roland berger executive rail radar 20130408
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
1/24
SURVEY RESULTS
The European rail industry
Executive Rail Radar
March 2013
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
2/24
2
> In 2011, we conducted and published the first ExecutiveRail Radar to support industry leaders in identifying keyissues that drive their industry, and to promote executive-level thinking in the European rail industry
> As a top strategy consultancy in the rail sector and othertransportation industry segments, we aim at regularlyproviding fresh insights into the rail industry's current andmost important issues
> We have therefore put together a second Executive RailRadar, capturing opinions and responses on the key rail
industry topics> Here, we present the key findings and conclusions, and
trust you will find them insightful in supporting yourstrategic thinking and decision making. We would welcomethe opportunity to have a more detailed discussion withyou on any of the issues presented
THE EUROPEAN RAIL PRACTICE
MANAGEMENT TEAM
The new Executive Rail Radar presents key insights into the railindustry We look forward to discussing the results with you
BACKGROUND AND
INTRODUCTION
Didier Brchemier (Paris)
Francesco Calvi Parisetti (Milan)
Alain d'Oul tremont (Brussels)
Roland Falb (Vienna)
Andreas Schwil ling (Munich)
Ren Seyger (Amsterdam)
Maria Mikhaylenko (Moscow)
Pedro Galhardas (Lisbon)
Martin Streichfuss (Dsseldorf)
Roland Zsilinszky (Prague)
Friedrich Demmer (London)
2
Jorge Delclaux (Madrid)
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
3/24
3
The results are based on contributions from senior executivesacross the European rail industry
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
> The responses to the Rail Radar survey are wellbalanced in terms of participating countries: Austria,Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France,Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia,
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland and theUnited Kingdom
> In addition, different rail segments are represented inthe survey: 45% of responses are from integratedrailways and 24% from municipal transport firms. Theremaining survey participants are from train operating
companies (17%), rail infrastructure providers (9%)and other segments (5%)
> Almost two-thirds of the responses were provided byexecutives at top management level, 16% came fromCxOlevel
> The online survey was conducted between November
and December 2012
PARTICIPATING COMPANIES
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
4/24
4
The survey yields key topics on rail executives' agendas for 2013and details selected broader industry issues
Profitability, stability
Financing
Growth and expansion
EU legislation
Public privatepartnerships
Homologation, TSI
HR managementQuality
Assetmanagement
Flexibility, efficiency
Innovation
AGENDA 2013
SELECTED KEY
ISSUES IN FOCUS
> Topics at the top of railexecutives' agendasin 2013
> Key changes versusprevious survey
> Detailing of selectedbroader industry issues:
Planning process
EU rail legislation
Financing
Homologation
Planning processes
Proximity of topics to the center indicates importance
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
5/24
5
Executive summary (1/2)
COMPANY'S AGENDAS
IN 2013
RECENTDEVELOPMENTS IN(DE)REGULATION
COMPLEXITY INCORPORATE PLANNING
> Profitability and financial stability remain at the top of rail executives' agendas this
year, financing and asset management are subsequent priorities All of these topicsbecame even more important since the previous survey conducted in 2011
> Quality enhancement lost importance since 2011, but is still high on the agenda
> Innovation and HR management grew strongly in importance
> Cost cutting/efficiency programs will be continued, extended or newly set up in 2013
> The recast of the first railway package is viewed very critically by rail executives More than 40% even expect adverse effects, considering it too regulated
> All individual key rules of the recast are supported by (often far) less than 30%
> Although rail executives support the stricter control of track access charges ingeneral, they are opposed to the recast's infrastructure charging rules
> In 2013, railways will keep up intensive interaction with EU officials on the future
development of EU rail legislation
> The importance of planning is showing a tendency to rise, while a broader scope andshort-term nature are increasing planning complexity
> Budgeting is considered as being the most complex planning process
