We increase the impact of marketing measures and enhance our customers’ brand value. In order to...

We increase the impact of marketing measures and enhance our customers’ brand value. In order to achieve this goal we combine market research and consulting to create a tailor-made solution.

fresh thinking for powerful marketing

October 2015

RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2015Report for RFC 2

3RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2015 || RFC 2 ||

1

Satisfaction with the RFC

Sample Description

Non/potential users

Summary

4

6

23

29

31

2

3

4

5

Study Design

Table of Content

Study Design1

table of content


Survey Design

12 respondents11 RFC2 users / 1 non-users10 full interviews / 2 partial interviews9 nominated by RFC2 / 3 nominated by other RFCs8 agreed to forward name6 used topic-forward

Computer Aided Web Interviews (CAWI)

Contacts (e-mail address) delivered by RFCs

18 e-mail invitations sent

Field Phase: 8 September to 6 October 2015

6RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2015 || Overall Report || 6RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2015 || Overall Report ||

Response Rate

Total interviews 49 12

Full interviews 42Partial interviews 7

RFC user 41 11non/potential user 8 1

Invitations sent 172 18Interviews (user + non user) 49 9Response rate overall 28% 50%

forward name 15 8

(user + non user)

from RFC contacts:

Overall RFC2

(2014: 62)

(54)(8)

(56)(6)

(329)(62)

(19%)

(12)

topic-forward used 12

Response rate user 34% 54%Response rate potential user 20% 40%

(15)

(14)(1)

(96)(9)(9%)

(5)

102

6

(12)(3)

Satisfaction with the RFC2

table of content


36 9

13

9

18

38

18

13

36

18

38

9

45

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

very unsatisfied unsatisfied slightly unsatisfiedslightly satisfied satisfied very satisfied

percentage of respondents; RU and Non-RU Applicants only

adequacy of network of lines

infrastructure standards

measures to improve infrastructure standards

3,9

3,0

3,5

4,2

3,5

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

3,9

3,0

3,5

4,2

3,5

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

Satisfaction with Infrastructure

n = 11; 14

"To what extent are you satisfied with the adequacy of the selected lines? || To what extent are you satisfied with the infrastructure standards of all designated lines, including diversionary routes dedicated to the RFC, concerning parameters such as train length, axle load, electrification, loading gauges, etc.? || To what extent are you satisfied with the measures taken by the RFCs’ Infrastructure Managers to improve the infrastructure standards on the lines assigned to the corridor?"

don't know

7% (1 of 14)

7% (1 of 14)

2014 not measured

0% (0 of 11)

0% (0 of 11)

27% (3 of 11)


14

14 2929

29 29

43

14

29

14

14

14

14

14

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



quality of information in list of works

level of detail of list of works

involvement of RU in coordination process

2,6

2,7

2,9

3,2

3,4

3,2

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

2,6

2,7

2,9

3,2

3,4

3,2

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

Satisfaction with Coordination of Works & Possessions

n = 11; 14

"To what extent are you satisfied with the quality of the information given in the list of works and possessions that will affect the availability of the lines assigned to the corridor? || To what extent are you satisfied with the level of detail in the contents of the list? Is it detailed enough? || How do you feel about the way your opinion is taken into account in the coordination process?"

don't know

21% (3 of 14)

29% (4 of 14)

27% (3 of 11)

27% (3 of 11)

18% (2 of 11)

14% (2 of 14)


22

22

11

11 11

44

33

22

33

33

56

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


percentage of respondents

structure of CID

contents of CID

comprehensibility of CID

4,1

3,8

4,1

3,6

3,7

3,8

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

4,1

3,8

4,1

3,6

3,7

3,8

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

Satisfaction with Corridor Information Document (CID)

n = 11; 14

"To what extent are you satisfied with the structure of the CID for the 2016 timetable year? Can you easily find the information you want? Is the information organized in a logical way? || … with the contents of the CID? Do the contents match your business needs? Is the level of detail sufficient? || … with the comprehensibility of the CID? Is the wording clear and user-friendly? Are there enough graphical elements (where clear illustration is required)? Is the CID layout/design attractive?"

don't know

7% (1 of 14)

21% (3 of 14)

