Valuation of train traffic in TTR's Advance planning Europe's infrastructure authorities organized in RNE, Rail Net Europe, and Europe's railway undertakers organized in FTE, Forum Train Europe, have for several years been running an international development programme called "Redesign of the International Timetabling Process" (originally "TimeTable Review", abbreviated TTR) aiming at trans-forming the capacity allocation process on railways. The results from TTR have in turn largely influenced the European Commission's proposal for a new regulation in the area. An important component, at least for Swedish conditions, is an increased degree of pre-planning which results in a supply/offer of pre-planned train paths. Capacity will also be reserved during the preparation of the annual timetable for later allocation which can be up to 3 years ahead. This places great demands on the infrastructure manager’s ability to be able to reserve capacity, value capacity (even under uncertainty) and safeguard the capacity characteristics that have been reserved, as well as having tools to support that. This report summarizes the work carried out within the project “Service and Transport capacity supply on rail”, TOT. The goal of TOT has been to investigate the possibilities of using the already defined Priority categories, used in the conflict phase of today’s process, for valuation and prioritization of train transports in the Advance planning phase of the TTR process, i.e., before railway undertakers formally apply for capacity. To summarize TOT’s results, the Swedish prioritization criteria can be used for valuation train traffic in TTR's Advance planning phase. Someone, preferably the infrastructure manager based on own experience, needs to decide which priority category different pre-planned transports should be classified as. The assessment should be made based on the society's utility that a particular transport is being performed. The Priority categories are not suited to e.g., decide in a competitive situation between equal actors which one that should be allocated a pre-planned train path. For this, a complementary method is needed to determine who should be allocated the capacity. Ideally, the Swedish Priority category also needs further development to, among other things, valuate traffic regularity as well as marginal effects when there are several similar paths planned during a limited time frame. There is a large need for a valuation function for the infrastructure manager during the preplanning phase, to be able to prioritize among different foreseen needs. The valuation model needs to value the socio-economic utility of the intended use of the infrastructure in the coming timetable where capacity shortages can be foreseen due to conflicting demands. For this purpose, the Swedish prioritization categories can work as a basis.