Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Performance Regimes: the Italian experience
& the European Performance Regime project
Brussels, April 4th 2008
2
Agenda
q Italian Performance Regimeq Why a Performance Regimeq A short historyq Basic principles & main featuresq Supporting IT Tool & procedures
q European Performance Regimeq Organization of the Projectq Outcomes of 2005-2006q Activities in 2007q Commercial Modelq Next steps
q RFI experience: some inputs
3
THE ITALIAN PERFORMANCE REGIMETHE ITALIAN PERFORMANCE REGIMETHE ITALIAN PERFORMANCE REGIME
4
Why a Performance Regimeq Need to define internationally accepted and measurable qualitative standards at
the aim of stimulating the industry and improve the provided service
q Need to fulfil the requirements of both national (Concession Act – 2000 and dlgs. 188/2003) and international legislation (EU Dir.2001/14)
q focuses on the most important market value punctuality
q provides regulation for the “lack of quality” (bad performance) rather than for the “lack of service” (cancellations)
q is applied on the whole network and all RUs are involved
q foresees monetary flows but the penalties are kept low by applying ceilings and thresholds to avoid financial risk for the partners
RFI created a system whichRFI created a system which
5
A short history00
-01
Stud
y an
d w
orki
ng o
ut
of th
e m
odel
0000-- 0
101St
udy
and
Stud
y an
d w
orki
ng o
ut
wor
king
out
of
the
mod
elof
the
mod
el
02-0
4Te
stin
g 0202
-- 0404
Test
ing
Test
ing
è 2000 - RFI starts working on a Performance scheme both at national and at international level on the basis of the outcomes of the EPR I and II UIC Projects.
è End 2001 - RFI presents its proposal to the Ministry of Transport
è 2002-2004 – Test of the and fine tuning of the model
è July 2004 – Presentation to RUs
è Until December 2004 - Shadow running in cooperation with RUs
January 2005 official startJanuary 2005 official start
2005
-to
day
2005
-to
day è MONITORING
è FINE TUNING (thresholds, ceilings, delay attribution …)
6
Basic principles
Differentiated by type of traffic(• thresholds: 15’ for passenger, 30’ for freight and
5’ for regional)
Incentivatingand not
compensative
Produces financial flows
Controllable by IT Tools
Oriented towards the most valuable market value: punctuality
Measurable & Quantitative(based on delays)
Symmetricalthe delays caused by IMs and RUs
“costs” the same amount
Main features and basic principles of the chosen model
Main features and basic principles of the chosen model
7
Main features1
Mon
itorin
g 1
Mon
itorin
g è Monitoring made per trainè Delay measurement in terms of minutesè Cause attribution for each single minute
ü Secondary delays are attributed to the related primary cause ü Undocumented delays are attributed to RFI
2 ca
lcul
atio
n2
calc
ulat
ion è Late trains above threshold are taken into account
è Minutes of delay at destination are shared according to attributed responsibilities (excl. external causes)
è Penalties are calculated according the above mentioned share of delay
3 fin
anci
al fl
ows
3 fin
anci
al fl
ows è Unitary value : 2€/minute
è Ceilings: 20% of the TAC of the delayed train (for single trains) and 15% of the total charge (for each RU at the end of the invoicing period)
è Penalties are calculated and attributed per train/RUè Compensations between parties are applied
AUTOMATICAUTOMATICAUTOMATIC
MANUALMANUALMANUAL
8
Supporting IT tools & procedures
On-line connection of RUs (Suite WEB RUs)RUs can agree/disagree within 24h; in case of disagreement there are three levels of discussion: by24h, 48h, 8 days. If no agreement special inquires are settled and those trains excluded from calculation
OnOn--line connection of line connection of RUsRUs (Suite WEB (Suite WEB RUsRUs))RUs can agree/disagree within 24h; in case of disagreement there are three levels of discussion: by24h, 48h, 8 days. If no agreement special inquires are settled and those trains excluded from calculation
PICü Monitoring of traffic;ü Delay registering;ü Causes attribution
üü Monitoring of traffic;Monitoring of traffic;üü Delay registering;Delay registering;üü Causes attribution Causes attribution
ü Penalties calculationü Statisticsü TACs calculation
üü Penalties calculationPenalties calculationüü StatisticsStatisticsüü TACsTACs calculationcalculationREAL TIMEREAL TIME
CONSOLIDATED DATACONSOLIDATED DATA
In order to guarantee privacy, integrity and reliability of data RFI obtained the TÜV Certification for:
q IT Security Management System (BS 7799) applied to SISCT-RIACE
qQuality Management System (UNI EN ISO 9001:2000) applied to the Security Data Base (BDS)
9
Some results ….q Better knowledge of the performance: the share of undocumented causes has sensibly
decreased, from a quarterly average of 26% (with peaks of 75%-80%) in 2002 to 10%-12%q The financial flows account for about 1% of the total TACs
q The The total PR delays have been decreasing since the year 2002
10
… some results ….q The punctuality has improved since 2005
11
… some resultsq The system is managed without overwhelming administrative costs
Data processing Data analysis and
evaluationAttribution of financial
penalties/bonuses
Data processing Data analysis and
evaluationAttribution of financial
penalties/bonuses
Data input/collection about delaysAttribution of
