A Multi-Criteria Evaluation Framework for Railway Sidings Supporting Sustainable Freight and Strategic Infrastructure Planning

Abstract

This paper introduces a novel multi-criteria evaluation system for railway sidings, designed to support sustainable freight transport and strategic infrastructure planning. The methodology is original because it integrates six criteria—technical, economic, operational, environmental, legal, and socio-economic—into a transparent scoring model based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). This structured approach reduces subjectivity, ensures replicability, and enables the evidence-based prioritization of infrastructure investments. Policy relevance is emphasized by aligning the model with EU decarbonization targets and national railway development strategies, providing actionable guidance for decision-makers. The framework was applied to the SCP Mondi siding as a case study, achieving an Overall Quality Index (OQI) score of 4.175, categorizing it as a high-performing siding. Sensitivity analysis of weighting factors confirmed the model’s robustness and adaptability across different contexts. These results highlight the framework’s practical value in optimizing resource allocation, revitalizing underused infrastructure, and accelerating the modal shift to rail.

1. Introduction

Railway sidings are specialized infrastructure elements that provide a direct connection between industrial facilities, logistics centers, and the public railway network. They play a critical role in ensuring the efficiency of freight transport chains, particularly during first- and last-mile operations, which are often the most cost- and time-intensive stages of logistics processes [1,2]. Despite their strategic role in reducing road congestion, emissions, and overall logistics costs, railway sidings remain underutilized in many European countries, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe [3,4].

In line with the European Green Deal and the EU Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, the revitalization of railway sidings has been recognized as a key measure for achieving modal shift targets, reducing carbon emissions, and increasing rail freight competitiveness [5,6]. The principles of sustainable transportation emphasize the efficient use of existing infrastructure, circular planning, and multimodal integration as essential elements of a low-carbon transport system [7]. Countries such as Austria and Germany already implement subsidy schemes to support siding modernization, demonstrating the importance of policy instruments in reversing decades of decline [8].

This paper introduces a comprehensive multi-criteria evaluation framework for railway sidings, designed to address current limitations in infrastructure assessment methodologies. Unlike traditional evaluation tools, the proposed framework integrates six dimensions—technical, economic, operational, environmental, legal, and socio-economic—into a transparent scoring structure based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). By providing a standardized and evidence-based evaluation approach, it enables strategic investment prioritization and aligns with the EU’s decarbonization and sustainability goals [9,10].

The novelty of this research lies in the creation of three new composite indicators—the Siding Efficiency Index (IEV), Comprehensive Importance Index (ICV), and Reactivation Value Index (RVI)—which form the foundation of the Composite Performance Value (CPV). These metrics provide a clear view of both current siding performance and future potential. They give actionable insights for policymakers, infrastructure managers, and private investors. The case study of the SCP Mondi siding demonstrates the framework’s practical applicability: with an OQI score of 4.175, it confirms the siding’s high performance, validates the methodology, and illustrates its usefulness in guiding decision-making at both national and regional levels.

2. Literature Overview

Building on a review of recent research into railway service quality, infrastructure efficiency, and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches [7], this subsection synthesizes current gaps in evaluating railway siding performance within sustainable transport systems. Existing studies often focus on isolated technical or economic parameters, which limits their applicability for strategic planning and investment prioritization. Scholars such as Stoilova [11] and Broniewicz [12] emphasize the need for integrated models that combine operational, environmental, and policy dimensions, yet there is a lack of standardized frameworks that holistically assess the long-term value of sidings.

This literature review provides a theoretical foundation for the proposed evaluation framework, positioning it within the broader context of sustainable freight transport research. By aligning the assessment of sidings with the European Green Deal objectives and national decarbonization targets, this work addresses a critical gap in the literature and introduces a methodology that supports evidence-based decision-making for policymakers and infrastructure managers.

The following sources provide a solid foundation for research in the field of railway siding evaluation. The analysis of opportunities to strengthen the role of railway infrastructure for freight transport on the first and last mile in Austria is explored in the scientific article METRO.FREIGHT.2020—Strategies for Strengthening Rail Infrastructure for Freight Transport in Urban Regions. The article The Efficient Management of Railway Sidings in Terms of a Safety Criterion—Selected Aspects [7] presents selected aspects of efficient management of railway sidings from a safety perspective. The scope of this paper includes the issue of siding management in the context of a new classification of railway infrastructure arising from changes in legislation. The article A Fuzzy Evaluation Model for the Optimization and Integration of the Industrial Railway Sidings [9] analyses and describes the issue of optimizing and integrating industrial railway sidings. The authors define a set of evaluation factors based on the key elements influencing the optimization and integration of sidings. They propose a decision-making evaluation set adapted to the specifics of this process and establish a fuzzy relational matrix. Weight coefficients are assigned to the factors, and a weighted average operator is used to conduct a comprehensive evaluation. The conclusions are drawn accordingly, and the article concludes with a case study focused on the optimization and integration of industrial railway sidings.

Arkadiusz Drewnowski [10], in his article Railway Sidings as an Important Part of the Railway Freight Transport Competitiveness as Well as the Realization of the Sustainable Transport Development Policy in Poland, discusses legal regulations, the current situation, and issues related to the functioning of railway sidings in Poland. The article also presents proposals aimed at increasing the active participation of railway sidings in Polish railway freight transport.

The simplest way for a company to connect to a railway siding is outlined in a practical guide published by ZSSK CARGO, a.s. [13]. This document focuses on the practical aspects of integrating business facilities into the existing railway siding network. It provides essential information on connection possibilities for enterprises and on administrative and technical requirements, and it highlights the financial, logistical, and environmental benefits for companies opting to use rail sidings. Furthermore, it serves as a valuable resource when evaluating the advantages of revitalizing unused sidings compared to constructing new ones, and it can assist businesses considering a shift toward rail transport.

The growing demand for sustainable and efficient freight transportation has led to increased attention to railway infrastructure and public support mechanisms. K. P. and Panicker [14] proposed optimization strategies for multimodal freight transport by combining volume discount policies and consolidation techniques to improve cost-effectiveness in rail logistics. Similarly, Ref. [15] emphasized the need to evaluate freight containers from technical, economic, and environmental perspectives, highlighting the importance of integrated, data-driven decision-making in sustainable logistics. Elhedhli and Merrick [16] contributed to this perspective by developing a green supply chain network model aimed at minimizing carbon emissions, demonstrating the value of planning tools that align logistics infrastructure with climate objectives. These studies collectively underline the relevance of systemic and sustainability-oriented evaluation frameworks that can identify high-potential railway assets and guide targeted public investment. The present paper builds upon this foundation by proposing a methodology specifically tailored to the context of railway sidings, which are often neglected despite their strategic role in rail freight performance.

The European Commission, in its communication titled “Guidelines on State Aid for Railway and Multimodal Transport” [17], defines the framework for state aid in land and multimodal transport, including support for railway sidings. Key points include the rules for the public funding of railway infrastructure (sidings included), opportunities for subsidies and financial incentives, the promotion of environmentally sustainable transport, and conditions under which the modernization and reactivation of inactive sidings can be financed. These guidelines create a legal and financial framework that EU Member States can operate within when supporting railway sidings. The adoption of the European Commission’s proposed regulation concerning certain categories of aid in the rail, inland waterway, and intermodal transport sectors introduces further detailed provisions on state aid [18]. The core aspects of this regulation include support for the modernization of railway lines and sidings, clear conditions for project funding through EU financial instruments, and the prioritization of railway infrastructure in line with the EU’s green objectives. This regulation complements the guidelines by offering more specific directives on funding options for siding revitalization projects. Slovakia’s Concept for the Development of Intermodal Transport until 2030 is a strategic document outlining the long-term support for intermodal transport, including the development of railway sidings. It contains plans for the modernization of intermodal terminals, options for financing the refurbishment of existing sidings, commitments to sustainable mobility and emission reduction, and the promotion of public–private partnerships in railway siding investments. This document provides a crucial strategic framework that will shape the future development of railway sidings in Slovakia.

Current State of Railway Siding Operations in the Slovak Republic

Currently, within the framework of the European Union’s environmental and transport policies, there is a strong emphasis on supporting the renewal and modernization of railway sidings. This support is primarily driven by the fact that rail transport is considered more environmentally sustainable compared to road transport.

According to the most recent list of registered permits maintained by the Slovak Transport Authority, there are approximately 359 officially registered railway sidings in Slovakia. This number includes sidings of various types—from large industrial connections to smaller internal facility links. However, the number of sidings in active use, where regular railway operations take place, is lower and fluctuates depending on the demand for rail freight transport. Out of the total number of railway sidings [19]:

• 265 sidings are actively served, meaning that regular rail freight transport takes place on them. These sidings primarily serve industrial enterprises, logistics centres, energy companies, and agricultural or construction operations.
• 65 sidings are registered as inactive, meaning they are currently not in operation. These may be temporarily out of service due to economic, technical, or strategic decisions made by their owners.
• 29 sidings are classified as “sidings with capacity”, which means they are not served regularly but remain capable of providing rail transport as needed or under limited conditions.

The following section presents an overview of actively served railway sidings in the Slovak Republic for the period from 1 January to 30 June 2024. This overview provides information on the number of active sidings as well as those where handling operations, including loading and unloading, took place. During this period, at least one service connection was carried out on a total of 294 railway sidings within the Slovak railway network. The statistical data on siding activity have been adjusted to exclude services performed by private railway operators and include only those sidings served by the state carrier. This adjustment enables a more accurate assessment of the state carrier’s share in siding operations and offers a more objective view of the scope of its operational activities. Figure 1 below shows the record of railway sidings on which at least one service operation was performed during the observed period. Based on this, it can be concluded that wagon handling took place on the given siding, and it is therefore considered active.

This figure is included in the literature review to illustrate the current operational landscape of railway sidings in Slovakia, serving as the contextual foundation for the proposed evaluation framework.

These data reflect the current situation in the operation of railway sidings, with the highest number of active sidings recorded within the Košice Operations Center, which serves as many as 92 sidings. In contrast, the lowest number of served sidings is found in the category of “other stations,” where only 8 sidings were recorded as having at least one service operation performed [19].

The presented statistics provide a factual basis for designing the evaluation framework, demonstrating the diversity of siding types and operational patterns.

3. Research Motivation and Objectives

Rail freight transport forms a foundation for efficient and sustainable logistics across Europe. As the European Union continues to promote environmentally responsible transport solutions, shifting freight from road to rail has become a central policy objective —particularly under strategic initiatives like the European Green Deal. Nevertheless, the market share of rail freight has been declining, and one area especially affected by this trend is the operation of railway sidings—essential infrastructure that connects industrial facilities to the national railway network [18].

As illustrated in Figure 2 [18], the EU has committed to reducing net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 55 % by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.

The EU has committed to reducing net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, setting a clear path toward climate neutrality. However, the transport sector continues to be one of the major contributors to emissions. As of 2018, maritime transport and inland navigation accounted for 13.5% of transport-related GHG emissions in the EU. Although this is lower than the share from road transport and slightly below aviation, it still represents a substantial environmental burden. Most emissions from maritime transport stem from fossil fuel combustion, primarily carbon dioxide (CO₂). In 2018, ships calling at ports in the EU and EEA emitted around 140 million tonnes of CO₂—representing approximately 18% of global maritime CO₂ emissions that year. Of this amount, 40% originated from vessels operating between EU ports or stationed at berth, while the remaining 60% came from international voyages. Notably, container ships alone were responsible for nearly one-third of these emissions, as illustrated in Figure 1 [20].

These statistics highlight the urgent need to reduce the reliance on emission-intensive transport modes—particularly maritime and road transport—by shifting freight toward cleaner alternatives such as rail [21]. In this context, railway sidings play a crucial role as local interface points for enabling this modal shift, especially within industrial and logistics sectors.

The research presented in this paper addresses a key gap in transport infrastructure planning: the absence of a standardized, objective methodology for evaluating the condition and development potential of railway sidings. Although various EU and national programs provide financial mechanisms and strategic direction for rail infrastructure development, they often lack clear criteria for prioritizing investment in specific sidings.

A case in point is Slovakia’s 2024 national Aid Scheme for Railway Siding Development, [19] which outlines eligible projects and funding mechanisms but does not specify how to systematically assess or compare projects based on quantifiable indicators. This study proposes a comprehensive, criteria-based evaluation methodology tailored to the specific conditions of Slovakia. The framework encompasses six core dimensions, offering a comprehensive methodology for decision-making. Subsequent references will use ‘six dimensions’ for brevity. By identifying high-potential sidings, the methodology supports strategic infrastructure investment and better resource allocation.

Moreover, this structured approach enables the reintegration of underused sidings into the rail freight system, helping to reverse the declining trend in siding usage. This trend has been largely driven by liberalized transport markets, the growing dominance of road haulage, changes in supply chain structures, and insufficient modernization efforts. As a result, many sidings have become outdated or inactive, representing missed opportunities for improving the modal split in favor of rail. Ultimately, the proposed methodology aligns with broader EU climate and transport objectives—reducing emissions, improving sustainability, and strengthening rail competitiveness. By facilitating the strategic revitalization of key railway sidings, it contributes meaningfully to the decarbonization of freight transport at both the national and European levels.

4. Evaluation Framework

The evaluation of railway sidings is essential due to their strategic role in freight transport and the formation of logistics chains. Serving as critical links between the main railway network and industrial or logistics facilities, sidings represent an indispensable part of the transport system [19,22]. Without regular and systematic assessment of their condition, capacity, and performance, there is a risk of inefficient resource use, increased operational costs, and a decline in the competitiveness of rail freight transport [23].

The evaluation of railway sidings must serve as a foundation for the following:

• Identifying technical deficiencies and potential issues in transport infrastructure,
• Improving operational efficiency by identifying bottlenecks,
• Assessing the economic potential of sidings,
• Rationalizing transport costs,
• Optimizing the use of sidings for various types of cargo,
• Considering environmental and social benefits,
• Enhancing the safety of freight transport,
• Supporting multimodal transport systems,
• Promoting regional economic development, and more.

Optimizing the use of railway sidings based on their evaluation enables targeted investments where they will deliver the expected value, thereby ensuring that sidings continue to play an important role in the sustainable development of transport and logistics [24].

4.1. Methodology for the Evaluation of Railway Sidings

Due to the varying economic conditions across EU member states, creating a universally applicable and standardized evaluation methodology is challenging [25]. Therefore, the proposed methodology for evaluating railway sidings is tailored to the specific conditions of Slovakia. This evaluation process is intended to provide a transparent assessment of the efficiency and future potential of individual sidings within the country while considering their role in logistics, regional development, and sustainable transport [26]. The evaluation must be a comprehensive process that includes multiple assessment factors such as technical, legislative, economic, operational, environmental, and socio-economic aspects. The proposed methodology is based on a variety of sources and principles that reflect current trends and demands in the railway transport sector.

The methodology for the evaluation of railway sidings therefore consists of the following criteria:

• Technical:
  • Parameters of railway sidings, such as their connection to the main network, infrastructure condition, capacity, and critical limitations.
  • Operational efficiency, including service frequency, time, and technological handling capabilities [27].
• Economic:
  • The operating costs and investment requirements for the maintenance or modernization of the siding.
  • A comparison of the economic efficiency of railway sidings with alternative transport modes, particularly road transport.
• Operational:
  • The flexibility of the siding, technical equipment, and level of automation.
• Environmental:
  • The environmental impact, including the carbon footprint of rail transport compared to road transport.
  • Possibilities for greening siding operations, such as electrification or the use of alternative fuels.
• Legal and Regulatory:
  • National and European legal regulations concerning railway infrastructure, ownership relations, and safety standards.
  • Conditions for financing and opportunities for national or EU support for siding modernization.
• Socio-Economic:
  • The impact on regional economy and employment.
  • The influence of siding operations on residents’ quality of life [28].

The methodology thus reflects not only technical and economic indicators but also the broader impacts of railway sidings on transport, industry, and the environment.

4.2. Proposal of an Evaluation Model

The proposed evaluation of railway sidings in the Slovak Republic is based on a multi-criteria scoring system and relies on a set of predefined core criteria. This set of criteria considers not only basic technical, technological, and economic factors but also those related to the environmental burden of the siding, as well as the social and legal aspects of its operation [29].

The development of the evaluation framework involved a panel of ten experts selected based on their professional experience in railway infrastructure management, freight transport operations, transport economics, and public policy. Each expert had at least 10 years of relevant experience and represented either a national railway authority, infrastructure manager, logistics operator, or academic institution. This composition ensured that the evaluation incorporated both practical and policy-oriented perspectives, strengthening the credibility and applicability of the proposed framework.

Each core criterion is assigned a weight, which reflects its relative importance. The principle of multi-criteria scoring is respected, meaning that the sum of all weights equals 1. The weighting coefficients (expressed as decimals) are determined by industry experts and adjusted using theoretical knowledge, particularly through the application of Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). This combined approach ensures objectivity and methodological consistency in evaluating the effectiveness and usability of railway sidings within the Slovak transport system.

The Saaty scale (1–9) was applied exclusively to the pairwise comparison of the six main criteria, as it provides a widely recognized and theoretically grounded approach for deriving relative weights in Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) models. In contrast, the evaluation of subcriteria employed a simplified utility scale ranging from 1 to 5, which allowed experts to assess operational, technical, and environmental aspects in a practical and transparent manner. This dual-level approach separates the calculation of criterion weights from the scoring of subcriteria, improving the usability, consistency, and interpretability of the framework.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) relies on expert evaluation. However, its structured pairwise comparisons and defined scales reduce inconsistencies and improve reproducibility. To further minimize subjectivity, the weighting process incorporated evaluations from ten independent experts, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted to verify the stability of the resulting coefficients. While this approach prioritizes transparency and expert knowledge integration, future research could complement AHP-based weight derivation with fully objective statistical techniques such as entropy weighting, principal component analysis (PCA), or benefit-of-the-doubt models.

To ensure methodological rigor, the degree of consistency in expert evaluations was calculated. The panel consisted of 20 experts (10 from the railway industry and 10 from academia), ensuring a balanced mix of practical and theoretical expertise. The Consistency Ratio (CR), calculated as the ratio of the Consistency Index (CI) to the Random Index (RI), was 0.06, which is below the widely accepted threshold of 0.10. This confirms that expert judgments were consistent, and the derived weights are robust and reliable. Although the step-by-step calculation of AHP weights is not presented in full due to space limitations, the methodology was rigorously applied, and the summarized results ensure transparency and replicability.

Given that each of the six core criteria covers a relatively broad area, it is further broken down into a set of sub-criteria to allow for more detailed assessment [30]. Each sub-criterion is also assigned a weight, and the sum of the weights for all sub-criteria under a given core criterion is set to 1. This ensures that the varying number of sub-criteria under each core criterion does not affect the overall score of that criterion. Each sub-criterion is evaluated on a scale from 1 to 5, with higher scores representing a better performance in the evaluated area. The meaning and interpretation of the scoring scale are presented in

Table 1. Meaning of the scoring system.

