Location. Chair / Minutes

Transcription

1 Meeting Name: TAF and TAP Steering Committee Time Tuesday 05 July :30 13:30 Location Chair / Minutes The Boardroom, The Euston Office, The Office Group, 40 Melton St, LONDON NW1 Julia Lawrence (Chair) Marcel Potter (Minutes) Attendees NR Attendees Status Julia Lawrence (JL) (Chair) NR Programme Manager Attended James Bradley (JB) Deputy for Paul Harwood Attended Paul Harwood (PH) Network Strategy & Capacity Planning Apologies Steve Rhymes (SR) NR TAF TAP Programme Sponsor Attended Stephen Tanner (ST) NR Portfolio Manager Attended Marcel Potter (MP) (Minutes) PMO Attended External Attendees Status Duncan Clark (DC) UK TAF National Contact Point (NCP) Apologies Fréderic Hénon (FH) Eurostar Representative Apologies Ian Jones (IJ) DfT, Head of Interoperability Attended Steve Price (SP) ATOC / TOC Rpresentative Attended Vaibhav Puri (VP) RSSB, Head of Standards Policy Apologies Chris Queree (CQ) UK TAP NCP Attended Simon Tonks (STo) RSSB R2 Project Sponsor Apologies Dominic Wall (DW) ORR & Inter Governmental Commission (IGC) Representative Attended Minutes / Actions Item Description Action / Decision 1 Welcome & Introductions Following introductions, JL welcomed attendees to the inaugural TAF and TAP Steering Committee meeting, which replaces the previous National Contact Point (NCP) meeting. NR is facilitating the meeting on behalf of DfT. Apologies were received from PH, DC, FH, VP and STo. JB is attending this meeting as Deputy for PH. 2 Agree Steering Committee Terms of Reference JL presented the separate paper UK TAF and TAP Steering Committee Terms of Reference v1.1. The Terms of Reference were originally discussed at the final National Contact Point Meeting held in March 2016, but have since been further revised to reflect: Page 1 of 8

2 Updating of the remit to make clear that decisions will be non-binding Clarification that the Committee will not discuss changes to the TSIs (Technical Specifications for Interoperability) except where an EU regulatory change may prompt the setting up of a UK Mirror Group it was previously agreed that a Mirror Group is not required at present Updated list of Attendees note that not all organisations listed have yet confirmed their agreement to sit on the Committee or named a Representative. JL will meet some of the organisations listed at the UK IM Meeting on 18 th July at which point further Attendees may be confirmed. SR noted that a Decisions Log is listed as a meeting output, but not a Risk Log. It was agreed to include a Risks and Decisions Log as a meeting output. IJ said that the first two sentences of the Purpose / Remit section were unclear. It was agreed to amend them to read as follows: Discuss progress of TAF TSI implementation of changes. Monitor developments regarding TAP implementation against the approach previously agreed for the UK. After further discussion it was also agreed to clarify: That the Requirements Management Committee (RMC) was set up as an additional requirement from the TAF consultation, and will act as the Senior User Group to oversee UK TAF requirements There is a UK TAP Mirror Group therefore differentiate between existing TAP Mirror Group and TAF Mirror Group (which does not currently exist) Assuming the above changes are made, the Committee agreed the Terms of Reference. D: 001 Action: MP to update Terms of Reference as per agreed changes above and issue the revised version with the Meeting Minutes. 3 UK High Level Plan A: 001 (MP) JL presented an example format that could be used as the UK High Level Plan for TAF implementation (Meeting Pack p.5). JB asked whether we really mean the UK, or GB? JL confirmed that DfT has clarified that scope does cover the whole UK, including Northern Ireland. A number of other points were raised on the proposed plan, and can be summarised as follows: Once agreed by the Committee the plan dates would be effectively baselined, and any changes would be brought to the Committee for discussion There is room on the plan to represent other organisations plans (such as the Page 2 of 8

