Ministiy of Infrastructure
and Water Management

>

Return address Postbus 20901 2500 EX Den Haag

European Union Agency for Railways (ERA)
006REC1072©era.eurooaeu

Bestuurskern

Dir.Openbaar Vervoer en
Spoor
Den Haag
Postbus 20901
2500 EX Den Haag
Contact

T 070 4567012
Our reference

IENW/BSK-2018/35554
Your reference

Date
Subject

26MAART2018

Enciosure(s)

Reply on ERA consultation on the draft revision 151 Noise

Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to reply to the ERA consultation on the
Draft revision of the TSI Noise (006REC1072).
The contribution of the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management to
the stakeholder consultation as received by email on the 22’ of December, 2017
is attached in Annex 1. This contribution is without prejudice to the fufther
politica! decision making on the TSI Noise regulatory decisions.
In addition, we would like to make a general remark concerning the TSI Noise
approach on phasing out noisy wagons. This approach must be accompanied with
an active retrofitting policy in order to make this feasible. In this respect, the CEF
funding for retrofitting must be continued until noisy wagons are phased out in a
mandatory way according to the TSI Noise and successful measures of the Noise
Differentiated Track Access Charging. In addition source—related measures on
noise reduction should be inciuded in the relevant EU innovation programs for
railways.
We remain at your disposal for further explanation on our position.

Yours sincerely,
THE ACTING DIRECTOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND RAILWAYS,

Ms. Heidi Bouss

Page 1 of 5

Annex 1: Dutch contrïbution to the Draft revision of the TSJ Noise
(006REC1072)
Please no te: This is a limited revision of the existing TSI subsystem rolling stock
Noise.
Railway noise reduction at the source is a critical issue for the further development
of railway transport in Europe. Especially where railway lines are crossing
conurbations. Railway noise must be reduced at the source because this is by far
the most cost—effective means of noise reduction.

Bestuurskern
Dit.Opeflbaat Vervoer en
Spoor

Our reference
IENW/BSK-2018/35554

Freight wagons are responsible for much of the noise produced. In 1996 the
European Commission had already published a “Green paper” where rail freight
wagons were identified as a source of noise production and pinpointed for
measures. Research has shown that, in order to make freight transport by railway
less noisy, at east 80% of all wagons in a certain train should be ‘silent’.
From 2006, all new wagons have to comply to standards (TSI) that can only by
installing modern brakes. Policy aimed at the existing wagons has until now
resulted in approximately 50°h silent wagons in the Netherlands, due to an active
retrofitting policy.
The issue of noise reduction for railway freight wagons should be addressed at the
European level. This is because wagons are used internationally. In the
Netherlands, we have a specific legal regime for rail and road noise which consist
of about 60.000 noise emission points with each its own ceiling. In order to
accommodate the growth of the rail traffic and limit its impact on people living
near the tracks 80-100°h on the wagons needs to be silent by 2020 traffic and
keep the effects for railway infrastructure investments are being made on the
assumption that 80-100% of railway freight wagons will be ‘silent’ by 2020 (either
new ISI compliant wagons or retrofitted existing wagons).
German, Swiss and Dutch ministries have cooperated closely on the issue of noise
reduction for railway freight wagons and have made a proposal (Annex 2) for the
EC in June 2017on phasing out noisy wagons by 2021. The scope of the proposal
encompasses the entire European rail network. In addition, the proposal inciudes
the possibility of derogation for member states in order to allow for some flexibility
in implementation.
The draft of the TSI Noise (006REC1072) now in consultation, assumes a quieter
routes approach. Targeting lines with more than 12 freight trams per night. This is
not the preferred approach for the Netherlands. We foresee issues peftaining to
communication with our stakeholders and with citizens. More specifically, we
foresee the following issues:
• The application of this criterion may cause issues in communication
because it is based on specific locations and does not apply to an entire
corridor. For example, t is possible that a specific route is not classified as
a ‘quieter route’ in the Netherlands, but is designated as such more
directly over the border with Belgium or Germany.
•
IM’s do not and should have a mandate to stop trams entering a quieter
route and check the wagons. This would hinder operations.
• The draft refers to ‘quieter routes’, but the perception or experience of
individual or groups of citizens may be different. While we acknowledge
that the use of ‘quieter routes’ throughout the EU will indirectly lead to

Page 2 of 5

•

more wagons becoming ‘silent’, the use of this term may create
expectations.
The quieter routes approach could have adverse effects in NL: we have
invested billions in the dedicated Betuweroute from the Port of Rotterdam
to the German ‘hinterland’. This route avoids densely populated areas and
is established with many noise mitigation measures. Not allowing noise
wagons on this route and forcing these to ride elsewhere would have an
effect which is adverse from the aim of the Noise TSI.

