punctuality leaflet 450-2. working schedule codecode nameproposal for changereason for changeremarks...
TRANSCRIPT
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 [email protected]
Ivana Tomekova RNE +43 190 762 7218 [email protected]
WG Members
Luigi Impieri RFI +39 44 10 5479 [email protected]
Riccardo Ioncoli RFI +39 44 10 3064 [email protected]
Dirk Oelschläger DB Netz +49 692 653 1911 [email protected]
Isabelle Oberson CIT +41 31 350 01 98 [email protected]
Henri Olink NS +31 629 59 80 84 [email protected]
Jacques Lejeune
SNCB [email protected]
Jean-Francois Ducoing RFF / RNE +33 1 5394 3532 [email protected]
Emmanuelle Taix RFF / RNE +33 1 5394 3504 [email protected]
Heinz Fikar RCA +43 1 93000 33135 [email protected] Freight Forum
Klaus Fischler RCA
+43 664 617 4348 [email protected]
Manfred Wagner DB AG [email protected] Passenger Forum
Patrick Arrondeau RFF +33 1 5394 3324 [email protected]
Siegfried Nierichlo
DB Netz +49 692 653 1481 [email protected]
Thomas Grünberg SBB +41 512 22 3413 [email protected]
Jean-Pierre Lehman UIC [email protected]
Emmanuelle Nedjar UIC [email protected]
Theodore Gradinariu UIC +33 1 4449 2066 [email protected]
Anne-Laure Tanguy UIC [email protected]