That’s a wrap on our research colloquium! Four keynotes and a lively discussion showed just how diverse the upcoming challenges for the rail sector are. In total, we had some 100 people in the audience (around 60 in the room and some 40 online) – what a great response.
Stefan Marsching (TU Graz) looked at EU rail liberalisation. Competition brings not only path conflicts, but also the question of how to forecast future traffic and provide capacity in time.
Harald Buschbacher (SCHIG mbH) highlighted the importance of Austria’s integrated timetable and presented three approaches to facilitate it under competition – none of them clearly superior.
Stefan Walter (Province of Styria) gave the view of regional rail commissioners: infrastructure takes more than 10 years to build, yet paths are requested annually. Framework agreements, system paths and pre-planned capacity could help to relieve some of the upcoming problems.
Florian Gerhold (TU Graz) outlined a possible evaluation scheme for path conflicts. Key insight: a 5-minute longer train ride doesn’t mean a 5-minute longer journey once transfers are considered, which also implies that model shift must be accounted for. The scheme covers variable operating costs plus external costs of shifted traffic (accidents, road maintenance, CO₂, noise), consistent with the BMIMI target network evaluation methodology.
In the discussion, stakeholders stressed the goal of shifting freight to rail, tight budgets, and ever-shorter maintenance windows. The new EU Capacity Regulation (VO 2026/1184), applying from timetable 2031, offers promising mechanisms – though the level of detail of (further) national regulations remains unclear.
In conclusion, the goal should be to plan early and together. A cooperative solution is much more valuable than seeking conflict in the long term, and the whole sector is needed to achieve this.
