Transcript Standardization and Regulation Group SRG

Recent developments in European Transport
policies and latest in the regulatory environment
EFRTC General Meeting
20 November 2009, Berlin
Michael Clausecker
UNIFE Director-General
Agenda
1. European Transport policies: recent developments
2. Latest in the regulatory environment
3. 2010 Market Study and a snapshot of UNIFE successes
1. European Transport policies: recent developments
Rail investments in Central and Eastern Europe
Main challenges
National and European Planning
Tendering and contracting
Need for ambitious and consistent master plans
for the development of rail transport
Need for bigger tenders, transparent
procurement procedures and better payment
conditions
Need to adopt a customer-driven and businessoriented approach to rail transport
Need to improve cross-border connections
through better coordination with neighbouring
countries
Financing
Need to secure the financing of the
infrastructure managers (multi-annual
contracts)
Need for adequate compensation of the
operator for Public Service Obligations
Need to better use the EU funds (including
for Rolling stock) and to secure national
financing of rail projects
Project development
Project implementation
Need for more projects of good quality in the
pipeline, relevant technological choices and better
technical documentation
Need to improve project management, to
accelerate project execution and to minimise
cost overruns
 Need for increased engineering capacities,
more turnkey projects
UNIFE Strategy
 UNIFE key objectives:
 Overall objective: Transform funds in contracts for the rail industry
 Sub-objectives:
 Maximum absorption of the EU funds allocated to the CEECs
 Maximum share of rail investments among the modes of transport
 Maximum size of tenders to attract our members
 Key messages conveyed to CEECs:




Have a vision for the development of rail transport (Master plan)
Think big: high speed is also relevant to CEE
Develop and implement quicker and better rail infrastructure projects
Increase the size of tenders and use turnkey approaches to earn time
and spare capacity
 Balance the allocation of funds between road and rail projects
 Implement freight corridors
 Purchase rolling stock rather than refurbish old train
UNIFE Actions and Achievements
 Lobby the Transport Ministries and the IMs in the Czech Republic,
Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia
 Lobby and support DG Regio and the EIB
 Participate in numerous conferences in Central and Eastern Europe
 Create a database on major projects financed in the framework of
national Transport OPs
 Contribute and influence the preparation of the new Guidelines on State
Aids for Railway undertakings
 Organise three workshops in the CEECs: Warsaw (July 2007), Bucharest
(January 2009), Warsaw (October 2009)
Workshop on rail investments
in Central and Eastern Europe
 27-28 January 2009, Bucharest
 Highlights:
 Open dialogue between the rail industry
and the Romanian authorities about the
current problems of financing and political
support to rail transport
 New orientation for the development of
rail transport in Poland backed by politics
(master plan, high speed)
 Impressive example of Spanish rail policy
started with the help of the Cohesion
policy and above all with a strong political
will
 Plaidoyer from the rail industry for best
technologies, incl. very HS
 Frank discussion on payment conditions
and contracting strategies
 Support to turnkey projects as a solution
to deliver better outputs and help
overcoming lack of capacities of the
infrastructure managers
Workshop on
Railway Rolling Stock Financing
 19-20 October, Warsaw,
organised jointly with CER
 Highlights:
 The needs for investment in
new passenger rolling stock
for Central and Eastern
European railways were
evaluated
 Innovative financing models
allowing for an acceleration
of fleet renewal and a new
quality of service offer to rail
passengers were
investigated
 The debate about using EU
regional aid to finance
leasing schemes and pools
was open
Next steps
 Booklet about best practices in rail investments in Central and
Eastern Europe to be published in December 2009
 Meeting with Transport ministries, infrastructure managers and
operators from Central and Eastern Europe to be organised
 Cooperation with DG Regio and the EIB to be reinforced
 Options for rolling stock financing with EU funds to be further
discussed
TEN-T Policy Review
TEN-T Policy
 Context:
 On 4 February 2009 , the European Commission adopted its Green
Paper: TEN-T: A policy review – Towards a better integrated transEuropean transport network at the service of the common transport
policy
 Reasons behind the review:
 Very few TEN-T projects were actually completed
 Lack of focus: objectives are too broad
 Lack of European approach: TEN-T network appears more as a “collection of
national projects”
 Adapt the TEN-T policy to upcoming challenges (climate change, international
position of the EU)
 Green paper identifies several options to be discussed with stakeholders
 The Parliament adopted a resolution on the Green Paper on 22 April
2009 and the Council reached Conclusions on the Green Paper on 11
June 2009
TEN-T Policy
 UNIFE actions:
 UNIFE published its position paper on the Green Paper on 30 April 2009
 UNIFE met Commission officials in charge of the Policy review
 UNIFE submitted personnalities from its members to participate in expert
groups
 UNIFE participated in the TEN-T Days on 21-22 October 2009
TEN-T Policy
 Key points of UNIFE position:
 Need to focus TEN-T investments on environmentally-friendly transport modes,
with modal shift as a key objective of the policy;
 In favour of concentrating funding on an “EU priority network” which should be
limited in size;
 Creation of a trans-European very high-speed network;
 Need for an increased TEN-T budget, with a true priority given to rail transport in
the EU’s regional policy and the use of additional financial resources (revenues
from ETS, Eurovignette, EIB loans or PPPs);
 Special focus on interoperability technologies (ERTMS);
 Need for a stronger focus on implementation, with the help of corridor structures,
in addition to the existing “Coordinators” and mandatory deadlines for projects’
completion;
 Co-modality should be encouraged, but not at the expense of rail transport.
 Next steps: A Communication will be issued by early 2010 and specific
proposals on the revision of TEN-T Guidelines later that year.
Freight Corridors
Proposal on Freight
Contents of the original proposal:
 Member States have to create
at least one (and up to three)
freight-oriented corridor(s) by
2013
 A Governance Body (EEIG) of
the IMs involved is set up
 The governance body sets up
priority rules for freight
UNIFE-EIM coalition on the dossier
supporting and promoting
international rail freight in Europe
Proposal on Freight: Timeline
 Context:
 11 December 2008: European Commission Proposal
 23 April: EP Plenary vote
 Broader and more flexible criteria for the creation of corridors
 More flexible priority rules and capacity reserve
 Stronger role for Regulatory Bodies
 12 June : Transport Council, political agreement
 Political definition of corridors
 « Recognise the needs » of passenger traffic
 No authorised applicants
 1st reading common position of the Council expected in November
(informal negotiations ongoing between the Parliament and the
Swedish EU Presidency)
 2nd reading at the European Parliament expected in January
Next steps
 Continue lobbying the Council and the European Parliament:





Coordination of investments
Improvement of freight performance
Authorised applicants
A clear distinction of priority freight
Role of regulatory bodies
 Joining forces with EIM to maintain the spirit of the proposal
ERTMS
ERTMS Memorandum of Understanding
 Challenge: Agreeing on the next steps for
ERTMS deployment with stakeholders
 MoU signed on 4th July 2008 by European
Commission/ERA, CER, EIM, ERFA, UIC,
GSM-R, UNIFE
 Challenge: Having a realistic schedule for
the development of baseline 3
 Baseline 3 to be finalised in 2012 as proposed
by UNIFE
 MoU recommends to have investments based
on 2.3.0d with upgrade to baseline 3
 Additional achievements
 Testing recognised as a crucial element
 Foresees an ERTMS Deployment plan
European ERTMS Deployment Plan
 Challenge: Obtaining a stronger commitment on ERTMS
Deployment
 European ERTMS Deployment Plan approved by Member States
in April 2009 - to be adopted by Commission in July
 Will gradually make ERTMS investments binding by EU law on the 6
ERTMS Corridors (in 2015 & 2020)
 ERTMS will also have to be installed on a dedicated list of freight
terminals connected to these corridors
 Similar provisions for onboard equipment on trains dedicated to
international traffic
 Any EU-financed project involving signalling will have to be ‘ERTMS
equipped’
 UNIFE was strongly involved during the adoption process
European ERTMS Deployment Plan
Active
DG TREN
September
2008
In favour…
Against…
April 2009
Majority of EU
countries
Majority of EU
countries
Inactive
NEXT STEP: ADOPTION
BY THE COMMISSION –
FORESEEN IN JULY
2009
ERTMS - Next Steps
 Forthcoming challenges
 Testing – UNIFE initiative on a ERTMS Testing & Implementation
Platform (ETIP) currently considered for funding by the European
Commission
 Opening of several Cross-border connections over the coming years
(Thalys 13 December)
 Debate on cost structure of onboard equipment to reduce ERTMS
costs for European railways – UNIFE proposals:
 Reduce trackside migration period to minimise the number of onboard
ATPs;
