Download
Europe’s railway infrastructure is at a critical moment. After decades of underinvestment, the network is expected to deliver greater reliability and capacity, while also becoming more resilient to natural disasters and external threats, including sabotage.
This report assesses the current state of rail infrastructure across EU member states and sets out how the EU should prioritise future investments to strengthen connectivity and resilience across the rail network. It is based on data from the EU Agency’s Registers of Infrastructure (RINF), Eurostat, and OpenStreetMap, covering EU-27 countries as well as Switzerland, Ukraine, and Moldova for selected indicators.
Key findings:
Overall, our analysis finds that despite the strategic importance of rail and annual investments of €40 billion across the EU, the rail system remains fragmented. Large portions of national networks also fall short of meeting the requirements set out in the EU’s core infrastructure policy, the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). At the same time, strong performance on specific indicators in some member states demonstrates that faster progress is achievable.
The most notable results include:
Fewer than 20% of TEN-T corridors are equipped with the European Train Control System (ETCS), which is essential to allow trains to run across borders and to increase safety, capacity and reliability.
The average speed of rail lines often remains low, with eight member states achieving a maximum speed of only 80 km/h on the majority of their lines, far below the goal of 160 km/h for the TEN-T.
Just over half of the European network is electrified, although electrified lines are more reliable and curb pollution and noise from trains.
These gaps undermine rail’s capacity to offer fast, reliable and clean transport and to remain resilient in the face of disruptions. A targeted approach to investment is therefore essential.
Policy Recommendations:
This report identifies six priority areas for investment that can unlock a more reliable, connected, and competitive EU rail system. They are summarised in the infographic below.
With the European Commission preparing new proposals to support rail investments, a strategic and focused approach is critical:
The upcoming Connecting Europe through high-speed rail plan should prioritise the removal of interoperability and capacity barriers, particularly the slow rollout of the European Train Control System (ETCS). The next EU budget should earmark investments accordingly and increase co-funding rates to at least 60% under the Connecting Europe Facility budget.
Infrastructure upgrades should be prioritised over newly built megaprojects to make an impact across most of the rail networks in the short- to mid-term.
Dual-use considerations should be integrated into rail infrastructure investments. An increase in rail investments is expected due to the EU’s new emphasis on military mobility, and these funds should be directed toward dual-use infrastructure that also benefits civilian rail services and helps address the challenges identified in this report.
A three-part structure:
-
1
State of play
-
2
Methodology
-
3
Six rail investment priorities
1. State of play
Rail carries 7% of EU passenger traffic but accounts for 0.4% of transport greenhouse gas emissions, making it an important part of the solution for decarbonising the transport system. It is also fundamental for the transport of goods across Europe.
Europe has one of the densest rail networks in the world, but its quality varies between countries. Instead of a unified pan-European network, the system remains a patchwork shaped by national rules and priorities.
To address this, the EU has revised the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) regulation, setting minimum standards for speed and interoperability along the main European corridors. Future EU funds are expected to focus on supporting member states in TEN-T implementation. And the European Commission is working on a so-called Connecting Europe through high-speed plan to connect EU capitals and large cities.
Given the estimated €515 billion needed for the completion of the core network alone, prioritising investment will be essential. However, this is a complex task. Our analysis provides an EU-wide perspective on key infrastructure upgrades, alongside detailed country-specific insights. The aim is to learn from past mistakes and ensure investments target the most effective projects.
Change depends on strengthening strategic infrastructure investments in the next year
The TEN-T provides a framework for both high-speed and conventional rail connections between Europe’s main urban nodes. The regulation sets deadlines for member states to complete key railway lines, with priorities divided into three phases:
Core network by 2030
Extended core network by 2040
Comprehensive network by 2050.
Additional requirements for interoperability and competitiveness include:
The European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) must be implemented within the same time frames.
By 2040 75% of passenger rail sections in the core and extended networks must allow speeds of up to 160 km/h
Provisions for track gauge harmonisation and intermodality.