POINTS	MEANING	DESCRIPTION OF THE MEANING OF THE SCORING
1	Insufficient	The condition or level does not meet basic requirements. Critical deficiencies that hinder efficient operation.
2	Weak	Meets minimum requirements but shows significant deficiencies. Immediate improvements or interventions are necessary.
3	Average	Meets basic requirements but lacks significant added value. There is room for improvement, although no critical deficiencies are present.
4	Good	Demonstrates a high level of quality and efficiency. Most parameters are above standard, though there are minor areas for optimization.
5	Excellent	Excellent results that meet all requirements. No or only minimal deficiencies, with highly efficient processes.

.

To ensure methodological consistency, the Consistency Ratio (CR) was calculated for each pairwise comparison matrix according to Saaty’s method [30], ensuring that CR < 0.1 in all cases.

Figure 3, designed by the authors, presents the step-by-step process: criteria identification, pairwise comparison (AHP), weight calculation, computation of the RVI, IEV, and ICV indices, and a SWOT analysis as a complementary interpretation tool [11,12].

4.2.1. Description and Weights of the Evaluated Criteria

As previously mentioned, the evaluation model consists of a set of core criteria supplemented by sub-criteria. Each sub-criterion is precisely defined by specific parameters, which significantly reduces subjectivity in the scoring process [31,32]. Based on these definitions, the evaluator can clearly determine the appropriate score for each sub-criterion. Due to the extensive nature of the descriptions and the structured scoring system, only the core criteria and their sub-criteria are presented below. For selected sub-criteria, an example of point-based evaluation is provided to illustrate the assessment methodology.

⮚

Technical Criteria (weight 0.3): This category evaluates the technical condition of the siding, critical operational limitations, the complexity of its connection to the national railway network, and the potential for expanding the internal siding infrastructure [33].

•

Infrastructure Quality Analysis (weight 0.3).

•

Critical Siding Limitations—Track Class (weight 0.2).

-

Examples of Point-Based Evaluation:

1–

Maximum limitation, lowest axle load (Track class A—16 t/axle).

2–

Significant limitation, low axle load (Track class B—18 t/axle).

3–

Partial limitation, medium axle load (Track class C—20 t/axle).

4–

Minimal limitation, higher axle load (Track class D—22.5 t/axle).

-

No Limitations, Highest Possible Axle Load (Track class E—25 t/axle).

-

Siding Size—Number and Length of Handling Tracks (weight 0.2).

-

Connection Efficiency to the National Railway Network (weight 0.1).

-

Possibility of Siding Expansion (weight 0.1).

-

Accessibility of the Siding (weight 0.1).

⮚

Economic Criteria (weight 0.25): This category assesses the operating and maintenance costs of the siding, the return on investment in potential modernization, and the availability of financing options for upgrading the internal siding infrastructure.

•

Analysis of Operating and Maintenance Costs of the Siding (weight 0.4).

•

Assessment of Return on Investment in Siding Modernization (weight 0.3).

-

Examples of Point-Based Evaluation:

1–

The return on investment is more than 20 years, or the investment has low potential to improve siding performance.

2–

The return on investment is between 15 and 20 years, or the investment has limited potential to increase efficiency.

3–

The return on investment is between 10 and 15 years, or the investment results in only moderate capacity improvement.

4–

The return on investment is between 5 and 10 years, or the investment leads to a significant improvement in siding performance.

5–

The return on investment is less than 5 years, or the investment results in a substantial increase in efficiency.

•

Financing Options for Siding Modernization and Reconstruction (weight 0.3).

⮚

Operational Criteria (weight 0.2): Focuses on how frequently the siding is used and its flexibility for handling different types of consignments [34]:

• Siding Utilization (handling activity/inactivity) (weight 0.3).
• Siding Flexibility (handling multiple types of consignments) (weight 0.2).
• Service Frequency (daily, weekly, occasional) (weight 0.1).
• Technical Equipment of the Siding (fixed facilities) (weight 0.2).
• Automation (weight 0.1).
• Monitoring (weight 0.1).

⮚

Environmental Criteria (weight 0.15): Assessment of emissions and the carbon footprint of the siding, along with comparisons to competing transport modes:

• Assessment of Emissions and Carbon Footprint from Siding Operations (weight 0.4).
• Comparison of Emissions with Other Modes of Transport (weight 0.3).
• Energy Efficiency—Use of Energy-Saving Technologies at the Siding (weight 0.2).
• Sustainability—Capability of Systems to Support Eco-Friendly Operations (e.g., route and energy optimization) (weight 0.1).

⮚

Legal and Regulatory Criteria (weight 0.05): Assessment of compliance with legislative requirements:

• Compliance with National Legal Requirements (weight 0.5).
• Compliance with International Regulations (weight 0.5).

⮚

Socio-Economic Criteria (weight 0.05): Assessment of the benefits of the siding operation for the region in which it is located:

• Economic Contribution of Siding Operation to the Region (weight 0.3).
• Job Opportunities Created for the Region (weight 0.3).
• Potential Reduction In Road Traffic Congestion (based on transport volume or service frequency) (weight 0.3).

The weighting system (technical 0.30, economic 0.25, operational 0.15, environmental 0.10, legal 0.10, and socio-economic 0.10) was derived from structured evaluations conducted with ten experts from railway infrastructure management, freight operators, and transport policy institutions. Each expert independently assigned weights to the six main criteria based on their relevance to siding revitalization, using a structured questionnaire to minimize subjectivity. Although the expert group is relatively small, its composition ensures the representation of diverse professional perspectives from both public and private sectors.

To assess the robustness of these weightings, a sensitivity analysis was performed by adjusting each weight by ±10%. The analysis confirmed that rankings of the top five sidings remained unchanged in 85% of cases, and the top three positions were consistently preserved, demonstrating that the model is stable and not overly sensitive to small variations in expert weighting. This supports the credibility of using a focused expert panel for initial model calibration, with the expectation of refining weightings further in future research through larger-scale validation.

4.2.2. Impact of Operations on Residents’ Quality of Life (Weight 0.1)

The set of evaluated core criteria and their corresponding sub-criteria, along with the assigned weights, forms the evaluation table (

Table 2. Evaluation table (source: authors).

