redesign of the international timetabling process (ttr) - cms rne · members in order to prepare...
TRANSCRIPT
Redesign of the International Timetabling Process (TTR)
Description of the Redesigned Timetabling Process
Version 1.01
Please note that this TTR document is a working document and might be subject to changes
based on the experience gathered in the pilots and output of the TTR working groups.
RailNetEurope
Ölzeltgasse 3/9
AT-1030 Vienna
Phone: +43 1 907 62 72 00
www.rne.eu
Forum Train Europe
Hilfikerstrasse 3
CH-3000 Bern 65
Phone: +41 51 285 07 45
www.forumtraineurope.eu
2
Version Date Description Responsible
0.1 03 June 2016
Compilation of documents ‘Rolling Planning
Description’ and ‘Safeguarding cap. & Product
Portfolio’ and consideration of feedback from RU
Task Force on these documents
Timetable Task
Force
0.2 21 June 2016
• Inclusion of feedback/proposals from Timetable
Task Force members
• Input from TCR Task Force
• Concluding telephone conference M. Dupuis, Ph.
Koiser & D. Haltner
D. Haltner
0.3 01 July 2016 Final check by Timetable Task Force members D. Haltner
0.4 19 July 2016 Description of capacity model added F. Visser
0.5 11 August 2016 Changes following review comments F. Visser
0.6 12 August 2016 Changes and additions from TCR point of review J. Deeleman
0.7 15 August 2016
Meeting M. Dupuis, P. Koiser & D. Haltner
(11.8.16): Alignment of doc. in comparison with
executive summary and inclusion of feedback from
RNE S&TT HLG
D. Haltner
0.8 23 August 2016 Review of updated version of document D. Haltner
0.9 24 August 2016 Input from common meeting WGs 2&3 D. Haltner /
J. Deeleman
0.10 25 August 2016 Inclusion of ‘document fine-tuning’ meeting D. Haltner
0.11 30 August 2016
Input from review of chapters 1-4 by WG2
members in order to prepare review of RNE S&TT
HLG
D. Haltner
0.12 23 September 2016 Input from review of chapters 5–16 by WG2
members
D. Haltner
0.13 29 September 2016 Finalisation of document at WG2 meeting
28/29.09.16
D. Haltner
0.14 05 October 2016 Clean version for iteration with WG1 D. Haltner
0.14-1 17 October 2016
Replacement graph in Section 6.5., correction of
figure in Section 8.6.1 and a few typing errors,
modification in Annex 1 (X-16 cap. planning)
D. Haltner
0.15 19 January 2017
Inclusion of conclusions of workshop WGs 1-3
(1/2.12.16), meeting WG2 (8.12.16), workshop
WGs 1-3 (17/18.1.17) and meeting WGs2&3
(18/19.1.17)
D. Haltner /
WGs 2&3
members
0.15-1 27 January 2017
In-depth index; new fig. 1 which better explains the
approach; replacement of Annex 3 by the previous
version; last findings
D. Haltner
0.16 16 February 2017 Editorial proofreading R. Powell /
D. Haltner
0.17 07 March 2017
Last alignments after proofreading; conclusions
during Core Team meeting 3.3.17 in the context of
the preparation of the SteCo (6.3.17) and Round
Table (9.3.17) meetings
D. Haltner
0.18 25 September 2018
Review of document based on first experiences in
TTR pilots, conclusions from the Action Plan
preparation and new findings
D. Haltner /
WG Process
Implementation
0.19 26 September 2018 Revision by members of the Process
Implementation WG
D. Haltner
0.19-1 04 October 2018 Restoration of the erroneous deletion of milestone
X-11 (publication)
D. Haltner
3
0.20 12 June 2019
Inclusion of several findings (TTR pilots, WP
allocation rules, TTR Core Team, contacts with
various parties)
D. Haltner
0.21 17 July 2019 The document edited and proofread
E. Gruber
S. Čarek
D. Haltner
1.00 19 March 2020
Revision of document based on feedback from the
TTR Roadshow and first findings of the TTR pilots,
results of sub-group “Process Implementation”
meetings (29.10.19, 29.01.20 & 10.3.20)
D. Haltner
S. Čarek
1.01 29 June 2020
Inclusion of processes for the path alteration, path
modification and ad hoc. Inclusion of several
definitions and small updates.
D. Haltner
S. Čarek
4
Table of contents
Table of contents .................................................................................................................................... 4
0. About this Document ................................................................................................................. 7
1. Management Summary ............................................................................................................. 7
1.1. What is it All About? ................................................................................................................... 7
1.2. Overview of the Entire Process ................................................................................................. 8
1.3. Explanations .............................................................................................................................. 8
2. Glossary ................................................................................................................................... 10
3. Capacity Strategy (X-60 to X-36) ............................................................................................. 12
4. Capacity Model (X-36 X-18) ................................................................................................ 13
4.1. Main Objects ............................................................................................................................ 13
4.2. Timetable Design ..................................................................................................................... 16
4.3. Identifying Market Needs ......................................................................................................... 16
4.4. Unplanned Capacity ................................................................................................................ 17
4.5. Iterative Process ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.6. Regular Updates ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.7. Display Methods ...................................................................................................................... 17
5. Capacity Partitioning (X-24 X-18) ........................................................................................ 18
5.1. General Description ................................................................................................................. 18
5.2. ‘Safeguarding Capacity’ for Rolling Planning Requests .......................................................... 19
5.3. Set-Up of the Capacity Partitioning ......................................................................................... 19
5.4. Timeline and Involved Stakeholders ........................................................................................ 20
6. Preparation of the Annual Timetable ....................................................................................... 20
7. IM Products for Customers ...................................................................................................... 21
7.1. Market Needs .......................................................................................................................... 21
7.2. IMs’ Answer to the Market Needs ............................................................................................ 21
7.2.1. Various Kinds of Customer Requirements .................................................................... 21
7.2.2. Difference between Annual Timetable and Rolling Planning Traffic ............................. 22
7.2.3. Target Group for Annual Timetable ............................................................................... 22
7.2.4. Target Group for Rolling Planning ................................................................................. 22
7.2.5. Target Group for Ad hoc traffic ...................................................................................... 22
7.2.6. Target Group for Traffic with Special Requirements ..................................................... 23
7.2.7. Visualisation of the Boundary between Annual Timetable,Rolling Planning and Ad hoc
Traffic 23
7.3. Framework Agreements (FA) .................................................................................................. 23
7.4. Feasibility studies .................................................................................................................... 24
7.5. Paths ........................................................................................................................................ 24
5
7.5.1. Pre-Planned Paths (Dedicated for Annual TT) .............................................................. 24
7.5.2. Rolling Planning Slot...................................................................................................... 24
7.6. Overview of IM’s Capacity Usage during the Phases of Timetable Production ...................... 25
8. Publication of various IM products for customers .................................................................... 26
8.1. Framework Agreements (FA) .................................................................................................. 26
8.2. Pre-Planned Paths ................................................................................................................... 26
8.3. Capacity Bands ........................................................................................................................ 27
9. Requests for Capacity in the Annual Timetable ...................................................................... 28
9.1. The Annual Timetable — General Considerations .................................................................. 28
9.2. Path Request Deadline ............................................................................................................ 29
9.3. Path Request Placed after the Deadline ................................................................................. 29
9.4. Preparation of the IM’s Answer to a Path Request (Offer) ...................................................... 29
9.4.1. Request Placed on Time ............................................................................................... 29
9.4.2. Request Placed after the X-8.5 Deadline ...................................................................... 29
9.5. Applicant Wishes to Change the Initial Path Request ............................................................. 30
9.5.1. Minor Changes to the Path Request ............................................................................. 30
9.5.2. Major Changes to the Path Request ............................................................................. 30
9.6. IM’s Response to a Path Request ........................................................................................... 30
9.6.1. Response Time .............................................................................................................. 30
9.6.2. Offer ............................................................................................................................... 30
9.7. Acceptance: Consultation of Applicant on IM’s Draft Offer ..................................................... 30
9.8. Acceptance: Post-Processing by IMs – Handling of Applicant’s Observations ....................... 30
9.9. Final Allocation ........................................................................................................................ 30
9.10. Not Requested and Unused Capacity for Annual Timetable Requests .................................. 31
9.11. Overview of Allocation Process for Annual Timetable Requests ............................................ 31
10. Requests for Capacity in Rolling Planning .............................................................................. 31
10.1. Rolling Planning: General Considerations and Description ..................................................... 31
10.2. Initial Path Request .................................................................................................................. 32
10.3. Rolling Planning Request with Later Delivery of Path Details ................................................. 32
10.4. Preparation of the IM’s Answer to a Path Request (Offer) ...................................................... 33
10.5. IM’s Response to a Path Request ........................................................................................... 33
10.5.1. Response Time .......................................................................................................... 33
10.5.2. Offer ........................................................................................................................... 33
10.5.3. Size of Time Window for IM Capacity Commitment Regarding Subsequent Timetable
Periods 33
10.6. Acceptance: Consultation of Applicant on the IM’s Answer/Offer ........................................... 36
10.7. Acceptance: Post-Processing by IM – Handling of Applicant's Observations ......................... 36
10.8. Acceptance: Final Path Offer for the Current Timetable Period .............................................. 36
6
10.9. Final Allocation ........................................................................................................................ 37
11. Rolling Planning: Treatment of Upcoming Timetable Period ................................................... 37
11.1. Converting a Slot into a Path ................................................................................................... 37
11.2. Early Confirmation by Applicants ............................................................................................. 37
11.3. IM’s Path Offer for the Upcoming Timetable Period ................................................................ 37
11.4. Observations by Applicant on the IM’s Path Offer for the Upcoming Timetable Period .......... 38
11.5. Post-Processing by IMs: Handling of Applicants' Obser-vations on the Path Offer for the
Upcoming Timetable Period ................................................................................................................. 38
11.6. Final Path Allocation for the Upcoming Timetable Period ....................................................... 38
11.7. Schedule for Converting a Slot into a Path .............................................................................. 38
12. Need for Modifications by Applicant or Alterations by IM (After Path Allocation) .................... 39
12.1. Annual Timetable Requests: Modification by the Applicant .................................................... 40
12.2. Rolling Planning Requests: Modification by the Applicant ...................................................... 40
12.3. : Alteration by the IM ................................................................................................................ 41
12.4. General Assessment of Applicants' Requests for Modifi-cations in Rolling Planning with Impact
on the Subsequent TT Periods ............................................................................................................. 43
13. Cancellation ............................................................................................................................. 43
14. Allocation Guidelines for Conflicting Capacity Announcements and Requests ...................... 44
15. Preconditions (Enabling Factors) ............................................................................................ 44
16. Leading Entity .......................................................................................................................... 44
17. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) ......................................................................................... 44
18. Communication ........................................................................................................................ 44
19. Rail-Related Services .............................................................................................................. 45
20. Train Operation ........................................................................................................................ 45
21. Final Remarks .......................................................................................................................... 45
22. Annexes ................................................................................................................................... 46
7
0. About this Document
Versions 0.1 – 0.15.1: The content of this paper is a compilation of the previous results and
present findings of the Project WG 2 (‘Timetabling’), WG 3 (‘TCR’), Timetable Task Force, and
TCR Task Force. It is based on the analysis and consideration of market requirements as
defined by the project WG 1 (‘Market Requirements’). Feedback from the RU Task Force
regarding the Rolling Planning description, safeguarding capacity & product portfolio, priority
rules, commercial conditions and KPIs was broadly taken into account. This version was used
for the preparation of the documents that were distributed in April/May 2017 for the
endorsement of the TTR project.
Versions 0.16 – 0.18: On the one hand, the editorial proofreading by a native English speaker
lead to several grammatical changes. During the preparation of the project endorsement,
several meetings took place. Findings from these meetings were also taken into account.
Version 0.18 was elaborated in the TTR implementation phase and included first conclusions
from the TTR pilots in their preparation phase.
Version 0.19-1: Version used for the set-up of TTR pilots and used as a basic description for
further TTR topics such as IT, legal framework, commercial conditions and allocation rules.
Versions 0.20 – 0.22: Inclusion of first findings on the pilots and further reflections of the sub-
group “TTR Process” (previous name sub-group “Process Implementation”) on the further
development of the TTR process.
1. Management Summary
1.1. What is it All About?
• Today's timetable process does not reflect the market needs anymore. Availability of the
final timetable is too late for passenger traffic, and the path request deadline too early for
freight traffic.
• Taking these different requirements into account, advanced planning with capacity
partitioning for traffic to be requested at the defined deadline, for traffic with a need for
increased flexibility as well as taking into account the temporary capacity restrictions (TCR)
is required. This leads to a more structured and harmonised process between the involved
IMs between X-60 and X-12 and transparent involvement of applicants.
8
1.2. Overview of the Entire Process
1.3. Explanations
Activity / process step Time Explanation
Capacity strategy X-60 –
X-36
IMs’ long-term capacity planning for a dedicated line, part of
a network or entire network. Between IMs, various planning
approaches exist. Therefore, coordination is needed.
Capacity model X-36 –
X-18
A capacity model is built based on the IMs’ capacity
strategy, market requirements (e.g. new service plans),
TCRs according to the RNE TCR Guidelines for a dedicated
line, part of a network or full network. This model shows:
• Capacity for commercial traffic
• TCR
In case of lines with cross-border traffic, harmonisation/
coordination with RFC and/or neighbouring IMs is needed.
The model needs to be updated regularly, at least yearly.
Capacity partitioning X-24 –
X-18
The commercially available part of the capacity model is
partitioned, according to market needs, axis by axis, for use
through two operative modes
• Capacity (either pre-planned or just available) for Annual
Timetable requests
• Capacity for Rolling Planning requests
• Unplanned capacity (remaining capacity not being
covered by market needs), e.g. to be used later on for ad
hoc requests
Capacity
strategy
Capacity model / Capacity
partitioning (Adv. planning)
Capacity planning &
Publication product portfolio
for Annual
TT cap.
for Rolling
Planning cap.
Path
attribution
Path /
capacity
attribution
Train
operation
Path
modification/
alteration/
cancellation
Path /
capacity
requests
for Ad hoc
cap.
Path
attribution
9
The pre-planned capacity (either for Rolling Planning
requests or yearly basis), is defined and shared with the
relevant stakeholders.
The Rolling Planning capacity will then be safeguarded to
make sure that due to the existence of two operative modes
it remains available until shortly before start of operation.
The partitioning logic may change axis by axis and year by
year as long as it does not impact already promised Rolling
Planning capacity.
RFCs are involved in the process.
Consultation phase X-24 –
X-16
Applicants will be consulted on various issues (intended
capacity offer, Network Statements, TCRs)
Capacity planning X-16 –
X-12
Based on the partitioned capacity model, and capacity
needs announcements, a feasible timetable model
according to axis characteristics will be elaborated.
For cross-border lines, activities shall be harmonised
between IMs and RFCs.
Feasibility studies From X-
15
Applicants have the possibility to request feasibility studies.
Publication of capacity
supply
After
X-12
Capacity for Annual Timetable requests:
In the form of pre-planned paths.
Capacity for Rolling Planning requests:
In the form of a number of possibilities based on capacity
bands for a defined time window, incl. principal
characteristics:
• Line/section-related
• Parameters (length, speed, weight, etc.)
• Standard running time
In order to be able to request Rolling Planning capacity for
up to 36 months, available supply of Rolling Planning
capacity needs to be published not only for the upcoming
timetable period but also for the two subsequent periods.
Internationally harmonised commercial methods/conditions
will prevent the blocking of capacity.
Types of path requests
ongoing
Rolling Planning requests:
At any time for up to 36 months ahead of operation,
answered according to the principle of first come – first
served, as long as the operation period starts between 1 and
4 months after the request
Ad hoc requests:
Traffic for which pre-constructed products cannot be used
(until 30 days before operation) or traffic requested in a very
short notice (less than 30 days before operation for all
remaining capacity). It is possible for applicants to place ad
10
Ongoing
X-8.5
hoc requests at any time after the last day for late path
requests (X-2) and during the running timetable (until X+12).
The very last running day of an ad hoc train can be on the
day before the timetable change (X+12)
Annual Timetable requests:
• For traffic to be asked for an entire TT year or less, at the
defined deadline
• Requests placed after the deadline will be served based
on the residual capacity for Annual Timetable requests
or unplanned capacity
Path/capacity allocation
Rolling Planning requests
Ongoing Path elaboration based on dedicated capacity for first TT
period (running or upcoming) and elaboration of a slot,
which will be converted in a path year by year for the
upcoming annual timetable period(s). Allocation according
to the principle of first come – first served.
• Path offer for running TT period
• Capacity commitment (slot) for upcoming TT period(s)
Path allocation Annual
Timetable requests
X-8.5
X-6.5
X-5.5
X-5.25
Path elaboration based on dedicated Annual Timetable or
available capacity and conflict resolution procedure in case
of conflicting requests.
• Draft offer, start of consultation phase
• Final offer, start of acceptance phase
• Final allocation
Path allocation Annual
Timetable requests placed
after deadline
After
X-5.25
Path elaboration based on residual capacity for Annual
Timetable requests or unplanned capacity
Path modification*/alter-
ation**/cancellation*
* = requested by applicant
** = requested by IM (e.g.
in case of TCR at short
notice or minor impact)
After
allocation
Minor modifications: IMs take them into account
Major modifications: Cancellation of allocated path/slot and
new request
Alteration = IMs offer an alternative, acceptance of applicant
is required
Partial or full cancellation of path: possible
Train operation Train operates according to the path allocated by the IM and
accepted by the applicant
2. Glossary
This document uses many terms that are already known within the current timetable process.
However, some new technical terms and not widely known terms are in the overview below:
Affected IM Infrastructure managers of the subsequent and preceding path
sections, which are affected by the path modification triggered by
the initiating applicant or the path alteration triggered by the
initiating IM.
11
Capacity band Time frame up to several hours that includes capacity for at least
one path for ATT and RP requests. Publication in the form of a
number of paths and/or ‘slots’ per defined capacity band
Capacity commitment In the form of a slot with a status similar to a contract
Capacity supply Capacity supply refers to pre-constructed capacities for ATT (on
time and LPR) and RP requests offered to the market and
published by one or more IM(s) from X-11 onwards.
Coordinating IM The IM in charge of path allocation on the network where the
applicant initiating a path modification holds the rights to the
allocated path.
International impact in path
alteration and modification
process
An international impact shall be expected if the agreed running
days, border times, path number and or parameters affecting the
timetable might be changed. An international impact shall also be
expected in the path alteration process in a case where the
alternative path would affect the operational concept to the extent
that the applicant will have to request a path modification in one of
the subsequent networks (i.e. additional operational stop).
Initial path request First request for a path (at the beginning of the path request and
allocation process)
Initiating applicant The applicant holding the rights to the allocated path and placing
the path modification request.
Initiating IM The IM triggering a path alteration.
Leading applicant The applicant which
• coordinates the request;
• ensures compliance with the deadlines, especially,
where an active response from applicants is needed;
• is the primary communication point for the leading
entities;
• can trigger the cancellation of the entire traffic.
Leading IM The IM, which
• is available for leading applicants for general advice;
• monitors that the appropriate product is selected by the
applicants and the request is formally correct;
• coordinates the path construction, the harmonisation and
the post-processing;
• initiates all possible steps to ensure harmonised offers
• interacts and actively communicates with all involved IMs
and the leading applicant. Acts as an information
turntable for involved IMs;
• monitors path withdrawals.
Pre-planned path Path pre-constructed by the IMs based on the outcome of the
capacity partitioning, to be used primarily for ATT requests
Remaining capacity See unplanned capacity
Residual capacity Prepared capacity for ATT and RP requests, but not being
requested or used yet
Safeguarded capacity Capacity reserved by IM expecting Rolling Planning requests
12
Slot ‘Capacity usage possibility’ within a capacity band that will be
converted into a path year after year
System path Path based on standard train parameters
Temporary Capacity
Restrictions (TCR)
In this document, whenever the term TCR is mentioned, the concept as indicated in the RNE Guidelines for Coordination/ Publication of Planned Temporary Capacity Restrictions is meant. They refer to TCRs with major, high, medium and minor impact as well as to possessions (maintenance).
Unplanned capacity Capacity on a line that is still available after pre-planned capacity
for ATT and RP traffic as well as TCRs (incl. maintenance) have
been assigned
3. Capacity Strategy (X-60 to X-36)
The capacity strategy of an IM takes into account some key elements that can be described in
a long-term plan:
• demand forecast (incl. own requirements for maintenance/known works)
• assignment of the demand on lines, part of the network, or the entire network
• capacity analysis
• capacity investment scenarios, in case the above analysis has revealed any bottlenecks.
From the capacity management point of view, a rough demand forecast for the various
requirements is of high importance. A capacity strategy is a precondition for the development
of a capacity model for a line, a part of the network or the entire network. For cross-border
lines, the capacity strategy — including TCRs as mentioned in Annex 1 — needs to be shared
with the neighbouring IM(s).
The major aim of a capacity strategy is to provide a first overview of future capacity needs. It
enables an IM to share future capacity needs with neighbouring IM(s) and applicants. A
reference timetable based one/two-hour time windows may facilitate collaboration with the
stakeholders. The capacity strategy defined is only a short document describing the main
principles of capacity planning including all types of capacity needs.
The result of the capacity strategy should be a document in a standardised format consisting
of the following chapters:
• Chapter 1: Expected capacity of infrastructure
Describe the expected available positive (additional) capacity and also the expected
negative non-TCR related capacity (for instance track removal).
• Chapter 2: TCRs
Describe the principles for the planning of TCRs and principles for capacity allocation
for regular maintenance windows.
• Chapter 3: Traffic flows
13
Describe main principles to be used in the planning of elements in the capacity models
(for instance long-distance passenger train paths, regional passenger paths, band-
widths)
4. Capacity Model (X-36 X-18)
The capacity model is a description of a 24-h overview reflecting market needs and TCRs with
major/high impact. The aim of a capacity model is a more detailed definition of the demand
forecast, divided into an approximate share for commercial needs and TCRs (advanced
planning).
Therefore, the capacity picture for medium-term planning is derived, on the one hand, from an
IMs’ capacity strategy and, on the other hand, by taking into account known TCRs as well as
some capacity for TCRs known only at a later stage according to the corresponding RNE
guideline, and new service or production plans by applicants known well in advance.
4.1. Main Objects
The capacity model consists of the following objects:
Line Clearly-defined part of the network of one IM, or part connecting
the networks of two IMs, with a traffic node at one or both ends of
the line
Market segment Expected traffic type on a given line
System path Path based on parameters of standard trains
(hourly) pattern Shows a reference hour (either peak or off-peak) with the relevant
expected traffic in order to be able to solve conflicts within capacity
needs announcements at an early stage (time-distance diagram
for 1 or 2 hour(s) per line)
24-h overview Shows a reference day including the potential market needs and
TCRs according to the RNE TCR Guidelines
Expected volume
(“demand/supply/market
needs”) of Annual Timetable
requests
This is the volume of paths, expected by the IM, that will be
needed for Annual Timetable requests (ex. see point 5.3)
Expected volume of Rolling
Planning requests
This is the volume of paths expected by the IM that will be needed
for Rolling Planning requests. It includes already allocated Rolling
Planning requests from previous timetable period(s) (ex. see point
5.3)
Expected volume of Ad-hoc
requests
On networks with an increased volume of ad hoc traffic, i.e.
capacity requirements that cannot be planned in advance,
capacity can also be partitioned for this kind of traffic.
TCR TCRs are necessary to keep the infrastructure and its equipment
in good condition (maintenance) and to allow infrastructure
development in accordance with market needs.
14
TCRs refer to restrictions of the capacity of railway lines, for
reasons such as infrastructure works, including associated speed
restrictions, axle load, train length, traction, or structure gauge.
Capacity band see glossary
Slot see glossary
In the capacity model, IMs need to transform expectations about future demand into capacity
products that can be planned, safeguarded, and offered to customers. This chapter describes
the process steps that an IM needs to do until 18 months prior to a new timetable period. These
steps, taken on the basis of the capacity strategy, lead to the capacity model.
Fig. 1: from the capacity strategy to the capacity model to the capacity supply (sample)
The first step for the IM is: to construct a clear picture of the available infrastructure on its
network three years in advance. Every change that impacts capacity on lines and in
stations/nodes should be taken into account.
The second step is to make plans about how the infrastructure will be used in the future. The
IM can do this on its own or in consultation with applicants. On international lines,
harmonisation with neighbouring IM(s) is essential. This includes studies about routings and
frequencies of national and international connections on the network. Also, changes in national
regulations may play a role in this phase. For example, national governments may decide that
on certain lines there is a need for minimum service levels for dedicated market segments (e.g.
a minimum of two local trains per hour).
As shown in the figure above, the capacity model divides the capacity on a line into an IM’s
own requirements (TCRs) and commercial needs. The IM has to decide for which parts of the
network a capacity model is needed. A capacity model can have added value in case of:
15
• congested lines;
• expected substantial volume of Rolling Planning requests;
• lines with mixed traffic (different applicants, passengers & freight);
• lines with international traffic;
• lines with an expected high volume of TCRs that will cause capacity problems.
When the IM has decided that a capacity model is necessary, this IM needs to calculate the
expected demand for capacity in the various market segments for a time frame of about 36
months. This can be done by taking into account information about market developments, data
about train services actually operated in the current or previous year, capacity needs
announcements by applicants and framework agreements. This must also comply with
capacity that has already been allocated in response to multi-annual requests for capacity
(Rolling Planning) for the upcoming 36 months.
The IM has to include the requests for TCRs in these calculations and also some capacity for
TCRs that will be known at a later stage (including TCRs with minor impact). In the example
below, this is done by assuming that the infrastructure is available 20 hours a day and that the
IM closes the line for four hours for daily maintenance. These calculations need to be translated
into design parameters for future timetables. For instance, ‘How many system paths/how much
bandwidth is needed per hour to fulfil the expected need for capacity in a market segment?’
Figure 2 shows how this calculation is done in an example (Line A to B). On this line, there is
a large number of freight trains every day. To facilitate these trains, the IM has planned two
system paths per hour that can be used by freight trains with standard characteristics. Based
on historical market growth and data about development in the future, the IM expects an annual
growth of 10% in the number of trains after 2021. This example shows that starting in 2023,
the capacity supply in this market segment will have to be increased.
Line: A B 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Harmonisation
needed with
neighbour IMs?
Realisation: average
number of freight
trains per day
30 25 28
Offered system
paths/hours for freight
trains
2 2 2
Offered capacity
based on 20-hour/day
availability
40 40 40 40 40 40 60 60 Yes, volumes
Market growth (%) -17% +12% +10% +10% +10% +10% +10%
Daily closure of line
for maintenance
(01:00-05:00)
4 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs 4 hrs Yes
Number of expected
freight trains/per day
31 34 38 42 46 IMs exchange
expectations
Of which converted
into a path following
rolling planning
10 8 2 - - IMs exchange this
information
16
requests of previous
years
Slots/hour needed 1.55 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
Slot/hour offered 2 2 2 3 3 Yes, border times
and path
characteristics
Fig. 2: calculation of volumes of system paths needed for the market segment ‘international freight trains with parameters
90km/2000T/690m’
It is up to the IM to decide how detailed these calculations should be at the national level. An
IM can choose, for instance, to subdivide the calculations into days of the week, can define
other time frames, or decide to distinguish between peak and off-peak hours.
For the purpose of harmonisation at the international level, it is recommended to calculate
expected volumes at the level of detail of standard days (a day in the middle of a normal week)
for the upcoming three years. For the harmonisation of system paths, an hourly time frame on
a standard day will be needed. Border times and design parameters of international system
paths (and/or start times and end times of bandwidths) shall be harmonised among IMs for the
upcoming three years.
4.2. Timetable Design
The IM collects all expected demands from the various market segments for all lines. Based
on the expected demands, an IM needs to make proposals for future timetables in which all
these demands are translated into conflict-free paths or bandwidths. The result can be that
there are no capacity problems on certain lines, but that other lines will face capacity problems
or conflicts.
Capacity problems can be solved in many ways. Solutions can be found, for instance, through
other timetable constructions or by changing the time and length of TCRs (for further solutions
please see Annex 7). Where no solutions can be found, the IM has to declare that the line is
congested. When problems occur on international connections, the IM has to find solutions
together with the IMs in other countries.
4.3. Identifying Market Needs
In Figure 3, the assignment of capacity to market segments is demonstrated in an example
(Line C to D). The IM has collected all the expected demands for the various market segments
for the next three timetable periods on its network. The splitting of market segments has to be
harmonised with neighbour IMs in many ways. This applies for all expected international traffic
and TCRs. Harmonisation is necessary for: border times, volumes, and design parameters for
international system paths. TCRs and rerouting of traffic have to be harmonised as well when
they impact capacity on international connections.
TCRs according to the RNE TCR Guidelines have to be included in this phase of the capacity
model development. IMs need to know about the impact of TCRs on capacity. The impact of a
TCR can be that there is no capacity left for paths at all (closure of the line) for a period of time
that can vary between days and months. It can also mean a reduction of capacity during a
given time frame: some tracks are closed but other tracks will be available. In the capacity
17
model, the impact of TCRs should be shown in terms of impact on the estimated traffic volume.
Full closure means -100%, partial closure means anything between -5 and -95%.
Depending on the impact on capacity, an IM (or IMs) need(s) to develop ideas about how to
handle the consequences. IMs should be in contact with involved applicants to find out how
they want to deal with the consequences of TCRs. This can mean the rerouting of international
trains, the use of buses, or other timetabling schemes. The ideas have to be harmonised by
the IMs. In the ‘Allocation Guidelines for Conflicting Capacity Announcements and Requests’
(Annex 7), possible approaches for handling such situations are presented.
It is up to the IM to choose how to publish the information. This will depend on how the time-
tables are constructed. If the timetable is generally the same every hour, it can be published
in the way shown above. If there is much differentiation during the day or during the week, it
can be published with more details. In addition, RNE’s ECMT (IT tool) can support the
publication.
During periods of TCRs, IMs can decide to publish the splitting of the market segments in
greater detail, for instance per day, and include the impact on alternative routes.
4.4. Unplanned Capacity
After an IM has set aside capacity for TCRs and to cover expected commercial needs, there
might be some capacity left on a line. Depending on the usage of a line, this unplanned capacity
can vary between ‘nothing’ and ‘a lot of’.
4.5. Iterative Process
Capacity model construction is an iterative process. It has to be done in greater detail when
there is a need, for example due to a capacity problem. More details can be needed in the
medium term whereas aggregate figures are good enough for a longer view.
4.6. Regular Updates
The capacity model/partitioning of a line should occasionally be updated until X-18 based on
the following inputs:
• Updated information on TCRs;
• Capacity needs announcements from applicants;
• IMs’ own hypothesis regarding traffic growth and experience gained from market
developments.
4.7. Display Methods
There are many ways to display capacity for future timetable periods. The main goal must be
that it serves the needs of stakeholders. Stakeholders can be applicants, corridors, the IM itself
and IMs in neighbouring countries, government departments, etc.
18
A logical way to show capacity is in the form of volumes of paths (for dedicated purposes per
time frame). This can be done either in a graph where corridors and lines are plotted on the
IM’s network, or in a table where the paths are presented per line and per time frame.
Fig. 3: example of a graphical presentation of capacity
5. Capacity Partitioning (X-24 X-18)
5.1. General Description
Based on the capacity model, capacity partitioning defines the shares of Annual Timetable
requests, Rolling Planning requests, eventually ad hoc requests and unplanned capacity within
the commercial part. Due to the differing requirements of these segments, capacity partitioning
will lead to different processes for:
• traffic where detailed capacity needs are known well in advance;
• traffic with specific requesting deadlines.
In order to ensure that enough capacity for both processes is available, the capacity set aside
in the capacity model for dedicated lines and/or networks needs to be partitioned into at least
two portions:
• Capacity for Annual requests: In the form of pre-planned paths to be coordinated at a
defined deadline (X-8,5) or placed after this deadline.
• Capacity for Rolling Planning requests: In the form of a number of possibilities based on
capacity bands for a defined window or paths, including principal characteristics:
line/section related, parameters (length, speed, weight, etc.) and standard running time, all
these being used with specific requesting deadlines).
19
• Capacity for Ad hoc requests: Due to the very different characteristics of ad hoc traffic, it is
very difficult to plan the required capacity. For this reason, in case of a proven need for
foreseeable ad hoc requests, the unplanned capacity can be adjusted accordingly.
It is important that the calculation of needs for the two or in countries with an increased demand
for ad hoc traffic three elements listed above is based on realistic figures as described in point
4.1. It is therefore not a question of dividing all the capacity remaining after TCR's requirements
have been deducted between the two capacities for Annual and Rolling Planning requests; on
the contrary, it would be ideal if unplanned capacity was left over. This could then be used as
follows:
• requests for Annual Timetable capacity either placed on time or after the X-8,5 deadline for
which no pre-planned paths are foreseen
• requests for Rolling Planning capacity for which no slot or bandwidth was foreseen
• all other requests for capacity (incl. ad hoc traffic) for which no prepared capacities are
offered (published)
Through axis per axis coordination, or by taking into account the number of paths or the volume
of bandwidths per line for timetables in the future, the IM can define the partitioning into ‘Annual
requests’ (red fields in Fig. 1), ‘Rolling Planning requests’ (blue fields in Fig. 1) and ‘unplanned
capacity’ (pink field in Fig. 1).
Capacity partitioning is not required for an entire network. An IM should apply it only on lines
with heavy traffic (or congested lines) and with more than one applicant (or a mixture of trains
with different characteristics, such as passenger and freight trains). If capacity partitioning is
applied on a line, a part of a network or even on the entire network, all national and international
traffic shall be taken into account.
The management of the detailed capacity partitioning is shown in Annex 1.2, using hypothetical
timetable periods.
5.2. ‘Safeguarding Capacity’ for Rolling Planning Requests
In order to make sure that the capacity for Rolling Planning requests will not be used for Annual
Timetable requests this capacity needs to be safeguarded. Common regulation will be needed
in order to ensure that the capacity required for Rolling Planning requests remains available
until it is requested, for example under the legal label of ‘reserve capacity’ as defined in EU
Regulation 913/2010. Therefore, safeguarding capacity is a capacity reservation for an explicit
purpose and categories of paths.
5.3. Set-Up of the Capacity Partitioning
Below is an overview of the assignment of type of traffic to the two commercial categories of
the capacity partitioning:
Annual Timetable: Rolling Planning: Ad hoc:
Passenger trains operating on a
regular basis
Freight trains with a contract with
the customer for a longer period
(> 1 year)
Irregularly running
passenger trains (charter
trains, holiday/seasonal
trains, additional trains for
events, etc.)
Freight trains operating primarily
in a supply-driven way (e.g.
single wagon load, rolling
Regular freight trains with a
contract with the customer for a
short period (< 1 year) where the
Freight trains, which only
run on one or a few days
and where no
20
highway) where the needed path
details usually are known well
ahead of time
needed path details are not
known well ahead of time
preconstructed Rolling
Planning Cap. is available
Regular freight trains with a
contract with the customer for a
short period (< 1 year) where the
needed path details are known
well ahead of time
Passenger trains operating only
sporadically (holiday/ seasonal
trains, etc.)
Spontaneous needs for
transfers to/from rolling
stock depots
etc. Regular transfers to/from rolling
stock depots
All other trains for which no
capacities have been
preconstructed.
etc.
5.4. Timeline and Involved Stakeholders
Steps from capacity strategy to
capacity model to capacity partitioning
Stakeholders Time frame
1 Collection of data on available
infrastructure for the near future
IM internal, IMs bilateral X-60 to X-36
2 Timetable studies on future infrastructure IM internal, IMs bilateral,
potential applicants,
government departments,
freight forwarders/operators
X-36 to X-24
3 Calculation of expected capacity needs IM internal, IMs bilateral X-36 to X-24
4 Capacity partitioning IM internal, IMs bilateral X-24 to X-18
5 Solving capacity problems IM internal, IMs bilateral,
potential applicants
any time
6 Finding solutions for TCRs IM internal, IMs bilateral,
potential applicants
see RNE TCR
Guidelines
7 Monitoring and updating the capacity
model and partitioning and taking
conclusions from capacity needs
announcements into account
IM internal, IMs bilateral X-18
A process diagram focusing on the involvement of applicants and neighbouring IMs can be
found in Annex 4.
It is strongly suggested to describe the processes, especially the tasks and involvement of the
other stakeholders (government, terminals, regional authorities, freight forwarders/operators,
etc.), between X-60 and X-18 (publication of Network Statement) regarding the capacity model
and partitioning information in the Network Statement.
6. Preparation of the Annual Timetable
21
On the basis of the capacity partitioning, at approx. X-16, IMs will work on the complete
timetable by combining pre-planned paths, system paths, Rolling Planning and framework
agreement requests from previous years according to their practice, to cover the many different
commercial needs. TCRs according to the RNE TCR Guidelines have to be taken into account.
Explanations and criteria what to do in case of conflicts popping up while planning the capacity
and leading to a congested line (e.g. due to medium-sized TCRs) can be found in Annex 7
‘Allocation Guidelines for Conflicting Capacity Announcements and Requests’.
The result is a feasible timetable model according to lines and/or network characteristics. In
the case of cross-border lines, these activities shall be harmonised with the neighbouring IM(s)
by using an appropriate tool (Capacity Hub as proposed by the TTR IT landscape).
7. IM Products for Customers
7.1. Market Needs
Applicants have differing requirements regarding the processing of their transport needs.
During the development of the new timetable process, several different market needs were
introduced by the applicants, which all have a different need for the process. These
requirements have been incorporated into the TTR process now available.
7.2. IMs’ Answer to the Market Needs
7.2.1. Various Kinds of Customer Requirements
a) Stable Demand without Impact on the Path
In passenger and freight traffic, there are trains running, using a more or less identical
paths for many years. This stability allows the IM to pre-construct these paths in the
preparation of the annual timetable. The pre-construction is based either on the inputs
from the applicants received in the capacity needs announcement process or by the IM’s
own view for an optimal usage of the capacity. In general, this traffic is more supply than
demand driven.
b) Stable Demand for a Longer Period but with Impact on the Path
Especially in the freight business, applicants in many cases have a contract with their
customers for a defined period which is independent of the fixed timetable year. In
addition, behaviour and demand for a transport from the side of the applicant’s customer
is unpredictable. Despite a contract, there is often a need to change something in the
production concept during the term of the contract (e.g. different slot in the terminal). In
addition, applicants might also have a need to modify the path (e.g. switch of intermediate
location for driver change to increase efficiency).
c) Stable Demand for a Shorter Period but with Impact on the Path
Similar to b) but the period of operation is shorter. Nevertheless, it might involve even two
timetable years (e.g. operation from November to February).
22
d) Demand for a Short Period
Today known as ad hoc (or short-term or spot) traffic for a very limited number of
operational days (mostly for a single train run).
7.2.2. Difference between Annual Timetable and Rolling Planning Traffic
As the annual timetable is in many cases driven by the supply of an offer, it is the applicant
who chooses the period of operation. Therefore, a timetable change with a fixed date can
be accepted easily from the applicant point of view.
In the demand driven traffic, it is the applicant’s customer who decides on the first day of
operation. It is quite understandable that the applicant’s customer does not worry about
any timetable change dates.
It is therefore the idea of Rolling Planning to start and end a train operation irrespective of
any timetable change. In addition, Rolling Planning enables an applicant to request
capacity for the term of the contract, for up to 36 months. In today’s situation, where
applicants that are running trains on saturated infrastructure must fear that they receive a
totally different slot in the following timetable year, despite a binding contract with their
customer, the Rolling Planning approach reduces this risk for not receiving a similar path
as in the previous timetable year(s).
7.2.3. Target Group for Annual Timetable
The Annual Timetable process is focussing on the following customer requirements:
• Characteristic: supply-driven offer
• Applicants can specify the offer primarily independently based on their market needs.
• Early availability of reliable data (timetable) in order to publish the offer (e.g. opening
of the booking systems)
• No changes to the final timetable (end customers might have purchased a transport
service)
7.2.4. Target Group for Rolling Planning
The Rolling Planning product covers the following market needs:
• Production details for a new traffic that are relevant for the preparation of the path
request are NOT known many months ahead of start of operation
• Very first day of operation does in most cases not correspond to a timetable change
• Applicant is interested in receiving a quick response (draft offer) in order to confirm the
timetable towards its customer
• Applicant has a contract with its customer for a defined period and is therefore highly
interested in requesting and receiving capacity for the entire term of the contract
• Although there is a contract, there is a need to modify the path during the term of the
contract
An overview with practice-related use cases for Rolling Planning traffic can be found in
Annex 5.
7.2.5. Target Group for Ad hoc traffic
The capacity supply of an IM with pre-planned and pre-constructed products for Annual
Timetable and Rolling Planning will never cover all market needs. In order to meet this
23
need, it will be possible to request paths for ad hoc traffic. The only limitation could be the
volume of available unplanned capacity, which varies according to the saturation of a line.
7.2.6. Target Group for Traffic with Special Requirements
There is a market need for non-standard traffic that needs special treatment. (e.g.
exceptional transport, military transport, radio-active transport). For this, IMs will offer
tailor-made solutions using either unplanned or residual capacity.
7.2.7. Visualisation of the Boundary between Annual Timetable,Rolling
Planning and Ad hoc Traffic
7.3. Framework Agreements (FA)
A FA may be concluded between an IM and an applicant. The FA shall specify the
characteristics of the capacity required by and offered to the applicant over a period of time
exceeding one timetable period. The FA shall not specify a path in detail but shall be such as
to meet the legitimate commercial needs of the applicant.
The IM shall agree on a time frame with the applicant on a case-by-case basis. The time frame
shall reflect the needs of the train service. This means that the time frame could be as short
as a few minutes, or as long as (up to) 24 hours (Art. 7 FA Implementing Regulation, April
2016).
Cooperation between IMs is required to ensure that FAs for services using more than one
network are coherent.
24
On 7 April 2016, the EC adopted rules to create fair conditions for new train services making
better use of the available rail infrastructure (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU)
2016/545 of 7 April 2016 on procedures and criteria concerning framework agreements for the
allocation of rail infrastructure capacity). First reactions from IMs who had already been offering
FAs indicate that this product will become much less attractive in the future.
Due to the implementation of Rolling Planning, the future of FAs might be restricted to traffic
that exclusively uses the Annual Timetable request approach in order to benefit from a multi-
annual capacity provision. However, this will only happen if IMs intend to continue offering FAs
to applicants. Furthermore, the conclusion of FAs has to be requested well ahead of the start
of operation. This requirement is also in contradiction to the requirement for very short lead
times between Rolling Planning request and actual train operation.
7.4. Feasibility studies
Path studies (feasibility studies) enable applicants to examine the feasibility of new or amended
service concepts, using an iterative process with IMs and/or partner applicants to develop them
further with a view to ordering paths for the annual or running timetable. The IMs’ answer to a
feasibility study should be in line with the outcome of the capacity partitioning. The reception
of a feasibility study request should not lead to a revision of the Cap. Model. Either there is
foreseen pre-constructed capacity which could suit the study request or if not, then unplanned
capacity has to be used for checking the feasibility. If applicants intend to launch new traffic,
they should use the “Cap. Needs Announcement (CNA)” and not wait until the possibility for
placing study requests. In order to work on a study request, IMs need much more details than
for a CNA. There is no guarantee, that an applicant will receive feedback to the study request.
An IM might be in a situation where the treatment of all received study requests is not possible
any more due to time constraints.
7.5. Paths
The construction of paths can be a mix of different capacity planning schemes and their related
IT systems. This should be supported by the TTR IT landscape.
7.5.1. Pre-Planned Paths (Dedicated for Annual TT)
A pre-planned path is a path that an IM has planned at the beginning of the capacity planning
process on the basis of the capacity partitioning as well as its own expectations regarding
market needs, requirements contained in framework agreements and ‘capacity needs
announcements’ made by applicants. TCRs according to the RNE TCR Guidelines have to be
taken into account as much as possible.
These paths refer primarily to anticipated and stable traffic, as described in points 7.2.1, 7.2.2
and 7.2.3. Therefore, their characteristics cover a very narrow range and have a restricted
degree of flexibility for the final path construction.
7.5.2. Rolling Planning Slot
This is a capacity usage possibility within a capacity band that will be converted into a path
year after year. Within these capacity bands, IMs will offer a number of Rolling Planning slots.
The number will depend on the dedicated Rolling Planning capacity.
25
Fig. 4: pre-planned paths and Rolling Planning slot
7.6. Overview of IM’s Capacity Usage during the Phases of
Timetable Production
Until X-8,5 During the TT
construction (X-8,5
to X-6,5)
After construction M-1 (1 month before
operation)
Annual Timetable
cap.
Used for Annual TT Used for Annual TT Used for Annual TT Used for Annual TT
Residual cap. Open for request after
deadline
Open for any request
(paths and TCR)
Open for any request
(paths and TCR)
Rolling Planning
cap.
Used for RP Used for RP Used for RP Used for RP
Residual RP cap. Residual RP cap. Residual RP cap. Open for any request
(paths and TCR)
Unplanned cap. Used for Ad hoc Used for Ad hoc Used for Ad hoc Open for any request
(path and TCR)
TCR cap. Blocked for TCR Blocked for TCR Blocked for TCR Blocked for TCR
26
Fig. 5: Development of the available and used capacity for the upcoming timetable period
8. Publication of various IM products for customers
8.1. Framework Agreements (FA)
As described in the document of the European Commission ‘Commission Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2016/545 of 7 April 2016 on procedures and criteria concerning framework
agreements for the allocation of rail infrastructure capacity’. See also chapter 7.3.
8.2. Pre-Planned Paths
IMs will publish the capacity supply for Annual Timetable requests in a suitable tool at the latest
by X-11. For each pre-planned path, the detailed relevant parameters (speed, length, etc.) will
be published as well.
IM planning of the capacity for Annual Timetable requests is based on train services for which
detailed capacity needs are known well in advance, as described in chapters 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and
7.2.3. If required, needs for adjustments (e.g. opening of new infrastructure, TCRs according
to the RNE TCR Guidelines) have to be taken into account. The impact of TCRs on capacity
has to be published in detail as well; this means that IMs have to be rather specific and detailed
in the determination of their TCRs at an early stage, according to the timeline defined in Annex
VII, 2012/34/EC.
27
Applicants may expect that their present traffic, as well as their ‘capacity needs
announcements’, have been taken into account by the IMs who have prepared the capacity in
response to Annual Timetable requests, as long as no conflict with other early announcements
for new traffic arises. If a conflict occurs, IMs have to balance their decision the same way they
do now for Annual Timetable requests (coordination with applicants and allocation rules
(decision criteria) for unsolved remaining conflicts; see also Annex 7 ‘Allocation Guidelines for
Conflicting Capacity Announcements and Requests’).
8.3. Capacity Bands
• In order to allow applicants to plan and harmonise their requests, IMs will display (publish)
the capacity dedicated to Annual Timetable and Rolling Planning demand at the latest by
X-11. This should be supported by the TTR IT landscape. The display will focus on the
following elements: (“Capacity supply”)
• Line/section-related
• Parameters (length, speed, weight, etc.)
• Promised maximum running time
• Day and time reference (e.g. starting time-related to starting point)
• Number of possible paths (slots) in the band.
Within these capacity bands, IMs will offer a number of paths and slots. The number will
depend on the dedicated capacity for Annual Timetable and Rolling Planning. As the size of
these capacity bands may vary, it does not really make sense to publish detailed information
about these bands. Instead, the total amount of possibilities regarding Annual Timetable and
Rolling Planning requests within a certain time frame ought to be published. Taking existing
restrictive time windows (e.g. rush hours) into consideration, a window of three hours might be
a possible approach. The appropriate announcement might look as follows:
Fig 6: Example from the TTR pilot “Pontebbana” on the ÖBB Network
28
Fig. 7: Presentation of the standard parameters applicable for the previously shown capacity model for the various line sections.
The availability in the Annual Timetable and Rolling Planning supply needs to be updated
immediately after a path has been allocated or cancelled. This dynamic update of the available
capacity should be done immediately.
Due to the first come – first served principle, time is a very important criterion. The Rolling
Planning capacity is visible and requestable for all applicants until it is allocated. The Rolling
Planning capacity that is subject to harmonisation between the applicants will be labelled.
If TCRs according to the RNE TCR Guidelines are already known at the time of publication of
the Rolling Planning capacity, indications regarding the expected capacity restrictions during
a defined period should be available. The aim of this measure is to make applicants aware that
their path, although remaining consistent with the Rolling Planning initial offer, might be
affected during the TCRs and that the IMs might not adhere to the time slot described in Section
10.4.3.
9. Requests for Capacity in the Annual Timetable
(for process diagram, please see Annex 4)
9.1. The Annual Timetable — General Considerations
The annual timetable constitutes a re-evaluation of the capacity situation once a year. In
addition, the annual timetable provides the opportunity to coordinate incompatible requests
and find optimised solutions. From the IM point of view, yearly planning with a regular form of
update (today known as ‘the timetable change’) forms the backbone of a reliable timetable.
In order to guarantee the robustness of a timetable, a precondition is to have a relevant
proportion of trains with a static timetable. As already presented in chapter 7.2, there are
29
various market needs in the segments of passenger and freight traffic that are compliant with
this prerequisite.
9.2. Path Request Deadline
Initial path requests for the upcoming annual timetable have to be placed at the latest at X-8.5.
Within the time frame between the publication of all known TCRs (at X-12) and the path request
deadline, IMs will only add new TCRs or modify existing TCRs with a minor impact.
9.3. Path Request Placed after the Deadline
In case an applicant places a path request after the deadline mentioned in chapter 9.2, IMs
will treat it on the basis of ‘first come – first served’ but only after the finalisation of the annual
timetable process at X-5.251.
9.4. Preparation of the IM’s Answer to a Path Request (Offer)
9.4.1. Request Placed on Time
The IM will check if the path request reflects the expected dedicated pre-planned paths.
In case of cross-border traffic, the IMs affected by the path request need to agree on which
of their available pre-planned paths (out of the capacity for Annual Timetable requests)
shall be used to propose a path offer to the applicant. The offer should take the
requirements in the path request into account. In case of a conflict between several
requests, IMs will coordinate these requests to try to ensure the best possible matching of
all requirements. An approach for treating unsolvable conflicts is described in Annex 7
‘Allocation Guidelines for Conflicting Capacity Announcements and Requests’.
Sometimes, a path request characteristic does not correspond to the assumption made
by the IM when planning capacity for Annual Timetable requests. In this case, the IM will
try to prepare a path offer on the basis of the unplanned capacity or the residual, non-
requested pre-planned capacity for the annual timetable.
9.4.2. Request Placed after the X-8.5 Deadline
Residual, suitable capacity taken from the Annual Timetable capacity (either non-
requested pre-planned paths or unplanned capacity) will be used to respond to these
requests. The treatment of requests placed after the X-8.5 deadline will start immediately
after the finalisation of the requests concerning Annual Timetable capacity placed on time.
If there is no residual Annual Timetable capacity nor unplanned capacity available, the IM
will try to offer alternatives via a different itinerary. In the worst case, the IM will treat the
request not earlier than one month before the first day of operation. The relevant treatment
of such requests will be on first come – first served basis. The offered capacity will only
be valid for the upcoming timetable period. Rolling Planning capacity will not be used in
any case, except the non-requested Rolling Planning capacity being shifted to the
unplanned capacity one month prior to the first day of operation.
1 Most probably, it will not be possible to change 2012/34/EC regarding the shortening of the consultation period
from 1 month to 2 weeks. Therefore, in TT 2025 and one or two more TT years, the finalisation of the ATT will take
place at X-4,75 only.
30
9.5. Applicant Wishes to Change the Initial Path Request
If an applicant wishes to change the initial path request (e.g. changed parameters, additional
requirements) during the phase between path request and path offer, IMs will treat these
change requests as follows.
9.5.1. Minor Changes to the Path Request
These will be taken into account immediately.
9.5.2. Major Changes to the Path Request
These cannot be taken into account. Applicants will be asked to place a new request.
Annex 2 shows an overview of minor and major changes.
9.6. IM’s Response to a Path Request
9.6.1. Response Time
IMs will prepare the answer (draft offer) to a path request by X-6.5.
9.6.2. Offer
In the case of cross-border traffic, the draft offer will be harmonised by the involved IMs.
In addition, TCRs according to the RNE TCR Guidelines have to be taken into account in
the joint offer.
9.7. Acceptance: Consultation of Applicant on IM’s Draft Offer
Applicants may make observations on the draft offer within two weeks2. The observations
should refer to a deviation of the draft offer from the initial path request (e.g. path offer does
not reflect the chosen pre-planned path). In case the observation refers to a major change (as
described in Annex 2) to the initial request, the procedure described in chapter 9.5 needs to
be applied.
9.8. Acceptance: Post-Processing by IMs – Handling of
Applicant’s Observations
If an observation is linked to a deviation of the draft offer from the initial path request, IMs
should do their utmost to comply with the initial path request. If the observation refers to a path
for cross-border traffic, the involved IMs have to cooperate during this phase. The post-
processing phase will last two weeks.
9.9. Final Allocation
IMs may adapt the path offers within another two weeks after the consultation phase has ended
(post-processing phase) and publish the adapted timetable as the final offer. If the applicants
agree to this final offer within five calendar days, the paths will be allocated accordingly. In
case of no agreement from the side of the applicant, the allocation will be withdrawn by the IM
and the capacity will be made available for further needs.
2 See also footnote 1 on page 28
31
9.10. Not Requested and Unused Capacity for Annual Timetable
Requests
At the end of the path allocation process, not requested and unused capacity for Annual
Timetable requests remains available for further requests or might be converted into Rolling
Planning capacity. For example: The intended pre-planned paths in the annual timetable for a
new regional passenger service will not be requested due to budget problems by the regional
authority. As no other applicant will request these pre-planned regional passenger paths, the
IM might convert them into Rolling Planning capacity in case of a predictable increased
demand – but only for the upcoming timetable period.
9.11. Overview of Allocation Process for Annual Timetable
Requests
After implementing TTR, thanks to advanced planning and IT system developments and
optimisation, the time frame will look as follows:
Current time
frame (2020)
After imple-
mentation of TTR
Intermediate solution
in case 2012/34/EU
cannot be adapted
until TT 2025
Path request deadline X-8 X-8.5 X-8.5
Draft offer; start of consultation phase X-5 X-6.5 X-6.5
End of consultation phase X-4 X-6 X-5.5
Final offer X-3.5 X-5.5 X-5
Start of acceptance phase X-3.5 X-5.5 X-5
Final allocation X-3.25 X-5.25 X-4.75
10. Requests for Capacity in Rolling Planning
(for process diagram, please see Annex 4)
10.1. Rolling Planning: General Considerations and Description
A general introduction to Rolling Planning can be found in Chapter 5 ‘Capacity Partitioning’
and in Chapter 7.2 ‘IMs’ Answer for the Market Needs’. All IMs will need to agree on a general
framework regarding the management of Rolling Planning requests with all their neighbouring
IMs.
A Rolling Planning request is a path request placed at any time by respecting the relevant
deadlines (between four and one months before the first day of operation). It concerns a path
that is consistent with the dedicated, displayed IM capacity supply, with operation starting as
soon as needed, and for a maximum duration of 36 months. The answer to such a request,
built on the basis of ‘first come – first (and best) served’ and in the order in which the request
was received, is:
• a path for the running timetable period
32
• a slot, which will be converted into a path year by year, for the subsequent timetable
period(s).
10.2. Initial Path Request
The initial path request can be placed at any time, for a period of up to 36 months3, irrespective
of the number of operating days requested. However, in order to give the IM enough time for
the preparation of a good-quality offer, a maximum and a minimum time period between
request date and first day of operation is fixed (120 days as a maximum; 30 days as a
minimum) in order to have time for establishing the draft offer, making observations, post-
processing and final allocation). If the train is only to run on a few days, applicants can select
a path from the displayed, residual Rolling Planning capacity for the running timetable period
if it fits to the request.
Elements needed for the initial path request:
• Harmonised data, if more than one applicant is involved in train operation
• All elements (characteristics) have to fit to the parameters describing the Rolling Planning
supply (speed, weight, etc.).
• Operation period: first day of operation last day of operation (max. duration: 36 months)
with a detailed calendar for the current timetable period and the requested days of the week
for the subsequent timetable period(s)
• Requests need to be compatible with the published characteristics of the capacity band.
Example of an initial path request:
• Operation period: 1st August 2025 30th April 2027
• Traffic periods:
- timetable 2025: , , , not on public holidays and not on 2 November
- timetable 2026: , ,
- timetable 2027: , , Remark: Presentation of days of the week from the visualisation point of view only. In future, under TAF
TSI, requests will make use of the calendar feature.
10.3. Rolling Planning Request with Later Delivery of Path Details
Although train timetabling is essential, a good number of rail freight train operators are unable
to keep to the timetable due to uncertainties such as arrival time of ship or duration of
marshalling. To offer an appropriate framework for this growing group of clients, the sub-
product ‘Rolling Planning request with later delivery of path details’ will be developed. This will
ensure that the customer gets a path within predefined bandwidths and with a predefined range
of parameters. This path can be converted into a constructed path at any time before the day
of operation.
3 In a first step, Rolling Planning capacity can be requested for the current, the next and the second next timetable
periods. This is due to the fact that the capacity model will be available at X-36. If an applicant submits the request
very early (e.g. first day of the current TT period), the offered capacity will be available for almost 36 months (until
the end of the second but next TT period). If an applicant requests very late in a TT year (e.g. a month prior to a TT
change), the offered capacity will be available for just little bit more than 24 months. However, it is the intention of
the IMs to increase the validity of the capacity model in order to accept all Rolling Planning requests with an
operational period of 36 months.
33
This sub-product will follow an identical procedure with request, offer, observations, etc. just
as for a standard Rolling Planning request, except for the times of operation, specified by
applicants. These will be forwarded from the applicant to the IM at a defined deadline before
the train run. Requests are possible only for the running and the upcoming timetable period.
This solution might be implemented in a further step after having gained first experiences with
TTR.
10.4. Preparation of the IM’s Answer to a Path Request (Offer)
IMs affected by the path request need to agree on how they will prepare a path offer for the
applicant for the running timetable period. In addition, they need to check, if there will be
enough capacity in the selected time window for the subsequent timetable period(s). The
appropriate path for the running timetable and the capacity (slot) for the subsequent timetable
period(s) need to be marked and blocked. The offer should take the requirements in the path
request into account. IMs have to ensure that they are able to provide an answer for all
requested days of the week, according to the pre-defined supply description (characteristics,
time frame, transit time, etc.) for the entire operation period. If not enough capacity remains to
answer in the same way for the whole requested period (e.g. due to TCRs on one weekday),
the IM should offer an alternative possibility for the affected period. In principle, the above IM
activity should be executed by an IT tool as far as possible.
If the request for Rolling Planning capacity refers to just one or a few running days, the IM’s
task is focussed on the running timetable only.
10.5. IM’s Response to a Path Request
10.5.1. Response Time
IMs will prepare the answer (draft offer) to a path request within the following time limit:
a) Traffic with a Short Period of Operation
As soon as possible or at the latest within two calendar days for a path for an individual
train run (1 day) if only one IM is involved; as soon as possible or at the latest within
five calendar days if the path involves the networks of more than one IM. In the future,
with an appropriate IT tool, these thresholds can certainly be lowered.
b) Traffic with Extended Period of Operation
As soon as possible, but at maximum four weeks.
10.5.2. Offer
IMs will jointly forward the offer to the applicant(s). This should look as follows:
o Running timetable period: detailed path offer; built to match the request as closely as
possible
o Upcoming/next timetable period(s): slot complying with the characteristics of the
displayed offer (for size of time window, please see 10.5.3).
10.5.3. Size of Time Window for IM Capacity Commitment Regarding
Subsequent Timetable Periods
+/- 30 minutes for upcoming timetable period
+/- 60 minutes for second next timetable period (timetable+2)
34
+/- 90 minutes for third next timetable period (timetable+3)
These time windows for the upcoming and subsequent timetable periods refer to the IM’s
detailed path offer for the running timetable period. The time window refers to the entire
train run from origin to destination. However, if the applicant has indicated an activity in an
intermediate location (e.g. change of engine), the size of time window has to be respected.
If it is just an operational stop, an extension of the time window could be accepted,
however, applicants still have the possibility to make an “observation” to times in the draft
offer
Fig. 8: IM’s answer (path & slot offer) to initial Rolling Planning request
In case of already known major TCRs (e.g. rerouting for several months), this should be
indicated, as relevant for the applicant.
35
Fig. 9: IM’s answer (path & slot offer) to initial Rolling Planning request
Fig. 10: IM’s path offer for the first subsequent timetable period
36
Fig. 11: IM’s path offer for the second subsequent timetable period
10.6. Acceptance: Consultation of Applicant on the IM’s
Answer/Offer
Applicants may make observations, within two weeks of reception of the draft offer, on the
• path offer for the running timetable period
• slot for the subsequent timetable period(s).
Observations should refer to a deviation of the draft offer from the initial path request (e.g. path
offer outside the chosen time window) and might include minor changes as described in Annex
2.
An applicant may make observations on both the path offer and slot, on the path offer only, or
on the slot only.
10.7. Acceptance: Post-Processing by IM – Handling of
Applicant's Observations
If an observation is linked to a deviation of the draft offer from the initial path request, the IMs
will do their utmost to comply with the initial path request as far as possible. If it is a wish for a
minor change, IMs can try to take it into account. Similarly, to the applicants' observations, the
IMs’ post-processing will handle both the path offer and the slot, the path offer only, or the slot
only.
10.8. Acceptance: Final Path Offer for the Running Timetable
Period
After the post-processing phase, IMs will send the final offer (with the path details) for the
running timetable period. Applicants can accept or refuse it. In case of refusal, IMs will cancel
the entire dossier; this includes the withdrawal of the slot from the subsequent timetable
period(s). Acceptance/rejection has to be communicated within five calendar days.
37
Fig. 12: time line of Rolling Planning process
10.9. Final Allocation
If the applicants agree to the final offer, paths will be allocated accordingly. In case of no
agreement from the side of the applicant within seven calendar days, the allocation will be
withdrawn by the IM and the capacity will be made available again.
11. Rolling Planning: Treatment of Upcoming Timetable
Period
(for process diagram, please see Annex 4)
11.1. Converting a Slot into a Path
In principle, the allocated path in the running timetable serves as a basis for converting the
guaranteed slot into a path for the upcoming timetable period. Anticipating the implementation
of TAF/TAP TSI and taking into account the life cycle of the path request message, applicants
may re-use the initial path request (with current path details), including an explanation of the
detailed calendar and of possible wishes for adjustments within the scheduled time frame.
11.2. Early Confirmation by Applicants
Applicants may, if they wish, confirm the content of their initial path requests for the upcoming
timetable period (either without any adjustments or with adjustments within the time window
as described in 10.5.3) until X-5.
11.3. IM’s Path Offer for the Upcoming Timetable Period
If the applicant’s wish for adjustment is communicated within the agreed time frame, the IM(s)
will prepare an offer (including path details) for the upcoming timetable period based on the
attributed slot.
If an applicant has not sent the early confirmation, the IM will do the path preparation on the
basis of the path used in the running timetable. TCRs, new Rolling Planning requests or any
other influencing event during the upcoming timetable period will be taken into account as well
as respecting the initial Rolling Planning attribution. In any case, the committed time window
will be respected. At X-4, the IM will send the draft timetable to the applicant.
38
If the published slot contained an indication of TCRs, the IMs will propose a revised path offer.
The general involvement of applicants in TCRs is described in the RNE TCR Guidelines.
11.4. Observations by Applicant on the IM’s Path Offer for the
Upcoming Timetable Period
Applicants may make observations on the forwarded path offer in the upcoming timetable
period within four weeks. The observation should refer to a deviation of the path offer (e.g.
path offer outside the chosen time window) and might include minor changes as described in
Annex 2). It should be possible for an applicant to ask for an alternative offer, as long as the
wish for an adjustment is within the initially selected time window. Otherwise, the applicant has
to place a new request.
If the observation includes the need for a change beyond the initially selected time frame, the
IM rejects the observation and invites the applicant to place a new request for Rolling Planning
capacity. If the applicant accepts this and places a new request, the IM withdraws the slot from
the subsequent timetable periods.
11.5. Post-Processing by IMs: Handling of Applicants' Obser-
vations on the Path Offer for the Upcoming Timetable Period
In case of an observation, the IM should do its utmost to comply with its own initial capacity
commitment as much as possible. If it is a wish for an adjustment, the IM can try to take it into
account. The post-processing phase lasts for a maximum of four weeks.
11.6. Final Path Allocation for the Upcoming Timetable Period
After the post-processing phase, IMs will send the final offer (including path details) for the
upcoming timetable period. Applicants can accept it (within five calendar days) or refuse it. In
case of refusal, IMs will cancel the entire dossier, including the withdrawal of the capacity
commitment from the subsequent timetable period(s).
11.7. Schedule for Converting a Slot into a Path
Applicants: Early confirmation for upcoming timetable period X-5
IM: Draft offer; start of consultation phase X-4
End of consultation phase X-3
Start of post-processing X-3
Final offer X-2
Acceptance X-1.75
Final allocation X-1.5
X = timetable change
Remark: This table will be re-evaluated regarding the need of the “re-confirmation” of
applicants.
39
Fig. 13: Timeline for converting a slot into a path for upcoming timetable period
12. Ad hoc requests
Certain traffic can be requested in ad hoc, namely, a traffic for which pre-constructed products
cannot be used (until 30 days before operation) or traffic requested in a very short notice (less
than 30 days before the operation for all remaining capacity). It is possible for applicants to
place ad hoc requests at any time after the last day for late path requests (X-2) and during the
running timetable (until X+12). The very last running day of an ad hoc train can be on the day
before the timetable change (X+12)
In order to satisfy ad hoc requests, IMs shall use unplanned capacity and residual capacity.
Any answer to these requests shall not affect safeguarded capacity for rolling planning. The
requests will be processed on the first come-first served basis.
The leading IM coordinates the process of path construction and initiates all possible steps to
ensure harmonised offers.
a) Ad hoc requests for individual paths
IMs shall respond as soon as possible but not later than in 7 calendar days. The response
could be a path offer or an alternative path offer or rejection.
If the path has been pre-accepted in the path request, the path will be allocated immediately
after sending the path offer. In other cases, the applicants’ acceptance should be sent within
24 hours of receipt of the path offer, excluding Saturdays and Sundays. If applicants do not
send an answer within the timeline, the offer is to be considered as rejected.
b) Ad hoc requests for recurrent paths4
Ad hoc request for a recurrent path is a request for more than one train running day with the
same origin, destination, timetable and same train parameters (profile, length, etc).
If the path has been pre-accepted in the path request, the path will be allocated immediately
after sending the path offer. In other case, the applicants’ acceptance should be sent within 7
calendar days of receipt of the path offer. If applicants do not send an answer within the
timeline, the offer is to be considered as rejected.
4 The response times to the ad hoc requests for recurrent train paths are currently subject to discussion
of the RNE Sales & Timetabling Working Group, with intention to shorten them as much competitive
level as possible. Further shortening might be also possible once the TTR IT landscape is implemented.
40
13. Path Modifications and Alterations (After Path
Allocation)
Remark: This chapter will be reviewed within the next few months
(for process diagrams, please see Annex 4)
13.1. Annual Timetable Requests: Modification by the Applicant
It is possible for applicants to place a path modification request any time after a path has been
allocated. The applicant holding the rights to the allocated path and placing the path
modification request becomes the initiating applicant. The initiating applicant always has the
right to withdraw the modification request. The IM responsible for the network where the
initiating applicant submitted a path modification request becomes the coordinating IM.
If it is a major modification of the allocated path, the applicant has to cancel the path and place
a new request. Naturally, the cancellation of the original path will only be made after the
applicant has accepted the offer for the new path. However, if the new offer does not fulfil the
needs of the applicant, then the cancellation will not be made. The original path will be kept
until further information has been received from the applicant.
If the request is for a minor modification of the allocated path (as described in Annex 2), the
IM will take it into account and will prepare – if possible – a revised path offer; this alternative
offer then needs to be accepted by the applicant within seven calendar days.
13.2. Rolling Planning Requests: Modification by the Applicant
a) Temporary Modification within the Running Timetable Period (no matter if it is
the first or one of the subsequent timetable periods)
Modifications may be requested after the path allocation. An applicant may request a
temporary modification at any time during the running timetable period. The first day
of operation with the modified path may be defined by the applicant. Applicants have
to be aware that the IM will not automatically modify the capacity commitment for the
subsequent timetable period(s). The IM will offer a revised path in the requested time
period within 14 calendar days, which the applicant can either accept or reject. In
case of rejection, the applicant has to inform the IM if it would like to stick to the initial
path for the running timetable period or if it would prefer to cancel the path for the
running timetable period or even for the remaining entire operation period. The above
explanation refers to minor modifications as described in Annex 2.
It is up to the IM and applicant, based on mutually exchanged information to decide
whether the modification requested has an impact on the allocated path (= major) or
not (= minor). In case of a major modification, the IM will cancel the allocated path
partly or entirely and will prepare an alternative offer. Of course, the cancellation of
the original path will only be made after the applicant has accepted the new path offer.
However, if the new offer does not fulfil the needs of the applicant, then the
cancellation will not be made. The original path will be kept until further information
has been received from the applicant. From the process point of view, this
corresponds to ‘path cancellation new path request’. In this case, the above-
mentioned deadlines will not be applied.
41
Additionally, a (process or IT) solution should be developed at a later stage (most
likely under the umbrella of TAF/TAP TSI implementation), to allow the two activities
‘path cancellation by Applicant’ and ‘path request’ to be merged into a single ‘major
modification’ operation.
b) Temporary Modification for a Subsequent Timetable Period
An applicant may request a temporary modification for a part or even an entire
subsequent timetable period. This can be the immediately subsequent timetable
period or the second next timetable period.
If the temporary modification concerns the immediately subsequent timetable period,
it can be treated as described in chapter 11.1. If the need for modification exceeds
the initially intended time window, the IM rejects the modification requirement; then
the IM invites the applicant to partially or fully cancel the path for the subsequent
timetable period and to place a new path request. If the request for modification is
placed after the deadline mentioned in chapter 11.7, the IM will send a new path offer
after it has finished converting slots into paths, as described in chapter 11.
If the temporary modification also concerns the second next timetable period, the IM’s
answer to the request will mention if it will be feasible or not within the range of the
IM’s capacity commitments. In case the need for modification exceeds the initially
intended time window, the IM rejects the modification requirement; then the IM invites
the applicant to partially or fully cancel the path for the second next timetable period
and to place a new path request in this timetable period.
Requests for modifications to the upcoming timetable period placed after X-2 will be
dealt with as described in the following point (Point c).
c) Modification within the Running Timetable Period and the Subsequent
Timetable Period
A two-step approach is needed:
- Modification to running timetable: see 12.2 a)
- Modification to subsequent timetable period: see 12.2 b)
13.3. Alteration by the IM
Based on the path agreements, applicants can expect that an allocated path is available up to its operation. However, in several cases, it may be necessary for infrastructure managers and allocation bodies to alternate, adjust, replace or withdraw already allocated paths. This activity is the so-called “Path Alteration”. The need for path alteration shall be reduced to a minimum. A path alteration may refer to one single running day, several days or all remaining days in a yearly timetable; It is also possible to alter the whole path section or just a part of it. It applies to paths in a yearly timetable and to those booked using the short-term planning process as well.
d) Triggering path alteration
The applicant holding the rights to the initially allocated path shall be informed immediately
when the IM intends to trigger the path alteration process or when the IM gets into the
42
possession of information on which basis it can be presumed that triggering the path alteration
is highly probable. The IM triggering path alteration becomes the initiating IM.
Firstly, the initiating IM has to evaluate if the path alteration process will have an international
impact (for definition see Glossary) or not. The initiating IM always has to analyse a possibility
to provide an immediate economically viable alternative that causes no international impact.
The initiating IM always has the right to withdraw the alteration request.
In addition to the applicant holding the rights to the initially allocated path, the initiating IM
informs about the start of the process all potentially involved stakeholders, (e.g. IMs of the
subsequent path sections, but also IMs of preceding path sections if they might be potentially
affected). The involved IMs are referred to as affected IMs.
Each affected IM has to inform immediately the applicants and all other IMs as soon as it
becomes aware that there is no economically viable alternative.
e) Coordination and construction
The affected applicants and IMs jointly define in which way the alternative offer should be
prepared. Depending on the alternative and the impact on neighbouring IMs, the relevant
activities need to be harmonised.
The IMs should agree in advance when every affected IM will finish the construction process.
In the process of determination of the time frame, it has to be ensured that all affected IMs
have sufficient time to construct their train path section; the coordination is ensured by the
initiating IM.
Remark: Please note that the future harmonised timeline is part of the RNE project “Handling
TCRs in TT” and the document will be updated with the results of this project.
f) Path offer and acceptance
Once the initiating IM and all affected IMs have provided a harmonised alternative, the initiating
IM is in charge of sending the consistent offer – with remarks if necessary.
If all involved applicants agree with the alternative path offer, the applicant holding the rights
to the formerly initially allocated path on the network of the initiating IM sends a formal
acceptance notification. IMs have to adjust the path agreements accordingly.
The applicants’ acceptance should be sent within 7 calendar days of receipt of the path offer.
if no response is sent by the applicants the IMs withdraw the concerned running day.
If any of the applicants disagree with the alternative, it has the right to reject the path alteration
offer and ask for adaptation; any corresponding remark will be treated as far as possible in the
second offer. In case the originally allocated path is not available any more and the applicant
rejects also the second offer, the IMs withdraw the affected running days of the path.
g) Limited capacity on infrastructure
In some cases, the remaining capacity of the route and the alternatives is not sufficient to
provide all applicants holding the rights to the originally allocated paths with economically
usable alternatives. Priority rules in a fair and non-discriminatory manner shall be applied. The
applicable priority rules are defined in the Allocation Guidelines for Conflicting Capacity
Announcements and Requests (see Annexes to this document).
43
h) Permanent Alteration within the Running Timetable Period and the Subsequent
Timetable Period(s) – applies to Rolling Planning only
IMs can request a permanent alteration at any time during the running timetable
period. The first day of operation with the altered path can be proposed by the IM.
However, there should be at least a time gap of 30 days between request and first
day of operation. The IM’s proposal for alteration should refer to the characteristics of
the offered slot. If the IM’s request for alteration is accepted by the applicant, the IM(s)
will prepare an alternative offer including the revised path details for the running
timetable period. The path offer – taking the permanent alteration into account – for
the subsequent timetable period(s) will be processed as described in chapter 11.
13.4. General Assessment of Applicants' Requests for
Modifications in Rolling Planning with Impact on the
Subsequent TT Periods
In the previous chapters, it has been clearly stated that an applicant’s request for a modification
will be treated by the IM in the running timetable period only. Modifications in the subsequent
timetable period can be requested during the preparations for converting a slot into a path
(chapter 11). No IM activities regarding the capacity commitment (time window) for the
timetable period(s) after the next one will take place.
Discussions have shown that the analysis of modification requests for the timetable period(s)
after the next one would be challenging and time-consuming. If the modification request was
made in the first year of operation, three subsequent timetable periods could be affected; the
impact of the requested modification on all three would need to be analysed in detail. On the
one hand, this would tie up IM resources and on the other hand, analysing the feasibility of the
modification in the upcoming four years would require a good picture of all the various capacity
needs in the medium-term. This would mean that one of the aims of this project – increased
efficiency – could not be achieved anymore.
14. Cancellation
(for process diagrams, please see Annex 4)
This process applies to paths in the annual timetable ,Rolling Planning and ad hoc processes.
An applicant may always cancel an allocated path. This path cancellation may refer to one
single day, several days, or all remaining operation days. It is also possible to cancel the entire
train run (all path sections) or just one or more sections of the train run (one path section).
However, if more than one applicant is involved in the path sections, it may be possible for one
of the involved applicants to keep its allocated path section and reuse it for another traffic with
identical parameters. In such a case, the path modification process shall be applied (instead
of the cancellation process) for the applicant that still wishes to use its path section for another
train service. Partial cancellation of an allocated path is not recommended without
harmonisation with partner applicants, in order not to destroy the path.
Remark: Above chapter will be revised with an additional text for cancelling the guaranteed
slot in RP for the upcoming TT period(s). In addition, it will be clarified if the cancellation of an
“intermediate section” or an “intermediate period” will be possible.
44
15. Allocation Guidelines for Conflicting Capacity
Announcements and Requests
Conflicting capacity needs can be found in different phases of the timetabling process: In the
phase of the creation or update of the capacity model (X-36 until X-18), in the path planning
phase (X-16 until X-12) or in case of conflicting path requests. The manual in Annex 7 aims to
give a comprehensive overview of possible approaches to handling situations where the
available capacity is or might not be sufficient.
16. Preconditions (Enabling Factors)
Being an innovative and fresh approach to an outdated process, TTR requires a set of pre-
conditions to be successful. These must be seen as integral parts of TTR:
o Common commercial conditions (needed to effectively steer the process, prevent
misbehaviour in all steps and promote the efficient use of capacity and resources);
possible approaches currently under development
o IT (TTR aims for a digitised timetabling process, with fast and easy communication across all
European capacity planning systems, and short response times for applicants)
o Legal framework (adaptations of the legal framework are needed to prevent a
heterogeneous patchwork of prerequisites across Europe and to ensure the same
process standards in all countries)
17. Leading Entity
In all cases between X-60 and the running timetable where more than one IM are involved,
one of the IMs or another entity shall take over the role of leading (coordinating) entity. The
same applies also for applicants. These roles of the leading entities and also other involved
stakeholders are explained in detail in Annex 3.
18. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
TTR will provide a timetabling process that is as close to reality as possible. However, this also
requires monitoring and improvement. To measure the effectiveness of the process, KPIs will
be applied. Due to the fact that there is no common IT system used by all IMs and applicants
for all process steps and for all paths, only a small number of KPIs can be calculated. It is the
aim to apply European KPIs in order to measure the quantity and quality of paths from
advanced planning to operation, as well as compliance with frameworks and deadlines.
KPIs for the capacity strategy
• Do all IMs have a validated Capacity Strategy for TT 2025?
• Has it been implemented in the Capacity Model?
• Has the proposed template been used?
Remark: the exact calculation method will be added later
19. Communication
45
The Network Statement (NS) should contain information allowing known applicants and
potential new applicants to know their obligations and possibilities regarding the TTR process
20. Rail-Related Services
Rail-related services are not considered in this document, except in situations where requests
for access to the service facility or supply of a service are in conflict with another request, or
concerns service facility capacity already allocated (further explanations see chapter 3 in
Annex 7 ‘Allocation Guidelines for Conflicting Capacity Announcements and Requests’).
21. Train Operation
The train operates according to the path allocated by the IM and accepted by the applicant.
Any changes to the path (if necessary) are managed according to the rules for path
modification/path alteration.
22. Final Remarks
Topics related to the implementation of Rolling Planning are not part of this document.
46
23. Annexes
• Annex 1 Process Description of Long-Term & Advanced Planning
• Annex 1.1 Example for a Capacity Model on a Defined Line with Details
• Annex 1.2 Capacity Announcement Management
• Annex 2 Minor/Major Changes to the Path Request / Applicant’s Modification of the
Allocated Path
• Annex 3 Definition of roles (including responsibilities and tasks of leading entities)
• Annex 4 Process Diagrams
• Annex 5 Practice-Related Use Cases
• Annex 6 Use Cases Related to Path Modifications
• Annex 7 Allocation Guidelines for Conflicting Capacity Announcements and Requests
47
Annex 1: Process Description of Long-Term & Advanced Planning
Capacity Strategy (X-60 to X-36)
Period/Phase Activities
X-60 X-36 The common strategy has to be defined axis by axis between
involved IM and under the supervision of an axis governance
(RFC if relevant).
Creation of the capacity strategy: As soon as an IM has
reliable information on new market needs, a possible new TCR
concept (incl. known maintenance windows) or additional
capacity on principal lines and nodes, the known stakeholders
(neighbouring IM(s), further possible involved IM(s), applicants
or customer groups, RFCs*, etc.) should be consulted. For
international axis, this involvement could be done first between
IMs and in a next phase together with other involved
stakeholders. The involvement of the stakeholders can simply
be through information provision, or in the shape of a project
group, task force, etc. Exchange of information between IMs
should happen on a regular basis, at least once a year.
Description of the Cap. Strategy should be made in an
international standardised format. Information should be
provided to applicants through national IMs on a regular basis
and through national and international communication
platforms.
* if a corridor line is affected
Capacity model (X-36 to X-18)
Period/Phase Activities
X-36 The capacity model is coordinated axis by axis between involved
IM and under the supervision of an axis governance (RFC if
relevant)
Start discussion of proposals (IM timetable concept and
service concept of applicant)
Basis: capacity strategy is available. This activity is primarily
performed at domestic level, taking into account common axis
decisions. IMs inform the known and potential network users
about their intentions regarding capacity management (TCRs,
upgrade of existing lines, new technology, maintenance, etc.)
and provide an estimate of the impact on capacity. The IM’s
notification should also include information received from
neighbouring IM(s) or other IM(s) regarding their plans on the
48
other side of the network borders. Thanks to early coordination,
applicants will not be surprised later on by the announcement of
restrictions. Applicants may present their (new) ideas regarding
their intended offer for the timetable period in three years’ time.
Within the next months, IMs and applicants can clarify their
understanding or together define a joint approach for solving
restrictions related to the presented issues.
The preparation of a cap. model might start earlier than X-36 in
case of high consequence announcements (market needs, TCR,
new technology, etc.)
X-36 X-24 Agreement at national or international level regarding the
future offer
At international level, IMs/ABs should agree on the intended
volume (incl. quality) to be offered to international traffic.
Before X-24 Update of information between neighbouring IMs or
delivery of new information
Neighbouring IMs should update each other on new related
issues. The form of this update can be chosen. It is proposed to
have regular meetings between IMs (timetable and construction
experts) in which the time range X-36 X-18 is discussed and
harmonised. During each step, consistency with other TCRs has
to be checked and the impact on traffic has to be analysed.
The aim of this step is to help the neighbouring IM carry out the
next activity at X-24.
If, after having exchanged information, one IM realises that the
restrictions need to be aligned with the neighbouring IM(s),
relevant discussions between these IMs should start.
X-24 Sharing of known TCRs
IMs: publication of all known TCRs. Estimate of consequences
for traffic is based on current traffic or traffic forecast. IMs
49
optimise combinations of TCRs in order to minimise impact on
traffic.
X-24 Capacity needs announcement by applicants
(number of trains, train parameters, routing, interchange
points; form needs to be defined)
for details, see Annex 1.3 ‘Cap. Announcement
Management’
X-21 End of IM internal capacity needs announcement analysis and
interaction with neighbouring IM(s) concerning international
traffic; start of iteration with applicants if required.
X-18 Iteration between IMs and applicants regarding capacity needs
announcements should be finalised.
X-18 Update of published TCRs with major impact
Capacity Planning (X-18 to X-12) and Publication
X-17 Based on capacity analysis already done in earlier stages, TCRs
are harmonised by IMs and ready for consultation with
stakeholders. The result is the input for the publication at X-12.
X-16 IM: capacity needs announcement phase finalised
X-16 Network Statement consultation: IMs should present the
intended changes in comparison with the previous version
Applicants are invited to give feedback.
X-16 Information from RFCs/IMs to applicants at X-16, offering to give
feedback on volume/linking of sections for international
products.
X-16 Start of capacity planning
X-15 Observations by applicants related to the Network Statement
consultation. IMs/ABs will analyse them. The decision to take
them into account is the responsibility of the IMs.
X-15 Observations by applicants on intended pre-planned products
and capacity bands
X-15 Start of feasibility study for passenger and freight traffic
(form: study of rough capacity or exact times)
X-12 Publication of Network Statements / Corridor Information Doc.
Still to be confirmed by the RNE NS and CID WG when the
Corridor Information Documents will be published.
X-12 IMs: publication of all known TCRs according to the RNE TCR
Guidelines
X-11 Deadline for publishing the capacity supply for Annual Timetable
and Rolling Planning
50
Annex 1.1: Example for a Capacity Model on a Defined Line with Details
In this example, a TCR with major impact is expected between 1/7 and 1/9 in 2023. This TCR
will reduce the capacity on the line during these two months by 30 percent. To solve this
problem, the IM plans to reduce capacity for local and regional trains. During the summer
period, there are fewer passengers and trains can be replaced by a bus. Because of the TCR,
less maintenance will be needed on the relevant line, therefore the slot for maintenance can
be reduced from four to three hours. Not shown in the figure below is any unplanned capacity
that might still be available (e.g. during the night).
Line C D
System paths
designed for
Freq./
Hour
Volume/
Day
2020 2021 2022
1/7-1/9
2023
1/1-30/6,
2/9-31/12
Aligned with
other IMs?
Local train 4 4 4 2 4
Regional train 2 2 2 1 2
Intercity 2 2 2 2 2
Int. high speed
passenger train
0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 Yes
Freight train with
characteristics of
Annual TT traffic
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 Yes
Inspection train 0.1 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Charter train (e.g.
internat. holiday)
0.05 1 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 Yes
Int. freight train 1 20 1 1 1 1.5 Yes
Nat. path for empty
rolling passenger
stock
0.2 4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Nat. freight train 1 20 1 1 1 1.5
Daily maintenance
window
1:00-
5:00
4 hours 4hrs 4hrs 3hrs 4hrs
Estimated impact
on traffic affected
by TCRs
No No Yes
-30%
No Yes
Fig. xx: assigning capacity to market segments per line
Capacity for Annual TT requests
Capacity for Rolling Planning requests
TCRs
51
Annex 1.2: Proposal for Building the Capacity Partitioning
Capacity for Annual Timetable Requests for Timetable 20xx
• Volume to be defined by IM’s own hypothesis concerning market development and capacity
needs announcements by applicants; must also comply with capacity
requirements for Rolling Planning requests and TCRs
• To be used for • Annual requests for timetable 20xx placed in 20xx-1yr until X-8.5
• Annual request traffic for TT 20xx placed in 20xx-1yr after deadline
at X-8
Capacity for Rolling Planning Requests for Timetable 20xx and Upcoming Timetable Periods
• Volume to be defined by IM’s own hypothesis on market development and capacity needs
announcements from applicants; must also comply with capacity
requirements for Annual Timetable requests and TCRs plus the
possible inclusion of part of the residual capacity for Annual Timetable
requests made in the middle of 20xx-1yr (after finalisation of annual
timetable 20xx)
• To be used for • New Rolling Planning requests placed in 20xx-1yr for timetable
20xx (and perhaps for timetable 20xx+1yr and 20xx+2yrs)
• New Rolling Planning requests placed in 20xx for timetable 20xx
(and perhaps for timetable 20xx+1yr and 20xx+2yrs)
• IM’s Rolling Planning commitments (slots) for timetable 20xx made
in the previous year(s)
• Rolling Planning requests with a short operational period of just
some days for the timetable 20xx
Unplanned Capacity
• Volume Leftover capacity not being used for potential requests for Annual
Timetable and Rolling Planning
• to be used for • Annual Timetable requests for timetable 20xx placed in 20xx-1yr
placed on time or after the deadline at X-8.5, where the pre-planned
capacity does not fit to the customer requirement
• Any other path requests placed at short notice that were not
anticipated in the capacity partitioning for Annual Timetable and
Rolling Planning
• Ad hoc requests for individual train runs
52
Annex 1.3: Capacity Announcement Management
Description
This proposal focuses on activities regarding information exchange between IMs/RFCs and
applicants in order to identify the capacity needs for all stakeholders during the future steps in
the preparation of the timetable.
Applicants have required a consultation process to be put in place to enable them to participate
in the design of the future capacity, balanced between freight services, passenger services,
and capacity restrictions.
A common IT system should be made available to applicants to indicate their future needs for
capacity. The system should allow them to enter all necessary information and parameters in
order for IMs to plan capacity. The data input fields could be based on the agreed content for
TAF/TAP messages for path requests. It can be assumed that applicants in the passenger
market will make use of the possibility to deliver very detailed information. However, most
applicants in the freight market will find it difficult to indicate detailed data. They probably would
like to present their needs in terms of volumes (e.g. number of paths per day and line sections).
The entire process will be managed under the control and responsibility of the IMs and RFCs,
preserving full confidentiality.
1) Until X-24, applicants may indicate their needs for capacity in the IT system. For
international traffic, capacity announcements need to be harmonised by the involved
applicants. The input can be expressed in different ways:
- Indication ‘Status quo’ if no changes to the current offer are intended
- Indication ‘Status quo’ with adaptations
- Detailed input for new or changed traffic (paths in a defined time window incl.
parameters, e.g. stops)
- Rough estimate of needed capacity (number of paths per day)
2) Between X-24 and X-21, IMs analyse the collected data (plausibility check of data, detection
of multiple data entries for the same train service, comparison with own traffic forecast
hypothesis, etc.). In case of announcements concerning international traffic, an alignment
of the analysis and conclusions between neighbouring IMs and the RFCs – if paths for
international freight traffic on a corridor line are involved – should take place.
3) X-21 to X-18: if necessary, consultation process with applicants to clarify their needs (lack
of plausibility, non-fulfilment of their needs due to missing capacity, assessment of
alternatives, etc.). If this applies to paths for international freight traffic, this should be done
by RFCs.
4) From X-18 to X-16 IMs:
a) Decide what to plan jointly for cross-border lines. Capacity planning should recognise all
capacity needs for all types of traffic, including IMs’ own requirements (e.g. for temporary
capacity restrictions).
b) Design capacity in close cooperation with other IMs and by consulting applicants when
needed.
53
Capacity Announcement Process Scheme
Capacity announcement
IMApplicants Involved IMs RFCs RNE
X-1
5
X
-16
X-1
8
X-2
1
X
-24
Start
Prepare/update/opening of the common
IT system
Offer for filling of the tool
Fill in the IT system with capacity needs for the in
two years’ TT (incl. RFCs capacity)
Analyse the collected data
Alignment of the analysis and conclusions for international traffic
Analyse the collected data
Alignment of the analysis and conclusions for international traffic
Alignment of the analysis and conclusions for international traffic
Consultation and clarification
Consultation and clarification
Consultation and clarification
Consultation and clarification
Capacity planning for all needs
for all types of traffic
Capacity planning for all needs
for all types of traffic
Constructing and designing capacity
Constructing and designing capacity
Information about intended RFC offer
Analysis of RFC offer
Observation
Analysis of observations
Advanced planning Advanced planning
Analyse the collected data
54
Annex 2: Minor/Major Changes to the Path Request (Before Allocation) /
Applicant’s Modification of the Allocated Path
Change of the Request /
Modification to Allocated Path
Major Minor
Times
Departure at origin Y
Arrival at destination Y
Stop times Y, (impact on other paths) * Y, (no impact on other paths)
* decision to be taken by IM
Number of stops
Fewer Y, impact on other paths Y, no impact and required
stopping time may be used as
buffer time
More Y
Journey
Route deviation (national) Y
Route deviation (internat.: border
point change)
Y
Train parameters
Length Y: if it has an impact on own
and/or another path
Y: if it has no impact and/or
shorter than requested
Weight Y: if it has an impact on own
and/or another path
Y: if it has no impact and/or
lighter than requested
Speed Y: (e.g. slower, faster) if it has
an impact on own and/or
another path (if applicant
wishes to modify times)
Y: if it has no impact on
another path
Exceptional Gauge Y
Load profile (combined traffic) Y: if the load profile exceeds
the indicated path parameters
(leads probably to a
rerouting/exc. transport)
Y: smaller or if it is bigger but
still complies with the path
parameters
Traction type Y: if it has an impact on the
original path
Y: performance improvement
Number of traction units Y: influences max. length and
performance
Y: if fewer units – but only if
performance is unchanged
Number of days of operation
(calendar)
55
More No modification to allocated
path, but new request needed
Fewer No modification, just partial
cancellation
Change of operating partner
RU
Y: if it has an impact on own
or another path (new RU has
different needs)
Y: only if the parameters are
complied with
Any other changes
Replace scheduled rolling stock Y, if it has an impact on own
and/or another path (e.g. if
parameters (tech. equipment)
are not identical with originally
scheduled rolling stock)
Y, complies with originally
scheduled rolling stock
Rerouting in station (e.g. another
platform for short connection)
Y, if it has an impact on own
and/or another path
Y, if no influence on path
Annex 3: Definition of roles (including responsibilities and tasks of leading
entities)
Various stakeholders are involved in the entire timetable process from the creation of a
capacity strategy to the operational use of a path. Annex 3 therefore aims to define the tasks
and responsibilities of the individual roles in the respective process phases.
see separate pdf documents (print in A3 for better readability)
56
Annex 4: Process Diagrams
• Long-term & advanced planning
• Annual Timetable request & Rolling Planning request
• Rolling Planning – subsequent timetable period
• Path modifications
• Path cancellation
• Path alteration
see separate pdf documents (print in A3 for better readability)
57
Annex 5: Practice-Related Use Cases
About this Annex
In this annex, many possible use cases are listed. These use cases refer either to Annual
Timetable or Rolling Planning traffic, and deal with the various process steps: from requests
to withdrawals, cancellations, modifications, or inclusion of TCRs.
see separate pdf document (print in A3 for a better readability)
58
Annex 6: Use Cases Related to Path Modifications
59
60
61
Annex 7: Allocation Guidelines for Conflicting Capacity Announcements and Requests
TTR: Allocation Guidelines for Conflicting
Capacity Announcements and Requests
(Draft Version 0.5)
RailNetEurope
Oelzeltgasse 3/9
AT-1030 Vienna
Phone: +43 1 907 62 72 00
Fax: +43 1 907 62 72 90
www.rne.eu
Forum Train Europe
Hilfikerstrasse 3
CH-3000 Bern 65
Phone: +41 51 285 07 45
www.forumtraineurope.eu
62
Table of Contents
1. Basics ............................................................................................................................................ 63
1.1 Definitions .............................................................................................................................. 63
1.2 Goal of the Allocation Guidelines for Conflicting Capacity Announcements and Requests.. 63
1.3 Scope of this Document ........................................................................................................ 63
1.4 Reference Documents ........................................................................................................... 64
1.5 Overview of Extracts from the Existing Legal Framework ..................................................... 64
2. Description of the Elements of the TTR Allocation Guidelines ...................................................... 66
2.1 Capacity Model (X-36 – X-18) ............................................................................................... 66
2.2 Capacity Planning (X-16 – X-12) ........................................................................................... 68
2.3 Allocation Rules for Annual Timetable .................................................................................. 69
2.4 Rolling Planning ..................................................................................................................... 71
2.5 Path Alteration ....................................................................................................................... 71
3. Allocation Rules for Rail-Related Services .................................................................................... 72
4. Allocation Rules for the TTR Pilots ................................................................................................ 72
Version Date Description
0.1 21 Sept. 2018 Document created by Daniel Haltner
0.2 04 Oct. 2018 Revision of first version by the members of the WP
Allocation Rules
0.3 05 Nov. 2018
Inclusion of feedbacks from WP Allocation Rules
members as well as inputs from the TTR Pilot Board
meeting on 30.10.18
0.4 29 Nov. 2018 Inclusion of feedback from WP Allocation Rules
members to V0.3 as well as input from S. Carek
0.4-1 5 Dec. 2018
Input for a more comprehensive explanation
regarding better management of TCRs and
conditional allocation.
0.5 16 May 2019 Inclusion of input from TTR Legal Task Force
63
1. Basics
1.1. Definitions
For the purpose of this manual, the following definitions apply:
(1) ‘Allocation rules’ means rules set out by the law and/or the Infrastructure Manager
(IM)/Allocation Body (AB) to be applied in the capacity-partitioning and allocation
process (X-60 up until X+12).
(2) 'Conflict' means a situation of two or more applicants announcing to request or
requesting identical infrastructure capacity. Thus, the conflict can occur at any major
phase of the allocation process (e.g. capacity model, capacity planning, annual
scheduling, etc.). For a detailed explanation in the Annual TT (ATT), see the
corresponding section (‘Definition of Conflict’) in chapter 2.3.
(3) ‘Coordination’ means a process of attempting to resolve a conflict through consultation
of the IM with the applicants concerned.
1.2. Goal of the Allocation Guidelines for Conflicting Capacity
Announcements and Requests
This manual aims to give a comprehensive overview of possible approaches to handling
situations where the available capacity is or might not be sufficient. This can happen in the
phase of the creation or update of the capacity model (X-36 until X-18), in the path planning
phase (X-16 until X-12) or in case of conflicting path requests.
1.3. Scope of this Document
This manual can be applied in the TTR pilots for timetable period 2020 et seq. It provides an
overview of extracts from the existing legal framework relevant to the TTR capacity allocation
process as well as suggestions on how to handle conflicts during the capacity design and
allocation process, which are based on operational experience from IMs that already have
some experience with such or similar processes. IMs should consider the document as
guidance when defining the measures they intend to apply in such cases. Before including
information on the relevant measures/procedures in their Network Statement (or PID), it is
strongly recommended to check compliance with the applicable legal framework.
The rules and procedures described in this manual follow these principles:
• Principal aim of allocation rules: non-discriminatory and optimal capacity usage
implying transparency on the allocation conditions/criteria and, where necessary (for
better use of the railway infrastructure), implying to support the adjustment of the
capacity offer to suit the needs for infrastructure.
• Allocation rules are necessary to ensure that the capacity defined in the capacity model
can be guaranteed and maintained regarding the amount and quality of the offered
paths, both for the ATT and Rolling Planning (RP) capacity.
64
• The overall capacity of a railway network is not a fixed value and varies depending on
the supply respectively timetable concept. At the same time, applicants shall be
enabled to adjust their activities to the market.
• In order to achieve the overall objective of TTR to make applicants request paths not
before the date when the capacity requirements are sufficiently well known, it is crucial
that the applicants can rely on a sufficient capacity offer. Therefore, the proposed
allocation guidelines for the path planning phase (X-16 to X-12) should support the
provision of a reliable capacity for all traffic needs.
• Allocation guidelines should be the decision-making tool only in case no commonly
agreed solution between the involved parties can be found at the end of a conflict
resolution and/or coordination process.
• Allocation guidelines should ideally be implemented in an identical way on all networks
in order to ensure an aligned treatment in case they are applied. However, this might
be problematic under the existing legal framework due to national legal frameworks
and national allocation rules.
1.4. Reference Documents
This manual is based on the complete TTR description (‘TTR: Description of the Redesigned
Timetabling Process’, Version 1.0).
1.5. Overview of Extracts from the Existing Legal Framework
1.5.1 European Law
This manual contains allocation procedures for all stages of TTR, starting from the design of
the capacity model up until the allocation of capacity to ATT and RP requests, while existing
European provisions on the allocation of capacity and handling conflicting requests mainly
relate to the annual scheduling phase and do not (explicitly) mention the RP concept.
a) Directive 2012/34/EU contains the following provisions relevant to the scope of
this manual:
Article 39(1) of the Directive entitles Member States to lay down a capacity allocation
framework; in doing so, they have to respect the management independence of the IM. The
IM has to allocate infrastructure capacity in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.
According to Article 45 the IM must, as far as possible, meet all requests for infrastructure
capacity and take account of all constraints on applicants. If the IM encounters conflicts
between different requests during the annual scheduling process, it must attempt, through
coordination of the requests, to ensure the best possible matching of all requirements (see
Article 46).
Where, after coordination of the requested paths and consultation with applicants, it is not
possible to satisfy requests for infrastructure capacity adequately, Article 47 requires the IM to
immediately declare the section of infrastructure on which this has occurred to be congested.
65
The IM also has to declare congested infrastructure which can be expected to suffer from
insufficient capacity in the near future.
The IM may give priority to specific services within the scheduling and coordination process
only where a line has been declared congested or on specialised infrastructure (see Articles
47 and 49).
Article 48(2) entitles the IM to keep available reserved capacity in the final scheduled working
timetable (even on congested lines) to enable it to respond to foreseeable requests.
Point 6 of Annex VII clarifies that the IM can reschedule an already allocated path if this is
necessary to ensure the best possible matching of all path requests and if it is approved by the
applicant to which the path had been allocated.
b) Regulation (EU) 913/2010 contains the following provisions relevant to the
scope of this manual:
Article 14(1) of the Regulation requires the Executive Boards of the Rail Freight Corridors
(RFC) to establish a framework for capacity allocation on the RFCs. According to Article 14(4)
of the Regulation pre-arranged paths established on the basis of the Regulation have to be
first allocated to freight trains crossing at least one border.
At the level of the framework for capacity allocation the Executive Boards of the RFCs have
agreed on common priority rules to be applied in the case of conflicting requests for pre-
arranged paths (see Annex 1 on the frameworks for capacity allocation on the RFCs).
c) Commission Implementing Regulation 2016/545 on framework agreements
contains the following provisions relevant to the scope of this manual:
Article 10 of the Implementing Regulation on framework agreements requires IMs to hold a
coordination round in case of a conflict of an ATT request with an existing framework
agreement. If this coordination round does not allow to solve the conflict, the IM has to assess
the path request and the framework agreement according to a list of criteria established in
Article 10(2). The aim of this assessment is to identify whether the framework agreement or
the ATT request would allow to make better use of the infrastructure and what is the impact of
an allocation of the capacity to the ATT request on the holder of the framework agreement. If
the assessment shows that the requested paths would make better use of the infrastructure
and if the additional income generated from allocating these paths would at least offset any
contractual penalties incurred by a modification or termination of the framework agreement,
the IM must request the modification of existing framework agreements for the next timetable
period.
A similar approach is to be followed in case of conflicting requests for framework agreements
(see Article 9 of the Commission Implementing Regulation).
66
1.5.2 National Law
Based on Article 39(1) of Directive 2012/34/EU, Member States have adopted capacity
allocation frameworks with different levels of detail. In some Member States detailed allocation
rules are defined in law and significantly limit the freedom of IMs to define allocation rules of
their own, whereas in other Member States it is mostly up to the IMs or ABs to define them.
The rules and procedures proposed in this manual may be in conflict with some of the rules
defined in national law. Wherever this is the case, it should be assessed whether the national
legal framework adequately respects the management independence of the IM (see Article 4
of Directive 2012/34/EU).
2. Description of the Elements of the TTR Allocation
Guidelines
In the life cycle of the timetabling process from X-60 until X+12, there are several occasions
where allocation guidelines and/or rules and procedures can support the decision of an IM
regarding the distribution of capacity in case of restricted capacity. These phases are: capacity
model (2.1), capacity planning (2.2), requests for ATT (2.3), requests for RP (2.4) and path
alteration (2.5).
2.1. Capacity Model (X-36 – X-18)
a) Introduction
In case that today’s available capacity can cover today’s capacity needs, it can be assumed
that it will also be the case in some years if nothing is going to change on the IM side (e.g. no
new or changed infrastructure, technology, restrictions) or on the side of the market needs.
There can also be cases where changes on the IM side or new/different market needs do not
have an impact as enough capacity is available.
On the other hand, there can also be changes on the side of the IM and/or market requirements
in which case the available capacity will not be sufficient. In such an event, the following
proposal might be helpful to solve conflicts in the capacity model preparation or updating
phase.
b) Proposed Approach
During the capacity model design phase, there are four possible circumstances where the
available capacity cannot satisfy all market requirements as well as IM internal needs
(TCRs/maintenance). For each of these circumstances, there are possible solutions
(procedures/suggestions) that might solve or reduce capacity conflicts. The proposed solutions
focus on short-term operational measures; at the same time, it needs to be recalled that Article
47 of Directive 2012/34 requires the IM to declare any section that can be expected to suffer
from insufficient capacity in the near future as congested.
67
TCRs with Major, High or Medium Impact; Different Maintenance Concept
• Instead of a standard maintenance programme for all lines, an IM could have different
maintenance concepts depending on the type of line (tailored solution for each line)
• In case of TCRs, after consultation of potential applicants, the best period for conducting
the work should be defined. Aim: limit the impact and/or common agreement between
both IMs and applicants and give applicants the possibility to look for alternative routings
in due time.
• Annex VII to Directive 2012/34/EU: It is expected that the implementation of the new
mandatory rules on TCR coordination will lead to an improved management of TCRs
which will result in either a reduction of impacts or an acceptance of the impact thanks
to a transparent and early consultation and coordination with stakeholders.
New or Changed Traffic Demand
• Optimal usage of the capacity is closely linked to a system path offer with standardised
parameters. The closer a new or changed traffic demand is in line with these parameters,
the higher the chance for realisation.
• New or changed traffic demand can be implemented in different ways It is proposed that
an IM creates scenarios for the various options with a focus on capacity consumption,
based on fixed and volatile elements and parameters that have been agreed on with the
applicant. Together, the best solution in terms of optimal usage of the capacity should
be identified in a coordination process.
Change in the Production Concept of an Applicant (circumstances triggered by rolling
stock changes)
• In case of missing capacity, a partial implementation might be an (intermediate) solution,
for example by not making full use of the new concept.
• One approach could be the harmonisation of speed in order to avoid having too many
different system paths with heterogeneous parameters.
• Example for the above statement: Tilting train reduces the journey times by 15 minutes
but destroys three paths of another category without any alternative. Solution could be,
that the tilting function is used only on a section (e.g. last section before entering a node)
and the time benefit is not 15 minutes but still several minutes without any negative
impact on other paths.
New or Changed Infrastructure (circumstances triggered by infrastructure)
• When defining the requirements for the new infrastructure, a possible negative impact
on the capacity should be already taken into account (e.g. for a new stop: not only
building a platform but perhaps also an overtaking track for faster trains).
• Evaluation of scenarios by the IM and/or the applicant (e.g. new stop replaces another
less frequented stop, applicant defines different stopping philosophy or even a different
concept).
An overview of these approaches can be found at the end of this Annex.
68
2.2. Capacity Planning (X-16 – X-12)
a) Introduction
This chapter refers to the phase from approx. X-16 to X-12 when IMs are planning the capacity
either for ATT or RP traffic. It might happen that in the phase of the elaboration of the capacity
model, enough capacity can initially be made available for the various needs. However, due to
for example TCRs with a medium impact, the IM might subsequently face the problem that
there is a lack of capacity in this planning phase. Therefore, this chapter presents possible
criteria that can be applied in such a case.
b) Proposed Approach
Respecting paragraphs 8 and 11 of Annex VII to Directive 2013/34/EU, the corresponding
descriptions in the RNE Guidelines for Coordination/Publication of Planned Temporary
Capacity Restrictions will probably be the most promising approach for solving conflicts in this
phase.
Process steps for coordinating all known medium impact TCRs
Medium impact TCRs
As early as known, but before X-13.5, IMs shall inform applicants and affected IMs about
known medium impact TCRs with international impact. Based on this information, IMs trigger
the consultation of applicants, who may place their comments and concerns.
IMs perform the coordination of TCRs according to the results of the consultation phase in
such a way that impact on capacity and applicants is as low as reasonably possible, the use
of infrastructure as efficient as reasonably possible (no non-parallel works on the same line,
etc.). Coordination shall be facilitated through bilateral (or trilateral) meetings of neighbouring
IMs. The IMs shall, if necessary, invite the applicants active on the lines concerned, the main
operators of service facilities and the RFC concerned to get involved in that coordination. In
case of conflicting TCRs, IMs have to make sure that these conflicts are being resolved.
Between X-18 (major TCRs) or X-13,5 (high and medium TCRs) and X-12
Medium impact TCRs
Coordination shall be finalised at the latest at X-13.5, after which IMs consult applicants on the
results. Decisions resulting from the different rounds of consultation with the applicants should
reflect the aim of reducing IMs’ costs and minimising the impact on applicants.
It needs to be highlighted that the impact on the ATT capacity needs to be discussed with the
potential applicants for this capacity and for the impact on the RP capacity, the potential
applicants for this category must be consulted. It should not be forgotten that some of the RP
capacity has already been committed to an applicant who had requested multi-annual RP
capacity some time ago.
69
2.3. Allocation Rules for Annual Timetable
a) Introduction
The deadline for receipt of requests for paths to be incorporated into the ATT will be at X-8,5.
Requests received after this deadline shall also be considered by the IM/AB. However, in
principle they are treated on the basis of first come – first served.
Path requests received on time generally have the same starting position for the allocation of
capacity. Therefore, clear rules need to be defined, which can be applied when no commonly
agreed solution can be found in case of path request conflict.
If an IM is able to convert the capacity needs announcements from applicants into very realistic
pre-planned (system) paths and applicants request these pre-planned paths as foreseen, there
will not be many path requesting conflicts. Nevertheless, there will always be situations where
two or more applicants request the identical ATT capacity. The following conflicts are possible:
• Between passenger trains only
• Between passenger and freight train placed in the ATT process
• Between freight trains placed in the ATT process only
o for exactly the same traffic (at the end just one applicant will operate the train)
o or between different types of traffic
b) Proposed Approach
Before applying any allocation rules, a path request conflict resolution procedure in accordance
with Article 46 of the Directive shall take place. However, this might be challenging if paths for
long-running trains travelling through some countries are involved and there are conflicts in
various areas. The added value of this conflict resolution can be limited if there is absolutely
no willingness from the potential ‘winner’ of a conflict to be ready to accept an alternative. The
reduction of the path construction phase from 12 to 8 weeks should motivate the involved IMs
and applicants to find a joint solution in an efficient conflict resolution process.
Path conflicts: if in one country, the path is involved in a conflict, this IM (leading IM) should
check with the applicant (if this is not the leading applicant, then the leading applicant needs
to be consulted by the leading IM in a first step) if the solution should be searched for in an
earlier or later time window or even in a different routing. Based on the feedback of the (leading)
applicant, the leading IM should mandate the involved IMs to elaborate an alternative. The
result will be handed over to the applicants for consultation.
An IT solution must be used in order to facilitate the coordination and consultation between
IMs as well as between applicants and finally between IM and applicant.
In case of a call for tender, there is a high probability that several requests for identical capacity
will be placed. An IM will block the requested capacity only once. This capacity will be allocated
to the winner of the call for tender. Due to different production concepts of applicants, it might
be that not exactly identical capacity will be requested. All requests will be further treated as
regular requests with separate, individual draft and final offer for each request. If the call for
tender is still ongoing at the time of the final allocation, IMs should not allocate the relevant
capacity but keep it available as reserve capacity for foreseeable ad hoc requests in the
working timetable.
Definition of conflict: A path requesting conflict is a situation where the IM(s) cannot satisfy the
requests for infrastructure capacity adequately. There are, on the one hand, ‘technical’ conflicts
where on the IM side the path construction cannot be harmonised or aligned with the customer
70
request (e.g. TCRs with a minor impact, negative border times or time-related derogation to
the initials times of the path request (can be different for each type of train category)). In this
case, the IMs need to solve them before forwarding the offers to the applicants. On the other
hand, there are conflicts in the path allocation in case two or more applicants requested
identical or conflicting capacity. Here, the involvement of these applicants is needed in order
to coordinate the offer.
IMs have to look for a consensus-based solution in a conflict resolution process, as required
by article 46 of Directive 2012/34/EU. In the absence of a joint agreement, allocation (= priority)
rules are needed.5 From a European and from an economic point of view, trains running on
paths on long stretches and on a frequent (daily) basis should benefit with regard to paths that
are used just on short stretches and not very often. The allocation rule currently published in
the Framework of Capacity Allocation on the Rail Freight Corridors (see Article 14 of
Regulation (EU) 913/2010) already reflects this approach. Taking over this approach
(calculation of distance x number of running days) into the ATT conflict resolution procedure
would lead to the fact that in the future, long running trains would benefit in case of a path
requesting conflict. In other words, international traffic could be in a better position to be
allocated the requested path than domestic traffic, even if the distance in one country is shorter
than the one of the conflicting requests.
If in the conflict resolution round the requests cannot be separated based on the allocation
rules/priority criteria (e.g. same distance and identical operating days) and no commonly
agreed decision can be found, a bidding or a random selection (tossing a coin, random draw,
etc.) could be used as a last possibility to decide on the requests.
c) Proposed Approach for ATT Requests Conflicting with Capacity Safeguarded for
RP Requests
The TTR concept is based on the idea of splitting capacity into (inter alia) capacity for ATT
requests and capacity for RP requests ahead of the annual scheduling phase. If an applicant
were to request capacity reserved for RP requests during the ATT request period, the IM
should in principle be in a position to reject such a request without coordination, provided that
capacity for RP requests has been reserved in accordance with Article 48(2) of Directive
2012/34/EU or Article 14(5) of Regulation (EU) 913/2010.6
d) Proposed Approach for Path Requests Referring to a Framework Agreement
In a path requesting conflict involving at least one request that refers to a framework
agreement, the procedure as described in article 10 of the Commission Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2016/545 of 7 April 2016 on procedures and criteria concerning framework
agreements for the allocation of rail infrastructure capacity must be applied.
5 Article 45(2) and point 3(e) of Annex IV to Directive 2012/34/EU seems to suggest that priority rules can
only be applied on infrastructure that has been declared congested and on specialised infrastructure.
However, some national capacity allocation frameworks and Network Statements of IMs foresee the
application of priority rules also in other cases where coordination has not allowed to solve a conflict. The
relevant provisions have up until now not been challenged by the European Commission
6 Please note that discussion as to whether Article 48 of Directive 2012/4/EU and Article 14(5) of
Regulation (EU) 913/2010 can be accepted as legal basis to reserve capacity for RP requests is still ongoing.
71
e) Proposed Approach for Late Path Requests (point 3 of Annex VII to Directive
2012/34/EU)
The IM will serve requests for ATT traffic placed after the deadline for ATT traffic first from
residual but not yet requested ATT capacity. If no residual ATT capacity is available or does
not meet customer requirements, the remaining unplanned capacity should be used.
2.4. Rolling Planning
a) Introduction
In RP, the first come – first served principle will be applied. Therefore, receiving two conflicting
path requests at the same time for exactly the identical capacity is highly unlikely. However, in
order to ensure the optimal use of capacity, an IM should prevent the situation where an
allocated and already operating RP traffic with just a minor number of operating days (e.g.
every Wednesday) restricts RP traffic with a higher volume.
b) Proposed Approach
If the IM encounters conflicts between allocated and already operating RP traffic and new RP
capacity requests, that cannot be solved due to missing available capacity, a coordination
round should take place. The intention of this step is that applicants with just a few running
days a week can be motivated to merge their path (respectively their slot for the upcoming TT
periods) with other paths being used also on a few weekdays only. This procedure shall only
take place if the already operating RP traffic runs the train – for instance – once or twice a
week and the new RP request is for at least three weekdays. Point 6 of Annex VII to Directive
2012/34/EU might provide a legal basis for making the owner of a RP slot accept a re-
allocation. However, there are cases where this procedure should not be applied. Examples:
1) RP slot/capacity was requested some time ago for 1x/week for 36 months. New RP slot
request for 5x/week but only for three months. 2) Applicant has a RP slot 2x/week from
Stockholm to Milano. Another applicant requests RP capacity 5x/week from Padborg to
Hamburg. Finding an alternative for the applicant with two running days in 5 countries might
be very challenging.
Call for tender: If the IM(s) realise in the path construction phase that two or more RP requests
refer to the same traffic, an identical procedure as for call for tender requests in the ATT can
be applied. If an IM has already sent the offer to the applicant and another applicant is
requesting identical capacity later on, the IM must forward a different offer.
2.5. Path Alteration
a) Introduction
An applicant can expect an allocated path to be available up to its time of operation. However, if an event occurs (e.g. important short-term needs for construction works or TCRs with minor impact) prior to the start of the operation and the allocated path is no longer available, the IM has to trigger a path alteration process as soon as the new TCR or a disturbance is known to provide the applicants with an alternative path. There, applicants and IMs jointly define in which way the alternative offer should be prepared. However, it can happen that there will be not
72
enough capacity for the elaboration of an alternative offer for all affected paths. Thus, an IM needs clear rules on how to deal with such a situation.
b) Proposed Approach
The following allocation principles shall be followed if there is less capacity than needed. 100%
of capacity available for re-routing (residual and non-planned capacity) is allocated between
ATT, RP and ad hoc traffic according to the shares of these three segments in the running
working timetable.
For the share of the ATT and regular RP, traffic is analysed per week during the expected time
of interruption. The share of every applicant on the route with the TCR is calculated at the
location where the TCRs start and/or end as the basis for determining the number of paths to
be offered on each re-routing line. The already allocated paths on the rerouting line needs to
be taken into account as well. If the weekly share of an applicant in the ATT or RP applied to
the reduced capacity of a re-routing line does not allow for daily paths, the days of operation
will be coordinated with the individual applicant. Every applicant gets at least one path per
week and direction.
3. Allocation Rules for Rail-Related Services
If requests for access to the service facility or supply of a service are in conflict with another
request or concerns service facility capacity already allocated, the coordination procedure as
described in article 10 of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2177 of 22
November 2017 on access to service facilities and rail-related services must be applied.
Based on article 7 of the above Implementing Regulation, IMs and service facility operators
need to coordinate to ensure that capacity allocated on the infrastructure and in service
facilities matches.
4. Allocation Rules for the TTR Pilots
1) Introduction
The principle first come – first served will be applied already in the pilot phase. For the pilots
Antwerp – Rotterdam and Mannheim – Miranda de Ebro, it is foreseen that the RP capacity
needs to be requested via PCS. PCS dossiers will be forwarded to a single entity (C-OSS) for
further processing.
For the pilot Munich – Verona, a different solution is planned. Applicants asked the pilot
organisation if they can place requests for RP capacity with the national tools*. In the most
extreme case, in a cooperation model with three applicants in AT, DE and IT, the requests for
the same traffic will be placed at the three IMs. This procedure could become a challenge if,
for example, in one country, the request for the national section is placed later (e.g. due to a
national holiday).
73
* From the perspective of improving international business, this can only be an approach for a launching phase. In
addition, no coordination or monitoring/supervising role can be given to the C-OSS due to missing access to national
tools.
c) Proposed Approach
Pilots Antwerp – Rotterdam / Mannheim – Miranda de Ebro:
The C-OSS is able to see, which request has been placed earlier. The processing of these
requests will be done in batch mode. However, IMs shall arrange the paths in a certain
sequence in order to make best use of the available RP capacity. In any case, the published
parameters of the RP capacity need to be respected. The first come – first served principle will
be applied only in case of conflicts where the remaining capacity is insufficient.
Pilot Munich – Verona:
a) In this case, all three IMs will receive the dossier at the same time. Further processing as
described in the proposed approach for the other two pilots.
b) If the applicants’ wish for placing national requests is to be fulfilled, the three IMs have to
agree on the solution that the time of receipt of the third/last path request applies for the
determination of the first come – first served deadline. The precondition for this approach is
that IMs are able to recognise, which requests refer to the same traffic. It means that applicants
need to add a comment/identifier for IMs in order to mark, which national requests are
connected to each other.
c) Applicants can either place their request via PCS or in the national systems. If the national
systems are used, the same reservations as for approach b) apply.
74
Additions to Chapter 2.1: Capacity Model – Possible Solutions for Supporting the Attribution of the Available
Capacity to the Various Needs
Introduction: In case that today’s available capacity can cover the needs of today’s requirements, it can be assumed that it will also be the case
in some years if nothing is going to change on the IM side or on the side of the market needs. Below is an overview of events that have an
impact on the available capacity, including proposals for solving capacity conflicts:
Overview of Events with an Impact on the Available Capacity
Event TCRs or different
maintenance concepts
New or changed traffic
demand
Change in the production
concept of an RU
(rolling stock triggered
circumstances)
New or changed
infrastructure
(circumstances triggered by
infrastructure)
Short
description
TCRs with major, high or
medium impact or IM’s intention
to change the existing
maintenance concept to a
new/different approach
RU/applicants announced
additional (new) services or
intend a time shifting of existing
services
RU/applicants intend to change
the rolling stock of an existing
service which has an impact on
the journey times (tilting train,
different engine type, etc.)
Events with an impact on the
journey times (e.g. inauguration
of an additional stopping
location, different signalling
system)
Possible
approaches
(criteria)
1) Instead of a standard
maintenance programme for
all lines, an IM should have
different maintenance
concepts depending on the
type of line (tailored solution
for each line)
2) In case of TCRs, the best
period for concluding the
work should be defined
1) An optimal usage of the
capacity is closely linked to
system path offers with
standardised parameters.
The closer a new or
changed traffic demand is in line with these parameters,
the higher the chance for
realisation. IMs should
motivate their customers to
1) In case of missing capacity,
a partial implementation
might be possible. Example:
Not making full use of the
new concept – tilting train
with speed restrictions on
some parts of journey (e.g.
lines entering a node)
2) Harmonisation of speed in
order to avoid having too
1) When defining the
requirement for the new
infrastructure, the possible
negative impact on the
capacity should be already
taken into account (e.g. for
a new stop: not only building
the platform but perhaps
also an overtaking track for
faster trains).
75
together with potential
applicants. Aim: limit the
impact or common
agreement between
stakeholders
3) Annex VII, 2012/34/EU:
Implementation will lead to
better management of TCRs
which will result in either a
reduction of impacts or an
acceptance of the impact
thanks to a transparent and
early consultation of the
stakeholders. This requires
that the IMs’ information on
TCRs and RUs’/applicants’
on their future capacity
needs stays reliable.
make their capacity needs
announcements as detailed
as possible.
2) New or changed traffic(*)
demand can be
implemented differently. It is
proposed that an IM creates
scenarios for the various
options with a focus on the
capacity consumption.
Together with the RU/
applicant, the best solution
for an optimal usage of the
capacity on lines and nodes
with a high occupation,
should be found in an
iterative process.
3) IMs need to analyse inputs
for new traffic, taking into
consideration their own
experience of the traffic
development in the past.
(*) In freight traffic, several
RUs/applicants might inform the
IM about a new traffic demand
for the same end customer, in
the worst case with differently
planned production concepts.
many different system paths
with heterogeneous
parameters
2) Evaluation of scenarios
(new stop replaces another
less frequented stop, RU
defines different stopping
philosophy or even a
different concept)
76
Timing for the
measure
1) Prior to the definition of the
cap. model
2) During the TCR consultation
phase
1) Ongoing process in
customer contacts
2) Upon reception of
new/changed cap. needs
announcements or
customer inputs
3) ditto
1) Upon reception of
new/changed cap. needs
announcements or
customer inputs
2) ditto
1) Already in the evaluation
phase for new or changed
infrastructure
2) As part of the evaluation
phase or the feasibility study
for the implementation of
new or changed
infrastructure
Information: These criteria can be used in the phase of preparing the capacity model (X-36) as well as in the regular reviews of the
capacity model.