RNE.RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2023 Summary
RNE RFC User Satisfaction Survey
2023
SUMMARY
November
, 202
3
Erika Vinczellér
Member of
RNE RFC
U
SS WG
Background information
Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 requires Rail Freight Corridors’ (RFC) Management Board to
gauge the satisfaction level of their users yearly and to publish the results of the survey
RNE created a common platform of User Satisfaction Survey (USS) for all RFCs willing to
participate, which has been launched in 2014, and
redesigned more times based on the
recent research experience
In
2023
hybrid version (online survey or personal interviews) was kept, and
more focused
questions as well as 4-point scales were applied
(except overall satisfaction)
Fieldwork: 24th August – 12th October, 2023
Members
All RFCs
participated in
the research:
Main results of
RFC Amber
2023
The sample and a possible way of the analysis
•
RFC Amber had
5
interviews
, all of them
we
re R
Us
(
3 personal and 2 online)
•
I
t is a
very small sample size for a quantitative
analysis
, therefore we should analyse it as a
qualitative sample focusing on the pattern and
congestion of the answers and the main messages
(
The chart
s
will
show the number of respondents
, usage of percentage/average is not recommended at this sample size level, maximum with indicative value only )
To what extent are you satisfied with the …
4-point scale
To what extent are you satisfied with the
following items on RFC Amber?
Do not know/
no feedback
4-point scale
Do you feel any improvements in coordination and
communication of planned Temporary Capacity
Restrictions (TCR) on RFC Amber (RFC11)?
: due to the sample size the changes cannot be evaluated
What is your opinion about the punctuality (both
departure and arrival) regarding the RFC Amber
traffic flows, based on your own experiences?
Overall satisfaction
(Q:
Overall, how satisfied are you as a user of the RFC?
On a 6-point scale from ‚Very satisfied’ to ‚Very unsatisfied’)
2023
Comparison by years
6
-point scale
RFC Amber in Word Cloud
2023
Based on all open-ended answers grouping them into items
The size of item indicates the number
2
of answers in it
Tableau supported visualisation
Main conclusions
– RFC Amber 2023
•
The satisfaction level is high among the respondents
•
The attitude, efforts and intetions of the corridor are good, perceived and appreciated
•
The problem is that the business ‚catchment area’ of the corridor seems to be small:
few respondents, decreasing respondent competency, and several invitees, who did not
have any opinion about RFC Amber at all
•
T
he
‚
novelty effect
’
disappeared, but it could not be completely replaced by the
‚
business
interest effect
’
•
Focus on:
o
Strengthening business visibility of RFC Amber
o
TCR, Infrastructure
Thank you for your attention!
Any remarks, feedbacks, suggestions are very welcomed
Erika Vinczellér
Phone: +36-
30
-
758
-
7290
E-mail: vinczellere@vpe.hu
‚Open-ended answers’
(own wording
»
strong message)
Overall
All OK.
construction work obstacles, passenger traffic prioritising, lack of track for needed break of loco drivers after
5 hours of running, lack of track for parking loco on border station
flexibility
Its practical usefulness is limited. Problems: lack of capacity, gross tonnage, train length, electrification, 2
locomotives for traction because of slope. But they are rather satisfied because of the management's good
attitude and efforts.
TCR
low level of coordination between IMs
no alternative route available, traveling time thru double or more extended
Sufficient to meet the carrier's needs.
Predictability n+2 years in advance with providing sources. Corridor management should also have influence
on the planned possessions, including feeder/ouflow sections. Compensation in development planning should
be part of the investment budget plan
Information should be available on operational level. There should be closer contact between the corridor
and the OP.
TCR-Documentation
Improving documentation, also because of website publication
Documentation is OK
regulation is OK, practice should be better
The scope and usefulness of the document are satisfactory. Yes.
No corridor capacity-Why
No annual orders, no regular, but quite a lot of ad-hoc
No traffic due to SK-PL parameters. HU-SL weekly planning traffic.
PAP
Commercial offer is OK on our needs.
no regulary used
ok
Better parameters in Sloven-Hungarian and BILK-Kopper sections
Worse parameters in Polish direction
Electrification problem: Nagykanizsa-Gyékényes OK, but after that diesel. Plus the slope.
C-OSS
Cooperative, approachable, professional
ok
rarely contacting
Measures taken for improving performance
Traffic is smaller, but the intentions and attitude are good. SI-HU: only because of the usage of the Hodos
border crossing they must have concluded a network access contract with the Slovenian IM, due to the
request of the authorities, this has to be dealt with!
High-level cooperation activity
Croatian and Hungarian rebuilding: lack of coordination. Good intentions and efforts are visible and good,
but there are deficiencies in parameters of network.
taking to much time from idea to getting data and to have some at least summarised info and lack of
implementation of already well known needed measures - not only administrative but also in building new
track capacity. Renovating existing stations with removing main tracks and no substitution - "trains should
not stop - they should just go thru" is ridicules and not serious. Removing freight train traffic from city
center stations without proper alternative leads to decrease the capacities
Information
All in one place - the Corridor website.
RFC is not enough independent ant not respected in decisions about planned TCR
too general
Efforts, improvements, directions are good. Visible progress. CIP also good. As a toolkit they are in the daily
routine because data quality is good. TCR has no practical use because of the quality of the data behind it.
Other
Infra: RFC has to have enough resources to accomplish its role and to be respected at IM's more
international harmonisation of the restrictions
Need to increase the speed and efficiency of decisions. Monitoring type newsletter, informing clients of
actions.
