Comprehensive analysis of the existing cross-border rail transport connections and missing links on the internal EU borders Annex 5: Infrastructure fact-sheets
Ludger Sippel, Julian Nolte, Simon Maarfield, Dan Wolff, Laure Roux March 2018
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy Directorate D: European Territorial Cooperation, Macro-regions, Interreg and Programme Implementation I Unit D2: Interreg, Cross-Border Cooperation, Internal Borders Contact: Ana-Paula LAISSY (head of unit), Robert SPISIAK (contract manager) E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Comprehensive analysis of the existing cross-border rail transport connections and missing links on the internal EU borders Annex 5: Infrastructure fact-sheets
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
2018 EN
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
LEGAL NOTICE The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018
ISBN 978-92-79-86516-9 doi: 10.2776/074022
© European Union, 2018 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Annex
Presented to
European Commission, Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy (DG Regio)
Comprehensive analysis of exist ing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU
Further analysis of shortlisted promising and missing links: infrastructure measures
Annex 5: Infrastructure fact sheets
Royal HaskoningDHV Laan 1914, 35 3800 BC Amersfoort
Netherlands
3 2018
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 2
1 Further analysis of shortlisted promising and missing links: infrastructure measures
1.1 Approach
Based on satellite imagery, an analysis of the state of the infrastructure on each route in the shortlist of missing railway links with sufficient passenger demand potential can be carried out. The historic route largely determines the preferred alignment of a route. Where the historic alignment has been redeveloped new routes can be examined, if possible following the alignments of other transport infrastructure.
1.2 Structure and methodology of the work
The methodology is based on the following major steps:
Determination of the alignment of the cross border route. Assessment of the alignment for additional measures required. Estimation of the costs for the proposed alignment including additional measures.
In this appendix a summary is provided of the main route characteristics, additional measures and if applicable further remarks with regard to the as sumptions made in the design.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 3
2 Infrastructure measures
Infrastructure measures are designed on a preliminary design level, for which some general assumptions are necessary. These designs are quantified with cost estimates and presented in a summary table for each route with infra structure characteristics and cost estimation. For each route additional route specific assumptions are mentioned directly below the corresponding table.
2.1 General assumptions for infrastructure design
The designs and cost estimates are at a very preliminary level. The infor mation provided is sufficient to determine whether a route can be redevel oped or (re )activated and for what cost. In order to produce realistic values the general assumptions are made on a conservative basis. Design optimisa tion to cut costs is part of more detailed design phases and will not influence the viability of a route to the extent that routes are eliminated from the list.
Below is a list of assumptions valid for each route. Variations from these are explicitly mentioned in or below the summary table for each route.
Re use of existing infrastructure: All existing infrastructure, level cross ings and signalling that have not been used within the past 10 years is writ ten off and should be replaced completely. This ensure that the design and cost estimates are not over optimistic on the reactivation and re use of exist ing infrastructure.
Configuration of the routes: All routes are assumed to be single track with a design capacity of one train every hour. The maximum design speed is 80km/h. Passing loops are included for routes longer than 30km, facilitating an hourly service and providing operational flexibility even where lower fre quencies have been proposed within task 3.5 of the study. Where feasible these are preferably planned to be located within stations.
Electrification: Electrification is only taken into account if both border sta tions are already electrified and through operations are possible. The electrifi cation system is dependent on the specific route, preferably ensuring best interoperability between adjacent networks.
Safety system: All new lines are provided with a safety system for signalling and train protection at ETCS level 1. Although this may be considered exces sive compared with adjoining networks, especially on regional lines in central and eastern Europe, it is no longer acceptable to (re)build railways without
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 4
safety systems given the European context and pressure for ever safer rail way operations.
Level crossings: These are minimised to the greatest extent reasonable in order to increase safety around the railway. Completely eliminating all cross ings would cut off communities from each other while replacing them with over or underbridges would increase construction costs so drastically that the economic viability of line reopenings could be jeopardised.
For every route an assessment is made based on alternative routes between villages and the current practice with regard to level crossings on neighbour ing lines. Level crossings on primary roads are replaced with grade separated crossings, whereas secondary and tertiary roads are assessed on a case by case basis. Level crossings on minor roads are kept only if there are insuffi cient alternatives in the form of nearby crossings.
All level crossings to be constructed are equipped with active warning sys tems.
Bridges and tunnels: Civil engineering structures are designed with a planned life span of approximately 100 years. Unfortunately their mainte nance history on routes that have been closed for more than 25 years cannot be ensured. Furthermore, it is no longer possible to verify the structural in tegrity of structures older than 50 60 years according to current European structural norms and standards. Bridges and tunnels can only be re used (with rehabilitation) if they appear to be in good shape and are not too old. For every bridge or tunnel it is indicated if it is ‘new’, ‘substantially rebuilt’, ‘refurbished’ or ‘no modification necessary’.
Sound barriers: In order to reduce the impact of railway lines on nearby residents while not over inflating construction costs on lines that are generally expected to see fewer than one train pair per hour, the installation of sound barriers is limited to sections located very close to homes or directly adjacent to backyards.
Points: Dutch and German design standards are applied with regard to max imum speeds. The maximum design speed of the route (generally 80km/h) is taken as the main assumption, but lower speed points are specified as appro priate, for example on tight curves, in stations and or sidings (e.g. 60 or 40 km/h).
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 5
2.2 Infrastructure characteristics and cost estimation
Hazebrouck (FR) – Poperinge (BE) ID: 7 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: FR: 13.7km Hazebrouck – BE BE: 5.7km FR – Poperinge Configuration Single track Passing loop Godewaersvelde (FR) (500m) *7.1 Electrification Level crossings: FR: 7*7.2 (with active warning system) BE: 2*7.2 (with active warning system) Rail bridges: FR: River: La Bourre New 5m FR: Rail: LGV Nord New 15m FR: Road: A25 New 30m BE: River: Winterbeek New 5m Road bridges: FR: D642 New 30m FR: D916 New 30m Tunnels: New stations Caëstre (FR); single side platform Godewaersvelde (FR); island platform Sound barriers: FR: 0.63km*7.3 BE: 1.62km*7.3 Points: 60km/h connection passing loop Godewaersvelde (FR) (2x) Diesel Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs:
FR: € 24 000 000 € 35 000 000 € 19 000 000 € 78 000 000 BE: € 6 000 000 € 11 000 000 € 5 000 000 € 22 000 000 Total: € 100 000 000 Electric Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs:
FR: € 40 000 000 € 54 000 000 € 30 000 000 € 124 000 000 BE: € 19 000 000 € 28 000 000 € 15 000 000 € 62 000 000 Total: € 186 000 000
*7.1. As a result of the location almost halfway on the route a passing loop is recommended
*7.2. Currently there are 24 roads crossing the route between Hazebrouck and Poperinge on the old alignment, this has been reduced substantially to improve safety while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced fur ther.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 6
*7.3. Total length of single sided sound barriers.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 7
Armentiéres (FR) – Komen (BE) ID: 8 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: FR: 2.2km Armentiéres – BE BE: 11.9km FR – Komen Configuration Single track Electrification Level crossings: FR: BE: 6*8 (with active warning system) Rail bridges: FR: Road: D945A Refurbished 35m FR/BE: River: La Lys*8.2 New 10m Road bridges: BE: N58 No modifications Tunnels: New stations Sound barriers: FR: 0.9kmFehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.*8.3 BE: 3.0km*8.3 Points: 60km/h connection Armentières (FR) 60km/h connection Komen (BE) Other: 30 houses in Armentiéres are on the route*8.4 Diesel Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs:
FR: € 7 000 000 € 17 000 000 € 8 000 000 € 31 000 000 BE: € 19 000 000 € 29 000 000 € 15 000 000 € 64 000 000 Total: € 95 000 000 Electric Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs:
FR: € 19 000 000 € 33 000 000 € 17 000 000 € 68 000 000 BE: € 34 000 000 € 49 000 000 € 26 000 000 € 110 000 000 Total: € 178 000 000
*8.1. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*8.2. Existing bridge (steel) is still in place. Expert judgement is that the bridge, given the current European requirements for longevity and structural integrity, can only be re used with heavy refurbishment.
*8.3. Total length of single sided sound barriers.
*8.4. In the outskirts of Armentières a neighbourhood has been constructed on the old alignment. A detour would add significantly to the route length and involve some resettlement.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 8
Comines (FR) Komen (BE) ID: 9 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: FR: 0.9km Comines – BE BE: 1.0km FR – Komen Configuration Single track Electrification Level crossings: FR: 3*9.1 (with active warning system) BE: 2*9.1 (with active warning system) Rail bridges: FR/BE: Riv La Lys New 40m er: Road bridges: Tunnels: New stations Sound barriers: FR: BE: 0.4kmFehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.*9.2 Points: 60km/h connection Comines (FR) 60km/h connection Komen (BE) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs:
FR: € 5 000 000 € 7 000 000 € 4 000 000 € 15 000 000 BE: € 4 000 000 € 6 000 000 € 3 000 000 € 13 000 000 Total: € 28 000 000
*9.1. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*9.2. Total length of single sided sound barriers, applied in Komen.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 9
St Amand les Eaux (FR) Antoing (BE) ID: 16 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: FR: 8.8km Saint Amand les Faux BE BE: 8.7km FR Antoing Configuration Single track Electrification Level crossings: FR: 8*9.1 (with active warning system) BE: 7*9.1 (with active warning system) Rail bridges: BE: River: Escaut Subs. rebuild 60m BE: Rail: LNFehler! Verweis New 50m quelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. Road bridges: BE: Ch. du Moulin No modifications Tunnels: New stations Sound barriers: FR: 0.3km*16.3 BE: 1.55km*16.3 Points: 60km/h connection Saint Amand les Eaux (FR) 60km/h connection Antoing (BE) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs:
FR: € 11 000 000 € 17 000 000 € 9 000 000 € 36 000 000 BE: € 19 000 000 € 28 000 000 € 15 000 000 € 63 000 000 Total: € 99 000 000
*16.1. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*16.2. Existing bridge (steel) is still in place. Expert judgement is that the bridge, given the current European requirements for longevity and structural integrity, can only be re used with heavy refurbishment.
*16.3. Total length of single sided sound barriers. Applied in the vicinity of the villages Le Maroc, and Hollain.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 10
Bettrechies Bellignies (FR) Mons (BE) ID: 19 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: FR: 19.0km Maubeuge – Bettrechies Bellignies; existing, freight only FR: 2.1km Bettrechies Bellignies BE BE: 15.6km FR – St. Ghislain BE: 9.1km St. Ghislain – Mons; existing, no new infra Configuration Single track Passing loop Bettrechies Bellignies (FR) (500m)*19.1 Passing loop Wihéries (BE) (500m)*19.1 Electrification Level crossings: 6*19.2 (with active warning system) Rail bridges: BE: River: Grand Honelle*19.3 New 5m BE: River: Grand Honelle*19.4 Subs. rebuild 5m BE: Road: N555*19.5 Subs. rebuild 10m BE: Road: N550 New 12m BE: Road: Rue Montenpeine New 18m BE: Road: Rue de Pinche Subs. rebuild 10m Road bridges: BE: Ch. De Wihéries No modifications - BE: N552 No modifications - BE: Rue de la Haut No modifications -
BE: Rue St. Antoine No modifications -
Tunnels: - New stations Bettrechies Bellignies (FR); island platform Wihéries (BE); island platform Dour (BE); single side platform Sound barriers: FR: BE: 0.35km*19.6 Points: 60km/h (2x) connection passing loop Bettrechies Bellignies (FR) 60km/h (2x) connection passing loop Wihéries (BE) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: FR: € 3 000 000 € 5 000 000 € 2 000 000 € 10 000 000 BE: € 22 000 000 € 33 000 000 € 18 000 000 € 73 000 000 Total: € 83 000 000
*19.1. As a result of total route length (Maubeuge St. Ghislain) two passing loops are recommended for punctual and frequent services in a robust timetable.
*19.2. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 11
*19.3. Existing bridge still in place, railway closed in 1939. Expert judgement is that the bridge, given the current European requirements for longevity and structural integrity, can only be substantially rebuilt.
*19.4. Existing bridge (brickwork) is still in place, closed in 1939. Expert judgement is that the bridge, given the current European requirements for longevity and structural integrity, can only be substantially rebuilt.
*19.5. Existing bridge in use for RAVeL bicycle path, given the current Europe an requirements for longevity and structural integrity, new bridge nec essary.
*19.6. Total length of single sided sound barriers. Applied in the vicinity of the villages.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 12
Sint Niklaas (BE) – Terneuzen (NL) ID: 040 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: BE: 10.5 km Sint Niklaas NL NL: 15.8 km BE Terneuzen Configuration Single track Passing loop Hulst (NL) (500m) Electrification Level crossings: BE: 7*40.1 NL: Rail bridges: BE: Road: Driekoningenstraat New 185m BE: River: Watergang No Modifications NL: River: Zoetevaart New 20m NL: River: Zijkanaal van Hulst Subst. rebuild 10m NL: River: Spuikreek New 25m Road bridges: BE: E34 No modifications NL: Molenstraat New 25m NL: Grote Kreekweg New 25m NL: N290 New 25m NL: Kijkuit New 25m NL: Liniedijk New 25m NL: Buthstraat New 25m NL: Tractaatweg New 25m Tunnels: NL: Tunnel: Oudeweg New 390m New stations Sint Gillis Waas (BE); single side platform Klinge (BE); single side platform Hulst (NL); island platform Axel (NL); single side platform Terneuzen (NL); single side platform
Sound barriers: BE: 0.55km*40.2 NL: 2.45km*40.2 Points: 40km/h Connection Sint Niklaas (BE) 40km/h Station Sint Niklaas (BE) 60km/h (2x) Passing loop Hulst (NL) 80 km/h Connection Terneuzen (NL) Roads BE: New Roundabout E34 Other NL: Removal of 1 home, 4 sheds and 2 industrial buildings Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: BE: € 24 000 000 € 35 000 000 € 19 000 000 € 77 000 000 NL: € 86 000 000 € 120 000 000 € 66 000 000 € 271 000 000 Total: € 348 000 000
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 13
*40.1. Currently there are 19 roads crossing the old alignment. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further. *40.2. Total length of single sided sound barriers. Applied in the vicinity of the villages Sint Niklaas, Sint Gillis Waas, Hulst and Axel.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 14
Turnhout (BE) Tilburg (NL) ID: 43 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: BE: 7.9 km Turnhout NL NL: 22.3 km BE Tilburg Configuration Single track Passing loop Baarle hertog – Baarle Nassau (NL) (500m) Electrification Yes, 3kV=*43.1 Level crossings: BE: 3*43.2 NL: Rail bridges: BE: River: Kijkverdrietloop New 60m BE: Road: Tommel New 15 m BE: Road: Kerkstraat New 25 m BE/NL: Road Chaamseweg New 15 m Road bridges: NL: Zevenhuizenlaan New 25m NL: Oranjelaan New 25m NL: Boshoven New 25m NL: Kapellekensbaan Subs. Rebuild 30m NL: Schellestraat New 25m NL: Rielseweg New 25m NL: Langenbergseweg New 50m NL: A58 No modifications NL: Nerhoven New 25m NL: Burg.Ballingsweg New 25m NL: N282 New 25m Tunnels: New stations Baarle Nassau – Baarle Hertog (NL) Alphen (NL) Gilze (NL) Sound barriers: BE: NL: 0.75km*43.3 Points: 80km/h Connection Turnhout (BE) 60km/h (2x) Passing loop Hulst Baarle hertog – Baarle Nassau (NL) 60km/h Connection Tilburg (NL) Other NL: Adjustment of highway ramps for exit 12 (Tilburg Reeshof) to partial cloverleaf interchange, 2km road. Electric Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: BE: € 32 000 000 € 45 000 000 € 25 000 000 € 101 000 000 NL: € 86 000 000 € 120 000 000 € 66 000 000 € 272 000 000 Total: € 373 000 000
*43.1. From an operational point of view an electrified route would be benefi cial. Electrification with Belgian system (3Kv=) Turnhout – Tilburg Main Line (Reeshof) junction, Belgian trains run at reduced power on existing Dutch network. Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 15
