Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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:
Rojas-Navas, Thoraya, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (email:
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).
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
Page 1
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.
Page 2
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.
Page 3
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.
Page 4
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.
Page 5
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).
Page 6
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).
Page 7
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.
Page 8
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
Page 9
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.
Page 10
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.
Page 11
(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)
Page 12
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.
Page 13
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
Page 14
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
Page 15
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.
Page 16
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.
Page 17
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.
Page 18
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).
Page 19
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)
Page 20
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.
Page 21
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.
Page 22
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.
Page 23
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.
Page 24
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
Page 25
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”.
Page 26
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.
Page 27
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.
Page 28
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
Page 29
Page 30
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
<1% air transport. Whereas pipeline and inland waterway stagnated, we can observe a strong
increase in road and maritime transport and a slight increase in rail transport. Due to the
statistical orientation to modes and not to consignments the intermodal transport share in
Europe can only be estimated:
15% of transported volumes are intermodal transport.
8% of continental transport volumes are intermodal transport.
75 to 80% of intercontinental transport volumes are intermodal transport.
.
Figure 3 Development of transport and GDP 1995-2007 (Source: Eurostat).
In 2007 the freight transport performance in EU 27 was about 4.2 billion ton-kilometers.
Figure 4 Freight demand development 1995-2007 in EU 27 (Source: Eurostat).
Page 31
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).
Page 32
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 derived (Source:
DIOMIS 2006). Austria has a strong automotive supply and automotive industry, but also a
5 The source for this subchapter is ERA-NET Transport (2007).
Page 33
strong sector for railway industry. Some technological highlights of the automotive industry
in Austria are e.g. Diesel engine design, design of all-wheel powertrain systems and the
development of special-purpose vehicles. Austria has as well an enhancing ITS sector –
several ICT firms have a focus on ITS - and a rather small aviation and aerospace industry.
In 2005, the volume of intermodal rail/road traffic in Austria totaled 23.62 million gross tons.
Almost 17.5 million tons or 74 per cent of the total were carried on unaccompanied services
corresponding to an estimated number of 1.66 million TEU. Against the European trend rail
has maintained a high percentage of about 35 per cent of total freight traffic. In 2008 this
number is still at around 32%. 31 per cent of the total volume of rail freight services of 82
million gross tons accounted for intermodal transport, alone 21 per cent for unaccompanied
services. Even more than 50 per cent of the Austrian rail transit has been performed by
unaccompanied intermodal trains. Also remarkable is the relatively high percentage of 14%
for domestic unaccompanied freight transport, as Austria is a relatively small country, with
around 700km width at most. Figure 10 gives an overview on the distribution of the total
Austrian freight flows and their modal split for the year 2005 (Source: Bmvit 2007). Figure 11
shows the percentages of the unaccompanied intermodal transport (UCT) of the total rail
freight per market segment for the same year. This means that of the 30% share of rail
transport in transit freight transport through Austria, a relatively high percentage of 56% were
transported via UCT.
Figure 8 Distribution of freight transport and modal split 2005 (Herry Consult, 2007).
During the recent years this intermodal transport mode saw rather constant growth rates. From
1997 to 2005 it could almost double its volume. In spite of this overall trend the percentage of
domestic intermodal traffic in Austria has remained comparatively small. In 2005, trains
moved 3.12 million tons of goods within Austria corresponding to 13 per cent of the total
volume. Cross-border unaccompanied traffic including transit through Austria, however,
accounted for more than 14 million tons (60.7 %). Compared to most of the other European
countries, a remarkably high percentage of 33.5 per cent of all intermodal transport shipments
were conveyed on unaccompanied transit services through Austria. This shows Austria‟s
outstanding function as a turntable for trans-European freight flows the more as the majority
of the accompanied traffic totaling 6.1 million tons also was a shift of road transit to rail.
Page 34
Table 2 Distribution of freight transport and modal split 2005.
Intermodal freight transport TEU Million gross tons Percentage
Unaccompanied transport 1661600 17,47 74%
Domestic 348900 3,12 13%
International 627700 6,43 27%
Transit 685000 7,92 34%
Accompanied transport 458200 6,15 26%
Total 2119800 23,62 100%
In 2005, more than 154,000 TEU of containers were carried in domestic container hinterland
traffic in Austria. These transports are the pre- or end-haulages by rail preceding or following
an international intermodal journey between a foreign port and a transshipment centre in
Austria. Since many years the German container ports of Hamburg and Bremerhaven by far
are the most important ports for Austria‟s containerized cargo flows. All economic centres
basically are served at least by one daily service. As a result, the domestic container volume
also primarily relies on international services with these ports. Considerably smaller impacts
have container services with the ports of Rotterdam, Koper and Trieste.
In 2005, about 43 % or 1.32 million gross tons of the domestic intermodal traffic volume were
containers shipped via Gateway services. This figure also includes the tonnage conveyed by
another operator, Wiener Lokalbahn (WLB), in this market segment. Continental shipments in
domestic intermodal transport moved 1.8 million gross tons in the year 2005 thus maintaining
a small lead over hinterland traffic. This result also takes account of the shipments conveyed
by Salzburger Lokalbahn (SLB).
Table 3 Domestic unaccompanied intermodal transport volumes in Austria 2005
Domestic Intermodal Transport Market Segments Gross tons % TEU %
Continental Intermodal Transport 1800000 58 % 194470 56 %
Container Hinterland Transport 1320000 42 % 154390 44 %
Total Domestic Intermodal Transport 3120000 100 % 348860 100 %
In order to present a total overview of Intermodal transport in Austria shows the rising trend
for the segments, unaccompanied and accompanied, between 1996 and 2005. No data for
containerized transport is available for 2003 and 2004. Also remarkable is the decline in 2005,
which recovered until 2008. 2009 seems to be hard year for Austrian intermodal transport
with companies and terminals facing declines up to 30% of transport volume.
Figure 9 Intermodal transport in Austria 1996-2005.. Dark blue demarks RoLa and light blue
conventional intermodal transport.
Page 35
3.3.3 Intermodal Freight transport in Germany
In Germany the intermodal market on rail had a transport volume of totally 73.8 million tons
in 2008, of which the vast majority of 89.5 % or 6.0 million TEU had been transported in
container and swap-bodies. The third type of loading unit is the semi-trailer which reached a
volume of 6.9 million tons and a share of 9.4 %. The remaining two links in accompanied
intermodal transport (rolling road or RoLa) gained a volume of 0.9 million tons (share 1.2 %).
Table 4 Freight volumes in Germany.
loading unit unit total domestic export import transit
container swap body total 1,000 consignments 4.223 1.989 874 859 502
road vehicles total
semi-trailer lorry/articulated vehicle
1,000 consignments
1,000 consignments 1,000 consignments
287
253 33
62
62 0
106
78 28
94
88 6
25
25 0
container swap body total 1,000 TEU 6.023 2.810 1.239 1.181 792
intermodal transport total 1,000 t 73.808 29.840 18.705 14.645 10.618
container / swap body total 1,000 t 66.022 28.215 15.765 12.118 9.924
road vehicles total
semi-trailer
lorry/articulated vehicle
1,000 t
1,000 t
1,000 t
7.786
6.934
852
1.625
1.625
0
2.940
2.179
761
2.527
2.436
91
695
695
0
intermodal transport total 1,000 tkm 37.428.605 14.630.784 8.977.903 7.476.516 6.343.403
container / swap body total 1,000 tkm 33.020.581 13.773.002 7.370.500 6.019.129 5.857.950
road vehicles total
semi-trailer
lorry/articulated vehicle
1,000 tkm
1,000 tkm
1,000 tkm
4.408.024
4.026.762
381.263
857.782
857.760
22
1.607.403
1.233.757
373.645
1.457.387
1.449.792
7596
485.453
485.453
0
The intermodal transport volume had been grown in 2008 by +5.2% which is much more than
the total transport market. This growth has been supported mainly by the development of the
container and swap body volume which raised by +9.6% in comparison to 2007. The transport
service increased also by +8.3% in total and by +9.1% regarding container and swap bodies,
which is much better than the total transport market. The growth could be observed especially
on the domestic market with a rate of remarkable +11.9%. Instead cross boarder transport has
almost stagnated in comparison to rates in previous years with 0.6% in export and 2.5% in
import from 2007 to 2008. Also within the year intermodal transport performed much better
than the total rail freight market. The tonnage has increased in all four quarters, even if a
slump could be observed at the end of the year. Referred to transport service the increase in
the first three quarters accounted between 8.5% and 17.1%, while in the last quarter it came
down to 2.1%. Figures given in TEU showed a decrease of -0.2% in the last quarter of the
year 2008 while in December 2008 the decrease had popped up to -13.6%.
On long time scale several different periods of development can be analyzed. Between
founding of market pioneered by Kombiverkehr and Transfracht jointed by Eastern German
DR container transport and the reunification in 1990 the market had been grown almost
continuously. Together with the termination of the state regulated rail freight market in the
GDR also the DR container transport almost disappeared immediately. Kombiverkehr
suffered a longer period of stagnation and almost decline in the 1990th
due to insufficient
service and strong competition after opening of the transport market on the road to Eastern
Europe. Also Transfracht lost its single wagon market in 1996. This depression changed
Page 36
radically with liberalization of the rail freight market introducing new powerful players as
ERS, TX Logistics and Acos and new streamlined shuttle train concepts as KombiNetz 2000+
by Kombiverkehr and Albatros network by Transfracht. A break in the enormous growth
between 2001 and 2007 can already be observed in 2008, changing certainly to a decline in
2009.
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Kombinierter Verkehr Deutschland national
1.0
00
TE
U
Figure 10 German domestic unaccompanied intermodal transport (source: Marlo Consultants)
Germany has by far the biggest domestic intermodal transports reaching about 2.6 million
TEU in 2007, which is about one quarter of the total domestic market in Europe.
3.3.4 Intermodal freight transport in Norway
The Norwegian Railway Freight Company (NSB Gods) made a change in strategy on January
1, 2003. The company abandoned the conventional wagon load traffic and concentrated their
service supply on intermodal transport. There were two basic reasons for the changed
strategy: (1) opportunity to avoid the costly and time-consuming shunting/marshalling and (2)
to change the market role towards the shippers. The change transformed the company into a
supplier of intermodal freight transport to freight forwarders, hauliers and other transport
service providers. Today, Cargo Net offers terminal service and rail operation between
terminals, while the transport service provider supply pre- and - end haulage.
The conventional wagon load transport system was closed except from some services in Mo i
Rana, some car transport and dedicated transport systems for timber and wood chips. These
transports represent around 10 % of the company‟s turnover.
Intermodality in Norway has more or less been on top of the Ministry of Transport‟s political
agenda since the mid 1980s, without great success in regard to a transportation shift towards
rail and sea (Halseth, 2004). The National Transportation Plan 2010-2019 (NTP, 2009)
underlines the national importance of the terminals at Alnabru and Oslo port, and the political
support for increased intermodality with Alnabru as national hub seems unambiguous.
Page 37
The amount of rail freight transport in Norway has shown a rising trend, but the main portion
is still transported on road. The figures show that the total amount of freight transported in
Norway on road, rail and sea has more than doubled since 1965, while transport measured in
ton kilometers has increased by more than three times (Statistics Norway, 2010).
Tonn [mill]
0
100
200
300
400
500
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008
Sjø
Jernbane
Veg
Tonnkilometer [mill]
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008
Sjø
Jernbane
Veg
Figure 11 Million tons transported by road, rail and sea in Norway from 1965 to 2008 (left) and
million tonkms by road, rail and sea from 1965 to 2008.
The intermodal transport strategy from 2002 has almost been a story of success. The volumes
transported has increased by some 10-20 % per year and in 2008 950 000 TEU (10 million
tons) were transported. As a result, intermodal freight has a market share in the major O/D-
relations in Southern Norway of 30-50% and towards Northern Norway of 80%.
The largest terminal, Alnabru, has grown from some 100 000 TEUs years 1997 to 537000
TEUs in 2008. Hence, the terminal is the second largest in Europe. Around 90 % of all
intermodal freight transport in Norway is handled on this terminal and a prognosis indicates
1 000 000 TEU to be handled in 2020. Other major terminals is Bergen (112 000 TEU in
2008), Trondheim (100 000), Stavanger (85 000), Narvik (45 000), Drammen (43 000), Bodø
(38 000) and Kristiansand (25 000).
The frequency of the Norwegian domestic links is 3-7 per working dayand the rail operator
indicates an economic break even distance of 300-400 km if collection and distribution
distances are less than 20-30 km at the terminals.
3.3.5 Intermodal freight transport in Sweden
The freight transport market has increased considerably since 1990 and the growth is expected
to continue due to economic development, structural transformation of the economy and
increasing affairs with the Eastern Asia and other developing countries. The development is
affected by increasing energy prices, but this change affect road and rail transport more than
maritime transport.
Rail transportation has for the last 50 years lost market shares to road transportation, but since
a break point in the early 2000 the freight volumes as well as market shares have increased.
In 2007 the market shares were: sea 37 % (only small fraction inland waterways), rail 20%,
intermodal road-rail transport 4% and road 39% (Swedish Rail Administration, 2008).
3.3.5.1 Intermodal freight demand in Sweden
In Sweden the Swedish Rail Administration began to implement an intermodal terminal
network in the 1960s. The intermodal system did not become an early success, despite hopes.
Page 38
The market for intermodal became stagnant at 2 % market share in the early 1990s (Swedish
Freight Association, 1997). The intermodal operators focused their business on the market for
large volumes over long distances and thus the number of terminals was reduced. 500 kms
was regarded as the break even distance for the intermodal transport in competition with road
transport. The intermodal transport over medium distances and for small and dispersed flows
over medium and long distances were left to hauliers and road forwarders.
Factors that explain the stagnating market is found, not only in the market process, but also in
market organization and in the tacit knowledge of the transport industry. The development of
the intermodal system was not a priority at the market characterized by competition between
the modes rather than being a complementary to the dominating unimodal transport design
(Nelldal et al, 2000). Within the truck industry intermodality was perceived as a something
"the cat dragged in" and the railway administration considered intermodality as a product that
drained volumes from the conventional wagon load system (Woxenius and Bärthel, 2008).
Thus, at the strategic level the Swedish Rail operator SJ Gods, as well as a number of railway
administrations in Europe, realized the opportunity to invest in development and
implementation of new and competitive intermodal transport system. The results of the
ambitions were a number of national trials during the 1990s where the most renowned
example is SJ Light-combi that was established as a pilot customer in 1998. But there was no
concentrated effort on a European or national level to market and implement an innovative
system in large scale (Woxenius, 1998 and Bärthel and Woxenius, 2003) except from Austria
and Switzerland (Rudel, 2002).
Consequently Demker (2000) found that the intermodal transport in Sweden reached a peak
level of around 4.5 to 5.0 million tons and 2.5 billion tonkm in the middle of the 1990s and
concluded that the goal of 10 million tones presented in 1990 was an illusion (ibid.). During
the 1990s however, three important regulative changes occurred. Primarily, the Port of
Gothenburg launched a strategy of a new intermodal shuttles network between the port and its
hinterland as a complement to road transport. Second the rail freight market became entirely
deregulated. Thirdly, the infrastructure fees (track access charges) were reduced by 65 MEuro
per year in 1997. Together, these changes contributed to the strong stepwise development of
intermodal transport in the Nordic countries. Primarily an extensive port hinterland shuttle
network was established to/from the Port of Göteborg and later to/from the Port of
Helsingborg. Secondly, starting in 2007 border crossing shuttles from the Continent to
Southern/Middle Sweden have been established. This has been supplemented by a strategic
intermodal ventures by large shippers as manufacturers as Volvo and wholesalers as COOP.
The intermodal transports have increased slowly from 3.1 million tonnes 1985 (Jensen, 1987)
to 4, 0 million tonnes 2000 (Swedish Rail administration, 2001). After 2000 the intermodal
transports in Sweden have increased significantly to 8, 2 million tonnes in 2007. In figure 7 an
overview of the intermodal freight volumes transported (in tonkm) from 1995 to 2008 is
shown. From stagnant or declining volumes, 1995-2001, volumes of intermodal shipments
have increased by 70% since 2001 and transport work by 107%. The domestic annual
volumes have increased by an average 6% and transport work by 9% per year. Hence, growth
is higher in the border crossing transport, with an annual volume growth of 15% and a growth
in transport work by 22%. Notice the clear break of trend in 2001, affected by the previous
three inducement factors. The market share for intermodal transport was 5% in 2008; hence
the market share has doubled since 1995.
Page 39
Trendbrott
Avreglering
Nya banavgifterDeregulation Break of trendNew infrastrstructure fees
Figure 12 Growth of intermodal freight transport work in Sweden from 1995 to 2008 (Adapted from
SIKA, 2009).
The latest trend in Sweden is shippers investing in intermodal transport, so-called customer-
driven, agent-initiated intermodal transport. Companies that strategically focused on increased
intermodality in the period 2009-2010 include COOP, Intercontainer Scandinavia, LKW
Walter van Dieren and Volvo Logistics, All these players have strategies to use intermodal
transport for a significant part of their freight flows and mainly use semi-trailers as load unit.
Several of these actors indicate that deregulation of railways is an important factor to increase
the share of intermodal transport without the risk of putting all eggs in one basket (Storhagen
et al, 2008, Barthel et al, 2009), but most companies also point out the lack of the top-down
incentives from institutional sources as a barrier to intermodal investments (ibid.).
3.3.5.2 Volumes and break even distances
The market share for intermodal transport in Sweden is 5% (tonkm) and for rails another 20
(Swedish Freight Association, 2009). Rail's market share increases with the transport distance,
but road transport has increased its market share of all transport distance since 1987.
Figure 13 The market share for rail as a function of distance (Swedfreight, 2009).
On the domestic market intermodal transport is competitive to unimodal road transport over
400 km and for transportation in port hinterland relations 180-200 km. Hence, the market for
intermodal transport is limited and if we exclude existing rail and intermodal transport
volumes, a theoretical potential will be 61 million ton over 200 km, 32 million ton over 300
km, 21 million tons over 400 km and 13 million ton over 500 km. The theoretical potential for
significant increase of intermodal transport volumes is thus limited to the market on medium
distances, i.e.200-600 km. Over 600 km requires frequent change of drivers, or scheduled
Page 40
transport planning in order to use the drivers efficiently. Hence intermodal transport is used
on the long distances, except for transports of time scheduled deliveries.
.
Figure 14 The Swedish transport market as a function of transport distance. Sea transport is not
included (Source: Swedfreight, 2009).
3.3.5.3 Estimated future development
SIKA has a government commission to make forecasts for freight transportation and the
previous results were presented in 2005 (SIKA, 2005). The prediction estimated increasing
freight flows of high value products (by weight) by 55%, air freight by 74% and transports of
containers by 100% from 2001 to 2020. The changes for each transport mode were expected
to be: Road +18%, Rail +13%, Sea +20% and Ferry +38%. In the report SIKA point out that
there are some sources of significant errors. The oil/energy prices, costs for infrastructure
investments are two mentioned sources of errors, which affect transportation patterns.
The prognosis was questioned by the Swedish Rail Administration in a memo from 2008. The
Swedish Rail Administration (2008) compared the actual development between 1997 and
2007 with the forecast made by SIKA in 2005. The freight forecast for 2010 assumes an
increase for all modes of transport to be 25% and this is actually close to present development
(until 2007 was +20%). However, if the transport modes are studied separately, large
deviations might be found. In the figure below a trend projection for 2010 based on the years
1997-2007 is presented. The freight volumes of rail are significantly higher than the forecast
for 2010, while for Maritime the projections are good. The increase for road is below the
forecast for 2010. The projections were carried out before the recession in autumn 2008 and
hence before the sharp decline in freight volumes by rail, as well as for the whole transport
sector. The recession hit rail base volumes, the cyclical steel and paper industry, hard, and in
combination with a more stable price structure this led to a sharp downturn. Transport
volumes, except from containers via the Port of Gothenburg, fell by 25-30% (SIKA, 2010),
but has recovered and in Q1 2010 volumes are in line with the volumes before the recession.
Page 41
Figure 15 Trends regarding modal split on the Swedish transport market based on the prognosis
from 1997 (Source: Swedish Rail Administration, 2008).
The studies carried out by VTI / SIKA (for example, SIKA, 2008) differs in general from the
forecasts presented by the Swedish Rail Administration (Wajsman, 2008). The studies differ
mainly on:
The Swedish Rail Administration indicates that there is a significant surface of competition
between the modes, which is contradicted by results presented by VTI/SIKA. The latter
indicates that the modal shift is almost unaffected if the cost structure for a mode is changed.
This is completely inconsistent with Swedish Rail Administration‟s forecasts.
The results also reveal that the Swedish Infrastructure Authorities as well as VTI / SIKA on a
regularly basis underestimated the intermodal development in their forecasts. The
methodologies used do not include functions to depict the significant leaps resulting from
large transfers of shipments from road to intermodal transport solutions. This is clearly
present at the Swedish transport market where large shipping agencies as Maersk, large
shippers as Volvo, COOP, Stora-Enso and large forwarders as Van Dieren is starting to use
intermodal transport on a more strategic and regular basis than the previously.
Hence, the differences should be interpreted that there is a need to include more factors in the
analysis rather than focusing on infrastructure and cost structure as today. One neglected
group of factors is related to the organization of transport chains (transport strategies) and its
effects on the scale operation of intermodal flows. This cannot be modeled and thus not taken
into account in the prognosis.
Page 42
3.3.6 Intermodal freight transport in Switzerland
The modal share (rail, road, intermodal) has been estimated for the year 2003 (Rapp Trans
AG 2008). The result can be seen related to ton-kilometres and tons in the following table:
Figure 16 Modal Share of freight transport in 2003 (Rapp Trans, 2008)
Relating to the freight volume in tons the share of intermodal transport in the year 2003 was
5%. The highest share for intermodal transport is in transit with 40%. The share of intermodal
transport in Import/Export is around 5 to 10%. The share of intermodal transport in Swiss
internal transport is today less than 1 %. The main reason is the short distances in Switzerland
with usually below 250 km. So only in specific cases intermodal transport is used.
Figure 17 Road and rail freight volumes on the network 2000 (ARE)
Relating to the ton-kilometers the share of intermodal transport in the year 2003 was around
18%. The highest share for intermodal transport is in transit with around 45%. The share of
intermodal transport in Import/Export is around 8 to 13%. The share of intermodal transport
in Swiss internal transport is approx. 2 %.
Page 43
Road freight volumes are concentrated on the east-west axes and the biggest volumes are
around the bigger conurbations Zürich, Basel, Berne, Lausanne and Geneva. There are also
increasing transalpine flows using the Gotthard route.
Rail freight volumes are concentrated on the transalpine north-south corridor and on rail
connections to bigger conurbations (Import/Export).
3.3.6.1 Intermodal Import/Export Freight Flows
The most important import/export connections are to the north (Belgium, Netherlands,
Germany). Basel and Aarau do also have connections to the south (Italy). East-West
connections play until today not a big role.
Figure 18 Intermodal Import/Export transport (source: Rapp Trans AG 2007).
3.3.6.2 Intermodal transit freight flows
Since 1981 (opening of the Gotthard road tunnel) rail freight transport increased by 73% from
14.6 Mio tons to 25.3 Mio. tons per year. Whereas the pure rail transport decreased from 12.2
Mio tons in 1981 to 8.2 Mio tons in 2007, intermodal rail transport increased from 2.4 Mio
tons to 17 Mio tons per year. The share of intermodal rail compared to overall rail freight
increased from 15% to 67%. Main reasons for this development are:
Further increasing containerization
Reduction of served private sidings
Reduction of bulk transport
Increasing transport from and to seaports
Higher costs of pure rail transport (if single wagon or wagon group traffic)
Partly higher punctuality in intermodal transport than in pure rail freight transport.
Page 44
Figure 19 Development of Intermodal transit flows by rail (source: www.are.admin.ch).
The distances in intermodal transit through Switzerland is presented in the next figure:
Figure 20 Distances in intermodal transit transport through Switzerland (source: Rapp Trans AG
based on AQGV 2004).
Page 45
Figure 21 Modal share by commodities in transalpine transport (source: Rapp Trans AG based on
AQGV 2004).
In transalpine freight transport through Switzerland the distance classes between 200 and
1200 km are dominating. Especially important are the transports from the seaports in the
Netherlands, Belgium and Germany to northern Italy.
• With increasing transport distance the share of intermodal rail transport is increasing. The
share is between 5 and 85%.
In 2004 35 Mio tons of freight has been transported over the Swiss Alps with the following
distribution to commodity groups and modes:
• Depending on the commodity group the road share is between 5% (oil, mineral op products)
and 75% (Food and feeding-stuff).
• Intermodal rail freight has a high share for machinery, semi and finished products (ca. 55%),
for fertilizer (ca. 40%) and for chemicals (ca. 25%). Relating other commodity groups the
share is below 12%.
3.3.6.3 Inland Intermodal Freight Flows
In Swiss internal intermodal rail transport in 2008 3.1 Mio tons have been transported (Rapp
Trans AG, 2010). 50% of the volumes have been transported on distances below 100 km and
50% have been transported on distances over 100 km. ACTS containers are dominating on
short distances, post containers on medium distances and standard containers on long
distances. Cargo Domino containers are transported over short and medium distances.
Figure 22 Intermodal inland transport 2008 (source: Rapp Trans AG 2010).
The most important commodity groups are chemicals, construction/building materials and
waste transport.
Page 46
The most important Swiss internal transport connections begin or end in Aarau, Härkingen or
Daillens and goes to the south or to the west. Because the statistics is not complete for the
eastern part, there is no complete picture for the Swiss internal intermodal freight flows.
Figure 23 Intermodal inland transport 2008 (source: Rapp Trans AG 2010).
Page 47
3.3.7 Rolling Road in Europe
The share of rolling road on the continent is relatively small and has fluctuated considerably
over the years. In 2009 the rolling road counted for 14% of units transported by members of
UIRR, equivalent to 416 000 vehicles (UIRR, 2010). It is mainly in Austria, Switzerland and
the former Eastern European countries where the concept has penetrated the market supported
by road regulations as ban of trucks on evenings and weekends, closed tunnels or large
government subsidies. The concepts for rolling road has proven difficulties to reach a level of
profitability from a strict business perspective.
Only in former Russian countries, as Finland, and between Katowice and the Ukrainian
border the loading profile allows full trucks to be loaded onto standard flat wagons. In these
countries rolling road is competitive to road transport, especially since the road infrastructure
in the east leaves something to be desired. In all other parts of Europe special low-built rail
wagons need to be used to transport full trucks. .
As mentioned, UIRR-members transported some 416 000 trucks in 2009. A small number of
companies supply Rolling Road service and as shown in figure 4 the service through the Alps
dominate. The supply offered in Austria is operated by Ökombi, a subsidiary of Rail Cargo
Austria, and was implemented in 1983. Eight domestic and border crossing lines are served
in/between Austria and its neighbor countries, transporting 100 000 trucks domestically and
180 000 in border crossing transport in 2009 (UIRR, 2010). Ralpin is a joint venture between
HUPAC, Lötschbergbahn BLS, SBB and Trenitalia operating between Freiburg in Germany,
and Novara, Italy with 20 daily departures (Ralpin, 2008) carrying the 93 000 vehicles in
2009 (UIRR, 2010). Other UIRR members who operates rolling road is Adria-Kombi (15 000
trucks in 2009), Alpe Adria (11 500), Hungarokombi (13 000) and HUPAC (10 000 within
Switzerland).
Figure 5 shows a hump in the statistics from 2000 to 2004. This is mainly due to the closing
of several Tunnels through the Alps during the period. Mont Blanc tunnel was closed as after
a fire in March 1999 and not opened again until three years later. In recent years Rolling Road
has become more or less stagnant.
3.3.7.1 Rolling road in Austria
In Austria, compared to other countries except for Switzerland, accompanied intermodal
transport (RoLa) has maintained a major role for freight traffic. Between 1996 and 2002 RoLa
grew by 96%. In 2005, this market segment accounted for 26 per cent of Austria‟s total
intermodal volume. In that year accompanied traffic was recovering from a sharp decline of
the volume in the previous year, which had been a consequence of two impacts:
The eco-point system, which connected permits for road transit trips through Austria with the
level of the air pollution caused by the road vehicles employed, was suspended. The measure
had limited the number of truck journeys. If road operators wanted to perform more journeys
beyond the allocated quota they had to use rolling highway services as a by-pass solution.
After the enlargement of the European Union in May 2004 road operators established in the
new EC Member States no longer had to use rolling highway services in order to bypass quota
regulations of international road transport. As a consequence Ökombi and Kombiverkehr
Page 48
were forced to stop the Manching-Brennersee rolling highway service, which ranked top in
terms of shipments at that time.
During the year 2005 the market conditions for accompanied transport in Austria started to
improve as a result of, on the one hand, soaring fuel costs for goods vehicles, and, on the
other hand, a restructuring of subsidies of the Austrian government to accompanied
intermodal transport operators. The new scheme enabled Ökombi for example to launch a
new Wörgl-Brennersee service that offers road-comparative prices in spite of the
extraordinarily short distance. Wörgl-Brennersee was one of the two domestic rolling
highway services operated in 2005. The other, the Wels-Villach service, however, had to be
suspended meanwhile. 32,353 road vehicles were shipped on these services, in 2005,
conveying more than 1.1 million gross tons. In addition to that six international services of
accompanied intermodal traffic were supplied. In total almost 200,000 road vehicle journeys
were – partly - shifted from road to rail moving more than 6.1 million gross tons. In the first
half year of 2006 the constraints on international road freight traffic worsened. Fuel costs
continued to rise. In addition a shortage of truck drivers and transport capacity arose that led
to an increase of market price level. Against this background the intermodal operators were
able to intensify the frequency of some rolling highway services to cope with the increased
demand. Owing to that the Wörgl-Brennersee service has almost reached again the weekly
frequency of departures of the previous Manching-Brennersee rolling highway. Altogether the
volume of accompanied intermodal transport in Austria grew by 25 per cent in the first six
months of 2006 compared to the same period in 2005. The RoLa system often has been called
“unnecessary” and sometimes even “dead”, but has also recovered as often. In 2008, more
than 330.000 trucks were transported via the RoLa system in Austria.
Figure 24 Rolling road in Austria (Source: RailCargoAustria).
3.3.7.2 Rolling Road in Sweden
Attempts have been made to use Rolling Road in Sweden but the attempts have failed
depending on two conditions. In Sweden there are no subsidies for rolling road and 25.25
meter long road trains are not suitable to transport on RoLa wagons. Further information is
found in Bärthel (2011/b).
Page 49
Page 50
3.4 Demand side of the core of intermodal freight transportation
Intermodal transport systems demands large volumes to reach a competitive combination of
cost efficiency, transport quality and acceptable environmental features. The magnitude is
related to the frequency demanded by the system‟s customers, i.e. shippers, shipping
companies, forwarders or hauliers.
Sourcing of intermodal transport has traditionally occurred through the processes of market
exchange, where the transport operator (shipping company or rail operator) or its transport
service provider offers the transport service including terminal handling node-to-node (core
intermodal transport). The pre- or end haul is offered by a transport operator, who also
markets the transport door-to-door to the shipper. This approach to co-ordinate and
consolidate consignments is by Jensen (2008) denoted the traditional market based co-
ordination and consolidation mechanism and the major part of the intermodal freight flows are
coordinated and consolidated according to this mechanism.
The research of shippers choices, preferences and attitudes is limited in relation to all research
conducted within the field of passenger transportation (Lundberg, 2006), and thus there are a
number of rather reliable analytical models for passenger transport mode choices, where
choices on individual level is aggregated with a certain accuracy. The freight transport market
is more complex and choices of logistical and transport solutions are not as predictable as the
passenger transport market. One decision maker at one shipper makes an agreement based on
a large number of consignments and transports within a defined time frame with one or more
transport operators. This creates a more complex hierarchy of decisions more difficult to
analyze than the predictable choice within the field of passenger transportation. And thus the
potential for intermodal freight transport is closely linked to the strategic and tactical market
and logistical decisions made by each shipper.
Shippers sending or receiving full ILU:s (10-35 ton) take interest in the system, while
customers sending general cargo typically do not know or care how their shipments or
consignments are transported. Thus, the sole shipper seldom has enough volumes for full
trains between origin and destination, traditionally offered by the transport operator to reach
break-even. Since the normal shipment size is less-than-truck load (LTL) a number of
consignments from different shippers need to be consolidated in the same ILU. ILU:s from
different actors need to be coordinated and consolidated in the same train connection and
finally trains from different origin destination pairs need to be coordinated at dedicated nodes
to maintain market coverage with the prerequisite of acceptable frequency and preserved
economies- of scale in the trains and terminals - a complexity indispensable to handle for the
system designer or system operator.
For the intermodal freight transport customer it is a more complex task to tender an
intermodal transport solution than a unimodal transport service. In Scandinavia logistics
service providers or forwarders offer unimodal transport solutions and only few have
intermodal solutions in the standard portfolio. When a shippers turns to the LSP/forwarder the
shipper is offered a unimodal transport solution. The choice whether go unimodal or
intermodal is decided by the production/operational department at the main actor responsible
for the physical transport (Sommar, 2006). The shippers perceive this hierarchy of decisions
complex to get a hang of and would like an administrative quality leap in the tender process.
“We would just like to make a single phone call” (Storhagen et al, 2008).
Page 51
An important and growing potential for intermodal freight transport depends upon the large
shippers and logistics service providers strategic planning. These actors are either large
multinational manufacturing or trading companies; with large freight flows in wide spread
logistics networks between manufacturing units, and/or distribution units or large logistics
service providers with large flows in international transport networks. The strategic
inducement mechanisms to change to intermodal freight transport is the knowledge of the
increasing congestion, arising environmental and energy problems resulting in relatively more
expensive road transport prices and increased intermodal cost-quality ratio.
The above mentioned actors are large, but each individual actor has normally 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 (Bergqvist, 2007 and
Storhagen et al 2008). This might result in different forms of relationships, partnerships or
consortiums. This phenomenon is denoted customer or agent initiated intermodal freight
transport systems (NL: collaborative hub networks).
The role of shippers in the Scandinavian intermodal freight transport system is largely
determined by the size and frequency of shipments.
The role of the forwarders, sometimes referred to as logistic service provider, is to act as
intermediary in the transaction between the shippers and transport service provider supplying
the physical transport and the transshipment. Forwarders supplying service for specific
demands from a multitude of shippers is denoted by Ohnell and Woxenius (2003) as proxy
customer. This is above all significant in the market for smaller shipments (less-than-truck
load) where the forwarder‟s consolidation terminals and transport system puts the transport
requirements and not the aggregated demands from shippers. Traditionally forwarders
perform activities such as physical and administrative consolidation of small consignments,
documentation, warehousing and supplying ILU:s. Ties to hauliers have traditionally been
very strong for the land transport systems, but increasingly the forwarders adapt a more traffic
mode neutral position.
Forwarders act on different market segments defined by the size of the consignments,
geography and type of ILU. Traditional forwarders, as DHL, Schenker and DSV, have a
history of close connection/relationship with the road hauliers. They use intermodal freight
transport on medium and long distances as a part of their regular service, where the
economical benefits for the hauliers are significant (at least 15-30 %), as reserve capacity, for
back haul of empty units and sometimes on shippers requests. These large forwarders attempt
to offer all types of services, through their wide spread transport and terminal network. This
service include parcels, general cargo, part loads and full truck loads, and the segment have
been characterized by mergers and acquisitions to form larger networks and market coverage
and today the German state is a big player on the Scandinavian market.
It should be noted, though, that there are vast differences in the forwarding role between the
national markets. In Germany, France and Sweden large traditional forwarders dominate
while Dutch forwarders, to a larger extent, have vehicles of their own combining the
forwarding and haulier roles. Italy and Spain have almost as many hauliers as lorries and lack
a forwarding level although the trend is to co-operate in different forms of alliances.
Page 52
Semi-trailer operators as Euroute, GT Spedition and N-Tex usually own semi-trailers and buy
the haulage service from small hauliers, short-sea shipping lines and intermodal operators.
These actors have consolidation terminals, however on a smaller scale than the traditional
forwarders since these actors primarily move part loads and full loads. Geographically, they
often specialize in transport between two countries and co-operate bilaterally with a similarly
focused forwarder.
The business orientation of the swap body operators, as Euroshuttle/Hangartner, is to
transport full loads directly between major industrial areas. The road haul cost of swap bodies
is higher than for semi-trailers and they are less suitable for RoRo shipping, which means that
this segment is most tightly connected to intermodal freight transport. There are large flows
from Scandinavia to Southern Germany, Austria and Italy based on the swap body
technology.
Container shipping lines and their shipping agencies have shown a particular interest in
extending their control to port operations and hinterland transport. Maersk is partner in
intermodal train operators, ERS, specializing on shuttles to and from the big ports; this have
recently emerged on the market in Scandinavia.
Besides information and communication technology (ICT) systems for controlling the flows,
resources controlled by forwarders are mainly general cargo terminals and ILUs.
Page 53
Page 54
3.5 European Intermodal operators
The combination of traffic modes implies that many actors are involved. The intermodal
operators are obviously of particular interest to this study. Under this heading a number of
similarly focused companies are clustered. Their size and scope in terms of range of activities
and controlled resources vary significantly but they share a central feature: they offer
terminal-to-terminal services, i.e. rail haulage and transshipment.
The European intermodal rail transport 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 unit load and geographical markets. Due to transport policy deregulation
in the EU, this practice is now diminishing (Woxenius and Bärthel, 2008).
In these chapters some of the main operators offering terminal-terminal service in a border
crossing network are presented. There are an increasing number of intermodal service
providers emerging on the European transport market. The traditional UIRR and ICF and the
new entrant European Rail Shuttle are presented together with the dominating actors in each
country. There are also other actors as TX Logistics, van Dieren, Hangartner offering border
crossing transport.
3.5.1 Background
The classic role of the railway companies has been to sell rail haulage between intermodal
terminals, to operate terminals and supply rail wagons. In addition, the railway companies
have owner interests in many of the other actor categories needed for producing intermodal
transport services.
When the container was introduced in the shipping industry during the 1960's the national
railway companies founded container transport companies in order to offer complementing
land transport. Intercontainer was founded for border-crossing transport and companies like
Transfracht in Germany and Compagnie Nouvelle de Cadres (CNC) in France were founded
for domestic transport. ICF and the national container companies have their base in the
transport of maritime containers to and from seaports, but they also offer transport of
containers, swap bodies and to some extent semi-trailers between inland terminals.
Forwarders and hauliers formed their own national intermodal transport companies such as
Kombiverkehr in Germany, Novatrans in France and HUPAC in Switzerland. The original
purpose of these organizations was to organize the transport services that the road-based
transport companies had concessions for. In the post-regulation days, they still arrange
intermodal services but due to the fact that most hauliers are Small- or Medium sized
Enterprises (SME:s), their role as a strong counterpart to the railways in negotiations is
significant. This goal is, however, rarely stated since the national railways usually hold a
minority share of the companies. The companies coordinate their international operations
through the organization UIRR, but several UIRR-companies, i.e. HUPAC, have extended the
network through mergers or extending their existing network. Thus there are O/D-relations
where the UIRR companies have overlapping networks.
Page 55
Many actors, not in the least the European Commission, did expect that new entrants would
emerge on the scene and start to offer intermodal services. However, high initial costs, large
economies of scale, lack of worked up market shares and the industry‟s currently low
profitability keep new entrants away. Also the lack of long-term transport policies discourages
private investments. The general trend, though, is that the already active European actors find
new markets or extend their service offers. The present actors have also formed alliances,
such as NDX, TARES and European Rail Shuttle3, in order to get access to critical resources
or worked up shipper contacts. These initiatives all aim for picking the cherries of intermodal
transport, e.g. the large-scale shuttles for transport between container ports and their
hinterland. Hence, such initiatives do not primarily capture market shares from road transport
but from existing intermodal services.
3.5.2 Intermodal Service Providers in Europe
In this chapter the main Intermodal Service providers offering continental (border crossing)
intermodal freight transport within Europe are presented. This description includes actors as
the UIRR developed by forwarders and hauliers within Europe, the Container freight
association ICF and new entrants on the market as European Rail Shuttle. The European Rail
shuttle is just one example of an emerging actor category. Other actors within the same
category are e.g. van Dieren and TX Logistics.
3.5.2.1 UIRR
Forwarders and hauliers formed their own national companies such as CEMAT (1953) in
Italy, Trailstar (1964) in The Netherlands, T.R.W. (1965) in Belgium, Novatrans (1966) in
France, HUPAC (1967) in Switzerland and Kombiverkehr (1969) in Germany (Wenger,
2001). The original purpose of these organizations was to organize the transport services for
which the road-based transport companies had concessions. Like ICF, the UIRR is
restructuring, mainly through mergers and acquisitions within the group and by the inclusion
of members from Eastern Europe. As a consequence of the deregulation of the transport
market, UIRR has changed its statutes and can now represent all independent intermodal
operators in matters like technological harmonization, development of telecommunications
and transport policy issues, also those with national railways as majority shareholders. So far,
these companies are welcome as associated members and CNC got this status in 1998. Today
UIRR has 17 active members and one associated member distributed over countries. The
national UIRR companies are described more in detail in the coming chapter describing the
organization of intermodal transport in the MINT countries.
The geographical business areas do not exactly follow national borders. This is due to
historical reasons since the UIRR has expanded with joint ventures in each national country
and border crossing transport has been arranged through strategic alliances. This has been the
origin of Cemat in Italy, founded by Hupac and Kombiverkehr; and the former Swe-Kombi in
Sweden, founded by Dan-Kombi and Kombiverkehr. Swe-kombi was discontinued in 2002.
The most important objectives for the UIRR, as a co-operation association are to facilitate co-
operation, represent the political interests of the intermodal transport companies and to create
positive publicity. All activities that "end up with an invoice" are subjects of the member
companies. The UIRR is financed by contributions from the member companies. Prices and
arrangements are decided by bilateral agreements between the national UIRR-companies and
Page 56
the railway companies involved. Hence, the national UIRR-companies act as wholesalers of
intermodal transport to forwarders and hauliers.
Table 5 The national UIRR-members.
Country UIRR Company Country UIRR Company
Austria ICA Italy Alpe Adria
Austria Ökombi Italy Cemat
Croatia Crokombi Netherlands HUPAC NV
Czech Republic Bohemia Kombi Poland Polzug
France Naviland Cargo Romania Rocombi
France Novatrans Slovenia Adria Kombi
Germany Kombiverkehr Spain Combiberia
Hungary HungaroKombi Switzerland HUPAC
Switzerland Ralpin
Some UIRR-companies, e.g., Novatrans and Hupac, operate terminals, most own rail wagons
while others, e.g., Swe-Kombi, act as down-right intermediaries. Hence, terminal equipment
and rail wagons are resources of some UIRR companies, but generally the only assets are the
administrative systems controlling the operations.
Based on volumes, the UIRR-family is the largest intermodal operator in Europe. The annual
growth of transport volumes has been 10-15 % since 2000, resulting in a national and
international flow of 4,5 million TEU of which 60% is border crossing transports (78 % of
transport work). The flows within and across the borders of Austria, Germany, France and
Italy embrace 95% of the transport work of UIRR. Average distance is 847 kms for
international flows and 600 for domestic flows. The international average distance has
decreased from 1990 to the beginning of 2000, due to increasing share of short range Rolling
Highway, but has increased significantly during the last decade. Swap bodies and containers
attained 78% of the consignments, semi-trailers only 8% and the Rolling Highway 14%. The
long term tendency clearly shows a significant decrease in number of semi trailers, but
increasing shares of swap bodies and rolling highway.
3.5.2.2 Intercontainer - ICF
ICF, co-operatively owned by European railway companies, is subject to Belgian law,
although the head office is located in Basel, Switzerland. It was established by a group of
national railway companies in 1967. The head office manages marketing, the procurement of
services, certain sales, customer liaison and invoicing, apart from strategic management. For
sales and production control purposes, ICF has representatives in each country of the network.
Comment: On December 2nd
, 2010 the company's stakeholders decided to discontinue with
the company. The effects on the different markets are so far unknown.
Intercontainer was a big player in Intermodal Transport in Europe with around 100 employees
and a turnover of approx. 140 MEuro (ICF, 2009). The transported number of TEU declined 5
% due to the recession to 397 000 TEU with an average transport distance of 1249 kms.
Approx. 50% is maritime traffic (port hinterland traffic) and 50% is continental transport.
The deregulations process in Europe initiated a long time period characterized by uncertainty
within ICF. One of the reasons was the EU regulation prohibiting the border crossing
container transport monopoly held by ICF. Some of ICF‟s owners have also had divergent
plans for the company. As an example Transfracht, subsidiary of DB Schenker, developed
Page 57
towards an equivalent competitor to ICF and hence the company has developed a strategy to
focus on development and operation of intermodal shuttles to and from East Europe (se next
figure). It might be mentioned that for a period there were plans to split ICF into five
geographically separated operational companies. Each one would be transferred to the
corresponding railway companies for the route in question.
Figure 25 ICF Network 2009 (source: www.icfonline.com).
On the maritime market, ICF offers container shuttles to and from the main ports of Europe
and the main customers are shipping lines and shipping agencies. But also here a new
competitive situation has aroused after the establishment of European Rail Shuttle owned by
Maersk. These companies compete for the same volumes.
From a network of block trains and wagon-group connections they changed the network
radically in 2006 towards a shuttle network with dedicated wagon sets. This was done
especially for economical reasons to reduce the yearly losses and to become profitable again.
The core business is long distance unaccompanied rail-road intermodal transport, especially
also to the east and south-east. The most important hub terminal is Sopron in Hungary.
Intercontainer Scandinavia
Intercontainer Scandinavia (ICS) was established in 1993, but it lasted until the year 2001
before ICS, in co-operation with the rail operator TGOJ, could start rail shuttles in port-
hinterland connections to and from the port of Göteborg. The system has expanded gradually
and in 2007 the sales amounted 127 million (-1.5 million). Even the transport volumes have
increased gradually from 70 000 TEU in 2005, 105 000 TEU in 2006 to 150 000 TEU in
2007. During the winter of 2008/09, the traditional container wagons were supplemented
with trailers to transport semi-trailer in certain relationships. Intercontainer Scandinavia acts
as an agent for the domestic flows in Sweden with TGOJ Trafik as rail operator. The
terminals are operated by terminal companies or local/regional hauliers.
The Scandinavian Shuttle Network, presented in the following figure, is based on three main
hubs, Göteborg, Helsingborg and Västerås with spokes to terminals in Borlänge, Eskilstuna
Gävle, Helsingborg, Norrköping, Södertälje. Imports is transported to the consumer areas as
Södertälje, Eskilstuna, Västerås and Norrköping,. The empty containers are repositioned by
Page 58
train to export regions, as Gävle, Norrköping and Borlänge, where the containers are loaded
and finally transported to the Port of Göteborg. The main customer is Maersk, a shipping line
using rail shuttles for 60-80 % of their hinterland shipments to and from the port of Göteborg.
Of course, Maersk have a strong influence on the design of the intermodal network. and their
opinions are largely characterizes the construction of the network. The last extension was the
shuttle between from Göteborg and Vaggeryd. The traffic is conducted through cooperation
between Intercontainer, PGF Hauliers and Logistics Partner Sweden.
During 2008/09 a frequent connection from Helsingborg to Wanne (Germany) was
introduced, thus linking the Scandinavian Network to the European. The link is operated by
Intercontainer Basel and the base volume consists of trailers from the haulier Nils Hansson
and containers from the forwarder Van Dieren Maritime. The capacity is 70 TEU five days a
week with an initial average occupancy of 70-80%. Lead time for the trip is 12-14 hours and
the international rail operator is DB Schenker.
Intercontainer Austria
Intercontainer Austria (ICA) is the Austrian market leader for international container
hinterland services. Most of the services are supplied in partnership with the German
intermodal operator Transfracht. The major gateways to domestic services are the terminals
Enns, Graz, Linz, Salzburg, Villach, Wels and Vienna. By far the largest percentage maintains
the terminal of Salzburg, although Vienna seems to be very close or maybe bigger in 2008.
ICF Switzerland
There are no Swiss internal intermodal connections operated by ICF. Important intermodal
connections from/to Switzerland are: (1) Rotterdam (NL) – Basel and Zurich/Niederglatt
(CH) (Rhine and Limmat Shuttle), (2) Hamburg (DE) – Rekingen and Frenkendorf (Swiss
Hansa Shuttle), (3) Melzo (IT) – Zurich/Niederglatt (CH) (Melzo – Zurich Shuttle), (4)
Wolfurt (AT) – Rekingen (CH) (Austria Shuttle) and (5) Wolfurt (AT) – Frenkendorf (CH)
(Austria Shuttle).
3.5.2.3 European Rail Shuttle (ERS)
European Rail Shuttle (ERS) was established as a joint venture between Maersk Sealand, P &
O Nedlloyd by Railion Benelux rail operator in 2001. The company uses Rotterdam as a hub
in a network linking the port to inland terminals in Germany, Austria, Belgium, Poland,
Hungary, the Czech Republic and Italy. In 2009 the company operated a network of more
than 280 trains per week in Central Europe. In Sweden ERS only operates one dedicated train
for Korsnäs. The transported volume was almost 650 000 TEU in 2008. Volumes in Europe
have been built up in competition with the ICF and Transfracht and a contributing factor has
been the reduction of direct calls to Italian ports.
Page 59
Figure 26 ERS network (Source: ERS).
3.5.3 Supply Side of intermodal transport in Austria
The key actor in Austria‟s domestic intermodal transport is Rail Cargo Austria (RCA), ÖBB‟s
rail freight subsidiary. It fulfils multiple tasks as the provision of rail traction services, the
supply of a rail production system for intermodal transport services, being a intermodal
transport operator and being a intermodal transport terminal operator. In 2008 RCA bought
the Hungarian MAV Cargo and is starting to become a major player in Eastern Europe
(Schmidt 2009).
RCA is not the only, but by far the biggest EVU – “Eisenbahnverkehrsunternehmen” (train
operating company) in Austria. There exist several others (Schauerte 2009), but they are
mostly much smaller and normally only have a very local function. Only two companies are
German based, again two others belong to the ÖBB – the holding of the Austrian railway
system. About 95 per cent of the total domestic intermodal volume in 2005 was carried on
RCA trains. In 2008 this number sank to around 91%, so the other EVUs are gaining market
share (Schauerte 2009).
This production scheme is an “open” system, which, in 2005, has mainly been used by the
intermodal operators Intercontainer Austria, Ökombi and Kombiverkehr but is also available
to other customers, forwarding agents in particular. In this respect Rail Cargo Austria acts as a
intermodal transport operator in its own right. With this production system Rail Cargo Austria
serves both continental shipments and maritime containers in hinterland transport though
domestic container hinterland transport, in the original meaning of the word, is impossible in
Austria owing to the lack of a direct sea access.
Page 60
Figure 27 Left EVUs and right market shares for freight trains in Austria 2008.
Intercontainer Austria (ICA) clearly is the market leader for international container hinterland
services. Most of the services are supplied in partnership with the German intermodal
operator Transfracht. The major gateways to domestic services are the terminals Enns, Graz,
Linz, Salzburg, Villach, Wels and Vienna. By far the largest percentage maintains the
terminal of Salzburg, although Vienna seems to be very close or maybe even bigger in 2008.
Domestically, nearly all maritime containers are conveyed on Rail Cargo Austria„s multi-
purpose domestic trains. A special case is for example a block train service between the
terminals Enns and St. Michael, which is operated by Wiener Lokalbahn (WLB) and is a
dedicated service for one customer operating in the mining industry.
3.5.4 Supply Side of intermodal transport in Germany
Sitting at the crossroads of the European continent and being at the same time the single
biggest market in Europe Germany is logically the strategic location of a number of leading
players in the European intermodal market. Since intermodal transport started in Germany in
1969 two intermodal service providers had dominated the market. These are Kombiverkehr
regarding European transport links and Transfracht regarding container hinterland transport
from the two biggest German ports in Bremerhaven and Hamburg. Since liberalization of the
railway market started to have effects in the market about 15 further operators have grown
significantly mainly on the north-south axis in the hinterland of the German ports and from
Scandinavia to Northern Italy. The biggest competitors in Germany to the established
operators closely linked to Deutsche Bahn AG are boxXpress.de GmbH jointly owned by
Eurogate Intermodal, ERS and TX Logistics, Necoss (Rhenus, EVB, Acos), DHL Freight,
Hellmann, Baltic train (Kali transport) and Pedersen, which does not mean that they do not
make often use of traction service from DB AG. In addition a number of logistic service
providers are starting own links mostly based on company trains transporting goods unusual
to rail like beer. On international links other operators like Hupac, Optimodal, Metrans and
Polzug serve a specific corridor or like Ambrogio and Hangartner serve a limited number of
big costumers. There a two remaining Alpine crossing links for accompanied transport of full
trucks on Rolling Road (RoLa) one from Regensburg harbour served by Ökombi through
Austria and the other from Freiburg (Breisgau) served by Ralpin through Switzerland, both
subsidized by the transferred Alpine states.
3.5.4.1 Intermodal Service Providers
The biggest operator Kombiverkehr, owned to almost half by 230 logistic and transport
service provider and by DB Mobility Logistics AG, concentrating on European cargo
transported in 2008 in their European network a volume of 1,021 Millionen consignments,
just 2 % more than in the previous year. The national portion has accumulated to 6.469
million tons or 3.309 billion tonkilometer.
During 2000 Kombiverkehr introduced a network traffic system, the KombiNetz 2000+ to
offer freight forwarders and hauliers high quality service, between 60 terminals produced by
26 trains. The aim is to provide fast overnight service in Germany and increasing the quality
in gateway service through linking the German national and the international networks,
effective quality management through close co-operation with DB Schenker AG (owning half
of Kombiverkehr) and DB Netz and provide good connections to the ferries to Scandinavia.
Page 61
The second biggest operator is Transfracht, owned half by DB Mobility Logistics AG and by
HHLA Intermodal GmbH, transported about 990.000 TEU in 2008. Its hinterland transport
system of the German ports Bremerhaven and Hamburg is named Albatros Network covering
Germany, Switzerland and Austria. To serve all container terminals in the ports economically
the network is based on the hub at the biggest shunting yard in Europe at Maschen south of
Hamburg. Direct links had been introduced as well where full train volume is available
between a single port terminal and a hinterland terminal, but this has shrunk to just one in the
economical crisis in 2008/2009.
Figure 28 KombiNetz 2000+ (left) and Albatros network DE/AT/CH (right).
As liberalization went into force the market for private container hinterland operators has
grown enormously since 2001. To be named are boxXpress, owned by Eurogate Intermodal
GmbH, European Rail Shuttle and TX Logistics GmbH transporting 381.000 TEU in 2008
and Necoss owned by Rhenus, EVB and Acos transporting 110.176 TEU in 2008. But also
the Neutral Triangle Train NTT operated by Eurogate, Rhenus, ACS and EVB Zeven between
the terminals in the port of Bremerhaven and Hamburg has contributed with 230.517 TEU.
Baltic Train (Kali Transport) links central Germany to the ports transporting 51.000 TEU also
on the spot market as well a Konrad Zippel with 120.000 TEU in 2008. For the purpose of
connecting Central and Eastern European countries to the German ports companies like
Polzug (155.000 TEU), Metrans (456.000 TEU) and CSKD Intrans (138.000 TEU).
A special niche in Germany are train links from inland waterway ports to rail-road-terminals.
Especially Duisburg is serving as a hub between barge connections from Antwerp and
Rotterdam and trains to numerous places in Germany, Poland, Hungary and Austria. A barge
operator has prolonged its reach from Mannheim to Stuttgart and Ulm. The BASF factory is
linked to the DP World terminal Germersheim at the Rhine connecting to barge services to the
ARA ports as the factory has no barge container terminal available at its plant.
Another niche are overnight transport links given priority with a maximum speed of 140 km/h
for some clients like DHL Freight and Hellmann connecting North and South Germany.
Page 62
Conventional trains fully managed by logistic service provider like Ambrogio, Hangartner,
Emons, and Pedersen connect Germany with its neighboring countries.
But in the first quarter of the year 2009 the transport volume of intermodal transport in
Germany had decreased by 18,6 % in terms of tons and 15,8 % in terms of TEU relative to the
same period of the previous year. In comparison the total rail freight volume had a much
higher loss.
3.5.5 The supply side of Intermodal transport in Norway
The intermodal network in Norway is primarily operated by the Cargo Net A/S, but also by
other rail operators as Green Cargo and Hector Rail. The last mentioned offer border crossing
services between Sweden and Norwegian terminals. There is also cooperation between Cargo
Net and TX Logistics, since TX Logistics is not authorized to operate the Norwegian network.
3.5.5.1 Intermodal Service Providers – Cargo Net A/S
Cargo Net, the former Cargo division of the Norwegian Rail Authority, is the largest
intermodal service provider on the Nordic transport market. During 2005 Cargo Net and the
Swedish intermodal operator RailCombi merged and hence the merged operator became a
network wide operator for the Scandinavian intermodal market. The merged company is
owned 55% owned by Norwegian State Railways, NSB, and to 45% by Green Cargo.
The business concept is to promote, produce and develop intermodal transport operators, rail
operators, freight forwarders and logistics companies in domestic and international traffic.
Cargo Net is investing in intermodal transport systems and supply transport with the aim to
provide transport for high value products to meet customers' requirements. The operators
argue that the wagon loads do not meet customer demands for quality and flexibility.
Cargo Net has since the change in strategy shown strong growth with growth rates of 14-20 %
yearly. As a result, the company has a market share of the major relationships in Southern
Norway on 30-50% and in North Norway 80%. The turnover in 2006 was 1 500 MNOK (+27
MNOK). Number of employees has fallen sharply. The company had 860 employees
including 160 in Sweden, in 2008.
The market strategy is to maintain and develop a linked Nordic network and to provide
transport between all major population and industrial centers in the Nordic countries as well
as between Scandinavia and the Continent in alliances with UIRR companies. The aim is not
to compete with shipping rather to focus on transferring freight from road to intermodal
freight through a supply of high quality service offering time quality and frequency. The
target is a supply of at least 2-3 trains on each link, an average speed of 70 km/h and a time
precision of 90% (+/- 15 min). Today, Cargo Net offers domestic intermodal connections with
an average speed of 70 km/h, while the international ones offer an average speed of around 50
km/h. Hence, the exception, the famous international Arctic Rail Express (ARE), has an
average speed of 74 km/h and a time precision of over 90 % (+/- 15). Compared to the 67 %
offered in the border crossing transport from Norway to Germany (+/- 120 min) ARE is an
exception on the European intermodal market. The diverging time windows in the border
crossing transport services is related to international problems, but affects the trust for
intermodal freight transport among all transport service providers using Cargo Net
domestically. Hence, the international service was closed. Nowadays, the carriers use the TT-
Page 63
Line or Cargo Nets connection from Malmö to Duisburg. The lack of quality in Europe is due
to shortage of infrastructural capacity and lack of engine drivers.
