1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

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

7. 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

8. 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