PDF Download - Deutsche Bahn AG

Deutsche Bahn AG
Potsdamer Platz 2
D-10785 Berlin
www.db.de
Deutsche Bahn AG Competition Report 2005
Competition
Report 2005

Competition on German rail is working. This is
eminently clear from the fourth Competition
Report. Never before have so many railway companies
used our infrastructure, have so many train
path kilometres been travelled since Deutsche Bahn
AG was founded.
This competition does the railway good – and we
believe that this is not only the case in Germany. In
2004, Deutsche Bahn AG carried more passengers
and more freight than ever before, despite growing
market shares of our competitors on rail. This is because the railway – in
both the passenger and freight sector – has succeeded in winning back market
shares from other transport modes.
Competition will continue to increase. In the years 2006 and 2007, the
European rail freight market will be opened up, followed by the rail passenger
sector in 2010. Germany is well equipped to face these challenges, as
competition is already in place in the national market. Germany is one of the
trailblazers in the EU. Although that is good, it is not enough. The legislative
body of the EU, first and foremost, has to promote free market access, to harmonise
technical standards and legal provisions.
Action is also urgently required in a number of fiscal matters. The different
tax rates on mineral oil have led to international fuel tourism, a trend which
is harmful from both the tax and the environmental point of view. The same
is true of kerosene, which is still exempt from tax. These subjects are focal
points in the debate on both intermodal and intramodal competition. The following
report accordingly pays considerable importance to these issues.
Hartmut Mehdorn
Chairman of the Management Board and CEO of Deutsche Bahn AG
Foreword
1

2
Publisher
Deutsche Bahn AG
Potsdamer Platz 2
D-10785 Berlin
Werner W. Klingberg,
Group Spokesman (responsible for the contents)
Editors
Joachim Fried, Corporate Representative for
European Affairs and Competition,
Alexandra Bals, Competition and Regulatory Affairs
Consultant, Copy Editor
Alexandra Weiß, Corporate Communications
Photos
DB AG, except: Max Lautenschläger (Interview),
Michael Stähle (page 14), European Parliament (page 28),
picture-alliance (page 30), European Community (page 31)
photothek/Imo (page 36), intalliance (page 37),
SBB (page 40)
Design and Layout
KircherBurkhardt Editorial & Corporate
Communication GmbH, Berlin (002404)
Lithography
highlevel GmbH, digitale mediaproduktion, Berlin
Printers
DB Services Technische Dienste GmbH,
Akazienweg 9, 76287 Rheinstetten
Please submit any suggestions or comments on this
report to wettbewerbsbericht@bahn.de
All information correct at January 2005
Market and Competition
Sights Set on the German Rail Market
Germany leads the field in Europe 5
2005 timetable suits customers’ wishes 8
Rail transport continues to grow 10
New challenges for long-distance rail 12
International competition in regional transport 14
Local public road transport market in motion 18
Tighter margins in rail freight market 20
Interview
In Dialogue with a Scientific Expert
“An isolated look at rail transport markets makes no economic sense.” 25
Regulatory Policies
Europe’s Railway Markets in Transition
Competition needs fair conditions 29
EU legislation should create equality 30
Economic motives dominate EBA proceedings 32
Special Areas of Discussion
Setting New Rules for Fair Competition
Go-ahead for alliances 37
Disputed train path and station prices 38
Rights and duties in case of vehicle pools 39
Overview of Companies
More than 300 Railways on the German Rail Network
Increasingly international environment 41
List of companies 43
Increasingly fierce
intermodal and
intramodal
competition in Europe.
3

Sights Set on
the German Rail Market
Germany is one of the most attractive rail markets in Europe. No neighbouring country offers such
good access conditions. Consequently, more and more national and international rail companies are
trying to tap into the German market. The high number of licensed railway undertakings proves that
the rail market is open to intensive competition. This chapter shows the current development status
and looks at the special features of the different market segments.
Germany leads the field in Europe
According to the “Rail Liberalisation Index 2004” (LIB), Germany once again leads
the European field in terms of market opening – irrespective of implementation of the
First EU Railway Package. In a whole number of other aspects, such as the configuration
of institutional regulation, Germany again assumes a model role throughout
Europe. France, on the other hand, still has one of the most impenetrable rail transport
markets in Europe, despite the fact that it has notified implementation of the
First Railway Package and has institutionally separated infrastructure and transport.
The excellent access conditions in Germany facilitate market entry for foreign rail
companies. In addition to the large French transport groups, other major international
transport companies such as Arriva, Hupac, SBB and the Luxembourg railways CFL
are all active in Germany (see chart on p. 6).
The second Liberalisation Index, following the first version of 2002, analyses the
legal and de facto market access opportunities. It investigates the extent to which the
European rail markets in the enlarged EU had opened up by spring 2004. The analysis
also includes Norway and Switzerland.
Free entry to neighbouring countries – a target pursued by only a few
Another finding was that some of the new EU Member States have lower market
access barriers than many of their old counterparts. On their accession to the EU,
however, Hungary and Poland were granted special rights with regard to opening up
their rail freight markets. In fact, Poland recently applied to the European Commission
not only for an extension of these special rights, but to have the entire liberalisation
timetable decelerated.
The findings of the Liberalisation Index were confirmed by “The EU Transport
Policy White Paper: An assessment of progress”, compiled by the Institute for Transport
Studies of Leeds University and headed by Professor Chris Nash. The authors
document the extent to which the targets of the European Commission’s 2001
Transport White Paper have meanwhile been implemented. The development of competition
in the European rail market was a focal point of this critical report.
Conclusion: there is great divergence in the progress made towards liberalisation in
Europe and the most radical reforms in the rail sector have been made in the United
Kingdom, Sweden and Germany, i.e. those countries which also form the leading
group in the “Rail Liberalisation Index 2004”.
Market and Competition
The progress made in opening up the European rail market differs from country to country. In addition
to the UK, Sweden and Germany, the leading nations also include the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy,
Switzerland and Portugal. These findings are also confirmed by the latest Liberalisation Index.
“We have long since
brought French politicians
to Germany to see
for themselves that
competition works.”
Stéphane Richard,
Connex General Manager
5

6
Germany offers excellent access conditions in line with its role as railway hub in the enlarged EU.
“Our activities in Germany
and Italy compensate for
the losses in our domestic
market. Competition is
now a routine feature on
the north-south corridor.”
Daniel Nordmann,
Head of SBB Cargo
Alongside aspects of intramodal competition, the study also analyses the framework
conditions of intermodal competition. It concludes that the European legal framework
for the allocation of infrastructure costs is inadequate:
for years, only the railway has been obliged to charge prices according to the userpays
principle. Although there is a proposal to change the system for road traffic, it is
disappointing with regard to the inclusion of external costs; moreover, it is not certain
whether the proposal will ever be adopted. No progress whatsoever can be reported
A selection of international transport companies shows that on a European scale,
most are active in Germany.
Country of
origin
United Kingdom Arriva
France
France
France
France
Switzerland
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Germany
Undertaking Type of
transport Denmark
Connex (Veolia)
Keolis (SNCF)
RATP
Transdev
Hupac
SBB
CFL
DB
RPT
RFT
RPT
RFT
RPT
RFT
RPT
RFT
RPT
RFT
RPT
RFT
RPT
RFT
RPT
RFT
RPT
RFT
Germany
France
*
United
Kingdom
Italy
Netherlands
Sweden
Spain
Czech
Republic
* Licence only, not yet active; RPT = rail passenger transport; RFT = rail freight transport; Source: own data
Germany holds top position in terms of market opening
Rail Liberalisation Index 2004: monopolistic structures still exist in many European countries
United Kingdom
Sweden
Germany
Netherlands
Denmark
Italy
Switzerland
Portugal
Norway
Austria
Poland
Czech Republic
Finland
Latvia
Luxembourg
Belgium
Slovakia
Hungary
Slovenia
France
Estonia
Lithuania
Greece
Ireland
Spain
Results of the LIB Index 2004
Market opening
on schedule
delayed pending
departure
Market and Competition
Number
of licensed
RUs
32
17
300
15
6
33
30*
2
1
11
22
8
1
6
1
2
18
2
1
3
4
5
1
1
1
Network length
of largest RIU
in km
16,700
9,900
36,000
2,300
2,300
16,000
3,000**
3,000
4,000
5,700
20,000
9,500
5,800
2,300
300
3,500
3,700
7,700
1,200
29,000
1,000
1,800
2,400
2,000
13,000
* Number of RUs with access to federal infrastructure, ** +240 kilometres BLS, RU = railway undertaking, RIU = rail infrastructure undertaking
Source: Liberalisation Index 2004 and UIC Statistics
for the other transport modes. This unequal, fragmentary development is all the more
incomprehensible as the Commission had already announced the introduction of a
framework directive for the cross-carrier apportionment of infrastructure costs in its
2001 Transport White Paper, with the aim of stimulating fair competitive conditions
between the different transport modes. Moreover, the previous attempts to harmonise
energy taxation lag far behind the necessary changes. Even existing taxation potential
has still not been utilised to date.
Websites:
“Rail Liberalisation Index 2004”; IBM Business Consulting Services and Prof. Christian Kirchner:
www.europa.eu.int/comm/transport/rail/market/doc/lib2004-en.pdf
“The EU Transport Policy White Paper”: www.cer.be/files/ITS%20Study_EN-120818A.pdf
7

8
The provisions of the Railway Infrastructure Usage Regulations (EIBV) apply to all railways without exception for timetable compilation.
2005 timetable suits customers’ wishes
The steadily growing operating performance by non-DB railways is proof of the good access conditions
to the German rail network. Almost all train path applications submitted by customers could be satisfied.
There were no grounds for official complaints.
Last year, operating performance by non-DB railways on
Deutsche Bahn infrastructure rose once again. Compared
with 2003, it increased by 25 per cent to 87.8 million
train path kilometres. More than 60 per cent of that performance
refers to regional transport and around 30 per
cent to freight transport.
Only 76 of 8,707 applications could not be granted
Compared with 2003, there was a slight drop (–1.1
per cent) in the number of train path applications submitted
by all railways for the 2005 timetable. The share
of non-DB railways simultaneously rose from 16 to 19
per cent. Nonetheless, the number of train path conflicts
involving other railways which could not be resolved fell
from 1.9 per cent the previous year to 1.1 per cent (93
cases), despite new planning and quality parameters
introduced by DB Netz, which in some cases meant
changes in journey and connecting times for the railways.
The new parameters are aimed at improving punctuality.
DB Netz failed to offer a train path in response to only
76 of the 8,707 applications by non-DB railways. There
were no official complaints. These 76 cases refer to the
following applications:
Following an invitation to tender by a forwarding
company, several bidders duly applied for 45 train paths
on the Italy – Switzerland – Ruhr area – Benelux/Scandinavia
corridor. This led to overlaps, as the train paths
applied for exceeded the number actually required. Not
all the applications could be fully granted. The contracts
for the tender package were awarded to several applicants.
One applicant cancelled some of the requested
train paths, as they had lost their traffic importance as a
result of the contract award configuration. Another
bidder, who also won part of the tender, then submitted
a new application for the consequently now available
capacity.
Another railway undertaking had applied for ten train
paths on the Italy – Netherlands route for potential
transports by the same forwarder – a duplicate order, as
the railway already used these train paths on the same
route and was consequently competing with itself. It
could therefore only be given one offer from DB Netz for
the ten train paths it had used to date.
One railway undertaking ordered three freight train
paths for the Lübeck – Meimersdorf route. The individual
slots could not be provided as regular-interval regional
services already uses virtually the full capacity of the
single-track Lübeck – Kiel route. The regular-interval
timetable demanded by the regional and local transport
orderer would otherwise have had to be disrupted. Enabling
train crossings at the station would also have meant
either shortening the freight train or modifying the infrastructure.
Only a night-time train path could be offered
on an alternative route and this did not satisfy the applicant’s
requirements, so that DB Netz did not make an
offer. In accordance with the train path allocation priorities
specified in the General Terms and Conditions of
Railway Infrastructure Usage of DB Netz AG (ABN) and
the General Railway Act (AEG), regular-interval regional
traffic enjoys priority, as it makes regular use of the infrastructure.
This case was referred to the Eisenbahn-Bundesamt
(Federal Railway Office), which endorsed the
decision by DB Netz.
In recent years, a railway company applied for 18 train
paths for ferry transport to the island of Sylt. In 2003,
the Federal Railway Office already ruled that the transport
interest of this company is not significant. Especially
in view of the lack of rolling stock, it was doubtful whether
the announced service would actually be implemented
in 2004. DB Netz decided on the basis of train path
allocation priorities and in this case did not offer a train
path.
Flexibility demanded from all parties
Preparing the annual timetable is a highly complex
undertaking and the requested train paths have to be
adjusted constantly to obtain a workable version. That is
the only way to meet practically all customers’ wishes. It
is not just a question of forming practicable train paths,
but also ensuring minimum traction and personnel
expenses for the operating company. DB Netz consequently
also advises the railway undertakings at the planning
stage. In freight operations in particular, additional
railway assets are required locally for loading, unloading
and train formation.
The relevant infrastructure has to be available at the
required times and linked with inward and outward train
path. DB Netz amended its ABN in January 2005 to
Market in motion
100
80
60
40
20
13.3
Market and Competition
Since 1998, performance by non-DB railways on DB infrastructure
has increased more than sixfold. (All figures in million train path
kilometres)
1998
20.4
1999
26.0
2000
39.0
2001
50.1
2002
70.3
2003
Most train path applications for 2005 satisfied
Despite increasing applications by non-DB railways, the share of
non-realised train paths remains negligibly low.
40
30
20
10
46,045 46,782 46,283
39,642
6,403
2003
39,139
2.1 1.9
7,643
2004
37,576
8,707
2005
87.8
2004
Total applications
Applications
Deutsche Bahn
Share of non-realised
train paths for non-DB
railways (in per cent)
Applications
non-DB
railways
include provisions governing the use of sidings, which
now have to be ordered by the railway undertakings.
They are allocated according to available capacities and
operators have the option of shared use. Special provisions
apply if a siding is used predominantly by one operator.
In that case, the company has to notify DB Netz of
the occupation times so that other companies can also
use the sidings at short notice when they are free.
1.1
Source: own data
Source: own data
9

10
Rail transport continues to grow
In a growing overall market, rail freight transport succeeded in raising its share to 16.9 per cent.
Although the conditions for passenger transport were less favourable, the rail mode booked a slight
increase despite a generally declining market.
Upswing While rail passenger transport volume rose, growth for inner-
German air traffic slowed down.
2004 saw a consolidation of the slight upturn in the German
economy. In real terms, gross domestic product was
approx. 1.7 per cent up on the previous year. After
adjustment for the difference in working days, this equalled
an increase of 1.1 per cent. The positive economic
trend can be attributed primarily to growth in the export
surplus. The domestic economy, on the other hand,
remained weak: continuing uncertainty amongst both
investors and consumers adversely affected domestic
investment activities and private consumption. The poor
labour market and low income development led to a
slight decline in private consumer expenditure compared
with the preceding year. In real terms, retail sales also
declined by a good 1.5 per cent in 2004, with the trend
again poorer than private consumption as a whole.
Rail passenger transport increases market shares
Transport performance (in passenger kilometres) in the
German passenger transport market declined by approx.
one per cent, which was only around half the drop
sustained the year before (–2.1 per cent). These figures
take into account private motorised transport, as well as
rail, public road transport and inner-German air traffic.
This shows a continuous downturn for the passenger
transport market, which has now declined for the fifth
year in succession. As in the previous years, the decline is
due primarily to the negative trend in private motorised
transport (–1.5 per cent) . In addition to the weak overall
economic development, the sharp increase in fuel prices
again had a negative effect. 1 For the second time running,
the railway’s share was up on the previous year and
amounted to 8.6 per cent in 2004.
Demand for public road transport rose by 0.6 per cent
and was thus slightly higher than in 2003, when growth
had been just 0.2 per cent. This positive trend can be
attributed primarily to increased volumes in regular
transport services, whereas demand for non-regular services
was stagnant.
Slower growth for inner-German air traffic
Growth in the inner-German air traffic sector substantially
lost pace during the year under review, achieving a
rate of just 1.3 per cent compared with almost five per
cent in 2003. Growth for domestic lines was thus slower
than for the international air sector. By 2002, most of the
lucrative routes were already served by low-cost airlines,
which were therefore unable to repeat the strong growth
achieved in 2003.
Freight transport profits from good economic climate
Thanks to positive impetus from the economic environment,
transport performance in the overall German
market – rail, inland waterway and road – enjoyed
strong growth in the year under review. With an increase
of around six per cent, growth more than trebled compared
with the 1.7 per cent of the preceding year.
Despite ongoing fierce intermodal competition, the
transport volume in the German rail freight market rose
once again. With a good eight per cent increase, growth
was far stronger than in 2003, when it amounted to just
4.7 per cent. The market share of rail freight increased at
the expense of inland shipping.
After growth of 3.1 per cent in 2003, road freight
transport increased by a good five per cent. This figure
does not include German local truck traffic or foreign
trucks. The monthly growth rates in cross-border traffic
were as high as 30 per cent in some cases. This was
boosted above all by strong foreign trade and the EU enlargement
to the east. Foreign truck traffic was one of the
main beneficiaries of these developments. Negative impetus
came from the continuing weak situation in the building
trade, although the overall downturn slowed down in
that sector.
After poor performance during the first six months of
2004, inland shipping transport volumes showed substantial
growth during the second half: transports which
had had to be cancelled owing to the low water levels in
2003 now accounted for growth in the following year.
However, the approx. 9.5 per cent increase in transport
volume does not fully compensate for the absolute losses
of 2003.
1) Taking into account the review of car transport volume for the years
1994 to 2003 presented by the German Institute of Economic Research
(DIW), traffic volume trends for private car transport, and thus in the overall
market, have been substantially better since 1999 than previously indicated
in the official statistics. However, owing to several methodological
weaknesses in calculation of the traffic volume by DIW, the non-revised
values still serve as a basis.
Market and Competition
Passenger transport trends
Economic climate provided hardly any positive impetus for the
passenger market. (Change from previous year in per cent)
gainfully employed -1.0
nominal disposable
income
private consumption
-real-
0.0
fuel price
+1.2
-0.3
+0.3
+1.3
+4.6 +4.4
2003 2004*
Modal split – the rail share rose slightly in 2004. (Figures in per cent)
Basis: Transport performance
1.0
8.6
81.7
1.0
8.2
82.2
1.1
8.7
8.7
2001
2002
Freight transport trends
8.3
81.7
8.9
2003
8.6
1.1
81.3
9.0
2004*
Building investments -3.2 -2.5
2003 2004*
Rail
Air
Private car
Public road
transport
Economic climate provided mainly positive impetus for the freight
market. (Change from previous year in per cent)
Processing industry 0.2 3.1
Automobile industry 2.1 5.0
Crude steel (in tonnes) -0.4 3.6
Modal split – the rail share rose slightly in 2004. (Figures in per cent)
Basis: Transport performance
16.3
69.9
13.8
2001
16.1
70.4
16.5
71.4
16.9
70.7
Rail
Road
13.5
12.1
12.4 Barge
2002
2003 2004*
* Estimate, source: Stat. Bundesamt (Fed. Statistical Office),
Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (Fed. Office for Motor Traffic) and own data
11

12
New challenges for long-distance rail
Low-cost airlines are thronging onto the European market. Offering attractive prices, they compete with
the relevant rail connections. DB has successfully launched new products in response to the increasingly
challenging market conditions facing the long-distance rail sector.
In 2004, Deutsche Bahn again managed to raise its longdistance
transport volume to a figure of 32.3 billion passenger
kilometres, which corresponds to an increase of
2.2 per cent on the preceding year. In 2003, the transport
volume had dropped by 4.7 per cent despite a marked
reduction in fares (see specific fare revenues in the chart).
This development was achieved primarily by adjusting
the product range, for instance to accommodate increased
demand for regional services.
Improved punctuality, attractive special offers and
more services on the Cologne – Rhine/Main new-build
line more than compensated for the adverse effects of the
weak labour market and poor income trends last year.
However, the company has still not achieved the 2001
figures again (see chart on right).
No growth for competitors
Although no official figures are yet available on longdistance
transport performance by other railways in
2004, according to press reports one competitor suffered
a drastic decline in the number of passengers carried in
2004, which fell by more than 100,000 to 371,000.
Last year, DB’s competitors did not expand their product
range. Considering the increasingly fierce intermodal
competition, it remains to be seen whether they will be
able to do so. Apart from Deutsche Bahn, only Georg
Verkehrsorganisation and Connex currently offer individual
routes in eastern Germany.
In December 2004, Connex was forced to adjust its
services as in some cases there was not sufficient demand
to enable non-subsidised operations. It discontinued the
Cottbus – Berlin line. One pair of trains now runs between
Dresden and Berlin three times a week.
The planned extension of the Interconnex Rostock –
Gera route to Adorf could not be effected for the time
being. This would have entailed changing individual
regional transport train paths on the single-track line in
favour of Interconnex. No agreement could be reached
with the orderer. Zweckverband Vogtland had agreed to
subsidise Connex with a figure of EUR 280,000 per
annum, initially until the end of 2006
Direct competition with low-cost airlines
As a result of the low-cost airlines now flooding the
European market, the product range expanded substantially
in 2003, especially on inner-German routes. DB
Fernverkehr is faced with a sharp increase in intermodal
competition on important routes such as Cologne –
Hamburg, where the Metropolitan lost some 30 per cent
of demand immediately after the launch of the low-cost
airline route. A study conducted by Münster University 1
in July 2003 and Institut d’Economie Industrielle (IDEI)
in Toulouse 2 in October 2004 confirm severe substitution
effects from rail to air.
The DB long-distance division has to respond to this
changing competitive environment and also cope with the
special challenges in the German market. The longdistance
rail sector is not only at a disadvantage in terms
of taxes and infrastructure costs. Special circumstances
make it difficult to respond adequately: the population
Difficult market environment for DB Fernverkehr
Following the slump in 2003, both transport performance and fare
revenues increased in 2004. (Figures for DB Fernverkehr scheduled
daytime services in per cent, index 100 = 1998. To enable a
comparison of transport performance (p km), these have been
adjusted by operating performance (train path kilometres = t p km)
120
115
110
105
100
95
transport
performance
p km/t p km
specific
fare revenues
euro cent/p km
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004*
* Provisional, source: own data
Long-distance rail market faces fierce intermodal competition.
structure in Germany demands a high number of stops to
serve long-distance travel requirements. In some cases,
the public demands stops which make no economic sense
and moreover extend the journey times. The situation in
France is completely different, where non-stop services
with correspondingly high speeds are possible to and
from Paris as the dominant metropolis.
Framework conditions affect price structures
These numerous intermediate stops also limit Deutsche
Bahn’s pricing leeway. A low-price offer for the Cologne
– Berlin route, for example, would then have to include
even lower prices for all parts of journey along that route
(e.g. Cologne – Hanover). Such far-reaching low fares
would not be economically acceptable. Low-cost airlines,
on the other hand, have far more flexibility when it
comes to pricing because there is no need to consider
passengers boarding or disembarking along a flight route.
This means that low-cost airlines can offer finely differentiated,
aggressively promoted loss leaders on routes
with interesting passenger volumes. The customer decides
which transport mode to use on the basis of the most
attractive fare.
DB Fernverkehr has nevertheless initiated various activities
and established a good market position. Campaigns
such as the Summer Special, special international fare
offers and Bahn&Bett show how Deutsche Bahn can suc-
Market and Competition
ceed even in this new intermodal competitive environment.
This changing situation is not a short-term trend,
but a phenomenon that is here to stay. It is clear from the
US reference market that the low-cost airline sector can
survive for decades. Despite several consolidation phases,
the market shares of the low-cost airlines in the USA continued
to grow despite constant pressure on prices.
In Germany, for example, Air Berlin has just placed a
firm order for 60 Airbus planes, announcing a vast
expansion in capacity. An increasingly dense network is
also emerging for the European market, where airlines
are using regional airports to expand their product range
beyond the original core routes. This indicates that competition
will continue to intensify in this sector, too.
When reassessing the legal framework for long-distance
rail transport, it is therefore vital to pay much more
attention to the intermodal competitive situation. The
railways are particularly keen to ensure harmonisation of
the fiscal conditions for the individual transport modes.
1) Meffert, Grunberg, Nießing: “Akzeptanz von Billigfliegern –
Bedrohungspotenzial und Handlungsempfehlungen für den
Personenverkehr der Deutschen Bahn AG”, July 2003
2) Friebel: “Intermodal Competition in the Transportation Market –
The Entry of the Low-Cost Airlines in Germany”, October 2004
13

14
More than 50 railway undertakings now offer regional transport services.
International competition in regional transport
In 2004, the Federal Laender and orderers have continued to promote the transition towards competition in
regional transport. As well as discretionary transportation contract awards, tenders and price inquiries are
now common practice. Moreover, international groups are successfully buying their way into the market.
In 2004, the market share of Deutsche Bahn competitors
in terms of ordered train performance (train kilometres)
rose to 11.9 per cent. That is the greatest increase ever
made in one year. It is estimated that this transport volume
involves revenues of more than 700 million euros. In
terms of transport performance (passenger kilometres),
the competitors also booked substantial growth, from 1.7
to 2.1 billion passenger kilometres. Their share of the
total regional and local rail passenger transport performance
thus rose from 4.3 per cent in 2003 to more than
five per cent last year.
More contracts awarded through tenders
In 2004, DB Regio and DB Stadtverkehr (Berlin rapid
transit) were awarded six transportation contracts in
discretionary procedures for an initial volume of approx.
215 million train kilometres. During the term of the contracts,
individual lines or sections will be released from
the contract package and re-awarded by the Laender authorities
and orderers in competitive procedures. Hence
the number of tender procedures will continue to rise in
the coming years. Transportation contracts awarded in
discretionary procedures were not only signed with DB.
Three more contracts for around two million train kilometres
were awarded to Lausitzbahn and Sächsisch-Böhmische
Eisenbahn on a discretionary basis.
In 2004, the Laender authorities and orderers awarded
far more transport services via invitations to tender and
price inquiries than in any previous year, for a total of
almost 27 million train kilometres. A further six contracts
from 2004 for 6.6 million train kilometres had still not
been decided by the beginning of this year. A clear increase
in the number of tender procedures is again expect-
ed for 2005, with 19 tenders anticipated for a volume of
more than 40 million train kilometres.
If DB wishes to defend its regional transport market
share of more than 70 per cent , it will have to improve
its present success rate of 45 per cent substantially. Based
on the current rate, its market share would first fall below
the 50 per cent mark in the year 2015, if all transportation
contracts are in future awarded through tender procedures
and price inquiries.
Arriva established in the German market
Whereas competitors previously sought access to regional
transport in Germany mainly through tenders or
discretionary contract awards, 2004 showed signs that
they are now buying up other companies to achieve that
goal. This policy enabled Arriva to secure a successful
place in the German transport market within just a few
months. The British transport group, which booked revenues
of approx. 2.5 billion euros in 2003, is meanwhile
the third-largest provider of regional transport services,
after DB and Connex.
In spring 2004, Arriva took over Prignitzer Eisenbahn
Holding AG, enabling the British group to operate regional
services in Berlin/Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western
Pomerania and North Rhine-Westphalia through Prignitzer
Eisenbahngesellschaft and its 50 per cent subsidiary
Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn. In autumn 2004, it also took
over Regentalbahn AG. Arriva paid more than 60 million
euros for 76.9 per cent of the shares, which were previously
owned by the Free State of Bavaria. Regentalbahn
AG and its subsidiaries Regental Bahnbetriebsgesellschaft
and Vogtlandbahn run regional services in Bavaria, Saxony
and Thuringia. As a result of these transactions, Arriva
gained influence over an annual transport volume of
around ten million train kilometres.
The takeover of Prignitzer Eisenbahn meant a further
drop in the market share held by small and medium-sized
enterprises (SME) railways. International transport corporations,
most of them listed on the stock exchange,
now account for almost half of all train performance by
other railways.
The second major group that competes with DB involves
municipal and Land-owned railways, which account
for more than 40 per cent of the market. As from
December 2005, Abellio – whose majority shareholder is
Essener Versorgungs- und Verkehrsgesellschaft – will be
the next municipal railway to offer regional services.
Market and Competition
Success rates in competitive bids
Five companies won more than three quarters of all train
performance contracts*. (Figures in per cent)
Basis: 114.6 million train kilometres 1995-2004
4.5
4.5
21.9
7.1
17.0
44.9
DB Regio
Connex
Arriva
Hessische Landesbahn
Hamburger Hochbahn
other railways
* Train performance by bidding syndicates/joint ventures allocated to the
groups in accordance with their shares.
Source: own data
Train performance trends
The market shares of non-DB railways continue to grow steadily.
(Figures in million train kilometres*)
591
38
553
6.4
2000
Total
non-DB railways
Deutsche Bahn
Market share of
non-DB railways
(in per cent)
Transport performance trends
The market shares of non-DB railways continue to grow steadily.
(Figures in billion passenger kilometres)
39.2
1.0
38.2
2.6
2000
599
49
550
8.2
2001
40.4
1.3
39.1
3.2
2001
604
52
552
8.6
2002
38.2
1.5
36.7
3.9
2002
619
61
558
9.9
2003
628
553
Total
* In contrast to previous Competition Reports, the figures for Deutsche Bahn show the train
performance actually rendered (incl. special transports). Previous reports showed the
contractually agreed figures. A review of train performance by competitors has led to
corrections.
** Estimate Source: Stat. Bundesamt (Fed. Statistical Office) and own data
75
11.9
2004**
39.6
1.7
37.9
4.3
2003
633
84
549
13.2
2005**
40.1
2.1
37.9
5.3
2004**
Source: own data
non-DB railways
Deutsche Bahn
Market share of
non-DB railways
(in per cent)
15

16
Regional transport market shares of DB and its competitors in 2004
The transition to a competitive market is effected solely by the Federal Laender and orderers. (Figures in per cent)
Basis: train kilometres
Market shares
Rhineland-
Palatinate
7 93
Saarland
6
94
11
Bremen
North-Rhine
Westphalia
8 92
Schleswig-
Holstein
Competitors under 5%
Competitors between 10% and 15%
Competitors between 5% and 10% Competitors over 15%
89
8
Hesse
30
92
Baden-
Württemberg
26
74
70
Lower Saxony
17
83
26
Hamburg
6
Thuringia
5
94
2
Saxony-
Anhalt
74
Bavaria
95
Mecklenburg-
West. Pomerania
24 76
98
Deutsche Bahn
Competitors
17
Berlin-
Brandenburg
2 98
Saxony
83
Source: own data
Contract awards in regional transport in 2004
Contract award procedure New contract
Market and Competition
Contract Federal Previous million Term
awarded Land
in
Procedure Network/Routes operator Operator train km Begins (years)
Jan. 04 BW Tender Schwarzwaldbahn DB Regio DB Schwarzwaldbahn 3.1 Dec. 06 10
Jan. 04 BW Tender Seehas EuroThurbo
on behalf of
DB Regio
EuroThurbo 1.1 Dec. 06 10
March 04 MV Price inquiry Bergen – Lauterbach Karsdorfer Ostmecklenburgische 0.1 March 04 3
Mole Eisenbahn Eisenbahn
March 04 ST, NI Tender,
Negotiation
Nordharz DB Regio Connex Verkehr 2.8 Dec. 05 12
March 04 BE, BB Tender Heidekrautbahn DB Regio Niederbarnimer
Eisenbahn
0.7 Dec. 05 15
April 04 ST Tender Altmark-Börde-Anhalt DB Regio DB Harzbahn 3.4 Dec. 06 12
May 04 SL Discretionary DB-routes in Saarland DB Regio DB Regio 6.4* Dec. 04 14
May 04 ST Discretionary Leipzig – Geithain DB Regio Lausitzbahn 0.5 Dec. 04 3
June 04 SH, HH Tender Flensburg-Express Nord-Ostsee- DB Regionalbahn 1.0 Dec. 05 9
Bahn Schleswig-Holstein
July 04 ST Tender Sachsen-Anhalt Süd Burgenlandbahn Burgenlandbahn 1.6 Dec. 06 12
July 04 NW Discretionary DB-routes in Verkehrsverbund
Rhein-Ruhr
DB Regio NRW DB Regio NRW 40.9* Dec. 03 15
July 04 NW Discretionary DB-routes in Nahverkehrsverbund
Niederrhein
DB Regio NRW DB Regio NRW 3.1* Dec. 03 15
Aug. 04 BE, BB Discretionary S-Bahn-network Berlin S-Bahn Berlin S-Bahn Berlin 32.4* Jan. 03 15
Aug. 04 BE, BB Discretionary Regional transport of
DB in Berlin and
Brandenburg
DB Regio DB Regio 35.0* Dec. 02 10
Oct. 04 SN, BB Discretionary Zittau – Cottbus Lausitzbahn Lausitzbahn 1.2 Dec. 05 3
Nov. 04 BY Discretionary Regional transport of DB Regio DB Regio 98.1* Jan. 03 11**
DB in Bavaria and S-Bahn S-Bahn
S-Bahn-network
Munich and Nuremberg
München München
Nov. 04 NW Price inquiry Emscher-Ruhrtal-Netz
(Essen – Hagen)
DB Regio Abellio 0.6 Dec. 05 2
Nov. 04 NW Price inquiry Emscher-Ruhrtal-Netz
(Bochum – Essen)
DB Regio Abellio 0.4 Dec. 05 12
Dec. 04 HE, NI, Tender Nordost-Hessen-Netz DB Regio Hessische Landes- 3.6 Dec. 06 10
TH bahn, Hamburger
Hochbahn
Dec. 04 SN Discretionary Zittau – Eibau Sächsisch- Sächsisch 0.2 Dec. 05 3
Böhmische Böhmische
Eisenbahn Eisenbahn
Dec. 04 NW, NI Tender Teutoburger-Wald-Netz DB Regionalbahn
Westfalen
Westfalenbahn*** 4.0 Dec. 07 10
Dec. 04 HE, BW Tender Odenwaldbahn DB Regio Verkehrsgesellschaft
Frankfurt,
Rurtalbahn
1.8 Dec. 05 10
Dec. 04 NI Tender Uelzen – Göttingen DB Regio metronom 2.8 Dec. 05 8
* Performance volume drops owing to cancellations during contract term
** Contract term for S-Bahn-network 15 years
*** Award announced, not yet final Source: own data
17

18
Integrated products facilitate access to local public transport.
Local public road transport market in motion
The economic requirements of public road transport are becoming more and more stringent. The providers
are therefore opting for joint ventures, mergers or selling shares in the company. Foreign companies
are exploiting this trend for their own expansion purposes.
The local public road transport market refers primarily
to scheduled tram, bus and underground services. With a
revenue volume of 13.5 billion euros including public
compensation payments, this market is larger than the
rail passenger sector. However, it is much more fragmented:
whereas 35 ordering organisations are responsible
for regional and local rail passenger transport, local road
passenger transport is the responsibility of 440 municipal
duty holders. The provider structure is equally fragmentary:
there are currently 270 municipal transport companies
providing urban transport services. In rural Germany,
in addition to some 100 municipal transport companies,
there are more than 2,000 private providers. With a
market share of eight per cent – in terms of revenues –
Deutsche Bahn is just one actor amongst many in this
sector.
Seizing the opportunities of a changing market
Compensation payments are being drastically cut back
all over Germany. According to an extrapolation by the
Association of German Transport Undertakings, the cut-
backs in school transport resulting from the Koch-Steinbrück
plan will amount to approx. 120 million euros per
annum as from 2006. Additional cost pressure results
from the fact that some Federal Laender are increasingly
awarding contracts through tenders or direct awards at
reduced prices. The primary driving factor for this development
is the tight public budget situation.
The local public road transport market is in motion as
companies prepare to face the competition by imposing
strict restructuring programmes. Joint ventures and mergers
are intended to facilitate access to capital and exploit
synergies and thus enable the providers to cope with the
pressure to raise efficiency. This frequently entails hiving
off corporate divisions, leading to another form of competition
in this market. This is no longer a question of
individual transport lines or sections, but of transport
companies and their franchises. At the end of December,
for example, the British Arriva company applied to the
Federal Cartel Office to take over the entire shares in Sippel,
a medium-sized bus company. The stakes held by the
French Connex group in Verkehrsgesellschaft Görlitz and
Niederschlesische Verkehrsgesellschaft, or by Keolis,
another French company, in Niederrheinische Verkehrsbetriebe
AG in Moers show that competition for local
and regional networks in Germany has long since assumed
international dimensions.
Concentration on the European markets
Oligopolies have already formed in other European
countries, where only a few providers control the markets:
Arriva, Connex and City-Trafik are dominant in
Denmark, for example, as are Connex and Keolis in Sweden.
Local public road transport in the United Kingdom
is provided by Arriva and just four other companies,
while Connex and Keolis have shaped the French market
together with Transdev/RATP.
Germany is also expected to undergo such a concentration
process. The increasing presence of international
transport corporations shows how attractive they consider
the German road transport market. Connex holds
shares in 23 urban transport companies, while the French
Keolis has six subsidiaries in the bus sector. After taking
over the Sippel group, Arriva has now also gained a foothold
on the German bus market. Alongside municipal
companies seeking to expand, such as Abellio and Hamburger
Hochbahn, they currently rank amongst the most
active market players.
Hamburger Hochbahn heads for success
The municipal company Hamburger Hochbahn boasts
faster supra-regional growth than other companies.
Cooperating with local partners, it operates rail transport
on routes in Berlin/Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western
Pomerania, Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein. In the
local public road transport sector, it is now active in Kiel,
Lübeck, Wiesbaden and Fulda as well as its home market
of Hamburg, making it one of the largest local transport
companies in Germany. Coming from a protected home
market, its expansion is based on extremely close product
costing.
Market structure 2004
Market and Competition
With a 71 per cent share, municipal companies currently dominate
the German road transport market.
Number of companies
Total: 2,634
European bus markets
In other European countries, the market is dominated by a few large
companies.
United Kingdom
Arriva
FirstGroup
Go-Ahead
National Express
Stagecoach
Market share:
almost 70%
France
Transdev/RATP
Keolis
Connex
Market share: 80%
2,260 private companies*
3 companies owned/partly owned by
foreign companies
370 municipal transport companies
1
DB Stadtverkehr GmbH
Market share (revenues)
Total: 13.5 billion euros
19%
2%
71%
8%
* companies mainly providing scheduled services, source: own data
Sweden
Swebus
Busslink (Keolis)
Linjebuss (Connex)
Market share:
over 50%
Denmark
Arriva
Connex
City-Trafik
Market share: 75%
Source: Ernst & Young, 2003
19

The railways are setting up Europe-wide transport networks geared to market requirements.
Tighter margins in rail freight market
Although the freight railways have greatly increased transport performance, they are faced with fierce
competition and consequently pressure on prices. This is aggravated by the better conditions for road
freight transport. The railways see growth potential above all in the international segment.
2004 was a successful year for the freight railways: with a
provisional volume of almost 86.4 billion tonne kilometres,
performance was a good eight per cent up on 2003.
Railion Deutschland managed to raise the previous year’s
good figures even further, with performance up a good
five per cent to 77.6 billion tonne kilometres. With a
growth of 50 per cent, competitors of Railion Deutschland
again boasted a significant increase in rail transport
performance.
Cheaper fuel across the border
Different price benefits for forwarders who buy their fuel in neighbouring
EU countries.
EU Member State Price saving in euros
per litre 900-litre tank
Denmark 0.01 9
France 0.10 90
Netherlands 0.12 108
Czech Republic 0.13 117
Belgium 0.17 153
Austria 0.17 153
Poland 0.27 243
Luxembourg 0.29 261
Their market share now amounts to around ten per cent.
This positive trend does not change the fact that the railways
face increasing intra- and intermodal competition,
and thus growing pressure on prices. In its latest market
report, the Federal Office for Freight Traffic notes that
competition is meanwhile routine in the block train segment.
Apart from competition amongst the freight railways
themselves, sinking margins in rail freight can be attributed
to competition with road haulage. The delayed introduction
of the electronic toll system for heavy goods
vehicles in Germany and abolition of the Eurovignette as
from 2004 reduced the costs of road transport. In addition,
more and more German road haulage companies
now purchase their fuel in neighbouring European countries,
where prices are substantially lower. Fuel accounts
for approx. 20 per cent of the total costs of truck transport,
so that their level has a decisive impact on competitiveness.
The EU enlargement to the east has led to more competition
with road haulage companies from Central and
Eastern Europe, whose costs are far lower. The previous
long waits – sometimes for days – at the borders have now
also been reduced, so that the prices for road transport
with the new EU Member States and also on other routes
have been reduced by up to 20 per cent. The EU accession
has also brought advantages for trucks from these countries
in terms of fuel costs, as the import limit of 200 litres
of duty-free fuel no longer applies. With tank capacities of
more than 900 litres and the consequent transport ranges,
trucks from Central and Eastern Europe can now make the
most of their cost advantages not only in cross-border
transports, but also in the transit segment.
The introduction of tolls for truck traffic in Germany
was a first important step towards harmonising the competitive
circumstances in the transport market. However, the
tolls will not significantly raise prices in the freight sector,
as forwarders will be able to compensate for the additional
costs almost fully by purchasing fuel in other countries and
increasing productivity, for instance by better capacity utilisation.
This will not close the gap between the price competitiveness
of road and rail. The situation is particularly
serious in the new Member States, where train path prices
are up to four times higher than in e.g. Germany, making
rail freight transport correspondingly more expensive (see
chart on p. 22). We therefore cannot expect to see any
significant shift of transport volume from road to rail.
Freight railways expand international routes
Numerous companies have pushed ahead with the internationalisation
of rail freight transport, expanding their
networks in two different ways: by founding subsidiaries
in foreign countries, and by joint ventures with foreign
partners. These are aimed at improving cross-border transport
chains and offering an efficient alternative to road
transport. Through traction without time-consuming
change of locomotive and driver at the border lowers costs
and reduces transport times. Offering through transport
services as a one-stop shop and with just one provider
responsible for the entire chain corresponds to the demand
from shippers.
The expansion of international transports continues to
focus on block train connections running from the Dutch
and Belgian ports through Germany and on to Switzerland,
Austria and Italy. In this segment, there is competition
between for example TX Logistik with subsidiaries in
Austria, Switzerland and Sweden, and Rail4chem with subsidiaries
in Switzerland and the Netherlands. In 2004, Railion
acquired interests in the private Italian railways Strade
Market and Competition
Transport trends in the rail freight market
2004 again saw a clear increase in freight transport.
(Change from previous year in per cent)
Basis: tonne kilometres
+52.6 +50.0
2003 2004*
* Estimate, source: Fed. Statistical Office and own data
20 21
Rail total
Railion Deutschland
other railways
+4.7 +8.2
+2.1 +5.0
Compensation potential for road tolls
Companies which succeed in raising productivity and buying cheaper
fuel will suffer only a slight impact from road tolls.
Fuel purchased in the Netherlands*
(price difference 0.12 euros/litre)
100%
Cost level
2004
110.2%
Toll effect
2005 excl.
compensation
105.2%
101.3%
Toll effect 2005 Toll effect +
incl. compen- compensation +
sation fuel purchase abroad
Fuel purchased in Poland* (price difference 0.27 euros/litre)
100%
Cost level
2004
+1.3%
-3.5%
110.2%
Toll effect
2005 excl.
compensation
105.2%
-3.9%
-8.7%
96.5%
Toll effect 2005 Toll effect +
incl. compen- compensation +
sation fuel purchase abroad
* German trucks, 40 t articulated truck on long-distance routes,
mileage 135,000 km, motorway share 90 %, consumption 34 l/100 km;
Index 100 = 2004 Source: own data

22
Railion optimises cross-border rail transports.
Ferrate del Mediterraneo and Rail Traction Company to
expand its range of products for transit traffic through
Switzerland and Austria. Together with BLS Cargo, Railion
now carries freight destined for Switzerland and Italy
on the Lötschberg-Simplon route. After obtaining the
appropriate Swiss safety certificate, Railion has also been
able to run services on the Gotthard route since December
2004.
Train path prices for freight trains differ greatly
12
10
8
6
4
2
SBB Cargo has succeeded in substantially raising its
transport performance abroad. In Germany, the company
has increased the number of trains fourfold to 320 per
week and raised performance in Italy fivefold, to 210
trains per week. One reason for this higher volume is
that SBB Cargo now runs international trains on its own
responsibility along the entire route, as against previous
practice where it handled only the Swiss leg. SBB Cargo
also won tenders from combined transport operators.
Technical obstacles for international transports
High train path prices, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, are jeopardising rail’s competitive position.
(Figures in euros/train path kilometres for 1,400-tonne freight trains)
Prorail-Netherlands
RFF-France
SNCB-Belgium
Banverket-Sweden
RFI-Italy
Jernbanverket-Norway
REFER-Portugal
MAV-Hungary
CFL-Luxembourg
DB Netz-Germany
Banestyreisen-Denmark
The different electric current, signalling and train control
systems in force in Europe pose a great challenge.
Locomotives and drivers have to be licensed in the countries
concerned. Licensing procedures vary greatly from
country to country, are not transparent and are both timeconsuming
and expensive.
The licensing procedure for just one locomotive type
can cost up to eight million euros. The time required to
obtain a licence can also be considerable and differs
greatly according to the individual country. While licensing
takes less than six months in Switzerland, it requires
more than 36 months in France. Such obstacles severely
raise the costs of cross-border transports and are counterproductive
to efforts to boost the railway’s competitiveness
compared with road transport.
RHK-Finland
ÖBB-Austria
CFR-Romania
SBB-Switzerland
SZ-Slovenia
CD-Czech Republic
PLK-Poland
LDZ-Latvia
ZSR-Slovakia
LG-Lithuania
NRIC-Bulgaria
Source: Community of European Railways
System borders in Europe
Market and Competition
The high number of different systems in Europe calls for standard and transparent licensing procedures
for locomotives throughout Europe.
Country Current systems
Albania not electrified
Austria 15 kV 16 2/3 Hz
Belarus 25 kV 50 Hz
Belgium 3 kV DC
Bosnia & Herzegovina 25 kV 50 Hz
Bulgaria 25 kV 50 Hz
Croatia 3 kV DC 25 kV 50 Hz
Czech Republic 3 kV DC 25 kV 50 Hz
Denmark 25 kV 50 Hz
Estonia 3 kV DC
Finland 25 kV 50 Hz
France 1.5 kV DC 25 kV 50 Hz
Greece not electrified
Germany 15 kV 16 2/3 Hz
Hungary 25 kV 50 Hz
Italy 3 kV DC
Ireland not electrified
Latvia 3 kV DC
Lithuania 25 kV 50 Hz
Luxembourg 25 kV 50 Hz
Macedonia 25 kV 50 Hz
Moldavia not electrified
Netherlands 1.5 kV DC
Norway 15 kV 16 2/3 Hz
Poland 3 kV DC
Portugal 25 kV 50 Hz
Romania 25 kV 50 Hz
Russia 3 kV DC 25 kV 50 Hz
Slovakia 3 kV DC 25 kV 50 Hz
Slovenia 3 kV DC 25 kV 50 Hz
Spain 3 kV DC 25 kV 50 Hz
Sweden 15 kV 16 2/3 Hz
Switzerland 15 kV 16 2/3 Hz
Ukraine 3 kV DC 25 kV 50 Hz
United Kingdom 750 V DC 25 kV 50 Hz
Yugoslavia 25 kV 50 Hz
DC = direct current, Hz = hertz, kV = kilovolt Source: own data
23

In Dialogue with
a Scientific Expert
Professor Hermann-Josef Bunte, antitrust expert and author of one of the most important
commentaries on national and European antitrust law is interviewed by Joachim Fried,
Competition Officer of Deutsche Bahn AG.
“An isolated look at rail transport markets
makes no economic sense.”
FRIED: In order to determine whether a company controls the market, that market
first has to be defined. However, the methods applied by the experts differ in that
respect. Some regard the railway market as a nationally closed, uniform market –
what is your opinion?
BUNTE: It is wrong to regard rail-bound transport service as an isolated segment.
The competition that exists with other transport modes must not be ignored on any
account. The purpose of defining the market is to determine the competitive pressure
imposed on the providers. To obtain a correct economic evaluation, the substitution
relations between the railway and other transport modes have to be taken into
account.
FRIED: Deutsche Bahn has lost passengers to low-cost airlines. So do we have to
include the competition between rail and air in the long-distance passenger sector?
BUNTE: Definitely. This interaction is the best indication that it makes no sense to
assess the rail transport markets as an isolated segment. The transport mode the passenger
chooses depends on the price differences between the different providers. This
has also been shown in a recent study by Toulouse University, which found a far higher
cross-price elasticity in the demand for rail and air services than was previously
suspected. What this really means is that the railway has to adjust its prices in response
to the prices offered by the airlines if it is not to lose customers.
FRIED: Does that mean we also have to include private motorised traffic when defining
the long-distance market?
BUNTE: Of course. It still holds good: a competitive situation between different
transport modes has to be taken into account when defining the market. After all, as
a potential consumer, I decide whether to take the car, train or plane. So I cannot pretend
that these alternatives are not competing against each other. For instance, if I can
fly from Hamburg to Salzburg and back for 50 euros with a low-cost airline, the railway
can no longer compete unless it adjusts its prices. That is the market-reality.
FRIED: And what about local transport?
BUNTE: The private car is an alternative to bus or train in this sector and consequently
imposes competitive pressure on these two transport modes. In terms of antitrust
law, this has to be taken into account when defining the market, although the
Federal Cartel Office does not do so. I believe that excluding the private car is a
problem here.
Interview
Deutsche Bahn – market dominator or one provider among many? How realistic are the assessments of
the Federal Cartel Office? How much leeway is left for the market? Hermann-Josef Bunte, an expert who
has known the market for many years, takes a critical look at competition policies.
“Market control cannot
be determined merely
by the number of trains
operated.”
Hermann-Josef Bunte
25

26
Prof. Dr. Hermann-Josef
Bunte, born 1941, has taught at
several universities, latterly private
and economic law at the German
Armed Forces University in
Hamburg. He was a judge at
Bielefeld Regional Court and at the
Hanseatic Higher Regional Court.
Since 2004 has been Of Counsel
of the German antitrust law group
of the international law firm
Allen & Overy LLP.
FRIED: In the regional and local public transport sector, the Federal Cartel Office
defines strict regional markets. How do you view that approach?
BUNTE: The whole point of monitoring mergers is to prevent companies from joining
forces to obtain positions in which they control the market. Or from expanding
such positions. However, the strict market definition of the Federal Cartel Office
makes it more difficult, and in fact sometimes even prevents mergers and alliances in
the local public transport sector which could be conducive to the market. Düsseldorf
Higher Regional Court (“OLG”) does not share the reservations of the Cartel Office.
In a recent ruling, it rejected the strict market definition applied by the Cartel Office,
which will facilitate local transport alliances in future.
FRIED: Which leaves market definition in the freight sector…
BUNTE: In contrast to the passenger transport market, the Federal Cartel Office acknowledges
the substitution relations in that market. And rightly so. In principle it
makes no difference whether his freight is carried on rail, road, inland waterway or as
airfreight. The crucial competitive criteria for freight transports are in fact compliance
with deadlines, transport quality and freight rates. From the fundamental viewpoint,
carriage on rail could easily be replaced by road haulage or inland waterway. That
was also recognised by the EU Commission when it approved the merger of Deutsche
Bahn with Stinnes.
FRIED: Is it still right to say that the Deutsche Bahn has a dominant position in any
of the above markets, if the market is defined more loosely?
BUNTE: Market dominance can certainly not be judged solely by the share of operated
trains. One has to take into account the current competitive strength of the individual
market players. As far as the local rail passenger market is concerned, high shares
in terms of rail transport performance do not automatically mean that the company
has a dominant position in the market. Effective competition exists if there are
enough efficient providers available in the contract award procedure. OLG Düsseldorf
rightly ruled that Deutsche Bahn does not control the local rail passenger market.
FRIED: On what grounds?
BUNTE: That in tender procedures for local rail passenger services, Deutsche Bahn
has to face significant competition from other providers which operate nationwide.
The court established that more than half the train kilometres put out to tender in the
past few years were awarded to Deutsche Bahn competitors. Which shows that DB
does not have unlimited scope vis-à-vis its competitors. With that finding, OLG Düsseldorf
also rejected the Monopolies Commission’s approach of generally banning
mergers between transport companies which operate in the same local transport area.
The Monopolies Commission believes that this could lead to an increase in monopolistic
positions and market forclosures.
FRIED: How do you rate the demands for a general obligation to put local transport
services out to tender?
BUNTE: Even if tenders are not compulsory for local transport services, we can still
assume that competition is effective. OLG Düsseldorf considers it unlawful to oblige
the local authorities to invite public tenders for local transport services. As was done
by the Federal Cartel Office.
FRIED: The orderers of local services are not restricted to Germany when seeking
providers. What does this mean for the geographical market definition?
BUNTE: International companies such as Connex, Arriva, Keolis (SNCF) have
become established in Germany. The orderers can choose providers from anywhere in
Europe. This trend has to be borne in mind when defining the market in future. This,
too, shows that there is already substantial competition in the local rail market. After
all, Deutsche Bahn won only 45 per cent of the train performance up for tender in the
past few years.
FRIED: Does that mean there are grounds for market intervention aimed at protecting
newcomers, as demanded by the Monopolies Commission and in some cases also
the cartel authorities?
BUNTE: I certainly do not believe in intervention in the carriage and transport markets.
In terms of competition policy, we can of course set ourselves the task of encouraging
newcomers. However, such action can only be initiated based on the conviction
that competition will only work if further newcomers are admitted to the market.
And if one believes that this can only be achieved by intervention by the government.
However, we already have new providers in the rail market and will still have them in
future. OLG Düsseldorf does not concur with the viewpoint of the Federal Cartel
Office that we have to systematically promote market access for newcomers.
FRIED: How do you rate the EU Commission’s plans to enact laws to achieve a higher
quality standard in freight transport?
BUNTE: Transport quality cannot be enforced by law. The Commission should concentrate
on enforcing comparable competition throughout Europe. It is important to
harmonise the competitive conditions which apply to the different transport modes
both nationally and internationally.
FRIED: Cooperation is another subject which plays a key role in assessing the competitive
situation in the rail markets. To what extent do different aspects have to be
taken into account in the individual markets?
BUNTE: In the local transport sector, there are laws governing the admissibility of
cooperation. When drafting the Passenger Transport Act, the legislative body assumed
that voluntary cooperation between companies would not only raise efficiency, but
would in fact be vital to enable less profitable connections to be established and served
in the first place. This situation is typical of certain public service obligations
where companies have to offer services which are actually contrary to their own
financial interests.
FRIED: And what about the other markets?
BUNTE: Cooperation in both the long-distance passenger and rail freight sectors have
to be judged on the basis of general antitrust criteria. They are not generally dubious
in terms of competition law. On the contrary, antitrust law also envisages a certain
facilitation if the cooperation is in the interest of the customer.
FRIED: For example?
BUNTE: If a cooperation makes it possible to offer certain transport services on an
area-wide basis.
FRIED: Is there any justification whatsoever for regulatory intervention in rail-bound
freight or passenger transport?
BUNTE: No, not according to the present legal status. Nor do I see any reason to do
so. The allegation that Deutsche Bahn has a monopoly or controls the market and the
conclusion that this has to be counteracted by legal instruments or intervention is, in
my opinion, unjustified in Germany.
Interview
Joachim Fried, born 1948, is a
fully qualified lawyer. Since 1983,
he has held various positions
dealing with questions of competition
and European law; he has
held various executive positions at
DB AG since 1997 and has been
Corporate Representative for
European Affairs and Competition
since June 2004.
27

Europe’s Rail Markets
in Transition
Intramodal competition works in markets which are already liberalised. To date, however, that
applies only to Germany and a few other EU Member States. The Second Railway Package has
now set the timetable for opening up the European rail freight markets. The Third Railway Package
will contain proposals for liberalising the passenger transport sector.
Competition needs fair conditions
The market for cross-border rail freight transport in Europe is to be fully opened up
by January 2006, and domestic freight transports are scheduled to follow in 2007.
This is part of the Second Railway Package which was adopted in April 2004. It has
thus set a major milestone for European on-rail competition. It also proposes a new
European Railway Agency, which is already being set up and will assume a central
role in the development of harmonised technical standards for safety and interoperability
in Europe.
However, it does not remedy distortions of competition which adversely affect the
railways, such as infrastructure charges and energy taxes that are not levied on other
transport modes. The railway thus still cannot pass its environmental advantages on
to its customers through fares. Although the Energy Tax Framework Directive which
came into force in 2004 gives Member States the opportunity to levy tax on kerosene
for domestic and inner-European flights, not one single Member State – with the
exception of the Netherlands – has as yet done so.
New Commission proposals threaten to weaken the railways’ position
The Third Railway Package submitted in March 2004 includes not only a European
train driver’s licence but also three controversial proposals:
Opening up the cross-border rail passenger market as from 2010. The late date for
opening the market and the attempt to exclude domestic transports gives reason to
fear that Europe-wide liberalisation will still lag behind the current German status
even after 2010.
Extended passenger rights: the proposed regulations – such as unlimited liability for
consequential damage in case of delays – would constitute numerous costly obligations
for railways which do not exist in any form whatsoever for other transport
modes. This would mean further discrimination of the railway compared with air and
coach transport. The Commission’s proposal would involve additional costs of 130
million euros per annum for DB. Negative effects on fares would be inevitable. The
regulation would moreover intervene in core areas of the companies’ own management
responsibility. This would affect for instance service and customer care.
The proposed regulations on quality in rail freight transport would also impose
new cost-driving obligations on the freight railways, which would impair their economic
performance. Railion Deutschland alone would be faced with additional annual
costs of up to 120 million euros as a result of this step.
Regulatory Policies
The first two EU Railway Packages focussed on standard conditions for regulatory policies and technical
operations. With the Third Package, the EU also intervenes in the contractual relations between transport
undertakings and customers, thus imposing considerable burdens on the railways.
What the railways
demand from the EU:
Equal treatment
Comparable regulations on
passenger rights for all
transport modes
Economic viability
Affordable solutions in the
interests of the customer
Responsibility
The right to make independent
management decisions
(service, customer
care, marketing)
Access to infrastructure
Comparable access conditions
for rail markets
throughout Europe
Market orientation and
freedom of contract
Regulating the quality of rail
freight transport via market
mechanisms
29

30
The EU Commission monitors compliance with Community competition regulations.
EU legislation should create equality
Germany was one of the few Member States to open up its market to competition at an early stage
and is therefore under particular scrutiny. Although the EU Commission is continually developing the
legal framework, some of its decisions lead to a distortion of competition instead of more fairness.
Distorted competition
leads to inefficient
labour division between
the transport modes.
European competition law takes action when the exchange of goods and services between
Member States is impaired by anti-competitive practices. The EU Commission
has sole responsibility for monitoring state aid. The following procedures were conducted
during the year under review:
Ensuring fair competition
No taxes are levied on kerosene, which leads to a clear discrepancy in the competitive
conditions for rail and air transport. This exemption from kerosene tax is tantamount
to state aid for air passengers. If the present mineral oil tax rate of 0.62 euros per litre
were to be levied on kerosene, passengers would have to pay accordingly higher prices.
The price increase for a one-way ticket from Berlin – Frankfurt, for example, would be
13.67 euros, and 15.37 euros for the Berlin – Cologne route. Contrary to the situation
in many other EU Member States, the railways in Germany have to pay mineral oil tax
on diesel fuel and electricity tax on traction current. As the EU Commission has not as
yet taken any action against this unequal treatment of the different transport modes,
Deutsche Bahn has filed an action before the European Court of Justice.
Decision on pipeline aid
On 16 June 2004, the EU Commission ruled that state support is permissible for the
construction of the propylene pipeline from Rotterdam to the Ruhr area. This decision
is of fundamental importance: on the one hand, the Commission established that there
is an intermodal competitive relationship between rail and pipeline. On the other
hand, it ruled that although the funds provided by Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands
constitute state aid, this is admissible as it promotes the development of certain
branches of industry. As reasons, it stated that this would not entail any change in
trade conditions to an extent which would conflict with Community interests. In view
of the benefits provided by the projects, the distortion of competition to the detriment
of rail was acceptable. According to the Commission, state aid for the transport infrastructure
sector is permissible if the market does not provide the necessary public
transport infrastructure, as this is the only way to ensure sustainable mobility.
Criticism of contract award procedure
On 13 October 2004, the EU Commission initiated proceedings against the Federal
Republic of Germany for breach of contract, contesting the practice of the Federal
Laender when awarding transportation contracts for regional and local rail passenger
transport. The allegations actually refer to the way in which contracts were awarded
to DB Regio and to S-Bahn Berlin in the Federal Laender of Baden-Württemberg, Berlin/Brandenburg,
Rhineland-Palatinate and Thuringia. The crux of the matter is whether
under European law the services have to be put out to tender for potentially interested
bidders and in addition whether the orderers are obliged to invite potential providers
to compete. Apart from DB Regio and S-Bahn Berlin, for instance, a number
of other railway undertakings also provide regional and local passenger services in
Germany on the basis of contracts with the public sector without any previous competitive
tender procedures. In a detailed statement, the German government contradicted
the legal position of the EU Commission and expressly pointed out that German
law has long since conformed to European law in both theory and practice.
Compensation payments permissible?
On 2 December 2003, the EU Commission sent Germany a questionnaire regarding
award of the regional and local public transportation contract to Deutsche Bahn by
the Federal Laender of Berlin and Brandenburg. This was in response to a complaint
by Connex that the compensation payments to Deutsche Bahn envisaged by the contract
constitute unlawful state aid. In a statement dated 19 February 2004, the
government of Brandenburg rejected the accusations made in the complaint. The
European Court of Justice had explicitly stated that EU aid law did not prescribe
compulsory tender procedures. Moreover, the compensation payments satisfied the
“Altmark” criteria for the granting of public funds. To date, the Commission has not
initiated any formal aid investigation procedure. Legal action already filed by Connex
to investigate the contract award had already failed. In a ruling of 2 September 2003,
Brandenburg Higher Regional Court finally dismissed the application and ruled that
contract award legislation does not apply to railway services if a duty holder exercises
his discretion not to conduct tender proceedings.
Regulatory Policies
To create optimum
framework conditions
for competition, the
European legislative
body must maintain a
sense of proportion.
31

32
Economic motives dominate proceedings
Fewer and fewer proceedings conducted by the Federal Railway Office (EBA) are based on disputes about
market access. Instead, the focus tends to be on financial aspects or payment arrangements with the
applicants. The EBA decisions confirm that there is open access to the network.
In 2004 the EBA did not
issue any final or
absolute rulings
against Deutsche Bahn.
This again confirms
that DB Netz acts in
conformity with the legal
provisions.
Market access alone is increasingly rarely the reason for proceedings, as there is open
access to infrastructure in Germany. On the contrary, non-DB railway undertakings
aim to pay as little as possible for the use of railway infrastructure and additional services.
Hence they frequently try to reduce their costs by filing complaints with the
EBA. They also contest technical regulations which raise costs, such as the obligation
to equip rolling stock with digital radio, i.e. GSM-R (Global System for Mobile Communication-Rail).
The following examples show the new issues which are the subject
of proceedings before the EBA:
Track access only for paying companies
In some cases, DB Netz refused access to infrastructure because the companies had
high arrears and were either unwilling or unable to pay. However, the EBA considers
it unlawful to deny such companies access, claiming that this infringes their right to
non-discriminatory use of infrastructure. DB Netz does not share that opinion. As
regards infrastructure access, non-discrimination has to mean that access to infrastructure
is granted to all paying railway undertakings, but denied to all those which do
not pay. There should be no exceptions to this payment obligation for certain railways.
In future, DB Netz will try to avoid bad debts by demanding financial guarantees;
this will also be permissible in future pursuant to Directive 2001/14/EC. While the
EBA does not fundamentally object to this move, since the end of 2004 it has checked
uniform application of the previous and new advance payment regulations pursuant
to the 2005 General Conditions for the Use of Infrastructure.
Amendment of German Railway Act
All EBA proceedings are based on the General
Railway Act (AEG). On the third amendment
of the AEG and the Railway Infrastructure
Usage Regulations, the First EU Railway
Package (Directives 2001/12, 2001/13 and
2001/14) is transposed into German law. In
December 2004, the Bundesrat referred the
bill to the Conciliation Committee. The draft
approved by the Bundestag is expected to be
amended. Irrespective of the results, it is
clear that an amended AEG will entail major
changes for railway infrastructure undertakings
and railway undertakings, in particular
as regards the sectors of train path award,
train path prices, works and maintenance
depots. It will also redefine the responsibilities
and powers of the authorities. The
amendments will make the AEG provisions
stricter and thus change the market and framework
conditions for all railways.
Many complaints are based on the high competitive and cost pressure facing the rail market.
Considering the cost effectiveness of retaining lines
Some years ago, DB Netz initiated the closure of a line which was no longer negotiable,
owing to lack of demand and high maintenance costs. DB Netz therefore refused
an application for a train path last year. This is now being reviewed by the EBA,
which claims that neither the high costs of maintenance nor the anticipated low user
fees may be considered when granting access to infrastructure. On the contrary, the
infrastructure manager was obliged to maintain operations without restriction right
up to the time of closure. DB Netz believes that the EBA also has to take the cost
effectiveness of such lines into account. As the expenses would have been out of all
proportion in this case, DB Netz is under no obligation to maintain operations. DB
Netz cannot grant access to a line which is no longer safe to operate. The position of
DB Netz is endorsed by a decision by Koblenz Administrative Court from 1998 and
two more recent summary proceedings before the administrative courts in Cologne
and Munich.
Controversial period of notice for train path price supplements
As the formation of special train paths involves more work than regular train paths,
DB Netz introduced a ten per cent supplement for special trains on 12 December
2004 after nine months’ notice. At the end of 2004, the EBA ruled that the supplement
was not permissible as the period of notice was inadequate. DB Netz has contested
the decision since no notice is actually prescribed by law and has upheld the nine
months’ notice stipulated in the ABN. Directive 2001/14/EC, which was quoted by
the EBA but has not yet been transposed into national law, contains two regulations
on this point: three months’ notice for changes to essential components of the charging
system; twelve months (nine-month application period pursuant to EIBV plus
three months’ lead time) for changes to essential charging principles which affect the
overall structure of the train path pricing system. The supplement for special train
paths however is merely an addition to the existing train path pricing system (TPS)
2001, but does not change its structure. It is surprising that the EBA only now refers
to an allegedly longer period of notice. After all, the period for transposition of Directive
2001/14/EC expired in March 2003.
Regulatory Policies
The supplement for
special train paths
applies to everyone.
Railway undertakings
are informed of new
price components nine
months before they
are introduced.
That complies with
current law.
33

34
EBA proceedings from 2004
The EBA still monitors compliance with the right to non-discriminatory access to the
rail network in Germany. The following two tables document all infrastructure access
proceedings of which DB AG was notified by the EBA during the year under review.
The first table shows eleven proceedings which have already been concluded, table
two shows procedures still pending. Numerous proceedings were dismissed after the
suspicion of discrimination could be refuted. In most cases, the motives are economic
and financial. Disputes about market access are more rarely the grounds for proceedings,
as the liberalised railway network in Germany gives hardly any grounds for
complaints.
11 concluded EBA proceedings involving DB
EBA Reference No. Parties Subjects Results
Infrastructure usage in general
15 Nz 007-04 City Bahn Chemnitz Delay in the provision of information on Suspected discrimination
engineering work was not confirmed
15 Nz 011-04 undisclosed RUs Pricing of DB printed forms used by other RUs Subject of dispute
meanwhile settled
15 Nz 018-04 undisclosed RUs Clarification of ownership of Hagenow Stadt Suspected discrimination
station owing to sale of the line was not confirmed
15 Nz 020-03 TX Logistik Possible use of sidings Mutual solution
agreed
15 Nz 032-03 undisclosed RUs Maintenance and restitution principles Subject of dispute
for sidings at stations meanwhile settled
Infrastructure access
15 Nz 022-04 RHE Train path refused owing to closure of the Suspected discrimination
Mainzlar – Allendorf line was not confirmed
15 Nz 032-04 D&D Train path refused owing to train path conflict Lübeck – Suspected discrimination
Meimersdorf when drafting the annual timetable was not confirmed
15 Nz 503-04 RHE Requirement that the RU submit proof of Mutual solution
liability insurance agreed
15 Nz 506-04 WAB Cancellation of infrastructure usage agreement (INV) Mutual solution
owing to arrears agreed
15 Nz 507-04 WAB Infrastructure access and diesel supply refused Mutual solution
owing to arrears agreed
Train path pricing system
15 Nz 502-04 Rail4chem Payment obligations contested after TPS amendment Application procedure dismissed,
but see also Nz 012-04
30 pending EBA proceedings involving DB
EBA Reference No. Parties Subject
Regulatory Policies
Infrastructure connections
15 Nz 016-04 RSE Closure of a required feeder line
15 Nz 033-04 Stadtwerke Krefeld Cancellation of a railway infrastructure connection agreement (IAV) with offer
to sign a new agreement
15 Nz/23-1000 Bahnbetriebswerk Krefeld Conclusion of an IAV at reasonable costs
Infrastructure use in general
15 Nz 005-04 undisclosed RUs Contractual regulation of supervisory obligations for platform lighting
15 Nz 019-04 undisclosed RUs Information about engineering work for regular and special traffic
15 Nz 025-04 undisclosed RUs Calculation of additional costs for unscheduled signal box staffing
15 Nz 029-04 Aachener Verkehrsverbund Non-discriminatory application of planning parameter “connecting time”
15 Nz 031-04 undisclosed RUs Obligation by railway undertakings to notify complete arrival of train
15 Nz 038-04 RSE Obligation to process train paths on non-negotiable line Prien – Obing
15 Nz 042-04 undisclosed RUs Admissibility of licence for deployment of construction vehicles
15 Nz 045-04 undisclosed RUs Discrepant handling of advance payment procedures
15 Nz 046-04 undisclosed RUs Provision of Directive 424, which is not part of the operating/technical
regulations
15 Nz 501-04 TX Logistik Delays in processing train path applications
15 Nz 512-04 Schneider u. Schneider Admissibility of licence for deployment of construction vehicles
15 6112 undisclosed RUs Condition of Gotha – Gräfenroda line
Not yet allocated HGK Reduction of the regular signal box staffing times
Infrastructure access
15 Nz 009-04 RSE Access rejected for use of sidings during an ongoing year
15 Nz 010-04 undisclosed RUs Track possession of the Stockach – Mengen line
15 Nz 017-04 undisclosed RUs Implementation of PZB 90 (train control system)
15 Nz 021-04 undisclosed RUs GSM-R as criterion for access to infrastructure
15 Nz 027-04 WAB, VBG Cancellation of INV owing to arrears
15 Nz 028-04 RSE Rejection of a train path application owing to damaged line
15 Nz 511-04 RSE Rejection of a train path application owing to officially closed line
15 Nz GSMR SBB Requirement to equip rolling stock with GSM-R
Train path pricing system
15 Nz 012-04 Rail4chem, TX Logistik Denial of obligation to pay after TPS amendment
15 Nz 014-04 undisclosed RUs Calculation of train path price supplement for steam locomotive
15 Nz 020-04 undisclosed RUs Obligation to pay for individual calculation of special maximum loads
15 Nz 030-04 Süd/Ost-Hessen Plan Allocation of train paths to TPS product categories
and charges
15 Nz 043-04 undisclosed RUs TPS 2005, supplement for special train paths
15 Nz 044-04 SOEG Price of train path study
35

Setting New Rules
for Fair Competition
On-rail competition is becoming increasingly fierce. Companies consequently have to be
more creative if they are to succeed in the marketplace. There are repeatedly differences of
opinion in the interpretation of the existing rules.
Go-ahead for alliances
Many questions of merger control in the local public transport sector are legally
unclear. In a landmark decision of 22 December 2004, Düsseldorf Higher Regional
Court first stated that under aspects of antitrust law, alliances and joint ventures in
the local public transport and short-distance rail passenger transport sectors are not
normally a problem. This is also true for intalliance, the joint venture between üstra
AG and DB AG in the Hanover region.
The court had to decide on the purchase of a 40 per cent interest in intalliance by
DB. Other shareholders are üstra, also 40 per cent, and NordLB with 20 per cent.
The Cartel Office made its approval subject to the condition that all transport services
offered by üstra and DB Regio in Hanover are to be put up for tender on expiry of
the existing licences or transportation contracts for scheduled services. The Cartel
Office claimed that the merger consolidated the present dominant market positions of
üstra and DB Regio in their individual regionally defined local public transport and
local rail passenger markets.
Court does not believe that DB controls the local rail market
The court ruled that the joint venture is to be unconditionally approved. Contrary to
the Cartel Office, it does not believe that DB controls the market. In this ruling, Düsseldorf
Higher Regional Court issued a fundamental decision in respect of three basic,
previously controversial questions:
Merger control also applies to the local public transport and short-distance rail
passenger transport markets.
The geographically relevant orderer market at least has to be defined on a nationwide
scale. In tenders for local or short-distance rail passenger transport services,
companies from all over Germany, and in some cases from the entire EU, are potential
bidders for the contracts concerned. The companies involved are therefore only some
of many possible providers.
DB Regio does not have a dominant market position in the nationwide market of
the orderers. Although Deutsche Bahn provides more than 90 per cent of transport
services throughout Germany, the results of more than 70 tender procedures conducted
over the past few years show that there are enough efficient transport companies
whose offers won the award against Deutsche Bahn. The leeway of Deutsche Bahn is
thus adequately controlled by the competitive transport companies.
Special Areas of Discussion
The Federal Cartel Office allowed a joint venture between local public transport providers in the Hanover area
only on unacceptable terms. DB AG successfully contested the decision at Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court.
The case has now been referred to the Federal High Court of Justice; a ruling is expected in early 2006.
Tender procedures
for local rail passenger
transport show that
enough efficient
transport companies
are winning against
Deutsche Bahn.
37

38
Disputed train path and station prices
Although the German train path and station pricing system is internationally regarded as exemplary, there
are repeatedly disputes about details. Different interpretations of admissible calculation principles or
prices are clarified individually by the regulatory authorities or courts.
The amount payable for
use of DB Netz train
paths is decided on the
basis of the train path
pricing system.
Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court ruled that the agreement between DB Netz and
Rhein-Sieg-Eisenbahn (RSE) on the fees for use of train paths was null and void. The
agreement was based on the 1998 train path pricing system (TPS 98) in force at the
time. RSE contested that the fees charged by DB Netz for train path use (March 2000
to March 2001) were too high and reduced the invoice amount. Although DB Netz
could not sue for the outstanding amount, the ruling explicitly entitled it to recalculate
and reset the fees payable for train paths used by RSE in the past. The action filed
by DB Netz was thus only dismissed as “currently” unjustified. Recalculation of the
prices finally confirmed that the train path prices pursuant to TPS 98 were not excessive.
The Federal High Court of Justice did not permit an appeal against the Düsseldorf
ruling, as the litigation referred to an individual case without any fundamental importance.
Contrary to that opinion, eight actions have so far been filed against DB Netz
before various civil courts for allegedly excess payments of user fees on the basis of
TPS 98. All these cases invoke the ruling by the Düsseldorf court. No decisions have
as yet been pronounced.
In another case, a settlement is imminent in proceedings between DB Station&Service
and Vogtlandbahn, which are pending before Dresden Higher Regional Court.
DB Station&Service demanded that Vogtlandbahn pay fees for the use of stations,
which were outstanding as from 1999, on the basis of the 1999 station pricing
system. In the first instance, Leipzig Regional Court confirmed the legitimacy of the
station pricing system. The settlement also requires Vogtlandbahn to recognise the station
pricing system.
New station pricing system since January 2005
At the beginning of the year, DB Station&
Service introduced a new simplified station
pricing system. Resulting price changes are
currently being discussed with the customers.
Under the new system, the number
of station prices is reduced from 5,400 to
just 96, each with two train length factors.
The 96 prices are based on six station categories
in the 16 Federal Laender. Each station
is allocated to one of these categories
on the basis of standard nationwide criteria.
A key role for this allocation is the traffic
importance of the station, which reflects
amongst other things the number of passengers,
the train stops and the connecting
function. It also takes into account the specific
infrastructure requirements and support
payment conditions in the Land concerned.
The new station pricing system offers the
customers decisive advantages:
more transparency thanks to the same
prices for comparable services
stable prices
simplified settlement of accounts
better planning for the actors in rail
passenger transport
no automatic price adjustments in
case of building work
Maintenance contracts for the Lower Saxony vehicle pool were decided by Celle Higher Regional Court.
Special Areas of Discussion
Rights and duties in case of vehicle pools
The tender for the award of regional transport services between Göttingen and Uelzen was revoked by
Celle Higher Regional Court. Its landmark decision states that even in the case of vehicle pools, railway
undertakings must still be able to satisfy their safety obligations.
In its ruling of 2 September 2004, Celle Higher Regional Court revoked the tender for
regional transport between Göttingen and Uelzen, issuing a landmark decision on the
provision of rolling stock and maintenance services by the orderers in the case of vehicle
pools. While such pools are admissible under contract award laws, the railway
undertakings nevertheless still have to fully satisfy their safety obligations.
Railway undertakings have to retain control of maintenance work
In this case, the contract award documents envisaged a separate agreement between
Landesnahverkehrsgesellschaft Niedersachsen and a maintenance firm. The railway
undertaking would have had no contractual rights against these two companies to
ensure reliable maintenance. Nor was it entitled to any control rights, to issue instructions
to the maintenance personnel, nor to terminate the maintenance agreement in
case of unsatisfactory performance.
This arrangement meant there was no guarantee that the railway undertaking
would be able to satisfy its safety obligations for the construction and maintenance of
rolling stock, although it is obliged to do so pursuant to the General Railway Act
(AEG). Celle Higher Regional Court considered this an exceptional risk for the railway
undertaking in contravention of contract award law and revoked the contract
award.
In its ruling, however, the court also made it clear that state vehicle pools are
admissible under contract award law. Even if the court did not acknowledge the legal
uncertainty about the admissibility of state rolling stock pools under contract award
legislation, there is still public debate about the need for such pools. Developments in
recent years have shown that competition works even without such government pools
and that private pools are a potential alternative.
Experience in the
regional transport
sector shows that the
competitors can still
succeed even without
state vehicle pools.
39

More than 300 Railways on
the German Rail Network
2004 again saw a slight increase in the number of customers of DB Netz. As the overview
of companies shows, in addition to the higher number of customers, there have also been
changes in the ownership status. The list of companies shows the most important competitors
of DB in the German rail market.
Increasingly international environment
More and more foreign companies are taking an interest in the German rail market.
The British Arriva group has been in operation in Germany since 2004. Some international
corporations which have already been active in the German market for years,
such as the French Connex, substantially expanded their operations last year.
Smaller private railways, on the other hand, frequently come up against their limits
in the capital-intensive railway business. The insolvencies of Karsdorfer Eisenbahn,
Ernst Schauffele Schienenverkehrsgesellschaft and EBM Cargo are prominent examples.
Change of ownership drew attention in 2004
February: Karsdorfer Eisenbahngesellschaft files a petition in insolvency.
April: Arriva takes over Prignitzer Eisenbahn AG and consequently its stake in
Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn.
Vectus Verkehrsgesellschaft, a subsidiary of Hessische Landesbahn and Westerwaldbahn,
is licensed as a railway undertaking. It begins regional operations on the
“Westerwald-Taunus” network at the end of 2004.
DB Regio takes over the 30-per cent share of the insolvent company Karsdorfer
Eisenbahngesellschaft in their previously joint subsidiary Burgenlandbahn.
May: Several municipal shareholders sell their minority interests in Teutoburger-Wald-
Eisenbahn-AG to Connex Cargo Logistics.
Stock-Transporte, a small private company, is licensed as a railway undertaking and
provides individual rail freight services from its base in Mannheim.
June: EBM Cargo files a petition in insolvency.
July: Ernst Schauffele Schienenverkehrsgesellschaft files a petition in insolvency.
August: EBM Eisenbahn-Verkehrs-Gesellschaft, the sister company of EBM Cargo in
the Bergisch-Märkisch region, also files a petition in insolvency.
November: Arriva takes over 76.9 per cent of the shares held by the Free State of
Bavaria in Regentalbahn AG, paying a price of around 60 million euros.
After several changes of ownership, Rügensche Kleinbahn GmbH & Co. KG is sold
to private individual Hermann Schöntag.
January 2005: Connex Cargo Logistics takes over ThyssenKrupp Stahl AG’s share in
Dortmunder Eisenbahn GmbH with effect backdated to 1 July 2004.
Railion Deutschland AG purchases the logistics division of RAG, and consequently
RAG Bahn und Hafen GmbH.
Overview of Companies
There are more than 300 railway undertakings licensed to provide rail transport in Germany.
A growing number of companies are fully or partly owned by foreign companies.
The number of
insolvencies shows
that increasing
competition has
exceeded the
economic capability
of some SME
freight railways.
41

42
Locations of foreign participating companies in Germany
These railways operate from 40 bases in Germany.
Passenger
Berlin
Arriva Arriva
Osnabrück
Connex
Connex
Ahaus
Connex
AAE-Group
Bielefeld Rhenus Keolis
Gütersloh Connex
Oberhausen
Arriva Essen
Bertschi
Mettmann
Connex
Cologne
Eisenach
SBB
Bad Honnef
Connex
Trenitalia
Mayen
Ziltendorf
ARCELOR
Bitterfeld
Connex
Leipzig
Görlitz
Connex
Connex
Erfurt
Freiberg
Heavy Haul Power
Rhenus Keolis
Unterwellenborn
Neumark
EuRailCo
ARCELOR Arriva
Frankfurt
Mainz European Rail Shuttle
Trier
Rhenus Keolis
AAE-Group
EuroLuxCargo Kaiserslautern
Mannheim
St. Ingbert
Dillen en Le Jeune Cargo
EuRailCo
Wincanton
Freight
SBB/Hupac
Hupac
France
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Belgium
Italy
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Niebüll
EuroLuxCargo
EuroLuxCargo
Kiel
Connex
Uetersen
EuroLuxCargo
European Rail Shuttle
Hamburg
Chem Trans Logistik
Singen
Waiblingen
Connex
Connex
Konstanz Kempten
SBB
SBB/Arriva
Neubrandenburg
Connex
Parchim Connex
Arriva
Arriva
Putlitz
Neuenmarkt
Arriva
Holzkirchen
Connex
Connex
Viechtach
Arriva
Vienna
Wiener Lokalbahn
Source: own data

Company L R F M W I Shareholder
Companies with foreign shareholders
AAE-Holding AG
Bentheimer
AAE-Holding AG
Verkehrsmittel
Deutschland AG
Ahaus-Alstätter
Eisenbahn GmbH
ARCELOR S.A.
x x 100% Bentheimer
Verkehrsmittel AG
EKO Stahl GmbH ARCELOR S.A.
EKO Transport -
gesellschaft mbH
(EKO TRANS)
x 100% EKO Stahl GmbH
Stahlwerk Thüringen
GmbH
Arriva plc.
x ARCELOR S.A.
Regentalbahn AG 76.9% Arriva plc.
23.1% diversifi ed
shareholdings
Regental
Bahnbetriebs GmbH
x x x 100%
Regentalbahn AG
Vogtlandbahn GmbH x 100%
Regentalbahn AG
PE Arriva AG 100% Arriva plc.
PE Cargo GmbH x x 100% PE Arriva AG
Prignitzer Eisenbahn
GmbH
x x x 100% PE Arriva AG
Ostdeutsche
Eisenbahn GmbH
Bertschi AG
Rail4chem
Eisenbahnverkehrsgesellschaft
mbH
Chem Trans
Logistik Rail GmbH
Connex Verkehr
GmbH Holding
Bayerische Oberlandbahn
GmbH
Connex Cargo
Logistics GmbH
Bayerische Cargo-
Bahn GmbH
Dortmunder Eisenbahn
GmbH
Hörseltalbahn
GmbH
Industriebahn-
Gesellschaft Berlin
mbH
RailCargo Berlin
GmbH
x 50% Prignitzer
Eisenbahn GmbH
50% Hamburger
Hochbahn AG
x 25% Bertschi AG
25% Hoyer GmbH
25% VTG AG
25% BASF AG
x Chem Trans Logistik
Holding Polska S.A.
indirectly 100% Veolia
Environment
x 100% Connex Verkehr
GmbH Holding
100% Connex Verkehr
GmbH Holding
x 100% Connex Cargo
Logistics GmbH
x 65% Connex Cargo
Logistics GmbH
35% Dortmunder Hafen AG
x x 100% Connex Cargo
Logistics GmbH
x 50.2% Connex Cargo
Logistics GmbH
49.8% Berliner Hafenund
Lagerhausbetriebe
x 50% Industriebahn-
Gesellschaft Berlin mbH
50% Connex Cargo
Logistics GmbH
Overview of Companies
Company L R F M W I Shareholder
NordWestCargo
GmbH
Regiobahn Bitterfeld
GmbH
Teutoburger-Wald-
Eisenbahn-AG
TWE Bahnbetriebs
GmbH
x 51% Connex Cargo
Logistics GmbH
49% Stadtwerke
Osnabrück AG
x x 100% Connex Cargo
Logistics GmbH
x 80.14% Connex Cargo
Logistics GmbH
19.86% diversifi ed
shareholdings
x 100% Teutoburger-
Wald-Eisenbahn-AG
LausitzBahn GmbH x x 100% Connex Verkehr
GmbH Holding
Nord-Ostsee-Bahn
GmbH
x 100% Connex Verkehr
GmbH Holding
neg Niebüll mbH x x x Nord-Ostsee-Bahn GmbH
99.8% NEG Norddeutsche
Eisenbahngesellschaft mbH,
Schmidt Reisen GmbH
NordWestBahn GmbH x 64% Connex Verkehr
GmbH Holding
26% Stadtwerke
Osnabrück AG
10% Verkehr und Was ser
GmbH Oldenburg
Ostmecklenburgische
Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
Rheinisch-Bergische
Eisenbahn GmbH
Württembergische
Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
Dillen en Le
Jeune Cargo
Dillen en Le Jeune
Cargo NV
x x x 100% Connex Verkehr
GmbH Holding
x 100% Connex Verkehr
GmbH Holding
x x x 96.95% Connex Verkehr
GmbH Holding,
Oppenheimer
Beteiligungs-GmbH
x 60% Dillen en
Le Jeune Cargo
40% Hupac S.A.
EuRailCo 50% Transdev
50% RATP
trans regio Deutsche
Regionalbahn GmbH
EuroLuxCargo
S.A.
NEG Norddeutsche
Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
x x 75.1% EuRailCo
24.9% Rheinische
Bahngesellschaft AG
100% Société Nationale
des Chemins de fer
Luxembourgeois
x x 100% EuroLuxCargo S.A.
neg Niebüll mbH x x x x 99.8% NEG Norddeutsche
Eisenbahngesellschaft mbH,
Nord-Ostsee-Bahn GmbH,
Schmidt Reisen GmbH
European
Rail Shuttle B.V.
50% Maersk-Sealand
50% P&O Nedlloyd
boxXpress.de GmbH x 47% European Rail Shuttle
Holding B.V.
38% Eurogate
Intermodal GmbH
15% TX Logistik AG
43

Company L R F M W I Shareholder
Heavy Haul
Power International
x x Richard Martin Painter,
Martina Thiele
Hupac S.A. 72% forwarders
23.8% SBB AG
4.2% other railways
Dillen en Le Jeune
Cargo NV
x 40% Hupac S.A.
60% Dillen en Le Jeune
Cargo
Hupac GmbH x 100% Hupac S.A.
SBB Cargo
Deutschland GmbH
S-Rail Europe SRE
GmbH
x 5% Hupac S.A.
95% SBB Cargo AG
x 25% Hupac S.A.
75% SBB Cargo AG
Keolis S.A. 43.5% SNCF Participations
53.5% 3i Bank
Rhenus Keolis GmbH
& Co. KG (Eurobahn)
Freiberger Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
x x 49% Keolis S.A.
51% Rhenus AG & Co. KG
x 85% Rhenus Keolis
GmbH & Co. KG
10% Verkehrsbetriebe
Freiberg Kreis
5% diversifi ed
shareholdings
Schweizerische
Bundesbahnen AG
SBB Cargo AG 100% SBB AG
S-Rail Europe SRE
GmbH
SBB Cargo
Deutschland GmbH
x 75% SBB Cargo AG
25% Hupac S.A.
x 95% SBB Cargo AG
5% Hupac S.A.
SBB GmbH x 100% SBB AG
Thurbo AG 90% SBB AG
10% Canton of Thurgau
EuroTHURBO GmbH
Trenitalia SpA
x 100% Thurbo AG
TX Logistik AG x 15% Trenitalia SpA
85% six private
individuals
boxXpress.de GmbH
Wincanton
Trans European
Management GmbH
x 15% TX Logistik AG
47% European
Rail Shuttle Holding B.V.
38% Eurogate
Intermodal GmbH
UNISPED Spedition x Wincanton Trans European
und Transportgesellschaft
mbH
Management GmbH
Wincanton
Wincanton Trans European
Trans European
(Deutschland) GmbH
Management GmbH
BGE Eisenbahn und x 32% Wincanton Trans
Güterverkehr GmbH
European GmbH
18% HGK AG,
M-real Zanders GmbH,
City of Bergisch Gladbach
Company L R F M W I Shareholder
SME Private Railways
AHG Handel & Logistik
GmbH & Co. KG
Anhaltische Bahn
Gesellschaft mbH
AStrans
Spedition GmbH
Bahnbetriebsgesellschaft
Stauden mbH
BayernBahn
Betriebsgesellschaft
mbH
Borkumer Kleinbahn
und Dampfschifffahrt
GmbH
Brohltal Schmalspureisenbahn
Betriebs-GmbH
Deutsche Regionaleisenbahn
GmbH
x 100% Lutz Stache
x x 100% Dessau-Wör litzer
Eisenbahn e.V.
x 100% Anton Schmirler
x x x Staudenbahnfreunde e.V.
x x x x Bayerisches Eisenbahnmuseum
Nördlingen
x x 100% Aktiengesellschaft
EMS
x x 100% IG Brohltal-
Schmalspur eisenbahn e.V.
x x x 100% Deutscher
Bahnkunden-Verband e.V.
Döllnitzbahn GmbH x x x x Deutscher
Bahnkunden-Verband e.V.,
Oschatz rural district
D&D Eisenbahn
GmbH
EBM Cargo GmbH &
Co. KG i.I.
Eifelbahn Verkehrsgesellschaft
mbH
Eisenbahn-BauundBetriebsgesellschaftPreßnitztalbahn
mbH
Eisenbahn Betriebsgesellschaft
mbH
Klützer-Ostsee-
Eisenbahn GmbH
Westfälische Almetalbahn
GmbH
Eisenbahnbetriebe
Mittlerer Neckar
GmbH
Ernst Schauffele
Schienenverkehrs
GmbH & Co. KG i.I.
Euregio Verkehrsschienennetz
GmbH
GET Georgsmarienhütte
Eisenbahn und
Transport GmbH
GVG Georg Verkehrsorganisation
GmbH
H.F. Wiebe
GmbH & Co. KG
x x x Christian Dehns,
Dörte Dehns
x x 100% EBM Cargo
Verwaltungs GmbH
x x Jörg Seyffert
x x x IG Preßnitztalbahn e.V.
x 100% Ludger Guttwein
x x 100% Eisenbahn
Betriebsgesellschaft mbH
x x x 100% Eisenbahn
Betriebsgesellschaft mbH
x x 100% Gesellschaft zur
Erhaltung von Schienenfahrzeugen
Stuttgart e.V.
x 100% Bauunternehmen
Ernst Schauffele
GmbH & Co. KG
x x Ewald Schmitz,
Helmut Conrads,
Henning Ernden
x x 100%
Georgsmarienhütte GmbH
x Rolf Georg,
Rolly Fly SA Holding
x x The Wiebe family
Hochwaldbahn e.V. x x B. Heinrichsmeyer
Sächsisch-Böhmische
Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
x x 100% Hochwaldbahn e.V.
Company
Hoyer GmbH
L R F M W I Shareholder
Rail4chem Eisen bahn- x 25% Hoyer GmbH
verk ehrs gesellschaft
25% Bertschi AG
mbH
25% VTG AG
25% BASF AG
IGE Bahntouristik
GmbH & Co. KG
x indirectly 100% Armin Götz
Industrietransportgesellschaft
mbH
Brandenburg
x x Villmann Gruppe
ITL Eisenbahnge sellschaft
mbH Dresden
Karsdorfer
Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH i.I.
Kreisbahn Mansfelder
Land GmbH
Lappwaldbahn
GmbH
Mittelweserbahn
GmbH
Verkehrsbetriebe
Grafschaft Hoya
GmbH
Neukölln-MittenwalderEisenbahngesellschaft
AG
Nordbayerische
Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
PBSV-Verkehrs-
GmbH
Pfalzbahn
Eisenbahnverkehrsgesellschaft
mbH
RCN rail center
Nürnberg GmbH &
Co. KG
RSE Rhein-Sieg-
Eisenbahn GmbH
Rügensche
Kleinbahn
GmbH & Co. KG
x x x 100% Karin and
Uwe Wegat
x x x 100% Bernhard
van Engelen
x x x x 74% Helga Teutsch
26% Gerhard Kellner
x x x 60% Henning Welzel
40% Axel Dannhof
x x x Markus Fuhrmann, Hans-
Peter Kempf, Jens Koppmann,
Christian Speer
x x x Mittelweserbahn GmbH,
WeserBahn GmbH,
two rural districts,
three cities,
two local authorities
x x x Vering & Waechter GmbH
& Co. KG
x x 66.66% Torsten Sewerin
33.33% Manfred Richter
x AVJ Management
und Beteiligungsgesellschaft
mbH,
private individuals
x 51.9% K. Ulshöfer
12.7% F. K. Schnell bacher
12.7% A. Friedrich
VCD e.V.,
private individuals
x Stahlberg Roensch
GmbH & Co. KG,
RCN RailCenter
Nürnberg Verwaltungs-
GmbH,
DB Netz AG
x x x x 12.6% VCD e.V.
87.4% 41 private individuals
x x x 100% Herrmann Schöntag
SLG Spitzke
Logistik GmbH
x x 100% Spitzke AG
Stock-Transporte x 100% Detlef Michael Stock
Thüringer
Eisenbahn GmbH
TIM Rail Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
x 100% Erfurter
Gleisbau GmbH
x RP Eisenbahn GmbH,
TIM Transport
Intermodal GmbH
Overview of Companies
Company L R F M W I Shareholder
TLG Transport &
Logistik GmbH
x x 100% Frey Holding und
Management GmbH
TX Logistik AG x 85% six private individuals
15% Trenitalia SpA
boxXpress.de GmbH x 15% TX Logistik AG
47% European Rail Shuttle
Holding B.V.
38% Eurogate
Intermodal GmbH
Uwe Adam Eisenbahnverkehrsunternehmen
GmbH
The Adam company
Vulkan-Eifel-Bahn
Betriebsgesellschaft
mbH
x x x 50% Frank Zelinski
50% Jörg Petry
Industrial Railways
Augsburger
x x Adolf Präg
Localbahn GmbH
BASF AG
Verwal tungs GmbH,
Augsburger
Verkehrsverbund GmbH,
Busverkehr Schwaben
Beteiligungs GmbH,
Knape Gleis sanierung
GmbH,
City of Augsburg,
Stadtwerke Augsburg,
UPM-Kymmene
BASF AG, Service
Center Railway
x x BASF AG
BASF Schwarzheide
GmbH
x 100% BASF AG
Rail4chem
x 25% BASF AG
Eisenbahnverkehrs-
25% Hoyer GmbH
gesellschaft mbH
25% Bertschi AG
25% VTG AG
Chemion
Logistik GmbH
x 100% Bayer AG
Cargo Rail GmbH x 100% Dillinger
Hüttenwerke AG
InfraLeuna
Infrastruktur und
Service GmbH
Rhenus AG &
Co. KG
Rhenus Keolis GmbH
& Co. KG (Eurobahn)
Freiberger
Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
Rhenus Rail
Logistics
Thyssen
Krupp Stahl AG
Eisenbahn und Häfen
GmbH
x several Leuna-based
companies
44 45
90% Rethmann
AG & Co. KG
x x 51% Rhenus AG & Co. KG
49% Keolis S.A.
x 85% Rhenus Keolis GmbH
& Co. KG
10% Verkehrs betriebe
Freiberg Kreis
5% diversifi ed
shareholdings
x x 100% Rhenus AG & Co. KG
x 90% Thyssen
Krupp Stahl AG
10% Railion Deutschland

Company L R F M W I Shareholder
EH Güter verkehr
GmbH
Verkehrsbetriebe
Peine-Salzgitter
GmbH
VTG AG
Rail4chem Eisenbahnverkehrsgesellschaft
mbH
x 100% Eisenbahn und
Häfen GmbH
x x 100% Salzgitter AG
x 25% VTG AG
25% Hoyer GmbH
25% Bertschi AG
25% BASF AG
Municipal and Land-Owned Railways
AKN Eisenbahn AG x x x x Free and Hanseatic
City of Hamburg,
Land of Schleswig Holstein,
diversifi ed shareholdings
NBE nordbahn Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
Schleswig-Holstein-
Bahn GmbH
Albtal-Verkehrs-
Gesellschaft mbH
UEF Eisenbahnverkehrsgesellschaft
mbH
Ankum
Bersenbrücker
Eisenbahn GmbH
Augsburger
Localbahn GmbH
Bahnen der Stadt
Monheim GmbH
Bentheimer
Eisenbahn AG
Bodensee-Oberschwaben-Bahn
GmbH & Co. KG
Bremer
Straßenbahn AG
x 50% AKN Eisenbahn AG
50% Hamburger
Hochbahn AG
x 100% AKN
Eisenbahn AG
x x x 100% City of Karlsruhe
x x 14% Albtal-Verkehrsgesellschaft
mbH
14% Leonhard Weiss
GmbH & Co. KG
72% Ulmer Eisenbahnfreunde
e.V.
x x 100% Osnabrück rural
district
x x City of Augsburg,
Stadtwerke Augsburg,
Adolf Präg
Verwal tungs GmbH,
Augsburger
Verkehrsverbund GmbH,
Busverkehr Schwaben
Beteiligungs GmbH,
Knape
Gleissanierung GmbH,
UPM-Kymmene
x x 100% Monheimer
Ver sorgungs- und Verkehrsgesellschaft
mbH
x x 93.99% Grafschaft
Bentheim rural district
6.01% Cities of Nordhorn
und Neuenhaus
x 27.5% Technische Werke
Friedrichshafen GmbH
25% City of Ravensburg
37.5% Bodensee and
Ravensburg rural districts
10% Meckenbeuren local
authority
99.02% Bremer Versorgungs-
und Verkehrsgesellschaft
mbH
Company L R F M W I Shareholder
metronom Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
x 5% Bremer
Straßenbahn AG
69.9% Nie dersachsen
Bahn GmbH
25.1% Hamburger
Hochbahn AG
WeserBahn GmbH x 100% Bremer
Straßenbahn AG
Bremen-Thedinghauser
Eisenbahn GmbH
Verkehrsbetriebe
Grafschaft Hoya
GmbH
x x 10% WeserBahn GmbH
three local authorities, 30%
each
x x x WeserBahn GmbH,
Mittelweserbahn GmbH,
two rural districts,
three cities,
two local authorities
BVO Bahn GmbH x x x x 100% Verkehrsbetriebe
Erzgebirge GmbH
City-Bahn
Chemnitz GmbH
Delmenhorst-
Harpstedter
Eisenbahn GmbH
x x 60% Chemnitzer
Verkehrs AG
40% Autobus GmbH
Sachsen
x x x 35% City of Delmenhorst
27% Oldenburg rural district
23% four local authorities
Döllnitzbahn GmbH x x x x Oschatz rural district,
Deutscher Bahn kunden-
Verband e.V.
duisport rail GmbH x 100% Duisburger Hafen AG
Eisenbahnen und
Verkehrsbetriebe
Elbe-Weser GmbH
Niedersachsen Bahn
GmbH
metronom
Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
Elektrische Bahnen
der Stadt Bonn
und des Rhein-Sieg-
Kreises (SBB)
Emsländische
Eisenbahn GmbH
Erfurter Industrie-
Bahn GmbH
Süd-Thüringen-Bahn
GmbH
Häfen und Güterverkehr
Köln AG
(HGK AG)
x x x x 58% Land of Lower Saxony
14% Rotenburg (Wümme)
rural district, further rural
districts and diversifi ed
shareholdings
40% Eisenbahnen
and Verkehrsbetriebe
Elbe-Weser GmbH
60% Osthanno versche
Eisenbahnen AG
x 69.9% Niedersachsen
Bahn GmbH
25.1% Hamburger
Hochbahn AG
5% Bremer
Straßenbahn AG
x Rhein-Sieg-Kreis,
Stadtwerke Bonn
Verkehrs-GmbH
x x x Emsland rural district
x x x x City of Erfurt
x 50% Erfurter
Industriebahn GmbH
50% Hessische
Landesbahn GmbH
x x 54.5% Stadtwerke
Köln GmbH
39.2% City of Cologne
6.3% Erftkreis
Company L R F M W I Shareholder
BGE Eisenbahn und
Güterverkehr GmbH
Hamburger
Hochbahn AG
metronom Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
NBE nordbahn Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
Ostdeutsche Eisenbahn
GmbH
Harzer
Schmalspurbahnen
GmbH
Hessische
Landesbahn GmbH
Butzbach-Licher
Eisenbahn AG
Frankfurt-Königsteiner
Eisenbahn AG
x 18% HGK AG
32% Wincanton Trans
European GmbH,
M-real Zanders GmbH,
City of Bergisch Gladbach
98.21% Hamburger Gesellschaft
für Ver mögens- und
Beteiligungsverwaltung mbH
1.79% diversifi ed
shareholdings
x 25.1% Hamburger
Hochbahn AG
69.9% Niedersachsen
Bahn GmbH
5% Bremer
Straßenbahn AG
x 50% Hamburger
Hochbahn AG
50% AKN Eisenbahn AG
x 50% Hamburger
Hochbahn AG
50% Prignitzer
Eisenbahn GmbH
x x x x three rural districts,
City of Quedlinburg,
Kurbetriebsgesellschaft
Braunlage,
district authorities,
Tanne local authority
100% Land of Hesse
x x x 94.4% Hessische
Landesbahn GmbH
5.6% district authorities
and local authorities
x x 51% Hessische
Landesbahn GmbH
49% district authorities
and local authorities
Hellertalbahn GmbH x 33.3% Hessische
Landesbahn GmbH
33.3% Westerwaldbahn
GmbH
33.3% Siegener
Kreisbahn GmbH
Kassel-Naumburger
Eisenbahn AG
Regionalbahn Kassel
GmbH
Süd-Thüringen-Bahn
GmbH
vectus Verkehrsgesellschaft
mbH
x x x 51% Hessische Landes bahn
GmbH
41.5% local authorities
along the line
6.7% Kassel rural district
0.8% diversifi ed
shareholdings
x x 50% Kassel-Naumburger
Eisenbahn AG
50% Kasseler Verkehrs-
Gesellschaft AG
x 50% Hessische
Landesbahn GmbH
50% Erfurter
Industriebahn GmbH
x 74.9% Hessische
Landesbahn GmbH
25.1% Westerwaldbahn
GmbH
Company L R F M W I Shareholder
Hohenzollerische
Landesbahn AG
x x x x Land of Baden-Württemberg,
two rural districts
Ilmebahn GmbH x x Northeim rural district,
City of Einbeck
Kahlgrund-
Verkehrs-
Gesellschaft mbH
Kasseler Verkehrs-
Gesellschaft AG
Regionalbahn Kassel
GmbH
Kölner Verkehrsbetriebe
AG
Märkische Verkehrsgesellschaft
mbH
Dortmund-Märkische
Eisenbahn GmbH
Märkische Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
MecklenburgBahn
GmbH
Mecklenburgische
Bäderbahn Molli
GmbH & Co. KG
Mindener Kreisbahnen
GmbH
Overview of Companies
x x Free State of Bavaria,
Aschaffenburg rural district,
DB AG
93.5% Kasseler
Verkehrs-und
Versorgungs-GmbH
6.5% City of Kassel
x x 50% Kasseler Verkehrs-
Gesellschaft AG
50% Kassel-Naum burger
Eisenbahn AG
x 90% Stadtwerke
Köln GmbH
10% City of Cologne
Märkische Kommunale
Wirtschafts-GmbH,
19 local authorities
x 74% Dortmunder
Stadtwerke AG
26% Märkische Verkehrsgesellschaft
mbH
x x Märkische Verkehrsgesellschaft
mbH,
Märkische Kommunale
Wirtschafts-GmbH,
City of Plettenberg
x 100% Nahverkehr
Schwerin GmbH
x x x 63.3% Bad Doberan rural
district
19.7% City of Bad Doberan
14.8% City of Ostseebad
Kühlungsborn
2.2% private individuals
x x 100% Minden Lübbecke
district authority
MVV GmbH 100% City of Mannheim
Contrain x indirectly 100% MVV GmbH
MVV OEG AG x x x 96.4% MVV GmbH
Neuss-Düsseldorfer x x Neuss-Düsseldorfer
Häfen
Häfen Verwaltungs GmbH,
GmbH & Co. KG
Stadtwerke Düsseldorf AG
Niederrheinische
x x x Wesel district authority,
Verkehrsbetriebe AG
Kleve district authority
Osthannoversche
x x x Land of Lower Saxony,
Eisenbahnen AG
Federal Republic
of Germany,
rural districts,
city authorities,
local authorities,
DB AG
NiedersachsenBahn
60% Osthannoversche
GmbH & Co. KG
Eisenbahnen AG
40% Eisenbahnen und
Verkehrsbetriebe
Elbe-Weser GmbH
46 47

48
Company L R F M W I Shareholder
metronom
Eisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
Rinteln-Stadthagener
Verkehrs GmbH
Osthavelländische
Eisenbahn AG
Regionale
Bahngesellschaft
(REGIOBAHN)
Kaarst-Neuss-
Düsseldorf-Erkrath-
Mettmann-
Wuppertal mbH
Rhein-Haardtbahn
GmbH
x 69.9% NiedersachsenBahn
GmbH & Co. KG
25.1% Hamburger
Hochbahn AG
5% Bremer Straßenbahn AG
x x 74% Osthannoversche
Eisenbahnen AG
26% city authorities and
rural districts
x x x 50.47% Havelland rural
district
32.5% Oberhavel-
Holding GmbH
16.8% diversifi ed
shareholdings
x x two local authorities,
Cities of Düsseldorf
and Kaarst,
Stadtwerke Wuppertal
and Neuss
x x 54% Technische Werke
Ludwigshafen AG
31.5% two rural districts
10% City of Bad Dürkheim
4.5% local authorities
Rurtalbahn GmbH x x x x 25.1% Dürener
Kreisbahn GmbH
74.9% R.A.T.H. GmbH
Saarbahn GmbH x 96% VVG Saarbrücken
GmbH
Sächsisch-OberlausitzerEisenbahngesellschaft
mbH
Seehafen Kiel
GmbH & Co.KG
Siegener Kreisbahn
GmbH
x x x x Löbau-Zittau rural district,
City of Zittau,
local authorities
x x 100% City of Kiel
x x 100% Betriebs- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft
Kreis
Siegen-Wittgenstein mbH
Hellertalbahn GmbH x 33.3% Westerwaldbahn
GmbH
33.3% Hessische Landesbahn
GmbH
33.3% Siegener
Kreisbahn GmbH
Südwestdeutsche
Verkehrs-AG
Breisgau-S-Bahn
GmbH
Ortenau-S-Bahn
GmbH
Verden-Walsroder
Eisenbahn GmbH
Verkehrsbetriebe
Extertal-
Extertalbahn GmbH
x x x Land of
Baden-Württemberg
x 50% Südwestdeutsche
Verkehrs-AG
50% Freiburger
Verkehrs AG
x 100% Südwestdeutsche
Verkehrs AG
x x x 68.66% Verden rural district
15.69% City of Verden
15.65% rural districts and
local authorities
x x x x Lippe district authority,
E-Werk Wesertal GmbH,
Westfälisch-Lippische Vermögensverwaltungs-GmbH,
City of Rinteln,
Schaumburg rural district
Company L R F M W I Shareholder
Verkehrsbetriebe
Grafschaft
Hoya GmbH
Verkehrsgesellschaft
Landkreis
Osnabrück GmbH
Vorwohle-
Emmerthaler
Verkehrsbetriebe
GmbH
Wanne-Herner
Eisenbahn und
Hafen GmbH
WestEnergie und
Verkehr GmbH
Westerwaldbahn
GmbH
x x x two rural districts,
three cities,
two local authorities,
Mittelweserbahn GmbH,
WeserBahn GmbH
x x x Osnabrück rural district,
neighbouring district
authority, local authorities
x x 54% Cities of Bodenwerder
and Eschershausen
46% local authorities and
private Shareholders
x x 100% City of Herne
x x x Niederrheinische Versorgung
und Verkehr AG,
WestEnergie und Verkehr
Verwaltungs-GmbH,
Kreiswerke Heinsberg
GmbH
x x x x 100% Altenkirchen district
authority
Hellertalbahn GmbH x 33.3% Westerwaldbahn
GmbH
33.3% Hessische Landesbahn
GmbH
33.3% Siegener
Kreisbahn GmbH
vectus Verkehrsgesellschaft
mbH
Westfälische
Verkehrsgesellschaft
mbH
Regionalverkehr
Münsterland GmbH
Regionalverkehr Ruhr-
Lippe GmbH
Westfälische Landeseisenbahn
GmbH
x 25.1% Westerwaldbahn
GmbH
74.9% Hessische
Landesbahn GmbH
Westfälisch-Lippische
Vermögens verwaltungs
GmbH,
four local authorities
x x Westfälische
Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH,
Coesfeld district authority
x x Westfälische Verkehrsgesellschaft
mbH,
district authorities,
city authorities,
local authorities
x x x Westfälische Verkehrsgesellschaft
mbH,
district authorities,
city authorities,
local authorities
L = Long-distance transport
R = Regional transport
F = Freight transport
M = Museum, tourist and charter transport
W = Works train services
I = Infrastructure
This list of companies has been compiled on the basis of
generally available sources. It does not claim to be
complete. Please do not hesitate to inform us of any
inaccuracies or updated information.