EU promises simpler train bookings, but some international travelers may still be at risk

The European Union's new passenger rights and ticket sales package could be an important step toward easier-to-book train journeys spanning multiple countries, but according to a fresh analysis published on June 25, the current proposal would not fully solve one of the most frustrating problems of international rail travel: on many routes, it would still not be simple to buy a single ticket for the entire journey that would automatically protect the passenger in case of delays.

This topic is not a distant Brussels detail for Hungarian travelers. When planning summer and autumn city breaks, more and more people compare flying, trains, and combined routes: from Budapest or Vienna toward Paris, Milan, Rome, Zurich, Munich, Venice, or Amsterdam, the question is often not whether it is possible to get there by rail, but how transparent the booking is, who is responsible for a missed connection, and whether new tickets or accommodation must be paid for if one segment of an international chain is delayed.

What happened now?

The recent catalyst is the June 25 report from Transport & Environment, which examined the European Commission's Passenger Package proposal presented in May from a passenger rights perspective. The Commission's goal is clear: European trips involving multiple railway companies should be bookable such that a passenger can buy a single ticket for the entire journey in one transaction, and their rights should apply to this entire route.

This is a major difference from current practice. Currently, a trip like Budapest-Vienna-Munich-Paris or Vienna-Venice-Milan often involves multiple websites, multiple tickets, and multiple different sets of rules. If everything goes well, this is merely inconvenient. However, if the first train is delayed and the passenger misses the next one, it quickly becomes clear that it matters whether it was a single, continuous ticket or separately purchased segments.

According to the European Commission's official description, the new package aims to make it easier for passengers to search for, compare, and purchase journeys involving multiple rail providers. The proposal may cover rights extending to the entire journey, rebooking, refunds, compensation, and, if necessary, assistance with food and accommodation costs if the passenger travels on a single ticket.

Where is the weak point?

According to T&E, the direction of the reform is correct, but the current text defines too narrowly when large rail booking platforms must make tickets from multiple providers available together. One of the most important figures from the analysis is that among the rail alternatives to the EU's 30 busiest cross-border air routes, in 13 cases—or 43 percent—it would still be difficult or impossible to buy the entire rail journey as a single ticket on major provider booking interfaces.

This is not just a matter of convenience. If the passenger cannot buy a single ticket, protection against delays may remain fragmented. In the event of a missed connection, it may happen that they are not allowed on the next train free of charge, they must buy a separate new ticket, or they must pay for necessary accommodation out of their own pocket due to the delay. According to the report, in the examined cases, a missed connection could cause an average of 86 euros in additional costs for the affected passengers, and on several routes, repurchasing the final segment on the same day could be significantly more expensive than the pre-purchased ticket.

The problem is particularly sensitive where rail could be a real alternative to short-haul flights, but booking is still more complicated. A Hungarian traveler, for example, could easily find themselves in a situation where, starting from Vienna, they would continue by train through Germany or Italy, or perhaps compare the flight and rail solutions. If the online system does not show a complete, protected ticket, the rail option may seem riskier even if it would otherwise be competitive in terms of time, price, or sustainability.

Why does this matter to Hungarian travelers?

International rail travel from Hungary is often naturally linked to Vienna. Due to the rail connections of the Vienna airport and the city, many Hungarian travelers already plan by looking at the region's larger transport hubs together. The same applies to Budapest: the Budapest airport is the classic air starting point, but for longer European trips, a combination of train, night train, flight, and car is an increasingly common planning question.

The point is that the decision is not based on price alone. For a Budapest-Paris or Vienna-Milan type trip, the plane may seem faster, but one must account for airport transfers, luggage, security checks, and the risk of delays. Rail, by contrast, often takes you from city center to city center, but it is only truly attractive if the booking is transparent, transfers are realistic, and the passenger knows they will not be left alone in case of a problem.

