Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system'
Date: 2000-05-24
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: harmonisation of standards, organisation of transport, rail transport, technical regulations, trans-European network, transport network

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/13

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail
system’

(2000/C 204/04)

On 17 February 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article
156 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 May 2000. The rapporteur was
Mr Vinay.

At its 373rd plenary session (meeting of 24 May 2000) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion by 102 votes in favour, with one abstention.

1. The Commission proposals

— adoption of a work programme organised on the basis of

a scale of priorities;

The draft directive under consideration aims first and
1.1.
foremost to make progress towards a single market for rail
services, as provided for in the Treaty;
it has three basic
objectives:

— to make the transport of freight and passengers organis-
ationally more efficient on lines which form part of the
trans-European transport network (1);

— to promote the interoperability of conventional rail net-

works through technical harmonisation;

— to help to create a single market for equipment open to
public procurement, hitherto evaded by a system of
specifications such as to favour the suppliers of
the
respective national markets.

— specific attention to be paid to economic analysis of the
the new standards and to the search for

impact of
economically effective solutions.

1.3.
The communication stresses the current difficulties
and problems of rail transport; sketches out a set of progressive
step-by-step measures; draws attention to those which can be
carried out quickly and free of cost; defines the need for
Community action, which it places in the context of the
sharing of responsibilities with the Member States under
Articles 154 and 155 of the treaty; and sets out objectives and
priorities.

1.2.
The Communication which accompanies the proposal
and recommends its adoption draws attention to its structural
similarities with the directive on high-speed rail systems (2),
but also to the differences, which relate mainly to:

1.4.1. O b j e c t i v e s

— geographical scope (network concerned) (1);

— technical specifications and the sub-systems concerned;

— adoption of a gradual approach in removing obstacles to
interoperability: conventional railways are an old system
in which accelerated adaptation without the necessary
step-by-step approach would entail very high costs for
railway undertakings, infrastructure managers and state
budgets;

— To improve the organisation of international services,
especially for freight, by acting essentially through railway
undertakings on the slow and costly exchange of commer-
cial data, the poor match of timetables and the complexity
of the procedures carried out at frontiers.

— To promote the interoperability of conventional rail net-
works, by taking action to deal with the diversity of
locomotives, passenger carriages and freight wagons, and
with the technical and operating standards which make it
necessary to change locomotives and crews at frontiers.

(1) Decision 1692/96/EC of the European Parliament and the Council
of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development
of the trans-European transport network (OJ L 228, 9.9.1996,
p. 1) — ESC Opinion: OJ C 397, 31.12.1994, p. 23.

(2) Directive (EC) No 96/48, 23.7.1996 (OJ L 235, 17.9.1996).

— To create a single market for railway equipment, by
opening up the national markets which at present are
largely closed.

C 204/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

1.4.2. P r i o r i t i e s

2. General comments

— Harmonisation of sub-systems and their components,

beginning with:

— signalling and command/control systems

— information technology applications for data exchange

— rolling stock

— noise emissions

— qualifications required for cross-border operations by

train crews

— assessment of conformity with specifications

— mutual recognition of maintenance and repairs.

— Introduction of equipment built to Community specifi-

cations.

The harmonisation process is to take place at two

1.5.
levels:

— organisational aspects: in the short term railway undertak-
ings should aim at reducing delays at border crossings to
the time strictly necessary to change locomotives and
crews; in the medium term it is intended to eliminate these
stops;

— system and sub-system aspects: the Commission, assisted
by the Committee set up under Article 21 of Directive
(EC) No 96/48/EC (1), will be responsible for issuing the
instructions for drawing up the specifications and for
adopting the proposed specifications, following a work
programme on the basis of the priorities.

1.5.1.
Finally, the procedures for laying down the Technical
Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) for various sub-systems
are clearly indicated. As for high-speed trains, the preparation
of the TSI would be given to a representative joint body, the
AEIF (2), composed of representatives of representatives of the
railway undertakings, the operators, public transport bodies
and the railway equipment industry. The European standards
for components of the sub-systems are drawn up by CEN (3),
Cenelec (4) or ETSI (5) as the case may be. The responsibility for
assessing conformity with the specifications and standards is
entrusted to independent organisations (‘notified bodies’) thus
breaking with the tradition of entrusting this task to the
railway undertakings themselves.

the frontier or the use of multi-current

2.1.
The Committee agrees that there is a need for Com-
munity action: for institutional, social, economic and transport
policy reasons,
the whole system needs a high level of
interconnection and integration. Indeed, the current situation
is unsatisfactory. At present in the EU Member States there are
track gauges (6),
21 railway undertakings using 6 different
5 different electrical systems requiring a change of locomotive
at
locomotives,
and 16 different signalling, command and control systems.
Moreover, 11 railway undertakings have agreed to make
trains only at their point of
technical checks on freight
departure instead of at every frontier crossing (exchange
technical inspections) (7). It is obvious that, in setting up a
trans-European rail network, one cannot rely on voluntary
standardisation: it is necessary to lay down basic requirements
and parameters.

2.1.1. Moreover, although the gradual consolidation of the
internal Community market has brought about a significant
growth in freight and passenger traffic, the railways’ share in
both sectors has shown a constant decline and, if the trend
were to continue, it is not unreasonable to suppose that some
lines would cease to be economic by any criterion and they
would risk closure. This would have not only negative effects
for users, regional development and jobs but also totally
counter-productive effects in terms of the objective of sustain-
able mobility at European level.

interoperability:

2.1.2.
As emphasised in the Commission Communication,
the present draft directive is only a first step towards effective,
it will apply to design, construction,
full
bringing into service, restructuring, renewal and operation of
only those components of the railway system which are
brought into service after it comes into force. It follows that
full infrastructure harmonisation will occur only in the long
term; however, it is essential to take action aiming in the short
term to harmonise components and procedures, and in
the longer term to achieve increasing approximation of
infrastructure standards.

(1) Directive (EC) No 96/48, 23.7.1996 (OJ L 235, 17.9.1996).
(2) AEIF: European Association for Rail Interoperability.
(3) CEN: European Committee for Standardisation.
(4) Cenelec: European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardis-

ation.

(5) ETSI: European Telecommunications Standards Institute.

(6) The standard gauge (1 435 mm) is used by 11 Member States,
whereas Portugal and Spain use a 1 668 mm gauge, Ireland a
1 600 mm gauge, and Finland a 1 524 mm gauge.

(7) It should be noted that this solution is not always suitable
— particularly when dealing with ‘mixed’ trains loaded also with
swap bodies and containers, because of the differing loading
gauges of lines and consequent differences in coding.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/15

2.1.3.
To this should be added that only the definition of
consistent construction specifications can overcome the sys-
tem of detailed national requirements which has so far
prevented the development of Europe-wide competition on
the market for supply of railway systems and installations,
reducing it to the status of a national industry, despite the fact
that it has been subject to public procurement rules for a
number of years (1).

3.2.
The statistics for recent years should be studied. Rather
than simply listing the cases where the railways have lost their
market share — which are now well known — one should
that, despite the policies adopted to
look into the fact
encourage combined transport,
lagging behind
is still
significantly, although the average distance of freight journeys
in the European Union increased by 2 % per year between
1970 and 1997 (3).

it

2.2.
This overall picture brings out not a few reasons for
the inefficiency of intra-Community rail transport and for the
lack of competition in the sector. Thus the Commission
appears to have set itself the right objective of giving coherence
to the whole system in order to meet the ever greater and
more specialised demands of users of passenger and freight
services and to open up the production market.

2.3.
The Committee welcomes and supports this draft
directive. In the light of the ESC opinion on the high-speed rail
system directive (2), the principles, approach and perspective
of which are also found in the current proposal, it does not
seem to be necessary to go into technical aspects already dealt
with there.

2.3.1.
The Committee takes a special interest in the fact
that the concept of interoperability is at last being extended to
the conventional trans-European network as well, with a view
not only to renewal but also to modernisation and the building
of new component parts,
thus completing the plan for
harmonising the European Union’s railway system.

