European Performance Regime -

The RNE/UIC European Performance Regime (EPR) project has it’s origins in the EU directive 2001/14, article 11 which stipulates that a Performance Regime should be implemented throughout the network within each Member State. Whereas the EU directive applies to the traffic within a Network, it was considered opportune to develop a performance regime for international trains between Networks so that the international trains wouldn’t be subject to several national PRs.

The EPR was initiated with the objective to design a PR which could be used both for international and national traffic allowing a Network, if so desired, to apply only one PR in its territory. Subsequently the system features and attributes were defined: The EPR should be build on the delay minutes of international train runs along corridors monitored by the RNE Europtirails IT-tool and the EPR system should be fair, transparent and without excessive administrational burden. And last but not least, EPR was designed to be an incentive scheme to induce quality improvements and not a compensation system of damages caused by delays. 

Between years 2004-2008, four different proposals for the EPR bonus / malus calculations were initiated and analysed leading finally to the adoption of the so-called Reference Model in December 2008 by UIC Regional Assembly for Europe.

The proposed calculation models were tested and the technical requirements for EPR implementation defined during two series of test-runs: In 2007, 3 test liaisons monitoring 1 587 freight and 1 185 passenger trains were carried out. In 2008, a second set of 7 test liaisons including 974 freight and 820 passenger trains was conducted to consolidate the previous test results

In 2008 an EPR Memorandum of Understanding on the EPR development was signed by many UIC and RNE Members and in March 2009 UIC called for volunteering Companies along the Europtirails corridors to start the preparations for the EPR Pilot Application. The following Companies volunteered to be part of the EPR Early Implementers Group and agreed to start the Pilot Application in May 2010:

• Austria : ÖBB + RCA
• Belgium: Infrabel
• France: RFF + SNCF
• Germany: DB Netz + DB Schenker
• Italy: RFI + Trenitalia
• Netherlands: Prorail
• Switzerland: SBB + BLS

The EPR Project Team (including Early Implementers and other RNE and UIC Members) have worked within EPR Working Groups to define the Commercial, Operational, Legal/Contractual and finally the IT components. The components have been worked out in close collaboration with RNE who will be in charge of the concrete deployment of the ERP scheme.

This current EPR Implementation Handbook represents the unique reference by which UIC and RNE Member Railways will implement the EPR. The described EPR components will be now tested during the Pilot Application and necessary improvements will made during and / or after the Pilot Application. The following executive summary provides an overview of these core components of the EPR scheme. The EPR scheme has been build as far as possible on the existing data and procedures already in place along the RNE Europtirails corridors.

The provision of the contracted timetables by IMs to RNE (UIC message 2090) in due format and timeframe is crucial to EPR as these timetables create the foundation / reference value to any delay monitoring. RNE has provided improved requirements and instructions concerning the contracted timetables and is working with Early Implementers to harmonise / enhance the national procedures in relation to operational timetables due to maintenance works, cancellations and rerouting of trains. Whereas the long-term goal is to integrate the agreed operational timetables as far as possible into the EPR scheme, only trains with contracted timetables can be tested during the Pilot Application.

Another cornerstone for EPR is the provision of the coherent train numbers with the timetables. While waiting the forthcoming solutions from TSI deployment (train / transport-ID), short-term solution has been set up for the train identification: A cross-reference table has been created to recognise the correlation between the different operational train numbers from national IMs and the international train reference numbers specified by RNE.

In the existing Europtirails functionalities, the national data (delay minutes and causes) obtained from national measuring points is summarised and related to a smaller number of Europtirails points without any loss of national information (UIC messages 2002 and 2005). In the EPR scheme, the data from Europtirails points is further summarised and related to even smaller number of EPR points. The EPR points need to include at least the origin, border stations, RU-RU handover points and destination of the train run, as well as the relevant points along the corridors, such as major passenger stations, which are defined together by the EPR partners. The idea behind the definition of the ERP points is to reduce the mass of information on one hand and to link, on the other hand, the EPR bonus / malus calculations only to points having operational or commercial importance.

When the big stations, like shunting yards, don’t dispose measuring points with automatic data in locations that are relevant for EPR (e.g. places where delay responsibility changes) or when the train can be directed via different sub-stations / tracks, the delays can be measured with a “master station” concept enabling the integration of trains that would be otherwise problematic for EPR due to inappropriate or changing measuring points.

Today the different national measuring methods, thresholds and roundings generate only minor differences in delay / recovery minutes, thus the mandatory harmonisation has not been considered worthwhile. In fact, the more the measuring is complete and precise, less the IMs lose in terms of undocumented delay reasons and recovery, therefore the incentive for more precise data collection lies in the EPR monitoring system itself.

On the contrary to the aforementioned measuring techniques, the mandatory harmonisation of the national delay codification according to the UIC Leaflet 450-2 has been considered necessary for the EPR implementation. Therefore the national delay codifications (often more detailed) have or will been translated into the updated 450-2 codes for the EPR Pilot Application.

The validation of the delay responsibility between the IMs and RUs is done normally at national level. However, in the absence of national validation systems, this may be done also at international level if so required / decided. All delay codification and modification for national delays are executed only in national systems and will be sent subsequently to Europtirails.

The international validation of cross-border delays between the corresponding IMs and RUs from previous and next country will be done in a web-based EPR tool. Besides the validation of the cross-border delays, this EPR web tool will also display all proposed delay codes for the entire train run. Consequently every Actor is informed about the quality problems all along the corridor and can react in accordance e.g. in case of abusive coding of too many external delays (excluded from penalty payments). Finally all the validated national and cross-border delay codes will be sent from Europtirails to the EPR calculation tool for bonus / malus calculations.

As EPR remains a warning system with a low level of penalty payments, the possible disagreements on delay codes will happen mostly at principle at not at incident level. Consequently, the dispute resolution will certainly orient to negotiations for modification / harmonisation of coding behaviour in the future, instead of investigations of punctual incidents. The current recommendation is to solve the disputes, for principles and incidents, at RNE Corridor Management level as it has a good overview of the corridor conditions.

The validated delay codes will be recorded into a Europtirails database which allows every Actor to make queries to create individualised performance reports according to different criteria / problem areas.  The commonly validated data will constitute the basis for quality improvements within each Company and between different Networks and constitutes undoubtedly the most valuable outcome of the EPR scheme.

The UIC Leaflet 450-2 provides delay codes in four different categories: primary delays due to IM, primary delays due to RU, external causes and finally the secondary causes (caused by primary delays that happened to other train or previously to the same train). These delays are attributed to different Actors as caused or suffered delays according to Actors real or agreed delay responsibility. For instance, an undocumented delay i.e. delay code missing is attributed to the corresponding IM as caused delay (and to corresponding RU as suffered delay) even if the IM may not have caused the delay, due to the fact that the IMs are responsible of filling in the delay codes

In the EPR calculations the Actors that have caused delays have to pay malus minutes and the Actors that have suffered (including recovered) delays minutes are granted bonus minutes. The total amount of the EPR malus and bonus minutes is defined by the highest lateness of the train run, called Worst Point, at the predefined EPR measuring points. For instance, if a train is late 30 minutes at the Worst Point, 30 minutes of malus minutes have to be paid into a virtual money box (familiarly called “cake”) and these 30 minutes are then distributed as bonus minutes, both payments and receivables according to each Actor’s involvement in causing and suffering of delays.

The underlying EPR calculation principles remain always the same, even though some minor adaptations are needed according to whether the RUs are running in classical cooperation or in open access / concurrence configuration. These adaptations are done with the sole objective of ensuring the fair treatment of each Actor, whatever is the situation. Opportunities for further fine-tuning of these basic calculations have been identified in order to strengthen the rewards for quality improvements.

The EPR bonus / malus calculations per each train are recorded in the Europtirails database and are available for consultation or contestation in case of presumed computing problems by the EPR calculation tool. Each Actor has also the possibility to obtain individual pre-billing reports from the database concerning its financial results for a given time period. The clearing of all payments and receivables is done on regular (monthly) basis and at the end of the period each Actor will receive either a bill for malus payment or credit note for bonus receivable.

EPR deals only with conventional penalties. The liability issue can be linked to European General Terms and Conditions of Use of Infrastructure. The ultimate decision to implement EPR belongs to every Network. However the current EU legislation requires a national PR regime to be implemented and the forthcoming EU legislation will mandate the IMs to ensure the consistency between the performance regimes along the freight corridors. If implemented by a Network, EPR will be included / annexed to the Network Statement and multilateral EPR contracts will be done at national and / or international level.

Specific EPR IT applications and associated functions need to be developed by RNE in relation to the definition of future EPR measuring points, validation of delay responsibilities, performance reports, bonus / malus calculation tool and pre-billing reports. However, these new tools can work appropriately only with reliable and complete data from the UIC messages 2002, 2005, 2090. Specific quality reports on data provision will be introduced by RNE which will endeavour to proactively help the IMs to fulfil the EPR data requirements.