Oana Gherghinescu, the new executive director of the European Union Agency for Railways, has expressed her support for a freeze of TSIs for longer periods of time. RailFreight.com reached out to market parties to gauge the mood about her plans. The conclusion: rail freight is overwhelmingly positive about Gherghinescu’s ideas. There are, however, some remaining concerns.
“We need to stabilise TSIs in order to keep them for longer cycles”, Gherghinescu said during an address to the rail freight industry in Brussels on 24 June. She wants to freeze TSIs for periods between five to ten years: “In that time, we all agree to say no to changes, unless it impacts safety.”
A Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI) is a European standard that defines the technical and operational requirements for rail systems to ensure seamless cross-border rail traffic across the EU.
TSIs cover everything from rolling stock and infrastructure to signalling, telematics, energy systems, and accessibility.
Their primary goal is to harmonise rail systems across member states, making sure different national networks and equipment can operate together safely, efficiently, and without technical barriers. TSIs are legally binding and form a key part of the EU’s strategy to create a single European railway area.
The primary issue with constantly changing TSIs is that it brings a seemingly endless list of imposed expenses to rail companies. “We must be realistic about the fact that there are financial restrictions and organisations have limited capacity to tackle every digitalisation ambition of the European Commission, even with European funding”, notes Miguel Rebelo de Sousa, executive director of the Portuguese rail association APEF.
Financial risk of changing TSIs
Oliver Smock, policy advisor at the German rail freight association Die Güterbahnen, concurs with that idea. “Frequent TSI updates […] heighten financial risks”, he says.
“Vehicles recently equipped with costly new technologies may need to be retrofitted again within just a few years. The combined cost of equipment, engineering, technicians, vehicle downtimes, and authorisation processes is substantial. This financial uncertainty discourages investment in railway undertakings and undermines the intermodal competitiveness of rail freight”, Smock explains.
The often-changing TSIs provide an even bigger obstacle for those operating internationally: not each country implements newly mandated trackside systems at the same time, meaning that international interoperability suffers, and costs increase.
Cost control
Those costs are a major headache for rail companies, so Gherghinescu’s words seem to have made the European rail freight sector very happy. “Finally someone who understands”, says Dutch rail freight association director Hans-Willem Vroon. “Cost control is an absolute necessity. No one benefits from unaffordable innovation, except those who profit from it and have turned it into a hobby that is paid for by taxpayers. The focus must be on realising customer value and facilitating competitive transport.”
Vroon’s Romanian counterpart from association OPSFPR, Simona Istrate, concurs and highlights the difficulty for countries with outdated infrastructure and limited budgets. “Regulatory stability helps with planning and investment, while frequent revisions can block or delay projects”, she says.
An obstacle to innovation
At the same time, won’t a TSI freeze hinder innovation? After all, if old technologies are mandated, there is no room for technological advancements. Respondents do not have any major concerns about this.
“Technological development often outpaces what is feasible in the railway sector, where retrofitting vehicles and infrastructure is a long and complex process”, explains Oliver Smock. For instance, First-of-Class development often takes multiple years before full fleet retrofitting can even begin. Longer freeze cycles would allow time for new technologies to be thoroughly tested and would help prevent shortages by giving manufacturers enough time to scale up production efficiently”, he adds.
However, the success of frozen TSIs may not be as easily achieved as it seems. One respondent, who wishes to remain anonymous, points out that there are some conditions that TSI freezes need to meet: they have to be tailored to the TSI in question, and be consensual.
Oana Gherghinescu made clear that she intends to pursue an economic approach to rail freight, meaning that she wants to prioritise lower costs for rail companies.
Different TSIs, different freezing periods
“Some technical TSIs, for example, WAG [rolling stock and freight wagons] TSI, would benefit from a longer validity without changes, 5 years could probably be optimal”, the respondent explains. “But, freezing is possible only after an absolute consensus of all parties interested, the stakeholders. This would also present some certainty for the producers, manufacturers of the vehicles.”
A five-year freeze may not always be the right approach. “However, other TSIs, such as the Telematics TSI, should stay as it is, that is 3 years, in particular because the progress in the IT area is very fast and a longer period might hinder the introduction of innovations.”, the respondent adds.
Despite these side notes, the message remains clear: European rail freight is overwhelmingly positive about Gherghinescu’s aim to reduce costs for the industry. What’s more, innovation outpaces the speed of implementation, so market parties consider it better to pause mandated tech changes for multiple years.
That, however, may require a mindset change in Brussels: “Some of our members have expressed concerns that these [TSI] revisions are becoming an end in themselves”, comments Oliver Smock. What the EU needs could be a better eye for stakeholders’ concerns.