Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

Risk & Policy Analysts
requirements should apply but their preference was for certification in accordance
with the lifts legislation. After having taken independent advice and obtaining
informal advice from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE is the UK public
authority responsible for the implementation of both lifts and cableways legislation),
the manufacturer proceeded with the design, manufacture and installation of the
equipment in accordance with requirements on lifts. The equipment was approved
and CE marked by a notified body based on requirements applicable to lifts.
However, the installation was subsequently suspended from use by the operator
following concerns raised by the HSE that it may have been wrongly certified and
should in fact have been classified as a cableway. Following discussions between the
UK authorities and communication with the European Commission, the authorities
decided that this installation falls within the scope of the Cableways Directive. The
installation consists of a 40 passenger car travelling on a rail system inclined at 17.5°.
The car travels between alighting stations at each end of the incline, with no operating
personnel. This resulted in direct costs in the region of €30,000 to €40,000 due to
modifications to the lift drive/breaking system and additional safety features added to
the track; these costs were paid by the operator. In addition, the WGH Ltd. incurred
further costs due to time spent on dealing with this issue, seeking expert opinion, etc.
At present, this installation remains unapproved under either the lifts or the cableways
legislation and according to the manufacturer, making changes to an installation made
to requirements on lifts so that it can be approved as a cableway is impossible (but a
compromise between the HSE and the operators allows this particular installation to
operate). In addition, the equipment was not in operation between October 2009 and
March 2011 and it is assumed that this may have entailed costs to the operator.
When consulted for this study, the UK competent authority stated that there was
potential for a similar problem to occur again in the UK. In a recent case, however
problems were averted as an economic operator contacted the UK national authority
in advance. It was further stated that while it is common for companies in the
cableways sector to contact the authorities in advance, this is not the case in the lifts
sector.
The Cypriot national authority noted that they are currently dealing with a case where
problems have occurred despite the tender specifications for a new installation stating
that it should be built in accordance with the Cableways Directive (i.e. as a funicular).
However, the main contractor did not relay this requirement correctly to the company,
to which the manufacture of the installation has been subcontracted (an Italian
manufacturer of lifts). The Cypriot national authority stated that this could have been
avoided if the current legislation had not allowed the manufacturer as much space for
interpretation as is currently permitted.
Slovakia has also experienced such problems. Based on current definitions it was not
possible to clearly determine whether the Cableways or the Lifts Directive should be
applicable to a particular installation. As a result the authorities were not able to give
a clear reply to the manufacturer and as a consequence the manufacturer faced
significant problems when determining the relevant standards that were to apply to
Page 93