 Standardisation of some interfaces between the OBU and the train
 ETIP
 EU coordination to reduce certification costs
2. Latest in the regulatory environment
UNIFE (& sector) position on role of ERA
 A position paper from UNIFE jointly with the sector associations (CER,
EIM & UITP) is in drafting, proposing a new enhanced role for ERA
 The railway sector is generally satisfied with the work of the Agency
 However there is some scope for improvement:
 Management of the specifications via a systemic approach
 Dual structure between NSAs and ERA – creating difficulties and bureaucratic
burdens, delays and high costs for the authorisation process of subsystems
 Demonstration of compliance with TSI (esp. rolling stock - OTM, is perceived as
an additional administrative burden that brings little benefits
 There is an urgent need for:
 The extension of the scope of the TSI to off-TEN lines
 A corresponding drastic reduction of the number of National Technical Rules
 A real European type certification for rolling stock under the management of ERA
 ERA should become the centre point of a real common safety regime
 A Safety Conference organised by the Commission confirmed this position
Towards a European certification system
for vehicles
 Need for a European vehicles certification system:
 A European wide type certification based on the first authorisation of a vehicle,
strictly limiting additional work to the technical verification of the interfaces
 For further authorisations, limit the NSA right of check to technical compatibility
with the network concerned and to national rules applying to specific cases
 Cross acceptance as a way of progress:
 ERA cross-acceptance Unit is identifying all national technical rules and regulatory
processes used by the NSA for authorisation of vehicles
 Fundamental task for the TSI scope extension and the progressive elimination of
unnecessary national rules, which cannot be justified by true national specific
cases or remaining open points in the TSIs
 UNIFE actively involved in ERA cross-acceptance Unit:
 Update Annex VII of the interoperability directive (parameters to be checked in
conjunction with placing into service of non TSI conformant vehicles) – achieved!
 Cross referencing of all the national technical rules applied by MS for placing
vehicles into service and classifying them (A,B,C) – on going
 Harmonisation of the NSAs processes and decision making criteria – on going
 OTM: Pushing for prioritisation of investigation into specific national rules applied
for track construction and maintenance vehicles and machines
TSI scope extension: sector support
 An extension of the TSI scope is a priority for the sector
 It is an essential condition for the TSIs to reach the harmonisation they
haven’t achieved to date
 The objective proposed by the Sector organisations is a complete
achievement for the end of 2011
 The work is to be closely coordinated within ERA with the comprehensive
identification of all technical rules applied to vehicles authorisation
 It will identify possible additional specific cases concerning rolling stock
and the final selection of those corresponding rules that will remain valid
the day the scope is extended (category C rules)
 Most important for rolling stock (including OTM) but important for other
sub-systems (i.e. Infrastructure) due to the need for specification of
interfaces with rolling stock
 UNIFE and CER have expressed their views on the scope
extension in a common paper, which supports the extension
subject to a structured and economically rational approach
TSI scope extension: conclusive remarks
 TSI scope extension means finally one European railway system
 It must be supported by a suite of well constructed and coherent
specifications
 This extension must be based on a truly system approach, with a focus
on management of interfaces rather than forced standardisation of the
sub-systems. It will enable the railway sector to reduce costs, become
more competitive with other modes of transport and to make an even
greater contribution to the society
 The timing and scale must be carefully discussed, in consideration of
interfaces between sub-systems and of the maturity of the
harmonisation of each of the sub-systems
 The CBA (Cost-Benefit Analysis) criteria for TSI scope extension have
to be developed in co-operation with the railway sector, which is
directly affected by the final outcome
Regulatory situation for OTM
 EC Directives
 Requirements for use of vehicles/equipment on the TEN-T network
 Interoperability Directive -> Rolling Stock TSI, Noise TSI, Freight Wagon TSI
 Machines Directive
 Rolling Stock (PASS&LOC) TSI
 Voluntary application of TSI to OTM
 7.1.2.5 APPLICABILITY RULES FOR OTMS
The application of this TSI to OTMs is not mandatory until its next revision.
