Rail Interoperability

Transcription

1 Rail Interoperability Gerhard Troche DG MOVE B2 Single European Rail Area 2014 CEF Transport Calls Info Days Brussels, 10 October 2014

2 Indicative budget and specific objectives 50 million (general envelope) support actions in the following priority areas: 1) Interoperability of the rail system as set out in Directive 2008/57/EC, addressing: Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) concerning Telematics Applications for Passengers (TAP) and Freight (TAF) Railway system compliance with Interoperability and Safety Directives (including TSIs other than TAF/TAP) and TEN-T Guidelines 2) Rail Freight Corridors Regulation 913/2010/EC concerning a European Rail Network for Competitive Freight ("RFC-Regulation")

3 Proposals Can address elements of more than one specific objective Can be implemented in one or more Member States Cannot address ERTMS-related activities (separate Specific Priority) Important: clear definition of projects including identification of expected deliverables contributing to the call objectives!

4 Interoperability area: TSI TAP/TAF Expected objectives of proposals: ensuring easy user access to information about itinerary, time and availability Consultation and dissemination activities promoting TAP and TAF eligible Priority: proposals demonstrating high EU-added value

5 Interoperability area: TSI TAP/TAF Proposals should demonstrate their contribution to: Ensuring quality management of data for TAP TSI Supporting SME railway undertakings in TAP implementaiton Supporting stakeholders to develop common Telematics Reference Files Supporting stakeholders to implement and ensure compliance with TAP/TAF TSI (e.g. unique train ID, train running information, path requests, service disruption, electronic consignment order, etc.) Supporting stakeholders to develop and implement compliant databases and/or tools

6 Interoperability area: Compliance with IOP and Safety Directives Expected objectives of proposals: Reduction of the EU railway network diversity by ensuring compliance of railway subsystems with: applicable TSIs, and/or infrastructure requirements (TEN-T Guidelines) Priority: proposals demonstrating high EU-added value

7 Interoperability area: Compliance with IOP and Safety Directives Proposals should demonstrate their contribution to: Reducing the diversity of fixed equipment Using a location-specific risk model to quantify safety benefit from investments Supporting RUs in ensuring compliance with IOP and Safety Directives, including TSI OPE Supporting the development and establishment of registers, in particular a register of all existing infrastructure

8 Rail Freight Corridors Expected objectives of proposals: Establishment and development of the RFCs Improved customer orientation Co-operation between corridors Eligible activities: Activities of the RFC governance bodies covered by Regulation 913/2010/EC (e.g. elaboration/update of market studies and corridor documents, performance and customer satisfaction surveys, development/ adaptation of IT-tools, implementation/adaptation of C-OSS, etc.)

9 Rail Freight Corridors - Eligible (continued): - Studies related to deployment of TEN-T infrastructure requirements - Activities aiming at strengthened customer orientation (incl. Advisory Groups, training of applicants, Corridor websites, dissemination and promotional activities) - Activities aiming at coordination between different RFCs and between RFCs and CNCs - Activities for improved co-ordination of train paths offer -No proposals for works under this priority!

10 Rail Freight Corridors Activities must aim at the establishment/development/ improvement of the RFC Priority: proposals demonstrating high EU-added value Focus on: Removal of bottlenecks Deployment of interoperable systems TEN-T infrastructure requirements/improved loading gauges Extension of RFCs Improved customer interfaces across RFCs Cooperation and harmonisation between RFCs

11 Rail Freight Corridors Proposals may be submitted by Rail Freight Corridors (legal entities) Infrastructure Managers on behalf of groups of IMs (for RFCs which are not legal entities) Member States and their authorities Cooperation organisations and associations representing actors involved in/concerned by RFCs

12 Questions 12