12.07.2015 Views

UIP Working Group “Economic Impact of New Rules and Regulations”

UIP Working Group “Economic Impact of New Rules and Regulations”

UIP Working Group “Economic Impact of New Rules and Regulations”

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>UIP</strong> <strong>Working</strong> <strong>Group</strong>“Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong><strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations”Final ReportBrussels, 21.11.2011


0. Management SummaryObjective <strong>of</strong> Paper:Identify <strong>and</strong> quantify the costs triggered by new rules <strong>and</strong> regulations in theEuropean rail freight sector to Independent Wagon Keepers (IWK) representedthrough their respective National Associations by <strong>UIP</strong>.Analyzed Cost Drivers:1. Entity in Charge <strong>of</strong> Maintenance (ECM) certification;2. Database for wheelset traceability;3. European Visual Inspection Catalogue (EVIC) for axles;4. IT-systems for Rolling Stock Reference Database (RSRD²);5. Technical provision for wheelset overhaul based on European Common Criteria forMaintenance (ECCM);6. Costs associated witho equipping new built wagons with K brake blocks;o retr<strong>of</strong>itting existing wagons with K- or LL-brake blocks in view <strong>of</strong> theintroduction <strong>of</strong> Noise Differentiated Track Access Charges (NDTAC).Method to Quantify Costs:Estimation <strong>of</strong> cost intervals for each <strong>of</strong> the 6 identified cost items based on The respective activities associated with each cost item; A set <strong>of</strong> assumptions <strong>and</strong> scenarios.Main Assumptions / Scenarios: Over 250 <strong>UIP</strong> IWK manage (own) approximately 180’000 wagons; they areequipped with 4 axles on average; Costs were analyzed by example for 3 types <strong>of</strong> IWK <strong>and</strong> 3 annual mileagescenarios:o Small (1’000 wagons); Medium (5’000 wagons); Big (10’000 wagons);o Low (30’000 km/year); Medium (60’000 km/year); High (120’000km/year); <strong>New</strong> regulations may cause one-<strong>of</strong>f costs <strong>and</strong>/or recurring costs per annum; Due to non existing “st<strong>and</strong>ard conditions”; costs were always calculated forintervals.Conclusion:Based on the assumptions, the 6 identified costs items cause for an IWK owning /managing 10,000 wagons additional costs per wagon & calendar day between…WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 2/18


0,34 € <strong>and</strong> 1,72 € (for a 4 axles wagon equipped with cast iron brake blocks); 2,02 €<strong>and</strong> 8,43 € (for a 4 axles new built wagon equipped with K-brake blocks); 2,97 € <strong>and</strong> 8,99 € (for a 4 axles existing wagon retr<strong>of</strong>itted with LL-brake blocks); 5,96 € <strong>and</strong> 12,37 € (for 4 axles existing wagon retr<strong>of</strong>itted with K-brake blocks).Estimated costs for IWKs with 1’000 or 5’000 wagons are reasonably higher,In addition to the costs above, one-<strong>of</strong>f costs need to be considered for theimplementation <strong>of</strong>: ECM: 50’000 to 100’000 € A wheelset database: 4’000 to 70’000 € RSRD²: 20’000 to 70’000 €Assuming that the total costs for a 4 axles wagon represent on average about 20%<strong>of</strong> total rail freight transport costs, the impacts <strong>of</strong> the increased wagon costs (due tothe new rules <strong>and</strong> regulation) on the total costs for rail freight transport range from0,34% to 12,56%,Next to IWKs, railway undertakings (RU) are faced with cost increases <strong>and</strong> new costelements as well, e,g,: Track access charges (general increases <strong>and</strong> increases imposed by theimplementation <strong>of</strong> NDTAC); Energy prices; Upgrading locomotives for the European Train Control System (ETCS); Establishing IT-systems according to the provisions laid down in TAF TSI,In a nutshell:Simultaneous cost increases for IWKs <strong>and</strong> RUs threaten overall railfreight competitiveness <strong>and</strong> endanger a modal shift in favor <strong>of</strong> therail sector.WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 3/18


1. IntroductionThe <strong>UIP</strong> Management Committee decided in November 2010 to establish a <strong>Working</strong><strong>Group</strong> (WG) dealing with the economic impact <strong>of</strong> new rules <strong>and</strong> regulations on therail freight sector, especially with regard to wagon related issues.The WG objectives were to concentrate on the identification <strong>and</strong> the assessment <strong>of</strong>new rules <strong>and</strong> regulations on a European level as well as on national levels, if thelatter likely to have an impact on the economics for wagons being operated (crossborder) in different countries throughout the EU- <strong>and</strong> OTIF-Member States.The WG consists <strong>of</strong> the following members: Markus Vaerst – AAE Ahaus Alstätter Eisenbahn AG, Switzerl<strong>and</strong> (chairman) Phillipe Boucheteil – VTG, France Johannes Friess – GATX Rail Austria, Austria Vincent Hauzy – TOUAX Rail Services, France Mauro Pacella – ASSOFERR (Italian Association <strong>of</strong> Railway <strong>and</strong> IntermodalOperators), Italy Derek Parker – AXIOM RAIL, Great Britain Irmhild Saabel – WASCOSA AG, Switzerl<strong>and</strong> Ulrich Swertz – ON RAIL Gesellschaft für Vermietung und Verwaltung vonEisenbahnwaggons mbH, Germany Rainer Zechendorf, TRANSWAGGON GmbH, GermanyGiven the individual business models, company <strong>and</strong> wagon fleet size, a wide variety<strong>of</strong> different wagon types <strong>and</strong> their individual exploitation with regard to averageannual mileage <strong>and</strong> operational conditions the WG unites a comprehensiverepresentative cross section.The WG held 4 meetings: May 5 th 2011 June 14 th 2011 August 31 st 2011 September 14 th 2011The Final Report was established between September 15 th 2011 <strong>and</strong> November 11 th2011.WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 4/18


