DOCSLIB.ORG

Railway Signalling and Cyber Security

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Railway Signalling and Cyber Security Railway Signalling and Cyber Security Defining guidelines to manage interactions between signalling engineers and security engineers Author: John Boss (s2210428) Date: 20 January 2020 Supervisor: Dr. ir. Jan van der Lubbe, Technical University Delft Second reader: Dr. ir. Pieter Burghouwt, The Hague University of Applied Science A thesis for the completion of the executive master in Cybersecurity from the Cyber Security Academy (A programme by Leiden University, Delft University of Technology and The Hague University of Applied Sciences) This is the public release version, and may be distributed freely John Boss – Railway Signalling and Cyber Security SUMMARY Railway signalling systems were traditionally closed systems using proprietary equipment. Current developments are increasingly using digital networks, open standard protocols (e.g. IP) and more COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf) equipment. Signalling engineers have the challenge to address cyber risks in the signalling system but have limited tools and guidance to do so. The challenge in not just limited to cyber security risks and controls wholly within the signalling system. It is also a “two way street”. Whilst the signalling industry is asking “what is the impact of cyber security on signalling?”, railway companies are asking “What is the impact of signalling on cyber security of the business?”. Railway companies and ministries of transport are seeing the increasing digitalisation with little indication as to how it fits within their cyber security strategies. Cyber security and railway signalling are two different worlds. There are experts in the field of cyber security, and there are experts in the field of signalling. The problem that this paper addresses is the lack of guidelines on how to manage the interaction between these experts to achieve comprehensive cyber security solutions for both the signalling system, as well as the (non-signalling) business systems that have their risk surface impacted by the signalling system. This paper looks at two such experts, a signalling engineer and a security engineer. The one has deep knowledge of signalling systems and limited understanding of cyber security. The other has a deep understanding of cyber security and little to no knowledge of signalling systems. These two individuals need to interact to meet the cyber security challenges described above. The question that this paper attempts to answer is “What are the guidelines for managing interaction between signalling engineers and security engineers?”. The approach looks at the differences between the signalling engineer and the security engineer as well as the environment in which signalling systems are delivered and operate. These are examined to identify the implications they may have for the guidelines. A risk assessment is presented to highlight the types of cyber security risks that need to be addressed, and identify implications for the guidelines. A set of 14 guidelines are then presented that draw on the insights gained. The approach of looking into the different worlds was taken so that the signalling engineer could understand more about security, and the security engineer could understand more about signalling, so much so that the guidelines would appear to be statements of the obvious. It also resulted in a lot of material that needed to be pulled together in a coherent storyline. The following 5 pages contains an overview of the paper. It presents the 14 guidelines against the associated sub questions which they answer and the underlying rationale upon which the guidelines are based. References are included to allow the reader to bounce around the paper to sections that are of interest. Reading from end to end is also an option. Finally, a word of thanks to all the people from railway companies, IMs, ministries, suppliers, the industry and academia who assisted in this research. They gave their time, discussed points of view, provided insights, opened up their secrets, gave access to test labs, reviewed drafts, provided critical challenge and much more. Their assistance was extremely valuable and greatly appreciated. Cover photo: with permission from Banedanmerk A driver console with the ERTMS on board signalling display (blue screen in centre of console). The display brings signalling into the cab, allowing the driver to interact with the signalling system and providing various information to the driver including train speed and movement authority. Page 2 of 100 John Boss – Railway Signalling and Cyber Security The following table provides an overview of the relationship between the research questions, the resulting guidelines and the underlying rationale. The relevant section in this paper where additional detail may be found is shown in parenthesis. The reader should be aware of the definitions in section 1.4 and 1.5. Sub question Underlying rationale Guidelines 1) What is the A comprehensive set of cyber security measures for a signalling system cannot be 1) Cyber security should be directed at system to protect? determined with reference to the signalling system alone. It requires definition of a protecting the business systems. The system SuC that captures all business systems. {2.1.3}. to protect should be the business systems. The environment in which signalling systems are delivered and operate support the To comprehensively address cyber security in focus on business systems: the signalling system, it is first necessary to - Interoperability directive recognises that all operational systems are needed to establish cyber security management across work together to deliver the business {3.1.1}. the business, and then make signalling a part - NIS directive is applicable at the level of “network and information systems of it. {5.1.1}. used in operations” {3.1.3}. - Dutch Railway act refers to whole of infrastructure {3.1.4}. - GDPR does not limit source of attack, only the result thereof {3.1.5}. - NIST SP800-82 addresses cyber security across the business {3.4.1}. - ISO 27001 has an explicit requirement to address the business purpose {3.4.2}. - Standards transcend disciplines to approach cyber security as a pan system problem {3.4.9}. - The railway systems landscape is complex and highly interconnected, single system events cannot be viewed in isolation of the business delivery {3.5.3}. - Government policy requires compliance of the whole railway, not just one subsystem {3.2.1}. The risk assessment shows that there are a number of cyber security risks for the signalling system (as well as cyber security risks for business systems that originate from within the signalling system) that cannot be effectively addressed within the signalling system alone {4.3}. Page 3 of 100 John Boss – Railway Signalling and Cyber Security Sub question Underlying rationale Guidelines 2) Where do - Cyber security needs to be addressed at the business level. The system viewed 2) One person should be responsible for cyber responsibilities by the signalling engineer is not broad enough to address cyber security of the security across the entire business (the CISO). lay? business {2.1.3}. This cannot be the signalling engineer {5.2.1}. - Signalling is limited to “security for safety” (SIL and SL are not the same). Responsibility for the security cannot lay with the signalling engineer {2.2.3}. - Risks need to be calibrated across the business {4.3.1} - The signalling engineer is the system owner of the signalling system, and is 3) The signalling system must remain the responsible for its safe operational performance {2.2}. responsibility of the signalling engineer - EN 51029 requires that the signalling engineer take account of safety related IT {5.2.2}. security threats in the signalling safety case (“security for safety”) {3.4.6}. - The signalling engineer is an expert advisor to the security engineer 4) The interaction between signalling and (identification of vulnerabilities, security architectures etc) within the signalling security disciplines should be based on system {2.2.5}. cooperation but with clearly defined limits of - The signalling engineer is client of the security engineer. The security engineer responsibility. The signalling engineer has proposes cyber security solutions. The signalling engineer may accept or reject three roles: the proposed solution in the signalling system (as system owner) , but then - Client; must also accept the associated cyber risk should the solution be rejected. Risk - Advisor; and associated with that decision should be transparent for the organisation and - System owner. referred to the CISO {2.2.5}. - Balancing the risk of unpatched systems against cost of patching is a Refer Table 6: Responsibilities in regard to management responsibility. Engineering makes the risk and cost transparent to cyber security and signalling. {5.2.3}. facilitate the decision {2.3.4}. - The development lifecycle of a signalling system will need interaction with security engineers to identify system requirements {3.4.5}. - pr TS 50701 is a standard (in development) that maps deliverables between signalling and security system development lifecycles in respect to security for safety {3.4.7}. Page 4 of 100 John Boss – Railway Signalling and Cyber Security Sub question Underlying rationale Guidelines 3) What Safety management remains the responsibility of the signalling engineer {2.2.5}. 5) A risk based cyber security management management The environment in which signalling systems are delivered and work also require system should be implemented. system is security risk management: required, and - NIS directive requires operators to take “appropriate and proportional” The CSMS is the responsibility of the CISO. by whom is it measures to manage risk {3.1.3}. managed? - EIM promotes the use of risk management in cyber security {3.3.1}. This includes production and maintenance of a - NIST Framework recommends the use of a risk based management system consolidated risk register across the whole {3.4.1}. business. - ISO 27001 defines requirements for ongoing risk assessment in information security management systems. ISO 27005 defines requirements for IT risk The Safety Management System remains management system {3.4.2}.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Signalling on the High-Speed Railway Amsterdam–Antwerp
    Computers in Railways XI 243 Towards interoperability on Northwest European railway corridors: signalling on the high-speed railway Amsterdam–Antwerp J. H. Baggen, J. M. Vleugel & J. A. A. M. Stoop Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Abstract The high-speed railway Amsterdam (The Netherlands)–Antwerp (Belgium) is nearly completed. As part of a TEN-T priority project it will connect to major metropolitan areas in Northwest Europe. In many (European) countries, high-speed railways have been built. So, at first sight, the development of this particular high-speed railway should be relatively straightforward. But the situation seems to be more complicated. To run international services full interoperability is required. However, there turned out to be compatibility problems that are mainly caused by the way decision making has taken place, in particular with respect to the choice and implementation of ERTMS, the new European railway signalling system. In this paper major technical and institutional choices, as well as the choice of system borders that have all been made by decision makers involved in the development of the high-speed railway Amsterdam–Antwerp, will be analyzed. This will make it possible to draw some lessons that might be used for future railway projects in Europe and other parts of the world. Keywords: high-speed railway, interoperability, signalling, metropolitan areas. 1 Introduction Two major new railway projects were initiated in the past decade in The Netherlands, the Betuweroute dedicated freight railway between Rotterdam seaport and the Dutch-German border and the high-speed railway between Amsterdam Airport Schiphol and the Dutch-Belgian border to Antwerp (Belgium).
