EE UNIT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN RAILWAY AGENCY EE UNIT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGISTER OF INFRASTRUCTURE Reference: EE-IA-RINF-V10 Document Type: Draft Report Version : 1.0 Date : 31/03/2010 Edited by Reviewed by Approved by Name Martin SCHROEDER Jan Christian ARMS Airy Magnien Position Project Officer Project Officer Head of Unit Date & Signat. 31/03/ /03/ /03/2011 File : EE-RINF-IA-1.0 PAGE 1 OF 26

2 AMENDMENT RECORD Version Date Section number Modification/description Author /03/2011 All Extract IA from existing report on RINF, added section about benefit assessment Martin SCHROEDER EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 2/26

3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Background Summary Abbreviations, references and terms Abbreviations Terms Reference Documents Legal framework and related legislation Geographical scope Technical scope Definiton of Scenarios Reference Scenario Project Scenario Estimation of cost impact First estimation of the Cost Impact Updated cost impact assessment Estimation of potential benefits First estimation of qualitative benefits Updated assessment of qualitative benefits Quantitative Benefit Assessment Benefits in the framework of vehicle circulation/business planing Benefits in the framework of vehicle type management Benefits in the framework of new vehicle designs Benefits in the framework of route compatibility checks Conclusions EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 3/26

4 Table of tables Table 1 : Abbreviations... 8 Table 2 : Reference documents... 9 Table 3 : Average cost impact...14 Table 4 : Total European Wide Cost Impact of RINF...14 Table 5 : Feedback from 2nd Questionnaire...15 Table 6 : Reviewed Cost Impact reported from Members States/ Infrastructure Managers...17 Table 7 : Expected qualitative benefits of RINF...19 Table 8 : Updated qualitative benefits resulting from the application of RINF...21 EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 4/26

5 1. Introduction 1.1 Background The activity of the WG (RINF) scheduled in the ERA work programme 2009 [1] is based on Article 18 of Regulation 1335/2008 [2] amending Regulation 881/2004 establishing a European Railway Agency (ERA) and Article 35 (2) of Directive 2008/57/EC [3] on the Interoperability of the Rail System within the Community. According to the Agency Regulation [2] and the Interoperability Directive [3] the Agency shall draw up and recommend to the Commission a common specification for the, which shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 29(3). The specification on the shall comprise essential information regarding its presentation and format, revision cycle and instructions for use, taking into account an appropriate transition period for infrastructures placed in service before the entry into force of this Directive. Furthermore the CR INF TSI voted by RISC in December 2009 mandates the RINF to define the procedure to be used for the demonstration of the level of compliance with the basic parameters of the TSI for existing lines that are not subject to a renewal or upgrading project. A first report was drafted in 2010 and presented to RISC in October This report accompanying the specification on RINF sets out background information about work, decisions and includes a first impact assessment on costs and benefits. Members States asked for an update of the impact assessment. Benefits were estimated in a qualitative form and should be analysed in a quantitative form. In addition the cost impact estimation should be reviewed it seemed that the cost impact was over-estimated. For this reason end of 2010 a new questionnaire was distributed to Member States and the impacted stakeholders in order to receive more precise information on costs and benefits. In addition bilateral meetings were held with a number of Member States to deepen the analysis. The following report takes into account the feedback received from questionnaires as well as from these bilateral meetings. EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 5/26

