Method for socio-economic valuation of train path allocation

A train path is the infrastructure capacity required to operate a train on one or more line sections within a given time period. If two or more trains require train paths that are not compatible with each other, a conflict is deemed to exist, and a prioritisation between the trains must be carried out. The method described in this annex is used to perform a socio‑economic valuation of train path allocation in three possible conflict situations:

• onflict between passenger trains
• conflict between freight trains
• conflict between passenger and freight trains

Fundamental principles of the modelling tool

The valuation is carried out using a modelling tool developed by Oslo Economics. The tool is used to assess train services that apply for the same train path. The model is based on the assumption that one of the trains will operate, but that one train alternative excludes the others. This means that if train path capacity is allocated to train alternative A, train alternative B cannot operate at the desired time. For each train alternative, the loss of benefits resulting from not being allocated the desired train path is calculated. The train for which the loss of benefits from not being allocated the train path is greatest is recommended to be allocated the train path. The model is designed to be applicable to all railway lines and all relevant train‑path conflicts in Norway.

The modelling tool is designed in accordance with principles of socio‑economic analysis. It is based on the Norwegian Agency for Public and Financial Management’s (DFØ) guidelines for socio‑economic analysis and the Norwegian Railway Directorate’s guidelines for socio‑economic analyses in the railway sector. The model relies on parameters and assumptions established within the transport sector.

Valuation of the train alternatives’ potential loss of benefits

In the model, it is assumed that goods and passengers will be transported regardless of whether a train alternative is allocated a train path; the question is how large the change will be in time, distance, and mode of transport in order to transport passengers and goods from A to B.

• For passenger trains, it is assumed that rail travellers will make use of other transport services, including rail, bus, private car, and air transport.
• For freight transport, it is assumed that all, part, or none of the freight will be transferred to road transport if the train path is not allocated. In addition, it is assumed that there may be an alternative train departure at a later point in time that can transport all or part of the freight.

A key component in assessing which train should be allocated a train path is the time costs that arise when a train alternative is not allocated the path. The loss of benefits resulting from increased travel time is calculated by multiplying the number of passengers or amount of freight by the increase in time and by a time cost, typically expressed in Norwegian kroner per hour, as shown in the formulas below:

Loss of benefits – passenger transport (time) =
Number of passengers × Changed travel time × Time cost

Loss of benefits – freight transport (time) =
Amount of freight × Changed travel time × Time cost

The value of time for rail passengers varies by trip purpose and travel distance. For feeder transport, for example to an airport, the value of time for the main mode of transport is applied.

To calculate the loss of benefits resulting from changed travel time, the model requires route‑specific information on the expected number of passengers or volume of freight, passenger or freight type, and the change in travel time if the train path is not allocated. 

Changed travel time refers to the difference between the desired departure time and available departures, increased waiting time or storage time for freight, and potentially longer onboard time if alternative train paths involve additional stops for crossing trains. For passenger traffic, the basis for changed travel time is the timetable immediately surrounding the requested train path. For freight traffic, the basis is the next available train path. Increased time costs will often lead to a transfer to other modes of transport, which in turn generates costs for third parties. In addition, the loss of a train path may lead to increased or reduced external marginal costs. Furthermore, the loss of a desired train path may prevent a timetable from being implemented because rolling stock is located at the wrong place. This may either result in empty stock movements with increased operating costs for the operator, or that the decision not to allocate the train path has consequences for other train services.

In the modelling tool, the loss of benefits associated with four impact categories is calculated:

1. changed travel time
2. transfer to other modes of transport
3. changes in external marginal costs
4. changes in operating costs and knock‑on effects  – a consequence when a train is not allocated a train path. The calculation of these impacts is described in more detail in the annex Description of the train path conflict model.

Structure of the model

The modelling tool is developed in Excel. It is a stand‑alone file with no links to other databases, systems, or models. Figure 1 shows the structure of the model, where each numbered box refers to a worksheet in the Excel model.

Level 0 contains information about the tool, its structure, sources, and definitions.

Level 1 contains all data required to calculate the loss of benefits from choosing transport alternative A or B.

Level 2 contains all calculations, which together constitute the four main impact categories: time shifts, modal transfer, externalities, and operating costs (empty stock movements).

Level 3 presents and aggregates the results for the various impacts.

Level 4 tests the robustness of the analysis in a dedicated sensitivity module, where the most influential assumptions are adjusted upward and downward.

All calculation formulas are fully specified in the Excel tool. Results are calculated based on inputs provided by the user. Standard unit values, forecasts, and assumptions are sourced from the Norwegian Railway Directorate’s tools SAGA and EZ‑freight, as well as the National Freight Transport Model.

Use of the model requires information about the applied‑for train path and the train service. Key information required for calculating freight trains: 

• types of goods and quantities, alternatively a standardised set of goods for the relation served
• transport distance
• alternative transport for freight

Key information required for calculating passenger trains:

• travel data, specifically journey time, number of passengers, and distance between relations on the requested departure
• the timetable immediately before and after the requested departure
• distribution of passengers between commuting, leisure, and business travel
• number of trainsets and the number of hours the trainsets are in operation per train path (set‑hours)

There may be conflicts with impacts that are not captured by the model, but these can be addressed through supplementary calculations. Such supplementary calculations may include, for example:

• travel time disutility resulting from bus replacement services
• transfer and interchange disutility for bus replacement services
• direct costs of bus replacement services

There may be differences in comfort levels between different passenger train operators. To account for this, operator‑specific analyses are applied, meaning that passengers are assumed to wait for the next departure operated by the operator they originally intended to use.

Most operators in Norway affect public budgets, for example through increased operating costs, either because passenger transport is publicly subsidised or because the companies are publicly owned. This assumption is based on the Norwegian Railway Directorate’s cost‑benefit analysis tool SAGA. When changes occur in public budgets, an additional tax financing cost is applied to the public budget change. If there are cases where an operator does not affect public budgets, no tax financing cost is added, and this element is adjusted in the model for the specific conflict.

Table 1 presents key assumptions and unit values included in the model and their sources.

Table 1: Sources of assumptions and unit values

Tool for handling train path conflicts