## 3 Results  
The analyzed data show that, for passenger trains:  
* Situation 1: L1 and L3 are unavailable at each railway station -> Train B departs from CF1 to CF4, Train A waits at CF4 for the arrival of Train B -> Train A arrives at CF1 with a delay of 25 min.
* Situation 2: L1 and L3 are available at each railway station -> Train B departs from CF1 to CF4, Train A departs from CF4 to CF3, the journey takes 9 min, and waits for Train B, which arrives after 7 min on Line 1 or 3. After this intersection, the trains continue their route, Train B arrives at CF4 according to the schedule, and Train A arrives at CF1 with a delay of only 7 min. This reasoning was multiplied for the entire distance studied, for all passenger and freight trains that need to intersect at railway stations. In Table 1, the minutes of delay due to situation 1 and the fare/minute for passenger and freight trains have been entered.  
For freight trains:  
* Situation 1: L1 and L3 are unavailable at each railway station -> Train B departs from CF1 to CF4, Train A waits at station CF4 for the arrival of Train B -> Train A will arrive at CF1 with a delay of 50 min.
* Situation 2: L1 and L3 are available at each railway station -> Train B departs from CF1 to CF4, Train A departs from CF4 to CF3, the journey takes 21.42 min, and waits for Train B, which arrives at CF3 after 7.14 min (28.56 min delay) on line 1 or 3. After this intersection, the trains continue their route, Train B arrives at CF4 according to the schedule, and Train A arrives at CF1 with only a 7.14 min delay. The comparative cost analysis for passenger and freight trains passing through the described section, in both situations, is shown in Table 1. The state-owned railway companies SNCFC Calatori SA (National Railway Passengers Transport Company, Bucharest, Romania) and SNFTM CFR Marfa SA (National Railway Freight Transport Company, Bucharest, Romania), provide internal guidelines for determining the cost of delays, mainly to establish the compensation owed to passengers and  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Passenger \\ trains \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Situation 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Difference/Year** \\ **(Minutes)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Difference/Year** \\ **(Cost)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{6-8}  & No. trains/24 & Delay/24 h & Delay/month & Delay/year & & & & & \\  & h & (minutes) & (minutes) & (minutes) & Cost/minute & Cost/year & \\  & 10 & 500 & 15,500 & 5,657,500 & 0.2 & 1,131,500 & \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Passenger \\ trains \\ \end{tabular} } & No. trains/24 & Delay/24 h & Delay/month & Delay/year & & & & \\  & h & (minutes) & (minutes) & (minutes) & Cost/minute & Cost/year & \\  & 10 & 500 & 15,500 & 5,657,500 & 0.2 & 1,131,500 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Delay and cost data for the two analyzed situations.  
-fright companies. The tariff for passenger trains is set at RON 12.3 (EUR \(\sim\)2.5) per minute, while the tariff for freight trains is RON 0.2 (EUR 0.041) per minute. We used these tariffs to assess the cost impact of the potential delay reduction made possible by the measures proposed above.  
According to the analysis of the information presented in Table 1, implementing the proposed solution would result in an 80.07% reduction in total delay time. This would enhance the efficiency of both passenger and freight transportation on the studied rail segment and generate a potential annual benefit of RON 36,041,895.8.