The planned delivery date of the two studies, defined in the Mandate (Point 3.2 of the Annex) is 4 November 2010.

Transcription

1 UITP answer to ERA QUESTIONNAIRE on the pertinence of merging the HS and CR TSIs relating to Infrastructure, Energy and Locomotives and Passenger Rolling Stock and on the pertinence of including the requirements established in the "transversal" TSIs relating to SRT, PRM and ise directly in the TSIs related to the different subsystems 1. General information. 1.1 Introduction The European Railway Agency (ERA) has to carry out several complementary studies in relation to the Mandate by the European Commission (Commission Decision C(2010)2576 final for extending the scope of the technical specifications for interoperability (TSIs) in accordance with Article 8(2) of Directive 2008/57/EC). Two of these studies as defined in Point 2.2 of the Annex are: a) Complementary study on the pertinence of merging the HS and CR TSIs relating to Infrastructure, Energy and Locomotives and Passenger Rolling Stock subsystems in one single TSI for each subsystem. As an alternative, this complementary study shall consider keeping for each subsystem two separate documents (one for HS and one for CR) but revising them in order to ensure their consistency with each other. Advantages and disadvantages of both options shall be analysed. b) Complementary study on the pertinence of including the requirements established in the "transversal" TSIs relating to Safety in Railway Tunnels (Decision 2008/163/EC), Persons with Reduced Mobility (Decision 2008/164/EC) and Rolling Stock ise (Decision 2006/66/EC TSI) directly in the TSIs related to the different subsystems. Advantages and disadvantages of both options (including the requirements in the TSIs related to the different subsystems vs. keeping separate transversal TSIs) shall be analysed. In any case the scope and the contents of these TSIs shall be dealt with in a manner coherent with the TSIs related to the different subsystems. The planned delivery date of the two studies, defined in the Mandate (Point 3.2 of the Annex) is 4 vember ERA has prepared this questionnaire in order to collect information necessary for carrying out the analysis. The aim is to receive information about the strategic level opinion of the stakeholders regarding the topics of the two studies. The questionnaire will be distributed to all Representative Bodies, the National Safety Authorities and NB Rail. The aim is to receive information from the stakeholders affected by the possible merging of HS and CR TSIs and the possible splitting of the transversal TSIs: railway operators, infrastructure managers, rail manufacturers, etc. 1

2 Please, find enclosed the Applied Methodology Guidelines, which provide rationale for the questions included in the questionnaire. ERA will appreciate very much your answers and thanks you in advance for your responsiveness. Please, return the completed questionnaires till 9 September 2010 to: Ms Gergana SIMEONOVA Junior Administrator in Interoperability Unit European Railway Agency E mail: gergana.simeonova@era.europa.eu Tel.: If you have any questions related to the questionnaire, you may contact: Ms Gergana SIMEONOVA (at the contacts indicated above) or Mr Olivier PIRON E mail: olivier.piron@era.europa.eu tel.: Information about respondent Please provide contact details of the person who compiled the questionnaire: Name:...Yves AMSLER, Ulrich WEBER... Organisation/Company:...UITP EuroTeam... Address:...6, rue Sainte Marie B 1080 Brussels Belgium... Position:..EuroTeam experts. Telephone: Yves Amsler: ; Ulrich Weber: E mail:...yves.amsler@uitp.org; ulrich.weber@uitp.org... As a very general comment, UITP generally agrees with the CER EIM UIC response which is quoted in the following in normal characters. Additional remarks are given in bold characters preceeded by UITP and highlighted in yellow. 1.3 Data protection Statement 2

3 Any personal data processed for the purpose of questionnaires shall be processed pursuant to Regulation (EC) 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data. It shall be processed solely for the purposes of communicating with the respondents to clarify responses, if necessary. The data subject shall have the right to access his personal data and the right to rectify any such data that is inaccurate or incomplete. Should the data subject have any queries concerning the processing of his personal data, he shall address them to the entity acting as data controller, i.e. the Head of the Economic Evaluation Unit of the European Railway Agency. The data subject shall have right of recourse at any time to the European Data Protection Supervisor. A. General Please, tick the relevant box and write your comments where relevant. If any of the specific questions listed below do not concern your business or you have no opinion, please feel free to skip such questions. In several questions 1 we have specifically indicated the organizations we think are most suitable to provide an answer. However, if you are not representing one of the indicated organisations, but you have an opinion, please feel free to answer those questions. 1. Influence of the number and content of the TSIs on your work Today several different TSIs exist. It may be possible to reduce the number by: i) merging the HS and CR TSIs relating to Infrastructure, Energy and Locomotives and Passenger Rolling Stock subsystems or by ii) splitting the requirements in the transversal TSIs relating to SRT, PRM and NOI and including them in the other TSIs. For this it is important to understand the possible advantages and disadvantages. Question A.1.1.: Is the number of TSIs of influence to the efficiency of your work? If yes, could you please estimate or describe this influence: rmally it would be simpler to use only one TSI for one subsystem and even one TSI for the entire vehicle, including CCS on board assembly where relevant. It has to be realised that the TSI s are cause of an increase in the formal work load, especially for the authorisation for placing in service. A er number of legal documents (TSIs) could help a bit to reduce this work load. Nevertheless, the quality/consistency of the TSIs is for the railway sector of more critical importance, and for this, there are 3 requirements: 1) the TSI shall be studied by relevant specialists 2) the system view shall never be forgotten 3) a quality check shall be performed before issuing an ERA recommendation, in order to ensure inconsistencies between different legal texts do not exist. The priority cannot be given to reducing the number of the TSI documents, the foremost target must be that the quality of the required specification is fulfilled. 1 Question A.1.3.; Question B.1.1.; Question B.1.2 and Question B

4 UITP: In addition, what is missing in the existing TSI not limited to those mentioned in the questionnaire is a clarification of their scope and a check of the interest of their requirements analysed both in the sub system TSI itself and from a system wide perspective. Additional weakness of all TSI definition and adoption process is the lack of consideration of the link between the technical decision maker and the actual payer of the impacted sub system (operators, infrastructure managers, competent authorities in charge of public service requirements ). The rail market should not be so difficult to enter for new competitors or made less and less competitive against private car or trucks due to bureaucratic decisions taken by European or national bodies which do not support the economical consequences of their decisions. Also, the opinion of UITP is that the mandatory technical requirements of any TSI should be strictly limited to what is necessary to achieve the European interoperability. All other requirements aiming at improving the competitiveness of rail in the European and worldwide market should be dealt with through the usual standardization process at the European level and worldwide level as well. The scope of the TSI should be influenced: by the real added value of mandatory TSI against voluntary standards by the real added value of extending the scope of the TSI to different categories of rail services than the one for which they have been developed. Do the HS TSI requirements for a new HSR line intended to be used for HSR services need to be aligned to CR TSI requirements? Similarly, what is really needed to be applied to new dedicated trans European freight corridors in terms of Hs or CR merged TSI or other TSI? Each TSI should clarify in a cover page the scope of services which are targeted: Freight rail versus passenger rail interoperable services: all or part? Long and medium distance interoperable rail services versus short distance rail services: all or part? Are there cases where some assets (stations, tracks or vehicles) are not used by interoperable long/medium distance (freight and/or passenger) services? In such a case, which part of the various TSIs should apply (if any such part?)? Question A.1.2.: For subsystem verification do you prefer to have: a) one TSI covering all requirements for the sub system. we could even think of a wider scope (RST + CCS on board) OR b) several TSIs focused on specific groups of requirements or issues. For the selected option give shortly up to 3 main reasons: Justification for a) : 1. all relevant information is given in one document which is easier for the document management 2. easier to read, which provides the users a better overview of the requirement and will thus 4

5 avoid mistakes 3. it is expected to be relatively easy to combine HS and CR TSIs, using the already available categorisation in both types of TSI Justification for b) : see section PRM / SRT / NOI. Question A.1.3.: (Question for NB Rail and Representative Bodies) When the Member States notify the Bos to the European Commission for the Directive 2008/57/EC, each body s area of responsibility is indicated according to subsystem and TSI. a) Do you foresee specific effect of merging of HS and CR TSIs on the competences of the Bos (notification, responsibilities, selection by applicant, etc.)? If yes, could you please describe this effect:... b) Do you foresee specific effect of splitting of the transversal TSIs on the competences of the Bos (notification, responsibilities, selection by applicant, etc.)? B. Merging of HS and CR TSIs relating to Infrastructure, Energy, and Locomotives and Passenger Rolling Stock. The rationale for all questions in Part B is detailed in Section 5 of the Applied Methodology Guidelines (attached). 1. HS and CR TSIs relating to Locomotives and Passenger Rolling Stock. Briefly, our aim is to estimate the effects of having two TSIs (CR, HS) applying to the same rolling stock to analyse the effect of the possible merging on the stakeholders. For further information, please refer to Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the attached Applied Methodology Guidelines. The table below shows how the 2 RST TSIs (CR and HS) apply, depending on the network on which the RST is intended to be operated and on the design maximum operating speed of the RST: 5