> To reduce planning complexity, rail companies avoid details, rely on past experienceand reduce output parameters and forecasting periods
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
6/24
6
Executive summary (2/2)
FINANCING OF
RAILWAYS ANDMUNICIPAL TRANSPORT
> Rail executives aim at internal sources of financing infrastructure/operations through
efficiency and revenue enhancements. However, the need for public funding remains> As today, public-private partnerships (PPP) are considered to play an important role
in municipal transport, rather than for railway financing
> PPPsare seen as both a blessing and a curse: Additional efficiency pressure andcultural change are appreciated, while the profitability expectations of privateinvestors are seen as a key disadvantage at the same time
> Railway stations and primary infrastructure of individual lines are considered to bemost suitable for PPP investments in infrastructure
> Functional privatization via dedicated service contracts is expected to prevail overother forms of privatization, material privatization with asset ownership is seen as anexception
HOMOLOGATION ANDITS EFFECTS
> The vast majority of rail executives considers homologation procedures lengthy,often problematic
> Lack of efficiency is viewed as a similar problem in European countries, whereasother industries are considered to be more efficient in homologation
> European initiatives for TSIsare generally appreciated by rail executives. However,
faster and more intensive implementation is demanded for 20131) Technical Specifications for interoperability
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
7/24
7
TOPICS a. COMPANIES' AGENDAS IN 2013:Profitability and financial sustainability are top priorityb. COMPLEXITY IN PLANNING:
Importance and complexity of planning are rising
c. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN (DE)REGULATION:Recast of first railway package viewed very critically
d. FINANCING OF RAILWAYS AND MUNICIPALTRANSPORT:Internal and public financing preferred over PPP
e. HOMOLOGATION AND ITS EFFECTS:Procedures lengthy, other industries more efficient
f. YOUR CONTACTS AT ROLAND BERGER:We will be happy to discuss the results with you
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
8/24
8
Profitability/efficiency, financing and asset modernization dominaterail companies' agendas in 2013 Broad variety of specific topics
TOP TOPICS ON COMPANY'S AGENDAS IN 2012-131)
> Profitability issues are ahead of other topics on railcompanies' agendas in 2013; cost cuttingprograms will be continued, extended or newly setup, networks and offers might be reviewed
> In addition, two topics relatively specific to the railindustry come in second and third, i.e. financingand modernizing infrastructure, indicating impactfrom the European debt crisis and financingconcerns
> Growth and innovations are fifth and sixth,indicating room for expansion, top line and
service-related topics> Overall, a great variety of topics was noted by the
survey participants as being important in 2013,incl. sustainability, specific contracts, ERTMSdeployment or safety issues
> The ranking of top topics is fairly similar across
countries and company types
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
HR management and development
Modernizing rolling stock
Growth
Geographic expansion
Improving flexibility, efficiency
Innovation, innovative
service offerings
Modernizing infrastructure
Quality improvement
Financing (investment,
public service obligations)
13%
Profitability, financial stability
13%
20%
15%
19%
19%
22%
26%
28%
56%
1) % of mentioning as one of the top 3 topics in a list of 20 topics
a. Companies' agendas in 2013
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
8
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
9/24
9
Profitability, financing, asset and HR management gained impor-tanceversus 2011Quality and growth lost, but are still in the top 5
CHANGES IN TOP 10 TOPICS
VERSUS 2011 SURVEY
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
> In 2011, we conducted and publishedthe first Executive Rail Radar, asking
the same question on the top topics oncompanies' agendas
> Profitability was considered the mostimportant topic in 2011 and has gainedeven greater importance since then
> Asset management (infrastructure,rolling stock), financing, innovation andHR management gained strongly inimportance
Rank2012
rankvs. 2011 Topic score vs. 20111)
1) %-pts. of mentioning in top 3 topics in a list of 20 topics
HR mgmt. and development
Modernizing rolling stock
Geographic expansion
Improving flexibility, efficiency
Innovation, innovativeservice offerings
-17%Growth
4%
Modernizing infrastructure
0%
Quality improvement
0%
Financing (investment,public service obligations)
2%
Profitability, financial stability
9%
5%
-15%
11%
8%1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
+5
-1
+2
-2
+9
-2
0
9 +1
10 +8
a. Companies' agendas in 2013
9
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
10/24
10
The importance of planning has tended to rise, while a broaderscope and a short-term nature are increasing planning complexity
IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING1)
> The rail environment is becoming increasinglyimportant, complex and short-term oriented
> This has to be mapped in planning processes
Planning is intensified
Planning systems are made more flexible,aiming to cope with short-term changes
> Consequently, the planning itself becomes morecomplex
> As efficiency/profitability is high on companies'agendas, rail companies must despite the highly
complex environment aim to reduce this com-plexity in planning processes
No change in importance
of planning6%
Other 9%
Shorter planning periods,
more frequent changes11%
Importance unchanged,
reaction times more important32%
Scenario-based approach,uncertainties in environment
36%
Planning is intensified, more variables,
inputs, parameters, etc.36%
Planning becomes more important,
more complex environment38%
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
1) % of answers; multiple answers possible
b. Complexity in planning
10
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
11/24
11
The planning of budgets and demand forecasts are consideredparticularly complex issues
MOST COMPLEX PLANNING PROCESS1)
> More than half of rail executives consider pro-cessesfor long and short-term budgeting the mostcomplex issues in planning. Especially here,complexity should be reduced
> Passenger demand forecasts are fairly simple onan overall level. However, on a route, day and timebasis it becomes quite complex
> Although revenue management has beenintroduced by many European passenger railways(DB, SNCF, SJ, Eurostar, Thalys and many more),only one in seven rail executives considers the top
line to be the most complex item in planning> Some rail executives note that public financing
can add complexity to any respective planning
> Rail companies might decide to work on theirbudgeting processes, making them more efficient
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
1) % of mentioning as top 1 topic
b. Complexity in planning
13%
19%
14%
31%Yield andrevenue
planning
21%
Annual budgetPassenger/cargo forecast
Capacity planning1%
Other
Long-term budget
(e.g. 5-year period)
11
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
12/24
12
To reduce planning complexity, rail companies avoid details, rely onpast experience, and reduce parameters and forecasting periods
MEASURES TO REDUCE COMPLEXITY1)
> As we have seen above, rail companies mustoffset the increasing complexity in planningprocesses
> In particular, they acknowledge that the
environment and planning assumptions canchange quickly so that flexible reactions becomemore important than detailed planning
> The extrapolation of previous figures is seen as anequally important way to reduce complexity Foroverall figures this is often fine, on a more detailedlevel this appears to be a critical/dangerousapproach
> Furthermore, rail companies also reduce outputparameters, forecasting periods and inputvariablesOther 4%
Use a random-
based approach4%
Reduce inputs 15%
Reduce forecast
periods17%
Reduce planning
parameters (output)34%
Extrapolate on basis
of previous figures45%
Focus on flexible response,
rather than details45%
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
1) % of answers; multiple answers possible
b. Complexity in planning
12
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
13/24
13
More than 40% of respondents criticize the recast as too much regu-lation, 36% consider it a good compromise, 17% think it is late/soft
OPINIONS ON THE RECAST OF THE FIRST EU
RAILWAY PACKAGE
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
TOTAL SURVEY
17%
17%
50%
40%
4%
Municipal transport 10% 40% 10%
Rail infrastructure 25% 25%
Train operating company 50% 33%
Integrated railway 63% 29% 4%
All 43% 36% 4%
> Recast in general viewed critically; especiallyexecutives in Germany, Switzerland, Denmark,Slovakia and Slovenia expect the recast to have anegative impact
> As expected, executives from train operatingcompanies and separated infrastructure operatorshave a more positive opinion on the recast thanthose from integrated railways
> However, 25% of executives from rail infra-structure companies consider regulation too strictand expect negative impacts
> 17% of the executives think that the recast comestoo late and should be stricter. Unsurprisingly,nobody from an integrated railway shares thisopinion
> Interestingly, countries that are advanced inliberalization (according to LIB Index1)) view the
recast especially critically
Regulates too much,
adverse effects
Good compromise between
stakeholders in railway transport
Comes too late,
stricter rules required
Other
BY SEGMENT
c. Recent developments in (de)regulation
1) The LIB Index shows the relative status of liberalization of the rail transport markets in Europe.The respective study is conducted regularly by Prof. Kirchner/Humboldt University Berlin and IBM
13
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
14/24
14
Feedback on the rules of the recast was mostly critical "Counter-productive" and "No significant effects" total > 70% for most rules
ASSESSMENT OF THE MAIN RULES OF THE RECAST1)
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
1) % of answers
> For all eight rules, about half of therespondents feel that they will have nosignificant effects
> All of the eight rules are assessed asbeing important and highly relevant byless than 30%
> Given this overall negative assessment,more detailed network statements, thestrengthening of the regulator and theindependence of the regulator areregarded in a relatively positive light
> Most negative feedback was receivedfor the requirement of long-term agree-mentsbetween state and infrastructuremanagers and for more preciseinfrastructure charging rules
51%
61%
51%
48%
49%
53%
56%
40%
29%
Requirement of nat. long-term
agreements state/IM
Requirement of more precise
infrastructure charging rules
12%
30%Establishment of explicit rules
on conflicts of interest
29%
24%
Improved access to
rail-related services
Independence of regulator
from other authorities
Extended competence
of rail regulator
Requirement of more detailed
network statements
18%
23%
Strengthening power
of regulators
12%
30%
15%
28%
24%
21%
22%
27%
48%
Will have no significant effects Counterproductive,
negative impact on the industry
Important and highly relevant
c. Recent developments in (de)regulation
14
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
15/24
15
Stricter regulation is in general viewed rather critically Strictercontrol of track access charges receives the broadest support
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
> None of the specified rules is supported by morethan 50% of rail executives
> Stricter control of track access charges receives thehighest support
Interestingly, here the support from integratedrailways is significantly higher than from trainoperating companies and infrastructure providers
Note that rail executives oppose the infrastruc-ture charging rules as formulated in the recast
> Only 21% of rail executives support legal action forstronger separation from train operators Thisdoes not exceed 50% among infrastructureoperators
> Other areas mentioned are independent accessregulation and stricter control of funding authoritiesand regulating bodies
> Comparably broad support for stricter rules comesfor instance from France and Slovakia Lowsupport from Czech Republic and Switzerland
26%
Stricter control of
track access charges50%
Other 7%
ETCS-differentiated
track charging12%
No profit transfers
allowed21%
Separate infrastructure from
train operators21%
Separate legal entities
for rail-related facilities
1) % of answers; multiple answers possible
AREAS FOR STRICTER REGULATION1)
c. Recent developments in (de)regulation
15
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
16/24
16
Railways consider internal sources of finance crucial, in particularproductivity gains PPPsmore important for municipal transport
50%
20%
60%
90%
90%
50%
30%
OPINIONS ON MAIN LEVERS FOR FINANCING1)
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
1) Financing of infrastructure projects and transport operations; % of mentioning in top 3
d. Financing of railways and municipal transport
35%
40%Additional revenues,
e.g. in stations
81%
60%
16%
Increase price
differentiation21%
Redesign network
Price increases
at railways42%
Improved efficiency and
productivity of railways
Public financing
PPPs
ALL SECTORS MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT
> Rail companies emphasize sourcesthey can influence themselves, i.e.productivity gains and additionalrevenues
> Public financing remains among thetop financing sources for railways
> This can be interpreted as a reactionto insecure or even reduced publicfunding due the European debt
