COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/429 and the rules for noise differentiated track access charges
Date: 2021-03-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, charges for use of infrastructure, noise level, noise pollution, noise protection, rail network, safety device, transport infrastructure, vehicle on rails

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.3.2021  SWD(2021) 71 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of   Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/429 and the rules for noise differentiated track access charges {SWD(2021) 72 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

Glossary 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 

1.1 Purpose and scope ............................................................................................ 4 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 5 

2.1  Description of trends in rail noise .................................................................... 5 
2.2  Description of the intervention logic and objectives of the initiative ..................... 6 
2.3  Baseline and points of comparison................................................................... 8 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY ............................................................................................ 8 

3.1 

Applicable, national, noise-differentiated, track-access charging schemes ............ 8 

4.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 11 

4.1  Methodology and sources of information ........................................................ 11 
4.2  Research limitations/robustness of findings .................................................... 14 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION CRITERIA .............................................. 14 

Effectiveness .............................................................................................. 14 
5.1 
5.2 
Efficiency ................................................................................................... 18 
5.3  Relevance .................................................................................................. 30 
5.4 
Sustainability .............................................................................................. 31 
5.5  Coherence .................................................................................................. 32 
5.6   EU added value ........................................................................................... 34 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 35 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 37 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 38 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS .......................................................................... 49 

ANNEX  4:  STAKEHOLDER  VALIDATION  OF  ESTIMATED  RETROFITTING  AND 

OPERATIONAL COSTS ................................................................................................................... 69 

1 

 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

BMVI 

German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure 

Bonus for retrofitted wagons 

A  mandatory  discount from  the  infrastructure-access charges for  railway 
undertakings  using  retrofitted  wagons  (source:  Implementing  Regulation 
(EU) 2015/429) 

Bonus for very quiet wagons or 
locomotives 

An  optional  discount  for  railway  undertakings  for  each  very  quiet  wagon 
and locomotive (source: Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/429) 

CEF 

CER 

Connecting  Europe  Facility,  an  EU  funding  instrument  for  infrastructure 
investment at European level 

Community of European Railways 

DB Netz 

Main German railway infrastructure manager  

EIM 

ERA 

IM 

K-block 

LL-block 

Malus  

NDTAC 

Noisy train 

Noisy wagon 

ÖBB Infra 

ProRail 

European rail infrastructure managers 

European Union Railways Agency 

Infrastructure manager 

Composite  brake  block  with  a  higher  friction  coefficient  than  cast-iron 
blocks.  Retrofitting  with  K-blocks  requires  an  adaptation  of  the  braking 
system. 

Composite  brake  block  with  a  braking  performance  similar  to  a  cast-iron 
brake block. Retrofitting with LL-blocks requires only minor adaptations of 
the braking system. 

An  optional  surcharge  to  the  infrastructure-access  charges  to  be  paid  by 
railway undertakings for each noisy train (source: Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2015/429) 

Noise-differentiated track-access charges 

A  train  composed  of  more  than  10%  noisy  wagons  (source:  Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2015/429) 

A  wagon  not  complying  with  relevant  noise  limit  values  set  out  in  TSI 
Noise (source: Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/429) 

Main Austrian railway infrastructure manager 

Main Dutch railway infrastructure manager 

Quiet wagon 

Silent wagon 

Retrofitted wagon 

An  existing  wagon  retrofitted  with  composite  brake  blocks  in  accordance 

2 

 
 
 
RMMS 

RU 

SEP 

Silent train 

Silent wagon 

SWD 

Train bonus 

TSI 

UIP 

with  the  requirements  set  out  in  TSI  Noise  (source:  Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2015/429) 

Rail  Market  Monitoring  Scheme,  a  report  issued  every  2  years  by  the 
Commission on developments in Member State rail markets 

Railway undertaking 

Single  entry  point,  a  common  contact  point  set  up  by  the  infrastructure 
managers  of  the  Netherlands,  Switzerland,  Germany  and  Austria  to  apply 
bonuses and notify low-noise freight wagons  

A  train  composed  of  at  least  90%  silent  wagons  (source:  Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2015/429) 

New  or  existing  wagon  meeting  relevant  noise  limit  values  set  out  in  TSI 
Noise (source: Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/429) 

Silent-wagon database 

An optional discount for railway undertakings for each silent train (source: 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/429) 

Technical specification for interoperability 

International Union of Wagon Keepers 

Very quiet wagons and 
locomotives 

Wagons  and  locomotives  with  noise  emissions  at  least  3 dB  below  the 
relevant values set out in TSI Noise (source: Implementing Regulation (EU) 
2015/429) 

WK 

Wagon keeper 

3 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Purpose and scope 

This  Commission  staff  working  document  presents  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  of 
Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/429  setting  out  the  modalities  to  be  followed  for  the 
application  of  the  charging  for  the  cost  of  noise  effects.  In  particular,  it  focuses  on  the 
implementation of the existing noise-differentiated track-access charges (NDTAC) schemes.  

Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/429  of  13 March 2015  "setting  out  the 
modalities  to  be  followed  for  the  application  of  the  charging  for  the  cost  of  noise  effects"1 
(hereafter "the Implementing Regulation") gives Member States a legal framework for setting 
up an NDTAC scheme for their national railway infrastructure if they wish to set up such a 
scheme. 

Article  10  of  the  Implementing  Regulation  requires  the  Commission  to  evaluate  the 
Implementing  Regulation.  The  key  evaluation  criteria  originate  from  the  ‘better  regulation’ 
guidelines2. These criteria are: 

-  effectiveness; 
-  efficiency; 
-  relevance; 
-  sustainability; 
-  coherence; 
-  EU added value.  

The evaluation analysed various data sources, including: (i) rail-fleet data; (ii) a survey and 
interviews  among  stakeholders  (including  railway  undertakings  (RUs),  wagon  keepers 
(WKs),  infrastructure  managers  (IMs),  national  authorities,  national  rail  regulators,  rail-
equipment manufacturers and citizens’ associations); (iii) an open public consultation which 
attracted 1 290 unique responses; and (iv) written contributions from industry stakeholders. 

The  evaluation  covers  the  period  2016-2018  and  focuses  on  the  Member  States  that  have 
introduced  a  NDTAC  scheme  pursuant  to  the  Implementing  Regulation  during  this  period. 
The evaluation therefore covers the schemes of Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. The 
Czech scheme started in December 2019 and is therefore not part of the evaluation. The first 
national scheme within the EU was introduced in Germany in December 2012, followed by 
the Netherlands in December 20133. These initial German and Dutch schemes were aligned 
with the Implementing Regulation by December 2016. The latest schemes were introduced in 
Austria in December 2017 and in Czechia in December 2019. In accordance with Article 3(2) 
if  the  Implementing  Regulation,  the  Dutch,  Austrian  and  Czech  schemes  will  run  until 
December 2021. In accordance with Article 11(2) of the Implementing Regulation, Germany 
has  decided  that  their  scheme  will  run  until  December  2020.  For  comparison,  the  Swiss 
NDTAC scheme has also been analysed. The Swiss scheme has been operational since 2002. 

1   OJ L 70, 14.3.2015, p. 36. 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R0429&from=EN  

2   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/evaluating-

laws_en 

3   Pilot programmes started in the Netherlands in 2008. 

4 

 
 
                                                           
The evaluation results will help the Commission to decide: 

-  whether to give Member States the opportunity to extend the validity of their NDTAC 
schemes beyond 31 December 2021 or to introduce a scheme after that date; and if so,  

-  whether to adapt certain provisions of the Implementing Regulation. 

Article 10 of the Implementing Regulation also highlights the need to evaluate: 

- 

- 
- 

the  implementation  of  the  schemes,  in  particular  the  progress  made  on  retrofitting 
wagons; 
the balance between bonuses deducted and maluses already paid; 
the impact of the schemes put in place according to the Implementing Regulation on 
the overall competitiveness of the freight railway sector; 

-  how incentives induced through the scheme are passed from RUs to WKs. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1 

Trends in rail noise  

According  to  the  World  Health  Organization  (WHO),  environmental  noise  is  an  important 
public health issue. It has negative impacts on human health and well-being, and is one of the 
greatest environmental risks to health4. The economic costs of noise pollution include lower 
house prices and productivity losses from health-related impacts. 

Figures from the European Environment Agency for 2017, presented in its 2020 report, show 
that  railways  are  the  second  largest  source  of  environmental  noise  in  Europe  after  road 
transport.  Railway  noise  affects  nearly  22  million  people  (of  which  approximately  10.9 
million  people  are  exposed  outside  urban  areas  and  approximately  10.7  million  people  are 
exposed  in  urban  areas)5.  In  some  European  regions,  noise  is  a  major  reason  for  public 
opposition to more rail transport.  

The sustainable and smart mobility strategy (COM(2020)789 final) clearly addresses the role 
of rail as a sustainable mode of transport, the use of which should be promoted. Therefore, 
reducing  rail  noise  would  greatly  help  the  further  development  of  the  rail  sector,  and  the 
implementation  of  European  rules  on  rail  noise  will  help  alleviate  these  noise-related 
concerns. 

In  December  2015,  the  Commission  reviewed  the  existing  measures  to  reduce  noise  from 
rail-freight  wagons  and  published  a  staff  working  document  on  reducing  noise  from  rail 
freight6.  

The most significant source of rail noise is rolling noise, originating from the contact between 
the  wheel  and  the  rail.  Traditionally,  freight  wagons  were  equipped  with  cast-iron  brake 
blocks, which slightly roughen the wheel  surface. Composite brake blocks do not  have this 
roughening effect, and thus allow for a smoother wheel surface, reducing rolling noise. The 
first technical specification for interoperability – Noise (‘TSI Noise’)7, adopted in 2005, sets 
out  noise  limit  values  for  new,  upgraded  and  renewed  freight  wagons.  These  noise  limit 
values cannot be achieved by the vast majority of freight wagons fitted with cast-iron brake 
blocks. 

4   World  Health  Organization  2018,  Regional  Office  for  Europe,  Environmental  Noise  Guidelines  for  the 

European Region, ISBN 978 92 890 5356 3. 

5   https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/number-of-people-exposed-to  
6   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/rail/doc/2016-01-05-cswc-rail-noise-reduction.pdf  
7   Commission Decision 2006/66/EC. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
The most effective way to mitigate rail noise is by tackling noise at its source, by replacing 
the  cast-iron  brake  blocks  of  existing  freight  wagons  with  composite  brake  blocks8.  This 
solution  reduces  rail  noise  by  up  to  10 dB,  which  is  a  50%  reduction  in  audible  noise  for 
humans.  Therefore,  the  EU  supports  the  retrofitting  of  freight  wagons  with  the  most 
economically  viable,  low-noise,  braking  technology  available.  This  support  consists  of 
providing  a  legal  basis  for  complementary  instruments  such  as:  (i)  economic  incentives 
through  track-access  charging  schemes;  (ii)  financial  support  to  railway  operators;  and  (iii) 
the  promulgation  of  technical  standards.  By  the  end  of  2017,  some  350  000  wagons  still 
needed to be retrofitted in the EU-28 plus Norway and Switzerland9. 
Article  31(5)  of  Directive  2012/34/EU10  establishing  a  single  European  railway  area 
to  adopt 
(amended  by  Directive 
‘implementing measures setting out  the modalities to  be followed for the application of the 
charging for the cost of noise effects’. This includes deciding how long these measures will 
apply  and  enabling  the  differentiation  of  infrastructure  charges  to  take  into  account,  where 
appropriate:  (i)  the  sensitivity  of  the  area  affected,  in  particular  the  number  of  people 
affected; and (ii) the train’s composition and how this affects the level of noise emissions. 

(EU)  2016/237011)  empowers 

the  Commission 

On this basis, and following an impact assessment12, the Commission adopted Implementing 
Regulation  (EU)  2015/429,  which  provides  the  legal  framework  for  noise-differentiated 
track-access  charges  schemes  within  the  EU.  Member  States  are  free  to  decide  whether  to 
introduce an NDTAC scheme, but if they choose to do so, they must follow the Implementing 
Regulation. The Implementing Regulation is based on the experience of some Member States 
and  of  Switzerland  that  had  introduced  such  schemes  before  the  adoption  of  an  EU 
framework.  The  Implementing  Regulation  has  therefore  harmonised  the  NDTAC  schemes 
across the Union.  

2.2 

The intervention logic and objectives of the initiative  

The  Implementing  Regulation  provides  a  way  for  Member  States  to  incentivise  the  use  of 
silent freight wagons. In a broader policy context, the general objectives of the Implementing 
Regulation are: 
- 

to help mitigate the health risks related to rail-freight noise and improve the well-being of 
the general public in the EU; 
to  reduce  the  risks  to  the  competitiveness  of  the  rail-freight  sector  by  avoiding  a 
fragmented legal framework within the Union. 

- 

These translate into the following operational objectives: 
to create an EU framework for NDTAC schemes; 
- 
to incentivise the retrofitting of existing freight wagons; 
- 
to incentivise the use of silent rolling stock. 
- 

8   European Railways Agency, 006REC1072 Impact Assessment Revision of the NOI TSI Final, 2018. 
9   ERA, Full Impact Assessment, Revision of the NOl TSI: Application of NOI TSI requirements to existing 

freight wagons   
(https://www.era.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/docs/recommendation/006rec1072_full_impact_assess
ment_en.pdf). 

10   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32012L0034  
11   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588150650001&uri=CELEX:32016L2370  
12   COWI and ProgTrans. (2014), Impact Assessment Support Study: Effective Reduction of Noise generated by 

Rail Freight Wagons in the European Union, Brussels: European Commission. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                           
The  intervention  logic  is  presented  in  the  figure  below.  The  intervention  logic  for  the 
operational objectives is presented in Annex 3. 

Intervention logic: Objectives 

j

e
v
i
t
c
e
b
O
n
e
G

j

e
v
i
t
c
e
b
O
c
e
p
S

l

a
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p

e
v
i
t
c
e
b
O
Oper O

j

To help mitigate health risks and 
and improve the well-being of EU 
citizens  

- 

To reduce risks to competitiveness  
of rail  freight sector 

To help reduce noise in rail freight  

To ensure  non - discriminatory  
conditions for all railway  
undertakings and vis - à - vis the road  
transport sector 

To incentivise retrofitting of  
existing wagons 

To incentivise use of silent  
rolling stock 

To create an EU framework for  
noise-differentiated track-  
access charging schemes 

The intervention logic is shown above. It aims to: 

 

 

reduce the public’s exposure to noise caused by freight trains (this noise has negative 
health impacts for the public);  
incentivise the retrofitting of existing wagons with silent brake blocks (because WKs 
and wagon owners would otherwise have no commercial incentive to retrofit); 

  maintain  the  competitiveness  of  the  rail-freight  sector  (because  the  investments  and 
additional operation & maintenance costs of retrofitting would otherwise increase the 
costs of rail-freight transport).  

One of the operational objectives of the Implementing Regulation is to avoid a patchwork of 
national  schemes  and  maintain  the  single  European  railway  area.  A  harmonised  approach 
reduces transaction costs for RUs and guarantees equal treatment of RUs independent of their 
area of operations. 

The  Implementing  Regulation  is  based  on  the  experience  of  some  Member  States  and  of 
Switzerland that had introduced such schemes before the adoption of a EU framework. This 
legal  framework  should  guarantee  to  RUs,  WKs  and  other  stakeholders  legal  security  and 
incentives to retrofit their wagons. To this end, the arrangements set out by the Implementing 
Regulation  cover  the  duration  of  the  scheme,  the  level  of  incentives  and  the  related 
arrangements.  

The level of bonus must be the same on the IM’s entire network and it must be applicable to 
each retrofitted wagon. The basis for calculating the level of bonus is the number of axles of a 
wagon  and  the  number  of  kilometres  run  in  a  period  determined  by  the  IM.  The  minimum 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
bonus  level  was  laid  down  in  the  Implementing  Regulation  at  EUR  0.0035  per  axle-km.  A 
bonus  of  this  amount  should  incentivise  retrofitting  a  wagon  running  45  000 km  per  year 
during a period of 6 years by covering 50% of relevant costs.  

Running a wagon with composite brake blocks is thought to lead to  higher operating costs, 
and a wagon may in practice run less than 45 000 km per year. The bonus could therefore be 
increased to take these facts into account. IMs may also decide to cancel or reduce the level 
of bonus by the value of retrofitting costs for those wagons that had already received bonus 
payments for retrofitting costs. 

One  of  the  main  aims  of  the  Implementing  Regulation  is  to  provide  incentives  for  fast 
retrofitting. For this reason, the duration of the bonus scheme has been limited in time, but at 
the  same  time  set  to  last  long  enough  to  provide  sufficient  financial  support.  Therefore 
Article  3(2)  of  the  Implementing  Regulation  stipulates  that  schemes  must  finish  their 
application for support by December 2021. 

2.3 Baseline and points of comparison 

The baseline for the evaluation is based on time-series data for retrofitted and silent wagons 
until  2015  (when  the  Implementing  Regulation  entered  into  force)  to  identify  trends  in 
retrofitting  before  the  Implementing  Regulation  came  into  force.  In  June  2015,  NDTAC 
schemes were already in place in two EU countries (Germany since 2012 and the Netherlands 
since  2013)  and  in  Switzerland.  Therefore,  the  analysis  underpinning  the  ‘no  EU 
intervention’ scenario takes into account  these pre-existing schemes  (and their influence on 
retrofitting trends until 2015). By extrapolating these trends to 2018, a situation without any 
EU intervention has been constructed, i.e. a situation without the Implementing Regulation in 
place. The difference between the observed retrofitting trends in the period 2016-2018 (when 
the Implementing Regulation was in place) and the projected trends of the ‘no Implementing 
Regulation’ scenario describe the impact of the Implementing Regulation on the retrofitting 
of the wagon fleet. 

The introduction of the Implementing Regulation did not have a substantial impact on the key 
parts of the existing schemes in Germany and the Netherlands. For these two Member States, 
the no-policy and the policy scenarios are the same, leaving the developments in Austria as 
the basis for the evaluation.  

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY 

3.1 

Applicable, national, noise-differentiated, track-access, charging schemes 

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/429 was adopted on 13 March 2015 and came into force 
on 16 June 2015. As stated above, Member States are free to decide whether to introduce an 
NDTAC  scheme.  If  they  do  introduce  an  NDTAC  scheme,  they  must  follow  the 
Implementing Regulation.  

Once a Member State has decided to introduce an NDTAC scheme, the IM must be the entity 
that implements it (Article 1) and that modifies the infrastructure charges in accordance with 
the Implementing Regulation. In an NDTAC scheme, the bonus for retrofitted wagons: (i) is 
mandatory (Article 4);  (ii) must be applied to  all RUs operating retrofitted wagons (Article 
3); (iii) must be the same across the entire network (Article 4); and (iv) must apply to each 
retrofitted wagon (Article 4). Article 2 defines what retrofitted wagons are: ‘existing wagons 
retrofitted  with  composite  brake  blocks  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  set  out  in  TSI 
Noise’. If, during a renewal or upgrading of a wagon, it is equipped with certified, composite 

8 

 
brake blocks and no noise sources are added, then it is assumed that the requirements of TSI 
Noise are met.  

IMs may also decide to cancel or reduce the level of bonus for those wagons that had already 
received bonus payments to reimburse their retrofitting costs. 

The optional parts of an NDTAC scheme are: a ‘silent train’ bonus (Article 5), a bonus for 
‘very quiet wagons and locomotives’ (Article 6) and a ‘malus’ (Article 7).  

A  ‘malus’  is  a  surcharge  on  the  infrastructure-access  charges  to  be  paid  by  RUs  for  each 
‘noisy’ train (i.e. a train  composed of more than 10% noisy wagons (Article 2)). The malus 
should be of limited value and never greater than the bonus.  

Member  States  must  notify  the  Commission  when  introducing  an  NDTAC  scheme  and 
subsequently report yearly on a number of key figures (Article 9).  

As stipulated by the  Implementing Regulation,  the initial  German and Dutch schemes were 
aligned with it by December 2016.  

Table 1: Main characteristics of the existing NDTAC schemes in the EU 

Germany 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Czechia 

Year  of  introduction  of 
an 
Implementing 
Regulation-compliant 
NDTAC scheme 

Scheme  in  place  before 
the  adoption  of 
the 
Implementing 
Regulation? 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2019 

Yes, 
December 2012 

since 

Yes, 
December 2013 

since 

No 

No 

Type of system 

Bonus/malus 

Bonus only 

Bonus only 

Bonus only 

Bonus 

EUR  0.005/axle-
km 

EUR 0.01/axle-
km (2016-2018) 
EUR 0.0035/axle-
km (2019-2021) 

EUR 0.01/axle-
km 

0.10 
CZK 
(EUR 0.00367)/ax
le-km 

Bonus per silent train 

None 

EUR  0.00175  per 
wagon-km 

None 

None 

Malus level 

Maximum  bonus 
(in 
total, until the end of the 
scheme) 

5.5% 
track 
of 
charges  for  2019 
and  7%  of  track 
charges for 2020 

None 

None 

None 

EUR 221 per axle 

EUR 4 800 
wagon 

per 

EUR 425 per axle  No maximum 

Mechanisms  for  passing 
bonus  between  RU  and 
WK 

No  mechanism  in 
contractual 
law: 
agreements 
between 
and the WK 

the  RU 

No  mechanism  in 
contractual 
law: 
agreements 
between  the  RU 
and the WK  

9 

in 

Reference 
network 
statement. 
Industry 
agreement 
preparation 
stipulate 
for 
mechanism 
transfer  of  bonus 
from RU to WK 

in 
to 

No  mechanism  in 
contractual 
law: 
agreements 
between  the  RU 
and the WK 

 
 
Based  on  the  Member  State  reports,  submitted  in  accordance  with  Article  9  of  the 
Implementing Regulation, the Commission analysed the level of use of the NDTAC schemes. 
For  the  Netherlands,  2017  was  the  first  full  year  in  which  the  Dutch  scheme  was  fully 
compliant with the Implementing Regulation. 

