14.4% 

-13.2% 

-12.5% 

-13.0% 

Europe total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

-9.3% 

-13.2% 

-20.0% 

-18.9% 

-17.6% 

-18.5% 

-18.7% 

-20.6% 

-18.9% 

-18.0% 

-18.6% 

-18.8% 

Table 60: Potential effect of the policy options on the TCR for passenger rail  

Development TCR impact: passenger 

Region 

Northern Europe 
Central and eastern Europe 
Southern Europe 
Western Europe 
Europe total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

TCR impact 
PO1 
-4.1% 
-5.0% 
-4.7% 
-5.0% 
-4.9% 

TCR impact 
PO2 
-12.8% 
-11.4% 
-11.0% 
-11.3% 
-11.4% 

TCR impact 
PO3 
-15.8% 
-15.3% 
-14.1% 
-15.0% 
-15.1% 

TCR impact 
PO4 
-16.7% 
-15.5% 
-14.7% 
-15.3% 
-15.4% 

4.4.  Impacts on the reliability of rail transport services 

The approach to estimating the impacts of the policy measures on reliability is similar to 
the one  for TCRs. The  differences  come  from  the nature of the challenges to  reliability, 
which for the purpose of the impact assessment are considered to be incidents. This adds 
an additional dimension, namely the probability of such an incident.  

Step 1: Identify the share of international traffic using RMMS figures and provide average 
values  for  4  regions  (northern  Europe,  central  and  eastern  Europe,  southern  Europe  and 
western  Europe).  Some  measure  focus  on  cross-border  coordination  and  thus  have  a 
bigger effect on cross-border traffic. 

EN 

193 

  EN 

 
Step  2:  Use  data  from  RNE  on  the  sections  (both  directions)  Vienna-Bruck;  Divaca–
Koper; Vienna-Bratislava to establish assumptions for the: 

  Type of incidents;  
  Effect of incidents on traffic (the effect being expressed in 4 outcomes: cancellations; 
re-routings;  operative disruptions, which still allow trains  to  use the regular route;  no 
impact on the trains); 

  Number  of  affected  trains  per  day  on  a  line  where  a  certain  type  of  incident  might 
occur:  for  example,  the  data  showed  that  low-impact  incidents  are  often  caused  by 
people (overcrowded trains, bomb warnings on large train stations, suicides, etc.) and 
are  more  likely  to  happen  on  network  sections  with  a  higher  transport  volume. 
Weather-related  incidents  (e.g.  freezing  temperatures)  happen  indiscriminately  of  the 
train volume. 

Step 3: Apply probability factors on the occurrence of the different types of incidents for 
the 4 different regions. 

Step 4: Assign an impact factor (using 4 categories: high, medium, low and no impact) for 
each policy measure on each of the four possible outcomes from the incidents. 

Step 5: Calculate the impact from the different policy measures on freight and passenger 
and sum up the effects per policy option. 

Similar to the case of estimating the impact of policy measures on TCRs, the overall result 
indicates the potential effect (positive or negative) that the measures can have expressed in 
percentage  terms.  It  was  not  possible  to  translate  this  effect  into  physical  units  (e.g. 
reduction in number of cancelled trains, train kilometres saved from avoided or improved 
re-routing,  etc.),  as  such  an  analysis  would  be  very  complex  and  would  require 
voluminous data. Consequently, it was also not possible to monetise the positive effect of 
the  measures,  even  though  it  is  clear  that  they  can  result  in  cost  savings  for  many 
stakeholder groups. 

Table 61: Potential effect of the policy options on the reliability: total rail  

Total 

Region 

Incident 
impact 
PO1 

Incident 
impact 
PO2 

Incident 
impact 
PO3 

Northern Europe 

Central and eastern Europe 

Southern Europe 

Western Europe 

-1.9% 

-2.1% 

-1.6% 

-1.9% 

-2.6% 

-2.7% 

-2.4% 

-2.5% 

-5.5% 

-5.9% 

-4.9% 

-5.4% 

Incident 
impact 
PO4 

-17.8% 

-18.5% 

-16.2% 

-17.6% 

Europe total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

-1.93% 

-2.55% 

-5.51% 

-17.70% 

Incidents  tend  to  impact  freight  more  than  passenger  traffic  due  to  the  longer  routes  of 
freight trains. Therefore, the impacts were estimated separately. 

Table 62: Potential effect of the policy options on the reliability: freight rail  

EN 

Freight 

194 

  EN 

 
Region 

Freight 
rail 
traffic 
(million 
train 
km) 

% 

Incident 
impact 
PO1 

Incident 
impact 
PO2 

Incident 
impact 
PO3 

Incident 
impact 
PO4 

Northern Europe 

75.82 

10.1% 

Central and eastern Europe 

194.57 

26.0% 

Southern Europe 

Western Europe 

78.75 

10.5% 

398.11 

53.3% 

-2.5% 

-2.5% 

-2.5% 

-2.5% 

-5.3% 

-5.1% 

-5.9% 

-5.3% 

-9.0% 

-8.8% 

-9.5% 

-9.0% 

-22.0% 

-22.2% 

-21.6% 

-22.0% 

-2.51% 
Europe total 
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

100.0% 

747.25 

-5.28% 

-9.00% 

-22.03% 

Table 63: Potential effect of the policy options on the reliability: passenger rail 

Passenger 

Region 

Northern Europe 

Central and eastern Europe 

Southern Europe 

Western Europe 

Europe total 

Pax rail 
traffic 
(million 
train km) 

287.39 

508.62 

429.67 

1 694.50 

% 

9.8% 

17.4% 

14.7% 

58.0% 

Incident 
impact 
PO1 

Incident 
impact 
PO2 

Incident 
impact 
PO3 

Incident 
impact 
PO4 

-1.8% 

-1.9% 

-1.5% 

-1.8% 

-1.8% 

-1.9% 

-1.8% 

-1.8% 

-4.6% 

-4.8% 

-4.1% 

-4.6% 

-16.7% 

-17.1% 

-15.2% 

-16.6% 

2 920.19 

100.0% 

-1.78% 

-1.85% 

-4.62% 

-16.60% 

4.5.  Impacts on rail transport activity per policy option 

This section shows the impacts of the policy options on rail transport activity, by Member 
State. The estimation is based on the ASTRA model and is linked to the quantification of 
direct impacts. 

The assessment of the impacts per policy options is based on the following assumptions: 

  All  additional  available  train  paths  are  entirely  allocated  to  passenger  and  freight 

transport.  

  The  demand  for  additional  rail  paths  fully  matches  the  new  supply,  meaning  that  all 

additional train paths result in additional traffic.  

The impacts  of the policy  options on the  rail freight  activity in terms  of train-km  at EU 
level is presented in Table 64. 

Table  64:  Impacts  of  the  policy  options  on  rail  freight  activity  in  terms  of  train-km  at  EU  level, 
relative to the baseline  

Baseline (million train-km) 
% changes to the baseline 

PO1 
PO2 
PO3 
PO4 

EN 

2020 

2030 

2040 

2050 

746 

1 228 

1 448 

1 633 

0.2% 
1.7% 
2.7% 
3.5% 

0.2% 
1.9% 
3.6% 
5.6% 

0.2% 
2.2% 
3.9% 
6.7% 

195 

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

The impacts of the policy options on the passenger rail activity in terms of train-km at EU 
level is presented in Table 65. 

Table 65: Impacts of the policy options on passenger rail activity in terms of train-km at EU level  
2050 

2020 

2040 

2030 

Baseline (million train-km) 
% changes to the baseline 

PO1 
PO2 
PO3 
PO4 

2 588 

3 328 

4 109 

4 590 

0.2% 
1.7% 
2.8% 
3.6% 

0.2% 
2.0% 
3.8% 
5.9% 

0.2% 
2.3% 
4.0% 
7.0% 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

The impacts of the policy options on rail freight activity in tonnes-kilometres, by Member 
State, relative to the baseline are provided in Table 66 to Table 69.  

EN 

196 

  EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Table  66:  Impacts  of  PO1  on  rail  freight  activity  (expressed  in  tonne-km)  –  percentage  changes 
relative to the baseline 

Rail freight activity (% change to the baseline) 

AT 

BE 

DK 

ES 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

IE 

IT 

NL 

PT 

SE 

BG 

CZ 

EE 

HU 

LV 

LT 

PL 

RO 

SI 

SK 

LU 

HR 

EU level 

2030 

0.1% 

0.4% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.2% 

0.4% 

5.3% 

0.1% 

0.4% 

0.1% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.3% 

0.0% 

0.1% 

0.3% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.5% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

2040 

0.2% 

0.5% 

0.4% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.3% 

0.4% 

2.6% 

0.1% 

0.6% 

0.1% 

0.4% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

1.0% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.5% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.5% 

0.1% 

0.2% 

2050 

0.3% 

0.8% 

0.5% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.2% 

0.4% 

0.4% 

2.0% 

0.2% 

0.7% 

0.1% 

0.4% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

1.2% 

0.1% 

0.3% 

0.6% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.7% 

0.3% 

0.3% 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

Table  67:  Impacts  of  PO2  on  rail  freight  activity  (expressed  in  tonne-km)  –  percentage  changes 
relative to the baseline 

Rail freight activity (% change to the baseline) 

AT 

BE 

DK 

ES 

FI 

FR 

EN 

2030 

1.4% 

2.1% 

4.1% 

2.6% 

3.4% 

1.4% 

2040 

1.5% 

2.4% 

5.0% 

3.5% 

3.5% 

1.5% 

2050 

1.6% 

2.6% 

5.0% 

4.0% 

3.9% 

1.8% 

197 

  EN 

 
  
  
Rail freight activity (% change to the baseline) 

DE 

EL 

IE 

IT 

NL 

PT 

SE 

BG 

CZ 

EE 

HU 

LV 

LT 

PL 

RO 

SI 

SK 

LU 

HR 

EU level 

2030 

2.0% 

3.4% 

5.4% 

1.7% 

2.1% 

2.0% 

4.1% 

1.9% 

1.9% 

1.1% 

1.2% 

0.4% 

0.9% 

1.5% 

1.8% 

1.6% 

1.5% 

3.0% 

3.1% 

1.8% 

2040 

2.2% 

4.3% 

2.8% 

2.0% 

2.3% 

3.3% 

5.1% 

1.8% 

2.2% 

2.7% 

1.4% 

0.5% 

1.3% 

1.7% 

2.6% 

1.9% 

1.7% 

2.4% 

4.1% 

2.1% 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

2050 

2.5% 

5.5% 

2.3% 

2.5% 

3.0% 

4.6% 

5.0% 

3.4% 

2.2% 

2.7% 

1.6% 

0.7% 

1.6% 

1.8% 

2.7% 

1.9% 

1.7% 

2.7% 

5.4% 

2.4% 

EN 

198 

  EN 

 
  
Table  68:  Impacts  of  PO3  on  rail  freight  activity  (expressed  in  tonne-km)  –  percentage  changes 
relative to the baseline 

Rail freight activity (% change to the baseline) 

AT 

BE 

DK 

ES 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

IE 

IT 

NL 

PT 

SE 

BG 

CZ 

EE 

HU 

LV 

LT 

PL 

RO 

SI 

SK 

LU 

HR 

EU level 

2030 

2.4% 

3.3% 

5.0% 

4.9% 

4.3% 

2.8% 

3.3% 

3.9% 

5.5% 

3.6% 

3.6% 

2.2% 

4.8% 

2.0% 

2.6% 

1.1% 

1.5% 

0.4% 

0.9% 

2.0% 

1.9% 

2.1% 

1.9% 

4.4% 

3.3% 

2.7% 

2040 

3.0% 

4.5% 

8.0% 

6.5% 

4.7% 

2.9% 

4.3% 

5.1% 

3.1% 

3.5% 

3.9% 

3.6% 

7.8% 

1.7% 

3.7% 

2.7% 

1.9% 

0.6% 

1.3% 

2.7% 

2.8% 

2.9% 

2.7% 

3.7% 

4.4% 

3.6% 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

2050 

3.2% 

5.1% 

8.0% 

6.8% 

6.5% 

3.3% 

4.5% 

6.7% 

2.6% 

4.7% 

5.8% 

5.0% 

7.5% 

4.5% 

3.7% 

3.2% 

2.8% 

0.8% 

1.7% 

3.0% 

3.0% 

3.7% 

3.0% 

4.1% 

7.8% 

4.0% 

EN 

199 

  EN 

 
  
Table 69: Impacts of PO4 on rail freight activity (expressed in tonne-km) – percentage changes 
relative to the baseline 

Rail freight activity (% change to the baseline) 

AT 

BE 

DK 

ES 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

IE 

IT 

NL 

PT 

SE 

BG 

CZ 

EE 

HU 

LV 

LT 

PL 

RO 

SI 

SK 

LU 

HR 

EU level 

2030 

2.5% 

3.4% 

6.9% 

5.1% 

5.6% 

2.9% 

4.1% 

3.9% 

5.6% 

3.6% 

3.6% 

2.3% 

5.9% 

2.0% 

3.0% 

1.2% 

1.6% 

0.4% 

1.0% 

2.7% 

2.7% 

2.1% 

2.0% 

4.4% 

3.3% 

3.3% 

2040 

3.9% 

5.6% 

10.7% 

10.8% 

8.2% 

5.1% 

6.7% 

6.7% 

3.9% 

2.9% 

4.4% 

4.9% 

10.3% 

2.0% 

4.9% 

3.2% 

2.4% 

0.7% 

1.6% 

4.0% 

4.2% 

3.4% 

3.4% 

5.2% 

5.5% 

5.2% 

2050 

4.8% 

7.8% 

13.0% 

14.4% 

9.8% 

7.9% 

8.0% 

10.8% 

3.8% 

9.4% 

9.8% 

7.3% 

11.9% 

6.1% 

5.6% 

4.0% 

2.8% 

1.0% 

2.2% 

4.9% 

3.8% 

5.5% 

4.2% 

7.1% 

13.2% 

6.7% 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

4.6.  Sensitivity analysis 

It  should  be  noted  however  that  there  is  high  uncertainty  regarding  the  estimates  of  the 
impacts  of the policy measures on infrastructure capacity are described in  section  4.1 of 
this  Annex.  As  explained  in  section  8.4  of  the  impact  assessment,  there  are  two  main 
factors  that  create  uncertainty:  the  higher  level  of  complexity  and  ambition  of  a  policy 
option  and  the  effectiveness  of  the  coordination  between  infrastructure  managers  and 
ENIM regarding traffic that goes both on TEN-T lines and the rest of the network. 

