EU regulations to standardise mechanisms

[whole diary]

[grahame]

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2015/09/26/bridgnorth-cliff-railway-exempt-from-eu-rules-threat/?

Historic transport systems such as Bridgnorth^s Cliff Railway are exempt from EU^» (European Union - about) regualtions that may have threatened their future, it has been ruled.

Such vintage cableways should be excluded from a new European directive to standardise mechanisms and product requirements, the European Parliament has decided, in what Shropshire MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) Philip Dunne has called a victory for common sense.

Built in an age before mass-production of engine parts, by their very nature historic cableways often have to have unique and tailor-made parts made when being overhauled and maintained.

Without being made exempt from the new regualtions, the ageing tourist attractions would have found it virtually impossible to comply with new standardised requirements for replacement parts, Mr Dunne said.

What regulations are they talking about?

Does the exemption extent to older railway elements such as semaphore signals, IoW trains, Pacers ...?

[Electric train]

The TSI's (Technical Specifications for Interoperability) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Specifications_for_Interoperability are meant for railway systems that are part of the "trans-Europe network" for the safe operation of railways also to ensure there is fare competition in the market place for the manufacture of trains and railway components. 

The UK^▸ (United Kingdom) National network is wrestling with implementing and interpreting TSI compliance since the UK Government (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about)) have mandated we have to be compliant. Therefore all new trains Class 700, 800's etc will be TSI compliant and all new infrastructure Crossrail etc and even Thameslink are having to adopt TSI's although there are a number of exemptions granted due to the age of the tunnels viaducts stations etc

I don't think the TSI's were ever aimed at anything deemed "heritage"

[stuving]

It's not a TSI - it's a new version of the existing directive 2000/9/EC , of 20 March 2000 relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons.

That always included this statement of scope:

4.   This Directive shall apply to:
— installations built and put into service, as from its entry into force,
— subsystems and safety components placed on the market, as from its entry into force.

It concerns such harmonisation provisions as are necessary and sufficient in order to ensure and guarantee compliance with the essential requirements referred to in Article 3&1).

In the event that important characteristics, subsystems or safety components of existing installations undergo modifications for which a new authorisation for entry into service is required by the Member State in question, such modifications and their repercussions on the installation as a whole must satisfy the essential requirements referred to in Article 3&1).

There are tricky bits there - is a component such as a brake that could be used on new or old systems covered by the full process, or can it be sold as "only for heritage systems"? You'd need to scour the full text to find out (maybe).

There is a new directive going through the co-decision procedure, awaiting a vote in the parliament. There is as long list of objectives, one of which is to align it with the NLF:

"Consistency with the New Legislative Framework (NLF): Members supported the alignment of the provisions to the goods package adopted in 2008 and in particular to the Decision No 768/2008/EC on a common framework for the marketing of products. The framework set out by the NLF consists of provisions which are commonly used in EU^» (European Union - about) product legislation."

The original draft came from the Commission: see the first of four links here

It included a simple exclusion:

(b) cable-operated tramways of traditional construction;

The committee have tried to "improve" that, by this amended wording:

(b) cableway installations of historical construction, including cable-operated tramways, funicular railways and cliff railways, as identified by national law, including subsystems and safety components specifically designed for them;

The newspaper report was lifted from Daniel Dalton MEP^▸ (Member of European Parliament)'s self-promotion on his web site. He's a member of the EP committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) - one of 80 (draw your own conclusions). He claims:

Brussels, 24th September - MEP for the West Midlands Daniel Dalton is celebrating victory in negotiations with the European Council in Brussels on exemptions for historic cableways, which include Bridgnorth Cliff Railway, from a new European Directive standardising cableway mechanisms and product requirements. Earlier this year Daniel was able to persuade fellow MEPs to back Conservative arguments to exclude historic cableways from the scope of the new legislation, on the grounds that it would be virtually impossible for them to comply with new standardised requirements for replacement parts. 

So maybe he was behind that amendment, though there are other let-outs lurking in the words too. And he had allies, I am sure - this is hardly a Brits vs continentals issue, is it? When you hear "historic cable railway or funicular" you are most likely to picture Lisbon or an Alp. And while the Swiss have no formal input to the legislation, this is a "Text with EEA relevance" so it will apply to them.

There - I'm sure you really wanted to know that, didn't you? And I do hope you realise how expensive EC legislation monitoring and reporting services are.