2. Basic parameters <strong>and</strong> assumptions“<strong>UIP</strong> – International Union <strong>of</strong> Wagon Keepers” represents primarily the interests <strong>of</strong>Wagon Keepers which are acting independently from Railway Undertakings as assetowners <strong>and</strong> / or managers.These companies are represented through their respective National Associations.As <strong>of</strong> January 1 st 2011 over 250 Independent Wagon Keepers (IWK) owning /managing approximately 180’000 wagons, <strong>of</strong> which represents nearly 30% <strong>of</strong> thetotal wagon fleet in Europe 1 were members <strong>of</strong> the 14 National Associations:Table 1National Associations:Austria – V.P.I.Belgium - BewagBulgaria – BPVCzech Republic – SPVFrance – AFWPGermany – VPIGreat Britain – PWFHungary – MVMEItaly – ASSOFERRNetherl<strong>and</strong> – NVPGSlovak Republic – ZVKVSpain – FAPROVESweden – SPFSwitzerl<strong>and</strong> - VAPBesides their geographical location <strong>and</strong> the size <strong>of</strong> the individual companies withregard to the number <strong>of</strong> employees, the number <strong>of</strong> wagons 2 <strong>and</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> axlesowned or managed by an IWK are important parameters:‣ The WG assumed that the approximately 180’000 wagons owned / managedby the IWK are equipped with 4 axles on average, i.e. 720’000 axles 3 .Another important parameter is the wagons annual mileage. Given the various types<strong>of</strong> wagons <strong>and</strong> their heterogeneous operational conditions throughout Europe, the WGconsidered it reasonable to base further cost evaluation on three different scenarios 4 :1 612’000 wagons registered in the Wagon Database established under the rules <strong>of</strong> the GeneralContract <strong>of</strong> Use (GCU) as per June 29 th 2011.2 Amongst the over 250 IWK the WG identified 5 companies owning / managing over 10’000wagons <strong>and</strong> 26 between 1’000 <strong>and</strong> less than 10’000 wagons.3 Although each Keeper owns / manages a certain number <strong>of</strong> spare wheelsets (depending on theamount <strong>of</strong> wagons between 2% <strong>and</strong> 5%) these additional wheelsets (<strong>and</strong> their costs) were nottaken into further consideration.4 Tank wagons (their share amongst the “<strong>UIP</strong>-wagons” is considerably high) tend to have ”lowannual mileages“ whereas wagons operated in combined traffic tend to have ”high annualmileages“ (in some cases 120’000 km is easily exceeded).WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 5/18


‣ Low case:‣ Medium case:‣ High case:30’000 km average annual mileage60’000 km average annual mileage120’000 km average annual mileageEvaluating the various cost items the WG decided to differentiate between:‣ “one <strong>of</strong>f costs”, i.e. costs likely to occur once <strong>and</strong>‣ “recurring costs on a per annum basis”.With regard to “total costs for employee” the WG decided to differentiate between:‣ employees with “sophisticated skills” (technical / operational skills forexample) – 75’000 € per annum <strong>and</strong>‣ employees for administrative works – 50’000 € per annumFor the majority <strong>of</strong> the individual cost elements, no “st<strong>and</strong>ard condition” exists;therefore the WG decided to use cost ranges based on the WG representatives ownpractical experiences <strong>and</strong> information queried from other companies <strong>and</strong> serviceproviders.‣ It must be duly noted that the respective intervals show the low <strong>and</strong>high values but no average should be derived from these two values.3. Identified cost itemsApart from new cost elements for wagon approval according TSI Wagon <strong>and</strong> TSINoise <strong>and</strong> costs for registering wagons in the National Vehicle Registers, with regardto new rules <strong>and</strong> regulations the WG identified the following 6 items to be the mostcrucial with regard to impact on costs at present:‣ Costs for Certification <strong>of</strong> the “Entity in Charge <strong>of</strong> Maintenance - ECM”;‣ Wheelset Traceability;‣ European Visual Inspection Catalogue (EVIC) for axles;‣ Mileage information: Establishing / adapting IT-systems (interfaces) for theuse <strong>of</strong> the “Rolling Stock Reference Database – RSRD”;‣ Technical provisions for wheelset / axle overhaul based on the “EuropeanCommon Criteria for Maintenance – ECCM”;‣ Costs imposed by the use <strong>of</strong> K- or LL-brake blocks for either TSI Noisecompliant new built wagons <strong>and</strong> existing wagons to be retr<strong>of</strong>itted to suchbrake systems because <strong>of</strong> the foreseen implementation <strong>of</strong> “Noise DifferentiatedTrack Access Charges – NDTAC” in (some) EU-Member StatesWG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 6/18


3.1 ECM-CertificationAccording to article 14a <strong>of</strong> the Safety Directive 2004/49 (amended by Directive2008/110) each freight wagon must have a certified “Entity in Charge <strong>of</strong> Maintenance– ECM” allocated to it; ECMs must be certified until May 2013 at the latest.EU Regulation 445/2011 entered into force in May 2011 <strong>and</strong> establishes therespective system <strong>of</strong> certification <strong>of</strong> ECMs.The “Certification Scheme” is recently developed <strong>and</strong> it is most likely that assessmentby the Certification Body <strong>of</strong> the ECM will be done in two parts:‣ Audit <strong>of</strong> the maintenance system against annex III 5 <strong>of</strong> the ECM Regulation<strong>and</strong>‣ Inspections on selected processes <strong>of</strong> annex III <strong>of</strong> the ECM regulation.The individual costs for an ECM with regard to certification depend on variousparameters:‣ Which functions will be performed by the ECM itself or will they be out sourced:o ”Management Function“ (supervising <strong>and</strong> coordinating the other threefunctions must be fulfilled by the ECM);o ”Maintenance Development Function“, which is responsible for themanagement <strong>of</strong> the maintenance documentation, including theconfiguration management, based on design <strong>and</strong> operational data as wellas on performance <strong>and</strong> return on experience;o ”Fleet Maintenance Management Function“, which manages the freightwagon’s removal for maintenance <strong>and</strong> its return to operation aftermaintenance;o ”Maintenance Delivery Function“, which delivers the required technicalmaintenance <strong>of</strong> a freight wagon or parts <strong>of</strong> it, including the release toservice documentation;‣ Number <strong>of</strong> wagon <strong>and</strong> types;‣ Contracted (third party) maintenance service providers (workshops)o Number <strong>of</strong> workshops <strong>and</strong> their geographical location;o Scope <strong>of</strong> contracted services;o Status <strong>of</strong> the workshops with regard to their own certification;• Recognition by the ECM, i.e. the workshop is certified according EURegulation 445/2011 in its role as ”Maintenance Deliverer“;5 Annex III: “Requirements <strong>and</strong> assessment criteria for organisations applying for an ECMcertificate or for a certificate in respect <strong>of</strong> maintenance functions outsourced by an entity incharge <strong>of</strong> maintenance”.WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 7/18


