PCS Developments – PCS CCB 17th May, 2017

Planned max. content for Major 2017

Planned max. content for Major 2017 PCS IP Consolidation package (summer) Activation attachments for RUs in Observation (summer) PaP Product Definition Paper Pre-booking phase RFC acceptance indicator separation C-OSS timetable N day rule adjustment for short term path request Notification module Labels Common mandatory parameters Trivials 23 February 2019

Details

PaP Product Definition

PaP Product Definition paper Pre-Booking phase When? When an RU submits a path request (NPR, LPR or AHPR) with a dossier that has at least one PaP. What? RU timetable should be copied to C-OSS timetable regardless of existing Feasibility Study Result ACL: Dossier is read-only for the RUs and only the RU timetable is visible Dossier is read-only for the Ims and RU/C-OSS timetable is visible Dossier is editable for the C-OSS in the C-OSS timetable Acceptance indicators: RFC acceptance indicators should be green otherwise leaving the phase to Path Elaboration is not possible After releasing the dossier to Path Elaboration the C-OSS acceptance indicators should be downgraded to blue If the dossier is released to Path Elaboration after X-7.5, the dossier should arrive there as Late Path Request In case of multi-corridor requests the dossier can be released to Path Elaboration, if all RFC lights are green (no partial „pre-booking”) Bulk promotion should be supported 23 February 2019

PaP Product Definition paper RFC acceptance indicator separation RFC „On behalf…” acceptance indicator should be separated from the IM lights Searches for IM lights should ignore the RFC „On behalf…” lights RFCs should be able to set green lights manually when the usual things are fulfilled: All mandatory times and parameters are entered All PaP section is either reserved or marked as tailor-made In cas of any alternative offer the RU accepted the alternative offer Questions: What happens if C-OSS requested full tailor-made solution for the dossier? Should the RFC promote separately to Path Elaboration? RFC should be able to set their lights manually, however what if they reserved all PaP sections there. Shouldn’t PCS set automatically the lights to green? 23 February 2019

PaP Product Definition paper C-OSS timetable RU timetable should be copied to C-OSS timetable regardless of existing Feasibility Study Result With releaseing Path Elaboration C-OSS timetable should be copied to IM timetable. What if there is Feasibility Study result? C-OSS timetable editing C-OSS can reserve the PaPs as today in the same views (PaP request details, CST) C-OSS should be able to edit the timetable and train parameters in the dossier details view (NEW) C-OSS should be able to remove and insert PaPs in the C-OSS timetable as the Rus in the RU tmetable. Calendar handling is the same as in the timetable (NEW) Removing of PaP should be possible only, if that is not reserved Search & select PaPs will be possible for C-OSS between X-8 – X-7.5 When C-OSS changes anything in the timetable (PaP, location, timetable field, parameter) means alternative offer. Presentation of alternative offer should stay for Rus as today. Submit alternative offer button should be added to the control menu for the RFCs. Sending alternative offer is not possible, unless the lights of RFCs are set to green. If alternative offer is refused, lights of RFCs should be downgraded to blue and RFCs will have the cnance to send a new alternative offer or ask for full tailor-made solution (as today) 23 February 2019

PaP Product Definition paper C-OSS timetable Timetable comparison view should be extended with C-OSS timetable Timetable combinations should be calculated for the C-OSS timetable too Reports might need to be extended with the C-OSS timetable content (maybe not for first time and we keep only one offer sheet in Dossier Data Organizer) Should it be possible to go to Feasibility Study with pure PaP dossiers? What kind of timetable should we create in Feasibility Study? IM TT? What kind of changes should be supported there? IM timetable According to C-OSS guideline, the Ims should have the possibility to reduce the calendar of the reserved PaPs Removed days have to be replaced with an alternative offer by the IM, question if PCS can support the end user (C-OSS Managers) indicating clearly the differences 23 February 2019

Rest of the content

N day rule for short term path request Currently PCS returns every capacity from the published PaPs (actually Reserved Capacity in RFC terms) to the IMs in a "30" days (N days) RFC3 and RFC7 pilot would use PaPs With the current settings it’s impossible Demand: Enable for RFCs to publish PaPs with some that PCS never returns automatically to the Ims, only when the running day is in the past. 23 February 2019

Notification module Current notifications: http://cms.rne.eu/pcs/pcs-documentation/notification-messages-pcs Requirement: Create a new area in Personal Settings where user can subscribe and unsubscribe for the different kind of notifications RFC related notifications (from the CR pool of CMS): Confirmation about the received PaP requests: RU should receive at X-8 one mail about all the received dossiers. Should it be an attachment? Which format? Status information on the outcome of pre-allocation by C-OSS: RU should recveive at X- 7.5 one mail about all PaP request statuses after the pre-booking phase. Should it be an attachment? Which format? Notification about the alternative acceptance: C-OSS should receive a notification about the decision of the RU about the alternative offer (accepted/rejected). Mail should have a dossier link. 23 February 2019

Notification module Notification about the feeder/outflow and tailor-made: Ims should receive at X-7.5 a mail with all dossiers (ids) that should be constructed. Do the Ims still need this, when we have phase separation? PaP list and their status on NPR deadlines: Ims should receive at X-8 and X-7.5 a mail with all the dossiers the PaP statuses there. Do they really need this? Should it be an attachment? Which format? Notification about in Ad-Hoc Path Request: C-OSS should receive a mail, when ad-hoc path request was submitted, with dossier link Confirmation about received ad-hoc path request: Rus should receive a mail from PCS, when the phase promotion of the ad-hoc path request went well. Is it really necessary? Final Offer acceptance: when final offer is sent out, Rus should get a mail (with all the dossiers or one by one) not to forget to accept/refuse the offered dossiers. 23 February 2019

Labels Show labels in alphabetical order Show difference for "Shared with me from sy" and "I shared it with sy" Allow description of labels During the creation of labels it should be possible for the user to define a short description (same as the IM parameters) Description should be shown in a tooltip There should be a table view of the labels of the users (link from personal settings for example) Filters: tt year, name, sharing option Allow there edition and deletion of the label On the Dashboard labels should go to an own column and not directly next to the dossier name Column should be filterable and sortable (starts with, is equal to, is not equal to) In advanced search the labels field should have the following options: Is one of Is all of Is none of Is empty (NULL) Is not empty (not NULL) 23 February 2019

Activation attachment during Observation Involved Rus should be able to attach file to a dossier in Observation/Acceptance phase. It should be done until the Draft Offer. 23 February 2019

Common mandatory parameters There should be an area in the administration where the Ims can see in a view all the common PCS parameters that are optional (maybe we can show also the default mandatory). There each IM should have the option to change the mandatory status from optional to mandatory. Adding new values and definition of new formats of the fields is not allowed. Those should stay according to TAF-TSI standards. When RU opens a dossier or edits train parameters on locations where the owner is a particular IM, they should fulfil the parameters accordingly How should we deal with SBPA? If a parameter is optional for one IM, but mandatory for another, how should we proceed? Maybe simple like the table. Should we extend the PaP import template? Probably not. IM1 IM2 Status Optional Mandatory 23 February 2019

Trivial

Composite relation indicator On the left navigation bar of the dossier, indicate the number of references inside Connections Links Composite relations Attachments 23 February 2019

Additional filter „My RU Pair” A new criteria should be added to the advanced search page As "My RU pair" for the IMs, RFCs As "My IM pair" for the RUs Multiple choice should be possible and the list should contain all agencies according to the agency type (also non PCS members). The result of the search should show all dossiers where my agency is pair with one of the selected agencies. 23 February 2019

New agency parameter improvement In case of list type (single choice or multiple choice) national IM parameters, the IM should be able to define a default value from the list. 23 February 2019

History of the dossier Show the timetable deadlines in the history view of the dossier. 23 February 2019

Edit planned speed parameter In case of freight trains, when an RU inserts a PaP to a dossier (during the wizard and until the end of Harmonization), the RU should not be able to edit the planned speed field in any of the path section of the PaP, regardless if it is fix or flex PaP. Question: should it be possible for a C-OSS Manager to change it in the C-OSS TT during Pre- booking? Should it be possible for the Ims in Path Request, FS Elaboration, Path Elaboration and Post-Processing? 23 February 2019

Search for operation points by PCS-ID/Reference-ID/ASII-name Enable search for PLC and /or PCS ID in the operation point field Replace the „starts with” logic to „contains” Support the search for special characters without using special characters 23 February 2019

Deletion of saved draft in CNDW RUs should have the possibility in the draft dossier grid to select and delete the not any more necessary draft dossiers. To not change the logic in the grid (one dossier is selected and then opened currently), selection should be possible one by one, multiple selection is not supported. After the delete action PCS should reload the draft dossiers grid and should not navigate back immediately to the dashboard. 23 February 2019

Small improvements of filtering and organizing in Dashboard and advanced search New button should be added to the Dashboard and Advanced Search, when dossiers are selected. "Mark as unread" button should be added next to the current button "Mark as read". 23 February 2019