    [Show full text]
  • Twinning Conference Presentation – 12Th December 2017
    Welcome to the conference Network rail 10-Apr-18 Safety Culture Twinning conference 1 Agenda 10:00 - 10:15 The value of twinning (Keir Fitch, European Commission) 10:15 – 10:30 Welcome (Lisbeth Fromling, Network Rail) 10:30 – 11:30 Group 1 presentation (Network Rail, CFR, Infrabel and HZ) 11:30 – 11:50 Break 11:50 – 12:40 Group 2 presentation (ProRail, Irish Rail and OBB) 12:40 – 13:15 Lunch 13:15 – 14:05 Group 3 presentation (Trafikverket, Adif and PLK) 14:05 – 14:35 Group 4 presentation (RFI and SNCF Reseau) 14:35 – 14:55 Learning activity based on safety culture evaluation 14:55 – 15:15 Opportunity for questions 15:15 – 15:30 Summary of event and closure 10-Apr-18 Safety Culture Twinning conference 2 Welcome from Keir Fitch Head of Unit C4 "Rail Safety & Interoperability”, European Commission 10-Apr-18 Safety Culture Twinning conference 3 Welcome from Lisbeth Fromling Chief Health, Safety, Quality and Environment Officer, Network Rail 10-Apr-18 Safety Culture Twinning conference 4 10-Apr-18 Safety Culture Twinning Programme Welcome to the final conference • Thank you for joining us • Today is a good day! • Purely pro-active project • All information is good • Lots to share PRIME Safety Culture Sub-Group / 5 10-Apr-18 Safety Culture Twinning Programme Co-ordinator Participant PRIME Safety Culture Sub-Group / 6 10-Apr-18 Safety Culture collaboration PRIME Safety Culture Sub-Group / 7 Group 1 Presentations Network Rail, CFR, Infrabel and HZ 10-Apr-18 Safety Culture Twinning conference 8 Group 1 Presentations Network Rail 10-Apr-18 Safety
    [Show full text]
  • Progress in Rail Reform Inquiry Report
    Progress in Rail Reform Inquiry Report Report No. 6 5 August 1999 Commonwealth of Australia 1999 ISBN 0 646 33597 9 This work is subject to copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, the work may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source. Reproduction for commercial use or sale requires prior written permission from AusInfo. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Legislative Services, AusInfo, GPO Box 1920, Canberra, ACT, 2601. Publications Inquiries: Media and Publications Productivity Commission Locked Bag 2 Collins Street East Melbourne VIC 8003 Tel: (03) 9653 2244 Fax: (03) 9653 2303 Email: [email protected] General Inquiries: Tel: (03) 9653 2100 or (02) 6240 3200 An appropriate citation for this paper is: Productivity Commission 1999, Progress in Rail Reform, Inquiry report no. 6, AusInfo, Canberra. The Productivity Commission The Productivity Commission, an independent Commonwealth agency, is the Government’s principal review and advisory body on microeconomic policy and regulation. It conducts public inquiries and research into a broad range of economic and social issues affecting the welfare of Australians. The Commission’s independence is underpinned by an Act of Parliament. Its processes and outputs are open to public scrutiny and are driven by concern for the wellbeing of the community as a whole. Information on the Productivity Commission, its publications and its current work program can be found on the World Wide Web at www.pc.gov.au or by contacting Media and Publications on (03) 9653 2244.
