the importance of new-generation freight terminals for intermodal transport

Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 391-413 w w w.advanced-transport.com

The Importance of New-Generation Freight Terminals For Intermodal Transport

Y.M. Bontekoning

Manufacturers have been promoting new terminal concepts for several years. They claim more efficient operations, shorter handling times and lower costs compared to conventional operations. However, so far no new-generation terminals have been implemented, nor is there any intention yet to implement them. This is regrettable, because if new-generation terminal concepts can achieve what their designers claim, these terminals could significantly improve the competitiveness of intermodal transport. It is expected that new-generation terminals will perform particularly well in complex bundling networks such as hub and spoke, collection-distribution and line networks. A static-process analysis is used to evaluate the claimed terminal performances. The method incorporates the terminal function and the type of bundling network. Specific network situations have been defined for each type of bundling network. This study shows that the new concepts perform better than the reference terminal and shunting in complex bundling operations.

1, Supply Of New-Generation Intermodal Terminals

In recent years, trade papers such as World Cargo News, Containerisation International and Intermodal Shipping have covered the news about new rail transhipment technologies and new-generation terminals for intermodal transport. Manufacturers have been promoting their new terminal concepts for several years. They claim more efficient operations, shorter handling times and lower costs compared to conventional operations, thanks to automation and new, compact layouts. However, so far no new-generation terminals have been implemented, nor is there any intention yet to actually implement them.

Y.W. Bontekoning is at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport and Spatial Organisation, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands. Received: October 1999; Accepted: September 2000

392 Y.M. Bontekoning

This is regrettable, because if these new-generation terminal concepts can achieve what their developers say they can, new-generation terminals could significantly improve the competitiveness of intermodal transport. Improving this is very important, because many governments aim to achieve a modal shift from road transport to intermodal transport. They would rather aim at improving the competitiveness of intermodal transport than enforce additional taxes and regulations on road transport. Stimulating intermodal transport is a policy common to numerous governments world-wide, due to the increasing pollution and congestion generated by road transport [European Community ( 1993), Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management) (1996), the US Transportation Research Board (1994), Muller (19931. Governments emphasise the benefits of intermodal transport, such as its environmental friendliness and its contribution to decreasing road congestion.

Thus, on one hand there is a need for improvements in intermodal quality, and on the other, terminal solutions are being offered to improve that quality. This raises the question: why have terminal, node and transport operators not invested in these promising new-generation terminals if these could improve the competitiveness of intermodal transport?

At least part of the answer is that manufacturers nowadays offer complete terminal systems, while in the past only single items of equipment, such as cranes, reach stackers, terminal trucks, etc. were offered. These complete terminal systems include the ‘hardware’, such as transhipment and storage equipment, but also ’software’, such as operational strategies and a terminal operational system. Investment decisions have therefore become much riskier, for three reasons. Firstly, this development leads to higher investment sums; secondly, the cost structure of these terminals is still unclear; and thirdly, the performance evaluation of new-generation terminals has become a much more complicated matter.

This highlights the need for a good evaluation of these newly developed terminal concepts, both for the transport industry itself and for society. If such terminals can genuinely contribute to more efficient intermodal operations, then they should be implemented. The outcomes of an objective evaluation study might remove doubts about the value of new-generation terminals for the transport industry and reduce investment risks.

The Importance of NewGeneration Freight ... 393

In this paper an evaluation study carried out as part of the EC-project Terminet is discussed [see also Bontekoning & Kreutzberger, 20001. Terminet was a 3-year research project carried out by a consortium for the DG-VII (Transport) of the European Commission. Terminet is an acronym for “New concepts of networks and terminals for multi-modal freight transport.” The author participated in this project as researcher and co-ordinator. In Section 2, I briefly present the new-generation terminals that have been evaluated. The characteristics of these terminals are quite different. Comparing apples and pears involves the application of an adequate evaluation methodology. In Section 3, I discuss the evaluation studies found in the literature and the methodology adopted for the evaluation, the results of which are presented in Section 4. In Section 5 , more comprehensive findings will be presented.

2. New-Generation Terminals In Europe

Besides appearing in trade papers, new-generation terminals have also been described and occasionally analysed in the scientific literature. New-generation terminals (barge and rail) have been investigated and studied over at least the last 5 years. Venemans [ed., 19941, Rutten [1995], Kreutzberger [1995], Cargo Systems [ 19961, European Commission [ 19971, Woxenius [ 19981, Meyer [ 19981 and Bontekoning and Kreutzberger [ 19991 have all published on new-generation terminals. Together these publications give an interesting overview of innovative rail, barge and short-sea concepts. Sometimes they overlap and sometimes they are supplementary. Together they also provide insights into how some of these concepts have developed over the years.

