EFRTC General Meeting 20 November 2009, Berlin Michael Clausecker UNIFE Director-General

1. Recent developments in European Transport policies and latest in the regulatory environment EFRTC General Meeting 20 November 2009, Berlin Michael Clausecker UNIFE Director-General

2. Agenda European Transport policies: recent developments Latest in the regulatory environment 2010 Market Study and a snapshot of UNIFE successes

3. European Transport policies: recent developments

4. Rail investments in Central and Eastern Europe

5. Main challenges • National and European Planning • Need for ambitious and consistent master plans for the development of rail transport • Need to adopt a customer-driven and business-oriented approach to rail transport • Need to improve cross-border connections through better coordination with neighbouring countries Tendering and contracting Need for bigger tenders, transparent procurement procedures and better payment conditions Financing Need to secure the financing of the infrastructure managers (multi-annual contracts) Need for adequate compensation of the operator for Public Service Obligations Need to better use the EU funds (including for Rolling stock) and to secure national financing of rail projects Project development Need for more projects of good quality in the pipeline, relevant technological choices and better technical documentation  Need for increased engineering capacities, more turnkey projects Project implementation Need to improve project management, to accelerate project execution and to minimise cost overruns

6. UNIFE Strategy • UNIFE key objectives: • Overall objective: Transform funds in contracts for the rail industry • Sub-objectives: • Maximum absorption of the EU funds allocated to the CEECs • Maximum share of rail investments among the modes of transport • Maximum size of tenders to attract our members • Key messages conveyed to CEECs: • Have a vision for the development of rail transport (Master plan) • Think big: high speed is also relevant to CEE • Develop and implement quicker and better rail infrastructure projects • Increase the size of tenders and use turnkey approaches to earn time and spare capacity • Balance the allocation of funds between road and rail projects • Implement freight corridors • Purchase rolling stock rather than refurbish old train

7. UNIFE Actions and Achievements • Lobby the Transport Ministries and the IMs in the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia • Lobby and support DG Regio and the EIB • Participate in numerous conferences in Central and Eastern Europe • Create a database on major projects financed in the framework of national Transport OPs • Contribute and influence the preparation of the new Guidelines on State Aids for Railway undertakings • Organise three workshops in the CEECs: Warsaw (July 2007), Bucharest (January 2009), Warsaw (October 2009)

8. Workshop on rail investments in Central and Eastern Europe • 27-28 January 2009, Bucharest • Highlights: • Open dialogue between the rail industry and the Romanian authorities about the current problems of financing and political support to rail transport • New orientation for the development of rail transport in Poland backed by politics (master plan, high speed) • Impressive example of Spanish rail policy started with the help of the Cohesion policy and above all with a strong political will • Plaidoyer from the rail industry for best technologies, incl. very HS • Frank discussion on payment conditions and contracting strategies • Support to turnkey projects as a solution to deliver better outputs and help overcoming lack of capacities of the infrastructure managers

9. Workshop on Railway Rolling Stock Financing • 19-20 October, Warsaw, organised jointly with CER • Highlights: • The needs for investment in new passenger rolling stock for Central and Eastern European railways were evaluated • Innovative financing models allowing for an acceleration of fleet renewal and a new quality of service offer to rail passengers were investigated • The debate about using EU regional aid to finance leasing schemes and pools was open

10. Next steps • Booklet about best practices in rail investments in Central and Eastern Europe to be published in December 2009 • Meeting with Transport ministries, infrastructure managers and operators from Central and Eastern Europe to be organised • Cooperation with DG Regio and the EIB to be reinforced • Options for rolling stock financing with EU funds to be further discussed

11. TEN-T Policy Review

12. TEN-T Policy • Context: • On 4 February 2009 , the European Commission adopted its Green Paper: TEN-T: A policy review – Towards a better integrated trans-European transport network at the service of the common transport policy • Reasons behind the review: • Very few TEN-T projects were actually completed • Lack of focus: objectives are too broad • Lack of European approach: TEN-T network appears more as a “collection of national projects” • Adapt the TEN-T policy to upcoming challenges (climate change, international position of the EU) • Green paper identifies several options to be discussed with stakeholders • The Parliament adopted a resolution on the Green Paper on 22 April 2009 and the Council reached Conclusions on the Green Paper on 11 June 2009

13. TEN-T Policy • UNIFE actions: • UNIFE published its position paper on the Green Paper on 30 April 2009 • UNIFE met Commission officials in charge of the Policy review • UNIFE submitted personnalities from its members to participate in expert groups • UNIFE participated in the TEN-T Days on 21-22 October 2009

14. TEN-T Policy • Key points of UNIFE position: • Need to focus TEN-T investments on environmentally-friendly transport modes, with modal shift as a key objective of the policy; • In favour of concentrating funding on an “EU priority network” which should be limited in size; • Creation of a trans-European very high-speed network; • Need for an increased TEN-T budget, with a true priority given to rail transport in the EU’s regional policy and the use of additional financial resources (revenues from ETS, Eurovignette, EIB loans or PPPs); • Special focus on interoperability technologies (ERTMS); • Need for a stronger focus on implementation, with the help of corridor structures, in addition to the existing “Coordinators” and mandatory deadlines for projects’ completion; • Co-modality should be encouraged, but not at the expense of rail transport. • Next steps: A Communication will be issued by early 2010 and specific proposals on the revision of TEN-T Guidelines later that year.

15. Freight Corridors

16. Proposal on Freight • Contents of the original proposal: • Member States have to create at least one (and up to three) freight-oriented corridor(s) by 2013 • A Governance Body (EEIG) of the IMs involved is set up • The governance body sets up priority rules for freight UNIFE-EIM coalition on the dossier supporting and promoting international rail freight in Europe

17. Proposal on Freight: Timeline • Context: • 11 December 2008: European Commission Proposal • 23 April: EP Plenary vote • Broader and more flexible criteria for the creation of corridors • More flexible priority rules and capacity reserve • Stronger role for Regulatory Bodies • 12 June : Transport Council, political agreement • Political definition of corridors • « Recognise the needs » of passenger traffic • No authorised applicants • 1st reading common position of the Council expected in November (informal negotiations ongoing between the Parliament and the Swedish EU Presidency) • 2nd reading at the European Parliament expected in January

18. Next steps • Continue lobbying the Council and the European Parliament: • Coordination of investments • Improvement of freight performance • Authorised applicants • A clear distinction of priority freight • Role of regulatory bodies • Joining forces with EIM to maintain the spirit of the proposal

19. ERTMS

20. ERTMS Memorandum of Understanding • Challenge: Agreeing on the next steps for ERTMS deployment with stakeholders • MoU signed on 4th July 2008 by European Commission/ERA, CER, EIM, ERFA, UIC, GSM-R, UNIFE • Challenge: Having a realistic schedule for the development of baseline 3 • Baseline 3 to be finalised in 2012 as proposed by UNIFE • MoU recommends to have investments based on 2.3.0d with upgrade to baseline 3 • Additional achievements • Testing recognised as a crucial element • Foresees an ERTMS Deployment plan

21. European ERTMS Deployment Plan • Challenge: Obtaining a stronger commitment on ERTMS Deployment • European ERTMS Deployment Plan approved by Member States in April 2009 - to be adopted by Commission in July • Will gradually make ERTMS investments binding by EU law on the 6 ERTMS Corridors (in 2015 & 2020) • ERTMS will also have to be installed on a dedicated list of freight terminals connected to these corridors • Similar provisions for onboard equipment on trains dedicated to international traffic • Any EU-financed project involving signalling will have to be ‘ERTMS equipped’ • UNIFE was strongly involved during the adoption process

22. European ERTMS Deployment Plan Active DG TREN September 2008 UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED BY RISC COMMITTEE (No vote against) In favour… Against… April 2009 Majority of EU countries Majority of EU countries NEXT STEP: ADOPTION BY THE COMMISSION – FORESEEN IN JULY 2009 Inactive

23. ERTMS - Next Steps • Forthcoming challenges • Testing – UNIFE initiative on a ERTMS Testing & Implementation Platform (ETIP) currently considered for funding by the European Commission • Opening of several Cross-border connections over the coming years (Thalys 13 December) • Debate on cost structure of onboard equipment to reduce ERTMS costs for European railways – UNIFE proposals: • Reduce trackside migration period to minimise the number of onboard ATPs; • Standardisation of some interfaces between the OBU and the train • ETIP • EU coordination to reduce certification costs

24. Latest in the regulatory environment

25. UNIFE (& sector) position on role of ERA • A position paper from UNIFE jointly with the sector associations (CER, EIM & UITP) is in drafting, proposing a new enhanced role for ERA • The railway sector is generally satisfied with the work of the Agency • However there is some scope for improvement: • Management of the specifications via a systemic approach • Dual structure between NSAs and ERA – creating difficulties and bureaucratic burdens, delays and high costs for the authorisation process of subsystems • Demonstration of compliance with TSI (esp. rolling stock - OTM, is perceived as an additional administrative burden that brings little benefits • There is an urgent need for: • The extension of the scope of the TSI to off-TEN lines • A corresponding drastic reduction of the number of National Technical Rules • A real European type certification for rolling stock under the management of ERA • ERA should become the centre point of a real common safety regime • A Safety Conference organised by the Commission confirmed this position

26. Towards a European certification system for vehicles • Need for a European vehicles certification system: • A European wide type certification based on the first authorisation of a vehicle, strictly limiting additional work to the technical verification of the interfaces • For further authorisations, limit the NSA right of check to technical compatibility with the network concerned and to national rules applying to specific cases • Cross acceptance as a way of progress: • ERA cross-acceptance Unit is identifying all national technical rules and regulatory processes used by the NSA for authorisation of vehicles • Fundamental task for the TSI scope extension and the progressive elimination of unnecessary national rules, which cannot be justified by true national specific cases or remaining open points in the TSIs • UNIFE actively involved in ERA cross-acceptance Unit: • Update Annex VII of the interoperability directive (parameters to be checked in conjunction with placing into service of non TSI conformant vehicles) – achieved! • Cross referencing of all the national technical rules applied by MS for placing vehicles into service and classifying them (A,B,C) – on going • Harmonisation of the NSAs processes and decision making criteria – on going • OTM: Pushing for prioritisation of investigation into specific national rules applied for track construction and maintenance vehicles and machines

27. TSI scope extension: sector support • An extension of the TSI scope is a priority for the sector • It is an essential condition for the TSIs to reach the harmonisation they haven’t achieved to date • The objective proposed by the Sector organisations is a complete achievement for the end of 2011 • The work is to be closely coordinated within ERA with the comprehensive identification of all technical rules applied to vehicles authorisation • It will identify possible additional specific cases concerning rolling stock and the final selection of those corresponding rules that will remain valid the day the scope is extended (category C rules) • Most important for rolling stock (including OTM) but important for other sub-systems (i.e. Infrastructure) due to the need for specification of interfaces with rolling stock • UNIFE and CER have expressed their views on the scope extension in a common paper, which supports the extension subject to a structured and economically rational approach

28. TSI scope extension: conclusive remarks • TSI scope extension means finally one European railway system • It must be supported by a suite of well constructed and coherent specifications • This extension must be based on a truly system approach, with a focus on management of interfaces rather than forced standardisation of the sub-systems. It will enable the railway sector to reduce costs, become more competitive with other modes of transport and to make an even greater contribution to the society • The timing and scale must be carefully discussed, in consideration of interfaces between sub-systems and of the maturity of the harmonisation of each of the sub-systems • The CBA (Cost-Benefit Analysis) criteria for TSI scope extension have to be developed in co-operation with the railway sector, which is directly affected by the final outcome

