As such, TRIPP could not only provide some welcome redundancy and diversification, but also speed up transportation on the Middle Corridor. That might make the China-Europe route more attractive compared to the Northern Route through Russia or maritime routes.

Raw materials

At the same time, the EU highlights the importance of such infrastructure for its own economic security. For example, Türkiye, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan are among the EU’s main global suppliers of borates, phosphorus, and antimony. These resources are used in industrial applications.

“Enhanced connectivity could strengthen EU–Central Asia resource linkages, helping reduce dependency on single suppliers, integrate regional producers into EU value chains, and foster balanced, sustainable growth across the region”, the EU writes.

The Union adds that additional investment in feeder lines to access resources could “substantially enhance” the EU’s access to critical raw materials.

Two decades of stagnation

In 1995, around 49 million tonnes of goods entered or left Switzerland and roughly half of it was moved by trucks, with 20% travelling on rail and 15% each for inland shipping and pipelines. By 2024, the total number of tonnes has grown to 64,5 million, with a peak of 73 million in 2017.

However, the share of rail and inland shipping dropped to 13% and 8% respectively, while pipeline transport fell to 11%. On the other hand, road freight kept capturing volumes, going from 50% to 67% of the total moved. This modal split has remained somewhat stable since the mid-2000s, highlighting the stagnation of the non-road modalities.

Mega-projects not contributing

The decline and stagnation of rail freight has become a very European trend, despite pledges of policies aimed at the exact opposite (Green Deal, Greening Freight Package, etc…). The fact that it has also been happening in Switzerland, a country that showed real commitment to rail freight in recent times, reveals a systemic problem that does not only occur because of infrastructure constraints.

Even mega-projects which promised a significant modal shift to rail are not contributing as much as expected. Remaining in Switzerland, the Lotschberg and Gotthard Base Tunnels were opened in 2007 and 2016, creating an improved rail infrastructure meant to make transalpine rail freight more attractive. However, the data clearly shows that trucks have by far remained the preferred mode of transport.

Who’s to blame?

Inverting this trend seems to be an impossible task for Europe. On the contrary, it is getting worse each year, even in the Helvetic Federation. Here, in 2024, rail freight recorded its worst performance since 2009. According to some Swiss politicians, most of the blame is to be assigned to the European Union and its somewhat loose approach.

Years of talks, meetings and studies have not brought significant positive changes in the EU. Policies often remain on a voluntary basis for Member States, which often translates to them not being adopted on a large scale, further highlighting the fragmentation and stagnation of the sector. And the problem is that this attitude seems to be here to stay, as the EU remains reluctant to enforce initiatives for a greener supply chain.

“For the first time in modern history, we built a 22-kilometre long section of the 1435-millimetre European standard [gauge] from scratch between Chop and Uzhhorod”, explained the Deputy Prime Minister for the Reconstruction of Ukraine and Minister of Community and Territorial Development Oleksiy Kuleba. “Thanks to this, Uzhhorod became the first regional center to receive a direct rail connection with the European Union.”

UZ sees the project as an important step in the development of the standard gauge railway network in Ukraine. The company aims to speed up that development in the future. “Already in 2026 we plan to electrify this section and begin construction of the Eurotrack in the direction of Lviv, which we intend to complete within 2–3 years”, Oleksandr Pertsovsky, UZ’s board chairman said.

Vital artery for the economy

“Ukrainian railway workers impressed European partners with this project – despite the war, we managed to implement it ahead of schedule. With such work, Ukrainians have proven that they are ready to implement even more ambitious European integration projects, and the invested funds are quickly converted into tangible results for people”, Pertsovsky added.

The Chop – Uzhhorod railway was co-financed by the EU through the Connecting Europe Facility and the European Investment Bank (EIB), both providing half of the funds. “This is a historic step on the path to integration with the EU. Especially in wartime, when the railway is a vital artery for the economy and for Ukrainians, strengthening these transport links is more important than ever”, EIB Vice-President Tereza Czerwinska commented on the project.

The project amounted to 28,6 million euros, covering the construction of the tracks from Chop station to Uzhhorod station, as well as the modernisation of the signalling, communication, radio, and microprocessor-based centralised control system, with the aim to increase capacity and improve the safety of rail operators.