The evaluation study covered in this paper is carried out for new- generation rail terminals as described by Bontekoning and Kreutzberger [ 19991. ’New-generation‘, in their definition, implies the use of automation and robotisation, integrated operations and compact layout. The rail terminal concepts to which this definition applies are: (1) Noell Megahub, (2) Commutor, (3) Krupp Megahub/ Highrack, (4) Krupp Compact, ( 5 ) Krupp Small, (6) Noell SUT 1200, (7) Noell SUT 400, (8) Transmann TM-V1, (9) Tuchschmid CT 31600, (10) Tuchschmid CTU100, (1 1) CCT Plus large and (12) CCT Plus small. In the appendix a brief description of the characteristics and features of these terminals will be offered, including diagrammatic layouts. For


detailed descriptions and a profound analysis I refer the reader to Bontekoning and Kreutzberger [2000].

3. Terminal Evaluation

3.1 Existing evaluation methodologies

In the literature, various authors have addressed the subject of terminal evaluation. Much of this literature deals with measuring the efficiency and productivity of seaport terminals, especially with regard to container terminals [Notteboom, Coeck & van den Broeck, 19981. Only a few publications have addressed the evaluation of intermodal terminals (rail or barge terminals). The methods applied can be categorised into the following groups: 1. Partial productivity measures or partial outputhnput ratios, such as

TEUkrane, moves per hour [Notteboom, Coeck & van den Broeck, 19981;

2. Quantitative research techniques to examine the overall efficiency of terminals, such as: 0 Factor analysis [used by e.g. Tongzon, 19951; 0 Linear programming [used by e.g. Hayuth & Roll, 19931; 0 Bayesian Stochastic Frontier model [used by e.g. Notteboom,

Coeck & van den Broeck, 19981; 0 Analytical queuing models [used by e.g. Ferreira & Sigut, 19931;

3. Dynamic modelling and simulation studies. This category comprises many different approaches. A Petri network approach has been used by Waidringer and Lumsden [ 19981, Voges, Kesselmeier and Beister [1998], and Meyer [1998]. Object, event and process-oriented simulation models have been used by Palmer, McLeod and Leue [ 19941, Hedrick, and Akalin [ 19891, Brunner [ 19941, Ballis and Abacoumkin [ 19961 and Kondratowicz [ 19901, amongst others;

4. The Weight Criterion method [used by e.g. Woxenius [1998], Jonsson and Kroon [1990], Goldbeck-Lowe and SyrCn [1993] and Lindau et al. [1993].

For an extensive overview of port and terminal evaluation models, see Ojala [ 19921.

The Importance of New-Generation Freight ... 395

3.2 The relevance of bundling networks in terminal evaluation

Before elaborating on which methodology is best suited to this evaluation study, the importance of bundling networks needs to be discussed, because new-generation terminals have been designed for complex bundling networks. Bundling is an important option for freight flows that are not large enough to fill larger transport units (such as trains or barges) or intermodal load units (such as maritime and continental containers, swap bodies and semi-trailers). Bundling is the combined transport of freight belonging to different transport relations (= different origins and/or destinations) in common transport units and/or load units during common parts of the route. The advantages of bundling can include any or all of the following:

0 the utilisation of the transport units and/or load units is more satisfactory (higher loading degree). Alternatively, larger transport or load units can be involved; transport services per relation have higher frequencies; more origin - destination pairs can be served. 0

These advantages result in lower transport costs per unit. The disadvantages of bundling are additional transhipments in the transport chain and detours, which result in increasing chain transit time and costs [Bontekoning and Kreutzberger, 20001.

Kreutzberger [ 1995, 1998 and in: Vleugel and Kreutzberger, 19971 distinguishes the following four basic bundling models (see Figure 1):

A. point-to-point networks; B. collection-distribution networks (CD networks); C. hub-and-spoke networks, and; D. line networks. These bundling models refer to a main mode network, by which is

meant the mode (rail or barge in the case of intermodality) used over the longest distance in a network. At the start and end points of these main mode networks, trucks take care of the transport between the startlend terminal and the shipper (pre-haulage and end haulage).