Section  8.4  of  the  impact  assessment  presents  the  assumptions  and  the  effect  of  the 
uncertainty on the estimates of available capacity for all POs, as well as the effect on the 
direct  benefits  for  POs  3  and  4.  The  latter  two  were  selected  as  they  had  the  highest 
benefit to cost ratio. 
EN 

200 

  EN 

 
  
It should be noted that these have a relatively high impact on the benefits of the POs (both 
direct and indirect), but a relatively limited impact on the cost estimates. The latter is due 
to the fact that the cost of most policy measures are not directly dependent on traffic. The 
reason  is  that  many  of  the  measures  concern  the  establishment  of  new  rules  and 
procedures  and  setting  up  the  necessary  structures  to  ensure  their  implementation.  Only 
PM21 (included in POs 3 and 4) and PM22 (included in PO4) depend on traffic volumes, 
as these PMs cover activities related to coordinating and planning traffic. 

The results of the sensitivity analysis on freight transport activity for POs 3 and 4 (upper 
bounds and lower bounds) are presented in the tables below, and compared to the central 
value estimates.  

The results of the sensitivity  analysis on the available capacity  were used to  analyse the 
effect of the uncertainty on the direct benefits. This analysis was only carried out for POs 
3 and 4, which have the highest benefit to cost ratios as shown in section 7.2.  

Table 70: Direct benefits stemming from the additional freight and passenger capacity for  sensitivity 
analysis on PO3 and PO4, expressed as present value over 2025-2050 relative to the baseline, in EUR 
million (in 2021 prices) 

Policy option 3 

Policy option 4 

Lower 
bound 

Central 
value 

Upper 
bound 

Lower 
bound 

Central 
value 

Upper 
bound 

1 148.1 

1 525.1 

1 606.7 

916.2 

1 653.3 

1 845.2 

541.9 

1 050.6 

1 157.7 

570.1 

1 105.8 

1 219.0 

Direct benefits from a 
capacity increase – 
freight 

Direct benefits from a 
capacity increase - 
passenger 

Total 

1 690.0 

2 575.7 

2 764.4 

1 486.3 

2 759.1 

3 064.2 

Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study 

The  sensitivity  analysis  shows  that  PO4  results  in  considerably  lower  direct  benefits 
(increase of capacity) for the lower bound (even below the lower bound of PO3) compared 
to the central value, whereas PO3 shows lower degree of uncertainty. 

The  impact  of  the  available  capacity  on  the  external  costs  under  the  upper  and  lower 
bound cases is shown in the table below. 

EN 

201 

  EN 

 
 
  
Table  71:  Reduction  in  external  costs,  expressed  as  present  value  over  2025-2050  compared  to  the 
baseline, in EUR million (2021 prices) (UB – upper bounds; LB – lower bounds; CV – central value) 
Air 
pollutants 

Fatalities 
and injuries 

Road 
congestion 

External cost 

Total 

CO2 

Policy option 3 - UB 

Policy option 3 - CV 

Policy option 3 - LB 

Policy option 4 - UB 

Policy option 4 - CV 

Policy option 4 - LB 

3 416 

3 309 

2 404 

5 417 

4 979 

2 534 

709 

681 

487 

1 132 

1 027 

527 

2 945 

2 802 

2 100 

4 632 

4 194 

2 177 

2 490 

2 375 

1 770 

3 888 

3 531 

1 825 

9 559 

9 167 

6 762 

15 069 

13 730 

7 064 

Source: Ecorys et al. (2023), impact assessment support study  

Similar to the effects on the direct impacts, the effect on external costs is most noticeable 
for the lower bound of PO4. 

EN 

202 

  EN 

 
 
ANNEX 5: DATA AND INFORMATION ABOUT THE RAIL SECTOR 

1.  Uncoordinated temporary capacity restrictions (TCRs) 

Annex  VII  of  Directive  2012/34/EU  obliges  IMs  to  publish  all  capacity  restrictions  and  the 
preliminary results of a consultation with the applicants for TCRs of more than 7 consecutive days 
and for which more than 30% of the estimated traffic volume on a railway line per day is cancelled, 
re-routed  or  replaced  by  other  modes  of  transport.  The  impact  assessment  support  study  was  not 
focused on reporting statistics on the implementation of the Annex, but rather on identifying cases 
where TCRs had a considerable adverse effect on traffic. Therefore the information collected in the 
external  support  study  includes  mostly  input  from  RUs  and  stakeholder  organisations.  The 
examples collected demonstrate a number of issues with TCRs and how they affect rail traffic. 

Increase in the number of works affecting rail 

The support study collected information about the high number of works planned or implemented 
in 2022. Although the evidence is anecdotal, RUs and other stakeholders have expressed concerns 
in  meetings  with  the  Commission  services  related  to  the  increase  in  number  of  planned  works, 
following lengthy periods of poor network maintenance. This increase is illustrated by some figures 
in the support study referring to the number of works in Germany, Poland and Slovakia. 

Frequent changes to the initial planning for the works 

Another  grievance  of  RUs  is  the  poor  implementation  of  the  schedules  for  rail  infrastructure 
maintenance. The support study refers to examples in Belgium where a large number of TCRs were 
cancelled  or  changed.  Such  changes  mean  that  the  cancelled  works  would  need  to  be  carried  out 
later  on.  This  could  result  in  additional  cancellations  by  RUs,  which  may  not  able  to  use  the 
available capacity if the changes to the works are announced late, and may need to cancel services 
when the works actually take place.  

Lack of coordination of works between IMs  

The support study provides several examples of poorly coordinated infrastructure works by IMs in 
several  Member  States  and  also  with  a  third  country.  These  uncoordinated  works  can  result  in 
reductions or even complete cancellations of rail freight services (one example quoted a full closure 
for a week). 

Late announcement of works 

Despite  the  legal  obligations  on  providing  information  on  the  planning  on  works  in  a  timely 
manner,  laid  down  in  the  Recast  Directive,  the  support  study  collected  examples  of  late 
announcements of works. These included situations where some IMs could not construct alternative 
train  paths  on  time  or  where  limitations  (e.g.  no  use  of  electric  locomotives)  were  not 
communicated early enough. 

Further details are available in the section ‘Uncoordinated temporary capacity restrictions (TCRs)’ 
in Annex 6 of the support study. 

EN 

203 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  Reliability of rail services 

The share of cancelled train services is used as an indicator of reliability. The information on the 
reliability of rail is collected for both passengers and freight services since 2015 and is published 
biannually (see RMMS reports).  

Reliability data are not comprehensive, as data for passenger and especially for rail freight services 
in the EU is not provided consistently by all Member States.. 

For  passenger  services,  data  are  broken  down  in  two  categories:  regional  and  local  services;  and 
long-distance and high-speed services. For freight, the breakdown distinguishes between domestic 
and  international  services.  The  data  on  the  reliability  of  freight  services  shows  considerable 
differences between Member States, which reflects both different national circumstances as well as 
differences in definitions resulting in data quality issues. 

Despite the data limitations, however, a clear difference in reliability of passenger and freight can 
be observed, with  freight  services being subject  to  cancellations  much more often than passenger 
services. This  is  especially true until  2019:  owing to  the Covid-2019 pandemics,  in  the course of 
2020  a  considerable  portion  of  all  rail  passenger  services  was  cancelled  due  to  the  successive 
restrictions  to  the  mobility  of  persons,  particularly  on  international  services.  Rail  freight  services 
were  affected  to  a  lower  extent.  Preliminary  data  for  2021  and  2022  show  that  reliability  is 
increasing and can be assumed to gradually return to pre-pandemics levels. 

The  figures  below  show  the  percentage  of  cancelled  trains  for  long-distance  and  high-speed 
passenger rail257 and for freight services. Several Member States report cancellations at or above 
30% for freight.  Ireland reported the highest domestic cancellation rate with 62.2%, and Bulgaria 
the highest international cancellation rate with 55%. On the passengers’ side, up until the outbreak 
of the pandemics cancellations were typically below 2%. 

257  Freight  is  normally  competitive  on  long  distances  (usually  above  300 km),  hence  the  comparison  is  drawn  with 
long-distance and high-speed passenger rail. 

EN 

204 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 12: Reliability of long-distance and high-speed passenger services per country (%, 2015-2020) 

Source: RMMS, 2022. No 2015 data for LU, ES and LV, and 2019 for EL and HR. 

Figure 13: Reliability of domestic and international freight services (% of cancellations in 2020) 

Source:  RMMS,  2022.  No  data  for  BE,  HR;  CZ,  FR  and  NL.  No  data  for  international  freight  services  cancelled  in 
2020 in IE, FI, RO, ES and EL.  

Reliability issues prove to be particularly problematic when they concern cross-border traffic. On 
this  particular  subject,  the  evaluation  of  the  RFC  Regulation  identified  four  key  challenges 

EN 

205 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
affecting  the  effectiveness  of  cross-border  coordination  in  the  event  of  disturbances  on  the  rail 
network: 

  Limited  availability  of  diversionary  routes  with  appropriate  infrastructure  parameters  (e.g. 

electrification, loading gauge, etc.). 

  Barriers  related  to  operational  and  safety-related  requirements  (e.g.  requirements  for  train 
drivers  as  regards  knowledge  of  operational  rules  and  language),  in  particular  if 
diversionary routes involve a network not part of the normal itinerary. 

  Limited  ability  of  infrastructure  managers  to  provide  –  possibly  significant  amounts  of  – 
capacity on diversionary routes on short notice, in particular if more than one infrastructure 
manager is concerned. 

  Lack of cooperation between railway undertakings, e.g. by applying prohibitive pricing for 
traction services provided by railway undertakings able to operate on the alternative routes. 

3.  Punctuality of rail services 

The share of rail services arriving on time is used as an indicator of punctuality.  

RMMS  reports  provide  an  overview  of  punctuality  for  passenger  and  freight  services.  Like  for 
reliability, 

  For passenger services, data is available for two categories: regional and local services; and 

long-distance and high-speed services 

  For freight, data is available for domestic and for international freight services 

The  data  for  freight  shows  considerable  differences  between  Member  States,  which  reflects 
different national circumstances, but it might also suggest data quality issues. 

Despite  the  data  limitations,  a  clear  difference  in  reliability  of  passenger  and  freight  can  be 
observed,  with  freight  services  being  less  punctual.  It  should  be  noted  that  passenger  trains  are 
considered on time if their arrival is within 5 minutes of the scheduled time, while for freight the 
threshold is 15 minutes. The figures below show the percentage of trains arriving on time for long-
distance and high-speed passenger rail and for freight services. 

According  to  data  reported  in  RMMS,  international  services  suffer  from  poor  punctuality  since 
services running on time258 on average were slightly above 60% in 2019 and declined to less than 
50%  in  2020.  Although  limited,  the  information  available  shows  that  the  punctuality  of  cross-
border rail freight services is highly variable at country level. However, 2020 EU averages clearly 
show that freight services perform worse than passenger ones in terms of punctuality. 

258  RMMS defines freight services arriving on time as those having a delay of 15 minutes or less. 

EN 

206 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure  14: Punctuality  of  long-distance  and  high-speed  passenger  services  per  country  (%,  2015  and 
2018-2020) 

Source: RMMS, 2022. No 2015 data for EE, ES and LU, 2019 for EL and EE and 2020 for EE. 

EN 

207 

EN 

 
 
 
 
Figure 15: Punctuality of domestic and international freight services per country (%, 2019 and 2020) 

Source: RMMS, 2022. Data for ES, IE, FI,  NL, FR, RO, and EL  on international freight  services not  available. Data for 
2019 on domestic freight services for EE and EL not available. 

The problems of rail freight in terms of punctuality are further described by the data provided by 
the RFCs. In regard to punctuality  along the RFCs, the tables below provide data on the share of 
freight trains running punctual at origin and at destination (i.e., with a delay ≤ 30 minutes259), i.e. at 
the entry and at the exit points of the rail freight corridors respectively. The data shows how delays 
often occur at departure and increase as the train is running. 

259 Unlike RMMS, RFCs apply a limit of 30 instead of 15 minutes to measure freight trains’ punctuality. 

EN 

208 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 72: Punctuality at origin (RFC entry) (share of trains with delay ≤ 30 minutes, 2018, 2019, 2020) 
2018 

Corridor 

2019 

2020 

RFC1 – Rhine Alpine 

RFC2 - North Sea Mediterranean 

RFC3 - Scandinavian Mediterranean 

RFC4 - Atlantic 

RFC5 - Baltic Adriatic 

RFC6 - Mediterranean 

RFC7 - Orient/East Med 

RFC8 - North Sea Baltic 

RFC9 - Rhine Danube 

RFC10 - Alpine Western Balkan* 

RFC11 – Amber** 

65.0% 

78.0% 

70.0% 

- 

44.0% 

56.0% 

44.0% 

55.0% 

47.0% 

- 

- 

66.0% 

78.0% 

70.0% 

- 

48.0% 

56.0% 

45.0% 

56.0% 

38.0% 

- 

- 

70.0% 

78.5% 

71.0% 

81.8% 

50.0% 

64.0% 

47.0% 

57.0% 

44.0% 

- 

45.0% 

Note: *RFC in operation since 2020; **RFC in operation since 2019 

Source: Impact assessment support study report (Ecorys et al., 2023) based on RNE data. 

Table 73: Punctuality at destination (RFC exit) (share of trains with delay ≤ 30 minutes, 2018, 2019, 2020) 
2018 

Corridor 

2019 

2020 

RFC1 – Rhine Alpine 

RFC2 - North Sea Mediterranean 

RFC3 - Scandinavian Mediterranean 

RFC4 - Atlantic 

RFC5 - Baltic Adriatic 

RFC6 - Mediterranean 

RFC7 - Orient/East Med 

RFC8 - North Sea Baltic 

RFC9 - Rhine Danube 

RFC10 - Alpine Western Balkan* 

RFC11 – Amber** 

55.0% 

70.0% 

59.0% 

- 

31.0% 

45.0% 

36.0% 

47.5% 

29.0% 

- 

- 

55.0% 

71.0% 

60.0% 

- 

32.0% 

43.0% 

35.0% 

45.0% 

22.0% 

- 

- 

59.0% 

71.5% 

64.0% 

78.1% 

38.0% 

52.0% 

36.0% 

48.0% 

28.5% 

- 

30.0% 

Note: *RFC in operation since 2020; **RFC in operation since 2019 

Source: Impact assessment support study report (Ecorys et al., 2023) based on RNE data. 

EN 

209 

EN 

 
 
 
4.  Punctuality of international trains at selected border crossing points 

This  data shows the additional delays accumulated by cross-border traffic, some of which can be 
addressed by better coordination between IMs. 

The  metrics  proposed  focus  on  the  difference  between  the  entry  and  exit  punctuality  at  selected 
border sections, as  defined for policy advice within  the RNE border section  project260. Entry  and 
exit  punctualities  are  measured  as  percentages  of  trains  arriving  in  or  leaving  the  border  section 
with a delay of less than 30 minutes for freight trains and less than 5 minutes for passenger trains. 
The  figures  are  calculated  as  averages  (over  2021)  weighted  on  the  yearly  number  of  trains 
considered  at  each location. Given that in  some cases trains  may  change number once they  cross 
borders and therefore may not be captured in the available dataset (i.e., unlinked numbers), the real 
traffic volumes at the borders could be higher than the figures considered.  

The data are calculated by RNE based on data in TIS and following the results of the RNE Border 
section  project.  The  border  sections  vary  in  length  from  10  to  30 km,  covering  both  sides  of  the 
border  and  all  major  points  where  procedures  related  to  border  crossing  normally  occur.  Only  a 
sample of the 250 border crossing points analysed for the EU network (i.e., the 31 border crossing 
points with the best data quality) was used to obtain the figures provided. 

On  average  (for  15  out  of  the  18  border  sections  with  both  freight  and  passenger  train  crossings 
reported),  the  punctuality  of  freight  trains  appears  to  be  lower  than  the  punctuality  of  passenger 
trains; the difference between entry and exit punctuality is more than 11% in eight border sections 
for freight services and in five border sections for passenger trains. 

260  See  RNE’s  website  for  further  information  (https://cms.rne.eu/printpdf/train-performance-mgmt/content/border-
performance-conference). 

EN 

210 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 16: Entry and exit punctuality at selected border sections (international freight trains, 2021) 

Source: Impact assessment support study report (Ecorys et al., 2023) based on ERA, 2022 Report on Railway Safety 
and Interoperability in the EU 

Figure 17: Entry and exit punctuality at selected border sections (international passenger trains, 2021) 

Source: Impact assessment support study report (Ecorys et al., 2023) based on ERA 2022 Report on Railway Safety 
and Interoperability in the EU 

EN 

211 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.  Speed of international rail freight services 

The collected information on the average timetabled speed of  cross-border rail freight  services in 
the EU is limited since not all Member States are covered.  

Although  limited,  the  evidence  collected  shows  that  the  average  timetable  speed  of  international 
freight  trains  in  the  EU  is  generally  low  and  this  leads  to  non-competitive  transit  times  in 
comparison  with  the  road  mode.  The  latest  data  reported  in  the  RMMS  Report  (see  table  below) 
shows  that  in  2020,  for  the  Member  States  for  which  information  is  available,  the  average 
timetabled speed of international freight services ranged from 27.0 km/h (Bulgaria) up to 71.3 km/h 
(Slovakia).  

Table 74: Average timetabled speed of international freight services per country (Km/h, 2018 and 2020) 

Country 

SI 

DK 

CZ 

IT 

ES 

FR 

LU 

PT 

SK 

BE 

LT 

LV 

HR 

PL 

BG 

RO 

NL 

HU 

EE 

2018 

70 

66.6 

60 

53 

52.3 

50.3 

50.1 

45.7 

44 

40.8 

38.2 

35.2 

28.5 

26.3 

24.5 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2020 

70 

67 

60 

53 

- 

50.0 

50.5 

41.1 

71.3 

40.9 

57.2 

38.2 

32.9 

31.0 

27.0 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Source: 8th RMMS Report 

EN 

212 

EN 

 
 
 
RFCs  could  not  improve  considerably  the  overall  speed  of  rail  freight.  In  2019  the  commercial 
speed261 along rail freight corridors ranged from 35 km/h (on the Orient/East-Med) to 62 km/h (on 
the Scandinavian-Mediterranean). 

Figure 18: Average commercial speed on RFCs (km/h, 2019) 

Source: Impact assessment support study report (Ecorys et al., 2023). Source: (Railistics GmbH & 
Econlab  Consulting, 2021)  RFC Baltic-Adriatic.  Measures necessary for  achieving  the objectives 
of the Transport Market Study 

It is  worth noting that  the data on timetable speed above does not  reflect the actual speed of  rail 
freight  services  in  operation,  which  is  typically  lower  than  the  planned  speed  due  to  delays  in 
operation. Moreover, door-to-door speed or (for intermodal traffic) terminal-to-terminal speed falls 
significantly  below  the  one  indicated  due  to  time-consuming  first/last  mile  operations  (terminals, 
shunting, distribution to private sidings). 

6.  Congested sections and overall length of rail networks 

The figure below shows the reported length of the national rail networks of the EU Member States 
plus  Norway.  There  is  no  data  for  Cyprus  and  Malta  since  these  Member  States  do  not  have 
railways. 

261 The planned speed of PaPs from origin to destination, which includes any required intermediate stops. 

EN 

213 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 19: Length of national networks per country (thousand line-km, 2020) and relative change (2015-2020) 

Source: 8th RMMS Report. 

Article 47 of the Recast Directive defines congested infrastructure. It covers two scenarios: 

- 

- 

Infrastructure which can no longer satisfy requests for infrastructure capacity adequately; 

Infrastructure which can be expected to suffer from insufficient capacity in the near future. 

The  first  scenario  envisages  that  the  IMs  should  first  complete  the  coordination  of  the  requested 
train paths and consultation with applicants, before they establish that a section of the infrastructure 
can no longer meet demand adequately. 

The two scenarios result in an immediate declaration by the IM that the section(s) is(are) congested. 
The  IM  then  has  to  carry  out  a  capacity  analysis  (Article  50  of  the  Recast  Directive)  and  within 
6 months of completion of the analysis produce a capacity-enhancement plan (Article 51 thereof). 
Failure to implement the plan could result in an obligation for the IM to stop levying track access 
charges for the congested infrastructure. 

The  stringent  requirements  on  how  IMs  are  required  to  address  congestions  create  incentives  to 
avoid declaring infrastructure as congested. The official figures on congestion are reported by IMs 
as follows: 

EN 

214 

EN 

 
 
 
 
Figure 20: Length of congested lines (2015-2020) in km 

Source: RMMS Report 2022 

Although  a  consistent  increase  in  the  length  of  congested  rail  infrastructure  is  observed  in  most 
Member  States  throughout  the  period,  the  impressive  increase  in  the  length  of  congested  tracks 
(more than eight times the 2015 level, almost quadruple for parts included in rail freight corridors) 
is largely due to a change in the criteria used to declare a section congested in Italy. 

The support study collected information from stakeholders on congested rail infrastructure and on 
potential  congestion.  Unfortunately,  stakeholders  provided  almost  no  information  on  the  future 
status of congestion, neither for 2030 nor for the other time horizons. Regarding the status of highly 
utilised lines, stakeholders provided no projections.  

However,  stakeholders  and  in  particular  RUs  provided  information  on  the  current  status  of 
congestion,  with  170  additional  congested  sections262.  The  input  shows  the  differences  in  the 
perception of IMs and other stakeholders of the state of the rail network. 

7.  Evidence of rail infrastructure capacity requested, allocated and used 

Currently the Recast  Directive and the RFC Regulation  set  the  framework for capacity  allocation 
with two intertwined streams. The Recast Directive sets the framework for the annual timetable and 
the  rules  for  ad  hoc  capacity  requests.  The  RFC  Regulation  defines  additional  rules  for  the  RFC 
lines for which the corridor one-stop shops offer PaPs as part of the annual timetabling process and 
reserve capacity to  respond to ad hoc requests. A simplified version of the timeline for preparing 
the  annual  timetable  including  PaPs  can  be  described  as  follows  (the  text  in  red  indicates  the 
actions related to RFCs): 

262 See Ecorys et al., 2023, Annex 6, section Congestion on the European rail network. 

EN 

215 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
EN 

216 

EN 

 
 
 
 
In  addition  to  the timeline above,  ad hoc  requests can be placed  after X-2 (deadline for late path 
requests)  until  X+12  (the  end  of  the  annual  timetable  period).  Ad  hoc  requests  fall  outside  the 
annual timetable (placed too late to be there or for an already running timetable). 

The  process  described  above,  combined  with  an  obligation  for  IMs  to  ‘meet  all  requests  for 
infrastructure capacity’263,  results in limited capacity remaining for ad hoc requests. This residual 
capacity  could  suffer  from  limitations  that  make  it  less  attractive,  especially  on  highly  utilised 
sections of the network. The reserve capacity in the RFC Regulation was intended to address this 
issue in regard to freight, but the Regulation was not implemented in a way that would allow for the 
effective use of reserve capacity264. 

The outcome is that RUs have an incentive to book capacity in the annual timetable, which means 
as early as 8 months (with a possibility for late request to be placed 2 months) before the start of the 
annual  timetable.  This  means  that  for  some  trains  running  in  the  end  of  the  annual  timetable  the 
planning  needs  to  be  ready  as  early  as  20  months  before  the  train  run.  For  some  rail  market 
segments and especially for many freight services, such an early planning is not feasible. Therefore, 
the  requests  placed  in  the  annual  timetable  are  normally  based  on  last-years  requests  and  RUs’ 
projections,  which  do  not  allow  for  precise  planning.  Reservation  charges  for  capacity  that  was 
ordered, but not used are optional, meaning that RUs often face no disincentives to engage in early 
booking of capacity.  

This  approach  results  in  some capacity  either not  being used, or capacity requests being  changed 
after the entry into effect of the annual timetable. 

There  is  no  comprehensive  statistics  on  cancelled  and  amended  capacity.  However,  anecdotal 
evidence shows that the issue is particularly problematic for congested and highly utilised lines and 
illustrates  how  significant  the  practice  of  booking  and  then  not  using  capacity  can  be.  Some 
examples collected in the support study show that in some cases less than 60% of the capacity that 
was ordered was actually used265. 

8.  Changes / modifications of timetable requests 

As explained in section 7 above, the existing rules on capacity allocation incentivise applicants to 
request capacity as part of the process of constructing the annual timetable, even if applicants are 
not  fully  aware  of  their  capacity  needs  for  the  whole  period  of  the  timetable.  One  of  the 
consequences  of  this  behaviour  is  that  capacity  requests  need  to  be  amended  later  on,  when  the 
applicant has more precise information about the capacity needed to provide a concrete rail service. 

There is no comprehensive overview of the process of submission, modification and cancellation of 
capacity requests for the whole EU rail network, but the support study did collect some statistical 
information from infrastructure managers and stakeholder organisations. 

Findings  from  the  Business  Case  study  of  the  TTR  Project  show  that  generally  the  number  of 
changes/modifications  of  the  annual  timetable  requests  initiated  by  IMs  and  freight  companies  is 

263 See in particular Article 45(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU. 
264 See the conclusions of the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 913/2010 for further details. 
265 See section Requested, allocated and used capacity of Annex 6 to Ecorys et al. (2023) for further details. 

EN 

217 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                           
more  than  two  times  higher  than  the  number  of  the  original  requests.  Changes  are  significantly 
higher  for  the  freight  applicants  than  for  the  passenger  applicants,  as  shown  in  the  table  below 
(Changes and modifications of path requests). 

Table 75: Changes and modifications of path requests (timetables for 2014, 2015, 2016) 

Total annual TT requests 

Freight applicants* 

Total modifications 

Passenger 
applicants** 

Infrastructure 
Managers*** 

% of total 

Total annual TT requests 

Total modifications 

% of total 

Total annual TT requests 

Total modifications (X-12 to X-0) 

% of total path requests 

TT 2014 

TT 2015 

TT 2016 

12 616 

28 887 

229% 

1 438 

1 012 

70% 

131 254 

291 010 

222% 

14 514 

32 420 

223% 

1 401 

1 013 

72% 

135 449 

284 767 

210% 

11 964 

28 893 

241% 

1 475 

1 050 

71% 

136 889 

309 971 

226% 

Notes:  
* Freight applicants SNCB Logistics, DB Cargo and BSL Cargo 
** Passenger applicants Trenitalia and DB Fernverkehr 
***Infrastructure manages SBB, ADF, DB, PKP, RFI, SNCF, SZDC 
Source:  (RNE  &  Forum  Train  Euroope,  2019)  Redesign  of  the  International  Timetabling  Process  (TTR)  -  Business 
Case. Draft version 3.0 

The RNE study suggests that any change requires an additional administrative effort of at least 25% 
of  the  request’s  cost.  This  is  an  estimated  percentage  emerging  as  a  ‘linear  approximation  of  the 
effort  for  the  change  of  the  request  or  the  allocated  path.  The  value  is  chosen  based  on  the 
combination  of  the  experience  values  of  timetable  planning  experts  and  the  logarithmic  formula 
applied in the operational research (semi-elasticity)’266. 

9.  Information supporting the ‘SME test’ for railway undertakings 

Table  76  below  compares  the  total  annual  revenue  of  incumbent  and  competitor  freight  and 
passenger  railway  undertakings  per  Member  States  for  the  year  2018.  Figures  were  obtained  by 
applying the respective competitor and incumbent  market  shares  of freight  and passenger RUs as 
published  in  the  10th  market  monitoring  report  of  IRG  Rail  (IRG  Rail,  2020),  the  independent 
association  of  rail  regulatory  bodies,  to  the  total  annual  revenue  of  freight  and  passenger  RUs  as 
reported in the 7th RMMS report (RMMS, 2018). 

