easier, faster, safer Performance Monitoring Report RFC North Sea - Mediterranean 2015
easier, faster, safer
Performance Monitoring Report RFC North Sea - Mediterranean
2015
easier, faster, safer
Content Introduction
Choosing performance indicators
Update on Corridor Traffic KPI 01: Total Corridor Traffic
KPI 02: Ton KMs
KPI 03: Punctuality
OM 01: Cross Border Traffic
OM 02: Delay Reason
OM 03: Top Corridor Flows
OM 04: Users
OM 05: Lost Minutes
OM 06: Cancelled trains
Update on Corridor capacity KPI 04: Theoretical Running Time
KPI 05: PaPs per section
KPI 06: Requests for pre-arranged paths
KPI 07: Allocated pre-arranged paths
KPI 08: Reserve Capacity
KPI 09: Allocated Reserve Capacity
OM 07: Allocated pre-arranged paths in active timetable
OM 08: Double Bookings
OM 09: Allocated pre-arranged paths for reserve capacity in active timetable
2
easier, faster, safer
Introduction
In the Implementation Plan of the Corridor, published as Book V of the Corridor Information Document, a number of KPI’s and Other Measurements (OM) are described that are being monitored to be able to follow the overall performance of the Corridor. The majority of these indicators can be found in this performance report, with which all our stakeholders are informed about the progress of the Corridor on a yearly basis. To be able to easily understand the figures in this report, a clear explanation is foreseen on how the calculation was made and what is measured for each indicator.
To be able to compare, the list of indicators described in this document is identical to those used in the 2014 Performance Monitoring Report (and described in the CID for timetable 2016, published in January 2015).
The indicators can be divided into two business fields. The information on Corridor traffic, and the information on the Corridor capacity offered and allocated by the C-OSS. Each of these groups consists of Key Performance Indicators (KPI), for which clear objectives have been defined, and Other Measurements (OM), that give an insight into what is happening on the corridor, but to which no objective can be linked.
3
easier, faster, safer
Choosing performance indicators
The KPIs and OMs in this performance monitoring report were chosen on the basis of the following parameters:
Measurability: performance should be measurable with the tools and resources available on the corridor
Clarity: KPI/OM should be understandable to the public it is designed for
Comparability: KPI/OM should be comparable across time and region
Relevance and empowerment: KPI/OM should provide information on which project decisions can be based
All indicators have been described in the Implementation Plan of the Corridor, published as Book V of the Corridor Information Document (TT2016) on the website (http://www.rfc-northsea-med.eu).
4
easier, faster, safer 5/20 5/23
Update on Corridor Traffic
The following pages will provide insight into the trains running on the Corridor. For this, it is necessary to know when a train is labelled as a corridor train:
The following criteria have to be met:
- - An international freight train
- Crossing at least one border of the Corridor
- Travelling at least 70 kilometres along Corridor lines
The data used to calculate the given KPIs and OMs, comes from the national IM databases and the international TIS database, managed by RNE. More details are given per KPI or OM.
Where available, information is provided on the main causes of the evolutions displayed.
5
easier, faster, safer
KPI 01 – Total Corridor Traffic(1)
KPI 01 displays all corridor trains on the Rail Freight Corridor North Sea – Mediterranean. Trains that pass more than one border are counted only once. The data used per border is the following:
Essen/Roosendaal: Infrabel data
Mouscron/Tourcoing: Infrabel data
Aubange/Rodange: Infrabel data
Aubange/Mont-Saint-Martin: Infrabel data
Baisieux/Blandain: Infrabel data
Erquelinnes/Jeumont: Infrabel data
Bettembourg/Zoufftgen: CFL data
St.Louis/Basel: SNCF-Réseau data
Several graphs and tables are provided. The first graph gives an overview of the number of trains over the last three years, the second shows the 12-month evolution over the last four years, while the first table compares every month of 2015 with the corresponding month of the previous year.
6
easier, faster, safer
KPI 01 – Total Corridor Traffic(2)
7
Comparison to last year
Green: increase Orange: decrease
Dark green: increase by more than 20% Red: decrease by more than 20%
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
2500
2700
2900
3100
Nu
mb
er o
f co
rrid
or t
rain
s p
er
mo
nth
January 2013 - December 2015
Total historic lines
Total 2015 extensions
Ja
n 1
5
vs
14
Fe
b 1
5
vs
14
Ma
r 1
5
vs
14
Ap
ril
15
vs
14
Ma
y 1
5
vs
14
Ju
ne
15
vs
14
Ju
ly 1
5
vs
14
Au
g 1
5
vs
14
Se
pt
15
vs
14
Oc
t 1
5
vs
14
No
v 1
5
vs
14
Dec
15
vs
14
2015
vs
2014
Total (historic lines)
109% 112% 102% 100% 95% 106% 103% 107% 115% 106% 110% 109% 106%
easier, faster, safer
KPI 01 – Total Corridor Traffic(3)
8
The moving average is displayed to smooth out short-term fluctuations and highlight longer-term trends or cycles. Each figure shows the number of train runs during the last 12 months preceding the last day of the given month.
12-month moving average
2500026000270002800029000300003100032000330003400035000
Dec-1
1
Feb-1
2
Apr-
12
Jun-1
2
Aug-1
2
Oct-
12
Dec-1
2
Feb-1
3
Apr-
13
Jun-1
3
Aug-1
3
Oct-
13
Dec-1
3
Feb-1
4
Apr-
14
Jun-1
4
Aug-1
4
Oct-
14
Dec-1
4
Feb-1
5
Apr-
15
Jun-1
5
Aug-1
5
Oct-
15
12-month moving average (Total Corridor Traffic)
moving average including 2015 extensions moving average historic lines
easier, faster, safer
KPI 01 – Total Corridor Traffic(4)
The evolution of the total amount of Corridor traffic is influenced heavily by the economic growth of the Corridor region. However, the Corridor aims to increase the amount of Corridor trains in the following matter, compared to the year 2013, taking into account a low economic growth:
9
RFC NSM Objective 2020 2030
historic lines (Nov 2013) +3% +9%
Evolution compared to
2013 (start RFC NSM) 2013 2014 2015
historic lines (Nov 2013) 27.835 +3% +9%
1st extension (Jan 2015) 31.711 +2% +6%
22500
27500
32500
37500
2013 2014 2015
historic lines (Nov2013)
1st extension (Jan
2015)
Number of corridor train
runs
For the year 2014, there was already a
rise in Corridor traffic of 3% compared to
2013. For 2015, the rise was even more
significant (+9% compared to 2013).
easier, faster, safer
KPI 02 – Ton KM(1)
KPI 02 measures the amount of tons that are transported over Rail Freight Corridor North Sea – Mediterranean per kilometre. For this, the train weight of each corridor train is taken into account.
However, due to the fact this data is only partially available (no real train weight figures for France for example), the average train weight for trains passing the following borders (approximately 65% of all corridor trains) is used to calculate the figures for trains for which this information is missing:
Essen/Roosendaal
Mouscron/Tourcoing
Aubange/Mont-Saint-Martin
Aubange/Rodange
Erquelinnes/Jeumont
Blandain/Baisieux
The data is displayed, via two graphs and one table. The first graph gives an overview per month over the last three years, the second shows the 12-month evolution over the last four years, while the table compares every month of 2015 with the corresponding month of the previous year.
10
easier, faster, safer
KPI 02 – Ton-KM(2)
11
Comparison to last year
Green: increase Orange: decrease
Dark green: increase by more than 20% Red: decrease by more than 20%
Jan
15
vs 1
4
Feb
15
vs 1
4
Mar
15
vs 1
4
Ap
ril
15
vs 1
4
May 1
5
vs 1
4
Ju
ne 1
5
vs 1
4
Ju
ly 1
5
vs 1
4
Au
g 1
5
vs 1
4
Sep
t 15
vs 1
4
Oct
15
vs 1
4
No
v 1
5
vs 1
4
Dec 1
5
vs 1
4
2015
vs
2014
Total
(historic lines) 110% 111% 104% 100% 95% 106% 103% 107% 118% 105% 106% 107% 106%
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
4000000
4500000
5000000
2013-0
1
2013-0
2
2013-0
3
2013-0
4
2013-0
5
2013-0
6
2013-0
7
2013-0
8
2013-0
9
2013-1
0
2013-1
1
2013-1
2
2014-0
1
2014-0
2
2014-0
3
2014-0
4
2014-0
5
2014-0
6
2014-0
7
2014-0
8
2014-0
9
2014-1
0
2014-1
1
2014-1
2
2015-0
1
2015-0
2
2015-0
3
2015-0
4
2015-0
5
2015-0
6
2015-0
7
2015-0
8
2015-0
9
2015-1
0
2015-1
1
2015-1
2
KPI 2 : Ton KMs
Total + extensions 2015 Total historic lines
easier, faster, safer
KPI 02 – Ton-KM(2)
12
12-month moving average
The moving average is displayed to smooth out short-term fluctuations and highlight longer-term trends or cycles. Each figure shows the number of Ton KMs during the last 12 months preceding the last day of the given month.
2.000.000
2.200.000
2.400.000
2.600.000
2.800.000
3.000.000
3.200.000
3.400.000
3.600.000
3.800.000
4.000.000
11-12 12-06 12-12 13-06 13-12 14-06 14-12 15-06
12 month moving average Ton-Km
moving average historic lines moving average including 2015 extensions
easier, faster, safer
KPI 02 – Ton KM(4)
The Corridor aims to increase the amount of Ton KM in the following matter, compared to the year 2013, taking into account a low economic growth:
For the year 2014, there was already a rise in the total weight of goods transported via the corridor of 2% compared to 2013. For 2015, an increase of 13% compared to the figures for 2013 (only on historic lines) could be noted.
13
RFC NSM Objective 2020 2030
historic lines (Nov 2013) +3% +9%
RFC NSM Objective 2013 2014 2015
historic lines (Nov 2013) - +2% +13%
easier, faster, safer
KPI 03 – Punctuality(1)
KPI 03 measures the average punctuality of a selection of corridor trains on a fixed number of passage points. A train will be added to this train list if it meets the following criteria:
Corridor train Regular yearly timetable Runs along one of the following axes of the Corridor:
- (Antwerp) – Namur – (Bettembourg) – Basel - (Rotterdam) – Antwerp – Lille - (Bettembourg) – Metz – Lyon
For the calculation of the total Corridor punctuality, the average punctuality of the selection of corridor trains in 26 pre-defined measuring points across the corridor is taken into account. A corridor train is punctual when having a delay of maximum 30 minutes. The data is displayed via two graphs and one table. The first graph gives an overview per month over the last four years, the second shows the 12-month evolution over the last three years, and the table compares every month of 2015 with the corresponding month of the previous year. The follow-up of this punctuality report is done via the Train Performance Management Working Group, to which Corridor users are regularly invited to participate.
14
easier, faster, safer
KPI 03 : Punctuality(2)
15
Comparison to last year
Green: increase Orange: decrease
Dark green: increase by more than 20% Red: decrease by more than 20%
60,00
65,00
70,00
75,00
80,00
85,00
90,00
95,00
100,00
%
KPI 3: Corridor Punctuality
Antwerp-Basel
Bettembourg-Lyon
Antwerp-Lille
TOTAL
Target
Ja
n 1
5
vs
14
Fe
b 1
5
vs
14
Ma
r 1
5
vs
14
Ap
ril 1
5
vs
14
Ma
y 1
5
vs
14
Ju
ne
15
vs
14
Ju
ly 1
5
vs
14
Au
g 1
5
vs
14
Se
pt
15
vs
14
Oc
t 1
5
vs
14
No
v 1
5
vs
14
De
c 1
5
vs
14
2015
vs
2014
Total 94% 103% 96% 94% 94% 97% 95% 96% 96% 99% 91% 107% 97%
easier, faster, safer
KPI 03 : Punctuality(3)
16
12-month moving average (average complete corridor)
The moving average is displayed to smooth out short-term fluctuations and highlight longer-term trends or cycles. Each figure shows the average punctuality during the last 12 months preceding the last day of the given month. The graph shows a somewhat downwards evolution, primarily linked to the good figures of 2012 and early 2013. Since the start of RFC North Sea – Med, we see a stagnation.
50,00
55,00
60,00
65,00
70,00
75,00
80,00
85,00
12
mo
nth
mo
vin
g
averag
e c
orrid
or
pu
nctu
ality
easier, faster, safer
KPI 03 : Punctuality(4)
17
Notes
RFC North Sea – Med continues its efforts to reach the objective of 80% punctuality in the future. Unfortunately, for the second year running, this objective was not reached (on the selection of trains monitored). Please find some factors that have influenced this result: - Signalling disturbances - Train driver errors - Recurrent social actions throughout the year - Security measures - Accidents (level crossings)
Yearly RFC NSM punctuality (30min on selected corridor trains)
2013 2014 2015
punctuality evolution
compared to TT2013 77,9% +1% +1%
easier, faster, safer
OM 01 – Cross Border Traffic(1)
OM 01 displays all corridor trains on the Rail Freight Corridor North Sea – Mediterranean, per border. Trains that pass more than one border are thus counted several times. The data used per border is the following:
Essen/Roosendaal: Infrabel data
Mouscron/Tourcoing: Infrabel data
Aubange/Rodange: Infrabel data
Aubange/Mont-Saint-Martin: Infrabel data
Baisieux/Blandain: Infrabel data
Erquelinnes/Jeumont: Infrabel data
Bettembourg/Zoufftgen: CFL data
St.Louis/Basel: SNCF-Réseau data
The data is displayed via two graphs and one table. The first graph gives an overview of the number of trains over the last three years, the second shows the 12-month evolution over the same period, and the table compares every month of 2015 with the corresponding month of the previous year.
18
easier, faster, safer
OM 01 – Cross Border Traffic(2)
19
Comparison
to last year
Au
ba
ng
e
Ro
da
ng
e
Au
ba
ng
e
Mo
nt-
St-
Ma
rtin
Mo
us
cro
n
To
urc
oin
g
Ro
os
en
da
al
Essen
Bett
em
bo
urg
Zo
uff
tge
n
Basel
St.
Lo
uis
2015 vs 2014 108% 123% 103% 126% 94% 109%
50
150
250
350
450
550
650
750
850
950
20
13-0
1
20
13-0
2
20
13-0
3
20
13-0
4
20
13-0
5
20
13-0
6
20
13-0
7
20
13-0
8
20
13-0
9
20
13-1
0
20
13-1
1
20
13-1
2
20
14-0
1
20
14-0
2
20
14-0
3
20
14-0
4
20
14-0
5
20
14-0
6
20
14-0
7
20
14-0
8
20
14-0
9
20
14-1
0
20
14-1
1
20
14-1
2
20
15-0
1
20
15-0
2
20
15-0
3
20
15-0
4
20
15-0
5
20
15-0
6
20
15-0
7
20
15-0
8
20
15-0
9
20
15-1
0
20
15-1
1
20
15-1
2
OM 1 : Number of corridor trains per border point
Aubange/Rodange
Aubange/Mont-Saint-Martin
Mouscron/Tourcoing
Roosendaal/Essen
Bettembourg/Zoufftgen
Basel/St.Louis
Baisieux/Blandain
Erquelinnes/Jeumont
easier, faster, safer
OM 01 – Cross Border Traffic(3)
20
12-month moving average
The moving average is displayed to smooth out short-term fluctuations and highlight longer-term trends or cycles. Each figure shows the number of corridor trains passing each border during the last 12 months preceding the last day of the given month.
50
150
250
350
450
550
650
12 m
on
th m
ov
ing
av
era
ge n
um
ber
of
train
s
(bo
th d
irecti
on
s)
Aubange Lux
Aubange MsM
Mouscron
Roosendaal/Essen
Bettembourg/Zoufftgen
Basel/St.Louis
Baisieux/Blandain
Erquelinnes/Jeumont
easier, faster, safer
OM 02 – Delay Reason It was decided not to publish any data on delay reasons, because no validation by the customers (via the EPR validation tool) is performed after the ending of this project, and thus no reliable or objective data on international train runs is available.
21
easier, faster, safer
OM 03 gives an overview on the main origins, destinations and routes of corridor trains. Because of only limited data available, the analysis is based on the requests (dossiers in PCS) for trains on RFC North Sea-Mediterranean, placed via the C-OSS, which means that at least partly a PaP has been requested:
22
OM 03 – Top Corridor Flows
FROM TO COUNT comments Belgium Italy 30 Together with RFC Rhine-Alpine
Belgium North-Western France *** 23
Belgium North-Eastern France ** 15
Belgium Luxembourg 11
North-Eastern France ** Switzerland 9 Only part of train trajectory
Belgium South Eastern France * 5 Via Paris
Germany Spain 5 Together with RFC Atlantic & Mediterranean
Belgium Spain 3 Together with RFC Atlantic or Mediterranean
North-Eastern France ** Italy 3 Together with RFC Rhine-Alpine
South-Eastern France * Italy 3 Together with RFC Mediterranean
Belgium Switzerland 2
Belgium The Netherlands 2
UK The Netherlands 2
Luxembourg South Eastern France * 2
Luxembourg Italy 1 Together with RFC Rhine-Alpine
UK Italy 1 Together with RFC Rhine-Alpine
North-Western France *** Italy 1 Together with RFC Rhine-Alpine
* South-Eastern France = Languedoc-Roussillon, Rhône-Alpes, Provence-Alpes Côte d’Azur
** North-Eastern France = Lorraine, Alsace, Franche-Comté
*** North-Western France = Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Picardie, Haute et Basse Normandie, Ile-de-
France
easier, faster, safer
It was decided not to publish the share of train runs via the Corridor, since we believe this is private information (internal use for Managing Board and Executive Board only).
We have chosen to abandon this KPI because of the limited added value.
23
OM 04 – Users
OM 05 – Lost Minutes
easier, faster, safer
OM 06 – Cancelled Trains(1)
OM 06 measures the amount of cancelled corridor trains (entire trajectory). Today, only partial data is available, for trains crossing the following border points:
Essen/Roosendaal
Mouscron/Tourcoing
Aubange/Rodange
Aubange/Mont-Saint-Martin
Erquelinnes/Jeumont
Baisieux/Blandain
This means approximately 65% of corridor trains are included in the report.
Trains are labelled as cancelled when they are included in the yearly timetable and (exact reason unknown):
for a given running day cancelled or
the train does not show up
cancelled by RU or IM (whatever reason)
24
easier, faster, safer
OM 06 Cancelled Trains(2)
25
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%12-0
1
12-0
3
12-0
5
12-0
7
12-0
9
12-1
1
13-0
1
13-0
3
13-0
5
13-0
7
13-0
9
13-1
1
14-0
1
14-0
3
14-0
5
14-0
7
14-0
9
14-1
1
15-0
1
15-0
3
15-0
5
15-0
7
15-0
9
15-1
1
Average ratio
30%
31%
32%
33%
34%
35%
36%
37%
38%
39%
12-1
2
13-0
2
13-0
4
13-0
6
13-0
8
13-1
0
13-1
2
14-0
2
14-0
4
14-0
6
14-0
8
14-1
0
14-1
2
15-0
2
15-0
4
15-0
6
15-0
8
15-1
0
15-1
212
mo
nth
mo
vin
g a
verag
e
nu
mb
er o
f can
celled
train
s
The moving average is shows a steady increase of the share of cancellations in the total amount of scheduled trains. However, since the number of train runs on the corridor is also going up, these figures shows only a slight overestimation of the market growth by the users.
easier, faster, safer 26/20 26/23
Update on Corridor Capacity
The following pages will provide insight into the capacity that has been published by the C-OSS of the Corridor, and the requests that have been received for this capacity.
Capacity on the Corridor is published under the form of PaPs, via the online platform PCS. Only requests that have been placed via this tool can be taken into account.
To be able to display the PaPs published, a number of sections have been defined. Please find an overview of these sections in annex 5 to the Corridor Information Document Book V (TT2015 or TT2016 – depending on the concerned timetable).
26
easier, faster, safer
KPI04 – Theoretical Running Time(1)
KPI 04 compares the average yearly timetable running time with the average pre-arranged path running time for predefined Rail Freight Corridor North Sea – Mediterranean routes. To be able to compare these figures along the Corridor, the resulting average speed is displayed.
Per corridor route, an objective has been defined in the Corridor Implementation Plan, which is displayed in the table provided.
The goal of this KPI is to be able to determine the quality of the PaPs offered by the corridor. The goal of these PaPs is to deliver premium quality paths. By comparing them with all the yearly timetable paths, the quality of the paths can be monitored.
27
easier, faster, safer
KPI04 – Theoretical Running Time(2)
28
KM/H per corridor route 2013 2014 2015 2016 Objective IP
PaP Antwerpen - Bettembourg
60,74 59,69 61,56 58,09 60
TT 59,52 58,50
PaP Antwerpen - Basel
57,02 51,43 55,23 53,81 54
TT 55,40 51,46
PaP Antwerpen - Lille
50,16 52,44 56,23 44,17 60
TT 52,44 56,47
PaP Rotterdam - Antwerpen
53,39 58,66 71,33 63,69 65
TT 56,79 50,37
PaP Aubange-Basel
51,36 44,64 48,49 48,63 48
TT 49,43 45,03
easier, faster, safer
KPI04 – Theoretical Running Time(3)
Only on the Aubange – Basel section, the objective could be met. For most sections, the average speed of the PaPs went down for timetable 2016, when comparing with timetable 2015. The main reasons for this are the following
To improve the robustness of the PaPs, standard buffer times were extended
On several routes, (slightly) different trajectories are used depending on the planned temporary capacity restrictions that might be foreseen on these lines. For timetable 2016, instead of publishing these variants as different PaPs, only the longest running time was published
With the publication of extra capacity compared to last year, a higher number of paths with a slightly lesser quality were published as PaP, which of course has an impact on the average speed per PaP
29
easier, faster, safer
KPI05 – PaPs per Section(1)
KPI 05 displays all the PaPs that have been published by the C-OSS of the Corridor in January 2015, for the annual timetable 2016.
These PaPs are displayed per section of the Corridor. For each of these sections, two figures are displayed.
The first figure shows the number of paths on the given section per day, direction north to south, while the second figure shows the number of paths on the given section per day, direction south to north
It must be noted that most PaPs run Monday to Friday, but some might have more (7) or less (minimum 3) running days, or that a given PaP might not be available on some days throughout the year.
9.3 million km of paths were published when counting the number of kilometers of PaP that have been published for the entire year
8,5 milllion km if only taking into account corridor lines as per TT2015
This means a rise of 22%, or 12% if only taking into account corridor lines as per TT2015
30
easier, faster, safer
S1 18 18 18 18
Rotterdam - Kijfhoek S5 25 25 13 14
S6(a) 7 7 13 14
Rotterdam S6(b) 7 7 13 14
link with RFC1 in: Antwerp S7a 14 17 15 16
Antwerpen - Noord Muizen S7b 14 17 15 16
Ghent S8 10 12 11 12
S5 S9 6 6 13 16
S3 Antwerpen - Schijnpoort S10 2 2 4 4
S11 10 12 13 14
Montzen (link with RFC1) S12 14 16 17 16
S31 S13 12 14 14 14
S14 10 12 12 12
Dunkerque Kortrijk S7(a) Sections in red = cross border S15(a) 2 2 2 2
S23(a) S6(b) Liège S15(b) 1 1 1 1
Lille S28 Charleroi S30 S16 1 1 1 1
S23(b) Namur S17 0 0 0 0
S15(a) Valencien. S29 S7(b) S18 3 3 5 6
Calais S23(c) S26 S15(b) S32 S19 3 3 5 6
Berguette-Isbergues S24 Somain Aubange S20 3 3 5 6
S27 Aulnoye S21 1 1 2 1
S33 S16 S8 S23(a) n.a. n.a. 2 1
Amiens Busigny S23(b) n.a. n.a. 3 3
S34 Longuyon S23(c) n.a. n.a. 1 1
S24 n.a. n.a. 0 0
Tergnier S25 n.a. n.a. 0 0
S25 S17 S26 n.a. n.a. 10 11
S35 S27 n.a. n.a. 3 3
S28 n.a. n.a. 3 2
S29 n.a. n.a. 2 1
Paris (link with RFC4) Toul (link with RFC4) S30 n.a. n.a. 2 1
Strasbourg S31 n.a. n.a. 1 1
S14 S32 n.a. n.a. 1 1
S18 S33 n.a. n.a. 1 1
S34 n.a. n.a. 3 3
S35 n.a. n.a. 1 1
Dijon
S19 S21
Ambérieu
Lyon (link with RFC6) (link with RFC6)
NS SN
Published TT 2015 Published TT 2016
S20
Metz S13
Basel (link with RFC1)
S12
Antwerpen - W.H.
S6(a)
S1
section
S9
S11
Bettembourg
S10
NS SNpublication
RFC2 PaP Catalogue TT 2016
Thionville
KPI05 – PaPs per Section(2)
easier, faster, safer
KPI05 – PaPs per Section(3)
For the first time, following the rules described in the framework for capacity allocation provided by the Executive Board of the corridor, Network PaPs were published on RFC North Sea – Mediterranean.
Specific rule to calculate priority of conflicting requests
Allows to not discriminate an important traffic flow on corridor sections with a limited offer
The trajectory between Rotterdam and Italy via RFC Rhine - Alpine is longer, thus this route will always have the advantage in case of conflicts with a RFC North Sea - Med request in Switzerland, if the classical priority rule is applied
To avoid the situation where one traffic takes all the available capacity on a given section, some PaPs might be marked as Network PaP
In case of conflict on a Network PaP, only the length of the Network PaP requested is taken into account (first step)
32
easier, faster, safer
KPI05 – PaPs per Section(4)
33
RFC North Sea - Med has published a total of 7 Network PaPs for TT 2016
All are Network PaPs on RFC Rhine - Alpine and RFC North Sea - Med
North to South:
South to North:
From fixed times fixed times To Net PaP ID
Arr. Station Dep. Arr. Station
Antwerpen 17:12 Basel SBB RB 18:32 00:21
+1
Chiasso Chiasso RFC21Net0401
Antwerpen 14:34 Basel SBB RB 15:27 20:20 Domo II Domo II RFC21Net0203
Bettembourg 18:44 Basel SBB RB 20:01 01:36
+1
Chiasso Chiasso RFC21Net0403
From fixed times fixed times To Net PaP ID
Arr. Station Dep. Arr. Station Dep.
Chiasso Chiasso 01:35 06:25 Basel SBB
RB
07:37 Antwerpen RFC12Net0402
Domo II Domo II 07:00 12:03 Basel SBB
RB
13:18 Metz-Sablon RFC12Net0202
Domo II Domo II 09:00 14:03 Basel SBB
RB
15:49 Antwerpen RFC12Net0204
Domo II Domo II 16:00 21:03 Basel SBB
RB
22:23 Antwerpen RFC12Net0206
easier, faster, safer
KPI06 – Requests for PaPs(1)
KPI 06 displays all the requests (dossiers in PCS) that have been received by the C-OSS of the Corridor for the PaPs published for the annual timetable 2016.
It is important to stress that a request means one dossier in PCS. Such a dossier can have the following characteristics:
A request for:
A PaP running one day of the year A PaP running all days of the year
A PaP running on one section A PaP running on ten sections
A PaP with feeder/outflow sections A pure PaP
A PaP on one Corridor A PaP on several Corridors
A PaP crossing a border on another Corridor A PaP crossing a Rail Freight Corridor North Sea – Mediterranean border
34
easier, faster, safer
KPI06 – Requests for PaPs(2)
Requests received before April the 14th, for PaPs for timetable 2016: 118 dossiers (51 last year)
6,1 million km of paths were requested
5,9 million km of paths were requested on lines as per TT2015 (2,9 last year)
A rise of 115%
Or 106% if only taking into account lines as per TT2015
This means 66% of all capacity published in January (38,6% last year)
A separate objective has been defined for the Antwerp – Basel route (30%) and the rest of the corridor (15%)
Both were thus largely met
and 69% on lines as per TT2015
35
easier, faster, safer
KPI06 – Requests for PaPs(3)
Improving the communication to/with the customer remains vital some applicants asked for several PaPs via the national tools, and subsequently lost some paths
A considerable improvement of PCS is necessary, on client, C-OSS and IM/AB functionalities
Hopefully PCS Next Generation can help us with this
Joint effort of the RFCs needed in close cooperation with RNE
Work on an improved harmonisation of the offer with RFC Rhine - Alpine in Basel
Making room for the development of new traffics, while maintaining the capacity for the existing traffics
36
easier, faster, safer
KPI07 – Allocated PaPs
KPI 07 shows the number of PaPs which have been (pre-)allocated by the C-OSS, between April 14, 2015 and May 1st, 2015. This means that the PaP sections requested were allocated, but only under the condition that possible feeder/outflow sections, which appear in most of the requests, can be constructed by the concerned IMs/ABs and that these proposals will be accepted by the applicant, and/or that the applicant does not withdraw its request before active timetable (end of August). KMs means the number of kilometres multiplied by the number of days published/requested/allocated:
5,1 million KMs out of 6,1 requested, were allocated (2,8 for TT2015)
+ 76% compared to TT2015
+ 70% if only taking into account corridor lines as per TT2015
83% of the capacity requested could be allocated
55% of the capacity published in January 2015 could be
(pre-)allocated (39% last year)
57% if only taking into account corridor lines as per TT2015
37
easier, faster, safer
KPI08 – Reserve Capacity KPI 08 displays all the PaPs that have been published in May 2014, for the annual timetable 2015, and thus available to request via the C-OSS until 21 days before end of this timetable.
These PaPs are displayed per section of the corridor on the next page. For each of these sections, two figures are displayed. The first figure shows the number of paths on the given section per day, direction north to south while the second figure shows the number of paths on the given section per day, direction south to north.
