1. CROSS – ACCEPTANCE OF TRACK MACHINES INTRODUTORY REMARKS Paris 11 th June 2010

2. Paris  Current situation  Some striking examples  Invitation for discussion

3. Paris 11 th June 2010  A lot of effort was made by EFRTC members in these last years to contribute to standardisation work with a strong believe that those standards as a set of harmonized and approved rules and regulations on railway applications will be applied.

4. Paris 11 th June 2010  However, up to now, it is hardly possible for contractors and their machines from one country to be certified/qualified to work in another country even if reference is made to a published standard.  Even though, there are some examples of mutual acceptance through bilateral agreements, in practice there is no cross- acceptance of track machinery, staff and works in Europe.

5. Paris 11 th June 2010  The real situation shows that the same machine has to be homologated each time for each country what multiplies costs and time of immobilization.  Homologation rules and specifications differs enormously from country to country.

6. Paris 11 th June 2010

7. Paris  Significant differences in the procedures, costs and deadlines for homologation of track machines in Europe.  The same type of track machine already accepted to run and work in one country has to be certified each time once again for working in other country.

8. Paris 11 th June 2010  There are any set of specifications for manufacturers concerning design documents that they have to deliver for certification.  Due to this complexity of procedures manufactures refuse to assist their clients (contractors) in their applications for homologations of machines.  Many specific national requirements are imposed on track machines over UIC rules and standards.

9. Paris 11 th June 2010  One certified track machine in one country was not accepted to work in one neighbouring country without changing boogies/wheels what has nothing to do with certification.  There is no clear evidence who imposes more additional and costly equipment on track machines which in some cases are not even installed on locomotives as e.g. register of events and ETCS in general.

10. Paris 11 th June 2010  There is no distinction for authorization for to basic modes:  Driving as track machine with limited speed to track site  Being pulled as a wagon to other workplace

11. Paris 11 th June 2010  In order to reach some clarifications on these important issues the Board has decided to invited to this General Meeting:  Mrs Ny Tiana Tournier, Head of vehicle authorization section from European Railway Agency  Mr. Franz Messerli, Assistant to Matisa General Manager