Spending on rail infrastructure increased slightly from €39.1 billion in 2015 to €41.8 billion in 2020. When accounting for inflation, the real value stayed almost the same. Of this, 25% was allocated to maintenance, 27% to renewals, 28% to upgrades and 20% to new infrastructure investments. National budgets provided the majority of funding, while EU co-financing accounted for 8%. After 2020, EU funding through the CEF, Cohesion policy and the Recovery and Resilience Facility is likely to determine an increase in the share of EU funding over the total spending on rail. This EU funding remains crucial for cross-border sections and countries under the cohesion framework.
The European Commission estimates that completing the TEN-T core network by 2030 will cost an estimated €515 billion. For 2040 this figure would rise up to €850 billion. But the CEF is continuously oversubscribed, sometimes by 300%. Meanwhile, other transport sectors require major funding under the Clean Industrial Deal, making a significant rail funding increase unlikely in the next MFF.
EU funds are not the most prominent part of most member states' rail budgets but are crucial for countries under the cohesion policy and cross-border projects. With limited resources, the Commission must balance European priorities with national network needs, prioritising projects that offer the best value for money. In addition, the EU’s Preparedness Union Strategy establishes that dual-use considerations will have to be included in all of its infrastructure investments.
2. Methodology
Our analysis used multiple data sources to assess key infrastructure characteristics.
ERTMS deployment data was sourced from the Register of Infrastructure (RINF), managed by the EU Agency for Railways. We calculated the total length of ETCS-equipped track and compared it to Eurostat’s overall track length data.
Track electrification, traffic volumes and capacity utilisation - measured by dividing train kilometers traveled by total network length - were also sourced from Eurostat. Data on track gauge, double-track sections and on dedicated high-speed lines were all obtained from Eurostat.
Speed limits were assessed using OpenStreetMap, filtering for actual rail lines and removing duplicates. Track lengths were then calculated based on geographic coordinates, and speeds over 250 km/h were crosschecked with Eurostat. No external validation was available for lower-speeds data.
Our analysis focused on EU-27 countries, though we included countries like Switzerland, Ukraine and Moldova for specific metrics such as capacity and track gauge changes, as well as their relevance for military mobility. Some countries lacked data due to incomplete or unavailable datasets at the time of analysis. It is also important to note that two countries in the EU do not have railway systems.
The focus is mostly on passenger rail. We selected six criteria for their relevance to rail interoperability and competitiveness across Europe, as well as their connection to European funding. Further information on why these indicators were selected can be found in the annex, along with national case studies for each specific indicator. While maintenance spending is critical, it primarily relies on national budgets. Other criteria, such as the condition of rolling stock, could not be analysed here and shall be addressed in future research.
3. Six rail investment priorities
-
1
Accelerate ERTMS deployment for high quality, efficient infrastructure
-
2
Increasing line speeds to 160 km/h to make rail time-competitive
-
3
Add capacity through new tracks where needed
-
4
Boost electrification (secondary priority)
-
5
Track gauge conversion (secondary priority)
-
6
New high-speed lines (secondary priority)
3.1 Accelerate ERTMS deployment for high quality, efficient infrastructure
ERTMS is an essential signalling and speed system for rail quality, safety and interoperability. Its benefits include:
Allowing higher speeds when substituting national legacy systems that impose limits of 200 km/h on lines designed for higher speeds;
Increases track capacity by reducing train separation distance;
Lowering signalling maintenance costs while enhancing safety;
Supports seamless cross-border rail by eliminating the need for multiple signalling systems.
Facilitates the integration of freight and passenger services on shared lines, especially when combined with digital enablers.
ERTMS deployment has been uneven across member states. Belgium has exceeded the Commission’s deployment plan, aiming to fully decommission its legacy system in the conventional network by the end of 2025, benefiting from increased capacity and reduced costs. While deployment on the infrastructure side is expected to meet the deadline, a two year extension is expected for rolling stock.