*43.2. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*43.3. Total length of single sided sound barriers, applied in Baarle Nassau.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 16
Hasselt (Winterslag) (BE) Eindhoven (NL) ID: 44 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: BE: 12.3km Hasselt – Houthalen; existing, no new infra. BE: 22.3km Houthalen – Neerpelt BE: 0.6km Neerpelt; existing, no new infra. BE: 6.7km Neerpelt NL NL: 15.8km BE – Geldrop NL: 7.9km Geldrop – Eindhoven; existing, no new infra Configuration Single track Electrification Level crossings: BE: 13*44.1 (with active warning system) NL: Rail bridges: BE: River: Bollisenbeek New 5m BE: River: Dommel*44.2 Subs. rebuild 5m NL: Road: A2 New 35m Road bridges: BE: N74 New 25m NL: Abdijweg New 25m NL: Kluitzerdijk New 25m NL: Budelsebaan New 25m NL: Leenderweg New 25m NL: Kreijl new 25m Tunnels: New stations Sound barriers: BE: 3.1km*44.3 NL: Points: 80km/h connection Houthalen (BE) 80km/h connection Neerpelt south (BE) 80km/h connection Neerpelt north (BE) 80km/h connection Geldrop (NL) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: BE: € 36 000 000 € 56 000 000 € 30 000 000 € 122 000 000 NL: € 26 000 000 € 40 000 000 € 21 000 000 € 87 000 000 Total: € 209 000 000
*44.1. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*44.2. Existing bridge in use as bicycle path. Expert judgement is that the bridge, given the current European requirements for longevity and structural integrity, can only be re used with heavy refurbishment.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 17
*44.3. Total length of single sided sound barriers. Applied in the vicinity of the villages Helchteren, Overpelt and Rodenrijt.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 18
Mönchengladbach (DE) Roermond (NL) ID: 57 Status: Neglected*57.1 Route length: DE: 24km Mönchengladbach – Dalheim; existing, no new infra. DE: 1.1km Dalheim – NL NL: 13.3km DE – Roermond*57.2 Configuration Single track Electrification Level crossings: DE: NL: 7*57.3 (with active warning system) Rail bridges: DE: Road: Mühlenstrasse Subs. rebuild 15m NL: River: Bosbeek Subs. rebuild 5m NL: Road: St. Wirosingel*57.4 No modifications NL: Road: Bredeweg Subs. rebuild 25m Road bridges: Tunnels: New stations Sound barriers: DE: NL: Points: 60km/h connection Dalheim (DE) 60km/h connection Roermond (NL) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: DE: € 3 000 000 € 4 000 000 € 2 000 000 € 9 000 000 NL: € 15 000 000 € 23 000 000 € 12 000 000 € 50 000 000 Total: € 59 000 000
*57.1. Railway between Dalheim (DE) – Roermond (NL) is neglected since 1991. Significant stretches seem to have had little maintenance by 2017. Structural integrity of the railway bed and track are uncertain, new track is assumed for this neglected segment.
*57.2. Segment traverses the Meinweg national park.
*57.3. As a result of the status of the railway as neglected instead of disman tled level crossings are allowed. With regard to safety this should be re duced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*57.4. Bridge was built during construction of the A73 highway in 2008/2009.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 19
Geldern (DE) Venlo (NL) ID: 59 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: DE: 18.0km Geldern NL NL: 4.6km DE Venlo Configuration Single track Electrification Level crossings: DE: 7*59.1 NL: Rail bridges: DE: River: Kleine Niers Subs. rebuild 20m DE: River: Niers New 15m DE: Road: Boekholter Weg New 15m DE: Road: A40 New 50m NL: Road: Klagenfurtweg New 50m Road bridges: DE: B9 New 25m DE: Möhlendyck New 25m DE: L361 New 25m DE: B221 New 25m NL: Hinsbeckerweg New 25m NL: Kaldenkerkerweg New 25m Tunnels: New stations Straelen (DE) Sound barriers: DE: 0.6km*59.2 NL: Points: 40km/h Connection Geldern (DE) 80km/h Connection Venlo (NL) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: DE: € 39 000 000 € 57 000 000 € 31 000 000 € 126 000 000 NL: € 11 000 000 € 16 000 000 € 8 000 000 € 35 000 000 Total: € 161 000 000
*59.1. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*59.2. Total length of single sided sound barriers. Applied in the vicinity of the villages Geldern, Straelen and Bruxken.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 20
Goch (DE) Kruispunt Beugen (NL) ID: 60 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: DE: 9.4 km Goch – NL NL: 9.2 km DE – Kruispunt Beugen Configuration Single track Electrification Level crossings: DE: 4*60.1 NL: Rail bridges: DE: River Niers New 45 m NL: Road Spoorstraat New 20 m NL: Road Weverstraat New 25 m NL: Road N271 New 130m NL: River Maas New 750m Road bridges: DE: B9 New 25m NL: Schaapsweg New 25m NL: Siebengewaldseweg New 25m NL: Randweg New 25m NL: Roggestraat New 25m NL: Veerweg New 25m NL: N261 New 25m NL: Haart New 25m Tunnels: New stations Gennep (NL) Sound barriers: DE: 1.05km*60.2 NL: 3.5km*60.2 Points: 60 km/h Connection Goch (DE) 80 km/h Connection Beugen (NL) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: DE: € 15 000 000 € 23 000 000 € 12 000 000 € 50 000 000 NL: € 55 000 000 € 75 000 000 € 42 000 000 € 172 000 000 Total: € 222 000 000
*60.1. With regard to safety the level crossings are reduced as much as possi ble however with regard to the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*60.2. Total length of single sided sound barriers. Applied in the vicinity of the villages Asperden (DE), Hassum(DE), Gennep (NL) and Oeffelt (NL).
