Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways

Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways (722-TES-CA-3098) Patricia Chica Herranz Andrés López Pita y Diego Fernández Belmonte Infraestructura del Transport i el Territori Transports Julio 2007 I Acknowledgments I would like to grateful to Dr. Professor Andrés López Pita and Dr. Paulo Fonseca Teixeira for providing me the opportunity of realizing this dissertation in CENIT. Specially, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Diego Fernández Belmonte, whose expertise, understanding and patience has been essential to the development of this dissertation. Thanks are also due to all my friends and, specially, to all my colleagues in CENIT who contributed to a great working environment with their constant help and support, both on a professional and a personal level. I would like to thank my family for the support they have provided me and in particular, my grandmother Maria, my parents – Francisco and Maite – and my sister Ariana for their constant help, unconditional support and encouragement during all these years, helping me achieve what I wanted to, as well as for their wise advices during the realization of this dissertation. Finally, I am extremely grateful to Adrián and Rocío, without whose encouragement, help and ideas I would have not been able to finish this dissertation in time. Thanks all of you. II Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways III Abstract Tittle: Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways Author: Patricia Chica Herranz Supervisor: Professor Andrés López Pita and Diego Fernández Belmonte The railway transport appeared in the first half of the nineteenth century, with the Industrial Revolution, and rose to be the primary mode of transport, stimulating the economy of most European countries. During the first half of the twentieth century, the railways were the monopolist terrestrial transport mode. From the end of the Second World War on, the role played by rail in transport market has been in constant decline. Given the situation of the rail in the transport market, the European Commission has engaged in a long process of revitalising the railways. It was stated that in order to ensure efficient use of, and non discriminatory access to, the rail infrastructure, it was necessary to establish an appropriate set of charges for infrastructure use. The railway restructuring began in the early nineties with the publishment of Council Directive 91/440 on the development of the Community’s railways and it followed a slow evolution until the publishment of the First Railway Package of Directives. One of the Directives composing this Railway Package was Directive 2001/14/EC, focused on the allocation of capacity and development of access charges for infrastructure. This Directive established the legislative framework for the railway infrastructure charging and, in consequence, the European countries have been implementing its conditions into national law during the last five years. The form in which the implementation of the European Norms has been addressed, widely varies among the European countries. European Governments have been (and still are) implementing the EU Directives depending on their point of view over the failures and successes of the current railways organisation. This dissertation is aimed at describing the current charging schemes applied in the European countries and assessing them from a qualitative point of view, while evaluating the degree of fulfillment of Directive 2001/14/EC as well as realizing a SWOT analysis. Then, in this dissertation is given a general overview of the evolution of the railways and of the European Union policy on the rail transport mode. Afterwards, a selection of relevant countries is made in order to be able to describe, in a synthetic way, the charging schemes that they are currently applying. The main issue treated in this dissertion is the assessment of the national charging scheme. This assessment has carried at two levels: assessment according to legislative framework and assessment according to economic principles. Previously to the assessment, it has been defined the methodology of assessment for each level. On the one hand, the methodology for the assessment according to legislative framework consists on selecting the main objectives and conditions established by Directive 2001/14/EC and on defining how these issues have been interpreted. On the other hand, the methodology for the assessment according to economic principles has been intentionally open and flexible in order to smooth the process of identification of issues that could go beyond the legal framework but which, at the same time, could be considered as strengths or weaknesses of the concerning charging scheme. The assessment according to legislative framework consists on determining the degree of fulfillment of the main objectives and conditions selected by the national charging schemes. The assessment according to economic principles consists on a SWOT analysis, which is focused on determining the internal (Strengths and Weaknesses) and external (Opportunities and Threats) issues that distinguish each charging practice. After these two levels of assessment, it can be considered that the national charging schemes selected are totally characterized. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways IV Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways V Resumen Título: 5 años de tarifas por uso de infraestructura ferroviaria en Europa: estado del arte y oportunidades para la revitalización del ferrocarril Autor: Patricia Chica Herranz Tutor: Profesor Andrés López Pita y Diego Fernández Belmonte El transporte ferroviario apareció en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, con la Revolución Industrial, y se convirtió en el principal modo de transporte, potenciando la economía de muchos países Europeos. Durante la primera mitad del siglo XX, el ferrocarril fue el modo de transporte terrestre monopolista. Desde el final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial en adelante, el papel del ferrocarril en el mercado del transporte ha estado en constante declive. Dada la situación del ferrocarril en el mercado del transporte, la Comisión Europea ha emprendido un largo proceso de revitalización del modo ferroviario. Se declaró que para garantizar un uso eficiente de, y un accesso no discriminatorio a, la infraestructura ferroviaria era necesario establecer un conjunto apropiado de tarifas por el uso de la infraestructura. La restructuración del ferrocarril empezó a principios de los noventa con la publicación de la Directiva 91/440 del Consejo sobre el desarrollo de los ferrocarriles comunitarios y continuó con una lenta evolución hasta la publicación del Primer Paquete Ferroviario de Directivas. Una de las Directivas que componían este Paquete Ferroviario fue la Directiva 2001/14/EC, enfocada en la adjudicación de capacidad y en la aplicación de cánones por el uso de la infraestructura ferroviaria. Esta Directiva establece el marco legislativo para la tarificación del ferrocarril y, en consecuencia, los países Europeos han estado implementando sus requerimientos en la legislación nacional durante los últimos cinco años. La forma en que la Normativa Europea se ha implementado, varía ampliamente entre los países Europeos. Los gobiernos Europeos han estado (y aún están) implementando las Directivas de la Unión Europea en función de su particular punto de vista sobre los fracasos y éxitos de la actual organización de sus ferrocarriles. Esta tesina tiene como objetivo la descripción de los diferentes sistemas tarifarios actualmente vigentes en los países Europeos y su evaluación cualitativa, considerando el grado de cumplimiento de la Directiva 2001/14/EC y realizando un análisis DAFO. Como punto de partida, en esta tesina se da una descripción general de la evolución del ferrocarril y de la política de la Unión Europea sobre el modo ferroviario. A continuación, se realiza una selección de países significativos para poder describir, sintéticamente, los esquemas tarifarios que actualmente están aplicando. La cuestión principal de esta tesina reside en la evaluación de los diferentes esquemas tarifarios. Esta evaluación se ha realizado a dos niveles: evaluación de acuerdo con el marco legislativo y evaluación de acuerdo con los pricipios económicos. Antes de la evaluación, se ha definido la metodología de evaluación para cada nivel. Por una parte, la metodología para la evaluación de acuerdo con el marco legislativo consiste en realizar una selección de objetivos y condiciones principales establecidos por la Directiva 2001/14/EC y en definir cómo han sido interpretados estos aspectos. Por otra parte, la metodología para la evaluación de acuerdo con los principios económicos se ha dejado abierta y flexible intencionadamente para facilitar el proceso de identificación de cuestiones que pueden incumplir el marco legal pero que, a la vez, se puedan considerar como fortalezas o debilidades del correspondiente esquema tarifario. La evaluación de acuerdo con el marco legislativo consiste en determinar el grado de cumplimiento de los objetivos y condiciones principales por los esquemas tarifarios nacionales. La evaluación de acuerdo con los principios económicos consiste en un análisis DAFO, que se basa en determinar las cuestiones internas (Debilidades y Fortalezas) y externas (Amenazas y Oportunidades) que distinguen cada práctica de tarificación. Después de estos dos niveles de evaluación, se puede considerar que los esquemas tarifarios nacionales de los países significativos están totalmente caracterizados. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways VI Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways VII Contents Acknowledgments____________________________________________i Abstract __________________________________________________ iii Resumen __________________________________________________ v Contents__________________________________________________ vii List of tables________________________________________________ix List of figures_______________________________________________xi List of abbreviations _______________________________________ xiii 1. Introduction_____________________________________________ 1 2. General Framework_______________________________________ 3 2.1. Introduction ________________________________________________3 2.2. Background_________________________________________________3 2.3. Objectives of the railway reform ________________________________5 2.4. Development of the Community’s Norms ________________________5 2.5. Implications of the Community’s Norms _________________________8 3. Description of national charging schemes ____________________11 3.1. Introduction _______________________________________________ 11 3.2. Definition of charging parameters______________________________ 11 3.2.1. Pricing principles_______________________________________________11 3.2.2. Types of tariffs ________________________________________________13 3.2.3. Charging components ___________________________________________14 3.3. Determination of significant countries __________________________16 3.4. Charging schemes’ description per countries_____________________18 3.4.1. Austria (AT) – ÖBB-Infrastruktur Betrieb AG ________________________19 3.4.2. Germany (DE) – Deutsche Bahn Netz AG (DB Netz) __________________22 3.4.3. Estonia (EE) – AS Eesti Raudte (EVR)______________________________27 3.4.4. Greece (EL) – Ethnikos Diacheiristis Sidirodromikis Ypodomis (EDISY) ___31 3.4.5. Spain (ES) – Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) _______34 3.4.6. France (FR) – Réseau Ferré de France (RFF) _________________________39 3.4.7. Italy (IT) – Rete Ferroviaria Italiana (RFI)____________________________43 3.4.8. Netherlands (NL) – ProRail ______________________________________48 3.4.9. Poland (PL) – Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. (PLK)______________________50 3.4.10. Portugal (PT) – Rede Ferroviaria Nacional (REFER)_________________54 3.4.11. Sweden (SE) – Banverket (BV) _________________________________57 3.4.12. United Kingdom (UK) – Network Rail ___________________________60 3.5. Summary of charging practices ________________________________66 4. Assessment methodology _________________________________ 73 4.1. Introduction _______________________________________________73 4.2. Assessment criteria according to legislative framework ____________73 Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways XIV Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 1 1. Introduction The railway transport appeared in the first half of the nineteenth century, with the Industrial Revolution, and rose to be the primary mode of transport, stimulating the economy of most European countries. During the first half of the twentieth century, the railways were the monopolist terrestrial transport mode. From the end of the Second World War on, the role played by rail in transport market has been in constant decline. Given the situation of the rail in the transport market, the European Commission has engaged in a long process of revitalising the railways. It was stated that in order to ensure efficient use of and non discriminatory access to the rail infrastructure, it was necessary to establish an appropriate set of charges for infrastructure use. The railway restructuring began in the early nineties with the publishment of Council Directive 91/440 and it followed a slow evolution until the publishment of the First Railway Package of Directives. One of the Directives composing this First Railway Package was Directive 2001/14/EC, focused on the allocation of capacity and development of access charges for infrastructure. This Directive established the legislative framework for the railway infrastructure charging and, in consequence, the European countries have been implementing its conditions into national law during the last five years. The form in which the implementation of the European Norms has been addressed widely varies among the European countries. European Governments have been (and still are) implementing the EU Directives depending on their point of view over the failures and successes of the current railways organisation. Therefore, there are countries that follow the conditions established by the directives but not the objectives of the Community’s policy. This dissertation is aimed at describing the current charging schemes applied in the European countries and assessing them from a qualitative point of view, while evaluating the degree of fulfillment of Directive 2001/14/EC. In order to achieve this objective, this dissertation has been structured in the following chapters: • General framework • Description of national charging schemes • Assessment methodology • National charging schemes’ assessment • Conclusions The first chapter, General Framework, seeks to show a general overview of the evolution of the railways and of the European Union policy on the rail transport mode. Then, it is described the development of the Community’s Norms since the beginning of the nineties. In the following chapter, Description of national charging schemes, the basis for charging are established while defining the main economic principles. Afterwards, it has been Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 2 necessary to choose a set of relevant countries which supposed a totally representative sample and their charging schemes have been described in a synthetic way. The third chapter, Assessment methodology, is aimed at defining the methodology for the assessment of the current charging practices. Given that the assessment has carried at two levels, the methodology has been defined for each level. On the one hand, the methodology for the assessment according to legislative framework consists on selecting the main objectives and conditions established by Directive 2001/14/EC and on defining how these issues have been interpreted. On the other hand, the methodology for the assessment according to economic principles has been intentionally open and flexible in order to smooth the process of identification of issues that could go beyond the legal framework but which, at the same time, could be considered as strengths or weaknesses of the concerning charging scheme. The following chapter, National charging schemes’ assessment, is carried at the two mentioned levels. The assessment according to legislative framework consists on determining the degree of fulfillment of the main objectives and conditions selected by the national charging schemes. The assessment according to economic principles consists on a SWOT analysis, which is focused on determining the internal (Strengths and Weaknesses) and external (Opportunities and Threats) issues that distinguish each charging practice. The final chapter, Conclusions, consists on describing the findings attained after the assessment of the actual national charging schemes. These findings are oriented on analysing the role of the railway infrastructure charging in the European rail reform, considering the degree of coherence of the charging schemes assessed and referring to the possible evolution of the current situation and the national charging schemes that could be taken as a reference. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 3 2. General Framework 2.1. Introduction This chapter seeks to establish the general framework where the rail sector is currently situated, so as to be able, in further chapters, to support and understand the different charging schemes adopted among the countries. Then, it is important to emphasize the main causes that have lead to the long process of the railway reform. Furthermore, the objectives of the EU policy on the revitalisation of the railways are summarized in order to understand the main concerns of the Community. Moreover, the development of the Community’s norms is described in a chronological order. This is helpful to understand the evolution experienced by these norms from the 1990’s to the present time and, in parallel, also to be aware of the evolution of the railways in the same years. Finally, a brief description of the implications of the Community’s norms is done in order to evidence the wide variety of charging schemes that appeared since its implementation. 2.2. Background As a starting point, is important to understand the motivations of the European Community’s railway reform. Over the years, rail has experienced an important loss of market shares relative to the road mode. This fact is due to external factors but especially is derived from the organisation of the rail sector in natural monopolies. (Transport & Mobility Leuven (2005)) Indeed, rail has characteristics which could make it an increasingly attractive form of transport in Europe: it is a reliable, safe, cheap and fast transport as well as an environmental friendly mode. However, there are some actions required to revitalise the rail sector so that it performs better and fully satisfies the society’s demands. The railways need to become more efficient, customer oriented and attractive to users but less expensive and requiring fewer subsidies. During the second half of the twentieth century, the railways have suffered a constant decline in its market share. There are several causes (White Paper, 1996): • Increase of other transport modes offering a more flexible and less expensive transport. • Decrease of production of traditional heavy industries whose products were transported by rail. • Road transport has become more efficient and cheaper. Although external costs in road are higher, they are not sufficiently reflected in the prices paid by users so road is favoured in the competition with other modes. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 4 • Given the national organisation of rail, the long distance freight transport has moved to road transport. The variety of physical characteristics (wide of gauge, signalling, electrification,…) of the national infrastructures leads important problems of interoperability. • Incorrect management of the railways, as traditionally States have denied railways enterprises to carry out a commercial business. Thus, the infrastructure investments have been usually inadequate and this has lead to infrastructure backwardness. • The low flexibility of the railway sector. This implies that in the rail sector, in order to adapt the infrastructure to market changes, a very high investment is needed. The decline of the railways over the last years is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. It is to notice the great growth of the road transport which is one of the main causes of the railways decline. Figure 1 – Passenger transport. Growth of traffic by mode of transport, EU-15: 1970-1999 Source: White Paper 2001 Figure 2 – Goods transport. Growth of traffic by mode of transport, EU-15: 1970-1999 Source: White Paper 2001 Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 5 The conclusion is that a new kind of railways is needed (White Paper, 1996). The main fact is that the railways should be a business carried out by railway enterprises sufficiently independent from the State and with enough resources to compete with other transport modes. Then, the different national systems should be integrated in order to reduce the barriers that make the railways less competitive. Finally, in order to meet these challenges the European Commission has carried out a long process of railway reform with the main objective of revitalising this sector. 2.3. Objectives of the railway reform The main objective of the transport European policy is the free circulation of passengers and goods, guaranteeing the security. In the nineteen’s, the European Commission perceived that the best way of revitalising the railways was to drive a sole market composed by a European rail network. Thus, it was necessary the correct integration of the different national systems and networks in order to develop a modern and efficient infrastructure. According to ECMT (2005a), the policies adopted by the European Union were based on a few main objectives that can be summarized as follows: • Increase of the economic efficiency of the transport sector, particularly of the railways. • Reflecting social costs of transport in the Government budgetary decisions, in the business decisions of the railway enterprises and in the charging schemes for the services provided. • Promotion of competition in the railway sector, opening access to railway infrastructure and privatizing the operation. • Clarifying government role on the support of railways and the promotion of competition. This leads to the separation of accounts related to operation and infrastructure management. • Increase of transparency of public contributions in order to prevent crosssubsidies. • Financial stability of the infrastructure provider. • The infrastructure management and the railways’ operation must be seen as a business. • Attraction of private investment in order to increase competition towards road. 2.4. Development of the Community’s Norms The process of introducing competition into the rail sector started in the 1990s. The first step consisted on the publishment of the Council Directive 91/440/CEE of 29th July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways. This directive established the basic framework for the separation of accounts between infrastructure management and Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 6 operation in order to obtain a clear transparency of the management. It required the infrastructure manager to charge a fee for access to infrastructure. However, it did not require the creation of separate institutions to carry out these two activities. The second step of the railway reform was the publishment of first White Paper, in 1992, on the future development of the common transport policy focusing on the opening of the rail market, the sustainable balance of the sector and the increase of mobility. In 1994, the European governments met in Essen in order to elaborate a list composed of the 30 priority transport projects (see Figure 3). Two years later, the European Parliament and Council adopted the Decision 1692/96/EC on the development of the Transeuropean Rail Network based on the 30 projects determined in Essen. This common Network was more precisely described in 1997 in the “Trans-European Rail Freight Freeways”. Figure 3 – Priority projects defined by the TEN-T Source: European Commission In 1995, the European Parliament and the Council authorized the entry of the private sector in the railways through Directive 95/18/EC. This Directive permitted the private finance of new infrastructures and the private operation of services. Moreover, it was published Directive 95/19/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure and the charging of infrastructure fees. This Directive introduced the concept of financial stability of the infrastructure manager and required governments to lay down rules for establishing fees for the use of the infrastructure, to publish the capacity allocation procedures and to appoint an independent body for appeals on capacity allocation decisions. One year later, in July 1996, was published another White Paper namely “A strategy for revitalising the Community’s railways” which proposed a series of measures related to pricing as well as to revitalising other modes of transport rather than road. Moreover, this White Paper provided measures to reduce the railway enterprises’ debt so in the future they can assume an independent finance management. Mainly, this White Paper argued for stronger actions to open up the railways to market forces. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 7 In 1998, was published the third White Paper “Fair Payment for Infrastructure Use: A phased approach to a common transport infrastructure charging framework in the EU”. This paper analysed the problems resulting from existing charging systems and proposed a Community approach to infrastructure charging. As well, it was proposed a step-by-step approach in order to implement this Community approach through three phases: in the first phase (1998-2000), should be established charging framework; in the second phase (2001-2004), the Commission and the Member States should begin to adapt the charging schemes in order to implement the framework; and in the third phase (beyond 2004), the transition would be completed. Since the experience of the Trans-European Rail Network, were stated the real differences between the Member states with respect to the infrastructure, the legislation, the customs and the exploitation of the European railway lines. Thus, in order to increase the railways’ competitivity it was concluded the necessity of reducing the institutional barriers of the frontier services, given that the road mode has open access. In consequence, the 15th March 2001, was published the First Railway Package consisting on four community directives aimed at the consolidation of Directives 91/440/CEE, 95/18/EC, 95/19/EC and 96/48/EC abovementioned. These directives were substituted by Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC, 2001/14/EC and 2001/16/EC, respectively (First Railway Package), which main objective was the improvement of the efficiency of the current legislation. Directive 2001/12/EC was aimed at determining some main aspects: increase the independence of the railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager from the budgetary accounting of the Government; required the separation of accounts between passenger services and freight in order to avoid cross-subsidies from a socially significant service to another service operated in competition with unsupported suppliers; defined the New Trans-European Rail Freight Network, on which railway freight undertakings were to be granted open access after March 2008. Directive 2001/13/EC was focused on the provision of operating licences valid across the European Union. Directive 2001/14/EC focused on the allocation of infrastructure capacity and development of access charges for infrastructure. This directive set the framework for the levying of charges establishing that charges must be based on “costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service”. It was based on some clear main objectives such as non-discriminatory access to rail infrastructure, fair intermodal competition between rail and road, fair intramodal competition in the provision of services and incentives to cost and operational efficiency. Moreover, it established that the charges for the infrastructure use may include a charge which reflects the scarcity of capacity, the costs of the environmental effects caused by the operation of a train, a certain mark-up in order to recover full costs, discounts, compensation for unpaid costs on other modes and a performance scheme that encourages railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager to minimise disruption and improve performance of the railway network. Directive 2001/16/EC set out new procedures for making technical standards in order to promote interoperability of national networks, making governments responsible for standards rather than the rail industry. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 8 At the end of year 2001, was published a new White Paper namely “European transport policy for 2010: time to decide” were the European Commission proposed approximately sixty measures in order to create a transport system which is capable to balance the modal distribution of transport, revitalise the railways, foster the maritime and fluvial transport and to control the air transport rise. This White Paper aimed the intermodality, especially of the railways, in order to reduce the congestion and the contamination of the environment and maintain the mobility. Another important objective was the equitative charging of the different modes of transport, reflecting the externals costs inherent in each mode, in order to obtain a higher economic and environmental efficiency. In 2004, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Second Railway Package, based on the measures established in the last White Paper. This infrastructure package proposed the complete opening of the rail freight markets, including cabotage, and focused on railway safety and on the establishment of a European Railway Agency which provides technical support for the interoperability and safety work. Finally, in March 2004, the European Commission presented the Third Railway Package in order to complete some aspects of the previous Railway Packages. These directives continue the railways reform focusing on the opening of the international passenger services to the European Union, the integration of the European railways and the revival of this mode of transport. However, this Railway Package of directives is still under discussion, since it has already been approved by the Commission but not by the Parliament. 2.5. Implications of the Community’s Norms As a result of the related process of revitalising the railways, the form in which the implementation of the European Norms has been addressed varies among countries. According to ECMT (2002), European Governments are implementing the EU Directives depending on their point of view over the failures and successes of the current railways organisation. Therefore, all the European Union Member Governments, and many other Governments, are implementing the EU Directives but each in its own way and in forms that complement national priorities, respecting the letter of the European law but not always the spirit of the Commission’s policy papers. The results are far from uniform. The cornerstone of the rail reform in all European countries has been the conferred freedom to management to run railways as commercial business. This was based on the separation of the political decisions of Governments from the commercial management of railways. Then, this management was limited by several conditions such as charging regulation and control of borrowing. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 9 At that time, freedom to set prices has lead to the arisen of a wide variety of charging schemes among all the European countries. These charging schemes vary since the costs taken into consideration (maintenance, renewals, investments, operation costs, general costs,...), to the pricing principles adopted (marginal cost or full cost recovery) or to the charging structure (simple or two-part tariff). The analysis of several national charging schemes will be carried out in next chapter. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 16 • Implementation Handbook describes the processes The ultimate UIC’s objective is to start the full commercial application on international traffic in January 2009. Environmental charges / Subsidies According to Directive 2001/14/EC, the infrastructure charge may be modified to take account of the cost of the environmental effects caused by the operation of the train and such modification shall be differentiated according to the magnitude of the effect caused. As well, the Directive establishes that Member States may put in place a time-limited compensation scheme for the use of the railway infrastructure for the demonstrably unpaid environmental, accident and infrastructure costs of competing transport modes in so far as these costs exceed the equivalent costs of rail. The different subsidies considered on the current practices are related to the improvement of environmental conditions and to the global compensation for other modes unpaid environmental effects. On the other hand, the environmental charges levied by certain charging schemes are aimed at recovering air pollution costs and accident costs. Discounts According to Directive 2001/14/EC, infrastructure managers may introduce schemes available to all users of the infrastructure, for specific traffic flows, granting time limited discounts to encourage the development of new rail services, or discounts encouraging the use of considerably underutilised lines. Moreover, discounts shall be limited to the actual saving of the administrative cost to the infrastructure manager. Since the given description of the main charging parameters it is possible to perform a synthetic analysis of the current charging schemes although is necessary a previous step consisting on the selection of a sample of significant countries that represent the diversity of the existing practices. 3.3. Determination of significant countries In order to carry out an assessment of the current charging schemes in the following chapters, it has been necessary to choose some significant countries. With this purpose, Table 1 has been elaborated, where the diverse charging practices used by the different countries have been characterized according to the year in which vertical disintegration occurred, the pricing principle considered and the type of charge applied. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 17 Table 1 – List of charging practices used by the different countries Charges Country code Country IM Year of vertical disintegration Pricing principle Simple Two-part AT Austria ÖBB 2004 MC+ √ BE Belgium Infrabel 2004 FC- √ BG Bulgaria NRIC 2002 MC+ √ CH Switzerland SBB 1999 MC+ √ CZ Czech Republic SZDC 2003 MC+ √ DE Germany DB Netz 1994 FC- √ DK Denmark Banedanmar k 1997 MC+ √ EE Estonia EVR 1999 FC √ EI Ireland IE - - - - EL Greece EDISY 2005 MC+ √ ES Spain ADIF 2005 MC+ √ FI Finland RHK 1995 MC+ √ FR France RFF 1997 MC+ √ HU Hungary VPE 2003 FC √ IT Italy RFI 2001 FC (1) √ LT Lithuania LG 1996 MC and FC (2) √ LU Luxembourg CFL - MC √ LV Latvia LDZ 1996 FC √ NL Netherlands ProRail 1990 MC √ PL Poland PLK 2000 FC- √ PT Portugal REFER 1997 MC √ RO Romania CFR 1998 FC √ SE Sweden BV 1988 MC+ √ SI Slovenia AZP 2003 FC √ SK Slovakia ZSR 2002 MC+ √ UK United Kingdom Network Rail 1994 MC and MC+(3) √(4) √(5) Remarks: (1) Only for traffic management (2) MC for passenger services and FC for freight services (3) MC for freight services and MC+ for passenger services (4) Simple charge applies to all operators except franchised passenger train operators (5) Two-part charge applies to franchised passenger train operators Source: Own from data of ECMT (2005a) During the process of choosing the significant countries, the following criteria have been taken into account: • Those countries that have been pioneers of the vertical disintegration process and on the establishment of charging schemes should be chosen. According to Table 1, the countries that led with this process the soonest and that currently provide public information are Germany, Denmark, Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 18 Finland, France, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Sweden and United Kingdom. • In those regions where the charging schemes are very similar (such as Nordic countries, Eastern countries ...), the most complete charging scheme has been chosen for each region. • Finally, it has been taken into account the fact that all the possible combinations between charging principles and types of charges should be chosen in order to have a totally representative sample. As a result, the significant countries considered are compiled in Table 2: Table 2 – List of the significant countries selected Country code Country Infrastructure manager AT Austria ÖBB DE Germany DB Netz EE Estonia EVR EL Greece EDISY ES Spain ADIF FR France RFF IT Italy RFI NL Netherlands ProRail PL Poland PLK PT Portugal REFER SE Sweden BV UK United Kingdom Network Rail Source: Own 3.4. Charging schemes’ description per countries This chapter is aimed at describing the current situation of the railways in each country as well as describing the different charging schemes applied by them. It is remarkable that every charging scheme is characterized by a basic charging principle which determines the cost allocation through the charges for the use of the infrastructure. However, this information is not always clearly detailed. The following description of the charging schemes applied by the countries considered is composed of: • General overview of the current situation of the railways • Brief description of the national legal framework concerning charging • Description of the user charge applied in each country Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 19 3.4.1. Austria (AT) – ÖBB-Infrastruktur Betrieb AG General overview ÖBB-Holding AG, the holding company responsible for aligning the strategies of the Group companies, was established on 31 March 2004. By mid-2004 were established several companies forming part of the ÖBB Group, among which ÖBB-Infrastruktur Betrieb AG should be stand out. On 1 January 2005, the previous ÖBB Company was replaced by the ÖBB Group of companies and its workforce, assets and tasks were transferred to its corporate companies. Eisenbahn-Hochleistungsstrecken AG (HL-AG) and the financing function of Schieneninfrastrukturfinanzierungs GmbH (SCHIG) were merged with ÖBB-Infrastruktur Bau AG as absorbing company and the Federal Republic's shares in Brenner Eisenbahn GmbH, a subsidiary of ÖBB Infrastruktur Bau AG, were contributed to ÖBBInfrastruktur Bau AG. This organisation can be seen in Figure 4. Figure 4 – Organization of the ÖBB Holding AG Source: ECMT. Workshop in Geneva, October 2004 According to ÖBB’s web page, the new Group structure allows the individual corporate companies and the Group as a whole to better meet market and customer needs in an ever increasing competitive environment thus increasing their competitivity and earning power. Last but not least, the new structure also aims at reducing the need for monetary contributions from the State. The regulation of the market has been allocated to Schienen-Control GmbH, a regulatory body under the Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 20 National legal framework concerning charging Austria implemented the First Railway Package through the SchienenverkehrsmarktRegulierungsgesetz from 1999, the Bundesbahnstrukturgesetz from 2003 and the amendment in 2004 of “Eisenbahngesetz 1957”. User charge Charging principles The Austrian charging scheme is based on MC+ approach, composed by short run marginal costs plus mark-ups in order to increase cost recovery. The short run marginal cost only include the costs due to track maintenance and the mark-ups levied are intended to cover costs of renewals, investment costs and external costs. Calculation procedure According to ECMT (2005a), short run marginal costs are estimated through an econometric model taking into account only maintenance costs and taken as a function of gross tonne-kilometre. In 2004, 27% of total infrastructure expenditure (including loans and grants) were covered by charges. Charging structure The Track Access Product Catalogue divides the charge for the use of the railway infrastructure in several components: Train movement, Stop in stations, Shunting, Stabling and Use of other facilities. The charge for the Standard Package Train Movement (construction of Train Path and Train Movement) is intended to levy the train kilometres covered by a train with a specific total gross weight in tons per line category, modulated by a factor depending on the market segment and by a factor depending on the traction unit category. As well, this charge is increased by a performance regime based element. The charges considered are: • Usage charge: it is composed by a “charge in the amount of the directly incurred costs”, which is levied per gross ton kilometres, and a “line-related usage charge”, which is a basic price per kilometre depending on the line category. • Quality and line-related mark-ups and mark-downs: it is composed by “wear on tracks by traction units” depending on the traction unit category and a “performance regime” which is a unit rate per delay minute in scheduled stopping stations. • Traffic-type related usage charges: it is composed by a factor levied per train-km varying with the type of service. The infrastructure charge for the Stop in stations depends on the number of stops and the category station. This charge is only applied to passenger services. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 21 As mentioned, it is also charged the Shunting and Stabling of rolling stock. As well, ÖBB provides other services such as the operation of extraordinary trains or monitoring hazardous goods transports. The charging elements considered, classified according to Directive 2001/14/EC, are: ¾ Performance regimes: According to the ÖBB Track Access Product Catalogue 2006, for high-quality passenger trains, the Standard Package prices will be increased in the event of late arrival in the scheduled stopping stations, including departure and train terminal stations, if the delay per stopping station exceeds a threshold of five minutes. The delay in minutes per station exceeding the fixed threshold will be allocated to the party causing it (the railway undertaking or the infrastructure manager) and multiplied by the factor given in the Product Catalogue (3 €/delay minute). Reasons for delay are coded pursuant to UIC Leaflet 450-2. Charging level The level of charges for the Standard Package Train Movement depends on several variables, such as the line category, the traction unit category, the time band,... The range of values for the components of the charge for the Standard Package Train Movement can be seen in Table 3. Table 3 – Range of values for the Standard Package Train Movement in Austria Charge for the Standard Package Train Movement Service Type of service Train movement Minimum access package Charging formula SPTM + QM + TtUC + Tmout SPTM = (GBtkm * a) + (Tain-kmlc * b) QM = (Train-kmtuc * c) + (Train-kmbn * d) + (CM * e) Price components Variables considered Charging values Usage charge Standard Package Train Movement (SPTM) Charge in the amount of the directly incurred costs (a) 0,001 €/gross ton-km Total gross ton kilometres (GBtkm) Line-related usage charges - basic price per train kilometre (b) Line category 0,90 - 2,73 €/train-km Total train kilometres (Tain-kmlc) Quality and line-related mark-ups and markdowns on the basic price per train kilometre under the Standard Package Train Movement (QM) Wear on tracks by traction units affecting charges (c) Traction unit category -0,04 - 0,01 €/train-km Train kilometres traction unit category (Train-kmtuc) Mark-ups for time and local capacity bottlenecks (Mark-up for bottleneck) Line section Time band 1,00 €/train-km in bottleneck Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 22 (d) Train kilometres in bottlenecks (Train-kmbn) Performance regime dependent charges (e) Delay Stop at station 3,00 €/minute Delay per minute in scheduled stopping station (DM) Traffic-type related usage charges under the Standard Package Train Movement (TtUC) Type of traffic -0,66 - 0,29 €/train-km Prices charged for train movements outside line opening times (TMout) Station category Line section The charges are calculated by the Track Access unit (Netzugang) on an individual basis and quoted as part of the train path offer Source: Own from Track Access Product Catalogue 2006 As well, it has been carried the calculation of an average charge. According to ÖBB’s 2005 Annual Report, the total income for the use of the infrastructure reached 358,9 million euros. In accordance with EUROSTAT, the volume of traffic in 2005 in Austria was 143.917.000 train-kilometres. In conclusion, the average charge is 2,49 €/train-km. In Figure 5, it is shown the average charge in Austria compared with the rest of countries. Figure 5 – Average charge in Austria Average charges 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 AT - ÖBB DE - DBNetz EE - EVR EL - EDISY * ES - ADIF FR - RFF IT - RFI NL - ProRail PL-PLK PT - REFER SE - BV UK - Network Rail * Not available data € / train-km Source: Own from data of EUROSTAT and ÖBB’s 2005 Annual Report As it can be seen in the diagram above, the level of the average charge in Austria is practically in the average of the level in the rest of countries, given that the average of average charge of all the countries is 2,63 €/train-km. 3.4.2. Germany (DE) – Deutsche Bahn Netz AG (DB Netz) General overview According to its web page, in 1994, Deutsche Bahn AG was founded, being the first successful conclusion of the serious discussions on rail reform relating to the privatisation and merger of the Bundesbahn and Reichsbahn that have been conducted since 1989. The second phase of the rail reform arrived in 1999, when the former business sectors of long- Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 23 distance, local and freight transport, plus track infrastructure and the passenger stations business sector that was not planned by statute, were set up as joint-stock companies. Then, Deutsche Bahn, in accordance with the terms of company law, is currently run as a multi-level group of companies by Deutsche Bahn AG as the holding company. The share capital of the new companies is held by DB AG, whose shares are owned by the Federal Government. National legal framework concerning charging Germany transposed Directive 2001/14/EC in June 2005 through the General Railway Act (AEG) and the Railway Infrastructure Usage Regulation (EIBV). Actually, Germany has not only completely fulfilled the EU legal conditions but also has published additional federal legislation. Figure 6 summarizes the German legal framework concerning charging. Figure 6 – National legal framework concerning charging in Germany Source: ECMT. Workshop in Rome, July 2004 User charge Charging principles The first Train Path System was introduced in 1994 by DB Netz AG as a two-part tariff and intended to recover full costs. This system has evolved during the years and in 2001 it was reverted into a single differentiated charge per train kilometre. According to DB Netz AG, the current train path pricing system (TPS) must meet various market conditions. On the one hand, it must reflect the operational cost structure, i.e. the operating and investment expenditure associated with the various available services. On the other hand, TPs must be in line with the current demand, so the factors depending on demand that determine the price should include the price elasticity of the individual user groups. As well, the TPS must also meet the DB Netz AG’s strategic corporate goals, which include achieving a balanced operating income and a continuous improvement in costs and operational efficiency. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 24 According to ECMT (2005a), the basic approach taken to charging is to allocate total cost (excluding those investment and renewal costs borne directly by Government) to market segments and then to price at average costs. Thus, the approach is clearly FC-. According to Railimplement (2005), it is estimated that public investment funds cover 45-50% of total costs. Calculation procedure The calculation of the charge is made on the basis of an average price for the whole of the network and the charge is intended to recover the maintenance and management costs. Charging structure As it can be seen in Figure 7, the single-stage Train Path Pricing System contains three modular pricing components: user dependent component, service-dependent component and other components. Figure 7 – Train Path Pricing System TPS2006 Source: DB Netz AG’s Train Path Pricing System, 2006 The user-dependent component depends on the route category and a train path product factor. The variety of train path products available makes it possible to adapt the train path pricing system to meet the individual needs of the market, given that this is usually difficult to be reflected in a basic price which tends to be more cost-based. The product factor varies according to train path products, i.e. groups of identical services. As it is shown in Figure 8, the level of the product factor is determined according to the quality and the willingness to pay. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 25 Figure 8 – Determination of the level of the product factor Source: ECMT. Workshop in Rome, July 2004 The service-dependent component is composed by additive and multiplicative factors. The multiplicative factor is an utilisation factor applied on particularly busy routes with alternative route sections and its main objective is to provide incentives to improve efficiency. The additive factor is aimed at providing incentives to reduce disturbances. Then, delay minutes and their causes are continually recorded for the railway undertaking and DB Netz AG. At the end of each month, the delay minutes collected by both parties are offset against each other and valued. Finally, other components are considered in the Train Path Pricing System. These components are: • Regional factors: these factors are applied on routes that do not yet have a viable cost/revenue structure. They differ locally depending on the regional network concerned and they are only applied to local passenger services. • Payload component: is a weight-based component intended to reflect the additional costs caused by the use of heavy trains, due to the increase in wear and capacity utilisation. It is applied for train weights of 3.000 tonnes and above and is levied per gross tonne-km. • Fee for preparing an offer: this component is intended to reflect the costs for processing the applications for train paths allocation. Then a fee per train path is levied in case that the railway undertaking does not accept a train path offer. This fee cannot exceed the equivalent of access charge for train paths that are not accepted. • Cancellation fee: in case of withdrawal of one or more train running days on a train path a cancellation fee is levied. It is composed by a minimum cancellation fee which corresponds to the amount of the fee required for preparing the offer and a percentage based cancellation fee depending on when the cancellation was made and the standard train path price. The cancellation fee cannot exceed the access charge for the cancelled train path. The charging elements considered, classified according to Directive 2001/14/EC, are: Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 32 National legal framework concerning charging On 7 March 2005, under Presidential Decree 41/2005, Greece implemented the EU Directives into national Legislation. Chapter VI of the Presidential Decree sets the legal framework for the charging of the use of railway infrastructure and related services. User charge Charging principles According to Article 13 of the Presidential Decree 41/2005, the infrastructure manager is responsible for setting the rules and criteria for determining the fee for the use of the National Railway Infrastructure although the Minister of Transport and Communications shall approve them. The calculation of the fee owed by each railway undertaking and the collection of this fee shall be performed by the infrastructure manager. In accordance with Article 14 of the Presidential Decree, the accounts of the infrastructure manager shall at least balance income from infrastructure charges, surpluses from other commercial activities and State funding on the one hand, and infrastructure expenditure on the other. Thus, the approach is MC+. Calculation procedure According to the 2007 Network Statement, in order to calculate the charge for the use of railway infrastructure, account is taken of the base prices for the cost of track maintenance and traffic management, which derive from the division of the total cost for the respective service by the total number of train-kilometres. Charging structure The basic fee for the use of the infrastructure is composed by the basic prices corresponding to the track maintenance and to the traffic management services: • The basic price corresponding to the traffic management depends on a peak period coefficient that varies with the time band and the line station and on a capacity occupation coefficient that takes account of every service’s effect on the line’s capacity by dividing the running time and the ideal running time in a line section. • The basic price corresponding to the track maintenance depends on coefficient for the track quality provided in each line section and on a coefficient for the line’s burdening by the train which depends on the speed range, the axial load range and on the number of axles. The special charge is composed by a charge for the consumption of electric power for traction and a charge for the special/dangerous consignments. The charging elements considered, classified according to Directive 2001/14/EC, are: Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 33 ¾ Congestion and scarcity charges: The basic price corresponding to the traffic management depends on two coefficients, the first relating to time deviations and the second relating to time bands and sections. Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the 2007 Network Statement, this charge should be related to the allocation of congestion costs. Charging level The basic fee depends on several factors. A range of values for each factor is given in Table 6. Table 6 – Range of values for the Basic fee in Greece Basic fee Service Type of service Basic fee for the use of the infrastructure (C) Minimum access package Charging formula C = P * D where P = Ptm + Plm with Ptm = BPtm * L1 * L2 Plm = BPlm * Kq * Ktrain Price components Variables considered Charging values Unit price (BPtm) 0,65 €/km Running time Capacity occupation coefficient (L1) Ideal running time Line section category >= 1 Time period Traffic management (Ptm) Peak period coefficient (L2) Line stations 0,7 - 1,2 Unit price (BPlm) 0,4 €/km Coefficient for the track quality provided (Kq) Line section category 0,53 - 0,90 Speed range Train category Axle load range Line's maintenance (Plm) Coefficient for the line's burdening by the train (Ktrain) Number of axles 1,00 - 9,61 Distance (D) Source: Own from Network Statement 2007 As it has been done for the rest of countries, in Greece it has not been possible to calculate the average charge given that there is no available data on the incomes of EDISY. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 34 3.4.5. Spain (ES) – Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) General overview ADIF (Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias) is a state-owned company since the publishment of Law 39/2003 on 17 November 2003 of the Railway Sector, which came into force on the 1st of January of 2005. ADIF arose from the combination of the former infrastructure manager for high speed lines (GIF) and the infrastructure management department of RENFE. National legal framework concerning charging The implementation in Spain of the First Railway Package went through Law 39/2003 of 17 November 2003 of the Railway Sector. As well, other laws and Royal Decrees completed this implementation of the EU Directives: Royal Decree 2387/2004, Royal Decree 2395/2004, Royal Decree 2396/2004 and ORDEN FOM/897/2005. According to Railimplement it is not expected that passenger services will be liberalised until 2010, given that currently only freight services have been liberalised. User charge Charging principles The charging structure is defined in order to reflect the costs incurred by the infrastructure manager. The approach considered in Spain is MC+. According to Erail (2005), the setting and collection of infrastructure charges is ADIF’s responsibility. However, the Ministerio de Fomento is the responsible for the establishment of the level and structure of the track access charges. These prices are stated as public prices and therefore can only be modified by a legislative procedure. On the other side, ADIF fixes the charges related to additional and ancillary services. Calculation procedure Law 39/2003 defines the basic charging structure so as to reflect the costs incurred by the infrastructure manager. In fact, the law introduces different parameters (level of traffic, time period, type of line, type of service, distance covered, type of contract, and type of homologation) as a way to proxy marginal costs. Charging structure The charge for the minimum access package is composed by an access charge, a capacity reservation charge, circulation charge and a traffic charge. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 35 • The Access Charge (Modality A) is a unit rate depending level of traffic estimated by the operator at the start of each Working Timetable. • The Capacity Reservation Charge (Modality B) depends on the number of kilometres requested considering the type of line, the type of service and the time band. It is levied per train-km. • The Circulation Charge (Modality C) depends on the actual kilometres considering the type of line and the type of service. It is levied per train-km. • The Traffic Charge (Modality D) is only applied to passenger railway services offering a maximum speed greater than 260 km. It depends on the time band and is levied according to the capacity of the vehicles. ADIF also establish a charge for the track access to services facilities and supply of services. In addition, the law states a security tax for the railway transport of passengers. The charging elements considered, classified according to Directive 2001/14/EC, are: ¾ Mark-ups: Although it is not explicitly mentioned in 2006 Network Statement, the Traffic Charge can be considered a mark-up since it is allocated to high speed services depending on their capacity (i.e. seats-km) and time band. According to 2006 Network Statement, the Traffic Charge value is established according to the service commercial value measured through the offered capacity. This can be considered a proxy to RU’s willingness to pay (and indirectly to demand elasticity), and so, it could be interpreted as a way of applying a markup according to Ramsey’s principle. ¾ Reservation charges: The Capacity Reservation Charge is clearly a reservation charge given that it is levied per kilometres requested. As well, the Access charge is considered a reservation charge given that is paid just once at the start of Working Timetable and is levied according to the estimated level of traffic. Charging level The Minimum Access Package is composed by an Access Charge, a Capacity Reservation Charge, a Running Charge and a Traffic Charge. Table 7 shows a range of values for each of these components of the charge. Table 7 – Range of values for the Minimum Access Package in Spain Minimum Access Package Service Type of service Access (Modality A) Minimum access package Charging formula --- Price components Variables considered Charging values Access charge Level of traffic 60.000 - 1.410.000 €/year Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 36 Service Type of service Capacity reservation (Modality B) Minimum service package Charging formula --- Price components Variables considered Charging values Peak hour 0.06-3.40 €/train-km Normal hour 0.05-2.20 €/train-km Capacity reservation charge Time period Type of line Type of service Offpeak hour 0.05-0.07 €/train-km Service Type of service Running (Modality C) Minimum access package Charging formula --- Price components Variables considered Charging values Running charge Type of line Type of service 0,06 - 2,00 €/train-km used Service Type of service Traffic (Modality D) Minimum access package Charging formula --- Price components Variables considered Charging values Traffic charge Type of line Time period 0,65 - 1,25 €/100 seats-km Source: Own from Network Statement 2006 The level of the average charge has been calculated from data of the ADIF’s Annual Report 2005 and the “Anuario del Ministerio de Fomento”. From the first source, it has obtained that the income from the charges for the use of the infrastructure amounted in 2005 to 68 million euros. From the second source, it has been obtained that the total volume of traffic in 2005 was 127.700.000 train-kilometres. Then, as a result, the average charge is 0,40 €/train-km. The following diagram shows the comparison of the level of the average charge among all the countries considered. Figure 13 – Average charge in Spain Average charges 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 AT - ÖBB DE - DBNetz EE - EVR EL - EDISY * ES - ADIF FR - RFF IT - RFI NL - ProRail PL-PLK PT - REFER SE - BV UK - Network Rail * Not available data € / train-km Source: Own from data of “Anuario 2005” and ADIF’s 2005 Annual Report Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 37 As it can be seen in the diagram above, the level of the average charge in Spain is extremely low. This is due to the fact that in Spain the railways receive a great amount of State subsidies. As well, the Annual Report 2005 provides data on the income due to each component of the charge (Access Charge, Capacity reservation charge, Running charge and Traffic charge) it has been possible to represent the share of each component in the total charge. Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the share of each component of the charge in relative and absolute terms. Figure 14 – Relative share of each component of the track access charge in Spain %€ / train - km 2,0 41,3 29,9 26,8 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Access charge Capacity reservation charge Running charge Traffic charge Source: Own from ADIF’s 2005 Annual Report Figure 15 – Value of each component of the average charge in Spain € / train - km 0,01 0,16 0,12 0,11 0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 Access charge Capacity reservation charge Runnin g char g e T raffic char g e Source: Own from ADIF’s 2005 Annual Report Concerning the type of service, the level of charges varies in a relevant way with this variable. In this case, there is an important difference between the average access charge for high speed services and for conventional passenger services or freight. Then, in order to calculate the charge for each type of services, there has been adopted some hypothesis: • Normal time band for all the services • Type of service V1 for high speed, M for freight and V2 for conventional trains Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 38 • Type of line A.2 for high speed and C for freight and conventional • Level of traffic N3.B for all the categories (given that the volume of traffic is 180 millions train·km/year) The absolute level of the average charge for each type of service and for each component of the charge is shown in Figure 16: Figure 16 – Average charge by type of service in Spain Charge for the different types of network 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50 5,00 5,50 6,00 High-speed Freight Conventional € / train-km Access charge Capacity reservation charge Running charg e Source: Own from data of 2006 Network Statement Figure 17 shows the relative level of the average charge for each type of service and for each component of the charge: Figure 17 – Relative average charge by type of service in Spain %charge for different types of networks 0,13 6,65 2,925 35,25 42,43 74,673 31,89 50,92 22,402 32,73 0,00 0,000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% High-speed Freight Conventional Access charge Capacity reservation charge Running charge Traffic charge Source: Own from data of 2006 Network Statement As it can be seen on the comparison of relative values among types of services, the access charge has low importance in every type of service although, in freight services, it reaches its maximum. The capacity reservation charge is moderated for high speed and freight but it is extremely high for conventional services. Finally, it should be noticed that only the high speed services have to pay the traffic charge. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 39 Actually, although the average access charge (€/train·km) is higher for high speed trains than for freight trains, the total amount (€) paid by these two service yearly is very similar. This is reflected in Figure 18. Figure 18 – Share of the total amount of charges paid by each business unit in Spain % / business unit 9,17 34,34 22,30 33,95 0,24 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Regional lines High speed Long distance lines Freight "Integria" Source: Own from Renfe’s 2005 Annual Report 3.4.6. France (FR) – Réseau Ferré de France (RFF) General overview The creation of Réseau Ferré de France took place in 1997 due to the publishment of law 97-135 in the aim of renewing France’s rail transport service. On this date, RFF became the owner and manager of France’s rail infrastructures, which had previously been managed by SNCF. In exchange, the RFF took over the SNCF’s rail-related debts. In 2003, RFF was put in charge of the capacity allocation, organising rail traffic on the French network. National legal framework concerning charging The implementation of the First Railway Package into national law in France went through Decree nº 2003-194 on the use of the railway national network. User charge Charging principles According to ECMT (2005a), RFF follows a MC+ charging philosophy (marginal cost with mark-ups), and the reserve ratio of RFF’s infrastructure charges amounts to 63%. The access charges are aimed at recovering maintenance, operation and renewals costs. In 2005, RFF’s subsidies comprised subsidies for the infrastructure management costs, investments, debt repayment and investments for the renewal of the infrastructure. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 40 Calculation procedure According to Erail (2005), the exact prices of charges are fixed in the order (“arrêté”) of 4 August 2003 by the Ministry on a proposal of the RFF. Prices are fixed on a yearly base. The larges payment is for path reservation. The tariffs are mainly determined on the basis of financial considerations (there is strong pressure to increase these tariffs to alleviate RFF’s poor financial position) and are not based on a detailed methodology to determine the marginal cost of the infrastructure. Charging structure The charging scheme applied in France consists of the following elements: • The Access charge depends on the type of line which is defined by a grouping of the network into four categories of elementary sections (suburban lines, main intercity lines, high-speed lines, and other lines) and twelve sub-categories of elementary sections corresponding to the traffic characteristics. It is paid by all railway undertakings making a request and is levied per train-kilometre. • The Reservation charge is paid by all railway undertakings which have been granted a path by RFF. It is composed by a path reservation charge and a station stop reservation charge. The path reservation charge depends on the time band, the line category and the type of train and it is levied per pathkm. Freight trains and light running traffic benefit from a reducing coefficient. The reservation charge for station stop is only levied to passenger trains. It depends on the time band and on the station category and it is charged for departure and each stop. • The Running charge is levied for the actual kilometres and depends on the type of service. It is levied per train·kilometre. The charging elements considered, classified according to Directive 2001/14/EC, are: ¾ Reservation charges: The Access charge can be considered a reservation charge given that is levied to all railway undertakings which make a request of capacity. As well, both the path reservation charge and the station stop reservation charge for passenger services are considered reservation charges. ¾ Performance regimes: There is a performance scheme put in place by RFF in order to optimise the performance of the rail network and offer a high-quality service to railway undertakings. It consists on a specific rate applied to the rate for the reservation of freight paths of which the total length is at least 300 km and of which the mean speed is greater than or equal to 70 km/h, not counting stops requested by the railway undertaking. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 41 Charging level The charge for the Minimum Access Package is composed by an Access charge, a Charge for Reservation of capacity and a Running charge. Table 8 shows a range of values for each component of the Minimum Access Package. Table 8 – Range of values for the Minimum Access Package in France Minimum Access Package Service Type of service Minimum services Minimum access package Charging formula DA + DR + DC DR = DRS + DRAG Price components Variables considered Charging values Access charge (DA) Route category Type of traffic 0,000 - 1,030 €/train-km Charge for reservation of capacity (DR) Off-peak hour 0,000 - 1,850 €/train-km Normal hour 0,005 - 11,103 €/train-km Peak hour 0,005 - 14,500 €/train-km Path reservation charge (DRS) Type of period Route category Type of traffic Coefficient of modulation Coefficient of modulation 0,6 or 1 Offpeak hour 0,000 €/train departure Normal hour 5,500 - 8,000 €/train departure Reservation charge for stations stops of passenger trains (DRAG) Type of period Route category Peak hour 10,000 - 25,000 €/train departure Running charge (DC) Type of train 0,400 - 1,200 €/train-km Source: Own from Network Statement 2007 It is also possible to calculate the level of the average charge from data provided by the Annual Report 2005 and EUROSTAT. According to the Annual Report 2005, the total infrastructure fees levied during the year amounted to 2.182,4 million euros. In accordance to EUROSTAT, the total train-kilometres run in the French network in 2005 rose to 505.799.000 train-km. Then, the average charge is 4,31 €/train-km. Figure 19 shows the comparison of the level of the average charge among all the countries considered. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 48 As it is shown in the diagram, the average charge in Italy is low in comparison with the rest of countries. This result could be expected given that the State pays a high share of the total costs, as it can be seen in Table 9. 3.4.8. Netherlands (NL) – ProRail General overview In 1995, three NS divisions became responsible for the management of the Dutch railway network: Railinfrabeheer, responsible for maintenance and construction, Railned, allocating capacity and Railverkeersleiding, that monitored daily traffic, provided travelling information and dealt with recovery after disruptions. Although they worked by the order of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, these divisions remained part of the NS Holding until 2002. In 2002, the separation of management and exploitation became effective through a new Railways Act. Since 1 January 2003, the three divisions of NS are united in ProRail. The Inspection Service of Transport (IVW) is responsible for the safety and the Office of Transport Regulation of the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa) is the national competition authority and the regulatory body, including appeals for infrastructure charges. National legal framework concerning charging The implementation of the First Railway Package went through the Railways Act 2005 (Spoorwegwet 2005), in particular Articles 62 and 63 implement Directive 2001/14/EC. User charge Charging principles The approach taken to charging in the Netherlands is MC. The Dutch Ministry of Transport reported that charges will, from year 2005, cover traffic management and maintenance costs in full. The costs of renewal, investment, salaries, accidents, air pollution or noise are not covered by charges. Calculation procedure According to Network Statement 2007, tariffs for the use of the railway infrastructure are based on the variable operating costs of the train service. The point of departure in determining these variable costs is the train service at the current transport volume plus or less 5%. No additional market surcharges are applied to increase the coverage of costs on the part of Prorail. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 49 Charging structure The Basic Access Package applied by ProRail is composed by a tariff per train-kilometre and a tariff per ton-kilometre. The first one allocates marginal operation costs and the second one, marginal maintenance costs. Both tariffs are applied to all services. As well, there is a charge for access to facilities invoicing use of the contact line, use of refuelling systems, passenger access and transfer facilities at stations and stabling and shunting of rail vehicles. Finally, ProRail also offers additional and ancillary services. The charging elements considered, classified according to Directive 2001/14/EC, are: ¾ Discounts: To promote use of the Port Railway Line, ProRail is therefore to grant a discount on the ton-kilometre charge applicable on the Combined Network on the access and exit routes of the Port Railway Line. Then, the discount is applied for the portion of the train weight over and above 750 tons. Charging level The Basic Access Package is composed by a tariff per train·kilometre and a tariff per ton·kilometre. In Table 11 are shown the unit rates applied for each part of the charge. Table 11 – Unit rates applied in the Basic Access Package in the Netherlands Basic Access Package Service Type of service Basic access package (BAP) Minimum access package Charging formula BAP = TTr + Tto Price components Variables considered Charging values Tariff per train-kilometre (TTr) 0,5059 €/train-km Tariff per ton-kilometre (TTo) 0,001715 €/ton-km Source: Own from Network Statement 2007 As for the other countries, it has been calculated the average charge resulting from the quotient between the total income from charges and the total volume of traffic in 2005. From the 2005 Annual Report, it is known that the total revenue from the user charge corresponds to 125 million euros and, according to EUROSTAT, in 2005 the total traffic was 125.250.000 train-kilometres. As a result, the average charge is 1,00 €/train-km. The level of the average charge in the Netherlands compared among the rest of countries is reflected in Figure 27. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 50 Figure 27 – Average charge in the Netherlands Average charges 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 AT - ÖBB DE - DBNetz EE - EVR EL - EDISY * ES - ADIF FR - RFF IT - RFI NL - ProRail PL-PLK PT - REFER SE - BV UK - Network Rail * Not available data € / train-km Source: Own from data of EUROSTAT and ProRail’s 2005 Annual Report The level of the charge is one of the lowest. This result makes sense as the approach taken to charging in the Netherlands is MC. 3.4.9. Poland (PL) – Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A. (PLK) General overview In 2001, the state-owned company PKP was transferred into a capital holding company namely PKP Group. In June 2003, the Railway Transport Office was created and PKP PLK was designated as infrastructure manager, jointly owned by PKP S.A. and the Ministry of Finance. National legal framework concerning charging: In March 2003, with the Act on Railway Transport, Poland implemented the First Railway Package of Directives. According to Railimplement, this Act had some variations that introduce some disconformities with European Directives. As well, the legal framework for charging is established by the Decree of Minister of Infrastructure of 7 April 2004 on conditions concerning access and use of railway infrastructure. User charge Charging principles According to Erail, Infrastructure manager (PLK) is the responsible for the setting of charges with the supervision of the Railway Transport Office (RTO). The President of the RTO is responsible for the approval and coordination of charges for the use of granted train routes in respect of compatibility with rules of setting charges (Art. 13 of the Law on Railway Transport). Furthermore must handle the complaints of railway operators related to the charges for the use of railway infrastructure. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 51 The general aim of the charging system is to cover the total and justified infrastructure manager’s costs connected with the process of making infrastructure available to the users. However, according to the Act of 28 March 2003 certain costs as investments are financed from the national budget. Thus, the charging philosophy adopted by PKP is FC-. The relation between the incomes and costs incurred by PKP PLK can be seen at Figure 28. Figure 28 – Incomes and costs incurred by PKP PLK Source: Infrastructure Manager’s 2005 Annual Report Calculation procedure According to ECMT (2005a), the unit rates are calculated on the basis of maintenance costs, traffic operation costs and cost of administration in connection with providing access, investment expenditures on managed lines and additional costs. Unit rates of basic charges for using infrastructure are determined for individual line sections and depend on historical costs and on the level of operating performance on each section. Charging structure The basic charge applied in the Polish charging scheme is composed by a realisation charge for the use of the railway lines and by a reservation charge, which is part of the realisation part. The basic charge is calculated as a total of products of unit rates assigned to individual sections of railway lines and the length of these sections. The unit rates specified for train parameters (weight and speed) are defined by timetable for qualified passenger trains (average technical vehicle speed) and for other trains (gross weight of a train). PKP can apply average rates in the whole network for those railway undertakings that have ordered train paths on at least 60% of railway lines managed by PKP or that will utilise (on a daily average) at least 70% of all trains paths prepared for them in the Annual Timetable. As well, PKP sets additional charges for the additional services such as hazardous transports, extra information about the train route, preparation of a Timetable Study, ... Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 52 The charging elements considered, classified according to Directive 2001/14/EC, are: ¾ Reservation charges: The reservation charge included in the basic charge is agreed with each RU within the track access agreement. ¾ Performance regimes: There is a performance regime regulated in the contracts signed between PKP PLK and some of the railway undertakings. ¾ Discounts: On separate request of RU, justified by increase of performance volume resulting from transferring goods from other modes of transport into railways, PLK has a right to give discount (for certain period of time). Discount level cannot be higher than 50% of fixed part of average unit rates given in the price list. As well, on separate request of railway undertaking PLK has a right to give discount (for a certain period of time) to exceptional trains (not included in Annual Timetable) serving celebrations concerning national and religious holidays or promoting railway industry. The level of discount is 60% of unit rates. Charging level The Basic charge depends on several variables such as the type of train, the maximum speed of the section,… A range of values and an average value are given in Table 12. Table 12 – Range of values for the Basic charge in Poland Basic charge Service Type of service Basic charge Minimum access package Charging formula UR x L Price components Variables considered Charging values Specific values 4,61 - 16,84 zl/train-km Qualified passenger trains Average 9,26 zl/train-km Specific values 3,69 - 15,01 zl/train-km Other passenger trains Average 6,80 zl/train-km Specific values 2,08 - 6,04 zl/train-km Rail buses Average 2,62 zl/train-km Unit rate assigned to individual sections of railway line (UR) Type of train Maximum speed of the section Average technical vehicle speed (for qualified passenger trains) Gross weight of a train Freight trains Specific values 11,26 - 53,86 zl/train-km Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 53 Average 20,61 zl/trainkm Specific values 2,99 - 9,96 zl/train-km Locomotives Average 4,38 zl/train-km Specific values 6,07 - 16,47 zl/train-km Combined block trains Average 10,59 zl/trainkm Specific values 2,71 - 10,85 zl/train-km (for other trains) "Pociagi sluzbowe " Average 4,62 zl/train-km Length of the section (L) Source: Own from Network Statement 2007 A part from the range of values provided in the table above, it has calculated the average charge, by dividing the total revenue from charges by the total train-kilometres. According to the Annual Report, the total income from access charges amounted, in 2005, to 2.501,8 million PLN which corresponds to 655,9 million euros. As well, in accordance with EUROSTAT, the total volume of traffic in the Polish railways in 2005 rose to 207.173.000 train-kilometres. Then, the average charge resulting is 3,17 €/train-km. Figure 29 shows the average charge resulting in Poland compared to the average charge resulting in the rest of countries. Figure 29 – Average charge in Poland Average charges 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 AT - ÖBB DE - DBNetz EE - EVR EL - EDISY * ES - ADIF FR - RFF IT - RFI NL - ProRail PL-PLK PT - REFER SE - BV UK - Network Rail * Not available data € / train-km Source: Own from data of EUROSTAT and PKP PLK’s 2005 Annual Report The level of the average charge exposed in the diagram above is near to the average of the average charges (2,63 €/train-km). This means that the level of the charge is not extremely high given that the charging scheme applied by PLK is intended to recover full costs less subsidies. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 54 3.4.10. Portugal (PT) – Rede Ferroviaria Nacional (REFER) General overview In accordance with the government Decree nº 104/97, REFER, Rede Ferroviária Nacional, E.P, was legally incorporated on 29 April 1997 and is responsible for managing the infrastructure of the Portuguese Railway System. In compliance with the criteria of independence from Rail Transportation management companies, REFER reports to the Instituto Nacional do Transporte Ferroviário (INTF), the state railway regulator. In partnership with the existing railways operators, CP and Fertagus, the regulator defines access rights, grants access licences to operators, approves access charges and regulates railway activities taking into account development, safety, quality and environment. REFER’s mission is to manage the rail network in terms of construction, conservation, maintenance, management of property assets and capacity management in order to provide the market with a competitive, efficient, safe and environmentally sound transport infrastructure. National legal framework concerning charging The implementation of the First Railway Package went through Decree-Law 270/2003 approved the 28th October 2003 which defines the conditions for the rendering of railrelated services and for the management of the railway infrastructure. User charge Charging principles Tariffs are calculated in order to partly cover transport service provision costs. The parameters used relate to the maintenance of the infrastructure, the type of traffic (freight/passenger/empty), the type of route (electrified/non-electrified) and the line used. The charges partly cover management costs and maintenance costs but do not cover renewals, investments, accident costs, ... Thus, the approach taken to charging in Portugal is MC. Calculation procedure Tariffs for the use of essential services are calculated for 9 different homogenous groups by dividing the costs that are directly related to each essential service by the useable capacities in every part of the network where the services are offered. The procedure followed to the establishment of the prices consists of: • The infrastructure manager publishes the prices in the Network Statement two years in advance, based on provisional data for those costs. It should provide additional specific data to the rail regulator supporting the set of prices published. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 55 • The regulator analyses the information which supports the prices according to the methodology, the principles established by Decree-Law 270/2003 and the data supporting the prices and its evaluation through time. • The operators may disagree with the prices and ask the regulator to interfere. • The regulator may issue a recommendation or an instruction pointing changes on the published prices. • Finally, the infrastructure manager has to look over for the corrections pointed by the regulator and publish them again in the Network Statement. Charging structure According to the 2006 Network Statement, the infrastructure manager offers as essential services all those needed for the effective access to infrastructure. The basic tariff for the essential services depends on the type of service, the type of traction and the line or section. Tariffs for the use of essential services are intended to recover marginal operation, maintenance and renewal costs and are allocated to train·km according to the type of line and the type of service. As well, additional and ancillary services are provided at the price based on the costs incurred on the basis of the actual level of use. The charging elements considered, classified according to Directive 2001/14/EC, are: ¾ Reservation charges: There is a tariff for unused requested capacity which varies from 10% to 100% of the applicable tariff depending on the anteriority of the cancellation in relation to the date of the requested capacity. ¾ Performance regimes: The performance regime aims at reducing disturbances to a minimum and to promote efficiency in the services, allowing for a better operating performance. Railways undertakings are free to accept it or not. This performance regime consists on a delay minutes accountancy system based on control points at destination stations (only considering arrival times). It establishes certain performance standards depending on the type of service: 3 minutes for suburban passenger trains, 5 minutes for medium and long distance passenger trains and 30 minutes for freight trains. It is remarkable that in case the train is partially or totally cancelled, or there is a failure service at a station, the delay time is calculated as being the difference between the original arrival time at the destination and the best alternative for the final customer. For each train, the maximum penalty is 20% of the tariffs for essential services. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 56 Charging level The Basic tariff depends on the type of route, the type of traffic and the line. In Table 13 a range of values for this charge are shown for different types of lines and traffic. Table 13 – Range of values for the Train Path Charge in Portugal Train Path Pricing Service Type of service Essential train services Minimum access package Charging formula --- Price components Variables considered Charging values Basic tariffs Type of route Type of traffic Line Suburban lines: Passengers and empty trains: 1,30 - 2,31 €/train-km Freight trains: 1,31 - 2,37 €/train-km Non suburban lines Passengers and empty trains: 1,68 - 2,82 €/train-km Freight trains: 1,75 - 2,87 €/train-km Source: Own from Network Statement 2006 It has been calculated the average charge by dividing the total revenue from charges and the total volume in traffic in 2005. According to REFER’s 2005 Annual Report, the revenues from the user’s charge amounted to 57,8 million euros. In addition, from EUROSTAT, it is known that the volume of traffic in 2005 was 37.675.000 trainkilometres. Then, the resulting average charge is 1,53 €/train-km. In Figure 30, it is shown the level of the average charge for each country, standing out the average charge corresponding to Portugal. Figure 30 – Average charge in Portugal Average charges 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 AT - ÖBB DE - DBNetz EE - EVR EL - EDISY * ES - ADIF FR - RFF IT - RFI NL - ProRail PL-PLK PT - REFER SE - BV UK - Network Rail * Not available data € / train-km Source: Own from data of EUROSTAT and REFER’s 2005 Annual Report As it can be seen, the level of the average charge in Portugal is relatively high, especially if considering that the approach taken to charging is MC. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 57 3.4.11. Sweden (SE) – Banverket (BV) General overview In 1988, Sweden managed the separation between operation and infrastructure management, being the first country in the world. Then, the Transports Politics Law designed Banverket as the infrastructure manager and Statens Järnvägar (SJ), became a public railway operator. Järnvägsstyrelsen is the railway regulator and was established on 1 July 2004 according to Directive 2000/14/EC. It is in charge of the supervision of infrastructure charges and the capacity allocation procedure. National legal framework concerning charging The First Railway Package was implemented in Sweden through the Järnvägslag (Railway act, 2004:519) of 1 July 2004 on the levying of charges. User charge Charging principles According to ECMT (2005a), the cost recovery target for infrastructure charges is 5% of total costs. Charges are based on a distributed average of short run marginal maintenance costs plus a mark-up to recover the Öresund Bridge costs that is applied to passenger trains across the whole network. Freight trains pay a specific toll for use of the bridge. Charges are intended to partly cover traffic management costs and maintenance costs with the remainder being covered with the State budget. Costs not covered by charges are renewals, investments and other costs. Thus, the approach taken to charging in Sweden is MC+, although the fact that renewal costs are not covered by charges means that probably charges are below marginal costs. Calculation procedure As mentioned, charges are intended to recover maintenance costs and part of management costs. The marginal costs are estimated through an econometric model. The calculated marginal costs are then compared with average costs to establish cost recovery rates from the model. Charging structure The current Swedish charging scheme is composed Marginal-cost based charge, and a Special charge, including a train path charge and other special charge for passenger traffic. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 64 ¾ Mark-ups: Fixed charges applied to franchised passenger operators are a mark-up aimed at recovering the future estimated revenue needs of the infrastructure manager. ¾ Congestion and scarcity charges: The Capacity charge reflects marginal congestion costs calculated for different sections and time bands. ¾ Performance regimes: The GB rail industry operates a performance incentive scheme, details of which are incorporated into the Track Access Agreement (Schedule 8 of the model form) of each train operator. In most cases, a standard template arrangement applies, though bespoke arrangements are also possible. Schedule 8 sets out a framework by which penalties are paid by either party if train performance fails to meet set contractual targets, and bonuses are paid if these targets are exceeded. Schedule 8 incentivises Network Rail to improve train performance by minimising lateness and cancellations. It is a liquidated sums regime, and compensates train operators for the marginal effect on future revenues of changes in performance caused by Network Rail. While franchised passenger train operators are also incentivised to improve performance generally through their franchise agreement, under Schedule 8 of the Track Access Agreement (TAA), train operators pay directly for delays they cause their own trains. They do not pay directly for the impact of one train operator’s performance on others’ (namely ‘TOC on TOC delay’). This is attributed to Network Rail, but payments by train operators are established at levels such that, over time and on a national basis, Network Rail can expect to be compensated for the effect of TOC on TOC delay. ¾ Discounts: As mentioned in the Capacity charge description, freight train operators receive a 10% discount for the capacity charge amount payable, to reflect the greater flexibility, in pathing their services. Charging level The Track Access Charge depends on several variables such as the type of traffic or the type of vehicle. Then, a range of values for this charge is shown in Table 16. Table 16 – Range of values for the Minimum Access Charge in the United Kingdom Track access charge Service Type of service Track access Minimum access package Charging formula --- Price components Variables considered Charging values Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 65 Type of traffic Type of vehicle Variable Usage Charge Vehicle class 2,82 - 69,35 p/vehmile Service group for franchised passenger trains and freight trains Section for passenger train operator other than franchised passenger train operator Direction for passenger train operator other than franchised passenger train operator Capacity Charge Time band during one week for passenger train operator other than franchised passenger train operator 0,0003 – 2,6349 £/veh-mile Fixed Track Access Charge Train operator --- Source: Own from Network Statement 2008 A part from the range of values shown in the table above, it has been calculated the average charge. According to the 2005 Annual Report, the total operation income amounted to 1.610 million £, which corresponds to 2.379,6 million euros. As well, according to EUROSTAT, it is known that the total volume of traffic in 2005 rose up to 519.378.000 train-kilometres. As a result, the average charge is 4,58 €/train-km. In Figure 33 it can be seen the level of the average charge in the United Kingdom compared to the rest of the countries. Figure 33 – Average charge in the United Kingdom Average charges 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 AT - ÖBB DE - DBNetz EE - EVR EL - EDISY * ES - ADIF FR - RFF IT - RFI NL - ProRail PL-PLK PT - REFER SE - BV UK - Network Rail * Not available data € / train-km Source: Own from data of EUROSTAT and Network Rail’s 2005 Annual Report As it can be seen, the level of the average charge resulting in the United Kingdom is one of the highest compared with the rest of countries. This seems coherent given that the majority of charges are paid by the franchised operators which pay the fixed and the variable charge. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 66 3.5. Summary of charging practices The description of the national charging schemes has been summarised per countries by identifying the basic charge applied and the different components of the charge classified according to Directive 2001/14/EC. These charging components are: Basic charge, Markups, Reservation charges, Congestion charges, Scarcity charges, Performance regimes, Environmental charges and Discounts. Those practices applied in the different national charging schemes are summarised from Table 17 to Table 28, in order to smooth the process of assessment that will be carried in chapter 5. Table 17 – Summary of charging components applied in Austria Charging component Description Usage charge composed by a “charge in the amount of the directly incurred costs”, which is levied per gross ton kilometres, and a “linerelated usage charge”, which is a basic price per kilometre depending on the line category. Quality and line-related mark-ups and mark-downs composed by “wear on tracks by traction units” depending on the traction unit category. Basic charge Traffic-type related usage charges composed by a factor levied per trainkm varying with the type of service. Performance regime For high-quality passenger trains, the Standard Package prices will be increased in the event of late arrival in the scheduled stopping stations, including departure and train terminal stations, if the delay per stopping station exceeds a threshold of five minutes. The delay in minutes per station exceeding the fixed threshold will be allocated to the party causing it (the railway undertaking or the infrastructure manager) and multiplied by the factor given in the Product Catalogue (3 €/delay minute). Reasons for delay are coded pursuant to UIC Leaflet 450-2. Source: Own from data of ÖBB’s Track Access Product Catalogue Table 18 – Summary of charging components applied in Germany Charging component Description The user-dependent component depends on the route category and a train path product factor. Basic charge Payload component which is a weight-based component intended to reflect the additional costs caused by the use of heavy trains, due to the increase in wear and capacity utilisation. It is applied for train weights of 3.000 tonnes and above and is levied per gross tonne-km Reservation charge Fee for preparing an offer which is intended to reflect the costs for processing the applications for train paths allocation. Then a fee per train path is levied in case that the railway undertaking does not accept a train path offer. This fee cannot exceed the equivalent of access charge for Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 67 train paths that are not accepted. Cancellation fee which is levied in case of withdrawal of one or more train running days on a train path a cancellation fee is levied. It is composed by a minimum cancellation fee which corresponds to the amount of the fee required for preparing the offer and a percentage based cancellation fee depending on when the cancellation was made and the standard train path price. The cancellation fee cannot exceed the access charge for the cancelled train path. Congestion charge The utilisation factor multiplied to the service-dependent component is applied on particularly busy routes with alternative route sections and its main objective is to provide incentives to improve efficiency. Performance regime The additive factor considered in the service-dependent component is a clear performance regime intended to reduce disruptions. It consists on a compulsory delay minutes accountancy system based on control points in every section. The “delay minutes” accounted are allocated to DB Netz or to the railway undertakings according to specific responsibility rules and levied monthly through a unitary charge (0,10 €/ key delay minute). There is a delay allowance of 1 minute per section. Source: Own from data of DB Netz’s Network Statement Table 19 – Summary of charging components applied in Estonia Charging component Description Basic charge Variable part of the charge based on the actual gross tonne-kilometres Reservation charge Fix part of the charge is based on the requested train-kilometres and is paid whether the capacity allocated is used or not. This charge is not applied to international and local passenger trains. Scarcity charge In case of railway infrastructure depletion, an additional access fee resulting from an auction procedure is invoiced. The bid made by each railway undertaking should include a separate access fee bid for each part of the requested capacity. The Committee for Capacity Allocation allocates the capacity to the maker of the highest bid for each part of the requested capacity and then, if the capacity on offer enables it, to the maker of the second highest bid for each part of the requested capacity and so on. Source: Own from data of EVR’s Network Statement Table 20 – Summary of charging components applied in Greece Charging component Description Basic charge Basic price corresponding to the track maintenance which depends on coefficient for the track quality provided in each line section and on a coefficient for the line’s burdening by the train which depends on the speed range, the axial load range and on the number of axles. Congestion charge Basic price corresponding to the traffic management which depends on a peak period coefficient that varies with the time band and the line station and on a capacity occupation coefficient that takes account of every Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 68 service’s effect on the line’s capacity by dividing the running time and the ideal running time in a line section. Source: Own from data of EDISYs Network Statement Table 21 – Summary of charging components applied in Spain Charging component Description Basic charge Circulation Charge which depends on the actual kilometres considering the type of line and the type of service. It is levied per train-km. Mark-up Traffic Charge is only applied to passenger railway services offering a maximum speed greater than 260 km. It depends on the time band and is levied according to the capacity of the vehicles. Its value is established according to the service commercial value measured through the offered capacity. This can be considered a proxy to RU’s willingness to pay. Capacity Reservation Charge which depends on the number of kilometres requested considering the type of line, the type of service and the time band. It is levied per train-km. Reservation charges Access charge depending on the level of traffic estimated by the operator at the start of each Working Timetable. Source: Own from data of ADIF’s Network Statement Table 22 – Summary of charging components applied in France Charging component Description Basic charge Running charge levied for the actual kilometres and depending on the type of service. It is levied per train·kilometre. Access charge depending on the type of line which is defined by a grouping of the network into four categories of elementary sections (suburban lines, main intercity lines, high-speed lines, and other lines) and twelve sub-categories of elementary sections corresponding to the traffic characteristics. It is paid by all railway undertakings making a request and is levied per train-kilometre. Path reservation charge paid by all railway undertakings which have been granted a path by RFF depending on the time band, the line category and the type of train. It is levied per path-km. Freight trains and light running traffic benefit from a reducing coefficient. Reservation charges The reservation charge for station stop is only levied to passenger trains. It depends on the time band and on the station category and it is charged for departure and each stop. Performance regime Performance scheme put in place by RFF in order to optimise the performance of the rail network and offer a high-quality service to railway undertakings. It consists on a specific rate applied to the rate for the reservation of freight paths of which the total length is at least 300 km and of which the mean speed is greater than or equal to 70 km/h, not counting stops requested by the railway undertaking. Source: Own from data of RFF’s Network Statement Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 69 Table 23 – Summary of charging components applied in Italy Charging component Description Basic charge Variable part per kilometre/minute, related to the cost of use of the infrastructure depending on the actual kilometres travelled and the minutes staying inside a node. It varies with the type of line and, within it, depends on the relative density, speed and deterioration (calculated from vehicle variables like speed and weight). Fixed part per section/node related to the access cost for each section or node varying with the quality of the railway infrastructure. Reservation charges The reservation is set at the minimum value between the charge to access the section and the 50% of the whole track access charge. Performance regime The Performance Regime applied in Italy consists on a delay minutes accountancy system. The delays are measured at destination stations. It is based on allowed delay threshold which depends on the type of service: 5 minutes for regional passenger trains, 15 minutes for mid-long distance passenger trains and 30 minutes for freight trains. There is allocation of responsibilities between the infrastructure manager and the railway undertaking. The charge for disruption is cap to a maximum of 20% of the total usage charge or of 1,5% of the total yearly usage charge. Discount applied to network segments where no conditions stand for a single agent driving and it considers different unitary rates depending on the type of line and the time band. Discount Discount to the total volume of traffic in train-kilometres during a year depending on the type of traffic (short distance passenger, long distance passenger, freight) and it cannot exceed the 80% of the total usage charge of the year. Source: Own from data of RFI’s Network Statement Table 24 – Summary of charging components applied in the Netherlands Charging component Description Tariff per train-kilometre allocating marginal operational costs applied to all services. Basic charges Tariff per ton-kilometre allocating marginal maintenance costs applied to all services. Discount To promote use of the Port Railway Line, ProRail is therefore to grant a discount on the ton-kilometre charge applicable on the Combined Network on the access and exit routes of the Port Railway Line. Then, the discount is applied for the portion of the train weight over and above 750 tons Source: Own from data of ProRail’s Network Statement Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 70 Table 25 – Summary of charging components applied in Poland Charging component Description Basic charge Basic charge calculated on the basis of unit rates specified for train parameters (weight and speed) are defined by timetable for qualified passenger trains (average technical vehicle speed) and for other trains (gross weight of a train). Reservation charge The reservation charge included in the basic charge is agreed with each RU within the track access agreement. Performance regime There is a performance regime regulated in the contracts signed between PKP PLK and some of the railway undertakings. Justified by increase of performance volume resulting from transferring goods from other modes of transport into railways, PLK has a right to give discount (for certain period of time). Discount level cannot be higher than 50% of fixed part of average unit rates given in the price list. Discounts Discount (for a certain period of time) to exceptional trains (not included in Annual Timetable) serving celebrations concerning national and religious holidays or promoting railway industry. The level of discount is 60% of unit rates. Source: Own from data of PKP PLK’s Network Statement Table 26 – Summary of charging components applied in Portugal Charging component Description Basic charge Basic tariff for the essential services depends on the type of service, the type of traction and the line or section. Tariffs for the use of essential services are intended to recover marginal operation, maintenance and renewal costs and are allocated to train·km according to the type of line and the type of service. Reservation charge There is a tariff for unused requested capacity which varies from 10% to 100% of the applicable tariff depending on the anteriority of the cancellation in relation to the date of the requested capacity. Performance regime Railways undertakings are free to accept or not the performance regime. This performance regime consists on a delay minutes accountancy system based on control points at destination stations (only considering arrival times). It establishes certain performance standards depending on the type of service: 3 minutes for suburban passenger trains, 5 minutes for medium and long distance passenger trains and 30 minutes for freight trains. It is remarkable that in case the train is partially or totally cancelled, or there is a failure service at a station, the delay time is calculated as being the difference between the original arrival time at the destination and the best alternative for the final customer. For each train, the maximum penalty is 20% of the tariffs for essential services. Source: Own from data of REFER’s Network Statement Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 71 Table 27 – Summary of charging components applied in Sweden Charging component Description Basic charge Track charge reflects those costs of maintaining the railway infrastructure to which an additional train movement gives rise. It varies with the number of gross tonne-kilometres. Special train path charge levied to freight traffic crossing the Öresund Link is charged per train crossing. Mark-ups Special charge levied to passenger services per gross tonne-kilometre The Emission charge reflects the socio-economic costs in terms of environmental and health effects to which an additional train movement gives rise. It varies with the number of litres of diesel fuel and varies with the type of traction unit. Environmental charges The Accident charge reflects the socio-economic costs of accidents involving injury to which an additional train movement gives rise. It varies with the number of train-kilometres. According to the Network Statement 2007, the level of the charge has been determined by studies of the change of the socio-economic costs associated with accidents when traffic volumes change. Source: Own from data of Banverket’s Network Statement Table 28 – Summary of charging components applied in the United Kingdom Charging component Description Track variable usage charge reflects the wear and tear to track and nontrack asset associated with the volume and type of traffic (assuming current network capability). It is expressed in pence per vehicle mile. Different values are established for different type of vehicles, but it is independent from the area or region. Basic charges Electrification asset usage charge covers the incremental wear and tear costs on electrification assets. Different values are established for different geographical areas, season and time of day bands. Mark-up Fixed charges applied to franchised passenger operators are a mark-up aimed at recovering the future estimated revenue needs of the IM. The allocation of fixed costs is based implicitly on the railway undertaking’s ability to pay, through the franchising process Congestion charge An average capacity charge rate for each service group for franchised passenger train operators is calculated. For passenger train operators other than franchised passenger train operators, is taken into account the time of day and whether running is weekday or weekend. For freight train operators the charge is similar to the passenger charge, i.e. it is billed on an average rate per service group. This charge is intended to reflect marginal congestion costs calculated for different sections and time bands. Performance regime Schedule 8 sets out a framework by which penalties are paid by either party if train performance fails to meet set contractual targets, and bonuses are paid if these targets are exceeded. Schedule 8 incentivises Network Rail to improve train performance by minimising lateness and Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 72 cancellations. It is a liquidated sums regime, and compensates train operators for the marginal effect on future revenues of changes in performance caused by Network Rail. While franchised passenger train operators are also incentivised to improve performance generally through their franchise agreement, under Schedule 8 of the Track Access Agreement (TAA), train operators pay directly for delays they cause their own trains. They do not pay directly for the impact of one train operator’s performance on others’ (namely “TOC on TOC delay”). This is attributed to Network Rail, but payments by train operators are established at levels such that, over time and on a national basis, Network Rail can expect to be compensated for the effect of TOC on TOC delay. Discount Freight train operators receive a 10% discount for the capacity charge amount payable, to reflect the greater flexibility, in pathing their services Source: Own from data of Network Rail’s Network Statement It is to be noticed that only one country applies scarcity charges or, at least, they do not express it in their Network Statement. This is probably due to the fact that if an infrastructure manager applies a charge explicitly allocating scarcity costs, it is obliged to invest in new infrastructure in a certain period of time. It is also remarkable that the only country applying environmental charges is Sweden. The other charging schemes do not consider any element related to external costs. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 73 4. Assessment methodology 4.1. Introduction This chapter is aimed at the definition of the methodology which will be considered in order to assess the national charging schemes defined in chapter 3. This assessment will be carried out from two different points of view: assessment according to legislative framework and assessment according to economic principles. The assessment according to legislative framework is based on Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification. This assessment consists on determining the degree of compliance of each national charging scheme defined in chapter 3 with the legislative framework established by Directive 2001/14/EC. Therefore, the main objectives and conditions which are set by this directive will be identified while defining the evaluation criteria. The assessment according to economic principles is aimed at valuating important aspects which are not considered in the current legal framework. It is focused on highlighting strengths and weaknesses of the national charging schemes so this assessment relies in a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats). 4.2. Assessment criteria according to legislative framework The assessment according to legislative framework is based on the part of Directive 2001/14/EC related to the levy of charges for the use of railway infrastructure. This directive is composed of two main parts: the first one consists on the definition of the objectives to which the implementation of the Directive should lead and the second one corresponds to the establishment of the necessary conditions that will facilitate the reach of those objectives. The assessment is carried on the national charging schemes summarised in section 3.5. In order to determine the evaluation criteria, it has been necessary to select the most relevant objectives and conditions. 4.2.1. Identification of objectives Directive 2001/14/EC is based on a wide variety of objectives but there are several main objectives which remarkable and on which the Directive is specially focused: • Non-discriminatory access • Fairness • Cost-relatedness Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 80 In relation to fairness, none of the practices fulfil this objective given that they do not take into account the different effects caused by the different services. The only charge that provides incentives to cost efficiency is the traffic-related usage charge that varies with the traction unit category and this means that the different damage caused by each type of traction unit is considered. The performance regime fulfils the objective of providing incentives to operational efficiency because is intended to reduce disruptions caused by the delay in stations. The incentives are provided to both parties given that is a procedure of allocating responsibilities and this accomplish part of the condition established by Directive 2001/14/EC for the performance regimes. However, this condition is not fully accomplished because it considers penalties for disruptions but it does not consider either compensations for the undertakings which suffer from those disruptions nor bonuses for better than planned performance. Germany The German charging scheme has been reduced to a Basic charge, a Reservation charge, a Congestion charge and a Performance regime. These components of the charge have been described in chapter 3 and Figure 35 reflects a reminder schema. Figure 35 – Synthesis of the charging scheme applied by Germany Source: Own from data of DB Netz’s Network Statement All the components of the charging scheme applied in Germany are non-discriminatory because they are not differentiated according to the railway undertaking as well as fair, given that all the charges consider the type of service when calculating the final access charge. In particular, the payload component provides incentives to cost efficiency since it is intended to reflect the additional costs caused by the use of heavy trains due to the increase in wear and capacity utilisation. On the contrary, none of the basic charges are cost-related so they are not intended to charge the cost directly incurred as a result of the running of a train, they are calculated in User dependent component Basic charge Payload component Fee for preparing an offer Reservation charge Cancellation fee Congestion charge Utilisation factor Performance regime Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 81 order to recover total costs. However, the fee for preparing an offer is cost-related since it is intended to reflect the costs for processing the applications for train paths allocation. Concerning the operational efficiency, the two reservation charges, the congestion charge and the performance regime provide incentives to improve the operational efficiency. The reservation charges provide incentives to optimise the use of the capacity requested but, in addition, the cancellation fee provides higher incentives because it depends on the anticipation of the cancellation with respect to the running date. The utilisation factor which is considered a congestion charge is only levied on particularly busy routes and its main aim is to provide incentives to improve efficiency. Finally, the performance regime is characterised for providing incentives to reduce disruption to the railway undertaking and to the infrastructure manager. In relation to the structure of the performance regime, the condition established by Directive 2001/14/EC is not fully accomplished because it considers penalties for disruptions but it does not consider either compensations for the undertakings which suffer from those disruptions nor bonuses for better than planned performance. Estonia The charging scheme applied in Estonia has been simplified in a Basic charge plus a Reservation charge and a Congestion charge. These components of the charge have been described in chapter 3 and Figure 36 reflects a reminder schema. Figure 36 – Synthesis of the charging scheme applied by Estonia Source: Own from data of EVR’s Network Statement All the charges applied in Estonia are non-discriminatory since their definition is not dependent on the railway undertaking considered. On the contrary, all the charges considered are unfair given that they are not differentiated according to the type of service and, then, they are not taking into consideration the different effects caused by the different users. As well, neither the basic charge nor the reservation charge are cost-related given that the basic charge is not allocating marginal costs and the reservation charge is not related to the costs due to the allocation of capacity. The reservation charge provides incentives to operational efficiency given that it is levied whether the capacity allocated is used or not and, in consequence, railway undertakings will be incentivised to optimise the capacity requested. Basic charge Variable charge Reservation charge Fixed charge Scarcity charge Auction procedure Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 82 In relation to the scarcity charge, it should be mentioned that the auction procedure utilised to allocate capacity will probably optimise the use of the existing capacity given that it takes into account the ability to pay of the railway undertakings and that the capacity allocated will exactly match with the available capacity. Greece The charging scheme applied in Greece has been synthesized in a Basic charge plus a Congestion charge. These components of the charge have been described in chapter 3 and Figure 37 reflects a reminder schema. Figure 37 – Synthesis of the charging scheme applied by Greece Source: Own from data of EDISY’s Network Statement The two components considered in the Greek charging scheme fulfil the objectives of nondiscriminatory access and fairness throughout the railway network. They are nondiscriminatory because they are not defined taking into account each railway undertaking. In relation to fairness, the basic charge is fair given that it depends on a coefficient for the line’s burdening which varies with vehicle-related variables such as the speed range, the axial load and the number of axles. The basic tariff corresponding to traffic management takes into account the service’s effect on capacity and, in consequence, is fair. Both charges are cost-relatedness since they are intended to recover marginal costs. On the one hand, the basic price corresponding to the track maintenance provides incentives to cost efficiency since the consideration of the speed range, the axial load and the number of axles in order to reflect the line’s burdening is a clear differentiation of the effect caused by the different users on the railway infrastructure. On the other hand, the basic price corresponding to the traffic management provides incentives to operational efficiency given that is calculated on the basis of the ideal running time in each section. Then railway undertakings will be incentivised to accomplish this ideal running time so as to pay less. Spain The charging scheme applied in Spain has been synthesized in a Basic charge plus a Markup and a Reservation charge. These components of the charge have been described in chapter 3 and Figure 38 reflects a reminder schema. Basic charge Basic price corresponding to track maintenance Congestion charge Basic price corresponding to traffic management Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 83 Figure 38 – Synthesis of the charging scheme applied by Spain Source: Own from data of ADIF’s Network Statement All the charges applied in Spain are non-discriminatory since their definition is not dependent on the railway undertaking considered. In relation to fairness, the circulation charge is fair since it varies with the type of line and the type of service and so it is possible that it is intended to take into account the different effects caused by the different services. The traffic charge it could be also assessed positively according to the fairness objective because it is levied according to the capacity offered by the railway undertaking (i.e. €/100 seats-km) and this can be interpreted as it is taking into account the willingness to pay of each service. However, there is a risk of unfairness because it is only levied to passenger services. According to the objective of cost-relatedness, none of the charges fulfil this objective given that the circulation charge is not explicitly related to marginal costs and the reservation charges are not intended to recover the costs due to the allocation procedure. The only component of the charge providing incentives is the capacity reservation charge which provides incentives to operational efficiency since it is levied per kilometres requested and varies with the type of line, the type of service and the time band. Thus, this charge will lead to an efficient allocation of capacity as well as an efficient use of the capacity requested. The mark-up levied through the Traffic charge may accomplish the condition established by Directive 2001/14/EC on the not exclusion of market segments which can pay at least the cost that is directly incurred given that its value is established according to the service commercial value which is measured through the offered capacity and that is not applied to freight service whose ability to pay is lower. France The charging scheme applied in France has been simplified in a Basic charge, a Reservation charge and a Performance regime. These components of the charge have been described in chapter 3 and Figure 39 reflects a reminder schema. Basic charge Circulation charge Mark-up Traffic charge Access charge Reservation charge Capacity reservation charge Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 84 Figure 39 – Synthesis of the charging scheme applied by France Source: Own from data of RFF’s Network Statement All the charges applied in France are non-discriminatory since their definition is not dependent on the railway undertaking considered. The basic charge varies with the type of service and, in consequence, fulfils the fairness objective established by Directive 2001/14/EC. The charges considered are not cost-related given that the Running charge is not explicitly recovering marginal costs and that the reservation charges are not intended to recover the administrative costs due to the allocation of capacity. Concerning incentives to operational efficiency, only the reservation charges are intended to provide them since they are defined in order to optimise the capacity allocated. The access charge will ensure that railway undertakings only make those requests that they are sure will use and the path reservation charge depends on the time band, on the line category and on the type of train so the traffic will be modulated through this component. It is to be noticed that the performance regime considered in France does not fulfil either the objective focused on the incentives to operational efficiency or the condition established by Directive 2001/14/EC for performance regimes. The incentives to operational efficiency are only provided to the freight operator and not for the infrastructure manager, which is the main characteristic of a performance regime. As well, it does not consider penalties for disruptions nor compensations for undertakings which suffer from disruption nor bonuses for better than planned performance. Italy The charging scheme applied in Italy has been synthesized in a Basic charge, a Reservation charge, a Performance regime and a Discount. These components of the charge have been described in chapter 3 and Figure 40 reflects a reminder schema. Basic charge Running charge Access charge Reservation charge Path reservation charge Reservation charge for station stop Performance regime Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 85 Figure 40 – Synthesis of the charging scheme applied by Italy Source: Own from data of RFI’s Network Statement All the charges applied in Italy are non-discriminatory since their definition is not dependent on the railway undertaking considered. The charges considered are not cost-related given that the basic charges are not intended to recover marginal costs and the reservation charges are not related to the costs incurred due to the capacity allocation procedure. On the contrary, the variable part of the basic charge is fair and provides incentives to cost efficiency as it is established according to the type of line and, within it, depends on the relative density, speed and deterioration. In relation to the discounts applied, they do not fulfil the conditions established by Directive 2001/14/EC since there is no relation between the discount and the actual saving of the administrative costs to the infrastructure manager. As well, they are not limited in time and are not intended to encourage the development of new rail services. Considering the incentives to operational efficiency, the reservation charges and the performance regime provide them. The reservation charges provide incentives to the railway undertakings in order to optimise the capacity requested. The performance regime provides incentives to operational efficiency to the railway undertakings and to the infrastructure manager, since it is based on a delay minutes accountancy system which allocates responsibilities. Then, this performance regime fulfils part of the condition established in article 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC, but the part part which requires compensations for undertakings which suffer from disruption and bonuses for better than planned performance is not fulfilled. Netherlands The charging scheme applied in the Netherlands has been simplified in a Basic charge and a Discount. These components of the charge have been described in chapter 3 and Figure 41 reflects a reminder schema. Basic charge Variable part Fixed part Reservation charge “Minimum