Doctoral thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Report 34

DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL-SCALE INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION

IN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT

by

Johan Woxenius

Submitted to the School of Technology Management and Economics,

Chalmers University of Technology, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Transportation and Logistics Chalmers University of Technology

S-412 96 Gteborg, Sweden

Gteborg 1998

Report 34 DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL-SCALE INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION IN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT Johan Woxenius ISBN: 91-7197-630-2 ISSN: 0283-3611 ISSN: 0346-718X Published by: Department of Transportation and Logistics Chalmers University of Technology S-412 96 Gteborg, Sweden Bibliotekets Reproservice CTHB, Gteborg 1998

i

DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL-SCALE INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION IN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT

Johan WOXENIUS Department of Transportation and Logistics

Chalmers University of Technology, S-412 96 Gteborg, Sweden.

ABSTRACT An intermodal freight transportation system is characterised by the subsequent use of dif-ferent transportation modes for moving goods stowed into unit loads from the consignor to the consignee. Typically, it involves a wide variety of activities, actors and resources, which implies a certain degree of technological as well as organisational complexity. Other distinctive features are dependency on surrounding systems and a general lack of formal systems management as well as of objectives shared among all actors.

This dissertation focuses the need for a renewal of the European intermodal transportation system that has not yet been able to fulfil the high expectations from society. Most of the commercial problems are directly or indirectly related to the complexity of the system and the scale in which the services are produced in. The solution foreseen and advocated in this dissertation is to divide the operations between the layers direct shuttle trains, corridor trains and locally adapted small-scale network modules, of which the latter layer is espe-cially treated. Special attention is paid to the issue of connecting the layers as well as the different network modules.

An outspoken systems approach is applied and a framework model is chiselled out from theories on general systems, transportation systems as well as on intermodal transportation systems. The object of study is successively narrowed, focusing technical matters and small-scale operations on lower system levels.

The complexity and lack of systems management implies that implementing new technical resources involves distinctive barriers that are described and classified. Approaches for re-ducing the effects of barriers include to conform to standards, to create closed systems and to implement new resources gradually.

Another issue addressed is the suitability of transshipment technologies for different net-work operation principles and national preconditions. Small-scale transshipment technolo-gies all of which are described in a detached appendix are evaluated against an outlined list of requirements. The argumentation is finally applied to the intermodal freight system that received the highest score in the evaluation Swedish State Railways Light-combi project.

Key words: Barrier, Combined Transport, Conceptual Modelling, Gateway Terminal, Intermodal Freight Transportation, Technology Implementation, Transport Chain, Transport Network, Trans-portation system, Transshipment Technology.

i

Like all young men I set out to be a genius, but mercifully laughter intervened

Lawrence Durrell, Clea, 1960

i

DISSERTATION

This dissertation Development of Small-scale Intermodal Freight Transportation in a Systems Context is based upon the integrated text presented in this binding (referred to as this dissertation) with its detached appendix1 named Intermodal Transshipment Technolo-gies An Overview (referred to as the detached appendix) and the licentiate thesis named Modelling European Combined Transport as an Industrial System (referred to as the licen-tiate thesis). The doctoral work also includes a number of own reports and articles listed in the reference list. The three reports and the articles are available in separate bindings from the Department of Transportation and Logistics2 at Chalmers University of Technology

1 The detached appendix of descriptions of a large number of intermodal transshipment technologies, which are roughly the same as those presented in chapter 4 of the report: WOXENIUS, J. (1998) Inventory of Trans-shipment Technologies in Intermodal Transport, Study for the International Road Transport Union (IRU), Ge-neva. Hence, also that report can serve the purpose of being a technical reference to this dissertation. 2 Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, S-412 96 Gteborg, Sweden. Tel: +46-31-772 1324, Fax: +46-31-772 1337, E-mail: transport@mot.chalmers.se.

i

PREFACE

This dissertation should be read together with its detached appendix called Intermodal Transshipment Technologies An Overview and preferably also with the licentiate thesis called Modelling European Combined Transport as an Industrial System, both available in separate bindings from the Department of Transportation and Logistics. Numerous refer-ences to the reports and to other own articles make it possible for the interested reader to deepen the understanding of the research field, yet avoiding a brick-sized report.

The reports are written for readers experienced in the transportation field meaning that terms and technical matters are not explained on the beginners level. The reader that finds himself unfamiliar with terms and abbreviations in the text is recommended to first consult the terminology and abbreviation sections and then the reference list for basic read-ing. Literature advice for certain subjects is given in footnotes throughout the report.

A fellow researcher in the field is for obvious reasons recommended to read the three re-ports following the references while a researcher interested purely in the academic implica-tions could limit the reading to the text in this binding. I sincerely hope that my work can contribute also to the intermodal world outside the universities. Readers representing the industrial or political sphere might, however, find the first three or four chapters boring and can consult the Contents section for interesting topics. A reader experienced in the inter-modal transport field that wants an overview or facts about new technologies is recom-mended to start with the detached appendix and then read the two analyses in chapter 7.

Finally, it should be stated that this is obviously not an engineering effort intended to solve all problems perceived by intermodal operators. It is, however, my hope that the produced knowledge can trigger some good ideas on how the intermodal transportation system can be changed in order to challenge all-road transportation better in the future.

Gteborg, April 1998

Johan Woxenius

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are a lot of people that have helped me to finish my PhD studies with a dissertation rather than with a desertion. First, I am grateful to Swedish State Railways for generously funding my research project. Contributions from the Curt NICOLIN CN70-foundation and the International Road Transport Union (IRU) also made the writing process easier for which I am truly grateful.

Moreover, I want to express my deepest thanks to professor Lars SJSTEDT who has acted as head supervisor for my research. The supervision and all the late night discussions on the subject of this dissertation as well as on other subjects have been very fruitful to me, primarily as a researcher but also as a human being. I am also grateful to professor Dag BJRNLAND and Dr. Anna DUBOIS for giving kind remarks and suggestions for im-provement. Dag and Lars are also the originators of the research project as such.

I am also sincerely grateful to lecturing professor Kenth LUMSDEN for making the practi-cal matters easier during my time as doctoral student, but also for inspiration and for being a friend and fellow traveller. Kenths thinking on barriers (or thresholds as he wants to call them) is the seed to chapter 5 that is worked up from articles written together with Kenth. Also the analysis of requirements for new intermodal technologies in section 7.1 was origi-nally developed together with Kenth. Co-authors of other material used in the dissertation are acknowledged throughout the report.

A special thank you goes to Dr. Stefan SJGREN at School of Economics and Commer-cial Law at the University of Gteborg for enjoyable co-operation and for informal lessons on how to pick up women. My gratitude also extends to the industry officials that have en-dured my questions and also supplied intelligent answers and material for the study. I am especially greatful to Jan-Ola WEDE at Swedish State Railways who let me study his Light-combi project from the inside.

I would also like to thank Per Olof ARNS for scanning and editing the numerous pictures in the detached appendix, and for helping me out when the mysteries of the computer world became too frustrating. I am also grateful to his mother Lille-Mor who indefatigably has corrected the language despite the tight schedule. All linguistic errors remaining are caused by late changes from my keyboard.

A university department is dynamic place of work. Doctoral candidates come and go. Now its my turn to choose whether to stay or to try my fortune outside the walls of the univer-sity. If I choose to stay it is thanks to all the kind colleagues and the nice atmosphere at work. Thanks for these years and lets add some more!

iv

Traditionally, and pathetically, I finally like to thank my beloved wife Anna and our fat cat Elsa for being such a support during my agony of finishing the dissertation.

Johan

v

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................................... I

DISSERTATION................................................................................................................................. III

PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................ I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................................. III

CONTENTS.............................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................XV

TABLE OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................XVII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................................VIX

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

1.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 What is intermodal freight transport? ........................................................................... 1

1.1.2 Why studying intermodal transport? ............................................................................ 6

1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEMS .............................................................................................................. 8

1.2.1 The cradle of intermodal transport ............................................................................... 8

1.2.2 Current operational principles .................................................................................... 13

1.2.3 The changing environment ........................................................................................ 16

1.2.4 Small is beautiful? ..................................................................................................... 18

1.2.5 The main research theme.......................................................................................... 20

1.3 RESEARCH PROCESS AND PURPOSES ...................................................................................... 21

1.4 METHOD................................................................................................................................. 23

1.4.1 General research approach ....................................................................................... 23

1.4.2 Data and information gathering.................................................................................. 27

1.5 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS.............................................................................................. 29

1.6 READERS GUIDE .................................................................................................................... 34

1.6.1 Dissertation outline .................................................................................................... 34

1.6.2 A hierarchical system model showing the outline....................................................... 35

1.6.3 Writing style............................................................................................................... 37

1.6.4 Cross-references ....................................................................................................... 37

1.6.5 Reading suggestions ................................................................................................. 39

1.6.6 The reference and note system ................................................................................. 39

vi

2 SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................................... 41

2.1 GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY.................................................................................................... 42

2.2 THE TECHNICAL CHARACTER OF SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 44

2.2.1 Tools for systems design........................................................................................... 45

2.2.2 Descriptive and analytical tools ................................................................................. 47

2.3 THE NETWORK CHARACTER OF SYSTEMS.................................................................................. 50

2.3.1 Large technical systems LTS.................................................................................. 51

2.3.2 The Network Approach according to the Uppsala school of thought.......................... 53

2.4 CHANNELS AND CHAINS IN A SYSTEMS CONTEXT ....................................................................... 56

2.4.1 Marketing and distribution channels .......................................................................... 57

2.4.2 Supply chain management ........................................................................................ 58

2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION..................................................................................... 60

3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ................................................................................................. 63

3.1 THE SCIENTIFIC FIELD OF TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................. 63

3.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE.................................................. 65

3.3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FROM A NETWORK PERSPECTIVE ................................................... 67

3.3.1 Networks of links and nodes...................................................................................... 67

3.3.2 Transportation systems as actor networks ................................................................ 70

3.4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FROM A CHANNEL OR CHAIN PERSPECTIVE ..................................... 72

3.4.1 Flows of goods, system resources, information and capital ...................................... 73

3.4.2 The pipeline concept ................................................................................................. 74

3.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION..................................................................................... 76

4 INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 78

4.1 THE TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE ................................................................................................. 79

4.1.1 Dividing between administrative and physical system ............................................... 79

4.1.2 CHURCHMANs systems approach applied to intermodal transport .......................... 81

4.1.3 Functions in the production system ........................................................................... 85

4.2 INTERMODAL TRANSPORT NETWORKS ...................................................................................... 86

4.2.1 A model of network operation principles .................................................................... 87

4.2.2 The model of elements, processes and actors applied to intermodal transport.......... 90

4.2.3 The network approach applied to intermodal transport .............................................. 91

4.3 INTERMODAL TRANSPORT CHAINS ............................................................................................ 93

4.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION..................................................................................... 95

vii

5 RESOURCES IN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS............................................ 97

5.1 BARRIERS FOR IMPLEMENTING NEW RESOURCES ...................................................................... 97

5.1.1 Regulative barriers .................................................................................................. 100

5.1.2 Technological barriers ............................................................................................. 104

5.1.3 System oriented barriers.......................................................................................... 107

5.1.4 Commercial barriers ................................................................................................ 112

5.2 APPROACHES FOR OVERCOMING THE EFFECTS OF BARRIERS .................................................. 113

5.2.1 To conform firmly to regulations, standards and prevailing technologies ................ 113

5.2.2 To change the barriers or to obtain exemptions....................................................... 114

5.2.3 To create closed systems........................................................................................ 115

5.2.4 To control the transport chain under one management............................................ 116

5.2.5 To change technology in course of time during the systems investment cycle....... 116

5.2.6 To optimise sets of resources together.................................................................... 117

5.2.7 To design one resource to make another superfluous ............................................. 118

5.2.8 To implement an interface between system resources ............................................ 118

5.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION................................................................................... 120

6 TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGY IN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS....... 123

6.1 THERE ARE TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR ALTERNATIVE NETWORK DESIGNS! ............... 124

6.1.1 Terminals for direct connections .............................................................................. 125

6.1.2 Terminals for corridors............................................................................................. 127

6.1.3 Terminals for hub-and-spoke designs...................................................................... 127

6.1.4 Terminals for fixed routes ........................................................................................ 128

6.1.5 Terminals for flexible routes..................................................................................... 129

6.2 THERE ARE TECHNOLOGIES CONFORMING TO NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS!................................. 129

6.2.1 The analysis reference model.................................................................................. 130

6.2.2 Norway .................................................................................................................... 131

6.2.3 Finland..................................................................................................................... 132

6.2.4 Sweden ................................................................................................................... 133

6.2.5 Denmark.................................................................................................................. 135

6.2.6 Germany.................................................................................................................. 136

6.2.7 Benelux ................................................................................................................... 138

6.2.8 The UK .................................................................................................................... 139

6.2.9 France ..................................................................................................................... 141

6.2.10 Switzerland and Austria........................................................................................... 142

6.2.11 Italy.......................................................................................................................... 143

6.2.12 The European level ................................................................................................. 144

6.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION................................................................................... 148

viii

7 SMALL-SCALE TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGY IN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................................... 150

7.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL-SCALE TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES....................................... 151

7.1.1 System requirements............................................................................................... 152

7.1.2 Functional requirements .......................................................................................... 153

7.2 WHICH NEW TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES ARE SUITABLE FOR SMALL-SCALE OPERATIONS? . 155

7.2.1 Define the conditions of the evaluation situation...................................................... 156

7.2.2 Make lists of demands and criteria .......................................................................... 157

7.2.3 List the alternative solutions .................................................................................... 158

7.2.4 Weight the criteria against each other ..................................................................... 161

7.2.5 Evaluate the alternatives according to the defined criteria....................................... 161

7.2.6 Final evaluation and decision .................................................................................. 163

7.3 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION................................................................................... 163

8 A PARTICULAR SMALL-SCALE CONCEPT........................................................................... 167

8.1 THE LIGHT-COMBI CONCEPT .................................................................................................. 167

8.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 170

8.3 AN IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIO............................................................................................. 172

8.3.1 Customer pilot: Dalkullan....................................................................................... 173

8.3.2 Starting with closed loops........................................................................................ 175

8.3.3 Establishing a basic network ................................................................................... 176

8.3.4 Extending the basic network.................................................................................... 178

8.3.5 Connecting Light-combi to conventional intermodal transport.................................. 179

8.3.6 Exporting the concept.............................................................................................. 183

8.4 WHAT TO LEARN FROM THE LIGHT-COMBI PROJECT?............................................................... 184

8.4.1 Light-combi a technical system, a network or a chain?......................................... 184

8.4.2 How does Light-combi comply with the requirements for small-scale intermodal

transport? ............................................................................................................................. 185

8.4.3 How are barrier effects treated? .............................................................................. 186

8.5 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 187

9 A CONCLUDING SCENARIO ................................................................................................... 188

9.1 A SCENARIO FOR FUTURE EUROPEAN INTERMODALISM............................................................ 188

9.1.1 Long and heavy direct trains for large flows............................................................. 189

9.1.2 Corridor trains crossing Europe ............................................................................... 190

9.1.3 Regional solutions for the short, small and dispersed flows..................................... 192

9.1.4 Ro-Ro services for overcoming geographical and infrastructural hurdles ............... 194

9.1.5 Summary of the scenario......................................................................................... 195

9.2 ARE THERE PROSPECTS FOR THE SCENARIO?......................................................................... 196

ix

9.2.1 Transport policy and market conditions ................................................................... 197

9.2.2 Who is likely to take the initiative? ........................................................................... 200

REFERENCES................................................................................................................................ 204

PUBLISHED REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 204

OTHER REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 220

Brochures, newsletters, blue prints, other marketing material and annual reports: ............... 220

World Wide Web sites and CD ROMs: ................................................................................. 220

Interviews and oral presentations: ........................................................................................ 221

Letters, faxes, E-mail messages and personal notes: .......................................................... 221

APPENDIX A: ....INTERMODAL TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES DEVELOPED IN EUROPE

APPENDIX B: THE WEIGHT CRITERION METHOD

DEFINE THE CONDITIONS OF THE EVALUATION SITUATION

MAKE LISTS OF DEMANDS AND CRITERIA

LIST THE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

WEIGHT THE CRITERIA AGAINST EACH OTHER

EVALUATE THE ALTERNATIVES ACCORDING TO THE DEFINED CRITERIA

FINAL EVALUATION AND DECISION

xi

TABLE OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1-1 A CONTAINER, A SWAP BODY AND A SEMI-TRAILER.............................................................. 3

FIGURE 1-2 RAILWAY WAGONS FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT.. ............................................................ 3

FIGURE 1-3 LORRIES FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORT............................................................................. 4

FIGURE 1-4 A REACH-STACKER AND A GANTRY CRANE. ........................................................................ 4

FIGURE 1-5 EARLY USE OF A GANTRY CRANE ..................................................................................... 10

FIGURE 1-6 GERMAN PIGGYBACK-TRANSPORT SHORTLY AFTER WORLD WAR II.. ................................. 11

FIGURE 1-7 THE TRANSPORT OF GOODS BY ROAD IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY IN 1986. ................. 19

FIGURE 1-8 THE INFORMATION VALUE CHAIN...................................................................................... 28

FIGURE 1-9 A HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM MODEL GUIDING THE OUTLINE OF THE DISSERTATION.................. 36

FIGURE 2-1 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PROCESS PARADIGM. ................................................................. 47

FIGURE 2-2 THE NETWORK MODEL. ................................................................................................... 55

FIGURE 2-3 A MODEL SHOWING THAT SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT COVERS THE FLOW OF GOODS........ 59

FIGURE 3-1 THE TRANSPORT DIAGONAL SEPARATING TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS. ..................... 64

FIGURE 3-2 A FREIGHT VERSION OF SJSTEDTS MODEL................................................................. 66

FIGURE 3-3 A TRANSPORT NETWORK AND A TRANSPORT RELATION..................................................... 68

FIGURE 3-4 A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 69

FIGURE 3-5 A NETWORK OF FACILITIES .............................................................................................. 69

FIGURE 3-6 TRANSPORTATION NETWORK DEFINITIONS ....................................................................... 70

FIGURE 3-7 SJSTEDTS ACTOR NETWORK MODEL.......................................................................... 71

FIGURE 3-8 ILLUSTRATION OF A NET OF TRANSPORT COMPANIES. ....................................................... 72

FIGURE 3-9 FOUR FLOWS RELATED TO A TRANSPORT COMMISSION. .................................................... 74

FIGURE 3-10 PIPELINE SEGMENTS AND MEASURING POINTS.................................................................. 75

FIGURE 3-11 AN EXAMPLE OF A PIPELINE. ......................................................................................... 75

FIGURE 3-12 DEFINITIONS OF BUSINESS AND PRODUCTION LINES.......................................................... 76

FIGURE 4-1 JENSENS INTERMODAL TRANSPORT MODEL. ................................................................. 81

FIGURE 4-2 A SYSTEMS ANALYSIS USING CHURCHMANS SYSTEMS APPROACH. ............................... 85

FIGURE 4-3 A MODEL OF AN INTERMODAL SYSTEM BASED UPON FUNCTIONS. ....................................... 86

FIGURE 4-4 FIVE DIFFERENT TRAFFIC PATTERNS FOR TRANSPORT FROM A TO B.................................. 88

FIGURE 4-5 SJSTEDTS ACTOR NETWORK MODEL APPLIED TO INTERMODAL TRANSPORT. ................ 90

FIGURE 4-6 RESULTS OF A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS USING THE NETWORK APPROACH. .......................... 92

FIGURE 4-7 FLOW UNIFICATION. ........................................................................................................ 93

FIGURE 4-8 A MODEL OF AN INTEGRATED TRANSPORT CHAIN. ............................................................. 94

FIGURE 4-9 INTEGRATION OF ACTIVITIES SEEN WITH A CHAIN AND TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE ................. 94

FIGURE 4-10 A REFERENCE MODEL SYNTHESISED FROM MODELS TAKING CLASSIC/TECHNICAL,

NETWORK AND CHANNEL/CHAIN PERSPECTIVES............................................................................. 96

FIGURE 5-1 THE RAIL LOADING PROFILES OF SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES. ...................................... 101

xii

FIGURE 5-2 THE INTERMDODAL RAILWAY BASKET CAR. ................................................................... 119

FIGURE 6-1 INTERRELATIONS BETWEEN THE FACTORS INFLUENCING TRAFFIC AND TERMINAL DESIGN.. 125

FIGURE 6-2 THE REFERENCE MODEL GUIDING THE ANALYSIS. ........................................................... 131

FIGURE 8-1 AN ARTISTS IMPRESSION OF A LIGHT-COMBI TERMINAL .................................................. 169

FIGURE 8-2 THE POTENTIAL MARKET OF LIGHT-COMBI. ..................................................................... 172

FIGURE 8-3 LOADING THE FORKLIFT TRUCK ONTO THE LIGHT-COMBI TRAIN OVER THE RAMP. .............. 174

FIGURE 8-4 THE CUSTOMER PILOT DALKULLAN.............................................................................. 175

FIGURE 8-5 AN IMPRESSION OF HOW A CARGOSPRINTER TRAIN IN A LIGHT-COMBI SERVICE. .............. 177

FIGURE 8-6 OPERATIONS OF THE BASIC LIGHT-COMBI NETWORK....................................................... 177

FIGURE 8-7 THREE STEPS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LIGHT-COMBI NETWORK. ............................. 178

FIGURE 8-8 SHORT-COUPLED, LIGHTWEIGHT RAILWAY WAGON.......................................................... 179

FIGURE 8-9 NETWORK MODULES FOR HEAVY-COMBI AND LIGHT-COMBI............................................. 180

FIGURE 8-10 CONNECTIONS BETWEEN HEAVY-COMBI, LIGHT-COMBI AND OTHER NETWORK MODULES .. 181

FIGURE 8-11 CONNECTING SCANDINAVIAN AND CONTINENTAL INTERMODAL FLOWS............................. 183

FIGURE 9-1 EXAMPLE OF A CORRIDOR WITH INTERMEDIATE TERMINALS............................................. 191

FIGURE 9-2 EXAMPLES OF GATEWAYS BETWEEN NATIONAL/REGIONAL NETWORK MODULES

IN A FUTURE EUROPEAN INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM................................................ 194

xiii

TABLE OF TABLES

TABLE 4-1 CONCLUSION OF THE APPLICATION OF CHURCHMANS SYSTEMS APPROACH .................. 84

TABLE 4-2 EXAMPLES OF THE DIFFERENT TRAFFIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES.............................................. 89

TABLE 5-1 WIDTH, LENGTH AND WEIGHT ALLOWED IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES .................................. 101

TABLE 5-2 HAULIERS AND LORRIES OPERATED FOR HIRE OR REWARD ............................................. 108

TABLE 5-3 NUMBER OF NEWLY REGISTERED SEMI-TRAILER TRACTORS AND ARTICULATED LORRIES ... 111

TABLE 6-1 EU FUNDING OF PROGRAMMES AND THEMES RELATED TO INTERMODAL TRANSPORT. ....... 146

TABLE 7-1 VIOLATION OF DEMANDS THUS EXCLUDING TECHNOLOGIES FROM FURTHER EVALUATION.. 159

TABLE 7-2 WEIGHT CRITERION MATRIX .......................................................................................... 161

TABLE 7-3 GRADING OF FULFILMENT OF CRITERIA. ......................................................................... 162

TABLE 7-4 RESULT OF THE EVALUATION......................................................................................... 164

xiv

xv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

This list covers the abbreviations used in this document only, another abbreviation list is found in the attached appendix. Abbreviations used in only one section and for the sake of convenience are not listed.

