Corridor Information Document

Transcription

1 Corridor Information Document Book 4 Procedures for Capacity and Traffic Management for timetable 2017

2 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION CORRIDOR ONE STOP SHOP CAPACITY ALLOCATION FOR FREIGHT TRAINS FRAMEWORK FOR CAPACITY ALLOCATION APPLICANTS CORRIDOR RELATED PATH PRODUCTS PaPs for the annual timetable Late Path requests Reserve Capacity Feeder/Outflow/Connecting Paths Multiple corridor paths CONDITIONS FOR BOOKING CAPACITY THROUGH THE C OSS HANDLING OF CAPACITY REQUESTS Leading tool for the handling of capacity requests Path request phase (annual timetabling process) Priority rule in capacity allocation Generalities Request with a higher priority value Request with a lower priority value Late path request and reserve capacity Handling of unused PaPs at X Path elaboration phase (including f/o and tailor made), draft offer and acceptance phases Final offer phase Late path request phase Ad hoc path request phase Exceptional transports and Dangerous Goods Overlapping sections REQUEST FOR CHANGES Modification Withdrawal Transfer of capacity Cancellation Addressing and form of a cancellation...17 RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

3 Overview of cancellation fees and deadlines on RFC Baltic Adriatic Non usage RAIL RELATED SERVICES INVOICING APPEALING PROCEDURE COORDINATION OF PLANNED TEMPORARY CAPACITY RESTRICTIONS GOALS TCR CORRIDOR COORDINATOR PROCEDURES INVOLVEMENT OF RUS TOOLS PUBLICATION INVOLVEMENT OF TERMINALS LEGAL NOTICE / DISCLAIMER TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT GENERALITIES BORDER CROSSING TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT IN THE EVENT OF DISTURBANCE GENERALITIES PRIORITY RULES IN TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE TO DEFECTIVE OR DAMAGED TRAINS ITINERARY MODIFICATIONS ANNEX A: CORRIDOR MAP ANNEX B: OVERLAPPING SECTIONS SCHEME SCHEMATIC MAP OF RFCS IN OVERLAPPING WITH RFC ANNEX C: PRIORITY RULES ANNEX D: LIST OF BORDER CROSSING AGREEMENTS ON RFC5, BORDER SECTION INFORMATION, OPERATIONAL COMMUNICATION RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

4 1. Introduction This document describes the procedures for Capacity Allocation by the Corridor One-Stop-Shop (C- OSS), for Traffic Management and for the Coordination of Temporary Capacity Restrictions (TCR). All rules concerning applicants, the usage of the Corridor One-Stop-Shop and its products - Reserve Capacity (RC), Pre-arranged Paths (PaP) and how to order them - are explained here. The processes, provisions and steps related to Pre-Arranged Paths and Reserve Capacity refer to the Regulation (EU) 913/2010 and are applicable to all applicants. For all other issues, the relevant conditions presented in the Network Statements of the corridor IMs are binding where stated. Change history VERSION AUTHOR DATE CHANGES V.0 C-OSS, WG Cap./TT, WG PM&O, SG CoTCR Delivery of document on the basis of the draft version of WG CID, Book 4 TT2017 V.0.1 C-OSS Modification of chapter RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

5 2. Corridor One Stop Shop The C-OSS is the only body for applicants to request and to receive answers, in a single place and in a single operation, regarding infrastructure capacity on Baltic Adriatic Corridor. The publication of PaPs and RC is done by the C-OSS. The C-OSS is exclusively responsible for the allocation decision with regard to requests for PaPs and RC on behalf of the concerned IM(s). The address and contact details of the C-OSS are as follows: oss@rfc5.eu One Stop Shop Rail Freight Corridor 5 ul. Targowa Warszawa - Pl RFC5 WEBSite : The C-OSS tasks are to: give information regarding access to the Corridor infrastructure; publish the PAP Catalogue and Reserve Capacity, provided by IMs, into PCS; collect all the applications for PAPs or RC; create and update a register containing the date of the applications, the name of the applicants, the documents supplied by these applicants and the incidents that occurred in the allocation phase; solve conflicting applications by coordination process or applying the priority rules set in the corridor framework for capacity allocation, defined by the Executive Board in accordance with article 14.1 of Regulation 913/2010; propose alternative PAPs, if available, to the applicants whose applications have a lower priority or forward them to IMs for an alternative tailor made solution; transmit the path requests that cannot be treated to the concerned IM, who shall take a decision on these requests; monitor the construction of feeder or outflow paths by sending these requests to the concerned IMs; allocate requested capacity; send the responses/offers to the applicants on behalf of the concerned IMs about the requests that he received; keep the PAP catalogue updated during the late phase; provide draft and final offer to the applicants; allocate capacity for late Path requests; allocate the reserve capacity; keep the reserve capacity path catalogue updated. The working language of the C-OSS is English. RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

6 3. Capacity Allocation for Freight Trains The decision on the allocation of PaPs and RC on the Corridor is taken by the C-OSS on behalf of the IMs. For the feeder and outflow paths, the allocation decision is made by the relevant IMs and communicated to the applicant by the C-OSS. All necessary contractual relations regarding network access have to be dealt with between the applicant and each individual IM. 3.1 Framework for Capacity Allocation Referring to Article 14.1 of the Regulation (EU) 913/2010, the Ministers of transport adopted a decision related to capacity allocation by the C-OSS on RFC Baltic - Adriatic. The detailed text of framework for Capacity Allocation (FCA) can be found in annex 1 and on the web site. The FCA constitutes the legal basis for capacity allocation via the C-OSS. 3.2 Applicants According to article 15 of the Regulation (EU) N 913/2010, an applicant means a railway undertaking (RU) or an international grouping of RU s or other persons or legal entities, such as shippers, freight forwarders and combined transport operators, with a commercial interest in procuring infrastructure capacity. An applicant shall sign the General Terms and Conditions of RFC Baltic - Adriatic in order to be allowed to place requests. With the signature the applicant declares: that has read, understood and accepted the RFC5 Corridor Information Document (CID) and, in particular, its Book IV which states the procedures for requesting and allocating international freight train paths through the C-OSS; that complies with all conditions required by applicable legislations and by the Infrastructure Managers involved in the freight train paths it requests including all administrative and financial requirements; that shall provide all data required for the freight train path requests; that accepts the provisions of the National Networks Statements applicable to the freight train path(s) requested. The general terms and conditions have to be signed before placing requests to the C-OSS. In case of an incoming request by an applicant who has not signed the general terms and conditions, the C- OSS shall ask the applicant to provide the signature of this document within 5 working days. The declaration form for the general terms and conditions can be downloaded: Only if the C-OSS is in possession of the signed declaration and the legitimation is verified, the C- OSS will handle the request based on the principles described in this document. If the applicant is not a RU, it shall assign the responsible RU for execution of the traffic as early as possible, but at the latest 30 days before the first running day. The appointment of the executing RU(s) is only valid if at the latest 30 days before the first run of the train, the appointed RU(s) possesses all the necessary authorisations, including licences, certificates and contracts with the involved IM(s). If the necessary authorisations are not provided at this date, the PaP will be treated as cancelled by the applicant, and national rules for the cancellation of a path will be applied, including its financial consequences. RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

7 The C-OSS will forward the name of the RU(s) to the concerned IM(s), without prejudice of the conditions of the IMs. If RFC Baltic - Adriatic does not supply PaPs/RC on a line, the applicant can request a catalogue or tailor-made path for this segment only if it is authorised in the national legislation to do so. The deadline for the appointment of the executing RU(s) will also follow the national legislation in this case. For the feeder and outflow sections national rules applies. IM Deadline for nominating RU for the annual TT Deadline for nominating RU for the running TT (Reserve Capacity) PKP PLK SZDC ZSR OeBB RFI Slovenia At the moment of placing request At the moment of placing request 30 days before the train run 30 days before the train run 30 days before the train run At the moment of placing request 3.3 Corridor related Path Products Based on Article 14 of Regulation 913/2010 the supply of capacity in a RFC Baltic - Adriatic shall be in the form of Pre-arranged Paths covering the requests for the annual timetable, the late requests and ad-hoc requests. Fixed PAP Section with fixed time (data may not be adapted in the path request by an applicant) Capacity with fixed origin, intermediate and destination time within one IM; Intermediate points can be used for stops (e.g. locomotive change) and feeder/outflow connection; Operation points can only be used for stops (but not for feeder / outflow connection). Flex PAP Section with flexible time (data may be adapted in the path request by an applicant according to individual needs but not exceeding the given range of standard running time and stopping time Applicants have the possibility to include their own requirements in their PAP request within the parameters mentioned in the PAP catalogue; Indication of standard journey times for each corridor section has to be respected; RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

8 Times at handover points between IMs (usually a station bear the network borders) are fixed and harmonized between IMs and cannot be changed; Intermediate points (optional) can be used for stops (e.g. loco changes) and feeder / outflows. Other points may be requested or the given ones shifted; Operation points (optional) can only be used for stops (e.g. locomotive change) within the indicated range (but not for entering and / or leaving the corridor); The maximum number of stops and total stopping time per sections has to be respected. The Flex PAP gives to the Applicants the possibility to have the freedom to adjust the path to their own requirements, e.g. asking additional stops or the adjustments of timetable within the pre-defined time frame. Henceforth unless it is not necessary to highlight the differences between Fixed and Flex PAP the expression PAP refers to both types PaPs for the annual timetable PaPs are a joint offer of the IMs of the countries involved in the RFC Baltic - Adriatic. The bodies coordinate cross-border paths for the annual timetable and hand them over to the C-OSS as a single point of contact for publication and capacity allocation. The PaPs are an off-the-shelf product for international rail freight. In order to meet the applicants need for flexibility and market demand on the RFC Baltic - Adriatic they are split up in several sections instead of PaPs crossing the entire RFC respectively its terminals. Therefore the offer might also include purely national PaP sections to be requested in the context of international path applications to the C-OSS (to include at least one border of a Rail Freight Corridor). It is essential to know that published PaPs are protected in the IMs planning system/tool against major changes (dislocation, shifting, etc.) resulting from other capacity requests. PaPs are published in PCS on the 2 nd Monday in January (X-11) and can be requested until the 2 nd Monday in April (X-8, path request deadline). Capacity requests for the annual timetable have to be placed until that date to the C-OSS. A catalogue of PaPs will be published as well on the Corridor web-site by the C-OSS in preparation of each timetable period Late Path requests Late requests refer to capacity requests placed within the timeframe from May until middle of October (X-2) concerning the annual timetable, to the C-OSS. The offer consists of a re-publication or an updating of the remaining non-booked PaPs for late path requests, which takes place approximately the first week of May. The period between X-8 and the end of April will be used for solving conflicting requests. Therefore, the C-OSS needs all remaining PaPs for this task until X-7.5 (end of April) and path requests during this timeframe are not permitted. If there aren t PaPs left for late path requests, the Applicant has to ask directly to the concerned IMs. In this case, the national rules will be applied. RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

9 3.3.3 Reserve Capacity Reserve Capacity consists in remaining capacity in the running timetable dedicated to international ad-hoc freight trains along the corridor. The IMs have decided to create a reserve capacity (article 14 (5) of the regulation 913/2010/EU) based on PaPs to allow a quick and optimal answer to the requests. Reserve capacity on RFC Baltic - Adriatic will be a collection of several sections along the corridor. Reserve capacity may consist either of non-requested PaPs or PaP constructed out of remaining capacity by the IMs after the allocation of the overall capacity for the Annual Timetable. RC will be published in form of PaPs in PCS from Mid-October (X-2) until 30 days before the running day of the train. After this deadline, requests will have to be addressed to the concerned IMs Feeder/Outflow/Connecting Paths In case the available PaPs or RC do not cover the entire requested path, the applicant may include a feeder and/or outflow path to the connecting PaP segment(s) into the international request addressed to the C-OSS via PCS in a single dossier. A feeder/outflow path refers to any path/path segment prior to reaching an intermediate point on the corridor (feeder path) or any path/path segment after leaving the corridor at an intermediate point (outflow path). Feeder and outflow paths will be constructed on request in the concerned PCS-dossiers by following the national path allocation rules. The communication of the offer will be executed by the C-OSS within the same timeframe as the communication of the requested PaPs. It must be noted that requesting a connecting path between two PaP sections is possible, but because of the difficulty for IMs to link two PaP sections, a suitable offer might be less likely. Graph with possible scenarios for feeder/outflow paths in connection with a request for one or more PaP segment(s) Multiple corridor paths It is possible for capacity requests to cover more than one rail freight corridor. The applicant might request PaP sections of different RFCs in one PCS dossier. Each C-OSS remains responsible for its concerning PaP sections, but the applicant might direct any questions to one of the involved C- OSS, who will coordinate with the other concerned C-OSS when needed. 3.4 Conditions for booking capacity through the C-OSS RFC Baltic - Adriatic applies the internationally agreed deadlines for placing path requests as well as for allocating paths (for the calendar, see RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

10 An international request for capacity on a corridor has to fulfil the following requirement to be submitted to a C-OSS: o using the tool PCS including at least one PaP/RC segment (Access to PCS is granted by RailNetEurope upon request of the applicant. Details are explained in the PCS User Manual ( o the entire train run from origin to final destination must be requested in one single PCS dossier, but can consist of several PaP/RC segments on one or more corridors including feeder and/or outflow paths o to cross at least one border on a corridor o the technical parameters of the path request have to be within the range of the parameters of the requested PaP segments (exceptions are possible if allowed by the concerned IM e.g. when the timetable of the PaP can be respected) All applications have to be done in PCS, which is the unique booking tool for RFC Baltic - Adriatic. The Applicant submits the path request by choosing a specific PaP and opening a PCS dossier for it. The path request may contain feeder/outflow paths and/or minor adjustments to the displayed PaP (e.g. adjusted train parameters or alternative stops without influence to the published border times of PaP). PaP applications placed via other channels to the C-OSS (e.g. , fax, telephone, RNE paper template) have to be redirected to PCS. The C-OSS informs the applicant accordingly and provides basic support for using PCS. The C-OSS is not entitled to open PCS dossiers for the applicant. The C-OSS confirms the receipt of the path application and announces its further treatment. 3.5 Handling of capacity requests The C-OSS receives and collects all path requests for PaPs placed via PCS Leading tool for the handling of capacity requests Applicants placing requests at the C-OSS must use PCS. Within the construction process, the national tool may show additional information to the applicant Path request phase (annual timetabling process) The C-OSS checks all the incoming capacity requests. The C-OSS will only treat requests for freight trains using PaPs/RC and crossing at least one border on a corridor. All other requests will be immediately forwarded to the IM concerned for further treatment. In those cases, answers will be provided directly by the involved IM. Regarding requests for the annual timetable, the IMs will accept them as placed in time (i.e. until the 2 nd Monday in April). This procedure does not apply for feeder/outflow paths, where the IMs offer will be communicated by the C-OSS together with the offer for PaP/RC. In case the request is either incomplete or inconsistent, the C-OSS will contact the applicant(s) and ask him (them) to complete the missing information within five (5) working days. If the required information is not delivered within this timeframe, the request will not be treated any further. If a request involves PaPs on several Rail Freight Corridors, the involved C-OSSs check the capacity request and involve the other participating C-OSS(s) to ensure their cooperation in treating multiple corridor requests. This way, the cumulated length of PaPs requested on each corridor will be used to calculate the priority value of possible conflicting requests. The different corridors can thus be seen as part of one combined network. Requests with special cases Jumping-PaP request: RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

11 It is possible to combine several PaP-sections including a spatial jump / time leap in one request/pcs dossier (e.g. RFC05PAP0001 from A to B combined with RFC05PAP0003 from B to C). However, directly linked through-going PaP requests will be prioritized over jumping PaP requests whereas in case of a tie the combined length of those jumping PaP will be taken into account in a second step. Example: Multi-Corridor request: It is possible to combine several PaP-sections on different corridors in one request / PCS dossier. Sandwich PaP request This refers to the situation when Applicants request corridor capacity in the following order: PaP section Tailor made request (sandwich-section) PaP section These requests will be taken in consideration as follows: Request with reference point before sandwich section; The C-OSS pre-allocates the PaP-sections from origin until the sandwich-sections. All sections after the sandwich-section will not be pre-allocated but treated as tailor made. Request with reference point after sandwich section: The C-OSS pre-allocates the PaP-sections from the destination of the request until the sandwich-sections. All sections between the origin and the sandwich-sections will not be preallocated but treated as tailor made. Request with reference point on sandwich section: The C-OSS pre-allocates the longer part of the PaP-sections either before or after the sandwich-section. All other sections will not be pre-allocated but treated as tailor made. Path Register The C-OSS manages a path register for all incoming PaP applications in PCS containing a dossier number, the name of the applicant, the requested PaP section, the requested number of running days and specifying the follow-up activities of the C-OSS concerning the concrete path request. This RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

12 is available to the concerned IM at any time and in a simplified form allowing business confidentiality to all concerned applicants upon request. Communication with Applicant Requests for Pre-arranged Paths and reserve capacity have to be submitted via PCS (for more information: Other communication can be submitted via Priority rule in capacity allocation Generalities In the event of conflicting requests for PaPs placed until X-8 (2 nd Monday in April), the priority rule described in the Framework for capacity allocation will be applied, in order to determine which request has the highest priority value. However, resolution through consultation may be promoted and performed in a first step between applicants and the C-OSS, if all the following criteria are met: o Conflict is only on a single rail freight corridor o Alternative pre-arranged paths are available The C-OSS addresses both applicants and proposes a solution. If both applicants agree to the proposed solution, the consultation process ends. If for any reason the consultation process does not lead to an agreement between all parties at X-7.5 the priority rules described below apply. If the C-OSS does not use the consultation procedure (because of a high number of conflict for example), the following priority rule will be used: o L PAP = Total requested length of all PaP sections on all involved RFCs included in one Dossier. o L F/O = Total requested length of the feeder/outflow path(s), for the sake of practicality, is assumed to be the distance as the crow flies. o Y RD = Number of requested running days for the timetable period o K = The priority value All lengths are counted in kilometres. The priority is calculated according to this formula: (L PAP + L F/O ) x Y RD = K The method of applying this formula is: o In a first step the priority value (K) is calculated using only the total requested length of prearranged path (L PAP ) multiplied by the number of requested running days (Y RD ). o If the requests cannot be separated in this way, the priority value (K) is calculated using the total length of the complete paths (L PAP + L F/O ) multiplied by the number of requested running days (YRD) in order to separate the requests. The respective applicants will be acknowledged of the undecided conflict the latest five working days after X-8 and invited to attend a drawing of lots in the RFC Baltic Adriatic office in any case before X-7,5. The actual drawing will be prepared and executed by the C-OSS, with complete transparency to all attendees. The result of the drawing will be communicated to all involved parties, present or not, via PCS and mail, before X-7,5. RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

13 Request with a higher priority value In case the priority rule has to be applied, the applicant of the request with a higher priority value will be informed beginning of May Request with a lower priority value If the priority rule has to be applied, the applicant who did not get the requested PaP(s) (request with a lower priority value) will be informed. Additionally the applicant with lower priority value will be offered an alternative PaP as close as possible to the first request within five (5) working days, in case an appropriate PaPs on the relevant section(s) is still available. The offered alternative has to be accepted within five (5) working days. In case there is no answer by the applicant or the alternative will not be accepted, the C-OSS forwards the original request to the concerned IM who will continue to handle the request. The appropriate IM offer however will not have the status of a PaP. Unless otherwise communicated by the applicant or the nominated RU if any, the IM will use the parameters of the requested PaP (speed, length, operation points ) to construct the tailor made alternative solution. The request will be treated by the IM as placed in time (i.e. until the 2 nd Monday in April). Feeder and/or outflow paths may have to be adapted as a consequence Late path request and reserve capacity For these types of request, the priority rule first come first served is applied Handling of unused PaPs at X-7.5 The Corridor GA will make a decision regarding the number of PAPs to be kept after X-7.5. The decision on which PAPs to keep or to return to the respective IMs will depend on the booking situation at that moment Path elaboration phase (including f/o and tailor made), draft offer and acceptance phases The C-OSS forwards the requested Feeder/Outflow paths to the concerned IM at the beginning of May. Questions occurring during the path elaboration process (e.g. concerning feeders/outflows or connections between RFCs) may be discussed and arranged between the concerned IM and applicant bilaterally. At the RNE deadline for Draft Timetable (X-5) the C-OSS communicates the draft timetable offer for every request concerning a pre-allocated PaP to the applicant via PCS on behalf of the IM. The C-OSS monitors the observations placed by the applicant on the draft timetable offer for the PaP in PCS. This however only concerns justified observations related to the original path request - whereas modifications to the original path requests are handed over to the concerned IM for further exclusive treatment in the late path request process (without further involvement of the C-OSS) Final offer phase At the RNE deadline (X-4), the C-OSS communicates the final timetable offer for every valid PaP request to the applicant via PCS on behalf of the concerned IMs. The contract of use of railway infrastructure must be concluded between the IMs and the applicant based on the national network access conditions. If, for operational reasons the publication via national tools is still necessary (e.g. ensuring documents for train drivers), the IMs have to ensure that there are no differences with the PCS publication. The applicant must check the final offers and may accept or reject these. The applicant shall accept the final timetable offer within five working days by setting the green light in PCS. Dossiers switched harmonised to the Active timetable will follow the normal PCS process. RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

14 Further treatments are ensured by the national IMs directly (not by C-OSS) Late path request phase Requests for remaining PaPs (i.e. placed after the 2 nd Monday in April), will be treated and allocated according to the principle first come first served. However, the feeder and/or outflow path(s) will be constructed by the concerned IM(s) once the timetable with the requests placed on time has been finalised. This means, applicants will not receive an offer for the entire train run before the second half of August, according to the RNE International Calendar Ad-hoc path request phase During this phase, applicants can request paths published as reserve capacity from X-2, in to the running timetable, up to 30 days before the actual train run. The C-OSS receiving the request via PCS will check the consistency of the request. The C-OSS will coordinate the handling of the request and provide the answer via PCS to the applicant, which will also be notified via . The applicant will receive the ad hoc request offer not later than 10 days before train run. The applicant has to accept the offer at latest within in 5 days Exceptional transports and Dangerous Goods Trains transporting Dangerous Goods or Exceptional Transports will be considered as such according to the national rules of each Infrastructure Manager. National rules regarding both Dangerous Goods and Exceptional Transports will apply in these cases. When the capacity requested by the Applicant is to be used for the transport of dangerous goods, it shall be so declared in the PCS dossier, and the Applicant shall guarantee the fulfilment of all requirements and rules governing such transport in each involved IM, to safeguard the safety of others and of infrastructures Overlapping sections The setting up of the corridor lines bring to situations where there are corridors lines overlapping with other(s). The aim of the corridors in this case is to prepare the best possible offer in order to respect the main flow of traffic connections and also to show all the possible solutions of connecting main connecting points through several corridors. In case of conflict, the responsible COSS will deal with the process of deciding which request should have the priority together with the other corridor(s). In any case the applicant will be consulted by the responsible corridor. PaPs are published in PCS in such a way to allow the customers to choose sections through corridors. PaPs on RFC Baltic - Adriatic are prepared with both separate and common approach. The specific approach for every overlapping section is described in table below. In case of common approach involved GAs/MBs decide which C-OSS is responsible for allocation of overlapping section. RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

15 The overlapping sections on the SZ infrastructure can be managed as separate or common PaP Offer. In case of common PaP offer, the GAs/MBs of RFC5 and RFC6 have decided that C-OSS of RFC6 is responsible for the allocation. On RFC Baltic - Adriatic there are these overlapping sections with other corridors: Infr. Man. Overlapping Section RFCs involved PaP Offer SŽDC Hranice na Moravě Ostrava RFC5 RFC9 Separate SŽDC Český Těšín SK/CZ Border RFC5 RFC9 Separate ŽSR SK/CZ Border Čadca RFC5 RFC9 Separate ŽSR Čadca Žilina RFC5 RFC9 Separate ŽSR Žilina Púchov RFC5 RFC9 Separate RFI Bivio S. Polo Bivio d'aurisina RFC5 RFC6 Separate RFI Bivio d'aurisina Trieste RFC5 RFC6 Separate SŽ Divača Koper RFC5 RFC6 Separate Common SŽ Divača Ljubljana RFC5 RFC6 Separate Common SŽ Ljubljana Zidani Most RFC5 RFC6 Separate Common SŽ Zidani Most Pragersko RFC5 RFC6 Separate Common ÖBB Infra Břeclav Gänserndorf RFC5 RFC7 Separate ÖBB Infra Gänserndorf Wien Zvbf. RFC5 RFC7 Separate ÖBB Infra Gänserndorf AT/SK Border (via Marchegg) ÖBB Infra Wien Zvbf. Wiener Neustadt (via Wampersdorf) ÖBB Infra Wien Zvbf. Wiener Neustadt (via Leobersdorf) ÖBB Infra Wien Zvbf. AT/SK Border (via Parndorf) RFC5 RFC7 Separate RFC5 RFC7 Separate RFC5 RFC7 Separate RFC5 RFC7 Separate ÖBB Infra Gramatneusiedl Wampersdorf RFC5 RFC7 Separate ŽSR Devínska Nová Ves Bratislava hl. st. RFC5 RFC7 Separate ŽSR Bratislava hl. st. Bratislava Nové Mesto RFC5 RFC7 Separate ŽSR Bratislava Nové Mesto Bratislava Petržalka RFC5 RFC7 Separate PKP PLK Wroclaw Muchobór Myslowice RFC5 RFC8 Separate PKP PLK Rzepin Głogów RFC5 RFC8 Separate RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

