Report on the analysis of the Open public consultation on ... · Infrastructure Manager / Allocation Body ... association, company, authority etc. ... solidaire Ѵ

1/112

Report on the analysis of the Open public consultation on the Evaluation of Regulation (EU) 913/2010 concerning a European rail network for competitive freight

In this version, contributors to the Open Public Consultation that did not wish to have their details published have had their names replaced with the word ‘anonymous’, and their geographic origin has been removed. The contributors to the Open Public Consultation who wanted to be treated as confidential have been taken into account only for the statistics.

Introduction

The European Commission conducted a 12-week long open public consultation (OPC) on Regulation (EC) 913/2010 concerning a European rail network for competitive freight from 27 May – 29 August 2016 on the ‘Your voice in Europe’ website. The OPC aimed to ensure that any citizen as well as any stakeholder had the opportunity to provide the Commission with their views on the RFCs, the RFC Regulation, its implementation and its effects. Due to the technical nature of some topics, two questionnaires were provided: one for an audience without any particular knowledge of the RFCs and of Regulation (EU) 913/2010, and another for an audience familiar with the RFCs or with the European railway market or the (rail) freight transport sector. It notably allowed those stakeholders not involved in the governance structures of the RFCs, such as shippers or forwarders, to contribute their views. It also aimed to cover elements unaddressed in the different reports and documents available.

This report presents the responses of the "Expert - open consultation" and the "Non-Expert - open consultation" with the different category of respondent split out as follows:

Table 1: List of private and institutional stakeholders1 participating in the open public consultation

Non-Expert - open consultation Expert - open consultation

Citizens

Public organisation

Private organisation

On behalf of an organisation, association, company, authority etc.

Consultancy

End-customer

End-customer Association

Environment association

Freight railway undertaking

Industry

Industry Association

Infrastructure Manager / Allocation Body

Integrated Railway company

Ministry of Transport

Port authority

Public Authority (Regional, local, etc.)

Rail Association

Rail freight corridor

Regulatory body

Research institution

In a personal capacity

Citizen1

1 The category of citizens includes all respondents who answered in their personal capacities. Whenever the respondent indicated his field of the affiliation, this is reported in Table 2 or 3 respectively. All other categories include respondents answering on an organisation, association, company, authority etc. Their field of the affiliation is reported in tables 2 and 3, unless the respondent required differently.

2/112

For the analytical purposes, the report is divided in two parts which cover two questionnaires separately.

In total DG MOVE received 37 contributions to the non-expert questionnaire and 92 contributions to the expert-questionnaire. Out of the 92 contributions, 8 contributions were received after the deadline, namely from the ministries of transport of Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom, as well as from 1 the railway undertaking (BLS). Out of these 8 contributions, 5 were sent in the form of a letter and 3 were sent in the form of the questionnaire. These latter 3 contributions corresponding with the general template of the questionnaire were taken into account in the statistical analysis of the present report. The others contributions were taken into account in the general examination of the application of the Regulation 913/2010.

Among the respondents of the expert questionnaire, 5 respondents asked to be treated anonymously and 14 asked to be kept confidential.

Among the respondents of the non-expert questionnaire, 6 respondents asked to be treated anonymously and 11 asked to be kept confidential.

Table 2 provides the distribution of the respondents to the expert questionnaire of the OPC in by a stakeholder group classified either on behalf of an organisation either in their personal capacity, and in accordance with the latter classification it identifies their corresponding countr(ies) of operation/competence/activities or of residence (multiple answers were possible). The geographical distribution of the respondents who asked to be treated anonymously is provided. The respondents who asked keeping their contribution confidential are not included in this table.

3/112

Table 2: Distribution of the respondents to the expert questionnaire in by a stakeholder group and a country of operation (registration)

Category

Main country of operations Organisations W

orld-w

ide

EU

-wid

e

EU

-Neig

hbouri

ng

countr

ies

Austr

ia

Belg

ium

Bulg

aria

Cro

atia

Czech R

epu

blic

Denm

ark

Esto

nia

Fra

nce

Germ

any

Hun

gary

Italy

Latv

ia

Lithu

ania

Luxem

bourg

Neth

erl

an

ds

Norw

ay

Pola

nd

Port

uga

l

Rom

ania

Slo

vakia

Slo

ve

nia

Spain

Sw

ed

en

Sw

iterz

land

Unite

d K

ing

dom

On b

ehalf o

f an o

rga

nis

ation,

associa

tion,

com

pa

ny,

auth

ority

etc

.

Consultancy H-Comp Consulting Ѵ Ѵ

End-customer

ScandFibre Logistics AB. Owner 100 % BillerudKorsnäs AB. Run a EU wide rail network.

Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ

End-customer

association

UIRR International Union for Road-Rail Combined Transport

Ѵ Ѵ

Union Maritime et Fluvial Marseille-Fos

Ѵ

Syndicat des Transitaires de Marseille-Fos et sa région

Ѵ

Comité Marseillais des Armateurs de France

Ѵ

Association des Agents et consignataires de Marseille Fos

Ѵ

CLECAT Ѵ

Jernkontoret/Swedish steel producers' association

Ѵ

Izba Gospodarcza Transportu Lądowego

Ѵ

Danish Ports Ѵ

FERRMED A.S.B.L. Ѵ Ѵ

Swedish shippers' council (SSC)

Ѵ

European Shippers' Council

Ѵ

GETC - GROUPEMENT EUROPEEN DU TRANSPORT COMBINE

Ѵ

4/112

Category


orld-w

ide

EU

-wid

e

EU

-Neig

hbouri

ng

countr

ies

Austr

ia

Belg

ium

Bulg

aria

Cro

atia

Czech R

epu

blic

Denm

ark

Esto

nia

Fra

nce

Germ

any

Hun

gary

Italy

Latv

ia

Lithu

ania

Luxem

bourg

Neth

erl

an

ds

Norw

ay

Pola

nd

Port

uga

l

Rom

ania

Slo

vakia

Slo

ve

nia

Spain

Sw

ed

en

Sw

iterz

land

Unite

d K

ing

dom

On b

ehalf o

f an o

rga

nis

ation,

associa

tion,

com

pa

ny,

auth

ority

etc

.

Environment association

Pociąg-Autobus-Góry (Rail-Bus-Mountains)

Ѵ

Freight railway

undertaking

BLS Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ

Anonymous Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ

CFL multimodal Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ

Freightliner Group Limited

Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ

Industry Alstom Ѵ

Industry association

UNIFE - the Association of the European Rail Industry

Ѵ

Infrastructure manager / Allocation

body

Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace.

Ѵ

Železnice Slovenskej republiky Správa železniční dopravní cesty

Ѵ

VPE Ltd - Hungarian Rail Capacity Allocation Office

Ѵ

MÁV Hungarian State Railways Company Limited by Shares

Ѵ

Infrabel Ѵ

JSC "Lithuanian railways"

Ѵ

ProRail, the Dutch Rail IM

Ѵ

Trafikverket the Swedish Transport Administration

Ѵ

Anonymous Ѵ Ѵ

On

be

hal

f of

an

or

ga

nis ati

on,

as

so

cia tio n,

co

mp

an y,

aut

ho

rity

etc . Integrated ÖBB Group

Ѵ

Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ

Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ

Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ

5/112

Category


orld-w

ide

EU

-wid

e

EU

-Neig

hbouri

ng

countr

ies

Austr

ia

Belg

ium

Bulg

aria

Cro

atia

Czech R

epu

blic

Denm

ark

Esto

nia

Fra

nce

Germ

any

Hun

gary

Italy

Latv

ia

Lithu

ania

Luxem

bourg

Neth

erl

an

ds

Norw

ay

Pola

nd

Port

uga

l

Rom

ania

Slo

vakia

Slo

ve

nia

Spain

Sw

ed

en

Sw

iterz

land

Unite

d K

ing

dom

Railway company

Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane

Ѵ

SNCF Ѵ

Swiss Federal Railways (SBB)

Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ

Ministry of Transport

Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Developmnet of Slovak Republic

Ѵ

Bundesamt für Verkehr / Federal Office of Transport, Switzerland

Ѵ

Ministry of Transport of Estonia

Ѵ

Ministère français de la Transition écologique et solidaire

Ѵ

Ministry of Transport of Czech republic

Ѵ

Port authority Grand Port Maritime de la Rochelle

Ѵ

Public Authority

(Regional, local, etc.)

Salten Regionråd (Salten Regional Council)

Ѵ

Transport for London Ѵ

Region Örebro County Ѵ

Fundación Transpirenaica

Ѵ

Région Nouvelle-Aquitaine

Ѵ

Rail association

ERFA Ѵ

KNV Spoorgoederenvervoer

Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ

Rail Delivery Group (RDG)

Ѵ

6/112

Category


orld-w

ide

EU

-wid

e

EU

-Neig

hbouri

ng

countr

ies

Austr

ia

Belg

ium

Bulg

aria

Cro

atia

Czech R

epu

blic

Denm

ark

Esto

nia

Fra

nce

Germ

any

Hun

gary

Italy

Latv

ia

Lithu

ania

Luxem

bourg

Neth

erl

an

ds

Norw

ay

Pola

nd

Port

uga

l

Rom

ania

Slo

vakia

Slo

ve

nia

Spain

Sw

ed

en

Sw

iterz

land

Unite

d K

ing

dom

EIM asbl - European Rail Infrastructure Managers

Ѵ Ѵ

Branschföreningen Tågoperatorerna, BTO (ASTOC - Association of Swedish Train Operating Companies)

Ѵ

CER (Community for European Railways and Infrastructure Companies)

Ѵ

Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen (VDV) - Association of German Transport Companies

Ѵ

Bulgarian Society for Rail Transport

Ѵ

Rail freight corridor

European Economic Interest Grouping “Atlantic Corridor”

Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ Ѵ

Regulatory body

Regulatory Body of the Netherlands (ACM)

Ѵ

Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC)

Ѵ

Office of Rail and Road Ѵ

Schienen-Control GmbH Ѵ

Urząd Transportu Kolejowego (Office of Rail Transport)

Ѵ

The Norwegian Railway Authority / Statens jernbanetilsyn

Ѵ

7/112

Category


orld-w

ide

EU

-wid

e

EU

-Neig

hbouri

ng

countr

ies

Austr

ia

Belg

ium

Bulg

aria

Cro

atia

Czech R

epu

blic

Denm

ark

Esto

nia

Fra

nce

Germ

any

Hun

gary

Italy

Latv

ia

Lithu

ania

Luxem

bourg

Neth

erl

an

ds

Norw

ay

Pola

nd

Port

uga

l

Rom

ania

Slo

vakia

Slo

ve

nia

Spain

Sw

ed

en

Sw

iterz

land

Unite

d K

ing

dom

Regulatory body

Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen

Ѵ

Dienst Regulering van het Spoorwegvervoer en van de Luchthaven Brussel-Nationaal

Ѵ

Transportstyrelsen Ѵ

RACO, regulatory body in railway sector, Switzerland

Ѵ

Research institution

EURNEX e.V. Ѵ

Category

Main country of residence Organisation W

orld-w

ide

EU

-wid

e

EU

-Neig

hbouri

ng

coun

trie

s

Austr

ia

Belg

ium

Bulg

aria

Cro

atia

Czech R

epu

blic

Den

mark

Esto

nia

Fra

nce

Germ

any

Hun

gary

Italy

Latv

ia

Lithu

ania

Luxem

bourg

Neth

erl

an

ds

Norw

ay

Pola

nd

Port

uga

l

Rom

ania

Slo

vakia

Slo

ve

nia

Spain

Sw

ed

en

Sw

iterz

land

Unite

d K

ing

dom

In a

pers

onal capacity

Citizen Anonymous Ѵ

Citizen Anonymous Ѵ

Citizen Anonymous Ѵ Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen B-Logistics Ѵ

8/112

Table 3 provides the distribution of the respondents to the non-expert questionnaire of the OPC. It lists respondents responded either on behalf of an organisation either in their personal capacity and in accordance with the latter classification it identifies their corresponding countr(ies) of operation/competence/activities or of residence (multiple answers were possible). . The geographical distribution of the respondents who asked to be treated anonymously is not provided. The respondents who asked keeping their contribution confidential are not included in this table.

9/112

Table 3: Distribution of the respondents to the non-expert questionnaire in by a stakeholder group and a country of registration (operation)

Category

Geographical distribution Organisation

Austr

ia

Fra

nce

Germ

any

Italy

Norw

ay

Pola

nd

Spain

Slo

vakia

Maro

cco

In m

y p

ers

ona

l capacity

Citizen Anonymously

Citizen Anonymously

Citizen Anonymously

Citizen Anonymously

Citizen Anonymously

Citizen Anonymously

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen Mitglied im Verwaltungsrat des Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr (VRR) Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

10/112

Category

Geographical distribution Organisation

Austr

ia

Fra

nce

Germ

any

Italy

Norw

ay

Pola

nd

Spain

Slo

vakia

Maro

cco

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

Citizen NA Ѵ

On behalf of an

organisation, association, company,

authority etc.

Public Organisation BIN gegen Bahnlärm e.V. Ѵ

Public Organisation Italia Nostra Onlus - Sezione provinciale di Viterbo Ѵ

Public Organisation Regional Government of Styria, Department A16, Transport and Building Ѵ

11/112

Part I:

Analysis of the replies of the public familiar with the Rail Freight Corridors or with the European railway market or the (rail) freight transport sector)

Question 1: Rail freight

The OPC asked respondents whether rail freight transport should absorb a part of long-distance road freight transport. The responses are shown in Figure 1.

Majority of the stakeholders among most of the stakeholders groups considered that rail freight should absorb a large part of the long-distance road freight transport (69) when a few considered that it should absorb a small part (11). 3 out of the 13 end-customer associations (3 shippers associations) considered that actually the current mix is adequate.

Figure 1: Response to open consultation question 1.b of the Expert questionnaire

Question 2: Rail Freight Corridor concept

The OPC asked respondents whether they consider the RFC approach to be relevant in order to boost the competiveness of rail freight and to achieve modal shift. The responses are shown in Figure 2.

Majority of the respondents among most of the stakeholders groups (with exception to one infrastructure manager) consider it relevant (47) and even very relevant (29). Only few stakeholders representing one citizen, one end-customer as well one representing an end-customer association, two infrastructure managers, one transport ministry, one public authority and one rail association believe that the RFCs is not a relevant tool for boosting the competiveness.

Figure 2: Response to open consultation question 2.a of the Expert questionnaire

12/112

Still in the context of this general question on the RFC concept, the OPC asked the respondents how they would describe the contribution of the RFCs to cross-border rail freight today. The responses are shown in Figure 3.

Majority of the respondents among almost all stakeholders groups, including the respondents which are involved in the governance structure of the RFCs (ministry of transports, infrastructure managers, railway undertakings and regulatory bodies) as well as the end-customers associations considered that the contribution of the RFCs to cross-border rail freight is today slightly significant (52 respondents) or not-significant (14 respondents) among whom are 2 citizens, 1 end-customer, 1 freight railway undertaking, 3 infrastructure managers, 1 integrated company, 1 ministry of transport, 1 public authority,1 rail association and 2 regulatory bodies.


In the continuity of the previous question, the OPC asked the respondents how they would describe the contribution of the RFCs to cross-border rail freight in the future. The responses are shown in Figure 4.

Regarding the future perspective, the vast majority of the respondents among all stakeholders groups (79) believe that the RFCs will significantly (45) and even very significantly (34) contribute to the improvement of the cross-border rail freight traffic. A few

13/112

considered that the contribution of the RFCs would be slightly significant in future, among whom are 1 consultancy, 1 end-customer, 1 end-customer association, 1 rail association and 1 regulatory body.

Figure 4: Response to open consultation question 2.c. of the Expert questionnaire

Question 3: Challenges faced by rail freight

According to the Commission initial assistance, the challenges for European cross-border rail freight transport could be categorized as follows: a quality challenge (punctuality, reliability), a cost challenge (cost competitiveness), a service challenge (need for the introduction of new and innovative freight transport services), a political challenge (political and societal acceptance) and a European challenge (seamless crossing of borders).

The OPC asked respondents whether they consider the RFC concept has the potential to address these challenges. The responses are shown in Figures 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

(a) Quality challenge

As regards the quality challenge, majority of the respondents among most of the stakeholders groups (with exception to 1 end-customer and 1 rail association) considered that the RFC concept has the potential to address this challenge (57) and even to very well address it (9). These views are shared within all stakeholders groups with exceptions the Regulatory bodies which for their majority (9 out of 12), and also including 2 citizens, 1 end-customer, 1 public authority and 1 research institute who believe that it would be hardly addressed.


14/112

(b) Cost challenge

As regards the cost challenge, an important share of the respondents among all stakeholders groups considered that the RFC concept has hardly the potential to address it (41 respondents) and even to not address it at all (14 respondents). The stakeholders who are in particular concerned with the cost challenge are 3 citizens, 2 consultancies, 2 end-customers, 6 end-customer associations, 4 freight railway undertakings (out of 5), 1 industry and 1 industry association, 5 infrastructure managers (out of 10), 3 integrated railway companies (out of 6), 3 ministries of transport (out of 5), 1 public authority and 1 research institution. Many infrastructure managers (4) and regulatory bodies (6), as well as 1 rail freight corridor organisation, 1 integrated railway company, 1 rail association and 1 citizen even considered that the RFCs have not at all the potential for this challenge. Generally, from the side of the end-customer associations, the integrated railway companies, the ministries of transport and the citizens the opinions are divided balancing between "hardly addressed" and "(very) addressed".


15/112

(c) Service challenge

As regards the Service challenge, majority of the respondents among most of the stakeholders groups (with exception to 1 rail association) considered that the RFC concept has the potential to address this challenge (55) and even to very well address it (10). These views are shared within all stakeholders groups except for a few stakeholders who considered that it would be hardly addressed: the research institute, 2 end-customers, 2 rail associations, 2 regulatory bodies, one public authority, one ministry of transport, 1 integrated company, one infrastructure manager and 3 citizens.


(d) Political challenge

As regards the Political challenge, majority of the respondents among most of the stakeholders groups (with exception to 2 citizens, 1 end-customer association and 1 rail association) considered that the RFC concept has the potential to address this challenge (49) and even to very well address it (9). These views are shared within all stakeholders groups except for a few stakeholders who considered that it would be hardly addressed: 1 citizen, 1 consultancy, 2 end-customers, 5 (out of 15) end-customer associations, 1

16/112

environment association, 1 freight railway undertaking, 1 infrastructure manager, 2 integrated rail companies, 1 ministry of transport, 1 public authority, 1 rail association and 1 regulatory body.


(e) European challenge

As regards the European challenge, majority of the respondents among most of the stakeholders groups (with exception to only 1 citizen) considered that the RFC concept has the potential to address this challenge (36) and even to very well address it (20). These views are shared within all stakeholders groups except for a few stakeholders who considered that it would be hardly addressed: 2 citizens, 2 consultancies, 1 end-customer, 1 end-customer association, 4 out of the 5 freight railway undertakings, 7 out of the 10 infrastructure managers, .3 out of the 6 integrated rail companies, 1 rail association and 1 regulatory body. Therefore among the stakeholders who are directly involved in the governance structure of the RFCs, a strong majority of the freight railway undertakings and infrastructure managers considered that the RFC concept has hardly the potential to address the European challenge.


17/112

Question 4: Governance of the Rail Freight Corridors

(a) Architecture and decision-making of the governance of the RFCs

The first section of this question concerns the architecture and decision-making of the governance of the RFCs. The responses are shown in Figure 10.

In this framework, first of all the OPC asked respondents whether they considered appropriate the architecture of the governance structure of the RFCs. The results are ambivalent as two main streams considered both that it is appropriate (35) and somewhat appropriate (31). Among the respondents considering it as appropriate the regulatory bodies with 9 out of 12 of them and of the infrastructure managers with 7 out 10 of them are predominant. Among the respondents considering it as somewhat appropriate the freight railway undertakings with 4 out of 5 of them and the consultancies are predominant in their category. 2 out of the 3 end-customers, 1 infrastructure manager, 1 rail association and 1 citizen considered even that the architecture and decision-making of the governance of the RFCs is not appropriate. Generally the opinions of the ministries of transport, end-customers associations, of the integrated railway companies and of the rail associations are split on this question.

Figure 10: Response to open consultation question 4.a(i) of the Expert questionnaire

18/112

Secondly, the OPC asked respondents how responsive do they consider the current governance structure acting in practice. The responses are shown in Figure 11. Majority of the respondents considered (40) the governance structure as somewhat responsive, in particular majority of the freight railway undertakings (4 out of the 5), of the integrated railway companies (4 out of the 6), of the regulatory bodies (10 out of the 12) and of the rail associations (4 out of the 7). The end-customers associations had a split opinion on this question. On the contrary, 7 out of the 10 infrastructure managers considered the governance structure as responsive, supported by 4 end-customer associations, 2 ministries of transport, 1 rail freight corridor and the research institute.

Figure 11: Response to open consultation question 4.a(ii) of the Expert questionnaire

19/112

Thirdly, the OPC asked the respondents whether they consider the unanimity principle foreseen by the Regulation for both the decisions of the Executive Board and of the Management board as appropriate to ensure an effective management of the RFCs. The responses are shown in Figure 12.

Regarding this specific sub-question the opinions of all respondents among most of the stakeholders groups were split. The stakeholders considering this principle as appropriate or even very appropriate are predominantly the infrastructure managers (9 out of 10), the integrated railways companies (5 out 6) and rail associations (5 out of 8). On the contrary 5 citizens, 7 end-customer associations, 1 environment association, 1 infrastructure manager, 2 ministries of transport, 2 public authorities and 1 rail association considered this principle as somewhat appropriate. Finally, 1 citizen, 1 consultancy, 2 end-customer, 3 end-customer associations, 1 integrated railway company and 2 rail associations considered this principle as not appropriate.

Figure 12: Response to open consultation question 4.a(iii) of the Expert questionnaire

(b) Effectiveness and commitment of the governance bodies

This second section of the question n°4 concerns the effectiveness and commitment of the governance bodies.

In this context the OPC asked the respondents how effective they consider the Member States in promoting the implementation of the RFCs. The responses are shown in Figure 13.

The vast majority among almost all stakeholders groups (53) considered it is somewhat effective, of which 5 citizens, 2 consultancies, 12 out of the 15 end-customer associations, the environment association, 2 freight railway undertakings, 3 infrastructure managers, the 6 integrated railway companies (at unanimity), 3 public authorities, 6 out of the 8 rail associations, the rail freight corridor and the 8 regulatory bodies (at unanimity) and the research institution. In addition, among the stakeholders directly concerned by this question 3 out of the 5 ministries of transport considered the Member States as being somewhat effective in promoting the implementation of the RFCs. Many stakeholders (15 respondents) considered even that the Member States are not effective in this matter. On the contrary, among the most of the stakeholders groups, the infrastructure managers were the most

20/112

optimistic regarding this question, although almost half of them considered the Member States as effective.

Figure 13: Response to open consultation question 4.b(i) of the Expert questionnaire

Still in the context of the section on effectiveness and commitment of the governance bodies, the OPC asked respondents how effective they deem the Management board in performing its tasks. The responses are shown in Figure 14.

It was largely considered as 42 out of the 72 respondents who had an opinion among most of the stakeholders groups, considered it as somewhat effective. The stakeholders groups who supported this opinion with a strong majority are: the regulatory bodies (9 out of 12), the end-customers associations (10 out of 15) and of the freight railway undertakings (4 out of 5) had such opinion. 1 citizen and 1 rail association went even further considering the Management board in performing its tasks as not effective.

On the contrary among the stakeholders groups who considered it as effective or even very effective a strong majority is showed for the infrastructure managers with 9 out the 10. They are also the stakeholders who are directly involved in the management board.

Opinions were split between "effective" and "somewhat effective" on this particular question among the integrated railway companies and the rail associations.

Figure 14: Response to open consultation question 4.b(ii) of the Expert questionnaire

21/112

In the same line the OPC asked also the respondents how effective they consider that the Advisory groups for railway undertakings and terminals are in identifying issues important for the users of the RFCs. The responses are shown in Figure 15.

Majority of the respondents among most of the stakeholders groups who had an opinion (39 out of 70) considered the advisory groups as somewhat effective, of which are predominantly 8 end-customer associations and 9 out of the 12 regulatory bodies, but also 4 citizens, 4 rail associations, 3 infrastructure managers, 3 integrated railway companies, 2 ministries of transport a couple of respondents in the other stakeholders groups.

In general among the following stakeholders groups: the citizens, the infrastructure managers, the integrated railway companies and the rail associations, the opinions were split between considering it "effective" and "somewhat effective".

Figure 15: Response to open consultation question 4.b(iii) of the Expert questionnaire

22/112

With the last sub-question of this section, the OPC asked respondents whether it would be beneficial for the development of a RFC if an independent European coordinator (not necessarily the corresponding Core Network Corridor coordinator), with political influence and negotiation experience, would chair its Executive Board, in order to push the corridor forward, for example by identifying the right issues to tackle and negotiating with the relevant Member States and Infrastructure Managers to pursue the corresponding actions needed. The responses are shown in Figure 16.

The onions are ambivalent among the different stakeholders groups as the results are almost equally split between the ones in favour of having an independent European coordinator chairing the ExBo (32) and the ones who are against (31) out of the 63 respondents who had an opinion on this question. The stakeholders groups who supported it with a strong majority are: the citizens (9 out of 10), the 2 consultancies, 4 out of the 5 public authorities and the research institute. On the contrary, the stakeholders who did not support the idea are mainly from the following stakeholders groups: the end-customers (2 out of 3), the infrastructure managers (9 out of 10), the ministries of transport (4 out of 5), the rail associations (5 out of 8) and the rail freight corridor and the environment association. The opinions of the integrated railway companies were balanced.

Figure 16: Response to open consultation question 4.b(v) of the Expert questionnaire

(c) Involvement of sector stakeholders

The third section of the question n°4 concerns the Involvement of sector stakeholders in the governance structures.

As first sub-question the OPC asked the respondents whether they consider that sector stakeholders are appropriately involved in the governance structure. The responses are shown in Figure 17.

The opinions were totally split between "yes" and "no" among most of the stakeholders groups on this question with exception to the regulatory bodies of which a strong majority (10 out of 12) considered that the sector stakeholders are not involved appropriately in the governance structure of the RFCs.

Figure 17: Response to open consultation question 4.c(i) of the Expert questionnaire

23/112

In the second sub-question of this section, the OPC recalled that currently the Regulation does not foresee a formal representation of the Advisory Groups within the Executive Boards or Management Boards (but does not forbid it). In practice some Executive Boards invite the spokesperson of the advisory groups to report, but this practice is not generally used. Therefore the OPC asked respondents whether they consider that the representative(s) of the advisory groups should or not attend the board meetings. The responses are shown in Figure 18.

Regarding this sub-question one freight railway undertaking as well as the port authority did not reply.

Majority of the respondents among all stakeholders groups (with exception to one public authority and one rail association) considered that the representatives of the advisory groups should attend the board meetings. However the opinion on the way this attendance should take form is different.

Most of the respondents considered that it should attend the board meetings but depending on the issues on the agenda, through mandatory invitation from the board(s), of which the majority of stakeholders groups supporting this were the citizens (5), the end-customer associations (7), 2 out of the 4 rail freight undertakings, 5 out of the 10 infrastructure managers, 4 out of the 6 integrated railway companies, 2 ministries of transport, and 8 out of the 12 regulatory bodies.

Many stakeholders (26 in total) from the following stakeholders groups considered that the participation should be permanent: 5 citizens, the 3 end-customers, 6 out of the 15 end-customers associations, 2 out of the 4 rail freight undertakings, 3 out of the 5 public authorities and 2 regulatory bodies.

Many other stakeholders (19) also considered that the attendance should be depending on the issues on the agenda, and through voluntary invitation from the board(s), of which more importantly the following stakeholders groups: the infrastructure managers (4 out of the 10), and the ministries of transport (3 out of the 5).

Figure 18: Response to open consultation question 4.c(ii) of the Expert questionnaire

24/112

The third sub-question of this section recalled that currently the Regulation does not explicitly foresee the possibility for applicants that are not railway undertakings (non RU-applicants or "authorized applicants") to be members of the Advisory groups (but does not forbid it). The OPC asked respondents whether they consider that the advisory groups should be extended to non RU-applicants or not. The responses are shown in Figure 19.

The vast majority among most of the stakeholders groups (60 out of the 65 respondents who had an opinion on this question) considered that the advisory groups should indeed be extended. On the contrary 5 respondents from the following stakeholders groups considered that they should not be extended: 2 railway undertakings, 2 rail associations and 1 integrated railway company. It must be emphasised that the latter may be directly concerned by the question as potential members of those boards.

Figure 19: Response to open consultation question 4.c(iii) of the Expert questionnaire

25/112

The fourth sub-question asked respondents whether they consider the terminal managers and port authorities should have an enhanced role in the governance structure or not. The responses are shown in Figure 20.

Differences of opinions were showed among the different stakeholders groups. Among the 77 respondents who had an opinion on this question, the following stakeholders groups predominantly (45) considered that the terminal managers and port authorities should have an enhanced role: the citizens (9 out of 10), the consultancies (2), the end-customers associations (10 out of 15), the industry, 2 ministries of transport, the port authority, 3 rail associations, the research institution and the 12 regulatory bodies.

On the contrary the following stakeholders groups considered predominantly (32) that the terminal managers and port authorities should not have an enhanced role: the rail freight corridor, 5 out of the 8 rail associations, 2 ministries of transport, the 6 integrated railway companies, 9 out of the 10 infrastructure managers, the industry association, 4 out of the 5 freight railway undertakings and the environment association.

Figure 20: Response to open consultation question 4.c(iv) of the Expert questionnaire

26/112

(d) Working groups

The fourth section of the question n°4 concerns the working groups.

The OPC recalled that in certain RFCs, working groups have been set up with relevant stakeholders (infrastructures managers, railway undertakings, ministry representatives, regulators, national safety authorities, the European Commission, the European Railway Agency, etc.), coming from different Member states.

It was therefore asked to respondents to what extent they consider that the RFC concept has facilitated the setting-up of such working groups across borders. The responses are shown in Figure 21.

Out of the 73 respondents who had an opinion, the majority (with exception to 1 citizen, 1 end-customer association and 2 infrastructure managers) among most of the stakeholders groups considered that the RFCs had significantly facilitated the setting-up of such working groups across borders (35) and even very significantly (19).

Figure 21: Response to open consultation question 4.d(i) of the Expert questionnaire

27/112

The OPC has also asked the respondents to what extent they considered that the working groups are contributing to solve issues hampering cross-border rail freight. The responses are shown in Figure 22.

Opinions are almost equally split among the different stakeholders groups on this question.

Out of the 70 respondents who had an opinion, majority of the following stakeholders groups considered that the workings groups are significantly or even very significantly contributing: the citizens (7 out of the 10), the infrastructure managers (7 out of the 10), the integrated railway companies (5 out of the 6), the ministries of transport (at unanimity) and the rail associations (5 out of the 8).

On the contrary, the following stakeholders groups considered in majority that the working groups are somewhat significantly contributing to solve issues hampering cross-border rail freight: the freight railway undertakings (4 out of the 5) and the regulatory bodies (9 out of the 12).

Figure 22: Response to open consultation question 4.d(ii) of the Expert questionnaire

28/112

(e) Involvement of public authorities

The fifth section of the question n°4 concerns the Involvement of public authorities. The OPC asked the respondent whether they consider that giving a formal role in the RFCs to further public authorities (such as the European Railway Agency and the National Safety Authorities) would bring an added-value. The responses are shown in Figure 23.

Out of the 61 respondents who had an opinion among the stakeholders groups, majority (44) considered that further public authorities should have a formal role in the RFC, of which the following stakeholders groups predominant: the citizens (6 out of 9), the 2 consultancies, the end-customer associations (7 out of the 15), the freight railway undertakings (4 out of the 5) the industry and the industry association, the 6 integrated railway companies (at unanimity and the rail associations (4 out of the 8).

On the contrary, the following stakeholders groups were predominantly not in favour to give a formal role to further public authorities: 4 out of the 5 infrastructure managers with an opinion on this question and 4 out of the 9 regulatory bodies with an opinion on this question.

Figure 23: Response to open consultation question 4.e of the Expert questionnaire

29/112

(f) Dual Governance

The sixth section of the question n°4 focuses on the dual governance, recalling that some corridor sections belong to more than one RFC which leads to situations of multiple governance.

The OPC asked the respondents whether they consider that the Regulation should contain provisions on the division of competences between the RFCs concerned in the case of sections belonging to more than one RFC. The responses are shown in Figure 24.

Out of the 64 respondents who had an opinion, the opinions were equally split among the different stakeholders groups. Among the stakeholders group predominantly in favour are the regulatory bodies (11 out of the 12), the ministries of transport, but also the research institution and the environment association. Among the stakeholders group predominantly against are the freight railway undertakings (4 out of the 5), the infrastructure managers (9 out of the 10), the integrated railway companies (6 at unanimity) and the rail freight corridor.

The following stakeholders are a split opinion within their groups: the citizen, the end-customers associations, the ministries of transport and the rail associations.

Figure 24: Response to open consultation question 4.f of the Expert questionnaire

30/112

(g) Monitoring of the operation of the RFCs

The last section of this question n°4 focuses on the monitoring of the operation of the RFCs. The OPC asked the respondents to indicate to whom the stakeholders should direct their complaint in case e.g. a customer would complain about the functioning/operation of a RFC. The responses are shown in Figure 25.

Out of the 71 respondents who had an opinion on this question, the opinions are split among the stakeholders groups; however 2 main majorities can be showed: the one considering that the complaint should be directed to the Management board (34) and the ones considering it should be addressed to the regulatory body (24).

The main groups of stakeholders preferring the option of the management board are the freight railway undertakings (3 out of the 5), the infrastructure managers (9 out of the 10), the integrated railway companies (5 out of the 6) and the rail associations (6 out of the 8). Among the stakeholders groups predominantly in favour of addressing complaint to the regulatory bodies, are predominantly the regulatory bodies themselves (11 out of the 12).

Figure 25: Response to open consultation question 4.g(i) of the Expert questionnaire

31/112

In addition, the OPC asked the respondents if the Regulation should foresee powers of remedial actions in addition to the one already foreseen. The responses are shown in Figure 26.

Among the 53 respondents who had an opinion on this question, opinions are equally split among the different stakeholders groups (25 yes vs 28 no). Among the stakeholders groups considering that powers of remedial actions should be foreseen, the following are predominant: the end-customers (3), the end-customer associations (11 out of the 15), the industry and the industry association, the ministries of transport (4 out of the 5), the port authority, and the public authorities (4 out of the 5). On the contrary, the following groups of stakeholders were mainly not in favour are the infrastructure managers (9 out of 10), the 6 integrated railway companies, 3 out of the 5 freight railway undertakings and of the rail associations (6 out of the 8).

Figure 26: Response to open consultation question 4.g(i') of the Expert questionnaire

32/112

Recalling that today the RFCs tend to increase the cooperation among them; this cooperation is not mandatory (but has been set up between the RAGs, between the Management Boards, and between the Executive Boards), the OPC asked the respondents whether this kind of cooperation inter-RFCs should be mandatory formalised or not. The responses are shown in Figure 27.

Out of the 71 respondents who had an opinion on this question, the results are more or less equally divided among the stakeholders groups. Among the 39 in favour of a mandatory formalised cooperation, the following stakeholders groups are predominant: the citizens (8 out 10), the end-customers associations (7) and the regulatory bodies (9 out of 12). Among the 32 who are against, the following stakeholders groups are predominant: the freight railway undertakings (3 out 4 with an opinion), the infrastructure managers (9 out of 10), the integrated railway companies (5 out of 6), the ministries of transport (4 out of 5), the rail associations (5 out of 8) and the rail freight corridor. Therefore it seems that the main stakeholders which are against a mandatory formalisation of the cooperation between RFCs are the one directly concerned by the current governance structure of the RFCs.

Figure 27: Response to open consultation question 4.g(ii) of the Expert questionnaire

33/112

Question 5: Governance of the Rail Freight Corridors and Core Network Corridors

The OPC asked the respondents which benefits and/or disadvantages do they see in the involvement of the RFCs in the work of the TEN-T Core Network Corridors (CNC) and vice-versa? Which form could this involvement take? How do they assess the current cooperation between the governance bodies of the RFCs and the CNCs fora and/or the corresponding coordinators?

Based on the responses to this open question and position papers sent in the framework of this open public consultation, the DG MOVE got wind of a number of remarks made by various stakeholders:

As a general comment it is considered that there is not enough clarity on the role of the RFCs within the CNCs.

CNCs are dominantly bureaucratic/political structures to give a harmonised direction to the spending public infrastructure investments. RFCs should rather be allowed to absorb genuine private capital; hence TEN-T is only relevant to them as far as the minimal technical parameters are declared in the TEN-T Regulation. Harmonisation of aims and works could be relevant, but no formal merge or cross-management should take place. (End-customer association)

The main advantage out of the participation of RFCs in CNC is the possibility to influence the prioritisation of investments needed from the overall perspective and the strengthening of the cooperation between all players of different transport modes. These corridors are complementary and imbricated and can mutually help each other. The RFCs should mainly act as short term facilitators of international freight rail transport through proper cooperation with all the stakeholders involved in the logistic supply chain. The RFCs may propose to the CNCs specific bottlenecks and measures to promote infrastructure interoperability. CNC should be mainly focused on the coordination of the medium-long term planning of multimodal investments targeted at creating a TEN-T network compliant with the infrastructure requirements specified in Regulation 1315/2013. (End-customer association and integrated railway company)

Involvement of RFCs in the work of the TEN-T Core Network Corridors is not right. RFC should be a subset of TEN-T CNC and thus should have certain authority to be involved in the development of TEN-T Core Network and should be a part of the managing team

34/112

for this development. Coordination and decision-making competences should be in the hands of TEN-T Core Network coordinators. (Consultancy)

There is a room for the improvement of the effectiveness of the cooperation. Their main impression is that double governance exists (ministry of transport) and that duplication of works exists, for instance, Investments plans of the RFCs (in accordance with Article 11 of the Regulation 913/2010) should be publicly available in TENtec.(Infrastructure manager)

Some clarified that coordinators should not have any power to dictate alignments or parameters of RFC. Assessment of freight transport demand and bottlenecks should be prepared by RFC and be a mandatory part of diagnosis within CNC work plan in order to secure financing for most urgent investments. (End-customer association)

In general the cooperation model between the CNC and the RFC is positive and should be enhanced. When it comes to questions like changing national rules or investment priorities, the TEN-T CNC coordinator should play a role in bringing the concerned national decision-makers around a table in order to actively seek for a pragmatic solution. He should participate in selected RFC Executive Boards and the RFC Chairs should play a role in CNC fora. However, the improvement of further cooperation should not be specified /legalized within the regulation.

A port specified that it is really different for a port to be considered as part of the Core Network and to be considered as feeder of the RFC.

Question 6: Geographical definition of the Rail Freight Corridors

The first sub-question of this question 6 asked the respondents whether they considered that the geographical routes of the RFCs defined in the annex of the Regulation are relevant to meet the objective of the Rail Freight Corridor (RFC) Regulation which is to boost the competitiveness of rail freight. The responses are shown in Figure 28.

Out of the 72 respondents who had an opinion on this question, the majority of the stakeholders groups (47) considered that the geographical routes of the RFCs are partly relevant, of which the following groups were predominant: the end-customers associations (12 out of 15), all the freight railway undertakings, the infrastructure managers (7 out of 10), the integrated railway companies (5 out of 6), the rail associations (5 out of 8), the rail freight corridor and the research institution.

20 stakeholders considered that the geographical routes of the RFCs are relevant and only 3 that they are not relevant, of which 1 rail association, 1 port of authority and 1 citizen.


35/112

In the second sub-question, the OPC asked the respondents whether they consider that the specific railway lines and terminals designated to the current RFCs are relevant to meet the objective of the RFC Regulation which is to boost the competitiveness of rail freight. The responses are shown in Figure 29.

Out of the 74 respondents who had an opinion among the stakeholders groups on this question, the majority (54) considered that the specific railway lines and terminals designated to the current RFCs are partly relevant to meet the objective, of which the following groups were predominant: the citizens (7), the end-customer associations (12), all the freight railway undertakings, the integrated railway companies (5), the rail freight corridor, the regulatory bodies (7) and the research institution. 2 stakeholders considered even that the specific railway lines and terminals are not relevant to meet the aforementioned objective. On the contrary, 18 stakeholders considered that they are.


36/112

The third sub-question asked the respondents whether they consider that the specific railway lines and terminals designated to the current RFCs are sufficient to meet the objective of the RFC Regulation which is to boost the competitiveness of rail freight. The responses are shown in Figure 30.

Out of the 61 respondents who had an opinion among the stakeholders groups on this question, the majority (41) considered that that the specific railway lines and terminals designated to the current RFCs are not sufficient and that there is a need to designate further lines/terminals. Among them, the main stakeholders groups are the citizens (7), the end-customers associations (8), the freight railway undertakings (3), the integrated railway companies (4) - so that a lot of them are the direct users/customers of the RFCs - and the public authorities (3). On the contrary a large part of one stakeholder group considered that the current designation is sufficient, namely the infrastructure managers. Regarding this question the opinion of the rail associations was equally divided.

Figure 30: Response to open consultation question 6.c of the Expert questionnaire

With the fourth sub-question the OPC asked the respondent, in their views, how significant should market needs be when designing the routes (the geographical definition specified in the annex of the Regulation, which does not specify specific railway lines) of the RFCs. The responses are shown in Figure 31.

Among all stakeholders groups the vast majority (with the exception to one ministry of transport) considered that the markets needs should be very significantly (51) and significantly (21) taken into account when designing the routes.

Figure 31: Response to open consultation question 6.d of the Expert questionnaire

37/112

With the fifth sub-question of this section, the OPC asked the respondents, in their views, how significant should market need be when designating railway lines or terminals to a RFC. The responses are shown in Figure 32.

Among all stakeholders groups the vast majority (with exception to 1 ministry of transport) considered the market needs should be very significantly (55) and significantly (19) taken into account. An important part of the end-customer associations considered that they should be somewhat significantly taken into account.


38/112

Finally, with the last sub-question of this section, the OPC asked the respondents whether they see a need for procedures to modify the principal routes of the RFCs, e.g. removing route sections or merging of RFCs. The responses are shown in Figure 33.

Out of the 63 respondents who had an opinion among all stakeholders groups, the vast majority (with exception to 1 regulatory body, 1 freight railway undertaking, 1 end-customer association and 2 citizens) considered there is a need for procedures to modify the principal routes of the RFCs (58).

Figure 33: Response to open consultation question 6.g of the Expert questionnaire

Question 7: Expected developments

The OPC asked the respondents what developments do they expect through the establishment of the RFCs for the period 2010-today, in the short term and by 2030.

This question has been asked in terms of:

(a) In terms of reliability, punctuality, quality and efficiency of freight train services

The responses to this question are shown in Figure 34, 35 and 36.

For the period 2010-today among most of the stakeholders groups the opinions of the respondents were more or less equally divided between "positive development" and "no development" (with exception to 1 citizen who considered that there were negative developments). The stakeholders groups among which a majority considered that there were positive developments (39) are mainly the end-customer associations (11), the integrated railway companies (4), the ministries (3), the regulatory bodies (6) and also the environment association, the industry, the industry association and the research institution. The stakeholders groups among which a majority considered that there were no developments (33) are mainly the consultancies (2), the end-customers (2), the freight railway undertakings (4 out of 5), the infrastructure managers (6 out of 10), the rail associations (5 out 8) and the rail freight corridor.


39/112

Regarding the short term, among most of the stakeholders groups the majority (47) considered that there will be positive developments on the short term and 10 others that there will be even very positive development. The stakeholders groups among which a majority considered that there were positive developments and even very positive developments are mainly the infrastructure managers (9 out of 10), the integrated railway companies (5 out of 6), all the ministries of transport (5), the public authorities (3 out of 5), the rail freight corridor, the rail associations (4 out of 8), the industry and the research institution and the regulatory bodies (8 out of 12).


For what concerns "by 2030", expectations are promising (with exception to one rail association and one citizen) as respectively 30 and 46 respondents among most of the stakeholders groups expected very positive and positive developments in terms of reliability, punctuality, quality and efficiency of freight train services.

40/112


(b) in terms of traffic management


For the period 2010-today, among most of the stakeholders groups the majority considered that there were no developments in terms of traffic management (51), of which the main groups were the citizens (5), the end-customers (2), the end-customers associations (9), the freight railway companies (3), the infrastructure managers (7), all the integrated railway companies (6), the ministries of transport (4), the rail associations (6), the rail freight corridor, the research institution and the regulatory bodies 6).


41/112

Regarding the short term, among most of the stakeholders groups the opinions of the respondents were more or less equally divided between "positive development" and "no development". The stakeholders groups among which a majority considered that there were positive developments (39) are mainly the infrastructure managers (9 out of 10), the 2 consultancies, the public authorities (3), the rail associations (5 out of 8), the rail freight corridor, the research institution and the regulatory bodies (6 out 12 - and a seventh even considered very positive development). The stakeholders groups among which a majority considered that there were no developments (30) are mainly the end-customers associations (10 out of 15) and the ministries of transport (3 out of 5).


For what concerns "by 2030", expectations are promising (with exception to 2 rail associations) as respectively 33 and 44 respondents among most of the stakeholders groups expected very positive and positive developments in terms of traffic management.


42/112

(c) in the field of infrastructure development


For the period 2010-today, among most of the stakeholders groups the opinions of the respondents were more or less equally divided between "positive development" and "no development". The stakeholders groups among which a majority considered that there were positive developments (34) are mainly the two consultancies and the regulatory bodies (8 out of 12). The stakeholders groups among which a majority considered that there were no developments are mainly the end-customers (10 out of the 15), the freight railway undertakings (4 out of 5) and the rail associations (7 out of the 8). Regarding most of the other stakeholders groups, the opinions were split.


43/112

Regarding the short term, among most of all stakeholders groups the vast majority (58) expected positive development (51) and even very positive development (7) in the field of infrastructure development (with exception to 2 citizens which expect negative development).Among the stakeholders groups which expect no development the group with the larger majority is the group of end-customers associations.


44/112

For what concerns "by 2030", expectations are promising (with exception to 1 citizen who expect very negative development) as respectively 20 and 58 respondents among most of the stakeholders groups expected very positive and positive developments in terms of infrastructure development. 1 rail association and 1 integrated railway company expected no development.


(d) in terms of capacity allocation procedures

For the period 2010-today, among the stakeholders groups a small majority (47) considered that there were positive developments in terms of capacity allocation, of which the following groups were predominant: the infrastructure managers (9), the integrated railway companies (4), the ministries (3), the rail associations (5) and the regulatory bodies (9). On the contrary 22 stakeholders considered there were no development, of which the group of the end-customers (8) is predominant.


45/112

Regarding the short term, among most of all stakeholders groups the vast majority (56) expected positive development (50) and even very positive development (6) in terms of capacity allocation procedures (with exception to 1 public authority and 1 rail association which expect negative development). Among the stakeholders groups which expect no development the group with the larger amount of respondents is the group of end-customers associations.


46/112

For what concerns "by 2030", expectations are promising (with exception to 1 rail association and 1 public authority which expect very negative development) as respectively 19 and 55 respondents among most of the stakeholders groups expected very positive and positive developments in terms of capacity allocation procedures.


Question 8: Punctuality and priority

(a) The OPC recalled that the Regulation foresees the adoption of common targets for punctuality and/or guidelines for traffic management, and the drawing up of priority rules for the management of different types of traffic, in case of disturbances of train movements.

It was asked the respondents whether, in case of disturbances, they have perceived a positive evolution with regard to punctuality? The responses are shown in Figure 46.

Among all the stakeholders groups, out of the 57 respondents who had an opinion on this question, an important majority - as 47 out of the 57 - have not perceived changes on punctuality. Among the stakeholders groups who have perceived an improvement 3 are citizens, 1 the environment association, 1 a freight railway undertaking, 2 are infrastructure managers and 1 is a regulatory body. Only 2 respondents considered that it has worsened namely 1 rail association and 1 end-customer.


47/112

It was asked the respondents whether, in case of disturbances, they have perceived a positive evolution with regard to traffic management? The responses are shown in Figure 47.

Among the stakeholders groups, out of the 51 respondents who had an opinion on this question, an important majority (44) have not perceived changes in the traffic management with exception to 4 infrastructure managers, 2 citizens, 1 freight railway undertaking and 1 regulatory body which have perceived improvement. On the contrary 1 rail association and 1 end-customer have perceived that the situation has worsened.


48/112

(b) The Regulation lays down one concrete priority rule in the event of disturbance: the train path allocated to freight trains which comply with their scheduled time in the working timetable should not be modified, as far as possible.

It was asked the respondents whether they consider this priority rule as appropriate? The responses are shown in Figure 48.

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 64 respondents who had an opinion on this question, an important majority (52) considered that this priority rule is appropriate with the exception to 2 citizens, 2 infrastructure managers, 1 integrated railway company, 1 public authority, 1 rail association and 5 regulatory bodies.


The OPC specified the previous question by asking the respondents if in practice, they have seen any effect of this rule. The responses are shown in Figure 49.

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 45 respondents who had an opinion on this question, an important majority (32) have not seen any effect of this rule (with the exception to 1 citizen, 1 consultancy, 4 end-customer associations, 1 freight railway undertaking, 3 infrastructure managers, 1 integrated railway company, 1 ministry of transport and 1 regulatory body).


49/112

(c) The OPC asked the respondents whether they think that strict punctuality targets and strong priority rules should be promoted

In the RFCs? The responses are shown in Figure 50.

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 70 respondents who had an opinion on the question, an important majority (53) considered that strict punctuality targets and strong priority rules should be promoted more strongly on the RFCs (with exception to 1 citizen, 1 public authority and 2 rail associations which considered that it should not be promoted). An important share of the freight railway undertakings (3 out 5) considered that the situation should remain as it is.


50/112

for international freight trains on any routes? The responses are shown in Figure 51.

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 65 respondents who had an opinion on this question, the majority (46) considered that strict punctuality targets and strong priority rules should be promoted more strongly for international freight trains on any routes (with exception to the rail freight corridor, 2 rail associations, 1 public authority and 1 ministry of transport which considered that it should not be promoted). An important share of the freight railway undertakings (4 out 5) considered that the situation should remain as it is.


51/112

for freight trains in general (including national ones)? The responses are shown in Figure 52.

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 66 respondents who had an opinion on this question, the majority (45) considered that strict punctuality targets and strong priority rules should be promoted more strongly for international freight trains on any routes (with exception to 1 ministry of transport, 1 public authority, 1 rail association and the rail freight corridor which considered that it should not be promoted).


52/112

(d) The OPC asked the respondents whether they consider that priority rules should be harmonised among all the RFCs. The responses are shown in Figure 53.

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 66 respondents who had an opinion on this question, the majority (56) considered that priority rules should be harmonised among all RFCs with exception to 1 citizen, 2 infrastructure managers, 1 ministry of transport, 1 public authority, 2 rail association and the rail freight corridor which considered that it should not.


53/112

(e) In your opinion, under which circumstances, should passenger trains have the priority over freight trains? The responses are shown in Figure 54.

4 stakeholders have not replied. The vast majority of most of all stakeholders groups (66) considered that passenger trains should have priority over freight trains under specific circumstances.


(f) In your opinion, under which circumstances, should freight trains have the priority over passenger trains? The responses are shown in Figure 55.

3 stakeholders have not replied. Among most of all stakeholders groups, the majority (74) considered that freight trains should have priority over passenger's trains under specific circumstances.


54/112

Question 9: Traffic Management and coordination of works

(a) The OPC asked the respondents whether they have perceived developments due to the coordination of traffic management foreseen in the Regulation. The responses are shown in Figure 56.

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 59 respondents who had an opinion on this question, 36 stakeholders have perceived positive development, of which the main stakeholders group is the infrastructure managers (7 out of 10). On the contrary 23 stakeholders have perceived no changes, of which the main stakeholders groups are: the end-customers (8 out 15) and the regulatory bodies (7 out of 12). Amongst the following stakeholders groups the freight railway undertakings and the integrated railway companies had different opinions equally split.


55/112

(b) The OPC asked the respondents whether they considered that the role of the RFCs regarding coordination of traffic management should be modified. The responses are shown in Figure 57.

Among all stakeholders group and out of the 62 respondents who had an opinion on this question, the opinions are more or less equally split. Among the stakeholders who considered that the role of the RFCs should be strengthened regarding the coordination of traffic management (34) (with exception to 1 infrastructure manager), the following stakeholders groups are predominant: the citizens (8 out of 10), the 2 consultancies, the end-customers (2), the research institution and the environment association. Among the stakeholders who considered that the role of the RFCs should remain as it is (25), the following stakeholders groups are predominant: the infrastructure managers (7 out of 10), the integrated railway companies (4 out 6) and the regulatory bodies (5 out of 12). Amongst the following stakeholders groups: the freight railway undertakings, the rail associations and the regulatory bodies the opinions were more or less equally split.


56/112

(c) The OPC asked the respondents how they perceive the coordination of works (possessions) in the RFCs in practice. The responses are shown in Figure 58.

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 62 respondents who had an opinion on this question, the majority (51) considered that the coordination of works is not sufficient with exception to 3 citizens, 1 consultancy, 1 environment association, 1 freight railway undertaking, 2 infrastructure managers and 1 ministry which considered that it is sufficient. 2 stakeholders, namely 1 citizen and 1 ministry of transport, perceived the coordination of works in the RFCs in practice as good.


57/112

Question 10: Infrastructure development

(a) TEN-T infrastructure requirements

The OPC asked the respondents whether the RFCs should have a role in the implementation of the following infrastructure requirements laid down in Article 39 of Regulation 1315/2013 (to be implemented by 2030 on the Core Network): 740m train length, 22.5t axle load, electrification, 100 km/h speed. The responses are shown in Figure 59.

Among most of the stakeholders groups, the great majority (56) considered that the RFCs should have role in the implementation of those infrastructure requirements (with exception to 2 infrastructure managers, 1 integrated railway company, 2 ministries of transport, 1 public authority, 1 rail association and 1 regulatory body which considered that they should not have a role). The following stakeholders groups have importantly supported a partial role: the infrastructure managers (5 out of the 10), the rail freight corridor and the consultancy.


(b) ERTMS

The OPC recalled that the deployment of European Railway Traffic Management System (to be implemented by 2030 on the Core Network) presupposes a close coordination between the deployment on the trackside and the on-board. Moreover it also recalled that some RFCs have merged with the so-called European Railway Traffic Management System Corridors.

Considering the above, the OPC asked the respondents whether they consider that the RFCs should have a particular role to play in the operational deployment of the European Railway Traffic Management System. The responses are shown in Figure 60.

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 79 stakeholders who had an opinion on this question, the opinions are more or less equally split.

Among the stakeholders who considered that the RFCs should have a role to play (32), the stakeholders groups with an important majority supporting this are: the industry (1), the citizens (9 out of 10) and the regulatory bodies (7 out of 12).

58/112

Among the stakeholders who considered that the RFCs should partly have a role to play (28), the stakeholders group with a majority supporting this is: the ministries of transport (3 out of 5).

As regarding the following stakeholders groups: the freight railway undertakings, the infrastructure managers, the rail associations and the integrated companies, the opinions were more or less equally split between "no role" and "a partial role".


(c) Other infrastructure parameters

The OPC asked the respondents whether the RFCs should have a particular role to play in the deployment of any other infrastructure parameters (e.g. related to loading gauge). The responses are shown in Figure 61.

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 79 stakeholders who had an opinion on this question, the majority (46) considered that RFCs should have a particular role to play in the deployment of any other infrastructure parameters. The main stakeholders groups supporting this are all the citizens (10), the environment association, the integrated railway companies (4 out of 6), the rail associations (4 out of 8), the research institution and the regulatory bodies (7 out of 12). The rail freight undertakings and the end-customers associations have an opinion more or less equally split between the ones considered the RFCs should have a role or partially a role.


59/112

(d) Coordination of investments

The OPC asked the respondents how they would describe the added-value of the RFCs in terms of coordination of investments across borders. The responses are shown in Figure 62.

Among most of all stakeholders groups the opinions are divided on this question. Out of the 73 stakeholders who had an opinion, 31 described the added-value of the RFCs as somewhat significant of which the infrastructure managers (9 out of 10), the freight railway undertakings (3 out of 5) and the rail freight corridor are the stakeholders groups with a strong majority supporting this. 19 stakeholders described the added-value of the RFCs as significant and 15 very significant.

Figure 62: Response to open consultation question 10.d(i) of the Expert questionnaire

60/112

The OPC asked the respondents if they think that the role of the RFCs in terms of coordination of investments should be modified. The responses are shown in Figure 63.

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 63 respondents who had an opinion on the question, a majority (48) considered that the role of the RFCs should be strengthened (with exception to the environment association which considered it should be reduced), of which the following groups of stakeholders were predominant: the citizens (7 out of 10), the freight railway undertakings (4 out of 5), the industry and the industry association, the rail associations (6 out of 8), the rail freight corridor and the research institution.

Among the following groups of stakeholders the opinions were more or less equally split between "strengthening their role" or "maintaining it as it is": the infrastructure managers, the integrated railway companies and the ministries of transport.

Figure 63: Response to open consultation question 10.d(ii) of the Expert questionnaire

61/112

Question 11: Small-scale investments

The opinions were divided among the different stakeholders groups. Out of the 67 stakeholders who had an opinion on this issue, a majority (52) considered that RFCs should have access to dedicated financial resources and take decision on small-scale investments along the corridor, whereas 15 stakeholders considered that this should not be the case.

The supporters of the idea (mainly citizens (8), end-customer associations (10), rail associations (7) regulatory bodies (5), IMs (4), and integrated companies (2)) stressed that rail infrastructure development is too often driven by national considerations, rail passenger (rather than freight) needs and the prestige of big projects. On the contrary cross-border freight and small projects would be often neglected. For example, from a national IM perspective it would often be rational to not invest for the benefit of international freight traffic since the track access charges revenues do not cover the related costs. Moreover, it is often complicated to solve minor issues on a binational or international level. It is important to note stakeholders highlighted that for answering the question, the source of financing is determinant; in other words, EU funding for this is welcome.

Other stakeholders (mainly IMs (3) and integrated railway companies (4)) do not support this concept. But many of them could support a less ambitious approach where under the umbrella of a RFC, national IMs would be given access to a certain budget "at call" from either their national ministry or the EU to carry out these small-scale investments without having to follow the traditional lengthy budget approval procedure.

Question 12: Last-mile infrastructure

(a) The OPC asked the respondents whether they think that the RFCs should play a role in promoting the access to information about and development (capacity and investments) of last-mile infrastructure. The responses are shown in Figure 64.

Among most of all stakeholders groups, a very high majority (72) considered that they should with exception to 1 citizen, 1 end-customer and 1 ministry of transport.

62/112


(b) Then, the OPC asked if they consider the RFCs should have a role in identifying the impacts of some investments along the RFC infrastructure, on last mile infrastructures, and vice versa. The responses are shown in Figure 65.

Amongst most of all stakeholders groups, a very high majority (70) considered that the RFCs should have a role (with exception to 1 end-customer and 1ministry of transport).


Question 13: Capacity offer

(a) The OPC asked the respondents how they assess the amount of dedicated capacity (pre-arranged paths and/or reserve capacity) offered by the RFCs. The responses are shown in Figure 66.

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 65 stakeholders who had an opinion on this question, the opinions were more or less equally split. Among the stakeholders who

63/112

assessed the amount of dedicated capacity offered by the RFCs as somewhat satisfactory (36), the stakeholders groups with a predominant majority were: the research institution, the regulatory bodies (8 out of 12), the rail freight corridor, the rail associations (5 out of 8), the integrated railway companies (4 out of 6), the freight railway undertakings (3 out of 5), the environment association and the 2 consultancies. A majority of end-customers associations (8) considered it as not satisfactory.


(b) Then the OPC asked the respondents how they assess the quality of the capacity offered by the RFCs. The responses are shown in Figure 67.

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 61 stakeholders who had an opinion on this question, a majority (45) assessed the quality of the capacity offered as somewhat satisfactory, of which the following stakeholders groups were predominant: the infrastructure managers (9 out of 10), the rail freight corridor, the research institution, all the integrated railway companies (6), the ministries of transports (3 out of 5), the freight railway undertakings (3 out of 5), the environment association and the regulatory bodies (7). A limited number of stakeholders assessed the quality as not satisfactory, namely 1 regulatory body, 1 rail association, 1 freight railway undertaking, 4 end-customer associations and 3 citizens.


64/112

(c) The third sub-question of this chapter asked the respondents if they considered that the national framework agreements, which have been concluded for freight or passenger national traffic, have an impact on the amount of capacity dedicated to the RFC. The responses are shown in Figure 68.

Among most of all stakeholders more than the half of them had not opinion on this question. Out of the 41 respondents with an opinion, the majority (31) considered that the national framework agreements have an impact on the amount of capacity dedicated to the RFCs, of which were predominant the following stakeholders groups: all the citizens (10), the end-customers (6), the freight railway undertakings (2), the infrastructure managers (3) and the integrated railway companies (3). The stakeholders considering they have an impact are predominantly the regulatory bodies (4), the ministries of transport (4 out of 5) and the environment association.


(d) The OPC specified a question for the users of the RFCs. It was asked to them if they have the choice between a pre-arranged path in the sense of the Regulation and paths of comparable quality allocated through the national procedures, do they see

65/112

an added value in choosing a pre-arranged path. The responses are shown in Figure 69.

Among most of all stakeholders more than the half of them had no opinion on this question. Out of the 36 respondents who had an opinion, majority (28) sees an added-value in choosing a pre-arranged path, of which the main stakeholders groups were the research institution, the rail associations (5), the integrated railway companies (5), the freight railway undertakings (3) , the end-customers (2) and the citizens (6).


(e) The OPC asked the respondents whether they consider the pre-arranged path

concept as being in line with market needs. The responses are shown in Figure 70.

Among all the stakeholders, out of the 72 who had an opinion, the majority (51) considered the pre-arranged path concept as barely in line with markets needs of which the following stakeholders groups were predominant: the end-customers (2), the end-customer associations (12 out of 15), the freight railway undertakings (3), the infrastructure managers (7 out of 10), the integrated railway companies (5 out of 6), the rail associations (6 out of 8), the rail freight corridor and the regulatory bodies (10 out of 12).


66/112

(f) The OPC asked if the respondents consider it possible to reduce the timeline for the application to dedicated capacity on the RFCs:

for prearranged paths:

The responses are shown in Figure 71.

Among all the stakeholders groups, out of the 52 who had an opinion, the opinions are split between "absolutely possible" and "largely possible".

Among the main stakeholders groups supporting that it should be absolutely possible (21) are predominant the freight railway undertakings (3), the integrated railway companies (3 out of 6), the rail associations (4) and the rail freight corridor.

Among the main stakeholders groups supporting that it should be largely possible (21) are predominant the research institution, the regulatory bodies (6) and the end-customers associations.

As exception, 3 stakeholders considered it should not be possible at all, namely 1 infrastructure manager and 2 integrated railway companies.


67/112

for reserve capacity:


Among all the stakeholders, out of the 58 who had an opinion, the opinions are split between "absolutely possible" and "largely possible".

Among the main stakeholders groups supporting that it should be absolutely (24) possible are predominant the rail freight corridor, the rail associations (4 out of 8), the integrated railway companies (4 out of 6) and the freight railway undertakings (2).

Among the main stakeholders groups supporting that it should be largely possible (21) are predominant the research institution and the regulatory bodies (8 out of 12).


(g) It was asked the respondents whether the timeline for the application to reserve capacity should be harmonised among all RFCs.


Among all the stakeholders, out of the 68 who had an opinion, the majority (61) considered that the timeline for application to reserve capacity should be harmonised among all RFCs (with exception to 3 infrastructure managers, 1 freight railway undertaking, 1 end-customer association and 2 citizens which considered it should not).


68/112

(h) Finally, the last question of this chapter asked the respondents whether they see a need for a new concept for freight capacity allocation, e.g. ensuring at an early stage the reservation of capacity (e.g. time windows) of good quality for freight on the RFCs (and defining specific train paths only at a later stage, closer to the actual running of the train).


9 respondents had not replied to this question. Among all the stakeholders who replied (78), the majority (55) considered that such concept should complement the pre-arranged path concept (with exception to 1 rail association, 1 public authority and 1 infrastructure manager which considered that the pre-arranged path concept is no meeting the needs), of which the following stakeholders groups were predominant: the end-customer associations (13), the environment association, all the freight railway undertakings (5), the industry and the industry association, the infrastructure managers (8 out of 10), all the integrated railway companies (6), the ministries of transport (3), the rail associations (5) and the rail freight corridor. Opinions were equally divided, between a new concept which should "complement" or "replace" the pre-arranged path concept, among the following stakeholders groups, namely the regulatory bodies, the end-customers, the consultancies and the citizens.

Figure 74: Response to open consultation question 13.h of the Expert questionnaire

69/112

Question 14: Corridor One- Stop Shop (C-OSS)

The OPC recalled that a C-OSS is set up by the Management Board as single contact point for the users of the RFC to request capacity for freight trains crossing at least one border.

(a) It was asked the respondents whether they consider that the concept of C-OSS bring an added value to European cross-border rail freight.


Among most of all stakeholders groups the majority, out of the 72 stakeholders who had an opinion, a majority considered (62) that it brings a high added-value (46) and even a very high added-value (16) with the exception to 1 ministry of transport which considered it brings no added-value.


70/112

(b) The OPC specified a question for the users of the RFCs. It asked them to describe their experience in terms of contacts and use (including tools and procedures) of the C-OSS.


Among all stakeholders, out of the 39 who had an opinion on this question, the opinions were mainly split between an experience described as" good" or as "not relevant".

Among the stakeholders describing their experience as good (19), the following main stakeholders groups were predominant: the freight railway undertakings (4 out of 5) and the integrated railway companies (4 out of 6).

Among the stakeholders describing their experience as not relevant (16), the following main stakeholders groups were predominant: the regulatory bodies (5), public authority (1) and the end-customers associations (2).

Opinions were more or less equally divided between "good" and "not-relevant" among the infrastructure managers and the rail associations


71/112

(c) The OPC asked the respondents whether they considered that the C-OSS offer should include the possibility for users to request:

The OPC clarified on this question that it does not necessarily mean that the C-OSS takes the corresponding allocation decision. And that currently the Regulation does not explicitly specify that the C-OSS should offer to users this possibility (but does not forbid it).

(i) late request for prearranged path?


Among all stakeholders, out of the 66 who had an opinion on this question, the vast majority (64) considered that the C-OSS offer should include the possibility for users to requests late request for pre-arranged path (with the exception to 2 infrastructure managers which considered that it should not).


(ii) the modification and cancellation of paths?


72/112

Among all stakeholders, out of the 49 who had an opinion on this question, the vast majority (46) considered that the offer of the C-OSS should include the modification and cancellation of paths (with the exception to 2 infrastructure managers and 1 regulatory body which considered that it should not).


(iii) national capacity?


Among all stakeholders, out of the 59 who had an opinion on this question, the majority (36) considered that the offer of the C-OSS should not include national capacity, of which the following stakeholders groups were predominant: the end-customers associations (6), the environment association, the freight railway undertaking (3 out of 5), the infrastructure managers (8 out of 10), the integrated railway companies (5 out of 6) and the rail associations (5).

Among the stakeholders considering the offer of the C-OSS should include the national capacity (23), the following stakeholders groups were predominant: the citizens (7), the consultancies, the research institution and the rail freight corridor.

Opinions with this regard were equally split among the end-customer associations, the ministries of transport and the regulatory bodies.


73/112

(iv) terminal capacity?


Among all stakeholders, out of the 49 who had an opinion on this question, the majority (33) considered that the C-OSS offer should include terminal capacity, of which the following stakeholders groups were predominant: the citizens (7), the environment association and the regulatory bodies (9 out of 12). 16 stakeholders considered the offer of the C-OSS should not include terminal capacity however no strong majority could be identified among the stakeholders groups. To be noted that majority of the infrastructure managers, freight railway undertakings, integrated railway companies, public authorities and the rail freight corridor had no opinion on this question.

Figure 80: Response to open consultation question 14.c(iv) of the Expert questionnaire

(v) information about last-mile infrastructure?


74/112

Among all the stakeholders, out of the 64 who had an opinion on this question, majority (60) considered that the C-OSS offer should include information about last-mile infrastructure (with exception to 1 citizen, 1 end-customer association, 1 infrastructure manager and 1 integrated railway company which considered it should not).

Figure 81: Response to open consultation question 14.c(v) of the Expert questionnaire

(vi) feeder and outflow paths?


Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 61 who had an opinion on this question, a high majority (60) considered that the offer of the C-OSS should include feeder and outflow paths (with exception to the research institution which considered that it should not).

Figure 82: Response to open consultation question 14.c(vi) of the Expert questionnaire

(vii) other?


75/112

Among all stakeholders groups, out of the 26 respondents who had an opinion on this question, a high majority (23) considered the C-OSS offer should include other products and/or services (with exception to 2 infrastructure managers and 1 integrated railway company which considered it should not).

Figure 83: Response to open consultation question 14.c(vii) of the Expert questionnaire

(d) The OPC asked the respondents whether to describe what should the reserve capacity consist of.


Several boxes could be ticked; therefore the stakeholders have selected the following by ranking ascending numbers:

52 times - "Slot with a guaranteed windows time"

46 times - "Tailor made solution"

43 times - "prearranged-paths"

39 times - "flex prearranged paths"

15 times - "other"


76/112

(e) The OPC asked the respondents whether they consider that the C-OSS should handle ad hoc requests for capacity other than reserve capacity.


Among all stakeholders, out of the 44 who had an opinion on this question, the majority (35) considered the C-OSS should handle ad hoc requests for capacity other than reserve capacity (with exception to 1 end-customer, 1 freight railway undertaking, 4 infrastructure managers, 2 integrated railway companies and 1 regulatory body).


(f) The OPC recalled that the current framework for capacity allocation foresees that the reserve capacity shall be requested to the C-OSS at least 30 days before the running day. It was asked the respondents whether they consider that this period should be shortened for ad hoc requests (reserve capacity or other) to be requested closer to the running day of the train.


77/112

Among all the stakeholders, out of the 64 who had an opinion on this question, the majority (59) considered the period for booking ad hoc request should be shortened in order to be closer to the running day of the train (with exception to 1 end-customer association, 1 freight railway undertaking, 2 infrastructure manager and 1 integrated railway company).


(g) Do you think that the C-OSS should deal with broader administrative processes like for example charging and billing?


Among all the stakeholders, out of the 48 who had an opinion on this question, majority (32) considered the C-OSS should deal with broader administrative processes like for example charging and billing, of which the following stakeholders groups were predominant: the citizens (5), the environment association, the freight railway undertakings (3 out of 5), the ministries of transport (3), the rail associations (4) and the regulatory bodies (8). On the contrary 16 stakeholders considered that it should not deal with such broader administrative processes, of which the following stakeholders groups were predominant: the research institution, the rail freight corridor and the integrated railway companies (3).


78/112

(h) The OPC asked the respondents whether they consider that it should be possible to request via the C-OSS additional services like services at the stations,(e.g. parking or draining services, etc.)? The OPC recalled here that the current Regulation does not explicitly foresee it, but does not forbid it.


Among all stakeholders, out of the 67 who had an opinion on this question, the majority (50) considered it should be possible to request additional services via the C-OSS, of which the following stakeholders groups were predominant: the citizens (7), the end-customers associations (10), the freight railway undertakings (4), the ministries f transport (3), the rail associations (5), the rail freight corridor and the regulatory bodies (9).

To be noted that the opinions of the infrastructure managers and of the integrated railway companies were more or less equally divided on this question.

Figure 88: Response to open consultation question 14.h of the Expert questionnaire

(i) The final question of this chapter asked the respondent if they would see an added value if:

79/112

(i) the C-OSSs of the different RFCs cooperate more closely and jointly set up a single internet-based interface displaying the capacity for the entire network of RFCs and providing information concerning the use of the RFCs?


Among all the stakeholders, out of the 71 who had an opinion on this question, a high majority (68) would see an added-value if the C-OSSs cooperate more closely and set up a single internet-based interface displaying the capacity for the network of RFCs and providing information on the use of the RFCs (with exception to 2 integrated railway companies and 1 rail association).

Figure 89: Response to open consultation question 14.i(i) of the Expert questionnaire

(ii) the C-OSSs of all RFCs were merged into a single C-OSS?


Among all the stakeholders, out of the 53 who had an opinion on this question, the majority (34) considered the C-OSSs of all RFCs should not be merged into a single C-OSS, of which the following stakeholders groups were predominant: the freight railway undertakings (4), the infrastructure managers (7), the integrated railway companies (5), the rail associations (4) and the rail freight corridor.

Figure 90: Response to open consultation question 14.i(ii) of the Expert questionnaire

80/112

Question 15: Performance

The OPC asked under this chapter to the respondents whether they consider it would be beneficial to have targets to monitor the effectiveness of the RFCs as a tool to boost European rail freight, in terms of:

(a) Traffic volumes


Among all the stakeholders, out of the 67 who had an opinion on this question, the vast majority (65) considered it would beneficial (32) and even very beneficial (33) to have targets to monitor the effectiveness of the RFCs in terms of traffic volumes (with exception to 2 infrastructure managers which considered it would be disadvantageous)

Figure 91: Response to open consultation question 15 of the Expert questionnaire

81/112

(b) Quality


Among all stakeholders, out of the 71 who had an opinion on this question, the majority (70) considered it would be beneficial (30) and even very beneficial (40) to have targets to monitor the effectiveness of the RFCs in terms of quality (with exception to 1 infrastructure manager which considered it would be disadvantageous).


(c) Infrastructure quality


Among all stakeholders, out of the 67 who had an opinion on this question, the majority (64) considered it would be beneficial (29) and even very beneficial (35) to have targets to monitor the effectiveness of the RFCs in terms of infrastructure quality (with exception to 2 infrastructure managers and 1 ministry of transport).


82/112

Question 16: Disclosure of information to terminals

The OPC asked the respondents whether they consider that the Regulation should guarantee to terminals or other stakeholders the access to real-time train data concerning international freight trains, for example Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA).


Among all stakeholders, out of the 72 who had an opinion on this question, the majority (58) considered the Regulation should guarantee to terminals or other stakeholders the access to real-time train data concerning international freight trains (with exception to 2 freight railway undertakings, 2 infrastructure managers, 4 integrated railway companies, 1 ministry of transport, 3 rail associations and 2 regulatory bodies which considered that it should not.)


83/112

Question 17: Regulatory supervision

The OPC asked the respondents whether they consider the legal framework as clear enough for the regulatory bodies to adequately perform their supervision of the RFCs.


Out of the 57 who had an opinion on this question, the opinions were split among most of all the stakeholders groups.

Among the stakeholders who considered the legal framework is clear enough (23), the following stakeholders groups were predominant: the environment association, the infrastructure managers (7), the rail associations (6) and the rail freight corridor.

Among the stakeholders who considered the legal framework is not clear enough (354), the following stakeholders groups were predominant: the citizens (5), the end-customers (2), the regulatory bodies (11 out of 12) and the research institution.


Question 18: Language on the Rail Freight Corridors

The OPC asked the respondents whether they would see an added-value in having a single operational language.

The question specified where in particular:

(a) on the cross-border sections until the first station/terminal on each side of the border?


6 stakeholders did not reply to this question. Among all the stakeholders, the vast majority (62) sees an added-value in having a single operational language on the cross-border sections until the first station/terminal on each side of the border (with exception to 1 end-customer, 2 freight railway undertakings, 5 infrastructure managers, 3 integrated railway companies, 3 ministries of transport, 1 public authority, 4 rail association and 1 regulatory body).

84/112


(b) along the entire network of RFCs?


7 stakeholders did not reply to this question. Among all the stakeholders, opinions were split. A small majority (45) would see an added-value in having a single operational language along the entire network of RFCs, with exception to 35 stakeholders. To be noted that the opinions were more or less equally split for the following stakeholders groups: the end-customers, the freight railway undertakings, the infrastructure managers; the integrated railway companies, the ministries of transport and the rail associations.


Question 19: Digital solutions

The OPC asked whether the respondents see an added value in using the RFCs as a pilot vehicle for the deployment of innovative digital solutions and logistical applications.


85/112

Among all stakeholders, out of the 62 who had an opinion on this question, a very high majority (61) sees an added value in using the RFCs as a pilot vehicle for the deployment of innovative digital solutions and logistical applications (with the exception to 1 end-customer association).


Question 20: Harmonisation

(a) The OPC recalled that the European Commission has received a certain amount of feedback, both from Stakeholders inside the RFCs and from users of the RFCs, according to which the RFCs are suffering from a lack of harmonisation and of user-friendliness (e.g. concerning the Corridor information documents, terms and conditions, Frameworks for capacity allocation, Performance monitoring reports, deadlines, transport market studies, reporting procedures).

(i) The OPC asked the respondent whether they agree with this view.


Among all stakeholders, out of the 72 who had an opinion on this question, the high majority (96) agreed (40) and even fully agreed (29) (with exception to the environmental association, 1 infrastructure manager and 1 ministry of transport which disagreed).

Figure 99: Response to open consultation question 20.a(i) of the Expert questionnaire

86/112

(ii) Then, it asked if they consider that the Regulation should define minimum requirements for the structure and content of documents like the one mentioned above.


Among all the stakeholders, out of the 66 who had an opinion on this question, a small majority (41) considered that Regulation should define minimum requirements for the structure and content of documents like the one mentioned above. On the contrary 31 stakeholders considered that it should not, among which the following stakeholders groups were predominant: the freight railway undertakings (3), the infrastructure managers (8), the ministries of transports (3), the rail associations (6) and the rail freight corridor.

Figure 100: Response to open consultation question 20.a(ii) of the Expert questionnaire

87/112

(b) The OPC asked also in the framework of the chapter on harmonisation whether the tools, methods and processes developed and approved by RailNetEurope should be systematically implemented by the Infrastructure Managers along the RFCs.


Among all the stakeholders, out of the 58 who had an opinion on this question, a high majority (55) considered that the tools, methods and processes developed and approved by RailNetEurope should be systematically implemented by the Infrastructure Managers along the RFCs (with exception to 1 citizen, 1 integrated railway company and 1 ministry of transport).


Question 21: Terminology

The OPC asked the respondents whether they are aware of any incoherencies or unclear terminology in the Regulation which would need to be better defined.

It was highlighted that Directive 2012/34/EU includes the term “freight terminal”, the Regulation uses the term “terminals”. Both terms are very similar but do not mean the same as “terminals” are “freight terminals” and “marshalling yards”. Furthermore it is not clear whether the “terminals” include more service facilities than freight terminals and marshalling yards (e.g. sidings). In contrast to the terminal definition provided for in the Regulation, the definition of service facilities according to the Directive 2012/34/EU includes the addition "as a whole or part". (Regulatory bodies)

Regarding the scope of the Regulation the definition of "freight corridor" should be clarified. (Regulatory bodies)

It was also suggested regarding the scope of the Regulation the definition of "freight corridor" to be clarified, in particular in terms of obligations. The example of the provision requiring promoting compatibility between performance schemes was highlighted as not clear at all on what should be achieved. (Rail associations)

While the reserve capacity (Article 14§5) consists of catalogue train paths or, in other words, pre-arranged paths, this latter expression is widely used for only referring to the annual train paths under Article 14§3. Likewise, there is also a lack of appropriate expression for referring to the sum of train paths under both 14§3 and §5. (Infrastructure managers)

88/112

The EU-Regulation comprises many provisions which are not setting out objectives and obligations clear enough. In particular, these can be found in the articles which describe the infrastructure services specific for the rail freight corridors (e.g. Art. 16 and 17). (Infrastructure managers)

Article 2§(b) sets out that the implementation plan comprises "measures which are necessary and sufficient to establish the freight corridor". Consequently, it suggests that the implementation plan only concern the time period before the establishing of the corridor. Article 9§2, on the other hand, requires periodical review of the document, which is unnecessary after the establishing of the corridor." (Infrastructure managers)

It was also suggested to rename the Article 12 as “coordination of works and commercial capacity”. (Infrastructure managers)

It was also highlighted that the Article 13 should clearly state that a C-OSS is entitle to allocate paths that cross the border of "a" corridor (not “the” corridor). (Infrastructure managers)

Question 22: Efficiency

The OPC asked the respondents whether they believe the costs incurred for setting up, managing and making use of the RFCs by the stakeholders like the public authorities, the infrastructure managers, the railway undertakings or the terminal managers are proportionate to the benefits of the RFCs for cross-border rail freight.


Among all the stakeholders, out of the 50 who had an opinion on the question, a high majority agree (with exception to 1 consultancy, 1 end-customer, 2 infrastructure managers and 1 ministry of transport).

Among the stakeholders who agreed, 21 considered the RFCs are efficient but the benefits will start to be felt only in the long term, of which the infrastructure managers (5) and the regulatory bodies (7) were the predominant stakeholders groups. 13 other stakeholders considered that the RFCs are efficient but the benefits will start to be felt only in the mid-term.


89/112

Question 23: Coherency with the EU Transport policy and legislation

(a) The OPC asked the respondents whether they think that the objectives of the Regulation are coherent with the broader EU Transport policy, and in particular with

the White paper on Transport of 2011,2 which i.a. sets the objective to reduce CO2

emissions from transport by 60% by 2050 and to shift 30% of long-distance road freight to more energy-efficient transport modes by 2030 and 50% by 2050.


Among all the stakeholders, out of the 65 who had an opinion on this question, a high majority (63) considered the objectives are coherent, but half of them specified to a small extend and other half to a large extend (with exception to 1 consultancy and 1 regulatory body).


2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0144&from=EN

90/112

(b) The OPC asked the respondents whether they think that the objectives of the Regulation are coherent with the ten policy priorities set by the current European

Commission in July 2014?3


Among all stakeholders, out of the 53 who had an opinion on this question, majority (40) agreed that objectives are coherent but 12 specified to a small extend and 28 to a large extend (with exception to 1 citizen, 1 consultancy, 3 freight railway undertakings, 3 infrastructure managers, 1 integrated railway company and 4 rail associations which considered that objectives are not coherent)


3 http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/docs/political-guidelines-short_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/docs/political-guidelines-short_en.pdf

91/112

(c) Do you think that the Regulation coherently fits in the current railway legislation (notably Directive 2012/34/EU establishing a single European railway area

(‘Recast’))4 and infrastructure development and financing legislation (notably the

TEN-T Guidelines and the CEF Regulation)5?


Among all the stakeholders, out of the 44 who had an opinion on this question, the majority (37) considered the Regulation coherently fits in the current railway legislation (with exception to 1 citizen, 2 end-customer associations, 2 infrastructure managers, 1 public authority and 1 regulatory body) but 23 stakeholders specified that it fits to a large extent and 14 others to a small extent.


4 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:343:0032:0077:EN:PDF 5 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32013R1315 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1316&from=EN

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32013R1315

92/112

Question 24: Unexpected impacts

The OPC asked the respondents whether they consider that the implementation of the RFCs had impacts that they did not initially expect. The responses are shown in Figure 106.

Out of the 56 stakeholders who had an opinion on this question, the opinions among the different stakeholders are split.

26 stakeholders considered that the implementation of the RFCs had positive impacts that they did not initially expect, of which the following stakeholders groups are predominant: the citizens (5), the freight railway undertakings (3), the infrastructure managers (3), the integrated railway companies (3), the rail associations (3) and the rail freight corridor.

In this respect, some stakeholders considered that the implementation of the RFCs created momentum for coordination and cooperation between stakeholders, which previously had not existed, and the intensity of which they had not expected. They considered it is a very positive impact that the stakeholders throughout Europe sit together to find solutions on a very frequent and regular basis. The very structured organisational structure of the RFCs allows the necessary tasks to be channelled in a right way and then a solution is worked out for this. In this context it was also underlined that the development of a long use of cooperation and relationship of trust between Member States and infrastructure managers is a big success from the RFCs. It was also highlighted that it contributed to keep high level political attention on rail freight.

On the contrary, 26 other stakeholders considered the implementation of the RFCs had no impact that they did not initially expect, of which the following stakeholders groups are predominant: the end-customers associations (6) and the regulatory bodies (7).

Others considered that RFCs have been in use for a short time, so it is too soon to evaluate their impact.

Other considered that RFCs are indeed the right tool but it is not enough there is a need of a level playing field between road and rail.

Finally, 1 consultancy, the environment association and 2 infrastructure managers considered that the implementation of the RFCs had negative impacts.


93/112

Question 25: Area of activities

The OPC asked the respondents whether they considered that there are additional issues which are not yet covered by the Regulation (e.g. as regards interoperability, technical and operational barriers or noise mitigation), the tackling of which the RFCs could play a role in.


Among all the stakeholders, out of the 46 who had an opinion on this question, many stakeholders (26) considered there are additional issues which are not yet covered by the Regulation, of which the predominant stakeholders groups are: the citizens (5) and the end-customers associations (6), the industry and the industry association and the regulatory bodies (5).

On the contrary, 19 stakeholders considered that there are no additional issues not yet covered by the Regulation which could be tackled by the RFCs, of which the predominant stakeholders groups are the rail freight corridor, the rail associations (3), the infrastructure managers (5) and the environment association.

The following areas of activities were suggested:

Technical innovation (e.g. to make mandatory the use of automatic centre couplers on the train running on the corridor);

Environmental aspects (road vs rail, diesel traction vs electric traction);

Harmonisation;

Traffic management, advocacy for rail freight within the Member States (towards the governments) of the Corridor;

one common charging system for using railway infrastructure;

interoperability including noise;

technical and administrative barriers.

It was underlined that issues which are already covered by other Regulations should remain untouched and not be incorporated into Regulation 913/2010.

RFCs should be used as an effective Instrument for all interoperability issues - on the one hand for their economical evaluations and on the other hand for the prompt implementation of the needed actions.


94/112

Question 26: Barriers

The respondents have listed the following operational and technical barriers to be tackled:

Infrastructure investments

train length;

gross weight;

axle load; profile / loading gauge enhancement;

electrification; number of tracks;

gradients and turn radiuses;

signalling diversity (ERTMS);

Removal of bottlenecks;

different type of current,

financing LMI

Infrastructure management and safety management

coordination of infrastructure works within and between the RFCs;

Traffic management and striking a balance between passenger and freight traffic in the allocation process;

national priority rules;

Harmonisation of charging and cancellation rules;

Harmonisation of operational rules such as braking regimes, tail lights, technical inspection at border points etc.;

reduction of national safety rules.

Scheduled freight train time-tables (every hour etc.) enhancing the ease of use.

TIS should be made freely available for all the chain of transport participating either in requesting the Paths or providing complementary services to those who asked for the Paths.

Non-availability of a common capacity request tool capable of handling request for all infrastructure services (such as station use, etc.)

RFC marketing

On-board:

Interoperability of older rolling stock;

95/112

Missing unified monitoring system of rolling stock (RFID, GNSS, etc.) to ensure the processes in safety and maintenance field;

driver certification and qualifications (incl. language requirements);

reliable ETCS deployment accompanied by a reasonable financing model for on-board equipment;

lengthy authorisation procedures for rolling stock and insufficient cooperation in traffic management.

Both infra & on-board

the language issue;

IT Tools;

Competitive door-to-door delivery time.

Administrative:

a non-stop transit of trains with less administrative burdens.

Lack of level-playing field and internalisation of external costs

Confusion over who is in power and in charge of specific terms

Question 27: Research and innovation

(a) The OPC asked the respondents which topics should particularly be tackled by research and innovation in order to boost the traffic on the RFCs, and more generally rail freight in Europe.

The following topics have been listed:

Real time path allocation; impact of targeted investments to market; Single wagon load and container traffic; light equipment; locomotive; driver-less trains/automatic driving / automated train operation (ATO); automated brake test; automated marshalling processes; adaptation of the legislation to reflect automatization and digitalisation; increasing safety and security; eConsignment Note; single EU tracking and tracing solution for rail freight; digital RINF expanded with actual limitations; single database/portal for last mile solutions; wagon database; disc brakes for wagons; electricity on board wagons (to replace air brake systems); longer trains; Intelligent asset (wagons); position of framework agreement; harmonisation of traffic management; introduction of a European Performance Regime; standardisation of wagons (infra flats and mobile superstructure); Integrated system to apply for capacity in terminals and on RFCs; tool for a qualitative monitoring; train integrity check (ETCS level 3); boosting of TAF TSI development; tool for a door-to-door service, integrating terminals and ports, RUs services and even last mile service by truck, calculating journey times and cost estimative; introduction of new and innovative freight transport services and combined transport like Ro-Mo services; any development which would give shippers ability to track shipments and reduce transit time; self-propelled wagons; RFC marketing approach.

In addition a stakeholder resumed the challenge in a two-fold: (1) To acquire a new service-oriented profile for rail freight services based on excellence in on time delivery at competitive costs, interweaving its operations with other transport modes, addressing the needs of the clientele among others by incorporating innovative value-added services. (2) To increase productivity, by addressing current operational and system weaknesses and limitations, including interoperability issues, and finding cost-effective solutions to these problems, including optimisation of existing infrastructure and fostering technology transfer from other sectors into rail freight.

Another stakeholder who is a founding member of Shift2Rail explained that the challenge is to enable an increase in productivity, by addressing current operational and system weaknesses and limitations, including interoperability issues, and finding cost-effective solutions to these problems, including optimisation of existing infrastructure and fostering technology transfer from other sectors into rail freight.

96/112

(b) The second sub-question of the OPC asked the respondents whether they see any specific innovation the rolling out of which would particularly benefit the RFCs, and more generally the rail freight in Europe.

Many items were already listed in the sub-question (a), the following issues and innovations have been listed specifically in the sub-question (b):

the development of a system supplying information for the train driver in a coded format, which can be used by translation software in order to lower language barriers (similar to the systems existing in aviation or inland navigation); autonomous freight wagons for simplifying shunting in small stations or within terminals - remote shunting operations; to make entering the rail freight in the era of intelligent mobility; tracking and tracing.

Another stakeholder commented that automation in train composition and operation will raise the quality of rail freight services, improve staff productivity and resource utilization and increase infrastructure capacity. Pan-European rail freight is a key enabler for automated driving systems. Customers and lifecycle-costs will benefit from predictive maintenance and smart, self-monitoring freight assets. The fusion of sensor data with pattern recognition methods will ensure cost-efficient asset management in both operations and maintenance. Driver assistance, component optimization and advanced propulsion technologies will significantly reduce energy consumption and emissions. Increased flexibility through virtual train coupling and the resulting increase in freight train lengths will help to respond to the challenge of road freight productivity and enable sustainable growth in freight traffic along European corridors.

Question 28: Any further suggestion

The following ideas have been suggested:

Need of transhipment points and cross border operation EU countries and non-EU countries.

Need of transparency through a single portal for Corridor News, which would also be used for benchmarking and KPIs. All Corridor information (infrastructure parameters, traffic events, restrictions, works, improvements, meetings, capacity and quality improvements, etc.) should be reflected on it using contemporary infographics for quick and easy comprehension by users.

Need to ensure a level playing field between all modes, including competitive track access charges, as prices are of key importance in a competitive environment.

Coordination between IMs at RFC level regarding the TAF TSI implementation and better coordination with ERA (so far linked only to the individual Company Masterplans).

Need of internalisation of external costs - level playing field

Need of an uniform Performance Regimes

Need to assess the effect of the implementation act for framework agreements on the rail

Need of better linking towards South Eastern Europe.

97/112

Part II:

Analysis of the replies of the public non familiar with the Rail Freight Corridors or with the European railway market or the (rail) freight transport sector

Question 1: Rail freight

(a) The OPC asked the respondents how they perceive the rail freight, as a transport mode, in general. The results are shown in Figure 108.

Among all the stakeholders, the majority (26) have perceived it as very positive (17) and positive (9) with the exception to 2 citizens who perceived it as negative.

Figure 108: Response to open consultation question 1.a of the Non-Expert questionnaire

(b) The OPC asked the respondents which mode is the most adapted in order to transport goods (for goods which can be carried by any of these three modes).

The results are shown in Figure 109 and 110.

Among all the stakeholders group, the vast majority (30) considered that the rail transport is the most adapted to transport goods for long distance.

Figure 109: Response to open consultation question 1.b of the Non-Expert questionnaire

As regards the short distance, among all the stakeholders group, the vast majority (23) considered that the road transport is the most adapted to transport goods.

Figure 110: Response to open consultation question 1.b-bis of the Non-Expert questionnaire

98/112

(c) The OPC informed that the demand for goods to be transported is expected to significantly grow in the next decades. Therefore it asked to the respondents whether they think that in general freight should be carried on roads or on more energy-efficient modes of transport such as rail or inland waterways.

The results are shown in Figure 111.

Among all the stakeholders groups, the vast majority (25) considered that freight should be carried more on more energy-efficient modes of transport (with exception to 1 public organisation and 1 private organisation which considered it should more on roads).

Figure 111: Response to open consultation question 1.c of the Non-Expert questionnaire

The OPC asked the respondents whether they think that a part of the freight currently carried by road should be shifted onto rail.


1 stakeholder did not replied to this question. Among all the stakeholders groups, the majority (29) considered that rail freight should absorb a large part of road freight transport.

Figure 112: Response to open consultation question 1.d of the Non-Expert questionnaire

99/112

(d) In your opinion, do you think that the railway system should play a long term role for the transport of goods?


Among all the stakeholders groups, a very high majority (34) considered that yes the railway system should play a long term role for the transport of goods.

Figure 113: Response to open consultation question 1.e of the Non-Expert questionnaire

Question 2: Rail Freight Corridor concept

The OPC recalled that the RFC concept is specified in Regulation (EU) 913/20106. A Rail Freight Corridor (RFC) is constituted of railway lines, linking two or more terminals along a predefined principal route (a focus is put on the main international rail freight routes) and is managed by a governance structure ensuring the coordination of Member States, the coordination of railway infrastructure managers7 and the participation of railway undertakings and terminal managers. The establishment of RFCs and their corresponding governance structures aims at improving the conditions for rail freight traffic along these corridors and to trigger its development in terms of volume, market share, quality and reliability.

In particular, it aims to foster: cooperation between the different stakeholders; coordination in terms of capacity offering, traffic management, infrastructure works and conditions of use of

6 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:276:0022:0032:en:PDF 7 A railway infrastructure manager is any body or firm responsible in particular for establishing, managing and maintaining railway infrastructure, including traffic management and control-command and signalling; the functions of the Infrastructure Manager on a network may be allocated to different bodies or firms

100/112

the infrastructure; the harmonisation of processes and rules; and development of the infrastructure and the related coordination in terms of investments.

The establishment and development of a RFC is based on a (regularly updated) comprehensive Transport Market Study. The development of the RFC is monitored through a yearly performance report and a yearly customer satisfaction survey.

(a) The first sub-question of this chapter asked the respondents whether they consider the RFC approach to be relevant in order to boost the competiveness of rail freight.


Among all the stakeholders groups, the great majority considered the RFC approach as relevant (14) and even very relevant (16) (with exception to 4 citizens and 1 private organisation which considered it as somewhat relevant and 2 citizens as not relevant).


(b) Then, the OPC specified the que previous question by asking the respondents to describe what could be the contribution of the RFCs to cross-border rail freight.


Among all the stakeholders groups, the great majority considered that the contribution of the RFCs to cross-border rail freight is very significant (9) and significant (19) (with exception to 4 citizens and 3 private organisations which considered it as somewhat relevant and 2 citizens as not relevant).


101/112

Question 3: Challenges faced by European rail freight

According to the Commission initial assistance, the challenges for European cross-border rail freight transport could be categorized as follows: a quality challenge (punctuality, reliability), a cost challenge (cost competitiveness), a service challenge (need for the introduction of new and innovative freight transport services), a political challenge (political and societal acceptance) and a European challenge (seamless crossing of borders).

The first question of this chapter asked therefore the respondents whether they consider that the RFC concept has the potential to address these challenges.

(a) Quality challenge


Among all the stakeholders groups, the great majority (32) considered that that the RFC concept has the potential to address the quality challenge (with exceptions to 3 citizens who considered that not at all).

Among the stakeholders groups which make up the majority, 11 stakeholders specified that the RFCs have very well the potential, 8 to a certain extent and 13 that they have it.


(b) Cost challenge


Among all the stakeholders groups, the great majority (32) considered that that the RFC concept has the potential to address the cost challenge (with exceptions to 4 citizens and 1 public organisation which considered that not at all).



102/112

(c) Service challenge


Among all the stakeholders groups, the great majority (33) considered that that the RFC concept has the potential to address the service challenge (with exceptions to 2 citizens who considered that not at all).


Figure 118: Response to open consultation question 3.c of the Non-Expert questionnaire

(d) Political challenge


Among all the stakeholders groups, the great majority (29) considered that that the RFC concept has the potential to address the political challenge (with exceptions to 4 citizens and 1 public organisation which considered that not at all).


Figure 119: Response to open consultation question 3.d of the Non-Expert questionnaire

103/112

(e) European challenge


Among all the stakeholders groups, the great majority (30) considered that that the RFC concept has the potential to address the European challenge (with exceptions to 1 citizen and 2 private organisations which considered that not at all).


Figure 120: Response to open consultation question 3.e of the Non-Expert questionnaire

Question 4: Stakeholders' involvement and governance of the Rail Freight Corridors

The OPC clarified to the respondents that a range of stakeholders are directly participating in the RFCs: primarily the Member States, the railway infrastructure managers, the railway undertakings and the terminal managers, but also the rail regulatory bodies and the European Commission. Through the setting-up of working groups on specific topics, National Safety Authorities and the European Railway Agency can also be involved.

(a) With the first question of this chapter, the OPC asked the respondents whether they would have any suggestion on any other stakeholder(s) to be involved.


Among the stakeholders groups the opinions on this question the opinions were more or less equally divided. Out of the 29 stakeholders who had an opinion on the question, 15 had no suggestion, and on the contrary 14 had indeed suggestions such as: manufacturers for freight wagons, important customers of the rail freight in Europe, private wagons

104/112

associations, passenger transport, users of the rail and potential users (including the one who have shift to road but which could come back to the rail), airport management, local public authorities and environmental protection agencies.


The OPC recalled that the formal governance structure of the RFCs is the following:

an Executive Board composed of Member State representatives, and responsible for defining the general objectives of the RFC and supervising its functioning.

a Management Board composed of railway infrastructure managers, in charge of implementing the corridor, in particular through providing coordinated rail capacity, setting up a Corridor-One Stop Shop as single contact point for requesting this rail capacity, developing an indicative investment plan, through the coordination of infrastructure works and of traffic management etc.

two Advisory Groups, one for railway undertakings and one for terminal managers, which may issue opinions and representing the interests of these two categories of stakeholders within the RFC.

(b) The second sub-question of this chapter asked the respondents whether they have any comments on the governance structure of the RFCs.

Some respondents proposed that the regional / local public authorities are involved. They also suggested that the end-users of the railway infrastructure (transport groups) have more influence. It was underlined that RFCs are performing as a second-hand, therefore it was suggested to divide the tasks properly in such way that each entity (IM - RFC - MS) is responsible. It was suggested that the C-OSS become more a project manager which should work closely with all the stakeholders. The lack of EU vision was also underlined, as well as at the road level there is no need to have such heavy governance structure.

Question 5: Punctuality

(a) The OPC asked the respondents whether they consider that during times of disruption, under which circumstances; passenger trains should have priority over freight trains.

Among the respondents who replied to this question only 1 thought that freight should have priority over passenger trains, all the other thought that the passenger should have priority.

(b) The OPC asked the respondents whether they consider that, during times of disruption, under which circumstances freight trains should have priority over passenger trains.

One respondent considered that freight should always have priority. Others have balanced their opinion specifying that only in some circumstances for instance:

105/112

with perishable, dangerous or frozen goods;

a non-stopping freight train vs a passenger train omnibus;

during the night and from 10h to 15h , so out of the pick hours;

when it allows avoiding further disturbances in all other rail traffic;

depending of the distance that the freight train has still to cover;

national and international freight Trains should have priority over regional and local passenger services.

Question 6: Infrastructure development

The OPC asked the respondents whether they think that the coordination of infrastructure investments across borders by the RFCs would have a positive impact and bring benefits. The results are shown in Figure 122.

Among all the stakeholders groups, the majority of the respondents (28) considered that it would be positive to a large extent (20) and to a small extend (8) (with exceptions to 3 citizens).

Figure 122: Response to open consultation question 6 of the Non-Expert questionnaire

Question 7: Corridor One-Stop-Shop (C-OSS)

The OPC recalled that a Corridor- One-Stop-Shop is set up by the Management Board as single contact point for the users of the RFC to request infrastructure capacity (time slots to run trains on the railway infrastructure) for freight trains crossing at least one border.

(a) It was asked in this context to the respondents whether they think that the concept of Corridor One-Stop-Shop brings benefits to European cross-border rail freight.


Among all the stakeholders groups, the majority (27) considered that yes it would bring benefit to a large extent (21) and to a small extend (6) (with exception to 2 citizens).


106/112

(b) The, the OPC asked the respondents whether they think that it would be beneficial if the different Corridor One-Stop-Shops of the different RFCs would cooperate more closely and jointly set up a single internet-based interface displaying the rail infrastructure capacity for the entire network of RFCs and providing information concerning the use of the RFCs.


Among all the stakeholders groups, the majority (25) considered that yes it would it would be beneficial (with exception to 2 citizens and 3 private organisations which considered it would not).


Question 8: Performance

(a) The OPC asked the respondents whether they consider that it would be useful to set targets for the effectiveness of the RFCs in order to boost European rail freight.


Among all the stakeholders groups, the majority (27) considered that yes it would it would be useful (12) and even very useful (15) (with exception to 2 citizens and 1 private organisation which considered it would not).


107/112

(b) The second question of the OPC in this chapter asked the respondent to specify whether they consider that targets in the following areas would be useful:

In terms of traffic volumes:


Among all the stakeholders groups, the majority (27) considered that yes it would it would be useful (13) and even very useful (14) (with exception to 4 citizens, 1 private organisation and 1 public organisation which considered it would not).


In terms of quality:


Among all the stakeholders groups, the majority (33) considered that yes it would it would be useful (10) and even very useful (23) (with exception to 1 citizen who considered it would not).


In terms of infrastructure development:

108/112


Among all the stakeholders groups, the majority (30) considered that yes it would it would be useful (8) and even very useful (22) (with exception to 2 citizens who considered it would not).


Question 9: Language on the Rail Freight Corridors

The OPC asked the respondents whether they would see an added value in having a single operational language along:

(a) the cross-border sections until the first station/terminal on each side of the border?


Among all the stakeholders, the majority (25) would see an added-value in having a single operational language along the cross-border sections until the first station/terminal on each side of the border, of which the following stakeholders groups are predominant: the citizens (19) and the private organisations (5).


(b) all the RFCs?


Among all the stakeholders, the majority (25) would see an added-value in having a single operational language along all the RFCs, of which the following stakeholders groups are predominant: the citizens (18) and the private organisations (6).

109/112


Question 10: Digital solutions

Taking account of the cooperation taking place through the governance structure of the RFCs, the OPC asked the respondents whether they would see an added value in using the RFCs as a pilot vehicle for the deployment of innovative digital solutions and logistical applications.


Among all the stakeholders groups, the majority (20 stakeholders) would see an added-value.


The respondents have listed a couple of field where digitalisation could be tested in the RFCs:

Localisation of wagons, actual maintenance data,

The organizational processes should be formalized as far as possible so that they are computer-assisted and therefore internationalized in computer applications where the language issues would disappear.

Pilot vehicle, innovative digital applications;

Digitalisation to make the system more flexible (particularly in terms of traffic management in case of disturbance and deviations)

A respondent specified that an electronically controlled traffic, which is handled at about 30-50 km / h is more powerful than the control by people with up to 120 km / h. The low speeds would at the same time help to reduce the external damage caused by noise and vibrations.

Question 11: Coherency with the EU Transport policy and legislation

The OPC recalled that the objective of Regulation (EU) 913/2010 is primarily to boost international rail freight through the setting up and development of international RFCs. It

110/112

therefore asked the respondents whether they consider that it is coherent with the broader EU Transport policy, and in particular with the White Paper on Transport of 2011,8 which sets amongst other things the objectives to reduce CO2 emissions from transport by 60% by 2050 and to shift 30% of long-distance road freight to more energy-efficient transport modes by 2030 and 50% by 2050.


Among all the stakeholders groups, the majority (32 stakeholders) considered the objective coherent (with exception to 2 citizens), of which half of it specified to a large extent and the other half to a small extent.


In addition the OPC asked the respondents who replied positively in the previous question to specify whether they consider that the RFC concept is the right tool to contribute to the modal shift to rail. The results are shown in Figure 132.

Among all the stakeholders, the majority (24) considered it is the right tool (with exception to 4 citizens and 1 private organisation), of which the following stakeholders groups are predominant: the citizens (19) and the private organisations (3).

Figure 133: Response to open consultation question 11-bis of the Non-Expert questionnaire

Question 12: Area of activities

The OPC asked the respondents whether they believe that there are issues (e.g. as regards interoperability, technical and operational barriers or noise mitigation), which the RFCs could particularly play a role in tackling. The results are shown in Figure 134.

Among the stakeholders groups of citizens and private organisations, many stakeholders had no opinion on this particular question (16). Among all the stakeholders groups - for stakeholders with an opinion - the majority (17) considered that yes there are other areas of

8 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0144&from=EN

111/112

activities. Among other, the following have been listed: the noise and vibration issues, the transport of dangerous goods through residential areas, any operational, technical and regulatory issues due to differences between countries, the need of expansion of 4m corridors.


Question 13: Barriers

The OPC asked the respondents whether they would see any operational or technical barriers which should particularly be tackled in order to boost traffic on the RFCs, and more generally rail freight in Europe. The results are shown in Figure 135.

Among the stakeholders, the majority (19) see additional operational or technical barriers which should particularly be tackled (with exceptions to 7 citizens and 4 private organisations), of which the citizens and the public organisations were the predominant stakeholders groups.


Among other, the following technical barriers have been listed: different track gauge, different power systems, different signalling systems, many missing links (feeder and outflow lines, sidings and overtaking tracks often due to the dismantlement of these lines in the past or still nowadays), outdated wagon technology causing noise and vibration issues, etc. It was also underlined that ERTMS and electrification should be deployed as soon as possible.

Regarding the operational barriers it was mentioned that the national legislations should be harmonized. Today there are too many players organizing the transport which is deterring for the end-customers. They suggested also investing on small improvements (quick wins).

Question 14: Research and innovation

112/112

(a) The OPC asked the respondents which topics should particularly be tackled by research and innovation in order to boost the traffic on the RFCs, and more generally rail freight in Europe.

The following innovation topics have been suggested by the respondents:

axles wheels and rails to improve the quiet of the rail;

wagon ties to improve the rapidity of assemble trains;

autonomous driving;

innovative combi cargo concepts;

integrate multimodal transport door to door transport;

automate small trains, using magnetic technology as the German Transrapid;

Ways to improve speed and efficiency on older and unmodernised railway tracks;

hybrid solutions for locomotives pending the full electrification;

Multi-system locomotives;

slot capacity allocation and management;

real time slot capacity management;

motorway fees in comparison to rail freight track access charge;

automatic medium buffer couplings;

Self-propelled wagons, which are self-employed in traffic flows.

It was also suggested to build new lines through uninhabited areas and tunnels solutions to have dedicated freight routes.

(b) The OPC asked the respondents whether they see any specific innovation which could be implemented in the RFCs and which would benefit rail freight in Europe.

The respondents have listed the following ideas:

A common approach across EU countries to allocate train paths

Need to eliminate any parallel activities of RFCs, IMs, member states etc.

A solution to avoid handling or avoid owning a dedicated locomotive for the first/last mile and a solution to improve transfer on a truck for post-shipment.

interoperability

Hybrid solutions for locomotives.

more automatic gauge change installations across the Pyrenees

Multi-system locomotives and harmonization of energy supplies and track gauges

GPS- Rail- Car Tracking.

Question 15: Any further suggestion

Finally the OPC asked the respondents whether they have any other suggestion for the development of the RFCs and more generally of rail freight in Europe.

Among others, it was suggested to more take into account the terminals and the feeder and outflow lines. It was also suggested to establish the Alpine - Western Balkan RFC.

The project of a tunnel between Europe and Africa through the Gibraltar Strait was also mentioned.

It was also suggested to have a single financing concept for the development of transport infrastructure, which takes account of the environmental costs of transport modes.

Finally a few respondents have suggested putting aside the rail transport as they consider that this technology is economically inefficient and that it generates too many external damage.

Documents

Report on the analysis of the Open public consultation on ... · Infrastructure Manager / Allocation Body ... association, company, authority etc. ... solidaire Ѵ