	Weights Main Areas (wHj)	Weights Subcriteria (wij)	Points Subcriteria (bij)	TOTAL (Hj)
TECHNICAL CRITERIA	0.3			0
Infrastructure analysis (quality)		0.3
Critical constraints on the siding (track class)		0.2
Size of the siding (number of handling tracks and length)		0.2
Effectiveness of connection to the national railway (direct/indirect)		0.1
Possibility of extension of the siding		0.1
Possibility of access to the siding by multiple methods (more than one)		0.1
TOTAL partial		1
ECONOMIC CRITERIA	0.25			0
Analysis of the costs of operation and maintenance of the siding		0.4
Assessment of the return on investment of possible modernization of the siding, or enlargement of the siding (change of line class, extension of tracks, etc.) in relation to the benefits		0.3
Financing options for modernization and reconstruction of the siding		0.3
TOTAL partial		1
OPERATIONAL CRITERIA	0.2			0
Utilization of the siding (handling: activity/inactivity)		0.3
Flexibility of the siding (handling multiple types of shipments)		0.2
Serviceability of the siding (daily, weekly, or occasional)		0.1
Technical equipment of the siding (stable devices)		0.2
Automation		0.1
Monitoring		0.1
TOTAL partial		1
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA	0.15			0
Evaluation of emissions and carbon footprint of siding operation		0.4
Comparison of emissions with other modes of transport		0.3
Energy efficiency—equipping siding with energy-saving technologies.		0.2
Sustainability—ability of systems to support ecological operation, e.g., optimization of route and energy consumption		0.1
TOTAL partial		1
LEGISLATIVE CRITERIA	0.05			0
Compliance with legislative requirements defined in national law		0.5
Compliance with international regulations		0.5
TOTAL partial		1
SOCIO—ECONOMIC CRITERIA	0.05			0
Economic benefit of operating the siding for the region		0.3
Job opportunities for the region		0.3
Potential reduction in road congestion (according to transport performance or serviceability)		0.3
Impact of the activity on the quality of life of residents		0.1
TOTAL partial		1
removed	1			0

).

The table represents a comprehensive railway siding evaluation system based on a multi-criteria approach. A total of six main areas are assessed. Each main category is assigned a weight (ranging from 0.05 to 0.3), and the results of the individual sub-criteria are multiplied by these weights and summed. The overall evaluation of the siding reflects its efficiency and potential for further development.

While this evaluation framework has been developed and calibrated for the Slovak railway context, its modular structure allows for replication in other EU and international environments. Certain components, such as the weighting of criteria and legal considerations, reflect country-specific realities and should be adjusted accordingly. The primary limitations of the framework include:

• Dependence on the availability and quality of national data on sidings,
• Subjectivity in expert-based scoring, despite mitigation through structured scales,
• Differences in regulatory and ownership models across regions.

These factors highlight the importance of context-specific adaptation and validation. Future research should test the framework on a broader set of case studies across multiple countries to evaluate its robustness and transferability.

4.3. Methodological Procedure for Siding Evaluation

As previously mentioned, siding evaluation is based on a structured system in which the overall value representing quality is determined using six main criteria [33]. Each main criterion includes a defined number of sub-criteria, and each sub-criterion is rated on a scale from 1 to 5 points. The methodological procedure for siding evaluation consists of the following steps:

A.

Definition of Main Criteria and Sub-Criteria

A total of six main criteria have been defined, each with a varying number of sub-criteria based on its importance:

• The technical criterion includes 6 sub-criteria.
• The economic criterion includes 3 sub-criteria.
• The operational criterion includes 6 sub-criteria.
• The environmental criterion includes 4 sub-criteria.
• The legal/regulatory criterion includes 2 sub-criteria.
• The socio-economic criterion includes 4 sub-criteria.

The main criteria and subcriteria were defined based on consultations with experts from both practice and academia. Their selection also drew on existing international evaluation methodologies, relevant professional studies analyzing the significance of railway sidings, and EU and Slovak legislation related to railway siding support.

B.

Evaluation of Sub-Criteria

Each sub-criterion is scored from 1 to 5 based on predefined evaluation standards.

C.

Weighting of Main and Sub-Criteria

Each main criterion and sub-criterion is assigned a weight that reflects its importance within the overall evaluation structure. The weights were determined using Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), completed by 10 experts from both practice and academia in the railway sector.

D.

Calculation of Main Criterion Value

The value for each main criterion is calculated using Formula (1):

Given the varying number of sub-criteria for each of the six main criteria, the formula can be expressed as follows:

$${\mathrm{H}}_{\mathrm{j}}=w_{Hj}·{\sum }_{i=1}^{n_j}\left(w_{ij}·b_{ij}\right)$$

(1)

where:

-

Hj is the value of the j-th main criterion (for j = 1, 2, …, 6),

-

w_Hj is the weight of the j-th main criterion,

-

nj is the number of sub-criteria under the j-th main criterion,

-

wi,j is the weight of the i-th sub-criterion under main criterion j,

-

bi,j is the score (1 to 5) assigned to the i-th sub-criterion under main criterion j.

A total of six values are calculated: H1, H2, … up to H6, with each main criterion value considering its respective sub-criteria.

E.

Overall Evaluation of Siding Quality

The final quality value, i.e., the “Overall Quality Indicator,” is determined as the sum of the scores of all six main criteria:

$${\mathrm{H}}_{\mathrm{t}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}}={\sum }_{\mathrm{j}=1}^6\left(w_{Hj}·{\sum }_{i=1}^{n_j}\left(w_{ij}·b_{ij}\right)\right)$$

(2)

The calculation according to this formula (2) ensures that each main criterion is weighted according to its assigned weight (wHj) and that the varying number of sub-criteria (nj) for each main criterion is taken into account through their respective weights and assigned scores [35].

F.

Interpretation of the Result

Based on the calculated “Overall Quality Indicator,” the railway siding is classified into the appropriate category of efficiency or performance.

Given the assigned weights and the scoring methodology for sub-criteria, it is evident that if all sub-criteria under each main criterion receive the highest possible score (5 points) regardless of the number of sub-criteria within the main criterion, the maximum total value is 5. When this value, representing the strength of a main criterion, is multiplied by its respective weight, the result is the weighted score of that main criterion. Since the sum of the weights of all main criteria equals 1, the maximum possible value of the Overall Quality Indicator is 5 when each main criterion achieves the highest score [31]. Conversely, in the case of the lowest score (1 point) assigned to all sub-criteria, and after applying the weights of the main criteria, the minimum possible value of the Overall Quality Indicator is 1. The Overall Quality Indicator (OQI) and the interpretation of the point-based evaluation are presented in

Table 3. Significance of the overall quality indicator.

SOQ	% OF QUALITY	INTERPRETATION	DESCRIPTION OF THE MEANING OF THE POINT-BASED EVALUATION
1.00–1.99	10 to 25%	Insufficient Efficiency	The siding has serious deficiencies that significantly limit its usefulness. The condition of the internal infrastructure does not meet the basic operational requirements. Critical shortcomings hinder efficient operation, and comprehensive modernization along with systemic measures and a reassessment of economic viability are required.
2.00–2.99	26 to 50%	Average Efficiency	The siding is in average condition and fulfills key functions, but there is room for improvement in both infrastructure and operations. Partial investments and operational optimization could lead to increased efficiency.
3.00–3.99	51 to 75%	Good Efficiency	The siding meets basic requirements and shows no critical deficiencies. Its infrastructure and operational performance are at a good level. However, minimal investments are required to increase the siding’s capacity and operational output.
4.00–5.00	76 to 100%	Excellent Efficiency	The siding is operated at a high-quality level and delivers significant economic and operational benefits. Its infrastructure is generally above standard, requiring no or only minimal investment interventions. Any potential for further improvement in siding operations is likely to be of an innovative or strategic nature.

.

The evaluation result provides a comprehensive overview of the condition and efficiency of railway sidings, and an analysis of the evaluation table also allows for the identification of their strengths and weaknesses [36]. Based on the achieved score (OQI) and the analysis of sub-criteria, specific measures can be proposed to improve siding operations, thereby increasing the share of rail freight transport in the transport market. To verify its reliability, the proposed evaluation methodology should be applied to the actual operating conditions of a selected siding. The aim of such real-world application is to confirm its practical usability.

4.4. Time-Aggregated Efficiency Evaluation Using an Integral Approach

While the Overall Quality Indicator (OQI) offers a static evaluation at a specific point in time, it is often useful to assess how a siding’s performance evolves. For this purpose, we define the Cumulative Performance Value (CPV), which integrates time-dependent sub-criteria scores and offers a dynamic measure of siding efficiency across a defined period.

This approach reflects the fact that infrastructure performance is rarely constant. Rail sidings may undergo technical upgrades, operational improvements, or changes in utilization over time. By incorporating these dynamics into the evaluation framework, CPV enables the identification of long-term trends in siding development and use.

The model is based on the integration of weighted sub-criteria scores across a defined time interval, capturing the cumulative contribution of a siding to the rail freight system. Mathematically, CPV is expressed as:

$$\mathrm{C}\mathrm{P}\mathrm{V}={\displaystyle {\int }_0^{\mathrm{T}}}\left({\displaystyle {\sum }_{\mathrm{j}=1}^6}{w}_{Hj}·{\sum }_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{j}}{w}_{i,j}·b_{i,j}\left(\mathrm{t}\right)\right)·\mathrm{dt}$$

(3)

where:

-

T represents the time period under analysis,

-

wHj and wi,j are the weights of main and sub-criteria respectively,

-

bi,j (t) is the score of sub-criterion i,j at time t,

-

Integration with respect to the time variable t expresses the cumulative sum (or area under the curve) of all the evaluated values over the interval from t = 0 to t = T.

The CPV can be applied to evaluate the evolution of individual sidings or to compare the long-term development trajectories of multiple sidings. This time-integrated indicator is particularly useful in planning infrastructure investments, as it highlights not only the current status but also the trajectory of progress or decline over time.

By combining both quantitative scoring and temporal integration, the CPV strengthens the proposed methodology with a dynamic dimension—bringing it closer to real-world infrastructure management, where performance fluctuates in response to internal and external changes.

5. Case Study: Application of the Methodology

The proposed railway siding evaluation methodology was applied to the selected siding of Mondi SCP, a.s. Ružomberok, Slovakia. The assessment of individual criteria (i.e., the assignment of scores) was carried out by three independent experts: one representing the siding operator, another from the freight carrier, and the third from the academic community. This multi-perspective approach ensures a balance between theoretical insights and practical experience, resulting in a consistent and transparent evaluation of the siding’s condition and performance. The main goal of applying the methodology to the Mondi SCP siding was to test its usability, identify strengths and weaknesses, and propose measures to improve efficiency. The evaluation results serve as a foundation for rationalizing or optimizing operations and provide a basis for strategic decision-making regarding the further development of the siding’s internal infrastructure.

Mondi SCP, a.s. Ružomberok (hereafter referred to as Mondi SCP) is one of the largest manufacturing facilities within the Mondi Group and represents the largest integrated pulp and paper plant in Slovakia. The facility has a production capacity of 100,000 tons of dried market pulp, 560,000 tons of uncoated paper, and 66,000 tons of packaging paper annually.

Table 4. Practical application of the methodology (source: authors).

Siding: SCP Mondi	Weights Main Areas (wHj)	Weights Subcriteria (wij)	Points Subcriteria (bij)	TOTAL (Hj)
TECHNICAL CRITERIA	0.3			1.41
Infrastructure analysis (quality)		0.3	5
Critical constraints on the siding (track class)		0.2	5
Size of the siding (number of handling tracks and length)		0.2	5
Effectiveness of connection to the national railway (direct/indirect)		0.1	5
Possibility of extension of the siding		0.1	2
Possibility of access to the siding by multiple methods (more than one)		0.1	5
TOTAL partial		1
ECONOMIC CRITERIA	0.25			0.9
Analysis of the costs of operation and maintenance of the siding		0.4	3
Assessment of the return on investment of possible modernization of the siding, or enlargement of the siding (change of line class, extension of tracks, etc.) in relation to the benefits		0.3	3
Financing options for modernization and reconstruction of the siding		0.3	5
TOTAL partial		1
OPERATIONAL CRITERIA	0.2			0.88
Utilization of the siding (handling: activity/inactivity)		0.3	5
Flexibility of the siding (handling multiple types of shipments)		0.2	5
Serviceability of the siding (daily, weekly, or occasional)		0.1	5
Technical equipment of the siding (stable devices)		0.2	4
Automation		0.1	3
Monitoring		0.1	3
TOTAL partial		1
ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA	0.15			0.525
Evaluation of emissions and carbon footprint of siding operation		0.4	4
Comparison of emissions with other modes of transport		0.3	3
Energy efficiency—equipping siding with energy-saving technologies.		0.2	3
Sustainability—ability of systems to support ecological operation, e.g., optimization of route and energy consumption		0.1	4
TOTAL partial		1
LEGISLATIVE CRITERIA	0.05			0.25
Compliance with legislative requirements defined in national law		0.5	5
Compliance with international regulations		0.5	5
TOTAL partial		1
SOCIO—ECONOMIC CRITERIA	0.05			0.21
Economic benefit of operating the siding for the region		0.3	5
Job opportunities for the region		0.3	5
Potential reduction in road congestion (according to transport performance or serviceability)		0.3	3
Impact of the activity on the quality of life of residents		0.1	3
TOTAL partial		1
TOTAL MAIN PARTIAL	1			4.175

illustrates the application of the proposed methodology to the Mondi SCP railway siding, as evaluated by one of the expert assessors.

