3.2.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/41

1.1

The EESC agrees with the Commission's diagnosis of the rail freight situation in the European Union and believes that its proposals are a move in the right direction, though modest compared with the scale of the challenge.

1.2

It believes that to improve the situation will require:

1.4.1

To achieve lower costs will involve pursuing interoperability and technical harmonisation in Europe. Historically, each network has made its own rules and regulatory and safety systems. Gradually, all the systems must be aligned and implementation of the ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) must be made a top priority.

1.4.2

Whenever realistically possible, by means of appropriate investment, the characteristics of the rail infrastructure should gradually be changed in terms of gauge, train length, gradients and axle load, in order to gear them to the needs of freight transport, as is the case for instance in the United States.

1.4.3

Real progress in competition and the opening up of the market would necessarily lead to greater efficiency and productivity. This raises the issue of rail staff training. New operators entering the market may find that there is a shortage of skilled workers. Care must be taken therefore to ensure that adequate training courses are set up so that this demand can be met and new highly-skilled jobs can be created.

1.4.4

The allocation of costs by infrastructure managers among the various operators must be reviewed and, similarly, the external costs of competing modes of transport should be better allocated so as to create the conditions for free, undistorted competition.

1.4.5

Initiatives such as the Betuwe line, the New OPERA project or FERRMED should be studied and supported so as to learn lessons while sharing experiences and good practice.

1.5.1

Binding contractual rules on compensation for customers who receive a poor quality service would provide a good incentive to improve the service provided.

1.5.2

There is a need to work at the quality and reliability of the various elements of the service. This concerns rolling stock and also signals, track and information systems.

1.5.3

A more reliable service also means reserving good train paths for freight, for instance by laying down priority rules to favour freight in cases of traffic clashes on those paths, while obviously bearing in mind the interests of all users. There would for instance be room for manoeuvre regarding traffic timetabling.

1.6.1

One of the complaints generally made about rail freight transport is the length and slowness of journeys. To resolve this issue, the freight paths mapped out should have a limited number of stops (or none) and should be designed to ensure there is little danger of traffic clashes with other trains; furthermore, when it comes to operational management in the event of traffic clashes, freight should be given priority wherever possible. High-speed night freight trains should also be developed.

1.6.2

Investment is also needed to prepare infrastructure for higher speed trains, while bearing in mind that greater speeds mean lower authorised axle loads. While something must be done about the current low speed of rail freight, it should be stressed that the most important factor is constancy in speed. Moderate but constant speed is better than the stop/start phenomenon that results in accumulating delays.

1.7.1

Longstanding traffic management principles and methods, which systematically give priority to passenger trains on preset theoretical paths, have an unintended but real knock-on effect: for a freight train, a short delay on leaving (for instance ten minutes) almost always results in a major delay on arrival (of a number of hours or even a whole day).

1.7.2

The development of technology in the medium to long term will increase real time fluidity in freight train traffic without using a preset theoretical path as the only reference point. The ‘moving block’ concept, built into the latest stage of the ERTMS, enables more trains to travel on the same infrastructure and better reactions in the event of disturbances. For this to work, all Member States must invest in the ERTMS so as to secure interoperability and continuity in the use of the various national networks as soon as possible.

1.7.3

Investment in capacity is nonetheless necessary for bottlenecks and loading/unloading platforms enabling transport system interoperability.

1.7.4

The issue of marshalling, loading and unloading yards is important but cannot be divorced from that of the secondary networks that serve the regions. The fact is that to be genuinely competitive, maximum proximity of rail freight transport to the client is essential.

1.8.1

Although it may not be very realistic to recommend setting up a trans-European freight-dedicated network, there is no doubt that a separate network would be the best way to promote rail freight transport, making it more reliable, more punctual, less expensive and faster. In the immediate future the option of freight-oriented corridors is more realistic, but in the absence of major transcontinental freight-dedicated networks, it may be possible to include in freight-oriented corridors an increasing number of freight-dedicated sections of line in order to link particularly active economic centres, as demonstrated by the success of the Betuwe line between the port of Rotterdam and Germany. All the Member States must become genuinely involved in implementing policies and regulations with a view to making the railways more competitive.

2.1.1

Whereas freight transport grew by 2.8 % a year between 1995 and 2005, rail freight's market share fell steadily, levelling off at approximately 10 % in 2005, its lowest level since 1945.

2.1.2

According to the Commission, the reasons for this poor performance are a lack of reliability, insufficient capacity, defective information management, slowness and a lack of flexibility. However, despite these shortcomings, new opportunities may arise in the current economic context, marked as it is by an increase in trade, road congestion, increasing fuel prices, and an ever growing concern for environmental conservation.

2.1.3

In the past, the Community has attempted to boost rail transport by means of a three-pronged policy approach:

2.1.4

It cannot be denied that the results have been disappointing when it comes to transnational transport.

2.2.1

The White Paper on European Transport Policy for 2010 aimed to generate a shift from road to rail and already envisaged the establishment of ‘multimodal corridors giving priority to freight’. For the sake of practicality, the 2006 revised white paper scaled down its ambitions regarding the shift from road to rail and developed the idea of ‘co-modality’, though not without recalling the need to encourage the development of a rail network giving priority to freight.