• Own full / part assessment by the ECM, i.e. the workshop is not certifiedaccording EU Regulation 445/2011 or the ECM needs to assess specificparts not covered by the ECM certification <strong>of</strong> the respective workshop;‣ Level <strong>of</strong> maturity with regard to the ECM own “SMS – Safety ManagementSystem”.Table 2 shows the estimated cost intervals for ECM Certification for Keepers 6 owning /managing above 1'000 wagons; the WG assumed that Keepers with less than 1'000wagons <strong>and</strong> / or few employees will most likely enter into service agreements with thirdparty ECM rather than undergoing the whole <strong>and</strong> complex process themselves. However,the WG has no sufficient information regarding the costs for such agreements.ECMCertificationInitial CertificationincludingIT setupSurveillance(by Certificationbody)Renewal (byCertificationbody)Additionalemployees(ECM / SMS)Table 2FrequencySizeReferenceQuantity Costs One <strong>of</strong>fcosts1 IWK1 - - -50’000 €till100’000 €yearly - - - -every 4years 7 - --Full TimeEquivalent -FTE5’000 €till10’000 €1 - 3 75’000 € --Recurringcosts perannum1 IWK-2’500 €till6’000 €1’250 €till2’500 €75’000 €till225’000 €3.2 Wheelset TraceabilityEuropean Wagons Keepers have over many decades developed a maintenance systemassuring a safe operational level, which has allowed rail to become the safest l<strong>and</strong> freighttransport mode.However, after the tragic accident in Viareggio (June 2009),‣ the European Railway Agency <strong>and</strong>‣ the European National Safety Authorities (NSA) <strong>and</strong>‣ the Joint Rail Freight Sector (CER, ERFA, <strong>UIP</strong>, UIRR, UNIFE)agreed to investigate under the framework <strong>of</strong> the ERA ”Task Force on wagon/axlemaintenance“ the possibilities for a European approach for harmonised criteria withimmediate <strong>and</strong> mid-term measures, thus ensuring even enhanced railway safety in anappropriate way.6 While Railway Undertakings do need a safety certificate according Directive 2004/49 theiradditional costs for obtaining an ECM certificate (if they are wagon keepers as well) arepresumably lower.7 The maximum validity according Regulation EU 445/2011 is 5 years.WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 8/18


The Joint Sector Program worked out in the ERA Task Force was fully adopted inViareggio in December 2009 <strong>and</strong> consists <strong>of</strong> a:‣ Visual Inspection <strong>of</strong> the European wheelset / axle population (according to “EVIC”;see 3.3 below);‣ European-wide implementation <strong>of</strong> systematic traceability <strong>of</strong> wheelset maintenance(“EWT”).Apart from national measures in Germany 8 <strong>and</strong> Italy 9 , there is no m<strong>and</strong>atory obligationbut a clear commitment <strong>of</strong> the Sector to the European <strong>and</strong> National Authorities toimplement the Action programme.In order to improve <strong>and</strong> to harmonize traceability further, <strong>and</strong> to reduce the time foranalysis in case <strong>of</strong> incidents, the sector collects comprehensive data on wheelsets / axles.The data listed in the provisions <strong>of</strong> the European Wheelset Traceability is the minimum tobe recorded. But, it is the sole responsibility <strong>of</strong> the ECM to decide whether additional dataneeds to be recorded.Since August 2010, Keepers / ECM shall collect the respective data; the collection <strong>of</strong> thedata per wheelset has to be completed within the next maintenance event with overhaul<strong>of</strong> the bearing at the latest. From January 1 stelectronic system supporting respective queries.2012 all data must be recorded in anTable 3 shows both the estimated costs for establishing a new or modifying an alreadyexisting IT system <strong>and</strong> the administrative costs for collecting <strong>and</strong> processing the requireddata inside a company. With regards to the administrative costs, these are mainly drivenby volume (number <strong>of</strong> wheelsets 10 ), their annual mileage 11 <strong>and</strong> the costs invoiced fromthe contracted workshops (as they collect <strong>and</strong> submit the data to the Keeper):Wheelset Traceability Frequency SizeReferenceModifying existing Database orestablish new DatabaseRegister data in DatabaseData providing(external costs)Table 3Quantity Costs One <strong>of</strong>f costs Recurring costs perwagon <strong>and</strong> annum4’000 €1 - - - till -70’000 €0,5 25’000 €ongoing FTE till 50’000 € - tillevery250'000kmMileage perannum:3 150’000 €30’000 km every 8 years 10 € -60’000 km every 4 years till -120’000 km every 2 years 30 € -0,05 €0,11 €0,07 €0,15 €0,10 €0,23 €8 General order <strong>of</strong> German Eisenbahnbundesamt from December 2009 for wheelsets.9 Notes ANSF - 04738 (26.08.2009), 06846 (26.11.2009) <strong>and</strong> 03356 (28.05.2010).10 The WG considered Keepers owning / managing 1’000 / 5’000 <strong>and</strong> 10’000 wagons, i.e. 4’000 /20’000 <strong>and</strong> 40’000 axles.11 The WG assumed that each wheelset undergoes overhaul every 250’000 km on average –Figures in Table 3 Column “Quantity” were rounded.WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 9/18


3.3 Axle inspection according “EVIC”Like the EWT (see 3.2 above) the visual inspection <strong>of</strong> the European wheelset / axlepopulation was introduced as an element <strong>of</strong> the said European Action program 12 . SinceApril 1 st 2010 the European freight wagon fleet is subject to a visual inspection <strong>of</strong> theaxle status 13 ; since May 1 st 2011 “EVIC” is part <strong>of</strong> the GCU (annex 3 <strong>of</strong> appendix 10) <strong>and</strong>therefore its application m<strong>and</strong>atory at least for the GCU signatories.The objectives <strong>of</strong> EVIC are:‣ to judge the axle status according the criteria in the European Visual InspectionCatalogue (EVIC);‣ to remove axles from service not being in an admissible state (immediately / afterunloading);‣ to record a set <strong>of</strong> minimum data for the inspected axles;‣ to h<strong>and</strong>over removed axles to maintenance with appropriate treatment <strong>and</strong> NonDestructive Testing (NDT).After having checked the European fleet to 100%, EVIC will be applied continuously <strong>and</strong> /or amended depending on the return <strong>of</strong> experience (to be discussed in the Task Force onwheelset / axle maintenance).Costs invoiced from workshops throughout Europe for visual inspection <strong>and</strong>documentation according EVIC provisions range from 10 € per wheelset up to 26 € <strong>and</strong>have to be paid by the Keeper; internal processing <strong>of</strong> the respective data is estimated tocost between 0,80 € <strong>and</strong> 1,20 € per wheelset.Table 4 shows the estimated annual costs for the 250 “<strong>UIP</strong> IWK” <strong>and</strong> their 720’000axles 14 :EVIC Frequency SizeReferenceExternal costs(checks + documentation)Internal costs(Check data & fill database)Table 4ongoingongoingper axleper axleQuantity120'000axles120'000axlesCostsOne <strong>of</strong>fcostsRecurringcosts perannum250 IWK10 € 1.200.000 €till - till26 € 3.120.000 €0,80 € 96.000,00 €till - till1,20 € 144.000,00 €12 In addition, the Joint Sector <strong>Group</strong> (JSG) agreed on executing a so called “sampling program”: asample <strong>of</strong> 12’000 axles which fulfil the EVIC <strong>and</strong> a sample <strong>of</strong> 12’000 which do not fulfil the EVICcriteria are inspected in a special monitored maintenance program with Non Destructive Testing.The JSG estimated the costs for this sampling program to be approximately 2’6 Mio. € in total forthe participating companies. The WG did not take these costs into further consideration.13 EVIC should be performed 100% for RID tank wagons <strong>and</strong> wagons operated under corrosiveconditions until March 2015 <strong>and</strong> until March 2017 for all other (st<strong>and</strong>ard) wagons.14 Based on the EVIC provisions the WG assumed that the whole axle population will be inspectedover 6 years, i.e. 120’000 axles per annum.WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 10/18


3.4 Rolling Stock Reference Database – “RSRD”Proper <strong>and</strong> periodically received information on the wagon’s mileage is indispensable forthe Wagon Keeper / ECM. Mileage information is not only necessary with regard to theimplementation <strong>of</strong> “Noise Differentiated Track Access Charges – NDTAC” (see 3.6 below)but even more important with regard to safety. Nearly all existing maintenanceprovisions are not only “time-based” but stipulate a maximum mileage limit <strong>of</strong> certainparts, especially wheelsets / axles. Even though Article 15 <strong>of</strong> the GCU obliges RailwayUndertakings to deliver mileage to the Wagon Keeper no full coverage is achieved yet<strong>and</strong> no st<strong>and</strong>ard in terms <strong>of</strong> format <strong>and</strong> layout exists. No mileage information at all orgaps then result in higher costs for maintenance (<strong>and</strong> less utilization <strong>of</strong> the wagon):Safety critical limits linked to mileage will not be achieved, i.e. maintenance is doneearlier than necessary for safety reasons.To overcome these obstacles, the <strong>UIP</strong> decided to support the important roles <strong>of</strong> theKeeper <strong>and</strong> ECM by the development <strong>of</strong> the “Rolling Stock Reference Data Base – RSRD”(being a part <strong>of</strong> the legal provisions <strong>of</strong> the TAF TSI (Telematic Application for FreightTSI)) into a tool that not only is fully consistent with the TAF TSI requirements but alsomeets the dem<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> real time high volume data exchange with a “state <strong>of</strong> the art”service level st<strong>and</strong>ard. The database shall serve as the single source / repository bywhich Wagon Keepers make available vehicle design <strong>and</strong> administrative information toany other authorized party in need <strong>of</strong> such information. In return it should serve as thesingle platform into which other vehicle related information can be uploaded, as madeavailable from other sources from time to time (e.g. mileage or technical statusinformation <strong>of</strong> the wagon).A pilot project was started in September 2011 with the six funding Keepers, 12 RailwayUndertakings <strong>and</strong> 2 maintenance workshops.The WG assumed that RSRD will be the most commonly used Database with regard toinformation exchange between Keepers / ECM <strong>and</strong> Railway Undertakings <strong>and</strong> otherentities in the future <strong>and</strong> thus concentrated on its costs for implementation <strong>and</strong> operationfor the Wagon Keepers.Table 5 shows the estimated one <strong>of</strong>f costs for one IWK <strong>and</strong> the recurring costs perannum for all 250 “<strong>UIP</strong> IWK”:RSRD Frequency SizeReferenceEstablish IT-Interface <strong>and</strong>extent internal DatabaseTransfer Data from RSRD tointernal DB1 -Quantity Costs One <strong>of</strong>fcostsRecurringcosts p.a.1 IWK 250 IWK- -20’000 €till70’000 €-Ongoing FTE 5% 50’000 € - 625'000 €RSRD User Service fee per annum Wagon -Table 51,00 € 180’000 €till-till1,50 € 270’000 €WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 11/18