value” Performance regime Infrastructure backwardness Discounts Volume of traffic Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 86 Figure 41 – Synthesis of the charging scheme applied by the Netherlands Source: Own from data of ProRail’s Network Statement All the charges applied in the Netherlands are non-discriminatory since their definition is not dependent on the railway undertaking considered. The two tariffs considered as basic charges do not fulfil the objective of fairness since they do not take into consideration the effects caused by the different services operating the network. On the contrary, they are cost-related given that the tariff per train-km allocates marginal operation costs and the tariff per ton-km allocates marginal maintenance costs. In relation to the discount applied, it accomplish the part of the condition established in Directive 2001/14/EC where is said that discounts shall encourage the use of considerably underutilised lines. This discount provides incentives to operational efficiency since it is levied per ton-kilometre for the portion of the train weight over and above 750 tons and so the operators will tend to load more their trains and, then, less capacity will be consumed. Poland The charging scheme applied in Poland has been simplified in a Basic charge, a Reservation charge, a Performance regime and a Discount. These components of the charge have been described in chapter 3 and Figure 42 reflects a reminder schema. Figure 42 – Synthesis of the charging scheme applied by Poland Source: Own from data of PKP PLK’s Network Statement The reservation charge and the performance regime applied in Poland are assessed as discriminatory given that they are determined through an agreement between each railway undertaking and the infrastructure manager and this can lead to a different treatment for different operators. However, the rest of charges are considered as non-discriminatory. Tariff per train-km Basic charge Tariff per ton-km Discounts Basic charge Reservation charge Performance regime Increase of volume Discounts Exceptional trains Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 87 The basic charge is not cost-related because it is not intended to recover marginal costs. On the contrary, this charge is assessed as fair because varies with the type of service and it provides incentives to cost efficiency since its units rates are specified for train parameters such as weight and speed. The reservation charge and the performance regime cannot be assessed according to the rest of objectives and conditions established by Directive 2001/14/EC due to its lack of definition. In relation to discounts, both discounts fulfil the condition of being time limited as is expressed in its definition. However, they are not cost-related because there is no relation to the actual administrative cost savings or it is not explicitated and they do not provide incentives to a most efficient use of the network because there is no relation between their definition and the operational efficiency. Portugal The charging scheme applied in Portugal has been synthesized in a Basic charge, a Reservation charge and a Performance regime. These components of the charge have been described in chapter 3 and Figure 43 reflects a reminder schema. Figure 43 – Synthesis of the charging scheme applied by Poland Source: Own from data of REFER’s Network Statement All the charges applied in Portugal are non-discriminatory since their definition is not dependent on the railway undertaking considered. The basic tariff for essential services fulfils the majority of the objectives established by the Directive. It is fair since it takes into consideration the type of service, it is cost-related because is intended to recover marginal operation, maintenance and renewal costs and, finally, it provides incentives to cost efficiency takes into account the effect caused by the different categories of traction units. The reservation charge provide high incentives to operational efficiency since its levied for the requested but not used capacity and, in addition, it takes into consideration the anteriority of the cancellation with respect to the date of the requested capacity. This charge will incentivise the railway undertakings to use the capacity requested but, in case of cancellation, they are incentivised to cancel the path as early as possible and, in consequence, the infrastructure manager will have a certain margin to reallocate the cancelled path. Basic charge Tariff for essential services Reservation charge Performance regime Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 88 The performance regime provides incentives to operational efficiency to the railway undertakings and to the infrastructure manager, since it is based on a delay minutes accountancy system which allocates responsibilities. Then, this performance regime fulfils part of the condition established in article 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC, but the part part which requires compensations for undertakings which suffer from disruption and bonuses for better than planned performance is not fulfilled. Sweden The charging scheme applied in Sweden has been synthesized in a Basic charge, a Mark-up and Environmental charges. These components of the charge have been described in chapter 3 and Figure 44 reflects a reminder schema. Figure 44 – Synthesis of the charging scheme applied by Sweden Source: Own from data of Banverket’s Network Statement All the charges applied in Sweden are non-discriminatory since their definition is not dependent on the railway undertaking considered. When assessing the basic charge, this is a cost-related charge as far as it allocates marginal maintenance costs. On the contrary, it is not fair because it does not consider the different effects caused by the different types of services operating in the railway network. As well, it does not provide incentives to cost efficiency since it does not vary with vehicle-related variables which reflect the damage caused to the infrastructure. In relation to mark-ups, both mark-ups considered are not cost related so they are intended to recover part of the infrastructure costs and their value is not stated by considering the ability to pay of the service affected (or at least this relation is not specified by the Banverket’s Network Statement). The environmental charges are cost-related since they are levied according to the magnitude of the effect caused by the train movement, so the accident charge is levied per train-kilometre and the emission charge is levied per litre of diesel fuel, which is directly related to the amount of emission. It is remarkable that this charging scheme does not provide either incentives to operational efficiency or incentives to cost efficiency. Basic charge Reflecting maintenance costs Applied to freight trains corssing the Öresund Link Mark-up Applied to passenger trains over the whole network Emmission charge Environmental charges Accident charge Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 89 United Kingdom The charging scheme applied in the United Kingdom has been simplified in a Basic charge, a Mark-up, a Congestion charge, a Performance regime and a Discount. These components of the charge have been described in chapter 3 and Figure 45 reflects a reminder schema. Figure 45 – Synthesis of the charging scheme applied by the United Kingdom Source: Own from data of Network Rail’s Network Statement All the charges applied in the United Kingdom are non-discriminatory since their definition is not dependent on the railway undertaking considered. The basic charges considered in the charging scheme applied in the United Kingdom, should be assessed as fair, because take into consideration the type of service, as costrelated, since they recover the marginal costs of wear and tear on the infrastructure, and as charges providing incentives to cost efficiency, given that variables differentiating the type of service are taken into account. Mark-ups are recovered through a fixed charge which is only levied to franchised passenger train operators. This charge is fair because through the franchising process it is possibly explorated the demand’s willingness to pay. In relation to the congestion charge, it is cost-related since it reflects the marginal congestion costs of different sections and time bands. Concerning the performance regime, it provides incentives to operational efficiency to the railway undertakings and to the infrastructure manager. This performance regime fulfils the condition established by Directive 2001/14/EC which say that it may be included compensations for undertakings which suffer from disruption but it does not consider the provision of bonuses that reward better than planned performance. When assessing the discount applied to freight train operators it can be said that it is fulfilled the condition of limiting the discount to the actual saving of the administrative Track variable usage charge Basic charge Electrification asset usage charge Mark-up Fixed charge Congestion charge Average capacity charge applied to franchised passenger train operators Performance regime Discount Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 96 Weaknesses Threats : Complex application : Congestion charge independent of the type of service : Sending of unclear signals to the railway undertakings : Inconsistent cost allocation Source: Own from data of EDISY’s Network Statement Spain The components of the charging scheme considered in the assessment are explained in section 3. However, the charges taken into account are listed below in order to facilitate the comprehension of the SWOT analysis. • Circulation charge (Basic charge) • Traffic charge (Mark-up) • Access charge (Reservation charge) • Capacity reservation charge (Reservation charge) Table 33 – SWOT Analysis for the charging scheme applied in Spain Strengths Opportunities ; Circulation charge depending on the type of service and the type of line ; Traffic charge allocated to high value services ; Traffic charge set according to the demand’s willingness to pay measured through the capacity offered (€/100 seats-km) ; Traffic charge depending on the time band ; Access charge applied to all services ; Access charge depending on the foreseen volume of traffic ; Capacity reservation charge set at a high level ; Capacity reservation charge depending on the route category and the type of service ; Capacity reservation charge depending on the time band ; Capacity reservation charge levied per path-kilometre ; Simple application ; Incentives to a balanced distribution of services ; Increase of the recovery rate ; Avoiding exclusion of valuable services from the market ; Management of demand through time ; Fairness ; Possible consideration of the demand's ability to pay ; High incentives to efficient use of capacity allocated ; Consideration of cost-causation ; Relation to scarcity costs 1 ; Fairness (each kilometre is invoiced at the same price) ; Implementation of planning strategies Weaknesses Threats : Low relation to specific infrastructure : Lack of transparency Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 97 costs : Traffic charge not depending on vehicle-related variables : Access charge depends on ranges of volume of traffic : High level of the capacity reservation charge : Capacity reservation charge not considering the anticipation of the request with respect to the running date : Low incentives to cost efficiency : Unfairness (each kilometre is not invoiced at the same price) : Risk of exclusion of valuable services : Less stability of the capacity allocation procedure Remarks: 1 The fact that the reservation charge is set depending on the time band can be seen as a way of considering scarcity costs. Source: Own from data of ADIF’s Network Statement France The components of the charging scheme considered in the assessment are explained in section 3. However, the charges taken into account are listed below in order to facilitate the comprehension of the SWOT analysis. • Running charge (Basic charge) • Access charge (Reservation charge) • Path reservation charge (Reservation charge) • Reservation charge per station stop (Reservation charge) • Performance regime Table 34 – SWOT Analysis for the charging scheme applied in France Strengths Opportunities ; Running charge depending on the type of service ; Access charge applied to all services ; Access charge levied for making a request per train-km ; Path reservation charge set at a high level ; Path reservation charge depending on the route category and the type of service ; Path reservation charge depending on the time band ; Path reservation charge levied per path-kilometre ; Reservation charge per station stop ; Incentives to a balanced distribution of services ; Fairness ; Stability of the capacity allocation procedure 1 ; High incentives to efficient use of capacity allocated ; Consideration of cost-causation ; Relation to scarcity costs ; Fairness (each kilometre is invoiced at the same price) ; Incentives to optimal use of the passenger stations Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 98 depending on the time band and the station category ; Performance regime focused on most disrupting services ; Performance regime based on a condition on operational performance ; Simple application ; Improvement of the efficiency in the critical part of the market 2 ; Incentives to operational efficiency to freight operators ; Implementation of planning strategies Weaknesses Threats : Low relation to specific infrastructure costs : Running charge not depending on vehicle-related variables : Access charge not depending on the type of service : High level of the path reservation charge : Path reservation charge not considering the anticipation of the request with respect to the running date : Reservation charge per station stop only levied to passenger services : Performance regime only applied to freight services 3 : Performance regime based on fix operational standards : Performance regime not considering compensations to railway undertakings which suffer from disruptions : Lack of transparency : Low incentives to cost efficiency : Not consideration of cost-causation : Risk of exclusion of valuable services : Less stability of the capacity allocation procedure : Unbalanced distribution of services : Possible unfairness between railway undertakings : No incentives to the infrastructure manager’s operational efficiency : Low incentives to improve operational efficiency : Inconsistent valuation of disruptions : Possible incentive to disruption : No incentives to overperformance : Unfairness between railway undertakings Remarks: 1 The levying of an access charge will lead to a stability of the capacity allocation procedure given that operators will not make a request unless they are sure that they will accept the offer. 2 The application of a performance regime focused on the most disrupting services implies that the improvement of the operational efficiency will be higher than if it was applied to another market segments. However, the improvement of the operational efficiency would be maximum if the performance regime was applied to all the services. 3 The fact that the performance regime is based on operational fixed standards implies that there are low incentives to operational efficiency since when the compensation is reached there are no incentives to continue improving performance and, so, to overperformance. As well, the disruptions are inconsistently valuated so only performances below fixed operational standards are penalised. Indeed, it is possible that some services performing over the operational standard will be incentivized to disrupt. Source: Own from data of RFF’s Network Statement Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 99 Italy The components of the charging scheme considered in the assessment are explained in section 3. However, the charges taken into account are listed below in order to facilitate the comprehension of the SWOT analysis. • Variable charge (Basic charge) • Fixed charge (Reservation charge) • Reservation charge • Performance regime • Discount for infrastructure backwardness • Discount to the total volume of traffic Table 35 – SWOT Analysis for the charging scheme applied in Italy Strengths Opportunities ; Variable charge depending on the type of service and the type of line ; Variable charge according to vehiclerelated variables ; Variable charge considering the relative density ; Fixed charge related to the access of each section or node ; Reservation charge capped to a maximum charge ; Performance regime based on real circulations ; Performance regime based a delay minutes accountancy system ; Performance regime allocating responsibilities ; Performance regime applied to all services ; Performance regime capped to a maximum charge ; Discount related to infrastructure backwardness ; Discount capped ; Incentives to a balanced distribution of services ; Incentives to cost efficiency ; Incentives to operational efficiency ; Stability of the capacity allocation procedure ; Avoiding exclusion of valuable services ; Incentives to accomplish planned performance ; Incentives to the infrastructure manager to improve the operational efficiency ; Incentives to railway undertakings to the efficient use of capacity allocated ; Fairness ; Avoiding exclusion of valuable services ; Possible allocation of savings on maintenance costs ; Stability of the charging system Weaknesses Threats : Traffic management costs allocated according to deterioration through the variable charge : Reservation charge not related to capacity allocation costs : Reservation charge not considering : Distorted incentives to cost efficiency 1 : Lack of transparency Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 100 the anticipation of the request with respect to the running date : Performance regime based on a delay threshold : Delay threshold depending the type of service : Performance regime not considering compensations to railway undertakings which suffer from disruptions : Discount applied in sections with infrastructure backwardness : Discount depending on the type of traffic : Complex application : Less stability of the capacity allocation procedure : Possible incentive to disruption (for those services performing below the threshold) : Inconsistent valuation of disruptions 2 : Unfairness between railway undertakings : No incentives to improve the state of the infrastructure : Risk of unfairness between railway undertakings : Sending of unclear signals to the railway undertakings Source: Own from data of RFI’s Network Statement Netherlands The components of the charging scheme considered in the assessment are explained in section 3. However, the charges taken into account are listed below in order to facilitate the comprehension of the SWOT analysis. • Tariff per train-kilometre (Basic charge) • Tariff per ton-kilometre (Basic charge) • Discount Table 36 – SWOT Analysis for the charging scheme applied in the Netherlands Strengths Opportunities ; Basic charges based on detailed cost knowledge ; Basic charges set at a low ; Discount intended to encourage the use of the Port Railway Line ; Discount applied for the portion of the train weight over and above 750 tons ; Simple application ; Sending of consistent economic signals to the railway undertakings ; Improvement of the market shares for railways ; Possibility of recovering the initial investment ; Incentives to operational efficiency 1 ; Implementation of planning strategies Weaknesses Threats : Low recovery rate by the basic charges : Independence of the basic charges from the type of service : High dependence from State subsidies : Possible cross-subsidization among different services Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 101 : Independence of the basic charges from the type of infrastructure : Discount applied only to specific services : Complex calculation procedure of the basic charge : Low incentives to cost efficiency : Risk of unfairness : Increase of the administrative costs to the infrastructure manager Remarks: 1 As the discount is applied to the portion of the train weight over and above 750 tons, railway undertakings will be incentivized to carry the maximum possible load and, then, the existing capacity will be increased. Source: Own from data of ProRail’s Network Statement Poland The components of the charging scheme considered in the assessment are explained in section 3. However, the charges taken into account are listed below in order to facilitate the comprehension of the SWOT analysis. • Basic charge • Reservation charge • Performance regime • Discount for increase of volume • Discount for exceptional trains Table 37 – SWOT Analysis for the charging scheme applied in Poland Strengths Opportunities ; Basic charge depending on vehiclerelated variables ; Basic charge depending on the type of service and the type of line ; Possible exploration of the demand’s willingness to pay through the agreed reservation charge ; Possible optimisation of the existing capacity through the performance regime ; Discount encouraging new services ; Discount capped ; Discount for exceptional trains promoting events related to rail ; Discounts limited in time ; Incentive to cost-efficiency ; Incentives to a balanced distribution of services ; Possible optimisation of the capacity allocation procedure ; Avoiding exclusion of valuable services from the market ; Possible incentives to operational efficiency ; Increase of rail market shares ; Stability of the charging system ; Approximation of the railroad to the society ; Avoiding distorted signals to the market over long periods of time Weaknesses Threats : Low relation to specific infrastructure costs : Complex application : Lack of transparency : Sending of unclear signals to the railway undertakings Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 102 : Low transparency of the agreed charges (reservation charge and performance regime) : Discount applied to freight services : No relation of discounts to savings on administrative costs : Risk of unfairness between railway undertakings : Risk of unfairness : Possible distortion of the charging scheme Source: Own from data of PKP PLK’s Network Statement Portugal The components of the charging scheme considered in the assessment are explained in section 3. However, the charges taken into account are listed below in order to facilitate the comprehension of the SWOT analysis. • Basic tariff for the essential • Reservation charge • Performance regime Table 38 – SWOT Analysis for the charging scheme applied in Portugal Strengths Opportunities ; Basic tariff based on detailed cost knowledge ; Basic tariff set at a low level ; Basic tariff depending on the type of service and the type of line ; Basic tariff depending on vehiclerelated variables ; Reservation charge only levied in case of “failure to use” capacity ; Percentage based ; Consideration of the anticipation of the cancellation with respect to the running date ; Performance regime based on real circulations ; Performance regime based a delay minutes accountancy system ; Performance regime allocating responsibilities ; Performance regime applied to all services ; Performance regime capped to a maximum charge ; Sending of consistent economic signals to the railway undertakings ; Improvement of the market shares for railways ; Incentives to a balanced distribution of services ; Incentive to cost-efficiency ; Incentives to efficient use of the capacity allocated ; No exclusion of valuable services ; Proportionality of the tariff ; Incentive to early notification ; More possibilities to reallocation of capacity ; Incentives to accomplish planned performance ; Incentives to the infrastructure manager to improve the operational efficiency ; Incentives to railway undertakings to the efficient use of capacity allocated ; Fairness ; Avoiding exclusion of valuable services Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 103 Weaknesses Threats : Low recovery rate by the basic charges : Complex calculation procedure of the basic charge : Reservation charge independent of any variable such as type of service or time band : Performance regime based on a delay threshold : Delay threshold depending the type of service : Performance regime not considering compensations to railway undertakings which suffer from disruptions : High dependence from State subsidies : Increase of the administrative costs to the infrastructure manager : Not consideration of cost causation : Possible incentive to disruption (for those services performing below the threshold) : Inconsistent valuation of disruptions 2 : Unfairness between railway undertakings Source: Own from data of REFER’s Network Statement Sweden The components of the charging scheme considered in the assessment are explained in section 3. However, the charges taken into account are listed below in order to facilitate the comprehension of the SWOT analysis. • Track charge (Basic charge) • Mark-ups • Emission charge • Accident charge Table 39 – SWOT Analysis for the charging scheme applied in Sweden Strengths Opportunities ; Track charge based on detailed cost knowledge ; Track charge set at a low level ; Mark-ups linked to a specific investment ; Levied per crossing ; Emission and accident charges based on marginal costs ; Emission charge levied per litre of diesel fuel ; Emission charge varies with the type of traction unit ; Accident charge levied per trainkilometre ; Simple application ; Sending of consistent economic signals to the railway undertakings ; Improvement of the market shares for railways ; Financement of specific investment ; Incentives to operational efficiency ; Sending of consistent economic signals to the railway undertakings ; Optimum cost allocation ; Incentives to the use of environmental friendly traction ; Correct cost allocation ; Implementation of planning strategies Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 104 Weaknesses Threats : Track charge not depending