Studies and Reports

UIP FAQ on EU funding and financial framework

The rail freight industry is facing the challenge to provide sustainable, efficient and competitive services. With the ongoing economic instability and changing geopolitical priorities in Europe, the rail operators and infrastructure managers are prioritising their investments and national plans to passenger and high-speed rail services. Yet, in parallel, there is political pressure to increase rail freight transportation and reduce environmental pollution such as noise.

The European Commission and the Rail Sector recognise that freight performance and rail freight competitiveness depend on a number of factors: vehicles that meet the needs of the customer, smart and innovative logistics, flexible transport optimising the exploitation of market segments, and political will and commitment from the Member States to support and secure investments in rail freight.

This Frequently Asked Questions communication aims to provide you with the current overview and clear understanding of the EU Budget figures, EU Programmes supported by EU funds, and funding options for projects of your interest. Simply click on the question of interest and you will be taken to the relevant answer section.

UIP report on Economic Assessment of ECM Certification

Report by UIP Topical Committee Economic Evaluation

In its Final Report “Economic Impact of New Rules and Regulations” (November 2011) UIP identified several cost drivers having significant impact on the wagon Keepers’ business and as such on rail freight competitiveness.

Amongst them, costs for the ECM Certification, required under the Commission Regulation (EU) 445/2011, also known as ECM Regulation, contribute to a considerable part of the increased costs for Wagon Owner / Keepers.

When drafting the Final Report in 2011, UIP assumed that Keepers with less than 1'000 wagons and / or few employees will most likely enter into service agreements with third party ECM rather than undergoing the whole and complex process of certification themselves. Based on these assumptions UIP estimated the average annual costs for ECM Certification as shown below:

  • ≥ 1’000 wagons: 78’750 €, i.e. 0,22 € per wagon and day;
  • ≥ 5’000 wagons: 155’875 €, i.e. 0,09 € per wagon and day;
  • ≥10’000 wagons: 233’500 €, i.e. 0,06 € per wagon and day.


UIP study on rail and road safety for accidents caused by technical failures

A comparative study from a competition perspective of mileage-related accidents caused by technical failure in vehicles/rolling stock and resulting in personal injury

 

The present study performs a comparison between the two modes of transport in terms of the number of persons killed as a result of accidents caused by technical failures in vehicles or rolling stock. For the years 2006 to 2010, the average value for rail freight, expressed in terms of tonne-kilometres, is 0.018. This means that in the EU 273 in the years 2006 to 2010, on average 0.018 persons per billion tonne-kilometres (tkm) died as a result of rail freight accidents that had been caused by technical failures in rolling stock. In other words, in the rail freight sector during this period, one person died as a result of a technical failure in rolling stock every 55.5 billion tkm. It is worth noting that during the period covered by this study – i.e. 2006 to 2010– there was only one fatal accident (Viareggio in 2009 with 32 fatalities). Otherwise the calculations would have produced an indicator of zero for rail freight.

By comparison, the figure for corresponding fatalities per billion tonne-kilometres in road freight for the period 2006 to 2010 lies between 0.032 (lower assumption of 1%) and 0.162 (upper assumption of 5%), making it approx. 2 to 9 times as high as for rail freight. Once again, we can express this indicator another way by saying that in road freight one person died as a result of a technical failure in vehicles every 6.2 billion tkm to 31.2 billion tkm.

These indicators show that safety levels in rail freight, measured in terms of accidents caused by a technical failure in rolling stock, are currently very high. The fact that rail freight performs favourably compared with road freight should by no means serve to justify abandoning efforts designed to achieve continual improvements in the safety levels for rail freight. Rail accidents caused by technical failures in rolling stock should be ruled out as far as possible. A question does arise; however, as to how much technical, organisational and financial effort can and should be invested in further improving the already very high level of safety. The higher the cost of additional measures to enhance safety, the more pressing it becomes to answer this question.