State-of-the-Art MINT Deliverable 1 · 2011. 9. 23. · IMPRINT Date 20.04 2011 Basic Material and...

State-of-the-Art

MINT Deliverable 1

Main authors:

Fredrik Bärthel

Bo Östlund

Jonas Flodén

IMPRINT Date

20.04 2011

Basic Material and Documents

Deliverable 1 MINT State-of-the-art

Main authors: Fredrik Bärthel, Bo Östlund and Jonas Flodén.

Deliverable 2 Framework for strategic integrated terminal network evaluation

Main author: Jonas Flodén.

Deliverable 1.3 Modelling and simulation of intermodal terminal networks

Main authors: Edith Schindlbacher, Hans Häuslmayer, Manfred Gronalt.

Deliverable 4 – Deepening Network Analysis

Main authors: Martin Ruesch, Bo Östlund, Simone Jegerlehner.

Deliverable 5 – MINT Case studies

Main authors: Martin Ruesch, Fredrik Bärthel, Jonas Flodén and Thoraya Rojas-Navas.

ERA NET Framework

This report forms a deliverable in the ERA NET ENT16 “Intermodal freight transport”.

MINT Partners

TFK – Transport Research Institute Borlänge, Sweden (http://www.tfk.se) – Coordinator

h2 projekt.beratung KG, Vienna, Austria, (http://www.h2pro.at)

Rapp Trans Ltd, Zürich, Switzerland (http://www.rapp.ch)

Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, (http://www.infra.kth.se)

School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg, Sweden (http://www.hgu.gu.se)

University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Austria (http://www.boku.ac.at)

Editor to the Report

Fredrik Bärthel, TFK – Transport Research Institute Borlänge (email: [email protected]).

Main contributors to the Report

Östlund, Bo, TFK – Transport Research Institute Borlänge (email: [email protected]).

Bärthel, Fredrik, TFK – Transport Research Institute Borlänge (email: [email protected]).

Flodén, Jonas, School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg,

(email: [email protected]).

Ruesch, Martin, RappTrans AG (email: [email protected]).

Frindik, Roland, Marlo A/S (email: [email protected]).

Schindlbacher, Edith, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Austria (email:

[email protected]).

Rojas-Navas, Thoraya, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (email:

[email protected]).

Häuslmayer, Hans, h2 projekt.beratung KG (email: [email protected]).

Hagelin, Fredrik, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm (email: [email protected]).

Photos on front page: Fredrik Bärthel, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg (all pictures except

the upper right) and Christian Krüger and Johannes Gregor, BoxXpress (upper right).

http://www.tfk.se/http://www.rapp.ch/http://www.infra.kth.se/http://www.hgu.gu.se/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]).mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Preface

This report forms a deliverable in the ERA NET ENT16 project MINT – model and decision

support systems for intermodal terminal networks performed by a consortium consisting of:

TFK – Transport Research Institute Borlänge – Coordinator,

h2 projekt.beratung KG, Vienna,

Rapp Trans Ltd, Zürich,

Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm,

School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg,

University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna.

The MINT project is a joint strategic and tactical trans-national project researching models

and decision support systems for evaluation of intermodal terminal networks. The outcome of

the project will be a system of models and methods to investigate, analyse and evaluate

terminal networks as well as single terminals. The system is based on a number of models on

different system levels. By combining these models a more complete spectrum of effects can

be analysed. This work has been complemented by an additional deepening network analysis

which integrates non-modelling aspects in the analysis.

This report forms a deliverable of Work package 1 “State of the art in intermodal terminal

network planning process, models and analysis of development needs” in the ERA NET

ENT16 project MINT – model and decision support systems for intermodal terminal

networks. The aim of the report is provide a state-of-the-art description of the current design

of intermodal terminals and intermodal transport systems, i.e. to describe the dominating

design of the system including its functions.

Hereby, the WP leader, the authors and all project partners would like to address their

gratitude to the funding organisations, all industrial representatives and other respondents who

kindly agreed to be interviewed and helped us to make this report possible.

Göteborg, April 19th

, 2011.

Fredrik Bärthel.

WP leader

Table of content

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 AIM ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE ....................................................................................................................................... 1

2 DEFINITIONS AND GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 CAPILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE .......................................................................................................................... 16 2.4 INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORT .................................................................................................................. 17 2.5 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT ............................................................................................................................. 18 2.6 INTERMODAL TRANSPORT: ............................................................................................................................. 19 2.7 COMBINED TRANSPORT/PIGGY BACK TRANSPORT: .............................................................................................. 20 2.8 CO-MODALITY ............................................................................................................................................. 21 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 22

3 INTERMODAL ROAD-RAIL TRANSPORT IN THE MINT CORRIDOR ........................................................... 24

3.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................ 24 3.2 THE INTERMODAL TRANSPORT SYSTEM – AN OVERVIEW ....................................................................................... 28 3.3 EUROPEAN INTERMODAL TRANSPORT .............................................................................................................. 30 3.4 DEMAND SIDE OF THE CORE OF INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION ................................................................ 50 3.5 EUROPEAN INTERMODAL OPERATORS .............................................................................................................. 54 3.6 INTERMODAL TERMINALS AND TERMINAL NETWORKS .......................................................................................... 73 3.7 OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE/PHILOSOPHIES ......................................................................................................... 84 3.8 THE PRODUCTION SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................. 86 3.9 INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS .............................................................................................. 104 3.10 TRANSPORT POLICY................................................................................................................................ 106 3.11 CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK .................................................................................................................. 116 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 120

4 INTERVIEWS WITH INTERMODAL ACTORS AND AUTHORITIES ABOUT THE USE OF STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL MODELS ....................................................................................................................................... 126

4.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................... 126 4.2 AIM ........................................................................................................................................................ 126 4.3 METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................................... 127 4.4 THE RESPONDENTS AREA OF RESEARCH/ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 127 4.5 MODEL USE .............................................................................................................................................. 128

5 STRATEGIC INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORT MODELS - A LITERATURE REVIEW ............................. 132

5.1 FREIGHT TRANSPORT MODELLING ................................................................................................................. 132 5.2 TRANSPORT MODELS .................................................................................................................................. 134 5.3 A REVIEW OF MODELS ................................................................................................................................. 135 5.4 STRATEGIC INTERMODAL MODELS ................................................................................................................. 136 5.5 TERMINAL MODELS .................................................................................................................................... 152 5.6 RAIL NETWORK MODELS .............................................................................................................................. 161 5.7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 161

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 162

APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE WP 1.3 .................................................................................................................... 165

1 Introduction

This report forms a deliverable of Work package 1 “State of the art in intermodal terminal

network planning process, models and analysis of development needs” in the ERA NET

ENT16 project MINT – model and decision support systems for intermodal terminal

networks. The MINT project is a joint strategic and tactical trans-national project researching

model and decision support system for evaluation of intermodal terminal networks. The

outcome of the project is a system of models and methods to investigate and analyse costs and

benefits for terminal networks as well as single terminals. The system is based on a number of

models on different system levels. By combining these models a more complete spectrum of

effects can be analysed.

1.1 Aim

The aim of the report is provide a state-of-the-art description of the current design of

intermodal terminals and intermodal transport systems, i.e. to describe the dominating design

of the system including its functions. The knowledge how to produce intermodal transport and

to operate terminals is not only tacit knowledge within the Intermodal operators, but has also

been transferred and further developed by Universities, Research Institutes and Consultancies.

The latter organisations have developed models and decision support systems for evaluation

of intermodal terminal and terminal networks. There are a large number of research

publications and reports in this field, but there are also a large number of models and support

systems developed in-house. Hence, the aim of the first work package is to make a state-of-

the-art description and analysis of:

What are dominating intermodal transport design for road-rail transport in the MINT corridor? What actors are involved, what activities are performed and what

resources are used? What is the dominating design of intermodal terminals? What

external and internal factors affect the intermodal cost-quality-ratio and its

competitive situation related to unimodal road transport?

What organisations use models and decision support systems developed or adapted to intermodal conditions? What models are used by these organisations and for what

purpose? What parts in the intermodal systems might be evaluated with these

models?

What model and decision support systems competing with the MINT models (HIT, EvaRail, SimCont, TermCost and SimNet) or the combined MINT model system

can be found in the R&D literature? What is the aim, scope, opportunities and

limitations with the identified models or model systems?

1.2 Report structure

The report contains four sub reports: (1) Glossary and definitions, (2) Intermodal transport in

the MINT corridor, (3) Interviews with intermodal actors and authorities about the use of

strategic and tactical models and (4) literature review of strategic and tactical models for

evaluation of intermodal terminals or terminal networks. A short presentation of each sub

report is presented in the following.

1.2.1 Glossary and Definitions

The aim of this sub report was to define essential concepts and notions related to logistics,

transportation and above all intermodal freight transport. The report contains general

definitions, which is followed by two chapters discussing; (1) capillary infrastructure and

above all (2) the notions multimodal, intermodal and combined transport.

Main authors: Fredrik Bärthel and Tayssa Rytter, TFK – Transport Research Institute.

1.2.2 Intermodal transport in the MINT corridor

The aim of this sub report was to describe and analyse the intermodal freight transport

systems in Austria, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, based on the actor, activity

and resource perspective (ARA). This perspective is supplemented by a description of the

competitive situation for intermodal transport in each country based on internal and external

factors as phase of deregulation, transport policy, infrastructure regulation (as loading profile,

weight dimensions) and finally some aspects related to the competitive situation towards road

transport is singled out. The sub report is ended by conclusions and an outlook for the future.

Main authors: Fredrik Bärthel, TFK – Transport Research Institute and Martin Ruesch,

RappTrans.

1.2.3 Interview with intermodal actors and authorities

The aim of the MINT project is to develop a comprehensive model and decision support

system of compatible and integrated models and to describe methods to investigate, evaluate

and analyse costs and benefits for terminal networks as well as single terminals. Evidently an

important basis for the project was a good knowledge of what kind of tools that are used in

the process today. The sub report presents the results from the interview survey carried out

among key actors with a potential interest in modeling of intermodal transport in Sweden and

Germany.

Main authors: Bo Östlund, TFK - Transport Research Institute and Roland Frindik, TFK -

Transport Research Institute / Marlo A/S.

1.2.4 Strategic Intermodal Freight Transport Models - A Literature Review

The aim of this report is to give an overview of existing computer models for intermodal

freight transport.

Main author: Jonas Flodén, School of Business Economics and Law.

2 Definitions and Glossary

This chapter defines essential concepts and notions related to logistics, transportation and

above all intermodal freight transport.

2.1 Introduction

Intermodal freight transport is a relatively new research field and is, as pointed out by

Bontekoning et. al. (2004), in a pre-paradigmatic phase. This phase is characterised by lack of

consensus of definitions and common conceptual models of the system. For a transnational

project, as the MINT project, there is need for a common understanding of the intermodal

transport system in order to communicate within the project as well as to be able to

communicate with respondent and other stakeholders within the transport industry.

2.1.1 Aim

The purpose of this task is to define essential concepts and notions related to logistics,

transportation and above all intermodal freight transport. The report contains general

definitions, which is followed by two chapters discussing; (1) capillary infrastructure and

above all (2) the notions multimodal, intermodal and combined transport.

A conceptual model for intermodal freight transport is developed in MINT task 2.1. The

purpose of common definitions combined with a common conceptual model is to provide an

integrated framework for analysis of the intermodal freight transport system in a

methodological fashion.

2.1.2 Work procedure

This task has been performed as a desk study. Concepts, definitions and other notions have

been collected from three different sources; (1) academic reports and articles, (2) national and

European databases and (3) expert interviews. EC (1997), ECMT (1998) and CEN (2005)

have been used as principle sources for the compilation, but have been complemented with

additional sources when needed.

The task was divided into five steps.

Step 1: Literature review, including discussion of different sources was performed.

Step 2: Expert interviews were performed with 2-3 experts.

Step 3: Based on step 1 and 2 a draft version was created.

Step 4: This draft was circulated and reviewed by the MINT partners.

Step 5: The comments were collected and the draft was revised/edited. A final deliverable was

published after the final revision.

2.2 Definitions

Accompanied transport: Movement/Transport of road vehicles, parts of vehicles or

intermodal load units (ILU) on another transport mode (rail or sea)

accompanied by the road vehicle driver.

Arrival track/Entry line: (DE: Zufahrtsgleis, SE: Infartsspår).

Articulated vehicle: A vehicle coupled to a semi trailer.

ATC: Automatic train control. A general term for any system designed to

check the driver‟s reaction to signals etc, ranging from cab warning

systems to complete automatic control.

BE terminal: Begin or End terminal for an intermodal terminal-terminal transport

chain. The train departures from the B-terminal and ends at the E-

terminal. In the intermodal network the trains are often operated

from B to E without stops at intermediate terminals or without

intermediate marshalling (full trains or shuttle trains).

Bimodal system: Previously semi-trailers constructed with both rail and road wheels.

Modern systems include reinforced and specially adapted

semitrailers fitted onto railway bogies (adapters) at the terminals.

Two semitrailers are mounted directly on the opposite end of a

boggie and thus no rail wagons are used. Several technologies have

been tested and used in Europe, but all in small scale.

Bimodal semi-trailer: An adapted semi-trailer to which rail bogies can be adapted.

Block train: Train consisting of two or more wagon blocks which runs between

two nodes without intermediate marshalling or shunting of wagons

and without transshipment of loading units. The wagons are sorted

into wagon blocks, i.e. by destination, on the node of train

composition.

Bundling: Consolidation of an intermodal loading unit to fill an intermodal

transport unit (Macharis et al, 2002).

Capillary trunk line: A capillary trunk line is a track connecting the main line with a

number of terminals or private sidings. (DE: Industriestammgleis,

SE: Industristamspår).

Catenary: The supporting cable and hangers for the conductor wire used in

overhead electric wire current feeder systems.

Support

Track

Catenary (side view)

Droppers or hangers

Trolley wire

CEN: European Committee for Standardization

Co-modality: The efficient use of different modes on their own and in

combination to achieve an optimal and sustainable utilization of

resources (based on EC, 2006).

Connecting line: DE: Verbindungsgleis, SE: Anslutningsspår

Consignor: Party described in the transport document from whom the goods,

cargo or containers are to be transported.

Consignee: Party described in the transport document to whom the goods, cargo

or containers are to be delivered.

Consignment: Separately identifiable amount of goods transported or available to

be transported and specified in one single transport document.

Consolidation: In transport: grouping of smaller consignments into a large

consignment for carriage as a larger unit.

Container: Generic term for box to carry freight, strengthened for repeatable

use, usually stackable and fitted with devices for horizontal transfer

or vertical transfer between modes.

Corner fitting: Standard fixing point for the ILU (ITU) on the carrying vessel,

vehicle or wagon.

Corridor network: A network philosophy designed for fixed formation train sets

making short stops along a corridor route and thus cover the

intermediate markets. Along each route trains are operating at high

frequency making short stops each 100 – 200 kms according to a

tight and precise time schedule. To keep the level of

competitiveness the transfer time must be kept at a minimum at the

intermediate terminals so as not to prolong the total transport time

from begin to end terminal. Interconnected corridor trains permit

large areas to be covered at relatively low costs, but this operational

philosophy underlines the importance of fast train-forming,

marshalling, bundling and transfer activities to facilitate both

market coverage and high average speed (sometimes referred as a

line terminal network).

Cross docking: Operation in which incoming combined consignments are

immediately deconsolidated followed by consolidation of

shipments having the same destination (consolidation) and then

prepared for shipping and further transportation.

Corner casting: Components found at the base of a container or a swap body into

which the twist locks of a carrying vehicle will engage for securing

the unit during transit.

Dedicated train: Dedicated trains are included in demarcated logistical systems,

where the rail functions as a conveyor belt (continious supply) for a

single shipper or a few shippers.

Deconsolidation: Splitting up unit loads into consignments, or a consignment into

shipments, or shipments into items of (finished) goods.

Dependent demand: Demand of items derived from the demand of other products.

