INTEROPERABILITY UNIT RATION AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT FINAL REPORT ON THE MERGING OF CONVENTIONAL RAIL AND HIGH SPEED TSIS Reference: ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Document type: Final report Version : 0.8 Date : 06.12.2010 Edited by Approved by Name Sandra Scheufens J-C. PICHANT Position Date & Signature INTEROPERABILITY Unit Project Officer INTEROPERABILITY Head of unit The following document has been produced by the European Railway Agency as final report and on the merging of the CR and HS and serves as Annex 1 to the recommendation ERA/REC/ on the merging of the CR and HS. It is currently in revision status with the WP.
Amendment record Version Date Section number Modification/description Author 0.1 28.05.2010 All IP, SaS 0.2 19.07.2010 All Update after 1 st meeting of WP SaS 0.3 23.08.2010 Annex : Working Program SaS 0.4 23.09.2010 All Update after 2 nd meeting of WP SaS 0.5 15.10.2010 Economic evaluation Introduction SaS 0.6 08.11.2010 All Update after comments from Sector organisations and NSAs 0.7 10.11.2010 All Update during the WP meeting with the sector organisations and NSAs 0.8 06.12.2010 All Update after comments from sector organisations and NSAs SaS SaS SaS 0.9 SaS 1.0 SaS 1.1 SaS 1.2 SaS 1.3 SaS 1.4 SaS 1.5 SaS
ANNEXES Annex Reference Version Date Author 1 2 ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 3 OF 17
TABLE OF CONTENT Amendment record... 2 1. INTRODUCTION... 5 1.1. SUBJECT... 5 2. REFERENCES, TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS... 6 2.1. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS... 6 2.2. ABBREVIATION... 7 3. CARRYING OUT OF ACTIVITIES... 8 3.1 Working Parties set up for the revision of the CR... 8 3.2 Call for experts... 8 3.3 Working Program... 8 3.4 Working Procedures... 9 4. RESULTS... 9 4.1 Merging of TSIs OPE CR + HS... 9 4.2.2.8 Requirements for Signal and lineside marker sighting... 9 4.3 Interfaces to other TSIs... 10 Appendix T... 10 4.2 Extension of scope... 11 2.2.1 Staff and trains... 12 4.3 Corrections... 13 4.2.2.8 Requirements for Signal and lineside marker sighting... 13 5. ECONOMIC EVALUATION... 14 General... 14 6. CONSULTATION ACCORDING TO ARTICLES 4 AND 5 OF AGENCY REGULATION 881/2004/EC... 15 ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 4 OF 17
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. SUBJECT The Commission mandated ERA by the mandate on the extension of scope (Commission Decision C(2010)2576 of 29.04.2010) among other tasks to merge the CR and HS. The following document has been produced by the European Railway Agency as draft final report on the merging of the CR and HS and serves as Annex 1 to the recommendation on the merging of the CR and HS. It gives an overview about the work done, the process and conclusions of the merging and sets out the recommended amendments to the CR and HS. ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 5 OF 17
2. REFERENCES, TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 2.1. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Ref. N Document Reference Official Journal Last amendment [1] Directive 2008/57/EC L 191, 18.7.2008 Directive 2009/131/EC (Interoperability) [2] Directive 2004/49/EC (Safety) L 164, 30.4.2004 Directive 2008/110/EC [3] TSI Traffic Operation and Management CR 2006/920/EC [4] TSI Traffic Operation and Management HS 2008/231/EC [5] Directive 2001/16/EC (Interoperability for TEN Conventional rail) [6] Directive 2001/14/EC (Train path allocation) [7] Directive 2008/68/EC (inland transport of dangerous goods) L359, 18.12.2006 Decision 2010/640/EU L84, 26.03.2008 Decision 2010/640/EU L110, 20.04.2001 Directive 2008/57/EC L75, 15.03.2001 Directive 2007/58/EC L260, 30.09.2008 Decision 2009/240/EC [8] Regulation (EC) 881/2004 (Agency Regulation) L 220,21.06.2004 Regulation (EC) 1335/2008 ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 6 OF 17
2.2. ABBREVIATION Table 1 : Abbreviations Abbreviation IM NSA RU Definition Infrastructure Manager National Safety Authority Railway Undertaking ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 7 OF 17
3. Carrying out of activities 3.1 Working Parties set up for the revision of the CR ERA is mandated to merge the TSIs Operation and Traffic Management for conventional rail system and for high speed (Decision C(2010)2576 of 29.04.2010). ERA set up a draft Working Program. Based on this draft Working Program, ERA decided to call for one Working Party for the merging of the CR and HS: The coordination of works is done by ERA project officers. The Working Program has been set up according to the following principles: a) Due to the short timeframe assigned for the task of merging the two TSIs no substantial amendments will be discussed unless they are obvious errors. Issues needing a more detailed investigation and discussion will be taken into the working program for the 2nd revision of TSI OPE under the above-mentioned mandate. b) The TSIs OPE CR and HS are nearly identical. Some of the differences result in a recent review of the TSI for conventional rail that can be regarded as more up-to-date. In general the recently recommended revised CR shall be used as the basic text. c) If requirements differ between CR and HS it is checked if the requirement can be harmonised. If such alignment is not possible, the merged TSI will list the requirements for both types of lines with a clear indication of scope. d) During the merging the possibility of extension of scope of on the whole European network shall be discussed. If no due justification against can be found, it will be recommended to extend the scope of the. 3.2 Call for experts ERA sent out the call for experts for the Working Party on the 04/03/2010 and received several nominations; ERA is assisted by representatives of the Sector Organisations CER, EIM, ERFA, ETF, UIP and UNIFE as well as representatives of the NSAs AT, BE, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, IT, NL, NO, SE and UK in this Working Party. The Working Party had three meetings in 2010, all dedicated to the merging of CR and HS and the possible extension of scope. 3.3 Working Program ERA drafted a Working Program (Annex I) for the merging of the CR and HS (see also 3.1). This Working Program was discussed with the members of the Working Party. ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 8 OF 17
The draft Working Program was accepted by the members of the Working Party. It was also given to the European Commission, no objections were raised. 3.4 Working Procedures The subjects treated were discussed in the Working Party. The findings of the Working Party were discussed in the Sector Organisations and NSAs mirror groups. Each subject was finalised after the agreement of the members of the Working Party unless stated otherwise in chapter 4 of this report. The discussions of the subjects in ERA s Working Party have taken into account the conditions / inputs of the following documents: The HS (2008/231/EC[4]) The recommendation on a revision of CR (submitted to EC on 17.05.2010) and for the last meeting the revised CR as supported by RISC on 20.10.2010, based on the recommendation The Safety Directive (2004/49/EC) The Interoperability Directives (2008/57/EC) The Train Path Allocation Directive (2001/14/EC) The CSM on conformity assessment The TSIs for other subsystems (Energy, Infrastructure, Rolling Stock, Control Command and Signalling, Safety in Railway Tunnels) Developments in the railway Sector 4. Results 4.1 Merging of TSIs OPE CR + HS During the first discussion the following points were identified as problematic: It was agreed to insert a distinction between conventional and high-speed lines in line with Annex I of the Interoperability Directive in case such a distinction is needed for diverging requirements. 4.2.2.8 Requirements for Signal and lineside marker sighting The text is currently written in such a way that it fits to conventional lines. For HS lines track side installed signs are not always applicable and cannot and do not need to be observed by the driver when running in cab signalling as the normal operational mode on that line. In order to open the requirement in a consistent way also to HS lines the text has been slightly modified: The driver must be able to observe lineside signals and markers, and they must be observable by the driver whenever applicable. The same applies for other types of lineside signs if they are safety related. ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 9 OF 17
4.3 Interfaces to other TSIs The interfaces to HS TSIs must be included in the merged. This is done in the revised TSI text. Appendix T One of the major problems seems to be the exchange of data for the required braking performance. After ERA had presented in RISC the preliminary recommendation on Annex T, France requested to introduce a requirement for the IMs: For train sets and fixed train compositions the IM shall deliver the braking performance requirements in deceleration values if so requested by the RU. This was accepted by ERA and introduced in the final recommendation for Annex T in 2009 and supported by RISC in February 2010. This requirement was supposed to ensure a future-oriented data exchange between IMs and RUs for passenger train sets. Unfortunately this seems not to be the case. Braking performance is still in an open point in the HS; it was discussed in order to see if the requirements stipulated for conventional rail can be extended to high speed. It was agreed that the principles laid down in Annex (Appendix) T can be extended also to high speed; but the question of the exchange unit for the braking performance requirements could not be concluded. EIM opposed to an extension of the requirement of delivering braking performance requirements in deceleration values for high speed. The reason is that the respective EN-standard/UIC-leaflet is not extended to speeds higher than 200 km/h today and distances are preferred by EIM. EIM prefers to deliver braking distances for high speed rather than deceleration values. CER referred to its position paper on the Annexes A and T of CR from May 2009, but CER supports the use of deceleration values also for high speed trains. After the meetings NSA ES informed ERA about being in favour of deceleration values for HS trains. It is understood that braking performance and its exchange values are such delicate issues that a thorough reflection an agreement between the sector organisations represented in the WP (especially EIM and CER) cannot be reached the within the time schedule of this WP on merging. It is agreed that the exchange of information on braking performance requirements is first of all an agreement between IM and RU as it is already today. Given the non-conclusive situation in the Working Party, ERA sees two possibilities for the recommendation on the merged TSIs OPE: the topic could be listed as open point according to Article 5 ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 10 OF 17
(6) of the Interoperability Directive [1] or to require an agreement between the two players affected by this requirement IM and RU. An open point would mean that the Member States need to notify technical rules according to Article 5(6). Due to the fact that it is allowed for IMs and RUs to agree on data exchange units for conventional rail as decided by the European Commission in Decision 2010/640/EU it seems not appropriate or constructive to give another solution for high speed rail than for conventional rail. ERA recommends requiring an agreement between IM and RU for high speed rail in Appendix T. The result can be summarised as follows: In order to ensure that for freight trains also in the next years brake weight percentage remains the common one, the text of the revised CR is limited to the CR network in the merged TSI. For high speed no standard unit is set out. An agreement between IM and RU is mandatory. It is strongly recommended to discuss this topic in more detail in the next revision of the. 4.2 Extension of scope The extension of scope was discussed in different aspects. Before coming to a common proposal, it was necessary to clarify some of the principles of the in connection with the Interoperability Directive: a) The correct application of the is not assessed by a Notified Body. The requirements concerning procedures are assessed within the procedures for granting any new or revised safety certificate or safety authorisation. The operational requirements on structural subsystems are referred to the structural TSIs which then set the detailed requirement and the assessment criteria for the Notified Body. b) This means that the compliance with operational requirements linked to structural subsystems need only to be fulfilled when the structural subsystem is assessed against a structural TSI according to chapter IV of the Interoperability Directive. c) This means that even after the extension of scope lines that are not renewed or upgraded do not need to fulfil requirements of the linked to structural requirements (e.g. a specific network not using ETCS or GSM-R does not need to modify its system of train running numbers to 8 digits as long as the numbers are unique in all relevant networks (CCS, operational, train radio, train position reporting)). Based on these principles the intermediate proposal for the extension of scope is: The scope of this TSI applies to the Operation and Traffic Management subsystem of Infrastructure Managers and Railway Undertakings related to the operation of trains on the European rail system as defined in Article 1. excluding the Lines / systems referred to in Article 1 (3) of Directive 2008/57/EC. ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 11 OF 17
The Working Party members as well as ERA feel the need to highlight here that a clear understanding of the definitions in Article 1(3) of the Interoperability Directive is highly relevant in order to ensure a common understanding between and in the Member States for the sake of correct implementation. EIM and ERFA expressed the opinion that due to the not fully transparent transposition of Article 1(3) they could not estimate the full impact of the extended TSI on some local lines with a minimum traffic. Nevertheless EIM and ERFA support in principle the extension of the scope of TSI as described in this report. 2.2.1 Staff and trains Currently the requirements for staff are applicable only to those staff members operating in crossborder traffic. As the requirements on train crew members other than drivers are currently under investigation under Article 28 of Directive 2007/59/EC, it was decided not to enter this subject in this revision cycle and not to extend the requirements on staff. 4.2.2.1.2 Front end One problem discussed was the subject of visibility of trains (front end signal). This requirement might create a problem for trains pushed on a regular basis. A typical example is a unit pushed on an open line in order to enter a siding. Apart from the fact that such movements should take place under special operational conditions (like reduced speed), it was concluded that such movements occur also on TEN-lines. Possible issues need to be solved already under the CR in force (2006/920/EC). This leads to the conclusion that no specific provisions are necessary in a TSI with scope extension as described above. 4.2.1.2.3 Timetables Another subject was the requirement on timetables. In some countries on lines without signalling system the driver receives a timetable with additional operational instructions. These operational instructions might include control command orders and permissions like Wait in station B until train 4600 has arrived. After arrival of train 4600 in B continue the travel to station C. Such operational instructions are used instead of a signalling system. They cannot be regarded as timetable information. It was concluded that such operational procedures are also possible under the. It must be stressed that IM and RU have to take care that all involved staff has the consistent operational rules and documentation. ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 12 OF 17
Furthermore it must be highlighted that the RU must take additional care in order to comply with the requirement of consistent presentation of the timetable. It might be useful to organise a basic common format for all types of lines and operational conditions and introducing an additional column or field for these additional operational instructions for the respective type of line or operating system. With such understanding of the requirement on the timetable no problem should raise within the extension of scope of the. 4.3 Corrections 4.2.2.8 Requirements for Signal and lineside marker sighting The driver must be able to observe signals and lineside markers, and they must be observable by the driver whenever applicable. The same applies for other types of lineside signs if they are safety related. Lineside markers, signs and information boards must be designed in such a consistent way to facilitate this. Issues that must be taken into account include: that they are suitably sited so that train headlights allow the driver to read the information, suitability and intensity of lighting, where required to illuminate the information, where retro-reflectivity is employed, the reflective properties of the material used are in compliance with appropriate specifications and the signs are fabricated so that train headlights easily allow the driver to read the information. Driving cabs must be designed in such a consistent way that the driver is able to easily see the information displayed to him. NSA UK and EIM requested to cut details of the requirement (the bullet points) and to transfer it to the application guide. ERA accepts this proposal in order to harmonise the level of detail within the TSI requirements and recommends changing the TSI. 4.4 Other topics During the last meeting CER, NSAs UK and FR requested to change in the TSI text in different clauses from ensure to make sure depending on the different extents of tasks and responsibilities of the IM respective RU. ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 13 OF 17
ERA does not agree to change it in this revision because several discussions, some of them related to other recommendations and with other participants, showed very different understandings of the words ensure and make sure. 5. Economic Evaluation General An economic evaluation has been carried out on the merging of the CR and HS OPE TSIs according to the proportionality principle: this assessment is only qualitative. It is recognised that the merging of CR and HS OPE TSI is a very important step in terms of management of EU regulation, but with limited consequences for the railway sector itself in terms of costs and benefits. During the discussions on the merging it became clear that the various requirements in the TSIs OPE CR and HS are so close that a measurable impact of merging the requirements into one TSI is not relevant. The only exception detected is the requirement on the exchange of braking performance requirements between IM and RU (see chapter 4.1 on Annex T of this report). As it is recommended to require from IMs and RUs to agree on a unit for braking performance data on high-speed lines a relevant impact cannot be found. Also without such a requirement in the TSI the IMs and RUs have to communicate; the TSI requirement is in this case merely consolidating an existing fact. Apart from the merging of TSI, the potential impact of the extension of scope is to be assessed. Also this one has been made, according to the proportionality principle in a qualitative manner. The qualitative impact assessment takes mainly into account the assessment principles set out in the TSI itself. Procedures and processes required by the TSI need to be extended to the off-ten-lines that MS may not exclude under Article 1.3 of the Interoperability Directive. But an important principle of the TSI is the fact that it requires processes to be put in place that are appropriate for the different types of operation. The second principle of assessment focuses on the requirements on technical equipment stipulated in the. These refer via chapter 4.3 (interfaces) to structural TSIs while not imposing specific technical solutions in the. This means that a direct impact on technical equipment via the TSI OPE does not need to be taken into account because it is reflected in the assessment of the respective structural TSI. The following benefits were identified: - A single document to handle the numerous common aspects (about 95 % of the requirements) of the CR and HS OPE TSIs. - A single document obviously minimises the risk of inconsistency between different EU regulations on the same subject and their implementation as it was for example the case on two different Annexes P.5 after the Commission-Decision 2009/107/EC. ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 14 OF 17
- The existence of one decision covering the network instead of two TSIs with different scopes decreases the workload for the translation as well as notification and implementation plans for the Member States. 6. Consultation according to Articles 4 and 5 of Agency Regulation 881/2004/EC According to Articles 4 and 5 of the Agency Regulation 881/2004/EC, ERA shall consult the social partners as well as the organisations representing passengers and freight customers before submitting this recommendation to the European Commission. ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 15 OF 17
ANNEX I WORKING PROGRAM MERGING TSIS OPE CR + HS Working Program on merging TSIs OPE CR and HR According to the mandate of the European Commission the revision of the TSIs OPE shall be done in two steps: 1) Merging of TSIs CR + HS 2) Extension of scope + focus on harmonised operational rules ERA has to prepare and present a Working Program to RISC how to proceed under the mandate. First step In order to ensure a clear base of discussion and evaluation of the revision recommendations, we suggest the following Working Program for the first step, merging of TSIs CR + Hs: a. Merge the requirements in both TSIs. In case of differences, the text of the revised TSI CR is usually the target text. This is due to the fact that the TSI CR has been revised only recently and takes into account recent developments in European legislation. A preference for the requirements stipulated in the TSI HS shall be duly justified. A co-existence of different requirements for CR and HS system shall be avoided as much as possible (necessary e.g. in the list of interfaces to other TSIs). b. Identify the parameters which hinder or complicate an immediate extension of scope of the merged TSI. By answering this question in the first step it is possible to stabilise the frame of discussion for the second step. If no relevant elements are found hindering or complicating the extension of scope of the TSI an extension can be recommended for the first step. c. Update of clearly identified errors in TSIs CR and/or HS d. Update of links to European legislation Second step The second step would then focus on the revision and introduction of harmonised operational rules; taking into account the extended scope if possible. ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 16 OF 17
ANNEX I WORKING PROGRAM MERGING TSIS OPE CR + HS Merging TSIs OPE CR and HS in graphical time schedule Merging of TSIs CR and HS in the context of revisions scheduled Version 1.0 Date 10.06.2010 Author SaS ERA/CON/2011-02/INT Version 0.8 PAGE 17 OF 17