In contrast, Portugal’s National Implementation Plan lacked sufficient detail to comply with the EU deployment plan. Its legacy signalling system, the EBICAB version commonly known as Convel, is no longer manufactured, restricting cross-border services and complicating the renewal of rolling stock. While a solution to allow ETCS compatibility is being developed, such as the Specific Transmission Model, full ERTMS deployment across TEN-T would prevent such issues.
Out of the countries from which the data was available, only Belgium and Luxembourg are close to completing all of their networks with ETCS. And many still have a share below 10%. This is especially problematic in countries like France, Germany and Poland, as they are key nodes in the TEN-T network.
Policy recommendations:
-
1
Increase CEF support: Co-funding rates under the CEF should rise to at least 60%;
-
2
Include coverage of urban nodes: ERTMS should be implemented along entire lines, including urban nodes near central stations, which are often left out for financial reasons. This would avoid system changes and maximise interoperability;
-
3
Raise State Aid limits: The revised State Aid Guidelines should allow up to 100% coverage of eligible costs. This would enable wealthier countries to accelerate deployment, indirectly benefiting smaller member states by improving cross-border connectivity, without harming the level playing field.
-
4
Enhance EU management: The European Commission should reinforce its internal resources for ERTMS coordination and collaborate with member states to appoint national ERTMS coordinators. The EU Agency for Railways (ERA) should receive more resources, supported by industry participation, similar to how the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is partly funded by fees and charges for services provided to the aviation industry;
-
5
Harmonise, standardise and address cost drivers: Harmonising technical requirements and simplifying authorisation processes will lead to a more cost-effective implementation. Although ERTMS was conceived as a unified European system, there are various national specificities and variants that were introduced to address local or national specificities but undermine the goal of interoperability. The EU and the rail sector should agree on a standardised version to be deployed for at least 10 years to end the current fragmentation of different baselines and national “ERTMS grammars” that actually make things more complicated.
3.2 Increasing line speeds to 160 km/h to make rail time-competitive
Track-side limitations create disparities in train speeds across Europe. Over one fifth of the Spanish network supports speeds above 240 km/h, whilst most of the Croatian network is limited to under 80 km/h.
Several factors influence line speeds, including challenging terrain, as seen in Austria’s large percentage of low speed lines. In very small countries like Luxembourg, high speeds offer little advantage, but they will benefit considerably by speed improvements in neighbouring countries. However, stark differences remain between Western and Eastern Europe, largely due to financial constraints preventing proper maintenance and upgrades on their networks.
Policy recommendations:
-
1
Ensure rolling stock readiness: To fully benefit from increasing line speeds, operators will need rolling stock capable of reaching these speeds. Financing options are available through organisations like Eurofima. The revised state aid guidelines for rail will also provide easier support for rolling stock investment.
-
2
Maintain high average speeds: Prioritise maintenance to avoid temporary speed restrictions that undermine speed limit increases. Investments should focus on eliminating these bottlenecks promptly.
-
3
Coordinate with freight and military mobility priorities: When working on structures that need to be modified to allow higher speeds, those that act as the main barriers to rail motorways and military mobility should be taken into account.
3.3 Add capacity through new tracks where needed
Adding capacity through additional tracks should be justified, for instance, where fast intercity trains and slow local trains coexist, leading to timetable conflicts and delays.
One way to assess capacity is by examining the share of the network with more than one track. Core countries tend to have a much higher percentage of double tracks than peripheral ones, partly due to the need to accommodate more freight traffic.
Train-km per track-km can indicate how efficiently a rail network is utilised. Our analysis shows that Switzerland leads this measure, with Denmark and Austria topping the EU ranking. These countries make the most of their capacity and are also among the leading countries in ETCS deployment.
