EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 8.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2204 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
accompanying the 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 
 
Rail noise abatement measures a ddressing the existing fleet 
 
Summary of the Impac t Assessment report  
 
{COM(2008) 432 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2203} 
 
EN 2   EN 1. P ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
The Communication on rail noise abatement measures addressing the existing fleet was part 
of the European Commission’s 2007 work programme. 
The impact assessment report has been drafted by the Directorate-General for Energy and 
Transport, unit for rail transport and inter operability. The impact assessment process was 
steered by an Inter-Service St eering Group; it was also suppo rted by an external study1. 
In the course of the preparation of this initiative, the Commission presented several policy 
options in its Consultation Paper2 issued in May 2007. Interested  parties were requested to 
give their opinions on the solutions presented. For this purpose, an online questionnaire was 
made available in summer 2007. The Commissi on departments also convened interested 
parties on 23 May 2007 to obtain feedback. The resu lts of these consulta tion activities served 
as input for the impact assessment (results  are described in the consultation report3). 
The Commission’s Impact Assessment Board is sued its opinion on 22 February 2008 with 
four main recommendations for improvement or clarification. They were considered in the 
final version of the impact assessment report. 
2. P ROBLEM DEFINITION  
Noise is one of the most wide spread public health threats in industrialis ed countries. The 
abatement of noise is therefore necessary not on ly for comfort but also to lessen its adverse 
effects on health, for example cardiovascular problems and cognitive impairment. 
Rail is generally considered one of the most  environmentally friendly transport modes. 
However, the contribution of rail transport to noise pollution (with freight trains as the largest 
source) is considerable, with about 10% of the population exposed  to significant noise levels4. 
The European Community has already acted on this issue, adopting measures in the 
environmental (Environment al Noise Directive 2002/49/EC5 providing for noise maps and 
action plans) and rail interope rability fields (TSI Noise6, introducing noise limit values for 
new and renewed vehicles). However, given the long lifetime of ro lling stock, it will take 
                                                 
1 PriceWaterhouseCoopersAdvisory: Impact Assessment study on rail noise abatement measures 
addressing the existing fleet. Fi nal report December 2007.  
http://ec.europa.eu/transpor t/rail/studies/index_en.htm. 
2 Consultation document of the Commission’s services: Rail noise abatement measures addressing the 
existing fleet. May 2007.  
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rail/ consultation/2007_rail_noise/doc/rail _noise_consultation_document_en.pdf.  
3 Public consultation on “Rail noise abatement m easures addressing the existing fleet” — Summary of 
the contributions received.  
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rail/ consultation/2007_rail_noise/doc/rail _noise_consultation_summary_071017.pdf.  
4 European Environment Agency: TER M 2001. Indicators tracking transport and environment integration 
in the European Union. 
5 Directive 2002/49/EC of 25 June 2002, OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12. 
6 Commission Decision 2006/66/EC of  23 December 2005 concerning the technical specification for 
interoperability relating to the subsystem “rolling stock — noise” of the trans-European conventional 
rail system, OJ L 37, 8.2.2006, p. 1. 
 
EN 3   EN several years before overall noise emissions can be reduced significantly if no additional 
measures addressing the exis ting fleet are introduced.  
Today, about 50% of rail freight transport is international with a large number of wagons 
running across national networks. Action at European level is therefore required. 
3. O BJECTIVES  
The aim of the Community action is to reduce  the exposure of citiz ens to rail noise by 
promoting the establishment of rail noise abatement programmes to curb noise emissions of freight trains without jeopardising the compe titiveness of rail freight mainly by retrofitting 
freight wagons with low-noise br aking technology (composite brak e blocks such as so-called 
K- and LL-blocks
7) as the most cost-effective measure.  
The retrofitting exercise should in principle include all European freight wagons with an 
annual mileage of more than 10 000 km and an expected remaining lifetime of at least five 
years, so as to limit costs w ithout jeopardising the noise redu ction objective. Priority should 
be given to wagons with a high yearly mileage.  The target date for completing the retrofitting 
exercise would be 2015. 
4. P OLICY OPTIONS  
Possible policy options and instru ments are listed in Table 1.  
                                                 
7 Composite brake blocks have been developed to replace conventional cast-iron blocks as the main 
source of noise. They are very effective in noise abatement (reduction of up to 10 dB, equivalent to 
50%). K-blocks have been available since 2003. As they have different braking characteristics to 
conventional blocks, retrofitting requires adjustments in the braking system, leading to additional initial costs of up to €10 000. LL-blocks are composite br ake blocks with the same braking characteristics as 
cast iron. Therefore, no major adaptation of the br aking system is required and initial retrofitting costs 
are significantly lower. However, they are not yet fully available. 
 
