intermodal freight transport

Download PDF
4 downloads 0 Views 216KB Size Report
Comment
emerging transshipment technologies for European intermodal road-rail terminals and their .... Norfolk Southern subsidiary Triple Crown has used it for many years in the USA and Bayrische ... very badly utilised during the mid-day hours.
Article for the conference “Cities of Tomorrow: Human Living in Urban Areas – Transportation of People and Goods”, Göteborg 23-24 augusti 2001.

INTERMODAL FREIGHT TRANSPORT – URBAN IMPACT OF NEW NETWORK OPERATION PRINCIPLES AND TRANSSHIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES Johan WOXENIUS1

ABSTRACT Starting out from future network operation principles, this article is focused upon existing and emerging transshipment technologies for European intermodal road-rail terminals and their impact on urban freight traffic. The general conclusion is that new network operation principles and the related transshipment technologies will, if implemented, effect urban traffic patterns substantially. Especially the small-scale transshipment technologies aimed for serving transport corridors and loops can stop the current development towards fewer and larger terminals that effect local environment significantly and negatively. These technologies can also facilitate the well awaited shift from single-mode road transport to intermodal road-rail transport. Local haulage in intermodal transport systems is also well suited for employment of vehicles using alternative fuels.

KEY WORDS City Logistics, Combined Transport, Intermodal Transport, Terminals, Transport Networks, Transshipment Technology, Urban Effects.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Transshipments between traffic modes have always attracted attention in intermodal transport discussions since it is the activity distinguishing from single-mode transport. Terminal equipment is often used for symbolising intermodal transport, but it should be regarded as only one component in

1

the complex transport system made up of a multiplicity of activities, actors and resources. Hence, the terminals should be analysed in its proper system environment, as argued by SONDERMANN (1997) when discussing the problems of implementing a transshipment technology replacing more than just the traditional gantry crane. Today there is a knowledge gap concerning the system implications of the implementation of new technology in intermodal transport systems, especially apparent when the local impacts, i.e. the changes experienced in the vicinity of the intermodal terminals, are concerned. It is the intention in this article, to take a quite wide perspective on intermodal terminals and their local impact, without claiming to be a traffic planning expert. Analysing the matter from the transport system perspective will hopefully contribute to an increased understanding of the issue among other researchers, industry professionals and decision makers. Since intermodal road-rail transport is an inter-urban phenomenon this article starts out from the way trains are operated between intermodal terminals. After an initial presentation of a theoretical framework on intermodal transport networks, some different network operation principles are presented. For each network operation principle, corresponding road-rail transshipment terminal types are described with frequent references to current technology development projects. Development of intermodal freight centres are also commented upon. A presentation of a vision on a future European intermodal transport system is then followed by a discussion on the urban impact of new network operation principles and transshipment technologies. Finally, some general conclusions are forwarded. Sections 2, 3 and 4 are based upon relatively extensive and careful research, while section 5 is limited to be more of a preliminary study based upon logical deduction and a limited number of references. An earlier version of this article was prepared for another conference (see WOXENIUS, 1997) but due to an airline strike it was never presented.

1 Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, S-412 96 Göteborg,

Sweden. Tel: +46-31-772 1339, Fax: +46-31-772 1337, E-mail: [email protected].

2

2.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this section, the underlying transport system is described in terms of nodes and links and how transshipment nodes can be connected with rail links into intermodal transport networks.

Nodes and links Transport systems are characterised by the successive movement of goods between supply and demand points, defined here as nodes. Activities such as consolidation, sorting, storing and transshipment between vehicles as well as between traffic modes are performed at nodes. When a wide range of services related to logistics are offered at a node, this can be referred to as an intermodal freight centre. For each transport assignment, each node can be defined as a source, a sink or a transshipment node. The goods flow is always stemmed at nodes. Links representing transport and movement activities connect nodes making up a transport network. By connecting all sources and sinks with a number of links through transshipment nodes, a physical transport network is defined (see, e.g., LUMSDEN, 1995). By restricting the view to the demand for a single transport service, an abstract network can be defined by connecting the sources and the sinks directly, i.e., short-circuiting the physical network. Nodes in physical networks are in daily terms referred to as terminals. Figure 1 below shows a physical network and an example of corresponding abstract network.

Legend: Node Physical link Abstract link

Figure 1.

Physical and abstract networks. (Source: WOXENIUS and LUMSDEN, 1996, p. 2).

In the coming classification of intermodal terminals, it is regarded as useful to start out from what role the terminal plays in the transport network. In figure 2, links and transshipment nodes connect the source A and the sink B in five different ways. A fixed example with ten nodes illustrates the different routes. The theory is based on the assumption that a sufficient infrastructure enables direct 3

connection between all nodes in the system. It is then up to the operator to choose which routes to use. Direct connection

Corridor

A

Hub and spoke A

Fixed routes A

Allocated routes* A

A

1

2

3

B

B

, *

Terminals Only some of the possible links are shown

Figure 2.

B

B

B

Links used in transport A to B

Main line

Other links in the network

Satellite line

Five different traffic patterns for transport from A to B. (Source: WOXENIUS et al., 1994, p. 2).

In the application of intermodal transport, the dots and circles represent transshipment terminals. The discussed traffic solutions only describe the rail based part of the total network that in turn define the preconditions for the additional road haulage needed for accessing consignors and consignees.

3.

DIFFERENT TERMINAL TYPES

In this section terminals are classified and described according to their role in intermodal transport networks referring to figure 2 above. The transshipment concepts mentioned are described in detail in an inventory report (WOXENIUS, 1998).

Terminals for direct connections In a direct connection design, there is no central terminal in the system. Instead, all handling of the unit loads is performed at terminals near the consignor and the consignee. This means that the goods volume passing any one terminal is limited, thus reducing the capacity requirements on the terminals. The capacity of the handling equipment is reduced when several tracks are used within the terminal. The transfer time requirements depend on how long the trains stay at the terminal. If trains stay at the

4

terminal throughout the day, as is the custom in Europe today, this becomes a non critical parameter. Nevertheless, due to the demand from hauliers, the terminal is mainly utilised in some early morning hours and some late afternoon hours, when quick transshipment is needed. Since two terminals are linked directly to each other, this design is ideally operated with fixed train sets. Traditional intermodal terminals Despite the large number of transshipment technologies developed over the last 30 years, the intermodal terminals look rather much the same throughout the world – a gantry crane overreaching some railway tracks and lorry driving lanes is complemented with large counter-balanced trucks. Large and complicated terminals are needed for handling many different types of unit loads and the costs must be distributed between a large number of transshipments. The trains remain at the terminal throughout the day and are operated as full trains between terminals in a direct connection style. In areas with small intermodal flows, some wagons might be marshalled between departure and arrival terminals. Simple terminals for direct connections An alternative to the traditional transshipment technology is to equip the vehicles and unit loads for independent transshipment. The interesting feature of these systems is that the terminal requirements are virtually restricted to a track in the driving lane. Hence, the terminal investments and localisation becomes much less crucial and definite. Also simple sidings at the premises of the consignor and the consignee can be used as terminals. An example of such a solution is a rail wagon designed for lifting swap bodies or cassettes. The restriction to direct connections is due to the fact that the wagons run underneath prepositioned swap bodies or cassettes and lift them in one operation. Brand names include Daimler-Chrysler’s KombiLifter, ABB Henschel’s WAS Wagon, AGEVE’s Supertrans, the Wieskötter System, Rautaruukki’s Wheelless System and Chalmers’ Titan cassette system. After a four year test period, ten KombiLifter wagons are now commercially used by Schenker for moving car engines between DaimlerChrysler’s facilities in Stuttgart-Untertürkheim and Bremen (Schenker, 2000) while the other concepts are still on the drawing board or have been abolished.

5

Also bimodal systems like Wabash’s Road Railer, Coda-E, A.T. Kearney’s Cars, Breda/Ferrosud’s Carro Bimodale, Fruehauf/Talbot/Remafer’s Kombirail, Innotermodal’s 3R International system, Reggiane’s Proteo, Sambre et Meuse’s Rail Trailer, Technical University of Warsaw’s Tabor Bimodalny, Trailer Train Limited’s Trailer Train and Transfesa’s Transtrailer are practically limited to direct connections. The reason is that the concept requires purpose-built trailers and bogies and that the bogies cannot easily be repositioned empty. At terminals, the units must also be handled serially thus making stops along corridors very difficult. Of the above systems, Wabash’s Road Railer is the one that to the highest degree has found its way to being applied in commercial services. The Norfolk Southern subsidiary Triple Crown has used it for many years in the USA and Bayrische Trailerzug GmBH operates a version adapted for European conditions (Bayrische Trailerzug GmBH, 2001).

Terminals for corridors In a system based on the corridor design, each train passes several terminals during one day. Terminal transfer times must therefore be kept at a minimum, which must be considered when choosing the terminal handling equipment to be employed. On the other hand is only a limited amount of goods handled at each station, consequently limiting the capacity requirements. Since trains are unavailable at each terminal for longer periods of time, storage space for unit loads must be provided at the terminals, and the detachability between road vehicle and rail wagon must consequently be high. A corridor connecting A and Z as well as the terminals in between is shown in the figure below.

V

X

Y

Z

D B C A Figure 3.

Example of a corridor with intermediate terminals and some alternative transport arrangements.

In the example, hauliers’ demand for service overlap, which can facilitate a satisfactory resource utilisation on the main part of the corridor. Shippers, hauliers or forwarders can book capacity in the train with short notice through up-to-date and transparent information systems. With such an efficient booking system and a dynamic train plan, terminal Y has not to be called. 6

Demands for transshipment ability of all types of unit loads might lead to conflicts with the requirement of fast transfers, because for instance semi-trailers are not ideally suited for horizontal handling. Large-scale corridor terminals Germany with a huge demand for transportation along the industrial zones, e.g. along the Rhine, is the leading country when it comes to developing high-capacity corridor terminals. Immensely capital intensive concepts have been presented by Krupp (Fast Handling System), Noell (Fast Transshipment System) and, slightly cheaper, by Mannesmann Transmodal (Transterminal). Although there have been plans for applying some of the large-scale technologies in eastern Germany (O’MAHONY, 1996) none have yet come to realisation. Small-scale corridor terminals More interesting to an extensive implementation throughout Europe are the small-scale corridor terminals suitable also for relatively small and dispersed flows. In Japan, fork-lift trucks are used at intermediate stops along terminals in JR Freight’s Multi-functional freight track system. Some horizontal transshipment technologies for corridor use have also been presented. Among the promising ones for swap bodies and containers, the CarConTrain and the Kombiflex have Swedish origin, while the Mondiso Rail Terminal is Dutch. Despite the technical and economical problems, some examples of horizontal transshipment technologies aimed for semi-trailers and full lorries have been presented. CargoRoo Trailer and Shwople are such examples besides traditional rolling highway technologies and wagons that can swing out the loading dock, e.g., G2000 RoRo, Flexiwagon, Modalor and Twist Wagon.