18% (2 of 11)

18% (2 of 11)

18% (2 of 11)

21% (3 of 14)


13

1313

25

11

50

13

11

25

25

22

25

25

13

38

22

25

13

38

50

33

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



PAP parameters

origin/destinations and intermediate stops in PAP

PAP schedule (adequate travel/departure/arrival times)

PAP quantity (number of paths)

PAP remaining/reserve capacity

3,6

4,3

3,4

2,9

3,3

3,3

3,0

3,3

2,8

3,1

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

3,6

4,3

3,4

2,9

3,3

3,3

3,0

3,3

2,8

3,1

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

Satisfaction with Path allocation (1) - PAP

n = 11; 14

"To what extent are you satisfied with the Pre-arranged Path (PaP) parameters such as length, weight, etc.? || … with the origins/destinations and intermediate stops? || … with the PaP schedule? || … with the quantity of the PaPs? Is the number of offered PaPs enough? || … with the remaining / reserve capacity (late and ad-hoc path requests) offered by the RFC? Compared to the PaP offer, is the remaining / reserve capacity enough/adequate?"

don't know

14% (2 of 14)

36% (5 of 14)

14% (2 of 14)

21% (3 of 14)

21% (3 of 14)

0% (0 of 11)

45% (5 of 11)

9% (1 of 11)

9% (1 of 11)

9% (1 of 11)


38 25 25 13

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



NetPAP concept in general 2,5

1 2 3 4 5 6

mean

2,5

1 2 3 4 5 6

mean

Satisfaction with Path allocation (2) - NetPAP

n = 11

"How satisfied are you with the Net-PaP concept to influence / improve the priority value of your PaP request in case of conflicts?"

2014 not measured

don't know

9% (1 of 11)


33

14

17

13

13

43

25

33

25

38

17

43

38

50

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



availability of C-OSS

business know-how of C-OSS

result of allocation process by C-OSS

process of conflict solving by C-OSS

4,1

3,9

3,1

3,3

3,9

3,9

2,5

3,1

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

4,1

3,9

3,1

3,3

3,9

3,9

2,5

3,1

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

Satisfaction with Path allocation (3) - C-OSS

n = 11; 14

"How satisfied are you with the availability of the Corridor One-Stop Shop (C-OSS)? || How satisfied are you with the business know-how of the C-OSS? || How satisfied are you with the result of the allocation process for the 2016 timetable year? Did it meet your request? || In case of conflict-solving – how did you experience the process?"

36% (5 of 14)

27% (3 of 11)

14% (2 of 14)

18% (2 of 11)

29% (4 of 14)

9% (1 of 11)

21% (3 of 14)

9% (1 of 11)

don't know


50

50

50

13

33

30

13

40

38 13

11

25

10

25

10

38

22

60

33

25

13

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

always frequently seldom never


PaPs

2014

PaPs + feeder/outflow

2014

other path requests

2014

50

50

50

13

33

30

13

40

38 13

11

25

10

25

10

38

22

60

33

25

13

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

always frequently seldom never


Path Coordination System (PCS) - Usage

n = 11; 14

"How often does your company use the PCS booking tool for international path requests?"

don't know

14% (2 of 14)

21% (3 of 14)

14% (2 of 14)

9% (1 of 11)

9% (1 of 11)

9% (1 of 11)


67

44 11 3311

17 17

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 to 10 requests 11 to 20 requests 21 to 30 requests more than 30 requests

percentage of respondents; RU and Non-RU Applicants only - PCS is used (always/frequently/seldom)

volume of path requests in PCS

2014

67

44 11 3311

17 17

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1 to 10 requests 11 to 20 requests 21 to 30 requests more than 30 requests


Path Coordination System (PCS) - volume

n = 7; 10

"What is the volume of path requests (dossiers) you placed in PCS for the 2016 timetable year?"

don't know

10% (1 of 10)

14% (1 of 7)