Table 2: Use data for the German, Dutch and Austrian schemes 

Germany 

Netherlands 

Austria 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2017 

2018 

2018 

27 303 

37 011 

27 616 

13 467 
wagons 
applied  for  a 
bonus 
between 
2012 
January 
2018.  

and 

15 337 
wagons 
applied  for  a 
bonus 
between 
2012 
January 
2019  

and 

7 783 
wagons 
received 
bonus 
2017. 

a 
in 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

16 500 

25 161 

N/A 

1.2 million 

1.1 million 

1 million 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Reporting 
requirement 

of 
Number 
that 
wagons 
were 
granted 
bonus referred to 
in Article 4 

Number of trains 
bonus 
granted 
in 
to 
referred 
Article 5 

Number of trains 
that were subject 
to malus 

Mileage  run  by 
retrofitted 
wagons 

283.3 
million 
wagon-km 

435.8 
million 
wagon-km 

27.3  million 
wagon-km 

51.5  million 
wagon-km 

76.52 
million 
wagon-km 

Mileage  run  by 
silent  and  noisy 
trains 

77% 
noisy 
trains  (178.1 
million 
train-km) 

73% 
noisy 
trains  (174.0 
million train-
km) 

69% 
noisy 
trains  (172.0 
million 
train-km) 

noisy 
77% 
trains 
(7.9 
million train-
km) 

noisy 
67% 
trains 
(7.0 
million train-
km) 

noisy 
(33.6 

78% 
trains 
million 
train-km) 

silent 
(54.5 

23% 
trains 
million 
train-km) 

silent 
27% 
trains 
(65.8 
million train-
km) 

silent 
(78 

31% 
trains 
million 
train-km) 

silent 
23% 
trains 
(2.3 
million train-
km) 

silent 
33% 
trains 
(3.4 
million train-
km) 

silent 
(9.4 

22% 
trains 
million 
train-km) 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Germany 

Netherlands 

Austria 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2017 

2018 

2018 

Reporting 
requirement 

Total  amount  of 
bonuses  granted 
retrofitted 
for 
wagons, 
silent 
trains,  and  very 
quiet 
wagons 
and locomotives 

EUR 5.2 
million 

EUR 8.1 
million 

Total 
collected 

malus 

EUR 13.9 
million 

EUR 16.7 
million 

EUR 1.132 
million 
retrofitted 
wagons*  

for 

EUR 2.175 
million 
retrofitted 
wagons 

for 

EUR 3.1 
million 

EUR 0.310 
million 
for 
silent trains*  

EUR 0.631 
million 
silent trains 

for 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Furthermore,  national  direct-support  schemes  for  retrofitting  existing  freight  wagons  with 
silent brake blocks exist in Germany13, Poland14, Italy15 and Switzerland16.  

The German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI) has developed 
a parallel programme to the NDTAC scheme of the IM  to incentivise retrofitting. Based on 
the BMVI scheme, for all freight wagons operating in Germany, and whatever their place of 
establishment,    railway  undertakings  are  entitled  to  receive  the  bonus  through  this  specific 
funding channel. 

Before approving the State Aid schemes, the Commission has checked the Polish and Italian 
schemes for compliance with the Implementing Regulation.  

4.  METHOD 

4.1 Methodology and sources of information 

Between  January  and  September  2019,  a  support  study  was  carried  out  by  an  external 
contractor17  to  provide  input  to  this  evaluation.  The  study  was  structured  using  the  ‘better 
regulation’  evaluation  criteria  (effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  sustainability  and  EU 
added value). These criteria were operationalised through 19 evaluation questions  which, in 
turn, were further refined using an evaluation matrix (presented in Annex 3b). The study was 
overseen  by  a  Commission  inter-service  steering  group.  Relevant  stakeholders,  falling  into 
seven main stakeholder groups18, were consulted by different means to ensure their opinions 
were collected. The following consultation tools were employed: 

-  Targeted interviews: At the beginning of the study, the contractor held a limited number of 
interviews  with  selected  stakeholders.  The  purpose  of  these  interviews  was  to  better 
organise  the  issues  to  address  –  and  better  select  –  the  people  or  organisations  to  be 
contacted.  

13   https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Anlage/E/foerderrichtlinie-trassenpreissystem.pdf?__blob=publicationFile  
14   https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_55443  
15   https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=3_SA_51229  
16   https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/de/home/themen/laerm/fachinformationen/massnahmen-gegen-laerm/massnahmen-

gegen-eisenbahnlaerm/investitionshilfe-fuer-besonders-laermarme-gueterwagen.html  

17   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/environment_en  
18   Infrastructure  managers,  RUs,  wagon  owners/WKs,  national  authorities,  regulatory  bodies,  rail  equipment 

manufacturers, and citizens’ associations.  

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
-  An  online  survey,  in  which  RUs  and  WKs  from  12  Member  States  and  Switzerland 

participated. 

-  A focus group with participants recruited from the Commission Group of Experts on Rail 

Market Opening (GERM, an expert group set up by the Commission).  

-  A stakeholder workshop with the focus-group and sector representatives. 

-  An  open  public  consultation  in  the  form  of  an  online  questionnaire  held  between 
28 March 2018  and  20 June 2018,  which  included  questions  on  respondents’  familiarity 
with the Implementing Regulation. 

Furthermore,  to  complement  the  study  with  factual  information,  the  external  contractor 
carried  out  desk  research  on  several  related  issues.  The  support  study  identified  evidence 
from literature to: (i) develop several of the indicators used for the evaluation questions; and 
(ii) subsequently identify key information to analyse the answers to the evaluation questions.  

A list of references is given in Appendix H of the support study. It includes: 

-   European Commission legislation and policy papers; 
- 

impact  assessments  used  to  prepare  the  revision  of  TSI  Noise  and  the  Implementing 
Regulation19 20;  

-  sector reports. 

Rail-fleet data: The analysis of the wagon fleet is mainly based on data from the silent wagon 
database  (SWD),  the  common  database  of  the  four  countries  of  the  single  entry  point  (i.e. 
Austria, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands). Additional data collected from existing 
literature and data provided by stakeholders were used to complement the analysis. 

Field  research:  Field  research  and  consultation  activities  in  the  support  study  included 
interviews,  surveys,  an  open  public  consultation  (OPC)  and  expert-group  meetings.  The 
stakeholder consultation report is presented in Annex 2. Field research covered stakeholders 
from countries  with NDTAC schemes (Germany, Austria, Netherlands and Switzerland), as 
well  as  stakeholders  outside  these  countries.  It  also  included  a  combination  of  surveys 
targeting the main group of stakeholders affected (RUs and WKs21 and interviews with other 
types  of  organisations).  Some  RUs  and  WKs  that  responded  to  the  survey  were  also 
interviewed.  Authorities  and  IMs  in  the  countries  with  NDTAC  schemes  were  selected  for 
interviews – rather than a survey – as a more effective tool for getting input on the specifics 
of the implementation of the scheme.  

Interviews:  In total,  50 stakeholders  were  contacted with  requests  for interviews during the 
study.  29  of  these  50  stakeholders  agreed  to  attend  an  interview.  In  total,  5  exploratory 
interviews and 24 other stakeholder interviews were carried out (Appendix E of the support 
study22 contains the interview checklists).  

19

 https://www.era.europa.eu/sites/default/files/library/docs/recommendation/006rec1072_full_impact_assessm
ent_en.pdf 

20   COWI and ProgTrans. (2014). Impact Assessment Support Study: Effective Reduction of Noise generated by 

Rail Freight Wagons in the European Union, Brussels: European Commission. 

21   For  simplicity,  wagon  keepers  and  wagon  owners  are  referred  to  throughout  the  report  just  as  wagon 

keepers/WKs. 

22   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/environment_en  

12 

 
 
                                                           
Table 3: Number of stakeholders contacted with requests for interviews during the study 

Stakeholder type 

Number invited to interview 

Number of interviews completed  

IMs 

RUs 

Wagon owners/keepers 

National authorities 

National  authorities  –  regulatory 
bodies 

Rail equipment manufacturers 

Citizens’ associations 

Total 

7 

13 

6 

9 

4 

7 

4* 

50 

10 (2 exploratory) 

11 (1 exploratory) 

5 (1 exploratory) 

6 (1 exploratory) 

1 

3 

1 

29 (including 5 exploratory) 

* Emails/written responses were received from three citizens’ associations.  

Survey:  In  addition  to  the  interview  programme,  an  online  survey  targeting  RUs  and  WKs 
was  also  used  to  obtain  relevant  input  to  support  the  analysis  (Appendix  F  of  the  support 
study23 presents the final survey). 

Table 4: Number of responses received to the survey 

Respondent type 

Number of completed responses 

Percentage respondent type 

RU 

WK 

TOTAL 

22 

21 

43 

51% 

49% 

100% 

Note: the ‘RU’ category includes both respondents that identified as only an RU, and those who were both an 
RU and a WK. 

OPC: The OPC generated 1 290 unique responses, most of which (1 250) were from German 
stakeholders. Both open-ended and closed-ended questions were analysed – further details are 
provided in Annex 2. 

Call for written contributions: A call was made to stakeholders for written contributions, and 
five position papers were received. The written  contributions  are discussed and analysed in 
Appendix G of the support study. 

Expert-group meetings: As part of the support study, the Commission held two meetings in 
Brussels with Member State experts. The meetings followed a call for expressions of interest 
in GERM. Further details of the meetings are provided in Appendix G of the support study. 

Case studies: The support study contains an in-depth analysis (in the form of case studies) on:  
- 
- 

the single entry point. 
the Swiss NDTAC experience and lessons learned. 

The  full  case  studies  are  presented  in  Appendices  A  and  B  (Sections  8.1  and  8.2, 
respectively) of the support study. 

23   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/environment_en  

13 

 
                                                           
4.2 

Research limitations/robustness of findings 

As explained above, the quantitative analysis of this evaluation is based on the developments 
of  one  Member  State  only:  Austria.  This  limits  the  basis  of  the  evaluation  of  quantitative 
aspects,  and  complicates  any  meaningful  decision  on  whether  to  revise  the  Implementing 
Regulation with the evaluation as a basis.  

Comparing  data  from  the  SWD  with  data  from  ERA’s  impact  assessment  study  of  the 
revision  of  TSI-Noise24  shows  that  the  SWD  has  good  data  coverage  for  the  NDTAC 
countries which had a scheme in place during the evaluation period (i.e. Austria, Switzerland, 
Germany  and  the  Netherlands).  It  also  has  good  data  coverage  for  France,  and  partial 
coverage for Czechia, Belgium and Luxembourg. This means that the available data make it 
possible to quantitatively analyse the impact of the Implementing Regulation on retrofitting 
for both the NDTAC countries and for a number of adjacent Member States. However, other 
Member States are not effectively covered. Data from the European Union Railway Agency 
Centralised  Virtual  Vehicle  Register  (ECVVR)  do  not  contain  the  detailed  technical 
information on time-series data needed for the analysis. The ECVVR could therefore not be 
used as an additional source of detailed data. 

Because  rail  noise  is  a  topic  that  draws  great  interest,  there  was  a  good  overall  level  of 
participation in the surveys and interviews from both industry and public-sector stakeholders. 
This made it possible to develop a comprehensive understanding of the implementation of the 
NDTAC schemes. For the OPC, contributions were predominantly made by members of the 
public in Germany, one of the Member States where issues of rail noise generate widespread 
interest.  

However, there was some attrition in  the cases of both  RUs  and WKs while answering the 
survey.  Although  there  were  43  survey  responses,  not  all  respondents  answered  all  the 
questions, and some respondents submitted partially completed surveys. The reasons for this 
are  unclear;  the  survey  was  not  very  time-consuming  and  no  technical  reasons  have  been 
found. 

5.  ANALYSIS OF AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION CRITERIA 

5.1 

Effectiveness  

The adoption of the Implementing Regulation has not led to substantial changes to the rules 
already in place in Germany and in the Netherlands. Therefore, the Implementing Regulation 
is  not  expected  to  influence  the  pace  of  retrofitting  in  these  Member  States.  The  analysis 
performed on time-series data on retrofitted wagons, and presented in Figure 1, confirms this. 
This conclusion is also supported by the interviews with the stakeholders.  

During the period 2016 – 2018 Austria (starting in December 2017) is the only Member State 
to  introduce  an  NDTAC  scheme  after  the  Implementing  Regulation  became  operational.  A 
representative  of  the  Austrian  government  confirmed  that  the  creation  of  a  European  legal 
framework favoured the  introduction of the scheme in  Austria.  On this basis, it is  assumed 
that the introduction of the Austrian scheme is an outcome of the Implementing Regulation.  

A  comparison  between  a  projected  baseline  for  2018  and  the  observed  trend  of  retrofitted 
wagons  in  Austria  leads  to  an  estimated  increase  of  about  1 500  retrofitted  freight  wagons 
registered  in  Austria  in  2018  as  the  difference  between  the  observed  development  and  the 

24   ERA  Impact  Assessment  on  Revision  of  the  Noise  TSl:  Application  of  NOI  TSI  requirements  to  existing 

freight wagons. 2018. Table 2, p.23. 

14 

 
                                                           
baseline. For new wagons compliant with TSI Noise, the data on the number of these wagons 
registered in Germany and the Netherlands indicates that the trend has not changed since the 
adoption  of  the  Implementing  Regulation.  For  Austria,  insufficient  data  are  available  to 
derive conclusions on whether there has been an increase or decrease in the number of these 
new wagons.  

According to the three interviewed IMs, the pace of retrofitting of rail-freight wagons and the 
level  of  use  of  silent  rolling  stock  would  have  been  generally  lower  in  the  absence  of  the 
NDTAC schemes. On the use of silent rolling stock, Table 2 shows an increase in the mileage 
run by silent trains and a reduction in the mileage run by noisy trains both in Germany and 
Netherlands. However, given the assumed neutral impact of the Implementing Regulation on 
these schemes, this can be considered a result of ongoing national developments rather than 
of the Implementing Regulation.  

Of the 38 RUs and WKs that responded to the consultation, 16 said that the NDTAC was not 
appropriate to incentivise the retrofitting of existing wagons, while 15 said that the NDTAC 
was an appropriate measure. There was a similar split in opinion over whether the  NDTAC 
had  encouraged  the  use  of  silent  rolling  stock.  The  stakeholders  that  considered  NDTAC 
schemes as not appropriate referred to: (i) the limited passing on of the bonus payments from 
RUs to WKs; and (ii) the limited impact of NDTAC schemes on undertakings with low or no 
wagon-mileage in the countries with such schemes.  

The analysis of data on retrofitted freight wagons registered in non-NDTAC Member States 
available from the SWD (France, Czechia (until December 2019), Belgium and Luxembourg) 
suggests  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  NDTAC  schemes  having  an  impact  outside  the  three 
countries where the schemes have been in place. In the Member States without an NDTAC 
scheme,  the  pace  of  retrofitting  is  slower  than  in  the  countries  with  an  NDTAC  scheme  in 
place.  For    the  small  increase  in  the  pace  of  retrofitting  in  2017  and  2018  for  France  and 
Belgium, stakeholders’ views suggest that these developments are more likely due to the ban 
on  noisy  freight  wagons  introduced  in  Switzerland  in  January  2020  and  a  planned  ban  in 
Germany from December 2020. 

The  analysis  of  time-series  data  from  the  SWD  for  2010-2018  (Figure  1)  shows  that  the 
introduction  of  the  NDTAC  schemes  in  Germany  (in  December  2012),  the  Netherlands  (in 
December 2013) and Austria (in December 2017) resulted in a steep increase in the number 
of  retrofitted  wagons  in  the  years  immediately  after  introduction.  This  suggests  that  the 
national  NDTAC  schemes  are  themselves  effective.  By  extension,  it  also  suggests  that  any 
measure  aimed  at  increasing  the  number  or  effectiveness  of  NDTAC  schemes  such  as  the 
Implementing Regulation will also be effective. However, it is not possible to fully separate 
the  effect  of  the  NDTAC  schemes  from  the  effect  of  the  planned  bans  in  Switzerland  and 
Germany,  for  which  the  relevant  legal  provisions  were  adopted  in  2015  and  in  2017 
respectively,  or  from  other  financial  instruments,  like  CEF  (available  Union-wide)  and 
national aid schemes that complement the NDTAC schemes.  

15 

 
Figure  1:  SWD  time-series  data  on  the  total  number  of  retrofitted  wagons  registered  in 
NDTAC countries and in Switzerland 

Source: External consultant's elaborations on data from the SWD. 

Table  5  summarises  the  changes  in  rail-wagon  fleets  in  Germany,  Austria  and  the 
Netherlands. It shows data on TSI-Noise-compliant freight wagons (both retrofitted and new) 
registered in the NDTAC countries after the introduction of the Implementing Regulation. It 
also shows how the retrofitting process has been significantly influenced by national NDTAC 
schemes. Overall, the number of retrofitted freight wagons has increased to around 112 000 
units in 2018 (i.e. annual growth of 21% in 2016-2017 and 29% in 2017-2018). On the type 
of brake technology for retrofitting the freight wagons, the LL-type predominates across the 
three  NDTAC  countries.  This  can  be  explained  by  the  higher  retrofitting  cost  of  K-type 
technology. 

Table 5: Number of retrofitted rail and TSI-Noise-compliant new freight wagons registered 
in NDTAC countries 

Country 

Type of wagon 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Germany 

Retrofitted 

30 837 

42 844 

61 386 

2 002 

2 092 

2 260 

28 835 

40 752 

59 126 

Variation 

2016-2017 

2017-2018 

39% 

4% 

41% 

43% 

8% 

45% 

new 

22 337 

23 810 

25 986 

7% 

9% 

Total 

53 174 

66 654 

87 372 

Netherlands 

Retrofitted 

1 471 

1 696 

1 837 

25% 

15% 

31% 

8% 

16 

K 

LL 

TSI-Noise-
compliant 
wagons 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Type of wagon 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Variation 

2016-2017 

2017-2018 

K 

LL 

TSI-Noise-
compliant 
wagons 

32 

43 

44 

1 439 

1 653 

1 793 

34% 

15% 

new 

12 516 

13 294 

14 378 

6% 

Total 

13 987 

14 990 

16 215 

7% 

2% 

8% 

8% 

8% 

Austria 

Retrofitted 

309 

670 

- 

361 

2 898 

117% 

333% 

- 

- 

- 

2 228 

92% 

517% 

- 

188 

new 

4 137 

4 511 

5 103 

9% 

13% 

K 

LL 

TSI-Noise-
compliant 
wagons 

Total 

4 446 

5 181 

8 001 

Grand total 

71 607 

86 825 

111 588 

17% 

21% 

54% 

29% 

For Germany, the number of retrofitted freight wagons is significantly higher than the fleet of 
TSI-Noise-compliant  new  wagons.  The  two  parallel  funding  systems  in  place  make  it 
possible  to  at  least  partially  compensate  for  the  costs  of  retrofitting25.  These  two  systems 
seem to be working as strong incentives for retrofitting compared to the option of purchasing 
new freight wagons.  

For  the  Netherlands,  there  have  been  increases  in  both  retrofitted  and  TSI-Noise-compliant 
new wagons, with the latter outnumbering the former. Due to budget constraints, the Dutch 
NDTAC  bonus  (in  the  form  of  a  discount  on  the  infrastructure-access  charge)  has  been 
reduced to EUR0.0035 per axle-km for the 2019-2021 period (i.e. the minimum threshold of 
the Implementing Regulation). However, there is no sound evidence to conclude that there is 
a correlation between the observed variations of the pace of retrofitting and this change.  

For  Austria,  the  number  of  retrofitted  freight  wagons  is  smaller  than  the  number  of  TSI-
Noise-compliant  new  wagons.  However,  the  annual  variations  are  very  different,  with  the 
pace  of  change  increasing  greatly  in  2017-2018  compared  to  2016-2017.  This  can  be 
explained by the later implementation of the NDTAC scheme in 2018. However, it is worth 
observing that the number of retrofitted freight wagons increased from 670 to 2 898 units in 
2017-2018 (i.e. by more than 333%), while the number of TSI-Noise-compliant new wagons 
only  increased  by  13%  in  the  same  period.  Although  this  finding  is  not  sufficient  to 
corroborate  sound  conclusions,  the  level  of  the  noise  bonus  (i.e.  EUR  0.01  per  axle-km 
limited to EUR 425 per retrofitted axle over the running time), is equal to that of the German 
scheme, and this seems to incentivise the retrofitting process.  

25   Only one-off costs are covered, but additional annual operating costs are excluded. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
A key aspect identified by respondent stakeholders was that there is no effective mechanism 
for  passing  on  the  bonus  from  RUs  to  WKs  and  owners  that  incur  the  actual  costs  of 
retrofitting. Essentially, the passing on of the bonus relies on the willingness of the RUs to do 
so. This aspect was identified in Recital 14 of the Implementing Regulation, but has not been 
effectively  addressed.  Except  for  the  Austrian  NDTAC  scheme26,  there  are  no  specific 
provisions in the German and Dutch NDTAC schemes that require the RUs to pass on part or 
all  of  the  entire  bonus27.  Therefore,  the  effectiveness  of  NDTAC  schemes  as  a  financial 
incentive for WKs to retrofit wagons is deemed limited. 

The  interviewed  WKs  remarked  that  they  have  attempted  to  recover  the  costs  by  charging 
higher leasing prices. However, the RUs can bargain and offset an initially higher price. RUs 
that  own  (a  large  part  of)  their  wagon  fleet  find  themselves  in  an  advantaged  position 
compared  to  WKs.  However,  because  renting  silent  wagons  from  WKs  is  economically 
beneficial for RUs, the increased demand is likely to induce a higher renting fee and would 
therefore indirectly incentivise WKs to retrofit their wagons.  

As  indicated  further  below,  the  bonus  represents  on  average  5%  of  operational  costs  for 
freight trains, and is meant to compensate for retrofitting and increased operational costs. As 
indicated  by  respondents,  the  NDTAC  schemes  are  not  the  largest  source  of  subsidies  for 
retrofitting.  Other instruments, like the CEF (available EU-wide)  and national  aid  schemes, 
complement the NDTAC schemes. 

The general view of the consulted IMs is that intra-modal and inter-modal competition have 
been  affected  to  only  a  negligible  or  small  extent  by  the  Implementing  Regulation.  On  the 
level  of  transport-operating  cost  borne  by  the  rail  operators,  the  component  related  to  the 
NDTAC  schemes  is  only  one  of  the  many  factors  at  play.  The  total  operating  cost  of  rail 
transport borne by a freight operator also depends on: (i) time-specific market contingencies; 
(ii)  the  type  of  goods  transported;  (iii)  the  availability  of  freight  wagons  at  the  time  of 
submission of a rent request; and (iv) the actual infrastructure-access charge paid. According 
to  the  report  of  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  (European  Court  of  Auditors,  2016), 
infrastructure-access charges can account for 20-35% of the total operational costs borne by 
rail-freight  operators.  Based  on  figures  from  the  relevant  network  statements  and  RMMS-
data,  the  noise  bonus  is  found  to  constitute  around  20%  of  the  infrastructure-access  charge 
and therefore can be estimated as being around 5% of the total operating cost. The malus in 
the German NDTAC scheme was around 5.5% of the 2019 track-access charges. 

5.2 

Efficiency  

5.2.1  Costs 

IMs and authorities were asked to provide estimates of the initial (one-off) and ongoing costs 
of implementing and monitoring the schemes.  

Initial one-off costs identified included: 

-  costs for familiarising with the new requirements of the Implementing Regulation; 

26   ÖBB’s  network  statement  (ÖBB  Infra,  2018)  makes  specific  reference  to  Recital  14  of  the  Implementing 
Regulation, which stipulates that the incentive should be passed on to whoever bears the cost of retrofitting. 
27   DB  Netz’s  network  statement  (DB  Netz  AG,  2018)  generally  states  that  the  aim  is  to  incentivise  railway 
companies with a bonus to deploy upgraded freight wagons, but there is no specific reference to passing on 
the  bonus.  Likewise,  ProRail’s  network  statement  (ProRail,  2018)  states  that  it  is  the  responsibility  of  the 
railway undertaking to provide information on the freight wagons participating in the scheme, but there is no 
reference to passing on the bonus to whoever bears the retrofitting cost.  

18 

 
                                                           
-  design  and  implementation  of  NDTAC  schemes  or  adjustment  of  existing  schemes  to 

ensure compliance with the Implementing Regulation; 

-  development of monitoring procedures; 

initial costs to set up cooperation with other countries (if applicable); 

- 
-  any one-off costs (or savings) associated with the use of the SEP28. 

Potential ongoing implementation and monitoring costs included: 

-  costs of the bonus provided to RUs; 

-  administrative costs for calculating and disbursing bonus payments/malus charges; 

-  for silent/very quiet wagons and locomotives – application of the bonus and provision of 

additional proof; 

-  additional costs/savings from the operation of the SEP. 

Table  6  shows  the  costs  mentioned  by  three  IMs  and  three  ministries  interviewed.  The 
implementation costs are mostly modest.  

In  addition  to  the  above  costs,  authorities  must  cover  the  costs  for  the  actual  bonuses 
provided  to  RUs.  The  Implementing  Regulation  stipulates  that  the  bonus  paid  by  national 
governments can be balanced by the malus paid by RUs, and that the latter cannot exceed the 
former except for in some specific conditions29.  

IMs that are responsible for implementing the schemes may also incur costs for enforcing the 
NDTAC schemes. These costs may include:  

-  one-off costs for: (i) creating or adapting registers and databases; and (ii) training staff to 

support enforcement activities; 

-  ongoing annual costs, including: 

- costs for enforcing the schemes; 

- reviewing and verifying registrations of retrofitted wagons;  

- costs for auditing and random checks on retrofitting. 

Table  7  presents  the  inputs  from  the  three  IMs  and  three  ministries  interviewed.  For 
ministries,  costs  reported  were,  as  is  to  be  expected  for  the  implementation  phase,  very 
limited. For IMs, one-off and ongoing costs reported by the Austrian and the Dutch IM were 
relatively small. In contrast, the German IM reported costs of over EUR 1 000 000 to develop 
a new database and IT facilities. However, it was clarified that this extra investment was not 
necessary  to  participate  in  the  scheme.  This  suggests  that  this  part  of  the  costs  could  be 
considered as not being directly related to the scheme or the Implementing Regulation.  

28   The  costs associated  with the SEP are not  directly attributable to the Implementing  Regulation, as it  is an 
independent  programme  set  up  by  the  participating  Member  States.  More on  the  SEP  can  be  found  in  the 
respective case study in Appendix A of the support study. 

29   According to Article 7 (4) the total sum of maluses can exceed the total sum of bonuses if similar charging 

of noise costs is applied to road freight transport. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 6: Estimates for costs to implement and monitor NDTAC schemes provided by ministries and IMs 

Cost 
Initial one-off costs 

Familiarising  with  new requirements 
of the Implementing Regulation  

and 

implementation  of 
Design 
NDTAC  schemes  or  adjustment  of 
existing 
ensure 
compliance  with  the  Implementing 
Regulation  

schemes 

to 

Austria 

Ministry 

Germany 

Netherlands 

IM 

Ministry 

IM 

Ministry 

IM 

Do not know 

EUR 1 000-10 000  No costs reported 

Do not know 

EUR 1-1 000 

EUR 1-1 000 

Do not know 

EUR 10 000-
100 000 

No costs reported 

EUR 10 000 –  

EUR 1-1 000 

EUR 1-1 000 

100 000 

Initial  costs  to  set  up  cooperation 
with other countries  

Not  relevant  to  the 
organisation 

- 

No costs reported 

- 

EUR 1 000-
10 000(costs) 

EUR 1 000-10 000 
(costs) 

Adopting procedures for monitoring 

Not  relevant  to  the 
organisation 

No costs  

No costs reported 

Do not know 

EUR 1 000-10 000 

Cost  incurred,    no 
estimate provided 

Adoption of single entry point  

- 

EUR 1 000-10 000 

- 

- 

EUR 1-1 000 

EUR 1-1 000 

Ongoing/annual costs  

Calculation  and  disbursement  of 
bonus payments/malus charges  

Not  relevant  to  the 
organisation 

EUR 10 000-
100 000 

No costs reported 

- 

EUR 1 000-10 000 

EUR 1 000-10 000 

Application  of 
silent/very 
locomotives  

the  bonus 

quiet  wagons 

for 
and 

Not  relevant  to  the 
organisation 

No costs 

No costs reported 

EUR 100 000 –  

Not  relevant  to  the 
organisation 

Not  relevant  to  the 
organisation 

1 000 000 

No costs 

EUR 1 000-10 000 
(savings) 

EUR 1 000-10 000 
(savings) 

Use  of  single  entry  point  (costs  or 
savings) 

Not  relevant  to  the 
organisation 

Both 
and 
costs 
savings,  but  not 
quantifiable 

- 

Source: Interviews with ministries and IMs.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7: Enforcement costs for ministries and IMs 

Cost 

Austria 

Netherlands 

Germany 

Ministry 

IM 

Ministry 

IM 

Ministry 

IM 

One-off 

Creating 
adapting 
registers 
databases  

or 

and 

Not relevant 
to 
the 
organisation 

EUR 10 000-
100 000 

EUR 1 000-
10 000 

EUR 1 000-
10 000 

No  costs 
reported 

>EUR 1 000 000 

Not relevant 
to 
the 
organisation 

Cost 
incurred,  but 
no 
figure 
given 

Training of staff  

Annual 

EUR 1 000-
10 000 

EUR 1 000-
10 000 

No  costs 
reported 

Do not know 

Costs  related  to 
enforcement  of 
the scheme  

Not relevant 
the 
to 
organisation 

EUR 1 000-
10 000 

No costs 

No costs 

No  costs 
reported 

>EUR 1 000 000 

and 

Reviewing 
verifying 
registrations  of 
retrofitted 
wagons  

Not relevant 
to 
the 
organisation 

Auditing/random 
checks 
on 
retrofitting 

Not relevant 
to 
the 
organisation 

EUR 1 000-
10 000 

EUR 1 000-
10 000 

EUR 1 000-
10 000 

No  costs 
reported 

EUR 100 000 
1 000 000 

- 

EUR 1 000-
10 000 

EUR 1 000-
10 000 

EUR 1 000-
10 000 

No  costs 
reported 

Not  relevant  to 
the organisation 

Source: Interviews with ministries and IMs. 

Besides the costs for ministries and IMs, the support study also examined possible costs 
for  other  authorities.  These  other  authorities  included  rail-regulatory  bodies  that  may 
have been involved in the design of the scheme or that may have been asked to provide 
input on its implementation. The three rail-regulatory bodies concerned have not reported 
significant costs. 

Table 8 contains a summary of costs to different authorities and IMs, using the mid-point 
of  the  ranges  supplied  in  their  responses.  The  total  figures  shown  include  the  three 
Member  States  where  NDTAC  schemes  were  implemented  in  2016-2018.  All  annual 
figures  are  for  2018.  The  annual  costs  for  IMs  amount  to  9%  of  the  bonus  payment. 
However, the German IM reported significantly higher enforcement costs than the other 
two ministries, but clarified that these costs were not directly incurred as a consequence 
of  implementing  the  Implementing  Regulation.  This  implies  that  annual  costs  for  IMs 
were around 4-5% of the bonus payments. The costs for the remaining organisations are 
low: national ministries’ costs are equivalent to 0.16% of the bonuses distributed, while 
all rail-regulatory bodies indicated that they incurred negligible costs.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8: Total costs for authorities for the three NDTAC schemes 

and 
Implementation 
monitoring costs – one-
off  

Implementation 
monitoring 
annual 

costs 

and 
– 

Enforcement  costs  – 
one-off 

Enforcement  costs  – 
annual   

initial  one-off 
Total 
costs  for  adaptation/ 
implementation 

Total  annual 
(2018) 

costs 

Bonus  payment  (2018 
or most recent year) 

National 
ministries 

IMs 

Regulatory 
bodies 

Total 

EUR 11 000 

EUR 127 501 

Negligible 

EUR 138 501 

EUR 12 000 

EUR 121 000 

N/A 

EUR 133 001 

EUR 11 000 

EUR 1 066 000 

N/A 

EUR 1 077 000 

EUR 11 000 

EUR 1 082 500 

N/A 

EUR 1 093 500 

EUR 22 000 

EUR 1 193 501 

N/A 

EUR 1 215 501 

EUR 23 000 

EUR 1 203 500 

N/A 

EUR 1 226 501 

EUR 14 000 000 

N/A 

EUR 14 000 000 

Source: Interviews and written submissions from national authorities, IMs and rail-regulatory bodies. 

Two  of  the  NDTAC  schemes  (in  Germany  and  the  Netherlands)  were  already  in  place 
before  the  Implementing  Regulation  was  adopted,  and  the  Implementing  Regulation 
therefore only brought some small changes in these countries. For this reason, the costs 
identified above probably cannot be associated with the Implementing Regulation in their 
entirety.  Under  the  assumption  that  the  German  and  Dutch  schemes  would  continue  to 
exist regardless of the existence of the Implementing Regulation, it would be reasonable 
to  assume  that  the  only  costs  associated  with  the  Regulation  are  those  incurred  by  the 
Austrian  authorities.  As  indicated  in  Table  9,  for  Austria,  the  annual  costs  for  the  IM 
amount to 2% of the bonus payment. 

Table 9: Total costs for authorities and the IM in Austria 

National ministries 

IMs 

Regulatory bodies 

Implementation 
monitoring costs – one-off  

and 

N/A 

Implementation 
monitoring costs – annual 

and 

N/A 

Enforcement costs – one-off 

N/A 

Enforcement costs – annual    N/A 

Total initial one-off costs for 
adaptation/ implementation 

N/A 

Total annual costs (2018) 

N/A 

Bonus payment (2018) 

EUR 3 100 000 

EUR 60 500 

Negligible 

EUR 55 000 

EUR 55 000 

EUR 16 500 

EUR 115 500 

EUR 71 500 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Source: Interviews and written submissions from national authorities, IMs and rail-regulatory bodies. 

22 

 
 
 
 
RUs  and  WKs  must  also  bear  administrative  costs  for  collecting,  processing  and 
organising the necessary information to apply for the bonus from the IMs. The costs of 
this include one-off costs to organise participation in the NDTAC scheme, and ongoing 
annual costs to both manage the retrofitting process and collect data to be sent to IMs. In 
surveys,  RUs  and  WKs  were  asked  to  indicate  the  magnitude  of  the  one-off  costs  and 
ongoing costs associated with participating in the scheme30. The resulting median values 
of their estimates are presented in Table 10. It suggests a total of around EUR 13 540 in 
annual  costs and an initial  cost  of EUR 13 500 to organise participation in  the scheme. 
These values are based on a small sample size (6 RUs and 3 WKs) and may not be fully 
representative.  

Table 10: Average administrative costs of NDTAC schemes for industry stakeholders  

Total 
responses 

Median  value 
of 
answers 
received 

‘No costs’ 

of 

No. 
responses 
used 

one-off 

Initial 
participation 
including the application  

to 
costs 
in  NDTAC 

organise 
scheme, 

10 

EUR 13 500 

1 

Ongoing  annual  costs  to  manage  the 
retrofitting process 

Ongoing 
collection of information sent to IMs 

annual 

costs, 

including 

Total ongoing costs 

Source: Survey of RUs and WKs. 

10 

10 

- 

EUR 7 390 

EUR 6 150 

2 

2 

EUR 13 540 

- 

8 

7 

7 

- 

As part of the survey, respondents were asked to indicate the reasons for not participating 
in an NDTAC scheme.  

30   There  was  a  lot  of  uncertainty  in  administrative-cost  estimates  provided  in  the  literature.  Therefore, 
unlike  with  retrofitting  costs,  stakeholders  were  asked  to  indicate  the  range  in  which  these  costs  fell, 
rather than indicating if they agreed/disagreed with a value sourced from literature.   

23 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 2: What is the reason for not having participated in an NDTAC scheme? (n=17) 

*TSI Noise 
Note: Respondents were able to select multiple options. 
Source: Survey of RUs and WKs. 

Table  11  shows  the  cumulative  retrofitting  and  operational  costs,  the  bonus  payments, 
and the malus charges incurred for the years 2016-2018. This analysis is presented at EU 
level, because wagons registered in one Member State might receive bonuses in multiple 
Member States.  

Table 11: Cumulative retrofitting costs (2018, euros) and bonus/malus payments for the 
period 2016-2018 in the three Member States with an NDTAC scheme 

Retrofitting 
(million EUR) 

costs 

Operational 
(million EUR) 

costs 

Bonuses 
(million EUR) 

received 

Maluses 
(million EUR) 

paid 

44.9 

27.8 

28.4 

46.6 

Source: Article 9 reports and study-team estimates based on contributions from IMs. 

Notes: Values estimated for Austria (2018), the Netherlands (2017 and 2018) and Germany (2016-2018) in 
the  years where Implementing Regulation-compliant NDTAC schemes were  in place. For Germany, only 
half of retrofitting costs incurred during the period were considered. This is because, as discussed earlier, 
the other 50% (up to EUR 211 per axle) are covered by direct subsidies.  

Overall, analysing the results from the table shows that the bonus payments paid by the 
three NDTAC schemes represented 63% of the retrofitting costs in that period and 39% 
of  both  retrofitting  and  operational  costs.  This  financial  support  provided  to  the  rail 
industry  has  helped  it  to  maintain  its  competitiveness  in  the  face  of  public  pressure  to 
reduce rail-freight noise. These bonuses thus helped to achieve the general objective of 
the Implementing Regulation to reduce the risks to the competitiveness of the rail-freight 
sector. The annual administrative costs account for 4% of all costs incurred by industry 
stakeholders  and  are  equivalent  to  8%  (excluding  malus  charges)  of  the  total  bonuses 

24 

 
 
 
provided.  The  analysis  suggests  that  the  initial  estimate  of  the  impact  assessment  that 
administrative costs for industry stakeholders would represent 1% of the bonus received 
(COWI and ProgTrans, 2014) underestimated the level of these costs. 

The  German  and  Dutch  schemes  would  be  operating  regardless  of  the  existence  of  the 
Implementing  Regulation;  only  the  Austrian  scheme  is  a  direct  result  of  the 
Implementing Regulation. The costs incurred in Austria for the industry in 2018 (the only 
year where the NDTAC scheme was in place) are as follows: 

-  retrofitting costs: EUR 3.9 million; 

-  operational costs: EUR 0.4 million; 

-  bonuses received: EUR 3.1 million. 

Costs  for  the  industry  that  are  not  included  in  the  analysis  include  the  potential 
administrative costs that WKs might have borne (for example, to register their wagons in 
the databases).  

On  covering  the  retrofitting  costs  incurred  by  the  industry,  Recital  15  of  the 
Implementing  Regulation  indicates  that  the  bonus  should  be  set  at  a  minimum  of 
EUR 0.0035  per  axle-km  to  allow  operators  to  recover  50%  of  the  costs  of  retrofitting 
their wagons in 6 years, based on the assumption that the wagon  travels 45 000 km per 
year.  The  validity  of  this  assumption  for  a  four-axle  wagon  was  examined  for  Austria, 
Germany and the Netherlands by estimating the net present value (NPV) after 6 years of 
operation for a single wagon under each of the three NDTAC schemes. 

Table  12:  Estimation  of  NPV  and  break-even  point  for  wagons  retrofitted  in  the  three 
Member States with NDTAC schemes (retrofitting costs only) 

Country 

Type of brake 
block 

NPV after 6 years 
(EUR) 

Break-even point: 
50% of retrofit 
costs covered 
(km) 

Number of years 
until 50% 
covered 

DE 

NL – old bonus 

NL – new bonus 

NL  –  old  and  new 
bonus 

AT 

K-block 

-EUR 2 946 

178 150 

LL-block 

EUR 3 026 

K-block 

EUR 1 772 

LL-block 

EUR 7 744 

22 900 

99 625 

22 000 

K-block 

-EUR 4 361 

284 643 

LL-block 

EUR 1 610 

62 857 

K-block 

-EUR 1 114 

LL-block 

EUR 4 857 

K-block 

EUR 1 772 

LL-block 

EUR 7 744 

- 

- 

99 625 

22 000 

Source: Study-team estimates. 

4.0 

0.5 

2.2 

0.5 

6.3 

1.4 

- 

- 

2.2 

0.5 

25 

 
 
 
LL-blocks  (retrofitting  costs  for  which  are  lower  than  for  K-blocks)  account  for  most 
retrofits since they were approved for use31. Table 12 shows that the bonus provided by 
the  different  schemes  for  LL-block  retrofitting  are  very  generous,  and  allow  50%  of 
retrofit costs to be recovered in as little as 6 months. Even if a wagon only travels in the 
Netherlands with the new bonus (which started in 2019 and is at the minimum level set in 
the  Implementing  Regulation),  the  wagon  recovers  50%  of  its  retrofitting  costs  in  1.4 
years. As a result, it can be concluded that the minimum value of EUR 0.0035 per axle-
km set in the Implementing Regulation is sufficient to cover 50% of the retrofitting costs 
in 6 years.  