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 21
Kleve (DE) Nijmegen (NL) ID: 61 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: DE: 12.4km Kleve – NL NL: 7.9km DE – Groesbeek aansluiting NL: 6.7km Groesbeek aansluiting – Nijmegen; exist. no new infra. Configuration Single track Electrification Level crossings: DE: 8*61.1 (with active warning system) NL: Rail bridges: DE: River: Spoykanal*61.2 Subs. rebuild 30m DE: River: Leitgraben New 5m DE: River: Gr. Wässerung New 5m DE: River: Quellen New 5m DE: River: Moorwässerung New 5m DE: River: Moorwässerung New 5m DE: River: Groesbecker Bach New 10m NL: River: De Groesbeek New 10m Road bridges: DE: B9 New 25m DE: B540 New 25m NL: Cranenburgsestr. New 25m NL: Hulsbroek New 25m NL: Dorpstraat New 25m NL: Biesseltsebaan New 25m NL: Biesseltsebaan New 25m Tunnels: New stations Kranenburg (DE) Groesbeek (NL) Sound barriers: DE: 4.5km*61.3 NL: 3.2km*61.3 Points: 80km/h connection Groesbeek (DE) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: DE: € 31 000 000 € 44 000 000 € 24 000 000 € 99 000 000 NL: € 26 000 000 € 37 000 000 € 20 000 000 € 84 000 000 Total: € 183 000 000
*61.1. With regard to safety the level crossings are reduced as much as possi ble however with regard to the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*61.2. No services since 1991 and officially out of order since 1999. Current double track structure can only be re used with heavy refurbishment.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 22
*61.3. Total length of single sided sound barriers. Applied in the vicinity of the villages Kleve (DE), Donsburgen (DE) and Groesbeek (NL).
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 23
Bocholt (DE) Winterswijk (NL) ID: 66 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: DE: 10.4 km Bocholt NL NL: 6.5 km DE Winterswijk Configuration Single track Passing loop Bocholt (DE) (500m) Electrification Level crossings: DE: 8*66.1 NL: Rail bridges: DE: River Bocholter Aa*66.2 Subs. rebuild 30m Road bridges: NL: Holdersweg New 25m NL: Gosselinkweg New 25m NL: Holthuisweg New 25m NL: Hijinkhoekweg New 25m NL: De Slingeweg New 25m NL: N319 New 25m Tunnels: New stations Sound barriers: DE: 2.95km*66.3 NL: Points: 60 km/h Passing loop Bocholt (DE) 80 km/h Connection Winterswijk (NL) Other Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: DE: € 17 000 000 € 25 000 000 € 13 000 000 € 55 000 000 NL: € 17 000 000 € 25 000 000 € 14 000 000 € 56 000 000 Total: € 111 000 000 Electric Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs:
DE: € 40 000 000 € 54 000 000 € 30 000 000 € 124 000 000 NL: € 19 000 000 € 28 000 000 € 15 000 000 € 62 000 000 Total: € 186 000 000
*66.1. With regard to safety the level crossings are reduced as much as possi ble however with regard to the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further. *66.2. No passenger services since 1914 and officially out of order since 1931. Expert judgement is that the bridge, given the current European re quirements for longevity and structural integrity, can only be re used with heavy refurbishment. *66.3. Total length of single sided sound barriers, applied in Bocholt and Barlo.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 24
Ahaus (DE) Enschede (NL) ID: 68 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: DE: 13km Ahaus NL NL: 7.7km DE Enschede Configuration Single track Electrification Level crossings: DE: 10*68.1 NL: Rail bridges: DE: River: Ahauser Aa New 15m Road bridges: DE: Schumacherring New 25m NL: Knalhutteweg New 25m NL: Verwooldsweg New 25m NL: N35 New 25m NL: Keppelersdijk New 25m NL: Gronausestraat New 25m Tunnels: New stations Sound barriers: DE: 0.7km*68.2 NL: 1.0km*68.2 Points: 60 km/h Connection Ahaus (DE) 60 km/h Connection Enschede (NL) Other DE: 4 business buildings have to be removed in Alstätte NL: 1 building on trackbed in Enschede, at the Ekersdijk Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: DE: € 19 000 000 € 30 000 000 € 16 000 000 € 64 000 000 NL: € 18 000 000 € 26 000 000 € 14 000 000 € 58 000 000 Total: € 122 000 000
*68.1. With regard to safety the level crossings are reduced as much as possi ble however with regard to the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*68.2. Total length of single sided sound barriers. Applied in the vicinity of the village Alstätte (DE), Broekheurne and Enschede (NL).
