Skip to content

Railroad Speeders For Sale

Approximate dimensions of a common speeder car are given below. Due to the variety of base models and customization these are not fixed numbers. These values are from a Fairmont A4-D.

In the 1990s, many speeders were replaced by pickup trucks or sport utility vehicles with additional flanged wheels that could be lowered for travelling on rails, called “road–rail vehicles” or hi-rails for “highway-railroad”. Speeders are collected by hobbyists, who refurbish them for excursions organized by the North American Railcar Operators Association in the U.S. and Canada and the Australian Society of Section Car Operators, Inc. in Australia.A speeder (also known as a section car, railway motor car, putt-putt, track-maintenance car, crew car, jigger, trike, quad, trolley, inspection car, or a draisine) is a small railcar formerly used around the world by track inspectors and work crews to move quickly to and from work sites. Although slow compared to a train or car, it is called speeder because it is faster than a human-powered vehicle such as a handcar. Motorised inspection cars date back to at least 1896, when it was reported that the U.S. Daimler Motor Company created a gasoline-powered rail inspection car capable of 15 mph (24 km/h). Henri Bauholz is a professional writer covering a variety of topics, including hiking, camping, foreign travel and nature. He has written travel articles for several online publications and his travels have taken him all over the world, from Mexico to Latin America and across the Atlantic to Europe. The movement of goods across the country by freight trains could play an expanding role in a greener economy. This concept of freight rail is underscored by the fact that over the past several decades the rail freight industry has been able to increase the tonnage shipped without adding to fuel consumption during long-distance. All of this has occurred while the average speed of freight trains has remained steady, as has the passenger rail system.

In general, the average speed of both freight and passenger trains have been on the decline since 1934. The reasons for this decline are both as long and varied as the trains themselves, but could possibly revolve around the emphasis that is placed on over-the-road transportation as opposed to high-speed freight railroads in North America. The rail network hasn’t been invested in as much as other commuter options, so upgrades haven’t been made at the same rate. Faster trains are possible, but the rail lines and railroad companies haven’t made that a priority. So what is the top speed of a train nowadays? Are there speed restrictions? How fast do high-speed trains really go? This article will tell you all about the high-speed rail and American railroads.
Locomotive engines for freight are designed to shut off automatically when they reach 910 RPMs (approximately 70-75 mph). However, freight trains seldom reach that level of operation because of track conditions or speed limits set by the Federal Railroad Administration. Most trains move slower or higher speeds depending on the track level. For instance track 1 classification has a limit of 10 mph while level 4 tracks can support speeds up to 60 mph. This is to avoid derailment, especially of intermodal trains at grade crossings. Signal systems and track speeds are meant to keep train sets and passengers safe during rail transport. Dispatchers are in charge of ensuring the safety of rail cars and Amtrak trains doing both passenger service and freight service. For the first decade of the 21st century, freight train speed has varied between 20 and 23 mph. The low was reached in 2006, when rail speeds averaged only 20 miles an hour. The figure has increased slightly since 2006 due to a weaker economy that has resulted in shorter lines of cars on the mainline, especially in the Northeast corridor, in Chicago and New York. Discover international travel tips, family friendly vacations; trip planning recommendations for travel destinations near or far. You’ll be a knowledgeable traveler ready for anything from a European adventure to an international cruise in no time! We assess sustainability of the EU co-funding to be at risk. Judging by a benchmark, a high-speed line should ideally have nine million passengers per year to be successful. However, on three of the seven completed high-speed lines we audited, the number of passengers carried was far lower. The infrastructure cost of these lines was 10.6 billion euro, to which the EU provided around 2.7 billion euro. This means that there is a high risk of ineffective spending of EU co-funding on these lines. Our assessment of the number of people living in the catchment areas of the audited lines indicates that nine of the 14 audited lines and cross-border connections did not have enough potential passengers to be successful. These include the three lines indicated above carrying a lower number of passengers compared to the benchmark of nine million. This analysis of the speed yields on the lines we audited (Annex V) indicated that, on average along the course of a line, trains run at only around 45 % of the line’s design speed. Only two lines operate at average speeds of more than 200 km/h, and no lines operate at an average speed above 250 km/h. The lowest speed yield on a completed high-speed line is on the Madrid-León high-speed line (39 % of design speed). The cross-border Figueres-Perpignan section also only operates at 36 % of its design speed, because it accommodates mixed traffic. Average speed so far below the design speed indicates that an upgraded conventional line would have been enough to achieve the objectives set, at a much lower cost and raises questions as to sound financial management.

What is the top speed of a railroad speeder?
Although these “speeders” have a top speed of only about 30 m.p.h., they were so nicknamed because compared to the manually powered pump cars they replaced, they were much faster. What do you do with it? Motorcar owners belong to several clubs which obtain permission from railroads to operate on their tracks.
Nine of the 14 audited high-speed lines and cross-border connections did not have a sufficiently high number of passengers in their fifteen- and thirty-minute catchment areas along the line to make high-speed rail successful. These were the Madrid-León, Eje Atlántico, Madrid-Galicia, Milano-Venezia, Rhin-Rhône, Stuttgart-Munich, Munich-Verona, Figueres-Perpignan and Basque Y lines. It is useful to note that the three lines which did not meet the passenger benchmark (see above) are also included in this criteria.We also performed a catchment area analysis to assess the potential sustainability of operations at line level (see Figure 7). Annex VIII also contains overall results and key data for all of the audited high-speed lines.

Furthermore, the Commission is promoting the use of implementing decisions for cross-border projects in order to ensure a closer monitoring of the projects.We received several replies from individual members of three stakeholder groups: the Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies (CER), the International Union of Railways (UIC), and the Union Industry of Signalling (UNISIG).

The Commission shares the concerns on interoperability expressed by the ECA, and is working to resolve the issues. The “clean-up” of the huge barrier imposed by over 11 000 national rules by ERA is underway, thanks to the IV Railway package provisions. Separately a proactive approach along corridors on the Issues Log has started to proceed in the same direction, and following identification and characterisation of the rules, we expect most of them to be either eliminated or harmonised at European level, though this work will take several years to complete.
There is no genuine European high-speed rail network: there is only a patchwork of national high-speed lines. The Commission has no power to decide if and when high-speed lines detailed in the TEN-T Regulation should be built, as decisions to build high-speed rail lines are the sole responsibility of Member States. Completing the EU’s transnational corridors by linking national networks is not a priority for the Member States audited. Although an EU funding mechanism was adopted at the same time (the CEF Regulation), and although various international agreements have been signed by the Member States concerned, high-speed rail border crossing works are not being completed in a coordinated fashion. This leads to a low EU added value of the EU co-funding going to high-speed rail infrastructure investments in the Member States (paragraphs 21 to 36).This limits the EU added value of the EU co-funding provided as cross-border links generate the highest EU added value. In addition, when links are missing and not built on time, this may have a high cost for society.

Due to the fact that they are new infrastructure built to modern standards and designed from the outset for international traffic, there are considerably less barriers to interoperability on high- speed routes than on the historic network.There are over 11 000 national rules in rail, which the ERA is currently categorising with a view to “cleaning them up” at a later stage. There are no common rules for cross-border rail transport. Germany and Austria have a harmonised approach, but Italy continues to apply a different set of rules. All this results in an obligatory layover at the Austrian/Italian border: all trains must stop at the border to make the operational changes required by Italian and Austrian national legislation, which impose varying requirements. Passenger trains must stop for at least 14 minutes (Picture 5), while goods trains are delayed for 45 minutes. Such delays are very significant, considering that the multi-billion infrastructure investment on the Munich-Verona high-speed line has an overall time-gain target of 114 minutes. Special Report No 23/2016 “Maritime transport in the EU: in troubled waters – much ineffective and unsustainable investment”. See in particular paragraph 80 and 81. Although the relationship is not entirely straightforward, various bodies have concluded that high-speed rail also brings environmental benefits as trains have a lower carbon footprint than most other modes of transport.

Our overall conclusion is that total travel time and price level are both important factors for success. Combined with an effectively regular service (frequent trains which depart and arrive on time), these factors could contribute to strengthen future high-speed rail operations.
The actual speed along high-speed lines (HSL) is defined by the number of stops (a parameter ideally influenced by the market rather than the planning) and by the signalling system (given the availability of HS rolling stock).

Although international agreements have been signed to confirm the political will to establish connections, and although an incentive of 40 % co-funding is available under the CEF Regulation, Member States do not build high-speed lines if they are not considered a national priority, even if such a line is situated on a transnational corridor and is completing the core network. The Commission’s mid-term evaluation report on the CEF confirmed this observation.
The Court asked an external expert to make a comparative analysis of the various CBAs linked to the audited high-speed lines. The expert concluded that CBAs are generally used merely as a compulsory administrative step, rather than as a tool for better decision-making and stakeholder inclusion. We found the following examples noteworthy.Our audit work suggests that the average time from the start of works to the beginning of operations is around 16 years (Table 2), even without taking into account the time needed for upfront planning. This is true even when projects which require lengthy major tunnelling works, such as the Brenner Base Tunnel on the Munich-Verona stretch, are excluded.

Is a train faster than a Bugatti?
It’s worth repeating: The Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport is the fastest production car in the world–faster than an underwater torpedo or a bullet train. Racer Pierre-Henri Raphanel proved it in July, when he pushed the speedometer of this third and final edition of Bugatti’s iconic Veyron line to 268 miles per hour.
Also, the cost of a “mixed” high-speed line (combined passenger and freight traffic) is higher than for a passenger-only high-speed line, as gradients and curve radiuses make corridor alignments less flexible, and usually these need more land. Maintenance costs for mixed lines will also be higher, as more intensive use is made of the infrastructure.The Trans-European Networks for Transport (TEN-T) programme plays a key role in the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It serves the goals of economic development, regional competitiveness, regional and social cohesion, and environmental sustainability. It also establishes key links needed to facilitate transport, optimising the capacity of existing infrastructure, producing specifications for network interoperability, and integrating environmental concerns. TEN-T’s objectives include the interconnection and interoperability of national transport networks, the optimal integration and interconnection of all transport modes, and the efficient use of infrastructure.

TEN-T (Trans-European Transport Networks): A planned set of road, rail, air and water transport networks in Europe. The TEN-T networks are part of a wider system of Trans-European Networks (TENs), including a telecommunications network (eTEN) and a proposed energy network (TEN-E).
While the Commission is indeed not directly involved in the decision -making in the Member States, the tools in the TEN-T and CEF Regulations allow the Commission to verify that the Member States comply with their commitments under the Regulations – notably the core network corridors – and to take action where necessary.

Effective competition on high-speed lines can demonstrably improve services and reduce prices for travellers in the EU. There are currently very few cases where there is effective on-track competition on high-speed lines (there is on-track competition in Italy and, to a limited extent, in Austria). The introduction of competition on the Italian Turin-Salerno high-speed line brought better services for travellers. There are more trains to choose from (the new entrant operates 34 daily connections in each direction in the 2017-2018 timetable), and ticket prices have fallen by at least 24 %. ERA staff we interviewed reported a similar positive effect for Austria: competition between the incumbent rail firm and a new entrant had brought more customers, also for the incumbent rail operator.

How fast is the railroad handcar?
How fast does the handcar travel? With minimal effort the handcar is designed to travel at approximately 8 mph. With more effort the car will travel at 10 mph.
The International Union of Railways has reported that track access charges are not calculated transparently. They regularly change, and are subject to no less than 56 variables, leading to very different outcomes. This is confirmed by Figure 8, which shows the exact level of track access charges on selected EU origin-destination pairs connected by high-speed rail, demonstrating that charging levels are indeed very different. For example, track access charges are very high in France, and much lower in Italy.

How fast is a rail car?
Most trains move slower or higher speeds depending on the track level. For instance track 1 classification has a limit of 10 mph while level 4 tracks can support speeds up to 60 mph.
In addition, the TEN-T regulation foresees the possibility for the Commission to adopt implementing decisions on specific cross-border sections (for example Evora-Merida, Rail Baltica, etc.). See also Commission reply to paragraph 31.As regards cohesion policy, overall objectives are assigned to each programme, with result indicators. It is then the responsibility of Member States, when selecting and implementing the eligible projects, to ensure that the latter effectively enable to achieve the consolidated objectives of the programmes. Rail projects are tendered and the procured contracts usually entail provisions regarding timely delivery and, outputs and results, with corresponding sanction mechanisms. These contracts are managed under the responsibility of the concerned contracting authorities / beneficiaries. The Commission’s proposal of the new Common Provision Regulation (CPR) does not foresee a performance bonus at the level of beneficiaries. To gain insight into how high-speed rail benefits EU citizens, we also analysed and compared door-to-door travel times, prices and number of connections for high-speed rail and its competitors (air transport, conventional rail and road transport). We concluded that total travel time and price level are both important factors for success. Combined with effectively regular services, these factors could allow high-speed rail to increase its market share. Intermodal competition is fierce, and it affects the sustainability of high-speed lines: high-speed rail does not compete on an equal basis with other transport modes. By analysing changes over time (for example, in the job market, the property market, and the number of businesses attracted and jobs created), we saw no clear regeneration effects from 15 of the 18 stations on the audited high-speed lines. The opening of the Belfort-Montbéliard station on the Rhin-Rhône line had encouraged shops and a hotel to open nearby, and allowed a regional hospital to be relocated. In two other cases, upgrade works in the stations – linked to the arrival of high-speed services – created easier connections between neighbourhoods which were previously separated by rail tracks. This indicates that high-speed lines may accompany and support economic improvements already started and anticipated by the region, but it will not, on its own, cause a local economic boom.High-speed rail infrastructure is expensive, and is becoming more so: the lines we audited cost, on average, 25 million euros per kilometre. Cost-efficiency is low. While the EU budget does not suffer from cost overruns for high-speed rail investments, as the co-funded amount is capped at the initially agreed amount and any cost increase is borne by national budgets, cost overruns and delays in construction of the lines audited were the norm, and it takes a long time for lines to enter into service once built. Aggregate cost overruns are 5.7 billion euro at project level, and 25,1 billion euro at line level (44 % and 78 %, respectively). Delays were also significant with half of the lines facing delays of more than a decade. Our speed-yield assessment clearly indicates that very high-speed rail services are not always needed: in most cases, only around 45 % of the design speed is achieved on average. Only two high-speed lines have average operating speeds above 200 km/h and none have speeds above 250 km/h. Our findings indicate that four of the ten lines will cost more than 100 million euros per travel minute saved. Paying careful attention to the elements above could save hundreds of millions of euros, and ensure that high-speed built lines are used well (paragraph 37 to 57).

The Commission currently lacks the necessary instruments to intervene effectively if delays on one side of a border hamper the timely use of high-speed rail infrastructure built on the other side of the border. Moreover, the possibilities for all stakeholders to oppose works are manifold, and may cause delays, or even to stop projects previously agreed upon.The Commission will, by the end of 2019, have completed full compliance check of MS’ national transposing measures. However, it recalls that cases of bad application (as opposed to transposition) can always be brought to its attention by operators later than 2019, in which case it will be obliged to act.

High-speed rail infrastructure is more costly than conventional rail, both to build and to maintain. In given circumstances, however, very high-speed services, operating at 300 km/h or more, may provide limited additional travel time savings, compared to trains running on upgraded conventional lines. Therefore, the option of upgrading existing conventional lines to increase speeds, rather than building a very high-speed line, should also be considered, as it could result in significant cost savings.
Rail ticketing compares poorly with that of the airline industry. For example, single e-ticketing solutions, such as those allowing booking trips involving more than one operator or crossing borders, are much easier for air travel than for rail. There is also almost no search engine available for combined air/high-speed rail travel.

How much does a railroad speeder weigh?
At 1,000 pounds, a speeder is a featherweight in the railroading world.
Source: Advito and ECA. Average speeds on the above high-speed connections were 157 km/h in Spain, 103 km/h in Germany, 126 km/h in Italy, and 183 km/h in France.

In 2017, the Commission launched a comprehensive study on the internalisation of external costs, with the aim of assessing the extent to which the “user pays” and “polluter pays” are implemented in the EU countries across modes. Providing the relevant methodologies and data also serves the purpose of facilitating the future implementation of these principles by the responsible Member States.
Investment in high-speed rail infrastructure and operations significantly benefits society as a whole, as it brings to passengers time savings, high levels of safety, security and comfort on-board. It frees up capacity on congested road and conventional rail networks, as well as airports. High-speed rail can also strengthen socio-economic dynamism, as well as contributing to the regeneration of depressed urban areas near stations. Under EU law, national rail regulatory bodies must be given extensive independence and powers to monitor railway markets to ensure that newcomers are not discriminated against, so that fair competition can develop. They should be endowed with sufficient resources. The Commission follows up on these requirements, and supports national watchdogs in their activities, and facilitates dialogue and the exchange of best practices between regulatory bodies. We observed the following two issues. In 2017, the Commission launched a comprehensive study on the internalisation of external costs with the aim of assessing the extent to which the “user pays” and “polluter pays” are implemented in the EU countries across modes, and as contribution to the relevant policy debate.

High-speed rail supports the EU’s sustainable mobility policy objectives, because its carbon footprint is lower than other forms of transport. It has many other benefits, such as increased safety levels; it relieves pressure on congested road networks; it allows both business and leisure passengers to travel quickly and in comfort, and it can provide socio-economic support to regions.
To assess how competitive high-speed rail really is, total travel time from city centre to city centre and the prices of the available options were analysed. We further refined our data analysis for four lines, and calculated the relevant figures, comparing high-speed rail, conventional rail, air and road, thus including the cost of private cars and long-distance coaches (Table 6).

Alongside the phased opening of the market set out in the Fourth Railway Package, a number of practices persist within the rail industry which prevent a truly seamless EU high-speed rail network from becoming a reality, and potentially preventing new foreign entrants from competing on high-speed lines. These practices include technical and administrative barriers, and other hindrances to interoperability. What this means in practice for travellers is explained in Box 3.
While the Commission’s plan is to connect all core network airports to the rail network by 2050, preferably by high-speed rail, only a few high-speed rail stations currently have a direct high-speed connection to an airport. High-speed rail and air can be complementary (by delivering passengers to an airport, high-speed rail can enlarge the airport’s catchment area, and air passengers may decide to use a given airport because of a seamless and fast rail connection after landing). However, we found that it is complicated for passengers to combine high-speed rail and air travel. For example, even though the Madrid – Barcelona high-speed line passes close to Spain’s two busiest airports (Madrid-Barajas and Barcelona-El Prat, which were used by 50.4 million and 44.2 million passengers respectively in 2016), there are no plans to connect them by high-speed services to the high-speed rail network.There will also be a significant delay in completing the works for this station, as it was originally planned that the construction works would be completed by 2008. The start was already delayed from 2001 to 2009, and current estimations are that the works will be completed by 2025.Galleria di Base del Brennero – Brenner Basistunnel BBT SE – Asse Ferroviario Monaco – Verona; Elaborazione tecnica del progetto, Rapporto 2002; Eisenbahnachse München – Verona – Technische Aufbereitung, 2002.In order to ensure that longer distance journeys by high speed rail are attractive and competitive compared to aviation, very high speed services are often required to expand the range of competitiveness versus air transport from 600 km to 8-900 km. Data on average speeds is likely to change once the network is completed, since the data reflects current services with an incomplete network.

The Commission confirms that it supervises the system to the extent that it ensures that regulatory bodies (RBs) are in place, and verifies that these are ‘properly resourced’. Resources depend on the size of the country and the degree of market opening. The Commission reminds RBs of their duty to act, either ex officio or on a complaint, whenever it sees that appropriate action has not been taken. The RBs have a clear role to play in approving the charging scheme and ensuring it is applied in a non-discriminatory manner.
As high-speed lines are expensive investments, it is crucial to correctly analyse all major costs and benefits upfront before deciding whether or not to build. When used correctly, cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) make it possible to assess a project’s social return on investment and its social desirability and usefulness before any decision is taken. Net contributions to social welfare (e.g. through benefit-to-cost ratios exceeding 1, i.e. where benefits exceed costs) under a broad variety of demand (e.g. high versus low traffic growth) and supply scenarios (e.g. high-speed line construction versus upgrade of conventional lines) are needed to support a positive decision.Nevertheless, the adoption of the EU signalling system contributes to enabling significant increases both of commercial speed and capacity. The gradual deployment of ERTMS Level 2 and in the near future level 3 (which can be rolled out on the existing lines) will contribute to enhancing both factors.

A case-by-case approach is therefore needed to decide whether a full very high-speed line is needed. This decision is important, as construction costs are higher when design speeds are higher. Lines with maximum speeds of up to 160 km/h are at least 5 % cheaper to build than lines with speeds above that limit. This is because the tracks on higher-speed lines need to be further apart. Up to 160 km/h, the standard spacing is four metres; above that speed, the required line spacing is at least 4.5 metres. This means that tunnels need to be wider, which is more expensive.

Such enforcement tools should also tackle the situation where a Member State does not propose to timely advance on key projects in view of fulfilling the commitments taken for the completion of the core network projects.
If a high-speed line is to be successful and the investment sustainable, it should be able to carry a high number of passengers. We assessed this element in two ways: by benchmarking the passenger numbers carried over time, and by analysing the number of people living in the catchment area along the line.Since 2000, the Structural Funds have been required to operate in a manner consistent with other EU policies, such as transport. Under both the ERDF and the CF Regulations, support has been provided to investments contributing to the establishment and development of TEN-T networks, as well as to transport infrastructure projects of common interest.

Due to the fact that they are new infrastructure built to modern standards and designed from the outset for international traffic, there are considerably less barriers to interoperability on high- speed routes than on the historic network. The key ones which remain arise from different signalling systems, which will be addressed by the progressive roll out of ERTMS baseline 3 and elimination of “class B” (ie national legacy) systems, and differences in voltage (25kV or 15kV), which can readily be addressed by technical solutions.
We examined the competitiveness of high-speed rail by asking a travel agent to research the cheapest return ticket prices, travel times and number of connections on given days for both business and tourist profiles on the audited lines. A summary of our methodology and the relevant data are in Annex VI. This allowed us to calculate average prices per kilometre and minute of travel.The assessment of travel times, prices and number of connections indicates that high-speed rail has advantages over its competitors (air transport, conventional rail and road transport). Our overall conclusion is that total travel time and price level are equally important factors for success. Combined with regular service (frequent trains) and reliability (punctual departures and arrivals), these factors could allow high-speed rail to increase its market share. The number of stations on a line is important, and their location vital: not all stations audited are well accessible and have good connections, and for 15 of the 18 audited high-speed rail stations we saw no clear regeneration effects in the surrounding area.

Why doesn t america use high-speed rail?
Current US projects face challenges The route would require the construction of numerous tunnels, including one stretching 16 miles beneath the Long Island Sound. Coupled with other track modifications needed, it has a current estimated cost of $108 billion.
To reduce the number of trucks crossing the Alps each day, the EU has been already investing in the BBT, a part of the “Munich – Verona” stretch, since 1986. Austria and Italy have been building the tunnel with 1.58 billion euro of EU co-funding.Therefore, a guidance focusing on key requirements for CBA at EU level should be flexible enough to enable country-, sector- and project-specific features to be factored in the project appraisal on a case-by-case basis.

For the next MFF, the Commission envisages to develop in the context of the CEF 2021-27 proposal for a new set of key performance indicators which also cover results and impacts.

In order to ensure that longer distance journeys by high speed rail are attractive and competitive compared to aviation, very high speed services are often economically justified, with different characteristics for freight and passenger transport that are assessed on a case by case basis. Data on average speeds is likely to change once the network is completed, since the data reflects current services with an incomplete network.
We analysed the accessibility, connectivity and regeneration effects of 18 high-speed rail stations (two per audited line). The full information, including the quantitative criteria used, is in Annex IX. Our analysis indicates that access to 14 stations could be improved. For example, the Meuse TGV station (Picture 3) on the LGV Est-Européenne is poorly accessible: as the arrow shows, the station is in an isolated location in the countryside. A few local bus lines, and a small car park for private cars, provide the only means of reaching the station.

Special Report No 23/2016 “Maritime transport in the EU: in troubled waters – much ineffective and unsustainable investment”. See in particular recommendation 2(a).
Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 1).

(ii) the European Commission’s “Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects”, 2008, p. 84 (this Commission’s CBA benchmark disappeared from its newest 2014 edition).
Investment in high-speed lines is only justified if high-speed yields can be achieved: the larger the population base (future demand) and the greater the travel time elasticity and speed yield, the greater the benefits of developing a high-speed line.This Regulation defines the EU infrastructure policy for transport and the criteria to identify the projects of EU common interest. It establishes the core and comprehensive network and concerning the rail network defines where high-speed needs to be deployed with associated targets and a timeline (2030 for the core, and 2050 for the comprehensive network), which the Commission considers binding although depending on the availability of financial resources in the Member States.

A set of tools defined in the TEN-T and CEF Regulations – notably the core network corridors – allow the Commission to verify that the Member States comply with their commitments under the Regulations and to take action where necessary.
Data from official timetables shows that each intermediate stop extends total travel time by an average of four to 12 minutes, and reduces average speed by three to 16 km/h. The number of stations ranges from four (LGV Rhin-Rhône) to 15 (on the Berlin-Munich line) and the distances between them vary greatly (the longest distance between two stations on the same high-speed line is 253 km; the shortest is 26 km). Different types of services run on the audited lines (for example, on the Madrid-Barcelona line, some trains run a “non-stop” service over 621 km, whereas other trains on the line also serve intermediate stations, with varying frequency). The largest time difference between the most direct and least direct train services is 72 minutes (on the Berlin-Munich line).For a successful continuation of EU co-funding for high-speed rail infrastructure in the next programming period, we recommend that the Commission should take a number of steps. These include: The Border Focal Point was set up within the Commission services and consists of Commission experts in cross border issues, who offer advice to national and regional authorities, by gathering and sharing good practices through the creation of a new EU-wide online network. This platform is meant for border stakeholders to have a place to share experiences, and to discuss solutions and ideas for overcoming border obstacles. We carried out our audit at the European Commission (DG MOVE, including the INEA and the European Union Agency for Railways (ERA), and DG REGIO) and in six Member States (France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal and Austria). These Member States received 83.5 % of all EU funding allocated to high-speed lines since 2000 (23.7 billion euros, corresponding to 46 euros per EU resident).E.g. the direct Madrid – Barcelona train takes 150 min., whereas trains also stopping in Guadalajara or Calatayud, Zaragoza, Lleida and Camp de Tarragona take 190 min.The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the ECA. In the meantime, France is committed to improving the existing line to increase its capacity and remove the bottleneck in Hendaye. The Commission as well as the European Coordinator are following up these developments.

What is the top speed of a railroad Speeder?
Although these “speeders” have a top speed of only about 30 m.p.h., they were so nicknamed because compared to the manually powered pump cars they replaced, they were much faster. What do you do with it? Motorcar owners belong to several clubs which obtain permission from railroads to operate on their tracks.
(i) “In what circumstances is investment in HSR worthwhile?”, De Rus, Gines, and Nash, C.A., Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA), December 2007 as well as in

The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its audits of EU policies and programmes, or of management-related topics from specific budgetary areas. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and public interest.
The tunnel works in Austria and Italy will be completed by 2027, but there is little construction activity on the northern access route, which is mostly in Germany. The route has not even been designed yet, and will not be completed before 2035 (Austria), or even 2040 (Germany). Unlike Austria and Italy, Germany sees little interest in destinations such as Innsbruck or Verona, which do not play a key role for Germany for everyday working traffic. As a result, it has not made a priority of constructing the northern access route, even though the route supports the goal of establishing a core network by 2030. This means that it will take more than half a century before the investments are actually used, and that more than 1,5 billion euro is considered largely ineffective for more than two decades.Moreover, in 2017 the Commission launched a comprehensive study on the internalisation of external costs with the aim of assessing the extent to which the “user pays” and “polluter pays” are implemented in the EU countries across modes, and as contribution to the relevant policy debate. The full study will be available early 2019.

Using a combination of specific sampling criteria related to the amount of EU co-funding, the length of the line, and whether or not a capital city was linked to the line, we selected ten high-speed lines for audit. On account of their size, we audited four high-speed lines in Spain and two each in Germany, Italy and France. We also assessed four cross-border projects: the connections between Munich and Verona; Spain and France (both on the Atlantic and the Mediterranean side), and Spain and Portugal (Figure 4).ERA (European Union Agency for Railways): An agency, established in 2004, whose objective is to support the development of technical specifications for interoperability, including ERTMS, and to contribute to the functioning of the Single European Railway Area.

Eleven of the thirty audited projects are either still ongoing, or were not implemented properly, leading to significant decommitments of EU funding. For one completed project, the entry into service date was not set at the time of the audit.To advance on these goals, in December 2013, the EU adopted a new transport infrastructure policy that aims to close the gaps between the transport networks of Member States, to remove bottlenecks that still hamper the smooth functioning of the internal market, and to overcome technical barriers (e.g. incompatible standards for railway traffic). The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) instrument, adopted at the same time, supports these objectives financially.The provisions included in the transport chapter of the CBA Guide (2014) are designed to allow for a rigorous and methodologically sound analysis of HSR investments, whose analytical framework for identification and evaluation of costs and benefits, and calculation of the socio-economic viability, does not differ from any other transport investments. The factors highlighted by the Court should be assessed alongside broader policy objectives, such as encouraging modal shift in particular to address climate change and local air quality. The TEN-T Regulation sets out the key infrastructure that Europe needs to build to support the EU’s sustainable mobility goals. It describes which transport investments are to be ready by 2030 (the core network), and which ones are to be ready by 2050 (the comprehensive network). To complete the core network, the Commission has estimated that 500 billion euro will be required, while 1.5 trillion euro is needed for the comprehensive network. ERDF (European Regional Development Fund: An investment fund whose objective is to reinforce economic and social cohesion within the EU by remedying regional imbalances by providing financial support for the creation of infrastructure, and by providing productive job-creating investment, mainly for businesses.

Do railroads still use speeders?
Speeders, however, have not disappeared altogether as many have formed groups and now operate, with permission, trips all across the country along various branches and secondary railroad lines using these unique machines.
The project-related expenditure we audited covered 2 100 km of different types of high-speed rail infrastructure (trackbeds, tunnels, viaducts and overpasses). Without taking into account the Munich-Verona cross-border section projects, our project audit covered 45 % of the entire length of the high-speed lines in the visited Member States. A full list of all projects audited, and the key observations, and findings from our analysis of whether their outputs, results and objectives had been achieved, are presented in Annex III.Regarding (i), during the foreseen revision of Commission Regulation EU 2015/1100 on the reporting obligations of Member States in the framework of rail market monitoring, the Commission will propose that the Member States collect punctuality data separately for conventional long distance and high speed services. If Member States accept the proposal the data could become available as from 2020 and will be disseminated in the two-yearly Rail Market monitoring reports.

We also analysed the cost per minute saved by the introduction of high-speed rail. We found that four of the ten lines we audited will cost more than one hundred million euro per minute saved. The highest figure is on the Stuttgart – Munich line, which will cost 369 million euro per minute saved. Cost overruns, which are covered by national budgets, and delays were the norm instead of the exception. Aggregate cost overruns for the lines and projects we audited were 5.7 billion euro at project level, and 25.1 billion euro at line level (44 % and 78 %, respectively). Delays at project and line level were also significant: eight of the 30 projects we audited had been delayed by at least one year, and five lines (half of the sample audited) had experienced delays of more than one decade. Paying careful attention to the elements above could save hundreds of millions of euros, and ensure that good use is made of lines which are built.Mixed traffic lines are more expensive than passenger-only high-speed lines. A study indicated this difference to be up to 5 %, and up to 13 % if the passenger-only line is limited to a speed of 250 km/h (Figure 5). In the programming period 2014-2020 the Commission has reinforced the planning framework of Member States and regions for transport investments, including high-speed rail. Cohesion policy support to such investments was conditional to the existence of comprehensive transport strategy(ies) or framework(s) that ensure planning security for all stakeholders: EU, national and private. The Commission has proposed to maintain enabling conditions for the 2021-27 period. Article 2(1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 1999 on the European Regional Development Fund (OJ L 213, 13.8.1999, p. 1).Note: For France and Italy, the numbers exclude cross-border connections Brenner Base and Lyon – Turin tunnels; Pass-km for Italy is the latest publicly available estimate.

Why does Europe have high-speed rail?
Europe’s energy dependency threatened internal mobility, so several Member States decided to develop a safe, fast, comfortable and ecological mode of transport in the form of high-speed rail lines. Italy was the first European country to inaugurate a high-speed rail line: the line from Florence and Rome opened in 1977.
The proposal for a regulation on streamlining measures for advancing the realisation of the TEN-T, adopted as part of the 3 Mobility Package, puts forward the requirement to apply only one public procurement framework for the cross-border projects which are developed by a single entity.

