Europaudvalget 2019
KOM (2019) 0051
Offentligt
2011554_0001.png
EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
Brussels, 6.2.2019
SWD(2019) 13 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
Accompanying the document
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
THE COUNCIL
Sixth report on monitoring development of the rail market
{COM(2019) 51 final}
EN
EN
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0002.png
Table of contents
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
The state of the union railway network
Description
Missing links and cross border vision
Infrastructure management
1.3.1 Infrastructure governance
1.3.2 Infrastructure expenditure
1.3.3 Infrastructure funding and financing
The evolution of rail services
Traffic volumes
The passenger market
2.2.1 Evolution of volumes
2.2.2 Evolution of revenues
The freight market
2.3.1 Evolution of volumes
2.3.2 Evolution of revenues
The future of rail freight
Rail noise
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings
Passenger stations
Other service facilities
Complaints related to access to service to facilities
The traction market
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Infrastructure charging
Capacity allocation and congestion
4.2.1 Network utilisation
4.2.2 Managing capacity shortages
Rail transport services covered by public service contracts
4.3.1 PSO scope
4.3.2 PSO award
4.3.3 PSO compensation
Licensing
Degree of market opening and utilisation of access rights
4.5.1 Legal liberalisation and actual entry in the rail market
4.5.2 Freight market opening
4.5.3 Passenger market opening
Development of employment and social conditions
4.6.1 Employment in rail
4.6.2 Socio-demographic structure of the rail labour market
Harmonisation
4.7.1 EU legislation
4.7.2 Transposition
4.7.3 Infringements
4.7.4 External dimensions of rail transport policy
4.7.5 Regulatory bodies
12
12
18
19
19
21
26
32
32
34
34
39
40
40
44
45
48
49
51
53
57
57
59
59
68
68
69
74
74
78
84
86
89
89
94
97
103
103
105
113
113
114
114
115
116
2.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
1
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0003.png
4.8
4.9
Digitalisation
Multimodal and intermodal transport
4.9.1 Combined transport
4.9.2 Internalisation of external costs
4.9.3 New tools, consignment notes and cargo and vehicle positioning
The quality of rail services
Punctuality and reliability of passenger services
Punctuality and reliability of freight services
The role of regulators related to quality
Safety
Satisfaction with rail services
5.5.1 Satisfaction with passenger services
5.5.2
Satisfa tio ith Rail F eight Co ido s se i es
Performance of the railways
Performance measured by main inputs and outputs
The way forward for performance enhancement
Conclusions
120
124
124
124
125
126
126
129
132
132
135
135
137
140
140
144
148
5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6.
6.1
6.2
7.
2
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0004.png
Table of figures
Figure 1: Length of national networks in 2016 and relative change 2011-2016................................... 12
Figure 2: Density of railway network relative to surface area and population in 2016 ........................ 13
Figure 3: The proportion of networks electrified, 2016 and change in percentage electrified 2011-
2016 ....................................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4: Development of high-speed lines in Europe .......................................................................... 15
Figure 5: Length of dedicated high-speed line, 2012-2017 ................................................................... 17
Figure 6: Institutional settings in the Member States, 2016 ................................................................. 20
Figure 7: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion on maintenance and renewals, 2011-2016 . 22
Figure 8: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion on maintenance and renewals per country,
2016 ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 9: Expenditure on maintenance, renewal and enhancement per line-kilometre, 2013-2016 .. 24
Figure 10: Expenditure by category by country, average of 2015-2016 ............................................... 25
Figure 11: Expenditure on high-speed rail by activity, by Member State, average of 2015-2016........ 26
Figure 12: State rail infrastructure funding by source and country, 2016 ............................................ 27
Figure 13: Distribution of Cohesion Fund and ERDF funding by Member State, 2014-2020................ 29
Figure 14: Distribution of CEF funding by Member State, 2014-2016 .................................................. 30
Figure 15: Allocation of CF and ERDF funding per line-kilometre in the 2014-2020 funding cycle ...... 30
Figure 16: Passenger and freight volumes, 2005-2016 ......................................................................... 33
Figure 17: Passenger and freight volumes, compound average annual growth 2011-2016 ................ 34
Figure 18: Propensity to travel by rail 2016 and compound average annual growth 2011-2016 ........ 35
Figure 19: Passenger land transport modal split, 2007-2016 ............................................................... 35
Figure 20: Passenger land transport modal split by country, 2016 and change in percentage rail 2011-
2016 ....................................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 21: Passenger rail, tram and metro mode shares by country, 2016 .......................................... 36
Figure 22: Passenger rail, bus, coach, tram and metro modal split by country, 2016 .......................... 37
Figure 23: Evolution of rail passenger traffic volumes, 2007-2016....................................................... 38
Figure 24: Passenger traffic volumes by country, passenger-kilometres, 2016 ................................... 39
Figu e : Sou es of passe ge ail a u de taki gs e e ue,
................................................ 40
Figure 26: Rail freight activity per unit of GDP, 2016 and compound average growth rate 2011-2016
............................................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 27: Freight land transport modal split, 2007-2016 .................................................................... 42
Figure 28: Freight land transport modal split by country 2016 and change in percentage rail 2011-
2016 ....................................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 29: Evolution of rail freight traffic volumes, 2007-2016 ............................................................ 43
Figure 30: Rail freight traffic volumes by country, 2016 ....................................................................... 44
Figure 31: Freight revenue of railway undertakings by country, 2015 and 2016 ................................. 45
Figure 32: Average distance between stations by country, 2016 ......................................................... 51
Figure 33: Number of stations by passengers per day by country, 2016 .............................................. 52
Figure 34: Stations by passengers per day by country, mix, 2016 ........................................................ 52
Figure 35: Facilities: freight terminals by country, 2016 ....................................................................... 53
Figure 36: Facilities: marshalling yards by country, 2016 ..................................................................... 54
Figure 37: Facilities: maintenance facilities by country, 2016 .............................................................. 55
Figure 38: Facilities: maritime and port facilities linked to rail activities by country, 2016 ................. 56
Figure 39: Facilities: refuelling facilities by country, 2016 .................................................................... 56
Figure 40: Complaints being processed and decisions made by country, 2016 ................................... 57
Figure 41: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): passenger trains by type by country, 2016 ............. 61
Figure 42: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): suburban and regional passenger trains by country,
2013 and 2016 ....................................................................................................................................... 61
3
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0005.png
Figure 43: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): conventional long-distance passenger trains, 2013
and 2016 ................................................................................................................................................ 62
Figure 44: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): freight train by type by country, 2016 .................... 62
Figure 45: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): freight train average by country, 2013 and 2016.... 63
Figu e : A ess ha ges: i f ast u tu e a age s e e ue
from passenger trains, 2016 ............... 64
Figu e : A ess ha ges: i f ast u tu e a age s e e ue f o f eight t ai s,
..................... 64
Figure 48: Access charges (including mark-ups): revenues from passenger trains, 2015 and 2016 .... 65
Figure 49: Access charges (including mark-ups): revenues from freight trains, 2015 and 2016 .......... 66
Figure 50: Access charges: revenues from station charges, 2015 and 2016 ........................................ 66
Figure 51: Access charges: revenues from other charges from passenger operators, 2015 and 2016 67
Figure 52: Access charges: revenues from other charges from freight operators................................ 67
Figure 53: Access charges: average revenue from charges for the minimum access package, 2016... 68
Figure 54: Network utilisation 2016, compound average growth rate 2011-2016 .............................. 68
Figure 55: Total length of track declared congested, 2012-2016 ......................................................... 70
Figure 56: Principal types of services prioritised by infrastructure managers, 2016 ............................ 72
Figure 57: Successful and rejected scheduled path allocations, 2015 and 2016 .................................. 73
Figure 58: Passenger-kilometres on PSO and commercial rail services, 2016 ...................................... 75
Figure 59: Passenger-kilometres on domestic and international PSO services, 2016 .......................... 76
Figure 60: Competent authorities for passenger rail services, 2018 .................................................... 79
Figure 61: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded, 2016 .................................................. 80
Figure 62: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded, 2016 .................................................. 82
Figure 63: Apparent average PSO compensation, 2016........................................................................ 85
Figure 64: Apparent proportion of PSO cost recovered through passenger fares, 2016 ..................... 86
Figure 65: Active licences by country, 2016 .......................................................................................... 87
Figure 66: Average fees to obtain a licence by country, 2015 and 2016 .............................................. 88
Figure 67: Average time to obtain a licence by country, 2015 and 2016 ............................................. 88
Figure 68: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the international freight market ............................. 89
Figure 69: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the domestic freight market ................................... 90
Figure 70: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the international passenger market ....................... 91
Figure 71: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the domestic passenger market ............................. 92
Figure 72: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the domestic long-distance passenger market....... 93
Figure 73: Legal liberalisation and first competitors in the domestic regional passenger market ....... 94
Figure 74: Active railway undertakings in the freight market by country, 2016................................... 95
Figure 75: Competitors in freight, market share, compound average growth rate 2011-2016 ........... 95
Figure 76: Effective number of competitors in domestic rail freight, 2011 and 2016 .......................... 96
Figure 77: Average size of new entrants in freight market by country ................................................. 97
Figure 78: Active railway undertakings in the PSO and commercial passenger market by country, 2016
............................................................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 79: Competitors in commercial passenger market, market share, 2016 ................................... 98
Figure 80: Competitors in commercial passenger market, effective number, 2011 and 2016 ............ 99
Figure 81: Competitors in PSO passenger market, market share, 2016 ............................................. 100
Figure 82: Competitors in PSO passenger market, effective number, 2011 and 2016 ....................... 100
Figure 83: Average size of new entrants in commercial and PSO passenger markets ....................... 101
Figure 84: Employees of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings, 2016 .......................... 104
Figure 85: Employees of infrastructure managers, 2011 and 2016 .................................................... 105
Figure 86: Employees of incumbent railway undertakings, 2011 and 2016 ....................................... 105
Figure 87: Employees by gender structure, 2016 ............................................................................... 106
Figure 88: Employees by age group, 2012 and 2016 .......................................................................... 108
Figure 89: Employees by age group and country, 2016 ...................................................................... 109
Figure 90: Employees of main infrastructure managers by contract type, 2016 ................................ 110
Figure 91: Employees of incumbent or main railway undertakings by contract type, 2016 .............. 110
Figure 92: Employees of main infrastructure managers by time worked, 2016 ................................. 111
4
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0006.png
Figure 93: Employees of incumbent or main railway undertakings by time worked, 2016 ............... 111
Figure 94: Employees of main infrastructure managers in training, 2016 .......................................... 112
Figure 95: Employees of incumbent or main railway undertakings in training, 2016 ........................ 112
Figure 96: Pending infringement proceedings in the field of rail transport, 13 July 2017.................. 115
Figu e : Regulato
odies staff
dealing with rail market access, 2018 ......................................... 118
Figu e : Regulato
odies fu di g i the EU
................................................................................. 119
Figure 99: Regulatory bodies with integrated competences for the rail market, 2018 ...................... 120
Figure 100: Punctuality of regional and local passenger services, 2014-2016 ................................... 126
Figure 101: Punctuality of long-distance passenger services, 2014-2016 .......................................... 127
Figure 102: Reliability of regional and local passenger services, 2014-2016 ...................................... 128
Figure 103: Reliability of long-distance passenger services, 2014-2016............................................. 128
Figure 104: Punctuality of domestic and international freight services, 2016 ................................... 130
Figure 105: Reliability of domestic and international freight services, 2016...................................... 131
Figure 106: Average timetabled speed of freight services, 2016 ........................................................ 131
Figure 107: Fatality risk of different transport modes, 2011-2015 ..................................................... 133
Figure 108: Significant rail accidents and resulting casualties, 2010-2016 ......................................... 134
Figure 109: Significant rail accidents by type of accident, 2012-2016 ................................................ 134
Figure 110: Overall population satisfaction index with railway transport, 2018 ................................ 137
Figure 111: Stakeholders' assessment of RFCs' contribution to key rail freight challenges, 2016 ..... 139
Figure 112: Trends in input indicators, 2011=100............................................................................... 142
Figure 113: Trends in output indicators, 2011=100 ............................................................................ 142
Figure 114: Average passenger revenue per passenger train-kilometre, 2016 .................................. 143
Figure 115: Average freight revenue per freight train-kilometre, 2016 ............................................. 143
Figure 116: Passenger and freight track utilisation, 2016 ................................................................... 144
Figure 117: Passenger and freight vehicle utilisation, 2016 ............................................................... 144
5
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0007.png
Table of tables
Table 1: Use of high-speed lines for high-speed services, 2016 ........................................................... 17
Table 2: Allocation of EU funds to transport and rail projects for the EU funding cycle 2014-2020 .... 28
Table 3: Allocation of CEF to railways, 2014-2016 ................................................................................ 28
Table 4: Allocation of ESIF to railways, 2014-2020 ............................................................................... 29
Table 5: Track and nodes declared to be congested, 2015 and 2016 ................................................... 69
Table 6: Status of transposition of Rail Directives, 13 July 2017 ......................................................... 114
Table of boxes
Box 1: Measuring the high-speed network length ................................................................................ 16
Box 2: European Court of Auditors report on the EU high-speed rail network .................................... 18
Box 3: European Network of Infrastructure Managers PRIME ............................................................. 21
Box 4: EFSI for rail .................................................................................................................................. 30
Box 5: Cross-border harmonisation of technical and operational rules and issues log ........................ 48
Box 6: Policy framework for tackling rail noise ..................................................................................... 48
Box 7: New implementing Regulation on service facilities ................................................................... 49
Box 8: European Rail Facility Portal ....................................................................................................... 50
Box 9: Direct cost-based charging ......................................................................................................... 60
Box 10: New timetabling delegated act and Timetable Review project (RNE) ..................................... 74
Box 11: Night Trains .............................................................................................................................. 77
Box 12: Emergence of low-cost services ............................................................................................... 78
Box 13: Provisions on competitive tendering of rail PSCs in the Fourth Railway Package ................... 84
Box 14: State of play of market opening in the passenger market ..................................................... 102
Box 15: Implementing act on the Economic Equilibrium Test ............................................................ 103
Box 16: Gender aspects in rail ............................................................................................................. 107
Box 17: Training in the rail sector........................................................................................................ 113
Box 18: Passenger Rights..................................................................................................................... 129
Box 19: The Safety Culture Twinning Programme .............................................................................. 135
Box 20: Monitoring financial performance ......................................................................................... 140
Box 21: PRIME KPI and Benchmarking Subgroup ................................................................................ 146
6
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0008.png
List of abbreviations
CAGR
CEF
CF
CMS
CNC
dB
DG JUST
DG MOVE
DOO
ECA
EFSI
EIB
ELETA
ERA
ERADIS
ERDF
ERTMS
ESIFs
Compound average growth rate
Connecting Europe Facility
Cohesion Fund
Consumer Markets Scoreboard
Core Network Corridor
Decibel
European Commission Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
European Commission Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport
Driver-Only Operation
European Court of Auditors
The European Fund for Strategic investments
European Investment Bank
Electronic exchange of information on Estimated Time of Arrival
European Union Agency for Railways (formerly European Railway Agency)
European Union Agency for Railways database of interoperability and safety
European Regional Development Fund
European Railway Traffic Management System
European Structural and Investment Funds, include Cohesion Fund, European
Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund, European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
Estimated Time of Arrival
Global Financial Crisis
Gross Value Added
Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices
Rail infrastructure manager
EU Innovation and Networks Executive Agency
I depe de t Regulato s G oup –
Rail
Intermodal Transport Unit
kilometre
Key Performance Indicator
National Implementation Plan
Net Present Value
National Safety Authority
Pay As You Go
passenger-kilometre
Purchasing Power Parity
Platform of Rail Infrastructure Managers in Europe
Public Service Contract
Public Service Obligation
Directive 2012/34/EU establishing a Single European Railway Area
European Commission Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Rail Freight Corridor
Rail Market Monitoring Survey
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1100 for rail market
monitoring
Rolling stock company
Railway undertaking
Dialogue of Railway Undertakings
ETA
GFC
GVA
HICP
IM
INEA
IRG-Rail
ITU
km
KPI
NIP
NPV
NSA
PAYG
p-km
PPP
PRIME
PSC
PSO
Recast Directive
REGIO
RFC
RMMS
RMMS Regulation
ROSCO
RU
RU Dialogue
7
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0009.png
SERAC
SMS
SWD
TAF
TEN-T
TSI
tonne-km
The Agency
train-km
UIC
UIRR
Single European Railway Area Committee
Safety Management System
Staff Working Document
Telematics Applications for Freight
Trans-European Transport Network
Technical Specifications for Interoperability
tonne-kilometre
European Union Agency for Railways, until June 2016 called European Railway
Agency (ERA)
train-kilometre
Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer
Union Internationale pour le transport combiné Rail-Route
8
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0010.png
List of countries
AT
BE
BG
CH
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
EU
EU13
EU15
EU28
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
NO
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Switzerland
Cyprus
Czech Republic/Czechia
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
Spain
European Union
EU Member States having joined EU in or after 2004
EU Member States having joined EU before 2004
All Current EU Member States
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
The Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
United Kingdom
9
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0011.png
Introduction
This Commission Staff Working Document accompanies the Sixth Report from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament on monitoring development of the rail market. The data and
graphs used in this document have been made available in Excel format on the DG MOVE website
1
.
Coverage of the report
This document presents a non-exhaustive report
2
covering the main developments in the EU rail
market reflecting the
topics listed in Article 15 (4) of Directive 2012/34/EU
establishing a single
European railway area
3
(hereinafter the 'Recast Directive'), according to which the European
Commission must report to the European Parliament and the Council every two years on:
1. the evolution of internal market in rail services (Chapter 2);
2. services to be supplied to railway undertakings as per Annex II to the Recast Directive
(Chapter 3);
3. the framework conditions (Chapter 4), including inter alia:
infrastructure charging;
capacity allocation;
investment made in infrastructure;
developments with regards to prices
4
;
quality of rail transport services;
rail transport services covered by PSCs;
licensing;
degree of market opening;
harmonisation between Member States;
development of employment and related social conditions;
4. the state of the Union railway network (Chapter 1);
5. the utilisation of access rights (Chapter 4);
6. barriers to more effective rail services (Chapter 4 and Chapter 5);
7. infrastructure limitations (Chapter 4); and
8. the need for legislation (Conclusions).
The focus of this document is on developments between 2011 and 2016.
The sources of data include Rail Market Monitoring Survey (hereinafter 'the RMMS') responses, the
Statisti al po ket ook EU T a spo t i Figu es
5
, Eurostat
6
, IRG-RAIL, statistics collected by various
1
2
3
4
5
6
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/market/market_monitoring_en
.
In addition to rail
market
report, the EU Agency for Railways publishes bi-annual reports on
safety
and
interoperability
performance.
Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 21 November 2012 establishing a
single European railway area OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 32.
Comprehensive monitoring of rail prices for customers is not possible due to the broad variety of services
offered.
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/pocketbook-2016_en
.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/transport/data/database
.
10
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0012.png
sectoral organisations
7
and
ad hoc
presentations and studies. Contributions have also been
considered from the Member States, national regulatory bodies and stakeholders participating in the
Working Group for Rail Market Monitoring in the framework of the Single European Railway Area
Committee (SERAC).
All EU Member States are covered, except Cyprus and Malta which have no railways.
Norway participates in the RMMS, but data for Norway are not included in EU totals and averages.
The implementing act for rail market monitoring
Previous RMMS repo
ts d e
questionnaire.
o
the Me
e
States
olu ta
espo ses to the RMMS
This sixth RMMS draws on the mandatory data collection set out in the Commission Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2015/1100 for rail market monitoring
8
(hereinafter 'the RMMS Regulation')
applicable from July 2015. The questionnaire annexed to the RMMS Regulation was developed in
close cooperation with the Member States and stakeholders participating in the SERAC Working
Group for Rail Market Monitoring. While building mainly on the previous RMMS, the new
questionnaire added some new indicators, particularly related to revenues and traffic outputs, public
service obligation (PSO), infrastructure charges and employment.
In addition, under the new regime, Member States' reports have been submitted electronically and
validated through exchanges with the Commission. This sixth RMMS therefore benefits from better-
defined data requirements, a mandatory collection process, and a validation review, which should
gradually lead to more consistent and coherent data after the end of the transitional period in 2018.
It is recognised that these refinements of the sixth RMMS may have led some Member States to alter
the data and approach they have used to respond, which may result in some issues with comparable
time series. However, steps have been proactively taken by both the Commission and Member States
to ensure that these comparability issues have been minimised wherever possible.
7
8
UIC, UIPP.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1100 of 7 July 2015 on the reporting obligations of the
Member States in the framework of rail market monitoring, OJ L 181, 9.7.2015, page 1.
11
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0013.png
The state of the union railway network
1.
1.1
The state of the union railway network
Description
The ail et o k is the a k o e of the EU s t a spo t i f ast u tu e. The i po ta e atta hed to ail
as a sustainable and clean mode of transport is reflected in the TEN-T Guidelines
9
, the objectives of
the Connecting Europe Facility
10
, and the Cohesion Fund
11
priorities. National and European
authorities work together to ensure the necessary support for building new and improving existing
rail infrastructure as a part of an EU-wide multimodal network.
Figure 1 shows the reported length of the national rail networks of the EU Member States with rail
networks, plus Norway (NO).
Figure 1: Length of national networks in 2016 and relative change 2011-2016
45
40
35
EL
PT
FR
PL
HR
DK
SE
AT
HU
BG
UK
NO
FI
LV
RO
CZ
ES
SI
LU
IE
EE
SK
IT
BE
NL
DE
LT
Thousand line-kilometres
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
LU EE SI LV IE LT EL DK PT HR NL BE SK NO BG AT FI HU CZ RO SE ES UK IT PL FR DE
-15% -10% -5%
0%
5% 10% 15%
Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2018. Infill data from various other sources.
The total length of the EU rail network in use in 2016 was around 221 thousand line-kilometres, 1,6%
shorter than in 2011.
Infrastructure density
Figure 2 illustrates the diversity of railways in the different States. It compares the number of line-
kilometres per ten thousand square kilometres, on the horizontal axis, with the number of line-
kilometres per million population, on the vertical axis.
9
10
11
Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on
Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, OJ L 348/1, 20.12.2013.
Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013
establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010, OJ L 348, 20.12.2013,
page 129.
Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the
Cohesion Fund, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, page 281.
12
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0014.png
The state of the union railway network
Figure 2: Density of railway network relative to surface area and population in 2016
1 200
FI
SE
LV
800
NO
EE
600
LT
BG
IE
ES
200
EL
PT
HR
RO
EU
FR
IT
UK
NL
SI
AT
PL
DK
DE
LU
BE
SK
HU
Line-kilometres per million people
1 000
CZ
400
0
0
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
1 400
Line-kilometres per 10 000 square kilometres
Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2018.
At the bottom left of the figure (yellow circles) are networks with low track density per 10 000 square
kilometres and per million population. These networks are in the peripheral Member States of
Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece.
At the top left of the figure (grey diamonds) are networks with a low track density per 10 000 square
kilometres but a high track density per million population. These include the Nordic and Baltic States
of Norway, Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
At the top right of the figure (blue triangles) are networks with medium and high track densities per
10 000 square kilometres and per million population. These include primarily Central and Eastern
European Member States of Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, Poland, Austria, Slovakia and
Hungary.
Finally, at the bottom right of the figure (green squares) are networks with high track densities,
mainly in Northern Europe: France, Denmark, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Luxembourg,
Germany and Belgium.
The groupings are particularly striking for:
the Iberian networks of Spain and Portugal, which also share a track gauge;
the Nordic States and the Baltic States;
neighbours Romania and Bulgaria, and Poland, Slovenia, Austria, Slovakia and Hungary; and
the relatively densely populated Benelux countries, Germany, Denmark and the United
Kingdom.
Electrified lines
Figure 3 shows the proportion of each network, measured in line-kilometres, that is electrified, and
the EU average.
13
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0015.png
The state of the union railway network
Figure 3: The proportion of networks electrified, 2016 and change in percentage electrified 2011-2016
100%
90%
80%
PT
EL
FR
PL
AT
ES
SE
HU
FI
EU
HR
BG
DK
NL
BE
DE
IT
SK
CZ
RO
SI
LU
IE
EE
LV
UK
LT
NO
Proportion of line-kilometres
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
LU BE NL SE AT IT BG PT PL ES NO FR FI EU DE SK SI HURO HR CZ UK DK EL EE LV LT IE
-5%
0%
5%
10%
Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2018.
While around 54% of the total EU network is electrified, this proportion ranges from under 3% in
Ireland to over 95% in Luxembourg. In Greece and Portugal, over the last 5 years, overall network
size has reduced, while additional lines have been electrified, resulting in a sudden increase in the
proportion of electrified lines.
High-speed lines
The Commission regularly reports statistics on high-speed lines defined as the lines or of sections of
lines on which trains can go faster than 250 km/h at some point during the journey. Figure 4 shows
the de elop e t of the EU s high-speed
network, which by the end of 2017 extended to over
8400 line-kilometres.
14
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0016.png
The state of the union railway network
Figure 4: Development of high-speed lines in Europe
9 000
8 000
7 000
6 000
5 000
4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
0
Line-kilometres
Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2018, lines or sections of lines on which trains can exceed 250 km/h at some
point.
It was 1989 before the network reached 1 000 line-kilometres, but since then it has grown by an
average of more than 250 line-kilometres per year, and has more than doubled in length in the
13 years since 2003.
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
15
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0017.png
The state of the union railway network
Box 1: Measuring the high-speed network length
Reported length of high-speed network in Europe may vary depending on the reference source.
In the annual DG MOVE publicatio
EU t a spo t i figu es
-
Statisti al Po ket ook , the Co
issio
reports as high-speed lines the lines or of sections of lines on which trains can go faster than 250 km/h at
some point during the journey. Due to the narrow scope, only
8 434
kilometres are reported as completed
high-speed lines in Europe in 2017. The RMMS reporting on high-speed lines is based on this statistical
publication.
However, high-speed lines could be interpreted more inclusively by counting also lines allowing speeds of
at least 200 km/h (and not necessarily exclusively dedicated to high-speed).
For example, the TEN-T Guidelines, on which official measurements of the TEN–T network are based,
follow this more extended definition of high-speed lines (Article 11( 2 a)), including three categories:
specially built lines for speeds higher than 250 km/h;
specially upgraded lines for speeds in the order of 200 km/h; and
specially upgraded high-speed lines with special features, resulting from topographical constraints
etc.
This means that
10 600
kilometres are completed on the core network and
805
kilometres on the
comprehensive network, or
11 400
kilometres in total.
This defi itio is i li e ith the Di e ti e
speed lines as those that comprise:
/
/EC the I te ope a ilit Di e ti e , hi h defi es high-
specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h
(kilometres per hour);
specially upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h (kilometres per
hour); or
specially upgraded high-speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief
or town planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case. This category
also includes interconnecting lines between the high-speed and conventional networks, lines
through stations, access to terminals, depots, and other facilities travelled at conventional speed
high-speed olli g sto k.
Figure 5 shows how the length of high-speed line has evolved over the four years 2012 to 2017. The
first high-speed lines in the EU were in France, which in 2017 overtook Spain as the largest high-
speed network.
16
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0018.png
The state of the union railway network
Figure 5: Length of dedicated high-speed line, 2012-2017
3 000
2 500
2 000
Line-kilometres
1 500
1 000
500
0
ES
FR
DE
2012
2013
IT
2014
PL
2015
2016
BE
2017
NL
UK
AT
Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2018.
No new lines have been added to the relatively small networks in the United Kingdom and Belgium,
which have now been overtaken by Poland, where since December 2014 high-speed services are
operated on the 224 line-kilometres. There has been slight growth in the high-speed networks of
Italy. The greatest increases occurred in France, Germany and Spain, which have since 2012 put into
service 676, 306 and 296 additional line-kilometres respectively.
In France, more than 500 kilometres of new high-speed lines were put into service in 2017, including
the new 302-kilometre Tours-Bordeaux line. The newest lines in France allow speeds of 320 km/h.
Table 1: Use of high-speed lines for high-speed services, 2016
Proportion of total network
consisting of high-speed lines
(proportion of line-kilometres)
Spain
France
Belgium
Italy
Netherlands
Germany
United Kingdom
Source: Statistical pocketbook 2017, UIC data.
15.2%
7.7%
5.8%
5.2%
3.9%
3.8%
0.7%
Passengers carried in high-
speed rolling stock
(billion passenger-kilometres)
15.06
50.54
1.50
12.79
0.37
27.21
2.80
Length of high-
speed lines
(line-kilometres)
2 413
2 180
209
896
120
1 475
113
Many services operated using high-speed rolling stock extend beyond the network of high-speed
lines, so passengers carried in high-speed rolling stock are not necessarily travelling on a high-speed
line.
Spai s e high-speed
network forms nearly one line-kilometre in six (15%) of the national network.
In contrast, the United Kingdom has a single short high-speed line from the Channel Tunnel to
17
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0019.png
The state of the union railway network
London (0.7% of total network), although it is used relatively intensively by Eurostar international
and Javelin domestic high-speed services.
Box 2: European Court of Auditors report on the EU high-speed rail network
In a recent special report
12
the European Court of Auditors (ECA) recognises the benefits of the high-speed
rail to support EU's sustainable mobility policy.
Able to produce a carbon footprint lower than other forms of transport, high-speed rail contributes to
relieve pressure on congested road networks, exhibits increased safety levels, provides its passengers with
quick and comfortable travel and can provide socio-economic support to regions.
The Commission recognised the importance of high-speed rail for a sustainable transport enabling
economic growth and job creation. Completing a European high-speed rail network by 2050 and tripling
the length of the existing high-speed rail network up to 30 000 kilometres by 2030 was one of the ten goals
set in the White Paper on Transport 2011 for a competitive and resource-efficient transport system
13
.
According to ECA it is unlikely that these objectives will be achieved. The report concludes that the current
high-speed network is a patchwork of national high-speed lines rather than a true European high-speed
network. They consider that a seamless and competitive cross-border high-speed rail is still some way off
and make recommendations to the Commission on the planning of the EU high-speed rail network, on how
to better target the EU co-funding for high-speed rail infrastructure investments, on simplifying cross-
border constructions and on possible actions to improve high-speed rail operations for passengers.
The 28 Member States have more than 215 000 kilometres of rail lines, so prioritising high-speed rail will
not happen overnight. In this context the Commission welcomes the report and recommendations from
the Court and is fully supportive of the Court's objective of ensuring public money is well-spent.
Several recommendations of the Court are timely, as they clearly support the Commission's ongoing efforts
to better coordinate works and investments for the realisation of the Trans-European Transport Network,
and to create a genuine level playing field between transport modes. The Commission has now put in place
a clear long-term planning and governance, supported by strong rules, sound monitoring and adequate
financing as recommended by the ECA. In addition, proposals recently made by this Commission as part of
the next long-te
udget Co e ti g Eu ope Fa ilit a d Eu ope o the Mo e S a t TEN-T ill
accelerate the completion of the high-speed network, while ensuring that public money is well-managed
and well-spent.
Source: ECA.
1.2
Missing links and cross border vision
The TEN-T railway network, with total length of 163 180 kilometres (both comprehensive and core
networks), has in the first instance to be implemented by Member States. In particular, the European
Commission facilitates the implementation of the core network as the strategically most important
part (43 % of the total length of the TEN-T railway network). The core network should be completed
by 2030.
The Commission supports the implementation of TEN-T projects in two ways: funding under the
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)
14
and through coordination in the framework of the Core Network
12
13
14
Spe ial Repo t .
A Eu opea high-speed
rail network: not
a ealit ut a i effe ti e pat h o k , ECA,
June 2018.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0144&from=EN.
Information about all railway projects, which have so far been funded under the CEF 2014
–
2020, can be
found at
https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/projects-by-transport-
mode/rail.
18
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0020.png
The state of the union railway network
Corridors (CNC), including EU level horizontal priorities such as deployment of the European Rail
Traffic Management System (ERTMS).
Rail projects are addressed in a comprehensive way in the TEN-T Corridor work plans
15
established by
the European Coordinators, with the aim of stimulating a shift to rail as a sustainable transport
mode. This includes the completion of missing links and the removal of bottlenecks as well as
ensuring coherent standards along the corridors (requirements for axle load, train lengths, line
speed). Some key cross-border projects (which at the same time overcome geographical barriers,
such as the Brenner and Lyon-Torino Alpine tunnels or the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link) are of special
European added value.
Besides the rail projects on the core network, smaller railway projects on the comprehensive
network and beyond can also be important. In many cases, abandoned, missing or unused rail
connections across the borders between Member States limit opportunities for cross-border
cooperation between regions. A study on Comprehensive analysis of the existing cross-border rail
transport connections and missing links on the internal EU border
16
, completed in March 2018,
assesses the situation of such connections.
The Commission's proposal for the Connecting Europe Facility 2021-2028 proposes to give increasing
importance to such smaller scale rail infrastructure projects located on the comprehensive network
of the TEN-T. Other projects, which may also be important as access routes to the TEN-T
infrastructure, might be considered for support under other EU instruments, such as Cohesion
Fund (CF) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
1.3
Infrastructure management
1.3.1
Infrastructure governance
Member States often have a single national infrastructure manager, or a dominant infrastructure
manager responsible for the main network and smaller ones responsible for specific lines, regional
infrastructure or service facilities.
The Fourth Railway Package, whose market pillar was adopted by the co-legislators in
December 2016, proposes additional measures to ensure that infrastructure managers manage their
networks in an optimised, efficient and non-discriminatory manner.
Figure 6, reproduced from the Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the fifth RMMS,
shows the national governance structures of the main infrastructure managers updated to 2016.
15
16
The work plans of the European Coordinators can be found at
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure_en.
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/reports/2018/comprehensive-analysis-
of-the-existing-cross-border-rail-transport-connections-and-missing-links-on-the-internal-eu-border.
19
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0021.png
The state of the union railway network
Figure 6: Institutional settings in the Member States, 2016
Integrated
Organisationally
Integrated,
separate
body for
essential
functions
A holding
structure with
limited
independence
guarantees
A holding
structure with
strong
independence
guarantees
Separated
Integrated
Separated
Full
Scope of IM functions
IM in charge of all
functions (incl.
capacity allocation and
charging)
Austria
France
Germany
Italy
Latvia
Poland
Slovenia
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech
Republic
Croatia
Denmark
Estonia
UK
(GB part)
Finland
Greece
Netherlands
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
Partial
IM in charge of
functions except the
essential functions
(capacity allocation
and charging), which
are under the
responsibility of a
separate body
IM in charge of the
essential functions,
some parts delegated
to railway undertaking
Hungary
Ireland
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Source: EC.
No material changes in national governance structures have been reported since 2016.
20
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0022.png
The state of the union railway network
Box 3: European Network of Infrastructure Managers PRIME
PRIME brings together rail infrastructure managers at European level with a view to facilitating and
improving rail services for transporting people and goods across Europe.
PRIME was created on a voluntary basis in 2013 as a cooperation platform between the European
Commission and European rail infrastructure managers. In 2017 it become a formal European Network of
Infrastructure Managers as foreseen in the Fourth Railway Package. The tasks of the European Network of
Infrastructure Managers include:
developing EU rail infrastructure and tackling cross-border bottlenecks;
supporting implementation of the single European railway area;
exchanging best practices;
monitoring and benchmarking performance, exchanging best practices and contributing to the
market monitoring; and
cooperating on charging systems and the allocation of cross-border infrastructure capacity.
PRIME has more than 35 member organisations and is co-chaired by the European Commission and
industry. According to the Fourth Railway Package, the Member States must ensure that their main
infrastructure managers participate in the work of the PRIME by the end of 2018.
Work on specific topics is done in PRIME's six subgroups (KPIs and Benchmarking, Financing, Digitalisation,
Safety Culture, Charges and EC Expert Group on Implementing Acts) and in two cooperation platforms -
one with Railway Undertakings and another one with Regulatory Bodies
17
. The PRIME KPI and
Benchmarking Subgroup published its first Benchmarking report in July 2018
18
.
1.3.2
Infrastructure expenditure
One of the main objectives of European and national transport policies is to enhance rail
infrastructure investments. Over the period 2014 to 2020, the investment required for the
implementation of projects necessary to contribute to the TEN-T networks is expected to be
EUR 500 billion. By 2030, an additional investment of EUR 750 billion will be required to complete
the TEN-T networks.
19
This will be financed primarily from the national budgets of Member States,
but with a significant contribution from EU grants. In addition, however, Member States and rail
infrastructure managers will need to invest and maintain parts of their national networks which are
not included in the TEN-T networks.
17
18
19
To learn more about PRIME, its activities and deliverables, visit its website
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/multisite/primeinfrastructure/prime-news_en
.
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/multisite/primeinfrastructure/content/subgroups_en
.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t-guidelines/project-funding_en
.
21
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0023.png
The state of the union railway network
Figure 7: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion on maintenance and renewals, 2011-2016
70
60
70%
60%
50%
10,4
40
20,4
30
9,7
20
10,7
10
8,8
0
2011
Maintenance
2012
Renewals
2013
Enhancements
2014
New infrastructure
2015
2016
8,8
12,1
11,3
10,8
11,3
0%
Proportion of maintenance and renewals
10,3
9,3
13,2
14,5
13,8
20%
10%
16,8
17,0
13,9
7,9
13,1
40%
30%
50
Source: RMMS, 2018.
Figure 7 shows that total EU infrastructure expenditure rose continuously from EUR 29.2 billion in
2011 to EUR 49.5 billion in 2015 and then fell by EUR 3.5 billion in 2016, primarily due to lower
expenditure on new infrastructure. Of 2016 expenditure, 25% was on maintenance, 29% on
renewals, 27% on enhancements, and 19% on new infrastructure. Compared with 2011, total
maintenance expenditure in 2016 had increased by 28%, renewals by 30% and enhancements by
28%.
Figure 8 shows total infrastructure expenditure by State.
Figure 8: Expenditure on infrastructure and proportion on maintenance and renewals per country, 2016
10 000
9 000
8 000
100%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
UK DE FR IT AT ES NO SE PL NL BE CZ DK LU FI RO EL HU BG SK IE LT SI LV HR PT EE
Maintenance
Renewals
Enhancements
New infrastructure
Proportion of maintenance and renewals
7 000
6 000
5 000
4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
0
Source: RMMS, 2018. NO, SE included enhancements with renewals.
22
Proportion of maintenance and renewals
90%
Expenditure (EUR million)
Proportion of maintenance and renewals
Expenditure (EUR billion)
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0024.png
The state of the union railway network
Not all countries
20
were able to distinguish in their reporting the investments in new infrastructure
from enhancements, but the information available suggests that France, Italy, Austria, Spain, Norway
and Sweden invested most in new infrastructure in 2016.
Total infrastructure expenditure was highest in the United Kingdom, Germany and France. In
Germany, federal subsidies in 2016 rose by EUR 800 million
21
to support the expansion of the
regional railway system. In 2018, incumbent rail operator Deutsche Bahn began a major railway
investment plan and intends to spend EUR 9.3 billion (9.4% more than in 2017) on maintenance,
renewal and enhancement of tracks, stations, bridges and tunnels.
Maintaining and renewing the existing network, to enhance its safety and operational performance,
and to ensure reliable service, is a major challenge for infrastructure managers, particularly in
conditions of increasing traffic and demanding performance targets agreed between national
authorities and operators. Maintenance and renewals expenditure has been relatively low in many
Member States, not only because of a shortage of funds, but also because priority was given to
investment in new lines. Catching up with underinvestment is often more expensive, in the longer
term, than continuous routine maintenance of infrastructure.
In 2016, total maintenance and renewal expenditure amounted to EUR 26 billion, i.e. 54% of the total
expenditure
22
. The proportion of maintenance and renewal expenditure in the total varied between
countries, with Central and Eastern European economies spending a substantial proportion on
maintenance and renewal of lines. The highest proportion was for Estonia (100%), and the lowest
was for Greece (5%). France, Germany and United Kingdom spent an average of 63% of total
expenditure on maintenance and renewal. Between 2014 and 2016, maintenance and renewal
expenditure grew by an average of 23%, most significantly in Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Germany, while
Hungary and Croatia showed the largest reductions.
Figure 9 shows total maintenance, renewal and enhancement expenditure per line-kilometre in each
Member State over the period 2013 to 2016.
20
21
22
Norway and Sweden have explicitly stated that they combined renewals and enhancements, but it seems
that Austria, Croatia and Estonia had the same reporting problem (zero value in enhancements).
https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/EN/Standardartikel/Topics/Public-
Finances/Articles/2017-06-19-german-public-investment.html
.
Norway included.
23
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0025.png
The state of the union railway network
Figure 9: Expenditure on maintenance, renewal and enhancement per line-kilometre, 2013-2016
2 000
Expenditure per line-kilometre (EUR thousand)
1 800
1 600
1 400
1 200
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
LU UK NL NO AT BE DK FR
IT DE SE
2013
SI
2014
EL CZ ES
2015
IE
2016
LT PL LV
FI
SK BG EE HR HU PT RO
Source: RMMS and Statistical pocketbook, 2018. No 2013 data for EL.
Before 2015, expenditure on new infrastructure was reported as part of enhancement expenditure,
so separate data for enhancement infrastructure and new infrastructure are only available for 2015
and 2016. This also means that it is not possible to compare enhancement expenditure in 2011 and
2016. However:
Total EU expenditure on enhancements in 2016 was EUR 13.1 billion, of which 79% was in
five Member States: France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom.
Total (EU plus Norway) expenditure on new infrastructure fell from EUR 11.5 billion in 2015
to EUR 9.1 billion in 2016, of which 86% was in six States: Austria, France, Italy, Norway,
Spain and Sweden.
Figure 10 shows the average annual expenditure in 2015-2016 by the category of infrastructure to
which it related.
24
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0026.png
The state of the union railway network
Figure 10: Expenditure by category by country, average of 2015-2016
20
18
16
Expenditure (EUR billion)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
UK FR DE IT
ES AT PL NO SE NL CZ BE DK FI
Dedicated high-speed lines
LU RO HU SI
SK EL LV BG LT
IE HR PT EE
Conventional lines
Major stations
Major freight terminals
Source: RMMS, 2018. Estonia reported expenditure of EUR 0.1 billion.
Most maintenance, renewal, enhancements and new construction expenditure during 2015-2016
were reported under the category of conventional lines
23
. France and Spain both reported having
spent large portions of their overall budgets (EUR 4.36 billion and EUR 3.64 billion respectively) on
high-speed rail.
Figure 11 shows the data available on the role of expenditure on high-speed lines. In the top four
Member States by spend, most expenditure were allocated to the construction of new infrastructure.
23
Some Member States are still making use of the transitional period following the entry into force of
Regulation 2015/1100 to adjust existing data collection mechanisms to the format requested and they may
have reported under conventional lines also the expenditure for dedicated high-speed lines, major stations
and major freight terminals.
25
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0027.png
The state of the union railway network
Figure 11: Expenditure on high-speed rail by activity, by Member State, average of 2015-2016
3
Average annual expenditure (EUR billion)
2
1
0
FR
ES
DK
IT
Enhancements
BE
Renewals
UK
Maintenance
DE
NL
New infrastructure
Source: RMMS, 2018.
Expenditure on new infrastructure occurs only on networks which are being started or extended. Of
total 2015-2016 expenditure on high-speed infrastructure, new infrastructure accounted for 100% in
Denmark, 81% in France and 79% in Spain, but nothing in Germany and the UK, where expenditure
was dominated by maintenance of the existing networks.
1.3.3
Infrastructure funding and financing
Infrastructure managers obtain resources to maintain and improve their rail infrastructure from a
variety of sources, including national public funding, project support from the EU and railway-
generated funds such as revenue earned from track access charges.
The principal source is national government budgets: in 2016 national budgets contributed about
70% to total expenditure and investment.
Figure 12
sho s the States i f ast u tu e fu di g
sou e
24
.
24
Amounts in this Figure do not always match those related to total expenditure by category due to data
quality issues in RMMS.
26
0,003 (Maintenance)
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0028.png
The state of the union railway network
Figure 12: State rail infrastructure funding by source and country, 2016
10
9
8
Expenditure (EUR billion)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
UK FR DE IT AT ES NO SE PL NL CZ BE DK LU
Public funds
EU funds
FI
EL HU BG RO SK
Own funds
IE
LT
SI
LV HR PT EE
Source: RMMS, 2018.
I f ast u tu e a age s o
esou es i lude i f ast u tu e a ess ha ges that a o t i ute to
operations, maintenance and renewals. The proportion of total funding generated internally was
highest in Latvia (100%), Lithuania and France (both 81%), followed by Slovakia (69%) and the United
Kingdom (42%).
In many States, however, funding generated by rail services was less than 10% of the total. In most
Member States, infrastructure access charges cover between 5% and 10%
25
of operations and
maintenance costs, although this proportion varies widely:
In the Baltic States, high freight track access charges have in the past been sufficient to fund
a large proportion of maintenance expenditure.
In Germany, a fund based on a Performance and Funding Agreement between the federal
government and Deutsche Bahn AG has been established to cover the maintenance cost of
infrastructure.
European Union funding is also important for railway infrastructure investments. European Union
funding through Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the
Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), and the European Investment Bank (EIB) contribute an average of
12% of the total funding for investment in rail infrastructure in Europe. Funding is also supported by
private financing such as bank loans and by equity capital for large projects.
Depending on national policy on the level and structure of access charges, most infrastructure
managers also require subsidies to fund their activities. To ensure that they have mid-term assurance
on the availability of sufficient funds, Directive 2012/34/EU obliges Member States to conclude
contractual agreements between the competent authority and the infrastructure manager covering a
period of at least five years, with funding in many States conditional on the achievement of
performance targets.
25
"The results and efficiency of railway infrastructure financing within the EU", European Parliament, 2015.
27
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0029.png
The state of the union railway network
As yet, however, there is no comprehensive overview of the level of subsidies provided by national
governments to rail infrastructure managers
26
.
The RMMS survey asked States to provide information on total compensation from the State
pursuant to Article 30(2) of Directive 2012/34/EU. Only 17 Member States provided complete
responses, describing compensation arrangements for periods ranging from one year to nearly
30 years. Only 11 Member States reported that the compensation was for a period of five years or
more, and only ten reported that performance indicators had been agreed. Many Member States
reported a single national total compensation, but Italy listed 17 different compensation packages
for various infrastructure managers for periods varying from one to ten years. The reported average
annual compensation per network kilometre varied from EUR 37 in Lithuania to more than
EUR 3 million in Portugal.
EU funding (Connecting Europe Facility and European Structural and Investment Funds)
Around EUR 33 billion has been allocated to European railway investments under the current
framework. Table 2 shows that 74% of CEF funding and 37% of total EU transport funding has been
allocated to the railway sector. Table 3 and Table 4 show the types of projects on which these funds
were spent.
Table 2: Allocation of EU funds to transport and rail projects for the EU funding cycle 2014-2020
EUR billion
ERDF and Cohesion Fund
CEF
Total
All transport projects
70.1
19.7
89.8
Railway projects
18.7
14.6
33.3
Proportion of total invested in rail
27%
74%
37%
Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), DG REGIO.
Table 3: Allocation of CEF to railways, 2014-2016
2014 CEF call
Number of
projects
ERTMS
Rail Interoperability
Rail freight noise
Multimodal logistics platforms
Railways
Total
18
8
2
10
81
119
Granted
funding,
EUR million
251.5
28.1
6.2
30.1
9 339.1
9 655.0
15
33
71
63.1
4 406.3
4 959.2
Number of
projects
19
4
2016 CEF call
Recommended
funding,
EUR million
477.8
12.0
Source: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA).
26
Some Member States, such as the United Kingdom, provide comprehensive data about the financing of
their rail system (see, for example
http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/gb-rail-industry-financial-
information/gb-rail-industry-financial-information-2014-15),
but this practice is not common to all States.
28
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0030.png
The state of the union railway network
Table 4: Allocation of ESIF to railways, 2014-2020
EUR million
Railways (TEN-T core)
Railways (TEN-T comprehensive)
Other railways
Mobile rail assets
Total
Source: DG REGIO.
Cohesion Fund
5 334.9
4 089.4
194.5
158.9
12 477.6
European Regional
Development Fund
2 511.0
424.8
2 64.8
668.8
6 169.6
Total
7 854.9
4 614.2
4 159.3
2 027.7
18 647.1
Figure 13 shows the distribution of Cohesion Fund and ERDF funding among the Member States.
Figure 13: Distribution of Cohesion Fund and ERDF funding by Member State, 2014-2020
Other 3,9%
HR 2,7%
EL 2,7%
PT 2,9%
BG 3,1%
PL 36,4%
LV 2,4%
SK 5,5%
HU 6,3%
IT 7,3%
RO 8,0%
ES 9,3%
CZ 9,5%
Source: INEA and DG REGIO.
Poland is the largest beneficiary of CF and ERDF funding, receiving 36.4% of total EU funding. No
other Member State received more than 10%.
Figure 14 shows that Poland is also largest beneficiary of CEF funding, with 40.1%, followed by the
Czech Republic with 14.1%. No other Member State received more than 10%.
29
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0031.png
The state of the union railway network
Figure 14: Distribution of CEF funding by Member State, 2014-2016
HR 4,0%
Other 13,0%
BG 4,6%
SK 6,0%
PL 40,1%
RO 9,0%
HU 9,1%
CZ 14,1%
Source: INEA and DG REGIO.
Figure 15 shows the rate of Cohesion Fund (CF) and ERDF funding per line-kilometre allocated to
each Member State. This data indicates that Poland was allocated more funding per line-kilometre
than any other Member State.
Figure 15: Allocation of CF and ERDF funding per line-kilometre in the 2014-2020 funding cycle
400
368,0
Allocation per line-kilometre (EUR thousand)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
3,6
0
PL
SK
LV
EL
PT
HR
CZ
HU
LT
BG
RO
SI
ES
EE
IT
UK
SE
FR
DE
2,9
1,6
0,8
283,5
235,7
224,4
213,9
192,0 186,5
152,3 146,4
142,1 138,9
126,6
109,3
98,5
80,0
Source: INEA, DG REGIO and Statistical pocketbook, 2017, operational programmes adopted at 23 June 2016 .
Box 4: EFSI for rail
The European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) was established in July 2015 as one of the three pillars
of the Investment Plan for Europe, to help overcome the current investment gap in the EU. Jointly launched
by the European Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group, the EFSI aims to mobilise
private investment in projects which are strategically important for the EU.
Backed by a budget guarantee from the European Union and own resources from the EIB Group,
30
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0032.png
The state of the union railway network
operations approved until July 2018 are expected to trigger EUR 335 billion in investment across the 28 EU
Member States. This is more than the original goal of EUR 315 billion set in 2015.
In December 2017, the EFSI 2.0 extended the lifetime of the EFSI until end-2020, covering the period of the
current Multiannual Financial Framework. It also increases its target to mobilise at least EUR 500 billion of
investments by end-2020 versus the original goal of EUR 315 billion by July 2018.
EIB finance makes an important contribution to rail investment in Europe with an average of over EUR 4
billion per year (from 2015-17 inclusive) in loans:
EIB annual lending (signed projects) for the rail transport sector
EUR million
EU28
non-EU
Total
2015
5 547.5
177
5 724.5
2016
3 816.0
204.8
4 020.8
2017
3 063.9
40
3 103.9
2018 to date
1 649.5
134
1 783.5
Source: EIB; 2018 data to 5 July 2018.
The support given to rail projects under the EFSI has helped to mobilise significant additional public or
private funds. The figure below shows for all rail projects approved and signed under the EFSI between
2015 and 2017 both the specific EFSI financing and the total investment they are expected to attract.
2 000
1 800
1 600
1 400
EUR million
1 200
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
2015
EFSI financing of rail projects
2016
Total rail projects investment related to EFSI
2017
Source: EIB
–
projects mainly related to rolling stock.
The EFSI financing is the tranche of an operation that benefits from the support of the European Fund for
Strategic Investments. This amount will sometimes differ from the total EIB financing amount of the same
operation.
The total investment related to EFSI refers to the total financing amount expected to be attracted for any
particular EFSI project. This amount might come from public or private sources, and it includes EFSI
financing provided by the EIB.
Source: EIB, 2018.
31
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0033.png
The evolution of rail services
2.
The evolution of rail services
The traffic volume indicators in this section are mainly based on RMMS data, available as from 2007.
RMMS data provide breakdowns of volumes in terms of market segments (passenger/freight,
domestic/international, PSO/non-PSO). Eurostat data are used to assess the modal split, which
require combining the data of different modes. Passenger-kilometres and tonne-kilometres as
reported in Eurostat could however show slight differences with those reported in the RMMS due to
variations in the scope of reporting, potential double counting of transit volumes and adjustments
performed in the RMMS (estimates and integration from other sources). Finally, for train-kilometres
the data of Eurostat, UIC and IRG-Rail have been combined to acquire a dataset as complete as
possible.
The European rail transports some 1.6 billion tonnes of freight and 9 billion passengers every year.
Rail transport is critical to the EU strategy for a more sustainable transport sector, economic and
social cohesion and connecting EU citizens, within and between Member States.
Rail has the pote tial to pla a sig ifi a t ole i a ele ati g the edu tio of t a spo t s e issions.
It only accounts for 2% of total EU energy consumption in transport, while in 2016 it carried 11.2% of
freight and 6.6% of passengers of all transport modes (land, air and waterways). It is also the only
mode having almost continuously reduced Green House Gas (GHG
27
) and in particular carbon
dioxide (CO
2
) emissions since 1990, representing in 2016 only 0.5% of total emissions from all
transport modes
28
.
2.1
Traffic volumes
Figure 16 summarises trends in passenger and freight volumes over the period 2005 to 2016 and
Figure 17 shows the average annual rates of change over the period 2011 to 2016.
Total train-kilometres, which include both passenger and freight train movements, remained
substantially stable between 2009 and 2016, after a significant increase in the pre-crisis period.
Rail transport's focus varies between countries. On average, 82.3% of total EU train-km are used for
passenger transport. In Denmark, the United Kingdom and Luxembourg more than 90% of train-km
are used for passenger transport, whereas Lithuania, Slovenia and Latvia are more freight oriented
(around 50% or more train-km).
27
28
The European Environment Agency (EEA,
https://www.eea.europa.eu/
) is the main provider for EU-wide
GHGs emissions data. GHGs comprehends carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC).
Excluding indirect emissions from electricity consumption.
32
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0034.png
The evolution of rail services
Figure 16: Passenger and freight volumes, 2005-2016
475
Passenger-, tonne- or train-kilometres
450
425
400
375
350
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Passenger-kilometres (billion)
Tonne-kilometres (billion)
Train-kilometres (10 million)
Source: RMMS, 2018. Infill data from various other sources and estimates.
Rail passenger traffic continued to grow between 2011 and 2016 with a compound average growth
rate of 1.6%, fully recovering from the slight decline experienced in 2009 due to the unfavourable
economic climate across most of the EU.
Rail freight traffic, in contrast, struggled to recover from the significant drop in volumes experienced
in 2009, the low point of the economic crisis, with a peak in 2011 followed by a slow recovery from
2012
29
.
29
Data on volumes presented in the 6
th
RMMS Report and its accompanying Staff Working Document are
based on the figures reported in the yearly RMMS questionnaire by Member States and Norway. They may
differ from those reported by Eurostat. The difference is due to the different scope of the two surveys and
to potential double counting of transit volumes and adjustments applied in the RMMS to complete the time
series (estimates and integration from other sources).
33
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0035.png
The evolution of rail services
Figure 17: Passenger and freight volumes, compound average annual growth 2011-2016
Passenger-kilometres
SK
CZ
EE
IE
NO
EL
LU
ES
AT
UK
SE
DE
IT
NL
EU
PL
LT
PT
FI
FR
HU
DK
BE
RO
SI
LV
BG
HR
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
-30%
-20%
-10%
Tonne-kilometres
BE
CZ
SK
IT
DE
SI
NO
AT
FI
DK
EU
PT
IE
BG
PL
HR
SE
FR
UK
HU
LT
EL
LV
ES
RO
EE
0%
10%
20%
30%
Source: RMMS, 2018. No freight data for LU and NL.
Passenger and freight markets are discussed more in detail below.
2.2
The passenger market
2.2.1
Evolution of volumes
Evolution of propensity to travel/rail travel per inhabitant
Figure 18 shows how propensity to travel by rail, measured as annual passenger-kilometres per
inhabitant, varies significantly between States.
34
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0036.png
The evolution of rail services
Figure 18: Propensity to travel by rail 2016 and compound average annual growth 2011-2016
1 600
1 400
HR
BG
LV
SI
BE
DK
FR
RO
FI
HU
PT
PL
EU
LU
LT
SE
NL
UK
DE
IT
AT
NO
ES
IE
EL
CZ
EE
SK
Passenger-kilometres per inhabitant
1 200
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
AT
FR
SE
DE
NL
DK
UK
BE
EU
IT
CZ
HU
LU
NO
FI
SK
ES
PL
IE
PT
SI
LV
EE
RO
BG
HR
LT
EL
-15% -10% -5%
0%
5% 10%
Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2018 and Eurostat.
Since 2011, the average propensity to travel in EU has slightly increased from 830 to 882 passenger-
kilometres per inhabitant (+1.2% of cumulative annual growth rate). The most rail travel per
inhabitant was in Austria, France and Sweden, with over 1 300 passenger-kilometres per inhabitant.
The least rail travel per inhabitant was in Lithuania, Greece, Croatia and Bulgaria, all with at most
around 200 passenger-kilometres per inhabitant.
Passenger land transport modal split by Member State
Passenger car dominates total passenger land transport within the EU, with a share of more than
80% throughout the period 2007 to 2016. Figure 19 shows the remaining shares carried by the
modes of rail, bus and coach, and tram and metro.
Figure 19: Passenger land transport modal split, 2007-2016
12%
Proportion of passenger-kilometres
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2007
2008
2009
2010
Rail
2011
Bus and coach
2012
2013
Tram and metro
2014
2015
2016
Source: Statistical pocketbook, 2018.
35
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0037.png
The evolution of rail services
Over the period 2007 to 2016, rail mode share rose from 7.0% to 7.6%. Tram and metro mode share
also rose, from 1.6% to 1.8%, possibly reflecting the continued investment in expansion of urban and
suburban tram and metro networks.
Bus and coach share fell from 9.9% to 9.3% between 2007 and 2016, whilst car share fell only 0.1%
over the same period.
Figure 20: Passenger land transport modal split by country, 2016 and change in percentage rail 2011-2016
100%
90%
SK
PL
NL
UK
CZ
ES
IT
EU28
NO
FI
DE
SE
BE
AT
FR
LU
EL
EE
PT
IE
LT
SI
HU
RO
BG
DK
LV
HR
Proportion of passenger-kilometres
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
AT NL FR SK SE HUDK UK DE CZ BE EU PL ES IT FI NOLU PT RO LV IE HR BG SI EE LT EL
28
Rail
Car
Bus and coach
Tram and metro
-3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3%
Source: Eurostat and statistical pocketbook, 2018. 2011 data for EU27.
Figure 21 compares the 2016 rail mode share and tram and metro mode share in each State.
Figure 21: Passenger rail, tram and metro mode shares by country, 2016
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
0%
1%
LT
2%
EL
LV
BG
EE
SI
3%
IE
4%
HR
PT
NO
FI
IT
ES
PL EU
DE
BE
8%
HU
UK SE FR
NL
DK
9%
SK
10%
11%
12%
RO
AT
CZ
Tram and metro mode share, 2016
LU
5%
6%
7%
Rail mode share, 2016
Source: Eurostat and statistical pocketbook, 2018.
In most States, total tram and metro mode share was less than 2%, but in Hungary, Romania and
Austria was over 3% and for the Czech Republic over 10%.
36
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0038.png
The evolution of rail services
Figure 22 shows the effect of including the mode share of bus and coach, which tends to be larger in
smaller States with limited rail, tram or metro networks.
Figure 22: Passenger rail, bus, coach, tram and metro modal split by country, 2016
30%
Bus, coach, tram and metro mode share, 2016
25%
RO
EE
EL
15%
SI
10%
LT
PT
5%
NO
DE
BG
IE
HR
LV
LU
FI
IT
ES
PL
EU
BE
CZ
HU
20%
SK
AT
DK
SE
UK
FR
NL
0%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Rail mode share, 2016
Source: Eurostat and statistical pocketbook, 2018.
On the left (blue) are smaller States with rail mode share near or below 6%, including the Baltic
States, Greece, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Ireland and Croatia.
On the upper right (dark grey), with relatively high non-rail public transport shares, are Member
States in central Europe including Austria, Slovakia and, with lower rail mode share, Poland and
Romania. Hungary and the Czech Republic (green) have both relatively high non-rail and rail public
transport modal share.
On the lower right (yellow), with relatively low non-rail public transport share, are larger Member
States in western Europe including Germany, France and the United Kingdom, but also the
Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium.
Evolution of rail passenger volumes
Figure 23 shows the evolution of rail passenger volumes from 2007 to 2016.
37
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0039.png
The evolution of rail services
Figure 23: Evolution of rail passenger traffic volumes, 2007-2016
700
600
7%
6%
5%
22
369
300
200
100
0
2007
2008
2009
Domestic
2010
2011
International
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Proportion of international traffic
22
381
22
376
20
380
25
390
28
398
25
398
25
404
27
413
27
423
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
500
400
Source: RMMS, 2018. Infill data from various other sources and estimates.
EU railways transported in 2016 some 9 billion passengers
30
. Rail passenger traffic has been resilient
to the financial crisis and has risen from 391 billion passenger kilometres in 2007 to 450 billion
passenger kilometres in 2016 on about 6 trillion passenger-kilometres of land transport overall
31
.
The proportion of passenger-kilometres reported as being on international journeys was more
impacted by the unfavourable economic climate, falling to 5% of the total passenger traffic, but rose
thereafter and has since remained around 6%.
Figure 24 shows the volumes of domestic and international passenger rail travel, measured in
passenger-kilometres, and the proportion of international traffic by State in 2016.
30
31
DG MOVE estimates based on Eurostat.
Statistical pocketbook 2018, includes cars, powered-two-wheels, buses and coaches, railway and tram and
metro.
38
Proportion of international traffic
Passenger-kilometres (billion)
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0040.png
The evolution of rail services
Figure 24: Passenger traffic volumes by country, passenger-kilometres, 2016
100
90
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
DE FR UK IT ES PL NL SE BE AT CZ HU DK RO PT FI NO SK IE BG EL HR SI LV EE LU LT
Domestic
International
Proportion of international traffic
Passenger-kilometres (billion)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Source: RMMS, 2018.
The figure shows that the largest rail markets are in Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy.
