The European Union has set some ambitious goals to revolutionize rail travel, aiming to double high-speed rail traffic by 2030 and triple it by 2050. This vision promises faster, greener, and more connected travel across the continent.

However, harmonizing Europe’s fragmented rail networks is a very complex challenge. While new cross-border routes installed in 2025 show progress, there are huge hurdles due to outdated infrastructure, insufficient funding, and conflicting national interests. The whole threatens to derail the lofty ambitions of a high-speed rail network.

Let’s have a look what the status of the EU railway is based on info that is readily available, and if it can handle high-speed rail.

What Can We Expect of this High-Speed Rail Network?

In Europe, a high-speed rail network is defined by specific technical and operational criteria, primarily established by the European Union (EU) and international railway organizations like the International Union of Railways (UIC).

But practically speaking, it should ensure advanced rail infrastructure and services designed for significantly faster travel compared to conventional rail. The aim is to get an efficient, sustainable, and competitive transport alternative across the continent.

Technically speaking this demands:

  1. Speed:
    • Minimum Speed: High-speed rail lines are designed for speeds of at least 250 km/h (155 mph) on dedicated tracks built specifically for high-speed travel. Some lines allow speeds up to 300–350 km/h (e.g., France’s TGV or Spain’s AVE).
    • Upgraded Lines: Existing lines upgraded for high-speed use must support speeds of at least 200 km/h (124 mph), though these are considered “high-speed compatible” rather than true high-speed lines.
  2. Infrastructure:
    • Dedicated Tracks: High-speed lines are typically purpose-built with continuous welded rails, gentle curves, and minimal gradients to accommodate high speeds safely. Examples include France’s LGV (Ligne à Grande Vitesse) and Germany’s ICE corridors.
    • Electrification: Most high-speed lines use standardized electrification systems (e.g., 25 kV AC or 15 kV AC), though variations across countries (e.g., 3 kV DC in Italy) pose interoperability challenges.
    • Advanced Signaling: The European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS), particularly ETCS Level 2, is increasingly required for seamless cross-border operations and enhanced safety at high speeds.
  3. Rolling Stock:
    • Trains are designed for high performance, with aerodynamic designs, advanced braking systems, and compatibility with ERTMS. Examples include France’s TGV, Germany’s ICE, and Italy’s Frecciarossa.
    • Trains must meet EU interoperability standards to operate across borders, addressing issues like variable track gauges (e.g., standard 1,435 mm vs. Iberian 1,668 mm in Spain).
  4. Operational Characteristics:
    • High-speed rail prioritizes passenger services, offering reduced travel times on key intercity and international routes (e.g., Paris-Brussels in ~1.5 hours).
    • Services are often integrated with conventional rail and urban transport for seamless connectivity, though national prioritization (e.g., France’s Paris-centric network) can limit this.
    • High-speed rail aims to compete with air travel for distances of 300–800 km, offering environmental benefits (rail emits ~80% less CO2 per passenger-km than flights).

The EU’s goals to double high-speed rail traffic by 2030 and triple it by 2050, as outlined in the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (2020), is basically and foremost a commitment to expanding high-speed networks to reduce carbon emissions, alleviate road congestion, and enhance connectivity.

This includes:

  • Expanding high-speed lines (e.g., Spain’s 3,600 km network, the largest in Europe in 2020).
  • Improving cross-border connections (e.g., Berlin-Amsterdam or Paris-Brussels routes launched or enhanced in 2025).
  • Promoting projects like Rail Baltica (to connect Baltic states with Western Europe) and trans-Alpine tunnels (e.g., Lyon-Turin, Brenner Base Tunnel).

But, there is an enormous gap between this vision and the reality. Once you have read this complete article, you will clearly understand that it remains to be seen if the targets outlined are realistic enough.

Challenges to Meet the Ambitious Targets

Harmonizing rail networks across the EU in order to meet the ambitious targets of doubling high-speed rail traffic by 2030 and tripling it by 2050 faces quite some challenges. While some cross-border routes have been launched in 2025, progress is uneven due to several factors:

  1. Infrastructure Gaps: Many EU countries have aging or incompatible rail systems, with differing track gauges, signaling systems, and electrification standards. Upgrading or standardizing these requires massive investment and time.
  2. Investment Shortfalls: Funding for high-speed rail projects varies widely across member states. Wealthier nations like Germany and France have advanced networks, while others, particularly in Eastern Europe, lag due to budget constraints. EU funds like the Connecting Europe Facility help, but demand often exceeds supply.
  3. Vested Interests: National rail operators and governments prioritize domestic networks over cross-border integration, protecting local industries or political agendas. Bureaucratic resistance and regulatory differences further complicate coordination.
  4. Technical and Political Hurdles: Projects like the Lyon-Turin or Brenner Base Tunnel face delays from environmental concerns, local opposition, or political shifts. For example, the Turin-Lyon high-speed rail link has been mired in disputes for decades.

There is some progress recently though. For instance there are new cross-border connections like the Berlin-Amsterdam route (improved in 2025) and plans for better Paris-Brussels links. However, major projects like Rail Baltica, which aims to connect the Baltic states with Western Europe, are way behind schedule and over budget.

Common Problems Across Europe

Europe’s rail networks, while extensive and vital for transport, face a lot of hurdles that hinder their efficiency and growth. The EU’s push for a unified, high-speed rail system is challenged by a complex web of issues that span technical, financial, and political domains.

From incompatible track gauges and costly tickets to frequent disruptions and underfunded infrastructure, these common problems create a patchwork of inefficiencies across the continent.

Compounded by a focus on national priorities and a low share of rail freight compared to global benchmarks like the US, Europe’s rail systems struggle to meet the demands of modern travel and trade.

In short, this is our ‘bucket list’ for the EU to tackle as fast as possible to get a decent high-speed rail network up and running.

  • Technical Incompatibilities: Variations in track gauge (e.g., standard vs. Iberian in Spain), electrification, and signaling (e.g., ERTMS Level 1 vs. 2) increase costs and delay cross-border services.
  • High Costs: Rail travel is often more expensive than flights, especially for high-speed and international routes.
  • Disruptions: Strikes (e.g., Italy), maintenance (e.g., Finland, Sweden), and aging infrastructure cause frequent delays.
  • Underinvestment: Eastern European countries like Bulgaria and Romania suffer from outdated infrastructure, reducing reliability.
  • National Prioritization: Countries focus on domestic networks, slowing international integration (e.g., France’s Paris-centric system).
  • Low Freight Share: Only 18% of EU cargo cargo moves by rail, compared to 38% in the US, due to cheaper road transport and maritime alternatives.

Rail Networks in Europe – Country by Country

Below is an overview of train organization in Europe, focusing on the structure of rail systems and key problems faced by various countries. Good to know, the rail systems in Europe are primarily organized at the national level, with varying degrees of privatization, public ownership, and EU-driven harmonization efforts.

The European Union pushes for interoperability and competition through directives like the Fourth Railway Package, but let’s face it, there are huge challenges due to historical, technical, and political differences.

In the below overview I’ve included only countries for which specific organizational details and problems are known.

Overview of Train Organization in Europe

European rail networks are a mix of state-owned, privatized, and hybrid systems, with national railway companies managing most operations. The EU promotes a Single European Railway Area to enhance interoperability, reduce subsidies, and boost competition, but national priorities often dominate. Key organizational aspects include:

  • Infrastructure vs. Operations: Most countries separate infrastructure management (tracks, stations) from train operations, following EU directives. Infrastructure is often state-controlled, while operations may involve private or open-access operators.
  • Subsidies: EU rail subsidies were €73 billion in 2005, varying by country. Some provide direct grants to infrastructure, others subsidize operators via public service obligations. Long-distance trains are typically unsubsidized.
  • Interoperability Challenges: Differences in track gauge, electrification, signaling, and platform heights hinder seamless cross-border travel. The European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) aims to standardize signaling but is unevenly implemented.
  • Performance: The 2017 European Railway Performance Index noted high performance in Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland, but lower value-for-money in Luxembourg, Belgium, Latvia, Slovakia, Portugal, Romania, and Bulgaria.

Country-Specific Organization and Problems

Austria

  • The ÖBB (state-owned) manages infrastructure and passenger services. It’s a leader in night trains, operating 29 lines. Open-access operators like Westbahn compete on profitable routes.
  • Problems:
    • Infrastructure Bottlenecks: High demand on key corridors (e.g., Vienna-Innsbruck) strains capacity, causing delays.
    • Cross-Border Coordination: Technical differences (e.g., signaling) with neighbors like Germany and Italy slow international services.
    • Disruption Management: Varies in efficiency compared to neighbors like Germany, with less real-time passenger communication during delays.

Belgium

  • The SNCB/NMBS (state-owned) operates passenger services, with Infrabel managing infrastructure. Known for bike-friendly services.
  • Problems:
    • Very Low Performance-to-Cost Ratio: The 2017 Railway Performance Index ranked Belgium poorly for value relative to subsidies. The network is famous for its punctuality issues, the lack of airco in a lot of trains during Summer, no wifi, no onboard services, strikes, …
    • Aging Infrastructure: Delays in upgrading tracks and stations lead to frequent disruptions. Intensive use in dense areas like Flanders slows international high-speed trains.
    • ERTMS Adoption: Predominantly uses ETCS Level 1, lagging way behind countries with Level 2 for faster, radio-based signaling.

Bulgaria

  • The BDZ (state-owned) manages rail services. International connections to Greece and Serbia are suspended, but Sofia-Istanbul resumed in 2022.
  • Problems:
    • Underinvestment: Poor infrastructure quality leads to slow and unreliable services.
    • Low Performance: Ranked among the worst for value-for-money in the 2017 Index.
    • Limited International Links: Suspended routes to neighbors limit connectivity, forcing reliance on buses not covered by rail passes.
    • ERTMS Dominance: All ERTMS-equipped lines use ETCS Level 1, less efficient than Level 2.

Croatia

  • The HŽ (state-owned) operates trains, with a seasonal Sarajevo-Ploče connection. International trains to Zagreb are suspended.
  • Problems:
    • Declining Passenger Numbers: A 2.1% drop in passengers from 2018-2019, reflecting poor service appeal.
    • Infrastructure Delays: Slow progress on modernizing tracks limits speed and reliability.
    • Limited International Connectivity: Suspended routes to Serbia and Bosnia reduce regional integration.

Czechia

  • The ČD (state-owned) dominates, with open-access operators like RegioJet competing. Dense network due to historical public transport focus.
  • Problems:
    • Technical Compatibility: Differences in signaling and electrification with neighbors complicate cross-border travel.
    • ERTMS Adoption: Fully uses ETCS Level 2, but legacy systems persist on some lines, slowing progress.
    • Capacity Issues: High-frequency schedules strain infrastructure in urban areas like Prague.

Denmark

  • The DSB (state-owned) operates most services, with high performance noted in the 2017 Index. Strong focus on passenger rail.
  • Problems:
    • Low International Freight: Only 10% of freight is international due to geographic isolation, limiting rail’s role in trade.
    • ERTMS Leadership: Fully uses ETCS Level 2, but integration with non-ERTMS neighbors causes delays.
    • Disruption Management: Effective but strained during peak times due to high passenger volumes.

Finland

  • The VR (state-owned) manages rail services. Replacement buses are common during summer 2025 maintenance.
  • Problems:
    • Maintenance Disruptions: Extensive summer 2025 works disrupt multiple lines, requiring replacement buses.
    • Geographic Challenges: Sparse population and long distances limit network density and frequency.
    • International Connectivity: Limited cross-border routes, mainly to Sweden, due to gauge differences with Russia.

France

  • The SNCF (state-owned) operates passenger services, including high-speed TGV. Infrastructure is managed by SNCF Réseau.
  • Problems:
    • High Costs: SNCF’s high-speed services (e.g., TGV) are expensive, deterring some passengers.
    • Punctuality Issues: Only 70% of long-distance trains were punctual in 2020, lagging behind Spain.
    • Centralized Network: Focus on Paris-centric high-speed lines leaves regional routes underdeveloped.
    • Gauge Issues: Variable gauge trains are used for Spain routes, but transitions are costly and complex.

Germany

  • The Deutsche Bahn (DB, state-owned) manages both infrastructure and operations, with Arriva competing in 13 countries. Open-access operators like Flixtrain offer affordable fares.
  • Problems:
    • Punctuality: Only 70% of long-distance trains were punctual in 2020, despite the largest network (38,836 km in 2022).
    • Capacity Constraints: Intensive use in regions like the Ruhr slows high-speed services.
    • Disruption Management: Inconsistent real-time updates during delays compared to Austria or Netherlands.

Greece

  • The Hellenic Railways (state-owned) operates limited services. International connections to Bulgaria and Serbia are suspended.
  • Problems:
    • Significant Decline: International transport dropped 49% from 2018-2019, reflecting poor infrastructure.
    • Underinvestment: Slow modernization limits speed and reliability.
    • High Freight Share: 99% of freight is international, but overall rail freight is low compared to maritime transport.

Italy

  • The Trenitalia (state-owned) dominates, with open-access operator NTV (Italo) competing on high-speed routes.
  • Problems:
    • Strikes: Frequent rail strikes, e.g., July 7-8, 2025, disrupt services with limited alternatives.
    • Service Quality Decline: Dropped to 1.5 in BCG’s 2017 quality rating due to delays and aging regional trains.
    • Project Delays: Mont d’Ambin Base Tunnel (France-Italy) faces environmental and political opposition, delaying cross-border integration.

Luxembourg

  • The CFL (state-owned) manages a small network with a high share (32%) of international passenger transport.
  • Problems:
    • Poor Value-for-Money: Low performance relative to subsidies in the 2017 Index.
    • High International Dependence: 85% of freight is international, but small network limits scalability.
    • ERTMS Lag: Relies entirely on ETCS Level 1, slowing cross-border efficiency.

Netherlands

  • The NS (state-owned) operates passenger services, with ProRail managing infrastructure. High international freight share (82%) due to Rotterdam’s port.
  • Problems:
    • Overcrowding: High-frequency urban routes (e.g., Amsterdam-Rotterdam) face capacity issues.
    • High Costs: NS is among the most expensive operators, reducing affordability.

Portugal

  • The CP (state-owned) manages rail services. Strong passenger growth (18.9% from 2018-2019).
  • Problems:
    • Low Performance-to-Cost: Poor value-for-money in the 2017 Index.
    • Night Train Absence: No night trains, limiting long-distance options (e.g., to France).
    • Infrastructure Investment: Slow upgrades hinder high-speed development.

Romania

  • The CFR (state-owned) operates 21 night train lines, leading night train revival.
  • Problems:
    • Low Performance: Poor value-for-money in the 2017 Index due to outdated infrastructure.
    • ERTMS Lag: Relies on ETCS Level 1, limiting efficiency.
    • Slow Modernization: Aging tracks and rolling stock cause delays and reduce reliability.

Spain

  • The Renfe (state-owned) operates passenger services, with ADIF managing infrastructure. Leads in high-speed rail (3,600 km in 2020).
  • Problems:
    • High Costs: Renfe’s high-speed services are expensive, though Ouigo offers cheaper alternatives.
    • Night Train Decline: No night trains, limiting long-distance options.
    • Gauge Issues: Uses variable gauge trains for France routes, but transitions increase costs.

Sweden

  • The SJ (state-owned) dominates, with infrastructure managed by Trafikverket. Strong international passenger growth (26.6% from 2018-2019).
  • Problems:
    • Maintenance Disruptions: Oslo-Gothenburg route faces closures from April to October 2025.
    • High Costs: SJ ranks among the most expensive operators.
    • ERTMS Adoption: Fully uses ETCS Level 2, but integration with non-ERTMS neighbors causes delays.

Switzerland

  • The SBB (state-owned) manages most services. Highest per capita rail usage (2,430 km/year). Bike-friendly and high freight share (74.4% across Alps in 2021).
  • Problems:
    • High Costs: SBB is among the most expensive operators, deterring some users.
    • Platform Height Issues: Mix of 550 mm and 760 mm platforms complicates accessibility.
    • Cross-Border Complexity: Gauge differences (e.g., GoldenPass Express) require variable gauge trains.

High Risk of Derailing the High-Speed Rail Dream

The EU’s ambition to double high-speed rail traffic by 2030 and triple it by 2050 would certainly help to get a more connected (and sustainable) Europe. However, that specific journey – to a harmonized high-speed rail network – is literally on a derailing route if Europe continues to suffer from technical incompatibilities and underinvestment to entrenched national interests and political resistance.

2025 has indeed seen some progress with new cross-border routes, but the uneven pace of development across countries – exacerbated by aging infrastructure, funding shortages, and inconsistent adoption of standards like ERTMS – again show that it will be a very complex endeavour.

The solution? The EU urgently needs to prioritize coordinated policies, substantial investment, and cross-country collaboration. If that is not accomplished, then I fear that the dream of a seamless, high-speed rail network risks remaining just a dream, keeping Europe’s rail systems fragmented and its passengers underserved.

There is a difference between dreaming of a high-speed rail network, and actually having one.


I specialize in sustainability education, curriculum co-creation, and early-stage project strategy for schools and public bodies. When I am not writing, I enjoy hiking in the Black Forest and experimenting with plant-based recipes.