The conformity assessment process as described in the section 6.2.1 may be used by
Applicants on a voluntary basis in order to establish an “EC” declaration of verification;
 OTM subject to special treatment with explicit exemption from crashworthiness
and several simplified requirements, included in Special Provisions (Annex C):
 C.1 STRENGTH OF VEHICLE STRUCTURE
 C.2 LIFTING AND JACKING
 C.3. RUNNING DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR
Exemptions:
 4.2.2.5 PASSIVE SAFETY
 4.2.2.10 LOAD CONDITIONS AND WEIGHTED MASS
 4.2.10 FIRE SAFETY AND EVACUATION
Regulatory situation for OTM
 Noise TSI
 Wording implies OTM are clearly out of the scope;
 2.1. Definition of subsystem
The rolling stock that is the subject of this TSI comprises locomotives, multiple units,
freight wagons, and coaches likely to travel on all or part of the trans-European
conventional rail network. Freight wagons include rolling stock designed to carry lorries.
…however one clause states that OTM must be considered as locomotives during
transfer travel
 4.2. Functional and technical specifications of the subsystem
Infrastructure maintenance machines have to be considered as locomotives during
transfer travel, but have not to comply with this TSI, when working.
 Contradiction implies a legal error: a request is likely to be made for correction at
next revision
 Freight Wagon TSI
 OTM out of scope; in some cases (e.g. when hauled) may be incorrectly included.
 1.1 TECHNICAL SCOPE: This TSI covers freight wagons only.
 Improvements to TSIs affecting OTM, extension of their geographic
scope and the cross-acceptance mechanism aims to reduce the
authorisation burden
3. 2010 Market Study and a snapshot of UNIFE
achievements
Market Study 2010
 Worldwide Rail Market Study
 Commissioned by UNIFE and previously undertaken in 2006 & 2008
 UNIFE has invited tenders to conduct new study in 2010
 Market Study 2010
 Project start scheduled early 2010
 To be published ahead of InnoTrans 2010 (September 2010)
Standard study:
Additional modules:
Worldwide Rail
Market Study
Infrastructure
Rail Control
 Optional: extra module on Infrastructure
Possible cooperation
between UNIFE and
EFRTC members in
purchase of optional
Infrastructure module
 Estimated total cost based on last study: ≈ 100,000 Euro
 If 20 companies agree to participate: 5,000 € per company
 Benefits for including Infrastructure module
 Important in view of current economic crisis
 Provides some strategic conclusions unique to infrastructure market
UNIFE Achievements
UNIFE achieved the following results:
 through its “Rail investments in Central and Eastern Europe” initiative has
advocated the development of Master Plans in Poland and Romania and a
change of approach for tenders (from small lots to turnkey approaches)
► Direct impact for UNIFE members: master plans allow for more visibility
in terms of investments; tenders in CEE become more attractive to bigger
contractors.
 make ERTMS implementation mandatory in Europe.
► Direct impact for UNIFE members: EUR 4.1bn in trackside and on-board
ECTS equipment by 2015.
 secure R&D funds worth EUR 79.4m for the ongoing projects till August 2013
► Direct impact for UNIFE members: EUR 8.1m from the European Union to
finance pre-competitive research in 2009.
 bring IRIS on track with more than 300 certificates by today
► Direct impact for UNIFE members: UNIFE members are owners of the IRIS
standard; IRIS aims at improving quality throughout the entire supply chain.
Competitive rail solutions for
sustainable mobility
www.unife.org