In three of these Member States, well below 5% of passenger-kilometres are on international
journeys. However, the proportion of international travel is 12% in France, which has high-speed rail
links into the United Kingdom (Eurostar), Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany (Thalys), and
Switzerland, Italy and Spain (TGV).
The proportion of international traffic is also high in several smaller States, including Lithuania and
Luxembourg (both over 30%), Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Austria (where national operator ÖBB
operates both day and night trains to several other States).
2.2.2
Evolution of revenues
ail a u de taki gs e e ue i
hi h ha e ee
Figure 25 shows the sou
es of passe ge
reported.
The figure is structured as follows:
Above the horizontal axis is the revenue contributed by passengers through fares paid on
either PSO or (if reported) commercial services.
Below the horizontal axis is the proportion of revenue contributed by competent authorities
in the form of PSO support.
39
Proportion of international traffic
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0041.png
The evolution of rail services
Figure 25:
Sou es of passe ge ail a u de taki gs e e ue,
BG
HU
SK
EE
LV
HR
CZ
AT
RO
PL
SE
DE
IT
IE
ES
FI
LT
LU
PT
UK
Percentage of all passenger service revenue
100%
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
PSO fares
Commercial revenue
PSO compensation
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for EL, FR, NL and SI. Information on commercial services confidential for BE, DK
and NO.
I Me e States su h as Bulga ia a d Hu ga , ost of the ail a u de taki gs e e ue is f o
PSO support. In Bulgaria this amounts to almost four times passenger revenue: passengers only
contribute 20% of total railway undertaking revenue while 80% comes from subsidies. In other
States, however, the need for support from competent authorities is less.
In the extreme case of the United Kingdom, the net requirement for support from competent
authorities is negative, although this cannot readily be shown on the chart. This is because, in the
United Kingdom, many services which are subject to a PSO can be operated profitably, at least at
current levels of access charges and fare (both of which, while regulated, are subject to change)
32
.
Competitive tenders for many PSOs therefore result in a request for negative subsidy, indicating that
the tenderer will pay the competent authority for the right to operate the service
33
. The result is that
the PSO operators, in aggregate, currently receive a negative subsidy from the competent
authorities.
2.3
The freight market
2.3.1
Evolution of volumes
Evolution of rail freight tonnage relative to GDP
In 2016, there was a strong disparity among European countries regarding the ratio of rail freight use
compared to nominal GDP. The high end of the scale was dominated by eastern European nations
with Latvia and Lithuania demonstrating the highest rates of rail freight relative to GDP and the
others following closely.
32
33
I additio , e e
he e apa it e ists fo o
e ial se i es, the U ited Ki gdo s egulato
restricts open access commercial entry to protect the economic equilibrium of PSO services.
This negative subsid
e ui e e t is o all efe ed to i the U ited Ki gdo as a p e iu .
od
40
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0042.png
The evolution of rail services
Growth in the use of rail freight services was significantly outpaced by that of the GDP between 2011
and 2016, resulting in a negative average annual growth rate across many of member states,
suggesting that rail freight is playing less of a role in economic development than in previous years.
Only countries to have registered a positive growth were Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Spain,
Italy and Portugal.
Figure 26: Rail freight activity per unit of GDP, 2016 and compound average growth rate 2011-2016
700
EE
LU
LV
IE
UK
RO
LT
SE
PL
HR
EL
BE
EU28
DE
FR
DK
BG
SK
FI
AT
NL
NO
CZ
HU
SI
ES
IT
PT
Thousand tonne-kilometres per EUR million
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
LV LT PL SI EE SK HU CZ RO BG AT HR SE FI DE EU BE PT FR IT NO ES NL DK UK LU EL IE
28
-30% -20% -10%
0%
10%
Source: Statistical Pocketbook 2018, Eurostat 2018.
Freight land transport modal split by Member State
Road remains the dominant mode within the EU also in freight transport and continues to handle
around three-quarters of net tonne-kilometres. Its weight in the modal mix is however lower than in
the passenger transport, remaining around 75%. Figure 27 shows the shares of rail and inland
waterways, the principal modes for heavy or bulk goods, compared to road.
41
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0043.png
The evolution of rail services
Figure 27: Freight land transport modal split, 2007-2016
100%
90%
80%
Proportion of tonne-kilometres
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007
2008
2009
2010
Rail
2011
Road
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Inland waterways
Source: Eurostat.
Rail mode share has been broadly constant between 2007 and 2016. However, since the peak
reached in 2011 (almost 19%) the share decreased but managed to remain around 17% in 2016,
hile oad s sha e i eased f o
% to %.
The overall share of inland waterways has been broadly constant over the period, with some
variation but little overall change, and continues to be just over 6% of tonne-kilometres transported.
Figure 28 shows the rail, road and inland waterway mode shares in each Member State.
Figure 28: Freight land transport modal split by country 2016 and change in percentage rail 2011-2016
100%
90%
EE
LT
LV
SE
PL
RO
HR
LU
SK
CZ
UK
NO
BG
AT
EU28
DK
FI
SI
BE
DE
EL
NL
IE
HU
FR
ES
IT
PT
Proportion of tonne-kilometres
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
LV LT EE SK SI AT RO SE HU FI CZ PL DE EU HR BG IT PT NO BE DK FR UK LU NL ES EL IE
28
Rail
Roads
Inland waterways
-30%
-10%
10%
Source: Eurostat.
Rail has the highest mode share in Latvia and Lithuania, primarily because their rail networks carry
la ge olu es of t a sit t affi to a d f o the Russia Fede atio . Rail s sha e is also high fo the
42
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0044.png
The evolution of rail services
States of Slovakia, Slovenia and Austria. In contrast, rail has the lowest mode share in the insular or
peninsular Member States of Ireland, Greece and Spain, where there is less scope for international or
transit traffic.
Inland waterways are a major competitor to rail in Member States with access to major rivers
including Romania and Bulgaria, which border the Danube, and Belgium, the Netherlands and
Germany, with access to the Scheldt, Meuse and Rhine.
The evolution of modal share between 2011 and 2016 has been clearly negative for the majority of
the countries. Particularly relevant has been the decrease in the Baltic States. The share increased
only in Portugal and Italy (more than 3 percentage points), whereas it remained substantially stable
in Spain and France.
Evolution of rail freight volumes
In 2016 around 1.6 billion tonnes of freight was carried on EU railways
34
. Figure 29 shows that output
in tonne-kilometres, while still being less than 7% lower than the 2007 peak level, have recovered
15% between 2009 and 2016 reaching according to RMMS data
35
to 419 billion tonne-kilometres out
of overall 2.5 trillion in land transport
36
.
Figure 29: Evolution of rail freight traffic volumes, 2007-2016
500
450
231
400
222
197
178
208
193
209
214
198
209
55%
54%
53%
52%
51%
50%
218
218
187
197
222
207
207
209
49%
48%
47%
46%
45%
2007
2008
2009
Domestic
2010
2011
International
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Proportion of international traffic
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
197
199
Source: RMMS, 2018. Infill data from various other sources and estimates.
Around half of total rail freight, measured by net tonne-kilometres, is cross-border: rail freight is
increasingly competitive to road freight at longer distances. International freight peaked during 2014
at 53% of total rail traffic and then came down to 50% in 2016. This significant cross-border element
gives to rail freight a stronger European dimension compared to passenger traffic, where the
34
35
36
Source: DG MOVE estimates based on Eurostat.
Data on volumes presented in the 6th RMMS Report and its accompanying Staff Working Document are
based on the figures reported in the yearly RMMS questionnaire by Member States and Norway. They may
differ from those reported by Eurostat. The difference is due to the different scope of the two surveys and
to potential double counting of transit volumes and adjustments applied in the RMMS to complete the time
series (estimates and integration from other sources).
Statistical pocketbook 2018, includes road, rail, inland waterways and pipelines.
43
Proportion of international traffic
Tonne-kilometres (billion)
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0045.png
The evolution of rail services
proportion of international journeys remains around 6%. A lack of interoperability and cooperation
between national railway networks can hugely affect rail freight transport and its competitiveness
with alternative modes.
Figure 30 shows the volumes of domestic and international rail freight by State in 2016.
Figure 30: Rail freight traffic volumes by country, 2016
100
90
80
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
DE PL FR UK CZ SE IT FI ES AT RO BE LT BG NO PT HU SK HR NL LV DK EE SI
Domestic
International
Proportion of international traffic
EL LU
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Source: RMMS, 2018. IE volumes too small to appear in the graphic (0.1 bn tonne-km).
The largest volumes of rail freight are in Germany, followed by Poland and France.
The chart shows that international rail freight represents only a small proportion of the total in the
island economies of Ireland and the United Kingdom, and less than half of the total in the large
economies of Spain, France, Germany and Italy. In contrast, international rail freight represents a
large proportion of the total in smaller States. This illustrates the importance of giving small, and
particularly landlocked Member States, efficient links and access to ports.
2.3.2
Evolution of revenues
Evolution of rail freight revenues
Figure 31 shows reported revenues from rail freight by State in 2015 and 2016. As with rail freight
volumes in Figure 30, Germany is by far the largest contributor, followed by Poland.
44
Proportion of international traffic
Tonne-kilometres (billion)
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0046.png
The evolution of rail services
Figure 31: Freight revenue of railway undertakings by country, 2015 and 2016
6
5
4
EUR billion
3
2
1
0
DE
PL
UK
AT
FR
SE
IT
LV
LT
HU
FI SK SI RO NO BG HR
2015
2016
PT
DK
EL
BE
EE
LU
ES
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for CZ and NL, IE too small figure to be represented. No 2015 data for BE, EE, ES,
LU. No 2016 data for FR.
Between 2015 and 2016, rail freight revenues rose in Germany (from EUR 5.1 billion to
EUR 5.4 billion), but fell in Poland (from EUR 1.8 billion to EUR 1.6 billion) and the United Kingdom
(from EUR 1.3 billion to EUR 1.0 billion).
2.4
The future of rail freight
Transport currently accounts for a quarter of all EU greenhouse gas emissions, 72% of which come
from the road sector. A part of the EU's ambitious policy to fight climate change is therefore to
promote rail freight. To deliver it, the Commission has a coherent Strategy for Low-Emission
Mobility
37
and has set modal shift objectives in its 2011 White Paper: 30% of road freight over
300 kilometres should shift to other modes such as rail or waterborne transport by 2030, and more
than 50% by 2050, facilitated by efficient and green freight corridors. In this context, rail freight has a
central role to play in the transport model of the future and is considered as a priority by the
Commission.
However, the overall situation of rail freight remains critical: its modal share is stagnating around
17%. Figure 28 shows that the modal share has increased slightly in Italy and Portugal, but has
declined in almost all Member States. To reach the modal shift objectives, far larger volumes of
freight need to be carried by rail.
Although exogenous factors such as the evolution of the industrial structure and the state of the
wider economy and productive situation affect modal choice, the main lever to achieve growth of rail
freight is to secure the shippers' trust vis-à-vis rail as a reliable and cost-effective mode to move
goods across Europe. In other words, rail freight needs to become more competitive. In particular,
the quality, reliability and flexibility of the rail freight services offered need to be increased sharply,
which will in turn contribute to address the cost challenge rail freight is facing.
37
2016 Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility:
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/strategies/news/doc/2016-07-20-
decarbonisation/com%282016%29501_en.pdf.
45
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0047.png
The evolution of rail services
In 2016 almost 50% of European rail freight was cross-border, down from 52% in 2014. To achieve EU
climate objectives the share of international rail freight traffic should continue to grow. On the one
hand, this is driven by further European economic integration, on the other hand, because the
competitive advantage of rail freight increases with distance. This strong European dimension means
that rail freight is particularly suffering from the lack of a truly Single European Rail Area, in particular
from the lack of interoperability between the different networks and of coordination of operations,
such as at the borders or in terms of rail capacity and traffic management.
To tackle the situation, the Commission is pursuing an agenda of complementary initiatives and
actions. The Fourth Railway Package is setting the general regulatory framework: its market pillar will
reinforce the framework conditions for an efficient market organisation and its technical pillar will
simplify the processes and reduce costs, particularly through an extended role for the European
Union Agency for Railways. This will complement, on the one hand, the Commission's long-standing
policy to achieve interoperability (including the efficient and coordinated deployment of ERTMS),
with a current focus on solving practical cross-border operational issues (see Box 5) and, on the other
hand, the Commission's infrastructure development policy through the TEN-T policy, with significant
financial support provided under the CEF. A well-developed infrastructure, free of bottlenecks and
missing links and with infrastructure parameters targeted to freight is a precondition for rail freight
development.
These key policies are accompanied by efforts to tackle the issue of rail noise, to better embed rail in
the multimodal transport system by deploying digital technologies and to foster innovation,
particularly through the activities of the Shift2Rail Joint undertaking.
In parallel, the Rail Freight Corridors remain the key element of the Commission's policy to boost rail
freight. They are intended to trigger rail freight development in terms of volume, market share,
quality and reliability along the main freight axes, through fostering cooperation, coordination and
harmonisation at different levels and in different areas (such as rail capacity, traffic management,
conditions of use of the infrastructure, processes). As illustrated in the report from the Commission
to Council and European Parliament on the application of the Rail Freight Corridor Regulation
(Regulation 913/2010) published in April 2018
38
, the Rail Freight Corridors have achieved positive
results, but the pace of change needs to be accelerated. The progress accomplished by the Rail
Freight Corridors is mainly in the hands of the Member State authorities and infrastructure
managers, but the Commission continues to promote their ambitious development. In the coming
years the Commission services will launch an evaluation of Regulation 913/2010 to assess whether
there is a need to revise it.
Finally, rail freight cannot be considered in isolation from other modes: its competitiveness also
depends on the framework for intermodal competition. This is why the Commission is striving for
equal conditions for intermodal competition, such as through the Mobility Package and the
Eurovignette initiative (see
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/news/2017-05-31-europe-
on-the-move_en
).
With the legislative framework largely in place and other support actions on track, ambition set out
in the White Paper in respect of rail freight can be achieved only if rail freight is high on the agenda
of all relevant parties.
This includes high-level commitment at national level, as the societal and political acceptance of rail
freight should be ensured. This is the reason why the Commission intends to strengthen the
38
Report on the application of Regulation (EU) 913/2010, in accordance to its Article 23:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0189&from=EN.
46
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0048.png
The evolution of rail services
coordination of its rail freight policy with those of the Member States and engaged, in this context, in
accompanying the Austrian Presidency of the Council in its activities to follow up on the Rotterdam
Ministerial Declaration on rail freight
39
in the second half of 2018.
Active progress is also required from the rail sector, as most of the structural changes can only
happen within the concerned organisations and processes. The Commission places high expectations
on the sector and provides strong political support to the implementation of the Rotterdam Sector
Statement
40
. Instrumental actions to be undertaken and delivered by the sector for the rail freight
services to gain in reliability and flexibility include:
making the timetabling process more efficient and flexible (such as through the TTR
project
41
);
improving information exchange, such as through the sharing of a reliable Estimated Time of
Arrival between the parties involved in a train run (see ETA);
developing KPIs to adequately measure rail freight performance;
accelerating the pace towards solving cross-border interoperability issues, where progress is
urgently needed;
ensuring a better coordination of temporary capacity restrictions; and
developing and implementing processes for contingency situations, as discussed next.
Interoperability of rail networks
Following an incident near the city of Rastatt in Germany in autumn 2017, a stretch of line on the rail
freight corridor Rhine Alpine was closed for rail traffic for seven weeks. This important north-south
corridor is a core connection for rail freight and links the ports of Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp
with Switzerland and Italy. A major hurdle was that diversionary routes were limited in capacity and
interoperability. The incident led to big financial losses, a drop-in market share and reputational
damage for the rail freight industry.
DG MOVE reacted to this incident with the organisation of meetings open to European stakeholders.
It was important to establish a platform for exchange for finding European solutions and establishing
measures that help to remedy the consequences of such incidents much more effectively in future.
The output of the meetings is the Handbook for International Contingency Management
42
, put
together in cooperation between rail stakeholders. It describes standards that will, in the event of
international disruption, allow for the continuation of rail traffic, in addition to assuring transparency
of the status of the disruption and its impact on traffic flows for the relevant stakeholders. All
measures of the Handbook will be applied from the start of the 2019 timetable in December 2018.
39
40
41
42
Mi iste ial De la atio Rail F eight Co ido s to oost i te atio al ail f eight :
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/infrastructure/news/doc/2016-06-20-ten-t-
days-2016/rfc-declaration.pdf.
Se to State e t Boosti g i te atio al ail f eight :
http://www.cer.be/sites/default/files/publication/160520_Sector_Statement_RFC.pdf.
Redesign of the International Timetabling Process (TTR).
http://www.rne.eu/rneinhalt/uploads/International_Contingency_Management_Handbook_final_v1.5.pdf.
47
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0049.png
The evolution of rail services
Box 5: Cross-border harmonisation of technical and operational rules and issues log
Cross-border operational and interoperability issues are one of the biggest and urgent obstacles hindering
cross-border traffic, particularly rail freight. The Rastatt incident showed once more how much impact such
obstacles have. This is why DG MOVE has sought to use the post-accident momentum to strengthen its
joint initiative with the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA), involving the Rail Freight Corridors, the
sector associations and the relevant authorities, and aiming at initiating efficient processes to tackle these
issues through a so-called Rail Technical Operational Issues Logbook
43
. The logbook will serve as a
repository of all the main technical operational issues hampering international rail freight traffic. With this
initiative the Commission and ERA intend to prioritise issues with great impact and focus the work, so that
quick resolutions are achieved.
2.5
Rail noise
Noise is one of the most widespread public health problems in the European Union, with serious
costs to society. Railways, and especially rail freight traffic, are the second most important source of
noise in Europe with at least 19 million people estimated to be exposed to levels above 55 dB.
A number of initiatives have been already adopted at the EU level in order to reduce noise exposure,
including the Environmental Noise Directive 2002/49/EC, Technical Specification for Interoperability
(TSI) on noise, financial assistance under the CEF, and modalities for noise-differentiated track access
charges. However, despite the efforts of the Commission and Member States, progress in tackling rail
noise is rather slow. There is also a risk that excessive levels of railway noise can lead to
uncoordinated unilateral actions by Member States, such as applying speed limits and restrictions on
operating at night.
Box 6: Policy framework for tackling rail noise
Given that more than 50 % of rail freight wagons run across borders, any attempt to combat rail noise at
source needs a European response. At present the most effective way to mitigate rail noise is by
retrofitting the existing freight wagons with composite brake blocks. This technical solution reduces rail
noise by up to 10 dB which equals a 50% reduction in audible noise for humans. The Commission now
e isages a e isio of the TSI Noise follo i g the uiete outes app oa h so that the oise li it alues
become applicable not only to
e
ago s ut also to the e isti g fleet. A ' uiete oute is a pa t of a
network identified on the basis of traffic intensity where only wagons complying with TSI Noise pass-by
limit values will be permitted to circulate as of December 2024. It is paramount to provide stakeholders
with a stable timeframe, which will allow them to anticipate the necessary investment and to adopt
suitable market strategy. The Agency has finalised preparations for the revision of the TSI Noise with a
planned adoption by the end of 2018.
In 2018 it will launch also the evaluation of the existing Commission Regulation on Noise Differentiated
Track Access Charges.
43
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/rail-nip/rail-technical-operational-issues-logbook-
explanatory-document.pdf.
48
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0050.png
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings
3.
The evolution of services supplied to railway
undertakings
Directive 2012/34/EU defines rules for service facilities and rail related services, aiming at increasing
the transparency of access conditions and charges applied to ensure non-discriminatory access.
Provisions apply to a broad range of facilities, including passenger stations, freight terminals,
marshalling yards and train formation facilities, storage sidings, maintenance facilities, cleaning and
washing facilities, maritime and inland port facilities and refuelling facilities.
Services provided in these facilities and additional and ancillary services as traction current supply,
pre-heating of trains, arrangements for transport of dangerous goods, access to telecommunication
networks and ticketing services in stations are also covered by the Directive.
A new implementing Regulation on service facilities, adopted in 2017, makes provisions for sharing
and accessing information and for developing cooperation between service facility operators and
infrastructure managers.
Box 7: New implementing Regulation on service facilities
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 lays down the details of the procedure and criteria to be
followed for access to service facilities and to the services supplied in these facilities listed in points 2, 3
and 4 of Annex II to Directive 2012/34/EU.
The Implementing Regulation repeats the principle of establishment and publication of a service facility
description and provides a detailed list of information that service facility operators shall make publicly
available. This can be done either by publishing the information on their own website or on a common web
portal and providing the infrastructure managers with a link to be included in the network statement.
Another option is providing the infrastructure managers with the relevant ready-to-be-published
information to be included in the network statement. The Implementing Regulation requires infrastructure
managers to provide a common template for service facility descriptions developed by the railway sector in
cooperation with regulatory bodies. RailNetEurope (RNE) has developed such a template, discussed it with
the market and published it on their website.
In addition, the Implementing Regulation highlights the need for better cooperation between service
facility operators and infrastructure managers with the aim of ensuring that the allocation of capacity on
infrastructure and in service facilities is consistent where necessary. It also refers to the coordination of
conflicting requests and, where the coordination procedure has not enabled the reconciliation of
conflicting requests, to the application of predetermined priority criteria. Regarding requests that cannot
be accommodated at all following the application of priority criteria, it is mentioned that the concerned
service facility operator and the concerned applicant shall jointly assess whether there are viable
alternatives allowing operating the relevant freight or passenger service on the same or alternative routes
under economically acceptable conditions.
Last but not least, it provides for the possibility to exempt certain service facility operators from the
application of all or some of the provisions of the Implementing Regulation with the exception of certain
provisions concerning the obligation to publish a service facility description.
Information on service facilities and rail related services is particularly important for freight services.
Expected to be launched in mid-2019, the Rail Facility Portal could provide the sector with a unique
entry point for gathering and sharing information between interested parties.
49
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0051.png
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings
Box 8: European Rail Facility Portal
The Rail Facility Portal is being currently developed as a single EU user-friendly and market-oriented GIS-
based portal, mapping and providing key information on the rail service facilities and last-mile
infrastructure in Europe. The portal aims at remedying the lack of easy access to information on rail
facilities and last-mile infrastructure and will therefore contribute to the better planning of rail services. It
will also provide an efficient tool for the service facility operators to comply with their obligation to publish
information on access conditions pursuant to Directive 2012/34/EU and Commission Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2017/2177. The portal will therefore be both a market tool and a compliance tool.
The pilot po tal Rail F eight Lo atio s
railfreightlocations.eu)
is the basis for the new European Rail
Facility Portal, which is expected to become gradually operation as from mid-2019. New functionalities will
be introduced, such as the indication of available capacity at the facilities or reporting capabilities, and an
i itial iti al ass of data ill e fed. This ill e a o pa ied a self-sustainable
management
concept for the permanent operation phase, as DG MOVE intends to hand over the portal to the sector.
Although the portal will also be developed for passenger facilities, the focus will first be put on rail freight.
The acceptance of the portal
the ide se to , as the tool of hoi e oth fo feedi g a d o sulti g
information on the EU rail service facilities, will be the key success factor. DG MOVE is expecting the sector
to support the use of the portal, which is a unique opportunity to avoid a piecemeal publication of
information on services facilities, and thus to make such information usable and useful for the benefit of
the rail market.
RMMS information is largely complete for stations. However, despite the introduction of Regulation
2015/1100, information on other service facilities remains fragmented and not always comparable.
Data presented in this section must therefore be interpreted with care. The Commission services
have started working with Member States and the Consortium developing the portal on common
definitions for reporting purposes to improve the quality of reported data.
Charging principles for service facilities, additional and ancillary services
Any public or private entity responsible for managing one of more service facilities or supplying one
or more services to railway undertakings referred to in points 2 to 4 of Annex II of Directive
2012/34/EU shall be considered as a service operator under Article 3(12) of the same Directive.
Different service facility types and rail-related services are enumerated in Annex II points 2 to 4 of
Directive 2012/34/EU.
Service facilities in principle supply services related to the nature of the facility itself. For example,
freight terminals are installations where services of loading, unloading and transhipment of goods
from and to freight trains or wagons are supplied. These services are defined as basic. Additional and
ancillary services are services supplementary to the basic ones. For instance, in the case of freight
terminals additional services may comprise tailor-made contracts for control of transport of
dangerous goods and ancillary services may comprise technical inspection of rolling stock.
Charging principles for service facilities and rail-related services differ from the ones applied to rail
infrastructure. While direct costs and possibly mark-ups (and eventually other charging components)
are levied by the infrastructure manager, charges imposed for track access within service facilities
and the supply of basic services in such facilities shall not exceed the cost of providing them plus a
reasonable profit (direct costs). The charge for additional and ancillary services shall similarly not
exceed the cost of providing the single service including a reasonable profit, except when these
services are offered by more than one supplier.
Applicants must have easy access to information on any service facility and its rail related services.
For that reason, it is obligatory that the network statement, which is available free of charge,
50
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0052.png
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings
contains a section on information on access to and charging for gaining access to service facilities as
well as for the provision of rail-related services. Alternatively, the information can be published on
the website of the service facility or on a common web portal (see Box 8: European rail locations
portal).
Charging principles ensure transparency and non-discrimination. Any individual negotiation on
charges or discounts not based on the above principles would undermine the principle of non-
discrimination.
3.1
Passenger stations
There were more than 31 000 stations in the EU in 2016
44
, of which about 330 were
large stations
serving more than 25 000 travellers per day.
Figure 32 shows the average distance between stations on each national network for which
information is available.
Figure 32: Average distance between stations by country, 2016
35
Average distance between stations (kilometres)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FI
SE LT BG LV IE NO ES FR EE RO NL PL EU EL BE UK IT HU DE PT SK HR DK SI LU CZ AT
Source: RMMS, 2018 and Statistical Pocketbook, 2018. 2015 data for HU.
Slovakia reported 927 stations on the network of which only 695 are active, and the analysis has
therefore been based on 695 stations on a network of 3 626 line-kilometres.
In 2016 the average distance between stations in EU was about 7 kilometres.
The Austrian network has the shortest average distance between stations at 3.5 kilometres
(283 stations per 1 000 line-kilometres), followed by the network of the Czech Republic at
3.7 kilometres (271 stations per 1 000 line-kilometres). The largest average distances between
stations are in the Scandinavian and Baltic networks of Finland (over 30 kilometres, or 33 stations per
1 000 line-kilometres), Sweden, Lithuania and Latvia, and also Bulgaria.
44
Includes estimates for countries were data were not available, as reported under the graphics of this
paragraph.
51
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0053.png
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings
Figure 33 shows the relative numbers of stations with different passenger volumes per day. Figure 34
shows the relative mix of stations with different passenger volumes per day.
Figure 33: Number of stations by passengers per day by country, 2016
7 000
6 000
5 000
4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
0
DE FR
IT UK PL CZ ES AT RO HU SK SE BE DK PT NL EL NO BG SI
Over 25 000/day
10 000 to 25 000/day
1 000 to 10 000/day
FI
IE
LV LT EE LU
Under 1 000/day
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for HR. 2015 data for HU, RO.
Figure 34: Stations by passengers per day by country, mix, 2016
100%
90%
80%
Proportion of stations
Stations
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
NL
IE UK DE LU FI DK SE ES BE FR NO PT
Over 25 000
10 000 to 25 000
IT
LV AT SK HU PL CZ
1 000 to 10 000
SI
EE BG RO LT
Under 1 000
EL
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for HR. 2015 data for HU, RO.
Figure 33 shows that Germany has almost 7 000 stations on its network, over one quarter of the EU
total. In contrast Luxembourg has only 42 stations, reflecting the size of the country and the largely
suburban and regional nature of its network.
Figure 34 shows the proportion of stations in each network serving different numbers of passengers
per day. Except in the case of the Netherlands, at least half the stations on all networks serve fewer
than 1 000 passengers per day, equivalent to 500 round trips. Four networks, in Bulgaria, Greece,
52
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0054.png
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings
Lithuania and Slovenia, have no stations serving more than 10 000 passengers per day, and Romania
has only one.
3.2
Other service facilities
The RMMS collected data from Member States on the numbers of other service facilities, whether
for the use of freight operators or for the storage and fuelling of trains, as referred to in Annex II of
Directive 2012/34/EU.
In many cases, however, the current discrepancies in the definition of each type of service facility at
national level limit the comparability of figures across Member States and suggest caution in drawing
conclusions from the inputs received
45
.
Moreover, the RMMS does not collect data on the use of such facilities, whether there was a realistic
need for them in the foreseeable future, or whether they were sufficiently well-maintained to be
used at short notice. The mere existence of a facility in fact does not necessary imply that this facility
is regularly used (or could be used in future).
Freight terminals
Based on data reported for the RMMS, there were around 2 358 freight terminals in the EU in 2016.
Figure 35 shows the reported number of freight terminals in 2016 by State.
Figure 35: Facilities: freight terminals by country, 2016
1 600
1 401
1 400
1 200
Freight terminals
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
RO FR
DE
EL
IT
ES
EE
UK
PL
NL
SE
AT
PT
CZ NO SK
SI
BG DK HR HU LT
FI
LU
341
149
92
68
51
42
38
34
24
23
18
18
17
14
10
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2016 data or suitable proxy for IE (last reported in 2012), BE or LV. 2015 data for ES.
The RMMS Regulation defines freight terminals as a facility equipped for the transhipment and
storage of intermodal transport units, where at least one of the modes of transport is rail. Romania
reported high numbers of such freight terminals, with 1 401 in 2016. Major freight terminals are also
defined, as those with a capacity of over 100 000 containers or over 1 million tonnes per year.
45
Data are also often incomplete, with gaps and different definitions applied.
53
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0055.png
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings
Marshalling yards and train formation facilities
Based on data reported for the RMMS, there were around 452 marshalling yards and train formation
facilities in the EU in 2016.
Figure 36 shows the reported number of marshalling yards and train formation facilities in 2016 by
State.
Figure 36: Facilities: marshalling yards by country, 2016
160
149
Marshalling yards and train formation facilities
140
120
100
80
60
40
24
20
0
UK DE
CZ
IT
PL
FI
SI
LT
SE
LV
AT
SK
FR
EL
RO
PT HU NL
BE
BG HR DK
EE
LU
18
18
15
13
67
51
45
9
8
6
5
5
5
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data or suitable proxy for ES, IE or NO.
The RMMS Regulation defines a marshalling yard as a site or a part of a site equipped with several
tracks or other equipment used for railway vehicle marshalling operations, including switching, and
which use gravity as a means of formation or rearrangement of trains.
54
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0056.png
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings
Maintenance facilities
Based on data reported for the RMMS, there were around 1 667 maintenance facilities in the EU in
2016.
Figure 37 shows the reported number of maintenance facilities in 2016 by State.
Figure 37: Facilities: maintenance facilities by country, 2016
500
450
400
474
Maintenance facilities
350
300
250
335
200
200
150
184
105
100
50
0
PL
DE FR RO
IT
SE
CZ BG SK AT
LT UK NO DK LV
BE
FI
PT
SI
EL HR NL HU
IE
LU
39
37
35
34
31
28
26
23
17
17
15
15
14
12
10
7
3
2
2
2
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data or suitable proxy for EE or ES. 2015 data for FR. 2014 data for EE.
Maintenance facilities are facilities where rolling stock is maintained, including both heavy and light
maintenance, to keep it in operation.
Maritime and port facilities
Based on data reported for the RMMS, there were around 702 maritime and port facilities in the EU
in 2016.
Figure 38 shows the reported number of maritime and port facilities in 2016 by State.
55
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0057.png
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings
Figure 38: Facilities: maritime and port facilities linked to rail activities by country, 2016
250
232
200
Maritime port facilities
150
143
130
100
50
30
23
19
18
17
14
13
9
FR
8
8
8
LV
6
CZ
6
DK
6
PT
4
AT
4
EL
1
IE
1
LU
1
SK
1
SI
0
IT
DE
RO
SE
NO
PL
FI
ES
BG
UK
HR HU
Source: RMMS, 2018. 2015 data for FR and HU. 2014 data for ES and LV. No data or suitable proxy for BE, EE,
LT, NL.
Italy reported the largest number of links to port and maritime facilities, 232, but commented that
only 24 of them are directly connected to the network of RFI, the main infrastructure manager.
Refuelling facilities
Based on data reported for the RMMS, there were around 954 refuelling facilities in the EU in 2016.
Figure 39 shows the reported count of facilities refuelling locomotives and multiple units.
Figure 39: Facilities: refuelling facilities by country, 2016
400
352
350
300
Refueling facilities
250
200
150
100
50
0
DE
IT
RO
LT
AT
FR
FI
ES
SK
DK
BG
HR
PL
NL
EL
BE
PT
SI
LV
NO UK
HU
LU
179
71
40
37
36
33
27
26
20
18
18
18
17
11
10
9
9
8
8
4
2
1
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data or suitable proxy for CZ, EE, IE, SE.
56
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0058.png
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings
Germany reported the highest number, 352 such facilities, followed by Italy with 179 and Romania
with 71.
3.3
Complaints related to access to service to facilities
Complaints currently being processed and decisions taken
Figure 40 shows data in relation to complaints and decisions made in 2016, provided by 23 of the
States. Complaints reported relate primarily to:
access to facilities;
infrastructure charging; and
quality of services provided.
Figure 40: Complaints being processed and decisions made by country, 2016
20
18
16
14
12
Actions
10
8
6
4
2
0
PT HR DK DE
EL
IT
NO AT BE BG CZ
Decisions taken
EE FI HU IE LV LT LU
Complaints being processed
NL
PL
RO SK
SI
ES
UK
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for ES, FR, RO and UK. No data on complaints being processed for EL.
Portugal made the most decisions, with other States reporting limited or no complaints activity.
Some complaints also relate to processes for bidding for track access. The RMMS survey also asked
States to report whether any complaints relate to the interpretation of the European railway acquis.
Decisions are not necessarily in response to complaints raised in the same year, as there can be a
considerable time lag between a party making a complaint and the resolution of the complaint. The
feedback received from Member States through RMMS suggests that each uses different approaches
to complaints management and regulation more broadly, meaning that there is likely to be
considerable variation in the categorisation and recording of complaints for the purposes of
reporting.
3.4
The traction market
Many passenger services are operated by multiple units, which carry their own source of power
(typically electric or diesel, although a small number of hybrid and battery-powered vehicles have
been used) and interface with signalling systems. Other passenger services, and almost all freight
57
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0059.png
The evolution of services supplied to railway undertakings
services, require traction provided by locomotives carrying this equipment. Locomotives may be
designed for use with passenger services, freight services, or both.
Locomotives must be compatible with the infrastructure over which they are to be operated, with
compatibility defined by track gauge, structure gauge, coupling and signalling equipment and, if
electrified, electrification system (which may use trackside rails or overhead catenary supplying
power at several different voltages). Suitable maintenance facilities and, for diesel locomotives,
fuelling points, must also be available on or near the infrastructure over which they are to be
operated. For international passenger and freight services, this often means that the locomotive (and
crew) must be changed at each border. Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs) are
intended to reduce the variety of systems in use, particularly in signalling and control, through the
European Railway Traffic Management System (ERTMS).
An operator wishing to enter the market or to expand its services may buy new or used traction
equipment or lease it from another party such as a rolling stock company. New entry and expansion
are easiest when one or more of these options is available and, ideally, there is a competitive supply
market. Lack of suitable traction, or an unwillingness of an existing owner to sell or lease it on
reasonable terms, can be a major barrier to market entry. Equally, lack of an alternative use, or of an
attractive resale value, for existing traction can be a major barrier to market exit.
In some Member States there are relatively developed markets for the leasing of traction equipment.
In the United Kingdom, three privately-owned rolling stock companies (ROSCOs) were created in
1995. ROSCOs have also been established in other Member States including Germany, the
Netherlands and S
ede . O
Ju e
, Fi la d s i u e t ail a u de taki g, VR G oup,
agreed with the Ministry of Transport and Communications that a new rolling stock company would
be established, although it is not yet clear whether this will supply traction.
Useful data on the availability of traction equipment in the Member States are limited. Locomotives
may be listed as available but may no longer comply with safety and technical standards, be
maintained in operable condition, or meet the technical requirements (track gauge, structure gauge,
coupling, signalling system, electrification type) needed to operate any service. The key issue is
whether existing and potential operators can obtain suitable equipment on reasonable terms.
58
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0060.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
4.
4.1
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail
sector
Infrastructure charging
Infrastructure charges enable infrastructure managers to recover the cost related to provision of
infrastructure for train operations. The core principle is that the charges should cover at least the
di e t
costs of the train run referring to those costs incurred to the infrastructure manager due to
the interaction of train and infrastructure.
In addition to direct costs there are other components of charging systems that infrastructure man-
agers can apply to enhance the optimal use of their infrastructure or to set incentives:
the effective use of infrastructure capacity can be incentivised through mechanisms such as a
scarcity charge, a reservation charge or discounts to specific traffic flows;
to improve the environmental performance, charges can reflect noise emissions or the usage
of diesel/electric locomotives;
the costs of specific investment projects can be recovered by charges based on long-term
costs); and
the operational performance can be addressed by a performance scheme involving penal-
ties/rewards linked to occurrence/avoidance of service disruption both by railway
undertakings and infrastructure managers.
In addition, mark-ups can be applied on top of the direct cost charges in market segments being able
to pay such higher charges. At the same time, market segments that can at least pay the direct costs
shall not be excluded from the use of the rail infrastructure. The overall level of cost recovery
through infrastructure charges is interdependent with the level of government contribution and
Member States may require different levels of cost recovery.
59
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0061.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Box 9: Direct cost-based charging
The EU rail legislation provides the basis for the calculation of direct costs which are core for
setting track access charges. According to Directive 2012/34/EU, the charges for the minimum
access package (the essential components of the infrastructure service, such as use of tracks,
traction current, train control services) and for access to infrastructure connecting service
facilities, shall be set at the cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service.
Commission Implementing Regulation 909/2015
46
specifies the rules on the modalities
calculating the underlying direct costs.
Direct cost based infrastructure charges intend to ensure optimum effective use of the available
infrastructure capacity by ensuring that every market segment that can at least pay the direct
costs shall not be excluded from the use of the rail infrastructure, while the infrastructure
manager has always the right to charge at least for the cost of each train run. The infrastructure
managers shall integrate in their calculation of direct costs those costs that they can objectively
and robustly prove to be incurred by the operation of the train service. The rules for calculating
direct costs include the prohibition to recoup the wear and tear of infrastructure for which the
infrastructure manager had received grants.
Effective implementation of the principle of direct costs charging requires that infrastructure
managers have a good overview of their assets and understanding of cost causation, so that they
can allocate costs to different services or even to different types of vehicles. By doing so, it also
allows the infrastructure managers to incentivise the use of less damaging rolling stock.
Access charges for different categories of passenger trains
As explained above, level and approach to charging may vary both within the charging scheme of one
infrastructure manager as well as between Member States. The current RMMS does not allow
distinguishing between the various charging elements used by each Member State. Therefore, while
comparing the level of charges as reported in the RMMS, the results need to be interpreted with
caution.
Figure 41 compares estimates of typical access charges (excluding mark-ups), in EUR per train-
kilometre, for three different types of passenger train.
46
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/909 of 12 June 2015 on the modalities for the calculation
of the cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service (Text with EEA relevance)
OJ L 148, 13.6.2015, p. 17.
60
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0062.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 41: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): passenger trains by type by country, 2016
20
18
16
EUR per train-kilometre
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
BE UK LV DE ES FR
IT
AT
IE
LT EE RO PT LU NL SK HU PL EL SE BG HR DK CZ
Long-distance
High-speed
SI
FI NO
Suburban and regional
Source: RMMS, 2018. DE data including mark-ups.
Figure 42 compares track access charges for typical suburban and regional passenger trains in 2013,
where available, and 2016.
Figure 42: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): suburban and regional passenger trains by country, 2013 and
2016
12
10
EUR per train-kilometre
8
6
4
2
0
FR
LV
DE
BE
IT
LT
HU
IE
AT
SK
EL
NL
BG
2016
EE
HR
CZ
SE
SI
FI
UK
DK
PT
RO NO
2013
Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2013 data for DK, PT, RO. NO.DE data including mark-ups.
The figure shows how charges have changed in several Member States, most notably France,
Belgium, Estonia and the United Kingdom. In practice, while changes in charges affect infrastructure
managers, they may have little or no effect on operator behaviour if suburban and regional services
are specified by a PSO, where changes in charges are compensated through different levels of public
subsidies.
61
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0063.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 43 compares track access charges for conventional long-distance trains in 2013, where
available, and 2016. The results are mixed and overall there are more changes than for the access
charges of suburban and regional passenger trains.
Figure 43: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): conventional long-distance passenger trains, 2013 and 2016
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
LV DE FR
IE
BE EE
LT AT PL
IT RO LU HU NL EL BG UK CZ HR SE
2013
2016
SI
FI
DK PT
ES NO
Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2013 data or suitable proxy for PT, DK, ES, NO. No 2016 data or suitable proxy for
EE.DE data 2016 including mark-ups.
Access charges for different categories of freight trains
Figure 44 shows track access charge rates (excluding mark ups) for freight trains of different
maximum gross tonnage.
Figure 44: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): freight train by type by country, 2016
14
12
EUR per train-kilometre
EUR per train-kilometre
10
8
6
4
2
0
LT LV
IE
FI
EE PL HU SE SK NL AT CZ RO DE BE
1 000 tonne
1 600 tonne
IT BG LU FR HR UK SI
6 000 tonne
EL PT DK NO ES
Source: RMMS, 2018. For DE: split by train type not available, figure here includes mark-ups.
62
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0064.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Latvia, Estonia, France, Portugal and Denmark apply a fixed charge per train-kilometre. This can
incentivise railway undertakings to assemble long trains which make efficient use of limited
infrastructure capacity, provided they operate at sufficient speed. However, they may not reflect the
direct cost of the train run, given that in general heavier train runs cause higher wear and tear than
the lighter trains.
In most other States, access charges increase with train size, although not necessarily pro rata with
tonnage. Italy stated that its track access charges change at 1 000 and 1 600 tonnes as follows:
EUR 2.04 up to 999 tonnes;
EUR 2.51 from 1 000 to 1 599 tonnes; and
EUR 2.50 from 1 600 to 5 999 tonnes, with no charge specified at 6 000 tonnes or above.
The figure shows these three charges but in practice the charges at exactly 1 000 and 1 600 tonnes
are in the next higher band.
The largest variation in charges reported was in Lithuania, with a difference of EUR 8.40 per tonne-
kilometre between the 1 600 tonne and 6 000 tonne categories. The largest difference in charges
reported was in Finland, with a factor of 3.8 between the 1 600 tonne and 6 000 tonne categories.
Figure 45 shows how reported average freight charges have changed between 2013 and 2016.
Figure 45: Access charges (excluding mark-ups): freight train average by country, 2013 and 2016
12
10
EUR per train-kilometre
8
6
4
2
0
IE
LV
LT
EE CZ RO AT PL DE SK
IT
BG BE HU UK FR PT
2013
2016
FI
EL
SI
LU SE
ES HR DK NL
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data 2013 for HR, DK and NL. Split by tonne not available for DE 2016. 2014
1 000 tonne data for 2016 for IE.
The largest reported increases in access charges for freight trains were in Sweden (46%) and France
(24%) and the largest reported reductions were in Lithuania (-52%), Slovakia (44%)and the United
Kingdom (42%).
Figure 46 shows infrastructure manage
s epo ted e e ues f o
access charges, station charges and other charges.
passe ge t ai s th ough t a k
63
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0065.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Infrastructure managers’ revenue collected for passenger and freight trains
Figure 46: Access charges: infrastructure ma
age s e e ue f o
Proportion of infrastructure manager revenue
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
SE CZ
FI
LV LT LU PT
SI BG BE EE RO FR PL UK EL
Track access charges
Station charges
IE AT NL NO SK DE IT HR ES HU DK
Other charges
passe ge t ai s,
Source: RMMS, 2018.
Sweden reported negative revenue from other charges, resulting from net penalties paid the
infrastructure manager under the performance scheme. Not all infrastructure managers own or
manage stations and therefore all their revenue comes from track access charges. In Hungary,
ho e e statio ha ges p o ide % of the total e e ues. Othe ha ges i Ital elate to t a tio
energy and in Denmark to the use of the bridges across the Storebælt and Øresund.
Figure 47
sho s the ai i f ast u tu e a age s epo ted e e ues f o
track access charges, freight terminal charges and other charges.
Figure 47:
A ess ha ges: i f ast u tu e
120%
f eight t ai s th ough
a age s e e ue f o
f eight t ai s,
Proportion of infrastructure manager revenue
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
EL SE AT FI LU NL SI NO LT PT EE IE CZ BG PL BE UK IT RO SK DE HR FR LV HU DK ES
Track access charges
Freight terminal charges
Other charges
Source: RMMS, 2018.
64
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0066.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Greece reported negative revenue from other charges, and Sweden reported negative revenue from
freight terminal charges, resulting from net penalties paid for under-performance.
In Germany, DB Netz earned EUR 101 million from freight terminal charges. Revenues from freight
terminal charges in Hungary, France, Slovakia and Poland did not exceed EUR 2 million and several
Member States reported no revenues from freight terminal charges. We assume that in these
countries terminals are (mostly) not owned by the main infrastructure manager. Other charges in
Denmark are due to bridge charges, there is no information about the nature of other charges in
Spain.
Figure 48 and Figure 49 compare revenues from passenger and freight track access charges, including
mark-ups, where applicable, in 2015 and 2016.
Figure 48: Access charges (including mark-ups): revenues from passenger trains, 2015 and 2016
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
UK FR DE IT
BE ES NL AT PL SE HU RO CZ
2015
IE PT SK LV DK FI
2016
LT LU BG NO EL EE HR SI
Source: RMMS, 2018. 2015 no data for LU, HU.
EUR billion
65
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0067.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 49: Access charges (including mark-ups): revenues from freight trains, 2015 and 2016
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
DE PL LT FR AT IT
LV CZ RO UK SE NL BE
2015
FI
SK EE BG SI
PT HR HU ES NO DK IE
EL LU
2016
Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2015 data for HU or LU.
Figure 50 compares revenue from station charges, where available, in 2015 and 2016.
Figure 50: Access charges: revenues from station charges, 2015 and 2016
900
800
700
600
EUR million
EUR million
500
400
300
200
100
0
DE
UK
ES
FR
HU
AT
2015
NL
2016
PL
IE
SK
NO
HR
EE
Source: RMMS, 2018. BE, BG, CZ, DK, FI, EL, IT, LV, LT, LU, PT, RO, SI and SE did not report revenues from station
charges in the RMMS questionnaire.
Figure 50 only reports revenue from charges at stations owned by the main infrastructure manager.
Revenues from station charges rose in Germany, from EUR 826 million in 2015 to EUR 853 million in
2016, while in the United Kingdom they fell from EUR 457 million to EUR 415 million over the same
period. In contrast, they generally remained at 2015 levels in Austria, the Netherlands, Poland and, to
a limited extent, Spain and France.
Figure 51 and Figure 52 show the variation in revenues from other charges collected from passenger
and freight train operators, where available, among the States.
66
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0068.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 51: Access charges: revenues from other charges from passenger operators, 2015 and 2016
250
200
150
EUR million
100
50
0
IT
FR
UK
DE
DK
ES
HU
NL
2015
RO
2016
SK
PL
BE
EL
HR
BG
IE
SE
Source: RMMS, 2018. AT, CZ, EE, FI, LT, LU, LV, NO, PT and SI did not report revenues from other charges from
passenger operators in the RMMS questionnaire in both years; same for ES, HU, NL, SK and EL for 2015. 2016
no data for IE.
As noted above, Sweden reported negative revenue from other charges resulting from net penalties
paid for under-performance.
Figure 52: Access charges: revenues from other charges from freight operators
120
100
80
EUR million
60
40
20
0
DE
FR
LV
IT
ES
PL
RO
DK
UK
2015
SK
2016
BE
CZ
HU
HR
BG
SE
IE
PT
EL
Source: RMMS, 2018. AT, EE, FI, LT, LU, NL, SI and NO did not report revenues from other charges from freight
operators in the RMMS questionnaire for both years; same for LV and HU for 2015.
Greece reported a small negative revenue from other charges.
Figure 53 shows the average revenue from the charges for the minimum access package in 2016 in
each State reported by IRG-Rail.
67
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0069.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 53: Access charges: average revenue from charges for the minimum access package, 2016
20
18
Revenue per train-kilometre (EUR)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
LT
EE
LV
DK EU
PL
RO DE AT
BE
NL
IT
FI
FR UK HU SK
Passenger
LU BG PT
EL
HR
SI
NO ES
Freight
Source: IRG-Rail, 2018. No data for CZ, IE, SE.
4.2
Capacity allocation and congestion
4.2.1
Network utilisation
Figure 54 shows the reported average intensity of use of the infrastructure in train-kilometres per
year per route-kilometre
47
.
Figure 54: Network utilisation 2016, compound average growth rate 2011-2016
50 000
45 000
LT
LV
HR
RO
EL
EE
ES
FI
LU
FR
DK
BE
BG
EU
IE
CZ
HU
UK
AT
NL
IT
PT
DE
SE
SI
SK
PL
NO
Train-kilometres per route-kilometre
40 000
35 000
30 000
25 000
20 000
15 000
10 000
5 000
0
NL
UK
AT
DK
LU
DE
BE
IT
SI
CZ
EU
FR
SE
PT
SK
HU
PL
NO
ES
IE
LV
HR
FI
RO
BG
EE
LT
EL
-10%
0%
10%
Source: RMMS, 2018 and Statistical pocketbook, 2018
47
In practice trains may carry many more passengers, or tonnes, in some networks, or parts of networks, than
others. These broad national averages say nothing about the emptiest parts of the network, but provide
some indication about which networks are on average busier than others.
68
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0070.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
The most intensively-used networks, on average, are those of north west Europe including the
Netherlands (operating almost 50 000 train-kilometres per route-kilometre in 2016), the United
Kingdom, Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg, Germany and Belgium. The least intensively-used networks
are those of the Baltic States, Greece, Finland, Romania and Bulgaria. Low network utilisation means
that the fixed costs of operations, maintenance and renewals of the infrastructure need to be
recovered from, or justified by, a smaller volume of trains and passenger or freight traffic.
4.2.2
Managing capacity shortages
Sections and nodes declared congested
Congestion underlines the existence of infrastructure limitations not allowing all potential traffic to
transit on the network. Article 47 of Directive 2012/34/EU requires that infrastructure managers
de la e as o gested a i f ast u tu e fo hi h it has ot ee possi le to satisf e uests fo
infrastructure capacity. The Directive also makes provision for a capacity analysis and a capacity
enhancement plan.
Table 5 summarises the lengths of track, and numbers of nodes, declared to be congested in 2015
and 2016 by eight Member States plus Norway. No States declared any dedicated high-speed line to
be congested.
Table 5: Track and nodes declared to be congested, 2015 and 2016
State
Total track
(kilometres)
2015
2016
1 171
507
163
260
84
71
12
12
4
2 213
1 171
681
387
363
84
71
12
12
4
2 714
790
1 067
1
16
1
8
396
67
260
67
24
570
67
363
67
24
Rail freight corridors
(kilometres)
2015
2016
Nodes
2015
1
2
1
9
1
2
2
1
2
2
2016
1
2
1
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Romania
Denmark
Norway
Ireland
Austria
Poland
EU total (this excludes Norway)
Source: RMMS.
The network with the greatest length of declared congested track is that of the United Kingdom,
which accounted for over 40% of total congested track in 2016. There is extensive congestion in
Germany, Italy and Romania, each of which has declared more than 100 kilometres of track to be
congested.
Figure 55 combines the information in Table 5 with available historic data to show the trends in the
total length of track declared congested over the period 2012 to 2016.
69
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0071.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 55: Total length of track declared congested, 2012-2016
3 000
2 500
2 000
Kilometres
1 500
1 000
500
0
2012
2013
Total track
2014
Rail Freight Corridors
2015
2016
Source: RMMS, 2018.
The total length of track declared congested (including in Norway) is rising and has now reached
nearly 3 000 kilometres, including 1 000 kilometres of rail freight corridors. This suggests that further
growth of traffic in some passenger and freight markets will be constrained, at least until alternative
routes or additional capacity are available.
Principles for dealing with congestion
Infrastructure managers need to survey the usage of infrastructure capacity to meet all capacity
requests adequately. If capacity is constrained, methods to deal with this need to be developed.
Reasons for congestion and measures that are to be taken in the short and medium term need to be
displayed to ease the congestion. If, after coordination and consultation, train path demand cannot
be matched, the relevant section of infrastructure must be declared congested.
After a declaration of congestion, either the infrastructure manager must carry out a capacity
analysis within six months and produce a capacity enhancement plan within a further six months, or
an existing capacity enhancement plan must be realised. Any capacity enhancement plan shall
display the reasons for the congestion, the likely future development of traffic, any constraints on
infrastructure development and the options and costs for capacity enhancement, including likely
changes to access charges. On this basis, a decision of measures to overcome the congestion needs
to be taken. The users of the relevant congested infrastructure are to be consulted on the plan and
its measures.
Where congestion exists, Article 31 of Directive 2012/34/EU permits infrastructure managers to levy
a charge which reflects the scarcity of capacity of the identifiable section of the infrastructure during
periods of congestion. The declaration of congestion on congested infrastructure is therefore a
prerequisite for levying such a charge.
70
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0072.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
IRG-Rail (2017) reported that scarcity charges were in use in Austria, Estonia, France, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden
48
. Poland makes provision for scarcity
charges but does not impose them.
If scarcity charges are not levied, or have not achieved changing the traffic demand behaviour, the
infrastructure manager may also employ priority criteria to allocate infrastructure capacity. Such
criteria need to reflect the importance of a service to society relative to any other service, which will
consequently be excluded. Member States might take measures to ensure that the importance of
transport services under public service requirements and of national or international rail freight are
taken into consideration. Compensations to infrastructure managers for losses of revenues due to
the capacity allocation to certain services may be granted. This also includes effects of any exclusion
of a service in another Member State. All procedures and defined criteria shall be reflected in the
network statement.
If no capacity enhancement plan is produced, or no progress with the measures agreed in the plan is
made, the infrastructure manager must cease levying any charges for the use of the relevant
infrastructure. Otherwise, if the plan cannot be realised due to unforeseen reasons, or if the
measures in the plan prove not to be economically of financially viable, the infrastructure manager
may continue to levy the charge in agreement with the regulatory body.
Framework agreements
Article 42 of Directive 2013/34/EU makes provision for framework agreements for the use of the
infrastructure for longer than one working timetable period. However, the EU rail industry is
characterised by dominant operators, some of which may have close ties with infrastructure
managers that could use framework agreements to monopolise infrastructure capacity for many
years. The Commission implemented a Regulation, from December 2016, on procedures and criteria
relating to framework agreements for the allocation of railway infrastructure, to provide new
entrants with fairer access to the railway infrastructure and to optimise its use.
Priority rules (priority services)
Article 45 of Directive 2012/34/EU permits the infrastructure manager to give priority to specific
services within the scheduling and coordination process. Many infrastructure managers make use of
priority rules, and the principal types of service given priority are summarised in Figure 56.
48
'Overview of charging practices for the minimum access package in Europe', IRG-Rail (2017).
71
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0073.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 56: Principal types of services prioritised by infrastructure managers, 2016
20
Member States assigning each priority
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
PSO
International
passenger
Priority 1
Priority 2
International
freight
Priority 3
Domestic
passenger
Priority 4
Priority 5
Domestic
freight
Priority 6
Domestic
high-speed
Source: RMMS, 2018.
Note that:
Two large Member States, France and Germany, did not report any priority rules.
Two Member States with relatively liberal markets, Sweden and the United Kingdom, stated
that priority was based on a range of decision-making criteria or on overall optimisation of
the timetable.
Between 2015 and 2016, some infrastructure managers reported that they had changed
their priority rules.
The services most commonly prioritised are those provided under PSO, which are given Priority 1 in
11 Member States. The next most commonly prioritised services are international passenger
services, followed by international freight services, then other domestic and passenger services. It is
often necessary to prioritise international services to allow the creation of end-to-end paths crossing
borders between Member States. Where they operate, domestic high-speed services are normally
given a high priority.
Some infrastructure managers allocate high priority to other types of service. For example:
In Austria (and Norway), a high priority is given to services operated under framework
agreements.
In Belgium, slow freight trains are given fourth priority, behind passenger trains and fast
freight trains.
In Finland, top priority is given to passenger traffic necessary for connections and freight
traffic for the processing industry.
In Croatia, second priority is given to combined freight transport.
In Hungary and Lithuania, low priority is allocated to maintenance trains.
72
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0074.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Successful and rejected path allocations scheduled and ad hoc train paths, numerous
services
Member States are required to follow the path coordination processes set out in Article 46(1) of
Directive 2012/34/EU, which permits either:
scheduled path allocations, as part of a scheduled regular service; or
ad hoc allocations, in the event of unforeseen disruptions.
Path allocations wither may be accepted or rejected by an infrastructure manager to resolve
conflicting applications for infrastructure capacity.
Figure 57 shows the reported number of successful and rejected scheduled path allocations
49
in 2015
and 2016.
Figure 57: Successful and rejected scheduled path allocations, 2015 and 2016
6
5
Path allocations (million)
4
3
2
1
0
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
2015
2016
FR
IT
CZ
PL
NL
AT
UK
BE
HU
SK
PT
FI
DE
EL
LV
ES
DK
SI
HR
NO
RO
BG
EE
LT
IE
Successful scheduled path allocations
Rejected scheduled path allocations
Successful ad hoc path allocations
Rejected ad hoc path allocations
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for LU and SE. No 2015 data for EL, LV.
Timetabling and planning of capacity restrictions
The use of railway infrastructure is organised on the basis of timetables, which predetermine the
trajectory of individual trains in the form of so-
alled t ai paths . The asis fo
building timetables
are path requests by railway undertakings and other applicants
50
. On this basis, infrastructure
managers develop a timetable which reconciles all path requests in the best way possible, given the
infrastructure capacity available. Path requests can be either submitted under the yearly working
timetable, designed for planned traffic and on a more long-term basis, and as ad-hoc requests for
spot traffic on short notice.
49
50
The definitions in the RMMS reporting as regards the count of path allocations still need to be refined. For
instance currently total for FR is almost 5 million and total for DE is only 190 000. These differences could be
a result of on how daily path has been recorded - as any of 1, 7, 28 or 365.
I additio to ail a u de taki gs, the te
appli a ts i ludes othe pe so s o legal
entities with an
interest in procuring infrastructure capacity, such as shippers, freight forwarders or combined transport
operators.
73
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0075.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
As other elements of the European railway system, the timetabling procedures have evolved
nationally and lack harmonisation, which hinders cross-border traffic.
Another issue is the adequacy of the timetabling process to the business models of rail freight
transport. A material share of market demand is volatile and cannot be planned long in advance. For
such market segments, ad-hoc path requests would be the most appropriate method to
accommodate capacity needs. However, to secure infrastructure capacity, requests are rather made
in the framework of the annual timetable process, thereby avoiding the risk of not receiving an ad
hoc train path of suitable quality (or even none at all) due to the late stage. This often leads to
suboptimal management of infrastructure capacity and a waste of resources, since train paths are
typically modified or even cancelled, when the real capacity needs become more precise.
Last but not least, insufficient coordination of capacity restrictions creates significant problems for
running trains in certain regions of Europe. Capacity restrictions are necessary to allow maintenance
and enhancement works on the infrastructure but their impact on rail traffic needs to be minimised
by proper coordination at national and international level.
Box 10: New timetabling delegated act and Timetable Review project (RNE)
To improve this situation, the new Annex VII of Directive 2012/34/EU specifies a mandatory timeline for
the establishment of the yearly timetable and introduces coordination and consultation processes
between infrastructure managers and applicants. Capacity restrictions due to major planned infrastructure
works must be taken into account at an early stage in the timetable process. This improves reliability for
applicants, enabling both a better use of the infrastructure and more competitive transport services.
In parallel to this change in legislation, infrastructure managers and railway undertakings have launched a
common effort to completely redesign the international timetable process with the goal to better respond
to the market needs of both passenger and freight transport. For example, passenger operators would be
able to secure train paths earlier than today, allowing them to start ticket sales sooner. Freight operators
would benefit from a more flexible process allowing them to respond to demand on short notice. Thus, the
specific requirements of each market segment will be better reflected in the process.
I
, the TTR p oje t edesig of the i te atio al ti eta le p o ess
as lau hed RailNetEu ope
(infrastructure managers) and Forum Train Europe (applicants). The project addresses the details of the
timetable process, supporting IT tools, the commercial and legal framework as well as a monitoring
process. The new timetable process is planned to be introduced in a gradual process until 2025. Key
elements of the new approach are currently being tested in three pilot projects situated on Rail Freight
Corridor lines, covering the Mannheim-Miranda de Ebro, Munich-Verona and Rotterdam-Antwerp links
until December 2020.
4.3
Rail transport services covered by public service contracts
4.3.1
PSO scope
Regulation 1370/2007, now amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/2338, defines a Public Service
Obligation (PSO) as a requirement defined or determined by a competent authority to assure public
passenger transport services in the general interest that an operator, if it were considering its own
commercial interests, would not assume or would not assume to the same extent or under the same
conditions without reward. The Regulation was intended to create an internal market for public
passenger transport services by complementing the general rules on public procurement.
In 2016, just over 60% of total EU rail passenger-kilometres were travelled on services covered by a
PSO. Figure 58 shows how this proportion varies among the States for which data are available.
74
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0076.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 58: Passenger-kilometres on PSO and commercial rail services, 2016
100%
90%
Proportion of passenger-kilometres
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
RO DK IE HR NO BE LU
SI
EL UK FI HU CZ EE LV BG SK PL AT LT DE
PSO
Non-PSO
IT
SE ES FR PT
Source: RMMS, 2018. No recent data for NL.
As indicated on the left of the chart, all domestic rail passenger travel on services in Romania,
Denmark and Ireland was covered by a PSO. On the right of the chart, in contrast, several large
Member States leave the incumbent operator to provide services on a commercial basis without a
PSO, typically in long-distance and interurban markets. Over 30% of passenger-kilometres are on
commercially-operated services in Austria, Germany, Italy and Sweden, which have commercial open
access operators, and in Spain and France, which do not. Lithuania also has a large proportion of
travel on services which are not covered by a PSO.
In Portugal, around 60-70% of services were reported as covered by a PSO until 2014, but this
proportion appears to be only 8% in 2016 because the incumbent CP did not receive anymore
compensations and all its traffic was considered as commercial.
The only large network which does not leave most long-distance services to be provided
commercially is the United Kingdom where, since 1996, all the services of the former incumbent have
been covered by PSOs, and the only non-PSO services are those provided by open access operators.
The implications of this and other factors for apparent levels of subsidy in the United Kingdom are
discussed in the paragraph on PSO compensation.
Figure 59 shows that six Member States and Norway specified a PSO for some international
passenger services.
75
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0077.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 59: Passenger-kilometres on domestic and international PSO services, 2016
100%
90%
Proportion of passenger-kilometres
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
UK
DE
PL
NO
Domestic PSO
DK
SK
SE
CZ
SI
International PSO
Source: RMMS, 2018.
States reported almost 3 billion passenger-kilometres of travel on cross-border PSO services in 2016
although the data appear to be incomplete.
Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia reported passenger travel on international PSO
services, but do not identify across which borders the services operate, and hence it is not clear
whether travel in other Member States has been reported by them. The largest volume reported was
in the Czech Republic, with over 1.3 billion passenger-kilometres, representing almost 16% of travel
on PSO services in the Czech Republic. The largest proportion of PSO passenger travel on
international services was in Slovenia, with 20% of the total, although this amounted to only
100 million passenger-kilometres.
Denmark reported that 350 million passenger-kilometres occur on international PSO services, which
operate into Sweden, over the Oresund Bridge, and possibly into Germany, across the land border
between the two Member States. Germany did not report any corresponding data, but Sweden did,
although Sweden has services to both Denmark and Norway. Belgium, Croatia, Luxembourg and the
Netherlands reported international PSO in past RMMS surveys but not for 2016.
The United Kingdom reported 50 million passenger-kilometres, which must occur on the cross-
border Enterprise services linking Belfast with Dublin, in Ireland, but these account for only 0.08% of
total passenger-kilometres on PSO services. Ireland did not report corresponding data for the part of
the service in its territory.
76
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0078.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Box 11: Night Trains
The Commission receives many Parliamentary questions and letters from citizens about the gradual
disappearance of passenger night trains.
Passenger night trains can be defined as any train consisting partly or wholly of rolling stock dedicated to,
or reconfigured for, overnight travel. Night trains often differ from day trains in their patterns of
operation, and passenger night services have several constraints that day-time services do not experience
(or to a lesser extent):
Reaching the destination within a given time slot is more relevant than to reach it as quickly as
possible.
Many night trains split and join portions.
Night trains may operate only on some days of the week (or month, or during some seasons, or
around specific holidays).
Freight traffic may limit the commercial speed, punctuality and reliability of passenger night
trains.
Main central stations focus on commuter flows in the morning.
Staff work overnight.
More staff and cleaning work are needed.
Dedicated rolling stock operates only at night, so that usage is not maximised.
Unfortunately, no consistent data are available to monitor the use and users of night train services, but an
ad hoc study commissioned by the European Parliament in 2017
51
found that night travel in Europe has
been declining for a long time. Night trains appear to have lost business passengers and are mainly used
for leisure travel.
Night trains also face fierce and growing competition, particularly from aviation and coaches. The
liberalisation of intra-EU air services in 1993 has led to the growth of low-cost airlines within Europe.
International coach services were also liberalised in 2011, and three large Member States (Germany,
France and Italy) also liberalised domestic coach services which over domestic long-distance are avid
competitors to night trains. Many coach operators also provide overnight services, and their fares often
undercut even the cheapest seats on night trains.
The EU plays only a limited role in relation to night trains, setting the overall regulatory framework for the
entire sector. The provision of rail services is in first place a matter for railway undertakings, Member
States or regional authorities based on business/public service considerations.
According to the study for the European Parliament, domestic night trains operate in 11 Member States,
either under a PSO (national or specific to night trains) or commercially. International night trains currently
serve or pass through 18 Member States, but three of them appear to be only connected by night trains to
Russia. Night trains operated on a clearly commercial basis seem to be restricted to:
a corridor including the service offered by SJ between Stockholm and Malmo in Sweden; and
the ÖBB Nightjet network radiating from Vienna to a large area of central/Eastern Europe plus
Slovenia, Croatia and Italy.
The measures of the Fourth Railway Package may help to generate more demand for rail services and such
improve the business case also for overnight trains, creating new services and improving the customer-
orientation of rail operators through competition.
Source: Steer Davies Gleave for the EP.
51
Passe ge ight t ai s i Eu ope: the e d of the li e? ,
Steer Davies Gleave for the TRAN Committee of the European Parliament,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/601977/IPOL_STU(2017)601977_EN.pdf
.
77
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0079.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Box 12: Emergence of low-cost services
A low-cost offer for rail services is emerging in the EU. In addition to existing services as Ouigo and Izy,
FlixTrain recently entered the long-distance German market and RENFE announced the launch of a new
low-cost service in Spain in 2019. According to a study commissioned by Getlink in 2018
52
, a low-cost rail
service could use peripheral stations to connect London to Paris via the Channel Tunnel with a slight longer
travel time and overall cost saving between 25% and 30% compared to the premium offer of Eurostar.
Service
OUIGO
Description
Subsidiary of SNCF.
Offering low-fares, high-speed services (8 destinations to the north, the north-
west and the south-east of France).
Launched in 2013.
Low-cost Thalys' brand.
Offering low-fares, standard-speed services on conventional lines between
Brussels and Paris.
Launched in 2016.
Brand of FlixMobility group, as FlixBus.
Long-distance, low-fares train connections between Hamburg and Cologne
(launched March 2018) as well as between Berlin and Stuttgart (launched April
2018).
FlixTrain plans to apply later this year for the rights to operate additional German
routes from 2019.
FlixTrain will use a similar model to FlixBus, where FlixMobility handles network
development, technology, sales, marketing and quality management, while
operations and fleet management are provided by experienced external partners
(Leo Express, BahnTouristikExpress, BTE, MRCE).
Integrated offer with FlixBus services.
Low-cost RENFE service.
Offering low-fares, no-frills high-speed services between Barcelona and Madrid,
integrated with other modes.
Launch announced by Spanish Ministry for the first quarter of 2019.
IZY
FlixTrain
EVA
4.3.2
PSO award
Public contracting authorities
Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, now amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/2338, sets out the principal
that Whe e a o pete t autho it de ides to
grant the operator of its choice an exclusive right
and/or compensation, of whatever nature, in return for the discharge of public service obligations, it
shall do so ithi the f a e o k of a pu li se i e o t a t.
52
http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2018/07/01/20005-20180701ARTFIG00093-des-trains-low-cost-pourraient-
bientot-rejoindre-londres.php
;
https://investir.lesechos.fr/actions/actualites/recap-week-end-getlink-
pousse-a-une-offre-low-cost-entre-paris-et-londres-presse-1776080.php.
78
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0080.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
In practice, the nature and areas of responsibility of competent authorities for passenger rail services
varies between States, as shown in Figure 60 drawn from a recent report for the Commission
53
.
Figure 60: Competent authorities for passenger rail services, 2018
Source: KCW, 2018.
In a number of States, there is a single national competent authority for rail passenger transport. In
many cases, there is also a single national incumbent railway and, as a result, there may be a single
national public service contract (PSC) between the two parties.
In other States, procurement of rail transport has been devolved to other tiers of government. This is
typically a region, province or county with a capital city or administrative centre, although in
Germany the competent authorities are the States (Länder), three of which cover only the cities of
Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg. More complex arrangements occur in the United Kingdom, where the
competent authorities for rail services include a kingdom (Scotland), a principality (Wales), a province
(Northern Ireland) and three cities (London, Manchester and Liverpool). These arrangements can
involve a large number of PSCs, whether with a national incumbent operator, with established
regional and local operators, or through competitive tendering.
Most States with devolved authorities also retain a national competent authority which can, if
needed, specify PSOs for services linking different regions. The exception is Germany, where all
responsibility for rail is devolved, and interregional PSCs typically require the cooperation of two or
more Länder.
53
Co p ehe si e a al sis of the e isti g oss-border
rail and transport connections and missing lings on the
i te al EU o de s , KCW a d othe s, Ma h
.
79
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0081.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Note that Article 7 of Regulation 1370/2007, now amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/2338, requires
that Ea h o pete t autho it shall pu lish o e a ea a agg egated epo t o the pu li se i e
obligations for which it is responsible, the selected public service operators, the compensation
payments and exclusive rights granted to the said public service operators by way of
ei u se e t.
Direct award versus tendering
Figure 61 shows the proportion of PSO services, measured in passenger-kilometres, which were
competitively tendered or directly awarded in 2016.
Figure 61: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded, 2016
70
60
Billion passenger-kilometres
50
40
30
20
10
0
UK DE FR
IT
PL
ES
BE AT CZ HU DK SE RO
Competitively tendered
FI
SK NO IE BG EL HR
Directly awarded
SI
LV LU PT
EE
LT
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for NL.
Of the EU total 2016 PSO passenger-kilometres, 41% were on services which had been competitively
tendered. However, over 96% of this competitive tendering occurred in three Member States which
liberalised their services early:
57.0% in the United Kingdom, where long-distance services are subject to a PSO and
competitively tendered, although during 2016 some operations had been directly awarded
on a temporary basis;
33.5% in Germany, where some competent authorities continue to procure services by
direct award; and
5.5% in Sweden, where all PSO services are competitively tendered.
According to data provided for this survey, limited competitive tendering has also been introduced in
Portugal, Bulgaria, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Poland and Italy. In the Netherlands, the Passenger
Transport Act of 2000 introduced competitive tendering at regional level
54
.
54
Co petiti e Te de i g i Lo al a d Regio al Pu li T a spo t i the Nethe la ds , ITF
https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/competitive-tendering-public-transport-
netherlands_.pdf.
-12
80
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0082.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
The Fou th Rail a Pa kage p o ides fo the g adual ope i g of pu li se i e o t a ts a ket
from December 2019, giving a choice between competitive tendering and direct award until
December 2023. From 24 December 2023 the principle of competitive tendering will apply and direct
award will be possible only on the basis of exemptions.
Reforms to put in place an industry structure compatible with the requirements of the Fourth
Railway Package have been approved in France and are also underway in Norway and Finland.
In France, a wide-ranging railway reform is currently underway. A framework law designed to align
French legislation to the 4th railway package was adopted in June 2018. In the wake of the reform,
the legal monopoly of the incumbent railway undertaking SNCF will come to an end. From December
2019, responsibility for procuring regional railway services will be transferred to the Regions, some of
which are actively preparing for competitive tendering. As of 2020, open access will be introduced,
including on the high-speed network.
In Norway, monopoly operator NSB has been restructured to create a separate rolling stock leasing
company and ticketing and retail company. Rail services will be split into packages, two of which have
already been identified, for competitive tendering. Package South includes services between
Stavanger and Oslo, and Package North includes services between Trondheim and Oslo and local
diesel services. Invitations to tender for Package South, on a net cost basis, were issued in
October 2017
55
.
In 2017, the Finnish government presented an ambitious reform with the aim of opening passenger
rail transport to competition. Market opening will be based on tendering and on the corporate
reorganisation of VR, the incumbent railway undertaking, to guarantee an equal and competition-
neutral environment for all service providers. In particular:
Three companies will be separated from VR Group Ltd: a rolling stock company, a
maintenance company and a real estate company.
A concession contract will be tendered for local passenger rail services in Southern Finland,
and also used as a guide for further tenders.
Role of regulatory bodies in the PSO awarding process
Before December 2016, in the absence of common rules governing the award of PSCs, some Member
States introduced competitive tendering of PSCs while most awarded them directly. The disparity in
the rules among the Member States pose difficulties for railway operators to exploit the full potential
of operating in an internal market. The Fourth Railway Package introduced a framework for
competitive award of rail PSCs. According to the framework, under certain circumstances, Member
States could directly award rail contracts, but in that event would be required to publish a reasoned
decision behind the award and to ensure quality and cost efficiency improvement using clearly
defined performance targets in the contract.
Overview of PSO contracts awarded during the reporting period
States were asked to provide information on the size of PSO contracts let during 2016.
Several States let no PSO contracts during that year, and the remainder let a mix of directly-awarded
and competitively-tendered contracts, summarised in Figure 62:
55
Further details are provided at
https://www.jernbanedirektoratet.no/en/railway-tenders/upcoming-
tenders/
81
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0083.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
The numbers on the horizontal axis show the number of contracts let, where this is more
than one.
The length of the bars on the figure shows the range between the smallest and largest
contract of each type let in each State.
Figure 62: PSOs competitively tendered and directly awarded, 2016
50
Annual services (million train-kilometres)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
UK
4
IT
2
SE
2
DE
31
NL
1
PL
1
PL
17
IT
28
SI
1
EL
25
FI
1
LT
1
LV
2
EE
1
DE
9
FR
2
NL
1
CZ
1
DK
1
Competitive tenders
Direct awards
Source: RMMS, 2018.
Competitive tenders of up to more than 32 million train-kilometres per year were let in 2016:
The United Kingdom let the largest contract, for services on the Greater Anglia franchise,
using its system of leasing rolling stock, rather than requiring the new operator to provide
stock. The smallest of the four contracts let was for 2.7 million train-kilometres.
In Italy, the larger of two competitively-awarded contracts was for over 18 million train-
kilometres.
In Sweden, the larger of two contracts, for the Mälardalen services to Stockholm, was for
12 million train-kilometres.
Direct awards of up to 40 million train-kilometres per year were let in 2016, with contract durations
of up to ten years or around 2026:
Slovenia directly awarded all national services for ten years.
Italy made direct awards for up to nine years, although the largest, for over 23 million train-
kilometres, was only for one year.
Greece directly awarded all services for five years in a series of 25 small packages, the
largest of which was for over 8 million train-kilometres.
Poland and Estonia directly awarded all national services for one year, in the case of Poland
totalling 40 million train-kilometres.
Net cost and gross cost public service contracts
Public Service Contracts (PSC) can take many forms, although a common distinction is between net
cost contracts and gross cost contracts.
82
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0084.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
In a net cost contract, the railway undertaking providing the contracted services receives the revenue
from the services, at least partly with the aim of providing an incentive to improve service levels and
quality to maximise that revenue. Net cost contracts were the chosen model when the United
Kingdom decided to subject its existing PSCs to competitive tender in the mid-1990s. However, they
can have disadvantages:
Where revenues are low compared with costs, or the demand for rail services is inelastic to
their quality (as can be the case with urban, suburban and commuter networks), revenue
may provide little effective incentive to improve quality. Under these circumstances, it may
be necessary to introduce a performance regime, whereby payments to the railway
undertaking are related to the quality of service delivered.
Railway undertakings may be unable to make reliable forecasts of revenue, particularly for
longer term contracts, which can mean that they either earn higher-than-expected profits or
incur losses. This can lead either to the withdrawal of the railway undertaking, or to a
mechanism to share revenue risk with the competent authority, blunting the intended
incentives to improve quality.
Railway undertakings may only be willing to take the risk associated with revenue if they are
also allowed to set fares, which can lead both to inconsistencies in the level and structure of
fares and the need for some regulation of maximum fares.
In a gross cost contract, in contrast, the competent authority receives the revenue from the service.
The railway undertaking is not exposed either to the risks of a poor demand forecast or to any
resulting incentive to improve quality, which must instead rely on a performance regime. Gross cost
contracts may be used:
where revenues are shared between different modes, such as within a large urban area
where many passengers use multimodal tickets, and it can be difficult to apportion revenue
to rail;
where the competent authority wishes to retain the flexibility to change the level and
structure of fares; or
where forecasting demand and revenue are difficult and railway undertakings are not
prepared to accept exposure to the resulting risk.
Further types of contract have been adopted, particularly for transition arrangements at the
beginning or end of PSCs.
No comprehensive EU-wide database exists on PSCs and the basis on which they have been awarded.
In general, however:
Gross cost contracts are typically used in PSCs for urban and suburban services, where fares
are fixed and revenue is often shared between rail and other modes, or regional services,
where fares revenue is low in relation to costs.
Net cost contracts are most likely to be used on interurban or long-distance services
although, except for in the United Kingdom, many such services are in practice operated
commercially and not subject to PSCs.
83
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0085.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Box 13: Provisions on competitive tendering of rail PSCs in the Fourth Railway Package
On 24 December 2017, Regulation (EU) 2016/2338 concerning the opening of the market for domestic
passenger transport services by rail entered into force. This Regulation amended Regulation (EC) No
1370/2007 and set new rules for competent authorities when they act in the field of public passenger
transport to guarantee the provision of services of general interest.
Most importantly, the amendment of the Regulation established the principle of competitive tendering of
rail public service contracts. This principle will fully apply from 3 December 2019. The unconditional
possibility to directly award public service contracts in rail will no longer be possible from 25 December
2023. During this transitional period, Member States should gradually introduce the principle of
competitive tendering in their rail transport markets.
After 24 December 2023, competent authorities may deviate from applying the principle of competitive
award only in exceptional situations specified in the Regulation. These exemptions encompass the
possibility to award the public service contract directly in situations when a competent authority considers
that the direct award is justified by structural and geographical characteristics of the market or network,
and if the contract results in an improvement in quality of services or cost-efficiency, or both, in
comparison to the previous one. The competent authority must publish its substantiated direct award
decision.
The new Regulation also requires competent authorities to lay down specifications of public service
obligations and their scope of application while respecting the proportionality principle and ensuring
consistency with the policy objectives stated in public transport policy documents of the Member States.
These objectives should be achieved in a cost-effective manner.
To contribute to fair and non-discriminatory tendering conditions for all railway undertakings the public
service contract will require public transport operators to provide competent authorities with the
information necessary for the preparation of the tender (such as passenger demand, fares, costs and
revenues). Competent authorities must then share the information with all interested parties during a
tendering procedure.
With a view to launching a competitive tendering procedure, competent authorities must also make public
an assessment whether it is necessary to take measures to ensure non-discriminatory access to rail rolling
stock. In compliance with State Aid rules competent authorities may take measures to ensure such access,
for instance, by acquiring rolling stock, guaranteeing the financing of rolling stock, committing to takeover
rail vehicles after the contract finishes and creating rolling stock pools jointly with other competent
authorities.
Finally, public service operators must comply with obligations applicable in the field of social and labour
law established by Union law, national law or collective agreements.
4.3.3
PSO compensation
Apparent levels of PSO compensation
Figure 63 shows the apparent average levels of PSO compensation per train-kilometre paid in each
Member State.
84
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0086.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 63: Apparent average PSO compensation, 2016
20
18
Apparent average compensation
(EUR per train-kilometre)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
FR
BE
AT
IT
NO DE DK
LV
SK HU
IE
ES
EE
BG
SI
RO CZ
HR
PL
SE
FI
LT
LU UK
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for EL, NL, PT.
The average compensation is negative in the United Kingdom, where bidders for PSO contracts
f a hises
a pa a p e iu
egati e su sid
he e the judge that se i es a e ope ated
profitably at current (regulated) levels of access charges and fares.
Apparent levels of PSO compensation per train-kilometre vary widely, for several reasons:
The PSO requirement typically requires that the operator of the PSO services pays access
charges to the infrastructure manager
56
, and the level of these access charges therefore
affects the payment required for the operator to maintain economic equilibrium. In the
United Kingdom, for example, average fares on PSO services are relatively high, and access
charges for the regulatory period 2014-2019 are lower than in the past. On average, PSO
ope ato s pa a p e iu to ope ate the se i e, athe tha e ui i g a su sid , ith the
result that the apparent level of subsidy paid is negative.
Trains vary widely in length, capacity, stopping pattern, traction type, quality and age. A
train-kilometre of output, and the cost of producing it, varies even between trains operated
on the same route with the same stopping pattern. Even if operated by the same train and
crew, stopping services cost more than express services, because they take longer to
produce each train-kilometre.
Fares vary widely, depending on the range of fares available and the extent to which they
are regulated or specified by national, regional or local competent authorities.
Demand is sometimes broadly stable throughout the day, week and year and is sometimes
highly peaked to serve daily commuting or annual festivals and holiday periods. The capacity
of PSO services may need to be sufficient to serve peak demand, but may generate little
revenue at other times when the services are still socially necessary.
56
In Slovenia, passenger trains operating under PSCs are exempt from track access charges
85
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0087.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Apparent recovery of PSO costs from passenger fares
Figure 64 shows the apparent proportion of PSO costs which are recovered through passenger fares
(but excluding PSO operator revenue from other sources, such as catering, car parking and
concessions on stations).
Figure 64: Apparent proportion of PSO cost recovered through passenger fares, 2016
100%
Apparent proportion of PSO costs
recovered from passenger fares
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
UK LU NL PT
LT
FI
ES
IE
IT NO DE DK SE
EL
PL RO AT CZ HR LV BE EE SK HU BG
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for FR and SI.
The proportion of costs recovered through passenger fares may vary widely for the reasons set out
above. In the case of at least some competent authorities, however, there may be an explicit policy
that cost recovery should not be less than, or not be more than, a proportion intended to distribute
costs between passengers and taxpayers.
4.4
Licensing
A railway licence is an authorisation issued to an undertaking by a licensing authority recognising its
capacity to provide rail transport services as a railway undertaking. Licensing of railway undertakings
is regulated by Articles 16 to 25 of Directive 2012/34/EU. A licence may cover only passenger or
freight services or both. It is valid throughout the EU, as long as the railway undertaking fulfils the
obligations laid down in European legislation. Licensing ensures that access rights to railway
infrastructure are applied throughout the EU in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner.
To facilitate access to the market by new operators, the Commission adopted implementing
Regulation (EU) 2015/171 on certain aspects of the licensing procedure. This reduced the
administrative fees for start-up railway undertakings and shortened the time to market. It ensured
that atio al li e si g autho ities pu lish all ele a t li e si g data o ERA s e site.
Active licences
A count of licences can be considered as a proxy for the number of active railway undertakings in a
Member State. At any one time, licences can be active or passive:
86
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0088.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Active licences:
a licence granted to a railway undertaking that has
started
and
not ceased
operations within the periods fixed by the Member State in accordance with Article 24(4) of
Directive 2012/34/EU.
Passive licences:
a licence granted to a railway undertaking that has
not started
or has
ceased
operations within the periods fixed by the Member State in accordance with Article
24(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU, and licences which have been suspended or revoked.
According to the Recast Directive and the relevant national legislation, licences for the performance
of rail transport services within the EU and the European Economic Area must be uploaded by
national licensing authorities to the European Railway Agency Database of Interoperability and
Safety (ERADIS)
57
.
Figure 65 shows the total number of active licences by State reported at the end of 2016, according
to RMMS.
Figure 65: Active licences by country, 2016
500
450
400
350
Active licenses
300
250
200
150
100
50
-
DE PL CZ UK NL HU ES AT SK SE RO IT
FR EE BG LT PT DK BE HR NO LV
SI
FI
EL
IE LU
Source: RMMS, 2018, PL data from ERADIS.
At the end of 2016, Germany reported 448 active railway undertakings, reflecting the highly
fragmented nature of railway undertaking operations there. Poland and the Czech Republic also
reported over 100 active railway undertakings and the United Kingdom reported more than 50.
Average fee to obtain a licence
States were asked to provide information on the average fee and time required to obtain a licence.
Figure 66 shows the reported average fees in 2015 and 2016.
57
Available at
https://eradis.era.europa.eu/.
87
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0089.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 66: Average fees to obtain a licence by country, 2015 and 2016
45 000
40 000
35 000
30 000
25 000
EUR
20 000
15 000
10 000
5 000
0
PT BG LV DK ES HU NL DE
IT
LU
SE RO EL
2015
2016
EE
SI
PL
FI
CZ
BE
SK
IE
UK AT
LT HR
Source: RMMS, 2018. FR and NO reported that licence costs are zero. LV charge is a State duty, not a licence
fee.
Charges more than doubled in Latvia, where the payment is a State duty rather than a licence fee,
and rose in Luxembourg, Romania and the Czech Republic. Latvia joined Bulgaria and Denmark with
charges of around EUR 15 000, but the highest charges were in Portugal.
Average time to obtain a licence
Figure 67 shows the reported average number of calendar days to obtain a licence in 2015 and 2016.
Figure 67: Average time to obtain a licence by country, 2015 and 2016
300
250
200
Calendar days
150
100
50
0
SE
ES
PL AT BE BG
IT
LU SK
SI
UK FR EL
2015
IE
NL RO HR CZ
2016
FI
LV
LT PT EE DK DE HU
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for NO. No 2016 data for HU.
Many Member States reported an average time to obtain a licence of 90, 60 or 30 calendar days
(three months, two months or a month). Sweden, Spain and Poland reported the longest times,
88
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0090.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
although the exact time might depend on the complexity of the application, or the number of
queries, and might not be the fault of the licensing authority. Nonetheless in Germany, where many
licences are held, the reported average time to obtain a licence was only 10 calendar days.
4.5
Degree of market opening and utilisation of access rights
4.5.1
Legal liberalisation and actual entry in the rail market
IRG-Rail is a network of independent rail regulatory bodies from 31 EU and non-EU countries. It
produces an annual Market Monitoring Report
58
including, among other things, data on the dates of
(de jure) legal liberalisation and (de facto) market entry, which are summarised in the charts below.
The principal dates of liberalisation set out in EU legislation are:
From 1 January 1993, limited access was established by Directive 91/440/EEC.
From 1 January 2007, the Second Railway Package liberalised international and domestic rail
freight services.
From 3 December 2009, the Third Railway Package liberalised international passenger
services and some cabotage.
From 2 December 2019, the Fourth Railway Package, through Regulation (EU) 2016/2338,
will liberalise remaining passenger services, subject to measures to protect PSOs.
However, in some cases market entry had never been explicitly prohibited, and has been permitted
in advance of the creation of a formal right of entry through liberalisation.
Legal liberalisation and licensing of first competitor in the freight market
Figure 68 shows the dates of legal liberalisation and the first recorded licence of a competitor in the
international freight market.
Figure 68: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the international freight market
HR
BG
NO
SI
SK
HU
EL
ES
SE
LT
EE
PL
FI
FR
PT
LU
RO
IT
LV
AT
DK
BE
NL
DE
UK
1990
New entry before liberalisation
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Liberalisation then new entry
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Liberalisation but no new entry before the end of 2016
Source: IRG-Rail, 2018. No data for CZ and IE.
58
Sixth IRG-Rail Market Monitoring Report 2018 available at
https://irg-rail.eu/irg/documents/market-
monitoring/186,2018.html
.
89
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0091.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Early liberalisers of the international freight market were the United Kingdom (the Channel Tunnel
opened in 1994) and Germany, both of which saw rapid new entry. As other Member States
liberalised, however, new licences were often slow to appear: seven years in the case of the
Netherlands, and nine years in the case of Portugal.
Nonetheless, there have now been new licences in international rail freight transport in all but four
Member States: Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Sweden. Finland has only one rail link to another
Member State and, at least pending completion of the Rail Baltica project, the main links from
Estonia and Latvia are to the Russian Federation. Sweden has an established cross-border rail freight
flow, from Kiruna to the port of Narvik in Norway.
Figure 69 shows the dates of legal liberalisation and the first recorded licence of a competitor into
the domestic freight market.
Figure 69: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the domestic freight market
HR
SI
NO
EL
FI
BE
SK
HU
FR
FR
LT
EE
PT
PL
ES
BG
LU
RO
IT
LV
AT
DK
NL
DE
UK
SE
1990
New entry before liberalisation
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Liberalisation then new entry
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Liberalisation but no new entry before the end of 2016
Source: IRG-Rail, 2018. No data for CZ and IE.
Sweden reported licences in 1992, although the market was not formally liberalised until 1996. It was
rapidly joined by the United Kingdom and Germany, both of which liberalised in response to Directive
91/440/EEC which came into force on 1 January 1993. Other Member States opened their markets in
the following years.
From 1 January 2007, the Second Railway Package liberalised all rail freight through the then
Member States, including Belgium, Greece, Finland and Slovenia. Croatia liberalised its market before
joining the EU on 1 July 2013. All these States now have at least one licenced domestic rail freight
operator.
However, the period between market opening and new entry can be long. In Greece, it took almost
nine years for the first licence to be issued for a new domestic freight operator. No new licences for
domestic operators have emerged in Lithuania and Estonia, where rail freight is dominated by
international transit traffic to the Russian Federation, or in Luxembourg, which reported no domestic
rail freight.
90
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0092.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Legal liberalisation and entry of first competitor in the passenger market
Figure 70 shows the dates of legal liberalisation and the first recorded licence of a competitor into
the international passenger market.
Figure 70: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the international passenger market
HR
EL
DK
AT
NO
ES
SI
SK
NL
FI
BG
BE
PL
FR
SE
HU
LT
EE
RO
PT
LU
IT
LV
DE
UK
1990
New entry before liberalisation
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Liberalisation then new entry
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Liberalisation but no new entry before the end of 2016
Source: IRG-Rail, 2018. No data for CZ and IE.
The United Kingdom and Germany were the first Member States to licence international passenger
open access, in the case of the United Kingdom by Eurostar services through the Channel Tunnel on
14 November 1994. Within five years they had been joined by Latvia and Italy.
In contrast to the initiatives taken by many States to open their rail freight markets, Figure 70 shows
that many did not license international open access passenger services until these services were
liberalised by the Third Railway Package from 3 December 2009. In practice, Spain issued a licence
before this date, and France and Slovakia issued licences soon afterwards.
However, many States have issued no licences for open access international passenger services. This
includes Sweden, normally an early liberaliser: no open access services operate across its borders to
either Copenhagen in Denmark or Oslo in Norway.
Figure 71 shows the dates of legal liberalisation and the first recorded licence of a competitor into
the domestic passenger market.
91
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0093.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 71: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the domestic passenger market
SK
HU
ES
LT
EE
IT
PL
RO
BG
LU
LV
AT
DE
UK
SE
1990
New entry before liberalisation
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Liberalisation then new entry
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Source: IRG-Rail, 2018, for States which have liberalised domestic services. No data for BE, DK, EL, FR, HR, NL,
PT, SI, FI, NO, CZ, IE.
Liberalisation of the domestic passenger market will not formally be required until the Fourth
Railway Package comes into force on 2 December 2019. Nonetheless, several Member States have
already benefited from liberalisation. Sweden notionally opened the market in 1993 but licensing
was subject to regulatory restrictions until 2010.
Most other Member States that have opened their markets have issued new licences. The exceptions
are Luxembourg, Estonia and Latvia (which have only small networks) and Bulgaria.
Figure 72 shows the dates of legal liberalisation and the first recorded licence in the domestic long-
distance passenger market.
92
2006
Liberalisation but no new entry before the end of 2016
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0094.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 72: Legal liberalisation and first licence in the domestic long-distance passenger market
SK
HU
LT
EE
IT
PL
RO
BG
LU
LV
AT
DE
UK
SE
New entry before liberalisation
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Liberalisation then new entry
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Liberalisation but no new entry before the end of 2016
Source: IRG-Rail, 2018, for States which have liberalised domestic services. No data for BE, DK, EL, ES, FR, HR,
NL, PT, SI, FI, NO, CZ, IE.
IRG-Rail reports that few Member States have issued licences to provide long-distance passenger
services. Early liberalisers Sweden, the United Kingdom and Germany have seen competition, but in
Sweden this was after a lag of seven years.
None of the other Member States which have liberalised their markets since 1998 have issued
licences to provide long-distance passenger services. In many cases, the incumbent operator has
continued to operate services, in some cases in the absence of a PSO and hence notionally on a
o
e ial asis. I p a ti e, su h i u e t ope ato s a ot ide tif o epo t hethe so e
long-distance services are being operated at a loss.
Figure 73 shows the dates of legal liberalisation and the first recorded entry of a competitor into the
domestic regional passenger market through competitive tenders.
