General container for the different TAF/TAP TSI subareas. Shows the calendar of the different events on those subareas. 

Recent Activity


July 18, 2019

June 27, 2019

  • Your profile picture

    There is a different change request SMO ID 124, ERA ID: TELEM00000474 New TypeOfInformation for acceptance and rejection of Draft and Final offer that already proposed the same code numbers for different purpose:

    20 – Final Offer rejected

    24 - Preparation of draft offer - accepted

    25 - Preparation of draft offer - rejected

    26 – Draft offer rejected


    Since the code numbers collided, this change request had to be updated and code numbers chnaged while everything else remained the same. Now the codes are as follows:

    27    offer/final offer rejected (without revision)

    28    alternative offer rejected (without revision)

    29    offer/final offer rejected (revision required)

    32    alternative offer rejected (revision required)

  • 3:40pm

    As requested by the JSG the text was checked by the RNE LM WG.

  • 3:39pm

    Feedback from LM WG: Considerations on charging: is a stakeholder allowed to charge for the message exchange other stakeholders involved in the same freight service?

    The answer may differ depending on the type of the stakeholders concerned in the relation originator-recipient of the message.

    -     IMs and RUs: Directive 2008/57 and TAF TSI Regulation No 1305/2014 are silent on the topic of charges/fees for the data exchange between those stakeholders. The principle that the data exchange costs are regarded as a part of the track access charges, although not explicitly stated, can be found in Directive 2012/34. According to point 1 (d) of Annex II ‘Services to be supplied to the railway undertakings’ the minimum access package shall comprise train control including signalling, regulation, dispatching and the communication and provision of information on train movement. As long as all messages cited in the draft below are to be considered facilitating the train movement, it seems that these  messages are by definition included in the infrastructure charges and separate charging of the RUs would not be in line with Directive 2012/34. On the other hand, the national transpositions in Member States may reveal different interpretations. A quick survey on the spot at the next LM WG meeting to be held on 4-5 June 2019 could bring more clarity on the tendencies in national law and IMs practices.

    -     Service facilities (SF): Charging issues on data exchange with SF are out of the scope of Regulation 2017/2177. However, according to Art. 6 (3) of  the latter act wherever technically possible with reasonable economic efforts, operators of service facilities shall make the information referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article and information referred to in Article 4(2)(l) available on a real-time basis through the use of a common web portal. Both provisions refer to real-time information on available service facility capacity and TCRs with a major impact on the SF.

    -     Other stakeholders (e.g. logistic provider, consignee, consignor, shipper, etc.): charging of  these actors, part of the logistic chain, is not regulated on the level of the EU law. National and contractual arrangements shall apply. 

    Considering the diverging situation above, the inclusion of general rule in the proposal (e.g. as a last sentence in the paragraph) is not recommendable.

June 19, 2019

June 11, 2019

June 7, 2019

June 6, 2019

June 4, 2019

  • Your profile picture

    SŽDC  disagree with removal of this message. Information in this message has big safety and operation impact on IM.

    Purpose of this message is to inform IM about responsibility for respective wagon on infrastructure of respective IM. Message Train Composition cannot be used for this purpose, because there are situation where wagon is not on any train and responsibility for the wagon was changed from one RU to other RU. In case it is already decided to remove this message out of TSI, SŽDC ask to keep this message as sector standard as it has added value for whole sector. SŽDC already started implementation of this message.

    That is why SŽDC ask other stakeholders (members of Operation EG) to review this CR again (make OperationTrainNumber optional) together  with their point of view to keeping the message as sector standard.

    Thank you. Miloš Futera (SŽDC)

May 29, 2019