EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 92003E000583

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0583/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Various characteristics of high-speed lines that prevent their use by high-speed trains of a different type.

Dz.U. C 242E z 9.10.2003, p. 150–151 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

European Parliament's website

92003E0583

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0583/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Various characteristics of high-speed lines that prevent their use by high-speed trains of a different type.

Official Journal 242 E , 09/10/2003 P. 0150 - 0151


WRITTEN QUESTION E-0583/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Various characteristics of high-speed lines that prevent their use by high-speed trains of a different type

1. Can the Commission confirm that following the differences in track gauges in the early years of the railways and the wide variations in voltage existing since electrification, there is now a third generation of obstacles to interchangeability and cross-border movement of rolling stock, caused by the fact that high-speed trains of one type seem to have difficulty running on tracks designed for trains of a different type, even when these trains are equipped to use power from overhead cables with different types of voltage?

2. Is the Commission aware that this problem first became apparent on the new high-speed line opened in 2002 in Germany and Belgium, in that no trains except the German ICE-3 can run on the new line between Cologne and Frankfurt Airport, while on the Frankfurt-Brussels line this same ICE-3 cannot at the moment make use of the new line between Liège and Leuven, so that the journey takes 14 minutes longer, although, in addition to seven train pairs, a Thalys train with a maximum speed of 300 km/h and frequent internal Belgian trains with a maximum speed of 200 km/h make use of this line?

3. Is it apparent from this that the technical specifications of the various high-speed trains that have been designed in Europe over the past 25 years are so divergent that there is no possibility at present of fulfilling the EU ambition of interoperability?

4. How does the Commission intend, in respect of intra-European long-distance rail passenger transport, to bridge the period between the present unsatisfactory situation and the time when the current differences, resulting in limited accessibility, are over?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2003)

The problem of rail interoperability raised by the Honourable Member is not new. The Maastricht Treaty called on the Community to take the necessary measures to promote the interoperability of the trans-European transport network. This launched a process of formulating Community rules, firstly with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European

high-speed rail system(1), then with Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system(2). These Directives introduced a procedure for adopting technical specifications for interoperability (TSIs). The first generation of TSIs for the high-speed system was adopted by the Commission on 30 May 2002 and has applied to all new projects since 1 December 2002.

Given that the railways have, throughout their history, been developed on a purely national basis, harmonisation of the rail system is a major undertaking. That is why the Community has chosen a gradual, step-by-step approach, tackling the top priority issues: loading gauge, track gauge, power supply voltage, line safety, and operating and maintenance rules.

Achieving interoperability involves a complex migration strategy for each of the technical aspects involved. The more rapidly the TSIs are available the shorter the transition period will be, especially if the TSIs are accompanied by appropriate action at Community level.

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.

(2) OJ L 110, 20.4.2001.

Top