Proposition 53K3037

Projet de loi relatif à la sécurité d'exploitation des lignes ferroviaires musées.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Oct. 2, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

museum tourism transport safety rail transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Alexandra Colen (VB) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 12, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by Mr. Balcaen, absent, returns to his written report. The first speaker is Mr. Delicate who is not present. by Mr. Destrebecq was registered but no longer wants to intervene.

Mr. Secretary of State, we have already discussed a number of things in the committee, but I note that there is still uncertainty about the cause of the whole debate. They do this confusingly. It is claimed that there were no rules for the museum trail in Gent and that they must come there. Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to point out that in the past period there have been some incidents, with dramatic consequences.

In 1991, in the province of Luik, an innocent museum train detonated, resulting in seven deaths. In the eastern Flemish municipality of Maldegem, on 28 May 2012, a young man with a bromcycle died as a result of a collision with a museum train. So you cannot innocently say that there must be a regulatory framework, because there is a gap. No, in the past there have been several dramatic accidents.

In addition, some wasteland conditions must be addressed. This is our fundamental criticism of the present bill: it is inadequate. There are disadvantages in terms of the material, in terms of the patenting of the staff and in terms of the management structures of the museum track. You can argue that we should not interfere with this, since the organizations work with volunteers and they are free to choose this or that management structure. But, Mr. Secretary of State, the NMBS works very intensively with the organizations, not only for lending or rejecting material but also for promoting the activities. The government, in these NMBS and Infrabel, cooperates very intensively with the museum track and is therefore part-responsible for the consequences thereof.

I consider that the present draft law is inadequate in terms of the training of the security personnel concerned.

I realize that there is a price mark attached to it, but when it comes to security, Mr. Secretary of State, it cannot be knitted. Yes, it’s about volunteer organizations, but one has to make a choice. If tomorrow a volunteer organization starts and begins to run around with all kinds of historical buses, then those buses will also have to meet essential safety requirements. Even on those antique buses, drivers must have a driving license and the necessary patents. This is not the case here.

I believe that the training and safety requirements are too lax and do not guarantee sufficiently that persons sitting behind the steering button of a steam locomotive have received the appropriate training. I find that in your bill there are insufficient guarantees to ensure that the driver of a steam train has the right patents and that the material on the tracks has also been checked.

In connection with the accident in Maldegem, serious questions can be raised as regards the high speed at which that train travelled over a historic trace and as regards the patents held by the train driver. If your bill had been much stricter, the accident in Maldegem might have been avoided.

During the debate in the committee, you also said that there would be no narrow track. Mr. Secretary of State, I can confirm that there is indeed a narrow track on Belgian territory. Among other things in Maldegem there are situations where a narrow track crosses the public road. Safety must also be guaranteed.

I think a reference speed of 50 kilometers per hour is still much too high. One can then argue that no one is obliged to drive so fast. When it comes to historical heritage, most traces are not even long enough to tolerate a speed of 50 kilometers per hour. What is the use of such a high speed that the route is already completed in ten minutes? Mr. Secretary of State, only a maximum speed of 30 kilometers per hour seems to me to benefit security.

Another aspect concerns the requirements that the material must meet. If the inspection is carried out internally by friendly organizations, I fear that on those historic railways there is material that has not been sufficiently assessed.

This is indeed a fixed price mark, but in terms of load and brake quality we must be able to guarantee the safety of visitors who use the facilities of a museum railway line during an open-door day and all kinds of festivities.

Mr. Secretary of State, here you have put the interests of those museum railway organizations first, while you should have put the safety of passengers and visitors first.

I hope for you that there are no more accidents due to poorly assessed materials, due to a lack of the appropriate patents or the proper training or due to the failure to respect the maximum speed. Then you have the same responsibility based on a law that is inadequate.

The last thing I want to say about this is that you should have reflected and had to learn from the mistakes of the past, which is ⁇ not the case here.

Somebody asks for another word? ( not )