Terminals for hub-and-spoke designs The chief characteristic of the hub and spoke design is that all transports pass through a central terminal. Hence, this terminal has to accommodate an extensive flow of goods. It is therefore of paramount importance that the terminal has a large capacity as well as that it is able to offer short handling times. As is true for the corridor design, semi-trailers can only be used if transshipment times are kept short. Only rail-rail transshipment takes place at a down-right hub terminal implying that it is actually not a true intermodal terminal. Most of the terminals having a hub function, however, also 7

have a road transport interface. The satellite terminals are normally conventional ones with gantry cranes and fork-lift trucks. France is the archetype of a hub-and-spoke system, not only when transportation is concerned. Hence, the French are leading the development with Technicatome’s gigantic Commutor system, but they are being challenged by German Noell with the Mega Hub Concept, by Austrian Pentaplan with the High Capacity Terminal and by Swiss Tuchschmid with the Compact Terminal. The latter development schemes aim at the emerging market for gateway terminals for transshipments between trains operating in different network modules.

Terminals for fixed routes A fixed route design faces roughly the same requirements as a corridor one, but on a smaller scale. Short train to train transshipment times, or alternatively marshalling so that the last wagons in the train are to be decoupled at the gateway terminals, are therefore a crucial requirement. However, it is generally difficult to plan such routes that the last wagon is always the one to be decoupled. In order to make this design feasible, it is therefore necessary to restrict the types of unit load admitted or to employ a handling technique that can accommodate all types of unit loads. Serving as gateways between network modules can be a future task for the traditional intermodal terminals that today are very badly utilised during the mid-day hours. In order to target the transport market of full container loads and part loads over distances in the range of 200-500 kms, Green Cargo AB (the former cargo division of Swedish State Railways) has developed Light-combi. The concept is based upon fixed-formation train sets that make short stops – 15-30 minutes – at sidetrack terminals approximately every 100 kilometres. At the terminals, swap bodies are transhipped under the overhead contact line by use of a forklift truck carried by the train and operated by the rail engine driver. The unmanned terminals were to be linked by corridor and loop trains to the traditional “heavy-combi” network and international lines through gateway terminals. The offered service would include local road haulage. Light-combi was implemented in the customer pilot The Dalecarlian Girl for transportation from a central warehouse to a number of grocery stores. The pilot service was operated in three years ending on April 2nd 2001. The project is currently resting (WOXENIUS et al., 2001).

8

Terminals for allocated routes In this design, the train sets operate routes, along which loading and unloading operations are performed on several occasions. The transshipment capacity required is limited since only a few unit loads are handled at each station. Due to the rigidity of train timetables, this is currently no option for intermodal transport. With future information systems and enhanced availability of tracks, however, dynamic timetables are foreseen for freight trains.

Intermodal Freight Centres Despite far-reaching development plans and the theoretical attractiveness of intermodal freight centres2 , they have not proven to be too popular among the road transport operators. One reason for their reluctance is that they fear restrictions in their flexibility once established at the freight centre. The establishment close to an intermodal terminal, implies a fear that the authorities will force them to use rail transport between the freight centres and perhaps also to co-ordinate their city distribution. The operators’ service offers will then be very similar, and thus they fear price wars. The general development in the logistics sector is rather the opposite – specialisation and deeper integration into the shippers’ operations. The limited operator interest is thus a serious barrier for the development of intermodal freight centres.

4.

A VISION OF A FUTURE TERMINAL NETWORK IN EUROPE

It is my opinion that the European intermodal transportation system will follow four main development lines in order to compete successfully with single-mode road transport also over medium distances of 200-500 kilometres. All development lines do not aim for the medium distances, but it is still vital for the competitiveness of intermodal transport that services with different characteristics can be co-ordinated. Economies of scale are clearly present in railway transportation and the integration of different services can facilitate that the economies can be utilised.

2 For further reading on intermodal freight centres, see, e.g., HÖLTGEN (1995) and CARDEBRING and

WARNECKE (1995).

9

The scenario is focused on the network operation principles and the transshipment technologies. It is not aimed at lining out an ideal future situation, but rather at forming a realistic opinion of how the system must be changed in order to survive and capture market shares from single-mode road transport, also over distances as short as 200 kilometres. It is very hard to judge the time needed for the transition but the scenario roughly covers the coming ten years. Long and heavy direct trains for large flows The first development line is aimed for the large flows over relatively long distances which basically is the market niche – and it is really a niche with only a fraction of the total goods flows – intermodal transport has today. For each origin-destination pair served with direct trains, however, flows are reasonably large. Economic efficiency then calls for direct shuttle trains. There is obviously no point to ply on terminals when the train is already full with unit loads bound for another terminal, but the question that arises, however, is; how large flows are needed for direct train services? Some railways, e.g. Green Cargo AB (Transportjournalen, 1996, p. 6 and 1997, p. 27), want to operate significantly longer and heavier trains, mirroring the experiences in North America. Primarily, this concerns the system trains with ore, steel, forest products etc. On a European scale – due to the new generation of huge post-panamax container vessels – this issue is also important to rail feeder services with maritime containers as more efficient land transport services are needed. Nevertheless, implementing larger trains requires a very difficult transitional period. Passing tracks, signalling systems etc. must be changed before really long trains can be implemented, which calls for gradual implementation and restrictions to certain lines or network modules. Weight is another foreseen problem, as unit loads will be more densely packed on the trains. Together with increased train capacity, the frequency will gain significance. As passenger transport is transferred to dedicated high speed lines and freight transport gets higher priority, the night-leaps must give way for a much more flexible train operating system. Expensive wagons and terminals must be utilised more efficiently and new information technology will facilitate flexible timetables for freight trains. Furthermore, demand will change towards more advanced transport services. Modal split, due to environmental concern and saturation on the roads and in the air, will force intermodal roadrail transport to offer a higher transport quality to meet the demand for these new goods categories. Consequently, daily departures will probably not be sufficient for direct train services in the future. 10

