1 / 15

ICT Interoperability Issues in Rail Freight

Railways@Crossover - European Railway Conference. ICT Interoperability Issues in Rail Freight. R ailway U ndertakings & I nformation E xchange. Panel Participants. Petr Č ervinka (CD C argo ) Libor Lochman (CER) Isabelle Vandoorne ( EC DG MOVE ) Rainer Wilke (DB, R a ildata ).

dana
Télécharger la présentation

ICT Interoperability Issues in Rail Freight

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Railways@Crossover - EuropeanRailwayConference ICT Interoperability Issues in Rail Freight RailwayUndertakings & InformationExchange

  2. Panel Participants Petr Červinka(CDCargo) Libor Lochman (CER) Isabelle Vandoorne (EC DG MOVE) Rainer Wilke (DB, Raildata)

  3. 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

  4. Last decade Newset of modernapplications e.g. for: Exchangeof train compositions (A30 - UIC) Wagon status & tracking (ISR - Raildata) Consignmentnote data (ORFEUS - Raildata) National RUs achieved great progress in mutual data exchange.

  5. Freightsegments There are different freightbusiness types: single wagon loadby one RU block trainby one RU single wagon loadby more RUs block trainby more RUs … fromviewofcompetitionlevel, collaborationneeds and experienced profitability…

  6. 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?

  7. Liberalizationin EU Networks opened access for new operators National railways divided into RUs and IMs Need to solvenew interface: RU to IM Wagon keeperswithnewroles(ca 2160 keepers) Number od freightRUsgrows(from 45 to ca800?) Increasing number of players and interfaces boosts need of standards.

  8. Collaborationbases Until 2005, IT interfaces were just coordinated: • by the UIC & RAILDATA for their members • by RNE fortheir IM members • voluntary realization In 2006, EU issued TSI TAF: • interfaces for several functions • mandatoryfor all stakeholders in EU

  9. TSI TAF Regulation RUs Interfaceswith IMs for: • PathRequest, • TrainPreparation, • TrainRunning and Location, • ServiceDisruption Interfacesbetween RUs for: • Wagonorder • Shipment ETI/ETA • Wagon movement data • Wagon interchange data

  10. RUs are different 2 basic RU types(alsofrom IT view): • "large" (mostly "national“ RU): • mostlywith comprehensiveIT systems • "small" (mostly new "private" RU): • some with good but limited IT systems • some with no IT systems (except office sw)

  11. Issue& Question2 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 someRUs. Should each RU implement own IS, or are other options available and acceptable for IMs and regulators?

  12. 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?

  13. 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?

  14. 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?

  15. Large vs/& Small • Small RUs started mostly with "own" transports(lateradded trains for other clients) • Other sort of small RUs: corridor specialists • Small and large RUs started collaborate mostly to run block trainsabroad ("home" RU as partner since national infrastructures are specific) • LargeRUs buy small RUs for expansion

More Related