16 3.6 Request for changes Modification Change requests for PaPs placed by the applicant after the X-8 deadline until X-4 are treated by the C-OSS according to the following rule: "Downsizing" changes to the PaP request (e.g. cancellation of running days, shortening of route by deleting entire PaP sections, lower parameters) which do neither affect the international character of the PaP nor the ranking of the request in the allocation decision according to the priority rule, are handled by the C-OSS and documented in the PCS dossier and the path register accordingly. "Substantial" changes to the PaP request affecting the border times and the ranking of the request in the allocation decision according to the priority rule, are assumed as complete cancellations of the PaP request. Those change requests are then forwarded to the concerned IM for further treatment as late requests in remaining capacity. The modifications after final allocation need to be addressed directly to the relevant IMs Withdrawal Withdrawing a request is only possible between X-8 (after path requests deadline) and X-4 (before final allocation) for annual timetable requests and between the date of request and the date of allocation for reserve capacity. Once the allocation has taken place, only cancellation remains as a possibility. At the moment, no harmonised rules for the entire corridor can be presented. So this topic will follow the national rules below. Country Poland Czech Republic Slovakia Austria Slovenia Italy Withdrawal between X 8 and X 4 Withdrawal after final allocation Free of Charge Free of Charge Free of Charge Free of Charge Free of Charge Free of Charge Condition: 75% net of cost of electricity (for trains on limited infrastructure capacity) RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

17 50% net of cost of electricity (for trains on no limited infrastructure capacity) Transfer of capacity Once capacity is allocated to an applicant, it shall not be transferred by the owner to another applicant. The use of capacity by an RU when carrying out the business of an applicant which is not an RU, is not considered as a transfer Cancellation Cancellation refers to the phase between the final allocation and the train run. Cancellation can refer to one, several or all running days and to one, several or all segments of the path Addressing and form of a cancellation The cancellation needs to be addressed directly to the relevant IMs Overview of cancellation fees and deadlines on RFC Baltic - Adriatic At the moment, no harmonised rules for the entire corridor can be presented. So this topic will follow the national rules below. Country: Condition: RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

18 Poland Reservation charge is not levied when journey cancellation was caused by PLK or in case of exceptional situation. The current VAT tax, on the basis of separate regulations, is added to below charges: 1) For planned train journey until the date of nearest timetable update, included in annex 5.2, ( Schedule of changed traffic organization as well as preparation and publication of timetable 2015/2016) in case when cancellation of allocated train path was submitted more than 30 days prior to scheduled train departure, excluding train journeys within IRJ (individual timetable). 2) For planned train journey when cancellation of allocated train path was submitted within deadline longer than 72 hours and shorter than 30 days prior to scheduled train departure; 3) For planned train journey when cancellation of allocated train path was submitted within deadline longer than 36 hours and shorter than 72 hours prior to scheduled train departure; 4) For planned train journey when cancellation of allocated train path was submitted within deadline longer than 12 hours and shorter than 36 hours prior to scheduled train departure; 5) For planned train journey when cancellation of allocated train path is not submitted or it was submitted within deadline shorter than 12 hours prior to scheduled train departure; 1% of basic charge 10% of basic charge 15% of basic charge 20% of basic charge 25% of basic charge Czech Republic Capacity reservation fee 100% of reservation fee according to Network Statement Slovakia Austria For planned train journey when cancellation of allocated train path was submitted before the scheduled train departure (except cancellation done before the date for regular TT change). or Trains with a delay of 1200 minutes or more for reasons on the side of the RU ŽSR does not charge additional fees for the cancellation of allocated path. Free of Charge 10,- CZK per trainkilometer per day of ride on main routes or 7,50 CZK per train kilometre per day of ride on regional routes Fee for ordering and allocation of capacity U1 under Decree of Railway Regulatory Authority No. 3/2010 as amended by later regulations shall be charged even if allocated path has been cancelled. RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

19 Slovenia Italy Cancellation less than 6 hours prior to the scheduled time of departure Ad-hoc train path cancellation prior to the scheduled time of departure until 5 days before operation trains Cancellations trains on no limited capacity infrastructure Cancellations trains on limited capacity infrastructure 50% of user charge for allocated train path 25 + VAT 0% 50% net of cost of electricity by 4 days before operation trains Cancellations trains on no limited capacity infrastructure Cancellations trains on limited capacity infrastructure 30% net of cost of electricity 60% net of cost of electricity Non-usage If the RU does not show up, i.e. does not use the allocated path, the case will be treated as follows: Country: Poland Condition: For planned train journey when cancellation of allocated train path is not submitted or it was submitted within deadline shorter than 12 hours prior to scheduled train departure 25% of basic charge Czech Republic Capacity reservation fee 100% of reservation fee according to Network Statement Slovakia Austria For planned train journey when cancellation of allocated train path was submitted before the scheduled train departure (except cancellation done before the date for regular TT change). or Trains with a delay of 1200 minutes or more for reasons on the side of the RU ŽSR does not charge additional fees for the cancellation of allocated path. Free of charge 10,- CZK per trainkilometer per day of ride on main routes or 7,50 CZK per train kilometre per day of ride on regional routes Fee for ordering and allocation of capacity U1 under Decree of Railway Regulatory Authority No. 3/2010 as amended by later regulations shall be charged even if allocated path has been cancelled. RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

