RAILWAY UNDERTAKINGS &

INFORMATION EXCHANGE

ICT Interoperability Issues in Rail Freight

Railways@Crossover - European Railway Conference

Panel Participants

Petr Červinka (CD Cargo) Libor Lochman (CER)Isabelle Vandoorne (EC DG MOVE)Rainer Wilke (DB, Raildata)

Look back

From start, national railways collaborated to provide international transports

As pioneers in data processing, they also early introduced data interchanges: 70’s: batch sending of accounting data on tapes 80’s: real time data - UIC & Hermes applications 90's: projects DOCIMEL, HIPPS ahead of its time

Last decade

New set of modern applications e.g. for: Exchange of train compositions (A30 -

UIC) Wagon status & tracking (ISR - Raildata) Consignment note data (ORFEUS -

Raildata)

National RUs achieved great progress in mutual data exchange.

Freight segments

There are different freight business types:single wagon load by one RUblock train by one RU single wagon load by more RUs block train by more RUs … from view of competition level, collaboration needs and experienced profitability…

Issue & Question 1

Single wagon load (SWL) at most RUs does not generate profit or the margins are very little. Crowds of truckers push prices down, offer flexibility and take advantage from simplicity. How could new/future IT functions of RUs (like electronic waybill, on-line tracing, train capacity booking and estimated time of arrival) change the SWL situation?

Liberalization in EU

Networks opened access for new operatorsNational railways divided into RUs and IMsNeed to solve new interface: RU to IM Wagon keepers with new roles (ca 2160 keepers) Number od freight RUs grows (from 45 to ca 800?)

Increasing number of players and interfaces boosts need of standards.

Collaboration bases

Until 2005, IT interfaces were just coordinated:

by the UIC & RAILDATA for their members

by RNE for their IM members voluntary realization

In 2006, EU issued TSI TAF: interfaces for several functions mandatory for all stakeholders in EU

TSI TAF Regulation

RUs Interfaces with IMs for: Path Request, Train Preparation, Train Running and Location, Service Disruption

Interfaces between RUs for: Wagon order Shipment ETI/ETA Wagon movement data Wagon interchange data

RUs are different

2 basic RU types (also from IT view):

"large" (mostly "national“ RU):mostly with comprehensive IT systems

"small" (mostly new "private" RU):some with good but limited IT systemssome with no IT systems (except office

sw)

Issue & Question 2

TAF does not explicitly prescribe existence of information system at a stakeholder. But the interface = xml message, which can be hardly created without IS. Considering the processes, RUs assume need for comprehensive IT systems. But these systems are economically reasonable only from certain volume of operations. This can be issue for some RUs. Should each RU implement own IS, or are other options available and acceptable for IMs and regulators?

Issue & Question 3

Many RUs seem be not aware about common sector activities. Considering total number of RUs in EU, there is just little participation in the UIC projects, RD systems, TAF clusters, WGs, CCG and only some RUs contribute with resources. How the not yet involved RUs could be contacted and convinced to join, participate in and contribute to sector’s activities?

Issue & Question 4

Large RUs mostly do not consider TAF interfaces between RUs as too helpful for them - partly because they do not cover their actual needs, partly because they solved some required functions in existing applications already. Could these existing interfaces be accepted as regulation fulfillment or be incorporated into TAF?

Issue & Question 5

TAF regulation was developed in 2004-5 (to be implemented by 2014 - what not happened). Since then many things changed at railways and IT, and continue to evolve on ongoing base. But to change TAF is complex and takes time.How could be TAF change procedure speeded up to ensure that the technical specifications are up to date?

Large vs/& Small

Small RUs started mostly with "own" transports (later added trains for other clients)

Other sort of small RUs: corridor specialists

Small and large RUs started collaborate mostly to run block trains abroad ("home" RU as partner since national infrastructures are specific)

Large RUs buy small RUs for expansion