3.5 Wheelset overhaul according ECCMWhilst EVIC is applicable during operation <strong>and</strong> light maintenance, the “EuropeanCommon Criteria for Maintenance (for freight wagon axles) – ECCM” refer to medium <strong>and</strong>heavy maintenance <strong>of</strong> the wheelsets / axles.Although the application is not m<strong>and</strong>atory yet, its provisions are already widely adoptedthrough the sector; its integration in EN 15313 (Wheelset Maintenance revised newversion) <strong>and</strong> references in Guidelines for TSIs <strong>and</strong> / or ECM Certification have beenrecently discussed in the Task Force.Besides limits 15 <strong>and</strong> provisions laid down in the GCU for h<strong>and</strong>ling, storage <strong>and</strong> transportthe main elements <strong>of</strong> ECCM are:‣ Improve the status <strong>of</strong> the axle surfaceo Treatment <strong>of</strong> local <strong>and</strong> severe defects (according UIC category 4);o Treatment <strong>of</strong> large <strong>and</strong> heavily corroded areas, strongly <strong>and</strong> uniformlypitted surface.‣ NDT <strong>of</strong> the whole axle during medium <strong>and</strong> heavy maintenance (which increasesthe probability <strong>of</strong> crack detection <strong>and</strong> results in more checks / higher frequency <strong>of</strong>maintenance tasks)o Complete NDT on all axle sections in the medium wheelset maintenancelevel;o Complete Magnetic Testing (MT) on the total axle surface in the highestwheelset maintenance level.When assessing the costs related to ECCM the WG made the following assumptions:‣ The wagon is equipped with cast iron brake blocks;‣ The maximum mileage <strong>of</strong> a wheelset is 1’250’000 km on average;‣ Maintenance (overhaul) is done every 250’000 km on average (alternatingRepr<strong>of</strong>iling <strong>and</strong> Medium Maintenance (Repr<strong>of</strong>iling including revision <strong>of</strong> bearings),Heavy Maintenance is executed after 1’000’000 km on average); in order toachieve these intervals comprehensive information on mileage must be available(see also 3.4 above);‣ Applying ECCM results in a higher percentage <strong>of</strong> axles to be removed from serviceduring "Heavy Maintenance"; the cost per axle is estimated to be 1'800 € <strong>and</strong> theeffect occurs on 1 % (low) to 2% (high) on the axles;‣ While the final results <strong>of</strong> the UIC-Study on “inadmissible «UIC surface roughness»in maintenance levels” are not available yet, the WG did not consider the likelyimpact on costs.15 The min. wheel seat diameter (all UIC Type A axles) is limited to 182 mm when operated at 20t.WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 12/18


Table 6 shows the total additional Life Cycle Costs (LCC) as well as the additional totalcosts on a per axle km basis (compared to the costs based on maintenance provisions forwheelset overhaul before “Viareggio”) <strong>and</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> these costs on a per axle basis<strong>and</strong> on a per wagon basis (4 axles) for different annual mileages 16 :Mileage 250.000 500.000 750.000 1.000.000 1.250.000 ReducedLifetimeOverhaulECCM Repr<strong>of</strong>iling MediumMaintenance Repr<strong>of</strong>iling Medium HeavyMaintenance Maintenanceaccording VPI IS1 IS2 IS1 IS2 IS3SNCF R COP R COP CR 1-6Total LCCper axleTotal peraxle kmAdditional costs € € € € € € € €low 0 350 0 350 0 18 718 0,00057high 20 570 20 570 100 36 1.316 0,00105<strong>Impact</strong> on yearly costs for one axle:add'l costs peryear (€)add'l costs perday (€)Annual mileage 30.000 60.000 120.000low 17,23 34,46 68,93high 31,58 63,17 126,34low 0,05 0,09 0,19high 0,09 0,17 0,35<strong>Impact</strong> on yearly costs for reference wagon:add'l costs peryear (€)add'l costs perday (€)Table 6Annual mileage 30.000 60.000 120.000low 68,93 137,86 275,71high 126,34 252,67 505,34low 0,20 0,36 0,76high 0,36 0,68 1,403.6 Additional costs for K- / LL-brake blocks <strong>and</strong> retr<strong>of</strong>itting existingwagonsWith the entry into force <strong>of</strong> the TSI NOISE in June 2006, new built wagons (as well asexisting wagons undergone a major upgrade) must meet certain noise levels.In order to achieve these limits, such wagons must be equipped either with disc brakes 17or K brake blocks; the latter causing higher operational costs due to wear <strong>and</strong> tear <strong>of</strong> thewheelsets compared to cast iron brake blocks (“abrasive effect <strong>of</strong> the K brake blocks onthe wheel surface”).While a third alternative, the LL brake blocks, meet the TSI NOISE criteria, thistechnology is not yet homologated <strong>and</strong> may be used today only for a limited number <strong>of</strong>wagons per type <strong>and</strong> their operation must be closely monitored 18 .However, for both technologies a sufficiently high number <strong>of</strong> different wagon typesoperated under various operational conditions already exist.16 Values in the Tables “<strong>Impact</strong> on yearly costs…” are rounded to two digits after the decimal point.17 Acquisition costs for this technology are considerably high compared to “brake block technology”<strong>and</strong> rather high annual mileage (above 60’000 km) is necessary in order to justify theinvestment.18 An initial control <strong>of</strong> the wheelsets after 50'000 km (<strong>and</strong> then after each 25'000 km) is required.WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 13/18


Based on in depth analysis <strong>of</strong> the higher maintenance costs for both K- <strong>and</strong> LL-brakeblocks compared to cast iron blocks, the average additional cost impact on a per axlekilometer basis is significantly high 19 :‣ 0,0051 € / axle km for K-brake blocks;‣ 0,0047 € / axle km for LL-brake blocks (organic 20 ).In some countries (namely Germany, the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> to some extent Austria,Belgium, France <strong>and</strong> Italy) noise emitting from non TSI NOISE compliant wagons hasbecome a publicly discussed issue. National governments as well as the EuropeanCommission have evaluated possibilities to reduce rail freight noise in the near futuresignificantly.Whatever model discussed, they all address the existing (non TSI NOISE compliant)fleet, i.e. retr<strong>of</strong>itting existing wagons to K (or once homologated to LL) is the onlypossibility 21 to achieve the objective in a rather short period (8 to 10 years).Based on practical experience in Switzerl<strong>and</strong> for several thous<strong>and</strong> retr<strong>of</strong>itted freightwagons <strong>and</strong> anticipating reasonable economies <strong>of</strong> scale on a European level(approximately 400’000 wagons) retr<strong>of</strong>itting a wagon (two bogies <strong>and</strong> 4 wheelsets) withK-brake blocks is estimated to cost 7’150 € - 8’550 € 22 .Retr<strong>of</strong>itting the same wagon with LL-brake blocks is cheaper (1’960 € 23 – 3’360 € 24 )providing the assumption that no modification <strong>of</strong> the brake system is necessary as it isthe case for K brake blocks will still be valid once these brake blocks are homologated.Both retr<strong>of</strong>itting <strong>and</strong> higher operational costs do cause significant additional costs(compared to cast iron brake blocks) for the Wagon Keeper.This is why <strong>UIP</strong> requires not only adequate public funding but urges the governments torefrain from implementing national solutions with regard to NDTAC. A non homogenousapproach will result in a European patchwork <strong>and</strong> most likely not incentivize those WagonKeepers operating internationally to invest in retr<strong>of</strong>itting.In addition the approval <strong>of</strong> the LL-brake blocks need to be accelerated becauseretr<strong>of</strong>itting existing wagons with K-brake blocks is not a vialable alternative at allbecause <strong>of</strong> the enormous costs.19 These values were calculated between 2009 <strong>and</strong> June 2011 in the German project “Leiser Rhein”based on experience for wagons operated with K- <strong>and</strong> LL-brake blocks in several countries <strong>and</strong>under various operational conditions.20 At present two types with regard to material are tested: Sinter <strong>and</strong> Organic. The figures in Table7 are based on the LL-Organic-type (costs for LL Sinter are estimated to be considerably higher).21 Retr<strong>of</strong>itting existing wagons with disc brakes is economically not reasonable.22 Wagons with „ss“-brake need to be equipped with a kink valve“ – a 4 axles wagon need two.23 According to calculations in the project „Leiser Rhein“ (Germany) retr<strong>of</strong>itting a 4 axles “s wagon”costs 1,08 € for LL <strong>and</strong> 3,94 € for K on a per day basis (12% interest rate, 8 years amortization);these figures are used in Table 9.24 See footnote 22.WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 14/18


Table 7 shows the one-<strong>of</strong>f- <strong>and</strong> recurring costs for retr<strong>of</strong>itting an existing wagon with 4axles <strong>and</strong> 32 brake blocks to K <strong>and</strong> LL for different average annual mileages based on thecomprehensive calculations in the German project “Leiser Rhein”. The recurring costvalues show the additional higher operational costs compared to the same wagonequipped with 32 cast iron brake blocks:K- / LLRetr<strong>of</strong>itting existing car withK blocksK-blocks: Higher operationalcostsRetr<strong>of</strong>itting existing car withLL-blocksLL-blocks (organic): Higheroperational costsTable 7Frequency1per annum1per annumSizeReferenceQuantityCostsOne <strong>of</strong>f Recurringcosts costs perannum1 wagon 1 wagon4 axles “s” 7.150 €- -4 axles “ss” 8’550 €30’000 km-612 €Axle km 60’000 km 0,0051 € - 1’224 €120’000 km 2’448 €4 axles “s” 1.960 €--4 axles “ss” 3.360 €-30’000 km 564 €Axle km 60’000 km 0,0047 € - 1’128 €120’000 km 2’256 €Apart from this, NDTAC must be designed in a most efficient <strong>and</strong> simple structure inorder to avoid unreasonable high costs just for running the system itself 25 .The WG did not assess the transaction <strong>and</strong> administrative costs occurring for variousNDTAC-Models; these costs were recently evaluated by KCW (Berlin, Germany) in a“Study to Determine the Transaction Costs <strong>of</strong> Different Incentive Models for Retr<strong>of</strong>ittingthe Freight Wagon Fleet with Composite Brake Blocks” commissioned by VPI, AAE, DBSchenker Rail, ERFA, UIC <strong>and</strong> DB Netz AG 26 .Table 8 shows the estimated cumulated administrative <strong>and</strong> transaction costs for variousNDTAC-Models over 8 years when implemented in Germany compared to the costs forretr<strong>of</strong>itting 189’000 existing wagons 27 to K- or LL-brake blocks in Germany (in million €):1.800 ,K-block1,761 m EUR1.600,1.400,1.200,1.000,800600493792617692999817LL-block751 m EUR400200081BonusBonuspenaltyTAC-rise Bonus BonuspenaltyTAC-rise6Mileage-based <strong>and</strong>Noise-differentiatedBonus ModelNoise-differentiatedTrack Access ChargeSystemNoise-differentiatedTrack Access ChargeSystem (RFID)DirectFundingTable 8 (source: KCW-Study, June 2011)25 Such costs to be born by the Infrastructure Managers, the Railway Undertakings <strong>and</strong> the WagonKeepers.26German <strong>and</strong> English versions <strong>of</strong> the study as well summaries can be downloaded from:http://www.uiprail.org/news.php?id=1227 The Study assumed that apart from “German wagons” foreign wagons will be retr<strong>of</strong>itted as wellbecause <strong>of</strong> their operation in / trough Germany.WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 15/18


