INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN...
Transcript of INTEROPERABILITY UNIT ANNEX OF THE … · ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED TRANS-EUROPEAN...
EUROPEAN RAILWAY AGENCY
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 PAGE 1 OF 56
INTEROPERABILITY UNIT
ANNEX OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVISED
TRANS-EUROPEAN CONVENTIONAL RAIL SYSTEM
SUBSYSTEM TELEMATICS APPLICATIONS FOR PASSENGERS
Reference: ERA/REC/09-2012/INT Document Type:
Report about TAP TSI Phase One
Version : 3.1 Status: RECOMMENDATION
Date : 30.10.2012
Edited by Reviewed by Approved by
Name Mickael VARGA
Stefan JUGELT
Kai BRANDSTACK Denis BIASIN
Position Project Officer Head of Sector Head of Unit
Date
&
Signat.
30.10.2012 30.10.2012 30.10.2012
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 2/56
AMENDMENT RECORD
Version Date Section number
Modification/description Author
0.1 13.09.2012 All First draft Stefan JUGELT
0.2 19.09.2012 All Review Stefan JUGELT
0.3 20.09.2012 All Incorporation of economic evaluation
Martin SCHRÖDER
1.0 27.09.2012 All Final review Mickael VARGA
Stefan JUGELT
2.0 03.10.2012 All Review for ERA recommendation Mickael VARGA
3.0 26.10.2012 All Incorporation of comments from internal review
Stefan JUGELT
3.1 30.10.2012 All Incorporation of comments from internal review
Stefan JUGELT
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 3/56
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 6
1.1 Background to the assignment ..................................................... 6
1.2 Summary .................................................................................. 6
1.2.1 Monitoring and assessment during the phase one of TAP TSI ......... 6
1.2.2 ERA recommendation about the phase one of TAP TSI .................. 6
2. ABBREVIATIONS AND REFERENCES ................................................................. 7
2.1 Abbreviations ............................................................................. 7
2.2 Reference Documents ................................................................. 8
3. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 9
3.1 Overview ................................................................................... 9
3.2 Monitoring and assessment during the TAP TSI phase one ............... 9
3.2.1 Success criteria for the project management ............................... 9
3.2.2 Measures for the assessment of TAP TSI phase one ....................10
3.3 Assessment of the final deliverables ............................................ 11
3.3.1 Deliverables “detailed IT-specification” ......................................11
3.3.2 Deliverable “master plan” ........................................................11
3.3.3 Deliverable “Governance” ........................................................12
4. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF TAP TSI PHASE ONE ...................................... 13
4.1 Cooperation ERA – project management team .............................. 13
4.2 Regular meetings with the project management team .................... 13
4.3 Attendance of ERA in the meetings of the dedicated work groups .... 14
4.3.1 Timetable work group ..............................................................15
4.3.2 Tariff work group ....................................................................16
4.3.3 Reservation ............................................................................18
4.3.4 Indirect fulfilment ...................................................................18
4.3.5 Direct fulfilment ......................................................................19
4.3.6 Retail Architecture ..................................................................19
4.3.7 RU/IM communication .............................................................23
4.3.8 Full service model ...................................................................23
4.3.9 Governance ............................................................................24
4.3.10 Master plan .........................................................................24
4.4 Review of intermediate documents of the work groups ................... 25
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 4/56
4.5 Assessment of project management TAP TSI phase one ................. 25
4.5.1 Assessment of the 1st stage .....................................................26
4.5.2 Assessment of the 2nd stage .....................................................27
5. REVIEW OF THE DELIVERABLES .................................................................... 28
5.1 Overview .................................................................................. 28
5.2 Project documentation ............................................................... 30
5.3 Retail architecture ..................................................................... 32
5.4 Governance .............................................................................. 34
5.5 Master plan .............................................................................. 35
5.6 IT specifications ........................................................................ 36
5.6.1 IT specification for Tariff exchange ............................................36
5.6.2 IT specification for EDIFACT messages covering timetable data
exchange .........................................................................................38
5.6.3 IT specification for electronic reservation of seats/berths and
electronic production of travel documents – exchange of messages .........39
5.6.4 IT specification for direct fulfilment ...........................................40
5.6.5 IT specification for indirect fulfilment .........................................41
5.6.6 IT specification for assistance reservation for PRM ......................42
5.6.7 IT specification for RU/IM communication ..................................43
5.6.8 Transversal remarks about all IT-specifications ...........................43
5.7 Full-service model ..................................................................... 44
6. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 46
6.1 Methodology of the Cost Benefit Analysis ...................................... 46
6.1.1 Cost Assessment ....................................................................46
6.1.2 Benefit Assessment .................................................................47
6.2 Results of the Cost Benefit Analysis ............................................. 49
6.2.1 Resulting Cost Impact .............................................................49
6.2.2 Resulting Benefit Impact ..........................................................51
6.3 Conclusions for the Cost Benefit Analysis ...................................... 54
7. CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 56
7.1 The recommendation of ERA for the phase one of TAP TSI .............. 56
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 5/56
Tables
Table 1 : Abbreviations ................................................................................ 7
Table 2 : Reference documents ...................................................................... 8
Table 3 : Monthly meetings of ERA with the project management team .....................14
Table 4 : success criteria sheet timetable working group .......................................15
Table 5 : success criteria sheet tariff working group .............................................16
Table 6 : success criteria sheet reservation working group ....................................18
Table 7 : success criteria sheet indirect fulfilment working group .............................18
Table 8 : success criteria sheet direct fulfilment working group ...............................19
Table 9 : success criteria sheet retail architecture working group .............................19
Table 10 : success criteria sheet RU/IM working groups .......................................23
Table 11 : meetings ERA TAP TSI phase one project management team during
assessment of deliveries .............................................................................29
Table 12 : review project documentation TAP TSI phase one stage 1 .......................30
Table 13 : review project documentation TAP TSI phase one stage 2 .......................31
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 6/56
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the assignment
The task for the assessment of the deliveries of the TAP TSI phase one was
assigned to ERA based on the EC Regulation 454/2011 [4] published in the
official journal of the EU on 12th May 2011.
According to the chapter 7.2.2.2. of this assignment:
1. The European Railway Agency shall monitor and assess the
development of the detailed IT specifications, governance and master plan
with a view to determining whether the objectives pursued have been
achieved.
2. The European Railway Agency shall submit to the Commission a
recommendation on the detailed IT specifications, governance and master
plan.
This report document is the result of these both activities. It describes in detail
how the monitoring and the final assessment of the deliveries were made by
ERA and what will be the future recommendation of ERA for the detailed IT-
specifications the governance and the master plan.
1.2 Summary
1.2.1 Monitoring and assessment during the phase one of TAP TSI
The EC regulation 454/2011 [4] describes in chapter 7.2.2.2, the responsibility
of ERA to monitor and to assess the development of the detailed IT
specifications, governance and master plan.
This report describes how ERA has done this task between September 2011
and May 2012.
1.2.2 ERA recommendation about the phase one of TAP TSI
The EC regulation 454/2011 [4] describes in chapter 7.2.2.2, the responsibility
of ERA to send to the commission a recommendation about the detailed IT
specifications, governance and master plan. This recommendation shall be sent
- according to chapter 7.2.4 of this regulation - not later than 2 months to the
Commission.
This report describes how ERA has done this task between May 2011 and
September 2012 and its recommendation.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 7/56
2. ABBREVIATIONS AND REFERENCES
2.1 Abbreviations
Table 1 : Abbreviations
Abbreviation Definition
BP Basic parameter
CCB Change Control Board
CCG Common Components Group
CCM Change Control Management
CER Community of European Railways
CI Common Interface
CIT International Rail Transport Committee
CR Change Request
EC European Commission
EIM European Rail Infrastructure Managers
ERA European Railway Agency (also referred to as Agency)
ERD European rail database (a central database proposed for timetable and tariff data)
FSM Full Service Model
PRINCE2 Projects in a controlled environment - version 2
RISC Rail Interoperability and Safety Committee
RNE Rail Net Europe
SteCo Steering committee
TAF Telematics Applications for Freight
TLT Train linked Ticket
TSI Technical Specification for Interoperability
TV Ticket vendor
UIC Union International des Chemins de Fer
UIP International Union of Private Wagons
UNIFE Union des Industries Ferroviaires Européennes
WP Working party organised by ERA
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 8/56
2.2 Reference Documents
Table 2 : Reference documents
Ref. N° Document Reference Title Last Issue
[1] Directive 2008/57/EC Interoperability of the conventional rail system 17.06.2008
[2] Regulation (EC) No 881/2004
Agency Regulation and its amendment (EC) No 1335/2008
16.12.2008
[3] TAF TSI Regulation No 62/2006
Commission regulation on the technical specification for interoperability concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the telematic applications for freight subsystem of the trans-European conventional rail system
18.01.2006
[4] TAP TSI Regulation (EU) No 454/2011
Commission Regulation on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘telematics applications for passenger services’ of the trans-European rail system.
05.05.2011
[5] [TAP Phase one]-Quality Management Strategy.doc
PRINCE2™- Quality Management Strategy 08.07.2011
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 9/56
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Overview
This chapter describe the methodology of ERA for the monitoring of the TAP
TSI phase one by ERA. It explains the methodologies for the assessment f the
TAP TSI phase one and explains why the proposed measures are chosen by
ERA.
The methodology will be explained for the phase of the drafting of the
deliveries of the phase one and for the phase of the assessment of ERA for the
delivered documents after the finalization of the phase one.
3.2 Monitoring and assessment during the TAP TSI phase one
The monitoring and assessment during the TAP TSI phase one was one of the
main tasks of ERA to support the development. The goal of the monitoring and
assessment of the TAP TSI phase one was to follow closely the discussions in
the different work groups, to assess the produced documents and to discuss
with the project management team of the TAP TSI phase one the observations
and remarks of ERA about the ongoing drafting of the document.
3.2.1 Success criteria for the project management
The success criteria for the Project Management Quality were defined in the
quality management strategy of the project as follows by the project team (see
reference documents [5] - PRINCE2™- Quality Management Strategy):
[1] A project extranet site will be available at least during the whole
project for all the stakeholders. This extranet site will contain
description of the TAP Phase One project with the project structure,
responsible persons per work stream, expected deliverables and
expected project timing. The site will also contain all the official
meetings of the project with invitation letter, agenda, supporting
documents and minutes with decisions.
[2] Monthly, intermediate progress and final reports are sent to the
steering committee and it shall take full account of the latter’s
decisions
[3] Decisions made during the project will be transparent and duly
justified so that they can be introduce into the TAP Phase One
deliverables
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 10/56
[4] Divergences from originally expected project
planning/deliverables are notified in due time to the steering
committee
[5] Deliverables are delivered according to the expected schedule.
These criteria were used for the assessment by ERA for the final deliveries of
the project.
3.2.2 Measures for the assessment of TAP TSI phase one
ERA has chosen the following measures to monitor the TAP TSI phase one:
1. Monthly reports
The monthly reports of the project team for TAP phase one to the ERA
and the TAP phase one steering committee have ensured that ERA is
informed in a formal way about the progress of the project. ERA has
regularly read these reports in order to gain ERA valuable input for the
meetings with the project management team and the steering
committee.
2. Regular meetings with the project management team
ERA has chosen this measure to be informed about the project status.
The intention of these meeting with the project management team was
to have a continuous information flow about the developments of the
project. These meetings have ensured that ERA was informed about the
progress of the project in all details and had the possibility to discuss
questions from the monthly reports and the work groups in detail with
the project management team.
3. Attendance of ERA as observer in the meetings of the dedicated work
groups
ERA has chosen this option to observe the work of the work groups for
the different IT specifications, the governance and the master plan in
detail. This measure has ensured that the discussions in the work groups
could be understand by ERA and reflected – if needed - in the meetings
with the project management.
4. Review of intermediate documents of the work groups
The method was chosen by ERA to assess the documents foreseen for
the delivery in an earlier stage of the development. This has ensured
that the development of the documents has been made in line with the
TAP TSI legal requirements.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 11/56
3.3 Assessment of the final deliverables
The final assessment of the deliverables of TAP TSI phase one and the
recommendation to the Commission was the second tasks of ERA to support
the development of the TAP TSI phase one documentation. This task has to be
executed according to chapter 7.2.2.2 (2) of EC regulation 454/2011. The goal
of the final assessment was to assess the produced documents and make a
final conclusion if the delivered documents are in line with the requirements of
the TAP TSI and can be used as basis for the TAP TSI implementation phase 2.
3.3.1 Deliverables “detailed IT-specification”
According to the TAP TSI chapter 7.2.3. the following topics shall be included in
the deliverables for the detailed IT-specifications:
“The detailed IT specifications shall describe the system and shall indicate in a
clear and unambiguous manner how the system fulfils the requirements of the
TAP TSI. The development of such specifications requires a systematic analysis
of the relevant technical, operational, economic and institutional issues that
underpin the process of implementing the TAP TSI. Therefore, deliverables
shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
1. Functional, technical and performance specifications, the associated
data, the interface requirements, the security and the quality
requirements.
2. The outline of the global architecture of the system. It shall describe
how the requisite components interact and fit together. This shall be
based on the analysis of the system configurations capable of integrating
the legacy IT facilities, while delivering the required functionality and
performance.”
3.3.2 Deliverable “master plan”
According to the TAP TSI chapter 7.2.3. the following topics shall be included in
the deliverable for the master plan:
“The master plan shall include:
1. The identification of the activities necessary to achieve the
implementation of the system.
2. A migration plan which includes a set of phases that is conducive to
intermediate and verifiable tangible results, from the current framework of
stakeholders’ information and communication systems to the system
itself.
3. A detailed milestone plan.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 12/56
4. A risk assessment of the crucial phases of the master plan.
5. An assessment of the total lifecycle costs (LCC) associated with the
deployment and operation of the system, together with a subsequent
investment plan and the relevant cost-benefit analysis.”
3.3.3 Deliverable “Governance”
According to the TAP TSI chapter 7.2.3. the following topics shall be included in
the deliverable for the governance:
“The governance shall include the identification of the appropriate governance
structures, methods and procedures to support the development and validation
of the system and subsequently its deployment and its field operation and
management throughout its lifetime (including dispute management between
the parties involved under the provisions of this TSI).”
ERA has chosen the following parameters to assess the deliverables
documents:
- Are the documents in line with the requirements in chapter 7.2.3 of the
TAP TSI?
- Is the content of the documents complete, logical and understandable
(e.g. for affected 3rd parties not involved in Phase One)?
- Are the documents consistent with existing ERA TAP TSI TD's?
- Are the delivered documents consistent with the other documents of the
delivery?
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 13/56
4. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF TAP TSI PHASE ONE
4.1 Cooperation ERA – project management team
During the whole phase one ERA was strongly supported by the whole project
team. It was a fruitful cooperation between ERA and the involved participants
of the project team. The ERA team in charge of the assessment of the phase
one has received all needed information’s – invitations, meeting minutes,
supporting documents - for the monitoring of the project.
ERA has easily got access to the project workspace on the extranet.
4.2 Regular meetings with the project management team
For the regular communication with the project management team ERA has set
up a monthly meeting with the project management team. The meetings and
the discussed topics are shown in the following table:
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 14/56
Table 3 : Monthly meetings of ERA with the project management team
Date Place Topics discussed
26.08.2011 Lille Project management of TAP TSI phase one with PRINCE2
17.10.2011 Lille RU/IM communication, project management with PRINCE2, governance and master plan delivery
05.12.2011 Lille Master plan and governance delivery, ERA feedback on the discussions with the TAP phase one work groups, RU/IM
communication, project management with PRINCE2
24.01.2012 Lille Tariff data exchange, ERA comments on the intermediate report, specific topics from the work streams, RU/IM
communication, master plan delivery
31.01.2012 Lille TAP Phase One Economic Assessment
24.02.2012 Cologne IT specification for tariff data exchange, ERA feedback on the discussions with TAP phase one work group, retail
architecture
19.03.2012 Valenciennes Retail Architecture, Economic Evaluation, Full service model, structure of deliverables, Preparation of Phase Two, Project Management with to PRINCE2 methodology
13.04.2012 Brussels TAP Phase One Economic Assessment
07.05.2012 Valenciennes (phone
conference)
Project management of TAP TSI phase one with PRINCE2, governance deliverable, master plan deliverable
08.06.2012 Lille TAP Phase One Economic Assessment, ERA comments on TAP Phase One deliverables (first run), Project Management
with to PRINCE2 methodology
25-26. 06.2012
Lille ERA comments on TAP Phase One deliverables (second run) incl Full Service Model Stream deliverable,
10.07.2012 Lille Economic Evaluation
10.09.2012 London Economic Evaluation
4.3 Attendance of ERA in the meetings of the dedicated work
groups
ERA has attended on the meetings of the TAP phase one work groups for the
dedicated IT specifications. The meetings of the work groups for timetable,
tariff, reservation, direct and indirect fulfilment, retail architecture and RU/IM
communication were attended by ERA. Because of lack of resources ERA could
not participate in the work group meetings for the master plan, the governance
and the FSM.
The main goal of ERA’s attendance was to check if the success criteria for the
running of the work groups according to chapter 3.2.1 are met. The success
criteria to be applied for the work of the work groups were:
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 15/56
- [1] A project extranet site will be available at least during the whole
project for all the stakeholders. This extranet site will contain description
of the TAP Phase One project with the project structure, responsible
persons per work stream, expected deliverables and expected project
timing. The site will also contain all the official meetings of the project
with invitation letter, agenda, supporting documents and minutes with
decisions.
- [3] Decisions made during the project will be transparent and duly
justified so that they can be introduce into the TAP Phase One
deliverables
Those both criteria were checked for all working parties ERA has attended. If
no attendance of ERA in a working party was possible, only the first criterion
was checked.
For the success criteria [1] the extranet workspace of the TAP TSI project1 was
checked if all documents of the work groups (e.g. meeting minutes,
intermediate deliveries, supporting documents) were uploaded on time to the
workspace.
For the success criteria [2] the discussions during the work group meetings
were observed by the ERA project officers. The outcome of the discussions was
documented by the attending ERA project officers in meeting minutes.
The success criteria were rated into three different values:
- Passed: The success criterion was fulfilled.
- Passed with limitations: The success criterion was fulfilled with
limitations which are explained in the remarks.
- Failed: The success criterion was not fulfilled at all.
For each work group the success criteria will be rated with one of these values.
4.3.1 Timetable work group
ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group. The assessment of the
work of the work group is summarized in the table below.
Table 4 : success criteria sheet timetable working group
SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET
Meetings of the work group 5 meetings
ERA attendance 2 meetings
1 http://tap-tsi.uic.org/
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 16/56
Success
criteria
[1] project extranet site All documents of the working
party were made available on the
extranet.
Passed
[2] decision making The decision making process
during the working party was
transparent and justified.
Passed
Remarks No additional remarks
ERA approval ERA can approve, that the outputs of this working party can
be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one deliverables.
4.3.2 Tariff work group
ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group. The assessment of the
work of the work group is summarized in the table below.
Table 5 : success criteria sheet tariff working group
SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET
Meetings of the work group 6 meetings
ERA attendance 4 meetings
Success
criteria
[1] project extranet site All documents of the working
party were made available on the
extranet.
Passed
[2] decision making The decision making process
during the working party was
transparent and justified.
Passed
Remarks ERA’s general observation of this working party is that there
was in the first meetings used to discuss purely commercial
difficulties of the existing distribution systems and
commercial agreements between the railway undertakings.
In the PRINCE2 exception report for the 1st stage of the
project it was stated that all ERA technical documents for the
exchange of tariff data are not fit for purpose of the current
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 17/56
business environment of the railways. Such statements were
surprisingly for ERA, because at least the corresponding UIC
leaflets for B.1 and B.2 are used by the railways.
For instance there was debated how the basic parameter BP
4.2.2.1 (The railway undertaking makes available its own
tariffs to other railway undertakings, authorised public bodies
and third parties authorised to sell). It is not clear if the
railway undertakings have to publish all their tariffs for
international and foreign sales to other RUs or only to those
which them a distribution agreement exists. This discussion
was raised by the project team as official letter to EC, to
clarify this question. The question was discussed in a joint
meeting on 28.06.2012 with the project team, EC (DG MOVE,
DG COMP) and ERA. A final decision has not been made until
the publication of the recommendation.
Another problem discussed frequently was the usage of the
TAP TSI technical document B.3 for special tariffs. This
technical document was derived from an UIC-leaflet which is
currently not used by the sector. It was discussed during the
work group meetings if this technical document can be
removed from the annex III of TAP TSI. ERA had several
discussions with the project team without a comprehensible
justification why this document is not fit for purpose.
The last example for a frequently discussed problem was the
so called train linked ticket (TLT). It was stated that those
frequently used tickets (e.g. Europa spezial-offer) are not
compatible with the current structures of the ERA technical
documents for tariff data. Finally after long discussions with
ERA the rail sector has decided that TLT will not be part of the
tariff IT specification.
ERA has the impression that because of those discussions
valuable time was lost to discuss solution proposals for
technical and organisational problems.
ERA approval ERA can approve, that the outputs of this working party can
be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one deliverables.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 18/56
4.3.3 Reservation
ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group. The assessment of the
work of the work group is summarized in the table below.
Table 6 : success criteria sheet reservation working group
SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET
Meetings of the work group 5 meetings
ERA attendance 3 meetings
Success
criteria
[1] project extranet site All documents of the working
party were made available on the
extranet.
Passed
[2] decision making The decision making process
during the working party was
transparent and justified.
Passed
Remarks No additional remarks
ERA approval ERA can approve, that the outputs of this working party can
be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one deliverables.
4.3.4 Indirect fulfilment
ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group. The assessment of the
work of the work group is summarized in the table below.
Table 7 : success criteria sheet indirect fulfilment working group
SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET
Meetings of the work group 5 meetings
ERA attendance 2 meetings
Success
criteria
[1] project extranet site All documents of the working
party were made available on the
extranet.
Passed
[2] decision making The decision making process
during the working party was
transparent and justified.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 19/56
Passed
Remarks No additional remarks
ERA approval ERA can approve, that the outputs of this working party can
be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one deliverables.
4.3.5 Direct fulfilment
ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group. The assessment of the
work of the work group is summarized in the table below.
Table 8 : success criteria sheet direct fulfilment working group
SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET
Meetings of the work group 5 meetings
ERA attendance 2 meetings
Success
criteria
[1] project extranet site All documents of the working
party were made available on the
extranet.
Passed
[2] decision making The decision making process
during the working party was
transparent and justified.
Passed
Remarks No additional remarks
ERA approval ERA can approve, that the outputs of this working party can
be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one deliverables.
4.3.6 Retail Architecture
ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group. The assessment of the
work of the work group is summarized in the table below.
Table 9 : success criteria sheet retail architecture working group
SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET
Meetings of the work group 8 meetings
ERA attendance 6 meetings
Success
criteria
[1] project extranet site All documents of the working
party were made available on the
extranet.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 20/56
Passed with limitations
[2] decision making The decision making process
during the working party was
transparent and justified.
Passed with limitations
Remarks ERA has checked the project extranet site if all documents are
available. The meeting minutes of several meetings
(21.10.2011, 23.01.2012, 20.04.2012) are not available on
the extranet site. So the outcomes of the meetings cannot be
followed.
ERA has observed the meetings of this working party closely.
ERA has assumed that the discussions and the outcome of
this working party are essential for the success of the whole
project TAP TSI phase one. Therefore it was decided at ERA
to take part on the most meetings of the work group.
The main observation of ERA for the work done by this
working party was the discussion about purely commercial
difficulties within this technical work group. One example for
this was the question about the publication of timetable data.
TAP TSI defines in the basic parameter 4.2.1 (Exchange of
timetable data) clearly that an RU shall make available
timetable data to another railway undertaking, to third parties
and to public bodies. It was discussed several times about the
commercial issues such as fees for the data download, to
whom the data should be made available and the commercial
relationships between the involved parties, topics for the
discussion within the governance work stream.
The most important question which has to be decided in this
work stream was the usage of a central database for the
exchange of timetable and tariff information on the one side
and as second option the usage of a decentralise architecture
solution with FTP-servers for this task.Because this question
is fundamental for the set-up and the operation of the
TAP TSI system, it has to be ensured that all discussions to
support the final decision for the final architecture are duly
justified, documented and made in a fair and transparent
manner.
It has been observed by ERA during the meetings and in
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 21/56
official letters to ERA that the transparency for the decision
making process of this working party was not always handled
in a fair balance.
ERA has assessed the decision making process between the
two proposed architectures especially for the exchange of
timetable and tariff data (decentralise architecture with FTP-
servers and a registry, central database). On the basis of the
available meeting minutes and the presentations for the work
group and the TAP TSI steering committee, the decision for
the preferred architecture scenario 1 is not clearly
retraceable:
- During the architecture work group meeting on
15.12.2011 in Brussels, the selection of the preferred
architecture by a selection grid and the appropriate
parameters were agreed. For timetable data exchange
the procedures FTP-push, FTP-pull and ERD were
assessed. For tariff data the procedures FTP-Pull, Price
message and ERD.
- This grid was presented with the individual assessments
for stakeholders during the meeting on 23.01.2012 in
London. The grid was implemented with different
weighing factors for RU’s and TV’s (1 for RU’s, 2 for
TV’s). From ERAs point of view there is no justification
for the chosen weighting. The timetable data exchange
the grid has shown that a central database solution has
the highest ranking. For tariff data an interactive price
message – which has to be specified – has the highest
ranking and the central database the 2nd best ranking.
Nevertheless the communicated result of this working
party was, that the distributed solution with individual
FTP-servers for each RU and a central registry
(“address book”) to locate these servers is the
preferred solution. No meeting minutes for this meeting
are available.
- ETTSA has sent on the 16.02.2012 an official position
paper to the work group leader, which has explained
from their experience the risks of the distributed
solution and their preference for a central database.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 22/56
This paper was forwarded after the work group meeting
on 21.02.2012 and therefore it was not taken into
account in this meeting. The document was forwarded
with comments of the work group leader. Even for this
meeting on 21.02.2012 no meeting minutes are
available.
- The steering committee on 06.03.2012 has taken the
decision based on the proposed information’s (see
meeting minutes): “The SteCo tentatively (pending
receiving the economic evaluation and a description of
the data quality management) approved the proposal
for architecture scenario 1, with the additional
requirement that the new dynamic fares/availability
message (for yield managed fares) is covered, probably
as a replacement for the current B5.”
From ERA’s point of view the decision for the preferred
architecture is not well justified by the available documents
(e.g. meeting minutes). ERA has highlighted this fact during
the SteCo on 06.03.2012.
ERA has furthermore received letters from participants of the
working party (notably from ticket vendors), that not all
opinions raised during the working parties are reflected
properly in the available meeting minutes.
ERA’s conclusion for the assessment of the working partyfor
retail architecture is that the decision making process for the
preferred architecture is not clearly documented. This can
lead to risks for the implementation of the proposed
architecture if the chosen solution is not possible or to difficult
to implement.
ERA approval ERA recommends to review the architecture in case of the
following conditions:
- If the occurring benefits do not cover the occuring costs
of implementing and maintaining the proposed
architecture during the implementation and operation.
- If a best practice for proposed architecture (is this
architecture already used somewhere else for
comparable purposes ?) cannot be demonstrated.
In case of the need for review a feasibility study has to be
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 23/56
performed demonstrating that the functionalities already
described in the Retail Architecture deliverable can be
realized through central database solution.
4.3.7 RU/IM communication
ERA has attended at some meetings of this work group and the joint RU/IM
work group for reference data. The assessment of the work of the work group
is summarized in the table below.
Table 10 : success criteria sheet RU/IM working groups
SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET
Meetings of the work group 8 meetings (planning)
7 meetings (Train running)
7 meetings (RU/IM architecture)
ERA attendance 2 meetings
Success
criteria
[1] project extranet site All documents of the working
party were made available on the
extranet.
Passed
[2] decision making The decision making process
during the working party was
transparent and justified.
Passed
Remarks No additional remarks
ERA approval ERA can approve, that the outputs of this working party can
be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one deliverables.
4.3.8 Full service model
ERA has not attended the meetings of the full service model workstream, due
to lack of resources. This work stream is not required by TAP TSI and
consequently not in scope – for the time being – of the ERA recommendation.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 24/56
4.3.9 Governance
ERA has not attended on the meetings of the governance workstream, due to
lack of resources. It is, however, not clear to ERA how the process of
generating the Governance Deliverable was organised (where were the
meetings ? which parties were consulted ? etc). The assessment of the work of
the work group is summarized in the table below.
SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET
Meetings of the work group not communicated to ERA
ERA attendance No ERA attendance
Success
criteria
[1] project extranet site Not Passed
[2] decision making Not Passed
Remarks No additional remarks
ERA approval ERA can approve, however, that the outputs of this working
party can be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one
deliverables.
4.3.10 Master plan
ERA has not attended on the meetings of the master plan workstream, due to
lack of resources. It is, however, not clear to ERA how the process of
generating the Master plan Deliverable was organised (where were the
meetings ? which parties were consulted ? etc). The assessment of the work of
the work group is summarized in the table below.
SUCCESS CRITERIA SHEET
Meetings of the work group not communicated to ERA
ERA attendance No ERA attendance
Success
criteria
[1] project extranet site Not Passed
[2] decision making Not Passed
Remarks No additional remarks
ERA approval ERA can approve, however, that the outputs of this working
party can be incorporated in the TAP TSI phase one
deliverables.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 25/56
4.4 Review of intermediate documents of the work groups
ERA has provided during the TAP TSI phase one a review of the intermediate
deliveries of the IT specifications. This review should ensure that those
specifications are in line with the TAP TSI and to support the sector to fulfil the
requirements from TAP TSI.
ERA has reviewed the IT specifications for the following intermediate
documents by end of March 2012:
- Tariff IT specification
- Timetable IT specification
- Reservation IT specification
- Fulfilment IT specification (direct and indirect)
- Retail architecture
- RU/IM communication
The following intermediate documents were reviewed on 30.04.2012 by ERA:
- Governance
- Master plan
The documents were reviewed by the ERA project officers in charge of the TAP
TSI and send back with comments to the work group leaders. The ERA
comments were in most cases taken into account or rejected by the work
group leader with a justification. The reviewed documents are available on the
TAP TSI workspace.
4.5 Assessment of project management TAP TSI phase one
The project management of the TAP TSI phase one was made according to the
project management standard PRINCE2. This was the decision of the project
management team. ERA has assessed during the phase one project if the
project was managed according to the standards defined by PRINCE2 and the
required documents are produced.
The assessment of the project management of the TAP TSI phase one was
based on the quality criteria set-up in the Quality management strategy
document:
[1] A project extranet site will be available at least during the whole
project for all the stakeholders. This extranet site will contain
description of the TAP Phase One project with the project structure,
responsible persons per work stream, expected deliverables and
expected project timing. The site will also contain all the official
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 26/56
meetings of the project with invitation letter, agenda, supporting
documents and minutes with decisions.
[2] Monthly, intermediate progress and final reports are sent to the
steering committee and it shall take full account of the latter’s
decisions
[3] Decisions made during the project will be transparent and duly
justified so that they can be introduce into the TAP Phase One
deliverables
[4] Divergences from originally expected project
planning/deliverables are notified in due time to the steering
committee
[5] Deliverables are delivered according to the expected schedule.
It was proposed by the project management team that TAP Phase One will be
divided into three stages as follows and will be documented according PRINCE2
requirements. The following 3 stages were proposed:
1. 1st stage from the signature of the UIC-DG MOVE grant contract
(AGREEMENT NUMBER - MOVE/B2/SUBV/2011-446/SI2.610758) starting
on 12 May 2011 until the delivery of the intermediate report on 08 Dec
2011.
The contract between EC and the project team – represented by UIC –
was concluded for a complementary support of the work of the project
team by public funding.
2. 2nd stage from the delivery date of above intermediate report until the
delivery of the final report on 13 May 2012
3. 3rd stage from the delivery date of above final report until the delivery of
the ERA recommendation on the TAP Phase One deliverables to DG
MOVE (not later than 2 months after ERA has received them).
For the assessment the stages 1 and 2 are taken into account. The third
stage was not assessed by ERA, because this stage was mainly under the
responsibility of ERA.
4.5.1 Assessment of the 1st stage
The 1st stage of the TAP TSI phase one was planned to be executed between
the signature of the contract between the EC and the project team and the
delivery of the intermediate report.
During this phase the set-up of the project and the analysis of the existing
legacy systems was be in the focus of the project. The project was authorized
by the TAP TSI phase on steering committee on the 08.07.2011. ERA’s review
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 27/56
for this phase will be therefore restricted to the timeframe between
08.07.2011 and 08.12.2011 (delivery of the intermediate report).
According to the requirements laid down in chapter 4.5, ERA has assessed the
execution of the 1st stage of the project:
Project internet site: The Internet site was set-up by the project team on
30.08.2011. Since then the site has been used to upload all documents
relevant for the project. All documents for the project management were
published and available in the member area. This parameter has to be
considered as successfully passed.
Monthly reports: The monthly reports were sent on time to the steering
committee and are also published on the TAP TSI extranet workspace.
Decisions making: The decision making in the working parties is analyzed in
chapter 4.3.
Divergences from originally planned deliveries: During the stage one the
deliveries were delivered on time.
Conclusion: The outcome of this stage was approved by the steering
committee, which is also supported by ERA.
4.5.2 Assessment of the 2nd stage
The 2nd stage of the TAP TSI phase one was executed between the approval of
the results of the 1st stage phase and the delivery of the final deliveries on the
13.05.2012.
During this phase the finalization of the deliverables was in the focus of the
work of the project team.
According to the requirements laid down in chapter 4.5, ERA has assessed the
execution of the 2nd stage of the project:
Project internet site: All documents for the project management were
published and available in the member area. This parameter has to be
considered as passed.
Monthly reports: The monthly reports were sent on time to the steering
committee and are also published on the TAP TSI extranet workspace. For May
2012 no monthly report was published, because the stage was finished mid
May.
Decisions making: The decision making in the working parties is analyzed in
chapter 4.3.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 28/56
5. REVIEW OF THE DELIVERABLES
5.1 Overview
ERA has received on 13.05.2012 by email the following final deliverables of the
TAP TSI phase one documents:
- Introduction to phase one deliverables (V1.0)
- Retail architecture (V1.0)
- Tariff IT Specification (V1.0)
- Reservation IT Specification (V1.0)
- Direct Fulfilment IT Specification (V1.0)
- Indirect Fulfilment IT Specification (V1.0)
- PRM Assistance IT Specification (V1.0)
- RU/IM communication IT Specification (V1.0)
- Governance (V1.0)
- Master plan (V1.0)
- Full Service Model (V1.0)
These above documents were sent by email by the project manager to all
members of the steering committee and the ERA project officers in charge of
the telematic applications2.
An additional delivery was agreed between ERA and the TAP TSI phase one
project management team on 07.05.2012: the extraction of the CR’s for the
ERA technical documents from the drafted IT specifications and their
submission to the TAP TSI CCM IT-tool. ERA has received until 12.07.2012
33 change requests which are stored in the TAP TSI CCM IT-tool. These CR’s
shall be handled in the TAP TSI CCM working party to be introduced, if duly
justified, in the TAP TSI technical documents. During the assessment phase
ERA has made the following meetings with the TAP TSI phase one project
management:
2 It is important to state that ERA has not received for above deliverables a “fit for purpose”
statement from the project team even though ERA has requested it several times in writing.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 29/56
Table 11 : meetings ERA TAP TSI phase one project management team during assessment of deliveries
Date Place Topics
08.06.2012 Lille Remarks of ERA about the deliveries
25.06.2012/26.06.2012 Lille Remarks of ERA about the deliveries
10.07.2012 Lille Benefit assessment
During the review phase ERA has received updated versions of the following
deliverables:
Date Documents
21.06.2012 RU/IM IT-specification
24.06.2012 IT Architecture
02.07.2012 IT Architecture
05.07.2012 RU/IM IT-specification
09.07.2012 Master plan and governance
12.07.2012 Tariff IT-Specification, Timetable IT-Specification,
Direct fulfilment IT-Specification, Indirect fulfilment
IT-Specification, PRM assistance IT-Specification,
Reservation IT-Specification
Supporting documents for change requests
ERA has reviewed the received documents, if they contain the proposed
changes by ERA or justified explanations why the proposed change was not
accepted.
ERA has finally approved these deliverables and recommend to attach them as
technical documents in Annex III or Annex V of the TAP TSI. . During the
phase one further possibilities for the status of the deliverables were
discussed: if the deliverables for the retail architecture, the governance, the
master plan and the detailed IT-specifications can be linked to the TAP TSI
published by ERA in the form of Means Of Compliance/Technical Document.
ERA has analyzed this proposal, but it was discovered, that such a publication
would not be in line with the interoperability directive 2008/57/EC article 5 (8):
“TSIs may make an explicit, clearly identified reference to European or
international standards or specifications or technical documents published by
the Agency where this is strictly necessary in order to achieve the objective of
this Directive. In such case, these standards or specifications (or the relevant
parts) or technical documents shall be regarded as annexes to the TSI
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 30/56
concerned and shall become mandatory from the moment the TSI is
applicable.” According to this provisions a reference to “Terms of Compliance”
is not possible in a TSI. However the possibility to publish technical documents
in the form of Means Of Compliance shall be analyzed further and – if such a
possibility is considered as reasonable – the changes of the relevant legislation
(e.g. 2008/57/EC) shall be addressed by the Commission.
5.2 Project documentation
Beyond the final deliverables summarized in chapter 5.1 above the project
team has paid great attention to run and document the TAP Phase Project
according to the PRINCE2 project management standards. According to the
PRINCE2 standard the project and its various stages have to be documented
with a defined set of project documents. Those documents are for instance:
- Business case (description of the business case for the project)
- Project initiation document (for the initiation of the project)
- Daily log (for the daily project events)
- Lessons log (logging of lessons learned in the project)
- Stage plan (for the planning of the different stages of a project)
ERA has reviewed the project and its agreed stages on basis of the PRINCE 2
documents.
For the project documentation of the 1st stage ERA has received on the on the
08.07.2011 the following documents according to the PRINCE 2 project
management:
Table 12 : review project documentation TAP TSI phase one stage 1
PRINCE2
document
Available on TAP
TSI workspace
ERA remark
Authority to
initiate a project
Yes
Communication
management
strategy
Pending File must be uploaded to the project
workspace.
Approval records
for Stage 1 (TAP
SteCo meeting
Yes
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 31/56
minutes
26.01.2012)
End stage report
(Meeting minute
SteCo
07.12.2011)
Yes
Daily log (Yes) File must be uploaded to the project
workspace.
Daily log discontinued after 08.03.2012
Exception report Yes
Highlight Reports
(monthly reports
for this Stage)
Yes
Stage Plan Pending
Team Plan Pending
For the 2nd stage – similar as for the 1st one – the following set of PRINCE2
documents were provided by the project team by 13.07.2012:
Table 13 : review project documentation TAP TSI phase one stage 2
PRINCE2
document
Available on TAP
TSI workspace
ERA remark
Approval records
(TAP SteCo
meeting minutes
with decisions)
Yes
End stage
report(s) (final
deliverables)
Yes
Exception report Yes
Highlight Reports
(monthly reports
for this Stage)
Yes
Daily log (Yes) Daily log discontinued after 08.03.2012
Exception report Yes
Highlight Reports Yes
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 32/56
(monthly reports
for this Stage)
Stage Plan Yes
Team Plan Yes
The project documentation is approved with the request to the project team to
kindly upload asap the pending/discontinued PRINCE2 documents to the
project workspace.
5.3 Retail architecture
ERA has reviewed the architecture deliverable if this document fulfils the
requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The following points
were checked:
1. The outline of the global architecture of the system. It shall describe how
the requisite components interact and fit together.
The outline of the architecture is described in this deliverable. an
overview about the global architecture is described in the chapter 9.2 of
the deliverable with a general overview about the involved actors and the
communication between each other. The central part of the architecture
– a central registry acting as “address book” to discover the needed
actors and their information – , the components for the individual
stakeholders and the procedures for the communication between each
other are described in chapter 9 of the deliverable.
2. analysis of the system configurations capable of integrating the legacy IT
facilities, while delivering the required functionality and performance
The working party has proposed and analyzed two different architecture
scenarios, a central database with a central quality check and integration
of timetable and fare data and a decentralise distributed solution with a
registry to locate the distributed components (e.g. for timetable, fares)
of the involved actors. This discussion was the most important discussion
during the drafting of the architecture deliverable. The deliverable
describes the results of the finally selected solution. A short description
of the central database architecture and the disadvantages of this
solution could be helpful to understand the advantages of the selected
architecture (say of the registry compared to the central database one).
The needed functionalities and the performance of the solution are
described in the deliverable document.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 33/56
Beside of the parameters above ERA has checked also if the deliverable has
been written in such a manner that it can be easily understood by third parties
which will have to implement and operate it. Especially for the architecture
deliverable it is important, because it shall be used for the tendering of the
central components of the architecture. Thus, a clear description of the
architecture without ambiguity can ensure that the tender will be successful
and the architecture can be implemented.
That’s why it is so important to have the clear description of the interaction
between the components and the description of the data structure. These parts
are described in the deliverable with graphical overviews and additional textual
descriptions. However these drawings are made with project specific symbols
and elements even if widely accepted industry IT standards for the
documentation exists (e.g. UML).
One additional crucial point is the “proof of concept” of the proposed
architecture. One of the main advantages of the central database architecture
proposal for timetables and fares is that for this central architecture
implementations are available and widely used in other industries. For the
proposed architecture with a central registry it could not be shown by the
project team that such architecture is already in use. ERA has requested
several times to provide examples of such a complex architecture. The risk of
such non existing examples is, that the architecture may not be implemented
successfully as nobody has with that an appropriate experience.
Furthermore a clear migration strategy from the current rail retail architecture
is missing.
The deliverable “TAP TSI Retail Architecture” can be implemented in phase 2 of
the TAP TSI under following conditions. Following two measures must be taken
in order to enhance the TAP TSI retail architecture deliverable:
1. Improvement of readability of the document (UML, glossary)
The current architecture document shall be amended TAP during Phase two in
such a way that the readability of the document will be improved significantly.
This includes - beyond incorporation of remaining and not treated ERA remarks
- the usage of UML as modelling and documentation language and the
rephrasing of unclear chapters.
The proposed TAP TSI retail architecture description will be – consequently –
less ambiguous for third parties (which have not attended the retail
architecture work stream meetings but will have to implement and operate the
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 34/56
architecture) and will not be re-discussed again during the development and
deployment/operation.
2. Migration strategy towards this architecture
A migration strategy from the current architecture of the legacy systems of the
railways to the proposed architecture shall be developed. This migration
strategy shall be added to the architecture deliverable.
ERA recommends to EC to incorporate above two measures into the decision
part of the legal act amending the TAP TSI.
Above two measures can be done in parallel to TAP Phase 2, thus, they will not
lead to delay in the development and deployment of TAP TSI.
The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.60 to
the TAP TSI.
5.4 Governance
ERA has reviewed the governance deliverable if this document fulfils the
requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The following points
were checked:
1. the identification of the appropriate governance structures, methods and
procedures to support the development
2. the identification of the appropriate governance structures, methods and
procedures to support the validation of the system
3. the identification of the appropriate governance structures, methods and
procedures to support the its field operation and management
throughout its lifetime (including dispute management between the
parties involved under the provisions of this TSI)
The rules for development, the validation and the operation of the system are
not defined separately. The assessment will be made for the three points
above together.
The Governance deliverable defines the needed governance structure, the
methods and the procedures in an appropriate detailed level. The structures
defined in chapter 8 of this deliverable are reasonable and well structured
described. The governance rules are clearly defined, understandable and
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 35/56
ensure a balance between interests of the involved stakeholders. The dispute
management is ensured through a conciliation service.
The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.61 to
the TAP TSI.
The deliverable “TAP TSI governance” is fit for purpose for the phase 2 of the
TAP TSI implementation.
5.5 Master plan
ERA has reviewed the master plan if this document fulfils the requirements for
acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The following points were checked:
1. The identification of the activities necessary to achieve the
implementation of the system.
The needed activities are clearly defined in the master-plan deliverable.
All activities are identified and described in a sufficient detail level.
2. A migration plan which includes a set of phases that is conducive to
intermediate and verifiable tangible results, from the current framework
of stakeholders’ information and communication systems to the system
itself.
The deliverable contains a detailed migration plan for clearly defined
phases to migrate the current IT-framework to the fully operable TAP TSI
system. All phases are underpinned with subtasks which are achievable
and can be verified to check the progress of the implementation of the
TAP TSI. However the detailed technical specifications to migrate from
the current retail architecture to the TAP TSI compliant architecture have
to be described in the TAP TSI retail architecture deliverable.
3. A detailed milestone plan.
The deliverable contains a detailed milestone plan. The following
milestones are defined in the master plan:
• 2013 Q2 – TAP TSI Regulation republished
• 2013 Q4 – TAP TSI governance entity formed
• 2014 Q3 – TAP TSI regulatory services operational – Phase Three
starts
• 2016 Q1 – RUs meet their retail regulatory obligations.
These milestones are underpinned with tasks to be executed before the
milestone can be recognized as reached.
4. A risk assessment of the crucial phases of the master plan.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 36/56
The masterplan deliverable contains a risk assessment of the risks for
the proposed timetable. All major risks are indicated in the table in
chapter 15. All risks are indicated with their possible impact and the level
of probability. This list gives a good basis for reactions in case if such a
risk occurs during the development and deployment of the TAP TSI.
5. An assessment of the total lifecycle costs (LCC) associated with the
deployment and operation of the system, together with a subsequent
investment plan and the relevant cost-benefit analysis.
The masterplan deliverable contains an analysis of the costs for the
implementation and operation of the regulatory services. The total
lifecycle costs of the whole system – including the costs for individual
stakeholders - are not taken into account. This was the dedicated task of
the cost-benefit-analysis for TAP TSI architecture. The costs of the
regulatory services are reasonable. The coverage of the costs can be
achieved by the proposed
The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.62 to
the TAP TSI.
The deliverable “Master plan” is fit for purpose for the phase 2 of the TAP TSI
implementation.
5.6 IT specifications
This chapter describe in detail the assessment of the detailed IT specifications.
5.6.1 IT specification for Tariff exchange
ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for the tariff data exchange if
this document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3.
The deliverable shall contain the “Functional, technical and performance
specifications, the associated data, the interface requirements, the security
and the quality requirements.” All of the required information’s are covered in
this tariff IT-specification deliverable. It describes the additional information,
the requirements and procedures to implement for the tariff data exchange
based on the technical document B.1, B.2 and B.3. The content of the
document is complete, logical structured and in line with the TAP TSI technical
document for tariff data exchange.
1. Functional, technical and performance specifications
The functional, technical and performance parameters are described in
the deliverable in a detailed level. Together with the TAP TSI technical
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 37/56
documents for fare exchange, the needed processes can be understand
and implemented.
2. Associated data
The main focus of this deliverable is the description of the associated
data, needed for the exchange of fare data. It adds detailed explanation
and use cases for the tariff data usage to the existing TAP TSI technical
documents.
3. Interface requirements
The interface requirements are already covered by the TAP TSI technical
documents for the tariff data exchange.
4. Security requirements
The security rules are defined in the deliverable.
5. Quality requirements
The quality rules are a major topic of the deliverable. These quality rules
for tariff data are defined in a detailed and understandable level in the
deliverable. These rules can be implemented in the quality management
tool of the TAP TSI architecture.
ERA has detected some questions which should be taken into account during
phase two.
The most important question is that currently the discussion about the
obligations of the RU’s to publish the tariff data to whom is not solved. For the
time being it is not clear if the RU’s have to publish their tariff data to:
- to the railway undertakings3 and third parties to which it grants
authorisation to sell according to distribution agreements - authorized public bodies
After meetings between the sector and DG COMP/DG MOVE the question is still
open and shall be decided finally in further meetings. This question must be
adjusted in the IT specification after the decision.
The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.51 to
the TAP TSI.
3 There is an ongoing discussion between the rail sector and the EC, if also for other RU’s the
restriction for third parties “to which it grants authorisation to sell according to distribution
agreements” is applicable. The interpretation is not yet finally decided.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 38/56
The deliverable “Tariff IT specification” –is fit for purpose for the phase 2 of the
TAP TSI implementation.
5.6.2 IT specification for EDIFACT messages covering timetable data exchange
ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for the timetable exchange if this
document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The
content of the document is in all parts complete, logical structured and in line
with the TAP TSI technical document B.4. The IT specification describes the
additional information, the requirements and procedures to implement the
timetable exchange based on the technical document B.4.
1. Functional, technical and performance specifications
The functional, technical and performance parameters are described in
the deliverable in a detailed level. Together with the TAP TSI technical
document B.4 for timetable data exchange, the needed processes can be
understand and implemented.
2. Associated data
The main focus of this deliverable is the description of the associated
data, needed for the exchange of timetable data. It adds numerous
detailed explanations and use cases for the timetable data usage to the
existing TAP TSI technical document B.4.
3. Interface requirements
The interface requirements are already covered by the TAP TSI technical
documents for the timetable data exchange.
4. Security requirements
The security rules are defined in the deliverable.
5. Quality requirements
The quality rules are a major topic of the deliverable. A full list of
mandatory quality rules is defined in a detailed and understandable level
in the deliverable. This list can be implemented in the quality
management tool of the TAP TSI architecture.
The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.50 to
the TAP TSI.
The deliverable “Timetables IT specification” is fit for purpose for the phase 2
of the TAP TSI implementation.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 39/56
5.6.3 IT specification for electronic reservation of seats/berths and electronic
production of travel documents – exchange of messages
ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for the reservation if this
document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The
content of the document is in all parts complete, logical structured and in line
with the TAP TSI technical document B.5.
1. Functional, technical and performance specifications
The functional, technical and performance parameters are described in
the deliverable in a detailed level. Together with the TAP TSI technical
document for reservation message exchange, the needed processes can
be understand and implemented.
2. Associated data
The main focus of this deliverable is the description of the associated
data, needed for the exchange of reservation messages according to TAP
TSI technical document B.5. It adds numerous detailed use cases with
examples for the reservation data exchange to the existing TAP TSI
technical document B.5.
3. Interface requirements
The interface requirements are already covered by the TAP TSI technical
documents for the reservation message exchange.
4. Security requirements
The security rules are defined in the deliverable.
5. Quality requirements
There are no dedicated Quality requirements for the exchange of
reservation messages defined in this document. It is described that the
quality has to be ensured through a campaign of compliance tests –
agreed between the involved parties. The test cases of the test campaign
are as consequence not described in the deliverable.
The specific remarks in the chapters (6.5 and 7.2) CR’s will be treated as
change requests in the TAP TSI CCM. After approval of these change requests,
the affected specific remarks can be removed.
The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.52 to
the TAP TSI.
The deliverable “Reservation IT Specification” is fit for purpose for the phase 2
of the TAP TSI implementation.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 40/56
5.6.4 IT specification for direct fulfilment
ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for direct fulfilment if this
document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The
content of the document is in all parts complete, logical structured and in line
with the TAP TSI technical document B.6. The IT specification describes the
additional information, the requirements and procedures to implement the
direct fulfilment based on the technical document B.6.
1. Functional, technical and performance specifications
The functional, technical and performance parameters are described in
the deliverable in a detailed level. Together with the TAP TSI technical
document for direct fulfilment, the needed processes can be understand
and implemented.
2. Associated data
The associated data are already described in the TAP TSI technical
document B.6.
3. Interface requirements
There are no interface requirements for the direct fulfilment.
4. Security requirements
The security rules (e.g. security elements for the ticket paper) are not
taken into account in this deliverable. Security rules are managed under
the responsibility of CIT and not available for non CIT-members.
5. Quality requirements
There are no dedicated quality requirements for the direct fulfilment
defined in this deliverable.
The specific remarks in chapter 6.3.2 will be treated as change request for B.6
in the TAP TSI CCM. After approval of these change requests, the affected
specific remarks can be removed.ERA has detected some questions which
should be taken into account during phase two.
The first question concerns some unclear provisions and obligations of the
actors in conjunction the role of CIT. CIT supports the RU’s with the
implementation of the international railway law. This includes the specification
of the security elements of the paper – called “blank coupons” - used for the
printing of tickets according to the layout defined in B.6. Those coupons will be
procured by CIT. The IT specification for direct fulfilment or the governance
document shall be therefore clearly define the procedures for each actor (e.g.
railway undertaking, ticket vendor) to be involved in the processes of CIT, e.g.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 41/56
for the access to the CIT specification documents for security elements for the
blank coupons or the purchase of those blank coupons. This question shall be
discussed further with CIT and has to be decided during the TAP TSI phase
two.
For the question ERA has asked the project team to enhance the chapter 10
(governance) with the procedures for the organisational steps for RUs to have
their trains sold by others and organisational steps to be involved in the
settlement procedures. This question shall be discussed further with CIT and
has to be decided during the TAP TSI phase two.
For the third question ERA has further requested to provide test cases to check
the compatibility of the printed tickets with the TAP TSI technical document
B.6. These test cases were not provided by the project team and should be
added during the TAP TSI phase two (development).
The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.53 to
the TAP TSI.
The deliverable “Direct fulfilment IT specification” is fit for purpose for the
phase 2 of the TAP TSI implementation.
5.6.5 IT specification for indirect fulfilment
ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for indirect fulfilment if this
document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The
content of the document is in all parts complete, logical structured and in line
with the TAP TSI technical document B.7.
1. Functional, technical and performance specifications
The functional, technical and performance parameters are described in
the deliverable in a detailed level. Together with the TAP TSI technical
document for indirect fulfilment, the needed processes can be
understand and implemented.
2. Associated data
The associated data are already described in the TAP TSI technical
document B.7.
3. Interface requirements
The interface is already described in the TAP TSI technical document B.7.
4. Security requirements
The security rules are already described in the TAP TSI technical
document B.7.
5. Quality requirements
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 42/56
There are some quality requirements for the indirect fulfilment defined in
this deliverable. The current definition for “Correct interaction with other
systems” defines only, that the quality has to be ensured through a
campaign of compliance tests – agreed between the involved parties.
The test cases of the test campaign are as consequence not described in
the deliverable.
The improvements for the technical document B.7 (e.g. chapter 8.1, 9.2.2) will
be treated as change request for B.7 in the TAP TSI CCM. After approval of
these change requests, the affected specific remarks can be removed.
ERA has detected some questions which should be taken into account during
phase two.
The first question is related to chapter 10 “Current situation“. This chapter
shall be rephrased to give B.7 a binding character. According to TAP TSI BP
4.2.11. (Fulfilment — indirect — for international and foreign sales) these
tickets shall be compliant with TAP TSI technical document B.7. It should be
stated clearly that the technical document B.7 is legally binding for all RU’s for
the implementation of TAP TSI and proprietary ticket formats for indirect
fulfilment will be obsolete. For this purpose it could be helpful for the RU’s to
request a migration strategy. This should be taken into account during the TAP
TSI phase two.
For the second question detailed test cases for the compliance tests shall be
described for the indirect fulfilment (e.g. for the message exchange between
the involved parties). These test cases were not provided by the project team
and should be added during the TAP TSI phase two (development).
The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.54 to
the TAP TSI.
The deliverable “Indirect fulfilment IT specification” is fit for purpose for the
phase 2 of the TAP TSI implementation.
5.6.6 IT specification for assistance reservation for PRM
ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for assistance reservation for
PRM if this document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to
chapter 3.3. The content of the document is in all parts complete, logical
structured and in line with the TAP TSI technical document B.10.
DG MOVE has to answer to the letter of the project management team from
06.06.2012.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 43/56
ERA has requested to provide examples for XML-messages according to B.10.
These examples were not provided by the project team and shall be added to
this technical document during the TAP TSI phase 2 (development).
Furthermore ERA has requested to extend the chapter 9.2 “Compliance tests”
with detailed test cases - including failure test cases - for the message
exchange between the communication partners to ensure the interoperability
of the message exchange. These test cases were not provided by the project
team and shall be added during the TAP TSI phase 2 (development).
The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.55 to
the TAP TSI.
The deliverable “PRM Assistance IT specification” is fit for purpose for the
phase 2 of the TAP TSI implementation.
5.6.7 IT specification for RU/IM communication
ERA has reviewed the present IT specification for RU/IM-communication if this
document fulfils the requirements for acceptance according to chapter 3.3. The
content of the document is in all parts complete, logical structured and in line
with the TAP TSI technical document B.30 and additionally for the TAF TSI
appendix F.
ERA has discovered one question for the proposed IT specification: In chapter
6 (RU/IM-Architecture) of the deliverable for the RU/IM-communication is
mentioned, that the communication between the different actors has to be in
accordance with the specification of the external interface. A reference
implementation of this interface – the so called common interface (CI) - was
developed by the CCG. For the time being the specification of this external
interface is not available for the actors of the rail sector. It has to be decided,
how and where (e.g. which website) this documentation shall be published.
The deliverable will be attached as ERA TAP TSI technical document B.56 to
the TAP TSI.
The deliverable “RU/IM communication IT specification” is fit for purpose for
the phase 2 of the TAP TSI implementation.
5.6.8 Transversal remarks about all IT-specifications
ERA has one remark which affects most of the deliverables for the TAP TSI
retail specifications.
For the implementation of TAP TSI it is important to have a coherent set of
reference data, such as location codes or reservation codes. For the storage of
those codes like location codes, there is a central reference database (CRD)
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 44/56
defined which is commonly used with TAF TSI. This database is defined in
Appendix C of the TAF TSI [3]. The CRD database can accommodate partly
retail reference data, e.g. reservation codes. For the whole set of retail
reference data it was discovered during the TAP TSI phase one, that the
database is not sufficient. The proposal of the deliverable of the TAP TSI
architecture is to define the database structure for retail reference data during
the tender for the implementation of the architecture (see chapter “Common
Components of the TAP-TSI Retail Architecture and their interaction” of retail
architecture deliverable).
This approach is not sufficient. The retail reference database is one of the
central components for the retail architecture and has to be defined before the
tender. The definitions of such a database shall contain the following topics:
- UseCases for the retail reference database
It shall be clarified which data shall be stored in the RRD, e.g. connecting
links, minimum connecting times, reservation codes and their usage.
- Structure
The database structure has to be defined as database model.
- Governance
The governance of the management of the RRD database shall be
defined to ensure that clear governance rules for the management of
retail reference data is applicable.
ERA recommends to incorporate the definition of the retail reference database
in the revised TAP TSI architecture deliverable.
5.7 Full-service model
The Full service model document is not part of the legal requirements of the
TAP TSI. However it was identified as necessary to go beyond the legal scope
of TAP TSI and define additional requirements (e.g. additional requirements for
payment, refund and settlement) for the TAP TSI. It was agreed in the contract
between the EC and UIC for the TAP TSI phase one project (AGREEMENT
NUMBER - MOVE/B2/SUBV/2011-446/SI2.610758) to deliver this document in
addition to the legally required documents of the TAP TSI.
ERA has reviewed this document only on a high-level. The document contains
a description of all high-level processes for a full chain of distribution processes
(e.g. refund, exchange, settlement) of rail products. The additional
requirements to cover those additional processes are collected and analysed
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 45/56
for existing gaps to the proposed TAP TSI implementation according to the IT-
specifications and the TAP TSI architecture.
Because the delivery is not legally required by TAP TSI and should be
completed during a follow-up period after the finalization of TAP TSI phase
one, ERA recommends to continue the work during phase 2 as described in
chapter 4 of the FSM delivery.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 46/56
6. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
6.1 Methodology of the Cost Benefit Analysis
The Agency received two deliverables from the project team – one related to
the assessment of costs and another one related to the assessment of benefits.
In general it was agreed between ERA and the project team to focus the scope
of the analysis on the impact resulting from the retail architecture. The impact
resulting from the RU-IM communication (as part of TAP TSI) was not assessed
due to the fact that this communication bases on the same messages which
are used in the framework of TAF TSI.
6.1.1 Cost Assessment
At a first step the phase one project team delivered to ERA a report assessing
the cost-impact of the proposed retail architecture.
The cost impact was analysed for the different “producers” using the proposed
retail architecture. The term “producer” was chosen, because it describes a
railway undertaking “producing” resources such as fare and timetable data of
its products and distributing these resources via the retail architecture to
“consumers”. Consumers are railway undertakings or ticket vendors using
these resources e.g. for selling the products of the “producers” to their
customers.
The cost impact analysis identified 4 types of railway undertakings acting as
producers:
- Online UIC members: Railway undertakings already sharing data in the
TAP TSI standards, using both NRTs and IRTs (those IRTs are global
prices that needs to be sold through a connection between the Product
owner hosting system and the issuer system)
- Offline UIC members: Railway undertakings already sharing data in the
TA TSI standards, using only NRTs (those NRTs can be sold by the issuer
without accessing the product owner system)
- Online non UIC members: Railway undertakings not using TAP TSI
standards to exchange their data, should they exchange them. They use
IRTs and NRTs
- Offline non UIC members: Railway undertakings not using TAP TSI
standards to exchange their data, should they exchange them. They only
use NRTS.
The analysis focused on two impacts:
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 47/56
- For creating the common components (the registry, retail reference
database as well data quality management tool) within the retail
architecture
- on the producer side, to fulfill its obligations
The chosen cost breakdown structure for the common components bases on
the core functions provided by the common components:
- to facilitate producers and consumers to comply with the regulation
- to make reference data available and publish them
- to check quality of provided data (timetable and fares)
For the producers, a number of core business functions were identified for
which the cost impact was estimated:
- to make data (e.g. timetable/fare) available
- to notify registry of data update
- to publish fare, timetable and fulfillment data
- to handle reservations (availability requests, bookings, cancellations)
- to manage quality of data
Only two core business functions directly result from the proposed
architecture: the notification of updates and data quality management. Their
cost impact is a direct cost impact resulting from the proposed architecture.
All costs were indicated as CAPEX (one time cost impact) and OPEX
(operational costs per year).
ERA considers that the used methodology for the cost impact assessment is
appropriate, consistent and provides sufficient transparency
6.1.2 Benefit Assessment
During summer period (July – September 2012) the railway sector supported
by the Agency evaluated the possible benefits resulting from the retail
architecture.
The benefit assessment identified all relevant impacted stakeholders. These
are:
- The four types of railway undertakings acting as producers as already
identified in the cost assessment
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 48/56
- The same four types of railway undertakings but acting as “consumers”
(e.g. a railway undertaking selling products from another railway
undertaking to his customers)
- Ticket vendors. This cluster is represented by GDS and technology
providers and other ones interested in having rail data to provide rail
content to other content (airline, hotel, car rental, cruise, etc…) for travel
agencies or other actors.
For each impacted stakeholder, the benefits were analysed in respect to the
following core business functions:
- accessing to timetable data
- accessing to fares/tariffs data (in B1/B2/B3 format)
- accessing to reservation data
- accessing to indirect fulfillment data (Public keys)
- accessing to PRM assistance data
- accessing to retail reference data
- ensuring quality of data (scheduled timetables)
- ensuring quality of data (scheduled fares/tariffs)
- keeping data up to date (notification of changes for timetables)
- keeping data up to date (notification of changes for NRT)
- keeping data up to date (notification of changes for IRT)
- keeping data up to date (notification of changes for Special Fares)
- keeping data up to date (notification of changes for retail reference data)
- keeping data up to date (notification of changes for Technical
Documents)
- Business intelligence (traceability)
The number of changes of data per year mainly drives the impact of a core
function and depends on the kind of data to be updated (e.g. retail reference
data are not as often updated as timetable data). Update frequencies were
estimated by the sector based on experience with the operation of the UIC
databases MERITS and PRIFIS (for timetables and fares/tariffs).
Benefits were estimated based on FTE (Fulltime employee) day savings/
change and monetized based on a ratio of 1k€/FTE day.
Both types of benefits, onetime benefits as well as operational benefits
(benefits/year), were estimated.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 49/56
ERA considers that the used methodology for the benefit assessment is
appropriate and consistent taking into account the specific situation of each
impacted type of stakeholder (“producer” railway undertaking, “consumer”
railway undertaking, ticket vendor)
6.2 Results of the Cost Benefit Analysis
6.2.1 Resulting Cost Impact
The deliverable from the SEDP project team summarizes the cost impact of the
common components as well as for the producers.
The cost impact resulting from the common costs is presented in the following
table:
Main costs are onetime costs for implementing the common components
(about 400k€). Total operating costs of the common components are at a low
level of 50k€/year. These costs have to be borne by all users within the railway
sector. Considering the estimation from the benefit assessment, that 100
consumers/producers might use the retail architecture, the cost impact per
consumer/producer is very low.
Cost impact of Common components
Source: Retail Architecture / Economic Evaluation v1.0/ 13.05.2012
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 50/56
ERA considers that the cost impact resulting from the implementation and
operation of common components is reasonably estimated.
In addition the cost impact for the different types of producers was estimated
as following:
The two types of UIC Producers are already making available their timetables
and tariffs/ fares on FTP servers that are shared with other UIC railway
undertakings. They already use tools to check the quality of their data prior to
making the data available. But they do not inform any registry, so this is to be
created specifically for the purpose of the TAP TSI. The costs for a UIC
producer are therefore at a very low level (about 13-16k€ onetime costs and
3k€/year operating costs). In this context it has to be mentioned that all major
railways in Europe are UIC producers and the cost impact resulting from the
architecture is very low. (Note: Currently, about 40 railway undertakings can
be regarded as UIC producers)
Cost impact for the different types of producers
Source: Retail Architecture / Economic Evaluation v1.0/ 13.05.2012
Project team and experts estimates
In kEUR
Functionality CapexOpex /
yearCapex
Opex /
yearCapex
Opex /
yearCapex
Opex /
year
make data available
0 7 0 5 25 7 22 5 notify Registry of data update
13 2 16 2 200 2 200 2 publish timetable data
0 10 0 10 150 30 150 30 publish fares data
0 10 0 7 155 20 77 5 publish fulfilment data
0 5 0 0 50 5 0 0 booking/Reservation
Availability/cancellation 110 12 0 0 110 12 0 0 Data Quality Management
process 0 1 0 1 0 25 0 1
TOTAL 123 47 16 24 690 101 449 42
Total costs due to TAP 13 3 16 3 200 27 200 3
Online New
Producers
Online UIC
Producers
Offline
New
Producers
Offline UIC
Producers
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 51/56
The remaining 2 types of producers need to create everything from scratch.
The costs cover the creation of the system that allows the exchange of data
with the consumers. However some of these costs are not in any relation to
the provisions of the TAP Regulation and the retail architecture such as the
costs for making data available, the costs for publishing data in the required
format, and the costs for the management of reservations).
For this reason the impact resulting specifically from the implementation of the
retail architecture is very limited as well: It concerns data quality management
and the notification of updates. The onetime costs for these producer types are
higher (200 k€), the operating costs for offline producers are the same as for
UIC producers (3k€/year). Data quality management is the main operational
cost driver for online producers due to the fact that they manage more
complex fare/tariffs data.
6.2.2 Resulting Benefit Impact
In September 2012, the railway sector forwarded to the Agency another
deliverable summarizing the potential benefits for the different stakeholders as
follow:
Producers in general mainly profit from the notification service of the retail
architecture to inform the consumers about possible updates. For UIC
producers the benefit results from notifying Non-UIC consumers and ticket
vendors about updates.
Potential Benefits for the different impacted stakeholders
Source: Deliverable to ERA / 13.09.2012
Clusters of Producers and
Consumers
Recurent benefits
K€/year
One time benefit
K€
Nb of stakeholders
for this cluster
(estimation)
Total Recurent
benefits / clusters
in K€ /year
Online UIC Producer 435 0 12 5 220
Offline UIC Producer 76 0 30 2 280
Online non UIC Producer 540 0 1 540
Offline non UIC Producer 134 0 10 1 340
Online UIC Consumer 628 0 12 7 535
Offline UIC Consumer 268 0 30 8 036
Online non UIC Consumer 1569 14 1 1 569
Offline non UIC Consumer 69 14 10 691
Ticket Vendor Consumer 3174 14 3 9 522
Total benefits for all clusters 36 734
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 52/56
The following table (extracted from the deliverable) illustrates the benefits for
an online UIC producer only due to the notification of timetable updates:
Architecture Capability
Description Benefit Assumptions Quantified benefit in k€
keep data up to date (Notification of changes for IRT)
Allows an automated update of data Hypothesis: Tariffs/fares : 360 requests;
Technical benefit:
Save FTE on admin / per change (OTB)
Producer notifies only one source, which in turn notifies all interested Consumers
Other Commercial benefit:
Producers can have less problem to manage with customers due to wrong info
1FTE / Change 360
Consumers profit from the notification service as well, as it allows an
automated updating of timetable and fare/tariff data for all products of the
railway undertakings which they sell to their customers. The following example
(extracted from the deliverable) illustrates the benefits from a consumers
perspective.
Architecture Capability
Description Benefit Assumptions Quantified benefit in k€
keep data up to date (Notification of changes for Timetables)
Allows automation Hypothesis: 52 changes/year, 40 RUs
Technical benefit:
Save FTE on admin / per change (OTB) via automation
Consumer receives notification from one source and can better react to it
Commercial benefit: Consumer can offer to his customers the most accurate information
1/8 FTE per change
260
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 53/56
keep Data up to date (Notification of changes for IRT)
Allows automation Hypothesis: 360 changes / year, 8 RUs having IRTs
Technical benefit:
Save FTE on admin / per change (OTB) via automation
Consumer receives notification from one source and can better react to it
Commercial benefit: He can offer to his customers the most accurate information
1/8 FTE per change
360
In this example it is assumed that a consumer is connected to 40 railway
undertakings (to receive timetable information) and to 8 railway undertakings
to receive their IRT fares/tariffs. A consumer receives significantly higher
number of updates (because he is connected to a number of railways) but each
update is less complex to handle. For this reason the savings per update are
much lower (only 1/8 FTE compared to 1 FTE for a producer). This assumption
is consistent.
Ticket vendors (GDS operators) as another consumer type specifically profit
from the data quality management which reduces the resources to integrate
timetable and fare/tariff updates into their IT systems. The following example
is extracted from the deliverable as well:
Architecture Capability
Description Benefit Assumptions Quantified benefit in k€
Ensure quality
of data
(scheduled
fares/tariffs)
Remove the need of
checking data quality
themselves (except
some TVs)
hypothesis: 10 RUs
52 deliveries for IRT
1 delivery for NRT
0 delivery for Special
fares
No additional quality checks are necessary in order to integrate the update in the system
2,5 FTE per change
1325
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 54/56
Ensure Quality
of data
(scheduled
Timetables)
Remove the need of
checking data quality
themselves (except
some TVs)
hypothesis: 10 RUs
52 deliveries
No additional quality checks are necessary in order to integrate the update in the system
2,5 FTE per change
1300
This calculation demonstrates the necessity that producers have to ensure
quality of fare/tariffs data as well as timetable data either by their own quality
management or the quality management offered by quality management tool
as provided by the retail architecture.
ERA considers that the assumptions used to quantify the benefits are
consistent.
6.3 Conclusions for the Cost Benefit Analysis
The CBA exercise has demonstrated that the benefits for all impacted
stakeholders outweigh by far the expected costs.
For producers, the retail architecture will provide significant cost reductions
when they follow the obligations of the TAP TSI, especially to inform their potential consumers about updates of timetables and fares. Producers will
support the proposed architecture in order to keep the impact of the TAP TSI as low as possible for them.
For consumers, the benefits have to be interpreted as business opportunities
rather than “real” savings. The architecture will likely contribute to the distribution of railway products due to the fact, that the necessary connections
between consumer and producer are realised in a much simplified way than today.
As a conclusion, having analysed the results of the CBA, ERA considers that the
proposed architecture will contribute positively to the implementation of the
TAP TSI by enabling railway undertakings to meet the provisions of the TAP
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 55/56
TSI with a reasonable cost impact. In addition the architecture contributes
positively to the distribution of products of railway undertakings.
European Railway Agency
Subsystem Telematics Applications for PASSENGERS
File : ERA-REC-09-2012-INT - report Version 3.1 Page 56/56
7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1 The recommendation of ERA for the phase one of TAP TSI
With regard to the chapter 7.2 of TAP TSI ERA recommends the acceptation of
the deliverables – by taking into account the proposed two specific measures
for the deliverable TAP TSI retail architecture - as outlined in chapter 5.
The IT Specification deliverables shall be incorporated as ERA technical
documents in the TAP TSI annex III.
The deliverables Retail Architecture, Governance and Master plan shall be
incorporated as ERA technical documents in a new annex V to the TAP TSI. The
two annexes III and V for the technical documents are necessary ensure the
different change management cycles. The technical documents annexed in
annex III are subject to the perpetual TAP TSI change management process
according to chapter 7.5. The technical documents for the retail architecture,
the governance and the master plan are subject to revision of the TAP TSI.