The Ministry for Development has submitted for public discussion a draft order that provides for a 30% increase in freight tariffs of Ukrzaliznytsia starting from August 1, 2026. An exception is expected to be made for tariffs on the transportation of empty wagons. A separate solution is proposed for them — the unification of coefficients to the level currently applied to wagons previously used for 3rd tariff class cargo. For some shippers, this may mean a significant increase in the cost of transporting empty rolling stock. According to estimates by UZ and the Ministry for Development, these changes may bring the company around UAH 8.6 billion in additional revenue in 2026.
Formally, this is the first significant tariff revision since 2022. In reality, however, this discussion is much broader. It concerns not only the financial condition of UZ, but also the question of how Ukraine should finance critical infrastructure during the war without losing the competitiveness of its industry, agricultural sector and exports.
According to Alona Lebedieva, owner of the Ukrainian diversified industrial and investment group Aurum Group, the key issue today is not only the scale of the indexation itself. What matters is whether the tariff increase becomes part of a real reform of Ukrzaliznytsia, or remains a short-term way to cover the financial deficit.
The need for financial stabilization of the railway is obvious. UZ operates in conditions that are difficult to compare with an ordinary market situation: damaged infrastructure, constant security risks, rising costs for energy resources, repairs, logistics and the maintenance of transportation that has not only commercial, but also social and defense significance. Since 2022, freight tariffs have not been indexed, while the company’s costs have continued to grow.
At the same time, freight transportation volumes have decreased significantly: from 315 million tonnes in 2021 to approximately 160 million tonnes in 2025. Loss-making passenger transportation is creating additional pressure. In 2024, losses in this segment exceeded UAH 18 billion, and even higher figures are forecast for 2025–2026. At the same time, UZ has already carried out cost optimization, which produced an effect of more than UAH 6 billion in 2025. In other words, the problem does exist and cannot be ignored.
Alona Lebedieva emphasizes that shifting the entire burden of this problem solely onto shippers is the wrong path. Ukrainian business is already operating in difficult conditions. Industry, farmers and exporters are facing high energy costs, security risks, a shortage of working capital and complicated export routes. Therefore, any increase in transportation costs directly affects production costs, investment plans and the ability of Ukrainian producers to compete in foreign markets.
The issue of cross-subsidization remains particularly sensitive. A significant part of the financial burden on UZ is formed by loss-making domestic passenger transportation. This is a socially important function, especially during the war. But it cannot be financed indefinitely at the expense of the freight segment. If passenger transportation performs a social role, the state must gradually form a transparent compensation mechanism — through the budget or other clear instruments. Otherwise, shippers will effectively be paying not only for their own logistics, but also for part of the state’s social policy.
The tariff increase will affect key sectors of the economy differently, but for many of them the impact will be tangible. In the agricultural sector, an additional 30% to the railway tariff may add several dollars to the cost of transporting one tonne of grain. Since the port price largely depends on global quotations, a significant part of this burden may fall precisely on the producer in the form of a lower purchase price. This is especially painful for small and medium-sized farms.
For metallurgy and the mining and metals sector, logistics is also a critical component. According to estimates by industry associations, the cost of one tonne of ore may increase by $2–3, and one tonne of coal by $5–7, depending on the transportation distance. For the entire mining industry, additional transportation costs may exceed UAH 10 billion per year. This directly affects the competitiveness of Ukrainian products on global markets.
The construction sector will also feel the consequences. For materials such as crushed stone, logistics may already account for more than half of the cost. A tariff increase may push up prices for construction materials and, as a result, complicate the implementation of recovery and reconstruction programs. The chemical industry, which depends on railways for the transportation of fertilizers, raw materials and finished products, also risks losing part of its margin on export markets.
That is why, Alona Lebedieva believes, the issue cannot be reduced to a simple formula of whether to increase tariffs or not. A balanced model is needed, in which the additional burden on business is accompanied by concrete changes within the railway itself. If companies are being asked to pay more, they must see not only UZ’s need for funds, but also a clear plan: which costs will be optimized, which investments are priorities, which assets will be reviewed and how the use of additional revenues will be controlled.
Business expects transparent accounting of costs by areas of activity: freight transportation, passenger transportation and infrastructure must be clearly separated. A public plan for the use of additional funds is also needed, along with clear service quality indicators, including delivery times, transportation regularity, availability of traction and wagon turnover. A roadmap for UZ reform is also important — with elements of competition in the freight segment, stronger corporate governance and the linking of management KPIs to the quality of services provided to clients.
The topic of empty wagons requires separate attention. The unification of coefficients may be logical from the point of view of simplifying the system, but for individual shippers it will mean a significant increase in costs. Therefore, the market must receive detailed calculations: how the new tariff is formed, which costs it covers and how the changes will affect different groups of businesses.
European integration also requires a rethinking of the role of UZ. But the European model is not simply about higher tariffs. It is about transparent regulation, a clear cost structure, competition where it is possible, investment planning and a clear separation of commercial, social and infrastructure functions. Without this, indexation may produce a short-term financial effect, but it will not create long-term resilience.
According to Alona Lebedieva, the current situation may become either another conflict between the state, UZ and business, or the beginning of an honest conversation about the future model of the Ukrainian railway. The business community is ready to support the necessary steps for the financial stabilization of UZ if they are accompanied by a public reform plan, transparent control over the use of funds, a gradual transition from cross-subsidization to budget compensation of social functions and measurable improvement in the quality of services.
Tariff policy should not simply be a reaction to a shortage of funds. It should become part of a broader strategy — the financial recovery of UZ, modernization of infrastructure, fair distribution of responsibility between the state, the carrier and business, and preservation of the competitiveness of the Ukrainian producer.