Beyond train paths: service facilities as a key to Europe’s rail freight competitiveness

One of the clearest messages emerging from the discussions at the 28th Florence Rail Forum is that service facilities are strategic assets that will play a crucial role in determining whether rail freight in Europe can become more competitive and grow in the years to come.

In the last decade, European railway policy has focused on infrastructure capacity, interoperability and market opening. The new Capacity Regulation is an important step in the right direction, introducing a more coordinated approach to capacity planning of paths and stronger cross-border cooperation. However, rail capacity is much more than train paths. A train cannot operate if there is no terminal slot, no maintenance capacity, no access to a marshalling yard or no shunting services available. Rail freight customers do not experience individual parts of the railway system; they experience the transport chain as a whole.

As long as infrastructure capacity and service facility capacity continue to be managed separately, Europe will optimise individual components rather than the performance of the railway system itself.

Discussions in the Forum confirmed that the principles of the Recast Directive remain valid. Transparency, non-discrimination and the right of access provide a solid legal framework. The main challenge is not the legislation itself but its uneven implementation among member states and enforcement by regulatory bodies, which continues to create uncertainty for railway undertakings, investors and service facility operators. This fragmentation becomes even more problematic when it comes to international rail freight. Trains operating across one or several borders are forced to navigate different interpretations and implementations of the same European rules, creating unnecessary complexity, higher costs and reduced operational efficiency. A truly Single European Railway Area cannot function effectively if European legislation is applied through a patchwork of national practices.

Predictability was one of the main concerns raised during the discussion. Service facilities require long-term investments, but operators often know what capacity will be available only one timetable period in advance. The introduction of rolling planning for freight under the new Capacity Regulation, together with the one-stop shop for capacity booking, represents an important step towards greater flexibility and responsiveness. However, these initiatives will only deliver value if infrastructure and service facility planning are integrated. In some countries, commercial train paths are allocated without ensuring that the corresponding terminals, maintenance facilities or tracks are available. The same coordinated approach is needed when infrastructure work affects capacity, so that changes to train paths and service facilities are planned together. Without this integration, uncertainty will continue to discourage investment and improvements in planning will not translate into better performance for rail freight customers.

Transparency is another area in which significant progress is still needed. Operators frequently struggle to determine whether capacity is genuinely unavailable or simply reserved, while the criteria used to allocate scarce capacity remain insufficiently clear and are interpreted differently across Europe. As was highlighted in the forum, this legal uncertainty increases the risk of disputes and weakens confidence in the regulatory framework, particularly where vertically integrated operators manage facilities that are also used by competing railway undertakings or transferred from the infrastructure manager to a railway company.

The forum also highlighted the important role of national regulatory bodies. Significant differences remain in their powers, resources and enforcement practices. While some regulators have adopted a proactive approach to monitoring access conditions and resolving disputes, others play a much more limited role. The Single European Railway Area requires a more consistent level of regulatory oversight, together with clearer guidance on the implementation of existing rules and stronger enforcement of existing legal obligations. Greater harmonisation would reduce legal uncertainty while ensuring that non-discrimination becomes an operational reality rather than simply a legal principle.

The forthcoming evolution of the regulatory framework therefore represents an opportunity. The priority should be to make the existing principles work better in practice by improving transparency, providing earlier information on capacity, aligning service facilities with the new Capacity Regulation, strengthening regulatory oversight, accelerating digitalisation and ensuring better coordination between infrastructure managers and service facility operators. Also important is greater harmonisation in the implementation of European rules and in the coordination of key operational processes, particularly capacity allocation. While differences in national practices already create inefficiencies in domestic markets, they become unacceptable for international rail services operating along European freight corridors, where cross-border rail services depend on common rules and coordinated planning.

Ultimately, however, the debate is not only about regulation. It is about understanding what rail customers expect. Customers do not distinguish between infrastructure, terminals, maintenance facilities and service facilities. They expect a reliable logistics chain. Rail is only one part of that chain, and its competitiveness depends on the ability of all its components to work together seamlessly.

If Europe wants rail freight to become a genuine alternative to road transport, it must move beyond managing infrastructure and start managing the entire logistics chain. Only then will service facilities be recognised for what they truly are: an essential component of a competitive, efficient and customer-oriented European rail system.