Cableways Impact Assessment Study - Final Report - saferail.nl

IA Study Concerning the Revision of the Cableways Directive
this installation. It is expected that harmonised standard EN 81-22 (currently in draft
form) may (in the future) go some way towards dealing with this issue.
Stakeholders also suggested that the current legal set up in the Czech Republic is such
that there is a potential for a case to occur of a lift manufacturer not contacting the
authorities to discuss whether a certain installation should be built in accordance with
the Cableways or the Lifts Directive.
It is also of interest that some Member States have come up with novel solutions to
this issue. The Slovenian national authority pointed to an installation in Ljubljana
(built in 2006) which is approved both as a funicular under the Cableways Directive
and as an inclined lift under the lifts legislation. This allows the installation to be
operated either as a cableway or as a lift (the vast majority of the time, it is operated
as a cableway). It was further noted that the manufacturer of this installation
cooperated with the authorities in the process of assessing under what legislation the
planned installation was to be approved.
The complexities of the distinction between inclined lifts and small funiculars are
further demonstrated by an example provided by a subsystems manufacturer which
stated that in Italy there is an installation that uses both systems in one installation.
The Ascensore Castello d'Albertis-Montegalletto, in Liguria, has one section which is
a funicular and another which is an inclined lift. The Italian authorities consider this
installation an ‘integrated horizontal-vertical system’ as it runs for 235m close to the
horizontal and 69m vertically without the passengers having to disembark or change
vehicle. This installation was built prior to the implementation of the Cableways
Directive. The whole installation was built in accordance with Italian cableways
legislation as this was considered the more stringent legislation at the time. However,
it is important to note that the whole installation was not approved under cableways
legislation. The funicular section of the installation is approved under cableways
legislation as is the zone of the installation in which the vehicle detaches from one
system (the cable or the lift traction) and attaches to the other. The inclined lift section
of the installation on the other hand is approved under the European Standard EN81-1
for lifts. As a result of the complex and innovative nature of the installation the
approval process was both long and complicated.
Several stakeholders have stated that in some Member States, the division of
responsibilities is such that different public authorities are responsible for inclined
lifts and for funiculars, with the implication being that the manufacturer is required to
liaise with several public bodies simultaneously. For example, in Austria,
responsibility is divided between the federal government and the Austrian states.
Where such division of responsibilities requires coordination between different
national bodies, it has been argued that delays may occur which might have negative
impacts on the entities commissioning the project and on the companies carrying out
the work. According to a cableway manufacturer, in many EU Member States,
different public authorities are often responsible for inclined lifts and cableways
which may result in them having different opinions on the issue. A notified body
noted that due to differences in interpretation between different authorities (this even
occurs at the sub-national level where authorities in different federal states of Austria
Page 94