93
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0095.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 73: Legal liberalisation and first competitors in the domestic regional passenger market
NO
DK
PT
SK
HU
IT
LT
EE
NL
PL
BG
LU
LV
AT
RO
DE
UK
SE
1990
New entry before liberalisation
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Liberalisation then new entry
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Liberalisation but no new entry before the end of 2016
Source: IRG-Rail, 2018, for States which have liberalised domestic services. No data for BE, EL, ES, FR, HR, SI, FI.
Four Member States reported having held competitions to provide domestic regional passenger
markets in advance of de jure liberalisation. However, most Member States have seen no
competitions for the provision of regional passenger services.
4.5.2
Freight market opening
Number of active railway undertakings in the freight market
States were asked to list principal and other freight railway undertakings, if necessary grouped
and/or anonymised if they chose the option of keeping information confidential. In a number of
cases railway undertakings with lower market
sha es e e g ouped u de the atego
othe s .
Figure 74 therefore shows the reported number of active railway undertakings in the freight market
in each State in 2
. I the figu e, othe s has ee i te p eted to ea at least t o o e . Fo
e a ple, the Nethe la ds epo ted o e ai ope ato plus othe s , hi h the ha t ep ese ts as
at least th ee solid , a d a e o e tape ed .
94
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0096.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 74: Active railway undertakings in the freight market by country, 2016
15
14
13
12
Active railway undertakings
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
IE
EL
LT
LU EE
FI
LV
IT
PT
SI
NL RO HR BE FR NO BG ES UK SE AT CZ DE HU SK
PL
Source: RMMS 2018. No data for DK. PL two principal operators are in the same group.
Poland reported two incumbent domestic freight operators, PKP Cargo and PKP LHS, which however
are in the same group, plus at least eleven other operators.
Evolution of market shares of competitors in the freight market
Figure 75 shows the shares of the domestic freight market, as measured in tonne-kilometres, which
are not served by the historic incumbent operator. The chart on the right shows the percentage
change in new entrant market share between 2011 and 2016.
Figure 75: Competitors in freight, market share, compound average growth rate 2011-2016
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
IT
BE
SK
CZ
AT
BG
DE
HU
ES
NO
FR
SI
PL
PT
NL
RO
DK
LV
Proportion of tonne-kilometres
0,1%
UK
SE
EE
0%
FI SI HR PT SK EE LV DK AT ES CZ FR PL HU NL SE DE BE NO BG UK IT RO
-50% -25%
0%
25%
50%
Source: RMMS, 2018. One operator with 100% share in EL, IE, LT, LU.
On average, competitors had 39% market shares in national markets in 2016, an increase of 13%
compared to 2011. Figure 76 illustrates the effective number of operators in each domestic freight
95
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0097.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
market, using the reciprocal of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) as a broad measure of the level
of competition
59
.
Figure 76: Effective number of competitors in domestic rail freight, 2011 and 2016
4
Effective number of competitors
3
2
1
0
BG PL UK NO DE SE HU BE FR CZ
IT
NL ES RO AT LV SK EE HR PT
2011
2016
SI
FI
EL
IE
LT LU DK
Source: RMMS, 2018.
The HHI cannot identify whether, for example, some operators dominate or monopolise one or more
regions or products, or control all the rail wagons suitable for a particular commodity. It is
nonetheless a broad measure of the extent to which there has been new entry in the market
60
.
Four Member States (Greece, Ireland, Lithuania and Luxembourg) still have only a single domestic rail
freight operator. All the other Member States have at least some competition and, with the
exceptions of Estonia and Romania, there was more effective competition in 2016 than in 2011. On
this measure, the most competitive markets in 2016 were Bulgaria, Poland, the United Kingdom,
Norway, Germany and Sweden.
Average size of new entrants in the freight market
In many States, the incumbent rail freight operator has been joined by one or more new entrants.
Figure 77 shows the average size of these new entrants, measured in million train-kilometres within
that State.
59
60
The HHI is the sum of the squares of the market shares of each operator. This has the effect that if, for
example, two operators each have 50% market share, the HHI is 0.5 and the reciprocal of the HHI, shown on
the chart, is two. In practice, the market is unlikely to be divided equally among the operators.
The RMMS esults o tai ed a othe atego a agg egatio of s all RUs ith a a ket sha e of o e
than 1% but not in the top nine), which was considered a single entity in the HHI calculations, which has the
effect of reducing the measure of competitiveness.
96
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0098.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 77: Average size of new entrants in freight market by country
14
12
Average train-kilometres (million)
10
8
6
4
2
0
FI
HR
SK
EE
PT
ES
BG
SI
NO
HU
AT
LV
CZ
BE
SE
UK
PL
FR
RO
DE
IT
Source: RMMS, 2018. No new entrants in LT, SE (see Figure 68). No data for DK, EL, IE, LT, LU, NL.
The largest new entrants are in North West Europe, particularly in Italy, Germany, France and the
United Kingdom, and in Central and Eastern Europe, notably in Romania and Poland. Denmark,
Greece, Ireland, Lithuania and Luxembourg have only one operator in the freight market.
Member States provided information on the market shares of the largest freight operators on their
networks, but to preserve confidentiality many did not identify the operators, and the RMMS does
not require their ownership to be revealed. Information on ownership released by IRG-Rail suggests
that, as of May 2018, patterns of freight activity outside the country of ownership include:
German activity in Bulgaria, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom;
Polish activity in the Czech Republic and Slovakia;
Slovenian activity in Hungary; and
Swedish activity in Norway and the United Kingdom.
4.5.3
Passenger market opening
Number of active railway undertakings in the passenger market
Figure 78 shows the reported number of active railway undertakings in the passenger market. In the
figu e, othe s has ee i te p eted to ea at least t o o e . Fo e a ple, Lat ia epo ted o e
ai PSO ope ato plus othe s , hi h the ha t ep ese ts as at least th ee solid , a d a e
o e tape ed .
97
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0099.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 78: Active railway undertakings in the PSO and commercial passenger market by country, 2016
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
BE
IE BG EE EL ES HR LT LU
SI
FI
FR PT HU SK DK IT
PSO
Commercial
LV NL RO NO SE CZ PL AT DE UK
Source: RMMS 2018. No data on commercial operators in BE, CZ, DK, IE, NL, RO.
Member States were asked to report railway undertakings with a market share of more than 1%, and
may in principle have excluded some small railway undertakings, including those operating
commercially. On this basis, every State except France, Hungary and Slovakia reported more PSO
railway undertakings than commercial railway undertakings, and Poland, Austria, Germany and the
United Kingdom all reported many more PSO railway undertakings than commercial railway
undertakings.
Evolution of market shares of competitors in the commercial passenger market
Figure 79 shows the shares of the commercial (non-PSO) passenger market, which is not served by
the historic incumbent operator.
Figure 79: Competitors in commercial passenger market, market share, 2016
100%
90%
Active railway undertakings
Proportion of passenger-kilometres
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
DK
DE
HR
HU
PL
FR
SE
AT
IT
SK
LV
EE
UK
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for BE, CZ, IE, NL and RO.
98
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0100.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
The Member States with the highest new entrant shares are the United Kingdom, Estonia, Latvia and
Slovakia. However, the data for the United Kingdom may be misleading, as all pre-existing services,
including those which were commercially viable, are operated under a PSO, and hence all non-PSO
services are operated by new entrants. While the Czech Republic has not replied, there is established
open access competition there, with two new entrants, RegioJet and Leo Express, operating between
Prague and Ostrava.
Figure 80 illustrates the effective number of operators in each commercial passenger market, as
measured in passenger-kilometres, using the reciprocal of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) as a
broad measure of the amount of competition.
Figure 80: Competitors in commercial passenger market, effective number, 2011 and 2016
3
Effective number of competitors
2
1
0
UK SK
IT
AT SE FR HU PL DK HR DE LV BG EE
2011
FI
EL
LT LU PT
SI
ES NO NL RO CZ BE
IE
2016
Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2016 data for BE, CZ, IE, NL, RO. No 2011 data for FR, LU, PT, SE.
Most networks have only a single operator of commercial services, but by 2016 Latvia, Germany,
Poland, Hungary, France, Sweden, Austria, Italy, Slovakia and the United Kingdom had more than
one. In the case of the United Kingdom, all the commercial operators are new entrants and there are
no incumbent commercial services. There are also three operators in the Czech Republic which did
not provide data for 2016.
Evolution of market shares of competitors in the PSO passenger market
Figure 81 shows the shares of the PSO passenger market, as measured in passenger-kilometres, not
served by the historic incumbent operator.
99
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0101.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 81: Competitors in PSO passenger market, market share, 2016
100%
90%
Proportion of passenger-kilometres
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0,1%
0%
PT
UK
SE
PL
DE
IT
RO
NO
SK
AT
DK
NL
CZ
HU
LV
Source: RMMS, 2018. All other Member States reported a single operator.
In Portugal, the apparent 100% commercial share occurs because in 2016 the only PSO contract was
with the non-incumbent Fertagus, all other operations being reported as commercial. In the UK,
there is no incumbent operator, but the chart shows the 87% share of all operators other than the
largest, Govia Thameslink.
Figure 82 illustrates the effective number of operators in each PSO passenger market, as measured in
passenger-kilometres, again using the reciprocal of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) as a broad
measure of the amount of competition.
Figure 82: Competitors in PSO passenger market, effective number, 2011 and 2016
9
8
Effective number of competitors
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
UK PL SE DE IT NO RO SK AT DK NL CZ HU LV BE BG HR EE
2011
2016
FI
FR EL
IE
LT LU PT
SI
ES
Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2011 data for UK, SE, FR, LU, PT.
Most networks have either only a single PSO operator or a dominant incumbent and a small number
of minor operators. The exceptions are Italy, Sweden, Poland, Germany and the United Kingdom. In
100
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0102.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
the United Kingdom, where there is no longer an incumbent, the effective number of competitors is
more than eight, as measured by the reciprocal of the HHI.
The estimated average of competitors' market shares in both PSO and commercial passenger
markets in 2016 was 25%, an increase of 6% compared to 2011.
Average size of new entrants in the passenger market
Figure 83 illustrates the average size of new entrants in the PSO and commercial passenger markets,
as measured in million passenger-kilometres.
Figure 83: Average size of new entrants in commercial and PSO passenger markets
6 000
5 662
Average passenger-kilometres (million)
5 000
4 000
2 928
3 533
3 000
2 000
940 949
8
0
HU
EE
PL
LV
SK
SE
DE
AT
UK
IT
LV
AT
CZ
DK
SK
NO
PT
PSO
RO
PL
SE
19
31
238
40 143 162
427
666
1
62
84
473
225 262 336 343
1 468
1 000
DE
IT
UK
Commercial
Source: RMMS, 2018. 2015 data for FR.
Within commercial services Italy stands out, with new entrants of average size almost 3 billion
passenger-kilometres, followed by the United Kingdom (0.7 billion passenger-kilometres) and Austria
(0.4 billion passenger-kilometres).
Presence of passenger incumbents abroad
Member States provided information on the market shares of the PSO passenger operators on their
networks, but to preserve confidentiality some did not identify the operators, and the RMMS does
not require them to identify the ownership structure of the operators. Information on ownership
released by IRG-Rail
61
suggests that, as of May 2018, patterns of PSO passenger activity outside the
country of ownership include:
61
Czech activity in Slovakia;
German activity in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland and the United Kingdom;
French activity in Germany and the United Kingdom;
Netherlands activity in Germany and the United Kingdom;
United Kingdom activity in Germany;
Hong Kong activity in Sweden and the United Kingdom; and
https://irg-rail.eu/irg/documents/market-monitoring/186,2018.html.
101
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0103.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Japanese activity in the United Kingdom.
Box 14: State of play of market opening in the passenger market
Despite the adoption of legislation designed to open rail markets, as outlined in previous sections, the
mode share of railways in intra-EU transport has remained below 8% (see Figure 19). The lack of common
rules governing the award of PSCs led some Member States to introduce competitive tendering and others
to rely on direct awards. The differences in regulatory systems among the Member State made it difficult
for railway companies to exploit the full potential of operating in an internal market.
Co se ue tl , the
a ket pilla p oposal of the Fou th Rail a Pa kage p oposed a e d e ts to
Regulations 1370/2007 to remove remaining legal, institutional and technical barriers for improving the
quality and efficiency of rail passenger transport services. The proposal introduced a framework for
competitive award of PSCs for public transport by rail and several provisions fostering frequency and
punctuality of services, cost-efficiency of public rail transport services, customer satisfaction, and quality of
rolling stock.
Following the provisional agreement reached by the European Legislator on 19 April 2016, the European
Parliament Committee on Transport and Tourism adopted the proposals on 5 December 2016, and
subsequently the legislative proposal was finally approved by the European Parliament on 13 December
2016 to introduce the principle of competitive award of rail PSCs. Under certain circumstances Member
States could choose to directly award rail contract and would publish a reasoned decision behind the
award of such contract, however in such cases provisions for quality and/or cost efficiency improvement
needed to be ensured in the contract using clearly defined performance targets.
In addition, to increase competition for rail contracts, Member States must ensure effective and non-
discriminatory access to suitable rail rolling stock for operators wishing to provide public passenger
services by rail. Finally, transparency in the definition of public service obligations and the geographical
scope of PSCs as well as implementing measures of staff protection in the case of a change of public
transport operator. The impact assessment showed that the proposed amendments would have an
economic, environment and social impact amounting to a net present value of between EUR 21 and EUR
29 billion over the 2019 to 2035 period.
Scope for regulatory bodies to limit open access in the passenger market
The Fourth Railway package opens domestic passenger markets to competition in all Member
States
62
. Railway undertakings must be granted the right of access to railway infrastructure in all
Member States for the purpose of operating rail passenger services under equitable, non-
discriminatory and transparent conditions. Railway undertakings will have the right to pick up
passengers at any station and set them down at another.
The EU legislator, however, put in place mechanisms to balance the objective of effectively opening
up the market for domestic 'open access' rail passenger services in the EU with the need to protect
the economic equilibrium of services provided under an existing public service contract.
Railway undertakings' right to access rail infrastructure to provide 'open access' passenger services
on Member States' domestic markets can be restricted only where the national rail regulatory body
decides, on the basis of an objective economic analysis, that the new service would cause substantial
damage to the economic equilibrium of the existing public service contract, in terms of profitability
of the services or higher net cost to the competent authority. This is the only situation in which
62
See in particular Directive 2016/2370 amending Directive 2012/34/EU.
102
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0104.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Member States may, if their legislation provides for it, restrict access to their infrastructure once
passenger markets are fully opened to competition in 2019.
Box 15: Implementing act on the Economic Equilibrium Test
In November 2018 the Commission adopted a draft implementing act on the Economic Equilibrium Test
(EET)
63
. This legislation, which has been negotiated with Member States, is designed to provide guidance
to regulatory bodies who may be called upon to carry out an objective analysis (the EET) to establish
whether a new open-access service would have a substantial impact on the economic viability of an
existing public service.
The new implementing act replaces implementing Regulation 869/2014 which was tailored for a market
where only international passenger traffic was open to competition.
The new Regulation establishes not only general criteria, but also a clear procedure and timeline for
requesting and performing the economic equilibrium test, to ensure legal certainty for all the parties
involved. In particular, it prescribes:
Rules for notification of a planned new rail passenger service to infrastructure managers and
regulatory bodies
Deadline for requesting the economic equilibrium test
Information requirements and procedure for the economic equilibrium test
Contents of the economic equilibrium test and assessment criteria
Cooperation between regulatory bodies competent for a proposed new international passenger
service.
4.6
Development of employment and social conditions
4.6.1
Employment in rail
undertakings
Labour
force
of
infrastructure
managers
and
railway
Staff employed in incumbent undertakings versus alternative undertakings
In 2016 just over one million people were reported as employed in the European railway sector,
about 600 000 of them by railway undertakings and 440 000 by infrastructure managers. However, a
large part of the apparent increase on earlier years results from the restructuring of the railways in
France, as illustrated in Figure 86 below.
Figure 84 shows the reported distribution of these staff between infrastructure managers and
railway undertakings in 2016.
63
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1795 of 20 November 2018 laying down procedure and
criteria for the application of the economic equilibrium test pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 2012/34/EU
of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 294, 21.11.2018, p. 5–14.
103
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0105.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 84: Employees of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings, 2016
100%
90%
80%
Proportion of staff
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
EL LV AT HR RO SK NO PT BG HU ES EE FR
Railway undertakings
IE
SI
PL CZ UK LU IT
LT BE DE DK NL SE
FI
Infrastructure managers
Source: RMMS, 2018.
In practice, the distribution of staff between railway undertakings and infrastructure managers varies
for several reasons, including that:
The respective roles of infrastructure managers and railway undertakings vary: for example,
activities such as staffing stations, or providing passenger information, or security, may be
the responsibility of the infrastructure manager in some cases and railway undertakings in
others.
Either or both parties may be part of larger organisations, so the number of staff associated
with railway infrastructure or operations may need to be estimated by the parent
organisation.
Either or both parties may subcontract activities to other organisations, whose staff do not
appear as part of the rail industry. Examples include maintenance and cleaning staff, those
responsible for the management and provision of rolling stock, particularly where there are
rolling stock companies (ROSCOs), and staff carrying out work on infrastructure renewals
and enhancements.
While the distribution of staff varies for the reasons set out above, the data suggest that in markets
with extensive liberalisation, such as the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and Sweden, a large
majority of staff may be employed by railway undertakings
64
.
Figure 85 and Figure 86 show that employment growth within the sector varies, with a significant fall
in employment in the Central, Eastern and Southern European Member States, and a rise in those in
Northern Europe.
64
Employment data published here are in some cases not directly comparable with 2014 data published in
the Fifth RMMS report. In the case of multimodal infrastructure managers for example, instead of providing
the total staff of the infrastructure manager as in previous surveys, for 2016 Member States were asked to
estimate the number of people working on rail activities. In addition, under Regulation 2015/1100, Member
States also provided data for non-incumbent infrastructure managers; this was not the case for 2014 data.
Also, employment data reported by Member States in the RMMS questionnaire are not comparable with
the Statistical pocketbook 2018, based on Eurostat data and referring only to railway undertakings' staff.
104
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0106.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 85: Employees of infrastructure managers, 2011 and 2016
150 000
150%
90 000
50%
60 000
0%
30 000
-50%
0
FI EE SE EL LU IE SI DK PT LT NL NO HR LV BE BG ES SK AT CZ HU RO IT DE UK PL FR
2011
2016
Change (2016 staff / 2011 staff)
-100%
Source: RMMS, 2018.
Figure 86: Employees of incumbent railway undertakings, 2011 and 2016
160 000
140 000
120 000
100 000
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
EL EE IE SI PT NO HR LU LV FI SE LT DK UK BG AT SK ES NL HU BE RO CZ PL IT DE FR
2011
2016
Change (2016 staff / 2011 staff)
80 000
60 000
40 000
20 000
0
Source: RMMS, 2018. 2014 data for 2011 for EE. 2013 data for 2011 for HR.
Between 2011 and 2016, reported employment rose by 8% in total, comprising a fall of 0.2% among
railway undertakings and a rise of nearly 22% among infrastructure managers. However, as can be
seen from the figures, this change appears to be dominated by increases in the number of reported
staff at both infrastructure manager and incumbent railway undertaking in France.
4.6.2
Socio-demographic structure of the rail labour market
Structure by gender
Following the adoption of Regulation 2015/1100
the RMMS Regulatio
collects data on gender and age structure of the rail staff.
, the RMMS su e
o
105
Change (2016 staff / 2011 staff)
Staff
Change (2016 staff / 2011 staff)
120 000
100%
Staff
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0107.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 87 shows the gender mix of railway staff reported by the Member States and Norway.
Figure 87: Employees by gender structure, 2016
100%
90%
80%
70%
Proportion of staff
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
AT
IE
SI
ES
IT
BE EL HR UK FI
DE FR HU PT BG RO DK NL NO SK CZ PL
Men
Women
SE
LT LV EE
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for LU.
O a e age, o l
widely, rising to
% of the EU s ail o kfo e e e o e . The p opo tio of fe ale staff a ies
% e ualit i Esto ia a d o e
% i the othe Balti States a d S ede .
The most recent survey published by rail social partners
65
provides some additional insights:
Between 2013 and 2016, the proportion of female railway workers had generally risen, by
3.2% for on-board personnel, 3.1% for engineers, 1.4% for managers, 1.2% for traffic
management and 0.4% for locomotive drivers.
Nearly one-third, 32.4%, or of on-board personnel were women although, at the other
extreme, only 2.2% of locomotive drivers were women.
From 2016, several measures have been implemented to promote employment and career
development of women, including initiatives to improve health and hygienic conditions, flexible
working hours, reduced working time, unpaid leave, and review of recruitment procedures.
65
CER
, Fou th a ual epo t o the de elop e t of o e s e plo
sector,
joint recommendation of the CER
–
ETF- EIM project.
e t i the Eu opea
ail a
106
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0108.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Box 16: Gender aspects in rail
The rail sector remains a male dominated sector, especially when it comes to technical positions such as
drivers or technicians and managerial positions.
In addition to the challenges related to work-life balance and violence
66
, one of the main barriers to tackle
to attract young people and women to the rail sector is cultural because of persisting negative
stereotypes. This is true also for younger people in general of either sex. It follows from the study on
Maki g the t a spo t se to att a ti e to futu e ge e atio s
67
that the rail transport sector is emotionally
disconnected from young people. Their image of the typical rail worker is a modest 40-50 male, train driver
or conductor. They see rail professions as stable but routine and monotonous.
As the rail workforce is ageing, it is crucial to tackle these issues if we want to make the sector attractive.
To increase the gender balance of the transport sector and to make it appealing to women, the Women in
Transport
–
EU Platform for change was launched on 27 November 2017
68
. The Platform is action oriented.
Several EU associations from the rail sector
69
have joined the Platform, as well as the European Union
Agency for Railways (ERA). The EU associations may directly bring actions to the Platform or channel
actions from their members.
A Declaration to ensure equal opportunities for women and men in the transport sector and an online
module to exchange good practices are now also available online
70
. The Declaration has already gathered
signatories from the rail sector, including 836 employees from the Italian railway company, Ferrovie dello
Stato Italiane.
Fi all , the Co
issio has o
issio ed a stud e titled a Busi ess ase
to increase female
71
e plo e t i t a spo t
which presents the benefits of more gender balanced teams, with good
practices, including from the railway sector, and which provides a toolkit for companies interested in
increasing their gender balance.
Structure by age
Follo i g the adoptio of Regulatio
/
the RMMS Regulatio , the RMMS su e o
collects data on the age of the workforce, subdivided into three groups. Figure 88 compares the
reported proportion of staff in each group with the equivalent distribution in 2012, based on UIC
data, reported in the RMMS 5 Staff Working Document (Figure 37).
66
67
68
69
70
71
http://www.etf-europe.org/files/extranet/-
75/47768/ETF%20summary%20report%20VAW%20at%20work%20in%20transport%20EN.pdf.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/social/studies/social_en
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/social/women-transport-eu-platform-change_en.
CER (Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies;
UIP (International Union of Wagon Keepers);
UNIFE (Association of the European Rail Industry); and
ETF (European Transport Workers' Federation).
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/social/women-transport-eu-platform-change_en.
Not yet published when this report was finalised.
107
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0109.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 88: Employees by age group, 2012 and 2016
60%
50%
Proportion of staff
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Under 30
2012
30-50
2016
Over 50
Source: RMMS, 2018 and UIC (for 2012).
If the age of railway workers was equally distributed between 20 and 60, then 25% would be over 50
and 25% would be under 30. In contrast, in 2012, around 40% of the railway workforce were over 50,
and fewer than 10% were under 30, suggesting that there could be potential future staffing
shortages as older workers retire. This may be exacerbated by factors such as:
long-term recruitment freezes due to the financial crisis;
State budgets cuts; and
changes to national pension schemes that require workers to work longer.
However, as the figure shows, the overall age profile had improved slightly by 2016, with 37% of the
workforce over 50 and 12% under 30. At least two effects may have contributed to this change:
Older workers may have been retiring.
New entrant operators may have been hiring relatively young staff.
Despite the apparent improvement in the age pyramid over the years, the high percentage of railway
staff older than 50 in 2016 still suggests that a large contingent of workers is expected to leave the
railways soon.
Figure 89 shows the distribution of railway staff by age group in the different States, sorted by the
proportion over 50 years old.
108
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0110.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 89: Employees by age group and country, 2016
100%
90%
80%
Proportion of staff
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ES
EL
IT
DK BG PL
PT HR NL CZ SE SK EE DE NO LT
Under 30
30-50
Over 50
LV HU FI
AT BE
IE RO
SI
UK FR
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for LU.
The effect of an aged workforce appears to be greatest in Spain, Greece and Italy, where over 50% of
the workforce were over 50 years old in 2016. In contrast, less than 35% of the workforce were over
50 in France, the United Kingdom and Slovenia, although in France this may partially reflect the
relatively young retirement age granted to some railway workers
72
. France and the United Kingdom
also have a relatively high proportion of workers under 30, at least compared with other Member
States.
Structure by contract type
The RMMS survey also collected information on three aspects of employment contracts:
whether staff were permanent or temporary (employers may wish to have sufficient
permanent staff to deal with normal levels of activity);
whether their working hours were full-time or part-time (employees may wish to have the
option of working patterns compatible with their other activities, such as childcare or
education); and
whether they were in apprenticeships or training (employers and employees may both
benefit from higher skills).
Figure 90 and Figure 91 show the proportions of temporary and permanent employees of the main
infrastructure manager and the incumbent or other main railway undertakings, where available.
72
Locomotive drivers could retire as early as 52 in France.
109
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0111.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 90: Employees of main infrastructure managers by contract type, 2016
100%
98%
96%
Proportion of staff
94%
92%
90%
88%
86%
84%
BE DK
ES
IT
RO FR
EE
LV LT PT HR UK BG DE
Permanent
SK
AT
SI
EL NO SE HU
Temporary
IE
PL
NL
FI
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for CZ, LU. 2015 data for ES, FR.
Figure 91: Employees of incumbent or main railway undertakings by contract type, 2016
100%
98%
96%
Proportion of staff
94%
92%
90%
88%
86%
84%
82%
EL
PT
ES
DK RO HU
FI AT IE
Permanent
DE
FR
LV
HR
LT
BE UK SI
Temporary
IT
SK
EE
BG NO PL
SE
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for CZ, LU, NL.
Most States reported that 90% or more of the staff of their infrastructure managers and incumbent
or main railway undertakings were permanently employed. This may reflect practical issues,
including the need for highly trained staff such as locomotive drivers and signal operators to be
retained within the railway, and also past or historic employment policies, particularly where
permanently employed railway staff have a particular status
73
.
Figure 92 and Figure 93 show the proportions of full-time and part-time employees of the main
infrastructure manager and the incumbent or other main railway undertakings, where available.
73
Su h as Che i ot i F a e o Bea te i Ge
a .
110
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0112.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 92: Employees of main infrastructure managers by time worked, 2016
100%
90%
80%
70%
Proportion of staff
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
LT
IE
PL
HR
HU
EL
SK
UK
SI
IT
SE
AT
FI
NO
LV
DK
DE
FR
NL
BE
Full time
Part time
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for BG, CZ, EE, ES, LU, PT, RO. 2015 data for FR, IT, LT.
Figure 93: Employees of incumbent or main railway undertakings by time worked, 2016
100%
90%
80%
70%
Proportion of staff
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
RO
PT
HU
LT
LV
IE
PL
Full time
SI
SE
NO
IT
NL
FI
Part time
AT
UK
DK
FR
DE
BE
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, HR, LU, SK. 2015 data for PT.
Most infrastructure managers and railway undertakings reported that 80% or more of their staff
were employed full time. Railways operate seven days a week over long hours (and in some cases
24 hours per day) and many functions, including control and signalling staff, and train crew and on-
board staff, cannot be provided solely by staff employed for a 5-day week during normal hours.
Figure 94 and Figure 95 show the proportions of employees who are currently in an apprenticeship
or other training within either the main infrastructure manager and the incumbent or other main
railway undertakings, where available.
111
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0113.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 94: Employees of main infrastructure managers in training, 2016
10%
9%
8%
Proportion of staff
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
AT
DE
NO
HU
FI
NL
EL
DK
IT
PL
UK
SE
IE
SK
HR
Apprenticeship/trainee
Non-apprenticeship
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for BE, BG, CZ, EE, ES, FR, LT, LU, LV, RO, SI. 2015 data for IT.
Figure 95: Employees of incumbent or main railway undertakings in training, 2016
10%
9%
8%
7%
Proportion of staff
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
DE
SE
PL
IT
AT
UK
Apprenticeship/trainee
HU
BE
IE
NL
RO
Non-apprenticeship
DK
LV
NO
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, LT, LU, PT, SI, SK. 2015 data for RO.
Austria reported that 8% of the staff of the main infrastructure manager, ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG, were
in apprenticeships or training. Germany reported that over 5% of the incumbent railway undertaking,
Deutsche Bahn AG, were in apprenticeships or training. However, many infrastructure managers and
railway undertakings reported that no staff were in any formal training programme.
112
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0114.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Box 17: Training in the rail sector
There are long-standing and emerging skill shortages for drivers, engineers and other technical professions
in the European railway sector. In addition to a number of efforts undertaken at EU level to improve the
se to s att a ti e ess, so e ail a o pa ies ha e egu fu di g stude ts
74
college course/university
degrees, particularly for occupations such as engineering with significant skills shortage. Apprenticeship
schemes
75
have been designed to attract young people, providing paid employment opportunities and
training for a long-term career in the railway sector. However, regional differences in skills shortages will
also have to be taken into account.
There have also been advances in the use of technology to improve railway efficiency and safety and to
change the customer experience. For example:
Travel agents and station-based sales staff may be replaced by internet-based booking tools and
by station ticket machines respectively.
Station-based ticket inspectors may be replaced, at least in part, by automatic gates.
Train guards may be displaced by Driver-Only Operation (DOO) or replaced by on-board catering,
ticket inspection or security staff.
Modern trains may be more reliable and be designed to take significantly less time to maintain, clean and
prepare.
4.7
Harmonisation
4.7.1
EU legislation
Following Directive 91/440/EEC, effective from 1 January 1993, the Commission has adopted four
railway packages:
-
I
, the Fi st Rail a Pa kage ail i f ast u tu e pa kage allo ed ail ope ato s to
access the trans-European network on a non-discriminatory basis for the purpose of
operating international freight services.
In 2004, the Second Railway Package liberalised the rail freight market from 1 January 2007,
introduced common procedures for investigating accidents, and established safety
authorities in the Member States.
In 2007, the Third Railway Package introduced open access rights for international rail
passe ge se i es a d a Eu opea t ai d i e li e e, a d st e gthe ed ail passe ge s
rights.
In 2016, the Fourth Railway Package was adopted to complete the single market for rail
services and to make it more competitive with other transportation modes.
-
-
-
The technical pillar of the Fourth Railway Package, adopted by the Council in April 2016, focused on
interoperability, safety and a renewed role for the European Rail Agency. It included:
Regulation (EU) 2016/796 on the EU Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC)
no 881/2004;
Directive (EU) 2016/797 on the interoperability of the rail system within the EU (Recast of
Directive 2008/57/EC); and
74
75
Promoting employment and quality of work in the European rail sector, CER (2016)
Study on a pilot project: Making the EU transport sector attractive to future generations,
A study prepared
for the European Commission DG Mobility and Transport
(2017)
113
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0115.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Directive (EU) 2016/798 on railway safety (Recast of Directive 2004/49/EC).
