EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

France under fire over rail merger proposal

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 06 November 2012

France’s plan to merge its railway and infrastructure operations has drawn criticism and a call for the European Commission to block the move.

Efforts to merge the state-run SNCF railway and the RFF infrastructure company comes as the Commission finalises its Fourth Railway Package that is expected to focus on further “unbundling” the management of infrastructure from passenger and cargo operations.

But Tony Berkeley, a member of the British House of Lords who is director of the European Rail Freight Association, said the Paris proposal defied EU laws on creating an integrated, competitive market for passenger and cargo rail.

Competitors “are never going to get fair treatment as long as the infrastructure operator has a corporate relationship with the rail service operator,” Lord Berkeley told EurActiv in a telephone interview.

In a letter sent to the Commission yesterday (5 November), Lord Berkeley said: “Other train operators suffer badly from unfair train path allocation and general obstruction by SNCF in France in the development of new services and in the efficient functioning of existing ones.”

Lord Berkeley said he hoped the letter would ensure that the “Fourth Railway Package is completely bomb-proof against the member states” seeking to protect national rail companies.

Frederic Cuvillier, the French Transport Minister announced plans on 30 October to restructure SNCF and RFF, which owns the national rail network, into a single operation.

SNCF was broken up in 1997 to end the monopoly of national freight and passenger carriers and introduce European-wide competition.

Cuvillier said the current system was dysfunctional and financially unsustainable. He said he was confident that the EU executive would support the plan, telling the daily Le Monde that Paris was not attempting to exclude competition and offered guarantees of “equal access to rail resources to all operators.”

Pressure on the European Commission

SNCF and Deutsche Bahn, the German rail company, have both pressed European policymakers not to force companies to separate rail infrastructure and operations, citing a spotty record of such efforts in the past 20 years.

Last month, the two companies released a report questioning the efficiency of separate operations, arguing that in countries with integrated rail operations – including the United States, Canada and Japan – there has been steady growth in investment and passenger or cargo traffic in contrast to the sluggish European market.

“The results show that integrated management of infrastructure and train operations is not an obstacle to improving a railroad’s efficiency and performance,” said Andreas Schwilling, a partner at the Roland Berger Strategy Consultants in Munich, which conducted the study, released on 15 October.

The German-French position gained strength when the European Court of Justice, in a preliminary ruling, upheld the German model over Commission objections that it violated legal provisions for independent infrastructure management.

There was no immediate comment from the Commission to the French proposal nor to Lord Berkeley’s letter to Commission President José Manuel Barroso, which was also released to journalists.

Commission acquiescence to allowing operations and infrastructure under a single roof is far from certain.

Fourth Railway Package forthcoming

The Commission is working on its fourth Railway Package since 2001 with the aim to further liberalise networks, citing rail’s low market shares of about 7% for freight and 12% for passenger services. (Read our LinksDossier on Europe's Rails: A bumpy ride to a single market)

The package is to be presented by the end of 2012 and is expected to focus on further “unbundling” the management of infrastructure from passenger and cargo operations, and further opening the door to competition in national markets.

Positions: 

Brian Simpson (UK), chairman of the European Parliament's transport committee, told the Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies, or CER, on 5 November: "Here we are on the Fourth Railway Package and we just finished adopting the recast of the First Railway Package. So we need the railway industry to get a little more TGV and a little less local stop train." 

A report issued for the CER on 5 November highlights three points on restructuring:

report issued for the CER on 5 November highlights three points on restructuring:

  • "We find no evidence that vertical separation increases competition compared with a holding company model and likewise none that such increased competition would reduce costs. Nor do we find any evidence that vertical separation improves rail's modal share compared with a holding company model (although it does improve passenger market share when combined with market opening compared with vertical integration). For freight, there is no evidence that if it did increase competition, this would improve market share."
  • "A decision to impose vertical separation throughout Europe would raise costs by at least €5.8 billion [per] year for no accompanying benefits ..."
  • "Our overall conclusion must therefore be that there is no evidence to support implementation of a single structure on all railways regardless of their circumstances."

