Transeuropean railway freight networks will be opened to competition from March 2003. In principle, freight trains from a similar company should be able to use the networks of different countries without being delayed by changes in engine or driver. The set-up of this critical point of the new European Guidelines (2001/12-13-14) will be accompanied by technical and political difficulties. This issue is particularly acute in France where infrastructure tolls are relatively low, forcing the State to highly subsidise the infrastructure management (RFF). As the latest White Paper of the European Commission reminds it, infrastructure charges should equal the marginal social cost, taking into account long term considerations, like Ramsey-Boiteux based modifications. These apparently simple principles are actually hard to implement because they tackle several goals: to favour the best possible use of the rail network; to cover all or part of the operating and maintenance cost of the rail network; to reflect the level of service provided to the carrier; and to contribute to the costs of developing the rail network. Each national railroad infrastructure charging policy brings its own answer to the issue, weighting these goals differently depending on national priorities and traditions. These particularities will be acknowledged in a brief presentation of the British, German and French charging policies. This will lead us to stress some paradoxes, which make the case for changing the current charging policies. The most obvious one comes from the fact that tolls were high in a country where investments were low (United-Kingdom) and low where investments were large (France). The solution proposed, and already on going in some countries, is to differentiate charges in time and space and to take into account very closely the abilities to contribute as well as the service quality. In places where investments are critical to increase capacity, higher charges are required. For the covering abstract see ITRD E126595.
Abstract