Cross Acceptance

banekonference.dk
  • No tags were found...

Cross Acceptance

Challenges in the EuropeanRailway MarketRichard LockettHead of Cross AcceptanceEuropean Railway Agency


Agenda• ERA• History• Why change?• Some bad examples• 2 key Challenges2


The European Railway Agency - ERA• Agency of the European Commmission• Based in Valenciennes/Lille France• 160 Staff• Objective• “to contribute, on technical matters, to the implementation ofthe Community legislation aimed at improving thecompetitive position of the railway sector by enhancing thelevel interoperability of railway systems and at developing acommon approach to safety on the European railway system”3


History – a long story• Opening the Market for Railway Operations• 1991 – Separation of Infrastructure and Operations• Opening the Market for Products (HorizontalIntegration)• 1996 – High Speed Interoperability Directive• 2001 – Conventional Interoperability Directive• 2004 – Safety Directive• 2008 – Recast Interoperability Directive• 2013 – TSIs cover all railway system4


• Progress is slow!Reflections• 17 years to put the legal framework in place• 25 (or even more) years to implement the frameworkin the “real world”• Transition is the worst place to be• Frequently changing rules and processes -> confusion• Mixture of old way and new way ->confusion• More than 25 years in “no-man’s land”• Half way across the river – the water of competitionis still rising!5


……….and the competition• Our competitors are 50 years ahead of us• Is anybody here old enough to remember when airlinesspecified and designed their own planes?• Or when there was only one state road haulage company andone state airline?• Today• Boeing and Airbus planes are used by all airlines with nonational specificities for planes, airports or control systems• The same designs of lorries, busses and cars operate over theEU• Road operators and airlines operate freely in all MemberStates of the EU6


Why Change the TechnicalFramework?Why do we needHorizontal Integration?


Why change?• The railway is already a shared system managedby many RUs and IMs. That has happened.• We need to use the technical tools for shared systemmanagement -otherwise it’s a mess.• Due to the complexity and confusion in thetransition regime – different in every country• Costs are still relatively high• Rail is still relatively uncompetitive• Competition is constrained – new entrants are inhibited• National differences / interpretations inhibit market opening• Confusion and complexity-> safety risks8


What gets forgotten• Benefits are primarily about market opening• So RUs face the same conditions whenoperating in different countries• E.g. for regional Public Service Contracts• E.g. for local freight services• E.g. for international services• So the same vehicle design can be marketedalready authorised in many countries• Class 66, Traxx, Velaro• Result -> Rail will be more competitive9


Challenge #1 – Using the righttools


Using the right toolsfor mangement of shared systems++HomologationVehicleAuthorisation11


Bad ExamplesWhat happens without HorizontalIntegration


AustraliaNow comes a singular thing:the oddest thing, the strangestthing, the most baffling andunaccountable marvel thatAustralia can show….Allpassengers fret at the doublegauge; all shippers of freightmust of course fret at it; unnecessaryexpense, delay andannoyance are imposed oneverybody concerned, and nooneis benefitedMark Twain 189713


Results• Melbourne – Sydney• 2 trains per day• A plane every half hour• Freight Market Share• approx. 50% in America (fully horizontally integrated)• approx . 18% in Europe (mostly the same gauge)• Approx. 10% in Australia (every state boundaryinvolves a gauge change)15


Amsterdam – London (Heathrow-Schipol)350k – potential 4h by trainBAANRCrossrailUK HS1Channel TunnelFR HSLProrailNL HSLBE HSL 2BE HSL 1 InfrabelN° 16


Result• No through trains at all• Messy connections in Brussels• Approx. 34 flights per day at competitive prices17


• ERTMS Implementations 2000-2012ERTMS Experience• IMs adopted a “closed system” approach with ERTMSimplementation• Incumbents accepted the national approach-> barrier for new entrants!)• Interoperability between suppliers for each project but nointeroperability between projects• 3 incompatible projects in one country• Not a single ETCS project in the EU complies with the Technical Specification (TSI)• No transparency of requirements for on-board ERTMS• NSAs / Ministries have no idea what requirements they authorised against• ERA unable to publish national “add on” rules for ETCS interface• ERTMS is the biggest challenge for cross acceptance• 2m euros for additional authorisation of on board ETCS for another network• No automatic roaming for GSMR SIM cards18


Challenge #2 - InfrastructureGradual elimination of networkdiversity


Evolution of simplificationThe costs of network diversityMn EUR/ year for loco authorisation (EU total)Each scenario ceteris paribusStage 1TransparencyStage 2CommonapproachStage 3One systemDiverse nontransparentrequirements andchecksTSIS(TENS)+NationalRules(off TENS)Savings fromCommon Process+TSI scope extension+Cross AcceptanceJudgementbasedverificationSavings fromNetworkHarmonisation20


Results so far• Risk of more network diversity with ERTMS• Before• 25 x national CCS systems• Now• 25 x national CCS systems plus• 25 x national ERTMS systems ?• IMs “escape” from TSI application• After 6 years only one station in Europe complies with thePRM TSI• Projects adopt their own specifications (eg Crossrail in UK)21


The big question


Rules and Tools• Why do people fight for the right to use thewrong rules and tools?• To carry on national “homologation” processes• To exempt, avoid, exclude, adopt specific cases,derogate from EU rules and to use national rules“because we do it this way now” (even when the TSIis no more expensive)• To have national transpositions/ interpretations/applications of EU rules and procedures23


Rules and Tools• Because they can!• The “Twain Effect”24


Summary - 2 Challengesto catch up with roads and aviation• Get on with it – cross the river!• Use the right (common) rules and tools forhorizontal integration of the shared system• Be serious about migrating infrastructure• IMs need to be managed by their Ministries!• NSAS need to enforce Technical Compatibility• Ministries need to be pushed by EC (?)25


We make the railway system work better for society.era.europa.eu26

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines