ELBAHU V
posted on 9th Apr 2026 20:50
Dear all, don't be angry with me, but again you have answered practically none of our questions, again only phrases. I have studied all the links (except that for the third ERTMS work plan, which is not functioning),
but everywhere there is only long-known general information and political phrases including slogans such as Digital transition, Green transition, etc., so your reasoning that these documents could answer many of my questions is unrealistic, because there are not real specific information here. In addition, many documents date back to 2023, but now we are in 2026…
.png)
I understand that the Bánovce - Humenné line is not part of the TEN-T network, so my goal was to get absolutely clear and understandable answers to a few simple questions, which you should be able to provide. I also don't know what is confidential about the negotiations on the installation of an ATP on a line, especially since it involves public funds from EU member states, and ultimately all of us…
Furthermore, based on your statements, I still can't shake the feeling that you didn't even understand my question about the ATP on the Bánovce n. O. - Humenné line, because it's not about "the Council Implementing Decision does not define the exact types of dispatching/digital security technologies needing to be installed."
but about the fact that there IS NO ATP SYSTEM, and this unsatisfactory level of safety has now been preserved for several more decades to come. And this is done using European subsidies, which obviously doesn't bother any of you.
Then there are such sadly ironic situations when, for example, on 5 November 2025 in Košice you celebrate "the day we sign contracts with the European Commission worth 135 million euros, thanks to which we will modernize railway lines and increase the safety of railway transport“, after which a few days later a serious accident occurs in Pezinok, which only thanks to a lucky coincidence did not end in tragedy, but no one in the EU thinks about the fact that ETCS-only operation was not introduced on the line with the stationary part of ETCS for 15 years, so it was far from the desired safety state.
I am even more amazed that the EU spends billions of euros annually on subsidies for railway infrastructure, but does not check whether the funds spent are actually used. Your position that "it is the responsibility of the Member States to comply with EU law" is nice in theory, but as you can see from this example, at least some Member States do not comply with EU law. And it would therefore be desirable to monitor and enforce this compliance with EU law and, in the event of a breach, to sanction the state in question in order to prevent the repetition of such shortcomings.
If someone from the railway sector in a given country pointed out to me as a European official that five stops (stations) had been built on an EU-subsidised construction site where no trains stop, I would immediately ask for details and an explanation from the relevant persons and institutions. However, I deduced from your answers that this idea had probably not even occurred to your officials, because there was not even a single sentence to the effect that you would investigate the matter. On the contrary, you just keep on swearing with general statements.
The same applies to the answers of your press department. If you think that what you have just demonstrated is good work, then you are deeply mistaken... How is anyone supposed to navigate EU legislation when it is not possible to learn anything precise and understandable from the highest authorities? If it were only at the level of your vague answers, with which you want to get rid of "intrusive" questions, it would perhaps still be acceptable.
However, this unclear situation also applies at the working level in areas where various measures or plans on European railways are directly addressed and where it is often impossible for the relevant national officials to work out a clear EU/EC statement on which investment decisions and long-term strategies can be based (I am talking about the experiences of not only Czech officials). Mainly, so that you do not bear real responsibility for anything…
It would therefore be desirable for you to seriously think about your work and try to improve it. It is not enough to have lofty goals, even correct and noble ones. You can brandish slogans like Next Generation EU in your documents, but without effective action by the European institutions as a basis, we will not get anywhere…
I am writing to you because no one else dares to point out these shortcomings of yours. The point of our entire discussion was not to criticize European investments. They are right and necessary, because without them many railways would look different than they do today; this is absolutely true in Slovakia, for example, because without European subsidies, which normally cover 85 % or even 95 % of the costs, almost nothing would be built on Slovak lines, just as a minimum of new trains would be purchased.
The only permanent goal should be to achieve the greatest possible efficiency of the invested money and maximum benefits for the railways. Which all officials and politicians should take for granted.
Jaromír Pernička
Related news
