OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Proposal for a Council Directive on the Interoperability of the European High Speed Train Network
Date: 1994-11-23
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: high-speed transport, intra-EU transport, rail transport, transport network, vehicle on rails













EUR-Lex - 51994AC1297 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51994AC1297

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Proposal for a Council Directive on the Interoperability of the European High Speed Train Network  


Official Journal C 397 , 31/12/1994 P. 0008 





Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the interoperability of the European high speed train network () (94/C 397/04)On 14 June 1994 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 129d(3) of the Treaty, on the abovementioned proposal.The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for drawing up the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 9 November 1994. The Rapporteur was Mr Decaillon.At its 320th Plenary Session (meeting of 23 November 1994), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by a majority, with one abstention.The Economic and Social Committee was interested to read the proposal for a Council Directive on the interoperability of the European high speed train network. Subject to the detailed comments below, it regards the proposal as an important contribution to the setting-up of such a network.1. Introduction 1.1. Before examining the content of the proposed Directive, it is useful to clarify the discussion by summarizing the conditions under which the idea of high speed rail operation and of a high speed European network emerged.The first examples of European high speed rail operation (the 'Direttissima' line in Italy, the introduction of the French TGV South-East service in 1981, followed some 10 years later by the German ICE), were primarily a response to the need for a practical solution to the problem of the growing saturation of certain main routes on the railway networks. For example, rather than attempt a costly renovation of the Paris-Lyon line, which would have had only limited effects on the service provided, the SNCF (French Railways) suggested to the French Government the building of a new infrastructure with optimized characteristics, capable of carrying dense, frequent and rapid traffic, with a quality of service hitherto almost unknown in Europe.Similar considerations were behind the German, Italian and Spanish projects, which all aimed primarily to satisfy national priorities.1.2. The result was that the railways very naturally gave priority in their projects to integrating the design of infrastructure and equipment and the operating procedures with the general framework of their technology, regulatory provisions and usual practices, which in some cases vary considerably from one Member State to another.1.3. Nevertheless, continuing their analyses and studies, the railways of the Member States of the European Community, grouped together in the CCFE (Community of European Railways), took the initiative of submitting to the European authorities in January 1989 a proposal for a high speed European rail network.1.4. The Council of Ministers, meeting on 4 and 5 December 1989, adopted a Resolution asking the Commission to set up a high-level working party to be consulted on the common standards and characteristics enabling modern trains to run on the network and ensuring the compatibility of technology and infrastructure among the different parts of the network.1.5. This working party issued in November 1990 a report on the development of a European high speed train network.The Council of Transport Ministers expressed 'its satisfaction with the working party's results' in December 1990 (), noting the Commission's intention of preparing a draft directive on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions concerning rail traffic, and emphasizing the need to carry out joint initiatives as soon as possible to harmonize control/command systems.2. The legal basis of Community action on the interoperability of the high speed train network 2.1. The November 1990 report mentioned above was a kind of prototype for the outline plans of the trans-European transport networks. But this concept really took shape with the Treaty on European Union which came into force on 1 November 1993.Indeed, this treaty provided a new basis for Community action on trans-European infrastructures, particularly for transport. The provisions in question, under title XII of the treaty, redefined the framework of Community action in the field.2.2. Two other aspects, linked to the completion of the Single Market, should be taken into account when considering the implementation of measures currently proposed by the Commission:- provisions on opening markets in the transport sector to Community competition [Directive 90/531/EEC () as updated by Directive 93/38/EEC ()]; and- provisions on the development of the Community's railways (Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991) ().3. The need for technical progress 3.1. In technical terms it had thus become necessary to give greater depth to the concept of technical harmonization which had hitherto dominated international railway operation.The principle of technical harmonization was that of achieving unification, or at least compatibility, of a number of parameters such as track gauges, loading gauges (several gauges being possible), height of buffers, braking equipment etc., of vehicles forming part of the same train and of infrastructures likely to carry them.3.2. These provisions are codified in:- the 'Unité technique', a document agreed between governments, dating from 1882, in which the most recent decisions date from 1938;- the RIC (Regulations governing the reciprocal use of carriages and brake vans in international traffic) and- the RIV (Regulations governing the reciprocal use of wagons in international traffic), and- a collection of specifications drawn up by the International Railway Union for its members' use in a spirit of cooperation, but without the legally binding character of European specifications and, at all events, not covering high speed trains.3.3. Such provisions, whose basic philosophy goes back to the days of steam, were generally adequate as long as the speeds attained, journey times, distances covered by locomotives and maximum working hours of staff rendered insignificant the delays caused by changing engines and staff at international frontiers, which were also technical 'frontiers'.The railways have, admittedly, managed to devise a series of measures to overcome technical incompatibility, with the result that certain international services are now interoperable through additional investments. Nevertheless, the scale of these services remains limited, and certainly inadequate for the needs of a frontierless single market.3.4. Furthermore, with the ever-increasing pace of intra-Community trade, and particularly the advent of High Speed Trains, the limitations posed by 'technical frontiers' are clearly no longer acceptable. The proposal for a Directive on HST interoperability seeks to remedy the situation.3.5. The definition of interoperability as it appears in the draft directive is the result of wide-ranging discussions in the sub-group on technical compatibility of the Commission's high-level working party, made up of representatives of administrations, equipment manufacturers and operating networks. The definition is as follows:'Interoperability within the European high speed train network refers to all of the regulatory, technical or operational conditions which must be met in order to ensure, without interruption, movements by high speed trains on infrastructure within that network, which accomplish the specified levels of performance.'The Economic and Social Committee considers that the Commission's definition of the concept of interoperability corresponds to technical, economic and environmental requirements which today are essential.4. Description of the proposed mechanism 4.1. The Commission has not adopted a maximalist approach on interoperability. Quite the opposite, in fact, since the purpose of interoperability as defined is to enable any railway undertaking to operate a commercial service on any route of its choice at the best economic cost.4.2. To ensure a sufficient level of interoperability as defined, the Commission proposes to establish a structure which is, of necessity, fairly complex, and which one can attempt to summarize as follows:4.3. At one level the directive describes in terms of mandatory results the following essential requirements:- safety;- human health;- environmental protection;- consumer protection;- technical compatibility;- operational questions.4.4. At another level, to facilitate its description and the drawing up of technical specifications, the system is divided into eight sub-systems:- infrastructure;- energy;- maintenance;- signalling control/command;- rolling stock;- environment;- operations;- users.4.5. Each of the eight sub-systems is covered by a mandatory technical specification for interoperability (TSI).4.6. The TSIs have a quadruple role:- they lay down the essential requirements for each sub-system;- they establish the basic parameters (loading gauge, power supply voltage, radii of curves, maximum track stressing, axle loading, vibrations, noise, etc.);- they determine the sensitive constituents and interfaces which play a critical role for interoperability;- they determine the applicable modules in procedures for assessing conformity or suitability for use, with reference to the provisions laid down in Council Decision 93/465/EEC of 22 July 1993 ().4.7. It is planned that the TSIs be drawn up on the Commission's instructions by an international non-profit-making association registered under Belgian law and made up of representatives of railway companies, infrastructure management and railway equipment manufacturers.4.8. Each sub-system will be subject to a check on conformity with the TSIs, at the request of the authority awarding the sub-system. This check will be carried out by 'notified bodies'. These will issue a 'CE' declaration of conformity on the basis of which the Member State in question will authorize the bringing into service of the sub-system.4.9. Finally, at the third level, that of constituents and interfaces, specifications will be drawn up by specialized bodies and, in particular, where European standards are concerned, by CEN, CENELEC and ETSI.In this case, conformity or aptitude for use shall be determined at the request of the manufacturer by the notified bodies on the basis of modules indicated in the corresponding TSI.4.10. The notified bodies must meet the criteria laid down in the directive. At present only the railway undertakings have the necessary expertise. In the framework laid down by Directive 91/440/EEC, they will not be able to be judges in their own case. The Commission's intention appears to be that the railways could engage in the corresponding activity provided that it was organized in accordance with the directive.4.11. Finally, the directive provides for the setting up of an advisory committee consisting of representatives of the Member States to discuss any matter arising from the implementation and practical application of the directive.The Economic and Social Committee takes the view that the principle of interoperability is such as to facilitate the establishment of the European high speed rail network for passenger traffic. This measure should have a strengthening effect on the position of rail transport in Europe, and enable society to benefit more from the advantages of this mode of transport. The Economic and Social Committee, however, is concerned about the priority given to the HST network in the application of this principle.5. General remarks 5.1.Consistency of the system5.1.1. One of the characteristics of rail transport is the high level of integration and interdependence of its components, whether mobile or fixed. The safety, economy, effectiveness and even the viability of the system depend on respect for this principle.All the elements must therefore be totally consistent from the start in order to achieve optimal homogeneity.5.1.2. The directive may appear to place more stress on the parts of the system, on subsystems or their components, than on the system as a whole; the Committee therefore wonders whether a general picture of a global system is guaranteed. Planning an optimum synthesis involves a certain number of choices or even compromises between the different possible combinations, and one wonders whether merely joining interoperable sub-systems together necessarily produces the best global system.5.1.3. The Committee therefore suggests that a synthesis could be made first at the beginning of the process of drawing up the TSIs, under the supervision of the Advisory Committee for guided transport systems, as provided for in Article 21, and whose role should be correspondingly clarified. The synthesis should also be made at the end by giving the Member States the task of ensuring the effective integration of the sub-systems at the operational authorization stage.5.2.Taking stock of the existing situation5.2.1. Another question is the need to take into account what exists. Several Member States (France, Germany, Italy and Spain) already have a significant length of new high speed lines. The same problem is posed by planned lines for which the key decisions have already been taken.5.2.2. Moreover, any new line must take into account the existing traditional network to ensure access to terminals and the continuity of the European network.5.2.3. The choice of specifications as proposed in the directive must not make the cost of adapting and operating such a network excessive, as this would discourage modernization and could be counterproductive. There should be several acceptable arrangements for each sub-system, subject to the installation of some of them being limited to certain areas for reasons of technical continuity.5.3.Development of the systemThe lack of flexibility in taking into account existing structures is combined with a lack of precision as to their development. How are we to deal with rapidly-changing technology without freezing it?5.4.The economic aspect of the systemIn general, the economic aspect of the system is little mentioned; in particular there is no attempt at economic optimization between the essential requirements and the costs - not assessed - which they are likely to involve.5.5.Social aspects5.5.1. Despite the provisions of point 2.7.1 of the draft Directive's Annex II, the Committee regards the proposed arrangements as inadequate in that there is only an indirect mention of a matter which the Economic and Social Committee believes to be of vital importance - that of staff training (which could, admittedly, be dealt with by a separate instrument). Interoperable system expansion should be accompanied by coordinated staff training in order to ensure increased efficiency and mobility.5.5.2. More generally, it has been noted that management and labour have been excluded from the Commission's proposed approach. The Economic and Social Committee believes they should be included in the Advisory Committee for guided transport systems provided for in Article 21 of the proposal for a Council Directive.5.6.Taking the passenger into accountThe authors of the proposal for a Council Directive have quite rightly taken the needs of passengers into account (Annex II, point 2.8). It seems, however, that the proposal could go beyond what is basically a technical approach, and put greater emphasis on the interoperability of services offered to customers: information, seat reservation and ticketing procedures, and harmonization of the fares charged by the railways, since the current trend is sometimes towards divergence rather than standardization.6. Specific remarks 6.1.Ensuring safetyRe. Article 156.1.1. In accordance with the concern expressed above, it is also important to submit the whole of a sub-system to verification ensuring the necessary degree of consistency, especially in terms of use.Re. Article 56.1.2. The modules envisaged in Council Decision 93/465/EEC (which has since replaced Council Decision 90/683/EEC cited in the proposal) were defined for common industrial products or products intended for the public in general, with little relevance to railway equipment which requires special qualities of durability, reliability, safety, resistance to vibration, resistance to powerful electromagnetic fields, etc. It would therefore be prudent to provide for additional modules to take account of safety requirements in particular.6.1.3. Article 5(3), in referring to the Art. 21(2) procedure, must take account of the Member States' involvement in drawing up the TSIs. It must be ensured that they are consistent with national safety requirements and that governments have the option of imposing stricter safety standards in special cases such as the Channel Tunnel.Re. Article 206.1.4. These verification procedures will be carried out by bodies notified by the Member States. Taking account of what is at stake in terms of safety, in particular, it is important that the criteria laid down should be sufficiently rigorous. High speed rail transport requires extremely well-developed expertise, currently found only in a very small number of manufacturers and railway undertakings. It would therefore be useful to provide for an impartial, competent 'sectoral committee' - possibly in a different framework from that of the directive under review - which would assist Member States in accrediting the notified bodies.6.2.Committee on guided transport systemsRe. Article 21The ESC is uncertain of the nature of this committee, which will have questions referred to it. Will an advisory committee be enough to enable Member States to express their views on a relatively new topic? Moreover, does not such a formula raise a question of responsibility, which is ultimately borne by the railway companies and the bodies responsible for infrastructure management?6.3.Implementation deadlinesRe. Article 23The deadline given to Member States for transposing the proposed directive and using or accepting sub-systems conforming to the TSIs is 30 June 1997.Given the complexity of drawing up TSIs and the scale of their repercussions on national regulations, it may be difficult to meet this deadline, all the more so since the publication of the TSIs is planned for the same date.7. Conclusion The Commission's draft directive is an attempt to conceptualize a complex reality with many aspects, particularly technical and economic, while including the trans-European dimension and the need to conserve the environment, protect the consumer, etc.The Economic and Social Committee can endorse this approach. However, it feels that a number of improvements can be made, in order to:- optimize cohesion of the system, safety and the cost-benefit ratio, bearing in mind that interoperability is essentially a long-term objective;- improve the social aspect of the approach, by including management and labour in planning the system and the training programme;- take the passenger's needs more into consideration.Furthermore, the latter implies greater interoperability of railway operational practices at all levels. This aspect is only touched upon in the proposal.Subject to these conditions, the directive on the interoperability of the high speed train network - complemented, where necessary, by interoperability of the conventional railway network and combined transport systems - could become a key factor in trans-European networks.Done at Brussels, 23 November 1994.The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER() OJ No C 134, 17. 5. 1994, p. 6.() Council Resolution of 17. 12. 1990, OJ No C 33, 8. 2. 1991, p. 1.() OJ No L 297, 29. 10. 1990.() OJ No L 199, 9. 8. 1993.() OJ No L 237, 24. 8. 1991.() OJ No 220, 30. 8. 1993.