FTE Joint Commissions Freight and Passenger Traffic

Last week was an eventful week, starting with the meeting of the FTE Working Group for Freight Traffic on Tuesday, 21 January 2020 in Basel, Switzerland followed by an information about the TTR programme and the meeting of the FTE Joint Commissions for Freight and Passenger Traffic the next day.

meeting of FTE WG Freight

TTR discussions

FTE JC P+F

our dog friendly Executive Board Members Catherine Perrinelle and Thorsten Dieter

In the TTR Programme Info, the state of play was shown with the three main corner stones Commercial Conditions, IT Landscape and Legal Framework. In the second part the group was split up into two for an open discussion session about their principal questions for the process implementation and to collect inputs for the high level meeting and first attempt on reaching a common RU position regarding Commercial Conditions. The discussions were very fruitful since we’ve had members of freight and passenger traffic involved, they shared common as well as different concerns and solution approaches.

The FTE Joint Commissions met for the first time ever, as a supplement to the Plenary Assembly which took place in June 2019. Due to the additional need for actions and decisions regarding FTE IT and other topics, a second Plenary Assembly in December might be necessary in the future.

Sebastian Naundorf, FTE Project Manager presented FTE Working Group IT – Report and Decision Items. The FTE Joint Commissions for Freight and Passenger Traffic were asked to discuss and give input to the FTE IT strategy, to give the task to the WG IT to evaluate by June 2020 which business processes project-plans should be established in TOM project and to approve the FTE WG IT Governance framework and. However there will be no vote before the plenary assembly on these topics.

Fabian Hunkeler, FTE Project Manager introduced two new models (A and B) using CIV and CIM data for a new FTE Cost Distribution Key. There would be major changes in terms of membership fee, as well as voting power (as these two are linked) for some RUs. The alternative instead of the new models was to retain status quo for the membership fees. The Joint Commissions decided in favour of status quo, which will be the leading proposal for the Plenary Assembly in June.

MoTuWeThFrSaSu
14303112345
156789101112
1613141516171819
1720212223242526
1827282930123

Overview of Members