Figure 1 also shows the different terminal functions that can be distinguished. The function of a terminal depends on the type of bundling network and its location in the network. A distinction can be made between start and end terminals, intermediate line terminals, collection- distribution (CD) terminals and hub terminals.


0 Start-end terminal 0 Intermediate line terminal

Point-to-point bundling

Line bundling

Collection Distribution bundling

Hub and Spoke bundling

CD-terminal 8 Hub-terminal

Source: Bontekoning and Krmtzberper, 2000 (adjusted)

Fig. 1. Bundling models and terminal functions.

3.3 Expected improvement of intermodal competitiveness due to new- generation terminals

In Section 1 it was argued that policy makers aim at improving the competitiveness of intermodal transport in relation to road transport. In order for intermodal transport to be more competitive than road transport, it implies that intermodal transport performs better than road transport on among other things cost and lead-time. In graphical form this implies that the cost or time curve of intermodal transport should stay below that of road transport. Figure 2 shows one cost curve for road transport and three cost curves for intermodal transport (one for each type of bundling) for a given distance x. The same curves can be applied to time. This Figure is a further development of figures that illustrate break-even distances between modes such as road, inland shipping and rail without transhipment [see e.g. INRO-TNO (1993) in: Gent, 19941. In these types of figures the position were the two lines cross each other is


the break-even distance at which both modes perform equally well on costs or time. Left and right from that point, the lowest curve represents the most competitive mode. Rutten (1995) used these types of figures to compare intermodal transport and road transport adding transhipment costs (or time) and costs (or time) for pre- and end haulage. He pointed out that in the intermodal context the break-even distance is not at the point where the two lines cross, but at the end of the curve. Namely, the intermodal curve shows an accumulation of costs (or time) on a certain distance. Consequently for each distance a separate cost curve should be determined. Rutten only identified the costhime curve for point-to-point networks. Based on the identification of various bundling networks and terminal functions in this paper, cost and time curves for collection- distribution, hub-and-spoke and line networks have been added.

costs or Time

Hub and spoke network \ A 0 :

0 . /

A ..**'

Distribution network

t Point-to-point and Line network B

Distance X

A = Pre Or end haulage by truck B = transhipment

C = collectioddistribution by feeder trains D= main link transport

Source: based on Rutten (1995) p.45

Fig. 2. Cost curves intermodal transport versus cost curve road transport

Complex bundling networks such as hub and spoke, collection- distribution and line networks are needed to improve the competitiveness of intermodal transport, because of the advantages of bundling mentioned earlier. New-generation terminals, with their claims to more


efficient operations, shorter handling times and lower costs, could offset the disadvantages of bundling (increased costs and chain lead time due to transhipment). With the introduction of new-generation terminals (replacing conventional terminal or shunting yards) the cost and time curves of intermodal transport could shift downwards (intermodal becomes more competitive), because: 1. transhipment costs (and time) decrease due to more efficient

operations; 2. costs (and time) on the link decrease due to more sophisticated

bundling; 3. both transhipment costs (and time) and link costs (and time)

decrease, or; 4. transhipment costs increase due to sophisticated bundling

operations, while link costs decrease due to bundling. Taken together, however, the costs decrease.

3.4 A static terminal process evaluation method

From the discussion in the former sections, we can conclude that when evaluating new-generation terminals, we must consider its function and the type of bundling network it is part of. The few publications in the literature about intermodal terminal evaluation only consider rail terminals with start-end terminal functions in point-to-point networks, while saying nothing about other terminal functions.

A central issue in the evaluation is the relationship between terminal layout and operations, and network bundling demand. Methods such as factor analysis, linear programming, Bayesian stochastic frontier modelling and weight criterion analysis are inappropriate because they have not been developed to evaluate dynamic (bundling) processes. By contrast, dynamic modelling, simulation studies and analytical queuing studies have been developed for evaluating dynamic processes. Simulation, especially with animation, is a very powerful tool that is able to provide insight into the complexity of new-generation terminals and to deal with 'what-if' scenario's. However, a serious practical disadvantage is that these methods are very time-consuming. Meyer [ 19981 carried out a simulation and animation study for the new-generation terminal Noel1 Megahub (l), and it took him two years to build a validated model. Fourteen new-generation terminal concepts need to be evaluated and compared. With existing methods this would simply take too long.


For this evaluation, a method is needed that gives insight into the bundling process carried out by new-generation terminals, but is less time-consuming than existing dynamic modelling techniques. I have chosen to use a static process analysis. For this purpose I have defined specific network situations for each type of bundling network. Each new- generation terminal is confronted with these network situations, and four partial productivity measures are calculated: the number of train batches handled per hour, the handling time per train, land use efficiency ratio, and storage area utilisation ratio.

3.5 Predefined network situations

Every new-generation terminal is analysed for all four bundling networks. For each type of network I assunie a certain network situation which the new-generation terminal has to deal with. These network situations are:

Collection Distribution ( C D ) network A CD batch consists of two trunk trains and three feeder trains; a

long trunk train contains 42 load units, a short trunk train 24 units, a long feeder train contains 14 load units, and a short feeder train eight load units. The number of load units in all network situations has been based on the following assumptions. Long trains are 700m long, short trains 400m. A long feeder train is 175m, a short feeder 100m. The utilisation rate of each train is 80%.

three loaded feeder trains and one loaded trunk train move from four different start terminals to a common CD terminal in or nearby the region of origin. The trunk train is only 25% loaded. The trains arrive at the CD terminal more or less at the same time. The feeder trains unload their load units to the trunk train. The trunk train departs to a terminal in the region of destination. In the meantime a trunk train from the opposite direction enters the CD terminal. It unloads 75% of its load units to the three empty feeder trains. All four loaded trains move back to the four different start terminals (now end-terminals) in the service area of the CD terminal.

Network operation:

Hub and spoke network

56 load units and each short train of 32 load units. A hub batch consists of six or three trains; each long train consists of

400 Y. M. Bontekoning

Network operation: batches of three or six trains, coming from different start terminals and moving to different end terminals, meet at the hub terminal. They are present there during the same time, because rail-rail batch exchange of load units takes place; respectively 5/6 and 2/3 of the load units of each train is reloaded onto another train in the batch.

Line network A line batch consists of one train; a long line train consists of 56 load

units, a short line train of 32 units. Network oDeration: A full train leaves from the start terminal. At

each intermediate terminal 25% of its load units are unloaded and 25% new load units are loaded.

Point-to-point network A point-to-point batch consists of one train; a long train consists of

56 load units, a short train of 32 units. Network operation: In conventional operations (present so called

night jump operations) the train is either loaded or unloaded (100% handlings); in future operations (24-hour operations) the train is unloaded and loaded (200% handlings).

3.6 Reference conventional terminal

The reference terminal used for the benchmark between new- generation terminals and conventional terminals has been determined as follows. The terminal is 700m long, has four tracks, two truck lanes and three storage lanes under the crane. There are two cranes, which carry out the rail, road and storage handlings. The four partial productivity measures have been generated for the reference terminal for all predefined network situations. Other conventional rail transhipment operations are:

shunting at a shunting yard; transhipment by reach stackerdfork lift truck.

4. Terminal Evaluation Results

Some of the results of the evaluation are shown in Table 1. This table shows the handling times of batches with six long trains in hub- operations, of batches with long trains in CD-operations and of single

Tab

le 1

. H

andl

ing

times

(in

min

utes

per

net

wor

k ty

polo

gy

Not

e: t

he h

andl

ing

time

is n

et ti

me.

Exc

lude

d ar

e: t

ime

to d

rive

in a

nd o

ut th

e te

rmin

al, p

ull a

head

, tim

e to

cha

nage

lock

s, et

c. V

alue

s are

ca

lcul

ated

for

hub

-bat

ches

of 6

long

trai

ns, C

D-b

atch

es w

ith lo

ng tr

ains

and

sin

gle

long

trai

ns fo

r lin

e an

d be

gide

nd o

pera

tions

. In h

ub-

oper

atio

ns it

is a

ssum

ed th

at 2

0% o

f th

e un

its h

as to

mov

e to

a p

art o

f an

othe

r tra

in o

utsi

de th

e re

ach

of t

he c

rane

(sec

tion)

, whi

ch m

eans

in

dire

ct e

xcha

nge

via

stor

age

or s

ortin

g sy

stem

.


long trains in line and conventional begidend operations. Beside the handling time, the number of handlings split in basic and additional handlings, the number of cranes and the crane cycle time are presented.

A first conclusion that can be drawn from this table refers to the quite large differences in number of cranes, length of crane cycle time and number of handlings per terminal concept. This makes the interpretation of the results more complicated but not impossible. The variation in cycle time is related to the type of network operation, the number of cranes and the terminal layout, because these three determine the distance and direction the crane has to travel. One should be careful adjusting the number of cranes in order to make concepts comparable. Some concepts, such as the (3) Krupp Megahub, allow a maximum of 4 cranes due to the limited length. For some concepts adding cranes means shorter cycling times, due to shorter longitudinal crane movement. The effect is that the performance improves more than linear with the number of cranes. However, this only occurs if the longitudinal driving time is longer than the trolley driving time. See for details about the relation between concept layout, number of cranes and type of operation [Bontekoning and Kreutzberger, 20001.

A second conclusion concerns concepts with a sorting system (concepts (1) and (2)) and with a limited length (concepts (3), (4), (3, (9) and (10)). They show shorter crane cycle times than full-length terminal without sorting system. Sorting systems and limited terminal length reduce the longitudinal driving distance of the crane.

Thirdly, the concepts Noell Megahub (1) and Commutor (2) perform better as hub-terminal than the conventional reference terminal (even if we correct for the number of cranes), because of the presence of a sorting system. With the assumption that 20% of the load units (56 units) cannot be exchanged directly from train to train, it means that these units have to be moved in a longitudinal direction to another crane section. For a conventional terminal, this is rather problematic for two reasons. First, it is time consuming because the cranes have to move the load unit. Secondly, in an operation with more than two cranes, cranes hinder each other and/or they have to exchange the unit from crane to crane a few times. The other concepts are much less suitable as hub-terminal due to:

a restricted number of cranes due to the limited terminal length (Krupp (3), (4), (3, and Tuchschmid (9) and (10)); no direct exchange possibilities causing a maximum of additional handlings (Krupp (3), (4), ( 5 ) and Noell SUT (7) and (8)), or;


0 no sorting system which causes cranes hindering each other, especially in situation with a higher number of indirect exchanges (Tuchschmid (9) and (10) and CCT Plus (1 1 ) and (12)). Fourthly, quite some concepts perform better as CD-terminal than

the conventional terminal: Noell Megahub (l) , Commutor (2), Krupp Megahub (3) and Krupp Compact (4), and Tuchschmid (10 and 11). Remarkable is that the conventional terminal is the only terminal able to exchange the load unit between the feeders and trunk trains without any additional handlings, however the other terminals have faster handling times due to limited terminal lengths and sorting systems. This way they compensate the additional handlings.

In relation to shunted hub-operations (the way this operation is carried out now a days), Noell Megahub ( l ) , Commutor (2), and to some extent also Krupp Megahub (3) perform better. Shunting takes between two to four hours, mainly because the large number of trains that are shunted at the same time. Conventional trains and intermodal trains are often shunted in mixed operations. Shunting is rather time-consuming.

Fifthly, Krupp (3,4 and 5), Tuchschmid (10 and 1 1) and Transmann (8) perform much better than the reference terminal as intermediate line- terminal. An important advantage of Transmann (8) and Tuchschmid (10 and 11) is that locomotives do not have to be changed, which saves quite some time. Noell Megahub (1) and Commutor (2) have not been evaluated, because Commutor cannot handle rail-road operations and the Noell Megahub line performance can be derived from the begidend operation.

Sixthly, Noell SUT (6 and 7) and CCT Plus (11 and 12) show longer handling times than all other concepts. However, CCT Plus still could be an option for parties, which look for cheap intermodal transfer equipment. Noell SUT is beside the long handling times also quite expensive due to the sophisticated cranes and the storage racks.

Furthermore, the concepts have been evaluated for land-use efficiency and storage utilisation efficiency. The evaluation shows that limited length terminal concepts do not have a higher land-use efficiency (number of load units per square meters) than other concepts, although they have a limited absolute surface. Concepts with large surfaces use each square meter more intensively than concepts with smaller surfaces. However, this applies less to the Krupp concepts (3, 4 and 5). Although they can not reach the efficiency of large-scale terminals such as Noell Megahub (1) and Commutor (2), they use the surface more intensively than concepts with comparable throughputs.

404 Y. M. Bontekoning

Finally, the evaluation for storage utilisation efficiency showed that the storage areas of most concepts for hub- and spoke and CD-operations are rather large. The explanation for this is that I looked into simultaneous operations, which means that all load units are back on the train after a batch is handled and that the storage is empty again. In case of more sequential operations, which means that load units stay for certain time in the storage for a next train to arrive, most concepts have stack availability of about a few hours. It depends on the dwell time of units if the storage is large enough for sequential operations.

For line operations the stack availability for the various concepts lies between 1 (Krupp Highrack (3) and Tuchschmid (10)) and 14 hours of operations assuming that load units are not picked up. Especially the limited length terminals have limited storage space.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The evaluation study on new-generation terminals shows that these terminals are of importance for the improvement of the competitiveness of intermodal transport (realising a downshift of the intermodal curves of Figure 2). Terminal suppliers offer various well-performing concepts for more complex bundling forms, which nowadays are left over to road transport or carried out by expensive and time consuming shunting. The study shows that these concepts perform better than the reference terminal and shunting.

Existing evaluation methods could not be used for this evaluation. These methods lack the possibility to evaluate processes or are very time consuming. Furthermore, former evaluation studies never took along the importance of the terminal function and location in the network, something that is very important for the evaluation of new-generation terminals.

The Noell Megahub (1) seems to be a very promising concept as a large hub-terminal in a hub- and spoke network. Although the investment and operational costs are not known, I expect that these will be reasonable in relation to the performance. The Commutor (2) concept is not promising, because it requires special rail wagons. However, the concept provides some new and promising ideas concerning innovative terminal design.

The evaluation shows that there are various innovative concepts, which handle CD-operations in a more efficient way than the reference


terminal or shunting: Commutor (2), Noel1 Megahub ( l ) , Krupp (3 and 4) and Tuchschmid (10).

There are a few concepts that perform much better as an intermediate line terminal than the reference terminal: Krupp (3, 4 and 5) , Tuchschmid (9) and Transmann (8).

Specially designed compact terminals have limited length operational areas, but perform less on land-use efficiency per terminal square meter than large terminals. The advantage, however, is that terminal land use costs can be reduced, because they use tracks outside the terminal area, which do not belong to the terminal, but to the railways.

In particular, limited length terminals have limited storage space. This will be a problem in networks in which load units stay longer than 2 hours at the terminal.

Technically and operationally, it is proven that new-generation terminals are valuable for further development of intermodal transport. Although I do not have detailed insight in the cost structure of these concepts, I believe that most of these concepts will prove to be economically feasible. Most manufacturers already have depreciated their development costs. Problem is that initiatives for complex network development are lacking. Complex bundling networks could improve the competitiveness op intermodal transport, because it yields possibilities to integrate smaller volumes, to expand the number of destinations and to increase the frequency. Once operators, shippers and rail companies start to develop more complex bundling networks in the existing network, terminal manufacturers are able to make their concepts case specific.

References

Ballis, A., and C. Abacoumkin. 1996. A Container terminal Simulation model with Animation Capabilities. Journal of Advanced Transportation Vo1.30, No. 1, pp 37-57.

Bontekoning, Y.M., and E. Kreutzberger (editors). 1999. Concepts of new-generation terminals and terminal nodes. Delft (Delft University Press).

Bontekoning, Y.M., and E. Kreutzberger. 2000. New-generation terminals: a performance evaluation study. Delft (Delft University Press) (forthcoming).


Brunner, J.. 1994. Simulationsprogramm ,,KLV Simu” zur Bemessung von Containerbahnhofen. ETR 43 (1994), H. 10 - Oktober pp. 673- 677.

Cargo Systems. 1996. European Intermodal Yearbook 1996. London. Containerisation International. Several issues 1990 - 1995. European Community. 1993. De toekomstige ontwikkeling van her

gemeenschappelijk vervoersbeleid: een brede aanpak voor de tot standbrenging van een communautair kader voor duurzame mobiliteit. Bureau voor officiele publikaties der Europese Gemeenschappen, Luxemburg), (= Transport ‘White Paper’).

European Commission. 1997. Directorate-General for Transport. Smart Intermodal European Transport, Transport Research. Euret, Intermodal Transport, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Ferreira, L., and J. Sigut. 1993. Measuring the performance of intermodal freight terminals. Transportation Planning and Technology Vol. 17,

Hayuth, Y., and Y. Roll. 1993. Port Performance comparison applying data envelopment analysis (DEA). Maritime Policy and Management

Hedrick, R.L., and M.T. Akalin. 1989. Simulation Modeling of Marine Terminal Facilities and Their Operation. Proceedings Z4Ih Ship technology and research Symposium. April 12-15, New Orleans, Louisiana.

INRO-TNO. 1993, in: J. de Wit and H. van Gent. 1994. Econornie en transport, LEMMA, Utrecht.

Intermodal Shipping. Several issues 1990 - 1995. Jonsson, H., and B. Kroon. 1990. Horisontell omlastning vid kombitrafik

(Horizontal transhipment in combined transport). University of Lund, Department of Transportation. Lund (master thesis 5228/ 1990).