20 Slovenia Italy The train path has not been cancelled and the train doesn t run or cancellation after the scheduled time of departure The train path has not been cancelled and the train doesn t run or cancellation after the scheduled time of departure (ad-hoc train path) 100% of the charge, net of cost of electricity 100% of user charge for allocated train path VAT and 100% of user charge for allocated train path 3.7 Rail-Related Services All questions regarding rail related services can be asked directly to the C-OSS who will contact the concerned IMs and who will provide an answer within a reasonable time frame. For IM-specific information, you can consult CID book II, chapter Invoicing The infrastructure usage contracts and invoicing are concluded / emitted between the IMs and the applicant on basis of national network access conditions. All costs (charges for using a path, administration fees, etc.) are invoiced by the respective IMs. Currently, there is a difference within the various countries regarding the invoice for the path charge. In some countries, the path applicants will receive the invoice, in other countries the invoice will be sent to the RU who has used the path. 3.9 Appealing Procedure Based on Article 20 of Regulation 913/2010: In case of complaints regarding the allocation of PAPs (e.g. due to a decision based on the priority rules for allocation), the applicants may address the respective Regulatory Body. In case agreement hasn t reached successfully, it is possible for the Applicant to address the complaint to one of the regulatory body along the corridor. Contacts can be found using the following link: RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

21 4. Coordination of Planned Temporary Capacity Restrictions 4.1 Goals Based on Article 12 Coordination of works of the Rail Freight Regulation (RFR) EU No 913/2010 each corridor shall coordinate and ensure the publication of the schedule for carrying out the works on the infrastructure and its equipment that would restrict available capacity on the freight corridor in one place, in an appropriate manner and timeframe. Baltic - Adriatic RFC aims to comply by regularly updating the information and presenting the relevant planned temporary capacity restrictions (TCRs) in an easy accessible way. 4.2 TCR Corridor Coordinator According to RNE s Guidelines for Coordination / Publication of Planned Temporary Capacity Restrictions (hereafter RNE-Guidelines) the TCR Corridor Coordinator is a function in charge of the overall coordination of TCRs along the whole RFC as well as for checking their impact on the capacity availability. On Baltic-Adriatic RFC this function is provided by the head of the sub-group Coordination of Planned Temporary Capacity Restrictions (hereafter CoTCR). 4.3 Procedures The sub-group CoTCR is in charge for setting rules for the coordination process and the scope of information. Additionally the sub-group identifies the need of synchronisation among the involved IMs with particular focus on the cross-border lines. According to the RNE-Guidelines the coordination process consists of three stages: 1. Regular bilateral or trilateral coordination workshops between involved neighbouring IMs: These workshops organised by IMs consider at least all the known works in the period X-17 until X-1. The result is a list of coordinated TCRs fixed on data and their impact to RUs as far as known mentioning alternative routes. The Corridor Coordinator has to be informed about the results and open issues about TCRs on corridor lines. 2. Coordination on RFC level: Regular coordination meetings will take place according to the RNE-Guidelines at least twice a year. At these meetings all known relevant TCRs should be presented and discussed in order to coordinate and optimise them on the entire corridor. The results of this coordination have to be published at least twice a year in the common tool used by the RFCs. The result of this coordination is a pre-condition for stage In the third stage conflicts between RFCs can be recognised. This coordination has to be done also twice a year on a proper date according to the needs of the timetabling process. These three stages are repeated in a revolving workflow (see Figure). RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

22 4.4 Involvement of RUs After a primary coordination of TCRs between IMs on the Baltic-Adriatic RFC a publication of the coordinated TCRs is released and made available to the RUs. So they have the possibility to comment on the planned activities. Comments should be sent to the corridor organisation. The representative of each IM who is in charge of the coordination of TCRs will bring the comments into the working group. The comments by RUs have an advisory and supportive character and shall be taken into consideration as much as possible. Regular meetings of the Railway Advisory Group (RAG) are used for discussing issues regarding the planning process of TCRs. Extraordinary meetings with RUs/applicants for discussing and solving open issues will be treated case by case. 4.5 Tools Baltic-Adriatic RFC intends to use the agreed version of the MS Excel macro document and/or any other IT-solution nominated in the revised RNE-Guidelines to provide an interactive overview of the TCRs, which is easily accessible to all involved parties. For capacity planning and timetabling, impacts of the TCRs regarding the availability of the infrastructure are described (e. g. closure of the line, single line operations etc.), including the impacts on rail traffic and the durations of restrictions. After initial publication of TCRs further details may be added as soon as available. 4.6 Publication Subject to the RNE-Guidelines coordinated TCRs shall be published at least on the following dates: X-17 Information on major coordinated TCRs also based on results of the national consultation of RUs and the harmonisation between IMs can be taken into consideration before starting the construction of pre-arranged paths (PaPs) X-12 Detailed coordinated TCRs issued prior to the publication of PaPs at X-11 RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

