RailCom dismisses appeal against TVS ruling
Berne, 08.12.2025 — In 2024, a passenger railway undertaking appealed to RailCom against a ruling by the Swiss Capacity Allocation Body (TVS) on train path allocation for 2025. This undertaking (the appellant) challenged TVS’s partial refusal of its application for train paths. TVS had instead allocated the paths in question to another company (the respondent), which intended to use them for freight services. Following a thorough review, RailCom dismissed the appeal in its decision of 24 October 2025.
RailCom explained its reasoning as follows: TVS had followed the correct conflict-resolution procedure when allocating paths on the section in question. The paths the appellant had requested for its passenger services were not guaranteed under the 2025 route utilisation plan – they were merely indicative. When track is allocated, a clear distinction is made between passenger and freight traffic. The fact that the respondent uses the paths for freight in the form of shunting movements onto the line does not influence the allocation decision. When allocating remaining capacity, the authorities must read the 2025 route utilisation plan in light of the binding 2035 network usage concept. Any remaining capacity must be allocated in line with that concept. Where the minimum quantity secured for freight traffic under the 2035 concept cannot be delivered in the 2025 plan – particularly because of insufficient infrastructure expansion – any remaining capacity must go to freight traffic first. Passenger services should only be considered if further capacity remains, as required by the Railway Act. On the disputed route, remaining capacity during the morning peak was insufficient to accommodate both freight and passenger trains. The paths had therefore been allocated lawfully, also in view of their use by the respondent. The freight paths in question have the necessary operational flexibility for speed and time slots under long-term planning instruments. RailCom therefore concluded that the partial allocation of the paths to the respondent on weekdays was lawful. This decision is final (see below, in French).