Bestuurskern
Dir.Openbaar Vervoer en
Spoor

Our reference
IENW/BSK-2018/35554

For an effective European approach the following elements must be addressed:
•
Next to the draft for ‘quieter routes’, the phasing out of noisy wagons in
the EU should be researched. We see this draft, in combination with the
aforementioned research, as a first step in the direction of totally phasing
out noisy wagons.
•
In the Netherlands we prefer more ‘quieter routes’ on our railways instead
of solutions based on specific locations. So that we can reduce noise for
more citizens along the railway routes.
• As communicated earlier, in regards to the phasing out of noisy wagons
we prefer a timeline where noisy wagons are phased out by 2021, because
that is realistic for Member States that introduced retrofitting policy on
time.
• The supervision concerning the ISI should become the responsibility of
National Safety Authority of each Member State.
• There aren’t safety risks by the use of silent brake blocks.
In considering the proposal on ‘quieter routes’ from the ERA, the following
conditions apply:
• The proposal is the only one with sufficient support at European level at
short term;
•
Noisy wagons will effectively be phased out by 2021 from densely used
railway networks such as the Netherlands has.
•
Supervisory and regulatory costs of the measures envisaged will remain
under control.

Page 3 of 5

Annex 2: Note for July 2017 EC Raïlway Interoperability and Safety
committee. Issue: report ERA task force on TSI NOl revision

Date: 22 ]une 2017
NL ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, prepared in cooperation with
CH / DE
Contact persons:
Peter Brugts, reter.brugts©minienm.nl, +3 1652596045
Hinne Groot, hinne.groot@minienm.nl, +31650662760

Bestuurskern
Dir.Openbaar Vervoer en
Spoor

Our reference
IENWIBSK-2018/35554

Objective: broaden the scope of scenario’s to be analyzed for 151 NOl revision as
inciuded in the mandate from EC to ERA following RIS committee ]uly 2017
1.

introduction

The report from ERA task force well identifies the need for action at European level
looking at the impact assessment weighing costs and benefits of phasing out noisy
wagons. The RIS committee shali review the report from ERA task force in the
context of the preparation of the Commission’s mandate to the ERA for a working
group to develop a formal recommendation on TSI NOl revision. The issuing of the
mandate is dependent also on the adoption of the delegated act under the 4th
railway package allowing EC to make proposals for applying TSI values/norms on
existing rolling stock. In this note NL argues the mandate should inciude one more
scenario to be looked at before the ERA director shali make a recommendation to
EC on revising TSI NOl. Background is that NL has serious doubts about
effectiveness and monitoring / administrative aspects of ERA scenario “silent
sections”. ERA scenario “international / national” is for NL and DE acceptable to
elaborate but complicated number of members of the task force for the revision of
the NOISE TSI seemed to be rather skeptical about this approach. This is why NL
and DE propose to add following scenario number 3 (European ban with
derogations) to the ERA analysis.
2.

Proposal to add following scenario to be analysed

A.

European ban of noisy wagons by 1.1.2021 (or with timetable change
2020/202 1 with possibility for Member States to ask for derogations.

In this scenario, a European ban is introduced by 1.1.2021 (or with timetable
change 2020/2021) and allows Member States to ask a derogation for a period
until when wagons can realistically be silent in this Member State (up to 20302040). The (technical) exceptions noted in the ERA repoft remain unchanged.
A derogation for circulation of non TSI NOl compliant wagons in the territory of
their Member State could be requested by a Member State under (one of) the
following conditions:
•
Renewal and retrofitting of the relevant fleet is not at advanced stage;
•
Retrofitting with a longer transitional period has a more positive cost
benefit ratio given e.g. age of the fleet and renewal investments expected.
In this way the noisy wagons would be phased out by e.g. 2030, the same date
set as for the completion of the TEN T core network corridors. Realistic final date
of end of derogations has to be analysed by ERA working group but should not be
later than 2040.
During the derogation period National Safety Authority for this specific Member
State shali supervise the retrofitting progress even if the TSI NOl compliance of
existing wagons is not yet mandatory. For Member States without a derogation
National Safety Authorities shali supervise the application of the TSI NOl limits

Page 4 of 5

also for existing wagons including for international and domestic rail freight
operations in their country.
The Commission should evaluate the progress achieved by 01.01.2026 (ie. after a
period of 5 years).
The benefits of this scenario are:
•
High positive impact on reducing noise for citizens thus reducing negative
health impacts from rail noise for affected citizens;
•
Interoperability of European rail system ensured;
•
No difference between international wagons and national operating
wagons;
•
Realistic transitional period;
•
Clearly to explain at European and domestic political level and in dialogue
with citizens;
•
Simple to apply, monitor and supervise by the respective National Safety
Authorities;
•
Allows flexibility for Member States that need more time for (financing)
retrofitting process

Bestuurskern
Dir.Openbaar Vervoer en
Spoor

Our reference
IENw/BSK-2018/35554

Possible disadvantages / open issues to be looked at:
•
Can wagons registered from non-FU but 011F member countries continue
to run with non-TSI N01 compliant wagons? Would this be substantially
impacting the scenario?

Page 5 of 5