Table 76: Total revenue from freight and passenger RUs per MS, 2018 

Revenue of railway undertakings, total in EUR million 

Member State 

Passenger 

Freight 

Incumbents 

Competitors 

Incumbents 

Competitors 

AT 

1 795.8 

193.1 

807.6 

286.5 

266 See section 7.1 of the business case study. 

EN 

218 

EN 

 
 
 
  
 
                                                           
BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

118.4 

1 337.9 

13 861.6 

1 180.4 

56.7 

109.5 

3 401.0 

416.6 

14 386.2 

96.6 

240.8 

220.9 

5 652.2 

27.3 

203.7 

76.6 

2 708.2 

670.9 

248.1 

- 

1 050.2 

83.2 

107.4 

0 

353.6 

1 818.4 

223.7 

0.3 

3.8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

9.7 

0 

907.8 

0 

0 

0.8 

61.8 

569.4 

39.6 

- 

199.8 

0 

7.6 

64.6 

598.3 

3 553.9 

0 

0 

13.0 

163.2 

325.1 

1 172.1 

46.8 

195.0 

4.4 

474.8 

418.9 

27.7 

259.2 

193.0 

1 122.7 

0 

67.3 

371.9 

7.8 

334.0 

54.4 

182.6 

1 951.1 

73.7 

48.3 

0.4 

43.8 

7.3 

163.7 

35.9 

228.1 

0.0 

208.0 

0.3 

0 

83.7 

0 

932.3 

89.0 

83.5 

278.1 

1.8 

139.6 

TOTAL 

48 050.2 

4 389.4 

10 221.3 

4 892.1 

Source: RMMS 7th edition (2018), IRG Rail 10th market monitoring report (2020). 
Note: No data for BE (passenger and freight) and RO (passenger). 

Table 77 below shows the number of competitor RUs and the average revenue per competitor RU 
for  passenger  rail  and  for  rail  freight  in  each  member  state.  The  number  of  competitor  RUs  was 
EN 

EN 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
estimated based on data from IRG Rail’s 10th market monitoring report (IRG Rail, 2020). Taking 
into  account  the  figures  from  Table  76  for  the  whole  freight  and  passenger  market,  and  the 
estimated number of competitor RUs, the average revenue per competitor RU was derived. 

Table 77: Number of competitor freight and passenger RUs per MS and average revenue per competitor RU per 
MS, 2018 

Member State 

Number of competitor RUs 

Average revenue per competitor RU, in 
EUR million 

Passenger 

Freight 

Passenger 

Freight 

AT 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

11 

0 

28 

141 

5 

1 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

3 

2 

18 

0 

0 

2 

11 

10 

1 

5 

42 

13 

94 

173 

11 

1 

1 

10 

2 

22 

10 

27 

0 

21 

1 

0 

3 

27 

86 

1 

21 

17 6 

- 

12 6 

12 9 

44 7 

0 3 

3 8 

- 

- 

- 

- 

3 2 

- 

50 4 

- 

- 

0 4 

5 6 

56 9 

39 6 

- 

6 8 

4 2 

1 9 

11 3 

6 7 

48 3 

0 4 

4 4 

3 7 

7 4 

3 6 

8 4 

- 

9 9 

0 3 

- 

27 9 

- 

10 8 

89 0 

4 0 

EN 

220 

EN 

 
 
 
SE 

SI 

SK 

TOTAL 

6 

0 

3 

250 

9 

6 

46 

627 

33 3 

- 

2 5 

20 

30 9 

0 3 

3 0 

13 

RMMS 

(2020). 
Source: 
Note: No data for BE  (passenger and freight) and RO (passenger). Revenue figures in the "Total” column show the 
arithmetic average revenue per competitor RU across all Member States. 

10th  market  monitoring 

(2018), 

edition 

report 

Rail 

IRG 

7th 

An  analysis  of  market  actors  also  finds  that  a  number  of  railway  undertakings  fall  in  the  SME 
category.  Table  1Table  78  below  provides  a  non-exhaustive  list  of  examples  of  such  railway 
undertakings and their respective headcount and annual revenue. 

Table 78: Examples of railway undertakings falling in the SME category 

Company name 

Staff size and reference year 

Annual renue (in EUR million) and 
reference year 

HSL Logistik GmbH 

78 (in 2020) 

IDS Cargo 

EP Cargo 

Snalltaget 

150 (in 2021) 

33 (in 2018) 

50 (in 2021) 

70 (in 2020) 

20 (in 2021) 

33 (in 2018) 

Not available 

10.  Regional differences of the rail network and rail markets in EU 

The density of the rail network in the EU differs considerably between Member States with central 
Europe having on average a higher density in terms of line kilometres per square kilometre than the 
peripheral regions. 

EN 

221 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  21:  Density  of  railway  network  relative  to  surface  area  and  population  per  country 
(line-km per million people and line-km per thousand km2, 2018) 

1.200

1.000

800

600

400

200

s
t
n
a
t
i
b
a
h
n
i
n
o
i
l
l
i

m

r
e
p
m
k
-
e
n
i
l

0

0

FI

SE

LV

LT

IE

PT

NO

EE

EL

CZ

HU

SK

DE

LU

BE

NL

BG

ES

HR

RO

FR

EU27

DK

IT

SI

AT

PL

UK

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

line-km per thousand km²

The  intensity  in  the  use  of  the  rail  network  also  differs  considerably  between  Member  States,  as 
does the type of traffic. Passenger traffic measured in  train  kilometres dominates most of the EU 
rail network with an EU average of roughly 80% and with Ireland being the extreme case with 97% 
of the traffic taken by passenger trains, while Lithuania being at the other end with 38%. 

EN 

222 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 79: Relative share of passenger and freight train-km on total train-km per country (%, 2019 and 2020) 

Total passenger 
services (train-
km) 2020 [k 
train-km] 

Total freight 
services 
(train-km) 
2020 [k train-
km] 

Total passenger 
services (train-
km) 2019 [k 
train-km] 

Total freight 
services 
(train-km) 
2019 [k train-
km] 

Member 
State 

Percentage of 
total volume of 
passenger 2019 
[%] 

Percentage of 
total volume of 
freight 2019 
[%] 

Percentage of 
total volume of 
passenger 2020 
[%] 

Percentage of 
total volume of 
freight 2020 
[%] 

IE 

DK 

LU 

NL 

EL 

ES 

IT 

FR 

PT 

BE 

HU 

SE 

CZ 

EE 

DE 

AT 

RO 

15 860.0 

72 768.0 

7 060.0 

449.0 

3 382.0 

385.4 

18 090.0 

73 314.9 

7 530.0 

445.0 

3 239.6 

495.9 

137 982.0 

10 499.0 

153 066.0 

11 202.0 

7 944.2 

124 901.0 

260 039.0 

283 568.0 

27 351.3 

80 816.0 

84 330.4 

116 302.0 

132 182.1 

5 233.6 

1 098.3 

22 749.0 

47 239.0 

54 076.0 

5 824.0 

11 843.0 

18 795.4 

35 051.0 

35 864.7 

1 342.4 

10 069.7 

200 191.0 

332 311.0 

364 735.0 

30 895.8 

86 500.0 

83 394.3 

132 454.0 

136 106.8 

5 754.2 

992.1 

26 455.0 

48 429.0 

58 888.0 

6 776.7 

19 000.0 

20 199.8 

35 601.0 

38 878.2 

1 662.2 

844 000.0 

235 000.0 

856 000.0 

253 000.0 

113 388.4 

51 504.0 

39 741.7 

25 695.0 

120 259.7 

63 584.0 

42 783.9 

22 902.0 

98% 

96% 

94% 

93% 

91% 

88% 

87% 

86% 

82% 

82% 

81% 

79% 

78% 

78% 

77% 

74% 

74% 

2% 

4% 

6% 

7% 

9% 

12% 

13% 

14% 

18% 

18% 

19% 

21% 

22% 

22% 

23% 

26% 

26% 

97% 

96% 

95% 

93% 

88% 

85% 

85% 

84% 

82% 

87% 

82% 

77% 

79% 

80% 

78% 

74% 

67% 

3% 

4% 

5% 

7% 

12% 

15% 

15% 

16% 

18% 

13% 

18% 

23% 

21% 

20% 

22% 

26% 

33% 

EN 

223 

EN 

 
 
 
Total passenger 
services (train-
km) 2020 [k 
train-km] 

Total freight 
services 
(train-km) 
2020 [k train-
km] 

Total passenger 
services (train-
km) 2019 [k 
train-km] 

Total freight 
services 
(train-km) 
2019 [k train-
km] 

Member 
State 

Percentage of 
total volume of 
passenger 2019 
[%] 

Percentage of 
total volume of 
freight 2019 
[%] 

Percentage of 
total volume of 
passenger 2020 
[%] 

Percentage of 
total volume of 
freight 2020 
[%] 

FI 

BG 

HR 

PL 

SK 

SI 

LV 

LT 

33 804.0 

20 314.4 

12 840.0 

167 653.8 

32 454.9 

7 611.2 

5 880.1 

6 015.0 

13 921.0 

8 837.0 

7 179.0 

77 499.6 

14 079.0 

10 011.1 

4 666.5 

9 671.0 

36 759.0 

20 691.5 

15 337.0 

180 277.2 

35 696.0 

9 942.1 

5 926.4 

6 972.0 

14 711.0 

8 474.4 

6 494.0 

82 343.3 

25 479.0 

10 666.4 

8 141.9 

9 850.0 

EU27 
Source: 8th RMMS report 

2 651 803.4 

694 899.1 

2 985 857.6 

757 110.4 

71% 

71% 

70% 

69% 

58% 

48% 

42% 

41% 

80% 

29% 

29% 

30% 

31% 

42% 

52% 

58% 

59% 

20% 

71% 

70% 

64% 

68% 

70% 

43% 

56% 

38% 

79% 

29% 

30% 

36% 

32% 

30% 

57% 

44% 

62% 

21% 

EN 

224 

EN 

 
 
 
The differences in the share of domestic and international traffic are quite big for passenger traffic, 
where virtually in all Member States domestic traffic dominates. With a few exceptions of mostly 
central  EU Member States where international  traffic is  over15%, the majority of Member States 
are well below this threshold and many are below the EU average of 6.8%. 

Table 80: Passenger traffic volumes (domestic, international and proportion of international 
on total) by country (pax-km in 2018) 

Member State 

Proportion of international traffic 2018 [%] 

LU 

LT 

AT 

SI 

CZ 

BE 

FR 

SK 

DK 

RO 

LV 

DE 

EE 

HU 

IE 

HR 

PL 

SE 

FI 

PT 

ES 

NL 

BG 

IT 

EL 

EU27 
Source: 7th RMMS report 

29.2% 

27.6% 

23.0% 

20.2% 

17.2% 

15.9% 

10.2% 

8.0% 

6.8% 

6.6% 

6.5% 

6.2% 

4.6% 

4.5% 

4.3% 

4.0% 

3.8% 

3.6% 

3.2% 

2.5% 

2.4% 

1.9% 

1.5% 

1.2% 

0.2% 

6.8% 

The situation in  rail freight  is  more diverse  and  in  some cases international  traffic dominates rail 
freight  (e.g.  in  Slovenia,  the  Baltic  Member  states  and  some  central  EU  Member  States  with 
relatively smaller territory). 

Table  81:  Rail  freight  traffic  volumes  (domestic,  international  and  proportion  of  international  on  total)  by 
country (tonne-km, 2018) 
Member state 

Proportion of international traffic 2018 [%] 

SI 

EN 

225 

98% 

EN 

 
 
 
Member state 

Proportion of international traffic 2018 [%] 

LV 

EL 

DK 

EE 

SK 

NL 

HU 

AT 

LT 

LU 

HR 

CZ 

IT 

BE 

DE 

BG 

PL 

SE 

FR 

FI 

PT 

ES 

RO 

IE 

EU27 
Source: 7th RMMS report 

98% 

97% 

94% 

92% 

89% 

84% 

82% 

79% 

78% 

74% 

68% 

64% 

53% 

48% 

42% 

41% 

39% 

39% 

37% 

37% 

24% 

15% 

14% 

0% 

52% 

EN 

226 

EN 

 
 
 
 
Figure 22: Rail freight transport by NUTS2-level region  

Source: Eurostat 

EN 

227 

EN 

 
 
 
 
Figure 23: Map of the 11 rail freight corridors as established under the RFC Regulation 

EN 

228 

EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 6: RETAINED POLICY MEASURES 

This  Annex  provides  a  brief  description  of  the  individual  policy  measures  considered  in  the  impact  assessment  and  their  allocation  to  policy  options 
outlined in chapter 5. 

Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

PD1  

and 

Legal 
procedural 
obstacles  for 
capacity 
management  

SO1  

Enable 
alternative 
capacity 
management 
procedures 
through 

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

PM1  -  Mandatory  use  of  RFC 
one-stop  shops:  Make  use  of  the 
corridor one-stop shops mandatory 
and  clarify  the  functions  of  the 
corridor one-stop shops in capacity 
management  and  allocation  for 
cross-border traffic.  

traffic 

applicable  EU 

PM2-1  -  Introduce  a  harmonised, 
directly 
legal 
framework  for  railway  capacity 
and 
management, 
supporting  better  utilisation  of 
railway 
capacity, 
network 
including  via  more  dynamic  and 
market-oriented 
and 
capacity  management,  and  fair 

traffic 

X 

Currently  the  use  of  the  one-stop  shops  is  optional  and  limited  to  freight  traffic  on  lines 
designated  to  rail  freight  corridor.  This  measure  makes  the  use  of  the  one-stop  shops 
mandatory  for  all  cross-border  traffic,  including  passenger  and  freight  and  all  types  of 
requests (annual timetable and ad-hoc), and extends the scope of functions of the one-stop 
shops  to  the  entire  capacity  management  process  (instead  of  only  covering  capacity 
allocation)  in  order  to  do  away  with  the  need  to  interact  with  individual  infrastructure 
managers  for  all  capacity  management  activities  falling  outside  of  capacity  requests  and 
allocation. 
 It  assigns  to  the  one-stop  shop  the  obligation  to  coordinate  works  restricting  available 
capacity,  publish  information  about  them  in  accordance  with  Annex  VII  of  the  Recast 
Directive, monitor and report the adherence to the published schedule, consult stakeholders 
on  the  planning,  report  to  the  management  boards  the  concerns  of  RUs  and  indicate  any 
planning inconsistencies and take other actions necessary to ensure minimising the effect of 
planned works on rail traffic. 
Introduce a new framework for the use of railway infrastructure capacity, replacing the rules 
relating  to  rail  capacity  and  traffic  management  defined  in  Directive  2012/34/EU  and 
Regulation (EU) 913/2010. The scope of the new framework will be based on the provisions 
relating to rail capacity allocation and traffic  management in the aforementioned Directive 
and Regulation. 
The  new  framework  defines  the  key  principles  for  the  management  of  infrastructure 
capacity,  i.e.  rail  capacity  and  traffic  management.  More  detailed  rules  supporting  a 
harmonised implementation will be set out in delegated and implementing acts. 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

229 

EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

changes 
legislation  

to 

competition 
operators.  

between 

rail 

PM2-2  -  Introduce  a  ‘European 
network 
defining 
statement’ 
common,  harmonised  rules  and 
procedures  for  rail  capacity  and 
traffic  management  applicable  on 
rail  network, 
the  entire  EU 
network 
complementing 
statements 
individual 
of 
infrastructure  managers;  clarifying 
infrastructure 
of 
the 
managers’ network statements.  

status 

PM3  -  Introduce  a  strategic 
capacity  management  phase, 
which  (i)  establishes  a  multi-
annual  planning  to  optimise  the 
quantity 
the 
capacity  offer  and  (ii)  provides  a 
reserve  of  capacity  for  flexible 
allocation to individual applicants.  

and  quality  of 

The  European  network  statement  will  define  the  detailed  and  harmonised  rules  and 
procedures applying on the entire EU railway network, in particular as regards cross-border 
cooperation  within  the  new  EU  legal  framework  for  railway  capacity  and  traffic 
management. 
The  Commission  will  define  the  European  network  statement  in  an  implementing  act, 
following  consultation  of  the  European  Network  of  Infrastructure  Managers  (currently 
meeting in PRIME - Platform of Rail Infrastructure Managers in Europe. 
Network  statements  developed  and  published  by  individual  infrastructure  managers  in 
accordance  with  Article  27  of  Directive  2012/34/EU  will  need  to  be  consistent  with  the 
general framework defined by the European network statement.  
The network statements of individual infrastructure managers in accordance with Article 27 
of Directive 2012/34/EU will become legally binding. 
This measure introduces instruments and a structured process for the strategic management 
of railway infrastructure capacity. The purpose of strategic planning is to optimise the use of 
the available rail infrastructure in line with the market needs of all segments of rail transport, 
while taking into account the need for infrastructure maintenance and renewal. 
The strategic management phase builds on the ‘capacity strategy’ prepared as part of PM4. 
The  strategic  management  process  is  steered  by  infrastructure  managers  but  must  involve 
operators of rail transport services and other stakeholders concerned (public authorities, non-
RU  applicants,  terminals  etc.)  throughout  the  process,  and  is  subject  to  scrutiny  by 
regulatory bodies. 
The  process  is  implemented  in  an  incremental  and  continuous  manner  over  at  least  5  year 
cycles.  It starts  with a  general planning at the beginning of the process and it is  gradually 
detailed  and  reviewed  to  get  closer  to  timetables.  The  final,  most  detailed  phase  of  the 
strategic planning cycle, covering the next timetable year, provides a basis for the capacity 
allocation  process,  in  particular  the  new  procedures  for  the  flexible  capacity  allocation 
proposed as part of PM4. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

230 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

PM4 - Introduce new procedures 
for  capacity  allocation  in  line 
with  market  needs,  in  particular 
for flexibility and reliability, based 
on  the  outcomes  of  the  strategic 
phase 
capacity  management 
(PM3).  

PM5 - Introduce transparent and 
harmonised  methods,  based  on 
socio-economic 
criteria, 
supporting  the  management  of 
capacity on infrastructure where 
demand exceeds supply; methods 
in  strategic 
should  be  applied 
capacity  management 
(PM3), 
capacity  allocation  (PM4)  and  in 
contingency management (PM6).  

The multiannual strategic plans for capacity allocation will be subject to approval by ENIM, 
following  a  consultation  of  the  ENRRB  and  stakeholders.  ENIM  will  be  assisted  by  an 
operational body (Network Coordinator), in the process of analysis of the strategic planning. 
Introduce  new  procedures  to  allocate  capacity,  in  particular  with  a  view  to  accommodate 
capacity needs that  do not fit in a pre-determined, annual  schedule for capacity allocation. 
Certain cross-border rail  market segments (big part of freight) do not always  have enough 
information  to  request  capacity  before  the  adoption  of  the  annual  timetable  by  IMs.  They 
may  also  need  to  provide  a  service  of  longer  duration  than  1  year  to  a  customer.  The 
measure will provide legal certainty, security and predictability for railway undertakings and 
boost  their  competitiveness  vis-à-vis  other  modes.  It  aims  to  an  increased  respect  of 
commitments related to capacity from the side of both IMs and RUs (and other applicants). 
This  measure  is  closely  related  to  the  concept of  a  ‘rolling  planning’  allocation  process in 
the context of the ‘Timetable Redesign’ project. 
The purpose of this measure is to ‘partition’ total infrastructure capacity available with the 
objective  of  safeguarding  capacity  for  different  market  segments  of  rail  transport  (and  for 
infrastructure  works),  taking  into  account  their  total  benefits  and  costs  to  society  (internal 
and  external  benefits  and  costs).  The  results  of  the  process  are  documented  in  a  ‘capacity 
strategy’, which provides the basis for the strategic capacity management phase (PM3). 
The  process  should  involve,  as  a  starting  point,  a  transparent  methodology  reflecting  the 
social,  economic  and  environmental  costs  and  benefits  of  different  segments  of  rail 
transport. The overall method should be harmonised across Europe. The specific parameters 
of  the  method  (e.g.  values  attached  to  different  types  of  internal  and  external  costs  and 
benefits) can differ between networks to take into account national specificities and will be 
adopted  via  an  implementing  act,  following  a  proposal  by  ENIM  (assisted  by  the  rail 
Network Coordinator). 
The methodology should be subject to a stakeholder consultation process, involving notably 
Member  States,  regulatory  bodies  (via  the  ENRRB)  and  other  public  authorities,  potential 
applicants and other interested stakeholders.   
The final outcome of this measure is the adoption by infrastructure managers of a ‘capacity 
strategy’ which provides a basis for the strategic management process (PM3). 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

231 

EN 

 
 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

PD2   

Insufficient 
incentives  to 
improve 
performance  

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

PM6  -  Strengthen  existing  and 
introduce  new  mechanisms  and 
to  ensure 
traffic 
procedures 
the 
in 
event  of 
continuity 
non-
planned 
or 
disruptions 
availability 
network 
the 
of 
(infrastructure works).  

- 

Strengthen 

PM7 
the 
monitoring  of  service  quality 
and customer satisfaction on the 
freight  corridors,  notably  by 
introducing  a  mandatory  and 
harmonised  set  of  performance 
indicators  covering  all  relevant 
aspects  of 
infrastructure 
rail 
service and rail transport services.  

X 

X 

X 

Introduce the possibility for unilateral cancellations of train paths by infrastructure managers 
in very specific cases of disruptions. Provide a methodology in the form of non-legislative 
EU  act  for  identifying  societal  benefits  and  selecting  the  train  paths  to  be  cancelled. 
Cancellations  should  be  employed  where  there  are  clear  benefits  to  society  in  the  form  of 
running certain types of trains instead of others on the alternative routes.  
The specific parameters of the method will be adopted in an implementing act which will be 
based  on  input  by  ENIM,  following  consultation  of  the  Member  States,  regulatory  bodies 
(via the ENRRB) and other interested stakeholders. 
The  mechanism  could  involve  some  sort  of  pre-planning,  allowing  fast  implementation 
when an interruption occurs. 
The  measure  should  apply  to  non-availability  of  the  network  affecting  already  allocated 
capacity,  whether  entirely  unplanned  (force  majeure  incidents  or  disruptions,  e.g.  natural 
disasters,  accidents)  or  ‘planned’  (e.g.  infrastructure  works  scheduled  during  current 
working timetable). 
The measure could follow the new rules on partitioning capacity available to  different type 
of traffic (measure PM5). 
The measure could be considered as optional, i.e. providing for a mechanism for applicants 
to voluntarily cancel their train paths in cases of disturbance. 

Introduce  a  mandatory  and  harmonised  set  of  performance  indicators  covering  all  relevant 
aspects  of  rail  infrastructure  service  (capacity  and  traffic  management)  and  rail  transport 
services,  based  on  a  consultation  of  railway  undertakings,  terminals  and  customers  of  rail 
freight services. The indicators will be defined in a non-legislative act by the Commission. 
The measure builds on Article 19(2) of the RFC Regulation which leaves it to the corridors’ 
management boards to define specific performance indicators. 

X 

EN 

232 

EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

SO2  

Strengthen 
incentives  to 
improve 
performance  

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

PM8 
-  Uphold  commitments 
related  to  capacity:  Introduce 
effective  and  reciprocal  economic 
incentives to strengthen respect by 
all  stakeholders  of  commitments 
related to capacity.  

-  Strengthen  capacity-
PM9 
related  rights  of  applicants 
(railway  undertakings  and  others) 
vis-à-vis  infrastructure  managers, 
for  cross-border 
in  particular 
the  event  of 
in 
capacity  and 
changes to allocated capacity.  

The  non-respect  of  capacity-related  commitments,  both  by  infrastructure  managers  and  by 
applicants/railway  undertakings,  results  in  wasted  efforts  and  costs  for  other  stakeholders 
involved or (in the worst case) blocks capacity that cannot be used for alternative purposes 
once  released.  Such  costs  are  essentially  external  costs  for  individual  stakeholders. 
Internalising  these  costs  by  introducing  economic  incentives  should  therefore  improve  the 
overall efficiency of the capacity management process.  
The measure relates in particular to the concept of ‘commercial conditions’ developed in the 
TTR project. 
The  measure  complements  the  introduction  of  new  procedures  for  capacity  allocation 
(PM4), by ensuring that capacity safeguarded for flexible  ad-hoc allocation is not  misused 
by applicants to ‘block’ capacity for their own use. 
Economic incentives could be introduced (i) via the infrastructure charging scheme, notably 
by extending the concept of reservation charges (Article 36 of Directive 2012/34/EU), or (ii) 
by  extending  the  concept  of  performance  schemes  (Article  35  of  Directive  2012/34/EU) 
from the operational phase to the capacity allocation phase. In the latter case, the  measure 
becomes related to the introduction of a ‘European performance scheme’ (PM13). 
Address the systematic disadvantages cross-border traffic faces in capacity allocation and in 
operations  compared  to  domestic  traffic  by  requiring  infrastructure  managers  to  manage 
train  paths  as  a  single,  integral  entity  (from  origin  to  destination),  also  when  this  involves 
more than one rail network. This translates into IMs being required to: 

  Accept requests and communicate allocation decisions in a single place and in one 

operation. 

  Ensure that any post-allocation changes to train paths – in terms of timing, routing, 
parameters,  (e.g.  due  to  capacity  restrictions)  –results  in  a  viable  train  path, 
coordinated  across  the  rail  networks  (e.g.  no  negative  dwelling  times  at  border 
crossings;  no  discontinuities  in  routing,  no  changes  to  train  parameters,  etc.)  and 
must be communicated to RUs in a single operation. 

With  respect  to  legal  and  commercial  issues,  any  discrimination  of  train  paths  involving 
more  than  one  network  should  be  eliminated  to  the  extent  possible,  e.g.  as  regards 
cancellations by the infrastructure manager due to force majeure incidents. 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

233 

EN 

 
 
  
  
  
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

PM10  -  Entrust  an  independent 
expert  body  with  reviewing  the 
performance of rail  infrastructure 
and  transport  services,  providing 
advice  to  European  Commission, 
the  network  of  regulatory  bodies 
(PM19)  and  other 
rail  sector 
stakeholders.  

PM11 - Introduce a support and 
monitoring  function  at  EU  level 
covering 
(i)  compliance  with 
agreed  rules  and  procedures  and 
of 
(ii) 

performance 

the 

The  body  provides  analysis  and  strategic  guidance  to  the  Commission,  ENIM  and  the 
ENRRB  on  the  development  and  implementation  of  performance  monitoring.  It  identifies 
issues  of  strategic  importance  for  performance,  proposes  uniform  methodology  for 
performance monitoring, including performance indicators (PM11), assesses the results and 
provides  suggestions  on  corrective  measures  to  the  stakeholders  concerned  on  capacity 
management  (PM3-6,  PM9,  PM9),  traffic  management  (PM17)  and  market  monitoring 
(PM18-2).In  particular,  the  performance  review  body  provides  advice  on  the  development 
and implementation of the European performance scheme (PM13). 
The body is composed of independent experts, fulfilling their mandate in a personal capacity 
and  bringing  together  a  broad  range  of  senior-level  expertise,  including  from  industry, 
academia, customers of rail services. 
The  ‘performance  review  body’  established  in  the  aviation  sector  (designated  in 
Commission Implementing Decision 2016/2296 on the basis of Article 11(2) of Regulation 
(EU) 549/2004) supporting the Commission and other stakeholders on issues  related to the 
performance of air navigation services and network functions, in particular the performance 
scheme,  can  provide  a  template  for  the  selection  of  members,  and  the  competences, 
functions and tasks of this expert body. The body envisaged in this policy  measure shares 
similarities with the 'performance review body’ which exists in aviation, both in terms of its 
purpose  and  as  regards  the  members  who  will  compose  the  body,  who  should  be 
experienced,  senior-level  individuals  which  are  not  affiliated  to  any  stakeholders  actively 
involved  in  the  sector  in  order  to  avoid  that  vested  interests  influence  its  analysis  and 
recommendations. The key difference between this performance body and the performance 
body in the aviation sector concerns the status of the body: whereas the performance body in 
aviation implements a binding performance regime defining performance objectives at  EU 
level,  the  formal  competences  of  the  body  proposed  for  rail  are  more  limited  as  the  body 
would only exert an advisory role. 
Introduce requirements for ENIM to take charge of monitoring compliance and performance 
of  cross-border  capacity  and  traffic  management  with  support  from  the  Network 
Coordinator. 
Monitoring of compliance refers to  measures PM2-1 (harmonised EU legal  framework  for 
capacity and traffic management) and PM2-2 (European network statement). 