3 RSSB R2 project) and not just the NR plan It was noted that DRDNI (Department for Rural Development, Northern Ireland) have not seen this as a Plan for UK yet. JL confirmed she is hoping to meet DRDNI at the UK IM Meeting on 18 th July The blue triangles at the top of the plan represent the UK Target Implementation Dates it was clarified that these are target dates and not deadlines, and that there is currently no definition of compliance. These targets have been agreed by the UK Member State (DfT, RSSB and ORR) Go Live would be taken as the date that we can evidence that a TSI obligation has been met and for the UK this could mean when NR (as the lead Infrastructure Manager) is able to evidence that it can communicate with at least one RU (Railway Undertaking) in a TAF compliant way (i.e. when NR is in a position to send / receive / handle a TAF message in the correct format, and that at least one RU is also able to accept / handle that message. The Committee agreed to use the proposed format for now. D: NR Programme Progress JL presented an overview of the NR programme planned activities and next steps (Meeting Pack pp. 6-7). In particular, JL noted that an impact assessment around Train Preparation has highlighted that the same consist checks, currently largely handled in TOPS, will need to be performed by RUs. This has arisen as a result of the different view of where the boundary lies between the function of an RU and an IM in the UK versus the EU view in the regulations. NR may be able to handle this on behalf of an RU, but this would need agreement. JL also noted the progress made since the completion of the TAF consultation in February The UK TAF Requirements Management Committee (RMC) has now been set up, and a series of Kick-off Workshops were held in June to launch the Solutions Phase. The key objectives of this phase are to document a clear set of requirements and to design an effective high-level solution that will become the agree UK sector position. There will inevitably need to be some compromise from all sides around how we will work in order to achieve the best possible solution but it is clear that it cannot just be an NR decision. The detailed solution workshops are now being planned, and will focus initially on Train Running and Path Management. NR is also managing dependencies with other industry programmes such as R2, Digital Railway, and Rail Freight Corridor 2, as well as monitoring other TSIs. JL said that the EU sees TAF and TAP as enablers for the wider digital agenda. JL reiterated that the UK TAF Rquirements Management Committee (RMC) will act as a Senior User Group. Meetings have been well attended (coverage of 94% of freight train kilometres by company in the UK) and the FOCs are actively engaged. Expert resources have been identified to participate in the detailed solution workshops, and Kick-Off Workshops have been held (9 th & 13 th June) to agree straw-man processes, common cross-process items, and the high-level to-be processes for Train Running, Path Management and Train Preparation. Page 3 of 8

4 There may be potential conflicts between the Train Preparation obligations and the RSSB standards although these are noted as regulatory / licensing rather than legal requirements. Further work is needed around this to clarify, and the results will be presented at the next Steering Committee meeting. 5 Key Discussion Points: Process for investigating TAP compliance costs - JL referred to pp of the Meeting Pack, and noted that CQ had raised a query around compliance costs for TOCs specifically RU-IM message implementation costs incurred in adopting the new compliant messages (those that apply to both TAF and TAP), and the options for agreeing these costs and who funds them. CQ said that there was a great deal of uncertainty in the TOC community following the Brexit vote, and also a lack of clear understanding of the benefits of implementing the RU-IM messages, the costs of doing so, and who would fund those costs. He noted that it would be useful for the TOCs to have a plan for a plan at this stage to set out how we would go about identifying the process, and crucially, the investment options and relationship to the franchising process. He felt that it may be a little too early yet for a formal Working Group, and asked whether Will Deakin (NR Programme Design Authority) could be tasked with developing a plan that could be put to the ATOC Operations Council in October. JL presented a slide from Will Deakin (not included in the Meeting Pack but will be issued separately with the Minutes) setting out his initial view of the technical requirements that would need to be reviewed, including: Demarcation of Retail activities and scope of delivery Station Manager obligations Business processes, data and application architecture (in particular those elements that do not appear in TAF, for e.g. timetabling and Long Term Planning (LTP)) JL noted that Will believed it would take 4 months to deliver a high level impact analysis on a typical TOC. JL said that NR would be willing to fund an Analyst to carry out this work, and would be happy to work with CQ and SP to identify a suitable TOC for NR to work with an initial report could be presented back to the Steering Committee in October 2016 or January If the Committee decided to support TAP compliance using new messages, NR would be happy to support this as part of its co-ordination function. IJ said that before there could be any discussion around funding, the TOCs would need to have made informed decisions themselves, having undertaken a cost/benefit analysis, about whether or not they will adopt the new messages. JL noted that for some of the FOCs, the benefits would include consistency across Europe, and isolating their systems base from the NR systems base (e.g. moving Page 4 of 8

5 away from TRUST and TOPS). Also, the FOCs can decide themselves when to migrate across. However, SR noted that in general the industry takes a relatively short-term view and would not want to incur additional cost unnecessarily. SP agreed that the best way to move forward would be to present options exploring the potential benefits to the TOCs - explaining with knowledge - at the October Operations Council, to enable the TOCs to review the potential costs/benefits and come to an informed decision about what s in it for them. He noted that imposing costs onto the passenger part of the industry without a clear message on what the benefits would be, would mean that the impact of these costs would fall on the taxpayer. CQ said that as well as the technical aspects, the report would need to review the governance process (i.e. plan and timetable for negotiating with DfT whether to fund directly, through new franchise agreements, or variations to existing franchise agreements). For example, would the approach be to carry out a wholesale change to all franchise agreements, or migrate one TOC at a time. Also, the plan would need to set out the key break points / triggers for moving to the next phase. Without this, the TOCS will not have a basis on which to decide whether implementing the RU-IM messages is to their benefit. JL noted a concern that this may require NR to incur additional cost and to carry out additional work on TAP that is not currently in scope. The NR programme would have to agree this change internally if asked to take the ongoing work forwards. CQ suggested a three stage approach: NR could work on the technical process by which the TOCs could adopt the new messages and connect in, and lead on producing a high-level plan to present to ATOC Operations Council in October ATOC could look to find a TOC willing to act as a guinea pig to start to develop a business case for adopting the new messages In parallel, franchising options could be reviewed by DfT IJ said that he would be happy to facilitate a meeting on the last point. Following further discussion, it was agreed that JL and CQ should work together to define a terms of reference for the work and what it would mean, to present and agree at the next Steering Committee meeting in October Action: JL / CQ to define terms of reference for the work on investigating TAP compliance costs, to present for agreement at the next Steering Committee meeting in October A: 002 (JL/CQ) EU Update EU Reporting Content (TAF & TAP): Agree - JL set out the background to the TAF EU progress reporting to date, and noted that NR submits on behalf of itself and seven FOCs. DB Cargo also submit a report, and the two reports together constitute the UK Member State report that is summarised Page 5 of 8

6 and presented to the EU RISC Committee. NR reports against the dates set in the ERA TAF Master Plan v4 as previously agreed. The timetable for the reporting process is set out on p. 14 of the Meeting Pack, and question groups and proposed responses for the 4 th round of reporting in July 2016 are set out on p. 15. JL said that the questions are the same as those in the previous reporting cycle (Meeting Pack p.12), with the addition of two extra questions around sector tools in use and Short Term Path Request. CQ said that reporting for TAP was gearing up. Reporting will be handled by ATOC, and a list of RUs that the report will represent will be identified and agreed by the end of July. ATOC will then submit the report for the initial progress reporting round in January 2017 (covering franchise TOCs, open access TOCs and Heathrow Express). It has been agreed that TAP reporting will be administered by the Joint Sector Group (JSG), as for TAF. Action: CQ to provide a copy of the submitted report to the Steering Committee for information. JL noted that is it possible to report progress for both TAF and TAP, however it was agreed that NR would only report against TAF and the basis presented. Action: JL to submit EU Progress Report for TAF on the basis of the content set out at this meeting. European Rail Agency (ERA) new powers? A: 003 (CQ) D: 003 A: 004 (JL) JL said that concerns were raised at the last Joint Sector Group (JSG) meeting around potential new powers for the ERA (European Rail Agency), arising from the adoption of The Fourth Railway Package in April 2016, that gave ERA a greater role and specific powers in respect of Interoperability and Safety. ERA was also re-named the European Union Agency for Railways (EUAR). The concerns centred around the use of the word enforce for the first time by EUAR in relation to TAF implementation, and a belief that EUAR may have greater powers to make technical changes to TSIs without deference to the Commission (driven by a frustration on how long it is taking to implement TAF). IJ confirmed that the process for creating TSI has changed it is now a two-step process and the EU Parliament has now been brought into the first phase; however the 2 nd phase (Implementing Act) is still subject to a RISC (and therefore Member State) vote. IJ does not believe that EUAR has the power to change TSIs themselves, without those powers having been explicitly written into the TSI (and voted on by RISC) or introduce a mandate to enforce implementation TSIs cannot set a deadline for implementation. As an aside, IJ was asked about the new EU Interoperability Directive. He said that the deadline to transpose is June 2019; therefore following the Brexit vote, a decision will be required by Ministers on whether the UK will create new EU law or not. It is Page 6 of 8

7 uncertain whether this will happen; therefore in the meantime DfT is proceeding on the basis that the UK will need to transpose. The Brexit vote was raised and IJ confirmed that for the DfT and therefore for this Programme it is Business As Usual until told otherwise. Action: JL agreed to track further developments on this issue, and report back any additional concerns to the Committee. D: 004 [Post-Meeting Clarification: The draft Delegated Act on TSIs referes to future changes to TSIs, and specifically mentions TAF and TAP. The Agency may also be given a role in monitoring IT implementations. See separate draft RISC (Railway Interoperability & Safety Committee) working document attached with the revised Minutes.] A: 005 (JL) 6 AOB It was suggested that the next two meetings should be timed to: October 2016 meeting: Follow the next TAF and TAP Implementation Cooperation Group meetings in Lille (either week commencing (w/c) 24 th or 31 st October) January 2017 meeting: Coincide with the expected next round of EU progress reporting (either w/c 9 th or 16 th January 2017) It was also agreed to continue to use Euston, London as the default meeting location. Action: MP to all Members to determine dates during the suggested weeks above that Members are unable to attend. A: 006 (MP) There was no other AOB, and the meeting then closed. Next Meetings: 4 th November th January 2017 Page 7 of 8

8 Actions List Action Ref Description 001 Update Terms of Reference as per agreed changes at the 5 th July 2016 Meeting and issue the revised version with the Meeting Minutes. 002 Define terms of reference for the work on investigating TAP compliance costs, to present for agreement at the next Steering Committee meeting in October Provide a copy of the submitted July 2016 TAP EU Progress Report to the Steering Committee for information Submit NR EU Progress Report for TAF on the basis of the content set out at the meeting on 5 th July Track further developments on the issue of potential new powers for the European Union Agency for Railways (EUAR), and report back any additional concerns to the Committee. all Members to determine dates for the next two proposed meetings that Members are unable to make during the following weeks: w/c 24 th or 31 st October 2016 and 9 th or 16 th January 2017 Assigned To Due Date Status MP Jul-16 Closed JL/CQ Oct-16 Open CQ Oct-16 Open JL Jul-16 Closed JL Oct-16 Open MP Jul-16 Closed Non-binding Decisions taken at this Meeting Decision Ref Decision Taken 001 UK TAF and TAP Steering Committee Terms of Reference (ToR) Agreed (subject to making changes agreed at the meeting on 5 th July 2016). 002 The Committee Agreed to use the proposed UK High Level Plan format (as set out on p. 5 of 5 th July 2016 Meeting Pack) for now. 003 The Committee Agreed that NR would only report TAF progress for the 4 th round of EU progress reporting in July The Brexit vote was raised and IJ confirmed that for the DfT and therefore for this Programme it is Business As Usual until told otherwise. Page 8 of 8