TAF/TAP TSI

After discussing the text during the TEG Operation, SMO and JSG the following text is proposed. The text shall also be checked by the RNE Legal Working Group.

"Under the condition that he is identifiable in applications for freight services, every stakeholder may exchange the messages according to Chapters 4.2.2.3 (only during the operation of the train), 4.2.4.2, 4.2.4.3, 4.2.5.2, 4.2.6.3, 4.2.6.4, 4.2.7.2, 4.2.7.3, 4.2.7.4, 4.2.7.5, 4.2.7.6, 4.2.7.7 and 4.2.7.8 with all other stakeholders involved in the same freight service. ’’

Hi,

DB Netz has now specified the Change Request 74 (Supplement of reason for using RelatedPlannedTransportIdentifier (RPTID). We make two proposals how the new attribute or element "ReasonOfReference" can be added in the current xsd-structure and we have revised and specified the code list. You can find the modified CR 74 in the appendix.

Kind regards

Julian Holzner

As I was unable to attend the TEGs: As this topic does not imply any change in the TAF/TAP message structure, etc. I don't think, that this is a matter for a TAF/TAP CR (no objections to information/discussions on this topic in the TEGs).

Dear Vojkan,

thanks for the overview - but I cannot find the codes foreseen for national messages in your list. Which codes are foreseen for this? 

Since this element Parameter is only used in ObjectInfoMessage and this is sector only message this CR was marked "Sector Only" therefore it will be implemented since it was accepted by JSG. 

Additional Information for the proposed CR provided by RNE legal adviser

TAF Regulation revision 2019/2020:

new paragraph in chapter 4.2 on the general principle of the message exchange to be included

1. The proposal:

1. Initial text (from RNE CMS as of 9 May 2019)

"All stakeholders involved in the same transport are entitled to share the data from all other stakeholders involved in the same transport, under the condition that they are identified.’’

1. Initial text with alternatives of the terms and explanatory notes

"All stakeholders/players/partners/participants involved in the same transport/freight service are entitled/may to share/exchange the data from all other stakeholders involved in the same transport, under the condition that they are identified/identifiable.’’

Generally, the easiest way to successfully handle a legislative change is to adhere as close as possible to the legislator’s language in a first step. However, the TAF/TAP terminology, being by definition rather technical, is full of different terms for the same or very similar notions (e.g. railway players, stakeholders, partners, actors, etc.).Thus, it seems challenging to choose the right terms for the proposed amendment, and, basically, every word was checked for conformity with the most frequently used terms in the TAF Regulation and Directive 2008/57. The following considerations were taken into account:

• Stakeholders vs players vs partners vs (market) participants (listed by the intensity used in the Regulation): as a matter of fact, only the term ‘stakeholder’ is defined in the TAF Regulation (Appendix II/Glossary). It means any person or organisation with a reasonable interest in train service delivery followed by a non-exhaustive list of 25 businesses involved in one way or...