TAF TSI Deployment FAQ

The changes will be processed prior to May 13th through ERA ERA European Railway Agency and sent for approval through the RISC committee.

John Lutz

The implementation guides and working group output that is found on the UIC Master Plan site shall be used as a baseline. As stated before, the functionality is not being modified through the ERA change management process. This should have little impact for your planning.

DG MOVE has responded that according to the legal text, the Commission services expect a consolidated Master Plan (based on individual plans). There may be a need for some companies to re-evaluate their individual plans as a result of the consolidation, e.g. if an IM along a corridor has a plan which does not correspond to the plans of others along this corridor. It is a common exercise.

Like in any project the situation may change during the project life cycle. This delta should be justified. Individual companies may have to revisit their original planning once the Consolidated Master Plan has been agreed and delivered.

The templates can be found on the UIC webpage. The .MPP file is obligatory and the word template is recommended, but not mandatory.

All documentation from meetings will be made available on the UIC Master Plan webpage.

The consolidated Master Plan will be legally binding. DG MOVE has responded that according to the legal text, the Commission services expect a consolidated Master Plan (based on individual plans). There may be a need for some companies to re-evaluate their individual plans as a result of the consolidation, e.g. if an IM along a corridor has a plan which does not correspond to the plans of others along this corridor. It is a common exercise.

This question shall be brought to the TAF TAF Telematic Applications for Freight Steering Committee for clarification.

There are no expectations given at this time for the implementation timeline - the goal is to create a viable implementation plan.

Each railway company shall send its own plan - RNE RNE Rail Net Europe is only trying to harmonise the plans amongst the IMs.

You may submit a consolidated plan but you should list the companies covered.

The consolidated Master Plan will be legally binding. DG MOVE has responded that according to the legal text, the Commission services expect a consolidated Master Plan (based on individual plans). There may be a need for some companies to re-evaluate their individual plans as a result of the consolidation, e.g. if an IM along a corridor has a plan which does not correspond to the plans of others along this corridor. It is a common exercise.

The consolidated Master Plan will be legally binding. DG MOVE has responded that according to the legal text, the Commission services expect a consolidated Master Plan (based on individual plans). There may be a need for some companies to re-evaluate their individual plans as a result of the consolidation, e.g. if an IM along a corridor has a plan which does not correspond to the plans of others along this corridor. It is a common exercise.

Harmonization between RU and IM is needed. RNE will provide a harmonized plan between the 15/3 and 15/5. RUs and IMs should be coordinating during the development of the individual plans.

DG MOVE explained that there is an obligation for providing a master plan. If nothing is provided, DG MOVE may decide to prepare a master plan. It is in the interest of the sector to have a representative number of individual plans upon which to build a sound Master Plan.

Baseline assumptions or dates could be very different between partners.

The summary will based on annual dates, however you can be more detailed in the implementation planning.

It is a prerequisite for internal planning and is helpful for the DT to evaluate certain risks and dependencies for the consolidated Master Plan.

All documentation is available on the UIC TAF TSI TAF TSI Technical Specifications for Interoperability for Telematic Applications for Freight and Master Plan webpages.

The only plan with legal value will be the consolidated Master Plan delivered by the Steering Committee. As stated before, the individual plans must be submitted to the Deployment Manager. There is no delivery of the RNE implementation to the EC.

The only plan with legal value will be the consolidated Master Plan. As stated before, the individual plans must be submitted to the Deployment Manager for the development of the Master Plan.

TAP and TAF implementation should be harmonised for RU/IM communication. However, there is no obligation for Passenger RUs to submit an individual plan at this time. If a passenger wishes to submit a plan, it will be considered, but kept separate.

This milestone should be when your company has developed the functional specification (for each and every function) in order to implement the processes and TAF messaging requirements. It should come some time AFTER 12th May, unless already completed by the time of your submission. Some functional specifications may be dependent on the implementation results of other functions (i.e. Path Requests based on reference files and timetabling) and synchronization with other trading partners.

Just indicate that they are Not Applicable, and do not fill in any date into the Project template.

It is up to each Stakeholder to determine the implementation start and finish dates. The tasks in blue are only subtasks. It is up to each Stakeholder to mark his/her milestones, as no milestones are set in the template. Feel free to add your own activities and milestones in your submission.

Iit should be individual reports including justification of delays and submitted to the Steering Committee through the Deployment Team. The timing of the reporting shall be established by the TAF Steering Committee.

It should be individual reports including justification of delays and submitted to the Steering Committee through the Deployment Team. The timing of the reporting shall be established by the TAF Steering Committee.

The regulation is applicable to all railway stakeholders

There is no requirement for the IM to be the ’lead’ in each Member State. It is strongly encouraged that the Master Plans for the RUs be closely coordinated with the Infrastructure Manager(s), however.

It could be the major IM or an agreed IM. This should be negotiated and established by the actors in each Member State.

Both partners of the Data exchange have to make sure that the the exchange works properly.

This question shall be brought to the TAF Steering Committee for clarification.

Again, this will depend on the particular function and the criticality of the data. Each partner shall address the utility and legal impacts for data exchanged within each function. Please keep in mind that the Wagon Order does not replace the Consignment Note. Therefore, each Stakeholder must assess the legal requirements within each function according to National or Company policy.

Provide the actual implementation date.

TAF TSI TSI Technical Specifications for Interoperability data should be stored in conformity with National laws for data retention. There may be differing requirements for different types of data (i.e. Wagon Order, Wagon Movement, Delays, etc.) particularly concerning path details.

You should evaluate each function and message to determine the timing requirements based on company policy and legal framework. Depending on the function, timeliness is critical - particularly in the case of disruptions and movement data.

Both options are possible. Please consult the CCG for licensing information.

Changes from WG are being updated and being reviewed with era. The new schema shall be released by mid-March.

This will depend on the ERA publication date, however, it shall be stable by 1st May.

There is no proper definition of interoperable traffic, however it can be described as having more that more than one IM and/or more than one RU is involved in the movement. Although the TAF scope addresses interoperable traffic, it does not make sense to support two separate processes/systems for domestic and interoperable traffic.

Yes. Please refer REFER Infrastructure Manager from Portugal to the CCG Deployment for further information.

These are not reference files, but rather code lists that are available in the Data Catalogue as associated enumerated values contained in the Schema.

RUs are also impacted as they use those codes and may create subsidiary locations.

It is recommended that the National Entity define and maintain the Primary Locations (The IM is the preferred National Entity). The National Entity may authorise other stakeholders (RUs, Wagon Keepers, etc.) to maintain subsidiary locations depending on the subsidiary type.

yes

In your planning, you should then indicate the dates by which the business process will be established AND the date when each message within a function shall be implemented. Many stakeholders will implement this function in phases, including a Phase I whereby the internal functional requirements are established by each stakeholder.

If a new path has to be requested after the disruption it would make sense to use the short term path request process. The TAF obliges the use of the electronic messages contained in the catalogue to fulfil the functions.

Partners can agree bilaterally to harmonize the train path in any other way (using PCS, for instance).

It is recommended that the same process be used for both short term (ad hoc) and long term planning. Therefore, all path requests will use the TTID.

It is recommended that the same process be used for both short term (ad hoc) and long term planning. It is interesting to note if you will be implementing the process for long-term path requests.

Therefore the answer not possible is created.

The content of the messages must adhere to the defined schemas. If additional information is required to be exchanged, then private metadata may be established. If additional information is needed in the message, then a change request must be put forth to ERA.

Although this is not a part of the TAF TSI, the establishment of annual timetables is a dependency (or pre-requisite) for the short-term path request. It can be left out of the project plan, but should be mentioned as a dependency.

follow up to plan the implementation of the TTID to be arranged. RNE has proposed to start a project to address this issue.

The objects are Train, Path, Case Reference and Path Request. Please see handbook on the UIC Master Plan Web page.

From beginning of planning to end of operation and shall always be unique for statistical purposes after the train run.

No, as dangerous goods are identified in the appropriate messages (train composition, etc)

This is described in the handbook

In principle it is part of the TAF TSI. However, this is on hold. You are not expected to respond to that function.

In principle it is part of the TAF TSI. However, this is on hold. You are not expected to respond to that function.

It has been announced that the current RSRD2 that is being built by UIP UIP International Union of Private Wagons will be made available free of charge. For more information, please contact UIP.

Please contact UIP for details

Please contact UIP for details

Please contact UIP for details

Please contact UIP for details

Please contact UIP for details

Wagon keepers are also impacted by some message exchanges and the RSRD.

The Master Plan should define when the partner will be ready from a technical and functional perspective. The functional estimations should be based on the implementation plans for wagon and train movements.

The date specified in your Master Plan should be the date when you expect to realize the function. As answered above, the date will also depend on the implementation of the Wagon and Train movement functions. This will then be consolidated into the Master Plan.

This needs to be in compliance with the National Rules. Please read the final report of the train preparation process (http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article2852)

No, this is not required in the TAP.

This will depend on the National rules for Train Composition, however this does not apply to Passenger traffic.

This question will be given to Working Group 3, however it is not up to the IM to verify the Train Composition. This process is defined in the TSI OPE and/or the individual Network Statements.

This will depend on the National rules and should be defined in the Network Statement.

no. it is an estimate which can be based on experience, statistics, recalculation, shifting. It is up to each individual IM to provide the forecast using their own methodology.

it is possible to use all messages with existing Operational Train Identification. However there needs to be a migration strategy in the Master Plan for the adoption of the new Identifiers. Each Stakeholder must address their own migration and implementation strategy.

This depends on the agreements that the IM has with the Operator.

Yes, depending on agreements that the IM has with the other IMs and RUs.

This will depend on agreements that the IM has with the other IMs and RUs.