“We are far from having a single European area,” Transportation Commissioner Siim Kallas told a railway conference at the European Economic and Social Committee in September.

“We still languish in the 19th century,” he said, visibly frustrated by progress in Europe’s oldest mechanised mode of land transport. … Let’s be clear, a return to the integrated structures we had 20 years ago cannot be regarded as a realistic way forward.”

Next steps: 
  • By end of 2012: Fourth railway package, which is likely to focus on further opening domestic markets to competition and harmonising regulation under the European Railway Agency (ERA).
Timothy Spence

COMMENTS

  • Where's the evidence that separating infrastructure from passenger transportation/freight brings benefits? If one looks at the British example, I'd say that it rather leads to the opposite...

    By :
    Fab
    - Posted on :
    06/11/2012
  • Fab is correct in his point.
    We just need to look back to when the Great British Railway system was the standard for the world.
    Compare it with the Current system and the French system and I know where we would rather be.
    Viva le Francais or indeed almost any other European system. How did we manage to make such a Horlicks of it?

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    06/11/2012
  • For some reason some people keep on referring to the UK to kill any debate on rail liberalisation. The UK is a clear example of how liberalisation went wrong because it was poorly planned and executed. Instead one should look at Sweden where liberalisation has lead to one of the most modern, efficient and reliable railway systems in Europe. Rail liberalisation is only a means to an end - to improve quality of service, reliability and efficiency for passengers and freight traffic - and should be adapted to local requirements and needs. But merely rejecting the idea of competition is exactly the kind of attitude that is preventing the railway industry to enter the 21st century as an efficient means of transportation across Europe.

    By :
    Ryfusz
    - Posted on :
    07/11/2012
  • @ Ryfusz

    The UK should be used as a degree course in University to teach potential Rail planners the absolute way not to do things. From Dr Beeching in the 60's ripping up lines and closing stations that nowadays we would give our right arm for to the most expensive fares in Europe. You will know the story so please tell me where in Europe there is a successful Rail service which is not subsidised in some way by the Tax payer.

    My point is that the Railways are an essential part of public transport which can only be successful if subsidised by the taxpayer. If you then add in the Private sector who want to make a profit then the Public gets ripped off.

    I would be surprised if Swedish railways is not based on some socialist model.

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    07/11/2012
  • @ George MC
    Railway liberalisation does not mean that no more taxpayers money should be spent on rail. It means that private operators should have a chance to compete with incumbent public operators (and against themselves) to offer a particular type of service, and subject to a contractual agreement between the state and the operator. The profit is not generated by higher fares and ripping off the Public but by delivering a better product to the consumer through innovation and efficiency. Taxpayers money should be used through Public Service Obligations (PSOs) to plug the gaps, something the state would be doing anyway. This is exactly how it's done in Sweden and it works quite well.

    Any liberalisation must be carefully designed, but the absence of the competitive drive is the reason why many national railways are so sclerotic and underperforming today, only caring about themselves and not the passengers - and this is what it is all about.

    Other modes of transport (and services-at-large) are run well by private operators and it remains a mistery to me why railways are any different.

    By :
    Ryfusz
    - Posted on :
    07/11/2012
  • @Ryfusz
    Are there examples, maybe from Sweden, of better rail products that private companies competing with the national operators have brought to rail passengers ?

    Furthermore is there evidence that if privatisation works in one transport sector, it will work in another ? Air, road, sea and rail are all significantly different, so I strongly doubt it would.

    It does seem to me that ideology is the main driver for the privatisation of the rail sector.

    By :
    fab
    - Posted on :
    08/11/2012
  • @fab
    There are many examples across the globe where railway lines or railway services are operated privately, mostly through tender, and quite a few of them work well. As mentioned before, key here is choosing the right model.

    Unfortunately there are plenty of examples today of state railway monopolies that are costly and dysfunctional. Despite all political efforts there are no signs that these state rail monopolies are willing to do something about it without being forced to by outside pressure.

    All modes are transport are different, but this argument should not be used to advocate the status quo and not addressing the problem.

    The pertinant refusal to reform and improve the system so that passengers and freight can move within and beyond member states borders efficiently, that is ideology.

    By :
    Ryfusz
    - Posted on :
    08/11/2012
  • @ Ryfusz

    Okay what you are say is correct as far as it goes but what fab says is also true.

    It therefore comes down to you backing up you words by giving us some verifiable examples. Tell us where in the developed world there are 'national' examples of successful privately run rail services. Not just a single busy line that has been cherry picked.

    I took a look at the Wikipedia entry for Swedish Railways and didn't find anything to back up your claims.

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    08/11/2012
  • @ George Mc
    Well, several major markets outside the EU (eg US/Canada, Russia, China) allow for some sort of private rail activities or joint ventures to allow private capital to enter the market (that also qualifies as privatisation). With respect to your Wikipedia point: please look again under 'operators'. You can't miss it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Sweden

    I can only repeat what I have said earlier, which is that most fully public rail enterprises are underperforming, have few insentives to improve the quality of services (put the consumers first and not their own interests) and the only way to address this point is to allow private actors to enter the business in a way that it makes sense (to allow for cherry picking is how it should not be done). Liberalisation should not be a goal but a trigger to get it right.

    By :
    Ryfusz
    - Posted on :
    08/11/2012
  • @Ryfusz
    Sorry but USA is another bad example for railway. Aside from freight the system is barely used for passenger. Try to go from the west coast to the east coast by train... they don't even have high speed trains (except onr line, I believe, between Boston and DC)!

    A clear and undeniable improvement of the rail industry has been the high speed train. Both in Japan and France such dramatic improvement was done under state-owned railway.

    So again, can you mention a key improvement that privatisation has brought for travellers ?

    The money potentially lost in "inefficiencies" of the state owned railway will be wasted by private companies in advertisement in their competition...

    I'm sorry to say the case is not clear at all that private railway will be the trigger for and improved system. At least you have not yet convinced me.

    By :
    Fab
    - Posted on :
    08/11/2012
  • @ Ryfusz

    Are you serious, Russia and China? I don't think that the Russian service will have the Swiss, French, Germans or Japanese looking over their shoulders for efficiency. China I have read has an excellent rail system recently built on the back of their new economic success. However, be under no illusion the State paid for that, regardless of how it is dressed up.

    George Mc

    By :
    George Mc
    - Posted on :
    08/11/2012
  • Here in the Netherlands there is a constant stream of complaints about our separate system too and many politicians would like to reunite infrastructure and transport.

    Whenever there are problems the two parties point to each other. In the past when some rail switch was stuck the train staff could often solve it but nowadays they have to wait for someone from the infrastructure company who has to arrive by car. The problem is even worse when due to bad weather there are a lot of problems to solve at once. Due to cost cutting the infrastructure company is hugely understaffed for such situations and the usual result is that train service is drastically cut.

    By :
    Wim
    - Posted on :
    09/11/2012
  • in the united states, though trains did a big role in unifying the country, it is very well know that the rail was killed by oil companies Just pay a visit California where oil companies thbought the old rain tracks to let them rot away.
    Europe has much bigger things to do than play the old recipes (liberalise, privatise). If something has happened in EUropean transportation, it is the TGV. Otherwise, "big oil" has won all over and motorways keep being built everywhere. Our motorways are just lanes for lorries more and more...
    it is a big European failure

    By :
    Catherine v
    - Posted on :
    18/11/2012
Background: 

Approaches to rail liberalisation and unbundling – separating infrastructure rail services – vary across the 25 EU countries that have railway services (Cyprus and Malta do not).

Britain moved swiftly in the 1990s to separate infrastructure operations from rail services, while breaking up the old British Rail system to allow private competition. It met sketchy success.

The Netherlands, Poland, Spain and several other countries have followed similar paths as Britain, severing infrastructure from operations with varying levels of public or independent oversight.

Austria, the Czech Republic and France operate under a holding company model similar to Germany’s.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Sponsors

Videos

Video General News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Transport Promoted videos

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising