RFC Network User Satisfaction Survey 2021 Report Overview
The RFC Network User Satisfaction Survey 2021 Report provides insights into the satisfaction levels of users with the RFC services. It includes details on the study design, respondent evaluations, participant groups, response rate comparisons, and satisfaction levels with RFC services. The survey aims to optimize the user experience based on current needs while maintaining comparability with past surveys.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
The RFC Network User Satisfaction Survey 2021 Report for RFC3 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2020 I RFC 3 Report I 1
1 Study Design 2 Satisfaction with RFC3 RFC USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2021 CONTENT 3 Sample Description 4 Summary RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2020 I RFC 3 Report I 2 2 7 October 2024
01 STUDY DESIGN HOW THE SURVEY WAS SET UP RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2020 I RFC 3 Report I 3
STUDY DESIGN 7 respondents II 7 evaluations* Computer Aided Web Interviews (using the online tool Survio) Contacts (e-mail address) delivered by RFCs 37 invitations sent Field Phase: 26th August to 8th October 2021 * One respondent is counted multiple times if his/her organisation uses multiple corridors. RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 4
SATISFACTION & PARTICIPATION 7 Participant groups in % of 2021 Port authority Terminal operator 0% evaluations 14% Non-RU applicant 0% This is constant compared to the previous year (13 evaluations in 2020). Customer satisfaction Railway Undertaking (RU) 7 86% 85% positive feedback 2020 participants Port authority 8% Terminal operator 23% This is constant compared to the previous year (9 participants in 2020). Railway Undertaking (RU) 0% Non-RU applicant 69% *Answers given were very satisfied, satisfied and slightly satisfied. This is constant compared to the previous year. RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 5
RESPONSE RATE Compared to the previous year Number of responses 2020 vs. 2021 Invitations vs. Evaluations ratio 37 Invitations Evaluations 13 (-6) Total 7 2020 2021 RUs/non-Rus 6 Terminals/Ports 1 7 Invitations sent 37 (+2) 7 (-18%) Response rate overall 19% RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 6
02 SATISFACTION WITH THE RFC 3 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2020 I RFC 3 Report I 7
INTRODUCTION The RFC USS 2021 is based on the relaunched version from 2020 which was optimized to better suit the needs of the invitees and the RFC Network. Only the annual and RFC-specific questions were changed to be up to date focusing on current topics. To stay comparable to the past surveys, the general questions covered the same topics. Though this new survey does focus on concrete proposals for improvement. The participant could answer each topic with generally satisfied or/and would appreciate improvement in (select certain concrete measures). Also, in the survey each topic offered the opportunity to give an open answer under other . Therefor the participants were able to communicate their opinion even better to the RFC Network. The percentage indicates what percentage of participants think that topic needs improvement. *RFC Rhine Danube participated for the first time in the RFC USS. RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 8
SATISFACTION WITH RFC 3 2021 2020 Overall, how satisfied are you as a user of the RFC? 14% very satisfied 23% Answered by: RUs/non-RUs, Terminals/Ports 14% satisfied sample size = 7 38% 57% slightly satisfied 23% 0% slightly unsatisfied 15% 85% Generally satisfied 14% 6% Decrease of satisfaction unsatisfied 0% 0% 0% *Answers given were very satisfied, satisfied and slightly satisfied. very unsatisfied RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 9
WISH FOR IMPROVEMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE Priority areas Which topics related to RFC Infrastructure are the priority areas for improvement according to your opinion? 43% generally satisfied 22% Answered by: RUs/non-RUs, Terminals/Ports 14% 11% geographical routing sample size = 7 43% infrastructure parameters 67% 29% measures taken to improve infrastructure standards 33% Focus on 43% Generally satisfied 57% infrastructure capacity 1 Infrastructure capacity 61% 2 Infrastructure parameters 29% 3 Measures to improve infrastructure standards This is a 35% increase in satisfaction compared to last year. Sample size 2020: 13 other 17% 2020 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 10
OTHER COMMENTS: RFC 3: interoperability border crossings / availability of re- routings / proactive consultation on TCRs / late realization of BBT feeder lines train length on RFI part of RFC, congestion tendencies especially around Gem nden- W rzburg-N rnberg lines RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 11
