Joint meeting of EFRTC Committees
Safety & Securityand Technology & Logistics
Paris, 90, Avenue Champs Elysées, FNTP premises on 8th floor
29th April 2010, 09.30 – 16.30 hrs
Present at the meeting:
-Fernando SANTOS (FS), EFRTC President and Chairman of T & L Committee, Somafel, PT
-Jo URLINGS (JU), Chairman of S & S Committee, Bam Rail, NL
-Pier Paolo BERTOZZI (PB), C.F.L. S.p.A., IT
-Bernard GUYOT (BG), SETVF, F
-Rolando NAGGAR (RN), A.N.I.A.F
-Claude PETIT (CP), TSO, F
-Sara Mendez PINHEIRO (SP), Ferrovias
-Arjen ZOETEMAN (AZ), Senior Technical Advisor, EIM
-Michael BAYLEY (MB), Senior Infrastructure Manager, UNIFE
-Imrich KORPANEC (SG), EFRTC Secretary General
There were many last minutes apologies for various reasons some due to the recent problems with flights.
It is important that meetings are attended by the appointed representatives as stated in the attached lists of Committee members (see A1 & A2).
Safety & Security Committee issues from 09.45 hrs to 11.45 hrs
- Evaluation of the responses to the Safety questionnaire
Chairman, Mr Jo URLINGS, presented the summary of the evaluation of the responses as attached in A3. The responses were received from all EFRTC members with the exception of Bulgaria; from some countries there were more than one response, namely 2 fromBelgium and Netherlands, 3 from Germany (in spite of the fact that Germany has not yet appointed the representative to S & S Committee).
The responses confirmed that every contractor is now implementing Safety Management System (SMS) however, it is not always mandatory to certify the system prior to the works. There are lots of similarities in the approach to safety management, however, the definition of safety targets differ from country to country.
Responsibility for the safety is mainly up to IMs but in 2 cases (NL & UK) it is contractor who is responsible. Specific case is Germany where company performing works must provide an evidence of assurance.
Current practices in implementing safety at rules and regulations are very similar but the scope is very depending on the size of company. The approach also differs from country to country however, three groups can recognized – Anglo-Saxon, southern and central European approach. There was one discrepancy in responses of the Switzerland and SG was asked to check it with responder.
BG welcomed clarity and format of the presentation and pointed out on some specific issues related to France, mainly definition of safety targets and control of the safety measures by staff.
Taking into accounts comments at the meeting and some details in evaluation matrix included after receiving last responses (evaluation matrix in A4) Chairman will finalize the presentation of questionnaire evaluation findings and present them to Board and EFRTC General Meeting.
Concerning the format of the final report it was agreed that it will consists of summary/commentary of major findings based on the paper prepared by BG & SG at the last meeting and presentation of JU.
BG agreed to review the text and send it to JU and SG for final comments.
SG also suggested that the paper on major obstacles for harmonization of the safety shall be included in this report (see A5). This could serve as the first proposal of issues to be considered for harmonization.
- Progress of work on safety relevant issues to contractors performed by other international organizations
-Railway strategy security – EIM paper
This was an internal EIM paper not very much relevant to contractors. It was agreed not to circulate it further until final version is completed.
AZ further reported on future possible tasks/mandates of ERA in relation to NSA (National Safety Authority). It is expected that ERA will be charged by auditing NSA, however, each NSA will remain fully independent regarding authorization.
For this purpose it is envisaged to set up a Department which may be also involved in the safety investigations.
-Implementation of driving licence for track machines operators
Chairman presented current state of art pointing out that there is no need for elaboration of specific standard for track machine drivers as it is covered by Directive and subsequent ERA recommendations (see JU presentation at GM in Berlin 11/09).
Concerning track machines operation when working this is set up by internal instructions of companies and there is no need to harmonize them.
Concerning implementation AZ (EIM) responded that a transition period of 7 years is envisaged by Directive and for time being there is no urgent need to issue new driving licences for drivers in domestic operation.
-CEN standards on safety – reports of WG 39 Safety protection on the track during work
There was a very little progress, reported at the last CEN TC 256/SC1 meeting as follows:
WG A- Railway risks and common principles for protection of fixed and mobile work sites.The work item is progressing steadily. Differences in the ways of working in the participating countries are making it difficult to come to a compromise in the standard.
WG B - Common solutions and technology - Technical requirements for Track Warning Systems (TWS).The context of the standard on TWS is largely fixed. The internal review of the main text of the standard in Project Team B was executed.
WG C - Competences of personnel working near or on tracks.A draft for the standard on competences of personnel is produced. Project Team C is however struggling with the very limited participation.
Chairman (JU) will contact Mr Hermans to check the progress with draft reports and to invite him for the next EFRTC S&S meeting.
-UIC guidelines for personal protective equipment
The final draft of the guidelines in English, French and German attached to the minutes (see A6, A7, A8).
Chairman (JU) pointed out that the draft suggested to change the colour of protective clothes from yellow to orange for rail sector while road is currently changing from orange to yellow. These changes may have some cost impact on the contractors they use yellow colour. He also asked about the weight of these guidelines at railways regarding their implementation.
SG responded that UIC guidelines and leaflets are only recommendations but if agreed by all major operators they would mean a strong recommendation as they will be implemented by those operators. BG confirmed that SNCF is converting to orange and UK as well.
Chairman has suggested to seek for common position of contractors at Board meeting and to support the guidelines if agreed by Board and GM.
-ERA accident/incident database
SG contacted both ERA and UIC to find out if their database covers the track contractors’ accidents/incidents data; however, he has not yet received a reply.
AZ (EIM) suggested looking at ERADIS database managed by ERA.
EFRTC Chairman (FS) was of the opinion that all company has their own data on accidents/incidents so it should not be difficult to gather them by EFRTC.
BG confirmed that SETVF has annual statistics on accidents, however, concerning incidents the precise definition first to be agreed.
The proposal will be made to Board to gather the information on safety accidents/incidents on annual basis.
Issues relevant to both - Safety and Technology Committees from 12.00 hrs to 15.30 hrs with break for lunch at 13.00 hrs
- Cross acceptance of machines, staff and works
SG reminded the EFRTC presentation and ERA response/position on cross acceptance based on the meeting with ERA, CEN, EIM, CER and UNIFE on 11.11.2009.
Following the request of some EFRTC members for further clarification SG was asked to invite the Director of ERA Cross-acceptance Dept. to the next General Meeting. The invitation was accepted and now it should be in our interest to present clearly our position on this issue at the meeting.
Chairman (FS) was of the opinion that the presentation shall be aimed at explaining the differences in the procedures and costs of the most expensive and cheapest country. In this regard it was proposed to ask Switzerland as the cheapest and UK and/or France as the most expensive to present their cases for homologation of track machines.
SG also made a reference to joint CER/UNIFE joint position paper on European Register of Authorized Types of Vehicles (see A9) circulated prior the meeting. In this paper ERA is invited to play a pivot role in the development of authorization (homologation) procedures in relation to NSA which can be also enhanced on track machines.
Following the discussion about the role of NSA in authorization process it was agreed that each member of EFRTC shall contact NSA in its country to assure that the national parameters forauthorization will be taken into account when establishing the system of the European common parameters for certification (group A – basic agreed and obligatory for all, group B – still to be agreed, group C-national and specific).
AZ (EIM) informed about latest ERA Interim Report on vehicle authorisation processes (see A10) which may be also relevant to contractors. He also confirmed that associations are supporting ERA in this regard and that they sent a letter to EC Vice-President outlining a quicker implementation of interoperability and safety with stronger involvement of ERA (see 11).
SG agreed and reminded the position of Chairman at the meeting with ERA (see A12) that all these documents are solely focusing on cross-acceptance of rolling stock for purpose of interoperability while the requirements of contractors are more driven by economical and financial reasons including cross acceptance of staff and works and not only machinery. The ERA was of the opinion that it has to be first agreed by the stakeholders and not by Directives and regulations. Even though this ERA position was accepted in principle contractors were of the opinion that more can be done in this direction to facilitate moving of machines and people across the borders.
UNIFE was prepared to lobby at EC and EIM also agreed to support the contractors as this is also in the interest of their clients IMs.
They asked to draft a short EFRTC position paper (1 page) to present clearly the request. SG would try to submit such a paper for approval to Board and if agreed he will provide it to EIM and UNIFE for lobbying purposes.
A specific issue – colour of track machines was discussed under this item in relation to existing CEN standard and TSI at the request of ANIAF. RN insisted that yellow shall be kept as a standard colour used so far by many contractors
Chairman (JU) presented examples of track machines of various companies in Europe and there was no uniform pattern with exception of front painted by yellow for some countries. He further stressed the colour is not at all relevant for safety presenting the examples of ballast distribution cars.
EIM and UNIFE confirmed that there is no restriction in colour of vehicles including track machines in TSI and there is also no intention to consider it in the future.
RN responded that colour of track machines can be still kept in national requirements what may prohibit the foreign companies to work there.
It was concluded by asking Chairman (JU) to report Board on this topic.
Technology & Logistic Committee issues from 15.45 hrs to 16.30 hrs
- Progress of the work of the joint EIM/CER/EFRTC joint group on Harmonization of Procurement (HoP)
Committee was informed that work was put aside by both Co-Chairmen until it is sure that all partners are committed to perform as agreed. They have therefore cancelled the 2nd meeting scheduled for March and no new date was fixed so far. The reason was lack of responses to set of qualification, tendering and selection criteria by IMs (only Portugal, France and partial response from Italy were received).
SG contacted EIM and CER and he received positive response from EIM to continue. CER are examining the issue with their members but this topic is not a priority on their agenda.
RN wondered why other CEN standards on qualification are implemented by IMs like for quality of welding and not overall qualification of contractors. SG responded that welding is a technology issue with physical requirements while here we deal with qualification of mixed socio-economical and technology issues they vary and may change in time.
CP as former convenor for 14949 standard stated that contractor cannot enforce IMs to apply standard in tendering procedures as they are free to make their own choice. SG confirmed that IM strongly requested to take leadership in establishing the criteria so there is not for contractor to take actions for time being.
BG pointed out that non-acceptance of existing standards may affect a fair competition.
Finally, Chairman proposed to send contractors comments to CP as CEN convenor who shall build up a common EFRTC position on this important topic.
- Information from Secretary General on the other EFRTC activities and European issues
-UNIFE UNIRAILINFRA Committee
MB (UNIFE) briefly reported on the last issues from Committee relevant to contractors as e.g. results of INNOTRACK report, RFF and PLK presentations, EC funding, etc.
SG pointed out that all presentations are now available on EFRTC website – member area under UNIFE folder.
In response to RN concerning INNOTRACK final report MB stated that this shall be available shortly. SG added that all will be as usual on EFRTC website.
-EC Auto-Main research project proposal
SG briefly presented objective, scope and content of the proposal (seeA13). Full text of the proposal is on website under Policy & Research Committee folder.
The EFRTC participation would not required any extra funding from members. Contractors will be invited to workshops at the project milestones to provide their comments. Potential other input can be provided via SG.
-ERRAC Infrastructure workshop
SG informed about his participation at ERRAC workshop on costs of infrastructure where he presented EFRTC and some continuation of joint work with EIM/CER which may have an impact on track maintenance and renewal costs.
The outcome of the workshop will be on website under Policy and Research Committee folder.
- A.O.B
The dates of the next meetings will be fixed as need appears in consultation with Chairmen of both Committees.
* * *