INTEROPERABILITY UNIT UNION RAIL SYSTEM SUBSYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN RAILWAY AGENCY INTEROPERABILITY UNIT UNION RAIL SYSTEM SUBSYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE Reference: IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Document Type: Final Report Version : Final Date : 17/12/2012 Edited by Reviewed by Approved by Name Jan-Christian ARMS Andrzej HARASSEK Denis BIASIN Maciej SAWICKI Martin SCHROEDER Position Project Officers Head of Sector Head of Unit Date & Signat. 17/12/ /12/ /12/2012 File : IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 PAGE 1 OF 34

2 AMENDMENT RECORD Version Date Section number Modification/description Author /11/2012 All First draft Jan-Christian ARMS /12/2012 All Revision Maciej SAWICKI /12/ Adding Impact Assessment Martin SCHROEDER /12/2012 All Validation Jan-Christian ARMS IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 2/34

3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Background to the assignment Summary Referenced documents and abbreviations Referenced documents Abbreviations INF TSI Working Party Terms of reference Composition of the WP Calendar of meetings and level of participation Working method Development of the preliminary draft TSI Inclusion of requirements for the 1520 mm track gauge system Distance between track centres Maximum gradients Rate of change of cant (as a function of time) Abrupt change of cant deficiency Design equivalent conicity Track resistance to applied loads The set of track quality limits Platforms Equivalent conicity in service Interoperability constituents Consultation Impact assessment Expected Benefits Impact on Administrative Costs Interoperability Constituents (IC) Conformity Assessment on Subsystem level Administrative Cost Impact for the Off-TEN Potential Improvements of the Conformity Assessment Specific cases IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 3/34

4 9. Conclusions Delivery of the final draft TSI Activities for future revisions Annex A Position of ERA regarding consultation comments Annex B Status of Specific Cases IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 4/34

5 Table of tables Table 1 : Referenced documents... 7 Table 2 : Abbreviations... 8 Table 3: Composition of the INF TSI WP Table 4: ERA staff involved in INF TSI WP Table 5: Calendar of WP INF meetings Table 6 : Participation of Sector Organisations and NSAs at WP meetings Table 7: Composition of the INF 1520 SG Table 8 : Opinions issued concerning the preliminary INF TSI Table 9 : ERA position related to comments received from CER [14] Table 10 : ERA position related to comments received from Altran España [15] Table 11 : Status of Specific Cases per Member State related to the INF subsystem IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 5/34

6 1. Introduction 1.1 Background to the assignment The activity of the WP INF TSI assigned to ERA is based on the mandate of the European Commission addressed to the Agency in annex of Commission Decision C(2010)2576 [1]. The final draft INF TSI, version 4.0, is accompanied by this report. The report comprises of essential information on the development of the TSI and the decisions of the WP since the preliminary draft TSI was delivered in May 2012 to DG MOVE. Moreover, it contains a first evaluation of the TSI impact. 1.2 Summary The Infrastructure WP had three meetings within a period of half a year since submission of the preliminary draft INF TSI and is delivering the final draft TSI together with this report on time. Due to the extension of the scope of the INF TSI, the technical characteristics and the performance of the Infrastructure subsystem in the Off TEN will not be influenced by introducing the INF TSI. However, the impact for the Off TEN in terms of total administrative costs is estimated with 540 Mio over the lifetime of the Infrastructure Subsystem (100 years). This would result in an average yearly cost impact of about 5.4 Mio for all European Member States. The average costs for the assessment of the INF subsystem 4.5 k /km. It is highly recommended in the framework of future revisions of TSIs to investigate, whether an additional module for conformity assessment at subsystem level without the need for notified body assessment should be developed. The process of validation of the Specific Cases is still on-going and depends on the support of MSs. Therefore the final draft INF TSI, version 4.0, does not contain any Specific Case in section 7.7 yet. It is planned to finish processing of Specific Cases by end of March 2013 and to deliver the complete INF TSI in time for the RISC meeting planned to be held in June Notwithstanding the need to include Specific Cases, the final draft TSI is suitable for vote by the Member States. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 6/34

7 2. Referenced documents and abbreviations 2.1 Referenced documents Table 1 : Referenced documents Ref. Document Reference Official Journal Last Modification Version [1] Commission Decision C(2010)2576 final of concerning a mandate to the European Railway Agency to develop and review Technical Specifications for Interoperability with a view to extending their scope to the whole rail system in the European Union [2] Directive 2008/57/EC Interoperability of the rail system NA L 191, Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community [3] Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a European railway agency (Agency Regulation) (Official Journal of the European Union L 164 of 30 April 2004) [4] Regulation (EC) No 1335/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 establishing a European Railway Agency (Agency Regulation) L 220, Volume L 354, Volume [5] Directive 2004/49/EC Safety on the Community s railways, amended by Directive 2008/110/EC [6] Work Program of the Agency for implementing the Commission Decision C(2010)2576 concerning a Mandate to the European Railway Agency to Develop and Review Technical Specifications for Interoperability with a View to Extending Their Scope to the Whole Rail System in the European Union NA NA NA IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 7/34

8 Table 1 : Referenced documents Ref. Document Reference Official Journal Last Modification Version [7] HS INF TSI 2008/217/EC OJ L 77, , p.1 [8] CR INF TSI 2011/275/EU OJ L 126, , p. 53 [9] SRT TSI 2008/163/EC OJ L64, , p.1 [10] PRM TSI 2008/164/EU OJ L64, , p.72 [11] Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council on union guidelines for the development of the trans-european transport network COM(2011) 650/2 [12] Working document, Draft Technical Specification for Interoperability,, version 2.0 [13] Union rail system, Subsystem Infrastructure, Preliminary report, IU-INF-PreRep 1.0 [14] Position paper, version 7.0, Revision of the Technical Specification for Interoperability / Infrastructure (INF) NA NA NA NA Preliminary draft NA Final NA [15] Mail Javier Echarte NA [16] ERA report Extension of field of application of TSIs, version 2.02 NA Final 2.2 Abbreviations Table 2 : Abbreviations Abbreviation / Term APIS BP CCS CEN CENELEC CR ENE ERA / The Agency ERATV ERTMS Full text / Definition Authorisation for placing in service Basic Parameter Control-Command and Signalling subsystem European Committee for Standardization European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation Conventional rail system Energy subsystem The European Railway Agency European Register of Authorised Types of Vehicles European Rail Traffic Management System IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 8/34

9 Table 2 : Abbreviations Abbreviation / Term ETCS HS IC IEC INF ISP IU IA LOC & PAS Mandate 2010 MS NA NB-Rail NoBo NSA RAC RB RFS RINF RST RST TSIs RU SC SG SMS Stakeholders TSI WAG Full text / Definition European Train Control System High speed rail system Interoperability Constituent International Electro-technical Commission Infrastructure subsystem Interchangeable Spare Part Interoperability Unit of the European Railway Agency Impact Assessment Locomotives and Passenger Rolling Stock [1] Commission Decision C(2010)2576 final concerning a mandate to the European Railway Agency to develop and review Technical Specifications for Interoperability with a view to extending their scope to the whole rail system in the European Union EU and EFTA Member State Not Applicable Network of notified bodies Notified Body National Safety Authority Risk Acceptance Criteria Representative bodies from the railway sector referred to in Article 3 paragraph 2 of [3] Regulation (EC) 881/2004, as modified by [4] Regulation (EC) 1335/2008 Request for a standard issued by ERA to Standardisation bodies Register of Infrastructure Rolling Stock For the purpose of the report, this term in plural refers to the following two TSIs: WAG TSI, HS RST TSI and CR LOC&PAS TSI Railway Undertaking Specific Case Subgroup created to deal with particular issues Safety Management System For the purpose of the report, stakeholders are all the bodies impacted by the study Technical Specification for Interoperability Wagon IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 9/34

10 3. INF TSI Working Party 3.1 Terms of reference The Agency, fulfilling the work programme, commences the process of revision of conventional and high speed rail TSIs on INFRASTRUCTURE subsystem, following the mandate received from the Commission to develop and review TSIs (Commission Decision of 29/04/2010). Terms of reference for the INF TSI Working Party are described in section 3.1 of the preliminary report [13]. 3.2 Composition of the WP The WP has been drawn up following Article 3 of the Agency regulation [4]. Table 3: Composition of the INF TSI WP Sector Name of expert Nomination since - until organisation CER Frank BUCHMANN 1 st meeting CER Mario TESTA 1 st meeting CER Michael WALTER 1 st meeting EIM Andy FRANKLIN 1 st meeting EIM Jan MYS 1 st meeting EIM Kari OJANPERÄ, replaced by: Johan GUNNARSSON 1 st meeting till 8 th meeting 9th meeting UITP Peter HAERING 1 st meeting UNIFE Thierry FORT 1 st meeting UNIFE Helmut JAEGER 1 st meeting UNIFE Imrich KORPANEC 1 st meeting UNIFE deputy Albert JOERG 1 st meeting NSA Austria Johannes BRUNNER 1 st meeting NSA Denmark Kurt LENTZ, replaced by: Mari RUUHI 1 st meeting till 7 th meeting 8 th meeting NSA Finland Une TYYNILA 1 st meeting NSA France Claude COEUR 1 st meeting till 10 th meeting NSA France Frédéric HENON 1 st meeting NSA Germany Peter HEFER 1 st meeting NSA Italy Angela FANFANI 1 st meeting till 11 th meeting NSA Norway Geir HAGBØ 1 st meeting NSA Poland Jerzy KASSOLIK 1 st meeting IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 10/34

11 Table 3: Composition of the INF TSI WP Sector Name of expert Nomination since - until organisation NSA Sweden Reijo ROSENDAL 1 st meeting NSA Spain Antonio CORRAL PEREZ 1 st meeting NSA Spain Mario FERREIRO CASAL 1 st meeting NSA Spain David PEREZ MARTIN 1 st meeting NSA UK Ian MORRICE 1 st meeting ERA staff was involved in the working party as listed in Table 4. Table 4: ERA staff involved in INF TSI WP ERA Unit / Function Interoperability Project Officer Interoperability Project Officer Interoperability Head of Sector Economic Evaluation - Project Officer Name Jan-Christian ARMS Maciej SAWICKI Andrzej HARASSEK Martin SCHROEDER 3.3 Calendar of meetings and level of participation The WP met nine times to draft the preliminary draft TSI as follows: Table 5: Calendar of WP INF meetings WP10 19/20 June 2012 WP11 4/5 September 2012 WP12 13/14 November 2012 The participation of the sector organisations is shown in Table 6 by the number of meetings attended. Table 6 : Participation of Sector Organisations and NSAs at WP meetings Sector Attendance to WP Organisation [number of meetings] CER 3 EIM 3 UITP 2 UNIFE 3 NSA Austria 1 NSA Denmark 2 IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 11/34

