A Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) based on a tool developed in Task 5.4.1 was performed for two case studies. The first case study is built on the Swedish sections of the Scandinavian-Mediterranean TEN-T Corridor. Both rail and road corridor sections are modelled with input data about infrastructure, operation and traffic forecasts. The analysis is made through a set of Scenarios where different sets of C4R Innovations, operational or market conditions changes are modelled. The first scenario (Scenario 1) includes the implementation of all C4R innovations throughout the Swedish rail network, as well as increases in train length up to 1500 m. The CBA results in a negative NPV, with the large investment not being offset by the producer surplus generated by the modal transfer. When the Scenario is altered to include a very significant reduction in delays, this is enough to turn the NPV positive. Two scenarios (2 and 3) are built with a more limited implementation of infrastructure innovations, mainly slab track. The results show an improvement relative to Scenario 1, showing the advantages of a more selective approach. A Rail Positive Scenario (4) assumes a full migration to innovative freight wagons, including automatic couplers and EP brakes, leading to further operating costs reductions and a small speed increase. This scenario has the most positive results of all that were tested. In order to test how some of the expected innovations in road transportation would affect the profitability of the investment in the rail sector being tested, Road Positive Scenarios (5 and 6) were also tested. These assume an increase in road truck gross weight and reductions in operating costs. The results show the benefits that were present in Scenario 1 from modal transfer may be virtually obliterated. We also tested how the introduction of taxes on road transportation can partially offset these effects, boosting the rail sector. A second case study was based on a more detailed analysis of a smaller corridor section in southern France (Montpellier-Perpignan) that was performed in the context of the Demonstrations for Deliverable 5.5.6. This corridor section has the further feature of being a bottleneck in the wider corridor it is inserted in. A comparable set of scenarios was analysed for this corridor section showing overall positive results in terms of NPV, even for the ones with heavier investment. However, the relative changes between the different scenarios are not qualitatively different from the ones obtained in the first case study. The results of the Montpellier-Perpignan case study in comparison with the Swedish one show how the kind of deep investment in infrastructure is more easily profitable in capacity constrained sections, even if this profitability hangs on an assumed increase in availability. Both case studies show how improvements in operation leading to longer, higher capacity trains can have very positive impacts with relatively modest investments.