Direct access siding: (DE: Überholungsgleis, SE: Förbigångsspår)

Double stack wagon: A rail wagon designed for the transport of containers stacked on

two levels.

Drayage: Pre-/end haulage (sometimes pre and post haulage) by truck from

the consignor to the terminal/from the terminal to the consignor

DryPort: An inland terminal directly connected to seaport(s) with high

capacity transport mean(s), where customers can leave/pick-up up

their standardized units as if directly to a seaport (Roso, 2004).

EC (1998): an inland terminal which is directly linked to a maritime

port”

Distinction to Inland clearance depot (UN ECE, 1998): A

common-user facility, other than port or airport, equipped with

fixed installation and offering services for handling and temporary

storage of any kind of goods (including containers) carried under

Custom transit by any applicable mode of inland surface transport,

placed under customs control and with Customs and other agencies

competent to clear goods for home use, warehousing, temporary

admission, re-export, temporary storage for onward transit and

outright export.

The latter definition corresponds to the classic free port. UN ECE

states this definition applies to the synonymous Dry Port and Inland

Clearance terminal as well.

Empties sidings: (DE: Leerwagengleis, SE: Uppställningsspår)

Foreland: Land beyond maritime area to which the port ships its export and

from which it derives its import (Hayuth, 1982).

Forwarder: Party arranging the carriage of goods including connected services

and/or associated formalities on behalf on the shipper or receiver.

A freight forwarder is an intermediary that collects (small)

shipments from shippers, consolidates these shipments into

consignments, and uses one or more modes to transport these

consolidated shipments to a destination where the next party

delivers the shipment to the consignee.

Forwarding: Action of taking care of the dispatch of shipments and the

consolidation of information related to these shipments and their

transport and, in case of international transport, informing the

national body for control of exports.

Free loading area: Location/area without loading platform (loading ramp) at a freight

station adapted for loading and unloading of shipments and goods.

Gantry crane: Straddling a road-rail or ship-shore interchange, the gantry crane

structure on running tracks allows forward and backward motion,

whilst the crane itself provides lateral movement.

Gateway: An intermodal gateway is a nodal point (node), where continental

flows are being transshipped onto other continental/intercontinental

axes and vice versa (based on Fleming and Hayuth, 1994).

An intermodal gateway is a dedicated nodal point (often terminal or

port) connecting two separate intermodal transport networks. At the

gateway shipments, consignments and intermodal loading units are

coordinated and transshipped between the networks, e.g.

continental freight flows are coordinated and transshipped onto an

intercontinental network, and thus the gateway bridges lack of

interconnectivity and interoperability between two different

networks. A gateway might be either unimodal, i.e. unit loads are

transshipped rail-rail or ship-ship (including barge), or multimodal,

i.e. unit loads are transshipped rail-rail, ship-ship or rail-ship.

General cargo: Consignments between 100 – 1000 kg. These shipment sizes

require handling activities between consignor and consignee,

including handling and sorting at least at one consolidation

terminal. Scheduling in the general cargo system manage/control

the timing of inter-urban transport links and thus, the possibilities to

utilize intermodal freight transport. The notion less-than-truck load

includes the shipment categories general cargo and part loads.

Haulage: Road carriage of cargo between named locations.

Hierarchic network: The networks are operated with interregional trains between

shunting and marshalling yards forming routes and local or regional

feeder trains operating the distance between a marshalling/shunting

yard and the private siding or wagon load terminal.

Hinterland: Areas behind the port to which the port sends import and from

which it draws export. (Hayuth, 1982). A ports hinterland is

dynamic. It might change due to fundamental developments in

technology, economy and society, which all have an impact on the

demand of shippers for port services a well as the generalized costs.

For the port authority the demand might be regarded as an

exogenous variable and as augmented by van Klink and van den

Berg (1998) this might also be true for the generalized costs.

Holding siding: (DE: Abstellgleis, abstellbahnhof, SE: Uppställningsspår/bangård)

Hub: A node is designated as hub, and all transports call to this node for

transfer, even for transports between adjacent origins and

destinations. The challenge is to coordinate all vessel, vehicles and

shipments, handle the complexity of the interdependent transport

services. Different hubs might be connected by direct links, i.e.

connected hubs.

Hub and spoke network: Network based on a centralized located terminal selected as a hub

and all transports are directed through this terminal, where wagons

are marshalled or bundled between the train connections.

Industry track: (DE: Privatgleisanschluss, SE: Industrispår)

Interconnectivity: The term concerns horizontal coordination of transport modes for

obtaining integrated door-to-door transport service. A precondition

for establishing such co-ordination is the existence of

transshipment/transfer technologies, facilities and equipment,

sophisticated surveillance and guidance systems as well as trained

and educated personnel (EC, 1998). Notions as interoperability,

intermodality and interconnectivity have gained popularity among

European politicians and decision makers and might be regarded as

“EU jargon” (Priemus et al, 1998).

Intermediate terminal: Terminal between a BE-terminal pair where intermodal trains in

more advanced operational philosophies make short stops along a

corridor route and thus covers the intermediate markets. Transfer

time must be kept at minimum at the intermediate terminals so as

not to prolong the total transport time from begin to end terminal.

Further detachability is needed at the terminals, thus there is need

for intermediate storage at the terminals.

Intermodal freight center: A variety of terminal functions and related services assembled in a

designated area. Typically, an intermodal road-rail terminal is

surrounded by forwarder‟s general cargo terminals (consolidation

terminals) conventional rail terminals, petrol stations, lorry repair

shops and other supporting facilities.

Cardebring and Warneke (1995): A concentration of economically

independent companies working in freight transport and

supplementing services on a designated area where a change of

transport ILUs between transport modes can take place.

Interoperability: The term mainly refers to the use of standardized and compatible

infrastructure, technology, facilities and equipment, and

characteristics of the vehicles (dimensions). It involves technical

and operational (procedural) uniformity that might be applied by

transport enterprises to provide efficient door-to-door services.

Consequently, this reduces the numerous barriers between modal

transport systems (e.g. institutional, legislative, financial, physical,

technical, cultural or political).

There are different dimensions of interoperability and Mulley and

Nelson (1999) distinguish between four different dimensions; (1)

technical, (2) organizational (corporate), (3) juridical and (4)

cultural interoperability. The frequently limited discussion around

technical dimension is inadequate.

Intermodal load unit: Term for different types of load carriers used for intermodal freight

transport as well as transportation in general. Included in the

definition are swap bodies, semi-trailers and containers, but an

extended definitions also include RoRo cassettes, paper rolls,

standard sawn wood units as well as specially designed freight

containers of corresponding size and standard.

In this report we denote a container or a swap body an intermodal

loading unit (ILU) in order to stress the shipment, consignments or

goods to be transported (Woxenius and Bärthel, 2008). ECMT uses

the denotation intermodal transport unit (ITU). Woxenius and

Bärthel (2008) use the denotation intermodal transport unit as a

“collecting” name for transport units as wagons, trucks and vessels.

Thus the ILU are loaded onto, in or coupled to an ITU.

Table 1 Intermodal loading units – categories and standard dimensions.

Category Type Lenght Width Height Gross weight Pay load Volume

(m [foot]] m (EU[Se]) m (normal) ton ton m3

Container A 12,12 (40') 2,438 2,591 30,5 26,4 64

B 9,09 (30') 2,438 2,591 25,4 24,4 51

C 6,06 (20') 2,438 2,591 24,0 21,5 33

D 3,02 (10') 2,438 2,438 10,2 8,8 16

Swap body A 1212 12,12 2,55-2,60 2,67 34 23,5/26,5 74

A 1250 12,50 2,55-2,60 2,67 34 23,2/26,2 76

A 1360 13,60 2,55-2,60 2,67 34 22,8/25,8 80

C 715 7,15 2,55-2,60 2,67 16 11,4/13,4 43

C 745 7,45 2,55-2,60 2,67 16 11,4/13,4 45

C 782 (High cube) 7,82 2,55-2,60 2,90 16 11,4/13,4 50

Swap body EU standard 13,6 2,55 2,67 32,5 25 90

EU Maxi/Jumbo 13,6 2,55 2,67 32,5 24,7 100

Sweden - Finland 18,0 2,60 3,50 41,5 33 140

Junction: (DE: Abzweigstelle, Abzweigung, SE: förgrenings(trafik)plats)

Junction station: (DE: Abzweigbahnhof, SE: Förgreningsstation)

Land container: Standardized container, according to UIC norms, for an optimal use

mainly in road-rail combined transport.

