Effective Reduction of Noise Generated by Rail Freight Wagons in the European Union

MAY 2014 DG MOVE Effective Reduction of Noise generated by Rail Freight Wagons in the European Union

IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUPPORT STUDY

UNDER THE FRAMEWORK CONTRACT FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS IN THE FIELD OF TRANSPORT - MOVE/A3/350-2010

FINAL REPORT - APPENDICES

PROGTRANS

ADDRESS COWI A/S Parallelvej 2 2800 Kongens Lyngby Denmark

TEL +45 56 40 00 00 FAX +45 56 40 99 99 WWW cowi.com

MAY 2014 DG MOVE Effective Reduction of Noise generated by Rail Freight Wagons in the European Union

IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUPPORT STUDY

UNDER THE FRAMEWORK CONTRACT FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS IN THE FIELD OF TRANSPORT - MOVE/A3/350-2010

FINAL REPORT - APPENDICES

"THE STUDIES ARE SUBJECT TO A DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT. THE STUDIES HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND EXPRESS THE OPINIONS OF THE ORGANISATIONS HAVING UNDERTAKEN THEM. THE VIEWS HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED OR IN ANY WAY APPROVED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS A STATEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION'S VIEWS. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE STUDIES, NOR DOES IT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY USE MADE THEREOF. COPYRIGHT IN THESE STUDIES IS HELD BY THE EUROPEAN UNION. PERSONS WISHING TO USE THE CONTENTS OF THESE STUDIES (IN WHOLE OR IN PART) FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THEIR PERSONAL USE ARE INVITED TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: EUROPEAN COMMISSION - MOBILITY AND TRANSPORT DG - LIBRARY (DM28, 0/36) - B-1049 BRUSSELS OR BY ELECTRONIC FORM".

PROJECT NO. A039060

DOCUMENT NO. 08

VERSION 04

DATE OF ISSUE 13 MAY 2014

PREPARED KORI, SVTJ, LRVI, JEJ, SRS, STHG, JACH, NVBE

CHECKED KORI, SVTJ, KPGM

APPROVED SVTJ

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 5

CONTENTS

APPENDICES

Appendix A Online Questionnaire 7

Appendix B Targeted stakeholder interview guide 31

Appendix C Case Studies 39

Appendix D The development of the wagon fleet 95

Appendix E Description of the methodology applied to the assessment of impacts 115

Appendix F Technical aspects of brakes and noise 127

Appendix G EU rail freight industry and transport 131

APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 6

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 7

Appendix A Online Questionnaire

Section 1: Information about respondent

1.1 In what capacity are you filling out this questionnaire?

1 As a citizen 2 Local or regional public authority 3 National public authority 4 Association 5 Non-Government Organization/Civil Society Organization 6 Company 7 Academia 8 Other

1.2 (for companies only) Please give the size of the company you work for

1 Micro enterprise (less than 10 employees) 2 Small and medium-sized enterprise-SME (10 to 249 employees) 3 Large enterprise (250 employees or more) 4 Do not know

1.3 (for associations/organisations/authorities) Could you specify what kind of organisation you represent?

1 Association of citizens 2 Association of trade unions 3 Association of industries 4 Association of freight forwarders 5 Association of rail operators 6 Association of wagon owners 7 Association of civil society organizations 8 Association of national authorities 9 Association of regional authorities 10 Other

1.4 (not for citizens) What is the name of the authority/association/company/organization you represent?

(mandatory)

APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 8

1.5 (associations/organisations) How many members does you association or organisation represent?

1.6 (for associations/organisations) Is your association/organization registered in the Transparency Register of the European Commission http://europa.eu/transparency-register/ ?

1 Yes 2 No

1.7 (in case of yes in question 1.6) Please indicate the identification number

1.8 Please specify your main country of operation or residence?

1.9 Please indicate your contact details (name, email and telephone).

Please note that the questionnaire will be available for your full contribution only if your name and contact details are provided. You can still opt for your answers to remain anonymous when results are published.

(mandatory)

1.10 Do you consent to the publication of your response by the European Commission? Contributions received may be published on the Internet, together with the identity of the contributor unless the contributor objects to publication of the personal data on the grounds that such publication would harm his or her legitimate interests. In this case the contribution could be published in anonymous form.

1 Yes 2 Yes, but anonymously 3 No

Section 2: Data sources

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 9

If you know of any reports, studies, surveys, or data that are important for this impact assessment, please give a reference. If possible include a direct web link to the source.

Section 3: Extent of the problem

The Commission notes that freight wagons not conforming to the TSI-Noise limits are the most important sources of rail noise, and that existing measures are insufficient to reduce the level of rail noise quickly and effectively. In this section of the public consultation, the European Commission seeks to solicit your opinion regarding the depth and significance of the problem.

3.1 How do you rate the problem of rail noise in your area of residence or operation?

1 There is no issue of rail noise in my area of residence or operation 2 Not important 3 Of little importance 4 Somewhat important 5 Important 6 Very important 7 Don't know/no view

3.1 In your opinion and in general, what are the negative impacts of rail noise?

3.3 Please rank the following noise sources according to their contribution to noise levels in your area of residence or operation?

1 Freight trains 2 Passenger trains 3 Passenger cars 4 Trucks 5 Airplanes 6 Other

3.4 How would you rate your level of knowledge about issues regarding rail noise or leading to rail noise?

1 Very low 2 Low

APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 10

3 Medium 4 High 5 Very high

3.5 (only if level of knowledge (3.4) is higher than low) To what extent do you think the below mentioned aspects contribute to the problem of rail noise? Tick not relevant, or from 1 to 5 if appropriate

1 (Very little) 2 3 4 5(very much) 6 (don't know / no view)

1 2 3 4 5 6 Quality of wheels Quality of rails Speed of trains Amount of traffic

3.6 Are there any other aspects contributing to the problem of rail noise?

3.7 (for companies and associations only) Please describe how the rail noise issues affect your business, or the business of those your organisation represents?

3.8 (for citizens only) During which period are you most affected by rail noise?

1. I am not affected by rail noise 2. During the day 3. At night 4. Both at night and during the day

3.8.1 (For citizens only) Please describe how exposure to rail noise affects you?

3.9 (for citizens only) Would you consider it more acceptable to live close to train routes if rail noise was reduced noticeably?

1. Yes

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 11

2. No 3. I am indifferent

3.10 (for companies only) Would you consider it more attractive to establish or relocate a business close to a rail line if noise was reduced noticeably?

1. Yes 2. No 3. I am indifferent / No opinion

Section 4: Assessment of existing measures to reduce or limit rail freight noise

(Skip section if knowledge is (question 3.4) not higher than low)

4.1 What measures have already been considered/implemented to tackle the problem of rail freight noise in your area/country/region of residence/operation? Please tick relevant measures

1 Noise barriers 2 Insulated windows 3 Measures on the track (dampers, stiff pads, bi-bloc sleepers, rail grinding) 4 Speed reduction 5 Financial incentives for the retrofitting of freight wagons with quieter brakes 6 Noise-differentiated track access charges (i.e. measures for adjusting charges dependent on noise emission) 7 Legal noise emission ceiling 8 Programmes to manage rail roughness/track upgrading/new design 9 Regulation for track condition and design 10 Public funding for noise abatement programmes 11 EU funding for research and development 12 Local funding for tackling specific noise problem 13 Information to stakeholders 14 Voluntary commitment 15 Other; please specify: 16 None 17 I don't know

4.1.1 If possible, please describe the most important measures already taken. Please indicate whether certain combinations of measures have been used effectively.

APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 12

4.2 (only if 4.1 is not answered with option 16 and 17) How effective were the measures taken so far in reducing rail noise?

1 Effective 2 Effective to a certain extent 3 Ineffective 4 I don't know/no view

4.2.1 Please provide further comments on your answer about the effectiveness of measures so far.

4.3 (not for citizens) Do the measures implemented at the national/local level restrict mobility of people and/or goods?

1 Yes 2 No 3 I don't know

4.3.1 (Only if 4.3 is answered 'Yes') In which manner?

4.4 How quickly is the retrofitting of quieter brakes for existing rail freight wagons implemented in your region of residence/operation?

1 There is a substantial progress 2 There is a progress 3 There is very little progress 4 There is no progress 5 I don't know/no view

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 13

4.5 To what extent do you think the following objectives are important to be achieved in the future?

Not Of little Somewhat Important Very No important importance important important view/

Don't know

Business as usual Reducing noise from rail freight traffic Maintaining competitiveness of the rail freight sector Maintaining interoperability of the rail network, i.e. the ability of freight trains and wagons to move across internal EU- borders freely

Section 5: EU action

The urgency of the issue and political pressure has led some countries to propose unilateral measures. The Commission fears that this could result in major perturbations for provision of cross-border rail services and barriers for railway interoperability, with likely distortion of competition and obstacles to trade and provision of services. In this section of the questionnaire, you are invited to weigh in on the need for EU action rather than unilateral actions.

5.1 Are measures currently taken at national/local level sufficient to achieve a reduction of rail freight noise?

1 Yes 2 No 3 I don't know/no view

APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 14

5.2 Do you think that current unilateral measures have acted as barriers to railway interoperability or that future unilateral measures will act as barriers to interoperability?

1 I strongly agree 2 Somehow agree 3 I don't know/No view 4 Somehow disagree 5 Strongly disagree

5.3 Do you think that EU initiatives and policy would contribute to the broader take-up of effective measures across the EU?

1 Strongly agree 2 Somewhat agree 3 No view/ don't know 4 Somewhat disagree 5 Strongly disagree

5.3.1 How should the EU action be targeted as to ensure that it would not undermine the subsidiarity principle and would have the highest potential for EU value added?

Section 6: Appropriateness

(Skip section if level of knowledge (question 3.4) is not higher than ‘low)

This section provides a brief description of measures that are implemented or are under consideration by the Commission to combat the problem of rail noise. You are subsequently invited to rate the appropriateness of each measure on a 5 point scale and to provide additional comments where necessary.

6 Business as usual /Status quo/Baseline scenario

› Noise-differentiated track access charges (NDTAC) approach › Subsidy? approach › TSI noise approach › TEN-T approach › Density approach › Maintenance management system › Environmental health approach

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 15

6.1 To what extent do you find the ‘subsidy approach’ appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise?

1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5(very much) 7 Don’t know

6.1.1 Will subsidies for retrofitting distort competition between operators?

1. Yes 2.No 3. I don't know

6.1.2 What type of subsidy do you think is the most effective? (Click your two favourites)

1 Co-financing of retrofitting cost 2 Co-financing of increased operational costs 3 Lump sum payments 4 Miles-based (depending on intensity of use of retrofitted wagons) 5 Other

6.1.3 (if option 1 in 6.1.2) What is the minimum level of co-financing of retrofitting costs that would have to be provided to be effective (while still being feasible for public budget)?

10% / 20% / 30% / 40% / 50% / 60% / 70% / 80% / 90% / 100%

6.1.4 (if option 2 in 6.1.2) What is the minimum level of co-financing of increased operational costs that would have to be provided to be effective (while still being feasible for public budget)?

10% / 20% / 30% / 40% / 50% / 60% / 70% / 80% / 90% / 100%

6.1.5 Do you have further comments on the subsidy approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation, e.g. the duration of an incentive program, on what money should be spent, and the monitoring aspects of this approach.

APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 16

6.2 To what extent do you find Noise-differentiated track access charges (NDTAC) appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise?

1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5(very much) 7 Don’t know

6.2.1 When will it be technically and administratively feasible to introduce this approach?

1 It is possible already 2 Within 1-2 years 3 Within 3-4 years 4 In 5 years or after 5 It will never be possible 6 Don’t know / No view

6.2.2 In your opinion what should be the basis for NDTAC (choose up to three)?

1 Number of axles 2 Weight of axles 3 Type of axles 4 Generation of wagons 5 Type of wagons 6 Wagon brake type 7 No view/Don’t know 8 Other (please specify)

6.2.3 What form of NDTAC do you prefer?

1 Bonus (i.e. reducing track charges for TSI-Noise compliant wagons) 2 Bonus-malus (i.e. reducing track charges for TSI-Noise compliant wagons and increasing them for non-compliant wagons) 3 Malus (i.e. increasing track charges for non-compliant wagons) 4 Don't know/no view

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 17

6.2.4 To what extent should the track charges be differentiated for non- compliant and compliant wagons in order to establish a meaningful incentive to retrofit those wagons?

1-3% 4-6% 7-10% 11-15% 16-20% More than 20% Don't know/no view

6.2.5 Should there be any differentiation in NDTAC between day and night?

1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know/no view

6.2.5.1 (Only if the answer to 6.2.4 is 'Yes') In which manner?

6.2.6 Should NDTAC be dependent on the size and density of population exposed to rail freight noise?

1 Yes 2 No 3 I don't know/no view

6.2.7 Measures such as 'Low emission zones' and 'Congestion charging zones' are partially targeted at bringing about a modal shift from road freight transport to rail freight transport. Do you think that NDTAC will create a modal shift from rail back to road?

1 Yes, to a large degree 2 Yes, to a certain degree 3 Yes, to a slight degree 4 No 5 I don't know

6.2.8 Do you think that introduction of the NDTAC schemes by some Member States only (like NL or DE) can have any positive spill-over effects for other Member States? In particular, could it constitute a sufficient incentive which will

APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 18

bring about the change also in those countries where NDTAC is not yet introduced, or will it encourage the other countries to introduce similar schemes?

6.2.9 Do you think that introduction of the NDTAC schemes by some Member States only can have negative effects for other Member States? In particular, could it negatively affect competitiveness of operators from those countries where NDTAC scheme is not introduced?

6.2.10 Do you have further comments on the NDTAC approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation, e.g. what elements should or should not be included in NDTAC, how can it be prevented that NDTAC negatively affects competition between Member States and how can monitoring be done?

6.3 To what extent do you find ‘TSI noise approach’ appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise?

1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5(very much) 7 Don’t know

6.3.1 When will it be technically and administratively feasible to introduce this approach?

1 It is possible already 2 Within 1-2 years 3 Within 3-4 years 4 In 5 years or after 5 It will never be possible 6 Don’t know / No view

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 19

6.3.2 Do you think that this policy measure could lead to negative consequences for rail operators, wagon keepers or other market players? If so, please specify the probable extent of these consequences.

6.3.3 Do you have further comments on the TSI-Noise approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation, e.g. on how monitoring can be done.

6.4 To what extent do you find ‘TEN-T approach’ appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise?

1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5(very much) 7 Don’t know

6.4.1 When will it be technically and administratively feasible to introduce this approach?

1 It is possible already 2 Within 1-2 years 3 Within 3-4 years 4 In 5 years or after 5 It will never be possible 6 Don’t know / No view

6.4.2 Do you think that this policy measure could lead to negative consequences for rail operators, wagon keepers or other market players? If so, please specify the probable extent of these consequences.

APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 20

6.4.3 Do you have further comments on the TEN-T approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation, e.g. whether the TEN-T lines cover broadly enough, whether it is practically possible to only apply restrictions to limited freight corridors and how monitoring can be done.

6.5 To what extent do you find ‘density approach’ appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise?

1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5(very much) 7 Don’t know

6.5.1 Should there be any differentiation in rail traffic restrictions between day and night?

1. Yes 2. No 3. I don’t know/no view

6.5.2 When will it be technically and administratively feasible to introduce this approach?

1 It is possible already 2 Within 1-2 years 3 Within 3-4 years 4 In 5 years or after 5 It will never be possible 6 Don’t know / No view

6.5.3 Do you think that this policy measure could lead to negative consequences for rail operators, wagon keepers or other market players? If so, please specify the probable extent of these consequences.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 21

6.5.4 Do you have further comments on the density approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation, e.g. how monitoring could be done or what the technical barriers are.

6.6 To what extent do you find the maintenance management approach appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise?

1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5(very much) 7 Don’t know

6.6.1 When will it be technically and administratively feasible to introduce this approach?

1 It is possible already 2 Within 1-2 years 3 Within 3-4 years 4 In 5 years or after 5 It will never be possible 6 Don’t know / No view

6.6.2 Do you think that this policy measure could lead to negative consequences for rail operators, wagon keepers or other market players? If so, please specify the probable extent of these consequences.

6.6.3 Do you have further comments on the maintenance management approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation.

APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 22

6.7 To what extent do you find environmental health approach appropriate to tackle the problem of rail freight noise?

1 Not appropriate 2 1 (very little) 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5(very much) 7 Don’t know

6.7.1 When will it be technically and administratively feasible to introduce this approach?

1 It is possible already 2 Within 1-2 years 3 Within 3-4 years 4 In 5 years or after 5 It will never be possible 6 Don’t know / No view

6.7.2 Do you think that this policy measure could lead to negative consequences for rail operators, wagon keepers or other market players? If so, please specify the probable extent of these consequences.

6.7.3 Do you have further comments on the environmental health approach? We are interested in hearing any further comments as to the appropriateness of the policy measure and suggestions as to the implementation, e.g. how monitoring can be done, what the technical barriers are, and who should carry the costs in this scenario?

6.8 Do you have suggestions for any other policy measures that you would deem appropriate in contributing to substantial reductions of rail freight noise, without decreasing the competitive position of rail transport?

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 23

Section 7: Assessment of impacts of policy measures/options

(Skip section if level of knowledge (question 3.4) is not higher than ‘low)

In this section you are invited to assess the expected impact of the 8 policy measures described in section 6. Please click this LINK if you want to open a PDF- document including the description of the options.

The policy options are assessed as to their potential direct or indirect impacts compared to the situation today. These include:

1 Competitiveness of the rail freight transport sector 2 Total administrative costs– for companies and for the state 3 Working conditions in the railway sector 4 General employment levels in your country 5 Government budgets 6 Exposure of public to rail noise 7 Functioning of the Internal Market 8 Ability of operators from 3rd countries (e.g. Switzerland and Russia) to maintain business in the EU.

7.1 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on the competitiveness of the rail freight transport sector in the EU?

Very Positive Neutral Negative Very No positive negative view/ Don't know Business as usual Incentives approach NDTAC approach TSI noise approach TEN-T approach Density approach Maintenance management system Environmental health approach

APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 24

7.1.1 Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact

7.2 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on total administrative costs for companies and for the state.

7.2.1 Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 25

7.3 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on working conditions in the railway sector

7.3.1 Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact

7.4 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on general employment levels in your country?

Very Positive Neutral Negative Very No positive negative view/ Don't know Business as usual Incentives approach NDTAC approach TSI noise approach

APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 26

TEN-T approach Density approach Maintenance management system Environmental health approach

7.4.1 Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact

7.5 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on government budgets

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 27

7.5.1 Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact

7.6 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on the exposure of the public to rail noise

7.6.1 Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact

APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 28

7.7 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options on the functioning of the Internal Market?

7.7.1 Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact

7.8 Please assess the possible impact of the policy options the ability of operators from 3rd countries (e.g. Switzerland and Russia) to maintain business in the EU?

Very Positive Neutral Negative Very No positive negative view/ Don't know Business as usual Incentives approach NDTAC approach TSI noise approach

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 29

TEN-T approach Density approach Maintenance management system Environmental health approach

7.8.1 Please provide the most important details regarding your assessments of impact

7.9 Please identify in the box below any mitigating measures which can be taken to reduce negative impacts of EU rail noise related intervention could have on the competitiveness of rail freight transport vis-à-vis road freight.

7.10 Please identify in the box below any impacts EU level rail noise related intervention could have specifically on SMEs and microenterprises

Section 8. Final Comments 8.1 If you have any further observations or comments on how the noise of rail freight could be tackled, please specify these briefly below:

APPENDIX A - Online Questionnaire 30

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 31

Appendix B Targeted stakeholder interview guide 1 Identification of respondent

What is the name of the respondent:

What is the respondent’s affiliation:

2 The problems of rail noise

Do you think noise from rail freight transport is a problem:

› Why/why not › It the problem of rail noise only coming from freight, or does it also come from passenger trains? › How many wagons do you assess there is with the different types of brakes? › How quickly is the retrofitting process going? › When do you think the retrofitting will be completed › Is the process considered satisfactory and if not what are the main obstacles › Are there any other parameters in affecting noise › Are you aware of existing mitigating efforts › What are they and what is their impact? › More specifically infrastructure measures or measures at source › How have NDTAC performed? › Do they think that the voluntary measures have worked, if not why? › Do they think that existing measures will work within the given timeframe. If not why? › Have there been sufficient motivation to promote noise reduction. At EU, national, regional, local level? › How do you consider the noise impact to be (health, economy, etc.)? › Where/when do they consider the negative effects to be more prominent › Would existing measures affect common market (need to rephrase this) › Will existing measures affect cost of rail › Would measures implemented at national and/or local level restrict mobility of goods and or people › Would existing measures or those in the pipeline lead to retrofitting. If not why, what would the obstacles be › What is the residual life of the existing wagons › Do you feel that the railway sector is reluctant to invest in noise reduction technology because of uncertainty about the coming regulation? › If rail noise is a problem: when is it a problem? › If rail noise is a problem: where is it a problem? › If you are a firm operating in the rail sector: what do you currently do to reduce noise emissions from freight rail transport? › How have the noise reduction efforts affected your profitability › If you are currently trying to reduce noise emissions: what are the practical difficulties involved (supply of brake blocks, fitting to wagons, approval for use on NDTAC tracks, mix with cast iron brake-wagons, repairs,…)?

APPENDIX B - Appendix B Targeted stakeholder interview guide 32

› Do you experience any reactions from your clients or the general public to you efforts? › Is the cost of retrofitting a problem, and why (competitiveness, lack of access to capital,…)

3 Objectives of EU’s policy

3.1 EU right to act

› Are measures taken at local/national level sufficient › Given that it is freight transport and that this is international can this problem be addressed at a local level › Should this problem be addressed by unilateral or more general measures › Are they aware of any co-ordination of measures at local/national level. Have these been successful. › Have the measures put in place by the industry so far been sufficient.

