TTR IT Implementation Capacity Offer/Request/Allocation Annex A1.7.2c TTR IT Implementation Capacity Offer/Request/Allocation 29 May 2018, PCS TB

2. Implementation Plan – Capacity Publication/Request/Offer TTR IT Projects 1. TTR IT Landscape 2. Implementation Plan – Capacity Publication/Request/Offer Reduction of National Parameters for Capacity Request Financing – CEF Call

2. Implementation Plan – Capacity Publication/Request/Offer TTR IT Projects 1. TTR IT Landscape 2. Implementation Plan – Capacity Publication/Request/Offer Reduction of National Parameters for Capacity Request Financing – CEF Call

TTR IT Landscape TTR 2018 TCR Tool PCS 2019 BIGDATA 2020 TAF TAP TSI TTR Pilots TCR Tool Delivery of TTR IT Landscape Deploy of Envelope Concept First roll-out of TCR tool on RFCs 1, 3, 5, 9 GUI of BigData Results from phase I of TTR Pilots RNE GA - PCS Mandatory Interfaces 2019 End of TAF/TAP-TSI Short Term Path Request Pilot PaP Product definition BigData network model Results from phase II of TTR Pilots BIGDATA 2020 TAF TAP TSI TCR tool - final roll-out Results from phase III of TTR Pilots Interfaces to Capacity System ready 2024 TTR implementation

2. Implementation Plan – Capacity Publication/Request/Offer TTR IT Projects 1. TTR IT Landscape 2. Implementation Plan – Capacity Publication/Request/Offer Reduction of National Parameters for Capacity Request Financing – CEF Call

Migration from „as-is“ Path Request to „to-be“ Capacity PCS – Path Coordination System Capacity System TT 2022 Path request Capacity request Path coordination and offer TT 2022 Capacity coordination and offer Path allocation TT 2022 Capacity allocation

Migration from „as-is“ Path Request to „to-be“ Capacity 2018 OUR TARGET – To be ready for TT 2022 Combination of all parallel activities into a common TTR platform. Action plan for reduction of national parameters Delivery of TTR IT Landscape Deploy of Envelope Concept 2019 End of TAF/TAP-TSI Short Term PR Pilot RNE Big Data integration PaP Product definition Specification of capacity definition 2020 Mandatory interfaces Capacity module New/Late Path Request (required in Nov 2020) 2021 Path Modification/Alteration(required in Sep. 2021) Ad-hoc Path Request (required in Sep. 2021) 2022 Rolling planning

TTR processes supported by international IT TTR functions already developed in PCS New path request Late path request Path modification / alteration Ad hoc path request TTR functions being developed Capacity bands (currently developed in PCS as PaP product until 2019) Capacity bands are a major aspect of Rolling Planning capacity Temporary Capacity Restrictions (currently developed in the TCR Tool) No need to start from scratch!

Project proposal PCS mandatory interface - based on TAF/TAP TSI and TTR IT Landscape Implementation of PCS interfaces in Europe Finalization for TT 2022 Benefits: Achieving TAF TSI implementation Immediate positive effects of interfaces Common efforts to access European funding calls Common design of process details Consequences in case of disagreement: Late implementation of TAF TSI Risk of late implementation of TTR Losing investments because of European patchwork and resulting manual workarounds

Current attempts for PCS interfaces: New path request Planned rollout of the New Path Request function for TT 2022 Rollout planned Rollout planned for TT 2024 – but manual input in the meantime Manual input because of the amount of trains No answer to survey / Question

Current attempts for PCS interfaces: Late path request Planned rollout of the Late Path Request function for TT 2022 Rollout planned Rollout planned for TT 2024 – but manual input in the meantime Manual input because of the amount of trains No answer to survey / Question 11

Current attempts for PCS interfaces: Ad Hoc path request Planned rollout of the Ad Hoc Path Request function for TT 2022 Rollout planned Rollout planned for TT 2024 – but manual input in the meantime Manual input because of the amount of trains No answer to survey / Question 12 12

Current attempts for PCS interfaces: Path Modification/Alteration Planned rollout of the Path Modification/Alteration function for TT 2022 Rollout planned Rollout planned for TT 2024 – but manual input in the meantime Manual input because of the amount of trains No answer to survey / Question 13 13 13

Implementation timeline for the different functions Annual Path Request (based on the answers shown in detail before): Most of the IMs announced to be ready in 2019 (TT Period 2021) Two IMs announced to be ready in 2020 (OK for TT Period 2022) One IM (DB Netz) announced to be ready in 2022 (TT Period 2024) Ad Hoc Path Request (based on the answers shown in detail before): Most of the IMs announced to be ready in 2019 (TT Period 2020)

Results of the impact analysis per IM Analysis based on the answers summarized in the slides before: We assume a medium risk due to the later implementation of DB Netz and manual feeding of the data for TT 2022 and TT 2023 We classify the risk of no answer from the IMs as low (limited traffic) We classify the risk of manual feeding of PCS by some IMs as low (limited traffic)

The RNE GA is asked to agree The GA is asked to agree to the project proposal ‘TSI Compliant PCS Mandatory Interface’ This includes Implementation of the interfaces between the national system and PCS Regular data synchronisation between national and central system Being compliant with TAF/TAP TSI and TTR Finalization for all phases latest for TT 2022 (manual data synchronization in case of limited traffic) (manual data synchronization for a short transition period in case of late implementation)

2. Implementation Plan – Capacity Publication/Request/Offer TTR IT Projects 1. TTR IT Landscape 2. Implementation Plan – Capacity Publication/Request/Offer Reduction of National Parameters for Capacity Request Financing – CEF Call

National Parameters (Network Specific Parameters) PCS, based on TAF/TAP-TSI schema, works with common set of parameters (26 for passenger, 35 for freight trains). These are designed to describe the train information, and path information necessary for the timetable construction and the path request process. Each IM/AB is invited to prepare its own network specific parameters. Purpose: required by the National Safety Authority (NSA) or company safety-related required by a Regulatory Body required by company needs (IT system) required by the Network Statement Other The problem is that the number of parameters started to grow dramatically in the past few years and the harmonization status among the IMs/ABs is critical. Activity type Location types Comment Loco type number Traction mode Train control system Train radio system Traction weight Traction length Traction max speed Traffic type Type of service Train weight Train length Weight of set of carriages Length of set of carriages Train max speed Planned speed Route class Max axle weight Brake type Minimum braked weight percentage claimed by IM Emergency brake override Braking ratio Braking weight Exception gauging ident Specific freight parameters Container profile Hazard Number RID Classification Dangerous Goods Volume Danger Label UN Material Number Weight of dangerous good Limited Quantity indicator Package groups

National Parameters (Network Specific Parameters) Our target is reduce the number of National Parameters together with IMs/ABs as much as possible. However, if some exist, why do we need them in PCS? Without National Parameters in PCS With National Parameters in PCS National parameter 1 Common parameter 3 1 Common and national parameter PCS PCS 2 National System 2 National System

National Parameters (Network Specific Parameters) RNE Managing Board Telematic Cluster TTR IT WG TEG Planning Analysis of the situation Base of the analysis Result of the analysis Published National Parameters in PCS 12 IMs/ABs Ca. 150 kinds of parameter (361 with all repetition and attributes) 15 main clusters and 11 sub-groups were identified - examples: Requested information for additional technical data Organizational details Requesting service (supplementary, ancillary) facilities More detailed diversification of the train or the traffic type Etc.

Parameters to… HARMONIZE DISCUSS REMOVE ADOPT In case of partial interest, National Parameters should be harmonized among the creator IMs/ABs (name, format, validation, etc.) DISCUSS First National Parameter workshop, organized by PCS Team. Target is the removal/harmonization of National Parameters for TT2020 REMOVE National Parameters that are already part of the existing TAF/TAP-TSI or PCS schema should be removed by the IMs/ABs ADOPT In case of common interest, National Parameters should be added to the general TAF/TAP-TSI schema Short-term Short-term Mid-term Long-term

2. Implementation Plan – Capacity Publication/Request/Offer TTR IT Projects 1. TTR IT Landscape 2. Implementation Plan – Capacity Publication/Request/Offer Reduction of National Parameters for Capacity Request Financing – CEF Call

Financing – CEF Call This CEF call is a good opportunity to get co-financing for the PCS interface mandatory for RNE Members The announced priorities are in line with the TAF/TAP implementation: Ensuring quality management of data for TAF/TAP TSI (timetable data, tariff data); Provision of cross-border services (information and/or ticketing) compliant with TAF/TAP standards; Support rail stakeholders in developing common Telematics Reference Files merging the existing TAF and TAP Reference Files The indicative timeline is the following: March/April 2018: CEF Committee to endorse the CEF Call (MAP amendment) April/May 2018: Call published September (tbc) 2018: deadline for submission  RNE Members interested in participating in the application should send on official request to RNE (Harald.Reisinger@rne.eu)

Backup

„Big Bang” IT implementation (without disruption) High Priority Modules Development and implementation Production New Capacity Request Late Capacity Request TTR Implemented Modification / Alteration Rolling Planning requests Capacity Model etc. TT 2022 TT 2023 TT 2024 TT 2025

„Big Bang” IT implementation (delayed) High Priority Modules Development and implementation Production New Capacity Request Late Capacity Request TTR Delayed Modification / Alteration Rolling Planning requests Capacity Model etc. TT 2022 TT 2023 TT 2024 TT 2025

Risk evaluation for „Big Bang“ implementation 2024 Delay of IT = delay of TTR implementation Similar risk for TAF/TAP TSI compliance Reduced possibility for quick wins Additional effect: Reduced possibility for improving path offer quality in PCS High risk of delay of TTR with „Big Bang“ approach

AGILE IT implementation (without disruption) High Priority Modules Development and implementation Production New Capacity Request Late Capacity Request TTR Implemented Modification / Alteration Rolling Planning requests Capacity Model etc. TT 2022 TT 2023 TT 2024 TT 2025

AGILE IT implementation (delayed) High Priority Modules Development and implementation Production New Capacity Request Late Capacity Request TTR Implemented Modification / Alteration Rolling Planning requests Capacity Model etc. TT 2022 TT 2023 TT 2024 TT 2025

Risk evaluation for AGILE implementation 2020 Delay of IT can be compensated Reduced risk of non-compliance with TAF/TAP TSI Possibility for quick wins Improvement of path offer quality Reduced risk of delay of TTR with AGILE approach