12 Table 6 : Participation of Sector Organisations and NSAs at WP meetings Sector Attendance to WP Organisation [number of meetings] NSA Finland 3 NSA France 2 NSA Germany 0 NSA Italy 3 NSA Norway 3 NSA Poland 2 NSA Sweden 2 NSA Spain 3 NSA UK 3 The 12th meeting of the WP in November 2012 was held as a joint meeting with the Infrastructure 1520 Subgroup, the experts of which are presented in the Table 7. Table 7: Composition of the INF 1520 SG Sector organisation CER CER UNIFE UNIFE EIM EIM NSA Finland NSA Lithuania NSA Latvia NSA Poland NSA Estonia Name of expert Naglis ČEŠKEVIČIUS Argo TÖLP Christophe MULLER Jean-Marie BODSON Tuomo VIITALA Juha-Matti VILPPO Esko SANDELIN Tomas TATARÉLIS Arijs TUNKELIS Eugeniusz GARGALA Viljar LUHTEIN IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 12/34

13 4. Working method The global time plan for revision of the TSIs is given in the work programme [6] issued by the Agency in July Within the second stage of work for delivering the final draft TSI up from May to December 2012, the following subjects were analysed: finalising input related to aerodynamic and dynamic issues in cooperation with LOC&PAS TSI revising interfaces with LOC&PAS TSI introducing requirements for parameters of the 1520 mm track gauge system in chapter 4 of the TSI finalising chapter 5 - additional requirements for interoperability constituents finalising input related to structures loads issues in cooperation with Structures Subgroup verifying chapters 6 and 7 against rules for assessment parameters and implementation of TSI in respect to all track gauge systems. The current status of work is in accordance with the work programme [6]. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 13/34

14 5. Development of the preliminary draft TSI 5.1 Inclusion of requirements for the 1520 mm track gauge system After five meetings of the Infrastructure 1520 SG, requirements related to the 1520 mm track gauge system have been developed and introduced into chapter 4 of the TSI. Where necessary, assessment rules have been created respectively in section 6.2 of the TSI. The general rule dealing with different track gauge systems is set out in paragraph 1.3(2) of the INF TSI: Requirements in this TSI are valid for all track gauge systems, unless the paragraph refers to specific track gauge systems or to specific nominal track gauges. An example for a basic parameter being valid for all track gauges is Track resistance to vertical loads (clause ), where no specific nominal track gauge is mentioned. Paragraph (4) specifies the requirements of structure gauge for the 1520 mm track gauge system, replacing paragraphs 1 to 3 of the same basic parameter relevant for standard European nominal track gauge of 1435 mm. 5.2 Distance between track centres Application of table 4 Minimum nominal horizontal distance between track centres of paragraph (2) setting out minimum distances is limited to new lines only. A minimum distance between track centres of 4.0 m is required only for speeds between 200 and 250 km/h. A suitable value for speeds between 160 km/h and 200 km/h is 3.8 m since it has been largely proven in Spain with bigger gauges. At lower speeds aerodynamic effects are less relevant and local constraints limiting the track centre distance are more important. Margins for aerodynamic effects are considered with such a distance, which was confirmed by aerodynamic experts at the meeting WG AERO on 17 September Maximum gradients The choice of a gradient for a project is in fact a business case, which will be taken with regard to the existing network surrounding the new line and the rolling stock intended to be operated. It is not relevant for interoperability. Following a proposal of the INF/RST/DYN interface meeting held on 23 October, the WP decided to remove the maximum gradients for main tracks related to dedicated passenger (40 mm/m) and mixed traffic (35 mm/m). IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 14/34

15 Clause finally only requires maximum gradient of 2.5 mm/m for tracks through passenger platform for new lines and for new stabling tracks. 5.4 Rate of change of cant (as a function of time) Former clause was decided to be deleted together with Annex I as the requirement is not relevant for compatibility between vehicles and track. Limits are not relevant for interoperability. 5.5 Abrupt change of cant deficiency An additional maximum value of abrupt change of cant deficiency of 25 mm was introduced in paragraph (1) for speeds of more than 230 km/h. 5.6 Design equivalent conicity Front-to-front dimensions (S R ) for wheelsets of different track gauge systems have been introduced in paragraph (4) points (f) to (g). The methodology modelling wheelsets passing over designed track conditions to check equivalent conicity design values is always the same, only maximum and minimum dimensions vary depending on track gauge. Thus, specific cases related to track gauge are no longer necessary for equivalent conicity. 5.7 Track resistance to applied loads Assessment procedure Assessment of track resistance to applied loads is specified in clause giving presumption of conformity at design stage by reference to an existing track design. A track design is defined by technical characteristics set out in annex C.1 to the TSI and by operating conditions set out in Annex D.1 to the TSI. The track design is assessed by confirming technical characteristics and operating conditions and reference to previous use by a notified body, which can be done prior and independent to a project. The conformity survey group supported the particular procedure of assessment prior to a project and proposed to cover it with an intermediate statement of conformity according to Directive 2008/57/EC article 18 point 4 [2]. Assessment of track resistance for switches and crossings is performed in a similar way by reference to annexes C.2 and D.2 of the TSI. 5.8 The set of track quality limits Determination of immediate action, intervention and alert limits The obligation for IMs to settle values for intervention and alert limits was removed from the TSI, as not being relevant for interoperability. The list of IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 15/34