Consequently, CER calls for investments in port rail infrastructure, including 740-metre loading tracks, digitalised track management and direct ship-to-rail transfer facilities. Moreover, CER argues that rail planning should accompany port expansions, so that future bottlenecks can be avoided.

Hinterland and corridors

An important aspect of using ports to their full potential is having solid hinterland connections. For that reason, the European rail community calls for an accelerated implementation of the European Transport Corridors, as well as expanded rail-road terminal infrastructure along those routes.

However, these corridors also extend beyond the EU’s borders, and so cooperation with non-Member States is also desired, says CER. “Some strategically relevant ports, either outside EU territory or with access routes through non-EU countries are crucial for European Transport Corridors. The EU should enhance coordination with these third countries and provide significant infrastructure funding to improve rail transport flows to and from these key ports.”

Türkiye and Greece

CER highlights the Turkish Tekirdağ port, as well as Greece’s Thessaloniki and Piraeus ports as examples. Tekirdağ links up to the Western Balkans – Eastern Mediterranean and Baltic Sea – Black Sea – Aegean Sea corridor. The Greek ports provide hinterland connectivity through North Macedonia and Serbia, but coordination is a necessity to make use of those rail access routes.

Lastly, CER wants to reduce costs for rail incurred in ports by improving competition and providing targeted operating aid, for example for shunting and transshipment. The organisation also wants a revision of the Combined Transport Directive to boost the modal shift towards intermodal operations.

An ENS contains safety and security information about the transported goods, containing a complete commercial description, an HS6 digit commodity code, and additional details of the involved parties, such as the buyer and seller.

Deadlines

The new requirement to submit ENS’s to ICS2 for rail imports goes into effect ahead of the phasing out of ICS1. Its successor ICS2 will, in principle, be mandated from 1 April 2025 for rail carriers, and ICS1 will be phased out entirely by 1 September. Businesses that were unable to make the 1 April deadline were encouraged to apply for an extended deployment window at the National Service Desk of the EU Member state where they are registered and have obtained their EORI number by 1 March.

To understand what’s at stake, the CEF is the EU’s primary tool for funding transport, energy, and digital infrastructure, and is divided into those three sectors. Since 2014, it has allocated 37.5 billion euros to over 1,500 transport projects, with rail receiving a major share. In 2023 alone, rail projects secured 5.7 billion euros, making up 80 per cent of the total 7 billion euros awarded under CEF Transport.

Without CEF, major rail projects like Rail Baltica – set to integrate the Baltic States into the European network – may never have materialised; it has already received 2.6 billion euros in EU funding via the mechanism. Similarly, 5.5 billion euros from CEF has been allocated for the Lyon–Turin Railway, a 57.5-kilometre base tunnel connecting France and Italy under the Alps.

Without dedicated EU transport funding, such long-term, cross-border rail projects may struggle to get off the ground. That includes Europe’s costly ERTMS rollout. More immediately, scrapping CEF could delay or even cancel ongoing rail projects, upending EU governments’ infrastructure plans and the Commission’s commitments to sustainable transport. So, how real is the threat of CEF disappearing?

The devil is in the detail

According to RailTech’s sources, there is a real possibility that CEF, as well as a range of other funding programmes across the entire EU budget, may be discontinued. While such a massive decision would have to first be signed off by the European Parliament and the European Council, the EU’s executive is apparently already looking to significantly adapt its budget amid the current tectonic shift in global politics.

The idea is that funding programmes like the CEF could be terminated in favour of simplifying such schemes into one larger investment mechanism – an EU Competitiveness Fund in this case. Those familiar with the potential plans say that such an approach could have some benefits for the rail industry; such a mechanism would include tech and digital projects that would obviously benefit rolling stock and rail infrastructure.

However, the broader transport industry, according to our sources, is concerned that removing dedicated investment for the sector will mean a less focused and more haphazard application of funds for an industry that desperately needs clear, long-term funding timelines to realise major infrastructure projects, especially when it comes to those spanning multiple borders. And it appears they are not alone.