on the type of service : Track charge not depending on vehicle-related variables : Low recovery rate by the basic charges : Complex calculation procedure of the basic charge : High level of the mark-up : Mark-up levied to freight services : Mark-up for passenger services applied to the whole network while is intended to recover an specific investment : No link of the emission and the accident charge to equivalent charges in competing modes : Possible cross-subsidization among different services : Low incentives to cost efficiency : High dependence from State subsidies : Increase of the administrative costs to the infrastructure manager : Possible exclusion of valuable services : Possible underutilisation of the new built capacity : Unfairness : Possible decrease of the market shares for railways Source: Own from data of Banverket’s Network Statement United Kingdom The components of the charging scheme considered in the assessment are explained in section 3. However, the charges taken into account are listed below in order to facilitate the comprehension of the SWOT analysis. • Track variable usage charge (Basic charge) • Electrification asset usage charge (Basic charge) • Fixed charge (Mark-up) • Capacity charge (Congestion charge) • Performance regime • Discount Table 40 – SWOT Analysis for the charging scheme applied in the United Kingdom Strengths Opportunities ; Basic charges and capacity charge based on detailed cost knowledge ; Track variable usage charge depending on the type of traffic ; Track variable usage charge depending on vehicle-related variables ; Electrification asset usage charge depending on geographical areas, season and day bands ; Exploration of the demand’s willingness to pay through the ; Sending of consistent economic signals to the railway undertakings ; Incentives to a balanced distribution of services ; Incentive to cost-efficiency ; Possible consideration of costcausation ; Maximization of cost recovery Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 105 franchising process for the mark-up ; Capacity charge defined according to service groups ; Performance regime based on real deviations ; Performance regime consisting on a delay minutes accountancy system ; Performance regime allocating responsibilities ; Performance regime applied to all services ; Performance regime considering compensations to railway undertakings which suffer from disruptions ; Discount applied to freight services ; Simple application ; Avoiding exclusion of valuable services ; Incentives to operational efficiency ; Incentives to accomplish planned performance ; Incentives to the infrastructure manager to improve the operational efficiency ; Incentives to railway undertakings to the efficient use of capacity allocated ; Fairness ; Fairness between railway undertakings ; Implementation of planning strategies Weaknesses Threats : Track variable usage charge not depending on vehicle-related variables : Complex calculation procedure : Mark-up applied to specific services : Performance regime based on a delay threshold : Discount applied only to specific services : Low incentives to cost efficiency : Increase of the administrative costs to the infrastructure manager : Unbalanced distribution of services : Possible incentive to disruption (for those services performing below the threshold) : Risk of unfairness between railway undertakings Source: Own from data of Network Rail’s Network Statement 5.3.2. Conclusions of the SWOT analysis After assessing every national charging scheme, there are some common opportunities and threats in which the different current strengths and weaknesses can derive, respectively, and which should be remarked. As a starting point, the lack of transparency is a very common threat among the charging schemes considered as the majority of countries do not specify the relation between the charges levied and the specific costs which are intended to recover. However, it is possible that in some cases this relation between costs and charges actually exists but the infrastructure managers are not likely to publish it. The opposite case is where countries recognise to recover marginal cost, in which case the charges are based on detailed cost knowledge and, in consequence, the economic signals sent to railway undertakings are completely consistent. Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 112 http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_220/l_22020040621en00580060.pdf EC (2005), “Task Force Track Access Charges”, 30 June 2005. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rail/rb/doc/report-track-access-charges-tf.pdf ECMT (1998), “User charge for railway infrastructure”, Conclusions of Round Table 107. Paris, 26-27 March 1998. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/online/conclus/rt107e.pdf ECMT (2002), “Seminar on Railway Reform, Restructuring and Competition”, Beijing 28/29, January 2002. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/online/speeches/SPchina02.pdf ECMT (2005a), “Railway reform & Charges for the use of Infrastructure”, OECD publishing ECMT (2005b), “The role of Government in the European railway investment and funding”, Beijing, China. 20 September 2005. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/online/speeches/SPbeijing05.pdf ECMT (2007), “Railway Accounts for effective regulation”, OECD publishing. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/pub/pubpdf/07RailAcc.pdf Ekstrom Alf (Banverket), “Swedish infrastructure charging. Policy guidelines”. Workshop in Geneva, 28-29 October 2004. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/topics/rail/Geneva04/Ekstrom.pdf Garstenauer Klaus (ÖBB), “Marginal cost pricing under Cost Recovery Constraints”. Workshop in Geneva, 28-29 October 2004. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/topics/rail/Geneva04/Garstenauer.pdf Groot Hinne (Ministry of Transport), “Infrastrucuture charging in the Netherlands”. Workshop in Geneva, 28-29 October 2004. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/topics/rail/Geneva04/Groot.pdf Haase Dagmar (DB Netz), “European Performance Regime”. UIC, Workshop in Paris, 2829 October 2004. Available at: http://www.uic.asso.fr/download.php/infra/200410_epr_04_intro.pdf?PHPSESSID=5cf ebc7b1b312f3b61ac054a9f8d19c2 IBM (2004), “Rail Liberalisation Index”, 2004 Koppel Ott (2006), “Rail Transport Policy for the European Union and Estonia: Objectives and Outcome”, ISSN 1648-3480 online TRANSPORT – 2006, Vol XXI, No 3 Ia – Ig. Available at: http://www.transport.vgtu.lt/upload/tif_zur/2006-3-koppel.pdf Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 113 Kulesza Krzysztof (Ministry of transport), “Principles of network access charging in Poland”. Workshop in Paris, 1-2 February 2005. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/topics/rail/Paris05/Poland1.pdf Luís Celina (intf), “Rail Infrastructure Access Charges”. Workshop in Paris, 1-2 February 2005. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/topics/rail/Paris05/Portugal.pdf McMahon Paul (ORR), “Access pricing in the UK: Evolution and current structure of Charges Review”. Workshop in Paris, 1-2 February 2005. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/topics/rail/Paris05/GreatBritain.pdf Marzioli, Franco (RFI), “Italy: Charging system on the network managed by RFI”. Workshop in Rome, 9 July 2004. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/topics/rail/Rome04/Italy.ppt Nash Cris and Cesar Rivera Trujillo (2004), “Rail regulatory reform in Europe – principles and practice”, Paper presented at the STELLA Focus Group 5 synthesis meeting, Athens, June 2004 Nash Cris and Mathews Bryan (2004), “Summary of Rome Workshop on Rail infrastructure charges”. Geneva, 28-29 October 2004. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/topics/rail/Geneva04/Nash.pdf Nach Cris and Johnson Daniel (2005), “Scoping study for scarcity charges”. Available at: http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/its_uleeds_report.pdf NEA Transport research and training, OGM, University of Oxford, TINA Vienna, Erasmus University Rotterdam and TIS.pt (2005), “European railways administrations institutions and legislation (ERAIL)”. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rail/countries/erail-report-jun2005.pdf Remond Thomas (RFF), “Infrastructure charging on the French railway network: RFF’s experience”. Workshop in Geneva, 28-29 October 2004. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/topics/rail/Geneva04/Remond.pdf Scherp Jan, “The new framework for access to the railway infrastructure in the EU”, JS260702 Schmutzler, A. and Buehler, S. (2002), “Railway reforms in Europe: a lost cause?” Available at: http://www.soi.uzh.ch/staff/buehler/railway.pdf Steer Davies Gleave (2005), “Railimplement – Implementation of EU Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC”, November 2005. Abailable at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rail/studies/doc/railimplement.pdf Trans-European Railway (TER), Union International des Chemins de Fer (UIC) and Communauté des Chemins de Fer Européens (CCFE) (2001), “Seminar on infrastructure charging and EU railway policy”. Paris, 16-18 May 2001. Available at: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/ter/terdocs/ter-seminar-may2001.pdf Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 114 Thomas John (2002), “EU Task Force on rail Infrastructure Charging: summary findings on best practice in marginal costs pricing”. Imprint – Europe seminar, Octtober 23 – 24, Brussels Thomas John (ORR), “The variable cost approach to pricing”. Workshop in Rome, 9 July 2004. Available at: http://www.cemt.org/topics/rail/Rome04/UK.ppt Transport & Mobility Leuven (2005), “Assessment of the contribution of the TEN and other transport policy measures to the mid-term implementation of the Whie Paper on the European Transport Policy for 2010” (Annex XIII: Developments in rail transport since the 2001 White Paper). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/white_paper/mid_term_revision/doc/annexes/annex_1 3.pdf UIC (2007), “European Performance Regime”. Available at: http://www.uic.asso.fr/download.php/infra/EPR.pdf World Bank (2005), “Railway reform in the Western Balkans” (Annex C: Rail Infrastructure Access Pricing). Transport Unit, Infrastructure Department. December 2005. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rail/third_countries/doc/2005_12_western_balkans_rail ways_report_en.pdf Consulted web pages EUROSTAT: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,45323734&_dad=portal&_sc hema=PORTAL&screen=welcomeref&open=/transp/rail/rail_tf&language=en&prod uct=EU_transport&root=EU_transport&scrollto=164 Network Statements AT: http://www.railnetaustria.at/vip8/betrieb/en/OneStopShop/Network_Statement_Anhae nge/Anhaenge/7_6_3_Net_Statement2007_e.pdf DE: http://www.db.de/site/shared/en/file__attachements/information__material/netz/train_ _path__pricing__system__2007__of__dbnetz.pdf EE: http://www.evr.ee/?id=2124 ES: http://www.adif.es/empresa/pdf/declarared032007/DR2007_actualizacion.pdf Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 115 FR: http://www.rff.fr/biblio_pdf/pages_en_docref_autre_accueil.pdf IT: http://www.rfi.it/netstat/netstat/general_information.htm NL: http://www.prorail.nl/NR/rdonlyres/77FAAA11-2D84-419F-B3B47C7C8EF5A4FE/0/Networkstatement2007.pdf PT: http://www.refer.pt/Documentos/Network%20Statement%20REFER%202007.pdf SE: http://www.banverket.se/en-gb/Amnen/The-railway/Network-Statement.aspx UK: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/3640_network_statement_2008.pdf Annual Reports AT: http://www.oebb.at/vip8/holding/de/Pressecorner/Publikationen/Annual_Report_2005. pdf DE: http://www.db.de/site/shared/en/file__attachements/reports/annual__report__2005.pdf EE: http://www.evr.ee/?id=1312 ES: http://www.adif.es/empresa/pdf/memoria2005/MemoriaFinanciera2005.pdf FR: http://www.rff.fr//biblio_pdf/en_annual_report_2005.pdf IT: http://www.rfi.it/files/BILANCIO%20RFI/Rfi%20Bilancio%202005.pdf NL: http://www.prorail.nl/NR/rdonlyres/43A2D843-45C3-4ECB-94A42609CE01D787/0/Annualreport.pdf PL: http://www.plk-sa.pl/fileadmin/pdf/raport/Raport_EN_.pdf PT: Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 116 http://www.refer.pt/Documentos/Relatorio_Contas/REFER2005_EN.pdf UK: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/3340_networkrailinfrastructurelimitedannualre port2006.pdf Charging for the railway infrastructure use during the last five years in Europe: state of the art and opportunities for revitalising the railways 117 Annex I : Directive 2001/14/EC DIRECTIVE 2001/14/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 71 thereof, Having regard to the proposal from the Commission( 1 ), Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee ( 2 ), Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions ( 3 ), Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty( 4 ) in the light of the joint text approved on 22 November 2000 by the Conciliation Committee, Whereas: (1) Greater integration of the Community railway sector is an essential element of the completion of the internal market and moving towards achieving sustainable mobility. (2) Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways( 5 ) provides for certain access rights in international rail transport for railway undertakings, and international groupings of railway undertakings; these rights mean that railway infrastructure can be used by multiple users. (3) Council Directive 95/19/EC of 19 June 1995 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charging of infrastructure fees( 6 ) set out a broad framework for the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity. (4) Those Directives have not prevented a considerable variation in the structure and level of railway infrastructure charges and the form and duration of capacity allocation processes. (5) To ensure transparency and non-discriminatory access to rail infrastructure for all railway undertakings all the necessary information required to use access rights are to be published in a network statement. (6) Appropriate capacity-allocation schemes for rail infrastructure coupled with competitive operators will result in a better balance of transport between modes. (7) Encouraging optimal use of the railway infrastructure will lead to a reduction in the cost of transport to society. (8) An efficient freight sector, especially across borders, requires action for the opening up of the market. (9) It should be possible for Member States to allow purchasers of railway services to enter directly the capacity-allocation process. (10) The revitalisation of European railways by means of extended access for international freight on the Trans-European Rail Freight Network requires fair intermodal competition between rail and road, particularly by taking appropriate account of the different external effects; appropriate charging schemes for rail infrastructure coupled with appropriate charging schemes for other transport infrastructures and competitive operators will result in an optimal balance of different transport modes. (11) The charging and capacity allocation schemes should permit equal and non-discriminatory access for all undertakings and attempt as far as possible to meet the needs of all users and traffic types in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. (1) OJ C 321, 20.10.1998, p. 10, and OJ C 116 E, 26.4.2000, p. 40. (2) OJ C 209, 22.7.1999, p. 22. (3) OJ C 57, 29.2.2000, p. 40. (4) Opinion of the European Parliament of 10 March 1999 (OJ C 175, 21.6.1999, p. 120), confirmed on 27 October 1999 (OJ C 154, 5.6.2000, p. 22), Council Common Position of 28 March 2000 (OJ C 178, 27.6.2000, p. 28) and Decision of the European Parliament of 5 July 2000 (not yet published in the Official Journal), Decision of the European Parliament of 1 February 2001 and Council Decision of 20 December 2000. (5) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 25. Directive as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (see page 1 of this Official Journal). (6) OJ L 143, 27.6.1995, p. 75. 15.3.2001 L 75/29Official Journal of the European Communities EN (12) Within the framework set out by Member States charging and capacity-allocation schemes should encourage railway infrastructure managers to optimise use of their infrastructure. (13) Railway undertakings should receive clear and consistent signals from capacity allocation schemes which lead them to make rational decisions. (14) In order to take into account the needs of users, or potential users, of railway infrastructure capacity to plan their business, and to the needs of customers and funders, it is important that the infrastructure manager ensures that infrastructure capacity is allocated in a way which reflects the need to maintain and improve service reliability levels. (15) It is desirable for railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager to be provided with incentives to minimise disruption and improve performance of the network. (16) Charging and capacity allocation schemes should allow for fair competition in the provision of railway services. (17) It is important to have regard to the business requirements of both applicants and the infrastructure manager. (18) It is important to maximise the flexibility available to the infrastructure managers with regard to the allocation of infrastructure capacity, but this must be consistent with satisfaction of the applicant's reasonable requirements. (19) The capacity allocation process must prevent the imposition of undue constraints on the wishes of other undertakings holding, or intending to hold, rights to use the infrastructure to develop their business. (20) It is desirable to grant some degree of flexibility to infrastructure managers to enable a more efficient use to be made of the infrastructure network. (21) Capacity allocation and charging schemes may need to take account of the fact that different components of the rail infrastructure network may have been designed with different principal users in mind. (22) The requirements for passenger services may often conflict with the requirements for freight; the requirements for passenger services may result in a network which is more costly to build and maintain than one designed solely for freight; the increasing speed differential between freight and passenger rolling stock can lead to an exacerbation of the conflict between these two types of traffic. (23) Different users and types of users will frequently have a different impact on infrastructure capacity and the needs of different services need to be properly balanced. (24) Services operated under contract to a public authority may require special rules to safeguard their attractiveness to users. (25) The charging and capacity allocation schemes must take account of the effects of increasing saturation of infrastructure capacity and ultimately the scarcity of capacity. (26) The different time-frames for planning traffic types mean that it is desirable to ensure that requests for infrastructure capacity which are made after the completion of the timetabling process can be satisfied. (27) The use of information technology can enhance the speed and responsiveness of the timetabling process and improve the ability of applicants to bid for infrastructure capacity, as well as improving the ability to establish train paths which cross more than one infrastructure manager's network. (28) To ensure the optimum outcome for railway undertakings, it is desirable to require an examination of the use of infrastructure capacity when the coordination of requests for capacity is required to meet the needs of users. (29) In view of the monopolistic position of the infrastructure managers it is desirable to require an examination of the available infrastructure capacity, and methods of enhancing it when the capacity allocation process is unable to meet the requirements of users. (30) A lack of information about other railway undertakings' requests as well as about the constraints within the system may make it difficult for railway undertakings to seek to optimise their infrastructure capacity requests. (31) It is important to ensure the better coordination of allocation schemes so as to ensure the improved attractiveness of rail for traffic which uses the network of more than one infrastructure manager, in particular for international traffic. L 75/30 15.3.2001Official Journal of the European Communities EN (32) It is important to minimise the distortions of competition which may arise, either between railway infrastructures or between transport modes, from significant differences in charging principles. (33) It is desirable to define those components of the infrastructure service which are essential to enable an operator to provide a service and which should be provided in return for minimum access charges. (34) Investment in railway infrastructure is desirable and infrastructure charging schemes should provide incentives for infrastructure managers to make appropriate investments where they are economically attractive. (35) Any charging scheme will send economic signals to users. It is important that those signals to railway undertakings should be consistent and lead them to make rational decisions. (36) To enable the establishment of appropriate and fair levels of infrastructure charges, infrastructure managers need to record and establish the valuation of their assets and develop a clear understanding of cost factors in the operation of the infrastructure. (37) It is desirable to ensure that account is taken of external costs when making transport decisions. (38) It is important to ensure that charges for international traffic are such as to permit rail to meet the needs of the market; consequently infrastructure charging should be set at the cost that is directly incurred as a result of operating the train service. (39) The overall level of cost recovery through infrastructure charges affects the necessary level of government contribution; Member States may require different levels of overall cost recovery through charges including mark-ups or a rate of return which the market can bear while balancing cost recovery with intermodal competitiveness of rail freight. However, it is desirable for any infrastructure charging scheme to enable traffic to use the rail network which can at least pay for the additional cost which it imposes. (40) A railway infrastructure is a natural monopoly. It is therefore necessary to provide infrastructure managers with incentives to reduce costs and manage their infrastructure efficiently. (41) Account should be taken of the fact that for a great many years the level of investment in infrastructure and technology has not made it possible to create the conditions for any real development of railway transport. It is therefore advisable, against this background, for appropriate upgrading to be carried out, in particular in the context of setting up the Trans-European Rail Freight Network, by using inter alia the Community instruments available, without prejudice to priorities already established. (42) Discounts which are allowed to railway undertakings must relate to actual administrative cost savings experienced; discounts may also be used to promote the efficient use of infrastructure. (43) It is desirable for railway undertakings and the infrastructure manager to be provided with incentives to minimise disruption of the network. (44) The allocation of capacity is associated with a cost to the infrastructure manager, payment for which should be required. (45) Measures are needed to ensure that all railway undertakings licensed under Community law are required to hold an appropriate safety certificate before operating on the territory of a Member State; the granting of safety certificates must comply with Community law. (46) The efficient management and fair and non-discriminatory use of rail infrastructure require the establishment of a regulatory body that oversees the application of these Community rules and acts as an appeal body, notwithstanding the possibility of judicial review. (47) Specific measures are required to take account of the specific geopolitical and geographical situation of certain Member States as well as a specific organisation of the railway sector in various Member States while ensuring the integrity of the internal market. (48) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission( 1 ). (49) In accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty, the objectives of this Directive, namely to coordinate arrangements in the Member States governing the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the charges made for the use thereof as well as safety certification, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States in view of the need to ensure fair and non-discriminatory terms for access to the infrastructure as well as to take account of the manifestly international dimensions involved in the operation of significant (1) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23. 15.3.2001 L 75/31Official Journal of the European Communities EN elements of the railway networks, and can therefore, by reason of the need for coordinated trans-national action, be better achieved by the Community. This Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives. (50) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2830/77 of 12 December 1977 on the measures necessary to achieve comparability between the accounting systems and annual accounts of railway undertakings( 1 ), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2183/78 of 19 September 1978 laying down uniform costing principles for railway undertakings( 2 ), Council Decision 82/529/EEC of 19 July 1982 on the fixing of rates for the international carriage of goods by rail( 3 ), Council Decision 83/418/EEC of 25 July 1983 on the commercial independence of the railways in the management of their international passenger and luggage traffic( 4 ), and Directive 95/19/EC are superseded by this Directive and should therefore be repealed, HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS Article 1 Scope 1. This Directive concerns the principles and procedures to be applied with regard to the setting and charging of railway infrastructure charges and the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity. Member States shall ensure that charging and capacity allocation schemes for railway infrastructure follow the principles set down in this Directive and thus allow the infrastructure manager to market and make optimum effective use of the available infrastructure capacity. 