EN 4   EN Table 1: List of policy options and instruments  
Policy option Instrument  
A: Status quo (as baseline scenario) 
B: Voluntary commitment by the rail sector 
C: Financial incentives for retrofitting 
 C1: Differentiated track access charges 
 C2: Subsidies for the use of low-noise wagons 
 C3: Subsidies for retrofitting 
 C4: Loans on preferential terms 
 C5: Tax incentives 
D: Legal measures to impose retrofitting 
 D1: Noise limit values for the existing fleet  
 D2: Operating restrictions for noisy freight wagons  
 D3: Noise emission ceiling 
 D4: Tradable permit system 
 
Screening of the instruments identified po licy options B (voluntar y commitment), C1 
(differentiated track access charges), C3 (subsidie s for retrofitting), D2 (operating restrictions 
for noisy freight wagons) and D3 (noise emission ceiling) as most suitable to meet the objectives. 
As combined measures are regarded as more e ffective than single policy options, the detailed 
impact assessment focussed on the following two combinations: 
(1) “SOV”: Subsidies for retrofitting, Operating restrictions and Voluntary 
commitment; 
(2) “DEV”: Differentiated track access charges, Emission ceiling and Voluntary 
commitment. 
5. A
NALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Basic assumptions for the impact assessment 
This impact assessment is based on the following assumptions: 
• The geographic scope is limited to EU Member States with a 1435 mm standard gauge 
system. Within these interope rable networks action is need ed at EU level as national 
measures are of limited effectiveness. 
• As LL-blocks are currently not fully available on the market two scenarios are considered:  
1. LL-Blocks will never be available and re trofitting is fully based on K-blocks;  
 
EN 5   EN 2. LL-blocks will be available on a large scal e as from January 2011 (before this date, K-
blocks will be used). 
• A significant number of wagons were built between 1979 and 1984. As this is likely to 
have a strong impact on the costs and benefits  of retrofitting, two scenarios are applied to 
the policy options:  1. Limit birthdate 1979: all wagons built after 1979 are retrofitted;  2. Limit birthdate 1984: all wagons built after 1984 are retrofitted. 
• The duration of the retrofitting programme with the K-block solution is seven years (use of 
periodic maintenance intervals); whereas fo r LL-blocks the selected duration of the 
retrofitting period is three years. 
For the different policy options and scenar ios key characteristics of the retrofitting 
programmes have been elaborated: 
Table 2: Characteristics of  retrofitting programmes for different policy options  
 
Scenario Starting 
date for 
retro-
fitting Retro-
fitting time 
frame Average 
yearly 
retrofitting 
rate Time for 
100% of 
silent wagons 
(end year) Wagons 
to be 
retro-
fitted 
 Baseline - - 0 2030 0 
SOV (1979) 1-2010 7 years  45 700 w/y 2016 320 000 
SOV (1984) 1-2010 7 years  27 400 w/y 2021 191 000 
DEV (1979) 1-2012 7 years  38 600 w/y 2018 270 000 
K 
SCENARIO DEV (1984) 1-2012 7 years  27 100 w/y 2021 190 000 
SOV (1979) 1-2010 4 years 99 500 w/y 2013 397 400 
SOV (1984) 1-2010 4 years 50 000 w/y 2021 191 000 
DEV (1979) 1-2012 3 years 124 000 w/y 2014 372 000 
K+LL 
SCENARIO DEV (1984) 1-2012 3 years 64 000 w/y 2021 191 000 
 
5.2. Identification of impacts and comparison of policy options 
Both policy options DEV and SOV could be e ffective in achieving the objective of noise 
reduction at the earliest by 2013 for SOV and by 2014 for DEV (bot h in the case of LL-block 
retrofitting). 
Tables 3 compiles the costs of retrofitting programmes, added ma intenance and administrative 
costs as well as total noise reduction benefits expressed in monetary te rms and referred to the 
period 2010-2024.  
 
EN 6   EN Table 3: Overview of m onetised impacts of the po licy options and scenarios 
Impact  Limit 
birthdate K (2009–2024) K+LL (2009–2024) 
  SOV DEV SOV DEV  
1979 €1 847m €1 441m €728m €416m Investment cost for retrofitting 
programme  1984 €1 102m €1 018m  €488m €214m 
1979  €317m  €238m  €406m €347m 
Added maintenance costs  
1984  €226m  €193m €268m €248m 
1979 Added administrative costs for new 
tasks 1984 €85m €93m €85m €93m 
1979 €2 249m €1 772m €1 219m €856m 
TOTAL ADDED COST  
1984 €1 413m €1 304m  €841m €555m 
1979 €7 071m €5 762m €9 460m €8 428m Added BENEFIT for affected 
population  1984 €4 133m €4 385m €4 450m €5 208m 
1979 €4 822m €3 990m €8 241m €7 572m 
TOTAL NET VALUE  
1984 €2 720m €3 081m €3 609m €4 653m 
 
012345678910
SOV 79
(K)SOV 84
(K)DEV 79
(K)DEV 84
(K)SOV 79
(K+LL)SOV 84
(K+LL)DEV 79
(LL)DEV 84
(LL)Benefits-costs-ratio
 
Figure 1: Benefits/costs ratios fo r the policy options and scenarios 
 
EN 7   EN The results of the cost-benefit calculation show c onsiderable net benefits for all scenarios. It 
also needs to be underlined that some major be nefits of retrofitting could not be quantified 
and monetised, such as the savings due to re duced infrastructure-related noise abatement 
programmes, reduced maintenance costs for the rail infrastructure and efficiency gains in fleet management. These benefits have  the potential to be of the sa me order of magnitude as the 
costs of retrofitting. It can be concluded that retrofitting freight wagons with low-noise brake 
blocks can be an important measure to reduce the negative environmental impacts of railways 
and that the need for EU acti on in this field is confirmed. 
For all policy options and scenar ios assessed, significant additional costs of retrofitting can be 
expected in the range of 550 million to 2.25 billion euros. Analysis of the cost structure leads 
to the following conclusions: 
• For all scenarios the investment in retrof itting is the most important cost; added 
maintenance costs amount to 13-16% of the to tal (K-blocks) and 32-45% of the total (LL-
blocks); administrative costs amount to 4-7% of  the total (K-blocks) and 7-16% of the total 
(LL-blocks).  
• Added maintenance costs constitute a significant portion of the total when retrofitting is 
considered to be done with K- and LL-blocks.  
• Added administrative costs do not appear to be decisive although they refer to essential 
components of the retrofitting programme. 
In addition, the assessment analysed which party bears the costs an d who benefits from 
revenues or savings. For both policy options wagon owners have to bear the costs directly 
related to retrofitting (investment and additional maintenance). However, at least part of the costs would be reimbursed in SOV and DEV (onl y in the case of a bonus system). With a 
cost-neutral bonus-malus system for DEV, this would not be the case. The study demonstrated 
that this would lead to a significant increase in  transport costs resulti ng in a modal shift from 
rail to road of the orde r of magnitude of 0.4% of total rail freight demand.  
Therefore, Member States might provide fina ncial incentives to ra ilway undertakings/wagon 
owners in the start-up of the retrofitting programmes either directly as subsidies or indirectly via the compensation paid to in frastructure managers for the noise bonus. However, it is very 
likely that savings in infrastr ucture-related noise abatement co sts (e.g. for noise barriers) will 
at least outweigh these costs for Member States . Overall, retrofitting and providing financial 
support could be cost-neutral for all parties i nvolved as significant savings are possible. 
Comparison of the K-blocks and K+LL-bloc ks scenarios produces clear results: 
• The retrofitting costs with K-bl ocks are significantly higher than with LL-blocks (by 750 
million to 1 billion euros according to the scenario). 
• The gross benefits of LL-block retrofitting due to noise reduction are higher than those of 
the related K-block scenario. Even if K-block retrofitting can start earlier, in the LL-block 
scenarios retrofitting programmes are complete d earlier as the retrofitting rates with LL-
blocks are much higher (brake systems do not need to be modified, no problems with 
restricted workshop capacities). 
 
EN 8   EN • Therefore, the K+LL scenarios always lead to  significantly higher ne t benefits than the 
related K-block scenario and the use of K-bl ocks for retrofitting ca nnot be recommended. 
Earlier availability of LL-blocks would create significant additional benefit.  
Based on both the quantitative and qualitative im pacts, comparison of the policy options leads 
to the following conclusions: 
• The “business as usual” option cannot compete with the other two options as these have 
positive benefits/costs ratios and several additional positive impacts.  
• The DEV option has better benefits/costs ra tios than SOV (for the K+LL-scenarios 9.9 
compared to 7.8 (1979 birthdate) or 9.4 to 5.3 (1984 birthdate). This is confirmed by the 
qualitative assessment where DEV shows better or equal results for all impacts considered. 
• However, it has been shown that the necessary  incentivation margin for the DEV option to 
provide sufficient incentives to wagon owners for retrofitting will probably have to be 
higher than for the SOV option. It is therefore very important  to limit the aggregated bonus 
for a silent wagon to the retrofitting costs. 
Concerning the intended exclusi on of older wagons from retrof itting, the choice of a limit 
birthdate of 1984 would obvi ously lead to less co sts than the choice of 1979 given the lower 
number of wagons to be retrofitt ed; however, in all sc enarios it can be seen  that a reduction in 
net benefit ensues; it thus can be conclude d that to retrofit wagons built between 1979 and 
1984 leads to higher benefits than costs. 
As the overall result of this impact assessment,  policy option DEV consisting of differentiated 
track access charges with a noise bonus for silent wagons,  noise emission ceilings and 
voluntary commitments has been identified as th e most appropriate solution to achieve the 
objectives of rail noise reduction while maintaining the competitiveness of rail freight. The main advantages of this opti on are the highest benefits in terms of noise reduction/reduction 
of number of citizens affected by rail noise (with a benefits/costs ratio of up to 10), lower costs than for the competing SOV option, the direct  link with the objectiv es of this initiative 
(to reduce noise by using silent wagons) and the wide application to wagons registered in 
different Member States or even outside the EU. 
As this policy option also has two disadvantages , solutions need to be elaborated for passing 
the noise bonuses to the wagon ow ners bearing the costs of retr ofitting (if these are not the 
same entity as the railway undertaking gettin g the bonus) and concerning intermediate 
measures as the implementation of differentiate d track access charges requires some time. In 
this context voluntary commitments could play an important role. 
The harmonisation of differentiated track access ch arges at European level is a crucial factor 
for the effectiveness of this instrument as solely national solutions would not provide the 
necessary financial incentives for retrof itting and could lead to unacceptably high 
administrative costs. 
High priority needs to be given to the furthe r development and homologation of LL-blocks as 
the most economically viable technology for retrofitting. By implementing policy option DEV 
providing incentives to further reduce costs of retrofitti ng and following the positive examples 
of the United Kingdom and Portugal in cost-neutral retrofitting, it should be possible to keep 
the additional costs of retrofitting to a minimum. 
 
EN 9   EN 6. M ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
With regard to the objectives of the Communication the following indicators seem suitable for 
measuring progress and related costs: 
(1) Total number and share of vehi cles retrofitted per country 
(2) Total silent fleet per country 
(3) Number and share of axle-k m run by low-noise wagons 
(4) Costs of retrofitting per country 
(5) Annual noise bonuses granted per infrastructure manager 
(6) Average annual maintenance cost per wagon (per country and per wagon-km) 
(7) Total average noise reduction (dB) 
(8) Noise reduction for affected population 
(9) Noise reduction at particular “hot spots”.