Posted in

Europe’s night-train revival: a real comeback or a false dawn?

The expansion of European Sleeper’s network provides a convenient reason to take another look at Europe’s much-discussed night-train revival. Because yes, we’ve been here before. 

From 9 September 2026, the private operator will run three nights a week between Brussels and Milan. From 2028, it plans to add Copenhagen and Malmö, while Barcelona is also on its longer-term agenda.

It sounds like another sign that night trains are making a comeback. And they are, to an extent.

But beneath the enthusiasm lies a more complicated reality. New services are appearing, while others are being cut or scaled back. Operators struggle to find modern rolling stock, infrastructure is expensive and cross-border services remain dependent on political and financial support.

The revival may be real. Whether it can become a permanent part of Europe’s transport system is a different question.

Speaking to De Morgen (28 August 2026) transport economist Jochen Maes of Ghent University and the University of Antwerp believes making night trains profitable remains extremely difficult.

The comeback is real, but limited

The expansion of the night-train network is certainly visible. Brussels is gaining a third weekly service to Milan, while new international routes are being announced elsewhere in Europe.

But the scale of the revival should not be exaggerated, Maes argues. Brussels is still far from becoming the European night-train hub that was once envisaged. The planned Copenhagen and Malmö connection is an interesting route, he says, but much of the initiative continues to come from private operators rather than from a coordinated European strategy.

The same applies elsewhere. Austria‘s ÖBB has been one of the main forces behind the return of international night trains, but it has also prioritised investment in daytime Railjet services, where demand is considerably higher.

That illustrates the fundamental dilemma: night trains may be popular, but popularity does not automatically make them commercially attractive.

Why are night trains so difficult to make profitable?

The economics are brutal. New sleeping-carriages cost millions of euros. Operators have to pay to use railway infrastructure over long distances, while running a service overnight requires staff and, if the operator wants to provide food or other services, additional personnel.

The result is a high-cost product that competes with increasingly cheap air travel.

Some private operators have tried to solve the problem by using older second-hand carriages. European Sleeper, for example, operates refurbished coaches dating from the 1970s and 1980s. They are considerably cheaper than buying a completely new fleet, but the compromise is visible in the passenger experience. Air conditioning and proper bars are not always available.

That creates a vicious circle. New trains could make night trains more attractive, but without a larger market it is difficult to justify the investment needed to buy them.

The night train is still partly a travel experience

This also raises a question that is often overlooked in the debate: who actually wants to travel by night train?

For some passengers, the answer is obvious. The night train is not simply transport; it is part of the experience.

Maes expects it to appeal particularly to travellers who are willing to compromise for that experience. Backpacking students who can share a compartment might be able to travel for around €100. Young researchers heading to an academic conference may choose the train because it fits with their institution’s sustainability ambitions, particularly if their employer is paying.

But the senior business executive who wants to get to Milan as quickly as possible is still much more likely to fly.

That distinction matters because the night train is sometimes discussed as though it could become a straightforward substitute for aviation. It may not.

Can night trains really be for everyone?

The wider debate about trains versus planes often seems to be searching for a universal solution: one mode of transport that works for everyone and could eventually make short-haul flights obsolete.

That is unlikely to happen. Rail and aviation have fundamentally different economics and infrastructure. Trains need physical tracks and railway infrastructure along their routes. That infrastructure has to be built, maintained and expanded, and capacity is finite. Airways, by comparison, are largely already there.

That does not mean airports and aviation infrastructure are cheap. They clearly are not. But the cost and capacity constraints of providing a railway connection between two cities are fundamentally different from those of operating an air route between them.

There is also a simpler issue: many people simply do not like travelling by train.

Others like trains but will still choose the cheapest, fastest or most convenient option. And that is where the romantic image of the night train can become misleading.

The modern Orient Express illusion

Night-train enthusiasts often imagine a modern version of the Orient Express: elegant sleeping cars, comfortable cabins, dining cars and leisurely journeys through the European night.

The reality, as with air travel, is that economic efficiency tends to win.

Most people are not comparing a romantic railway adventure with an unpleasant flight. They are comparing prices, journey times, comfort and convenience.

A night train can be a wonderful experience. But that does not mean everyone wants that experience. Or is prepared to pay for it.

For now, and probably for the foreseeable future, night trains and other leisure-oriented rail journeys are likely to remain particularly attractive to train geeks, adventurers, and travellers who actively value the journey itself.

That is not necessarily a problem. A transport mode does not have to be for everyone to have a valuable role.

Demand exists, but demand alone is not enough

The crucial distinction is between demand for night trains and the ability to operate them sustainably.

The Paris–Berlin Nightjet is a useful example. The service attracted significant passenger numbers, yet it was eventually discontinued after France withdrew financial support.

The route also faced infrastructure disruptions and problems with cross-border cooperation.

The lesson is important: passengers can want a night train and use it in substantial numbers without that necessarily making the service financially sustainable.

Other European services have faced similar problems. Small margins can quickly disappear when engineering works disrupt a route, while international services may depend on subsidies or political decisions in several different countries.

The result is a network that can appear to be expanding while individual routes remain remarkably vulnerable.

Perhaps the destination is not the point

There may also be a better way to think about what night trains are for.

Trying to compete directly with airlines on major city-to-city routes is not necessarily where rail has its strongest advantage. A flight between two major cities can be fast and cheap, while a night train has high infrastructure and operating costs.

Instead, night trains could focus on journeys where they offer something aviation cannot. Maes points to intermediate destinations as an example. A route might serve Lake Como or Dresden, for instance, where the train journey itself provides access to destinations that are less straightforward to reach by air.

Ski trains are another example. They can take travellers directly to destinations where flying involves an airport transfer and then a further journey by road.

Smaller cities could also be connected by night trains in ways that would never make sense for airlines.

In that model, the night train is not trying to defeat aviation. It is providing a different kind of journey.

Europe still has a political problem

The economics cannot be separated from politics.

International night trains cross several national railway systems, each with its own infrastructure charges, regulations, priorities and financial arrangements. A train that depends on several countries therefore needs all of them to cooperate.

That makes international night trains inherently more complicated than domestic services.

It also makes long-term investment difficult. Operators need to know that a train path will remain available for years before they can justify spending millions on rolling stock that may operate for decades.

The Paris experience demonstrated how quickly political and financial support can change. A service can be presented as a flagship example of European cooperation and sustainable transport, only to disappear when the underlying support evaporates.

That is one reason critics have described the current revival as potentially a false dawn.

The trains themselves need to change

If night trains are going to attract passengers beyond the enthusiast market, comfort will also have to improve.

ÖBB’s new-generation Nightjets demonstrate what that could look like, with private sleeping compartments, en-suite facilities and single-occupancy cabins.

But ÖBB is a state-owned railway. Private operators face a very different financial reality.

There are also interesting attempts to rethink the traditional night-train carriage. German company Luna Rail, for example, is developing a concept based on stacked sleeping capsules. By using vertical space more efficiently, the idea is to provide greater privacy and comfort without dramatically increasing the amount of space required per passenger.

Such innovations could help break the current vicious circle: better trains attract more passengers, more passengers improve the economics, and better economics make investment in better trains possible.

An alternative to the car, not necessarily the plane

Perhaps the most realistic future for night trains is therefore not as a universal replacement for flying.

They could instead occupy the space between the car, the coach and the plane.

For long journeys, they can save a night in a hotel and turn travel time into sleeping time. They can connect destinations poorly served by aviation. They can provide an attractive alternative to driving or taking a long-distance coach.

And for some passengers, they offer something that a plane never can: the experience of travelling through Europe rather than simply being transported above it.

That may be enough.

False dawn or fragile first light?

There is a paradox at the heart of Europe’s night-train revival. The enthusiasm is real. New routes are opening, passengers are using them and private operators are demonstrating that there is a market for international overnight travel.

But the foundations remain fragile. Europe still has not solved the fundamental problems of rolling-stock availability, infrastructure capacity, cross-border coordination, pricing and long-term financing. Political support can disappear. Subsidies can expire. Railway companies can decide that daytime trains offer a better return on investment.

And perhaps most importantly, there may never be a single rail solution for everyone.

The idea that night trains can simply replace short-haul aviation across Europe is unrealistic. Rail and air serve different markets, operate under fundamentally different infrastructure constraints and appeal to different travellers.

The night-train revival therefore does not have to become a mass-market replacement for flying to be successful.

Its more realistic future may be as a complementary form of transport: particularly attractive to train enthusiasts, adventurers and travellers heading for destinations where the night train offers something genuinely different.

European Sleeper’s expansion to Milan is another sign that the revival is still moving forward. But it is not yet proof that the revival has won. The European night train may not be a false dawn. But it is certainly not daylight yet.

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