3. Specific comments

Nonetheless, the Committee wishes to make certain
3.1.
comments and bring out certain aspects which still make the
rail transport sector a thorny one, despite the fact that it has
been gradually liberalised since 1991 and the fact that it has
undoubted advantages in terms of sustainable development.
This critical assessment leads the Committee to attach most
importance to the existence of a real political will on the part
of Member States and railway undertakings — a fundamental
prerequisite for achieving effective interoperability between
the networks.

3.1.1.
The needs for a step-by-step policy and for a
distinction between technical/normative measures and infra-
structure measures also entail action by the Member States,
not least because this initiative must be seen in the context of
a comprehensive, coordinated approach to transport policy.
Hence the need for careful monitoring of costs and benefits in
order to make the action taken practical and productive.

(1) Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the
procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,
transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993,
p. 84) — ESC Opinion: OJ C 106, 27.4.1992, p. 6.

(2) ESC opinion: OJ C 397, 31.12.1994, p. 8.

3.2.1.
There is no doubt that the decline in rail transport is
partly due to the market impact of other modes of transport
which are more flexible, free of interoperability constraints
and extremely competitive in terms of costs. It is therefore
urgent and essential
to begin to restore, partly through
interoperability, a degree of competitiveness to the rail trans-
port system.

The Committee thinks

3.2.2.
it necessary to ensure
maximum consistency between the measures relating specifi-
cally to interoperability and those forming part of the ‘infra-
structure package’. Special attention will need to be given to
the management of train paths and to the allocation of
priorities among different types of services. It is important,
while safeguarding the interests of passengers, to succeed in
providing guarantees of efficiency and competitiveness for
freight transport also.

3.2.3.
The Committee notes that the Commission, too,
acknowledges that the rules on procurement have not yet had
a positive impact on the market, precisely because of the
fragmentation of systems which still enables national suppliers
to be favoured. It therefore hopes that as the various phases of
interoperability progress there will be stricter checks to ensure
full application of European rules on procurement, not least
with a view to containing costs (1).

3.2.3.1. With regard to railway equipment manufacturers,
the directive should guarantee the involvement of SMEs, which
currently account for 20 % of total market share.

3.3. While endorsing the priorities set out in Article 22 of
the Commission’s draft directive, the Committee feels that the
timescale for defining the TSI should be indicated in order to
avoid excessively long procedures. The main objective of
measures on standards should be to harmonise existing
systems on joint minimal conditions, and then go on to seek
innovatory solutions on the basis of the best available practice
and in connection with research programmes.
is also
conceivable that, even before the TSI are adopted, the basic
parameters identified could already constitute a recommended
basic reference framework — albeit not legally binding — for
any investment projects in the Member States.

It

(3) In the ten years 1985-1995: UK + 24 %, FR + 36 %, SV + 37 %

(see COM(1999) 519 final of 27.10.1999).

C 204/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.7.2000

3.3.1.
Among the priorities listed in the draft directive for
the TSI definition stage, it would also be desirable to include a
guarantee of adequate investment flows both on the infrastruc-
ture and on the management side. When the work concerned
involves a contribution both from those in charge of infrastruc-
ture and from those in charge of day-to-day operation, it is
essential that costs be borne by both sides beforehand, so that
both can reap the benefits later on.

the social partners can only be made in the first instance when
the specifications are being drawn up. This participation
enriches the value and effectiveness of the developing social
dialogue, which has already made progress between the
sector’s employers’ and trade union organisations at European
level [CER (2) and ETF (3)] on precisely the subject of interop-
erability.

3.3.2.
It could be desirable to include among the TSI the
question of automatic coupling. Indeed, it seems that such a
system could be implemented within a fairly short timescale if
the necessary funds are available. Among other things,
it
would increase productivity and improve safety for workers in
the section concerned.

3.5.
As regards the future extension of interoperability to
the applicant countries [CEEC (4)] the Committee attaches
great importance to the proper completion of the TINA (5)
programme, without which adherence to the TSI at the time
of joining the EU could in many cases prove to be ineffective.
There is therefore a need to intensify cooperation with these
countries on the subject.

