Commission staff working document accompanying the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Rail noise abatement measures addressing the existing fleet - Summary of the impact assessment report {COM(2008) 432 final} {SEC(2008) 2203}
Date: 2008-07-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: environmental tax, impact study, noise, noise pollution, nuisance, rail transport, transport infrastructure

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 8.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2204 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Rail noise abatement measures addressing the existing fleet 

Summary of the Impact Assessment report 

{COM(2008) 432 final} 
{SEC(2008) 2203} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

PROCEDURAL 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  interoperability.  The  impact  assessment  process  was 
steered by an Inter-Service Steering Group; it was also supported 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  Commission  departments  also  convened  interested 
parties on 23 May 2007 to obtain feedback. The results of these consultation activities served 
as input for the impact assessment (results are described in the consultation report3). 

The  Commission’s  Impact  Assessment  Board  issued  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. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Noise  is  one  of  the  most  widespread  public  health  threats  in  industrialised  countries.  The 
abatement of noise is therefore necessary not only 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  (Environmental  Noise  Directive  2002/49/EC5  providing  for  noise  maps  and 
action  plans)  and  rail  interoperability  fields  (TSI  Noise6,  introducing  noise  limit  values  for 
new  and  renewed  vehicles).  However,  given  the  long  lifetime  of  rolling  stock,  it  will  take 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 
6 

PriceWaterhouseCoopersAdvisory:  Impact  Assessment  study  on  rail  noise  abatement  measures 
addressing the existing fleet. Final report December 2007. 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rail/studies/index_en.htm. 
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. 
Public  consultation  on  “Rail  noise  abatement  measures  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. 
European Environment Agency: TERM 2001. Indicators tracking transport and environment integration 
in the European Union. 
Directive 2002/49/EC of 25 June 2002, OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12. 
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 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
several  years  before  overall  noise  emissions  can  be  reduced  significantly  if  no  additional 
measures addressing the existing 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. 

OBJECTIVES 

The  aim  of  the  Community  action  is  to  reduce  the  exposure  of  citizens  to  rail  noise  by 
promoting the establishment of rail noise abatement programmes to curb noise emissions of 
freight  trains  without  jeopardising  the  competitiveness  of  rail  freight  mainly  by  retrofitting 
freight wagons with low-noise braking technology (composite brake blocks such as so-called 
K- and LL-blocks7) 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 without jeopardising the noise reduction objective. Priority should 
be given to wagons with a high yearly mileage. The target date for completing the retrofitting 
exercise would be 2015. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Possible policy options and instruments 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 braking system is required and initial retrofitting costs 
are significantly lower. However, they are not yet fully available. 

EN 

3 

   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  policy  options  B  (voluntary  commitment),  C1 
(differentiated track access charges), C3 (subsidies 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 effective than single policy options, the detailed 
impact assessment focussed on the following two combinations: 

(1) 

(2) 

“SOV”:  Subsidies  for  retrofitting,  Operating  restrictions  and  Voluntary 
commitment; 

“DEV”: Differentiated track access charges, Emission ceiling and Voluntary 
commitment. 

5. 

ANALYSIS 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  interoperable  networks  action  is  needed  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 retrofitting is fully based on K-blocks; 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. LL-blocks will be available on a large scale 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  for  LL-blocks  the  selected  duration  of  the 
retrofitting period is three years. 

For  the  different  policy  options  and  scenarios  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 

O
I
R
A
N
E
C
S

O
I
R
A
N
E
C
S

K

L
L
+
K

SOV (1979) 

1-2010 

7 years  

45 700 w/y 

SOV (1984) 

1-2010 

7 years  

27 400 w/y 

DEV (1979) 

1-2012 

7 years  

38 600 w/y 

DEV (1984) 

1-2012 

7 years  

27 100 w/y 

SOV (1979) 

1-2010 

SOV (1984) 

1-2010 

DEV (1979) 

1-2012 

DEV (1984) 

1-2012 

4 years 

4 years 

3 years 

3 years 

99 500 w/y 

50 000 w/y 

124 000 w/y 
64 000 w/y 

2030 

2016 

2021 

2018 

2021 

2013 

2021 

2014 

2021 

0 

320 000 

191 000 

270 000 

190 000 

397 400 

191 000 

372 000 

191 000 

5.2. 

Identification of impacts and comparison of policy options 

Both  policy  options  DEV  and  SOV  could  be  effective  in  achieving  the  objective  of  noise 
reduction at the earliest by 2013 for SOV and by 2014 for DEV (both in the case of LL-block 
retrofitting). 

Tables 3 compiles the costs of retrofitting programmes, added maintenance and administrative 
costs as well as total noise reduction benefits expressed in monetary terms and referred to the 
period 2010-2024.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3: Overview of monetised impacts of the policy options and scenarios 

Impact  

Limit 
birthdate 

K (2009–2024) 

K+LL (2009–2024) 

Investment cost for retrofitting 
programme  

Added maintenance costs  

Added administrative costs for new 
tasks 

TOTAL ADDED COST 

Added BENEFIT for affected 
population  

TOTAL NET VALUE  

SOV 

DEV 

€1 847m 

€1 441m 

€1 102m 

€1 018m 

 €317m 

 €226m 

 €238m 

 €193m 

SOV 

€728m 

 €488m 

 €406m 

€268m 

DEV 

€416m 

€214m 

€347m 

€248m 

€85m 

€93m 

€85m 

€93m 

€2 249m 

€1 772m 

€1 219m 

€1 413m 

€1 304m 

 €841m 

€856m 

€555m 

€7 071m 

€5 762m 

€9 460m 

€8 428m 

€4 133m 

€4 385m 

€4 450m 

€5 208m 

€4 822m 

€3 990m 

€8 241m 

€7 572m 

€2 720m 

€3 081m 

€3 609m 

€4 653m 

1979 

1984 

1979 

1984 

1979 

1984 

1979 

1984 

1979 

1984 

1979 

1984 

o
i
t
a
r
-
s
t
s
o
c
-
s
t
i
f
e
n
e
B

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

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)

Figure 1: Benefits/costs ratios for the policy options and scenarios 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
The results of the cost-benefit calculation show considerable net benefits for all scenarios. It 
also  needs  to  be  underlined  that  some  major  benefits  of  retrofitting  could  not  be  quantified 
and  monetised,  such  as  the  savings  due  to  reduced  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 same 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 action in this field is confirmed. 

For all policy options and scenarios 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  retrofitting  is  the  most  important  cost;  added 
maintenance costs amount to 13-16% of the total (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  and  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  (only  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 resulting in a modal shift from 
rail to road of the order of magnitude of 0.4% of total rail freight demand.  

Therefore, Member States might provide financial incentives to railway undertakings/wagon 
owners in the start-up of the retrofitting programmes either directly as subsidies or indirectly 
via the compensation paid to infrastructure managers for the noise bonus. However, it is very 
likely that savings in infrastructure-related noise abatement costs (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 involved as significant savings are possible. 

Comparison of the K-blocks and K+LL-blocks scenarios produces clear results: 

•  The retrofitting costs with K-blocks 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  completed  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 

7 

   EN 

 
•  Therefore,  the  K+LL  scenarios  always  lead  to  significantly  higher  net  benefits  than  the 
related K-block scenario and the use of K-blocks for retrofitting cannot be recommended. 
Earlier availability of LL-blocks would create significant additional benefit.  

Based on both the quantitative and qualitative impacts, 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  ratios  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  exclusion  of  older  wagons  from  retrofitting,  the  choice  of  a  limit 
birthdate of 1984 would obviously lead to less costs than the choice of 1979 given the lower 
number of wagons to be retrofitted; however, in all scenarios it can be seen that a reduction in 
net  benefit  ensues;  it  thus  can  be  concluded  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  the  most  appropriate  solution  to  achieve  the 
objectives  of  rail  noise  reduction  while  maintaining  the  competitiveness  of  rail  freight.  The 
main advantages of this option 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 objectives 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 owners bearing the costs of retrofitting (if these are not the 
same  entity  as  the  railway  undertaking  getting  the  bonus)  and  concerning  intermediate 
measures as the implementation of differentiated track access charges requires some time. In 
this context voluntary commitments could play an important role. 

The harmonisation of differentiated track access charges 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  retrofitting  and  could  lead  to  unacceptably  high 
administrative costs. 

High priority needs to be given to the further 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 retrofitting 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 

8 

   EN 

 
6. 

MONITORING 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 vehicles retrofitted per country 

(2) 

Total silent fleet per country 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Number and share of axle-km run by low-noise wagons 

Costs of retrofitting per country 

Annual noise bonuses granted per infrastructure manager 

Average annual maintenance cost per wagon (per country and per wagon-km) 

Total average noise reduction (dB) 

Noise reduction for affected population 

Noise reduction at particular “hot spots”. 

EN 

9 

   EN