the future of intermodal freight future of intermodal freight transport operations, design and...
Post on 03-Apr-2018
Embed Size (px)
The Future ofIntermodal FreightTransportOperations, Design and Policy
Rob KoningsSenior Researcher Freight Transport Systems, OTB ResearchInstitute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, DelftUniversity of Technology, The Netherlands
Hugo Priemus Professor of System Innovation and Spatial Development,Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, DelftUniversity of Technology, The Netherlands
Peter Nijkamp Professor of Regional, Urban and Environmental Economics,Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, FreeUniversity, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
TRANSPORT ECONOMICS, MANAGEMENT AND POLICY
Edward ElgarCheltenham, UK Northampton, MA, USA
Rob Konings, Hugo Priemus and Peter Nijkamp 2008
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the priorpermission of the publisher.
Published byEdward Elgar Publishing LimitedGlensanda HouseMontpellier ParadeCheltenhamGlos GL50 1UAUK
Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.William Pratt House9 Dewey CourtNorthamptonMassachusetts 01060USA
A catalogue record for this bookis available from the British Library
Library of Congress Control Number: 2008926574
ISBN 978 1 84542 238 7
Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall
8. A technical approach to the AgilePort SystemKlaus-Peter Franke
Container ports are breaking points in the intermodal transport chain. Toabsorb differences in arrival and departure time and quantity betweenocean flows and inland flows, often due to a lack of information about thenext step of the journey, containers have to be stored on shore (Figure 8.1).This requires sufficient internal transport and stacking crane capacity tocope with peak demands (Kreutzberger 1999).
With average dwell-times per container of several days (for example sixto eight days in US marine terminals depending on the location of the port;Vickerman 1999) and vessels becoming bigger and bigger (Figure 8.2),storage in container ports is demanding more and more space and drivingports to their spatial limits. As a result, there are endeavours to shift storagefacilities from ocean harbours to inland facilities. Examples are the USAgile Port System proposal for large container flows, to be further
Figure 8.1 Terminal Burchardkai, HHLA, Hamburg, Germany
discussed in this chapter, as well as the European Commission (EC)-fundedAsapp-One project for smaller container flows in urban areas (N.N. 2001).
8.2 OUTPLACING STORAGE FACILITIES FROMOCEAN HARBOURS: THE AGILE PORT SYSTEM
Some years ago a multi-year research project was launched by theUS Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), the US MaritimeAdministration (MARAD) and the Center for Commercial Deployment ofTransport Technologies (CCDOT) resulting in a proposal, known as theAgile Port System (Vickerman 1999), to split a container port into anEfficient Marine Terminal (EMT) ashore and an Intermodal InterfaceCenter (IIC) inland, connected by a dedicated railway line.
The idea behind the Agile Port System (Figure 8.3) is to:
handle as many containers as possible between vessels and trainswithout storing them in the EMT;
transport containers immediately between EMT and IIC by train; sort containers between trains according to their final destination,
the IIC being favourably linked to several marine terminals in orderto increase service frequency (Kreutzberger 1999);
136 Design and modelling
Figure 8.2 Some of the worlds largest container quay cranes servingMaersk S-class vessel in the Port of Rotterdam
load and unload trucks which serve the region nearby, inland at theIIC.
8.3 ADDING EFFICIENCY TO REDUCED LANDREQUIREMENTS: THE EFFICIENT MARINETERMINAL
The Efficient Marine Terminal as proposed by the US consortium operateslike a conventional marine terminal, but features a rail interface instead of aconventional yard. Vessels are unloaded at the EMT and yard vehicles trans-port containers in much the same way as they are carried now (Figure 8.4),but the containers are then loaded directly onto trains in the yard. Somebuffer storage would be provided in a separate area, but most of the con-tainers would leave the terminal directly. The main idea behind the logisti-cal concept of the EMT is to load and unload large vessels on a reducedarea of land with minimal impact on the inland public traffic system andthe environment (Avery 2000a).
In addition, the EMT concept developed by Noell Crane Systems is tar-geted on maximizing port productivity by transshipping boxes directlyfrom vessel to trains and vice versa at the quay.
The proposed solution (Figure 8.5) features a combination of improvedsemi-automated ship-to-shore cranes (STS), semi-automated cantilevered
A technical approach to the Agile Port System 137
Sources: Vickerman (1999); Avery (2000a)
Figure 8.3 The Agile Port System: splitting marine container ports intotwo parts
U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime AdministrationAgile Port concepts
Efficient MarineTerminal (EMT)
Agile Port System
R930220\Agile Port Road Show
Dedicated FreightCorrridor (DFC)
Intermodal InterfaceCenter (IIC)
rail-mounted gantry cranes (RMG) and a box mover based on rail-mounted automated shuttle cars driven by linear motor technology(LMTT), to be described in detail further below.
Drawing on its experience of the innovative quay cranes with lashingplatform (Figure 8.6) in Hamburg (HHLA), the test site for gantry craneautomation in Wrzburg, and the LMTT pilot installations in Hamburg(Eurokai) and Wrzburg, Noell improved the original EMT concept byincorporating the following features:
Single trolley ship-to-shore cranes able to unload containers to a plat-form in the quayside portal, where the twist locks from deck con-tainers can be removed.
A conveyor to move containers from the lashing position on theplatform to a second position underneath a RMG cantilever, whichcould be extended to provide additional buffer-space. The idea of
138 Design and modelling
Figure 8.4 Straddle carrier on duty at the container terminal atHessenatie NV, Antwerp, Belgium
integrating a conveyor into a quay crane as a dynamic buffer for con-tainers is not new. It was realized years ago by Matson Terminal, LosAngeles.
RMGs that operate under the portal of the ship-to-shore cranes,covering for example four rail lanes and a three-lane wide boxmover.
Two extra service lanes under the lashing platform of the STS.
The big advantage of this concept is that yard transfer vehicles are notrequired, saving a great deal of machinery and labour, which, it should beremembered, is not particularly cheap in the Western world. When servingthe vessel, one duty of the RMG would be to take containers from theplatforms and place them on the linear motor-based transfer system orthe rail cars on the shortest possible way and vice versa. The linear motorlanes could serve additional RMG loading and unloading along the trainsas well as a buffer stack where this is required. The linear motor systemwould allow boxes being out of sequence to be held aside and shuffledwithout interrupting the ship-to-shore importexport cycle. Five to eightRMGs could service five ship-to-shore cranes between them (Avery2000a).
A technical approach to the Agile Port System 139
Figure 8.5 Noell design of the Efficient Marine Terminal: Direct handlingof containers between vessel and trains
8.4 BUNDLING OF RAIL-BOUND CONTAINERFLOWS INLAND: INNOVATIVE HUBTECHNOLOGY
Intermodal Interface Center
The Intermodal Interface Center as proposed by the US consortiumoperates like a conventional rail terminal, performing either rail transship-ment (without using an efficient sorting facility) or train/truck transfer(Figure 8.7).
In addition, the IIC concept proposed by Noell Crane Systems is tar-geted on maximizing node productivity by featuring a combination of
140 Design and modelling
Figure 8.6 Lashing platform of one of the double trolley quay cranes atterminal Burchardkai, HHLA, Hamburg, Germany
semi-automated cantilevered rail-mounted gantry cranes and again a boxmover as it is to be used in the EMT. This innovative MegaHub technol-ogy, as it is known, was elaborated on behalf of Deutsche Bahn (GermanRailways) for bundling Continental container flows (Franke 1997) and theplan is to implement this technology near Hanover (Lehrte) in Germany(Figure 8.8).
A technical approach to the Agile Port System 141
Figure 8.7 Rail-mounted gantry crane serving trains and hustlers at theAPL terminal in Los Angeles
Figure 8.8 Intermodal Interface Center (MegaHub): transshipmentinstead of shunting
The MegaHub production system for container trains has been devel-oped for the transportation of container volumes that are currently con-sidered too small to make it cost-effective for direct train carriage (Avery2000b). The benefits of this system to the railway network have beendescribed in the EU research project TERMINET (TERMINETConsortium 2000b).
Initially all containers are loaded onto the train, including those notscheduled for the trains particular destination. These are then offloadedonce the train has stopped at the MegaHub and loads from other trainsintended for the first trains specific destination are loaded on. The con-tainers have to be loaded in groups according to destination, but shuntingis not necessary.
Different proposals for the design of a MegaHub ha