33

33

50

50

29

50

14

33

14

25

17

14

50

25

17

17

29

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



PCS overall

usability of PCS - display of PAP-offer

usability of PCS - selection of PAPs

usability of PCS - display of remaining/reserve capacity

usability of PCS - selection of remaining/reserve capacity

3,0

2,3

2,5

2,8

3,5

3,5

2,7

2,9

2,5

3,0

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

3,0

2,3

2,5

2,8

3,5

3,5

2,7

2,9

2,5

3,0

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

Satisfaction with Path Coordination System (PCS)

n = 7; 10

"How satisfied are you all in all with PCS as a booking tool for international path requests? Did it match your needs? || … with the usability of the PCS booking tool concerning the display of the PaP-offer? || … concerning the selection of required PaPs? || … concerning the display of remaining / reserve capacity (late and ad-hoc path requests)? || … with the usability of the PCS booking tool concerning the selection of required remaining / reserve capacity (late and ad-hoc path requests)?"

20% (2 of 10)

60% (6 of 10)

20% (2 of 10)

20% (2 of 10)

60% (6 of 10)

0% (0 of 7)

71% (5 of 7)

0% (0 of 7)

0% (0 of 7)

43% (3 of 7)


33 67

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

yes partly no


improvements in use of PCS 33 67

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

yes partly no


Satisfaction with Path Coordination System (PCS) - improvement

n = 7

"Have you perceived significant improvements in the use of PCS compared to the previous year?"

don't know

14% (1 of 7)


14 29

29

57

71

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



list of terminals

supply of terminal information

4,7

4,4

3,7

3,3

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

4,7

4,4

3,7

3,3

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

Satisfaction with Terminal Services

n = 11; 14

"To what extent are you satisfied with the list of terminals along the RFC that are provided by the RFC? Are all relevant terminals included in the CID 2016? || To what extent are you satisfied with the supply of Terminal information? Is the RFC supplying all relevant information on Terminals (either contained inside the CID 2016 or other sources)?"

don't know

43% (6 of 14)

43% (6 of 14)

27% (3 of 11)

27% (3 of 11)


20

17

20

20

20

17

40

20

50

40

20

17

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


percentage of respondents; RU only

performance reports

measures to improve punctuality

feedback from performance managment team

3,5

3,0

4,2

2,9

2,0

4,0

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

3,5

3,0

4,2

2,9

2,0

4,0

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

Satisfaction with Train Performance Management

n = 9; 14

"How satisfied are you with the performance reports? Do they show the information you need? || How satisfied are you with the efficiency of measures taken in order to improve punctuality? || How satisfied are you with the feedback you receive from your whole RFC performance management team? RFC performance management team: who evaluates the punctuality of your trains and reports it back to you?"

don't know

29% (4 of 14)

43% (6 of 14)

50% (7 of 14)

22% (2 of 9)

33% (3 of 9)

33% (3 of 9)


25

40

20

20

25

40

20

25

20

20

25

20

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



information from operation centres

usability of information in case of disturbances

helpfulness of traffic management by infrastructure managers

3,4

3,5

2,6

3,2

3,7

3,5

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

3,4

3,5

2,6

3,2

3,7

3,5

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

Satisfaction with Traffic Management

n = 9; 14

"How satisfied are you with the information you get from the different operation centres on the corridor while operating trains? || How satisfied are you with the usability of the information you get from the operation centres in case of disturbances? || How helpful is the Infrastructure Managers’ (IMs’) traffic management as regards running your trains with a high service quality?"

don't know

50% (7 of 14)

57% (8 of 14)

64% (9 of 14)

33% (3 of 9)

33% (3 of 9)

44% (4 of 9)


11 67 22

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



usefulness of attendance at RAG/TAG meetings

5,1

4,2

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

5,1

4,2

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

Satisfaction with Co-operation with the RFC Management Board (1)

n = 11; 14

"Do you consider your attendance at the RU Advisory Group/Terminal Advisory Group (RAG/TAG) meetings as beneficial and useful for your company?"

don't know

14% (2 of 14)

18% (2 of 11)


38

63

29

56

71

50

71

29

50

44

38

63

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

yes partly no


opinions of Advisiory Board properly considered

2014

decisions by Management Board understandable

2014

information regarding functioning of RFCs available and understandable

2014

38

63

29

56

71

50

71

29

50

44

38

63

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

yes partly no


Satisfaction with Co-operation with the RFC Management Board (2)

n = 11; 14

"Do you consider that the opinion of the Advisory Group has been properly taken into account by the RFC Management Board? || Are decisions taken by the RFC Management Board (that concern your business) understandable for you? || Is information regarding the functioning of the RFC easily available and understandable for you?"

don't know

43% (6 of 14)

36% (5 of 14)

36% (5 of 14)

27% (3 of 11)

18% (2 of 11)

27% (3 of 11)


17

71

80

57

50

25

33

29

20

43

33

75

67

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



information on RFC website

RAG/TAG meetings

communication with management board (except RAG meetings)

brochures of RFC

newsletters of RFC

annual report of RFC

4,7

4,8

4,2

4,4

4,2

4,3

3,4

4,0

4,0

4,0

3,5

3,7

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

4,7

4,8

4,2

4,4

4,2

4,3

3,4

4,0

4,0

4,0

3,5

3,7

1 2 3 4 5 6

2015 2014

mean

Satisfaction with Overall RFC Communication

n = 11; 14

"To which extent are you satisfied with the information provided by RFC's website? || To which extent are you satisfied with the RAG/TAG Meetings? || To which extent are you satisfied with the communication with the Management Board of the RFC other than at the RAG/TAG meetings? || To which extent are you satisfied with the brochures/newsletters/annual report of the RFC (as far as they exist)?"

don't know

29% (4 of 14)

57% (8 of 14)

29% (4 of 14)

57% (8 of 14)

64% (9 of 14)

29% (4 of 14)

18% (2 of 11)

36% (4 of 11)

27% (3 of 11)

36% (4 of 11)

55% (6 of 11)

45% (5 of 11)

Sample Description3

table of content


11

8

22

23

56

5415

11

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

less than 100.000 100.000 to 500.000 500.001 to 1.000.0001.000.001 to 10.000.000 more than 10.000.000


volume of international rail freight

2014

11

8

22

23

56

5415

11

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

less than 100.000 100.000 to 500.000 500.001 to 1.000.0001.000.001 to 10.000.000 more than 10.000.000


Volume of International Rail Freight Business

n = 12; 15 (non/potential users included)

"What is the volume of your company’s international rail freight business (in gross kilometre tonnage/year)?"

[gross kilometre tonnage/year]


75

3862

25

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

trains operated as responsible RU trains not operated as responsible RU


operate trains as responsible RU

2014

75

3862

25

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

trains operated as responsible RU trains not operated as responsible RU


Trains operated as responsible RU


"Do you operate the trains on your own as the responsible Railway Undertaking (RU)?"


31

75

4623

25

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

operate on my own cooperate with partner(s) both


open access or co-operation

2014 31

75

4623

25

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

operate on my own cooperate with partner(s) both


Open Access or Co-operation


"Do you operate cross-border (open access) or do you make use of (a) co-operation partner(s) on sections of the train run?"


75 25

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Railway Undertaking (RU) Non-RU Applicant Terminal (other than Non-RU Applicant)


target group 75 25

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Railway Undertaking (RU) Non-RU Applicant Terminal (other than Non-RU Applicant)


Target Group

n = 12 (non/potential users included)

"To which of the following types of target groups does your company belong?"


33

70

57

60

55

73

69

60

80

8

14

9

8

10

23

7

8

10

56

46

30

40

27

18

15

30

10

23

18

11

7 14

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

daily several days per week weekly monthly yearly never


Netherlands

2014

Belgium

2014

Luxemburg

2014

France

2014

Switzerland

2014

33

70

57

60

55

73

69

60

80

8

14

9

8

10

23

7

8

10

56

46

30

40

27

18

15

30

10

23

18

11

7 14

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

daily several days per week weekly monthly yearly never


Usage of different corridor sections

n = 11; 14

"How often does your company use the PCS booking tool for international path requests?"

don't know

7% (1 of 14)

14% (2 of 14)

0% (0 of 14)

21% (3 of 14)

7% (1 of 14)

18% (2 of 11)

9% (1 of 11)

9% (1 of 11)

9% (1 of 11)

0% (0 of 11)

Non/potential users4

table of content


92

93 7

8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

RFC users non/potential users


User/Non-User

2014

92

93 7

8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

RFC users non/potential users

Users vs. non users


1 non/potential user plans to use RFC2 in the future

reasons for no current usage (but usage planned):the corridor we are interested in does not cover all the rail lines we need

Summary5

table of content


5,14,8

4,74,7

4,44,4

4,34,3

4,24,2

4,24,1

3,9

3,63,53,53,53,5

3,43,4

3,33,3

3,13,03,03,0

2,92,9

2,82,7

2,62,6

2,52,5

2,3

3,8

3,94,14,1

1 2 3 4 5 6

meanusefulness of attendance at RAG/TAG meetings

RAG/TAG meetingslist of terminals

information on RFC w ebsitesupply of terminal information

brochures of RFCannual report of RFC

origin/destinations and intermediate stops in PAPfeedback from performance managment team

new sletters of RFCcommunication w ith management board (except RAG meetings)

availability of C-OSSstructure of CID

comprehensibility of CIDadequacy of netw ork of lines

business know -how of C-OSScontents of CID

PAP parametersmeasures to improve infrastructure standards

usability of PCS - selection of remaining/reserve capacityperformance reports

usability of information in case of disturbancesinformation from operation centres

PAP schedule (adequate travel/departure/arrival times)process of conflict solving by C-OSS

PAP remaining/reserve capacityresult of allocation process by C-OSS

infrastructure standardsPCS overall

measures to improve punctualityPAP quantity (number of paths)

involvement of RU in coordination processusability of PCS - display of remaining/reserve capacity

level of detail of list of w orkshelpfulness of traff ic management by infrastructure managers

quality of information in list of w orksNetPAP concept in general

usability of PCS - selection of PAPsusability of PCS - display of PAP-offer

5,14,84,7

4,74,44,4

4,34,3

4,24,2

4,24,1

3,9

3,63,53,53,53,5

3,43,4

3,33,3

3,13,03,03,0

2,92,9

2,82,7

2,62,6

2,52,5

2,3

3,8

3,94,14,1

1 2 3 4 5 6

mean

Summary - Satisfaction Rating

Top 10 aspects

Bottom 10 aspects


5,14,84,7

4,74,44,4

4,3

4,34,24,2

2,9

2,72,6

2,62,5

2,52,3

2,8

2,9

3,0

1 2 3 4 5 6

mean

usefulness of attendance at RAG/TAG meetingsRAG/TAG meetings

list of terminals

information on RFC websitesupply of terminal information

brochures of RFCannual report of RFC

origin/destinations and intermediate stops in PAPfeedback from performance managment team

newsletters of RFC

measures to improve punctualityPAP quantity (number of paths)

involvement of RU in coordination processusability of PCS - display of remaining/reserve capacity

level of detail of list of workshelpfulness of traffic management by infrastructure managers

quality of information in list of worksNetPAP concept in general

usability of PCS - selection of PAPsusability of PCS - display of PAP-offer

5,14,84,7

4,74,44,4

4,3

4,34,24,2

2,9

2,72,6

2,62,5

2,52,3

2,8

2,9

3,0

1 2 3 4 5 6

mean

Summary - Satisfaction Rating

Top 10 aspects

Bottom 10 aspects

...


3,9

3,0

3,5

2,6

2,7

2,9

4,1

3,8

4,1

4,2

3,5

3,2

3,4

3,2

3,6

3,7

3,8

1 2 3 4 5 6

20152014

mean

Infrastructure




Coordination of Works & Possessions




Corridor Information Document

structure of CID

contents of CID


3,9

3,0

3,5

2,6

2,7

2,9

4,1

3,8

4,1

4,2

3,5

3,2

3,4

3,2

3,6

3,7

3,8

1 2 3 4 5 6

20152014

mean

Summary - Satisfaction Rating || Comparison to 2014 (1)

Attention: very small sample sizes!


3,6

4,3

3,4

2,9

3,3

2,5

4,1

3,9

3,1

3,3

3,3

3,0

3,3

2,8

3,1

3,9

3,9

2,5

3,1

1 2 3 4 5 6

20152014

mean

Path Allocation

PAP parameters





NetPAP concept in general





3,6

4,3

3,4

2,9

3,3

2,5

4,1

3,9

3,1

3,3

3,3

3,0

3,3

2,8

3,1

3,9

3,9

2,5

3,1

1 2 3 4 5 6

20152014

mean




2,3

2,5

2,8

3,5

3,0

4,7

4,4

3,5

3,0

2,7

2,9

2,5

3,0

3,5

3,7

3,3

2,9

2,0

4,04,2

1 2 3 4 5 6

20152014

mean

Path Coordination System





PCS overall

Terminal Services

list of terminals


Train Performance Management

performance reports



2,3

2,5

2,8

3,5

3,0

4,7

4,4

3,5

3,0

2,7

2,9

2,5

3,0

3,5

3,7

3,3

2,9

2,0

4,04,2

1 2 3 4 5 6

20152014

mean




3,4

3,5

2,6

5,1

4,7

4,8

4,2

4,4

4,2

3,2

3,7

3,5

4,2

3,4

4,0

4,0

4,0

3,5

3,74,3

1 2 3 4 5 6

20152014

mean

Tariffc Management




RFC Governance


Overall RFC Communication


RAG/TAG meetings


brochures of RFC

newsletters of RFC


3,4

3,5

2,6

5,1

4,7

4,8

4,2

4,4

4,2

3,2

3,7

3,5

4,2

3,4

4,0

4,0

4,0

3,5

3,74,3

1 2 3 4 5 6

20152014

mean




3,9

3,0

3,5

2,6

2,7

2,9

4,1

3,8

4,1

4,2

3,4

3,5

3,0

3,5

2,9

4,1

3,8

4,1

1 2 3 4 5 6

RFC2Overall

mean

Infrastructure




Coordination of Works & Possessions




Corridor Information Document

structure of CID

contents of CID


3,9

3,0

3,5

2,6

2,7

2,9

4,1

3,8

4,1

4,2

3,4

3,5

3,0

3,5

2,9

4,1

3,8

4,1

1 2 3 4 5 6

RFC2Overall

mean

Summary - Satisfaction Rating || Comparison to overall results (1)



3,6

4,3

3,4

2,9

3,3

2,5

4,1

3,9

3,1

3,3

3,7

4,1

3,9

3,6

3,8

3,3

4,6

4,4

3,7

3,7

1 2 3 4 5 6

RFC2Overall

mean

Path Allocation

PAP parameters





NetPAP concept in general





3,6

4,3

3,4

2,9

3,3

2,5

4,1

3,9

3,1

3,3

3,7

4,1

3,9

3,6

3,8

3,3

4,6

4,4

3,7

3,7

1 2 3 4 5 6

RFC2Overall

mean




2,3

2,5

2,8

3,5

3,0

4,7

4,4

3,5

3,0

3,1

3,5

3,4

3,7

3,3

4,4

4,1

3,6

3,4

3,94,2

1 2 3 4 5 6

RFC2Overall

mean

Path Coordination System





PCS overall

Terminal Services

list of terminals


Train Performance Management

performance reports



2,3

2,5

2,8

3,5

3,0

4,7

4,4

3,5

3,0

3,1

3,5

3,4

3,7

3,3

4,4

4,1

3,6

3,4

3,94,2

1 2 3 4 5 6

RFC2Overall

mean




3,4

3,5

2,6

5,1

4,7

4,8

4,2

4,4

4,2

3,4

3,3

3,1

4,6

4,3

4,2

4,1

4,4

4,5

4,44,3

1 2 3 4 5 6

RFC2Overall

mean

Tariffc Management




RFC Governance


Overall RFC Communication


RAG/TAG meetings


brochures of RFC

newsletters of RFC


3,4

3,5

2,6

5,1

4,7

4,8

4,2

4,4

4,2

3,4

3,3

3,1

4,6

4,3

4,2

4,1

4,4

4,5

4,44,3

1 2 3 4 5 6

RFC2Overall

mean




Contact Information

Managing Director

+43-1-369 46 [email protected]

Dr. Christian Bosch

Senior Research Consultant

+43-1-369 46 [email protected]

Mag.Martin Fuchs

We increase the impact of marketing measures and enhance our customers’ brand value. In order to...

Documents

Transcript of We increase the impact of marketing measures and enhance our customers’ brand value. In order to...