ACTS Abroll Container Transport System

BR British Rail

CNC Compagnie Nouvelle de Cadres French intermodal operator

DB AG Deutsche Bahn AG German State Railways

DSB Danske Statsbaner Danish State Railways

ECMT European Conference of Ministers of Transport

EFTA European Free Trade Association

EU The European Union (as a political or geographical unit)

ICF Intercontainer-Interfrigo Intermodal operator

IRU International Road Transport Union

ISO International Standardization Organisation

ITU Intermodal Transport Unit (here comprising ISO and domestic containers, swap bodies and semi-trailers)

NS N.V. Nederlandse Spoorwegen National Railways of the Netherlands

PACT Pilot Actions for Combined Transport (European Commission programme)

RSS Roland System Schiene-Strasse

RTD Research, Technological development and Demonstration

SJ Statens Jrnvgar Swedish State Railways

SME Small- or Medium sized Enterprise (by the European Commission defined as a company with less than 250 employees, annual turnover less than ECU 40 million and a balance sheet below ECU 27 million)

SNCF Socit Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais French State Railways

TENs Trans-European Networks

TEU Twenty foot Equvivalent Unit (measurement for container transport)

UIC The International Union of Railways

UIRR Union Internationale des socits de transport combin Rail-Route international union of intermodal operators

VR Valtion Rautatiet Finnish State Railways

1

1 INTRODUCTION

This main document (referred to as the dissertation) should be read together with its de-tached appendix3 named Intermodal Transshipment Technologies An Overview and pref-erably also with the licentiate thesis named Modelling European Combined Transport as an Industrial System, both available in separate bindings from the Department of Transporta-tion and Logistics4.

This introductory chapter contains a background description of what intermodal freight transport is, why it is used and why it is interesting to study as a research object. Then the main research problems and purposes guiding the research are presented and briefly dis-cussed. Method is discussed in general terms together with the used sources of information and how the research issues have been verified. However, following the thoughts behind the outline of the dissertation, each detailed research problem and applicable method is identified, justified and described in detail only when they appear in their proper system context. In the final part of this chapter, some words about the terminology and definitions used are presented together with some reading advice.

1.1 BACKGROUND

In this section, the research object is briefly described together with the reasons for its sig-nificance to science, to society and to industry. The description and conceptual modelling5 of the current European intermodal transport system is gradually deepened throughout the dissertation and its believed future is presented in the introduction of chapters 6 and 7 as well as in the concluding chapter.

1.1.1 What is intermodal freight transport?

The suitability of rail transport for the substantial transport market for high-valued goods is limited by, among other things, the extension of the railway network and the high costs of shunting wagons into private sidings. The high fixed terminal costs and the low variable

3 The detached appendix consists of descriptions of a large number of intermodal transshipment technologies, which are roughly the same as those presented in chapter 4 of the report: WOXENIUS, J. (1998) Inventory of Transshipment Technologies in Intermodal Transport, Study for the International Road Transport Union (IRU), Geneva. Hence, also that report can serve the purpose of being a technical reference to this dissertation. 4 Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, S-412 96 Gteborg, Swe-den. Tel: +46-31-772 1324, Fax: +46-31-772 1337, E-mail: transport@mot.chalmers.se. 5 A conceptual model is here defined as a graphic depiction of a real system presented for the purpose of in-creased understanding of the real system or for defining which part of the system that is under study. A model allowing to be manipulated, normally in a computer environment, is called a working model. If not specified dif-ferently, by model in this dissertation is meant a conceptual model.

2

haulage costs make railways particularly suitable for large-scale transport of heavy goods over long distances.

Road transport, on the other hand, offers accessibility with maintained economy for smaller shipments over short distances. Along with all the advantages of road transport, however, there are also disadvantages in terms of pollution, noise, traffic accidents as well as exces-sive use of energy and land normally referred to as external effects6. For the road trans-port industry, there are also risks of longer transport times, bad timing and limited growth possibilities due to increased road congestion7.

Consequently, a combination of road and rail is a logical step for maintaining flexibility yet decreasing the external effects. However, manual transshipment of part-loads and general cargo between traditional lorries and rail wagons is costly, time-consuming and involves a high risk of damage to the cargo. One way to decrease these problems is to load the goods in strictly standardised Intermodal Transport Units (ITUs), also referred to as unit loads, e.g. containers, semi-trailers or swap bodies, and then transport these units unbroken for as large a part of the distance as possible. This method is called the principle of unit loads8 and the transport arrangement is commonly referred to as intermodal transport. Anyone having experiences from moving knows the benefits of handling boxes marked Chiquita and Multi-copy instead of single household utensils.

A normal container is simply a steel box with standardised measures, construction strength and fastening devices. A swap body is a detachable lorry superstructure equipped with sup-port-legs and a semi-trailer is a lorry trailer with rear wheel axles while the front part is to be hung onto a semi-trailer tractor. By loading the cargo in ITUs, vehicles and vessels can be used more efficiently through fast transshipment and the cargo can be protected from theft and damage. Shippers, shipping lines, railways, freight forwarders and hauliers choose type of ITU considering type of cargo, destination and the organisation of the transport as-signment.

6 In a transportation perspective, the term external effects denotes effects caused by an activity, which cannot be priced in a normal business relationship. The term is commonly used for describing the effects caused by road transport which the society or other road-users suffer from. 7 For basic reading about the positive aspects of using road transport, ABERLE (1993) is suggested, and HANSSON (1996 and 1997) and Kommunikationskommittn (1997) are recommended for reading about the negative aspects. 8 The principle of unit loads is defined by LUMSDEN (1989, freely translated): If possible, goods should be kept together in form of a transport unit adapted to all present vehicles and han-dling equipment. This transport unit should be formed as early as possible in the material flow, preferably at the consignors, and be broken as late as possible, preferably at the consignees.

3

Container Swap body Semi-trailer

Figure 1-1 A container, a swap body and a semi-trailer.

Wagons carrying containers and swap bodies are of a relatively simple flatbed design, while wagons carrying semi-trailers are more complicated in order to keep the combination well underneath bridges and the overhead contact lines.

Flatwagon for ISO-containers and swap bodies

Pocket wagon for semi-trailers

Figure 1-2 Railway wagons for intermodal transport. (Source: SJ Gods, information package, p. 54 and 89).

Containers can be carried on most lorries with flatbed chassis, while swap bodies demand some device to lower the chassis in order to drive under the swap body and lift it, allowing the support-legs to be folded. Semi-trailers are pulled by relatively simple semi-trailer trac-tors.

4

Articulated lorry combination for swap bodies

Side-loader for ISO-containers Semi-trailer tractor

Figure 1-3 Lorries for intermodal transport.

A large number of transshipment technologies have been developed over the last 30 years. Despite this extensive development, the intermodal terminals look rather much the same throughout the world a gantry crane overreaching some railway tracks and lorry driving lanes complemented with large counter-balanced trucks. Large and complicated terminals are needed if they are to handle many different types of ITUs and the costs must be distrib-uted between a large number of transshipments.

Figure 1-4 A reach-stacker and a gantry crane. (Source: UIRR, brochure 1995, p. 6).

In contrast to traditional wagonload rail transport, wagons carrying ITUs are not shunted to private sidings. Sometimes, individual wagons are marshalled between wagonload trains, but wherever there is enough demand, intermodal trains operate directly between trans-

5

shipment terminals. The aim is to avoid marshalling that involves waste of time and money as well as an increased risk of damage.

Rolling highway is a particular form of intermodal transport where complete lorry combi-nations are driven on board low-built railway wagons. The arrangement is today used for overcoming physical barriers such as the Alps and the English Channel, but as many of the costs such as capital costs for the lorry and salary for the driver remain to be borne by the hauliers, it is not regarded as a large-scale future solution for European intermodalism. The low net to tare weight ratio is another restraining factor.

The combination of transportation modes in intermodal transport implies that many actors are involved. The European intermodal market is traditionally divided between companies based upon rail and road transport respectively. Considering regulated monopolies and the historic scope of concessions, the borderlines between market segments have been drawn according to types of ITU and geographical markets. Due to transport policy deregulation in the European Union (EU), this practice is now diminishing.

The classic role of the railway companies has been to sell rail haulage between the inter-modal transshipment terminals. They also operate terminals and supply rail wagons. In ad-dition, the railway companies have owner interests in many of the other companies needed for producing intermodal transport services.

When the container was introduced in shipping during the 1960s the railway companies founded container transport companies in order to offer complementing land transport. In-tercontainer (now Intercontainer-Interfrigo, ICF) was founded for international transport and companies like German Transfracht and French Compagnie Nouvelle de Cadres (CNC) were founded for domestic transport. Swedish State Railways (SJ) formed a special busi-ness unit within its freight division that has later been transformed into the limited company Rail Combi AB. Today, Rail Combi AB is the principal of all intermodal terminals in Swe-den and offers a wide range of intermodal transport services using its own rail wagons. In-ternational transport is offered in co-operation with other companies.

Forwarders and hauliers have formed own national intermodal transport companies such as Kombiverkehr in Germany, Novatrans in France and Swe-Kombi in Sweden. The original purpose of the organisations was to organise the transport services that the road-based transport companies had concessions for. Now in the post-regulation days, they still arrange intermodal services but their role as a strong counterpart to the railways in negotiations9 is

9 Since most hauliers and forwarders are Small- or Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs), they have perceived that need to join forces before approaching the large national railways.

6

increasingly important. The companies co-ordinate their international operations through the organisation UIRR10.

Generally speaking, the ICF and the UIRR companies take a wholesaler role while the na-tional container companies offer door-to-door services. The industrial organisation, how-ever, varies significantly between the European countries.

Together with national container companies, shipping agencies and forwarders control the very important contacts with shippers. In international transport, the forwarders decide whether intermodal transport should be used but the hauliers take a stronger role in domes-tic transport. Generally, the shippers dont specifically demand a special transportation mode (STONE, 1997, p. 3) but companies with an environmental image prefer rail to a greater extent (SJGREN and WOXENIUS, 1994, p. 14)11.

1.1.2 Why studying intermodal transport?

Although it is up to every single researcher to decide what to study, this section aims at mo-tivating the choice of intermodal transport as a research object. The main purpose is to de-fine why it is interesting to the scientific world but arguments for its significance to the so-ciety and to the transport industry are also forwarded.

From my point of view, research on intermodal transport must be motivated beyond its share of todays transport market. Such research can be useful for tackling a wide variety of academic and pedagogical issues concerning transportation. Although it is no aim of this study to generate a general theory12, theories and conceptual models taking intermodal transport into account are often also suitable for analysing simpler transport arrangements. Hence, intermodal transport is useful as a worst case as it includes a multiplicity of ac-tivities, actors, resources and relationships that have to be co-ordinated.

From a general systems analysis point of view, intermodal transportation systems represent phenomena that are regularly treated as systems whereas they are not fulfilling the usual demands of having a systems management, a common goal of all components, resources clearly allocated to one component and a clearly defined system border (see for instance CHURCHMAN, 1979). Studying the dynamics of such systems should be interesting also

10 Union Internationale des socits de transport combin Rail-Route in French, International Union of Inter-modal Operators in English. 11 For further reading about the organisation of European intermodal transport industry, see BUKOLD (1993/a and 1996), STONE (1998) and chapter 4 in the licentiate thesis. 12 The systems approach applied here includes a basic assumption that all systems are unique and the find-ings from studying one system cannot necessarily be generalised to be valid for other systems. Other re-searchers, however, can hopefully use parts of the findings of this research and apply them to their own re-search objects.

7

in a general systems theory context. The technical and organisational complexity of inter-modal transportation systems also justifies studies from a general point of view.

From the viewpoint of society, the European Commission is very clear in its judgement of the significance of intermodal research for supporting the political ambitions of integrating several transportation modes, or more precisely, to utilise environmentally friendly modes to a greater extent13. I share the Commissions opinion of the need for applying a systems approach. The Commission identifies:

the need for new and innovative solutions to improve the performance and limit the harmful economic, social and environmental impact of the Unions present trans-port system. It is no longer possible nor acceptable that the problems of tomorrow are tackled today by the solutions we used yesterday. () Fragmented, unimodal solutions no longer offer scope to solve existing bottlenecks. A holistic and system approach is needed.

(European Commission, 1997/c, p. 29)

The statement is especially important since the European Commission plays a decisive role for the development of intermodal transport, for policy as well as for research funding rea-sons.

Finally, as consultants and non-academic research institutes are accountable for most of the present investigations on intermodal transport, there is a general risk that the investigations are biased regarding the interests of the consultants and their clients, although the investiga-tions are given an objective touch. Under such circumstances it is important that the aca-demic institutions also forward reflections and analyses in the field. It could be argued that also this research effort could be biased due to the fact that SJ has financed most of the studies and that there is no such thing as totally independent researchers. Nevertheless, parts of the research has been financed by road transport14 and shipper15 interests. For ob-vious reasons, I have endeavoured to make my research as objective and unbiased as possi-ble.

13 Roughly, intermodal policies during the 1980s aimed at saving the collapsing rail freight sector and at sus-tainable mobility while the policies of the 1990s focus the productivity and quality benefits of integrating trans-port modes (BUKOLD, 1997, p. 3). 14 The International Road Transport Union (IRU) has financed the descriptive detached appendix, but also the evaluation of small-scale transshipment technologies. 15 The Curt Nicolin CN70 foundation administrated by the International Chamber of Commerce has contributed financially to the analysis on barriers for implementing new pieces of technology in intermodal transport sys-tems.

8

1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEMS

The European intermodal transportation system suffers from a wide range of problems, most of which are directly or indirectly related to the complexity of the system and the large scale in which the services are produced in. The current set of problems is a fruit of the political, commercial and technical history of the system as well as of its current status and ongoing changes in the system environment. Hence, the main research problem is here defined and further described based upon the systems history, the current operational prac-tice and the changing environment of the system. The rendering is quite extensive in order to build the foundation for modelling and analytic efforts in coming chapters.

Problems affecting the production system are emphasised and the perspective is taken from the inside of the intermodal transport industry. The need for intermodal transport as such is here regarded as a postulation given by political bodies frequently asking for an efficient and sustainable transportation system. Since the outline of this dissertation is based upon the hierarchy of system levels (see section 1.6.1), further and narrower research problems are defined and addressed throughout the dissertation.

1.2.1 The cradle of intermodal transport

During the 1950s and 1960s, the transport industry went through sweeping changes on a global scale. From the demand part, the development was mainly induced by the following circumstances16:

International trade increased to such an extent that the worlds main ports would not be able to cope with the huge demand.

Trade had changed from mainly consisting of raw materials to finished or semi-finished products with higher value with demand for packaging, gentle and thief-proof handling.

As trade became less dominated by raw material, port access became less important as localisation factor.

An increased consciousness of capital costs induced demand for faster transportation due to the increased amount of semi-finished and finished goods.

NATO was a very important shipper with large demand for rational transport across the North Atlantic. Besides transport of household utensils for moving personnel, capacity for large-scale deployment of military equipment was needed in case of a crisis in

16 This part of the retrospect on container shipping is the conclusions of a study of the history of containerised transportation (WOXENIUS, 1992).

9

Europe.

and from the supply part:

The ports were situated in city centres and could not be expanded to meet the increased demand on the current sites. The ports of the future also needed easy access to large-scale land infrastructure.

The increased consciousness of capital costs also affected the shipping lines as the ships became larger and more expensive.

The manual stevedoring operations in ports had become so costly that mechanical equipment was a prerequisite for expansion. Also transshipment to land modes had to be made more efficient.

Temporary engagements of many stevedores became troublesome with frequent strikes etc. The ports also had to compete for workers a scarcity in those days by offering full-time employment with job security.

Transport technology had reached such a high level as to the facilitation of a techno-logical shift.

Ships could simply not be built larger with preserved transshipment technology the loading-unloading operation in the port was a bottleneck and the portion of the ships stays in port would increase. Faster ships would also imply larger part of the time spent in ports.

The maritime container was found to be the solution to meet the qualitative and quantitative change in transport demand. It was implemented at a fast pace following the introduction in the 1950s by Sea-Land under Malcom MCLEANs management. With his first generation of container ships modified World War II tankers introduced in 1956 only a restricted number of ports were called and conventional cranes made the container handling an ardu-ous task. The second generation introduced in 1957 employed on-board cranes, adding to cost and limiting stacking volume on deck, but facilitated calls at all ports with equip-ment for moving the containers on the quay. First when many ports had invested in gantry cranes in the late 1960s the time was ready to introduce container ships as we know them today.

10

The actors in international trade, transport companies as well as shippers, saw such great advantages with the container that they, however after long negotiations (KOZMA, inter-view, 1993), could agree upon a container standard and apply it globally17.

Although he was the first to implement it widely, the container was not an invention of Malcom MCLEAN. The concept of using freight containers dates from Roman times but container transport by rail was introduced by the Liverpool & Manchester Railway that used RoRo-containers for the hauling of coal back in 1830. An early form of intermodal transport was introduced by the Birmingham & Darby Railway when transferring contain-ers between rail wagons and horse carriages in 1839. The figure below shows an early in-termodal transshipment.

Figure 1-5 Early use of a gantry crane for transshipment between transportation modes. (Source: DEBOER, 1992, p. 4).

Even the French were early users of the principle of unit loads with their porte-wagons, UFR (Union fer Route) and Kangourou systems (BUKOLD, 1996, pp. 207-208).

Commercial intermodal road-rail transport started comparatively late in Germany although lorries and tanks were moved by rail during World War II as shown in the figure below. However, Germany soon became the leading European country for developing intermodal transport.

17 For further reading about container history, see: MULLER (1995), The TT Club (1996) and WOXENIUS (1992).

11

Figure 1-6 German piggyback-transport (Huckepack-Verkehr in German) shortly after World War II. (Source: Kombiverkehr, marketing brochure, 1991, p. 4).

The greater part of the terminal network in former West Germany was built over a short period of time in line with an ambitious plan launched in September 1967 by Georg LEBER, then the Minister of Transport, and thereby referred to as the Leber plan. The total funding was DM 1 billion (ECU 500 million) of which DM 250 million (ECU 125 million) were made available for investments in intermodal transport technology (BUKOLD, 1996, pp. 258-263). A second political initiative was presented by the German Government in 1978, that declared that the amount of intermodal transport must be increased threefold by 1985 as a consequence of the energy crisis (BAYLISS, 1988). Investment programmes is-sued by the government included DM 980 million (ECU 500 million) 1979-85 and DM 560 million (ECU 290 million) 1986-90.

Furthermore, the German government has been very active in technology development schemes. In the late 1970s, one such scheme helped the emergence of more or less suc-cessful technologies such as the Umschlagfahrzeug Lssig Schwanhusser (ULS), the Ringer System, LogMans Container FTS, the Hochstein System, the Wiesktter System, the DEMAG System and the System Aachen18.

In Sweden, handling equipment for some 40 terminals was bought in the late 1960s. The 13 largest terminals were equipped with gantry cranes capable of lifting all types of ITUs up to a weight of 30 metric tons. Smaller terminals were equipped with fork lift trucks, side-loading trailers19 or smaller cranes that limited the terminals to smaller load units or

18 The systems mentioned are all described in the detached appendix. 19 A side-loading trailer is a transfer equipment mounted on a lorry or semi-trailer which is capable of lifting a container from the ground as well as transferring the container to a rail wagon. For further details, see the de-tached appendix.

12

load units with fork entries. In addition, four harbour terminals for transshipment of semi-trailers and ISO-containers20 between rail and shipping were built.

On a Europe-wide scale, intermodal transport has only been used commercially since the late 1960s. The containerisation of deep sea shipping was very rapid and the railways had to meet a quickly emerged demand for inland transport of containers. This demand stemmed from the changed industrial localisation pattern, as well as from the fact that fewer ports were called at by the larger and faster ships. Furthermore, all European ports did not invest in container cranes immediately upon demand. The railways met the new demand by forming national container companies and a jointly owned company for pan-European rail transport of containers: Intercontainer. Intercontainer has later merged with a similarly organised company, Interfrigo, giving the new name Intercontainer-Interfrigo (ICF) with head office in Basle.

Despite the rapid start of rail traffic with maritime containers, the use of ITUs in inland transport has proved to be more problematic. Compared to road transport, the rail mode can be characterised by its economies of scale. Consequently, the production system for inter-modal transport services was built to exploit these. Through extensive national investment schemes like the Leber plan, a basic European net of large terminals was established over a few years in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. The provided transport services, however, have never been able to attract a substantial amount of freight.

A major reason for the bad competitiveness of intermodal transport are the problems of adapting to the continuous change in demand. After World War II, road transport has been able to adapt to and actually facilitate sweeping changes in the industrial localisation pattern as well as in the demand for transport quality. The railways as well as political bod-ies have hoped for intermodal transport to be able to challenge road transport and keep some freight on the tracks, but the rigidity of the production system and thus the service offer has implied an ever decreasing competitiveness despite far-reaching subventions and to some extent favourable legislation.

Another major reason for the inferior competitiveness is related to the organisational com-plexity (A.T. Kearney, unpublished consultant report, 1989 and the licentiate thesis) that has emerged through political decisions on national monopolies and concessions rather than by evolution through market forces (DE LEIJER, 1992). This has created an industry where conflicts arise between different interest groups (BUKOLD, 1996; WOXENIUS, 1995/b and the licentiate thesis). The large forwarders, who usually have been committed to trans-port by road, and the national railway administrations often have disagreeing interests con-cerning intermodal transport. The different actors have tried to maintain their positions and

20 International Standardization Organisation.

13

prioritised their single-mode operations before intermodal ones. All this has created a com-plicated network of actors with business and ownership relations that is analysed with a his-torical perspective in chapter 4 of the licentiate thesis21.

Starting with the ambitious Leber plan and corresponding initiatives in other countries, politicians have frequently turned their eyes to intermodal transport seeking the solutions of general problems related to road as well as rail transportation. Nevertheless, apart from the success of intermodal transport in conjunction with transocean container shipping, it is quite clear that intermodal transport has not fulfilled the high expectations. Some 30 mil-lion containers pass the European ports annually and 4 million of them are moved by rail to and from the hinterland. An additional 6 million ITUs move in intermodal road-rail ser-vices within Europe each year (STONE, 1997, p. 2 and 1998, p. 30). The positive thing is that politicians do not seem to have been discouraged by the weak results.

1.2.2 Current operational principles

This section contains a description of the intermodal production system with a European22 perspective, which is deeper than the introductory description presented in section 1.1.1. The rendering is partly practical and partly theoretical in character and the outline is based upon the basic functions in intermodal transportation systems, that is the load-carrying function, the transport function and the transshipment function23. This view upon the sys-tem is further deepened in a conceptual model presented in section 4.1.3.

Today, the load-carrying function in intermodal transportation systems is heavily domi-nated by ISO-containers, swap bodies and semi-trailers, although smaller units have been implemented on a small scale24.

The ISO-container is by far the most common ITU and the world container fleet is in the range of 10 million TEUs25 (Containerisation International, 1996). Due to the global agreement to encompass ISO-containers in the transportation systems, such containers are the obvious choice when shipping semi-manufactured and manufactured goods between

21 For further reading about intermodal transport history, see: BUKOLD (1996), DEBOER (1992) and MULLER (1995). 22 A more detailed description of the production system for Swedish domestic intermodal transport is found in an article appended to the licentiate thesis (WOXENIUS, 1994/a). For a Scandinavian perspective to the pro-duction system, see WOXENIUS, 1995/a. For reading about the administrative system, see WOXENIUS (1997/a) and chapter 4 in the licentiate thesis. 23 In addition to these basic functions the operations obviously require a set of complementing administrative functions such as management and information handling, but these are not explicitly treated here. 24 Unit load types are comprehensively described and analysed in their system context in WOXENIUS, et al. (1995/b). For a pure technical rendering, see EURET (1994). 25 Twenty foot Equivalent Unit a volume measurement used, e.g., for describing the capacity of container ships and for container transport statistics.

14

continents. Among the shortcomings of the ISO-container is its non-compatibility with Euro-pallets and its lack of flexibility to RoRo-port operations. ISO-containers are today manufactured in large quantities in newly industrialised countries and sold at very low prices.

The swap body is well suited for intermodal road-rail transport between two fixed locations but when it comes to short repositioning over the road and port operations, its inflexibility due to rather expensive lorries and too weak support-legs is evident. Furthermore, few swap bodies are stackable today. It is also a considerably more expensive unit than the ISO-container, the reason for which is mainly the lack of standardisation that has hampered large-scale production. However, inexpensive swap bodies are now being produced in the Baltic states (HENRIKSSON, interview, 1996) and the prices are thus believed to decrease.

The semi-trailer offers an unsurpassed flexibility in all-road transport and short sea ship-ping (RoRo), but it is nationally registered as an individual vehicle. Furthermore, the chas-sis are expensive and brings dead weight into the intermodal transportation system, giving disadvantages in intermodal road-rail transport and deep sea shipping. The large and heavy semi-trailers also require the use of large cranes, counter-balanced trucks or other large-scale vertical transshipment technologies. Radical technical improvements of intermodal systems are thus hampered by the fact that semi-trailers are difficult to transship horizon-tally underneath the overhead contact line. Moreover, trains densely loaded with containers and swap bodies show much better aerodynamics than those loaded with semi-trailers. The latter is especially important in Europe with fast trains travelling at up to 160 kilometres per hour, also implying problems with curtain-sided units. Hence, the different load units show different suitability in the three transportation modes road, rail and sea transportation.

Depending on geographical conditions, the transport function of European intermodal road-rail transport involves two or three different activities; local road haulage, rail haulage and ferry crossing. Air freight and inland waterways are also used for moving ITUs, but so far on a smaller scale.

Local road haulage is a short delivery or pick-up transport during which the ITU is unbro-ken since the intermodal transport, as it is defined here, stops at the point where the ITU is stripped. The maximum economic road haulage distance differs vastly according to, e.g. type of goods, intermodal and general cargo terminal locations, rail haulage distance and in what direction the haulage is headed26. Typical maximum distances are 50 kilometres for domestic intermodal transport and 200 kilometres for border-crossing ditto (the licentiate

26 The local road haulage part of intermodal transport systems is elaborated by, e.g. MORLOK et al. (1992), MORLOK and SPASOVIC (1994) and NIERAT (1987 and 1995/b).

15

thesis, p. 16). With overnight rail haulage, road distribution takes place in the early morn-ing and loaded ITUs are picked up in the late afternoon and evening.

A leading principle of European railways is to operate passenger trains during the day and freight trains at night. Within reasonable distances, intermodal rail haulage is thus an over-night business and the wagons stay available for loading at terminals during the day. The prioritised traffic design (see section 4.2.1) is direct connection, but secondary flows are handled within the normal wagonload system with its intermediate marshalling operations. If rail haulage can not be arranged overnight, the intermodal transport normally takes an additional 24 hours into account. The UIRR which organises the dominating intermodal transport companies reported an average transport distance (terminal to terminal) of 660 kilometres in domestic traffic and 760 kilometres in international traffic27. For 1994, ICF traditionally active in international business reports an average distance of 834 kilometres for seaport traffic and 1192 kilometres for continental traffi. Once again, the average dis-tances rose in 1994 by 4.8% and 3.8% respectively (ICF, 1995, p. 17). This is obviously alarming, although ICF underlines that the increases emphasise the competitiveness over longer distances rather than market shares being lost to lorries.

Intermodal transport is often referred to as being more successful in the USA than in Europe, but it should be kept in mind that this is not only to be attributed to the efficiency and private ownership of the American railroads. Double-stack trains28 of Union Pacific Railroad Company in the USA have the capacity of 280 pieces of 40-foot containers (HILL, interview, 1993) compared to about 40 in Europe, but the trains in the USA are generally pulled by more than one engine and at a considerably gentler pace. Moreover, the geographic and demographic conditions favour American railroads more than the European railways. The American services are very successful over long distances, but the problems with competing over shorter distances are perhaps worse than in Europe. The shortest com-petitive distance for intermodal services is often stated as 500 miles (800 kilometres) in the USA compared to 500 kilometres in Europe29 . The American intermodal industry, how-ever, is now fighting to re-enter the below 500 mile market (GELLMAN, 1994).

From the road transport companys point of view, a ferry crossing is normally regarded as a part of the railway service. For certain transport relations, however, the ferry crossing is better performed without rail wagons, usually referred to as broken traffic where semi-

27 The figures are notably equal and actually converging. The reasons are the increasing use of long-distance domestic transport in Italy and short-distance yet international rolling highway services (UIRR, 1997, p. 9). 28 The very generous loading profile in the USA facilitates that containers can be stacked two high on rail wag-ons. 29 The shortest distance over which intermodal transportation is competitive depends on a truly wide range of factors, e.g. the demanded transport volumes and transport quality, road and rail infrastructure, general opera-tion principles and transshipment costs. A firm distance can thus only be calculated in a particular case, but the given figures are the most mentioned ones.

16

trailers are lifted off rail wagons in the port and are transported on rubber wheels onto the ferry. Furthermore, ferry lines play a significant role for the planning of timetables.

When intermodal transport is discussed, a lot of attention is paid to the transshipment func-tion. Any change of address of goods is not carried out, but as technology for the load-carrying and transport function is relatively mature, much of the Research, Technological development and Demonstration (RTD) in the intermodal transport area is focused on transshipment technology. The transshipment function is also the distinguishing activity between intermodal transport and single-mode transportation and thus terminal equipment is often used for symbolising intermodal transport.

Today, intermodal transshipment is carried out in a homogeneous manner. As is shown in the detached appendix, technological development is intense, but still the vertical handling principle dominates at the terminals and it will so do for some years to come. The pieces of equipment used are gantry cranes and counter-balanced trucks, chiefly reach-stackers, which are capable of handling all types of standardised ITUs30. Combination spreaders are used as flexible interfaces in order to grip different types of ITUs. Fortuitous ITU in a train set can be handled and storage space for ITUs are normally provided, although storing is normally not needed since trains are available for loading throughout the day. As most con-ventional terminals have a limited track capacity and as gantry cranes and reach-stackers cannot work under the overhead contact line, diesel-powered locomotives are required for shunting31.

Today, there are hundreds of intermodal transshipment terminals throughout Western Europe. An extensive expansion of terminals in the former Eastern bloc is foreseen for the coming decades but in Western Europe there is a trend towards concentration to fewer ter-minals in order to achieve larger economies of scale. Current terminal investments are still mainly focused on classic transshipment technologies32.

