1

REDESIGN OF THE INTERNATIONAL TIMETABLING PROCESS

(TTR)

supported byTTR Plenary Day

Vienna, 25 September 2019

2

TTR pilots

3

TTR Pilots: Topics

− Aim of the pilots, organisational set-up

− Phase 1 of pilots and first achievements

− Phase 2 of pilots and first findings

− Q&A

4

Introduction to TTR Pilots

In order to test the new approach to capacitymanagement developed in TTR, several pilotshave been launched:

- Test the innovative components in real life

- To improve the process

- Definition and specification of data referencemodel for capacity

- To detect pressure points

- To use lessons learned for full TTR rollout

The focus when selecting the pilots was on RFC lines: Possibility of own rules thanks to FCA (Framework for Cap. Allocation, 913/2010/EU).

5

Introduction to TTR Pilots

The pilot itself will be conducted in three phases:

- Phase 1: Capacity partitioning andcapacity planning

- Phase 2: Capacity publication and capacity requests for TT 2020

- Phase 3: Running timetable 2020

6

Introduction to TTR Pilots

TTR overall structure:

7

TTR Pilots: Achievements (I)

− Development of functioning organisations for the respective pilots

− Good cooperation thanks to highly motivated IMs

− Broad-based willingness ofstakeholders (Ministries, ports/terminals, Regulatory Bodies,applicants) to participate in thepilots

Ex.: Organisation of Pilot Antwerp - Rotterdam

8

TTR Pilots: Achievements (II)

− Creation of Cap. Models with the support of applicants for TT 2020

− Publication of available capa-city for TT 2020 in Jan. 19

− Availability of a tool (PCS) forplacing the first RollingPlanning requests in Aug. 19

− First requests for RollingPlanning Cap. for TT 2020received

9

TTR Pilots: Achievements (III)

− Publication of a “Pilot Information Document”

Pilot Information Document focusses on thedescription of the new TTR concepts that aretested in the pilot.

10

TTR Pilots: Achievements (IV)

− Development of a ECMT (tool for visualising Cap. Model)

11

TTR Pilots: Lessons Learned (I)

− Management attention is crucial for the success of the pilots

− Planning and coordination of TCRs respecting 2012/34 Annex VII is still difficult

− Benefits for passenger RUs must be tested as well

− Ministries of Transport and Regulatory Bodies are required to implement strategic thinking (not only based on existing laws) and allow tests

− Need for increased resources for IT implementation (nat. and internat. level)

− Commercial Conditions required to influence applicants’ path requesting behaviour and IMs’ allocation processes (incentive to respect agreed processes)

− Multi-annual validity of a Rolling Planning request require legal backing

12

TTR Pilots: Lessons Learned (II)

Path requests for TT 2020:

− Capacity Model was built based on announcements from applicants with their needs for Annual TT and Rolling Planning traffic

− Pilots published PaPs (as required by 913/2010) and Rolling Planning Cap. in January 2019, based on these announcements

− Experiences:

o Applicants requested PaPs for pre-announced Rolling Planning Cap.

o Applicants requested Internat. Rolling Planning Cap. as Annual TT traffic by using national tools (Pilot Antwerp-Rotterdam)

o Paths were requested in time windows where no capacity was published in the Cap. Model

− TTR pilot message has not clearly beeing understood by applicants even they were deeply involved as member of the Pilot Advisory Board

13

Findings in the TTR Pilots− Absence of (harmonised) rules on capacity partitioning phase constitutes a

risk − Example: Some IMs are concerned that RBs may e.g. challenge their capacity

model/split.

− Different interpretation of Directive 2012/34 leads to heterogenous national legal frameworks and/or (uncoordinated) RB action that may hamper a harmonised implementation of TTR.

− Example 1: diverging opinions regarding the possibility to set aside capacity for rolling planning requests lead to legal uncertainty e.g. in case of an annual TT request conflicting with safeguarded RP capacity

− Example 2: national capacity allocation frameworks are in some MS enshrined in law and much more detailed than EU law, limiting the IM’s ability to implement TTR

− Example 3: diverging national law and RB decisions on commercial conditions (FR vs DE vs IT etc.) make it difficult, if not impossible, for IMs to agree on a common set of CCs

14

TTR Pilot Antwerp – Rotterdam

− Creation of Capacity Model

• Applicants had difficulties to make a traffic forecast, proposed to take IMs own historical data.

• Inclusion of TCRs:

− Asset/construction departments of ProRail and Infrabel exchanged information/data for the first time for the mid-term planning.

− Stability of TCR planning, but not all TCRs need to be planned in Annual Timetable

− TCRs on other lines with an impact on the pilot line

• Splitting of available capacity was a challenge. What are the shares for Pre-arranged Paths/PaPs (legally still required), Annual Timetable and Rolling Planning Cap.?

15

TTR Pilot Antwerp – Rotterdam

− Capacity publication and requests for TT 2020

• On-time publication in an Excel-file (https://cms.rne.eu/ttr-communication-platform/rotterdam-

antwerp-library)

• TCR: up to 75% of published TCRs needed to be changed

• Participating key applicants have a different approach/vision on Rolling Planning

• Despite Rolling Planning Offer, 1/3 more requests for Annual Timetable 2020 than real usage in TT 2019 (… and based on last years’ experiences will be cancelled…)

• First intentions of applicants for placing Rolling Planning requests failed due to missing PCS experience.

16

TTR Pilot Antwerp – Rotterdam

− Capacity Model for TT 2021

• First known TCRs already discussed between BE, NL and DE (rerouting)

• A two step approach is foreseen:

− X-11: Publication of Annual TT Cap., Rolling Planning volume for a standard day and known TCRs

− X-6: Rolling Planning Cap. for 365 days, update of TCRs (incl. inclusion of minor TCRs)

• Elaboration of Cap. Model with the support of ECMT

• Analysis of extension of pilot line from Antwerp via Brussels to Paris (inclusion of high-speed passenger trains)

17

TTR Pilot RFC Atlantic

− Creation of Capacity Model• Inclusion of

− traffic data section by section fora normal day

− Regular-interval timetable

− Freight traffic matrix includingcapacity bandwidths

− 24-hour view of the model(bandwidths and TCRs)

• Aim to offer 8 paths for AnnualTimetable and 2 for RollingPlanning Traffic

18

TTR Pilot RFC Atlantic

− Creation of Capacity Model for TT 2020 had to be stopped

• Due to high amount of TCRs with a negative impact on the foreseen capacity

• Low level of TT colleagues’ availability to study an axis view

• TT colleagues were not convinced that TTR will help them and tried to stick to former process which led to delays, lack of coordination and improper use of the capacity model

19

TTR Pilot RFC Atlantic

− Capacity Model for TT 2021 & 2022

• Creation of models are still in progress. Nevertheless, process are still to be written and shared by all entities involved.

• Cap. Model TT 2021 for Atlantic pilot considers a single band with 5 long-distance paths each way (4 for Annual TT, 1 for Rolling Planning without any multiannual consideration)

• For now, risk still exists to have no commercial capacity for TT2021 due to too confiscatory TCRs.

20

TTR Pilot Munich – Verona

− Creation of Capacity Model

• Inputs (cap. needs) of applicants: early announcements change massively from the first request at X-16 till the second request at X-9

• TTR-Pilot Brenner observed avery high variance ofannouncements from thedifferent applicants

• TCRs: IM planning process notstable. Hence, input for Cap.Model is too volatile

21

TTR Pilot Munich – Verona

− Capacity publication and requests for TT 2020

• On-time publication in an Excel-file of pre-constructed system pathsfor Annual TT and capacity bands with Rolling Planning paths for everyweekday (https://cms.rne.eu/ttr-pilots-communication-platform/brenner-library)

• Customers indicate demandfor Rolling Planning also atAnnual TT deadline toensure the reservation forRolling Planning capacity

• Several requests for RollingPlanning capacity werealready placed

22

TTR Pilot Munich – Verona

− Capacity Model for TT 2021

• Start of discussions on different ways to shift dynamic traffic from the Annual TT to Rolling Planning (incl. exchange of view for Rolling Planning capacity with applicants)

• Validation of Cap. Model based on early announcements as a base for Rolling Planning capacity is regarded as critical

− Other issue

• Discussion with German Regulatory Body regarding the treatment of the TTR pilot in the Network Statement

23

TTR Pilot ÖBB Network

Capacity Model including system paths for Timetable 2021 is currently being developed and the possibility of technical implementation in path planning/scheduling is being examined.

24

Experiences from TTR Pilots

o Common commercial conditions

o IT

o Legal framework (national)

The TTR Pilots showed: Several preconditions need to be provided!

Planning capacity needs to be predictable and reliable.

25

How to Support the Pilots?

− Implement /experiment with TTR process elements in your network− Capacity model is the key element and can be tested “outside” normal process

(applicable for lines/countries that are not yet involved in a pilot)

− Reduce national particularities by increasing the willingness to change national processes and adapt them with neighbours

− Start discussions between Regulators/Ministries, IMs and RBs about the adaptations that are needed for TTR on national level

The TTR team gladly shares its knowledge and helps in implementing tests of TTR items!

26