The market pillar of the Fourth Railway Package, adopted in December 2016, was intended to
complete the process of market opening that began with the implementation of the First Railway
Package. It laid down rules for improving impartiality in the governance of railway infrastructure, and
introduced the principles of mandatory tendering for PSCs in the railway sector to enhance
competition in rail passenger service markets, thereby encouraging railway operators to improve the
quality of their services, and their cost effectiveness. The market pillar comprises two Regulations
and a Directive.
Regulation (EU) 2016/2338 amends Regulation (EU) 1370/2007 dealing with the award of
PSCs for domestic passenger transport services by rail. It came into force on
24 December 2017 and many of its provisions apply from the timetable of 2 December 2019.
Directive 2016/2370/EU amends Directive 2012/34/EU dealing with the opening of the
market of domestic passenger transport services by rail and the governance of the railway
infrastructure. Many of its provisions apply from the timetable of 14 December 2020.
Regulation (EU) 2016/2337 repeals Regulation (EEC) 1192/69 on the normalisation of the
accounts of railway undertakings.
Two key features of the market pillar are:
Co petiti e te de i g f o the
ti eta le: ith e tai li ited e eptio s,
competent authorities which have recourse to a third party other than an internal operator
must award PSCs on the basis of a competitive tendering procedure.
Ope a ess f o the
ti eta le: Me e States a li it ights of a ess o l if the
exercise of the right would compromise the economic equilibrium of one or more PSCs.
4.7.2
Transposition
Rail Directives can only have their intended effects if they are completely and correctly transposed
i to Me e States atio al la
the fo esee deadli es a d effe ti el applied the eafte .
Transposition monitoring of EU regulation
At 13 July 2017, the status of transposition of rail Directives was as set out in Table 6.
Table 6: Status of transposition of Rail Directives, 13 July 2017
Directive
2016/882 (am. 2007/59)
–
language requirements
2014/106
–
Interoperability
2012/34
–
Single European Rail Area
Source: DG MOVE.
Number of countries which the EC considers had
not transposed at 13 July 2017
7
1
5
4.7.3
Infringements
Monitoring of infringement proceedings related to the EU market regulation
Infringement proceedings may be started when the Commission considers that, for example, an EU
Directive has not been transposed timely and correctly into national law, or Single Market rules
114
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0116.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
(either in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or in secondary legislation) have been
incorrectly applied. Infringement proceedings only start when a letter of formal notice is sent to the
Member State in question. However, only the Court of Justice can rule regarding a breach of EU law.
Figure 96 shows the number of pending infringement proceedings in the field of rail transport at
13 July 2017.
Figure 96: Pending infringement proceedings in the field of rail transport, 13 July 2017
Source: DG MOVE Transport Scoreboard.
4.7.4
External dimensions of rail transport policy
The implementation of the EU rail acquis by Switzerland and EEA Countries ensures a level of
harmonisation and interoperability for the rail industries, which is the basis for free market access. In
rail matters, Switzerland cooperates with the EU through the bilateral Land Transport Agreement,
which provides for reciprocal opening of land transport and complements the Free Trade Agreement.
Switzerland applies the European Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs) as accepted
standards and rules of diligence (Implementation provisions to the Railway Ordinance).
The Commission provides support to the candidate and potential candidate countries for EU
membership, particularly for the planning, development and financing of the rail component of
trans-European transport networks, and for the transposition and implementation of the EU rail
acquis. The Transport Community Treaty
76
, which was signed between the EU and the six Western
Balkan countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Kosovo
77
, Montenegro and Serbia) and has been applicable since 2017, provides a strong basis for
the progressive integration of the region, including through agreements on rail freight corridors. In
76
77
Treaty establishing the Transport Community, OJ L 278, 27.10.2017, p. 3.
This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ
Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.
115
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0117.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
addition to investments, a new rail strategy is needed to bring the Western Balkans into the main EU
network and market and to promote the gradual opening of the regional rail market
78
. The
development of the southern rail transport corridor also involves close cooperation with Turkey. EU
cooperation and technical assistance in the rail sector also extends further beyond towards the
neighbouring countries, notably in the southern and eastern regions.
Since 1st July 2011, the European Union acceded to the Convention concerning International
Carriage by Rail (COTIF)
79
, and became a member of the Intergovernmental Organisation for
International Carriage by Rail (OTIF), which brings together 46 States of the Pan-European region,
including 26 EU Member States. OTIF develops uniform legal regimes for international rail transport
as regards technical interoperability, dangerous goods and railway contract law. OTIF and the
European Commission, assisted by the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA), co-operate to
maintain equivalence between EU and OTIF legislation concerning railway interoperability and safety
to the extent necessary for international rail traffic, in order to facilitate the rail transport services
and recognition of authorisations between the EU Member States and non-EU OTIF Contracting
States.
The Organization for Cooperation between Railways (OSJD) is a platform for rail cooperation at
ministerial level and at the level of railway companies that brings together 28 countries (including
nine EU member States), with a view to creating a common rail transport space in Eurasia. The
Commission, with the assistance of ERA, contributes to OSJD works through its participation,
coordination and active role in relevant initiatives. Important developments take place in regard to
the ongoing reform process to adapt OSJD to the current administrative, legal and economic
situation in the rail sector where the Commission sees potential to promote further alignment of
OTIF and OSJD regimes to contribute to more favourable rail transport conditions between Europe
and Asia to underpin the new business opportunities for EU industry as a whole.
At global level, the European Commission and some Member States participate in the Group of
Experts towards Unified Rail Law (GEURL) created in 2011 within the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE), which aims at unifying railway contract law with a particular focus
on Euro-Asian rail transport linkages. In February 2013, the project received political support as
37 member countries of UNECE signed the Joint Declaration on the promotion of Euro-Asian rail
transport and activities towards unified railway law. In February 2018, the mandate of the GEURL
was extended for two more years with the objective of preparing a legal instrument for the contract
of carriage of goods across the Eurasian continent (when neither the provisions of OTIF nor OSJD
apply, i.e. interface law), and to organise a series of pilot tests on designated freight corridors.
4.7.5
Regulatory bodies
Role and resources
Under Directive 2012/34/EU, on complaint or ex-officio, Regulatory Bodies have the power to:
78
prevent/redress discrimination;
check access to network and service facilities, charging, capacity allocation;
monitor the competitive situation;
79
A credible enlargement perspective for and enhanced EU engagement with the Western Balkans,
COM(2018) 65 final.
Council Decision 2013/103/EU of 16 June 2011 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between
the European Union and the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail on the
Accession of the European Union to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) of
9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999, OJ L 51, 23.2.2013, p. 1.
116
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0118.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
adopt non-binding opinions on the infrastructure managers' business plans, contractual
agreement with the Member States on infrastructure financing and capacity enhancement
plans);
audit the accounts of railway undertakings, operators of service facilities and infrastructure
managers to check accounting separation;
draw conclusions from the accounts on State aid, informing competent authorities; and
perform the Economic Equilibrium Test.
The Fourth Railway Package further extended the scope of regulatory bodies' powers to check:
discrimination in traffic management, infrastructure renewals, maintenance;
compliance with separation requirements; and
conflicts of interest.
To comply with their duties, EU law gives regulators the power to request information from all
actors, including data for market monitoring, and to impose penalties and fines if no reply.
Regulatory bodies' decisions, which must be published, should be immediately binding and not
subject to control of another administrative instance (judicial review).
National law in some cases even extends regulatory powers beyond what is enshrined in EU law.
Multi-modal regulatory bodies can in some countries perform economic equilibrium tests across
modes. In Italy the regulatory body sets ex-ante criteria for the determination of track access
charges, criteria for PSO awards (either competitive or direct) including scope, method of
compensation and efficiency improvements and works on the definition of network effects and
efficient costs. In Portugal the regulator issues opinions on public service contracts, including on the
calculation of financial compensation.
Directive 2012/34/EU (article 57) requires national regulatory bodies to cooperate among
themselves and with other authorities. Regulatory bodies must exchange information on decision
making principles and practice and on the problems of interpreting transposed Union railway law; in
order to do so, they have to participate and work together in a network that convenes at regular
intervals (European Network of Rail Regulatory Bodies
–
ENRRB).
Directive 2012/34/EU imposes to Member States to staff and manage their regulatory bodies in a
way which guarantees their independence. Figure 97 shows the numbers of staff in the regulatory
bodies.
117
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0119.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 97:
Regulato
60
odies staff deali g ith ail
a ket a ess,
50
40
30
20
10
0
FR DE PL UK PT NL BE AT SE LV BG RO HU ES SI
Source: Darebo 2018. No data for EE, IT, LT and NO.
IE HR FI
EL DK CZ SK LU
Rail regulatory bodies in the EU are mainly funded by State budget (including Ministerial resources)
and fees paid by regulated operators (infrastructure managers, railway undertakings or both), as
shown in Figure 98.
118
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0120.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 98:
Regulato
odies fu di g i the EU
State budget (including
ministries)
16
14
12
10
8
Rail fund
6
4
2
0
Industry
Railway undertakings
Infrastructure managers
Source: Darebo 2018. No data for NO.
In a number of countries, rail regulatory bodies have also other functions related to the sector, they
act as national licensing authorities, national safety authorities, passenger rights enforcement
authorities, or they can be at the same time competition authorities, as shown in Figure 99.
119
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0121.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Figure 99: Regulatory bodies with integrated competences for the rail market, 2018
6
10
8
8
Competition authority
Licencing authority
Source: Darebo, 2018.
Safety authority
Passengers' rights enforcement authority
4.8
Digitalisation
Digitalisation is crucial for Railways for two main reasons:
1) It enhances the internal efficiency and effectiveness of railways, improving the capacity, use
of infrastructure and the level of safety, by increasing the on-board intelligence, and
decreasing the equipment needed by as much as 70% (notably track-side).
2) Digitally enhanced services for passengers and for freight add value for railways and can be
better integrated in a multimodal logisgtic chain, for freight services, or in Mobility as a
Service schemes, for passengers.
Improving internal efficiency of Railways
As far as the internal efficiency gains are concerned, digitalisation can increase infrastructure
capacity, between 20% and 50% depending on the traffic type and signalling used. Among the
induced benefits, aside the higher share of railways and the avoided greenhouse gas emissions,
savings from avoided infrastructure investments shall also be considered and quantified.
Train control systems ensure that trains stop where necessary and travel at a speed safe for the line
and modern signalling systmes can drastically improve performance.At the same time,
incompatibility of national legacy control systems constitute a significant barrier to interoperability of
the European railways. ERTMS ("European Rail Traffic Management System") is a major industrial
project being implemented by Europe, a project which will serve to make rail transport safer and
more competitive. ERTMS (is a common European standard and its deployment will provide the
backbone for a digital, connected Single European Rail Area. Further to this, ERTMS will also enable
the introduction of innovative technologies to the rail sector in an effective manner.
On 5 January 2017 the European Commission adopted the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/6
setting the new ERTMS European Deployment Plan (EDP). The EDP provides for about 30-40% of the
Core Network Corridors to be equipped by ERTMS by 2023 (15 672 km). Only one third of that is
120
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0122.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
currently in operation so there is much still to do in the coming years. Around 2600 km should be put
in operation with European Train Control System (ETCS) in 2018 (including 820 km of Spanish lines
already in operation under ETCS 1 to be migrated to ECTS 2).Track-side equipment can be at the
same time reduced by as much as 70% thanks to innovative version of ERTMS, with important
savings on renewal, maintenance and fostered reliability.
Further energy savings linked to Automatic Train Operation (ATO), coupled with future lighter trains
and higher loading factor can lead to energy savings between 20% and 50%. Also, ATO in parallel
with ERTMS deployment will reduce operating costs for railway undertakings and maintenance costs
for infrastructure managers, while further improving network capacity and punctuality.
In addition, the use of remote sensing on board, slart trackside devices and drones provides the
oppo tu it to olle t a g eat a ou t of ig data , o ito
ing constantly the essential parameters
to prevent failure of rail infrastructure and mobile assets, while optimising maintenance.
Provision digitally-enhanced passenger services
Ensuring a good level of integrated mobility involving a wide rail network across national borders,
and a (or more) urban centre / poles connected with rail services is a challenge for the success of
railways, in an environment where Mobility as a Services (MaaS) provides a viable alternative to
provate car use and ownership.
The efficient integration of public transport with rail calls for:
a
shared, integrated ticketing system
–wide-ranging
agreements, common ticketing /
commercial tools and the existence of reference standards and technical interfaces are
needed to ease this process;
a
shared, integrated information system,
allowing for relevant information to be easily
available– this include awareness raising on the availability of the service (service planned),
real-time information on the service (service deployed), pricing, ticketing, etc. (– e.g.: a
multimodal travel companion currently being developed under Shift2Rail).
MaaS "I"
MaaS "J"
Increasing use of Information Technology (IT) is providing customers with various means of
interacting with transport systems, including railways. These include, typically:
before travel, information enabling them to plan their journey, such as information on
timetables, facilities and fares;
during travel, real-time information on services and disruption, and communications
through WIFI and other media; and
121
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0123.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
after travel, processes for Pay As You Go (PAYG) fares and for claiming compensation and
refunds for delays and cancellations - some railway undertakings now automatically
refund some or all of the fare if it was specific to a train which ran late or was cancelled.
Before travel,
railway undertakings, like other transport services including air and coach travel,
provide information in electronic format on their timetables, facilities and prices. Timetables,
facilities and prices may be published on the website of the railway undertaking, by other parties
such as the infrastructure manager, or by specialist apps or websites related to particular urban
areas, international travel, or niches such as railway sleeper services. Information can be included on
facilities for the disabled as well as on services such as facilities on trains and at stations, including
information on local transport connections and taxis. Not all websites or apps are able to quote fares
information or sell tickets, which now come in distinct forms:
Conventional paper tickets may be sold at a station, collected from a machine, or sent by
post.
E-tickets, often with a barcode or QR code capable of operating ticket gates, may be
printed at home. In some cases they are valid only with a unique document, so as to
avoid fraud by printing duplicates.
M-tickets may be downloaded onto, and stored on, a mobile device, which in some cases
can be used to operate a ticket gate.
During travel,
passengers now have access to a range of real-time information. Information on train
departures and arrivals has long been displayed at stations and on platforms, but may now also be
available on trains, websites and apps. This enables travellers to identify that a train is delayed, will
depart from a different platform, will no longer be on time for an original connection, or has been
cancelled. Onboard displays may now indicate which toilets are occupied (or working) and in which
parts of the train seats are still available.
Two major innovations have aided travel on urban and suburban rail networks:
Smart card tickets may allow passengers to carry a pass covering a journey, line or
number of zones, permitting unlimited travel for a period, or be pre-loaded with cash to
allow Pay As You Go (PAYG) for individual journeys. A national smart card system, OV-
chipkaart, now operates in the Netherlands.
Co ta tless pa e t, de eloped i Lo do ut ei g li e ed to othe ities, allo s
passengers to use a credit or debit card, or a mobile phone, to register the start and end
of each journey and to pay in arrears.
However, PAYG systems require that passengers present their tickets at readers, or ticket barriers, at
the start, and sometimes the end, of each journey. Where there is a culture that stations should be
open, as in Germany, paper tickets remain the norm.
Provision of information raises a number of challenges for the industry and for regulatory bodies and
competition authorities. For example:
To establish a level playing field with other modes, timetable and pricing information
needs to be available sufficiently far in advance for potential passengers to plan and book
with confidence. Airlines typically offer booking one year ahead, but in the case of
railways this may only be possible three months ahead.
To establish a level playing field between rail operators, new entrants may need to be
given non-discriminate access to booking platforms (and ticket offices and ticket
machines) which have historically been controlled by the incumbent operator.
122
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0124.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
To provide accurate real-time information on station information displays, websites and
apps, one system (typically provided by the infrastructure manager) must have access to,
and present, information on the services of all relevant railway undertakings.
Where smart cards or PAYG systems are used, mechanisms are needed to identify, or
estimate, on which service(s) the passenger travelled and to which operator(s) their fares
should be allocated or apportioned, and to make the appropriate payments.
With the exception of the Netherlands, smart card and PAYG systems tend to be confined
to a city or region, rather than operating across a Member State.
Provision of digitally-enhanced freight services
Digitalisation provides the opportunity for Railways to be a fully integrated multimodal component of
the single EU transport area and the productive and logistic chains, from an administrative,
contractual and operational point of view.
Such a transparent approach leads to the provision of improved products to the customers and total
transparency on the means of transport used, up to freight operators to manage the door-to-door
service.
It is increasingly important for rail to combine the full capacity provided by long block trains along the
freight routes (starting from the Rail Freight Corridors), with flexible services (stop-and-go in
automated terminals, thus overcoming the dichotomy single wagonload / full trainload.
Managing such services calls for a digital logistic management integrated in real-time with the Traffic
(and Wagon/ITUs) Management System.
Enhanced multimodal integration for
freight shall be pursued via electronic
management of all the commercial
elements:
consignment
content
information, ownership and contractual
and insurance-related.
Evolving towards red-tape free e-freight
calls for a smooth interface of public
registers with Distributed Ledger
Technology (DLTs), such as the one used
in
blockchains,
ensuring
both
transparency, traceability and encryption
of sensitive data, thus ensuring
secure/selective
fully
digitalised
information flows and proceeding
–
including administrative and contractual
ones.
Information
gathering
(both
administrative and logistic-related) shall
start from the port / entry point in the
EU via multimodal digital interfaces, with
the Logistic Single Window environment,
with a multimodal EU-wide, single
e-consignment note.
123
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0125.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
Smart train and goods real-time tracking and tracing requires an enhanced reliability of train services
with a credible, tested ETA.
Digitalisation of rail services should be accompanied by a digitalisation of freight operations, enabling
efficiency in energy (therefore CO
2
reduction) and capacity. Bringing electrification to the rail freight
will also enable new digital technology to emerge, from automatic couplers to virtual coupling.
A rail freight system fully connected will allow further improvements with the managing of Big Data.
Intelligence can be built around predictive maintenance, mobility management, and the creation of
new smart services.
Business analytics coupled with Artificial Intelligence can provide reliable transport demand
forecasts, therefore allowing the network to be used at its optimal capacity and cost efficiency.
4.9
Multimodal and intermodal transport
4.9.1
Combined transport
In November 2017, as part of the Second Mobility Package
80
, the Commission adopted its proposal to
amend Directive 92/106/EC (Combined Transport Directive
81
) with an aim to provide new and more
effective support measures for modal shift. The proposed amendments would considerably increase
the eligibility of intermodal operations (from 41.7% to 72.7%) for the support provided under the
Directive and were assessed to bring along an additional modal shift to rail, inland waterways and
short sea shipping of 69.9 billion tonne-kilometres in the period until 2030. For the rail sector, the
most important amendments are the inclusion of national combined transport operations, the
removal of a minimum distance for eligible rail legs and new economic support measures, including
support for transhipment terminal building and encouragement for Member States to provide
appropriate operational support for combined transport operations.
The proposal is currently in the ordinary legislative procedure with both the Council and the
European Parliament discussing their amendments. The negotiations are expected to continue at
least until mid-2019.
In addition, the CEF Transport 2018
82
call for proposals included a new priority for the support of
investments in combined transport transhipment terminals that is aimed at supporting the
amendments proposed by the Commission.
4.9.2
Internalisation of external costs
Providing the correct price signals and taking account of externalities is key for making the right
modal choices and for any discussion on multi-modal transport.
As a first step, the Commission published in 2018 a case study analysis of the burden of taxation and
charges on transport. It gathered information on taxes, charges and subsidies for twenty carefully
selected representative routes for all modes of transport.
This prepared the ground for a more comprehensive study on the internalisation of external costs,
hi h is o goi g a d ill allo to assess the e te t to hi h the use pa s a d pollute pa s
principles are implemented in the EU countries and in other advanced economies. The study, called
Sustai a le T a spo t I f ast u tu e Cha gi g a d I te alisatio of T a spo t E te alities , ai s at
80
81
82
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/news/2017-11-08-driving-clean-mobility_en.
Council Directive 92/106/EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for certain types
of combined transport of goods between Member States, OJ L 368, 17.12.1992, p. 38–42
https://ec.europa.eu/inea/sites/inea/files/2018_cef_transport_call_text_final.pdf.
124
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0126.png
The evolution of framework conditions in the rail sector
assessing the current state-of-play of the extent of internalisation per mode and per country, and at
identifying options for further internalisation and provide recommendations on possible applications.
This will be achieved through an update of the handbook on external costs, a fresh analysis on the
total and average external costs, an assessment and comparison of internalisation measures with
external costs, as well as an assessment and comparison of infrastructure charges and
infrastructure–related expenditure.
4.9.3
New tools, consignment notes and cargo and vehicle positioning
In logistics, one of the most important requirements of end customers (i.e. the actual shippers of
goods) is the reliability of the transport services provided. In an ideal situation, this means on-time
delivery according to schedule. As this cannot always be ensured, reliability of transport services also
includes that shippers are constantly provided with reliable and up-to-date information about the
estimated time of arrival (ETA) of their shipments. In addition to that, exchanging ETA information
between all partners involved is a prerequisite for improving the operational efficiency within the
logistics chain.
Digitalisation has a huge potential to generate and provide such information to end customers based
on close cooperation of all actors in the logistics chain. In EU legislation, information exchange
related to the provision of freight services by railway undertakings, including connections with other
odes, is o e ed
the Te h i al Spe ifi atio s fo I te ope a ilit o tele ati s appli atio s fo
f eight TAF TSI . TAF TSI p o ides a te h i al f a e o k fo data e ha ge ut does ot spe if
concrete systems and processes.
Implementing data exchange in practice is where the ELETA projects comes in. The project, launched
by a consortium of 6 intermodal operators coordinated by the Royal Dutch Transport Federation,
aims to demonstrate the practical benefits of exchanging ETA data, paving the way for a network-
wide roll-out. The project was launched following the commitments and priorities identified by the
ail a se to i its
de la atio Boosti g I te atio al Rail F eight
83
.
The project will implement data exchange for 12 existing intermodal trains as a pilot application,
including all partners involved (terminals, intermodal operators, railway undertakings). The technical
approach is based on the establishment of a communication channel between all partners, based on
the existing, TAF-TSI
o plia t T ai I fo atio S ste , a d the de elop e t of a i teg ated
methodology to calculate ETA based on information provided by multiple partners. An impact
assessment will estimate the benefits of a network-wide roll-out of ETA data exchange based on the
experiences gained in the project.
More information about the ELETA project is available at the project:
http://www.uirr.com/projects/ongoing/item/21-electronic-exchange-of-eta-information/34-
ongoing.html.
83
Se to State e t o Rail F eight Co ido s: Boosti g I te atio al Rail F eight , B ussels,
Ma
available at
http://www.cer.be/sites/default/files/publication/Corridor_Sector_Statement_20160520_final.pdf.
,
125
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0127.png
The quality of rail services
5.
The quality of rail services
5.1
Punctuality and reliability of passenger services
Punctuality by category of services (regional/local, long-distance passenger services)
States were asked to report the proportion of passenger services arriving with a delay of 5 minutes or
less, although arrival time is often checked only at the end of a journey and not at intermediate
stations.
Figure 100 shows the reported punctuality of services classified as regional or local in each of the
States in 2014, 2015 and 2016
84
.
Figure 100: Punctuality of regional and local passenger services, 2014-2016
100%
Proportion of trains classified as punctual
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
EE
LV
LT
DK AT
FI
NL NO PT DE
2014
SK
PL
2015
IE
SE
2016
LU
CZ
FR HR UK BE RO
IT
BG
SI
HU
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for ES, no reliable estimates for EL. No 2016 data for NO. No 2015 data for LU.
No 2014 data for IE, LU, HR, BE.
On the definitions used, an average of 90% of passenger services were punctual. In 2016, punctuality
was highest in the relatively small networks of the Baltic States, and worst in Bulgaria.
Figure 101 shows the reported punctuality of services classified as long-distance in each of the States
in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Luxembourg does not classify any services as long-distance.
84
According to RMMS, a train is defined as punctual if it is less than five minutes late, but definitions vary
between States and types of service. For example, Germany reported that a train is defined as punctual if it
is less than six minutes late (up to 5 minutes 59 seconds late).
126
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0128.png
The quality of rail services
Figure 101: Punctuality of long-distance passenger services, 2014-2016
100%
Proportion of trains classified as punctual
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
EE
LV
LT
FR
BE
AT
IE
FI
ES
DK NO NL UK SE PL RO DE PT
2014
2015
2016
CZ HR SK
IT
HU BG
SI
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for LU. No 2016 data for EE, NO, ES. No 2015 data for EE, ES. No 2014 data for
BE, IE, E, HRL.
Long-distance services tend to be less punctual than regional and local passenger services, primarily
because they operate over longer distances, and often over busier lines, and interact with a greater
number of other services en route. On many networks, reported punctuality in 2015 and 2016 was
lower than in 2014 This is due to a change in methodology
–
in 2014 the long-distance punctuality
threshold was 15 minutes, while in 2015 it was lowered to 5 minutes
–
in line with the threshold
applicable to local and regional services.
Reliability by category of service
States were asked to report the proportion of passenger services cancelled.
Figure 102 shows the reported proportion of services classified as regional or local which were
cancelled, in each of the States in 2014, 2015 and 2016.
127
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0129.png
The quality of rail services
Figure 102: Reliability of regional and local passenger services, 2014-2016
12%
Proportion of services cancelled
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
LV EE HU SK CZ
IE RO ES AT PL
SI HR FI DE SE PT NL DK BG LU FR NO BE
2014
2015
2016
IT
EL UK LT
Source: RMMS, 2018. No 2016 data for NO, ES. No 2015 data for LU, LV, ES. No 2014 data for LU, LV, IE, BG, BE,
EL, SK, HR.
Reported cancellation rates in 2016 were below 2% in most of the States.
Figure 103 shows the reported cancellation rates of services classified as long-distance in each of the
States in 2014, 2015 and 2016. Luxembourg does not classify any services as long-distance.
Figure 103: Reliability of long-distance passenger services, 2014-2016
18%
16%
Proportion of services cancelled
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
EE
IE
CZ
AT RO ES
PL
SI
IT
PT
FR
SE
SK
FI
2016
DK BG DE HR NL UK BE
LT NO EL HU
2014
2015
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for LU, LV. No 2016 data for EE, ES, NO. No 2015 data for EE, ES. No 2014 data
for IE, AT, RO, SK, BG, BE, EL, HR.
Greece, Norway, Lithuania, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Hungary all reported cancellation rates
of over 3% in one or more years.
128
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0130.png
The quality of rail services
Box 18: Passenger Rights
Regulatio EC No
/
o ail passe ge s ights
and obligations
85
(the Regulation) aims to protect
ail passe ge s i the EU. It esta lishes passe ge s ights to i fo atio , ese atio s a d ti kets,
assistance, care and compensation in the event of delay or cancellation, free of charge assistance (for
persons with disabilities and for persons with reduced mobility), compensation in the event of an accident,
a quick and accessible system of complaint handling and full application and effective enforcement of EU
law through national enforcement bodies (NEBs) designated by Member States.
The Regulation does not apply to all railway services: Member States may exempt urban, suburban and
regional services from the application of the Regulation (apart from certain mandatory requirements).
Domestic long-distance services can be exempted until 2024 at the latest.
The extensive use of these exemptions leading to a non-uniform application of the provisions was one of
the main issues leading to a proposal for revision of the Regulation adopted by the Commission in
September 2017. Other shortcomings were insufficient information for passengers and overall weak
enforcement of the rules.
Under the proposed new rules domestic long-distance services will no longer be exempted from the
Regulation, while Member States will be allowed to continue with exemptions of urban, suburban and
regional services, except if they are provided across a border. The Commission's aim is also to further align
rail passengers' rights with existing legislation on other transport modes, particularly as concerns non-
discrimination, disability training, contingency planning, complaint-handling and enforcement. In the same
spirit of consistency, the Commission proposed to introduce a new clause exempting rail companies from
having to compensate passengers for delays due to force majeure circumstances, in line with the practices
in other transport modes. In addition, the proposal strengthens the rights of persons with disabilities and
of persons with reduced mobility. Member States will no longer be able to allow exemptions from the
provision of assistance and compensation for damaged mobility equipment. Information must be provided
in accessible formats in line with the requirements proposed in the European Accessibility Act. Rail staff
will have to be trained accordingly.
5.2
Punctuality and reliability of freight services
Punctuality by category of services (domestic, international freight services)
Since 2015, States have been asked to report on the performance of freight services.
Figure 104 shows the reported punctuality of domestic and international freight services in 2016
86
.
On the definition used, on average 62% of freight services were classified as punctual.
85
86
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail
passe ge s ights a d o ligatio s OJ L
, . .
, p.
.
According to RMMS, freight services are defined as punctual if they arrive with a delay of 15 minutes or
less.
129
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0131.png
The quality of rail services
Figure 104: Punctuality of domestic and international freight services, 2016
100%
Proportion of services classified as punctual
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
BG
LT
UK
IE
NL
FI
AT
FR
SE
DK
PT
DE
RO
BE
IT
SI
CZ
PL
SK
HR
HU
EE
Domestic
International
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for EL, ES, LU, LV, NO. No domestic data for EE. No international data for IE, NL,
FI.
Most States reported that domestic freight services were more punctual than international services.
This reflects the fact that international freight services travel over longer distances, may not be
allocated a high priority, and can be subject to delays at borders which do not apply to domestic
services.
Reliability by category of service
Since 2015, States were also asked to report the proportion of freight services cancelled.
Figure 105 shows the reported cancellation rates of domestic and international freight services in
2016. Not all States have this data available yet. In addition, assessment is not always straightforward
because it is not easy to distinguish between the cancelled due to commercial reasons (i.e at the
request of a customer) and rail related reasons. Therefore, further efforts need to be done to
improve data quality and availability in this regard.
130
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0132.png
The quality of rail services
Figure 105: Reliability of domestic and international freight services, 2016
100%
90%
Proportion of services cancelled
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
LT
DE
AT
HU
UK
IE
SE
FI
Domestic
PL
DK
International
PT
SI
IT
RO
HR
SK
BG
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for BE, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FR, LU, LV, NL, NO. No international data for DE, IE, FI, LT.
Average timetabled speed of freight services
States were optionally asked to provide estimates of the averaged timetabled speed of domestic and
international freight services. Figure 106 summarises the responses provided
87
.
Figure 106: Average timetabled speed of freight services, 2016
90
80
80
70
73
74
Kilometres per hour
70
70
64
64
60
56
49
45
45
39
39
38
32
41
36
32
29
32
31
31
29
30
24
24
47
60
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
IE
DK
SI
NL
PT
FR
Domestic
CZ
LT
RO
SK
HR
PL
HU
BE
BG
EE
International
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for AT, DE, EL, ES, FI, IT, LU, LV, SE, UK, NO. No domestic data for EE. No
international data for IE, LT.
While international freight trains were less punctual than domestic ones, their average speeds, at
least within any given national network, were broadly similar, possibly because the same timetable
87
Optional in RMMS questionnaire.
131
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0133.png
The quality of rail services
paths may be used by either domestic or international freight trains. Figure 106 does not, however,
show whether delays at crossing points between national networks materially reduce overall average
speeds for international freight.
5.3
The role of regulators related to quality
Scope and responsibilities for the monitoring of quality of rail transport services differ across the
Member States and Norway.
The Directive 2012/34/EU provides for Member States to supply to the Commission on an annual
basis the necessary information on the evolution of framework conditions in the railway sector,
including quality of rail transport services (Article 15(3)).