29. Regulatory situation for OTM • EC Directives • Requirements for use of vehicles/equipment on the TEN-T network • Interoperability Directive -> Rolling Stock TSI, Noise TSI, Freight Wagon TSI • Machines Directive • Rolling Stock (PASS&LOC) TSI • Voluntary application of TSI to OTM • 7.1.2.5 APPLICABILITY RULES FOR OTMS The application of this TSI to OTMs is not mandatory until its next revision.The conformity assessment process as described in the section 6.2.1 may be used by Applicants on a voluntary basis in order to establish an “EC” declaration of verification; • OTM subject to special treatment with explicit exemption from crashworthiness and several simplified requirements, included in Special Provisions (Annex C): • C.1 STRENGTH OF VEHICLE STRUCTURE • C.2 LIFTING AND JACKING • C.3. RUNNING DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR Exemptions: • 4.2.2.5 PASSIVE SAFETY • 4.2.2.10 LOAD CONDITIONS AND WEIGHTED MASS • 4.2.10 FIRE SAFETY AND EVACUATION

30. Regulatory situation for OTM • Noise TSI • Wording implies OTM are clearly out of the scope; • 2.1. Definition of subsystem The rolling stock that is the subject of this TSI comprises locomotives, multiple units, freight wagons, and coaches likely to travel on all or part of the trans-European conventional rail network. Freight wagons include rolling stock designed to carry lorries. …however one clause states that OTM must be considered as locomotives during transfer travel • 4.2. Functional and technical specifications of the subsystem Infrastructure maintenance machines have to be considered as locomotives during transfer travel, but have not to comply with this TSI, when working. • Contradiction implies a legal error: a request is likely to be made for correction at next revision • Freight Wagon TSI • OTM out of scope; in some cases (e.g. when hauled) may be incorrectly included. • 1.1 TECHNICAL SCOPE: This TSI covers freight wagons only. • Improvements to TSIs affecting OTM, extension of their geographic scope and the cross-acceptance mechanism aims to reduce the authorisation burden

31. 2010 Market Study and a snapshot of UNIFE achievements

32. Market Study 2010 • Worldwide Rail Market Study • Commissioned by UNIFE and previously undertaken in 2006 & 2008 • UNIFE has invited tenders to conduct new study in 2010 • Market Study 2010 • Project start scheduled early 2010 • To be published ahead of InnoTrans 2010 (September 2010) • Optional: extra module on Infrastructure • Estimated total cost based on last study: ≈ 100,000 Euro • If 20 companies agree to participate: 5,000 € per company • Benefits for including Infrastructure module • Important in view of current economic crisis • Provides some strategic conclusions unique to infrastructure market Standard study: Additional modules: Worldwide Rail Market Study Infrastructure Possible cooperation between UNIFE and EFRTC members in purchase of optional Infrastructure module Rail Control

33. UNIFE Achievements UNIFE achieved the following results: • through its “Rail investments in Central and Eastern Europe” initiative has advocated the development of Master Plans in Poland and Romania and a change of approach for tenders (from small lots to turnkey approaches) ► Direct impact for UNIFE members: master plans allow for more visibility in terms of investments; tenders in CEE become more attractive to bigger contractors. • make ERTMS implementation mandatory in Europe. ► Direct impact for UNIFE members: EUR 4.1bn in trackside and on-board ECTS equipment by 2015. • secure R&D funds worth EUR 79.4m for the ongoing projects till August 2013 ► Direct impact for UNIFE members: EUR 8.1m from the European Union to finance pre-competitive research in 2009. • bring IRIS on track with more than 300 certificates by today ► Direct impact for UNIFE members: UNIFE members are owners of the IRIS standard; IRIS aims at improving quality throughout the entire supply chain.

34. Competitive rail solutions for sustainable mobility www.unife.org