    [Show full text]
  • TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Formats
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ADA Notice For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternate TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE formats. For alternate format information, contact the Forms Management Unit TR0003 (REV 10/98) at (916) 445-1233, TTY 711, or write to Records and Forms Management, 1120 N Street, MS-89, Sacramento, CA 95814. 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER CA-17-2969 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE A Comparative Analysis of High Speed Rail Station Development into Destination and/or Multi-use Facilities: The Case of San Jose Diridon February 2017 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris Ph.D. / Deike Peters, Ph.D. MTI Report 12-75 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NUMBER Mineta Transportation Institute College of Business 3762 San José State University 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER San José, CA 95192-0219 65A0499 12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED California Department of Transportation Final Report Division of Research, Innovation and Systems Information MS-42, PO Box 942873 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 16. ABSTRACT As a burgeoning literature on high-speed rail development indicates, good station-area planning is a very important prerequisite for the eventual successful operation of a high-speed rail station; it can also trigger opportunities for economic development in the station area and the station-city. At the same time, “on the ground” experiences from international examples of high-speed rail stations can provide valuable lessons for the California high-speed rail system in general, and the San Jose Diridon station in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 2016 Annual Report
    Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 2016 Annual Report Genesee & Wyoming Inc.*owns or leases 122 freight railroads worldwide that are organized into 10 operating regions with approximately 7,300 employees and 3,000 customers. * The terms “Genesee & Wyoming,” “G&W,” “the company,” “we,” “our,” and “us” refer collectively to Genesee & Wyoming Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliated companies. Financial Highlights Years Ended December 31 (In thousands, except per share amounts) 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Statement of Operations Data Operating revenues $874,916 $1,568,643 $1,639,012 $2,000,401 $2,001,527 Operating income 190,322 380,188 421,571 384,261 289,612 Net income 52,433 271,296 261,006 225,037 141,096 Net income attributable to Genesee & Wyoming Inc. 48,058 269,157 260,755 225,037 141,137 Diluted earnings per common share attributable to Genesee & Wyoming Inc. common stockholders: Diluted earnings per common share (EPS) $1.02 $4.79 $4.58 $3.89 $2.42 Weighted average shares - Diluted 51,316 56,679 56,972 57,848 58,256 Balance Sheet Data as of Period End Total assets $5,226,115 $5,319,821 $5,595,753 $6,703,082 $7,634,958 Total debt 1,858,135 1,624,712 1,615,449 2,281,751 2,359,453 Total equity 1,500,462 2,149,070 2,357,980 2,519,461 3,187,121 Operating Revenues Operating Income Net Income Diluted Earnings ($ In Millions) ($ In Millions) ($ In Millions) 421.61,2 Per Common Share 2 2,001.5 401.6 1 $2,000 2,000.4 $400 394.12 $275 271.3 $5.00 1 2 4.79 1 374.3 1 380.21 384.3 261.0 4.581 1,800 250 4.50 350 1,639.0 225.01 225 2 1 1,600 233.5 4.00 2 3.89 1,568.6 4.10 2 300 2 200 213.9 213.3 2 3.78 2 1,400 1 3.50 3.69 289.6 183.32 3.142 250 175 1,200 3.00 211.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Priority Rules in Operation
    RNE_OverviewOfthePriorityRulesInOperation_v10 Overview of priority rules in operation Delivered by RNE Operation & After- sales WG – March 19th 2012 Approved by RNE General Assembly – May 9th 2012 Updated 04th December 2020 RailNetEurope Oelzeltgasse 3/8 AT-1030 Vienna Phone: +43 1 907 62 72 00 Fax: +43 1 907 62 72 90 [email protected] www.rne.eu RNE_OverviewOfthePriorityRulesInOperation_v10 Content 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Aim and content of the Overview ....................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Updates and new features ................................................................................................................. 5 2 Overview of the priority rules in operation ................................................................................................. 6 2.1 General considerations ...................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 IM/Network Dossiers - Content ........................................................................................................ 10 2.3 Single IM/Network Dossier .............................................................................................................. 10 2.3.1 ADIF ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DB Netz AG Network Statement 2016 Valid from 14 April 2015 DB Netz