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 25
Trieste (IT) Hrpelje Kozina (SI) ID: 212 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: IT: 5.9km Triëste – Gallaria San Giacomo; existing, freight only IT: 7.5km Galleria San Giacomo SI SI: 4.2km IT – Hrpelje Kozina Configuration Single track Electrification Level crossings: IT: 2*212.1 (with active warning system) SI: Rail bridges: IT: Valley: Fiume*212.2 New 385m Road bridges: IT: SP11 New 25m SI: A1 New 25m Tunnels: IT: Tunnel: Galleria Ospedale New 300m New stations Triëste Campo Marzio (IT)Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden.; single side platform Sound barriers: Points: 60km/h connection Galleria San Giacomo (IT) 60km/h connection Hrpelje Kozina (SI) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: IT: € 61 000 000 € 83 000 000 € 46 000 000 € 190 000 000 SI: € 6 000 000 € 10 000 000 € 5 000 000 € 20 000 000 Total: € 210 000 000
*212.1. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*212.2. Galleria Ospedale and Fiume bridge are necessary to reduce the slope of the railway and cross the Nuova Supraelevata highway. Fiume bridge will cross below the highway bridge.
*212.3. Trieste Campo Marzio station is currently a railway museum. A new station/platform should be constructed around the former station loca tion.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 26
Stranje (SI) Savski Marof (HR) ID: 219 Status: Neglected*219.1 Route length: SI: 12.4km Stranje – Imeno; existing, no new infra SI: 1.4km Imeno – HR HR:7.6km*219.2 HR – SI (Kumrovec) SI: 3.7km HR (Kumrovec) – HR (Risvica) HR:21.7km*219.3 HR (Risvica) – Harmica HR:5.1km Harmica – Savksi Marof; existing, no new infra Configuration Single track Passing loop Kumrovec (HR) (500m) *219.4 Passing loop Draše (HR) (500m) *219.4 Electrification Level crossings: SI: 3*219.5 (with active warning system) HR: 15*219.5 (with active warning system) Bridges: SI/HR: River: Sutla (1) *219.6 New 20m SI/HR: River: Sutla (2) *219.6 Refurbished 20m SI/HR: River: Sutla (3) *219.6 New 20m SI/HR: River: Sutla (4) *219.6 Refurbished 20m SI/HR: River: Sutla (5) *219.6 New 20m Tunnels: SI: Tunnel: Risvica Refurbished 220m New stations Kumrovec (HR); island platform Zelenjak (HR); single side platform Draše (HR); island platform Vukovo Selo (HR); single side platform Sound barriers: Points: 60km/h (2x) Passing loop Kumrovec (HR) 60km/h (2x) Passing loop Draše (HR) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: SI: € 46 000 000 € 62 000 000 € 35 000 000 € 142 000 000 HR: € 37 000 000 € 54 000 000 € 29 000 000 € 120 000 000 Total: € 262 000 000
*219.1. Railway between Imeno (SI) – Harmica (HR) is neglected since 2008. Significant stretches seem to have had little maintenance by 2011. Structural integrity of the railway bed and track are uncertain, new track is assumed for this neglected segment.
*219.2. The railway crosses the border six times. Three segments of approxi mately 225m, 285m and 205, in total 715m in Slovenia (SI).
*219.3. The railway crosses the border 18 times. Nine segments of approxi mately 620m, 65m, 490m, 140m, 635m, 295m, 255m, 210m and 155m in total 2865m in Slovenia (SI).
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 27
*219.4. As a result of total route length (Imeno Harmica) two passing loops are recommended for punctual and frequent services in a robust time table.
*219.5. Railway forms a barrier between villages and the border. Significant swathes of land are located between the railway and the border. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while main taining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*219.6. Sutla river crossings 1, 3, and 5 seem to be no longer in place, after line closed in 2000, bridges 2 and 4 are still in place.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 28
Priekule (LV) Klaipėda (LT) ID: 237 Status: Neglected*237.1 Route length: LV: 20.2km Priekule – LT LT: 52.1km LV – Kretinga LT: 22.4km Kretinga – Klaipėda; existing, no new infra Configuration Single track Passing loop Skuodas (LV) (500m) *237.2 Passing loop Darbėnai (LV) (500m) *237.2 Electrification Level crossings: LV: 6*237.3 (with active warning system) LT: 17*237.3 (with active warning system) Bridges: LV: River Vriga Subs. rebuild 20m LV: River: Birztala New 5m LV/LT: River: Apše Subs. rebuild 20m LT: River: Bartuva Subs. rebuild 20m LT: River: Sventoji Subs. rebuild 20m LT: River: Juodupis Subs. rebuild 20m LT: River: Darba Subs. rebuild 20m LT: River: Tenze New 5m Tunnels: New stations Priekule (LT); island platform Skuodas (LV); island platform Darbėnai (LV); island platform Sound barriers: Points: 60km/h Connection Priekule (LT) 60km/h (2x) Passing loop Skuodas (LV) 60km/h (2x) Passing loop Darbėnai (LV) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: LV: € 26 000 000 € 40 000 000 € 21 000 000 € 87 000 000 LT: € 60 000 000 € 95 000 000 € 50 000 000 € 205 000 000 Total: € 292 000 000
*237.1. Priekule is not connected to the domestic network, line Liepaja Priekule necessary, see ID: 364. Railway between Priekule (LT) – Kretinga (LV) is neglected since 2001. Significant stretches seem to have had little maintenance by 2017. Structural integrity of the railway bed and track are uncertain, new track is assumed for this neglected segment.
