Progress with Railway Interoperability in the European Union

Progress with Railway
Interoperability
in the European Union
2011
Biennial Report

Progress with Railway
Interoperability
in the European Union
2011 Biennial Report
European Railway Agency

2
Contents
Foreword 4
Executive Summary 6
1. Introduction 16
2. Regulatory Framework 18
2.1. Legal Framework 19
2.2. Institutional Framework 20
3. Railway Interoperability Progress 22
3.1. Administrative and institutional indicators 23
3.1.1. National Safety Authorities (NSAs) 23
3.1.2. Notifi ed bodies 25
3.2. Legal indicators 27
3.2.1. TSIs development and revision 27
3.2.2. European railway standards 28
3.2.3. Open points 30
3.3. Rolling stock and vehicles 32
3.3.1. EC Certifi cates for Interoperability Constituents (ICs) 32
3.3.2. EC Certifi cates for subsystems 33

3.3.3. Fees for authorisation for placing in service 34
3.3.4. Average time for authorisation procedure 36
3.3.5. Number of authorisations of rolling stock and vehicles under the TSI regime 36
3.3.6. Total number of authorisations of rolling stock and vehicles 40
3.3.7. Cross acceptance of vehicles 42
3.4. Fixed installations 44
3.4.1. EC Certifi cates for Interoperability Constituents (ICs) 44
3.4.2. EC Certifi cates for subsystems 45
3.4.3. Fees for authorisation for placing in service 46
3.4.4. Average time for authorisation procedure 47
3.4.5. Number of authorisations of fi xed installations under the TSI regime 48
3.4.6. Total number of authorisations of fi xed installations 52
3.4.7. Length of the infrastructure verifi ed against HS TSI Infrastructure 54
3.4.8. Length of the infrastructure verifi ed against HS TSI Energy 55
3.5. Control-Command and Signalling 56
3.5.1. Current situation 56
3.5.2. ERTMS deployment 57
4. Conclusions 58
Annex 1. EC interoperability legislation 60
Annex 2. List of authorised HS rail lines verifi ed against HS TSI Infrastructure, 2006-2009 66
Annex 3. List of authorised HS rail lines verifi ed against HS TSI Energy, 2006-2009 68
Annex 4. List of ERTMS rail lines in the EU and Switzerland, end 2010 70
Annex 5. List of acronyms 74
Annex 6. Table of charts and tables 78
3

4
Foreword

Every two years the Agency delivers a report on progress with railway interoperability in the
European Union in order to give an objective analysis of developments in this area. This second
report targets a wide audience ranging from policy makers and national authorities to lobbying
organisations and other railway stakeholders.
We play our part in achieving interoperability by drafting and revising technical specifi cations for
interoperability (TSIs) and providing technical opinions where appropriate. However, the credit
for TSIs, lies with all who contributed to their drafting, namely the sector organisations and
National Safety Authorities (NSAs). The Agency not only contributes to the harmonisation of the
technical specifi cations of the different railway subsystems but also attempts to measure progress in the introduction of
interoperable interoperability constituents and subsystems to the railway market.
The fi rst report in 2009 provided an important benchmark in the form of an analysis of a set of indicators, which are
updated and compared with more recent data in this second report. Read in conjunction with the Agency report on
the railway safety performance in the EU, it will give an excellent view of the progress in the two areas the Agency is
focusing its efforts: railway interoperability and safety.
We believe that our readers will welcome the successes being reported in railway interoperability. In 2011, three
conventional rail TSIs covering infrastructure, energy and locomotives and passenger rolling stock subsystems entered
in force. With their entry in force and also the entry into force of a TSI on telematic applications for passengers, the
framework of high speed and conventional rail TSIs was completed. Although this is a major step forward, the TSIs
still remain narrower in scope than the whole railway system and they also contain open points. To overcome these
diffi culties, a key change was brought in the recast interoperability directive by concept of cross acceptance.
Cross acceptance is a “bridge” to interoperability in that it gives benefi ts whilst the TSIs have a limited scope. The Agency
has already made signifi cant progress in establishing equivalence of rules between Member States. In 2010, as a result
of the excellent work by the National Safety Authorities (NSAs), the Agency published most of the national reference
documents. Thus interested parties may check the existing national rules for each parameter included in the parameters’
list for vehicle authorisation. Since the end of 2009, the NSAs have become involved in Geographical Interest Groups
where they meet to compare and classify each other’s rules.
Not only are there advances in the legislative framework and in establishing rules equivalence but there is also
progress in introducing interoperable constituents and subsystems into the railway market. The markets of
rolling stock, control-command and signaling and infrastructure interoperability constituents are all expanding.
Authorisations for placing in service of subsystems have also increased over time for most subsystems. Furthermore,
a number of interoperable trainsets, wagons and infrastructures have been placed in service.
We will continue to work hard on a number of important issues to ensure the removal of technical barriers to allow for
safe and uninterrupted movement of trains. As usual, we will do this together with the NSAs and sector organisations in
a fair, constructive and transparent manner. In this way, we will help railways to improve their performance and provide
a better service to customers.
I am happy to recommend this report as an objective analysis of progress with interoperability in the EU for anyone
interested in this fi eld.
Jean-Charles Pichant
Head of the Interoperability Unit
5

6
Executive Summary

Introduction
This is the second Agency report on progress with railway interoperability. It covers data for the year 2009 and, where
information was available, for 2010 and the beginning of 2011. The fi rst 2009 report covered data for the period from 2006
to 2008. This report examines overall progress with rail interoperability in the EU Member States and Norway and compares
trends over the periods covered in the two reports.
Developments in the legal framework
Since the publication of the fi rst interoperability report a signifi cant
initiative has been taken in respect of the legal framework put in place
by the Interoperability Directive.
It was evident that without a common understanding of the authorisation
process put in place by the recast Interoperability Directive, it was likely
that implementation of the Directive in the Member States, planned for
July 2010, would not achieve its objectives.
The Agency drafted a common understanding of the authorisation
process for subsystems and vehicles, known as DV29, adopted as
Commission Recommendation 2011/217/EU.
During this work it became apparent that there was a need to make
changes to Annex II, Annex V and Annex VI of the recast Interoperability
Directive to properly refl ect the fact that authorisations are to be based
upon verifi cations against TSIs and national rules. To ensure consistency,
these changes were developed in coordination with the work on DV29.
In mid-2011, fi ve high speed (HS) TSIs, eight conventional rail (CR) TSIs
and three transversal TSIs applying both to HS and CR were in force.
Three CR TSIs entered into force in 2011. They cover infrastructure (INF),
energy (ENE) and locomotives and passenger RST (LOC&PAS). These, together
with the TSI on telematic applications for passengers (TAP), which cover both
the CR and HS networks, completed the framework of both HS and CR TSIs.
What has changed?
TSIs
AUTHORISATION
GUIDELINES (DV 29)
INTEROPERABILITY
DIRECTIVE
(ANNEXES II, V AND VI)
Recommendation
2011/217/EU highlights a number of
key principles:
• The EU regulation separates the
authorisation of vehicles from regulation
of their operation.
• Authorisations are granted for the
network of a Member State. Any issues
regarding the operation of a vehicle
on a specifi c route must be dealt with
through the operator’s SMS.
• In order to deliver European interoperability
and to maintain existing
levels of national interoperability, a
“rules-based” approach using TSIs
and national rules must apply to
technical compatibility at the vehicle-network
interface.
• Mutual recognition applies. Where
subsystems, vehicles or types have
been verifi ed and authorised by one
Member State, other Member States
may only re-check the parameters
relating specifi cally to technical
compatibility with their networks.
7

8
Developments in the institutional
framework
The changes related to the institutional framework concern:
• Representative Bodies (RBs): In October 2009, a new representative
body – EPTTOLA – was added to the list of offi cially recognised
representative bodies, thus bringing them to a total of 10. These are
the ALE, CER, EIM, EPTTOLA, ERFA, ETF, UNIFE, UIP, UITP and the UIRR
• Cooperation between the Agency and NB Rail: As of the second
quarter of 2011 the Agency has taken over the technical secretariat
of the coordination group of the notifi ed bodies (NB Rail), thus
further strengthening cooperation. The Agency takes part and assists
the NB Rail Chair in various meetings and helps prepare agendas,
minutes of meetings and working documents.
Prime indicators
To measure the progress on interoperability the report examines three
main groups of indicators: institutional, legal and subsystem related
indicators. The executive summary will briefl y cover the prime indicators
and developments.
• Numbers of NSA staff involved in interoperability
• Number of notifi ed bodies
• Number of open points in TSIs
• Number of EC Certifi cates for Interoperability Constituents (ICs)
• Number of EC Certifi cates for subsystems
• Number of authorisations of rolling stock
• Cross acceptance of vehicles
• Number of authorisations of fi xed installations
• Length of the infrastructure verifi ed against the HS TSI Infrastructure
and Energy
• ERTMS Deployment
Which sector organisations
take part in ERA working parties?
UITP
UIP
UIRR
UNI
FE
ALE
ERA
ETF
CER
ERFA
EIM
What problems do the NSAs
have in staff recruitment?
EPTT
OLA
Competition from the rail industry
Less attractive NSA salaries
Limited number of rail experts
Other: limited budget, cost
reductions, headquaters’ locations,
civil service requirements

Numbers of NSA staff directly involved with interoperability
The differences in sizes of the NSAs
may be related to the different needs
and size of the railways. For example,
the German NSA may require more
staff to process authorisations in
view of the specifi c Länder system
of regional government. However,
NSAs require a certain number of
staff to function effi ciently. In view
of the complexity and workload of
interoperability related activities,
countries with fewer than 5 people
in charge of interoperability issues
may face some challenges.
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
6
9
3
25
162
1 1
45
end 2010
22
13
5 4 5 5 4 7
12
15
7
2 2 5
10 8
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
HU
NL
NO
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
Number of notifi ed bodies under Directives 2001/16 and 96/48
Competition between notifi ed bodies
is rather on a regional than a
European scale. A main hindrance
to competition on a larger scale is
the applicant’s language. Applicants
from countries using languages different
from other notifi ed bodies’
working languages are less likely to
spend extra money on translation.
There are some examples of competition
between countries using the
same language. Both Belgian and
French notifi ed bodies managed to
gain contracts with French and Belgian
companies respectively.
Number of open points in TSIs
*The number of staff is in equivalent full time employees
01/01/2008 01/01/2009 01/01/2010
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
HU
NL
NO
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
The ‘number of open points’ shows the unsolved areas for harmonisation in the different subsystems. The revision of the
TSIs showed some progress in the closing of open points since the end of 2008.
▼ 16 open points closed with the 2011 revision of CCS TSIs
▼ 4 open points closed in CR TSI OPE
▼ 1 open point closed in HS TSI INF with the TSI PRM revision
▼ 2 open points closed in CR TSI WAG
▼ 10 open points closed in CR TSI WAG for go anywhere
wagons
58
9

10
Number of EC certifi cates for interoperability constituents (ICs)
Trends at a glance
▲ Rolling stock ICs
The data highlight the expansion of the market of RST
interoperability constituents. The relative share of certifi cates
issued and requested for RST ICs increased by 12% in
April 2011 compared with their relative share in the beginning
of 2009. In absolute fi gures, the number of certifi cates for HS
RST and WAG ICs issued increased almost two times in slightly
more than 2 years.
▲ Control-command and signalling ICs
The other big market is CCS interoperability constituents such
as Eurobalise, ERTMS/GSM-R on-board, etc. It is important
to note that the fi gure for CCS certifi cates shows both onboard
and track-side ICs. In 2011, the relative share of CCS
constituents was about 30%. In absolute fi gures, the number
of certifi cates for CCS ICs issued increased by 40%
▲ Infrastructure ICs
By the beginning of 2011, 145 certifi cates had been issued
for the four infrastructure ICs – rail, fastenings, sleepers and
bearers and switches and crosses. By that time the number
of certifi cates withdrawn because of expiry was 45, which is
about a third of the number of certifi cates issued.
Number of EC certifi cates for subsystems
Trends at a glance
▲ Rolling stock subsystem
Similarly to ICs, RST subsystem certifi cates increased
dramatically. Their relative share had increased by 14% in April
2011 compared with the beginning of 2009. In absolute fi gures,
the number of EC certifi cates for RST subsystems has quadrupled
compared with their number at the beginning of 2009.
▲ CCS subsystem
CCS subsystem certifi cation also reveals some progress.
The relative share of CCS certifi cates issued and requested
increased by 3% between the beginning of 2009 and 2011.
The number of EC certifi cates issued for CCS subsystems
increased by a factor of 7.
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
66
30
106
145
356
2009
2011
ENE INF CCS RST PRM
RST 57%
CCS 31%
INF 9%
ENE 2%
PRM 1%
▼ Energy ICs
The trend for the energy ICs is somewhat
different. Due to the expiry of almost all the EC
certifi cates which had been valid at the beginning
of 2009, at the beginning of 2011 the number of
EC certifi cates issued had dropped 2 times.
800
600
400
200
0
27
59
64
146
29
497
195
453
172
949
750
9
2009
2011
ENE INF CCS RST Multiple
9
15

▲ Infrastructure subsystem
Seven years after the entry into force of the fi rst HS TSI
Infrastructure, about 150 infrastructure subsystems were
verifi ed against HS TSI. This number will increase by 50% when
ongoing verifi cations are fi nalised. Over the last two years, the
number of EC certifi cates for infrastructure subsystems has
increased more than twice.
▲ Energy subsystem
NB Rail data shows a similar trend of an increasing number of
requests for verifi cation of energy subsystems. The number of
ongoing verifi cations is even higher than the number of the
EC certifi cates issued. At the beginning of 2011 the number of
the EC certifi cates increased by a factor of 2 compared with
the end of 2008.
Number of authorisations for railway vehicles
It is important to note that the actual number
of vehicles authorised may be greater than the
authorisations issued. This is because in some cases
one authorisation was issued for a series of vehicles.
The number of freight wagons authorised under
the TSI regime in 2009 doubled in comparison with
2008. In absolute fi gures they totalled more than
6 300, of which around 4% are authorised with
derogations.
Year
Total
number
of HS RST
authoris.
of which under TSI regime
Number
% of total
authoris.
2009 13 3 23%
2008 32 5 16%
2007 30 29 97%
Year
Total
number of
CR WAG
authoris.
of which under TSI regime
Number
% of total
authoris.
2009 6 200 4 919 79%
2008 2 199 43 2%
2007 5 494 5 0,1%
Year
Total CR WAG
authoris. under
TSI regime
of which
for single
vehicles
for series
Number
of vehicles
in the series
RST 54%
CCS 19%
INF 15%
ENE 9%
Multiple 1%
NOI 1%
Total number
of authori.
vehicles
(1) (2)=(3)+(4) (3) (4) (5) (6)=(3)+(5)
2009 4 919 4 889 19 1 693 6 329
2008 43 15 28 3 054 3 069
2007 5 2 3 218 220
▼ HS trainsets
In 2009 most of the authorisations for HS trains were issued under
national regimes and all of them were for upgrade and renewal.
There is also a trend of decrease of authorisations based on
verifi cation against HS TSI RST.
▲ Freight wagons
Freight wagons appear to score best in terms of compliance with
the TSIs. This signifi es a positive trend for interoperability when a
comparison with previous years is made. Still in 2009, about 20%
of wagons were authorised under national regimes.
▲ Other types of CR rolling stock
There has been some progress with TSI application in CR passenger
carriages, locomotives and trainsets. Though the CR TSI LOC&PAS was
not yet in force in 2009, several other TSIs were applicable. Between
20-30% of the vehicles in this group were authorised under the TSI
regime and, in particular, in accordance with TSIs NOI, PRM and SRTs.
11

12
Cross acceptance of vehicles
A key change brought in by the recast Interoperability Directive is the principle of mutual recognition under the concept
of cross acceptance. Cross acceptance is a “bridge” to interoperability in that it gives benefi ts whilst the TSIs remain
narrower in scope than the whole railway system. Cross acceptance will be required as long as TSIs contain open points
and until the entire European railway network conforms to a complete set of TSIs.
Annex VII of the recast Interoperability Directive builds upon work carried out by approximately ten Member States in
bi-and multi- lateral agreements.
The work on equivalence of rules between Member States comprises a three-stage process:
Common checklist
A common checklist of
parameters to be checked
for vehicle authorisation was
elaborated.
(Decision 2009/965)
Reference document
In the reference document
for each of the parameters,
the national rules for each
member state are listed.
(Published 2010)
ABC classifi cation
The national rules are
classifi ed as A, B, C:
A: equivalent rules
B: rules not compared
C: rules not equivalent
This process eliminates duplicate or unnecessary checks by ensuring that for additional authorisations in a second or subsequent
Member State only the parameters specifi cally related to compatibility with the second or subsequent network are checked.
On 1 April 2011, Commission Decision 2011/155/EU on the
publication and management of the reference document came
into force. It gives legal force to the classifi cations in the rules.
At the end of 2009 the NSAs got involved in Geographical
Interest Groups (GIGs), where they met to compare and classify
each other’s rules.
The involvement of NSAs in classifi cation has risen from 9 in
2010 to 13 NSAs in the 1st quarter of 2011. At the time of
publication this fi gure has increased further to 20 NSAs and
the Agency looks forward to facilitating continued and new
involvement throughout the year.
In order to chart development between the GIGs, the Agency has
collated the classifi cations carried out against the parameters
up until the fi rst quarter of 2011.
The number of rules classifi ed as ‘A’ has increased between
2010 and 2011. This is positive in showing a move towards
cross acceptance between Member States.
2010
2011
A 60%
B 23%
C 17%
A 63%
B 21%
C 16%

Number of authorisations
for fi xed installations
In 2009, the set of TSIs concerning fi xed installations on the
HS network had been in force for several years. The situation is
somewhat different for TSIs concerning the CR network; only
transversal TSIs PRM and SRT were in force in 2009.
In the period 2006-2009, about 50 authorisations for
HS infrastructure were granted under the TSI regime, of
which 35% were with derogations. Though the number of
derogations is signifi cant, the positive development is that in
the last two years the percentage of derogations has decreased
considerably. Another positive development is the increasing
trend for authorisations under the TSI regime.
Year
Total number of
HS INF authoris.
of which under TSI regime
Number
% of total
authoris.
2009 106 20 19%
2008 66 15 23%
2007 38 6 16%
2006 26 5 19%
Year
Total number of
HS ENE authoris.
of which under TSI regime
Number
% of total
authoris.
2009 3 1 33%
2008 12 9 75%
2007 6 3 50%
2006 6 4 67%
Subsystem
Total number of
authoris.
of which under TSI regime
Number
% of total
authoris.
HS CCS 6 1 17%
CR CCS 121 0 0%
CR INF 147 17 12%
CR ENE 11 0 0%
25
20
15
10
5
0
Trends at a glance
authorisations with derogations
authorisations without derogations
2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009
HS INF HS ENE HS CCS
Trackside
▲ HS infrastructure
Since 2006 the share of authorisations under the
TSI regime has been about 20% of all authorisations
for the HS infrastructure. In 2009, the majority
of authorisations under national rules for the HS
infrastructure were granted in Germany (78). These
authorisations were for upgrading and renewal to
optimise maintenance and to change track products.
▼ HS Energy
Only one of the three authorisations for the HS
energy subsystem granted in 2009 was under the TSI
regime. This is a departure from the positive trend of
an increasing share of authorisations under the TSI
regime up until 2008.
▼ HS and CR CCS trackside
Out of all authorisations for CCS trackside, only one
was granted under the TSI regime and it was for HS.
There were no authorisations for CR CCS trackside
under TSI regime. Furthermore, a signifi cant number
of authorisations were granted under national regimes
- 121. Such a trend is suggestive of a diversifi cation of
CCS systems in the EU.
▲ CR infrastructure and energy
The applicable TSIs for CR INF and ENE subsystem in
2009 were TSI PRM and SRT. The data show marginal
progress in the application of these two TSI for CR INF
subsystems - 12% of the approximately 150 authorised
CR infrastructure subsystems were verifi ed against them.
13

14
Subsystem
Total HS
lines,
km in 2009
ERTMS deployment
Length of authorised lines based on verifi cation against HS TSIs
without derogation with derogation total
km % of total HS lines km % of total HS lines km % of total HS lines
(1) (2) (3) (4) = (3) / (2) (5) (6) = (5) / (2) (7) (8) = (7) / (2)
HS INF 6 178 1 509 23% 617 9% 2 126 32%
HS ENE 6 178 2 032 33% 108 2% 2 140 35%
By April 2011, more than 3 300 km of ETCS were in
service and another 5 000 km had been contracted in
the European Union. However, the deployment pace is
quite different between Member States. Some countries
have already implemented the system or are close to a
fi rst ERTMS project achievement while other countries are
without any ERTMS experience yet.
In the period between the end of 2008 and April 2011, the
total length of the lines equipped with ERTMS in service
increased by 40% to 4 179 km. Seven Member States
marked progress in this period. Spain deployed about
400 ERTMS km, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Italy and the UK
about 200 ERTMS km each. France and the Netherlands
deployed between 20-25 ERTMS km.
1 600
1 400
1 200
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
70 70
250
BE
BG
450
CZ
DK
164 164 150 150
DE
EE
1 074
EL
ES
1 434
25
FR
IE
534
711
IT
LV
LT
LU
HU
NL
NO
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
Year 2008
Year 2011
SK
FI
The data refl ect different paces in each country and a non-harmonised deployment of ERTMS throughout Europe. Spain,
Luxembourg and Italy are committed to a progressive and fast deployment of ERTMS on their networks, others have
started deployment, but at a slower pace, while other countries are simply not implementing ERTMS.
100
23%
39%
275 280280 285
253
38%
67 67 50 50
Km of Level 1
contracted
or in Service
Km of Level 2
contracted
or in Service
Km of Level 1/2
contracted
or in Service
190
SE
218
UK

In some Member States, specifi c situations infl uence the deployment strategy. Ireland is located on an island. Estonia, Latvia
and Lithuania have 1 520 mm rail system. The Baltic States have committed themselves to deploy ERTMS. Lithuania plans to
have fi rst lines equipped with ETCS in 2019-2023. In Latvia and Estonia the deployment will be initially focused on the Rail
Baltica corridor. Finland plans to have the fi rst lines equipped with ETCS between 2019-2025.
Apart from these Member States there are some who had made commitments in their deployment plans from 2007 and
have not made any progress by 2011. These are the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia and
Sweden. Nevertheless, some countries like Denmark, Sweden and Poland have already announced improvements for the
coming years.
France and Germany are special cases; by April 2011 ERTMS deployment was only marginal considering the size of
their networks and their participation in the six European ERTMS corridors. However, this trend is expected to change;
Germany had already contracted two lines of total length of about 500 km of level 2.
15

16
1. Introduction

The legal basis for this report is provided by Art. 14(2)
of the Agency Regulation 881/2004/EC 1 as amended by
Regulation 1335/2008/EC:
‘The [European Railway] Agency shall monitor progress
with the interoperability of the railway systems. Every two
years it shall present and publish a report on progress with
interoperability. The fi rst such report shall be published
during the Agency’s second year of activity.’
This is the second Agency report on the progress with
railway interoperability. The fi rst report in 2009 covered
data for the period from 2006 to 2008. This second
report covers data for 2009 and, where information was
available, for 2010 and the beginning of 2011. It examines
the overall progress with rail interoperability in the EU
Member States and Norway and compares the trends over
the periods covered in the two reports.
Chapter 2 outlines the main changes in the legal and
institutional framework of railway interoperability since
the publication of the fi rst report.
Chapter 3 assesses the progress with railway
interoperability by three groups of indicators. This chapter
is divided in fi ve parts.
1 Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 29 April 2004 establishing a European railway agency, OJ L 164 of 30/04/2004,
pp 1-43
The fi rst part is dedicated to the administrative and
institutional indicators related to the bodies involved in the
authorisation processes – National Safety Authorities (NSAs)
and notifi ed bodies. The indicators include the number of
NSA staff in charge with interoperability and problems with
staff recruitment. This part also discusses the number of
notifi ed bodies in Europe and the competition between them.
The second part of chapter 3 provides information about the
legal aspects of technical specifi cations for interoperability
(TSIs) development such as the number of the TSIs in force
and their amendments and revisions. It also examines the
number of open points in the TSIs and the bodies assessing
notifi ed national technical rules (NNTR).
The following two parts of chapter 3 evaluate the progress
made with the introduction of interoperable constituents
and subsystems on the market. The analysis has been split
into two parts: one for rolling stock subsystems and one
for fi xed installations.
The fi fth and last part of chapter 3 assesses in more detail
the progress made with the introduction of controlcommand
and signalling (CCS) subsystems.
Finally, chapter 4 draws the conclusions based on the
analysis in the previous chapters.
17

18
2. Regulatory Framework

2.1. Legal Framework
Since the publication of the fi rst interoperability report a
signifi cant initiative has been taken in respect of the legal
framework put in place by the Interoperability Directive.
In 2009 and 2010 the Agency carried out a review of the
vehicle authorisation processes of all the Member States
and published its fi nal report in April 2011. One key
fi nding was that the Member States not only had different
authorisation processes, but they also had different
interpretations of the authorisation processes contained
in the Interoperability and Safety Directives.
It was evident that without a common understanding
of the authorisation process put in place by the
recast Interoperability Directive, it was likely that the
implementation of the Directive in the Member States,
planned for July 2010, would not achieve its objectives.
Because of different interpretations of the Directives,
barriers to interoperability and mutual recognition could
remain.
The Agency drafted a common understanding of the
authorisation process for subsystems and vehicles, known
as DV29. Following a number of workshops with all the
stakeholders and the Member States, DV29 was adopted
by the Commission as implementing recommendation
2011/217/EU.
During this work it became apparent that there was a need
to make changes to Annex II, Annex V and Annex VI of
the recast Interoperability Directive to properly refl ect the
fact that authorisations are to be based upon verifi cations
against TSIs and national rules. To ensure consistency
these changes were developed in coordination with the
work on DV29.
These two documents are briefl y described below.
Recommendation 2011/217/EU (formerly DV29)
The opening of the market for railway operation and
the supply of railway equipment and services requires
a signifi cantly different approach to the regulation of
technical and safety matters compared to that which
applied for the former integrated state-controlled
monopoly railway companies. The railway system is now
a ‘shared system’ managed by a large number of actors
each responsible for their part of the system. The safe
and economic management of a shared transport system
requires much more than separation of train operations
from infrastructure. It requires that the legal framework
for railways is similar to that for the other transport
sectors (roads, aviation, maritime).
Recommendation 2011/217/EU highlights a number of
key principles:
• The EU regulation separates the authorisation of
vehicles from the regulation of their operation. Just
as road vehicles and aeroplanes are authorised and
placed on the market independent of the companies
that may drive or fl y them, so the railway regulation
allows to place railway vehicles on the market already
authorised for a network independently of any railway
undertaking.
• The recommendation makes clear that authorisation is
granted for a network of a Member State. Any issues
regarding the operation of a vehicle on a specifi c
route (e.g. narrow clearances, weight restrictions etc.)
are to be dealt with through the operator’s safety
management systems. For this operation, the railway
undertaking needs information on the nature of
the given route, to be supplied by the infrastructure
manager. This information can be made available in
the network statement of the infrastructure manager
and in future will be made available in a harmonised
way in the Register of Infrastructure.
19

20
• In order to deliver European interoperability and to
maintain existing levels of national interoperability,
a “rules-based” approach using TSIs and national
rules must apply to the technical compatibility at the
vehicle-network interface.
• Mutual recognition applies. Where interoperability
constituents, subsystems, vehicles or types have been
verifi ed and authorised by one Member State, other
Member States may only re-check parameters relating
specifi cally to technical compatibility with their
network.
It is now expected that the Member States will implement
the authorisation processes in the recast Interoperability
Directive in accordance with Recommendation 2011/217/EU.
The national ‘homologation’ processes that previously
applied will be replaced by the authorisation process in the
Directive. This should lead to the removal of the existing
obstacles to interoperability and mutual recognition, a
much greater level of transparency and a much simpler
and more predictable authorisation process.
Amendment of Annexes II, V and VI
to Directive 2008/57
The changes to the Annexes of the Directives have
brought some essential clarity to the verifi cation process.
In particular:
• It is made clear that on-board and track-side controlcommand
and signalling installations are two separate
subsystems. These two subsystems can be authorised
in future independently of each other. This is an
essential prerequisite for interoperability of ERTMS.
• In order to avoid re-checking parts of subsystems,
the concept of Intermediate Statement of Verifi cation
(ISV) was clarifi ed.
• The verifi cation procedure has been amended to
- make clear that verifi cation is against TSIs and,
where TSIs do not apply, national rules
- defi ne the procedure for verifi cation against
national rules
These corrections complete the legal framework covering
authorisation.
2.2. Institutional Framework
As outlined in the fi rst report, the institutions, bodies
and organisations dealing with interoperability act on
European and national levels. The EU framework makes
use of different platforms to ensure representation of
national and stakeholders’ interests at the EU level. These
include:
• The Railways Interoperability and Safety Committee
(RISC) (previously the ‘Article 21 Committee’), which
is a committee composed of the representatives of
the Member States. Amongst other things, the RISC
discusses and votes on all TSIs and other legislative
acts related to interoperability prior to the formal
adoption procedure within the Commission.
• The NSA Network, which is composed of the
representatives of the National Safety Authorities
(NSAs). It is a platform for discussion of all ongoing
Agency activities where NSAs may express their views
and exchange experience.
• Representative Bodies (RBs), which represent the
railway stakeholders and are actively involved in the
process of TSI drafting and revision. In October 2009
a new representative body – EPTTOLA – was added to
the list of offi cially recognised representative bodies,
bringing their total number to ten: ALE, CER, EIM,
EPTTOLA, ERFA, ETF, UNIFE, UIP, UITP and UIRR. 2
• Cooperation between the Agency and the European
Standardisation Bodies to ensure consistency
between the TSI drafting process and standards
development.
2 Autonomous Train Drivers‘ Unions of Europe (ALE)
Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies (CER)
European Rail Infrastructure Managers (EIM)
European Passenger Train and Traction Operating Lessors’ Association (EPTTOLA)
European Rail Freight Association (ERFA)
European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF)
Association of European Railway Industries (UNIFE)
International Union of Private Wagons (UIP)
International Association of Public Transport (UITP)
International Union of combined Road-Rail transport companies (UIRR)

• Cooperation between the Agency and NB Rail which
acts as a coordination group of the notifi ed bodies
and discusses any matter related to conformity
assessment and verifi cation procedures as well as
the application of TSIs. The Agency took over the
technical secretariat of NB Rail as of the second
trimester of 2011, thus further strengthening
cooperation. The Agency takes part in and assists the
NB Rail Chair at various meetings and helps prepare
agendas, minutes of the meeting and working
documents.
The Agency not only assists coordination between the
notifi ed bodies but also streamlines coordination with
the European Commission and European standardisation
bodies where necessary.
21

3. Railway Interoperability
Progress
22

To measure the progress with interoperability the Agency
established three main groups of indicators: institutional,
legal and subsystem-related.
Institutional indicators are intended to assess progress
with the establishment of the institutions dealing
with interoperability. In particular, they focus on their
competences and structure, administrative capacity and
procedures.
Legal indicators analyse progress with the development of
the legislative framework for interoperability and related
documents and exceptions. This includes adopted TSIs
as well as standards giving presumption of conformity
with TSIs and TSI open points. The monitoring of the
transposition of the Interoperability Directives into
national law is within the competence of the European
Commission and is therefore not dealt with in this report.
Subsystem-related indicators evaluate progress with
the introduction of interoperable subsystems – railway
vehicles and infrastructure – on the railway market. For
the sake of clarity, the analysis of the subsystems is divided
into rolling stock/vehicles and fi xed installations. Though
these two include control-command and signalling (CCS),
there is also a dedicated chapter on CCS because of its
importance for interoperability.
For the time being, the amount of interoperabilityrelated
data available is rather limited because databases
or registers (most of which are rquired by EU railway
legislation) are still being defi ned or populated with data.
The Agency therefore collected data from National Safety
Authorities using questionnaires. These data provided the
basis for the analysis of interoperability progress across
the European Union and Norway. Malta and Cyprus are
not included in the analysis below since they do not
have railway networks. The Agency cannot guarantee
the completeness of the collected data since some
respondents did not reply 3 and some of those who replied
3 The NSAs which replied to the European Railway Agency questionnaire are:
BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, ES, FR, IE, LV, LT, HU, NO, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE and
UK. The NSA NL did not reply and therefore data for NL are not included in some
parts of the analysis in this report. NSA LU and NSA IT provided a partial response
on account of diffi culties with staff recruitment.
may not have provided complete data. Nevertheless, it is
a good starting point for evaluating the current situation.
3.1. Administrative and
institutional indicators
These indicators show how the interoperability legislation
relating to institutional set-up has been implemented,
what has been achieved and where problems have been
encountered.
3.1.1. National Safety Authorities (NSAs)
This section of the report focuses on trends in the number
of NSA employees directly involved with interoperability
and the problems NSAs have in recruiting staff.
3.1.1.1. Number of staff involved in interoperability
Before evaluating the data on NSA staff involved in
interoperability activities it must be noted that the fi gures
provided below are approximated. The approximation was
necessary for two reasons. Firstly, most NSA employees
involved in interoperability also have other tasks.
Consequently, they dedicate only part of their time to
interoperability. Secondly, three NSAs – Germany, Latvia
and Finland – have part-time employees. The fi gures for all
NSAs have therefore been approximated to the equivalent
of full-time employees 4 . They should be considered as
indicative since in most cases the estimation of the
percentage of working time spent on interoperability is
based on expert opinion.
4 Equivalent full-time employees equal the number of employees on full-time
schedules or the number of employees on part-time schedules converted to a fulltime
basis. For example, 1 expert working full time and two experts working part
time (½ full time) equal two equivalent full time experts.
23

24
Chart 1. Number of NSA staff directly involved in interoperability issues by Member State,
in equivalent full time employees*
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
6
9
3
25
162
1 1
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
HU
NL
NO
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
* The fi gures have been approximated since full-time staff also have tasks other than interoperability and in some NSAs
there are also part-time employees.
Source: 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs 24 NSAs responded, no data for the NL
The majority of the NSAs have between one and ten
equivalent full-time employees, of which eleven NSAs have
fi ve or fewer. Three NSAs – Germany, France and Romania
– have more than 30 equivalent full-time employees
which suggests that some countries with larger territories
and a dense rail network may require more staff. NSA
France did not provide data on percentage of the time the
45 staff spend on interoperability issues. Therefore, it has
been assumed that they work full-time on these issues
which may be not the real situation. The remaining fi ve
NSAs – Denmark, Spain, Norway, Austria and Sweden -
have between 10 and 30 equivalent full-time employees.
The conclusion in the fi rst report remains valid. The
differences in the sizes of the NSAs may be related to
the different needs and size of the railways. For example,
the German NSA may require more staff to process
authorisations in view of the specifi c system of regional
government involving Länder. However, the NSAs require
a certain number of staff to function effi ciently. In view
of the complexity and workload of the interoperabilityrelated
activities, the countries with fewer than fi ve
45
people in charge with interoperability issues may face
some challenges. Problems may emerge in the area
of implementation and application of interoperability
legislation and in the availability of resources to participate
in the drafting of TSIs.
3.1.1.2. Staff recruitment
end 2010
22
13
5 4 5 5 4 7
12
15
7
2 2 5
10 8
Of the 24 respondents to the questionnaire only two –
Denmark and the UK – do not experience diffi culties in
recruiting staff. For the remaining 22 NSAs, the most
problematic issues are the less attractive NSA salaries and
the limited number of rail experts on the labour market (see
Chart 2). In some cases the latter is related to the specifi cs
of the national educational system, which does not supply
suffi cient numbers of graduates with technical railway
knowledge. The second biggest problem is the strong
competition for qualifi ed staff from the rail industry,
which may provide better salaries. Some NSAs also cite
the European Railway Agency and the EU institutions as
competitors for highly skilled specialists.
58

NSAs
Cha rt 2. Type of problems experiences by the NSAs in
staff recruitment in 2009 and 2010
20
15
10
5
0
Source: 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs (25 NSAs
responded)
Other problems identifi ed by the NSAs include:
• Limited budget resources of the NSAs
• Planned administrative cost reduction
• National requirements for civil servants that restrict
choice
• Lack of regulations during establishment of the NSA
• Headquarters location
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
12
15
Competition Less Limited Other
from rail attractive number of
industry NSA salaries rail experts
17
11
3.1.2. Notifi ed bodies
This section provides information about the number of
notifi ed bodies by subsystems and by Member State as
well as the level of competition between them.
3.1.2.1. Number of notifi ed bodies
By 2010, the Member States notifi ed to the Commission
the bodies which are to carry out conformity assessment
and verifi cation procedures, indicating the Directive and
subsystems of their competence.
The total number of notifi ed bodies as of 1 January 2010
was 49, an increase of 4.3% compared with the situation
on 1 January 2009 (see Chart 3). Of the 49 notifi ed bodies,
42 operate under both HS and CR Directives, one under
HS Directive only, and six under the CR Directive only.
Five new notifi ed bodies have started operation and three
others have suspended their services. Another suspended
its CR activities and is now notifi ed only for HS. Three
notifi ed bodies extended their competence from HS or CR
subsystems only to both HS and CR subsystems.
There are no signifi cant changes in the number of
notifi ed bodies competent for particular subsystems in
comparison with the situation on 1 January 2009 (see
Chart 3). The number of notifi ed bodies competent for
Chart 3. Number of notifi ed bodies under Directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC, by subsystem/TSI, 01/01/2010
01/01/2008 01/01/2009 01/01/2010
HS INF HS ENE HS CCS HS RST HS MAI PRM SRT CR INF CR ENE CR CCS CR RST
Source: Nando database
25

26
conformity assessment of HS fi xed installations increased
slightly while the number of those competent for CR fi xed
installations and RST remained stable.
Two years from entry into force of TSI PRM and TSI SRT,
the number of the notifi ed bodies competent to carry
out conformity assessment against them appears to be
relatively low as is shown in Chart 3. The reason is that
in the last two years only four countries – CZ, HU, NL and
AT – notifi ed conformity assessment bodies with specifi c
indication of their competence for TSIs PRM and SRT.
The notifi cations before 2008 had no indication of the
competences of notifi ed bodies for these two TSIs since
they had not been into force. The number of notifi ed
bodies competent for TSIs PRM and SRT is expected to
increase considerably with the re-notifi cation of the
notifi ed bodies required by Directive 2008/57.
There are no data for the status of notifi ed bodies’
notifi cations as of the beginning of 2011 for several
reasons. Most importantly, as was just mentioned the
recast Interoperability Directive 2008/57 required renotifi
cation of the notifi ed bodies. The deadline for its
transposition was 19 July 2010. A number of Member
States did not fi nalise their national procedures for its
transposition by the deadline or even later. Consequently,
they were not in a position to re-notify the notifi ed
bodies established in their territories. A second reason
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
is that the European Commission established a new,
more comprehensive format for the notifi cation of the
conformity assessment bodies under Directive 2008/57.
It will require some changes in the presentation of the
graphs and some of the data for 2011 may be diffi cult to
compare with the data for previous years.
3.1.2.2. Level of competition between notifi ed bodies
Not all Member States have established notifi ed bodies.
As of 1 January 2010, eighteen Member States and
Norway have established at least one notifi ed body (see
Chart 4). The Member States which have not yet done so
are Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Ireland and Lithuania. The
notifi ed body in Finland suspended its activities in 2007
on account of its services’ negative operating results. The
notifi ed body in Luxembourg also suspended its activities
in 2009.
With 11 notifi ed bodies, the UK takes the lead in the EU in
terms of established notifi ed bodies. The Netherlands and
Slovenia rank second and third with fi ve and four notifi ed
bodies respectively. Poland also has four notifi ed bodies
but because of the specifi cs of national legislation only
one of them is entitled to issue conformity certifi cates.
The number of notifi ed bodies in Italy dropped from fi ve
to three. The two notifi ed bodies which suspended their
operations were partly owned by German notifi ed bodies.
Chart 4 . Number of notifi ed bodies under Directive 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC by Member State
Source: Nando database
01/01/2008 01/01/2009 01/01/2010
HU
NL
NO
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK

One of them, Consorzio Scirotuv, was bought by another
notifi ed body, Bureau Veritas. A possible explanation for
the second notifi ed body, TÜV Rheinland Italia, suspending
its operations is that its interest in doing business in Italy
has decreased since the major projects involving HS
railway lines have been completed.
The competition between the notifi ed bodies is on a regional
rather than a European scale. One of the main hindrances
to competition on a larger scale is the applicant’s language.
Applicants from countries using different languages to
the notifi ed bodies’ working language are less likely to
spend extra money on translation. However, there are
some examples of competition between countries which
use the same language. Both Belgian and French notifi ed
bodies have managed to get contracts with French and
Belgium companies respectively.
The other limitation to competition between notifi ed
bodies is that some companies act both as notifi ed body
and as body designated to assess the notifi ed national
technical rules. Often they propose a competitive package
for a service including subsystem verifi cation against TSIs
plus assessment against notifi ed national technical rules
(NNTR). As a result, it may be cheaper to choose the same
company for subsystem verifi cation (in its capacity as a
notifi ed body) and for NNTR assessment (in its capacity as
a designated body) than two different companies for the
two procedures. Though such a situation gives competitive
advantage to companies who act both as a notifi ed
body and as a designated body, it may be benefi cial for
applicants, who spend less money and can coordinate the
subsystem verifi cation procedure with fewer assessing
entities.
3.2. Legal indicators
3.2.1. TSIs development and revision
For the time being fi ve high speed (HS) TSIs, eight
conventional rail (CR) TSIs and three transversal TSIs
applying both to HS and CR are in force.
• HS TSIs
The legislative framework for the HS rail system has been
completed and future activities will relate mainly to its
revision and possible merging with CR TSIs (see Table 1).
It may be noted that HS TSI Maintenance, though not
formally repealed, has not been applied since the entry
into force in 2008 of the revised set of HS TSIs. Each of the
revised HS TSIs contains a section relating to maintenance
requirements which supersedes the requirements of HS
TSI Maintenance.
Since the end of 2008 only HS TSI Operation has been
amended (see Table 1). The amendment entered in force
in 2010 and concerns the alignment of the TSI with the
Train Drivers Directive. The part amending annex P and
the parts thereof relating to the European Vehicle Number
(EVN) will enter in force on 1 January 2014 for both HS
and CR TSI Operation.
• CR TSIs
In 2011 the legislative framework for CR TSIs was also
completed. Thus eight CR TSIs were in force as of June
2011 (see Table 2).
Since the end of 2008 a number of new TSIs have been
adopted and several amendments to TSIs in force took
effect. An amendment to CR TSI WAG and CR TSI OPE was
adopted and entered into force in 2009. The amendment
of CR TSI Freight Wagons improved wagon crossauthorisation
by closing 10 open points and by including
certain additional specifi cations. It also corrected several
critical errors in CR TSI WAG.
CR TSI OPE amendment involved annex P5 on the
alphabetical marking of the interoperability capability. CR
TSI OPE amendment in 2010 concerned the operational
rules for ERTMS and for braking performance and the
alignment with the Train Drivers Directive. The part of the
decision amending annex P and the parts thereof relating
to the European Vehicle Number will enter into force on
1 January 2014. The fi rst complete revision of CR TSI OPE
was notifi ed in spring 2011 and will enter into force on
1 January 2012.
Reacting to signals from the sector, the Agency initiated
the revision of the CR TSI NOI in 200 9. The revised
version entered into force on 4 April 2011, rendering the
previous 2005 CR TSI NOI obsolete. The new 2011 CR TSI
NOI facilitates more cost effi cient assessment methods,
including testing on non-reference tracks, corrects errors
27

28
Table 1. HS TSIs and amendments thereto, by year (June 2011)
Year HS TSI INF HS TSI ENE HS TSI RST HS TSI OPE HS TSI CCS TSI TAP
1999
in the 2005 version and has been brought into line with
the latest standardisation works.
Three other CR TSIs entered in force in 2011. They cover
infrastructure (INF), energy (ENE) and locomotives and
passenger RST (LOC&PAS) subsystems. With their entry in
force, plus that of the TSI on Telematic Applications for
Passengers (TAP), the framework of CR TSIs is complete.
In order to provide the most recent information for the
stakeholders, the annexes of the TSIs are updated more
regularly than the TSIs. Such examples are CCS TSIs and
Operation TSIs.
Annex A to CR and HS TSIs CCS, which provides the list
of mandatory specifi cations and the list of informative
specifi cations for the CCS subsystem, is also regularly
updated.
Decision 1999/569
on basic parameters
2001
Decision 2001/260
on basic parameters
2002 Decision 2002/732 Decision 2002/733 Decision 2002/735 Decision 2002/734 Decision 2002/731
2003
2004
2005
2006
EIF of 1st TSI
version
EIF of 1st TSI
version
EIF of 1st TSI
version
EIF of 1st TSI
version
EIF of 1st TSI version
amendment Annex A
Decision 2004/447
Decision 2006/860
1st revision
2007
amendment Annex A
Decision 2007/153
2008 Decision 2008/217 Decision 2008/284 Decision 2008/232 Decision 2008/231 Decision 2008/386
2009
1st revision (EIF) 1st revision (EIF) 1st revision (EIF) 1st revision (EIF) amendment Annex A
2010
2011
Decision 2010/640
amendment
Decision 2010/79
amendment Annex A
3rd TSI version and merge
with CR TSI
vote in RISC in June
The updates of Annexes P9 of CR and HS TSIs Operation
relating to standard numerical marking of wagons are
published on the Agency website every fi rst Wednesday
of the month.
• Transversal TSIs covering both HS and CR systems
In addition to the two groups of CR and HS TSIs, there are
three TSIs which apply to both HS and CR. They cover persons
with reduced mobility (PRM) and safety in railway tunnels
(SRT) and entered in force in 2008. The functional TSI TAP has
already been mentioned in the previous section of the report.
3.2.2. European railway standards
Regulation
454/2011
EIF of 1st TSI
version
The information from the previous report has not been
updated and therefore this indicator will be analysed in
the next biennial report.

Table 2 . CR TSIs and amendments thereto, by year (June 2011)
Year CR TSI INF CR TSI ENE CR TSI WAG CR TSI LOC&PAS CR TSI NOI CR TSI OPE CR TSI CCS CR TSI TAF TSI TAP
2004 Decision 2004/446 Decision 2004/446 Decision 2004/447 Decision 2004/446
on basic parameters on basic parameters on basic parameters on basic parameters
2005
2006 Decision 2006/861 Decision 2006/66 Decision 2006/920 Decision 2006/679 Regulation 62/2006
EIF of 1st TSI version
EIF of 1st TSI version
amendment annex A
EIF of 1st TSI version
2007 EIF of 1st TSI version EIF of 1st TSI version Decision 2007/153
amendment annex A
2008 Decision 2008/386
amendment Annex A
2009 amendment Decision 2009/107 Decision 2009/561
Decision 2009/107 amendment amendment chapter 7
2010 Decision 2010/640 Decision 2010/79
amendment amendment Annex A
Regulation
454/2011
1st revision and merge
with HS TSI
Decision 2011/291 Decision 2011/229 Decision 2011/314
Decision
2011/274
Decision
2011/275
2011
EIF of 1st TSI
version
1st revision 1st revision vote in RISC in June
EIF of 1st TSI
version
EIF of 1st TSI
version
EIF of 1st TSI
version
29

30
3.2.3. Open points
Open points are technical aspects corresponding to the
essential requirements which cannot be covered in a TSI.
They are identifi ed in an annex to the TSI concerned. Open
points usually lead to the emergence of more different
solutions and thus hinder harmonisation efforts. Therefore
the working groups revising the TSIs make every effort to
close them. Consequently, it may be expected that the
number of open points will decrease with the revision of
the TSIs.
The Interoperability Directive has specifi c provisions to
ensure transparency of the bodies and procedures related
to the assessment of national rules covering open points.
Table 3. Bodies assessing Notifi ed National Technical Rules
Accordingly, the Member States have to notify to the
European Commission a list of national technical rules
which are applicable for open points. They also require
the Member States to designate bodies which verify that
the subsystem complies with NNTRs before it is placed in
service.
The sections below look into developments as regards
these two aspects: designated bodies and number of open
points.
3.2.3.1. Designated bodies
The designated bodies are bodies which are designated by
the Member States to assess notifi ed national technical
NSA NoBos which are also DeBos DeBo other than NoBo Comments
BE x
BG x
CZ x x
DK x ISA
DE x
EE x
EL x
ES x x x
FR QQA OQA: organisme qualifi é agrée
IE x x
IT x x ISA
LV x x
LT
LU
x
HU x x
NL x data from 2008 questionnaire
NO x x
AT x x Independent experts
PL x x
PT x x
RO x
The Republic of Slovenia is in the process of nominating a DeBo.
SI x
NSA SI is checking compliance with notifi ed technical rules during
the transitional period.
SK x
FI x
SE x
UK x
Total 16 13 9
Source: 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs (23 NSAs responded)

ules applicable for open points, specifi c cases and
derogations. The Member States chose different solutions
for the assessment of the notifi ed national technical rules
applicable for open points (see Table 4). The majority opted
for more proactive involvement of their NSAs:
• In six Member States – Germany, Estonia, Lithuania,
Slovenia, Finland and Sweden – the NNTRs are checked
by the NSAs only.
• In three Member States – Hungary, Norway and Poland
the NNTRs are checked by the NSA and notifi ed bodies,
both of which act as designated bodies.
• In four Member States – Czech Republic, Denmark,
Ireland and Latvia the NNTRs are checked by the NSA
and a designated body which is different from the
notifi ed body.
• In three Member States – Spain, Italy and Austria –
the designated body role to assess NNTRs is played
by the NSA, the notifi ed body or another assessment
body.
3.2.3.2. Number of open points
The ‘number of open points’ shows the unresolved areas
for harmonisation in the different subsystems. The closing
of open points is a good indicator of the progress with
harmonisation of the various national requirements, but this
should not be ultimate goal in all cases. In a comprehensive
evaluation it is important also to take into account their
content, the economic considerations and regional specifi cs.
The revision of the TSIs showed some progress with the
closing of open points (see Chart 5). The revised TSI CCS
which merges CR and HS TSIs signifi cantly reduced the
number of open points to 16 which is by over 50%.
The amendment of Decision 2006/861/EC concerning CR
TSI Freight Wagons closed two open points and provided
a solution for 10 open points regarding go-everywhere
(passe-partout) wagons.
The revised CR TSI OPE also showed progress, with the
closure of four open points. The open point ‘usable width
of the platform’ in HS TSI INF has been closed by the entry
into force of the TSI PRM.
Chart 5. Number of open points by TSI (year of entry into force of the TSI), as of 21/12/2010
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2006
end 2008
end 2010
HS INF CR INF HS ENE CR ENE HS RST CR WAG CR HS CCS* CR CCS* PRM HS OPE CR OPE TAP
draft draft LOC&PAS draft
draft
*With the 2011 amendment CR TSI CCS and HS TSI CCS will merge into one TSI; it was at the draft stage at the end of 2010
Source: European Railway Agency, 2010
31

32
The remaining TSIs either have not been revised or have
been adopted recently. Therefore, there are no new
developments in closing of the open points in these TSIs.
3.3. Rolling stock and vehicles
Subsystem-related indicators were developed to evaluate
progress with the introduction of interoperable subsystems
and interoperability constituents (ICs) on the railway market.
To this end the analysis below looks at EC Certifi cates for
ICs and subsystems as well as the authorisations for placing
in service for vehicles. These include HS trainsets, CCS onboard,
CR freight wagons, coaches, locomotives and CR
trainsets. PRM and SRT TSIs are also considered to the
extent they relate to rolling stock.
This section also examines the time necessary for the
authorisation of vehicles and the fees charged. Finally, the
progress in cross-acceptance of vehicles is assessed.
Chart 6. Numb er of EC Certifi cates for ICs issued,
requested and withdrawn by April 2011, by
subsystem/TSI; and relative share of IC certifi cates
issued and requested, by subsystem
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
30
5
63
145
8
45
497
30
212
Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 on EC Certifi cates use data from
the NB Rail database. These data could not be considered
as complete for two reasons. Firstly, 38 out of 49 notifi ed
bodies notifi ed by Member States provided data on the
certifi cates issued, requested and withdrawn. Secondly,
the data provided by some notifi ed bodies dated back to
2005, 2006 or 2007. Nevertheless, the NB Rail database
may be used to give an indicative quantifi cation of the
certifi cation process.
3.3.1. EC Certifi cates for Interoperability
Constituents (ICs)
The number of EC Certifi cates issued by notifi ed bodies
appears to be the most appropriate indicator to assess the
market entry of interoperability constituents. However, it
is not an accurate indicator for several reasons. Firstly, for
some ICs (certifi ed under module A) no certifi cation by a
notifi ed body is required.
ICs certificates issued
ICs certificates requested
(ongoing certification)
ICs certificates withdrawn
ENE INF CCS RST WAG PRM
Source: NB Rail Database, 01/04/2011
818
21
152
131
RST 50%
CCS 31%
INF 9%
ENE 2%
WAG 8%
0 1 9 0 0

Secondly, the TSIs always allow manufacturers the option
of using an assessment procedure based on a quality
management system. In such cases the notifi ed body
issues quality management system approval, which in turn
guarantees the conformity of the ICs. The notifi ed body
does not isses separate certifi cates for the ICs produced
after the quality management system has been approved.
For such cases the information presented below will
therefore refl ect only the quality management approval
certifi cate and not the number of ICs.
Thirdly, some of the certifi cates may cover more than one
IC (serial products), the data below refl ect the number of
certifi cates and not the number of ICs covered by them.
For the above reasons it may be concluded that the
number of certifi cates does not equal the number of ICs
certifi ed to be placed on the market. Consequently, the
number of EC certifi cates issued by the notifi ed bodies
does not exactly quantify the ICs on the market but it does
provide an estimate.
The EC declarations issued by the manufacturer may
provide a better quantifi cation of the marketed ICs.
However, by June 2011 only three EC declarations for ICs
had been registered in the ERADIS database. Since ERADIS
Chart 7. Number of EC Certifi cates for ICs issued by
the beginning of 2009 and by April 2011,
by subsystem/TSI
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
66 30
106 145
356
497
ENE INF CCS RST WAG PRM
Source: NB Rail Database, 01/04/2011
245
818
208
131
2009
2011
9
data are insuffi cient, the analysis below is structured
around the data for EC Certifi cates from the NB Rail
database.
Chart 6 shows the number of EC Certifi cates for ICs
which are sorted into three groups. The fi rst group
concerns EC Certifi cates for ICs which were issued and
renewed by the notifi ed bodies. The second group relates
to the number of requests for IC certifi cation for which
certifi cation is ongoing; this group excludes requests for
which EC Certifi cates have been issued or withdrawn. The
third group relates to EC Certifi cates for ICs which were
withdrawn or refused or which have expired.
The data highlight the expansion of the market of RST
interoperability constituents. It must be noted that though
freight wagon ICs are presented separately, many notifi ed
bodies provided the data for WAG ICs under RST ICs.
Therefore, the decrease in certifi cates for wagon ICs shown
in Chart 7 should be treated with care. Taken together,
the relative share of certifi cates issued and requested for
RST and WAG ICs had increased by 12% in April 2011
compared with their relative share at the beginning of
2009. In absolute terms, the number of certifi cates for HS
RST and WAG ICs issued increased by almost 50% in just
over two years.
The other big market is CCS interoperability constituents
such as Eurobalise, ERTMS/GSM-R on-board, etc. It is
important to note that the fi gure for CCS certifi cates
shows both on-board and track-side ICs. In 2011, the
relative share of CCS constituents is 31% which is a
slight decrease compared with their relative share in
the beginning of 2009. In absolute terms, the number of
certifi cates for CCS ICs issued increased by 40%, to almost
500.
3.3.2. EC Certifi cates for subsystems
The EC Certifi cates for subsystems are sorted into three
groups, the same as those for ICs. The EC Certifi cates
for subsystems may involve verifi cation against CR TSI
Noise, TSI Persons with Reduced Mobility and TSI Safety in
Railway Tunnels. Where one EC Certifi cate was issued for
verifi cation of the requirements of two or more TSIs – e.g.
Energy and Infrastructure or Freight Wagons and Noise
33

34
– it is classifi ed under ‘multiple’ subsystems; however,
some notifi ed bodies classifi ed such certifi cates under the
respective subsystem – RST, INF, etc.
Most notifi ed bodies attributed the EC Certifi cates for
freight wagons to RST.
As in the case of ICs, the RST subsystem increased
dramatically. Chart 8 shows that the relative share of
certifi cates for RST had increased by 14% in April 2011
compared with the beginning of 2009. In absolute
terms the number of EC Certifi cates for RST subsystems
quadrupled compared with the beginning of 2009 (see
Chart 9).
CCS subsystem certifi cation also shows progress. The
relative share of CCS certifi cates issued and requested
increased by 3% between the beginning of 2009 and 2011.
The number of EC Certifi cates issued for CCS subsystems
Chart 8. Number of EC Certifi cates for subsystems/
TSI issued, requested and withdrawn by April 2011,
by subsystem; and relative share of subsystem
certifi cates issued and requested, by subsystem
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
195
146
59
77
80
85
57
98
5 4
1
3 1 0
747
increased by a factor of seven. As noted for the CCS IC,
the subsystem certifi cates also grouped on-board and
trackside subsystems together.
3.3.3. Fees for authorisat ion for placing
in service
Most of the NSAs charge a fee for the authorisation
for placing in service. Furthermore, there is a trend of
decrease in the number of the NSAs which do not charge
fees. Since 2008 three NSAs – Belgium, Lithuania and
Sweden – moved from free-of-charge authorisations to
charging (see Chart 10). There are signs that the same will
happen in Greece and Italy.
In 2010, seven NSAs provided their services free of charge:
Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Norway and the UK.
In the UK, however, there is an indirect charge for some
sS certificates issued
sS certificates requested
(ongoing certification)
sS certificates withdrawn
20
5 1 4 15 0 4 2 0 15 4 1
ENE INF CCS RST WAG NOI PRM SRT Multiple
Source: NB Rail Database, 01/04/2011
RST 53%
CCS 18%
INF 15%
ENE 9%
Multiple 1%
SRT 0,4%
PRM 1,3%
NOI 2%
WAG 0,3%

Chart 9. Number of EC Certifi cates for subsystems issued by the beginning of 2009 and by April 2011,
by subsystem/TSI
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
27
59
ENE INF CCS RST WAG NOI PRM SRT Multiple
applicants for authorisation for placing in service. This is a
consequence of the fi nancing the Offi ce of Rail Regulation
(NSA UK) budget by the rail industry itself, through a levy
based upon turnover of the operating companies.
The number of NSAs that answered this question in 2010
increased by two.
Chart 10. Does the NSA charge fee(s)
for authorisation for placing in service?
64
146
Source: NB Rail Database, 01/04/2011
20
15
10
5
0
9
2008 2009
7
Source: 2008 and 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaires to NSAs
29
195
13
No Yes
169
17
747
3 3 12 20
2009 2011
0 4 0 4 9 15
Three-quarters of the NSAs charge fees for authorisations.
They use three main methods for pricing:
• Hour-based rate applied in Belgium, Germany, France,
Poland and Finland. In this charging scheme the total
amount of the fee depends on the man-hours needed for
the authorisation. The rate varies from 100 to 125 EUR/
hour in the different countries. In Belgium the fee is
750 EUR/day. For a seven and a half hour day this rate
is equivalent to 100 EUR/hour, which is within the price
range for the other four countries using hour-based rates.
• Fixed rates which are usually differentiated by
subsystem. There are some differences in the countries
in this group. Some NSAs – Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Hungary, Portugal and Romania – have a fee for the
authorisation of the wagon type. Then the authorisation
of the wagons may be charged additionally for a
relatively low fee (Bulgaria and Hungary) or may be free
of charge (Czech Republic, Portugal and Romania).
In Austria the fee is an administrative fee related to the
number of pages contained in the application documents.
The remaining NSAs in this group base their rates
for authorisations per vehicle in the price range 40-
35

36
330 EUR per wagon. Portugal is expected to move to
this group in the future, since its new structure provides
for fees for each vehicle and not for type authorisation.
Charges for the authorisation of HS locomotives
and trainsets by the four NSAs which indicated the
amount charged range from 1 000-2 000 EUR in Czech
Republic and Romania to 10 000 EUR in Portugal. In
most cases these are type authorisations.
• Combined fi xed rate plus hour-based rate applied
in Slovenia. For example, the fee for authorisation of a
freight wagon is calculated on the basis of 38 EUR plus
an hour-based rate of 6,14 EUR/hour for additional
checks.
3.3.4. Average time for autho risation procedure
The average time for the authorisation procedure for
placing in service varies across the countries and types of
rolling stock.
• Freight wagons
The average time for new freight wagons authorisations
declared by the NSAs allows to group them as follows:
- Average authorisation time of 30 days: Belgium,
Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Austria, Romania,
Slovenia and Slovakia
- Average authorisation time of 50-60 days:
Germany, France, Lithuania, Poland and Finland
- Average authorisation time of 90 days or more:
Czech Republic (only for type authorisation), Spain
and Hungary.
Best practice may be noted with the NSA UK where the
authorisation of freight wagons takes 10-20 days. This is
possible because of the very proactive NSA policy of early
pre-engagement with the applicants. Problems are thus
identifi ed and solved at an early stage of the projects.
The early involvement of the NSAs also improves the
quality of the applicants’ documents as well as their
completeness. As the completeness of the documents
appears to be a common problem for the NSAs, the UK
example is important since it provides a possible solution.
3.3.5. Number of authorisatio ns of rolling stock
and vehicles under the TSI regime
The data concerning number of authorisations for placing
in service of rolling stock under the TSI regime should
not be confused with the number of authorised vehicles
under the TSI regime. The number of authorisations
is smaller than the number of authorised vehicles for
at least two reasons. Firstly, in some countries, such as
France, the NSA may issue type authorisation for certain
categories of rolling stock. After the type is authorised
new vehicles which conform to this type do not need
authorisation. Thus data about these vehicles could not
be provided by the NSAs. Secondly, most of the NSAs may
issue authorisations which cover several vehicles or series
of vehicles. Therefore, the number of authorisations is
smaller than the number of vehicles authorised.
• Reconciliation with the Cross Acceptance Report on
Vehicle Authorisation
On 15 April 2011 the Agency published the fi rst part of
its Report on Vehicle Authorisation 5 . The report presented
data on the types, authorisations for placing in service and
vehicles authorised in the European Railway Area (EU25 6
plus Norway and Switzerland) from the start of 2004 to
mid-2009. All NSAs responded to the initial questionnaire,
although not all of them were in existence for this period
of time. The responses received were then normalised
for these 27 Member States. The present report has
attempted to reconcile the fi gures for the years 2007 –
2009 specifi cally for wagons. It was not possible for other
vehicle types as the TSI LOC & PAS only came into force
in 2011. For the wagon data, it proved impossible to
reconcile the differences between the two data sets. The
reason for this is that the two data collection exercises are
looking at different aspects of the vehicle authorisation
process. The Cross Acceptance survey looked at all of
the vehicles authorised by an NSA for placing in service,
whether TSI compliant or not. The Interoperability data
looks only at the data where a TSI has been used in the
authorisation process, hence the lower numbers of
vehicles. After discussions between the Interoperability,
Cross Acceptance, and Economic Evaluation Units, data
5 http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Documents/Final%20
report%20on%20vehicle%20authorisation%20(part%201).pdf
6 Here EU25 means EU27 excluding Malta and Cyprus, which have no rail network

collected for the 2013 report will be harmonised so the
data collected will be clear.
Bearing in mind that in 2012 all vehicle authorisations
must involve verifi cation against TSIs, there should be
no difference between authorisations and authorisations
involving TSIs. Authorisations under national regime may
only be granted in the exceptional cases provided for in
Directive 2008/57 and the applicable TSIs. All this will be
taken into account in the next NSA questionnaires.
• HS trainsets
Having said this, the 23 replies received from the
NSAs indicated that three authorisations had been
granted for HS rolling stock in 2009, of which two
were with derogations. These were issued in Belgium
– one authorisation with derogation – and in France –
two authorisations, of which one with derogation. In
Germany, 10 authorisations for upgrade and renewal
of a total of 140 HS trainsets were issued under the
national regime. To summarise, in 2009 only one of the
13 authorisations for HS rolling stock was TSI compliant
with no derogation. This is indicative of diffi culties in
achieving the target values specifi ed in the applicable
TSIs for HS vehicles.
Chart 11 shows a trend of decrease in the number
of authorised types of HS trainsets since 2006.
These countries which issued the authorisations are
respectively:
• in 2006 – Czech Republic and Germany;
• in 2007 – Germany, France and the United Kingdom;
• in 2008 – France and the United Kingdom;
• in 2009 – Belgium and France.
• CCS on-board
The trend of deviation from TSI target values is also
noticeable for the CCS on-board subsystem. More than
half of the authorisations for HS CCS on-board issued
in 2009 were with derogations. Nineteen authorisations
were issued under the TSI regime, of which 11 were with
derogations. The NSAs which issued the authorisations
are respectively: Belgium (13, of which 11 were with
derogations), Germany (4) and France (2). For CR CCS onboard
four authorisations were issued, of which two were
under the national regime (see Chart 11).
• CR freight wagons
There was a signifi cant increase in authorisations for
freight wagon from about 40 in 2008 to over 4 900 in
2009 (see Chart 13). It must be noted that in 2009 most
of the NSAs provided data based on the number of
authorised vehicles while the data for 2008 are based
mainly on authorisations for series of wagons. In 2009
more than 75% of authorisations for freight wagons
under the TSI regime were issued in Germany; almost all of
these were verifi ed only against TSI WAG. Of the wagons
covered by remaining authorisations all except one were
verifi ed against both TSI WAG and TSI Noise. Hungary
ranked second with 12.5% of the authorisations, followed
by Poland with 3%. The UK’s relative share is 5% but all of
these authorisations are with derogations.
As already mentioned at the beginning of this section,
some authorisations (FR, NO, PL, PT, SK) are issued for
single vehicles and others for types or series of wagons.
Furthermore, the 2009 revision of the CR TSI WAG made it
possible for go-everywhere wagons to be cross authorised,
i.e. the fi rst authorisation issued in any of Member States
is valid in all other Member States. Such wagons should be
compatible with a 1 435 mm track gauge and a G1 loading
gauge and have less than 17,5 m between two adjacent
Chart 11. Number of aut horisations for placing
in service under TSI regime for HS subsystems,
by subsystem
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
authorisation with derogations
authorisation without derogations
2006 2007 2008 2009 2009
HS RST HS CCS
onboard
Source: 2008 and 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaires to NSAs
37

38
Chart 12. Number of auth orisations for placing in service for HS and CR CCS on-board subsystem under TSI
and national regime, 2009
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
Source: 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs (23 NSAs responded)
Chart 13. Number of author isations for placing in service for WAG under TSI regime, 2009
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
104
BE
BG
CZ
DK
3 976
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
Source: 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs (23 NSAs responded)
HU
NL
HU
NL
NO
AT
2009 HS CCS – TSI regime
2009 CR CCS – TSI regime
2009 CR CCS – national regime
NO
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
TSI regime
National regime
9 3
1
7 4 2 5 8 2 8 1 10 1 1
axles. For these reasons comparisons and conclusions
based on the data below should be made with care.
The authorisations issued under national regimes are
analysed in more detail in the next section, 3.3.6.
349
650
221
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
511
62
SK
FI
SE
12
SE
UK
253
UK
• CR passenger carriages, locomotives and trainsets
In 2009, the set of TSIs for conventional rail was not complete.
This is to say that the CR TSI on locomotives and passenger
carriages had not been adopted. Nevertheless, some or
all three transversal TSIs – Noise, Persons with Reduced

Mobility and Safety in Railway Tunnels - were applicable for
CR passenger carriages, locomotives and trainsets.
In 2009, the NSAs issued 307 authorisations for passenger
carriages, of which about a third were under the TSI
regime (TSIs NOI+PRM+SRT). All of them were granted in
Hungary (see Chart 14). The other four NSAs which declared
authorisations for passenger carriages in 2009 – Bulgaria,
Ireland, Slovakia and Finland – issued them exclusively
under the national regime.
The proportion of the authorisations issued for locomotives
under the TSI regime (TSIs NOI and SRT) is again a third
of the total number (653) of locomotive authorisations
in 2009. These were granted by the NSAs Hungary (185),
Portugal (11), Slovenia (10) and France (1). Only four of
212 authorisations for locomotives under the TSI regime
are with derogations that is fewer than 2%. The NSAs
Bulgaria, Spain, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Finland
and the UK issued authorisations for locomotives under
their national regimes only.
More than 20% of authorisations for CR trainsets were
granted under the TSI regime (TSIs NOI, SRT and PRM).
These authorisations were issued by the NSAs Germany
(53), Hungary (23), Lithuania (2) and France (2). Three of
these are with derogations which is about 4%. The NSAs
Czech Republic, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Finland
and the UK issued authorisations for CR trainsets under
their national regimes only.
• Authorised vehicles
When interpreting the data for the HS rolling stock and
CR freight wagons subsystems it is important to note that
the actual number of vehicles authorised may be greater
than the number of authorisations issued. This is because
in some cases one authorisation is issued for a series of
vehicles (see Chart 13 and Table 4).
The NSAs did not provide data on the number of authorised
HS trainsets covered by the three authorisations granted
under the TSI regime in 2009.
The number of freight wagons authorised under the
TSI regime in 2009 doubled in comparison with 2008.
In absolute terms, over 6 300 freight wagons were
authorised, around 4% with derogations.
Chart 14. Number of authoris ations for placing in service for CR RST, by type of vehicle, under TSI regime
(NOI, PRM, SRT), 2009
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
BE
BG
CZ
DK
53
2 1 2 3 2
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
Source: 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs (23 NSAs responded)
98
185
23
HU
NL
NO
AT
PL
PT
CR Passenger carriages
CR Locomotive
CR Trainset
11 10
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
39

40
Table 4. Number of auth orisations for series of vehicles and the total number of authorised vehicles under
the TSI regime for CR Freight Wagons per year
CR TSI WAG
Total TSI
authorisations
authorisations
for vehicles
3.3.6. Total number of authorisa tions of rolling
stock and vehicles
To better understand the progress with interoperability
within the railway system it is useful to examine the share
of the authorisations under the TSI regime in the total
number of authorisations. The result provides us with an
estimate of how many of the new, upgraded and renewed
vehicles meet the TSI target values.
The data below compares the total numbers of
authorisations – both under national rules and under the
TSI regime – and the number of authorisations under the
TSI regime only (see Table 5).
of which
authorisations
for series
Number of vehicles
in the series
Total number of
authorised vehicles
(1) (2)=(3)+(4) (3) (4) (5) (6)=(3)+(5)
2009 4 919 4 889 19 1 693 6 329
2008 43 15 28 3 054 3 069
2007 5 2 3 218 220
Source: European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs (23 NSAs responded)
Table 5. Number of author isations for placing in service under the TSI regime only and under both TSI
and national regimes, by subsystem and by year
Year 2009 2008 2007
Total number
of authoris.
(Nat+TSI
regime)
Subsystem Number
of which authoris.
under TSI regime
% of total
authoris.
Total number
of authoris.
(Nat+TSI
regime)
of which authoris.
under TSI regime
Number
% of total
authoris.
Total number
of authoris.
(Nat+TSI
regime)
of which authoris.
under TSI regime
Number
% of total
authoris.
HS RST 13 3 23% 32 5 16% 30 29 97%
CR WAG 6 200 4 919 79% 2 199 43 2% 5 494 5 0,1%
CR passenger
carriages
307 98 32%
CR locomotives 653 212 32%
CR trainsets 350 80 23%
Source: 2008 and 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs
• HS trainsets
In 2009 most of the authorisations for HS trains were
issued under national regime and all of them were for
upgrade and renewal. They covered 140 vehicles and
concerned:
- Multiple operation TGV POS – additional authorisation
under national rules for coupling of two units;
- Redesign (internal design) of 10-year old TGV
PBKA Thalys.
• Freight wagons
Freight wagons appear to score best in terms of
compliance with the TSIs, which signifi es a positive trend

for interoperability when compared with previous years.
In 2009, about 20% of the wagons were still authorised
under national regimes. Eleven of the twenty-three NSAs
who replied to the questionnaire authorised wagons under
national regime. The countries with most authorisations
under national regime are Slovakia, Spain, Hungary and
Bulgaria. Different reasons were cited for using national
rules (see Chart 13). These include:
- authorisations for special purpose vehicles;
- projects in advanced state of development;
- specifi c cases;
- upgrades and renewals;
- wagons intended to be used on national rail (non-
TEN-T) network only.
The last reason may be valid only in cases when wagons
operate only on non-TEN-T national network. In fact, in
a number of countries the application of the TSIs would
depend on whether the vehicles will be used for international
or national traffi c rather than whether they are intended
for operation on TEN-T or non-TEN-T rail network. Such
an interpretation is suggestive of departure from the
provisions of the Interoperability Directives. Hopefully, this
problem will be solved with the transposition of the recast
Interoperability Directive 2008/57, which extends its scope
to the whole network for the vehicles. In addition, the RST
TSIs may also extend their scope if the cost-benefi t analysis
yields positive results in favour of such a development.
• CR passenger carriages, locomotives and trainsets
There has been some progress with TSI application as
regards CR passenger carriages, locomotives and trainsets.
Although the CR TSI Locomotives and Passenger Carriages
was not yet in force in 2009, several other TSIs were
applicable. Between 20% and 30% of the vehicles in
this group were authorised under the TSI regime and in
particular the TSIs Noise, Persons with Reduced Mobility,
and Safety in Railway Tunnels. The NSAs which granted
the authorisations are shown in Chart 14.
Among the authorisations granted by the NSAs there were
some cases where the TSIs PRM and SRT were not applied.
A brief analysis of the reasons why is provided below.
Seven of the NSAs granted authorisations for CR vehicles
which were not assessed against the TSI PRM. The most
common reason that PRM TSI was not applied was that
the projects were at an advanced stage of development.
The second most common reason was that the rolling
stock had been constructed to an existing design. In three
countries – Belgium, Germany and Ireland – the TSI PRM
was not applied for upgraded and renewed rolling stock.
In 2009, the TSI PRM had not yet been adopted in Norway
and was therefore not applied.
Six of the NSAs granted authorisations for CR vehicles
which were not assessed against the TSI SRT. Here again
the most common reason – in nine Member States - was
that SRT TSI was not applied because the projects were at an
advanced stage of development. The second most common
reason was that the rolling stock had been constructed to
an existing design. In three countries – Germany, France and
Ireland – TSI SRTI was not applied for upgraded and renewed
rolling stock. The NSAs suggested some other reasons
for not applying the TSI SRT. In the Czech Republic some
vehicles are authorised with restriction of operation; they
are not permitted to operate in tunnels longer than 1 km. In
the UK there was an authorisation for a replica of a historical
vehicle. In Estonia and Latvia there are no railway tunnels.
• Acceptance of authorisations from other Member States
In 2009, no cases of authorisation for placing in service
of HS trainsets already authorised in other Member States
were reported by the NSAs. However, there were some
for freight wagons. Most of these authorisations were
granted in France (50) without additional assessment. The
other authorisations were granted in Norway (10) and in
Belgium (1), the latter with additional assessment.
The NSA Czech Republic granted authorisations for two
other categories of CR rolling stock. The fi rst authorisation
concerns 10 Siemens electrical locomotives ES64U2 already
authorised in Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Poland, Hungary,
Netherlands, Italy and Switzerland. Some additional tests
were done - for electro-magnetic compatibility of the
train detection (TSI CCS open point), changes in software
to reduce emissions and a test of national train control
system. The second authorisation was for eight BR 654
vehicles authorised in Germany with no additional tests.
An example of best practice in mutual recognition of
vehicle authorisations can be found in Austria, where
these requirements are provided for in national law.
41

42
Consequently, vehicles authorisations issued in other EU
Member States are recognised without further checks by
the Austrian NSA, provided that they contain evidence for
checks and assessments equivalent to the ones required
by Austrian law. If necessary, additional tests concerning
technical compatibility with the network are performed by
the railway undertaking and the infrastructure manager.
This section examined the information provided by the
NSAs about their acceptance of vehicle authorisations
issued in other Member States. The next section of the
report looks in more detail at the progress made with the
cross acceptance of rolling stock in the EU.
3.3.7. Cross acceptance of vehicles
A key change brought in by the recast Interoperability
Directive is the principle of mutual recognition under the
concept of cross acceptance. Cross acceptance is a ‘bridge’
to interoperability in that it provides benefi ts whilst the
TSIs remain narrower in scope than the whole railway
system. Cross acceptance will be required as long as TSIs
contain open points and until the entire European railway
network conforms to a complete set of TSIs.
Annex VII of the recast Interoperability Directive builds
upon work carried out by approximately ten Member
States in bilateral and multilateral agreements.
The work on equivalence of rules between Member States
comprises a three-stage process:
• First, a common checklist of parameters to be checked
for vehicle authorisation is elaborated. This has been
completed by the Agency and published as Commission
Decision 2009/965/EC.
• Then, for each of the parameters, the national rules for
each Member State are listed in the reference document.
• Finally, the national rules are classifi ed as A, B or C:
- An ‘A’ classifi cation is given by an NSA to another
Member State’s rule when it is recognised by the
fi rst NSA as equivalent to its own rule.
- A ‘B’ classifi cation means that the rules have not
yet been compared.
- A ‘C’ classifi cation means that the rules are not
equivalent.
This process eliminates duplicate or unnecessary checks by
ensuring that for additional authorisations in a second or
subsequent Member State only the parameters specifi cally
related to compatibility with the second or subsequent
network are checked.
In 2010, as a result of excellent work by the NSAs, the Agency
published most of the national reference documents listing
the national rules for each parameter and, where available,
the equivalence of other Member States rules.
On 1 April 2011, Commission Decision 2011/155/EU on the
publication and management of the reference document
came into force. It gives the rules’ classifi cations legal
force.
At the end of 2009 the NSAs got involved in Geographical
Interest Groups (GIGs) where they met to compare and
classify each other’s rules.
The involvement of NSAs in classifi cation has increased
from nine NSAs in 2010 to 13 NSAs in the fi rst quarter
of 2011. At the time of publication this fi gure has further
increased to 20 NSAs and the Agency looks forward to
facilitating continued and new involvement throughout
the year.
In order to chart development between the GIGs, the
Agency has collated the classifi cations carried out against
the parameters up to the fi rst quarter of 2011.
The number of rules classifi ed as ‘A’ has increased between
2010 and 2011 (see Chart 15). This is positive, in that it
shows a move towards cross acceptance between Member
States.
The Agency also recognises that classifi cation is ‘work in
progress’. The Agency is looking forward to collating the
results that have already been achieved within individual
GIGs and defi ning a harmonised approach to classifi cation.
The Agency also intends to provide tools to improve
information exchange within and between the different
GIGs.

Chart 15. Relative share of classifi ed national rules in 2010 and 1st quarter 2011
Source: European Railway Agency
A 60%
B 23%
C 17%
Although it would appear that the benefi ts of cross
acceptance arise only when rules are classifi ed, the process
of working to a check list and the need to identify the rules
for each parameter has proved very benefi cial in encouraging
Member States to identify and ‘clean up’ their rules.
Commission Decision 2011/155/EU requires the rules
contained in the reference document to be notifi ed. The
objective of such notifi cation is to ensure that the rules are
consistent with the European legislation. Where it appears
that there is inconsistency of the rules with European
legislation, the Commission may ask the Member States
to change their rules.
‘Cleaning-up’ is necessary to ensure that at shared
interfaces the rules describing requirements, dimensions,
values and checking methods are made public and apply
equally to all applicants.
In particular the NSA decision on whether a vehicle meets
the requirements must be based upon verifi cation of
conformity with the requirements laid down in the rules,
rather than on the judgement of an expert. Until the full
set of rules defi ning the shared interfaces is in place it
may be necessary to use the common safety methods
in risk assessment for particular undefi ned interfaces.
However, this has the disadvantage that whilst assuring
safe integration across the interface it does not assure
technical compatibility and interoperability.
A 63%
B 16%
C 21%
Most of the Member States consider that the application
of standards proves compliance with their national rules.
This might give rise to the following problem: when a
new version of a standard is issued the classifi cations
of all the Member States that use that standard as a
national rule become compromised and need to be reevaluated.
Evaluating the impact of changes in standards
on the classifi cation of rules might in future generate an
additional workload for the NSAs and the Agency.
To support the cross acceptance work, the Agency has
undertaken studies to understand the physics that
underpin the existing diverse approaches to some of the
vehicle/network interfaces, such as vehicle dynamics and
Electro-Magnetic Compatibility (EMC).
In almost every Member State the rules for vehicle
authorisation relating to the vehicle-network interface
were previously set within the national railway company
and now need to be adopted by the Member State and
made transparent and non-discriminatory.
The Agency is now working on these issues with the
stakeholders, in some cases assisted by research projects
so that requirements can be made transparent and
verifi able in the TSIs and national rules.
43

44
3.4. Fixed installations
Indicators that measure the progress with railway
interoperability of fi xed installations cover infrastructure,
energy and the trackside part of control-command and
signalling subsystems. The TSIs Safety in Railway Tunnels
and Persons with Reduced Mobility are also considered to
the extent they relate to fi xed installations.
The indicators examined in this section evaluate the
progress made with the introduction of infrastructure,
energy and CCS trackside subsystems and interoperability
constituents (ICs) on the railway market. To this end
the analysis below looks at EC Certifi cates for ICs and
for subsystems as well as the authorisations for placing
in service. It also examines the time necessary for the
authorisation procedure and the fees charged. Finally,
the length of the lines verifi ed against HS TSIs Energy and
Infrastructure are analysed.
Chart 16. Number of EC Certifi cates for ICs issued,
requested and withdrawn by April 2011, by
subsystem/TSI; and relative share of IC certifi cates
issued and requested by subsystem
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
30
5
63
145
8
45
497
30
212
3.4.1. EC Certifi cates for Interoperability
Constituents (ICs)
The conclusions about the accuracy of EC Certifi cates
for rolling stock ICs made in section 3.3.1 are also valid
for EC Certifi cates for fi xed installations ICs. Though IC
certifi cates are the most feasible way to make an estimate
of the number of the ICs on the market, the numbers of
the two are not the same. The number of EC Certifi cates
will always be smaller than the total number of marketed
ICs. This is because:
- Some ICs do not require notifi ed body assessment;
conformity with the TSIs is solely the responsibility
of the manufacturer;
- Manufacturers with a quality management system
(QMS) would not receive an EC Certifi cate for
ICs but a QMS approval, which guarantees the
conformity of the ICs;
ICs certificates issued
ICs certificates requested
(ongoing certification)
ICs certificates withdrawn
ENE INF CCS RST WAG PRM
Source: NB Rail Database, 01/04/2011
818
21
152
131
RST 50%
CCS 31%
INS 9%
ENE 2%
WAG 8%
0 1 9 0 0

- Certifi cates may cover more than one IC (serial
products).
Chart 16 shows the status of EC Certifi cates for the
38 notifi ed bodies which provided data in the NB Rail
database at the beginning of 2011. It should be noted that
the fi gures for certifi cates issued do not relate to 2010
or 2011 only. They indicate the number of certifi cates
which notifi ed bodies have produced since they started
work as notifi ed bodies. The same applies for certifi cates
withdrawn.
By the beginning of 2011, 145 certifi cates had been
issued for the four infrastructure (INF) interoperability
constituents – rail, fastenings, sleepers and bearers and
switches and crosses. By the same time the number of
certifi cates withdrawn because of expiry is 45, which is
about a third of the number of certifi cates issued.
The EC Certifi cates issued for the energy IC which are still
valid amount to 30. A signifi cant number of EC Certifi cates
(63) has been withdrawn because they have expired. This
is twice the number of the certifi cates issued by that time.
It is diffi cult to draw conclusions for the trackside CCS
ICs from the NB Rail data on CCS ICs because they group
together EC Certifi cates for on-board and trackside ICs.
Chart 17. Number of EC Certifi cates for ICs issued
by the beginning of 2009 and by April 2011,
by subsystem/TSI
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
66 30
106 145
356
497
ENE INF CCS RST WAG PRM
Source: NB Rail Database, 01/04/2011
245
818
208
131
2009
2011
9
Compared with the beginning of 2009, at the beginning
of 2011 the number of EC Certifi cates for infrastructure
ICs had increased by 28% to 145 (see Chart 17). The
trend for the energy IC is somewhat different. Due to the
expiry of almost all EC Certifi cates which were valid at the
beginning of 2009, at the beginning of 2011 the number
of EC Certifi cates issued had dropped by half.
3.4.2. EC Certifi cates for subsystems
Unlike the situation with the certifi cates for RST
subsystems, the number of certifi cates for infrastructure
and energy subsystems in most cases equals the number
of verifi ed subsystems.
The EC Certifi cates for the subsystems are classifi ed into
the same three groups as the ICs. The EC certifi cates
for subsystems may involve verifi cation against one or
more of the transversal TSIs - TSI Persons with Reduced
Mobility and TSI Safety in Railway Tunnels. Where one EC
Certifi cate was issued for verifi cation of the requirements
of two or more TSIs – e.g. Energy and Infrastructure – it is
classifi ed under ‘multiple’ subsystems.
• Infrastructure subsystems
Seven years after the entry in force of the fi rst HS TSI
Infrastructure, about 150 infrastructure subsystems had
been verifi ed against HS TSI Infrastructure by the notifi ed
bodies (see Chart 18). 80 verifi cations were ongoing. When
these have been completed the number of infrastructure
subsystems verifi ed against the TSI will increase by 50%.
Chart 18 shows that for the last two years the number
of EC Certifi cates for infrastructure subsystems has more
than doubled.
• Energy subsystems
NB Rail data show a similar trend of increasing number of
requests for verifi cation of energy subsystems (see Chart 18).
The number of ongoing verifi cations is even higher
than the number of EC Certifi cates issued for energy
subsystems. At the beginning of 2011 the number of EC
Certifi cates had increased by a factor of two to almost
60 compared with the end of 2008 (see Chart 19).
45

46
• CCS trackside
As already noted in section 3.3.2, the CCS subsystem
certifi cates group together on-board and trackside CCS.
Nevertheless, it may be concluded that CCS subsystems
are constantly increasing. The number of EC Certifi cates
for both trackside and on-board CCS increased more than
six fold over a period of about two years (see Chart 19).
3.4.3. Fees for authorisation for placing
in service
The general information about the fees charged by
the NSAs for authorisations for placing in service was
discussed in section 3.3.3. It contains data which NSAs
charge and which do not and what the structure of the
fees is.
Chart 18. Number of EC Certifi cates for subsystems/
TSI issued, requested and withdrawn by April 2011,
by subsystem; and relative share of subsystem
certifi cates issued and requested, by subsystem
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
195
146
59
77
80
85
57
98
5 4
1
3 1 0
747
It is more diffi cult to estimate the fees for authorisations
for fi xed installations. Infrastructure projects are usually
different from each other and therefore consist of
different works which would require different number of
checks and verifi cations. When checks and verifi cations
vary, so do the fees for EC verifi cation and authorisations
unless they are fi xed by laws and regulations.
If we make a comparison with the situation for rolling
stock, for vehicles of new design most of the applicant’s
effort and expense go on authorising the type, if type
authorisation is required in the Member State where the
application is made. Once the type is authorised, the costs
for the vehicles which conform to the type decrease. This is
because authorisations for vehicles which conform to the
type are usually either cheaper or granted free of charge.
Additionally, it is easier to make cost estimates for the
sS certificates issued
sS certificates requested
(ongoing certification)
sS certificates withdrawn
20
5 1 4 15 0 4 2 0 15 4 1
ENE INF CCS RST WAG NOI PRM SRT Multiple
Source: NB Rail Database, 01/04/2011
RST 53%
CCS 18%
INF 15%
ENE 9%
Multiple 1%
SRT 0,4%
PRM 1,3%
NOI 2%
WAG 0,3%

Chart 19. Number of EC Certifi cates for subsystems issued by the beginning of 2009 and by April 2011,
by subsystem/TSI
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
27
59
64
146
ENE INF CCS RST WAG NOI PRM SRT Multiple
Source: NB Rail Database, 01/04/2011
authorisation of vehicles which conform to an authorised
type. As infrastructure projects are unique, they cannot
benefi t from the advantages type authorisation gives.
The three systems for charging fees for authorisations for
fi xed installations are:
• Hour-based rate
As for rolling stock, Belgium, Germany, France, Poland
and Finland apply hour-based rates for authorisations for
placing in service of fi xed installations. Consequently, the
amount of the fee depends on the man-hours needed for
the authorisation. In Poland the rates are differentiated
in several price ranges, depending on the man-hours
necessary for the authorisation (up to 10 hrs, 10-20 hrs,
20-30 hrs, etc) and the fee for 10 hrs is about EUR 500 or
50 EUR/hour. The rate of the authorisations in the other
countries in this group varies from 100 to 125 EUR/hour.
• Fixed rate
Only three NSAs that charge fi xed amounts per authorisation
for railway lines reported the amounts charged – Estonia
(EUR 63,91), Portugal (EUR 10 000) and Romania (EUR 2 126).
• Combined fi xed rate plus hour-based rate
This method of charging is applied in Slovenia and is
described in more details in section 3.3.3.
29
195
169
747
3 3 12 20
2009 2011
0 4 0 4 9 15
3.4.4. Average time for authorisation procedure
The time the authorisation procedure takes may differ
signifi cantly, depending on the complexity of the
infrastructure projects, the length of the railway line or
other factors. Therefore many NSAs did not provide an
average time for the authorisation procedure. Some NSAs
mentioned that they have no experience of authorising a
railway line under the TSI regime; this is often the case for
countries with no HS rail network. Other countries such as
Romania have specifi c periods to be respected which are
defi ned in national legislation.
Six NSAs indicated the average time it takes to authorise
infrastructure lines in their replies to the Agency
questionnaire. The fastest authorisation is in the UK,
where it takes only 10-20 days from receipt of the request
and the complete set of application documentation. This
is only possible because of the early pre-engagement of
the NSA in projects and the regular meetings between
the parties involved: the NSA, the notifi ed body and the
applicant. Such an approach minimises the risks of delays
at the advanced stages of the project.
In Estonia, Spain and Romania the average time for
authorising infrastructure lines is 30 days. In Hungary it
takes on average 90 days to authorise a railway line and
47

48
in Belgium 180. As mentioned above, care should be taken
in drawing conclusions about the time necessary to grant
authorisations since some of the above fi gures may be
based on experience with more complex projects.
3.4.5. Number of authorisations of fi xed
installations under the TSI regime
Unlike the rolling stock data, for fi xed installations the
number of authorisations for placing in service gives a
good estimate of the number of infrastructure and energy
subsystems authorised. This is mainly because projects for
fi xed installations are quite different from each other and
certifi cation and authorisation of the type are not feasible.
However, type authorisation is possible for CCS trackside,
an example being the GSM-R trackside subsystem in the
UK, where a nation-wide EC type examination certifi cate
was issued by a notifi ed body.
• HS and CR Infrastructure
In 2009, the set of TSIs for fi xed installations on the HS
network had already been completed and the HS TSIs
have been in force for several years. The situation is
somewhat different for the TSIs for the CR network; only
the transversal TSIs PRM and SRT were in force in 2009.
For this reason the data below provide more details about
HS subsystems.
In the period 2006-2009, 46 authorisations for HS
infrastructure were granted under the TSI regime, of
which 35% were with derogations (see Chart 20). Though
the number of derogations is signifi cant, the positive
development is that in the last two years the percentage of
derogations has decreased considerably. Another positive
development is the trend towards increasing numbers of
authorisations under the TSI regime for HS infrastructure
from fi ve in 2006 to 20 in 2009.
The HS infrastructure subsystems authorised under the
TSI regime with no derogations in 2009 were verifi ed
respectively:
- against HS TSI INF only: 17 in total, of which 12 in
Germany, 4 in Sweden and 1 in Austria;
- against HS TSI INF and TSI SRT: 1 in Belgium.
Chart 20. Number of authorisations for placing in service o f fi xed installations under the TSI regime,
by subsystem and by year
25
20
15
10
5
0
Source: 2008 and 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaires to NSAs
Authorisations with derogations
Authorisations without derogations
2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009
HS INS HS ENE HS CCS
trackside

Chart 21. Number of authorisations for placing in service of HS infrastructure subsystems under the TSI
regime, by Member State with HS rail network and by year
15
12
9
6
3
0
BE DE ES FR IT NL AT SE UK
Source: 2008 and 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaires to NSAs
In 2009, nine Member States had an HS network which
was in service. These are Belgium, Germany, Spain, France,
Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and the United
Kingdom. Most authorisations for HS lines under the TSI
regime in the period from 2006 to 2009 were granted
in Germany, where the HS network was expanding
throughout the period (see Chart 21). These subsystems
were verifi ed against HS TSI INF only. The other NSAs
which granted authorisations for HS infrastructure under
the TSI regime in 2009 were Sweden (4), Belgium (1) and
Austria (1). It should be noted that a number of HS rail
lines in Spain were placed in service under the national
regime and subsequently verifi ed by notifi ed bodies for
their compliance with the relevant TSIs.
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, authorisations
for the placing in service of CR infrastructure under the
TSI regime should involve verifi cation against the TSIs
SRT and/or PRM only. Nevertheless, three NSAs granted a
total of 17 authorisations under the TSI regime, of which
three were with derogations (see Chart 22). The numbers
of infrastructure subsystems authorised under TSI regimes
with no derogations are as follows:
- verifi ed against TSI SRT only: nine;
- verifi ed against TSI PRM only: fi ve;
- verifi ed against SRT and PRM: none (two with
derogation).
2006 2007 2008 2009
Most authorisations for CR infrastructure under the TSI
regime were issued in Germany (12) and these subsystems
were verifi ed against TSI SRT (9) and TSI PRM (2); there was one
authorisation with derogation. The remaining authorisations
were issued in Denmark (3 with verifi cation against TSI PRM)
and Ireland (2 authorisations with derogations).
• HS and CR Energy
Many authorisations for placing in service of HS rail lines
covered both energy and infrastructure subsystems. Some
of these authorisations were reported by the NSAs in the
data on authorisations for HS infrastructure and therefore
the data provided below may be incomplete. This explains
why in 2009 only one authorisation for an HS energy
subsystem was reported.
The paucity of data in Chart 23 does not provide a basis
for sound analysis of the trends.
In 2009, only TSI Safety in Railway Tunnels was applicable
for CR energy subsystems. However, no authorisations
involving verifi cation against TSI SRT for CR energy
subsystems were issued that year.
• CCS trackside
Neither HS nor CR CCS trackside subsystems showed
progress with interoperability in 2009. There was only one
49

50
Chart 22. Number of authorisations for placing in service of CR infrastructure subsystems under the TSI regime,
by Member State, 2009
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
Source: 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs (23 NSAs responded)
Chart 23. Number of authorisations for placing in service of H S energy subsystems under the TSI regime,
by Member State and by year
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Source: 2008 and 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaires to NSAs
HU
NL
NO
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
2009
SK
FI
2006 2007 2008 2009
BE DE ES FR IT NL AT SE UK
SE
UK

authorisation under the TSI regime for HS CCS trackside in
Belgium and none for CR CCS trackside. More information
on the national authorisations is included in the next
section, 3.4.6.
• Railway stations
In 2009, four stations were authorised under the TSI regime.
In Ireland three stations were authorised with derogations,
each comprising two platforms and none being fully
Table 6. List of authorised stations verifi ed against TSI PRM, 2009
NSA
Name of the station
authorised for PIS in
2009
New station
compliant with
TSI PRM
Upgraded/ renewed station
compliant with TSI PRM
compliant with TSI parameters (see Table 6). The authorisation
of the fourth station, granted by Latvia, was for an upgrade
involving one platform compliant with the TSI PRM.
• Railway tunnels
In 2009, only one rail tunnel was authorised under the
TSI regime and this was an authorisation with derogation
granted for the Soumagne tunnel by the NSA in Belgium
(see Table 7).
Derogation
Total number of
platforms
Number of
TSI compliant
platforms
IE Glounthaune yes 2
IE Carrigtwohill yes 2
IE Midleton yes 2
LV Dendrārijs yes 1 1
Total 4 0 1 3 7 1
Source: 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs (23 NSAs responded)
Table 7. List of authorised tunnels verifi ed against TSI SRT, 2009
NSA
BE
Tunnel location (line;
section; between which
stations, etc)
Line between Liège and the
Belgian-German border
Name of the
tunnel authorised
Tunnel’s length
(in km)
Source: 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs (23 NSAs responded)
New tunnel
compliant
with TSI SRT
Upgraded/
renewed tunnel
compliant with
TSI SRT
Derogation
Soumagne 6,5 no no yes
51

52
3.4.6. Total number of authorisations of fi xe d
installations
This section looks into the share of authorisations under
the TSI regime of the total number of authorisations
for fi xed installations. The result will provide us with
an estimate of how many of the new, upgraded and
renewed fi xed installations meet the TSI target values
(see Table 8).
• HS infrastructure
Since 2006 authorisations under the TSI regime have
accounted for about 20% of all authorisations for HS
infrastructure. In 2009, the majority of the authorisations
under national rules for HS infrastructure were granted
in Germany (78). These authorisations were for upgrading
and renewal to optimise the maintenance, to change track
products, etc. Other NSAs which granted authorisations
under national rules are Belgium (1), Spain (3) and
Sweden (3).
• HS Energy
Only one of the three authorisations for HS energy
subsystem granted in 2009 was under the TSI regime. This
is a departure from the positive trend of an increasing
share of authorisations under the TSI regime up to 2008.
The authorisations were granted by the NSAs Belgium
(1 under the TSI regime and 1 under national rules) and
Spain (1 under national rules).
• HS and CR CCS trackside
Out of all authorisations for CCS trackside only one was
granted under the TSI regime and it was for HS. There were
no authorisations for CR CCS trackside under the TSI regime.
Furthermore, the number of authorisations under national
regime is signifi cant - 121. Such a trend is suggestive of a
diversifi cation of CCS systems in the European Union. Some
NSAs state that the reason for applying national rules was
that the authorisations were for upgrades or renewal.
Chart 24 shows the Member States where authorisations
under TSI and national regimes were granted in 2009. Most
authorisations for CR CCS trackside under national regime
were granted in Latvia, followed by Poland, Slovenia and
Finland. In 2009, authorisations for HS CCS trackside were
granted in Spain and Belgium.
• CR infrastructure
As already mentioned, the applicable TSIs for CR
infrastructure subsystems in 2009 were TSI Persons with
Reduced Mobility and TSI Safety in Railway Tunnels. CR TSI
Infrastructure was not yet in force.
The data in Table 8 show marginal progress in the application
of these two TSIs for CR infrastructure subsystems. 12%
of the approximately 150 authorised CR infrastructure
subsystems in 2009 were verifi ed against TSI SRT and/or
TSI PRM. These TSI compliant authorisations were granted
in Germany, Denmark and Ireland (see Chart 25).
Table 8. Number of authorisations for RST subsystems under the TSI regime and the percentage
of the total number of authorisations they represent, by year
Year 2009 2008 2007 2006
Total
number of
authoris.
(Nat+TSI
regime)
Subsystem Number
of which authoris.
under TSI regime
% of total
authorisations
Total
number of
authoris.
(Nat+TSI
regime)
of which authoris.
under TSI regime
Number
% of total
authorisations
Total
number of
authoris.
(Nat+TSI
regime)
of which authoris.
under TSI regime
Number
% of total
authorisations
Total
number of
authoris.
(Nat+TSI
regime)
of which authoris.
under TSI regime
Number
% of total
authorisations
HS INF 106 20 19% 66 15 23% 38 6 16% 26 5 19%
HS ENE 3 1 33% 12 9 75% 6 3 50% 6 4 67%
HS CCS 6 1 17%
CR CCS 121 0 0%
CR INF 147 17 12%
CR ENE 11 0 0%
Source: 2008 and 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs

Chart 24. Number of authorisations for placing in service of HS and CR CCS trackside subsystems
under TSI and national regimes in 2009, by Member State
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
Source: 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs (23 NSAs responded)
Chart 25. Number of authorisations for p lacing in service of CR infrastructure subsystems
under TSI and national regimes in 2009, by Member State
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
4
1
1
BE
BG
8
CZ
DK
DE
EE
Source: 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs (23 NSAs responded)
6 4
EL
ES
57
1 1
12 13
7
3 3 4
2
19
FR
IE
IT
LV
LT
LU
HU
NL
HU
NL
NO
AT
35
NO
AT
32
CR CCS national regime
HS CCS national regime
HS CCS TSI regime
PL
PT
31
PL
PT
11
RO
SI
9
SK
FI
SE
TSI regime
National regime
RO
SI
9
SK
FI
SE
UK
UK
53

54
88% of CR infrastructure projects were still verifi ed under
national rules. Ten NSAs granted such authorisations.
Most nationa l authorisations were granted by the NSAs
Norway and Poland – more than 30 each, followed by
Ireland and Germany – between 10 and 20.
• CR energy
All 11 authorisations for CR energy subsystems were
granted under national regime. These authorisations were
granted in Spain (6), Finland (4) and Poland (1).
• TSI PRM
In twelve Member States, the NSAs granted authorisations
for CR fi xed installations which were not assessed
against TSI PRM or the TSI is not applied in general for
specifi c projects. The most common reason is that TSI
PRM is not applied for projects at an advanced stage of
development. In three Member States – Belgium, Finland
and Sweden – TSI PRM was not applied because there
were no rail stations, and respectively no platforms, on
the line authorised. In Belgium, Ireland and Slovakia TSI
PRM was not applied for upgraded and renewed stations.
Norway has not implemented TSI PRM. In France the
notifi ed bodies check compliance with PRM TSI but the
rail stations are not part of the scope of the authorisation
for placing in service.
• TSI SRT
In twelve Member States, the NSAs granted authorisations
for CR fi xed installations which were not assessed against
TSI SRT or the TSI is not applied in general for specifi c
projects. The most common reason is that TSI SRT is not
applied for projects at an advanced stage of development.
In Norway, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden TSI SRT was
not applied because there were no tunnels on the lines
authorised. There are no railway tunnels on the territory
of Estonia and Latvia.
3.4.7. Length of the infrastructure verifi ed
against HS TSI Infrastructure
The railway line between two cities may be divided into
several infrastructure subsystems for the purposes of
the project. This is why this and the next indicator look
at the length of the authorised infrastructure and energy
subsystems.
At the end of 2009 the EU HS railway network covered
some 6 178 km of lines (see Table 9). The analysis below
compares these data with the status of authorised HS
lines verifi ed against HS TSI Infrastructure as of the end
of 2009.
Table 9 uses data from two sources: the Agency
questionnaire to NSAs (columns 3 and 5) and the 2010
EU Energy and Transport in Figures (column 2). Both
sources appear to be incomplete, which necessitates some
explanations. The NSA Sweden declared that 500 km had
been verifi ed against HS TSI INF but 2010 EU Energy and
Transport in Figures does not give data for HS lines in
Sweden. For the calculation of the percentages in the total
row, 500 km for Sweden have therefore been added, in
column (2), to the sum (6 178) of the HS network in km
of all countries for which data are available. There are no
data for Sweden for the total length of the HS lines but
the minimum value to include would be 500 km.

Table 9. Length of authorised HS lines bas ed on verifi cation against HS TSI Infrastructure, 2008, by Member State
Length of authorised lines based on verifi cation against HS TSI INF in 2006-2009
MS
Total HS lines,
km in 2009
without derogation
km % of total HS lines km
with derogation
% of total HS lines km
total
% of total HS lines
(1) (2) (3) (4) = (3) / (2) (5) (6) = (5) / (2) (7) (8) = (7) / (2)
BE 209 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
DE 1 285 10 1% 205 16% 215 17%
ES 1 614 999 62% 0 0% 999 62%
FR 1 961 0 0% 304 16% 304 16%
IT 876 n.a. n.a.
NL 120 n.a. n.a. n.a.
AT n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
SE n.a. 500 500
UK 113 0 0% 108 96% 108 96%
Total* 6 178 1 509 23% 617 9% 2 126 32%
* For the calculation of the percentages in the total row, 500 km for SE have been added in column (2) to the 6 178. There are no data for SE but the
minimum value to include for SE would be 500.
Source: 2008 and 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaires to NSAs, NSAs, EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook 2010
Almost a third of the HS rail network (2 126 km) was verifi ed
against HS TSI Infrastructure before its authorisation for
placing in service in the period 2006-2009. However, part
of it was subject to derogations: 9% of the total length of
HS lines. Thus, 1 509 km or 18% of the length of HS lines
meet TSI target values. The leading countries in terms of
total length of railway lines authorised in accordance with
the requirements of HS TSI Infrastructure are Spain and
Sweden. Spain authorised a signifi cant part of its HS rail
network (64%) under the TSI regime. The HS lines authorised
in France, Germany and the UK are subject to derogations.
No major changes occurred in comparison with the
situation in 2008 since there were not many new HS
infrastructure projects.
Annex 2 provides a list of HS railway lines authorised in
the period 2006-2009 and verifi ed against HS TSI INF. This
list may be incomplete because not all NSAs provided data.
Nevertheless, the data that NSAs provided suggest that a
signifi cant proportion of the recently authorised lines or
80% of their length is without derogations.
3.4.8. Length of the infrastructure verifi ed
against HS TSI Energy
Similarly to the analysis for HS TSI Infrastructure made
in the previous section, the data used here compare the
length of HS lines at the end of 2009 with length of
authorised HS lines verifi ed against HS TSI Energy in the
period 2006-2009 (see Table 10).
Slightly more than a third of the HS rail network (2 140 km)
was verifi ed against HS TSI Energy before its authorisation
for placing in service. The leading countries in terms of
total length of railway lines authorised in accordance
with HS TSI ENE are Spain, Germany and France. In Spain
and Germany signifi cant parts of the HS rail lines were
authorised without derogations from HS TSI ENE, 62%
and 57% respectively. The HS lines authorised in the
UK (108 km) are subject to derogations. Consequently,
derogations cover 2% of the length of HS lines, while HS
lines meeting HS TSI ENE target values cover 33%.
There is not much difference compared with the data
for 2008 in the previous report since not many new
authorisations were issued in 2009.
55

56
Table 10. Length of authorised HS lines bas ed on verifi cation against HS TSI Energy, 2009, by Member State
MS
Total HS lines,
km in 2009
Annex 3 provides a list of HS railway lines authorised in
the period 2006-2009 and verifi ed against HS TSI ENE. This
list may be incomplete because not all NSAs provided data.
The data that NSAs provided show that only 3% of the
length of HS railway lines authorised in the period 2006-
2009 involved derogation from HS TSI ENE.
3.5. Control-Command
and Signalling
3.5.1. Current situation
Following the deployment of ERTMS on the TEN-T rail network,
a number of successful projects have been accomplished in
several Member States. By April 2011, more than 3 300 km of
ETCS double track lines were in service and another 5 000 km
had been contracted in the European Union.
Nevertheless, the pace of deployment differs considerably
between Member States. Some countries have already
implemented the system or are close to completing
their fi rst ERTMS project, while others have no ERTMS
experience yet.
Length of authorised lines based on verifi cation against HS TSI ENE in 2006-2009
without derogation with derogation total
km % of total HS lines km % of total HS lines km % of total HS lines
(1) (2) (3) (4) = (3) / (2) (5) (6) = (5) / (2) (7) (8) = (7) / (2)
BE 209 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
DE 1 285 729 57% 0 0% 729 57%
ES 1 614 999 62% 0 0% 999 62%
FR 1 961 304 16% 0 0% 304 16%
IT 876 n.a. n.a.
NL 120 n.a. n.a. n.a.
AT n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
SE n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
UK 113 0 0% 108 96% 108 96%
Total* 6 178 2032 33% 108 2% 2140 35%
Source: 2008 and 2010 European Railway Agency questionnaire to NSAs, EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook 2010
Chart 26. ERTMS contracted or in service, EU27
and Switzerland
23%
39%
38%
Km of Level 1
contracted
or in Service
Km of Level 2
contracted
or in Service
Km of Level 1/2
contracted
or in Service
Source: European Railway Agency (April 2011).
Note: Switzerland has been included due to its strong link to the EU
Network
In fact, more than 50% of the total length of lines in
service equipped with ERTMS has been deployed in two
Member States: Spain and Italy.
Annex 4 provides a list of the lines already equipped with
ERTMS or for which it is contracted.

3.5.2. ERTMS deployment
Chart 27 shows the evolution of the ERTMS situation from
the end of 2008 to April 2011.
Between the end of 2008 and April 2011 the total length of
the lines equipped with ERTMS increased by 40% to 4 179 km.
Seven Member States marked progress in this period. Spain
deployed about 400 ERTMS km, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Italy
and the UK about 200 ERTMS km each. France and the
Netherlands deployed between 20-25 ERTMS km.
The data refl ect a different pace in each country and a nonharmonised
deployment of ERTMS across Europe. Spain,
Luxembourg and Italy are committed to a progressive
and fast deployment of ERTMS in their networks, other
countries have started deployment but at a slower pace,
while others still are simply not implementing ERTMS.
In some member states, specifi c situations infl uence
the deployment strategy. Ireland is located on an island.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have 1 520 mm rail system.
The Baltic States have committed themselves to deploy
ERTMS. Lithuania plans to have fi rst lines to be equipped
Chart 27. ERTMS kilometres in service, by Member State
1 600
1 400
1 200
1 000
800
600
400
200
0
70 70
250
BE
BG
450
CZ
DK
164 164 150 150
DE
EE
1 074
EL
ES
1 434
FR
IE
Source: European Railway Agency (for 2011 is as of April 2011)
25
534
711
IT
LV
LT
LU
with ETCS in 2019-2023. In Latvia and Estonia the
deployment will initially be mainly focussed on the Rail
Baltica corridor and will depend on the development of
the Rail Baltica project. Finland plans to have the fi rst lines
equipped with ETCS between 2019-2025.
Apart from these Member States there are some which
made commitments in their deployment plans from
2007 and had not made progress by 2011. These are the
Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia,
Slovakia and Sweden. Nevertheless, some countries, such
as Denmark, Sweden or Poland, have already announced
improvements for the years ahead.
France and Germany are specifi c cases; by April 2011 their
deployment is only marginal considering the extent of
their networks and their involvement in the six European
ERTMS corridors. However, this trend is expected to
change; Germany had already contracted two lines of
total length of about 500 km of level 2.
Further information about ERTMS can be found in
the ‘Report on the certifi cation of ERTMS equipment’
published by the Agency in April 2010. 7
100
275 280280 285
253
HU
NL
NO
AT
7 http://www.era.europa.eu/Document-Register/Pages/Report_ERTMS_
Equipment_Certifi cation.aspx
67 67 50 50
PL
PT
RO
SI
Year 2008
Year 2011
SK
FI
190
SE
218
UK
57

58
4. Conclusions

The analysis made in this report shows that interoperability
is making progress. The institutions and competent
authorities at the European and national levels are
established and functioning. However, most National
Safety Authorities continue to experience problems with
staff recruitment.
Most Member States have notifi ed bodies carrying out
conformity assessment and verifi cation procedures.
Nevertheless, there is little competition between them
and it is on a regional rather than on a European level. An
important reason is that notifi ed bodies usually have up to
three working languages which may not be the right ones
for the applicant. Another reason is the advantageous
position of some companies which act as both notifi ed
bodies and designated bodies to assess notifi ed national
technical rules, and this gives them the possibility to offer
packages with which it is diffi cult to compete.
The interoperability legal framework has already been
completed both for high speed and conventional rail TSIs.
Five HS TSIs, eight CR TSIs and three transversal TSIs applying
to both high-speed and conventional rail system are in
force. However, the development of the legal framework
has not yet been fi nalised. The TSIs may extend their scope
to the whole network subject to a positive cost-benefi t
analysis. In addition, a merger of CR and HS structural TSIs
may be expected the next time they are revised.
Railway interoperability is not only advanced in terms
of the regulatory framework but also shows progress
on the railway market. The markets for rolling stock,
CCS and infrastructure interoperability constituents are
all expanding. Authorisations for placing in service of
subsystems also increased over time for most subsystems.
A number of interoperable trainsets, wagons and
infrastructures have been placed in service. The number
of EC Certifi cates issued by the notifi ed bodies for rolling
stock subsystems increased fourfold over two years.
If a differentiation between types of rolling stock is made,
the progress shows mixed results. For HS trainsets there
is a trend towards decreasing numbers of authorised
vehicles. Many HS and CR CCS on-board subsystems
are authorised either under national regime or with
derogations. However, in 2009 freight wagons marked
a signifi cant increase, not only in the number of freight
wagons verifi ed against CR TSI WAG (more than 5 000)
but also in the percentage of freight wagons authorised
under the TSI regime (80% of all authorised vehicles).
CR passenger carriages, locomotives and trainsets also
made some progress in 2009. Between 20% and 30% of
the authorised vehicles in this group involved verifi cation
against TSIs Noise, Persons with Reduced Mobility and/or
Safety in Railway Tunnels.
The progress with fi xed installations is also different for
the different subsystems. Seven years after the entry into
force of the HS TSI Infrastructure about 150 infrastructure
subsystems had been verifi ed by the notifi ed bodies. This
number will increase by 50% when the notifi ed bodies
fi nalise their work on ongoing notifi cations. Another
positive aspect is that as a whole the trend over the
last few years has been towards decreasing numbers of
derogations for the authorisation of HS lines.
While the introduction of HS lines is getting closer to
the TSI target values, the situation with HS and CR CCS
trackside subsystems is quite different. In 2009 there was
only one authorisation under the TSI regime, while there
were about 120 authorisations under national regime.
Such a trend is suggestive of diversifi cation of CCS
systems in the European Union.
There has also been some progress in the application of TSIs
SRT and PRM for CR infrastructure projects. About 12%
of the approximately 150 authorised CR infrastructure
subsystems in 2009 were verifi ed against either one or
both TSI SRT and TSI PRM.
59

Annex 1. EC interoperability
legislation
60

Legislative Act Published Amendments
Directive 2011/18/EU
Directive 2009/131/EC
18/07/2008
OJ L 191, pp 1-45
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 (Recast)
Directive 2008/57/EC
17/10/2009
OJ L 273, pp.
12–13
Commission Directive 2009/131/EC of 16 October 2009 amending Annex VII
to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Directive 2009/131/EC
on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community
02/03/2011
OJ L 57, pp. 21–28
Commission Directive 2011/18/EU of 1 March 2011 amending Annexes II, V and VI
to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability
Directive 2011/18/EU
of the rail system within the Community
22/12/2009
OJ L 341, pp. 1–13
Commission Decision 2009/965/EC of 30 November 2009 on the reference document
referred to in Article 27(4) of Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament
Decision 2009/965/EC
and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community
10/03/2011
OJ L 6, p. 22–25
Commission Decision 2011/155/EU of 9 March 2011 on the publication and management
of the reference document referred to in Article 27(4) of Directive 2008/57/EC of the European
Decision 2011/155/EU
Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community
08/04/2011
OJ L 95, pp. 1–29
Commission Recommendation 2011/217/EU of 29 March 2011 on the authorisation
for the placing in service of structural subsystems and vehicles under Directive 2008/57/EC
Recommendation
2011/217/EU
of the European Parliament and of the Council
04/12/2010
OJ L 319, pp. 1–52
Commission Decision 2010/713/EU of 9 November 2010 on modules for the procedures
for assessment of conformity, suitability for use and EC verifi cation to be used in the technical
specifi cations for interoperability adopted under Directive 2008/57/EC of the European
Decision 2010/713/EU
Parliament and of the Council
02/03/2011
OJ L 57,pp. 8–9
Commission Regulation (EU) No 201/2011 of 1 March 2011 on the model of declaration
of conformity to an authorised type of railway vehicle
Regulation (EU)
No 201/2011
Corrigenda, OJ L 220,
21/06/2004, pp 3-15
Regulation 1335/2008/EC
30/04/2004
OJ L 164, pp 1-43
Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004
establishing a European railway agency (Agency Regulation)
Regulation 881/2004/EC
31/12/2008
OJ L 354, pp 51-59
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
Regulation 1335/2008/EC
Agency (Agency Regulation)
Decision 2011/107/EU
23/11/2007
OJ L 305, pp 30-51
Commission Decision 2007/756/EC of 9 November 2007 (notifi ed under C(2007)5357)
adopting a common specifi cation of the national vehicle register provided for under articles
NVR
14(4) and (5) of Directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC
17/02/2011
OJ L 43, p. 33–54
Commission Decision 2011/107/EU of 10 February 2011 amending Decision 2007/756/EC
adopting a common specifi cation of the national vehicle register (notifi ed under document
C(2011) 665) Text with EEA relevance
NVR
61

62
High-speed Technical Specifi cations for Interoperability
HS TSIs Adopted by Published Entry into Force Amendments
Corrigenda, OJ L
275, 11/10/2002,
To be withdrawn
12/09/2002
OJ L 245,
pp 1-36
Commission Decision 2002/730/EC of 30 May 2002 concerning the technical specifi cation for interoperability
relating to the maintenance subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system referred to in Article 6(1)
MAI
pp 1-2
of Directive 96/48/EC
Decision 2007/153/
EC
Decision 2008/386/
EC
07/12/2006
OJ L 342,
pp 1-165
Commission Decision 2006/860/EC of 7 November 2006 concerning a technical specifi cation for interoperability
relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European high speed rail system and
modifying Annex A to Decision 2006/679/EC concerning the technical specifi cation for interoperability relating
CCS
revised TSI
07/03/2007
OJ L 67, p. 13–17 07/12/2006
CCS
Annex A
01/06/2008
24/05/2008
OJ L 136,
p. 11-17
CCS
Annex A
01/04/2010
10/02/2010
OJ L 37,
CCS
Annex A
p. 74–81
09/03/2008
OJ L 77, pp 1-105 01/07/2008
INF
14/04/2008
OJ L104, pp 1-79 01/10/2008
ENE
01/09/2008 Decision 2010/640
26/03/2008
OJ L 84,
pp 1-131
to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system
Commission Decision 2007/153/EC of 6 March 2007 modifying Annex A to Decision 2006/679/EC concerning the
technical specifi cation for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-
European conventional rail system and Annex A to Decision 2006/860/EC concerning the technical specifi cation for
interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European high speed rail system
Commission Decision 2008/386/EC of 23 April 2008 modifying Annex A to Decision 2006/679/EC concerning the
technical specifi cation for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-
European conventional rail system and Annex A to Decision 2006/860/EC concerning the technical specifi cation for
interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail
system
Commission Decision 2010/79/EC of 19 October 2009 amending Decisions 2006/679/EC and 2006/860/EC
as regards technical specifi cations for interoperability relating to subsystems of the trans-European conventional
and high-speed rail systems
Commission Decision 2008/217/EC of 20 December 2007 concerning a technical specifi cation for interoperability
relating to the ‘infrastructure’ sub-system of the trans-European high-speed rail system
Commission Decision 2008/284/CE of 6 March 2008 concerning a technical specifi cation for interoperability
relating to the ‘energy’ sub-system of the trans-European high-speed rail system
Commission Decision 2008/231/CE of 1 February 2008 concerning the technical specifi cation of interoperability
relating to the operation subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system adopted referred to in Article
6(1) of Council Directive 96/48/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2002/734/EC of 30 May 2002
OPE
25/10/2010
26.10.2010
L 280/29
Commission Decision 2010/640/EU of 21 October 2010 amending Decisions 2006/920/EC and 2008/231/EC
concerning the technical specifi cations of interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘Traffi c Operation and
Management’ of the trans-European conventional and high-speed rail systems
OPE
01/09/2008
26/03/2008
OJ L 84,
pp 132-392
Commission Decision 2008/232/CE of 21 February 2008 concerning a technical specifi cation for interoperability
relating to the ‘rolling stock’ sub-system of the trans-European high-speed rail system
RST

Conventional Rail Technical Specifi cations for Interoperability
CR TSIs Adopted by Published Entry into Force Amendments
19/01/2006
18/01/2006
OJ L 13, pp 1-72
TAF Commission Regulation 62/2006/EC of 23 December 2005 concerning the technical
specifi cation for interoperability relating to the telematic applications for freight
subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system
24/06/2006 Repealed by 2011/229
08/02/2006
OJ L37, pp 1-49
NOI Commission Decision 2006/66/EC of 23 December 2005 concerning the technical
specifi cation for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘rolling stock — noise’
of the trans-European conventional rail system
04/04/2011
13/04/2011
OJ L 99, p 1
NOI Commission Decision 2011/229/EU of 4 April 2011 concerning the technical
specifi cations of interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘rolling stock – noise’
of the trans-European conventional rail system
29/08/2006 Decision 2006/860
Decision 2007/153
Decision 2008/386/EC
Decsion 2009/561/EC
16/10/2006
OJ L 284, pp 1-176
Commission Decision 2006/679/EC of 28 March 2006 concerning the technical
specifi cation for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling
subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system
CCS
TSI
01/06/2008
24/05/2008
OJ L 136, p. 11-17
Commission Decision 2008/386/EC of 23 April 2008 modifying Annex A to Decision
2006/679/EC concerning the technical specifi cation for interoperability relating to the
control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail
system and Annex A to Decision 2006/860/EC concerning the technical specifi cation
for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the
CCS
Annex A
trans-European high-speed rail system
01/04/2010
10/02/2010
OJ L 37, p. 74–81
Commission Decision 2010/79/EC of 19 October 2009 amending Decisions
2006/679/EC and 2006/860/EC as regards technical specifi cations for interoperability
CCS
Annex A
relating to subsystems of the trans-European conventional and high-speed rail systems
01/09/2009
25/07/2009
OJ L 194, p 60
CCS Commission Decision 2009/561/EC of 22 July 2009 amending Decision 2006/679/EC
as regards the implementation of the technical specifi cation for interoperability relating
to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-European conventional
rail system
29/01/2007 Decision 2009/107
08/12/2006
OJ L 344, pp 1-467
WAG Commission Decision 2006/861/EC of 28 July 2006 concerning the technical
specifi cation of interoperability relating to the subsystem rolling stock — freight
wagons of the trans-European conventional rail system
63

64
CR TSIs Adopted by Published Entry into Force Amendments
12/02/2007 Decision 2009/107/EC
Decision 2010/640
Repealed by Decision
2011/314/EU
with effect from
1 January 2012
18/12/2006
OJ L 359, pp 1-160
OPE Commission Decision 2006/920/EC of 11 August 2006 concerning the technical
specifi cation of interoperability relating to the subsystem Traffi c Operation and
Management of the trans-European conventional rail system
01/07/2009
14/02/2009
OJ L 45, p 1
Commission Decision 2009/107/EC of 23 January 2009 amending Decisions
2006/861/EC and 2006/920/EC concerning technical specifi cations of interoperability
OPE and
WAG
relating to subsystems of the trans-European conventional rail system
01/01/2012
31/05/2011
OJ L 144, pp 1–112
OPE Commission Decision 2011/314/EU of 12.5.2011 concerning the technical
specifi cation for interoperability relating to the ‘operation and traffi c management’
subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system, C(2011) 3099 fi nal
01/06/2011
26/05/2011
OJ L 139, p 1
LOC&PAS Commission Decision 2011/291/EU of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical
specifi cation for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem — ‘Locomotives
and passenger rolling stock’ of the trans-European conventional rail system
01/06/2011
14/05/2011
OJ L 126, p 1
ENE Commission Decision 2011/274/EU of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical
specifi cation for interoperability relating to the ‘energy’ subsystem
of the trans-European conventional rail system
01/06/2011
14/05/2011
OJ L 126, p 53
INF Commission Decision 2011/275/EU of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical
specifi cation for interoperability relating to the ‘infrastructure’ subsystem
of the trans-European conventional rail system

Transversal Technical Specifi cations for Interoperability
HS and CR TSIs Adopted by Published Entry into Force Amendments
01/07/2008 Decision 2011/291/EU
07/03/2008
OJ L 64, pp
SRT Commission Decision 2008/163/EC of 20 December 2007 concerning the technical
specifi cation of interoperability relating to “safety in railway tunnels”
1-72
in the trans-European conventional and high speed rail system
01/07/2008
07/03/2008
OJ L 64, pp
PRM Commission Decision 2008/164/EC of 21 December 2007 concerning the technical
specifi cation of interoperability relating to “persons with reduced mobility“
72-207
in the trans-European conventional and high speed rail system
13/05/2011
12/05/2011
OJ L 123, p11
TAP Commission Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 of 5 May 2011 on the technical
specifi cation for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘telematics applications
for passenger services’ of the trans-European rail system
65

Annex 2. List of authorised HS
rail lines verifi ed against HS TSI
Infrastructure, 2006-2009
66

NSA Start station End station
Distance
in km
Derogation
in km
Yes No
DE Aachen Süd Landesgrenze 4,5 4,5
DE Deutz-Tief Köln-Mülheim 3,1 3,1
DE Dresden HBF Dresden-Neustadt 4 4
DE Riesa Abzw Röderau 2 2
DE
DE
DE
ABS Ingolstadt – M
Streckenabschnitt
Petershausen
ABS Ulm – Wendligen (NU 21)
Streckenabschnitt Ulm Hbf, Westkopf
Bhf Berlin Südkreuz
(ausschließlich)
Abzweig München
Kanal
33 33
Neu-Ulm 5,2 5,2
Bhf Bitterfeld 127,6 127,6
DE Bhf Bitterfeld
Bhf Leipzig Messe
(exclusive)
23,5 23,5
DE Großbeeren Süd Großbeeren West 1 1
DE
Bhf Halle/Saale
(exclusive)
Halle-Ammendorf
(partly)
3,7 3,7
DE 2660, km 4,110 Km 5,161 1,057 1,057
DE 2600, km 74,313 Km 76,960 2,647 2,647
DE 3401-2, km 107,301 Km 105,935 1,366 1,366
DE 3522-1/2, km 68,097 Km 69,960 1,863 1,863
DE 4011-1, km 0,300 Km 0,465 0,165 0,165
DE 4020-0, km -0,755 Km -0,300 0,455 0,455
ES La Sagra Toledo 23 23
ES Madrid Lleida (Les Torres bifurcation) 443 443
ES Lleida (Les Torres bifurcation) Barcelona 199 199
ES Madrid Valladolid 180 180
ES Córdoba Málaga 154 154
FR Vaires sur Marne (côté Paris Est)
Beaudrecourt (vers Strasbourg et
Sarrebrück)
304 304
AT Loosdorf, Wien, km 74,107 Salzburg, – 76,100
SE Göteborg Stockholm 500 500
SE Lund Lund 0,05 0,05
SE Katrineholm Katrineholm 0,05 0,05
SE Kolke Kolke 0,05 0,05
SE Båstad Båstad 0,3 0,3
UK St Pancras International Channel tunnel concession 108 108
UK Swindon Platform 4 Swindon Platform 4 0,1 0,1
Total 34 3 125,7 617,4 2 508,3
in percentage 100% 20% 80%
Source: 2008 and 2010 ERA questionnaires to NSAs
67

Annex 3. List of authorised
HS rail lines verifi ed against
HS TSI Energy, 2006-2009
68

NSA Start station End station
Distance
in km
Derogation
In km
Yes No
DE Berlin Spandau (e) Hamburg Hbf (e) 227 227
DE
Berlin-Südkr – Ludwigsfelde
– Bitterfeld
Leipzig-Messe 161 161
DE Gröbers (a) Leipzig-Mockau(a) 19 19
DE
DE
Berlin Ff Allee, Rummelsburg
Gesundbrunnen, Pankow Str, Halensee,
Grunewald, Hbf Lehrter, Moabit,
Berlin
Moabit Papestraße Wedding Pankow
Berlin Schönhausen Allee Str 32,7 32,7
Berlin
Bf Blankenburg
21,8 21,8
DE Nürnberg Ingolstadt 92,1 92,1
DE Bf Petershausen München Hbf 32,8 32,8
DE Karlsruhe Basel 81 81
DE Köln-Ehrenfeld Düren 37,7 37,7
DE Bf Aachen Hbf (Süd) Staatsgrenze BRD 4,5 4,5
DE Bf Köln-Mülheim Köln Messe/Deutz(tief) 3,1 3,1
DE Bf Neu-Ulm Bf Ulm Hbf 4,4 4,4
DE Ludwigshafen Mannheim 4,2 4,2
DE Dresden (a) Dresden-Neustadt (a) 2,1 2,1
DE Dresden Hbf 1,7 1,7
DE Überleitstelle Freihalden 0,2 0,2
DE station Lehrte 1,7 1,7
DE Riesa (a) Röderau (a) 1,9 1,9
ES La Sagra Toledo 23 23
ES Madrid Lleida (Les Torres bifurcation) 443 443
ES Lleida (Les Torres bifurcation) Barcelona 199 199
ES Madrid Valladolid 180 180
ES Córdoba Málaga 154 154
FR Vaires sur Marne (côté Paris Est)
Beaudrecourt (vers Strasbourg et
Sarre-brück)
304 304
UK St Pancras International Channel tunnel concession 108 108
Total
answers
30 3 138,9 108 3 031
in percentage 100% 3% 97%
Source: 2008 and 2010 ERA questionnaires to NSAs
69

70
Annex 4. List of ERTMS rail
lines in the EU and
Switzerland, end 2010

Line Country Status Level Km
Wien – Nickelsdorf Austria In service L1 67
Wien – Linz Austria Under construction L1 190
Attnang P. – Salzburg Austria Under construction L1 71
Wels – Passau Austria Under construction L1 83
Kufstein-Brenner Austria Under construction L2 25
Vienna-Saint Polten Austria Under construction L2 60
Antwerpen-Luchtbal – Ned. Grens (L4) Belgium In service L1, L2 40
Angleur – Walhorn – Fre (L3) Belgium In service L1, L2 40
Plovdiv – Svilengrad Bulgaria Under construction L1 150
Sofi a-Burgas Bulgaria In service L1 450
Poricany-Kolin Czech Republic Testing L2 22
Kerava- Lahti Finland Under construction L1 50
Paris-Meuse-Lorraine (LGV Est) France Testing L2 300
Luxembourg Border-Baudrecourt France Under construction L1 80
Spanish Border (Figueras)-Perpignan France Testing L1, L2 25
Juteborg-Halle/Leipzig Germany In service* L2 40
Berlin-Juteborg Germany In service* L2 124
Belgium Border (L3)-Aachen Germany Under construction L2 15
Saarbrucken-Mannheim Germany Under construction L2 130
Nurenberg-Inglostadt -Munchen Germany Under construction L2 160
Nurenberg–Erfurt–Halle/Leipzig Germany Under construction L2 318
Rostock – Berlin Germany Under construction L2 175
Corinthe-CCA
(Communication Center in Acharnes)
Greece In service L1 110
CCA – Athens Airport Greece In service L1 40
Athens – Thessaloniki – Bulgarian Border Greece Under construction L1 541
Bajánsenye(border)-Boba Hungary In service L1 102
Hegyeshalom(border)-Hegyeshalom-
Komárom-Budapest
Hungary In service L1 178
Torino-Novara Italy In service L2 91
Austrian Border (Brenner)- Bolzano-
Trento – Verona – Bologna
Italy Under construction L2 236
Bologna – Firenze Italy In service L2 78
Roma – Napoli Italy In service L2 204
Milano – Bologna Italy In service L2 219
Novara – Milano Italy In service L2 34
Torino-Novara Italy In service L2 85
Luxembourg network (1st part) Luxembourg In service L1 150
Luxembourg network (2nd part) Luxembourg Testing L1 125
Grodzisk Mazowiecki – Zawiercie Poland Under construction L1 224
Legnica – Wegliniec – Bielwa Dolna Poland Under construction L1 86
71

72
Line Country Status Level Km
Bucharest-Campina Romania In service L1 50
Campina – Predeal Romania Under construction L1 48
Fetesti – Constanta Romania Under construction L1 77
Bucharest – Fetesti Romania Under construction L1 136
Bratislava – Leopoldov Slovakia Under construction L1 64
Leopoldov – Puchov Slovakia Under construction L1 94
Madrid-Lerida Spain In service (L1) / Testing (L2) L1, L2 460
Lerida-Tarragona Spain In service (L1) / Testing (L2) L1, L2 98
Tarragona-Barcelona Spain In service (L1) / Testing (L2) L1, L2 60
Figueres-French Border (Perpignan) Spain Testing L1, L2 20
Madrid-Segovia Spain In service (L1) / Testing (L2) L1, L2 90
Segovia-Valladolid Spain In service (L1) / Testing (L2) L1, L2 110
La Sagra-Toledo Spain In service (L1) / Testing (L2) L1, L2 21
Cordoba-Antequera Spain In service (L1) / Testing (L2) L1, L2 100
Antequera-Malaga Spain In service (L1) / Testing (L2) L1, L2 55
Zargoza-Huesca Spain In service (L1) L1, L2 80
Madrid -Valencia/Albacete Spain Testing L1, L2 340
Albacete-Alicante Spain Under construction L1, L2 160
Getefa-Vallecas (Atocha Bypass) Spain Under construction L1, L2 6
Barcelona-Figueras Spain Under construction L1, L2 131
Girona-Figueras Spain Under construction L1 41
Sevilla-Cadiz Spain Under construction L2 108
Umea – Kramfors (Bothnia Line) Sweden In service L2 190
Kramfors-Sundsvall (Ådal line) Sweden
Under construction / Testing
(Stavreviken-Hällenyland)
L2 130
Boden-Haparanda (Haparanda Line) Sweden Under construction L2 160
Mattstetten-Rothrist Switzerland In service L2 45
Lotschberg Base Tunnel (Frutingen
-Raaron)
Switzerland In service L2 35
Luzern – Lenzburg (Seetal Line) Switzerland In service L1 30
Betuwe line (Totterdam-German Border) The Netherlands In service L2 160
HSL South The Netherlands In service L1, L2 125
Lelystad-Zwole The Netherlands Under construction L2 50
Amsterdam-Utrecht The Netherlands Testing L2 30
Cambrian Line United Kingdom Under construction L2 218
Source: European Railway Agency (data as of December 2010).
Switzerland has been included due to its strong link to the EU Network.
* Berlin – Leipzig line out of ERTMS service because of upgrading process to ETCS Baseline 2 (SRS 230d)

74
Annex 5. List of acronyms

the Agency the European Railway Agency
CCS Control-command and signalling
the Commission the European Commission
CR Conventional rail
CR TSI CCS
Conventional rail Technical specifi cation for interoperability Control-command
and signalling
CR TSI ENE Conventional rail Technical specifi cation for interoperability Energy
CR TSI INF Conventional rail Technical specifi cation for interoperability Infrastructure
CR TSI NOI Conventional rail Technical specifi cation for interoperability Noise
CR TSI OPE Conventional rail Technical specifi cation for interoperability Operation
CR TSI TAF Conventional rail Technical specifi cation for interoperability Telematic applications for freight
CR TSI WAG Conventional rail Technical specifi cation for interoperability Freight wagons
CR TSI(s) Conventional rail Technical specifi cation(s) for interoperability
DeBo Designated body
DG MOVE Directorate-General Mobility and Transport
EC European Communities
EEA European Economic Area
ENE Energy
ERTMS European Rail Traffi c Management System
ETF European Transport workers’ Federation
EU European Union
GIGs Geographical Interest Groups
HS high speed
HS TSI CCS High speed Technical specifi cation for interoperability Control-command and signalling
HS TSI ENE High speed Technical specifi cation for interoperability Energy
HS TSI INF High speed Technical specifi cation for interoperability Infrastructure
HS TSI MAI High speed Technical specifi cation for interoperability Maintenance
HS TSI OPE High speed Technical specifi cation for interoperability Operation
HS TSI RST High speed Technical specifi cation for interoperability Rolling stock
HS TSI(s) High speed Technical specifi cation(s) for interoperability
IC(s) interoperability constituent(s)
INF Infrastructure
LOC&PAS RST Locomotives and passenger RST
MAI Maintenance
MS Member States
Nando New Approach Notifi ed and Designated Organisations Information System
NB-Rail Coordination group of notifi ed bodies for railway products and systems
NNTR notifi ed national technical rules
NoBo notifi ed body
NOI Noise
NSA National Safety Authority
NSA Network National Safety Authorities Network
75

76
OPE Operation
PRM persons with reduced mobility
QMS quality management system
RB Representative Body
RISC Railway Interoperability and Safety Committee
RST Rolling stock
SRT Safety in railway tunnels
TAF Telematic applications for freight
TAP Telematic applications for passengers
tbd to be determined
TEN-T rail network Trans-European transport rail network
TSI PRM Technical specifi cation for interoperability Persons with reduced mobility
TSI SRT Technical specifi cation for interoperability Safety in railway tunnels
TSI(s) Technical specifi cation(s) for interoperability
WAG freight wagons

Country abbreviations
BE Belgium
BG Bulgaria
CZ Czech Republic
DK Denmark
DE Germany
EE Estonia
EL Greece
ES Spain
FR France
IE Ireland
IT Italy
LV Latvia
LT Lithuania
LU Luxembourg
HU Hungary
NL Netherlands
NO Norway
AT Austria
PL Poland
PT Portugal
RO Romania
SI Slovenia
SK Slovakia
FI Finland
SE Sweden
UK United Kingdom
77

78
Annex 6. Table of charts
and tables

Chart 1. Number of NSA staff directly involved in interoperability, issues by Member State,
in equivalent full time employees ......................................................................................................................................................24
Chart 2. Type of problems experiences by the NSAs in staff recruitment in 2009 and 2010 ....................................................25
Chart 3. Number of notifi ed bodies under Directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC, by subsystem/TSI, 01/01/2010 ............25
Chart 4. Number of notifi ed bodies under Directive 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC by Member State .........................................26
Chart 5. Number of open points by TSI (year of entry into force of the TSI), as of 21/12/2010 ...............................................31
Chart 6. Number of EC Certifi cates for ICs issued, requested and withdrawn by April 2011, by subsystem/TSI;
and relative share of IC certifi cates issued and requested, by subsystem ........................................................................32
Chart 7. Number of EC Certifi cates for ICs issued by the beginning of 2009 and by April 2011, by subsystem/TSI ........33
Chart 8. Number of EC Certifi cates for subsystems/TSI issued, requested and withdrawn by April 2011,
by subsystem; and relative share of subsystem certifi cates issued and requested, by subsystem ........................34
Chart 9. Number of EC Certifi cates for subsystems issued by the beginning of 2009 and by April 2011, by subsystem/TSI ...35
Chart 10. Does the NSA charge fee(s) for authorisation for placing in service? ................................................................................35
Chart 11. Number of authorisations for placing in service under TSI regime for HS subsystems, by subsystem ................37
Chart 12. Number of authorisations for placing in service for HS and CR CCS on-board subsystem under TSI and
national regime, 2009 .............................................................................................................................................................................38
Chart 13. Number of authorisations for placing in service for WAG under TSI regime, 2009 .....................................................38
Chart 14. Number of authorisations for placing in service for CR RST, by type of vehicle, under TSI regime
(NOI, PRM, SRT), 2009 .............................................................................................................................................................................39
Chart 15. Relative share of classifi ed national rules in 2010 and 1st quarter 2011.........................................................................43
Chart 16. Number of EC Certifi cates for ICs issued, requested and withdrawn by April 2011, by subsystem/TSI;
and relative share of IC certifi cates issued and requested by subsystem .........................................................................44
Chart 17. Number of EC Certifi cates for ICs issued by the beginning of 2009 and by April 2011, by subsystem/TSI ........45
Chart 18. Number of EC Certifi cates for subsystems/TSI issued, requested and withdrawn by April 2011,
by subsystem; and relative share of subsystem certifi cates issued and requested, by subsystem ........................46
Chart 19. Number of EC Certifi cates for subsystems issued by the beginning of 2009 and by April 2011,
by subsystem/TSI .......................................................................................................................................................................................47
Chart 20. Number of authorisations for placing in service of fi xed installations under the TSI regime,
by subsystem and by year .....................................................................................................................................................................48
Chart 21. Number of authorisations for placing in service of HS infrastructure subsystems under the TSI regime,
by Member State with HS rail network and by year ..................................................................................................................49
Chart 22. Number of authorisations for placing in service of CR infrastructure subsystems under the TSI regime,
by Member State, 2009 ..........................................................................................................................................................................50
Chart 23. Number of authorisations for placing in service of HS energy subsystems under the TSI regime,
by Member State and by year ..............................................................................................................................................................50
Chart 24. Number of authorisations for placing in service of HS and CR CCS trackside subsystems under TSI
and national regimes in 2009, by Member State ........................................................................................................................53
Chart 25. Number of authorisations for placing in service of CR infrastructure subsystems under TSI
and national regimes in 2009, by Member State ........................................................................................................................53
Chart 26. ERTMS contracted or in service, EU27 and Switzerland ...........................................................................................................56
Chart 27. ERTMS kilometres, by Member State ................................................................................................................................................57
79

80
Key documents and references
All documents below can be obtained through European Railway Agency1 and DG MOVE2 web pages:
European Commission, “EU Energy and Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook 2010”, 2010
European Railway Agency, “Report on the certifi cation of ERTMS equipment”, April 2010
European Railway Agency, “Report on railway vehicle authorization. Part 1 – the current situation”, April 2011
Legislative acts listed in Annex 1
1 http://www.era.europa.eu/
2 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/index_en.htm
Design: Imprimerie Bietlot Frères
Progress with Railway Interoperability in the European Union
2011 Biennial Report
79 pages, 21 x 29.7 cm
Luxembourg: Publications Offi ce of the European Union, 2011
ISBN 978-92-9205-016-0
ISSN 1977-3099
doi:10.2821/13874
© European Railway Agency, 2011. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
European Railway Agency
120, Rue Marc Lefrancq
BP 20392
59307 Valenciennes Cedex
FRANCE
Tel. +33 327096500
Fax +33 327334065
www.era.europa.eu
Printed on recycled paper that has been awarded the EU eco-label for graphic paper (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel).
Printed in Belgium

Headquarters in Valenciennes:
120, Rue Marc Lefrancq
59300 Valenciennes
FRANCE
Tel. +33 327096-500
Conference centre in Lille:
Espace International
299, Boulevard de Leeds
59777 Lille
FRANCE
www.era.europa.eu
ISBN 978-92-9205-016-0
TR-AC-11-001-EN-C