{"id":245883,"date":"2025-07-03T19:32:08","date_gmt":"2025-07-03T09:32:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.railfreight.com\/?p=63782"},"modified":"2025-07-03T19:32:08","modified_gmt":"2025-07-03T09:32:08","slug":"rail-freight-backs-tsi-plans-of-new-era-head-finally-someone-who-understands","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.vibewire.com.au\/?p=245883","title":{"rendered":"Rail freight backs TSI plans of new ERA head: \u201cFinally someone who understands\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

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\u2019s ideas. There are, however, some remaining concerns.<\/strong>
\n<\/span>\u201cWe need to stabilise TSIs in order to keep them for longer cycles\u201d, 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: \u201cIn that time, we all agree to say no to changes, unless it impacts safety.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

A Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI)<\/strong> is a European standard that defines the technical and operational requirements for rail systems to ensure seamless cross-border rail traffic across the EU.<\/p>\n

TSIs cover everything from rolling stock and infrastructure to signalling, telematics, energy systems, and accessibility.<\/p>\n

Their primary goal is to harmonise rail systems<\/strong> 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\u2019s strategy to create a single European railway area.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The primary issue with constantly changing TSIs is that it brings a seemingly endless list of imposed expenses to rail companies. \u201cWe 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\u201d, notes Miguel Rebelo de Sousa, executive director of the Portuguese rail association APEF.<\/p>\n

Financial risk of changing TSIs<\/h2>\n

Oliver Smock, policy advisor at the German rail freight association Die G\u00fcterbahnen, concurs with that idea. \u201cFrequent TSI updates […] heighten financial risks\u201d, he says.<\/p>\n

\u201cVehicles 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\u201d, Smock explains.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\"Oana
Oana Gherghinescu speaking before the rail freight sector. Image: ERFA. \u00a9 C\u00e9dric Puisney<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Cost control<\/h2>\n

Those costs are a major headache for rail companies, so Gherghinescu\u2019s words seem to have made the European rail freight sector very happy. \u201cFinally someone who understands\u201d, says Dutch rail freight association director Hans-Willem Vroon. \u201cCost 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Vroon\u2019s Romanian counterpart from association OPSFPR, Simona Istrate, concurs and highlights the difficulty for countries with outdated infrastructure and limited budgets. \u201cRegulatory stability helps with planning and investment, while frequent revisions can block or delay projects\u201d, she says.<\/p>\n

An obstacle to innovation<\/h2>\n

At the same time, won\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n

\u201cTechnological development often outpaces what is feasible in the railway sector, where retrofitting vehicles and infrastructure is a long and complex process\u201d, 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\u201d, he adds.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\n

Oana Gherghinescu made clear that she intends to pursue an economic approach<\/strong> to rail freight, meaning that she wants to prioritise lower costs for rail companies.<\/p>\n

\n