1. Envelope Concept report, PCS UG
15th May 2018, Vienna

2. Status Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul OUR TARGET
Delivering the minimum required functions in November 2018
Presentation of specification on PCS TB meeting
Sending for review
Mar
Review of specs
Checking comments
Apr
May
New version of specification
High level video presentation
Core Team meeting
Jun
Dedicated meeting with focus on train object and test cases. Not only EC, but TAF-TSI in general
PCS UG
Jul
2 days Trainer workshop
FTE C/D
EC promotion
Start testing
We are here

3. Plan

4. 2019 2019 2020 2020 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN July November January March
CNDW
Geography
Calendar
Outline
Path Variants
Basic Data
Copy parameters
Control
Acc. ind. downgrade
Dossier history
Version changes
Comments
Train information
Train composition
Connections
Composite relations
Migration to EC
Copy & Carry forward
PaP Search & select
Web-services
Administration
PA/PM
Bulk and background promotion
Bulk acceptance editing
PaP Import
PaP Manager
Capacity return
Network PaP search
Timetable comparison
Inconsistency warnings
PAMT search
CST
C-OSS Dashboard
PaP request handling
Alternative offer
Dossier exports
2019
2019
2020
2020

5. PaPs for RUs

6. Rules and possibilities
Order of the PaP’s across territories is as given by the user
One PaP can be split across territories according to responsible RU and IM agency given by the user
Multiple PaP’s can be used in one territory as long as they fall under the same responsible RU and IM
The system shall create Sub-paths to cover running days that are not available in the PaP’s selected by the user (Combined PaP/Tailor-made 2.0)
The system shall allow removing PaP from a Sub-path unless this leads to removing the complete Sub-path and it is the last Sub-path in the territory.
Re-order: same as today. Order is defined by the user during the wizard
Split across territories due to responsibility change, we will have use case for that in the next slide
Multiple PaPs for the same territory, example is coming again in the next slide
Not available days aka „Combined PaP 2.0”: we have example for this on the wireframes, we can also draw a case
Removal of PaPs is supported, unless… Meaning of the unless: same applies for path sections. When all should be removed, it rather means the removal of the territory, which is a different action, we prepare a dedicated function for that (Leading RU and Leading IM)

7. Rules and possibilities
Multiple RU with 1 IM case: SPs are split based on RU-IM pair logic. Each RU can insert there a PaP only from IM1
2RU – 2IM case: similar to the former, but RUs can insert PaP to the SP only from their partner IM
„Interchange crossing PaP”: with the publication most likely we will prevent „Handover crossing PaPs”. We can do that, because handovers are static, however interchange points are dynamic. In this case PCS should split the PaP according to the split of the SPs. In this case PaP3 was split to parts and RU2 gets only the 4. path section. The restriction here means that neither RU1 nor RU2 can insert a PaP between PS3 and PS4.

8. Rules and possibilities
Easy case: One PaP per territory
Multiple PaPs per territory: here only vertical multiplication, however we can draw the case where the multiplication is horizontal, meaning the PaPs are in different SPs for the same territory (e.g. Combined PaP, or user created solution)
The case we saw before, when PaP is split to two territories. We are still investigating if we can support this split for the IMs too, meaning no need for the cuts during publication
Simple case for the cross-corridor situation

9. PaPs for C-OSS

10. Rules and possibilities
The system shall allow a coordinating C-OSS user to resolve conflicts, reserve PaP requests or mark them as Tailor-made in any Sub-path with a requested capacity from their corridor
The system shall present the requested capacity and track it in each Sub-path separately
Example of pre-booking could be checked on a drawing. We don’t have wireframe for this.

11. Path Elaboration & Post-processing

12. Acceptance indicator downgrade works similar to the RU cases
The leading IM has no higher responsibility in the Dossier than any involved IM in terms of editing the IM timetable
Each involved IM has editing rights for Sub-path in territories that fall under their responsibility
IM’s cannot request additional PaP capacity or change already reserved PaP capacity in Pre-booking
The system shall prevent an IM user to remove Path sections from a Sub-path that have reserved PaP capacity
The system shall prevent change running days of a Sub-path that has reserved PaP capacity
Acceptance indicator downgrade works similar to the RU cases
Leading IM can remove a territory
Involved IM can split/merge a Sub-path with reserved PaP capacity (!)
Same as today. Leading IM=involved IM. Additional facilities: phase promotion, territory removal (see later)
As today. Edit where you are responsible. !!!! Not operating owner, but responsible -> Single Border case
As today, IM cannot add new PaP to the dossier or remove reserved PaP capacity
As today, IM cannot delete a section that has reserved capacity by an RFC
As today, IM cannot change the calendar of the reserved capacity
As we agreed, acceptance indicator downgrades will work the same as for the RUs
When a train doesn’t run on the requested route and with this an IM is obsolete, leading IM can remove that territory
NEW! For the reserved capacity IM can give different offer, for the different running days

13. Trainer workshop

14. Trainer workshop
Tuesday, Jun 12, Wednesday, Jun 13, 2018, 09: :00
Vienna, RNE JO (Large meeting room)
Who is expected?
Everybody who keeps training in his/her company/country and/or active in the PCS user community
Content of the workshop:
Definition of training slots and venues
Assigning trainers for the defined trainings
Training method
Definition of use cases
Customization of use cases
Set-up translation procedure
Introduction to the concept, major differences
REMINDER: Trainer survey