Japan Railway & Transport Review No. 34 (pp.42–49) Feature: Railway Reforms in Europe Rail Restructuring in Germany—8 Years Later Heike Link |
Germany's national rail companies Deutsche Bundesbahn (DB in western Germany) and Deutsche Reichsbahn (DR in eastern Germany) saw fundamental restructuring in 1994, creating Deutsche Bahn AG (DB AG). It has already been 8 years since the restructuring and it is time to evaluate the outcomes. Apart from analyzing the general performance of DB AG, this article discusses separation of operations and infrastructure as well as experiences of open network access and on-track competition. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
The Reform Measures |
||||||||||||||||||||||
The German railway reform was intended to be a 10-year process as outlined below:
Details of these first measures have been described previously (JRTR 2, pp. 19–22) so this article only discusses further measures and amendments in the last 8 years. Right from the start, separation of infrastructure and operations caused remarkable political discussion in Germany, especially because different EU Member States have adopted different practical solutions since 1994. While EU Directive 91/440/EEC obliges all Member States to separate tracks and operations at least at accounting level, the original intent of the Germany government was institutional separation. In the first stage (1994–98), DB AG was split into four subdivisions: DB Netz (track network), DB Reise & Touristik (long-distance passenger transport), DB Regio (regional passenger transport) and DB Cargo (freight transport). In the second stage (from 1999), these subdivisions became public companies operating as part of a holding company German Railways Group (DB). Meanwhile, the two passenger companies were merged into a single Business Sector. A third optional phase would—if realized—imply dissolution of the holding company. After intense political debate, it was decided that further separation (dissolution of the holding company) would not occur. This situation where both the infrastructure owner and operators operate as parts of one holding company is what economist call vertical integration. It offers the ability to discriminate against other third-party operators intending to offer on-track competition by running train services on DB Netz tracks. Some explanatory remarks about network access and charging rules are necessary. Although introduction of on-track competition was not an explicit aim of the rail reform, in mid-1994, DB Netz opened up the network to third parties for payment of access charges. Compared to the other Member States, Germany and the UK have taken the lead in full implementation of EU Directive 91/440/EEC. However, apart from some general rules about network access and charges, DB Netz is completely free to decide the level and structure of the charges. This led to discrimination against non-DB track users who took their complaints to the Federal Antitrust Commission with the result that the access charge system has been revised three times in 8 years. The institutional separation of infrastructure and operations as well as problems of on-track competition are discussed in detail later in this article. The regionalization (meaning that federal states request and finance (subsidize) all regional passenger services) from 1996 is also related to problems of on-track competition because the federal states can put these services out to tender. Finally, some remarks on investment financing are necessary. The federal government finances construction and replacement of tracks. DB Netz pays the annual depreciation for these tracks to the federal government and raises the necessary funds via access charges from the operators. However, if the federal track investment is not in DB's commercial interest, the depreciation payments can be either reduced or abolished, or DB can receive investment grants (€4.5 billion in 1998; €1 = $1.03). This financing scheme changed from 1997 and DB now receives all investments for new infrastructure and renovations as grants that do not have to be repaid to the federal government. However, this new arrangement implies that the saved depreciation repayments must be invested—it is debatable whether this will actually happen. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Photo: The long-term Netz 21 strategy follows the idea of separating tracks for slow trains such as freight trains from those for higher-speed trains such as long-distance ICE, Intercity and EuroCity passenger trains. (S. Cramer, ice-page.de.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Reform Outcomes |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Table 1 shows some DB indicators from 1994 to 2000. Some cost savings, such as closing nprofitable lines and reducing staff were achieved; the track length was decreased from 41,300 km in 1994 to 36,600 km in 2000. More lines are now in the official line closure negotiation process and continued reduction of the network length in the future seems likely. Notwithstanding these closures, the length of electrified lines has increased.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Table 1: DB Business Indicators 1994–2000 Figure 1: DB Customer Satisfaction |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Summary of DB Company Strategy |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Evaluating these outcomes of the German railway reform requires understanding the company's strategy. This section summarizes this strategy based on DB's official statements and actions taken over the last 8 years. It is a personal opinion and not a description of any official strategy.