16 immediate action limits of paragraph (1) ((a) to (g)) is not needed any more and thus paragraph (1) is deleted. Paragraph (2) [as numbered in version 2.0 of the TSI] will be moved to the application guide for clarification: The measurement conditions for these parameters are set out in chapter 5 of EN :2003 +A1: (3) [as numbered in version 2.0 of the TSI] deleted from the TSI and shifted to the application guide, subject to agreement discussion with of WP DYN: When determining the limits for lateral alignment and longitudinal level, the Infrastructure Manager shall take into account: - lateral alignment standard deviations and - longitudinal level standard deviations representing existing European track quality. Deletion is justified, as limits on alignment and longitudinal level are now introduced in the INF TSI, representing European track quality. The reference to the maintenance plan and section 4.5 (Paragraph (4)) is not necessary, so that clause as a whole is removed from chapter 4 of the TSI. The immediate action limit for alignment and for longitudinal level The new paragraph (1) of the TSI specifies alignment by reference to section 8.5 (table 6) of EN : A1:2010. The new paragraph (1) defines longitudinal level by reference to section 8.3 (table 5) of EN : A1:2010. The immediate action limit for mean track gauge Since this paragraph ( (1) in version 2.0 of the TSI) does not set any real action limit for maintenance it is not necessary in the TSI and was removed. Rail head profile for rail grinding There is no specification in the TSI that the rail has to be grinded. This is a standalone requirement with no use in the context of the legal text. Paragraph (1) of version 2.0 of the TSI is therefore deleted. The requirement is not relevant for interoperability, neither for design, nor for immediate action. It is proposed to move the text to the application guide. 5.9 Platforms Application of this TSI to existing platforms Rules already available in the PRM TSI [10] related to upgrade and renewal of platforms were reworded and adapted to the INF TSI as part of chapter 7 IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 16/34

17 Implementing the Infrastructure TSI. Particularly it is permitted to apply other platform heights than required in paragraph (1), in line with an upgrade or renewal programme or if the work would require structural alteration to any load bearing element. Additional explanations in the application guide are needed, especially for any load bearing element Equivalent conicity in service Following a decision of the joint INF/RST/DYN interface meeting, actions to be undertaken if ride instability is detected, are specified more detailed in the TSI for RU and IM. Clause Equivalent conicity in service has been created, falling under the general provision of section 2.5 to be implemented in the infrastructure manager s safety management system. Equivalent conicity in service is checked by modelling wheelsets (as defined for design equivalent conicity) passing over the site where ride instability was detected, taking into account existing track gauge and rail profile. Further measures depend on whether equivalent conicity in service limits values for track as set out in table 12 of the TSI are complied with or not. In case the values are met, a joint investigation together with the RU is required to determine the reason for the instability. If not, the IM has to improve his track quality e.g. by rail grinding Interoperability constituents Finally the INF WP decided to leave Chapter 5 and section 6.1 of the final draft INF TSI similar to the specification and assessment of ICs in the CR INF TSI in force. However, some additional specification and assessment procedures for the IC s The rail and Track sleeper have been introduced. Interoperability constituent The rail Paragraph (2) about rail steel contains new requirements related to rail hardness, tensile strength and fatigue test, which are to be assessed by applying particular paragraphs of the standard on Vignole railway rails 46 kg/m and above (EN ). Interoperability constituent Track sleepers The requirements for track sleepers are completed by paragraph 5.3.3(2) requiring a design track gauge of 1437 mm for the 1435 mm track gauge system. In order for sleeper manufacturers to adapt their production to this new requirement and to be able to sell track sleepers on stock, paragraph (1) allows for a transition period until 1 June 2021 with design track gauges below 1437 mm. The value for design track gauge for track sleepers will avoid in the future tight track gauges for controlling equivalent conicity in service. As track gauge in IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 17/34

18 service normally will not get smaller, a mean track gauge in service of 1434 mm is automatically ensured and it was possible to close the open point on equivalent conicity in service from the HS and CR INF TSI. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 18/34

19 6. Consultation Having regard to Article 6 point 8 of Directive 2008/57/EC [6] social parters in the context of the Social Dialogue Committee shall be consulted before submitting the final draft TSI for adoption to the RISC. The preliminary draft INF TSI in its version 2.3 was published the 9 July The deadline for comments of three months ended on 9 October Table 8 lists the statements received by social partners within the consultation period. Nr. Association Table 8 : Opinions issued concerning the preliminary INF TSI 1 Community of European railway and infrastructure companies (CER) Document Ref. N Type of comments [14] General remarks Detailed and editorial comments 2 Altran España [15] Detailed comment ERA answers to all detailed comments are listed in Table 9 and Table 10 of Annex A to this report. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 19/34

20 7. Impact assessment The method chosen to evaluate the impact of the revised INF TSI is the same as for the CR INF TSI. In a first step it was analysed the critical impact resulting from the revised basic parameters in chapter 4. The experts in the INF WP did not identify in general any critical basic parameter in the TSI, neither for the TEN nor for the Off-TEN. Only one basic parameter relating to platform height (originating from PRM TSI see chapter 5.9) was considered to be critical especially for specific networks in Off-TEN. Specific Cases in the INF TSI are foreseen which already were specified in the PRM TSI. The impact assessment of the CR INF TSI concluded that the main impact does not result from the technical specification (basic parameters) but from the minimum performance requirements of the category of lines. For this reason, the revised INF TSI introduces new categories for freight and passenger traffic which take into account today s performance in the Off-TEN For Passenger Traffic: Category P6 Structure Gauge G1, Minimum Axle Load 12t, no minimum values for speed and train length For Freight Traffic: Category F4 Structure Gauge G1, Minimum Axle Load 18t, no minimum values for speed and train length It can be assumed that all existing lines in the geographical scope of the Interoperability Directive will meet these minimum performance requirements and there is no legal obligation to increase the performance only in order to meet the provisions of the TSI (in the framework of projects where the TSI has to be applied). As a new aspect, the impact assessment focused on the additional cost impact for projects concerning the Off-TEN resulting from conformity assessment procedures. 7.1 Expected Benefits Main beneficiaries especially from the extension of scope are railway undertakings. Assuming that 70% - 75% of all European Rolling Stock is currently operating in Off-TEN as well as TEN (a similar assumption was done in the impact assessment for other subsystems as well, e.g. CCS TSI Scope extension), vehicle authorisation might be more complex in future if Off TEN infrastructure is not covered in the TSI. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 20/34

21 Nevertheless the Infrastructure subsystem in the Off-TEN is not completely different as the CCS subsystem where national Class B systems are installed and which require the installation of specific Class B systems in the vehicles. The infrastructure subsystem is only with less performance in terms of structure gauge, axle load, train length and train speed and TSI conforming vehicle might operate in the Off-TEN depending on their vehicle characteristics. Due to the extension of the scope of the INF TSI, the technical characteristics and the performance of the Infrastructure subsystem in the Off TEN will not be influenced by introducing the INF TSI. Therefore the positive impact on vehicle authorisation is very limited and cannot be quantified. 7.2 Impact on Administrative Costs In 2012 the Agency launched a questionnaire dealing with the administrative cost impact resulting from conformity assessment (on IC level and especially on subsystem level). Infrastructure projects already follow a national legal framework concerning building and construction law which more or less ensures that the infrastructure meets the requirements of the TSI. The extension of scope to the Off-TEN would mean for renewal/upgrade projects, that they have to follow two legal frameworks, one resulting from national construction/building law and one from the Interoperability Directive. This additional impact was analysed based on experience from the application of the HS INF TSI (ENE, PRM and SRT TSI as well) in High Speed TEN projects. No experience was available from Conventional Rail TEN projects. Feedback was received from Infrastructure Managers and NSAs from DE, AT and ES Interoperability Constituents (IC) The expected benefit of an IC in general is a facilitation of conformity assessment on subsystem level. The HS and CR INF TSI presume conformity for the basic parameters railhead profile and track resistance to lateral, vertical and braking/acceleration forces if ICs (especially IC Rail ) are used in the subsystem. In bilateral meetings it was stated that this reduces costs for the assessment of the subsystem by 10-15%. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 21/34

22 The revised draft is more flexible by presuming conformity to basic parameter track resistance if existing track designs are used (see chapter 5.7). An existing track design does not require the use of ICs. For this reason the benefit resulting from the definition of ICs in the new TSI is very limited. Nevertheless the reported cost impact resulting from the definition of ICs is very limited as well. For IC Rail manufactures in general applied module CH which requires the assessment of the quality management by a Notified Body. The Notified Body issues a Quality Management Approval and the Manufacturer declares on his sole responsibility that the IC satisfies the requirements of the TSI. The cost impact for the assessment of 18 rail profiles was 75 k (in a timeframe of 3 years!). The marginal costs to assess one additional rail profile decrease significantly with increasing number of rail profiles Conformity Assessment on Subsystem level According to the provided feedback, Infrastructure Managers mainly applied module SG (EC verification based on unit verification). For each INF project, a Notified Body issues an EC certificate of verification. Absolute costs for this assessment were reported in the range of 4-5 k / km line. These costs include the preparation of the file as well as the costs for the assessment by a Notified Body. Relative costs (in relation to total project costs) were reported in the range of 0.01 % up to 1 % depending on the size and complexity of the project. One infrastructure manager reported 0,3 % as average value. One infrastructure manager uses a value of 1 % for the planning of project costs. All relative figures concern the assessment of all trackside related subsystems (INF, ENE, PRM, SRT but not CCS) Administrative Cost Impact for the Off-TEN The total administrative costs impact for the Off TEN is estimated with 540 Mio over the lifetime of the Infrastructure Subsystem (100 years). This would result in an average yearly cost impact of about 5.4 Mio for all European Member States. This calculation bases on the following assumptions The total length of the Off-TEN Network in Europe is about km (see [16]) The average costs for the assessment of the INF subsystem 4.5 k /km. These costs might be higher in first years after the revised TSI is in force. But they might decrease when projects gained experience from the application of the procedure. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 22/34