Goldbeck-Lowe, F., and R. SyrCn. 1993. Stenhagensystemet- en utvardering av ett nytt transportsystem (The Stenhagen System - an analysis of a new transportation system). Chalmers University, Department of Transportation and Logistics. Goteborg (master thesis).

Kondratowicz, L.J.. 1990. Simulation methodology for intermodal freight transportation terminals. Simulation, July, pp. 49-58.

Kreutzberger, E.. 1995. Het bundelen van vervoerstromen en de verandering van knooppuntfuncties, in: A.L. Kruse and A.J.H.

pp. 269-280.

V01.20, pp. 153- 16 1.

The Importance of New-Generation Freight . . . 407

Weenink (red.). Vervoerslogistieke werkdagen 15 and 16 November 1995.

Kreutzberger, E., 1998. Promising innovative intermodal networks with new-generation terminals. Deliverable D7 of Terminet. Delft. (to be published in 2000/2001)

Lindau, R., J. Woxenius and K.R. Lumsden. 1993. Constraints experienced in a direct distribution system when safety mechanisms are removed, In: Proceedings of the 10th international Logistics Congress. Toronto, 20-22 June, pp. 143-170.

Meyer, P.. 1998. Entwicklung eines Sirnulationsprogramms fur Umschlagterminals des Kombinierten Verkehrs (thesis). University Hannover, Department of Mechanical Engineering (Maschinenbau).

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management). 1996. Transport in Balans, (Koninklijke Drukkerij Broese & Peereboom).

Muller, G. 1995. Intermodal Freight Transportation. Eno Transportation Foundation and IANA, Virginia.

Notteboom, T., C. Coeck and J. van den Broeck. 1998. Measuring and explaining the relative efficiency of container terminals by means of Bayesian Stochastic Frontier Models. Paper at the gh World Conference on Transport Research. July 12- 19, Antwerp, Belgium.

Ojala L.. 1992. Modelling approaches in port planning and analysis. Publications of the Turkuu School of economics and business administration, Series A-4: 1992. Turku.

Palmer, J.G., M. McLeod and M.C. Leue. 1996. Simulation modeling of traffic access for port planning”, in: Transportation Research C i rc u 1 ar. In te rmoda 1 Freight Te rm ina 1 of the Future, Transport at i o n Research Board / National Research Council.

Rutten, Ben J.C.M.. 1995. On medium distance intermodal rail transport. A design method for a road and rail inland terminal network and the Dutch situation of strong inland shipping and road transport modes. Delft (Universiteitsdrukkerij).

Tongzon, J.L.. 1995. Systematizing international benchmarking for ports. Maritime Policy and Management V01.22, pp. 171-177.

Transportation Research Board. 1994. Transportation Research Circular. Intermodal transport: making the case making it happen. Transportation Research Board / National Research Council.

Venemans, M.J. (ed.). 1994. Goederenvervoer over korte afstand. Alphen aan den Rijn (Samsom Bedrijfsinformatie bv).


Vleugel, J., and E. Kreutzberger (editors). 1997. Concepts of innovative bundling networks. Deliverable D1 of Terminet. Delft. (to be published 2000/2001)

Voges, J., H. Kesselmeier and J. Beister. 1998. Simulation and Performance Analysis of Combined Transport Terminals. Paper at the gh World Conference on Transport Research. July 12-19, Antwerp, Belgium.

Waidringer, J., and K. Lumsden. 1998. Simulation and optimisation of port terminals. using a network concept. Paper at the gh World Conference on Transport Research. July 12- 19, Antwerp, Belgium.

World Cargo News. Several issues 1990 - 1995. Woxenius, J.. 1998. Development of small-scale intermodal freight

transportation in a systems context. Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology. Goteborg, Sweden.


Appendix Technical note

The rail terminal concepts which have been evaluated are: (1) Noell Megahub, (2) Commutor, (3) Krupp Megahub/ Highrack, (4) Krupp Compact, ( 5 ) Krupp Small, (6) Noell SUT 1200, (7) Noell SUT 400, (8) Transmann TM-Vl, (9) Tuchschmid CT 3/600, (10) Tuchschmid CT1/100, (1 1) CCT Plus large and (12) CCT Plus small. In this appendix a brief description of the characteristics and features of these terminals is provided, including diagrammatic layouts. For detailed descriptions and a profound analysis I refer the reader to Bontekoning and Kreutzberger [ 20001.

