Directorate-General for Energy and Transport European Commission 1 Railway Interoperability Results...

1Directorate-General for Energy and Transport

European Commission

Railway Interoperability

Results of the workshop on draft TSIs and CBA held 8 to 10 March 2004

Brussels – 15/16 March 2004


European Commission

In general

• Majority of MS represented, plus WG6 for

noise

• AEIF presentations on the current status and

latest developments

• Commission comments

• MS questions/comments

• Discussion/conclusions


European Commission

Noise

• Renewed / Upgraded vehicles AEIF shall justify the differences of pass-by noise emission

limits applied respectively to new rail freight wagons and retrofitted ones.

• Infrastructure AEIF had been requested to examine the feasibility of

including specifications for infrastructure maintenance into the scope of the TSI to avoid that infrastructure contribution to noise emission become dominant

Maybe a second step in chapter 7


European Commission

Noise

• Reference track The functional description of the reference track is

confirmed. But the levels for the rail roughness and decay rates should be adjusted to be in line with the first results of NOEMIE.

The reproducibility of the tests shall be proven and the final results of the measurement campaign (NOEMIE) shall be used for the TSI revision process.

The TSI shall include maintenance criteria for the reference track to enable it to maintain compliance with the specifications


European Commission

Noise

• Limit values Lower pass-by noise limits for freight wagons seem to be

feasible. A two step approach shall be adopted to enable more stringent limits on vehicles. As first step the proposed limits could be accepted.

A new measurement campaign for freight wagon fleet including an examination of the existing data seems useful

• Operation / maintenance – continued compliance with the TSI Criteria and strategy should be contained in the

maintenance plan of the RST STI (maybe second step in chapter 7)


European Commission

Noise

• Miscellaneous A specific case for Ireland shall be includes in the TSI. The chapter 7.1.4 related to exceptions for national,

bilateral, multilateral and multinational agreements shall be revised from a legal point of view (valid for all TSIs)

• Conclusion

A second step is needed in chapter 7 to include infrastructure specifications into the scope of TSI, define more stringent limits for vehicles, choose a continuous apl indicator for freight wagons and define a method to maintain conformity


European Commission

Wagons

• Answers of AEIF to previous comments: Level of detail (D comments) ETF comments on staff qualifications UK comments and annexes K-L-M Remove of workhop accreditation but separate discussion

on roles/responsibilities is needed

• Open points: Hot box detection Cross winds and aerodynamics Wheel slide protection


European Commission

Wagons

• MS/COM comments: Room for innovative solutions: AEIF clarification note

requested gauge change systems: bilateral meeting with Spain and

specific case. Maybe a Working Group to be created Axle loads above 22.5 t: text to be clarified. Maybe CEN

standard needed. Coexistence of RIV agreement and interoperability

directives: AEIF clarification note requested Specific case for Ireland needed on shunters Composite brake blocks: spec and assessment procedure

needed, but not yet available


European Commission

Control-command and signalling

• Latest developments: New model structure IC hot box detection Annex B and new Member States: some still missing Level crossing Limited supervision under Change Control procedure Annex G on Open points (hot box, interface K, juridical

recorder)


European Commission


• COM comments: Chapter 7 missing: AEIF will work with AC and produce it

by 25/3/04 GSM-R case missing (pres. Report and chapter 7): to be

added How to deal with release management: clarification note on

CCM and revision process needed. RBC-RBC and RBC-Interlocking: is it really interoperability ?

obligation for MS to ensure availability of STMs where ETCS not deployed


European Commission


• MS comments: DK - INFILL level 1: Euroloop being certified in Austria DK – awakening: still no consensus among operators NL – modules SH and SH2: text to be modified NL – table STM to be updated NL – interface « track worker safety »: next generation SW/UK – note on revision process to be clear on

differences between « improvement », « new functionalities », « open points »

F – no info on costs, CBA on level 1 missing, poor info on current projects/experiences: presentation report to be completed


European Commission


• MS comments: B – clear time-table for the conolidation phase is needed:

half-2005 is the target D – IPR problem with STMs: to be mentioned in the PR D – open points: avoid new national rules I – some open points are important (EMC): CENELEC is

working on it (target 2006)

• Conclusions Industry will be invited at the next Committee meeting to

comment on consolidation phase and release management Open points: workprogress must be clear in PR – avoid

confusion between possible improvements and real open points


European Commission

Telematics applications for freight

• Main results: Still some questions on the level of detail: maybe an Annex

to receive a different status (European Specification ?) Enforcement is difficult because it is a functional TSI Implementation of the TSI needs a common/distributed

database containing real time data on vehicles/trains (only some parameters)

Implementation of the TSI needs a body in charge with the coordination of the deployment (for example: the « European Rail Freight Forum » to be tested in the coming months)


European Commission


• COM comments: Costs assessment: a development of new IT products

shared by different actors would be much less expensive Extension to passenger applications must be foressen Data quality: see § 4.2.10 Experience of research projects on specific corridors:

explained in the Presentation report (see § 2.1.7) Link with the Customer (this is foreseen by the directive):

partially covered


European Commission


• MS comments: Will the common database be used for onboard Dangerous

Goods applications ? No Terminology must be clear: Rail Service Integrator, Lead RU,

Service Provider, … The TAF TSI is compatible with all types of services: one RU

from origin to destination, cooperatio of RUs, single wagon load, …

Article 24 Registers are not the data bases foreseen in the TAF TSI

The TAF TSI is not imposing a Business Model but a Business Model was needed in order to define which data to exchange and how


European Commission


• MS comments: Why a TAF TSI ? This was largely explained in the

proposal of the Commission in 1999 and extensively discussed with the Council and the EP

There are links with the Allocation Process of Directive 2001/14 and with the Operation TSI. The AEIF explains that the last minute time-table changes are not covered by Directive 2001/14; links with other TSIs are clarified in the PR; links with the OPE TSI to be discussed at the workshop to be held on 2/4/04;


European Commission

Cost-benefit analysis

• Latest developments: CCS

Case study on Bettembourg-Basel Corridor approach: target 24/3/04

NOI CBA for composite brake blocks in progress: problem due to more

maintenance costs WAG

Almost no impact TAF

Important benefits


European Commission


• Comments PRs to be improved and completed (hypothesis,

methodology, …) PRs to include ECORYS results without commenting:

ECORYS is an input and AEIF is in charge with the presentation report as a final product

Scope: TEN or the whole network: AEIF to reexamine for all TSIs (what about benefits produced outside the TEN ?)

How to deal with multi TSI deployment: global CBA is desirable

Security of supply not mentioned in CCS Base case in GSM-R: different possibilities NL/SW request: CBA for individual parameters in the case of

Noise


European Commission


• Comments ES: the final result is not important. But PR must be clear on relative

importance of all parameters, impacts on various actors, qualitative assessment

ES: sensitivity analysis on expected traffic growth, 20/40 years, 6/8 % B: would like the results per country. The CBA report must give

sufficient information F: how to deal with different investment speeds (speed can not be

imposed, particularly in the case of TAF) – TAF CBA includes different scenarios

D/I: certification costs – interoperability can only bring benefits (costs were previously hidden)

NL: why no CBA on noise levels – because no technical solutions


European Commission

Conclusions

• AEIF work largely appreciated by MS

• Draft TSIs almost ready, except chapter 7 CCS

• COM/MS comments to be included in final version 25/3/04

• Presentation reports to be improved/completed

• Commission homework on chapter 7 and legislative part


European Commission

Railway Interoperability

Results of the meeting with the Baltic States and Finland representatives held 12-13 February 2004 in Vilnius

Brussels – 15/16 March 2004


European Commission

Conclusions

1. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland are harmonising their respective national legislation with the requirements of Directives 2001/16/EC and 96/48/EC.


European Commission

Conclusions

2. The basic approach to solve technical differences in implementing the interoperability directives is to establish specific cases regarding TSIs in order to reach three objectives which are important for free circulation of trains:

to maintain regional interoperability within 1520 (1524) mm railway network (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland),

to maintain interoperability with the rest of 1520 (1524) mm railway network which exists in 3rd countries,

to develop interoperability between 1520 (1524)mm railway network and 1435mm railway network which exists in EU Member States.


European Commission

Conclusions

3. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland will cooperate in order to develop specific cases, if possible common, to be included in the TSIs that will be adopted or revised after the accession date.

4. With respect to TSIs developed before accession Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia insist to include a reference to this issue in the preamble of the TSIs decisions.


European Commission

Conclusions

5. For new lines in South – North direction in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (Rail Baltica project) the aim is to apply interoperability directives fully including use of EU standard gauge.


European Commission

Conclusions

6. Taking into account the different exploitation requirements existing in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and EU the three countries when implementing the EC requirements in practice should agree among themselves:

on the application of Article 7 of Directive 2001/16/EC in view of possible derogations from implementation of the first group of conventional railway TSIs, and

the future application of the existing legal regime related to railway transportation.


European Commission

Conclusions

7. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia need to continue their work on description of national technical rules in order to inform the committee in accordance with Article 16 (3) and 25 of Directive 2001/16/EC and they should coordinate their activities. The reference system adopted in 2003 should be revised accordingly.

Directorate-General for Energy and Transport European Commission 1 Railway Interoperability Results...

Documents

Transcript of Directorate-General for Energy and Transport European Commission 1 Railway Interoperability Results...