After presenting the details of the study, whose unofficial findings were already disclosed in July, the minister agreed an inland terminal would improve the economic feasibility of a subsequent construction of a second track.

He added however that "there are still quite a few tasks ahead of us before a final decision will be possible" and that the government would carefully study the analysis of the OECD's International Transport Forum (ITF).

The ITF argued that building the 27-kilometre rail line, estimated at EUR 1.4bn, was too risky given the uncertain future growth of transshipment at the Luka Koper port.

Since no executable public-private partnership eliminates this risk, an alternative, less costly solution should be found.

The ITF is proposing the construction of an inland terminal, which would postpone the need for a second track and address the risks associated with future demand in the best possible way.

The OECD examined all potential financing models for the second track, highlighting three: financing by the state, payments by the state to a concessionaire, and the awarding of a concession licence conditional on the construction of a second track.

Dejan Makovšek of the OECD argued at today's presentation that that project was not executable without state funding and that the third option seemed the best, although it required some time.

This time could be gained with the temporary solution that is an inland terminal 20 to 30 kilometres from the Koper Port, possibly in Sežana or Divača.

According to the OECD's Jürgen Sorgenfrei, the terminal, which would cost around EUR 50m, is not an optimal solution but the best one cost-wise. Similar solutions are know elsewhere in Europe, he added, mentioning the inland terminal in Prague that is connected to the Hamburg port.

Minister Gašperšič meanwhile announced another detailed analysis of the cost of the project, whose results he expects within six months.

He wants to check interest with private partners, take the project to a stage where applying for EU funding will be possible, and raise the share of EU funds above 30%.

Gašperšič argued that the OECD analysis had shown rushing with the next steps was not necessary or could even be harmful.