Considerations on the NRMM Technical Review - Rail Issues in 2004/26/EC - Joint Position of CER - UNIFE - UIC – Euromot 12 Oct 2007 Approved by: CER – Libor Lochman UNIFE – Eric Fontanel UIC – Hans Paukert Euromot – Peter Scherm

Review of 2004/26/EC Rail Regulations – General Simplify rail categories according to the engine power rather than application (locomotive, railcars), i.e. replace current categories RC and R by the following Rail ≤ 560 kW Rail > 560 kW Test cycles: C1 or F for all rail applications Ensure cost effective supply of NRMM engines to rail markets For constant speed rail applications use NRMM constant speed test cycle (D2) Multi-engine locomotive applications with individual engines <560 kW, regarded as NRMM in US markets

Review of 2004/26/EC Rail Regulations – Emission Limits Set up emission limits as follows, subject to review by 2012: Extend Stage IIIA to 31 Dec 2016 for rail £560 kW and ail >560 kW engines Introduce next stage from 31 Dec 2016 Rail £560 kW : Align with NRMM Stage IIIB emission limit Rail >560 kW: Consider emission limits of US Final Rule (part 1033) on rail applications Review alignment and technological development, to be completed by 2012 Based on test bed and service trials to support Consider most appropriate technology to reduce NOx Current review schedule requires comitology process

Review of 2004/26/EC Rail Regulations – Justification of Proposal For engines >560 kW 3 years between Stages IIIA and IIIB in 2004/26/EC too short Only a short period between potential publication date of EU directive amendment and its entry into force To avoid market distortion effects, with a potential shift from small IIIB to large IIIA engines, compliance dates and limit values should be identical Alignment of limit values and introduction dates to allow same engines to be sold in North American and European locomotive markets. Allow sufficient time for development of Stage IIIB technology suitable for rail applications without a urea-based NOx aftertreatment system Urea would require completely new infrastructure (distribution, storage) Market volume: approx. 100 locos per year for 5 European loco suppliers.

Review of 2004/26/EC Rail Regulations – Justification of Proposal No proven technical feasibility as of today. On rail vehicle only a technology and products can be used which do not extend today's: Mass: axle load limits for branch and feeder lines 20/18t Cost of the additional equipment (modal shift to road traffic and transportation) Size (restricted by rail infrastructure such as tunnel profiles, wayside structures, and curving considerations) Manufacturers already utilize all available internal space for diesel engine, cooling system, electrical controls and brake controls, etc.  Please refer to next slide

Review of 2004/26/EC Rail Regulations – Justification of Proposal DB Class 218 – Available space

Repowering and Flexibility Introduce a review for a next stage re-powering to assess technical progress of aftertreatment, to be completed by 2012 Re-engining with lowest emission engine available and compatible with existing vehicles Flexibility: Add NRMM equipment flexibility scheme for rail Either percentage of sales or fixed quantities per power band Provide options for operators to be flexible, such as adding vehicles (engines) to existing train sets (e.g. DMU 3-vehicle to 4-vehicle) A minimum of three years time after the engine is available is required for the rolling stock manufacturers time to adapt the rolling stock to the engine Flexibility should correspond to the number of engines to be delivered during the time of adaptation of the rolling stock to the new engine technology

Path Forward The UNIFE, UIC, CER and Euromot joint working group will continue to support DG ENTR with rail industry expert advice The joint working group is fully committed to supply proven latest technologies to rail markets to serve the needs of the environment and to fulfil the locomotive and railcar operators needs. The regulatory framework needs to consider the characteristics of a niche market to enable development of environmentally friendly and cost effective railway solutions Prevent modal shift from rail to other modes of transport when rail is the correct choice. (One 2000kW locomotive hauls the same freight volume as 50 trucks with 400kW each.) Within FP7 Framework, EC challenge rail to deliver an NRMM proposal with a net benefit “when all factors are considered” by 2012 review