*237.2. As a result of total route length (Priekule Kretinga) two passing loops are recommended for punctual and frequent services in a robust time table.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 29
*237.3. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 30
Priekule (LV) Mazeikiai (LT) ID: 238 Status: Neglected*238.1 Route length: LV: 27.2km Priekule – LT LT: 12.8km LV – Ruzgai LT: 11.9km Ruzgai – Mazeikiai Configuration Single track Passing loop Vaiņode (LT) (500m) *238.2 Electrification Level crossings: LV: 8*238.3 (with active warning system) LT: 1*238.3 (with active warning system) Rail bridges: LV: River Virga Subs. rebuild 10m LV/LT: River: Vainodes Novas Subs. rebuild 20m LT: River: Varduva Subs. rebuild 65m Road bridges Tunnels: New stations Priekule (LT); island platform Vaiņode (LT); island platform Sound barriers: Points: 60km/h Connection Priekule (LT) 60km/h (2x) Passing loop Vaiņode (LT) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: LV: € 31 000 000 € 49 000 000 € 25 000 000 € 104 000 000 LT: € 28 000 000 € 45 000 000 € 23 000 000 € 96 000 000 Total: € 200 000 000 *238. *238.1. Priekule is not connected to the domestic network, line Liepaja Priekule necessary, see ID: 364. Railway between Priekule (LT) – Ruzgai (LV) is neglected since 1990. Significant stretches seem to have had little maintenance by 2017. Structural integrity of the railway bed and track are uncertain, new track is assumed for this neglected segment.
*238.2. As a result of total route length (Priekule Mazeikiai) two passing loops are recommended for punctual and frequent services in a robust time table.
*238.3. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 31
Virovitica (HR) – Barcs (HU) ID: 308 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: HR: 11.5km Virovitica HU HU: 1.5km HR Barcs Configuration Single track Electrification Level crossings: HR: 2*308.1 (with active warning system) HU: Rail bridges: HR: Road: New road New 50m HR: River: Drava New 250m Road bridges: Tunnels: New stations Sound barriers: Points 80km/h connection Virovitica (HR) 60km/h connection Barcs (HU) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: LV: € 20 000 000 € 31 000 000 € 16 000 000 € 67 000 000 LT: € 2 000 000 € 3 000 000 € 1 000 000 € 6 000 000 Total: € 73 000 000
*308.1. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 32
Porto (PT) Salamanca (ES) ID: 316 Status: NeglectedFehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden. Route length: PT: 174km Porto – Pocinho; existing no new infra. PT: 28.5km Pocinho – ES ES: 77.5km PT – La Fuente de San Esteban ES: 58km Fuente de San Esteban – Salamanca; exist. no new infra. Configuration Single track Passing loop Barca de Alva (PT) (500m) *316.1 Passing loop La Fregeneda (ES) (500m) *316.1 Passing loop Villavieja de Yeltes (ES) (500m) *316.1 Electrification Level crossings: PT: ES: 8*316.3 (with active warning system) Rail bridges: PT: River Douro Subs. rebuild 80m PT: River Rio Côa Subs. rebuild 105m PT: River Rio Angular Subs. rebuild 105m PT: River Arroyo Subs. rebuild 125m PT: Road N221 Refurbished 30m PT/ES: River: Rio Agueda Refurbished 230m ES: Valley Las Almas Subs. rebuild 185m ES: Valley Los Riscos Subs. rebuild 100m ES: Valley 2.o Zambullo Subs. rebuild 30m ES: Valley 1.o Zambullo Subs. rebuild 30m ES: Valley Los Pollos Subs. rebuild 185m ES: Valley El lugar Subs. rebuild 230m ES: Valley Cegavino Subs. rebuild 15m ES: Valley Poyo Valiente Subs. rebuild 165m ES: Valley Poyo Rublo Subs. rebuild 140m ES: Valley Morgado Subs. rebuild 105m ES: Valley Pingallo Subs. rebuild 10m ES: River Rio Froya Subs. rebuild 165m ES: River Rio Camaces Subs. rebuild 50m ES: River Rio Yeltes Subs. rebuild 155m Road bridges PT: IP2 No modifications - ES: DSA590 No modifications - ES: CL517 (2) No modifications -
Tunnels: PT: Tunnel: Melhor No modifications - PT: Tunnel Almendra No modifications - ES: Tunnel: Tunnel Nº 1 20 No modifications - New stations: Barca de Alva (PT); island platform La Fregeneda (ES); island platform Hinojosa de Doura (ES); single side platform Lumbrales (ES); single side platform
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 33
Porto (PT) Salamanca (ES) Villavieja de Yeltes (ES); island platform Sound barriers: PT: ES: Points: 60km/h Connection Pocinho (LT) 60km/h (2x) Passing loop Barca de Alva (LT) 60km/h (2x) Passing loop La Fregeneda (ES) 60km/h (2x) Passing loop Villavieja de Yeltes (ES) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: PT: € 50 000 000 € 74 000 000 € 40 000 000 € 163 000 000 ES: € 127 000 000 € 187 000 000 € 101 000 000 € 415 000 000 Total: € 578 000 000
*316.1. Railway between Pocinho (PT) – La Fuente de San Esteban (ES) is ne glected since 1984/1988. Significant stretches seem to have had little maintenance by 2014. Structural integrity of the railway bed and track are uncertain, new track is assumed for this neglected segment. Part of the route is situated in the ‘Parque natural de Arribes del Duero’, where it forms the ‘Vía verde de las Arribes’.
*316.2. As a result of total route length (Pocinho – La Fuente de San Esteban) three passing loops are recommended for punctual and frequent ser vices in a robust timetable.
*316.3. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 34
Vila Real de Santo (PT) Ayamonte (ES) ID: 360 Status: Entirely new missing link*360.1 Route length: PT: 1.7km Vila Real de Santo – ES ES: 1.3km PT – Ayamonte Configuration Single track Electrification Level crossings: PT: 1*360.2 (with active warning system) ES: 2*360.2 (with active warning system) Rail bridges: ES: River: Guadiana*360.3 New 750m Road bridges: Tunnels: New stations Ayamonte*360.4; single side platform Sound barriers: Points: 40km/h connection Vila Real de Santo (PT) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: PT: € 2 000 000 € 4 000 000 € 2 000 000 € 7 000 000 ES: € 19 000 000 € 26 000 000 € 14 000 000 € 59 000 000 Total: € 66 000 000 *360. *360.1. No through passenger rail service appears ever to have existed. Aya monte was connected to the Spanish domestic network via Huelva. The projected construction of a new high speed line linking the Spanish city of Huelva with the Portuguese city of Faro would also lie in this area, making the completion of Ayamonte Huelva dismantled line unneces sary.
*360.2. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*360.3. An entirely new rail bridge over the river Guadiana is required.
*360.4. The former railway station of Ayamonte has been dismantled and was situated further from the city centre.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 35
Liepāja (LV) – Priekule (LV) ID: 364 Status: Entirely missing: dismantled Route length: LV: 2.2km Liepāja Stacija – Cukura iela; existing, no new infra LV: 4.9km Cukura iela – Cimdenieki LV: Cimdenieki – Priekule* 33km*364.1 Configuration Single track Passing loop Gaviezes stacija (LV) (500m) *364.2 Electrification Level crossings: LV: 10*364.3 (with active warning system) Rail bridges: LV: River: Otanke (1)*364.4 Subs. rebuild 5m LV: River: Otanke (2)*364.5 Subs. rebuild 5m LV: River: Vartaja*364.6 Subs. rebuild 10m Road bridges: - Tunnels: New stations Gaviezes stacija (LV); island platform Sound barriers: LV: Points: 60km/h Connection Liepaja (LV) 80km/h (2x) Connection Cimdenieki (LV) (Liepaja Jelgava) 60km/h (2x) connection Passing loop Gaviezes stacija (LV) 80km/h Connection Priekule (LV) Material costs: Other foreseen: Risk reservation: Total costs: LV: € 88 000 000 € 127 000 000 € 69 000 000 € 283 000 000
*364.1. Connection with ID: 238 Priekule (LV) Klaipėda (LT) is 2.3km from the stations. Operations can probably be optimised such that double track is not necessary for this section.
*364.2. As a result of total route length (Cimdenieki Priekule) one passing loop is recommended for punctual and frequent services in a robust timeta ble.
*364.3. With regard to safety this should be reduced as much as possible while maintaining the accessibility of the surrounding areas. Preferably the number of level crossings should be reduced further.
*364.4. Existing bridge (steel) is still in place. Expert judgement is that the bridge, given the current European requirements for longevity and structural integrity, can only be re used with heavy refurbishment.
*364.5. Existing bridge is still in place. Expert judgement is that the bridge, giv en the current European requirements for longevity and structural in tegrity, can only be re used with heavy refurbishment.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 36
*364.6. No bridge in place, however the embankments are still present. Expert judgement is that the embankments, given the current European re quirements for longevity and structural integrity, can only be re used with heavy refurbishment.
Comprehensive analysis of existing cross border rail transport connections and missing links in the EU page 37
NO EE SE 31 30 EE-LV SE-FI LV 32 DK LV-LT 29 SE 08 LT SE-NO FI IE DE-DK 09 NO IE-UK 33 LT-PL 07 UK DE-NL 10 NL DE-PL PL 04 BE-NL DE 11 06 BE DE-CZ 34 DE-BE 02 PL-CZ BE FR-BE CZ 36 35 14 24 CZ-SK PL-SK 03 05 DE-FR AT-CZ BE-LU DE-LU DE 12 SK 37 SK 13 DE-AT SK-HU DE-CH 22 23 LU 15 AT AT-HU 38 AT-SK 01 CH-FR 20 HU RO-HU FR-LU FR CH AT-IT 41 AT FR 16 HR-HU RO CH-IT SI 28 25 HR AT 21 SI-HU IT-FR IT AT-SI 39 26 RO-BG IT-SI SSII 27 43 SI-HR HR ES-FR BG 40 BG-EL
PT 17 AT ES CH-LI 18 42 EL LI-AT PT-ES LI 19 CH-AT CH HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
• one copy: via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
• more than one copy or posters/maps: from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions:
• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).
KN
-
04
[Catalogue number [Catalogue
-
18
-
74
5
-
EN
-
N
]
doi: 10.2776/074022