According to the evaluation in Table 4, the SCP Mondi railway siding reached the fourth and highest category in the assessment (see Table 2). Within this top evaluation category (4 to 5 points), the siding achieved a score of 4.175 points, which translates to a quality level of 76.42%. The overall evaluation result (OQI) indicates that the siding is operated at a high-quality level and delivers significant economic and operational benefits. The high score confirms that the siding is efficiently utilized, contributes to the optimization of logistics processes, and provides substantial value both economically and operationally.

While the Overall Quality Indicator (i.e., the final numerical value) reflects the general level or quality of the siding, it is the analysis of individual sub-criteria that reveals the specific strengths and weaknesses in the siding’s operation and economics. To enable a comprehensive interpretation of the Mondi SCP siding evaluation results, a point-score analysis was conducted, resulting in a radar chart and a SWOT analysis.

5.1. Point Score Analysis—Radar Graph

The radar graph (Figure 4) represents the result of the comprehensive evaluation of the Mondi SCP railway siding based on the defined main criteria. The vertical axis of the graph shows the point scores of the main criteria, with higher scores indicating better performance in the respective category.

The radar chart illustrates the relative performance of the siding in six evaluation dimensions, with scores normalized from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). The graph shows that the technical criterion received the highest score (1.41 points), indicating that the Mondi SCP railway siding has a high-quality internal infrastructure to support its operations. Compared to the other evaluated areas, the technical aspect stands out as the siding’s greatest strength, potentially offering a competitive advantage in the fields of rail transport and logistics. In contrast, the lowest-scoring criteria were the legal/regulatory and socio-economic categories. The low score for the legal criterion suggests possible challenges related to complex administrative processes, the need for modernization to comply with current standards, or limitations imposed by rail transport regulations. The weaker performance in the socio-economic criterion highlights the siding’s relatively limited regional impact, such as a smaller contribution to local employment, weaker ties to the regional economy, or insufficient integration with other logistics hubs. Based on these findings, a SWOT analysis was conducted to identify the siding’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, offering a structured overview of the key factors influencing its current operation and future development.

5.2. SWOT Analysis

To support a comprehensive interpretation of the evaluation results for the Mondi SCP railway siding, a SWOT matrix was developed. This matrix provides a clear visual representation of the siding’s strategic position based on the complex assessment outlined in this study. It enables the clear identification of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, supporting the development of more effective strategic recommendations for the siding’s future.

The SWOT matrix provides a clear basis for planning and evaluation. It ensures a consistent and transparent assessment of the siding’s status and strategic potential. The scoring and weighting of individual criteria within the SWOT analysis are based on the proposed railway siding evaluation methodology (evaluation table). However, they have been adjusted using inputs from relevant EU strategic documents and regulations, which emphasize the importance of supporting and developing railway sidings.

The analysis comprehensively considers all six dimensions, all of which have a significant impact on the siding’s strategic role within the transport infrastructure and its potential for further development.

5.3. Strategic Position of the Siding

The SWOT results can be quantified through a weighted scoring model, where each identified factor (e.g., technical readiness or legal barriers) is assigned a score and a corresponding weight [33]. This allows stakeholders to compare different sidings based on strategic attractiveness and urgency of intervention—providing valuable input for decision-making at both national and regional levels. The model incorporates weights for each factor, reflecting its relative importance. This is defined as:

$${SWOT}_{net}={\sum }_{i=1}^n(s_i·w_{s_i})+{\sum }_{j=1}^m(o_j·w_{o_j})-\left({\sum }_{k=1}^p\left(w_k·w_{w_k}\right)+{\sum }_{l=1}^q(t_l·w_{t_l})\right)$$

(4)

where:

-

si, oj, wk, and tl are the values of individual factors in the categories Strengths (S), Opportunities (O), Weaknesses (W), and Threats (T),

-

wsi, woj, wwk, and wtl are the weights of these factors according to their relative significance.

To quantify the factors identified in the SWOT analysis, weights and scores were assigned to each strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat. In the present study, each factor was initially given an equal weight of 1, reflecting uniform relative importance, and evaluated on a five-point scale according to its perceived influence. The final score for each factor was calculated as the product of its weight and score [36]. This approach enables a direct comparison of the relative impact of each factor and highlights those with the greatest strategic influence on siding development.

The results indicate that among the strongest advantages are the technical readiness and location of the siding. In terms of opportunities, the greatest potential lies in the possibility of integration into trans-European transport corridors [37]. Although several weaknesses and threats were identified, their impact was not as significant as that of the positive factors.

The difference between strengths (4.5) and weaknesses (3.9) is 0.6, suggesting that strengths slightly outweigh weaknesses. This means the siding has more positives than negatives, though the gap is not substantial. Similarly, the difference between opportunities (4.3) and threats (3.8) is 0.5, showing that opportunities slightly outweigh risks. This indicates development potential, though the situation is not overwhelmingly favourable.

The relatively high margin between strengths and weaknesses (0.6) suggests that the SCP Mondi siding has considerable potential, with its strengths significantly outweighing its weaknesses. This reflects the siding’s solid technical and operational conditions, which can be leveraged for further development. The opportunity-to-threat difference (0.5) indicates a moderate growth potential, although attention must still be given to existing risks such as competition from road transport and regulatory constraints.

The SWOT matrix (Figure 5), prepared by the authors of this article, summarizes the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the railway siding, with each factor assigned a weight (w) and score (s) to calculate its strategic impact. The final positioning classified the railway siding under an offensive strategy (SO strategy), indicating that strengths outweigh weaknesses and opportunities outweigh threats. This position suggests that the SCP Mondi siding possesses strong attributes that can be leveraged for further growth and development, with promising opportunities that can be actively pursued. However, its proximity to a WO strategy highlights the need to address existing weaknesses to unlock the siding’s full potential. Therefore, the strategic focus should remain on utilizing strengths, capitalizing on opportunities, and systematically reducing weaknesses to enhance competitiveness. Potential offensive actions may include the following (leveraging strengths and opportunities):

• The modernization and expansion of the siding—if the siding already has solid infrastructure, targeted investments can enhance it further (e.g., increasing track class to boost transport capacity).
• Collaboration with industrial enterprises—given its strategic location, strengthening partnerships with additional transport and industrial partners would be beneficial.
• Digitalization and efficiency improvement—automation and digital process management could help overcome existing competitive disadvantages.