23 X-5 Update of already published TCRs prior to final allocation and for planning of reserve capacity for ad-hoc trains. All TCR Corridor Coordinators will calculate and define exact common dates for publication. After initial publication at X-17, during the process described above, available information will become more detailed, and changes and additional TCRs will have to be taken into consideration. After coordination between all IMs on the RFC, the results will be published. 4.7 Involvement of Terminals According to article 14 (9) of the RFR, the process of capacity allocation between IMs shall take into account the access to terminals. Therefore TCRs affecting access to terminals have to be included in the RFCs coordination and publication process. Restrictions regarding rail infrastructure or loading/unloading facilities inside terminal areas are the responsibility of terminal owners/operators. 4.8 Legal Notice / Disclaimer By publicising the overview of the corridor, concerned IMs will present the planning status for TCRs to infrastructure availability along Baltic-Adriatic RFC. The published TCRs represent a snapshot of the situation at the date of publication and are subject to further changes. Please note that the information provided should be used for rough orientation purposes only and may not constitute the basis for any legal claim. The publication of TCRs does not substitute any national law or legislation. Customers have to refer to national Network Statements. RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

24 5. Traffic Management The Art.16 of the regulation is stating that the management board of the freight corridor shall put in place procedure for coordinating traffic management along the Rail Freight Corridor. The management boards of connected Rail Freight Corridors shall put in place procedures for coordinating traffic between such freight corridors. 5.1 Generalities The infrastructure managers of the Rail Freight Corridors shall jointly define and organise international pre-arranged train paths for freight trains. In case of trains running on these prearranged international paths and having specific characteristics as specified below, they may have higher priority. For the specific purpose of traffic management, RFC 5 has agreed the following criteria: train path allocated by C-OSS, plus: o crossing least two RFC 5-borders, or o crossing one RFC 5 border plus 500 km on RFC 5, or o crossing one RFC 5 border plus having station of origin or final destination in a port designated to RFC Border Crossing Since the Infrastructure Managers are working together, there are existing bilateral agreements. These bilateral agreements are mostly based on state contracts. An overview about the current procedures and the technical data of RFC 5 border stations is listed in Annex D: List of border-crossing agreements (including those in national languages and relevant contact persons), spit in general regulations and rules for the specific border crossing; Border station information for each RFC 5 border station, describing in general the operational procedures, basic parameters and additional necessary information in the border station; Traffic management and communication procedures on RFC 5 borders >For each border section, a description of the operational procedures and the communication between the border stations and the availability of all necessary operational organization units. RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

25 6. Traffic Management in the Event of Disturbance Art 17 of the Regulation is stating that Management Board of the freight corridor shall adopt common targets for punctuality and/or guidelines for traffic management in the event of disturbance to train movements on the freight corridor Generalities In the event of disturbance it is necessary to recover the smooth running of trains as soon as possible. In case of need of re-routing of trains RFC Baltic - Adriatic provides an overview (document published on RFC Baltic - Adriatic website) with Operational scenarios to describe basic information and conditions for the use of re-routing lines (Max. Train length, max. Train weight, power-supply, etc.). 6.2 Priority Rules in Traffic Management There is no need to apply the same priority rules in the different network along the corridor, only the target has to be common. Under the pre-condition, priority rules have a different legal status in the countries along RFC Batic - Adriatic. RFC Baltic - Adriatic has agreed principles of priority on RFC Baltic - Adriatic. These principles are described in Annex C. An overview about the detailed national priority rules can be found at Communication In principle the current status of trains is available in TIS, no additional information is foreseen. The IM should inform the neighbouring IMs and the concerned RUs in their own country. These activities are described in TSI OPE, the details are part of the bilateral agreements. 6.4 Emergency Management Every IM is responsible for setting up plans to be applied in case of emergency (train derailment, dangerous goods loss, accidents, etc.) occurring on sections of RFC Baltic - Adriatic according to the relevant national rules and regulations. 6.5 Assistance to Defective or Damaged Trains Assisting to defective trains is regulated in TSI OPE, Appendix B Itinerary Modifications For the case of necessary re-routing of trains RFC Baltic - Adriatic the Operational scenarios describe basic information and conditions for the use of re-routing lines. To recover the smooth run of traffic and to reduce the negative effect on network level is the target in such situation, a re-routed RFC train should be considered as it was on time and keep its priority as far as possible. RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

26 Annex A: Corridor map RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

27 Annex B: Overlapping sections scheme RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

28 Annex C: Priority Rules General principles of prioritization: Faster train has the priority against slower trains. If the corridor train is on time, it has and keeps it s priority. In case of conflict between 2 delayed trains, priority is given to the faster train. RUs can give priority to specific train within their trains. General order of priority of train types Emergency trains (breakdown, rescue, fire-fighter trains) High speed passenger trains and long distance passenger trains Passenger trains, priority freight trains (including corridor trains) faster trains have in principle priority to slower trains Other freight trains Service trains RUs can give priority to specific train within their trains e.g if in case disturbance some trains of ONE RU have lost their priority, the RU can decide, which train should be run first after recovering traffic. For operational purpose the on time for a train shall stay on national definition. RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V

29 Annex D: List of border-crossing agreements on RFC5, border section information, operational communication RFC 5 CID Book4_TT 2017_V