Internationally, the company strives towards improved quality of transport through strategic
alliances with the intermodal company Kombiverkehr German and Swiss HUPAC. These
companies are working on similar basis as Cargo Net. For the border crossing transports the
terminal in Malmö is used as a gateway in order to separate the international and the
Scandinavian production system.. Here, the load units are transshipped instead of shunted or
marshaled. A direct connection between Malmo - Duisburg was established in 2005 in
cooperation with Kombiverkehr. The 918 km long stretch cut of 13.5 hours, giving an average
speed of 68 kilometers per hour. Cargo Net indicates that volume growth in the O/D relation
is good. The bulk of the international volumes use Malmo as a gateway and the introduction
of direct train over the Øresund Bridge has been a time saver of around four hours. Previously
the ferries were used as marshalling yards, and it means that companies will save a wagon set
and avoid cross-border management issues. The strategic aim is to increase speed and
reliability in the border crossing transport chains to 70 km/h and with a time precision of over
90 %. This will be done in cooperation with Kombiverkehr and HUPAC.
3.5.6 The supply side of Intermodal transport in Sweden
The supply side of the intermodal freight transport market has 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 ILU and geographical markets (Bukold, 1996). Due to the
deregulation of the transport market in Sweden, this practice is now diminishing.
The classic role of the rail operators has been to sell rail haulage between intermodal
transshipment terminals. They also operate terminals and supply rail wagons. In addition, the
railway companies have owner interests in virtually all of the other actor categories needed
for producing intermodal freight services.
3.5.6.1 Intermodal service providers
In 2002 the Scandinavian markets were dominated by the rail operator Green Cargo and NSB
Gods, complemented by the subsidiary RailCombi as intermodal service provider. Ten years
later the market has changed radically. The market is still dominated by these actors, but the
market shares have decreased from 95 % towards 60 %. Today all former authorities carry all
types of ILUs. The national freight operator n Norway Cargo Net (former NSB Gods) have
merged with the Swedish Intermodal operator, RailCombi, and together they offer intermodal
transport in a network wide scale. Green Cargo has implemented its own intermodal service
and offers this partly in competition with Cargo Net. Today, Hector Rail - a comet in the
industry, should be added.
Green Cargo
The company Green Cargo AB was established in 2000/01 when the national rail operator, the
Swedish State Railways, SJ, was split into several independent companies. Green Cargo,
today one of Sweden's largest Transport and Logistics Companies, has undergone an
extensive structural rationalization and market orientation. The company is continuously
working with its internal and external efficiency and quality to meet customer requirements.
Page 64
Hans Paridon, Green Cargo Road (2008), stated that today‟s domestic rail transport today is
“quality secured”.
The business strategy is to offer competitive logistics solutions meeting high standards of
safety, quality and environment. The goal is, in-house or in strong alliances, to offer and
gradually develop a range of logistics services, i.e. to label the company as a logistics
company who takes full responsibility for customers' logistics activities. The company has
thus ambitions to be a significant player in the transport market or to be able to offer pure
transport services.
The company offers intermodal transportation terminal to terminal and door-to-door in a large
number of O/D-relations. The service is especially designed for smaller flows (block trains),
where the wagons and wagon groups is directed through Green Cargo‟s conventional wagon
load system, i.e. offering a high market coverage, but not as fast lead times as the operator
Cargo Net. A strategy to be an important player on the Swedish transport market for
intermodal transports was established during 2006, but it took until the end of 2007 before the
first major contract with ICA and COOP was signed. The amount of TEUs in 2007 was
170 000.
Hector Rail
Hector Rail was founded in the autumn 2004 with the investment company Höegh Capital
Partners as a financier. The target is to create a network for freight trains between various
destinations in Scandinavian and between Scandinavia and the Continent. The market for the
railway company is freight forwarders and cargo owners with sufficient volume to fill a full
train. Hence the company transfers the risk to fill a train to its customers.
The company's turnover has had a strong growth since its establishment in autumn 2004. A
yearly growth rate of 50% since 2005 has entailed a market share of 6-9 % on the Swedish
Transport Market. Turnover is 300-350 million.
3.5.6.2 New entrants on the Swedish market
Intermodal operators entering the Swedish market has mainly focused on the oversee
container transport segment, but also, increasingly, trailer transport to and from the European
continent. However, there is no actor that offers domestic intermodal door-to-door. There are
clear shortcomings in the intermodal service supply from the road forwarders/hauliers (as DB
Schenker, DHL and DSV) and the rail operator Green Cargo Intermodal supply is focused on
the rail production and not on the door-to-door solutions.
There are several intermodal operators supplying intermodal service and today there are 8-10
rail operators providing rail traction. The newer companies have found niche markets to
transport containers to and from our major ports, but now also cross-border shipments of
semi-trailer and container freight. Hector Rail and ICS are two newcomers who have
challenged the older companies, forcing them to improve cost, quality and support services.
There have been regional companies, as Tågåkeriet and Midcargo, who has a flexible
production organization and can, in close cooperation with customers find logistical solutions
to short and medium-long transport distances.
The growth of intermodal container transport from port to hinterland has been supported by
increased cooperation between local truck operators, terminal operators and smaller railway
Page 65
companies. These companies in cooperation with an intermodal operator have created new
competitive transport products with competitiveness towards road transport down to 150-200
km. The new organizational structure shows that intermodal transport is competitive at the
right organizational structure and with the right tools for marketing. Local cooperation among
equal and regional operators reduces competition and increase opportunities for cooperation.
The difficulty for new players entering the market is to make available terminal slots and
attractive scheduling modes, as this principle is still in the methodology of "grand fathers-
right". New transparent rules have been called for a long time by carriers, transport buyers
and intermodal operators.
Another barrier is the lack of access to modern locomotives (diesel and electric locomotives).
The investment cost of electric locomotives is 25-35 million, which is a huge amount for a
smaller company. To cope with these investments an increased cooperation between transport
buyers - intermodal operators and railway companies would be desirable to provide continuity
and economic opportunities for the railway company to make the right investment with the
goal of a sustainable transport system.
3.5.6.3 Terminal operators
Most terminals are operated by actors, who also maintain other roles, but increasingly by
dedicated terminal operators. In line with the Dry Port concept, local and regional hauliers
have expanded their services to inland terminal handling in a large scale These organizations
consist of local companies operating a single terminal, often with local authorities, rail or
intermodal operators, hauliers and dominant shippers as co-owners.
Location and service supply at intermodal terminals will be critical factors in the future. The
intermodal terminal needs to be developed towards a logistical node where intra-urban and
inter-urban transportation is coordinated. At the terminal local, regional, national and
international consignments are coordinated and consolidated to increase resource utilization in
distribution and long haul activities. Shipments in different distances and transport modes
need to be efficiently cross docked, stored and transshipped. Thus, we have a future planning
problem and to facilitate increased intermodality a joint planning process for increased
efficiency in planning logistical structures and activities is needed.
The way the intermodal freight transport providers approach the shippers varies depending on
whether the service is domestic or international and also on the history and strategies of the
intermodal operators. Green Cargo offer their services to shippers or intermediaries, while the
Cargo Net, the regional shuttle operators and ICS offers their services only to proxy
customers, as the shipping companies and the forwarders. Thus, most of the new entrants
strictly limit their offers to forwarders, shipping agencies and hauliers. On demand, the former
operators offer PPH while the latter ones leave this to their customers. The railways do not
often maintain a forwarding role to offer door-to-door intermodal freight transport.
The deregulation of the Scandinavian intermodal freight transport system has decreased the
implementation barriers for intermodal systems. This problem needs to be handled on a
strategic, tactical as well as operational level including new organization and new forms or
channels for communication between the system‟s stakeholders and users.
On a strategic level an organizational form based on neutral forums has been established on
local and regional levels to increase co-operation and communication between local/regional
Page 66
authorities, transport authorities and transport operators/shippers. This new organization has
other opportunities to discuss and plan infrastructure and development plans through a change
from sequential plans towards parallel development plan.
3.5.6.4 Summary
In the following table the actors offering intermodal freight transport in Sweden is presented.
In the left column the intermodal activities are listed and in the right column the
corresponding resources. The activities offered by each actor, with corresponding resources
are depicted in the table as D for domestic, I for international and SI for international
occasionally.
Page 67
Table 6 The Swedish Intermodal operators and their activities.
Activitie
s/A
cto
rs
Green Cargo Intermodal
Green Cargo Light-combi
Green Cargo Dry Port Shuttles
Cargo Net
Intercontainer Scandinavia
Vänerexpressen/Mälarpendeln
SCT
Svensk Logistik Partner
North Rail
European Rail Shuttle
Euroshuttle/Hangartner
Railion Scandinavia
Hector Rail
TX Logistik
MidCargo
TGOJ Trafik
Tågfrakt AB
RailCare
Tågåkeriet i Bergslagen AB
Port authorities
Regional terminal operators
Private siding terminals (shippers)
Acto
r/Respurc
es
Pre
/End h
aula
ge
DD
DD
DI
Road trs
p e
quip
.
Term
inal T
ranship
ment
DD
DD
/ID
DD
DD
DTerm
inal w
equip
.
Term
inal L
ogis
tics S
ervic
es
DD
DD
LS
- facilitie
s
Term
inal O
pera
tional S
ervic
es
DD
D/I
DD
DD
DTS
equip
ment
Rail h
aula
ge
DD
DI
DI
DI
DD
DD
DTim
e s
lots
Mark
et to
ship
pers
DD
DD
ID
DD
DD
IM
ark
etin
g s
yste
m
Mark
et to
Pro
xy c
usto
mers
DD
DD
/ID
ID
DD
DD
IM
ark
etin
g s
yste
m
Coord
inate
/arra
nge IF
TD
DD
II
Adm
syst fo
r tot IF
T
Coord
inate
/arra
nge C
ore
IFT
DD
DD
/ID
ID
DD
DD
IA
dm
syst fo
r Core
IFT
Supply
ILU
:sD
DI
Unit lo
ads
Supply
Rail w
aggons
DD
DD
/SI
DI
ID
ID
ID
DD
DD
Rail w
aggons
Supply
Rail e
ngin
es
DD
DI
DI
DI
DD
DD
DR
ail e
ngin
es
Launched
2008
1998
2002
1992
1993/2001
1998/2004
2006
2008
2008
2008
1991/2006
2008
2005
2005
1996/2004
1988
2006
1992
1994
2004
Clo
sed
2001
Page 68
3.5.7 The supply side of Intermodal transport in Switzerland
The intermodal market consists of several actors based in Switzerland. The most important
intermodal service providers are HUPAC (based in Chiasso) and ICF (based in Basel). Ralpin
provides Rolling Motorway services. ACTS AG and RhB provide intermodal services using
the roll on/roll off technology or the horizontal transshipment technology. Interregio-Cargo is
a new player which started an intermodal liner train service in summer 2009.
The terminal operation is fragmented. Important terminal operators are Swissterminal AG,
HUPAC, SBB Cargo and RhB. For more regional terminals there are further smaller players.
Pre- and End haulage is mostly carried out by national, regional and local hauliers. Some also
use the intermodal service for some of their consignments (e.g. Hangartner, Bertschi, Drei).
Table 7 Intermodal actors based in Switzerland. (P) = Private Terminal.
HU
PA
C
ICF
SBB
Car
go
BLS
Car
go
Ral
pin
Inte
rreg
io-C
argo
Swis
s Te
rmin
al A
G
AC
TS A
G
SBB
Infr
a
BLS
Infr
a
Rh
B
Han
gart
ner
Ber
tsch
i AG
Gie
zen
dan
ner
Swis
s P
ost
Terz
ag
Terc
o
BM
T A
G
Zin
gg
Eber
har
d
Ern
st A
uto
Tra
nsp
ort
AG
Dre
ier
Leim
bgr
ub
er
Gab
erel
l
Intermodal Service Providor X X (X) X X X X X
Terminal operator X X X X X (P) X (P) X (P) X X X
Railway operator X X X (X) X
Pre- and Endhaulage operator (X) X X X X X X X X X X X
Railway infrastructure managers X X X
Intermodal system suppliers
Because of the free access to the railway network more and more railway operators and
intermodal services providers based in other countries provide intermodal transport through
and from/to Switzerland. The following figure shows the market share in intermodal
transalpine traffic in 2005. 15 intermodal operators provide services for over 60 destinations.
Table 8 Market share in intermodal transalpine transport in 2005 (Source: Rapp Trans 2006).
Page 69
3.5.7.1 HUPAC
The Hupac Group based in Chiasso (Switzerland) is a European wide intermodal operator
with a share capital of 13 million EUR and a turnover of almost 370 million EUR per year
(annual report 2008). The company with over 400 employees operates a shuttle net for
continental and maritime inland services (95% of the turnover) and a Rolling Motorway
Service (5%). Hupac tries to reach best quality with consequent operational optimization.
HUPAC Ltd. was established in 1967 and is owned by 72% by carriers and 28% by railways.
HUPAC runs one of the biggest intermodal networks in Europe. They are partner in the UIRR
(International Union of intermodal road-rail transport companies).
Hupac has established a European intermodal shuttle network and supply its customers with
three alternative services for intermodal transport:
Continental services: terminal-to-terminal transport connections between Europe's
major economic areas.
Maritime inland services: Inland transport from/to ports in the Mediterranean and in the
North Sea additional delivery services, also called maritime land bridge.
Figure 29 HUPAC Intermodal Network 2009 (source: www.hupac.ch).
The core business of HUPAC is the transalpine connections. In the last years they started to
build up new services to the east, to the north and to France. Today there are more than 110
Page 70
trains a day connecting intermodal terminals. The most important hub terminal is Busto
Arsizio close to Milan.
Hupac also offers a Rolling Road service for fast transalpine connections.
HUPAC use mostly its own operated terminals (today 10). At these terminals HUPAC can
handle every type of container which is used in general in intermodal transport. Hupac is
using partly own resources containing railway wagons, main line locomotives and shunting
locomotives. Hupac invests in own resources mainly to be independent.
Important intermodal connections from/to Switzerland are: (1) Antwerpen – Basel/Aarau, (2)
Köln – Aarau and (3) Busto Arsizio – Basel. Important Swiss internal intermodal connections
are; (1) Chiasso – Aarau and (2) Aarau – Visp.
The provision of Rolling Motorway services is politically driven and subsidized. HUPAC
provides a transalpine service from Basel to Lugano.
Figure 30 HUPAC Rolling Motorway Network (source: www.hupac.ch).
3.5.7.2 New Entrants in Switzerland
There are further intermodal services from/to and within Switzerland. Worth to be mentioned
are the following services:
RALPIN, a joint venture between SBB Cargo, Trenitalia, BLS and HUPAC provides daily
Rolling Motorway Services between Freiburg (Germany) and Novarra (Italy).
Another player dealing besides railway and road transport with intermodal transport is
Hangartner. It is a logistics and transport service provider based in Aarau (Switzerland). The
core business in intermodal transport covers north-south connections between Scandinavia,
Finland, Germany, Switzerland and Italy.
SBB Cargo provides intermodal door-to-door services within Switzerland. Operational it is
integrated either in the single wagon load traffic network with 323 delivery points and 32
transshipment points or the express network. At the transshipment points conventional swap
bodies/standard loading units (vertical transshipment with cranes and reach stackers) and/or
Cargo Domino containers (horizontal transshipment equipment) are handled.
Page 71
The ACTS AG provides intermodal services based on the ACTS technology on the normal
gauge railway network. They are not based on shuttle trains but on wagon groups and single
wagon traffic.
The RhB provides intermodal services within the canton of grison based on conventional
swap bodies/standard containers and the ACTS technology on the small gauge railway
network. They are not based on shuttle trains but on wagon groups and single wagon traffic.
They also use mixed passenger and freight trains.
Interregio-Cargo started an east-west intermodal liner train service in summer 2009 between
Felsberg-St. Margrethen-Frauenfeld-Härkingen-Daillens. The loading capacity of the train is
26 TEU. The trains are as fast as passenger trains, which reduces the capacity conflicts on the
network.
3.5.8 Leasing companies
So far most of the rolling stock has been supplied by the rail or intermodal operators, but there
is a clear tendency towards avoiding large investments by using leasing companies offering
engines and wagons. A clearer actor role concerning rail traction is also distinguishable with
many small rail companies, often with a short-line origin..
Page 72
Page 73
3.6 Intermodal terminals and terminal networks
In this chapter the intermodal terminals forming the intermodal networks are presented. Each
presentation begins with a general presentation of the terminal network. This is followed by a
detailed description of the terminals, based on the survey send out within the MINT project.
Finally for some countries a discussion about the accessibility to intermodal transport
supports the general discussion about terminal and terminal networks.
3.6.1 Terminal network in Austria
Intermodal transport in Austria contains transport on inland waterways and transport by rail.
However, intermodal transport on the Danube is a negligible quantity. On the Danube, the
same number of containers is transported per year as are transported on the Rhine everyday.
The Austrian road network has a total length of 106 987 kilometers, thereof 2 050 km can be
considered high level motorways (Bmvit 2007).The Austrian Rail transport network has a
total length of 6.272 km, including 266 tunnels. It is a Hub and spoke network with 8 hubs,
104 feeding nodes and 541 dispatching nodes. Included in this numbers are 17 terminals for
intermodal transport. According to Schmidt (2009), this network allows for more than
280.000 different connections in the above described “Einzelwagenverkehr”-system.
Figure 31 Austrian transport Network; left rail and right road (BMVIT, 2007).
Of course, this number is purely hypothetical. In reality, bottlenecks in the railway system
steer the number of possible trains in the network. The figure from DIOMIS (2006) shows the
Capacity load of Austria‟s rail network caused by domestic intermodal rail/road transport as
predicted for the year 2015. It is very clear to see, that the east-south axis from Vienna to
Villach (and further to Koper or Italy) is nearly unused compared to the east-west or north-
south axis. Of course this is due to demand for transport on this relation, but also to the
bottlenecks of the rail tracks going through part of the Alps.
3.6.1.1 Intermodal terminals in Austria
In Austria there are 17 terminals for intermodal transport, whereas one is only used for RoLa
purposes (Wörgl) and 4 others (Hall, St.Pölten, Lambach and Kapfenberg) are very small and
only have local or regional functions. The picture from Bmvit (2007) shows the location of all
Austrian terminals and their connection to the road and rail network as well as to the Danube.
Page 74
Figure 32 Austrian intermodal terminals
The table below gives a detailed overview on general information, connections to different
intermodal modes in the terminals and their properties as well as services offered.
Table 9 Overview of Austrian terminals
Page 75
Table 10 Terminals in Austria including handling volumes and capacity restraints.
Region Terminal Handling volume Terminal capacity Unit
Kärnten Villach 59200 70000 TEU
Niederösterreich Krems
24600 110000 TEU
St Pölten TEU
Oberösterreich
Linz
326800 617000
TEU
Weelx TEU
Enns TEU
Lambach TEU
Salzburg Salzburg 90000 125000 TEU
Steiermark Graz
125000 190000 TEU
S:t Michaels TEU
Tirol Hall 21200 35000 TEU
Vorarlberg Bludenz
54600 81000 TEU
Wolfurt TEU
Wien Wien Freudenau
159600 176000 TEU
Wien Nordwest TEU
The table above shows the actual handling volumes and capacities (measured in loading units,
not in TEU) of the Austrian terminals on an aggregated level for each federal state of Austria
for the year 2005. Compared with recent numbers we received in 2008 in a field study, the
actual handling volume of all terminals has again risen by at least around 15%.
3.6.1.2 Type of terminal, functions and type of traffic
All considered terminals are connected to the transport modes road and rail, but just four of
them have a connection to an inland waterway. Two terminals are built as through stations,
the others are termini.
The relation of incoming load units by rail in comparison to road is on average at about 60 to
40 percent (given the data of 11 terminals). Comparatively, the modal split in the outgoing
quantities is 70 to 30 percent (valid for the data of 8 terminals). Incoming and outgoing
amounts of load units per ship are in comparison too small to be relevant. The share of Swap
bodies from the total amount of load units amounts to 1 to 5 percent, with exception of two
terminals, which are CCG Cargo Center Graz and the Terminal Wels, with a constituted share
of roughly 25 percent.
Apart from one exception with 250 kilometers, the catchment area of the Austrian terminals
ranks from 100 to 150 kilometers.
The proportion of maritime to continental transport underlies the maximum variability from
100 percent continental to an emergence of nearly 100 percent maritime traffic. This concerns
particularly the three gateway terminals in Salzburg, Wels, and Wien Freudenau, whereas the
last holds the smallest share with 85 percent.
Given the data of eight terminals, the ratio of import from and export to foreign countries is
balanced on the average. Deviations from this exist at two terminals, with about 30 and 60
percent for the opposite focal point respectively.
Page 76
3.6.1.3 Turnover and storage characteristics
According to their yearly amount of turnover, measured by the number of load units and TEU,
the Austrian terminals can be divided into three groups. The first group contains the “big”
terminals, which have a yearly turnover greater than 150.000 TEU. The terminals of
“medium” size transship between 50.000 and 150.000 TEU per year. Characteristically for
terminals in this group is their hub function as distribution center. Therefore they are often
nodes for continental transport and are of regional importance. An annually turnover less than
50.000 TEU denotes terminals of the third group of “small” terminals, with a special
relevance for local transport.
Given the data of only three terminals, the proportion of single wagon traffic in contrast to
block trains varies sizably according to the role of the terminal. The share of single wagons
ranks from 25 up to 75 percent, and it is obvious that gateway terminals hold a congruent high
share of block train traffic.
Upon data availability, the utilization of the turnover capacity is located around 80 to nearly
100 percent.
All terminals except one transship dangerous goods, whereas just two terminals provide
specially designed yards for their storage. These terminals are the ones located in Enns and
Graz. Seven out of the considered terminals operate empty container storage with an average
utilization of 80 to 100 percent. One outlier exhibits a utilization of 30 percent. The total
storage capacities range from 5.400 TEU to the fewest of 400 TEU. A line can be drawn
between a group ranging from 1.500 TEU up to the biggest terminal, and five terminals with a
capacity smaller than 900 TEU.
The relation of the total length of loading tracks to the yearly turnover in TEU lies between
the magnitudes of 0.001 and 0.02, conform to the relation to the turnover capacity.
Two terminals have their storage positioning management system linked to the cranes (not to
Reach Stackers), and three terminals are already planning the implementation of comparative
systems.
3.6.2 Terminals Germany
In Germany there are more than 170 terminals which is the highest density of terminals in any
European country. Nevertheless just a smaller proportion of about 50 terminals are relevant
for the existing intermodal networks as they can provide a minimum level of technical
features appropriate to modern demand. Out of them about 10 terminals can be seen as hub
terminals enabling some type of gateway traffic.
Traditionally all big rail-road terminals, beside those in sea and inland waterway ports, had
been financed as part of the German national railway infrastructure owned by Deutsche
Bundesbahn and managed by its subsidiary DUSS. Since liberalization started and a financial
aid scheme (Förderrichtlinie Umschlaganlagen) had been introduced by the national transport
department BMVBS a growing number of new terminals has been build and are operated
independently from the national railways. A trend has been in the last decade to establish so
called trimodal terminals build in inland ports, but quite a number of them have more rail-
road transshipment than to the water side. Also the first generation of patchwork terminals is
Page 77
going to be substituted by new full train length terminals build from scratch. The amount of
terminal operator has been growing significantly over the years. Within the last year co-
operation is envisaged by some of them especially with sea port terminals being for the later a
strategic decision for sustainable hinterland coverage. Also high capacity terminals are
equipped with catenaries at the end of the loading tracks to enable direct electric traction
while in some hub terminals also rolling in with momentum is allowed.
Numerous research- and development projects have been carried out in Europe in order to
develop and implement new handling techniques. A number of more than 70 technologies
only for horizontal transshipment could be counted (InHoTra 2005). The ideas, system and
techniques originating in Germany are quite a lot, but none of them had been successfully
implemented.
After more than 15 years of discussions an approach to establish a hub and spoke system by
building a mega-hub terminal is ready to be built. The previous concept included a semi-
automatic transshipment train-to-train and the aim is to make even shorter distances with less
transport demand economically feasible. Within the long discussion the terminal became
more conventional and the distances longer.
An ongoing discussion between private terminal operators and the national rail infrastructure
manager DB Netz AG is the appropriate access to the terminal from the rail network. As
infrastructure outside of the terminal is not covered by the financial aid for terminal
investment the construction of new tracks is rather costly and the rail infrastructure manager
do not want to maintain existing tracks which does not cover the costs. Nevertheless terminals
need storage tracks especially if they change from standing to moving train operation due to
higher demand. From the operational point of view access to the terminals are at several
terminals not well arranged. Complicate and time consuming shunting is needed just due to
the insufficient layout of the tracks. In consequence other than long distance point-to-point
connections like liner train service is in most cases economically not feasible. The reason for
such situations can often be found in the terminal location decision based on political interests
ignoring operational consequences. An example is the usage of cheap ground instead of a
location close to the main railway line, so additional shunting has to be taken into the costs of
the intermodal transport.
3.6.3 The intermodal Terminal Network in Scandinavia
During the 60‟s and 70‟s some 30 conventional terminals were established in Sweden. These
terminals were used until the big structural re-organization and market adaptation of the
operators, RailCombi/SJ Cargo, i.e. until the beginning of 1990s (Bärthel and Woxenius,
2002). The number of terminals was constant until 1998. In this process the number of
terminals was reduced to 16, which basically corresponds to the network operated by the
intermodal operator Cargo Net. The aim with a few large terminals connected by a
block/shuttle trains without frequent shunting or marshalling became the single strategy for
intermodal transport companies, infrastructure authorities and shippers, as stated in the report,
Combined transport - report on problems and potentials (Swedish Freight Association, 1997).
The development, aided by the increasing containerization, the expansion of the Gothenburg
Port and the liberalization of the railway sector, shows a strategy with flaws. New
supplementing terminals in combination with new rail and intermodal operators were needed
Page 78
to impel volume growth. Hence, a large number of terminals have been opened since 1998
with the initiative and support from the transport buyers, transporters, and from municipalities
(Bergqvist, 2007, Storhagen et al, 2008) and a large number of projects is planned or in
progress. There are several important explanatory factors for the development. The first is
linked to the deregulation of the Swedish railway industry. The second is the strategic
cooperation between the Port of Gothenburg, local fleet operators, railway operators and
small regional hauliers and their joint contribution to an extensive intermodal port hinterland
network that has proved competitive, relatively road transport at distances down to 150-200
km. Currently, there are about 25 shuttles to/from the port.
In the following table, there are 36 terminals for transshipment between road and rail. The
compilation do not include the major ports as Trelleborg, Gothenburg Port, Port of
Helsingborg, and Norrköping, and a number of terminals, called free loading areas, but
include a major share of the intermodal freight in Sweden. Still it might serve as a good
overview of the historical development in Sweden with two development phases and a
consolidation phase in between.
Table 11 Intermodal terminals in Sweden – development from 1965 to 2010. In the table the
development and consolidation phases are clearly visible. Ports handling load units
intermodal rail-port or rail-road are not included in the summary.
Year Opened
Accumulated
number Closed
1965 Solna Göteborg 2 2
1970 Malmö Örebro Sundsvall 3 5
1971 Göteborg-Skandiahamnen Norrköping 2 7
1972 Luleå Gävle Jönköping Karlstad 4 11
1973 Stockholm-Årsta Nässjö (Jönköping) 2 13
1974 Västerås Helsingborg 2 15
1980 Borlänge Kalmar Skellefteå Umeå 4 19
1981 Trelleborg 1 20
1985/86 Stadsgårdshamnen Värtahamnen 2 22
1987 Halmstad 1 23
1990 Älmhult 1 24
1991 22 2 Karlstad Skellefteå
1992 19 3 Halmstad Kalmar Västerås
1993 19
1994 19
1995 18 1 Stadsgårdshamnen
1996 18
1997 18
1998 Karlstad Linköping Nässjö Finja Halmstad Mölndal 6 24
1999 Åmål Åhus 2 26
2000 26
2001 21 5 Linköping Nässjö Finja Halmstad Mölndal
2002 Insjön 1 22
2003 Eskilstuna Hallsberg Grycksbo 2 23 1 Örebro
2004 Nässjö Falkenberg 2 25
2005 Örebro Västerås 2 27
2006 Sandarne Falköping Motala Haparanda 4 31
2007 Tomteboda 1 32
2008 Vaggeryd Vännäs Stockaryd 3 35
2009 Katrineholm Alvesta 2 36 1 Grycksbo
Closing of intermodal terminals in SwedenOpening intermodal terminals in Sweden
The development of the intermodal transport system in combination with the deregulation of
the intermodal network means that there are now four parallel networks at the Swedish
Intermodal market. First, a large amount of intermodal units are transported in the wagon load
network operated by Green Cargo. Secondly, the domestic intermodal network operated by
Cargo Net where block trains is operated between a defined numbers of terminals. The
domestic volumes have almost stagnated due to the established channels to market and strong
competition from road transport (Bärthel and Cardebring, 2007). Thirdly, there is a network
of shuttles to/from the Ports of Gothenburg and Helsingborg to inland terminals. Finally,
intermodal shuttles for semitrailers are established between South/Middle Sweden region and
the European continent. The border crossing networks is in most cases linked through the
gateways in Gothenburg, Helsingborg, Malmö and Trelleborg.
Page 79
Cargo Net
Midcargo
ICS
TX Logistik
TÅGAB
Tågfrakt
Green Cargo
Hector Rail
Katrineholm
Kristinehamn
Helsingborg
Malmö
Trelleborg
Avesta-Krylbo
Åmål
Karlstad
Älmhult
Jönköping
Södertälje
Göteborg
Uddevalla
Nässjö
Oslo
Örebro
Stockholm
-Årsta
-Tomteboda
GävleBorlänge
Västerås
Norrköping
Hallsberg
Eskilstuna
Ockelbo
Storvik
Arboga
Flen
Mjölby
Hässleholm
Halmstad
Skälebol Laxå
Falköping
Kombioperatörer - Nätverk
Motala
Åhus
Insjön
Kombioperatörer
Värnamo
Rolvsöy
Figure 33 The intermodal network in southern Sweden in 2008 (Source: Updated from Bärthel and
Cardebring 2007).
The Swedish network has changed significantly over the past five years. The number of
relations served has decreased dramatically from 1095 in 1995 to 180 in 2004. The terminals
are connected by shuttle trains in order to create good quality but the transport cost and time-
consuming shunting and marshalling are a problem. The fixed train sets used in both Norway
and Sweden allow for quick turns through slots at four hours and thus a high resource
utilization in the system. Transport times and time accuracy has improved considerably
through the establishment of direct/shuttle trains. A direct/shuttle train has often an average
speed of 75-85 km/h on the rail trunk line, but due to the design of terminals and the need for
shunting/marshalling the average speed decreases significantly. For example, Jönköping -
Stockholm, average speed 49 km/h, could be compared with 86 km/h on the route Göteborg -
Stockholm, Sweden. Less than 10% of shipments are delayed by 30 minutes or more between
Gothenburg and Stockholm..
As stated the number of intermodal terminals has not decreased since the mid-1990s, but the
number of OD-relations served has decreased radically, since the operational philosophy of
the network has changed. The networks are nowadays composed of a number of terminals
connected by shuttles in which the various relations have few or no connections in between.
This limits the potential for intermodal transport for high value products, as the existing
networks do not meet customer demands for geographical accessibility, frequency and time
flexibility. A dense terminal network without heavy investment in heavy handling equipment,
easy entry/exit to terminals without change of engine and a flexible organization in and
around terminals is needed. This means that the traditional roles i.e. how the railway
companies operate terminals and trains as well as road hauliers organize collection and
distribution around the terminals, need to be changed.
The number of terminals in Scandinavia exceeds 65 including free loading areas, private
sidings, regional terminals port terminals and conventional terminals. There are several types
of terminals, where we can identify (1) Port Terminals, (2) Conventional intermodal
terminals, (3) Hub and spoke terminals (4) Gateway terminals, (5) Line Terminals (6) Free
loading areas and (7) industrial sidings. A further distinction can be made based on the
Page 80
following subcategories: (1)if the terminal is national or regional, depending on the services
provided, (2) if the terminals are only inter-modal or multi-purpose, and (3) if the terminals
can be defined as one or double side access terminals. The distinction between these
categories is fluctuating.
Table 12 Intermodal terminals in Sweden.
Conventional Ports Multipurpose Lightcombi Free loading Industrial sidings Under development
Gävle Falkenberg Borlänge Borlänge Gällivare Avesta-Krylbo Bastuträsk
Göteborg Gullbergsvass Gävle Hamn Eskilstuna Halmstad Haparanda Bro Hässleholm
Hallsberg Göteborg Centralharpan Falköping Hässleholm Pieå Bålsta Jönköping/Torsvik
Helsingborg Halmstad Insjön Linköping Skellefteå Hällefors Stockholm-Rosersberg
Jönköping - Ljungarum Helsingborgs Hamn Motala Mölndal Skövde
Lulå Karlshamn Nässjö Nässjö Ånge
Stockholm-Tomteboda Karlstad Sandarna Örnsköldsvik
Stockholm-Årsta Köping Vaggeryd
Sundsvall Lysekil Vännäs
Umeå Norrköping Åmål
Västerås Oskarshamn
Älmhult Oxelösund
Örebro Södertälje
Trelleborg
Uddevalla
Varberg
Västerås
Investment costs for a conventional terminal varies but for an intermodal terminal it is
between 50–500 mkr (5–50 M€). The cost variations are depending on among others the size
of the terminal and the necessary additional investments in the connecting infrastructure. The
handling costs at the terminals and the hauling costs are two factors that explain why
intermodal transports are not competitive at shorter distances. Terminal- and hauling costs
constitutes up to 70% of the total transport costs on short and medium length transport
relations (Bärthel and Woxenius, 2003) and for domestic transports the limit for profitability
is 400-500 km. In conventional terminals loading/unloading cannot be done under the
overhead contact wire. Switching to and from the terminals takes a long time and is normally
needed during inconvenient hours (at 03-04.00) - before the regular shunting operations starts.
The early shunting is either dimensioning shunting resources, or affecting the delivery of time
sensitive shipments as general cargo and other time-critical shipments. Posten Logistics and
DB Schenker also point out the need for short handling times at the intermodal terminals if
intermodal transport should be an alternative to road transport. The time consumption of the
nodes must not exceed the time savings made on the link between terminals.
The organization of the terminals is an important parameter, and here we find the first
difference in the cost structure of port-hinterland relations and the conventional terminals.
Port hinterland shuttles have a flexible organizational structure where local/regional transport
operators takes care of pre and end haulage and terminal handling during normal working
hours. This means increasing opportunities to smooth the flows during the day, and to reduce
staff requirements and avoid overstaffing shifts. It shall be related to the conventional
terminals, where most of the handling at terminals is done between 3:00 to 08:00 and from
16:00 to 10:00 p.m. and where staff cannot be used during daytime.
In Sweden, the land is normally owned by Jernhusen, infrastructure by BV and the terminal
has been driven by the Cargo Net (Conventional terminals). New regional terminals, partly
introduced when new entrants were refused to use the conventional ones, was established
Page 81
through cooperation between hauliers, local authorities and smaller rail companies and have
often shown to be structurally and operationally more efficient than the conventional.
Larger terminals and ports are administrated as open terminals with full time employed
personnel and are supplied with many tracks, portal cranes, trucks, warehouses for containers,
etc. The number of terminals supplied with portal cranes has decreased considerably and
today only the terminals in Gothenburg and Malmö have this equipment. Smaller terminals
are administrated by hauliers either as a strategic operation together with hauling operations
or as a standalone side operation
3.6.3.1 Accessibility to intermodal transport
A closely related factor to the transport mode/solution choice is the accessibility to rail
transport services. The physical accessibility to rail is an important factor and the Swedish
Rail administration (1997) shows that primarily shippers with private sidings used rail freight
transport. According to (Nelldal et al 2007) 55 % of the transported volumes are transported
between a consignor and consignee, both with private sidings, 15 % was intermodal freight
transport, 15 % was transferred on a multimodal terminal at the last 15 % was transported
to/from a port.
There is a genuine interest to increase the market shares for intermodal transport (Jensen et al,
2008), especially within the food and everyday commodity industry (Storhagen et al, 2008). A
severe barrier towards increased intermodal freight transport is the slow-moving rail
operators. “It takes months to get an offer” (Storhagen et al, 2008), if at all, and to get one you
need considerable volumes. There is also a perceived lack of interest in discussing strategic
and tactical development issues, often a requirement for designing competitive intermodal
solutions. Thus there is still a wide gap between the expectations a real practice, but the gap is
gradually diminishing.
3.6.4 Swiss Terminals
The following map shows the most relevant terminals in Switzerland using conventional
vertical transshipment technologies. Some of these terminals also allow to handle the ACTS
or the Cargo Domino system.
Page 82
Figure 34 Terminals in Switzerland (source: Rapp Trans AG, 2010)
Some of the today‟s terminals in Switzerland do not fulfill the todays requirements for
efficient operation because of not train length tracks, access only on one side, lack of storage,
lack of space for parking trucks, insufficient rail and road access etc. New gateway terminals
are planned in the Zurich area and in the Basel area.
In Switzerland there exist about 30 Terminals for intermodal transport, Figure 24 from Rapp
Trans AG (2010) shows the locations of the most relevant terminals in Switzerland using
conventional vertical transshipment technologies (see also annex II). In some of these
terminals also the transshipment by the Cargo Domino and ACTS System is possible.
Terminals with gateway function (also transshipment rail-rail) are Rekingen, Basel/Weil and
Aarau. The Terminal at Güterbahnhof Zurich was closed in December 2009 due to a new rail
access to Zurich main station. The intermodal traffic was shifted to the terminal Niederglatt.
Most of the Swiss intermodal terminals are rail/road terminals. A limited number of terminals
in the Basel area have also access to inland waterway (river of Rhine). The Rhine is the most
important inland waterway in whole Europe connecting Basel with cities in Germany and the
Netherlands and provides access to seaport terminals in Rotterdam.
Most of the terminals are small or medium sized terminals. Only two terminals have a
capacity of more than 100‟000 (loading units) per year (Frauenfeld, Basel/Weil). Another 3
terminals have a capacity between 50‟000 and 100‟000 loading units. The terminals are
usually equipped with gantry cranes or reach stackers which can handle ISO Containers, swap
bodies and in some cases also semi trailers. Most of the terminals have only a limited number
and short railway loading tracks. Only at the terminals Basel/Weil and Renens complete
freight trains (600 m to 750m) can be handled without shunting. Most of the terminals have a
good road and rail access. A broad variety of services is provided in the bigger terminals.
Storage options are usually limited.
The catchment area of the Swiss terminals is usually below 50 km. Only the bigger terminals
which offer frequent services have a catchment area of more than 50 km distance.
Page 83
Many terminals in Switzerland do not fulfill any more the today‟s requirements for an
efficient and high quality transshipment infrastructure. Because of the expected growth of
intermodal transport new terminals and the extension of existing terminals are necessary.
New bigger Gateway Terminals are planned in Zürich-Limmattal (Import/Export flows) and
Basel-Nord (transit flows). From Zurich there will be train connections to regional terminals
in Switzerland. The planning process is ongoing.
Page 84
3.7 Operational structure/philosophies
In order to combine economies of scale and frequency in the rail connections the intermodal
freight transport industry uses a number of operational philosophies as an instrument to design
their networks. These design principles are schematically illustrated in the figure below.
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
Figure 2.1 Network designs for intermodal freight systems: (1) hierarchic network, (2) direct
connection, (3) shuttle train, (4) hub and spoke network and (5) transport corridors
(Source: Woxenius and Bärthel, 2008).
An operational network design consisting of a hierarchic network (D1) forms the foundation
in the traditional wagon load network. The networks are operated with interregional trains
between shunting and marshalling yards. The first part of a transport consists of local/regional
collection of wagon on different private sidings, free loading areas and on terminals. These
wagons are pulled by local or regional feeder trains to a shunting or marshalling yard.
Interregional trains are built at these nodes and thereafter these interregional trains are
directed towards the main nodes of the railway system (hubs or big marshalling yards). At
these hubs new interregional trains bound for a certain destination are built and directed
towards the end region. Finally local or regional feeder trains transport the wagons to the end
terminals, free loading areas or private sidings. In Sweden this kind of operational philosophy
is used by Green Cargo and Hector Rail, in Germany by DB Schenker and in Austria by Rail
Cargo Austria. Especially in Austria the operational philosophy is dominating and Rail Cargo
Austria is operating 1 650 trains on a daily basis and is transporting around 66 million tons.
Economies of scale are clearly present in intermodal transport and since 1990 a large number
of the European intermodal operators have abandoned their wagonload networks and the
development of shuttles or dedicated transport systems. This in order to increase transport
quality (primarily transport time and reliability) as well as economies of scale and high
utilization rate for each train. Hence, the philosophy has changed from D1 to D2 or D3.
The second operational philosophy (D2), direct trains, aims at the market for large flows over
medium and long distances. Direct connections require large flows, 15 000 – 25 000 TEU per
year, for daily departures, which limits this operational philosophy to a small fraction of the
total transport demand. These connections are operated according to the traditional night-leap
philosophy. In Sweden the intermodal operator Cargo Net uses D2, while the company uses
D4 in Norway.
The operational philosophy shuttle trains (D3) is a special application of D2. The distinction
between the philosophies is that D3 is based on fixed formation train sets, while the train sets
in D2 is variable. This creates a basis for cheap and reliable operations since neither cost
Page 85
consuming activities as shunting or marshalling of wagons, nor sophisticated information
systems are needed. The time schedule could easily be adapted to specific shipper needs,
since there are no dependences with connecting trains. D3 is primarily used for intermodal
trains in the system operated by DB Schenker/Kombiverkehr, by Cargo Net in Norway, in the
port-hinterland shuttle systems and in the transport corridors between Sweden and Germany.
In the fourth operational philosophy a centralized terminal is selected as a hub and all
transports are directed through this hub. At the hub the wagons are marshaled or bundled
between the all train connections. The advantage is good market coverage despite insufficient
transport volumes for direct trains between the origin and destination terminals. The D4 has
been used by Intercontainer and is still used by Cargo Net in Norway. This latter network is
operated by fixed formation train sets with a frequency of 2-7 departures per day between the
hub terminal and twelve conventional intermodal terminals. The hub Alnabru is the second
largest terminal in Europe with an annual volume of 600 000 TEU:s. It might be mentioned
that only 10 % of the volumes transported in Norway is short circuited and thus not
transferred, bundled or handled at the Alnabru terminal. In Sweden Intercontainer uses a
combination of D2 and D4 in their intermodal network.
The fifth operational philosophy is denoted corridor/route network or line train system (D5).
The intermodal trains make short stops at terminals along a corridor according to a tight and
précis time schedule and thus cover the intermediate markets. Transfer time must be kept at
minimum at the intermediate terminals not to prolong the total transport time from begin to
end terminal. This operational philosophy is designed for dual transport markets – for
dispersed freight flows over medium and long distances and for more dense flows over short
distances. 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.
Finally, the intermodal networks contains gateway Terminals. These terminals are used to
connect two or more networks, either through direct routing or through a related high-
frequency link between the gateway for terminal network A and the gateway for terminal
network B. Freight flows from region A are coordinated at gateway A to a long distance
transport to gateway B. Once in region B this train is deconsolidated and the wagons are
spread in the network B. A gateway might be a port or a terminal with extensive train-train
transshipments. What distinguishes a gateway terminal from the conventional consolidation
forms for rail is the extensive use of train-train bundling instead of marshalling. Hence the
wagon resources for the different networks are often separated.
Page 86
3.8 The production system
The intermodal transport chains consist of a subsequent use of different transport modes
linked by the integration transshipment function. In the figure below a general production
system for intermodal transport is depicted, i.e. showing the functions; (1) road transport (pre-
and post/end haulage), (2) terminal transshipment, (3) gateway bundling and (4) main haul
rail transport.
In this chapter the intermodal transport functions road, transshipment (terminal) and rail is
presented. The chapter begins with a description of the road transport function focusing on the
regulations affecting the pre- and end-haulage as well as the competition between unimodal
road and intermodal freight transport. In the second subchapter the rail transport resources and
rail operational structure is presented. The third subchapter contains a presentation of the
terminals in each country. The chapter is ended by a presentation of innovative intermodal
technologies developed and/or implemented in each MINT country.
Figure 35 Production System for Intermodal Transport (source: SPINALP Manual 2009).
3.8.1 Road transport system
The regulation regarding road vehicle dimensions differ between the MINT countries. In this
chapter the regulations regarding dimensions are compared between the Nordic countries and
the general regulations of the European Union (18.75 meters and 40 tons). In Sweden and
Finland longer and heavier trucks are allowed (25.25 meters and 60 tons), in Norway heavier
(18.75 meters and 50 tons) to compare with the EU 18.75 standard. Pilot actions with longer
trucks are also implemented in the Netherlands and Denmark. In Sweden tests for 32 meters
and 80 tons are tested in pilot actions for short haul container transport port-hinterland for
Volvo Logistics and for wood transport for the forest industry.
The vehicle dimensions in the European Union are in general limited by a gross weight of 40
tons and a maximum length of 18.75 meters. The length load carrying unit is restricted to 16.4
meters resulting in an effective loading length of 15.65 meters since 2.35 m is dedicated for
the cabin and 0.75 m for the clutch. The aim of the regulation is to avoid mobility problems in
urban areas.
The maximum weight is restricted to 40 tones if the road train consists of a 2-axle tractor with
a 3-axle semitrailer. According to EU rules a gross weight of 44 tons for a 3-axle tractor unit
with 3-axle semi-trailer carrying intermodal freight carriers is allowed. Hence, this allows an
Page 87
ISO container with 30 tons gross weight to be transported. The same combination of vehicles
with Swedish regulations might weight 50 tons.
In Sweden and Finland longer and heavier trucks or road trains have been allowed for
decades. In Finland the maximum length was 22 meters and in Sweden 24 meters until 1997.
When Sweden entered the EU in 1997 the differing dimensions of road vehicles raised a
discussion within the EU. Based on a proposal from the Swedish government dated August 1,
1997, a new modular system, Class Transport System (TCS - now the European Modular
System) was introduced in Sweden and Finland. This gave foreign hauliers the ability to adapt
their vehicles to the Swedish standard by combining standard dimensions on vehicles.
The TCS/EMS concept refers to road vehicle combinations with a maximum length of 25.25
meters based on combinations of road vehicles and load units complying with Directive
96/53/EC. This directive stipulates a maximum loading length of a road vehicle, except a
trailer or semitrailer, of 7.82 meters. If the EMS road train is longer than 24 meters it needs to
be maneuverable in concentric circles with an outer radius of 12.5 meters and an inner circle
of 2 meters. Further, an EMS combination is not allowed to be higher than 4.0 meters (EU's
height limit)6 and finally the directive stipulates that the combinations should be equipped
with ABS brakes and with clutches in accordance with Directive (94/20/EC). One advantage,
often mentioned, is the interoperability between the EMS concept and intermodal transport,
since both are based on intermodal loading unit dimensions. Further, compared to a 24 meters
road train an EMS road train increases the loading length with 7-8 %, but have a higher
energy consumption and higher maintenance costs than the traditional road trains of 24
meters.
Figure 36 Existing and proposed intermodal road transport concepts on the European market. The
upper two are allowed in all Europe and the third EMS-concept is allowed in Sweden and
Finland (length: 25,25 m). Abbreviations: lastvikt = pay load, lastytelängd = loading
length, lastvolym = loading volume, and pallplatser = capacity (number of Euro pallets).
Sweden allows longer and heavier vehicles than most European countries and the changes in
the Swedish regulation have significantly increased the competitiveness of road transport.
Changes in the regulation in 1989 and 1993 increased the payload by 27 % and in 2008 the
6 The height restriction in Sweden is 4.5 meters (infrastructural restriction) for other road trains.
Page 88
average road transport cost was 1.3 Euro per km, including loading and unloading (VTI,
2007). An analysis of the difference between EU-vehicles and EMS vehicles show a cost
difference of 17-20 % per tonkm (Backman and Nordstrom, 2002, Nelldal et al, 2000, VTI,
2007) in favor for EMS.
3.8.2 Rail transport system
The resources in rail transport system include rail engines and rail wagons. In this chapter the
dominating rail engines and wagons on the European and Scandinavian market are presented.
The wagons are separated between flat wagons and wagons for transport of semitrailers.
3.8.2.1 Rail engines
The fleet of locomotives was due to the stagnation for rail transport in the 1990s for a long
time period stable, but since 2005 there are signs of strategies to renew the locomotive fleets.
But still the fleets are composed by standard locomotives developed and produced during the
period 1970-1990. For the Swedish market the fleet is still composed by standard design
locomotives class Rc, Ma, and E116. In the last few years some modern locomotives had been
introduced in Swedish intermodal trains, like Siemens 441, EG3100 and Bombardiers BR185.
As explained in the coming chapters the terminals are designed with terminal interfaces
requiring shunting from the shunting yards to the terminal. These shunting operations are
carried out by large or medium sized diesel locomotives. Just a few terminals, are designed to
allow electric locomotives to be used both by departure and arrival for shunting of wagons to
and from the terminal area.
In Germany Deutsche Bahn AG had been the traditional traction provider with diesel shunting
locomotives serving the loading track and electric locomotives running on the long haul, some
of them quite outdated from the former Deutsche Bundesbahn and Deutsche Reichsbahn.
Traction planning has been determined by operational demands resulting in various
locomotive changes at shunting yards and at the border.
This picture has changed dramatically after the liberalisation and the appearance of
locomotive rental services. Private operators have today a selection of locomotive types even
on short term bases. For the purpose of economical operation through traction from terminal
to terminal with the same type of locomotive is envisaged. If no appropriate multi electric
locomotive is available some operators take diesel power for the whole journey. But as market
grows and new type of locomotives based on a modular concept are available. Intermodal
operators like Hupac have involved this concept by asking for single traction provider from
terminal to terminal across borders.
3.8.2.2 Intermodal freight wagons
Wagons for conventional intermodal transport have generally looked the same since the late
1960s, but there is continuous change in order to make wagons and other equipment more
efficient and cheaper. The development is now based primarily on the details and components
with a primary focus on running gear and braking systems to improve the operational
characteristics and to allow higher speeds. Two-axle wagons with conventional running gear
have less good operational characteristics than the four-axle wagons. During long-distance
transport vibrations occurs and in combination with strong lateral forces this can get the goods
Page 89
to move or rotate during the journey. In addition to lower freight comfort two-axle wagons
result in the lower speed, increased energy consumption and increased infrastructure wear and
tear. The Swedish Rail operator Green Cargo has equipped a large number of two-axle
wagons with vibration-free running gear. This is more expensive than conventional running
gear, but they reduce the number of cargo damage and reduce the need for running gear
maintenance.
As mentioned, two main categories of wagons for intermodal transportation are available. The
simpler type of wagon consists of a flat surface with brackets where containers and swap
bodies can be placed. This category cannot load semi-trailers, because the total height would
then go beyond the permissible loading gauge. The traditional wagons for container
transportation class Lgjs Lgns are two-axle trucks equipped with container pins for several
load unit combinations. The pallet of wagons has over the past decade been complemented
with the boggie wagon Sgns-s and articulated wagon class Sggmrs-s. These wagons are suited
for maritime containers, tank / bulk containers and swap bodies. For transport of containers
and swap bodies, there are two-axle wagons designed for two TEUs, four axle wagons for
three TEUs and short switching bogie wagons for four TEUs. Intermodal transport of semi-
trailers requires handling equipment at terminals and adapted wagons to allow transport
within the allowed loading gauge. To solve these problems a adapted wagon for semitrailers
have been designed where the semi-trailer is lowered into the pocket between the girders and
a turntable is used to lock the semitrailer‟s king-pin. This type of wagon is generally called
pocket wagon and is also equipped with container corner fittings to be able to transport
containers and swap bodies, but the investment cost is higher than for flat wagons. The most
common type of car has had the name Sgdmns 832 or 833, but newer articulated wagons class
Sdggmrss - L and Sdggmrss - T has made its entry on the European market. The latter wagons
have been designed with three bogies, where the middle is a "Jakob bogie, and allows 120 km
/ h at axle load D. The articulated construction results in a cheaper wagon and might transport
four class C swap bodies or two semi-trailers á 13.6 meters.
Figure 37 Sketch of a short-coupled wagon class Sggmrss (Source: AAE:s web site).
Standard wagons equipped with brake blocks are suitable for transport up to 100 km / h at
stax 22,5 tons using normal braking distances. If the braking distances is extended to 2200-
2500 m the speed might be increased to 130 km / h, but this requires changes to the
suspension to keep down the number of freight damages. These modifications lead to
increased investment costs of 15-20%. If the speed is increased to 160 km/h modified running
Page 90
gear and disc brakes is required. Wagons designed for 160 km / h result in investment costs
for wagons twice as high as for conventional wagons.
Figure 38 Sketch of a wagon class Sdggmrss (Source: AAE:s web site).
In Germany and Sweden wagons for higher max speed has been developed. In Germany
wagons class Sgss-y703
and in Sweden class Lgss-y. A more detailed presentation of these
technologies is found in Bärthel (2011). These systems are used on the time sensitive markets
for mail, parcels and general cargo. The wagons are used for transport of swap bodies class C
and are equipped with advanced breaking systems and running gears.
Table 13 Intermodal freight wagons.
Sdgmns Sdggmrss-L Sdggmrss-T Sggmrss 104 Sggrss 80 Sggmrss 90 Lgjns Lgns 752 Lgjs 741
4 swap bodies 2x40' 2x45'
Axles 4 6 6 6 6 6 2
Length over buffers 18340 34200 34200 33940 26390 29590 17100 15900 14800 mm
Bogie pivot centre distance 13300 2x14200 2x14200 2x13820 2x10425 2x12025 10000 10000 9000 mm
Inner axle distance 15100 16000 16000 16000 12225 14025 11800 11800 10800 mm
Unseful loading length 16300 2x16230 2x16230 2x16230 2x12575 2x13820 15860 14660 13560 mm
Overall wagon width 3060 3186 3186 3186 3146 2970 2800 2800 2800 mm
Loading area width 2590 2600 2600 3146 2600 2740 2740 2740 mm
Height of fastening pins for containers/swap bodies above TOR 1170 1155 1155 1155 1170 1155 1180 1165 1180 mm
Height of loading area for semi-trailer bogie above TOR 267 270 264 mm
Wheel diameter 920 920 920 920 920 920 920 920 920 mm
Tare weight 21.3 34.8 34.8 30 25.3 29 12.5 11.15 11.8 ton
Load carrying capacity at axle load 22,5 t 65.7 100 100 106 90 106 33 33.5 28 ton
Weight per length meter 4.74 3.94 3.94 4.01 4.37 4.56 2.66 2.81 2.69
Maximum speed at axle load 20,0 t 120 120 120 120 120 120 100 100 100 km/h
Maximum speed at axle load 22,5 t 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 km/h
The growing market of rental wagons enables also small operators to introduce spot traffic
and to step into the market.
3.8.3 Loading Units
Intermodal systems are largely based on standardization. Standard load units are used because
it is difficult to standardize the design of freight units and goods. Goods are loaded in the load
unit to manageable sizes as determined by demand, management capabilities, dimensions and
weight rules for the domestic traffic regulation. This creates standard interfaces between
transport modes, transport units and cargo items with the advantages and disadvantages of
standardization for various groups.
The standard for both the ISO container and swap bodies (CEN) includes:
Dimensions
Connection dimensions for handling and securing of the carrier
Page 91
Maximum gross weight
Requirements for the strength and methods for testing
Definitions and labels
Opening Dimensions
Design for special types of goods
In all intermodal systems the physical dimensions, weights, handling interfaces, and
robustness of design are strictly defined by stipulated standards. Within these dimensions
standards units may be constructed arbitrarily. Hence, this might be exemplified by the
containers for the chemical. The loading units are by the transport sector best described as
standardized unstandardized load units.
Furthermore, there is one palette of load units for the European market and one of the oversea
(intercontinental) markets. ISO-containers have their origin in the sea transport sector while
the manufacturers of swap bodies base their design on CEN standard. The ISO-container
represents a global, international standard, while the standard swap body is a European
phenomena. The latter has to meet the standards for road vehicles in the EU. This large palette
of unit load reduces the efficiency of intermodal transport and also highlights the needs for
further standardization for future expansion. There are still barriers for intermodal transport
since some load units require adapted technology to be transshipped. But the development and
implementation of new standards are affected by the depreciation period and the strong
tradition of old associations. Hence, no carrier will choose by rationality but rather by
tradition and access to technical resources.
The following figure gives the number of transported cargo carriers in the Swedish intermodal
traffic shown by load unit category and size. If we consider the figure below, we are seeing a
trend break around the year 2004 when the huge growth of intermodal traffic is reflected in
the statistics. We can also note that the proportion of larger units at the expense of shorter
units, partly due to the increasing containerization in the world.
ISO containers: The proportion of 40 'ISO containers have increased at an annual rate of 8%
and represents 40-45% of the transported units in Sweden (measured in TEUs). The
proportion of 20 foot ISO containers is increasing by an average of 11% and represents about
20% of the quantity transported TEU. Together, the containers represent almost two third of
the quantity of load units in terms of number of TEUs.
The proportion of long containers (> 45 feet) shows a slower but steady increase over the
period (+ 18% per year) and represents 14-18% of a quantity transported intermodal carrier in
terms of number of TEUs.
The proportion of semi-trailers increased by 16% annually and represent 30% of the quantity
transported intermodal carrier in terms of number of TEUs. It should be noted that the
percentage increased further after 2007 when the number of shuttles between Sweden - The
continent has increased sharply over the past two years.
However, the strongest growth rate we find in the segment swap bodies 20-40 feet. This the
category includes the bulk and tank containers and the growth might be interpreted as the
Page 92
amount of longer units in these segments increased in combination with the total amount of
transported bulk and chemical products. The rate of increase is 30% per year and in 2007
65000-70000 TEUs were transported, which corresponds to 8% of the quantity transported
intermodal carrier in terms of number of TEUs.
Finally, the trend of decreasing share of short and long swap body is clear. The proportion of
short swap has fallen by 4% per annum and long swap bodies by 11% per year. The short and
long swap body market has thus decreased from 26% to 12% from 2000 to 2007.
0
25000
50000
75000
100000
125000
150000
175000
200000
225000
250000
275000
300000
325000
350000
375000
400000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
20' ISO-container
20-40' Container
40' ISO-container
>40' Container
Swapbody class C
Swapbody class B
Swapbody class A
Semitrailer
Figure 39 Number of intermodal loading units summed up by category and size. (Source: Bärthel,
2010).
In Germany, Austria and Switzerland the swap body is the dominating intermodal loading
unit. The standardized swap body has a specified external height of 2670 mm. This ensures
that the loading unit can be transported within the stipulated loading gauge on the entire
European network (loading gauge C385). This height corresponds to a standard EU road
vehicle height of 4 meters. Hence, these loading units are not suitable for transporting low
density products, as for the automotive industry.
To be able to transport products for the automotive industry two different intermodal transport
concepts have been developed. The first, described in a coming chapter, is the wagon
T5/T3000 for Megatrailers and the second is the combination of wagon and swap body
allowing an internal loading height of 3 000 mm. The swap body (for technical data see next
table) has a loading volume of 57-58.5 m3 and requires to be transported on a low-floor
wagon class Sgkkms loading surface height of 845 mm. This allows the automotive industry
to load the gitter boxes in three levels. The concept has been used for Berlin Plastics for
transport from Berlin to Cologne and for rubber tires for Continental from Puchov, Czech
Republic, to Hannover. Hence the loading gauge is more limited in Europe than in
Scandinavia. In Sweden swap bodies with an external height up to 3150 mm are transported
without permission. The dimensions of load units are not restricted by the loading gauge but
are limited by the dimensions of the spreader, i.e. restricted by terminal design dimensions.
Swap bodies with an external height up to 3245 mm and width of 2 600 is frequently used.
This results in a maximum loading height at 4225 mm for rail and 4500 mm for road
transport. The semitrailers used by the Swedish wholesaler COOP have a loading profile class
Page 93
P432 reaching the height of 4650 mm (loading gauge A1). These load units, loaded onto
standard wagons exceed the loading gauge A by the corners, but the units can be handled at
terminals and hence transported by special permission.
Figure 40 The load unit DB Megabox loaded onto a wagon class Sdkkms.
We can note that in Germany a low floor wagon is needed to transport a swap body slightly
lower than the Swedish swap body. For domestic shipments, this is no restriction, but should
be considered if the aim is to design a system between Sweden and Germany.
The swap bodies used in Switzerland in the Cargo Domino system are custom-made. They are
equipped with a physical channel to allow the handling equipment to reach the corner fittings.
These swap bodies are available in three standard configurations, but also in special designs
for transport of temperature sensitive goods, and chemicals. For the transport three categories
of wagons are available; Sgns, Sgnss or Sgs-y. The latter type of wagon is equipped with disc
brakes as opposed to traditional brake blocks. The wagons have the capacity to load two swap
bodies and two fully loaded with swap bodies used cargo capacity to 46% and loading length
to 80%. Hence, the tail transport capacity is utilized only to a limited extent.
In Norway the forwarders use swap bodies or containers in the domestic flows. The units are
22-25 feet long (usually 7.62 meters), with the tare weight of 3-5 tons and a maximum gross
weight of 16-21 tons. Swap bodies of class C provides greater load length per vehicle since
Swap bodies Class A has a loading length between 12.2 and 13.6 m while the two Class C
swap bodies has a corresponding loading length of 14.3 to 15.6 m. It should be added to the
transported volumes of Norway in certain O/D relations are not sufficient to make the use of
larger transport units profitable. The transshipment of class C swap bodies are in most cases
carried out by forklift trucks and all terminals in Norway are equipped with forklifts (Bark
and Skoglund, 2009), but most of the terminals has at least one Reachstacker with spreader
and the terminal Alnabru has several gantry cranes (). In 2005 50% of all transshipments in
Norway were carried out by fork lift trucks. Consequently most of the load units in Norway
are equipped with forklift pockets.
Page 94
Table 14 Comparison between the technical characteristics of different swap bodies. The three
left columns indicate default swap bodies used in connection with Cargo Domino
system, the next succeeding volume of swap bodies used by DB Cargo and finally two
swap bodies used in the food industry by SJ Cargo / Green Cargo.
Cargo Domino Cargo Domino Cargo Domino DB Cargo DB Cargo SJ Gods Lättkombi
Technical data Curtainside Refrigerated Isolated Megabox Volume Rexam Isolated
External length 7450 7450 7535 7 820 7 820 7150 7 450 mm
External height 2650 2650 2650 3 290 3 180 3245 3150 mm
External width 2550 2550 2600 2 600 2 550 2 600 2 600 mm
Internal length 7330 7330 7315 7 670 7700 7030 7230 mm
Internal height 2480 2480 2480 2 520 3010 3075 2980 mm
Internal width 2270 2360 2325 3 030 2270 2410 2325 mm
Gross weight 16000 16000 16000 16000 16000 16000 16000 kg
Payload 13200 13200 12250 11255 13100 13200 12400 kg
Tara weight 2800 2800 3750 4 745 2 900 2800 3 600 kg
Volume 41 43 42 59 53 52 50 m3
Loading height (mm over rail) 3830 3830 3830 4470 4360 4425 4330 mm
Loading gauge A A A A1 A1 A1 A1
There is a large portfolio of semitrailers on the European market and the development has
been tremendous since the first units were constructed in the 1950s. In the following list a
number of ordinary semi trailers for the Nordic countries are listed. In column 1-4 data for
traditional Jumbo container is presented. In column 5-7 the newly constructed 45‟ container
used by for example IKEA and van Dieren is described. Finally traditional standard
semitrailers, Megatrailers and the purpose build COOP-trailer, developed in the European
CREAM project, is presented.
The various devices differ with respect to:
The loading volume in a semi-trailer is 91-100 m3. This is higher than for the
traditional load units as the Jumbo container (83-92 m3) or high-cube containers (91-
96 m3). For domestic transport in Sweden a trailer have to be designed with two
loading levels with an internal loading height corresponding to 2 x 1250 mm (for
pallets) and 2 x 1600 mm for rolling cages. The previous ones require a loading gauge
of P432 and the latter P450.
Within the project CREAM, see Bärthel (2011), several prototypes for semi-trailers
for goods requiring special attention were constructed and tested. The prototype for
temperature-sensitive goods influenced the design of carriers for the COOP.
In intermodal transport the load units are transported in both directions. The project
FRAMLAST, aims to improve the quality of the back door of the units, since the use
of a conventional design often results in penetration of vapor into the loading area.
Hence the probability for goods damages is high (MariTerm, 2010).
Page 95
Table 15 Technical data for the most common load units in intermodal freight transport in
Sweden (excluding ISO-containers).
Jumbo (12,50) Jumbo (12,50) Jumbo (13,60) Jumbo (13,60) 45' HC Temp 45' HC Gardin 45' HC Cont Standardtrailer Megatrailer COOP-trailer Unit
Chiller No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No Yes
External
Length 12500 13150 13600 13600 13710 13716 13716 13650 13650 13550 mm
Width 2600 2600 2600 2600 2550 2550 2550 2550 2550 2600 mm
Height 3065 3065 3115 3000 2890 3035 3040 4000 4000 4425 mm
Floor height 1269 mm
Internal
Length 12150 12150 13400 13370 13270 13620 13542 13620 13620 13315 mm
Width 2467 2467 2490 2490 2430 2470 2485 2480 2480 2460 mm
Height 2768 2768 2750 2750 2560 2700 2842 2700 2960 3050 mm
Sidodörr
Width 2600 2600 2490 2650 2430 2461 2480 2420 mm
Height 2700 2700 2750 2650 2550 2729 2700 2850 mm
Tara weight 6900 6900 4600 5900 5900 4980 6285 6870 9690 kg
Payload 26100 26100 31400 27100 33100 27020 39000 39000 33025 kg
Volume 83 83 92 91,5 91 95,8 91 100 100 m3
Europallets 30 30 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 No
TransshipmentLifting devices Lifting devices Lifting devices Lifting devices Lifting devices Lifting devices Lifting devices Lifting devices Lifting devices Lifting devices
3.8.4 Terminal resources
The conventional terminal technology in all countries is based on vertical handling with
gantry cranes, reach stackers, or fork lift trucks. Handling Units, like the Reachstacker
commercialized by Kalmar Industries in 1985, are the most common terminal technologies for
small and medium-sized terminals in Scandinavia. A reach stacker is a counterbalance forklift
truck with a lifting device consisting of a telescopic boom which is raised or lowered. The
Reachstacker has a rotating spreader which is suspended by a telescopic boom. At most
terminals these trucks have replaced the forklifts trucks. The primary disadvantage is the very
high surface pressure on the ground and hence the requirements to strengthen the ground to
stand even when the reach stacker are handling heavy load units in second or third row. These
surfaces cost around 150-200 Euro/m2, compared with 40-50 Euro/m
2 from surfaces adapted
to conventional fork lift truck handling equipment. The secondary disadvantage is the
inability to handle load units under the catenaries. The investment costs for a new
Reachstacker are 400 – 450 kEuro (including spreader), while a used one might be bought for
some 200 kEuro. Like a counterbalanced truck, a reach stacker might handle 20-25 units per
hour, but in general seldom more than 10-12 per hour.
A gantry crane, also called block or bridge crane is consisting of a handling bridge mounted
on support legs. Together, these elements form a portal, which rests on wheels riding on rails
or directly on the ground. Lifting is done via a trolley moving along the bridge. A portal crane
can be rail mounted or equipped with pneumatic tires.
Portal cranes are used primarily at major intermodal terminals and at hubs/ports. Large
amount of handled units is required to reach the same cost level as for handling with
reachstackers or fork lift trucks. In Scandinavia, the gantry cranes have been replaced by
Reachstackers or Fork lift trucks on all terminals except from the metropolitan terminals in
Malmo, Gothenburg, Oslo and Stockholm. At terminals with train-train transshipment these
transshipment technology has advantages, but seldom on small terminals with a large share of
transshipment train-road or train – train.
Page 96
3.8.5 Other resources
In addition to these physical resources, operations clearly depend on a large number of skilled
employees, organizational know-how, brands, developed procedures and legal agreements as
well as permissions and time slots from rail authorities and terminal authorities. Road and rail
infrastructure is needed to accomplish intermodal freight transport, but as this is supplied by
the government in exchange for user charges and shared with passenger and their freight
operations, it is not treated as a resource.
3.8.6 Innovative intermodal production systems
During the last decades a large number of innovative intermodal transport systems have been
developed. The notion innovative indicates that these systems do not follow the design
principles of the dominating intermodal system, i.e. a design based on large scale terminals
with large scale handling technologies based on gantry cranes and reach stackers.
These technologies might be categorized based on (1) the function of the terminal in the
intermodal network, (2) the resource base for the transshipment technology, (3) direction of
handling and finally what kind of load units the technology is designed for. Hence, Bärthel
(2011) made the following categorization:
Vertical terminal based transshipment technology.
Horizontal terminal based transshipment technology for containers and swap bodies
Horizontal lorry based transshipment technology for containers and swap bodies
Horizontal wagon based transshipment technology for semitrailers.
Diagonal wagon based transshipment technology for semitrailers.
Diagonal wagon based transshipment technology for containers and swap bodies
Longitudinal wagon based transshipment technology for containers and swap bodies.
Figure 41 Handling direction as a base for categorization of innovative transshipment technology
(Source: Frindik in Bärthel, 2011).
The transshipment technologies developed are summed up in the next table. The technologies
presented in bold have been implemented in a larger scale. The technologies presented in
italics are either under development or is discontinued. The others have been implemented as
a pilot or are being implemented. In the chapters below some of these technologies are
presented.
Page 97
Table 16 The transshipment technologies developed in the MINT countries categorized based on
handling direction.
Diagonal Horizontal Longitudinal Vertical
Austria Mobiler Innovative Unschlagsbahnhof
Fast'R Cargo
Germany CargoBeamer Kombilifter
Wechseltrog Transportsystem WAS Wagon
Supertrans
Norway Fork lift truck
Sweden RoRo Rail CCT SJ Lightcombi
MegaswingFlexiwaggon
Switzerland ACTS Rolling Transport System
Neths
Cargo Domino (Mobiler)
InterRegioCargo (ContainerMover)
3.8.7 Innovative intermodal transport systems in Switzerland
Two innovative intermodal transport systems are used in Switzerland.. There are two systems
used: the ACTS system and the Cargo Domino system, and these systems are based on small-
scale terminals with horizontal transshipment
3.8.7.1 ACTS Terminals.
ACTS is a horizontal roll-on and off transport system from road vehicle to rail. It requires no
fixed terminal installations, and can be operated at any public goods station or private siding
positioned beside a 10 meter wide roadway. In Switzerland, ACTS was tested in 1984 and
commercially introduced in 1987 by Abroll-Container-Transport-Service AG, a 50-50 joint
venture between five railway companies and road transport companies. The intermodal roll-
on and off transport system ACTS consists of the following main elements.
Road truck with integrated transshipment equipment
Rail wagons with turning frames
Use of existing infrastructure (public goods stations), in some cases with adaptations
Operational integration in rail single wagon/wagon groups traffic
Transshipment by truck driver
Door-to-Door transport by one service provider
One stop shop
There are various possibilities for transshipment for the ACTS system. Usually it is possible
at public goods stations and at private sidings, if there is a surface with a width of appr. 11 m.
Page 98
Figure 42 ACTS System
The ACTS System has low transshipment costs (low terminal investment costs, transshipment
can be operated by the truck driver). It provides intermodal transport service to the regions
with lower freight volumes. The system is flexible in the use, e. g. allows to roll the container
from the truck on the ground. The system reduces the economically viable minimum distance
for intermodal road-rail (under 150km).
The system is used today especially for bulk transport (waste, building materials, etc.) but
more and more also for consumer goods.
3.8.7.2 Cargo Domino/Mobiler
Cargo Domino is a new transport concept in intermodal transport offered by the Swiss railway
operator SBB Cargo. This intermodal transport is based on vehicle related horizontal
transshipment equipment and was introduced in summer 2002. The system was developed by
SBB Cargo with focus on consumer goods, raw materials and bulk ware. Cargo Domino use
as transshipment technology the horizontal hydraulic System „Mobiler‟, which was developed
by Bermueller and realised by Palfinger. A second system with the same functions called
NICK was realised later by the swiss company Nuwec. The following map shows the network
of Cargo Domino Terminals. Transshipment is possible at public goods stations or also at
private sidings.
Figure 43 Cargo Domino transshipment points and Loading units for Cargo Domino System.
Page 99
Figure 44 Cargo Domino System.
The Cargo Domino transport units are standardized swap-bodies. These are presented in the
chapter about load units.
Cargo Domino offers an alternative for intermodal transport for medium distance inland
transports. Because of its flexible horizontal transshipment facility it has become a real
alternative against pure road transport. Operational Cargo Domino is integrated in Night and
Day Express-Network based on railway single wagon traffic. One central shunting yard is
used to build the trains.
3.8.8 Innovative intermodal transport systems in Austria
Rail Cargo Austria implemented a transport system based on Mobiler handling technology
with pilot traffic starting in the autumn of 2001 and complete implementation in 2002. The
increase in freight volumes is significant and in 2009 nearly 650 000 tons of goods were
transported. A dense network of terminals is connected by the wagon load transport system
and Rail Cargo Austria is offering a wide variety of adapted load units - from conventional
swap bodies class C to bulk containers and tank containers. The Mobiler technology is
explained in the chapter about Switzerland.
Figure 45 Growth in transport volumes (left) and terminal network for the Mobiler service
(right).
Page 100
3.8.9 Innovative technologies in Germany
Intermodal service provider has concentrated on main shuttle links between efficient terminals
using vertical lifting. Some efforts have been undertaken to find technical solutions to
transship and transport big volume semi-trailer. The share of semi-trailer being 9% of all
loading units transported could then be raised.
Another strategy especially by Kombiverkehr is to develop a network with faster train
connections to offer travel time which fits into the narrow time frame of overnight and time
critical cargo. Within this concept the shift of air cargo from truck to rail is an important part.
The first arrangements had been made with the airports of Frankfurt and Halle/Leipzig
creating the AirCargoExpress, but the economical crisis prevents it finally from realization.
The AirCargoExpress should basically be operated for the logistic service provider DHL but
needed some additional conventional load to get a full train filled, but with the economical
crisis this complementary load was redirected to the existing intermodal network making the
AirCargoExpress uneconomic. Nevertheless the strategy to bring air cargo on rail is still been
studied by the airport of Frankfurt Fraport together with Fraunhofer IML in the project
AirCargo RailCenter where first results show that for a link from Frankfurt to Munich
sufficient demand could be provided. Again due to the decline of air cargo transport of about
one quarter has made it is unclear when a realization will be approached.
3.8.9.1 Bimodal Bayrischer Trailer Zug
The bimodal technology, which is an improved semi-trailer coupled directly on special
bogies, had been used in Germany for several years by BTZ but cancelled due to economical
reasons. Again there is the US-American company RailRunner who is marketing its enhanced
bimodal technology in Germany, Europe and beyond.
3.8.9.2 Cargo Beamer
Since several years the rail transport of non craneable semi-trailer has been tried to be solved
by several inventors. One type of approach is to equip the wagon with a special platform
which can be detached on the terminal by in situ equipment. The company CargoBeamer AG
(http://www.cargobeamer.de) offers an independent system because it needs special terminals
and wagons, but no prototype exists so far.
3.8.10 Innovative intermodal transport systems in Sweden
In Sweden several systems have been developed since 1990, but no one has been
implemented in full scale. In this chapter these systems are presented. SJ Lightcombi is based
on vertical transshipment under the contact wire based using a fork lift truck. To reduce the
need of handling equipment at terminals, three diagonal wagon concepts have been developed
since 1995. Two concepts have been developed for transport of semitrailers, Flexiwaggon and
Megaswing and one for transport of swap bodies, RoRo Rail. The two latter have been
developed by Kockums Industrier who has also developed wagons based on the ACTS
technology. Not mentioned in the presentation is the horizontal technology CCT. For more
information see either Seidelmann and Frindik (2005) or Bärthel (2011).
Page 101
3.8.10.1 SJ Light Combi
The rail sector is missing a competitive service-supply for high value products and has no
solutions for distribution to end customers. An intermodal transport network adapted to long
distance transports between industry and wholesale companies and for distribution out to
retail trade units demands a narrow network of terminals to fulfil the demands of the
customers on accessibility, flexibility and timing of the transport services.
In order to improve costs and quality, attempts have been made to develop and apply radical
intermodal systems, compared to conventional intermodal systems. One example is SJ light
combi developed by SJ Stab strategic development and established as a pilot study
“Dalecarlian Girl”, operated for Dagab/Hemköp from 1998 to 2001. The name light combi
originates from the fact that only small load carriers (swap body class A and 20‟ ISO-
containers) provided with fork lift tunnels should be used in the system. The system is based
on intermodal line traffic where the train made short stops at terminals located at electrified
signal regulated siding tracks. Loading and unloading could be done under electrified catenary
with a forklift truck. The truck was carried by the train and was handled by the locomotive
driver. This enabled the load units to be handled directly on the siding track with no change of
locomotive or shunting. The main issue for the project was to test the concept from a technical
and logistic point of view. The investments were relatively small but SJ Cargo did not have
the economic endurance to maintain the traffic. A profound analysis of the project has been
done by Bärthel and Woxenius (2003, 2004). Further research concerning establishment of
intermodal transport systems have been done by Bukold (1996) and Rudel (2002). Research
concerning innovative technologies for terminals has been done by Bontekoning (2002).
Figure 46 The light combi train in Borlänge 1998. (Photo: J-O Wede, Green Cargo).
3.8.10.2 Flexiwaggon
FlexiWaggon is a wagon concept developed for transport of a complete truck or a trailer
(www.flexiwaggon.se). At the terminals the loading frame is turned in order to let the truck
drive on or off the wagon. Loading and unloading is done by the truck driver and it takes
about 15 minutes per unit. The advantage of the concept is that permanent handling
equipment is not needed if no containers and swap bodies are handled.
3.8.10.3 Megaswing
The Megaswing wagon has been developed by Kockums Industrier with the aim to be able to
transport semitrailers not equipped for intermodal freight transportation. Like Flexiwaggon
the concept has been designed with a loading platform, which is levitated when the train is
loaded and unloaded. The handling procedure takes 2-4 minutes depending on circumstances.
Page 102
As for Flexiwaggon the advantage of the concept is that permanent handling equipment is not
needed if no containers and swap bodies are handled.
Figure 47 The concept Megaswing (Source: Kockums Industrier).
3.8.10.4 RoRoRail
The turn table wagon Sgnss041 is a newly developed wagon. The unique feature is the
possibility to load and unload the wagon only with the truck itself. The need of heavy reach
stackers or cranes is eliminated. The wagon is a bogie wagon designed to carry two swap
bodies of class C according to EN284. A standard truck and a 12 meter width load surface by
one side of the railway track is needed for handling in terminals (www.kockumsindustrier.se).
Figure 48 The concept RoRoRail (Source: Kockums Industrier).
Page 103
Page 104
3.9 Information and Communication systems
The Rail authorities were early users of information systems, but mainly to control their own
production resources and administration. EDI connections with customers are of recent date
and there is a need for further development. Efficient ICT is vital for the forwarders
controlling large numbers of small consignments (part loads and general cargo) from a large
number of shippers, but less crucial to hauliers, rail and intermodal operators which can move
a single container or some 80 boxes in a shuttle train for a limited number of customers.
In this chapter the present status of the intermodal ICT development in the MINT countries
are generally presented.
3.9.1 Information and Communication systems - Germany
The ICT development had been started by the terminal operator DUSS together with Berghof
to create a unique terminal operation system named BLU. Due to a number of reasons
competitors prefer rather tailormade solutions. This is especially the case if the system is part
of the company IT architecture enabling secure information flow within the company. As
interfaces are still a difficult task to be solved an easy approach for customers is not
established but strongly needed.
Kombiverkehr together with some other big intermodal operators have developed in two
research projects the CESAR system for information, booking and tracking and tracing
provided for their customers. Kombiverkehr´s timetable information is been provided by
HaCon, who is also responsible for the passenger timetable of Deutsche Bahn AG.
3.9.2 Information and Communication systems - Norway
The Norwegian National Transportation plan 2010-2019 stress that the Port of Oslo and the
Alnabru terminal will play essential roles for intermodality in Norway in the coming years
(NTP, 2009). The research project PROFIT (Project Future Intermodal Terminals) aims to
address this call for attention from the government.
PROFIT is sponsored by The Research Council of Norway through SMARTRANS – a
research program for industry transport and intelligent transport systems. By changing the
terminal layout and control systems at both the Port of Oslo and the Alnabru terminal the
project aims to generate new administrative and control system for the entire supply chain
(PROFIT, 2010). The project includes major actors in the Norwegian transport industry:
CargoNet (freight train operator and terminal operator), Jernbaneverket (the Norwegian
National Rail Administration and rail infrastructure owner), DB Schenker (international
freight forwarder), Bring Logistics (international freight forwarder), LTL (Norwegian
forwarding association), Ergo Group (IT provider) and the Port of Oslo. In accordance with
The National Transport Plan (NTP, 2009) PROFIT aims to develop efficient intermodal
terminals and network through improved collaboration between ports, carriers, terminals and
forwarders.
Today, Jernbaneverket is the responsible organization for communicating delay warnings and
deviations from train schedule. This is today a process of email communication, causing
Page 105
frustration among the train operator companies and freight forwarders. In general, the
communication in the value chain is based on phone, fax and email. There is limited sharing
of information and common IT solutions, and no superior directing principles to guide the
actors in the value chain. The chain has thus a low degree of flexibility, and the transition
between modes is far from seamless.
3.9.3 Information and Communication systems - Sweden
The Swedish Rail authorities were early users of information systems, but mainly to control
their own production resources and administration. As pointed out by Sjöstedt (in Woxenius
and Sjöstedt, 2003) there is a need for development and implementation of more sophisticated
ICT systems for intermodal transport systems. A large number of EU project with Swedish
partners have been and are carried out (i.e. FreightWise).
3.9.4 Information and Communication systems - Switzerland
In Switzerland the following types of ICT-Systems are used in relation with intermodal
transport
Information systems (connections, timetables, terminals services, etc.)
Booking systems
Tracking and Tracing
Terminal management systems
The bigger Intermodal Service providers as HUPAC and ICF have information and booking
systems. The bigger terminal operators use terminal management systems (goal, Berghof). An
integrated information, booking and tracking and tracing system is CESAR. It is used by
some of the UIRR intermodal service companies (incl. HUPAC)
Figure 49 CESAR Systems
Page 106
3.10 Transport policy
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. On the
contrary, political promises that were not delivered 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 is
showing promising (Nelldal et al, 2007, Gustafsson et al, 2007 and Swedish Rail
Administration, 2008). Still the shippers and transport service providers doubt the political
intentions and effort to take the necessary steps to transform the transport sector towards
increased intermodality and towards long-term sustainability.
3.10.1 Austrian Freight Policy and Regulations7
The enlargement of the European Union pushed Austria into the centre of Europe. The
Austrian government formulated the need for an active transport policy within the last few
years. In view of handling the expected increase of transport flows across Austria two strategy
plans were set up: firstly the National Transport Plan and secondly the Transport Telematic
Master Plan.
The transport policy of Austria is strongly committed to environmental objectives. In order to
protect people and the natural resources environmental-friendly modes of freight traffic such
as rail and intermodal transport are promoted by a variety of legal and administrative actions.
As concerns intermodal transport the most effective measures are the increased maximum
gross weight of road vehicles employed for terminal haulage services, financial aids for the
construction of intermodal terminals and the compensation of costs incurred by railway
undertakings for services that are of public interest.
In January 2002 the Austrian government presented the Austrian National Transport Plan
2002 (GVP-Ö). The National Transport Plan is focusing on general principles regarding
transport policy and on an infrastructure development programme referring to the transport
modes road, rail and inland waterway system.
The main transport policy objectives in this plan are:
To strengthen the Austrian business location,
To extend the transport network in an efficient way,
To enhance safety and security in transport,
To ensure financing, and
7 The source for this subchapter is ERA-NET Transport (2007).
Page 107
To ease the implementation measures.
All suggested infrastructure projects announced in the national transport plan are considered
with different key players in the transport sector. The total volume of investment until the
year 2021 is denoted by 45,1 bill. Euro. The short- and medium-term investments imply 17,1
billion Euro for road and rail projects. The financing of these projects is mainly ensured by a
kilometre based toll for heavy duty vehicles and a time based toll for cars and motorcycles on
motorways.
The Telematic Master Plan was presented first in 2004. The plan is blueprinted in five
chapters: a mission statement, a status analysis, a frame for the ITS system architecture, an
ITS technology portfolio and project implementation guidelines for Austria. The main
objective of the multimodal approach of the Transport Telematic Master Plan is to show a
balanced picture for future use of Transport Telematic applications and services in Austria.
3.10.2 German Freight Policy and Regulations
German Policy has widely supported the intermodal transport in Germany. A report from the
German ministry of transport, construction and urban affairs (BMVBS) about the situation,
potential and further measurements of intermodal transport had been published in 2001. There
are in principle two levels of supportive measurements which are the regulatory and tax
policy on one hand and the financial aid on the other side.
The following regulatory and tax policy had been enforced by the European Commission
and German national government to support intermodal transport and to compensate the
special situation of this type of transport:
an increased total maximum weight of 44 tons in the pre- and end-haulage on the road
according to part 3 paragraph §34 – axle load and weight – paragraph 6 n° 6 of the
German national road traffic licensing regulations StVZO
suspension from the ban on HGVs driving on Sundays and general holiday according
to paragraph §30 of the German national road traffic licensing regulations StVZO
when being used in pre- and end-haulage
charge of the time spent by the lorry driver on a ferry and on a train (which is the
rolling road RoLa) on the daily rest period (European regulation EWG Nr.3820/85
section V article 7 paragraph 4), but which can be interrupted for less than an hour
(regulation EWG Nr.3820/85 section V article 9)
suspension from vehicle tax of vehicles being used exclusively in pre- and end-
haulage according to paragraph § 3 n° 9 letter a vehicle tax law KraftStG
reimbursement of the vehicle tax when the rolling road is being used according to
paragraph § 4 article 1 and 2 of the vehicle tax law KraftStG
The German ministry of transport, construction and urban affairs (BMVBS) introduced a road
toll system (Maut) in 2004 for HGV with more than 12 tons which had been expected to result
in some modal shift. From a statistical point of view this could not be verified as a significant
effect.
Page 108
A longer political dispute has been taken place regarding longer and heavier commercial
vehicles on the road (60 tons, 25.25 m) and their effect on intermodal transport. The German
ministry of transport, construction and urban affairs (BMVBS) had ordered two studies which
came to the conclusion that the economical gain for the road side is obvious but the losses for
intermodal transport may be up to one third. In September 2007 the conference of transport
ministers from the national and Lands ministries had decided by the majority to stick to the
existing regulations and not to extend the maximum dimensions and weight limit.
The following financial aid had been enforced to support intermodal transport and to
compensate the special situation of this type of transport:
Financial aid is provided for research, development and investment on regional, national and
European level within a program or on single basis covering all developing states from
concept to realization.
Research and development is supported by the ministry for transport BMVBS, research
BMBF and mainly economy BMWi in the two programs “mobility and transport” and
“mobility and transport technology” and by the European Commission namely in the 7th
framework program. National projects have to end up with a test installation (prototype).
Also it has to be distinguished between the direct financial aid through providing subsidized
credits or grants and the indirect financial aid through reduced taxes or legal measurements
(e.g. increased total weight of road vehicle).
To stimulate new and extend existing services and infrastructure for intermodal transport
several programs had been introduced. In Germany the following direct aid exists:
The German ministry of transport, construction and urbain affairs (BMVBS) provides grants
for the construction and extension of publicly available terminals for intermodal transport
published as a directive dated 10.03.2006, enforced 01.04.2006 and being renewed after its
deadline 31.12.2008, but being itself a replacement of a previous directive valid 2002 to 2005.
Since 01.05.2005 the German ministry of transport, construction and urban affairs (BMVBS)
provides stimulating and investment grants for newly introduced intermodal transport services
with a deadline 30.04.2008. As this grant is comparable to the Marco Polo program and
therefore overlapping it has not been renewed.
Requests for financial aid can be submitted anytime to the national railway administration
EBA department 44 regarding rail-road-terminals and to the national waterway administration
WSD West regards water-road-terminals and trimodal terminals.
Behind EBA and WSD the manager of the German Research Association for Intermodal
Transport SGKV serves as an advisor evaluating terminal proposals. Some 15 years ago there
was a committee doing that job but as the experts came from the operators with the
consequence that more and more competitive conflicts arose it had been decided to
concentrate it on one person. Evaluation is done on four mainly qualitative criteria regarding
competition to surrounding terminals, connection to the main line network, economic
feasibility (to be proved by the applicant) and open access to the terminal infrastructure and
services.
Page 109
3.10.3 Norwegian Freight Policy and Regulations
In Norway, the conditions for intermodal transport are different from the conditions in
Sweden in the sense that the topography of the Norwegian fjords and mountains make
transportation difficult.
The Norwegian road and rail network has greater gradients than in Sweden and does not allow
as heavy trains/vehicles. Moreover, the length of vehicles in Norway is considerably shorter
than in Sweden. In Sweden and Finland a road vehicle of 25.25 m is allowed, compared with
18.75 m in Norway. Furthermore, the road vehicles are allowed to be 2550 mm wide
compared to Sweden's 2600 mm. This affects the utilization of different load units or load
units combinations used. Swap bodies class C are more profitable in Norway where two swap
bodies are loaded onto the same truck, compared to a truck with a semitrailer, in order to use
the maximum vehicle regulations.
The railway infrastructure in Norway did not allow transportation of semi-trailers until
2003/04 when the infrastructure loading gauge was expanded to P407. Now, this market
segment is growing fast and 20% of the load units transported in Norway is semi-trailers,
Swap bodies is still, by far, the dominating load unit. The growth in Norway (estimated to
300 000 units) is in the semi-trailers segment.
3.10.4 Swedish Freight Policy and Regulations
Regulatory changes, which occurred in the Swedish road network since the railway reform in
1988 have, above all, favored road transportation. Three major changes have been done:
Trucks‟ gross weight has increased in two steps from 51,6 ton to 56,0 ton in 1989 and
from 56,0 ton to 60,0 ton in 1993. This has enabled a 22% increasing in net weight
and a general price reduction in the transport market.
In 1972, Sweden adopted 24 meters length for trucks, which was a demand from the
forestry industry. Sweden allows trucks up to 25,25m length since 1997 if they follow
the standards according to the European Modular System concept. For palletized gods
it means that additional pallets can be loaded compared with a truck 24 m long.
Road taxes were revoked due to competition reasons in 1993.
Sweden‟s generous rules for trucks have influenced, in a negative way, the possibilities for
development and establishment of an intermodal transport system. Modifications occurred in
the competition between rail, intermodal transport solutions and long trucks have diminished
intermodal transport‟s potential (Banverket, 2007/b). This is shown by Cardebring and Lundin
(2007) that demonstrate a decrease of 13% in road traffic if road taxes were reinstalled. The
result is supported by the experience of other countries that have implemented road taxes to
heavy trucks (Gustafsson et al., 2007).
3.10.5 Swiss Freight Policy and Regulation
The Swiss freight transport policy aims at a more sustainable freight transport with the
following objectives (www.are.admin.ch, Ruesch (2007)):
Page 110
The single modes should be used to their comparative advantages and intermodal in a
suitable way.
The (public) land transport relieve the roads from road freight transport.
The high share in rail freight should be kept.
Modal shift from road freight transport to rail and intermodal transport
Improving attraction and capacity for alpine crossing rail freight transport (including
intermodal transport).
Relating to transalpine freight transport the following laws and regulations are relevant, which
are based on public votes in the beginning of the nineties:
Article 84 of the Swiss constitution: this article is the basis for the protection of the
alps against negative impacts of heavy goods transport by
Modal shift of transalpine freight from road to rail (including intermodal transport)
Not increasing the road transport capacity through the alps.
Based on the article 84 the traffic transfer act of 8th October 1999 defines the explicit modal
shift target:
Reduction of the number of heavy goods vehicles crossing the alps by road to a
maximum of 650‟000 trucks per year (in 2005 approx. 1.2 million. trucks)
This reduction must be reached two years after the opening of the new Lötschberg rail
tunnel through the Alps (in 2009).
This policy has been contractual secured with the European Union by the bilateral land
transport agreement which was put in place in 2002.
Main pillars of the Swiss freight transport policy are the Swiss heavy vehicles fee, the
increase of railway capacity through the Alps and the railway reform (see Fig. 27). These
measures are accompanied by further measures supporting intermodal and also railway
transport as international support of railway transport, financial support of rolling motorway,
funding of intermodal terminals in and outside of Switzerland, subsidies for unaccompanied
intermodal transport, reduction of railway infrastructure charges, monitoring of productivity
improvements in railway transport, partial reimbursement of the heavy vehicles fee for trucks
used in the pre- and end haulage of intermodal transport and road truck traffic management.
Page 111
Figure 50 The pillars of the Swiss freight policy (source: UVEK)
All the measures of the strategy above support and promote intermodal transport in one or the
other way. In the following chapters the most important measures to support and promote
unaccompanied intermodal transport are outlined.
3.10.5.1 Measures directly influencing intermodal transport
Funding of intermodal terminals: Based on national laws and regulations, Switzerland can
fund intermodal terminals to promote intermodal transport and to reach a modal shift.
Elements financed are: buildings, acquisition or renewal of infrastructure, installations and
equipment; extension of railway infrastructure for intermodal terminals; the acquisition of
rolling stock for intermodal transport; and other investments to facilitate intermodal transport.
The maximum share of co-financing is 80%, with 20% financed by the terminal investor. The
share is depending on the political interest and the degree of economic viability. The
following minimum requirements have to be fulfilled:
A modal shift from road to intermodal transport has to be proved.
For the location, a need for trans-shipment capacity has to be accounted for.
Investment is necessary for transport policy aims to be achieved.
Terminals will not be built without financial aid.
A main requirement for funding is achieving the political aims with an acceptable cost/benefit
factor. Specific for the Swiss funding scheme is that it is possible to fund terminals in other
countries if these cause a modal shift in Switzerland. In addition to the law and regulations,
there is a directive describing the process and content of how to deal with funding requests.
The requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant are fairly strict, so there is a good chance that
the conditions are fulfilled and the objectives are achieved. Switzerland funded terminals in
2002 with 25 Mio CHF, 2003 with 75 Mio. CH, 2004 with 49 Mio. CHF, 2005 with 12 Mio
CHF (1CHF=0.6 EU). In the coming years a funding of 40 Mio CHF per year is expected.
Page 112
Figure 51 Intermodal terminals with Swiss Investments (source: UVEK)
Railway reform: The first step of the railway reform came into force on 1st January 1999.
This package included the organisational and accountable separation of infrastructure and
traffic, the implementation of the ordering principle for operational subsidies, regulation for
the railway network access and the liberalisation of the railway traffic. Further
implementation steps of the railway reform are in preparation taking into consideration also
an independent railway track slot management.
New railway tunnels through the Alps: With these railway projects the political aims for
modal shift can be supported by making rail freight more efficient (shorter leading times,
higher productivity) and more reliable. The commencement of operations was 2007 for the
Lötschberg route and planned in 2017 for the Gotthard route.
Figure 52 New railway tunnels through the alps (sources: Alptransit Gotthard, BLS Alptransit)
Subsidies for unaccompanied intermodal transport: Subsidies based on ordering intermodal
transport by the Swiss government is one of the central measures to support intermodal
transport. Since the year 2000 these subsidies are paid to the operators which provide the
Page 113
intermodal services. In agreements with the operators all the relevant parameters as the
number of trains and consignments and the subsidy per relation is defined. According to the
origin and destination area fixed subsidy amounts are distributed to the operators. In 2006
more than 1,2 million intermodal consignments have been subsidized, 900‟000 in transalpine
traffic. This is more than 1/3 of the whole intermodal transport through the Swiss alps. The
following figure shows the split of financial support to intermodal transport and related
measures.
Figure 53 Financial support per year (source: UVEK)
Reduction of railway infrastructure charges: This is a supporting measure to make the railway
transport more competitive against road transport. The subsidies cover for intermodal
transport two third of the infrastructure costs relating to the maintenance and the full
contribution of margin. Relating to railway transport the subsidies cover only the contribution
of margin and they will be cut back when the full heavy vehicles fee is implemented.
Partial reimbursement of the heavy vehicles fee for trucks used in the pre- and end haulage: In
Switzerland the Heavy goods vehicles fee was introduced in 2001 for trucks > 3.5t (see next
chapter). Heavy goods vehicles which are used in the pre- and end haulage of intermodal
transport get a reimbursement of 14 to 22 Euro per transshipment depending on the size of the
loading unit. This measure should contribute to a modal shift from road to intermodal
transport in import/export and inland freight transport. The freight regulation was adapted in
the last years and new laws were introduced in January 2010.
3.10.5.2 Measures indirectly influencing intermodal transport
Heavy goods vehicles fee: The Heavy Vehicles Fee (HVF) in Switzerland was implemented
in 2001 mainly to internalize external costs of road freight transport, to reach a modal shift
and to compensate the increase of the 28 t limit for trucks to 40 tons. The calculation of the
fee considers the distance driven, the weight of the vehicle and the emission standard. All
vehicles above 3.5 t have to pay this fee for the use of all public roads. For a 40 t standard
truck the charge level is 0.65 Euro per km. Figure 31 shows the system size of the HVF and
the equipment for the trucks. Operator of the HVF system is the Swiss Customs Authority.
The HVF gives incentives to increase the utilisation degree and to use low emission vehicles.
The revenues are used to finance big railway infrastructure projects and roads.
Page 114
Figure 54 HVF System Size and On Board Unit (Rapp Trans AG)
Heavy goods vehicles management on alpine crossing: To improve safety in road tunnels
through the Alps and to homogenize the traffic flows a heavy truck metering system has been
introduced on Swiss Alpine crossings. The concept includes a capacity management with
metering of heavy truck traffic at the tunnel entrance so that a minimum of 60 trucks per hour
(high car volumes) and a maximum of 150 trucks per hour (low car volumes) per direction
can pass the tunnel. Parking and waiting areas along the access motorway are also part of the
system. There a rough pre-metering takes place. If the capacity of the tunnel is overstepped a
ban to use the tunnels is put in place.
Figure 55 Truck metering system on Swiss alpine crossings (Rapp Trans AG)
Truck information system: In 2001 the Swiss Federal Roads Authority has set up a dedicated
information system for trucks (www.truckinfo.ch) with a focus on transalpine traffic. Main
objectives were that traffic management measures need to be explained to the truck industry,
that dynamic information on traffic conditions has to be enhanced in order to limit the impacts
of temporary closures (snow, accidents, etc.) and to promote the use intermodal transport.
Main features of the service are real time information on the road and rail traffic situation,
Page 115
weather forecasts and information related to road conditions, explanation of permanent traffic
management and the policy background and an intermodal routing.
Further elements are timetables for intermodal alternatives and information on driving
restrictions. The operation is based on a Public Private Partnership under the lead of the Swiss
Federal Roads Authority.
Figure 56 Truck Information System (Rapp Trans AG)
Enforcement of road transport regulations: To improve road safety and to provide a fair
competition Switzerland intensified the enforcement of the relevant road transport regulations
relating to driving and resting hours, weight, vehicle and driver conditions. The concept also
includes Heavy Goods Vehicles service centers at key locations on the motorway network.
Page 116
3.11 Conclusions and outlook
In this study we have compared the intermodal transport situation in the Mint Corridor
containing Austria, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden and Germany. We have also compared the
content and results with previous studies by Woxenius and Bärthel from 1994, 2002, 2004.
We will in this chapter present the results and also try to give an outlook of the probable
continuation.
The intermodal freight transport volumes have increased by 500 % since 1988 and hence the
market share has risen to a level of 4-5 % on the European market. The growth of intermodal
transport has occurred in three independent phases. In the first phase, intermodal freight links
was established through the Alps and by ferries as an infrastructure replacement function. In
the second phase the growth of intercontinental container shipping and the competition
between the European ports called for the development of intermodal dry port networks
connecting major ports with inland terminals. The third phase is currently in progress and is
based on large shippers and transport service providers strategies to establish intermodal
freight transport corridors, mainly for semitrailers, in the north-south bound axis from
Scandinavia to Italy. Several of these corridors have been implemented based on subsidies
from the European Union through the Marco Polo program. A future problem is still that road
freight transport is growing faster than the supply and capacity of alternative transport modes.
This will increase the congestions on the road infrastructure, increase the environmental
problems and create other negative external effects for Europe.
The deregulation of the European railway system and in parallel the intermodal freight
transport system started in the end of the 1980s and has, despite heavily opposition from the
former national rail authorities, changed the supply situation from a monopolistic to a semi-
deregulated market situation. All new operators might be regarded as niche operators, since
they have entered the markets for short- and medium haul for large freight flows, i.e. the
markets for block or shuttle trains, for low value products, as bulk flows, and container
shuttles. In parallel to the establishment of new operators the national railway companies and
the traditional intermodal operators have lost large market shares on the container hinterland
market. Hence, the deregulation has increased the competition on the European markets for
block and shuttle trains, but the former railway authorities still have a monopolistic situation
on the market for wagon loads.
The direction and progress of the deregulation process distinguishes in several aspects
between the countries in the MINT corridor. In the Nordic countries the initial semi-
deregulation phase begun in 1988, when new entrants were allowed to establish freight
transport in co-operation with the national rail operator. The initial phase was followed by a
second phase in 1996 and today, after fifteen years, the Swedish market might be regarded as
the most commercially open rail market in Europe. Today the Scandinavian market is
characterized by a division between transport operators, rail traffic/infrastructure managers.
There is no discrimination regarding e.g. allocation of time slots, regarding track fees or
power supply and access to intermodal terminals
An effect of the deregulation and the new entrants on the intermodal transport market is a
significant change in attitudes towards intermodal freight transport and hence changed
willingness to adopt strategies towards an increased utilization of intermodality, since a
strategic decision towards intermodality is not connected to a single rail operator.
Page 117
Deregulation has also forced the railway industry towards lower prices on block and shuttle
trains and increased external and internal quality.
Some large operators have changed strategies or developed their position through new
strategic alliances, and have thus got fast access to new geographical or service markets. The
shipping lines have, in co-operation with inland operators, established new intermodal service
providers in order to control a larger part of the intermodal transport chain. Most of these
new intermodal operators are still found in the Northern part of the MINT corridor, including
Germany and Sweden.
The discussion whether the terminal should be a part of the infrastructure was initiated in the
beginning of the 21st century. The question is crucial under the current EU framework in
which the infrastructure is a government concern while operators should be open for
competition. In most countries, except Sweden, the terminal infrastructure is highly
subsidized, but it might end up in the situation where the infrastructure is supplied by the
public infrastructure providers at a marginal social costs and the terminal operation is up for
tender at commercial cost. No final decision is made, but in Germany and Sweden the number
of private terminal operators is significantly higher than in Austria, Norway and Switzerland.
The European Commission plays an important role in the development of intermodal border
crossing transport chains in the MINT corridor. Several intermodal operators have established
intermodal transport chains based on subsidies from the Marco Polo program as van Dieren,
Volvo Logistics, DHL and based on national funding from Austria LKW Walter. This
indicates the importance on financial subsidies to overcome the often mentioned inertia of
change closely related to the transport business characterized by short-term contracts and low
profitability. Negotiations between intermodal service providers are more or less
characterized by buy-sell relations rather than partnership in order to create win-win
situations. Subsidies for intermodal transport are not a long term solution. Subsidies should be
limited to infrastructure and to start up aids for the operation of new intermodal services
There is a severe lack of capital for intermodal investments and for intermodal operator,
entrepreneurs and inventors this is one of the main barriers for development or significant
change in the intermodal systems. A new market for leasing rail engines, wagons, and engine
drivers has occurred, but most of the traction service is still on short and medium range, but
especially leasing engines have lowered the entry barriers significantly.
In order to balance the socio-economical costs from the transport system the countries in the
MINT corridor are working with different principles and measures. In Switzerland, Austria
and Germany road fees have been introduced for Heavy Vehicles since the year 2000. The
level of fee differs between the countries, but in general two effects might be distinguished. A
HVF increases the load factor and hence the resource utilization in the transport system and
has some effect on the modal split. In Germany the allowed gross weight of trucks are higher
in intermodal transport chains, compensating the heavier units needed for intermodal
transport. Though, to increase the intermodal modal share, more than marginally, the lead
time and time reliability need to be improved. This combination of improvement of the cost-
quality ratio is vital for intermodal freight transport in the future, but is not present in the
Swedish transport policy. Compared to the other countries the shippers in Sweden argue that
there are no incentives towards increased intermodal transport, rather a support for increased
road transports due to long time investments in road infrastructure and increased gross weight
for trucks. Hence there is need to develop further measures to shift road freight to intermodal
Page 118
transport on the MINT transport corridors (e.g. slot reservation system and new measures to
increase time reliability for freight transport related to passenger trains).
During Finland's principal responsibility for the EU in autumn 2006, the European
Commission announced the need to develop and implement information and communications
technology in order to better track shipments and to control logistics chains more properly.
Specifically it highlighted the importance of developing RFID support in logistics chains to
prevent and manage delays. There have been some attempts from the European Union in
order to develop ICT-systems for intermodal freight transport, but still most systems are
applications developed for an operators own production or service system and not for the
complete intermodal transport chains. These applications make their own administration and
production processes more efficient, exchanging orders and billing information with the
coordinating actor. Lack of ability to track and trace shipments and loading units has for long
been regarded as a disadvantage in intermodal freight transport, but an introduction do not
solve the problem regarding time reliability but provides sufficient information for the
consignee to reorganize and re-plan his activities.
The intermodal operators have abandoned the production philosophy to shunt and marshal
intermodal wagons through a network of terminals and marshalling yards. The large operators
as well as the new entrants have almost solely adapted the simple strategy with fixed
formation train sets operated in regular train loops. The production costs are 10-15 lower, but
require large volumes to be consolidated on the terminal and thus long pre and post haulage.
In order to increase the intermodal market significantly the visionary system need to be able
to penetrate the market for small and dispersed freight flows. Attempts have been made to
introduce more flexible systems, with corresponding innovative productions philosophies, but
neither in Sweden nor in Switzerland the implementation of a long-term profitable system
have succeeded.
There are attempts to increase vehicle sizes and train size, but all these parameters are limited
by the infrastructure. Increased sizes must be matched against frequency needs and
transshipment productivity gains. Hence, it is also important to be able to co-produce and
integrate different services with different characteristics in the same system and different and
flexible network designs to utilize the transport and terminal resources efficiently. Using more
flexible production philosophies will save 10 % of the travel distance in a consolidation
network (Woxenius and Bärthel, 2008). Hence, there is need to develop new efficient and
high quality operational concepts and integrated terminal network for serving regional or
national terminals, e.g. in bundling networks or line terminal networks. This includes
development or re-development of the terminals since the today‟s intermodal terminal
network cannot fulfill the today requirements; e.g.. additional capacity is needed;
Improvement of existing terminal infrastructure and improvements of the terminal-line
interface.
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. There is a need for a significant cost-quality leap in
intermodal freight transport, primarily related to frequency and reliability in order to improve
the competitiveness of intermodal freight transport. The cost component differs between the
countries and between different actors, but in general the break even distance is 200-350 kms
for port-hinterland connections and 400-500 km for intercontinental or domestic
Page 119
transportation. Transshipment and pre/end haulage constitutes 50-70 % of the transport chain
costs for domestic transportation. From an operational point of view domestic transportation
is regarded as acceptable, but in the border crossing intermodal freight transport chains there
are still problems due to technical and organizational interoperability between the different
national traffic and infrastructure systems. The change towards closer co-operation between
the organizations in the transport chains has decreased the disadvantage, but still there is a
significant difference when observing domestic and international connections.
From a supply side the decreasing free infrastructure capacity is and further will be a problem
for intermodal freight transport in the future. The prioritization of passenger transport in
combination with lack of terminals (geographical coverage), lack of standardized load units
and administration hampers the competitiveness of intermodal freight transport.
Page 120
References
Aastrup, J. (2002) Networks producing intermodal transportation. Dissertation, Department
of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.
Backman, H. and Nordström, R. (2002) Improved Performance of European Long Haulage
Transport, TFK Report 2002:6E, Stockholm.
Swedish Rail Administration (2007c) Development of the capillary infrastructure -
(Utveckling av det kapillära järnvägsnätet – redovisning av Banverkets regeringsuppdrag), In
Sweidsh, Dnr F07-3339/SA10, Banverket Samhälle och Marknad.
Bark, P. and Skoglund, M. (2009) Utveckling av nytt system för gaffelhantering av
intermodala lastbärare, TFK Rapport 2009:4; Stockholm.
Bergqvist, R. (2007) Studies in regional logistics: the context of public-private collaboration
and road-rail intermodality, Göteborg, BAS.
BMVBS (2006) Richtlinie zur Förderung von Umschlaganlagen des Kombinierten Verkehrs
http://www.bmvbs.de/Anlage/original_955401/Foerderrichtlinie-von-Umschlaganlagen-des-
Kombinierten-Verkehrs.pdf.
BMVBS (2006) Verkehrswirtschaftliche Auswirkungen von innovativen
Nutzfahrzeugkonzepten.
BMVIT (2007) Verkehr in Zahlen Österreich - Ausgabe 2007, Bundesministerium für
Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie, Wien. Entnommen von
http://www.bmvit.gv.at/verkehr/gesamtverkehr/statistik/downloads/viz07gesamt.pdf am
17.5.2008.
Bukold, S. (1996) Kombinierter Verkehr Schiene/Strasse in Europa – Eine vergleichende
Studie zur Transformation von Gütertransportsystemen, Dissertation, Peter Lang Verlag.
Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung (2005) Alpenquerende Güterverkehrserhebung 2004. 2005.
Bärthel, F. and Woxenius, J. (2003) The Dalecarlian Girl - Evaluation of the implementation
of the Light-combi concept, Paper presented at the AGS (Alliance for Global Sustainability)
Annual Meeting, University of Tokyo, 24-27 March, 2003.
Bärthel, F. and Woxenius, J. (2004) Developing Intermodal Transport for Small Flows over
Short Distances, Transport Planning and Technology, 27(5), p. 403-424.
Bärthel, F. and Cardebring, P. (2007) Intermodal statistics, Interim report in the project
RoadPrice, SiR-C Rapport, Borlänge.
Bärthel, F. (2011/a) Assessment of Intermodal line terminals, TFK Report, Stockholm (In
Swedish).
Bärthel, F. (2011/b) Innovative intermodal transport systems for semitrailers, TFK Report,
Stockholm (In Swedish).
Page 121
Cardebring, P. W. and Lundin, M. (2007) Effects of road user charges for heavy goods
vehicles and the potential to influence modal-split, BMT Transport Solutions, Hamburg.
Demker, G. (2000) Geographical aspects on combined transport in Sweden (Geografiska
aspekter på kombitrafiken i Sverige), Kulturgeografiska institutionen vid Göteborgs
Universitet Choros 2000:3.
Destatis (2009) Press release 05.06.2009 and 10.06.2009, Eisenbahnverkehr 2008.
DIOMIS (2006) Developing Infrastructure and Operating Models for Intermodal Shift
(DIOMIS). Workpackage A1 - Trends in Domestic Combined Transport. Unpublsihed project
report. Frankfurt am Main – Freiburg, November 2006
ECORYS et al. (2005) Integrated Services in the intermodal chain, Final report, European
Commission.
ERA-NET TRANSPORT (2007) Overview of research programming and cooperation
mechanism, Jan 2005; update: Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and
Technology (ENT member), August 2007).
Flodén, J. (2007) Modelling intermodal freight transport: the potential of combined transport
in Sweden, Dissertation, BAS, Göteborg.
Gustafsson, I., Cardebring, P. W. and Fiedler, R. (2007) Road User Charging for Heavy
Goods Vehicles - an Overview of Regional Impact, BMT Transport Solutions, Hamburg.
HUPAC (2008) Annual Report 2008.
ICF (2010) Annual Report 2009.
InHoTra (2005) Innovative Intermodal Transshipment Technology – WP2 report.
Jensen, A. (1987) Kombinerade transporter – system, ekonomi och strategier,
Transportforskningsberedningen, Stockholm.
Jensen, A. (2008, red) Customer and Agent initiated intermodal transport chains – a pre
study, (Kund- och agentinitierade intermodala transportsystem – en förstudie), SiR-C
Rapport, Handelshögskolan vid Göteborgs Universitet.
Konings, J.W. and Kreutzberger, E. (2001) Towards a Quality Leap in Intermodal Freight
Transport, Theoretical Notions and Practical Perspectives in Europe, TRAIL Research
School, Delft University Press.
Lundberg, S. (2006) Shipper’s valuation of factors affecting the transport market
(Godskunders värderingar av faktorer som har betydelse på transportmarknaden), Research
Report, TRITA-TEC-LIC 06-001, Järnvägsgruppen, Kungliga tekniska högskolan,
Stockholm.
Macharis, C. och Bontekoning, Y.M. (2004) Opportunities for OR in intermodal
freighttransport research: A review. European Journal of Operational Research 153, 400-416.
Page 122
Manheim, M. L. (1979) Fundamentals of Transportation Systems Analysis, Volume 1, MIT
Press.
NEA, Hacon, Rapp Trans, Gruppo Clas (2008) Terminal Study on the freight corridor
Rotterdam - Genova. 2008.
Nelldal, B-L. (red.) (2005) Efficient trains systems – a system approach (Effektiva tågsystem
för godstransporter – en systemstudie). A synthesis in Swedish, Report 0502, Railway Group,
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Nelldal B-L., Bark P., Wajsman J. and Troche G. (2005) Competitive intermodal freight
transport systems (Konkurrenskraftiga kombitransportsystem), KTH Järnvägsgruppens
rapport 0513, Kungl Tekniska Högskolan, Stockholm.
Nelldal, B.-L., Troche, G. and Wajsman, J. (2009) Effects of road vehcle fees in Sweden
(Effekter av lastbilsavgifter - Analys av effekter av införande av avståndsbaserade
lastbilsavgifter på konkurrens och samverkan mellan järnväg och lastbil), Reserach Report
TRITA-TEC-RR 09-002, Järnvägsgruppen vid Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, Stockholm.
Nozick, L.K. and Morlok, E.K. (1997) A Model for Medium-Term Operations Planning in an
Intermodal Rail-Truck Service. Transportation Research A 31(2), 91-107.
Ohnell, S. and Woxenius, J. (2003) An Industry Analysis of Express Freight from a European
Railway Perspective, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
33(8), pp. 735-751. CPL 1192.
PIARC TC B.4 Freight transport and intermodality (2009) Material of Working group B4.2:
Interfaces of freight transport on roads with other modes. (not published)
PIARC TC 2.4 Freight transport and intermodality (2007). Measures promoting alternatives to
the road and intermodal terminals.
Rapp Trans et al. (2009) PROMIT: Promote Innovative Intermodal transport. Deliverable
3.1-3.3 Best Practice Handbook. April 2009.
Rapp Trans AG (2010). Mengengerüst für den intermodalen Binnenverkehr der Schweiz.
SBB Cargo. März 2010.
Rapp Trans AG (2009). Terminallandschaft Schweiz. SBB Infrastruktur. 2009.
Rapp Trans AG (2007). KLV-Mengengerüst Schweiz und Gateway Terminal Zürich. Mai
2007.
Rapp Trans AG (2008) Modal Split Funktionen im Güterverkehr. SVI Bericht. 2009.
Rapp Trans AG (2006) Evaluation des KLV Bestellverfahrens. BAV.
Rapp Trans AG (2005) Vor- und Nachlauf im kombinierten Ladungsverkehr.
Forschungsauftrag SVI 1999/329 auf Antrag der Vereinigung der Schweizerischen
Verkehrsingenieure (SVI). UVEK/ASTRA. Juni 2005.
Page 123
RappTrans AG/ETH (2005) Ausgestaltung von Terminals für den (unbegleiteten)
Kombinierten Ladungsverkehr. Forschungsauftrag VSS 1998/189 auf Antrag des
Schweizerischen Verbandes der Strassen- und Verkehrsfachleute (VSS). UVEK/ASTRA, Juni
2005.
Rudel, R. 2002 Shifting the Paradigm in the Intermodal Rail-Road Haul Industry - A Case
Study from Switzerland, International Congress on Freight Transport, Automation and
Multimodality: Organisational and Technological Innovations. Delft, The Netherlands.
Ruesch, Martin (2007) Innovative governmental approaches to support and promote
intermodal transport on transalpine corridors through Switzerland. Paper and presentation
for the World Road Congress in Paris. 2007.
Ruesch, Martin and Debauche, Wanda and Jacob, Bernard (2009) A green shift for freight: An
European Perspective, Presentation at the PIARC Seminar on Sustainable Transport.
Timisoara, Romania, 16-18 September 2009.
Ruesch, Martin et al. (2000) Standort- und Transportkonzepte für den Kombinierten
Ladungsverkehr, Berichte des NFP 41 „Verkehr und Umwelt“, Bericht B2, Bern, 2000.
Schauerte (2009) Die Internationalisierung der europäischen Bahnen, Presentation given at
the IIR-Güterverkehrsforum in Vienna on the 27.4.09.
Schmidt (2009) Geschäftsmodell und Zukunftsperspektive des Einzelwagenverkehrs,
Presentation given at the IIR-Güterverkehrsforum in Vienna on the 27.4.09.
SGKV (2007) Förderung des Kombinierten Verkehrs.
SGKV (2007) Liste der Terminals des Kombinierten Verkehrs.
SIKA (2008/a) Rail Transport 2006 (Bantrafik 2006), Statens Institut för
Kommunikationsanalys, SIKA Statistik 2008.2, Stockholm.
SIKA (2008/b) Potential för överflyttning av person- och godstransporter mellan trafikslag,
SIKA Rapport 2008:10.
SPINALP (2009) Scanning the potential of Intermodal transport on alpine corridors:
Manual. April 2009.
Stokland, Ø., Sund-Björgen, and Netland, T. (2010) Challenges in intermodal logistics
networks and terminals - a Norwegian viewpoint, Paper presented at WCTR, 2010.
Storhagen, N. G. & Bärthel, F. & Bark, P. (2008) Intermodal transport of non-durable
products (Intermodala transporter av dagligvaror), TFK Rapport 2008:3, Stockholm.
Taylor, G.D., F. Broadstreet, T.S. Meinert and J.S. Usher (2002) An analysis of intermodal
ramp selection methods, Transport Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 38,
117-134.
Swedfreight (2009/a) Intermodal transport in 2009 – market, trends and outlook, Stockholm,
Maj 2009.
Page 124
Swedfreight (2009/b) Freight transport, Enterprises and the society in 2009,
(Godstransporterna, Näringslivet och Samhället) 2009, Stockholm, juli 2009.
VTI (2008) Longer road trains and their effects on the transport system (Långa lastbilars
effekter på transportsystemet), VTI 2008:10, Publikation.
VTT (2009) PROMIT: Promote Innovative Intermodal transport. Deliverable 5.3 Strategy
and Recommendations. March 2009. BMVBS (2001) Bericht des Bundesministeriums für
Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen zum Kombinierten Verkehr .
Wajsman, J. (2008) Potential for modal shift from road to rail (Överföring av gods från
lastbil till järnväg), PM 2008-11-07, Banverket och KTH.
Wenger, H. (2001) UIRR 30 Jahre, Brussels, UIRR.
Woxenius, J. (1994) Modelling European Combined Transport as an Industrial System,
Department of Logistics and Transportation, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg.
Woxenius, J. (1998) Development of Small-scale Intermodal Transport in a Systems Context.
Dissertation, Department of Logistics and Transportation, Chalmers University of
Technology, 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.
Page 125
Page 126
4 Interviews with intermodal actors and authorities about the use of strategic and tactical models
This chapter presents models and tools used ny actors and authorities to investigate, evaluate
and analyze costs and benefits for terminal networks as well as single terminals.
4.1 Introduction
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 analyze costs and benefits for terminal networks as well as single terminals. Evidently an
important basis for the project must be a good knowledge of what kind of tools that are used
in the process today. Therefore, an interview survey has been carried out among key actors
with a potential interest in modeling of intermodal transport in Sweden and Germany.
4.2 Aim
The design, redesign and operation of intermodal terminals and terminal networks are affected
by:
More or less explicit (standardized) procedures and processes.
A large number of variables and parameters.
European, national, regional and local laws and regulations.
System or technical standards and norms.
The tacit knowledge within the planning authorities and transport companies.
The knowledge and approaches developed and utilized within the transport industry,
infrastructure administrations and the research community influence the outcome of strategic,
tactical planning, design, evaluation and implementation processes. This knowledge and these
processes differ between the countries.
Problems can, in general, be divided into structured, semi-structured and un-structured
problems. Structured problem are narrow focused, frequent, routine decisions that easily can
be solved by computers and mathematical formulas, e.g. shortest route calculations. Non-
structured problems are infrequent, often strategic, problems that are not easily quantifiable
and that requires a lot of human experience, tacit knowledge, and interpretation in the
problem solving process, e.g. a company‟s decision to enter a new market. In between the two
problem types lie the semi-structured problems. These, often tactical, problems are a mix of
the quantifiable structured problems and the non-quantifiable un-structured problems.
Typically, these problems are the domain of the decisions support systems (DSS). As the
name implies, these are (computer) systems designed to support the decision, but not to
ultimately solve them. DSS consist for different kinds of modeling systems to provide input to
the further decision making process.
Page 127
As can be seen from the problem description in the beginning of this chapter, DSS and
modeling systems have the potential to greatly contribute to the design, redesign and
operation of intermodal terminals and terminal networks. It is therefore important to
investigate the current use of this type of systems among the concerned actors to find if these
types of systems are used today, and to what extent.
Considering the overall aim of the MINT-project to develop a comprehensive model and
decision support system, it is also of great importance to map any shortcomings of the current
systems.
Task 1.3 is subdivided into three subtasks
1. Development of semi-structured questionnaire for strategic an tactical models and
decision support systems
2. Interview with identified respondents in each country
3. Summing up and reporting
4.3 Methodology
The task started with the development of a semi-structured questionnaire (appendix 1) aimed
at actual and potential users of model systems. The purpose of the interviews was to get an
overview of the use of models in the industry and research community today and to identify
strength and weaknesses with the used models. If models are not used what is the reason for
that? Another question of interest is to find out who are the actual or potential users of model
systems for decision support and to identify user requirements that can/should be added to the
MINT-model.
The respondents were selected to represent organisations involved in the design and
evaluation of intermodal terminal networks on a strategic or tactical level. The selection was
based on the participating researchers several years experience from intermodal transport
research. All organisations identified as potential model users were contacted. From the list of
potential model users a few organisations were left out after discussions with the intended
respondent when they claimed that their needs of using a model system for decision support
were non-existent or very small.
The majority of actual and potential users were found in Germany where 15 interviews were
carried out. In Sweden 6 interviews and in Austria 3 interviews were performed.
A majority of the respondents represents consultants (13). National and regional public
authorities (5), transport operators (4), infrastructure operators (1) and university (1) make up
the rest.
4.4 The respondents area of research/analysis
In the first questions we asked for information in which area of research and analysis the
respondent was engaged. We defined five areas:
1. Macro level intermodal network analysis (e.g. national forecasts and planning, policy,
regulation, taxing).
Page 128
2. Infrastructure investment analysis (e.g. new roads, railways).
3. Network Planning and Operations (strategic, tactical, e.g. starting a new service,
number of trains to use. NOT day to day planning).
4. Terminal (node) location model.
5. Terminal Planning and Operations (strategic, tactical, e.g. terminal design or long term
changes, NOT day to day operations).
“Network planning and operations” (13) followed by” Macro level intermodal network
analysis” (10) was the most common areas. “Infrastructure investment analysis” was
mentioned by eight respondents while “Terminal planning and operations” was given as
activity area by seven and “Terminal location modeling” was less usual with only four
respondents.
Ten of the organizations are specialized in just one of the areas while only two reported
activity in all areas.
The number of people working with intermodal research and analysis varied very much
between the different organizations – from 1 to 55. All together the interviews covered
organizations with approximately 200 persons engaged in research and analysis in the
intermodal freight transport area. The average number of people per organization is highest by
the consultants and lowest by the authorities and, to our surprise by infrastructure operators.
The background of the employees working in the field is in most cases an academic degree
but in very different disciplines. Engineers and economists are common.
4.5 Model use
The chosen sample of organizations is for obvious reasons to a high degree using computer
models (the sample consisted of organizations which were potential or actual model users).
However, in some cases the organizations did not use models. Especially authorities and
consultants with a focus do not use models. Some organisations used consultants that used
models, although it was seldom required that the consultant should use a model to solve the
problem.
The given reasons for not using models in their own organisation are among others:
consultant with model contracted due to lack of expertise in-house
consultant with model contracted due to rare occasions (in-house expert not
justifiable)
expertise is delivered by appropriate partners
„no strategic decision are made about terminals”
decisions are based on personal experiences (sometimes instinct)
simple cost and qualitative indicators used
Page 129
no business in the intermodal field
lack of confidence in models
“Have not found any suitable models, but are much interested.”
On the question “Why do you use models” the most common answers are that the amount of
information is huge and that the complexity of the analysis is very high and models can help
to simplify the planning tasks. Another answer was that using models ensures that standards
are applied when planning intermodal transport systems or facilities.
In the interviews a lot of different models are mentioned. Some of them are in-house models
not accessible for “outsiders”. Others are well-known commercially accessible models. In
MINT Deliverable 2.2 an overview of models connected to intermodal freight transport are
described.
In the following table the names of the models mentioned in the interviews are listed
according to their purpose and theoretical background.
Table 17 Models mentioned by the interviewees listed according to purpose and theoretical
background (Based on Roland Frindik, Marlo Consultants).
Model use
Stochastic
simulation
Optimization Deterministic
calculations
Purpose
Macro level
intermodal network
analysis
DB model
Cube Cargo
Polydrom/SICO
DB model
WiVSim
Dismod
SimuGV
SAMGODS
Infrastructure
investment analysis
DB model
Cube Cargo
DB model SimuGV
SAMGODS
Network Planning
and Operations
(strategic, tactical)
DB model
Cube Cargo
Polydrom/SICO
Planimate
NEMO
DB model
Dismod
Intermodal4all
SimuGV, IMTIS
SPIN ALP
INTERIM-tool sets
Railsys, Open Track
Planimate
Terminal (node)
location model
ArcGIS Network
Analyst
Dismod
Railsys, Open Track
Terminal Planning
and Operations
(strategic, tactical)
Enterprise Dynamics
Planimate
SimConT
SimConT Railsys, Open Track
Planimate
Page 130
Most of these models are not specially developed to model intermodal transport systems but
freight transport in general or rail transport system. Therefore they have weaknesses to model
intermodal transport chains and intermodal operations.
On the question “Why have you selected these models?” the answers are of course different
between organizations who have chosen to develop models in-house and those who have
chosen to use available solutions.
The reasons to develop their own models could be:
available software do not deliver the appropriate features
available software cannot be adapted due to methodical reasons
available software cannot be adapted due to license reasons
user wanted to establish a unique expertise and tool
user wanted to establish a solution appropriate to their vast database
user want to keep exclusive rights to the model
user want to assure a long lasting solution (no dependency on provider)
the scientific status cannot be implemented with exisiting solutions
The reasons to use available solutions could be:
user has no indeep knowledge
user needs a fast implementation
using available solutions is more economic
adaptation is more efficient than starting from scratch
The organizations using models have in most cases used them for many years and often taken
part in the development of the software. There are few examples of changing to a completely
new model.
On the question “Which features do you miss in the models?” it is interesting to note that a
majority of the respondents point out deficiencies in the models even if they are the
developer. Evidently use of models “stimulates the appetite” for decision support tools.
Asked for “Which other methods do you use in your intermodal research?” the most common
answer is that they use cost-benefit-analyses (CBA) as a complement to the modeling results.
It is clear from the survey that models are rarely used for the design and development of
intermodal terminal networks. It appears that it does not come natural to look at models for
these kinds of problems. Simplified cost calculations and tacit knowledge are commonly used
to solve the problem. Models are sometimes used by government authorities, but very rarely
by commercial companies. There is no apparent lack of models, but the models used tend to
Page 131
be local models used only by the own organization or by a few organizations. There is no
clear market leader among the models.
The fact that most organizations tend to develop their own model or heavily adapt existing
ones can be caused by several factors. It could imply that the requirements are very specific
for each organization or that the current models are designed for specific problems. Many of
the locally developed models are not publically available, which also limits the number of
potential models to choose from.
None of the organizations that have started using models, have stopped using them. This
indicates that the users are satisfied with modeling as a tool. It is also possible that this is
influenced by the large work put into developing and adapting the models, since it is safe to
assume that an organization that has invested heavily in a model is less likely to abandon it.
The large workload included in developing the models might also be a reason for the
commercial companies to avoid using models. A large investment in a model, which
presumable also takes a long time to develop, must appear risky for a company. The risk is
obvious that the modeling project might fail or that the results are delivered to late.
Government agencies, that use more models, have a responsibility to supply the government
with decision support concerning intermodal investments etc. This decision support must, for
political reasons, be based on quantitative numbers. It is difficult to imagine a government
deciding on building a new road because it “feels right”. Tacit knowledge, experience and
simplified calculations are allowed to play a much larger role in decision making in a
commercial organization.
The potential user of a new model system, such as MINT, is clearly government but also
railways and intermodal service providers which also own and operate terminals.. The use of
models is a long term process for the organizations where they expect to be involved in the
development and adaptation of the model for their purposes. A new system must either adapt
to this or be able to provide a simple and fast solution to target the more commercial modeling
market.
Page 132
5 Strategic Intermodal Freight Transport Models - A Literature Review
There exist a large number of transport models. The MDir (Model Directory) database, for
example, lists 306 transport models only in Europe8. The models vary from very large and
complex models covering both passenger and freight transport, all transport modes and a large
geographical area, to smaller models of only one mode in a limited area. The level of
aggregation and simplification is also different between the models.
The MINT-project aims at developing a new model and decisions support system for
intermodal freight transport. As a part of the MINT-project, a review of existing freight
models is made in this report. The review will mainly be based on previous reviews, e.g. by
ME&P and WSP (2002), MOTOS (2007), Lundqvist and Mattsson (2002), on-line databases
such as MDir (Model DIRectory) (http://www.motosproject.eu/?po_id=mdir) or ATOM
(Access TO transport Models) (http://www.isis-it.net/atom/), previous knowledge of models
among the partners in the MINT-project and the results from the model user interviews in WP
1.3 in the MINT project. The focus is on computer models with a similar purpose as the
intended MINT-model. The models must also be standalone computer software(s)
implemented in a (more or less) user friendly environment. Pure mathematical models are
thus not included. The demand for transport can be externally given.
When a larger model consists of several sub-models, the review will focus on the model
responsible for the modal split. For example, the national Swedish transport model
SAMGODS contains several modules made in different software. What is interesting in this
review is the intermodal part, which is modeled in the STAN software. Thus, this review
includes the STAN-software but not the SAMGODS model. However, the full model is
included in cases where it is not possible identify an independent intermodal model in the
larger model.
5.1 Freight Transport Modelling
Traditionally, freight transport modelling is divided into four steps according to the classical 4
step model.
1. Production and attraction
2. Trip distribution
3. Modal split
4. Assignment
The four step model is not a “model” in itself, but rather a methodology of steps to perform as
a part of a complete transport model. A transport model does not have to include all four
steps, although some models do. The four step model is generally accepted and a useful
framework to classify the found models to in this literature review. The four step model was
8 Available on-line at http://www.motosproject.eu/?po_id=mdir Accessed October 2009.
Page 133
originally designed for passenger transport, but is also used also for freight transport. The four
steps will be explained in the following sections.
5.1.1 Production and attraction
This first step is concerned with determining to total goods volume going in and out from a
region. This step is not concerned with where the goods is going to or coming from, but only
with the production and attraction of a region. When proper freight statistics is missing, this is
normally performed by econometrics and statistical calculations based on geographical
characteristics, such as industry structure, company turnover, population or GDP. A review by
ME&P and WSP (2002) defines three main approaches to the production and attraction in
transport models.
1. Trend and time series models
The extrapolation of historical data into the future, e.g. regression models or time
series.
2. System Dynamic Models
Transport demand develops and changes over time using feedback to/from land use,
economy etc.
3. Input-Output models
Macro economics models where demand for transport is derived from economic
activity. This uses input-output matrixes, showing how the output of one industry is an
input to each other industry.
5.1.2 Trip Distribution
The second step concerns how the demand for transport is translated into origin/destination
pairs, i.e. what good is transported from where to where. This is based on the production and
attraction of a region from step 1 and uses factors such as transport cost and distances. The
review by ME&P and WSP (2002) defines two approaches to trip distribution. The most
common is the gravity model, where the interaction between two locations is assumed to
decline with increasing distance between them, due to increasing transport cost and time. The
other main approach is to use regional input-output models, i.e. perform the production and
attraction (step 1) with regional input-output matrixes, thus, receiving the trip distribution as
an output from that model.
5.1.3 Modal Split
The modal split step concerns the choice of transport mode. This concerns transport cost,
times, infrastructure etc., but is most often made on cost. ME&P and WSP (2002) separates
between aggregated and disaggregated modal split models. Aggregate models works on a
zone level and determines the share for each transport mode per zone, where disaggregate
models determines the modal split for each shipment. Both often use Logit models.
Multi-modal network models can also be used where the network (including all transport
modes) is defined as a number of links and nodes (e.g. terminals and transhipment points)
Page 134
with certain attributes, e.g. cost and time to use. A cost minimizing algorithm is used to
determine the modal split and route choice in the network.
The modal split might also be externally given to the model, i.e. as a part of the input data.
5.1.4 Assignment
This last step concerns the route choice in the network, e.g. which roads to use between A and
B. This is often made by choosing the shortest of fastest route using a shortest route
algorithm. This can also be included in the modal split step when a multi-modal network
model is used.
5.2 Transport Models
A model is a tool created to solve a problem. The model is dependent on the problem, but also
on the modeller and the choices that the person makes. Even if the problem is the same, two
models can thus can be designed in different ways and using different methods. It is also
important to differentiate between the underlying model, i.e. the tool in the form of some kind
of calculation model, and the implementation of the model to solve a specific problem, i.e. the
input data and specific adaptations of the model.
A transport system exists on several levels. The system can be divided in three levels: Freight
flows, Transport network and Transport infrastructure (Wandel, et al., 1992). See Figure 57
below. The top level represents supply chains in nodes and links and is the demand for
transport, e.g. number of shipments, size, time constraints, frequency etc. The second level
represents the transport network and its associated traffic, e.g. the movement of trucks and
trains on a transport network. This is derived from the freight flow level. The traffic is
performed on the bottom level consisting of the infrastructure in the transport system.
A transport model can work on any or all of the three levels. Strategic models commonly
work on the higher level concerning freight flows, but can also model the actual physical
transport on the middle level, or detailed routing on the bottom infrastructure level. Modelling
on the freight flow level concerns the larger flows, e.g. number of tones from A to B, viewed
as a continuous flow. Transport is modelled using generalised cost, e.g. cost per ton and
transported kilometre. Individual trucks, trains etc. are not considered on this level. Modelling
on a transport network level includes how the actual physical transport is performed in more
detail. Here, individual trucks, trains etc. are considered, although their behaviour, cost and
performance can still be generalised. Modelling on a transport infrastructure level includes
how the transport operates on the infrastructure in detail, e.g. including detailed routing,
driving time restrictions, speed variations etc. This is more common in operational models or
models intended to show different operations, e.g. terminals.
A review of Friedrich and Liedtke (2004) gives an overview, if and how logistic choice levels
are represented within freight transportation models. Considering logistics as link between
economic activity and the transportation system, a certain number of microeconomic
decisions lead from economic activity to vehicle flows on transportation infrastructure.
Page 135
Figure 57 Three levels in a transport system
The authors state, that there is a gap between the coverage of the micro level (the commodity
flows – perspective of individual decision makers) and the macro level (aggregate transport
load of infrastructure networks – perspective of transport planners and policy makers) in
transport modeling. This gap, called meso level, represents the combination of individual
flows to groups. By summing up these vehicle tours or train operations, the link to the macro
level can be set up. A review of planning problems faced by different actors in the intermodal
network can be found in Caris et.al (2008).
5.3 A review of models
The aim of this literature review is to give an overview of intermodal freight transport models
to be used as a background to the development of the MINT-model. The models must be a
stand-alone computer software (or several software connected).
The intention is to give a short overview of available models and not to evaluate and explain
the models in detail. This is referred to the references shown for each model and the previous
reviews.
The models have been divided into Strategic intermodal models and Terminal models. The
models are sorted in alphabetical order. A brief overview will also be given about rail models.
Page 136
5.4 Strategic Intermodal Models
Strategic is the “identification of long-term or overall aims and interests and the means of
achieving them”9 and is the highest of the three classical modelling levels:, operational,
tactical and strategic. Operational models concerns the routine and day-to-day operations (e.g.
route selection), tactical concerns attempts to reach a specific goal beyond the immediate
action (e.g. planning time tables for the next year), while strategic models focuses on long-
term decisions. Typical goals of a strategic model is to answer questions such as: What will be
the effect on modal split if a road tax is introduced?, How will the demand for transport
develop in the next 20 years?, Is it profitable to start a new intermodal transport service
between A and B?
A strategic model is often used as a Decision Support System (DSS). As the name implies,
this means that the model itself does not deliver the absolute answer to the question but is
only used as support to make the decision. The strategic model is used together with other
models and analyses to make the final decision. This is typical of the semi-structured and
unstructured decisions the strategic models are used for.
This particular review focuses on strategic models for intermodal freight transport. Intermodal
is in the perspective interpreted in a rather broad way and includes all models that includes
more than one transport mode and that includes transhipment between the modes.
Output from a strategic transport model normally includes modal split and costs. Some
models also include environmental effects and transport quality (e.g. transport times).
The strategic models must includes more than one transport mode and include transhipment
between the modes. At least step 3, Modal Split, from the four step model must be included.
The focus is on the underlying model and not the implementations of the model.
Many of the larger models in this review is closely linked to a certain geographical region and
designed for that region. This is particularly true for models including step 1 and 2 of the four
step model, as the design of these steps are very dependent on the geographical regions and
data availability. However, the focus in this review is on step 3, the modal split, and on the
associated output data (costs, flows, etc.), as step 1 and 2 are not included in the MINT-
model. It has been assumed that it is possible to use the modal split function in other
geographical areas. It should be noted that using one of these larger models on another
geographical area, most likely, will require extensive work on the model.
9 The Oxford Dictionary of English
Page 137
5.4.1 CUBE
Name CUBE
Abbreviation CUBE
Modal split Aggregated logit model
Four stage steps 1-4
Level modelled Transport network, Transport infrastructure
Presentation Graphical, GIS
Author, organisation Citlabs
Introduced year n/a
Homepage www.citilabs.com
References
Comment
Cube is a commercial modeling software based on the ArcGIS software from ESRI. The
software consists of several modules for freight, passenger transport, land use, analysis,
microsimulation etc. The freight modeling is focused on forecasting freight flows, but covers
all 4 steps of the classical transport model. The modal choice is made by a multinomial logit
model. The new Swedish national freight model is being developed in Cube. Cube is here
used for as an interface and to manage the network. The modal split is made in a newly
develop model from the Dutch company Significance, which includes modeling of
consolidations at terminals and modeling of the logistics system.
Page 138
5.4.2 DISMOD
Name DISMOD
Abbreviation DISMOD
Modal split -
Four stage steps 4
Level modelled Transport network, Transport infrastructure
Presentation Graphical, GIS
Author, organisation Fraunhofer IML
Introduced year Ca 2000
Homepage www.iml.fraunhofer.de/302.html
References
Comment
DISMOD is a commercial GIS based planning and optimisation tool for transportation
systems. The model was developed to optimise distribution and procurement networks. This
includes location optimisations and routing and scheduling problems. The model can handle
intermodal transport chains, but does not perform the modal split. An extended model called
DISMOD Multimodal that includes intermodal transport planning, terminal localisations and
intermodal routing is currently being developed.
Page 139
5.4.3 EUFRANET
Name European Freight Rail Net Model
Abbreviation EUFRANET
Modal split Nested logit model
Four stage steps 1-3
Level modelled Freight flow
Presentation Graphical, GIS
Author, organisation INRETS (Project coordinator)
Introduced year 2001
Homepage n/a
References EUFRANET (2001)
Comment EU 4th
framework programme
EUFRANET is a transport model with focus on the rail system and the intention to develop
the rail system in Europe for both passenger and freight. Rail is, thus, detailed modeled, but
with less accuracy on other modes. Modal split is made using a nested logit model.
Page 140
5.4.4 HIT-model
Name Heuristics Intermodal Transport Model
Abbreviation HIT-model
Modal split Disaggregated heuristics
Four stage steps 3
Level modelled Transport network
Presentation Tables, GIS partly
Author, organisation Jonas Flodén, School of Business, Economics and Law at University
of Gothenburg
Introduced year 2007
Homepage www.hgu.gu.se/item.aspx?id=15979
References Flodén (2007)
Comment
The HIT-model is a heuristic model and it takes its starting point in a competitive situation
between traditional all-road transport and intermodal transport, where the modal split and
potential of intermodal transport is determined by how well it performs in comparison with
all-road transport. The model can also be used as a tool to calculate the costs and
environmental effects of a given transport system.
A transport buyer is supposed to select the mode of transport offering the best combination of
transport quality, cost, and environmental effects. Intermodal transport is also required to
match, or outperform, the delivery times offered by all-road transport. Given a demand for
transport, the model determines the most appropriate modal split, sets train time tables, type
and number of trains, number of rail cars, type of load carriers, etc. and calculates business
economic costs, social economic costs and the environmental effects of the transport system.
The model is programmed in C++.
Page 141
5.4.5 KombiSim
Name KombiSim
Abbreviation KombiSim
Modal split Comparison
Four stage steps 3
Level modelled Transport network
Presentation Tables, diagrams
Author, organisation Karl Jivén, Mariterm AB
Introduced year 1999
Homepage www.mariterm.se
References Sjöbris and Jivén (1999), Mariterm (2001)
Comment Cost and environmental calculations of a given intermodal system
compared to direct road transport
KombiSim is a simulation model that calculates and compares the costs and environmental
effect of both intermodal road-rail transport and direct road transport for a given transport
demand. No modal split function is included. The model was created in 1999 by the
consultancy firm Mariterm AB (Sjöbris and Jivén, 1999) for the Swedish National Railway
Administration. The transport system (routes, timetables, capacities, etc.) is considered given.
A maximum of four trains, ten terminals, ten train routes and one type of load unit can be
modelled simultaneously. The model is built in the simulation software PowerSim with input
and output modules in Microsoft Excel and is commercially available.
Page 142
5.4.6 NODUS
Name NOUDS
Abbreviation NODUS
Modal split Multimodal Network Model
Four stage steps 3-4
Level modelled Freight flow
Presentation Graphical, GIS
Author, organisation FUCaM-GTM, Catholic university of Mons
Introduced year 1991
Homepage www.fucam.ac.be/nodus
References Jourquin and Beuthe (1996, 2001)
Comment
NOUDS is a network model developed by Jourquin and Beuthe (1996, 2001). It is graphical
software for analysing multimodal freight networks. The software aims at determining the
choice of modes and routes that minimises total transport cost. The software uses virtual
networks where each possible transhipment option and operations is represented by a link,
e.g. if a link can be operate by two different vehicles with the different (average) cost, then
this is represented by two links. Several new versions of the software have been released with
increased functionality concerning cost functions, assignment procedures etc. including cost
curves non-linear with the distance and capacity constrained assignment. Time is included as
a monetary cost. NODUS is also used in the DSSITP project where it is combined with a
location analysis model for intermodal terminals (LAMBIT) and a simulation model for barge
transport (SIMBA) to from a decision support system for intermodal transport (Macharis, et
al., 2009).
Page 143
5.4.7 The Platform project
Name The Platform project
Abbreviation n.a.
Modal split Multimodal Network Model
Four stage steps 3-4
Level modelled Transport infrastructure (Terminal), Transport network, Freight flow
Presentation Graphical user interface
Author, organisation Project coordination: Ingegneria dei Trasporti, Rome, Italy
Introduced year 1999
Homepage http://www.idsia.ch/platform/
References Rizzoli et al. (2002), Gambardella et al. (2002)
Comment
The Platform project, financed through the IV Framework Programme of the European
Community, had as one of the project aims the “implementation of a simulation environment
for the assessment of impacts produced by the adoption of different technologies and
management policies to enhance terminal performances”. Project outcomes are presented by
Rizzoli et al. (2002), who introduce an agent based system combined with a discrete-event
simulation software, using MODSIM III as development tool, for planning the flow of ITUs
using combined rail/road transport (among and) within inland intermodal terminals.
The model is built in three modules: a road network planning and simulation module, a
terminal simulation module and a corridor simulation module. The modules are designed to
work parallel and interchange information.
The user of the simulation model defines the terminal(s) with their internal characteristics and
arrival scenarios for trains and trucks. A timetable containing departure and arrival times
accounts for the travel times in the rail corridor between two terminals, also there is a
schedule for the truck arrivals. The model simulates the basic terminal internal processes
(loading and unloading of ITUs, also considering storage and buffer areas), gathering
performance indicators of the terminal equipment.
It is possible to simulate a single terminal, but also a network of terminals. The so gathered
statistics comprise equipment performance, ITU residence time and terminal throughputs.
Page 144
5.4.8 SimNet
Name SimNet
Abbreviation SimNet
Modal split Multimodal Network Model
Four stage steps 3-4
Level modelled Transport infrastructure (terminal), Transport network (service
network), Freight flows
Presentation n.a.
Author, organisation Edith Schindlbacher, BOKU University
Introduced year 2010
Homepage n.a.
References n.a.
Comment
SimNet is a simulation model to evaluate container terminal network behavior at a tactical
level. Given a certain transport infrastructure and transport service network, the flow of load
units through the considered network and thus the work load of the network links and nodes is
evaluated.
The flow of the load units through the network evolves from the branching-decisions made at
the network nodes. These decisions comprise factors as the share of direct moves, storage
time distribution or the transshipment distribution according to the served modi (share of
train-train, train-truck, truck-train … transshipment).