EU leaders hit back at CEF shake-up

While nothing has been finalised yet, the signals from the Commission have been enough to get national governments, European transport representatives, and the rail industry to group together and sound the alarm bell. And while there aren’t many direct references to the potential death of CEF, it’s clear what they are alluding to.

Yesterday, for example, the Prime Ministers and Presidents of Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Czechia wrote an open letter to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen expressing their concerns about the future of funding for EU rail projects. In the document, the leaders praised Brussels’ recent rail investments and reaffirmed their commitment to cross-border connectivity through the Trans-European Transport (TEN-T) Policy and European Transport Corridors. They also backed the new EU Transport Commissioner Apostolos Tzitzikostas’s high-speed rail action plan and the importance of rail funding as highlighted in recent reports by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi on EU competitiveness.

But they go on to warn that achieving these goals requires sufficient financial resources and new funding instruments, such as bridge financing. “We are exploring alternative financing methods and rely on strong support from the European Investment Bank. However, and without pre-empting the next Multiannual Financial Framework [the EU’s long-term budget], we would like to underline that EU co-financing of those connections in the next financial period is absolutely essential and indispensable.”

Essentially, Europe’s leaders are arguing that avoiding overly strict application processes and rules – as is the case in some wider EU funding mechanisms like the Resilience and Recovery Fund – is crucial for keeping major rail projects on schedule. The same goes for coordinating and synchronising timelines among different states. Perhaps the key point in the letter is when the leaders “strongly advocate” for a “robust, centrally managed CEF” with “increased financial ambition” to keep Europe’s high-speed network on track.

It’s almost as though a dedicated transport fund were on the line.

Transport companies slam Commission overtures

A recent open letter written by the biggest players in the European transport industry to the EU councils that handle policy and budget coordination expresses similar sentiments. The document says that Europe’s transport sector is “the backbone” of the EU market and a “prerequisite” for building a competitive Europe. Stating that the transport sector is “deeply concerned” about plans to redirect “a large majority” of European transport funding towards National Single Plans, it goes on to call on EU Finance Ministers to send a strong signal to the Commission in favour of preserving “a solid, dedicated” transport fund.

Rather than shifting to an approach “where national priorities may prevail, it is more important than ever for Europe to maintain a coordinated and centrally managed investment instrument… Especially in uncertain times, Europe cannot afford to move towards less connectivity, less internal cohesion, and less European integration. Therefore, the transport sector urges the Member States and the Commission to… avoid jeopardising the future and competitiveness of Europe’s transport network.”

UNIFE, which represents Europe’s rail manufacturers and suppliers, was perhaps the closest to pointing out the elephant in the room. Reporting on a recent meeting of Rail Forum Europe – a group of MEPs who support the rail sector – it said: “With key changes to budgetary processes and funding pots expected – such as the discontinuation of dedicated rail funding through the potential termination of the Connecting Europe Facility – Parliamentarians expressed concern about the future of reliable and consistent rail funding.”

Has the Commission confirmed plans to terminate CEF?

All this goes to show an uncommonly united front from national leaders, rail companies, and the wider transport community against such a potential shift in how the EU funds the industry. So, if the move is so unpopular, why is the EU considering it?

When RailTech asked the EU executive whether it was considering terminating CEF, it said the Commission couldn’t offer any more information on the issue at the moment. However, it did direct us to a notice that it is launching a public consultation “inviting stakeholders and citizens to have their say on the future EU budget and the policies it should support.”

The 🇪🇺 budget benefits all Europeans.
Europeans should have a say in it.

Today, we set the road to the next long-term budget starting in 2028.

As new challenges and expectations emerge, we must make it fit for the future.

Let’s do it together ↓ #haveyoursay

— European Commission (@EU_Commission) February 12, 2025

The consultation concerns the Commission’s latest communiqué on its potential future funding structure, The Road to the next Multiannual Financial Framework, which outlines the key policy and budgetary challenges that will shape the EU’s long-term budget “to evolving needs and priorities.”

“The expectations from the EU to act are steadily increasing,” the Commission says in its notice. “For the EU budget to be fit for our ambitions… we need to introduce new resources. The status quo is not an option. Choices need to be made. The EU must maximise the impact of every euro it spends.”

