Different service facilities, different regulatory approach?

Every train run begins and ends in a service facility (SF). For a successful modal shift, efficient SFs are a prerequisite.

Access to SFs is regulated at the EU level by Directive 2012/34/EU (‘Recast’) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2177. In practice both have proven to be generally well-balanced regulatory frameworks for very different SFs. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 has significantly improved transparency (descriptions of facilities, technical features and services offered). The need for revision and single adaptations of the Implementing Regulation basically exists for specific aspects of it, like ensuring full compatibility with the new rules in the capacity allocation regulation (EU) 2026/1184.

What the SFs defined in Annex II No. 2 of the Recast Directive 2012/34/EU have in common is that they constitute essential parts of the business model for freight and passenger services. In contrast to the minimum access package, defining the services offered by a SF is up to its operator and not foreseen by law.

For passenger services the main business focus of SF users is on timetable, punctuality, reliability, stability, passenger comfort, quality, high security requirements and fast turnaround times. For freight services, due to more irregular schedules and more business dynamics, the focus on flexibility and efficiency is even higher.

There are many different SFs in Europe and Germany. Two core-groups can be distinguished. On the one hand there are fully regulated SFs regularly fulfilling all the requirements of essential facilities/natural monopolies (e.g. passenger stations, freight terminals, marshalling yards and train forming facilities). On the other hand there are SFs which are not essential facilities (e.g. maintenance facilities). Regarding the latter, there is intense competition in Germany between numerous maintenance facilities and slightly reduced regulatory requirements apply (in particular there is no regulation of fees and a possibility of priority for internal use). This differentiated regulatory approach must be maintained and assessed to determine if and where regulatory interventions remain justified, considering competitive market structures.

Generally, the regulatory approach is (and should remain) the same for SFs serving passenger and freight services and apply symmetrically for all service facility operators (SFOs). Of course, for technical reasons some facilities are reserved for passenger rolling stock (e.g. cleaning and washing facilities, toilet disposal facilities) and others for freight (e.g. marshalling yards and train forming facilities, including shunting facilities). Furthermore, operational requirements often significantly differ between rail freight and passenger services. Passenger services are characterised by high reliability and punctuality requirements, strongly planned and cyclical operations and significant reliance on dedicated service infrastructure (e.g. siding tracks with supply and disposal facilities, power supply points and electric train preheating systems as additional technical equipment). These requirements make passenger-related facilities more infrastructure (asset) intensive and less flexible in use compared to freight-related facilities. From a regulatory point of view, a need for differentiation basically arises between essential facilities (passenger stations, marshalling yards etc.) and other SFs which are not essential facilities (e.g. maintenance depots in competitive surroundings).

The same applies to SFs used for single-wagonload freight. From the perspective of regulatory law there are no specific requirements. From a technical operational perspective, the requirements for SFs for single wagonloads are very specific compared to block-trains. In special marshalling yards an appropriate shunting technique with run-off hills, radio remote control, associated signal box technology, downhill brakes, conveyor systems, stabling and sorting tracks is needed together with flexible opening hours. With a view to business operations, big marshalling yards/train forming facilities with a run-off hill can be most efficiently used by just one railway undertaking (RU). In the case of use by multiple RUs operational bottlenecks, productivity and efficiency losses are to be expected, risking making transport services unprofitable and further reducing small margins. Since the layout and sizing of the plant components are coordinated with one another, entry groups, hump yards, direction tracks and exit groups must be seen and marketed as a single entity for train formation using a hump yard. Tracks in entry and exit groups must not be allocated for other uses. In times of low-capacity use, of course, a pre-coordinated shared use is possible on request.

In Germany, so far DB Cargo is the only RU using the hump yards of DB InfraGO. As SFO, DB InfraGO grants non-discriminatory access to the facility based on infrastructure usage conditions controlled by the Federal Network Agency. DB InfraGO is responsible for the functional management of the facility (investments and maintenance). RUs leasing the site/tracks are responsible for the operational management.

To foster necessary investments in SFs, overregulation is to be avoided and a potential revision of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 should be strictly limited to the framework set in Directive 2012/34/EU.