ERTMS by 2030 for the TEN-T core network, 2040 for the comprehensive network (brought forward from 2050)
π€ solid and welcome proposal to improve interoperability, but how is the Commission going to make sure this happens?
A revision of the Technical Specifications for Interoperability in 2022
π€ these Specifications have caused problems for the introduction of new trains, so simplifying rules here makes sense. Devil will be in the detail. Role for ERA here
A new trans-European transport network (TEN-T)
Regulation - a minimum line speed of 160 km/h for the core and the extended core network
π€·ββοΈ sounds nice, but this is a question of horses for courses. Will not work on some mountain routes, while speed will be much higher elsewhere
Strong focus on the delivery of the core network by 2030 and further planned high-speed rail connections in the extended core network to be realised by 2040
π€·ββοΈ what does this mean? Naming and shaming countries that don't build their bits?
In cooperation with @EIB, actively seek eligible pilot projects to acquire rolling stock under the Green Rail Investment Platform / InvestEU
π this could well be good, especially if the financing terms are good!
Prepare βgo-everywhereβ passenger rolling stock specifications, in cooperation with ERA (expected 2022)
π sounds nice. But the devil again will be in the detail. Is this going to be a 200km/h RIC passenger carriage...?
Clarify by 2023 the State aid rules on public funding of interoperable rolling stock [...] The issue of scrapping of existing rolling stock will be addressed
Propose in 2022 a revised regulatory framework for train drivers, addressing the shortcomings of the existing regime [...] Such a proposal may also include the language regime
π addresses a major concern rail companies have. Again devil will be in the detail, but welcome
If necessary regulatory action in 2022 to improve capacity allocation and traffic management processes, aiming at better coordination [...] consider a Union-level entity overseeing the optimisation of cross-border rail traffic and coordination
π Could be v significant, good
Provide guidelines in 2023 for setting track access charges which support and encourage the development of long-distance and cross-border passenger services
π€·ββοΈ Bit wishy washy. Would also need to cover station access charges
Consider, in the context of the revision of the Railway Guidelines in 2023, the possibility to exempt the public financing of the reduction of track access charges from the notification obligation under State aid rules
π€·ββοΈ Is this crucial? Maybe if it helps, OK
The Commission will propose a Regulation, to be adopted by the end of 2022, on multimodal digital mobility services to enhance data exchange between mobility providers
πΊThis could put right the mess of the Rail Passenger Rights Regulation. Again will depend on detail, but π
Assess the need for an EU-wide VAT exemption for international train services
π€·ββοΈ Only a couple of countries now levy VAT on train tickets, and v few do at full rate. But anything that reduces train ticket prices a bit, sure, do it...
Support and promote air-rail multimodal journeys on routes where the suitable infrastructure is in place
π€·ββοΈ Bit wishy-washy. But perhaps with the multi-modal ticketing point there's something in it
The Commission will publish interpretative guidelines in 2022 for applying the Land PSO Regulation, including to long-distance and cross-border rail passenger services
One thing missing: @EUAmbSchmidt promised there'd be something dedicated to the financing of night train rolling stock in the plan at a webinar last month, but there's not
I assume that did not make the cut... But the EIB loans could be used for that I think
So in conclusion a bunch of small to medium size changes that each will help a little bit, and nothing in here raises any sort of alarm bell for me
Solid work overall, and there are things to build on here...
/ends
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I use geodisic distance to calculate the longest trip - basically the two points on the globe furthest apart nominally connected by rail, taking into account the curvature of the earth
Any such really long route is impossible without a bit of walking in a few places
But I have two workable variants...
Heavy rail and walking *only* is
Cascais π΅πΉ - Woodlands πΈπ¬
11904.73 km
Add trams and metros and it's
Praia das Maçãs π΅πΉ - Changji MRT πΈπ¬
11923.23 km
But I cannot find the actual plan, despite @TimmermansEU having just mentioned it...
Sorry @transport_EU but where *is* the action plan? Not linked from the press release. Not on the DG MOVE website. We're listening to a press conference without seeing the document! #RailActionPlan
First, the piece speaks of the "300km Apennine line [...] This track stretches from the town of Sansepolcro in the northern province of Arezzo to Sulmona in the central province of LβAquila"
All right, so let's look that up on Open Railway Map, electrification layer
It's the line highlighted here...
And π€― half of it is electrified already! Blue is β‘οΈ, black is β½οΈ
Also if you want the variants of this theoretical route, here's how to calculate the distances... assuming that at some point routes via Belarus or Ukraine, and into China open up again...
Basically whoever made this map read that there is now a new line through Laos, making the point furthest south east you can reach by train as Woodlands, Singapore πΈπ¬ rather than southern Vietnam π»π³ as it was before
With the UK's "Plan B" COVID restrictions due to be voted on tomorrow, and with a substantial Tory rebellion expected (probably enough to mean Johnson needs to count on Labour support), a 𧡠on relations between the PM, his backbenchers, COVID restrictions, and a new Tory leader
The media framing goes like this
The Number 10 parties showed there was one rule for the elite, and one for the little people
β¬οΈ
This means fewer people will respect COVID restrictions
β¬οΈ
Will result in greater spread, probably more deaths and pressure on NHS
β¬οΈ
Replace Johnson
In the Tory Party each debate about restrictions has gone like this
Johnson (and Hancock, now Javid) want tougher restrictions
β¬οΈ
Their credibility is shot within the party
β¬οΈ
The price to rebel gets lower and lower
β¬οΈ
So vote against the new restrictions