1.2.3 The changing environment

Demand for transport services within the EU is clearly increasing due to a higher economic activity, global sourcing and free trade within the EU. In addition, many industrial compa-nies outsource their transport activities to the transport market. This favours intermodal

30 For information on conventional intermodal transshipment equipment, see, e.g. DANIELSSON et al. (1991), EURET (1995), MULLER (1995) and SCHREYER (1996). 31 For research on organisation of operations at terminals, see, e.g. BHRER (1994), KONDRATOWICZ (1993), RUTTEN (1995), SJGREN (1996) and VOGES et al. (1994). 32 As an example, Kalmar LMV, the leading supplier of reach-stackers, delivered its 1000th machine by the end of 1997. The first 500 machines took 10 years to sell while the remaining 500 were sold in only two years (Cargo Systems, 1997/f, p. 10).

17

transport since forwarders and hauliers have better possibilities of using intermodal ser-vices than the industries in-house transport departments. The main reasons are that profes-sional transport companies most often operate on a larger scale and that they are more likely to possess the needed expertise.

Furthermore, if intermodal transport can increase its quality or decrease the price level, large new markets may open up. Increased environmental awareness of consumers can in-duce a substantial lift if the price level is in the same range as for all-road transport. In line with saturation on the roads and in the air, intermodal road-rail transport can also take on a role as the prime alternative for fast transport. Growth in this market niche, however, re-quires a significant increase in service level and organisation, but it also facilitates poten-tially high revenues.

Road transportation is currently very competitive within the EU. Prices are down, service levels are up and deregulation is ahead of rail transportation (STONE, 1997, p. 5). How-ever, hauliers face problems due to congestion, which induces costs and problems to keep agreed service levels, new legislation for the internalisation of external costs and a price level that is not likely to be persistent. Turning to intermodal transport is a viable way of addressing these problems.

Also the railways face problems. EU directive 91/440 on competition and revitalisation of railways (The Official Journal, 1991) forces them to be profitable also in business eco-nomic terms. The presently bad profitability keeps new actors away from entering the in-dustry on a large scale, but pearls have been picked, which has caused the national rail-ways to concentrate on the profitable lines, hence giving up old objectives concerning spa-tial coverage. Wagonload traffic is seriously problematic. On the one hand cancellation of wagonload services means that intermodal transport can win transport volumes, but on the other hand it means that single intermodal wagons cannot be moved by wagonload services on low-flow transport relations. Moreover, increasing intermodal flows at wagonloads ex-pense33 does not fulfil the political goals for intermodal transport and the predatory behav-iour causes frictions within the railways.

Moreover, pressure for better productivity will force the operators to utilise the equipment for more hours each day. In order to realise this, the current operations based upon night-leaps have to be modified. Fortunately, two trends point in the direction of better track ac-cess during daytime for intermodal trains. Firstly, as intermodal transport competes with rapid road haulage, intermodal trains have enjoyed higher priority on the railway lines dur-ing the past few years. Secondly, the extension of the European train network with dedi-

33 BUKOLD (1997, p. 2) asserts that subsidies for intermodal services have caused this cannibalism-effect, but it does not appear in the statistics due to lack of data.

18

cated high-speed tracks will leave more space on existing tracks for freight trains during the day.

New information systems bring about both opportunities and threats. The opportunities lie in decreasing the friction costs involved in combining transportation modes and in the fact that shippers can be made aware of how their cargo is actually moved as well as the envi-ronmental consequences it implies. Extensive information support will also facilitate dy-namic train plans, which is important for close adaptations to a changing market34. A threat is that powerful information systems might enable the actors within the industry to identify the customers of other actors and offer single-mode transportation to these. This might cause actors to refrain from involving other actors in the operations, i.e. they arrange their own door-to-door single-mode services. The development of efficient multi-actor informa-tion systems is vital to intermodal transport, but it is here only specifically treated in WOXENIUS (1997/a).

1.2.4 Small is beautiful?

As stated above, many of the problems that the European intermodal transportation system suffers from are directly or indirectly caused by the complexity of the system and the scale the services are produced on. Researchers, consultants, actors and authorities have made a tremendous effort to identify the problems perhaps even more than to solve them. This analysis of current industrial problems is based upon personal experience and a truly wide variety of sources, of which the most prominent are European Commission (1996/a and 1997/e) and STONE (1997 and 1998).

Intermodal transport is currently competitive and profitable mainly for transport of ISO-containers to and from the main ports and at certain niche markets over very long distances (1000 to 1200 kilometres), for specialised or concentrated flows and for overcoming special geographic difficulties such as the Alps (STONE, 1997, p. 2). The strive towards efficiency has caused the closing down of many intermodal terminals and the former networks are to-day merely restricted to a set of direct connections between large terminals. Turning to op-erations at direct connections drastically decreases the complexity of the system, but still more fragmentation is not a viable solution to the problems of intermodal transport. It will inevitably decrease the potential market and take intermodal transport even further into the niche role it plays today. A fragmented intermodal transportation system will also mainly capture transport volumes, already held by the railways. When total volumes are concerned small is not beautiful!

34 So far, the driving forces for dynamic train plans have been weak. A major reason for this is that the pas-senger traffic that dominates the national railways requires fixed train tables since informing passengers about dynamic departure times is still virtually impossible.

19

The competitiveness of intermodal transport is continuously transferred onto even longer distances, which means increased significance of international transport. The UIRR com-panies report (UIRR, 1997, p. 9) that international traffic has increased from 7 to 20 billion tonkilometre from 1987 to 1996 while domestic traffic has been stable at 7 to 8 billion tonkilometre over the same period. Yet, the demand for transport services is greatest over short domestic distances.

As is obvious from the figure below, the currently addressed market above 500 kilometres is not satisfactory for a substantial modal split from road to rail. The very short distances are not relevant for intermodal transport, but if systems competitive from, say, 200 kilome-tres are introduced, the potential market for intermodal transport will almost be quadrupled. Approaching this market is the only way intermodal transport can fulfil the high expecta-tions from railway companies and society.

Figure 1-7 The transport of goods by road (domestic and international) in the European Community in 1986. (Source: NEA, 1992, p. 47).

The all-pervading problem is thus that intermodal transport is not competitive over short and medium distances where the truly large transport volumes are present. If intermodal transport can be made competitive over shorter distances, it can also be given a larger spa-tial coverage and the potential market of the system can be dramatically increased. When it comes to distances small is beautiful!

The ambitious Leber plan with the following rapid development of the European terminal network is today both a problem and a possibility. The problem lies in the fact that the sys-tem is technologically rigid and uniform rather than flexible and locally adapted. BUKOLD formulates this in cost terms as:

20

Over-sized dinosaur terminals financed by taxpayers money have been built based on unrealistic market information; their high fixed costs now hamper efficient network operation.

BUKOLD (1997, p. 2)

The possibility given by the Leber plan is that the rapid development meant large instant investments in transshipment equipment that now has to be replaced over a relatively short period of time. It is thus a good opportunity for rethinking and redesigning the European intermodal transportation system.

Most of the problems concerning actor co-operation, legislation and pure business hamper-ing the intermodal development point in the same direction: the system is too complex and rigid. This set of problems is not specifically treated in this dissertation35, but they are rec-ognised in the separate analyses to the extent that they influence the development of tech-nologies and operational principles.

It is quite obvious that the technology, the operational principles and the industrial organi-sation of intermodal transportation systems have reached a blind alley. In order to compete with single-mode road transportation, intermodal transport must be able to adapt to the lo-cal and regional demand. This might seem contradictory due to the economies of scale so prevalent in rail transportation, but the trick is to design and implement locally adapted yet interoperable network modules. When the scale of operations and complexity of the system is concerned small is definitely beautiful!

1.2.5 The main research theme

It appears quite clear that intermodal transport must be made competitive over shorter dis-tances than today. The main theme to address in this dissertation is therefore chosen to be:

How can the European intermodal transportation system be developed in order to compete with lorries over medium distances of 200

500 kilometres?

However, before addressing this overriding theme, a more fundamental and theoretical is-sue must be approached. Since the technical and business complexity is identified as the major problem, tools suitable for understanding and explaining these