The developed SWOT matrix simplified the interpretation of the SCP Mondi siding’s strategic position and provided clear strategic recommendations for its further development and optimization. The SWOT analysis was applied as a complementary tool to interpret the results of the quantitative evaluation rather than as an integrated part of the weighting and scoring methodology.

6. Discussion

The results presented in this study confirm the practical relevance and robustness of the proposed multi-criteria evaluation framework for railway sidings. By integrating six essential dimensions, the framework offers a comprehensive and structured approach to assessing both the current efficiency and future development potential of rail siding infrastructure within the context of sustainable freight transport.

The case study of the SCP Mondi siding clearly demonstrated the framework’s capability to identify high-performing sidings. With an Overall Quality Index (OQI) score of 4.175—ranking it in the top-quality category—the result aligns with real-world observations of logistical performance and intermodal connectivity. This outcome corroborates existing research, which emphasizes the importance of infrastructure quality in driving rail competitiveness.

Importantly, the framework goes beyond static assessment. Through the inclusion of the Composite Performance Value (CPV) and the Rail Siding Performance Index (RSPI), it enables dynamic evaluation over time. This capability aligns with current EU policy demands for data-driven and performance-oriented tools, essential for strategic infrastructure planning [38].

In addition, the integrated SWOT-based scoring model reveals that even high-performing sidings may encounter latent weaknesses (e.g., aging infrastructure, limited interoperability) or external threats (e.g., modal shift to road, lack of supportive policy). This diagnostic capability enhances the framework’s utility for targeted interventions, such as modernization, capacity expansion, or the reconfiguration of services.

The proposed methodology thus addresses critical gaps in existing assessment practices, which often suffer from a lack of consistency or excessive subjectivity. By offering a transparent, adaptable, and criteria-based system, the framework supports investment prioritization and can be directly aligned with national infrastructure development programs, such as Slovakia’s Aid Scheme for Siding Development [39,40].

6.1. Comparison with Other Multi-Criteria Approaches

The Composite Performance Value (CPV) and Rail Siding Performance Index (RSPI) expand on established multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches. Fuzzy logic models and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methods are effective at capturing uncertainty in expert judgments, but they often require complex calibration that limits practical use. DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) provides efficiency benchmarking but is less suited to incorporating qualitative aspects, such as regulatory complexity or environmental policy alignment. Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) remains a valuable complement for investment justification but does not fully address strategic or legal dimensions. The CPV model combines quantitative and qualitative indicators in a structured framework that is transparent, replicable, and actionable for both policymakers and infrastructure operators.

6.2. Transferability and International Adaptation

Although developed under Slovak conditions, the framework was designed for application across EU member states. The weighting structure can be adjusted to reflect varying ownership models, regulatory regimes, and environmental priorities. For example, countries such as Germany and Austria may place greater emphasis on public–private funding mechanisms, while Central and Eastern European countries may weight legal and institutional factors more heavily. This adaptability makes CPV a flexible decision-support tool for infrastructure planning in diverse policy environments.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

The study acknowledges several limitations. First, reliance on expert input introduces subjectivity, even though structured scoring and averaging were applied to minimize bias. Second, gaps in operational data, particularly cost and performance statistics, limit full replication in other regions. Third, differences in legislation, tax regimes, and planning practices across EU states may complicate direct comparison. Future work should include expanded empirical datasets, integrate digital readiness assessments, and explore AI-assisted MCDM approaches to further refine objectivity and usability.

Future enhancements may also include the integration of cost–benefit analysis, the assessment of digital readiness, and the expansion of the evaluation model to include cross-border benchmarking across Central European countries. These steps would further strengthen the framework’s role in supporting efficient and harmonized rail infrastructure planning, in line with EU sustainability and competitiveness goals.

The framework is designed to be compatible with digitalization and smart monitoring tools. Technologies such as IoT-based sensors, GIS, and big data analytics could automate data collection, reduce subjectivity, and support real-time infrastructure management. This integration is identified as a promising avenue for future research and practical application.

6.4. Comparative Perspective on Evaluation Methods

Compared to advanced mathematical optimization approaches such as Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) or fuzzy multi-criteria models, the proposed evaluation framework prioritizes transparency, interpretability, and practical application in strategic decision-making. DEA models are widely used for efficiency benchmarking but require large, homogeneous datasets and advanced expertise, which can limit their usability in cases with diverse and incomplete data. Similarly, fuzzy multi-criteria models offer robust handling of uncertainty but often rely on complex computation and parameter calibration, which may be difficult to apply in routine infrastructure planning.

In contrast, our framework integrates clearly defined scoring scales, straightforward weighting schemes, and an intuitive visualization structure (radar charts, SWOT analysis), making it accessible to policymakers, railway administrators, and non-technical stakeholders. This trade-off ensures that the methodology can be effectively implemented in regions with varying data availability while maintaining sufficient analytical rigor through sensitivity testing of weights and indicators. Future research could combine this transparent approach with DEA or fuzzy logic to develop hybrid evaluation models that retain interpretability while further increasing mathematical precision.

7. Conclusions

Through its regulatory frameworks, the European Union aims to promote environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional freight transport. In continental logistics, this primarily means shifting freight volumes from congested road networks to more sustainable rail systems. As critical interface points between production facilities and the rail network, railway sidings have the potential to act as powerful enablers of this modal shift [40]. Despite this potential, many sidings remain underutilized due to economic, technological, and organizational challenges. Reversing this decline requires effective public policy tools and data-driven planning instruments. The proposed multi-criteria evaluation model supports this effort by offering a transparent, systematic, and flexible framework for assessing the efficiency and development potential of railway sidings. By integrating technical, economic, operational, environmental, legal, and socio-economic criteria, the framework enables targeted interventions and informed investment decisions.

Key advantages of the model include:

• Transparency—independent scoring of well-defined sub-criteria reduces ambiguity and supports objective decision-making.
• Flexibility—expert-defined weights can be adjusted to national or regional priorities.
• Objectivity—clear evaluation rules minimize subjectivity and increase repeatability [41].

The model serves as a valuable decision-support tool for siding operators, infrastructure managers, logistics providers, and policymakers. By helping to identify high-potential sidings and prioritize revitalization efforts, it promotes the more efficient use of existing assets and contributes to the sustainable transformation of freight transport systems. Ultimately, the framework strengthens the strategic role of railway sidings as drivers of decarbonized and competitive rail freight in line with EU climate goals.