Corridor trains crossing Europe In addition to the direct trains, fixed intermodal train sets will run along high-density corridors and make frequent but short stops at road-rail terminals and ports. These trains aim for a dual transport market; less dense flows over long distances and dense flows over short distances. By approaching the combination of these flows, the services can attract the amount of freight needed for high frequencies and for utilising economies of scale. The stops at terminals need to be short in order not to prolong the total transit times severely. This requires the employment of fast transshipment technologies with high capacity, yet at a low cost per move. Time-consuming shunting of single wagons must be avoided. Instead, unit loads will be transshipped between trains at the main intersections between corridors. To begin with, this will be a way of utilising today’s conventional terminals better during daytime. Along the corridors, fixed train sets will operate at a high frequency according to a tight and precise schedule. The schedule must be strictly held – trains cannot wait for arriving lorries – but through the high frequency, road transport companies will use the services in the way passengers use the underground railway; if one fail to catch a train there will soon be another one to catch. Other trains will be made up of self-propelled modules like the German CargoSprinter that will join some other modules along the corridor for a distance and then depart for other corridors or side-tracks. The speed of trains will facilitate mix with passenger trains on railway lines during the day. Trains call at terminals approximately every 100 kilometres. Few hauliers will use the alternative for just one stop, but the high frequency and the possibility of using intermodal transport for two or more stops make this kind of service more competitive over shorter distances than today’s over-night services. Corridors are not restricted to north-south or east-west directions but will rather be introduced wherever there is a demand for it. When the demand increases, certain relations along the line will obviously be served also by direct trains as described above. Hence, the corridor trains serve a purpose of building up volumes for more economical direct train services, and they back up direct train services, that cannot be maintained due to decrease in flows. The trains will accommodate a wide range of unit load types but technology is kept strictly standardised for efficiency reasons. The focus will be on swap bodies and containers complying with

11

the future “modular-concept” of 25.25 m, and semi-trailers will gradually be phased out of the system. Regional solutions for the short, small and dispersed flows The biggest challenge of European intermodal transport is to compete on the medium transport distances, typically between 200 and 500 kilometres, with relatively dispersed flows – a market that today is totally dominated by single-mode road transport. Beside the direct train shuttle services and the corridor trains, I assert that there will emerge intermodal transport services tailor-made for the actual preconditions on the served market. The purpose is to take care of the secondary flows of unit loads and build up flows for new corridor and direct train services. Regarding the high barriers for implementing new operation principles and technologies, it is not realistic to expect one homogeneous and general European intermodal system in the coming years. Without strict adaptation to the prevailing conditions on local and regional markets, intermodal transport can never compete with road transport unless the rules of the game concerning the market, the taxes and the legislation change significantly. The large flows in Germany facilitate that most of the intermodal transportation will be arranged as direct connections, but the industrial concentration along the river Rhine and other inland waterways will imply complementing services along corridors. The focus is to integrate transportation on roads, on railway tracks and on inland waterways. Furthermore, Germany is heavily populated with industry, particularly concentrated to areas such as the Ruhr area. This means that space for intermodal terminals is limited and, due to road congestion, the size of pick-up areas will rather be determined by road haulage time than distance. The French rail network is – as is much of the society as a whole – largely centred on Paris, which assumes the function of a national hub. A hub-and-spoke network is then almost axiomatic, and the CNC’s3 custom of using such a network will spread to other operators. The hub function is not down-right since large parts of the French goods flows relates to Paris as such.

3 Compagnie Nouvelle de Cadres, SNCF’s subsidiary for container transport by rail.

12

The intermodal transportation system of France is today merely a domestic phenomenon and almost all international traffic can be referred to as transit between Germany and the Iberian Peninsula (NIERAT, 1995/a) although that link is no longer served by Intercontainer-Interfrigo (HELLIGHAUSEN, interview, 2001). Further emphasis on technical and infrastructural harmonisation will facilitate that a larger share of the French trade will pass the borders on steel wheels rather than on rubber wheels. In the UK, true road-rail intermodal transport has existed on a small scale although the Channel Tunnel is increasingly used for container and swap body trains. The reason for the modest market share of intermodal transport is that the road transportation system is dominated by semi-trailers, but the railway loading gauge does not allow these semi-trailers to be loaded on standard pocket wagons for semi-trailers. New initiatives will work for development of dedicated semi-trailer wagons and a relatively small extension of the current loading profile. Also other European countries and regions will develop national/regional systems rather than wait until all national systems have matured for true integration. Instead, gateway terminals will be used in order to link different network modules4 . As mentioned above, direct trains will obviously go directly between terminals regardless of in which countries these are localised, but the secondary flows will be linked through gateway terminals at the rim of the network modules. This is current practice for transport over different rail gauges, like the borders between France and Spain as well as between Sweden and Finland, but that practice will spread. Current intermodal terminals will serve as gateways with the added benefit of serving as a connecting node, also to direct full trains and corridor trains. Hence, any regional network modules can be linked with direct trains rather than through the regional modules in-between. The figure below shows an image of how national and regional intermodal transportation systems can work together through gateways all over Europe. The network modules are designed for taking on the challenge of medium distance transport with relatively dispersed flows that today are totally dominated by single-mode road transport. The large flows over longer distances will for obvious reasons still go directly between origin and destination terminals or along large-flow corridors, thus

4 The thinking about the gateway function of terminals is shared, e.g., with the European Commission (1997, p.

8): “Terminals and nodes will function as interfaces between high volume transport corridors and low volume regional and local networks”.