6 Question B.1.1.: (Question for NSAs and some of the RBs (CER, EIM, UNIFE) Please specify the following: a) Approximate % of RST (locomotives, multiple units, passenger carriages) designed for HS network likely to operate on the CR network: ~100% a HS RST is hardly ever designed for HS network only; on the other hand they have not access to the entire CR network (technical compatibility). b) Approximate % of RST designed for HS network likely to operate on the off TEN network: ~100% a HS RST is hardly ever designed for HS network only; on the other hand they have not access to the entire off TEN network (technical compatibility). Question B : In case of RST operated on both CR and HS networks, please specify the following a) Do you foresee difficulties in the application of 2 separate TSIs? If your answer is, please describe the main difficulties: To maintain two TSIs dealing with design requirements for one subsystem will, in our view, lead to inconsistency (in some cases today it already does). We would strongly support the move to only one source document, with all the necessary speed dependent variations, for a given subsystem. b) Do you see any advantage in keeping 2 separate TSIs? If your answer is, please describe the main advantages:... Question B.1.2.: Please specify the following (Question for NSAs and some of the RBs (CER, EIM, UNIFE): B : a) Approximate % of RST designed for CR network likely to operate on the HS network It is not clear if this refers to an operational likelihood under normal operations or degraded conditions such as in the case of maintenance activity. It also depends on what is to be understood as HS network : the answer would be a percentage if the target is lines designed to be operated at ~300kph by class 1 RST (TGV, ICE...) the answer would be a high percentage if the target is lines operated at up to ~220kph where class 6

7 1&2 HS RST as well as CR RST often operate in mix traffic. If the terminals (access to terminals) are to be considered as stated in the 2008/57 Annex I 2.1, then almost all CR RST will enter HS network. UITP: infrastructure managers in cooperation with relevant public authorities (National government/competent Authorities) should have the flexibility to decide how to operate a specific section of network (HS only, or mixed or conventional only, or regional only; freight only, or mixed or passenger only). Most RST fit into TSI requirements for rolling stock, the problem most often comes from the signaling systems which do not allow operating full RST TSI compliant rolling stock. b) Approximate % of RST designed for the off TEN network likely to operate on the HS network: Same as a) B : Do you have additional specific technical requirement (for placing in service) that apply to this RST in order to run on the HS network? If your answer is yes, please indicate the origin of these additional requirements: extracts from the HS RST TSI, or specific national rules: It depends on the operational circumstances see the comment above but, as a minimum, at least for normal operations, specific CCS requirements may apply (until the ERTMS is deployed as the only CCS system). There may also be an issue with aerodynamic requirements on category 1 HS line as CR trains are not designed to cross train running at 300kph. B : Do you have operating restrictions that apply to this RST in order to run on the HS network? UITP:, only if the section is defined as a pure HS section Question B.1.3.: In case of merging the 2 TSIs do you foresee changes regarding the following aspects? Please indicate your opinion regarding the effect of merging upon each aspect listed below. For each please specify up to 3 main reasons for your assessment Consistency big improvement improvement neutral big 1. It will help to remove inconsistency 2. It will ensure that all the requirements for one subsystem are coming from one source 3. It will support one single implementation approach (chap 7) 7

8 Please note that the improvement will only be significant if the costs of undertaking this merging action are lower than the benefits. We would strongly support the ERA undertaking an impact assessment of the likely cost in term of time and manpower in relation to the perceived benefits. Readability and User friendliness. big improvement improvement Neutral big 1. Merging of the TSIs will not in itself improve the text but only having one source would definitely be more user friendly UITP: A better readability and user friendliness should be one of the overall aims of merging TSIs. If this is not achieved, then the whole process has to be questioned. Simplification (limit duplication, clarify interfaces with other subsystems and with registers (Infrastructure and European register of authorized types of vehicles (ERATV). big improvement improvement Neutral big 1. Plugging of gaps and elimination of overlaps and therefore limiting duplication and inconsistencies, is in itself a strong argument for merging the TSIs 2. It will ensure that all the requirements for one subsystem are coming from one source and will considerably simplify the identification and management of interfaces between the subsystems. Facilitate future maintenance (revision) of the TSIs. big improvement improvement Neutral big 1. The improvement in terms of document management will be significant Economic impact favourable impact neutral or negligible impact unfavourable impact 1. Reduction of training and to some extent authorisation costs Question B. 1.4.: Effect on procedures for assessment of conformity or suitability for use of an IC and subsystem verification and placing into service. 8

9 a) Do you foresee specific effect of merging of the HS and CR TSIs for RST subsystem on the procedures for assessment of conformity or suitability for use of an IC? If yes, could you please describe this effect: b) Do you foresee specific effect of merging of HS and CR TSIs for RST subsystem on the procedures related to verification of subsystem and placing into service? If yes, could you please describe this effect: 2. HS and CR TSIs relating to Energy subsystem. For additional information, please refer to Sections 5.1; 5.2 and 5.4 of the attached Applied Methodology Guidelines. Briefly, our aim is to analyse the effect of the possible merging on the stakeholders. As a general response, we would state that all of the points made in relation to the RST subsystem are equally valid for the ENE subsystem. Question B.2.1.: In case of merging the 2 TSIs do you foresee changes regarding the following aspects? Please indicate your opinion regarding the effect of merging upon each aspect listed below. For each please specify up to 3 main reasons for your assessment. Consistency big improvement improvement neutral big Readability and User friendliness. big improvement improvement neutral big Simplification (limit duplication, clarify interfaces with other subsystems and with registers (Infrastructure and European register of authorized types of vehicles (ERATV). big improvement neutral big 9

10 improvement Facilitate future maintenance (revision) of the TSIs. big improvement improvement neutral big Economic impact favourable impact neutral or negligible impact unfavourable impact Question B.2.2.: Effect on procedures for assessment of conformity or suitability for use of an ICs and subsystem verification and placing into service. c) Do you foresee specific effect of merging of the HS and CR TSIs for Energy subsystem on the procedures for assessment of conformity or suitability for use of an IC? If yes, could you please describe this effect:... d) Do you foresee specific effect of merging of HS and CR TSIs for Energy subsystem on the procedures related to verification of subsystem and placing into service? If yes, could you please describe this effect: HS and CR TSIs relating to Infrastructure subsystem For additional information, please refer to Sections 5.1; 5.2 and 5.5 of the attached Applied Methodology Guidelines. Briefly, our aim is to analyse the effect of the possible merging on the stakeholders. As a general response, we would state that all of the points made in relation to the RST subsystem are equally valid for the INF subsystem. Question B.3.1.: In case of merging the 2 TSIs do you foresee changes regarding the following aspects? Please indicate your opinion regarding the effect of merging upon each aspect listed below. For each please specify up to 3 main reasons for your assessment. 10

11 Consistency big improvement improvement neutral big Readability and User friendliness. big improvement improvement neutral big Simplification (limit duplication, clarify interfaces with other subsystems and with registers (Infrastructure and European register of authorized types of vehicles (ERATV). big improvement improvement neutral big Facilitate future maintenance (revision) of the TSIs. big improvement improvement Economic impact neutral big favourable impact neutral or negligible impact unfavourable impact Question B.3.2.: (Question for NSAs) In your Member State is there any plan to develop (build or upgrade) HS lines within next 20 years? Question B.3.3.: Effect on procedures for assessment of conformity or suitability for use of an ICs and subsystem verification and placing into service. 11

12 UITP: The scope of application (IC or sub system) is less important than the clarity of the requirements. e) Do you foresee specific effect of merging of the HS and CR TSIs for Infrastructure subsystem on the procedures for assessment of conformity or suitability for use of an IC? If yes, could you please describe this effect:... f) Do you foresee specific effect of merging of HS and CR TSIs for Infrastructure subsystem on the procedures related to verification of subsystem and placing into service? If yes, could you please describe this effect:... C. Inclusion of the requirements established in the transversal TSIs SRT, PRM and NOI directly in the TSIs related to the different subsystems The rationale for all questions in Part C is detailed in Section 5 of the Applied Methodology Guidelines (attached). 1. SRT TSI Additional information is provided in Sections 5.1, 5.7 and of the Applied Methodology Guidelines (attached). The following scenarios are identified: 1. Scenario ZERO. Retain the SRT TSI which contains requirements for all subsystems involved in safe tunnel operation. However MSs may impose more stringent requirements concerning fixed installations if this is necessary to safely run TSI compliant trains through the tunnel. A. SPLIT scenario. All requirements from the SRT TSI are divided over the RST, ENE, INF, CCS and OPE TSIs. B. LIMITED TSI scenario. Remove the RST requirements from the SRT TSI. The remaining SRT TSI will set out the minimum requirements for fixed installations of tunnels; however MSs may impose more stringent requirements if this is necessary to safely run TSI compliant trains through the tunnel. C. NATIONAL RULES scenario. The current SRT TSI requirements related RST will be incorporated into the RST TSI(s), the specific design rules for the safety of fixed installations should be governed by national rules. These national rules must ensure that TSI compliant trains can safely run through the tunnel and must be authorised to run on this fixed installation without specific check. Question C.1.1: Keep the SRT TSI or split it up? Would you think it is beneficial from interoperability and safety points of view to keep all the minimum requirements for tunnel safety together in the SRT TSI?, because (please list up to 5 main reasons): 12

13 1. Although we might see benefits of splitting this TSI (scenario A or B) nevertheless we think that the cost for splitting will not balance the benefits we could expect. We also think that the risk of inconsistencies and loss of system level approach is high as it would need a very efficient and careful management of the interfaces between Working Parties. This may require a lot of time and energy for verification work. 2. A separate TSI SRT is quite clear and important for demonstrating the safety efforts of the railway sector related to railway tunnels to politicians and fire services. 3. Tunnel safety is based on measures for all the subsystems that support an overall/integrative safety concept (system level approach covering the infrastructure, the train and the operation) UITP: the railway tunnels should be treated as a category of sub system in itself, even though not listed as such in the Annex II of the directives. The system approach for SRT TSI is to be preferred to allow for comparison with what apply for road tunnels, or for non interoperable rail networks like metros. This can help identifying the differences between tunnels depending on their usage. Interoperability is not here the only concern, and more attention could be paid on standardization: a minimum set of standards possibly used on a voluntary basis which would apply to a wider rail market that the European interoperable rail system only (e.g. including metro tunnels in Europe or even worldwide) may provide a higher global added value than focusing on detailed mandatory SRT TSI. w please continue at Question C , because (please list up to 5 main reasons): w please continue at Question C Question C Keeping SRT TSI, but splitting the RST requirements from it: You are in favour of keeping a dedicated TSI for tunnel safety. Since all tunnels must be suitable for safe operation of interoperable trains which are defined by the rolling stock TSIs, do you see a benefit of retaining only the requirements that are not related to rolling stock inside the SRT TSI? These are ENE, INF, CCS and OPE related requirements., because(please list up to 5 main reasons): w please continue with Question C.1.2., because(please list up to 5 main reasons): 1. RST brings the risk of fire into the tunnel area so their safety must be in coherence to the safety measures of the other subsystems. A system level approach is needed. 2. The IM will have problems in describing the processes for the safety certificate, TSI SRT is an accepted code of practice. 13

14 w please continue with Question C.1.2. Question C Retain a high level requirement for tunnels? You are in favour of splitting the SRT TSI and distribute the requirements per subsystem over the respective TSIs. In this scenario there will be no longer a SRT TSI setting out the minimum requirements for tunnel safety. According to the existing SRT TSI, MSs are permitted to require more stringent requirements for the fixed tunnel installations and OPE requirements; it is not obvious that this possibility will be retained in case of splitting up the SRT TSI. This may lead to the loss of the existing system approach for tunnels. Do you consider this a problem? If your answer is, please indicate how this problem could be solved:... If your answer is, please indicate how a sufficient level of tunnel safety should be guaranteed: w please continue at Question C.1.2. Question C 1.2. Operational aspects related to tunnel safety: The OPE TSI and the safety management system require the IM and RUs to have general operational and emergency procedures in place. In addition to those, the SRT TSI contains operational requirements specific to tunnel safety and emergency management. Do you think it is necessary to retain these particular operational requirements to deal with tunnel safety?, as today in the SRT TSI, but they should be moved from the SRT TSI in the OPE TSI, the OPE TSI requirements are sufficient to also deal with tunnels safety C 1.3.: Please fill in the table below, ranking from 1 (the scenario you consider to be the best solution) to 4 (the scenario you consider to be the worst solution) the above scenarios: Scen. Zero Readability and consistency 1 User 1 friendliness Simplification 1 Scen. A Scen. B Scen. C Comments 14

15 Facilitate 1 future maintenance Economic 1 impact if any TOTAL SCORE 5 Please, indicate any other scenario, which you might prefer, but is not listed above: If any, please indicate below the order of preference for the scenarios including the one proposed by you, with the best being number 1: Scenario Zero: [ 1 ] Scenario A: [ ] Scenario B: [ ] Scenario C: [ ] Other Scenario (proposed by you): [ ] Question C.1.4.: Effect on procedures for assessment of conformity or suitability for use of an IC and subsystem verification and placing into service. a) Do you foresee specific effect of the inclusion of the requirements of the SRT TSI into the TSIs relating to the subsystems on the procedures for assessment of conformity or suitability for use of an IC? If yes, could you please describe this effect: b) Do you foresee specific effect of the inclusion of the requirements of the SRT TSI into the TSIs relating to the subsystems on the procedures related to verification of subsystem and placing into service? If yes, could you please describe this effect: Question C.1.5.: According to your experience, what are the main disadvantages of the SRT TSI as a dedicated document (current situation)? Please describe up to 5 main disadvantages: 1. Risk of having inconsistent chapters 7 (implementation) between RST/SRT or INF/SRT Risk of inconsistencies as some topics (e.g. doors for RST) will be subject to requirements in different TSIs 3. It requires system designers to look in more than one source to find the requirements for infrastructure and rolling stock (e.g. RST/INF as well as SRT) Question C.1.6.: According to your experience, what are the main advantages of the SRT TSI as a dedicated 15

