It is known that the ballast-less superstructure systems require less maintenance than ballasted superstructure versions throughout their service life. Although the construction costs of ballast-less superstructure are higher than ballasted superstructure systems, it is seen that the ballast-less superstructure systems offer more economical solutions when the total costs of the line's service life are examined. However does each ballast-less superstructure system have this economic advantage over ballasted superstructure? Which type of superstructure is more economical under different economic conditions? What is the most economical solution for Turkey in the superstructure selection? In this study, 3 different types of railway superstructures (a ballasted system, a ballast-less system with asphalt bearing layer. a ballast-less system with concrete bearing layer) were examined economically to answer these questions. Construction and maintenance costs of the mentioned types of superstructure have been determined and according to these costs, these systems were compared economically. This research has been shown on a case study. The results of this study indicate that the ballast-less track with asphalt bearing layer is more expensive than other superstructure types in every economic condition where the discount rate is greater than 2%. When the discount rate is less than 7%, the ballast-less system with concrete bearing layer is the most economical system. In the case that the discount rate exceeds 7%, the ballasted track is the most economical system. For economic conditions in Turkey (discount rate for 15%), it has been determined that the ballasted track is a more economical system.