The Future – the “Roadmap”

SIMPLIFICATION

The Road Map

2

TSI inPlace

Hi Speed

Conv Loc & pass

Off TENS

TSI Conformity

New Vehicles

Networks

Open points UpdatesInteroperability

Mutual recognition

Bi & MultilatXA agrtsThe list of Parameters

The Reference Document

Mutual RegnOf Veh Types

1996 2001 2004 2010 2014 ~2040 ~2080

Recheck Only against rulesRelating to compatibilitywith the Networks

Existing Vehicles

Inf Register / Net Statement

Simplification – One Process

3

25 x National Homologation Processes+25 x Different Interpretations of the Directive

DV 29 Process

RequirementsLaw by ParliamentNational RegulationsFormal Agreements between MSMOUsRequirements Issued by Ministries“Guidelines” issued by MinistriesRequirements Issued by NSAs“Guidelines” issued by NSAsRequirements issued by IMs“Access Conditions” Issued by IMsJudgement of Independent Safety AssessorsJudgements of NSA InspectorsJudgement of RU or IMProject risk assessment

TSI

National Rules

Simplification -“Cleaning Up” the rules

N° 4

TSI

Checks• NoBo• Designated body• National Safety Authority• Independent Safety Assessor• “Competent person” specified by

NSA

• NoBo• Designated Body• CSM Assessor

NoBo

Authorisation• NSA• IM

NSAs NSA -1!

Foreseen by the directive

Short term

Longterm

Now

= All requirements(inc interface to the network)

One entitymay fill allRoles

Deadline – 12 months from publishing the Ref Doc Decision

5

Rule setter (Ministry on NSA advice)

3rd partyChecking Body (NoBo or DeBo)

AuthorisingAuthority (NSA)

Transparency

Simplification - Transparency

Judgement of “wise”

expert in NSA/IM

• Requirements• Checking method

• Authorisation

From expert Judgement(single point of decision)

(Safety Case)(“approved” by ISA

based on “judgement”)

3rd party verification of conformityto transparent, repeatable rules

Simplification – Prevention of “Surprise” new rules

• Creation of New Rules• TSI Loc & Pass in place – no need for new national rules – scope

extension is on the way• Draft national rules must be notified and scrutinised under

Directive 98/34 – up to 12month “standstill”• Dealing with findings of accidents- “Emergency Rules”

• Safety Directive is clear – Immediate risk must be controlled by the SMS of the RU – i.e. company procedures

• Errors and omissions in TSIS dealt with by reporting to RISC + Agency Technical Opinion (one new rule for all)

• Rules must be permanent (not different for each project)

• Result - No more “surprise” new rules

• Rules notified and collated against the list of parameters

• One Point of Entry for rules Database

6

Simplification - Equivalence

• 25 Fire Extinguishers in the cab => 1

• Geographical Interest Groups reviewing equivalence for All MS

(except Poland, UK, Baltic states)

• For Off -TENs MSs may decide to accept TSIs as equivalent to national rules

• A logical simplification• Extra column in Ref Doc to be added

7

Simplification – Visibility of National Rules

• One point of data entry and extraction • The Agency Website (incl access to NOTIFIT)

• Rules catalogued according to the list of parameters

• Rules cross referenced with TSIs

• Clarity of what must be notified to be contained in Application guide to NOTIFIT/Ref Doc Database

8

Simplification – Type Authorisation

Vehicle authorised in MS A = Type Approved in MS A

Vehicle authorised in MS B(check of B and C rules relating only to compatibility

with the Network)

= Type authorised in MS B9

Simplification

• Separation of authorisation from use + type• Only one authorisation per MS per design

• Authorisation for a network according to national rules for compatibility/integration with network.

• Route non-conformities dealt with by Network Statement /RINF + SMS

10

Anything Missing?

Anything Missing (1)?

• Next Step – check for missing regulatory simplifications• Practical definition of Type• Common understanding of “major” /

“significant” /”substantial”• How to deal with “platforms”

• Anything else?

12

Anything missing (2)?

• Technical compatibility/Safe Integration veh-network• Consistency (one set?) of parameters need to

used in TSI, Ref Doc, Infrastructure Register (+ERATV,+Inf TSI)

• Review of risks covered by national rules, compare with risks covered by TSI

• Anything else?

13

Anything Missing (3)

• Nature of Infrastructure• IMs must be maintaining infrastructure to some limits

otherwise vehicles could not be authorised, compatibility with vehicles could not be maintained and the IMs would loose their safety authorisations!

• Conclusion – Infrastructure knowledge exists but is “hidden”• Agree with EIM – rapid introduction of RINF for compatibility

parameters is necessary

14

Next Steps

• Publish this “road map”• Opinion Formers (“Big Bosses”) need to know

what is already in the pipeline• Which of today’s problems are solved by implementation of

the directives• What is left as open points

• Dissemination of the framework

15

Finally – A Plea for “Big Bosses” and Associations

• The tools to implement change exist – use them• Stop writing letters of general complaint• Start submitting specific complaints to the

Commission where MSs break the law (i.e. do not comply with the directives / DV29)

• Why ask for more regulation when existing regulation is not complied with?

16

Anything Else?

Comments and Questions

17