    DB Netz AG Network Statement 2016 valid from 14 April 2015 DB Netz AG Headquarters I.NMN Version control Date Modification 12.12.2014 Amendment of Network Statement 2015 as at 12 December 2014 (Publication of the Network Statement 2016) Inclusion of detailed information in sections 1.9 ff and 4.2.5 ff due to 14.10.2015 commissioning of rail freight corridors Sandinavian-Mediterranean and North Sea-Balitc. Addition of connection to Port of Hamburg (Hohe Schaar) in section 13.12.2015 3.3.2.5 Printed by DB Netz AG Editors Principles of Network Access/Regulation (I.NMN) Theodor-Heuss-Allee 7 60486 Frankfurt am Main Picture credits Front page photo: Bildschön, Silvia Bunke Copyright: Deutsche Bahn AG Contents Version control 3 List of Annexes 7 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 9 1.1 Introduction 9 1.2 Purpose 9 1.3 Legal basis 9 1.4 Legal framework of the Network Statement 9 1.5 Structure of the Network Statement 10 1.6 Term of and amendments to the Network Statement 10 1.7 Publication and opportunity to respond 11 1.8 Contacts at DB Netz AG 11 1.9 Rail freight corridors 12 1.10 RNE and international cooperation between DB Netz AG and other RIUs 14 1.11 List of abbreviations 15 2 CONDITIONS OF ACCESS 16 2.1 Introduction 16 2.2 General conditions of access to the railway infrastructure 16 2.3 Types of agreement 17 2.4 Regulations and additional provisions 17 2.5 Special consignments 19 2.6 Transportation of hazardous goods 19 2.7 Requirements for the rolling stock 19 2.8 Requirements for the staff of the AP or the involved RU 20 2.9 Special conditions
    [Show full text]
  • The Rail Freight Challenge for Emerging Economies How to Regain Modal Share
    The Rail Freight Challenge for Emerging Economies How to Regain Modal Share Bernard Aritua INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN FOCUS INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN FOCUS The Rail Freight Challenge for Emerging Economies How to Regain Modal Share Bernard Aritua © 2019 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org Some rights reserved 1 2 3 4 22 21 20 19 Books in this series are published to communicate the results of Bank research, analysis, and operational experience with the least possible delay. The extent of language editing varies from book to book. This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpre- tations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo.
    [Show full text]
  • Eighth Annual Market Monitoring Working Document March 2020
    Eighth Annual Market Monitoring Working Document March 2020 List of contents List of country abbreviations and regulatory bodies .................................................. 6 List of figures ............................................................................................................ 7 1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 9 2. Network characteristics of the railway market ........................................ 11 2.1. Total route length ..................................................................................................... 12 2.2. Electrified route length ............................................................................................. 12 2.3. High-speed route length ........................................................................................... 13 2.4. Main infrastructure manager’s share of route length .............................................. 14 2.5. Network usage intensity ........................................................................................... 15 3. Track access charges paid by railway undertakings for the Minimum Access Package .................................................................................................. 17 4. Railway undertakings and global rail traffic ............................................. 23 4.1. Railway undertakings ................................................................................................ 24 4.2. Total rail traffic .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 284248 Carl-William Palmqvist
