Allocation Principles

The purpose of this page is to give a better understanding of the project of Allocation Principles that is currently ongoing within FTE and RNE with the involvement of interested FTE/RNE members. You may find here:

• Answers to frequently asked questions (FAQ)
• State of play of the project
• Published Feasiblity Study on Using Socio-Economic Cost Criteria for Capacity Shortages
• Change Management recommendation

Check also the short introdiction presentation to catch-up with the topic.

Frequently asked questions

What are the allocation principles?

On many parts of the European railway network happens that at a certain time, there is a capacity shortage, either because there is a high demand from Railway Undertakings (RUs), or because the standard capacity is reduced due to Temporary Capacity Restriction (TCR). In both cases, the remaining capacity cannot satisfy all needs, the involved stakeholders try to coordinate and negotiate, but if this does not lead to a result, some last-resort allocation rules or allocation principles have to be applied, and the available capacity distributed.

What are the shortcomings of the current system?

Shortcoming n.1: In most countries, there are already existing allocation rules based on the traffic types/traffic paths (described in each Network Statement), which gives a certain capacity need ultimate priority over others. This might not lead to optimal usage of capacity, because:

• The traffic with a higher position in the priority list is not motivated to compromise – since it will win the case if the rule is applied.
• There might be a better solution for the whole sector, accommodating more capacity if the involved parties (including the IM, or even path requests not initially involved in the conflict) make certain bearable adjustments to the timetable. The “scenario approach” is better compared to one winner taking all the capacity.

This might be overcome by the socio-economic modelling.

Shortcoming n.2: these priority lists were developed nationally in isolation, without considering the international aspect, thus it is unclear how to proceed in case more networks involved in the conflict get to contradicting results.

This to a certain extent endangers the proper functioning of the Single European Railway Area, and a solution should be investigated.

Shortcoming n.3: the existing rules focus only on the situations after the annual path requests are submitted. Nevertheless, in the future, there have to also be allocation principles for earlier periods which are applicable in the period named in the proposed Capacity Regulation as “strategic planning” (Capacity Strategy, Capacity Model, Capacity Supply, Framework Agreements).

What is the social-economic modelling?

In the classical approach, if there is an unsolved conflict between 2 train path requests, the one with the higher position on the priority list will become the winner, and the other has to either completely adjust to the remaining capacity or its request is rejected. Other train path requests not being directly in the timetable conflict are not involved.

In the socio-economic approach, more scenarios can be evaluated from the socio-economic point of view and the socio-economic value of each scenario is artificially monetised (similarly to when doing cost-benefit analyses). Scenarios will naturally differ in each case, for instance, the speeds of all affected capacities/paths can be adjusted (reduced for high-speed traffic, an increase of average speed for regional traffic by abandoning intermediate stops, diversion of some freight traffic via diversionary line etc.). Another thing, that is new compared to the classic approach, is that these scenarios might also include optimisation of paths, that were not originally in timetable conflict. Let´s visualise it in a picture. The example below shows a hypothetical example for an annual timetable, where are 2 “wished paths” in conflict. Instead of selecting one winner “classical approach”, the “scenario approach” might offer solution to accommodate all needs. Thanks to this, 3 paths can be planned or allocated instead of 2.

The socio-economic modelling is not restricted only to ordinary paths conflict, for instance, timing of the Temporary Capacity Restrictions (TCRs) can be evaluated as well. Currently, most IMs plan their TCRs in a way that they minimise the costs, but this approach often significantly impacts the existing traffic. Perhaps there are solutions where a different timing of a TCR can lead to significantly lower socio-economical impact on the traffic and customers.

The picture below shows the comparison of different hypothetical TCR timings. Scenario 2 (TCR during the night) generates lower socio-economic costs for the RUs. Note that the example is only hypothetical, the best scenario can be for instance the execution during the day, off-peak, in the winter period and so forth.

However, using socio-economic valuation for these situations is only one of the options. For instance if the IM incorporates the TCR into the timetables already during the annual timetable period, another option can be to select the scenario with minimum level of paid standardised compensations (for details see the RU vision on Commercial Conditions).

Would the socio-economic approach require a lot of resources to evaluate each conflicting situation individually?

No, it does not have to. The example of Sweden shows that the values expressed for instance in “minute-price for deviation from the wish” can be standardised. Thus, you do not have to always collect data from individuals, but you use mutually agreed standard values, in combination of timetabling data already in the IMs´ IT systems.

The calculation itself can be a question of seconds, the formula can be integrated into the planning system, as in Sweden. The IT solution even does not have to be expensive, in Norway for instance they used an excel file.

Is the socio-economic approach distant future / too difficult to implement?

Although the implementation is not always a piece of cake, the benefits can outweigh the effort.  Note that socio-economic modelling is in a certain form already used in Sweden, Norway, Finland and for maintenance works also in the Netherlands. The potential fear has to be taken seriously, so within the project the work package Change Management (see below) was launched to help every country/IM with the implementation.

Allocation Principles project state of play

What does FTE do in regard of the Allocation Principles Project? Where does the project stand now?

The project has started in cooperation with the interested IMs and RailNetEurope in 2021. Two work packages (WP) were launched «Business requirements» and «Change management». The graphical overview below shows how the project has developed since the start.