That is why rail alternatives to popular air routes are also interesting. Those looking for travel from Budapest to Paris, Budapest to Rome, or Vienna to Milan today do not necessarily only care about the airfare. Many passengers also weigh whether flying, rail, or a combined route provides less stress, fewer hidden costs, and a better schedule buffer.

What does the EU package promise?

The European Commission's proposal brings three major directions closer together. The first is comparability: passengers should more easily see which routes, prices, travel times, and providers are available. The second is more uniform booking: journeys of multiple providers could be arranged into a single ticket if the platform and route meet the rules. The third is passenger rights: if the entire journey is on one ticket, the handling of delays, missed connections, or cancellations should not simply fall on the passenger.

In practice, this approach could mean that a train journey crossing several countries would look less like a risky puzzle. If the first segment is delayed, the system and providers should handle rebooking, alternative routes, and, if applicable, care more clearly. This is especially important for families, elderly travelers, infrequent train users, and those who do not want to argue with foreign-language customer services after a delay.

At the same time, the proposal is not yet a final rule. The European Parliament and the Council representing the member states must also deal with it. The next political debate will therefore be about how broad the obligation should be: whether it should extend only to certain routes and platforms, or more strongly cover the rail equivalents of the most important air and car alternatives.

What should the traveler watch for in the meantime?

The regulatory debate does not solve the immediate practical questions of summer 2026 travel. Those traveling by train through several countries this year should still be particularly careful about exactly what kind of ticket they purchase. It is not the same if a route appears as a single booking, as a single ticket, or if the system simply places several separate segments side by side. With separate tickets, there is a greater risk that the next provider will not automatically assume responsibility after a delay.

It is worth looking for terms like "through ticket", "single ticket", "journey continuation", "HOTNAT", or similar expressions before booking, and reading what conditions apply to missed connections. This is not a pleasant fine-print task, but on long international routes, it can save a lot of money and stress. If the trip is linked to an important event, a ship departure, a long-distance bus, or a flight, it is worth leaving a larger time buffer, especially on routes involving multiple providers.

For trips combined with flying, this is even more important. If someone goes by train to a major airport, such as Vienna, Paris, or Milan, and continues their journey from there, separately purchased rail and air tickets generally do not provide joint protection. Checking the Vienna flight information or the Budapest airport schedule can help, but it does not replace a schedule buffer.

What does this mean for the tourism market?

Easier-to-book international trains are not just an environmental issue. From a tourism perspective, it is also a question of competitiveness. If a traveler can find safe, full-journey protected rail tickets in a few clicks, they are more likely to choose city breaks, tours, or multi-stop routes without flying or with fewer flights. If, however, the booking is complicated, responsibility is vague, and the financial risk of a missed connection remains with the passenger, many will stick to flying, even on shorter European distances.

In the case of the Hungarian market, this is particularly interesting because the transport connections of Budapest, Vienna, Bratislava, and Prague in the region partially reinforce each other. A well-functioning European ticket system would not only benefit Western Europe but also Central European travelers who reach their final destination through multiple hubs. This could also make planning city breaks, festival trips, ski trips, seaside train connections, and airport feeder routes simpler.

Cautious optimism, but not a ready-made solution

The most important lesson from the current situation is that the EU proposal could be real progress, but travelers should not yet view it as a working guarantee. The goal is to bring the booking of international rail travel closer to the simplicity of buying a plane ticket, while passenger rights are not lost across the borders between providers. However, the fresh analysis warns: if the rule remains too narrow, passengers on many popular European routes will still only receive partial protection.

Hungarian travelers will therefore need a dual approach in the coming months. It is worth following the EU negotiations, because in the long run, these will decide how simple it will be to travel by train across several countries. In the short term, however, practical verification remains: one ticket or multiple tickets, how much transfer time, who is responsible in case of delay, and whether there is a realistic buffer in the entire route. Until there are clear answers to these, the cheapest or fastest-looking route is not always the safest choice.