4. ConclusionBased on the above estimates (3.1 – 3.6), the WG calculated the overall impact <strong>of</strong> the 6identified cost items based on examples:‣ Keepers owning / managing 1’000, 5’000 or 10’000 wagons;‣ Each wagon is equipped with 4 wheelsets;‣ Wagons are operated 30’000 km, 60’000 km or 120’000 km per year.Where appropriate, the values were calculated for both a “low” <strong>and</strong> “high” scenario.Based on a typically daily cost figure, i.e. 20,00 €, the impact is shown as additionalcosts per wagon <strong>and</strong> calendar day <strong>and</strong> is significantly high (Table 9):‣ Plus 1,7% to 9,5% for a wagon equipped with cast iron brake blocks (CI);‣ Plus 10,1% to 43,1% for a new built wagon equipped with K-brake blocks (i.e.wagon is TSI NOISE compliant <strong>and</strong> therefore higher operational costs but no costsfor retr<strong>of</strong>itting apply);‣ Plus 14,8% to 45,9% for an existing wagon being retr<strong>of</strong>itted with LL-brake blocks;‣ Plus 29,8% to 62,8% for an existing wagon being retr<strong>of</strong>itted with K-brake blocks.COST ITEMWAGONS(per car & day) MILEAGE 30.000 60.000 120.000 30.000 60.000 120.000 30.000 60.000 120.000ECM - 3.1 SCENARIO 0,22 0,22 0,22 0,09 0,09 0,09 0,06 0,06 0,06EWT - 3.2EVIC - 3.3RSRD - 3.4ECCM - 3.5K - 3.6LL - 3.6Increase <strong>of</strong>costs (in €) per4axle car <strong>and</strong>calendar day1.0005.000 10.000low 0,08 0,10 0,12 0,05 0,07 0,10 0,05 0,07 0,10high 0,11 0,15 0,23 0,08 0,12 0,21 0,08 0,12 0,21low 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02 0,02high 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05 0,05low 0,010 0,010 0,010 0,004 0,004 0,004 0,003 0,003 0,003high 0,011 0,011 0,011 0,005 0,005 0,005 0,005 0,005 0,005low 0,20 0,36 0,76 0,20 0,36 0,76 0,20 0,36 0,76high 0,36 0,68 1,40 0,36 0,68 1,40 0,36 0,68 1,40retr<strong>of</strong>it 3,94 3,94 3,94 3,94 3,94 3,94 3,94 3,94 3,94operational 1,68 3,35 6,71 1,68 3,35 6,71 1,68 3,35 6,71retr<strong>of</strong>it 1,08 1,08 1,08 1,08 1,08 1,08 1,08 1,08 1,08operational 1,55 3,09 6,18 1,55 3,09 6,18 1,55 3,09 6,18CI low 0,53 0,70 1,13 0,36 0,54 0,97 0,34 0,52 0,94CI high 0,75 1,11 1,91 0,58 0,94 1,75 0,56 0,92 1,72K new car - low 2,20 4,05 7,84 2,04 3,89 7,67 2,02 3,87 7,65K new car - high 2,42 4,46 8,62 2,26 4,30 8,45 2,24 4,28 8,43LL retr<strong>of</strong>ittedcar - low3,15 4,87 8,39 2,99 4,71 8,23 2,97 4,69 8,20LL retr<strong>of</strong>ittedcar - high3,37 5,28 9,17 3,21 5,12 9,01 3,19 5,09 8,99K retr<strong>of</strong>itted car- low6,15 8,00 11,78 5,98 7,83 11,62 5,96 7,81 11,59K retr<strong>of</strong>itted car- high6,37 8,40 12,56 6,20 8,24 12,40 6,18 8,22 12,37CI low 2,6% 3,5% 5,6% 1,8% 2,7% 4,8% 1,7% 2,6% 4,7%CI high 3,7% 5,5% 9,5% 2,9% 4,7% 8,7% 2,8% 4,6% 8,6%K new car - low 11,0% 20,3% 39,2% 10,2% 19,5% 38,4% 10,1% 19,3% 38,2%Increase <strong>of</strong>K new car - high 12,1% 22,3% 43,1% 11,3% 21,5% 42,3% 11,2% 21,4% 42,2%costs (in %) -LL retr<strong>of</strong>ittedBasis: daily15,8% 24,4% 42,0% 15,0% 23,5% 41,1% 14,8% 23,4% 41,0%car - lowrental rate 20,00LL retr<strong>of</strong>itted€ per car prior16,9% 26,4% 45,9% 16,0% 25,6% 45,0% 15,9% 25,5% 44,9%car - highincreaseK retr<strong>of</strong>itted car30,7% 40,0% 58,9% 29,9% 39,2% 58,1% 29,8% 39,1% 58,0%- lowK retr<strong>of</strong>itted car31,8% 42,0% 62,8% 31,0% 41,2% 62,0% 30,9% 41,1% 61,9%- highTable 9WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 16/18