General strategy
Integration of network and operations
Tackling increasing competition in rail market
Cost-cutting programme
Infrastructure development
Passenger transport strategy
Freight transport strategy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Photo: DB had to face competitive pressure in long-distance passenger transport when Connex opened two long-distance passenger services on DB tracks in eastern Germany. (M. Buchholz) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Current Network Access and Charges |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Germany has achieved Europe's most comprehensive opening up of its rail network but has failed to establish a workable regulatory framework for on-track competition. DB and all other rail companies offering public transport services in Germany have opened up their routes for payment of usage charges to:
This exceeds the requirements of EU Directive 91/440/EEC and DB even grants other companies such as haulage contractors, travel companies and government bodies access to its routes. DB Netz is responsible for operation and management of the tracks and for negotiations with companies applying for network access. Since both DB's operators and competitors can use DB Netz tracks, DB Netz should be highly regulated to prevent it discriminating in favour of DB operators. The German government has failed to do this and the rules leave DB Netz with too much freedom as follows:
The Antitrust Commission and the EBA only have passive regulatory powers—they can only react on the basis of received claims but cannot actively regulate the market. While the Antitrust Commission oversees all claims about competition, the EBA deals mainly with issues of technical compatibility, safety, staff qualification requirements, etc. However, DB's competitors can appeal to both institutions about track charges. The Antitrust Commission can introduce formal procedures to prohibit the price system, while EBA can decide on the level of prices. This, however applies only to the respective claimed case. Track access charges have an 8-year history in Germany. The first price system was introduced in 1994, followed by a price list for use of stations in 1995 and three quick price revisions. The first revision in 1995 reduced discounts the structure of which clearly favoured the DB operators; the second revision in 1998 changed the system from a single tariff to a two-part tariff consisting of a fixed charge and a variable part per train-km; the third revision in 2001 returned to a single tariff. The 2001 revision was required by the Antitrust Commission, which had identified anti-competitive features in the two-part tariff. Due to DB's restrictive information policy there is not much official information on the degree of track use by non-DB operators. According to a survey, there were 43 non-DB operators on the DB network in 2000. Of these, 21 were running passenger services (mainly regional), 18 were running freight services, and 4 were running both types of services. Since 2000, DB has had to face competitive pressure in long-distance passenger transport when Connex opened two long-distance passenger services on DB tracks in eastern Germany. Most non-DB operators using DB tracks have their own rail network (66% of passenger operators and more than 75% of freight operators). In the freight sector, most of the companies are rather small with less than 25 employees. In the passenger sector, the company sizes seem more balanced—38% have less than 25 employees; 38% have between 26 and 100 employees; and 25% have more than 100 employees. Most possess locomotives but only 25% have their own wagons. The survey revealed a variety of discriminatory problems as well as problems arising from the market situation in general. First, charges had clearly discriminatory features for non-DB operators either because of the large quantity discounts granted to DB operators in the first charging schemes (1994–98), or because of the digressive effects of the two-part tariff (1998–2000), which generated huge discounts for DB operators. The digressive effect comes from the two-part scheme with a fixed charge and a variable charge. As more train-km are ordered the charge per km becomes lower because the fixed charge is distributed over a more train-km. A second problem is track allocation where half of non-DB operators have faced problems of competing track access. According to the survey, in most of these cases, DB Netz suggested alternative track access (either timetable or route), which was usually accepted. However, in 25% of the cases (mostly in regional passenger transport), DB Netz refused track access. So far, there is no known case of the bidding process foreseen in the network access rules being used. A third problem concerns the information provided by DB to competitors. When the two-part tariff was in use from 1998 to 2000, DB Netz did not publish the track access charges. Half of the track users had no information on the most price-relevant factors such as the route category and the utilization class of the track they wanted to use. Also information on possible discounts for rolling stock causing less track wear and tear, for low-noise stock and for timetable flexibility was not given to non-DB users. Since the new tariff system was introduced in 2001, DB Netz has changed its information policy and publishes the access charges. DB's competitors know that most of these problems occur because DB Netz operates under the umbrella of the DB holding company. Apart from favouring clear institutional separation of DB Netz, most non-DB users of DB tracks consider the separate responsibilities for tracks (DB Netz) and stations (DB Station & Service) as inefficient. They would prefer to transfer the shunting yards, which are currently owned by their direct competitor DB Cargo, to DB Netz. The non-DB companies perceive one of the most serious problems to be the lack of sector-specific regulation of DB Netz. In most cases of discrimination, they have contacted the EBA and Antitrust Commission but they are dissatisfied with only passive regulation. The majority prefers a new independent, sector-specific regulatory body, similar to the telecommunications regulator (Fig. 2). DB's competitors also favour approval of tariffs by an independent regulator. Apart from these problems caused by DB's discriminatory behaviour, non-DB operators face rolling stock problems and difficulties in recruiting qualified staff. Locomotive pools are just starting their business but the problem is aggravated by DB's restrictive clause in bills of sale for old rolling stock mentioned earlier. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Figure 2: DB Competitors' Evaluation of Institutional Framework and Reform Suggestions |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Separation of DB Netz and DB Operators |
||||||||||||||||||||||
I have already discussed the problems arising from the vertical integration of DB. Although Germany originally envisaged a clear institutional separation between the track owner (DB Netz) and the DB operators, the process has stalled. To guarantee non-discrimination, the Federal Transport Minister has drafted a new law on network access and access regulation as follows:
It is not clear whether these new rules will enable non-DB companies to use DB's tracks without discrimination. Problems might arise between the Antitrust Commission and the EBA Track Agency. On one hand, DB's competitors mistrust the EBA because many EBA staff are former DB staff. From this perspective, it seems a good idea for the Antitrust Commission to monitor the network access and charges. On the other hand, the Antitrust Commission only has passive regulatory powers. Moreover, DB's competitors in regional passenger transport are often reluctant to appeal to the Antitrust Commission because they are DB subcontractors in freight transport and do not want to loose this business. Furthermore, it is unclear how the independence of DB Netz from the decisions of the DB holding group can be guaranteed and supervised. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
DB Investment Policy |
||||||||||||||||||||||
As already mentioned, DB invested about €42 billion from 1994 to 2000—€30 billion of which was invested in the track network. According to a study for the Transport Ministry, about 60% was spent on renovations. However, the same study shows that this amount was insufficient to cover the replacement needs, especially in western Germany. One focus of new investments is the German unification investment projects that aim to improve the east–west links. About €7 billion was spent on these projects from 1992 to 1999. There are two other main projects—the new high-speed Cologne–Frankfurt link (opened in 2002) and the Berlin north–south axis.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Photo: Impression of Berlin's New Lehrter Bahnhof (Archimation) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Conclusions |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Despite sound reform measures and optimistic DB forecasts, it is clear that the German rail restructuring is in a difficult situation. The general transport market conditions are still unfavourable for rail transport. Although a full-cost road-pricing scheme will be introduced from 2003 for heavy goods vehicles on German motorways and despite the fuel price increase due to the 1998 ecology tax reforms, road transport has still cost advantages. These advantages together with the higher flexibility and better customer orientation are the reason for rail's continued loss of market share. The focus on long-distance freight and on integrated logistic chains is certainly a step in the right direction for DB. Much will depend on the progress of EU harmonization in cross-border rail transport. It is debatable whether the new strategy in passenger transport will convince travellers and lead to increased patronage. The closure of Interregio lines will obviously lead to passenger losses and fare increases in long-distance transport hidden under the guise of fare rationalization will not produce passenger increases. One problem is rail travellers' perceived sense of reduced service quality (abolishing dining cars, large reduction in ticket offices) but service quality does differ between high-speed and other trains.
|
Further Reading
A. Aberle, A. Brenner, A. Hedderich, Trassenmärkte und Netzzugang. Giessener Studien zur Transportwirtschaft und Kommunikation (Track markets and track access, Giessen Studies in transport and communications), Band 8, Hamburg, 1995. H. J. Ewers, G. Ilgman, Trassenpreissystem der Deutschen Bahn AG. Gutachten im Auftrage der DEG und der Hessischen Landesbahn (The track access charging scheme of DB. Study on behalf of DEG and Hessische Landesbahn.), Berlin, Hamburg, 2000. U. Kunert, H. Link, Prognose des Ersatzinvestitionsbedarfs für die Bundesverkehrswege bis zum Jahre 2020. Beiträge zur Strukturforschung (Future replacement demand for federal transport infrastructure. Series Beiträge zur Strukturforschung), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 2001. H. Link, On-track competition in the German rail network. Proceedings of 28th European Transport Conference, PTRC, Cambridge, 2000. P. Schäfer, Das Finanzierungsmodell zum Neu- und Ausbau der Schienenwege der DB AG (The financing scheme for new construction and extension of DB's tracks), Eisenbahntechnische Rundschau 45, Heft 9, 1998. M. Schnell, Analyse des Wettbewerbs um SPNV-Leistungen in Deutschland (An analysis of competition in regional passenger transport), Der Nahverkehr, 9, 2000. |
Heike Link
Dr Link is a senior researcher at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin and a member of the Board of Directors of the Association for European Transport. She has published extensively on German railways and visited Japan in 1993 on a fellowship to study Japanese railway restructuring. |