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA): An analytical tool used to appraise an investment decision by comparing its predicted costs and expected benefits. The purpose of a CBA is to facilitate a more efficient allocation of resources to help decision-makers to make an informed decision about whether or not to implement an investment proposal or possible alternatives.
Furthermore, given its objective of rail liberalisation, the Commission does not consider that it is for the Commission to assess competing market players against each other.

A contrasting approach is taken in Switzerland: priority is given to service punctuality and regularity, clarity of customer information and passenger services and not to speed.
Major cross-border high-speed rail projects require particular attention from the EU. They require works to be coordinated closely, so that project outputs become ready for use on a similar schedule and are connected to domestic networks on both sides of the border.As regards CEF, the Commission does not accept the recommendation as the fourth railway package imposes obligations on Member States while the CEF funding applies to all types of beneficiaries. Therefore, it would not be effective to apply conditionality as CEF beneficiaries are not accountable for the introduction of competition on the supported infrastructure projects.The Commission remains committed to the conclusions and the identified measures following from the strategy outlined in the 2011 White Paper and continues to put forward and implement the actions necessary to fulfil the objectives set out in the document. The TEN-T Regulation provides for a strategic and ambitious rail network planning from an EU perspective covering whole of the EU. The TEN-T regulation constitutes the main strategic and implementing tool to achieve those general objectives.Until 2017, there were no agreed common definitions of punctuality. Punctuality data therefore varies greatly within the EU. Rail operators are obliged to post the reports on punctuality and customer satisfaction on the ERADIS database as required by Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 but, as there is no common methodology or standardised framework for these reports, they are hard to use and do not provide travellers with a clear overview of the situation. The Commission has commissioned Eurobarometer surveys to monitor passenger satisfaction with rail services. The last survey was published in 2013, and a follow-up report is expected by the end of June 2018. Significant progress is still needed in monitoring these issues at the EU level.

For example: in Italy, access charges do not only include the direct costs but also other costs of the IM that the authority considers “efficient and reasonable”, while in Germany the TAC policy aims to recover a high proportion of infrastructure costs from train operating companies. In Austria, the TACs are based on operating costs; in France, TACs are built around two criteria: an operation pillar, using econometric models to assess the marginal costs determined by the exploitation of the line (around 30 % of the total value) and an economic-value pillar which is set to extract “as high an access charge as train operators can afford” (around 70 % of the total value). In Spain, they are intended to cover direct costs.
In 2010, we issued a report calling for urgent action to lift all technical, administrative and other barriers to rail interoperability. However, we found that these barriers still persist in 2018. The rail passenger market is not open in France and Spain. There is on-track competition in Italy and, to a limited extent, in Austria; in these Member States, services were more frequent and of higher quality, whereas ticket prices were lower. Integrated ticketing systems, and greater attention paid to monitoring and standardising customer satisfaction and punctuality data, could further improve the passenger experience.For the 2015 CEF calls for proposals, the INEA introduced a specific assessment of costs and benefits before agreeing to provide CEF support. We consider that this will help to improve the quality of decision-making upfront. However, the INEA (as well as the Managing Authorities in case of cohesion policy expenditure under shared management) is currently not assessing the cost per minute saved, or the cost of upgrading the existing conventional rail line as alternative to the proposed new high-speed line before agreeing to spend EU co-funding.

High-speed rail infrastructure is expensive, and is becoming more so: on average, the lines we audited cost 25 million euro per km (not taking into account the more expensive tunnelling projects). The costs involved could in fact have been far lower, with little or no impact on operations. This is because very high-speed lines are not needed everywhere they have been built. In many cases, trains run on very high-speed lines at far lower average speeds than the line is designed to handle. The cost of a line increases proportionally with the design speed, and infrastructure capable of handling very high-speed operations (300 km/h or more) is particularly costly. Such high- speeds, however, are never reached in practice: trains run on average at only around 45 % of the line’s design speed on the lines audited, and only two lines were operating at an average speed above 200 km/h, and none above 250 km/h. Average speed so far below the design speed raises questions as to sound financial management.A 2015 study “Cost of non-completion of the TEN-T” showed that the “price” to pay for the EU economy would be to give away a 1.8 % GDP growth potential and that 10 million man-years of jobs would not materialise, if Member States and other stakeholders failed to implement the core network on time as the central element of the new TEN-T policy. Source: Fraunhofer ISI, Final Report of 15.6.2015, p. 14.European Coordinators release core network work plans, which highlight main challenges and monitor progress made. These work plans are approved by the Member States concerned and are publicly available.

Our assessment of the number of people living in the catchment area of the audited lines indicates that 9 of the 14 audited lines and cross-border connections did not have enough potential passengers to be successful. In addition, high-speed rail and other transport modes do not compete equally as not all modes of transport are subject to the same charges (paragraph 58 to 85).
From 2000 to 2017, the EU provided 23.7 billion euro in grants to co-finance high-speed rail infrastructure investments, as well as 4.4 billion euro in support to install ERTMS on high-speed rail lines. Some 14.6 billion euro of co-funding, or 62 % of the total, was provided under shared-management funding mechanisms (the ERDF and the CF), while the directly managed investment schemes (e.g. the CEF) provided 9.1 billion euro, or 38 %. EU co-funding can be used to support studies as well as infrastructure works, both for new high-speed lines and for upgrades to existing conventional rail lines to allow them to accommodate high-speed operations.For Cohesion Funds and ERDF support in the post-2020 period, the existence of comprehensive transport planning at the appropriate level is proposed as an enabling condition. These plans must cater for the assessment of high-speed lines, where relevant.