13

short-circuiting the general network. Most gateway terminals will be able to handle network, corridor and direct trains.

Germany: Corridors along the industrial zones are trafficked by fixed train sets at high frequences.

Sweden and Norway: A basic network is complemented with loop trains using smallscale technologies.

Benelux: Further focus on hinterland transport of ISO-containers. The Betuwe line connects Rotterdam with the Ruhr area.

The Baltic States: A corridor along the coast is connected to Central Europe via Poland.

The UK: At a comparatively low cost, a corridor is extended for semi-trailer traffic with special wagons. France: Most cities are connected via a large-scale hub in Paris.

Eastern Europe : A corridor from Gdynia to Verona offers an alternative north-south link.

Spain and Portugal: The wide gauge necessitates transshipments at the French border. The European Commission contributes to the establishment of an intermodal network.

= Gateway between network modules = Rail line Italy: Two corridors are used for the major part of Italy’s flows and for the link to Greece.

Figure 4.

Finland: A corridor along the coast is connected to mainland Europe using ferries to Sweden and Germany. Finland takes a role as gateway to Russia.

= Ferry crossing

Examples of gateways between national/regional network modules in a future European intermodal transportation system.

In the long run, the services will be aimed at swap bodies, ISO-containers, pallet-wide containers and smaller freight containers. However, in countries where road transport is currently dominated by semi-trailers, e.g. the UK, Spain, Belgium and France, intermodal services will encompass these for a rapid capture of market shares. Ro-Ro services for overcoming geographical and infrastructural hurdles As a complement to the above services, technically based upon swap bodies and containers, lowbuilt rail wagons will take full lorry combinations and semi-trailers that are driven on-board over ramps. The technology is far from new – it was for long the standard intermodal technology in the USA – but the restricted loading profiles in Europe is one of the reasons for the limited use in the Old World. Bad utilisation of drivers and rolling stock as well as a low net to gross weight ratio are other reasons. Moreover, from a railway perspective this could be regarded as surrender to single-mode road transport since the rail mode is restricted to an infrastructural role. Nevertheless, several improvements of such rolling highway technologies have recently been presented.

14

The main field of application is, and will be, where geography calls for it, e.g. to get through mountains and across seas. Additionally, such rolling highway services will be used for overcoming highway sections hampered by congestion and for utilising the sleeping hours of drivers. All the above purposes imply a need for very high frequencies. Taking the obvious disadvantages into account, however, it will be restricted to the above purposes and by time be replaced with true intermodal concepts, not carrying rubber wheels and idle drivers around.

5.

IMPACT ON URBAN TRANSPORT

For obvious reasons, intermodal road-rail transport is no serious alternative for intra-urban transportation yet a large-scale modal shift from all-road transport to intermodal transport will have a considerable impact on urban transport. In this section, the effects on urban traffic patterns induced by local road haulage5 to and from the terminals is briefly elaborated. The rendering is divided between impacts due to the awaited modal shift, due to a denser pattern of terminals, due to higher frequencies of trains, other impact due to new operation principles and due to intermodal freight centres. Finally, som words about alternatives for road transport in the first and final legs of an intermodal transport chain are forwarded.

Impact due to modal shift Seen on a grander scale, using intermodal road-rail transport implies obvious environmental benefits over single-mode road transport. On a local scale, however, the external negative effects in terms of noise, emissions and congestion might well be higher. The citizens living around the terminals will have to endure environmental strains if the modal shift is to be reached through more extensive use of existing large-scale terminals at urban locations. This must be analysed especially considering the fact that it is mainly in the urban areas that congestion and emissions reach intolerable levels. The impact on urban traffic patterns due to a modal shift is exemplified in the figure below. Note that the arrows only represent the traffic after the goods has been consolidated into full unit loads or lorry

5 For further reading on local road haulage as part of an intermodal transport from a haulier perspective,

please see NIERAT (1987 and 1995/b), MORLOK et al. (1992), MORLOK and SPASOVIC (1994) and WOXENIUS (1995).

15

combinations. To this should be added local collection and distribution of smaller shipments from the forwarders’ terminals, but those operations will be the same for both alternatives. The grey area denotes an urban area. As seen in the figure, there is no dramatic impact when it comes to the total road distance travelled in the urban area by the freight itself. Instead, the big difference is that single-mode inter-urban road transport is carried out with articulated vehicle combinations while local road haulage as part of an intermodal transport is generally carried out with single lorries due to the short distances and the superior trafficability. The shorter distances and the uneven distribution over the day also implies that the local road haulage lorries generally are hauled back empty. For the same quantity of freight, the distance in the urban area travelled by vehicles is thus generally higher for intermodal transport, but it is carried out with smaller vehicles. Moreover, inter-urban highways are often accessible from several points in the urban area, especially in cities with a sourrounding highway ring, hence decreasing the distances driven by single-mode road vehicles in the down-town area.

Figure 5

Principal impact of substituting single-mode road transport with intermodal transport. The grey area denotes an urban area and the arrows denote traffic from the points where unit loads are loaded, e.g., shippers with large consignments or forwarders’ consolidation terminals.

The difference is mostly experienced close to the intermodal terminal. The gates of the intermodal terminal are very busy in the morning and in the afternoon – thus coinciding with commuter hours. Consequently, authorities and citizens must decide whether local environment problems should be regarded as more important than the environmental gains over the whole inter-urban distance. With that background, we might experience a relocalisation scheme for city terminals, but more favourable is a development towards a larger amount of smaller terminals as will be described in the next section. 16

Another problem field is that the emissions from lorries can be divided between exhausts harming the local, regional or global environment. Unfortunately, the selfishness is prevalent in many countries, focussing the local and regional environment problems before the global ones. In other countries, primarily those which are especially sensitive to the death of forests and global warming, the fear of distributed environmental strains is prevailing. One example is the lifting of the night drive ban in Switzerland (a country otherwise not being famous for its international solidarity) for the local road haulage around intermodal transport terminals. The principle of ”give and take” rules, meaning that it is OK to disturb locally if the long haul is undertaken with less disturbance. Furthermore, local driving in intermodal transport systems is well suited for employment of vehicles using alternative fuels. Such vehicles are restricted in range, a problem strengthened by initially limited number of refuelling points (BLINGE, 1998). A new fuel can thus preferably be tested or employed by a lorry fleet serving an intermodal terminal since they can refuel at the terminal and the distances driven from that terminal are comparatively short. The environment performance of road vehicles can also be optimised for local impact.

Impact due to a denser pattern of terminals Today intermodal terminals are often localised in the vicinity of the central stations used by passenger trains, that is in the city centres. This has historical reasons since the railway was constructed through the city centres or the cities were constructed around the railway station. Consequently, the railway operations are generally centrally positioned. Nevertheless, small-scale terminals allow a larger number of terminals and thus a greater chance of shorter local road haulage as well as smaller local effects. Moreover, the small-scale investments and sometimes very simple terminals, such as those tested by Green Cargo, allow for a much more dynamically operated network. Terminals can rather easily be moved along the lines – at least on a medium time-scale. The figure below shows the difference in road traffic patterns between a corridor train and singlemode road transport and conventional intermodal transport respectively.

17

Figure 6

Principal impact of increasing the number of terminals called in an urban area. The arrows denote traffic from forwarders’ consolidation terminals.

As is obvious from the figure, the distance travelled by local road haulage lorries are significantly shorter than for conventional intermodal transport and comparable with single-mode road transport. The biggest difference, however, is the relief of the local environment around the terminals since each small-scale terminal receives shipments from far less lorries. The travelled distance is not automatically reduced through increasing the number of terminals. Especially in Europe’s largest conurbations, mainly Paris and London, terminals for full train services generally depart in different directions from the rim of the cities. Hence, lorries have to cross the city centre to reach the correct terminal. In the intermodal transport hub Chicago, for instance, with about 12 million TEU transiting annually, the railways of different operators are not connected. Hence, transiting unit loads are unloaded at each operator’s terminal and then trucked through the city (NOWICKI, 2001). With corridor trains crossing the city, the average distance to a terminal could be significantly decreased and the Chicago experience would be far less troublesome.

Impact due to higher frequencies In traditional intermodal transport, local road haulage is strongly concentrated to distribution from the terminal in the early morning hours and delivery to the terminal in the late afternoon. Hence, the 18

interference with commuting passenger cars magnifies the strains on the urban traffic network. The morning-afternoon pattern also implies that the terminals themselves are badly utilised. With significantly larger flows or innovative network operation principles, trains are supposed to dispatch at high frequencies, perhaps every hour on the biggest direct connections or along the busiest corridors. Consequently, the intensive transport patterns around the intermodal terminals will be significantly relieved, especially when the transshipment technology allows for detachability between rail wagons and lorries. A risk for the local environment, however, is that night hours are being utilised due to superior trafficability both on the tracks and on the urban roads. Then, trains, lorries and transshipment equipment will disturb the sleeping citizens livning close to the terminal.

Other impact due to new operation principles Innovative network operation principles will imply train-train transshipment during the night hours. Consequently, some new types of large-scale terminals, e.g. Noell’s Mega Hub Concept, Krupp’s Fast Handling System and Tuchschmid’s Compact Terminal, are planned to be covered with huge noise protecting hoods for reduced noise. The technology is interesting since it combines the role of rail-rail transshipment – i.e. replacing a marshalling yard – during the night hours, with the traditional role of road-rail transshipment during the day. The figure below shows an artist’s impression of a future covered terminal.

Figure 7

Noell’s Mega Hub Concept. (Source: Noell).

19

Huge and automated terminals such as the large-scale corridor terminals and the hub-and-spoke terminals listed in section 3 will also be important in another urban perspective. The fact that they are very compact means improved urban land use. Especially railways wanting to replace a marshalling yard with the hub-terminal concept Commutor can use the revenues from selling the land currently used for the old marshalling yard as a much needed down payment for the immensely expensive technology.

Impact due to intermodal freight centres Intermodal freight centres have the largest impacts on local traffic patterns. Since consolidation terminals for general cargo constitute central parts of the centres, the traffic connecting them with the intermodal terminal is obsolete and local pick-up and delivery can be co-ordinated. Consequently, urban impact is the main purpose of establishing them in the first place. Moreover, the concentration to one point also brings about concentrated inter-urban flows suitable for intermodal transport.

Alternatives for the lorry in local haulage Freight trams have often been advocated for urban distribution (see, e.g., KORTSCHAK, 1995). The usual arguments are that the tram systems can relief cities from congestion and offer better environmental performance. On the downside, noise is argued as a barrier to nightly distribution to inner-city neighbourhoods. Freight trams are, however, not a new invention. In the early 20th century and during the World Wars, German tram systems were used for moving laundry, corn, flour and ashes (KUSHINSKI, 2001/a and SCHROETER, 2001) and the North Melbourne Electric Tramway and Lighting Company operated a freight tram in the early decades of the 20th century (Tramway Museum Society of Victoria, 2001). Trams were also used for moving cargo in Dresden, then in East Germany, during the oil crisis in the 1980s (KUSHINSKI, 2001/a). A more recent application relevant to intermodal transport is that since March 2001, the tram tracks of Dresden are used for moving car parts from the intermodal freight centre Dresden-Friedrichstadt to a new Volkswagen plant in the city centre. At a cost of 1,8 Million Euros a piece (German

20

Railway News, 2001), the two CarGoTram sets of 60 metres and 60 tons loading capacity need 20 minutes for the 4 kms6 . This is 15 minutes less than road traffic and in full operation the relief the severely congested Dresden traffic by 180 daily lorry trips (SCHROETER, 2001). The goods is loaded in containers of 1x1 to 2x5 metres. These are currently transshipped and moved by a forklift truck but roller beds or belts are planned for quicker transshipment.

Figure 8.

CarGoTram: Freight tram used for moving car parts in Dresden. (Source: SCHROETER, 2001).

Most of the car parts are transported to the freight centre by rail and this is, assuming that they are transported by road in the other end of the chain, hence an example of a non-unitised road-rail-tram intermodal transport chain. The traffic has just started, but it could be an inspiration to other manufacturers with factories in congested or environmentally sensitive inner-city locations. Also the underground can play a role in freight transportation. As for trams, there is a history of freight underground transportation. In Chicago, for instance, some 62 miles of narrow-diameter tunnels were trafficked by 150 locomotives and 3 500 rail wagons (IRLAM, 2001) between 1904 and 1958 (VANCE, and MILLS, 1994). There are also dedicated tube transportation of garbage and limestone in Russia – the Transprogress system – and several more suggestions have been made over the years (ibid.). It is in general dedicated freight tubes with pneumatically operated cylindrical trains that are advocated for freight transport. Both intra-city and inter-city systems are suggested. In Japan, tunnels are suggested for internal container traffic in the port of Yokohama (WATANABE, interview, 1996) as well as for the Tokyo (KOSHI, 1992) metropolitan area. The picture below shows one of the progressive suggestions.

6 Maximum speed is 50 km/h (KUSHINSKI, 2001/b).

21

Figure 9.

Futuristic view on underground transportation. (Source: www.popularmechanics.com).

In cities with proper tram infrastructure with available capacity, lorries might very well be replaced by freight trams. There will be special possibility if the tracks are compatible with the inter-city rail network making transshipment obsolete. This is not the case for most tram systems, but there are examples where commuter trains operate on the tram infrastructure. It seems less relevant to use the underground for significant freight flows and these networks are generally less extensive and compatible with goods-intensive activities. Connection to industries will also be far more costly and less flexible than for using trams.

6.

CONCLUSIONS

Demand for environmentally friendly transportation will affect the demand for intermodal transport services positively as long as this can be accomplished without significant local environment problems. Intermodal transport can, however, not solely rely on the environmental friendliness. Once lorry engines can be made more energy efficient and discharge less emissions, their currently superior operational efficiency might actually make them superior also from an environmental perspective. Moreover, on a local level, neighbours to intermodal terminals protest against the increased traffic and the local disturbances. This implies that some present terminals have to operate during restricted hours and others have to be relocalised outside city centres if they cannot be designed for less noise emissions. The general conclusion of this study is that new network operation principles and the related transshipment technologies most probably will effect urban transport patterns substantially. Especially the technologies aimed for serving transport corridors can stop the current development towards 22

fewer and larger terminals that effect local environment negatively through concentrating lorry traffic in time and space. Establishments of intermodal freight centres can also effect the traffic patterns in a positive direction, but hauliers and forwarders hesitate about the benefits of moving their operations to the centres. Furthermore, local driving in intermodal transport systems is well suited for employment of vehicles using alternative fuels or can in other ways be better adapted for urban use.

REFERENCES Published references BLINGE, M. (1998) ELM: Environmental Assessment of Fuel Supply Systems for Vehicle Fleets, Report 35, Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg. CARDEBRING, P. W., WARNECKE, C. (1995) Combi-Terminal and Intermodal Freight Centre Development – an Assessment, KFB Report 1995:16, Stockholm. European Commission (1997) Intermodality and Intermodal Freight Transport in the European Union – a Systems Approach to Freight Transportation. Strategies and Actions to Enhance Efficiency, Services and Sustainability. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Brussels. HÖLTGEN, D. (1995) Terminals, intermodal freight centres and European infrastructure policy, Dissertation, University of Cambridge. Published by GVB Verlag, Nürnberg, 1996. KORTSCHAK, B. (1995) City Logistics: the Freight Tram, article for the conference Intermodal 95, Amsterdam, 24-26 October. KOSHI, M. (1992) An Automated Underground Tube Network for Urban Goods Transport, Journal of International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 2. KUSHINSKI, N. (2001/a) Wäsche, Mehl, Asche – Kommerzieller Güterverkehr in Dresden damals (Laundry, flour, ashes – commercial freight traffic in Dresden at that time), Strassenbahn Magazin, Vol. 32, No. 2. pp. 60-67. In German.

23

KUSHINSKI, N. (2001/b) Noch ein Blaues Wunder (another blue wonder), Strassenbahn Magazin, Vol. 32, No. 2. pp. 24-27. In German. MORLOK, E. K., SAMMON, J. P., SPASOVIC, L. N., NOZICK, L. K. (1992) Improving Productivity in Intermodal Rail-Truck Drayage Service and its Implications for Product Positioning and Organizational Structure, In: HARKER, P. T. (Ed.) The Service Productivity and Quality Challenge, pp. 407-434, Klywer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. MORLOK, E. K., SPASOVIC, L. N. (1994) Redesigning Rail-Truck Intermodal Drayage Operations for Enhanced Service and Cost Performance, Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp 16-31. NIERAT, P. (1987) Organisation of road transport from terminals and combined transport accessibility, paper for OECD Research Seminar, June 22-24, Gothenburg. NIERAT, P. (1995/a) Country report France, In: The Crisis of European Combined Transport, report from an ECIS Workshop, 6 April, Rotterdam. NIERAT, P. (1995/b) Market area of rail-road terminals: Pertinence of the spatial theory, The Interterm-conference, Atlanta, USA, May 7-9, 1995. O'MAHONY, H. (1996) Terminals in a nutshell, Cargo Systems, No. 4, April, pp. 39-42. SONDERMANN, K. (1997) Improvement of Intermodal Transport by Introducing Fast Handling Systems, Innovative Control for Intermodal Transport, January 28, Amsterdam. Transportjournalen (1996) Godsnät 21 för nästa århundrande (Freight Network 21 for the next century), No. 2, pp. 6-9. In Swedish. Transportjournalen (1997) Tyngre tåg och mera last (Heavier trains and more load), No. 2, pp. 27-29. In Swedish. VANCE, L.; MILLS, M. K. (1994) Tube Freight Transportation, Public Roads, August, 1994, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Centre. WOXENIUS, J. (1995) Combined Transport in the Perspective of the Hauliers, In: The 23rd PTRC European Transport Forum, Coventry, 11-15 September, Proceedings of Seminar A – PanEuropean Transport Issues, pp. 37-49.

24

WOXENIUS, J. (1997) Intermodal Freight Transport – Urban Impact of New Network Operation Principles and Transshipment Technologies, “Towards a Better Living and Working Environment”, conference arranged by the European Commission, DG XII, Toulouse, 27-30 October. The article was never presented due to an airline strike. WOXENIUS, J. (1998) Intermodal Transshipment Technologies – An Overview, Detached appendix to the dissertation Development of Small-scale Intermodal Freight Transportation in a Systems Context, Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg. WOXENIUS, J., LUMSDEN, K. R. (1996) Implementing New Technology in Intermodal Transport Systems – Threshold Identification and Bridging Strategies, Presented at Techno Ocean ‘96, October 23-25, 1996, Kobe, Japan. Forthcoming in proceedings. Also available in Japanese. WOXENIUS, J., SJÖSTEDT, L., HELLGREN, J. (1994) Five Traffic Designs in Combined Transport Systems – A Theoretical Discussion, Presented at a seminar within the EEC Tempus project JEP 3238, February 24, Warsaw. Also published in Logistyka – Engineering Machines Problems, Vol. 2, No 2, pp. 111-127, Warsaw. Also available in Polish. WOXENIUS, J.; BÄRTHEL, F.; ANDERSSON, A. (2001) “The Dalecarlian Girl” - Evaluating the implementation of the light-combi concept, forthcoming at NOFOMA 2001, Reykjavik, 15-16 June.

Unpublished references Bayrische Trailerzug GmBH (2001) www.btz-bimodal.de. German Railway News (2001) Cargo Tram for DVB, (http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ny8h-ky/dbpage/enews.htm), May. HELLIGHAUSEN, René, General Manager of Intercontainer-Interfrigo, personal interview, 3 May 2001. IRLAM, M. J. (2001) Mike’s Railway History – The way it was in 1935: Chicago’s Unique Underground – a freight only subway system in “The Windy City”, www.mikes.railhistory.railfan.net/3047.html. 25

NOWICKI, Paul, Assistant Vice President Government and Public Policy, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Chicago Gateway Project, presentation at the Fourth Forum on Intermodal Freight Transport in Europe and the United States, Genua, 5 April 2001. Available at http://www.enotrans.com/Policy_Forums/Genoa_Presentations/genoa_presentations.html. Schenker (2000) Schenker-BTL News, 25 October, http://www.schenker-btl.de/news/archiv271.html. SCHROETER, S. (2001) Güter auf die Strassenbahn, http://stefanschroeter.de/CargoTram_Dresden/body_cargotram_dresden.html, May. In German. The University of Tennessee Knoxville (2001) http://web.utk.edu/~snake1/subway/planstour4.html. Tramway Museum Society of Victoria Inc (2001) http://freepages.tech.rootsweb.com/~mottramcj/tmsv/tmsv.htm, May. WATANABE, Y., Professor, Tokyo University of Mercantile Marineinterview, personal interview, 24 October, 1996.

26