According to the executive, that means creating an investment mechanism that is “simpler, more flexible, more targeted and impactful.” It expressly references that the new budget “should include a plan for each country with key reforms and investments, designed and implemented in partnership with national, regional, and local authorities.” All this has the air of a Commission that is keen to cut down on sector-specific funding, focus on national funding, at the same time as creating a wider, ‘simpler’ funding mechanism.

All in on a wider EU Competitiveness Fund

And apparently this has been the tone from the EU executive during talks with major stakeholders, according to RailTech’s sources. There is indeed a general push to go all in on a wider EU Competitiveness Fund. However, it will likely remain unclear how such a mechanism would work until July when the Commission is expected to present its formal proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework.

As RailTech’s sources point out, the death of CEF may not even materialise considering the current hostility towards the plans. However, a rail policy official from the EU’s executive let slip recently that wider rail funding could be pulled in the coming years if the bloc has to divert funding, for example, to defence spending; “Don’t rely on us,” was the message. And faced with a selectively isolationist Donald Trump leading the US, such a shift may indeed be a necessity.

Whichever way the Commission decides to go, a major reshuffle of how the EU funds rail is clearly in the offing, with the future of CEF on the line. But for now, it looks like dedicated investment in Europe’s tracks could be a major casualty in the bloc’s looming long-term budget.

This article was originally published on our sister publication RailTech.com

The letter was signed by 45 European transport organisations, including ESPO (which was among the first ones to sound the alarm) ERFA, UIRR, UNIFE, ETF, UIP and the Interregional Alliance for the Rhine-Alpine Corridor. The 45 signatories are highlighting the importance of an “EU budget that is more flexible and agile, yet requires a long-term strategic and stable investment planning with centralised coordination at European level.”

Consequently, the signatories are asking “the General Affairs and Finance Ministers of the Member States to give a strong signal towards the Commission in favour of preserving a solid dedicated European transport funding instrument”. For example, the future of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), one of the main funding mechanisms for rail infrastructure in Europe, remains uncertain.

Cross-border projects might be in danger

The ‘death’ of CEF could have a negative impact on projects crossing borders, as member states might decide to invest in initiatives of national importance rather than international ones. The signatories are thus urging “Member States and the Commission to choose for an approach that strengthens Europe, to preserve a strong and centrally coordinated dedicated European transport funding instrument that prioritises investments of high European added value, and to refrain from jeopardising the future and competitiveness of Europe’s transport network.”

The EU’s RRF, a 723.8 billion euros fund launched in 2021, has so far provided up to 650 billion euros in grants and low-interest loans to support economic recovery, sustainability, and digital transition across the bloc following the pandemic. A significant portion of these funds – more than half of the 87 billion euros allocated to sustainable mobility – has been directed towards railway projects at both urban and mainline levels.

All EU states have capitalised on these funds in some form or other, with many successfully doing so to boost their national rail networks; Italy, for example, has used the money to plan a massive 29 billion euros in different rail upgrades. That’s included investing big sums in high-speed rail, new rolling stock, and its ERTMS rollout, which together is essentially reviving the fortunes of their network. Meanwhile, Spain, France and Romania have all used more than 4.5 billion euros each to boost their rail infrastructure, digitalise their networks and modernise their fleets.

Race against time for EU rail investment

However, UNIFE warns that many member states are at risk of letting these funds slip through their fingers due to the slow progress of their rail projects or the difficulties of the bureaucratic hurdles they face. The August 2026 deadline for EU nations to submit payment requests to the European Commission is fast approaching. Essentially, to secure funding, national governments must complete all milestones and targets associated with their RRF-supported rail projects by next year. If they don’t, any unused RRF funds will expire after the deadline.

That means many bloc members will be unable to finance pending rail schemes, potentially causing serious delays and, at worst, cancellations of major projects, as they have to reach into their own national budgets to finalise huge transport investments.

The problem here is that the long implementation cycles inherent to rail projects – ranging from the years of planning, construction, and regulatory approval needed for high-speed infrastructure all the way to the extended timeline for rolling stock upgrades – make meeting the EU’s deadlines particularly challenging. UNIFE says it has alerted the Commission to these difficulties, and while extending the 2026 deadline does bring legal and political complexities, Brussels is apparently willing to support member states in amending the milestones and targets of some rail projects to reflect these longer cycles.