EN 

234 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

and 

infrastructure 
transport 
services. The function involves the 
central  entities  of  IMs  (PM20-
1/PM20-2)  and  the  network  of 
regulatory bodies (PM19).  

Monitoring  of  compliance  should  cover  the  entire  capacity  management  process  on  a 
continuous basis,  from  strategic to close-to-operational phases, including the results of  the 
process and the process itself – not just an ‘ex-post’ monitoring 
In  carrying  out  its  compliance  and  performance  monitoring  tasks,  the  Rail  Network 
Coordinator cooperates / coordinates with the following: 

  New performance review body (PM10) 
 
Individual IMs 
  Member States 
  RUs and other applicants 
  Regulatory bodies / the regulatory entity at EU level (PM19) 
  Partners  in  multimodal  logistics  chains  (operators  of  terminals,  service  facilities, 

wagon keepers etc.) 

  Customers of rail transport services / multimodal freight transport services 

Directive  2012/34/EU  requires  (i)  Members  States  to  prepare  an  ‘indicative  rail 
infrastructure  development  strategy’  (Article  8(1))  and  (ii)  Member  State  authorities  and 
infrastructure  managers  to  conclude  multi-annual  contractual  agreements  (Article  30  and 
Annex V). 
These  agreements  are  basically  performance  contracts  governing  the  provision  of  rail 
infrastructure and services by infrastructure managers. They must contain elements such as 
payments/funds  allocated,  performance  targets  to  be  achieved,  incentives  for  performance 
improvements  with  respect  to  all  aspects  of  infrastructure  management,  including 
maintenance and renewal, and must cover a period of not less than five years. 
The impact of capacity restrictions related to infrastructure works on rail traffic, in particular 
freight,  gives  rise  to  repeated  grievances  from  rail  operators  and  their  customers.  The 
concerns raised relate in particular to lacking coordination and stability of the planning and 
the volume of capacity restrictions.  
Multi-annual  contracts  are  an  existing  tool  (defined  in  Directive  2012/34/EU)  to  improve 
performance  of  infrastructure  managers  and  should  help  to  address  these  issues.  However, 
with a few exceptions (e.g. Germany and France) there has not been a systematic review of 
these agreements and their implementation so far. 

X 

-  Entrusting 

PM12 
regulatory 
bodies  with  the  review  of  multi-
annual 
between 
agreements 
Member  State  authorities  and 
infrastructure  managers 
to 
assess  their  consistency  with  the 
European  performance 
scheme 
and  Member  States’ 
(PM13) 
indicative 
infrastructure 
development  strategies.  Entrusting 
the network of regulatory bodies to 
identify and promote best practices 
for such agreements.  

rail 

EN 

235 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

PM13  -  Introduce  a  European 
performance  scheme  to  improve 
operational  performance  of  rail 
a 
services 
framework 
national 
performance schemes.  

providing 

and 

for 

PD3  

Insufficient 
mechanisms 
for 
stakeholder 
coordination  

PM14  -  Strengthen  governance 
of  rail  freight  corridors  and 
a 
formalise 
cross-corridor 
layer  with  defined 
governance 
competences  

X 

This measures aims to close this gap and to trigger a broad dialogue on the issue involving 
all relevant stakeholders, in particular the operators of rail transport services, infrastructure 
managers, Member State authorities, the European Commission and others. 
The  outcome  of  this  process  could  be  European  guidelines  and  recommendations  on  the 
structure,  contents,  priorities  and  review  of  such  agreements  with  a  view  to  promote  best 
practices. 
Performance  schemes  are  an  instrument  defined  in  Article  35  of  Directive  2012/34/EU  to 
improve the performance of the rail network.  
They  are  implemented  at  national  level  and  do  not  always  adequately  account  of  the 
specificities  of  cross-border  traffic,  potentially  rendering  the  incentives  provided  by  the 
regimes  less  effective  for  cross-border  traffic  (e.g.  by  disregarding  delays  incurred  on  a 
previous network). 
In addition, national performance schemes do not necessarily ensure that targets defined at 
national level are sufficiently consistent to improve the performance of cross-border traffic. 
A  European  performance  scheme  can  provide  a  common  framework  supporting  the 
harmonisation  of  national  performance  regimes,  e.g.  in  the  form  of  a  minimum  set  of 
elements to be included in performance schemes, such as common objectives, performance 
indicators, incentives or similar. 
The interplay between  national and European performance schemes could be  based on the 
approach  adopted  for  the  performance  scheme  relating  to  air  navigation  services  for  the 
Single  European  Sky  which  requires  national  performance  targets  to  be  consistent  with 
European-wide ones (Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/317, in particular Article 14). 
This  measure  aims  to  close  gaps  in  the  existing  governance  of  the  freight  corridors,  e.g. 
missing involvement of customers of freight transport services. 
It  complements  the  governance  at  corridor  level  with  a  formal  structure  for  cross-corridor 
coordination entrusted with competences on issues that concern all cross-border rail traffic, 
such  as  the  adoption  of  a  framework  for  capacity  allocation,  providing  input  on  sector 
guidelines  (RNE  guidelines),  following  the  implementation  of  political  declarations, 
disseminating good practices, discussing performance of RFCs, etc. 
It ensures implementation of the  functions assigned to the freight corridors’ governance in 

X 

EN 

236 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

SO3  

Introduce 
more 
effective 
mechanisms 
for 
stakeholder 
coordination  

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

the  coordination  of 

PM15  -  Introduce  binding  rules 
and  procedures  along  corridors 
traffic 
for 
between 
management 
infrastructure  managers 
and 
between  infrastructure  managers 
and the operation of terminals.   

PM16  -  Introduce  a  high-level 
advisory / coordination platform 
at  European  level  involving  all 
stakeholders 
in 
multimodal rail freight transport   

involved 

X 

the context of the European transport corridors. 
Article  16  of  Regulation  913/2010  only  defines  the  generic  requirement  to  ‘put  in  place 
procedures  for  coordinating  traffic  management  along  the  freight  corridor’  which  has 
resulted in limited to no implementation activities. 
This  measure  therefore  introduces  binding  rules  and  procedures  and  objectives  for  the 
coordination  of  rail  and  terminal  capacity  and  of  operations  at  terminals  that  affect  train 
performance. 
The  objective  of  this  measure  is  to  improve  the  efficiency  of  train  operations  via  stronger 
coordination  and  improved  communication  between  different  stakeholders  resulting  in  the 
reduction  of  dwelling  times  at  terminals,  provide  early  warnings  for  delays  on  the  rail 
network  or  in  terminals  and  improved  transparency  for  customers  with  the  purpose  of 
providing reliable estimated time of arrival information.  
The measure should take into account existing legal requirements, e.g. ‘‘including real-time 
information  on  capacity  availability  and  temporary  capacity  restrictions  of  the  service 
facility, where available’’ (Article 6(3) of Implementing Regulation 2017/2177). 
The  purpose  of  this  measure  is  to  provide  an  inclusive  platform  open  to  relevant 
stakeholders  with  the  objective  of  providing  high-level  advice,  identifying  priorities  and 
proposing action to overcome barriers and exploit opportunities for cross-border rail freight 
transport, including in multimodal context.  
The measure replaces the current advisory groups at corridor level set up in accordance with 
Article 8(7) and 8(8) of Regulation 913/2010. 
The purpose of this measure is similar the ‘coordination mechanisms’ to be set up at national 
level in accordance with Article 7e of Directive 2012/34 but at European level. Coordination 
must  be  ensured  with  these  coordination  mechanisms  where  relevant.  The  setup  of  the 
platform  should  take  into  account  best  practice  examples  of  national  coordination 
mechanisms (the UK case was cited as good practice by various stakeholders). 
The platform should be complementary to existing platforms, in order to avoid overlaps and 
duplication to the extent possible, including by replacing them if needed, in particular: 

 
 

the Single European Railway Area Committee (SERAC) 
the SERAC Working Group on RFCs; 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

237 

EN 

 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

PM17  -  Introduce  a  European 
framework  for  the  cross-border 
traffic 
coordination  of 
management,  including  terminals 
and  other  rail  facilities,  based  on 
the  principles  of  collaborative 
decision-making.  

rail 

 
 
 
 

the Sector Statement Group; 
the Digital Transport and Logistics Forum (DTLF); 
the Railway Safety and Interoperability Committee (RISC); 
any related platforms set up at sector level (e.g. the RU/IM Telematics Joint Sector 
Group);The  measure  could  be  implemented  in  the  form  of  a  Commission  Expert 
Group. 

This  measure  implies  the  development  of  a  comprehensive  framework  for  cooperation 
between  stakeholders  with  the  objective  to  optimise  cross-border  traffic  management  and 
operations, including in terminals and other rail service facilities, and taking into account the 
interfaces with other modes of transport. 
The  implementation  of  this  framework  should  be  decentralised,  based  on  the  principles  of 
‘collaborative  decision-making’  as  successfully  adopted  by  other  transport  modes  (in 
particular  aviation):  each  stakeholder  is  responsible  for  managing  traffic  and  operations 
within its geographical and operational area of competence.  
In terms of rail operations, the framework should focus on the cross-border coordination of 
traffic  management  between  infrastructure  managers  and  the  coordination  between 
infrastructure managers and railway undertakings. As regards multimodal freight transport, 
the framework should aim at (i) an optimisation of multimodal operations on a terminal-to-
terminal  basis,  taking  into  account  the  links  to  other  transport  modes,  and  (ii)  the 
improvement of customer information (tracking & tracing, estimated time of arrival etc.) at 
all levels of the logistics chain (transport operators, organisers and customers). 
The framework can be developed in a gradual manner in which, starting from a focus on rail 
and a set of core functionalities, the scope and the set of functionalities can be enlarged over 
time. 
The  framework  should  be  developed  based  on  a  close  involvement  of  all  stakeholders 
concerned,  notably  infrastructure  managers,  railway  undertakings,  operators  of  terminals 
and  other  rail  services  facilities,  multimodal  operators,  customers  of  (freight)  transport 
services, public authorities at European and national  level, R&D organisations and system 
suppliers.  In  particular,  the  elaboration  of  this  framework  should  be  carried  out  in  close 
coordination  with  the  European  Union  Agency  for  Railways  and  Europe’s  Rail  Joint 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

238 

EN 

 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

Undertaking,  in  particular  to  ensure  full  consistency  with  the  work  on  technical 
specifications for interoperability, notably TAF TSI and OPE TSI, and on the system pillar 
and  innovation  pillar.  The  rules  and  procedures  making  up  the  framework  should  be 
included in network statements and, in the policy options 3 and 4, in the European  network 
statement  (PM2-2).  Rules  and  procedures  that  go  beyond  the  scope  of  network  statements 
should  be  documented  in  an  appropriate  manner,  e.g.  guidelines  /  handbooks,  standards, 
other  reference  documents  such  as  description  of  service  facilities  in  accordance  with 
Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/2177. 
This  measure  introduces  a  systematic  and  continuous  analysis  of  the  evolution  of  demand 
for  passenger  and  freight  transport  services  in  the  form  of  prognoses  or  scenarios.  Market 
monitoring and analysis should cover all modes, making it possible to identify the potential 
to shift transport volumes from other modes to rail. 
This is an important support function, in particular for strategic capacity planning (PM3) but 
can also serve as an input to rail investment planning at European and national levels and for 
the  strategic  planning  of  sector  stakeholders  in  general  (e.g.  investment  planning  of 
terminals and transport operators).  
Carrying out market analysis at European level reflects the strong cross-border dimension of 
rail  transport,  in  particular  freight  and  creates  synergies,  as  the  elaboration  of  prognoses 
requires specific expertise, tools and data. 
A widely accepted market analysis at European level can provide a common reference and 
basis for analysis at national or regional levels or on more specific issues. 
This measure is carried out by sector stakeholders on the basis of voluntary cooperation. 
This  is  a  variant  of  PM18-1,  with  the  key  difference  that  ENIM  is  in  charge  of 
implementation with the support of the Rail Network Coordinator. 

X 

X 

X 

PM18-1  -  Conducting  continuous 
transport  market  monitoring 
and  analysis  carried  out  by 
in 
infrastructure  managers 
the 
cooperation 
performance review body 

with 

PM18-2  -  Conducting  continuous 
transport  market  monitoring 
and  analysis  at  European  level, 
carried  out  by  a  central  entity 
(variant of PM18-1).  

PM19 
the 
competences  of  the  European 

-  Strengthening 

The  network  complements  national  regulatory  bodies  on  matters  involving  a  European  or 
cross-border dimension, supervises the  functioning of the  designated Network  Coordinator 

X 

X 

EN 

239 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

network  of  regulatory  bodies 
(Article 
Directive 
2012/34/EU)  and  introducing  a 
secretariat supporting its work.  

57 

of 

– 

as 

Empower 
Network 

the 
PM20-1 
of 
European 
Managers 
Infrastructure 
(ENIM) 
coordination 
a 
structure for capacity and traffic 
management, by assigning it with 
the  responsibilities  to:  (i)   define 
harmonised  EU  procedures,  rules 
and tools, (ii)  support and monitor 
implementation 
such 
procedures,  rules  and  tools  and 
capacity 
(iii)  
management  between  networks  as 
well as by appointing an entity to 
ENIM 
support 
the 
in 
implementation  of 
operational 
these  functions  (the  ‘Network 
Coordinator’). 

coordinate 

of 

PM20-1) and scrutinises the European network statement 5PM2-2). 
The  entity  is  responsible  for  a  consistent  implementation  of  the  functions  of  regulatory 
bodies  on  European  and  cross-border  matters  on  the  basis  of  European  legislation  as 
amended  by  this  initiative  (see  measure  5)  by  adopting  binding  decisions  in  cases  of 
diverging practices of national regulatory bodies. 
The secretariat will be established as a self-standing body with own resources. 
Legislative  changes  would  mainly  consist  in  defining  a  more  concrete  and  broad  set  of 
concrete competences and functions of the European regulatory entity, e.g. by clarifying and 
strengthening  the  provisions  of  Article  57  of  Directive  2012/34/EU  and  Article  20  of 
Regulation (EU) 913/2010. 
The purpose of the entity is to facilitate cooperation of infrastructure  managers based on a 
set of defined competences, functions and tasks, which are covered by separate measures.  
In  organisational  terms,  competences,  functions  and  tasks  of  the  central  entity  would  be 
assigned  to  the  European  Network  of  Infrastructure  Managers  (Article  7f  of  Directive 
2012/34/EU)  in  charge  of  strategic  steering  and  decision-making  (defining  objectives, 
strategies  and  work  programmes)  and  an  operational  body  in  charge  of  implementing 
strategy and work programme. Pre-existing entities could be designated to take over the role 
of the operational body (Network Coordinator), e.g. RailNetEurope. 
The  designation  of  Eurocontrol  as  the  network  manager  in  charge  of  ATM  network 
functions (on the basis of Regulation 551/2004) or the designation of EURiD as the entity in 
charge of managing ‘eur’ domain names (on the basis of Regulation 551/2004) can serve as 
blueprints for the designation procedure. 
This  measure  replaces  the  governance  of  the  rail  freight  corridors  defined  in  Regulation 
(EU) 913/2010. 

X 

EN 

240 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

– 

capacity 

Empower 
Network 

the 
PM20-2 
of 
European 
Infrastructure 
Managers 
(ENIM)  as  coordination  and  as 
planning  /  operational  structure 
for 
traffic 
management,  including  all  the 
responsibilities  in  PM20-1,  and 
the  addition  of  decision-
with 
in 
making 
responsibilities 
(PM22) 
capacity  management 
and  operational 
in 
functions 
traffic management (PM23). 

and 

supporting 

PM21  –  Introduce  an  EU-level 
function 
cross-
border  coordination  of  capacity 
between 
management 
managers, 
infrastructure 
including 
and 
escalation  mechanisms  involving 
regulatory 
and 
applicants 
bodies. 

consultation 

X 

X 

X 

The  organisation  of  the  entity  can  be  the  same  as  in  measure  20-1  (i.e.  empowering  the 
European Network of Infrastructure Managers). 
Resource  needs  for  setup  and  operation  of  the  entity  will  be  higher  due  to  the  additional 
responsibilities linked to additional competences of the entity. 
The  additional  competences,  functions  and  tasks  of  the  entity  derive  in  particular  from 
measures 22 and 23. 

Conflict resolution entrusted to central entities. Entrusting the ENIM (PM20-1/PM20-2) 
with the task to identify and find solutions to conflicts resulting from the non-alignment or 
disagreement  between  infrastructure  managers  relating  to  capacity  management.  If  ENIM 
cannot  provide  a  solution  satisfactory  for  applicants  concerned,  the  matter  is  forwarded  to 
the network of regulatory bodies for a binding decision.  
Decision-making  competences  part  of  the  capacity  management  process,  including  the 
strategic  management  phase  (measure  3)  as  well  as  the  allocation  process  (in  accordance 
with  Directive  2012/34/EU  and  as  amended  by  measure  4)  are  largely  in  the  remit  of 
individual  infrastructure  managers,  with  a  central  entity  at  EU  level  playing  mainly  a 
monitoring role. 
Infrastructure  managers  must  ensure  cross-border  consistency  across  the  entire  capacity 
management  process,  in  close  coordination  with  applicants  and  railway  undertakings,  in  a 
coordination process implemented at an appropriate level (bilateral, regional, corridor). 
The  escalation  mechanism  proposed  in  this  measure  addresses  cases  in  which  this 
coordination process does not result in consistent outcomes. It empowers the central entity 
(measure 2 1) with the competence to take final, binding decision to resolve any conflicts or 

EN 

241 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

-  Strategic 

PM22 
capacity 
management  phase  entrusted  to 
the  central  entity.  Entrusting  the 
central entity (PM20-2), for all rail 
lines  part  of 
the  European 
transport  corridors,  with  decision-
making competence relating to the 
strategic  capacity  management 
phase  and  with  the  competence  to 
approve 
the 
the  outcomes  of 
capacity allocation process.  

PM23  -  Introduce  an  operational 
function at EU level supporting the 
traffic 
coordination 
management,  in  particular  for  the 
management  of  major  disruptions 
and crises (‘crisis cell’).   

of 

- 

Introduce 

PM24 
legal 
requirements on the harmonised 
exchange  of  digital  information 
traffic 
supporting  capacity  and 

PD4  

Insufficient 
digital 

EN 

inconsistencies, following consultation of all parties concerned. 
The decision of the central entity is subject to review by the network of regulatory bodies. 
This  measure  assigns  the  central  entity  at  European  level  (measure  20-2)  with  the 
competence to approve key outcomes of the capacity management and allocation process on 
lines  part  of  the  core  and  extended  core  network  as  defined  in  the  proposal  to  revise  the 
TEN-T Regulation, i.e. the lines of the highest importance for cross-border transport. 
The  purpose  of  the  measure  is  to  strengthen  the  central  entity’s  mandate  to  defend  the 
interests of cross-border rail transport over and above policy measure 21, in which it has the 
role  of  an  arbitrator  in  an  escalation  process  covering  cases  of  non-alignment  or 
disagreement  .  For  this  purpose,  the  central  entity  would  be  obliged  to  achieve  a  set  of 
defined objectives relating to cross-border rail transport. 
Basically,  the  measure  implies  that  the  central  entity  has  a  ‘veto  right’  as  regards  the 
capacity management process, e.g. with regard to outcomes of the strategic  planning phase 
(capacity model, capacity offer etc.) and the allocation process (e.g. allocation decisions). 
This  measure establishes  a single point of contact  for rail crisis  management at European 
level  for  stakeholders  at  various  levels  (operational,  customers,  media,  political)  available 
24/7,  benefitting  from  economies  of  scale  and  scope  as  compared  to  current  incident 
management at corridor-level. 
The  cell  organises  and  supports  coordination  between  operational  stakeholders,  including 
infrastructure managers, railway undertakings, customers of rail transport services and other 
relevant actors. It supports the improvement of crisis / incident management by carrying out 
an independent ex-post evaluation of the management of actual crises and incidents (‘return 
on experience’).  
Staff  deployed  for  the  ‘crisis  cell’  takes  over  related  tasks  in  undisturbed  conditions,  in 
particular in performance analysis / monitoring / management.  
This task will be entrusted to the network coordination entity. 
Introduce  legally  binding  deadlines  for  infrastructure  managers  for  the  implementation  of 
digital  information  exchange  with  railway  undertakings  and  other  rail  stakeholders  in 
accordance  with  the  technical  specifications  for  interoperability  on  telematics  applications 
for freight (TAF TSI). 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

242 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Problem 
driver / 
specific 
objective   

Policy measures 

Policy options  

Title 

Description 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

support tools  

management  as  well  as  customer 
information.  

SO4  

the 

Support 
deployment 
digital 
of 
tools 
for 
capacity  and 
traffic 
management 

- 

PM25 
Comprehensive 
digitalisation  and  automation  of 
capacity  and  traffic  management 
based on a single interface at EU 
level  and  seamless  end-to-end 
services  for  applicants  (railway 
operators).  

Introduce  a  legal  requirement  for  infrastructure  managers  to  provide  the  technical 
description of the railway network in the context of the network statement via the register of 
infrastructure (RINF). 
Related legal obligations could be introduced alternatively: 

 

 

as part of the 2022 revision of TAF TSI (however, this is subject to a rather lengthy 
standard transition period for new requirements introduced in TSIs of 7 years from 
the proposal); or  
via  rail  market  legislation  by  granting  applicants  the  right  to  request/receive 
infrastructure  capacity  and  operational  information  (tracking  &  tracing  etc.)  in 
accordance with TAF TSI. 

Introduce  an  obligation  for  IMs  to  use  a  single  European  IT  interface  or  application  to 
organise  data  exchange  related  to  capacity  management  with  RUs  and  between  different 
infrastructure  managers.  Compliance  with  TAF/TAP  TSIs  might  need  to  be  addressed  in 
other initiatives. 
The  information  must  be  complete,  accurate  and  constantly  updated  throughout  the  entire 
process,  it  must  cover  capacity  available  for  traffic  and  capacity  not  available  for  traffic 
(irrespective of the reason, including capacity allocated to an applicant, TCRs, asset failures, 
accidents or natural incidents, permanent or temporary closures of lines). 
Introduce  a  legal  requirement  for  IMs  to  provide  real-time  operational  information  (train 
location, estimated time of arrival/handover and similar) for all trains in a single place at EU 
level (functionally) and in a TAF TSI-compliant format. 
Related legal obligations could be introduced: 

 

 

either as part of the 2022 revision of TAF TSI (however, this is subject to a rather 
lengthy  standard  transition  period  for  new  requirements  introduced  in  TSIs  of  7 
years from the proposal); or 
via  rail  market  legislation  by  granting  applicants  the  right  to  request/receive 
infrastructure  capacity  and  operational  information  (tracking  &  tracing  etc.)  in 
accordance with TAF TSI. 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

243 

EN 

 
 
  
 
ANNEX 7: DESCRIPTION OF THE TTR PROJECT 

1.  Genesis 

The initial impetus for the Timetable Redesign Project dates back to 2014. The starting 
point  was  the  firm  demand  of  rail  freight  operators  for  a  new  capacity  management 
process  that better reflects  the needs  and constraints of freight  traffic. The scope of the 
initiative soon widened to include the needs of freight and passenger transport as well as 
capacity  for  infrastructure  works  due  to  maintenance  and  renewal  of  networks.  The 
initiative was finally formalised by RailNetEurope’s General Assembly in 2016 with the 
adoption  of  a  first  framework  process  and  the  recognition  that  implementation  of  the 
initiative  will  require  significant  changes  to  the  processes  and  framework  conditions, 
such  as  IT  tools  and  legal  basis.  Major  milestones  involve  the  approval  of  the  TTR 
process components and TTR pilot projects by RailNEtEurope and Forum Train Europe 
in  May  2017,  the  launch  of  the  EU  and  national  implementation  projects  in  December 
2018  and  September  2019,  the  first  go-live  of  a  TTR  process  in  2021  (publication  of 
‘capacity strategies’), the adoption of the final concept documentation in December 2021 
and an acceleration of implementation in 2022. 

The launch of the TTR initiative coincides with the establishment and going operational 
of the first group of rail freight corridors in 2014 which provides an early-on indication 
that the services and products offered by infrastructure managers via the corridors did not 
respond to market needs. 

2.  Objectives 

The initiative pursues the following high-level objectives: 

  Optimise  the  use  of  the  capacity  of  the  existing  network,  avoiding  waste  of 

 

capacity resulting from inadequate capacity management processes; 
Increase  the  quality  of  capacity,  meeting  the  needs  of  passenger  and  freight 
transport markets; 

  Harmonise  capacity  management  in  Europe  to  facilitate  cross-border  train 

services, increasing the stability and reliability of capacity; 
  Automate capacity management to optimise use of resources; 
 
Improve the competitiveness of rail vis-à-vis other modes. 

3.  Key elements 

The TTR project builds on a number of key elements267: 

  “Advance planning”: TTR introduces a new and harmonised process for capacity 

management and allocation covering several years in advance. 

  “Rolling  planning”:  TTR  introduces  a  flexible  processes  for  the  allocation  of 
infrastructure  capacity  during  the  period  of  the  current  working  timetable  and 
with  the  possibility  for  RUs  to  be  granted  the  right  for  infrastructure  usage 
beyond the current timetable period. 

267 

These “elements” are similar to the Better Regulation concept of “policy measures”. 

EN 

244 

  EN 

 
                                                           
  “Commercial conditions”: TTR introduces financial incentives designed to incite 
both IMs and RUs to limit changes to allocated capacity with a view to stabilise 
the planning process. 

  “Digital  capacity  management”:  TTR  introduces  an  ecosystem  of  IT  systems 
supporting capacity management building on a combination of upgrades to IMs’ 
existing IT systems and a ‘central IT layer’ at EU level. 

  “International  leading  entities”:  TTR  relies  on  entities  to  ensure  the  effective 
coordination  of  the  actual  contents  of  the  planning  process  and  to  ensure 
adherence to commonly agreed standards. 

Many  of  the  elements  of  the  TTR  programme  have  provided  important  input  to  the 
definition  of  policy  measures  for  this  impact  assessment,  including  notably  the 
introduction  of  a  strategic  capacity  management  phase  (PM3),  the  introduction  and 
further development  of processes to  allocate  capacity in  line with  market needs (PM4), 
the  reciprocal  economic  incentives  supporting  stakeholders  in  making  best  use  of 
capacity  (PM8),  the  introduction  of  process  to  monitor  implementation  of  harmonised 
EU  processes  and  tools  by  infrastructure  managers  (PM11)  as  well  as  an  effective 
support  of  processes  by  digitalising  and  automating  capacity  management  (PM24, 
PM25)268. 

4.  Ownership and support 

The  TTR  project  is  a  sector-driven  initiative  to  modernise  the  management  of  rail 
capacity269, including as a central element the preparation of the working timetable. The 
programme has been steered by RailNetEurope, an association established by all “main” 
infrastructure  managers  from  the  EU  Members  States  as  well  as  a  number  of  non-EU 
Member States,  notably  Switzerland and Serbia (which provide transit lines connecting 
EU  Member  States).  The  programme’s  objectives,  approach  and  key  documents  have 
been approved by the Members at various occasions. Implementation projects have been 
set  up  by  all  infrastructure  managers  to  ensure  a  harmonised  and  interoperable 
implementation of the programme at the level of infrastructure managers. 

The  project  has  been  developed  in  close  coordination  with  railway  undertakings,  via 
expert  and  representative  organisations  such  as  Forum  Train  Europe270,  European  Rail 
Freight  Association271,  the  Alliance  of  Passenger  Rail  New  Entrants272  and  the 
Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies273. 

Other  stakeholders,  notably  regulatory  bodies  and  Member  States,  have  been  regularly 
involved  in  a  number  of  formats  involving  events  and  bilateral  exchanges  and  have 

268  See Annex 6 for a description of the policy measures. 
269  The management of rail capacity involves as a key element of the working timetable, which is 

reflected in the project’s name. 