Lift pockets: Standard lifting devices mounted on swap bodies and semi trailers

to allow vertical transshipment on intermodal terminals.

Line/Liner train: Fixed formation train sets operating between BE-terminals making

intermediate terminal stops along a corridor route and thus covers

the intermediate markets. Interconnected corridor trains permit

large areas to be covered at relatively low costs, but this operational

philosophy underlines the importance of fast train-forming,

marshalling, bundling and transfer activities to facilitate both

market coverage and high average speed.

Loading platform/ramp: (DE: Laderrampe/Verladerrampe, SE: Lastkaj/lastramp)

Locomotive: Rail engine (US)

LoLo: Loading and unloading of ILU:s using lifting equipment.

Low loader wagon: A rail wagon with a low loading platform specially built to carry

intermodal transport equipment.

Main line: To a railwayer this term means any tracks on which trains run

between given points, as distinct from sidings, yards etc. In a wider

sense, it signifies the principal lines between major cities and town,

on which the fastest trains run, as distinct from branch or suburban

lines.

(Also: Line of route, trunk line)

DE: Hauptlinie, Hauptstrecke, Hauptbahn, SE: huvudlinje.

Maritime container: A container conforming standards that enable it to be used in

cellular ships. Most maritime containers conform to ISO standards.

A high cube container adds extra length and width – 9‟6” (2,9 m)

instead of 8” (2,44 m).

A super high cube container adds extra length, width and height

related to the standard ISO container. These dimensions may

fluctuate, reaching length of 45´, 48´or 53 ´.

Marshalling: The breaking up of freight train formations and the subsequent

sorting of wagons into train loads for final destination, carried out

at a marshalling or shunting yard. Formation of freight

wagons/block of wagons to trains or train formations, or splitting of

trains to blocks or single wagons.

Marshalling yard: A complex of sidings in which marshalling takes place. The yard is

divided into arrival sidings, main yard and departure sidings. Yards

includes humps, control towers and wagon retarders/accelerators.

Marshalling track: Track intended for marshalling of wagons.

[Marshalling] hump: (Ablaufberg, Ablaufanlage) heightened track system used for

marshalling, where gravity and the wagons‟ rolling resistance is

used for the marshalling activities.

Means of transport: Particular vessel, vehicle, or other device used for the transport of

goods or persons.

Part loads: Consignments of 1000 – 5000 kg is normally denoted part loads.

These consignments are easily distributed without intermediate

consolidation or deconsolidation activities. The shipper‟s demands

for lead time, scheduling and reliability determine whether an

intermodal freight transport is possible or not. The notion less-than-

truck-load (LTL) includes the shipment categories general cargo

and part loads.

Palletized shipments: General cargo or part loads are often consolidated in load units,

mainly loaded on Euro-pallets.

Pocket wagon: A rail wagon with recessed pockets to accommodate the wheels of

the road semi trailers, and sometimes a swap body, so as it remains

within the loading gauge (DE: Taschenwagen).

Private siding: (DE: Privatgleissanschluss, SE: Industrispår)

Reach stacker: Mobile handling vehicle equipped with a spreader (for top lifting

containers) and grappler arms (for bottom lift swap bodies).

Road train: A road motor vehicle coupled to at least one trailer and semitrailer.

Rolling highway: (Classic) Transport of complete road vehicles on low floor

throughout [DE: durggehender ladefläche] wagons. This definition

does not include new rolling road concepts as Flexiwaggon and

Modalohr and my suggestion is to denote this conventional rolling

road, in relation to more innovative rolling road as the two

mentioned technologies.

Rolling highway (new): Innovative rolling road concepts as Flexiwaggon and Modalohr

based on transport of complete road vehicles (often low floor

wagons without throughout loading area [Ladefläche]).

RoRo: RoRo is a generic term for “Roll-on-Roll-off”. As the term

(denotation) reveals the loading units are driven on or off a ship, or

as in the case of rolling road, a train.

Secondary line: Branch-line, local line or secondary line (Bibana, sidolinje)

Semi trailer: Any vehicle intended to be coupled to a motor vehicle in such way

that part of it rests on the motor vehicle and substantial part of its

weight and of the weight of its load is borne by the motor vehicle.

These may have to be specially adapted to be used in intermodal

transport.

[Swedish] Släpfordon vars främre chassidel saknar axlar och istället

ilar direct på dragbils eller dollys vändskivam, där den fastlåses

med koppelstång.

Piggy back semitrailer: A road semitrailer – reinforced with lateral beams enough to enable

lifting by gantry or mobile crane.

Shipper: Individual or organization that prepares a bill of lading by which

the carrier is directed to transport goods from one location to

another. Note that a shipment can be transported successively in

different consignments.

Shipment: Separately identifiable collection of one or more goods items

transported or available to be transported together. A shipment can

be transported successively in different consignments.

Shunting: The process of moving rolling stock from one line to another,

arranging vehicles and wagons in a certain order, to place a certain

wagon or block of wagons in a desired position in a train, or to

place them at the point of discharge or loading. Sometimes also

called marshalling or sorting.

Shunting yard: Railway yard consisting of several interconnected railway tracks

adapted for shunting.

Shuttle train: A service which simply operates between two points, usually not

far away.

Siding: Any track which is not running line and on which vehicles may be

loaded, unloaded, stable, shunted or marshalled.

Siding traffic: Freight traffic which is normally loaded or unloaded by the

customer‟s own staff and dispatched from or received at private

sidings.

Sorting sidings: A group of sidings for the principal sorting of wagons and their

assembly into trains, forming the major part of the main yard in a

marshalling yard.

Skeletal trailer: Semi- or full trailer consisting of a chassis alone, but which is fitted

with twist locks so as to carry containers and swap bodies.

Spreader: (1) Device for lifting containers and unitized cargo, (2) beam of

frame that spreads the slings during cargo operations or (3)

mechanism connecting the lifting cables on a crane or gantry to a

container. Note: A spreader has four adjustable fixing points

designed to connect with the upper twist locks corners on 20‟ and

40‟ containers.

Stackability: Specific characteristics of goods or unit loads to enable them being

put sturdily and safely on top of each other because of their

geometric shape as well as their ability to withstand the effects of

forces from the top.

Straddle carrier: Wheeled vehicle designed to lift and carry shipping containers

within its own framework.

Stripping: (In cargo handling) Unloading of cargo into an intermodal loading

unit.

Stuffing: (In cargo handling) Loading of cargo into an intermodal loading

unit.

Swap body: A swap body is a standardised container which can be detached

from the vehichle. The swap body is normally equipped with four

suport legs (drop-down), one in each corner. A swap body vehicle

is normally equipped with a special lifting device or with air

suspension which enables the suspension to be lifted or lowered.

Standard sizes for swap bodies are presented in table 1.

Tare: Weight of the ILU (ITU) or vehicle without cargo.

TEN: Trans European Network

Terminal: Designated area for transshipment of goods or shipments

(consignments). A terminal (node) is used to bridge the different

transport modes‟/transport units‟ differences in capacity, frequency

and time. A categorization of terminals is in general made based on;

(1) connected transport modes, (2) capillary infrastructure (3)

connected network configurations, (4) commercial openness, (5)

technological openness and (6) service supply, i.e. port terminals,

general cargo terminals and intermodal terminals.

Third Party Logistics: Delegation of all distribution related activities by a supplier,

producer or distributor to a specialist company.

The service offered by a middleman in the logistics channel that is

specialised in providing, by contract, for a given time period, all or

a considerable number of logistics activities for other firms”

(Virum, 1993).

A third party logistics service providor is a company that takes over

some principal logistical activities that were previously carried out

by one of the principal parties, either the supplier or the buyer

(Lumsden, 1998).

Through siding: A siding without signaling but usable for the through movements

under the control of a shunter or other authorized person.

