1 / 27

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

Railway Interoperability Results of the workshop on draft TSIs and CBA held 8 to 10 March 2004 Brussels – 15/16 March 2004. In general. Majority of MS represented, plus WG6 for noise AEIF presentations on the current status and latest developments Commission comments MS questions/comments

kali
Télécharger la présentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Railway Interoperability Results of the workshop on draft TSIs and CBA held 8 to 10 March 2004 Brussels – 15/16 March 2004

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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)

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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)

  10. Control-command and signalling • 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

  11. Control-command and signalling • 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

  12. Control-command and signalling • 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

  13. 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)

  14. Telematics applications for freight • 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

  15. Telematics applications for freight • 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

  16. Telematics applications for freight • 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;

  17. 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

  18. Cost-benefit analysis • 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

  19. Cost-benefit analysis • 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

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

  23. Conclusions • 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.

  24. Conclusions • 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. • 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.

  25. Conclusions • 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.

  26. Conclusions • 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.

  27. Conclusions • 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.

More Related