1. EIMS EXPECTATIONS FROM CROSS-ACCEPTANCE WORK CROSS-ACCEPTANCE SEMINAR 17 NOV. 2011 PHILIPPE GALLEY-EIM/RFF

2. 2 Created in April 2002. 10 full members (Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, France, Portugal, Spain), one associate member (HS1), one candidate member (PKP PLK). 50% of EU+EFTA lines 62% of EU+EFTA rail passengers 39% of EU+EFTA rail freight Social dimension: direct employment of 125.000 Total investments of EUR 12.4bn (2008 fig.) European Rail Infrastructure Managers

3. 3 Our Mission Improve the development of the rail transport mode Act as a lobbying organisation towards the European Institutions and together with the industry Provide our expertise to the appropriate bodies including the European Rail Agency (ERA)

4. 4 Our Vision Create an intra- and intermodal level playing field Promote the development of rail traffic Provide an efficient cost effective and open rail network Allow infrastructure managers to operate in an independent and non-discriminatory manner to facilitate optimisation of overall system cost and performance

5. Current situation The process has improved over the years. In most (probably all) member states, the NSAs are carrying out their role independently from the IMs as regards the authorisation to put rolling stock into service. The authorisation for the placing into service of rolling stock is still mostly done on a national basis, due to : open points or specific cases in TSIs parts of the TEN network which are not interoperable or parts of the network which are not TEN Things are progressing quickly thanks to the X-A works. Acceptance is moving from a national basis to a bi-national cross –acceptance basis, and soon to a European basis. A non resolved issue is very certainly the route acceptance or local technical compatibility which is one way or another carried out by the IM in most members states. 5

6. Ascertaining route compatibility As expressed in DV 29 article 6.2, it is the role of the RU to ascertain whether the train is compatible with the route. In practice, this is not the case. The reason is that IMs have not been able to express the state and conditions of their infrastructures in a way which is usable by the RUs to assess this compatibility completely and with confidence. One should not under-estimate the responsibility currently taken by the IMs, as well as the cost incurred to them with the current situation. One should also not under-estimate the lack of transparency that this current situation implies for our customers, except in very few member states (2?) where this is done at the same time as the authorisation to rolling stock put into service. 6

7. So what is our expectations (1/2) ? The EIM members all want to facilitate the access to their networks The EIM members do not necessarily want to be involved in a time-consuming and costly route acceptance process. The cross-acceptance process is now well under way, and is well understood. It is now time that the process whereby our customers or any applicants can assess the technical compatibility on any lines with the help of the register of infrastructure (RINF) is well understood. Because of the urgency of this matter, it is important that the RINF should be phased so that we do not have to wait 5 years to see it being used by our customers. 7

8. So what is our expectations 2/2)? In the first instance, the RINF should focus primarily on the few parameters that have to be checked on top of the TSIs and the national rules The RINF can not be dealt with separately from the work carried out from the cross-acceptance WG. ANY QUESTIONS ? 8

9. 9 Thank you for your attention www.eimrail.org