punctuality leaflet 450-2. working schedule codecode nameproposal for changereason for changeremarks...

Punctuality Leaflet 450-2

Working schedule

Team building

Defining aims & expected results &

responsibilities

Planning of working structure

Collectingchange requests

Kick off meetingSept, 21st

Create workingpaper

Proposals forcode explanation

Negotiate codes& responsibilities

Define codeexplanations

Create leafletdraft

„Writing group“October

Workshop Paris29-30th of October

Communicate & evaluate internally

Proposals forcode explanation

Approve or makechange requests

Negotiate changerequests

Prepare openpoints for high level decision

Decision aboutescalation level

„Writing group“November

Workshop Vienna4th of December

High leveldecision on open

points

Create leaflet(final version)

Validate leaflet(UIC)

Team building

Defining aims & expected results &

responsibilities

Planning of working structure

Collectingchange requests

Kick off meetingSept, 21st

Create workingpaper

Proposals forcode explanation

Negotiate codes& responsibilities

Define codeexplanations

Create leafletdraft

„Writing group“October

Workshop Paris29-30th of October

Communicate & evaluate internally

Proposals forcode explanation

Approve or makechange requests

Negotiate changerequests

Prepare openpoints for high level decision

Decision aboutescalation level

„Writing group“November

Workshop Vienna4th of December

High leveldecision on open

points

Create leaflet(final version)

Validate leaflet(UIC)

Code Code name Proposal for change Reason for change Remarks

12 Operating procedure to be broken up into more categoriesto general

covers too many incidentsnot helpful for quality improvements

12 ↔ 91Operating procedures↔Track occupation

to clear out the differencesBetter explanation to avoid any

confusion and mistakes in code attribution

60/61↔92Rostering / Formation of train

↔ Turn roundto clear out the differences

Better explanation to avoid any confusion and mistakes in

code attribution

11 ↔ 61Train formation by IM ↔ by RU

For EPR purposes both codes should be allocated to the RU

responsibility

From EPR point of view all IMs and all RUs are considered as one body; so the responsibility should be attributed to the

generally responsible.

Should all the IMs be jointly reliable if just one IM is forming the trains as a service

towards the RU?

New code in group 1

Wrong application of capacity / priority rules

New codeTo be used when the train got the

delay because of the wrong application of the priority rules

Maybe not good to have it, because the violation of priority rules is against the

law

new in code group 3

Unplanned extension of maintenance work

New codeAs a sub-code from code 30/31 when

the planned maintenance or construction is prolonged

New 94Secondary delay to the same

trainNew code Requirement from the EPR Handbook

New 95Secondary delay to the other

trainNew code Requirement from the EPR Handbook

New 85 Delay caused by next IM New code Requirement from the EPR Handbook

List of topics to consider

List of topics to consider

General

• Main focus should be the code list and the common application of codes1. Purpose• to mention roles of the IM and the RU in the process (IM allocates, RU validates, and both need it for improvement

actions)• The aim is not a harmonized coding system applied everywhere in the same manner (domestic differences are

possible). But necessary is, that each domestic code (one or more) can be attributed to just one international code. The international codes are mainly needed for international traffic. But also codes used in domestic traffic should be comparable to each other. So it has to be secured that a transition from domestic coding to international coding is possible also for the delay reasons in domestic traffic.

2. Requesting and transmitting data• to be rephrased (same as in Summary)• last two paragraphs to be deleted (Scope of the Leaflet should be changed just into the explanation of the codes, not

about its further usage for analyses and statistics)3. Method of recording basic data• to be deleted (for each specific data collection own rules will be made; depends on the reason for the collection; not

needed to have it specified in the Leaflet)4. Data to be exchanged• to be reviewed5. Summary and analysis of data• related to the analyses → to be deleted6. Definitions• to be kept• will be work out after finalising the other chapters

Name

Company Phone E-mail Remark

WG Leaders

Christian Svatek OBB / RNE +43 664 617 2105 christian.svatek@oebb.at

Ivana Tomekova RNE +43 190 762 7218 ivana.tomekova@rne.at

WG Members

Luigi Impieri RFI +39 44 10 5479 l.impieri@rfi.it

Riccardo Ioncoli RFI +39 44 10 3064 r.ioncoli@rfi.it

Dirk Oelschläger DB Netz +49 692 653 1911 dirk.oelschlaeger@bahn.de

Isabelle Oberson CIT +41 31 350 01 98 isabelle.oberson@cit-rail.org

Henri Olink NS +31 629 59 80 84 henri.olink@ns.nl

Jacques Lejeune

SNCB jacques.lejeune.707@b-rail.be

Jean-Francois Ducoing RFF / RNE +33 1 5394 3532 Jean-francois.ducoing@rff.fr

Emmanuelle Taix RFF / RNE +33 1 5394 3504 emmanuelle.taix@rff.fr

Heinz Fikar RCA +43 1 93000 33135 heinz.fikar@railcargo.at Freight Forum

Klaus Fischler RCA

+43 664 617 4348 klaus.fischler@railcargo.at

Manfred Wagner DB AG manfred.wagner@bahn.de Passenger Forum

Patrick Arrondeau RFF +33 1 5394 3324 patrick.arrondeau@rff.fr

Siegfried Nierichlo

DB Netz +49 692 653 1481 Siegfried.Nierichlo@bahn.de

Thomas Grünberg SBB +41 512 22 3413 thomas.gruenberg@sbb.ch

Jean-Pierre Lehman UIC lehman@uic.asso.fr

Emmanuelle Nedjar UIC nedjar@uic.asso.fr

Theodore Gradinariu UIC +33 1 4449 2066  gradinariu@uic.asso.fr

Anne-Laure Tanguy UIC tanguy@uic.asso.fr