Meeting with P. Rapacz (DG TREN - responsible for Noise policy) November 12, 2009

Participants UIP : W.Gehrmann, H. Segerer

Topic: Retrofitting on the basis of noise-differentiated track access charges (NDTAC).
Legal basis:
Legal basis for the introduction of an obligatory system of NDTAC will be the recast of the Directive 2001/14/EC. The adoption by the Commission is expected for March 2010. Discussion within the EU institutions and transposition into national law will take another 4 years.
In the recast only one article is foreseen dealing with environmental charges.
The conditions of the NDTAC will be treated in an annex to the Directive. This annex will not be very specified. Important: no reference to of a bonus/malus system will be included. The annex might be modified further according to the EU comitology approach, i.e. no need for including European Parliament and Council for further changes.
Text of annex will not be distributed (officially) to the stakeholders before adoption.
Coming into force of the NDTAC and probable contents
DG TREN assumes that the NDTAC will become operational with the implementation of TAF TSI which might be not before 2017.
DG TREN agrees with the conclusions of the expert study (“Analysis of preconditions for the implementation and harmonization of NDTAC”) favouring a bonus system for silent wagons without implementation of maluses in regard to noisy wagons. The bonus level should be calculated on the basis of costs of retrofitting plus additional operational and administrative costs which occur on the side of the RU and the Wagon Keeper.
The funding of the “bonus” will not be regulated in detail. (Directive only fixes objectives). This means that funding will be up to the Member States which might include the industry.
Interim solution
As the NDTAC will only be operational in some years DG TREN will propose an interim solution but only strictly on a voluntary basis : self declaration + bonus system according to the Swiss model..
A meeting with stakeholders is foreseen in February/March 2010 where more details will be discussed.
LL-projects
Homologation of LL shoes cannot be expected before 2013.
Currently two projects are under way:
- “Decibell” presented by Faiveley, supported by the EU in the framework of the EU “LIFE” Programme. Decibell concentrates only on 1 LL product.
- “Europe-Train” presented by UIC checking several LL products in the framework of a train running 100.000 km p.a. and testing conditions in the different countries (Northern and South Europe included). UIC started a study in June 2009 (duration 3 years, costs 600.000 Euro) on problems with the new brake blocks of “equivalent conicity”.The Europe-Train shall help to achieve the objectives of the study. The practical test by “Europe-Train is foreseen for 2010 and will take 1 ½ years. Participation with wagons at the train would be possible for UIP. UIC has asked for 3 ½ mio Euro funding from the EU.

W.Gehrmann
UIP

30.11.2009:::

General Assembly of UIP

During the last general assembly in Bruges, it has been announced that the next meeting will take place in September in Budapest (Hungary). In order to limit travel, it has been decided to group several meetings and to hold the meetings of the infra and superstructure committees together with the general assembly over a period of 3 days on 16th , 17th and 18th September, followed by an excursion on Saturday 19th for those interested.
The Hungarian association MVME, who is hosting us, prepared the program, as well as the registration form for the various activities and hotel rooms.
In order to ensure a smooth running of the event, the organizer needs to receive the registration by 15 August at the latest. The agendas of the various meetings will be sent in due time.

30.07.2009:::

Some notes of the meeting of UIP under the heading “European Maintenance System” – Hamburg, 20.03.2009

Certification of the Maintenance Workshops (CMW)

After a ‘tour de table’ establishing the legal situation in Europe, it was decided to ask the UIP members what is the legal situation in each single MS

ISO and ERA CMW: it should be favourable if the same entity certifies against ISO and ERA CMW requirements. An analyzeze comparing ISO and ERA requirements is on-going. Results will be presented during the UIP technical committee.

National requirements: in such a ‘system’ certification, many requirements depend on the national legislation, for example the work conditions. A certification of one or more association (VPI), taking into account the national specificities, should be preferred in a short term.

ERA CMW and ECM: the ERA CMW is strongly linked to the ECM certification. During the ECM workshop, the mandatory application should be thought about. But presently, a voluntary application should be sufficient.

This issue will be put on the agenda of the technical committee before sending UIP position to the Agency

ECM certification

The tasks of the ECM are presented (see annex).

VPI explains an implementation of the MoU in Germany is legally possible because the German Authorities should sign this agreement. But in the practice it seems more difficult. The keeper is indeed defined in the German law and the border of the responsibilities/tasks for checking a wagon between a keeper and a RU/IM is not well defined.

Furthermore, VPI explains that the present document should be adapted for a daily application.

According to AFWP an implementation of the MoU in France is today possible and welcomed.

Even if no mandatory certification will exist before 2011, the MoU presents the interest to able keepers to be prepared because the structure of the certification will be the same (see tasks in presentation).

Presently only some MS signed the MoU. In May, during a NSA/ERA meeting, UIP should have the opportunity to asks NSAs who didn’t signed, which are the other possibilities for an ECM to be recognized.

Maintenance System throughout Europe

AFWP presented an overview of the Maintenance System in a short/middle term (see annex).
AFWP stressed on:

AFWP is on the opinion that the 4 points below could be common at the European level.

VPI explained it isn’t so easy to harmonize the use of European standards because of the existing of some national standards in some national law.

VPI tall their fears to manage a too big working groups responsible for bringing about some changes in the guidelines (laborious work). That’s why VPI proposes to non German speaking associations to put in national annexes the specificities

AFWP explained that the French association is more interested on setting up common maintenance requirements (remind that goal could be achieved in a middle term) than to have their particularities taken into account in the VPI guide. And AFWP understand and fully agrees that the maintenance guidelines is a guide and it’s up to the ECM/keeper to manage the maintenance plan and to take the responsibilities of the application.

Conclusion: VPI proposed that AFWP set up a comparative document between French requirements and VPI guidelines and to discuss between VPI/VAP and AFWP the differences.

03.06.2009:::