Posted in

PASSENGER PACKAGE | Why the European Union’s new rail passenger package is proving so controversial

The European Commission wants to make international train travel in Europe much simpler. Its newly unveiled Passenger Package promises easier booking, stronger passenger rights and more seamless cross-border journeys. In theory, the reforms could finally bring European rail travel closer to the convenience passengers already expect from air travel.

But while the Commission’s intentions have been widely welcomed, the details of the proposals are already generating intense debate among passenger groups, independent ticketing platforms and railway experts. Critics argue that the reforms solve some long-standing problems while simultaneously creating new layers of complexity.

Two of the most detailed critiques so far have come from the European Rail Passengers Union and independent railway commentator Jon Worth. Both broadly support the goal of easier booking and stronger passenger rights, but argue that the Commission has chosen an unnecessarily complicated and potentially unworkable way to achieve it.

The two major problems the EU wants to solve

The Commission is trying to address two longstanding weaknesses in European rail travel: fragmented ticketing and inconsistent passenger rights.

Booking cross-border train journeys in Europe can still be remarkably difficult. Many booking platforms only show tickets from operators they directly cooperate with. Some routes appear more expensive than they actually are, while others do not appear at all.

Passengers often need to search multiple websites, compare separate tickets themselves and manually determine whether connections are realistic. A journey involving several countries may require buying tickets from several operators separately.

The situation becomes even more problematic when disruptions occur.

Under current European Union passenger rights legislation, many protections only apply if the journey is sold as a so-called “through-ticket“. That means multiple trains are treated as part of one transport contract. If a delay causes a missed connection, the railway company remains responsible for rerouting or compensation.

The problem is that through-tickets are often unavailable on international journeys involving multiple operators. As a result, passengers may lose protection simply because their trip was split across separate bookings.

The Commission’s solution: the “single ticket”

To solve both problems simultaneously, the Commission has built the new package around a newly created concept called the “single ticket“.

Under the proposal, different tickets from multiple railway operators could be combined into one protected booking , but only if they are purchased together in a single transaction through a compatible platform.

The Commission also wants railway companies to make their tickets available to independent resellers under fair and non-discriminatory conditions. Dominant national booking platforms such as SNCF Connect or DB Navigator would face additional obligations to display competitors’ services and, in some cases, sell rival operators’ tickets directly.

In practice, this could make it much easier for passengers to book complex international journeys in one place.

For example, a future journey from Frankfurt to Barcelona involving Deutsche Bahn, SNCF and Renfe could potentially be purchased as one protected booking rather than three separate tickets.

If delays caused missed connections, passengers would receive rights covering the entire journey, including rerouting and compensation.

Why critics say the system may not work

Passenger organisations and rail experts argue that the Commission has made one key mistake: tying passenger rights to how tickets are purchased rather than to the journey itself.

The European Rail Passengers Union argues that rights should apply whenever passengers follow recognised minimum connection times, regardless of whether tickets were bought together, separately, through one platform or across multiple transactions.

According to the group, the Commission’s proposal risks creating a fragmented system where only some journeys qualify for protection.

Passengers may only receive full rights if:

  • all relevant tickets are available on the same platform;
  • they purchase everything in one transaction;
  • the booking platform supports all operators involved;
  • and all ticketing systems are technically compatible.

Critics warn that many real-world journeys will still fall outside the system.

Problems for regular rail travellers

One of the strongest criticisms concerns frequent rail users rather than occasional holidaymakers.

Many passengers already rely on subscription products, national rail passes and discount cards. Examples include Austria’s Klimaticket, Germany’s Deutschlandticket or operator-specific reduction cards such as BahnCard and Carte Avantage in France.

Under the current proposal, it remains unclear how those products could be integrated into a protected “single ticket”.

Imagine a passenger already holding a BahnCard discount for German trains and a French discount card for SNCF services. If no booking platform can combine both discounts into one transaction, the traveller may face a choice: either lose passenger rights protection or pay more for a less flexible booking.

The same issue applies to passengers who book parts of a journey separately because tickets become available at different times.

A traveller might want to secure a high-demand international train months in advance while waiting for domestic tickets to go on sale later. But if tickets are not bought together in one transaction, the current proposal may deny full rights protection.

According to critics, the system appears designed around passengers who book one annual international trip from start to finish in a single sitting, rather than the reality of how many experienced rail travellers actually travel.

The hidden technical challenge: booking horizons

One of the less visible but potentially most difficult problems involves booking horizons: the timing of when operators release tickets for sale.

Rail companies across Europe currently use very different booking schedules. Some release tickets six months ahead, others only weeks in advance.

If journeys need to be assembled into protected “single tickets”, operators may effectively need much more coordinated ticket release systems.

Critics warn that forcing alignment across Europe’s fragmented rail market could require expensive technical integration and major operational changes.

The Commission’s proposal attempts to address this issue, but both passenger groups and industry observers remain sceptical about how smoothly such coordination could work in practice.

Debate over ticketing platforms and competition

The package also introduces controversial rules for booking platforms.

Dominant state-owned platforms such as DB Navigator or SNCF Connect may be required to display and sell competitors’ tickets.

Supporters say this would prevent national operators from hiding rival services and improve competition.

However, some independent ticketing platforms worry the rules could become overly prescriptive.

Stefan Lindbohm of Railfinder has criticised provisions that could dictate how booking platforms sort and filter results. According to Lindbohm, this could unintentionally ban innovative features such as Railfinder’s ‘Best’ sorting system, which prioritises comfort and overall journey quality rather than simply fastest travel times.

He warned that smaller technical provisions risk undermining the broader goals of the reform.

An alternative approach: rights first, ticketing second

Both the European Rail Passengers Union and Jon Worth argue that the EU may be approaching the problem from the wrong direction.

Instead of building passenger rights around a new ticketing construct, they propose guaranteeing rights independently of how tickets are purchased.

Under this alternative model, passengers would receive protection whenever their journey respects recognised minimum connection times. Railway companies would remain responsible for assisting passengers during disruptions, regardless of how many tickets or operators are involved.

Supporters say this would dramatically simplify the legislation.

Ticketing reform could then focus purely on improving access to fares and opening railway data to independent booking platforms, without requiring every possible journey to be sold as one unified ticket.

Importantly, critics argue that versions of this system already exist informally through voluntary agreements between railway companies, such as Hop on the next available train (HOTNAT)and the Agreement on Journey Continuation (AJC). The proposal would essentially formalise and strengthen existing cooperation rather than forcing entirely new ticketing structures onto operators.

What happens next?

The Passenger Package is still only at the beginning of the EU legislative process.

The proposals now move to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, where member states and MEPs can amend the legislation extensively.

That means many of the most controversial elements, including the “single ticket” concept, the one-transaction requirement and obligations on dominant ticketing platforms, could still change substantially.

For now, the debate highlights a broader tension at the heart of European rail policy: how to make cross-border rail travel feel seamless for passengers while working within a railway system that remains fragmented along national, technical and commercial lines.

More on cross-border trains

Channel Tunnel updates

🇧🇪 Blogger, keen vexillologist, train conductor NMBS/SNCB, traveller, F1 follower, friend of Dorothy.

Leave a Reply

To respond on your own website, enter the URL of your response which should contain a link to this post's permalink URL. Your response will then appear (possibly after moderation) on this page. Want to update or remove your response? Update or delete your post and re-enter your post's URL again. (Find out more about Webmentions.)

Discover more from Sidetrack

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading