Trenitalia best airline in Europe, Eurostar last and off-the-ground proposals to improve things

The European Federation for Transport and Environment, better known as T&E, has just published a ranking of the best rail companies in Europe, which we feel is a welcome first. While some elements of this ranking come as no surprise to us, there are a number of interesting points to be drawn from it, since this ranking is merely a pretext for taking stock of the European rail landscape and making recommendations for improvement.

For your information, this is a European organization made up of some fifty non-governmental organizations, which is rather a guarantee of independence compared to airline rankings, and in particular Skytrax, where the body that evaluates also has commercial interests with those it evaluates. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have their own agenda!

On the other hand, unlike the airline rankings, we don’t claim to have tried out every rail company in Europe, but we do at least have an opinion on the ones we know.

All we read in the media about this ranking was a terse rehash of press releases without any thought, so we decided to read the study in detail.

Here’s what we got out of it.

Unsatisfactory evaluation criteria

First of all, let’s take a look at the criteria. There are 8 of them: ticket price, presence of discounts or special fares, reliability (punctuality, cancellations, etc.), ease of booking (opening date of sales, cancellation policy, etc.), passenger experience (restaurant car, Wi-Fi, journey speed, etc.), refund policy, existence of night trains and bicycle policy (bicycles allowed on board, reserved seats, etc.).

These criteria are weighted as follows:

Ticket prices (25%), reliability (15%), booking experience (15%), compensation policies (10%), passenger experience (10%), development of night trains (5%), accessibility for cyclists (5%), fare reductions (15%)

As T&E’s aim is to improve service quality so that companies can “make us prefer the train”, we may well question not only the criteria, but also their weighting.

In particular, we note the low weight of customer experience, which is precisely what justifies the price. Depending on the situation, the passenger will either consider the price as such, in order to pay the lowest possible price, or compare experiences at the same price, which is notably the case for routes open to competition – a situation which is still too much of a minority. It weighs less than compensation policies, and on the other hand, ticket prices and discounts together account for 40% of the total, whereas they should be a single criterion. Unless, of course, these weightings are used to convey a political message…

In our opinion, the customer experience should weigh as much as the price, no more but no less. Of course, price is a key factor for most travelers, especially in the absence of competition, which prevents them from comparing several products. This is why air travel is the preferred means of transport for people from low-income backgrounds and the economically inactive, but on the other hand, it’s important to bear in mind that cheap rail travel makes no economic sense.

Then, when we talk about customer experience, the comfort of the seats and carriages is not taken into account, which makes no sense at all, especially at a time when we want to impose the use of trains on long journeys or at night.

Here are some ideas of criteria that could have been taken into account:

– Seat spacing (pitch) and width: Data on the distance between seats or their width could be standardized for a more accurate assessment.

– Reclining seats and footrests: These elements enhance comfort, especially on long journeys.

– Spaces reserved for passengers with special needs: Zones for people with reduced mobility or adapted seats.

– On-board lighting and noise: The quality of the layout also includes the management of noise and lighting pollution.

– Carriage configuration: 2-2 or 1-1 configuration (yes, there is such a thing), cabin with seats fully facing the direction of travel (this does exist in Japan, or in Executive on Trenitalia).

Finally, let’s talk about catering, where service at the seat is not valued at all, and only accounts for 2.5% of the final score. Once again, this is questionable in view of the increasingly long distances involved, or to justify certain prices.

Generally speaking, we are surprised by the low weight given to customer experience in a study that is supposed to rank the best companies, when on the contrary it should be central.

It might also have been useful to distinguish between different classes of travel, as Skytrax does for air travel. In terms of products, constraints and services, business travellers have their own specificities, and “getting them to choose the train” means using different levers. Like air travel, rail transport does not cater to a monolithic clientele, and catering to the “average passenger” is bound to please no one.

And finally, it doesn’t make much sense to lump traditional and low-cost airlines together in the same ranking, since they don’t make the same promises to the market.

Another point that could have been studied: as long as we’re talking about bicycles, we might as well talk about pet policies, which are a real hindrance for some people and families, especially on vacations.

Let’s take a look at the rankings

Our initial feeling before going into details: even if we’re not totally satisfied with the criteria, the ranking is in line with our experiences, at least for the companies we know.

Trenitalia, which we frequent regularly between Paris and Lyon, and whose regional trains I was able to test this summer, richly deserves first place in every class of travel.

SBB is unsurprisingly, in one word, “Swiss”.

The SNCF has the ranking it deserves. We must acknowledge the improvement in the “hard product”, whether we’re talking about TGVs or even regional trains. The attitude and professionalism of on-board staff has also improved over the past sixteen years. But the service on offer continues to deteriorate (does the study take into account the recent deterioration in the bar car offer…when there is one) and in terms of punctuality and cancellations (not to mention strikes) the company is below par. All this for a high price, which doesn’t shock us for the reasons given above, but which nevertheless requires irreproachable service.

At the bottom we find Ouigo, unsurprisingly, but in line with the company’s low-cost positioning. Comparing Ouigo, SNCF, SBB, Deutsche Bahn and Trenitalia is like comparing RyanAir to Swiss, Air France and Qatar Airways : it doesn’t make much sense.

As for Eurostar, its ranking, although understandable, is surprising since it has never disappointed us. But it has to be said that, despite excellent on-board service, Eurostar’s prices are staggering, especially on the Paris-London route, where it’s not uncommon for a business class ticket to cost less than a standard Eurostar ticket. Reliability suffers not only from the general state of the French network, but also from the constraint of the Channel Tunnel, still on the London route, which can act as a bottleneck at the slightest problem.

We are surprised, however, that Lyria is not mentioned anywhere.

Some lessons learned

Two things emerge from the study, one surprising, the other less so.

The first is that high fares do not guarantee better quality. This is hardly surprising, given that most airlines practice yield management in the same way as the airline industry! It’s demand that justifies price, not service quality, with the exception of very specific products such as Trenitalia’s Executive and SNF’s Business Première, which have a “flat fare” logic, but for two products that have nothing to do with each other (hence the importance of enhancing the customer experience in the event of competition).

The second thing that surprises us most is the operators’ overall lack of reliability. Only 44% of them achieve punctuality rates of over 80%. The report rightly points out that this remains a weak point for many companies.

What recommendations for improving rail transport in Europe?

The report is fairly constructive, and suggests a number of areas for improvement. But as I feared, as they are addressed to public authorities, they are rather politicized and not very customer-oriented.

1°) Enhanced reliability

This involves investment in rail infrastructure, the acquisition of modern rolling stock and the standardization and transparency of data (publishing delay and cancellation rates and harmonizing the definition of punctuality (not everyone considers a train to be late according to the same criteria).

Nothing could be more logical, except that for the first two, the cost will be reflected in the ticket price, which, on the other hand, the report finds too high. Unless you want the sector to be financed by competing sectors, which is unacceptable in terms of competition!

2°) Improving service quality

The on-board experience could be enhanced with stable Wi-Fi and power outlets for every passenger, as well as a variety of catering options, from snacks to full meals.

By 2024, it’s a shame we’re at this stage.

New services could be proposed, such as the development of night trains, supported by reduced tolls and financial incentives. Bicycle transport could also be facilitated with more dedicated spaces and appropriate policies.

Why not for bikes, which are the fad of the moment, but for the rest we’re in Care Bear Land: on the one hand they’re asking for infrastructure improvements, and on the other for lower tolls!

Lastly, it suggests allowing changes or cancellations free of charge up to 24 hours before departure.

Of course, killing companies’ business and marketing models and reducing their revenues is the best way to encourage them to develop services.

3°) Reducing the cost of travel

The first proposed approach is to reduce operating costs, for example by lowering rail tolls, especially for cross-border and night trains, or by reducing or abolishing VAT on train tickets, as has been done for certain flights.

Of course, to invest more, you have to earn less! Fewer tolls means less revenue for infrastructure improvements. In addition (but the subject is so complex that it deserves a future article of its own), we need to dispel the myth that there’s no VAT on tickets. Firstly, because it only applies to international flights, and secondly, because it has to be levied where the service is provided, which is complicated when an aircraft crosses several airspaces. What’s more, the price of a ticket already includes up to 50% in various taxes…

Other ideas include the introduction of discounts for families, young people and regular travelers, or the launch of special offers to encourage the use of trains during less busy periods.

The first part of the proposal is called marketing and loyalty programs, which already exist, and the second is yield, which also exists, but in this case you have to be willing to pay more during peak periods.

It’s a real catalog of banalities, some of which already exist, and some of which are unrealistic, but all of which remain within the logic of “earn less to invest more”.

4°) Strengthening passenger rights

The report suggests the introduction of generous and systematic compensation, with automatic compensation for delays of more than 15 minutes and full reimbursement of tickets for delays of more than 60 minutes.

This is a step in the right direction. Without saying that the proposed thresholds are the right ones, it would be a good idea for the railways to adopt regulations such as the EU-261 in the air transport sector, where the legislator has not hesitated to be restrictive with operators, whereas he has been strangely benevolent with the railways.

5°) Encouraging innovation and competition

A first proposal is to facilitate access to booking platforms by opening up ticket sales to all players under fair conditions, allowing tickets to be booked at least six months in advance.

This is a matter of common sense and realism. As for the first point, it exists in the airline industry, and it’s unfair that the incumbents whose platform benefits from a “reflex effect” are not obliged to distribute their competitors’ tickets.

To take the case of France, SNCF Connect should sell Trenitalia and I should be able to buy my SNCF ticket at the same price on this site or on Trainline, which isn’t always the case. But note that airlines don’t give access to their entire inventory to all distributors either.

As for selling tickets 6 months in advance, this could bring prices down, but I suppose that rail and air travel have seasonal and program logic.

Another approach is to stimulate competition. On the face of it, we’re 100% in favor, but it can’t be done just any old way. In Spain, for example, this has led to lower prices, but at the cost of the profitability of the operators, who are losing money. In the UK, on the other hand, it has given rise to regional monopolies that have pushed up prices.

Bottom line

It’s an interesting report, because while it catches the eye with a ranking that’s sure to please the public, it also paints a not-so-praiseful picture of Europe’s railway landscape.

We’ll skip over the limitations of the criteria used to focus on the proposed solutions. Naturally, the report, produced by NGOs, is relatively politicized, with proposals that follow one major guideline: lower prices for greater investment.

Either we’re living in the land of magic money (and we all know that’s not the case) or this is a lobbying effort to find money elsewhere, and we know where.

Maybe one day we’ll have to educate the general public and make them understand that the fact that trains are by definition cheap is an illusion sold to them by who knows who, but it doesn’t correspond to the economic reality of the sector.