CORDIS Archive

3. Technical description

3.1 WP1 Analysis of existing conditions

The objective of this workpackage has been to provide an overview of existing conditions in each Member State of the European Union and to survey the developments in non-member countries in Europe, USA, Canada, Japan and Australia.

The comparison of the degree of transposition of the EC Directives has focussed on two aspects: the legal transposition and the actual implementation. Transposition has been completed in Sweden, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Germany and France ; in the other countries, it is still in progress. In the three countries mentioned first, the Directives have been implemented completely as well. In Austria, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain implementation has been initiated and in the other countries the level of actual implementation is somewhere in between.

One of the main issues of Directive 91/440 is the separation between infrastructure management and transport activities. Except for Italy, all countries comply with the mandatory separation at the account level. A complete institutional separation has been found in Sweden, the United Kingdom, Denmark, France and Finland, and will soon be effective in Germany. In Belgium and Greece separate entities within one (holding) company will be set up, while this is already the practice in the other countries.

It must be noted that in most countries this kind of organic separation not necessarily implies a strict accounting separation. The split in accounts requires a distinct definition and allocation of the rail infrastructure and its perimeter. This task is far from completion in many countries. Consequently little information is available concerning expenses and income as regards the infrastructure.

Path allocation rules, based on ranking priorities by type of rail traffic or service, exist in Sweden, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Spain. Rules based on financial agreements are not found.

In Sweden, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Austria an official system exists for infrastructure charging, other than zero rating. In the other countries this is not yet decided or a zero rate is applied.

Finally, some "brakes" on the process of liberalisation have been identified. These are:

• The limited capability of monitoring all rail traffic with an accountant's reliability, as a basis for infrastructure charging.
• Competition between the various infrastructure managers to cover their costs, driving up charges.
• The shortfall in capacity of lines in large urban areas, causing priority problems.
• The compensation for disruptions and delays.
• The financing of interoperability.
• The charging for electric traction power.
• The legal responsibilities in case of serious incidents or accidents.
• The varying range of services covered by infrastructure charges.
• And last but not least: the political aspects.

  All these issues have to be discussed thoroughly in order to enable fair and non-discriminatory competition.

  3.2 WP Case Studies

  The aim of this workpackage has been an in-depth analysis of the comparison between rail and other modes, of the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the EC Directives, of existing infrastructure in terms of supply and capacity, of the costs of using the infrastructure, and of interoperability and developing framework of standards, for Belgium, France, Greece, Spain and the United Kingdom.

  In most European countries, access to the road transport market is free to any licensed operator. Inter-urban passenger transport by road is essentially competitive in the countries studied although the method of licensing differs quite a lot. It appears that operators are free to enter the domestic air transport market and set tariffs, but nonetheless the air market is still dominated by the national carriers.

  Implementation of the EC Directives in the United Kingdom has led to regulatory changes in both rail and coach travel that have been to the benefit of the passenger through improvements in efficiency of operations. The division of responsibilities has heightened the awareness of safety management, has improved performance of the railway, and has created opportunities for private sector innovation. The improved cost effectiveness is reflected in reduced subsidy levels and in lower operating costs.

  One of the factors determining the methodology used for calculating capacity appears to be the level of capacity restraints for assigning train paths.

  The comparison of charging methodologies has showed great differences in the way external costs are dealt with. A deduced complete pricing formula has been suggested.

  Interoperability problems can be either institutional or technical. The introduction of new regulation and contractual complexity should not be a barrier to new entrants. In spite of the progressive development of continental wide standards, in some cases combined transport still is hindered by the differences in gauge and clearances.

  3.3 WP3 Assessment of impacts
  The targets of this workpackage have been an assessment of the impacts of implementation of the EC Directives, the determination of a common methodology for calculating railway line capacity, and the determination of a common methodology for calculating the costs of using the infrastructure.