The reserve capacity consists of PaPs that have been published in January, but have not been requested, or PaPs that have been requested, but for which the applicant has withdrawn its request.
When calculating the number of kilometers of PaPs that have been published as Reserve Capacity, times the days they were made available, a total of 2,8 million km of PaPs were published.
The objective of the Corridor is to provide at least 10% of the capacity provided in the yearly timetable PaP Catalogue (in km per year). This objective was largely met with 37,5%.
38
easier, faster, safer
KPI09 – Allocated Reserve Capacity
KPI 09 shows the number of Reserve Capacity PaPs, published in May 2014 for TT2015, which have been (pre-)allocated by the C-OSS from publication date until the end of the running timetable.
Given the priority rule ‘first come – first served’, all requests could
be (pre-)allocated (objective = 75%).
The following table provides an overview on the RC PaPs that have been published for timetable 2015 compared to those that have been requested/(pre-)allocated, per section:
39
Rotterdam - Kijfhoek
Antwerpen Y.Mariaburg
Antwerpen - Noord
Antwerpen - Schijnpoort
Lille
Longuyon
Toul
Strasbourg
Dijon
Ambérieu
Lyon
Basel
RC PaPs published May 2014 for TT2015
north to south / south to north
compared to what has been requested
north to south / south to north
Thionville
Metz
Aubange Bettembourg
Antwerpen - W.H.TT 2015
Reserve Capacity in Active
Timetable
7/8 - 1/0
7/8 - 0/0
7/8 - 1/0
9/10 - 0/0
4/5 - 4/4
2/2 - 0/0
3/3 - 0/0
1/1 - 0/0
5/4 - 0/1
2/3 - 0/1
2/1 -
2/1 -2/4 - 0/1
1/4 - 0/0
1/1 -2/1 -
2/3 - 0/1
easier, faster, safer
OM07 – Allocated PaPs in Active Timetable OM 07 shows the number of PaPs which have been (pre-)allocated by the C-OSS, between April the 14th, 2015 and October 13, 2015, that have been accepted by the applicant and thus entered in active timetable.
For this two periods have to be distinguished:
Requests for PaPs placed before the deadline of April the 14th
Requests for PaPs placed after the deadline of April the 14th, but before the start of the ad-hoc phase on October 13
109 out of 118 requests for PaPs placed before the deadline of April the 14th were promoted to Active Timetable and were included in the yearly timetable 2016, under the condition that no cancellation/modification was asked via the IMs at a later stage. This means that 4,6 out of 5,1 million km/year that were pre-allocated in April reached Active Timetable, or 91%.
5 out of 5 requests for PaPs placed after the deadline of April the 14th, but before publication of the Reserve Capacity on October 13, were promoted to Active Timetable and were included in the yearly timetable 2016, under the condition that no cancellation/modification was asked via the IMs at a later stage. The requests cover 133948 km/year.
40
easier, faster, safer
OM08 – Double Bookings
OM 08 provides information on the number of conflicting applications for pre-arranged paths for timetable 2016 at X-8, for which the priority rule had to be applied.
Last year, no conflicts were detected on RFC North Sea - Med lines. For 2 multi-corridor requests, there was a conflict on RFC Rhine - Alpine lines.
This year, for 24 requests, a conflict occurred
For 1 request the conflict was only on RFC Rhine - Alpine lines
For 2 requests the conflict was only on RFC Mediterranean lines
21 ‘pure’ RFC North Sea - Med dossiers in conflict
One alternative was proposed but rejected (axe Antwerp-Somain)
41
easier, faster, safer
OM09 – Allocated PaPs for Reserve Capacity in Active Timetable OM 09 gives information on the number of C-OSS allocated pre-arranged paths during the reserve capacity phase, for timetable 2015, which reached active timetable phase. On RFC North Sea – Med this means capacity requested and allocated from May 2014.
Out of 11 requests for reserve capacity for timetable 2015, all 11 entered into active timetable (objective = 75%).
This means 413439 km of reserve capacity for timetable 2015 were requested and allocated by the C-OSS of RFC North Sea-Med.
This is
- 5,5% of the capacity published in January 2014
- 14,6% of the capacity republished in May 2014
42
easier, faster, safer 43/20 43/23
Contact
www.rfc-northsea-med.eu
The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author.
The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained there in.
ACF
43