However, retrofitting costs are not the only costs incurred by WKs operating retrofitted 
wagons:  retrofitted  wagons  also  have  higher  operational  costs.  Based  on  the  industry 
validation  of  additional  operational  costs  (presented  in  Annex  4  of  the  support  study) 
operational costs throughout the life of the wagon were included by considering ongoing 
additional  costs  of  EUR 0.0215  per  wagon-km  (base  value)  and  a  higher  value  of 
EUR 0.0338  per  wagon-km  (median  value  obtained  in  the  field  research  among  those 
respondents  who  disagreed  with  the  base  value).  To  simplify  the  calculations,  only 
estimates for LL-blocks (which account for most of the retrofits since the Implementing 
Regulation came into force) are presented in Table 13. 

Table  13:  Estimation  of  NPV  and  break-even  point  for  wagons  retrofitted  in  the  three 
Member States with NDTAC schemes, including operational costs 

Country 

DE 

NL – old bonus 

NL – new bonus 

Operational  cost 
(EUR  per  wagon-
km) 

NPV after 6 years 
(EUR) 

Break-even  point, 
50%  of  retrofit 
costs 
covered 
(km) 

Number  of  years 
until 
50% 
covered 

EUR 0.0215 

-EUR 46 

Not achieved 

Not achieved 

EUR 0.0338 

-EUR 4 948 

Not achieved 

Not achieved 

EUR 0.0215 

EUR 2 672 

47 568 

EUR 0.0338 

-EUR 230 

141 935 

1.1 

3.2 

EUR 0.0215 

-EUR 3 462 

Not achieved 

Not achieved 

EUR  0.0338 

-EUR 6 363 

Not achieved 

Not achieved 

NL  –  old  and  new 
bonus 

EUR 0.0215 

-EUR 215 

EUR 0.0338 

-EUR 3 116 

- 

- 

AT 

EUR 0.0215 

EUR 2 672 

47 568 

EUR 0.0338 

-EUR 230 

141 935 

- 

- 

1.1 

3.2 

Source: Study-team estimates. 

The  consideration  of  operational  costs  changes  the  picture.  For  Germany  (bonus  of 
EUR 0.005  per  axle-km,  or  EUR 0.02  per  four-axle  wagon-km),  and  under  the  new 

31   In the three Member States with an NDTAC scheme, retrofits with LL-blocks represent 96.5% of total 

wagons retrofitted. 

26 

 
 
                                                           
bonus  scheme  in  the  Netherlands  (EUR 0.0035  per  axle-km,  or  EUR 0.014  for  a  four-
axle wagon-km) break-even is never achieved. The bonuses received per wagon-km are 
smaller  than  the  additional  operational  costs  (EUR 0.0215  or  EUR 0.0338  per  wagon-
km), and the NPV over  a six-year period is  also  always negative. The same result was 
obtained  in  the  impact  assessment  for  the  Implementing  Regulation:  estimates  in  that 
study,  which  included  operational  costs,  put  the  NPV  of  retrofitting  after  7  years  at  a 
negative EUR 2 465 (COWI and ProgTrans, 2014). 

For Austria and the old Dutch bonus, the bonus of EUR 0.01 per axle-km (or EUR 0.04 
per  4-axle  wagon-km)  is  higher  than  the  additional  operational  costs  considered.  As  a 
result,  it  is  possible  to  achieve  break-even  and  a  positive  NPV  after  6  years  in  some 
circumstances.  

In  its  Recital  15,  the  Implementing  Regulation  also  indicates  that  the  bonus  attributed 
could  be  higher  to  take  into  account  the  higher  operational  costs  associated  with 
composite  brake  blocks32.  The  results  of  the  analysis  presented  above  show  that  the 
minimum  level  of  bonus  set  in  the  Implementing  Regulation  is  not  enough  to  cover 
operational costs; it is only enough to cover retrofitting costs. To make retrofitting more 
attractive, the higher level of bonus provided in Austria – and, up to the end of 2018, in 
the Netherlands – makes it possible for all costs associated with retrofitted wagons to be 
recovered. 

In  the  survey,  RUs  and  WKs  participating  in  an  NDTAC  scheme  were  asked  if  they 
considered the costs they incurred in managing participation in the NDTAC scheme to be 
excessive. As shown in Figure 3, overall, most respondents did not believe that any of the 
named costs were excessive.  

32   This  recital  also  mentions  that  lower  distances  travelled  per  year  (i.e.  less  than  45 000  km)  could  be 

another reason to increase the level of bonus. 

27 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 3: Do you consider any of the costs incurred in managing your participation in 
the NDTAC scheme in the following table to be excessive? (n=7-10) 

NDTAC countries have set up a cooperation mechanism, the SWD, to register low-noise 
freight wagons and manage applications for the bonus.  

On the SEP, the views of the WKs and RUs are rather polarised. Out of 38 responses, 15 
stakeholders consider the tool appropriate for applications for financial support, while 15 
consider it not to be appropriate. 

On  the  costs  to  IMs,  the  study  team  made  an  assessment  comparing  the  annual  costs 
indicated by each of the three IMs from the EU and the Swiss IM for comparison. This 
was compared to activity (measured by the mileage run by retrofitted wagons) in wagon-
km in each of the Member States in the latest year for which data are available, and with 
the number of RUs that received a bonus in that year. The results of this assessment are 
presented in Table 14. 

28 

 
 
 
Table 14: Comparison of efficiency for IMs 

Ongoing costs (per year) 

EUR 22 000 

EUR 2 055 000  EUR 71 500 

EUR 16 500 

Netherlands 

Germany 

Austria 

Switzerland 

Mileage 
wagons (millions of wagon-km) 

retrofitted 

run 

by 

51.5 

435.8 

76.52 

418.2 

Number of RUs receiving bonus 

17 

43 

28 

N/A 

EUR/million wagon-km 

EUR 427 

EUR 4 715 

EUR 934 

EUR 39 

EUR/RU 

EUR 1 294 

EUR 477 901 

EUR 2 554 

N/A 

As can be seen, the German scheme appears to be more expensive than the Dutch, Swiss 
and  Austrian  schemes.  This  is  a  result  of  the  significantly  higher  enforcement  costs 
indicated  by  the  German  IM.  However,  these  values  should  be  viewed  with  some 
caution.  The  costs  were  indicated  in  ranges  (with  the  mid-point  being  chosen  for  the 
overall  estimate)  and  the  German  IM  indicated  much  higher  costs  than  the  other  three 
countries.  While  some  of  those  higher  costs  could  be  explained  by  the  scale  of  the 
German rail network and its NDTAC scheme, it is unclear whether this can explain the 
level of additional costs indicated33.  

5.2.2  Benefits  

To the extent that the Implementing Regulation has helped to increase retrofitting and the 
use of silent freight wagons, it is expected to have had a positive contribution to the well-
being of the public in the affected regions. To provide an estimate of the external costs of 
rail-freight noise that can be reduced by the change of brake technology, the  Handbook 
on the external costs of transport, commissioned by the European Commission, was used 
in the support study (Essen, et al., 2019)34.  

When  applied  for  2018  for  the  Austrian  NDTAC  scheme,  the  direct  effect  of  the 
Implementing  Regulation  on  the  estimated  level  of  change  of  the  external  costs  is 
estimated to be a reduction of EUR 21.8 million. 

As described in Section 5.1, it is difficult to fully disentangle the effects of the NDTAC 
scheme and other effects (such as the national noise bans announced in Switzerland and 
Germany) on the pace of retrofitting. Therefore, the estimated benefits for external costs 
in  Austria  are  likely  to  be  the  result  of  multiple  factors,  of  which  the  Implementing 
Regulation is a main factor. 

Further benefits, although limited because of the low number of Member States with an 
NDTAC  scheme,  include  the  reduction  of  administrative  costs  for  RUs  as  a  result  of 
harmonised NDTAC schemes. 

33   Although the support study tried to further clarify the reasons for these relatively higher costs directly 

with the stakeholder, it was not possible to obtain further information. 

34   https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
5.3 

Relevance  

As  stated  above,  the  broader  objectives  of  the  Implementing  Regulation  are  to:  (i) 
contribute  to  the  reduction  of  rail-noise  pollution;  (ii)  create  an  EU  framework  for 
NDTAC  schemes;  and  (iii)  reduce  the  risks  for  the  competitiveness  of  the  rail-freight 
sector. The operational objectives of the Implementing Regulation are: 

- 

- 

- 

to create an EU framework for NDTAC schemes; 

to incentivise the retrofitting of existing freight wagons; 

to incentivise the use of silent rolling stock. 

The general objective of mitigating health risks by reducing rail noise is because noise is 
of  great  concern  for  public  health  in  the  EU.  This  is  compounded  by  the  fact  that  rail-
freight traffic has also been increasing throughout the EU in recent years. It increased by 
13.2 billion tonne-kilometres (from 403.1 to 416.3 billion tonne-kilometres; 3.3%) from 
2015  to  2017  (Eurostat,  2018).  Input  from  sector  stakeholders  engaged  as  part  of  the 
study corroborate these concerns. In the OPC conducted before this study, 935 (76%) out 
of  1 237  citizens  and  citizen-association  respondents  indicated  that  the  level  of  rail-
freight  noise  in  the  area  where  they  live  or  work  has  either  slightly  or  significantly 
increased in the last 2 years. 1 185 of these respondents (96%) also stated that rail noise 
in the area where they live or work had a negative impact on their personal well-being. 
However, 97% of the responses were from Germany. Thus these figures largely represent 
one Member State that is particularly prone to problems with rail noise, due to specific 
topographic characteristics and the size of rail freight that passes through it, and in which 
rail noise receives significant political attention.  

On the  general  objective of reducing the risks to the competitiveness of the rail sector, 
stakeholders pointed out that the internalisation of external costs of transport needs to be 
addressed  more  ‘horizontally’,  across  transport  modes.  The  costs  of  reducing  rail  noise 
are  particularly  high,  and  if  the  rail  industry  has  to  absorb  these  costs  without  support, 
even more pressure would be put on the competitiveness of the rail sector to the benefit 
of  road  transport.  Overall  however,  rail-sector  stakeholders  appear  to  recognise  the 
impact on noise from rail freight and accept the fact that operators need to pay part of this 
cost.  

Many  of  the  engaged  stakeholders  agreed  that  it  is  still  necessary  to  incentivise  the 
retrofitting of wagons. 28 out of 36 respondents from the survey indicated there is still a 
need  to  incentivise  RUs  and  WKs  to  take  relevant  action  on  rail  noise.  CER  also 
commented that retrofitting incentives  should be  channelled to  ensure there are enough 
quiet wagons to provide freight services on the most important European corridors from 
December  2024.  However,  input  from  other  stakeholders  questioned  the  need  to 
incentivise retrofitting, arguing that because of the high costs associated with retrofitting 
older wagons, retrofitting does not always make economic sense, slowing down renewal 
of the fleet. 

On incentivising the use of silent  rolling stock, 15 out  of 37 respondents indicated that 
the  differentiation  of  infrastructure  charges  was  an  appropriate  tool  to  incentivise 
retrofitting, while 16 indicated it was not. In most cases, the respondents suggested that 
incentivising retrofitting  via NDTAC schemes is  still relevant,  but  largely along  with  a 
range of other instruments. 

30 

 
 
According to  Article 4(2) of the  Implementing Regulation, the basis for calculating the 
bonus  level  is  the  number  of  axles  of  a  wagon  and  the  number  of  kilometres  run  in  a 
period  determined  by  the  IM.  The  Implementing  Regulation  also  states  that  the  bonus 
should  aim  to  cover  at  least  50%  of  the  additional  cost  for  wagons  running  more  than 
45 000 km/year  for  6  years.  To  achieve  this  50%  goal,  the  Implementing  Regulation 
stipulates  the  minimum  level  of  a  bonus,  which  is  set  at  EUR 0.0035  per  axle-km.  In 
Article 4(4), the Implementing Regulation makes an additional suggestion: when setting 
the  level  of  the  bonus,  the  IM  may  take  into  account  inflation,  the  mileage  run  by 
wagons, and the operating costs linked with the use of retrofitted wagons.  

As  discussed  above,  the  costs  associated  with  composite  brake  blocks  come  from  the 
initial expenditure on retrofitting, plus the ongoing operational costs.  

Given the costs of materials and components (brake-block shoes, brake cylinders, valves 
and wheels) there is a direct correlation between the number of axles a wagon has and the 
costs of retrofitting that wagon (as these materials are needed on each axle). In addition, 
due  to  the  higher  operational  costs  of  composite  brake  blocks  compared  to  cast-iron 
brake blocks, there is a correlation between the mileage of a wagon and the rate of wear 
and tear and maintenance of brake systems. Therefore, basing the level of NDTAC bonus 
on both a per-axle basis, as per Article 4(2), and on the number of kilometres a wagon 
travels,  remains  relevant.  However,  for  operators  that  do  not  travel  long  distances,  the 
mileage-based  calculations  mean  that  the  bonus  cannot  cover  50%  of  the  retrofitting 
costs.  From  their  perspective,  this  represents  potential  unfair  treatment  and  a  reduced 
incentive for retrofitting. 

Another  important  aspect  considered  is  the  operational  conditions  of  wagons.  Varying 
operational  conditions  (e.g.  mountainous  routes  or  extreme  winter  conditions)  can 
significantly  affect  the  operational  costs  of  composite  brake  blocks.  By  providing  the 
flexibility  for  IMs  to  introduce  a  bonus  that  is  higher  than  the  minimum  level  of 
EUR 0.0035  per  axle-km  (as  is  currently  the  case  for  the  Austrian  scheme),  the 
Implementing Regulation covers such cases.  

Finally, Article 4(4) mentions that, besides mileage and operating costs, inflation can be 
a factor considered in  calculating the bonuses. There are no indications that  changes to 
the  bonus  formula  were  made  to  reflect  the  impact  of  inflation  in  any  of  the  schemes. 
Given that inflation levels have been relatively low in the years since the Implementing 
Regulation was enacted this is properly justified. And there has been no indication from 
industry that such an adjustment would be needed.  

5.4 

Sustainability  

Among the three Member States that had an NDTAC scheme in place in 2016-2018, only 
Germany  has  introduced  a  malus  as  part  of  the  scheme,  and  only  the  German  scheme 
should  be  expected  to  be  financially  sustainable  on  its  own  (without  requiring  subsidy 
from  the government).  In 2016 and 2017, the German  IM generated significant  income 
from the scheme, which resulted in a cumulative total income of EUR 17.3 million. For 
the  immediate  future,  bonuses  are  expected  to  increase  further  as  more  wagons  are 
retrofitted and inversely, the malus payments should reduce over time. Thus, the presence 
of  a  significant  surplus  during  the  first  2  years  provides  a  significant  cushion  that  can 
ensure the viability of the scheme. 

31 

 
 
According to Article 7(3) of the Implementing Regulation, ‘the total sum of malus paid 
over  the  duration  of  the  scheme  shall  not  be  higher  than  the  sum  of  bonuses’.  The 
German  Ministry  of  Transport  was  interviewed  and  indicated  that  the  plan  is  for  the 
scheme  to  balance  out  towards  its  end  (with  bonuses  and  maluses  ending  up  roughly 
equal). In any case, Article 7(4) also states that if the Member State also applies a similar 
noise charge to road-freight transport, the requirements of Article 7(3) do not apply. As 
Germany now includes a noise component in the toll it charges to road freight under the 
‘LKW-Maut’  scheme,  it  can  potentially  collect  more  maluses  than  the  bonuses  it 
distributes over the life of its NDTAC scheme. 

As expected, in those countries where no malus was applied in 2016-2018 (Austria and 
the  Netherlands),  the  NDTAC  schemes  have  incurred  cumulative  costs  of  EUR 3.1 
million and EUR 4.2 million respectively. These costs are expected to be covered by the 
government or other sources, but not internally by the scheme itself. 

On the question of the lasting effect of the Implementing Regulation, ‘quieter’ routes will 
be  introduced  from  December  2024  as  a  consequence  of  the  revision  of  TSI  Noise  in 
2019.  This  introduction  of  quieter  routes  makes  it  highly  unlikely  that  the  number  and 
use  of  silent  wagons  would  decrease  after  the  ending  of  the  NDTAC  schemes  in 
December 2021.  

5.5 

Coherence 

Next  to  the  Implementing  Regulation  on  NDTAC  schemes,  the  EU  legal  framework 
specifically targeting rail noise consists of the following main pieces of legislation: 

- 

- 

the  Directive  on  a  Single  European  Railway  Area  (2012/34/EU),  which  provides  in 
Article 31(5) the legal basis for the Implementing Regulation; 

the  Technical  Specifications  for  Interoperability  (TSI)  on  noise  (TSI  Noise),  first 
adopted in 2005 and revised since – the latest revision being in May 2019; 

-  Regulation (EU) 1316/2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). 

One area of possible improved alignment between the Implementing Regulation and the 
2019  revision  of  TSI  Noise  concerns  their  time  spans.  Some  stakeholders  consider  this 
time span to be problematic. The TSI Noise rules implement a ban on noisy wagons on 
many ‘quieter’ routes across the EU by December 2024. However, according to Article 3 
of  the  Implementing  Regulation,  NDTAC  schemes  may  only  be  in  place  until 
31 December 2021, 3  years before this. This earlier deadline may mean that retrofitting 
will happen at a faster pace (to take advantage of the bonus schemes before they expire) 
but  there  could  also  be  shortages  in  maintenance  facilities,  and  wagons  might  not  be 
granted the full bonuses because they were retrofitted too late.  

Regulation  (EU) 1316/2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility  (CEF)  aims to 
accelerate  investment  in  trans-European  networks,  and  help  the  sector  meet  the  high 
upfront costs of retrofitting on infrastructure and rolling stock. It aims to achieve both of 
these goals while also maintaining the competitiveness of rail. The financial instrument 
to  achieve  this  is  identified  under  Article  7(2):  ‘actions  to  reduce  rail-freight  noise, 
including by retrofitting existing rolling stock in cooperation with, inter alia, the railway 
industry’. 

32 

 
 
Under the CEF, the retrofitting of existing rail-freight wagons is co-funded with grants of 
up to 20% of eligible costs35, up to a combined ceiling of 1% of the budgetary resources 
available for transport (corresponding to EUR 262.5 million).  

Funding via the two mechanisms (CEF and NDTAC) is consistent, as they both have the 
same  objective  of  supporting  the  retrofitting  of  wagons.  The  Implementing  Regulation 
makes direct reference to the CEF and encourages Member States to take advantage of 
the European public funding opportunities to cover the costs associated with retrofitting. 
Input from stakeholders also suggests synergies between the two mechanisms.  

In  addition  to  CEF,  some  Member  States  also  provide  national  funding  to  retrofit 
wagons.  This  is  another  mechanism  to  complement  both  CEF  and  the  Implementing 
Regulation, and all have the same objective of supporting the retrofitting of wagons. Like 
the CEF, the Implementing Regulation also encourages Member States ‘to make relevant 
funds available’ (Recital 16). 

The Commission also intended that the charges in the NDTAC schemes brought in by the 
Implementing  Regulation  would  complement  other  measures  to  reduce  noise  that  were 
consistent  with  the  overall  noise-mitigation  objectives  of  EU  policy.  These  objectives 
included  noise  mapping  and  action  plans  under  the  Environmental  Noise  Directive 
2002/49/EC.  One  of  the  aims  of  this  Directive  is  to  provide  ‘a  basis  for  developing 
measures  to  reduce  noise  emitted  by  the  major  sources,  in  particular  road  and  rail 
vehicles’. This aim of the Environmental Noise Directive is also consistent with one of 
the specific objectives of the Implementing Regulation: ‘to contribute to noise reduction 
in rail freight’.  

The  field  research  has  highlighted  some  opposing  views  on  the  coherence  between  the 
Implementing  Regulation  and  overall  EU  noise  policy.  CER  and  UIP  consider  that  the 
Implementing  Regulation  is  a  narrow  instrument  that  does  not  sufficiently  address  the 
entire  transport  sector  beyond  rail.  They  argue  that  rail  freight  has  to  absorb  costs  to 
address  the  noise  policy,  while  other  modes  are  contributing  much  less  to  internalise 
external costs.  

The main characteristics of the three NDTAC schemes operating in the EU in 2016-2018 
are shown in Table 1. The differences among the three schemes are minor: 

- 

the  bonus  in  the  Netherlands  is  now  at  the  minimum  level  set  by  the  Implementing 
Regulation  (changed  from  a  higher  figure  in  2018),  while  in  Germany  the  bonus  is 
slightly above that, and in Austria the bonus is double the level of Germany; 

-  only  the  Netherlands  has  a  bonus  for  silent  trains  as  outlined  in  Article  5  of  the 

Implementing Regulation;  

-  only Germany has introduced a malus.  

The  maximum  bonus  an  RU  can  receive  per  wagon  varies  among  the  three  Member 
States. In the Netherlands, it is set per wagon, while in Germany and Austria it is set per 
axle.  Furthermore,  the  maximum  bonus  in  Austria  is  almost  double  that  of  Germany. 
However,  in  Germany  the  NDTAC  aims  to  cover  only  50%  of  the  costs,  with  the  rest 
being covered by direct retrofitting subsidies.  

35 i.e. the direct costs associated with composite brake blocks and their retrofitting (excluding wheelsets). 

33 

 
 
                                                           
Although mechanisms for passing on bonuses between RUs and WKs vary in detail, all 
countries  leave  it  to  the  market  to  sort  out  this  passing  on  of  bonus  payments.  In  the 
Netherlands, this appears to be working (as no stakeholders raised any issues about this 
Member State), but in Austria and Germany there were concerns that the bonuses are not 
being effectively passed on from RUs to WKs. In its network statement, the Austrian IM 
incentivises RUs to pass on the bonus to WKs.   

Despite  these  differences,  stakeholders  did  not  indicate  any  issues  or  inconsistencies 
among the schemes or any negative consequences.  

5.6   EU added value 

The  Implementing  Regulation  aims  to  support  the  simplification  and  harmonisation  of 
procedures  to  operate  the  NDTAC  schemes.  Its  objective  in  this  is  to  reduce  the 
administrative  and  financial  burdens  for  IMs  and  RUs.  This  is  an  important  goal 
considering  that  rail-freight  transport  is  generally  an  international  business  and  would 
benefit from the development of a harmonised framework. 

Overall, good progress has been made in retrofitting noisy freight wagons. However, the 
Implementing Regulation has not been able to attract Member States other than Austria 
and Czechia. The perception of rail noise varies between Member States, the need for a 
harmonised framework may therefore be less urgent in other Member States, limiting the 
introduction of NDTAC schemes.  

The  umbrella  association  of  WKs  (UIP,  2019)  stresses  the  importance  of  having  a 
common NDTAC scheme to avoid the emergence of a patchwork of different schemes in 
each Member State. Such a patchwork would increase transaction costs and incoherence 
due to divergent national approaches.  

Only  minor  changes  were  made  to  the  two  schemes  already  in  place  following  the 
adoption of the Implementing Regulation. The German NDTAC scheme was changed in: 
(i) the definition of a silent train, by adapting the initial threshold set at 100% to that of 
the Implementing Regulation (i.e. 90%); and (ii) making freight wagons retrofitted before 
the  introduction  of  the  NDTAC  scheme  (2012)  also  eligible  for  the  bonus.  The  Dutch 
NDTAC  scheme  initially  applied  on  a  per  wagon-km  basis  (i.e.  EUR 0.04  per  wagon-
km). To comply with the Implementing Regulation, the Dutch IM modified the scheme 
by  switching  to  a  bonus  based  on  the  number  of  axles.  Another  change  introduced  to 
comply  with  the  Implementing  Regulation  set  an  end  to  the  NDTAC  scheme 
(31 December 2021),  something  that  was  not  originally  planned.  Due  to  budget 
constraints related to 2019-2021 governmental funding, in 2019 the bonus was reduced 
to EUR 0.0035 per axle-km, in compliance with  the minimum set by the Implementing 
Regulation. 

According  to  the  Implementing  Regulation,  if  progress  with  retrofitting  is  not 
satisfactory,  Member  States  should  be  allowed  to  apply  a  malus  after  the  end  of  the 
NDTAC scheme if a similar measure is applied to the road-freight-transport sector. The 
design of this malus should be consistent with the principles of internalisation of external 
costs of noise for all freight transport modes, in particular road transport (see Article 7). 
However,  input  from  IMs  suggests  that  the  introduction  of  a  malus  could  potentially 
hamper the competitiveness of the rail sector.  

34 

 
 
Finally,  the  obligation  for  Member  States  to  report  yearly  to  the  Commission  on  the 
implemented NDTAC schemes makes it possible to monitor trends and conduct analyses 
centrally. However, the small number of implemented schemes limits  the value of data 
analysis.  The  concerned  Member  States  have  not  indicated  a  need  for  simplification  of 
the reporting obligations.   

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

The impact of the Implementing Regulation on reducing rail noise has been positive, but 
rather  limited.  After  the  adoption  of  the  Implementing  Regulation,  only  two  Member 
States have introduced a new NDTAC scheme, one of which started after the evaluation 
period. It is not possible to determine whether these two schemes would also have been 
implemented in the absence of the Implementing Regulation. Moreover, the impact of the 
Implementing  Regulation  is  difficult  to  identify  in  the  presence  of  other  (EU  and 
national) initiatives incentivising the retrofitting. 

One  of  the  aspects  limiting  the  effectiveness  of  the  Implementing  Regulation  is  the 
absence  of  an  explicit  mechanism  for  passing  on  the  bonus  from  RUs  to  WKs.  This  is 
necessary  if  the  latter  bear  the  costs  of  retrofitting  and  are  not  the  same  entity  as  the 
former. 

Implementation costs for authorities and industry are low. The bonus payments are more 
than enough to cover the retrofitting costs. However, these bonus payments have been set 
by  the  implementing  Member  States  at  too  low  a  level  to  also  fully  cover  increased 
operational costs.   

The general objectives of the Implementing Regulation remain relevant: to contribute to 
the reduction of rail-freight noise and to maintain the competitiveness of the rail-freight 
sector.  Furthermore,  in  the  run-up  to  the  coming  into  force  of  ‘quieter  routes’  from 
December  202436,  there  is  still  a  need  to  provide  financial  support  to  retrofit  existing 
noisy  wagons.  In  this  context,  the  obligatory  end  date  of  the  NDTAC  schemes  (i.e. 
31 December  2021  as  specified  in  Article  3(2)),  which  was  meant  to  speed  up 
retrofitting,  may  need  to  be  reconsidered  –  and  possibly  extended  –  to  allow  Austria, 
Czechia  and  the  Netherlands  to  prolong  their  schemes  and  to  encourage  other  Member 
States to introduce a scheme.  

The Implementing Regulation is in line with the overall EU framework and mechanisms 
that aim to reduce rail noise. The EU’s many initiatives to help reduce rail noise at the 
source through economic, financial and technical measures remain valid. The effects of 
the  Implementing Regulation,  having led to  an increased number of retrofitted wagons, 
are likely to last, even after the expiry of the NDTAC schemes. 

The  Implementing  Regulation  helped  to  avoid  a  patchwork  of  national  schemes  that 
could  have  led  to  higher  transaction  costs  and  an  uneven  playing  field  for  market 
competitors.  However,  the  voluntary  basis  of  the  Implementing  Regulation  means  that 
the  added  value  of  the  Implementing  Regulation  has  a  limited  effect  in  directly 

36 The TSI Noise revision of 2019 introduces the concept of ‘quieter routes’: railways with intense freight 

traffic on which, from December 2024, only silent freight wagons may be operated.  

35 

 
 
                                                           
incentivising  Member  States  to  adopt  an  NDTAC  scheme.  Some  Member  States  have 
even introduced State Aid schemes instead of NDTAC schemes. 

Based on this evaluation, the Commission will assess whether to give Member States the 
opportunity to extend the validity of their NDTAC schemes beyond 31 December 2021 
(or to introduce a scheme after that date) or to repeal the Implementing Regulation. 

36 

 
 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

Lead DG: DG MOVE 

Decide Planning:  

PLAN/2017/2021 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The evaluation of the Implementing Regulation was coordinated by an Inter-Service 
Steering  Group,  which  was  established  early  in  the  evaluation  process,  with 
representatives from: 
-  DG Environment 
-  DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
-  DG Mobility and Transport 
-  Secretariat General 

The  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  met  twice,  on  6  October  2017  to  discuss  the 
Terms of Reference of the support study and in July 2019 to discuss the draft final 
report of the support study. Between these two meetings, the members of the Group 
have  been  invited  to  the  meetings  with  the  consultants,  and/or  were  consulted  in 
writing.   

The  evaluation  support  study,  executed  by  Ricardo  Nederland  BV  in  association 
with TRT Trasporti e Territorio, took place between January and September 2019. 
The consultant also participated in the expert group meetings on 22 March and 26 
June 2019. 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

4.  The  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  and  Toolbox  were  followed  without  any 

exceptions.  

5.  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB (IF APPLICABLE) 

n/a 

6.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The evidence findings of the external support study prepared by Ricardo Nederland 
BV  in  association  with  TRT  Trasporti  e  Territorio,  fed  into  the  analysis  of  this 
evaluation  Staff  Working  Document.    The  consultant  used  the  data  of  the  Open 
Public Consultation which the Commission held in 2018 in its analysis.  During the 
support  study,  the  consultant  used  a  mix  of  approaches  including  an  evaluation 
matrix, desk research, interviews, a targeted consultation and case studies. 

37 

 
 
  
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

Introduction 

The  stakeholder  consultation  activities  were  mainly  performed  in  the  context  of  the 
support study and included interviews, surveys, an Open Public Consultation (OPC, the 
analysis  only,  as  the  OPC  was  set-up  by  the  Commission  before  the  support  study), 
written  contribution  and  expert  group  meetings.  They  covered  stakeholders  from 
countries  with  NDTAC  schemes  that  were  in  force  during  the  evaluation  period 
(Germany, Austria, Netherlands and Switzerland), as well as stakeholders outside these 
countries.  It  also  included  a  combination  of  surveys  targeting  the  main  group  of 
stakeholders  (affected  railway  undertakings  (RU)  and  Wagons  Keepers  (WK))  and 
interviews with other types of organisations. In the case of authorities and infrastructure 
managers (IM) in the countries with NDTAC, tailored interviews were used – rather than 
a survey - as a more effective tool to get input into the specifics of the implementation of 
the scheme. Table II-II.1 below summarises the stakeholder engagement tools used.  

Table II-1: Engagement tools used in field research 

Engagement tool 

Stakeholders targeted 

Survey 

Interviews 

Railway undertakings; wagon keepers 

Railway  undertakings;  wagon  keepers;  national  ministries;  rail  regulatory 
bodies;  infrastructure  managers;  rail  equipment  manufacturers;  citizens’ 
association 

Written contributions 

All interested stakeholders (mostly industry associations replied) 

Open public consultation 

All interested stakeholders (mostly citizens and citizens’ associations replied) 

Expert group meetings 

Public officials of EU Member States 

Consultation strategy 

Surveys 

A survey was developed targeting the following stakeholder groups: 
-  Railway undertakings; 
-  Wagon keepers; 
-  Those identifying as both railway undertakings and wagon keepers.  

A  combined  survey  was  produced,  aimed  at  both  railway  undertakings  and  wagon 
owners/keepers  whereby  respondents  are  guided  through  to  appropriate  questions 
through the use of survey logic.  

Table II-2: Responses to the survey 

Respondent type 

Railway  undertaking  (including 
perform both functions) 
Wagon keeper 
TOTAL 

Number  of  completed 
responses 
22 

Percentage 
type 
51% 

those 

that 

respondent 

21 
43 

38 

49% 
100% 

 
 
There are over 200 WKs in Europe, and 21 responded. Additional requests were made to 
the International Union of Wagon Keepers (UIP) to encourage their members to respond 
to the survey during the response period. According to these 21 respondents, they owned 
and/or  operated  on  average  13,117  wagons  in  2018.  In  comparison,  UIP  highlighted  in 
the exploratory interview that they represent over 210,000 freight wagons, which is about 
one  third  to  a  half  of  the  total  fleet  operating  in  Europe.  The  majority  of  responses 
received  come  from  RUs  in  Central  European  countries,  including  five  from  Hungary 
and three from Poland. Two RUs from countries implementing NDTACs have replied to 
the survey as well and have been interviewed as a follow-up. 

Interviews 

A  total  of  29  interviews  were  conducted  during  the  course  of  the  study.  Initially,  five 
exploratory interviews were undertaken with a small number of stakeholders (European 
Rail Infrastructure Managers (EIM), Community of European Railway and Infrastructure 
Managers (CER), DB Netz (Germany), International Union of Wagon Keepers (UIP) and 
the  Dutch  Ministry  of  Infrastructure  and  Water  Management.  The  purpose  of  the 
exploratory interviews was to  help  develop  a better understanding  of the  Implementing 
Regulation and help develop the methodology.  

During the main interview programme, interviews were conducted with a range of other 
stakeholders,  including  RUs,  national  authorities,  citizens  associations,  IMs,  rail 
equipment manufacturers, and WKs.  Two approaches have been taken to the interview 
method: 
-  Selected  stakeholder  groups  surveyed  (i.e.  RUs  and  WKs)  were  interviewed  after 
completion of the survey. The checklists for these interviews sought  clarification on 
key  points  raised  in  the  survey,  and  also  included  more  open-ended  questions  to 
identify  details  on  questions  asked  in  the  survey  as  well  as  any  new  questions  that 
have arisen since the study began.  

-  Other groups: For the remaining groups of stakeholders, interviews began as soon as 

the general interview checklist was approved by the Commission.  

Tailored  interview  checklists  for  each  stakeholder  group  were  developed  to  reflect  the 
information  and  data  needs  identified  for  the  study.  Interviews  were  conducted  by 
telephone.  

Table  II-3:  Number  of  stakeholders  contacted  with  requests  for  interviews  during  the 
study 

Stakeholder Type 

Infrastructure managers 

Railway Undertakings 

Wagon owners/keepers 

National Authorities 

Number interviewed 

6 (+2 exploratory) 

10 (+1 exploratory) 

4 (+1 exploratory) 

5 (+1 exploratory) 

National Authorities – Regulatory bodies 

Rail equipment manufacturers 

Citizens’ associations 

1 

3 

1 

Total 

29 (including 5 exploratory) 

Note:  Email/written  responses  were  received  from  three  citizens’  associations,  two  rail 
regulatory bodies and a national ministry 

39 

 
 
Open public consultation 

An analysis of the OPC responses has been carried out as part of the inception phase of 
the  project.  The  OPC  included  1,290  unique  responses,  the  majority  of  which  (1,250) 
were from German stakeholders. Both open-ended and closed-ended questions have been 
analysed in the report.  

In  the  case  of  open-ended  questions,  they  were  translated  and  then  analysed  in  one  of 
three ways: 

-  Given the large number of responses to questions 6 and 14, the Latent Dirichlet 

Allocation (LDA) probabilistic modelling technique was used to identify common 
themes/topics and the associated number of responses around these topics;  

-  Responses to question 7 were analysed individually; 
-  Responses to question 15 were scanned to identify common topics/themes, and the 

most detailed 10 responses were closely assessed for specific and detailed 
recommendations made.  

Call for written contributions 

As  part  of  the  evaluation,  the  European  Commission  put  a  call  out  to  stakeholders  for 
written contributions, to which five position papers were received. These were from: 

-  CER – Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies. 
-  Trafikverket – Swedish Transport Administration. 
-  EIM – European Rail Infrastructure Managers. 
-  UIP – International Union of Wagon Keepers. 
-  Citizens’ group for safety and noise protection at the railway (a citizens’ group). 

Summary of the open public consultation 

The Open Public Consultation was launched by the European Commission (DG MOVE) 
on 28 March 2018 and was open for responses until 20 June 2018 (13 weeks).  

Analysis of respondents’ profile 

A total of 1291 responses to the questionnaire were received, almost exclusively coming 
from  citizens  (96%  of  respondents)  or  their  representatives  (1.5%  of  respondents),  as 
shown in Table II-4 

Table II-4: Classification of stakeholders responding to the questionnaire 

Stakeholder group  
As a citizen 
As a citizens’ association 
Other 
Total 
Responses  were  received  from  citizens  residing  in,  or  organisations  based  in  11  EU 
Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Netherlands, Poland and Spain). However, responses came almost exclusively from one 
single Member State (Germany), representing 97% of the total. (This is the case for both 
citizens (99% (1223 out of 1238) and associations (94% (29 out of 31)). 

Number of responses  % of responses 
1238 
31 
22 
1291 

96% 
2.5% 
1.5% 
100% 

40 

 
Table II-5: Distribution of the responses by country of residence/establishment 

Member State 

Austria 
Belgium  
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Spain 
Blank 
Total 

of 
Number 
unique responses 

2 
2 
3 
1250 
1 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
22 
1289 

Number 
coordinated 
responses  
- 
- 
- 
2 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
-  
2 

of 

% of responses 

<1% 
<1% 
<1% 
97% 
<1% 
<1% 
<1% 
<1% 
<1% 
<1% 
<1% 
1.7% 
100% 

The analysis of the responses suggests that two responses were coordinated following an 
exact  template  for  answers.  One  of  these  responses  has  been  filtered  out  to  avoid 
duplication of results, hence from hereafter reference is made to 1290 unique responses.   

Following the introduction section, the questionnaire was split into two main sections:  
-  Section  1  included  questions  focusing  on  the  views  and  experiences  on  the  issue  of 

rail noise and;  

-  Section 2 focused on the views and experiences of respondents on measures tackling 

rail freight noise. 

The table below presents the total number of responses received for each question in the 
two  sections.  A  larger  number  of  respondents  provided  answers  to  multiple  choice 
questions compared to the free text responses.   

Table II-6: Total number of responses for questions in Sections 1 and 2 

Section 1 - The issue of rail noise 

Section 2 - Measures tackling rail freight noise 

Questions 

No. of responses 

Questions 

No. of responses 

Q1 

Q2 

Q3 

Q4 

Q5 

Q6 (free text) 

1268 

1268 

1237 

1268 

1268 

974 

Q7 ((b) free text) 

Q8 

Q9 

Q10 

Q11 

Q12 

Q13 

Q14 (free text) 

Q15 (free text) 

562  

1268 

1268 

1268 

1268 

1268 

1268 

599 

581 

Expert Group meetings 
Two  expert  group  meetings  were  held.  The  first  meeting,  on  22  March  2019,  involved 
officials from Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Hungary, Finland and Germany, recruited from 
the  GERM  Expert  Group  (Group  of  Experts  on  Rail  Market  Opening).  The  discussion 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
regarded experiences with national NDTAC schemes and, from Member States without 
NDTAC schemes, reasons for not having introduced such a scheme. 

A  second  meeting  was  held  on  26  June  2019,  not  only  involving  Member  State 
representatives (from Austria, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland) but also 
sector representatives from CER, EIM, the European Shippers' Council and UNIFE.  

Use of results 
The results of the stakeholder consultation  have  been used in  the  evaluation  to  provide 
answers  to  the  19  evaluation  questions.  Annex  3b  presents  which  analytical  tools  and 
data source have been used per evaluation question. 

Main results  
This section gives a brief overview of the main results of the stakeholder consultation in 
relation 
the  six  evaluation  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance, 
sustainability, coherence and EU added value. 

to 

Effectiveness  
The  Austrian  NDTAC  scheme  was  the  only  scheme  that  was  implemented  after  the 
application  of  the  Implementing  Regulation  (as  of  December  2017),  and  according  to 
Austrian  industry  players  the  establishment  of  a  regulated  European  framework  has 
favoured  the  application  of  the  NDTAC  scheme  in  this  Member  State,  which  has 
therefore led to an increase in the number of retrofitted wagons. 

During  interviews  with  IMs,  the  Implementing  Regulation  has  only  been  found  to  be 
slightly  effective  in  increasing  the  use  of  silent  rolling  stock.  They  argue  that  even 
without  the  EU  framework  and  subsequent  NDTAC  scheme,  the  process  of  retrofitting 
existing  wagons  or  using  silent  rolling  stock  could  have  still  occurred  without  the  EU 
framework and subsequent NDTAC scheme due to other factors – namely the TSI Noise 
(but in this case close to the envisaged starting date of December 2024), the ban of noisy 
freight  wagons  planned  in  Germany  and  Switzerland,  and  access  to  alternative  funding 
(CEF or national subsidies).  

Stakeholders  identified  a  key  parameter  of  the  Implementing  Regulation,  which  can 
influence  competition:  to  what  extent  the  incentives  introduced  (bonuses)  have  been 
passed  from  the  RU  to  WKs,  and  how  the  costs  of  rail  freight  transport  have  been 
influenced.  There  are  currently  no  mandatory  provisions  within  the  Implementing 
Regulation  that  require  the  passing  of  all  or  part  of  the  bonus  –  the  Implementing 
Regulation  merely  suggests  in  its  preamble  that  ‘the  incentives  should  be  passed  on  to 
those who bear the costs of retrofitting’. According to a national authority, UIP and some 
WKs, the passing of the noise bonus from the RUs to the WKs in Austria and Germany is 
insufficient, and it relies on the willingness of RUs to enter private contractual relations 
with the WKs. Additionally, within the survey of RUs and WKs, whilst four out of eight 
respondents  stated  the  bonus  is  fully  passed  on,  another  three  stated  the  bonus  is  only 
partially passed on or not passed on at all. This situation implies that, in some cases, the 
WKs are having to fully borne the costs of retrofitting, and the development of a silent 

42 

 
fleet  could  have therefore been slowed down to  some extent. Another interviewed WK 
added  that  they  have  attempted  to  recover  the  costs  by  charging  higher  prices,  but  the 
RUs can bargain and offset an initially higher price.  

According  to  the  view  of  main  rail  industry  representatives  (CER,  UIP  and  EIM)  the 
impact  of  the  Implementing  Regulation  on  the  competition  between  the  rail  and  road 
sector has been, in principle, negative. They  pointed out  that the process of  retrofitting 
freight  wagons  to  mitigate  rail  freight  noise  emissions  requires  significant  upfront 
investment costs and leads to increased ongoing maintenance and operating costs. This is 
seen to put rail freight in a disadvantageous position in comparison to the road transport 
sector where similar requirements are not in place.  

However, they stated that, on the basis of the Implementing Regulation, the presence of 
support  instruments  (either  through  direct  subsidies  or  through  NDTAC  bonuses)  is 
considered to have a positive effect. They help offset the higher costs and reduce the risk 
of  loss  of  competitiveness  of  rail  transport.  That  is,  while  any  efforts  to  retrofit  might 
have detrimental impacts on the competition with the rail sector, NDTAC schemes help 
ameliorate those negative impacts by providing some financial support. 

IMs interviewed from the three Member States confirm that the pace of retrofitting of rail 
freight  wagons  and  the  level  of  use  of  silent  rolling  stock  would  have  been  generally 
lower  in  the  absence  of  the  NDTAC  schemes  and  EU  framework.  This  suggests  the 
current NDTAC schemes have had a positive impact  on the  rate of  retrofitting. During 
the  survey  of  RUs  and  WKs  opinions  were  more  mixed:  15  out  of  37  respondents 
considered  the  NDTAC  appropriate  to  incentivise  the  retrofitting  of  existing  wagons, 
whilst 16 did not. This was a very similar case for the use of silent rolling stock.  

Efficiency 
Overall, the input from stakeholders revealed that the cost of the bonus payment itself is 
the most important cost element. Beyond the costs of the bonus scheme, as expected, IMs 
incurred  most  of  the  direct  implementation,  monitoring  and  enforcement  costs,  whilst 
costs for national authorities were limited.   

The Implementing Regulation implies a possible initial role for national authorities in the 
design and introduction of the scheme, and an obligation under article 9 to report to the 
Commission  data  on  the  implementation  of  the  scheme.  However,  interviews  with  the 
three national authorities (NL, AT, DE) indicated that these entities, while responsible for 
the  initial  impetus  to  implement  a  NDTAC  scheme,  have  more  of  a  supervisory  role 
during the actual implementation of the schemes. 

As part of the interviews, IMs and authorities provided estimates of the initial (one-off) 
and ongoing costs of implementation and monitoring of the schemes during interviews. 
The  costs  mentioned  by  the  three  IMs  and  three  ministries  reveal  differences  between 
countries in how the responsibilities for tasks relating to the NDATC scheme have been 
shared  between  the  organisations.  When  considering  if  any  costs  are  unnecessary  or 
excessive and if there is scope for reduction, two IMs suggested there is very limited, if 

43 

 
any, potential. In comparison, the third IM considered the calculation of bonus payments 
and reviewing/ verifying registrations are labour and time intensive. In their view, some 
of  the  associated  time  spent  (and  costs)  could  be  reduced  by  simplification  to  the 
provisions of the relevant article(s)’ of the Implementing Regulation (Articles 4 and 8). 
However, no additional input was provided. 

The  three  IMs  and  three  ministries  concerned  also  provided  estimates  on  costs  for  the 
enforcements of the NDTAC schemes. Only one national authority reported some small 
costs, whilst the other two did not report any enforcement costs. In the case of IMs, one-
off and ongoing costs reported by two IMs were relatively small. In contrast, the third IM 
estimated  costs  of  over  €1,000,000  for  the  development  of  a  new  database  and  IT 
facilities.  However,  they  clarified  that  this  extra  investment  was  not  necessary  for 
participating in the scheme.  

When considering costs for other authorities that may be involved in the scheme design 
or  implementation,  interviews  with  the  three  regulatory  authorities  (AT,  DE,  NL) 
indicated that none had any significant costs.  

Through the survey, WKs and RUs were asked to comment on the validity of estimates 
of the total costs of retrofitting from literature using a 2018 ERA report (ERA, 2018) and 
(COWI  and  ProgTrans,  2014)  (as  shown  in  Table  8).  During  interviews,  only  a  few 
stakeholders were able to provide estimates of actual retrofitting costs. Many respondents 
agreed  with  the  figures  presented,  and  the  few  alternative  figures  provided  applied  to 
specific technical or climatic conditions. Hence, the values sourced from literature were 
deemed appropriate.  

Within  the  survey,  over  half  of  respondents  agreed  with  the  estimates  of  additional 
operational costs of CBBs, whilst approximately one third indicated that the actual costs 
are  higher.  The  majority  of  responses  suggested  the  estimate  of  lifecycle  costs  in  the 
ERA study were appropriate. Some input provided suggests that these may be higher, but 
the  estimates  provided  seem  to  be  related  to  specific  technical  or  climatic  conditions, 
which may not be generally applicable. 

During  the  RU  and  WK  survey,  just  over  half  the  respondents  reported  relatively  low 
administrative  costs  associated  with  their  participation  in  the  scheme,  with  these 
stakeholders  indicating  there  are  ‘no  costs’  or  that  the  costs  (one-off  or  ongoing)  are 
below €100,000. However, it is to be noted that these values are based on a small sample 
size (six RUs and three WKs) and may not be fully representative. Additional input from 
interviews  on  the  size  of  administrative  costs  also  supported  the  view  that  the 
administrative costs were not significant.  

Stakeholders  commented  on  the  comparison  of  NDTAC  schemes  to  other  funding 
mechanisms  available  for  retrofitting  wagons.  Answers  received  suggest  the  NDTAC 
schemes have a smaller role and national funding schemes are the most significant source 
for retrofitting.  

44 

 
Two  respondents  considered  it  was  the  differences  between  the  schemes  that  make  the 
process  complicated,  rather  than  one  scheme  being  more  efficient  than  another.  As  a 
result,  they  considered  that  the  main  limitation  is  the  fact  that  the  administrative 
processes need to be synchronised across the different NDTAC schemes. In that respect, 
the responses of the specific stakeholders suggest that the participation in the SEP which 
was  intended  to  harmonise  the  application  process  for  RUs  and  WKs  has  not  been 
achieved.  One  RU  and  one  WK  indicated  that  it  has  helped  achieve  some  savings. 
However, the response rate on the SEP-related questions in the survey was very low. As 
such it has not been possible to establish how significant the benefits of SEP have been.  

Relevance of the objectives of the Implementing Regulation 
Input  from  stakeholders  support  concerns  of  rail  freight  noise  and  associated  health.  In 
the OPC conducted, 935 out of 1237 (76%) citizen and citizen’ association respondents 
indicated that the level of rail freight noise in the area where they live or work has either 
slightly or significantly increased in the last two years. 1185 (96%) also stated that rail 
noise  occurring  in  the  area  where  they  live  or  work  has  a  negative  impact  on  their 
personal  well-being.  (It  is  worth  noting  however  that  97%  of  the  responses  were  from 
Germany).  

As noted by a ministry and an IM as part of the interviews, rail freight noise tends to be 
less accepted by the population than noise caused by road transport especially because a 
higher share of rail transport happens at night. However, other stakeholders highlighted 
the fact that noise is not an important problem for all Member States. Stakeholders were 
also asked to reflect on the relevance of the objective ‘to contribute to the mitigation of 
health risks relating to rail freight noise and improve the well-being of EU citizens’. Most 
stakeholders interviewed agreed the objective to mitigate health risk is still very relevant 
today.  

During interviews both CER and UIP considered that policy makers have so far targeted 
almost  exclusively the railway sector when it comes to  noise. Rail has had to  cover all 
costs (except when there is state support), and since the revised TSI Noise, the sector is 
required to invest a lot to retrofit. One of the regulatory bodies added that the costs for 
rail noise reduction are particularly high and rail actors have had to absorb them without 
support, putting even more pressure on the competitiveness of the rail sector in relation to 
road transport.  

In  general,  rail  sector  stakeholders  recognise  the  impact  of  rail  freight  on  noise  and 
accept  the  fact  that  operators  need  to  pay  part  of  this  cost  for  the  sector  to  remain 
competitive. In any other case, there is a danger that the rail freight will not be accepted 
by  citizens.  Stakeholders  generally  agree 
to 
competitiveness of the sector is still quite relevant in today’s market.  

the  objective  of  reducing  risks 

Input  from  stakeholders  supported  the  continued  need  to  incentivise  retrofitting  of 
wagons,  however  they  may  not  necessarily  apply  across  the  whole  sector  for  all  EU 
Member States.  In the  WK and RU survey, 28  out  of 36 respondents  indicated there is 
still a need to provide incentives to RUs and WKs to take relevant action on rail noise. 

45 

 
CER  also  commented  that  retrofitting  incentives  should  be  channelled  to  guarantee 
enough  quiet  wagons  would  provide  freight  services  on  the  most  important  European 
corridors as of December 2024. 

Interviews with one Ministry of Transport, a national authority and an IM highlighted the 
need  for  incentives  because  of  the  high  number  of  noisy  wagons  still  in  circulation. 
According  to  one  Ministry,  only  a  small  part  of  the  EU  wagon  fleet  is  retrofitted, 
suspending NDTAC schemes and removing financial support would make matching the 
new  TSI  noise  rules  in  2024  more  challenging.  In  their  view,  any  revision  of  the 
Implementing  Regulation  should  allow  at  least  the  possibility  for  extending  the  life  of 
existing schemes and incentives in place.  

However, during interviews other stakeholders (two RUs) argued that because of the big 
investment and high costs of retrofitting older wagons, retrofitting does not always make 
economic sense and therefore incentivises to  retrofit are no longer  needed. Funding for 
new  wagons  (or  scrapping  incentives  for  old  wagons)  could  be  a  more  important  and 
efficient way.  

Stakeholders, including German ones, recognised that at the Member State and EU level, 
legislation  in  place  may  force  the  use  of  silent  wagons  even  without  incentives.  They 
stated  in  interviews  that  these  bans  remove  the  need  for  any  further  incentives.  During 
the OPC, a large proportion of citizens and citizen associations (804 out of 1268; 63%) 
also suggested the best way to incentivise the retrofitting of noisy wagons is to ban them, 
suggesting support for this regulatory instrument.  

Stakeholders also examined whether the use of NDTAC type schemes are relevant as a 
means  to  incentivise retrofitting. Responses to  the surveys highlighted a  mixed picture. 
Fifteen  out  of  37  indicated  that  the  differentiation  of  infrastructure  charges  is  an 
appropriate tool to incentivise retrofitting, whilst 16 indicating it is not.  

Conclusions from the stakeholders’ input suggest that NDTAC schemes are most suited 
for  countries  that  see  a  significant  proportion  of  cross-border  traffic  as  they  create 
incentives to ensure domestic and international traffic is silent. They are not necessarily 
appropriate for all countries, and other tools (complementary or otherwise) may be more 
successful in incentivising retrofitting.  

Input  from  stakeholders  commented  on  the  current  provisions  and  rules  for  calculating 
the level of bonus, including the correlation between the number of axles of a wagon and 
mileage run (used to calculate the bonuses as per the Implementing Regulation), and the 
costs of retrofitting. The limitations imposed on the grants (€ 211/axle and € 0.005/axle-
km) are such that 50% is guaranteed only in cases where the annual distance covered is at 
least  42,200km,  a  condition  not  always  met  by  their  wagons.  Therefore,  in  cases  like 
these,  the  mileage-based  calculations  can  be  considered  unfair  to  operators  that  do  not 
travel the long distances required to receive 50% bonus.  

Two  RU  stakeholders  highlighted  concerns  with  operational  conditions.  Mountainous 
routes  require  more  breaking  and  more  frequent  replacement  of  brakes,  increasing  the 

46 

 
operational  costs  of  CBBs.  Additionally,  climatic  conditions  in  Nordic  Member  States 
increase retrofitting and operational costs – sintered blocks (which are more expensive) 
are  used,  and  the  wheel  wear  can  be  seven  times  higher  in  winter  than  summer  these 
Member States.  

Financial sustainability of the existing NDTAC schemes 
Input  on  the  financial  sustainability  of  the  schemes  was  limited  to  the  German  case. 
Among the three NDTAC schemes, only the German one includes a malus. As such, is 
the only scheme expected to be financially sustainable on its own.  

According to the German Ministry (discussed in interviews and expert group meetings), 
there is currently an imbalance between the amount of funds received through maluses, 
and the amount given in bonuses. However, they clarified the scheme has been designed 
to accumulate more maluses at the beginning to secure the funding for the bonuses when 
the scheme will approach its end, and the number of noisy trains paying for the maluses 
will be sensibly lower. They confirmed this balance will be achieved by the end of the 
scheme (in 2021).  

Coherence of the Implementing Regulation 
Input  from  the  field  research  (mainly  from  interviews)  suggests  that  there  are  indeed 
synergies between NDTAC schemes and other EU rail noise policy. Consistency with the 
TSI Noise rules was highlighted by many interviewees. Some stakeholders suggested that 
the recent revision of the rules is expected to have an impact on the retrofitting pace - it 
combines  a  ‘push’  factor  created  by  the  impending  ban  of  noisy  wagons  on  "quieter 
routes"  and  a  ‘pull’  factor  created  because  of  the  incentives  provided  by  the  NDTAC 
system currently in place.  

Stakeholders  (mainly  from  interviewees  and  the  expert  group  meetings)  suggested  one 
area of possible inconsistency between the Implementing Regulation and the TSI Noise 
2019 revision however - the time span. They highlighted that new TSI rules implement 
the  ban  on  noisy  wagons  on  “quieter”  routes  by  December  2024  but,  according  to  the 
Implementing  Regulation,  NDTAC  schemes  shall  only  be  in  place  until  31  December 
2021,  three  years  prior  to  this.  This,  according  to  some  stakeholders,  is  problematic. 
According  to  some  stakeholders,  this  earlier  deadline  may  mean  that  retrofitting  will 
happen  at  a  faster  pace  but  there  could  also  be  shortages  in  maintenance  facilities,  and 
wagons  might  not  be  granted  the  full  bonuses  because  they  were  retrofitted  too  late. 
Overall  however,  the  stakeholder  input  provided  does  not  suggest  that  this  difference 
between the two legislations is particularly an issue.  

Consistency  between  the  Implementing  Regulation  and  Regulation  (EU)  1316/2013 
establishing  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF)  was  also  highlighted  by  some 
stakeholders  during  the  interviews.  The  CEF  funding  is  thought  to  be  an  additional 
trigger to start retrofitting of freight wagons and/or the use of retrofitted wagons.  

Input received from stakeholders regarding consistency with overall EU noise policy was 
mixed.  Within  the  expert  group  meetings,  overall  coherence  with  the  polluter-pays 

47 

 
principle of the 2011 Transport White Paper was highlighted. Rail freight  are currently 
having  to  absorb costs to address the noise policy  whilst  other modes are having to  do 
almost nothing. However, since the Implementing Regulation is only strictly relevant to 
rail, their comments do not indicate that it is not compatible and in the context of broader 
EU noise policy.  

Analysis  of  stakeholder  consultation  (through  position  papers,  interviews  and  surveys), 
revealed  no  issues  in  terms  of  any  overlaps,  differences  or  contradictions  within  the 
Implementing  Regulation.  The  main  characteristics  of  the  three  NDTAC  schemes  in 
operation in the EU were found to be fairly similar, with only minor differences noted. 
Germany is the only  Member State to introduce  a malus. Stakeholders did not  indicate 
any issues or inconsistencies among the three national NDTAC schemes or any negative 
consequences.  

EU added value 
The Implementing Regulation aims at supporting the simplification and harmonisation of 
NDTAC  scheme  procedures  by  reducing  the  administrative  and  financial  burdens,  and 
the  added  value  for  setting  a  legal  framework  for  NDTAC  schemes  at  EU  level  is 
recognised as an important aspect across the consulted stakeholders. One Ministry agreed 
this  is  an  important  aspect  considering  that  rail  freight  is,  to  a  large  extent,  an 
international  business  and  would  benefit  from  the  development  of  a  harmonised 
framework.   

An  IM  stated  that  the  added  value  for  setting  a  harmonised  legal  framework  for  the 
NDTAC  schemes  could  have  been  higher  if  other  Member  States  had  applied  this 
measure. Stakeholders consider that in the absence of the Implementing Regulation, the 
Austrian  NDTAC  scheme  would  not  have  been  introduced.  CER  stated  that  the  legal 
framework at EU level is useful but not sufficient for incentivising retrofitting and would 
work better as a complementary tool of direct funding schemes to support the retrofitting 
process. EIM supported the suggesting that any revision of the Implementing Regulation 
should  keep  the  voluntary  nature  of  Member  States  to  implement  NDTAC  schemes. 
However, UIP stresses the importance of having a common NDTAC scheme to avoid the 
emergence  of  a  patchwork  of  different  schemes  in  each  Member  States,  increasing 
transaction costs and incoherence due to divergent national approaches.  

National authorities and RU’s opinions were that, although NDTAC schemes are not the 
actual  driving  force  for  the  retrofitting  of  rail  wagons,  they  are  an  important 
complementary measure to cover at least in part the additional operational costs resulting 
from the use of composite brake blocks. In general, they see favourably the prolongation 
of the Implementing Regulation, at least until 2024, as this will allow the continuation of 
financial support in the concerned countries. 

48 

 
Annex 3: Methods and analytical models 

Annex 3a: Intervention logic per operational objective   

Intervention logic: Operational Objective 1 

49 

To incentivise the usage of silent rolling stockObjectivesInputsScheme scope: Articles 1,3Principle of no adverse impact on the competitiveness of the sector (Article 3)Train bonus (Article 4 and 5)Bonus for very quiet wagons and locomotives (Article 4 and  6)Activities/ OutputsMember Statesdecide to establish incentive schemes for use of silent wagons/ trains and infrastructure managers implement national schemeAdministrative measures/ data collection monitoring/ enforcement/ cooperation between IMResultsIncreased usage of silent rolling stockExpected ImpactsReduction in rail freight noiseImprovement of well-being of EU citizensIncreased acceptance of the rail freight transport mode amongst EU populationPrevention of reverse modal shiftExternal factors:-Forthcoming revision TSI Noise-Possible national unilateral actions restricting noisy wagon operationsRailway undertakings decide to replace noisy trains/wagons with silent onesScheme implementation does not lead to distortion of competitionRisks to competitiveness of the railway sector from scheme implementation is minimised Costs for RU associated with the use of the scheme are minimisedCompetitiveness of rail sector is preservedAdministrative arrangements (Article 8)Notification systems (Article 9)Malus (Article 7) 
 
Intervention logic: Operational Objective 2 

50 

To incentivise retrofitting of existing freight wagonsObjectivesInputsScheme scope: Articles 1,3Principle of no adverse impact on the competitiveness of the sector (Article 3)Bonus for retrofitted wagons, train bonus, bonus for very quiet wagons and locomotives (Articles 4,5, 6)Malus (Article 7)Activities/ OutputsResultsExpected ImpactsImprovement of well-being of EU citizensIncreased acceptance of the rail freight transport mode amongst EU populationPrevention of reverse modal shiftExternal factors:-Forthcoming revision TSI Noise-Possible national unilateral actions restricting noisy wagon operations-EU support for retrofitting (CEF, EFSI, CF, ERDF)-National support for retrofittingMember Statesdecide to establish incentive schemes for retrofitting wagons & infrastructure managers implement national schemeAdministrative measures/ data collection monitoring/ enforcement/ cooperation between IMRailway undertakings decide to retrofitnoisy trains/ wagonsIncreased pace of retrofitting of rolling stockReduction in rail freight noiseRisks to competitiveness of the railway sector from scheme implementation is minimised Competitiveness of rail sector is preservedCosts for RU associated with the use of the scheme are minimisedScheme implementation does not lead to distortion of competitionIncentives passed on to wagon keepers/ ownersAdministrative arrangements (Article 8)Notification systems (Article 9) 
Intervention logic: Operational Objective 3 

51 

To establish an EU framework for NDTACObjectivesInputsScheme scope: Articles 1,3Principle of no adverse impact on the competitiveness of the sector (Article 3)Administrative arrangements (Article 8)Activities/ OutputsAdministrative measures/ data collection/ enforcement/ cooperation between IMAnnual ReportingResultsEnhanced usage of retrofitted,  silent, very quiet rolling stockEU-wide monitoring systemExpected ImpactsImprovement of well-being of EU citizensIncreased acceptance of the rail freight transport mode amongst EU populationPrevention of reverse modal shiftNotification systems (Article 9)Provisions on bonus/malus (Articles 4-7)Rules on existing schemes (Article 11)Railway undertakings decide to retrofit and/or use silent/very quiet wagonsMember States decide to establish incentive schemes for retrofitting wagons & infrastructure managers implement national schemeReduction in rail freight noiseCompetitiveness of rail sector is preservedEffectiveness of provisions, impact on competition and competitiveness of railway sector is reviewed Changes to the Regulation (including level of bonus)External factors:-Forthcoming revision TSI Noise-Possible national unilateral actions restricting noisy wagon operations-EU support for retrofitting (CEF, EFSI, CF, ERDF)-National support for retrofitting 
 
 
Annex 3b: Evaluation matrix 

Operational sub-questions 

Indicators 

Effectiveness 

Analytical tools and success criteria 

Data sources 

EQ1. To what extent does the Regulation contribute to the reduction in rail freight noise? In particular, to what extent has the Regulation contributed to a higher 
level of retrofitting of wagons and enhanced usage of the silent rolling stock compared to the situation without the Regulation being adopted? What is the progress 
in retrofitting of wagons? To the extent possible please assess the contribution of the Regulation to the overall well-being of the EU citizens in the affected regions. 

wagons 

To  what  extent  has 
the 
Regulation  contributed  to 
the  retrofitting  of  existing 
freight 
and 
enhanced the usage of silent 
rolling  stock  compared  to 
(situation 
the 
without 
the  Regulation 
being adopted but with TSI 
noise standards in place)? 

baseline 

  Fleet development and retrofitting rates.  