3.3.3.
As regards the initiatives on noise, the Committee
appreciates and supports the Commission’s declared intention
to set up a working group on railway noise emissions. It
recommends that full consistency with Community legislation
be ensured when harmonising methods for measuring noise,
and that consideration be given not only to the level but also
to the frequency of noise emissions from rail traffic, when
planning the necessary measures to be taken by national and
local authorities to protect the public.

The Committee shares the interest shown in the draft
3.5.1.
directive in possible interoperability beyond the present and
future frontiers of the Union. Such an aim has important social
and economic implications. The ESC therefore supports both
the Commission’s proposed initiatives in relation to the COTIF
(Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail) and its
proposal that the European Community become a member of
the OTIF (Central Office for International Carriage by Rail).

3.3.4.
In the short term, however, the ESC is concerned at
the timescale estimated as being needed for modernising brake
blocks, and calls upon the Commission to take action to speed
up this process as much as possible, and to tackle all the other
factors known to contribute to the total noise pollution caused
by rail traffic.

3.4.
The Committee is in favour of confirming the AEIF as
a representative joint body, but feels the need to emphasise,
with further arguments also found in the communication
accompanying the draft directive, some points already made
in its Opinion on the high-speed rail system directive (1).

3.4.1.
The Commission Communication points out that
the AEIF does not represent all the parties concerned — with
special reference to the role of the social partners — and does
not have all the necessary expertise. The Committee therefore
thinks it particularly desirable for the draft directive to define
specific ways in which the social partners can participate in
drawing up the TSI, nearly all of which have implications for
work organisation, safety and health of staff, definition of skills
which will become necessary as interoperability develops,
training, vocational retraining, working hours, and the essential
standardisation of operating documents. The contribution of

since

However,

the Committee believes

3.5.2.
that
maximum priority should always be given to a high level of
safety in the movement of trains as in the construction
it calls for extremely careful
specifications for equipment,
safety checks to made on any specifications already approved
at international level which it is intended to take as a basic
point of reference for the future TSI.

3.5.2.1.
In the section of the draft directive devoted to
essential requirements, safety is amply covered both as regards
general aspects and in terms of the specifications for each sub-
system. The Committee takes the view that on this, as on
health protection (including ergonomic aspects), it is important
to have a direct contribution from the social partners, and
from qualified bodies representing users, in identifying and
applying the essential requirements.

The Committee feels that attention should be drawn to
3.6.
the potential contributions to innovation from research pro-
jects carried out under the Fifth Framework Programme for
research and technological development.

(1) ESC opinion: OJ C 397, 31.12.1994, p. 8.

(2) CER: Community of European Railways.
(3) ETF: European Transport Federation.
(4) CEEC: Central and Eastern European Countries.
(5) TINA: Transport Infrastructure Needs Assessment.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 204/17

3.7.
The financial impact of the draft directive appears to
be greater than that of high-speed rail interoperability. It would
be useful to explain in a more analytical way the reasons for
the increase in the impact of certain costs.

The Committee reiterates the need for in-depth assessments of
the cost/benefit ratio, as regards both the definition of priorities
and timescales and the drawing-up of the standards themselves,
as mentioned above.

3.7.1.
Since the Community funding for interoperability
projects set out in the communication accompanying the draft
directive is limited, the Committee suggests — without going
into the merits of whether it is adequate overall — that the

draft directive should encourage the search for other possible
means of Community funding for specific projects of particular
supra-national interest.

3.8.
Incorporation in the draft directive of the guidelines
and comments set out above would in the Committee’s view
make more complete and therefore more effective a provision
which amounts to a first, but decisive, step towards interop-
erability. Although this is, in the nature of things, a process
which can be completed only in the longer term, the Com-
mittee is convinced that not only the policy value of the draft
directive under consideration but also its implications for all
related aspects — social, environmental, productive and in
terms of employment and market efficiency — can emerge in
a positive light even at this initial stage.

Brussels, 24 May 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI