interoperability unit annex of the … · annex of the recommendation on the revised trans-european...

56
EUROPEAN RAILWAY AGENCY File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 PAGE 1 OF 56 INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM SUBSYSTEM TELEMATICS APPLICATIONS FOR PASSENGERS Reference: ERA/REC/09-2012/INT Document Type: Report about TAP TSI Phase One Version : 3.1 Status: RECOMMENDATION Date : 30.10.2012 Edited by Reviewed by Approved by Name Mickael VARGA Stefan JUGELT Kai BRANDSTACK Denis BIASIN Position Project Officer Head of Sector Head of Unit Date & Signat. 30.10.2012 30.10.2012 30.10.2012

Upload: trinhdan

Post on 13-Apr-2018

221 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

EUROPEAN RAILWAY AGENCY

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 PAGE 1 OF 56

INTEROPERABILITY UNIT

ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED

TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM

SUBSYSTEM TELEMATICS APPLICATIONS FOR PASSENGERS

Reference: ERA/REC/09-2012/INT Document Type:

Report about TAP TSI Phase One

Version : 3.1 Status: RECOMMENDATION

Date : 30.10.2012

Edited by Reviewed by Approved by

Name Mickael VARGA

Stefan JUGELT

Kai BRANDSTACK Denis BIASIN

Position Project Officer Head of Sector Head of Unit

Date

&

Signat.

30.10.2012 30.10.2012 30.10.2012

Page 2: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 2/56

AMENDMENT RECORD

Version Date Section number

Modification/description Author

0.1 13.09.2012 All First draft Stefan JUGELT

0.2 19.09.2012 All Review Stefan JUGELT

0.3 20.09.2012 All Incorporation of economic evaluation

Martin SCHRÖDER

1.0 27.09.2012 All Final review Mickael VARGA

Stefan JUGELT

2.0 03.10.2012 All Review for ERA recommendation Mickael VARGA

3.0 26.10.2012 All Incorporation of comments from internal review

Stefan JUGELT

3.1 30.10.2012 All Incorporation of comments from internal review

Stefan JUGELT

Page 3: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 3/56

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 6

1.1 Background to the assignment ..................................................... 6

1.2 Summary .................................................................................. 6

1.2.1 Monitoring and assessment during the phase one of TAP TSI ......... 6

1.2.2 ERA recommendation about the phase one of TAP TSI .................. 6

2. ABBREVIATIONS AND REFERENCES ................................................................. 7

2.1 Abbreviations ............................................................................. 7

2.2 Reference Documents ................................................................. 8

3. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 9

3.1 Overview ................................................................................... 9

3.2 Monitoring and assessment during the TAP TSI phase one ............... 9

3.2.1 Success criteria for the project management ............................... 9

3.2.2 Measures for the assessment of TAP TSI phase one ....................10

3.3 Assessment of the final deliverables ............................................ 11

3.3.1 Deliverables “detailed IT-specification” ......................................11

3.3.2 Deliverable “master plan” ........................................................11

3.3.3 Deliverable “Governance” ........................................................12

4. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF TAP TSI PHASE ONE ...................................... 13

4.1 Cooperation ERA – project management team .............................. 13

4.2 Regular meetings with the project management team .................... 13

4.3 Attendance of ERA in the meetings of the dedicated work groups .... 14

4.3.1 Timetable work group ..............................................................15

4.3.2 Tariff work group ....................................................................16

4.3.3 Reservation ............................................................................18

4.3.4 Indirect fulfilment ...................................................................18

4.3.5 Direct fulfilment ......................................................................19

4.3.6 Retail Architecture ..................................................................19

4.3.7 RU/IM communication .............................................................23

4.3.8 Full service model ...................................................................23

4.3.9 Governance ............................................................................24

4.3.10 Master plan .........................................................................24

4.4 Review of intermediate documents of the work groups ................... 25

Page 4: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 4/56

4.5 Assessment of project management TAP TSI phase one ................. 25

4.5.1 Assessment of the 1st stage .....................................................26

4.5.2 Assessment of the 2nd stage .....................................................27

5. REVIEW OF THE DELIVERABLES .................................................................... 28

5.1 Overview .................................................................................. 28

5.2 Project documentation ............................................................... 30

5.3 Retail architecture ..................................................................... 32

5.4 Governance .............................................................................. 34

5.5 Master plan .............................................................................. 35

5.6 IT specifications ........................................................................ 36

5.6.1 IT specification for Tariff exchange ............................................36

5.6.2 IT specification for EDIFACT messages covering timetable data

exchange .........................................................................................38

5.6.3 IT specification for electronic reservation of seats/berths and

electronic production of travel documents – exchange of messages .........39

5.6.4 IT specification for direct fulfilment ...........................................40

5.6.5 IT specification for indirect fulfilment .........................................41

5.6.6 IT specification for assistance reservation for PRM ......................42

5.6.7 IT specification for RU/IM communication ..................................43

5.6.8 Transversal remarks about all IT-specifications ...........................43

5.7 Full-service model ..................................................................... 44

6. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 46

6.1 Methodology of the Cost Benefit Analysis ...................................... 46

6.1.1 Cost Assessment ....................................................................46

6.1.2 Benefit Assessment .................................................................47

6.2 Results of the Cost Benefit Analysis ............................................. 49

6.2.1 Resulting Cost Impact .............................................................49

6.2.2 Resulting Benefit Impact ..........................................................51

6.3 Conclusions for the Cost Benefit Analysis ...................................... 54

7. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 56

7.1 The recommendation of ERA for the phase one of TAP TSI .............. 56

Page 5: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 5/56

Tables

Table 1 : Abbreviations ................................................................................ 7

Table 2 : Reference documents ...................................................................... 8

Table 3 : Monthly meetings of ERA with the project management team .....................14

Table 4 : success criteria sheet timetable working group .......................................15

Table 5 : success criteria sheet tariff working group .............................................16

Table 6 : success criteria sheet reservation working group ....................................18

Table 7 : success criteria sheet indirect fulfilment working group .............................18

Table 8 : success criteria sheet direct fulfilment working group ...............................19

Table 9 : success criteria sheet retail architecture working group .............................19

Table 10 : success criteria sheet RU/IM working groups .......................................23

Table 11 : meetings ERA TAP TSI phase one project management team during

assessment of deliveries .............................................................................29

Table 12 : review project documentation TAP TSI phase one stage 1 .......................30

Table 13 : review project documentation TAP TSI phase one stage 2 .......................31

Page 6: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 6/56

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the assignment

The task for the assessment of the deliveries of the TAP TSI phase one was

assigned to ERA based on the EC Regulation 454/2011 [4] published in the

official journal of the EU on 12th May 2011.

According to the chapter 7.2.2.2. of this assignment:

1. The European Railway Agency shall monitor and assess the

development of the detailed IT specifications, governance and master plan

with a view to determining whether the objectives pursued have been

achieved.

2. The European Railway Agency shall submit to the Commission a

recommendation on the detailed IT specifications, governance and master

plan.

This report document is the result of these both activities. It describes in detail

how the monitoring and the final assessment of the deliveries were made by

ERA and what will be the future recommendation of ERA for the detailed IT-

specifications the governance and the master plan.

1.2 Summary

1.2.1 Monitoring and assessment during the phase one of TAP TSI

The EC regulation 454/2011 [4] describes in chapter 7.2.2.2, the responsibility

of ERA to monitor and to assess the development of the detailed IT

specifications, governance and master plan.

This report describes how ERA has done this task between September 2011

and May 2012.

1.2.2 ERA recommendation about the phase one of TAP TSI

The EC regulation 454/2011 [4] describes in chapter 7.2.2.2, the responsibility

of ERA to send to the commission a recommendation about the detailed IT

specifications, governance and master plan. This recommendation shall be sent

- according to chapter 7.2.4 of this regulation - not later than 2 months to the

Commission.

This report describes how ERA has done this task between May 2011 and

September 2012 and its recommendation.

Page 7: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 7/56

2. ABBREVIATIONS AND REFERENCES

2.1 Abbreviations

Table 1 : Abbreviations

Abbreviation Definition

BP Basic parameter

CCB Change Control Board

CCG Common Components Group

CCM Change Control Management

CER Community of European Railways

CI Common Interface

CIT International Rail Transport Committee

CR Change Request

EC European Commission

EIM European Rail Infrastructure Managers

ERA European Railway Agency (also referred to as Agency)

ERD European rail database (a central database proposed for timetable and tariff data)

FSM Full Service Model

PRINCE2 Projects in a controlled environment - version 2

RISC Rail Interoperability and Safety Committee

RNE Rail Net Europe

SteCo Steering committee

TAF Telematics Applications for Freight

TLT Train linked Ticket

TSI Technical Specification for Interoperability

TV Ticket vendor

UIC Union International des Chemins de Fer

UIP International Union of Private Wagons

UNIFE Union des Industries Ferroviaires Européennes

WP Working party organised by ERA

Page 8: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 8/56

2.2 Reference Documents

Table 2 : Reference documents

Ref. N° Document Reference Title Last Issue

[1] Directive 2008/57/EC Interoperability of the conventional rail system 17.06.2008

[2] Regulation (EC) No 881/2004

Agency Regulation and its amendment (EC) No 1335/2008

16.12.2008

[3] TAF TSI Regulation No 62/2006

Commission regulation on the technical specification for interoperability concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the telematic applications for freight subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system

18.01.2006

[4] TAP TSI Regulation (EU) No 454/2011

Commission Regulation on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘telematics applications for passenger services’ of the trans-European rail system.

05.05.2011

[5] [TAP Phase one]-Quality Management Strategy.doc

PRINCE2™- Quality Management Strategy 08.07.2011

Page 9: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 9/56

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Overview

This chapter describe the methodology of ERA for the monitoring of the TAP

TSI phase one by ERA. It explains the methodologies for the assessment f the

TAP TSI phase one and explains why the proposed measures are chosen by

ERA.

The methodology will be explained for the phase of the drafting of the

deliveries of the phase one and for the phase of the assessment of ERA for the

delivered documents after the finalization of the phase one.

3.2 Monitoring and assessment during the TAP TSI phase one

The monitoring and assessment during the TAP TSI phase one was one of the

main tasks of ERA to support the development. The goal of the monitoring and

assessment of the TAP TSI phase one was to follow closely the discussions in

the different work groups, to assess the produced documents and to discuss

with the project management team of the TAP TSI phase one the observations

and remarks of ERA about the ongoing drafting of the document.

3.2.1 Success criteria for the project management

The success criteria for the Project Management Quality were defined in the

quality management strategy of the project as follows by the project team (see

reference documents [5] - PRINCE2™- Quality Management Strategy):

[1] A project extranet site will be available at least during the whole

project for all the stakeholders. This extranet site will contain

description of the TAP Phase One project with the project structure,

responsible persons per work stream, expected deliverables and

expected project timing. The site will also contain all the official

meetings of the project with invitation letter, agenda, supporting

documents and minutes with decisions.

[2] Monthly, intermediate progress and final reports are sent to the

steering committee and it shall take full account of the latter’s

decisions

[3] Decisions made during the project will be transparent and duly

justified so that they can be introduce into the TAP Phase One

deliverables

Page 10: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 10/56

[4] Divergences from originally expected project

planning/deliverables are notified in due time to the steering

committee

[5] Deliverables are delivered according to the expected schedule.

These criteria were used for the assessment by ERA for the final deliveries of

the project.

3.2.2 Measures for the assessment of TAP TSI phase one

ERA has chosen the following measures to monitor the TAP TSI phase one:

1. Monthly reports

The monthly reports of the project team for TAP phase one to the ERA

and the TAP phase one steering committee have ensured that ERA is

informed in a formal way about the progress of the project. ERA has

regularly read these reports in order to gain ERA valuable input for the

meetings with the project management team and the steering

committee.

2. Regular meetings with the project management team

ERA has chosen this measure to be informed about the project status.

The intention of these meeting with the project management team was

to have a continuous information flow about the developments of the

project. These meetings have ensured that ERA was informed about the

progress of the project in all details and had the possibility to discuss

questions from the monthly reports and the work groups in detail with

the project management team.

3. Attendance of ERA as observer in the meetings of the dedicated work

groups

ERA has chosen this option to observe the work of the work groups for

the different IT specifications, the governance and the master plan in

detail. This measure has ensured that the discussions in the work groups

could be understand by ERA and reflected – if needed - in the meetings

with the project management.

4. Review of intermediate documents of the work groups

The method was chosen by ERA to assess the documents foreseen for

the delivery in an earlier stage of the development. This has ensured

that the development of the documents has been made in line with the

TAP TSI legal requirements.

Page 11: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 11/56

3.3 Assessment of the final deliverables

The final assessment of the deliverables of TAP TSI phase one and the

recommendation to the Commission was the second tasks of ERA to support

the development of the TAP TSI phase one documentation. This task has to be

executed according to chapter 7.2.2.2 (2) of EC regulation 454/2011. The goal

of the final assessment was to assess the produced documents and make a

final conclusion if the delivered documents are in line with the requirements of

the TAP TSI and can be used as basis for the TAP TSI implementation phase 2.

3.3.1 Deliverables “detailed IT-specification”

According to the TAP TSI chapter 7.2.3. the following topics shall be included in

the deliverables for the detailed IT-specifications:

“The detailed IT specifications shall describe the system and shall indicate in a

clear and unambiguous manner how the system fulfils the requirements of the

TAP TSI. The development of such specifications requires a systematic analysis

of the relevant technical, operational, economic and institutional issues that

underpin the process of implementing the TAP TSI. Therefore, deliverables

shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

1. Functional, technical and performance specifications, the associated

data, the interface requirements, the security and the quality

requirements.

2. The outline of the global architecture of the system. It shall describe

how the requisite components interact and fit together. This shall be

based on the analysis of the system configurations capable of integrating

the legacy IT facilities, while delivering the required functionality and

performance.”

3.3.2 Deliverable “master plan”

According to the TAP TSI chapter 7.2.3. the following topics shall be included in

the deliverable for the master plan:

“The master plan shall include:

1. The identification of the activities necessary to achieve the

implementation of the system.

2. A migration plan which includes a set of phases that is conducive to

intermediate and verifiable tangible results, from the current framework of

stakeholders’ information and communication systems to the system

itself.

3. A detailed milestone plan.

Page 12: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 12/56

4. A risk assessment of the crucial phases of the master plan.

5. An assessment of the total lifecycle costs (LCC) associated with the

deployment and operation of the system, together with a subsequent

investment plan and the relevant cost-benefit analysis.”

3.3.3 Deliverable “Governance”

According to the TAP TSI chapter 7.2.3. the following topics shall be included in

the deliverable for the governance:

“The governance shall include the identification of the appropriate governance

structures, methods and procedures to support the development and validation

of the system and subsequently its deployment and its field operation and

management throughout its lifetime (including dispute management between

the parties involved under the provisions of this TSI).”

ERA has chosen the following parameters to assess the deliverables

documents:

- Are the documents in line with the requirements in chapter 7.2.3 of the

TAP TSI?

- Is the content of the documents complete, logical and understandable

(e.g. for affected 3rd parties not involved in Phase One)?

- Are the documents consistent with existing ERA TAP TSI TD's?

- Are the delivered documents consistent with the other documents of the

delivery?

Page 13: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 13/56

4. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF TAP TSI PHASE ONE

4.1 Cooperation ERA – project management team

During the whole phase one ERA was strongly supported by the whole project

team. It was a fruitful cooperation between ERA and the involved participants

of the project team. The ERA team in charge of the assessment of the phase

one has received all needed information’s – invitations, meeting minutes,

supporting documents - for the monitoring of the project.

ERA has easily got access to the project workspace on the extranet.

4.2 Regular meetings with the project management team

For the regular communication with the project management team ERA has set

up a monthly meeting with the project management team. The meetings and

the discussed topics are shown in the following table:

Page 14: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 14/56

Table 3 : Monthly meetings of ERA with the project management team

Date Place Topics discussed

26.08.2011 Lille Project management of TAP TSI phase one with PRINCE2

17.10.2011 Lille RU/IM communication, project management with PRINCE2, governance and master plan delivery

05.12.2011 Lille Master plan and governance delivery, ERA feedback on the discussions with the TAP phase one work groups, RU/IM

communication, project management with PRINCE2

24.01.2012 Lille Tariff data exchange, ERA comments on the intermediate report, specific topics from the work streams, RU/IM

communication, master plan delivery

31.01.2012 Lille TAP Phase One Economic Assessment

24.02.2012 Cologne IT specification for tariff data exchange, ERA feedback on the discussions with TAP phase one work group, retail

architecture

19.03.2012 Valenciennes Retail Architecture, Economic Evaluation, Full service model, structure of deliverables, Preparation of Phase Two, Project Management with to PRINCE2 methodology

13.04.2012 Brussels TAP Phase One Economic Assessment

07.05.2012 Valenciennes (phone

conference)

Project management of TAP TSI phase one with PRINCE2, governance deliverable, master plan deliverable

08.06.2012 Lille TAP Phase One Economic Assessment, ERA comments on TAP Phase One deliverables (first run), Project Management

with to PRINCE2 methodology

25-26. 06.2012

Lille ERA comments on TAP Phase One deliverables (second run) incl Full Service Model Stream deliverable,

10.07.2012 Lille Economic Evaluation

10.09.2012 London Economic Evaluation

4.3 Attendance of ERA in the meetings of the dedicated work

groups

ERA has attended on the meetings of the TAP phase one work groups for the

dedicated IT specifications. The meetings of the work groups for timetable,

tariff, reservation, direct and indirect fulfilment, retail architecture and RU/IM

communication were attended by ERA. Because of lack of resources ERA could

not participate in the work group meetings for the master plan, the governance

and the FSM.

The main goal of ERA’s attendance was to check if the success criteria for the

running of the work groups according to chapter 3.2.1 are met. The success

criteria to be applied for the work of the work groups were:

Page 15: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 15/56

- [1] A project extranet site will be available at least during the whole

project for all the stakeholders. This extranet site will contain description

of the TAP Phase One project with the project structure, responsible

persons per work stream, expected deliverables and expected project

timing. The site will also contain all the official meetings of the project

with invitation letter, agenda, supporting documents and minutes with

decisions.

- [3] Decisions made during the project will be transparent and duly

justified so that they can be introduce into the TAP Phase One

deliverables

Those both criteria were checked for all working parties ERA has attended. If

no attendance of ERA in a working party was possible, only the first criterion

was checked.

For the success criteria [1] the extranet workspace of the TAP TSI project1 was

checked if all documents of the work groups (e.g. meeting minutes,

intermediate deliveries, supporting documents) were uploaded on time to the

workspace.

For the success criteria [2] the discussions during the work group meetings

were observed by the ERA project officers. The outcome of the discussions was

documented by the attending ERA project officers in meeting minutes.

The success criteria were rated into three different values:

- Passed: The success criterion was fulfilled.

- Passed with limitations: The success criterion was fulfilled with

limitations which are explained in the remarks.

- Failed: The success criterion was not fulfilled at all.

For each work group the success criteria will be rated with one of these values.

4.3.1 Timetable work group

ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group. The assessment of the

work of the work group is summarized in the table below.

Table 4 : success criteria sheet timetable working group

SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET

Meetings of the work group 5 meetings

ERA attendance 2 meetings

1 http://tap-tsi.uic.org/

Page 16: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 16/56

Success

criteria

[1] project extranet site All documents of the working

party were made available on the

extranet.

Passed

[2] decision making The decision making process

during the working party was

transparent and justified.

Passed

Remarks No additional remarks

ERA approval ERA can approve, that the outputs of this working party can

be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one deliverables.

4.3.2 Tariff work group

ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group. The assessment of the

work of the work group is summarized in the table below.

Table 5 : success criteria sheet tariff working group

SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET

Meetings of the work group 6 meetings

ERA attendance 4 meetings

Success

criteria

[1] project extranet site All documents of the working

party were made available on the

extranet.

Passed

[2] decision making The decision making process

during the working party was

transparent and justified.

Passed

Remarks ERA’s general observation of this working party is that there

was in the first meetings used to discuss purely commercial

difficulties of the existing distribution systems and

commercial agreements between the railway undertakings.

In the PRINCE2 exception report for the 1st stage of the

project it was stated that all ERA technical documents for the

exchange of tariff data are not fit for purpose of the current

Page 17: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 17/56

business environment of the railways. Such statements were

surprisingly for ERA, because at least the corresponding UIC

leaflets for B.1 and B.2 are used by the railways.

For instance there was debated how the basic parameter BP

4.2.2.1 (The railway undertaking makes available its own

tariffs to other railway undertakings, authorised public bodies

and third parties authorised to sell). It is not clear if the

railway undertakings have to publish all their tariffs for

international and foreign sales to other RUs or only to those

which them a distribution agreement exists. This discussion

was raised by the project team as official letter to EC, to

clarify this question. The question was discussed in a joint

meeting on 28.06.2012 with the project team, EC (DG MOVE,

DG COMP) and ERA. A final decision has not been made until

the publication of the recommendation.

Another problem discussed frequently was the usage of the

TAP TSI technical document B.3 for special tariffs. This

technical document was derived from an UIC-leaflet which is

currently not used by the sector. It was discussed during the

work group meetings if this technical document can be

removed from the annex III of TAP TSI. ERA had several

discussions with the project team without a comprehensible

justification why this document is not fit for purpose.

The last example for a frequently discussed problem was the

so called train linked ticket (TLT). It was stated that those

frequently used tickets (e.g. Europa spezial-offer) are not

compatible with the current structures of the ERA technical

documents for tariff data. Finally after long discussions with

ERA the rail sector has decided that TLT will not be part of the

tariff IT specification.

ERA has the impression that because of those discussions

valuable time was lost to discuss solution proposals for

technical and organisational problems.

ERA approval ERA can approve, that the outputs of this working party can

be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one deliverables.

Page 18: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 18/56

4.3.3 Reservation

ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group. The assessment of the

work of the work group is summarized in the table below.

Table 6 : success criteria sheet reservation working group

SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET

Meetings of the work group 5 meetings

ERA attendance 3 meetings

Success

criteria

[1] project extranet site All documents of the working

party were made available on the

extranet.

Passed

[2] decision making The decision making process

during the working party was

transparent and justified.

Passed

Remarks No additional remarks

ERA approval ERA can approve, that the outputs of this working party can

be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one deliverables.

4.3.4 Indirect fulfilment

ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group. The assessment of the

work of the work group is summarized in the table below.

Table 7 : success criteria sheet indirect fulfilment working group

SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET

Meetings of the work group 5 meetings

ERA attendance 2 meetings

Success

criteria

[1] project extranet site All documents of the working

party were made available on the

extranet.

Passed

[2] decision making The decision making process

during the working party was

transparent and justified.

Page 19: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 19/56

Passed

Remarks No additional remarks

ERA approval ERA can approve, that the outputs of this working party can

be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one deliverables.

4.3.5 Direct fulfilment

ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group. The assessment of the

work of the work group is summarized in the table below.

Table 8 : success criteria sheet direct fulfilment working group

SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET

Meetings of the work group 5 meetings

ERA attendance 2 meetings

Success

criteria

[1] project extranet site All documents of the working

party were made available on the

extranet.

Passed

[2] decision making The decision making process

during the working party was

transparent and justified.

Passed

Remarks No additional remarks

ERA approval ERA can approve, that the outputs of this working party can

be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one deliverables.

4.3.6 Retail Architecture

ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group. The assessment of the

work of the work group is summarized in the table below.

Table 9 : success criteria sheet retail architecture working group

SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET

Meetings of the work group 8 meetings

ERA attendance 6 meetings

Success

criteria

[1] project extranet site All documents of the working

party were made available on the

extranet.

Page 20: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 20/56

Passed with limitations

[2] decision making The decision making process

during the working party was

transparent and justified.

Passed with limitations

Remarks ERA has checked the project extranet site if all documents are

available. The meeting minutes of several meetings

(21.10.2011, 23.01.2012, 20.04.2012) are not available on

the extranet site. So the outcomes of the meetings cannot be

followed.

ERA has observed the meetings of this working party closely.

ERA has assumed that the discussions and the outcome of

this working party are essential for the success of the whole

project TAP TSI phase one. Therefore it was decided at ERA

to take part on the most meetings of the work group.

The main observation of ERA for the work done by this

working party was the discussion about purely commercial

difficulties within this technical work group. One example for

this was the question about the publication of timetable data.

TAP TSI defines in the basic parameter 4.2.1 (Exchange of

timetable data) clearly that an RU shall make available

timetable data to another railway undertaking, to third parties

and to public bodies. It was discussed several times about the

commercial issues such as fees for the data download, to

whom the data should be made available and the commercial

relationships between the involved parties, topics for the

discussion within the governance work stream.

The most important question which has to be decided in this

work stream was the usage of a central database for the

exchange of timetable and tariff information on the one side

and as second option the usage of a decentralise architecture

solution with FTP-servers for this task.Because this question

is fundamental for the set-up and the operation of the

TAP TSI system, it has to be ensured that all discussions to

support the final decision for the final architecture are duly

justified, documented and made in a fair and transparent

manner.

It has been observed by ERA during the meetings and in

Page 21: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 21/56

official letters to ERA that the transparency for the decision

making process of this working party was not always handled

in a fair balance.

ERA has assessed the decision making process between the

two proposed architectures especially for the exchange of

timetable and tariff data (decentralise architecture with FTP-

servers and a registry, central database). On the basis of the

available meeting minutes and the presentations for the work

group and the TAP TSI steering committee, the decision for

the preferred architecture scenario 1 is not clearly

retraceable:

- During the architecture work group meeting on

15.12.2011 in Brussels, the selection of the preferred

architecture by a selection grid and the appropriate

parameters were agreed. For timetable data exchange

the procedures FTP-push, FTP-pull and ERD were

assessed. For tariff data the procedures FTP-Pull, Price

message and ERD.

- This grid was presented with the individual assessments

for stakeholders during the meeting on 23.01.2012 in

London. The grid was implemented with different

weighing factors for RU’s and TV’s (1 for RU’s, 2 for

TV’s). From ERAs point of view there is no justification

for the chosen weighting. The timetable data exchange

the grid has shown that a central database solution has

the highest ranking. For tariff data an interactive price

message – which has to be specified – has the highest

ranking and the central database the 2nd best ranking.

Nevertheless the communicated result of this working

party was, that the distributed solution with individual

FTP-servers for each RU and a central registry

(“address book”) to locate these servers is the

preferred solution. No meeting minutes for this meeting

are available.

- ETTSA has sent on the 16.02.2012 an official position

paper to the work group leader, which has explained

from their experience the risks of the distributed

solution and their preference for a central database.

Page 22: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 22/56

This paper was forwarded after the work group meeting

on 21.02.2012 and therefore it was not taken into

account in this meeting. The document was forwarded

with comments of the work group leader. Even for this

meeting on 21.02.2012 no meeting minutes are

available.

- The steering committee on 06.03.2012 has taken the

decision based on the proposed information’s (see

meeting minutes): “The SteCo tentatively (pending

receiving the economic evaluation and a description of

the data quality management) approved the proposal

for architecture scenario 1, with the additional

requirement that the new dynamic fares/availability

message (for yield managed fares) is covered, probably

as a replacement for the current B5.”

From ERA’s point of view the decision for the preferred

architecture is not well justified by the available documents

(e.g. meeting minutes). ERA has highlighted this fact during

the SteCo on 06.03.2012.

ERA has furthermore received letters from participants of the

working party (notably from ticket vendors), that not all

opinions raised during the working parties are reflected

properly in the available meeting minutes.

ERA’s conclusion for the assessment of the working partyfor

retail architecture is that the decision making process for the

preferred architecture is not clearly documented. This can

lead to risks for the implementation of the proposed

architecture if the chosen solution is not possible or to difficult

to implement.

ERA approval ERA recommends to review the architecture in case of the

following conditions:

- If the occurring benefits do not cover the occuring costs

of implementing and maintaining the proposed

architecture during the implementation and operation.

- If a best practice for proposed architecture (is this

architecture already used somewhere else for

comparable purposes ?) cannot be demonstrated.

In case of the need for review a feasibility study has to be

Page 23: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 23/56

performed demonstrating that the functionalities already

described in the Retail Architecture deliverable can be

realized through central database solution.

4.3.7 RU/IM communication

ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group and the joint RU/IM

work group for reference data. The assessment of the work of the work group

is summarized in the table below.

Table 10 : success criteria sheet RU/IM working groups

SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET

Meetings of the work group 8 meetings (planning)

7 meetings (Train running)

7 meetings (RU/IM architecture)

ERA attendance 2 meetings

Success

criteria

[1] project extranet site All documents of the working

party were made available on the

extranet.

Passed

[2] decision making The decision making process

during the working party was

transparent and justified.

Passed

Remarks No additional remarks

ERA approval ERA can approve, that the outputs of this working party can

be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one deliverables.

4.3.8 Full service model

ERA has not attended the meetings of the full service model workstream, due

to lack of resources. This work stream is not required by TAP TSI and

consequently not in scope – for the time being – of the ERA recommendation.

Page 24: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 24/56

4.3.9 Governance

ERA has not attended on the meetings of the governance workstream, due to

lack of resources. It is, however, not clear to ERA how the process of

generating the Governance Deliverable was organised (where were the

meetings ? which parties were consulted ? etc). The assessment of the work of

the work group is summarized in the table below.

SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET

Meetings of the work group not communicated to ERA

ERA attendance No ERA attendance

Success

criteria

[1] project extranet site Not Passed

[2] decision making Not Passed

Remarks No additional remarks

ERA approval ERA can approve, however, that the outputs of this working

party can be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one

deliverables.

4.3.10 Master plan

ERA has not attended on the meetings of the master plan workstream, due to

lack of resources. It is, however, not clear to ERA how the process of

generating the Master plan Deliverable was organised (where were the

meetings ? which parties were consulted ? etc). The assessment of the work of

the work group is summarized in the table below.

SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET

Meetings of the work group not communicated to ERA

ERA attendance No ERA attendance

Success

criteria

[1] project extranet site Not Passed

[2] decision making Not Passed

Remarks No additional remarks

ERA approval ERA can approve, however, that the outputs of this working

party can be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one

deliverables.

Page 25: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 25/56

4.4 Review of intermediate documents of the work groups

ERA has provided during the TAP TSI phase one a review of the intermediate

deliveries of the IT specifications. This review should ensure that those

specifications are in line with the TAP TSI and to support the sector to fulfil the

requirements from TAP TSI.

ERA has reviewed the IT specifications for the following intermediate

documents by end of March 2012:

- Tariff IT specification

- Timetable IT specification

- Reservation IT specification

- Fulfilment IT specification (direct and indirect)

- Retail architecture

- RU/IM communication

The following intermediate documents were reviewed on 30.04.2012 by ERA:

- Governance

- Master plan

The documents were reviewed by the ERA project officers in charge of the TAP

TSI and send back with comments to the work group leaders. The ERA

comments were in most cases taken into account or rejected by the work

group leader with a justification. The reviewed documents are available on the

TAP TSI workspace.

4.5 Assessment of project management TAP TSI phase one

The project management of the TAP TSI phase one was made according to the

project management standard PRINCE2. This was the decision of the project

management team. ERA has assessed during the phase one project if the

project was managed according to the standards defined by PRINCE2 and the

required documents are produced.

The assessment of the project management of the TAP TSI phase one was

based on the quality criteria set-up in the Quality management strategy

document:

[1] A project extranet site will be available at least during the whole

project for all the stakeholders. This extranet site will contain

description of the TAP Phase One project with the project structure,

responsible persons per work stream, expected deliverables and

expected project timing. The site will also contain all the official

Page 26: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 26/56

meetings of the project with invitation letter, agenda, supporting

documents and minutes with decisions.

[2] Monthly, intermediate progress and final reports are sent to the

steering committee and it shall take full account of the latter’s

decisions

[3] Decisions made during the project will be transparent and duly

justified so that they can be introduce into the TAP Phase One

deliverables

[4] Divergences from originally expected project

planning/deliverables are notified in due time to the steering

committee

[5] Deliverables are delivered according to the expected schedule.

It was proposed by the project management team that TAP Phase One will be

divided into three stages as follows and will be documented according PRINCE2

requirements. The following 3 stages were proposed:

1. 1st stage from the signature of the UIC-DG MOVE grant contract

(AGREEMENT NUMBER - MOVE/B2/SUBV/2011-446/SI2.610758) starting

on 12 May 2011 until the delivery of the intermediate report on 08 Dec

2011.

The contract between EC and the project team – represented by UIC –

was concluded for a complementary support of the work of the project

team by public funding.

2. 2nd stage from the delivery date of above intermediate report until the

delivery of the final report on 13 May 2012

3. 3rd stage from the delivery date of above final report until the delivery of

the ERA recommendation on the TAP Phase One deliverables to DG

MOVE (not later than 2 months after ERA has received them).

For the assessment the stages 1 and 2 are taken into account. The third

stage was not assessed by ERA, because this stage was mainly under the

responsibility of ERA.

4.5.1 Assessment of the 1st stage

The 1st stage of the TAP TSI phase one was planned to be executed between

the signature of the contract between the EC and the project team and the

delivery of the intermediate report.

During this phase the set-up of the project and the analysis of the existing

legacy systems was be in the focus of the project. The project was authorized

by the TAP TSI phase on steering committee on the 08.07.2011. ERA’s review

Page 27: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 27/56

for this phase will be therefore restricted to the timeframe between

08.07.2011 and 08.12.2011 (delivery of the intermediate report).

According to the requirements laid down in chapter 4.5, ERA has assessed the

execution of the 1st stage of the project:

Project internet site: The Internet site was set-up by the project team on

30.08.2011. Since then the site has been used to upload all documents

relevant for the project. All documents for the project management were

published and available in the member area. This parameter has to be

considered as successfully passed.

Monthly reports: The monthly reports were sent on time to the steering

committee and are also published on the TAP TSI extranet workspace.

Decisions making: The decision making in the working parties is analyzed in

chapter 4.3.

Divergences from originally planned deliveries: During the stage one the

deliveries were delivered on time.

Conclusion: The outcome of this stage was approved by the steering

committee, which is also supported by ERA.

4.5.2 Assessment of the 2nd stage

The 2nd stage of the TAP TSI phase one was executed between the approval of

the results of the 1st stage phase and the delivery of the final deliveries on the

13.05.2012.

During this phase the finalization of the deliverables was in the focus of the

work of the project team.

According to the requirements laid down in chapter 4.5, ERA has assessed the

execution of the 2nd stage of the project:

Project internet site: All documents for the project management were

published and available in the member area. This parameter has to be

considered as passed.

Monthly reports: The monthly reports were sent on time to the steering

committee and are also published on the TAP TSI extranet workspace. For May

2012 no monthly report was published, because the stage was finished mid

May.

Decisions making: The decision making in the working parties is analyzed in

chapter 4.3.

Page 28: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 28/56

5. REVIEW OF THE DELIVERABLES

5.1 Overview

ERA has received on 13.05.2012 by email the following final deliverables of the

TAP TSI phase one documents:

- Introduction to phase one deliverables (V1.0)

- Retail architecture (V1.0)

- Tariff IT Specification (V1.0)

- Reservation IT Specification (V1.0)

- Direct Fulfilment IT Specification (V1.0)

- Indirect Fulfilment IT Specification (V1.0)

- PRM Assistance IT Specification (V1.0)

- RU/IM communication IT Specification (V1.0)

- Governance (V1.0)

- Master plan (V1.0)

- Full Service Model (V1.0)

These above documents were sent by email by the project manager to all

members of the steering committee and the ERA project officers in charge of

the telematic applications2.

An additional delivery was agreed between ERA and the TAP TSI phase one

project management team on 07.05.2012: the extraction of the CR’s for the

ERA technical documents from the drafted IT specifications and their

submission to the TAP TSI CCM IT-tool. ERA has received until 12.07.2012

33 change requests which are stored in the TAP TSI CCM IT-tool. These CR’s

shall be handled in the TAP TSI CCM working party to be introduced, if duly

justified, in the TAP TSI technical documents. During the assessment phase

ERA has made the following meetings with the TAP TSI phase one project

management:

2 It is important to state that ERA has not received for above deliverables a “fit for purpose”

statement from the project team even though ERA has requested it several times in writing.

Page 29: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 29/56

Table 11 : meetings ERA TAP TSI phase one project management team during assessment of deliveries

Date Place Topics

08.06.2012 Lille Remarks of ERA about the deliveries

25.06.2012/26.06.2012 Lille Remarks of ERA about the deliveries

10.07.2012 Lille Benefit assessment

During the review phase ERA has received updated versions of the following

deliverables:

Date Documents

21.06.2012 RU/IM IT-specification

24.06.2012 IT Architecture

02.07.2012 IT Architecture

05.07.2012 RU/IM IT-specification

09.07.2012 Master plan and governance

12.07.2012 Tariff IT-Specification, Timetable IT-Specification,

Direct fulfilment IT-Specification, Indirect fulfilment

IT-Specification, PRM assistance IT-Specification,

Reservation IT-Specification

Supporting documents for change requests

ERA has reviewed the received documents, if they contain the proposed

changes by ERA or justified explanations why the proposed change was not

accepted.

ERA has finally approved these deliverables and recommend to attach them as

technical documents in Annex III or Annex V of the TAP TSI. . During the

phase one further possibilities for the status of the deliverables were

discussed: if the deliverables for the retail architecture, the governance, the

master plan and the detailed IT-specifications can be linked to the TAP TSI

published by ERA in the form of Means Of Compliance/Technical Document.

ERA has analyzed this proposal, but it was discovered, that such a publication

would not be in line with the interoperability directive 2008/57/EC article 5 (8):

“TSIs may make an explicit, clearly identified reference to European or

international standards or specifications or technical documents published by

the Agency where this is strictly necessary in order to achieve the objective of

this Directive. In such case, these standards or specifications (or the relevant

parts) or technical documents shall be regarded as annexes to the TSI

Page 30: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 30/56

concerned and shall become mandatory from the moment the TSI is

applicable.” According to this provisions a reference to “Terms of Compliance”

is not possible in a TSI. However the possibility to publish technical documents

in the form of Means Of Compliance shall be analyzed further and – if such a

possibility is considered as reasonable – the changes of the relevant legislation

(e.g. 2008/57/EC) shall be addressed by the Commission.

5.2 Project documentation

Beyond the final deliverables summarized in chapter 5.1 above the project

team has paid great attention to run and document the TAP Phase Project

according to the PRINCE2 project management standards. According to the

PRINCE2 standard the project and its various stages have to be documented

with a defined set of project documents. Those documents are for instance:

- Business case (description of the business case for the project)

- Project initiation document (for the initiation of the project)

- Daily log (for the daily project events)

- Lessons log (logging of lessons learned in the project)

- Stage plan (for the planning of the different stages of a project)

ERA has reviewed the project and its agreed stages on basis of the PRINCE 2

documents.

For the project documentation of the 1st stage ERA has received on the on the

08.07.2011 the following documents according to the PRINCE 2 project

management:

Table 12 : review project documentation TAP TSI phase one stage 1

PRINCE2

document

Available on TAP

TSI workspace

ERA remark

Authority to

initiate a project

Yes

Communication

management

strategy

Pending File must be uploaded to the project

workspace.

Approval records

for Stage 1 (TAP

SteCo meeting

Yes

Page 31: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 31/56

minutes

26.01.2012)

End stage report

(Meeting minute

SteCo

07.12.2011)

Yes

Daily log (Yes) File must be uploaded to the project

workspace.

Daily log discontinued after 08.03.2012

Exception report Yes

Highlight Reports

(monthly reports

for this Stage)

Yes

Stage Plan Pending

Team Plan Pending

For the 2nd stage – similar as for the 1st one – the following set of PRINCE2

documents were provided by the project team by 13.07.2012:

Table 13 : review project documentation TAP TSI phase one stage 2

PRINCE2

document

Available on TAP

TSI workspace

ERA remark

Approval records

(TAP SteCo

meeting minutes

with decisions)

Yes

End stage

report(s) (final

deliverables)

Yes

Exception report Yes

Highlight Reports

(monthly reports

for this Stage)

Yes

Daily log (Yes) Daily log discontinued after 08.03.2012

Exception report Yes

Highlight Reports Yes

Page 32: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 32/56

(monthly reports

for this Stage)

Stage Plan Yes

Team Plan Yes

The project documentation is approved with the request to the project team to

kindly upload asap the pending/discontinued PRINCE2 documents to the

project workspace.

5.3 Retail architecture

ERA has reviewed the architecture deliverable if this document fulfils the

requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The following points

were checked:

1. The outline of the global architecture of the system. It shall describe how

the requisite components interact and fit together.

The outline of the architecture is described in this deliverable. an

overview about the global architecture is described in the chapter 9.2 of

the deliverable with a general overview about the involved actors and the

communication between each other. The central part of the architecture

– a central registry acting as “address book” to discover the needed

actors and their information – , the components for the individual

stakeholders and the procedures for the communication between each

other are described in chapter 9 of the deliverable.

2. analysis of the system configurations capable of integrating the legacy IT

facilities, while delivering the required functionality and performance

The working party has proposed and analyzed two different architecture

scenarios, a central database with a central quality check and integration

of timetable and fare data and a decentralise distributed solution with a

registry to locate the distributed components (e.g. for timetable, fares)

of the involved actors. This discussion was the most important discussion

during the drafting of the architecture deliverable. The deliverable

describes the results of the finally selected solution. A short description

of the central database architecture and the disadvantages of this

solution could be helpful to understand the advantages of the selected

architecture (say of the registry compared to the central database one).

The needed functionalities and the performance of the solution are

described in the deliverable document.

Page 33: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 33/56

Beside of the parameters above ERA has checked also if the deliverable has

been written in such a manner that it can be easily understood by third parties

which will have to implement and operate it. Especially for the architecture

deliverable it is important, because it shall be used for the tendering of the

central components of the architecture. Thus, a clear description of the

architecture without ambiguity can ensure that the tender will be successful

and the architecture can be implemented.

That’s why it is so important to have the clear description of the interaction

between the components and the description of the data structure. These parts

are described in the deliverable with graphical overviews and additional textual

descriptions. However these drawings are made with project specific symbols

and elements even if widely accepted industry IT standards for the

documentation exists (e.g. UML).

One additional crucial point is the “proof of concept” of the proposed

architecture. One of the main advantages of the central database architecture

proposal for timetables and fares is that for this central architecture

implementations are available and widely used in other industries. For the

proposed architecture with a central registry it could not be shown by the

project team that such architecture is already in use. ERA has requested

several times to provide examples of such a complex architecture. The risk of

such non existing examples is, that the architecture may not be implemented

successfully as nobody has with that an appropriate experience.

Furthermore a clear migration strategy from the current rail retail architecture

is missing.

The deliverable “TAP TSI Retail Architecture” can be implemented in phase 2 of

the TAP TSI under following conditions. Following two measures must be taken

in order to enhance the TAP TSI retail architecture deliverable:

1. Improvement of readability of the document (UML, glossary)

The current architecture document shall be amended TAP during Phase two in

such a way that the readability of the document will be improved significantly.

This includes - beyond incorporation of remaining and not treated ERA remarks

- the usage of UML as modelling and documentation language and the

rephrasing of unclear chapters.

The proposed TAP TSI retail architecture description will be – consequently –

less ambiguous for third parties (which have not attended the retail

architecture work stream meetings but will have to implement and operate the

Page 34: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 34/56

architecture) and will not be re-discussed again during the development and

deployment/operation.

2. Migration strategy towards this architecture

A migration strategy from the current architecture of the legacy systems of the

railways to the proposed architecture shall be developed. This migration

strategy shall be added to the architecture deliverable.

ERA recommends to EC to incorporate above two measures into the decision

part of the legal act amending the TAP TSI.

Above two measures can be done in parallel to TAP Phase 2, thus, they will not

lead to delay in the development and deployment of TAP TSI.

The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.60 to

the TAP TSI.

5.4 Governance

ERA has reviewed the governance deliverable if this document fulfils the

requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The following points

were checked:

1. the identification of the appropriate governance structures, methods and

procedures to support the development

2. the identification of the appropriate governance structures, methods and

procedures to support the validation of the system

3. the identification of the appropriate governance structures, methods and

procedures to support the its field operation and management

throughout its lifetime (including dispute management between the

parties involved under the provisions of this TSI)

The rules for development, the validation and the operation of the system are

not defined separately. The assessment will be made for the three points

above together.

The Governance deliverable defines the needed governance structure, the

methods and the procedures in an appropriate detailed level. The structures

defined in chapter 8 of this deliverable are reasonable and well structured

described. The governance rules are clearly defined, understandable and

Page 35: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 35/56

ensure a balance between interests of the involved stakeholders. The dispute

management is ensured through a conciliation service.

The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.61 to

the TAP TSI.

The deliverable “TAP TSI governance” is fit for purpose for the phase 2 of the

TAP TSI implementation.

5.5 Master plan

ERA has reviewed the master plan if this document fulfils the requirements for

acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The following points were checked:

1. The identification of the activities necessary to achieve the

implementation of the system.

The needed activities are clearly defined in the master-plan deliverable.

All activities are identified and described in a sufficient detail level.

2. A migration plan which includes a set of phases that is conducive to

intermediate and verifiable tangible results, from the current framework

of stakeholders’ information and communication systems to the system

itself.

The deliverable contains a detailed migration plan for clearly defined

phases to migrate the current IT-framework to the fully operable TAP TSI

system. All phases are underpinned with subtasks which are achievable

and can be verified to check the progress of the implementation of the

TAP TSI. However the detailed technical specifications to migrate from

the current retail architecture to the TAP TSI compliant architecture have

to be described in the TAP TSI retail architecture deliverable.

3. A detailed milestone plan.

The deliverable contains a detailed milestone plan. The following

milestones are defined in the master plan:

• 2013 Q2 – TAP TSI Regulation republished

• 2013 Q4 – TAP TSI governance entity formed

• 2014 Q3 – TAP TSI regulatory services operational – Phase Three

starts

• 2016 Q1 – RUs meet their retail regulatory obligations.

These milestones are underpinned with tasks to be executed before the

milestone can be recognized as reached.

4. A risk assessment of the crucial phases of the master plan.

Page 36: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 36/56

The masterplan deliverable contains a risk assessment of the risks for

the proposed timetable. All major risks are indicated in the table in

chapter 15. All risks are indicated with their possible impact and the level

of probability. This list gives a good basis for reactions in case if such a

risk occurs during the development and deployment of the TAP TSI.

5. An assessment of the total lifecycle costs (LCC) associated with the

deployment and operation of the system, together with a subsequent

investment plan and the relevant cost-benefit analysis.

The masterplan deliverable contains an analysis of the costs for the

implementation and operation of the regulatory services. The total

lifecycle costs of the whole system – including the costs for individual

stakeholders - are not taken into account. This was the dedicated task of

the cost-benefit-analysis for TAP TSI architecture. The costs of the

regulatory services are reasonable. The coverage of the costs can be

achieved by the proposed

The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.62 to

the TAP TSI.

The deliverable “Master plan” is fit for purpose for the phase 2 of the TAP TSI

implementation.

5.6 IT specifications

This chapter describe in detail the assessment of the detailed IT specifications.

5.6.1 IT specification for Tariff exchange

ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for the tariff data exchange if

this document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3.

The deliverable shall contain the “Functional, technical and performance

specifications, the associated data, the interface requirements, the security

and the quality requirements.” All of the required information’s are covered in

this tariff IT-specification deliverable. It describes the additional information,

the requirements and procedures to implement for the tariff data exchange

based on the technical document B.1, B.2 and B.3. The content of the

document is complete, logical structured and in line with the TAP TSI technical

document for tariff data exchange.

1. Functional, technical and performance specifications

The functional, technical and performance parameters are described in

the deliverable in a detailed level. Together with the TAP TSI technical

Page 37: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 37/56

documents for fare exchange, the needed processes can be understand

and implemented.

2. Associated data

The main focus of this deliverable is the description of the associated

data, needed for the exchange of fare data. It adds detailed explanation

and use cases for the tariff data usage to the existing TAP TSI technical

documents.

3. Interface requirements

The interface requirements are already covered by the TAP TSI technical

documents for the tariff data exchange.

4. Security requirements

The security rules are defined in the deliverable.

5. Quality requirements

The quality rules are a major topic of the deliverable. These quality rules

for tariff data are defined in a detailed and understandable level in the

deliverable. These rules can be implemented in the quality management

tool of the TAP TSI architecture.

ERA has detected some questions which should be taken into account during

phase two.

The most important question is that currently the discussion about the

obligations of the RU’s to publish the tariff data to whom is not solved. For the

time being it is not clear if the RU’s have to publish their tariff data to:

- to the railway undertakings3 and third parties to which it grants

authorisation to sell according to distribution agreements - authorized public bodies

After meetings between the sector and DG COMP/DG MOVE the question is still

open and shall be decided finally in further meetings. This question must be

adjusted in the IT specification after the decision.

The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.51 to

the TAP TSI.

3 There is an ongoing discussion between the rail sector and the EC, if also for other RU’s the

restriction for third parties “to which it grants authorisation to sell according to distribution

agreements” is applicable. The interpretation is not yet finally decided.

Page 38: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 38/56

The deliverable “Tariff IT specification” –is fit for purpose for the phase 2 of the

TAP TSI implementation.

5.6.2 IT specification for EDIFACT messages covering timetable data exchange

ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for the timetable exchange if this

document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The

content of the document is in all parts complete, logical structured and in line

with the TAP TSI technical document B.4. The IT specification describes the

additional information, the requirements and procedures to implement the

timetable exchange based on the technical document B.4.

1. Functional, technical and performance specifications

The functional, technical and performance parameters are described in

the deliverable in a detailed level. Together with the TAP TSI technical

document B.4 for timetable data exchange, the needed processes can be

understand and implemented.

2. Associated data

The main focus of this deliverable is the description of the associated

data, needed for the exchange of timetable data. It adds numerous

detailed explanations and use cases for the timetable data usage to the

existing TAP TSI technical document B.4.

3. Interface requirements

The interface requirements are already covered by the TAP TSI technical

documents for the timetable data exchange.

4. Security requirements

The security rules are defined in the deliverable.

5. Quality requirements

The quality rules are a major topic of the deliverable. A full list of

mandatory quality rules is defined in a detailed and understandable level

in the deliverable. This list can be implemented in the quality

management tool of the TAP TSI architecture.

The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.50 to

the TAP TSI.

The deliverable “Timetables IT specification” is fit for purpose for the phase 2

of the TAP TSI implementation.

Page 39: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 39/56

5.6.3 IT specification for electronic reservation of seats/berths and electronic

production of travel documents – exchange of messages

ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for the reservation if this

document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The

content of the document is in all parts complete, logical structured and in line

with the TAP TSI technical document B.5.

1. Functional, technical and performance specifications

The functional, technical and performance parameters are described in

the deliverable in a detailed level. Together with the TAP TSI technical

document for reservation message exchange, the needed processes can

be understand and implemented.

2. Associated data

The main focus of this deliverable is the description of the associated

data, needed for the exchange of reservation messages according to TAP

TSI technical document B.5. It adds numerous detailed use cases with

examples for the reservation data exchange to the existing TAP TSI

technical document B.5.

3. Interface requirements

The interface requirements are already covered by the TAP TSI technical

documents for the reservation message exchange.

4. Security requirements

The security rules are defined in the deliverable.

5. Quality requirements

There are no dedicated Quality requirements for the exchange of

reservation messages defined in this document. It is described that the

quality has to be ensured through a campaign of compliance tests –

agreed between the involved parties. The test cases of the test campaign

are as consequence not described in the deliverable.

The specific remarks in the chapters (6.5 and 7.2) CR’s will be treated as

change requests in the TAP TSI CCM. After approval of these change requests,

the affected specific remarks can be removed.

The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.52 to

the TAP TSI.

The deliverable “Reservation IT Specification” is fit for purpose for the phase 2

of the TAP TSI implementation.

Page 40: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 40/56

5.6.4 IT specification for direct fulfilment

ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for direct fulfilment if this

document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The

content of the document is in all parts complete, logical structured and in line

with the TAP TSI technical document B.6. The IT specification describes the

additional information, the requirements and procedures to implement the

direct fulfilment based on the technical document B.6.

1. Functional, technical and performance specifications

The functional, technical and performance parameters are described in

the deliverable in a detailed level. Together with the TAP TSI technical

document for direct fulfilment, the needed processes can be understand

and implemented.

2. Associated data

The associated data are already described in the TAP TSI technical

document B.6.

3. Interface requirements

There are no interface requirements for the direct fulfilment.

4. Security requirements

The security rules (e.g. security elements for the ticket paper) are not

taken into account in this deliverable. Security rules are managed under

the responsibility of CIT and not available for non CIT-members.

5. Quality requirements

There are no dedicated quality requirements for the direct fulfilment

defined in this deliverable.

The specific remarks in chapter 6.3.2 will be treated as change request for B.6

in the TAP TSI CCM. After approval of these change requests, the affected

specific remarks can be removed.ERA has detected some questions which

should be taken into account during phase two.

The first question concerns some unclear provisions and obligations of the

actors in conjunction the role of CIT. CIT supports the RU’s with the

implementation of the international railway law. This includes the specification

of the security elements of the paper – called “blank coupons” - used for the

printing of tickets according to the layout defined in B.6. Those coupons will be

procured by CIT. The IT specification for direct fulfilment or the governance

document shall be therefore clearly define the procedures for each actor (e.g.

railway undertaking, ticket vendor) to be involved in the processes of CIT, e.g.

Page 41: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 41/56

for the access to the CIT specification documents for security elements for the

blank coupons or the purchase of those blank coupons. This question shall be

discussed further with CIT and has to be decided during the TAP TSI phase

two.

For the question ERA has asked the project team to enhance the chapter 10

(governance) with the procedures for the organisational steps for RUs to have

their trains sold by others and organisational steps to be involved in the

settlement procedures. This question shall be discussed further with CIT and

has to be decided during the TAP TSI phase two.

For the third question ERA has further requested to provide test cases to check

the compatibility of the printed tickets with the TAP TSI technical document

B.6. These test cases were not provided by the project team and should be

added during the TAP TSI phase two (development).

The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.53 to

the TAP TSI.

The deliverable “Direct fulfilment IT specification” is fit for purpose for the

phase 2 of the TAP TSI implementation.

5.6.5 IT specification for indirect fulfilment

ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for indirect fulfilment if this

document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The

content of the document is in all parts complete, logical structured and in line

with the TAP TSI technical document B.7.

1. Functional, technical and performance specifications

The functional, technical and performance parameters are described in

the deliverable in a detailed level. Together with the TAP TSI technical

document for indirect fulfilment, the needed processes can be

understand and implemented.

2. Associated data

The associated data are already described in the TAP TSI technical

document B.7.

3. Interface requirements

The interface is already described in the TAP TSI technical document B.7.

4. Security requirements

The security rules are already described in the TAP TSI technical

document B.7.

5. Quality requirements

Page 42: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 42/56

There are some quality requirements for the indirect fulfilment defined in

this deliverable. The current definition for “Correct interaction with other

systems” defines only, that the quality has to be ensured through a

campaign of compliance tests – agreed between the involved parties.

The test cases of the test campaign are as consequence not described in

the deliverable.

The improvements for the technical document B.7 (e.g. chapter 8.1, 9.2.2) will

be treated as change request for B.7 in the TAP TSI CCM. After approval of

these change requests, the affected specific remarks can be removed.

ERA has detected some questions which should be taken into account during

phase two.

The first question is related to chapter 10 “Current situation“. This chapter

shall be rephrased to give B.7 a binding character. According to TAP TSI BP

4.2.11. (Fulfilment — indirect — for international and foreign sales) these

tickets shall be compliant with TAP TSI technical document B.7. It should be

stated clearly that the technical document B.7 is legally binding for all RU’s for

the implementation of TAP TSI and proprietary ticket formats for indirect

fulfilment will be obsolete. For this purpose it could be helpful for the RU’s to

request a migration strategy. This should be taken into account during the TAP

TSI phase two.

For the second question detailed test cases for the compliance tests shall be

described for the indirect fulfilment (e.g. for the message exchange between

the involved parties). These test cases were not provided by the project team

and should be added during the TAP TSI phase two (development).

The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.54 to

the TAP TSI.

The deliverable “Indirect fulfilment IT specification” is fit for purpose for the

phase 2 of the TAP TSI implementation.

5.6.6 IT specification for assistance reservation for PRM

ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for assistance reservation for

PRM if this document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to

chapter 3.3. The content of the document is in all parts complete, logical

structured and in line with the TAP TSI technical document B.10.

DG MOVE has to answer to the letter of the project management team from

06.06.2012.

Page 43: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 43/56

ERA has requested to provide examples for XML-messages according to B.10.

These examples were not provided by the project team and shall be added to

this technical document during the TAP TSI phase 2 (development).

Furthermore ERA has requested to extend the chapter 9.2 “Compliance tests”

with detailed test cases - including failure test cases - for the message

exchange between the communication partners to ensure the interoperability

of the message exchange. These test cases were not provided by the project

team and shall be added during the TAP TSI phase 2 (development).

The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.55 to

the TAP TSI.

The deliverable “PRM Assistance IT specification” is fit for purpose for the

phase 2 of the TAP TSI implementation.

5.6.7 IT specification for RU/IM communication

ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for RU/IM-communication if this

document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The

content of the document is in all parts complete, logical structured and in line

with the TAP TSI technical document B.30 and additionally for the TAF TSI

appendix F.

ERA has discovered one question for the proposed IT specification: In chapter

6 (RU/IM-Architecture) of the deliverable for the RU/IM-communication is

mentioned, that the communication between the different actors has to be in

accordance with the specification of the external interface. A reference

implementation of this interface – the so called common interface (CI) - was

developed by the CCG. For the time being the specification of this external

interface is not available for the actors of the rail sector. It has to be decided,

how and where (e.g. which website) this documentation shall be published.

The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.56 to

the TAP TSI.

The deliverable “RU/IM communication IT specification” is fit for purpose for

the phase 2 of the TAP TSI implementation.

5.6.8 Transversal remarks about all IT-specifications

ERA has one remark which affects most of the deliverables for the TAP TSI

retail specifications.

For the implementation of TAP TSI it is important to have a coherent set of

reference data, such as location codes or reservation codes. For the storage of

those codes like location codes, there is a central reference database (CRD)

Page 44: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 44/56

defined which is commonly used with TAF TSI. This database is defined in

Appendix C of the TAF TSI [3]. The CRD database can accommodate partly

retail reference data, e.g. reservation codes. For the whole set of retail

reference data it was discovered during the TAP TSI phase one, that the

database is not sufficient. The proposal of the deliverable of the TAP TSI

architecture is to define the database structure for retail reference data during

the tender for the implementation of the architecture (see chapter “Common

Components of the TAP-TSI Retail Architecture and their interaction” of retail

architecture deliverable).

This approach is not sufficient. The retail reference database is one of the

central components for the retail architecture and has to be defined before the

tender. The definitions of such a database shall contain the following topics:

- UseCases for the retail reference database

It shall be clarified which data shall be stored in the RRD, e.g. connecting

links, minimum connecting times, reservation codes and their usage.

- Structure

The database structure has to be defined as database model.

- Governance

The governance of the management of the RRD database shall be

defined to ensure that clear governance rules for the management of

retail reference data is applicable.

ERA recommends to incorporate the definition of the retail reference database

in the revised TAP TSI architecture deliverable.

5.7 Full-service model

The Full service model document is not part of the legal requirements of the

TAP TSI. However it was identified as necessary to go beyond the legal scope

of TAP TSI and define additional requirements (e.g. additional requirements for

payment, refund and settlement) for the TAP TSI. It was agreed in the contract

between the EC and UIC for the TAP TSI phase one project (AGREEMENT

NUMBER - MOVE/B2/SUBV/2011-446/SI2.610758) to deliver this document in

addition to the legally required documents of the TAP TSI.

ERA has reviewed this document only on a high-level. The document contains

a description of all high-level processes for a full chain of distribution processes

(e.g. refund, exchange, settlement) of rail products. The additional

requirements to cover those additional processes are collected and analysed

Page 45: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 45/56

for existing gaps to the proposed TAP TSI implementation according to the IT-

specifications and the TAP TSI architecture.

Because the delivery is not legally required by TAP TSI and should be

completed during a follow-up period after the finalization of TAP TSI phase

one, ERA recommends to continue the work during phase 2 as described in

chapter 4 of the FSM delivery.

Page 46: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 46/56

6. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

6.1 Methodology of the Cost Benefit Analysis

The Agency received two deliverables from the project team – one related to

the assessment of costs and another one related to the assessment of benefits.

In general it was agreed between ERA and the project team to focus the scope

of the analysis on the impact resulting from the retail architecture. The impact

resulting from the RU-IM communication (as part of TAP TSI) was not assessed

due to the fact that this communication bases on the same messages which

are used in the framework of TAF TSI.

6.1.1 Cost Assessment

At a first step the phase one project team delivered to ERA a report assessing

the cost-impact of the proposed retail architecture.

The cost impact was analysed for the different “producers” using the proposed

retail architecture. The term “producer” was chosen, because it describes a

railway undertaking “producing” resources such as fare and timetable data of

its products and distributing these resources via the retail architecture to

“consumers”. Consumers are railway undertakings or ticket vendors using

these resources e.g. for selling the products of the “producers” to their

customers.

The cost impact analysis identified 4 types of railway undertakings acting as

producers:

- Online UIC members: Railway undertakings already sharing data in the

TAP TSI standards, using both NRTs and IRTs (those IRTs are global

prices that needs to be sold through a connection between the Product

owner hosting system and the issuer system)

- Offline UIC members: Railway undertakings already sharing data in the

TA TSI standards, using only NRTs (those NRTs can be sold by the issuer

without accessing the product owner system)

- Online non UIC members: Railway undertakings not using TAP TSI

standards to exchange their data, should they exchange them. They use

IRTs and NRTs

- Offline non UIC members: Railway undertakings not using TAP TSI

standards to exchange their data, should they exchange them. They only

use NRTS.

The analysis focused on two impacts:

Page 47: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 47/56

- For creating the common components (the registry, retail reference

database as well data quality management tool) within the retail

architecture

- on the producer side, to fulfill its obligations

The chosen cost breakdown structure for the common components bases on

the core functions provided by the common components:

- to facilitate producers and consumers to comply with the regulation

- to make reference data available and publish them

- to check quality of provided data (timetable and fares)

For the producers, a number of core business functions were identified for

which the cost impact was estimated:

- to make data (e.g. timetable/fare) available

- to notify registry of data update

- to publish fare, timetable and fulfillment data

- to handle reservations (availability requests, bookings, cancellations)

- to manage quality of data

Only two core business functions directly result from the proposed

architecture: the notification of updates and data quality management. Their

cost impact is a direct cost impact resulting from the proposed architecture.

All costs were indicated as CAPEX (one time cost impact) and OPEX

(operational costs per year).

ERA considers that the used methodology for the cost impact assessment is

appropriate, consistent and provides sufficient transparency

6.1.2 Benefit Assessment

During summer period (July – September 2012) the railway sector supported

by the Agency evaluated the possible benefits resulting from the retail

architecture.

The benefit assessment identified all relevant impacted stakeholders. These

are:

- The four types of railway undertakings acting as producers as already

identified in the cost assessment

Page 48: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 48/56

- The same four types of railway undertakings but acting as “consumers”

(e.g. a railway undertaking selling products from another railway

undertaking to his customers)

- Ticket vendors. This cluster is represented by GDS and technology

providers and other ones interested in having rail data to provide rail

content to other content (airline, hotel, car rental, cruise, etc…) for travel

agencies or other actors.

For each impacted stakeholder, the benefits were analysed in respect to the

following core business functions:

- accessing to timetable data

- accessing to fares/tariffs data (in B1/B2/B3 format)

- accessing to reservation data

- accessing to indirect fulfillment data (Public keys)

- accessing to PRM assistance data

- accessing to retail reference data

- ensuring quality of data (scheduled timetables)

- ensuring quality of data (scheduled fares/tariffs)

- keeping data up to date (notification of changes for timetables)

- keeping data up to date (notification of changes for NRT)

- keeping data up to date (notification of changes for IRT)

- keeping data up to date (notification of changes for Special Fares)

- keeping data up to date (notification of changes for retail reference data)

- keeping data up to date (notification of changes for Technical

Documents)

- Business intelligence (traceability)

The number of changes of data per year mainly drives the impact of a core

function and depends on the kind of data to be updated (e.g. retail reference

data are not as often updated as timetable data). Update frequencies were

estimated by the sector based on experience with the operation of the UIC

databases MERITS and PRIFIS (for timetables and fares/tariffs).