Directive 1371/2007 establishing rights and obligations for rail passenger service users states that
railway undertakings should define, manage and monitor service quality standards for rail passenger
services and that Member States must publish every year a report on their service quality
performance together with their annual report. These reports must be available on the website of
the Agency
88
.
IRG-Rail published
89
a list of the main indicators of quality of rail services that are monitored by the
independent bodies in charge of the enforcement of Regulation 1371/2007 (regulatory bodies or
other institutions) in 24 Member States and Norway.
Unfortunately, these national indicators are not directly comparable, due to differences in the
definitions of indicators to monitor (sometimes even between different responsible bodies in the
same country). This is particularly true for delays.
Frequency of collection and publication of delays and cancellations also differs.
5.4
Safety
Safety remains a priority for the development of the Single European Railway Area. The recast of the
Safety Directive included in the Fourth Railway Package (Directive 2016/798) provides for revised
safety certification arrangements and migration to a single safety certificate. Instead of the current
two-part system, a single safety certificate will be granted on the basis of a single application, to be
valid in all Member States in which the railway undertaking operates.
The Agency will also become an EU-wide authority for safety certification of railway undertakings,
while national safety authorities will continue to act as principal supervisors for railway undertakings
and to issue safety authorisations for infrastructure managers. The Agency will have the power of
monitoring activity, performance and organisation of the NSAs, to ensure alignment of criteria and
procedures with those used by the Agency itself.
Rail is expected to remain one of the safest modes of travel. Figure 107 compares the risk of a fatal
accident per billion passenger-kilometres for different modes.
88
89
Available at
https://eradis.era.europa.eu/interop_docs/ruSQPreports/default.aspx
.
IRG-Rail, Sixth Annual Market Monitoring Working Document, March 2018 (page 37).
132
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0134.png
The quality of rail services
Figure 107: Fatality risk of different transport modes, 2011-2015
40
37,80
Fatalities per billion passenger-kilometres
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Powered two wheeler
occupant
Passenger car
occupant
Bus/coach
passenger
Railway
passenger
Airline passenger
over EU28 territory
2,67
0,23
0,10
0,06
Sources: ERA, "Report on Railway Safety and Interoperability in the EU", 2018
90
.
While rail travel is not as safe as air travel, it is nearly twice as safe as travelling in a bus or coach and
around 25 times safer than travelling in a car.
Rail safety in Europe is managed at the operational level by both the individual Member States and
the EU. Railway undertakings and infrastructure managers assess the risks associated with safe
operations of trains and establish a Safety Management System (SMS). National Safety Authorities
(NSAs) then assess the quality of SMSs before issuing safety certificates and safety authorisations to
the operators and the infrastructure managers.
NSAs also have a legal obligation to report all significant accidents. National Investigation Bodies
(NIB) must inform the Agency of the ongoing investigation, and send the final report to the Agency
after the investigation is concluded. Figure 108 shows the number of significant accidents, fatalities
and serious injuries over the period 2010 to 2016.
90
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/multisite/era/sites/era/files/library/docs/safety_interoperability_progress_repo
rts/railway_safety_and_interoperability_in_eu_2018_en.pdf
133
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0135.png
The quality of rail services
Figure 108: Significant rail accidents and resulting casualties, 2010-2016
3 000
2 500
2 000
1249
1050
1015
911
879
682
778
Incidents
1 500
1 000
1270
500
1206
1135
1129
1054
962
964
0
2010
2011
Fatalities
2012
2013
Serious injuries
2014
2015
Significant accidents
2016
Source: ERA, "Report on Railway Safety and Interoperability in the EU", 2018.
There were 964 fatalities in 2016 in Europe: the majority of which of level crossing users (255 people)
and unauthorised persons (600 people). The number of employee and passenger fatalities was 32
and 44, respectively. Continuous improvements in technology, systems and railway procedures have
contributed to a trend decline in all three indicators over the period shown. Technologies such as
ERTMS are expected to reduce accidents and casualties further as they are installed across more of
the network.
Significant rail accidents by type of accident
Figure 109 subdivides the significant rail accidents shown in Figure 108 by type over the period 2012
to 2016.
Figure 109: Significant rail accidents by type of accident, 2012-2016
1 400
1 200
1.207
Incidents
800
600
1.020
1.069
573
1 000
1.155
1.211
510
468
433
400
200
0
Accidents to persons
506
124
124
108
101
101
100
97
81
85
81
97
104
76
77
68
14
31
30
30
Level-crossing
accidents
2012
Collisions
2013
2014
Other accidents
2015
2016
Derailments
Fires in rolling stock
Source: ERA, "Report on Railway Safety and Interoperability in the EU", 2018.
134
37
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0136.png
The quality of rail services
Only a relatively small proportion of accidents relate to collisions, derailments or fires. Around 60%
of significant accidents were accidents to persons caused by rolling stock in motion. Around 25% of
significant accidents took place at level crossings, where they are commonly caused by intrusion of
pedestrians or road vehicles onto the railway. Accidents at level crossings declined consistently
throughout the period.
Box 19: The Safety Culture Twinning Programme
The Multi Annual Work Programme 2014 under the Connecting Europe Facility-CEF gave the Commission
the opportunity to launch a Programme Support Action (PSA) implemented by means of a grant to support
a twinning programme for management staff of rail infrastructure managers with safety responsibility. The
objective of this PSA was to assist European rail infrastructure managers in sharing knowledge and best
practice across railways to support new approaches to safety management.
The Twinning Programme was undertaken by a consortium of twelve EU infrastructure managers in 2017,
with a final conference held in Birmingham in December to share the learnings of the exchange visits also
with non-participants organisations (https://safety.networkrail.co.uk/safety/industry-groups/european-
safety-culture-twinning-programme/).
The members of the consortium were grouped according to
matching criteria with a view to maximising the benefit and learning to be gained from experiencing the
safet ultu e i ea h othe s o ga isatio . B o ki g ollaboratively
for a period of time in a twin host
organisation, participants were able to share information, challenges, good practice and innovation in
safety processes, systems and culture.
Experiences and learnings focused on one or more of the following topics:
safety management and behaviours;
development of common principles for management of railway safety;
occurrence reporting;
transition towards a more mature safety culture; and
implementation of safety culture and management, both within organisations and cross-border.
As pa ti ipa ts poi ted out,
Different organisations must approach promotion of safety and a safety
culture in different ways. There is no one path to success. However, there is a shared understanding that
rules alone do not make railways safe. Success requires an embedded culture where every member of staff
feels personally responsible, and more importantly, personally empowered, to promote safe working
practices
.
Source: EC, Twinning programme participants.
5.5
Satisfaction with rail services
5.5.1
Satisfaction with passenger services
In 2018 DG MOVE commissioned a Eurobarometer on Europeans' satisfaction with passenger rail
services
91
. This survey follows a previous survey on this topic (Flash 382a) carried out in 2013
92
, and
covers the following areas:
91
satisfaction with rail services including buying tickets and train stations;
the importance of rail services, including getting information and handling complaints;
92
Flash Eu o a o ete
"Eu opea s satisfa tio
ith passe ge ail se i es", Septe e
,
(http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/survey/getsurveydetail/instruments/flash/
surveyky/2172
).
Flash Eurobarometer 382a "Europeans' satisfaction with rail services",
(http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/FLAS
H/surveyKy/1111/p/2).
135
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0137.png
The quality of rail services
satisfaction with the availability and reliability of trains and seats;
satisfaction with the services on trains and their maintenance;
satisfaction with various aspects of accessibility including the accessibility of stations and
carriages, and assistance for persons with a disability or mobility issue; and
the reasons for not travelling by train.
Rail travel is used most often for leisure activities (35% of rail travellers) or for going on holiday
(23%).
Satisfaction with frequency, punctuality and reliability of trains is increasing, but there is still room
for improvement. Two thirds of respondents (66%) are satisfied with the frequency of trains
–
an
increase of seven percentage points since 2013. Despite an increase of four points since 2013, less
than six in ten respondents are satisfied with the punctuality and reliability of railway travel (59%).
Satisfaction with other aspects of rail services has also increased since 2013, but problems with
complaint-handling remain: only a minority (38%) are satisfied with easy and accessible complaint-
handling mechanisms.
The responde
ts ie s e e also sought o the i po ta e of additio al se i es su h as p o isio
of information, cleanliness and ease of buying tickets. More than nine in ten respondents considered
that the cleanliness and good maintenance of stations (94%), the provision of information about
timetables and platforms (92%) or the ease of buying tickets (92%) were important.
Satisfaction with the accessibility of rail services for persons with reduced mobility is still
problematic, but improving. Over half of all respondents (53%) are satisfied with the accessibility of
stations or platforms
–
an increase of seven points since 2013. Less than half (41%) are satisfied with
the assistance by railway or station staff for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility
–
an
increase of four points since 2013.
Finally, when respondents identified specific reasons for not travelling by train, difficulties getting to
the station was the most common reason reported by 16% of respondents, while 12% mentioned the
inaccessibility of stations or platforms, and 10% mentioned the lack of pre-journey information about
stations and accessible services. Fewer than one respondent in ten mentioned a lack of assistance by
train or station staff (9%), inaccessibility of railway carriages (8%) or a lack of information (7%).
An overall satisfaction with railway transport index was created to rank together respondents' replies
on satisfaction with rail services (getting information, getting tickets, complaint handlings and
stations) and rail travel (frequency, punctuality, reliability, services and maintenance on the train).
Respondents in Austria (29.6), Ireland (29.5), Portugal (28.2) and Luxembourg (28.1) have the highest
overall railway satisfaction index, while those in Bulgaria (20.8), Romania (21.2) and Hungary (22.5)
have the lowest.
136
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0138.png
The quality of rail services
Figure 110: Overall population satisfaction index with railway transport, 2018
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 463 on Europeans' satisfaction with passenger rail services, 2018.
Concerning comparison with other services, including transport services, DG JUST is publishing every
two years the Consumer Markets Scoreboard (CMS)
93
. The CMS tracks the performance of over
40 markets (15 goods and 25 services markets), including railways, as assessed by consumers with
recent purchasing experience. Findings from the CMS show that the railway market is a low
performing services market, ranking only 21
st
of the 25 services markets considered. However, the
overall Market Performance Indicator (MPI) score
fo the a ket fo T ai se i es has i eased
by 0.6 points from 2015 to 2017. In addition, the proportion of consumers who experienced
problems has decreased since 2015, whilst remaining higher than average.
Furthermore, European consumers can seek advice and assistance from their national European
Consumer Centre when they have an issue about a railway journey with a railway company from
another Member State. Analysis of data from the European Consumer Centre
94
network collected in
2018 suggests that the most common reason rail passengers seek advice or assistance is because of
delay (29%), followed by issues related to payment or terms and conditions of service (27.5%), and
cancellations (22%).
5.5.2
Satisfaction with Rail Freight Corridors’ services
As of today there is no regular quantitative survey of customers' satisfaction with rail freight services
at EU level. Nevertheless, a wealth of qualitative information is provided by shippers as regards their
requirements on transport and logistics services and by railway undertakings as regards their needs
93
94
The 2018 edition of the CMS is available at
https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/consumer-markets-
scoreboard_en
, whilst the market reports from the Market Monitoring Survey, which constitutes the main
statistical source for the CMS, are available here (see page 100 for the section on railways):
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/mms2017_final_report_-_part_ii.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumers/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/european-
consumer-centres-network_en#documents
137
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0139.png
The quality of rail services
for using rail infrastructure. This section provides a synthesis of such evidence the European
Commission received from various sources such as position papers, open public consultation or
contributions to discussions on international rail freight during conferences or workshops.
There seems to be a certain consensus on three priorities as regards customer satisfaction.
First, the issue of reliability is frequently raised as the single most important challenge rail freight
faces today.
On-time delivery is essential for shippers as delays can have significant negative impacts on their
operations and business. Rail is generally not perceived to be on par in this regard with its main
competitor, road transport.
The lack of interoperability as well as operational issues are reported as particularly affecting
reliability. The Rastatt incident is a good illustration of it: in August 2017, due to an incident during
major engineering works, the Rhine valley line was interrupted, completely stopping traffic on one of
the busiest rail freight corridors in Europe for seven weeks. The impacts of the event were
compounded by the fact that the diversion of traffic to parallel lines in other Member States was not
fully effective due to interoperability barriers. Disruptions of this scale are relatively rare but smaller,
more frequent disruptions can have significant impacts as well. Customers emphasise the need to
strengthen the resilience of the rail network based on appropriate divisionary routes, effective
contingency management and, more generally, through a significant boost to operational flexibility
stemming from a better interoperability of the European rail system.
In addition, a particular challenge perceived by customers is the phenomenon of cascading delays, in
which a relatively limited initial delay leads to a much more significant delay at destination due to the
inability of the rail system to address unplanned situations in a flexible manner.
Second, a closely related customer requirement is the provision of reliable shipment information, as
a 100% punctuality cannot be expected in practice, even with substantial progress in terms of
reliability. Providing shippers with tracking and tracing information and the estimated time of arrival
is therefore an industry standard in logistics. However, rail customers state that they often do not
receive such information for rail transport services, or that the quality of the information is not
sufficient. This is particularly the case for intermodal transport involving rail legs where the
complexity of operational arrangements (involving railway undertakings, terminals, intermodal
operators, forwarders) creates challenges of technical, contractual and commercial nature.
Third, flexibility is another key area in which rail transport faces challenges according to shippers and
railway undertakings. This is one of the key factors limiting the competitiveness of rail compared to
road.
A lack of flexibility in operations and traffic management is considered by customers as one
underlying cause for the perceived lack of reliability of rail freight services.
Another aspect of flexibility concerns the planning of rail freight transport. A key concern from the
customer's perspective is the time needed to launch new transport services. Shippers expect a
response time similar to road transport, where new services can generally be started within some
days. For new rail services, according to customers the response time is of the order of months. This
is partly due to the quite rigid rail timetabling procedures, but other factors may play a role as well.
In addition to these three key areas, customer satisfaction with rail freight services obviously
depends on a number of other factors, such as transport costs, transit times and the availability of
capacity. Here, the assessment by customers seems to vary significantly according to the specific
requirements of different market segments and the region considered.
138
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0140.png
The quality of rail services
It is important to note that all the factors mentioned are closely interrelated.
For example, satisfaction with the cost of rail freight services involving high volumes and covering
long distances between major freight hubs appears to be relatively high. The situation is more
challenging for the transport of smaller volumes over shorter distances, particularly if complex last-
mile operations are involved like with single wagonload. Likewise, transit times of rail services are
considered too long in some market segments but do not seem to be a major concern in others.
Regarding the availability of rail freight capacities, key issues raised by customers include a lack of
links between rail and other modes (such as terminals and other last mile infrastructure), insufficient
parameters of rail infrastructure, limiting notably intermodal services due to insufficient loading
gauges, and a clear general national political tendency to favour passenger over freight transport,
both in terms of operations and investments.
In the framework of the open public stakeholder consultation on Regulation (EU) 913/2010,
concerning the Rail Freight Corridors, carried out in 2016, the contribution of RFCs to key challenges
which rail freight faces were assessed by stakeholders. These involve quality, i.e. reliability and
punctuality of the services, the cost of rail services, the introduction of new and innovative transport
services, the acceptance of rail freight on a political and societal level, as well as the improvement of
cross-border operations.
As Figure 111 shows, stakeholders are generally positive about the contribution of RFCs to improve
rail freight services. Most stakeholders consider that RFCs address, or even address very well, most
issues. The key exception concerns the cost challenge.
Figure 111: Stakeholders' assessment of RFCs' contribution to key rail freight challenges, 2016
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Quality
Very well
Service
Addressed
Acceptance
Hardly addressed
Cross-border
Not at all
No opinion
Cost
Source: EC analysis of open public stakeholder consultation on Regulation (EU) 913/2010, 2016.
In conclusion, the satisfaction of the end-customers and railway undertakings can be described as
mixed. The reliability, flexibility and quality of the rail freight services, as well as a smooth exchange
of information, are the most important factors for end-customers for modal choice. All these are
closely interrelated to the cost challenge rail freight is facing. However, the level of satisfaction varies
substantially depending on the market segment considered. The evolution of such satisfaction would
therefore need to be measured in a more systematic way in the future.
139
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0141.png
Performance of the railways
6.
Performance of the railways
Given the monopolistic or semi-monopolistic nature of railways, there is broad acceptance that
closer monitoring and managing of the performance of the sector would lead to efficiency
improvements. However, the railway business is complex and multi-dimensional, and direct
unconditional comparison between national systems is mostly meaningless. In addition, the variables
influencing the different areas of rail performance are often beyond the control of a railway operator
or infrastructure manager, depending on geopolitical factors, political priorities, past investment or
viability of alternatives offered by other modes. For instance, performance in terms of cost
per kilometre of a specific railway undertaking depends on many factors such as the scale of
operations, mix between passenger/freight/high-speed/conventional/long-distance/commuter
traffic as well as wage levels, maintenance backlogs and existing industrial agreements
95
. In addition,
prices for passenger operations are often regulated or administered, and public policy plays a key
role in setting investment priorities and specifying passenger sector outputs
96
.
Therefore, this chapter does not aim to compare the performance of individual national railways, but
provides instead an overview of major trends at EU level accompanied with snapshots of selected
indicators (some of which have become available in RMMS only since 2015) at the national level. For
deeper analysis and meaningful conclusions, longer time series and systematic analysis of contextual
factors would be necessary.
6.1
Performance measured by main inputs and outputs
The main inputs to rail system besides funding and revenues are rolling stock and employees.
Box 20: Monitoring financial performance
Financial data, such as total costs and financial inputs (revenues, financing, subsidies) of the rail sector, are
scarce and fragmented. Within the RMMS framework, since 2008 data have been collected on infrastructure
investment and PSO compensation.
According to the new reporting framework established by the RMMS Regulation, Member States have to
report also the revenues of the railway undertakings and main infrastructure managers. Acquiring the
revenue data has proved being challenging, in particular for the freight railway undertakings in the
conditions of open markets. Therefore, there were many gaps in the reported data during the first reporting
year 2015. In 2016, the situation improved, but some problems remain.
Still, no data is collected on the costs of railway undertakings and infrastructure managers apart from
maintenance costs.
Therefore, in this report no analysis of financial performance is provided. Below you can find a 2016
snapshot, which could serve as a basis for more advanced analysis in the future, when data availability has
improved.
95
96
European Transport Regulation Observer, May 2016,
http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/41844/FSR_Observer-2016-2.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
A.S.J. Smith and C. Nash
—
Discussion Paper 2014-22
—
© OECD/ITF 2014 5
140
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0142.png
Performance of the railways
Financial performance, 2016 nominal values
Financial inputs
Passenger revenues*
Commercial fare-box
PSO fare-box
Not identified
PSO subsidy
Freight revenues**
Infrastructure subsidies
National
EU
Outputs
Total volume (million train-kilometre)
Passenger volume (million passenger-kilometre)
Freight volume (million tonne-kilometre)
Length of track (thousand kilometre)
Financial input/output ratios
Passenger revenues and subsidies per passenger-kilometre (EUR)
Freight revenues per tonne-kilometre (EUR)
Infrastructure subsidies per track kilometre (kEUR)
*
**
estimates for FR and NL
estimates for FR and CZ
64,5
10,3
22,7
13,3
18,3
24,1
31,4
29,1
2,3
4.134,6
450,0
419,5
220,6
143,4
57,5
142,5
Source: RMMS, 2018
Freight rolling stock fleet sizes (vehicles) appear to have been in decline since 2011. This may be due
to changes in the characteristics of freight rolling stock, for example larger freight wagons, or
economic effects such as asset disposal or stabling. Given that freight volumes still increase, it
indicates productivity improvements. Passenger rolling stock fleet size is also declining but in a lower
pace. Employment in the sector has been increasing quite significantly since 2014.
141
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0143.png
Performance of the railways
Figure 112: Trends in input indicators, 2011=100
110
100
90
80
70
2011
2012
Employees
2013
2014
2015
2016
Passenger rolling stock
Freight rolling stock
Source: RMMS 2018, Statistical Pocketbook 2018.
Rail passenger outputs in terms of total train-kilometres (including both passenger and freight train
movements) remained essentially stagnant. Rail freight outputs measured in tonne-kilometres have
not reached yet the levels of 2011, while passenger output measured in passenger-kilometres has
been constantly increasing since 2011.
Figure 113: Trends in output indicators, 2011=100
110
100
90
80
70
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Rail passenger-km (billion)
Source: RMMS 2018, Statistical Pocketbook 2018.
Rail tonne-km (billion)
Train-km (10 million)
Figure 114 and Figure 115 show the financial performance of the rail sector, as measured by the
revenues (including PSO compensation) per train-kilometre from passenger and freight activities,
indicating striking differences
142
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0144.png
Performance of the railways
Figure 114: Average passenger revenue per passenger train-kilometre, 2016
25
20
15
EUR
10
5
0
UK
IT
NO DK
DE
AT
ES
LV
FI
SE
IE
EL
PT
BE
PL
RO HR
LU
LT
HU
SK
CZ
EE
BG
Source: RMMS 2018. No data for FR, NL, SI.
Figure 115: Average freight revenue per freight train-kilometre, 2016
60
50
40
EUR
30
20
10
0
LT
BE
SK
LV
UK
AT
FI
PL
DK
DE
SI
SE
NO HU
RO
EE
EL
BG
IT
HR
ES
PT
IE
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for CZ, FR, LU, NL.
Figure 116 shows that the trade-off between freight and passenger track utilisation. Latvia and
Lithuania record the highest level of freight track utilisation coupled with among the lowest
passenger track utilisation. The Netherlands shows the specular utilisation of network, clearly
specialised in passenger traffic, other mostly passenger oriented networks are in the United
Kingdom, France, Italy and Denmark. Belgium, Austria and Germany have relatively good
performance both in freight and passenger transport.
143
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0145.png
Performance of the railways
Figure 116: Passenger and freight track utilisation, 2016
9
Freight track utilisation
(Million tonne-kilometres/track-kilometre)
LV
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
HR
RO
EE
FI
BG
NO
EL
1
SI
LU
PL
SK
CZ
SE
HU
IE
PT
ES
2
DK
IT
FR
UK
DE
NL
AT
BE
LT
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Passenger track utilisation
(Million passenger-kilometres per track-kilometre)
Source: RMMS 2018, Eurostat.
The utilisation of passenger and freight vehicles is also another indicator
Figure 117: Passenger and freight vehicle utilisation, 2016
2,5
FR
Average freight vehicle utilisation
(million tonnes per year)
2,0
LT
1,5
LV SI
BE
DE
AT
1,0
BG
0,5
SK
HR
LU
EE
0
1
EL
2
RO
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CZ
PL
FI
HU
PT
IE
IT
ES
0,0
Average passenger vehicle utilisation
(Million passengers per year)
Source: RMMS, 2018. No data for DK, NL, SE, UK, NO.
Further comparing passenger and freight track utilisation with passenger and freight trains
utilisation, Baltic States achieve lower passenger and freight train utilisation levels despite recoding
among the highest track utilisation for freight. France, Italy and Austria perform relatively well both
in terms of passenger and freight train utilisation levels.
6.2
The way forward for performance enhancement
Aiming at the development of a comprehensive performance culture in the sector, rail stakeholders
have been working on this topic for many years. Several transnational working groups and fora,
144
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0146.png
Performance of the railways
including for instance UIC, RailNetEurope, the TEN-T core network and Rail Freight Corridors, PRIME
and RU Dialogue, are currently engaged in discussions on performance enhancement. Also many
sectoral reports are available to compare performance in various domains, for instance:
-
-
-
-
-
-
PRIME KPI and Benchmarking Subgroup published its first Benchmarking report in July 2018
97
ERA Railway Safety and Interoperability in the EU 2018
98
RailNetEurope has developed and is publishing Key Performance Indicators of rail Freight
Corridors
99
IRG Rail has developed a list of indicators for publishing on its website
100
BCG s
Eu opea Rail a Pe fo a e I de RPI
101
ProRail/NS international benchmark 2011-2015
102
97
98
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/multisite/primeinfrastructure/content/subgroups_en
.
https://www.era.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/docs/safety_interoperability_progress_reports/railw
ay_safety_and_interoperability_in_eu_2018_en.pdf
http://www.rne.eu/rail-freight-corridors/rfc-kpis/
https://www.irg-rail.eu/download/5/451/file.file
https://www.bcg.com/publications/2017/transportation-travel-tourism-2017-european-railway-
performance-index.aspx
https://www.prorail.nl/sites/default/files/benchmark.pdf
99
100
101
102
145
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0147.png
Performance of the railways
Box 21: PRIME KPI and Benchmarking Subgroup
PRIME was created in 2013 as a cooperation platform between the European Commission and the European
Rail Infrastructure Managers, with the view to facilitate the provision of efficient and effective rail services.
Exchange of best practices and performance benchmarking are the formal tasks of PRIME (Platform of Rail
Infrastructure Managers in Europe) who has since 2017 undertaken the role of the European Network of
Infrastructure Managers as foreseen in the 4th Railway Package.
Its KPI subgroup was set up with the goal to monitor and benchmark performance and by doing so to strive for
better results. The group has identified a number of objectives and corresponding benefits which can be
achieved through a benchmarking comparison of KPIs and exchange of best practices:
•
•
Share information, knowledge and practice between railway infrastructure managers (IMs) and learn from
each other in order to improve performance and business development
Share the results with the public can support engagement with key stakeholders:
•
Data can be used to support negotiations with public authorities and trade unions, and it can also
be used for engagement with regulators
•
Provides evidence to monitor whether national or EU policies are working or not
•
Is a communication tool vis-à-vis customers and business partners to indicate trends
A further important outcome of the PRIME KPI work is a good quality, comparable and easily accessible
dataset.
•
Performance Benchmarking covers several dimensions of rail infrastructure management: punctuality, costs,
resilience, sustainable development, safety, etc. Each organisation comes with its own history as well as often
different governance and financing models. Therefore, there is no single measure of success that can be
imposed, but there is always room for improvement.
After four years of preparatory work, the group delivered its first benchmarking report in July 2018 covering
the years 2012-2016 for 12 infrastructure managers. This first report presents in a factual manner the results
across 35 indicators. It serves as a starting point for further data sharing and analysis. As indicated in the
document, for some indicators, the data of individual infrastructure managers are still not available or deviate
from agreed definitions, but the members continue their efforts to improve the comparability of data. The
report and KPI definitions, which are documented in a PRIME KPI Catalogue, is available here:
146
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0148.png
Performance of the railways
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/multisite/primeinfrastructure/content/subgroups_en
For the future, the group intends to increase data availability - both KPIs and participants - and provide reports
ith i depth a al sis ide tif i g t e ds a d est p a ti e. The goal is to gi e i formation
and fruit for thought
to stakeholders, researchers, economists and politicians. Above all, the general objective for the project is to
deliver insight and inspiration for better decisions on developing a sustainable and competitive infrastructure
management which provides high quality services, as expected by operators, passengers and freight
companies.
Source: EC, PRIME KPI subgroup
Most of these reports do not cover financial indicators due the lack of comprehensive data.
The Commission is acting as an intermediary between the various initiatives with the aim of
harmonising indicators and eliminating overlaps in data collection. It is also working closely with
national rail regulatory bodies who are responsible for monitoring developments in rail market in
accordance with Directive 2012/34/EU.
147
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0149.png
Conclusions
7.
Conclusions
EU railways continue to grow, with passenger volumes in particular increasing significantly between
2011 and 2016. However, freight volumes remain volatile and led to a loss of modal share in
comparison with road transport in 2016. At the same time, rail markets are gradually opening up and
safety levels remain high. The industry is gradually becoming more performance-based, innovative
and responsive to customer needs.
Rail is an important contributor to EU transport mix, providing clean mobility and a high level of
efficiency. While the satisfaction of Europeans with passenger rail services has increased compared
to 5 years ago, there is still room for improvement on passenger rights. The negotiations with
103
legislato s o the Co
issio s
p oposal to e ise Regulatio EC
/
on rail
passe ge s ights a d o ligatio s a e still o goi g.
These developments have occurred against a background of substantial change within the industry,
which has been driven by the structural changes initiated by EU legislation more than 20 years ago
and concluded by the adoption of the Fourth Railway Package in 2016. Implementation of the
pa kage s te h i al pilla f o Ju e
ill fu the i p o e i
teroperability between national rail
networks. It will also cut red tape for operations beyond one single Member State and strengthening
the role of the European Union Agency for Railways. The market pillar completes the opening of
domestic markets as of December 2019 and imposes the principle of competitive tendering as the
rule for public service contracts in the EU by December 2023 at the latest, with direct award only
allowed in exceptional cases.
The Commission has continued to work on implementing measures necessary for effective market
functioning. It is now focusing on enforcement, ensuring that both pillars of the package are
transposed and implemented correctly and that implementing acts are adopted and complied with.
O the ail f eight s st uggle
to grow modal share, the international nature of these services makes
them sensitive to interoperability barriers and cross-border coordination issues. To tackle the
situation, the Commission is pursuing an agenda of complementary initiatives and measures. The
Co
issio s lo g-standing
policy of achieving interoperability (including the efficient and
coordinated deployment of ERTMS) has been strengthened recently, with the focus on solving
practical cross-border operational issues.
The Co
issio s i
frastructure development policy in the form of the Trans-European Transport
Network (TEN-T) policy aims to improve infrastructure by addressing bottlenecks and missing links.
Under the next financial period, the Commission has proposed to use Connecting Europe Facility 2,
Cohesion Fund, European Regional Development Fund and InvestEU financial support to speed up
also rail digitalisation. To help the rail industry access finance, the Commission is developing a
methodology to assess the green components in rail projects under its action plan on sustainable
finance
104
.
The ail f eight o ido s e ai a ke pa t of the Co
issio s poli to oost ail f eight. The Rail
Freight Regulation
105
and Train Drivers Directive
106
are still being evaluated. To bolster rail freight, in
103
104
105
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail
passe ge s ights a d o ligatio s, OJ L
, . .
7, p. 14–41.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/180308-action-plan-sustainable-growth_en
Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010
concerning a European rail network for competitive freight, OJ L 276, 20.10.2010, p. 22–32
148
 kom (2019) 0051 - Ingen titel
2011554_0150.png
Conclusions
November 2017 the Commission proposed amending Combined Transport Directive 92/106/EC
107
as
part of its second mobility package to provide new and more effective support measures for shifting
freight from road to rail.
These key policies are accompanied by efforts to tackle the issue of rail noise, to better embed rail in
the multimodal transport system by deploying digital technologies and to foster innovation,
particularly by way of the activities of the Shift2Rail
108
joint undertaking.
Furthermore, rail cannot be considered in isolation from other modes: its competitiveness also
depends on the framework for intermodal competition. This is why the Commission is striving for
equal conditions for intermodal competition, such as through the mobility package including the
amendment of the Eurovignette Directive
109
. The Commission has also commissioned a
comprehensive study on the internalisation of external costs in transport. This will help it to assess
the e te t to hi h the use pa s a d pollute pa s p i iples a e i ple e ted i the Me e
States for all modes of transport.
Reliable monitoring of the rail market remains a priority to be able to follow market developments
and to benchmark performance.
106
107
108
109
Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the
certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community,
OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 51–78
Council Directive 92/106/EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for certain types
of combined transport of goods between Member States, OJ L 368, 17.12.1992, p. 38.
https://shift2rail.org/
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/news/2017-05-31-europe-on-the-move_en
149