D11.2 – The Story Each test operator will test the system in different corridors in Europe. CP use one corridor, PI use another corridor, SIGMA has got two different tests sites and so two corridors. In particular, the corridor used by CP connects Portugal with Spain, the one used by PI connects Slovenia (Nova Gorica) with Bosnia-Herzegovina (Maglaj) through Croatia, whereas the former corridor used by SIGMA connects France with Italy and the latter goes through France, Germany, Denmark and Sweden. In Figure 2-7 it is possible to see the European areas where the F-MAN system will operate.

D11.2 – The Corridor (CP)

D11.2 – The Corridor (SNCF)

D11.2 – The Verification Phases The verification methodology: 2 distinct phases: 1- The testing of the proper functioning of each separate module (AMM, DPM, TT and GUI) from January to April 2004 (not yet written in D11.2) 2- The testing of the overall F-MAN system after the OBT installation from May to September 2004 (written in D11.2)

D11.2 – Verification after Installation (2) The tests have been designed to be applicable to the type of services supported by the equipped wagons: -In CP case the test used mainly TimeTable Supervision Mode because the intermodal chain that uses flat wagons has usually the need for a contractually agreed delivery time for the specific client UTI (Intermodal Transport Unit, e.g. container) after departure, with checkpoints (~5 per trip). The delay of the wagon is useful both to the order and the fleet managers. Bid and offer simulation and partial automatic load/unload monitoring were also important; -In SIGMA case the test used mainly Status Supervision Mode because the full wagon transport services usually need to maintain a stable flow of goods (e.g. steel) to manage stocks and not a specific wagon. The delay of the specific wagon is more useful to the fleet management. Full wagon fleet load/unload monitoring is also important. - In PI case the test is similar to CP and used mainly TimeTable Supervision Mode because the full wagon transport services usually need to maintain a stable flow of goods (e.g. paper) to manage stocks and not a specific wagon. In this case there are also specific checkpoints (all the stations in the itinerary). The delay of the specific wagon is more useful to the fleet management. Full fleet wagon load/unload monitoring is also necessary.

- In CP case the users (order manager, fleet manager, operational manager, maintence manager) are existing personnel in the freight department (centralised control of operations) supported by CP F-MAN team. The users interact with the F- MAN tools from the EQ of the Freight Business Unit and the I&D department in Lisbon. CP Fleet management as three main levels of responsibility (from left to right) with Fleet Management responsible and their two main tasks – Wagon Status and Train/Wagon Tracking and Tracing. This is the main support for F-MAN tests. D11.2 – The Real Users (CP)

D11.2 – The Real Users (SNCF) In SIGMA case the possible users are existing SNCF fleet managers and SIGMA F-Man team in Place St Lazare Station in Paris from the Business Unit PCA : Coal and Steel Products

D11.2 – The Real Users (PI) In PI case the user are existing SZ fleet managers and PI F-Man team on Ljubljana

D11.2 – The Resources Wagons: -CP tested F-MAN tools with 30 Sggmrss flat Wagons for both types of operation modes -SIGMA tested F-MAN tools with 10 wagons (8 S56 and 2 S58) wagons for status supervision mode - PI tested F-MAN tools with 5 wagons for 2 types of operation modes (timetable supervision – 3 Uacs, status supervision – 2 Himrrs)

D11.2 – The Verification Procedure -Both CP and PI are using the same complete procedure - SNCF is using a subset of the procedure for wagon status - We can consider that exists comparability between the test results

D11.2 – The Verification Procedure PI example The operator as been assisted by ISUP (SZ IS for traffic management) and Hermes (international based IS for wagon management) information to check status data from F-MAN wagons within a specified procedure: -Control of timetable supervision mode on corridor Koper tovorna – Treibach-Althofen including ETA (check ISUP, Hermes) -Control of wagon status data (check ISUP, Hermes, phone calls) -Calculation of exploitation indicators for freight wagons (check F-MAN database extraction; result: XLS tables post processing) -Report tables (check F-MAN DB extractions; result: XLS tables on wagon history, timetable and ETA performance) - Software presentations and survey on users attitude about F-MAN tools, interface

D11.2 – The Verification Procedure National Information Hermes query result for wagon (international information) All the tests use extensively railway classical IT to verify F-MAN data (CP- TrainOffice and Hermes; PI – ISUP and Hermes; SNCF)

Timetable supervision mode (included in CP and PI tests) In timetable supervision mode the PI operator as been assisted by ISUP and Hermes information to check status data (for 3 wagons) from F-MAN wagons within a specified Procedure: - PI operator piom will check the information in the ISUP and Hermes; - Upon the information piom will place an order to AMM - PI operator pifm will assign the wagons to the order complying with the AMM procedure - Upon the information of the movement (AMM and DPM) and information form ISUP and Hermes piopm will assign the appropriate timetable to the wagon and send it to OBT - piopm will sporadically check the information in the F-MAN system to the ISUP and Hermes IS - piopm will note his observations and react to the alerts; -AMM and DPM administrators need to provide F-MAN DB extractions on periodically basis (2 weeks) SITUATION: CP AND PI were not able to verify this mode due to unavailability in F-MAN tools D11.2 – The Verification Procedure PI example

Status supervision mode (included in CP, PI and SIGMA tests) In status supervision mode the PI operator as been assisted by ISUP and Hermes information to check status data (for all five wagons) from F-MAN wagons within a specified Procedure: - Check of wagon position; - Comparison of data with ISUP and Hermes and phone calls; - Response to alerts raised by F-MAN tools; - Entering special states (maintenance, damage,...); - Report on functionality of the tool (suggestion of enhancements); -Recording of special observations. -SITUATION: CP, PI, and SIGMA have been able to verify this mode BUT they have not yet produce EVIDENCE to include in D11.2 -EVIDENCE: Reporting Tables (made by the users) and F-MAN Database Extractions from DPM D11.2 – The Verification Procedure PI example

D11.2 – The Tables Wagon based report (status supervision mode) CP SITUATION: IN TWO MONTHS only 9 days of usable DPM processing. Tables will be completed based on existing systems PI AND SIGMA: State their situation

D11.2 – The Tables Corridor based report (timetable mode) CP SITUATION: no usable data. Tables will be completed based on existing systems PI AND SIGMA: State their situation

Exploitation indicators of wagons - Speed indicators - Inequality analysis - Time-based productivity -Distance-based productivity -SITUATION: CP No indicators have been produced yet -PI and SIGMA: State their situation D11.2 – The Indicators

D11.2 – The DELIVERABLE Contributions to the function and constrainst tables: -PI as produced a first version of D11.2 with remarks on part of the tables (funtions and constrains) based on its experience and information availability -SIGMA is analysing Primoz work and will deliver remarks on the tables (functions and constrains) for its test part -CP as analysed Primoz work and accepted as the only existing information (The users have been exposed to the tools in last two weeks - before we had no information on DPM). Carlos is preparing CP own remarks based on its opinion)

D11.2 – The DELIVERABLE Contributions to the verification story: - Last two months have been incredible rich in terms of problems and stability in F-MAN tools with the test partners trying to get evidence to produce data and to be able to involve the real users - In practical terms we continued for at least one and half month since the end of July (after deciding that no more developments would be accepted by the involved partners) debugging the tool. Something that was supposed to be finished on July. The availability of the system for real users as been poor (but questionnaires have been finished without problems) - On the midle of August Carlos talked to Mr. Kuhla about the possibility to delay the test phase. Both agreed that it was not acceptable taking in account our situation facing the EC - After some information exchange with the partners Carlos decided to ask for contributions from the partners to finish the D11.2 document at any cost. The partners have correspond very well to the demand and the document is present (thanks for Andrea and its structuring ideas)

D11.2 – Some Questions to finish The need to garantie that at least PI is able to test timetable mode until October and finish the good work already done Evaluation by the partners of the contents related to their contributions Need some good contribution for Chapter 5 – First phase of test plan methodology (January-May 2004) Also for Fine tuning and improvements of Centralised SMS Hub, DPM and AMM starting from the users needs The delivery will be enriched with a critical review of each point (e.g. the energy consumption situation – CP as already review the parameters as you can see in the delivery to be able to maintain the OBTs alive for at leat one ear) and the conclusions for future development. For example the old war between a more stupid or a more intelligent OBT options can now be answered. The need to verify the compliance of the answers in the tables in relation with EU perspective