    Delays and Timetabling for Passenger Trains CARL-WILLIAM PALMQVIST FACULTY OF ENGINEERING | LUND UNIVERSITY 2019 317 Travel by train has increased steadily for the last 30 years. In order to build trust in and shift even more traffic to railways, more trains must arrive on time. In practice, many train delays are caused by small disturbances at stations, which add up. One issue is that the scheduled dwell times are simply too short. Another is that punctuality falls quickly if it is either warm or cold. A third is that interactions between trains rarely go as planned. One suggestion for how to reduce delays is to paint markings that show where passengers should wait. Another is to remove switches, so that remaining ones can be better maintained. A third is to make railways more resilient to the weather variations of today, and to the climate changes of tomorrow. Cost-effective improvements can also be made with timetables. More of the planning can be automated, so that planners can focus more on setting appropriate dwell times and on improving the timetabling guidelines. This way, many more trains can be on time. Lund University Faculty of Engineering Department of Technology and Society Bulletin 317 953103 ISBN 978-91-7895-310-3 ISSN 1653-1930 789178 CODEN: LUTVDG/(TVTT-1059)1-105 9 317 Delays and Timetabling for Passenger Trains Delays and Timetabling for Passenger Trains Carl-William Palmqvist DOCTORAL DISSERTATION by due permission of the Faculty of Engineering, Lund University, Sweden. To be defended at V:C, V-House. John Ericssons väg 1, Lund.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary Record Host: Prorail Venue: Railcenter, Soesterweg 244, 3812, Amersfoort – Netherlands
    Platform of Rail Infrastructure Managers in Europe 12th Plenary Meeting, 15 June 2018, 09:00 – 13:00 Summary Record Host: ProRail Venue: Railcenter, Soesterweg 244, 3812, Amersfoort – Netherlands 1. Welcome Alain Quinet (SNCF Réseau) and Matthew Baldwin (DG MOVE), PRIME co-chairs, welcomed the participants and in particular the six new members - MAV from Hungary - Sprava Zeleznicni Dopravní Cesty (SZDC) from Czech Republic - Zeleznice Slovenskej republiky (ZSR) from Slovakia - Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois (CFL) from Luxemburg - Latvijas Dzelzceļš from Latvia (excused) - Hellenic Railways Organisation (OSE) from Greece (excused) By mid-June 2018 only the main infrastructure managers from Croatia and Slovenia had not yet joined PRIME. 2. Adoption of agenda The agenda was adopted without comments. 3. Approval of the summary of the 11th meeting The summary of the 11th meeting was approved with the minor comments previously received from ProRail. 4. Strategic discussions I: Infrastructure financing Next MFF and traditional infrastructure financing Financing the last mile infrastructure and connections with other modes AQ moderated the panel discussion which included Olivier Silla (DG MOVE, PRIME financing subgroup co-chair), Carles Rua (Port of Barcelona), Luigi Contestabile (RFI), Paul Mazataud (SNCF Réseau, PRIME financing subgroup co-chair) and Vytautas Radzevičius (Lithuanian Railways). 1/ EC Financial tools for railways The first issue discussed was: in addition to the CEF, what are the different instruments that the European Commission can use to support the railway sector? Olivier Silla presented the proposal for the next CEF programme (2021-2027) which in the current political context comes with new priorities, such as security and defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Victrack Access Arrangement May 2012
    Level 2, 35 Spring St Melbourne 3000, Australia Telephone +61 3 9651 0222 +61 1300 664 969 Facsimile +61 3 9651 3688 VICTRACK ACCESS ARRANGEMENT DRAFT DECISION MAY 2012 An appropriate citation for this paper is: Essential Services Commission, VicTrack Access Arrangement, Draft Decision, May 2012. © Essential Services Commission. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 and the permission of the Essential Services Commission. CHAIRPERSON’S INTRODUCTION The Rail Management Act 1996 (RMA) sets out a rail access regime that applies to providers of declared rail infrastructure. The RMA prescribes that the Commission is responsible for administering the rail access regime. VicTrack is the operator and access provider for declared rail track and sidings predominantly within the Dynon precinct. Under the RMA, VicTrack must at all times have an approved access arrangement in place. Access arrangements encourage competition and efficiency in the rail freight industry by allowing access seekers (i.e. freight operators) to negotiate access to certain declared infrastructure provided by access providers (i.e. VicTrack) in order to enable them to compete in markets where competition is dependent on such access. The access arrangement is mainly used by freight operators to access VicTrack’s declared rail tracks and sidings within three designated precincts so that freight operators can store their wagons, repair their locomotives and load and unload freight on and from trains. On 5 March 2012, the Commission received an application from VicTrack to renew its access arrangement. On 9 March 2012, the Commission published a notice regarding VicTrack’s application and undertook a stakeholder consultation process whereby key stakeholders and the public were invited to make a submission regarding the application.
    [Show full text]