16 document (current situation)? Please describe up to 5 main advantages: 1. Overview of the whole safety system in one document, it ensures that this specific topic is dealt by tunnel experts 2. Fire services find the applicable system requirements for the overall safety concept in one document 3. Balance between safety measures between INF and RST can be easily checked 4. SRT TSI is an accepted code of practice for railway tunnels, applicable for the safety certificate 5. The revision process for a separate SRT TSI is much easier especially in handling the required interfaces 2. PRM TSI Additional information is provided in Sections 5.1, 5.7 and of the Applied Methodology Guidelines (attached). Several scenarios are identified: 0. Keep all requirements in a dedicated PRM TSI as in the current situation (Scenario Zero) A. Split all requirements directly in existing TSIs. This can easily be achieved for RST and OPE requirements. The INF TSI that mostly deals with lines and tracks would need to be adapted to incorporate station accessibility requirements. B. Split all OPE and RST requirements. Keep a dedicated PRM TSI for the station accessibility and platform requirements. C. Split all OPE and RST requirements. Include all platform requirements ( to of current PRM TSI) in the INF TSI. Find an alternative solution (for example specific Station TSI) for the station accessibility requirements. Question C.2.1: Please fill in the table below, ranking from 1 (the scenario you consider to be the best solution) to 4 (the scenario you consider to be the worst solution) the above scenarios: : Scen. Scen. A Scen. Scen. Comments Zero B C Readability and consistency 1 User 1 friendliness Simplification 1 Facilitate 1 future maintenance Economic 1 impact if any TOTAL SCORE 5 16

17 Please, indicate any other scenario, which you might prefer, but is not listed above: If any, please indicate below the order of preference for the scenarios including the one proposed by you, with the best being number 1: Scenario Zero: [ 1] Scenario A: [] Scenario B: [ ] Scenario C: [ ] Other Scenario (proposed by you): [ ] Question C 2.2: Please take note of the following quote from the REGULATION (EC) 1371/2007 on rail passengers rights and obligations (article 21) : Railway undertakings and station managers shall, through compliance with the TSI for persons with reduced mobility, ensure that the station, platforms, rolling stock and other facilities are accessible to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility. To your opinion and considering the above, where would the station accessibility requirements best fit in the case of scenarios B and C? (For example: a Reduced PRM TSI, Stations TSI to be created, else...) UITP: The question does not make any reference to Article 22 of the regulation where clause 22.2 clearly mentions that Member States may provide for a derogation [to the assistance at railway stations] in the case of persons travelling on services which are the subject of a public service contract procured in accordance with the Community law in force, on condition that the competent authority has put in place alternative facilities or arrangements guaranteeing an equivalent or higher level of accessibility of transport services. t all services need to be PRM TSI compliant (see remarks in conclusion). Question C.2.3.: According to your experience, what are the main disadvantages of the PRM TSI as a dedicated document (current situation)? Please describe up to 5 main disadvantages: 1. Risk of having inconsistent chapters 7 (implementation) between RST/PRM or INF/PRM 2. Risk of inconsistencies as some topics (e.g. doors for RST) will be subject to requirements in different TSIs 3. It requires system designers to look up more sources to find the applicable requirements (e.g. RST/INF as well as PRM) Question C.2.4.: According to your experience, what are the main advantages of the PRM TSI as a dedicated document (current situation)? Please describe up to 5 main advantages: 1. Overview of the whole system approach to PRM issues in one document, it ensures that this specific topic is dealt by PRM experts 2. Consistent requirements for the station/platform/rst interfaces 3. The revision process for a separate PRM TSI is much easier especially in handling the required 17

18 interfaces UITP: the interaction between sub systems is at the heart of the PRM TSI technical requirements, therefore a system approach should be preferred. The most important point for PRM is the gap between vehicles and platform as well as the overall accessibility. In some cases, a dedicated part pof the platform can be elevated in order to ensure equal level boarding with one car of a train, with no need to upgrade the whole platform. The definition of detailed rail mandatory specifications through TSIs may not be the solution providing the highest (political and economical) added value for the overall internal market (not limited to rail): a solution giving more emphasis on standards applying eventually as well to other modes that specifically interoperable rail could be preferred. Question C.2.5.: What specific problems were faced while using the PRM TSI for sub systems design or assessment? Please list up to 5 specific problems: 1. The current PRM TSI doesn t use enough the module CA which allows a self verification and EC declaration for simple things like size related requirements of steps in station or toilet (costs reduction as well as necessary delays) 2. Some specifications in the TSI PRM are outdated and need revision, one example is the requirement for lighting at railway stations which are unnecessary stringent UITP: When new rolling stock is PRM TSI compliant, it does not mean that it can be properly used, since it may not be necessary or not possible to upgrade old stations not compatible with the PRM requirements for new stations. This is of particular concern for suburban and regional rail services, operated under public service requirements. The Competent Authorities in charge of funding such services may offer better services to PRM through alternative services by road. Question C.2.6.: Effect on procedures for assessment of conformity or suitability for use of an IC and subsystem verification and placing into service. a) Do you foresee specific effect of the inclusion of the requirements of the PRM TSI into the TSIs relating to the subsystems on the procedures for assessment of conformity or suitability for use of an IC? If yes, could you please describe this effect: b) Do you foresee specific effect of the inclusion of the requirements of the PRM TSI into the TSIs relating to the subsystems on the procedures related to verification of subsystem and placing into service? If yes, could you please describe this effect: 18

19 3. NOI TSI Additional information is provided in Sections 5.1, 5.7 and of the Applied Methodology Guidelines (attached). In case the NOI TSI would be split up into the RST TSIs, the requirements would appear in all RST TSIs: CR WAG, CR LOC&PAS and HS RST. Potential future infrastructure parameters would then need to be included in the INF TSI(s). The alternative is to keep the NOI TSI, with or without INF requirements. Question C.3.1.: Is a NOI TSI needed? Most TSIs contain significant amounts of basic parameters described in functional and technical requirements, accompanied by general information about the assessment of the parameters. The NOI TSI contains only one basic parameter, accompanied by very detailed assessment requirements. In this respect the NOI TSI is different from the other structural TSIs. Moreover, noise is a topic for which future improvement is deemed necessary; a separate TSI will facilitate the adjustment of the noise limits over time. Do you think the noise topic is so specific that it justifies this special approach and thus separate TSI?, noise is such a specific topic that it is required to have well defined test procedures at the level of TSIs. It is better to keep all requirements in one TSI also to allow future revisions. UITP: the interaction between sub systems is at the heart of the NOISE TSI technical requirements, therefore a system approach should be preferred. As for example, wheel rail interaction is the most sensible problem for ise. The definition of detailed rail ise mandatory specifications through TSIs may not be the solution providing the highest (political and economical) added value for the overall internal market (not limited to rail): a solution giving more emphasis on standards applying eventually as well to other modes that specifically interoperable rail could be preferred., it could be dealt with in each specific TSI for the subsystems. Question C.3.2.: Merging CR and HS regarding noise: In case it would be decided to retain the NOI TSI as a separate TSI, should the noise related parameters from the HS RST TSI be transferred to the NOI TSI?, it would be good to have all noise requirements for rolling stock inside one TSI. High speed rolling stock could be dealt with as a specific category of rolling stock., it is better to keep them separated. Please motivate you answer: Question C.3.3.: Postpone the decision to split or not the NOI TSI A way forward could be to perform a full revision of the NOI TSI, expected to be delivered by 2013, during which it will be decided if INF parameters need to be included in the NOI TSI. During this revision process it could be the right moment to decide whether or not to split up the NOI TSI into the RST and 19

20 INF TSIs. Would you be in favour of this approach?, it is better to first decide on the way forward with the subject of noise before splitting up the parameters and combine them with other TSIs., the noise parameters for rolling stock and infrastructure can also be dealt with separately, it is not needed to postpone the decision on splitting up. (We think that this question and subsequent ones might in fact need to be re numbered) Question C.3.3.: Effect on procedures for assessment of conformity or suitability for use of an IC and subsystem verification and placing into service. a) Do you foresee specific effect of the inclusion of the requirements of the NOI TSI into the TSIs relating to the subsystems on the procedures for assessment of conformity or suitability for use of an IC? If yes, could you please describe this effect: b) Do you foresee specific effect of the inclusion of the requirements of the NOI TSI into the TSIs relating to the subsystems on the procedures related to verification of subsystem and placing into service? If yes, could you please describe this effect: Question C.3.4.: According to your experience, what are the main disadvantages of the NOI TSI as a dedicated document (current situation)? Please describe up to 5 main disadvantages: 1. Question C.3.5.: According to your experience, what are the main advantages of the NOI TSI as a dedicated document (current situation)? Please describe up to 5 main advantages: 1. It ensures that this specific topic is dealt by noise experts and that all specific noise requirements are easily found. 2. More flexibility to revise the document to take account of improvements in noise research and standardisation. 20