WISH FOR IMPROVEMENT IN TCR Priority areas 43% Which areas of the coordination of planned temporary capacity restrictions (TCR) on the RFC are the priority areas for improvement according to your opinion? generally satisfied 8% 29% Answered by: RUs/non-RUs, Terminals/Ports quality of alternative offers 46% sample size = 7 29% 31% quantity of alternative offers 29% time-table of alternative offers 54% 43% info on works and possessions Focus on 43% Generally satisfied 38% 1 Info on works and possessions 43% involvement of customers 31% 2 Involvement of customers This is a 35% increase in satisfaction compared to last year. 43% other 15% 2020 Sample size 2020: 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 12
OTHER COMMENTS: RFC 3: RUs' proposals for timing of total line closures during August should be heard; interests of local Italian authorities should not prevail over market implementation of annexVII / definition RFC role in annexVII process / consider RU consultation in TCR planning / timely offer alternative paths The harmonization and reliability of TCR across the corridor. Denmark being the worst example. RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 13
INVOLVEMENT IN CAPACITY REQUESTS VIA THE C-OSS Capacity request via C-OSS COMMENTS Operating on RFC through subsidiaries Order via Infra ..... .. ....... .. ........ .... ........ ... 67% Yes . . . We are actually working on business but could not realize them by now Missing traffic because of the poor technical conditions of the lines by IMs. Reasons for not ordering via the C-OSS: Compared to the past year it has been constant. Which topics related to RFC Infrastructure are the priority areas for improvement according to your opinion? Answered by: RUs/non-RUs sample size = 6 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 14
ALL REASONS FOR NOT ORDERING VIA THE C-OSS: RFC 3: Capacity is booked via RNE the time slots did not fit to our needs, wrong origin and destination; for 2023 we put them in the wish list and plan to order PaPs as leading entity RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 15
WISH FOR IMPROVEMENT IN RFC COMMERCIAL OFFER Priority areas 25% generally satisfied 0% In the current RFC commercial offer, which are the priority areas for improvement according to your opinion? 25% quantity of PaPs 56% 25% Answered by: RUs/non-RUs time-table of PaPs 33% 25% relations (PaPs origins/destinations) 0% sample size = 4 (67% of 6) 50% parameters of PaPs (train lenght/weight) 44% 50% commercial speed of PaPs 11% 25% quality of the Reserve Capacity offer 11% 0% allocation process 33% 25% Focus on conflict-solving procedure by the C-OSS 33% 25% Generally satisfied This is a 25% increase in satisfaction compared to last year. 0% 0% collection of needs (wish list) Parameters of PaPs 50% protection of PaPs from TCRs 33% Commercial speed of PaPs 25% other 44% Protection of PaPs from TCRs 2020 Sample size 2020: 9 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 16
OTHER COMMENTS: RFC 3: Insufficient offer in the Northern RFC section RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 17
WISH FOR IMPROVEMENT IN TPM Priority areas Which aspects of the Train Performance Management (TPM) activities are the priority areas for improvement according to your opinion? 57% generally satisfied 31% Answered by: RUs/non-RUs, Terminals/Ports 14% sample size = 7 regular train performance in report 8% 43% efficiency of measures taken to improve punctuality 62% Focus on 57% Generally satisfied This is a 46% decrease in satisfaction compared to last year. 57% RU/terminal improvement 23% 1 RU/terminal improvement 2 Efficiency of measures taken to improve punctuality 29% other 15% 2020 Sample size 2020: 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 18
OTHER COMMENTS: RFC 3: RU involvement preferable on RFC level instead of bilateral working groups as only this could lead to concrete measures I can't answer. Not involved directly. RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 19
WISH FOR IMPROVEMENT IN ICM Priority areas Regarding the implementation of the process outlined in the International Contingency Management (ICM) handbook which are the priority areas for improvement according to your opinion? 33% generally satisfied 22% Answered by: RUs/non-RUs 17% sample size = 6 implementation of new processes 33% 50% quality and usability of re-routing scenarios 44% Focus on 33% Generally satisfied This is a 11% increase in satisfaction compared to last year. 17% information/support on ICM by RFCs 22% 1 Quality and usability of re-routing scenarios 33% other 33% 2020 Sample size 2020: 9 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 20
OTHER COMMENTS: RFC 3: Further work on RU-ICM-handbook and merge into a sector handbook I don t know RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 21
WISH FOR IMPROVEMENT IN RU/TERMINAL ADVISORY GROUP Priority areas 57% Which aspects of the RU Advisory Group/Terminal Advisory Group (RAG/TAG) are the priority areas for improvement according to your opinion? generally satisfied 38% 14% 15% Answered by: RUs/non-RUs, Terminals/Ports RAG/TAG meetings useful sample size = 7 0% RAG/TAG meetings useful, other comments no commenting in 2020 29% consideration of AG's opinion in the MB 38% 57% consideration of AG's opinion in the ExB Focus on 57% Generally satisfied This is a 19% increase in satisfaction compared to last year. 46% 1 consideration of AG s opinion In the ExB 29% organization of meetings 23% 2 consideration of AG s opinion In the MB 0% other 15% 2020 3 organization of meetings Sample size 2020: 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 22
COMPANY PARTICIPATION IN RAG TAG MEETINGS Participation in RAG TAG meetings 71% Yes Does your company regularly attend RAG/TAG meetings? Answered by: RUs/non-RUs , Terminals/Ports Compared to the past year it has been a 21% decrease. sample size = 7 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 23
WISH FOR IMPROVEMENT IN PERFORMANCE Priority areas International End-to-End monitoring projects with the involvement of IMs, RUs, and Terminal Operators Which topics would your company be interested in for the RFC to improve your rail-related performance? 0% 0% not asked in 2020 Answered by: Terminals/Ports 100% Integrated capacity offer of PaPs with Terminal slots sample size = 1 0% not asked in 2020 100% Creation of business opportunities/links 0% not asked in 2020 100% Support of electronic data exchange (TIS) within the rail sector 0% not asked in 2020 0% 0% not asked in 2020 Facilitation of information provision 100% other 0% not asked in 2020 2020 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 24
WISH FOR IMPROVEMENT IN COMMUNICATION SERVICES Priority areas 43% Which of the following statements on the communication services of the RFC are the priority areas for improvement according to your opinion? generally satisfied 23% 43% information on the RFC website Answered by: RUs/non-RUs, Terminals/Ports 23% sample size = 7 0% 0% information on social media channels 0% 0% information in annual reports 14% information provided in CID books 8% Focus on 43% Generally satisfied This is a 20% increase in satisfaction compared to last year. 14% information provided on the CIP 31% 1 information on RFC website 14% information provided on the NCI 0% not asked in 2020 14% 15% other 2020 Sample size 2020: 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 25
OTHER COMMENTS: RFC 3: TCR Tool RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 26
PERCEPTION OF South Brenner Axis Task Force RFC-specific question 1: Which of these statements would best describe your perception of the ScanMed RFC South Brenner Axis Task Force (more than one answer possible)? The establishment is a step in the right direction, and I feel positive 57% Answered by: RUs/non-RUs, Terminals/Ports The establishment is good, but I feel unsure about the continuation 14% sample size = 7 There is more that could have been done at an earlier stage, and I feel indifferent 14% The same approach could be adopted in ScanMed RFC North 0% 14% No opinion. Suggestions on how to achieve faster and better results - other: 14% RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 27
PERCEPTION OF Single Contract of Use (SCU) RFC-specific question 2: Which of these statements would best describe your perception of the Single Contract of Use (SCU) in ScanMed RFC North (more than one answer possible)? The SCU is a step in the right direction, and I feel positive 14% Answered by: RUs/non-RUs, Terminals/Ports The SCU is valid but is progressing too slow 0% sample size = 7 29% I know nothing about the SCU The same approach could be adopted in ScanMed RFC South 14% 57% No opinion. Suggestions on how to achieve faster and better results - other: 0% RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 28
WISH FOR IMPROVEMENT IN CIP Current topic 1: Customer Information Platform (CIP) 2020 13% Current topic 1: Which aspects of the Customer Information Platform (CIP) services are the priority areas for improvement according to your opinion? generally satisfied 8% 0% Information documents 15% Answered by: RUs/non-RUs, ports and terminals 20% sample size = 7 Interactive map 15% 13% Route planning 23% 0% Display of ICM re-routing options 8% 0% 0% General usability Focus on 13% Generally satisfied This is a 5% increase in satisfaction compared to last year. 13% Geographical coverage 0% not asked in 2020 1 interactive map 20% other 2 route planning 15% 3 geographical coverage 20% Don't know / I don't use CIP. 8% Sample size 2020: 13 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 29
OTHER COMMENTS: RFC3: enlargement of scope to non-RFC lines would bring added value km among stations Completeness+reliability of infra data / Fill gaps where data not / Include info on available capacity / develop for route compatibility check RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 30
CAPACITY BOTTLENECKS ALONG THE RFC - A Current topic 2: asked to RUs/Non-RUs Does your company face capacity bottlenecks along the RFC (e.g. on lines / in nodes / in terminals / on borders)? Answered by: RUs/non-RUs 17% no problems sample size = 6 not asked in 2020 50% slight problems, comment: OTHER, COMMENTS not asked in 2020 17% Generally satisfied, no problems See several concrete problems listed on following slides. 33% severe problems, comment: not asked in 2020 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 31
OTHER COMMENTS: SLIGHT PROBLEMS: Delays Brenner Gem nden-W rzburg-N rnberg are in northern parts of Bavaria require path planning and routings via diversionary lines in daily regular operations Scandinavian route SEVERE PROBLEMS: There is a severe capacitty bottleneck in Munich area, e.g. station Munich East Rbf and on lines around. Sweden: J nk pingsbanan capacity with lots of stand time, West-coast to Norway not really any PaP to use. Denmark: Long running times. RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 32
CAPACITY BOTTLENECKS ALONG THE RFC - B Current topic 2: asked to ports and terminals Does your company face capacity bottlenecks on lines / handover stations leading to terminals and ports? Answered by: ports and terminals 100% no problems sample size = 1 not asked in 2020 0% slight problems, comment: OTHER, COMMENTS not asked in 2020 100% Generally satisfied, no problems No comments. 0% severe problems, comment: not asked in 2020 RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 33
03 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2020 I RFC 3 Report I 34
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Target group 12 10 10 9 8 6 6 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 RU Non-RU Applicant Terminal operator Port authority 2020 2021 To which of the following type of target groups does your company belong?" sample size = 13; 7; One respondent is counted multiple times if his/her organization uses multiple corridors RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 35
04 SUMMARY RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2020 I RFC 3 Report I 36
SUMMARY SATISFACTION RATING All respondents 2021 2020 43% General satisfaction Infrastructure 22% This question was not asked in all topics of the survey 43% Temporary capacity restrictions Answered by: RUs/non-RUs, Terminals/Ports 8% Different sample sizes on every topic 25% Commercial offer 0% 57% Train performance management 31% 33% Int. Contingency management 22% 57% RU/Terminal Advisory Group 38% 43% Communication services 23% 13% Improvement of CIP 8% RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 37
SUMMARY WISH FOR IMPROVEMENT All respondents FOCUS TOPICS 57% RU/terminal improvement 57% infrastructure capacity 57% consideration of AG's opinion in the ExB 50% quality and usability of re-routing scenarios 50% protection of PaPs from TCRs 50% parameters of PaPs (train length/weight) 50% commercial speed of PaPs Focus topics chosen 43% involvement of customers 43% information on works and possessions 43% information on the RFC website Answered by: RUs/non-RUs, Terminals/Ports 43% efficiency of measures taken to improve punctuality 29% time-table of alternative offers Different sample sizes on every topic, there 29% quantity of alternative offers 29% quality of altnerative offers 29% organization of meetings 29% measures taken to improve infrastructure standards 29% consideration of AG's opinion in the MB 25% time-table of PaPs 25% relations (PaPs origins/destinations) 25% quantity of PaPs 25% quality of the Reserve Capacity offer 25% conflict-solving procedure by the C-OSS 20% Interactive map on CIP 20% CIP not used 17% information/support on ICM by RFCs 17% implementation of new processes 14% regular train performance in report 14% RAG/TAG meetings useful 14% infrastructure parameters 14% information provided on the NCI 14% information provided on the CIP 14% information provided in CID books LESS URGENT 14% geographical routing 13% Route planning in CIP 13% geographical coverage of CIP 0% information on social media channels 0% information in annual reports 0% Information documents on CIP 0% General usability of CIP 0% Display of ICM re-routing options in CIP 0% collection of needs (wish list) 0% allocation process RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 38
SUMMARY TOP 10 FOCUS TOPICS All respondents RU/terminal improvement 57% Focus topics chosen Answered by: RUs/non-RUs, Terminals/Ports infrastructure capacity 57% Different sample sizes on every topic, there consideration of AG's opinion in the ExB 57% quality and usability of re-routing scenarios 50% protection of PaPs from TCRs 50% parameters of PaPs (train length/weight) 50% commercial speed of PaPs 50% involvement of customers 43% information on works and possessions 43% information on the RFC website 43% RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2021 I RFC3 Report I 39