Tilt: Light tarpaulin sheet surrounding the frame of a swap body or

covering an open-top trailer.

Trailer: Any non powered vehicle intended to be coupled to a motor

vehicle. One kind of a trailer is the semitrailers.

Train length limit: The maximum number of vehicles which may be formed into a

train passing over a given section of the railway.

Train load limit: The maximum tonnage which may be conveyed by a given class of

train and/or hauled by a locomotive over a route.

Transshipment: A transport action by which goods are transferred from one means

of transport to another during the course of one transport operation.

Trunk haul: The main part of a freight transit, usually from the initial to the final

marshalling point.

Trunk line: A main railway line often connecting large production/consumtion

regions or a production/consumtion area and a port.

Turn table wagon: Standard wagon fitted with turntable frames to allow transshipment

and transport of specially bulk containers, but also ISO-containers

and swap bodies in some systems. No external handling equipment

is needed at the terminals, thus it keeps the sunk cost invested in the

terminals at a low level. Two systems are the Abroll Container

Transport System (ACTS) for bulk containers and the Kockums

Industries Sgnss041

for swap bodies class C.

Twist lock: Standard fixing devices for securing ITU‟s to the carrying vehicle,

vessel and wagon.

TSD: Technical specification for operational interoperability.

UIC: Union Internationale des Chemins de fer (International railway

authority)

UIRR: International Union of Combined Road-Rail Transport Companies

Unaccompanied transport: Movement/Transport of road vehicles, parts of vehicles or

intermodal load units (ILU) on another transport mode (rail or sea)

not accompanied by the truck driver.

Unit load: Load consisting of items or packages held together by one or more

means and shaped or fitted for handling, transport, stacking and

storing as a unit.

Wagon load: A consignment of one tonne or more, charged at the wagon load

rate.

Wagon load terminals: A terminal with the features of a free loading area, but equipped

with a loading ramp/platform enabling loading and unloading of

wagons with fork lift trucks. Some terminals are equipped with

weather sheltered platforms. In 2003 there were 16 wagon load

terminals in Sweden operated by Green Cargo.

2.3 Capillary Infrastructure

The extent and design of the capillary infrastructure is of major importance for the share of

cargo that is transported by rail (Nelldal et al, 2000). This fact is often neglected in the

political infrastructure debate, despite that almost all designated areas for loading, unloading

and transshipment of consignments and load units are connected to the capillary network,

including the intermodal terminals, private sidings, port terminals and free loading areas.

The capillary infrastructure is of importance in the MINT project and the aim is to create a

common language for the capillary infrastructure and the figure below shows a proposal for

categorization of the capillary infrastructure for rail freight.

Train formation nodes as marshalling and local shunting yards are not included in the

definition of capillary infrastructure.

Capillary infrastructure for rail freight transport

Capillary infrastructure for

freight loading/unloading Other capillary infrastr.

Connecting track/Siding Capillary trunk line TerminalsPrivate sidings

(owned by the shipper)

Sidings Secondary lines

Co

nne

ctin

g tra

cks

Wago

n t

ran

sfe

r yard

Oth

er

tra

cks

Fre

e lo

adin

g y

ard

s

Inte

rmo

dal te

rmin

als

Po

rt t

erm

inals

Ma

in o

pera

tion

al tr

acks

Lo

ad

/unlo

adin

g tra

cks

Sid

ing

s a

nd

oth

er

tra

cks

Op

era

tio

nal tr

acks

Sh

un

ting

/Tra

nsfe

r ya

rd

Sid

ing

s a

nd

oth

er

tra

cks

Fre

e lo

adin

g tra

ck

Sid

ing

s a

nd

oth

er

tra

cks

Tra

nship

me

nt

tra

cks

Sid

ing

s a

nd

oth

er

tra

cks

Lo

adin

g tra

ck in

po

rt

Sid

ing

s a

nd

oth

er

tra

cks

Other tracks: i.e.

empties sidings © Bärthel and Troche, 2008

Co

nne

ctin

g S

witch

/es

Figure 1 Proposal for categorization of the capillary infrastructure for freight transportation.

Other tracks include for example empties sidings.

Two recently published Swedish reports indicate the necessity of the capillary infrastructure

(Östlund et al, 2006 and Swedish Rail Administration, 2007) for the competitiveness of

wagon load, multimodal and intermodal rail freight transportation.

2.4 Intermodal freight transport

Intermodal freight transport is a relatively new research field and is, as pointed out by

Bontekoning et al (2004) in a pre-paradigmatic phase. Thus there is a clear lack of consensus

of definitions and common conceptual models of the system. One purpose of a common

definition and a common conceptual model is to provide an integrated framework for analysis

of the intermodal freight transport system in a methodological fashion. A conceptual model

for the MINT project is jointly developed in task 2.1.

In the following section a large number of definitions for intermodal freight transport, used by

researchers, are summed up and categorized in relation to the definitions provided by the

European Conference of Ministers of Transport and United Nations (ECMT, 1998). The

survey shows that the researchers‟ definitions of intermodal transport ranges, based on the

definition provided by ECMT (1998), from the wide notion multimodal transport towards

more specified intermodal road-rail transport (combined transport). The differences indicate

discrepancies in aim and scope of the research projects as well as geographical differences

between the European Union and the US.

Only few researchers apply the standard definitions (Tsamboulas and Kapros (2000) and van

Duin and van Ham (1998)). These definitions (EC, 1997, ECMT, 1998) focus on the physical

characteristics of intermodal freight transport chains and as pointed out by Bontekoning et al

(2004) and Ohnell (2004) typical organisational aspects as synchronized schedules, task

division between modes and the multi-actor chain management are lacking. These

organisational aspects are stressed by Hayuth (1987) and D‟Este (1995), though the these

researchers‟ definitions do not stress the physical structure of an intermodal transport chain

and hence include all integrated (multimodal) transport chains, for example the combination

of sea and pipeline for crude oil.

In the definition of intermodal transport provided by the European Commission (1997) the

term intermodality emphasizes the need for a quality indicator of integration between the

transport modes at different levels. Hence a combination of the term intermodal transport and

the EU terms interoperability and interconnectivity (EC, 1998) highlight the level of

integration door-to-door in the transport chains

There are, as well as no standard definitions, no common conceptual models for intermodal

road-rail transportation. Different conceptual models have been developed, i.e. Hayuth

(1987), Jensen (1990), D‟Este (1995), Woxenius (1994, 1998) and Bukold (1996), but the

authors seldom refer to the work of other researchers. Thus the models differ related to type of

characteristics and mutual relationships. Bontekoning et al (2004) conclude that the

distinguishing characteristics of each research project reflect the differences in models.

2.4.1 Multimodal transport

ECMT (1998), CEN (2005): Carriage of goods by at least two transport modes

EC (1997): Intermodality is the characteristic of a transport system which

allows at least two different modes of transport to be used in an

integrated manner in a door-to-door transport chain. In addition, it

is a quality indicator of the level of integration between the

transport modes. In that respect more intermodality means more

integration and complementarily between modes, which provides

scope for more efficient use of transport systems.

Jones et al. (2000): The shipment of cargo and the movement of people involving more

than one mode of transportation during a single, seamless journey.

Southworth & Peterson (2000): Movement in which two or more different transportation

modes are linked end-to-end in order to move freight and/or people

from point of origin to point of destination.

Min (1991): The movement of products from origin to destination using a

mixture of various transportation modes such as air, ocean lines,

barge rail and truck.

Hayuth (1987): The movement of cargo from shipper to consignee using two or

more different modes under a single rate, with through billing and

through liability.

D‟Este (1995)1: A technical, legal, commercial, and management framework for

moving goods door-to-door using more than one mode of transport.

Newman and Yano (2000a/b): The combination of modes, usually ships, truck or rail to

transport freight.

1 Also used by Ohnell (2004).

2.4.2 Intermodal transport:

ECMT (1998)2, CEN (2005): The movement of goods in the same loading unit or vehicle,

which uses successively several transport modes without handling

the goods themselves in changing modes.

TRB (1998): Transport of goods in containers that can be moved on land by rail

or truck and on water by ship or barge. In addition, intermodal

freight usually is understood to include bulk commodity shipments

that involve transfer and air freight (truck – air).

Ludwigsen (1999): The movement of goods in the same load-carrying unit or vehicle,

which uses successively several modes of transport without

handling the goods in transit

Jennings and Holcomb (1996)3: A container or the device which can be transferred from one

vehicle or mode to another without the content of said device being

reloaded or distributed.

Muller (1995)4: The co-coordinated transport of goods in containers or trailers by

combination of truck and rail, with or without an ocean going links.

Slack (1996): Unitized loads (containers, trailers) that are transferred from one

mode to another.

Woxenius (1998): Intermodal transport as a coordinated transport where at least two

different transport modes are used to fulfill a physical movement of

a shipment loaded into an intermodal loading unit (ILU). This ILU

is transported without consolidation or deconsolidation from

consignor to consignee and is at least once transshipped between

the coordinated traffic modes. Thus, to be denoted as an intermodal

transport a transport needs to satisfy the following demands.

The shipment shall be transported in unbroken intermodal loading units from sending to receiving point.

ISO-containers, swap bodies, semi-trailers and specially designed freight containers of corresponding size are regarded

as ILU:s.

2 Used by for example Tsamboulas and Kapros (2000) and van Duin and Van Ham (1998)

3 Also used by Murphy and Daley (1998)

4 Also used by Taylor and Jackson (2000)

The ILU must change between transportation modes at least once between sending to receiving point.

2.4.3 Combined transport/Piggy back transport

CEN (2005): (1) Means of transport where one (passive) transport device is

carried on another (active device) which provides traction, (2)

intermodal transport where the major part of the journey is by air,

rail, inland waterway or sea and any initial and/or final leg is

carried out by road.

ECMT (1998): The movement of goods in the same loading unit or vehicle, which

uses successively, uses the transport modes road and rail without

handling the goods themselves in changing modes, also denoted

piggy back transport.

Nierat (1997): A service in which rail and truck services are combined in complete

door-to-door movements.

Harper and Evers (1993): One or more motor carriers provide a short-haul pick up and

delivery service (drayage) segment of the trip

Spasovic and Morlok (1993): The movement of highway trailers or containers by rail in line-

haul between rail terminals and by tractor-trailers from the

terminals o the receivers (termed consignees) and from shippers to

the terminal in the service area.

Evers (1994): The movement of truck trailers/containers by both railroads an

motor carriers during a single shipment.

Nozick & Morlok (1997): The movement of trucks and containers on rail cars between

terminals, with transport by truck at the end.

Woxenius (1998): Combined transport is an intermodal transport chain consisting of

the transport modes road and rail.

2.4.4 Co-modality

Prognoses accomplished during the last decades have indicated a significant leap in market

shares for intermodal freight transport. But as highlighted by European Commission in the

Revised White Paper (2006) the anticipated leap has failed to come off and hence there is a

significant gap between above mentioned prognoses and measures of the transport work

taken. Thus the European sustainable transport policy needs to build on a broader range of

policy tools achieving shift to more environmentally friendly modes where appropriate,

especially on long transport distances, in urban areas and in congested corridors. The transport

network as well as each transport needs to be optimized and all modes needs to be more

environmentally friendly, safe and efficient. The European Commission introduced the notion

co-modality in the Revised White Paper (2006) which is defined as the efficient use of

different modes on their own or in combination to achieve an optimal and sustainable

utilization of resources. The European Commission argues that this approach offers the best

guarantees to achieve at the same time a high level of both mobility and of environmental

protection.

To achieve a sustainable and competitive transport network, for the benefit of the European

Industry, all transport modes needs to be considered as complementing modes, and not only

as competing modes, in an integrated transport network, i.e. the transport modes needs to

function in parallel where the most business economical and socio-economical mode is used

in each link to full fill the benefits created by the transport system.

Our interpretation of the notion co-modality, related to the notion intermodality, reveals a

broader theoretical view of the transport system including both unimodal and intermodal

transport chains. This highlights the needs to increase the interoperability and

interconnectivity in the transport system and the need to change perspective from considering

unimodal road and intermodal systems as competing towards considering these transport

solutions as parallel and not as competing modes where the transport solution best adapted to

a specific demand is used. To change perspective from considering unimodal road and

intermodal systems as competing towards towards parallel increases the ability to create a

strategy for the system designer or entrepreneur to bridge the organisational, economical and

institutional implementation barriers.

References

Banverket (2007/b) Utveckling av det kapillära järnvägsnätet – redovisning av Banverkets

regeringsuppdrag. Dnr F07-3339/SA10, Banverket Samhälle och Marknad.

Bontekoning, Y. M., Macharis, C. och Trip, J. J. (2004) Is a new applied transportation field

emerging? – A review of intermodal rail-truck freight transport literature, Transportation

Research A 30, sid. 1-34.

Bukold, S. (1996) Kombinierter Verkehr Schiene/Strasse in Europa – Eine vergleichende

Studie zur Transformation von Gütertransportsystemen, Dissertation, Peter Lang Verlag.

Cardebring, P. W. and Warneke C. (1995) Combi-terminal and Intermodal Freight Cebtre

Development, KFB-Swedish Transport and Communication Research Board, Stockholm.

D‟Este, G. (1996) An event-based approach to modelling intermodal freight systems,

Internationa lJournal og Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 26(6), p 4-15.

Van Duin, R., Van Ham, H., 1998. Three-stage modeling approach for the design and

organization of intermodal transportation services. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International

Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part 4, October 11–14, San Diego, CA, pp.

4051–4056.EC (1997), ECMT (1998) and CEN (2005) European Commission

European Commission (2006). Revised White, Paper, Brussels.

Hayuth, Y. (1981) Containerisation and the load center concept, Economic Geography, 57(2),

p. 160-176.

Hayuth, Y. (1987) Intermodality – Concept and Practise – Structural Changes in the Ocean

Freight Transport Industry, Lloyds of London Press, London.

Jensen, A. (1987, 1990) Kombinerade transporter – system, ekonomi och strategier,

Transportforskningsberedningen, Stockholm.

van Klink H. A., and van den Berg G. (1998) Gateway and Intermodalism, Journal of

Transport Geography, 6, p 1-9.

Lumsden, K. R. L. (1998) Fundamentals in Logistics, Studentlitteratur, Lund.

Bontekoning, Y.M., Macharis, C., Trip, J.J., (2004). Is a new applied transportation research

field emerging?––A review of intermodal rail–truck freight transport literature, Transportation

Research Part A 38 (2004) 1–34.

Mulley, C. and Nelson J. D. (1999) Interoperability and transport policy: the impediments to

interoperability in the organization of Trans-European transport systems, Journal of

Transport Geography, 7, pp. 93-104.

Nelldal, B-L., G. Troche and J. Wajsman (2000) Järnvägens möjligheter på den framtida

godstransportmarknaden, Institutionen för Trafikplanering, Kungliga tekniska högskolan,

Stockholm.

Ohnell, S. (2004) Intermodal Road-Rail Transportation for Express Transport Services,

Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Logistics and Transportation, Göteborg.

Priemus, H., Button, K and Nijkamp, P. (1998) European Transport Networks: a strategic

view. In Button, K. (eds.) Transport Networks in europe, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Roso, V.(2004) Emergaance and significande of dry ports, Chalmers University of

Technology, Department of Logistics and Transportation, Göteborg.

Tsamboulas, D. A. och Kapros, S. (2000) Decision-Making Process in Intermodal

Transportation, Transportation Reserach Record, nr 1707.

UN ECE (1998) UN/LOCODE – Code for Ports and other Locations, Recommendation,

Geneva.

Virum, H. (1993) Third Party Logistics, Research Report 1993/1, Norwegian School of

Management, Sandvika.

Woxenius, J. (1994) Modelling European Combined Transport as an Industrial System,

Institutionen för transportteknik, Chalmers tekniska högskola. Göteborg.

Woxenius, J. (1998) Development of Small-scale Intermodal Transport in a Systems Context.

Avhandling, Inst. för transportteknik, Chalmers Tekniska Högskola, Göteborg.