21 3. ise emission is an interface issue and is caused by rolling stock and infrastructure. A separate TSI NOI is therefore in line with the physics. 4. More efficient to identify mirrors and applying for technical opinions 5. Quite clear structure for the manufacturer to award the test procedures for noise emissions to external service provider. D. Other comments Do you have any additional comments related to the above issues? Summarising the above answers, CER and EIM recommend to merge the HS and CR TSIs, which should be a relatively straightforward process (based on existing speed dependent categories already in those TSIs) and to maintain the current TSIs NOI, PRM and SRT for the reason that they concern very specific areas of railway design. For instance complicated interfaces to non railway actors (e.g. local authorities and fire brigades in case of TSI SRT) are involved and very specific requirements and knowledge is contained in the TSI (TSI NOI, requirements for station areas in TSI PRM). Having the legal obligations of that aspect available in transverse TSIs is considered more convenient. Also it will likely save a lot of administrative work to be done by ERA Working Parties. Finally it has to be realised that consistency in the legal requirements contained in the TSIs together with system level approach is of the most critical importance for the railway sector. UITP conclusions: There is certainly a large room for simplification and merge of HS and CR TSI, and the position of the various rail associations CER, EIM, UITP and UNIFE are very similar in that regard. There is also a clear preference from the infrastructure managers and railway undertakings to stick to separate RST, NOISE and PRM TSI, even if improvement in these TSI could be achieved. From UITP point of view, there is a need to clarify the scope of TSI not limited to those mentioned in the questionnaire in terms of categories of rail services to which they apply (fully or partially); each TSI requirement and each asset of the EIM and RUS in terms of individual track, station or rolling stock fleet should be checked against the following categories of services: Current situation or short term target: o High Speed Rail services: o Conventional Rail services: o Freight services: o Passenger services operated under commercial rules: o Passenger services operated under public service contract: o Application for derogation: o Application for specific case: o Application for temporary exemption: o Application for permanent exemption: Long term target: o High Speed Rail services: o Conventional Rail services: 21

22 o Freight services: o Passenger services operated under commercial rules: o Passenger services operated under public service contract: o Application for derogation: o Application for specific case: o Application for permanent exemption: This question of the scope in terms of category of services to be served is particularly important since the scope of the TSI has now to be extended to all parts of the potentially interoperable European Rail System. Another weakness of all TSI definition and adoption process is the lack of consideration of the link between the technical decision maker and the actual payer of the impacted sub system (operators, infrastructure managers, competent authorities in charge of public service requirements ). The rail market should not be so difficult to enter for new competitors or made less and less competitive against private car or trucks due to bureaucratic decisions taken by European or national bodies which do not support the economical consequences of their decisions. The opinion of UITP is that the mandatory technical requirements of any TSI should be strictly limited to what is necessary to achieve the European interoperability. All other requirements aiming at improving the competitiveness of rail in the European and worldwide market should be dealt with through the usual standardization process at the European level and worldwide level as well. The rail services and assets operated only under public services requirements and public service contract should also be identified clearly in terms of inclusion/exclusion (temporary or not) of the scope of the TSIs by the Competent Authorities (they may derogate e.g. from PRM TSI on condition that the competent authority has put in place alternative facilities or arrangements guaranteeing an equivalent or higher level of accessibility of transport services Article 22.2 of the regulation (EC) 1371/2007). The case of TAP TSI is a very specific one, for which both split and merge actions should be decided: according to UITP, and following the overall intention behind the questionnaire of improving the consistency, readability, simplicity of use, TAP TSI should be split into two parts, one related to the relationship with passenger (information, ticketing ) which should become the real TAP TSI, and one related to the interaction between vehicle and infrastructure in terms of data management and exchange, which should be merged into the OPE TSI or covered in a separate document. TAP TSI shall also have to be confronted against the ITS requirements resulting from the entering into force of other directives like the INSPIRE Directive 2007/2/EC and the ITS Directive 2010/40/EU. A last comment is that the impact assessment may be very difficult to achieve under a cost/benefit analysis for lack of appropriate data (the local rail market is very fragmented). The cost/benefit analysis should be complemented by a multi criteria analysis pointing out the pros and cons for each one of the various stakeholders, depending on the TSIs and on the category of rail services which are at stake. Stakeholders include the European Community, the Infrastructure Managers and the Railway Undertakings; they may also include other stakeholders like the Member States and the Competent Authorities in charge of Public Service Requirements. 22