Table 10 shows the individual portions <strong>of</strong> the costs for a Wagon Keeper with regard tothe low- <strong>and</strong> high cost scenario:Wagons:1000 5000 10000Mileage: 30000 60000 120000 30000 60000 120000 30000 60000 120000ECM 40,9% 30,8% 19,1% 23,5% 15,9% 8,8% 18,7% 12,4% 6,8%EWT Cast iron 15,6% 13,7% 10,9% 15,1% 12,7% 9,9% 16,0% 13,3% 10,2%EVIC Low case 3,7% 2,8% 1,7% 5,4% 3,7% 2,0% 5,8% 3,8% 2,1%RSRD 1,8% 1,4% 0,8% 1,1% 0,8% 0,4% 1,0% 0,7% 0,4%ECCM 37,9% 51,4% 67,4% 54,9% 66,9% 78,7% 58,5% 69,8% 80,6%Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%ECM 28,9% 19,5% 11,3% 14,7% 9,0% 4,9% 11,4% 6,9% 3,7%EWT Cast iron 14,7% 13,6% 12,2% 14,1% 13,1% 11,8% 14,7% 13,4% 11,9%EVIC High case 6,7% 4,5% 2,6% 8,5% 5,3% 2,8% 8,9% 5,4% 2,9%RSRD 1,5% 1,0% 0,6% 0,9% 0,6% 0,3% 0,9% 0,5% 0,3%ECCM 48,3% 61,4% 73,3% 61,8% 72,0% 80,2% 64,2% 73,8% 81,2%Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%ECM 9,8% 5,3% 2,8% 4,2% 2,2% 1,1% 3,2% 1,7% 0,8%EWT K3,7% 2,4% 1,6% 2,7% 1,8% 1,2% 2,7% 1,8% 1,3%EVIC No retr<strong>of</strong>it 0,9% 0,5% 0,3% 1,0% 0,5% 0,3% 1,0% 0,5% 0,3%RSRD Low case 0,4% 0,2% 0,1% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 0,2% 0,1% 0,0%ECCM 9,1% 8,9% 9,7% 9,8% 9,3% 9,9% 9,9% 9,3% 9,9%Higher operational costs 76,1% 82,7% 85,6% 82,2% 86,2% 87,4% 83,1% 86,7% 87,7%Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%ECM 8,9% 4,8% 2,5% 3,8% 2,0% 1,0% 2,9% 1,5% 0,8%EWT K4,5% 3,4% 2,7% 3,6% 2,9% 2,4% 3,7% 2,9% 2,4%EVIC Incl. retr<strong>of</strong>it 2,1% 1,1% 0,6% 2,2% 1,2% 0,6% 2,2% 1,2% 0,6%RSRDHigh case0,5% 0,2% 0,1% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1%ECCM 14,9% 15,2% 16,2% 15,9% 15,8% 16,6% 16,1% 15,9% 16,6%Higher operational costs 69,2% 75,2% 77,8% 74,2% 78,0% 79,3% 74,9% 78,4% 79,6%Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%ECM 6,8% 4,4% 2,6% 2,9% 1,8% 1,0% 2,2% 1,4% 0,8%EWT LL2,6% 2,0% 1,5% 1,8% 1,5% 1,2% 1,8% 1,5% 1,2%EVIC Incl. retr<strong>of</strong>it 0,6% 0,4% 0,2% 0,7% 0,4% 0,2% 0,7% 0,4% 0,2%RSRDLow case0,3% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,0% 0,1% 0,1% 0,0%ECCM 6,3% 7,4% 9,1% 6,7% 7,6% 9,2% 6,7% 7,7% 9,3%LL (retr<strong>of</strong>it + operational) 83,3% 85,6% 86,6% 87,8% 88,6% 88,3% 88,5% 89,0% 88,5%Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%ECM 6,4% 4,1% 2,4% 2,7% 1,7% 0,9% 2,0% 1,3% 0,7%EWT LL3,2% 2,9% 2,5% 2,6% 2,4% 2,3% 2,6% 2,4% 2,3%EVIC Incl. retr<strong>of</strong>it 1,5% 0,9% 0,5% 1,5% 1,0% 0,6% 1,6% 1,0% 0,6%RSRD High case 0,3% 0,2% 0,1% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 0,2% 0,1% 0,1%ECCM 10,7% 12,9% 15,3% 11,2% 13,3% 15,5% 11,3% 13,4% 15,6%LL (retr<strong>of</strong>it + operational) 77,9% 79,0% 79,2% 81,8% 81,5% 80,6% 82,4% 81,9% 80,8%Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%ECM 3,5% 2,7% 1,8% 1,4% 1,1% 0,7% 1,1% 0,8% 0,6%EWT K1,3% 1,2% 1,0% 0,9% 0,9% 0,8% 0,9% 0,9% 0,8%EVIC Incl. retr<strong>of</strong>it 0,3% 0,2% 0,2% 0,3% 0,3% 0,2% 0,3% 0,3% 0,2%RSRDLow case0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,04% 0,1% 0,04% 0,03%ECCM 3,3% 4,5% 6,5% 3,3% 4,6% 6,5% 3,4% 4,6% 6,6%K (retr<strong>of</strong>it + operational) 91,4% 91,2% 90,4% 93,9% 93,1% 91,7% 94,3% 93,4% 91,9%Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%ECM 3,4% 2,6% 1,7% 1,4% 1,0% 0,7% 1,0% 0,8% 0,5%EWT K1,7% 1,8% 1,9% 1,3% 1,5% 1,7% 1,3% 1,5% 1,7%EVIC Incl. retr<strong>of</strong>it 0,8% 0,6% 0,4% 0,8% 0,6% 0,4% 0,8% 0,6% 0,4%RSRD High case 0,2% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,0% 0,1% 0,1% 0,04%ECCM 5,7% 8,1% 11,1% 5,8% 8,3% 11,3% 5,8% 8,3% 11,3%K (retr<strong>of</strong>it + operational) 88,3% 86,8% 84,8% 90,6% 88,5% 85,9% 90,9% 88,8% 86,1%Total 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%Table 10WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 17/18


In addition, the one <strong>of</strong>f costs estimated for the implementation <strong>of</strong> the‣ ECM (3.1): 50’000 – 100’000 €‣ Wheelset database (3.2): 4’000 – 70’000 €‣ RSRD (3.4): 20’000 – 70’000 €need to be considered as well.The average proportionate costs for a 4 axles wagon on the total rail freight transportcosts are approximately 20%.Based on the above assumptions <strong>and</strong> calculations (Table 9) the impact <strong>of</strong> the increasedwagon costs on the total costs for rail freight transport ranges from 0,34% to over12,5%.At the same time Railway Undertakings are faced with cost increases as well:‣ Track access charges (general increases as well as increases caused by theimplementation <strong>of</strong> NDTAC 28 );‣ Energy prices<strong>and</strong> new cost elements such as‣ upgrading locomotives for the European Train Control System (ETCS);‣ establishing IT-systems according to the provisions laid down in the TAF TSI.All this will add up to a significant increase <strong>of</strong> Railway Undertakings production costs.The parallel cost increases for Wagon Keepers threatens rail freight competitivenessoverall <strong>and</strong> any objectives regarding modal shift in favour <strong>of</strong> rail are endangered <strong>and</strong> willnot be achieved.28 Germany will implement a NDTAC-Scheme as from December 9 th 2012 on; RUs operating trainson “DB Netz” containing “non silent” wagons must pay a surcharge (so called “noise component”)on the track access charge.WG “Economic <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Rules</strong> <strong>and</strong> Regulations” – Final Report V 6.0 - 21.11.2011 Page 18/18

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!