Woxenius, J. och Bärthel, F. (2008) Intermodal Road-Rail Transport in the European Union,

In: Konings, R., H. Priemus & P. Nijkamp (eds.), The Future of Intermodal Freight Transport,

Concepts, Design and Implementation, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.

Östlund, B, Berggren, U. och Bärthel, F. (2006) Analys av förutsättningar för användning av

utveckling av den kapillära infrastrukturen, TFK Rapport 2006:11, Stockholm.

http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/cpl/record/index.xsql?pubid=282

3 Intermodal road-rail transport in the MINT Corridor

This chapter will introduce intermodal transport as a part of the European transport system

with focus on the Scandinavian, German, Austrian and Swiss markets.

3.1 Introduction

An intermodal freight transport system is characterized by the subsequent use of different

transport modes for moving goods and shipments stowed in an intermodal loading unit (ILU)

from the consignor to the consignee. The system includes a large number of different

activities, actors and resources, which implies a certain degree of technological, operational

and organizational complexity. Other features are the derived demand, the dependency of the

surrounding activity systems and generally lack of formal systems management as well as

objectives shared by all actors.

Intermodal road-rail freight transport was developed by the National Railway Authorities

during the 1960s to increase accessibility to rail transport services; however primarily in the

aftermath of the environmental and climate debate intermodal freight transport was put on the

political policy agenda during the 1980s. The knowledge of the climate change in

combination with the continuous increasing freight flows and the limited capacity on the road

infrastructure in central Europe forced the European Union to make the decision of a certain

number of policy decisions related to a more balanced utilization of the infrastructures and of

the traffic modes with the overall aim of a sustainable transport supply in Europe (EU

Commission, 2002 and 2006). The recent transport policy adopted by the European

Commission changed from focusing solely on intermodal transport towards a policy of

parallel transport system, where the different traffic modes, separately and in co-ordination,

should be optimized in order to decrease the climate and environmental load from the

transport sector, denoted co-modality (European Commission, 2006). Anyway, a policy

opting for increased intermodal transportation could take a stand in the increasing climate,

environmental and congestion problems in Europe caused by the road transport sector but also

the potential for increased efficiency through co-ordination of the traffic modes to manage the

ever increasing freight flows (OECD, 1997, (Woxenius and Bärthel, 2008).

Supporting words have been abundant and a truly wide range of political instruments have

been used for promoting intermodal transport on a European level, but they still have not

created a truly level playing field for competition with unimodal road transport. Previous

prognosis indicates large increase in intermodal transport volumes and market shares, but

statistics indicates a wide gap between expectations and actual transport work. The intermodal

transport work in Europe increased by 93 % from 1990 to 2000 and has grown another 67 %

from 2000 to 2007, i.e. an annual growth rate of 9-11 %. Thus, the market share for

intermodal freight transport is increasing, but still on a low level. Two general markets,

substantially penetrated, are the Alpine Crossing and transports from the ports offering round-

the-world service and their hinterlands (Notteboom, 2006, Woxenius and Bärthel, 2008).

Since the year 2000 there are signs of increasing market shares for conventional intermodal

freight transport in Norway and Sweden due to an enhanced service performance though the

increases are even more significant in countries as where the bottom-up activities are

strengthened by political actions (top-down) deregulation of the rail system and introduction

of road toll systems as in Austria and Germany (Gustavsson et al, 2007). The political

promises that were not fulfilled have caused disillusion within the industry although

initiatives like the Marco Polo program, the road tolls in Austria, Germany and Switzerland

and the French subsidy to forwarders using intermodal freight transport are showing

promising results (Nelldal et al, 2007, Gustafsson et al, 2007 and Swedish Rail

Administration, 2008).

There are several reasons for the dissatisfactory market trends. Shippers, forwarders and

hauliers frequently investigate the options to increase utilization of intermodal freight

transport, but often mention the poor cost-quality ratio, lack of accessibility to intermodal

terminals and the complex organizational structure as three driving factors for not using

intermodal freight transport (Woxenius and Bärthel, 2008). Bühler et al (2008) stresses poor

transport quality as the major driving force and concludes that the likelihood to use

intermodal freight transport service would be three times as high if the maximum velocity

terminal-to-terminal increased to 80 km/h as if the road toll (MAUT) was increased from 12

to 15 cent per kilometer. Despite poor cost-quality ratio, organizational complexity and

accessibility to intermodal terminal services intermodal transport is an important issue for

shippers, authorities and for the society (Storhagen et al, 2008) and there is a growing interest

for intermodal transport by the transport operators.

The source to system design is found 40-50 years ago, when the terminals were located and

designed and integrated in the dominating production system (wagon loads). Konings and

Kreutzberger (1999) and Rudel (2002) point out the close ties between the design of

dominating intermodal and traditional wagon load system as a major source for the poor cost-

quality ratio supplied by the traditional intermodal transport system put in relation to

unimodal road transport. Today, intermodal transport operators avoid shunting single

intermodal shipments through the network of shunting and marshalling yards (Aastrup, 2003).

Hans Paridon, head of Green Cargo Road and Logistics, point out the necessity of close

relationship between the design of intermodal freight systems and the road transport system.

The market, production systems, organization and regulation differs between different

countries in Europe. This report aims at support the intermodal transport system in Austria,

Germany, Scandinavia and Switzerland as a part of the European transport system.

3.1.1 Aim

The aim of the report is to describe and analyze the intermodal freight transport systems in

Austria, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, based on the actor, activity and

resource perspective (ARA). This perspective is supplemented by a description of the

competitive situation for intermodal transport in each country based on internal and external

factors as phase of deregulation, transport policy, infrastructure regulation (as loading profile,

weight dimensions) and finally some aspects related to the competitive situation towards road

transport is singled out.

This report forms a deliverable from the ERA NET ENT16 Intermodal freight transport

project “MINT – Model and decision support systems for evaluation of intermodal terminal

networks”.

3.1.2 Methodology

In conformity with previous reports, Woxenius (1994), Bärthel and Woxenius (2002) and

Woxenius and Bärthel (2008) a system approach (Churchman, 1979) and the actor approach

(Gadde and Håkansson, 1992) have been used to model the intermodal freight transport

system. The model, based on the three element approach was developed by Woxenius (1994),

consists of a description and analysis of actors, activities and resources and this approach is

useful to analyze the industrial structures from different angles.

This report deals with the whole transport chain although the focus is stronger on the core of

intermodal freight transport, i.e. terminal handling and rail haulage, and from the activities

where the intermodal loading unit is filled until it is emptied. The focus is on conventional

intermodal freight transport, i.e. unaccompanied transport of shipments loaded in containers,

swap bodies and semi trailers in an open service system. Closed service systems, as the Stora

Enso NETSS system and Outukumpus Steelbridge, are not included in the description,

although these systems have intermodal features. In this context the intermodal loading unit is

seen as a part of the shipment and not explicitly as a system resource.

The text is delimited to intermodal transport systems including at least one rail link. Inland

and short-sea shipping in combination with road transport are intermodal transport chains not

included in this overview.

The Scandinavian empirical knowledge for this description and analysis is based on a large

number of semi-structured interviews with representatives from the intermodal industry,

transport authorities, forwarders and shippers, reviews of scientific literature, reports and

statistics ranging from 1992-2008. The empirical knowledge from 1992 to 2010 is based on

previous research carried out by Woxenius and/or Bärthel. See for example Woxenius and

Bärthel (2008) and Bärthel et al, (2009).

The German empirical knowledge has been derived from reports of the national German

statistical office, which since 2004 has collected data for intermodal transport based on their

own methodology in addition to traditional mode by mode and global statistics. The German

department for Transport BMVBS has published a report on intermodal transport in 2001.

The national administration for freight transport BAG publishes annual reports on the

development of freight transport. The ports of Germany and their associations publish their

own annual reports. The research association for intermodal transport in Germany SGKV has

published a summary of all available data and reports on intermodal transport as partly

mentioned above. Numerous research projects have collected data on intermodal transport in

Germany (Promit, InHoTra, Diomis).

The Swiss empirical data, statistics and graphs are based on previous reports, mainly made by

RappTrans. The data has been updated by information received in informal interviews and

official statistics.