23 It has to be analysed if already the national legal framework from constructing/building law provided sufficient certainty that the requirements of the TSI are met and how duplications of checks (within the national legal framework and within the Interoperability Directive) can be avoided. 7.3 Potential Improvements of the Conformity Assessment The majority of Basic Parameters will be assessed at design stage (paper proof), only a very limited number of basic parameters (e.g. structure gauge, distance between track centres) is verified before putting into service (which could require additional and expensive site testing). Therefore the technical requirements in the field of conformity assessment are very limited for the INF subsystem and there is no further potential for improvement. Experts suggested the following ideas to improve the conformity assessment and thus to reduce the cost impact: Specification and harmonisation of the structure of the technical file Harmonised Inspection Catalogue for the assessment of the subsystem New Module for verification of trackside related subsystem which does not require an independent assessment by a notified body and where the applicant ensures and declares under his sole responsibility that the INF subsystem is conforming to the TSI requirements The first two ideas address the criticism from Infrastructure Managers about duplications of verification procedures. It seems that conformity assessment procedures in the framework of the national legal framework are not accepted by Notified Bodies for the assessment of the subsystem in the framework of the Interoperability Directive. In addition Infrastructure Managers reported that the structure of a technical file supported by one Notified Body must not necessarily be accepted by another Notified Body. The Member State Austria had already implemented the second idea and successfully introduced a harmonised inspection catalogue within their railway sector. The third idea put into question the value of an independent assessment of infrastructure subsystems by a notified body considering the fact that, after the subsystem is placed into service, the applicant will operate such infrastructure and within his SMS he has to guarantee during operation that the INF subsystem meets the requirements of the TSI. The feedback provided in bilateral meetings estimated potential savings of the conformity assessment of at least 30% if it done by the applicant. For this reason it is highly recommended in the framework of future revisions of TSIs to investigate IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 23/34

24 whether an additional module for conformity assessment at subsystem level without the need for notified body assessment should be developed. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 24/34

25 8. Specific cases Member States submitted 200 Specific Cases related to the subsystem infrastructure in total. The current status of processing per MS is shown in Table 11 of Annex B to this report. The majority of Specific Cases is related to track gauges systems other than the 1435 mm track gauge system. Generally, it is intended to include harmonised parameters of track gauge systems into chapter 4 of the TSI, like for the 1520 mm track gauge system. If a value of a parameter is MS specific, it remains a SC in chapter 7 of the TSI. In order to select harmonised parameters, meetings with the MSs concerned are necessary. The process of validation of the Specific Cases is still on-going and depends on the support of MSs. Therefore the final draft INF TSI, version 4.0, does not contain any Specific Case in section 7.7 yet. It is planned to finish processing of Specific Cases by end of March 2013 and to deliver the complete INF TSI in time for the RISC meeting planned to be held in June Depending on the discussions with MSs, there might also be changes necessary related to chapter 4 of the TSI. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 25/34

26 9. Conclusions 9.1 Delivery of the final draft TSI The Commission s mandate of 29 April 2010 requires a final draft TSI and an accompanying report to be delivered within 30 months. This report and version 4.0 of the INF TSI fulfils this requirement. Version 4.0 of the INF TSI contains the wording to be completed highlighted in yellow in section 7.7 for Specific Cases. Some bilateral meeting with MSs have been arranged for beginning of 2013 and major input for Specific Cases is still missing, so that this section will be completed later. Notwithstanding the need to include Specific Cases, the final draft TSI is suitable for vote by the Member States. 9.2 Activities for future revisions Annex I to Annex L are temporary annexes to the INF TSI. Those annexes include requirements of standards currently under revision and planned to be published after the publication of the INF TSI. They might be removed from the TSI once the standards will be available. Open points are listed in Annex X of the INF TSI. Due to applying the resistance of bridges to traffic loads to the 1520 mm track gauge system and to high-speed, some additional work of the structures subgroup will be necessary validating alpha-factors and line categories for such cases. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 26/34

27 Annex A Position of ERA regarding consultation comments No. Part of TSI Clause Original Text Table 9 : ERA position related to comments received from CER [14] Comments (justification for change) 1 general CER recommends to limit the specific TSI s scope to 350km/h 2 general All references to EN Standards should be handled in an annex. So after revision of one of these Standards the reference can be changed without changing TSI main body. 3 1 Introduction List of abbreviations, list of referenced documents Geographical scope Geographical scope (6) TSI Categories of line b) the trans-european high-speed rail system network (TEN) as described in Annex I section 1.2 Network of Directive 2008/57/EC c) Other parts of the Union rail network, following the extension of scope as described in Annex I section 4 of Directive 2008/57/EC Other parts of the Union rail network, following the extension of scope as described in Annex I section 4 of Directive 2008/57/EC is not clear. It should be made clear that the extension of scope is done through this TSI. Instead of axle load only use the line category (A, B1, B2, C2, C3, C4, D2, D3, D4) according to UIC leaflet 700 or relevant EN standard in the tables 2 and 3. There is an existing system of line classification and vehicle loading determination. The operation is based on this existing system. A system based on regulation of axle load only (neglecting the mass per unit length) needs new operational provisions. Proposed new text b) the trans-european high-speed rail system network (TEN) as described in Annex I section 2.1 Network of Directive 2008/57/EC c) Other parts of the Union rail network, as this TSI achieves the extension of scope process as described in Annex I section 4 of Directive 2008/57/EC OK Answer from ERA Probably OK However, TSI is less clear and change of EN reference anyway will have to be checked regarding change of content. NOK TSI follows drafting guide and model structure, no change possible. OK NOK Extension of the scope is required by Directive 2008/57/EC. NOK Axle load in tables 2 and 3 is not intended to describe the interface between RST and INF, but is used as a label for the design of infrastructure according to the TSI. Requirements for loads of new structures are settled independently to axle loads. Rules for track resistance use axle load as a label for selecting a track design providing presumption of conformity. Line categories of EN are important and given in Annex E of the TSI with the permitted speeds for assessment of existing structures. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 27/34

28 Table 9 : ERA position related to comments received from CER [14] No. Part of TSI Clause Original Text Comments (justification for change) Proposed new text Answer from ERA (6) TSI Categories of line (6) TSI Categories of line (6) TSI Categories of line Maximum gradients Rate of change of cant (2) Rail inclination, Plain line The maximum rate of change of cant through a transition shall be in accordance with Table 20 of Annex D. The rail inclination for a given route shall be selected from the range 1/20 to 1/40. For Traffic Code P1 the usable length of platform should also be a range value from On many P1 lines there is not the need to run with a full train set due to fewer passengers on these routes. In these cases short train sets are used and a 400 m long platform is wasted money. Instead of train length indicate the minimal usable length of track as target value in table 3. Notes below tables 2 and 3 cover RST requirements and should be fully covered in the RST TSI. If this is an explanation for planners of infrastructure it can be moved to INF application guide. The rail inclination should be selected from values 1/20 and 1/40 (or 1/30) instead of range 1/20 to 1/40. Using the range will lead to very exhaustive and challenging running tests of railway vehicles. CER recommends deleting this paragraph. Please correct the mistake made. Table 21 is correct. The rail inclination for a given route shall be selected from the range 1/20 and 1/40 (or 1/30). NOK For P1 the target value for usable length of platform should be 400 m, however clause allows for platform design related to current service. NOK Different tolerances for braking and signal sight apply in different MS. NOK The notes highlight the fact that axle loads for P1 and P2 are based on a different load case than the other axle loads. Partly deleted, except gradients of tracks through passenger platforms and stabling tracks. Not relevant, parameter has been deleted NOK No change to HS and CR INF TSIs already in force. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 28/34

29 Table 9 : ERA position related to comments received from CER [14] No. Part of TSI Clause Compatibility with braking systems (3) Resistance of new bridges The immediate action limit for mean track gauge The immediate action limit for switches and crossings Rail head profile for rail grinding Original Text (1) Track shall be designed to be compatible with the use of braking systems independent of adhesion conditions for emergency braking. (2) The design of the track to be compatible with the use of braking systems independent of adhesion conditions for service braking, shall take into account local climatic conditions and the expected number of repeated brake applications at a given location. Comments (justification for change) Magnetic track brakes are not independent of adhesion. Is the alpha factor written here correct for F3 and F4 (1,0)? This is asked because of correct corresponding with performance targets for axle loads (Table 2 and 3). The structure subgroup should clarify this. CER recommends that a DYN/ INF WP interface meeting should discuss and make a sound assessment of the ERA DYN group s recommendations. From our point of view it is necessary to amend more detailed scheme of a switch with corresponding cross-sections (actual scheme at the end of this document is insufficient). This requirement should be deleted Platform height More platform heights for renewal have to be added in chapter 7 or the requirement should be reduced to new platforms. There are many platforms with other heights than 550 mm or 760 mm in the existing network. The geographical scope is now wider and especially in case of renewal changing of platform height leads to a very cost intensive impact Proposed new text (1) Track shall be designed to be compatible with the use of braking systems independent of wheel/rail adhesion conditions for emergency braking. (2) The design of the track to be compatible with the use of braking systems independent of wheel/rail adhesion conditions for service braking, shall take into account local climatic conditions and the expected number of repeated brake applications at a given location. Answer from ERA OK Paragraph 2 is deleted and paragraph 1 changed similarly. Values have been verified by the structures subgroup; alpha factor for F4 has been corrected to Not relevant, parameter has been deleted NOK No change to HS and CR INF TSIs already in force. OK OK Section 7.4 Application of this TSI to existing platform allows for other nominal platform heights in case of renewal and upgrading. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 29/34

30 Table 9 : ERA position related to comments received from CER [14] No. Part of TSI Clause Basis on which interoperability constituents have been selected (2)(a) The rail fastening system (2) and (3) Assessment of structure gauge Assessment of design values for equivalent conicity Original Text Paragraph 5.1 of EN set a minimum value for longitudinal resistance of 9 KN for line speeds of 250 km/h or higher. Assessment of design values for equivalent conicity is to be made using the results of calculations made by the Infrastructure Manager or the contracting entity on the basis of EN 15302:2008+A1:2010. Comments (justification for change) Steel sleepers have to be added as they are widely used in the extended scope but also on TSI HS and CR lines for special purposes. We wish to specify that the reference parameter to be regarded is the limit installation gauge as it includes allowances for those track displacements that may occur due to future maintenance operations as well as any other margin required to ensure safety at the moment of checking. Nominal gauge takes into consideration additional margins for exceptional situations like special transportations or interventions on infrastructure that could be specifically assessed when needed. In the past NoBo request that the calculation was done by IM and didn t accept the results of Table 3 from the Guide for the application of the CR INF TSI. With that change it doesn t matter who did the calculation and the results from Guide for the application can be used. Proposed new text the longitudinal force required to cause the rail to begin to slip (i.e. move in an inelastic way) through a single rail fastening assembly shall be at least 7kN. For line speeds of more than 250 km/h the longitudinal resistance shall not be of less than 9 KN. Characteristic cross sections are: ( ) (d) any other location where the designed limit installation gauge is approached by less than 100 mm. After assembly and before putting into service clearances shall be verified at locations where the designed limit installation gauge is approached by less than 100 mm. Assessment of design values for equivalent conicity is to be made using the results of calculations on the basis of EN 15302:2008+A1:2010. Answer from ERA NOK Sleepers for specific purposes are not considered to be ICs. OK NOK The structure gauge for a project may be assumed as limit installation, nominal or even uniform, so TSI cannot limit the rule only to narrowest type of the structure gauge. NOK The concept of using calculations done by IM or applicant for assessment should not be mixed with problem of track configurations published in Application Guide for CR INF TSI. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 30/34

31 Table 9 : ERA position related to comments received from CER [14] No. Part of TSI (1) and (3) Clause Assessment of track resistance for plain line Assessment of the maintenance plan 25 7 Implementing the INF TSI Substitution in the framework of maintenance 27 Annex B Table 18, row 14 Original Text Comments (justification for change) In our view, this draft of the TSI misses some of the contributions exposed by Jan Mys in the last meeting or, at least, it's kind of difficult to find them for us. Among other issues, the assessment of a track design based on a proven solution poses a great advantage that has to be clearly incorporated into the TSI. On the other hand, if the NoBo is not responsible for the assessment of the resistance of existing bridges and earthworks (Annex B, Table 18), its role in the assessment of track resistance should be limited to checking if the study made by the contracting entity actually exists. For innovative solutions, a track test section should be considered. Headline and clause (1) should be reworded as this chapter is related to the maintenance file and not maintenance plan. Regulation for projects at advanced stage of development (acc. to SRT and PRM) in the transition phase has to be included. This is not a requirement acc. the scope of the TSI and should be moved to application guide. Section does not set any geometrical design value for switches and crossings and leaves this decision in the hands of the IM, which is also entirely responsible for keeping them by means of the maintenance plan. It should be the IM the body in charge of verifying the fulfilment of the values set by itself at design stage. We recommend deleting this section. Proposed new text (1) The demonstration of conformity to the requirements of clause may be done by reference to an existing track design meeting the operating conditions intended for the subsystem concerned. The NoBo shall check if a study has been carried out by the IM or the contracting entity for verifying if the operating conditions and the technical characteristics are the same or if the possible differences are not relevant for track resistance. ( ) (3) A track design is considered to be existing, if the following conditions are met: ( ). These conditions can be reproduced by constructing a track test section. Answer from ERA OK Introduced in the TSI in a similar way. OK NOK Relevant provisions are given in Directive 2008/57/EC. NOK Requirement is important to be specified in the TSI, as lifetime of infrastructure is long and the impact of maintenance is high. NOK Clause describes the task for NoBo to assess design of S&Cs. IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 31/34

32 Table 9 : ERA position related to comments received from CER [14] No. Part of TSI Clause Original Text Comments (justification for change) Proposed new text Answer from ERA 28 Annex E Capability requirements for structures according to traffic code, Tables 22 and Annex F Safety assurance over obtuse crossings The content of tables is confusing. It is not clear, if there should be requirements on infrastructure parameters or on railway vehicles operational conditions depending on the infrastructure parameters. In our opinion there should be only infrastructure parameters. For example for traffic code F1 there is a requirement for freight wagon the line category D4 at speed 120 km/h and for locomotive line category D2 at speed 120. The result has to be the requirement on infrastructure D4. Similarly in the case of passenger transport with trains composed of coaches and locomotive the strictest requirement for locomotive has to be the requirement on the infrastructure. Other line category can be applicable for lines used only by DMUs or EMUs. The values of mass per unit length in notes (8), (9), (10) do not correspond to the values of load per unit length relevant to line categories. There should be only in service tolerances. Please revise this Annex with CEN TC265/SC 1/WG 18. Please revise the content of tables 22 and 23. NOK Annex E is solely to be used for assessment of existing structures as described in clause OK Annex was precised IU-INF-FinRep 1.0 Version Final Page 32/34