Benefits were estimated based on FTE (Fulltime employee) day savings/

change and monetized based on a ratio of 1k€/FTE day.

Both types of benefits, onetime benefits as well as operational benefits

(benefits/year), were estimated.

Page 49: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 49/56

ERA considers that the used methodology for the benefit assessment is

appropriate and consistent taking into account the specific situation of each

impacted type of stakeholder (“producer” railway undertaking, “consumer”

railway undertaking, ticket vendor)

6.2 Results of the Cost Benefit Analysis

6.2.1 Resulting Cost Impact

The deliverable from the SEDP project team summarizes the cost impact of the

common components as well as for the producers.

The cost impact resulting from the common costs is presented in the following

table:

Main costs are onetime costs for implementing the common components

(about 400k€). Total operating costs of the common components are at a low

level of 50k€/year. These costs have to be borne by all users within the railway

sector. Considering the estimation from the benefit assessment, that 100

consumers/producers might use the retail architecture, the cost impact per

consumer/producer is very low.

Cost impact of Common components

Source: Retail Architecture / Economic Evaluation v1.0/ 13.05.2012

Page 50: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 50/56

ERA considers that the cost impact resulting from the implementation and

operation of common components is reasonably estimated.

In addition the cost impact for the different types of producers was estimated

as following:

The two types of UIC Producers are already making available their timetables

and tariffs/ fares on FTP servers that are shared with other UIC railway

undertakings. They already use tools to check the quality of their data prior to

making the data available. But they do not inform any registry, so this is to be

created specifically for the purpose of the TAP TSI. The costs for a UIC

producer are therefore at a very low level (about 13-16k€ onetime costs and

3k€/year operating costs). In this context it has to be mentioned that all major

railways in Europe are UIC producers and the cost impact resulting from the

architecture is very low. (Note: Currently, about 40 railway undertakings can

be regarded as UIC producers)

Cost impact for the different types of producers

Source: Retail Architecture / Economic Evaluation v1.0/ 13.05.2012

Project team and experts estimates

In kEUR

Functionality CapexOpex /

yearCapex

Opex /

yearCapex

Opex /

yearCapex

Opex /

year

make data available

0 7 0 5 25 7 22 5 notify Registry of data update

13 2 16 2 200 2 200 2 publish timetable data

0 10 0 10 150 30 150 30 publish fares data

0 10 0 7 155 20 77 5 publish fulfilment data

0 5 0 0 50 5 0 0 booking/Reservation

Availability/cancellation 110 12 0 0 110 12 0 0 Data Quality Management

process 0 1 0 1 0 25 0 1

TOTAL 123 47 16 24 690 101 449 42

Total costs due to TAP 13 3 16 3 200 27 200 3

Online New

Producers

Online UIC

Producers

Offline

New

Producers

Offline UIC

Producers

Page 51: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 51/56

The remaining 2 types of producers need to create everything from scratch.

The costs cover the creation of the system that allows the exchange of data

with the consumers. However some of these costs are not in any relation to

the provisions of the TAP Regulation and the retail architecture such as the

costs for making data available, the costs for publishing data in the required

format, and the costs for the management of reservations).

For this reason the impact resulting specifically from the implementation of the

retail architecture is very limited as well: It concerns data quality management

and the notification of updates. The onetime costs for these producer types are

higher (200 k€), the operating costs for offline producers are the same as for

UIC producers (3k€/year). Data quality management is the main operational

cost driver for online producers due to the fact that they manage more

complex fare/tariffs data.

6.2.2 Resulting Benefit Impact

In September 2012, the railway sector forwarded to the Agency another

deliverable summarizing the potential benefits for the different stakeholders as

follow:

Producers in general mainly profit from the notification service of the retail

architecture to inform the consumers about possible updates. For UIC

producers the benefit results from notifying Non-UIC consumers and ticket

vendors about updates.

Potential Benefits for the different impacted stakeholders

Source: Deliverable to ERA / 13.09.2012

Clusters of Producers and

Consumers

Recurent benefits

K€/year

One time benefit

K€

Nb of stakeholders

for this cluster

(estimation)

Total Recurent

benefits / clusters

in K€ /year

Online UIC Producer 435 0 12 5 220

Offline UIC Producer 76 0 30 2 280

Online non UIC Producer 540 0 1 540

Offline non UIC Producer 134 0 10 1 340

Online UIC Consumer 628 0 12 7 535

Offline UIC Consumer 268 0 30 8 036

Online non UIC Consumer 1569 14 1 1 569

Offline non UIC Consumer 69 14 10 691

Ticket Vendor Consumer 3174 14 3 9 522

Total benefits for all clusters 36 734

Page 52: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 52/56

The following table (extracted from the deliverable) illustrates the benefits for

an online UIC producer only due to the notification of timetable updates:

Architecture Capability

Description Benefit Assumptions Quantified benefit in k€

keep data up to date (Notification of changes for IRT)

Allows an automated update of data Hypothesis: Tariffs/fares : 360 requests;

Technical benefit:

Save FTE on admin / per change (OTB)

Producer notifies only one source, which in turn notifies all interested Consumers

Other Commercial benefit:

Producers can have less problem to manage with customers due to wrong info

1FTE / Change 360

Consumers profit from the notification service as well, as it allows an

automated updating of timetable and fare/tariff data for all products of the

railway undertakings which they sell to their customers. The following example

(extracted from the deliverable) illustrates the benefits from a consumers

perspective.

Architecture Capability

Description Benefit Assumptions Quantified benefit in k€

keep data up to date (Notification of changes for Timetables)

Allows automation Hypothesis: 52 changes/year, 40 RUs

Technical benefit:

Save FTE on admin / per change (OTB) via automation

Consumer receives notification from one source and can better react to it

Commercial benefit: Consumer can offer to his customers the most accurate information

1/8 FTE per change

260

Page 53: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 53/56

keep Data up to date (Notification of changes for IRT)

Allows automation Hypothesis: 360 changes / year, 8 RUs having IRTs

Technical benefit:

Save FTE on admin / per change (OTB) via automation

Consumer receives notification from one source and can better react to it

Commercial benefit: He can offer to his customers the most accurate information

1/8 FTE per change

360

In this example it is assumed that a consumer is connected to 40 railway

undertakings (to receive timetable information) and to 8 railway undertakings

to receive their IRT fares/tariffs. A consumer receives significantly higher

number of updates (because he is connected to a number of railways) but each

update is less complex to handle. For this reason the savings per update are

much lower (only 1/8 FTE compared to 1 FTE for a producer). This assumption

is consistent.

Ticket vendors (GDS operators) as another consumer type specifically profit

from the data quality management which reduces the resources to integrate

timetable and fare/tariff updates into their IT systems. The following example

is extracted from the deliverable as well:

Architecture Capability

Description Benefit Assumptions Quantified benefit in k€

Ensure quality

of data

(scheduled

fares/tariffs)

Remove the need of

checking data quality

themselves (except

some TVs)

hypothesis: 10 RUs

52 deliveries for IRT

1 delivery for NRT

0 delivery for Special

fares

No additional quality checks are necessary in order to integrate the update in the system

2,5 FTE per change

1325

Page 54: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 54/56

Ensure Quality

of data

(scheduled

Timetables)

Remove the need of

checking data quality

themselves (except

some TVs)

hypothesis: 10 RUs

52 deliveries

No additional quality checks are necessary in order to integrate the update in the system

2,5 FTE per change

1300

This calculation demonstrates the necessity that producers have to ensure

quality of fare/tariffs data as well as timetable data either by their own quality

management or the quality management offered by quality management tool

as provided by the retail architecture.

ERA considers that the assumptions used to quantify the benefits are

consistent.

6.3 Conclusions for the Cost Benefit Analysis

The CBA exercise has demonstrated that the benefits for all impacted

stakeholders outweigh by far the expected costs.

For producers, the retail architecture will provide significant cost reductions

when they follow the obligations of the TAP TSI, especially to inform their potential consumers about updates of timetables and fares. Producers will

support the proposed architecture in order to keep the impact of the TAP TSI as low as possible for them.

For consumers, the benefits have to be interpreted as business opportunities

rather than “real” savings. The architecture will likely contribute to the distribution of railway products due to the fact, that the necessary connections

between consumer and producer are realised in a much simplified way than today.

As a conclusion, having analysed the results of the CBA, ERA considers that the

proposed architecture will contribute positively to the implementation of the

TAP TSI by enabling railway undertakings to meet the provisions of the TAP

Page 55: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 55/56

TSI with a reasonable cost impact. In addition the architecture contributes

positively to the distribution of products of railway undertakings.

Page 56: INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM ... 4.3.3 Reservation ... ERD European rail database

European Railway Agency

Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS

File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 56/56

7. CONCLUSIONS

7.1 The recommendation of ERA for the phase one of TAP TSI

With regard to the chapter 7.2 of TAP TSI ERA recommends the acceptation of

the deliverables – by taking into account the proposed two specific measures

for the deliverable TAP TSI retail architecture - as outlined in chapter 5.

The IT Specification deliverables shall be incorporated as ERA technical

documents in the TAP TSI annex III.

The deliverables Retail Architecture, Governance and Master plan shall be

incorporated as ERA technical documents in a new annex V to the TAP TSI. The

two annexes III and V for the technical documents are necessary ensure the

different change management cycles. The technical documents annexed in

annex III are subject to the perpetual TAP TSI change management process

according to chapter 7.5. The technical documents for the retail architecture,

the governance and the master plan are subject to revision of the TAP TSI.