crisis, i.e. as railways shift financingoptions to internal sources
> PPPs come in last in total surveyresponses, but have a much higherimportance for municipal transport
16
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
17/24
17
PPPswill gain importance and will be significant for developingcountries, but public financing will prevail as the dominant source
IMPORTANCE OF PPPs IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS1)
Other 5%
PPPs will become a major
financing mode in Europe, too5%
PPPs will be a unique form
of financing worldwide5%
PPP will be important
for developing countries31%
Public financing will remain
the dominant financing
modefor railways
40%
PPPswill not fill the gap,
although public financing
will be reduced
60%
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
> The responses point to a relatively critical attitudeon the part of railway companies to PPPs; railwaysassume that PPPswill not be big enough tocompensate for potential financing gaps frompublic sources
> Potential reasons might be insufficient experiencewith PPPsand hence reservations, lack of accessto PPPs, or structural reasons (PPPs not suited forgeneral or long-term financing, rather for specificpurposes)
> Another reason is that respondents expect PPPs
to better suit specific projects, e.g. stations orindividual lines, i.e. where revenues and cost canbe directly allocated to the project
> Only 5% of respondents expect PPPsto become amajor source of financing in Europe. The 60%majority expects PPPsnot to fill the public
financing gap1) Financing of infrastructure projects and transport operations;% of answers; multiple answers possible
d. Financing of railways and municipal transport
17
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
18/24
18
PPPsconsidered both a blessing and a curse: Pressure and culturalchange appreciated, while expectations of private investors feared
51% 46%
95%
57%93%
60%48%
98%
Complexstructures,contracts,controlmechanisms
Higher returnexpectationsfrom privateinvestors
Not suitedfor rail trans-port, publicfinancingneeded
Publicauthoritieslosecontrol
Additionalfunding
Pressure byprivateinvestors
Culturalchange tobusinessculture
Risktransfer
MAIN DISADVANTAGES OF PPPs1)MAIN ADVANTAGES1)
1) % of mentioning in top 3
> The key advantage of PPPs is the additional sourceof funding
> Structural PPP items are a further key advantage:Move towards stronger business and private
economy orientation
> Almost all rail executives consider additionalcomplexity to be one of the top 3 disadvantages
> Rail executives fear higher return expectations, thisview is shared by integrated railways, infrastructure
operators, train operating companies and municipaltransport alike
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
+
d. Financing of railways and municipal transport
18
1) % of mentioning in top 3
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
19/24
19
Railway stations and primary infrastructure of individual lines areconsidered to be most suitable for PPP infrastructure investments
INVESTMENT NEEDS SUITED FOR FINANCING
INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH PPP1)
Secondary infrastructure
8%Other
15%
Primary infrastructure
of entire (sub)networks28%
Primary infrastructure
of individual lines
55%
Railway stations 63%
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
1) % of answers; multiple answers possible
> Almost 2/3 of rail executives consider railwaystations as suitable for PPP investments
> More than half of rail executives believe thatprimary infrastructure of individual lines (e.g.airport connections, high-speed routes, cargo
routes) can be financed through PPPs> Only a limited number of rail executives can
imagine financing primary infrastructure of anentire (sub)network or secondary infrastructure(embankments, bridges, tunnels) in this way
> Other investments suitable for PPP include car
parking and cargo terminals> Earlier, we have seen that profit expectations of
private investors are viewed as the most importantdisadvantage of PPPs Hence, railway stationsappear to be a rather profitable investment onaverage. Additionally, revenues and cost are
comparably easy to attribute to railway stations
d. Financing of railways and municipal transport
19
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
20/24
20
In PPPs, functional privatization (dedicated service contract) isexpected to prevail over other forms of privatization
DEGREE OF PRIVATIZATION LIKELY TO PREVAIL IN
FUTURE PPPs FOR RAIL FINANCING1)
22%
Material privatization
(permanent ownership
transfer)
Functional
privatization
with temporary
ownership transfer
57%
Purely functionalprivatization(no ownershiptransfer)
22%
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
1) % of answers
> The majority of rail executives expects purelyfunctional privatization to prevail in the future:Partnership via service contract, e.g. for designing,building, operating and/or maintaining, withoutasset transfer
> Less than half of rail executives forecast at leasttemporary asset transfer, less than 1/4 envisagematerial privatization prevailing (permanenttransfer of ownership)
> The result reflects the timescale that differentstakeholders foresee for a PPP investment
Private investors have short/medium-termexpectations
Public authorities take a medium/long-terminterest
d. Financing of railways and municipal transport
20
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
21/24
21
Homologation procedures are considered lengthy, sometimes evenproblematic Safety levels appear extremely high
ASSESSMENT OF HOMOLOGATION FOR RAILWAYS
AND MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT1)
Homologation is insufficient
and represents a safety risk5%
Homologation procedures are
efficient and fast 5%
Homologation procedures are
lengthy, but not a problem38%
Homologation procedures are
lengthy and cause significantproblems for the industry 45%
The safety level in my country
is extremely high57%
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
> The overwhelming majority considers safetyissues to be fulfilled with current homologationpractice
57% consider the safety level extremely high
Whereas only 5% see a safety risk due toinsufficient homologation
> However, homologation procedures are widelyconsidered to be inefficient
More than 80% consider the process lengthy(esp. in Eastern Europe)
Whereas only 5% view the process as efficientand fast (Austria, Switzerland)
> Railway executives would support animprovement in efficiency in the homologationprocess without compromising on quality/safety
1) % of answers; multiple answers possible
e. Homologation and its effects
21
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
22/24
22
Homologation is mostly seen as comparable to other Europeancountries, but as more complex than in other industries
COMPARISON OF HOMOLOGATION1)
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
> On the one hand, rail executives see thecomplexity of homologation processes as similaracross countries However,
In Switzerland and UK, executives consider thehomologation process to be more efficient than
in other countries In Germany and Eastern Europe, the process is
seen as rather lengthy
> On the other hand, rail executives assumehomologation processes in rail to be morecomplex than in other industries like utilities,
telecommunications, aerospace or automotive This is especially true for executives fromGermany, France and Eastern Europe
> Hence, an improvement of the homologationprocess should be targeted and for this, inspirationfrom other industries is more helpful than a cross-
border comparison of national practices
INTERNATIONALLY
ACROSS INDUSTRIES
1) % of answers;
e. Homologation and its effects
More efficient
and faster than
in other Euro-
pean countries
21%
More complex,
lengthy, competitive
disadvantage for rail
38%
About the same
level as in other
European countries
41%
26%
More complex,lengthy, needs
to be redesigned
25%
About the samelevel as in
other industries
Lower than in
industries withsimilar safety
requirements
49%
22
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
23/24
23
European initiatives for TSIsare generally appreciated, but fasterand more intensive implementation is demanded
RATINGS OF THE EUROPEAN INITIATIVES FOR
TSI1)
Other 2%
Make homologation more
complicated and lengthy32%
On the right track, but too
slowly implemented66%
Source: Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar
1) % of answers
> About 2/3 of rail executives see the Europeaninitiatives for TSI pointing in the right direction, butconsider implementation in national laws as tooslow or insufficient
> About 1/3 of rail executives expect the initiatives
for TSI to make homologation more complicatedand lengthy This assessment is common amongexecutives from France, Germany andSwitzerland
> There are some worries that TSIs are notsufficiently specific and detailed to ensure
technical convergence> Overall, there is acknowledgement of the
European Railway Agency's efforts, while a fastertransfer to national laws by member states isdemanded
e. Homologation and its effects
23
-
7/30/2019 Roland Berger Executive Rail Radar 20130408
24/24
24