In contrast, countries like Spain or Poland have a high proportion of double-track lines but low usage of their available capacity. For these countries the focus should be on increasing utilisation rather than expanding capacity. However, when planning new lines that see low current, but high expected future demand, partial or full double tracking remains a prudent investment to avoid higher costs in the future.
Policy recommendations:
-
1
Prioritise station upgrades to resolve bottlenecks: Station upgrades should take priority when they are the main cause of congestion. In Spain, for example, capacity issues are mainly due to constraints in some railway stations. Rail’s key advantage is the centrality of its stations, and any capacity expansion should maintain this.
-
2
Convert terminus stations into through stations where beneficial: Where reasonable, converting terminus stations can improve network flow, but capacity gain must justify the cost. Malmö city tunnel enhanced commuter and long distance rail services for €1 billion, while Stuttgart 21, at €12 Billion, faces delays. Capacity gains in the latter are expected to be limited due to the closure of the existing surface station and design issues suggest future service demand may require a second underground station.
-
3
Build short connecting lines to ease congestion: Small-scale solutions, like France’s Massy barreau, can increase high speed line connectivity while improving commuter rail services at a low cost.
-
4
Optimise existing lines before expanding: When a line has reached capacity, upgrading signalling systems and standardising speeds should be considered before adding new tracks or building an entirely new line. EU funding should focus on new tracks or lines that substantially improve freight and passenger services.
-
5
Maximise rail use in underutilised networks: Countries with surplus capacity should implement country-specific policy measures to encourage greater use of the rail. These could include applying the polluter pays principle to their fiscal policies and the promotion of competition.
3.4 Boost electrification
Many European countries are close to achieving full electrification, but a clear east-west divide remains, which is not as evident when examining network capacity. Since electrification is not essential, it can be lower in the priority list for member states with limited investment capacity, provided they invest in zero emission rolling stock such as battery electric trains for non-electrified lines.
There are some exceptions, however, such as Denmark with low electrification and Bulgaria with high electrification. Only 10 out of 27 EU countries have an electrification share above 60%.
Policy recommendations:
-
1
Advance electrification for seamless rail travel: Countries should aim to electrify most of their network to enable easy travel across Europe, but those with high electrification levels should focus on other investments
-
2
Support energy storage solutions, such as battery-electric trains: These alternatives should continue to be developed for lines where full electrification is not justified from a socioeconomic point of view.
-
3
Use 25 kV AC for new electrification where possible: This system offers low energy consumption, fewer substations and higher capacity, which is why it is mandatory for high-speed rail. However, it also requires longer maintenance windows, which makes it less suitable for busy commuter networks. Member states should re-electrify key cross-border routes at 25 kV when there is considerable cross-border potential. A migratable catenary could be used for a smooth transition as in the Brussels-Luxembourg case.
-
4
Allow exceptions for commuter networks: In cases where cross-border travel is unlikely and repurposing large rolling stock fleets would be costly, maintaining existing systems should be considered.
3.5 Track gauge conversion
The majority of Europe uses standard gauge, with a width of 1435 mm, but some peripheral countries have a broader gauge. Ukraine, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia use tracks of approximately 1520 mm due to historic ties to Russia. Ireland operates on a 1600 mm gauge, while Spain and Portugal use the Iberian gauge of 1688 mm. Many of these countries have begun converting parts of their network to standard gauge or are constructing new lines with it. However, the transition is expected to be complex and will require careful planning.
Overhauling thousands of kilometres of railway tracks is a complex task. In 2020, Ukraine alone had nearly 20,000 km of broad gauge railway. Such large-scale works will inevitably disrupt existing services, potentially weakening connections and pushing passengers towards more polluting transport modes. Careful management of the conversion process if therefore essential.
Under the TEN-T regulation, member states must submit a plan by 19 July 2026, including a socio-economic cost-benefit analysis assessing the viability of transitioning to standard gauge. This plan must be coordinated with neighbouring member states for cross-border sections and evaluate both positive and negative impacts on interoperability within and beyond the country making the transition.
Policy recommendations:
-
1
Make the best use of available integration solutions: Countries should take advantage of solutions like mixed gauge changers for track integration. However, these solutions should not be permanent due to their high maintenance costs and impact on train speeds. The Commission’s tight deadlines make it difficult for many countries, especially those without experience in high-traffic line conversions, to make fully informed decisions.
-
2
Balance urgency with proper planning: Countries where broad gauge is dominant and cost-benefit analyses are positive must immediately begin preparing their infrastructure for future conversion. This can be done by using polyvalent sleepers for both new and upgraded lines, reducing migration costs and time.
-
3
Ensure all infrastructure elements are adaptable: To guarantee smooth operations, all infrastructure components - such as sidings - must also be polyvalent. Flexibility is key to avoiding costly delays.
-
4
Provide member states with adequate time and support: The Commission must show flexibility and allow sufficient time and resources for proper planning. A revision in 2030 would ensure that plans accurately reflect real-world conditions.
3.6 New high-speed lines
High-speed networks have been designed in isolation. Despite Spain and France bordering each other and representing a large proportion of the EU’s high speed network, connections between the two countries are limited and underutilised, even with existing cross-border infrastructure. This illustrates how poor planning and coordination can reduce the effectiveness of cross border high-speed infrastructure, especially when it’s not well connected to the rest of the network.
While countries like Germany and Italy present a low percentage of dedicated high-speed lines, both have a large absolute number of high-speed services. Some countries, such as Sweden and Austria, have infrastructure that supports high-speed rail, but their rolling stock is not reaching those speeds yet. Denmark faces a similar situation, despite being counted as having dedicated high-speed lines in the Eurostat data, whereas Sweden and Austria are not. Central and Eastern Europe has yet to see high-speed rail. Poland and the Czech Republic are ready to build out their networks and the EU should provide support via Cohesion funding to assist with the development of these networks.
-
1
Prioritise high-speed links in Central and Eastern European key cross-border connections: Western European countries like Spain and Italy have already benefited from EU funding for high-speed rail. Now, Central and Eastern European countries should have the same opportunity.
-
2
Focus EU funds on strategic TEN-T links: While the TEN-T does not include the obligation to build high-speed lines, it is the basis for EU funding for cross-border links. Only projects in the core and extended core TEN-T networks should receive EU funding to maximise European connectivity.
-
3
Lower co-funding rates for national focused sections: Sections on a long cross-border line between a capital and a mid-sized city will generally have a higher national interest than those between that mid-sized city and the border, where less traffic is expected. Co-funding rates should be adjusted in order to minimise the risk of member states deprioritising cross-border sections, except for countries under the Cohesion framework.
-
4
Reevaluate comprehensive network projects in the next TEN-T revision: Some projects, like a second Paris-Lyon high-speed link, were planned for congestion scenarios that are no longer relevant. With ERTMS Level 2 increasing capacity, this project has been frozen. The Commission should avoid funding studies for outdated projects.
Final recommendations:
-
Make ERTMS happen: The EU should increase its financial support for ERTMS to better incentivise faster deployment by member states and promote a more standardised rollout.
-
Make 160 km/h the new standard for conventional rail: Member states should make rail competitive beyond the main urban nodes and high-speed rail projects by increasing line speeds.
-
Increase capacity and add new tracks only where necessary: New tracks should be added selectively, focusing on bottlenecks and areas with strong potential for increased or improved services.
-
Electrify in a smart way: All lines with sufficient service levels to offset higher maintenance costs should be electrified, with priority given to missing links.
-
Plan for a track gauge conversion in a phased manner: Rushing towards a unified gauge for Europe could put many rail lines, including cross-border ones, at risk.
-
Targeted EU funding for select high-speed lines: EU funding should focus on TEN-T lines, prioritising cross-border links, densely populated routes and Cohesion countries.