‘Shovel-ready’

“With the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the European Commission is aiming at turning a crisis into a generational opportunity to boost European mobility and innovation,” UNIFE Director General Enno Wiebe said in a statement on Thursday. “Many of these funds could go towards creating jobs on ‘shovel-ready’ rail projects, fleet renewals, boosting the ERTMS roll-out, improving and greening urban mobility and advancing on the completion of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T).”

However, “many EU member states have budget concerns, and we want to insist on the need of not missing this historic opportunity to invest in rail.” UNIFE is essentially pushing the Commission to offer greater flexibility and apparently, it is already working with member states to adjust certain project criteria in order to help them access funds.

The future of EU rail funding

As for the future of funding for rail, the EU is preparing its next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Policymakers are set to introduce a ‘performance-based funding method’ across various EU funding programmes, including the rail sector – meaning that securing cash will likely become much more challenging. Indeed, UNIFE has said that unless future rail projects are considered with achievable and appropriate schedules, they may struggle to secure financial backing under these new rules.

“The application of the RRF performance-based method will be the rule across different EU funding programmes,” Wiebe emphasised. “We need to make sure that rail projects are given sufficient and realistic timelines to be able to benefit from EU funding.”

As for what happens before the change in the funding mechanism, UNIFE says that it “stands ready” to continue engaging with the Commission and other relevant stakeholders in order to address these shortcomings. And for member states, UNIFE’s message, while implicit, is clear: ensure rail projects have realistic timelines, engage with the Commission to adjust milestones if needed, and move swiftly to complete all necessary targets before August 2026 – before EU funds for rail start to dry up.

This article was originally published on our sister publication RailTech.com

The ENS contains safety and security information about the transported goods, containing a complete commercial description, an HS6 digit commodity code, and additional details of the involved parties, such as the buyer and seller.

Safety and security

The EU explains that the ENS “enables customs authorities to better assess the risks associated with incoming goods, thereby improving the EU’s ability to prevent and combat customs offenses, and ultimately ensuring a safer and more secure trade environment.”

The requirement applies not only to imports, but also goods being transported through the EU. The obligation also extends to postal and express carriers. In some instances, final consignees in the EU will also need to submit ENS data to ICS2.

Economic operators that will not be ready by April 2025 need to contact the National Service Desk of the EU Member state where they are registered and have obtained their EORI number. They can request a deployment window by 1 March 2025. The European Commission organises monthly webinars to aid businesses in adapting to ICS2 requirements, with the next webinar taking place on 5 February.

The association says that the CT community can deliver up to 20 per cent with the assets it already has. To make that happen, European policymakers need to change the existing regulatory framework.

“This includes incorporating the currently externalised costs of infrastructure, congestion, accidents, pollution, noise and greenhouse gas emissions”, explains UIRR. “Once these adjustments are made, door-to-door Combined Transport will be ready to serve as the backbone of European freight logistics.”

Five measures

In short, UIRR is calling for five concrete measures to be taken: The EU needs to open legislative dossiers, such as the new Railway Infrastructure Capacity Management Regulation. It also needs to revise the Combined Transport Directive, and open additional initiatives, such as the Track Access Charging Guidelines and the new CountEmissionsEU Regulation.

Secondly, it wants to correctly implement outstanding European law. This includes the new TEN-T Guidelines Regulation, “every piece of EU law aiming to internalise the current external costs of freight transport”, and the eFTI regulation.

Crisis management

Third, UIRR wants a European transport crisis management mechanism, to make the sector more resilient. It also wants an “effective and standardised European digital framework facilitating the smooth data sharing among intermodal stakeholders”.

Lastly, the CT association puts forward a number of additional expectations. It wants more organisational support from the EU’s Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE).

DAC and ERTMS

UIRR says that technological developments such as Digital Automatic Coupling (DAC) and ERTMS should “take the peculiarities of Combined Transport into account”, with an “indisputable positive indication of a targeted cost-benefit analysis taking every parameter of intermodal transport into account.” The CT association also wants carbon certificates in freight transport and a uniform European codification regime for intermodal freight transport.