  Totally new silent wagons purchased. 

  Comparison  of 

the  retrofitting  rate  and 
purchase of totally new  wagons  with respect 
to the baseline  

  Comparison  of  use  of  silent  rolling  stock 

with respect to the baseline  

Quantitative  analysis  of 
the  number  of 
retrofitted wagons with composite brake blocks 
and purchase of totally new wagons rates.  

Drawing  from  the  data  sources 
elaborated in Task 2.2, e.g. EURA 
database, SWDB 

Quantitative  analyses  of  the  rates  with  respect 
to the type of  wagon and countries covered in 
this study.  

Targeted  stakeholder 
(RUs, WKs, WOs) 

interviews 

Qualitative  input  from  stakeholders  to  assess 
the extent that action has been taken as a result 
of  the  Regulation  or  as  a  result  of  other 
provisions (TSI noise standards) 

Elaboration  of  a  matrix  to  summarise  the 
distribution  of  retrofitted  wagons  with  respect 
to the countries covered in this study. 

Estimation of the variation of the external cost 
of noise of rail (see EQ3). 

Desk  research  (i.e.,  review  of  the 
legislation,  development  of  silent 
wagons  and  withdraw  of  noisy 
wagons,  development  of  TSI 
requirements). 

Key  findings  from  Swiss  case 
study. 

Commission’s 
European 
‘Handbook on the external costs of 
transport’, 2019 version 

Success criteria: 

 

 

Increasing  rate  of  retrofitted  rail 
freight  wagons  in  the  fleet  since  the 
adoption  of  the  Regulation  compared 
to the baseline. 

Increase 
compared to the baseline 

in  use  of  silent 

trains 

52 

 
What  are  the  main  drivers 
when 
hindrances 
and 
addressing the mitigation of 
rail freight noise? 

Categories  of  driver  or  hindrance  (i.e.,  technical, 
administrative,  regulatory,  financial,  context-specific, 
etc.) 

Qualitative 
stakeholders input. 

analysis 

corroborated  with 

Drawing from above data sources.  

relevant 

All 
interviews (where appropriate). 

surveys 

and/or 

What are costs and benefits 
for  EU  citizens 
the 
affected regions? 

in 

Qualitative  analysis  of  costs  borne  and  benefits 
generated for EU citizens in relation to the adoption of 
the Regulation. 

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  noise  costs  of  rail  depend 
heavily  on  the  local  context  (e.g.  population  density 
around rail lines), time of the day and intensity of rail 
traffic  (i.e.,  the  noise  emission  disturbance  of  an 
isolated train is higher than the disturbance of a  train 
in a line where other services are operated). For these 
reasons, it is very difficult to carry out a quantitative 
estimation of costs and benefits. 

Qualitative  description  of  costs  and  benefits 
involved  and  qualitative  considerations  on 
progresses  achieved  since  the  adoption  of  the 
Regulation. 

Drawing  from  above  data  sources 
and indicators to infer links 

Surveys of industry, including IMs, 
RUs, ROs, and WKs.  

Success criteria: 

Desk research. 

 

 

Increasing  share  of  retrofitted  rail 
freight  wagons  since  the  adoption  of 
the Regulation. 

trend 

Increasing 
transport 
performance  of  silent  freight  trains 
(i.e., train-km or t-km). 

in 

EQ2.  To  what  extent  does  the  Regulation  influence  competition  and  competitive  position  of  different  actors  within  the  rail  sector?  The  analysis  should  assess 
different aspects of the issue at stake, in particular: 

•  The assessment should explore the effects on the competition between the RUs and wagon keepers coming from different countries. It should distinguish 
between  different  countries  applying  NDTAC  schemes,  including  Switzerland  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  states  that  established  NDTAC  schemes  versus 
other states on the other hand. 

•  The assessment should look into the competition between the different market players and assess to what extent have the incentives induced through the 

NDTAC schemes been passed from railway undertakings to wagon keepers. 

Is 
there  any  difference, 
regarding  the  incentives  or 
bonuses/malus, between the 
countries applying NDTAC 
schemes? 

Variables  used  to  incentivise  the  retrofitting  /  use  of 
silent  wagons  and  comparison  between  the  different 
NDTAC of countries that apply the schemes. 

Qualitative  analysis  and  review  of  the  type  of 
variable used and differentiation, if any. 

Success criteria: 

Impact on competition between: 

  Each of the countries with NDTAC schemes 

  Countries  with  NDTAC  schemes  vs  those 

without 

 

Increase  of 
the  number  of  silent 
wagons used and rail freight transport 
activities  performed  on  international 
to 
from  other 
travel 
countries covered in this study. 

countries 

  Measures 

taken 

in 

the  countries 

Survey  of  the  industry  (i.e.,  rail 
freight 
activities 
transport 
performed  and  localisation  on  the 
geographical scope). 

Desk research (e.g., annual reports, 
IMs network statements). 

53 

 
 
Identification of best practices and success factors. 

covered  in  this  study  have  positive 
(i.e., 
in  other  countries 
effects 
business driven retrofitting). 

extent 

the 
To  what 
incentives 
introduced 
through  NTDAC  schemes 
have been passed from RUs 
to WKs? 

Type and amount of the incentive scheme of countries 
where the NDTAC schemes have been introduced. 

Discount  applied  and  any  differentiation  used, 
if any. 

Extent  that  the  incentives  are  passed  from  RU  to 
WKs. 

Identification of the stakeholders involved (i.e., 
size of the market). 

Success criteria: 

EQ3. To what extent does the Regulation affect the competition between the rail and road sectors? 

  The 

incentive 

through 
NDTAC  has  been  passed  through  to 
the stakeholder that bears the costs 

introduced 

of 

To  what  extent  have  the 
freight 
costs 
transport  been 
influenced 
by the Regulation? 

rail 

Variation in rail freight costs since the adoption of the 
Regulation. 

Qualitative 
and 
corroborated with stakeholder input. 

quantitative 

analysis, 

Success criteria: 

  The  cost  of  rail  freight  transport  has 
not  increased  due  to  the  adoption  of 
the Regulation. 

  The  problem  of  rail  noise  has  been 
to 
reduced  and  public  opposition 
railway expansion has reduced 

Given  the  specific  context  of  this  intervention,  it  is 
worth  noting  that  the  actual  effect  of  the  NDTAC 
schemes on competition between rail and road modes 
cannot be readily disentangled from other large  scale 
effects  and  endogenous  factors  (i.e.,  general  market 
trends,  construction  or 
enhancement  of  new 
infrastructures, etc.).  

It  is  also  worth  remembering  that  the  cost  of  rail 
freight  transport  could  be  influenced  by  subsidies 
provided  at 
level.  However,  data 
availability on subsidies is rather poor and the analysis 
can  be  complicated  by  the  large  number  of  existing 
subsidy schemes.  

the  national 

Thus, we will use a proxy indicator, i.e. the part of the 
cost  that  is  influenced  by  the  Regulation.  The 
indicator  is  the  extent  to  which  the  NDTACs  plus 

54 

industry, 

Surveys  of 
including 
RUs,  WOs  and  WKs  (i.e.,  rail 
activities 
transport 
freight 
performed  and  localisation  on  the 
geographical scope). 

Desk research (e.g., annual reports, 
IMs network statements) 

industry, 

Surveys  of 
including 
RUs,  WOs  and  WKs  (i.e.,  rail 
freight 
activities 
transport 
performed  and  localisation  on  the 
geographical scope). 

Desk 
research 
stakeholders annual reports). 

(i.e.,  main 

 
 
other subsidies have covered the cost of retrofitting.   

On  the  more  qualitative  side,  we  will  use  the  input 
from affected stakeholders as indicators of the impact 
(or not) of the  measure on rail/road competition. The 
level of public opposition to railway development (as 
proxied by reductions in noise) also affects the ability 
for rail to compete with road.  

EQ4. To what extent has the EU framework (e.g. administrative measures, data collection, enforcement and cooperation mechanism) been set in an effective way? 

the  EU 

Has 
framework 
been  set  in  an  effective 
manner? 

Type  of  measure,  i.e.  administrative  measures,  data 
collection, enforcement and cooperation mechanisms 

existing 

What changes were made to 
NDTAC 
the 
EU 
schemes 
in 
intervention  was  put 
place? 

when 

Evaluation grid cross-checking the effect of the 
measures  with  respect  to  relevant  variables 
(i.e.,  level  of  retrofitting  (one-off  costs  and 
number 
the 
competition). 

of  wagons), 

effects 

on 

Drawing from above data sources. 

EQ5. Which of the NDTAC schemes has proved to be the most effective in the achievement of objectives of the Regulation? Based on the current experience what is 
the most effective level of bonuses/malus? 

To what extent the NDTAC 
been 
schemes 
the 
effective 
objectives 
the 
Regulation? 

have 
to  achieve 
of 

For each of the countries with NDTACs: 

 

 

 

Identification  of  differences  with  respect  to 
the  rail  freight  wagons  that  have  been 
retrofitted and the renewal rate?  

Identification  of  differences  in  the  share  of 
freight  wagons  with 
existing  retrofitted 
respect 
silent  wagons 
to 
purchased 

totally  new 

If  any,  what  are  the  reasons  that  have  led 
operators  to  prefer  totally  new  rail  freight 
wagons  compared  to  retrofitting  existing 
ones? 

Estimation  of  the  amount  of  bonus  and  malus 
with  respect  to  the  financial  support  for 
retrofitting and relationship with respect to the 
renewal rate. 

industry, 

Surveys  of 
including 
RUs,  WOs  and  WKs.  Getting  up-
to-date  and  actual  estimates  of 
ongoing costs and revenues. 

Desk research (e.g., annual reports, 
IMs network statements) 

55 

 
What  is  the  most  effective 
level of bonus/malus? 

Level  of  bonus/malus  to  achieve  the  aims  of  the 
Regulation. 

other 

What 
contributed 
effectiveness? 

factors 
the 

Retrofitting  programmes  introduced  and  funding  at 
national level.  

to 

Qualitative  and  quantitative  analysis  of  the 
most effective level of bonus/malus against the 
other schemes adopted. 

Funds  allocated  by  national  programmes  to 
retrofit rail freight wagons, including countries 
not covered in this study. 

Success criteria: 

  The  Regulation  made  a  positive 
in 

contribution 
to 
combination with other factors 

the  objectives, 

Drawing from above data sources. 

industry, 

Surveys  of 
including 
RUs,  WOs  and  WKs  (i.e.,  rail 
transport  activities  with 
freight 
in 
silent  wagons 
countries  not  covered 
this 
study). 

performed 
in 

Desk 
research 
stakeholders annual reports). 

(i.e.,  main 

EQ6.  Which  unexpected  or  unintended  effects  (positive  or  negative)  have  occurred  as  a  result  of  the  intervention  and  what  factors  have  influenced  those 
achievements? Please specify the effects for each stakeholder respectively. 

What  are  the  other  effects 
or factors that have resulted 
from the Regulation? 

Unexpected  or  unintended  effects  or  factors,  where 
possible  by  relevant  category.  Type  of  stakeholder 
involved. 

Evaluation  grid  cross-checking  other  factors 
and  qualitative  analysis  of  positive  and 
negative consequences. 

Surveys  of 
RUs, WOs and WKs. 

industry, 

including 

positively 
affected 

What  other  factors  have 
or 
either 
negatively 
the 
achievements 
observed 
since  the  adoption  of  the 
Regulation? 

Efficiency 

Summary  of  the  key  findings  with  respect  to 
the unexpected or unintended effects or factors 
for each stakeholder and by country to infer to 
what  extent  other  factors  either  positively  or 
negatively occur. 

research 

Desk 
review). 

(i.e., 

general 

EQ7. What are the direct or enforcement or implementation costs for the national authorities (and IM)? Among other points, please distinguish between the pure 
enforcement costs, costs linked to the monitoring (the administrative costs and reporting arrangements) and costs linked to the adjustment to the Regulation (i.e. 
substantive compliance costs)? 

56 

 
Implementation  costs  for 
national authorities and IMs  

Ongoing costs (EUR/year) related to: 

Quantitative analysis:  

  Reviewing  and  verifying  registrations  of 

retrofitted wagons. 

  Calculation  and  disbursement  of  bonus 
payments / malus charges (if applicable). 

  Auditing / Random checks on retrofitting. 

  Any  additional  costs/savings  due  to  Single-

Develop a spreadsheet tool that uses input from 
stakeholders and cross-checking with literature 
to determine costs (EUR and EUR per year for 
one-off  and  ongoing  costs,  respectively).  The 
costs  will  be  converted  to  present  terms  and 
summed across the different types.    

to 

Targeted  stakeholder 
interviews, 
include 
aim 
which  will 
representatives  of  authorities  and 
infrastructure  managers  from  all 
introduced 
countries 
that  have 
(Germany, 
schemes 
NDTAC 
Netherlands, Austria). 

Case study of SEP.  

literature, 

Published 
available.  See  Task  1.4 
examples. 

where 
for 

Enforcement 
ministries 
infrastructure managers 

costs 
and/or 

for 
for 

Entry Point (SEP). 

One-off costs (EUR) related to: 

  Familiarising  with  new  requirements  of  the 

Regulation. 

  Design  and  implementation  of  new  NDTAC 
schemes  where  applicable,  or  adjustment  of 
existing  schemes  to  ensure  compliance  with 
the Regulation. 

  Creating  or  adapting  registers  and  databases 
(additional  costs  over  systems  already  in 
place): 

o  Any  additional  costs  /  savings  due 

to SEP. 

  Adapting procedures for monitoring. 

 

Initial  costs  to  establish  cooperation  with 
other Member States. 

  Training of staff. 

Ongoing costs (EUR/year) related to: 

  Monitoring / gathering data for reporting, per 
Article  9  (additional  costs  over  procedures 
already in place). 

Other monitoring costs. 

Depending  on  the  number  and  distribution  of 
responses,  we  will  determine  the  appropriate 
statistical methods to apply in order to come up 
with 
the  overall  estimates  (e.g.  different 
techniques  are  appropriate  depending  on  the 
number 
and 
representativeness  of  the  respondents).  At  this 
stage it is not possible to confirm given we do 
not have the  responses, but our team is highly 
skilled in statistical approaches).  

responses, 

skewness 

of 

Where  precise  figures  are  not  available,  we 
will  seek  to  gain  insight  at  least  into  the 
magnitude  of  the  costs  (negligible  vs  EUR 
100’s / 1,000’s / 100,000’s etc) 

Success criteria: 

  Costs are proportionate 

Costs  for  other  authorities  One-off costs (EUR) related to: 

Depending  on  the  number  and  distribution  of 
responses,  we  will  determine  the  appropriate 

Targeted stakeholder interviews 

57 

 
 
(regulatory bodies) 

  Familiarising  with  new  requirements  of  the 

Regulation. 

Ongoing costs (EUR/year) related to: 

  Monitoring / gathering data for reporting. 

  Other monitoring costs. 

statistical methods to apply in order to come up 
the  overall  estimates  (e.g.  different 
with 
techniques  are  appropriate  depending  on  the 
number 
and 
representativeness  of  the  respondents).  At  this 
stage it is not possible to confirm given we do 
not have the  responses, but our team is highly 
skilled in statistical approaches).  

responses, 

skewness 

of 

Where  precise  figures  are  not  available,  we 
will  seek  to  gain  insight  at  least  into  the 
magnitude  of  the  costs  (negligible  vs  EUR 
100’s / 1,000’s / 100,000’s etc) 

Overall costs for authorities  Combination of all of the above 

Combination of all of the above 

Combination of all of the above 

EQ8. What are different direct costs involved for different industry stakeholders? What are the benefits for the industry? In your assessment, please distinguish 
between direct substantive compliance costs and administrative costs.  

Among other points, please assess in particular the direct and indirect retrofitting costs for railway undertakings and wagon keepers. Has the Regulation had any impact on 
the level of the retrofitting costs and their affordability for railway undertakings and wagon keepers? If yes, then which? What is the cumulative level of bonuses wagons 
receive from different schemes? To what extent does the cumulative level of bonuses wagons receive from different NDTAC schemes cover retrofitting costs? 

Direct 
compliance costs  

substantive 

One-off costs related to: 

Quantitative. 

  Equipment  cost  of  retrofitting  per  wagon 
(specify  whether  estimates  refer  to  K  or  LL 
type blocks). 

  Labour for replacement (hours). 

  Any  other  subsidy  received  for  retrofit  (e.g. 
national funding, CEF) – i.e. net cost to WK 
of  retrofit,  accounting  for  any  funding 
assistance. 

  Opportunity  cost  of  wagons  taken  out  of 

service for retrofit. 

Use the responses from surveys and interviews, 
triangulated  with  the  literature,  in  order  to 
develop a spreadsheet calculation of the direct 
and indirect costs of retrofitting or replacement 
taking  into  account  also  the  reduction  in  costs 
due  to  funding  received  from  other  sources. 
The  costs  will  be  converted  to  present  terms 
and summed across the different types.    

Depending  on  the  number  and  distribution  of 
responses,  we  will  determine  the  appropriate 

58 

industry, 

Surveys  of 
including 
railway  undertaking  and  wagon 
keepers.  Getting  up-to-date  and 
actual  estimates  from  the  affected 
stakeholders  will  be  important  to 
assess 
in 
practice.  

the  actual 

impacts 

Case study of SEP. 

Previous literature provides a good 
basis 
costs 
received via the surveys, including 

triangulating 

for 

 
 
 
the  previous  IA  and  the  results  of 
funded research projects. See Task 
1.4 for examples 

Also  of  relevance  are  the  reports 
that  are  formally  required  under 
Article 9. 

Expert  peer  review  from  our  rail 
noise  expert  will  also  be  used  to 
sense-check 
the  estimates  and 
provide further insights.  

  Costs  of  purchasing 
wagons/locomotives 

silent/very  quiet 

Ongoing annual costs / benefits related to: 

  Additional lifetime costs of low noise brakes 

(e.g. higher maintenance) per axle km. 

  Bonus (or reduction in charges) received,  

statistical methods to apply in order to come up 
the  overall  estimates  (e.g.  different 
with 
techniques  are  appropriate  depending  on  the 
number 
and 
representativeness  of  the  respondents).  At  this 
stage it is not possible to confirm given we do 
not have the  responses, but our team is highly 
skilled in statistical approaches).  

responses, 

skewness 

of 

o  Retrofit bonus + eligibility for silent 
train / very quiet  wagon/locomotive 
bonuses. 
o  Mileage 

countries 
eligible  for  NDTAC  bonus  vs  total 
mileage.  

relevant 

in 

  Other  costs,  e.g.  redeploying  wagons  on 

different routes. 

Also key questions are: 

  The  amount  of  pass-through  of  incentives 

from RU to WK in practice. 

  Have there been any cases where retrofitting 
was  carried out but the expected bonus  was 
not received? What were the reasons for this 
(e.g. inability to produce required evidence). 
If the RU has not made use of NDTAC schemes: what 
was the reason for this?  Please explain: 

  Already compliant. 

  Redeployed trains elsewhere. 

  Not technically compatible. 

  Administrative burdens. 

  Scheme incentives are not high enough. 

  Scheme incentives are not passed through to 

appropriate stakeholder. 

Due  to  the  difference  in  costs  between  K  and 
LL  type  blocks,  separate  estimates  for  these 
different types are needed. Similarly, costs for 
silent  and  very  quiet  wagons/locomotives  will 
be estimated separately 

Calculations  are  needed  per  unit  (wagon)  and 
in  total  in  order  to  answer  the  evaluation 
question in full, along with consideration of the 
arrangements for passing through incentives to 
different actors. 

Success criteria: 

  The  Regulation  has  reduced  the  level 
relevant 
them 

of 
stakeholders 
and 
affordable for RUs and/or WKs. 

for 
rendered 

retrofitting  costs 

  The  cumulative 

received 
from  different 
covers the retrofitting costs. 

level  of  bonuses 
schemes 

59 

 
 
Administrative/reporting 
costs 

One-off costs related to: 

  Application  for  the  bonus  and  provision  of 
technical / financial evidence of retrofitting – 
per wagon and in total. 

  For 

silent 

/  very  quiet  wagons  and 
locomotives,  application  and  associated 
additional proof needed– per application and 
in total. 

  Setting  up  contractual  arrangements  to  pass 

on incentives from RUs to WKs.  

Ongoing annual costs related to: 

  Reporting  of 

information 

required,  e.g. 

calculation of wagon-km.  

  Any  additional  costs  /  savings  due  to  SEP 
(have  they  used  SEP  –  if  not,  why?  Has  the 
SEP  led  to  any  additional  applications  over 
what  would  have  been  done  via  separate 
national systems only?). 

  Contesting charges, if applicable. 

  Any  other  costs,  e.g.  route  changes 

if 

applicable. 

Cumulative  bonus  received  as  reported  by 
NDTAC schemes, or estimated depending on: 

the 

  Amount  of  bonus  per  axle  km  (current  and 

historical rates). 

  Number of eligible axle km on relevant track 

per year. 

  Maximum  bonus  per  wagon  (current  and 

historical). 

  Maximum bonus duration. 

Costs  for  retrofitting  needs  to  be  calculated  from  the 

60 

the 

with 

total 
What 
are 
the 
retrofitting  costs  for 
industry  and  how  do  these 
compare 
the 
cumulative  bonus  received, 
i.e.,  the  benefits  for  the 
the 
industry?  What 
proportion of administrative 
costs? 

is 

Is the level of bonus in each 
Member  State  appropriate 
retrofitting 
the 
to  cover 

 
 
incurred 

costs 
the 
industry  as  prescribed  by 
the Regulation 

by 

following information: 

  Unit  costs  to  retrofit  a  wagon  (number  of 
axles,  type  of  wagon,  type  of  brakes,  labour 
costs). 

  Total number of wagons retrofitted by year. 

  Additional  maintenance 

(wheel 
changing  and  reprofiling,  wear  rate,  costs) 
and  age  of  wagons  at  retrofit,  average 
mileage. 

costs 

How  does 
the  NDTAC 
scheme  compare  to  other 
mechanisms 
funding 
available 
retrofitting 
wagons 

for 

  NDTAC schemes bonus level 
  Funding  available  via  other  sources  (e.g. 

CEF, national subsidies) 

assessment 

by 
Quantitative 
stakeholders 
relative 
(RU,  WK)  of 
importance of the different sources of  funding 
available 

provided 
the 

EQ9. Based on analysis carried out for the previous two evaluation questions, please assess to what extent has the EU framework been efficient? How are costs and 
benefits distributed amongst relevant actors?  

61 

 
How  are  costs  and  benefits 
distributed  among  relevant 
actors?  To  what  extent  has 
the  EU  framework  been 
efficient? 

  One-off costs and ongoing annual costs 

  Average  external  costs  of  noise  of  freight 

trains 

  Transport  performance  data  of  noisy  and 
silent  freight  wagons  (i.e.,  train-km  and/or 
tonne-km). 

Calculate the distribution of costs and benefits 
among  the  population  exposed,  infrastructure 
managers,  railway  undertakings  and  wagon 
keepers.  

Success criteria:  

  The  costs  and  benefits  are  distributed 

proportionately among stakeholders.  

  There  is  no  category  of  stakeholders 
that  faces  disproportionate  costs  or 
enjoys disproportionate benefits  

by 

European 
Commission’s 
‘Handbook on the external costs of 
transport’,  2019  version.  The 
average  external  cost  of  noise  is 
provided 
the  Handbook 
considering  the  number  of  people 
exposed  to  a  certain  noise  level 
originating  from  a  transport  mode. 
For  the  purpose  of  this  study  no 
assumptions  will  be  made  on 
possible  evolution  of  the  exposed 
population.  

  Bonuses  /  reductions  in  charges  are 
passed  through  to  the  appropriate 
party that bears the cost of retrofitting. 
Calculate  the  overall  share  of  administrative 
costs in the total costs. 

Analysis 
focussed  on  Austria, 
the  Netherlands  and 
Germany, 
Switzerland,  from  2015  to  the  last 
year for which the data is available 
(2018 or 2019). 

Success criteria:  

  There are no identified costs that were 
unnecessary / avoidable (crf. EQ5). 

  The proportion of administrative costs 
is  minimised  where  possible  through 
use  of  existing  systems,  e.g.  existing 
registers 

Calculate the total costs of the intervention.  

Success criteria:  

  The framework has been efficient, i.e. 
total 
been 
costs 
minimised  and  the  costs/benefits  are 
distributed fairly 

admin 

have 

to 

industry, 

Surveys  of 
including 
railway  undertaking  and  wagon 
keepers  and  access 
industry 
databases. This  will be used to get 
up-to-date  and  actual  estimates  of 
one-off  costs,  ongoing  costs  and 
transport performance of noisy and 
silent wagons (i.e., train-km and/or 
tonne-km).  

Case 
Switzerland. 

study 

of 

SEP 

and 

Previous literature for triangulating 
costs and, where possible, transport 
performance data. 

Expert  peer  review  from  our  rail 
noise  expert  will  also  be  used  to 
sense-check 
the  estimates  and 
provide further insights.  

62 

 
 
 
 
EQ10. Which of the NDTAC schemes has proved to be the most efficient? What are the conditions allowing for this efficiency? 

costs 

Are there any differences in 
the 
for  different 
stakeholders  in  each  of  the 
NDTAC  schemes?  If  so, 
what  are  they  and  who  is 
affected?  What 
the 
reason for them? 

is 

Drawing on the above indicators.  

Split analysis of costs for the different NDTAC 
schemes and review separately.  

Additional  qualitative  indicators  for  exploring  the 
possible reasons for differences in efficiency between 
the NDTAC schemes: 

Success criteria:  

  There are no significant differences in 
efficiency  between  NDTAC  schemes 
(all schemes are equally efficient). 

  Type of system (bonus, bonus/malus). 

  Maximum bonus duration. 

  Maximum bonus per wagon. 

  Relative use of SEP vs national applications. 

  Control system / method of auditing. 

  Mechanisms  for  passing  incentives  between 

wagon keepers and wagon owners. 

into 
such 

Drawing  from  above  data  sources, 
account 
and 
taking 
considerations 
the 
as 
difference  between  schemes  that 
were 
the 
Regulation, as well as shared costs 
via SEP. 

introduced  prior 

to 

EQ11. Has the Regulation resulted in unnecessary regulatory burdens or inefficiencies? What are the reasons for this? Is there a potential for the reduction of the 
regulatory costs for the main actors? What are the factors which hinder the efficient application of the Regulation and potential solutions to address them? 

relevant 

All 
interviews (where appropriate).  

surveys 

and/or 

there  specific  costs 
Are 
(substantive 
compliance, 
enforcement, administrative 
etc) that are unduly high? 

Are  there  specific  aspects 
of the Regulation that could 
be  improved  to  increase  its 
efficiency? 

Relevance 

Drawing on above indicators.  

Additional question to include would ask directly: 

  Are 

there  any  costs 

that  you  consider 

excessive? 

  Are  there  any  costs  that  could  be  removed 
without  impacting  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Regulation?   

  What are they and why can they be removed? 

What would the cost saving be? 

  Do  you  have  any  other  suggestions  to 
increase the efficiency of the Regulation? 

Review analysis for EQ1  – 4 and take note of 
any  anomalously  high  or  low  cost  estimates. 
Follow  up  with  relevant  stakeholders  in  these 
cases to understand  what the reasons for these 
were  and  whether  due  to  the  Regulation  or 
other factors.  

Complement  with  direct  interpretation  of  the 
questions  indicated  that  will  ask  stakeholders 
to identify specific issues. 

Success criteria: 

  The Regulation has not resulted in any 
unnecessary  regulatory  burdens  or 
inefficiencies. 

63 

 
 
 
EQ12.  To  what  extent  are  the  objectives  which  were  identified  at  the  time  of  adoption  of  the  Regulation  still  adequate  in  the  current  context?  Please  take  into 
account the political, legal, technological and market developments. To what extent there is still a need to incentivise the retrofitting via NDTAC schemes? 

the 

objective 

Is 
to 
contribute  to  mitigation  of 
health  risks  relating  to  rail 
freight noise still relevant in 
today’s market?   

  Extent  of  noise  exposure  and  associated 
health risks from railway noise in the EU. 

  Extent  of  public  opposition  to  rail  due  to 

Analysis  of  these  indicators  will  demonstrate 
the  continuing  need  (or  not)  to  mitigate  noise 
from rail in the EU.  

noise issues. 

Success criteria: 

  There is a continuing need to mitigate 
rail  noise  and  hence  the  objective  to 
mitigate  noise  and 
its  associated 
health risks is still relevant. 

Is  the  objective  to  reduce 
risks  to  competitiveness  of 
still 
rail 
relevant in today’s market?   

freight 

sector 

  Goods  travelling  by  rail  in  the  2015-2017 

period 

  Share of goods travelling by rail (2015-2017) 

continuing 

Analysis  of  these  indicators  will  demonstrate 
the 
the 
need 
competitiveness  of  the  rail  freight  sector  and 
avoid reverse modal shift from road to rail.  

ensure 

to 

Success criteria: 

EEA  noise  reports  and  national 
reports of the same.  

2011  White  Paper  on  Transport 
and other relevant over-arching EU 
policy documents. 

Drawing also on data sources from 
previous  evaluation  questions  to 
establish  e.g.  number  of  noisy 
wagons. 

Stakeholder  views,  including  from 
the open public consultation. 

are 

  The  objective  is  still  relevant  and 
there 
the 
still 
internalisation of noise costs will lead 
to  decreasing  competitiveness  of  the 
rail freight sector. 

risks 

that 

need 

To what extent is there still 
incentivise 
to 
a 
retrofitting  via  NDTAC 
schemes? 

  Number  of  noisy  wagons  still  in  circulation 

in the EU. 

  Average  remaining  lifetime  of  these  noisy 

wagons. 

  Cost of retrofitting brakes on noisy wagons. 

  Competitiveness of the rail freight sector. 

Analysis  of  these  indicators  will  demonstrate 
the  extent  that  noisy  wagons  are  still  an  issue 
in  the  EU,  since  these  are  not  targeted  by  the 
TSI Noise limits for new/renewed wagons. The 
continuing need to preserve competitiveness is 
considering 
factor 
another 
incentives for retrofitting and the need to avoid 
negatively impacting the economics of the rail 

relevant 

in 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
industry. 

Success criteria: 

  There  is  still  a  need  for  incentives  to 
support retrofitting of noisy wagons in 
the  EU  and  hence  the  objectives  to 
support 
retrofitting  are  still 
relevant. 

this 

EQ13. To what extent do elements constituting the bases for calculating bonuses under the NDTAC schemes reflect well the sources of costs linked to retrofitting? 

the 

Are 
underlying 
assumptions  for  calculating 
the 
the  bonuses  under 
NDTAC 
still 
appropriate?  

schemes 

To what extent do the assumptions adequately  match 
the real costs and usage patterns of rail freight rolling 
stock in today’s market: 

Calculation  of  the  costs  from  the  efficiency 
questions  and  comparing  this  to  the  bonus 
calculations.  

Drawing  on  data  sources  for  the 
questions on efficiency. 

  What are the bases for calculation of bonuses 

for the different NDTAC schemes? 

  Does  the  bonus  cover  at  least  50%  of  the 

additional retrofitting costs? 

 

If  not,  which  elements  of  the  calculation 
contribute 
this?  (e.g.  costs,  mileage, 
remaining lifetime of the wagons?) 

to 

to 

This  will  be  compared 
the  bonus 
calculations for the NDTAC schemes and also 
the  guidance  in  the  Regulation  (i.e.  aiming  to 
cover  at  least  50%  of  the  additional  cost  for 
wagons  running  more  than  45,000km/year  for 
6 years).  

Success criteria: 

  The  bonuses  as  calculated  cover  at 
least  50%  of  the  additional  cost  of 
retrofitting 

Sustainability 

EQ14.  To  what  extent  have  the  existing  NDTAC  schemes  proved  to  be  financially  sustainable?  In  particular  is  there  a  balance  between  the  cumulative  level  of 
bonus deducted and cumulative malus paid? 

Are  the  existing  NDTAC 
schemes 
financially 
sustainable? 

  Level of bonus pay-outs. 

  Level of malus charges. 

Assessment  of  the  actual  application  of  malus 
charges, and comparison of the level of bonus 
pay-outs versus the level of malus charges. 

Drawing on the data sources for the 
questions on efficiency.  

If  no  malus  charges  have  been  applied, 

Stakeholder  input  (via  interviews) 
on the application, or not, of malus 

65 

 
assessment on why that has been the case. 

charges  and  the  reasons  behind 
that. 

Success criteria: 

  NDTAC schemes are revenue neutral 

Coherence 

EQ15. To what extent does the Regulation contribute to the overall European legal framework aiming at the rail noise reduction? To what extent is it coherent with 
the overall noise mitigation objective of the EU policy and its underlying legal acts? Are there any differences, overlaps or contradictions or inconsistencies? 

the 

Does 
Regulation 
contribute to the overall EU 
framework  aiming  at  rail 
noise reduction? 

Is  the  Regulation  coherent 
with 
noise 
overall 
mitigation objectives of EU 
policy?  Are 
any 
differences,  overlaps  or 
contradictions 
or 
inconsistencies?  

there 

  Extent  that  the  Regulation  contributes  to 
noise  reductions  from  the  existing  fleet  and 
the mechanisms for this. 

Mapping of the different instruments and their 
mechanisms  for  targeting  noise  to  show  areas 
of  complementarity  or  overlap,  including  the 
main set of instruments: 

  Extent  of  interactions  /  synergies  with  the 

  CEF (financial support mechanisms) 

text  of 

Analysis  of 
the 
the 
Regulation  itself,  alongside  review 
of  the  text  of  relevant  EU  policies 
the  Staff  Working 
including 
Document  on  rail  freight  noise 
reduction, TSI Noise etc. 

overall EU policy on noise levels 

  Extent  of  any  interactions  /  synergies  with 
other  areas  (e.g.  measures  aimed  at  the  new 
fleet).   

  TSI  Noise  (measures  aimed  at  new 

fleet) 

  Environmental 

Directive 
(increasing  monitoring  and  action 
plans) 

Noise 

EQ16. To what extent are the provisions set in the Regulation coherent and consistent with one another? If not entirely, what would be the differences, overlaps or 
contradictions or inconsistencies? What are the negative consequences, if relevant? 

Are  there  any provisions  in 
the  Regulation  that  are  not 
coherent  or  consistent  with 
one  another?  Are  there  any 
issues  arising 
significant 
from 
identified 
inconsistencies?  

  Presence  and  importance  of  differences,  overlap 
or  contradictions  between  the  provisions  of  the 
Regulation.  

  Extent 

that  stakeholder  consider 
inconsistencies represent significant problems. 

that  such 

Qualitative  analysis.  Logical  analysis  will  be 
used to review the provisions of the Regulation 
and identify any issues. In addition, this will be 
corroborated with stakeholder input. 

Success criteria: 

  No  areas  of  incoherence,  inconsistency, 

the 
Analysis  of 
Regulation itself.  

text  of 

the 

Complemented  by  questions 
in 
stakeholders 
and/or 
surveys 
possible inconsistencies.  

the 
regarding 

to 
interviews 
any 

66 

 
 
 
EQ17. To what extent are the current national provisions setting up NDTAC schemes consistent with one another? If not entirely, what would be the differences, 
overlaps or contradictions or inconsistencies? What are the negative consequences, if relevant? 

overlaps or contradictions identified. 

  No  significant  issues  identified  arising 
(if 

inconsistencies 

potential 

from 
identified). 

Are  there  any  provisions  at 
national  level  that  are  not 
other 
consistent 
schemes?  What  are 
the 
differences  and  potential 
negative consequences? 

with 

EU added value 

  Presence  and  importance  of  differences,  overlap 
or  contradictions  between  the  provisions  of  the 
NDTAC schemes. 

  Extent 

that  stakeholders  consider 
inconsistencies represent significant problems. 

that  such 

Qualitative  analysis.  Logical  analysis  will  be 
used  to  review  the  provisions  of  the  NDTAC 
schemes  and  identify  any  issues.  In  addition, 
this will be corroborated with stakeholder input 

Success criteria: 

  No  areas  of  incoherence,  inconsistency, 
overlaps or contradictions identified.  

Analysis  of  provisions  of 
NDTAC schemes.  

the 

Complemented  by  questions 
in 
stakeholders 
and/or 
surveys 
possible inconsistencies. 

the 
regarding 

to 
interviews 
any 

  No  significant  issues  identified  arising 
(if 

inconsistencies 

potential 

from 
identified). 

EQ18. To what extent is there a need for setting a legal framework for NDTAC schemes at EU level? What actual evidence can be found of the Regulation’s added 
value, over and above what could reasonably have been expected from interventions of Member States? 

What is the added value for 
setting  a  legal  framework 
for NDTAC schemes at EU 
level? 

Would  the  Member  States 
set  different  rules  if  there 
was no regulation at the EU 
level? 

there 

situations  or 
Are 
circumstances  which  imply 
that  the  legislation  at  the 

Drawing from above indicators of effectiveness.  

Qualitative and quantitative analyses.  

Number and share of Member States that would have 
set  different  rules  if  there  was  no  regulation  at  EU 
level. 

Impact of non-harmonised legislation at national level 

Logical  analysis  will  be  used  to  review  the 
provisions  of  the  Regulation  and  identify  any 
issues.  In  addition,  this  will  be  corroborated 
with stakeholder input and key findings of the 
case studies. 

Success criteria: 

  The  Regulation  has  provided  added 
value  compared  to  a  legal  framework 
set  at  national  level,  in  terms  of  e.g. 

67 

Drawing on the data sources for the 
efficiency, 
on 
questions 
effectiveness and relevance. 

Targeted interviews. 

Surveys of industry and case study 
of  SEP  and  Swiss  NDTAC 
experience. 

 
 
Member  State  level  would 
achieve  better  results  than 
the  EU-level  regulation?  If 
such 
any,  what  would 
situations 
and 
circumstances be? 

rates  of  retrofitting,  use  of  silent 
wagons,  competitiveness  of  the  rail 
sector.  

EQ19. What would be the most likely consequences of not prolonging the existence of intervention at EU level? 

What  is  the  consequence  if 
the intervention at EU level 
is not prolonged. 

Likely impacts of not prolonging the intervention.  

Qualitative and quantitative analyses.  

Logical  analysis  will  be  used  to  review  the 
provisions  of  the  Regulation  and  identify  any 
issues/problems  arising  from  not  prolonging 
the  intervention  and  relying  only  on  Member 
State action.  

In  addition,  this  will  be  corroborated  with 
stakeholder input and  key  findings of the case 
studies. 

Drawing on the data sources for the 
questions 
efficiency, 
on 
effectiveness and relevance. 

Targeted interviews. 

Surveys of industry and case study 
of  SEP  and  Swiss  NDTAC 
experience. 

68 

 
 
 
 
Annex  4:  Stakeholder  validation  of  estimated  retrofitting  and 
operational costs 

The  Implementing  Directive  does  not  oblige  railway  undertakings  or  wagon  keepers  to 
retrofit  their  freight  wagons.  As  such,  retrofitting  costs  are  not  a  direct  consequence  of 
the  Implementing  Regulation.  As  elaborated  in  section  6.2.2  of  the  support  study, 
stakeholders  were  asked  about  the  retrofitting  costs  estimates  used  by  ERA  and  by  the 
Commission  and  more  specifically  the  validity  of  estimates  of  the  total  costs  of 
retrofitting from the literature: 

  A recent report from the ERA (2018) on the costs of retrofitting was considered 
to  be  the  most  reliable  guide  to  the  current  cost  of  LL-block  retrofit.  The  study 
also involved significant stakeholder engagement (as relayed to the study team by 
a  trade  organisation  in  the  industry).  The  ERA  (2018)  cost  estimate  of  an  LL-
block retrofit of €1,760 was therefore used in surveys. 

  For  K-blocks,  the  cost  of  retrofitting  was  taken  from  (COWI  and  ProgTrans, 
2014) and adjusted using the producer price index. A value of €7,970 was used on 
the survey. 

Over  half  of  respondents  accepted  the  estimates  on  both  K-blocks  and  LL-blocks,  or 
proposed  a  lower  estimate.  The  respondents  providing  a  higher  estimate,  generally 
referred to specific technical or climatic conditions. Therefore, the values of €1,760 for a 
LL-block wagon retrofit and €7,970 for a K-blocks wagon were used in this analysis. 

Operational Costs  

Ongoing operational costs of LL and K-blocks are higher than the respective costs for CI 
brake blocks and vary depending on the type of blocks retrofitted. According to the study 
by  ERA  (ERA,  2018),  additional  (when  compared  to  CI  brake  blocks)  on-going 
maintenance  costs  for  4-axle  wagons  equipped  with  LL  and  K-blocks  were  estimated 
within the range of € 0.017-0.025 per wagon-km, with a median value of €0.0215  (equal 
to €986 per wagon per year for 45,000 km mileage). As part of survey and interview of 
RUs and WKs they were asked to  comment  on  their validity. Over half  of respondents 
agreed  with  these  estimates,  with  around  one  third  indicating  that  the  costs  are  higher. 
Overall, the majority of responses suggest that the estimate of the lifecycle costs in the 
ERA  study  as  rather  realistic  and  appropriate.  Some  input  provided  suggests  that  these 
may  be  higher,  but  the  estimates  provided  seem  to  be  related  to  specific  technical  or 
climatic conditions  which may not  be  generally  applicable.  Further confidence in  these 
figures  comes  from  the  fact  that  they  are  both  recent  and  that  they  are  the  result  of 
extensive stakeholder engagement.  

69