Which is the fastest train in Europe?
High-speed trains in Europe can reach speeds of up to 198 mph (320 km/h). Some of the fastest trains in Europe travelling at these speeds include AVE, TGV and Frecciarossa 1000.
We analysed the number of stops on the audited lines and the resulting impact on travel times and the competitiveness of services on the line, as well as their accessibility, connectivity and regeneration effects. The full information and all key data on this station analysis is in Annex VII.The quality of the assessment of needs in the Member States is low. Alternative solutions, such as upgrading existing conventional lines instead of building new high-speed lines, are only considered systematically in Italy and Germany; this is a good practice which should be followed universally. Decisions to build are national and political; they are rarely based on proper cost-benefit analyses. Almost half of the EU funding made available for high-speed rail investments (more than 11 billion euro) was allocated to investments in Spain. In all, 21.8 billion euro – 92.7 % of the total – was allocated to seven Member States (Figure 3 and Annex II). However, the TEN-T Regulation translates the strategy developed by the Commission in the White Paper 2011 into concrete objectives, specific targets and appropriate measures.Ridership: In this context, a measure of the level of use of high-speed lines, defined as the number of passengers using the line divided by the length of the line, in kilometres.

Catchment area: An area from which a high-speed rail station can be reached by car in a given time (for the purposes of this report, 15, 30 or 60 minutes).
Annex VIII contains overall results and key data on the stations of all the audited high-speed lines. For example, as shown in Figure 6, although the Madrid-Barcelona-French border line has a very large catchment area (which explains its success), the catchment area of some stations on the line (e.g. Guadalajara-Yebes or Calatayud) is extremely small. Given the very limited number of people living within the 15-minute catchment area, there is reason to doubt the cost-efficiency and effectiveness of keeping these stations as stops on the high-speed line (the 100 % 60-minute catchment area overlap for Guadalajara station is because of its proximity to Madrid).For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the European Union copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.

The Commission regularly monitors punctuality data of rail services in Member States and a commonly agreed definition of punctuality exists as part of the RMMS since 2017, The Commission collects data annually at the national level for 2 categories of passenger trains: ‘Suburban and regional services’ and ‘Conventional long-distance and high- speed services’. Punctuality of high speed services is not monitored separately. Data are published in the Commission’s biennial Rail Market Monitoring Reports.
Technological enablers for single e-ticketing solutions are being developed through TAP TSI–while further enhancement are being developed within Shift2Rail Innovation Programme 4 (e.g. towards multimodal e-wallets).

Decision No 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1).
Pkm is the measure obtained by combining the number of HSR passengers per annum with their trip length so as to optimise the measurement of the use of HSR.The quality of the assessment of real needs in the Member States is low, and the alternative solution of upgrading existing conventional lines is not often given due consideration, even though the savings achieved when this option is used can be significant. The decision to build high-speed lines is often based on political considerations, and cost-benefit analyses are not used generally as a tool to support cost-efficient decision-making.The work consisted of collecting ticket prices and travel data applicable on given dates for the origins and destinations of the audited high-speed line, using the transport modes of high-speed rail, conventional rail and air, and analysing any particular patterns discovered on the following routes. Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility (OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 129). For Cohesion Funds and ERDF support in the post-2020 period, the Commission partially accepts the recommendation. The existence of comprehensive transport planning at the appropriate level is proposed as an enabling condition. The Commission has proposed that the transport plans take into account the anticipated impact of rail liberalisation. The Commission took action in these two cases by launching infringement proceedings. It closely monitors ongoing legislative initiatives to ensure that powers of the regulators are not eroded in the process. Since the recent liberalisation of the market, coach services have seen impressive growth rates in many MS. For example, in Germany, passenger numbers increased from three million in 2012 to 25 million in 2015 (Source: “Les autocars et le marché voyageurs longue distance: vers un jeu perdant-perdant?”, Prof. Yves Crozet, University of Lyon, 2015).At the end of 2017, the EU had 9 067 km of high-speed lines (Figure 2; Annex I provides a detailed map). This network is expanding: 1 671 km are currently under construction. Once all planned high-speed rail infrastructure investments have been completed, Spain will have the second-longest high-speed rail network in the world, after China.

The Commission believes that the 2014 CBA provisions included in the transport chapter of the CBA Guide allow for a rigorous and methodologically sound analysis of HSR investments, whose analytical framework for identification and evaluation of costs and benefits, and calculation of the socio-economic viability, does not differ from any other transport investments.Using high-speed lines as the basis for our audit allowed us to assess more than 5 000 km of lines, either completed, under construction or in planning (for a detailed overview of the length of the lines audited, see Table 4). This way, we covered more than 50 % of the high-speed rail lines either in operation or under construction in the EU.Source: De Rus, G. (ed.), I. Barrón, J. Campos, P. Gagnepain, C. Nash, A. Ulied and R.Vickerman (2009): Economic Analysis of High-Speed Rail in Europe. BBVA Foundation, Bilbao.High-speeds are clearly an important characteristic of high-speed rail: they are the factor which allows high-speed rail to compete with air travel and balances the ease of using a private vehicle for the last few miles of a journey. The performance of the high-speed rail system is, however, not only determined by the maximum theoretical speed which can be achieved on a line, but also by the real speed which travellers experience. We therefore analysed the “speed yield” on the audited high-speed lines, focusing on total travel times and average speeds.