COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Regulation (EU) 913/2010, in accordance to its Article 23
Date: 2018-04-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, common transport policy, competitiveness, rail network, trans-European network, transport market, transport network

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.4.2018 SWD(2018) 101 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the application of Regulation (EU) 913/2010, in accordance to its Article 23  {COM(2018) 189 final}  
 
 
1.  GEOGRAPHICAL  DEFINITION,  CREATION  AND  MODIFICATION  OF  A  RAIL  FREIGHT 

CORRIDOR 

1.1.  Geographical definition of a Rail Freight Corridor 

A RFC is defined in the Regulation and, where applicable, in its implementing acts, by a list 
of  nodes  –  the  principal  "route"  of  the  RFC.  The  RFC  is  further  defined  by  the  RFC 
governance  structure  through  the  designation  of  (1) railway  lines  connecting  the  nodes  and 
(2) terminals.  The  RFC  Management  Board  (MaBo)  proposes  the  lines  and  terminals  in  the 
Implementation  Plan,  after  consultation  of  the  Railway  undertaking  advisory  group  (RAG) 
and  of  the  Terminal  advisory  group  (TAG),  and  the  Executive  Board  (ExBo)  approves  the 
Implementation plan (Article 9).  

The  Annex  of  the  Regulation  defines  nine  initial  RFCs  (six  to  be  established  by  November 
2013  and  three  by  November  2015).  Regulation  (EU)  No  1316/2013  establishing  the 
Connecting  Europe  Facility1  (CEF  Regulation)  amended  the  routes  of  the  initial  RFCs  with 
the aim of aligning the RFCs with the TEN-T Core Network Corridors (CNC) created by this 
Regulation.  Different  establishment  dates  have  been  introduced  to  implement  these 
modifications of the initial RFCs. 
List of initial RFCs2: 

To be established by November 2013: 

RFC 1 – Rhine - Alpine Corridor (RALP) 

RFC 2 – North Sea - Mediterranean Corridor (NSMED) 

RFC 4 – Atlantic Corridor (A) 

RFC 6 – Mediterranean Corridor (MED) 

RFC 7 – Orient/East - Med Corridor (OEM) 
RFC 9 – Rhine - Danube Corridor (RD) 3 

To be established by November 2015: 

RFC 3 – Scandinavian Mediterranean Corridor (SCANMED) 

RFC 5 – Baltic-Adriatic (BA) 

RFC 8 – North Sea-Baltic (NSB) 

The designation of the lines (principal, connecting or diversionary) and terminals is essential 
as  it  defines  the  geographical  scope  where  the  provisions  of  the  Regulation  apply. This  has 
been duly done for all RFCs in accordance with the corresponding establishment dates. The 
importance  of  the  lines  and  terminals  for  existing  and  potential  rail  freight  traffic  flows, 
taking into account the Transport market studies, has been the main criterion, although some 
choices  were  of  a  more  political  nature.  The  level  of  ambition  regarding  the  designation  of 
lines, especially regarding diversionary routes, has sometimes been somewhat limited. 

1  

2  
3  

Regulation (EU) N° 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the 
Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) N°913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) N° 680/2007 and 
(EC) N° 67/2010, OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 129. 
See Appendix I. 
The principal route to be established by November 2013 comprises only lines in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The 
more comprehensive Rhine-Danube RFC, as defined in the revised Annex of the Regulation, is due to be established 
until November 2020. 

1 

 
                                                 
1.2.  Modification of RFCs and new RFCs 

The  RFCs  are  primarily  market  tools  and  as  a  general  principle  (and  reflecting  a  strong 
stakeholder requirement) they should geographically follow market needs. This concerns both 
the  definition  of  the  routes  and  the  designation of  the  specific  lines  to  implement  a  defined 
route.  Naturally,  this  principle  has  to  be  balanced  with  strategic  considerations  and  with 
taking  account  of  infrastructure  investments  made/planned,  in  particular  on  the  TEN-T 
network (see Chapter 1.3). 

For  the  definition  by  the  Union  legislator  of  the  initial  RFC  routes  in  the  Annex  of  the 
Regulation,  existing  traffic  flows  and  market  needs  were  a  central    criterion,  along  with 
strategic considerations, national interests, and coherence with other EU policies, in particular 
the  TEN-T  policy  and  the  ERTMS  corridors4,  or  with  sector  initiatives  like  the 
RailNetEurope5  corridors.  As  mentioned  earlier,  the  need  to  align  the  newly  created  CNCs 
and the existing RFCs, in order to ensure coherence of the two policies, further led the Union 
legislator to modify the RFC routes in 2013. 

The Regulation gives the possibility to adapt the RFC network. Firstly,  modifications of the 
lines  and  terminals  implementing  the  legally  defined  RFC  principal  route  can  be  decided 
through a rather light process within the RFC governance structure (via a modification of the 
RFC Implementation plan). Secondly, extensions of the principal routes of the initial RFCs or 
the  creation  of  a  new  RFC  can  be  proposed  by  the  Member  States  concerned,  after 
consultation  of  the  infrastructure  managers  (IMs)  and  applicants,  through  Article  5  of  the 
Regulation: the Commission checks that the criteria of Article 4 have been taken into account 
and adopts a decision on the compliance of the proposal with Article 5 using the comitology 
procedure.  However,  the  initial  routes  of  the  initial  RFCs  (i.e.  without  extensions  using 
Article 5) have been decided by the Union legislator and can therefore only be  modified by 
ordinary legislative procedure. 

In 2016 intensive discussions took place for the creation of two new RFCs, demonstrating the 
interest  of  Member  States  and  sector  stakeholders  in  the  RFC  concept.  In  consequence,  the 
Commission  adopted  in  January  2017  an  Implementing  Decision6  regarding  the  creation  of 
RFC  11  Amber.  Moreover,  the  Commission  adopted  in  March  2018  an  Implementing 
Decision7 regarding the creation of RFC 10 "Alpine - Western Balkans".8 

4  

5  

6  

7  

8  

the  aim  of  facilitating  international  traffic  on 

The  ERTMS  Corridors  were  defined  in  Decision  (EU)  2012/88  on  the  technical  specification  for  interoperability 
relating to the control-command and signalling subsystems of the trans-European rail system.  
RailNetEurope  (RNE)  is  an  association  set  up  by  the  majority  of  the  European  Rail  Infrastructure  Managers  and 
Allocation  Bodies  with 
infrastructure; 
http://www.rne.eu/ 
RNE  members  defined  in  2005  "RNE  corridors".  A  corridor  manager  was  in  charge  of  harmonising  paths  at  the 
borders with the aim to improve the international capacity offer. Each IM was acting as one-stop-shop for capacity for 
the corridor. There was no governance structure. 
Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2017/177  of  31  January  2017  on  the  compliance  with  Article  5  of 
Regulation  (EU)  No  913/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  the  joint  proposal  to  establish  the 
‘Amber’ rail freight corridor, OJ L 28, 2.2.2017, p. 69 
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/500 of 22 March 2018 on the compliance of the proposal to establish 
the  Alpine-Western  Balkan  rail  freight  corridor  with  Article  5  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  913/2010  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 82, 26.3.2018, p. 13 
See Appendix I for the alignment of these two new corridors 

the  European  rail 

2 

 
 
                                                 
As  regards  extensions,  RFC  8  North  Sea  -  Baltic  has  been  extended  in  2015  to  southern 
Poland  and  to  the  Czech  Republic9.  Moreover  RFC  4  Atlantic  and  RFC  2  North  Sea  – 
Mediterranean have also been extended through implementing decisions respectively adopted 
in January 10 and March 201811. 

1.3.  Alignment  with  the  Core  Network  Corridors  (CNCs)  and  overlapping  of 

sections  

The RFCs and the CNCs were broadly geographically aligned at the creation of the CNCs in 
2013.  However,  new  extensions  and  the  proposals  for  two  new  corridors  mean  this  broad 
alignment  is  challenged.  Moreover,  the  geographical  alignment  concerns  only  the  principal 
routes  of  the  RFCs  and  not  the  specific  lines.  This  is  why  there  is  not  always  a  perfect 
overlapping even for the aligned sections: some RFC lines are not CNC lines.12  

This  can  be  explained  by  the  differences  in  the  scope  and  objectives  of  the  two  corridor 
concepts. The RFCs are  market tools and must therefore be geographically more flexible to 
follow  existing  and  emerging  market  needs  (hence  the  rather  easy  possibility  to  modify  the 
lines  within the scope of the defined routes and the possibility to modify RFC routes  under 
conditions according to Article 5). Conversely, more stability is needed for the infrastructure 
development  policy  of  the  CNCs  (hence  CNC  lines  are  defined  in  primary  legislation). 
However, it is expected that the effects of the TEN-T infrastructure development policy will 
contribute to a natural convergence in RFC and CNC lines as traffic will run on the lines with 
the most adequate parameters.  

Cooperation  between  the  two  corridor  concepts,  involving  broadly  the  same  countries  and 
which are highly complementary – infrastructure development and operational improvements 
– is key (see Chapter 7.2.). 

Finally, the RFC/CNC alignment has increased the number of overlapping sections between 
the  RFCs.  Overlaps  raise  challenges  in  terms  of  capacity  allocation  due  to  dual  governance 
issues.  This  can  create  a  duplication  of  work,  leading  to  avoidable  resource  needs  for  the 
stakeholders involved in the RFCs but at the same time it can foster harmonisation due to the 
need for consistent approaches for overlapping sections.  

2.  GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF RFCS 

To stimulate coordination and cooperation between the Member States and the IMs, as well as 
the  railway  undertakings  (RUs),  other  applicants  and  terminals,  and  to  provide  continuity 
along  the  RFC,  the  Regulation  provides  for  the  setting  up  of  a  comprehensive  governance 
structure (Articles 8 and 13). Each RFC shall have: 

9  

10  

11  

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1111 of 7 July 2015 on the compliance of the joint proposal submitted 
by  the  Member  States  concerned  for  the  extension  of  the  North  Sea-Baltic  rail  freight  corridor  with  Article  5  of 
Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a European rail network for 
competitive freight, OJ L 181, 9.7.2015, p. 82 
Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2018/300  of  11  January  2018  on  the  compliance  of  the  joint  proposal 
submitted  by  the  Member  States  concerned  for  the  extension  of  the  Atlantic  rail  freight  corridor  with  Article  5  of 
Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 56, 28.2.2018, p. 60 
Commission  Implementing  Decision  (EU)  2018/491  of  21  March  2018  on  the  compliance  of  the  joint  proposal 
submitted by the Member States concerned for the extension of the North Sea Mediterranean rail freight corridor with 
Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 81, 23.3.2018, p. 23 

12   Most of RFC lines that are not CNC lines are nevertheless on the TEN-T core or comprehensive network. 

3 

 
                                                 
  An Executive Board (ExBo) composed of national authorities and being responsible 

mainly for strategic and supervisory aspects. 

  A  Management  Board  (MaBo)  composed  of  representatives  of  IMs13  and  being 

responsible mainly for operational aspects.  

  A Corridor-One Stop Shop (C-OSS) which is a joint body of the IMs for applicants 
to request infrastructure capacity for freight trains crossing at least one border along 
the freight corridor (see Chapter 4.1). 

  An  Advisory  Group  for  the  managers  and  owners  of  the  terminals  of  the  corridor 

(TAG). 

  An Advisory Group for Railway Undertakings (RAG). 

The Commission has no formal role in the governance structure of a RFC, but is in practice 
invited  as  observer  in  ExBo  meetings  and  in  some  MaBo  and  TAG/RAG  meetings.  The 
Regulatory  Bodies  (RBs)  also  have  an  important  role  to  play  by  ensuring  regulatory 
supervision  (see  Chapter  8)  and  in  some  RFCs  a  RB  representative  is  regularly  invited  to 
ExBo meetings. Other stakeholders like National Safety Authorities (NSAs) and the European 
Union Agency for Railways (ERA) are also invited to some RFC meetings when relevant. 

Although there is no explicit obligation stemming from the Regulation, in practice thematic 
working  groups  (WGs)  composed  of  relevant  IM  experts  are  set  up  to  implement  the 
provisions of the Regulation.14 Most of the work of the RFCs is carried out in these working 
groups. Cross-organisation working groups (e.g. involving representatives of ministries, IMs, 
RUs, NSAs, RBs, etc.) have also been set up on specific topics and can be key contributors to 
solve issues hampering cross-border rail freight. 

The  governance  structures  of  the  nine  RFCs  have  been  successfully  set  up  and  the 
intergovernmental  and  sectorial  cooperation  required  by  the  Regulation  has  been  embraced. 
The  different  bodies  usually  strongly  interact,  which  enables  an  active  consultation  and 
participation of the different stakeholders. Much has been delivered in terms of improving the 
cooperation  and  operational  contacts  between  the  stakeholders  at  the  different  levels  of  the 
governance  structure.  In  particular,  the  Regulation  has  created  or  systematised  contacts 
between  those  directly  dealing  with  corridor  issues  but  also  between  colleagues  of  the 
relevant  departments  within  the  organisations  of the involved  parties  (e.g.  between  the  IMs' 
timetabling departments). The creation of a "RFC community" whose objective is to make rail 
freight more competitive is clearly a success of the Regulation. The topics discussed within 
these  networks  extend  often  beyond  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  –  such  as  railway  noise, 
customs  issues  or  even  passenger  related  issues  –,  which  constitutes  a  non-intended  but 
expressively added value of the RFCs and the implementation of the Regulation.  

13 
14  

And allocation bodies, where relevant. 
For  instance  working  groups  on  issues  such  as  temporary  capacity  restrictions,  train  performance  management, 
ERTMS, legal matters, etc. 

4 

 
                                                 
2.1.  Effectiveness of the governance structure 

The Regulation provides for a governance structure which leaves a lot of freedom as to how 
to  organise  the  RFC  work.  In  practice,  there  are  clear  differences  in  the  organisation15, 
activities and degree of ambition of the governance bodies of the individual RFCs. Though, 
one should bear in mind that the RFCs are rather new and can still be considered to be in a 
development phase. 

MaBo & legal form 

IMs are free as regards the form of organisation linked to the MaBo. A legal entity has been 
set up in seven of the nine RFCs in operation (six European economic interest groupings and 
one association). Except for one RFC, a permanent team (secretariat or Project Management 
Office)  has  been  appointed  to  assist  the  MaBo  and  each  RFC  has  a  Managing  Director  or 
equivalent. The type of organisational structure does not seem to be a major factor impacting 
the effectiveness of the work of a given RFC. 

Decision making principles for ExBo and MaBo 

Both  the  ExBo  and  the  MaBo  take  their  decisions  on  the  basis  of  consensus  in  accordance 
with Article 8 (4) and (5) of the Regulation. Decision-making by the RFCs is perceived to be 
rather slow, in particular by corridor users, but the principle of unanimity has helped to build 
the necessary trust by taking the interests of all parties into account. 

Resources 

The resources provided to the RFCs are an important factor determining the potential of the 
corridor to deliver results. 

To  help  the  involved  parties  to  comply  with  their  obligations,  to  promote  an  ambitious 
implementation  of  the  Regulation  and  to  support  the  RFCs  in  developing  a  medium-term 
vision,  the  Commission  has  early  on  created  possibilities  to  financially  support  the  RFCs.16 
Those RFCs which have applied for funding under the instruments provided by TEN-T and 
CEF have generally been proactive in their approach – e.g. in terms of IT developments and 
studies  aiming  at  improving  cross  border  infrastructure  management.  EU  funding  has  also 
driven cross-RFC harmonisation and attempts to improve the capacity products offered by the 
RFCs, with a key role played by RailNetEurope (RNE).  

Degree of commitment of the involved parties  

The effectiveness of an RFC depends on the commitment of the participating organisations; 
these  manifest  themselves  e.g.  by  the  resources  allocated  to  the  RFCs  or  the  readiness  to 
change national processes. 

Experience shows that differences in the degree of commitment are linked to general factors, 
such  as  the  importance  given  to  rail  freight  in  the  different  Member  States,  the  degree  of 
dominance  of  national  interests,  the  market  development  potential  or  the  specific  regional 
situations (e.g. economic situation and industrial patterns). 

15  

16  

- 

- 
- 

Differences in the functioning of the RFCs are notable, concerning inter alia: 
- 

the  number  of  ExBo  meetings  (generally  between  2  and  4  per  year),  the  number  of  MaBo  meetings  (generally 
between 4 and 6 per year); 
the  number  of  RAG/TAG  meetings  and  importance  of  their  input;  in  some  RFCs  the  outcome  of  the  Advisory 
Groups'  meetings  is  regularly  presented  and  discussed  in  ExBo  meetings,  while  in  others  this  is  not  a  common 
practice; 
the number and nature of the activities of the working groups; 
the participation of MaBo representatives in the ExBo meetings  - common practice in some RFCs, on an ad-hoc 
basis in others;  
the participation of RBs in ExBo and MaBo meetings. 

- 
DG MOVE is now implementing a CEF Programme Support Action with a budget of € 12m to support RFC activities 
until 2020. 

5 

 
                                                 
High-level commitment within the organisations is central for results to be delivered. There 
are  promising  approaches,  such  as  the  regular involvement  of  the  IM  CEOs  in  some  RFCs, 
the establishment of a task force of railway undertakings' CEOs, regular involvement of high-
level representatives of the authorities of the Member States and the increased awareness at 
ministerial  level17.  At  the  same  time,  there  are  also  cases  where  ExBo  and  MaBo 
representatives do not seem to have the competences/authorisation necessary to engage their 
organizations during RFC meetings. 

The Commission services are actively promoting high-level commitment to RFCs within the 
participating  organisations,  e.g.  in  PRIME18  and  RU  Dialogue19  meetings,  as  well  as  in 
dialogues with Member States in the framework of the Rail Directors' meetings20. 

Cooperation of RFC and CNC structures 

RFCs  and  CNCs  have  developed  relations  mainly  based  on  mutual  information  sharing. 
Initially there were criticisms about double work, but working relations have since improved 
and regular contacts take place in most RFCs (through occasional or regular participation in 
respective  meetings).  The  Commission  services  promote  the  development  of  synergies 
between  the  two  complementary  structures.  For  instance,  the  EU  coordinator  for  the 
Orient/East-Med core network corridor launched a common initiative with the respective RFC 
aiming at improving operational conditions along the corridor. 

Advisory Groups (RAG and TAG) 

An early, active and constant involvement of RUs and terminals is crucial in order to enhance 
the market orientation of the RFCs. The degree of participation and interest of the RUs in the 
RAGs and of the terminals in the TAGs vary according to the corridors. The perceived added-
value  of  the  RFC  for  their  business  is  naturally  the  key  factor,  all  the  more  so  given  that 
financial and human resources of most terminals and RUs are limited.  

RAG meetings allow a regular dialogue between IMs and RUs and enable the RUs to table 
issues  hampering  their  operations.  Thanks  to  the  good  interactions  within  the  governance 
structure, issues for which IMs have no direct competence have been forwarded through the 
appropriate  channels  depending  on  the  topic  at  stake.  However,  there  is  a  risk  of  loss  of 
interest of RUs and terminals if they do not see enough progress being made in solving the 
issues  raised.  Sometimes  a  limited  understanding  by  IMs,  RUs  and  end-customers  of  the 
distribution  of  competences  and  the  applicable  EU  and  national  procedures/legislative 
framework results in  a misalignment  of expectations: while from an operational and market 
point of view some issues need to be solved urgently, the existing procedures and the need to 
find an agreement among multiple parties make such a quick resolution difficult.  

The terminals feed the corridors with traffic and have therefore been given an important place 
in  the  Regulation.  However,  their  participation  and  interest  in  the  RFCs  are  currently  quite 
low. This is partly to be explained by the fact that there are different types of terminals and 
therefore different operational processes, different goals and needs. Moreover – and this also 
applies to RUs in RAGs – many terminals appear within several RFCs, which multiplies the 

17 

Such  as  the  2016  Ministerial  Declaration  "Rail  Freight  Corridors  to  boost  international  rail  freight"  (Rotterdam, 
21 June  2016,  see  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/infrastructure/news/doc/2016-06-20-ten-t-
days-2016/rfc-declaration.pdf),  the  Sector  Statement  on  Rail  Freight  Corridors  (Brussels,  20 May  2016,  see 
http://www.cer.be/sites/default/files/publication/Corridor_Sector_Statement_20160520_final.pdf)  and  a  side  event 
assembling  the  transport  ministers  of  Rhine-Alpine  RFC  at  the  ITF  2017  in  Leipzig  (see  https://2017.itf-
oecd.org/sites/2016.internationaltransportforum.org/files/documents/en/pdf-joint_Presserelease-ITF-
Corridor_side_event_31%2005%202017-final.pdf). 
European Network of rail IMs gathering IMs and DG MOVE. 
Platform gathering RUs and DG MOVE. 

18  
19  
20   Meetings gathering the rail Directors of the EU Transport Ministries and DG MOVE. 

6 

 
                                                 
number  of  meetings  and  can  lead  to  discouragement.  However,  some  RFCs  are  currently 
developing interesting approaches to better involve terminals (see Chapter 4.5).  

The absence of certain types of stakeholders in the governance structure – such as intermodal 
operators,  shippers  and  forwarders  –,  is  sometimes  seen  as  a  limitation  for  progress.  Some 
RFCs  have  launched  voluntary  initiatives  to  better  involve  them,  in  particular  through  the 
organisation of periodic strategy meetings (see Chapter 5.1).  

2.2.  A European rail network for competitive freight 

The Regulation aims for the development of a European rail network for competitive freight. 
Indeed, practice has shown that a common approach at RFC level is important as trains often 
run over several corridors.  

Thus  cross-RFC  coordination  and  cooperation  quickly  appeared  as  a  need  and  has  been 
initiated by the parties involved early on, e.g. through cross-RFC harmonisation and exchange 
of good practices. This development mainly results from the fact that a significant number of 
organisations are participating in more than one RFC. 

The different governance layers players have organised/are starting to organise themselves as 
follows: 

–  The MaBos are cooperating through the "RFC Network", facilitated by RNE. 

–  The ExBos are also cooperating in the framework of the "Network of ExBos" (NExBo).  

–  A  coordination  of  RAG  input  is  made  by  the  Union  Internationale  des  Chemins  de  Fer 

(UIC) in the framework of the "ECCO group". 

–  TAG  cooperation  is  supported  by  the  Union  International  for  Road-Rail  Combined 

Transport (UIRR). 

3.  TRANSPORT MARKET STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

3.1.  Transport Market Study 

A Transport Market Study, to be regularly updated, has to be performed by the MaBo of each 
RFC  (Article  9(3)).  The  Transport  Market  Study,  through  examining  the  existing  freight 
market and its development potential, is a key element to guide RFC development. It supports 
the designation of RFC lines and the evaluation of the need for capacity for freight trains on 
the corridor.  

Each RFC in operation has carried out a Transport Market Study, in general one or two years 
before  their  entry  into  operation.  Some  RFCs  established  in  2013  are  in  the  process  of 
updating their Transport Market Study, others envisage doing so.   

As the RFCs function as a network, there is a need to harmonise the data collection among the 
different RFCs as well as to better monitor cross-RFC and even non-RFC freight traffic flows. 
This  has  led  to  the  idea  of  conducting  a  common  EU-wide  Transport  Market  Study  in  the 
coming  years,  with  a  possible  coordination  role  by  RNE.  The  goal  is  notably  to  develop  a 
joint database of origins and destinations and a common market report, which would serve as 
a  basis  for  the  update  of  the  Transport  Market  Studies  of  the  individual  RFCs.  Both  the 

7 

 
stakeholders  (IMs,  RUs,  terminals,  end-customers)  and  the  Commission  services21  are 
supporting the idea.22 

3.2. 

Implementation plan 

The  RFC  MaBo  has  to  draw  up  an  implementation  plan,  which  the  ExBo  has  to  approve 
(Article 9). The Implementation Plan contains the measures necessary for creating the RFC, 
the description of the RFC (including its bottlenecks), the essential elements of the Transport 
Market Study, the RFC objectives (in particular in terms of performance), the investment plan 
and  the  measures  to  implement  the  different  provisions  of  the  Regulation  (coordination  of 
works,  the  C-OSS,  capacity,  traffic  management,  performance  monitoring,  etc.).  The 
Implementation Plan should be periodically reviewed to reflect progress made.  

The  Implementation  Plan  contains  the  description  of  the  specific  lines  of  the  RFC,  which 
means that the Regulation applies on these lines through adoption of the Implementation Plan 
by  the  ExBo.  All  Implementation  Plans  of  the  initial  nine  RFCs  have  been  adopted  and 
published. 

There are currently reflections on the role and purpose of the Implementation Plan after the 
RFCs'  entry  into  operation,  as  it  has  so  far  been  a  document  focusing  mostly  on  RFC 
establishment.  

4.  CORRIDOR-ONE STOP SHOP AND PROVISION OF CAPACITY 

The  following  closely  interrelated  elements  of  the  Regulation  were  designed  to  bring  a  real 
added-value to the international rail freight market: 

(1)  the  setting-up  of  a  Corridor  One-Stop  Shop  (C-OSS)  to  facilitate  the  process  for 

requesting infrastructure capacity for international freight services along the RFC; 

(2)  the  elaboration  of  a  framework  for  capacity  allocation  (FCA),  defined  by  the  ExBos,  

establishing the rules for the allocation of the infrastructure capacity on the RFC; 

(3)  the provision of RFC infrastructure capacity dedicated to freight trains (hereinafter "RFC 
dedicated  capacity"),  consisting  of  pre-arranged  train  paths  (PaPs)  and  reserve  capacity 
(RC). 

These elements are described in the following sections. 

4.1.  C-OSS concept and implementation 

The C-OSS is set up by the MaBo for applicants to request and receive answers concerning 
rail  capacity  for  freight  trains  crossing  at  least  one  border  in  a  single  place  and  in  a  single 
operation (Article 13). The C-OSS should provide information on the capacity available for 
trains  running  on  the  RFC  and  on  the  conditions  of  use  of  the  RFC.  The  C-OSS  is  thus 
designed to be a coordinator, service and information provider for the benefit of the potential 
applicants for infrastructure capacity on the corridor. Moreover, as regards the RFC dedicated 
capacity, the C-OSS takes the allocation decision.  

The C-OSS  has  been  successfully set up for each operational RFC. Since  RUs and IMs are 
active  on  various  RFCs,  standardised  processes  and  tools  for  the  functioning  of  the  C-OSS 
have  been  developed  by  RNE.  The  main  IT  tools  used  by  the  C-OSS,  such  as  the  capacity 
booking tool "Path Coordination System", the "Charging Information System" and the "Train 

21  

22   

The  Commission  services  are  developing  an  Integrated  Transport  Model  of  Europe,  Trimode,  which  should  be 
operational by 2019 under Horizon 2020 programme. Discussions are ongoing with the RFCs and RNE for a potential 
use of Trimode for developing an EU-wide Transport Market Study. 
See both Sector Statement and the Sector Input Paper prepared by CER, EIM, RFCs on a Potential Revision of the Rail 
Freight Regulation 913/2010/EU 
http://www.cer.be/sites/default/files/publication/Corridor_Input_Paper_CER_EIM_RFCs_final_20151203.pdf  

8 

 
                                                 
Information System" displaying real-time train information, were pre-existing but the creation 
of the RFCs has been a driver for their further development and improvement. These tools are 
also  used  for  other  international  traffic,  including  passenger  traffic,  and  even  for  some 
national traffic. 

The different C-OSS managers closely cooperate through the so called "C-OSS community".  

The  C-OSS  is  one  of  the  Regulation's  central  concepts  to  simplify  cross-border  rail  freight 
business  and  is  generally  well  perceived.  There  is  a  very  positive  feedback  on  the  service-
orientation and pro-activeness of the current C-OSS and RFC staff. However, there are also 
challenges or underdeveloped potential: 

– 

In practice, most C-OSSs consists of one person, which limits the tasks they can take on. 
The C-OSS staff relies on the support of the participating IMs. If the C-OSS does not have 
sufficient resources, mandate or a good quality capacity product to offer to the applicants, 
it cannot play its full role of facilitator of cross-border rail freight.  

–  According  to  the  Regulation,  any  request  for  infrastructure  capacity  for  a  freight  train 
crossing  at  least  one  border  along  the  corridor  can  be  addressed  to  the  C-OSS.  This 
possibility seems not to be used currently.  

In addition, the C-OSSs are generally not used to propose other capacity products or other 
services than the RFC dedicated capacity. However, some RFCs are currently working on 
developing new capacity products and services (see Chapter 4.3). 

–  All  RFCs  have  decided  that  requests  for  RFC  dedicated  capacity  have  to  be  submitted 
through the "Path Coordination System" tool. Efficiency and user-friendliness of the Path 
Coordination System therefore have direct consequences on the perceived added-value of 
both the C-OSS and RFC dedicated capacity and, more generally, on the overall success 
of the RFCs. However, many users complain, sometimes strongly, about the lack of user-
friendliness of the Path Coordination System.23  In  a situation where  users even question 
the  added-value  of  the  RFC  dedicated  capacity  offered  by  the  C-OSS  compared  to 
"classical"  coordinated  international  train  paths,  an  inadequate  booking  system  further 
discourages potential users. 

–  The simplification potential of the C-OSS has not been fully realised. For example, none 
of  the  C-OSS  has  been  enabled  to  handle  requests  for  modifying  the  PaPs  after  their 
allocation. This is due to the fact that all C-OSSs have been set up as stand-alone entity 
with a staff usually limited to one person. Applicants still have to address the individual 
IMs  and  use  the  national  booking  systems  for  any  modifications.24  Another  example  is 
that the customers still have to sign one infrastructure usage contract per IM, although the 
C-OSS  could  be  the  single  interface  for  signing  the  different  contracts  (or  one  single 
contract could be developed). 

–  The management of the capacity on the sections common to several RFCs, by the C-OSSs 

involved, requires strong coordination and may be challenging. 

Many  of  the  elements  presented  relate  more  broadly  to  the  general  question  in  how  far  the 
IMs  consider  the  C-OSS  as  a  means  to  achieve  their  own  objectives  for  rail  freight  market 

23  

24 

An improved version of Path Coordination System has been rolled out in the beginning of 2016 and a new version, 
which  would  solve  part  of  the  problems  identified,  will  be  implemented  soon.  Some  stakeholders  ask  for  a  total 
redesign of the system. 
There is a question of IT-tools (e.g. existence – or not - of interfaces between Path Coordination System and national 
systems) and of human resources for the C-OSS.  More generally, the work of the C-OSS stops after the allocation of 
the  PaPs,  while  an  oversight/coordination  function  between  pre-booking  and  X-2  (meaning  2  months  before  the 
timetable change, which is the second Sunday of December) has been proposed by some stakeholders to increase the 
value-added of the C-OSS.  

9 

 
                                                 
development.  It  shows  that  the  C-OSS  could  have  an  untapped  potential  in  terms  of 
simplification for users and the variety of capacity products and services offered. 

Currently  the  tasks  of  the  C-OSSs  are  generally  limited  to  the  construction,  offer  and 
allocation  of  RFC  dedicated  capacity;  their  role  stops  after  the  allocation  phase.  In  this 
respect, the Rail Freight Corridors are of the opinion that in the medium to long term the role 
of the C-OSS should be broadened to include other pre or after sales activities.25  

Overall, the C-OSSs are today not perceived by customers as a truly single contact point for 
capacity. 

4.2. 

Framework for capacity allocation 

According  to  Article  14(1),  the  ExBo  has  to  define  the  framework  for  the  allocation  of  the 
infrastructure capacity on the freight corridor  (hereinafter FCA  for Framework for Capacity 
Allocation).  The  FCA  is  a  central  document  which  sets  the  rules  for  the  allocation  of  RFC 
dedicated  capacity  by  the  C-OSS.  In  this  way,  the  FCA  fosters  harmonisation  of  national 
allocation rules for trains utilising RFC dedicated capacity. 

An FCA has been adopted by each RFC as required. As with many other aspects, the need for 
common  rules  and  harmonisation  has  quickly  emerged,  since  having  different  allocation 
processes  on different RFCs adds  complexity. Common rules  are particularly of interest for 
the  Member  States  involved  in  several  RFCs.  This  is  why  in  November  2015,  after  a 
progressive  harmonisation  process  and  several  rounds  of  negotiations  between  ExBos, 
MaBos, Regulatory Bodies and Commission services, a FCA common to all nine RFCs was 
developed.  The  common  FCA  means  that  all  Member  States  participating  in  at  least  one 
operational RFC, as well as Switzerland and Norway, agreed on common allocation rules for 
RFC  dedicated  capacity.  The  common  FCA  is  a  success  and  represents  a  tangible  step 
towards  the  creation  of  a  RFC  network  for  competitive  freight  and  achieving  a  Single 
European rail area. 

Moreover,  these  negotiations  effectively  launched  the  cross-RFC  cooperation  at  Member 
States level and the Network of Executive Boards (NexBo) was created as a consequence of 
this process. 

4.3.  RFC dedicated capacity  

The Regulation requires the C-OSS (in Articles 14(3), 14(5) and 13(3)) to offer infrastructure 
capacity  in  the  form  of  pre-arranged  paths  (PaPs)  available  in  the  application  phase  for  the 
annual  timetable  and  reserve  capacity  (RC)  available  at  short  notice.  PaPs  are  designed  to 
meet medium-to long-term capacity needs, while RC addresses temporary capacity needs for 
rather short notice traffic.26  

4.3.1.  Pre-arranged paths (PaPs) 

On  the  basis  of  an  evaluation  of  capacity  needs  by  the  MaBo  (taking  into  account  the 
Transport Market  Study,  the capacity requests during  past  timetable  periods and  framework 
agreements), IMs jointly define and organise international PaPs for freight trains. PaPs should 
facilitate journey times, frequencies, times of departure and destination and routings suitable 
for freight transport services with a view to increasing the transport of goods by freight  on 
the freight corridor. 

25  

26  

See  the  Sector  Input  Paper  prepared  by  CER,  EIM,  RFCs  on  a  Potential  Revision  of  the  Rail  Freight  Regulation 
913/2010/EU Position paper for evaluation. 
In  addition,  some  RFCs  have  introduced  "late  requests"  for  PaPs  –  i.e.  PaPs  to  be  requested  and  allocated  after  the 
normal  annual  timetable  allocation  phase,  until  two  months  before  the  publication  of  the  new  timetable.  Not  all  the 
RFCs offer the possibility for late requests. 

10 

 
                                                 
PaPs  are  pre-constructed  at  an  early  stage  in  the  timetabling  process.  Thus,  they  can 
potentially  be  of  higher  quality  than  "classical"  international  paths,  as  more  capacity  is 
available  facilitating  the  construction  and  coordination  across  borders.  In  some  cases,  this 
potential to construct high-quality PaPs has been realised. The introduction of the PaP concept 
has  contributed  to  a  more  streamlined  and  coordinated  timetabling  process  among  IMs  and 
has boosted the interest in rail freight both at EU and national level. 

The nine RFCs currently in operation fulfil their obligation to offer PaPs but the quantity and 
quality of PaPs offered varies substantially depending on the RFC and the region considered. 
Overall,  it is very difficult to  draw conclusions  on the added-value of the PaPs as  currently 
offered. 

While  the  added  value  of  PaPs  can  be  significant  in  the  case  of  limited  available  capacity, 
customers  raised  different,  sometimes  related  concerns  whether  the  PaPs  meet  market 
expectations, e.g.: 

– 

– 
– 

the  PaPs  constructed  and  offered  do  not  offer  additional  quality  and/or  certainty 
compared to "classical" international paths ; 
the quantity of PaPs offered is too limited to enable applicants to meet their needs; 
at comparable path quality, there is no added value to go through the C-OSS, i.e. the 
C-OSS does not sufficiently simplify the planning process. 

These issues will be discussed in more detail below. 

Quantity and quality of PaPs offered: 

Practice shows that on several RFCs only a small part of the capacity needed by the market 
for  the  annual  timetable  is  provided  in  the  form  of  PaPs.  This  low  amount  of  dedicated 
capacity can be partly explained by the fact that IMs consider the first years of RFC operation 
as a testing phase. However, in some RFCs IMs have been reluctant to provide capacity to the 
RFCs. In some cases this incited Ministries to intervene through the ExBo. In other RFCs the 
amount of PaPs is more significant. Some RFCs have still little experience so far. 

The low amount of PaPs offered on certain corridor sections can make the offer unattractive 
because of the low likelihood that an applicant will get PaPs adapted to his needs. This in turn 
can  lead  to  fewer  requests  and  to  an  impression  that  the  concept  does  not  work.  This  is 
illustrated by the fact that on many RFCs applicants continue to use "classical" international 
paths allocated by the individual IMs. 

At the same time, some commercial or timetabling departments of the infrastructure managers 
seem not to be convinced about the added-value of the PaP for IM business. 

As regards quality, some RUs have complained (strongly in some cases) about the inadequate 
quality of the PaPs offered. In some cases, even PaPs with uncoordinated times at the borders 
have been reported. It is not possible to conclude how common such cases are. At the same 
time, a few RUs consider that the quality of the international train paths has increased since 
PaPs were introduced.  

The RUs are a key player in the elaboration process of the PaP offer, notably via the RAGs, 
where they can raise awareness on their capacity needs and quality issues. The RFCs are also 
strengthening the involvement of RUs through asking them to annually indicate their capacity 
needs ("capacity wish-list"), before starting the PaP construction phase. 

Modifications or cancellations of the PaPs 

PaPs are apparently often modified several times, or cancelled, before the running day, either 
at the request of the applicant or at the request of the IMs.  

However, this is very difficult to monitor since after the allocation by the C-OSS, the national 
sections composing the PaPs are "handed over" to the individual IMs and in almost all cases 

11 

 
are further handled by them as if they were "classical" national paths. It means that they are 
not  "flagged"  as  being  PaPs  and  that  the  modifications  made  are  not  traceable.  Besides  the 
fact that having a record of their modifications can give an insight into their market adequacy, 
this notably raises the question whether the application of Article 14(8) of the Regulation can 
be assured. According to this Article a PaP may not be cancelled less than 2 months before its 
scheduled time, save in the case of force majeure, if the applicant concerned does not give its 
approval for such cancellation. If a PaP has been modified several times, it is not clear if it has 
still the "status" of a PaP and whether the guarantee deriving from Article 14 (8) is still valid. 

The  many  modifications  or  cancellations  requested  by  the  applicants  themselves  can  be 
explained  by  the  fact  that  requests  in  the  annual  timetable  process  are  designed  to  meet 
medium-to  long-term  capacity  needs.  However,  a  significant  part  of  the  market  is  more 
volatile and the exact capacity needs are not known very long in advance. Short term needs 
should  ideally  be  addressed  by  ad-hoc  requests  (including  reserve  capacity),  but  due  to  the 
risk of shortage and/or low quality of such ad hoc capacity, the applicants prefer in practice to 
request capacity in advance in the framework of the annual timetable process, so as to secure 
a  sufficient  amount  of  capacity  of  quality.27  This  leads  to  a  suboptimal  management  of 
infrastructure  capacity  and  to  a  waste  of  resources  since,  when  the  needs  become  more 
precise, modifications or cancellations are requested.28 It is very important to note that this is 
a  general  phenomenon  concerning  equally  "classical"  paths  and  PaPs;  however  the 
introduction of the RFC dedicated capacity (PaP and reserve capacity) seems for the moment 
not to have improved the situation. Initiatives, presented in Chapters 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, aim to 
address this issue. 

Likewise, as regards modifications or cancellations requested by the IMs (e.g. due to capacity 
restraints  caused  by  late  announced  works),  IMs  are  rarely  treating  PaPs  differently  from 
other paths. It means that the PaP concept as such is thus not questioned since the impact is 
similar for PaPs and "classical" paths. However, IM processes have not yet been modified to 
give PaPs more added-value.  

Innovations of the "PaP product" 

Conscious  that  the  ideal  formula  may  not  have  yet  been  found,  the  RFC  stakeholders  have 
discussed and developed new ways of implementing the PaP concept. To increase flexibility 
(e.g. in terms of intermediate stops, arrival/departure time), flex-PaPs were introduced. 

4.3.2.  Reserve capacity and ad-hoc capacity 

According  to  Article  14(5)  of  the  Regulation,  IMs  shall,  if  justified  by  market  need,  jointly 
define the reserve capacity (RC) for international freight trains and keep this reserve available 
within their final working timetables to allow for a quick and appropriate response to ad hoc 
requests. RC requests are thus a certain type of ad hoc requests. 

In practice, RC is proposed in the form of PaPs, or in the form of slots (i.e. time windows). 
The  "slot"  approach  gives  more  flexibility  to  IMs  (as  well  as  to  applicants),  as  the  specific 
paths  are  not  defined  at  the  time  of  the  offer.  However,  for  the  same  reason,  on  lines  with 
scarce  capacity  available,  there  is  also  a  higher  risk  that  applicants  get  capacity  of  lower 
quality. The slot approach brings little difference to the "classical" ad-hoc requesting process, 
although the requests are placed through the C-OSS. 

27  

28  

This situation does not apply everywhere: there are different regional situations and on some networks, especially in 
Central  and  Eastern  Europe,  there  are  much  less  capacity  issues  and  therefore  much  of  the  infrastructure  capacity 
needs are met through ad-hoc requests. 
Cancellation fees in the different Member States vary. Nevertheless it should be noted that in some RFCs, IMs have 
harmonised or are in the process of harmonising at least the schedules for cancellation fees. 

12 

 
                                                 
The fact that applicants request capacity in the framework of the annual timetable to be sure 
to get enough of good quality capacity, even if normally ad hoc capacity would better meet 
their needs, leads to little capacity being available for RC. A low offer can mean that it is not 
worthwhile for a RU to look if there is suitable RC. 

Deadline for submission of reserve capacity requests 

The question of the deadline, decided by the MaBo, for submitting RC requests is essential as 
it has an effect on the attractiveness of rail in volatile and fluctuating market segments. For 
these markets, the applicant should be able to request capacity as close as possible to the day 
of the train run.  

The need for harmonising the deadline has quickly appeared to avoid different deadlines for 
traffic passing from one RFC to another and has been set at 30 days. For some RFCs, it has 
meant changing to less ambitious deadlines for the sake of harmonisation. Indeed, in general, 
where there is less capacity shortage, requests on ad-hoc basis (i.e. not in the framework of 
the annual timetable process) are more frequent, which makes it more important to offer RC 
or other ad-hoc capacity with attractive deadline. This example perfectly illustrates the pros 
and  cons  of  harmonisation.  Many  customers  consider  that  a  deadline  of  30  days  is  not 
sufficiently attractive, especially when taking into account that deadlines for path requests in 
national processes are often substantially shorter. 

Pilot projects for ad-hoc products on the RFCs 

More flexibility in the timing for requesting the paths is thus required by the applicants. IMs 
recognise the need to significantly shorten the response time for ad-hoc requests. Applicants 
are in favour of a response time of less than 10 days, with an optimum target being closer to 
3 days. This goal is hard to achieve due to IM's different internal processes and the need for 
international coordination. Moreover, if the C-OSSs are involved, it is challenging to handle 
short notice requests given their current structure. It should also be taken into account that on 
congested  lines  it  is  difficult  to  construct  quality  paths  with  limited  remaining  capacity 
available at such short notice. 

However, there are very positive developments. Pilot capacity products are being developed, 
with the aim of meeting this need of a short deadline before the train run. Four pilot projects 
on four different RFCs are now ongoing or in preparation. Their conditions vary (number of 
days; role of the C-OSS as leader, or as customer interface with one IM as leader; tailor-made 
path or PaP offered), so this will enable to compare the effectiveness of each solution. 

4.3.3.  Timetable Redesign Project, RFC dedicated capacity and other capacity 

products  

If RFC dedicated capacity is often deemed to not fully meet market needs, this is due not only 
to the features of the PaP and RC concepts the way they are implemented by the IMs or the 
added-value of the C-OSS, but might also be related to the timetabling process as such. The  
"Redesign  of  the  International  Timetabling  Process  (TTR)"  project29  by  RNE  and  Forum 
Train  Europe  (FTE)30  with  the  support  of  ERFA31,  aims  at  fully  reshuffling  the  timetabling 
process  through  harmonising  at  European  level  and  bringing  the  whole  timetabling  process 
closer to market needs, while considering the specificities of each segment (passenger/freight, 
domestic/cross-border).  

29   
30 
31  

http://www.rne.eu/sales-timetabling/ttr/ 
European association of railway undertaking; http://www.forumtraineurope.eu/home/  
The European Rail Freight Association 

13 

 
                                                 
It should be noted that the cooperation among the timetabling departments, notably initiated 
within  the  framework  of  the  Regulation,  has  most  certainly  helped  to  launch  a  deeper 
dialogue on timetabling processes and contributed to the launch of the project. 

Three pilots will start soon to gain experience and refine the processes where needed. These 
pilots will run on lines which form part of three RFCs. Although TTR implementation could 
potentially improve on the current situation through better meeting the needs of the different 
market segments, it is a long-term perspective and its full implementation is expected to take 
several years. In the meantime, a compliance assessment of the TTR elements with national 
and  Union  legislation,  primarily  with  Directive  2012/34/EU  establishing  a  single  European 
railway area32 and with the Regulation, is necessary. 

However, given the current difficult situation of rail freight, the Regulation does not prevent 
IMs  and  the  C-OSSs  from  developing  and  offering  additional  capacity  products  to  match 
market needs in the shorter term. 

4.4.  General considerations 

As  the  above  demonstrates,  the  way  the  PaP  and  RC  concepts  is  implemented  shows  both 
their adequacy and inadequacy to market needs, as many factors enter into play. 

More experience has to be gathered in order to be able to make a clear assessment of the RFC 
dedicated  capacity,  and  particularly  the  PaP  concept.  Nevertheless,  so  far,  results  of  the 
implementation of the Regulation are mixed.   

4.5.  Coordination with terminals 

The  Regulation  requires  the  IMs  and  the  TAGs  to  ensure  optimal  coordination  between  the 
operation of the railway infrastructure and the terminals (in Article 16(2)) and to publish the 
list and characteristics of terminals along the corridor (in Article 18, point (b)). 

The processes and timeline for terminal capacity planning are different than for rail capacity 
and this makes coordination difficult. 

Nevertheless,  some  RFCs  are  studying  how  to  strengthen  cooperation  and  in  particular  to 
ensure a more efficient use of capacity both on RFCs and in terminals and at the same time 
improve  the  quality  of  rail  services.  RFC  SCANMED  is  notably  testing  an  interesting 
approach,  proposing 
their  degree  of 
cooperation/coordination with the C-OSS/RFCs: 

terminal  operators 

three  choices 

for 

to 

  the C-OSS refers to the website and booking tool of the terminal; 

  the C-OSS displays the capacity available in the terminal; 

  the  C-OSS  and  the  terminal  prepare  coordinated  capacity  and  the  C-OSS  offers  this 
integrated rail-terminal capacity; the terminal and C-OSS remain responsible for taking the 
allocation decision for their own capacity.  

The  degree  of  cooperation  is  therefore  chosen  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  acknowledging  the 
different business and operational models of the various terminals. 

There is a need for further study and practical experience on how to best organise cooperation 
and coordination between IMs and terminals, both in terms of added-value and feasibility.  

32  

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 32. 

14 

 
                                                 
5.  MARKET  ORIENTATION  OF  THE  RFCS:  INFORMATION  TO  USERS  AND  PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING 

5.1. 

Information to potential RFC users 

Corridor information document 

In  order  to  promote  the  use  of  the  RFCs  among  their  potential  users  and  to  foster 
transparency,  Article  18  of  the  Regulation  requires  the  publication  of  an  information 
document relating to the conditions of use of the RFCs, which the MaBo has to draw up and 
regularly update.33 RNE has developed a common structure for this document named Corridor 
Information  Document  (CID).  All  RFCs  in  operation  have  published  CIDs  on  their  website 
and these are regularly updated.  

The CID provides  information  on the RFC terminals  but  the  level  of detail varies from one 
RFC  to  another.  IMs  have  some  difficulty  to  provide  this  information,  because  not  all 
terminals cooperate.34 

The added-value of the CID for the customers is questioned as it is often not perceived as a 
very  user-friendly  document.  It  is,  however,  an  important  document  for  regulatory 
supervision, given that it gives the main information on the processes and rules of the RFCs. 

Other communication tools 

Several other communication tools are in place to communicate on services and activities of 
RFCs: 

–  Each  RFC  has  a  website.  It contains  the  main  documents  (e.g.  Implementation  plan, 
CID,  annual  reports,  applicable  legislation,  customer  satisfaction  surveys,  etc.)  and 
operational information (e.g. capacity offer, organisation of the corridor, geographical 
map,  organisation  of  the  RAG/TAG  meetings,  track  possessions/coordination  of 
works, etc.).  

–  The RNE Customer information platform35 - an interactive internet-based information 
tool  providing  to  RUs  and  other  applicants  information  e.g.  on  the  RFC  lines, 
terminals and track properties, but also displaying the CID - is used by 6 RFCs and the 
others plan to use it soon.36 

–  Each  RFC  publishes  an  annual  report  presenting 

their  main  activities  and 

achievements. 

Marketing approach 

In addition to the above, in order to promote their activities and attract new customers, RFCs 
needed to put in place proactive marketing approaches to convince their existing and potential 
new  clients  about  the  added-value  of  the  services  they  offer.  Such  marketing  actions  have 
been  organised  from  the  start  (conferences  and  events,  presentation  stands,  etc.)  and, 

33  

34  

35  
36  

The document shall contain: all the information contained in the network statement for national networks regarding the 
freight  corridor;  the  list  and  characteristics  of  terminals,  including  the  conditions  and  methods  of  accessing  the 
terminals; the information concerning the procedures referred to in Articles 13 to 17 of the Regulation concerning the 
C-OSS, capacity, authorised applicants and traffic management; the implementation plan. 
Some  terminals  have  been  reluctant  to  be  classified  as  "RFC  terminals"  given  the  associated  obligations  on 
information  provision.  However,  in  accordance  with  Article  27  and  point  4  of  Annex  IV  to  Directive  2012/34/EU, 
which all Member States had to transpose by 16 June 2015, freight terminals have the obligation to publish charges for 
gaining access to terminals and services provided in terminals as well as information on technical access conditions. 
Thus being a RFC terminal or not does not make any more difference in terms of information obligations.  
For more information: http://info-cip.rne.eu/what_is_cip; https://cip.rne.eu/apex/f?p=cip:65:::::P65_CORRIDOR:8  
It  should  be  noted  that  RNE  is  planning  to  link  all  its  IT-tools  (Customer  information  platform,  Train  Information 
System,  Path  Coordination  System,  Charging  Information  System,  etc.)  with  a  view  to  create  a  single  interface  for 
freight. 

15 

 
                                                 
importantly,  the  C-OSS  representatives  regularly  meet  the  (potential)  users  to  better 
understand their needs, get feedback and present the RFC offer.  

To further involve the users and end-customers (e.g. shippers, forwarders), to better address 
their  needs  and  to  increase  transparency  and  accountability,  the  RFCs  agreed  to  convene 
regular  strategy  meetings  gathering  RFC  representatives,  RAG/TAG  members  and  end-
customers.  The  aim  is  to  discuss  strategic  developments,  performance  expectations  and 
options for enhancing the operational efficiency of the logistics chain. This commitment has 
been made mainly in the framework of the Rotterdam Sector Statement. The kick-off of such 
a  strategy  session  was  held  during  the  Rail  Freight  Day  2016  organised  by  DG  MOVE  in 
cooperation  with  RNE,  while  a  cross-RFC  meeting  was  organised  in  February  2017.  In 
addition such strategy meetings have also been organised at RFC level. 

5.2.  Monitoring  

Article  19  of  the  Regulation  entitled  "Quality  of  service  on  the  freight  corridor"  notably 
requires the MaBo to monitor the performance of rail freight services on the freight corridor 
and  to  organise  a  satisfaction  survey  of  the  users  of  the  corridor.  The  results  of  the 
performance monitoring and satisfaction survey have to be published once a year. 

Monitoring the performance of the RFC services and user satisfaction is essential and serves 
several  purposes.  In  addition  to  providing  the  information  necessary  for  potential  users  and 
end-customers  when  selecting  their  transport  solution/mode,  it  is  also  an  essential  tool  to 
progress  towards  a  more  competitive  rail  freight  sector.  It  allows  for  an  assessment  of  the 
market situation on the corridor, identification of bottlenecks (e.g. administrative, operational, 
infrastructure),  assessment  of  the  results  of  the  activities  undertaken  and  monitoring  of  the 
appreciation of the users. Last but not least, it enhances the transparency and accountability of 
the RFCs and gives them more visibility. 

Performance monitoring 

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are measured by all RFCs, which publish the results of the 
performance monitoring in their annual reports. However, the link between the results of the 
performance  monitoring  and  the  objectives  defined  in  the  Implementation  plan37  as  well  as 
the general objectives of the RFCs has not been very clear so far. 

A  need  for  harmonising  the  KPIs  across  the  RFCs  has  rapidly  been  identified.  It  makes 
comparisons possible38 and permits to develop a full picture of the RFC network. RNE, which 
runs  the  IT  systems  being  an  important  source  of  data,  has  developed  guidelines  defining  a 
core  set  of  harmonised  KPIs  for  the  RFCs.39  RNE  provides  also  a  platform  for  cooperation 
and  coordination  related  to  train  performance  management  (TPM).  The  network  of  "RFC 
Train  Performance  Managers"  defines  the  processes  to  measure  and  improve  train 
performance along the RFCs (e.g. data management, validation of delay causes, reporting).40 

KPIs  have  been  developed  and  regularly  reviewed  since  the  start  of  the  RFCs,  mainly 
negotiated  among  IMs,  and  discussed  with  the  ECCO  group.  The  participation  of  RUs  and 
end-customers in their elaboration is now being strengthened. Their input to define how the 
performance of the RFCs should be measured is indeed important as they are the parties who 
the  RFCs  aim  to  benefit.  A  step  forward  has  been  made  in  this  respect  with  the  Rotterdam 

37  

Article 9(1) of the Regulation specifies that the implementation plan shall include objectives "in particular in terms of 
performance expressed as the quality of the service and the capacity of the freight corridor". 

38   While  comparisons  are  useful  in  certain  cases,  it  is  obvious  that  specific  situations  applicable  to  individual  RFCs 
(features of the freight market, design of the network, economic performance of relevant Member States etc.) have to 
be taken into account when comparing. 
http://www.rne.eu/rneinhalt/uploads/RNE_Guidelines_KPIs_of_RFCs.pdf 
http://www.rne.eu/tm-tpm/train-performance-management-general-information/  

39  
40  

16 

 
                                                 
Sector Statement: a process is now ongoing to adopt a new more ambitious harmonised set of 
KPIs.41 These positive developments are actively supported by the Commission services. 

An important challenge for an effective monitoring is calculability (e.g. availability of data). 
There are objective technical challenges but willingness to provide the resources necessary to 
overcome these is also needed. There is also a more political/business related component to 
KPI definition as the expectations of the different types of stakeholders vary. In any case, the 
elaboration  of  KPIs  has  to  be  seen  in  the  broader  context  of  the  discussions  on  designing 
better  capacity  products  and  a  more  flexible  timetabling  process,  as  well  as  on  traffic 
management processes. 

User satisfaction survey  

In the framework of the satisfaction survey, the users are asked to give their feedback on the 
RFCs  and  their  services.  RNE  has  been  mandated  by  the  RFCs  to  centrally  conduct  a 
harmonised  survey.  There  is  a  tailored  set  of  questions  for  the  different  stakeholders  (RU, 
non-RU applicants and terminals) and both current and potential users can be addressed. The 
results are summarised in nine RFC-specific reports, available on each RFC website, and one 
overall report.42 The satisfaction survey provides useful feedback about the relevance of the 
RFC services and can also be used as a marketing tool.  

In addition, the RAGs and platforms like the ECCO group complement the results of the user 
satisfaction survey as additional channels for detailed feedback from RFC users. In addition, 
as already indicated, a few RFCs are actively seeking feedback from their direct and end-users 
via strategy meetings. 

6. 

IN OPERATION 

Coordination of traffic management 

Through requiring coordination of traffic management for cross-border rail freight traffic the 
Regulation has aimed to improve the quality of the services, especially in terms of punctuality 
and reliability. 

The MaBos are required to put in place procedures for coordinating traffic management along 
their RFC and between connected RFCs (Article 16(1) of the Regulation). Also in this matter, 
RNE has taken over an important role as service provider. Its "Traffic Management Working 
Group" aims to develop and improve operational processes to facilitate cooperation between 
IMs/RFCs as regards traffic management and strives to improve cooperation between IMs and 
RUs.43  In  addition,  RNE  has  developed  a  “Framework  for  Setting  up  a  Freight  Corridor 
Traffic Management System”.44 After having analysed to what extent already-existing traffic 
management  rules  and  procedures  could  be  aligned,  RNE  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
main  field  of  action  to  implement  Article  16(1)  of  the  Regulation  should  be  to  standardise 
communication  procedures,  given  that  accurate  knowledge  about  the  state  of  traffic  is  the 
basis  for  taking  corrective  management  decisions,  both  for  RUs  and  IMs,  and  for  assessing 
the possible development of the situation in case of disturbances.  

41  

42 

43  
44 

Based on the work done by the ECCO group and after involving the end-users, the RU Dialogue Subgroup Freight has 
consolidated a proposal, currently being negotiated with RNE/RFCs. 
Overall results of the CSS 2016:   
http://www.rne.eu/rneinhalt/uploads/2017/03/RFC_User_Satisfaction_Survey_2016_Overall_Results_RNE_website.p
df  
http://www.rne.eu/tm-tpm/traffic-management-general-information/  
http://www.rne.eu/rail-freight-corridors/downloads-documents/  

17 

 
                                                 
Despite  concrete  steps  forward  and  developments,45  feedback  provided  in  the  public 
consultation shows that traffic management across borders has not really improved since the 
entry  into  force  of  the  Regulation.  This  is  one  of  the  key  areas  where  progress  has  to  be 
urgently  made  for  rail  freight  services  to  become  more  attractive.  The  Rastatt  incident  in 
August 2017 gives the opportunity to exchange further on this matter.  

Article 17 of the Regulation defines measures to be taken with respect to traffic management 
in  the  event  of  disturbance.  So  far,  the  RFCs  have  in  practice  adopted  common  targets  for 
punctuality and/or guidelines for traffic management in the event of disturbance but most of 
the IMs have kept their own national priority rules.  

The  provisions  of  Article  17  elicited  discussions  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  priority  rules 
concept.  Some  IMs  consider  it  is  of  utmost  importance  to  minimise  the  overall  network 
recovery  time  and  fixed  priority  rules  could  even  extend  the  time  needed  for  the  return  to 
normal operation. Others argue that new concepts of dynamic regulation and resolution, based 
on real-time simulations, are starting to emerge and should be considered. 

Another  discussion  surrounding  the  implementation  of  Article  17  is  that  some  consider  the 
key added-value of RFC dedicated capacity to be a prioritisation of such trains in the event of 
disturbance,  not  so  much  an  early-on  safeguarding  of  capacity  for  international  rail  freight. 
This argument is common in regions where infrastructure capacity is generally abundant. The 
argument implies that trains running on RFC dedicated capacity would get priority over other 
international  freight  trains  during  disturbances  which  has  not  been  implemented  on  a  larger 
scale so far. 

Coordination between rail and terminal operation  

According  to  Article  16(2)  of  the  Regulation,  the  IMs  and  the  TAGs  shall  put  in  place 
procedures to ensure optimal coordination between the operation of the railway infrastructure 
and  the  terminals.  This  coordination  is  generally  complex,  e.g.  due  to  different  planning 
processes and multiplicity of players and contractual arrangements.  

The sector, including end-users, is aware of the need to improve operational coordination and 
efficiency  along  the  whole  logistics  chain and  in  the  Rotterdam  Ministerial  Declaration  and 
Sector  Statement  a  commitment  was  taken  "to  make  information  on  train  estimated  time  of 
arrival  (ETA)  available  to  contract  partners,  including  terminals  and  intermodal  operators, 
[…],  and  to  provide  freight  forwarders  and  shippers  with  up-to-date  information  about  the 
status of their freight and an estimated time of arrival". 

To  this  end,  a  dedicated  task  force  involving  a  few  Member  States,  the  sector  and 
Commission services was set up in the autumn 2016. This resulted in a pilot project co-funded 
by the Connecting Europe Facility ("Electronic Exchange of ETA information" or "ELETA"), 
which has been put in place in 2017 with the aim of developing the processes for exchanging 
the  information  among  the  different  parties  and  of  demonstrating  in  practise  the  benefits  of 
the ETA for the transport chain. In addition, RNE is working on the question. The RFCs are 
not in a leading role in these initiatives (except for the approach outlined in chapter 4.5), but 
they are involved and informed. 

45 

Examples  are  TCCCom  (Traffic  Control  Centres  Communication),  a  tool  to  overcome  language  barriers  between 
traffic  control  centres,  or  the  tool  ‘Park  or  Run’  to  manage  the  dispatching  of  trains  in  case  of  disturbance  through 
facilitating communication (today made through phone calls, excel sheets, etc.). 

18 

 
                                                 
7.  COORDINATION OF WORKS AND INVESTMENTS 

7.1.  Coordination of works 

Infrastructure  works  limit  infrastructure  availability,  thereby  affecting  the  operation  of 
international  rail  freight  services.  A  good  coordination  of  so-called  'planned  temporary 
capacity  restrictions'  (TCRs)  is  therefore  essential  for  raising  the  quality  of  services.  Such 
coordination  aims  at  rationalising  and  minimising  the  impacts  and  duration  of  the  capacity 
restrictions.  Moreover,  the  publication  of  the  works  schedule  in  advance  allows  the  RU  to 
better organise their traffic. 

To  implement  the  provision  on  coordination  and  publication  of  the  works  along  the  RFC 
infrastructure (Article 12 of the Regulation), RNE has developed guidelines, adopted in 2013, 
and  reviewed  in  201546.  They  provide  common  procedures  for  the  coordination  and 
publication.  

Despite  this,  coordination  of  infrastructure  works  and  predictability  could  be  significantly 
improved. 

Even if IMs usually try to find tailor-made solutions in case of uncoordinated planning, RUs 
have  to  spend  resources  to  monitor  the  published  TCR  schedules  and  alert  concerned 
IMs/RFCs. Moreover, in case of a lately announced TCR or late re-planning of a TCR, RUs 
may have to cancel their path and place a new path request, which has consequences both in 
terms  of  resources  and  efficiency.  RUs  may  be  also  charged  in  the  neighbouring  networks, 
e.g. for new path requests, cancellation fees, more kilometres run. In addition, if no alternative 
path of comparable quality is proposed, the concerned traffic may be put at risk.  Sometimes 
the  reasons  behind  the  late  announced  TCRs  are  beyond  the  control  of  IMs  as  in  many 
Member  States  the  funding  of  works  is  secured  only  on  a  short-term  basis  and  budgetary 
restrictions  can  lead  to  last  minute  investment  planning  modifications.  In  addition,  high 
concentration of big projects for the take-up of EU funds makes coordination across borders 
difficult.  

RNE is currently working on a tool designed to optimise the international alignment of TCRs. 
Besides, the TCR part of the TTR Project adopts a holistic approach to the planning of works 
and capacity, which may improve the situation. However, its implementation will take some 
years.  

In the meantime, the Commission adopted in September 2017 a Delegated Decision revising 
Annex VII  of  Directive  2012/34/EU47.  It  sets  a  clear  timeline  for  the  consultation, 
coordination and publication of TCRs on all network lines. It aims at bringing reassurance to 
the RUs that their needs are taken into account and that remaining capacity is made available 
on a transparent basis.  

7.2. 

Investment  planning  &  infrastructure  development,  interoperability  and 
ERTMS 

Coordination  of  investments  along  the  corridors  is  crucial  (e.g.  some  investments  on  a  line 
section  can  only  deliver  their  benefits  if  other  sections,  notably  across  the  borders,  are  also 
upgraded).  The  MaBo  has  to  draw  up  and  periodically  review  an  investment  plan 
(Article 11(1) of the Regulation), which includes details of indicative medium and long-term 
investment for infrastructure in the RFC. 

46 
47  

http://www.rne.eu/rneinhalt/uploads/2015-12-03-Guidelines-CoTCR-V2.0.pdf 
Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2017/2075 of 4 September 2017 replacing Annex VII to Directive 2012/34/EU 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  a  single  European  railway  area,  OJ  L  295,  14.11.2017, 
p. 69. 

19 

 
                                                 
The  investment  plans  have  been  duly  established  by  the  RFCs  in  operation.  However  they 
often  seem  to  be  an  aggregation  of  national  plans  rather  than  the  result  of  coordination 
between  IMs.  Yet,  several  RFCs  have  launched  studies  on  specific  infrastructure 
enhancements  for  their  corridor,  also  with  the  aim  of  promoting  coordination  of  the 
investments needed. 

When  used  as  centres  of  expertise,  the  RFCs  –  with  their  governance  structure 
comprehensively  involving  the  relevant  stakeholders  –  can  bring  a  real  added-value  to 
investment  planning.  The  international  approach  and  "on-the-ground"  expert  knowledge  of 
RFC stakeholders can help to identify priorities for infrastructure development to the benefit 
of  cross-border  rail  freight.  There  is  a  close  link  between  operational  bottlenecks  and 
infrastructure  development,  between  capacity, quality,  the state  of  the infrastructure  and  the 
question of coordination of works. In practice, some of the priorities identified by the RFCs 
have been advocated by the ExBos representatives within their national ministries.  

As regards the indicative investment plan, the Commission services promote the development 
of  synergies  between  the  RFCs  and  the  CNCs/TEN-T  framework,  which  form  two 
complementary pillars of EU transport policy.  

Interoperability and ERTMS deployment 

The achievement of interoperability was an important component of corridor concepts already 
before  the  adoption  of  the  Regulation  (see  ERTMS  corridors).  Although  the  RFC  structure 
has  not  explicit  competences  in  this  field,  focus  on  interoperability  can  be  derived  from 
Article 11(1)(b), from the corridor approach and Regulation's objective. More generally, the 
objectives of the RFCs cannot be achieved without it. 

In practice, so far the identification and handling of technical interoperability issues within the 
governance bodies or via dedicated working groups varies among the RFCs.  

The  RFCs,  as  centres  of  expertise  and  in  particular  thanks  to  the  on-the-ground  input  from 
RUs  via  the  RAGs,  can  contribute  to  identifying  and  potentially  solving  interoperability 
issues  and  can  easily  make  the  link  with  the  competent  instances  (e.g.  ERA,  NSAs, 
Ministries,  Commission  services).  In  2016,  the  Commission  services  and  ERA  launched  a 
project aiming at creating efficient processes to exchange information between the RFCs and 
ERA, with a view to accelerate the solving of interoperability issues. As a result, an "Issues 
Log" fed by the RFCs, ERA and the Commission services is currently under development.  

ERTMS deployment 

As  part  of  the  investment  plan  (Article  11  of  the  Regulation),  the  management  board  shall 
draw  up  a  deployment  plan  for  interoperable  systems.  This  includes  notably  ERTMS 
deployment  which  is  an  essential  element  to  achieve  interoperability.  This  is  of  particular 
importance for the RFCs which have absorbed the so-called former ERTMS Corridors.  

All  RFCs  have  duly  prepared  such  deployment  plans.  In  addition,  RFC  Rhine-Alpine  and 
RFC North Sea-Mediterranean have a long tradition of contributing to ERTMS deployment, 
both as regards technical issues and promoting politically coordinated deployment. Working 
groups  with  involvement  of  ministries,  IMs,  RUs,  NSAs  and  ERA  have  been  set  up.  Other 
RFCs also have an ERTMS working group, gathering ERTMS experts. 

Commission  services,  in  close  cooperation  with  the  European  coordinator  for  ERTMS  and 
ERA, have launched a reflection with the RFCs with a view to clarify their role in ERTMS 
deployment.  The  implementation  of  the  European  Deployment  Plan  for  ERTMS48  requires 

48 

Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/6  of  5  January  2017  on  the  European  Rail  Traffic  Management 
System European deployment plan, OJ L 3, 6.1.2017, p. 6. 

20 

 
                                                 
close cooperation and coordination between ministries, IM and RU experts: when needed, the 
RFCs can provide a good platform for this. The Commission adopted in November 2017 the 
ERTMS  Deployment  Action  Plan49  which  identifies  the  RFCs  as  facilitators  for  ERTMS 
deployment. 

8.  REGULATORY SUPERVISION 

Adequate  regulatory  control  is  a  key  element  of  the  Regulation.  Article  20  states  that  the 
Regulatory  Bodies  (RBs),  either  in  the  event  of  a  complaint  or  within  the  framework  of  an 
own-initiative  investigation,  shall  cooperate  in  monitoring  the  competition  in  the  RFCs, 
ensure  a  non-discriminatory  access  to  the  corridor  and  act  as  appeal  bodies  for  applicants 
claiming that they have been unfairly treated. In addition, Directive 2012/34/EU has extended 
the  powers  of  RBs  and  its  scope  of  application  covers  the  entire  railway  market,  thus 
including  the  RFCs  (unless  specified  otherwise).  As  a  result,  for  the  purposes  of  regulatory 
supervision of RFCs, the provisions on RBs both under Directive 2012/34/EU and under the 
Regulation  are  important  and  the  RB  can  monitor  all  aspects  that  cause  discrimination  and 
market distortion. 

The  Regulation  has  fostered  the  cooperation  between  the  RBs  and  cooperation  agreements 
have  been  signed  for  all  the  RFCs50.  These  agreements  provide  for  the  arrangements 
concerning the handling of complaints.   

No complaint has been filed so far. Until now the RBs have intervened more as monitoring 
bodies than as appeal bodies.  
IRG-Rail51 has taken the lead in strengthening cooperation among RBs as regards supervision 
of  RFCs.  A  Statement  on  the  RFCs  has  also  been  published  during  the  2016  TEN-T  Days, 
where  the  Rotterdam  Ministerial  Declaration  and  Sector  Statement  were  endorsed.  In  this 
statement  IRG-Rail  members  stress  the  need  to  strengthen  their  cooperation  and  envisage 
actions such as the development of  guidelines, the development of a cooperation agreement 
common to all RFCs, the participation in the development of the KPIs and the organisation of 
an annual forum on RFCs (the first one took place in September 2017). 

9.  OTHER AREAS 

In  practice,  the  RFCs  are  forums  which  are  suitable  for  identifying  and  discussing  various 
issues hampering rail freight in Europe and, eventually, to contribute to their resolution. As a 
matter of fact, they are regularly used in this way. 

Many topics not directly mentioned in the Regulation have been discussed in meetings of the 
RFC governance structures, including railway noise, customs issues, cooperation with OSJD 
corridors52 and digitalisation. 

The  Commission  services  have  always  supported  such  practice  while  noting  that  overlaps 
with  the  work  of  other  relevant  or  competent  working  groups  or  entities  should  be  strictly 
avoided. 

49  

50 

51 

52  

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2017-ertms-deployment-action-plan.pdf  
Except for RFC 9 (CZ and SK), but both regulators have signed such agreements on RFC7 and RFC 5 and thereby    
have expressed their willingness to cooperate. 
IRG-Rail  is  the  "Independent  Regulators’  Group  –  Rail”,  a  forum  currently  comprising  independent  rail  Regulatory 
Bodies  from  twenty-nine  European  countries.  http://www.irg-rail.eu/about-the-irg-rail/  All  the  RBs  of  countries 
involved in the RFC are members of IRG-Rail, including the third countries Norway and Switzerland. 
Two seminars gathering OSJD (Organisation for Co-Operation between Railways) and RFC representatives with the 
objective of launching cooperation towards improving the quality of freight services between Europe and Asia  were 
organised  by  DG  MOVE.  Moreover  RFC  NSB  and  RFC  MED  have  established  closer  contacts  with  the  OSJD 
corridors. 

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
Appendix I 

Maps of the Rail Freight Corridors 

(1) Indicative map of the current RFC network 

(Map reproduced with the permission of RailNetEurope) 

(2) Development of the RFC network 

2a Development of the initial RFCs 

The following (main) developments of the initial RFCs are not included in the map above: 

  Orient/East-Med RFC will be extended to Bremerhaven, Wilhelmshaven, Hamburg, 

Rostock (Germany) and to Patras (Greece) by November 2018. 

  North Sea-Baltic RFC will be extended to Riga and Tallinn by November 2020. 
  Rhine-Danube RFC is to be established between Strasbourg and Čierna nad Tisou and 

Constanța by 2020. A part of the RFC in Czechia and Slovakia is operational since 2013, 
as "Czech-Slovak" corridor. 

  North Sea-Mediterranean RFC will be extended to Geneva (Switzerland). 

22 

 
 
 
 
2b New Amber RFC (indicative map) 

2c New Alpine-Western Balkan RFC (indicative map) 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix II 

Table of abbreviations 

CEF 

CER 

CID 

CNC 

Connecting Europe Facility 

Community  of  European  Railway  and  Infrastructure  Companies,  represents 
European infrastructure managers and railway undertakings 

Corridor Information Document 

Core Network Corridor 

C-OSS 

Corridor One-Stop-Shop 

DG MOVE  European Commission DG Mobility and Transport 

EC 

European Commission 

ECCO 

EIM 

ERFA 

Railway  Advisory  Groups  cooperation  led  by  Union  Internationale  des 
Chemins de Fer (UIC) 

European  Rail  Infrastructure  Managers,  represents  European  independent 
infrastructure managers 

European  Rail  Freight  Association,  represents  railway  undertakings  who  are 
new entrants in the EU rail market 

ExBo 

Executive Board 

FCA 

FTE 

IM 

Framework for Capacity Allocation 

Forum Train Europe 

Infrastructure Manager 

IRG-Rail 

Independent  Regulators  Group  –  Rail,  represents  European  rail  regulatory 
bodies 

MaBo 

Management Board 

NSA 

PaPs 

PCS 

RAG 

RB 

RC 

RFC 

RNE 

RU 

National Safety Authority 

Pre-Arranged train Paths 

Path Coordination System 

Railway Advisory Group 

Regulatory Body 

Reserve Capacity  

Rail Freight Corridor  

RailNetEurope 

Railway Undertaking 

24 

 
TAG 

TCR 

Terminal Advisory Group 

Temporary Capacity Restrictions 

TEN-T 

Trans-European Transport Network 

TTR 

UIC 

UIRR 

Timetable Redesign project 

Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer (International Union of Railways) 

International Union of Combined Road-Rail Transport Companies, represents 
combined transport operators and combined transport terminals 

X-n° 

Date of the timetable change (second Monday of December) - n° of month 

25