The RFC Network: performance, good practices and criticalities 1 KPI Monitoring RFCs.pdfC-OSS;...

The RFC Network:

performance, good practices and criticalities

Den Haag 27 September 2018 RFC Day IRG-Rail 1

Summary of statistics: capacity KPIs

For most of the RFCs (RFC1,2,4,6,7,8) it has been decided to decrease the offered capacity from 2017 to 2018, in order to harmonize the volume of offered capacity with the real demand coming from the market


KPI Calculation formula Source of data RFC1 RFC2 RFC3 RFC4 RFC5 RFC6 RFC7 RFC8 RFC9

Volume of offered capacity

2017

Km*days offered PCS 22,5 15,1 17 6,9 7,6 12,3 13,9 14,5 3,5

Volume of offered capacity

2018

Km*days offered PCS 21,8 12,6 17,7 5,5 8,9 11,5 9,7 12,4 5

Volume of requested capacity

2017

Km*days requested PCS 9 7,1 5 3,3 0,9 3,3 1,9 3,1 0,4

Volume of requested capacity

2018

Km*days requested PCS 6,5 7,1 6 2,9 1,3 3,8 2,8 0,7 3,8

Capacity KPIs

The percentage of requested capacity, in comparison with the offered capacity, has increased in most RFCs showing the good work of COSs in defining a PAP product closer to the customers’ needs


Requested Capacity

0

5

10

15

20

25

RFC1 RFC2 RFC3 RFC4 RFC5 RFC6 RFC7 RFC8 RFC9

2017

2018

Offered Capacity

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


2017

2018

.

0

50

100

150

200

250


2017 2018

Capacity KPIs

Comparing the 3 sources of data, in some RFCs (RFC3, 5, 6), from 2017 to 2018 a ≥ capacity with ≤ dossiers has been requested. A possible interpretation is the set up of more complete dossiers by applicants with more running days, more km of PAPs and less km of feeder/outflow requests. The data concerning conflicts shows a more “tailor made offer” by the RFCs for their customers.


Requested dossiers

.

-14

1

16

31

46

61

76

91

106

121

136


2017 2018

Dossiers in conflict

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


2017

2018

Requested capacity

Capacity KPIs: some good Practices

• In RFC2 the % of allocated capacity by RFCs in comparison with total allocated capacity on the lines is 33% in 2017 and 34% in 2018, proving a strategic role of COSS in the allocation process.

• In RFC6 only 2 dossiers out of 60 have been cancelled before the TT change. 18 dossiers were modified before the TT change.

• In RFC5 from 2017 to 2018 the number of average PaP km increased by 74%, the volume of capacity at final offer increased by 79% (PaP km*day) from 2017 to 2018.


Summary of statistics: Operational KPIs

• KPI data for 2017


Punctuality at origin

The calculation formula for this KPI corresponds to that of KPI 2

in the RNE Manual 'Cooperation in Train Performance

Management'

TIS 68% 15 min threshold: 74% 69% 48% 48% 60%

Punctuality at destination

The calculation formula for this KPI corresponds to that of KPI 1

in the RNE Manual 'Cooperation in Train Performance

Management'

TIS 56% 15 min threshold: 68% 58% At border points: 33% 35% 50,50%

Number of train runs Total number of train runs having a RA (Running Advice) on

selected pairs of border points TIS 43316 FR/DE: 5695

Punctuality and delay reasons In minutes;

information from

C-OSS; IM’s

national tools

Planned average speed of

paths vs actual train running Absolute number

information from

C-OSS or IM’s

national tools

See previous figure Average speed of

paths: 57,1km/h

Number of trains affected and

amount of delay caused by

deviations from TCR

Number of trains; delay minutes by TCRs

information from

C-OSS: IM’s

national tools

Number and duration of

disruptions – delay reasons

need to be identified

Absolute numbers, minutes

information from

C-OSS; IM’s

national tools

Cancelations of trains within

the timetable (number of

dossiers)

Cancellation of the train path or part of the train path in one or

more train running days

PCS or

information from

C-OSS or IM’s

national tools

2468

KPI Calculation formula Source of data


Comments: the quality and homogeneity of data has to be improved.

Operational KPIs: a good practice

In most of the sections of RFC2, in the last years PAPs commercial speed has been growing and it has been ≥ than the speed for all scheduled trains


Summary of statistics

• KPI data: User satisfaction survey - Figures

Source: RNE report – «RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2017 Overall Results»


Total number of interviews

Full interviews 4 (4)

Interviews (users) 70 (64)

Interviews (potential users) 6 (5)

Invitations sent 324 (321)

Response rate 23% (21%)

» Response rate and number of interviews

» Figures of 2016 are shown in brackets ()

76 (69) 22 (18) 21 (17) 12 (10) 14 (21) 13 (14) 27 (23) 17 (16) 15 (14)

72 (65) 21 (15) 20 (13) 9 (9) 13 (20) 13 (13) 26 (20) 17 (15) 14 (12)

1 (3) 1 (4) 3 (1) 1 (1) 0 (1) 1 (3) 0 (1) 1 (2)

22 (18) 19 (17) 11 (10) 13 (19) 13 (13) 25 (22) 17 (15) 15 (14)

0 (0) 2 (0) 1 (0) 1 (2) 0 (1) 2 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0)

66 (42) 84 (93) 34 (20) 81 (80) 31 (41) 36 (44) 68 (61) 44 (41)

26% (24%) 21% (15%) 24% (25%) 12% (24%) 32% (29%) 53% (34%) 21% (21%) 25% (22%)


• KPI data: User satisfaction survey - Infrastructure



1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

result/quality of coordination of TCRs

quality/level of detail of the list of TCRs involvement of RUs in the TCR coordination process

2017

2016

1=very unsatisfied, 2=unsatisfied, 3=slightly unsatisfied, 4=slightly satisfied, 5=satisfied, 6=very satisfied

Comments: level of details of TCRs and involvement of RUs have to be improved!!!


• KPI data: User satisfaction survey – Flex and Net Paps



2017 2016

FlexPaP concept in general RFCs 1-8

RFCs 1, 6, 7, 9

NetPaP concept in general RFCs 1, 2, 8

RFCs 1, 2

1=very unsatisfied, 2=unsatisfied, 3=slightly unsatisfied, 4=slightly satisfied, 5=satisfied, 6=very satisfied

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

Comments: good feedback from the market for PAP products.


• KPI data: User satisfaction survey – C-OSS



Comment: the decrease of satisfaction in 2017 for the results of allocation process requires investigation.


• KPI data: User satisfaction survey – 10 top results

RFC “User Satisfaction Survey 2017 Overall Results” Source: RNE report


FlexPaP concept in general CID overall (structure and contents) monthly performance reports information on RFC website availability of C-OSS information on terminals annual report business know-how of C-OSS information at RAG TAG meetings

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

Comments: decrease of satisfaction on information from RFC website and information on terminals. Concerning this last point, it would be interesting to understand what can be the impact of RNE common template on the accessibility of Service Facilities


• KPI data: User satisfaction survey – 10 bottom results

RFC “User Satisfaction Survey 2017 Overall Results” Source: RNE report


1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

quality of PaP/reserve capacity

not measured in 2015 PaP offer/capacity management on overlapping sections

not measured in 2015 PaP schedule (adequate departure/arrival times)

helpfulness of and information from traffic management

measures to improve punctuality quality/level

of detail of information in list of TCRs infrastructure standards measures to improve

infrastructure standards involvement of RUs

in the TCR coordination process


not measured in 2015

Comments: improvement needed for management of TCRs and operational issues in terms of info and punctuality. Can ETA and ELETA project support this improvement ?


1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

quality of PaP/reserve capacity

not measured in 2015 PaP offer/capacity management on overlapping sections

not measured in 2015 PaP schedule (adequate departure/arrival times)

helpfulness of and information from traffic management

measures to improve punctuality quality/level

of detail of information in list of TCRs infrastructure standards measures to improve

infrastructure standards involvement of RUs

in the TCR coordination process


not measured in 2015

Many thanks for your attention

The RFC Network: performance, good practices and criticalities 1 KPI Monitoring RFCs.pdfC-OSS;...

Documents

Transcript of The RFC Network: performance, good practices and criticalities 1 KPI Monitoring RFCs.pdfC-OSS;...