2.2.2

It is this idea that is developed in the Commission's communication, setting the triple objective of improving speed, reliability and capacity for traffic on a network based on the existing trans-European networks.

3.1

The Commission recalls the initiatives already taken to encourage, improve or promote rail freight: developing interoperability and information (Europtirails), building infrastructure (Betuwe line) and establishing corridor structures. However, these have proved insufficient.

3.2

Three options are envisaged for form's sake: maintaining the status quo, bringing in new measures to set up a freight-oriented network, or running a specific programme to set up a European rail network dedicated to freight.

3.3

In accordance with the principles of ancient philosophy, the Commission considers that ‘in medio stat virtus’ and rejects the first and third options, one for lacking ambition and the other for being unrealistic.

3.4.1

The Commission hopes to develop transnational corridors so as to establish a freight-oriented network. This would involve identifying those corridors with an appropriate infrastructure while implementing an effective management and operating system. This cannot come about, however, unless the Member States sign up to the project as infrastructure managers.

3.4.2

In order to achieve this, the Commission envisages a series of legislative measures to tie in with the recasting of the first railway package planned for 2008, together with incentives and funding, the latter to be released from existing appropriations.

3.4.3

In this way, the Commission's plan is to give freight-oriented corridors legal definition, so as to encourage Member States and infrastructure managers to establish freight-oriented transnational corridors and to seek out financing for these structures, within the framework of existing financing packages.

3.4.4

One of the criticisms made of rail freight is the poor quality of service and a lack of client information. For this reason, the Commission hopes to implement a genuine quality and transparency policy and will propose a legislative measure on the publication of quality indicators. It also intends to publish a report on steps taken by operators to improve the rail service.

3.4.5

Certain sections of the network are saturated, particularly in central regions of the European Union, and this situation is likely to worsen in the years ahead. The key therefore is to invest in infrastructure capacity, particularly in terms of train length, gauge, axle load and maximum speed. The investment will clearly have to be targeted and coordinated. The Commission recommends that corridor management structures draw up investment plans and leaves open the issue of financing, which will have to be found within existing programmes.

3.4.6

The issue of traffic flow and rail freight efficiency ties in with that of the allocation of train paths to freight. At present, the allocation of train paths is decided by individual managers, according to rules that differ from one Member State to another. It would therefore be useful to harmonise the rules for allocating train paths so as to secure reliable, high performance paths.

3.4.7

To achieve this, the Commission plans to propose legislative measures for the international allocation of paths and on the priority given to freight, particularly in the event of network disturbances.

3.4.8

Freight traffic also requires terminals and marshalling yards. However, pressure on real estate in past years led to a tendency to reduce the number of these stations and terminals in urban areas.

3.4.9

On reading the Commission's proposals, it is clear that their success will depend on the measures taken and motivation shown by the Member States and rail sector players.

3.5.1

The observations made by the Commission on the state of rail freight require no particular comment and only confirm what was already known about the weakness of the sector. To improve the situation will mean mobilising those responsible in the public and private sectors, not only in terms of political willingness and business dynamism, but also in terms of financing.

3.5.2

This is definitely the weak point of the plan. The Commission is proposing a number of legislative measures, but no new allocation of resources. The legal approach may be useful, but is certainly not sufficient. The appropriations needed to implement the plan will have to be found from existing programmes. This will require delicate choices and will be difficult to manage, with measures in one area inevitably affecting another.

3.5.3

Lastly, the success of the plan presupposes strong commitment on the part of the Member States and managing companies, but the former are often short of funds and may have other rail priorities and the latter, which have nonetheless benefited from the separation of expensive-to-maintain networks from operation, are not always in the best financial state.

3.6.1

Establishing transnational corridors is clearly a prerequisite for freight development, but it is common knowledge that freight has up to now been sacrificed in favour of passenger transport. What is needed therefore amounts to a cultural revolution, with inevitable constraints to be accepted by the Member States, and dedicated funding, all the while bearing in mind that as far as the public is concerned the need to give priority to passenger trains goes without saying. The issue is therefore more that of optimal network management and the definition of freight-oriented networks that do not reduce the quality and punctuality of passenger transport. In establishing transnational corridors, account needs to be taken of track gauges in both the old and new Member States, the existing rolling stock employed by railway companies, freight movements in candidate and third countries, and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.

3.6.2

The issues of information and transparency are certainly important, but it is clear that customers base their choices primarily on the criteria of price, reliability, speed, and facility of access to terminals and loading and unloading. The key factor is therefore service quality, which depends firstly on the mechanisms for organising rail traffic and secondly on considerable investment.

3.6.3

As regards rail freight competitiveness, it appears to be generally accepted that this type of transport is reserved for a certain type of merchandise, in particular large quantities of heavy goods. There is a need to increase client diversity, in particular through the use of containers, thus expanding the market and making it more competitive, in a context of increased fuel prices and a growing concern to promote sustainable development.

3.6.4

The Commission communication appears weak on the issue of financing, as it offers nothing in the way of specific financing and the solution proposed is founded on delicate choices within the bounds of existing funds.