The Austrian empirical data, statistics and graphs are based on a work package report of the

DIOMIS project (cf. DIOMIS 2006). The data has been updated by information received in

informal interviews and official statistics.

3.1.3 Definitions

Multimodal transport, intermodal transport, intermodal transport and intermodal load units are

four central concepts in the project, which will be defined in this chapter.

In this study the definition developed by Woxenius (1994) is used. From a conceptual point

this definition view intermodal transport as a coordinated transport where at least two

different transport modes are used to fulfill a physical movement of a shipment loaded into an

intermodal loading unit (ILU). This ILU is transported without consolidation or

deconsolidation from consignor to consignee and is at least once transshipped between the

coordinated traffic modes. Thus, to be denoted as an intermodal transport a transport needs to

satisfy the following demands.

The shipment shall be transported in unbroken intermodal loading units from sending to receiving point.

ISO-containers, swap bodies, semi-trailers and specially designed freight containers of corresponding size are regarded as ILU:s.

The ILU must change between transportation modes at least once between sending to receiving point.

In this study the transport modes are road and rail, primarily, which normally is denoted

intermodal transport. In this project the definition assume a transport where the shipment is

loaded into the ILU at the sending point. The ILU is transported by road to an intermodal

terminal, where the ILU is transshipped onto a wagon and subsequently transported to the

receiving terminal by block or shuttle train. On the receiving terminal the ILU is transshipped,

occasionally stored, and transported by truck to the consignee (receiving point). The

intermodal load unit is not deconsolidated until the ILU arrives at the consignee (Lumsden,

1998).

The concepts of multimodal and intermodal transportation are often mixed up. The major

difference distinguishing these two concepts the utilization of ILU:s in an intermodal

transport chain from a consignor to a consignee where the ILU is transshipped at least once

between sending to receiving point according to the above mentioned definition. A

multimodal transport chain consists of at least two different traffic modes, but the shipment is

not necessarily loaded in an ILU. Thus, the concept of intermodal transport might be

considered as a subset of multimodal freight transport. An example of multimodal transport is

round timber transported by truck from the wood to a round timber terminal. At the terminal

each timber is transshipped to a wagon occasionally through an intermediate storage area.

Finally loaded onto a freight wagon the timber is transported to the Pulp Mill for production

of pulp. All handling of the timber is done by the piece.

3.2 The intermodal transport system – an overview

The intermodal freight transport system may be described by its core activities; pre- and end

haulage, transshipment, rail haulage, coordination and consolidation of consignments and

ILU:s and where applicable sea transport. Infrastructure and supporting activities such as

lease of equipment, inspection, cleaning, mending and empty stacking of ILU:s at terminals

are needed for the system to work.

Traditionally, coordination and consolidation of consignments in ILU:s was carried out

outside the system by the shipper or forwarding company‟s general cargo terminal, but in the

next future the terminal companies/operators will offer such services on the intermodal

terminal to coordinate and consolidate intermodal and unimodal road consignments

(Storhagen et al, 2008) as described in the coming chapter.

Intermodal transport systems demands large volumes to reach a competitive combination of

cost efficiency, transport quality and acceptable environmental features. Shippers and

forwarding companies are often large actors, but each individual actor has often not got

sufficient volumes for competitive intermodal freight transport in specific relations. A recent

inkling of a new trend is the co-operation between large shippers and an agent to initiate,

develop and operate intermodal or co-modal transport systems or chains. These market trend

are emerging on the Swedish transport market and are denoted customer or agent initiated

intermodal freight transport systems.

Intermodal freight transport includes at least two different traffic modes, though the focus in

this report is on the core of intermodal freight transport (see the figure below), including rail

transport and transshipment activities. These activities distinguish the intermodal freight

transport from unimodal road transport as well as intermodal road-sea transport systems.

The major research takes this perspective, but there are studies focusing on the road link in

intermodal freight transport for instance Morlok and Spasovic (1994), Nierat (1997) and

Taylor et al (2002).

Figure 2 A system model focusing on activities in the intermodal chain (Based on: Woxenius and

Bärthel, 2008).

pre-haulage

post-haulage

rail haulage

transshipment transshipment

co-ordination of intermodal transport

co-ordination of the core of intermodal transport

© Johan Woxenius

3.3 European Intermodal transport

Since the beginning of year 2000 the growth of freight transport exceeds the growth of GDP

Since the beginning of the nineties freight transport is growing also much faster than

passenger transport. Main reasons are the integrated European market and the globalization.

The share by mode (tkm) is 45% by road, 37 % maritime, 11% rail, 3% inland waterway and

3.3.1 European Intermodal freight volumes

In 2007 17 million TEUs were shipped by intermodal road-rail transport in Europe. It

represents a market share of around 3%, which is an increase by 50% since the late 1990s.

The most important intermodal rail/road flows in Europe can be seen in the next figures (only

traffic from UIRR companies, about 30-35 % of European intermodal rail volumes).

Figure 5 Intermodal rail flows 2009 (source: www.uirr.com).

In 2009 about 2,4 million consignments or 4,5 million TEU have been transported

unaccompanied (containers, swap bodies, semi-trailers) and 400 000 consignment

accompanied. The annual growth rate of unaccompanied transport is 10-15 % per year since

2000. However during the recession in 2009 the unaccompanied business of the UIRR

companies (excluding new membership) suffered much more than unimodal road transport

with a decline of 19% (i.e. 500,000 fewer shipments compared to 2008). The road transport

sector recorded an overall traffic reduction of 10%,

Especially relevant are the flows over the Alps and the transport from the ports of

Rotterdam/Antwerp to their hinterlands. The most important connections are between

Germany, Benelux countries in the north to Italy in the south. Rolling Motorway transport is

relevant via Austria and Switzerland over the Alps.

The development of intermodal and rail freight can be seen in the following figure:

Figure 6 Intermodal rail freight development 2000-2009 (UIRR, 2010).

http://www.uirr.com/

There is a strong growth of international unaccompanied transport and minor growth in

national intermodal transport. The growth rate of intermodal transport is about 10-15 % per

year (unaccompanied transport). Due to the financial crisis there is at the moment a decrease

in intermodal volumes of about 15 to 20%.

3.3.2 Intermodal freight transport in Austria5

Austria has a population of about 8.3 million people (January, 1st 2007) residing on 83.871

km². The average population density is about 99 inhabitants/ km². Austria has a huge variety

of landscapes, like the spacious Vienna basin, the gentle Austrian upland, the alpine areas

from the West to the East and the lake districts in the Salzkammergut and Carinthia. The land

use of the whole territory can be divided into agricultural land use (31,4%), forests (43,2%),

the alp regions (10,3%), water surfaces (1,7%) and other areas (13,4%). The area of

settlement covers about 2/5 of the territory. Austria consists of 9 federal states: the federal

state of Lower Austria, Upper Austria, Salzburg, Carinthia, Styria, Tyrol, Burgenland,

Vorarlberg and Vienna. The largest cities are Vienna with almost 1,7 Mio. inhabitants,

followed by Graz, Linz and Salzburg. The main river in Austria is the Danube. The Danube is

the most important inland waterway and crosses Austria from the North West to the South

East. Austria has a 6.188 km (2003) long railway network and about 12.500 km of paved

roads, including 2.100 km (2007) of motorways and expressways (thereof 160km of tunnels

and 210km of bridges). The most important airports are Vienna and Salzburg. Other

international airports are situated in Linz, Graz, Innsbruck, and Klagenfurt.

Figure 7 Distribution of population in Austria.

Austria has a traditional steel industry and a wide range of different other industrial sectors.

The most important regions for transport technology industry are Upper Austria, Lower

Austria, Styria and the Vienna region. Figure 9 shows the distribution of the Austrian

population, from which the demand for intermodal transport can also be deri

State-of-the-Art MINT Deliverable 1 · 2011. 9. 23. · IMPRINT Date 20.04 2011 Basic Material and...

Documents

Transcript of State-of-the-Art MINT Deliverable 1 · 2011. 9. 23. · IMPRINT Date 20.04 2011 Basic Material and...