Regulation (EU) No. 913/2010 mandates Rail Freight Corridors (RFC) to assess user satisfaction annually. RNE's User Satisfaction Survey (USS) is a common platform for participating RFCs. The 2023 survey utilized a hybrid approach and focused questions with 4-point scales. The results provide insights into user perceptions and satisfaction levels. Analysis of the data emphasizes patterns and key messages rather than quantitative metrics due to a small sample size. The survey covers various aspects such as Temporary Capacity Restrictions (TCR), commercial offers, services, and information provided by the RFCs.
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.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
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.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
RNE RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2023 SUMMARY November, 2023 Erika Vinczell r Member of RNE RFC USS WG
USS 2023 Background information Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 requires Rail Freight Corridors (RFC) Management Board to gauge the satisfaction level of their users yearly and to publish the results of the survey RNE created a common platform of User Satisfaction Survey (USS) for all RFCs willing to participate, which has been launched in 2014, and redesigned more times based on the recent research experience In 2023 hybrid version (online survey or personal interviews) was kept, and more focused questionsas well as 4-point scales were applied (except overall satisfaction) Fieldwork: 24th August 12th October, 2023 Your Vision Our Mission
USS 2023 Members All RFCs participated in the research: Your Vision Our Mission
USS 2023 Main results of RFC Amber 2023 Your Vision Our Mission
USS 2023 The sample and a possible way of the analysis Number of interviews 12 RFC Amber had 5 interviews, all of them were RUs ( 3 personal and 2 online) 10 10 8 7 7 It is a very small sample size for a quantitative analysis, therefore we should analyse it as a qualitative sample focusing on the pattern and congestion of the answers and the main messages 6 5 4 2 0 2020 2021 2022 2023 (The charts will show the number of respondents, usage of percentage/average is not recommended at this sample size level, maximum with indicative value only ) Your Vision Our Mission
USS 2023 To what extent are you satisfied with the 4-point scale 0 1 2 3 4 5 publication on Temporary Capacity Restrictions (TCR) at the corridor level Satisfied 2 Slightly satisfied 2 Slightly unsatisfied 1 Satisfied 2 Slightly satisfied 3 current RFC commercial offer (PaPs parameters) Satisfied 4 Slightly satisfied 1 service by the C-OSS measures taken by the RFC to improve the performance on the corridor Satisfied 2 Slightly satisfied 3 Satisfied 3 Slightly satisfied 2 information provided by the RFC Satisfied Slightly satisfied Slightly unsatisfied Unsatisfied Your Vision Our Mission
USS 2023 To what extent are you satisfied with the following items on RFC Amber? 4-point scale 0 1 2 3 4 5 Satisfied 1 Slightly satisfied 2 Slightly unsatisfied 1 Infrastructure parameters Satisfied 2 Slightly satisfied 1 Consideration of Advisory Groups (RAG/TAG) opinion Do not know/ no feedback Satisfied 2 Slightly satisfied 1 Topics discussed during RAG/TAG meetings Satisfied Slightly satisfied Slightly unsatisfied Unsatisfied Your Vision Our Mission
USS 2023 Do you feel any improvements in coordination and communication of planned Temporary Capacity Restrictions (TCR) on RFC Amber (RFC11)? What is your opinion about the punctuality (both departure and arrival) regarding the RFC Amber traffic flows, based on your own experiences? 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 I cannot compare to 2022, it is satisfactory 1 Very punctual (90-100%) 0 I cannot compare to 2022, improvement is needed 0 Punctual (70-90%) 1 Yes, better, than in 2022, it is now satisfactory 1 Yes, but further improvements still needed 2 Less punctual (50-70%) 2 No, it was already satisfactory 0 Not punctual (below 50%) 0 No, improvement is still needed 0 : due to the sample size the changes cannot be evaluated Your Vision Our Mission
USS 2023 Overall satisfaction 6-point scale Comparison by years 2023 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very satisfied 1 Satisfied 2 Slightly satisfied 2 2023 Very satisfied 1 Slightly satisfied 2 Very satisfied 1 Satisfied 2 Slightly satisfied 3 Very unsatisfied 1 2022 Very satisfied 2 Satisfied 2 Slightly satisfied 4 Slightly unsatisfied 2 2021 Satisfied 2 Satisfied 2 Slightly satisfied 4 Slightly unsatisfied 1 2020 (Q: Overall, how satisfied are you as a user of the RFC? On a 6-point scale from Very satisfied to Very unsatisfied ) Very satisfied Satisfied Slightly satisfied Slightly unsatisfied Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied Your Vision Our Mission
USS 2023 RFC Amber in Word Cloud 2023 Based on all open-ended answers grouping them into items The size of item indicates the number2 of answers in it Your Vision Our Mission Tableau supported visualisation
USS 2023 Main conclusions RFC Amber 2023 The satisfaction level is high among the respondents The attitude, efforts and intetions of the corridor are good, perceived and appreciated The problem is that the business catchment area of the corridor seems to be small: few respondents, decreasing respondent competency, and several invitees, who did not have any opinion about RFC Amber at all The novelty effect disappeared, but it could not be completely replaced by the business interest effect Focus on: o Strengthening business visibility of RFC Amber o TCR, Infrastructure Your Vision Our Mission
Thank you for your attention! Any remarks, feedbacks, suggestions are very welcomed Erika Vinczell r Phone: +36-30-758-7290 E-mail: vinczellere@vpe.hu