1 Noell Megahub

The Noell Megahub has six parallel rail tracks and a large number of adjacent cranes (sections), each covering all terminal functions. A linear roller pallet transport system sorts load units and moves them longitudinally between crane (sections). It is a full-length terminal (700m) with seven or ten railhead cranes, two road lanes, three buffer lanes, two roller pallet lanes, two roller pallet parking lanes and 33 roller pallets. The terminal is 63m wide.

2 Commutor

The Commutor terminal consists of 35 overhead cranes which can only move in a transverse direction covering nine to eleven rail tracks, two shuttle lanes and ten elevated storage lanes. No longitudinal crane movement is possible. Six shuttles on two tracks carry out the longitudinal movement of load units. The spreader of each overhead crane is able to pick up three load units at a time. The catenary can be moved aside. It is a full-length terminal, 700m long and 98m wide.

3 Krupp Rendezvouz terminals Megahub, Highrack, Compact and Small

In the Krupp concept, parallel loading and unloading is carried out while trains move slowly through a limited (140m to 200m long) operational area. Cross conveyors move load units to and from the crane (except in the Small terminal). All concepts have only one track.


Both highrack storage with special stacking cranes and floor storage with two or three high stacking can be applied. The Megahub-terminal has four rail cranes supported by six cross conveyors, two storage cranes, four road cranes, five-high storage racks, one track and two road lanes. Four of the cross conveyors are not connected with the storage. The Highrack terminal looks very similar to the Megahub-terminal, with the difference that the four outer cross conveyors are left out of the concept. The Compact terminal has two rail cranes, each supported by one cross conveyor, two roadstorage cranes and floor storage. The Small terminal has no cross conveyor and just one crane for both rail, storage and road operations.

4 Noel1 SUT 1200 and SUT 400

The cranes in the SUT concept are equipped with special telescoping spreaders which can put load units sideways into a high-bay storage rack. It is a full-length terminal (700m) with high-bay storage racks alongside the tracks. The lower storage bay is elevated to the height of the train. The SUT 1200 (45m wide) has two rail tracks, three 3-high storage racks, six combined rail-storage highbay cranes and two road lanes with three separate road-storage cranes. The SUT 400 (20m wide) has one track with two combined rail-storage highbay cranes, one 2-high-bay storage and one road lane with two separate road-storage cranes.

5 Transmann Handling Machine

The Transmann Handling Machine is a crane with a hydraulic telescopic rotating arm, which makes it possible to carry out operations underneath electricity wires. The Transmann is a full-length (700m) terminal with a maximum of four lanes under the crane, either for buffer lanes, truck lanes, terminal transport lanes or tracks.

6 Tuchschmid Compact Terminals

At a Tuchschmid Compact Terminal, trains move with two or three stop-and-go’s through the short operational area (240m). A special facility on wheels which moves along with the locomotive in the operational area provides electricity. The terminal does not have a terminal transport system. The buffer lanes are sunken. The Compact Terminal can be equipped with one to four cranes and one, two or three

The Importance of New-Generution Freight . . . 41 1

tracks. The crane trolley covers a maximum width of 33.5m (three tracks). The concept also includes two road lanes, two buffer lanes, one AGV lane and a long-term storage area (except the small concept).

7 CCT Plus large and CCT Plus small

The CCT Plus concept is a horizontal transhipment concept with 20’ transfer wagons, which makes transhipment underneath the catenary possible. 10’ units can also be handled. Load units can be stored in an elevated storage rack with chains to pull load units further in and out of the rack. The small variant has one transfer unit and the large one five transfer units. The small concept can handle only 20’ units; at least two units are needed to transfer 40’ units. Both are full-length (700m) terminals.


1. Noell Megahub

2. Commutor

- : I : , '! !? .i

3c ,I - . I '1 - -J3 . . . ] ..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I f j 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : i i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

H A . 1 .......................... 10. Tuchschmid Small i 4 i

: ........................ ;

9. Tuchschmid Compact

Legend

Fig. 3. Layouts of and freight flows at new generation terminals (not at scale)


Continuation of Fig. 3

3 .A. Krupp Negahub

5. Krupp Small 3 B. Krupp Highraek

, I YA A M 1

7. Yoell SUT 400

I 2 1

6. Noell SUT 1200

8. Transrnann

Source: Bontekoning and Kreutzberger, 2000

Fig. 3 continued.

the importance of new-generation freight terminals for intermodal transport

Documents