270  https://www.forumtraineurope.eu/ 
271  https://erfarail.eu/ 
272  https://www.allrail.eu/ 
273  https://www.cer.be/ 

EN 

245 

  EN 

 
                                                           
expressed  support  on 
declarations274. 

the  project’s  objectives 

in  a  number  of  high-political 

274  For  example  a  sequence  of  declarations  by  the  Council  presidencies  of  the  Netherlands  (Rotterdam 
Declaration, 2016), Austria (Vienna Declaration, 2018) and Germany (Berlin Declaration, 2020). 

EN 

246 

  EN 

 
                                                           
ANNEX 8: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY OPTIONS 

This annex provides more detailed explanations on the assessment of effectiveness of the policy options, complementing the analysis in section 7.1. 

Key: Impacts expected 

 

 

O 

   

 

Strongly negative 

Negative 

No or negligible impact 

Positive 

Strongly positive 

Unclear 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

Specific policy objective 1: Enable more effective capacity management procedures in the legal framework 

Expected increase in 
available and usable rail 
infrastructure capacity, 
meeting the needs of 
different rail market 
segments. 

Positive impact on the 
available and usable rail 
infrastructure capacity. 
Benefits to RUs due to the 
increase in the available 
capacity estimated at 
EUR 242.1 million, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050 relative to 
the baseline. 

Strong positive impact on 
the available and usable rail 
infrastructure capacity. 
Benefits to RUs due to the 
increase in the available 
capacity estimated at 
EUR 1 981 million, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050 relative to 
the baseline. 

Strong positive impact on 
the available and usable rail 
infrastructure capacity. 
Benefits to RUs due to the 
increase in the available 
capacity estimated at 
EUR 2 575.7 million, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050 relative to 
the baseline. 

Strong positive impact on 
the available and usable rail 
infrastructure capacity. 
Benefits to RUs due to the 
increase in the available 
capacity estimated at 
EUR 2 759.1 million, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050 relative to 
the baseline. 

Expected improvement in 
performance of rail 
transport services, notably 

Positive impact on 
punctuality. Benefits to RUs 
due to improvements in 

Strong positive impact on 
punctuality. Benefits to RUs 
due to improvements in 

Strong positive impact on 
punctuality. Benefits to RUs 
due to improvements in 

Strong positive impact on 
punctuality. Benefits to RUs 
due to improvements in 

EN 

247 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Key: Impacts expected 

 

 

O 

   

 

Strongly negative 

Negative 

No or negligible impact 

Positive 

Strongly positive 

Unclear 

punctuality, resulting in an 
increase of rail traffic. 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

punctuality estimated at 
EUR 72.7 million, expressed 
as present value over 2025-
2050 relative to the baseline. 
Increase in rail traffic 
estimated at 0.2% in 2030 
(8.2 million train-km) and 
0.2% in 2050 (13.9 million 
train-km) relative to the 
baseline. 

punctuality estimated at 
EUR 501.3 million, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050 relative to 
the baseline. Increase in rail 
traffic estimated at 1.7% in 
2030 (77.6 million train-km) 
and 2.2% in 2050 (139.6 
million train-km) relative to 
the baseline. 

punctuality estimated at 
EUR 658 million, expressed 
as present value over 2025-
2050 relative to the baseline. 
Increase in rail traffic 
estimated at 2.7% in 2030 
(125.1 million train-km) and 
4% in 2050 (249.1 million 
train-km) relative to the 
baseline. 

punctuality estimated at 
EUR 664.9 million, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050 relative to 
the baseline. Increase in rail 
traffic estimated at 3.6% in 
2030 (162.6 million train-
km) and 7% in 2050 (432.8 
million train-km) relative to 
the baseline. 

Specific policy objective 2: Strengthen incentives to improve performance of rail infrastructure and rail transport services 

No impact. 

Cost savings for IMs and 
applicants from better 
quality and management of 
capacity, notably resulting 
from a reduction in 
cancelled or modified train 
path requests. 

Strong positive impact on 
capacity management and 
allocation process, notably 
from greater stability of 
allocated paths (PM4). Costs 
savings for IMs estimated at 
EUR 20.2 million in 2030 

Strong  positive  impact  on 
capacity  management  and 
allocation  process,  notably 
from  greater  stability  of 
allocated paths (PM4). Costs 
savings for IMs estimated at 
EUR 20.3  million  in  2030 
and  28.1  million  in  2050 

Strong positive impact on 
capacity management and 
allocation process, notably 
from greater stability of 
allocated paths (PM4). Costs 
savings for IMs estimated at 
EUR 20.4 million in 2030 

EN 

248 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Key: Impacts expected 

 

 

O 

   

 

Strongly negative 

Negative 

No or negligible impact 

Positive 

Strongly positive 

Unclear 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

Expected improvement of 
planning and 
implementation of 
infrastructure works 
resulting in reducing their 
negative impact. 

Positive impact on reducing 
the negative effect of TCRs 
(less train path amendments 
and cancellations because of 
works) due to improving the 
monitoring of quality of 
service and customer 
satisfaction on the freight 
corridors (PM7). 

and 27.8 million in 2050 
relative to the baseline 
(EUR 415.3 million, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050). 

the  baseline 
relative 
to 
million, 
(EUR 418.6 
expressed  as  present  value 
over 2025-2050). 

and 28.9 million in 2050 
relative to the baseline 
(EUR 423.9 million, 
expressed as present value 
over 2025-2050). 

Strong positive impact on 
reducing the negative effects 
of TCRs (less train path 
amendments and 
cancellations because of 
works) due to the 
introduction of financial 
incentives to strengthen 
commitments by IMs to 
allocated capacity (PM8). 

Reducing the negative 
impact of TCRs on capacity 
allocation by requiring 

Strong positive impact on 
reducing the negative effects 
of TCRs (less train path 
amendments and 
cancellations because of 
works) by implementing 
PM8 and PM9. Strengthen 
performance monitoring, 
including for the quality of 
capacity, by introducing an 
independent performance 
monitoring body (PM10). 

Strong positive impact on 
reducing the negative effects 
of TCRs (less train path 
amendments and 
cancellations because of 
works) by implementing 
PM8, PM9 and PM10. 

Furthermore, entrust 
regulatory bodies with the 
responsibility to review the 
contractual agreements 
concluded between Member 
State authorities and 

EN 

249 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Key: Impacts expected 

 

 

O 

   

 

Strongly negative 

Negative 

No or negligible impact 

Positive 

Strongly positive 

Unclear 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

cross-border trains to 
receive complete train paths 
(origin to destination), 
which will require taking 
into consideration all TCRs 
(PM9). 

infrastructure managers and 
identify early problems with 
the funding and 
implementation of works 
(PM12). 

Specific policy objective 3: Introduce more effective mechanisms for coordination between stakeholders, in particular across borders 

Expected improvement of 
coordination procedures 
between all stakeholders 
involved in a freight train 
run. 

Negligible impact. The 
policy option introduction of 
binding rules and procedures 
on cooperation (PM15) and 
strengthens performance 
monitoring (PM7). However, 
due to the continuation of the 
corridor-based approach, and 
the fragmentation that it 
results in, involvement of 
stakeholder outside IMs and 
RUs is expected to remain 

Positive impact due to 
improved coordination 
between IMs and between 
IMs and terminal operators 
due to the . Improving 
coordination by establishing 
a high-level coordination 
platform at European level 
including all stakeholders 
involved in multimodal rail 
freight transport (PM16). 

Strong positive impact with 
the implementation of 
PM15, PM16 and PM17. In 
addition, a central entity for 
IMs will contribute to better 
coordination on capacity 
allocation with the support 
of a Network Coordinator 
(PM20-1). The entity will 
take decisions on possible 
conflicts in strategic 

Strong positive impact with 
the implementation of 
PM15, PM16 and PM17. In 
addition, a central entity will 
do the strategic planning for 
important cross-border lines, 
approve the capacity 
allocation process and 
ensure coordination with 
IMs for cross-border traffic 
(PM20-2 and PM22). 

EN 

250 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Key: Impacts expected 

 

 

O 

   

 

Strongly negative 

Negative 

No or negligible impact 

Positive 

Strongly positive 

Unclear 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

Expected increase in 
reliability of rail transport, 
in cases of force majeure. 

limited for resource reasons: 
The increase in punctuality is 
estimated at 0.x percentage 
points (from X to Y). 

Ensure coordination of IMs 
with terminal operators and 
other stakeholders by 
providing a framework for 
collaborative decision 
making (PM17). 

Limited positive impact on 
reliability of rail by 
introducing binding rules and 
procedure for the 
coordination of traffic 
management between 
infrastructure managers and 
between infrastructure 
managers and the operation 
of terminals (PM15). All IMs 
involved in the run of an 
international train will be 
informed promptly of delays 

Positive impact on the 
reliability of rail by 
requiring contingency 
planning facilitating the 
management of force major 
disruptions or planned non-
availability of the network 
(PM6). Improved 
operational coordination 
between stakeholders 
involved in rail transport via 
the introduction of a 
European framework for the 

planning (PM21). 

Strong positive impact due 
to the implementation of 
PM6 and 17, reinforced for 
cross-border traffic by the 
operational support of the 
Network Coordinator in 
coordinating IMs’ 
contingency plans (PM21). 

Strong positive impact due 
to the implementation of the 
measures in PO3 and, in 
addition, the operational 
support of a crisis cell at EU 
level, which will support the 
coordination of traffic 
management in the event of 
major disruptions and crises. 

EN 

251 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Key: Impacts expected 

 

 

O 

   

 

Strongly negative 

Negative 

No or negligible impact 

Positive 

Strongly positive 

Unclear 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

and coordinate traffic 
management based on a 
limited set of agreed rules 
and procedures. 

cross-border coordination of 
rail traffic management, 
including terminals and 
other rail facilities, based on 
the principles of 
collaborative decision-
making (PM17). 

Specific policy objective 4: Support the deployment of digital tools to enable better capacity and traffic management 

Extent to which IT tools for 
capacity  requests,  capacity 
planning and allocation and 
traffic management respond 
to  the  needs  of  all  rail 
market segments 

Positive impact through the 
speeding up of digital 
information exchange related 
to capacity and traffic 
management  (PM24). 

Strong positive impact by 
implementing PM24 and 
introducing comprehensive 
digitalisation and 
automation of capacity and 
traffic management for IMs 
based on based on 
interoperable IT systems and 
seamless end-to-end services 
for applicants. 

Strong positive impact by 
implementing PM24 and 
introducing comprehensive 
digitalisation and 
automation of capacity and 
traffic management for IMs 
based on based on 
interoperable IT systems and 
seamless end-to-end services 
for applicants. 

Strong positive impact by 
implementing PM24 and 
introducing comprehensive 
digitalisation and 
automation of capacity and 
traffic management for IMs 
based on based on 
interoperable IT systems and 
seamless end-to-end services 
for applicants. 

EN 

252 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
EN 

253 

  EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 9: DISCARDED POLICY OPTIONS 

This  annex  provides  more  detailed  explanations  on  why  a  number  of  policy  measures 
which  were  contemplated  in  the  preparatory  phases  of  the  impact  assessment  were 
discarded. 

Discarded policy measure 

Reason for discarding 

(i) Involving the customers of rail 
freight services in the governance of 
the corridors in order to strengthen 
market orientation and the focus on 
customers’ needs 

(ii) Require mandatory 
establishment of an independent 
legal entity for each rail freight 
corridor 

(iii) Introducing EU rules for 
terminal operations involving rail 
(e.g. on rights to service the lines of 
the facility, how to deal with 
incidents involving temporary and 
partial closures, etc.). 

(iv) Set up an entity at supra-
national level with the task of 
monitoring / supervising all or 
selected cross-border flows in real-
time and in the post-operational 
phase, based on an end-to-end 
approach, i.e. along the entire 
multimodal logistics chain. 

The measure was intended to close the gap that end customers are 
not involved in the governance of the rail freight corridors, as 
identified in the evaluation of Regulation 913/2010. 
Early contacts with stakeholders made it clear that customers aim for 
a high-level, strategic engagement with the rail sector; this has been 
confirmed in interviews with representatives of freight customers, 
such as CLECAT (European Association for Forwarding, Transport, 
Logistics and Customs Services). 
An involvement of rail freight customers in the governance of the 11 
existing corridors would not fulfil the criteria of efficiency and 
proportionality and the measure was therefore discarded. 

The measure was intended to increase the resources available to the 
bodies of the rail freight corridors (one-stop shops, permanent 
management offices) and to increase their accountability. 
The measure was discarded because interlocutors involved in the 
corridor structures focused on a clarification and extension of the 
responsibilities of the corridor bodies as a means to strengthen their 
effectiveness. The question of organisational form was not addressed 
in the stakeholder consultation. 
The measure would not meet the criterion of effectiveness and was 
therefore discarded. 

The measure was intended to address the absence of effective 
coordination of rail and terminal operations, as identified in the 
evaluation of Regulation 913/2010. 
In the consultation, representatives of terminals emphasised the lack 
of information but emphasised that operations need to be driven by 
industry. Regulating terminal operations, a largely unregulated 
activity, was considered inappropriate to improve the coordination 
between terminals and railways. 
On this basis, it was concluded that the measure would not meet the 
criteria of proportionality and coherence and was therefore 
discarded. 
The retained PM17 provides a more industry-driven alternative to 
achieve the same objective. 

The measure was intended to provide an integration function to 
support end-to-end control of freight transport operations, which in 
particular for multimodal freight transport involve a high number of 
stakeholders for a single train run. 
Stakeholders did not express support for such a function if 
introduced in isolation, questioning how such an entity could 
intervene in operations as opposed to just observe. 
The measure was considered not to meet the criterion of 
effectiveness and was therefore discarded. 
The retained PM17 addresses the issue in a more structure approach 
by first introducing a framework for collaborative decision-making 
at an operational level, which may or may not involve the 
monitoring / supervising entity proposed under this measure. 

(v) Require a stronger centralisation 

This measure aimed to provide a more ambitious alternative to the 

254 

 
 
Discarded policy measure 

Reason for discarding 

of IT tools for capacity and traffic 
management at EU level. 

retained policy measure 25 (digitalisation and automation of capacity 
and traffic management) via a stronger reliance of central systems 
developed from scratch. 
In the consultation, stakeholders emphasised that the choice of 
technological solutions should not be made in legislation but rather 
left to the sector (‘technological neutrality’). 
Thus, the measure was not considered to meet the criterion of 
coherence and proportionality and discarded. 

255 

 
 
 
256