3.2 Objectives

› What do you think would be meaningful objectives for EU’s policy on rail noise:

It has been proposed that effective reduction, by 2020, of the level of noise of freight wagons in the European Union is achieved when the at least one of the following targets is met: › By 2020, the share of population affected by excessive1rail noise in the EU in 2013 is lowered by at least 50%; › By 2020, the population exposed to excessive noise level benefits from a decrease of at least 8 dB.

› Do you believe these targets are realistic?

› Which targets do you think are reasonable and realistic?

› Do you think it makes sense to target efforts at areas with high population density?

› Does the current situation disrupt completion of single European railway area, if so should the measures in place have as objective to avoid such a disruption?

› Is the current regulatory framework clear? Does the introduction of voluntary schemes or individual measures increase the administrative complexity? How could this be reduced?

1 Seriously endangering health of the people affected

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 33

4 EU’s policy options to reduce noise from rail freight transport

The European Commission is currently conducting an impact assessment of policies to reduce noise from rail freight transport. The impact assessment is considering the following policy options:

Policy options How the options deliver on the objectives

Status quo This is the baseline scenario. The baseline must assess how the future situation is likely to evolve under the current legal framework (TSI Noise applicable to new wagons only, non-mandatory noise-differentiated track access charges (NDTAC), 20% co-financing of retrofitting under the Connecting Europe Facility), including assessing the effects this will have on the health of citizens and on the competitiveness of railways. Likely future developments are that some progress will be made though fragmented with a possible risk for reverse modal shift. Subsidies This option foresees additional financial incentives (subsidies) to improve the rate approach of retrofitting of wagons at EU level with "silent" brake blocks. It is important to estimate the level and exact type of the subsidy that will have the optimal result. A sufficiently high subsidy could deliver in preventing overutilization, increasing quality of life and wellbeing as it could accelerate retrofitting. Still it might not guarantee a common approach or legal clarity. While it could build acceptance, much will depend on the chosen source of funding (EU or national), as, given the current economic environment the allocation of public funds has developed into a sensitive issue. This will be combined with a voluntary NDTAC. Noise This approach examines in detail the effects of the optional introduction of Differentiated NDTAC on the rate of retrofitting of freight wagons with "silent" brake blocks Track Access possible "spill-over-effects" and foresees a comparison with the possible effects of Charges a mandatory NDTAC. Here, the extent to which this option will deliver will depend, as the experience so far has shown, on the actual design of the NDTAC NDTAC system. A properly designed and technically feasible and cost-effective system approach could provide a best practice scenario to have positive impacts on the whole of the EU. Technical This option differs from the market-based instruments (subsidies and NDTAC Specification approaches), by introducing a legal limitation on the level of noise produced by the for existing wagons for all the lines in the EU. This option might be contested on the interoperabilit grounds of availability of funds, higher costs, technical difficulties, and the y TSI Noise possible reduction in rail competitiveness. All these factors will have to be approach assessed in order to estimate an appropriate date for such an introduction. A number of possible variations concerning transition periods can be envisaged. It is relevant to consider combining this option with the subsidies approach to mitigate some of the negative effects of on the competitiveness of the rail freight sector of forcing firms to invest in noise reduction. TEN-T This option is limited in its scope of application to the railway TEN-T network. approach Reduction of rail noise could be achieved by introduction of noise emission ceilings (limiting daily average emissions along the line) or application of other approaches (NDTAC, TSI Noise) to the TEN-T network only. The main differentiating characteristic is the focus on the international dimension of the railways and the intensity of freight volumes. In addition it introduces the risk of reduced competitiveness so long as similar measures are not taken for the competing modes (i.e. road), as well as for the overutilization of old rolling stock which will now be used disproportionately on lower freight volume routes. It might be relevant to consider combining this option with the subsidies approach to mitigate negative effects.

APPENDIX B - Appendix B Targeted stakeholder interview guide 34

Policy options How the options deliver on the objectives

Density This option is similar to the one examined above regarding the ways to achieve the approach noise reduction goal via noise emission targets. It focuses mainly on the density of population and as such it is expected to have positive results in terms of quality of life and acceptance. It might have limited effects while being costly and complex to implement. Again funding will become an important issue. A number of possible variations concerning definition of the 'densely populated areas' can be envisaged. There will be also difficulties to implement and enforce this option. Maintenance This option is directed towards the second element in the wheel rail interface - rail. management Setting up requirements for the rail roughness on the European Rail Network (or approach part of it) could lower noise not only for freight wagons but also for passenger trains. The infrastructure manager would play a key role in delivering this option. This option could however be contested on the grounds of the subsidiarity principle. This option could be combined with one or several of the other policy options deliver a substantial contribution. Environmental This option assumes an equal treatment of all transport modes, therefore is health regarded as "fair" as far as intermodal competition is concerned: it would introduce approach a general maximum level of transport-related noise exposure in the EU. This could have the highest and equally spread positive impacts and would not disproportionally burden railways. At the same time this option could have the most opposition from stakeholders and Member States, on a number of ground such as the high costs of implementation (which could be disproportionate between modes and countries), as well as technical and operational difficulties.

In the following I shall ask you about what you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of each option.

› What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the status quo option? › Who are the winners and losers from this option

› What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the “subsidies approach”? › Do you think it relates to the objectives? › Which form do you think is appropriate (subsidy to retrofitting, subsidy to operational costs, lump sum subsidy, loans, tax breaks) › How big a share of the costs should be covered › Who should receive the subsidy? › Who should finance it? › What are your experiences with previous subsidy schemes related to freight rail transport (e.g. ERTMS) › Which countries do you think would voluntarily introduce NDTAC? › Who are the winners and losers from this option › Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits?

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 35

› What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the “NDTAC approach” › Do you think it relates to the objectives? › Do you think a voluntary NDTAC would reduce the interoperability of the EU rail network, if so, how? › Do you think that if a few Member States adopt the NDTAC, then others will follow? › Do you think there is a great risk that some Member States will choose to deviate from EU’s suggested system, and do you think that each Member State ought to have its own system due to fundamental differences in the noise problems? › What are your experiences with the existing NDTAC in Europe (does it work in practice, does it cause problems for goods flows, is it really the case that noise wagons pay more, what are the administrative burdens in relation to putting together trains, do firms retrofit back to cast iron brakes…)? › Who are the winners and losers from this option › Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits (e.g. spill overs to other countries)? › Do you see a need for EU action?

› What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the “TSI noise approach”? › Does it relate to the objectives? › What are your experiences with the TSI (do firms retrofit back to cast iron brakes,…) › Who are the winners and losers from this option? › Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits? › How soon do you think it could/should be introduced? › How should compliance be monitored (periodical inspections?) › Are there any technical barriers? › What are the costs of this option? › Who should bear the costs? › Do you think it would be effective? › Can the composite brake suppliers deliver on time for a noise reduction by 2020?

› What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the “TEN-T approach”? › How does it relate to the objectives? › Who are the winners and losers from this option? › Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits? › How should compliance be monitored › What are the technical barriers to implementation and monitoring? › What is the cost of this option? › Who should bear it? › Is the option effective with respect to reaching the objectives? › Are the TEN-T lines sufficient, or should the noise limits cover a wider or narrower set of corridors?

APPENDIX B - Appendix B Targeted stakeholder interview guide 36

› Would it be technically possible to optimize wagon use, so that the “silent” wagons are used on the TEN-T network, and the noise wagons on the rest of the network? (How many wagons would be necessary to achieve this?) › Would it be a problem to shift the noise away from the TEN-T corridors?

› What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the “Population density approach”? › How does the option relate to the objectives? › How soon should/could it be implemented? › How should the monitoring be made? › What are the technical barriers to implementation and monitoring? › Who are the winners and losers from this option › Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits? › Do you think the option would be effective? › What should be the density limit? Should there be any differentiation between day and night? › Does the option treat citizens equally?

› What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the “Environmental health approach”? › How does the option relate to the objectives? › When could/should it be introduced? › How should it be monitored? › What are the technical barriers to implementation and monitoring? › Who are the winners and losers from this option › What is the cost of the option? › Who should be the cost? › Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits? › Do you think the option would be effective? › Do you think the option would affect transport volumes, transport prices and price levels for consumers? If so, by how much?

› What do you consider to be the main strengths and weaknesses of the “Maintenance management approach”? › How does it relate to the objectives? › When could/should it be introduced? › What are your experiences with the existing track maintenance in Europe (does it work in practice, does it cause problems for goods flows, …)? › How should monitoring be made? › What are the technical barriers to implementation and monitoring? › What is the cost of this option? › Who should bear it? How will the market split it? › Would the option be effective? › Should it maybe focus on specific corridors? › How should the infrastructure managers be compensated? How should the sector be compensated? › Who are the winners and losers from this option › Do you foresee any possible unintended costs or benefits?

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 37

5 Impacts

We will evaluate the options mainly on how effective they are with respect to reducing noise from rail freight transport and maintaining the competitiveness of rail freight transport.

› Which of the above options do you think would contribute most to rail freight noise reduction › Which of the above options do you think would contribute most to maintaining the competitiveness of rail freight transport? › Which of the above options do you think would contribute most to maintaining the interoperability of the EU27+Switzerland rail freight system, reduce CO2 emissions, create growth and employment in EU27+Switzerland and keep sustainable public budgets in EU27+Switzerland?

6 Information

› Are you aware of any data or literature, which you believe would help us assess the impacts?

APPENDIX B - Appendix B Targeted stakeholder interview guide 38

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 39

Appendix C Case Studies

Case study A: Germany – Southern part of the upper Rhine valley between Offenburg and Weil a.R.

1.1 Project summary table

Table 1: Project summary

Region South-western part of Germany, Baden- Württemberg, upper Rhine valley

Case study Southern part of the “Rheintalbahn”, the Rhine- valley railway line between Karlsruhe (DE) and Basel (CH) Railway section under Offenburg – Weil am Rhein (a.R.) investigation Length of railway section Approximately 114 km under investigation Number of gauges, Vmax 2, partly 4. 250 km/h, electrified (after extension) Number of daily rail 160 (2004), appr. 190 (2010)2 freight trains Rail noise affected 95.000 population >55 dB(A) Lden (2005) Rail noise affected 36,800 population >55 dB(A) Lnight (2007)

1.2 National rail freight noise legislation and regulation

1.2.1 National passenger and rail freight market The German passenger and freight rail market is one of the most important rail markets within Europe. It is dominated by the formerly state owned German Railway (Deutsche Bahn AG), which is the largest railway operator and infrastructure owner in Central Europe and a state owned company under private law.

2 Freight trains at the cross section Basel to / from the Rhine valley

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 40

Overall, German railways transport about 2.5 bn passengers per year (2011) including 95 % local traffic. The national passenger rail transport performance accounted for about 85.3 bn passenger-km (pkm) in 2011, from which 58% was performed as local transport. At the same time the German rail transport volume was about 374.7 million tonnes, the transport performance accounted for 113.3 bn tonne-km (tkm). [26]

The German railway network has a length of approximately 41.500 km (2011), thereof 81 % are owned by the German Railway (DB AG). From these 33.600 km, almost 60 % (19.800 km) are electrified. [26]

In 2012 (incl. railway bonus –cf. explanation “railbonus” below) the federally owned German railway infrastructure demand to be refurbished regarding noise protection accounted for 3.700 km. Thereof, approximately 1.200 km have already been refurbished, which means that 2.500 km still stand in need of being upgraded or enhanced regarding noise protection. Assuming the elimination of the “railbonus”, additional 1.200 km would further need to be refurbished. [7]

In 20113, the German Railway (DB AG) owned and operated about 95.000 rail freight wagons. [26] The overall German rail freight wagons market is estimated to account for about 180.000, 290.000 deployed on German rail network in total.

1.2.2 National rail freight noise legislation Already in 1974 the federal „Act on the Prevention of Harmful Effects on the Environment caused by Air Pollution, Noise, Vibration and Similar Phenomena“, shortly called the „Federal Immission Control Act - Bundesimmissionsschutzgesetz (BImSchG)“ was adopted and came into force in western Germany. Nevertheless, it did not contain any limiting values for noise being generated by traffic or transport. [4] The limiting values concerning noise generated by traffic were then incorporated into the 16th federal immission control ordinance (16. BImSchG) in 1990, shortly called the traffic noise ordinance, which based on the BImSchG.

The traffic noise ordinance is valid for the construction (newly build) or essential amendment (extension) of roads as well as railway lines of railways and trams. It defines an amendment essential (§1) if: › a road or a railway line is constructional extended by one or more lanes for public motor vehicle traffic, respectively extended by one or more railway lines; › the fundamental constructional intervention will increase the „assessment level“ of noise of the modified traffic route at least by 3 decibel (dB(A)), to 70 dB(A) in daytime or to 60 dB(A) at night (the limits are not valid within commercially used areas).

3 2011 values estimations [26]

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 41

In addition to these basic limit values, which are valid for noise generated by traffic and transport, the ordinance further defines more specific noise limits to preserve the neighbourhood (by noise reconstruction funding) against harmful effects caused by traffic noise.

The assessment of legal entitlement is differentiated according to regulations if the railway lines underlie the “noise precaution (Lärmvorsorge)” or “noise reconstruction (Lärmsanierung)”, which was determined by the adaptation of the BImSchG in 1974. [2]

Hence, the minimum „triggering level “for public eligibility of (active / passive) noise protection in Germany is 60 dB (a) at night (10 p.m. – 06 a.m.) and 70 dB (A) by day (06 a.m. – 10 p.m.).

Table 2: Noise immision limiting values for noise reconstruction levels

by day at night

Hospitals, schools, cure / 70 dB(A) 60 dB(A) retirement home Residential-only and 70 dB(A) 60 dB(A) common residential areas, small residential estate areas Central / village / mixed 72 dB(A) 62 dB(A) used areas Business / commercial areas 75 dB(A) 65 dB(A) Remarks: Assessment period of rail noise - assessment level of rail by day 06 a.m. – 22 p.m. at night 22 - 06h; assessment level of rail noise - average level of noise pollution per hour within the assessment period of rail noise (excluding railbonus) [3] Source: [18]

In Germany (according to BImSchG (§41)) the following ranking of noise mitigation measures exists:

› Priority 1: Spatial separation of railways and residential areas; › Priority 2: Prevention of noise emissions according to the technical state-of- the-art of equipment and infrastructure (improvement of braking systems, rail roughness etc.); › Priority 3: Active noise protection (e.g. noise protection walls at track, tunnels, specific monitored rail (BüG)); › Priority 4: Passive noise protection (e.g. windows in buildings). In addition, there is also the possibility for compensation if the measures are not sufficient and the exceeding of noise limits is inevitable. [4]

“Railbonus” A peculiarity of the German legislative framework (Appendix 2 of §3 BImSchV) is the “railbonus”, which is based on a broad public acceptance of railway transport as an environmentally less harmful transport mode, compared to road transport.

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 42

The railbonus reduces the noise emission assessment level by 5 dB(A); though it is not valid on railway sections which are highly loaded by rail freight. [4] The federal government of Germany intends to scrap the railbonus, which would need a legislative adjustment of the 16. BImSchV, a draft regulation is under reconciliation. [5]

1.2.3 National rail freight noise programmes The overall target of the German federal ministry of transport, building and urban development (BMVBS) is to reduce the 2008 noise pollution level of rail transport by 50 % up to 2020. There exist several programmes concerning rail (freight) noise, which have been nationally initiated within the last years, the most important: [17]

› Noise renovation programme at railway lines (1999): On-going programme for the noise renovation of railway lines, which was raised to 100 million € /year since 2007; › National noise mitigation programme I (2007) & II (2009); › Innovation programme “Silent freight transport (2007)”, which aims to modify / upgrade of 5.000 freight wagons with silent breaking technology [16] Within the DB 2020 strategy, currently 1.250 freight wagons are refurbished. [36]; › Within this innovation programme the project “Silent Rhine” funds the further development of K (Composite) - and LL- (Low friction / low noise) blocks as well as the introduction of the noise dependent differentiation of line prices at railway lines (LaTPS) [7, 6].

1.3 Description of case study area and region

1.3.1 Geographical and regional classification of case study area The case study area, the southern part of the upper Rhine valley area is located in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg in the south-west of Germany. Overall, the upper Rhine region it is an economically prosperous region, especially in its regional centres Karlsruhe, Stuttgart and the Rhine-Neckar region around Mannheim / Ludwigshafen in the north. These areas are also great economic importance, as they are part of several main European transport corridors, e.g. the rail freight corridor between Rotterdam and Genoa. In comparison, the southern part of the upper Rhine valley, the case study area, is less important in the socio- economical context, nevertheless plays an important role within the international (rail freight) infrastructure.

In 2012, approximately 602.000 people have been living in 38 municipalities within the boundaries of the case study area (Offenburg – Weil a.R.) potentially affected by rail noise. [29]

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 43

1.3.2 Relevance of case study area within the national rail network The “rhine valley railway” is a railroad line located in the south-western part of Germany, Baden-Württemberg and connects Mannheim via Karlsruhe (DE) in the north with Basel (CH) in the south of the upper Rhine valley. It consists of an electrified double-track rail and represents one of the most important railway sections of the whole German network.

Accordingly, its upgrade and new construction (3rd and 4th rail) is of fundamental importance concerning the national and European rail freight development. It is part of the rail freight corridor 1 (CODE24) between the sea ports of Rotterdam (NL) and Genoa (IT) as the northern part of the NRLA (New Railway Link through the Alps).

Figure 1: Overview of the European railway network in 2020, the location of the case study area within the code 24 corridor Rotterdam – Genoa and the infrastructure works in progress

Source: Deutsche Bahn AG [19]

The overall objective is to extend / newly construct the 3rd and 4th parallel rail of the Rhine valley railway (exception is the freight bypass at Freiburg; 2 double- track at 44km). The aim is to dissolve the rail freight transport from the passenger transport and to increase the capacity respectively the travel- / transport time. E.g. after completion, the travel time for passengers will last 69 min. instead of currently 100 min. [9] The capacity will be then significantly increased accommodating 639 trains.

The extended track between Karlsruhe and Basel will have a length about 182 km with a design speed of up to 250 km/h. The daily capacity will be more than 250 trains of (local) rail passenger traffic and rail freight traffic pass the Rhine valley.

It is expected and has been projected that, in 2025, the upper Rhine valley railway will have the highest traffic load within the German railway network with a train passing frequency of every 3 minutes. [5] Hence, is without doubt, that the current and the expected traffic load with rail passenger and freight services will generate

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 44

much noise which negatively impacts the population and environment, if no additional mitigation measures will be taken.

The whole railway section in the upper Rhine region between Karlsruhe and Basel is divided into 9 main sections (PFA) for the planning approval procedure, in Germany so called Planfeststellungverfahren (PFV).

At the moment two major parts of the whole track between Karlsruhe and Basel are extended up to 4 lines and in operation as illustrated in Figure 2 (red bar), more precisely:

› PFA 2-6, between Rastatt South and Offenburg since 2004 [9]; › PFA 9.1 between Schliengen and Eimeldingen, including the Katzenbergtunnel with a length of 9.4km in operation since 12/2012 [11].

Figure 2: Map of the Rhibe valley railway and the current state (02/2012)

Source: Deutsche Bahn AG [9]

Subsequently we will focus our analysis and assessment on the southern section between Offenburg and Weil a.R., which still is at the planning stage. The extension / new construction (PFA 8.1 – 8.3) onto 4 tracks on a length of 114 km between Offenburg and Weil a.R. has been finished for app. 70 km [3] (expected residual costs: 3.66 bn €, state 01/2013). [6]

According to forecast of the BVWP 2003, assuming the 4 track operation (Vmax partly up to 250km/h) in 2015 there are expected. [11]

› 138 freight trains per day in north – south direction › 148 freight trains per day in north – south direction Again, we hereby see that the Rhine valley railway line and its expected traffic load including rail freight will have fundamental impacts for the adjacent

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 45

population and environment. The negative impacts generated by rail (freight) noise have to be mitigated / reduced as far as possible and feasible.

1.4 Regional rail freight traffic and transport

1.4.1 Current and future freight traffic demand Assuming that all railway projects under construction, planned and new priority projects within the BVWP 2003 being realised in 2025 (e.g. Gotthard Base Tunnel, TGV Est Paris-Metz etc.) the forecast between 2004 and 2025 expects that the rail freight transport performance will increase by 65 %. Taking the performance into account as base for the capacity restrictive rail freight traffic assignment, the Rhine valley railway line will face the following future freight train volumes.

Table 3: Numbers of rail freight trains for cross section Freiburg - Schallstadt

Number 2004 2010** 2015* 2015/ 2025 2025/ of freight 2004 2004 trains % % trains by / // 131 / 139 / day trains by / / 155 / 165 / night trains / day 160 190 286 50.5 % 304 60.0 % Remark: *Results BVWP 2003. Day: 06.00-22.00 Night: 22.00-06.00; ** ProgTrans AG 2013 Source: BVU/ITP 2008 [25]

It is expected that the above mentioned cross section will account for 534 trains per day at a capacity of 639 trains, though this depends on the economic development, the traffic load and capacity of the northern and southern sections. [25]

1.4.2 Conditions of trains and wagons used for rail freight transport According to experts’ opinion, an audible result of low noise breaking systems (LL- / K-blocks) can initially be reached, if at least 80 % of a rail freight train is equipped with such composite material braking system. [5] In Germany, the most reasonable figures on rail freight wagons and their breaking equipment is provided by DB. [36]

The deployment of noisy trains to be fitted with composite breaking blocks accordingly is estimated at 180.000. Thereof, approximately 60,000 freight wagons are owned each by the DB (DB Schenker Rail), private wagon keepers and foreign railway companies / wagon keepers. [1, 34] DB Schenker Rail targets to retrofit at least 10,000 freight wagons until 2014/2015 and further 50.000 freight wagons until 2020 to reach their DB strategy 2020 target which aims to reduce the rail

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 46

noise by 50 % compared to the 2000 level In addition, also about 120.000 rail freight wagons of other companies (private wagons keepers and foreign railway companies / wagon keepers) will have to be retrofitted to reach the goal. Furthermore, DB plans to purchase approximately 15.000 quiet wagons to support their 2020 strategy. [36]

1.4.3 Conditions of infrastructure concerning rail freight noise

Due to the fact that the planning process of the railway extension between Offenburg and Weil a.R. is on-going (routing / layout) the direct (active) abatement measures to be applied are under discussion.

1.5 Regional rail freight noise volumes and dimensions

1.5.1 Current noise levels The EU environmental noise directive (“END”, 2002/49/EC) requires establishing so called strategic noise maps, which have to be established every 5 years; the first have been elaborated in 2007. The maps are elaborated for major roads, railways, airports and agglomerations, in Germany by the federal agency for railways (EBA).

They show harmonised noise indicators as Lden (day-evening-night equivalent

level) and Lnight (night equivalent level) to assess:

› the spatial spread of rail noise and › the number of people negatively affected by rail noise over the day and at night throughout Europe. [27] Strategic noise maps are prepared and publically published for the rail noise levels (if traffic volume of >60.000 trains per year) in the area under investigation

(Offenburg – Weil a.R.) for the indicators Lden and Lnight.[28]

By the exemplary rail noise map (Lnight) of Müllheim, a city within case study area, it becomes obvious and indisputable that the overall (and specifically freight) rail traffic is negatively affecting the environment and inhabitants alongside the tracks of the southern Rhine valley railway line. Figure 3 shows the noise emission of

railways at night (Lnight), its calculated spread across the environment and the intensity of emissions illustrated by colours. The noise bands > 55 dB(A), which exceeds the limits of the traffic noise ordinance are coloured orange to purple. Assuming that the congestion of rail freight traffic share compared to passenger traffic during the night is higher than by day, which especially holds for the Rhine valley(estimations for 2015 account 155 at night and 36 by day), the map shows

that rail noise dB(A) by night (Lnight: 22-06h) emits e.g. more than 1.600 m to the west and, for example, almost fully impacts the village of Steinenstadt with a noise level more than 45dB(A) (southern part of the map).. Several residential buildings south-eastern of Steinenstadt and east of the railway line are affected above the

Lnight limiting value of 55 dB(A) (including Railbonus).

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 47

Figure 3: Strategic noise map (2007) for a rail segment (west of Müllheim) within of the case study area

Remark: Strategic noise maps include main railways with a traffic volume > 60.000 trains / year. Source: Federal railway association (2007): Strategic noise map for federal railways (2007) [28]

1.5.2 Amount of people affected by rail freight noise In addition, the END requires that the national authorities (EBA) provide the estimated number of people living outside agglomerations in dwellings that are

exposed to assessment specific band of noise values for the noise indicators Lden and Lnight. [27]

The subsequent figure shows the estimated number of people affected by rail noise

at night (Lnight) for the specific bands of noise values in 2007. Spatially it covers only the relevant case study area between Offenburg and Weil a.R., based on the available data of the estimated number of inhabitants (approximately 600.000 inhabitants in 2005) being affected by rail noise in municipalities. [29]

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 48

Figure 4: Estimated number of people affected by rail noise for assessment specific noise band values in the case study area in 2007

Remark: Noise band values to be reported differ according to the indicator Source: Own spatial allocation and calculations by ProgTrans AG, based on [28]

The figure shows that, in general, the rail noise for the whole day (Lden) affects more people than during the night. In addition, the estimation of affected people for the whole day (estimations starts only above 55 dB(A)), accounts for more than 95.000 people; at the level >75 dB(A) even for almost 5.000 people. Nevertheless the estimation of rail noise affected people during the night within the case study area, which is very important for the implementation / application of noise protection measures, accounts for almost 37,000 inhabitants >55 dB(A).

As we previously determined, the rail freight traffic plays an important role particularly at night. Due to a significantly higher share of rail freight traffic at night compared to its share by day (2015: 81.2 %, 2025: 79.7 %), it is likely that the majority of more than 102,000 people within the case study area are negatively impacted by rail freight noise >45 dB(A) at night. Assuming that the relevant freight trains are at least as noisy as passenger freight trains and the above assumed share of freight train volumes is also valid in 2007, more than 80,000 people were affected by rail freight noise >45 dB(A) between 22h and 6h in the case study area. Above 55 dB(A), the estimation accounts for almost 30,000 people.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 49

1.6 Public and private interests related to regional rail freight noise

1.6.1 Company / Producer side (infrastructure managers) The upper Rhine Valley railway infrastructure between Mannheim and Basel is owned by DB Netz AG, a 100% owned subsidiary of the DB and a railway infrastructure provider. Especially within the area under investigation and the context of upgrading the railway infrastructure and its noise relevant impacts, a broad interaction between the various public interest groups (cf. below) and the DB Netz AG was established over the past years. Compared to other infrastructure measures / project, there are various information concerning project status, responsibilities, costs etc. available. [18]

1.6.2 Public / Consumer side On the public side several interest groups deployed and established within the case study area. They aim is to emphasize the impacts of the rail infrastructure extension and the expected increase of rail (freight) traffic, its consequences regarding noise emissions and their negative impacts on the environment and especially the residential population.

The most important interest group is the “IG BOHR”, the interest group on rail protest for the upper and high Rhine region (Interessengemeinschaft Bahnprotest an Ober- und Hochrhein), with a membership figure of about 22.000. (http://www.ig-bohr.de/). It is the umbrella association for several other locally organised citizens’ groups of the upper Rhine region and the high Rhine regions, respectively interest groups.

The IG BOHR formulated key requirements according the existing and the future rail traffic on the “European line Baden 21 Offenburg – Weil a.R.” in the so called “BADEN 21” thesis, which comprises 6 key requirements to be fulfilled to avoid / reduce the noise pollution and exposure as far as possible:

› A double track rail freight tunnel in Offenburg; › A double track rail freight line parallel of the motorway A5 between Offenburg and Riegel including the optimal noise protection measure; › Middle and lower level rail including locally enhanced noise protection measures of the motorway A5 parallel rail freight line between Riegel and Mengen; › Partly capped the lower level rail freight line between Mengen and south of Buggingen (citizens` line); › Capped lower level long distance rail and rail freight line in Weil – Haltingen; › Routing to allow the guidance of all rail freight transits through the Katzenbergtunnel leading to a discharge of the municipalities at „Isteiner Klotz“ and which enables to introduce the 30 min local train (Regio S-Bahn) interval between Freiburg and Basel [20, 21]. As a nationwide unique and successful measure, required continuously by the IG BOHR and finally widely supported by local and national politicians (most of them

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 50

belonging to the party of “Christian Democratic Union” (CDU)), is the creation of a high-level project advisory board (Projektbeirat), an informal institution those members meet between two and three times a year. There are four bodies having access to this project advisory board: DB-Netz (as the project manager), the German Ministry of Transport, the State of Baden-Württemberg, official not responsible for the railway infrastructure, and representatives of the Upper Rhein region (politicians, IG BOHR).

Established in 2009, the project advisory board discusses line options and noise protection improvements to target a noise reduced and environmental save project execution. Formal approvals to start constructions for new sections of the railway line, released by the federal railway authority (EBA), are subject to prior discussions in and, ideally, a consensus among all parties being members of the advisory board. Measures to protect people from rail noise and exceeding the legal requirements need an agreement and an additional financial support, in the past shared by the Ministry of Transport and the State of Baden-Württemberg (50%/50%).

The tunnel in Offenburg and the motorway parallel route alignment between Offenburg and Riegel are further measures to better protect people from rail noise which are not necessarily the most financial advantageous solution seen by DB- Netz. [5] However, the willingness of all stakeholders of the project advisory board to discuss those solutions can be regarded as a broad political agreement to spend more money in railway protection measures than legally required.

1.7 General and case study specific impacts related to rail freight noise

1.7.1 Impacts of traffic / rail freight noise › It is statistically proved that buyers of single-family houses in Germany in a noisy environment are less wealthy than buyers of estates located in a quiet environment; › Negative effects of noise on the value of real estates are already provable at a noise level of above 45 dB(A) by day (Lday) [31]; › There are also effects on the rental charge: The rental charge reduces by 0,9 % per dB(A) [31]; › The willingness to pay for noise mitigation measures per private household accounts for 25€ dB(A) / year [31]; › The UBA estimates that the value of a real estates (houses, apartments, property) decrease by 0,5 % per year and dB (A) Lden caused by traffic [32]; › Traffic noise: Surveys detect that rail noise does not negatively impact the inhabitants not as much as road traffic [33]; › A study elaborated by the Swiss agency for environment (BAFU) determines: › Own property is much more negatively affected by traffic noise than rental property [30]; › Rail traffic noise has a higher negative impact on rental charges than noise of road traffic [30].

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 51

Table 4 Impacts of traffic noise on real estate values in 2011

Price reduction per additional dB(A) above the limit value Traffic noise by rental property condominium ownership Road -0,19 % -0,59 % Rail -0,26 % -0,47 % Aviation -0,11 % Not assessed Remark: Limit value Lday >50 dB(A) Lnight >40 dB(A), Source: Bundesamt für Umwelt [30]

In addition, a study concerning the evaluation of health effects of rail noise under particular consideration of the railway line between Offenburg and Basel provided by the university hospital Freiburg determines, that rail noise engenders:

› A health risk, particularly by a disturbance of sleep; › Enhancement of costs for medication and disease; › Absenteeism or limited working capacity; › Impairment of property; › Communication difficulties due to noise immissions [37].

1.7.2 Impacts of direct rail noise abatement measures The DB expects a reduction of 4-6 dB(A) through constructional noise protection measures at the railway line between Karlsruhe and Basel. [24].

The impact of the Swiss noise protection strategy

The Swiss parliament demands a higher noise protection impact, due to that the objective of reducing 67 % of residents affected by noise above the noise limit value until 2015 is not expected to be reached. Thus, the Swiss objective is to reduce the number of noisy foreign freight wagons. According to that the introduction of NRTAC has a limited incentive potential, the ban for the usage of domestic and foreign noisy freight wagons (ban of cast iron blocks) in 2020 is the new key measure in the Swiss railway noise abatement strategy (2nd package) until 2025. This strategy, expected to be decided by parliament the end of 2013, will also significantly impact the rate of retrofitting German freight wagons and their noise emissions at the Rhine valley, as around 70 % of all foreign wagons in Switzerland are of German origin. [34]

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 52

1.8 Rail noise abatement measures

1.8.1 Current and expected regulations and measures and their estimated impacts effectiveness / efficiency Noise related track access charges (LaTPS / NRTAC)

The noise related track access charge system (LaTPS) has been developed within the context of the overall innovation programme “Silent freight transport” and was introduced in 2012. It aims to prevent that all rail freight wagonwagons which exceed the noise limits as defined in the TSI vehicles – noise (2011/229/EU) to use the rail network of the DB Netz AG at the end of the LaTPS. It has a duration of 8 years and includes a subsequent regulation for the time after 2020. [5]

The noise dependent differentiation system advantages / benefits the wagon keepers (after proofed the TSI conformity and retrofitted the wagon with silent breaking blocks)) with 0,5 €-Ct. per axle and km. The maximum grant for the retrofitting per axle is 211€ (max. 50 % of the added costs for retrofitting), paid by the BMVBS.[18, 23]

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 53

Case study B- Poland – Southern Region from Opole in Opolskie voivodeship through Katowice in Śląskie voivodeship to Kraków in Małopolskie voivodeship

1.1 Project summary table

Table 5: Project summary Region Southern region form Opole in Opolskie voivodeship through Katowice in Śląskie voivodeship to Kraków in Małopolskie voivodeship Case study Part of E30 European III Corridor region from Opole in Opolskie voivodeship through Katowice in Śląskie voivodeship to Kraków in Małopolskie voivodeship Railway section under investigation Opole – Kędzierzyn Koźle Kędzierzyn Koźle – Gliwice Gliwice – Katowice Katowice – Kraków Length of railway section under Approximately 183 km investigation Number of gauges, Vmax (after Defined separately for each railway line extension) – table 6 Number of daily rail freight trains Defined separately for each railway line – table 6 Rail noise affected population >55 19043 dB(A) Lden (2005) Rail noise affected population >45 11667 dB(A) Lnight (2005)

'Table 6: Number of gauges, vmax and daily traffic amount Railway Passagers Freight No. of No. of No. of Sum

vmax vmax tracks daily rail daily [km/h] [km/h] passenge rail average average rs trains freight (min- (min- trains max) max) 136 Opole – 70 Kędzierzyn 60 2 66 42 108 (60-80) Koźle 137 Kędzierzyn 95 100 2 52 53 105 Koźle – Katowice (60-120) 134 Katowice – 90 65 2 74 59 133 Mysłowice (80-100) (30-100) 133 Mysłowice - 80 90 2 96 38 134 Kraków (30-120) (80-100)

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 54

1.2 National rail freight noise legislation and regulation

1.2.1 National passenger and rail freight market The Polish railway market is dominated by the Polish State Railway Group (Polish: Grupa PKP S.A.) formed after commercialization of the Polish State Railways (Polish: PKP) company in 2001.

Since then, in the newly created Polish State Railway Group (hereinafter PKP Group) there were established companies rendering services in:

› Passenger transport like: PKP Intercity S.A., PKP SKM in the Trójmiasto Sp. z o.o.; › Freight transport like: PKP CARGO S.A., PKP Linia Hutnicza Szerokotorowa Sp. z o.o.; › -railway infrastructure like: PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A., PKP Enegetyka Sp. z o.o., TK Telekom Sp. z o.o., PKP Informatyka Sp. z o.o.

Besides the companies from PKP Group there are a number of companies owned by the self-governments or private local and international investors rendering services in passenger transport like:

› Przewozy Regionalne S.A. ; › Koleje Mazowieckie – KM Sp. z o.o.; › Koleje Dolnośląskie S.A.; › Koleje Wielkopolskie Sp. z o.o.; › Koleje Śląskie Sp. z.o.o.; › Szybka Kolej Miejska Warszawa Sp. z o.o.; › Warszawska Kolej Dojazdowa Sp. z o.o.; › Arriva RP Sp. z o.o.; › UBB Polska Sp. z o.o.

Furthermore there are a number of companies rendering services in freight transport like:

› Grupa CTL Logistic Sp. z o.o.; › Grupa DB Schenker Rail Polska S.A.; › P.U.K. Kolperm Sp. z o.o.; › Pol-Miedź Trans Sp. z o.o.; › Lotos Kolej Sp. z o.o.; › Transoda Sp. z o.o.; › Rail Polska Sp. z o.o.; › Orlen KolTrans Sp. z o.o.; › STK S.A.; › KP Kotlarnia S.A.; › Freightliner PL Sp. z o.o.; › ITL Polska Sp. z o.o.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 55

The Polish railway market is currently the fourth largest railway market in Europe. In 2012, approximately 273.9 million passengers were serviced, which, in terms of their transport amounted to about 17.9 billion passenger (pkm). Transportation of goods in 2012 amounted to approximately 231.3 million tons of cargo what placed their transport at the level of around 49 billion tonne-kilometers (tkm).

PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. at the end of 2012 governed more than 19 thousand of railway lines, i.e. more than 37 thousand km of tracks. As a result of repair works and maintenance-the technical condition of railway infrastructure has significantly improved.

The condition of the railway infrastructure is presented in a Figure 5 below:

Figure 5: Condition of the railway infrastructure.

Source: www.plk-sa.pl

Railway lines for which the condition is defined as "good" (Polish: dobra in Figure 1)- i.e. the lines operating with assumed parameters represent 43% of total infrastructure.

Railway lines for which the condition is defined as "satisfactory" (Polish: dostateczna) - i.e. lines with reduced operating parameters, requiring the replacement of tracks defective parts represent 30% of the entire infrastructure.

Railway lines for which the state is defined as unsatisfactory (Polish: nie satysfakcjonująca) - railway lines with significantly reduced operating parameters, eligible for replacement of superstructure constitute 27% of the total infrastructure.

PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. continuously aims at improvement of the condition of the entire infrastructure through gradual upgrading. For the described section of the E30 line comprehensive modernization of the section Katowice - Krakow is under implementation funded from Operation Programme, Infrastructure and Environment (OP IE). There are also preparatory works carried out for the purpose of modernization of the whole section Katowice railway nood including section Kędzierzyn Kozle - Katowice.

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 56

Scope of works carried out for modernization of E-30 line on the section Zabrze – Katowice – Kraków include:

› Reconstruction of tracks surface and complexity replacement of tracks; › Liquidation of dangerous railway crossings for the purpose of double level railway crossings; › Reconstruction of engineering structures; › Construction of about 60 km of noise barriers;

The purpose of modernization is:

› Reduction of passenger travel time and freight transport; › Increasing of safety in the rail and road transport; › Improvement of comfort for passengers' service; › Reduction of noise and vibrations associated with railway line operation; › Increasing of railway transport share on the passenger and freight transport market, in particular intermodal transport.

1.2.2 National rail freight noise legislation The Polish regulatory framework in the area of noise and its impact on the environment was established in the late 90's.

An important turning point in the Polish legislation was the Law on Environmental Protection published in 2001. It was the first law covering all aspects in the field of environmental protection. This law implements the provisions of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the evaluation and control of environmental noise.

Currently the most important implementation regulations referring to noise issues are as follow:

› “Regulation of the Environment Ministry of 16 June 2011 on the requirements for conducting measurements of the levels of substances or energy into the environment by managers of road, railway, tramway line, airport or port”; › Regulation of the Environment Ministry of 10 November 2010 on the determination of value for Lden noise factor; › Regulation of Environment Ministry of 14 June 2007 on acceptable noise levels in the environment including amending Regulation i.e. Regulation of Environment Ministry of 1 October 2012 amending the Regulation on acceptable noise levels in the environment in terms of values for these levels; › These above mentioned regulations define the methods of measurement and determining the impact of such railway lines on the environment and determine the acceptable noise levels in the environment are presented in the following tables:

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 57

Table 7: Proof values for environmental noise ratios expressed as LAeqD and LAeqN, which are indicators that are applicable to the establishment and control of use of the environment in respect of day and night time.

Proof volume noise levels [dB]

Roads and railaways1)

LAeq D LAeq N Time interval Time interval referenced to 16h referenced to 8h No. Area description of daytime of nighttime

1 a)The protection zone "A" health resort 50 45 b)Hospitals outside the city area 2 a) Single-family housing areas b) Development areas related to the permanent or temporary stay of 61 56 children and young people2) c) Areas of social care homes d) Hospitals in city 3 a) Areas of multi-family housing b) Areas of village housing with farm buildings 65 56 c) Recreational areas2) d) Residential with service areas 4 Downtown areas of cities with more 68 60 than 100 000 citizens3) Explanations: 1)Noise level proof values according to roads and railways are also according for tramways separated from road area and funicular railway. 2)If area is not in use during nighttime the limits for night time are not valid. 3)According to local law regulations

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 58

Table 8: Proof values for environmental noise ratios expressed as LDWN and LN, which are indicators that are applicable to the conduct long-term policy for the protection against noise.

Proof volume noise levels [dB]

Roads and railaways1)

LDWN LN Time interval Time interval referenced to all referenced to all days through the nighttimes t No. Area description year

1 a)The protection zone "A" health resort 50 45 b)Hospitals outside the city area 2 a) Single-family housing areas b) Development areas related to the permanent or temporary stay of 64 59 children and young people c) Areas of social care homes d) Hospitals in city 3 a) Areas of multi-family housing b) Areas of village housing with farm buildings 68 59 c) Recreational areas d) Residential with service areas 4 Downtown areas of cities with more 70 65 than 100 000 citizens3) Explanations: 1)Noise proof values according to roads and railways are also according for tramways separated from road area and funicular railway, 2)According to local law regulations

Furthermore, in the light of the provisions of Directive 2002/49/EC and the Environmental Protection Law administrators of roads and railway lines are obliged to perform acoustic maps and programs to protect the environment against noise. These studies are designed to monitor and to prevent potential threats that exist or may arise from the operation of roads and railway lines.

1.2.3 National rail freight noise regulations The issue of railway noise was recognized by the General Assembly of the Community of European Railways in Berlin. Across Europe, the works on the limitation of noise emitted by rolling stock were carried out. Unification of efforts in this regard was introduced by the European Commission with the directive on the interoperability of the conventional rail 2001/16/EC. As the result of the research works and to identify the main sources of noise created in 2006, the

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 59

Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI) of the subsystem rolling stock - noise was elaborated.

In practice, this specification defines the conditions for admission (certification) of rolling stock for use in terms of noise. It specifies values for the noise emission of different vehicle types, determine the sources, potential causes, and suggests a method of testing the solution to the problem of noise generated by rolling stock.

IN Poland in addition to legislation directly related to the obligations of the manager of the railway line infrastructure, the Polish law also introduces a requirement for owners of rolling stock. These requirements apply to the conditions for approval of vehicles for operation.

These requirements are included in the Regulation of the Minister of Transport, Construction and Maritime Economy of 10 August 2012 on the extent of the studies necessary to obtain a certificate of release to service buildings intended for railway traffic, the certificate of release to service a device for operating of railway traffic and a certificate of approval to operate a rail vehicle.

1.3 Description of case study area and region

1.3.1 Geographical and regional classification of case study area The III Pan-European Transport Corridor runs from Dresden in Germany through Wrocław - Katowice - Krakow - Medyka - Lviv – Kiev in Ukraine to Moscow. The route of the Corridor on the Polish territory is the following: Zgorzelec / Bielawa Dolna - Boleslawiec - Legnica - Wrocław - Opole - Kedzierzyn-Kozle - Zabrze - Katowice - Jaworzno - Trzebinia - Krakow - Tarnow - Rzeszow - Przemysl – Medyka, and includes the E30 / CE 30 railway lines. The following case study area covers a part of the III Pan-European Transport Corridor, i.e. section Opole - Katowice - Krakow located in the Southern Poland in Opolskie, Slaskie and Malopolskie voivodeships.The analysed section is one of the most important railway sections of the whole Poland network.

On the map below the route of Corridor III on the section from Opole to Kraków is presented. The line E30 Opole Zachodnie – Kędzierzyn Koźle – Zabrze is marked out in green colour, the railway line C-E 30 Opole Groszowice – Pyskowice – Gliwice – Katowice Muchowiec – Mysłowice is marked out in blue and the railway line E 30/C-E 30 Zabrze – Katowice – Kraków (Podłęże) in red colour. Other important railway lines are marked out in yellow.

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 60

Figure 6: The analysed area of three voivodeships is an economically prosperous region.

Source: Feasibility Study on railway line E30/C-E30 on the section Opole - Katowice – Kraków.

Overall, the analysed area of three voivodeships is an economically prosperous region. Source: Feasibility Study on railway line E30/C-E30 on the section Opole - Katowice – Kraków.

The three analyzed voivodeships are inhabited by nearly 9 million people in total. Opole, Gliwice, Zabrze, Ruda Śląska, Chorzów, Katowice, Sosnowiec and Kraków are the cities of over 100 thousand inhabitants, and are crossed by the analyzed section E 30 / C-E 30. The most populated city is Kraków: 759 137 inhabitants and Katowice: 309 304 inhabitants (the data as of 31 December 2011). The population of the other above-mentioned cities is in the range of 100 - 250 thousand inhabitants.

The general description of the region through which runs the analysed section of the III Corridor has been presented below, whereas the detailed description of the study area in the following part.

General description of the region

The Opolskie voivodeship

The area of the Opolskie voivodeship equals 9 412 km ² and it is the smallest voivodeship in Poland. The Opolskie voivodeship is inhabited by approx. 1,010 mln people, which represents about 2.7% of the whole Polish population. The number of people is decreasing as a result of emigration and low birth rate.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 61

The seat of voivodeship authorities is located in Opole and the other big cites are the following: Kędzierzyn-Koźle, Nysa, Brzeg, Kluczbork. There are 35 cities in the Opolskie voivodeship.

The analysed voivodeship is located in the south-western part of Poland. It borders with the Czech Republic and other four Polish voivodeships, i.e. Dolnośląskie, Wielkopolskie, Łódzkie and Śląskie. The larger part of the Opolskie voivodeship is occupied by Nizina Śląska (the Silesian Lowland). The highest peak of the voivodeship (Biskupia Kopa ) is situated in its south-western part and is 892 m in height. The main river of the voivodeship is Odra. The largest lakes are artificial reservoirs of which the biggest are: Nyskie, Otmuchowskie and Turawskie Lakes.

The Opolskie voivodeship registered about 98 741 national economy entities. The region employs more than three hundred thousand people, more than 73% of which work in the private sector. Industry gathers 24.1% of employees, construction industry - 7.4%, agriculture - 15.8% and services below 53%. The Opolskie voivodeship creates 2.14% of the Polish GDP (data for the year 2010).

Through the territory of the region runs the A4 highway - the most important highway for the Southern part of the country that belongs to the Berlin-Kiev Trans- European route, and the E 30 / C-E 30 railway line which constitutes a part of the III Corridor and plays an important role in international rail transportation between East and West. On the southern border with the Czech Republic, there are six border crossings for passengers and freight. Opolskie Voivodeship is perceived as one of the best developed areas in terms of road infrastructure – the public road network density amounts to 90.9 km per 100 km².

The Śląskie voivodeship

An area of the Śląskie voivodeship is 12 333,09 km². The voivodeship is placed in the Southern Poland on the area of Nizina Śląska (Silesian Lowland), Wyżyna Śląsko-Krakowska (Silesian-Krakow Highland), Kotlina Oświęcimska (Oświęcim Basin), Pogórze Zachodniobeskidzkie (West-Beskidian Piedmont) and Beskidy Zachodnie.

Although the region is upland, the greatest part of it is flat or slightly undulating, which does not causes any significant transport difficulties. The voivodeship’s population is 4.616 mln people, which represents approximately 12% of the Polish population. It is a very strongly urbanized area and its population density of about 374 people per km ² is the largest in Poland. Katowice is the seat of the region authorities. Industry and services are the main branches of the economy in the voivodeship. The smallest group of population works in the agriculture and forestry. An important branch of industry is mining, particularly coal. The Upper Silesian Industrial Region located in the central part of the voivodeship is the most industrialized area in Poland.

One of the largest in the Europe railway junction is situated in Tarnowskie Góry in the Śląskie voivodeship. Fast moving form Katowice to the Polish capital (Warsaw) is possible thanks to the Central Main Line, and form Katowice to Gdynia – thanks to the Port Line (C-E 65), which handles majority of the freight

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 62

from voivodeship’s area. It is important to mention that the line that joins Poland and the east, so called the Broad Gauge Metallurgy Line (LHS), has its end in the Śląskie Voivodeship, i.e. in Sławków. The most important road routes of the region include: the A1 (E75) highway, the A4 (E40) highway, the S1 expressway, the S69 expressway, the S86 expressway and some national as well as voivodeship roads. An international airport Katowice-Pyrzowice is situated near the capital of the region (about 30 km).

It should be emphasized that about 50% of the national rail freight transport is carried out in the analysed voivodeship.

The Małopolskie voivodeship

The Małopolskie voivodeship covers an area of 15 182 km ². In terms of population (3.354 mln people) it is on the 4th place in Poland. The population density is among the highest in the country and equals 221 people / km ², while the national average is 123 people / km ².

The Małopolskie voivodeship covers parts of Karpaty Zachodnie (the Western Carpathians) and Wyżyna Małopolska (the Malopolska Upland). The voivodeship’s geographical environment is diversified, and its natural topography is definitely highland and upland, as over 50% of the region is located over 500 meters above sea level. The characterized voivodeship is the only one in Poland where deposits of natural coal, crude oil, sulphur, gypsum, zinc and lead, sandstones and lime stones can be found.

The Małopolskie voivodeship has 61 cities, including 3 cities with voivodeship status (Kraków, Tarnów and Nowy Sącz). It has a substantial socio-economic potential on a national scale - it produces 7.35% of the GDP (data for 2010). An important branch of the małopolskie voivodeships economy is tourism.

The Małopolskie voivodeship is characterized by well-developed transport infrastructure. Through the region run transit routes from east to west (Zgorzelec/Olszyna-Medyka/Korczowa) and from north to south (rail lines and national roads). The Kraków-Balice airport, which is situated 11 km west of Kraków, has connections with many cities of the world and is the second – after Warsaw Chopin Airport– airport in the country. Getting to the small villages is possible thanks to a dense network of well-maintained local roads.

The basic rail network of the Małopolskie voivodeship includes 1 040 km of lines, most of which are electrified. The historically formed connections system communicates most of the cities in the region. The biggest traffic load occurs on the lines: Katowice - Kraków - Tarnów and Kraków - Warsaw.

Relevance of case study area within the national rail network The section Opole – Katowice – Kraków is a railway line located in the southern part of Poland. The detailed description concerning the route of the analyzed section of railway line has been presented below.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 63

The Opolskie voivodeship

The E30 line

The length of E 30 railway line within the Opolskie voivodeship amounts to about 56 km. It runs through the area of four cities: Opole, Gogolin, Zdzieszowice, Kędzierzyn Koźle. Moreover, in the close area of the E 30 line the following towns are placed: Przywory Opolskie, Górażdże, Jasiona, Rozwadza, Raszowa. The E 30 line runs through the following rural communes: Tarnów Opolski, Gogolin, Zdzieszowice, Leśna, Kędzierzyn Koźle.

The C-E 30 line

The length of C-E 30 railway line within the Opolskie voivodeship amounts to about 44 km. It runs through the area of two cities: Opole and Strzelce Opolskie. Moreover, in the close area of the C-E 30 line the following towns are placed: Tarnów Opolski, Kamień Śląski, Szymiszów, Warmątowice, Błotnica Strzelecka. The C-E 30 line runs through the following rural communes: Tarnów Opolski, Izbicko, Strzelce Opolskie.

The Śląskie voivodeship

The E30 line

The length of E 30 railway line within the Śląskie voivodeship amounts to about 83 km, about 15 km of which run through rural communes and 68 km through urban communes. The E30 line runs through the areas of six cities with the population of more than one hundred thousand inhabitants (Gliwice, Zabrze, Ruda Śląska, Chorzów, Katowice i Sosnowiec). Other major cities through which runs the E30 line are (with the population of more than 50 thousand inhabitants) the following: Świętochłowice, Mysłowice and Jaworzno. Moreover, in the close area of the E 30 line the following towns are placed: Rudziniec Gliwicki, Taciszów, Rzeczyce Śląskie.

The C-E 30 line

The length of C-E 30 railway line within the Śląskie voivodeship amounts to about 89 km. It runs through the areas of the same communes as the E 30 line, but it bypasses the central parts f the cities. In the close area of the C-E 30 line the following towns are placed: Kotulin, Ligota Toszecka, Toszek i Paczyna.

It should be emphasized that the largest in the whole country mining area is placed in the Upper Silesian agglomeration. There are 68 coal mines with a total area of 1750 km², grouped mainly in two industrial districts (Upper Silesian Industrial Region and Rybnik Coal Area). Intensive exploitation of the line associated with coal mining causes the so called phenomenon of mining damage, based on often uncontrolled collapse of the ground.

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 64

The Małopolskie voivodeship

The E 30 line

The length of the E 30 railway line within the Małopolskie voivodeship amounts to about 64 km. It runs through the area of the following cites: Kraków, Trzebinia, Krzeszowice, and rural communes: Trzebinia, Krzeszowice, Zabierzów, Wieliczka, Niepołomice. In the immediate vicinity of the E 30 line the following towns are placed: Balin, Trzebinia, Młoszowa, Dulowa, Wola Filipowska, Krzeszowice, Pisary, Rudawa, Niegoszowice, Zabierzów, Rząska, Zalesie, Kokotów, Węgrzce Wielkie, Rudzica, Podłęże.

The C-E 30 line

The length of the C-E 30 railway line within the Małopolskie voivodeship amounts to about 72 km. It runs through the area of the same communes as the E 30 line, but it bypasses the central parts of Kraków. In the close areas of the C-E 30 line the following towns are placed: Balin, Trzebinia, Młoszowa, Dulowa, Wola Filipowska, Krzeszowice, Pisary, Rudawa, Niegoszowice, Zabierzów, Rząska, Podłęże.

The analyzed III Rail Corridor section between Opole and Kraków (the E-30 line and the C-E 30 line on Opole - Katowice – Kraków section) plays a major role in international rail traffic, both transit - through the Polish territory, and the Polish foreign trade carried out by rail transport. Also in Polish internal rail transport, the analyzed railway lines (E-30 and C-E 30 on the Opole - Katowice – Kraków section) have an extremely important role, contributing as a key element linking the major economic centres of the southern Poland, including the Upper Silesia, which is the main basin of raw materials in the country and an important center of industry and services. In the Upper Silesia, the E 30 and the C-E 30 railway lines are connected with lines which run towards the central and northern part of Poland, within the VI Pan-European Transport Corridor. In the directions to Warsaw, Łódź and sea ports, the E 65 / C-E 65 railway lines and the line No 1 Katowice - Czestochowa – Warsaw are particularly important. These connections are crucial for the efficient functioning of the entire Polish rail freight system.

The following table presents the basic technical - operational parameters of the analysed railway lines.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 65

Table 9: Basic technical – operational parameters of the analyzed railway lines

C-E 30 E 30 Section Number and name Electrified/ Num-ber The The of the line Not of tracks maximum maximum electrified speed of speed of passenger freight trains trains [km/h] [km/h]

X Opole Wschodnie – 277 Opole E 2 20 - 120 20-80 Opole Groszowice Groszowice – Wrocław Muchobór X Opole Groszowice 132 Bytom – E 2 80 60-70 – Strzelce Opolskie Wrocław Główny

X Strzelce Opolskie – 132 Bytom – E 2 60-120 50-120 Toszek – Paczyna Wrocław Główny

X Paczyna – 132 Bytom – E 2 100-120 30 Pyskowice Wrocław Główny

X Pyskowice – 135 Gliwice E 2 60-100 60-100 Gliwice Łabędy Łabędy – Pyskowice X Gliwice Łabędy – 168 Gliwice – E 2 30-70 30-70 Gliwice Gliwice Łabędy

X Gliwice – Gliwice 141 Katowice E 2 50 50 Sośnica Ligota – Gliwice

X Gliwice Sośnica – 141 Katowice E 2 50-80 50-80 Zabrze Makoszowy Ligota – Gliwice Kopalnia X Zabrze Makoszowy 141 Katowice E 2 40-80 40-80 Kopalnia – Zabrze Ligota – Gliwice Makoszowy X Zabrze Makoszowy 141 Katowice E 2 40-80 40-80 – Ruda Bielszowice Ligota – Gliwice

X Ruda Bielszowice – 141 Katowice E 2 20-40 30-40 Ruda Kochłowice – Ligota – Gliwice Radoszowy X Radoszowy – 141 Katowice E 2 30 30-40 Panewnik Ligota – Gliwice

X Panewnik – 171 Dąbrowa E 2 30 30 Katowice Górnicza Muchowiec Towarowa – Panewnik X Katowice 171 Dąbrowa E 2 30 30 Muchowiec – Górnicza Stawiska Towarowa – Panewnik X Stawiska – 655 Mysłowice E 1 0-50 0-50 Stawiska SK1 R3 MWB – Katowice Muchowiec KMA

StawiskaX SK1 R3 – Mysłowice MWB 655 Mysłowice E 1 MWB – Katowice Muchowiec KMA

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 66

C-E 30 E 30 Section Number and name Electrified/ Num-ber The The of the line Not of tracks maximum maximum electrified speed of speed of passenger freight trains trains [km/h] [km/h]

X X Mysłowice MWB - 138 Oświęcim – E 2 100 100 Mysłowice Katowice

X X Mysłowice – Jęzor 134 Jaworzno E 2 80 80 Szczakowa – Mysłowice X X Jęzor – Długoszyn 134 Jaworzno E 2 80-100 80 Szczakowa – Mysłowice X X Długoszyn – 134 Jaworzno E 2 100 100 Jaworzno Szczakowa – Szczakowa Mysłowice X X Jaworzno 133 Dąbrowa E 2 100 50-100 Szczakowa – Górnicza Pieczyska Ząbkowice – Kraków Główny Osobowy X X Pieczyska - 133 Dąbrowa E 2 30-100 30-100 Trzebinia Górnicza Ząbkowice – Kraków Główny Osobowy X X Trzebinia – 133 Dąbrowa E 2 30-120 30-60 Krzeszowice – Górnicza Kraków Mydlniki Ząbkowice – Kraków Główny Osobowy X Kraków Mydlniki – 95 Kraków E 2 50-80 50-60 Kraków Batowice Mydlniki – Podłęże

X Kraków Batowice – 95 Kraków E 2 30-60 30-60 Dłubnia Mydlniki – Podłęże

X Dłubnia – Kraków 95 Kraków E 2 30 30 Nowa Huta Mydlniki – Podłęże

Kraków NowaX Huta – Kraków Kościelniki 95 Kraków E 2 50 50 Mydlniki – Podłęże

X Kraków 95 Kraków E 2 50 50 Kościelniki – Mydlniki – Podłęże Podgrabie X Podgrabie – 95 Kraków E 2 50 50 Podłęże Mydlniki – Podłęże

X Opole Zachodnie – 132 Bytom – E 2 70-160 80-120 Opole Główne Wrocław Główny

X Opole Główne – 280 Opole E 2 20-60 20-60 Opole Groszowice Groszowice – Opole Główne X Opole Groszowice 136 Kędzierzyn E 2 60-100 60-70 – Raszowa Koźle – Opole Groszowice X Raszowa – 136 Kędzierzyn E 2 60-80 60-70 Kłodnica Koźle – Opole Groszowice

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 67

C-E 30 E 30 Section Number and name Electrified/ Num-ber The The of the line Not of tracks maximum maximum electrified speed of speed of passenger freight trains trains [km/h] [km/h]

X Kłodnica – 136 Kędzierzyn E 2 60-80 60-70 Kędzierzyn Koźle Koźle – Opole Groszowice X Kędzierzyn Koźle – 137 Katowice – E 2 50-120 50-120 Nowa Wieś Legnica X Nowa Wieś – 137 Katowice – E 2 120 90-120 Rudziniec Gliwicki Legnica X Rudziniec Gliwicki 137 Katowice – E 2 120 120 – Gliwice Łabędy Legnica

X Gliwice Łabędy – 137 Katowice – E 2 100 100-120 Szobiszowice Legnica X Szobiszowice – 137 Katowice – E 2 100 100 Gliwice Legnica X Gliwice – Chorzów 137 Katowice – E 2 60-100 60-100 Batory Legnica X Chorzów Batory – 137 Katowice – E 2 100 100 Katowice Legnica X Katowice – 1 Warszawa E 2 70 70 Katowice Centralna – Zawodzie Katowice X Katowice 1 Warszawa E 2 70-90 70-90 Zawodzie – Centralna – Katowice Katowice Szopienice Południowe X Katowice 138 Oświęcim – E 2 100 100 Szopienice Katowice Południowe – Szabelnia X Szabelnia – 138 Oświęcim – E 2 100 100 Mysłowice MWB Katowice X Kraków Mydlniki – 133 Dąbrowa E 2 50-120 50-80 Kraków Główny Górnicza Osobowy Ząbkowice – Kraków Główny Osobowy X Kraków Główny 91 Kraków Główny E 2 80-100 70 Osobowy – Osobowy – Kraków Płaszów Medyka X Kraków Płaszów – 91 Kraków Główny E 2 100 70 Kraków Bieżanów Osobowy – Medyka X Kraków Bieżanów 91 Kraków Główny E 2 100 70 – Gaj Osobowy – Medyka X Gaj – Rudzice 91 Kraków Główny E 2 100 70 Osobowy – Medyka X Rudzice – Podłęże 91 Kraków Główny E 2 100 70 Osobowy – Medyka Source: own elaboration based on the Network Statement - Regulations concerning allocation and use of train paths on available railway lines by licensed railway undertakings within timetable 2013/2014.

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 68

As it results from the data in the table 5 above, the E-30 / C-E 30 Opole - Katowice - Krakow section is electrified and the technical condition of many of the sections needs to be improved. Therefore, modernization works are planned or currently being performed. At the moment, the modernization works are planned or already carried out on the Katowice – Kraków and the Błotnica Strzelecka – Opole Groszowice sections. Overall modernization of the line between Opole and Krakow is essential and will ensure the efficient functioning of national and international rail network.

The following table 10 presents information about ongoing and planned investments on the E 30/C-E 30 railway line between Opole and Kraków.

Table 10: Information about ongoing and planned investments

The name of the project The estimated cost Vmax after The period of of the investment project project (PLN) implementation execution

Improvement of transport services 214.4 mln PLN 120 km/h for 2013-2015 quality by improving the technical passenger trains condition of the 132 Bytom – Wrocław and 70 km/h for Główny railway Line on the Błotnica freight trains Strzelecka – Opole Groszowice section

Modernization of the 133 railway line 2,484 mln PLN 160 km/h 2015 on the Kraków – Jaworzno Szczakowa section

Modernization of the 134 railway line on the Jaworzno Szczakowa – Mysłowice section

Modernization of the 138 railway line on the Mysłowice – Katowice section

Source: own elaboration on the basis of "Wieloletni Program Inwestycji Kolejowych do roku 2013" (eng. Longterm plan for Railway Investments up to 2013) and PKP PLK Joint-Stock Co.’ s data

1.4 Regional rail freight traffic and transport

1.4.1 Current and future freight traffic demand The exploitation work on the PKP PLK S.A. railway network in gross tonne- kilometres on the analysed section amounted to 4,329,031,145.00 in the year 2010.

Assuming that all railway projects under construction and planned will be realised we can expect that future volume of transport will achieve the values presented in the table 11 below.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 69

Table 11: Forecasted volume of freight transport (th. tons) on the section E 30 /C-E 30 Opole – Katowice – Kraków Year 2015 2025

Forecast

Minimum 88,079 91,610 Maximum 97,202 107,040 Source: own elaboration.

1.4.2 Conditions of trains and wagons used for rail freight transport PKP CARGO Joint-Stock Co. is the largest freight operator operating on the Polish railway market.

The total number of wagons in Poland amounted to 101,511 wagons, of which 65,453 were owned by PKP CARGO Joint-Stock Co., which accounted for approximately 64.5% of the total freight wagons in Poland [2].

1.5 Regional rail freight noise volumes and dimensions

1.5.1 Current noise levels Following the EU Directive 2002/49/EC the Environmental Protection Law introduced the requirement of monitoring and planning in the field of noise for both the cities, main roads and railway lines.

In 2007, at the request of PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. acoustic map for railway line with the volume of more than 60 000 trains per year was elaborated. It was the first significant document in terms of addressing noise originating from railway lines.

In years 2011-2012, there were prepared updates of the noise maps including areas of railway lines for the cities over 100,000 inhabitants.

At the same time, PKP PLK has started development of new noise maps, this time for railway lines with the traffic volume of more than 30, 000 trains per year.

The study aims accessing of acoustic climate in the railway lines vicinity. It is a result of conducted measurements and executed analyses and describes the impact of the railway line and its consequences. The scopes of emission of individual railway lines as well as the locations of places with breaches of admissible proof values are presented as imission maps in Figures 7 to 16.

Below there are presented excerpts from noise maps for the upgraded railway lines, where the noise levels are in compliance with the Regulation of the Minister of

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 70

Environment, dated October 1, 2012 with regards to the new noise proof values the above noise maps have been updated, inclusive the case study comprising four lines (Line 136, 137, 134, 133). The result of the noise maps update in the case study line is presented in the Figures below.

Legend for maps of imission for all Figure 7 to

Figure 16 below:

Figure 7: Imission map for LDEN index for railway no. 136

Figure 8: Imission map for LN index for railway no. 136

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 71

Figure 9: Imission map for LDEN index for railway no. 137

Figure 10: Imission map for LN index for railway no. 137

Figure 11: Imission map for LDEN index for railway no. 134

Figure 12 : Imission map for LN index for railway no. 134

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 72

Figure 13: Imission map for LDEN index for railway no. 133

Figure 14: Imission map for LN index for railway no. 133

Figure 15: Imission map for LDEN index for railway no. 133

Figure 16: Imission map for LN index for railway no. 133

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 73

Based on these updated maps it is possible to specify the ranges of noise in

accordance with the long-term factors for a full day - LDEN and for the night time - LN..

Table 12: Range of noise impact

Railway Range of noise impact for LDEN Range of noise impact for LN indicator [m] indicator [m]

55dB 60dB 65dB 70dB 75dB 50dB 55dB 60dB 65dB 70dB

136 Opole – 60 30 10 5 - 50 25 10 - - Kędzierzyn Koźle 137 Kędzierzyn 70 30 15 5 - 55 25 10 - - Koźle - Katowice 134 Katowice – 230 100 45 20 5 190 85 35 15 - Mysłowice 133 Mysłowice 200 85 40 15 5 160 70 30 10 - - Kraków Source: own elaboration based on noise maps.

Enclosed maps show the data referring to range of impact for described section of E-30 line. Range of impacts presented in the table below refers generally to the enclosed acoustic maps. Detailed data included in the report are the basis for further assessments and future comparison of environmental acoustic conditions.

Presented above data relate to three voivodeships (provinces), and the 4 lines passing through the cities with the population of more than 100 thousand. For these cities in accordance with Directive 2002/49/EC there are elaborated noise maps, for which the results are presented below for comparison.

Graphical parts of maps refer to described section of the railway line and represent the ranges of impact for E-30 line in individual sections running through the cities.

Opole – Opolskie voivodeship

Maps on imission from E-30 presented in Figures 17-38

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 74

Figure 17: Imission for LDEN at Opole

Railway no. 136 – part of E 30 at Opole

Imission for LDEN:

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 75

Figure 18: Imission for LD at Opole

Railway no. 136 – part of E 30 at Opole

Imission for LN:

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 76

Figure 19 Affected areas for daytime (left) and nighgt time (right)

Maps of areas which are affected of noise impact for day- and nighttime

Under limits 0-10dB 10-20dB Over 20 dB

Zabrze – Śląskie voivodeship

Maps of imission from E-30

Figure 20 Imission for LDEN

over 80 dB

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 77

Figure 21 Imission for LNight

In fact of low acoustic impact from railway E30 in Zabrze map of affected aresas don’t show any places in Zabrze which were affected from this railway.

Ruda Śląska – Śląskie voivodeship

Maps of imission from E-30

Figure 22 Imission for L DEN

Imision of LDEN

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 78

Figure 23 Imission for LNight

Imision of LN

In fact of low acoustic impact from railway E30 in Ruda Śląska map of affected areas don’t show any places in Ruda Śląska which were affected from this railway.

Chorzów – Śląskie voivodeship

Imission maps for E-30

Figure 24 Imission forL DEN

over 80 dB

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 79

Figure 25 Imission for LN

over 80 dB

Map of areas which are affected of noise impact for day-evening-night level

Figure 26 Affected areas for day-evening-night time

over 80 dB

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 80

Map of areas which are affected of noise impact for nighttime

Figure 27 Affected areas for nighttime

over 80 dB

Katowice – Śląskie voivodeship

Imission maps for E-30

Figure 28 Imission for LDEN

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 81

Figure 29 Imission for LN

Exceeding for E-30

Figure 30 Exceeding for LDEN

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 82

Figure 31 Exceeding for LN

Sosnowiec – Śląskie voivodeship

Imission maps for E-30

Figure 32 Imission for LDEN

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 83

Figure 33 Imission for LN

In fact of low acoustic impact from railway E30 in Sosnowiec map of affected areas don’t show any places in Sosnowiec which were affected from this railway.

Kraków – Małopolskie voivodeship

Imission maps for E-30

Figure 34 Imission for LDEN

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 84

Figure 35 Imission for LN

Exceeding maps for E-30

Figure 36 Exceeding for LDEN

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 85

Figure 37 Exceeding for LN

1.5.2 Amount of people affected by rail freight noise In connection to the data presented on the acoustic maps prepared for the rail lines for more than 30,000 trains per year, the table below reflects the number of people influenced by negative noise impact.

Table 13: Number of people affected by rail noise

Number of people affected by rail noise with reference to range

on noise values for LDEN

55-60dB 60-65dB 65-70dB 70-75dB > 75dB 12238 5169 1540 89 7 Number of people affected by rail noise with reference to range on

noise values for LN 50-55dB 55-60dB 60-65dB 65-70dB > 70dB 8205 2828 596 32 6

Source: data from acoustic map for railway line with the volume of more than 30 000 trains per year

The amount of people affected by rail noise in table above shows the range of impact but it’s not exactly shows amount of people affected by rail noise regarding

to Polish law regulations. As it is mentioned in table 12 the lower limits for LDEN is

about 64-68dB and for LN is 59dB (for housing areas). In fact of that limits the amount of people which, regarding to Polish law regulations, are affected by overlimit noise for presented parts of E-30 railway is about 800 for whole day and

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 86

about 560 for night time. That's why it seems that the problem of noise impact from railways is not most important in Poland.

The table below presents the number of people affected by noise coming not only from 4 E30 lines but all railway lines within the cities.

Table 14: Number of people affected by rail noise

City Number of people affected by rail noise with reference to range

on noise values for LDEN

55-60dB 60-65dB 65-70dB 70-75dB > 75dB

Opole 3524 1840 553 84 0 Gliwice 8400 4900 1400 300 0 Zabrze 4900 3400 600 0 0 Ruda 554 344 23 0 0 Śląska Chorzów 1300 900 300 0 0 Katowice Data not available Mysłowice - 336 56 0 0 (since October 2012) Sosnowiec 4100 2200 300 100 0 Kraków 45204 21047 10375 4420 116 City Number of people affected by rail noise with reference to range on

noise values for LN 50-55dB 55-60dB 60-65dB 65-70dB > 70dB Opole 3769 923 251 54 0 Gliwice 6900 3200 1000 200 0 Zabrze 1220 769 52 4 0 Ruda 1090 395 0 0 0 Śląska Chorzów 1500 500 0 0 0 Katowice Data not available Mysłowice 674 283 48 0 0 (since October 2012) Sosnowiec 2800 900 200 0 0 Kraków 26564 13002 5625 127 59 Source: Data from acoustic maps for cities over 100 000 citizens.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 87

1.6 Public and private interests related to regional rail freight noise

1.6.1 Company / Producer side (infrastructure managers) PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. is responsible for railway infrastructure, its maintenance and offering to the railway operators. Moreover, PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. under the Polish law is also responsible for the protection of the environment including noise.

Therefore, PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe takes a number of steps to improve the infrastructure. For the present the E-30 in the past 3 years PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe has made many modernization projects aiming at improvement of technical parameters but also aiming at reduction of the impact of the railway on the environment.

List of conducted and planned investments is available on the PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. official website.

1.6.2 Public / Consumer side In Poland the problem of noise originating from railways is much less important than noise originating from road or air traffic due to the nature of this mean of transport. In addition, the road network has developed significantly while rail network even shrinking.

This is due to less emphasis on modernization of railway lines versus development of road networks. Railway lines which have not been modernized so far are closed in the result of deteriorating technical condition. Furthermore development of automotive market, increasing of vehicles availability and also improving of society financial situation made the railway transport no longer competitive.

In addition for the routes linking bigger cities vehicle road transport - coach buses - is much cheaper and cost-effective than railway transport. For example:

› Travelling on the section Wrocław - Kraków when going by coach bus is cheaper half at price and almost 2 times faster than the train; › Travelling on the section Wrocław – Warszawa when going by coach bus may be even three times cheaper than in case of railway transport at comparable travel time; › Travelling on the section Warszawa – Gdańsk when going by coach bus is quicker by about 2, 5h at a comparable price of both modes of transport; › Travelling on the section Warszawa- Kraków at a comparable travel time may be even 2 times cheaper in case of road transport. [Data presented above were compiled based on own consultant researches as well as reviewing of price lists and timetables available for different rail and road operators].

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 88

These examples clearly show the increased interest of society in particular the younger generation who want to be more mobile, with other modes of transport and significant need of railway lines modernization in order to increase their competitiveness.

This situation also refers to freight transport. Nowadays with a smaller volume of transported goods it is much faster and much quicker with using of road transport despite the legal restrictions for truck drivers.i.e. limit of working hours.

Such situation causes decreasing of the profitability of railway lines what results also in some lines closure.

It is the consultant judgment that the social attitude reflected as a habit to the existing railway lines is also noticeable. Unfortunately in many cases of noise measurements and subsequent design and introduction of noise abatement measures people reflect rather negative attitude to introduction of noise barriers which reduce landscape perspective rather than appreciation of noise reduction barriers. This is the case particularly for the lines with the less traffic volume i.e. 50 trips per day.

In this regard it is clear that problem of the noise originating from railway lines very rarely result in complaints and protests of society. Moreover, these actions have usually local range.

Therefore in the interest of local public, two state institutions deal with the noise issues originating from existing and the newly planned railway lines. These State institutions are:

1) The General Directorate for Environmental Protection and

2) The General Inspectorate for Environmental Protection.

These State institutions are the main 2 ones responsible for permitting and monitoring and checking of the investment in the railway infrastructure from the environmental protection point of view. The first of these institutions is responsible for monitoring and granting of environmental consent for construction works while the second one is responsible for check of implementation of investment in compliance with the environmental consent.

1.7 General and case study specific impacts related to rail freight noise

1.7.1 Impacts of traffic / rail freight noise There is no statistical data on the effect of the location of a building from railway lines or even roads on property prices. For the real estate market, definitely more important aspect is the location versus the urbanised districts and availability of public transportation means than potential noise impact. It is very likely that with the planned significant increase in the volume of freight traffic (2 or even 3 times

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 89

the current volumes) in the coming future the noise impact will affect the real estate prices in the immediate vicinity of the railway lines.

1.7.2 Impacts of direct rail noise abatement measures As the result of the environmental protection regulatory framework imposing an obligation to monitor impact of rail lines on acoustic environment the PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. prepared noise maps for the following railway lines:

› In 2006 for railway lines with volume of traffic more than 60,000 trains per year; › In 2011 (with update in 2013) for rail lines with volume of traffic more than 30,000 trains per year.

Based on the noise maps PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe will prepare the “Programms for Protection of Environment against Noise”. The objective of these Programmes is to define specific actions aiming at protection of environment against noise. These actions will be reflected in the investment plans for modernisation of the railway infrastructure.

In order to define the relevance and scope of these actions for individual investment projects the necessary reference noise measurements are made. Based on these measurements the necessary noise direct rail noise abatement measures are designed like for instance noise barriers or reduction of noise at a source.

The designed and applied direct rail noise abatement measures reduce the noise impact to the proof values improving the acoustic environment for the local inhabitants.

1.7.3 Impacts of indirect rail noise abatement measures The designed indirect rail noise abatement measures like exchange of windows, doors are seldom applied but also reduce the noise impact to the proof values improving the acoustic environment for the local inhabitants.

1.8 Rail noise abatement measures

1.8.1 Current and expected regulations and measures and their estimated impacts effectiveness / efficiency The current environmental protection framework with regards to noise and introduced abatement measures will result in the first run in reduction of noise to the proof values on railways lines with more than 60,000 and 30,000 trains per year.

The railway lines administrators are obliged to execute the noise maps in the 5-year periods so next maps would have to be elaborated in 2016. As these future actions will include assessment of the results for applied means of protection against

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 90

excessive noise resulting from documents developed for current maps significant improvement for implementation of railway investments of legal regulation with regards to railway noise is expected. It will lead to the improvement of the current state with regard to noise impact.

1.8.2 Costs and benefits for operators / infrastructure managers and public The costs related to introduction of rail noise abatement measures are primarily the expense of the railway infrastructure manager i.e. PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A: responsible of the negative noise impact of railway traffic. However, the operators are also forced by the technical regulations to invest in rolling stock in terms of reduction of generated noise.

The benefits coming from the introduction of noise abatement measures for the infrastructure manager i.e. PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. is that their operations will be in compliance with the environmental protection legislation and be perceived the environmental friendly company. The issue of additional noise protection applying within E -30 line may be illustrated by the designed and construction works currently carried out on the Sosnowiec – Trzebinia section, with the length of about 20,1 km.

Current technical state allows for the travelling with the speed of 30 km/h. This is the line with an intensity of about 160 train passages per day. Noise measurements carried out in 5 points before the design works commencing show the meaningful exceeding of accessible proof values both for day and night time - respectively 3dB for day time and 7dB for night time.

Modernization for described line assumes increasing of capacity to approximately 200 trains per day with the maximal speed of 160 km/h for passengers' trains and 120 km/h for freight trains. Increase of capacity and speed will lead to growth of negative line impact with regard to noise. In order to protect the described section of the line with assumed parameters the adoption of 7, 6 km of acoustic barriers is planned. The average cost of the investment is PLN 9 million.

These preventive measures will allow for complete protection against the negative noise impact for planned increase of line parameters. The effect of planned modernization is increasing of line capacity including significant improvement of technical parameters with reducing of negative impact to the environment in the same time.

The actual result of works will be possible to assess after completion of construction works.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 91

Case Study Sources

GERMAN CASE STUDY Sources

[1] DB Konzern (2013): Presseinformation „Güterzüge werden leiser“, available at: http://www.dbschenker.com/ho- de/news_media/presse/aktuelles/4083556/fluesterbremse.html

[2] IG BOHR (2013), available at http://www.ig-bohr.de/index.htm

[3] IGEL e.V. (2013), available at http://www.igel-breisgau.de/

[4] Bundesimmissionsschutzgesetz (BImSchG)

[5] Bundestag Drucksache 17/7751 (2011): Lärmschutz an der Rheintalbahn.

[6] Bundestag Drucksache 17/12143 (2013): Stand der Planungen zur Rheintalbahn.

[7] Bundestag Drucksache 17/13360 (2013): Umsetzung von Massnahmen im Kampf gegen Schienenverkehrslärm.

[8] Bundestag Drucksache 17/11652 (2012): Projektbeiratsbeschluss bei der Rheintalbahn umsetzen.

[9] Deutsche Bahn AG (2013): Informationen zur Ausbau-/Neubaustrecke Karlsruhe-Basel, available at http://www.karlsruhe-basel.de/

[10] DB Projektbau GmbH Regionalbereich Südwest (2012): Informationsbroschüre zur Aus-/Neubaustrecke Karlsruhe – Basel

[11] Bundestag Drucksache 16/5037 (2007): Rheintalbahn.

[12] Wikipedia 2013: Ausbau- Und Neubaustrecke Karlsruhe – Basel, available at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausbau-_und_Neubaustrecke_ Karlsruhe%E2%80%93Basel

[13] Umweltbundesamt – UBA (2013): Informationen zur Umgebungslärm- richtlinie, available at: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/laermprobleme/ulr.html

[14] Landesamt für Umwelt, Messungen und Naturschutz Baden-Württemberg (2013): Lärmkarten 2007, available at: http://www.lubw.baden- wuerttemberg.de/servlet/is/40395/

[15, 28] Eisenbahn Bundesamt – EBA (2013): Ergebnisse der Umgebungslärmkartierung bundeseigener Schienenstrecken, available at: http://www.eba.bund.de/cln_007/nn_204518/DE/Fachthemen/Umgebungslaermkar tierung/Ergebnisse/ergebnisse__node.html?__nnn=true

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 92

[16] Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung - BMVBS (2013): Verkehrslärmschutz, available at http://www.bmvbs.de/SharedDocs/DE/Artikel/UI/verkehrslaermschutz.html

[17] Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung - BMVBS (2009): Nationales Verkehrslärmschutzpaket II

[18, 23] Deutsche Bahn AG (2013): Themendienst - Halbierung des Schienenverkehrslärms bis 2020 - Deutsche Bahn als Umwelt-Vorreiter; available at: http://www.deutschebahn.com/de/presse/themendienste/2238314/20110629_dem_l aerm_auf_der_spur.html?start=0&itemsPerPage=15

[19] Deutsch Bahn AG (2013): Trassenpreis Bonussystem, available at: http://www.deutschebahn.com/de/nachhaltigkeit/oekologie/laermminderung/trasse npreis_bonus.html

[20] Landkreis Lörrach (2011): Projektbeirat Rheintalbahn (09.02.2011), available at: http://www.loerrach-landkreis.de/servlet/PB/menu/1599357_l1/index.html

[21] Landkreis Lörrach (2011): 8. Sitzung Projektbeirat Rheintalbahn (05.03.2013), available at: http://www.loerrach- landkreis.de/servlet/PB/menu/1641217_l1/index.html

[22] Umweltbundesamt (UBA) available at

[24] DB Netze (2012): Die Ausbau- und Neubaustrecke Karlsruhe–Basel. Verkehrsachse für Europa. Frankfurt, Februar 2012, available at:

[25] BVU Beratergruppe Verkehr und Umwelt GmbH / Intraplan Consult GmbH (2008): Prognose der Verkehrsnachfrage und der Zugzahlen auf der Oberrheinstrecke 2025 – Schlussbericht. January 2008, available at http://www.mvi.baden-wuerttemberg.de/servlet/is/116154/Gutachten.pdf

[26] Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung - BMVBS (2013): Verkehr in Zahlen 2012/13.

[27] European Commission (2002): Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, available at:

[29] Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Württemberg (2013): Struktur- und Regionaldatenbank. Stuttgart, available at http://www.statistik.baden- wuerttemberg.de/SRDB/home.asp?H=BevoelkGebiet&U=02&T=01035010&E=G A&A=&R=GE336091

[30] Bundesamt für Umwelt BAFU (2013): Wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen von Lärm. Available at: http://www.bafu.admin.ch/laerm/10520/10523/index.html?lang=de

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 93

[31] Popp, Christian (20??): Lärmbelastung, ökonomische Folgen und Handlungsoptionen im Verkehr

[32] Schuemer, R., Schreckenberg, D., Felscher-Suhr, U. (2003): Wirkungen von Schienen- und Straβenverkehrslärm, ZEUS GmbH, Bochum

[33] Hellwig, M., Kopetzki, C., Spohr, G. (20??): Auswirkungen von Verkehrslärm auf die Siedlungsentwicklung, Kassel

[34] Sperlich, R. (2013): Freight noise reduction: The Swiss ban on cast iron blocks, Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications, Federal Office of Transport

[35] ZBF Zentrum für Bodenschutz und Flächenhaushaltspolitik FH Trier Giering, K., Augustin, S.(2012): Forschungsprojekt Mittelrheintal-Bahnlärmindex Abschlussbericht

[36] Deutsche Bahn AG, Projekt Lärm – Management – TXL, Jahnel, I. (2013): Halbierung des Schienenverkehrslärms bis 2020 – Präsentation. Berlin.

[37] Regionalverband südlicher Oberrhein (2010): Macht Schienenlärm krank? Studie des Universitätsklinikums Freiburg zur Evaluierung der gesundheitlichen Wirkungen bei Exposition gegenüber Schienenlärm unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der DB-Trasse Basel-Offenburg (und der Haltbarkeit des Schienenbonus), available at: http://www.uniklinik- freiburg.de/iuk/live/Aktuelles/IUKFreiburg2010SchienenlaermBericht.pdf

POLISH CASE STUDY Sources

7 Transport. Activity results in 2012, The Central Statistical Office, Warsaw 2013

8 Transport. Activity results in 2012, The Central Statistical Office, Warsaw 2013

9 Polish Railway Market in 2011, UTK, 2012

10 Feasibility Study on railway line E30/C-E30 on the section Opole - Katowice – Kraków

11 The Network Statement - Regulations concerning allocation and use of train paths on available railway lines by licensed railway undertakings within timetable 2013/2014

APPENDIX C - Case Studies 94

Abbreviations BImSchG Bundesimmissionsschutzgesetz (= Federal Immission Control Act) BImSchV Bundesimmissionsschutzverordnung (= Regulation of traffic noise protection) BüG Besonders überwachtes Gleis (= Specially monitored rail) CDU Party of the Christian Democratic Union dB(A) Decibel - Sound pressure level DB Deutsche Bahn (German Railway) EBA Eisenbahn Bundesamt (= Federal Railway authority) END EU Environmental Noise Directive IG BOHR Interessengemeinschaft Bahnprotest an Ober- und Hochrhein (= Interest group railway protest at upper and high Rhine) LaTPS / NRTAC Lärmabhängiges Trassenpreissystem (= Noise related track access charges) NRLA New Railway Link through the Alps pkm passenger kilometre PKP PLK S.A. PKP Polish Railway Lines JSC. railway infrastructure manager, company of the PKP Group, responsible for maintenance of rail tracks, scheduling train timetables and management of railway land tkm tonne kilometre

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 95

Appendix D The development of the wagon fleet Facts about the total In this subsection we estimate the development in the total wagon fleet 2013-2035, number of wagons and we estimate how many wagons are using cast iron brake blocks (“old noisy wagons”) in the different years.

Publicly available We have identified three publicly accessible sources of information on the data on wagon fleet EU28+CH wagon fleets:

› Eurostat’s table [rail_eq_wagon_n] › International Union of Railways (Railisa database) › A set of studies in the literature, including PwC (2007) and KCW et al (2009).

Other sources of We have, in addition, obtained data from the European Railway Agency (ERA), data on wagon fleet collected by the agency as part of its preparation for the impact assessment study: DG MOVE (2012): Revision of the wagon TSI – impact assessment report. We are aware that the UIP has a wagon database. We have queried for access to data from that database, but without result. We are aware of the Virtual Vehicle Database of the ERA, and the ERA has been helpful in providing us with results based on this database.

Description of Eurostat’s data covers all Member States of the EU28 (excluding Malta and Eurostat’s wagon Cyprus4) and includes Switzerland. The data covers the period 1970-2011. There data are gaps in the official data, in particular for the period 1970-1989. For the purpose of this analysis, it is important that the data for France and Germany is missing for the period 2005-2011. This means that an analysis based on the raw official Eurostat data would miss information about approx. a third of the wagon fleet. Therefore, we choose not to base the analysis on the raw official Eurostat wagon fleet data.

Description of UIC’s The International Union of Railways (UIC) has wagon data in the Railisa database, wagon data which can be accessed from the organization’s webpage. The organization’s data covers 25 EU28 Member States and Switzerland. The missing Member States are Croatia, Cyprus, and Malta. The data covers the period 1990-2010. There is also gaps in the UIC data, but continuous time series exist for most countries. In comparison with the official Eurostat data, there appears to be significant differences. Some of the differences which can be observed between the Eurostat and the UIC data may be explained by the UIC having an incomplete coverage of private wagon keepers. For example, there is no information on the number of wagons of the German private wagon owner AAE is available after 2004. The gaps in the UIC data means that we will not proceed with using this data either.

4 Malta and Cyprus are not important for this study, as no railway gods traffic between these islands and intercontinental Europe.

APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 96

Description of Regarding the PwC (2007) study, the data used covered 18 countries (EU28 except wagon data in the Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Spain and literature UK). The data used comes from UIC and covers 2000 and 2005, on the basis of which the fleet evolution for 2009-2031 has been estimated. Data on the age distribution of the fleets and the predicted evolution of the fleets have been included using the UIC reports of the years 2000, 2005, 2006. Information on the status of noise abatement in the European countries is presented with the use of "Status report, noise abatement on European Infrastructure" (Noise Reduction in European Railway Infrastructure, International Union of Railways, Community of European Railway, 2007). The data used in PwC (2007) is, however, relatively old, and we choose to look for more updated data sources.

Regarding KCW (2010) study, the data covered EU25 with respect to the wagon fleet forecasts. The forecasts covered the period up to 2020. Most of the tables and graphs concerning the methodology have been made with the use of information by KCW (2010). Data on Swiss Freight Wagon Fleet Evolution collected from Bundesamt für Verkehr – Lärmsanierung der Eisenbahnen, Standbericht 2008 and stakeholder consultation. For the age distribution of the fleet in 2005, the PwC report "Impact Assessment Study on Rail Noise Abatement Measure addressing the Existing Fleet" (TREN/A1/46-2005) was used. The KCW (2010) is basically the PwC (2007) data, which is relatively old. Therefore we look for a more updated data source.

Description of the The ERA’s virtual vehicle register is a collection of data from the national vehicle Virtual Vehicle registers. Each wagon must be registered in the national vehicle register. When it is Register registered, it will obtain a registration number, which is required to run in Europe. Hence, this should be a strong data source. However, presently only a few countries have reported data to this register, and it is currently incomplete and not optimal to use for counting the total number of wagons.

Description of The wagon fleet data of the ERA covers all EU28 and Switzerland. The data covers ERA’s wagon data the period 1995-2009 with forecasts to 2040. The data is constructed from a combination of the following sources:

› Eurostat wagon data › UIC wagon data › National vehicle registry data › Railway undertaking annual reports and accounts

The construction of the data is documented in the impact assessment report, European Railway Agency (2012): Revision of the wagon TSI – Impact assessment report. The ERA data is the most complete data set we have found, and the data set where the greatest effort has been made to remedy the gaps in the data from Eurostat and UIC, and they have been provided free of charge. Therefore we choose to use these data. The wagon fleet for 2000-2009 is shown in Table 1 below, based on the ERA data. The data for 2009-2013 is based on forecasts by the ERA. The forecasts have been developed on the basis of the trend development from 1970-2009.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 97

Table 1: Existing wagon fleet, number of wagons

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 BE 18,790 20,087 21,318 20,101 18,782 17,375 15,544 15,730 15,854 19,231 19,276 19,321 19,366 19,412 BG 29,720 17,573 16,936 17,259 16,382 16,511 17,111 12,417 11,812 12,395 11,672 10,992 10,351 9,747 CZ 58,524 48,638 44,583 45,506 44,805 44,545 42,762 32,809 41,259 38,050 36,719 35,435 34,195 32,999 DK 2,236 2,220 2,220 2,220 2,210 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,196 2,193 2,189 2,186 DE 189,558 166,615 155,515 176,837 237,313 158,247 155,468 95,595 119,816 113,562 109,009 104,639 100,444 96,417 EE 19,854 17,030 16,480 17,436 20,352 18,971 17,109 17,289 16,568 16,534 16,257 15,985 15,718 15,455 IE 1,856 1,856 1,856 1,611 833 926 1,095 891 419 402 371 342 315 290 EL 3,453 3539 3539 3,473 3,497 3,491 3,166 3,568 4763 4763 4,944 5,131 5,326 5,528 ES 26,452 25,566 23,938 25,426 25,542 23,842 15,031 15,524 14,881 14,338 13,682 13,055 12,457 11,887 FR 94,789 93,057 85,062 103,833 99,372 95,738 91,816 88,510 115,524 111,055 112,961 114,900 116,872 118,877 IT 70,115 74,232 55,917 56,175 54,598 45,730 46,450 41,477 41,406 30,815 29,087 27,457 25,918 24,465 LV 9,146 7,720 6,920 7,952 8,706 8,871 8,848 8,900 8,853 10,233 10,355 10,478 10,602 10,729 LT 13,155 12,173 12,217 12,144 13,134 13,192 13,393 13,534 13,765 13,641 13,692 13,742 13,793 13,844 LU 2,626 2,878 3,092 3,328 3,206 3,222 3,456 3,526 3,836 3,836 4,013 4,198 4,391 4,593 HU 23,528 22,789 21,819 22,178 19,783 19,130 13,824 11,719 11,766 11,766 11,178 10,619 10,088 9,584 NL 4,700 3,331 2,099 1,807 1,700 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,494 1,396 1,304 1,218 AT 23,970 24,988 24,089 22,655 22,262 22,655 16,891 20,787 18,873 30,465 31,291 32,139 33,010 33,904 PL 130,116 130,660 119,308 111,532 107,315 103,234 103,527 104,982 101,528 99,232 96,876 94,577 92,332 90,140 PT 4,162 4,180 4,084 3,979 3,544 3,495 3,197 2,953 3,043 3,043 2,961 2,882 2,804 2,729 RO 117,982 96,765 101,824 75,478 64,299 66,175 65,916 53,616 54,713 54,713 51,779 49,002 46,374 43,888 SI 6,258 5,981 5,774 4,770 4,627 4,465 4,508 3,979 3,921 3905 3,758 3,617 3,481 3,350 SK 26,975 24,587 24,549 23,973 24,856 25,515 25,989 27,538 20,820 20,820 20,345 19,881 19,427 18,984 FI 12,630 12,259 11,842 11,627 11,738 11,216 11,024 10,790 10,934 10524 10,349 10,176 10,006 9,839 SE 17,596 17,600 17,674 16,909 16,832 16,637 16,407 15,896 15,623 15,623 15,448 15,275 15,103 14,934 UK 41,134 36,868 36,997 35,351 34,870 33,819 32,210 31,794 31,174 29,906 29,090 28,296 27,523 26,772 CH 10,430 11,530 11,530 11,530 11,530 11,530 12,350 13,370 13,370 13,370 13,747 14,134 14,533 14,942 TOTAL 959,755 881,183 827,644 835,090 872,088 772,332 740,892 650,995 693,558 666,830 672,549 659,859 647,923 636,713 Note: Malta, Cyprus 48and Croatia 1have not been included due to lack of data. 2 6 7 9 7 Source: ERA data used for Revision of the wagon5 TSI – impact assessment report.

APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 98

Table 1 presents information on the wagon fleet from 2000 to 2013 for EU member countries and Switzerland, provided by the DG Move report "Revision of the wagon TSI – impact assessment report" (2012). The data from 2010-2013 are estimations of ERA. The countries with the largest wagon fleets are Germany, Poland and France. There are few countries which experience a significant increase in their wagon fleet over the time period, these are France, Austria and Switzerland. The table also shows that the total number of rail freight wagons in EU28 is decreasing. In 2000, the total number of wagons was approx. 960,000, while it was ca. 673,000 in 2009. This trend is expected to be continued until 2013, where the wagon fleet has decreasedto 636,713. Among the large rail transport countries, the largest declineshappen in Italy (58% decline) and Germany (32% decline),The largest increases take place in France (19% increase) and Switzerland (16%). For the EU28+CH as a total, the wagon fleet decreases by 30% from 2000 to 2009.

Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia will be excluded from the total, as these Member States either use different track gauge than the continental European standard gauge of 1,435 millimetres (EE, FI, LV, LT, IE, ES and PT). The United Kingdom will be excludes because they operate under different technical requirements (UK). Table 2 shows the existing wagon fleet in those eight countries, as well as the total after deducting the number of wagons of those countries. For example, in 2013 there are in total 636,713 wagons in EU28+CH5. 91,545 of these wagons are operating in Member States which either use non- standard track gauge or are disjoint from the continental European network. These wagons do not run on the continental European network, and they cannot be considered part of the European rail noise problem. If noise from these wagons is a problem, it will rather be the problems for the individual Member States. When the 91,545 wagons are deducted from the total, it results in an estimate of 545,168 wagons in 2013, cf. Table 2, which operate on the continental European network, and which may operate cross-border.

For the purpose of this report, we define the abbreviation IA19, as the remaining countries, with wagons running on continental Europes tracks with 1,435 mm track gauge. These countries include Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Hungary, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland.

5 No wagon data is available on Croatia.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 99

Table 2: Total number of wagons excluding EE,IE, ES, LV, LT, PT, UK

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

EE 19,854 17,030 16,480 17,436 20,352 18,971 17,109 17,289 16,568 16,534 16,257 15,985 15,718 15,455

IE 1,856 1,856 1,856 1,611 833 926 1,095 891 419 402 371 342 315 290

ES 26,452 25,566 23,938 25,426 25,542 23,842 15,031 15,524 14,881 14,338 13,682 13,055 12,457 11,887

FI 12,630 12,259 11,842 11,627 11,738 11,216 11,024 10,790 10,934 10524 10,349 10,176 10,006 9,839

LV 9,146 7,720 6,920 7,952 8,706 8,871 8,848 8,900 8,853 10,233 10,355 10,478 10,602 10,729

LT 13,155 12,173 12,217 12,144 13,134 13,192 13,393 13,534 13,765 13,641 13,692 13,742 13,793 13,844

PT 4,162 4,180 4,084 3,979 3,544 3,495 3,197 2,953 3,043 3,043 2,961 2,882 2,804 2,729

UK 41,134 36,868 36,997 35,351 34,870 33,819 32,210 31,794 31,174 29,906 29,090 28,296 27,523 26,772

Total, all of the 128,389 117,652 114,335 115,526 118,719 114,332 101,907 101,676 99,637 98,622 96,756 94,956 93,219 91,545 above countries

Total, all countires 959,755 881,183 827,644 835,090 872,088 772,332 740,892 650,995 693,5582 666,831 672,550 659,860 647,924 636,713 (table 1)

Total excluding the above countries 831,366 763,531 713,309 719,564 753,369 658,000 638,985 549,318 593,921 568,208 575,794 564,904 554,704 545,169 (IA19) Source: ERA data used for Revision of the wagon TSI – impact assessment report.

APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 100

The wagon fleet estimates in the table above are in the same size of magnitude as the estimates in PwC (2007) and KCW (2010). However, the increase of the number of German wagons from approx. 176,000 to approx. 237,000 from 2003 to 2004 is difficult to explain, and does not appear in the Eurostat and UIC data. We have not been able to resolve this data point. However, the data point does not affect the basis for the assessment, which is the 2009 fleet and the forecasts.

Facts about currently Not all of the 545,169 wagons from IA19 in Table 2 need to be retrofitted. Some retrofitted wagons wagons have already been retrofitted, and some wagons are new, already fitted with K-block brakes. Switzerland has been in a process of retrofitting its wagon fleet with K-blocks for some years. The progress of the program until 2013 is shown in Table 3, which is based on information from the Swiss Federal Office of Transport.

Table 3: Number of wagoons retrofitted in Switzerland form 2009-2013

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Switzerland 5,211 6,948 7,915 8,091 8,355

Source: Swiss Federal Office of Transport.

The number is increasing, and plans exist for retrofitting 100% of the Swiss wagon fleet in 2015. The retrofitted wagons are deducted from the total IA19 wagon fleet to arrive at a need for retrofitting of wagons, taking into account the Swiss retrofitting efforts.

Table 4 shows that in 2013, an estimated 533,847 wagons need to be retrofitted, when it is taken into account that Switzerland has retrofitted parts of its wagon fleet, and that some countries do not use standard European track gauge or are disjoint from the European network. The table also shows the development of the total wagon fleet in Europe, which can operate cross-border.

Table 4: Total number of wagons in IA19

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total number 568,209 575,794 564,904 554,704 545,169 of wagons Retrofitted 5,211 6,948 7,915 8,091 8,355 wagons Difference 562,998 568,846 556,989 546,613 536,814

Source: Own calculations based on ERA and Swiss Federal Office of Transport

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 101

Replacement of old In addition to the retrofitting which has been done on the existing fleet, some of wagons by new, the existing wagons are new wagons fitted with K-blocks. ERA has recorded the silent ones new wagon registrations in the period 2004-2012, and the numbers are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: New wagons registered per year 2006-2012, and total new wagons in the period 2006-2012

Year Wagons resitred

2006 2,373

2007 4,113

2008 4,693

2009 3,985

2010 2,452

2011 1,350

2012 2,320

Total 21,286

Source: ERA Report on Vehicle Authorization and ERA Bi-annual Interoperability report.

The above table shows the number of new wagons that have already been fitted with K-blocks. The table has been produced by the ERA, by combining the Report on Vehicle Authorization (ROVA) and Bi-annual Interoperability report (BAIR) data. In 2012, 21,286 new wagons are fitted with K-block brakes. Data for 2013 is not yet available.

This number of new wagons fitted with K-blocks is not part of the noise problem arising from European rail freight transport. Therefore, from the 554,704 in 2012 that is the total number of IA19 wagons, 21,286 new wagons fitted with K-blocks will be deducted. Accounting for the Swiss retrofitted wagons as well, the number of wagons in need of retrofitting is 525,327 in 2012.

APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 102

Table 6: Total number of wagons in 2012, new wagons fitted with K-blocks in 2012, retrofitted wagons in 2012, and the remaining number of wagon running with steel brake blocks in 2012.

2012 Total number of wagons (IA19), 525,327 excluding new and retrofitted wagons

Wagons (new) fitted with K-blocks 21,286

Retrofitted wagons 8,091

Total number of wagons IA19 554,704

Source: ROVA 2010, BAIR 2013.

In summary, our assessment is that in 2012, 515,527 wagons were fitted with cast iron brakes and could circulate on the continental European rail network.

Facts about the age If the 525,327 wagons with cast iron brakes should all be retrofitted immediately, structure of wagon it would constitute a significant task for the wagon keepers, and to the workshops fleet who are to do the retrofitting. In the future, some of the wagons will be retired, due to old age and wear. Some of them will be replaced by wagons with silent brakes, probably K-blocks, while others will be removed from the fleet. This indicates that the magnitude of the noise pollution from rail freight will decrease, even without any further action taken by the EU Commission. The extent of the replacement and retirement of the old wagons depends on the age distribution of the wagon fleet. The more old wagons there are, the more old wagons will be retired or replaced without EU taking any action to ensure the retrofitting of the wagons.

We have had access to two sources of information of the age structure of the European wagon fleet. The first is the ERA Virtual Vehicle Register, described above. The second is the information in the PwC (2007) report. Compared to the ERA data, the PwC data are relatively older, dating from 2005. However, the information contained in the PwC report covers all the EU countries, whereas the ERA data consists of information provided by 7 European countries.

Figure 1 shows the age distribution based on the data from the Virtual Vehicle Register. It can be seen that the age distribution of all the wagons in the register is heavily influenced by the presence of many old French wagons. It should be noted that there are wagons which were taken into operation before 1960, but we assume that these wagons do not run much and do not constitute a significant proportion of the fleet.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 103

Figure 1: Birth year of European wagons

Source: ERA, based on the Virtual Vehicle Register.

Retirement age of For the purpose of assessing the number of wagons which will be retired or European wagons replaced in the near future, we assume that wagons are being retired or replaced when they are 40 years old. In practice, wagons are being replaced, when their economic lifetime has come to an end, which is when the maintenance costs become so large that it is more profitable to replace or retire the wagon than to keep it in service – if the wagon keepers can fund the replacement. Experience is, according to COWI experts, that freight wagons live for 25-30 years if they are used intensively, but that they can live up to 45 years if they are well maintained and used less intensively. A lifespan of 20 to 50 years covers the majority of wagons, with the average being 35 years. This assessment corresponds to the assessment made in PwC (2007), that wagons live on average for 35 years.

Considering the current financial situation of the rail freight sector, where many railway undertakings are losing money, we think it is realistic to assume an average lifetime of 40 years for a wagon. This is because many railway undertakings lack the funding to invest in new wagons, even though it may be economically optimal to replace wagons, and because most wagons are owned by railway undertakings.

For analytical purposes, we assume that all wagons are replaced or retired once they reach the age of 40.

Implications of the Comparing the age distribution from the Virtual Vehicle Register and from PwC age distribution and (2007), the following conclusion is drawn: For ERA data, the percentage of the the retirement age wagon fleet older than 40 years in 2013 is approx. 34% when France is included, and approx. 11% of the EU28+CH wagon fleet respectively. The same percentage for the PwC (2007) is approx. 26%.

APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 104

To assess the development in the need for retrofitting, while taking into account that old wagons will be phased out, the following table shows how the 2013 wagon fleet will gradually be phased out, assuming that wagons have a lifetime of 40 years. In 2013, 34.2% of the existing wagons have one year left in operation. This means that in 2014, 34.2%, or 185,590 wagons, will be phased out. The same year the remaining wagon fleet will be 65.8% of the initial fleet in 2013.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 105

Table 7: Development of the current wagon fleet, showing the decrease in the current wagons due to retirement. This table does not take into account new wagons in the wagon fleet.

APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 106

Table 7 continued.

Source: Own calculations based on data from the Virtual Vehicle Register and data from ERA.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 107

German and Swiss According to information provided by Deutsche Bahn AG, the company is plans for retrofitting planning to have its total body of wagons retrofitted by 2020. Table 8 presents the beyond 2013 number of German wagons retrofitted through the years until the target is reached in 2020, when 120,000 wagons or 100% of the fleet will have been fitted with silent brake blocks.

Table 8: German plan of retrofitting

EU28 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

DE 2020 retrofitting - 20,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 targets Source: Deutsche Bahn AG, 2013.

Additionally, according to Swiss Federal Office of Transport, Switzerland is aiming to have the whole fleet retrofitted by 2015. Table 9 presents how Switzerland will achieve this target progressively. According to that, in 2013 97% will already be retrofitted. That means that these should no need further retrofitting in the future.

Table 9: Target of retrofitting in Switzerland 2013 2014 2015

Swiss noise compliant wagons 8,355 8,531 8,794

Source: Swiss Federal Office of Transport

Retrofitted Wagons We consider two drivers of retrofitting. The first driver is that Germany and Switzerland are retrofitting their wagons fleets. The development in the number of Swiss and German retrofitted wagons is shown in Table 10 below.

Table 10: Swiss and German retrofitting

Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

DE - DB 0 N/A 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Schenker DE - private wagon 0 N/A 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 keepers

Switzerland 8,355 N/A 8,794 8,794 8,794 8,794 8,794 8,794

Source: Own development based on Jahnel and Pennekamp (2013): Sustainable noise reduction of rail freight transport until 2020, and Rudolf Sperlich (2013): Freight noise reduction: The Swiss ban on cast iron blocks.

APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 108

Based on this, we assume that the entire fleet of German and Swiss owned wagons will be silent after 2020.

The second driver is that there are currently economic incentives for retrofitting, which could lead railway undertakings and wagon keepers to retrofit voluntarily. These incentives are shown in the table below..

Table 11: Incentives in the present situation to retrofit to silent brakes

Incentive Reason for incentive Dutch bonus for operating Silent wagons running through Netherlands are with silent wagons paid a bonus per wagon km performed in Netherlands. German NDTAC Silent wagons running through Germany are paid a bonus per wagon km performed in Germany. Swiss NDTAC Silent wagons running through Switzerland are paid a bonus per wagon km performed in Switzerland. Dutch noise limit Trains with noise emissions exceeding a threshold will not be granted train path in Netherlands. Silent wagons allows for the possibility of performing more transport and earning more profits. Swiss ban on wagons with Noisy wagons will not be granted access to cast iron brakes Switzerland after 2020. Silent wagons allows for the possibility of performing more transport and earning more profits. German speed limits for If silent trains are allowed to drive faster than noisy noisy trains (under trains, this may incentivize retrofitting, because consideration) users of silent trains can do more transport. However, the speed of a train depends on the speed of the train on the track in front of it, so it may be that speeds limits for noisy trains will also reduce the speed of the silent trains. In a situation, where most trains are silent, a speed limit for noisy trains can be expected to have an impact on the incentive to retrofit. Night bans for noisy trains If noisy trains are not allowed to operate at night, it (under consideration) will give an incentive to retrofit, because retrofitting allows for earning profits on night operation. Given that a large share of rail freight transport takes place at night, this incentive might be important. Source: Own development.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 109

To be able to exemplify, and show the differences of different cost scenarios, we set up five stylized examples.

1 A wagon which operates in all of IA19 and has its mileage distributed over the countries in accordance with the distribution of all rail freight transport in the countries. This is an example of an “average wagon”.

2 A wagon which operates only in Germany.

3 A wagon which operates only in Netherlands.

4 A wagon which operates only in Switzerland.

5 A wagon which operates only on the Rotterdam-Genoa corridor.

When we estimate the economic surplus from retrofitting in the five stylized examples under the different cost scenarios, the results are that for wagons which run only in Switzerland, and which run only on the Rotterdam-Genoa corridor, the current NDTAC schemes give an incentive for retrofitting, regardless of the cost scenario. In the other three scenarios, retrofitting does not give an economic surplus, regardless of the cost scenario. The reason is that Germany and Netherlands have placed caps on the amount of bonus which can be earned per wagon. Given that wagons are expected to operate for nine years after retrofitting, and that the annual life cycle cost is assumed to be minimum € 400, and that retrofitting is also costly, wagons need to take full advantage of all the bonus schemes in order for retrofitting to be profitable. The results are shown in Table 13. The Swiss system appears to incentivize retrofitting heavily. The large net present value for the wagon keeper is the result of an assumed 45,000 km per year, earning a bonus of 5 cents for nine years. Sensitivity analyses on the number of km needed to incentivize retrofitting indicate that a wagon has to run 11,000-16,000 km per year in Switzerland for nine years in order for retrofitting to be profitable.

Table 12: Net present value (€) of investing in retrofitting with LL-blocks, examples

Low cost Middle cost High cost Example 1 -2.057,47 -3.263,65 -4.553,84 Example 2 -3.233,15 -5.007,98 -6.866,81 Example 3 -388,55 -2.163,38 -4.022,21 Example 4 20.873,74 19.098,91 17.240,08 Example 5 4.709,92 3.849,39 2.904,85 Source: Own calculations.

Receipt of the bonus in Germany and Netherlands depends on the majority of the wagons on a train being fitted with K pg LL brake blocks. In the examples above, this feature is not taken into account, as we have no knowledge about the share of trains which are sufficiently silent. From the point of view of a wagon keeper or

APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 110

railway undertaking which considers retrofitting, this uncertainty of the German and Dutch incentives must make it difficult to make a business case for retrofitting. Individual wagon keepers and railway undertakings may have difficulty assessing how many time a wagon will be part of a silent train. While our examples indicate that in example 5, retrofitting is profitable, the uncertainty about the business case may discourage the retrofitting.

The European Commission is considering a harmonization of the NDTAC schemes to be effective from 2015. For the purpose of this analysis, we expect that the German scheme will become the model for the harmonized scheme.

Based on the information on the phasing-out of old wagon stock (see Table 7), and the retrofitting plans of Germany and Switzerland, we can construct a forecast of the development of the need for retrofitting. The table below presents the number of wagons that need to be retrofitted by 2035, shown for the two baseline scenarios described in the report.

Table 13: Decomposition of wagon fleet, IA19, baseline version 1 Year 2,013 2,015 2,020 2,022 2,025 2,030 2,035 Total number 545,169 527,996 500,652 500,652 500,652 500,652 500,652 of wagons

Of which new 21,286 49,955 137,216 183,059 251,822 366,427 397,890 silent wagons

Of which 523,883 478,041 363,435 317,593 248,830 134,225 102,762 retiring fleet

Retrofitted 8,355 28,794 129,478 129,478 129,478 129,478 102,762 wagons

Old “noisy” 515,528 449,247 233,957 188,115 119,352 4,747 0 wagons Total number of silent 29,641 78,749 266,694 312,537 381,300 495,905 500,652 wagons Of old wagons, small or tyred 31,433 28,682 21,806 19,056 14,930 0 0 wheels, 6 %

Source: Own development.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 111

Table 14: Decomposition of wagon fleet, IA19, baseline version 2

Year 2,013 2,015 2,020 2,022 2,025 2,030 2,035

Total number 545,169 527,996 500,652 500,652 500,652 500,652 500,652 of wagons

Of which new 21,286 49,955 137,216 183,059 251,822 366,427 397,890 silent wagons

Of which 523,883 478,041 363,435 317,593 248,830 134,225 102,762 retiring fleet

Retrofitted 8,355 40,773 141,457 141,457 141,457 134,225 102,762 wagons

Old “noisy” 515,528 437,267 221,978 176,136 107,373 0 0 wagons Total number of silent 29,641 90,729 278,674 324,516 393,279 500,652 500,652 wagons Of old wagons, small or tyred 31,433 28,682 21,806 19,056 14,930 0 0 wheels, 6 % Source: Own development.

As shown in the tables, the total number of the wagons need retrofitting is declining over time. The number of old wagons, which are either being replaced or retired, contributes a lot to that decrease. As mentioned above, 39% of the total wagons will be retired in 2013.

Table 15: Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis Year 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Number of wagons need retrofitting Virtual 313,619 181,999 106,122 52,102 20,810 Vehicle Register, CH ban

Number of wagons need retrofitting PwC age 384,105 294,029 193,459 105,580 68,403 distribution, assuming 40 years lifetime, CH ban

Number of wagons need retrofitting when the lifetime of wagons= 35 191,329 60,662 13,282 0 0 years, Virtual Vehicle Register, CH ban

APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 112

Wagons unable to be Wagons with tyred wheels or wagons with wheel diameter less than 930 mm are retrofitted with LL- not suitable for retrofitting with LL-blocks. We assume that these wagons will be blocks out of scope for the retrofitting policy. We have no factual knowledge about how many of these wagons are in operation on the continental EU network. Based on stakeholder interviews, we assume that 6% of the wagons have either tyred wheels or wheels with diameter less than 930 mm. This does not mean that the problem of noisy wagons becomes less now or in the future. But it does mean reduce the number of wagons which are relevant for policies which aim to increase the use of LL-brake blocks. It also means that there is a limit to how much can be achieved with policies which rely solely on retrofitting and not on natural replacement of wagons through retirement.

Development of total The number of wagons has been steadily declining over the period 2000-2009, number of wagons according to data from the European Railway Agency. This development has been going on since the 1970s in the EU15. In 1970 there were approx. 1.6 million wagons in EU15, in 1980 that number had decreased to 1.2 million, and in 1990 there were approx. 900 thousand.

Rail freight volumes in EU28+CH have been increasing in the period 2000-2009, cf. Table 16. However, current rail freight volumes are lower than they were 20, 30 and 40 years ago. In a long run perspective, therefore, rail freight transport in the EU28+CH has been in a decline. However, in EU15, current rail freight transport levels are of the same order of magnitude as they were in 1970.

Table 16: Rail freight transport, thousand million tkm

1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

EU15 283 290 257 257 262 281 293 289 237 256 270

EU28 558 649 535 417 429 456 469 458 375 402 431 + CH Note: Data is not available for Croatia, Slovakia and Czech Republic in 1970, 1980 and 1990. Source: Eurostat, International Transport Forum, Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer, national statistics. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/pocketbook-2013_en.htm

In the long run, wagon productivity has increased in EU15. In the period 1970- 2009, wagon productivity tripled. In the period 2000-2009, wagon productivity increased by approx. 20% in EU15. For EU28+CH, the productivity increase from 2000 to 2009 was approx. 30%.

To assess the future development in the wagon fleet, two factors need consideration: 1) the adjustment of the wagon fleet to changing transport volumes in EU28+CH, and 2) the increase in wagon productivity.

The effect of the first factor is assessed by taking into consideration that the rail freight volume has been relatively constant in the EU15 over the last 40 years. We assume that the current number of wagons in EU15 reflects an equilibrium number of wagons, given the transport volumes. This means we can assess the equilibrium number of wagons in EU28+CH by multiplying the number of wagons in EU15 by

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 113

the relationship between EU28+CH transport and EU15 transport, that is, EU28+CH wagons = 369,114*(431/270) = 589,216. Given the 2011 transport volumes in EU28+CH, there appears to be an over-capacity in EU28+CH in 2011 of 659,862-589,216 = 70,646 wagons.

The effect of the second factor depends on the assumed future wagon productivity development. In EU15, wagon productivity increased by ca. 3% per year on average from 1970 to 2009. If we assume this productivity increase continues from 2011 to 2035, it will result in a further productivity increase of ca. 109%. This increase exceeds the White paper’s expected growth in rail freight volumes (ca. 54% from 2010 to 2030, corresponding to 2.2% per year), meaning that the wagon fleet should decrease further toward 2035.

ERA has developed forecasts of the wagon fleet until 2049. For the period 2010- 35, the wagon fleet development is as shown in Figure 2. The figure also shows the development in the rail freight measured in ton km (tkm). This development is estimated by taking actual rail freight volumes until 2011 and assuming a constant annual growth rate of 2.2% until 2035. The 2.2% is estimated on the basis of the White paper’s growth rate from 2010-2030 of 53.6%, which gives an annual growth rate of 2.2%. The combined wagon fleet forecasts and transport forecasts imply an annual increase of wagon productivity of 3.4%.

Figure 2: Wagon fleet forecast of ERA and rail transport forecast of White paper

1200000 800 700 1000000 600

800000 500

600000 400 Wagons

300 Billion tkm 400000 200 200000 100

0 0

2022 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2035

Wagons Transport

Source: Own development, based on data from the White paper and data from ERA.

ERA’s assumption/finding of a constant wagon stock from 2020 onward does not, however, appear to be consistent with past experience that the growth rate of productivity exceeds the growth rate of transport. On the other hand, it is difficult to assess when the process of diminishing wagon fleet will end and how the long run wagon fleet will develop.

APPENDIX D - The development of the wagon fleet 114

Summary on wagon Data on the development of wagon fleet and transport volumes together indicate fleet development that wagon productivity has increased the last 40 years. The rate of increase is so great that it exceeds the rate of increase of rail freight transport. ERA has developed wagon fleet forecasts, which imply assumptions about the wagon productivity which are broadly consistent with a continuation of past developments. In the analysis, we will use ERA’s wagon forecasts in the baseline for the total number of wagons. This implies that the wagon fleet forecasts are as shown in table 14-1 and 14-2 for the two baselinie scenarios.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 115

Appendix E Description of the methodology applied to the assessment of impacts Figure 1 gives an overview of how the different developments are assessed. The figure is briefly described below.

Figure 1: Overview of assessment method

Input Assessment / estimation

• Transport data • Incentive to retrofit • Wagon data • Share of silent • Cost data wagons • Policy data • Noise emissions • External cost data • Cost of retrofitting • Assumptions • Competitiveness vs. road • CO2 emissions • Public expenditure • Administrative costs

Source: Own development.

Description of figure 1 Overview Transport data encompasses information on the number of tkm transported by rail and road in the EU28+CH (here, the focus will be on IA19). The data is used to estimate the development in rail noise, because changes in rail freight volumes affect the amount of noise emitted. Transport data is also used to estimate CO₂ emissions. To estimate the impact on freight volumes on noise and CO₂, external cost, data from CE Delft (2011) is used. Transport data is also used to forecast the need for freight wagons. Finally, transport data is used to estimate how much rail transport changes, when the competitiveness between road and rail transport changes. The source of transport data is Eurostat, table [rail_go_typeall].

Wagon data encompasses information on the total number of wagons owned by firms in the EU28+CH (here, the focus will be on IA19). The data also contains information on the number of silent wagons, the age structure of the wagon fleet and the mileage distribution of the wagon fleet. The data is used to estimate the share of silent wagons at any time. By combining this share with data on the amount of rail freight transport, and information on whether maintenance management is in place, noise emissions from rail freight transport are estimated. The data on the size of the total wagon fleet comes from ERA, as described in appendix D. The wagon fleet composition is estimated by COWI, using a method described in detail later in this appendix.

APPENDIX E –Development of the incentive to retrofit 116

Cost data encompasses information on the costs of retrofitting, the life cycle costs of operating silent wagons, the administrative costs of operating under an NDTAC regime, the total costs of rail freight transport per tkm, the total costs of road freight transport per tkm, and the cost of acoustic grinding of tracks. The information is used to estimate the incentive to retrofit, the competitiveness of rail freight, the NDTAC bonus and the public expenditure with the baseline and different policies considered in this report. The cost data is collected using a literature review.

Policy data consists of a list of elements. For each policy option and policy package, it is listed whether it contains:

› A subsidy, and the size of the subsidy, › NDTAC and the size of the bonus, › Maintenance management, and which noise charges are levied on road and rail transport (a technical assumption made for modelling environmental health option)

This data is used in combination with cost data and noise modelling, to assess the impacts of the options on the incentive to retrofit and the noise emissions. Policy data consists of assumptions made by COWI based on dialogue with DG Move and estimations by COWI.

External cost data consists of unit costs of rail and road freight transport, where the unit is tkm, and unit costs of noise, where the unit is noise exposure measured in dB per household. The data is used in combination with transport data and competitiveness estimations to estimate impacts on noise costs and CO₂.

Estimation of noise impacts The figure below shows how the noise impacts of the baseline developments and the different policies are estimated. The first step is to combine policy data and cost data to estimate the incentive to retrofit wagons with composite brake blocks. The incentive is expressed as the net present value of the investment in retrofitting for a wagon. The details of the calculation are described below in the subsection “Calculation of the incentive to retrofit”.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 117

Figure 2: Overview of estimation of noise impacts

Policy data Retrofitting incentive Cost data Share ofsilent wagons Wagon fleet data

External Noise impact cost data

Transport volumes

Since wagons are not identical, retrofitting will be economically advantageous for some wagons and not for others. The second step is to combine wagon fleet data and the incentive calculation, to estimate the share of wagons for which retrofitting gives an economic surplus. Combined with information on the age distribution of the wagon fleet, this allows us to estimate the share of silent wagons durig the years 2013-2035. The details of the calculation are described below in the subsection “Calculation of share of silent wagons”.

The third step is to combine information on the share of silent wagons, the amount of rail freight transport and the external costs of noise, to estimate the impact on noise. The details of the calculation are described below in the subsection “Calculation of the noise impact”.

Calculation of the incentive to retrofit The retrofitting The incentive to retrofit wagons with composite brake blocks depends on the costs incentive of retrofitting, and the benefits of retrofitting for the wagon owners. The cost consists of the investment in retrofitting and the change in life cycle costs associated with operating wagons fitted with composite brake blocks. An additional cost is the administrative cost associated with applying for NDTAC bonuses. The benefits consists of the NDTAC bonuses earned or the NDTAC maluses saved, combined with the earnings associated with being able to operate at a larger scale in Switzerland, Germany and Netherlands, where restrictions on noisy wagons are in place, or under consideration. The NDTAC bonus scheme is implemented as a bonus-malus scheme. The NDTAC therefore becomes a transfer within the rail freight sector. The bonus/malus is bound by the number of respectively retrofitted and non-retrofitted wagons, rather than the mileage in order to achieve a constant bonus over time.In the remainder, we focus on the incentive to retrofit with LL brake blocks.

APPENDIX E –Development of the incentive to retrofit 118

Calculation of net present values of retrofitting Calculation of the Retrofitting a wogon with LL brake blocks is an investment, therefore the incentive incentive to retrofit, is calculated as the net present value of benefits minus costs of retrofitting. The without considering incentive can be written as follows: Swiss, German and Dutch restrictions on [( ) ] traffic

= [ ]

Where: = Present discounted value, the sum of the discounted values of earnings, savings or costs

= Track access charge for wagons with noisy brakes (€/km)

= Track access charge for wagons with silent brakes (€/km)

= number of kilometres driven on the NDTAC network = Cost of investment in new brakes A = Administrative costs = Life Cycle Costs, or maintenance costs of the brakes (€/km)

= the net benefit of retrofitting a wagon

The net benefits of retrofitting (NBretrofit) are calculated as the bonus received or

malus avoided ( TACnoisy – TACsilent) when driving in a NDTAC network,

multiplied with the number of kilometres driven on that network(kmNDTACarea). The costs are calculated as the investment costs (I), plus associated life cycle costs (LCC). Different variants have been used where the life cycle costs are constant per year, and where they depend on the mileage. This is the same for administrative costs, where some specifications have been used where administrative costs are constant, and others where they depend on the mileage in the area covered by NDTAC. A distinction is made between the number of kilometres run in an area, where there is NDTAC in place, and the total number of kilometres run. The earnings from NDTAC bonus or the savings from avoided NDTAC are only obtained for kilometres run in the NDTAC area. On the other hand, the increased life cycle costs of using composite brake blocks are incurred for all the kilometres run using composite brake blocks.

Ideally we would collect information for each individual wagon in IA19 about the number of axles, the wagon age, the expected economic life and the number of km run each year. Combining this information with other data – to be described below – would allow us to calculate exactly how many IA19 wagons it would be economically advantageous for wagon owners/keepers to retrofit. However, such detailed information does not exist, and hence we rely on the best information available combined with our own best assessments.

The way we proceed is to calculate the incentive to retrofit for an “average European wagon”, that is, a wagon with an expected remaining lifetime, expected

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 119

mileage, expected geographical pattern of usage, etc. corresponding to the European average. There is some uncertainty about the key parameters, therefore three scenarios are set up: a “favourable scenario”, where there is a relatively great economic incentive for retrofitting, an “unfavourable scenario”, where there is a relatively small economic incentive for retrofitting, and a “middle scenario”, where the economic incentive for retrofitting is intermediate.

Table 1 shows some of the key parametres for the calculation of the incentive to retrofit. The key parametres shown are the share of 4 axle wagons, the average number of axles, the remaining lifetime and mileage per year. The number of axles per wagon is important, because the NDTAC bonus depends on the number of axle kilometres run be a wagon. The remaining lifetime is important, because it affects the net present value of the investment in retrofitting. The table shows that the share of 4 axle wagons is 70 %, which means that the share of 2 axle wagons is 30 % On this basis the average number of axles is calculated to be 3.4. The remaining lifetime is assessed by assuming that a wagon can be used for 40 years, and by considering the actual age of European wagons based on information from the virtual wagon register. The mileage of wagons is assumed to be 45,000 kilometres per wagon per year. The greater the mileage, the more NDTAC bonus can be earned – everything else equal.

Table 1: Wagon characteristics of an “average European wagon” for calculating current incentives for retrofitting in the baseline

Assumptions Share of 4 axle wagons 70 % Number of axles per wagon 3.4 Remaining lifetime, years 9 Mileage per year, km 45,000

Sources: Share of 4 axle wagons: PwC (2007), table 5-4. Wagon lifetime: COWI’s assessment based on wagon age data from Virtual Vehicle Register and assuming between 35 years and 40 years lifetime.

The distribution of wagons’ mileage on European countries also affects the incentive to retrofit. If a wagon runs many km in a country where there is an NDTAC bonus, then the incentive to retrofit is greater than if the wagon runs primarily countries without an NDTAC bonus. This makes a great difference in the baseline, where only Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland are assumed to have an NDTAC bonus. In the policy scenarios, the difference is smaller, because all IA19 countries except Switzerland are assumed to have either 'no NDTAC' or to have 'identical NDTAC'. In the policy scenarios, the country distribution of mileage only matters because the NDTAC bonuses in EU and Switzerland are different.

Ideally, we would collect information about the exact number of km run by each wagon in each IA19 country. However, this information is not available – indeed, it has not been possible to collect any information on the distribution of mileage by wagons. The only information available which is relevant to assess the

APPENDIX E –Development of the incentive to retrofit 120

geographical distribution of wagons’ mileage is Eurostat’s data on the geographical distribution of transport. This information has been summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Distribution of European rail freight transport, 2010 Country Million tkm Share of Share of transport transport in in IA19, % EU28+CH, % Germany 107,317 27 33 Poland 48,705 12 15 France 29,965 7 9 Sweden 23,464 6 7 Austria 19,833 5 6 Italy 18,616 5 6 United Kingdom 18,576 5 - Latvia 17,179 4 - Czech Republic 13,770 3 4 Lithuania 13,431 3 - Romania 12,375 3 4 Switzerland 11,074 3 4 Finland 9,750 2 - Spain 9,211 2 - Hungary 8,809 2 2 Slovakia 8,105 2 2 Belgium 7,476 2 2 Estonia 6,638 2 - Netherlands 5,925 1 1 Slovenia 3,421 1 1 Bulgaria 3,064 1 1 Croatia 2,618 1 1 Portugal 2,313 1 - Denmark 2,239 1 1 Greece 614 - - Luxembourg 323 - - Ireland 92 - - Total 404,903 101 - Total excl. EE, ES, FI, IE, LT, 327,713 82 100 LV, PT., UK Note: ‘-’ Means that information is not available. Source: Own calculations based on data from Eurostat, table [rail_go_typeall].

The table shows that among the IA19, 33% of rail freight transport takes place in Germany. Our assumption, based on this information, is that an “average” or “representative” wagon performs 33% of its mileage in Germany.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 121

The final type of information necessary to estimate the incentive for retrofitting, is information on the costs of retrofitting. The assumptions used for estimation of the incentive for retrofitting is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Assumptions on the cost of retrofitting

Favourable Middle Unfavourable

Retrofitting costs, € per 1,360 1,688 2,100 wagon Life cycle costs, cents 0.4 0.6 0.8 per wagon kilometre 1% of NDTAC 1% of NDTAC 1% of NDTAC Administrative costs bonus bonus bonus Discount rate, per cent 4 4 4 Source: Own development on the basis of PwC (2007) and dialogue with DG Move.

Calculation of share of silent wagons Using the approach described above, it is both possible to calculate whether it is beneficial for a specific wagon owner to retrofit wagons, as well as the number of kilometres the wagons need to run before it becomes economically advantageous. Furthermore, the calculation can be done for different countries, and different types of brakes, for which the track access charges and costs differ, respectively.

In particular, our approach is to calculate the critical mileage, for which the net present value of retrofitting the representative wagon is zero. Wagons with a mileage above the critical value will have a positive net present value of retrofitting, whereas wagons with a mileage below the critical value will have a negative net present value.

For the purpose of calculating the share of silent wagons we therefore deviate from the assumption of an annual mileage of 45,000 km, and perform incentive simulations for the whole range of km from 0 to 120,000. Once the critical mileage has been calculated, we estimate the share of wagons which will be retrofitted because of NDTAC and subsidy schemes, based on information on the mileage distribution from PwC (2007).

In the estimation of the incentive to retrofit it has not been possible to control for the variance in obtained benefits due to the maximum retrofitting capacity of 50,000 wagons a year.

By combining information on the age distribution of the wagon stock with assumptions on the maximum lifetime of wagons, and with information on the retrofitting schemes of Germany and Switzerland, we can calculate the share of silent wagons.

An example of how the incentive calculation works in the case of the analysis of a policy package is: Suppose the policy package introduces a subsidy for retrofitting and an NDTAC scheme. The subsidy reduces the cost of retrofitting, which increases the net present value for wagon keepers of retrofitting brakes. The

APPENDIX E –Development of the incentive to retrofit 122

NDTAC scheme increases the earnings from operating a retrofitted wagon. The earnings effect depends on how many km the wagon runs in an area covered by NDTAC. The increase in earnings increases the net present value from retrofitting, regardless of the mileage of the wagon. This means that the critical mileage where retrofitting becomes profitable, decreases, and the share of wagons for which retrofitting becomes profitable increases. This leads to an increase in the share of silent wagons.

The NDTAC scheme is crucial in order to have a positive net present value from retrofitting. If there is no positive earnings effect from retrofitting, then there will be no retrofitting regardless of how cheap it is to change brakes – as long as retrofitting is costly and there are no benefits, there will be no retrofitting. Therefore a subsidy, which is linked only to the retrofitting and not to the mileage will have no effect on retrofitting.

Calculation of the noise impact from retrofitting and replacement of wagons We use the following formula for the relationship between the share of silent wagons and the emitted noise:

Lden, effect of retrofitting = Lden, freight without retrofitting-(10*LOG(Afreight retrofittet*10^(Lden, freight retrofittet/10)+Afreight without retrofitting*10^(Lden, freight without retrofitting/10)))

The formula showed is for Lden, but a similar formula is used to calculate Lnight. The formula was produced by COWI.

If a maintenance management policy is included in the policy package or option under consideration, it is assumed that maintenance management on the entire network will contribute with 2 dB noise reduction. If the maintenance management is limited to the TEN-T network, which constitutes approx. 39.8% of the network, then the dB reduction is 0.8 dB.

The dB effects are translated into effects on the population exposure to noise, using information on the population exposure to noise in the 2007 END noise measurement. The table below shows the share of EU27 population exposed to different levels of noise. For example 3.77 per cent of the EU27 population is exposed to between 55 and 59 dB over the course of the day (Lden). If the sound pressure level decreases by 1 dB, then the distribution of noise exposure will shift, so that one fifth of the persons in the interval 55-59 will shift to the interval “less than 55 db”, one fifth of the persons in the interval 60-64 will shift to the interval 55-59, and so forth. This allows us to calculate two indicators of noise: an annoyance effect and a health effect. The annoyance effect depends on the share of the population with exposure less than 55 dB. The health effect depends on the entire distribution of noise exposure.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 123

Table 4: Percentage of the EU27 population exposed to different noise band, 2010 Household exposure, dB, Lden Per cent

55-59 3.77 60-64 2.15 65-69 1.14 70-74 0.45 >75 0.19

Share of pop less than 55 dB 92.30 Source: END data.

An example of how the noise calculation works in the case of the analysis of a policy package is: Suppose the policy package introduces a subsidy for retrofitting and an NDTAC scheme. The incentive calculation then results in a share of silent wagons. This share of silent wagons is inserted into the formula for calculating noise. As in this case the share of silent wagons increases, the noise emissions will decrease. The decrease in noise emissions affects the distribution of noise affected population. This affects the annoyance cost and it affects the health cost of noise.

Calculation of the value of noise reductions from retrofitting We consider two different ways of valuating the reductions in noise emissions which come from retrofitting. The first is a valuation of the health benefits from redueced noise pollution. The second is a valuation of the willingness to pay of the noise exposed population, for a reduction in the noise pollution. This includes a valuation of the annoyance, which comes from noise.

The health benefit from reduced noise emissions, is calculated on the basis of a unit value quoted in Babisch (2013): Health effects of traffic noise. He mentions a unit value of € 40,000-80,000 per disability adjusted life year (DALY) lost. The DALYs lost is calculated on the basis of the distribution of household noise exposure and a weighting formula shown in WHO and JRC (2011): Burden of disease from environmental noise – quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe.

The valuation of the willingness to pay of the noise exposed population is calculated using a unit value of € 25 per household per dB reduction per year. This value is taken from European Commission (2003): Valuation of noise – position paper of the working group on health and socio-economic aspects. This benefit is calculated for the population exposed to noise >55 dB, where the population exposed is considered to be the population exposed in 2035 – this is done to not count noise reductions for households, where the noise has been reduced below 55 dB.

Calculation of the noise impact from increase in rail transport Besides the noise reduction from retrofitting or replacement of wagons, there will be an effect on rail noise from the increase in rail transport over time. These impacts are monetized, using the marginal external costs estimated by CE Delft

APPENDIX E –Development of the incentive to retrofit 124

(2011), while adjusting the noise costs for declining rail marginal noise costs in the future, c.f. the White paper on transport.

Calculation of the noise impact from changes in competitiveness of rail freight We consider two sources of changing competitiveness of rail freight coming from the policy options considered:

› Costs of retrofitting, life cycle costs and administrative costs from operating under NDTAC schemes affect the competitiveness of rail freight. › Under the environmental health option, the option is modelled by assuming for technical reasons that road and rail freight transport is charged with an environmental health levy corresponding to the average external cost of noise per tkm. This increases the absolute price of both modes of transport, but shifts the relative price of transport in favour of rail freight – because the external cost of noise from rail transport is smaller relative to the total cost of transport for rail than for road.

The changes in competitiveness leads to changes in the amount of tkm transported by the two modes of transport, as described in the next subsection. The changes in the transport volumes lead to changes in noise, which are valuated using the external costs of transport estimates in CE Delft (2011).

Estimation of competitiveness impacts The competitiveness impact is calculated on the basis of cost data and policy data. These two types of data together determine how many wagons are voluntarily retrofitted. Combining this with the wagon data allows for an estimation of the costs of retrofitting, the life cycle costs and the administrative costs of NDTAC – if such a scheme is part of the package considered. It also allows for estimation of the earnings from NDTAC, and the gains to be had from a subsidy scheme, if these are elements of the package considered. The costs for the railway sector are deducted from the gains for the sector, and the net cost (or gain) of retrofitting is divided by the total production value of the sector to arrive at a percentage increase in price necessary to finance the retrofitting. This increase in price is then inserted into a cross price elasticity of road and rail transport to estimate how much transport is shifted between the two modes. We use two estimates of the cross price elasticity: a “high” elasticity of 2.5 and a “low” elasticity of 1. The source of the estimates is De Jong, G., A. Schroten, H. van Essen, M. Otten and P. Bucci (2010): Price sensitivity of European road freight transport – towards a better understanding of existing results. Transport and Environment.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 125

Figure 3: Overview of estimation of competitiveness impacts

Policy data Retrofitting incentive Cost data Share ofsilent wagons +

Wagon cost impact fleet data

Price Competitive- elasticities ness impact

Transport volumes

The competitiveness impact, which we are introducing as a technical means for modelling the environmental health option, is modelled using transport cost data from Sigmaplan, Fusseis and Interface Transport (2014): Observation et analyse des flux de transports de marchandices transalpins, combined with the external cost data from CE Delft (2011).We assume that the cost of rail freight transport is € 0.0334 per tkm and the cost of road freight transport is 0.0381 per tkm. When we add the external costs of road freight transport and rail freight transport, we arrive at a cost of 0.0343 per tkm for rail freight transport and 0.0402 per tkm for road freight transport. This gives rise to an increase of approx. 3% in the price ratio: price of road divided by price of rail.

There is a feedback from the competitiveness impacts to the noise impacts. A change in the competitiveness of rail affects the modal share of rail transport and thereby also the noise emissions. Road transport has a higher marginal noise cost than rail, and therefore a reduction of competitiveness of rail lead to higher noise costs from transport.

Estimation of impact on CO2 emissions Changes in the modal shares of rail and road affect the CO2 emissions from transport. The competitiveness module results in changes in road and rail transport measured in tkm. This impact is monetized and assessed in €, using the average external costs of transport from CE Delft (2011).

Estimation of impact on public finances The impact on public finances is estimated on the basis of the subsidies paid out, the NDTAC bonuses paid out, and the costs of maintenance management. For the purpose of the estimations it is assumed that the NDTAC bonuses are treated as a public expenditure. Sensitivity analyses are performed regarding how the

APPENDIX E –Development of the incentive to retrofit 126

competitiveness of rail would changes if NDTAC bonuses were financed by increasing general levels of track access charges.

Estimation of impact on administrative costs The impact on administrative costs is estimated as 1% of the NDTAC bonuses paid out.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 127

Appendix F Technical aspects of brakes and noise

Definitions relating to noise measuring Sound Pressure Level, SPL, in decibels is the standard index for reporting absolute noise levels and is defined as the logarithmic measure of the root mean square (RMS) sound pressure relative to a reference pressure. DB is the subjective perceptibility of changes in noise level. 1 dB is just detectable a 3 dB increase will be just notable for the majority of people and a 10 dB changes will be perceived as a doubling of noise. The sound pressure level is often given in A-weighted decibel which is the main way of adjusting measured sound pressure levels to take account of human hearing.

Emission versus Noise emissions is the sound emitted from a source e.g. freight rail and noise immission immission is the sound perceived at the receiver. The noise immission is dependent on the environment in which the source is situated in and the transmission path between the source (screening objects and absorption in the ground) and the receiver including the wind and temperature. The noise maps documented in the EU noise directive are immission maps.

Night and day In connection with EU noise directive mapping, it was decided to use Lden and exposure Lnight as a common EU noise indicator. 2.1. The noise exposure Lden is defined as the “average” levels during daytime, evening, and night-time, and applies a 5 dB penalty to noise in the evening and a 10 dB penalty to noise in the night.

Lday, Levening, and Lnight are the average equivalent A-weighted noise level LAeq as defined in ISO 1996-2 (1987) for the day (7-19h), evening (19-23h), and night (23-7h) determined over the year at the most exposed facade.

DALY DALY. WHO has quantified the burden of disease from mortality and morbidity caused by the indicator DALY, which means the Disability Adjusted Life Year. One DALY can be thought of as one lost year of "healthy" life. DALY is calculated as the sum of the years of life lost (YLL) and years lost due to disability (YLD)6.

DALY = YLL+YLD

6 For more information: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/metrics_daly/en/

APPENDIX F – Technical aspects of brakes and noise 128

Technical aspects of retrofitting Composite brake blocks were developed, to reduce brake noise from railroad vehicles. The composite blocks were first used on passenger coaches, due to the noise from the brakes affected the passengers, but in the last 10 years the use of composite blocks has spread to freight wagons, due to a wish to reduce noise from these vehicles.

Types of brake Currently there are two types of composite brake blocks in use, the type K and the blocks type LL. The two types are characterized by:

› Type K: Coefficient of friction is greater than that of cast-iron brake blocks by a factor of about 2.5. › Type LL: Coefficient of friction similar to that of cast-iron brake blocks

The type K has the longest history, as composite brake blocks has been used Type K passenger service since the late 80's and early 90's. As most modern passenger trains (wagons, DMU's and EMU's) are equipped with disk brakes and electric brakes, they have primary been used as a secondary brake, on bogies where space has limited use of disc brakes due to space constraints.

The higher coefficient of friction has not been a problem on passenger units, as the brakes has been designed to use the type K blocks, and therefore taking advantage of the higher coefficient of friction. The same can be said of new freight wagons, where the braking system also is designed to use the type k blocks.

Type L There also existed a type L with a coefficient of friction of ca. 1.7 times that of cast iron. As fitting type K and L blocks both requires modifications to the vehicle’s brake system, type K is primary used in new vehicles, while development of type L has been abandoned in favour of type LL.

Type LL The type LL block is a development of the Type L block, with a lower coefficient of friction in the area of 0.1 – 0.12. The goal of the type LL block is to be able to replace cast-iron blocks on existing vehicles without requiring major vehicle modification

Utilization of Composite blocks The type K block has the longer history, but has mainly been introduced on new vehicles, where the brake equipment has been designed for this type of brakes.

If the type K block is to be used on vehicles not designed for it, it requires modification of the brake system, and as this conversion is very expensive, it is not expected that this will happen very often. The utilization of Type K brake blocks is therefore limited to the rate of which new cars are built.

There are currently 13 types of brake blocks fully approved by UIC for international transports. Most are for wheels with a diameter greater than 930 mm, but blocks for wheels down to 730 mm are approved.

The types LL has been in development until recently and are intended to replace cast iron blocks. The type LL blocks has not until recently been fully approved by

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 129

UIC, and use has therefore been determined by local approval. Today there exist 4types of brake blocks type LL fully approved by UIC for international transports.

Technical criteria for The permissible technical scope for the deployment of LL brake blocks is defined mounting LL brake as follows: blocks › Maximum velocity: ≤120 km/h; › Maximum axle load: 22.5 t; › Brake block type: 2xBg or 2xBgu; › Area of use: all lines in the UIC area up to a maximum gradient of 40‰;

There is no need to perform tests with LL blocks if the following conditions are fulfilled:

› Maximum velocity: ≤120 km/h; › Maximum axle load: 22.5 t; › Clamp-braked (double-sided brake application) wheels of nominal diameter 920 mm to 1000 mm; › Brake blocks of type Bg (divided) or Bgu (divided, sub-divided); › Dynamic application force per brake block: 6 kN to 30 kN (Bg); 6 kN to 50 kN (Bgu).

But if the aforementioned general conditions do not apply, the braking power shall be determined by testing.

Brake components There following requirements for using composite brake blocks in wagons previously fitted with cast iron blocks.

› The existing components of the pneumatic and mechanical brake equipment are the same as those used with cast-iron brake blocks; › For wagons with a nominal wheel diameter of between 920 mm and 1000 mm and a braked weight per wheel set of more than 15.25 t (14.5 t plus 5%), the use of "inflected-curve” (kink) valves is mandatory. For wagons with a nominal wheel diameter smaller than 920 mm, this limit value shall be adapted in line with the energy input into the wheel rim; › Brake block holders and brake blocks do not carry the "non-interchangeable" markings specified in UIC Leaflets 541-1 (brake block holders) and 541-4 (brake blocks); › Where various block types are used on a vehicle, each wheel set must be fitted with blocks of the same type as a minimum.

Limitations in In general fitting with LL blocks should be combined with the installation of re- wheels to be used profiled wheels in order to comply with the inspection intervals.

Fitting of Composite brake blocks is allowed on all monoblock wheels meeting the conditions of EN 13979-1 (and its application document UIC Leaflet 510-5) may be used.

Existing monoblock All existing types of monoblock wheels are approved, though not those made of wheels the following materials: R2, BV2, R8, and R9.

APPENDIX F – Technical aspects of brakes and noise 130

Tyred wheels Tyred wheels are not approved for use with composite (LL) blocks.

Utilization and costs of composite brake blocks There have been following issues for the Type K and LL brake blocks.

› Service life for composite brake blocks is longer than that for cast-iron blocks, but is still not long enough − in the opinion of some train operators − given the higher price of the composite product. › Wear problems are more pronounced in mixed services, i.e. in trains in which both cast-iron and composite brake blocks are fitted. (In many cases, this is thought to be due to the greater braking experienced by vehicles fitted with composite brake blocks).

Some reasons to limited utilization of composite brakes The utilization of the composite brakes are not as expected or wanted, but the following might give some clues to why many operators have retained from mounting composite brakes instead of cast iron.

› Cost of rebuild. The cost of rebuild has limited the use of Type K to new vehicles or very special vehicles. › Tyred wheels. As tyred wheels are not allowed to use composite brakes, all wagons with tyred wheels, are expelled from using composite brakes. Even though the trend is going toward monoblock wheels for freight wagons, there are still a lot of wagons with tyred wheels in Europe. Until these wagons are out of service of the wheels are replaced with monoblock wheels, these wagons won't be mounted with composite brakes. › Wheel diameter. The wheel diameter for UIC approved LL blocks is restricted to wheel diameters between 930 and 1000 mm. As this diameter covers many cars, all cars with smaller wheel diameters has to use either type K with a rebuild or continue to use cast iron blocks. › Reprofiling. It is required that composite blocks are mounted on reprofiled wheels. As there might be up to several years between reprofiling of freight cars, this might be a limiting factor in mounting composite blocks, as nobody reprofiles wheels before it is necessary. › Wear on wheels, there might be fear, that the composite blocks can give further wear on the wheels, and this will give resistance to mounting new composite blocks as they increase the life cycle costs. › Unforeseen issues, during the stakeholder consultation, information was provided on potential issues with signalling systems. However no further mention of this can be made at this report before verification and substantiation of (any) potential problems. › Uncertainty, There is always an uncertainty to new technology and with introduction of composite brakes, there will always be some resistance.

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 131

Appendix G EU rail freight industry and transport Railways accounted for 17.1%7 of total inland freight tkm, employing more than 447,000 8 people in EU27 in 2010. In Switzerland, the comparable numbers are 46% and 32,2819. In the same year, the rail freight sector accounted for 0.048% of GDP in EU, and 0.136% in Switzerland. 10

Distribution of The distribution of rail freight transport by Member States is shown in Table 1 activity below. It gives an impression of the magnitude of the rail freight sector in the IA19 by country. The second column shows millions of tkm of goods transport in the respective countries, and the third column shows the corresponding percentage share of all rail goods transport in IA19. Almost one third of the tkm are covered in Germany and the top five countries together account for more than half.

Table 1: Goods transported by rail in the IA19+ Switzerland, millions of tkm, 2010 Country Tkm % of total Germany 107,317 33 Poland 48,705 15 France 29,965 9 Sweden 23,464 7 Austria 19,833 6 Italy 18,616 6 Czech Republic 13,770 4 Romania 12,375 4 Switzerland 11,074 4 Hungary 8,809 2 Slovakia 8,105 2 Belgium 7,476 2 Netherlands 5,925 1 Slovenia 3,421 1 Bulgaria 3,064 1 Croatia 2,618 1 Denmark 2,239 1 Greece 614 0 Luxembourg 323 0 Total 327,713 100 Source: EUROSTAT table rail_go_typeall.

7 EUROSTAT, Transport Statistics, table "Modal Split of Freight Transport" 8 EUROSTAT tabel tabel rail_ec_emplo_a 9 EUROSTAT tabel tabel rail_ec_emplo_a 10 EUROSTAT tabel sbs_na_1a_se_r2

APPENDIX G – EU rail freight industry and transport 132

International Of a total tkm transported in IA19 in 2010, ca. 48% of rail freight transport is cross transport border.

Market share Table 2 shows the biggest railway undertakings in the EU and their nationality. They are sorted by their share of the EU28 market, measured in tkm. This share is calculated by multiplying the undertakings' share of their home market, with their home market's share of the EU28 market. The data is from 2011 and is based on the Rail Market Monitoring Scheme11 questionnaires from 2012 and EUROSTAT.

Table 2: The largest rail undertakings in the European market

Railway undertaking Country Share of Share of the domestic EU28 market market

DB Schenker Rail AG Germany 73% 20% PKP CARGO S.A. Poland 63% 8% SNCF France 71% 5% ÖBB RCA Austria 85% 4% Green Cargo AB Sweden 60% 4% JSC „LITHUANIAN RAILWAYS“ Freight Lithuania 100% 3% transportation directorate SIA “LDZ Cargo” Latvia 77% 3% Trenitalia Italy 67% 3% Czech Railways Cargo Czech Republic 84% 3% VR Ltd. Finland 100% 2% DB Schencker United kingdom 48% 2% Železničná spoločnosť Slovakia 93% 2% Cargo Slovakia, a.s. RENFE OPERADORA Spain 80% 2% Freightliner United kingdom 38% 2% NMBS Logistics Belgium 89% 2% Rail Cargo Hungaria Zrt. Hungary 74% 2% SNTFM CFR Marfă SA Romania 45% 1% (public - owned) Grup Feroviar Român Romania 33% 1% (private – owned) EVR Cargo Ltd Estonia 59% 1% DB Schenker Rail Netherlands 63% 1%

11 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/market/market_monitoring_en.htm

PROGTRANS EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF NOISE GENERATED BY RAIL FREGHT WAGONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 133

Railway undertaking Country Share of Share of the domestic EU28 market market

Nederland B.V. LKAB Malmtrafik AB Sweden 15% 1% CTL Group Poland 7% 1%