OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Schweizerische Trassenvergabestelle TVS

TVS

Schweizerische Trassenvergabestelle.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Measures to better manage and coordinate international rail traffic to increase the modal share of rail

5 Apr 2022

In our statement we focus on capacity management, in particular the planning philosophy and the early binding partitioning of capacities to the market segments according to the TTR principles. Capacity supply: The proposed initiative should lead to a higher part of rail in the modal split. However, capacity extensions of the railway infrastructure are time-consuming. Therefore, absorbing the increased demand for railway capacity within the near future will only be possible on the existing infrastructure. This can primarily be achieved with an optimised use of the existing capacity. In most countries, network usage planning is carried out after receiving concrete demands from appli-cants. In contrast, European countries with an extensive network utilisation and high traffic performance (trains-kilometres per line) have been pursuing a consistent supply-based planning with the aim of max-imising available capacity. The effect of this approach is that almost all capacity needs can be met in an acceptable way, but not fully congruent to the indication of applicants. For this, the creation of supply-based capacity should not be established out of the blue. The supply-based capacity must be guided by the medium and long-term needs of society and of the business. In addition, pre-planning of capacity with a binding capacity partitioning in order to secure the capacities for the rail market segments has to be executed on the basis of equal footing. In this way, an attractive capacity supply can be offered for all market segments in the mid and long term, so that future needs can be met, still with leaving room for flexibility. So, thanks to the initial binding planning of the capacities among the different market seg-ments, a sufficient number of paths of the necessary quality for all market segments can be secured in the long term. Solutions for congested infrastructure: Early pre-planning has also the advantage that foreseeable capacity bottlenecks can be identified at an early stage. As provided for in Article 47 of the EU Regulation 2012/34, the infrastructure concerned can be declared congested ahead of time. Within the framework of the required downstream capacity analy-sis, organisational measures in particular can be developed with the intention to use existing capacity more efficiently. Thanks to pre-planning, this happens at a time when these organisational measures can still be bindingly published in the Network Statement. Applicants thus have enough time to adapt their production concepts and submit their path requests accordingly. Secured investments for all parties: The sharing of information and better upstream international coordination on capacity management also enables the other international partners in the sector (terminals, applicants including newcomers, etc.) to plan their investments more precisely because they are based on reliable and coordinated information. Impact on resources and output: Coordinated capacity management at European level requires a significant initial investment in terms of resources. But, once it is implemented, infrastructure managers and partners (terminals, etc.) will be able to manage efficiently the long-term planning, and by this, allow better use of all the sector's resources. Nevertheless, a legislative basis alone will not be enough, it must be accompanied by financial incentives.
Read full response

Response to Type-approval requirements for elongated cabs and rear flaps for trucks/trailers

25 Feb 2019

Trasse Schweiz AG fully supports the CER response to this Consultation, which CER has submitted separately. We encourage the European Commission and the TCMV Committee to take into account the CER recommendation.
Read full response

Meeting with Jocelyn Fajardo (Cabinet of Commissioner Violeta Bulc)

31 Jan 2018 · Rail issues

Response to Schedule for the rail infrastructure capacity allocation process

12 Apr 2017

Dear Sir or Madam We thank you for your willingness, expressed by email the 30th of March, to take into account the sector’s proposal as defined in the TTR-Project and the updated version of the sector’s position paper. We strongly recommend to respect the processes and deadlines defined by the TTR project without any modifications and to incorporate into the proposal the process steps of capacity partitioning and capacity safeguarding as well as the rolling planning process, as these elements of the TTR process are mandatory requirements for a positive impact of the introduction of separated deadlines. Remarks on individual points of the proposal: We fully share the common position of the rail sector as expressed both by EIM / CER and by RailNetEurope / Forum Train Europe and ask you to consider their recommendations. In addition, we propose the following amendments: Annex to the draft Commission Delegated Decision Point 3 We strongly welcome the willingness of the Commission not to declare its definition of the first deadline for path application "twelve months at the latest before the entry into force of the working timetable" to be sacrosanct. Concerning the proposed alternative formulation, we assume that the expression in the email of 30th March “no later than twelve months” is a typing error. Point 7 (7) In the case of trains crossing from one network to another which arrive with a presumed delay of not more than 18 10 hours, the infrastructure manager of the other network shall not consider the train path cancelled unless the railway undertaking informs the infrastructure manager that it will not cross to the other network. Justification: In the first draft version of the revised Annex VII (14.9.16), a threshold of 6 hours was foreseen during which an IM shall not cancel a path in case the train arrives at the border with a delay. The IM's CEOs of the Rhine-Alpine Rail Freight Corridor agreed in Summer 2016 that the validity of a timetable shall be harmonised at a minimum of 10 hours. This had been implemented in the meantime. Therefore, it was proposed at the first expert group meeting to extend the limit to 10 hours. In the second draft version of Annex VII (21.10.16), this input was taken into account. However, in the third version of the discussion paper (16.12.16), the threshold of 10 hours was changed to 18 hours. For safety reason (GSM-R), a train number cannot be used twice at the same moment on a network. With a validity of a timetable for up to 18 hours, the possibility that due to a large delay of a train the same train number could be applied at the same time – especially on bigger networks – increases proportionally. Point 9: Last sentence (9) […] As regards all other capacity restrictions, the infrastructure manager shall consult the applicants concerned at least 6 months before the first day of the restriction. Path details for passenger trains have to be available at least four months before the start of the TCR, for freight trains at least one month before the start of the TCR. Justification: This issue has been discussed within the TTR project. Freight RUs argued that a deadline of 6 months will increase the likelihood that the freight train will not use the path as initially allocated. A too early consultation could lead to an increased and finally useless workload. Therefore, RUs and IMs agreed to the above proposed solution to renounce a consultation for capacity restrictions with a duration of less than a week and limited consequences but to guarantee the information on path details at due time. We thank you in advance for the benevolent consideration of our concerns.
Read full response