6 1.2 Summary The primary purpose of RINF is to provide the information base in order to be able to check technical compatibility between fixed installations and rolling stock within the European community. Although network statements exist in each Member State and contain a technical description of the railway network, the majority of stakeholders considered that this information is uncomplete and not detailed enough to support such compatibility check. Nevertheless the implementation of RINF may base on the network statement and once it is implemented, the technical description of the network inside the Network Statement may reference to the RINF. A first estimation of the Europeanwide onetime cost impact for the implementation of RINF of about 120 Mio seems to be not overestimated and still valid. This demonstrates that implementation costs in each Member State will be significant. Nevertheless this impact does not result from the RINF specification, because Member States are already obliged today to implement such a register, under the Interoperability Directive. Taking into account this onetime impact, the financing of the implementation of RINF on national level will be a critical issue. Drawing benefits from RINF is the other critical issue. RINF operating costs are purely IT related and can be derived from the experience with other already existing registers similar to the RINF specification. The Europeanwide operating costs seem to be around 20 Mio per year. The assessment revealed a number of significant benefits from the implementation of RINF in the framework of vehicle circulation and fleet management, new vehicle design, vehicle type management, as well as route compatibility checks. All these benefits would contribute to the transparency of the European railway market, facilitating the access of new entrants as well as increasing competition within national and international rail transport. The total benefits of enforcing a common RINF specification would exceed significantly (by about 4 times) the operating costs of RINF. Considering a European wide cost impact of about 120 Mio for the implementation of RINF and resulting net benefits (total estimated benefits minus RINF operating costs) of about 70 Mio per year, RINF investments are already paid back after 2 years of full usage. Beneficiaries of the implementation of RINF are railway undertakings and the supply industry, whereas infrastructure managers will bear the costs of the implementation, and sometimes benefit from easier data retrieval. EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 6/26

7 Overall, the current RINF specification would support the benefits mentioned above, under the condition that RINF would be implemented for the whole railway network and include existing installations. EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 7/26

8 2. Abbreviations, references and terms 2.1 Abbreviations Table 1 : Abbreviations Abbreviation AEIF BP CEN CER CCS CR CSG DeBo DG MOVE DG TREN EC EI EIM EN ENE ENV ERA ERATV ERFA ERIM ERTMS ETCS FRS GML HS IC IG Definition European Association for Railway Interoperability (Association Européenne pour l Interopérabilité Ferroviaire) Basic Parameter European Committee for Standardisation (Comité Européen de Normalisation) Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies Control-Command and Signalling Conventional Rail Conformity Survey Group Designated Body Directorate General for Mobility and Transport Directorate-General Energy and Transport European Commission Existing Infrastructure European Rail Infrastructure Managers European Standards Energy European Pre-standard (published for testing) European Railway Agency (also referred to as Agency) European Register of Authorised Types of Vehicles European Rail Freight Association European Rail Infrastructure Masterplan European Rail Traffic Management System European Train Control System Functional Requirement Specification Geographical Markup Language High-Speed Interoperability Constituent Interface Group EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 8/26

9 Table 1 : Abbreviations Abbreviation ID IM INF INSPIRE LOC MS NS NSA OJ OP RINF RISC RNE RRS RST RU SRS SRT TEN TSI UNIFE WG Definition Interoperability Directive Infrastructure Manager Infrastructure Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community Locomotives and traction units (abbreviation for loc. and tr. units TSI) Member State Network Statement National Safety Authority Official Journal of the European Union Operational Point Railway Interoperability and Safety Committee RailNetEurope Register of Rolling Stock Rolling Stock Railway Undertaking System Requirement Specification Safety in Railway Tunnels Trans-European Networks Technical Specification for Interoperability Association of the European Railway Industries (Union des Industries Ferroviaires Européennes) Working Group 2.2 Terms In the following document, the term vehicle is used to describe locomotives, DMUs and EMUs but not waggons. 2.3 Reference Documents Table 2 : Reference documents Ref. N Document Reference Title [1] AB Decision n 24/2008 ERA Work Programme 2009 EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 9/26

10 Ref. N Document Reference Title [2] Regulation (EC) No 1335/2008 Amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 establishing a European Railway Agency (Agency Regulation) [3] Directive 2008/57/EC Interoperability of the rail system within the Community [4] IU-RINF IntRep 2.0 First Report on the [5] ERA/XA ( ) Report on railway vehicle authorisation EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 10/26

11 3. Legal framework 3.1 and related legislation Directive 2008/57/EC [3], hereafter referred to as the Interoperability Directive or ID, establishes the conditions to be met to achieve interoperability within the Community rail system. This must lead to an optimal level of technical harmonisation to: facilitate, improve and develop international rail transport services within the European Union (Article 1 (2a)) contribute to the interoperability of the rail system within the Community (Article 1 (2c)). The ID sets out in Article 35 (1) the obligation for Member States to ensure that a is published and updated on the basis of a revision cycle to be defined in the RINF specification. This register shall indicate the main features of each subsystem or part subsystem involved (e.g. the basic parameters) and their correlation with the features laid down under and precisely indicated in the applicable TSIs. Article 19 (1) of the Agency Regulation [2] gives requirements for the accessibility of documents and registers. According to point (h), The Agency shall make publicly accessible...the link to the registers of infrastructure. 3.2 Geographical scope The geographical scope of RINF is the Community rail system stated in Article 1 of the ID. MSs may exclude infrastructure such as light rail systems, functionally separate networks and privately owned infrastructure, and local and historical infrastructure, as provided for in Article 1 (3). 3.3 Technical scope The technical scope of RINF in correlation with the features laid down under the applicable TSIs have currently been assessed for the TEN only. The geographical scope of RINF (as described in section 3.2) and the technical scope of the TSIs are therefore not consistent. The future extension of the scope of the TSIs to the Community rail system may consequently have an influence on the specification of RINF. EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 11/26

12 4. Definiton of Scenarios 4.1 Reference Scenario As analysed in section 3.1, Member States are already obliged to implement RINF according to the ID. As stated in section 3.2, the geographical scope of RINF derives from the geographical scope of the ID which covers the TEN and Off-TEN. Nevertheless, the items to be included in RINF are not completely specified in the legal framework. Some items for RINF currently specified in TSIs are not considered to be useful and are not applicable to existing infrastructure (see [4]). In addition there are no legal requirements concerning the transition period. 4.2 Project Scenario Considering the reference scenario, there is no additional impact resulting from the RINF specification assuming that all the specified items are needed for the compatibility check between vehicle and trackside infrastructure (Note: see the report [4] which addresses the justification for all RINF items). In addition, it is assumed that the transition time does not have any first order impact on the one-time costs for the implementation of RINF as well as on operating costs. Nevertheless the transition time will influence the necessary yearly budget for the implementation of RINF. The feasibility for a MS to implement RINF in the specified transition period mainly depends on the availability of budget and maybe of additional funding which is outside the scope of this study. The implementation of RINF according to the proposed specification will provide benefits in the following areas. In the framework of planning international services In the framework of route compatibility checks In the framework of designing new vehicles In the framework of re-authorisation of existing vehicles for placing into service (e.g if modifications of a vehicle are necessary, can they still operate on the lines where they were intended to run) or extending/changing the opertational scope (a vehicle shall run on new or other lines) These benefits will be analysed more detailed in the framework of this impact assessment. EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 12/26

13 5. Estimation of cost impact 5.1 First estimation of the Cost Impact In the framework of a first analysis (see [4]) which was performed during the first half of 2010, Member States as well as Infrastructure Managers were asked to estimate the cost impact related to the implementation of the RINF according to first draft specification which is very close to the final specification of RINF. The Agency recommended to differentiate the cost impact between onetime costs and yearly operating costs: Onetime costs include the setup of the database the first time capturing of RINF data including setup of a quality management Yearly operating costs include the maintenance of the database software/system for keeping RINF data up to date The respondents could choose to indicate the cost impact in monetary terms or in terms of working hours. In addition the questionnaire asked for the underlying assumptions. The Agency translated an impact based on working hours to a monetary impact by assuming average (total) working hour costs of 80 /h (160h/month) for all Member States (not taking account the specific labour costs in each Member State.) Thirteen Members States provided feedback about the cost impact. For the analysis of the impact, two cost impact indicators were derived from the provided impact: C Onetime C Operating : Setup costs per length of lines [ /km] : Operating yearly costs per length of lines [ /km year] The reported impact in each Member State differed quite significantly. Nevertheless the Agency derived average cost impact indicators and estimated the European wide cost impact. Due to the high variation of data, the highest and the lowest value were not taken into account. This accommodates for example, the cost impact provided by the Netherlands which related to an IT system which covers more functionality than specified for RINF. Table 3 provides an overview of the average cost impact: EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 13/26

14 Indicator Table 3 : Average cost impact C Onetime [ /km] 560 C Operating [ /km year] 220 Total Setup Costs [ ] / Member State Total Operating Costs [ ]/ Member State AverageValue Note: The report [4] contains additional information how average cost impact indicators were derived. In order to estimate the impact for whole Europe, the cost indicators C Onetime and C Operating were used to multiply them with the length of the European Network ( km) The following table presents the expected resulting European wide cost impact from the implementation and operation of RINF: Table 4 : Total European Wide Cost Impact of RINF Total Setup Costs 120 Mio Total Operating Costs 48 Mio 5.2 Updated cost impact assessment The cost impact figures shown in section 5.1 were presented to the Member States during RISC in October In this context the Agency emphasized that this cost impact does not result from the specific Agency recommendation for the specification of RINF but it is related to the obligation to implement a RINF as stated in the ID. The Agency was asked to verify the estimated impact. For this reason the Agency sent out an second questionnaire to Member States and the impacted Stakeholders (Infrastructure Managers) in order to get a feedback on the estimated cost impact. EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 14/26

15 Table 5 : Feedback from 2nd Questionnaire Member State/ main IM in the Member State Average Cost Impact indicators can be used Individual Cost Impact is higher Individual Cost Impact is lower Cost Indicators are Network Specific Austria YES Bulgaria YES Czech YES Denmark NO Finnland YES YES France NO (YES CI for Off- TEN is higher than for TEN) Germany NO Hungary YES Italy YES YES Latvia NO YES Lithuania The Netherlands YES NO (Onetime Impact) Poland YES YES Spain YES for TEN NO for Off TEN YES Sweden YES YES UK YES (for Network Rail) NO (HS1) YES (only HS1) CI for Off-TEN are higher than for TEN The majority of Member States/ Infrastructure Managers agreed to estimate the Europeanwide cost impact based on the derived average cost impact indicators. A number of Member States/ Infrastructure Managers even reported a lower cost impact for themselves (compared to the impact if derived from the average cost indicators, e.g. Sweden, Finland, Poland, Italy) Based on the received feedback. in general, the majority of respondents seem to have not sufficient experience in implementing a register according to such specification. In addition it was recommended to differentiate cost indicators applied for IMs who already have a database similar to RINF IMs who have to implement a complete new database Most respondents indicated that the expected cost impact for setting up the database is more or less independent on the size of network and type of network (only two exceptions: RFF in France and ADIF in Spain) In addition, in bilateral meetings with Member States (France, Poland, Spain, Sweden, UK) including the impacted stakeholders, this impact was discussed in more detail. The following conclusion were drawn after the feedback from these bilateral meetings: A cost impact assessment based on the chosen cost indicators is not recommended due to the fact EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 15/26

16 o that onetime costs are more or less independent on network size (or the size of the network is considered to be a minor cost driver) o that operating costs are mainly IT-related (operation of the database, maintenance of IT interfaces to other systems which provide information for RINF) and independent on network size. In each MS the starting point situation from which RINF will be implemented is different. Reliable cost information will require a closer analysis of the situation in each Member State. The cost assessment should assume that no specific on-site work to capture RINF data is necessary. It is assumed that an Infrastructure Manager is already obliged today by European legislation (e.g. due to the SMS) to have the appropriate knowledge about his infrastructure, both regarding design limits and maintenance values. There might be a cost impact to translate this information to the format specified in the recommendation for RINF, or to digitalize data. In addition the cost assessment should assume that there are no specific on site work necessary to keep RINF data up to date. The specification does not impose any specific quality requirements. It is assumed, that appropriate maintenance (as part of the SMS) is performed on the existing infrastructure. Maintenance regimes will automatically update RINF in case of differences between the data stored in RINF and the reality. For this reason the onetime cost impact should consider onetime costs for process changes allowing the introduction of information chains inside the organisation from local maintenance regimes to RINF allowing later an automated updateing of the register. Operating costs are more or less only IT related. The required availability of the IT system will mainly determine its operating costs. In addition, IT maintenance for the interfaces to the other connected systems providing RINF information has to be taken into account as well. For the assessment of the operational cost impact, figures about the operational costs of existing registers similar to RINF (e.g. current RINF application in Germany/ DB Netz) can be used for all Member States as a reference. Due to the fact that onetime and operating costs are more or less IT related, small infrastructure managers will likely seek a solution to be connected to the RINF of bigger infrastructure managers to reduce their specific impact. Based on these conclusions, the Agency asked the interviewed Member States/ Infrastructure Managers to update their impact assessment. Up to now, the Agency received the following answers: EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 16/26

17 Table 6 : Reviewed Cost Impact reported from Members States/ Infrastructure Managers Member State One Time Cost Impact ( ) Operating Costs ( /year) Remark Germany (DB Netz) (integration of items not part of current RINF) ca ( for IT system) ( for data management, interfaces to other systems) Sweden ca agrees to assume impact as reported by DB Netz for RINF No difference between Off TEN and TEN includes NSA specific impact includes impact for 440 small IMs UK (only HS1) negligible Operating costs negligible, if maintenance is possible under existing staffing levels UK (only Network Rail) No assessment possible at the current stage France (RFF) No assessment possible, experience from pilots necessary Italy (RFI) ca (ca for (set up database and ca for caturing data from other IT systems) agrees to assume impact as reported by DB Netz for RINF ca (e.g. small IMs) RINF will be implemented in the framework of their national asset information strategy RFF will implement a prototype based on three lines. Based on gained experience, RFF will be able to assess onetime cost impact Includes TEN and Off TEN lines The answers show that the European onetime cost impact of about 120 Mio for the implementation of RINF as derived from the answers of the first questionnaire seems not to be significantly overestimated and remains still valid. Nevertheless the operating costs seem to have been over-estimated and have to be reduced by 50% to about 20 Mio. /year for whole Europe (taking into account the present cost estimation of DB for the operational costs). Note, these costs already include possible renewals of IT software/components. It is likely that the expected onetime cost impact can be significantly reduced for those Member States who are still in the initial phase of implementing RINF, if they take advantage of the already existing and available RINF tools (i.e. IT systems allowing for collecting and processing data specified for RINF) EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 17/26

18 developed by the Early RINF Implementers. In addition it was recommended by the WG that MS should cooperate when setting up the RINF database to profit from synergy effects. Further synergy effects can be obtained, if the RINF implementation takes advantage of national project plans aiming at improving and centralizing national asset informations. EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 18/26

19 6. Estimation of potential benefits 6.1 First qualitative estimation of benefits Fourteen Member States provided feedback about the expected benefits in a qualitative way in the framework of the first questionnaire [4]. This questionnaire already proposed the following specific benefits with the intension to receive a confirmation or a rejection from the Member State: RINF could facilitate the compatibility check between vehicle and exisiting infrastructure. It should allow a significant reduction in terms of working load, costs and time needed for the compatibility check. The beneficiaries are railway undertakings and infrastructure managers as well. ( B1 ) RINF could support the network statement. The structure and representation (digital data or leaflets/books) of network statements varies in each Member State. Currently the network statement is the only reference for a railway undertaking to check if a vehicle could run on a specific line (nevertheless a further more detailed technical compatibility check is usually required as well). RINF would support a unique structure as well as digital data representation. ( B2 ) RINF could be used as a tool in order to track the progress of interoperability. This may have an indirect impact on the future politics related to the implementation of a European harmonized railway system. ( B3 ) Table 7 maps these possible benefits to the answers of the Member States: Member State Table 7 : Expected qualitative benefits of RINF B1 Technical Compatibility Check B2 Network Statement B3 Progress of Interoperability Austria X X X Bulgaria Czech Denmark Finland France Germany X X Ireland Latvia Lithuania Netherlands X X X X X This question not answered This question not answered This question not answered This question not answered Poland X X EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 19/26

20 Table 7 : Expected qualitative benefits of RINF Portugal Spain Sweden X X This question not answered The majority of Member States expect the main benefits in the facilitation of the compatibility check. In this context some Member States (e.g. Austria) emphasized the necessity that the compatibility check based on RINF be embedded in a European legal framework. An additional generic benefit especially for an infrastructure manager may result from RINF used as a unique data source for different railway applications, e.g. route book, timetable (instead of maintaining several data bases for each railway application in parallel). The railway sector refers to the general benefit of RINF contributing to the transparency in the railway market and thus to the competitiveness of the railway sector. 6.2 Updated qualitative assessment of benefits Based on the feedback from the first questionnaire, the following three areas were identified where benefits from the RINF application could be gained: As already identified in the first questionnaire, RINF could facilitate the route compatibility check between vehicle and exisiting infrastructure for vehicles which are already authorized. The beneficiaries are railway undertakings and infrastructure managers as well. In addition RINF could already facilitate the process of authorizing vehicles (first authorisation as well as additional authorisations) in a Member State. The necessary amount of on-site tests could be significantly reduced. The beneficiaries are mainly railway undertakings. RINF could facilitate the design and the authorisation of new vehicle types. The beneficiaries are vehicle suppliers as well as railway undertakings. In the framework of the second questionnaire, the impacted stakeholders were asked to confirm these possible benefits. Table 8 shows the results: EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 20/26

21 Table 8 : Updated qualitative benefits resulting from the application of RINF Member State / Impacted Stakeholders of Member State Route Compatibility Check Austria YES, MINOR NO Bulgaria YES YES Czech Denmark Finland YES, MINOR NO France YES YES YES NO Vehicle Authorisation Germany YES YES, MAJOR Hungary YES, MINOR YES Italy YES, MINOR NO Latvia NO NO Lithuania NO NO Poland YES, MINOR YES Spain Sweden UK YES, MINOR NO YES YES Vehicle Design UNIFE YES, MAJOR YES, MAJOR The majority of respondents confirm a benefit in the framework of route compatibility check. Nevertheless the gained benefits seem to be low due to the fact that only a low amount of compatibility checks are performed (max. 350 checks per year per network, average checks). this compatibility check today (without RINF) requires a very low working load per check (much less than 60 person.h, nevertheless in exceptional cases it can reach several months). Note: Only one major infrastructure manager (RFF/France) reports a high working load in general which can take up to 7 person months One reason for such short working loads for route compatibility check can be found in the homogeneity of the concerned network. In case of homogenous networks, route compatibility checks play a minor role once the authorisation of placing into service is granted by the Member State. Nevertheless for inhomogeneous networks, this route compatibility check can be still very complex and require a long working load after a general authorisation by the Member State to place the vehicle into service on the network is granted. Another reason for the small working loads for route compatibility checks is that these checks only relate to domestic routes, but not to international routes. EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 21/26

22 The majority of infrastructure managers do not expect any benefits in the framework of route compatibility checks due to the fact that they already have appropriate IT systems (one exception: RFF in France estimates some benefits). The European view of the vehicle suppliers was presented by UNIFE which confirmed high benefits in the framework of vehicle design and authorisation of vehicles, all of which are quantified in the following section. In addition one railway undertaking (Germany/DB) indicated major benefits in the field of authorizing/reauthorizing existing vehicles 6.3 Quantitative Benefit Assessment After the feedback from the 2 nd questionnaire and bilateral meetings with Member States and impacted stakeholders, the Agency tried to quantify benefits in the following areas In the framework of business planning and vehicle circulation planning from the point of view of an operator (e.g. an international freight operator able to offer international transport services to a customer) In the framework of vehicle type management (due to modifications of a vehicle or upon requests from the operator to extend/modify the operational scope it has to be checked if the existing vehicles are able to operate on the concerned lines) In the framework of design and first authorisation of new vehicles In the framework of route compatibility checks (only French Case) Benefits in the framework of vehicle circulation/business planning In the framework of business planning as well as fleet management, a railway undertaking (e.g. freight operator) needs to know if he can mangage specific international transport requests by rail. In this context, he especially needs performance related infrastructure data which currently cannot be retrieved by the network statement. One major international freight operator estimated the present situation as follows: He receives about requests for an international transport, which require a general route compatibility check. The average working time for each check is 3 person months It is assumed that RINF could reduce the working time by 50% This would lead to cost savings of about 2 Mio per year not taking into account the avoided losses of possible transport contracts due to the long processing time for the offer. EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 22/26

23 Taking into account these assumptions and the size of the operator, European wide benefits can be estimated with at least 4 Mio for all European freight operators. These benefits can only be gained if RINF covers both TEN and Off TEN lines Benefits in the framework of vehicle type management From time to time, authorised vehicle types have to be renewed or upgraded, which may trigger a re-authorisation of the vehicle type. At least these modifications require a check in detail if the vehicle is still be able to run on the line where it was able to run before the modification. Furthermore there may be requests from an operator of the vehicle to extend or to modify the operational scope of the vehicle (e.g. the vehicle should operate on additional lines). In this context it has to checked in detail if the vehicle is able to run on the concerned lines independent of its authorisation. The detailed check requires an analysis of the technical characteristics of the infrastructure such as Requirements related to EMC including the required form of proof such as the required test to check conformity Deviations from structure gauge Length of continuous gradients Ballast fractionation Use of Flange Lubrication which cannot be retrieved from network statements. According to an opinion of an expert from a RU, the costs of such an event seem to range between Mio. About 1 to 2 events happen per year for each vehicle type requiring such a deep analysis (nevertheless it does not apply for old vehicles where such modifications do not make sense from an economic point of view). This expert estimates that the use of RINF could reduce costs by between 10% and 20%. A first ERA internal study analysed that about 500 different vehicle types (excluding wagons) exist in Europe today (built from 1990 on). Therefore, the resulting benefits for the European Railway Sector seem to be at least more than 25 Mio per year. Once again, these benefits can only be gained if RINF covers TEN and Off TEN lines. EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 23/26

24 6.3.3 Benefits in the framework of new vehicle designs UNIFE estimated the benefits in the framework of vehicle design. For this purpose they assumed 5 new vehicle designs / per year (for whole Europe). Cost savings were seen in the following areas: 150 k per new vehicle type due to better efficiency of the design process itself and 1-2 Mio per new vehicle type due to avoidance of bad surprises in validation phase and 800 k per new vehicle type due to a better test focus on network specificities Taking into account these assumptions, benefits in this area would reach about 10 Mio per year for the European Rail Sector. Once again, these benefits can only be gained if RINF covers TEN and Off TEN lines Benefits in the framework of route compatibility checks Altough the majority of infrastructure managers reported only low workloads for route compatibility checks, RFF in France reported the opposite and expected a significant reduction due to the implementation of RINF: In 2010 about 50 route compatibility checks were performed. Total costs for all route compatibility checks in 2010 were estimated with 800 k. The main concern is the duration of a compatibility check it takes a long time and can last up to 7 months The implementation of RINF would significantly reduce the total costs for compatibility checks for the infrastructure manager. Nevertheless main benefits would benefit railway undertakings under the following assumptions: During the process of compatibility check the concerned vehicles cannot operate on the concerned lines. They cannot be used for other purposes. It is assumed that only 3 vehicles are concerned in the context of one compatibility check for a specific vehicle type. (The average number of vehicles per vehicle type is 7 according to ERA study on authorization processes [5]) The average price of a vehicle is 6 Mio (according to ERA study on authorization processes [5]) The interest rate for invested capital is 15% EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 24/26

25 This would result in 1 1,5 Mio opportunity costs per check due to the long checking time, or about 50 Mio 75 Mio opportunity costs per year. A major part of these opportunity costs can be avoided due to the implementation of RINF in France.These benefits only apply to operation in France. EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 25/26

26 7. Conclusions At the current stage, it seems that the impacted railway sector especially infrastructure managers is not able to provide detailed and reliable information about the onetime cost impact for implementing RINF. The first estimation of the Europeanwide onetime cost impact (about 120 Mio ) seems to be not overestimated. This demonstrates that implementation costs in each Member State will be significant. Nevertheless this impact does not result from the RINF specification, because Member States are already obliged today to implement such a register. Transition time does not have any significant impact on the total onetime cost impact, but on the financing of the RINF implementation which is outside the scope of this impact assessment. RINF operating costs are purely IT related and can be derived from the experience with other already existing registers similar to the RINF specification. The Europeanwide operating costs seem to be around 20 Mio per year. Considering the expected gained benefits from the implementation of RINF in the framework of vehicle circulation/fleet management, new vehicle design, vehicle type management as well as route compatibility checks, they exceed in total significantly the operating costs of RINF. Considering a European wide cost impact of about 120 Mio for the implementation of RINF and resulting net benefits (total estimated benefits minus RINF operating costs) of about 70 Mio per year, RINF investments are already paid back after 2 years. Overall, the current RINF specification would support the benefits mentioned above, under the condition that RINF would be implemented on the whole railway network and include existing installations. EE-IA-RINF-V10 Version 1.0 Page 26/26