Of special interest are changes in the network flow as consequences of work overload of a
certain network infrastructure element, respectively exceptional events disrupting normal
operation. In such a case, the network nodes communicate with each other in order to
negotiate about rerouting opportunities in case of extraordinary transshipment demand, and
inform each other if planned container movements cannot take place (i.e. due to (partial)
breakdown of a terminal, capacity overload…), so that the other network participants can be
aware of additional free capacities, or can take over the loading units another one cannot
handle. In addition, link capacities and train schedules limit the rerouting possibilities.
Page 145
5.4.9 SimuGV
Name SimuGV
Abbreviation SimuGV
Modal split Aggregated logit model
Four stage steps 1-3
Level modelled Freight flow
Presentation Graphical
Author, organisation BVU Beratergruppe Verkehr+Umwelt
Introduced year 2000
Homepage www.bvu.de
References Schneider (Schneider), Schneider, et al. (2003)
Comment
SimuGV is a freight forecast model used in the German Federal Transport Investment Plan. It
determines the modal split using a three-step nested logit model containing 13 different
modes. SimuGV contains tools for scenario definitions and visualisation. It also calculates the
terminal choice in intermodal transport using the location of terminals, service supply and
catchment area as input.
A user friendly version of the model is implemented in the model system MOSES (Strategic
Simulation and Modelling Tool for Rail Freight Transportation), which is used by Deutsche
Bahn. The MOSES system is aimed at rail planning and also includes several rail specific
modules, e.g. for train formation and timetable optimization.
Page 146
5.4.10 SMILE
Name Strategic Model for Integrated Logistic Evaluations
Abbreviation SMILE
Modal split Multimodal network model
Four stage steps 1-3
Level modelled Freight flow
Presentation Graphical, GIS
Author, organisation TNO-Inro
Introduced year 1998
Homepage www.tno.nl
References Tavasszy, et al. (1998)
Comment
The SMILE model was developed to produce forecasts to Dutch freight flows for a large
number of products and freight flows. The model takes a wider logistics view and includes
not only production and transport, but also inventory by including warehousing costs and
locating warehouses in the network. So called Make/Use tables are used to define input and
output from a region in tones, in contrast to the conventional input/output tables used in other
models that uses economic activity instead of tonnes. The modal choice is made using cost
minimization in the multimodal network while considering the value of time.
Page 147
5.4.11 STAN
Name Strategic planning of national and regional freight transportation
Abbreviation STAN
Modal split Multimodal Network Model
Four stage steps 3-4
Level modelled Freight flow
Presentation Graphical, GIS
Author, organisation INRO Consultants Inc
Introduced year 1990
Homepage www.inro.ca
References Guélat, et al., (1990) and Crainic, et al. (1990)
Comment
STAN is a multimodal network model based on work by Guélat, et al., (1990) and Crainic, et
al. (1990). The model is intended for strategic planning of freight flows and is integrated into
the commercial, interactive graphical STAN-software from INRO Consultants Inc in Canada.
The model works on a rather aggregate freight flow level. The model assigns transport flows
to different modes and routes with an aim to minimise the total system cost. The cost
functions consider prices, transport time and can also consider further variables as reliability,
value of the goods, risk of damage etc. (NEA et al., 2002). Generalised costs can be calculated
for transport on links, O-D pairs, transfers between modes and as well in the whole transport
system. Each link and transfer is assigned an average cost function, i.e. both the first and the
tenth load carrier on a link are assigned the same cost. Flows are handled on an aggregate
level. For example, the input flow in tons on a train route is converted a typical rail car for
that commodity on each train route and not necessarily conserved when transferred to the next
train route. Using this conversion, the number of trains on the link is calculated. Train
timetables, etc. are, thus, not used. Time is only included as a part of the delay cost functions.
The multimode multiproduct assignment can also consider capacity restraints.
The STAN software is used for national transport planning in several countries. In Sweden,
the STAN software is included in the SAMGODS model (SAMPLAN, 2001). SAMGODS
consists of several modules, e.g. demand modules and evaluation modules, where STAN is
used as the network module. STAN also has similar use in the Norwegian NEMO-model.
STAN was also used in Switzerland for the design and evaluation of intermodal terminal
location and transport networks (Ruesch et al. 2000).
The software has proved its worth as an aid for developing alternatives, estimating the effects
of various location and transport concepts and policy measures in freight and especially
intermodal freight transport (NEA et al., 2002). It can also be used as a network optimisation
Page 148
tool. In general it is suitable for strategic freight transport planning using aggregated data on
regional, national and international level.
5.4.12 STREAMS / SCENES
Name Strategic Transport Research for European Member States / European
Transport Scenarios
Abbreviation STREAMS /SCENES
Modal split Multinominal nested logit
Four stage steps 1-3
Level modelled Freight flow
Presentation Graphical, GIS
Author, organisation Marcial Echenique & Partners Ltd (Project coordinator)
Introduced year 2000/2002
Homepage n/a
References STREAMS (2000), Williams (2002), SCENES (2002)
Comment EU 4th
framework programme
The STREAMS model was designed to model and forecast all passenger and freight transport
in Europe and was later further developed in the SCENES project (ME&P and WSP, 2002).
It consists of several modules, where production and attraction is handled by an input-output
model called Regional Economic Model (REM). The transport network is a multi-modal
network with approximately 200 zones. The modal choice is performed by an aggregated
multinomial nested logit model in the module called Transport Model. The transport model
handles 10 commodity groups (13 in the SCENES model) grouped into solid bulk, liquid
bulk, semi-bulk and unitised freight.
Page 149
5.4.13 TransCAD
Name TransCAD
Abbreviation TransCAD
Modal split Network Model
Four stage steps 1-4
Level modelled Transport network, Transport infrastructure
Presentation Graphical, GIS
Author, organisation Caliper Corporation
Introduced year 1985
Homepage www.caliper.com
References Caliper (2001)
Comment
TransCAD is a general GIS-software from Caliper Corporation (Caliper, 2001) that is specially
adapted for transport modelling. The system has its main focus on passenger traffic modelling, but it
might also be used for freight modelling. Several different solution algorithms and modules are
included in the software, however, no explicit function for intermodal freight transport exists. The
TransCAD software was used as a part in the TERMINET-model by Rutten (1995) to model short and
medium intermodal transport with a focus on determining suitable terminal locations and their
capacities in the Netherlands.
Page 150
5.4.14 TRANS-TOOLS
Name TOOLS for TRansport forecasting ANd Scenario testing
Abbreviation TRANS-TOOLS
Modal split Aggregated logit model
Four stage steps 1-3
Level modelled Freight flow
Presentation Graphical, GIS
Author, organisation TNO-Inro (Project coordinator)
Introduced year 2008
Homepage www.inro.tno.nl/transtools/
References TRANS-TOOLS (2006), Leest, et al. (2006)
Comment EU 6th Framework Programme
TRANS-TOOLS is built using to the general GIS-software Arc-GIS from ESRI and the
Traffic analyst module from Rapidis. The model includes both freight and passenger transport
for the entire European transport network and consists of seven modules for assignment,
modal split etc. The model also includes a logistics model (SLAM), based on the SMILE
model. The modal split is made using a multinomial logit model from the Dutch NEAC
model10
. The TRANS-TOOLS model is IPR-free and can be downloaded from the homepage,
but requires the commercial ArcGIS software.
10 http://www.nea.nl/neac/
Page 151
5.4.15 VISUM
Name Verkehr in Städten Umlegung
Abbreviation VISUM
Modal split Multimodal Network Model
Four stage steps 3-4
Level modelled Freight flow
Presentation Graphical
Author, organisation PTV AG
Introduced year 2008
Homepage www.ptv.de
References PTV AG
Comment
VISUM is a comprehensive, flexible software system for transportation planning, travel
demand modelling and network data management. VISUM is used on all continents for
metropolitan, regional, state wide and national planning applications. Designed for
multimodal analysis, VISUM integrates all relevant modes of transportation (i.e., car, car
passenger, goods vehicles, bus, train, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians) into one
consistent network model. VISUM provides a variety of assignment procedures and 4-stage
modelling components which include trip-end based as well as activity based approaches.
VISUM is recently used together with other software packages for freight modelling in
Switzerland and Dubai. The Swiss Freight Model calculates the freight demand and works
with different software packages (Excel, VISEVA, MUULI and VISUM). The Swiss freight
model differentiates 1116 commodity groups, 5 vehicle types and 20 logistical systems. The
transport network consists of a 5-level model; including three road networks, on rail network
and one inland waterway network. On the offer side also the logistics centers, the public
goods stations and private sidings are considered.
The national model integrates a 4-step approach (generation, distribution, conversion,
assignment). The assignment considers mode and rout choice at the same time. The logistics
costs (transport and transshipment) and the consignor costs (interest costs of goods,
depreciation of perishable goods) are considered.
Page 152
5.5 Terminal models
There exist a large number of terminal operation models, whereas the majority focuses on
maritime port terminal. Models dealing with the specificalities of inland container terminals
are rare and differ mostly according to their focus, aggregation level and underlying
methodology.
This literature review focuses on computer models covering container terminal operations on
all decision levels (strategic, tactical and operational). Most of these are simulation based
models. Pure mathematical models are thus not included.
Terminal operation modelling is divided into 4 categories:
1. Strategic models considering the terminal as a whole (aggregate level)
2. Strategic models considering only parts of the terminal (storage, shipping, etc.)
3. Tactical and operational models considering the terminal in its totality
4. Tactical and operational models considering individual areas of the terminal
A major part of the literature, written on container terminal operation and management, focus
on optimization methods for individual sections or subareas of the terminal (Arnold et al.
2004; Kim and Park 2004; Kim and Kim 1998; Chen 1999). The main covered areas are
dispatching and scheduling of handling equipment, berth allocation, storage space allocation
and sequencing of the ship loading and unloading.
Although some of this work can be used to deduce strategic decisions for the future operation
of intermodal terminals, most of the optimizations methods remain primary suited for tactical
and operational issues. Still there is some research dedicated to the overall definition of
container terminal operation.
A complete overview of the relevant operations, equipment setting and literature is given by
Steenken et al. (2004) and Murty et al. (2005). Vis and Koster (2003) give a further detailed
description of container terminal processes; and Vis and Harika (2004) focus in their paper on
the used equipment in automated container terminals to work out differences between
automated guided vehicles (AGVs) and automated lifting vehicles (ALVs).
Simulation as an evaluation method has also been studied intensively. Studies can be grouped
into 2 categories. The first category concentrates on a certain sub area (Yang et al. 2004),
while the second category models the whole container terminal (Gambardella et al. 1966; Lee
et al. 2003; Parola and Sciomachen 2004). Due to the fact that nearly all relevant papers are
devoted to open-sea Terminals, activities around the ship berthing, loading and unloading
play a predominant role in the studies and are reflected in the process of goal setting, which is
less suitable for our purpose, where terminal activities and goals are rather centered on
container shipment by railway.
Page 153
5.5.1 CAPS
Name Capacity Planning System
Abbreviation CAPS
Presentation Graphical, 2D (with optional package 3D)
Author, organization Das Institut für Seeverkehrswirtschaft und Logistik (ISL),
Bremen/Bremerhaven
Introduced year 1991
Homepage www.isl.org
References
Comment
CAPS is used to determine terminal capacities and ship to shore crane requirement. It focuses
therefore on the waterside operations of a container terminal. A differentiation can be made
by vessel types (jumbo, medium and feeder) and by container type (standard, empty, reefer
and dangerous). The results give insight on the vessel service time, quay utilization, and
number of cranes deployed.
Page 154
5.5.2 COSMOS
Name COSMOS
Abbreviation
Presentation
Author, organization COSMOS NV. (Antwerpen)
Introduced year 1980
Homepage www.cosmos.be
References
Comment
COSMOS is a container software manufacturer, which was born from a terminal operator
background. It offers mainly solutions to speed up and automate the operation of container
terminals. All solutions centre on a different part of the terminal and can used within an
integrated suite. Still none of the offered application models the terminal as a complete
system. Some of the considered operation systems are yard planning, vessel planning,
equipment control and tracking, gate administration.
Page 155
5.5.3 Crazy
Name Crane Simulation System
Abbreviation Crazy
Presentation Graphical, 3D
Author, organization Das Institut für Seeverkehrswirtschaft und Logistik (ISL),
Bremen/Bremerhaven
Introduced year 1991
Homepage www.isl.org
References
Comment
Crazy can be used for the analysis of any type of ship to shore crane systems and for the
optimal planning of vessel dispatching and services. This tool focuses on the quay operations
and is able to model in detail real stowing plans, single and double hoist cranes, twin lift
operation and dual cycling operations. The results delivered help to define best type of crane
for vessel dispatch and to analyze interdependencies of several cranes.
Page 156
5.5.4 IYCAPS
Name Intermodal Yard Capacity Planning System
Abbreviation IYCAPS
Presentation Graphical, 2D
Author, organization Das Institut für Seeverkehrswirtschaft und Logistik (ISL),
Bremen/Bremerhaven
Introduced year 1991
Homepage www.isl.org
References
Comment
IYCAPS has been developed in a partnership of the Port of Tacoma at the West Coast of the
USA and the ISL.
This tool can be used to determine the capacity of intermodal yards and the number of needed
tracks and connection points. IYCASPS takes into account the handling processes of trains
and need train schedules and train compositions as an input. The delivered results focus on
train times at the terminal and the utilization of terminal equipment and tracks.
Page 157
5.5.5 Scusy
Name Simulation of Container Unit Handling System
Abbreviation Scusy
Presentation Graphical, 2D (with optional package 3D)
Author, organization Das Institut für Seeverkehrswirtschaft und Logistik (ISL),
Bremen/Bremerhaven
Introduced year 1991
Homepage www.isl.org
References
Comment
This is a tool for the comparison of terminal handling systems. Different terminal layout
(focusing on number and type of equipment) can be modeled and compared, delivering a
decision guidance for the handling system chosen, which can include all types of quay and
stacking are equipment.
Page 158
5.5.6 Terminalkostnadsmodellen
Name Terminalkostnadsmodellen
Abbreviation n/a
Modal split n/a
Level modelled Infrastructure
Object Based No
Scenario Support No
Tool Standard, Excel
Presentation Graphical, Excel
Level of aggregation Medium - High
Author, organisation Mattias Skoglund, TFK - TransportForsK AB
Introduced year 2010
Homepage http://www.sir-
c.se/files/rapporter/Kostnadsber%E4kning%20per%20terminaltyp.xls
References Sommar, 2010
Terminalkostnadsmodellen is a terminal cost calculation model that has four predefined
terminals based on Swedish conditions. Three of them are traditional intermodal terminals of
different sizes and the fourth is a line terminal:
End Point Terminal 1 – large
End Point Terminal 2 - Medium
End Point Terminal 3 – small
Line Terminal – line
The predefined terminals has a number of given input data, but is changeable in case of other
conditions prevail. Kombiterminalmodellen using excel as the tool, with its advantages and
disadvantages. The model handles both capital costs and operating costs but it is not object
based. The predefined terminal types are placed on individual excel worksheets with a
summary in another sheet.
The Line Terminal is intended to be served by line trains as the pilot Lättkombi and thus has
consistently electrified tracks. Models of Line Terminals are relatively simple to design (and
model) as the number of components is limited. Still it does not support evaluation of
alternative scenarios, ie the evaluation of those situations where some components are
replaced with other similar components.
Page 159
Terminalkostnadsmodellen provides an overview of the costs that occur in a traditional
intermodal terminal and costings of magnitude. A shortcoming of this model is that the
operational parameters such as number of employees and operating hours for terminal
equipment and locomotives is not linked to each other and it has no connection to the number
of transferred units.
5.5.7 TRAPIST
Name Tools and routines to assist port and improve shipping
Abbreviation TRAPIST
Presentation
Author, organization Nautical Enterprise Centre Ltd. Ireland (project coordinator)
Introduced year 2003
Homepage http://www.trapist.info/
References
Comment
This is a EU project, which had the goal to develop tools and routines for the optimization of
operations in small and medium ports. Within this project a terminal simulation system was
developed and was extended to optimize loading and discharging of container feeder and liner
vessels.
Page 160
5.5.8 Villon
Name Villon
Abbreviation Villon
Presentation Graphical, CAD, 3D accelerated utilising MS DirectX
Author, organization SimCon s.r.o. Zilina
Introduced year 1997 (previous model VirtuOS since 1994)
Homepage www.simcon.sk
References
Comment
Villon is a software simulation tool for creation and application of universal and detailed
simulation models of transportation logistic terminals and their technological processes.
Villon supports microscopic modelling of various types of transportation logistic terminals
containing railway and road infrastructures (e.g. marshalling yards, railway passenger
stations, factories, train care centres, depots, airports, container terminals, Harbour terminals,
etc.).
Page 161
5.6 Rail network models
The railway network simulation models operate on a very detailed level. They make it
possible to reproduce very accurately the general train movements and are used to assess
single network links. The models are based on the following principles:
track layout,
signaling system,
maximum speed,
type and characteristics for rolling stock,
time table.
Further, the capacity of railway infrastructure is assessed with the following methodology:
taking into account different types of time tables, including
different levels of infrastructure occupation (by adding or taking off trains)
different levels of time supplement
introducing different levels of initial delays or incidents.
The output of the different simulation models are for example the summation of delays, mean
delays and number of delayed trains (see Capman, 2004).
Simulation tools are:
SIMONE
RailSys
SiSYFE
SIMU
IS SENA
OpenTrack
5.7 Conclusion
This review has given an overview of existing models within the intermodal transport sector.
The models found are either focused on an overall strategic level or on specific details in the
system, e.g. terminal operations. There are models covering all fours steps of transport
modelling and all levels of the transport system, but these models have not modelled the
system in detail. On the other hand, those models that are very detailed only cover a limited
part of the modelling steps and transport system levels.
No model has been found that combines both a detailed modelling with a strategic
perspective. This shows that there is a lack of models combining these two levels. This is not
surprising as models traditionally have been developed for specific purposes, e.g. national
planning, and therefore for budget and simplicity reasons has been limited to that level. It
appears as no attempts have been made to link models from the different levels together.
Page 162
References
Arnold P., D. Peeters, and Thomas. 2004. Modelling a rail/road intermodal transportation
system. Transportation research Part E 40:255-270.
Caliper, 2001, Travel Demand Modeling with TransCAD, Newton, Caliper Corporation
Caris, A., Janssens, G. K., Macharis, C. (2009): A simulation approach to the analysis of
intermodal freight transport networks.
Caris, A, Macharis, C, and Janssens, G. K. "Planning Problems in Intermodal Freight
Transport: Accomplishments and Prospects", Transportation and Planning Technology, vol.
31, 3, 2008.
Capman (2004): Summary Report Capacity Management Project (Capman Phase 3). UIC –
International Union of Railways.
Chen, T. 1999. Yard operation in the container terminal – a study in the unproductive moves.
Maritime policy and Management 26(1):27-38.
Crainic, T. G. & Florian, M. & Leal, J.-U., 1990, A Model for the Strategic Planning of
National Freight Transportation by Rail, Transportation Science, 24 (1), pp. 1-24
EUFRANET, 2001, EUFRANET Final report, EUFRANET - European Freight Rail Net
Model,
Flodén, J., 2007, Modelling intermodal freight transport : the potential of combined transport
in Sweden, Göteborg, Handelshögskolan vid Göteborgs universitet, BAS Publishing
Friedrich, H. and G. Liedtke (2009): Consideration of logistics for policy analysis with freight
transport models. Institute for Economic Policy Research (IWW). Karlsruhe.
Gambardella, L. M., G. Bontempi, E. Taillard, D. Roma-nengo, G. Raso, and P. Piermari.
1996. Simulation and Forecasting in Intermodal Container Terminal. Available via <
http://www.idsia.ch/~luca/ess96.pdf> [accessed Mai 4, 2008]
Gambardella, L.M., Rizzoli, A.E. and Funk, P. (2002). Agent-based planning and simulation
of combined rail/road transport. SIMULATION, Vol. 78, Issue 5, p. 293-303.
Guélat, J. & Florian, M. & Crainic, T. G., 1990, A Multimodal Multiproduct Network
Assignment Model for Strategic Planning of Freight Flows, Transportation Science, 24 (1),
pp. 25-39
Jourquin, B. & Beuthe, M., 1996, Transportation policy analysis with a geographic
information system: The virtual network of freight transportation in Europe, Transportation
Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 4 (6), pp. 359-371
Jourquin, B. & Beuthe, M., 2001, Multimodal Freight Networks Analysis with Nodus, a
survey of several applications, Transportation Planning and Technology, 4 (3), pp.
Page 163
Kim, H. B., and K. H. Kim. 1998. The optimal determina-tion of the space requirement and
the number of transfer cranes for import containers. Computers and industrial Engineering 35
(3-4): 427-430.
Kim, K. H., and J. M. Park. 2004. A crane scheduling method for port container terminals.
European Journal of Operational Research 156: 752-768.
Lee Tae-Woo, Park Nam-Kyu, and Lee Dong-Won. 2003. A Simulation study for the logistics
planning of a con-tainer terminal in view of SCM. Maritime Policy & Management 30 (3):
243-254.
Leest, E. E. G. A. v. d. & Duijnisveld, M. A. G. & Hilferink, P. B. D., 2006, Update of the
NEAC modal-split model, Paper presented at European Transport Conference 2006,
Strasbourg, France, Association for European Transport (AET)
Lundqvist, L. & Mattsson, L.-G., editors, 2002, National transport models : recent
developments and prospects, Berlin, Springer Verlag
Macharis, C. & Janssens, G. K. & Jourquin, B. & Pekin, E. & Caris, A. & Crépin, T., 2009,
Decision Support System for Intermodal Transport Policy DSSITP - Final report, Belgian
Science Policy,
Mariterm, 2001, Manual till Kombisim 2.01, Mariterm AB, Göteborg
ME&P & WSP, 2002, Review of Models in Continental Europe and Elsewhere, ME&P -
WSP, Review of Freight Modelling Report B2, Cambridge
MOTOS, 2007, Handbook of transport modelling (in Europe): learning from best practice,
MOTOS Transport Modelling: Towards Operational Standards in Europe M3.1,
Murty, K. G., J. Liu, Y. Wan, and R. Linn. 2005. A decision support system for operations in
a container terminal. Decision Support Systems 39: 309-332.
NEA et al., 2002, SPIN: Scanning the Potential for Modal Shift, Deliverable 2.1 Methods for
the identification of the potential for modal shift, May 2002
Parola, F., and A. Sciomachen. 2004. Intermodal container flows in a port system network:
Analysis of possible growths via simulation models. International Journal of Production
Economics : 2-14.
PTV AG , Handbuch Güterverkehrsmodell Schweiz, Karlsruhe, Juli 2008
Rizzoli, A.E., Gambardella, L.M. and Funk, P. (2002). A simulation tool for combined
rail/road transport in intermodal terminals. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 59, p.
57–71.
Ruesch Martin et al., Standort- und Transportkonzepte für den Kombinierten Ladungsverkehr,
Bericht B2 des NFP41, Bern, 2000
Rutten, B. J. C. M., 1995, On medium distance intermodal rail transport, Delft, Delft
University of Technology
Page 164
SAMPLAN, 2001, The Swedish model system for good transport - SAMGODS - A brief
introductory overview, SAMPLAN Rapport 2001:1, Stockholm
SCENES, 2002, SCENES European Transport Scenarios Summary Report,
Schneider, W., 2003, The German National Freight Transport Model, Paper presented at
Conference on National and International Freight Transport Models, Helsingør, Denmark
Schneider, W. & Nießen, N. & Oetting, A., 2003, Strategic modelling and simulation tool for
rail freight transportation, Paper presented at European Transport Conference 2003,
Strasbourg, France, Association for European Transport (AET)
Sjöbris, A. & Jivén, K., 1999, Ökad konkurrenskraft för kombitrafik med järnväg på korta
avstånd, Mariterm AB, 1999-11-09, Göteborg
Sönke, H. 2004. Generating Scenarios for Simulation and Optimization of Container Terminal
Logistics. OR Spectrum 26: 171-192.
Steenken, D., S. Voß, and R. Stahlbock. 2004. Container terminal operation and operations
research – a classification and literature review. OR Spectrum 26: 3-49.
STREAMS, 2000, Final Report, Marcial Echenique & Partners Ltd (ME&P), STREAMS
Strategic Transport Research for European Member States
Tavasszy, L. A. & Smeenk, B. & Ruijgrok, C. J., 1998, A DSS For Modelling Logistic Chains
in Freight Transport Policy Analysis, International Transactions in Operational Research, 5
(6), pp. 447-459
TRANS-TOOLS, 2006, Description and practice use of the Trans-Tools model, TNO Inro,
Deliverable 4,
Wandel, S. & Ruijgrok, C. J. & Nemoto, T., 1992, Relationships among shifta in logistics,
transport, traffic and informatics, In Huge, M. & Storhagen, N. G., editors, Logistiska
framsteg - Nordiska forskningsperspektiv på logistik och materialadministration, Lun,
Studentlitteratur
Williams, I., 2002, Designing the STREAMS model of Europe, In Lundqvist, L. & Mattsson,
L.-G., editors, National transport models : recent developments and prospects, Advances in
spatial science, Berlin, Springer Verlag
Vis, I., F. A., and I. Harika. 2004. Comparison of vehicle types at an automated container
terminal. OR Spec-trum 26: 117-143.
Vis I., F. A., and R. Koster. 2003. Transshipment of containers at a container terminal: An
overview. European Journal of Operational Research 147: 1-16.
Yang, C. H., Y. S. Choi, and T. Y. Ha. 2004. Simulation-based performance evaluation of
transport vehicles at automated container terminals. OR Spectrum 26: 149-170.
Page 165
Appendix 1 Questionnaire WP 1.3
Respondents
Potential users of the entire MINT system, not just one of the smaller models. Suggested
respondents can be divided into:
Authorities, Infrastructure administrations, regions, cities, etc.
Research institutes (independent, private)
Consultancy firms
Lager companies (that performs advanced analysis)
Researchers (research projects, universities (cannot include close colleagues))
Semi-structured Questionnaire
1. Respondent
o Name
o Position
o Company
o Contact information
Do not ask about things we already know
2. State background to survey
o We are interested in finding out what strategic and tactical computer models
are used to model intermodal transport systems for freight, primary
concerning intermodal transport between road and rail (combined transport).
o Do not mention the purpose of MINT as not to bias the results. MINT can be
explained at the end after the survey is completed.
3. Respondent research/analysis area
o We need answers for this area even if the respondent does not use computer
models. Interesting to know which types of companies that do not use models.
o In which areas of intermodal transport does your company perform
research/analysis (mark yes/no for each area)? If possible, try to separate
between areas where they have performed research and areas where they have
not, but would potentially accept assignments. Ask an open question and mark
yes/no in the list.
Page 166
Macro level intermodal network analysis (e.g. national forecasts and
planning, policy, regulation, taxing)
Infrastructure investment analysis (e.g. new roads, railways)
Network Planning and Operations (strategic, tactical, e.g. starting a new
service, number of trains to use. NOT day to day planning)
Terminal (node) location model
Terminal Planning and Operations (strategic, tactical, e.g. terminal
design or long term changes, NOT day to day operations)
o How many people work with intermodal research in your company?
o What is the typical background of an employee?
Is their background as university researchers (PhD), engineers,
business, age etc?
4. Model use
o Does your company use computer models (as described above)?
o If yes (use models):
Why do you use models (in general)?
Separate between the general question why they use models and
why the use the specific models they have selected (below).
Which models do you use?
If the model is unknown to us, ask briefly about modelling
technology and characteristics.
For what purposes do you use the models?
Make an X in the table for each area where the model is used.
Model use refers to what the model is used for and not the
technical design of the model. A simulation model might for
example be used for deterministic calculations
Use a new table for each model (see appendix / separate file)
Model use
Stochastic simulation
Optimization Deterministic calculations
Comment
Page 167
including random
components
mathematical or heuristics
e.g. Excel spreadsheet,
simulation without random
component
Purpose
Macro level intermodal network analysis
Infrastructure investment analysis
Network Planning and Operations (strategic, tactical)
Terminal (node) location model
Terminal Planning and Operations (strategic, tactical)
Why have you selected these models?
For how long have you used them?
Name some projects where the models have been used.
A brief description if the project is not well known.
Do you use them yourself (the company) or do you use external
consultants?
If consultant:
What is the name of the consultancy firm? (Contact for
interview?)
When selecting consultants, is it a requirement that they should
use a model? (I.e. does the initiative to use a model come from
the respondent and they contact a consultant that can supply an
appropriate model or does the initiative come from the
consultant?)
Page 168
If yes:
o Do you require the consultant to use a specific model or
just any model?
If yourself:
o Which are the best features of your current models?
o Have you adapted/further developed the models to fit
your purpose?
o Which features do you miss in the models?
Missing features (e.g. things they would like to
be able to do)
Technical limitations (e.g. number of variables,
runtimes)
o If no (do not use models):
Why do you not use computer models?
o A sensitive issue is if the reason is lack of competence to
use models. The respondent is not likely to admit it. Try
to ask a discrete question if you believe that is the case.
Which features do you miss in the models?
Have you previously used computer models?
If yes:
Which models did you use?
Why did you stop using them?
5. Other methods
o We need answers for this area even if the respondent does not use computer
models.
o Limit to ask only for intermodal research, but not only in the projects where
computer models are used.
Which other methods do you use in your intermodal research? Ask an
open question. No list to mark yes/no in, since there are too many
possible answers.