causes/responsibilities
Data input/collection about delaysAttribution of
causes/responsibilities
Managing offinancial
flows
Managing offinancial
flows
Managing of claims by interested subjects
Managing of claims by interested subjects
The system is the same
The system is the same
The shadow running phase did not show
an increase in “disagreements”
The shadow running phase did not show
an increase in “disagreements”
Costs for the PR for RFI:
q Setting up of the system €200.000 (una tantum)
q Managing of the system €450.000 per year
12
THE UIC EPR PROJECTTHE UIC EPR PROJECTTHE UIC EPR PROJECT
13
Organization
Project ManagementLeads the Project
Leader: B.Morgante (RFI)
Project ManagementLeads the Project
Leader: B.Morgante (RFI)
WG ContractualLegal support
WG ContractualLegal support
WG ImplementationImplementation of the
system
WG Data ManagersImplementation of the
system
WG Data ManagersImplementation of the
system
Advisory Group (IM+RU)Takes decisions
Leader: D. Haase (DBNetz)
Advisory Group (IM+RU)Takes decisions
Leader: D. Haase (DBNetz)
WG CommercialCommercial Model
WG CommercialCommercial Model
WG IT-Tools/RNEIT support
WG IT-Tools/RNEIT support
Leader: H.Reisinger, RNE Leader: R.Achermann, SBB Leader:J.F. Ducoing, RFF Leader: to benominated
UIC SubgroupLeaflet 450.2 (UIC)UIC Subgroup
Leaflet 450.2 (UIC)TEST-TEAM 1TEST-TEAM 1 TEST-TEAM 2TEST-TEAM 2 TEST-TEAM nTEST-TEAM n
The Project has been organized in three Working Groups dealing with Commercial, Technical and Legal aspects of the project. Each WG is led by a Coordinator. Also a specific Advisory Group has been set up to evaluate the output of Working Groups. A new Data Managers Group has been created with representatives of RUs/IMs in order to organize and carry out the test run in 2008.
Representatives from both IMs and RUs (UIC Forum)
Supported by CIT and CER
Representatives from both IMs and RUs (UIC Forum)
Supported by CIT and CER
14
Outcomes of 2007 - overviewLast year has been very important for the developments of the EPR Project
q Coordination with RUs (passenger and freight) Presentation of the work done by EPR teams and remarks by RUs; remarks by RUs and presentation by SNCF of an improvement of the model. The general approach of the model has been agreed; some points remain open and it has been agreed to deeply examine the different options
q UPDATING OF THE UIC LEAFLET 450.2The requirements for a better implementation of the EPR have mainly been met
q TEST RUNThe EPR model proposals have been tested on three Corridors by test teams (RUs+IMs):
ü Brennerü Rotterdam-Milanoü Antwerpen Basel
15
EPR Commercial ModelThe common features of the proposed models can be described as follows:
q Based on delays
q Foresees financial penalties
q Corridor – based approach (first step)
q Includes secondary delays (RU/RU) and provides an incentive to recover delays
q Limits penalties to a warning function
q Applied on the whole train path
q Monitoring made per trainThe different options concern
ü Secondary delays treatmentü Recovered time treatmentü Technique of penalty calculation
16
Test run 2007The main objectives of the test runs 2007 were:
q Data quality evaluation
q Detection of technical and operational
problems – propositions for solutions
Technical/operationalTechnical/operational
q Analysis of the commercial model options using real data
Com
mercial
Com
mercial
Very good results:qData quality and EOPT
functionality improved, qRemaining problems
identifiedqDefinition of next
improvementsqCooperation and data flow
among partners improved
An analysis on different aspects but without a deep commercial evaluation: new tests are foreseen in 2008
17
Next stepsSince the project has come to a crucial point, participant railways have signed a Memorandum of Understanding stating their commitment in the Project. This years activities would be:
q Commercial issuesü Deeper analysis of the outcomes of the test run 2007ü Analysis of outcomes of the test run 2008ü Drafting of a final Commercial Model
q Test run ü Carried out by the “Data Managers Group”ü Corridors to test: same of 2007 (with an improved
automatic procedure) and/or new corridorsq Fine tuning of
ü Contractual aspectsü Acceptance procedures and disputes resolutionü Update version of the Handbook
DEADLINE : end 20082009: dry-runs foreseen
18
RFI’s experience: some inputsRFI’ s experience highlighted that the following items are important in setting up a Performance Regime
A MARKET ORIENTED SYSTEM
A MARKET ORIENTED A MARKET ORIENTED SYSTEMSYSTEM
Choice of an indicator that best suits the involved network; in principle it should be
ü Measurableü Recognized by all stakeholders (nationally and
internationally)
COOPERATIONCOOPERATIONCOOPERATION The performance of the railway system depends on both IM and RUs: it is important to involve the RUs at least in a shadow-running
EFFECTIVENESSEFFECTIVENESSEFFECTIVENESSFinancial flows should be foreseen as they stimulate the commitment of partners, in addition the system should also allow a better knowledge of the causes of bad performance and distinguish different type of traffic
PR IS A MEANS NOT A GOAL
PR IS A MEANS NOT A PR IS A MEANS NOT A GOALGOAL
If existing, penalties should be kept low, what is important is to allow the identification of corrective actions