2. This Directive applies to the use of railway infrastructure for domestic and international rail services. 3. Member States may exclude from the scope of this Directive: a) stand-alone local and regional networks for passenger services on railway infrastructure; b) networks intended only for the operation of urban or suburban passenger services; c) regional networks which are used for regional freight services solely by a railway undertaking that is not covered by the scope of Directive 91/440/EEC until capacity on that network is requested by another applicant; d) privately owned railway infrastructure that exists solely for use by the infrastructure owner for its own freight operations. 4. Transport operations in the form of shuttle services for road vehicles through the Channel Tunnel are excluded from the scope of this Directive. Article 2 Definitions For the purpose of this Directive: a) allocation means the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity by an infrastructure manager; b) applicant means a licensed railway undertaking and/or an international grouping of railway undertakings, and, in Member States which provide for such a possibility, other persons and/or legal entities with public service or commercial interest in procuring infrastructure capacity, such as public authorities under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69( 5 ) and shippers, freight forwarders and combined transport operators, for the operation of railway service on their respective territories; c) congested infrastructure means a section of infrastructure for which demand for infrastructure capacity cannot be fully satisfied during certain periods even after coordination of the different requests for capacity; (1) OJ L 334, 24.12.1977, p. 13. Regulation as last amended by the 1994 Act of Accession. (2) OJ L 258, 21.9.1978, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by the 1994 Act of Accession. (3) OJ L 234, 9.8.1982, p. 5. Regulation as last amended by the 1994 Act of Accession. (4) OJ L 237, 26.8.1983, p. 32. Regulation as last amended by the 1994 Act of Accession. (5) Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ L 156, 28.6.1969, p. 1). Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1893/91 (OJ L 169, 29.6.1991, p. 1). L 75/32 15.3.2001Official Journal of the European Communities EN Article 22 Congested infrastructure 1. Where after coordination of the requested paths and consultation with applicants it is not possible to satisfy requests for infrastructure capacity adequately then the infrastructure manager must immediately declare that element of infrastructure on which this has occurred to be congested. This shall also be done for infrastructure which it can be foreseen will suffer from insufficient capacity in the near future. 2. When infrastructure has been declared to be congested, the infrastructure manager shall carry out a capacity analysis as described in Article 25, unless a capacity enhancement plan as described in Article 26 is already being implemented. 3. When charges in accordance with Article 7(4) have not been levied or have not achieved a satisfactory result and the infrastructure has been declared to be congested, the infrastructure manager may in addition employ priority criteria to allocate infrastructure capacity. 4. The priority criteria shall take account of the importance of a service to society, relative to any other service which will consequently be excluded. In order to guarantee within this framework the development of adequate transport services, in particular to comply with public-service requirements or promote the development of rail freight, Member States may take any measures necessary, under non-discriminatory conditions, to ensure that such services are given priority when infrastructure capacity is allocated. Member States may, where appropriate, grant the infrastructure manager compensation corresponding to any loss of revenue related to the need to allocate a given capacity to certain services pursuant to the previous subparagraph. This shall include taking account of the effect of this exclusion in other Member States. 5. The importance of freight services and in particular international freight services shall be given adequate consideration in determining priority criteria. 6. The procedures which shall be followed and criteria used where infrastructure is congested shall be set out in the network statement. Article 23 Ad hoc requests 1. The infrastructure manager shall respond to ad hoc requests for individual train paths as quickly as possible, and in any event, within five working days. Information supplied on available spare capacity shall be made available to all applicants who may wish to use this capacity. 2. Infrastructure managers shall where necessary undertake an evaluation of the need for reserve capacity to be kept available within the final scheduled working timetable to enable them to respond rapidly to foreseeable ad hoc requests for capacity. This shall also apply in cases of congested infrastructure. Article 24 Specialised infrastructure 1. Without prejudice to paragraph 2, infrastructure capacity shall be considered to be available for the use of all types of service which conform to the characteristics necessary for operation on the train path. 2. Where there are suitable alternative routes, the infrastructure manager may, after consultation with interested parties, designate particular infrastructure for use by specified types of traffic. Without prejudice to Articles 81, 82 and 86 of the Treaty, when such designation has occurred, the infrastructure manager may give priority to this type of traffic when allocating infrastructure capacity. Such designation shall not prevent the use of such infrastructure by other types of traffic when capacity is available and when the rolling stock conforms to the technical characteristics necessary for operation on the line. 3. When infrastructure has been designated pursuant to paragraph 2, this shall be described in the network statement. Article 25 Capacity analysis 1. The objective of capacity analysis is to determine the restrictions on infrastructure capacity which prevent requests for capacity from being adequately met, and to propose methods of enabling additional requests to be satisfied. This analysis shall identify the reasons for the congestion and what measures might be taken in the short and medium term to ease the congestion. 2. The analysis shall consider the infrastructure, the operating procedures, the nature of the different services operating and the effect of all these factors on infrastructure capacity. Measures to be considered shall include in particular re-routing of services, re-timing services, speed alterations and infrastructure improvements. 15.3.2001 L 75/39Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. A capacity analysis shall be completed within six months of the identification of infrastructure as congested. Article 26 Capacity enhancement plan 1. Within six months of the completion of a capacity analysis, the infrastructure manager shall produce a capacity enhancement plan. 2. A capacity enhancement plan shall be developed after consultation with users of the relevant congested infrastructure. It shall identify: a) the reasons for the congestion; b) the likely future development of traffic; c) the constraints on infrastructure development; d) the options and costs for capacity enhancement, including likely changes to access charges. It shall also, on the basis of a cost benefit analysis of the possible measures identified, determine what action shall be taken to enhance infrastructure capacity, including a calendar for implementation of the measures. The plan may be subject to prior approval by the Member State. 3. The infrastructure manager shall cease to levy any fees which are levied for the relevant infrastructure under Article 7(4) in cases where: a) he does not produce a capacity enhancement plan; or b) he does not make progress with the action plan identified in the capacity enhancement plan. However, the infrastructure manager may, subject to the approval of the regulatory body referred to in Article 30 continue to levy those fees if: a) the capacity enhancement plan cannot be realised for reasons beyond his control; or b) the options available are not economically or financially viable. Article 27 Use of train paths 1. In particular for congested infrastructure the infrastructure manager shall require the surrender of a train path which, over a period of at least one month, has been used less than a threshold quota to be laid down in the network statement, unless this was due to non-economic reasons beyond the operator's control. 2. An infrastructure manager may specify in the network statement conditions whereby it will take account of previous levels of utilisation of train paths in determining priorities for the allocation process. Article 28 Infrastructure capacity for scheduled maintenance 1. Requests for infrastructure capacity to enable maintenance to be performed shall be submitted during the scheduling process. 2. Adequate account shall be taken by the infrastructure manager of the effect of infrastructure capacity reserved for scheduled track maintenance on applicants. Article 29 Special measures to be taken in the event of disturbance 1. In the event of disturbance to train movements caused by technical failure or accident the infrastructure manager must take all necessary steps to restore the normal situation. To that end he shall draw up a contingency plan listing the various public bodies to be informed in the event of serious incidents or serious disturbance to train movements. 2. In an emergency and where absolutely necessary on account of a breakdown making the infrastructure temporarily unusable, the paths allocated may be withdrawn without warning for as long as is necessary to repair the system. The infrastructure manager may, if he deems it necessary, require railway undertakings to make available to him the resources which he feels are the most appropriate to restore the normal situation as soon as possible. 3. Member States may require railway undertakings to be involved in assuring the enforcement and monitoring of their own compliance of the safety standards and rules. L 75/40 15.3.2001Official Journal of the European Communities EN CHAPTER IV GENERAL MEASURES Article 30 Regulatory body 1. Without prejudice to Article 21(6), Member States shall establish a regulatory body. This body, which can be the Ministry responsible for transport matters or any other body, shall be independent in its organisation, funding decisions, legal structure and decision-making from any infrastructure manager, charging body, allocation body or applicant. The body shall function according to the principles outlined in this Article whereby appeal and regulatory functions may be attributed to separate bodies. 2. An applicant shall have a right to appeal to the regulatory body if it believes that it has been unfairly treated, discriminated against or is in any other way aggrieved, and in particular against decisions adopted by the infrastructure manager or where appropriate the railway undertaking concerning: a) the network statement; b) criteria contained within it; c) the allocation process and its result; d) the charging scheme; e) level or structure of infrastructure fees which it is, or may be, required to pay; f) safety certificate, enforcement and monitoring of the safety standards and rules. 3. The regulatory body shall ensure that charges set by the infrastructure manager comply with chapter II and are non-discriminatory. Negotiation between applicants and an infrastructure manager concerning the level of infrastructure charges shall only be permitted if these are carried out under the supervision of the regulatory body. The regulatory body shall intervene if negotiations are likely to contravene the requirements of this Directive. 4. The regulatory body shall have the power to request relevant information from the infrastructure manager, applicants and any third party involved within the Member State concerned, which must be supplied without undue delay. 5. The regulatory body shall be required to decide on any complaints and take action to remedy the situation within a maximum period of two months from receipt of all information. Notwithstanding paragraph 6, a decision of the regulatory body shall be binding on all parties covered by that decision. In the event of an appeal against a refusal to grant infrastructure capacity, or against the terms of an offer of capacity, the regulatory body shall either confirm that no modification of the infrastructure manager's decision is required, or it shall require modification of that decision in accordance with directions specified by the regulatory body. 6. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that decisions taken by the regulatory body are subject to judicial review. Article 31 Cooperation of regulatory bodies The national regulatory bodies shall exchange information about their work and decision-making principles and practice for the purpose of coordinating their decision-making principles across the Community. The Commission shall support them in this task. Article 32 Safety certification 1. The arrangements for safety certification for railway undertakings which are or will be established in the Community and the international groupings which they form shall be in accordance with this Article. 2. The Member States shall provide for their respective territories that a safety certificate in which the railway undertakings' safety requirements are set out be submitted in order to ensure safe service on the routes concerned. 3. In order to obtain the safety certificate, the railway undertaking shall comply with the regulations under national law, compatible with Community law and applied in a non-discriminatory manner, laying down the technical and operational requirements specific to rail services and the safety requirements applying to staff, rolling stock and the undertaking's internal organisation. In particular, it shall provide proof that the staff whom it employs to operate and accompany the trains has the necessary training to comply with the traffic rules applied by the infrastructure manager and to meet the safety requirements imposed on it in the interests of train movement. The railway undertaking shall also prove that the rolling stock making up the trains has been approved by the public authority or by the infrastructure manager and checked in accordance with the operating rules applicable to the infrastructure used. The safety certificate shall be issued by whichever body is designated for the purpose by the Member State in which the infrastructure used is situated. 15.3.2001 L 75/41Official Journal of the European Communities EN Article 33 Derogations 1. For a period of five years from 15 March 2003, the following Member States:  Ireland, as a Member State located on an island, with a rail link to only one other Member State,  the United Kingdom, in respect of Northern Ireland, on the same basis, and  Greece, as a Member State that does not have any direct rail link to any other Member State, do not need to apply the requirements set out in: a) Articles 3, 4(2), 13, 14, 17, 21(4), 21(6), 22, 24(3), 25 to 28 and 30 on the condition that decisions on the allocation of infrastructure capacity or the charging of fees are open to appeal, when so requested in writing by a railway undertaking, before an independent body which shall take its decision within two months of the submission of all relevant information and whose decision shall be subject to judicial review, and b) Article 32 in so far as rail transport services falling outside the scope of Article 10 of Directive 91/440/EEC are concerned. 2. However, where: a) more than one railway undertaking licensed in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 95/18/EC, or, in the case of Ireland and Northern Ireland, a railway company so licensed elsewhere submits an official application to operate competing railway services in, to or from Ireland, Northern Ireland or Greece, the continued applicability of this derogation will be decided upon in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 35(2); or b) a railway undertaking operating railway services in Ireland, Northern Ireland or Greece submits an official application to operate railway services on, to or from the territory of another Member State (in the case of Ireland, or the United Kingdom, in respect of Northern Ireland, or both, another Member State outside their territories), the derogations referred to in paragraph 1 shall not apply. Within one year from the receipt of either the decision referred to in point (a) adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 35(2), or notification of the official application referred to in point (b), the Member State or States concerned (Ireland, the United Kingdom with respect to Northern Ireland, or Greece) shall put in place legislation to implement the Articles referred to in paragraph 1. 3. A derogation referred to in paragraph 1 may be renewed for periods not longer than five years. Not later than 12 months before the expiry date of the derogation a Member State availing itself of such derogation may address a request to the Commission for a renewed derogation. Any such request must be substantiated. The Commission shall examine such a request and adopt a decision in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 35(2). The said advisory procedure shall apply to any decision related to the request. When adopting its decision the Commission shall take into account any development in the geopolitical situation and the development of the rail market in, from and to the Member State having requested the renewed derogation. 4. Luxembourg as a Member State with a relatively small rail network does not need to apply until 31 August 2004 the requirement to award to an independent body the functions determining equitable and non-discriminatory access to infrastructure, as provided for in Articles 4 and 14 in so far as they oblige Member States to establish independent bodies performing the tasks referred to in those Articles. CHAPTER V FINAL PROVISIONS Article 34 Implementing measures 1. Member States may bring any question concerning the implementation of this Directive to the attention of the Commission. Appropriate decisions shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 35(2). 2. At the request of a Member State or on its own initiative the Commission shall, in a specific case, examine the application and enforcement of provisions concerning charging, capacity allocation and safety certification, and within two months of receipt of such a request decide in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 35(2) whether the related measure may continue to be applied. The Commission shall communicate its decision to the European Parliament, the Council and to the Member States. Without prejudice to Article 226 of the Treaty, any Member State may refer the Commission's decision to the Council within a time limit of one month. The Council, acting by a qualified majority, may in exceptional circumstances take a different decision within a period of one month. L 75/42 15.3.2001Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. The amendments necessary to adapt the Annexes shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 35(3). Article 35 Committee procedures 1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee. 2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof. 3. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Articles 5 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof. The period laid down in Article 5(6) of Decision 1999/468/EC shall be set at three months. 4. The Committee shall adopt its rules of procedure. Article 36 Report The Commission shall by 15 March 2005 submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the implementation of this Directive, accompanied if necessary by proposals for further Community action. Article 37 Repeals Regulation (EEC) No 2830/77, Regulation (EEC) No 2183/78, Decision 82/529/EEC, Decision 83/418/EEC and Directive 95/19/EC are hereby repealed. Article 38 Implementation The Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 15 March 2003. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. Article 39 Entry into force This Directive shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Article 40 Addressees This Directive is addressed to the Member States. Done at Brussels, 26 February 2001. For the European Parliament The President N. FONTAINE For the Council The President A. LINDH 15.3.2001 L 75/43Official Journal of the European Communities EN ANNEX I Contents of the network statement The network statement referred to in Article 3 shall contain the following information: 1. A section setting out the nature of the infrastructure which is available to railway undertakings and the conditions of access to it. 2. A section on charging principles and tariffs. This shall contain appropriate details of the charging scheme as well as sufficient information on charges that apply to the services listed in Annex II which are provided by only one supplier. It shall detail the methodology, rules and, where applicable, scales used for the application of Article 7(4) and (5) and Articles 8 and 9. It shall contain information on changes in charges already decided upon or foreseen. 3. A section on the principles and criteria for capacity allocation. This shall set out the general capacity characteristics of the infrastructure which is available to railway undertakings and any restrictions relating to its use, including likely capacity requirements for maintenance. It shall also specify the procedures and deadlines which relate to the capacity allocation process. It shall contain specific criteria which are employed during that process, in particular: a) the procedures according to which applicants may request capacity from the infrastructure manager; b) the requirements governing applicants; c) the schedule for the application and allocation processes; d) the principles governing the coordination process; e) the procedures which shall be followed and criteria used where infrastructure is congested; f) details of restrictions on the use of infrastructure; g) any conditions by which account is taken of previous levels of utilisation of capacity in determining priorities for the allocation process. It shall detail the measures taken to ensure the adequate treatment of freight services, international services and requests subject to the ad hoc procedure. L 75/44 15.3.2001Official Journal of the European Communities EN ANNEX II Services to be supplied to the railway undertakings 1. The minimum access package shall comprise: a) handling of requests for infrastructure capacity; b) the right to utilise capacity which is granted; c) use of running track points and junctions; d) train control including signalling, regulation, dispatching and the communication and provision of information on train movement; e) all other information required to implement or operate the service for which capacity has been granted. 2. Track access to services facilities and supply of services shall comprise: a) use of electrical supply equipment for traction current, where available; b) refuelling facilities; c) passenger stations, their buildings and other facilities; d) freight terminals; e) marshalling yards; f) train formation facilities; g) storage sidings; h) maintenance and other technical facilities. 3. Additional services may comprise: a) traction current; b) pre-heating of passenger trains; c) supply of fuel, shunting, and all other services provided at the access services facilities mentioned above; d) tailor-made contracts for:  control of transport of dangerous goods,  assistance in running abnormal trains. 4. Ancillary services may comprise: a) access to telecommunication network; b) provision of supplementary information; c) technical inspection of rolling stock. 15.3.2001 L 75/45Official Journal of the European Communities EN ANNEX III Schedule for the allocation process 1. The working timetable shall be established once per calendar year. 2. The change of working timetable shall take place at midnight on the last Saturday in May. Where a change or adjustment is carried out after the summer it shall take place at midnight on the last Saturday in September each year and at such other intervals between these dates as are required. Infrastructure managers may agree on different dates and in this case they shall inform the Commission thereof. 3. The final date for receipt of requests for capacity to be incorporated into the working timetable shall be no more than 12 months in advance of the entry into force of the working timetable. 4. No later than 11 months before the working timetable comes into force, the infrastructure managers shall ensure that provisional international train paths have been established in cooperation with other relevant allocation bodies as set out in Article 15. Infrastructure managers shall ensure that as far as possible these are adhered to during the subsequent processes. 5. No later than four months after the deadline for submission of bids by applicants, the infrastructure manager shall prepare a draft timetable. L 75/46 15.3.2001Official Journal of the European Communities EN