Railway track is a linearly inhomogeneous object that consists of geometrical and elastic discontinuities such as bridges, transition zones, rail joints and crossings. The zones are subjected to the development of local instabilities due to quicker deterioration than the other tracks. Until now, there have been no efficient approaches that could fully exclude the problem of accelerated differential settlements in the problem zones. Many structural countermeasures are directed at controlling the sleeper/ballast loading with the help of fastenings/under-sleeper pad elasticities, sleeper forms and additional bending stiffness reinforcements. However, the efficiency of the methods is difficult to compare. The current paper presents a systematic approach in which the loading distribution effect in the rail support by application of two bending reinforcement methods is compared: auxiliary rail and under-sleeper beam. The study considers only the static effects to reach a clear understanding the influence of the main factors. The track equivalent bending stiffness criterion is proposed for comparing reinforcement solutions. The analysis shows that the activation of the bending stiffness of the reinforcement beams depends on the relative ratio of the rail fastenings stiffness and track support stiffness under sleepers (or under the under-sleeper beam). The comparison demonstrates that conventional auxiliary rail reinforcement solutions are ineffective due to their weak bending because of the high elasticity of fastening clips and the main rail fastenings. The share of an auxiliary rail is maximally 20% in the track bending stiffness and cannot be significantly improved by additional rails. The under-sleeper beam-based reinforcement solutions show noticeably higher efficiency. The highest effect can be achieved by the activation of the horizontal shear interaction between the under-sleeper beam and the rail. The additional track bending stiffness of the under-sleeper-based solutions is about 3.5 times more of the rail one and could be potentially increased to 6–10 times.