Romania’s Hydrogen Train Deal Reveals a Governance Failure, Not a Technology Win

Romania’s recent contract award to Siemens Mobility for 12 hydrogen fuel cell trains, initially hailed as a step towards cleaner regional rail, instead exposes significant governance and procurement shortcomings. The deal, valued between €314 million and €490 million depending on maintenance terms, was finalised only after multiple failed tender attempts and the loss of original financing under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR). Despite the intention to decarbonise non-electrified routes radiating from Bucharest, the protracted and troubled procurement process reveals a public authority pressing ahead despite clear market and financial signals of risk and uncertainty. The procurement timeline highlights a series of institutional missteps. Starting in 2021, hydrogen trains were introduced as a promising technology, with ARF launching consultations and signing PNRR financing in 2023. However, the first tender attracted no bids, the second received a single non-compliant offer, and the third again failed to attract any bids. Even as political leadership suggested abandoning the project in favour of highway investments, ARF persisted, eventually awarding the contract in 2026 after Siemens submitted the first eligible bid. This drawn-out process reflects not a smooth technology adoption but rather an institutional struggle to align market interest, financing, and policy objectives. Market reactions to the procurement underscore the challenges facing hydrogen rail. The lack of competitive bids and the eventual sole supplier scenario indicate that the project was not seen as commercially attractive or operationally credible by the industry. Key players in hydrogen rail, such as Cummins, have recently exited the rail fuel cell sector, signalling a retreat rather than growth in this niche market. Alstom’s acquisition of Cummins’ rail fuel cell activities was framed as consolidation rather than expansion, further suggesting limited confidence in hydrogen trains as a scalable, mainstream solution. The Romanian case thus highlights a broader lesson about the importance of governance and market discipline in technology procurement. Rather than signalling a technology breakthrough, the hydrogen train contract reveals the consequences of institutional path dependency and a failure to heed market feedback. The project’s continuation despite repeated tender failures and lost funding windows points to governance weaknesses rather than a robust commitment to hydrogen rail as a viable commercial technology. This raises questions about the future of hydrogen trains in Romania and the wider European context, where sustainable transport solutions must be matched by credible financing and realistic market engagement.