http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...opean-trains-entirely-on-the-wrong-track.html
"Britain has consistently been ahead of the game where EU railway legislation is concerned. We broke up a monolithic network, ran private trains and encouraged competition long before the EU told us to.
But even with the current convergence between Britain and Brussels on many railway matters, European legislation has caused far more problems for our railway network than would be expected, due to Brussels' obsession with breaking down national barriers. Having eliminated border crossings in the Schengen Area, the EU is determined to create a harmonised pan-European rail network similarly free from national boundaries.
The challenges faced by the EU in achieving this objective are immense the rail systems of the 27 member states contain a bewildering variety of gauges (rail widths), loading gauges (clearance dimensions), coupling and electrification systems. None the less, a plethora of EU legislation has been produced that seeks to bring these diverse networks closer together by means of promoting international trains. The result, as is so often the case, is becoming increasingly detrimental to Britain.
For example, Interoperability Directive 2008/57EC aims to facilitate the operation of rolling stock across national frontiers by harmonising the member states' registration processes, thus reducing the amount of re-registration every time a locomotive or wagon is required to operate in a new member state for the first time. It superseded two other directives relating solely to international trains, which in spite of the very limited number of international trains operating in the UK, still cost us £80 million to implement.
This new directive is likely to extend its scope to cover all domestic services by 2012 the aim being to encourage competition. However, the restricted clearances of Britain's rail network means that carriages built for service in France or Germany could not be shipped across and used to compete on British domestic services. But rolling stock used purely on British domestic services will none the less still have to comply with the EU rules.
Potentially more damaging is a European Commission proposal giving priority to international freight trains on certain trunk routes, including the West Coast Main Line. If implemented, it is estimated this proposal could add 10 per cent to passenger journey times; and 25 minutes to the London-Glasgow route, only a few years after a £9 billion upgrade to speed up services along this line. The idea that international freight trains should have priority over domestic passenger services makes neither economic nor operational sense.
International trains require international train drivers, and Directive 2007/59/EC creates a common European licensing scheme for train drivers, which among other things assesses language skills. Vital for Eurostar crews, but hardly relevant for a driver working exclusively on suburban trains in Glasgow or Yorkshire.
Then there is Europe's ambitious signalling scheme, the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). The one trial installation in Britain, on the Cambrian line in Wales, has fallen behind schedule and has cost £59 million for a single route this is more than 10 per cent of the cost of fitting the entire network with the Track Protection and Warning System (TPWS) which, while not as sophisticated as ERTMS, has none the less, in conjunction with conventional signalling, delivered a network with an excellent safety record in recent years.
The longer Britain remains in the EU, the longer we will be locked into its thinking on railways. Even as things stand, with so few international trains ever likely to run in Britain compared with other member states, the benefits of regaining control of our railways are obvious. Surely the nation that gave railways to the world deserves the freedom to determine the direction that its own network should take. "
Looks like more madness from Brussels......
"Britain has consistently been ahead of the game where EU railway legislation is concerned. We broke up a monolithic network, ran private trains and encouraged competition long before the EU told us to.
But even with the current convergence between Britain and Brussels on many railway matters, European legislation has caused far more problems for our railway network than would be expected, due to Brussels' obsession with breaking down national barriers. Having eliminated border crossings in the Schengen Area, the EU is determined to create a harmonised pan-European rail network similarly free from national boundaries.
The challenges faced by the EU in achieving this objective are immense the rail systems of the 27 member states contain a bewildering variety of gauges (rail widths), loading gauges (clearance dimensions), coupling and electrification systems. None the less, a plethora of EU legislation has been produced that seeks to bring these diverse networks closer together by means of promoting international trains. The result, as is so often the case, is becoming increasingly detrimental to Britain.
For example, Interoperability Directive 2008/57EC aims to facilitate the operation of rolling stock across national frontiers by harmonising the member states' registration processes, thus reducing the amount of re-registration every time a locomotive or wagon is required to operate in a new member state for the first time. It superseded two other directives relating solely to international trains, which in spite of the very limited number of international trains operating in the UK, still cost us £80 million to implement.
This new directive is likely to extend its scope to cover all domestic services by 2012 the aim being to encourage competition. However, the restricted clearances of Britain's rail network means that carriages built for service in France or Germany could not be shipped across and used to compete on British domestic services. But rolling stock used purely on British domestic services will none the less still have to comply with the EU rules.
Potentially more damaging is a European Commission proposal giving priority to international freight trains on certain trunk routes, including the West Coast Main Line. If implemented, it is estimated this proposal could add 10 per cent to passenger journey times; and 25 minutes to the London-Glasgow route, only a few years after a £9 billion upgrade to speed up services along this line. The idea that international freight trains should have priority over domestic passenger services makes neither economic nor operational sense.
International trains require international train drivers, and Directive 2007/59/EC creates a common European licensing scheme for train drivers, which among other things assesses language skills. Vital for Eurostar crews, but hardly relevant for a driver working exclusively on suburban trains in Glasgow or Yorkshire.
Then there is Europe's ambitious signalling scheme, the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). The one trial installation in Britain, on the Cambrian line in Wales, has fallen behind schedule and has cost £59 million for a single route this is more than 10 per cent of the cost of fitting the entire network with the Track Protection and Warning System (TPWS) which, while not as sophisticated as ERTMS, has none the less, in conjunction with conventional signalling, delivered a network with an excellent safety record in recent years.
The longer Britain remains in the EU, the longer we will be locked into its thinking on railways. Even as things stand, with so few international trains ever likely to run in Britain compared with other member states, the benefits of regaining control of our railways are obvious. Surely the nation that gave railways to the world deserves the freedom to determine the direction that its own network should take. "
Looks like more madness from Brussels......
hock:
