Article
citation information:
Adenigbo, A.J., Elesho, A.E., Mageto, J.,
Luke, R. Service qualities of the standard gauge railway transportation in
Nigeria. Scientific Journal of Silesian
University of Technology. Series Transport. 2026, 131, 5-21. ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2026.131.1
Adedotun Joseph ADENIGBO[1], Ayodimeji Elijah ELESHO[2],
Joash MAGETO[3],
Rose LUKE[4]
SERVICE QUALITIES
OF THE STANDARD GAUGE RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION IN NIGERIA
Summary. Poor service was one of
the many reasons why Nigeria's railway transportation, which dates to the 18th
century, became obsolete. This article examines the service quality dimensions
of Nigeria's standard-gauge rail system. The objective is to identify the key
service indicators for service quality dimensions that influence passengers'
patronage of standard-gauge railway transport in Nigeria. A questionnaire was
administered to 359 train passengers in Abuja, Lagos, and Ibadan using a random
sampling technique to gather data for the study. Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) was used to analyze the data. The study
highlighted departure and arrival times, ease of buying tickets,
comfortability, ticket price, and availability of food/snacks on the train as
indicators that do not contribute to the major service quality dimensions of
the rail transportation in Nigeria. The main dimensions of service quality that
affect passengers' experiences with Nigeria's standard rail system are
tangibility, responsiveness, reliability, safety and security, and service
orientation. The findings underscore the importance of maintaining high-quality
services to ensure passenger satisfaction and increase rail transport patronage
in Nigeria. The findings suggest creating and implementing policies that will
consistently enhance Nigeria's rail transportation service delivery.
Keywords: service qualities, railway transport, standard gauge, service
friendliness
1. INTRODUCTION
The rail transport industry plays a
crucial role in providing mobility and efficiently distributing goods and
services. It is assumed that rail transportation has the highest economic and
social value among other modes due to its environmental friendliness and
ability to transport large numbers of people at low cost [1]. According to
Janic and Vleugel [2], railway transportation is
widely accepted by policymakers, transport planners, and environmentalists as
the best alternative to the dominant use of roads, which has been a significant
contributor to urban transport problems [3]. Janic and Vleugel
[2] also added that railway transportation reduces transport externalities in
the transportation sector by 30%, including energy use, greenhouse gas
emissions, noise, congestion, and accidents. Tsumura et al. [4] found that rail transportation plays a
significant role in urban transportation by mitigating the negative growth in
vehicle numbers and CO2 emissions, due to its capacity to move large
volumes of passengers and goods.
Economically,
rail transport offers opportunities for increased revenue, job creation, and
business expansion. Okoye et al. [5] stated that railway services increased
short-term economic development in Northern Nigeria. Apanisile
and Akinlo [6] found that rail transportation
services enhance economic growth in Nigeria. Additionally, Soretire
et al. [7] found that rail transport makes a significant contribution to local
economic development in Nigeria. According to Soretire
et al. [8], rail transport plays a vital role in global socio-economic
development by facilitating passenger and freight movement. The railway is the
transport mode with the most cost-effective, affordable, energy-saving, and
environmentally friendly features. Despite the importance of railway
transportation to the environment and economic development, the Nigerian
railway industry became moribund for several years due to government neglect,
inadequate infrastructure provision, management challenges, and poor service
delivery [6] [8].
Importantly,
a major problem facing the Nigerian railway transport system is the loss of
patronage. The problem stems from poor service quality and the delivery of the
rail transport system nationwide. The continuous persistence of the problem
frustrated all categories of passengers and the need to transport agricultural
products across the country. Obe et al. [9] identified the major problems of
railway transport in Nigeria as late train arrivals, theft, poor sanitation
around train stations and on trains, overcrowding, the menace of roof riders,
and the proliferation of vendors. The problems identified by Obe et al. [9] are
critical service qualities that affect railway patronage. As problems
persisted, customers gradually withdrew from the railway and shifted to road
transport, eventually leading to the decline and demise of railway services in
Nigeria.
In
2015, the Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC) commenced operations on the
country's newly constructed standard-gauge rail network. Passenger patronage of
railway services has increased due to the speed and safety offered, as well as
the insecurity that prevails on roads. However, this paper concerns the need
for continuous improvement in rail services in Nigeria. The improvement is
necessary to achieve passenger satisfaction and loyalty to patronizing rail service
in Nigeria. A key question this study addresses is: What are the primary
service qualities that influence passengers to patronize standard-gauge railway
transportation in Nigeria? The goal is to identify the service quality
dimensions that need strengthening to sustain the growth in railway passenger
patronage in Nigeria. The objective of this study is to examine the service
quality indicators of railway transportation in Nigeria, with a focus on
passenger satisfaction.
The
approach to achieving the paper's objective is to subject twenty (20) service
quality indicators to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to reduce and group
them into a few factors, thereby identifying the major service quality
dimensions that influence passenger patronage of railway transport, in
comparison to Parasuraman [10]. The study contributes to existing knowledge by
identifying the service quality indicators that passengers consider the most
important in their choice to patronize the standard gauge railway in Nigeria.
The
literature on rail transport services is vast, focusing on various aspects of
the mode of transportation. The different focus areas include rail service and
social media [11], service quality and customer satisfaction [12], train
service quality and public interest [13], railway service quality attributes
[14], passengers’ perception of railway services [15], and others. The
literature review suggests that service quality plays a crucial role in
maintaining customer patronage of rail transportation. However, research
focusing on the service quality dimensions in Nigeria is limited. To this end,
this study fills a knowledge gap by examining the service quality elements that
inform passengers' patronage of standard-gauge railway services.
The
paper is structured so that, after this introduction section, Section 2
presents the literature review, Section 3 describes the methods adopted for the
study, Section 4 presents the results and discussion, and Section 5 concludes
with a summary and policy recommendations.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Rail transportation remains a
critical component of national infrastructure, offering affordable,
mass-transit options for passengers and freight. In Nigeria, the sector has
undergone cycles of decline and revival, with recent investments in
modernization and intercity connectivity. This rollercoaster performance has
sparked renewed interest in rail service quality investigations, which remain a
central determinant of passenger patronage, satisfaction, and the economic
viability of rail services. This section presents the theoretical review of
service quality and the empirical review of railway transport services.
2.1.
Theoretical review
The SERVQUAL model, developed by
Parasuraman et al. [10], remains the dominant theoretical lens for evaluating
service quality in passenger transportation. It argues that service quality can
be assessed by comparing customers' expectations with what they perceive they
receive. Thus, it proposes five dimensions: tangibility, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. In rail transport, tangible assets
include the physical condition of rolling stock, stations, seating, and
ticketing equipment. Reliability reflects punctuality and adherence to
schedules. Responsiveness refers to the staff's willingness to assist
passengers, particularly during disruptions. Assurance relates to safety,
security, and staff competence, while empathy concerns how well operators
understand passenger needs.
The core idea is that gaps between
expectations and perceptions reveal specific areas where service delivery falls
short, enabling organizations to target improvement. Although widely used,
SERVQUAL has attracted strong criticism. For instance, Carman [16] and Buttle
[17] argue that the five dimensions are not universal and tend to shift across
industries and cultural contexts. Similarly, Babakus
and Boller [18] question the scale's reliability and highlight the need for
empirical adjustments. Later reviews, such as Coulthard [19] and Ladhari [20], emphasise methodological weaknesses and the
instability of customer expectations, noting that expectations are fluid and
influenced by recent experiences, making them difficult to measure
consistently. In addition, the model’s heavy emphasize on the subjective
customer viewpoint may overlook operational constraints and sector-specific
performance standards [21] [22]. More recent reflections, such as Naylor [23]
and Özispa [22], acknowledge SERVQUAL’s enduring
influence but argue that it must evolve to address contemporary service
contexts. To address this, SERVQUAL models are often used with modifications
tailored to specific industries. Generally, the model must be adapted, not
merely imported [21] [22].
Another important theory is the
Expectation-Confirmation Theory (ECT) propounded by Oliver [25] [26], which
explains customer satisfaction as a product of the gap between expected
performance and actual service delivery. Applied to rail transport, passengers
develop expectations about travel time, comfort, and safety before boarding.
When the journey meets or exceeds those expectations, satisfaction and loyalty
increase. When performance falls short, dissatisfaction leads to a decline in
patronage.
ECT has attracted significant
criticism. For instance, the model simplifies consumer psychology by treating
satisfaction as a rational comparison process while overlooking emotional,
social, and situational influences that often shape real-world decisions [27].
Additionally, expectations are unstable and shift with experience, context, and
cultural background, which makes them difficult to capture reliably [28].
Notably, ECT assumes a linear relationship between expectations, performance,
and satisfaction, even though satisfaction can reshape future expectations in
more complex feedback loops [26] [28]. These limitations have led to several
refinements, including the Expectation-Confirmation Model (ECM) in information
systems, which focuses on continued use decisions rather than one-off
satisfaction [29]. More recently, scholars have extended ECT to incorporate
trust and long-term relational dynamics, particularly in digital markets and
e-commerce, where sustained engagement depends not simply on satisfaction but
more on the evolution of consumer trust [30]. Such inclusions highlight that
ECT is no longer confined to explaining one-off satisfaction judgments but is
increasingly applied to contexts where expectations, performance, trust, and
loyalty interact in complex, ongoing cycles.
ECT is particularly useful in
transportation services where expectation-performance gaps are common due to
chronic delays, equipment breakdowns, and inconsistent service schedules.
Specifically, in Nigeria, the theory helps explain why passengers remain sceptical
of rail improvements despite recent investments. Past experiences of poor
performance shape their expectations, requiring consistent quality improvements
to rebuild trust. ECT theory is relevant to this study, as it helps justify
EFA, as rail transport passengers consider service quality indicators based on
their expectations and service performance. This study is designed so that
passengers rank the twenty (20) presented service quality indicators based on
how they perceive rail transport services relative to their expectations. The
twenty (20) indicators were subjected to EFA using the expected confirmation
responses of the rail transport passengers to determine their service quality
dimensions.
2.2. The
Rail Transport Service Quality
Across the literature, service
quality is generally viewed through the lens of accessibility, comfort, safety,
reliability, punctuality, staff behavior, and
affordability. In an international context, Irfan et al. [31], examining
Pakistan, found that passengers valued punctuality and affordability in rail
service quality. Notably, Romero et al. [32] emphasized the importance of the
availability and accuracy of public transport information, which significantly
influences passengers' perceptions of service quality in suburban rail systems.
While Shan et al. [33] assessed service quality in Eurasian rail transport and
identified border delays, train speed, and reliability as key issues, Tadić et
al. [34] examined how rail service quality affects intermodal transport,
demonstrating that reliability and schedule integration are essential for
seamless logistics. Vassilev and Velinov [35] also
noted that continuous monitoring and evaluation frameworks improve service
delivery by creating accountability and feedback loops. As such, Đorđević et
al. [36] proposed a full consistency method for defining service quality
criteria, emphasizing reliability, safety, comfort, and accessibility as
universal benchmarks. Similarly, Fu et al. [37] developed a multi-level
synthetic evaluation model for high-speed rail in China, noting the importance
of passenger-centered metrics such as punctuality,
convenience, and perceived value. Wu et al. [38] further demonstrated that
service quality interacts with corporate image and customer satisfaction to
shape behavioral intentions in Taiwan’s high-speed
rail system. These global models reflect the multidimensionality of rail
service quality, often operationalized through frameworks such as SERVQUAL
[10], which assesses tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and
empathy. Further, Wisutwattanasak et al. [39]
combined the SERVQUAL model with the Health Belief Model to understand why
passengers decide to use rail transport after the COVID-19 pandemic. Their
approach revealed that while traditional service quality factors, such as
reliability, responsiveness, and comfort, still matter, passengers now place
even greater emphasis on health and safety. Concerns about illness, crowding,
and cleanliness have become central predictors of whether people feel confident
enough to use trains. In other words, good service quality alone was no longer
enough; passengers also needed to believe that the rail environment protects
their health before they chose to travel. As such, Lwesya
and Jaffu [40] in their Tanzanian study applied the
SERVQUAL model to rail transport, revealing gaps in reliability and
communication, largely due to aging infrastructure and inadequate customer
service training, which resonates with challenges in Nigeria, bedeviled by infrastructural decay and governance issues.
2.3. Railway Transport Services in Nigeria
Many researchers have devoted
substantial time and effort to assessing the Nigerian rail transportation
system. This is because long-term performance assessments help explain
persistent concerns about service quality in Nigeria's rail transport. Ogochukwu
et al. [41] examined rail operations between 1970 and 2010 and found that
declining investment, aging rolling stock, poor maintenance, and governance
challenges, such as corruption and policy inconsistency, led to operational
inefficiencies and a decline in passenger volumes. Their analysis reveals that
service quality issues are deeply ingrained and necessitate structural reforms
rather than minor improvements. Omotayo [42] identified weak regulatory
frameworks, inconsistent political commitment, and institutional fragmentation
as major obstacles to improving service quality under Nigeria’s public-private
partnership (PPP) arrangements for rail transportation. Similarly, Onuchukwu [43] linked rail service quality to economic
development in Lagos, showing that efficient rail systems reduce congestion,
enhance productivity, and stimulate commerce. However, poor governance
undermines these benefits, as inconsistent policies stall modernization
projects. Furthermore, Ozohu-Suleiman and Oladimeji
[44] found that PPP efforts struggled due to unclear risk-sharing mechanisms
and low investor confidence, which directly affect service delivery by limiting
investment in maintenance, safety systems, and customer-oriented improvements.
Other empirical studies in Nigeria have revealed a reliable and important
interplay among safety, affordability, travel time, and institutional
governance in shaping the quality of rail services.
For instance, Adanikin
et al. [45] conducted a survey of 125 commuters in Lagos State and employed
structural equation modeling to identify predictors
of patronage. Their findings revealed that safety was the strongest determinant
of customer loyalty, surpassing price and travel time, thus suggesting that
Nigerian passengers prioritized personal security and accident prevention over
other service attributes. However, earlier work by Agunloye
and Oduwaye [46] found that in metropolitan Lagos,
overcrowding, poor scheduling, and inadequate facilities were major constraints
on the quality of rail transport services. Their study emphasized that service
reliability and comfort were critical to passenger satisfaction yet
consistently undermined by infrastructural neglect. Broadly speaking, the work
of Mojeed and Ghadiri [47], who explored intercity
rail services in Southwest Nigeria, revealed that passengers expected
punctuality, affordability, and cleanliness. However, a clear mismatch was
identified between expectations and actual service delivery, particularly
regarding delays and poor maintenance. This expectation gap aligns with the
Tanzanian-based findings of Lwesya and Jaffu [40], which identified reliability as the weakest
dimension of service quality.
Rail line/route-based studies, such
as Ojekunle et al. [48], which examined the
Lagos-Kano rail line, identified punctuality, affordability, and staff
responsiveness as key determinants of service quality in the study area. Their
findings reinforced the importance of operational efficiency, particularly in
the context of long-distance travel, where delays have a significant impact on
passenger satisfaction. Yakasai and Gwarzo [49] provided recent evidence from Rigasa Station in Kaduna, demonstrating that service
quality has a strong predictive relationship with customer satisfaction. Their
study emphasized tangibles (station facilities, train cleanliness) and
assurance (staff professionalism) as critical dimensions supporting the
findings of Wu et al. [38] and Wisutwattanasak et al.
[39], which suggest that service quality directly influences behavioral intentions.
This study focuses on identifying
the significant service quality dimensions that passengers consider by
measuring the individual service quality indicators. The study aims to group
individual service quality indicators to understand the specifics of the
service qualities that comprise the service quality dimensions of the rail
transportation system in Nigeria.
3. DATA AND METHOD
The study adopted a survey research
design to collect data for quantitative analysis. The philosophy guiding this
study is positivism, a quantitative research method that focuses on measuring
and analyzing observations. The goal is to collect
information on passengers' perceptions of railway service qualities and subject
it to quantitative analysis. The study area for this research is the
Abuja-Kaduna and Lagos-Ibadan railway lines. The lines are the major standard
gauge under the Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC) operations. The study
population size was considered infinite for the research, as the exact
population of railway passengers could not be determined. Therefore, the study
employed Cochran's [50] formula to determine sample size from an infinite
population. The formula takes the form of:
(1)
where;
e – the desired level of error margin;
P – proportion of population;
Z – tabulated z-value;
– sample size.
The formula's application resulted
in a sample size of 384 for the study. This implies that the study should
survey 384 railway transport passengers about their perceptions of the service
quality of standard-gauge railway services in Nigeria. A total of 384 copies of
the questionnaire were produced to collect data for the study. The survey was
conducted using a simple random sampling technique to ensure that all
respondents had an equal chance of being included. The survey data were
collected over three (3) months, from March to May, in 2024.
The survey produced 359 valid
responses, which serve as the study's data. The response represents a 93.5%
success rate. The questionnaire was administered to respondents at railway
terminals in Lagos, Ibadan, and Abuja, who were primarily passengers. Microsoft
Excel was used to generate random numbers up to 384. The random numbers
generated were assigned to the copies of the questionnaire before data
collection. The survey ensures that only adult passengers who are independently
responsible for their own choices are included in the data collection.
The questionnaire has
two (2) sections. Section A contains demographic information, and Section B
contains the service qualities that influence the passengers' choice of
patronage. The service quality indices in Table 1 were presented in a 5-point
Likert scale for the respondents to rank in order of significance. The service
quality indices serve as the study’s variables.
Tab.
1
Service quality indicators
|
S/N |
Variable indicators |
|
1 |
Departure and arrival time |
|
2 |
Frequency of operation |
|
3 |
Train speed and
smoothness of ride |
|
4 |
Parking space availability |
|
5 |
Travelling time/waiting time |
|
6 |
Condition of the
arrival and departure rooms |
|
7 |
Cleanness of coaches |
|
8 |
Station facilities |
|
9 |
Seat arrangement |
|
10 |
Access to information |
|
11 |
Compliant handling process |
|
12 |
Accessibility to the station |
|
13 |
Ease of buying a
ticket |
|
14 |
Customer service at
the station |
|
15 |
Customer service on
the train |
|
16 |
Comfortability |
|
17 |
Ticket price |
|
18 |
Safety level and
security on the train |
|
19 |
Safety level and
security at the station |
|
20 |
Availability of
food/snacks on the train |
The study comprises twenty (20)
variables to examine passengers' perceptions of standard gauge railway services
in Nigeria. The Likert scale to measure the responses was presented from 1 –
Not Significant, 2 – Least Significant, 3 – Fairly Significant, 4 –
Significant, and 5 – Strongly Significant for the respondents to rank. The
ranking allows respondents to assign a weight to each item based on their
perception of the railway service qualities. The data collected for the study
were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
to reduce the 20 variables to the minimum set necessary to explain the service
quality dimensions of standard-gauge railway transport in Nigeria. The
technique utilizes item variances to extract common factors that effectively
explain passengers' perceptions of railway services in Nigeria. The EFA
estimates the correlations between the items and determines their relationships
with the unobserved variables.
The EFA technique employed Principal Axis
Factoring and Varimax rotation to summarize
the items into a few orthogonal ones that explain the significant service
quality dimensions of railway transport. The application of EFA
identifies a few unobserved variables, known as common factors, that explain
the correlations among observed variables. These common factors were extracted
by estimating the factor loadings of the observed variables and selecting factors
with loadings greater than one eigenvalue.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To ensure the certainty of the
analytical results of the objective, prebuilt statistical options associated
with the EFA were adequately selected, including
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett tests, communalities, extraction of
variance using principal axis factoring, correlation matrix, and factor
rotation (Varimax) technique [51]. Based on the output values of both the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sample adequacy and the Bartlett test of
sphericity, the adequacy and suitability of the data for the analysis are
confirmed [51]. The KMO value is 0.875, indicating that the dataset is adequate
for the statistical analysis. The Chi-square test result, with a value of
2997.345 and a p-value of 0.000, confirms that the data are suitable for
analysis (See Table 2).
KMO and Bartlett's Test of
Railway Service Quality Indicators
|
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. |
.875 |
|
|
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity |
Approx. Chi-Square |
2997.345 |
|
Df |
190 |
|
|
Sig. |
.000 |
|
Table
3 below presents the communalities estimate of the data.
It indicates that the variance in
the
variables can be attributed
to common factors. The communalities are estimates of each variable's variance. The sum of squared loadings for each variable, along with its initial and
extracted values, forms the model's communalities.
Tab. 3
Communalities of the variables before and after
extraction
|
|
Initial |
Extraction |
|
Departure and arrival time |
.339 |
.321 |
|
Frequency of operation |
.395 |
.513 |
|
Train speed and smoothness of ride |
.391 |
.409 |
|
Parking space availability |
.379 |
.383 |
|
Travelling time/waiting time |
.482 |
.621 |
|
Condition of the arrival and departure rooms |
.523 |
.576 |
|
Cleanness of coaches |
.560 |
.655 |
|
Station facilities |
.577 |
.601 |
|
Seat arrangement |
.563 |
.581 |
|
Access to information |
.607 |
.679 |
|
Compliant handling process |
.598 |
.690 |
|
Accessibility to the station |
.355 |
.375 |
|
Ease of buying a ticket |
.381 |
.380 |
|
Customer service at the station |
.591 |
.708 |
|
Customer service on the train |
.539 |
.618 |
|
Comfortability |
.373 |
.376 |
|
Ticket price |
.313 |
.314 |
|
Safety level and security on the train |
.589 |
.743 |
|
Safety level and security at the station |
.585 |
.690 |
|
Availability of food/snacks on the train |
.114 |
.094 |
|
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring |
||
The construct variables were extracted using
principal axis factoring, with an eigenvalue greater than one (1), and a
rotation matrix was generated using the Varimax technique to identify the latent variables that form the construct factors. The rotated
values were sorted by
size and suppressed
to a threshold coefficient that is equal to or greater than 0.500. The rotated factor
matrix’s output
includes the model’s solution, which identifies the latent factors that
explain service quality in Nigeria's standard gauge rail system. Furthermore, the total variance
loadings of the analysis
indicate the percentage of the total variance explained by five factors with eigenvalues greater than
1.
These factors
have eigenvalues that represent the percentage of the total variation in the
data set that each construct factor explains or, at best, summarizes. According to the cumulative percentage of variance explained, all five
variables collectively account for
63% of the total variance. Table 4
shows the rotated factor matrix of the five
(5) construct factors.
The results show that all variables distributed under each extracted factor have
loadings above the 0.500 threshold.
There are five (5) of the
twenty (20) items with load factors less than 0.500 in the analysis. Most of
these factors have a communality of less than 0.500 in Table 3. It indicates
that the factors will make little or no contribution to the common factors
extracted after rotation. It is taken that the items be removed from the
analysis. So, the result in Table 4 has only sixteen (16) items that are
grouped to form the service quality dimensions for the standard rail gauge
services in Nigeria. The items removed from the analysis are departure and
arrival times, ease of buying tickets, comfortability, ticket price, and
availability of food/snacks on the train. It implies that rail passengers do
not enjoy the services associated with the service quality indicators removed
from the analysis. The result implies that passengers do not have definite
expectations about the departure and arrival times of the train services. It
also reveals the difficulties passengers face when buying tickets, as they must
stand in long queues at train stations. Regarding comfortability, the result
shows that passengers are not perturbed about the level of comfort they have on
the train because of the present conditions of the new rail and coaches in use.
The comfort level is generally good, as the trains offer clean, quiet, and
modern amenities to enhance passengers’ overall comfort. The result that the
ticket price does not contribute to the extracted common factors indicates the
advantage of rail transport as a cheaper public transportation option, given
its capacity to carry large numbers of passengers. So, the passengers consider
the ticket price easily affordable and, as such, do not place a high demand on
it when determining their expected service quality indicator. The last
indicator removed from the analysis was the availability of food/snacks on the
train. The result indicates that passenger service quality will be enhanced if
meals or refreshments are provided on the train.
Importantly, Table 4
presents the final analysis output, highlighting the service delivery
indicators that comprise the service quality dimensions for passenger patronage
of the standard rail gauge in Nigeria. The indicators were grouped accordingly
and named as tangibility, responsiveness, reliability, safety and security, and
service orientation (See Table 4). The major result of the analysis is that
customer satisfaction with standard-gauge railway services is influenced by the
service quality dimensions of tangibility, responsiveness, reliability, safety
and security, and service orientation. That the result identifies safety and
security as a significant service quality dimension indicates a strong motive
for passengers' patronage of rail transportation in the country, given the
rising insecurity on roads and the poor safety system of intercity road
transportation due to infrastructure decay. This establishes the importance of
safety and security as a factor influencing the service qualities of the rail transportation
system.
Rotated Factor Matrixa of Railway Transport Service
Indicators and Dimension
|
|
Factor |
||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
Cleanness of coaches |
.779 |
|
|
|
|
|
Station facilities |
.719 |
|
|
|
|
|
Condition of the arrival and departure rooms |
.680 |
|
|
|
|
|
Seat arrangement |
.673 |
|
|
|
|
|
Compliant handling process |
|
.786 |
|
|
|
|
Access to information |
|
.714 |
|
|
|
|
Accessibility to the station |
|
.544 |
|
|
|
|
Travelling time/waiting time |
|
|
.696 |
|
|
|
Frequency of operation |
|
|
.669 |
|
|
|
Parking space availability |
|
|
.533 |
|
|
|
Train speed and smoothness of ride |
|
|
.502 |
|
|
|
Safety level and security on the train |
|
|
|
.798 |
|
|
Safety level and security at the station |
|
|
|
.765 |
|
|
Customer service at the station |
|
|
|
|
.659 |
|
Customer service on the train |
|
|
|
|
.615 |
|
Factor Names |
Tangibility |
Responsiveness |
Reliability |
Safety & Security |
Service Orientation |
|
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. |
|||||
|
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations. (Absolute values for
compression:0.50) |
|||||
Tangibility refers to the availability of high-quality, functional
physical infrastructure and equipment necessary to provide excellent customer
service [52]. In addition, the analysis revealed that all four variables
loading on tangibility have high loadings. The service quality indicators to
measure tangibility in this study include the cleanliness of coaches and
station facilities, the condition of arrival and departure rooms, and seat
arrangement. According to Chou et al. [53], these service quality variables
were found to be important to customers. The indicators relate to the provision
and maintenance of rail transportation infrastructure and facilities. It
implies that the condition of infrastructure and facilities for rail transport
operations affects passenger service quality and thereby increases passenger
patronage. This supports the findings of Olawole and Aloba [24] that improved infrastructure significantly
enhances passenger satisfaction with rail services on the Abuja-Kaduna
corridor.
The second factor is responsiveness, which refers to railway staff's
receptiveness, openness, sensitivity, and awareness of passengers’ demands
[54]. It can also be defined as the railway staff's willingness to assist
passengers when they need help. Three indicators that loaded well under
responsiveness include a compliant handling process, access to information, and
accessibility to the station. The result suggests that standard-gauge railway
passengers are concerned about the staff's attitude towards their requests.
These variables are essential to passengers [53]. The finding suggests that
human interaction remains a critical component of quality service delivery,
even in infrastructure-driven sectors such as the railway. The result aligns
with Eboli and Mazzulla [60], who found that responsiveness was a significant
determinant of perceived service quality in the public transport system.
Reliability implies the Nigerian Railway Corporation's ability to
provide the service as promised. Customers considered the effectiveness and
accuracy of service to be essential. As a result, customers will patronize a
transport company that is consistent in the service [55]. Five indicators,
namely travelling time/waiting time, frequency of operation, parking space
availability, train speed, and smoothness of the ride, were loaded on Factor 3,
named reliability. Previous studies, such as those by Ren et al. [56], have
found that reduced travel time is a key incentive for passengers to patronize
railway transport. According to Hayashi et al. [57], business activity and
productivity have increased due to improvements in the salient features of the
high-speed rail system, including reduced travel time, enhanced safety,
comfort, and punctuality, as well as increased train frequency. Reliability of
rail services is critical in Nigeria, as inconsistent service delivery has
historically affected public perception of rail transport. In line with the
finding, the study of Eboli and Mazzulla [60] found that reliability is a central
determinant of rail passenger trust and system credibility.
Factor 4, named safety and security, refers to passengers' perceptions
of their own safety and security, including their lives and belongings.
Passengers often choose transport services they deem safer based on their
experience. In this study, safety variables include safety level and security
on the train, as well as safety level and security at the station. Safety and
security are key criteria when considering a mode of transport. According to
Eboli [58], personal safety on the train and at the station was considered
highly important to passengers. Nathanail [61] emphasized that safety is a
fundamental dimension of rail service quality, influencing passenger confidence
and satisfaction. In Nigeria, security concerns – especially along rail
corridors – have heightened the importance of safety and security as a major
service quality dimension. The finding indicates that rail transport passengers
in Nigeria prioritize personal security as a core component of
service quality, beyond traditional SERVQUAL constructs.
Service orientation refers to the
quality of service provided by an organization or business, characterized by a
welcoming and helpful attitude towards customers or clients. It encompasses
various aspects, such as the service providers' courtesy, responsiveness, and
attentiveness, as well as the overall ease and convenience customers experience
when interacting with the service. This study identified service at the station
and on the train as indicators of service orientation, aligning with Jomnonkwao et al. [59], who found that staff responsiveness to passengers’ needs is strongly
correlated with passenger satisfaction. While the traditional SERVQUAL has
related constructs such as empathy and assurance, the emergence of service
orientation as a standalone factor suggests that rail transport passengers in
Nigeria perceive organizational
culture and customer-centricity as distinct and critical attributes. This reflects a shift toward customer-centered service
delivery in Nigeria’s rail sector, where passengers increasingly expect quality interactions alongside
efficient operations.
5.
CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The study aimed to examine the service qualities of standard-gauge
railway services in Nigeria. The study answered a major question about the
significant service qualities that passengers consider for patronizing the
standard gauge railway in Nigeria. Data for the study were collected with a
structured questionnaire administered to passengers at Lagos, Ibadan, and Abuja
train stations. The data were subjected to exploratory factor analysis to
identify the most significant service quality dimensions influencing
passengers' patronage of the standard gauge railway service. The study found
tangibility, responsiveness, reliability, safety, and service orientation as
the significant service quality dimensions influencing passengers' patronage of
the standard rail gauge in Nigeria. The finding implies that passengers would
continue to patronize the standard gauge railway services as the service
providers give attention to tangible elements of service delivery, proactively
respond to passengers' needs, provide a reliable schedule of trips, ensure the
safety and security of passengers and their goods, and provide a friendly
environment to satisfy passengers. The results argue that the SERVQUAL model
should be adapted to sector-specific conditions. For this study, the
significance of safety and security and service orientation implies the need
for a hybrid service quality model in the Nigerian rail transport industry.
Also, the result revealed that rail transport service quality in Nigeria is
multidimensional, combining traditional service quality dimensions with
content-specific sector constructs such as safety, security, and customer
orientation. The study highlights the importance of localized service quality
frameworks for transport systems in developing economies.
For policy and practice considerations, the study’s findings provide
direction on the need to invest in railway service infrastructure to improve
its tangible service quality. It highlighted the need to strengthen operational
efficiency to improve reliability and enhance staff quality to improve
responsiveness and service orientation for rail transport services in Nigeria.
It finally highlighted the need to invest in security systems to address
passengers' concerns.
To promote the growth of railway transportation in Nigeria, the study
further recommends that the Nigerian Railway Corporation prioritize service
delivery that meets passenger needs. This has to be implemented to increase
passenger patronage of rail transport services. Specific attention should be
given to maintaining consistent cleanliness in the railway environment,
including coaches, seats, and stations. This is because a neat and clean
environment enhances customers' attraction to a service point. To improve
customer satisfaction towards increased patronage, prompt response to
customers’ complaints, and timely provision of relevant information about
schedules and trips. The other focus for improving railway service quality is
ensuring the safety and security of passengers and goods. The strategy to
improve the delivery of railway services will be more easily promoted by the
staff's friendliness towards customers.
The
study's findings and recommendations are potentially relevant to similar
developing-country rail contexts, pending further validation by research.
The need to improve service delivery
in the rail transport industry is a global phenomenon aimed at enhancing
railway passenger patronage amid competition from other modes. This study is
limited to passenger perceptions of the standard-gauge railway service quality
dimensions in Nigeria. The study is limited by its methodological design, which
uses a Likert scale, a measure subject to ambiguity. The study also did not
consider railway freight customers, focusing solely on passengers’ perceived
importance of service qualities rather than satisfaction.
References
1.
World Bank. 2022. Railways in Developing
Countries: A Global Review. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/37394.
2.
Irfan S.M., D. Mui, H. Kee, S. Shahbaz. 2012.
“Service Quality and Rail Transport in Pakistan: A Passenger Perspective”. World
Applied Sciences Journal.
3.
Bal F., J. Vleugel.
2021. “Inland rail freight services with less fuel and lower emissions”. International
Journal of Energy Production and Management 31(6(2)): 170-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2495/eq-v6-n2-170-180.
4.
Tsumura Y., D. Nakagawa, R. Matsunaka, T. Oba.
2019. “A study on the timing of Asian metropolitan railway
development with motorisation and its effect on CO2
emissions from transportation”. IATSS Research 43(3): 161-75. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2019.01.001.
5.
Okoye D., R. Pongou,
T. Yokossi. 2019. “New technology, better economy?
The heterogeneous impact of colonial railroads in Nigeria”. Journal of
Development Economics 140: 320-54. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304387818306850.
6.
Apanisile
O.T., T. Akinlo. 2023. “Rail Transport and Economic
Growth in Nigeria (1970-2011)”. Australian Journal of Business and
Management Research 03(05): 18-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52283/nswrca.ajbmr.20130305a03.
7.
Soretire
O.A., A. Ajayi, A. Oluwakoya. 2024. “Examination of Railway as a Sustainable
Transport Option in Nigeria”. AAUA Journal of Environmental Design and
Management 11(3(2)): 76-85.
8.
Soretire
O.O., O.B. Osinubi, A.J. Ojo, A.P. Ajayi, A.
Oluwakoya. 2024. “Sustainability of Nigeria’s rail transport System: An
Economic perspective”. International Journal of Scientific Research and
Management (IJSRM) 12(04): 6210-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v12i04.em11.
9.
Obe E.S., C.C. Ibe, G.C. Emenike. 2022.
“Challenges of Rail Transportation in Southwest Nigeria”. United
International Journal for Research & Technology (UIJRT) 3(6): 76-81.
10.
Parasuraman A., V.A. Zeithaml, L.L. Berry. 1988.
“SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service
quality”. Zenodo (CERN European Organisation for Nuclear Research 64(1): 12-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14579730.
11.
Güner S., K. Taşkın, H.I. Cebeci, E.
Aydemir. 2024. “Service quality in rail systems: Listen to the voice of social
media”. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 6: 824-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981231200225.
12.
Ali N.M., R.M. Nor, S.F.M. Hamzah, A.R. Rashid,
S. Salleh, H.M. Noor. 2021. “Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction of Rail
Transport: A Conceptual Framework”. In: Terengganu International Business
and Economics Conference (TiBÉC VII)TeMIC. 2021. P. 548-56.
13.
Humić
R., B. Abramović. 2019. “Criteria for the quality of services of public
interest organised by train operators”. Transportation
Research Procedia 40: 259-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.07.039.
14.
Sañudo
R., E. Echaniz, B. Alonso, R. Cordera 2019. “Addressing the importance of
service attributes in railways”. Sustainability 11(12). No 3411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123411.
15.
Bakti G.M.Y., T. Rakhmawati,
S. Sumaedi, S. Damayanti. 2020. “Railway commuter
line passengers’ perceived service quality: hedonic and utilitarian framework”.
Transportation Research Procedia 48: 207-217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.08.016.
16.
Carman J.M. 1990. “Consumer perceptions of
service quality: an assessment of the servqual
dimensions”. Journal of Retailing 66(1): 33-55. Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-24205-001.
17.
Buttle F. 1996. „Servqual:
review, critique, research agenda”. European Journal of Marketing 30(1):
8-32. Available at: https://www.emerald.com/ejm/article-abstract/30/1/8/31598/SERVQUAL-review-critique-research-agenda?redirectedFrom=fulltext.
18.
Babakus E,
G.W. Boller. 1992. “An empirical assessment of the servqual
scale”. Journal of Business Research 24(3): 253-68. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(92)90022-4.
19.
Coulthard L.J. M. 2004. “A review and critique
of research using ServQual”. International Journal
of Market Research 46(4): 479-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/147078530404600401.
20.
Ladhari R.
2009. “A review of twenty years of servqual research”.
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 1(2): 172-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/17566690910971445.
21.
Ekinci Y.A. 2002. “Review of Theoretical Debates
on the Measurement of Service Quality: Implications for Hospitality Research”. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research 26(3): 199-216. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/10963480020260030.
22.
Özispa N.
2025. „Service quality gap models: trends and industry adaptations”. Journal
of Service Theory and Practice: 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-03-2025-0122/1301521.
23.
Naylor G.S. 2024. “A Half-Century of SERVQUAL:
Exploring its Impact and Future Directions in Service”. Quality Research.
Available at: https://jcsdcb.com/index.php/JCSDCB/article/view/1134.
24.
Olawole M.O., O. Aloba. 2014. “Mobility characteristics of the elderly and their associated
level of satisfaction with transport services in Osogbo, Nigeria”. Transport
Policy 35: 105-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.05.018.
25.
Oliver R.L. 1977. „Effect of expectation and
disconfirmation on postexposure product evaluations: An alternative
interpretation”. Journal of Applied Psychology 62(4): 80-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.62.4.480.
26.
Oliver R.L. 1980. „A cognitive model of the
antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions”. Journal of
Marketing Research 17(4): 460. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3150499.
27.
Patterson P.G., L.W. Johnson, R.A. Spreng. 1996.
„Modeling the determinants of customer satisfaction for Business-to-Business
Professional Services”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
25(1): 4-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070397251002.
28.
Spreng R.A., S.B. MacKenzie, R.W. Olshavsky.
1996. “A reexamination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction”. Journal
of Marketing 60(3): 15-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299606000302.
29.
Bhattacherjee, A. 2001. “Understanding
Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation model”. MIS
Quarterly 25(3): 351-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921.
30.
AlSokkar
A.A.M., E.L.C. Law, D.A. Al-Majali, J.A. Al-Gasawneh,
M. Alshinwan. 2024. “An Indexed Approach for
Expectation-Confirmation Theory: A Trust-based model”. Electronic Markets
34(1). Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12525-024-00694-3.
31.
Irfan S.M., D. Mui, H. Kee, S. Shahbaz. 2012.
“Service Quality and Rail Transport in Pakistan: A Passenger Perspective”. World
Applied Sciences Journal 18(3): 361-369. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2012.18.03.3044.
32.
Romero C., C. Zamorano, A. Monzón. 2023. “Exploring the role of
public transport information sources on perceived service quality in suburban
rail”. Travel Behaviour and Society 33. No
100642. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2023.100642.
33.
Shan J., N. Bešinović, J. Schönberger.
2024. “Service quality assessment of international rail transport with multiple
border crossings: Eurasian rail transport as an example”. Journal of Rail
Transport Planning & Management 29. No 100432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrtpm.2024.100432.
34.
Tadić S., M. Kilibarda, M. Veljović. 2024.
“The impact of rail transport service quality on intermodal transport quality:
A model for evaluation”. Tehnika 79(5):
635-42. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5937/tehnika2405635t.
35.
Vassilev V., E. Velinov. 2017. “Monitoring and
evaluation of quality in rail transport services: An element of quality
management”. Serbian Journal of Engineering Management 2(2): 1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/sjem1701001v.
36.
Đorđević D., G. Stojić, Z. Stević, D. Pamučar, A. Vulević, V. Mišić.
2019. “A New Model for Defining the Criteria of Service Quality in Rail
Transport: The Full Consistency Method Based on a Rough Power Heronian Aggregator”. Symmetry 11(8): 992. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11080992.
37.
Fu Y., Z. Chen, X. Zhao. 2013. “Multi-level
extensible synthetic evaluation of the quality of passenger transport service
of high-speed rail.” Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and
Technology 5(2): 654-658. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.5.5004.
38.
Wu J.H.C., Y.C. Lin, F.S. Hsu. 2017. “An
empirical analysis of synthesising the effects of
service quality, perceived value, corporate image and customer satisfaction on behavioural intentions in the transport industry: a case of
Taiwan high-speed rail”. Innovative Marketing 26(7(3)). Available at: https://doaj.org/article/9e6f6468c52444059eb8348ef8b72ad0.
39.
Wisutwattanasak
P., T. Champahom, S. Jomnonkwao,
F. Aryuyo, C. Se, V. Ratanavaraha.
2023. “Examining the impact of service quality on passengers’ intentions to
utilize rail transport in the Post-Pandemic Era: An Integrated Approach of
SERVQUAL and Health Belief model”. Behavioural
Sciences 13(10): 789. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13100789.
40.
Lwesya
F., R. Jaffu. 2017. “Customer service quality
management in public transport: The case of rail transport in Tanzania”.
International Review 3-4: 102-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/intrev1704102l.
41.
Ogochukwu C.G., O.F. Ogochukwu, I.M. Ogorchukwu, I.A. Ebuka. 2022. “Assessment of the
performance of railway transportation in Nigeria from 1970 to 2010”. Scientific
African 15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01120.
42.
Omotayo M. 2020. “Developing Public-Private
Partnership (PPP) in Nigerian Railway Corporation: the governance challenge”. Student
Thesis. Available at: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.816326.
43.
Onuchukwu
N.E.S. 2023. “Focus on the impact of rail transport services on economic
development in Lagos City, Nigeria.” Journal of Networking and Communication
Systems (JNACS) 6(4): 14-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46253/jnacs.v6i4.a2.
44.
Ozohu-Suleiman
A., L. Oladimeji. 2015. “Public-Private partnership and infrastructural
development in Nigeria: the rail transportation sector in focus”. British
Journal of Education Society & Behavioural
Science 7(4): 254-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/bjesbs/2015/8895.
45.
Adanikin
A., I. Adeoye, J. Ajayi. 2022. “Analysis of railway commuting factors and
customers patronage in Lagos State, Nigeria”. Journal of Sustainable
Development of Transport and Logistics 7(1): 90-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14254/jsdtl.2022.7-1.8.
46.
Agunloye
O.O., L. Oduwaye. 2011. “Factors influencing the
quality of rail transport services in metropolitan Lagos”. Journal of
Geography and Regional Planning 4(2): 98-103. Available at: https://academicjournals.org/journal/JGRP/article-abstract/779512540778.
47.
Mojeed
G.O., S. Ghadiri. 2022. “Passenger Expectations about the Quality of Service on
the Inter-City Rail System in South-West Nigeria”. European Journal of
Business and Management 14(10): 103-110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7176/ejbm/14-10-11.
48.
Ojekunle
J.A., S.I. Odoh, I.J. Musa, M.E. Ohida, C.A. Udenyi. 2022. “Determinants of Inter-City Train Service
Quality along Lagos-Kano Rail Line in Nigeria”. Logistics and Tourism
International Research Journal 7(4): 1-15. Available at:
https://cirdjournals.com/index.php/ltrj/article/view/764.
49.
Yakasai A.M., A.A. Gwarzo. 2025. „The Impact of Service
Quality on Customer Satisfaction: Evidence from Nigerian Railway Station (Rigasa), Kaduna State”. Journal of Institute of Africa
Higher Education Research and Innovation (IAHERI) 1(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.59479/jiaheri.v1i1.65.
50.
Cochran W.G. 1977. Sampling Techniques.
John Wiley & Sons.
51.
Ledesma R.D., P.J. Ferrando, M.A. Trógolo, F.M. Poó, J.D. Tosi, C.
Castro. 2021. “Exploratory factor analysis in transportation research: Current
practices and recommendations”. Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
78: 340-52.
52.
Naqavi
M.R., R. Refaiee, M.R. Baneshi,
N. Nakhaee. 2015. “Analysis of the gap in service
quality in Drug Addiction Treatment Centres of
Kerman, Iran, using the servqual model”. PubMed
6(3-4): 85-92. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25984274.
53.
Chou J.S., C. Kim, P.Y. Tsai, C.P. Yeh, H. Son.
2017. “Longitudinal assessment of high-speed rail service delivery,
satisfaction and operations: A study of Taiwan and Korea systems”. KSCE
Journal of Civil Engineering 21(6): 2413-28.
54.
Fraihi
K.J.A., D. Famco, F. Famco,
S.A. Latif. 2016. “Evaluation of outpatient service quality in Eastern Saudi
Arabia”. Saudi Medical Journal 37(4): 420-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2016.4.14835.
55.
Bhasin H. 2024. “The Servqual
Model – Definition, Dimensions, Gaps and Advantages Service”. Marketing
91. Available at: https://www.marketing91.com/servqual/.
56.
Ren X., Z. Chen, F. Wang, J. Wang, C. Wang, T.
Dan, Z. Du. 2019. ”Impact of high-speed rail on intercity travel behaviour change: The evidence from the Chengdu-Chongqing
Passenger Dedicated Line”. Journal of Transport and Land Use 12(1). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2019.1302.
57.
Hayashi Y., A. Mimuro, J. Han, H. Kato. 2017. “High-Speed
rail and sustainability”. In: Henríquez BLP, Deakin E. (editors). The
Shinkansen and Its Impacts. London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland: Routledge. P. 34-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315709406.
58. Eboli L., Y. Fu, G. Mazzulla. 2016.
“Multilevel Comprehensive Evaluation of the Railway Service Quality”. Procedia
Engineering 137: 21-30.
59. Jomnonkwao S., T. Champahom, V. Ratanavaraha. 2020. “Methodologies for
determining the service quality of the intercity rail service based on users’
perceptions and expectations in Thailand”. Sustainability 12(10). No
4259. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104259.
60. Eboli L., G. Mazzulla. 2007.
“Service quality attributes affecting customer satisfaction for bus transit”. Journal
of Public Transportation 10(3): 21-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.10.3.2.
61. Nathanail E. 2008. “Measuring the
quality of service for passengers on the Hellenic railways”. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42(1): 48-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2007.06.006.
Received 19.12.2025; accepted in revised form 05.05.2026
Scientific Journal of Silesian
University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License